Pinole City Council
April 4, 2023

PINOLE CITY COUNCIL

MEETING AGENDA

CITY COUNCIL
Devin T. Murphy, Mayor
Maureen Toms, Mayor Pro Tem
Cameron Sasai, Council Member
Anthony Tave, Council Member
Norma Martínez-Rubin, Council Member

TUESDAY
April 4, 2023
5:00 P.M
Please note: HYBRID MEETING FORMAT
Attend in Person: PINOLE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS - 2131 PEAR STREET OR
Attend VIA ZOOM TELECONFERENCE – Details provided below How to Submit Public Comments:

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

Via Zoom:

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

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

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

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

CORONAVIRUS ADVISORY
INFORMATION:

CLICK HERE for City Updates
CLICK HERE for County Updates
1 of 565
City Council
Agenda – April 4, 2023

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ralph M. Brown Act. Gov. Code § 54950. In enacting this chapter, the Legislature finds and declares that the public commissions, boards and councils and the other public agencies in this State exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business. It is the intent of the law that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly. The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies, which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.
2 of 565
Pinole City Council
Agenda –April 4, 2023

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

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

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

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

CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
Pursuant to Gov. Code § 54957.6
Agency designated representatives: City Attorney Eric Casher, Human Resources Director Stacy Shell, Gregory Ramirez, IEDA
Employee Organizations: Pinole Police Employees Association (PPEA), AFSCME, Local 1, Local 512

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

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

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

7. REPORTS & COMMUNICATIONS
A. Mayor Report

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

F. City Attorney Report
3 of 565
City Council
Agenda – April 4, 2023

8. RECOGNITIONS / PRESENTATIONS / COMMUNITY EVENTS
A. Proclamations

1. National Pet Day
B. Presentations

1. Pinole/Con Fire Transfer of Command Recognition Ceremony

2. Easter Egg Hunt Video Presentation

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

A. Approve the Minutes of the February 21, 2023 and March 21, 2023 meetings.

B. Receive the March 18, 2023 – March 31, 2023 – List of Warrants in the Amount of $517,401.96 and the March 31, 2023, Payroll in the Amount of $ 449,788.64.

C. Approve An Amendment to the Employment Agreement for the City Clerk [Action: Adopt resolution per staff recommendation (Shell)] D. Resolution of Support for Senate Bill (SB) 691 Regarding Dyslexia Risk Screening [Action: Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Rogers)] E. Housing Successor Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2021-22 [Action: Receive Report (Whalen)]
F. City Park Maintenance [Action: Receive Report (Bingaman)]

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

A. 2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption [Action: Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Whalen)]
B. A Resolution Confirming the Assessments and Ordering the Levy for the Pinole Valley Road Landscape and Lighting Assessment District for Fiscal Year 2023/2024 [Action: Conduct public Hearing (Whalen)]
[Item will be continued to a subsequent meeting]

11. OLD BUSINESS
None
4 of 565
City Council
Agenda – April 4, 2023

12. NEW BUSINESS
A. Framework For New Outdoor Dining Regulations [Receive Report and Provide Direction (Whalen)]
B. Options to Celebrate Pride in 2023 [Receive Report and Provide Direction (Rogers)]

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

14. ADJOURNMENT to the Regular City Council Meeting of April 18, 2023 in Remembrance of Amber Swartz.

I hereby certify under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing Agenda was posted on the bulletin board at the main entrance of Pinole City Hall, 2131 Pear Street Pinole, CA, and on the City’s website, not less than 24 hours prior to the meeting date set forth on this agenda.
________________________
Heather Bell, CMC
City Clerk
POSTED: March 30, 2023 at 2:00 pm
5 of 565
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 21, 2023

CITY COUNCIL MEETING

MINUTES
February 21, 2023

1. CALL TO ORDER & PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN HONOR OF THE US MILITARY TROOPS
The City Council Meeting was held in a hybrid format (in-person and via Zoom videoconference and broadcast) from the Pinole Council Chambers, 2131 Pear Street, Pinole, California. Mayor Murphy called the Regular Meeting of the City Council to order at 5:03 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance.

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

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

A. COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT
Devin Murphy, Mayor
Maureen Toms, Mayor Pro Tem
Norma Martinez-Rubin, Council Member
Cameron Sasai, Council Member
Anthony Tave, Council Member
B. STAFF PRESENT
Andrew Murray, City Manager
Heather Bell, City Clerk
Eric Casher, City Attorney
Markisha Guillory, Finance Director
Sanjay Mishra, Public Works Director
Lilly Whalen, Community Development Director
Roxane Stone, Deputy City Clerk
City Clerk Heather Bell announced the agenda had been posted on Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 4:00 p.m. with all legally required written notices. No written comments had been received in advance of the meeting, but a correction memorandum and revised attachment for Consent Calendar Item 9K had been distributed to the City Council and made available to the public in the Council Chambers and posted online.

Following an inquiry, the Council reported there were no conflicts with any items on the agenda. 9A
6 of 565
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 21, 2023

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

1. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
Gov. Code § 54957.6
Agency designated representatives: City Manager Andrew Murray, City Attorney Eric Casher, Human Resources Director, Stacy Shell, Gregory Ramirez, IEDA Employee organizations: Pinole Police Employees Association (PPEA), AFSCME, Local 1, Local 512, and Management Compensation Plan (MCP)

2. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
Gov. Code § 54956.8
Property: 612 Tennent Avenue
Agency negotiator: City Manager Andrew Murray. City Attorney Eric Casher, Community Development Director Lilly Whalen, Suzy Kim (RSG), Sanjay Mishra, Public Works Director
Negotiating Parties: Leonard Williams – LDW Investment Group Under Negotiation: Price and Terms

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

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED

5. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION TO ANNOUNCE RESULTS OF CLOSED SESSION At 5:45 p.m., Mayor Murphy reconvened the meeting into open session and announced there was no reportable action from the Closed Session.

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

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

Rafael Menis, Pinole, updated the City Council on the current COVID-19 case rate for the City of Pinole which had decreased and was lower than last reported. He thanked the community for keeping the transmission rate down, a trend he hoped would continue down to zero as the communities of Diablo and Bethel Island currently enjoyed. He also announced upcoming community events that included the Community Services Commission meeting on February 22, 2023 at 5:00 p.m. at City Hall; February 23, 2023 deadline for filling out the Climate Action Survey; Pinole Creek Cleanup scheduled for Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. with everyone asked to meet by the library/tennis courts area, and also on February 25, Congresswoman Barbara Lee would be holding an event in the City of Oakland, from 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. 7 of 565
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 21, 2023

Mr. Menis stated that Congresswoman Lee had recently announced her campaign to fill Senator Dianne Feinstein’s seat, and he encouraged everyone to review her record and support her as they saw fit.

Irma Ruport, Pinole, announced the City of Pinole and the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (CCCFPD) would be holding a Ribbon Cutting Ceremony for the reopening of Pinole Fire Station 74 on Saturday, March 4, 2023 from 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. She asked the City Council to consider the use of banners, signage and an announcement on Pinole Community Television (PCTV) to announce the opening of the station to the community.

7. REPORTS & COMMUNICATIONS
A. Mayor Report

1. Announcements
Mayor Murphy thanked PCTV and the City Manager’s team for helping with the monthly Mayor’s Updates. He congratulated and thanked the African American Student Union for hosting a Black History Month Celebration at Pinole Valley High School; and referred to the Ribbon Cutting Ceremony on March 4, 2023 for the reopening of Fire Station 74. Invitations had been sent out along with postings on the City’s social media pages and the community was invited to participate.

Mayor Murphy reported he had been invited to host and join Collins Elementary School Principal Denise Steen and West Contra Costa Unified School District (WCCUSD) Ward Area-1 Trustee Jamila Smith-Folds to serve as a panelist for the Collins Elementary School Town Hall to discuss infrastructure issues and ways to ensure safe school campuses. He welcomed public input on those topics.

Mayor Murphy also reported that Contra Costa County would be investing almost $3 million in various funds and grant opportunities for the Pinole Library to address deferred maintenance projects with the work expected to be completed by mid-2024. He extended an invitation to all interested parties to attend the West County Mayors’ and Supervisors Association meeting to be hosted by the City of Pinole on Thursday, February 23, 2023 at 8:30 a.m. in the Council Chambers. Additionally, he looked forward to joining the Pinole Rotary Club, Friends of Pinole Creek Watershed and Pinole Creek allies on Saturday, February 25, 2023 for the Community Creek Cleanup from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.

B. Mayoral & Council Appointments: None
C. City Council Committee Reports & Communications
Mayor Pro Tem Toms reported she had attended a League of California Cities discussion on the new CAL FIRE Maps that would impose impacts on all jurisdictions, and a WestCAT Board meeting where it had been reported that BART had funded the feeder bus system but planned major cuts to that funding which would have major impacts to WestCAT services. She had recently received a communication from the General Manager of WestCAT, who reported that WestCAT and BART had reached an agreement. Through BART and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) there would be funding for this service and while there would still be some reductions in funding it would not be as severe. 8 of 565
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 21, 2023

D. Council Requests for Future Agenda Items: None
E. City Manager Report / Department Staff
City Manager Murray reported on March 1, 2023, the CCCFPD would assume responsibilities for the City of Pinole with a Ribbon Cutting and Grand Re-Opening Ceremony for the reopening of Fire Station 74 scheduled for March 4 at 11:00 a.m., which event had been communicated through the City’s normal channels, with all residents to be notified via a letter describing the transition to the CCCFPD. He also provided a preview of the tentative agenda items for the March 7, 2023 City Council meeting.

City Manager Murray added the City Council had previously requested as part of the City Manager’s Report a monthly update at the second City Council meeting of each month on street maintenance activities including pothole repair, minor patch paving and the sealing of cracks.

There had been little to no street maintenance conducted thus far since the work was typically done during the summer months and there had been some outages in staffing, but a number of potholes created as a result of recent rains had been filled and more street maintenance activities would commence once the weather had improved.

Mayor Murphy asked the locations of pothole repair and City Manager Murray explained that staff was implementing a new asset management software system that would allow for the download of reports that provided such data and which could be included in future monthly updates.

F. City Attorney Report: None

8. RECOGNITIONS / PRESENTATIONS / COMMNUNITY EVENTS
A. Proclamations

1. Day of Remembrance
The City Council read into the record a proclamation recognizing February 19, 2023 as the Day of Remembrance in recognition of the incarceration of Japanese Americans during World War II as part of Executive Order 9066 signed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on February 19, 1942, which had resulted in the imprisonment of Americans of Japanese ancestry.

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Jim Oshima, representing the Contra Costa Japanese American Citizens League (JACL), commented on the impacts of Executive Order 9066 and the incarceration of his own family. He explained that JACL had represented Japanese Americans since 1932. He thanked the City Council for the proclamation, recognition of this moment in history and support in preventing such an event from happening to other Americans.

Yoko Olsgaard ,President, Contra Costa JACL, thanked the City for the proclamation, a first from a local jurisdiction. She noted that JACL membership was diverse, the JACL intended a coalition with all minorities to avoid similar atrocities in the future and proclamations helped to send a message to the community, the Bay Area and the nation that such behavior would not be tolerated. She encouraged the City to reach out to the JACL Chapter in the Bay Area. 9 of 565
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 21, 2023

Council member Sasai explained that this proclamation was close to his heart given his grandparents had been incarcerated in internment camps. He appreciated the proclamation and the importance of recognizing the need to learn from the past and not to repeat the same mistakes in the future, and that elected officials make statements and stand up to inhumane treatment, which was as important then as now. He was pleased the City of Pinole had for the first time provided such a proclamation.

Rafael Menis, Pinole, thanked Council member Sasai for his comments on the direct impacts of Executive Order 9066 on his ancestors and appreciated the fact the government had provided some reparations for the actions of the past as noted in the proclamation. He otherwise spoke to the insidious nature of Executive Order 9066 and commented on the racial biases in the State of California at that time in that there could have been impacts to the Italian American population in the City of Pinole. He pointed out that racial bias did not stop at one community, ethnicity or race, when one decided to deprive someone of their Constitutional rights because of who they were, where they came from and because of their ancestry, which concept undermined all liberty. He urged everyone in the City to understand that this injustice could have impacted anyone and the arbitrary depravation of liberty for any group in the community harmed everyone, not just then but in the future. He also thanked the former City Council for a letter in opposition to internment camps on the southern border in 2018.

Council member Martinez-Rubin reported the City of Pinole had a former Mayor of Japanese ancestry, Virginia Fujita, who had served in 2008 and had passed away in 2016, and whose strength was the moral character she brought to the City Council.

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
Mayor Murphy returned to Item 6, Citizens to be Heard at this time.

James Harris, Pinole, reported that large pine trees that were dead and on his neighbor’s property hung over his property, which trees were a hazard both during the winter and summer months.

While he had contacted the Fire Department, he had received no response. He had filled out a request with the Planning Department for someone to come to his property and look at the trees but had recently received a letter from the City stating that he was the problem. He thought this was a mistake but after multiple trips to City Hall and several meetings with the Code Enforcement Officer, he had been given different reasons why the matter could not be resolved. His latest communication with City staff was that ownership of the property was unclear and the matter would have to be addressed legally. Meanwhile, the trees remained a hazard and he asked the City Council to address the matter with the Planning Department.

Mayor Murphy asked the City Manager to follow-up with Mr. Harris.

Michael Dunn, Pinole, stated he was a homeowner who lived behind Sprouts and during the pandemic he had started walking from his home to the park to exercise. He spoke to an incident where he had been approached by someone looking for drugs. While the area appeared to have become a resting zone for people looking for drugs, Pinole Police Officers started walking the park and over the past couple of weeks the area had been cleaned up. He expressed his appreciation to the City and staff for doing a good job and he was proud to be a citizen of Pinole. 10 of 565
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 21, 2023

Mayor Murphy expressed his appreciation to Police Chief Neil Gang, the Pinole Police Department and all City staff for their hard work for the City of Pinole.

Anthony Vossbrink, Pinole, reported he had been informed by a friend of a major side show that had been conducted under the I-80 underpass by the Kaiser building and the bowling alley, which involved numerous vehicles and multiple gun shots. Although a video was available of the event there had been no information on the local news. He asked the Police Chief and the City Manager to explain how such incidents were addressed and whether any citations had been issued or vehicles impounded. He also asked the status of a number of inoperable lights along Pinole Valley Road and light poles that had been destroyed years ago that had not been replaced.

Mayor Murphy asked that the issues be addressed and included in the next City Manager’s monthly report.

B. Presentations: None

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

A. Approve the Minutes of the February 7, 2023 meeting.

B. Receive the February 4, 2023 – February 17, 2023 – List of Warrants in the Amount of $926,552.59 and the February 17, 2023 Payroll in the Amount of $556,826.26.

C. Resolution Continuing Authorized Remote Teleconference Meetings Pursuant to AB 361 [Action: Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Casher)] D. Receive the Quarterly Investment Report for the Second Quarter (Ending December 31, 2022) [Action: Receive Report {Guillory)]
E. Receive the Quarterly Report on Implementation of the Greenhous Gas Inventory and Climate Action and Adaptation Plan for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/23 Second Quarter [Action: Receive Report (Whalen)]
F. Fiscal Year (FFY) 2022/23 Second Quarter Report on Implementation of Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Projects [Action: Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Mishra)]
G. Receive the Quarterly Report on Implementation of the Strategic Plan for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/23 Second Quarter [Action: Receive Report (Murray)] H. Development Process and Timeline for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2023/24 Operating and Capital Budget and the Long-Term Financial Plan [Action: Approve Development Process and Timeline per Staff Recommendation (Guillory)] 11 of 565
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 21, 2023

I. Stormwater Utility Area Assessment for Fiscal Year 2023/24 [Action: Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Kaur)]
J. Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Consulting Services Agreement for Strategic Financial Planning Support and to Allocate Funds for the Project [Action: Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Guillory)] K. 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 [Action:

Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Whalen)]
L. 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 [Action: Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Stone)]
Council member Martinez-Rubin requested that Item 9A be removed from the Consent Calendar for modification.

Mayor Murphy requested the removal of Items 9D and 9F.

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Maria Alegria, Pinole, congratulated Council member Martinez-Rubin on her re-election, Council member Sasai for his election to the City Council, Mayor Murphy for being an exceptional Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem Toms as the Mayor Pro Tem. She referenced Item 9F and asked the City Council to revisit the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Projects for 2022/23 and reprioritize the projects funded based on Measure S 2014 funds since the criteria for Measure S 2014 funds stated the City Council had allocated the use of the funds to fund infrastructure projects as their highest priority. Also, the CIP for 2022/23 should include traffic safety improvements for the Tennent Avenue Corridor to the project list, which also meets the criteria for Measure S 2014 funds.

Rafael Menis, Pinole, thanked the City Manager for answering many of his questions prior to the start of the meeting. Referencing Item 9J, he asked the City Attorney to opine on the modifications the consultant had proposed to the standard consulting agreement and whether those amendments were normal and reasonable.

Irma Ruport, Pinole, requested an amendment to the second sentence of the comments attributed to Ivette Rico as shown on Page 3 of the February 7, 2023 City Council minutes for Item 9A, as follows: She [Ivette Rico] thanked Mayor Murphy, Mayor Pro Tem Toms, Council members Sasai and Tave for their attendance and their generosity of spirit. As to Item 9F, she agreed the projects in the CIP should be revisited, with the projects brought up to date. She sought more detail on future reports given some of the information was difficult to read and noted that some of the projects were unfunded and should be removed from the CIP list. 12 of 565
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 21, 2023

Ms. Ruport also commented there was only one proposal for the Consulting Services Agreement under Item 9J, and the City had a series of issues in the past where there should be at least three bids. She understood the consultant had worked for the City in the past but asked whether the work was satisfactory, and she questioned whether the consultant’s work had been evaluated.

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
Mayor Murphy spoke to Item 9A and stated that all references in the February 7, 2023 City Council meeting minutes to African American Study Union should be corrected to read: African American Student Union. He also provided the name of the unknown speaker as shown on Page 4, which had been highlighted and which name should be inserted to read: Troy McConico. He further asked that the modification requested by Ms. Ruport be included in the meeting minutes.

Council member Martinez-Rubin also spoke to Item 9A and requested an amendment to the second paragraph as shown on Page 14, as follows:

Council member Martinez-Rubin reported she had joined the Friends of Pinole Creek Watershed and Ocean Conservation Club from Pinole Valley High School for a monthly cleanup on January 21, and she thanked City staff for the facilitation of cleanup efforts.

She highlighted the Thriving Earth Exchange project and indicated there was more information about that on that project’s website. She had also attended a League of California Cities Revenue and Taxation Policy Committee and briefed the Council on the discussions.

Speaking to Item 9D, Mayor Murphy referenced the Medium-Term Corporate Notes for Johnson Johnson, which had a maturity date of March 1, 2023. He asked what was being planned for the asset after March 1.

Finance Director Markisha Guillory explained that typically it would be replaced with a light investment (another medium-term note) for the portfolio but with the changes in interest rates and current market conditions, recent investments had not been made for any of the instruments that had matured in the recent past.

As to item 9F, Mayor Murphy asked what projects in the CIP had been planned to be completed in Fiscal Year 2023.

Public Works Director Sanjay Mishra stated he did not have a list of each item to go over but it could be provided at a later date.

Council member Tave asked the status of the high capacity trash bins and whether the project would be phased in over the course of a few years.

Public Works Director Mishra explained that it was unknown whether the project would work for the City since maintenance staff had indicated the weight of the high capacity trash bins would make them difficult to move for one person but there was a piece of equipment that could pull out the trash once compacted and then if could be disposed of; however, the City did not have that piece of equipment. The program would be a pilot program in two places in the City to see how the project worked and may require staff to return to discuss other viable alternatives. 13 of 565
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 21, 2023

Council member Tave also commented on the traffic safety improvements for the Tennent Avenue Corridor and asked whether the expectation was that the work would be done within this calendar year, and if so what funds would be allocated.

Public Works Director Mishra suggested Finance Director Guillory provide those details as part of upcoming agenda items.

As to Item 9J, Finance Director Guillory explained the City had received only one proposal after the issuance of the Request for Proposal (RFP). The RFP had been open for three weeks as public purchase and had gone out to a number of vendors, posted on the California Society of Municipal Finance Officers RFP list and made aware to a couple of firms she had worked with in the past; however, only one proposal had been received. This proposal had been evaluated with more than one follow-up interview between City staff and the consultant, Baker Tilly. Staff had been satisfied with the responses and discussions. Since the consultant services were needed for the upcoming budget and Long-Term Financial Plan (LTFP), staff had decided to recommend to the City Council moving forward with this proposal.

City Manager Murray added that for the procurement of professional services as the proposal for Item 9J, the City was not obligated to hire the lowest responsible bidder. As staff had stated, even though only one proposal had been received, staff had followed the regular process of evaluation. He also responded to the public comment and stated he could not speak to the past performance issues with contractors but again staff had conducted a thorough vetting process with Baker Tilly. He welcomed any contact with the member of the public related to any perceived past contracting issues.

City Attorney Eric Casher also responded to the public comment related to proposed changes in the Consulting Services Agreement for Item 9J, and explained that the City had standard language in its RFPs, with the consultant asked to provide any changes they would like made.

The City’s standard Consulting Services Agreement was not a one-size-fits-all and oftentimes once staff received approval to move forward with a contract, the City Attorney and the City Manager reserved the right to negotiate final terms, which was the action the City Council was being asked to provide as part of Item 9J.

Mayor Murphy offered a motion, seconded by Council member Sasai to direct staff to work with the selected consultant and all relevant consultants to incorporate elements of the participatory budgeting model, as outlined by the Participatory Budgeting Project, and to the City’s strategic and financial planning processes in utilizing The Balancing Act’s tools and solutions, specifically the budget simulation, prioritize and taxpayer receipt modules and provide a report on this progress in future financial quarterly reports.

On the motion, City Manager Murray commented that he was not aware of all the modules referenced and was uncertain how they would dovetail into the City’s existing process. The Balancing Act tool had been used in the past and would be used again as part of the budget process, but in principle, the intent was to engage in a very participatory budgeting process.

City Clerk Bell clarified with the Mayor his motion was intended to be included as part of Item 9J to modify the scope.
14 of 565
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 21, 2023

Council member Tave clarified with Finance Director Guillory that the City paid an annual subscription fee for The Balancing Act Tool, which included various modules and the modules were already included.

As to the motion as stated, Finance Director Guillory asked for more guidance on the participatory budgeting process since it could mean different things to different people. Currently, the City used an incremental budgeting process and to use another process could mean a long and engaging process. She asked the Mayor to provide some clarification.

Mayor Murphy commented that the elements of the participatory budgeting model had been outlined by the participatory budgeting project, with the intent to work with the consultant as they considered the 10-year forecast and new streams of funding to engage the public in more robust projects. As an example, the prioritize module had been used to give the City Council insight around the use of its American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds. The intent of his motion was not to just direct staff to work on this but to also determine how to utilize the consultant’s scope of work to engage in both processes. If the motion passed, there would be an opportunity for the City to reach out to participatory budgeting processes and to allow support in that and execute those strategic and financial planning processes.

Mayor Pro Tem Toms asked whether financial planning would have to be built into the scope for the consulting services agreement with the consultant for Item 9J, and City Manager Murray confirmed that staff would have to go back and confirm the consultant could add that to the scope of work. As to the Participatory Budget Project, and looking online, he commented it was a traditional budgeting process with some additional outreach to brainstorm ideas with the community and a volunteer group of community delegates that developed ideas into proposals.

There were also residents who voted on those with a city to fund the winning ideas. There was also a Steering Committee of community representatives and budget delegates and the like, which process steps had not been planned in the current budget process. He would have to work with the Finance Director to determine whether what the Mayor had requested would be feasible.

City Manager Murray explained that the 10-year forecast was an analytical piece of work absent a community engagement component. He referenced Consent Calendar Item 9H, which included the development process and timeline for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2023/24 Operating and Capital Budget and LTFP, and suggested a Community Participatory Budget Committee could be convened to come up with ideas and possibly a subset of that committee could nominate a subset of workable budget proposals on which community members could vote. The City Council could then vote on the top vote getters, which was something staff could incorporate into the current budget process, although that meant the City Council would be committed to funding (while not the amount) the winning proposals that were not known at this time.

Mayor Murphy again clarified his motion, which was not intended to be part of this year’s budget, but that would be great if it was. He restated his motion to direct staff to work with the selected consultant and all relevant consultants to incorporate elements of the participatory budgeting model, as outlined by the Participatory Budgeting Project, and to the City’s strategic and financial planning processes in utilizing The Balancing Act’s tools and solutions, specifically the budget simulation, prioritize and taxpayer receipt modules and provide a report of this progress in future financial quarterly reports. He again stated it would be great if it was part of this year’s budget but that was not his motion.
15 of 565
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 21, 2023

Council member Martinez-Rubin commented that the scope of work for Item 9J had a distinction of timing when the public would be involved, which approach was different than inserting public participation in the initial stages. She favored the consultant recommendations with the City Council to rely on their availability and expertise, not only for issues related to Pinole but with consultants who worked statewide in different situations, some of which had bearing on the matters the City was interested in such as fiscal solvency and availability to carry the City through the short and long term to the extent up to 20-years, and rely on staff’s professionalism and expertise, and with the modules to focus on community involvement, not do away with that but to the extent possible focus on the community engagement in the consultant’s scope of work.

ACTION: Motion by Mayor Murphy/Council member Sasai to approve Item 9J, subject to direction to staff to work with the selected consultant and all relevant consultants to incorporate elements of the participatory budgeting model, as outlined by the Participatory Budgeting Project, and to the City’s strategic and financial planning processes in utilizing The Balancing Act’s tools and solutions, specifically the budget simulation, prioritize and taxpayer receipt modules and provide a report of this progress in future financial quarterly reports.

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

Absent: None
ACTION: Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Toms/Council member Martinez-Rubin to approve Item 9A (as modified), and Items 9B, 9C, 9D, 9E, 9F, 9G, 9H, 9I, 9K and 9L, as shown.

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

Absent: None

10. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None
Citizens wishing to speak regarding a Public Hearing item should fill out a speaker card prior to the completion of the presentation, by first providing a speaker card to the City Clerk. An official who engaged in an ex parté communication that is the subject of a Public Hearing must disclose the communication on the record prior to the start of the Public Hearing.

11. OLD BUSINESS: None

12. NEW BUSINESS
A. Overview of “Just Cause” Eviction Regulations and Provide Possible Direction to City Staff [Action: Receive Report and Provide Direction (Whalen)] Lilly Whalen, Community Development Director provided a PowerPoint presentation, which included an overview of the “Just Cause” Eviction regulations. 16 of 565
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 21, 2023

The PowerPoint presentation highlighted the purpose of the Just Cause Eviction regulations, overview of the tenant/landlord relationship in the State of California, background on tenant protections at the state level, review of the eviction process, Pinole’s current rental stock and tenant protection programs and the options for City Council consideration including a reliance on existing state law, Assembly Bill (AB) 1482, adoption of AB 1482 into the Pinole Municipal Code (PMC) or to adopt stronger protections than AB 1482.

In terms of the next steps, if the City Council desired to engage further, it may conduct stakeholder outreach/consultation which could include engaging all landlords and tenants in a survey, convene a meeting with the landlord associations such as the East Bay Rental Housing Association and/or others, convene a meeting with local real estate professionals, convene a meeting with tenant associations and return to the City Council with more information to verify and clearly define the identified problem and identify possible actions to address the problem.

Mayor Pro Tem Toms and Council member Tave clarified with the Community Development Director that there had been one eviction filing in the City of Pinole in 2018.

Council member Tave asked for data of the number of people who had been displaced and rental trends for a normal market in the Bay Area. He appreciated the data provided in the City’s current rental market which had shown a 70/30 split of owners/renters.

Council member Martinez-Rubin understood what had driven this discussion was the moratoriums that had been in place during the pandemic which were coming to an end and people were being evicted or had to leave their homes, which was different from the circumstances that preceded the pandemic. She asked whether there was data post-2018 and the distinction between filing and eviction rates. She also asked whether the City kept information about penalties against landlords who did not comply with state requirements for those rental units that were licensed.

Community Development Director Whalen stated she would have to look into that information which she currently did not have.

Council member Sasai asked whether there was any data on rent increases imposed on tenants or unfair rent hikes that had resulted in evictions pre- and post-pandemic and Community Development Director Whalen explained that the February 21, 2023 staff report included some information from 2015-2020 on median rental price increases but she did not have updated information and would have to do more research.

In response to Council member Martinez-Rubin, Community Development Director Whalen commented with respect to AB 1482 and the criteria why properties over 15 years of age were exempt would also require more research. AB 1482 was due to sunset in 2030 and she was unaware of any case law that battled the timeframe in the legislation.

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Rafael Menis, Pinole, read into the record answers he had received from the City Manager’s Office, which were germane to the discussion and were related to multifamily residences in the City of Pinole that would fall under this discussion. He had been informed the City had one triplex, that was undergoing a Final Certificate of Occupancy review but there had been no other multifamily residences built in Pinole since 2008 and the City had no rental price data after 2020. 17 of 565
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 21, 2023

As the City Council considered protections or considered adopting stronger protections, Mr. Menis asked that consideration also be provided on the practical power dynamic between landlord and tenant. He noted that the average tenant or landlord may be unaware of these protections and a tenant may just evict themselves since they did not have the money to fight the eviction and pay the rent. The balance of power in these situations was tilted towards the landlord, the owner of the property and who in a worst case scenario may be able to take out loans on the property to capitalize on legal actions, whereas a tenant could not since tenants tended to be in a weaker financial position. He suggested that protections that relied on a tenant to file suit to claim the benefits of the protection may not achieve the goals the City wanted to seek given the difficulties for the tenant to find and pay for a lawyer and have the protections enforced. He urged the City Council to adopt protections.

Fattaneh Yassini, California Apartment Association (CAA), explained that CAA had been representing housing providers for more than 80 years and prior to the pandemic her colleagues had played a great role in AB 1482, which had been carefully curated to balance the needs of both tenants and housing providers. AB 1482 had been passed in 2019 and had taken effect in 2020. Months later, the pandemic hit and ensuing ordinances had been adopted. AB 1482 provided realistic protections for tenants when a tenant was not at fault and with a termination of tenancy the landlord had to pay for relocation compensation. Since AB 1482 was already in effect with secure tenant protection regulations, the CAA supported the City staff recommendation to further outreach and CAA could be a resource to the City in any of its efforts to educate tenants and housing providers about their rights via emails, videos, and social workshops.

Tyra Wright, El Cerrito, suggested the City Council support the staff recommendation to adopt AB 1482. A resident of the City of El Cerrito, she represented the Contra Costa Association of Realtors (CCAR) as a Realtor, not the agency itself. She had been involved in a task force in El Cerrito, at the beginning of the pandemic at which time El Cerrito was also considering a Just Cause Eviction Ordinance and which task force recommended AB 1482. El Cerrito created a registry which data supported the need for AB 1482, and which provided for just cause eviction as provided in the staff report. She supported the staff recommendation and expressed the willingness to serve as a resource for the City.

Debi Mackey, Realtor, agreed with the previous speaker and the support for AB 1482. As to why properties over 15 years were exempt, she explained that was to allow builders to recapture some of their costs when building properties, the housing crisis and placing more rules on Mom and Pop landlords, which had resulted in the sale of inventory. She commented that the PowerPoint presentation was very good and she urged the City Council to stick with the current state laws in place which were friendlier for investors to invest in the City of Pinole.

Eric Meyers, Hercules, the owner of a real estate business in the City of Pinole and a practicing Real Estate Lawyer in landlord tenant law, agreed with the great overview contained in the PowerPoint presentation, but offered some practicalities when evictions occurred. He explained when an eviction was filed, a tenant automatically received notice of all of the legal aid that was free to the tenant. An eviction did not have to be filed in the court for a tenant to avail himself or herself of those resources. Based on his personal experience, eviction filings in the City of Pinole were few. Most were from other counties in the Bay Area up to Northern California. He commented that when an eviction filing resulted in a jury trial, it cost the landlord significant legal fees and expenses with no costs incurred by the tenant, and there was incentive to threaten a jury trial regardless of the facts.
18 of 565
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 21, 2023

Mr. Meyers explained that 90 percent of those cases resulted in a settlement between the lawyers with significant concessions offered to the tenant, and with the cases dismissed with prejudice the landlord would never go back to the tenant for anything that was owed or for damages. He too offered his availability as a resource for the City and emphasized that AB 1482 already did the job at the statewide level.

Leah Simon-Weisberg, Legal Director, Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment, Institute, who worked throughout Contra Costa County and who had been active in passing protections in other communities in the Bay Area, disagreed with the prior speakers. She looked forward to community engagement and disagreed that AB 1482 had been wholly effective, which was why cities across the state had been passing their own ordinances. She suggested that AB 1482 had not been well curated and left loopholes, such as notice could be served on a tenant that substantial rehabilitation or remodeling would be done with the tenant required to be out for 30-days and then the tenant had to move out permanently and did not have the right to return.

This was different from the local protections that tenant advocates had fought for. She urged the City Council not to adopt AB 1482 which she suggested would be a waste of the City’s time. She also urged the City to reach out to the courts on the eviction data and noted that information was masked unless the tenant lost at trial and that information was not public. She had worked with policymakers, stated the numbers for the State of California were inaccurate given the way that records were kept, and it was important to reach out to the court to find out those numbers which would be significantly higher. She too offered her services as a resource to the City on this matter.

David Schubb, CCAR President, speaking as an individual, referred to the increasing housing crisis in the Bay Area. He was unaware of a large eviction problem in the City of Pinole and suggested it was a supply problem. Based on his experience, when housing providers found properties too difficult and expensive to maintain they were placed on the market for sale and were purchased by homeowners thereby reducing the rental housing stock. Most of the housing providers were Mom and Pop operators, who worked hard to keep the properties as retirement investments and could not afford to keep them with rising costs without some amount of rental increases. As the President of the CCAR, he too offered to work with the City of Pinole on potential solutions to the lack of rental and affordable housing units.

PUBLIC COMMENT CLOSED
Community Development Director Whalen reported in response to Council member Tave’s earlier questions that based on the information from 2018 from the eviction lab, there had been one eviction filing and one eviction judgment in the City of Pinole but she would look into obtaining more accurate information.

Community Development Director Whalen also stated in response to the Mayor that she had not done research around funding for this issue, although there may be opportunities through residential rehab programs on the state level and assistance to cities to disperse funds for different types of programs. She would get back to the City Council with additional information. Also, the City had a Residential Inspection Program and as part of enhancing that program the City’s new permit tracking system should provide a more robust database on the City’s rental properties.

Mayor Murphy wanted to understand the data for the City to better inform and drive decisions and in this case he suggested there was an opportunity to learn more about renters in the City of Pinole.
19 of 565
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 21, 2023

Mayor Murphy suggested there was a need to find a way to create a database to better understand the needs of tenants and owner/landlords. He was interested in how that could be set up and consider the options staff had outlined.

Council member Martinez-Rubin was curious to know from Council member Sasai, who had requested this agenda item, what information was not being provided and addressed since she did not understand to what extent there was an urgent problem and a need to address it.

Council member Sasai commented on the tenant protection gaps in AB 1482, as mentioned during the public comment, including tenants who had lived in their homes less than one to two years who were not provided the protections in AB 1482. He noted that most single-family homes and condominiums were exempt, and as mentioned there was a substantial remodel loophole where a tenant was not allowed to return. The information provided by staff had provided data on who was residing in the City’s rental units, although that had not factored in future tenants as part of affordable housing to meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). Given the future of the City and its demographics, he sought this agenda item for future planning purposes.

Council member Tave commented that the City’s charts for 2010 and 2015 had shown that homeowners were making overpayments as compared to the market, with the overpayment by owners by 2015 to 2019 reduced by 20 percent by volume in Pinole, while for renters it remained consistent from 2010 to 2015. He noted that what renters were paying was more than the market.

He wanted to ensure that renters were able to rent in Pinole while also being able to save money and eventually purchase a home to live in Pinole.

Community Development Director Whalen clarified that Council member Tave was referring to Figure 41, Cost Burden by Tenure as shown in the 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element, which had been submitted to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and which data had shown overpayment by renters in Pinole had occurred at the same rate as the County at 40 percent with overpayment by owners at a slightly lower percentage.

Council member Tave stated that based on the information, if rents were too high in Pinole people would move which was why it was important to consider a Just Cause Eviction Ordinance, even if there had only been one eviction. He wanted to find a way to make it easier for people to rent and stay in Pinole and not be faced with rents skyrocketing where people would have to move if they could not afford to live in Pinole. While he supported the option of going with AB 1482, he wanted more data to understand how the City could help renters build up to purchase in Pinole and what policies would protect tenant and landlord rights while at the same time create a fair market.

Mayor Pro Tem Toms reported the Ad-Hoc Municipal Code Update Subcommittee had discussed the Just Cause Eviction regulations. As a member of the Subcommittee, during those discussions she had asked what an ordinance would get the City that AB 1482 did not, and what it would cost the City in legal time to address an ordinance and whether there was a strong need to budget legal counsel’s time to develop an ordinance to address a problem. She had also asked if the City had adopted an ordinance whether staff time would be required to enforce the ordinance. 20 of 565
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 21, 2023

Based on the staff report, if the City relied on AB 1482, along with the implementation of the program from the 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element for workshops and meetings to discuss displacement prevention and housing mobility that would be one option, or the City could consider how to address the loopholes in AB 1482.

Mayor Pro Tem Toms did not support adopting stronger protections than those provided by AB 1482. She preferred to consider the do nothing option or identify the loopholes in AB 1482 with the community and the City to avail itself of the resources available to address those loopholes.

City Attorney Casher confirmed in response to the Mayor that the Ad-Hoc Municipal Code Update Subcommittee had discussed the Just Cause Eviction regulations at its last meeting. He explained that state law, as it had currently been constructed, created a cause of action for tenants in civil court through a lawful detainer proceeding. If the City were to adopt an ordinance, it would be crafted in such a way where it would not require code enforcement or direct action from City staff but would place some limitations on the restrictions and regulations. It would be a staffintensive endeavor if the City were to consider a full program about mediating between landlords and tenants. If there was value, filling in the gaps of AB 1482 could merit an ordinance, as outlined in the staff report, and could extend beyond the sunset date of 2030 for AB 1482.

Council member Sasai agreed there needed to be a community engagement piece. He acknowledged the public comments received during the meeting but none of those comments had been from tenants in Pinole. He suggested the City needed to do a better job hearing the testimony on the experiences from tenants in Pinole as part of the process and as the City moved forward. He asked how staff had envisioned that part of the community engagement piece.

Community Development Director Whalen explained that staff had envisioned community engagement as part of a mail-in survey with input from the different community groups as outlined in the PowerPoint presentation.

City Manager Murray advised the City had collected a fair amount of information from surveys for the Housing Element Update, which had identified issues such as challenges with rent, threats of eviction and the like.

Community Development Director Whalen confirmed there had been housing questions as part of the Housing Element survey and staff could review that data and return to the City Council.

Council member Martinez-Rubin wanted to see where in Pinole the comments from the survey were coming from. She recognized that would require a respondent to identify what areas of Pinole residents had experienced challenges and the nature of those challenges. She also spoke to predatory practices and the unspoken notion of outlier tenants or landlords not abiding by existing laws, which issue had not been discussed. She asked staff to consider some type of proxy measure that could help to identify where people were not complying with existing law.

Mayor Murphy summarized the comments from the City Council for some data collection, particularly around the 30 percent of renters in Pinole and their experiences, with staff to provide the types of questions that would be detailed enough to answer some of the other questions and exploration of funding opportunities in response to the concerns, with the cost of the passage of an ordinance or mandate the City may impose as part of the state mandates to fund enhanced information or protections regardless of the option the City Council may select. 21 of 565
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 21, 2023

Mayor Murphy stated community engagement remained a consistent challenge for the City and there should be brainstorming ways to engage the public and groups to contact for resources, which should include those groups already identified and the Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment, Pinole Grove Tenants Association and the East Bluff Apartments along with communication with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). He also sought consideration of future tenant associations and proactive research with staff to reach out to those associations if possible.

Council member Tave suggested the use of data from HCD would be helpful and the City should lean on that data coupled with the data from the public testimonies and the community to inform the decisions in identifying the gaps.

Mayor Murphy also asked to see a report from the City of El Cerrito on the issues its task force had addressed.

Council member Martinez-Rubin further requested that property management firms or those developments that were townhomes exempt from AB 1482 be asked for input and what they saw their makeup as being rentals versus ownership or landlords not paying dues, which would help to form and give shape to the situation across different types of housing in Pinole.

Council member Sasai offered a motion, seconded by Council member Tave to direct staff to organize and host an informational event and send out invitations to tenants in Pinole for conversations about Just Cause Eviction policies, and include rent stabilization as part of that conversation.

On the motion, Council member Martinez-Rubin continued to struggle with the issue of whether the problem was the lack of communication with the existing public about what was fairly new legislation (AB 1482), and whether that was the basis for what Council member Sasai was suggesting or whether it was more than that.

Assuming the Housing Element was certified by the state in the next month or so, Mayor Pro Tem Toms pointed out there would be implementation measures as part of the Housing Element and she suggested the community outreach could be done at the same time. The Mayor concurred.

ACTION: Motion by Council members Sasai/Tave to direct staff to organize and host an informational event and send out invitations to tenants in Pinole and have conversations about Just Cause Eviction policies and include rent stabilization as part of that conversation.

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

Absent: None
Mayor Murphy moved onto Item 12C at this time.

C. Adoption of City of Pinole Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) [Action: Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Mishra)]
22 of 565
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 21, 2023

Public Works Director Mishra introduced the project team from TJKM the consultant who developed the Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP).

Ruta Jariwala, Principal, TJKM, provided an extensive PowerPoint presentation on the LRSP, which included an overview of the project status and milestones, collision analysis and findings, emphasis areas, engineering and non-engineering countermeasures, safety projects and implementation. While Viable Safety Projects 1 through 9 had been outlined in the LRSP and in the February 21, 2023 staff report, Project 10: HSIP Applications: Safety on Roadway Segments – Pedestrian Set Aside, had not been included.

Public Works Director Mishra explained that Project 10 involved three locations where the City had requested funding for the installation of a Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) at San Pablo Avenue and Third Street, San Pablo Avenue and Quinan Street and Pinole Valley Road and Savage Avenue, which locations had been chosen based on public input about pedestrian use and the speed of traffic.

Mayor Pro Tem Toms commented that AB 43 allowed local jurisdictions to set speed limits in certain conditions. She asked whether that had been considered as an option, to which Ms.

Jariwala explained that had not been one of the countermeasures Caltrans had in its toolbox but was a policy discussion for the City Council to consider. She suggested such countermeasures could be considered as part of neighborhood traffic calming measures.

Public Works Director Mishra clarified that AB 43 included a provision to make speeds lower than 25 miles per hour (MPH) in certain conditions, such as the corridor must be defined as a safety corridor and within a certain period of time things must be put in place before the City could take action to reduce the speed limit.

In response to Council member Martinez-Rubin, Public Works Director Mishra reiterated that Project 10 involved three locations where the City had requested funding for the installation of a RRFB at San Pablo and Third Street, San Pablo Avenue and Quinan Street and Pinole Valley Road and Savage Avenue, with the City having requested setaside funds from Caltrans roughly in the amount of $250,000.

Council member Martinez-Rubin asked whether or not the signal at Tara Hills and Appian Way had been taken into account as part of the collision analysis since the equipment had been hit by large trucks several times a year. She asked whether there was a better way to place the signal with the knowledge that large trucks may impact the equipment.

Public Works Director Mishra commented that would be a maintenance item for the City. The existing mounting hardware would have to be modified to accommodate the large truck turning movements.

Council member Martinez-Rubin otherwise appreciated the use of back plates with reflective borders that had been placed at Appian Way, Tara Hills and Fitzgerald Drive, which were noticeable and made a difference during the evening hours. 23 of 565
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 21, 2023

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Rafael Menis, Pinole, thanked the City Council for the consideration of establishing a left-hand turn signal at the already protected lane at the intersection of Pinion and San Pablo Avenues and he detailed his personal experience in navigating the intersection. He referenced Page 347 of the agenda packet, Public Comment 75, which he read into the record and reminded everyone that people making a left turn into the unprotected intersection must yield to vehicles traveling straight, which was another challenge to navigating the intersection. He also appreciated the explicit cost breakdown as shown on Page 330 and the part-by-part breakdown as shown on

whether it would be possible to install a left-hand turn signal at the Tennent and San Pablo Avenues intersection, which was a major injury flagged intersection and he asked of the estimated costs if evaluated.

Maria Alegria, Pinole, commended staff on the preparation of the comprehensive LRSP which would allow for much needed funding to keep City streets safe. Given the building of future homes along San Pablo Avenue with more expected pedestrians, she asked whether or not the Housing Element had been taken into consideration as part of the projections in the LRSP. She also noted the CIP had not addressed the Tennent Avenue Safety Corridor she had advocated be part of the 2022/23 CIP. If the City Council added the Tennent Avenue Safety Corridor to the CIP, she asked whether the LRSP could be amended sooner than later to include that project, which would provide a way to obtain additional funding. She also asked whether there had been any discussion about the second fire station going into the valley and whether any analysis had been included in the LRSP. Since the LRSP was a living document, she asked the City Council to consider her suggestions.

Marilyn Huff, Pinole, found the LRSP handled many of the issues raised by the Pinole Grove Tenants Association and she was grateful since residents were already dealing with the challenges of the Rafaela Street and Pinole Valley Road intersection. She had received a draft copy of the LRSP on February 6, 2023, and at that time had been informed it was too late for residents to provide comments but she had not seen the report prior to its receipt. She emphasized that oftentimes Pinole Grove residents were not informed about projects in the City until it was too late and she hoped that would not happen in the future, citing the desire to be included in the discussions about the Just Cause Eviction regulations and issues related to traffic safety, particularly anything related to the Rafaela Street and Pinole Valley Road intersection.

She urged the City to do a better job reaching out to residents.

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
Responding to the public comment, Public Works Director Mishra advised as part of Item 12B improvement options would be presented for the Tennent Avenue Corridor. He explained that the LRSP followed data from the last five years and the collision data along the Tennent Avenue Corridor had shown few accidents, which was why Pear and Plum Streets had not been included in the LRSP but would be addressed in the CIP.

City Manager Murray further clarified the LRSP was based on a five-year review of collision data.

The LRSP and other planning and analyses documents fed into the CIP. The City Council would create a new CIP for the next fiscal year over the next few months where the City Council could 24 of 565
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 21, 2023

consider a revised set of potential improvements to the Tennent Avenue Corridor as part of the discussion for Item 12B.

Public Works Director Mishra added the Housing Element and activation of Fire Station 74 had not been part of the LRSP. The LRSP had taken into account only the collision data and not how traffic would increase over a period of time or take into account future development. The LRSP was a living document and once future housing was built and more data collected, the City Council could provide new countermeasures in response to any accidents or collisions. The current LRSP covered collision data from 2015 to 2019. He noted Caltrans had not advised taking into account data from 2019 due to the pandemic. New data would likely span from 2022 to 2025, which would be the best time to look at revising the LRSP, if needed.

City Manager Murray further clarified the LRSP should be updated no less than every five years and include more current five-year periods of data to rely upon. The intent was to have the LRSP in place for a period to allow the countermeasures to be in place to inform the analysis for the next version. He would expect the City Council would adopt a new LRSP five years from now.

ACTION: Motion by Council members Tave/Martinez-Rubin to adopt the City of Pinole Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP).

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

Absent: None
The City Council returned to Item 12B.

B. Receive the Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/23 Second Quarter (Mid-Year) Financial Report and Adopt a Resolution Authorizing Budget Amendments [Action: Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Guillory)]
Finance Director Guillory provided an extensive PowerPoint presentation which included an overview of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/23 Second Quarter (Mid-Year) Financial Report, which included the budgetary highlights from the current mid-year budget and which had shown the City remained in a relatively strong financial condition. The City’s ongoing funding sources were sufficient to fund ongoing expenditures and revenues and expenditures were on track with the proposed mid-year budget. She described the budget as a status quo budget with no major changes to City programs and services but with increases in staffing to respond to key community priorities and organizational needs including additional Police Officers and capital project staff.

One time special projects were highlighted with all details as shown in the February 21, 2023 staff report. The budget also included a vacancy savings factor and the appropriation of the City’s remaining ARPA funds to the General Fund to backfill the City’s loss of general revenue due to the pandemic. The General Fund Budget Summary; General Fund Revenue – Proposed Adjustments Summary; General Fund Revenues Budget Summary; General Fund Expenditures – Proposed Adjustments Summary; General Fund Expenditure Budget Summary; Gas Tax Fund Budget Summary; Recreation Fund Budget Summary; Building and Planning Fund Budget Summary; Growth Impact Fund Budget Summary; Sewer Enterprise Fund Budget Summary and 25 of 565
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 21, 2023

Information Systems Fund Budget Summary were highlighted with all information outlined in the staff report.

Additional items staff would like the City Council to consider that had not been included in the proposed adjustments included:
• Traffic safety improvements on the Tennent Avenue Corridor, with two options:
- Immediate improvements ($110,000), or
- Longer term improvements
- Tennent Avenue and Pear Street ($440,000)
- Tennent Avenue and Plum Street ($520,000)
• Public Safety Building Modernization ($100,000) – Allocate funding to CIP Project #FA2301 in the current fiscal year. It had originally been scheduled to start in FY 2023/24.

Council member Tave clarified with Finance Director Guillory that Other Operating Expenditures which included items such as materials and supplies and was a catch-all for items outside of the other categories also included debt service for the 2006 Pension Obligation Bonds, to be paid at the start of the fiscal year. The ARPA funds and the City’s tracking/accounting system for the funds to allow specific expenditures to be tied back to the ARPA funds consistent with federal reporting requirements was also highlighted. Those funds could be broken out in future presentations for purposes of transparency.

In addition, Fund 275, Parkland Fund, was also clarified with some clean up required and with the balance in the fund having been moved to the Growth Impact Fund and with the Parkland Fund to be zeroed out. The Growth Impact Fund was also clarified and included parks, police, wastewater and subsections within that fund for various areas.

City Manager Murray further clarified with respect to Fund 275 that there had been an accounting practice that had been errant with staff having to so some clean up. He also clarified the Growth Impact Fund was all development impact funds together, as described.

Council member Tave asked that the Growth Impact Fund, which appeared as one pot, should be broken down into subcategories and City Manager Murray suggested that could be a discussion as part of the CIP. He explained that impact fees were limited and intended to develop new services and facilities that were directly related to the new developments.

In response to Council member Martinez-Rubin, Public Works Director Mishra further clarified the cost estimates for the proposed adjustments not included in the budget, as described, and City Manager Murray confirmed the City Council may decide whether to appropriate funding for the items identified for additional adjustments not included in the budget, which he again highlighted along with any other adjustments the City Council asked to be included.

Council member Sasai supported the immediate traffic safety improvements for the Tennent Avenue Corridor while the City waited for the long-term improvements. As to the Public Safety Building Modernization project, if the project was funded he asked whether the maintenance costs 26 of 565
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 21, 2023

and raw operational costs for the facility would decrease. Given the costs for this project, he wanted to be cognizant of the other needs in the City such as needed traffic safety improvements.

Public Works Director Mishra clarified the Public Safety Building Modernization project would include improvements to the flooring and replacement of aged equipment. This was a three-year project and staff was requesting allocation of funding to CIP Project #FA2301 in the current fiscal year to allow some of the improvements to be started given the urgent need.

City Manager Murray stated there had been emergency floor repairs in the Public Safety Building.

Making the improvements as part of the unbudgeted item would not reduce ongoing routine maintenance costs. The unbudgeted project was an investment that would help the City from having to conduct small frequent repairs.

Mayor Murphy understood that future reports would include project updates on how the ARPA funds had been used, and Finance Director Guillory explained as part of the fiscal year 2023/24 budget, staff would request direction from the City Council on the use of ARPA funds. She again clarified how ARPA funds would be tracked consistent with federal requirements and highlighted how the ARPA funds could be used.

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Rafael Menis, Pinole, stated he had submitted questions to the City Manager prior to the meeting.

He referenced the Recreation Department Fund (Fund 209) and end of life maintenance issues related to the HVAC system at the Senior Center and asked the cost and timeline for replacement as shown on Page 241 of the agenda packet. He also referenced Page 248 and the information for the Public Safety Building Modernization and commented that the project cost shift should be considered differently than the recommended Tennent Avenue Corridor traffic safety improvements since the City would conduct the improvements for the Public Safety Building but was just shifting the timeline for the project forward and it would not be a new expenditure as opposed to the Tennent Avenue Corridor traffic safety improvements that had been outlined. He suggested it would be worthwhile to consider the immediate improvements for the Tennent Avenue Corridor to reduce risk of future fatalities that could not be accounted for in the LRSP.

Maria Alegria, Pinole, asked about the secured property tax revenue that included the Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund (RPTTF) in the amount of $1,490.51, which was the last payment, and asked whether the funds would go back into property tax revenue for 2023/24 or whether they would disappear.

Finance Director Guillory clarified the last payment of the RPTTF would be made in 2023/24. In subsequent years, the property tax revenue that would have gone to the Successor Agency to pay down the debt would have flown directly into the General Fund, partially offset by some expenditures formally funded by the Successor Agency Fund of about $250,000.

Ms. Alegria also clarified with Finance Director Guillory Airbnb rentals were subject to the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT). She requested clarification when the 2022/23 CIP projects would be reviewed and prioritized and whether that discussion would be part of a future special City Council workshop. She suggested the funding for the safety improvements in the Tennent Avenue Corridor should not be piecemeal and that the City make a full investment in the total 27 of 565
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 21, 2023

amount with the project included in the CIP since it was clear there was a need and the community had cried out for attention to be provided to this area.

Anthony Vossbrink, Pinole, referenced the high-capacity trash bins project and asked whether they had been planned for Pinole park areas that were in dire need of full-service recyclable bins that had never been replaced. He disagreed with the prior speaker regarding the Tennent Avenue Corridor traffic safety improvements and rather suggested the City Council consider the improvements listed under immediate improvements. He recommended the City evaluate how the immediate improvements worked in the area of Pear and Plum Streets for six months to a year with those funds earmarked for the longer term improvements used for something else. He expressed concern if the Tennent Avenue, Pear and Plum Streets intersections were made a priority the City would likely have to prioritize other intersections with the same improvements.

He also expressed concern the proposed traffic improvements could result in modifications to the traffic circulation into neighboring side streets. He added the City Council should have an immediate priority list rather than a CIP list.

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
Mayor Pro Tem Toms suggested the Public Safety Building Modernization Project in the amount of $100,000 made sense since it was an immediate need. As to the Tennent Avenue Corridor longer term traffic safety improvements, she asked whether it was possible those funds would be spent within this current fiscal year.

Public Works Director Mishra advised that the costs for the longer term improvements were high due to the required road improvements, concrete curb and drainage improvements. For the immediate improvements, it was hoped it would achieve the same goals of restricting the speed of traffic and having a shorter distance for pedestrians to cross the crosswalk due to the bulbouts. If this option was proven to be effective, the longer term improvements may not be needed.

Staff preferred to see the immediate improvements considered first prior to taking the next step.

Mayor Pro Tem Toms suggested there was no way to invest for the longer term improvements before the end of this fiscal year but the immediate improvements in the amount of $110,000 and the $100,000 for the Public Safety Building Modernization Project made sense.

City Manager Murray clarified in response to the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem that the longer term improvement funds would not be expended for this fiscal year given the need to issue an RFP for design, concrete and drainage work. He also clarified there was no agenda item to consider amending this fiscal year’s CIP and the City Council could not act to amend the CIP but could appropriate funding that would be reflected in the next CIP or some other future agenda item changing the CIP. The Tennent Avenue Corridor traffic safety improvements were a prospective project under discussion and had not been included in the CIP. Again, even if the longer term improvements proposed for the Tennant Avenue Corridor were funded today, that project would not be done this year even if funds were appropriated. He was unsure if funded whether the immediate improvements would be done this year but they would be on the “to do” list. It was possible the longer term improvements should be retitled since the immediate improvements may be sufficient.

Some of the capital projects that would not be completed on time had come from other funding sources and to the extent a capital project was funded by the General Fund and was not 28 of 565
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 21, 2023

completed, in that case, those funds would not be used for fund balance for this year. Some of the capital projects involved gas taxes and other funds.

When asked by Council member Tave, City Manager Murray again tried to explain that the existing CIP was not being amended at this time but the City Council had been asked whether to make budget adjustments and appropriate additional funds for the unbudgeted projects staff had identified.

Council member Martinez-Rubin offered a motion, seconded by Mayor Pro Toms to receive the Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/23 Second Quarter (Mid-Year) Financial Report and adopt a resolution authorizing budget amendments, and appropriate $110,000 for the Tennent Avenue Corridor Immediate Improvements and $100,000 for the Public Safety Building Modernization Project.

On the motion, Council members Sasai and Tave preferred the allocation of funding for each project be considered separately.

Council member Martinez-Rubin called for the question on her motion.

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
ACTION: Motion by Council member Martinez-Rubin/Mayor Pro Tem Toms for the City Council to Receive the Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/23 Second Quarter (Mid-Year) Financial Report and Adopt a Resolution Authorizing Budget Amendments, and Appropriate $110,000 for the Tennent Avenue Corridor Immediate Improvements and $100,000 for the Public Safety Building Modernization Project.

Vote: Failed 2-3
Ayes: Toms, Martinez-Rubin
Noes: Murphy, Sasai, Tave
Abstain: None

Absent: None
Council member Tave offered a motion to reallocate funds from CIP Project #PA 2101, Installation of High-Capacity Trash Bins in the amount of $425,000 and reduce that to $125,000 for Fiscal Year 2022/23 and $100,000 for the next three years.

Given there was some confusion with the motion as stated, Council member Tave restated his motion for CIP Project #PA2101, Installation of High-Capacity Trash Bins, to reduce the $425,000 allocation by $300,000 for this fiscal year.

City Manager Murray understood the intent of the motion was for CIP Project #PA2101, Installation of High-Capacity Trash Bins, which was currently funded for $425,000 in this current fiscal year and Council member Tave proposed a reallocation of the funding with $125,000 for this fiscal year, $100,000 the following year, another $100,000 the following year after that and a final $100,000 the year after that to spread the total amount over four years.

Council member Tave confirmed that was an accurate description of his motion. 29 of 565
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 21, 2023

Mayor Pro Tem Toms expressed concern the motion was budgeting for future fiscal years, which was not on the agenda and the agenda item related to the current fiscal year. She suggested the second motion should stand.

Council member Tave again restated his motion for CIP Project #PA2101, Installation of HighCapacity Trash Bins, reducing the $425,000 allocation to $125,000 for this fiscal year.

There was no second to the motion at this time.

Council member Sasai offered a motion to allocate funds for the immediate improvements for the Tennent Avenue Corridor in the amount of $110,000. He also seconded Council member Tave’s motion for CIP Project #PA 2101, Installation of High-Capacity Trash Bins, reducing the $425,000 allocation to $125,000 for this fiscal year.

Council member Martinez-Rubin asked for clarification of Council member Tave’s motion since she did not understand the advantage of the motion given the funding for the project was coming from a source that specifically worked for that specific item and would not affect the General Fund.

Council member Tave suggested the advantage was what could realistically be accomplished for this year.

Council member Martinez-Rubin pointed out the source of funding for the High-Capacity Trash Bins whether for this year or future years, regardless of when the project was implemented, it was an example where the source of funds was most directly connected to the result of the project.

Mayor Pro Tem Toms noted if reducing the project by $300,000 for this fiscal year, the City would not have the $300,000 when it worked on the budget for the next fiscal year to carry over, and if left alone it would be unspent and could be carried over to future fiscal years.

City Manager Murray had a different interpretation and explained if the amount of funding was reduced by $300,000 that amount would return to the available fund balance in that fund but no longer be reserved for the specific line item.

ACTION: Motion by Council members Tave/Sasai for CIP Project #PA2101, Installation of High-Capacity Trash Bins, reducing the $425,000 allocation to $125,000 for this fiscal year.

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

Absent: None
Mayor Pro Tem Toms offered a motion, seconded by Council member Martinez-Rubin, to adopt a resolution authorizing the budget amendments subject to Exhibit A of the staff recommendation.

When asked by the Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem Toms rescinded her motion to allow him to propose an alternative motion.

Mayor Murphy offered a motion to redirect Measure S 2014 funding amount of $420,000 from CIP 30 of 565
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 21, 2023

Project #FA2201 to fund immediate measures for traffic safety improvements on the Tennent Avenue Corridor Project and the Public Safety Building Modernization Project for this fiscal year and increase funds to $150,000 for the 2022/2023 cycle for the Public Safety Building Modernization Project.

Given confusion with the motion and in response to the City Manager, Mayor Murphy understood the City Council had to move money in order to fund those projects this year and he wanted to use what was available for funding this year and move Measure S 2014 of $420,000 into two of the buckets; traffic safety improvements for the Tennent Avenue Corridor Project as well as the Public Safety Building Modernization Project of $150,000 for this fiscal year.

Mayor Murphy again restated his motion, seconded by Council member Tave to redirect the Measure S 2014 funding amount of $420,000 from CIP Project #FA2201 to fund immediate measures for traffic safety improvements on the Tennent Avenue Corridor Project and the Public Safety Building Modernization Project. In that motion, $150,000 of that $420,000 would go to the Public Safety Building Modernization Project for the year 2022/23, with the rest of the funding for the traffic safety improvements to the Tennent Avenue Corridor project for this year.

On the motion, Council member Martinez-Rubin expressed her concern taking away funding from a project that had been supported by a number of community members, a project that had taken years to be funded when the City had available funds from the General Fund for the kinds of projects staff identified could be funded in 2022/23, for the Public Safety Building Modernization Project and for the immediate improvements to the Tennent Avenue Corridor.

Mayor Murphy commented the City Council, previous Councils and the public had discussed the prioritization of Measure S funds for public safety, roads and pedestrian safety and he suggested the funds would be better used for pertinent issues like the Tennent Avenue Corridor improvements. He suggested the two projects as part of the motion were important and the use of available options in funding was appropriate.

Council member Martinez-Rubin found the Mayor and three members of the Council had priorities other than funding the Faria House and did not see that as an urgent matter, did not listen to the members of the public interested in upgrading the facility, did not see the Faria House as an asset or liability for the City, had not considered that expenses would be greater in future years to do the kind of renovations that had been estimated to cost $420,000, and disregarded the improvements that while yet to be started were in support of improving a City facility that could provide some return to the City.

Council member Martinez-Rubin added that the City Council had compromised to have the types of projects in the CIP that reflected not only immediate urgent needs and addressed things that were essential but allowed projects that enhanced quality of life in Pinole and had the potential to provide economic return.

Mayor Murphy recognized that oftentimes the City did not have the staff capacity to do everything it wanted to do and while he would love to do more the reality was the City needed to address the issues that were more urgent, and today he wanted to focus on the two projects. He suggested it would be more appropriate to create an understanding that the project Council member Martinez-Rubin was encouraged by and invested in was urgent and important to the community and the City Council but today the Tennent Avenue Corridor and the Public Safety Building Modernization projects were urgent and important for the City to build. He stated that the motion 31 of 565
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 21, 2023

was his decision and he understood that Council member Martinez-Rubin may not support the motion.

Council member Martinez-Rubin clarified it was not difficult to hear a project she had advocated for would not be funded. The difficulty was having a City Council that leaned towards certain projects in the guise of urgency while disregarding a balance of projects that were both urgent and also addressed non-urgent issues. She suggested there was funding in the City’s budget to allow for Measure S funds to be used for urgent matters and the upgrades to the Faria House, which was also about infrastructure improvements. She recognized the Faria House had been a point of contention in the City for years with members of the public pushing one way or another and with the City Council pushed to vote one way or another but she objected to having funding taken away from the Faria House because that project wasn’t considered to be urgent.

Mayor Murphy suggested Council member Martinez-Rubin could request a future agenda item to discuss what “urgency” meant. He stated he had listened to the public often to learn about what the public cared about. He again called for the question on the motion.

Council member Tave recognized the conversation had been ongoing for years. He noted the need for citywide roof repairs and replacement and the recent rain had impacted occupied City buildings such as the Public Safety Building and the Senior Center, the cost of which was more than $420,000. He understood the concerns and recognized the Faria House had been vacant for some time but there were other occupied buildings in the City used by the community that needed to be addressed. He commented on the projects he had advocated for such as the HighCapacity Trash Bins with the use of Measure S funds in recognition of the need and pointed out that City’s roads had been in need of repair for years, and while some improvements like pothole repair were being made more needed to be done.

Mayor Pro Tem Toms pointed out the prior motion had reduced a project by $300,000 and if the City Council wanted to use that $300,000 since it was not needed right away, it could cover the cost of the additional two items that had been proposed.

Finance Director Guillory clarified the High-Capacity Trash Bins would be funded via the Solid Waste Fund and not through Measure S 2014 funds.

Mayor Pro Tem Toms understood there were unfunded revenues that could pay for the two items staff recommended and Finance Director Guillory clarified that could be done with the Measure S 2014 fund.

ACTION: Motion by Mayor Murphy/Council member Tave to redirect Measure S 2014 funding amount of $420,000 from CIP Project #FA2201, to fund immediate measures for traffic safety improvements on the Tennent Avenue Corridor Project and the Public Safety Building Modernization Project. In that motion $150,000 of that $420,000 would go to the Public Safety Building Modernization Project for the year 2022/23 with the rest of the funding for the traffic safety improvements on the Tennent Avenue Corridor Project for this year.

Vote: Passed: 3-2
Ayes: Murphy, Sasai, Tave
Noes: Toms, Martinez-Rubin
32 of 565
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 21, 2023

Abstain: None

Absent: None
ACTION: Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Toms/Council member Martinez-Rubin to adopt a Resolution Authorizing Budget Amendments subject to the items listed in Exhibit A to the resolution.

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

Absent: None
ACTION: Motion by Council member Martinez-Rubin/Mayor Pro Tem Toms that the amount previously allotted to #FA2201, Faria House Renovations in the amount of $420,000 be taken from the General Fund to fund the renovations.

Vote: Failed: 2-3
Ayes: Toms, Martinez-Rubin
Noes: Murphy, Sasai, Tave
Abstain: None

Absent: None
D. Review City Council Meeting Procedures [Action: Discuss Report and Provide Direction (Murray)]
ACTION: Motion by Council members Martinez-Rubin/Tave to defer item 12D to the City Council meeting scheduled for March 7, 2023.

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

Absent: None
ACTION: Motion by Council members Tave/Mayor Murphy to extend the City Council meeting to 11:05 p.m.

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

Absent: None

13. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD (Continued from Item 6) (Public Comments) Only open to members of the public who did not speak under the first Citizens to be Heard, Agenda Item 6.
33 of 565
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 21, 2023

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

Pursuant to provisions of the Brown Act, no action may be taken on a matter unless it is listed on the agenda, or unless certain emergency or special circumstances exist.

The City Council may direct staff to investigate and/or schedule certain matters for consideration at a future Council meeting.

City Clerk Bell reported there were no comments from the public.

14. ADJOURNMENT to the Regular City Council Meeting of March 7, 2023 in Remembrance of Amber Swartz.

At 11:04 p.m., Mayor Murphy adjourned the meeting to the Regular City Council Meeting of March 7, 2023 in Remembrance of Amber Swartz.

Submitted by:
_________________________________
Heather Bell, CMC
City Clerk
Approved by City Council:
34 of 565
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – March 21, 2023

CITY COUNCIL MEETING

MINUTES
March 21, 2023

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

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

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

A. COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT
Devin Murphy, Mayor
Maureen Toms, Mayor Pro Tem
Norma Martinez-Rubin, Council Member
Cameron Sasai, Council Member
Anthony Tave, Council Member
B. STAFF PRESENT
Andrew Murray, City Manager
Heather Bell, City Clerk
Eric Casher, City Attorney
Sanjay Mishra, Public Works Director
Lilly Whalen, Community Development Director
Jeremy Rogers, Community Services Director
Fiona Epps, Assistant to the City Manager
Roxane Stone, Deputy City Clerk
City Clerk Heather Bell announced the agenda had been posted on Friday, March 17, 2023 at 1:00 p.m. with all legally required written notices. Written comments had been received in advance of the meeting and had been distributed to the City Council, posted on the City website and made available in the Council Chambers. Supplemental information for Item 12A had also been distributed and made available to the public.
9A-1
35 of 565
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – March 21, 2023

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

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

CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
Gov. Code § 54957.6
Agency designated representatives: City Attorney Eric Casher, Human Resources Director Stacy Shell
Unrepresented employee: City Clerk

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
City Clerk Bell reported there were no comments from the public.

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED

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

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

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

Danielle Hall, Pinole, stated her residence was near the Pinole Valley eucalyptus groves built nearly 100 years ago, the oldest trees in the City of Pinole that had only been trimmed once in the last five years. Given the current weather conditions with high winds, the trees had become a safety hazard and should be prioritized for routine maintenance. Although she had contacted the Public Works Department and had been informed an arborist had been called, nothing had been done. She recommended the City obtain quotes from contractors outside the area of the cities of Pinole and Hercules and she provided current photographs of the trees for the record which included views of her residence. She recognized the trees were part of the City’s history but there was a safety issue with the trees that were more than 100 to 200 feet in height and as they aged they had become diseased and weak. She urged the City to trim the trees immediately.

Rafael Menis, Pinole, updated the City Council on the current COVID-19 case rate for the City of Pinole, which had the 6th highest rate in Contra Costa County. He urged everyone to continue to wear masks indoors and in crowded settings and he also provided the case rate data for some other cities in Contra Costa County, which were lower than Pinole’s case rate or which had a zero case rate. He also referenced the just-released Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) AR6 Synthesis Report: Climate Change 2023, particularly Point B3, which he read into the record.
36 of 565
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – March 21, 2023

Mr. Menis explained that the current rain system was from a bomb cyclone from the Pacific Coast and that winds in the mountains had reached 80 mph. These weather events would become more frequent and were an example of the region’s future if climate change was not addressed.

7. REPORTS & COMMUNICATIONS
A. Mayor Report

1. Announcements
Mayor Murphy reported on his attendance at the Annual Civic Well Policymaker’s Conference, a statewide organization that involved policy development and technical assistance to apply for grants and workshops to support City Council and staff for a myriad of issues, with the main topic of the conference being energy storage for communities impacted by power outages and wildfire mitigation. He looked forward to working with City staff and Civic Well to provide more resources for the City Council and the community on those two issues. He had also joined Congressman John Garamendi in touring two businesses in Contra Costa County that supported homes and businesses and supplying them with energy storage. Work would continue with Congressman Garamendi, Marin Clean Energy (MCE) and City officials to ensure energy storage was prioritized in the next year.

Mayor Murphy also thanked the public for its feedback regarding the monthly video Mayoral Updates and the Mayoral Update for the month of March was provided at this time.

B. Mayoral & Council Appointments

1. Community Services Commission [Action: Consider Appointment (Bell)]
City Clerk Bell presented the staff report and recommended the City Council approve the recommendation of the Community Services Commission Interview Subcommittee by minute order to appoint Irma Ruport to the Community Services Commission for a two-year term to expire on March 21, 2025.

Council member Sasai, a member of the Community Services Commission Interview Subcommittee, detailed Ms. Ruport’s background and stated she had been highly engaged in City Council activities. He looked forward to her service on the Community Services Commission.

Council member Tave, also a member of the Community Services Commission Interview Subcommittee concurred.

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Rafael Menis, Pinole, suggested Irma Ruport would make an excellent Community Services Commissioner based on her past work in the community and based on his personal experience working within the Community Services Commission. Ms. Ruport had the necessary drive, stamina and vision to significantly contribute to the Community Services Commission.

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
37 of 565
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – March 21, 2023

ACTION: Motion by Council members Tave/Sasai to Appoint Irma Ruport to the Community Services Commission for a term of two years to expire on March 21, 2025.

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

Absent: None
C. City Council Committee Reports & Communications
Mayor Pro Tem Toms reported she had attended an MCE Board meeting; League of California Cities Housing Policy Committee meeting and briefed the City Council on the discussions and actions taken. She also commented on the series of recent weather events and calls she had received about trees in the community either owned by the City or by private citizens and she was pleased City staff would be considering that information. She had also received a number of complaints about potholes and suggested the City’s bi-weekly administrative report include an email or telephone number to identify where significant potholes were located in the community.

Council member Martinez-Rubin reported she had attended the League of California Cities Revenue and Taxation Policy Committee and briefed the City Council on the discussions and actions taken; the monthly creek clean up would be held on Saturday, March 25 with everyone asked to meet at Henry Avenue by the bridge over Pinole Creek from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., and from 12:00 to 1:00 p.m. a demonstration on water quality monitoring would be provided.

Council member Tave reported on the status of Senate Bill (SB) 691, Dyslexia risk screening, and noted that 10 percent of the population had dyslexia which was often not detected leading to future learning challenges. SB 691 was important legislation to ensure an early universal screening process.

D. Council Requests for Future Agenda Items
Council member Tave requested a resolution in support of SB 691 as a future agenda item.

Consensus given.

Council member Tave requested the parameters for the previously approved Project Labor Agreement (PLA) be brought back to the City Council at a date certain in the next two months to allow City staff to provide a deadline as a future agenda item.

Mayor Pro Tem Toms understood the PLA Ad Hoc Subcommittee had not yet met and that should be done first, although Council member Tave wanted to move on language they had before and suggested a date certain in the next two months.

City Manager Andrew Murray clarified that staff had not prepared draft language to bring back but something could be crafted. There were a couple of models suggested when the topic had last been discussed and City staff could prepare a proposed citywide PLA, but the City Council had already established a PLA Ad Hoc Subcommittee to work on this topic. 38 of 565
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – March 21, 2023

Council member Tave recalled that City staff had been instructed to contact the Building and Construction Trades Council to develop some draft language with the PLA Ad Hoc Subcommittee to meet and bring that information back to the City Council. He wanted some language to come back so that a discussion and possible action could be taken by the end of May.

Mayor Pro Tem Toms, a member of the PLA Ad Hoc Subcommittee as was Council member Tave preferred the subcommittee meet first given the difficulty to negotiate an agreement at the dais without having gone through the subcommittee first.

Council member Tave reiterated his request and suggested having a date certain to get the “gears turning.” He clarified the timeline he envisioned was for staff to reach out to the Building and Construction Trades Council to develop some language for a PLA, which the subcommittee was to discuss, and if the City Manager reached out and obtained that language, the subcommittee could convene and hash out the language and bring it back to the City Council.

Council member Sasai seconded Council member Tave’s request for a future agenda item.

Council member Tave offered a motion seconded by Council member Sasai to bring back the Project Labor Agreement (PLA) discussion and action, with a date certain towards the end of May 2023.

On the motion, Mayor Pro Tem Toms explained she would vote no on the motion since they were already in the process, the City Council had voted to approve a PLA Ad Hoc Subcommittee and it would go to the City Council when ready.

City Manager Murray commented the direction was unclear. The request was to bring the item to the City Council absent input from the PLA Ad Hoc Subcommittee versus work through the PLA Ad Hoc Subcommittee process, which would not change the date certain. He clarified the Building and Construction Trades Council had a model, although during a prior conversation other examples of models had been mentioned, such as those from the cities of El Cerrito and Martinez, and West County Wastewater, and he was uncertain whether those models were all the same.

He recalled there had been no discussion about using just those examples but the PLA Ad Hoc Subcommittee was to review all examples mentioned and come back to the City Council with a specific recommendation. He asked for clarification if Council member Tave was recommending not working through the PLA Ad Hoc Subcommittee process.

Council member Tave suggested working through the PLA Ad Hoc Subcommittee process would be great but a date certain and timeline was needed to go to the City Council and having that date would drive the conversation.

ACTION: Motion by Council members Tave/Sasai to bring back the Project Labor Agreement (PLA) discussion and action, with a date certain towards the end of May 2023.

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

Absent: None
39 of 565
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – March 21, 2023

ACTION: Motion by Council member Martinez-Rubin/Mayor Murphy for the month of May to be proclaimed as Mental Health Awareness Month as a future agenda item.

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

Absent: None
ACTION: Motion by Council member Sasai/Mayor Murphy for a presentation from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) on the HCD ProHousing Designation Program as a future agenda item.

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

Absent: None
ACTION: Motion by Mayor Murphy/Council member Tave for a resolution in support and partnership of the 2023 Contra Costa County Inflation Reduction Act Conference hosted by Diablo Valley College (DVC) and Contra Costa College on May 18, 2023 from 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., to be added at a City Council meeting in April as a future agenda item.

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

Absent: None
ACTION: Motion by Mayor Murphy/Council member Sasai for a resolution and addendum to a letter to State Legislators on transportation equity and funding as a future agenda item.

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

Absent: None

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

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED

E. City Manager Report / Department Staff
40 of 565
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – March 21, 2023

City Manager Murray reported the City Council had previously approved a future agenda item for a presentation from Vision Zero Network. City staff had reached out but Vision Zero had declined the invitation. He reported the annual Easter Egg-Stravaganza celebration would be held on Saturday, March 25, 2023; a Special Joint City Council and Planning Commission meeting had been scheduled for March 28, 2023 and he provided an overview of the topics of discussion; with the next regular City Council meeting scheduled for April 4, 2023 and he provided a preview of the tentative agenda items.

City Manager Murray also provided a status report on road repair work and reported there had been no crack sealing or asphalt striping/patching done in the past month due to weather but 80 potholes had been filled and he identified the street locations involved. He also confirmed the next bi-weekly administrative report would include additional information on contact information for the public to notify the City about any potholes as the Mayor Pro Tem had requested.

City Manager Murray further reported on the two unmaintained City spaces populated with eucalyptus trees, one behind Pinole Valley Road and Samuel Street and the other off of Primrose Lane behind Pinon Park. The City had contracted with an arborist to assess the risk of the trees near Pinole Grove Senior Housing and there was to be trimming and cutting work done, although that work could not be done during inclement weather. Once the weather improved the work should commence on or around April 4, 2023. The same firm would also do an assessment of the eucalyptus trees in the area behind Primrose Lane in the next week and once the work near Pinole Grove Senior Housing was compete work would commence on the trees off of Primrose Lane. He added that City staff had requested multiple bids from various contractors to do the work although all firms were backlogged as a result of the severe storms in the Bay Area, with the exception of the firm from Hercules which would do the work. Updates of the work would be shared with those groups that had contacted the City including the member of the public who had spoken under Citizens to be Heard.

City Manager Murray also clarified, when asked by Council member Martinez-Rubin that the City did not have an entirely consistent system for categorizing its various parks and public spaces, which would be defined as part of the Parks Master Plan process currently under development.

He clarified public open spaces that were not developed, which the City did not actively maintain related to some liability issues, with the two properties earlier described as two examples of unmaintained City properties where the City did not routinely cut brush or trim trees unless there was a safety issue. Those areas would be evaluated as part of the Parks Master Plan process to determine whether or not there was a desire to further develop those properties and make them actively maintained and installed amenities.

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Irma Ruport, Pinole, stated she had missed the opportunity to provide comments on Items 7B and 7D. She thanked the City Council for her appointment to the Community Services Commission and she looked forward to being positive and making changes in the community. She suggested the City was in need of a grant writer and she asked that a grant writer be brought on board, which had been done in the City of San Pablo, and suggested the City was losing out on potential grants.

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
F. City Attorney Report: None
41 of 565
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – March 21, 2023

8. RECOGNITIONS / PRESENTATIONS / COMMUNITY EVENTS
A. Proclamations

1. Nowruz
(15 minute recess for reception in City Hall Lobby)
The City Council read into the record a proclamation recognizing Nowruz, the Iranian/Persian New Year observed on the first day of spring, which was presented to former Mayor Vincent Salimi.

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Vincent Salimi, Pinole, thanked the City Council for the proclamation and wished everyone a Happy Nowruz. He reported he had been newly appointed as Airport Commissioner by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors representing the City of Pinole and had been recognized by the French government to work on international sanctions against Russia and Iran. On behalf of the Iranian-American community in Pinole, Contra Costa County, and the State of California he thanked the City Council, the City Clerk and Deputy City Clerk for recognizing Nowruz. He also thanked those individuals who had helped set up the table for refreshments for the reception in the City Hall Lobby. He described the background of Nowruz, one of the oldest holidays and celebrations of life that marked the beginning of spring and which was celebrated worldwide. He was pleased the City of Pinole had recognized Nowruz as a tradition.

Ushain Pakpour, performed a violin musical piece for the benefit of the City Council and members of the audience.

Mahsa Garakani. thanked the City Council for the opportunity to celebrate Nowruz. She too described the background of Nowruz, explained that the items on the table as part of the reception represented items that highlighted the celebration of Nowruz past and present and she took the opportunity to speak to the number of young Iranians who had lost their life a result of the movement for human rights in Iran.

Nastaran Nouri, further defined each item on the table and what it represented as part of the Nowruz celebration. She wished everyone a Happy Nowruz.

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
At 7:15 p.m., the City Council recessed for 15 minutes in the City Hall Lobby. The City Council reconvened at 7:30 p.m. with all Council members present.

B. Presentations

1. California Department of Insurance Presentation
Community Services Director Jeremy Rogers explained that the City Council had requested an overview of the California Department of Insurance and an update on the Safer Wildfire 42 of 565
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – March 21, 2023

Framework (SFW) with a presentation to be made by Mary Beth Bykowsky from the California Department of Insurance (CDI).

Mary Beth Bykowsky, CDI, Northern California, Outreach Analyst, provided a PowerPoint presentation on the CDI Overview & SFW, which included an overview of the CDI and the role of the Insurance Commissioner. CDI’s purpose was to protect consumers, maintain insurer solvency, set standards for agents and broker licensing, perform market conduct review, resolve customer complaints, and investigate and prosecute insurance fraud but CDI could not require or compel insurance companies to sell insurance. She highlighted CDI’s accomplishments for 2021 with respect to wildfires; removal of barriers to critical insurance benefits, coverage for evacuation expenses, extensions to additional living expenses, creation of disclosures and coverage to meet upgraded building codes, a one-year moratorium from non-renewals and increased non-renewal notice from 45 to 75 days.

Improvements to the FAIR Plan (basic fire insurance coverage for high-risk properties when traditional insurance companies would not provide coverage) was also highlighted along with regulations to lower costs and increase transparency. An overview of the SFW was also provided and it was clarified that CDI could not require insurers to write coverage and CDI expected the FAIR Plan to comply. It affected both community-level and property-level mitigation efforts and included both residential and commercial properties with additional information available on the CDI website.

Council member Tave asked whether the formation of a Fire or Preventative Maintenance District helped to decrease fire insurance costs. As an example, the City of Pinole had recently reopened a fire station and he asked whether that computed into the insurance premium.

Ms. Bykowsky advised she had provided a copy of the regulations to the Community Services Director that outlined all aspects that could be taken to reduce the risk scores, with the insurance company to inform an insurer of the potential discount. She noted that access to a fire station did not always guarantee a lower premium but there were things that could be done to a residence to lower the risk score. Insurers must tell a homeowner why their risk score was so high and the homeowner could then consider options to reduce the risk. She could also provide information on how neighborhoods could become a Firewise community which had the most discounts but which included specific steps and required quantification.

Mayor Murphy thanked Ms. Bykowsky for the presentation and thanked the Insurance Commissioner’s Office for creating the first Climate and Sustainability Department in the nation.

Mayor Pro Tem Toms clarified with the City Clerk the PowerPoint presentation and any additional information would be posted on the City website and other City platforms. A memorandum had also been provided just prior to the meeting also to be posted on the City website with the rest of the agenda packet materials.

2. Introduction with Local Active Transportation Non-Profit Organization Bike East Bay by Robert Prinz, Advocacy Director
Robert Prinz, Advocacy Director, Bike East Bay, provided a PowerPoint presentation titled, Introduction with Bike East Bay, which included an overview of Bike East Bay, which served Contra Costa and Alameda Counties and which had recently celebrated its 50th anniversary. 43 of 565
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – March 21, 2023

Bike East Bay consisted of a 12-person all volunteer team whose mission was to promote safe streets for all road users and sustainable and affordable mobility for all. Mr. Prinz highlighted the efforts of the organization to get bicycles on the BART system 40 years ago since BART initially did not allow bicycles, and the efforts to create bike spaces on the new BART trains, free bike parking facilities and secure bike lockers at all BART Stations. He reported that bikes may be taken for free on all Bay Area transit systems which all had bike access and free bike parking.

Bike East Bay events, education and advocacy included Bay Area Bike to Work Day to be held on May 18, 2023, with the month of May to be Bike Month. Throughout the year social activities included a spring and fall ride series, which explored beautiful locations throughout the East Bay; free bike education programs for youth and families with partnerships with other bike organizations; Bike Build and Giveaway in coordination with the Fast Freddy Foundation and an affordable housing developer to provide free bikes to children in an affordable housing development; and adult bike education and anti-theft workshops were also provided. Advocacy efforts included the need to provide Class I bike trails, traffic calming networks and the creation of pop-up bikeways with temporary materials.

Bike East Bay, as a non-profit (c)(3) organization, also lobbied around ballot measures and had been successful in integrating bike education programs into affordable housing and sustainable housing grant applications at the state level and into transit infrastructure.

Council member Tave asked whether Bike East Bay helped with grant writing for bike paths or helped in the conversation with city staff and Mr. Prinz stated he had participated in some grant applications but Bike East Bay participated as a program provider, providing letters of support or other types of community assistance to make a grant application more competitive. The grant writing was typically done by city staff. As a community partner, Bike East Bay could participate in a grant application by making it more competitive by adding its own programs, but it would not prep the grant application itself.

Council member Sasai asked for more details on the pop-up events to which Mr. Prinz explained that Bike East Bay had done more pop-up events over the years and they were getting more professional over time. For the pop-up events, Bike East Bay would have to partner with a city, obtain official permission and ensure the jurisdiction was okay with the design concepts. As an example, for a pop-up event held in the City of San Leandro, Bike East Bay served as a subcontractor with a consulting firm that had done the design aspect, with Bike East Bay assisting with volunteer coordination and actual construction of the materials. The trend was to make sure the pop-up events looked more official to ensure the level of feedback was more detailed.

Council member Sasai asked whether Bike East Bay contracted with cities that implemented Complete Streets projects and was informed by Mr. Prinz that Bike East Bay had partnered with the City of Pittsburg for community outreach as part of its bike plan update. As a non-profit, Bike East Bay’s administrative capacity was not as high as a consulting firm and more often it partnered as a subcontractor with a consulting firm on a project.

Council member Martinez-Rubin appreciated that bikeways could be created to also benefit those using scooters, such as seniors. She asked whether Bike East Bay had any affiliation or connection with cyclists who traveled from Orinda into Pinole, as an example. 44 of 565
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – March 21, 2023

Mr. Prinz stated there were a lot of bicycle clubs in the East Bay. He suggested those who were not biking yet were those who should receive the focus with the infrastructure upgrades, with an understanding why people were not biking and what needed to be done to make those people feel safe and comfortable. He described bicyclists as having different constituency and needs with the intent to find a common denominator that focused on safety, diversity of the ridership and increasing access to all.

Mayor Pro Tem Toms thanked Mr. Prinz for the presentation. She commented that she had seen Bike East Bay’s advocacy throughout the County which was much appreciated.

Mayor Murphy encouraged Bike East Bay to consider Pinole’s Earth Walk during the month of April as a way to engage with the community.

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
City Clerk Bell reported there were no comments from the public.

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED

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

A. Approve the Minutes of the March 7, 2023 meeting.

B. Receive the March 4, 2023 – March 17, 2023 – List of Warrants in the Amount of $853,010.60 and the March 17, 2023 Payroll in the Amount of $569,801.86 C. Receive the 2022 Annual General Plan Housing Element Progress Report as Required by the State of California [Action: Receive and File Report (Whalen)] D. Second Reading of an Ordinance Amending Title 2, Administration and Personnel, of the Municipal Code to Provide the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District with Jurisdiction and Authority to Conduct Fire and Emergency Medical Response Services Within the City of Pinole [Action: Waive Second Reading and Adopt Ordinance (Casher)]
E. Resolution in Support of State Funding for Adult School Classes for Older Adults [Action: Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Murray)] F. Resolution Expressing Concerns Regarding the Delta Conveyance Project (Delta Tunnel) [Action: Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Murray)] 45 of 565
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – March 21, 2023

G. Ordinance Amending Chapter 8.24 and 8.25 of the Pinole Municipal Code to Modify Provisions Concerning Nuisance Abatement Procedures and Related Code Enforcement [Action: Waive Second Reading and Adopt Ordinance (Casher)] H. Approve Resolution Approving Amendment to Purchase and Sale Agreement and Joint Escrow Instructions with LDW Investments for Purchase of 612 Tennent Avenue [Action: Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Murray)] I. Approve Revisions to Council Procedures [Action: Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Bell)]
Council member Tave requested that Item 9I be pulled from the Consent Agenda.

City Clerk Bell spoke to Item 9A and stated she had received a comment from Rafael Menis, who requested a revision to comments he had made on Page 19 of the March 7, 2023 meeting minutes, as follows:

Mr. Menis also referenced Page 158 (c) of Public Comment, and suggested the language that had been stricken in this section should not be reinserted as a matter of the Brown Act and public policy in that having questions being asked by the public was a net benefit both to the City Council and to the community by allowing for a broader range of items to be brought up by the public, and allowed a more thorough consideration by the City Council and City staff on any given topic.

Mayor Murphy requested Item 9G be pulled from the Consent Agenda.

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Rafael Menis, Pinole, reiterated his requested revision to Item 9A as read into the record by the City Clerk with a time stamp point in the video recording having been provided to staff as a cross reference. For Item 9C, he commented on the number of building permits that had been issued for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) as shown on Page 52 of the agenda packet, which was more than had been issued in the past. For the same item, Page 54 of the agenda packet, Table 2- Building Permit Issuance Progress as of 2022, had shown over the entire 5th Cycle Housing Element that the City of Pinole had issued zero building permits for Very Low and Low housing categories and one permit for the Moderate housing category, which he flagged since that was the reason he was concerned that certain tables would be in place in the updated 6th Cycle Housing Element, to confirm the City would meet its Very Low and Low income housing category requirements. As to Table 3 – Major Development Projects in “Pipeline” also shown on Page 54, it had shown the City’s progress towards that goal with Satellite Affordable Housing Associates (SAHA) making up a significant portion of the Very Low income units to be built across all categories despite the fact it was one project.

As to Page 61 of the agenda packet for Item 9C, Mr. Menis commented that Table B, Regional Housing Needs Allocation Progress Permitted Uses Issued by Affordability, had shown the Extremely Low income category need but there did not appear to be a plan to implement that need.
46 of 565
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – March 21, 2023

Mr. Menis asked whether the City had a plan as part of the 6th Cycle Housing Element or some other process to identify how it planned to meet that category and whether it was a required category separate from the Low income category need as a whole.

For Items 9E and 9F, Mr. Menis supported both resolutions and the City moving forward on each item. As to Item 9G, Page 91 of the agenda packet, he referenced the March 21, 2023 staff report, which discussed Attachment C and included a summary of a sampling of code enforcement cases open in 2022, and the rate of compliance after a courtesy notice was provided.

A vast majority of cases were able to be resolved through a courtesy notice absent the need to go further into the escalation process and as shown on Page 120 of the agenda packet of Attachment C, Chart 3, Types and Number of Cases that Moved Beyond Courtesy Notice, Calendar Year 2022, as shown. He suggested it would be worthwhile to amend the ordinance to state that the City still offered courtesy notices by default except in those cases that had been shown through the data to not have courtesy notices actually resolve the issue.

As part of the City Council’s discussion of Item 9G, Mr. Menis suggested the City Council consider having the courtesy notice remain as a default except for the specific categories where it was not effective given that the vast majority of time the courtesy notice was sufficient.

As to Item 9H, Mr. Menis asked for more information on the significant amount of predevelopment funds and clarification why the buyer was originally going to pay $400,000 for the parcel at 612 Tennent Avenue while the City’s neutral accessor had assessed the property at $230,000.

Maria Alegria, Pinole, spoke to Item 9I and asked that the City Council bring the item back for discussion to amend the resolution, which was inconsistent with the Pinole Municipal Code (PMC) since it stated City Council meetings would start at 5:00 p.m. whereas the PMC stated a 6:00 p.m. start time as shown on Page 131 of the agenda packet. As to Pages 131 and 132 of the agenda packet related to Section 6. Agenda Preparation, she asked that the requirements of the Brown Act be inserted in this section with the final agenda to be prepared 72-hours in advance of the regular meeting. Page 132, under Roll Call, City Clerk’s Report & Statement of Conflict, she asked that the statement “potential conflict of interest” be added pursuant to Government Code, which defined a potential conflict of interest.

In addition, Ms. Alegria referred to Exhibit A, Norms of Behavior, which should be a standard on how the City Council comported itself at City Council meetings. She commented that over the past two City Council meetings, she had witnessed disparaging remarks by Council member Martinez-Rubin to other Council members she disagreed with which was unacceptable. She asked that the Norms of Behavior be added to Roll Call, City Clerk’s Report & Statement of Conflict and that the City Council review the Norms of Behavior annually. Lastly, the City Council procedures should be consistent with the PMC as it related to City Council relations with the City Manager to take his or her orders from the City Council only at a duly convened City Council meeting.

Irma Ruport, Pinole, referenced Item 9G, and disagreed with waiving the second reading, suggesting the City Council consider a first reading since additional information had not been included as requested by the Mayor. She suggested the item be sent back to staff with information and statistics provided on code enforcement. She also commented she had read some of the information and suggested the City of Hercules had done a good job with its code enforcement.

Hercules conducted on-site visits with a knock on the door and speaking to the neighbor. 47 of 565
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – March 21, 2023

Ms. Ruport opposed a complaint-driven approach, which was not sensitive to residents. She pointed out that code enforcement had not occurred for a few years and a more positive, kinder and gentler approach should be considered. In addition, for Item 9I, she agreed with the comments provided by the prior speaker and agreed with the request for additional amendments.

She suggested the Norms of Behavior should be out in the public, with civility and respect for one another provided. She wanted to see everyone play fair with the public and be kind to one another.

Peter Murray, Pinole, referenced item 9H and asked for clarification of the resolution to approve an amendment to a purchase and sale agreement. He asked whether it was an amendment to an existing agreement already in place given the significant change in value in the property midstream.

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
Speaking to Item 9G, Mayor Murphy commented this was the second time the item had come before the City Council. He wanted to spend time on the data collected and noted during the last meeting, the City Council had wanted more information on the results of what other jurisdictions in Contra Costa County were doing, and more information on the City’s code enforcement cases.

In 2022, Pinole had a total of 628 cases, which began with a courtesy notice, and of those cases 19 cases remained open today and were in the process of being resolved and had not received further notices to date. A total of 549 cases had been closed, equating to nearly 90 percent of the cases closed after receiving a courtesy notice evident of notifying residents of the need to comply with the PMC.

Mayor Murphy explained that he would be voting against Item 9G. He referenced Page 120 of the agenda packet and Chart 3: Types and Number of Cases that Moved Beyond Courtesy Notice, Calendar Year 2022, which data had shown the City must move to educate the public on the violations as opposed to being punitive. He suggested the City’s current process was fair, recognized the City had done a lot through communication and public engagement to educate the public about what was important and how to keep people healthy and safe. He also found the types and number of cases, as outlined in Chart 3, to be the areas where it was important to educate the public.

Mayor Murphy suggested the amendments to the ordinance were not the right answer. He suggested the charts in the agenda packet were useful and he looked forward to seeing more information from staff on how the process was going, but he urged the City Council to oppose the ordinance and rather educate the community as opposed to being punitive.

Also speaking to Item 9G, Mayor Pro Tem Toms stated there were neighborhoods that had the types of code enforcement cases as outlined and it was not useful to extend the time to allow violations to continue which created unsightliness and hazards and created a problem with the quality of life. The ordinance was worded whereby if someone needed more time and made progress that could be communicated to staff. She found there were many violators that ignored the PMC and code enforcement with the neighborhood having to put up with the violations that much longer. She supported streamlining the process to achieve compliance. 48 of 565
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – March 21, 2023

Council member Tave understood if the process was streamlined it built the case for the City for the violator to achieve compliance and he asked the City Attorney to opine on the pros and cons of the City’s position.

City Attorney Eric Casher reported the ordinance had been reviewed through the lens of due process considerations and whether it provided adequate time for a recipient of a complaint to have adequate time, and where it had been found to be consistent with regulations in other jurisdictions which provided time to respond to a notice of violation and afforded an appeal process. There were mechanisms in place to appeal and elevate the violation if there was no final resolution from the complainant. He suggested there were no due process concerns from a legal standpoint. There were a number of amendments proposed to the ordinance, with the focus currently on the courtesy notice, which really constituted a minor change in language, from where the City “shall” provide a courtesy notice to “may” provide a courtesy notice. As the Community Development Director previously stated, it would be her practice to issue a courtesy notice in situations where she found it to be appropriate and at her discretion.

Council member Tave suggested they were speaking of a small percentage of people who had received a courtesy notice and if the language was changed back to “shall” provide a courtesy notice it would capture around 90 percent of the people. He otherwise had an issue with calling the individual a “violator” and suggested evaluating how code enforcement was considered. He asked of the staff time to address those code enforcement cases where someone did not respond to the first courtesy notice.

Community Development Director Lilly Whalen explained that when staff received a complaint staff investigated the complaint for validity. If valid, a courtesy notice was mailed to the individual and an inspection scheduled for 14-days later. Inspection would verify whether the issue had been resolved. If resolved, staff would contact the property owner or tenant and thank them for resolving the issue and the case would be closed. If the issue was not resolved, staff would send out another courtesy notice and actually send out two to three courtesy notices thereafter and if there was no contact with the property owner, a Notice of Violation would be issued. As to the number of renters versus property owners, she did not have that information but clarified the letter was sent to the property and where the property owner received their tax bill.

Mayor Murphy reiterated his reasons for opposing the ordinance, as proposed, since it would perhaps expedite a process allowing the City to issue notices of violation whereas 87 percent of the issuance of courtesy notices resolved the situation. If the ordinance passed as amended, a courtesy notice would be an optional step for staff leaving a nuance around whether or not staff had particular decision-making authority to issue a notice to one person or another.

Mayor Murphy encouraged the City Council to consider the City Attorney’s recommended language revision from “may” to “shall” provide a courtesy notice. Another amendment included a defined Administrative Hearing Officer as opposed to what could be a public or people centered Board of Appeals, which gave one person authority over the appeal process as opposed to at least three people who would comprise the Board of Appeals. With the proposed changes in the ordinance, he could foresee a more punitive system the City was not ready to address, and while code enforcement was being improved, he wanted to see the data to identify the problems where education should be provided to the public instead so that residents may understand why they were not in-line with the PMC.
49 of 565
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – March 21, 2023

Mayor Murphy opposed taking away the current process to educate people more as opposed to a clear decision point by City staff if the ordinance was adopted. He suggested the City had not educated the public enough around the top three code enforcement issues which had been identified in the current data, and as reflected in the March 21, 2023 staff report. He reiterated that there were better ways to address the situation than expediting the process including better educating the public on the rules of the PMC.

Council member Sasai thanked the Mayor for requesting the additional data and for explaining why he opposed the proposed amended ordinance and the members of the public for providing their personal experiences with code enforcement. He stated he would always support safety and supported code enforcement for violations that impacted public safety. Given that 87 percent of the code enforcement cases were closed after receiving a courtesy notice, of the remaining 13 percent of code enforcement cases he asked staff whether or not those cases involved any examples of injuries or impacts to public health.

Community Development Director Whalen had no knowledge of any examples of code enforcement cases that were unresolved which had resulted in injury or impact to public safety.

Council member Martinez-Rubin understood the greater percentage of those noticed had responded to the courtesy notice but she referred to Attachment C, Courtesy Notice of Compliance Rates for Cases Opened in 2022, as shown on Page 121 of the agenda packet, and commented the data for outdoor storage accumulation, as an example, was the type of visual effect that impacted neighbors. She also commented on a prior discussion of the City Council as to whether code enforcement should be under Community Development or the Police Department, with the City Council leaning for code enforcement to be under the umbrella of the Community Development Department, largely to allow for the appropriate education to occur in the way the process had currently been defined.

Council member Martinez-Rubin understood it was difficult to have the preventative data for the code enforcement violations they were trying to prevent, with the flip side that the data was not available to demonstrate any harm and determine the effectiveness of the program. Of the code enforcement cases where the most time was spent by City staff, and while not reflected in the data, deserved attention and where possibly a different kind of process coiuld be considered to address the recalcitrant individuals and continue the program as is, while designing a process that focused on the cases and categories of violations that had historically been problematic in Pinole.

Council member Martinez-Rubin also commented that working people and seniors may find it difficult to clean out their spaces and she hesitated to group everyone into one category who may not recognize what was considered a quality of life issue. If someone needed more time to address the accumulation of outdoor storage, as an example, it could be allowed by the City. She otherwise found the process had not been designed to be punitive while it may feel that way and staff had operated that way since code enforcement organizationally was under the umbrella of the Community Development Department. She also found the educational component would not be lost and would remain in the ordinance, as amended, and it would ensure those who were impacted by a few were not continually impacted by those few.

Council member Tave pointed out only 22 cases had resulted in three courtesy notices, which was a small number indicating to him the system “as is” was working well. 50 of 565
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – March 21, 2023

Community Development Director Whalen confirmed that a small amount of cases had to move on to subsequent courtesy notices which staff had observed over the past six months to a year, and which was why staff had brought the amendments to the City Council for consideration. Staff was of the opinion the ordinance would benefit from having flexibility in being able to move on to the official notice step in certain cases. Staff’s intent was to continue with the current code enforcement practice and always issue a courtesy notice except in cases where there was imminent health and safety issues or where there were repeat violations on a property with a nonresponsive individual.

Community Development Director Whalen suggested if the City Council was interested in narrowing the types of cases that could move on and not receive a courtesy notice at staff’s discretion, she could bring back a sampling of code enforcement cases in the staff report from the last calendar year and could work with the Code Enforcement Officer on the types of code enforcement cases that should either “shall” or “may” receive a courtesy notice.

Mayor Murphy was open to continuing the item. He asked how the public had been engaged on the issue since the last City Council meeting. He also asked for input as to why of the total number of code enforcement cases, 19 cases had been found to be so detrimental to the community where the current system had to be changed to address those violations. That data set would be very helpful for the discussion and provide a better understanding of the issues where code enforcement should spend its time. He also wanted to know how residents could be involved in this discussion since changes had been proposed to the citizen engagement process.

Mayor Pro Tem Toms supported a continuance of the item to see if the courtesy notice piece could be narrowed. She offered a motion, seconded by the Mayor to continue the item to a future meeting.

On the motion, Council member Martinez-Rubin requested clarification as to what information would be brought back to the City Council. She understood that staff was to come back with more information to identify an approach that could work for the most difficult cases.

ACTION: Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Toms/Mayor Murphy to continue Item 9G, to a future City Council meeting.

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

Absent: None
Speaking to Item 9H, City Manager Murray responded to the public comment and clarified why the prospective buyer had initially offered a higher price which the City had accepted and was now willing to accept the assessed value of the property, which was much lower and which had been due to changes in the environment and the prospective buyer’s understanding of the project and the requirements. He commented that financing and building costs had also increased dramatically but this was the most attractive purchase price and staff had done its due diligence with an assessor having verified the fair price. All information had been outlined in the staff report. 51 of 565
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – March 21, 2023

As to Item 9I, Council member Tave offered a motion, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Toms to table the item until such time as the Municipal Code Update Subcommittee could return with changes.

He wanted to ensure any changes made were consistent with the PMC.

ACTION: Motion by Council member Tave/Mayor Pro Tem Toms to table Item 9I until such time as the Municipal Code Update Subcommittee could return with changes and review any inconsistencies with the Pinole Municipal Code.

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

Absent: None
ACTION: Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Toms/Council member Tave to adopt Item 9A, (as amended) and Items 9B, 9C, 9D, 9E, 9F and 9H, as shown.

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

Absent: None

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

A. Conduct a Public Hearing and Adopt Resolution Approving, Authorizing and Directing Execution of a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement Relating to the California Municipal Finance Authority and Approving a Plan of Finance Including the Issuance of Revenue Bonds by the Authority to Finance and Refinance a 33- Unit Multifamily Rental Housing Facility for the Benefit of Pinole Housing, L.P., Or Another Entity Created by Satellite AHA Development, Inc., Or Satellite Affordable Housing Associates (Or an Affiliate) and Certain Other Matters Relating Thereto [Action: Conduct Public Hearing & Adopt Resolution (Whalen)] Mayor Murphy stated he had been asked to read into the record the following statement: We are here this evening to conduct a public hearing pursuant to the Federal Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act also known as TEFRA. TEFRA requires that a public hearing be held by the governing body of the jurisdiction in which a project to be financed with tax exempt financing is located and that that governing body approve the proposed financing. Satellite Affordable Housing Associates (SAHA) has asked that the California Municipal Finance Authority, also known as the CMFA be the issuer of tax exempt financing in an amount not to exceed $30 million dollars to finance the acquisition, construction and improvement of a 33-unit multifamily rental housing facility for low income households to be located at 811 San Pablo Avenue in the City of Pinole. The CMFA is a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) formed to assist local governments, nonprofit organizations and businesses with the issuance of both taxable and tax exempt debt. 52 of 565
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – March 21, 2023

The debt to be issued by the CMFA will be the sole responsibility of the borrower and the City of Pinole will have no financial or legal obligations or responsibilities with regards to the repayment of the debt. All financing documents will carry disclaimers that the loan is not an obligation of the City. The City will also bear no costs in the issuance of the proposed debt. It is recommended tonight that the City Council adopt a resolution approving the issuance of bonds by the CMFA for the benefit of the borrower. Such adoption is solely for the purposes of satisfying the requirements of TEFRA and California Government Code Section 6500. The resolution will also authorize the City Manager or designee thereof to execute the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement with the CMFA.

Community Development Director Lilly Whalen provided an extensive PowerPoint presentation for the TEFRA Public Hearing for SAHA, 811 San Pablo Avenue, which included the background of the project and public benefit for the City-owned vacant lot at 811 San Pablo Avenue to be developed by SAHA for 33 units of multifamily rental housing consisting of 29 one bedroom units and four two-bedroom units, with rents affordable to Very Low and Low Income households, with earnings between 30 to 60 percent of the Area Median Income (AMI) to be affordable for 55- years. SAHA had completed the entitlement process and was due to pull building permits in June 2023 to start construction.

Community Development Director Whalen highlighted the roles and responsibilities of the developer/borrower SAHA, the bond issuer CMFA and local agency, the City of Pinole along with the permanent financing sources. She recommended the City Council conduct the public hearing under the requirements of TEFRA, as defined, and adopt the resolution contained in Attachment A to the March 21, 2023 staff report, as shown.

Mayor Pro Tem Toms clarified with Ngan Mai, the Project Manager for SAHA, that all funding had been secured.

PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
Rafael Menis, Pinole, commented based on the financing that SAHA wanted to claim roughly $15 million worth of tax exempt bonds but was asking for authorization for $30 million which he asked be clarified. He also asked how much money the City would receive for its portion from the CMFA and commented on his understanding the conduit funds were only for projects that directly involved the City. Assuming the bonds created no liability or obligations for the City, the City holds the public hearing, and had the cost for holding the public hearing, with the borrower to get the funds and the City to get a portion of the money the borrower paid to get the funds. He asked whether his understanding that there would be no downside to this agreement was accurate.

PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
Travis Cooper, CMFA, explained that the $30 million was a not-to-exceed amount, a tax code issue in all bond documents and resolutions and the borrower could not exceed $30 million and borrowed under that amount. When bonds were issued for any type of project in the state there were issuance fees. As part of the CMFA program, when issuance fees were brought in, CMFA would donate 25 percent of its fees to a nonprofit, 25 percent back to the local municipality and in this case the City of Pinole would receive roughly $11,000 and some change, depending on the pricing of the deal and issuance of the bonds.
53 of 565
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – March 21, 2023

Also, it had been stated in great detail what the funds could goes towards, as outlined in the resolution and in the indentured and all bond documents. None of the funds could be spent on anything else other than what had been stated in the resolution with about five different governmental agencies and equity lenders overseeing the project through completion to ensure all funds were spent in accordance with the regulations.

ACTION: Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Toms/Council member Martinez-Rubin/Tave to adopt a resolution becoming a member of the California Finance Authority (the “CMFA”) and approving the issuance of the Bonds by the CMFA for the benefit of Pinole Housing, L.P., a California limited partnership, or another ownership entity to be created by Satellite AHA Development, Inc., a California nonprofit public benefit corporation, Satellite Affordable Housing Associates, a California nonprofit public benefit corporation, or an affiliate thereof (such limited partnership or other ownership entity being referred to herein as the “Borrower”), to provide for the financing of the Project. Such adoption is solely for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of TEFRA, the Code and the California Government Code Section 6500 (and following). The resolution will also authorize the City Manager or their designee to execute the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement with the CMFA.

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

Absent: None

11. OLD BUSINESS: None

12. NEW BUSINESS
A. Review New City Logo Concepts and Provide Direction [Action: Discuss and Provide Direction (Epps)]
Assistant to the City Manager Fiona Epps presented the staff report. She also read into the record an email dated March 21, 2023, from Corrina Gould, Tribal Chair/Confederated Villages of Lisjan Nation and Co-Director of the Sogorea Te Land Trust, with whom City staff had spoken with about the City’s logo/seal and who had been asked to review the City Council staff report, which had been included as supplemental material for Item 12A and posted on the City website.

Ms. Epps explained in response to Ms. Gould’s comments that City staff preferred to steer away from using a human character in the City seal to avoid all possibility of offense, exploitation or inaccurate representation that commonly resulted from using a mascot. The City had worked with the Consulting Firm, Tripepi Smith on a number of communication projects including the City Logo/Seal redesign. Tripepi Smith had prepared a series of City Seal/Logo redesign options.

Kevin Bostwick, Creative Director, Tripepi Smith, provided a PowerPoint presentation on the Logo Exploration with the goal of how to move forward with a City of Pinole logo that resonated for the community and recognizing comments about the appropriateness of the current imagery of the City’s logo. The City was considering the modernization of the City’s logo and the City Council may adopt a new logo design.
54 of 565
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – March 21, 2023

As part of stakeholder input, a staff team and Tripepi Smith had met and conducted an interview along with research and analysis of neighboring City logos. Based on those discussions, logo development included three updated versions of the existing logo and eight new logo options.

Based on the staff feedback and feedback from a weighted survey, one modernized favorite and four new logo favorites had been identified.

Mr. Bostwick emphasized there had been input from the Confederated Villages of Lisjan as staff reported. Feedback from the stakeholder interview and weighted survey was highlighted which had driven the logo development for the four new logo options and one modernized version of the existing City logo; however, this option was no longer being recommended by City staff for the reason enumerated by staff.

Of the new logo design options, the most favorite was Option 6b, which included light tints and soft edges creating a welcome landscape scene, with the circle creating a portal feeling, a creek running through it and with the Bay in the background. Horizontal versions of each design were also provided. The second favorite was Option 5b, which included geometric shapes of hills and the Bay adding weight to the option and consisting of a Dark Blue arch inspired by the high school arch, which also created a portal feeling reflecting how Pinole felt like a refuge and with two strong lines at the base which ground the icon and could be interpreted as tracks or road highlighting historical access to transportation. The third favorites were Options 4a and 4b, which included a bridge and tree. This option balanced homes and terrain and included a subtle “P” in the sky, was light and airy with simple elements and white space, gold and green hills, blue creek and Bay with the houses reflecting livability.

Side by side views of all the logo options were presented including the one modernized version of the current City logo. A collection of regional, neighboring City logos and related entities was also provided which reflected the diversity of the logos and how one may relate to each community and help inform the conversation for how the City could move forward with a logo that resonated with the community and with the City’s branding efforts.

Council member Martinez-Rubin asked for more information on how community engagement would be provided and Assistant City Manager Epps commented that staff hoped the City Council would provide direction. Staff sought community input moving forward and she recommended the creation of a forum for the public to provide its opinion and ideas about the logos, similar to the input on the Community Corner. Staff hoped to return to the City Council with more refined logo concepts from community input.

Council member Sasai inquired of the decision making process for the color schemes for the different logo design options and the type faces, and Mr. Bostwick explained that the logo options had been presented with different color variations earlier in the process with the options presented being the favorites. He explained that options had been presented with different font variations and it was clear across all options that the Serif All Caps Font for the name Pinole and a smaller modern Sans Serif Font below was a combination that added the right elegance and was not too old-fashioned. That font had been applied to all of the options.

In response to the Mayor Pro Tem, City Manager Murray clarified the stakeholders were the Department Heads and City Clerk with a focus group of all Department Heads having met with the exception of the City Attorney.
55 of 565
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – March 21, 2023

It was intentional that the public engagement process had been deferred pending some advance work to create options that were heading in the right direction. The next step was feedback from the City Council on a limited set of designs and a return to the City Council with new design iterations and a summary from the public engagement process.

Council member Tave asked how the City’s history had been taken into consideration in the new logo design iterations or whether that component could be added and incorporated, and Mr.

Bostwick reiterated the initial conversations about the logo development when a simpler logo design had been proposed but community input would allow any kind of consensus around a historical element that resonated and meant something to the broad swath of the community.

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Helena Mazzariello, Pinole, commented she was primarily concerned with Ms. Gould’s comments and how the indigenous community felt about the City’s original logo and any possible changes.

She had contacted Ms. Gould through Facebook and others on the platform who had offered opinions on the City’s logo. She thanked staff for the history of the City’s logo and found that the new logos appeared more like a logo for a bank and not appropriate for the City of Pinole. She commented that the modernized logo was acceptable with the removal of the indigenous person since it was nice and suggested adding another bird, piece of an oak tree or acorn in place of the indigenous person. She pointed out that “pinole” meant nourishment. She otherwise liked the logos from the cities of Oakland and Walnut Creek.

Irma Ruport, Pinole, did not like any of the logos presented which were simple and were being selected by people who were not members of the community. She suggested there should be input from the community including artisan groups in the City and possibly a contest with school children to allow the community to get excited about a new logo as opposed to an isolated decision from a few people. She did not like the colors of the new logos nor the logos themselves and she again questioned why people who were not from Pinole were making a decision about the City’s logo as opposed to those who lived in the community and had a lot to say. She urged the City Council to engage everyone in the community on a new logo design.

Rafael Menis, Pinole, recognized that many had an attachment to the current logo image but for the same historical reasons, the opinion of the Confederated Tribes of Lisjan should govern what was or was not appropriate on the City’s logo/seal. The request to remove the indigenous person from the City logo/seal, as requested by the Confederated Tribes of Lisjan, was appropriate and in the spirit with the land acknowledgement and the City’s effort to work with those communities that had been displaced. He strongly opposed the modernized logo concept with an indigenous person in it. He understood this was just the start of the process since further input was being sought, which he suggested should also include the Community Services Commission. He also suggested Options 4a and 4b may have some unintended visual associations that the City should avoid. He further suggested the railroad tie-ins and ability for the logo to be a sideways “P” as part of the second option worked nicely but the logos felt relatively abstract and disconnected from the City as a whole and something more grounded and representative of Pinole without taking offense with community engagement was warranted.

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
56 of 565
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – March 21, 2023

Council member Tave suggested this was a good start but community engagement was needed, which was where they would see nuances woven into the logos. He supported more nods to Pinole’s history in the logo and looked forward to the community input.

Mayor Pro Tem Toms suggested the logo design that had been identified as the favorite and which had been depicted in the staff report, included a logo design above it with bolder colors was and was worthwhile as an option for the community to consider. She liked the restructured City logo minus the depiction of the indigenous man since the colors were bolder. The color schemes for most of the logos may be a popular color scheme in 2023, but something bolder was preferred and had been depicted in some of the other seals from other cities, such as the City of Martinez, which had a deep blue, and the logos from the cities of Oakley and Walnut Creek which included a deep green. She recommended a bolder color palette.

Council member Martinez-Rubin spoke to the logo that had been considered the favorite which included what appeared to be hills behind the Bay, which should be clarified. She suggested the second most favorite option appeared to be a hat and not a portal. She noted there were people involved in the design committee for the school and if that had been the inspiration for the arches in this logo concept, the arches related to Pinole’s Spanish and European history. As to the logos that included a design of the letter “P,” she was unsure whether the blue circle in that logo concept was depicting the sun, moon or neither.

Council member Martinez-Rubin commented that considering Pinole was a place to live, the logos that depicted houses should be better defined. As to concerns with the appropriateness of some images and depictions in a multicultural society, she found the notion of removing the indigenous person from the original logo to be acceptable. She also found the universal aspect of the logo meant to her that they all shared land and it was not about ownership of the land, who came first or last, or what year, but the land that was there, the hills of Pinole, the Bay and while the creek had not been included, it did lead into the Bay.

Council member Martinez-Rubin commented the idea of having something historic in the logo was noted and “pinole” did originate from the earth from seeds, and she commented that the current seal included seeds between the flowers and something tiny denoting nourishment, food and sustenance such as a seed was important.

Council member Sasai suggested the removal of the indigenous individual from the current logo could be considered an erasure of indigenous persons in Pinole, although he understood that Ms.

Gould was clear that the use of a mascot was not something the Confederated Villages of Lisjan supported and he deferred to them on that matter. He noted the staff report had mentioned an economic development specific logo and having recently traveled to the Philippines, he commented on how it approached economic development and design. One of the cities he had visited next to metro-Manila had an intricate and traditional corporate seal used on official city documentation and an economic development logo, which was more modern and used for engagement in the community and in social media outreach. He referenced the logo for the City of Berkeley which identified and embodied the diversity of the City. The City of Oakland’s logo with trees and roots was timeless and reflected the roots of culture in that community and the people who shaped it. He suggested the City Council should be intentional and engage the community throughout the process.
57 of 565
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – March 21, 2023

Council member Sasai offered a motion to establish an Ad Hoc Committee to collaborate and guide the consultant and appropriate staff on designing a corporate seal and economic development specific logo and branding style guide and bring it back to the City Council and to the community.

Mayor Murphy thanked staff for taking on the project. He was aware that in having current conversations with the public on this issue it would engage people and would include stories that would unfold and be told. He thanked the consultant team for the logo options presented, but commented that he did not particularly care for them. He referenced the background of the land acknowledgement, which had been added to meeting agendas and why that was so important, and he wanted the consultant to be aware of the City’s developing partnership with the Confederated Villages of Lisjan and what that land acknowledgement meant, particularly in a public setting. The land acknowledgement was a commitment to partnership and the beginning of that partnership. He noted the City would not be changing its logo today, there was a continuing partnership with native peoples and the process would evolve. Based on input from the Confederated Villages of Lisjan, the current City logo/seal was offensive, and he wanted people to understand the City was considering changing the logo because it was the right thing to do.

Mayor Murphy was excited about this process and noted that the Strategic Plan included a policy about thinking ahead for the next 10 to 20 years, and this process was overdue and was part of the Communications and Engagement Plan, where the City Council now had the opportunity to think about questions and elements it wanted referenced in the logo, such as nourishment, the green spaces, empathy and inclusion in schools and in the community, which elements must be reflected in the logo’s design and be addressed through the public engagement process.

Mayor Murphy wanted to see the City reach out to Pinole artisans who would be a great partner and as a plan was developed consider more options to center around a new logo concept. Also, the use of the Balancing Act Tool would allow people to prioritize online what was important to them and a module could be set up to identify a logo that would identify the most important elements to include in a City logo. He preferred a logo that would honor the City’s history, but also create an opportunity for the next 20 years, and recommended that the Technology and Communication Subcommittee could address that issue.

Council member Sasai restated his motion to establish an Ad Hoc Committee to collaborate and guide the consultant alongside Corrina Gould and Pinole artisans and appropriate staff to design a corporate seal, economic development specific logo and branding and style guide and bring it back to the City Council and to the community.

On the motion, Council member Tave asked that the public engagement component be included in the motion.

Council member Sasai again restated his motion, seconded by Council member Tave to establish an Ad Hoc Committee to collaborate with and guide the consultant alongside Corrina Gould, Pinole artisans on designing a corporate seal, economic development specific logo and branding and style guide and have a public engagement process in the process of that committee designing logo options to bring back to the City Council and to the community. 58 of 565
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – March 21, 2023

On the motion, Mayor Pro Tem Toms noted that Tripepi Smith was on board to work on the City logo/seal but she understood an economic development logo was different and she asked for clarification from staff.

City Manager Murray advised the City had a different consultant under contract to do the economic development modifications to whatever seal the City Council determined, which was part of the scope of work for the Economic Development Strategy. He recommended the City Council consider whether or not it wanted to have a City seal, a logo and separate economic development logo targeted towards marketing the City of Pinole. The current scope of work in the contract for Tripepi Smith had essentially been completed and if the City Council wanted a consultant to engage on a broader process a contract amendment would be required.

Council member Martinez-Rubin favored community involvement to some degree but the facilitation of the process had to come from other than the community to provide structure and organization. She supported inclusion of the artistry of Pinole artisans, another nonprofit group, which would not be compensated for their time. In terms of equity, the City Council had to consider how best to involve people with a specific set of skills and years of accumulated appreciation for art. She was troubled without a scope of work or a contract to augment since the Council was asking for perhaps further involvement without compensating volunteers.

Mayor Murphy stated his suggestion to involve Pinole artisans was not part of the motion on the table but was a suggestion to staff and the consultant and how that involvement happened was up to the City Council. He recognized that Pinole artisans would have to be contracted and paid for their services if they were engaged in that type of work.

Council member Martinez-Rubin suggested to the extent Pinole artisans were involved they should discuss how they would be involved. She also wanted to know the composition of the establishment of a new Ad Hoc Subcommittee which may have to be brought back for discussion.

Council member Sasai confirmed the composition of an Ad Hoc Subcommittee was not part of his motion but he was willing to learn who on the City Council was interested in serving on such a subcommittee.

Council member Tave understood there was a future agenda item to discuss how the City compensated people for volunteering, which would help encourage organizations to continue to do “free” work, but in the motion as stated, he saw the framework for the subcommittee as being two Council members to come up with a team to include the consultant, reaching out to Pinole artisans, and then consider the use of the Balancing Act Tool and other options. He suggested the subcommittee work with staff to flush out what they envisioned the process to be.

Mayor Pro Tem Toms preferred that the discussion be streamlined to only what was in the current scope of work, which was the City seal. If additional logos happened later with a different consultant on board that was fine. She suggested the Technology and Communication Subcommittee may be the appropriate body to take on this issue.

Council member Tave suggested the conversation should be centered around the City logo since it could be a galvanizing event for the community and if the discussion involved the Technology and Communication Subcommittee, it would be included with other topics. 59 of 565
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – March 21, 2023

Mayor Pro Tem Toms asked whether the motion included the City seal plus the other items.

Council member Sasai clarified that his motion included both the corporate seal and an economic development specific logo, although Mayor Pro Tem Toms commented on the possible confusion with two different consultants and suggested the motion include the City seal only.

Mayor Murphy suggested with the motion staff would manage the scope of work.

On the discussion, City Clerk Bell restated the motion to form an Ad Hoc Subcommittee of two Council members to guide City consultants on the work to update the City seal and logo, develop an economic development logo, branding and style guide, the work should include public engagement and seek input from Corrina Gould and Pinole artisans.

Council member Sasai as the maker of the motion, and Council member Tave as the second, confirmed that the City Clerk’s statement captured the intent.

Further speaking to the motion, City Manager Murray explained that the way the creation of a new Ad Hoc Subcommittee was handled was that it came back as a follow-up agenda item. As such, the motion should be amended to provide direction to staff to come back with a future agenda item to actually establish the Ad Hoc Subcommittee since the establishment of the Ad Hoc Subcommittee was not an agendized item for discussion.

Further discussing the motion and responding to the Mayor regarding the creation of a new Ad Hoc Subcommittee and possibly appointing members to the subcommittee at this time, City Attorney Casher explained the City Council was discussing the City logo broadly and if the motion was to form an Ad Hoc Subcommittee it was informal. If the City Council wanted to identify two Council members who would serve on the subcommittee and then direct the subcommittee to fill in and come up with the composition for the subcommittee that would be appropriate. If there was a discussion of the qualifications and who needed to be included that was a broader and different discussion of the actual subcommittee. The two Council members who would be appointed to the subcommittee could be part of the motion.

City Clerk Bell suggested a separate motion for the nomination process.

ACTION: Motion by Council members Sasai/Tave to form an Ad Hoc Subcommittee of two Council members to guide City consultants on the work to update the City seal and logo, and develop an economic development logo, branding and style guide. The work should include public engagement seeking input from Corrina Gould and Pinole artisans.

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

Absent: None
Mayor Murphy recommended Council members Martinez-Rubin and Sasai serve on the Ad Hoc Subcommittee and he offered a motion seconded by the Mayor Pro Tem for their appointment. 60 of 565
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – March 21, 2023

On the motion and in response to Council member Tave, City Clerk Bell suggested the scope of work was well defined for the Ad Hoc Subcommittee.

ACTION: Motion by Mayor Murphy/Mayor Pro Tem Toms to appoint Council members Martinez-Rubin and Sasai to the Ad Hoc Subcommittee to work on the new City logo concepts.

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

Absent: None
Mayor Murphy thanked staff and the consultant for the presentations. He looked forward to the renewed vision of Pinole.

B. Framework for New Outdoor Dining Regulations [Action: Discuss and Provide Direction (Whalen)]
ACTION: Motion by Council member Martinez-Rubin/Tave to defer Item 12B to the next City Council meeting.

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

Absent: None

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

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

Pursuant to provisions of the Brown Act, no action may be taken on a matter unless it is listed on the agenda, or unless certain emergency or special circumstances exist.

The City Council may direct staff to investigate and/or schedule certain matters for consideration at a future Council meeting.

City Clerk Bell reported there were no comments from the public.

14. ADJOURNMENT to a Special Joint City Council and Planning Commission Meeting of March 28, 2023 in Remembrance of Amber Swartz.

At 10:52 p.m., Mayor Murphy adjourned the meeting to the Special Joint City Council and Planning Commission Meeting of March 28, 2023 in Remembrance of Amber Swartz.

Submitted by:
_________________________________
Heather Bell, CMC
61 of 565
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – March 21, 2023

City Clerk
Approved by City Council:
62 of 565
63 of 565
64 of 565
65 of 565
66 of 565
67 of 565
68 of 565
69 of 565
70 of 565
71 of 565
72 of 565
73 of 565
74 of 565
75 of 565
76 of 565

CITY COUNCIL
REPORT
9C
DATE: APRIL 4, 2023
TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: STACY SHELL, HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO THE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

FOR THE CITY CLERK

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Pinole City Council approve an amendment to the employment agreement for Heather Bell as City Clerk to provide a five percent (5%) merit increase.

BACKGROUND
In March 2019, the City Council appointed Ms. Bell to the position of City Clerk. On March 6, 2019, Ms. Bell and Mayor Murray signed a four-year term employment agreement through March 5, 2023. Ms. Bell commenced her duties as City Clerk on March 6, 2019. The City Council and Ms. Bell have entered into employment agreement amendments to provide cost of living adjustments, merit increases, market rate adjustments, term extensions, and benefit enhancements.

On March 7, 2023, the City Council met with Ms. Bell in closed session to conduct an annual evaluation of her work performance. On March 21, 2023, the City Council met with Ms. Bell in closed session to negotiate the terms of Ms. Bell’s employment agreement. Upon the conclusion of closed session, the City Council provided direction to staff to prepare an amendment to Ms. Bell’s employment agreement to provide a five percent (5%) merit increase.

REVIEW & ANALYSIS
The City of Pinole Municipal Code (PMC), Title II, Administration and Personnel, Chapter 2.05, Office of the City Clerk, Section 2.05.010, Office Created, provides the City Council with the authority to establish the office of the City Clerk and appoint a City Clerk on the basis of their administrative and executive abilities and qualifications and hold office for and during the pleasure of the City Council (City of Pinole Ordinance No. Ord. 2004-13, Section 1, 2004).
77 of 565
April 4, 2023 2
In accordance with PMC, Title II, Chapter 2.05, Section 2.04.030, Compensation and Review, no less frequently than once each year, the City Council shall meet to conduct a review and evaluation of the City Clerk and shall from time to time determine compensation, as reflected in an employment agreement between the City Clerk and the City.

The City Clerk’s employment agreement was made and entered into by and between the City Council and Ms. Bell on March 6, 2019. The City Council and Ms. Bell have entered into employment agreement amendments to provide cost of living adjustments, merit increases, market rate adjustments, term extensions, and benefit enhancements.

At this time, the City Council desires to provide a five percent (5%) merit increase as codified in Exhibit A of the Resolution attached to this City Council report.

FISCAL IMPACT
If approved, the employment agreement amendment will result in increased payroll cost of $8,322. Funding for this increase is already included in the adopted budget for Fiscal Year 2022/2023.

ATTACHMENT(S):

A: Resolution to Authorize an Amendment of the Employment Agreement for the City Clerk
EXHIBIT A: Amendment #1-2023 to the Agreement for Employment of Heather Bell
78 of 565
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-XX

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PINOLE, COUNTY OF

CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE CITY CLERK
WHEREAS, the City Council and Heather Bell entered into an Employment Agreement (“Agreement”) for the position of City Clerk on March 6, 2019; and WHEREAS, Ms. Bell commenced her duties as City Clerk on March 6, 2019; and WHEREAS, the term of the Agreement was for four (4) years; and WHEREAS, the City Council and Ms. Bell have entered into employment agreement amendments to provide cost of living adjustments, merit increases, market rate adjustments, term extensions, and benefit enhancements; and WHEREAS, on March 7, 2023, the City Council met with Ms. Bell in closed session to conduct an evaluation of her performance; and
WHEREAS, on March 21, 2023, the City Council met with Ms. Bell in closed session to negotiate the terms of Ms. Bell’s employment agreement; and WHEREAS, upon the conclusion of closed session, City Council provided direction to staff to prepare an amendment to the Agreement to provide a five percent (5%) merit increase as codified in Exhibit A.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Pinole does hereby approve an amendment to extend the term of the Agreement hereunto attached as Exhibit A and authorize the Mayor to execute the said amendment.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Pinole City Council held on the 4th day of April 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 4th day of April 2023.
______________________________________
Heather Bell, CMC
City Clerk

ATTACHMENT A
79 of 565

AMENDMENT #1-2023 TO THE AGREEMENT FOR EMPLOYMENT OF

HEATHER BELL
This Amendment #1-2023 to the Agreement for the Employment of Heather Bell (the “Amendment”) is made and entered into as of _____________, 2023 by and between the City of Pinole (the “City"), a California general law city, and Heather Bell, an individual ("BELL" or "Employee").

RECITALS
WHEREAS, the City and Employee previously entered into that certain Agreement for the Employment of Heather Bell effective as of March 6, 2019 (the “Agreement”); and
WHEREAS, the City and Employee have previously entered into multiple amendments to the Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the City Council performed an evaluation of Employee on March 21, 2023 and thereafter began negotiating changes to the Agreement.

WHEREAS, the City Council desires to provide employee with five percent (5%) merit increase; and
WHEREAS, the City and Employee now wish to amend the Agreement as specified herein.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein and good and valuable consideration the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the City and BELL agree as follows:

1. Compensation. Section 6(a), Compensation, of the Agreement is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:
“a. BELL shall be paid an annual base salary of $164,818.78 or $13,734.8987 per month, less all applicable federal, state and local withholding. BELL shall be considered for a merit increase annually in conjunction with the completion of her performance evaluation, as outlined in paragraph 11. Merit increases shall subject to the City’s ability to pay for a salary adjustment.”

2. Effective Date. This Amendment shall be effective the pay period commencing March 13, 2023.

3. Effect. Except as expressly provided for herein, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement, as previously amended, shall remain in full force and effect.

EMPLOYEE
Heather Bell

EXHIBIT A
80 of 565

DATED: April ____, 2023
CITY
Devin T. Murphy, Mayor
DATED:

ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Stacy R. Shell Eric S. Casher
Human Resources Director City Attorney
81 of 565

CITY COUNCIL
REPORT
9D
DATE: April 4, 2023
TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: JEREMY ROGERS, COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT FOR SENATE BILL (SB) 691

REGARDING DYSLEXIA RISK SCREENING

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council consider approving a resolution of support for California Senate Bill (SB) 691.

BACKGROUND
At its meeting of March 21, 2023, the City Council approved as a future agenda item a resolution of support for SB 691. The bill (attached) was introduced in February 2023 and would require the State Board of Education to establish an approved list of evidence-based culturally, linguistically, and developmentally appropriate screening instruments to be used by a local educational agency, as defined, to screen pupils for risk of dyslexia, as provided. City staff has drafted a resolution of support (attached) for the City Council’s consideration and action.

FISCAL IMPACT
There would be no direct fiscal impact to the City created by submitting a position resolution on this State legislation.

ATTACHMENTS
A Text of SB 691
B City of Pinole Resolution of Support for SB 691
82 of 565

ATTACHMENT A
Introduced by Senator Portantino
(Principal coauthors: Senators Caballero and Wilk)
(Principal coauthors: Assembly Members Juan Carrillo, Gipson, and Pacheco) (Coauthors: Senators Alvarado-Gil, Cortese, Dahle, Dodd, Limón, Ochoa Bogh, Roth, Stern, Umberg, and Wiener)
(Coauthors: Assembly Members Addis, Arambula, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Berman, Calderon, Connolly, Gallagher, Jackson, Lackey, Low, Mathis, Stephanie Nguyen, PetrieNorris, Luz Rivas, Blanca Rubio, Wallis, and Wilson) February 16, 2023
An act to add Chapter 15.6 (commencing with Section 53009) to Part 28 of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Education Code, relating to instructional programs.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 691, as introduced, Portantino. Dyslexia risk screening.

Existing law requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction to develop program guidelines for dyslexia to be used to assist regular education teachers, special education teachers, and parents to identify and assess pupils with dyslexia, as provided. Existing law requires a pupil who is assessed as being dyslexic and meets specified eligibility criteria to be entitled to special education and related services.

This bill would require, on or before June 30, 2024, the State Board of Education to establish an approved list of evidence-based culturally, linguistically, and developmentally appropriate screening instruments to be used by a local educational agency, as defined, to screen pupils for risk of dyslexia, as provided. The bill would require, commencing with the 2024–25 school year, and annually thereafter, a local educational agency serving pupils in any of the grades kindergarten to grade 2, inclusive, to screen each pupil in those grades for risk of dyslexia by using the screening instrument or instruments identified above, as provided. The bill would require results from the screening, among other things, to be made available to a pupil’s parent or guardian in a timely manner, but no more than 45 calendar days from administering the screening. The bill would require a local educational agency to provide a pupil identified as being at risk of dyslexia with evidence-based literacy instruction, progress monitoring, and early intervention in the regular general education program. By expanding the duties of a local educational agency, the bill would impose a statemandated local program. 83 of 565
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

DIGEST KEY
Vote: majority Appropriation: no Fiscal Committee: yes Local Program: yes

BILL TEXT

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS
FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1.

The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a) Research from multiple scientific studies is unequivocal: early identification and intervention with evidence-based early literacy instructional strategies and materials improves literacy outcomes for students at risk of or with dyslexia and other struggling readers. (b) Dyslexia is the most common learning disability with at least 10 percent of the general population having dyslexia, while some estimate it to be over 15 percent. Unfortunately, hundreds of thousands of California pupils on the dyslexia spectrum struggle every day with reading at grade level, often without the proper identification and support.
(c) Pupils with dyslexia are less likely to graduate high school and attend college, and also experience higher rates of incarceration. In some prisons today, where nearly 80 percent of the inmates are illiterate, almost one-half of the inmates are on the dyslexia spectrum. (d) The lack or delay in screening of struggling readers and pupils at risk of dyslexia results in unnecessary delays in receiving appropriate support and intervention. Due to these delays, the academic gap and learning loss in core content is often very difficult to overcome even after significant cost and interventions.
(e) According to the National Center on Improving Literacy, forty states have passed legislation requiring screening for risk of dyslexia.
(f) By screening all pupils for risk of dyslexia early, California can help families and teachers achieve the best learning and life outcomes for all pupils, close academic achievement gaps, and help end the school-to-prison pipeline.

SEC. 2.

Chapter 15.6 (commencing with Section 53009) is added to Part 28 of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Education Code, to read:

CHAPTER 15.6. Screening for Risk of Dyslexia
53009.
84 of 565
(a) (1) (A) On or before June 30, 2024, the state board shall establish an approved list of evidencebased culturally, linguistically, and developmentally appropriate screening instruments to be used by a local educational agency to screen pupils for risk of dyslexia. The areas to be screened by approved instruments shall include, but not be limited to, all of the following as developmentally and linguistically appropriate:
(i) Phonological and phonemic awareness, including phoneme blending, phoneme segmenting, and phoneme manipulation tasks.
(ii) Sound-symbol recognition and symbol-sound recognition. (iii) Alphabet knowledge.
(iv) Decoding skills, including real and nonsense words. (v) Rapid automatized naming, with letters, digits, objects, or colors. (B) This paragraph does not prohibit the board from periodically adding to the list described in subparagraph (A).
(2) (A) Commencing with the 2024–25 school year, and annually thereafter, a local educational agency serving pupils in any of the grades kindergarten to grade 2, inclusive, shall screen each pupil in kindergarten to grade 2, inclusive, for risk of dyslexia by using a state-approved instrument or instruments with fidelity, as identified in paragraph (1), within 90 calendar days from the start of instruction for the school year, unless objected to in writing by the pupil’s parent or guardian. (B) When screening English learners, factors, including, but not limited to, English language acquisition status, home language, and language of instruction shall be considered. (3) Results from the screening shall be made available to the pupil’s parent or guardian in a timely manner, but no more than 45 calendar days from administering the screening, and shall include information as to how the parent or guardian can access, on the department’s internet website, information about the Multi-Tiered System of Supports, and the California Dyslexia Guidelines developed by the Superintendent pursuant to Section 56335. (4) If a pupil enrolls for the first time in any of the grades kindergarten to grade 2, inclusive, after the screening has been administered pursuant to paragraph (2), the local educational agency shall screen the pupil for risk of dyslexia by using a state-approved instrument or instruments with fidelity, as identified in paragraph (1), within 30 calendar days of enrollment, unless the parent or guardian objects in writing or presents documentation that the pupil had a similar screening in their prior school and the parent or guardian was made aware of the results. (5) Screening pursuant to this subdivision shall not be considered an evaluation to establish eligibility for special education and related services pursuant to the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. Sec. 1400 et seq.), or an evaluation to determine eligibility for a plan pursuant to Section 504 of the federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. Sec. 794). (6) It is the intent of the Legislature that results from the screening pursuant to this subdivision and the California Dyslexia Guidelines developed pursuant to Section 56335 be available for use by teachers and by parents and guardians in order to provide knowledge of the characteristics exhibited by pupils with dyslexia and related learning differences, to provide knowledge of the instructional strategies that can be successfully used with pupils at risk of dyslexia, and to help parents and guardians understand their rights.
85 of 565
(7) A local educational agency shall provide a pupil identified as being at risk of dyslexia pursuant to this subdivision with evidence-based literacy instruction, progress monitoring, and early intervention in the regular general education program. A local educational agency may also provide additional support and referrals, as recommended in the California Dyslexia Guidelines, the English Language Arts/English Language Development Framework, and the California Multi-Tiered System of Supports. Local educational agencies are encouraged to use a structured literacy approach to instruction as recommended by the California Dyslexia Guidelines. (b) For purposes of this section, the following definitions apply:
(1) “Local educational agency” means a school district, county office of education, or charter school. (2) “Screening instrument” means a brief tool administered by an appropriately trained school employee, including, but not limited to, a certificated teacher of record, measuring discrete areas to determine risk of dyslexia and possible need for early intervention.

SEC. 3.

If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code. 86 of 565
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-XX

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PINOLE SUPPORTING CALIFORNIA STATE SENATE BILL NO. 691 (PORTANTINO) – DYSLEXIA RISK

SCREENING
Resolution supporting California State Senate Bill No. 691, introduced by Senate Member Anthony Portantino (SD- 25), which would require the State Board of Education to establish an approved list of evidence-based culturally, linguistically, and developmentally appropriate screening instruments to be used by a local educational agency, as defined, to screen pupils for risk of dyslexia.

WHEREAS, According to The Yale Center for Dyslexia and Creativity, Dyslexia is the most common neurobehavioral disorder in children and young adults, affecting 20% of the population and representing 80-90 percent of all those with learning disabilities; and WHEREAS, Students with Dyslexia are less likely to graduate high school and attend college; and
WHEREAS, Research shows that diagnosis, or the lack of it, in public schools remains a major problem and is a primary contributor to students "fading out". Additionally, having dyslexia, or another learning disability, is still stigmatized and misunderstood in many school districts, and many public schools do not have the resources or knowledge to educate students that require additional accommodations adequately; and WHEREAS, The Dyslexia Research Institute estimates that although 1 in 5 Americans likely has dyslexia, only 5% are diagnosed. Even fewer are diagnosed during their elementary education years. So, by the time students reach high school, they have learned poor coping mechanisms for their dyslexia and struggle in silence, or they continue to struggle academically and incur low self-esteem as a result; and WHEREAS, These combined forces have contributed to a staggering drop-out rate for students with special educational needs; and
WHEREAS, The American Bar Association found nearly 85 percent of all youth involved with juvenile court system was unable to read; and WHEREAS, According to the National Center on Improving Literacy, forty states have passed legislation requiring screening for risk of dyslexia; and WHEREAS, California law does not require early screening of all children to identify children at risk for Dyslexia to enable parents and teachers to be aware of the student's needs as early as possible and provide appropriate instruction; and WHEREAS, Multiple scientific studies demonstrate that early identification and intervention with evidence-based early literacy instructional strategies and materials improves literacy outcomes for students at risk of or with dyslexia and other struggling

ATTACHMENT B
87 of 565
readers; and
WHEREAS, By screening all pupils for risk of dyslexia early, California can help families and teachers achieve the best learning and life outcomes for all pupils, close academic achievement gaps, and help end the school-to-prison pipeline; and WHEREAS, Senate Bill No. 691 (SB 691) would require California local educational agencies serving pupils in any of the grades kindergarten to grade 2 to screen students for risk of Dyslexia in their; and
WHEREAS, SB 691 would require the State Board of Education (SBE) to establish an approved list of evidence-based culturally, linguistically, and developmentally appropriate screening instruments to be used by a local educational agency (LEA) to screen pupils for risk of dyslexia;

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the above recitals are true and correct and made part of this resolution.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED That the City of Pinole, California supports Senate Bill No. 691 that would require all students in California to be screened for risk of Dyslexia in their early elementary years.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pinole held on the 4th day of April 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 4th day of April 2023
____________________________________
Heather Bell, CMC
City Clerk
88 of 565

CITY COUNCIL
REPORT 9E
DATE: APRIL 4, 2023
TO: MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS
FROM: LILLY WHALEN, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: HOUSING SUCCESSOR ANNUAL REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2021-22

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council receive and file the Housing Successor Agency Annual Report for Fiscal Year (“FY”) 2021-22 to submit to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”).

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

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

The report is due to HCD by April 1st each year and must be posted on the City’s website. The report for FY 2021-22 is being presented to the City Council to receive and file with HCD.

REVIEW AND ANALYSIS
The City is meeting all requirements imposed by Health and Safety Code Section 34176.1. The City’s progress on major requirements is summarized below. 89 of 565
City Council Report
Meeting Date: April 4, 2023 2
Housing Asset Fund Activity and Balance
As of June 30, 2022, the Housing Asset Fund had a balance of approximately $7.8 million, of which $5.7 million is cash and the remainder is non-cash assets. Annual revenues totaled $1.7 million. Revenue sources include a note repayment by an affordable housing developer, a Supplemental Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (“SERAF”) loan repayment, and the repayment of first-time homebuyer and residential rehabilitation loans issued by the former Agency.

There were $128,589 in Housing Asset Fund expenditures in FY 2021-22 for administrative items, such as legal and professional services, building maintenance and utilities, housing compliance monitoring, and staff costs for time related to Housing Successor administration. Administrative expenses were within the annual limit set by law.

Of the available cash balance in the Housing Asset Fund, $3.2 million has been committed to Satellite Affordable Housing Associates (“SAHA”) for a 33-unit affordable housing development at 811 San Pablo Avenue, leaving a $2.5 million available cash balance. The City plans to create an affordable housing expenditure policy to provide guidance on how to spend available funds on future affordable housing efforts.

Real Property Assets and Loans Receivables
As of June 30, 2022, the City owned four Housing Successor properties with a value of $1.2 million:
• 811 San Pablo Avenue - The Housing Successor entered into a Disposition and Development Agreement (“DDA”) with SAHA dated July 6, 2021 and amended February 21, 2023 to develop this property with 33 units of housing affordable to extremely low income to low income households. The majority of units will be restricted for veterans by State and Federal funding sources proposed to finance the project. SAHA has secured nearly all required financing and construction is estimated to begin by June 2023 and end in Summer 2024. • Collins House at 612 Tennent Avenue - The Housing Successor approved a Purchase and Sale Agreement (“PSA”) in August 2022 to rehabilitate this property into a four-plex with one low income unit. All sales proceeds will be deposited into the Housing Asset Fund as required by law. • Two properties are restricted as open space and cannot be developed at this time. The first property is adjacent to Pinole Grove Senior Housing on Samuel Street and John Street. The second property is land on which the Faria House resides at 2100 San Pablo Avenue, including a linear park between San Pablo Avenue and Buena Vista Drive.

The Housing Asset Fund has $862,863 in collectable loans receivable from a SERAF loan. The former Agency borrowed money from its affordable housing fund to pay 90 of 565
City Council Report
Meeting Date: April 4, 2023 3
amounts due to the State prior to dissolution. Staff expects the total outstanding balance to be paid off through the Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS) in June 2023.

The Housing Successor also has $4.0 million in outstanding developer loans and $270,760 from outstanding first-time homebuyer and rehabilitation loans made by the former Agency.

Expenditure Proportionality Requirements
Expenditures from the Housing Asset Fund must meet specific proportionality requirements by income level and age:
• Administrative and monitoring expenses have an annual maximum limit, which was $223,400 in FY 2020-21 (the FY 2021-22 limit was not published at the time this report was prepared but is expected to increase). Pinole spent $128,589 on administration and monitoring in FY 2021-22, which is well below the limit.
• Up to $250,000 may be spent annually on homeless prevention and rapid rehousing solutions for homelessness. No Housing Asset Funds have been spent on this category in order to prioritize funding for affordable housing development. According to the County of Contra Costa Continuum of Care Report, 38 Pinole residents lost housing in 2021 (the most recent data available).
• If Housing Asset Funds are spent on housing development projects or programs, specific income levels must be assisted within a five-year compliance period (see Appendix 1 of Attachment B for more details). FY 2021-22 marks the third year of the five-year compliance period of July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2024. Pinole did not spend any Housing Asset Funds on housing development projects or programs in FY 2021-22. Staff will ensure income targets are met with any future expenditures, including any expenditures toward the development of affordable housing at 811 San Pablo Avenue.
• Housing Asset Funds may not assist senior rental housing units if more than 50% of rental housing units assisted by the City or the former Agency in the prior 10 years were restricted to seniors. In the last 10 years, the Housing Successor, former Agency, and City assisted 33 deed-restricted rental units that are not age restricted. The Housing Successor may assist up to 33 senior units to remain in compliance.

The City is meeting all Housing Asset Fund requirements and will continue to ensure compliance with future expenditures, particularly with the future development of 811 San Pablo Avenue.
91 of 565
City Council Report
Meeting Date: April 4, 2023 4
Excess Surplus
Housing successors are subject to the same excess surplus requirement as former redevelopment agencies. Excess surplus is a cash balance that is higher than the greater of $1 million or the sum of all cash deposits to the Housing Asset Fund in the prior four years. Housing successors must spend or encumber any excess surplus within three fiscal years or transfer its excess surplus to HCD to spend on statewide housing programs. The intent of the law is to encourage housing successors to spend available affordable housing funds on a timely basis.

The Housing Successor did not accrue an excess surplus in FY 2021-22. The City intends to spend funds in a timely manner to avoid excess surplus.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact related to receiving and filing this annual report on the City’s activities as the Housing Successor.

ATTACHMENTS
A - Health and Safety Code Section 34176.1
B - Pinole Housing Successor Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2021-22 92 of 565
State of California

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

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

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

AUTHENTICATED

ELECTRONIC LEGAL MATERIAL

ATTACHMENT A
93 of 565
housing search, mediation, or outreach to property owners, credit repair, security or utility deposits, utility payments, rental assistance for a final month at a location, moving cost assistance, and case management, or other appropriate activities for homelessness prevention and rapid rehousing of persons who have become homeless. (3)  (A)  The housing successor shall expend all funds remaining in the Low and Moderate Income Housing Asset Fund after the expenditures allowed pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (2) for the development of housing affordable to and occupied by households earning 80 percent or less of the area median income, with at least 30 percent of these remaining funds expended for the development of rental housing affordable to and occupied by households earning 30 percent or less of the area median income and no more than 20 percent of these remaining funds expended for the development of housing affordable to and occupied by households earning between 60 percent and 80 percent of the area median income. A housing successor shall demonstrate in the annual report described in subdivision (f), for 2019, and every five years thereafter, that the housing successor’s expenditures from January 1, 2014, through the end of the latest fiscal year covered in the report comply with the requirements of this subparagraph.
(B)  If the housing successor fails to comply with the extremely low income requirement in any five-year report, then the housing successor shall ensure that at least 50 percent of these remaining funds expended in each fiscal year following the latest fiscal year following the report are expended for the development of rental housing affordable to, and occupied by, households earning 30 percent or less of the area median income until the housing successor demonstrates compliance with the extremely low income requirement in an annual report described in subdivision (f). (C)  If the housing successor exceeds the expenditure limit for households earning between 60 percent and 80 percent of the area median income in any five-year report, the housing successor shall not expend any of the remaining funds for households earning between 60 percent and 80 percent of the area median income until the housing successor demonstrates compliance with this limit in an annual report described in subdivision (f).
(D)  For purposes of this subdivision, “development” means new construction, acquisition and rehabilitation, substantial rehabilitation as defined in Section 33413, the acquisition of long-term affordability covenants on multifamily units as described in Section 33413, or the preservation of an assisted housing development that is eligible for prepayment or termination or for which within the expiration of rental restrictions is scheduled to occur within five years as those terms are defined in Section 65863.10 of the Government Code. Units described in this subparagraph may be counted towards any outstanding obligations pursuant to Section 33413, provided that the units meet the requirements of that section and are counted as provided in that section.
(b)  Subdivision (b) of Section 33334.4 shall not apply. Instead, if the aggregate number of units of deed-restricted rental housing restricted to seniors and assisted individually or jointly by the housing successor, its former redevelopment agency, and its host jurisdiction within the previous 10 years exceeds 50 percent of the 94 of 565
aggregate number of units of deed-restricted rental housing assisted individually or jointly by the housing successor, its former redevelopment agency, and its host jurisdiction within the same time period, then the housing successor shall not expend these funds to assist additional senior housing units until the housing successor or its host jurisdiction assists, and construction has commenced, a number of units available to all persons, regardless of age, that is equal to 50 percent of the aggregate number of units of deed-restricted rental housing units assisted individually or jointly by the housing successor, its former redevelopment agency, and its host jurisdiction within the time period described above.
(c)  (1)  Program income a housing successor receives shall not be associated with a project area and, notwithstanding subdivision (g) of Section 33334.2, may be expended anywhere within the jurisdiction of the housing successor or transferred pursuant to paragraph (2) without a finding of benefit to a project area. For purposes of this paragraph, “program income” means the sources described in paragraphs (3), (4), and (5) of subdivision (e) of Section 34176 and interest earned on deposits in the account.
(2)  Two or more housing successors within a county, within a single metropolitan statistical area, within 15 miles of each other, or that are in contiguous jurisdictions may enter into an agreement to transfer funds among their respective Low and Moderate Income Housing Asset Funds for the sole purpose of developing transit priority projects as defined in subdivisions (a) and (b) of Section 21155 of the Public Resources Code, permanent supportive housing as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of Section 50675.14, housing for agricultural employees as defined in subdivision (g) of Section 50517.5, or special needs housing as defined in federal or state law or regulation, or for a regional homeless shelter, if all of the following conditions are met:
(A)  Each participating housing successor has made a finding based on substantial evidence, after a public hearing, that the agreement to transfer funds will not cause or exacerbate racial, ethnic, or economic segregation.
(B)  The development to be funded shall not be located in a census tract where more than 50 percent of its population is very low income, unless the development is within one-half mile of a major transit stop or high-quality transit corridor as defined in paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) of Section 21155 of the Public Resources Code. (C)  The completed development shall not result in a reduction in the number of housing units or a reduction in the affordability of housing units on the site where the development is to be built.
(D)  A transferring housing successor shall not have any outstanding obligations pursuant to Section 33413.
(E)  No housing successor may transfer more than one million dollars ($1,000,000) per fiscal year.
(F)  The jurisdictions of the transferring and receiving housing successors each have an adopted housing element that the Department of Housing and Community Development has found pursuant to Section 65585 of the Government Code to be in substantial compliance with the requirements of Article 10.6 (commencing with 95 of 565
Section 65580) of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code and have submitted to the Department of Housing and Community Development the annual progress report required by Section 65400 of the Government Code within the preceding 12 months.
(G)  Transferred funds shall only assist rental units affordable to, and occupied by, households earning 60 percent or less of the area median income. (H)  Transferred funds not encumbered within two years shall be transferred to the Department of Housing and Community Development for expenditure pursuant to the Multifamily Housing Program or the Joe Serna, Jr. Farmworker Housing Grant Program.
(d)  Sections 33334.10 and 33334.12 shall not apply. Instead, if a housing successor has an excess surplus, the housing successor shall encumber the excess surplus for the purposes described in paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) or transfer the funds pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) within three fiscal years. If the housing successor fails to comply with this subdivision, the housing successor, within 90 days of the end of the third fiscal year, shall transfer any excess surplus to the Department of Housing and Community Development for expenditure pursuant to the Multifamily Housing Program or the Joe Serna, Jr. Farmworker Housing Grant Program. For purposes of this subdivision, “excess surplus” shall mean an unencumbered amount in the account that exceeds the greater of one million dollars ($1,000,000) or the aggregate amount deposited into the account during the housing successor’s preceding four fiscal years, whichever is greater.
(e)  Section 33334.16 shall not apply to interests in real property acquired on or after February 1, 2012. With respect to interests in real property acquired by the former redevelopment agency before February 1, 2012, the time periods described in Section 33334.16 shall be deemed to have commenced on the date that the department approved the property as a housing asset.
(f)  Section 33080.1 of this code and Section 12463.3 of the Government Code shall not apply. Instead, the housing successor shall conduct, and shall provide to its governing body, an independent financial audit of the Low and Moderate Income Housing Asset Fund within six months after the end of each fiscal year, which may be included in the independent financial audit of the host jurisdiction. If the housing successor is a city or county, it shall also include in its report pursuant to Section 65400 of the Government Code and post on its Internet Web site all of the following information for the previous fiscal year. If the housing successor is not a city or county, it shall also provide to its governing body and post on its Internet Web site all of the following information for the previous fiscal year:
(1)  The amount the city, county, or city and county received pursuant to subparagraph (A) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) of Section 34191.4. (2)  The amount deposited to the Low and Moderate Income Housing Asset Fund, distinguishing between amounts deposited pursuant to subparagraphs (B) and (C) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) of Section 34191.4, amounts deposited for other items listed on the Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule, and other amounts deposited.
96 of 565
(3)  A statement of the balance in the fund as of the close of the fiscal year, distinguishing any amounts held for items listed on the Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule from other amounts.
(4)  A description of expenditures from the fund by category, including, but not limited to, expenditures (A) for monitoring and preserving the long-term affordability of units subject to affordability restrictions or covenants entered into by the redevelopment agency or the housing successor and administering the activities described in paragraphs (2) and (3) of subdivision (a), (B) for homeless prevention and rapid rehousing services for the development of housing described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (a), and (C) for the development of housing pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a).
(5)  As described in paragraph (1) of subdivision (a), the statutory value of real property owned by the housing successor, the value of loans and grants receivable, and the sum of these two amounts.
(6)  A description of any transfers made pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) in the previous fiscal year and, if still unencumbered, in earlier fiscal years and a description of and status update on any project for which transferred funds have been or will be expended if that project has not yet been placed in service. (7)  A description of any project that the housing successor receives or holds property tax revenue pursuant to the Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule and the status of that project.
(8)  For interests in real property acquired by the former redevelopment agency before February 1, 2012, a status update on compliance with Section 33334.16. For interests in real property acquired on or after February 1, 2012, a status update on the project.
(9)  A description of any outstanding obligations pursuant to Section 33413 that remained to transfer to the housing successor on February 1, 2012, of the housing successor’s progress in meeting those obligations, and of the housing successor’s plans to meet unmet obligations. In addition, the housing successor shall include in the report posted on its Internet Web site the implementation plans of the former redevelopment agency.
(10)  The information required by subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (a).
(11)  The percentage of units of deed-restricted rental housing restricted to seniors and assisted individually or jointly by the housing successor, its former redevelopment agency, and its host jurisdiction within the previous 10 years in relation to the aggregate number of units of deed-restricted rental housing assisted individually or jointly by the housing successor, its former redevelopment agency, and its host jurisdiction within the same time period.
(12)  The amount of any excess surplus, the amount of time that the successor agency has had excess surplus, and the housing successor’s plan for eliminating the excess surplus.
(13)  An inventory of homeownership units assisted by the former redevelopment agency or the housing successor that are subject to covenants or restrictions or to an 97 of 565
adopted program that protects the former redevelopment agency’s investment of moneys from the Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund pursuant to subdivision (f) of Section 33334.3. This inventory shall include all of the following information:
(A)  The number of those units.
(B)  In the first report pursuant to this subdivision, the number of units lost to the portfolio after February 1, 2012, and the reason or reasons for those losses. For all subsequent reports, the number of the units lost to the portfolio in the last fiscal year and the reason for those losses.
(C)  Any funds returned to the housing successor as part of an adopted program that protects the former redevelopment agency’s investment of moneys from the Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund.
(D)  Whether the housing successor has contracted with any outside entity for the management of the units and, if so, the identity of the entity. (Amended by Stats. 2017, Ch. 35, Sec. 1. (AB 346) Effective January 1, 2018.) 98 of 565

HOUSING SUCCESSOR ANNUAL REPORT
City of Pinole
Fiscal Year 2021-22

ATTACHMENT B
99 of 565

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 1 CITY OF PINOLE AS HOUSING SUCCESSOR .................................................................................. 1 SCOPE OF THIS HOUSING SUCCESSOR ANNUAL REPORT ........................................................... 1 ASSETS TRANSFERRED TO THE HOUSING SUCCESSOR .............................................................. 1 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................. 2 LEGAL REQUIREMENTS PERTAINING TO HOUSING SUCCESSORS............................................... 2 PERMITTED USES OF HOUSING ASSET FUNDS ............................................................................. 3 LIMITS ON THE ACCUMULATION OF HOUSING FUNDS (EXCESS SURPLUS)................................. 5 HOUSING ASSET FUND ACTIVITY ................................................................................................... 5 DEPOSITS AND FUND BALANCE ..................................................................................................... 6 EXPENDITURES ............................................................................................................................... 6 ENDING CASH AND FUND BALANCE ............................................................................................... 6 HOUSING SUCCESSOR PORTFOLIO ............................................................................................... 7 COMPLIANCE WITH EXPENDITURE & PRODUCTION LIMITS ........................................................ 10 PROPORTIONALITY REQUIREMENTS ........................................................................................... 10 SENIOR RENTAL HOUSING LIMIT COMPLIANCE........................................................................... 11 EXCESS SURPLUS......................................................................................................................... 12 OTHER INFORMATION ................................................................................................................... 13 HOMEOWNERSHIP UNIT INVENTORY ........................................................................................... 13 TRANSFERS TO OTHER HOUSING SUCCESSORS ........................................................................ 14 APPENDIX 1 – HOUSING ASSET TRANSFER FORM ...................................................................... 15 APPENDIX 2 - HOUSING SUCCESSOR ANNUAL REPORT REQUIREMENTS.................................. 24 APPENDIX 3 – HOUSING ASSET FUND EXPENDITURE REQUIREMENTS ..................................... 25 APPENDIX 4 – FIRST-TIME HOMEBUYER & RESIDENTIAL REHABILITATION LOAN INVENTORY . 27 APPENDIX 5 – PINOLE AFFORDABLE HOUSING INVENTORY ....................................................... 28

100 of 565
Pinole Housing Successor Annual Report 2021-22 1

INTRODUCTION
This Housing Successor Agency Annual Report (“Annual Report”) presents information on Fiscal Year (“FY”) 2021-22 expenditures and activities as required by Health and Safety Code (“HSC”) Section 34176.1(f), including but not limited to a housing successor’s compliance with certain expenditure requirements over the year as well as a five-year planning period. This Annual Report is required of any housing successor to a former redevelopment agency.

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

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

The Housing Successor’s FY 2021-22 audited financial statements have been posted on the City website and are incorporated herein by reference.

SCOPE OF THIS HOUSING SUCCESSOR ANNUAL REPORT
This Annual Report is limited to the City’s activities as it relates to its role as a housing successor. This may include, but is not limited to, financial activities, property disposition, loan administration, monitoring of covenants, and affordable housing development. This Annual Report describes compliance with various annual, five-year, and ten-year housing expenditure and production requirements. FY 2021-22 is the third year of the current five-year compliance period for income proportionality, which begins July 1, 2019 and ends June 30, 2024.

ASSETS TRANSFERRED TO THE HOUSING SUCCESSOR
Upon the statewide dissolution of redevelopment in 2012, all rights, powers, committed assets, liabilities, duties, and obligations associated with the affordable housing activities of the former Agency were transferred to the Housing Successor. As one of its first duties as a housing successor, the Housing Successor prepared and submitted to the California Department of Finance (“DOF”) an inventory of 101 of 565
Pinole Housing Successor Annual Report 2021-22 2
housing assets to be transferred from the former Agency. The inventory was enumerated on a Housing Asset Transfer Form (“HAT”) which included:

1. Real properties;

2. Personal property;

3. Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund encumbrances;

4. Loans/Grants Receivable;

5. Rents/Operations; and

6. Deferrals.

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Housing successors may not accumulate an “excess surplus,” or a high balance based on certain thresholds.
102 of 565
Pinole Housing Successor Annual Report 2021-22 3

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

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

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

According to HCD, the $200,000 limit adjusted for inflation is $223,400 for FY 2020-21. At the time this report was prepared, HCD had not released an administrative limit for FY 2021-22, which will be higher. The Housing Successor will comply with the FY 2021-22 limit since administrative expenses were below $223,400.
• Homeless prevention and rapid rehousing services up to $250,000 per year if the former redevelopment agency did not have any outstanding inclusionary housing or replacement housing production requirements as of 2012. Pinole is eligible for this expense because the former Agency did not have any outstanding inclusionary or replacement housing requirements upon dissolution. • Affordable housing development assisting households earning up to 80 percent of the Area Median Income (“AMI”), subject to specific income and age targets over a five-year period.

Five-Year Income Proportionality on Development Expenditures: Housing Asset Funds may be spent on development of housing projects affordable to low, very low, and extremely low income households. “Development” is defined as “new construction, acquisition and rehabilitation, substantial rehabilitation as defined in HSC Section 33413, the acquisition of long-term affordability covenants on multifamily units as described in HSC Section 33413, or the preservation of an assisted housing development that is 103 of 565
Pinole Housing Successor Annual Report 2021-22 4
eligible for prepayment or termination or for which within the expiration of rental restrictions is scheduled to occur within five years.”
Over each five-year compliance period, at least 30 percent of such development expenditures must assist extremely low income households (30% AMI), while no more than 20 percent may assist low income households (between 60-80%). The balance of the funds may be used on households earning between 30% and 60% of AMI.

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

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

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

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

Ten-Year Age Proportionality on Units Assisted: If more than 50% of the total aggregate number of rental units produced by the city, housing successor, or former redevelopment agency during the past 10 years are restricted to seniors, the housing successor may not spend more Housing Asset Funds on senior rental housing. In the last 104 of 565
Pinole Housing Successor Annual Report 2021-22 5
10 years, the Housing Successor, former Agency, and City assisted 33 deed-restricted rental units that are not age restricted. The Housing Successor may assist up to 33 senior units to remain in compliance. (see Table 4).

Appendix 3 in Attachment 2 describes Housing Asset Fund Expenditure requirements in more detail including the types of costs eligible in each category.

LIMITS ON THE ACCUMULATION OF HOUSING FUNDS (EXCESS

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

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

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

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

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

HOUSING ASSET FUND ACTIVITY
The following section describes the Housing Asset Fund activities in FY 2021-22. 105 of 565
Pinole Housing Successor Annual Report 2021-22 6

DEPOSITS AND FUND BALANCE
The Housing Successor deposited $1,676,410 into the Housing Asset Fund in FY 2021-22, as shown in Figure 1. Revenue sources consist of investment earnings from a note repayment by Bridge Housing, repayments on a Supplemental Education Revenue Augmentation Fund (“SERAF”) loan, and repayment on first-time homebuyer and residential rehabilitation loans issued by the former Agency.

EXPENDITURES
The Housing Successor expended a total of $128,589 during FY 2021-22. All expenditures were for Housing Successor administration including professional services and utilities. The total administrative costs of $128,589 are within the annual limit. The Successor Agency will continue to keep its administrative costs within the limit pursuant to HSC Section 34176.1.

ENDING CASH AND FUND BALANCE
The Housing Asset Fund balance as of June 30, 2022 was $7,747,510, as summarized in Table 2. Of this amount, $5,662,041 was cash.
106 of 565
Pinole Housing Successor Annual Report 2021-22 7

HOUSING SUCCESSOR PORTFOLIO
The Housing Successor Portfolio includes real properties and notes and loans receivable transferred from the former Agency. The Portfolio had a value of $2,084,953 as of FY 2021-22, as detailed in Table

3. 107 of 565
Pinole Housing Successor Annual Report 2021-22 8

REAL PROPERTIES AND DISPOSITION STATUS
The former Agency transferred five properties to the Housing Successor as approved on the HAT:
• Pinole Grove Senior Housing Vacant Land (Samuel Street) – Pursuant to a Development and Disposition Agreement (“DDA”), this property is required to remain vacant as open space for the adjacent Pinole Grove Senior Housing development. The property has a steep slope and cannot be developed, therefore there are no plans for its disposition. • Faria House Vacant Land (2100 San Pablo Avenue) – This 2.3-acre parcel is park land in which the Faria House resides.
• Collins House (612 Tennent Avenue) – The Housing Successor listed this property for sale in September 2020 and approved a Purchase and Sale Agreement (“PSA”) in May 2021; the PSA was terminated in January 2022 due to milestones not being met pursuant to the terms of the 108 of 565
Pinole Housing Successor Annual Report 2021-22 9
PSA. The Housing Successor relisted the property in February 2022 and approved a Purchase and Sale Agreement (“PSA”) with a new buyer in August 2022. The property is in escrow until the buyer obtains building permits to substantially rehabilitate the property into a four-plex that includes one low income unit. All sales proceeds will be deposited into the Housing Asset Fund as required by law.
• Vacant Land (811 San Pablo Avenue) – The Housing Successor entered into a DDA with Satellite Affordable Housing Associates (“SAHA”) dated July 6, 2021, subsequently amended on February 21, 2023, to develop this property with 33 units of housing affordable to extremely low income to low income households. The majority of units will be restricted for veterans by State and Federal funding sources proposed to finance the project. As of January 2023, SAHA has secured nearly all financing needed to begin construction by June 2023. SAHA estimates construction will be complete by July 2024.

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

LOANS RECEIVABLE
The Housing Asset Fund has $862,883 in collectable loans receivable as described below:
• SERAF Loan in the amount of $862,883: Prior to redevelopment dissolution, the former Agency deferred $4,291,575 in Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund set-aside deposits in order to make State-mandated payments into SERAF, a State education fund. The Successor Agency is now responsible for making SERAF loan repayments from Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Funds (“RPTTF”). The outstanding balance as of June 30, 2022 was $862,883. The total outstanding balance is anticipated to be paid off in 2023. 109 of 565
Pinole Housing Successor Annual Report 2021-22 10
• Outstanding Developer Notes in the amount of $3,972,907: The Housing Successor administers three loans made to affordable housing developers by the former Agency. The loans are repaid from residual receipts if the properties have sufficient cash remaining at the end of each operating year. Table 3 reflects an allowance for uncollectable notes to write off the value of these loans in case they are not repaid.
• Outstanding First-Time Homebuyer Loans and Housing Rehabilitation Loans in the amount of $270,760: These loans have different maturity dates ranging from 2022 through 2099. Appendix 4 in Attachment 2 provides an inventory of outstanding loans. Table 3 reflects an allowance for uncollectable loans to write off the value of these loans in case they are not repaid.

COMPLIANCE WITH EXPENDITURE & PRODUCTION LIMITS
During FY 2021-22, the City was in compliance with all annual and five- to ten-year planning period requirements as described in this section.

PROPORTIONALITY REQUIREMENTS
As summarized in Figure 1, the Housing Successor fully complied with all Housing Asset Fund spending restrictions in FY 2021-22:
• The Housing Successor expended $128,589 on administrative expenses which is under the maximum annual limit. At the time this report was written, the FY 2021-22 limit had not been published, but it will be higher than the FY 2020-21 limit of $223,400. • The Housing Successor did not use any Housing Asset Funds for homeless prevention or rapid rehousing expenses, and was therefore in compliance with the $250,000 spending limit. • The Housing Successor did not spend any Housing Asset Funds for affordable housing development-related expenditures in FY 2021-22, which is the second year of the current fiveyear compliance period for income proportionality. The Housing Successor will ensure future development-related expenditures comply with income proportionality requirements. 110 of 565
Pinole Housing Successor Annual Report 2021-22 11

SENIOR RENTAL HOUSING LIMIT COMPLIANCE
Pursuant to HSC Section 34176 (b), Housing Asset Funds may not assist senior rental housing if more than 50% of deed-restricted rental housing units assisted by the former Agency, Housing Successor, or City in the previous ten years are restricted to seniors. Between FY 2012-13 through 2021-22, the Housing Successor, former Agency, and City assisted 33 deed-restricted rental units at 811 San Pablo Avenue that are not age restricted. The Housing Successor may assist up to 33 senior units to remain in compliance. The Housing Successor will ensure that it complies with this requirement moving forward.

111 of 565
Pinole Housing Successor Annual Report 2021-22 12
Table 4 is limited to deed-restricted rental units assisted in the prior ten years (FY 2012-13 to FY 2021- 22).

Appendix 5 in Attachment 2 presents a complete inventory of affordable housing in Pinole that is monitored by the City. Most projects were funded by the former Agency over ten years ago or developed to comply with the City’s inclusionary housing requirements. 811 San Pablo Avenue will be added to the inventory after construction is complete.

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

As shown in Table 5, the Housing Successor did not have an excess surplus in FY 2021-22. The unencumbered beginning cash balance ($2,073,170) was less than the total deposits made in the prior four fiscal years ($3,234,680).
112 of 565
Pinole Housing Successor Annual Report 2021-22 13

OTHER INFORMATION

HOMEOWNERSHIP UNIT INVENTORY
Table 6 presents an inventory of homeownership units assisted by the Housing Successor that require restrictions, covenants, or an adopted program that protects Housing Asset Fund monies. 113 of 565
Pinole Housing Successor Annual Report 2021-22 14

TRANSFERS TO OTHER HOUSING SUCCESSORS
There were no transfers to another housing successor entity for a joint project pursuant to HSC 34176.1(c)(2).
114 of 565
Pinole Housing Successor Annual Report 2021-22 15
APPENDIX 1 – HOUSING ASSET TRANSFER FORM
115 of 565
Pinole Housing Successor Annual Report 2021-22 16
116 of 565
Pinole Housing Successor Annual Report 2021-22 17
117 of 565
Pinole Housing Successor Annual Report 2021-22 18
118 of 565
Pinole Housing Successor Annual Report 2021-22 19
119 of 565
Pinole Housing Successor Annual Report 2021-22 20
120 of 565
Pinole Housing Successor Annual Report 2021-22 21
121 of 565
Pinole Housing Successor Annual Report 2021-22 22
122 of 565
Pinole Housing Successor Annual Report 2021-22 23
123 of 565
Pinole Housing Successor Annual Report 2021-22 24
APPENDIX 2 - HOUSING SUCCESSOR ANNUAL REPORT

REQUIREMENTS
Housing Successor Reporting Requirements
Health and Safety Code Section 34176.1(f)
Housing Asset Fund
Revenues & Expenditures
Other Assets and Active
Projects Obligations & Proportionality
Total amount deposited in the
Housing Asset Fund for the fiscal
year
Amount of deposits funded by a
Recognized Obligation Payment
Schedule (“ROPS”)
Description of any project(s)
funded through the ROPS
Description of any outstanding
production obligations of the
former Agency that were
inherited by the Housing
Successor
Statement of balance at the close
of the fiscal year
Update on property disposition
efforts (note that housing
successors may only hold
property for up to five years,
unless it is already developed
with affordable housing)
Compliance with proportionality
requirements (income group
targets), which must be upheld
on a five-year cycle
Description of Expenditures for
the fiscal year, broken out as
follows:
• Homeless prevention and
rapid rehousing
• Administrative and
monitoring
• Housing development
expenses by income level
assisted
Other “portfolio” balances,
including:
• Statutory value of any
real property either
transferred from the
former Agency or
purchased by the
Housing Asset Fund
• Value of loans and
grants receivable
Percentage of deed-restricted
rental housing restricted to
seniors and assisted by the
former Agency, the Housing
Successor, or the City within the
past ten years compared to the
total number of units assisted by
any of those three agencies
Description of any transfers to
another housing successor for a
joint project
Inventory of homeownership
units assisted by the former
Agency or the housing
successor that are subject to
covenants or restrictions or to
an adopted program that
protects the former Agency’s
investment of monies from the
Low and Moderate Income
Housing Fund
Amount of any excess surplus,
and, if any, the plan for
eliminating it
124 of 565
Pinole Housing Successor Annual Report 2021-22 25
APPENDIX 3 – HOUSING ASSET FUND EXPENDITURE

REQUIREMENTS
Housing Asset Fund Expenditure Requirements
Health and Safety Code Section 34176.1
Expense
Category Limits Allowable Uses
Administration
and
Compliance
Monitoring
$223,400
maximum for
FY 2020-21
(limit
increases
each year; FY
2021-22 limit
was not
published at
the time this
report was
prepared)
Administrative activities such as:
• Professional services (consultant fees, auditor fees, etc.) • Staff salaries, benefits, and overhead for time spent on Housing Successor administration
• Compliance monitoring to ensure compliance with affordable housing and loan agreements
• Property maintenance at Housing Successor-owned
properties
Capped at $200,000 adjusted annually for inflation or 5% of the statutory value of real property owned by the housing successor and the value of loans and grants receivable from the HAT (“Portfolio”), whichever is greater.

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

Affordable
Housing
Development
No spending
limit, but must
comply with
income and
age targets
“Development” includes:
• New construction
• Acquisition and rehabilitation
• Substantial rehabilitation
• Acquisition of long-term affordability covenants on multifamily units
• Preservation of at-risk units whose affordable rent restrictions would otherwise expire over the next five years
125 of 565
Pinole Housing Successor Annual Report 2021-22 26
Housing Asset Fund Expenditure Requirements
Health and Safety Code Section 34176.1
Expense
Category Limits Allowable Uses
Income
Targets
Every five years (currently FYE 2020-2024), Housing Asset Funds must meet income targets:
• At least 30% on extremely low income rental households (up to 30% AMI or “Area Median Income”)
• No more than 20% on low income households (60-80% AMI) Moderate and above moderate income households may not be assisted (above 80% AMI).

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

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

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

If a housing successor fails to comply, Housing Asset Funds may not be spent on deed-restricted rental housing restricted to seniors until in compliance.
126 of 565
Pinole Housing Successor Annual Report 2021-22 27
APPENDIX 4 – FIRST-TIME HOMEBUYER AND RESIDENTIAL

REHABILITATION LOAN INVENTORY
127 of 565
Pinole Housing Successor Annual Report 2021-22 28
APPENDIX 5 – PINOLE AFFORDABLE HOUSING INVENTORY
128 of 565

CITY COUNCIL
REPORT
9F
DATE: APRIL 4, 2023
TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: JOE BINGAMAN, PUBLIC WORKS MANAGER

SANJAY MISHRA, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR

JEREMY ROGERS, COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: CITY PARK MAINTENANCE

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council receive information on the City’s regularly scheduled park maintenance activities.

BACKGROUND
The City Council approved a future Council agenda item of an update on City Park maintenance activities.

The City of Pinole (“City”) covers a land area of approximately 12 square miles with a population of 19,000 residents based on 2020 census data. The City serves its residents with approximately 120 employees in 10 departments.

The City has 15 parks and several other facilities that fulfill recreational needs of the residents of Pinole. The Public Works Department provides the maintenance, repair, and upkeep of City parks in two ways. The Public Works (“PW”) team provides infrastructure maintenance and repair to all park facilities. PW contracts with Pacific Site Management for landscape and support services for all park facilities. Currently the PW team has a staff of 6 maintenance workers (including two maintenance supervisors) that service the general maintenance needs of parks, facilities, streets, signs, streetlights, pavement marking, vegetation management (includes tree trimming), and fleet maintenance. The number of maintenance workers was reduced from the staffing levels in 2012 to 5 maintenance workers prior to the approval of one maintenance supervisor and one maintenance worker in 2021 by the City Council. The Public Works Department is in the process of recruiting a maintenance worker position to be fully staffed as approved by the City Council.
129 of 565
City Council Report
April 4, 2023
2 The following table provides an approximate area of each City park:

Sl. No. Name of Park Area (in acres)

1. Amber Swartz Park 4

2. Bayfront Park 2

3. Canyon Drive Park 0.5

4. Fernandez Park 6

5. Dog Park* See note

6. Louis Francis Park 2

7. Hugh Young Open Space** 10

8. Meadow Park 1.5

9. Pinole Valley Park 231

10. Pinole Valley Picnic Grove* See note

11. Pinon Park .5

12. Sarah Drive Park 4

13. Tennis Courts .5

14. View Park 2

15. Wilson Point Park 10
*The Dog Park and Pinole Valley Picnic Grove (Adobe Grove) are included in the acreage of Pinole Valley Park.
**While listed as a park on the City’s website, Hugh Young is an unmaintained open space area.

The City also owns 393 acres unmaintained open space. These open spaces includes Eucalyptus grove area (near Senior Housing complex), Open Space area adjacent to Pinon and Primose lane and other locations within the city limits.

REVIEW & ANALYSIS
The City offers several amenities at the park properties throughout the City and these amenities, as well as the park infrastructure, are maintained on a regular basis. Listed below are the maintenance functions performed by the PW team.

RESTROOM CLEANING
Restrooms are located at 5 Park facilities i.e., Bayfront Park, Fernandez Park, Tennis Courts, Pinole Valley Park, and Dog Park.

All the above park restrooms are cleaned and stocked once daily. During the week, Monday thru Friday, the PW team services the restrooms. Trash is collected from the receptacles at the restroom when serviced. The Public Works team does a complete cleaning of all the park restrooms Monday and Friday and completes a daily sanitizing throughout the rest of the week and cleans as needed. Pacific Site Maintenance restocks and sanitizes all the park restrooms Saturday and Sunday. 130 of 565
City Council Report
April 4, 2023
3 Facility repair and maintenance for the restrooms are done on an as needed basis.

Repairs are done either by the PW team identifying a need or when PW receives a service request from the public.

The restrooms at all parks are equipped with an automated locking system that lock and unlock the doors following the Park schedule as directed by the City Council.

PLAY STRUCTURE MAINTENANCE
Play Structures are located at 7 Park facilities i.e., Canyon Drive Park, Fernandez Park, Louis Francis Park, Meadow Park, Pinole Valley Park, Pinon Park, and Tiny Tots.

Tiny Tots play structure is for the use of the Tiny Tots program and is not generally open to public use. The PW team maintains this play structure as well.

Play structures are inspected once a month to ensure safe use of the play structures.

Repairs and maintenance for the play structures are done on an as needed basis either being identified by the PW team as needing service or by a service request from the public.

Five play structures currently have the wood chip play surfaces and wood chips are stocked on as needed basis, typically once a year. Two play surfaces are rubberized surfaces. The rubberized play surface at the Pinole Valley Park play structure was replaced January 2023. The play surface for the Tot Lot at Fernandez Park is currently being replaced. The play surface for the large play structure at Fernandez Park is scheduled for replacement Spring of 2023. This play surface will be upgraded from the wood chip play surface to the rubberized poured in place play surface.

MOWING
Mowing of the sports field turf is performed once a week during the Spring, Summer, and Fall, typically April thru October. Mowing of the of the sports fields is performed once every three weeks or needed during the late Fall, Winter, and Early Spring, typically October thru April. Mowing of the recreational turf in the park is performed by Pacific Site Maintenance once every two weeks year round.

TRASH CAN EMPTYING
Trash cans in all of the parks are emptied by the Public Works team every Monday and Friday. Trash cans are emptied through out the rest of the week on an as needed basis.

Repairs to the trash cans are completed as the Public Works team does the regular 131 of 565
City Council Report
April 4, 2023
4 servicing of the trash cans. Pacific Site Maintenance empties the trash cans around the restroom areas Saturday and Sunday when they service the restrooms.

IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE
The PW team repairs and maintains irrigation infrastructure for all parks including the sports fields and the recreational areas. Irrigation to the parks is monitored closely and the irrigation systems are turned off during the winter months. Typically, the irrigation systems are in use from April until October (weather dependent) and are shut down the rest of the year. Irrigation is typically checked daily during the warmer months to ensure the reduction of leaks and breaks to conserve water usage.

VEGETATION MANGEMENT
The PW department has an extensive vegetation management program. This program consists of an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) system to maintain vegetation in the park locations and throughout the City. A combination of mechanical, biological, and chemical treatments is used to abate weeds and undesirable vegetation. Mechanical methods include mowers, weed trimmer, and hand tools. Biological methods include the use of native plant species where appropriate. Chemical methods include herbicides and fertilizers. All chemical methods are thoroughly inspected and reviewed by the Contra Costa County Agricultural department to ensure appropriate use, handling, and relevance to the City’s vegetation management program. All PW team members that handle pesticides are completely trained. Vegetation management is performed year-round and as needed. Tree trimming is performed when the PW team identifies a need or PW receives a request from the public.

LANDSCAPING MAINTENANCE
To assist the PW team in the maintenance of the parks, Pacific Site Management performs the landscape maintenance in all parks as well as in the public parking area, City facilities, and street medians. Pacific will trim brush and bushes, mow recreational lawn areas, and replace plants in general planters as needed. Pacific Site will notify PW if infrastructure repair is needed.

SPORTS FIELDS MAINTENANCE
There are six sports fields for the residents of Pinole i.e., Fernandez Park Baseball Field, Pinole Valley Park Baseball Field, Pinole Valley Park Soccer Field (Simas Avenue), Pinole Valley Park Soccer Field (Wright Avenue), Tennis Courts, and Skate Park at Pinole Valley Park.
132 of 565
City Council Report
April 4, 2023
5 The turf section of the sports fields is mowed once a week from April to October and once every three weeks or as needed from October to April. The fields are also aerated, fertilized, and over seeded twice a year, typically April and October. The aerating, fertilizing, and overseeding was suspended in fall of 2020 due to COVID but was resumed fall 2022. In addition to the turf maintenance, the PW team regularly maintains the irrigation systems for the sports fields.

The Tennis Court is maintained on an as needed basis either by observed needs from the PW or by receiving service requests from the public. The Tennis Court has four light structures that are also maintained by the PW.

The Skate Park is maintained on an as needed basis either by observed needs from the Public Works team or by receiving service requests from the public.

PINOLE CREEK TRAIL MAINTENANCE
Pinole Creek Trail is located along Pinole Creek from I-80 to Railroad Avenue. This twomile trail is maintained by the Public Works team. The weeds are abated in the spring and early summer and the walking path is maintained on an as needed basis. Tree trimming is conducted on an as needed basis. The lights that are along the path from Plum Street to Railroad Avenue are repaired on an as needed basis.

SWIM CENTER
The Pinole Swim Center is located at 2450 Simas Avenue. The Swim Center is serviced by the PW team and Shipley Pool Services. PW team inspects the facility twice a week and are responsible for maintenance and repair work. Maintenance and repair including plumbing, light fixtures etc. are done on an as needed basis. Shipley Pool provides pool maintenance services. Shipley Pool Service maintains the pool daily during summer operation typically April through October and service once a week from October to April.

Pool maintenance services include daily chemical readings, adjustment of chemicals as needed, filter cleaning and replacement, vacuuming and debris removal from the pool, equipment replacement in discussion with PW, minor repairs to automated chemical pumps and other pool equipment.

MISCELLANEOUS AMENITIES
There are several amenities i.e., Picnic Tables, BBQ Pits, Drinking Fountains, Trash Cans, Dog Waste Bag Dispensers, Gazebo, and Horseshoe Pits located at several of the Park properties. Not all these amenities are available at all of the Parks. These items are 133 of 565
City Council Report
April 4, 2023
6 repaired and maintained on an as needed basis. The PW team empties all trash cans and stocks dog waste bags throughout the parks on Monday and Friday.

GRAFITTI
There are numerous instances of graffiti at all park locations. Most of the time the PW team removes or covers the graffiti before receiving reports from the public. PW team responds to reports of graffiti from the public as soon as possible.

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

ATTACHMENTS
None
134 of 565

CITY COUNCIL
REPORT
10A
DATE: APRIL 4, 2023
TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: LILLY WHALEN, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT ADOPTION

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a Resolution approving the City of Pinole 6th Cycle 2023-2031 Housing Element and the Notice of Exemption (Attachment A) Staff also recommends the City Council authorizes the City Manager to make technical modifications, refinements, and clarifications (including but not limited to implementation details of the proposed housing plan programs) to the Housing Element Update without requiring a subsequent hearing and re-adoption; new goals, policies or programs would require re-adoption.

BACKGROUND
A General Plan is a legally required policy document for all jurisdictions in California and contains the community’s vision for future growth. California State Law requires each jurisdiction to address seven mandated topics in the General Plan: Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Conservation, Open Space, Noise, and Safety. In Contra Costa County, all jurisdictions are also required to address Growth Management. Cities and counties that have identified disadvantaged communities must also address environmental justice in their General Plans, including air quality. General Plans are organized by topic in what are called “elements.” There is no requirement that a general plan be organized into separate elements; a jurisdiction may organize its General Plan in any format, including consolidated elements, so long as all the relevant statutory issues are addressed, and the document is internally consistent.

The Housing Element, Health and Safety Element, and Environmental Justice Element are three mandatory elements of the General Plan that must be addressed in Pinole, as required by State Law. The Housing Element is required to be updated every eight years per State Law and the Health and Safety Element is often updated with the Housing 135 of 565
2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption
April 4, 2023 2
Element as land use information is updated. State Law also requires that cities create an Environmental Justice Element when two or more other General Plan elements are updated.

The following provides a brief overview of the process followed to update the Housing Element to date:
• On March 22, 2022, the City Council received an introduction to the Land Use Planning for Pinole process, which includes an update to the Housing Element as well as the existing Health and Safety Element and a new Environmental Justice Element.
• A multilingual (English, Tagalog, Cantonese, and Spanish) online community survey was released and heavily promoted through email list notification, project website, flyers, postcards, social media posts, banners, stakeholder interviews, and community workshops. 149 community members took the survey. • On May 11, 2022, the first community workshop was held. • On June 9, 2022, the second community workshop was held. • On June 30, 2022, a focus group interview was held with Friends of the Pinole Creek Watershed, Pinole Valley Community Church, and a property management company.
• On July 13, 2022, the City Council and Planning Commission held a special joint meeting to receive a comprehensive status update of the project. • On July 25 and 26, 2022, stakeholder interviews with the Pinole Rotary Club and the Contra Costa Association of Realtors were held to gather input regarding issues the community faces and recommendations to alleviate the identified housing issues.
• On October 17, 2022, the first draft of the Housing Element was released for public review and comment.
• On October 24, 2022, the Planning Commission reviewed the draft Housing Element, with a focus on the programs and policies in addition to the opportunity sites and provided feedback and recommendations to the City Council. 136 of 565
2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption
April 4, 2023 3
• On November 15, 2022, the City Council reviewed the draft Housing Element with the focus on the programs and policies, in addition to the opportunity sites, and recommendations presented by the Planning Commission for enhancement of the Housing Element.
• The Council authorized staff to submit the revised draft Housing Element to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). • On December 2, 2022, Staff submitted the revised draft Housing Element to HCD for their 90-day review.
• On December 12, 2022, the Planning Commission reviewed the revised draft Housing Element.
• On January 17, 2023, the City Council reviewed and adopted the Housing Element.
• On January 30, 2023, Staff received preliminary comments from HCD in the form of a meeting with the Housing Element’s reviewer.
• On February 17, 2023, a revised draft addressing the preliminary review comments was published.
• On March 2, 2023, Staff received a formal comment letter from HCD containing suggested revisions.
• On March 24, 2023, the revised Housing Element addressing all preliminary and formal review comments was published for public review. • On March 27, 2023, the Planning Commission reviewed the revised draft Housing Element (Attachment A, Exhibit A) including recommended changes from HCD and recommended no further changes to the revised draft Housing Element and adopted Resolution 23-01 with Exhibits A and B (Attachment B) recommending the City Council approve the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update.

DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
The 2023-2031 Housing Element has been revised and is scheduled for possible adoption by the City Council on April 4, 2023. The Planning Commission is requested to 137 of 565
2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption
April 4, 2023 4
provide a recommendation to the City Council on the adoption of the revised 2023-2031 Housing Element (Attachment A, Exhibit A).

The 2023-2031 Housing Element was submitted to HCD on December 2, 2022, with a request for an expedited review. Pursuant to State law, HCD must provide a formal review letter within 90 days of receipt of the Housing Element (March 2, 2023). Staff and the consultant received preliminary informal comments from HCD in the form of a meeting with the Housing Element’s reviewer on January 30, 2023, and the City received written formal comments on March 2, 2023. The Housing Element has been revised to address preliminary and formal comments received (Attachment A, Exhibit A).

From preliminary, informal comments received following a meeting with the HCD Housing Element reviewer on January 30, 2023, Staff received comments regarding additional analysis, details, clarifications, and documentation. Draft revisions to the 2023-2031 Housing Element were initiated based on these comments. A summary of preliminary comments and the response to comments can be found in Attachment C beginning on page 7, under the heading “Informal Comments from Meeting with HCD on January 30, 2023 - Resolved with Interim Draft dated February 17, 2023”. An interim draft revised Housing Element was prepared and submitted to HCD as an additional reference for their consideration, along with a summary of responses, on February 17, 2023.

From written formal comments received on March 2, 2023, Staff conducted further changes to complete all revisions and prepare the revised 2023-2031 Housing Element.

The comment letter is included as Attachment D. The comments and revisions are summarized below by topic below in Table 1, with the complete comment and revision notes found in Attachment C beginning on page 1 under the heading “Response to HCD Letter dated March 2. 2023”.

Table 1. Summary of HCD Comments from HCD Letter and Revisions Topic Comment
Summary
Revision
Summary
1 Housing Costs Supplement
census data with
other sources for
estimated rent
Included
additional local
average rent data
138 of 565
2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption
April 4, 2023 5
Topic Comment
Summary
Revision
Summary
2 Disproportionate
Housing Needs,
Including
Displacement
Risk
Evaluate needs,
impacts,
patterns, and
areas of
concentration for
persons
experiencing
homelessness.

Discuss any
areas of
potentially higher
needs of
rehabilitation and
replacement.

Added local
knowledge and
information from
code
enforcement and
police. Updated
homelessness
point in time
count.
3 Local
Knowledge and
Data
Discuss unique
attributes about
the City related to
fair housing
issues. Utilize
knowledge from
local sources.

Analyze history
of exclusionary
zoning and
patterns of
segregation.

Added local data
and knowledge,
including
information from
code
enforcement,
police, BayREN,
developers, local
real estate
professionals,
and surveys.
4 Affirmatively
Furthering Fair
Housing (AFFH)
and Sites
Inventory
Analyze sites
contribution or
mitigation of fair
housing issues
Added
information
showing no
significant,
pervasive pattern
of segregation
that could be
exacerbated by
site selection or
location. Cited
programs to
promote housing
mobility and
options.
139 of 565
2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption
April 4, 2023 6
Topic Comment
Summary
Revision
Summary
5 Contributing
Factors to Fair
Housing Issues
Based on
outcome of
analysis,
reassess, and
prioritize factors
contributing to
fair housing
issues.

Re-prioritized
contributing
factors, including
moving access to
opportunities
from Moderate
priority to High.

Updated program
list to include SB
9 program to
promote housing
mobility.
6 Progress toward
RHNA
Demonstrate
affordability of
units and utilize
rents, sales
prices, or other
mechanisms
ensuring
affordability.

Provided
clarification on
requirements for
affordability deedrestriction on
pending projects.
7 Suitability of
Non-Vacant
Sites
Analyze extent
existing uses
may impede
additional
residential
development.

Consider
indicators such
as age and
condition of the
existing
structure,
allowable floor
area,
improvement to
land value ratio,
and acreage.

Consider recent
trends or other
information.

Expanded nonvacant sites
analysis to
include year built,
acreage, land
improvement
ratio, max
density.

Comparison of
non-vacant sites
with similarities in
recent
developments.
140 of 565
2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption
April 4, 2023 7
Topic Comment
Summary
Revision
Summary
8 Zoning for a
Variety of
Housing
Types
Emergency
Shelters. If
applicable,
address new
state
requirements on
emergency
shelters.

Clarified
compliance.
9 Zoning for a
Variety of
Housing
Types
Supportive
Housing. Shall be
a use by-right in
zones where
multifamily and
mixed uses are
permitted.

Clarified
compliance.
10 Electronic Sites
Inventory
Submit electronic
sites inventory.

Electronic sites
inventory
submitted.
11 Land Use
Controls
Analyze land use
controls impacts
as potential
constraints and
evaluate
cumulative
impacts on cost
and supply of
housing and
achieving
density. Analyze
height and
setback.

Include
information
showing max
density have
been met and
exceeded under
existing
development
standards.

Analysis includes
height and
setbacks.
141 of 565
2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption
April 4, 2023 8
Topic Comment
Summary
Revision
Summary
12 Parking
Requirements
Analyze
multifamily
parking
requirements as
a potential
constraint and
include a
program to
address
identified
constraints.

Added a cost
estimate per
parking space.

Added a
commitment to
Program 12 to do
one of more of the
following: remove
or reduce guest
parking, remove
covered parking
requirements,
allow tandem
parking, and
reduce minimum
parking
requirements.
13 Building Codes Identify any local
amendments and
analyze impacts
on cost.

Expanded
discussion to
include analysis
of local
amendments
14 Housing for
Persons with
Disabilities
Analyze
definition of
family. Analyze
any exclusion of
group homes
from residential
zones and permit
procedures that
may be a
constraint.

Added analysis
on group homes.
142 of 565
2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption
April 4, 2023 9
Topic Comment
Summary
Revision
Summary
15 Processing and
Permit
Procedures
Describe and
analyze permit
processing
procedures as
potential
constraints.

Discuss
discretionary vs
ministerial.

Analyze whether
design review
processes used
to reduce or deny
units. Analyze
single family
multifamily
processing time.

Add permit
process outline
and examples,
including
timelines. Added
discussion on
design review
and identified no
reduction in units.
16 Approval Time
and Requests for
Lesser Densities
Address
developing at
densities below
anticipated in the
sites inventory
and approval
timing.

Added analysis
describing sites
as being
developed at
higher densities
or with greater
unit yield.
17 Housing
Programs
Include a
complete site
analysis and
establish
adequacy of
sites.

Revised to
include a
complete sites
analysis.

Revisions to
inventory include
clarification on
deed restrictions
to enforce
affordability term
of units and
adding
development
trends and recent
development to
establish viability
of sites.
143 of 565
2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption
April 4, 2023 10
Topic Comment
Summary
Revision
Summary
18 Housing
Programs:

Assist in
Development
Programs
Include a
program with
actions and
timelines to
assist in housing
development for
moderate income
and below and
for special needs.

Modified program
9 to include more
specific actions
and timelines.

Actions include
developing asset
fund policy that
prioritizes
extremely low
income and
special
needs/disabilities;
and developing a
fee waiver
program for home
improvements for
age-qualified,
income-qualified,
and special
needs/disability
households; and
reducing parking
standards for
extremely lowincome
developments.
19 Housing
Programs
Include a
complete
analysis of
potential
governmental
and
nongovernmental
constraints.

Revised to
include analysis
on meeting
density under
existing
standards, an
outline of
permitting
process, project
timelines,
development
yield, and parking
standards
modifications.
144 of 565
2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption
April 4, 2023 11
Topic Comment
Summary
Revision
Summary
20 Housing
Programs
Include complete
assessment of
fair housing and
be reflected in
goals and
actions.

Revised to
include complete
analysis of fair
housing, with
revisions and
additions
including spatial
analysis of
homelessness
and local data,
spatial analysis of
standard housing,
local data on
BayREN program
participation, and
additional
analysis on
RHNA sites not
exacerbating fair
housing
conditions.
21 Housing
Programs: ADU
Programs
Include timeline
on when and how
ADU outreach
will occur.

Added that City
will provide
information on
ADU, JADU, and
SB9 opportunities
at no less than 2
events annually.
145 of 565
2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption
April 4, 2023 12
Topic Comment
Summary
Revision
Summary
22 Public
Participation
Describe efforts
to circulate
housing element
to lower and
moderateincome
households and
organizations.

Summarize and
describe
consideration
and
incorporation.

Expanded text to
include outreach
to developers
(including
affordable
housing
developers) and
to discuss efforts
to reach lower
and moderateincome
individuals, as
well as including
Programs for
continued
outreach.

Housing Element
Programs
To respond to HCD comments,
several Programs have received
redlined modifications and additions.

One new Program was added for SB
9 Technical Assistance and
Facilitation. Please see Attachment
A, Exhibit A (revised 2023-2031
Housing Element) and refer to
“Housing Goals, Policies, and
Programs”, starting on page 231, for
the full text.

PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION
The Planning Commission at its regular meeting on March 27, 2023, reviewed all changes listed above in Table 1. Staff highlighted how recommendations are or can be addressed in several ways, including 1) in the revised Draft Housing Element content, 2) through required implementation of Statutory provisions (i.e., following State law requirements that must be implemented), and 3) through potential future considerations that can be explored separately from the Housing Element as ways to provide more robust options to promote housing to further support the Housing Element.

The Planning Commission held a robust discussion regarding the revised Element at their March 27, 2023, meeting A focus of the discussion was related to between the highest 146 of 565
2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption
April 4, 2023 13
and lowest fair housing scores for environment quality, and economic and educational opportunity. In response to comments received during the Planning Commission hearing, the summary of the series of fair housing maps and the component scores and composite rankings behind them was revised to be more direct. The point of the narrative remains the same – that Pinole is diverse and integrated, and there are only relatively small differences between the highest and lowest fair housing scores for environment quality, and economic and educational opportunity. The actual scores indicate that the differences between areas of Pinole are small and not as different as the State produced maps suggest. After the discussion, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 23-01 (Attachment B) recommending to the City Council approve the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update. A component of the recommendation was for staff to consider the discussion related to the and suggest revisions to the Council as appropriate. Staff has made additional redline changes to the revised Housing Element to address fair housing scores for environment quality, and economic and educational opportunity These changes are shown as redlines starting on page 164 of the revised Element in Attachment A, Exhibit A.

PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
Outreach for the Housing Element update began in March 2022. This involved engaging community members, stakeholders, and the City Council in identification of housing/health/safety/environmental justice issues. Translation of the survey and community workshops was provided in Spanish, Tagalog, and Cantonese, as well as outreach materials. To spread the word about the project, the City posted banners around the community, mailed postcards to residents, and placed notices and announcements on Pinole TV and social media accounts. These outreach materials contained QR codes to the project website and community surveys. The aforementioned project website, www.LandUsePlanningForPinole.com, hosts information about the project, the schedule, survey, and recordings of past engagement activities. Interested parties may contact the consultant team for additional information or to request placement on the project notification list by emailing [email protected]

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) provides Statutory Exemptions for certain types of projects exempt from expanded environmental review pursuant to CEQA.

The 6th Cycle update to the City of Pinole Housing Element qualifies for a “common sense exemption,” as provided by CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). Updates to the City of Pinole Housing Element include identification of sites and the adoption of goals, policies, and programs to meet the City’s RHNA and provide opportunities for affordable 147 of 565
2023-2031 Housing Element Adoption
April 4, 2023 14
housing within the City. The project does not provide entitlements to land use development projects, nor does it propose development of the identified RHNA sites that could have an effect on the environment. Future development proposals on RHNA sites identified during this planning cycle would be subject to environmental review pursuant to the provisions of CEQA, as appropriate. For these reasons, it can be seen with certainty that there is no potential for the Housing Element to have a significant effect on the environment. The exemption is included as Attachment A – Exhibit B of this report.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with receiving this report.

ATTACHMENTS
A. Resolution
Exhibit A – Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element
Exhibit B – Notice of Exemption
B. Planning Commission Resolution No. 23-01
C. Response Matrix
D. HCD Comment Letter dated March 2, 2023
148 of 565
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PINOLE APPROVING THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 22-01 FOR THE ADOPTION OF THE 2023-2031 HOUSING

ELEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE CEQA EXEMPTION PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15061 (b)(3) FOR THE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT WHEREAS, California Government Code Sections 65580-65589.8 require amendment of the City’s current General Plan Housing Element to address the assigned housing needs of current and future City residents; and
WHEREAS, the City of Pinole’s share of regional housing need is established by the Association of Bay Area Governments (“ABAG”) and this period’s related Regional Housing Needs Allocation (“RHNA”) was adopted by ABAG in December 2021; and WHEREAS, ABAG determined that Pinole’s fair share of the RHNA for the period between 2023 and 2031 is a total of 500 units in the following housing affordability income categories: 121 very low income units, 69 low income units, 87 moderate income units, and 223 above moderate income units; and
WHEREAS, from March through July 2022 the City conducted extensive public outreach, which included creating a housing element update website, posting a multilingual survey, conducting a focus group, stakeholder interviews, and two virtual community workshops, and advertisements of engagement opportunities and information through social media, email, notifications in the City’s bi-weekly reports, mailed postcards, flyers, community TV advertisements, and banners posted throughout the city; and WHEREAS, on July 13, 2022, the City Council and Planning Commission held a special joint meeting to receive a comprehensive status update of the project; and WHEREAS, on October 17, 2022, the public review draft of the Housing Element was released for public review and comment, with a digital copy available through the City’s webpage, which links to the dedicated General Plan Update, and a hardcopy available at City Hall; and WHEREAS, on October 24, 2022, the Planning Commission reviewed the public review draft Housing Element and provided feedback and recommendations to the City Council; and WHEREAS, on November 15, 2022, the City Council reviewed the public review draft Housing Element; and
WHEREAS, revisions to the draft Housing Element were made with consideration of updated approved projects information and feedback received through the public comment period, the Planning Commission meeting, and City Council meeting and in preparation for adoption and submittal to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for review; and
WHEREAS, on December 2, 2022, the revised draft Housing Element, hereto referred to as the 2023-2031 Housing Element, was submitted to HCD for review; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on December

ATTACHMENT A
149 of 565
PAGE 2
12, 2022 and recommended that the City Council approve the 2023-2031 Housing Element; and WHEREAS, the City complied with SB 18 Consultation by providing written notice sent on December 20, 2022, E-Mail communications on December 21, 2022, and phone calls on January 5, 2023; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on January 17, 2023 and thereafter adopted the 2023-2031 Housing Element with the understanding that that subsequent revisions were likely to be necessary after commends from HCD were received; and
WHEREAS, on January 30, 2023, the City received preliminary comments from HCD in the form of a meeting with the Housing Element reviewer from HCD: and.

WHEREAS, on February 17, 2023, a revised draft addressing the preliminary review comments was published; and
WHEREAS, on March 2, 2023, the City received a formal comment letter from HCD containing suggested revisions; and
WHEREAS, on March 24, 2023, the revised Housing Element addressing all preliminary and formal review comments was published for public review; and WHEREAS, March 27, 2023, the Planning Commission reviewed the public review draft Housing Element at a duly noticed public hearing, provided feedback, and recommended that the City Council adopt the revised 2023-2031 Housing Element; and, WHEREAS, the City prepared the 2023-2031 Housing Element in conformance with State and local planning law and practices, considering local conditions and context, including economic, environmental, and fiscal factors; and
WHEREAS, the Housing Element must be adopted to comply with State law, affirmatively further fair housing, and facilitate and encourage a variety of housing types for all income levels, including multifamily housing; and
WHEREAS, the revised Housing Element addresses all of the comments raised by HCD and the City has determined it is in substantial compliance with all applicable requirements; and WHEREAS, the Housing Element update qualifies for an exemption from further under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) since the proposed revised Housing Element has no potential for causing a significant effect on the environment The project does not provide entitlements to land use development projects, nor does it propose development of the identified RHNA sites that could have an effect on the environment, and no changes to land uses within the City are proposed, therefore it can be seen with certainty that adoption of the Revised Housing Element will have no significant effect of the environment; and
150 of 565
PAGE 3
WHEREAS the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on April 4, 2023, and considered the presentation, staff report and related background documents and materials as well as the testimony of all persons speaking or providing information on this matter.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pinole hereby approves General Plan Amendment 23-01 to adopt the 2023-2031 Housing Element, attached as Exhibit A, to repeal and replace the existing Housing Element of the General Plan, and approve the CEQA Exemption for the Housing Element Update, attached as Exhibit B, based on the following determinations:

1. The above information within this resolution is true and correct and incorporated herein; and

2. The Housing Element Update is exempt from further environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3); and

3. The amendments to the City’s General Plan Housing Element are consistent with applicable provisions of State law.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pinole hereby authorizes the City Manager to make iterative changes to the 2023-2031 Housing Element in response to comments from HCD to support state certification of the 2023-31 Housing Element. Such changes by the City Manager shall not change the policy of the City or include any legislative actions.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Pinole on this 4h day of April 2023, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:
_______________________________
Heather Bell, CMC
City Clerk
151 of 565

CITY OF PINOLE
housing ELEMENT
2023-2031
Adopted January 17, 2023
Revised March 24, 2023

EXHIBIT A
152 of 565
Translation services are available. Email us to let us know about your needs.
我們會提供翻譯服務，請電郵我們您的需要.

Los servicios de traducción están disponibles. Envíenos un correo electrónico para informarnos acerca de sus necesidades.

Available ang mga serbisyo sa pagsasalin. Mag-email sa amin upang ipaalam sa amin ang tungkol sa iyong mga
pangangailangan.
[email protected]
153 of 565
Acknowledgements
City Council
Devin T. Murphy, Mayor
Maureen Toms, Mayor Pro Tem
Cameron N. Sasai
Anthony Tave
Norma Martinez-Rubin
Planning Commission
Ann Moriarty, Chair
Frankie Martinez , Vice Chair
Timothy Banuelos
Adam Benzuly
David Kurrent
Rafael Menis
City Manager
Andrew Murray
Community Development Staff
Lilly Whalen, Community Development Director
David Hanham, Planning Manager
Justin Shiu, Consultant Planner
Special Thanks
Thank you to all of the community members who provided input during the Housing Element Update process and helped inform and guide the City’s housing plan.

Prepared by
Michael Baker International
Project Contact: Daniel K. Wery, AICP, LEED AP
[email protected] l 858-354-0116
Veronica Tam and Associates, Inc., Strategic Advisor
154 of 565
Table of Contents

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE i
Table of Contents
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS USED .............................................................................................. 1 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................... 4 Purpose and Content................................................................................................................. 4 Data Sources........................................................................................................................... 4 Relationship to Other Elements and Plans .............................................................................. 4 Public Participation.................................................................................................................... 5 Summary of Comments Received ........................................................................................ 8 Public Review Period............................................................................................................ 10 HCD 90-Day Review Period, December 2 through March 2, 2023................................... 12 REVIEW OF PAST ACCOMPLISHMENTS................................................................................ 14 Housing Production................................................................................................................. 14 No Net Loss and Adequate Sites ........................................................................................ 15 Effectiveness at Assisting Special Needs Populations .......................................................... 15 Seniors and Residents with Disabilities.............................................................................. 15 Persons Experiencing Homelessness................................................................................. 15 Accessibility Improvements................................................................................................. 16 Evaluation of Previous Housing Element Programs ............................................................. 16 HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT ............................................................................................ 29 Projected Housing Needs........................................................................................................ 30 Existing Housing Needs........................................................................................................... 30 Population Growth Trends .................................................................................................. 30 Age Composition.................................................................................................................. 31 Race and Ethnicity................................................................................................................ 33 Employment Trends ................................................................................................................ 35 Household Characteristics ...................................................................................................... 38 Housing Stock Characteristics................................................................................................. 44 Preservation of Units at Risk of Conversion .......................................................................... 57 Qualified Entities .................................................................................................................. 58 Inventory of At-Risk Units.................................................................................................... 58 Replacement Costs .............................................................................................................. 60 Federal Programs................................................................................................................. 61 State Programs..................................................................................................................... 61 Monitoring of Affordable Units........................................................................................... 62 Quantified Objectives .......................................................................................................... 62 155 of 565
Table of Contents

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE ii
Special Housing Needs ............................................................................................................ 62 Farmworkers ........................................................................................................................ 64 Large Households ................................................................................................................ 65 Female-Headed Households............................................................................................... 67 Homelessness ...................................................................................................................... 68 Persons with Disabilities...................................................................................................... 75 Elderly Persons..................................................................................................................... 79 Extremely Low-Income Households................................................................................... 83 Summary of Housing Needs ................................................................................................... 85 CONSTRAINTS ON HOUSING................................................................................................ 88 Governmental Constraints...................................................................................................... 88 Land Use Controls.................................................................................................................... 88 General Plan ......................................................................................................................... 88 Three Corridors Specific Plan.............................................................................................. 91 Development Standards...................................................................................................... 92 Inclusionary Housing Requirements .................................................................................. 98 Density Bonus .................................................................................................................... 100 Providing for a Variety of Housing Types............................................................................. 100 Accessory Dwelling Units................................................................................................... 103 Emergency Shelters ........................................................................................................... 104 Low Barrier Navigation Centers........................................................................................ 106 Manufactured Homes........................................................................................................ 106 Supportive and Transitional Housing............................................................................... 106 Single-Room Occupancy Units .......................................................................................... 107 Development Review and Permitting Procedures .............................................................. 107 Permit Processing Procedure............................................................................................ 108 Permit Processing Time..................................................................................................... 114 Planning, Building, and Development Impact Fees............................................................. 116 School Fees ......................................................................................................................... 119 County Transportation Impact Fee................................................................................... 119 Regional Fee Comparison.................................................................................................. 119 SB 35 Approval Procedure .................................................................................................... 119 Housing for Persons with Disabilities................................................................................... 120 Reasonable Accommodation Procedures........................................................................ 120 Zoning and Land Use Policies ........................................................................................... 121 Definition of a Family......................................................................................................... 122 California Building Code........................................................................................................ 122 Code Enforcement................................................................................................................. 123 On- and Off-Site Improvements ........................................................................................... 124 156 of 565
Table of Contents

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE iii
Nongovernmental Constraints ............................................................................................. 125 Requests to Develop Below the Anticipated Density ...................................................... 125 Land Costs .......................................................................................................................... 125 Construction Costs............................................................................................................. 126 Financing Availability.......................................................................................................... 127 Federal and State Programs.............................................................................................. 128 Environmental and Infrastructure Constraints ............................................................... 128 AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING ................................................................. 133 Introduction............................................................................................................................ 133 Outreach................................................................................................................................. 133 Outreach Activities ............................................................................................................. 133 Organizations Contacted and Consulted ......................................................................... 134 Housing Element Update – City Website.......................................................................... 136 Stakeholder Interviews ...................................................................................................... 136 Housing Element Survey.................................................................................................... 137 Public Workshops............................................................................................................... 137 Assessment of Fair Housing Issues ...................................................................................... 138 City Overview...................................................................................................................... 138 Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach Capacity......................................................... 142 Integration and Segregation ................................................................................................. 143 Race and Ethnicity.............................................................................................................. 143 Dissimilarity Index – Race and Ethnicity........................................................................... 146 Income ................................................................................................................................ 147 Familial Status .................................................................................................................... 151 Persons with Disabilities.................................................................................................... 154 Regional Comparison......................................................................................................... 156 Findings from Integration and Segregation..................................................................... 156 Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty and Affluence.............................. 157 Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Area of Poverty .................................................... 157 Racially Concentrated Area of Affluence.......................................................................... 158 Disparities in Access to Opportunities ................................................................................. 159 California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC)......................................................... 159 Transportation.................................................................................................................... 165 CalEnviroScreen ................................................................................................................. 166 Local Weatherization Efforts ............................................................................................. 168 Findings............................................................................................................................... 169 Disproportionate Housing Needs......................................................................................... 170 Substandard Housing ........................................................................................................ 170 Overcrowding ..................................................................................................................... 174 157 of 565
Table of Contents

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE iv
Homelessness .................................................................................................................... 176 Displacement...................................................................................................................... 179 Findings............................................................................................................................... 180 Other Contributing Factors ................................................................................................... 181 Local Historical Land Use, Zoning Patterns and Investment Patterns .......................... 181 High Cost of Development ................................................................................................ 182 Regional Growth and Racial Integration .......................................................................... 183 Insights from Local Knowledge......................................................................................... 183 Fair Housing Issues, Contributing Factors, and Meaningful Action................................... 184 SITES AND RESOURCES ....................................................................................................... 200 Land Inventory ....................................................................................................................... 200 Housing Allocation ............................................................................................................. 200 Realistic Capacity................................................................................................................ 201 Assumed Affordability ....................................................................................................... 204 Environmental and Infrastructure Constraints ............................................................... 205 Entitled and Pending Projects ........................................................................................... 208 Accessory Dwelling Units................................................................................................... 214 Ability to Meet the RHNA....................................................................................................... 216 Lower Income Capacity ..................................................................................................... 217 Site Details .............................................................................................................................. 218 Vacant Sites......................................................................................................................... 218 Non-Vacant Sites ................................................................................................................ 219 Financial Resources ............................................................................................................... 224 Administrative Resources.................................................................................................. 224 Countywide Programs ....................................................................................................... 224 Statewide Resources.......................................................................................................... 227 Department of Housing and Urban Development Grants ............................................. 230 HOUSING GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS................................................................. 231 Housing Goals and Policies ................................................................................................... 231 Housing Production and Adequate Sites to Meet Regional Housing Needs................. 231 Housing to Meet the Needs of All Income Levels and Special Needs Groups .............. 231 Removal of Governmental Constraints............................................................................ 232 Conserve, Preserve, and Improve the Housing Stock..................................................... 232 Affirmatively Further Fair Housing ................................................................................... 232 Housing Education and Community Outreach................................................................ 233 Quantified Objectives ............................................................................................................ 233 Housing Programs ................................................................................................................. 234 Adequate Sites and Housing Production to Meet Regional Housing Needs................. 234 158 of 565
Table of Contents

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE v
Housing to Meet the Needs of All Income Levels and Special Needs Groups .............. 241 Removal of Governmental Constraints............................................................................ 246 Conserve, Preserve, and Improve the Housing Stock..................................................... 249 Affirmatively Further Fair Housing ................................................................................... 252 Housing Education and Community Outreach................................................................ 255 APPENDIX A: SITES INVENTORY MAP................................................................................ 258 APPENDIX B: SITES INVENTORY LIST................................................................................. 260 APPENDIX C: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION............................................................................... 263 APPENDIX D: DEVELOPER LETTERS.................................................................................... 326

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: 5th Cycle Housing Production ....................................................................................... 15 Table 2: Review of 5th Cycle Programs ....................................................................................... 17 Table 3: Pinole RHNA, 2023–2031 .............................................................................................. 30 Table 4: Regional Population Change, 2010–2020.................................................................... 31 Table 5: Annual Average Population Growth, 2000–2020........................................................ 31 Table 6: Population Age Distribution, Pinole............................................................................. 32 Table 7: Racial and Ethnic Composition, Pinole ........................................................................ 34 Table 8: Employment Trends, Pinole ......................................................................................... 36 Table 9: Number of Households, 2000–2020............................................................................ 39 Table 10: Regional Average Household Size ............................................................................. 39 Table 11: Household Size, Pinole, 2010–2020........................................................................... 41 Table 12: Family Household Characteristics, 2010–2020......................................................... 41 Table 13: Household Size by Tenure, Pinole, 2020 ................................................................... 42 Table 14: Median Household Income by Tenure...................................................................... 42 Table 15: Income Range by Affordability Level Based on State Area Median Income, 2021 43 Table 16: Household Income Level by Tenure, 2018................................................................ 44 Table 17: Housing Units, 2000–2020.......................................................................................... 45 Table 18: Unit Size by Tenure, Pinole, 2020............................................................................... 45 Table 19: Housing Inventory by Unit Type................................................................................. 46 Table 20: Housing Building Type by Tenure, Pinole, 2020 ....................................................... 47 Table 21: Year Housing Built....................................................................................................... 48 Table 22: Housing Tenure by Date of Occupancy..................................................................... 48 Table 23: Zillow Home Value Index, Neighboring Jurisdictions ............................................... 50 Table 24: Median Monthly Rent, 2010–2020............................................................................. 51 Table 25: Affordable and Fair Market Rent for Low-Income Households .............................. 53 Table 26: Occupancy Rates ......................................................................................................... 53 Table 27: Gross Rent as a Percentage of Household Income, 2020........................................ 54 Table 28: Overpayment by Income Level and Tenure, 2018.................................................... 55 159 of 565
Table of Contents

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE vi
Table 29: Overpayment by Lower-Income Households ........................................................... 56 Table 30: Overcrowding by Tenure............................................................................................ 57 Table 31: Units at Risk of Conversion or Converted During the 5th Cycle, Pinole .................. 59 Table 32: Westmont of Pinole Rent-Restricted Unit Reduction Schedule............................... 60 Table 33: Replacement Cost ....................................................................................................... 61 Table 34: Overview of Special Needs Groups, Pinole ............................................................... 63 Table 35: Inventory of Local Services for Special Needs Populations ..................................... 63 Table 36: Number of Farmworkers and Farms, Contra Costa County, 2017.......................... 65 Table 37: Large Households by Tenure, 2020........................................................................... 66 Table 38: Large Households by Housing Problems and Tenure, Pinole, 2018....................... 67 Table 39: Female-Headed Households by Tenure in Pinole, 2020.......................................... 68 Table 40: Female-Headed Households by Poverty Status in Pinole, 2020 ............................ 68 Table 41: Homelessness by Household Type and Shelter Status, Contra Costa County ...... 69 Table 42: Characteristics of Persons Experiencing Homelessness, Contra Costa County, 2019 ....................................................................................................................................................... 71 Table 43: Homeless Population—Unsheltered Individuals in West Contra Costa County.... 72 Table 44: Students in Local Public Schools Experiencing Homelessness ............................... 72 Table 45: County Homeless Facilities......................................................................................... 74 Table 46: Elderly People with Disabilities .................................................................................. 78 Table 47: Developmental Disability by Type, 2019 ................................................................... 79 Table 48: Elderly Population, 1990–2020................................................................................... 80 Table 49: Householders by Age.................................................................................................. 80 Table 50: Median Household Income for Elderly Households (65+ Years)............................. 81 Table 51: Income Distribution, Elderly Households (62+ Years)1............................................ 81 Table 52: Elderly Households by Housing Problems and Tenure, 2018 ................................. 82 Table 53: Extremely Low-Income Households with Housing Problems, 2018 ....................... 83 Table 54: Three Corridors Specific Plan Areas Development Densities and Intensities........ 91 Table 55: Three Corridors Specific Plan Height Standards ...................................................... 92 Table 56: Primary Building Development Standard for City of Pinole Base Zoning Districts 93 Table 57: Three Corridors Specific Plan Setback Standards .................................................... 94 Table 60: Allowed Residential Uses Under the Zoning Code................................................. 101 Table 65: Planning Related Fees and Regional Fee Comparison........................................... 117 Table 66: Development Impact Fees, Per Unit........................................................................ 119 Table 67: 5th Cycle Sites Developed.......................................................................................... 125 Table 68: Recent Vacant Lot Sales in Pinole ............................................................................ 126 Table 69: Disposition of Home Loans, 2020............................................................................ 127 Table 70: Comparison of Fair Housing with Respect to Location.......................................... 141 Table 71: FHEO Cases in Contra Costa County, 2015-2020.................................................... 142 Table 74: Contributing Factors ................................................................................................. 185 Table 75: AFFH Actions Matrix.................................................................................................. 187 Table 79: Assumed Yields for Multifamily Zones .................................................................... 204 Table 80: Entitled and Pending Projects .................................................................................. 214 160 of 565
Table of Contents

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE vii
Table 81: ADUs Building Permits Issued.................................................................................. 215 Table 82: ADU Affordability Assumptions ............................................................................... 215 Table 83: Housing Capacity....................................................................................................... 217 Table 84: Lower-Income Capacity ............................................................................................ 218 Table 85: Vacant Site Capacity.................................................................................................. 219 Table 86: Comparison on Non-Vacant Sites to Recent Projects ............................................ 220 Table 87: Non-Vacant Site Capacity.......................................................................................... 221 Table 88: EHV Program Payment Standards ........................................................................... 226 Table 89: Quantified Objectives ............................................................................................... 234

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Population Age Distribution, 2020.............................................................................. 33 Figure 2: Regional Racial/Ethnic Composition, 2019................................................................. 35 Figure 3: Regional Employment by Industry, 2019 ................................................................... 37 Figure 4: Regional Employment by Occupation, 2019.............................................................. 38 Figure 5: Households by Size, 2019............................................................................................ 40 Figure 6: Regional Home Values, 2001–2020 ............................................................................ 49 Figure 7: Median Rental Prices, 2010–2020............................................................................... 51 Figure 8: Average Rent – 2 and 3 Bedroom............................................................................... 52 Figure 9: Racial Group Share of General and Homeless, Contra Costa County, 2019........... 70 Figure 10: Latinx Share of Homeless Populations, Contra Costa County, 2019..................... 71 Figure 11: Disability by Type ....................................................................................................... 76 Figure 12: Population with a Disability 2015-2019................................................................... 77 Figure 13: General Land Use Map.............................................................................................. 89 Figure 14: Geological Hazards .................................................................................................. 129 Figure 15: FEMA Flood Zones ................................................................................................... 130 Figure 16: Fire Hazard Severity Zones ..................................................................................... 131 Figure 17: Census Tracts and RHNA Sites................................................................................ 139 Figure 18: Racial and Ethnic Majority, 2010............................................................................. 144 Figure 19: Percent non-White, 2018 and RHNA Sites ............................................................. 145 Figure 20: Percent non-White Comparison of RHNA Units.................................................... 146 Figure 21: Dissimilarity Index for Race, 2020 .......................................................................... 147 Figure 22: Low to Moderate Income Population, 2011–2015 and RHNA Sites..................... 148 Figure 23: Low to Moderate Income Population Comparison of RHNA Units ..................... 149 Figure 24: Poverty Status, 2010-2014 and 2015-2019............................................................ 150 Figure 25: Housing Choice Vouchers, 2010 ............................................................................. 151 Figure 26: Children in Female-Headed Households and RHNA Sites, 2015-2019................ 152 Figure 27: Female-Headed Households comparison of RHNA Units .................................... 153 Figure 28: Children in Married Couple Households, 2015-2019............................................ 154 Figure 29: Disability Characteristics, 2019............................................................................... 155 Figure 30: Population with a Disability, 2010-2014 and 2015-2019 ...................................... 156 161 of 565
Table of Contents

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE viii
Figure 31: RECAPs Vicinity and RHNA Sites, 2021 ................................................................... 158 Figure 32: RCAAs Vicinity, 2015-2019....................................................................................... 159 Figure 33: TCAC Economic Score, 2021.................................................................................... 160 Figure 34: TCAC Education Score, 2021 ................................................................................... 162 Figure 35: TCAC Environmental Score, 2021 ........................................................................... 163 Figure 36: TCAC Composite Score............................................................................................ 164 Figure 37: TCAC Designation Comparison of RHNA Units ..................................................... 165 Figure 38: Transit Map .............................................................................................................. 166 Figure 39: CES Percentile and RHNA Sites ............................................................................... 167 Figure 40: CalEnviroScreen Percentile Comparison of RHNA Units ...................................... 168 Figure 41: BayREN Weatherization Participation by Census Tract, 2015-2022 .................... 169 Figure 42: Housing Problems by Tenure and Race/Elderly/Housing Size............................. 171 Figure 43: Cost Burden by Tenure and Race/Elderly/Housing Size....................................... 171 Figure 44: Overpayment by Owners ........................................................................................ 172 Figure 45: Overpayment by Renters ........................................................................................ 173 Figure 46: Substandard Housing Code Enforcement Cases, 2020-2023 .............................. 174 Figure 47: Overcrowded Households ...................................................................................... 175 Figure 48: Homeless Hotspot Areas......................................................................................... 178 Figure 49: Communities Vulnerable to Displacement............................................................ 180 Figure 50: Flood Hazard Zones................................................................................................. 206 Figure 51: Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones .................................................................... 207 162 of 565
Glossary

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 1
List of Abbreviations Used
Abbreviation Definition
AAGR Annual Average Growth Rate
AB Assembly Bill
ABAG The Association of Bay Area Governments
ACS American Community Survey
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
ADU Accessory Dwelling Unit
AFFH Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
AHSC Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program AMI Area Median Income
APN Assessor Parcel Number
BAHFA Bay Area Housing Finance Authority
BMR Below Market Rate
CalCHA California Community Housing Agency
CalHFA California Housing Finance Agency
CalOES California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services CCCTA Contra Costa County Transportation Authority
CCCWP Contra Costa Clean Water Program
CCRC California Community Reinvestment Corporation
CDBG Community Development Block Grants
CDD Community Development Division
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CES CalEnviroScreen
CHAS Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy
CMU Commercial Mixed Use
COG Council of Governments
CUP Conditional Use Permit
DDA Difficult Development Areas
DDS Department of Developmental Services
DOF Department of Finance
DRB Development Review Board
EBMUD East Bay Municipal Utility District
ECHO Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity
EDD Employment Development Department
EHV Emergency Housing Voucher
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EJ Environmental Justice
ELI Extremely Low Income
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
163 of 565
Glossary

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 2
FHH Female Headed Households
FMR Fair Market Rent
FY Fiscal Year
GP General Plan
GSAF Golden State Acquisition Fund
HAMFI HUD Area Median Family Income
HCD Office of Housing and Community Development
HCV Housing Choice Voucher
HDR High Density Residential
HMDA Home Mortgage Disclosure Act
HOME Investment Partnership Programs
HUD Department of Housing and Urban Development
ICC International Code Council
JADU Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit
LAUS Local Area Unemployment Statistics
LBNC Low Barrier Navigation Center
LDR Low Density Residential
LEAP Local Early Action Planning
LHTF Local Housing Trust Fund
LID Low Impact Development
LIHTC Low-Income Housing Tax Credit
MCC Mortgage Credit Certificate
MDR Medium Density Residential
MSA Metropolitan Statistical Area
MUSA Mixed Use Sub Area
NOFA Notice of Funding Availability
NPP Neighborhood Preservation Program
OIMU Office Industrial Mixed-Use
OPMU Office Professional Mixed-Use
OTSA Old Town Sub Area
PID Public Information Department
PIT Point in Time
PITC Point in Time Count
PLHA Permanent Local Housing Allocation
PQI Public Quasi-Public Institutional
PWD Public Works Department
RAWG Regional Advisory Working Group
RCAA Racially Concentrated Area of Affluence
REAP Regional Early Action Planning
RECAP Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Area of Poverty RHNA Regional Housing Needs Allocation/Assessment
164 of 565
Glossary

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 3
RMU Residential Mixed Use
RTPA Regional Transportation Planning Agency
RV Recreational Vehicle
SAHA Satellite Affordable Housing Associates
SB Senate Bill
SLM Shared Lane Markings
SR Suburban Residential
SRO Single Room Occupancy
SSA Service Sub Area
STMP Subregional Transportation Mitigation Program
TCAC Tax Credit Allocation Committee
TOD Transit-Oriented Development
US United States
VHFHSZ Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone
VMT Vehicle Miles Travelled
WCCTAC West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee WCWD West County Wastewater District
WPCP Water Pollution Control Plant
ZHVI Zillow Home Value Index
165 of 565
Introduction

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 4
Introduction
Purpose and Content
The City of Pinole’s 2023 – 2031 Housing Element has been prepared in compliance with the State of California Government Code Section 65302 and in conformance with the Housing Element Guidelines as established by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). This Housing Element sets forth the City’s overall housing objectives in the form of goals, policies, and programs. This format will facilitate the periodic update of the Housing Element, as required by State law.

Data Sources
Various sources of information were used to prepare the Housing Element. The US Census on Population and Housing remains the most comprehensive source of data available on population and housing trends and was widely used throughout the element. Additional data sources consulted include:
• Demographic and housing data provided by ABAG, the State Department of Finance (DOF), and the Census Bureau;
• Housing market information, such as home sales, rents, and vacancies from the Contra Costa Association of Realtors, Craigslist, Zillow, and Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA);
• Building permit and zoning information from the City of Pinole Community DevelopmentDevelopment Services Department;
• Special needs housing and services data, including homeless services, from Contra Costa County;
• Housing survey administered to residents and landlords; and • Telephone interviews with housing professionals and service providers.

Other statistics draw from the most recent figures reported by the U.S. Census Bureau, including the 2020 Census and the American Community Surveys (ACS). Future projections are based on data provided by ABAG. Where available, this data is supplemented with current market data and local secondary sources of information.

Relationship to Other Elements and Plans
This Housing Element identifies goals, policies, and programs that guide housing policy for the City over the 2023 to 2031 planning period. The goals, policies, and programs are consistent with the direction of the other General Plan elements, specifically the Land Use Element, Safety Element, and the Environmental Justice Element. Each goal is followed by one or more policies that are designed to provide direction to the policy makers that will 166 of 565
Introduction

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 5
enable progress towards the goals. Consistency will be reviewed as part of the annual General Plan implementation progress report as required under Government Code section 65400. Listed after a discussion of the goals and policies are the programs designed to implement the specific goals and policies.

The Housing Element goals, policies, and programs aim to:
• Encourage the development of a variety of housing opportunities and provide adequate sites to meet the 2023 – 2031 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). • Assist in the development of housing to meet the needs of lower- and moderateincome households. • Address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental constraints to housing development.
• Conserve, preserve, and improve the condition of the existing affordable housing stock. Promote equal housing opportunity for all residents to reside in the housing of their choice. These objectives are required by and delineated in State law (California Code Section 65583 [c][1]).

Public Participation
As required by State law (Government Code Section 65588[c]), all economic segments of the community must be provided an opportunity to review and comment on the Housing Element.

The City of Pinole had a comprehensive and successful public engagement process. It provided extensive information that informed and guided the preparation of the draft Housing Element update. Targeted outreach began in March 2022. This involved engaging a diverse group of people in the planning process, including community members, stakeholders, service providers, educators, the Planning Commission, and City Council in identification of Pinole’s Housing Element housing issues.

The City made a comprehensive effort to reach lower- and moderate-income individuals to participate in the Housing Element Update. As noted above, the City develop a multi-lingual outreach campaign, contacted a variety of local organizations including affordable housing developers, advocacy groups, and the fair housing service provider, local service providers, and community centered organizations. Postcards were sent to every household in the City inviting them to participate in the Housing Element update process. The City will continue efforts to develop culturally competent outreach programs to connect residents to a variety of resources including affordable housing resources with the implementation of Program 20, Program 21, Program 22.
167 of 565
Introduction

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 6
The public participation program included:
• Website. An interactive housing element update website, launched in March 2022 and accessed through the City’s webpage, which included a description of the project, how to provide input, workshop dates and materials, a link to the Housing Element update survey, and FAQs.
• Surveys. A multilingual (English, Tagalog, Cantonese, and Spanish) online community survey was heavily promoted through email list notification, project website, flyers, postcards, social media posts, banners, stakeholder interviews, and community workshops. The City received 149 completed surveys. Full details of the survey responses are provided in APPENDIX C: PUBLIC OUTREACH.
• Focus Group. One focus group was held on Thursday, June 30, 2022 at 4:00 p.m. to gather input from community members and housing service providers. The organizations participated in the focus group, the Friends of Pinole Creek Watershed, Pinole Valley Community Church, and BGAM Property Management Group
• Stakeholder Interviews. Two stakeholder interviews were held on July 25, 2022 with The Pinole Rotary Club and July 26, 2022 with Contra Costa Association of Realtors to gather input regarding issues the community faces and recommendations to alleviate the identified housing issues.
• Community Workshops. Two virtual community workshops were held on Wednesday, May 11, 2022, and Thursday, June 9, 2022. The website was updated to include information about the community meetings and the project planner sent emails to notify individuals on the mailing list which included stakeholders, community service providers, and members of the public. The links to the presentation video recording were posted on the Housing Element Update website. • Study Session. One joint study session with the Planning Commission and City Council was held on July 13, 2022. All the efforts of notifying the public that were made for the two community meetings were repeated for the joint study session.

The links to the presentation video recording were posted on the Housing Element Update website. The joint study session focused primarily on RHNA site strategy, housing issues, and proposed programs included in the Housing Element. It included a robust discussion of housing issues and responsive programs to meet the needs of all Pinole residents.
168 of 565
Introduction

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 7
The City extensively advertised opportunities to participate and used multiple forms of media to reach the diverse population of Pinole. Efforts to notify the community about engagement opportunities include the following:
• Social media postings on the City of
Pinole’s Facebook and Instagram
pages and Nextdoor.
• Email notifications to the interested
parties contact list.
• Notifications in the City’s biweekly
administrative report.
• Postcard mailed to postal
customers citywide.
• Flyers printed and distributed
around the City.
• Advertisements on the Pinole
Community TV, Channels 26 and 28,
that displayed information
regarding the Community
Workshops. The information was
displayed multiple times daily
leading up to the workshops.

Example of a social media post for the October 24
th
Planning Commission meeting
169 of 565
Introduction

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 8
• 11 banners of various
sizes, ranging from 58
square feet to eight square
feet hung at key locations
in the City, including
community facilities (such
as the senior center, swim
center, tennis court, and
the library), neighborhood
parks, over major
throughfares and key
pedestrian pathways.

Banners included links to
the survey in four
languages as well as a link
to the two virtual
community workshops.

Full additional photos of
the banners and a map of
the banner placements in
the City, see APPENDIX C:

PUBLIC OUTREACH.
• QR codes were printed on
all postcards and flyers
linking the recipient to the
project website, which
contained an option to participate in the survey, meeting dates, and notification that translation services are available printed in four languages (English, Tagalog, Cantonese, and Spanish).

Summary of Comments Received
During the outreach process, the City heard comments that touched on issues such as difficulty paying rent, mortgage, or down payment; homelessness; and insufficient housing supply, including affordable housing, farmworker housing, and preferred locations for future housing. Many of the programs and the RHNA sites inventory in the Housing Element Update reflect the community input. In summary, the community engagement and input yielded the following themes and feedback:

Examples of two of the eleven banners placed around the City 170 of 565
Introduction

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 9
• Linking public investment with new housing: Participants expressed a desire for new housing near community facilities and amenities. Program 19 will coordinate with the Environmental Justice Element to pursue place-based improvements in low resource areas to increase environmental health and quality of Pinole through projects identified in the City’s capital improvement program. • Affordability: Participants expressed the lack of affordable housing options in Pinole; specifically identifying ways to incentive multifamily development. Program 8 consists of creating a set of incentives for projects that provide additional affordable housing beyond the City’s 15 percent inclusionary requirement. • Education and Outreach: Participants expressed a lack of community engagement and education on affordable housing, ADUs, housing services and programs that are available, and housing policy. Program 16, Program 20, Program 22, and Program 23 implement outreach and education strategies to increase community awareness about ADUs, housing resources and services, and available fair housing and financing support.
• Housing protections: Participants expressed a need for protections and resources for seniors, first-time homebuyers, and lower-and middle-income individuals.

Program 21 establishes coordination with a fair housing service provider to work with residents and landlords for income protections and state rent control laws and in conjunction with Program 20. Program 10 will create a set of incentives to encourage the development of housing for seniors.

Two public comment letters were received regarding the Housing Element update. One letter was submitted prior to the release of the first public review draft of the Housing Element Update and one during the 30-day public review period for the Housing Element Update.

Both of these letters were also submitted directly to the City of Pinole prior to or during the 30-day public review period, and therefore many of these comments are captured in the subsections above and helped to inform the draft Housing Element that was submitted to HCD on December 2, 2022.

One letter came on behalf of YIMBY Law and Greenbelt Alliance, dated April 21, 2022. This letter was received prior to the public review draft of the Housing Element and thus does not make any comments on the draft Housing Element. The letter contained a request for a rezoning component in the Housing Element Update to sufficiently meet Pinole’s RHNA based solely on trends from 2018-2021 APR data. The letter comments on the development trends in Pinole based on the APR data from 2018 through 2021 and does not account for the 635 units that are currently approved and in various stages of development in the City. As demonstrated in the sites inventory, the City has adequate zoning to meet and exceed the RHNA requirement.
171 of 565
Introduction

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 10
The other came on behalf of a Contra Costa County resident, 350 Contra Costa, Greenbelt Alliance, CaRLA, a resident of Palo Alto, a resident of Berkeley, a resident of San Bernadino, and two residents of San Francisco. This letter contained two main comments, as follows:
• Recommendation to include an analysis of compliance in its approval process with PRC 21080.1 & 21080.2 (time limits for determining whether certain residential projects are exempt from CEQA).
• Recommendation to add a program to specify (i) who is responsible for making the CEQA determination of PRC 21080.1, specify (ii) that their decision will be made within the timeframe permitted by PRC 21080.2, and specify that (iii), when they determine a project is exempt from CEQA, their determination triggers the Permit Streamlining Act (PSA) 60-day deadline (Gov. Code 65950(a)(5)). If existing local practices or regulations are incompatible with these state laws, the program should commit to enacting reforms necessary to achieve compliance within a reasonable and definite timeline.

Program 6 includes reviewing and updating as necessary the EIR prepared for the GP and Specific Plan so that individual projects can utilize opportunities for tiering from environmental documentation and streamlining provided under CEQA, where applicable, which can reduce duplicative analyses and streamline environmental review. This will speed up the review/approval process and greatly reduce costs for the applicant. The City of Pinole makes every effort to comply with all state laws regarding CEQA and permit processing.

A summary of outreach is also provided in the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing chapter.

For complete survey results and additional detail on outreach see APPENDIX C: PUBLIC OUTREACH.

Public Review Period
Pursuant to Assembly Bill 215 (AB 215), the City distributed the Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element for a 30 day public review period from October 17th, 2022 to November 16th, 2022.

Public notification included social media postings and notifications through emails to 65 stakeholders as well as a public review hardcopy available at City Hall. The City received one public comment requesting additional information on how to participate.

The City held public meetings before the Planning Commission on October 24th and City Council on November 15th to discuss and receive feedback on the public review draft.

Opportunity for public comment was provided at both meetings. The Planning Commission and City Council were both supportive of the draft document. They discussed opportunities to clarify and strengthen programs and appreciated the thorough and clear analysis and accessibility of the draft element.

The Housing Element was a duly advertised agenda item at the October 24th Planning Commission and November 15th City Council meetings to discuss and receive feedback on 172 of 565
Introduction

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 11
the public review draft. Opportunity for public comment was provided at both hearings. The Planning Commission and City Council both supportive of the draft document. They discussed opportunities to clarify and strengthen programs and appreciated the thorough and clear analysis and accessibility of the draft element. The Planning Commission and City Council discussions centered around how the following topics are addressed in the draft Housing Element:
• Add the Pinole Vista project (223 units) that was approved during the public review period to the sites inventory.
• Allow and encourage single and small unit room rentals. • Evaluate opportunities for affordable housing on religious facility sites. • Promote and incentivize affordable housing for teachers. • Consider more protections to prevent and minimize displacement. • Encourage additional and continual efforts to obtain input from Pinole’s diverse population.

The following City efforts address the discussions with the Planning Commission and City Council:
• The 223-unit Pinole Vista project was added to the sites inventory and the sites and AFFH analysis were modified to include and evaluate the site. • To encourage single and small unit room rentals, the City is including multiple programs to spur ADU development and educate homeowners regarding ADUs.

Program 4, Facilitate ADU Production, is included to encourage and stimulate the development of ADUs. Program 22 consists of ADU, JADU, and SB 9 Education and Promotion. The City currently allows SROs in five zones. • Program 11 develops a Home Sharing and Tenant Matching Program. To promote additional housing options for teachers, they will be included as eligible tenants for the program.
• As a part of Program 3, Outreach to Developers and Technical Assistance to Applicants, the City will contact faith-based organizations in Pinole to discuss opportunities for housing at their facilities and provide information regarding recent legislation regarding religious-institution affiliated housing projects. • As a part of Program 20, Displacement Prevention/Housing Mobility, the City will conduct a workshop a meeting/workshop to inform residents and landlords of sources of income protection and state rent control laws such as AB 1482. 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. 173 of 565
Introduction

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 12
• The City recently adopted a Communication and Engagement Plan1to provide a framework to strengthen the City’s communication efforts and help City Hall more effectively reach and engage residents through a series of recommendations centered around topics including planning, media relations, language access, and social media, among others. The Communication and Engagement Plan will help to expand the reach of information for a diverse set of Pinole residents throughout the entirety of the 6th Housing Element Cycle.

HCD 90-Day Review Period, December 2 through March 2, 2023 The City of Pinole submitted the draft Housing Element Update to HCD for HCD’s 90-day review on December 2, 2022. The revised draft incorporated extensive revisions in response to comments from the public that were received during the 30-day review period described in detail above.

The City of Pinole conducted additional outreach to housing developers and real estate professionals during the 90-day review period. Pinole has had extraordinarily good housing production in terms of total units as well as excellent production of very low, low and moderate units. In effort to learn from Pinole’s success, the City contacted developers with projects in Pinole to discuss:
• What led them to development in Pinole,
• Why they had not previously been building in Pinole, and • Help identify any constraints to the development process experienced in the permitting process.

City staff met with locally and regionally active developers and real estate professionals including MRK Partners Inc., SAHA, ROIC, and DeNova Homes, Inc. These developers provided letters expressing very positive reviews of City staff, processes and standards. Common reasons for developing in Pinole included:
• Attractive zoning,
• Relatively affordable land cost,
• Availability of land,
1 Pinole Communication and Engagement Plan: https://cdn5- hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_10946972/File/City%20Government/City%20Manager/ 2022/City%20of%20Pinole%20Community%20Engagement%20Plan.pdf 174 of 565
Introduction

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 13
• Developable parcels with access to transit and services that essential for affordable and efficient housing and helps to obtain funding for affordable housing • Knowledgeable, efficient, and flexible staff
• Short entitlement timeframe
• Comparatively efficient and straightforward design review process, staff support in the application process, and City support for housing opportunities. • Collaborative entitlement process
• Great working relationship with staff
175 of 565
Review of Past Accomplishments

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 14
Review of Past Accomplishments
State law (California Government Code Section 65588[a]) requires each jurisdiction to “review its housing element as frequently as appropriate to evaluate all of the following:
(1) The appropriateness of the housing goals, objectives, and policies in contributing to the attainment of the state housing goal.
(2) The effectiveness of the housing element in attainment of the community’s housing goals and objectives.
(3) The progress of the city, county, or city and county in implementation of the housing element.
(4) The effectiveness of the housing element goals, policies, and related actions to meet the community’s needs, pursuant to paragraph (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583.”
2 Per HCD, the three areas of requisite analysis are:
• Review the results of the previous housing element’s goals, objectives, and programs. The results should be quantified where possible but may be qualitative where necessary.
• Compare what was projected or planned in the previous housing element to what was achieved. Determine where the previous housing element met, exceeded, or fell short of what was anticipated.
• Based on the above analysis, describe how the goals, objectives, policies, and programs in the updated housing element are being changed or adjusted to incorporate what has been learned from the results of the previous housing element.

Housing Production
The 5th Cycle RHNA for the City of Pinole is shown in Table 1. The 5th Cycle allocation for the City consisted of 80 very low income units, 43 low income units, 43 moderate income units, and 126 above moderate income, for a total of 297 units. As of December 2021, 27 units have been permitted during the 5th Cycle. There is a remaining RHNA need of 80 very low income, 43 low income, 42 moderate income, and 100 above moderate-income units. 2http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&sectionNum=655

88.#:~:text=65588.,of%20the%20state%20housing%20goal.
176 of 565
Review of Past Accomplishments

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 15
Table 1: 5th Cycle Housing Production
Very Low Low Moderate Above Moderate Total
5th Cycle RHNA
Allocation
80 43 43 126 297
Permitted - - 1 26 -
Remaining
Requirement
80 43 42 100 265
Source: City of Pinole
No Net Loss and Adequate Sites
Pursuant to Senate Bill (SB) 166, the City must always maintain adequate sites to accommodate the remaining RHNA requirement. The City saw development of 27 units over the 5th Cycle.

The City provided a capacity for 74 units on vacant sites and 419 units on specific plan sites, for a total of 493 units. The 5th Cycle identified a surplus capacity of 196 units. At no point during the 5th Cycle did the City have a net loss of capacity. The City maintained a surplus of available sites for all income levels throughout the 2015 to 2023 planning cycle.

Effectiveness at Assisting Special Needs Populations
This section reviews the City’s progress on assisting populations with special housing needs during the 5th Cycle. The City has implemented multiple programs to assist special needs populations over the 5th Cycle.

Seniors and Residents with Disabilities
The Pinole Senior Center offers services and programs to the elderly, including free assistance with legal and health services, and fitness classes.

WestCAT is a service of the Western Contra Costa Transit Authority, which provides a Senior Dial-A-Ride service that offers rides to senior citizens. WestCAT also provides a Paratransit service to Pinole, which is a curb-to-curb service ensuring that riders are transported safely and comfortably. These vehicles are equipped with wheelchair lifts providing access for all elderly persons with different levels of abilities.

Through the Contra Costa County Area Agency on Aging, Pinole participates in several food programs including Meals on Wheels, CalFresh, Food Bank of Contra Costa and Solano, and the Senior Food Program.

Persons Experiencing Homelessness
The County works collectively with all cities, including Pinole, to help address the needs of the homeless population in Contra Costa County. The homeless population in the City (53 in the most recent point-in-time count) receives aid from programs through Contra Costa 177 of 565
Review of Past Accomplishments

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 16
County Health, Housing & Homeless Services. This includes the Continuum of Care and C.O.R.E. Homeless Outreach.

Accessibility Improvements
The City coordinated with the West Contra Costa Unified School District to complete off-site improvements at Pinole Valley High School that create easier access to the school for persons with disabilities. These changes include new ADA ramps, four traffic signals, and roadway restriping.

The City installed 41 “share the road” signs along Pinole Valley Road. There are 20 signs in the south bound direction beginning at Pinole Valley High School and 21 signs in the north bound direction to San Pablo Avenue. There have also been several road projects that involved upgrading ADA ramps on various segments on San Pablo Avenue.

In addition, the City installed 40 thermoplastic bicycle Shared Lane Markings (SLMs), “sharrows,” along Pinole Valley Road to San Pablo Avenue. This route links with the bicycle lanes passing Pinole Valley High School and provides connectivity from the Valley and Old Town to the commercial area near I-80. This route also allows access from Pinole Valley to the Hercules Transit Center.

The City is currently completing a Local Road Safety Plan which will suggest roadway improvements to make roadways safer for all users. Also, the City is scheduled to undertake the development of an Active Transportation Plan which will help identify improvements that will increase the safety and mobility of non-motorized users.

Evaluation of Previous Housing Element Programs
This section illustrates the City of Pinole’s accomplishments and status in implementing the housing programs identified for the 2015-2023 5th Cycle, as well as the continued appropriateness of each program for the 2023-2031 6th Cycle. Programs that have been successfully completed or that consist of routine staff functions are marked as “remove,” as these programs are no longer necessary for the 6th Cycle. Previous programs that are continued with no or minor modifications are marked as “continue.” Finally, programs marked as “retain/modify” are programs that will be continued, but have updated goals and metrics, and may involve combining multiple existing programs into a single 6th Cycle program for ease of use and streamlining.
178 of 565
Review of Past Accomplishments

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 17
Table 2: Review of 5th Cycle Programs
5 th Cycle
Program Name
and Number Action/Target Timeframe Accomplishments
Continued
Appropriateness
6 th Cycle
Program
Number
Conduct An
Annual Housing
Element
Review (H.1.1)
Provide for annual review of the Housing Element, with
opportunities for public input and discussion, in conjunction with State requirements for a written review by April 1 of each year (per Government Code Section 65583(3)). As part of the Annual Housing Element Review, the City will conduct a
General Plan internal consistency review.

Annually Complete for 2021. The City will
continue to conduct annual
reviews of the Housing Element in
subsequent years
Remove - This is a
routine staff
function and not
considered a
Housing Element
Program. This is
also an HCD
requirement
(Government Code
Section 65400.)
N/A
Explore
Housing
Development
Partnerships
(H.1.2)
The City shall seek out opportunities to work with other public agencies by identifying housing grant funding opportunities to encourage and implement improvements and expansion of
housing supply, and work with developers by creating a
developer interest list and periodically assessing development needs to encourage new residential development to provide affordable housing.

Contact other public agencies such as the Contra Costa
County Housing Authority or Contra Costa County
Department of Conservation and Development at least once a year for funding and partnering opportunities.

Ongoing The City has been working with
developers on multiple housing
projects that either include
affordable units in mixed income
projects or are 100 percent
affordable projects. The City has
facilitated pre-submittal meetings
and calls to provide information,
highlight application needs,
discuss processes, and discuss
affordable housing requirements
and incentives.

Projects the City has worked with
developers on include the 223 unit
development at Pinole Vista
Plaza's vacant K-Mart site, a 154
townhome and condominium
development on the vacant
Doctor's Hospital site, a 29-unit
apartment project on a mixed use
site, a 33 unit affordable veteran's
Retain/Modify into
an outreach and
technical assistance
program.

Program 3
179 of 565
Review of Past Accomplishments

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 18
5 th Cycle
Program Name
and Number Action/Target Timeframe Accomplishments
Continued
Appropriateness
6 th Cycle
Program
Number
housing on a former
redevelopment agency property,
and a 100% affordable 179 unit
senior complex.

The City has not compiled a
developer interest list and plans to
do so during the 6th Cycle.

Periodically
Review
Residential
Development
Requirements
(H.1.3)
Monitor development standards to ensure their
appropriateness in fostering residential and mixed use
development.
• For key housing opportunity sites, provide development standards and design objectives to streamline the
development review process for projects that are consistent with applicable Specific Plans and the General Plan.
• Provision of clear guidelines and incentives for the
development of housing in conformance with current state laws and to identify specific ways to streamline processing for subsequent development proposals.

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

Retain/Modify –
combine with
Mixed-Use incentive
program
Program 6
Apply Design
Review
Guidelines
(H.2.1)
Apply the Zoning Ordinance Residential Design Guidelines to new residential projects in order to evaluate projects in the context of existing neighborhoods and continue to maintain an objective process that clearly communicates community expectations in the Design Review process.

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

The City has recently begun the
process of creating objective
design standards, with the
standards anticipated to be
completed and adopted during the
6 th Cycle.

Retain/Modify to
ensure compliance
with SB 330 and
that development
standards, design
guidelines, and
findings are
objective, and
promote certainty
in the planning and
approval process.

Program 13
180 of 565
Review of Past Accomplishments

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 19
5 th Cycle
Program Name
and Number Action/Target Timeframe Accomplishments
Continued
Appropriateness
6 th Cycle
Program
Number
Adequate Sites
to Meet
Regional Fair
Share of
Housing
Growth (H.2.2)
The City shall provide for a variety of housing types with densities ranging from one to seven units per acre in lowdensity residential areas and up to fifty dwelling units per acre in very high density residential and mixed use areas along portions of the City’s transportation corridors included in the proposed Specific Plan for San Pablo Avenue, Pinole Valley Road, and Appian Way, with the incorporation of density bonuses available consistent with State law.

In support of this Housing Element, the City developed a parcel-specific inventory of sites suitable for future residential development, including vacant sites currently designated under the City’s General Plan and housing opportunity sites designated in the City’s Corridor Specific Plan for San Pablo Avenue, Pinole Valley Road, and Appian Way
The City’s overall construction target is 80 units (2 extremely low, 5 very low, 5 low, 20 moderate, and 48 above moderate).

Ongoing Complete. Three Corridors Specific
Plan for San Pablo Avenue, Pinole
Valley Road, and Appian Way
includes adequate sites available
to developers to meet Regional
Fair Share of Housing Growth. A
detailed inventory of opportunity
sites for potential residential
development is included within
the site inventory map and list of
the adopted Housing Element
(Appendix A and B).

Retain Program 1
Rehabilitation
Assistance
(H.2.3)
The City will improve public awareness of rehabilitation loan subsidy programs offered by the County and other agencies.

Specific actions should include: (a) pamphlets on the
programs available at City Hall; and (b) providing public information through articles in the local newspaper and with cable TV public service announcements.

In addition, the City will annually explore funding availability at the local, State, and federal levels and pursue funding programs as appropriate with the goal of reinstating the City’s Rehabilitation Program.

Target: 50 units: 10 extremely low, 10 very low, 10 low, and 20 moderate), inclusive of the target for Action H.2.4 below.

Ongoing
(annually)
City staff continues to assist
homeowners and provide
information at City Hall on
rehabilitation assistance
resources. In 2021, the City issued
656 permits to rehabilitate housing
units, including roofing, water
heater replacement, furnace, solar,
window/patio door replacement,
and home remodel/addition
projects.

Retain/Modify.

Increase program
specificity,
language, and
metrics, including
setting a geographic
target for
assistance.

Program 16
181 of 565
Review of Past Accomplishments

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 20
5 th Cycle
Program Name
and Number Action/Target Timeframe Accomplishments
Continued
Appropriateness
6 th Cycle
Program
Number
Acquisition/
Rehabilitation
of Blighted or
Distressed
Properties
(H.2.4)
As in other parts of the State, many households in Pinole have been impacted by the recession and depressed housing
market, resulting in increases in distressed properties and foreclosure activities. Furthermore, with the dissolution of redevelopment, the City no longer has the funding available to address blighted properties in the community.

The City will continue to pursue opportunities to partner with nonprofit housing developers to acquire and rehabilitate blighted or distressed properties, with the objective of making these units available to low income households as affordable housing.

Target: 50 units (10 extremely low, 10 very low, 10 low, and 20 moderate), inclusive of the target for Action H.2.3 above.

Ongoing The City worked with the
developer on the construction of
an affordable veteran’s housing
project on a former redevelopment
property. The City has worked with
the developer to entitle a 100%
affordable senior housing complex
on an underutilized site.

Retain/Modify.

Remove portion
regarding blight and
redevelopment
agency. Update
metrics, language,
and, set a
geographic target
for assistance.

Program 17
Fee Structure
Evaluation
(H.3.1)
Periodically review the City’s current development impact fees to ensure that new development contributes its fair share of the costs for the provision of services and facilities.

Ongoing A fee update was initiated in
calendar year 2022 and adopted by
City Council in June 2022. Fees
went into effect September 2022.

Significant changes were made to
building permit fees that made the
fee schedule more equitable. The
adopted fee schedule is now more
similar to neighboring
jurisdictions, especially for larger
scale projects.

Retain/Modify.

Specify fee
evaluations to be
done not less than
every 5 years.

Program 14
General Plan
Land Uses
(H.4.1)
Evaluate General Plan land use designations and plan
programs annually to ensure they are consistent with the City’s overall goals and review the entire General Plan within eight years.

Annually The City's GP land use
designations are applied to
provide direction and flexibility to
help meet evolving overall land
use goals and policy objectives.

Remove – Not a
Housing Element
Program.

N/A
Housing
Construction
(H.4.2)
Construct or encourage the construction of housing units throughout the City through use of the following mechanisms.

Construction or approval of at least 279 units between 2014 and 2023.

Ongoing City staff meets regularly with
property owners and developers to
encourage additional housing
construction at all affordability
Modify - increase
program specificity,
language, and
metrics regarding
182 of 565
Review of Past Accomplishments

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 21
5 th Cycle
Program Name
and Number Action/Target Timeframe Accomplishments
Continued
Appropriateness
6 th Cycle
Program
Number
levels on available housing
opportunity sites. Staff provides
information regarding the State
density bonus programs, and helps
owners/developers determine use
of bonuses, waivers/exceptions,
and incentives. Staff also meets
with individuals to provide
information on about SB 9 and
ADUs.
construction of
housing.

Mixed-Use Incentives: Encourage mixed residentialcommercial uses in areas consistent with the Land Use Plan, and in particular along portions of the San Pablo Avenue, Pinole Valley Road, and Appian War corridors to increase housing opportunities through the following and other
means, if appropriate: (1) increased densities; (2) prioritized development project review and processing; and (3) flexibility in parking and development standards.

The City assisted in exploring
potential for flexible parking
standards, including shared
parking agreements for mixed use
development.

Retain/Modify. Program 6
Rental Housing Site Assemble and Development: City shall contact affordable housing builders annually and provide information about sites to facilitate development of
affordable rental housing. Based on development interest, the City shall explore possible assistance including priority processing.

The City executed a Disposition
and Development Agreement and
agreed to provide a Purchase Loan
and Construction Loan to assist in
the purchase of the property and
construction of the SAHA project
(811 San Pablo Ave). The site was a
former redevelopment property
sold by the City to the developer
with agreement to construct an
affordable rental housing
development.

Retain/Modify – roll
into outreach and
technical assistance
program, and
program to develop
specific priority
processing
procedure.

Program 3
and
Program 8
Affordable Housing Incentives: Support the use of the
following incentives for well-designed rental and ownership projects that provide a minimum of 15 percent of total units The City implements its 15%
inclusionary housing program for
the creation of affordability units in
projects.

Retain/Modify to
develop specific
process for priority
review of affordable
Program 8
183 of 565
Review of Past Accomplishments

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 22
5 th Cycle
Program Name
and Number Action/Target Timeframe Accomplishments
Continued
Appropriateness
6 th Cycle
Program
Number
affordable to low and moderate income households for 45 and 55 years respectively:
a. Density bonuses. Provide density bonuses consistent with the State Density Bonus Law (Government Code Section
65915).
b. Flexibility in development standards. Allow flexibility in applying development standards (e.g., parking, floor area, setback, height standards).
c. Prioritized Development Review. Affordable housing
development should receive the highest priority and efforts should be made by staff and decision-makers to provide
technical assistance to potential affordable housing
developers; consider project funding and timing needs in the processing of applications; and provide the fastest
turnaround time possible in determining application
completeness.

The City has an adopted set of
design modifications for affordable
housing including potential for
priority processing. This is adopted
in section 17.32.040 of the Zoning
Ordinance.
housing
developments that
go beyond the
inclusionary
requirement.

Require Affordable Housing in Market Rate Residential
Projects. Require 15 percent of the units located in new residential developments be affordable, and of those units, 40 percent must be affordable to very low income households.

The City’s intent is the construction of units on-site. If this is not practical, the City will consider other alternatives of equal value, such as in-lieu fees, construction of units off-site, donation of a portion of the property for future non-profit housing development, etc.
15% inclusionary requirement has
been applied in all applicable
housing developments.

Retain/modify. Program 7
Housing for Extremely Low Income Households and
Persons with Disabilities. Based on funding availability, the City shall explore, at least once a year, development
assistance for multifamily and supportive housing to meet the needs of extremely low income households and persons with disabilities (including persons with developmental
disabilities). The City shall continue to contact housing service providers within West Contra Costa County to
determine the best way to facilitate development of housing Ongoing Retain. Program 9
184 of 565
Review of Past Accomplishments

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 23
5 th Cycle
Program Name
and Number Action/Target Timeframe Accomplishments
Continued
Appropriateness
6 th Cycle
Program
Number
for extremely low income households and persons with
disabilities. The City will annually contact developers to assist in development where feasible by prioritizing available funding, assisting and supporting new applications, providing priority processing, considering fee deferrals or subsidies and design modifications, and facilitating site acquisition.

Parcel
Consolidation
(H.4.3)
The City will play an active role in facilitating lot consolidation, particularly as it relates to parcels listed in the Sites Inventory in this Housing Element. The lot consolidation procedure is included in the City’s Municipal Code and made available to the public and discussed with developers during the
preliminary review process.

Lot consolidation requests made in order to facilitate
development of affordable housing is processed
administratively.

Incentives offered for lot consolidation include allowing higher densities for larger parcels once consolidated,
flexibility in development standards, and expedited
processing.

Ongoing City staff meets with property
owners and developers to
encourage parcel consolidation for
housing development. The City did
not receive any requests for lot
consolidations during the 5
th Cycle.

Retain //Modify –
include in
affordable housing
incentive programs
Program 8
Second Unit
Ordinance
(H.4.4)
The City will provide information to the public on the
ordinance at City Hall and on its website. In addition, the City will review the Second Dwelling Unit Ordinance in regard to development requirements to encourage the development of well-designed secondary housing units in established
residential areas.

Construction of 16 new second units between 2014 and 2023.

Ongoing Updated the ADU ordinance in
2017 and 2020.

Staff regularly receives and
responds to questions from the
public regarding ADU standards
and the permit process. 15 ADUs
were constructed between 2017
and September 2022.

The City streamlines the
permitting of ADUs by processing
them as a plan check of a building
permit, and does not require
Retain and roll into
ADU Programs
Program 4
and
Program 22
185 of 565
Review of Past Accomplishments

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 24
5 th Cycle
Program Name
and Number Action/Target Timeframe Accomplishments
Continued
Appropriateness
6 th Cycle
Program
Number
separate planning permitting for
ADUs.

Homebuyer
Programs
(H.4.5)
Continue to promote homebuyer assistance programs
available through the County and State, such as the Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC) program and California Housing Finance Agency’s Down payment Assistance Program.

Specific actions should include: (a) pamphlets on the
programs available at City Hall; and (b) providing public information through articles in the local newspaper and with cable TV public service announcements. The City will
continue to explore funding opportunities to reinstate the City’s Homebuyer Program.

Annual evaluation of funding available and pursue funding opportunities as available.

Annually Inadequate financial resources
available in 2021 to directly assist
first-time homebuyers and reestablish the City's homebuyer program. The City refers interested
individuals to available County and
State programs.

Retain and Modify -
staff can continue
to refer interested
parties to County
and State
programs. Modify to
increase promotion
of outreach
programs.

Program 22
Below Market
Rate (BMR)
Regulations
(H.4.6)
Implement and monitor rental (55 years) and resale (45 years) restrictions for low and moderate income units assisted or constructed by the former Redevelopment Agency to assure that these units remain at an affordable price level as they are occupied, and transferred.

Ongoing The City continues to use a thirdparty contractor to monitor affordability control compliance.

Retain - add
specific metric.

Program 18
Technical
Assistance to
Housing
Developers
(H.4.7)
The City will provide technical assistance to developers to encourage provision of affordable housing that are consistent with City goals. Assistance could include provision of
information about available funding sources, pre-application planning meetings, expedited development review and
processing, and facilitation of neighborhood meetings.

Ongoing City staff continued to meet with
prospective housing developers in
2021.

Retain/Modify –
combine into
outreach and
technical assistance
program.

Program 3
186 of 565
Review of Past Accomplishments

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 25
5 th Cycle
Program Name
and Number Action/Target Timeframe Accomplishments
Continued
Appropriateness
6 th Cycle
Program
Number
Accessible
Units for the
Physically
Disabled
(H.4.8)
The City will facilitate programs and projects that meet Federal, State and local requirements to provide accessibility for the physically disabled in residential units and will promote affordable accessible housing for the physically disabled. The City will encourage accessible units in all new projects; additionally, where outside funding is involved, the City will ensure compliance with funding agency requirements for units accessible to the physically disabled. The City will provide technical assistance to assure proposed units meet Building Code requirements. The City will implement the adopted ordinance establishing Reasonable Accommodation procedures to accommodate the needs of persons with
disabilities.

Five percent of the units built or approved between 2014 and 2023 should be adaptable for the physically disabled
5% of units
built or
approved
between
2014 and
2023 should
be
adaptable
for the
physically
disabled
The City is committed to assisting
in the development of new
projects that provide accessible
housing for the disabled or issuing
building permits for projects that
improve the accessibility of
existing housing. The City did not
receive any new development
requests for housing for the
physically disabled or accessibility
modifications to existing
residential units during the 5th
Cycle.

Remove –
completed
reasonable
accommodations
procedure.

N/A
Housing for the
Homeless
(H.4.9)
The City amended the Zoning Ordinance to provide
emergency shelters and transitional housing for the homeless; however, additional revisions to the Zoning Ordinance are required to be consistent with State law. Specifically, the Zoning Ordinance will be revised to address the provision of supportive and transitional housing as a residential use to be subjected to requirements for similar uses in the same zones.

The Zoning Ordinance will also be revised to remove the emergency shelter distance requirements (other than from another shelter). State law (SB2) allows the emergency
shelter ordinance to set distance requirement only from another shelter. The City’s ordinance currently includes distance requirements from a public park and a school, transit route, etc. Within 12 months of adopting the 2015-2023
Housing Element, the City will amend the Zoning Ordinance to address the provisions for transitional housing, supportive housing, and emergency shelters consistent with SB 2. The City will continue to monitor the effectiveness and
appropriateness of the adopted provisions in facilitating housing for the homeless.

By May 2016 Text amendments were approved
in 2016.

Remove -
Completed.

N/A
187 of 565
Review of Past Accomplishments

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 26
5 th Cycle
Program Name
and Number Action/Target Timeframe Accomplishments
Continued
Appropriateness
6 th Cycle
Program
Number
Complete within one year of Housing Element adoption.

Employee
Housing
(H.4.10)
Currently the Zoning Ordinance does not address the
provision of employee housing. The City will amend the
Zoning Ordinance within one year of the Housing Element adoption to identify employee housing meeting Health and Safety Code definitions will be considered as a residential use and to be permitted in the same manner as similar uses in the same zones.

Amend Zoning Ordinance to address employee housing
within one year of Housing Element adoption
By May 2016 Text amendments were approved
in 2016.

Remove -
Completed.

N/A
Prevention of
Housing
Discrimination
(H.4.11)
The City will take actions to prevent discrimination in the housing market and provide information on fair housing laws.

Staff will distribute fair housing pamphlets provided by fair housing organizations at the public information counter at City Hall, Pinole Library, and at the Pinole Senior Center, as well as on the City’s website. Staff will continue to refer all fair housing complaints to Housing Rights Incorporated, a local fair housing advocacy firm or other groups that provide comparable service. The City will also participate in the Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice, which is updated every five years. The City will work with the County to publicize the outreach program for the update.

Ongoing No housing discrimination
disputes were brought to the City's
attention in 2021.

Retain/Modify -
increase program
specificity,
language, and
metrics regarding
fair housing. Expand
program to include
counseling,
education, etc.

Program 21
Conservation
of Affordable
Housing Units
(H.4.12)
Pinole’s supply of affordable housing units is largely made of multi-family units with affordability covenants in place that ensure affordability at a specific income level for a set period of time following the provision of financial assistance to the project, generally through the former Pinole Redevelopment Agency. A number of the covenants were recorded prior to changes in State law that took effect in 2001 requiring minimum thresholds for affordability and are now nearing their expiration dates. The City will take appropriate steps to ensure that the units with covenants close to expiration are Through
2017
Former RDA assets, and revenues
generated from those assets, are
maintained in a Low- and
Moderate-Income Housing Asset
Fund that continues to be used to
administer and monitor
compliance with affordable
housing and loan agreements and
provide for affordable housing
development.

Retain - update
timeframe, and
specific metric (# of
homes,)
Program 18
188 of 565
Review of Past Accomplishments

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 27
5 th Cycle
Program Name
and Number Action/Target Timeframe Accomplishments
Continued
Appropriateness
6 th Cycle
Program
Number
conserved or replaced and will remain affordable to moderate and lower income households.

Specifically, the City will:
• Contact the property owners to assess their interest and incentives required in extending the affordability covenant for the at-risk units.
• Work with property owners to notify tenants of potential conversion to market rate at least one year prior to
conversion, pursuant to State law.
• Contact affordable housing developers/providers to solicit their interest and financial capacity in acquiring the at-risk units,
• Work with interested property owners/affordable housing developers/providers to pursue funding for the preservation and improvement of at-risk units.

Total: 113 units (24 very low, 4 low, and 85 moderate)
Through 2017: 24 very low income units; 4 low income units; and 85 moderate income units.

Explore
Options for
Senior
Assistance
Programs
(H.4.13)
Explore program revisions and potential new programs aimed at providing assistance to seniors that would allow them to live independently and age in their homes. The potential assistance program(s) may be an offshoot of or include
revisions to the existing Residential Rehabilitation Loan Program, which provides grants and low-interest loans to qualifying households. Specifically, identify funding and initiate a program to provide grants to senior homeowners for home improvements to increase accessibility for daily
activities.

Pursue funding in 2015 with the goal of initiating program in 2016.
2015-2016 Insufficient financial resources
were available to establish a City
program.

Retain – Modify to
set specific
measures and goals
Program 10
189 of 565
Review of Past Accomplishments

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 28
5 th Cycle
Program Name
and Number Action/Target Timeframe Accomplishments
Continued
Appropriateness
6 th Cycle
Program
Number
Energy and
Water
Conservation
(H.5.1.1)
Reduce energy and water consumption in residential
buildings by balancing energy-efficient design and water conservation features with cost-effective construction.

Ongoing The City continued to provide
information on available energy
and water conservation programs.

The City adopted updates to the
water efficient landscaping
ordinance in the municipal code to
reflect the current State ordinance.

Remove –
completed.

N/A
Water and
Sewer Service
Priority
Allocation for
Affordable
Housing
(H.5.1.2)
The City will comply with SB 1087 requirements regarding water and sewer priority allocation to affordable housing. The City will coordinate with the East Bay Municipal Utility District, the West County Wastewater Sewer District, and the
Pinole/Hercules Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP) Joint Powers Agreement as needed to facilitate adoption of similar policies or to ensure that the State Public Utility Commission policies are adhered to.

Adopt policy within one year of Housing Element adoption By May 2016 Completed in 2016. Remove -
Completed.

N/A
190 of 565
Housing Needs Assessment

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 29
Housing Needs Assessment
The housing needs assessment analyzes the varied needs of all segments of the community.

The assessments evaluate characteristics that inform housing need including population trends, demographics, employment trends, household characteristics, housing stock characteristics, housing inventory and market conditions, and preservation of at-risk units.

The assessment also analyzes housing needs of various special needs groups, including elderly persons, large households, female-headed households, persons with disabilities (including developmental disabilities), homeless persons, farmworkers, and extremely lowincome households. These components are presented in the context of the City of Pinole, Contra Costa County, and other regional or neighboring areas as appropriate. The housing needs assessment guides the identification of appropriate goals, policies, and programs for the City to implement during the 2023–2031 Housing Element cycle.

The housing needs assessment uses multiple data sources for analysis. Primary data sources include the 2020 American Community Survey (ACS), the 2014–2018 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) published by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and the 2020 US Census. The CHAS provides information related to households with housing problems, including overpayment, overcrowding, and/or housing without complete kitchen facilities and plumbing systems. CHAS data is based on the 2014–2018 ACS data files but differs from the standard files by including a variety of housing need variables shown by HUD-defined income limits and HUD-specified household types. CHAS data uses the HUD Area Median Family Income (HAMFI), which does not differ from the area median income (AMI) used by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) except that it does not utilize AMI income categories. Both HAMFI and AMI use the same median income from the metropolitan area, which for Pinole is the Oakland-Hayward-Berkeley metropolitan district. Tables that use HAMFI instead of AMI are noted3.

HCD uses five income categories to evaluate housing need based on the AMI for each metropolitan statistical area; they are used for both funding and planning purposes. The categories are as follows:
• Extremely low-income households, between 0% and 30% of the AMI • Very low-income households, between 30% and 50% of the AMI • Low-income households, between 50% and 80% of the AMI • Moderate-income households, between 80% and 120% of the AMI 3 Note that data from the different sources and different years may have varying estimates for totals such as population or number of households.
191 of 565
Housing Needs Assessment

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 30
• Above moderate-income households, above 120% of the AMI Extremely low-, very low-, and low-income households may be grouped together for planning purposes and referred to as “lower-income households.”
Projected Housing Needs
As required by California Government Code section 65583, each jurisdiction must have land zoned to accommodate its fair share of the regional housing need. Each jurisdiction’s share of needs is known as the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). HCD determines the needs for each region of the state. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) is the regional planning agency for the nine county Bay Area region responsible for assigning each jurisdiction within the region its share of the RHNA. The RHNA is broken down into the five income levels: extremely low, very low, low, moderate, and above moderate.

As determined by HCD, the RHNA for the Bay Area region over the 2023–2031 planning period is 441,176 units. Contra Costa County as a whole received a RHNA of 49,043 units.

Pinole was assigned a RHNA of 500 total units, as shown in Table 3.

Table 3: Pinole RHNA, 2023–2031
Income Group % of County AMI Units % of Units
Extremely Low1 0–30% 60 12.0%
Very Low 30–50% 61 12.2%
Low 50–80% 69 13.8%
Moderate 80–120% 87 17.4%
Above Moderate > 120% 223 44.6%
Total - 500 100%
Source: Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) as referenced in Pinole 2023-2031 Housing Element Data Package, Table HHPROJ-01. 1Pursuant to AB 2634, local jurisdictions are also required to project the needs of extremely low-income households (0–30% of AMI). Fifty percent of the very low-income households are presumed to qualify as extremely low-income households.

Existing Housing Needs
Existing housing needs take into consideration demographic information about the community and region, including population and employment trends. It also considers data about the housing stock and characteristics, including housing age, condition, rates of cost burden, and rates of overcrowding.

Population Growth Trends
Table 4 provides the population trends of Pinole and select regional jurisdictions from 2010 to 2020. Pinole has a population of 19,505 as reported by the 2020 US Census. The County saw a 10.0 percent increase in population over the 10-year time span. Pinole experienced a lower growth rate of 6.1 percent, about 1,115 people. This is a comparable growth rate to 192 of 565
Housing Needs Assessment

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 31
the nearby jurisdictions of El Cerrito and Hercules. Richmond and San Pablo saw marginally higher population changes at 7.2 percent and 7.8 percent, respectively, while Martinez experienced a lower rate of growth at 3.6 percent.

Table 4: Regional Population Change, 2010–2020
Jurisdiction 2010 2020 % Change
Bay Area 7,150,739 7,790,537 8.9%
Contra Costa County 1,049,025 1,153,561 10.0%
Pinole 18,390 19,505 6.1%
El Cerrito 23,549 24,953 6.0%
Hercules 24,060 25,530 6.1%
Martinez 35,824 37,106 3.6%
Richmond 103,701 111,217 7.2%
San Pablo 29,139 31,413 7.8%
Source: California Department of Finance, E-5 series (as referenced in ABAG 2023-2031 Housing Element Data Package, table POPEMP-01).

Table 5 provides annual average population growth from 2000 through 2020. Between 2010 and 2020, the Bay Area and Contra Costa County experienced similar average annual growth rates of approximately 1 percent per year. During the same ten-year period, Pinole saw slightly slower annual average growth at 0.6 percent (an increase of 1,115 residents total). In contrast, from 2000 to 2010, the City’s population estimate decreased by 649 people or approximately 0.3 percent annually on average.

Table 5: Annual Average Population Growth, 2000–2020
Jurisdiction 2000 2010 2020 2000-2010 2010-2020
Total Population Population
Change
AAGR Population
Change
AAGR
Pinole 19,039 18,390 19,505 -649 -0.3% 1,115 0.6%
Contra Costa
County
948,816 1,049,025 1,153,561 100,209 1.0% 104,536 1.0%
Bay Area 6,784,348 7,150,739 7,790,537 366,391 0.5% 639,798 0.9% Source: California Department of Finance, E-5 series (as referenced in ABAG 2023-2031 Housing Element Data Package, table POPEMP-01).

Age Composition
Pinole’s current and future housing needs are determined in part by the age characteristics of its residents as each age group typically has distinct housing needs and preferences. For instance, a higher proportion of young adults generally indicates a need for rental units and first-time homebuyer or first move-up opportunities, including condominiums, townhomes, and smaller single-family homes. Middle-aged residents are usually at the peak of their earning power and typically occupy larger homes. Senior residents are generally homeowners who have resided in their single-family homes for an extended period of time, 193 of 565
Housing Needs Assessment

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 32
and may be in need of making home adaptation improvements to facilitate aging in place or transitioning to smaller living spaces and/or assisted living facilities. As a part of Program 9, the City is developing an aging in place permit policy that reduces the cost of building permits for age-qualified homeowners to make improvements to their home for universal design in order to support aging in place.

Table 6 summarizes the population’s age distribution and percentage change from 2000 to 2020. From 2010 to 2020, the largest increases in population were in the age groups of 65- 74 years (78.3 percent or 1,219 individuals) and 25-34 years (66.5 percent or 1,408 individuals). The largest decline was in the 15-24 years age group (-38.3 percent) followed by the 45-54 years age group (-27.1 percent). The 2000–2010 and 2010–2020 time periods both show a declining trend in the under 14 age groups in Pinole; over the course of the 20-year period, the 0-4 years age group decreased 19.8 percent, and the 5-14 years age group decreased by 31.2 percent. In comparison, the Countywide age group of 0-4 years decreased by 0.1 percent and the 5-14 age group increased by 1.3 percent.

This data suggests that there is an increasing need for senior housing, which may take the form of age-restricted developments, smaller units, and housing with increased support services and proximity to healthcare. The growing 25–34-year-old age group suggests a need for first-time homeownership opportunities and larger housing units, as this group has a higher propensity to start families.

Table 6: Population Age Distribution, Pinole
Age Group 2000 2010 2020 Change 2000-2010 Change 2010-2020 Age 0-4 1,083 933 869 -150 -13.9% -64 -6.9%
Age 5-14 2,794 2,038 1,923 -756 -27.1% -115 -5.6%
Age 15-24 2,367 2,467 1,523 100 4.2% -944 -38.3%
Age 25-34 2,097 2,116 3,524 19 0.9% 1,408 66.5%
Age 35-44 3,298 2,209 2,375 -1,089 -33.0% 166 7.5%
Age 45-54 2,995 3,043 2,218 48 1.6% -825 -27.1%
Age 55-64 1,949 2,736 2,737 787 40.4% 1 0.0%
Age 65-74 1,299 1,556 2,775 257 19.8% 1,219 78.3%
Age 75-84 855 859 986 4 0.5% 127 14.8%
Age 85+ 302 433 413 131 43.4% -20 -4.6%
Total 19,039 18,390 19,343 -649 -3.4% 953 5.2%
Source: US Census Bureau, Census 2000 SF1, Table P12; Census 2010 SF1, Table P12; American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2016-2020), Table DP05.
194 of 565
Housing Needs Assessment

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 33
Figure 1: Population Age Distribution, 2020
Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2016-2020), Table DP05.

Race and Ethnicity
An understanding of the racial and ethnic trends in a region contributes to an analysis of housing demand. According to 2020 ACS data, Non-White populations in Pinole occupy multifamily units at a higher rate than White populations. 4 Race and ethnicity characteristics
also can be correlated with income levels. Table 7 summarizes the racial and ethnic composition of the population in 2010 and 2020. As of 2020, 24 percent of Pinole residents of any race were of Hispanic origin and 76 percent were Non-Hispanic. Of the Non-Hispanic population, 33 percent were white, and 25 percent were Asian or Pacific Islander and 11 percent were Black or African American. Between 2010 and 2020, the White Non-Hispanic population percentage declined by 5 percent, while the Asian or Pacific Islander population percentage increased by 2.6 percent, and the Black or African American population increased by 2.1 percent.
4 US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2016-2020), Table B25032A-E. 4% 4%
6%
4% 4%
18%
12% 11%
8%
6%
14%
5%
2%
6% 6% 7% 6% 6%
13%
13% 14%
7% 6%
9%
5%
2%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
% of Population
Pinole Contra Costa County
195 of 565
Housing Needs Assessment

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 34
Table 7: Racial and Ethnic Composition, Pinole
Racial/Ethnic Group 2010 2020
Number % Number %
Not Hispanic or Latino
White 7,037 38.1% 6,362 32.9%
Black or African American 1,642 8.9% 2,122 11.0%
American Indian & Alaska Native 71 0.4% 25 0.1%
Asian 4,044 21.9% 4,769 24.7%
Native Hawaiian & Pacific Islander 50 0.3% 20 0.1%
Some other race alone 123 0.7% 136 0.7%
Two or more races 1,005 5.4% 1,202 6.2%
Subtotal 13,972 75.7% 14,636 75.7%
Hispanic or Latino
White 2,060 11.2% 1,833 9.5%
Black or African American 29 0.2% 33 0.2%
American Indian & Alaska Native 36 0.2% 59 0.3%
Asian 35 0.2% 63 0.3%
Native Hawaiian & Pacific Islander 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
Some other race alone 1,938 10.5% 1,933 10.0%
Two or more races 391 2.1% 786 4.1%
Subtotal 4,489 24.3% 4,707 24.3%
Total 18,461 100.0% 19,343 100.0%
Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data 2010 and 2020, Table B03002.

Figure 2 compares the racial and ethnic composition of Pinole compared to Contra Costa County and the Bay Area region. Pinole is a diverse community. The White, non-Hispanic population makes up a smaller subgroup of the population than the County or Bay Area (33 percent compared to 44 and 39 percent, respectively). In Pinole, a larger proportion (12 percent) of the population is Black or African American (8 percent in the County and 6 percent in the Bay Area). The Asian population is representative of the Bay Area, making up 27 percent of the total population, but higher than the County’s 17 percent. 196 of 565
Housing Needs Assessment

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 35
Figure 2: Regional Racial/Ethnic Composition, 2019
Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B03002.

Employment Trends
Employment trends in a region also influence housing needs. The quality and/or pay of available employment can determine the need for various housing types and prices.

Table 8 shows the labor force and employment trends in Pinole in 2010, 2015, and 2020. The labor force has increased by over 1,000 from 2010 to 2020. The unemployment rate decreased by 1.8 percent, from 6.9 percent to 5.1 percent, between 2010 and 2020 and according to Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS) it decreased by 1.5 percent from 2015-2020. In 2020, the unemployment rate for Pinole, at 5.1 percent was lower than the County’s unemployment rate of 5.5 percent and according to LAUS it was within a tenth of a percent difference between Pinole (3.3 percent) and the East Bay Region (3.2 percent). 27%
17%
27%
12%
8%
6%
33%
44%
39%
7% 5% 5%
21% 26% 24%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Pinole Contra Costa County Bay Area
Percent of Population
Hispanic or Latinx
Other Race or Multiple Races, Non-Hispanic
White, Non-Hispanic
Black or African American, Non-Hispanic
Asian / API, Non-Hispanic
American Indian or Alaska Native, Non-Hispanic
197 of 565
Housing Needs Assessment

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 36
Table 8: Employment Trends, Pinole
Year Labor Force Employment Unemployment Unemployment Rate 2010 9,557 8,888 669 6.9% -
2015 9,757 9,128 629 6.4% 4.8%*
2020 10,595 10,051 544 5.1% 3.3%*
Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data 2010, 2015, and 2020, Table DP03. *Source: CA EDD, Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS) program; TNDG Figure 3 displays the employment share by industry in Pinole, Contra Costa County, and the Bay Area region. The employment by industry breakdown when compared among the City, County, and Bay Area region has a few, small differences. Pinole has a smaller percentage of workers employed in the financial and professional services than Contra Costa County and the Bay Area. It has a higher percentage of workers employed in the health and educational services sector.
198 of 565
Housing Needs Assessment

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 37
Figure 3: Regional Employment by Industry, 2019
Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table C24030.

Figure 4 displays the regional employment by occupation for Pinole, Contra Costa County, and the Bay Area. As with regional employment by industry, the makeup of employment by occupation is similar across the City, County, and Bay Area region. The largest difference is in the management, business, science, and arts occupations, in which Pinole has a smaller percentage of people employed (40 percent) than the County and Bay Area (44 and 50 percent, respectively). Pinole has a slightly higher percentage of people employed in the sales and office occupations (25 percent) than the County and Bay Area (21 and 19 percent, respectively). The comparison of regional employment by occupation and industry shows no specific housing need unique to Pinole as compared to the County and region. 5% 7% 6%
20%
25% 26%
37%
31% 30%
4%
16%
14% 17%
11% 10% 9%
10% 9% 8%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Pinole Contra Costa County Bay Area
Share of Employed Residents
Other Retail
Manufacturing, Wholesale & Transportation Information
Health & Educational Services Financial & Professional Services Construction Agriculture & Natural Resources
199 of 565
Housing Needs Assessment

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 38
Figure 4: Regional Employment by Occupation, 2019
Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table C24010.

Household Characteristics
This section describes Pinole’s household characteristics, including data on the number of households, household size, and household income. The US Census Bureau defines a household as all persons living in a single housing unit, whether or not they are related. A household can be one person, a single family, multiple families, or any group of related or unrelated persons. The US Census Bureau defines a family as related persons living within a single housing unit.

As shown in Table 9, the number of households in Pinole decreased by 6.2 percent between 2000 and 2010. This was a significant deviation from the increase the County and State experienced during the same time period (6.9 and 7.7 percent, respectively). Between 2010 and 2020, Pinole’s household growth has been on par with the state as a whole at just under 6 percent, but lower than the County’s 8 percent growth. In 2020, the US Census Bureau reported 6,792 households in Pinole.
40% 44% 50%
5%
8%
7% 10%
9%
9%
25% 21% 19%
19% 18% 16%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Pinole Contra Costa County Bay Area
Share of Employed Residents
Service Occupations
Sales And Office Occupations
Production, Transportation, And Material Moving Occupations Natural Resources, Construction, And Maintenance Occupations Management, Business, Science, And Arts Occupations
200 of 565
Housing Needs Assessment

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 39
Table 9: Number of Households, 2000–2020
Area 2000 2010 2020 % Change
2000-2010
% Change
2010-2020
Pinole 6,837 6,411 6,792 -6.2% 5.9%
Contra Costa County 344,422 368,087 398,299 6.9% 8.2%
California 11,502,870 12,392,852 13,103,114 7.7% 5.7%
Source: US Census Bureau, Decennial Census 2000, Table DP1. American Community Survey 5-Year Data 2010 and 2020, Table S1101.

The average number of persons per household in Pinole was 2.83 in 2020, a slight decrease from 2.88 in 2010. In contrast, the County and State both saw an increase in household size since 2010. As shown in Table 10, the average number of persons per household in Pinole is now similar to the County’s average but lower than the statewide average of 3.00. A larger household size may indicate a need for larger housing units and more bedrooms. It may also suggest a need for more affordable units to alleviate the pressure for individuals to cohabitate primarily because of high housing costs. These issues are further analyzed in the Overpayment and Overcrowding section of the needs assessment.

Table 10: Regional Average Household Size
Area 2000 2010 2020
Pinole 2.79 2.88 2.83
Contra Costa County 2.72 2.75 2.86
California 2.87 2.90 3.00
Source: US Census Bureau, Decennial Census 2000, Table DP1 SF2. American Community Survey 5-Year Data 2010 and 2020, Table S1101.

Figure 5 shows the household size distribution of Pinole, Contra Costa County, and the Bay Area region. The distribution is similar among all three geographic areas of analysis. Pinole has a slightly higher proportion of 2-person and 5-or-more-person households than the State or County and fewer 3-to-4-person households.
201 of 565
Housing Needs Assessment

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 40
Figure 5: Households by Size, 2019
Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B11016.

Table 11 shows trends in household size from 2010 through 2020. The largest change has been an increase in two-person households. In 2010 they made up about 30 percent of all households and now comprise nearly 39 percent of total households. This represents a 42 percent increase in two-person households over the 10-year period. Households with five or more persons increased over 20 percent from 2010 to 2020. One-person households decreased slightly and three- and four-person households declined substantially (17 percent and 25.5 percent, respectively, from 2010 to 2020).
22% 22% 25%
34% 32% 32%
31% 34% 33%
13% 12% 11%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Pinole Contra Costa County Bay Area
Percent of Households
1-Person Household 2-Person Household
3-4-Person Household 5-Person or More Household
202 of 565
Housing Needs Assessment

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 41
Table 11: Household Size, Pinole, 2010–2020
Household Size 2010 2015 2020 2010-2020
Units % of
Total
Units % of
Total
Units % of
Total
% Change
1-Person Household 1,307 20.4% 1,531 22.7% 1,298 19.1% -0.7% 2-Person Household 1,854 28.9% 2,479 36.8% 2,636 38.8% 42.2% 3-Person Household 1,433 22.4% 1,124 16.7% 1,184 17.4% -17.4% 4-Person Household 1,130 17.6% 817 12.1% 842 12.4% -25.5% 5+ person household 687 10.7% 786 11.7% 832 12.2% 21.1% Total 6,411 100% 6,737 100% 6,792 100% 5.9%
Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2016-2020), (2011-2015), and (2006-2010), Table B25009.

The decrease in three- and four-person households may partially be attributed to Pinole’s recent trend toward smaller family size, as shown in Table 12. Average family size decreased from 3.27 in 2010 and 2015 to 3.19 in 2020. This contrasts with the County’s increase in average family size from 3.28 to 3.34 over the same period. This correlates with Table 6, which shows that the 0-4-years age group decreased 19.8 percent and the 5-14 years age group decreased by 31.2 percent between 2000 and 2020. This data may indicate that as families grow, they are priced out of the housing market and choosing to live elsewhere, that Pinole families are choosing to have fewer children, or a combination of both.

Table 12: Family Household Characteristics, 2010–2020
Area 2010 2015 2020 Change
2010-2020
Pinole
Families as % of All Households 74.3% 71.6% 74.6% +0.3% Average Family Size 3.27 3.27 3.19 -0.08
Contra Costa County
Families as % of All Households 70.5% 71.0% 71.9% +1.4% Average Family Size 3.28 3.34 3.34 +0.06
Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2016-2020), (2011-2015), and (2006-2010), Table S1101.

Table 13 displays household size by tenure in Pinole. Just under 70 percent of housing units are owner-occupied citywide. When looking at tenure by household size, one-person households have a lower homeownership rate than other household sizes. Their lower household income may make it more challenging to finance a home. 203 of 565
Housing Needs Assessment

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 42
Table 13: Household Size by Tenure, Pinole, 2020
Owner Occupied Renter-Occupied Total
Contra Costa
County
Pinole Contra Costa
County
Pinole Contra Costa
County
Pinole
1-person
household

12.9% 51,401 11.2% 758 8.9% 35,587 8.0% 540 21.8% 86,988 19.1% 1,298 2-person
household

22.5% 89,816 29.0% 1969 9.0% 35,985 9.8% 667 31.6% 125,801 38.8% 2,636 3-person
household

12.2% 48,703 10.8% 736 5.7% 22,746 6.6% 448 17.9% 71,449 17.4% 1,184 4-person
household

11.3% 44,967 10.0% 681 5.1% 20,331 2.4% 161 16.4% 65,298 12.4% 842 5-person
household

4.9% 19,568 5.5% 373 2.7% 10,598 2.0% 138 7.6% 30,166 7.5% 511 6-person
household

1.9% 7,423 2.3% 157 1.0% 3,934 1.2% 83 2.9% 11,357 3.5% 240 7-or-more
person
household

1.1% 4,360 0.9% 58 0.7% 2,880 0.3% 23 1.8% 7,240 1.2% 81 Total: 66.8% 266,238 69.7% 4732 33.2% 132,061 30.3% 2,060 100% 398,299 100% 6,792 Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2016-2020), Table B25009.

The median household income for Pinole in 2020 was $104,904, which is within 1 percent of the median income for the County ($103,997). In the City, the median income for owneroccupied households ($112,342) was about $34,000 higher than the median income for renter-occupied households ($77,976). The County has a larger income disparity between owners and renters, with owner-occupied households earning over $56,000 more than renter-occupied households.

Table 14: Median Household Income by Tenure
Jurisdiction 2020 Median Income
Pinole $104,904
Owner-Occupied Households $112,342
Renter-Occupied Households $77,976
Contra Costa County $103,997
Owner-Occupied Households $125,809
Renter-Occupied Households $69,772
Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2016-2020), Table B25119. 204 of 565
Housing Needs Assessment

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 43
The State of California uses five income categories to determine eligibility for housing programs. Table 15 shows the State-defined income ranges for each affordability category based on the Contra Costa County AMI of $125,600 for a household of four.

Table 15: Income Range by Affordability Level Based on State Area Median Income, 2021 Affordability Category % of County Median Income Range
Extremely Low Income < 30% ≤ $ 41,100
Very Low Income 30%-50% $41,101 - $ 68,500
Low Income 50%-80% $68,501 - $ 109,600
Moderate Income 80%-120% $109,601 -$ 150,700
Above Moderate Income > 120% > $150,700
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development, Revised State Income Limits for 2021, Dec. 31, 2021.

Table 16 provides a breakdown of income level by tenure in Pinole, using the 2014–2018 CHAS data. Approximately 30 percent of households in Pinole are renter-occupied, compared to 34 percent of households in the County. In Pinole, about 55 percent of households are above the HUD area median family income, which is comparable to the County’s 56.5 percent.
205 of 565
Housing Needs Assessment

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 44
Table 16: Household Income Level by Tenure, 2018
Income Level Owner
Occupied
% Renter
Occupied
% Total %
Pinole
Less than or equal to 30% of HAMFI1 295 4.4% 260 3.9% 555 8.3% Greater than 30% but less than or equal
to 50% of HAMFI
435 6.5% 380 5.7% 815 12.2%
Greater than 50% but less than or equal
to 80% of HAMFI
510 7.6% 315 4.7% 825 12.4%
Greater than 80% but less than or equal
to 100% of HAMFI
545 8.2% 265 4.0% 810 12.1%
Greater than 100% of HAMFI 2,860 42.9% 800 12.0% 3,660 54.9% Total2 4,650 69.7% 2,020 30.3% 6,670 100%
Contra Costa County
Less than or equal to 30% of HAMFI 16,810 4.3% 31,625 8.1% 48,435 12.3% Greater than 30% but less than or equal
to 50% of HAMFI
21,115 5.4% 20,335 5.2% 41,450 10.6%
Greater than 50% but less than or equal
to 80% of HAMFI
26,450 6.7% 18,655 4.8% 45,105 11.5%
Greater than 80% but less than or equal
to 100% of HAMFI
21,355 5.4% 14,480 3.7% 35,835 9.1%
Greater than 100% of HAMFI 171,795 43.8% 49,655 12.7% 221,450 56.5% Total2 257,530 65.7% 134,750 34.4% 392,275 100%
Source: US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), CHAS ACS tabulation, 2014-2018. 1 HUD area median family income (HAMFI)
2 Data presented in this table are based on special tabulations from sample Census data. The number of households in each category usually deviates slightly from the 100 percent total due to the need to extrapolate sample data out to total households. Interpretations of these data should focus on the proportion of households in need of assistance rather than on precise numbers.

Housing Stock Characteristics
This section discusses the housing stock in Pinole including change in housing units, unit size, unit type, age of housing stock, overpayment and overcrowding rates, and housing age and conditions. By analyzing past and current housing trends in the housing stock, future housing needs can be assessed.

Table 17 summarizes the number of housing units in the City and County from 2000 to 2020.

In 2000, Pinole had 6,828 housing units. By 2010, the number of housing units increased to 7,158, a 4.8 percent increase. Between 2010 and 2020, the City is estimated to have approximately 52 fewer units (0.7 percent). There was no major loss of units or demolition without replacement during the Cycle, and the decrease is within the margin of error in the census data. In 2020, the Census reported 7,106 housing units in the City, which comprised

1.7 percent of the County’s housing units. Pinole’s share of the County’s housing units slightly 206 of 565
Housing Needs Assessment

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 45
decreased from 2000 to 2020, suggesting that housing unit production in the County is outpacing the production in Pinole.

Table 17: Housing Units, 2000–2020
Year Pinole % Change County % Change Pinole as % of
County
2000 6,828 - 354,577 - 1.9%
2010 7,158 4.8% 400,263 12.9% 1.8%
2020 7,106 -0.7% 423,342 5.8% 1.7%
Source: US Census Bureau, Decennial Census 2000, Table H001 SF1, 2010 and 2020, Table H1 Redistricting Data.

Table 18 summarizes the distribution of unit size by tenure in 2020. The most common unit size for renter-occupied units was two-bedroom units, followed by three-bedroom units. The most common size for owner-occupied units was three-bedroom units followed by fourbedrooms units. Owner-occupied units tended to be larger than renter-occupied units.

Table 18: Unit Size by Tenure, Pinole, 2020
Unit Size Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied Total Occupied Housing Units Units % Units % Units %
No bedroom/Studio 47 1% 127 2% 174 3%
1 bedroom 9 0% 319 5% 328 5%
2 bedrooms 541 8% 812 12% 1,353 20%
3 bedrooms 2,391 35% 568 8% 2,959 44%
4 bedrooms 1,603 24% 207 3% 1,810 27%
5 or more bedrooms 141 2% 27 0% 168 2%
Total 4,732 70% 2,060 30% 6,792 100%
Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2016-2020), Table B25042.

Table 19 summarizes Pinole’s housing inventory by building type from 2010 to 2021. In 2021, single-family detached units comprised the largest percentage of housing stock, approximately 70 percent with 5,056 units. Multifamily housing made up 20 percent with 1,461 units. Compared to Contra Costa County, Pinole has a slightly larger share of the housing stock in the form of single-family detached housing units. Single-family detached homes make up 67 percent of the County’s housing and multifamily housing accounts for 24 percent. Between 2010 and 2021, the distribution of building types has remained the same for both the County and the City.
207 of 565
Housing Needs Assessment

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 46
Table 19: Housing Inventory by Unit Type
Building Type
2010 2021
Units % Units %
Pinole
Single-Family Home: Detached 5,050 70.6% 5,056 70.5%
Single-Family Home: Attached1 613 8.6% 616 8.6%
Multifamily2 1,459 20.4% 1,461 20.4%
Mobile Homes 36 0.5% 36 0.5%
Total 7,158 100% 7,169 100%
Contra Costa County
Single-Family Home: Detached 266,693 66.6% 280,271 66.6% Single-Family Home: Attached1 31,594 7.9% 32,162 7.6%
Multifamily2 94,602 23.6% 101,034 24.0%
Mobile Homes 7,374 1.8% 7,284 1.7%
Total 400,263 100% 420,751 100%
Source: State of California, Department of Finance, E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State — January 1, 2011-2021. Sacramento, California, May 2021.
1 “Single-Family Home: Attached” is defined as a one-unit structure attached to another unit by a common wall; they are commonly referred to as a townhouse, half-plex, or row house. The shared wall or walls extend from the foundation to the roof with adjoining units to form a property line. Each unit has individual heating and plumbing systems. 2 “Multifamily” refers to a structure containing two or more units and not classified as a “Single-Family Home: Attached” structure. The units in the structure share attic space and heating and plumbing systems.

Table 20 displays the US Census Bureau’s estimates of the number of occupied housing units by building type and tenure in Pinole in 2020. Most of Pinole’s housing stock is composed of owner-occupied, detached single-family homes (68.8 percent) followed by renter-occupied, detached single-family homes (16.4 percent). Analyzing the tenure split of the various housing building types reveals that 80.8 percent of detached single-family homes were owner occupied. Multifamily housing was predominantly renter occupied (79.2 percent).

Diversifying Pinole’s housing stock to include more multifamily housing in both rental and ownership forms has the potential to provide more affordable housing options, given the construction efficiencies of the multifamily building type. Multifamily housing can also be beneficial for seniors, people with disabilities, and those who prefer less home maintenance or do not need the yard space characteristic of single-family properties. 208 of 565
Housing Needs Assessment

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 47
Table 20: Housing Building Type by Tenure, Pinole, 2020 Building Type Owner
Occupied
% of
Total Units
Renter
Occupied
% of
Total Units
Total
Units
Detached Single-Family Homes 4,218 68.8% 1,003 16.4% 5,221 Attached Single-Family Homes 310 5.1% 92 1.5% 402
Multifamily Housing 35 0.6% 133 2.2% 168
Mobile Homes 68 1.1% 153 2.5% 221
Boat, RV, Van, etc. 34 0.6% 81 1.3% 115
Total 4,665 76.1% 1,462 23.9% 6,127
Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2016-2020), Table B25032.

Housing Age and Condition
The age of a housing unit is often an indicator of housing conditions. In general, housing that is 30 years old or older may need repairs based on the useful life of materials. Housing over 50 years old is considered aged and is more likely to need major repairs. Many federal and state programs use age of housing as one factor to determine housing needs and the availability of funds for housing and community development.

Table 21 summarizes the age of housing stock by tenure in 2020. Approximately 88.6 percent of all housing units in the City were built prior to 1990 (over 30 years ago), and 52.6 percent of units were built before 1970 (over 50 years ago). This distribution does not significantly vary based on tenure in Pinole. For example, 87.5 percent of the renter-occupied housing stock was built before 1990 and 53.3 percent of renter-occupied units were built prior to 1970. The City has seen very little rental family housing stock built within the past two decades; only 35 rental units have been built since 2000, compared to 197 owner-occupied units.

A windshield survey from code enforcement estimates that about 15 – 20 units in the City are in need of significant repair, under 1 percent of units in the City. 209 of 565
Housing Needs Assessment

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 48
Table 21: Year Housing Built
Year Built Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied Total
Built 2014 or later 20 0.4% 0 0.0% 20 0.3%
Built 2010 to 2013 18 0.4% 0 0.0% 18 0.3%
Built 2000 to 2009 159 3.4% 35 1.7% 194 2.9%
Built 1990 to 1999 323 6.8% 222 10.8% 545 8.0%
Built 1980 to 1989 738 15.6% 331 16.1% 1,069 15.7%
Built 1970 to 1979 999 21.1% 374 18.2% 1,373 20.2%
Built 1960 to 1969 1,317 27.8% 496 24.1% 1,813 26.7%
Built 1950 to 1959 982 20.8% 415 20.1% 1,397 20.6%
Built 1940 to 1949 95 2.0% 72 3.5% 167 2.5%
Built 1939 or earlier 81 1.7% 115 5.6% 196 2.9%
Total 4,732 100% 2,060 100% 6,792 100%
Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2016-2020), Table B25036.

Housing tenure by date of occupancy is listed in Table 22, which shows when households moved into their housing unit. About 30 percent of owner-occupied households have been in the same place of residence since 1989 or earlier (over 30 years). Given that most homeowners do not purchase their home until they are in their late twenties or thirties, this suggests that many of these homeowners would be nearing their senior years and living in housing that is more likely to require repairs due to aging materials. Program 10 includes the development of a policy to give low or no-cost building permits for age-qualified homeowners to make improvements to their home so that they are able to age in place.

Table 22: Housing Tenure by Date of Occupancy
Move In Year Owner
Occupied
% of
Units
Renter
Occupied
% of
Units
Total % of
Units
Moved in 2019 or later 32 0.7% 138 6.7% 170 2.5%
Moved in 2015 to 2018 707 14.9% 804 39.0% 1,511 22.2%
Moved in 2010 to 2014 660 13.9% 767 37.2% 1,427 21.0%
Moved in 2000 to 2009 1,114 23.5% 183 8.9% 1,297 19.1%
Moved in 1990 to 1999 773 16.3% 118 5.7% 891 13.1%
Moved in 1989 or earlier 1,446 30.6% 50 2.4% 1,496 22.0% Total 4,732 100% 2,060 100% 6,792 100%
Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2016-2020), Table B25038.

Median Home Sales Price
Figure 6 shows the change in home prices in Pinole, Contra Costa County, and the Bay Area region from December 2001 to December 2020. While each geography follows the same general trend over time, Pinole home prices are lower than the other two geographies. After 210 of 565
Housing Needs Assessment

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 49
2005, the housing market slowdown affected home sale prices in Pinole. Between 2005 and 2011, the home sales prices in Pinole decreased by approximately 35 percent. Since then, the median sales prices for new and resale homes in Pinole have steadily increased, with a minor dip at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in early 2020. Pinole home prices are significantly lower than the County. The median home price in December 2020 was $634,914, which was 18 percent ($137,499) lower than the County median of $772,413.

Figure 6: Regional Home Values, 2001–2020
Source: Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI), December 2020 (as referenced in ABAG, 2023-2031 Housing Element Data Package, Table HSG-08.) Notes: Zillow describes the ZHVI as a smoothed, seasonally adjusted measure of the typical home value and market changes across a given region and housing type. The ZHVI reflects the typical value for homes in the 35th to 65th percentile range. The ZHVI includes all owner-occupied housing units, including both single-family homes and condominiums.

Home values in Pinole increased by 17 percent between February 2021 and February 2022, from $665,000 to $779,000, as shown in Table 23. In February 2022, the Zillow home value index in Contra Costa County was $949,000, which represents a 22 percent increase since February 2021. In February 2022, the home values in Contra Costa County were 22 percent higher than those in Pinole. Since a household can typically qualify to purchase a home that is 2.5 to 3.0 times the annual income of that household, Pinole’s median income of about $100,000
$300,000
$500,000
$700,000
$900,000
$1,100,000
$1,300,000
20012002200320042005200620072008200920102011201220132014201520162017201820192020 Bay Area Contra Costa County Pinole
211 of 565
Housing Needs Assessment

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 50
$105,000 implies that the median sales price should be between $262,500 and $315,000.5 The home value index of approximately $780,000 indicates a high potential for housing cost burden in the City.

Table 23: Zillow Home Value Index, Neighboring Jurisdictions Jurisdiction February 2021 February 2022 % Change
El Cerrito $1,040,000 $1,130,000 9%
Hercules $851,000 $1,030,000 21%
Martinez $674,000 $729,000 8%
Pinole $665,000 $779,000 17%
Richmond $693,000 $778,000 12%
San Pablo $519,000 $605,000 17%
Contra Costa County $780,000 $949,000 22%
Source: Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI), February 2022, https://www.zillow.com/ca/home-values/, accessed March 31, 2022.

Notes: Zillow describes the ZHVI as a smoothed, seasonally adjusted measure of the typical home value and market changes across a given region and housing type. The ZHVI reflects the typical value for homes in the 35th to 65th percentile range. The ZHVI includes all owner-occupied housing units, including both single-family homes and condominiums.

Rental Prices
Table 24 and Figure 7 show median home rental prices in Pinole and Contra Costa County from 2010 to 2020. In 2020, the median rental price in Pinole was $1,997. This is a 30 percent increase from the 10-year low of $1,538 in 2015. Rental prices have been steadily increasing in the City since 2015. It should be noted that these median rental prices do not fully capture the housing market effects of the global COVID-19 pandemic. One of the economic impacts seen in California during the COVID-19 pandemic was a rapid increase in home prices, potentially caused by a rapid increase in remote work and higher demand for housing in suburban settings such as Pinole. As a result, rental values in the years following the onset of the pandemic are estimated to be significantly higher and continue to rise. 5 Assumes 10% down payment; 5.00% mortgage interest rate; taxes, insurance, PMI and HOA account for 35% of housing costs; and uses 2022 Contra Costa County Housing Authority utility allowances. 212 of 565
Housing Needs Assessment

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 51
Table 24: Median Monthly Rent, 2010–2020
Median
Rental
Prices
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Pinole $1,822 $1,840 $1,801 $1,673 $1,620 $1,538 $1,608 $1,706 $1,778 $1,903 $1,997 Contra
Costa
County
$1,796 $1,804 $1,780 $1,741 $1,719 $1,700 $1,736 $1,811 $1,905 $2,013 $2,107 Source: American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table B25105.

Figure 7: Median Rental Prices, 2010–2020
Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table B25105.

Additionally, Figure 8 shows the average rental prices for 2-bedroom and 3-bedroom apartments in Pinole from April 2015 to Dec 2022. As noted in Table 24 and Figure 7, the rental prices in Pinole have steadily increased. At certain points in 2017, 2020, and 2022 the average rental cost between 2- and 3-bedrooms within a few hundred dollars, and between April 2022 and August 2022, 3-bedroom were significantly less expensive. $1,400
$1,500
$1,600
$1,700
$1,800
$1,900
$2,000
$2,100
$2,200
$2,300
$2,400
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Contra Costa County Pinole
213 of 565
Housing Needs Assessment

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 52
Figure 8: Average Rent – 2 and 3 Bedroom
Source: zumper.com/rent-research/pinole-ca
Table 25 displays the affordable and fair market rents for low-income households in the Oakland-Fremont HUD Fair Market Rent Area, which includes Contra Costa County. Fair market rents are estimates of what a person moving today can expect to pay in gross rent (cost of shelter plus utilities) for a modestly priced rental home in a given area. The kind of home that can be rented for the fair market rent is in decent condition, but it is not luxury housing. The methodology used to calculate hourly wage and annual salary required to afford the fair market rents without spending greater than 30 percent of income on housing is provided by the National Low Income Housing Coalition. $0
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
$3,500
$4,000
Apr-15
Aug-15
Dec-15
Apr-16
Aug-16
Dec-16
Apr-17
Aug-17
Dec-17
Apr-18
Aug-18
Dec-18
Apr-19
Aug-19
Dec-19
Apr-20
Aug-20
Dec-20
Apr-21
Aug-21
Dec-21
Apr-22
Aug-22
Dec-22
2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom
214 of 565
Housing Needs Assessment

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 53
Table 25: Affordable and Fair Market Rent for Low-Income Households Unit Size Hourly Wage
Required3
Annual Salary
Required2
Fair Market Rent1
Studio $29.58 $61,520 $1,538
One Bedroom $35.65 $74,160 $1,854
Two Bedroom $43.73 $90,960 $2,274
Three Bedroom $57.81 $120,240 $3,006
Four Bedroom $68.81 $143,120 $3,578
Source: National Low Income Housing Coalition, Out of Reach 2021: California. 1HUD FY 2022 Fair Market Rent Documentation System for Oakland-Fremont, CA HUD Metro FMR Area. 2Multiply the FMR by 12 to get yearly rental cost. Then divide by .3 to determine the total annual income needed to afford the FMR without spending more than 30 percent of income on housing. 3Hourly wage assumes working 40 hours per week and 52 weeks per year.

Vacancy Rates
Vacancy rates are indicators of housing supply and demand that reflect the degree of housing choice that is available. Higher vacancy rates can induce downward price pressure, while low vacancy rates can influence upward price pressures. Low vacancy rates usually indicate high demand and/or low supply conditions in the housing market. Vacancy rates that are too low can force prices up, making it more difficult for lower- and moderate-income households to find housing. For rental units, a 7 to 8 percent vacancy rate is considered “healthy,” and a vacancy rate of 2 to 3 percent is considered “healthy” for owner-occupied housing. In 2015, the vacancy rate in Pinole was 6.7 percent and decreased to 3.5 percent in 2020. Table 26 summarizes the number of occupied and vacant units in Pinole and Contra Costa County in 2015 and 2020.

Table 26: Occupancy Rates
Occupancy Status Contra Costa County Pinole
2015 % 2020 % 2015 % 2020 %
Occupied Housing Units 384,646 95.0% 407,029 96.1% 6,737 93.3% 6,860 96.5% Vacant Housing Units 20,355 5.0% 16,313 3.9% 484 6.7% 246 3.5% Total Housing Units 405,001 100% 423,342 100% 7,221 100% 7,106 100% Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2011-2015) and (2016-2020), Table B25002.

Overpayment and Overcrowding
Overpayment is defined as households paying more than 30 percent of their gross income on housing-related expenses, including rent or mortgage payments and utilities. Households paying greater than 30 percent of their gross income on housing-related expenses are considered to be cost burdened. Severe overpayment occurs when households pay 50 percent or more of their gross income for housing. Higher costs for housing may contribute to households having a limited ability to cover other everyday living expenses. The impact of 215 of 565
Housing Needs Assessment

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 54
housing costs is more apparent for extremely low-, very low-, and low-income households, especially renter households.

Table 27 categorizes renters based on the percent of household income spent on rent.

According to 2020 ACS data, 40.9 percent of households spend more than 30 percent of their income on rent. Over 20 percent of households spend more than 50 percent on rent.

Table 27: Gross Rent as a Percentage of Household Income, 2020 Percent of Household Income Number of Households Percent of Households Less than 10 percent 44 2.1%
10 to 14.9 percent 171 8.3%
15 to 19.9 percent 307 14.9%
20 to 24.9 percent 223 10.8%
25 to 29.9 percent 155 7.5%
30 to 34.9 percent 159 7.7%
35 to 39.9 percent 322 15.6%
40 to 49.9 percent 101 4.9%
50 percent or more 420 20.4%
Not computed 158 7.7%
Total 2,060 100.0%
Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2016-2020), Table B25070.

Table 28 illustrates housing cost as a percentage of household income by tenure. It shows the number and percentage of households in Pinole and Contra Costa County that experience a cost burden and severe cost burden. According to 2014–2018 HUD CHAS data, in Pinole, 2,768 households (42 percent) experience some form of overpayment, with 849 households (13 percent) experiencing severe overpayment. This is a significant share of the community experiencing a housing cost burden and reflective of a larger regional issue. The County has an even larger share overpaying for housing; 52 percent of households experience some degree of overpayment, and 16 percent experience severe overpayment.

Renters are disproportionately affected by overpayment in both Pinole and the County. 216 of 565
Housing Needs Assessment

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 55
Table 28: Overpayment by Income Level and Tenure, 2018
Household Income Range All Households Households with Housing Cost Burden Number6 % Overpayment
(>30% of income on rent)
Severe Overpayment
(>50% of income on rent)
Owner Households, Pinole
= 30% of HAMFI 295 4.4% 165 3.5% 155 3.3%
> 30%  50% of HAMFI 435 6.5% 230 4.9% 145 3.1%
> 50%  80% of HAMFI 510 7.6% 235 5.1% 135 2.9%
> 80%  100% of HAMFI 545 8.2% 164 3.5% 4 0.1%
> 100% of HAMFI 2,860 42.9% 155 3.3% 0 0.0%
Owner Subtotal 4,650 69.7% 949 20.4% 439 9.4%
Renter Households, Pinole
= 30% of HAMFI 260 3.9% 205 10.1% 165 8.2%
> 30%  50% of HAMFI 380 5.7% 310 15.3% 185 9.2%
> 50%  80% of HAMFI 315 4.7% 215 10.6% 50 2.5%
> 80%  100% of HAMFI 265 4.0% 160 7.9% 10 0.5%
> 100% of HAMFI 800 12.0% 80 4.0% 0 0.0%
Renter Subtotal 2,020 30.3% 970 48.0% 410 20.3%
Total (Owners & Renters) 6,670 100% 1,919 28.8% 849 12.7% Owner Households, County
= 30% of HAMFI 16,810 4.3% 12,770 5.0% 10,425 4.0%
> 30%  50% of HAMFI 21,115 5.4% 13,195 5.1% 7,785 3.0% > 50%  80% of HAMFI 26,450 6.7% 14,225 5.5% 5,860 2.3% > 80%  100% of HAMFI 21,355 5.4% 8,770 3.4% 2,585 1.0% > 100% of HAMFI 171,795 43.8% 25,585 9.9% 3,355 1.3%
Owner Subtotal 257,530 65.7% 74,545 28.9% 30,010 11.7%
Renter Households, County
=30% of HAMFI 31,625 8.1% 25,495 18.9% 21,515 16.0%
> 30%  50% of HAMFI 20,335 5.2% 17,070 12.7% 8,545 6.3% > 50%  80% of HAMFI 18,655 4.8% 11,610 8.6% 2,415 1.8% > 80%  100% of HAMFI 14,480 3.7% 5,680 4.2% 460 0.3%
> 100% of HAMFI 49,655 12.7% 5,200 3.9% 105 0.1%
Renter Subtotal 134,750 34.4% 65,055 48.3% 33,040 24.5% Total (Owners & Renters) 392,280 100% 139,600 35.6% 63,050 16.1% Source: 2014-2018 HUD CHAS data, Summary Level data for Contra Costa County and City of Pinole. 217 of 565
Housing Needs Assessment

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 56
Lower-income households experience overpayment at a higher rate that moderate- and above moderate-income households in the City. Table 29 shows the rates of overpayment for lower-income households.

Table 29: Overpayment by Lower-Income Households
Household Income
Range All Households Households with Housing Cost Burden Overpayment Severe Overpayment
(>30% of income on
rent) (>50% of income on rent)
Owner Households, Pinole
= 30% of HAMFI 295 165 55.9% 155 52.5%
> 30%  50% of HAMFI 435 230 52.9% 145 33.3%
> 50%  80% of HAMFI 510 235 46.1% 135 26.5%
Lower-Income
Owners Subtotal 1,240 630 50.8% 435 35.1%
Renter Households, Pinole
= 30% of HAMFI 260 205 78.8% 165 63.5%
> 30%  50% of HAMFI 380 310 81.6% 185 48.7%
> 50%  80% of HAMFI 315 215 68.3% 50 15.9%
Lower-Income
Renters Subtotal 955 730 76.4% 400 41.9%
Total Lower-Income
(Owners & Renters) 2,195 1,360 62.0% 835 38.0%
Owner Households, County
= 30% of HAMFI 16,810 12,770 5.0% 10,425 4.0%
> 30%  50% of HAMFI 21,115 13,195 5.1% 7,785 3.0%
> 50%  80% of HAMFI 26,450 14,225 5.5% 5,860 2.3%
Lower-Income
Owners Subtotal 64,375 40,190 62.4% 24,070 37.4%
Renter Households, County
= 30% of HAMFI 31,625 25,495 80.6% 21,515 68.0%
> 30%  50% of HAMFI 20,335 17,070 83.9% 8,545 42.0%
> 50%  80% of HAMFI 18,655 11,610 62.2% 2,415 12.9%
Lower-Income
Renters Subtotal 70,615 54,175 76.7% 32,475 46.0%
6 Data presented in this table are based on special tabulations from sample Census data. The number of households in each category usually deviates slightly from the 100 percent total due to the need to extrapolate sample data out to total households. Interpretations of these data should focus on the proportion of households in need of assistance rather than on precise numbers.
218 of 565
Housing Needs Assessment

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 57
Household Income
Range All Households Households with Housing Cost Burden Total Lower-Income
(Owners & Renters) 134,990 94,365 69.9% 56,545 41.9%
Source: 2014-2018 HUD CHAS data, Summary Level data for Contra Costa County and City of Pinole.

An overcrowded housing unit is defined by the US Census Bureau as a housing unit occupied by more than one person per room (excluding bathrooms, kitchen, hallway, and closet space). Occupancy by more than 1.5 persons per room constitutes severe overcrowding.

Overcrowding can affect public facilities and services, reduce the quality of the physical environment, and create conditions that contribute to deterioration of the housing stock.

Additionally, overcrowding can indicate that a community does not have an adequate supply of affordable housing and/or variety of suitable housing units to meet the needs of the community.

Table 30 summarizes overcrowding in Pinole by tenure. Approximately 247 households, roughly 3.6 percent of households, in Pinole were experiencing overcrowding in 2020. This includes 173 owners and 74 renter households. Overall, Pinole has a lower percent of households that are overcrowded compared to the County (3.6 percent and 5.0 percent respectively).

Table 30: Overcrowding by Tenure
Owners Renters Total
Persons per
Room
Overcrowded
Households
% of
Total
Overcrowded
Households
% of
Total
Overcrowded
Households
% of
Total
Pinole

1.01 to 1.50 156 3.3% 66 3.2% 222 3.3%
>1.50 17 0.4% 8 0.4% 25 0.4%
Total Overcrowded 173 3.7% 74 3.6% 247 3.6%
Contra Costa County

1.01 to 1.50 4,483 1.7% 9,001 6.8% 13,484 3.4%
>1.50 1469 0.6% 4,974 3.8% 6,443 1.6%
Total Overcrowded 5,952 2.2% 13,975 10.6% 19,927 5.0%
Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2016-2020), Table B25014.

Preservation of Units at Risk of Conversion
Jurisdictions are required by state Housing Element Law to analyze government-assisted housing that is eligible to convert from low-income to market-rate housing over the next 10 years. State law identifies housing assistance as a rental subsidy, mortgage subsidy, or mortgage insurance to an assisted housing development. Government-assisted housing might convert to market-rate housing for a number of reasons, including expiring subsidies, mortgage repayments, or expiration of affordability restrictions. 219 of 565
Housing Needs Assessment

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 58
Qualified Entities
Under Government Code Section 65863.11, owners of federally assisted projects must provide a “Notice of Opportunity to Submit an Offer to Purchase” to qualified entities that agree to preserve the long-term affordability if they should acquire at-risk projects at least one year before the sale or expiration of use restrictions. Qualified entities have first right of refusal for acquiring at-risk units. Qualified entities are nonprofit or for-profit organizations with the legal and managerial capacity to acquire and manage at-risk properties that agree to maintain the long-term affordability of projects. The following is a list of qualified entities from HCD for Contra Costa County and the surrounding area. • ACLC Dewey Housing, Inc.
• Affordable Housing Associates
• Alameda County Allied Housing
Program
• Anka Behavioral Health
• BRIDGE Housing Corporation
• Christian Church Homes
• Community Housing Development
Corporation
• East Bay Asian Local Development
Corporation
• East Bay Neighborhood Housing
Services
• Eden Housing, Inc.
• Eskaton Properties, Inc.
• Foundation for Affordable Housing, Inc
L + M Fund Management LLC
• Neighborhood Housing Services of the
East Bay
• Northern California Land Trust, Inc.
• Pacific Community Services, Inc.
• Resources for Community Development
• ROEM Development Corporation
• Rubicon Programs, Inc.
• Rural California Housing Corporation
• Satellite Affordable Housing Associates
Inventory of At-Risk Units
There are no assisted units at risk of conversion in the City during the 6th Housing Element Cycle. There are 322 affordable housing units in Pinole that are subject to rent restrictions per covenants recorded on the property that the City monitors for compliance. The covenants on these properties expire between 2053 and 2099.

Currently, 37 rent-restricted housing units are at converting to market rate within 10 years of the beginning of the planning period (by 2033). Table 31 displays the units that will be converted during the next Cycle as well as units that were converted during the 5th Cycle. 220 of 565
Housing Needs Assessment

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 59
Table 31: Units at Risk of Conversion or Converted During the 5th Cycle, Pinole Project Affordable
Units
Assisted Units Type of
Government
Assistance
Expiration of
Affordability
Converting During 6th Cycle
Westmont of Pinole
(formerly Pinole Senior Village)
2850 Estates Avenue
37 (as of 2022)
31 moderate income
6 very low income
RDA 2028
Subtotal 37 - - -
Converted During 5th Cycle
885 Fifth Avenue 1 1 low income RDA 2014
1965 San Pablo Avenue 1 1 low income RDA 2014
1520 San Pablo Avenue 4 3 moderate income;
1 low income
RDA 2015
950 Appian Way 3 1 moderate income;
1 low income;
1 very low income
RDA 2015
2529 San Pablo Avenue 1 1 moderate income RDA 2015
2548 San Pablo Avenue 4 4 moderate income RDA 2017
815 San Pablo Avenue 2 2 moderate income RDA 2017
2395 San Pablo Avenue
(Pear Street Bistro)
4 3 moderate income;
1 very low income
RDA 2017
Bayside Apartments
530 Sunnyview Drive
93 71 moderate income
22 very low income
RDA 2020
Total 113 - - -
Source: City of Pinole, 2022. *These units are accessory dwelling units that are not required to be rented, but if they are rented must be below market rent (less than 120% of AMI).

Of these rent-restricted units, 37 are beds for seniors at Westmont of Pinole, which was formerly Pinole Senior Village. In 2018, the owner purchased the land from the City and the facility from Pinole Senior Village. At that time, a new affordable housing covenant was recorded on the property, which permitted the owner to reduce the number of very lowincome beds by one each year. Moderate-income beds are phased out at a maximum rate of 6 per year through 2023 and 5 per year from 2024 to 2028. There were originally 65 rentrestricted beds. Ten were restricted to very low-income households earning 50 percent or less of the AMI. Fifty-five beds were restricted to moderate-income households (110 percent or less of AMI). Table 32 shows the rent-restricted unit reduction schedule. By December 31, 2028, no rent-restricted bed will be required to be maintained at this facility. The owner 221 of 565
Housing Needs Assessment

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 60
cannot raise the rent on any rent-restricted beds and may only reduce restricted beds by voluntary vacation of such bed by an eligible tenant.

Table 32: Westmont of Pinole Rent-Restricted Unit Reduction Schedule Minimum Required Rent-Restricted Units by Year
Income Level Moderate Income Very Low Income
2018 55 10
2019 49 9
2020 43 8
2021 37 7
2022 31 6
2023 25 5
2024 20 4
2025 15 3
2026 10 2
2027 5 1
2028 0 0
Source: Affordable Housing Covenant between Pinole Senior Living, L.P. and City of Pinole.

Replacement Costs
The California Tax Credit Allocation Committee’s 2020 report provides estimates and data on the cost of building assisted units. It estimates that the average cost of an assisted unit in the State of California is $439,827.
7 Table 33 summarizes the estimated replacement costs per unit using construction cost estimates from the UC Berkeley Terner Center and average unit sizes in the City of Pinole from Apartment Finder. Combined, they provide an estimate for replacement costs by unit size specific to Pinole. It ranges from $252,700 for a one-bedroom unit to $421,420 for a three-bedroom unit. These replacement cost estimates are on the low end because construction costs are from 2018 and have been steadily rising and have not been adjusted for inflation.
7 California Tax Credit Allocation Committee, 2020 Annual Report. https://www.treasurer.ca.gov/CTCAC/2020/annualreport/2020-TCAC.pdf 222 of 565
Housing Needs Assessment

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 61
Table 33: Replacement Cost
Unit Size Construction Cost per Square
Foot1
Average Square Foot/
Unit2
Replacement Cost per
Unit
1 bedroom $380 665 $252,700
2 bedroom $380 899 $341,620
3 bedroom $380 1,109 $421,420
Source: 1UC Berkeley Terner Center, 2020, The Hard Costs of Construction: Recent Trends in Labor and Materials Costs for Apartment Buildings in California, 15. https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Hard_Construction_Costs_March_2020.pdf. 2ApartmentFinder.com,
https://www.apartmentfinder.com/California/Pinole-Apartments, accessed March 25, 2022.

A variety of programs exist to assist cities to acquire, replace, or subsidize at-risk affordable housing units. The following summarizes financial resources available to the City of Pinole.

Federal Programs
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) – CDBG funds are awarded to cities on a formula basis for housing activities. The primary objective of the CDBG program is the development of viable communities through the provision of decent housing, a suitable living environment, and economic opportunity for principally low- and moderate-income persons. CDBG funds can be used for housing acquisition, rehabilitation, economic development, and public services.

HOME Investment Partnership – HOME is a flexible grant program and funds are awarded on a formula basis for housing activities. HOME considers local market conditions, inadequate housing, poverty, and housing production costs. HOME funding is provided to jurisdictions to assist rental housing or homeownership through acquisition, construction, reconstruction, and/or rehabilitation of affordablehousing.

Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Rental Assistance Program – This program provides rental assistance payments to owners of private, market-rate units on behalf of very lowincome tenants.

Section 811/202 Program – Nonprofit and consumer cooperatives can receive no-interest capital advances from HUD under the Section 202 program for the construction of very lowincome rental housing for seniors and persons with disabilities. These funds can be used in conjunction with Section811, which can be used to develop group homes, independent living facilities, and immediate care facilities. Eligible activities include acquisition, rehabilitation, new construction, and rental assistance.

State Programs
California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA) Multifamily Programs – CalHFA’s Multifamily Programs provide permanent financing for the acquisition, rehabilitation, and preservation or new construction ofrental housing that includes affordable rents for lowand moderate-income families and individuals. Oneof the programs is the Preservation 223 of 565
Housing Needs Assessment

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 62
Acquisition Finance Program, which is designed to facilitate the acquisition of at-risk affordable housing developments and provide low-cost funding to preserve affordability.

Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) – This program provides tax credits to individuals and corporations that invest in low-income rental housing. The LIHTC program creates affordable housing opportunities when the developer of a project “sells” the tax credits to an investor(s) who contributes equity to the development in exchange for an ownership position in the project.

California Community Reinvestment Corporation – The California Community Reinvestment Corporation is a multifamily affordable housing lender whose mission is to increase the availability of affordable housing for low-income families, seniors, and residents with special needs by facilitating private capital flow from its investors for debt and equity to developers of affordable housing. Eligibleactivities include new construction, rehabilitation, and acquisition of properties.

Monitoring of Affordable Units
The City continually monitors the list of affordable housing units and their eligibility to convert to market-rate housing. Former RDA assets, and revenues generated from those assets, are maintained in a Low- and Moderate-Income Housing Asset Fund that continues to be used to administer and monitor compliance with affordable housing and loan agreements and provide for affordable housing development.

The City conducts annual compliance monitoring on over 300 affordable units to ensure property owners and management are complying with affordable income and rent restrictions required by City agreements. Properties are affordable to very low to moderate income households. The City expects to monitor over 400 affordable units as new affordable units are constructed over the next five years. The majority of affordable units are located in rental properties. The City monitors two ownership units to ensure the property owners continue living at their properties as their primary residence or sell their units to income qualified buyers. Program 18 is included to continue to monitor and preserve at-risk housing in the City.

Quantified Objectives
Housing Element law requires that cities establish a maximum number of units that can be converted over the planning period. During the planning period, zero rent-restricted housing units are at risk of being converted to market rate.

Special Housing Needs
Due to special needs or circumstances related to income, family or household characteristics, age, and disability, certain groups have historically had greater difficulties finding quality affordable housing. They also often have a higher prevalence of special 224 of 565
Housing Needs Assessment

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 63
circumstances leading to housing problems such as lower incomes, higher housing cost burdens, and overcrowding. State law therefore requires evaluation of housing needs of these groups, in particular senior households, single-parent households, persons with physical, mental and developmental disabilities, large households, farmworkers, and homeless individuals. Table 34 provides an overview of the presence of special needs populations within the City.

Table 34: Overview of Special Needs Groups, Pinole
Special Needs Group # of People % of Population
Persons with a Disability 2,389 12%
Persons Experiencing Homelessness 7 <1%
Farmworkers 29 <1%
Special Needs Group # of Households % of Households
Householders Age 65+ 2,354 35%
Large Households 832 12%
Female-Headed Households 1,050 16%
Extremely Low-Income Households 555 8%
Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2016-2020) and HUD CHAS Data (2014-2018).

Table 35 shows the services currently providing support to the special needs populations in Pinole.

Table 35: Inventory of Local Services for Special Needs Populations Services/Programs Details Population Served
Pinole Senior Center Provides social, educational, recreational, health, nutritional, and consumer services and activities.

Serves as a cooling center in extreme temperatures.

Membership sponsorship program available for
eligible seniors in need of financial assistance.

Elderly, Lower
Income Elderly
Pinole Grove Senior
Apartments
Offers 70 affordable, one- and two-bedroom senior
apartments with senior-targeted amenities.

Lower Income Elderly
Westmont of Pinole Offers Independent Living, Assisted Living, and Memory Care services.

Elderly,
Visiting Angels Pinole Offers comprehensive home care for seniors based on their individual needs and preferences in order to
help older adults live in their own homes. Services
include respite care, personal care, dementia care,
companion care, home care services and palliative
care.

Elderly, Elderly with
disabilities
St. Clare’s Home for Seniors Offers 12 senior living and assisted living units. Elderly, Lower Income Elderly
225 of 565
Housing Needs Assessment

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 64
Services/Programs Details Population Served
Tara Hills Care Home Community care facility for the elderly Elderly, Lower Income Elderly
Granada Home Care I and II Two 6-bed residential care facilities for seniors Elderly, Lower Income Elderly
Cole Vocational Services
Pinole
Offers structured, activity-based adult day programs
that give individuals the chance to achieve goals,
become independent and be active in the
community.

Persons with
disabilities (including
developmental
disabilities)
Pathway to Choices Provides independent living services, supported living services, adult day program, behavior
management, and competency training to people
with developmental disabilities.

Persons with
disabilities (including
developmental
disabilities)
811 San Pablo Affordable
Housing
Approved 33-unit affordable housing project to low
and very-low income households on City land.

Lower income
Vista Woods Affordable
Housing
Approved 179 unit affordable housing project for
seniors
Lower Income
Seniors
Source: City of Pinole.

Farmworkers
Traditionally, agricultural workers are defined as persons whose primary incomes are earned through permanent or seasonal agricultural labor. The 2016–2020 ACS found that 29 Pinole residents were employed in the agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining industry. This is less than one percent of all employed individuals in the City over 16 years old.

Table 36 shows the 2017 estimates of farmworkers for Contra Costa County, as reported by the US Department of Agriculture’s Census of Agriculture. As indicated, there were an estimated 1,310 farmworkers in the County working on 161 farms. The 2007 Census of Agriculture counted 1,873 farmworkers in the County. This yields a 30 percent decrease of farmworkers in the County from 2007 to 2017.
226 of 565
Housing Needs Assessment

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 65
Table 36: Number of Farmworkers and Farms, Contra Costa County, 2017 Farm/Worker Type Farmworkers Farms
Farm Size
Farms with less than 10 employees 343 126
Farms with 10 or more employees 967 35
Total 1,310 161
Length of Employment of Workers
Workers working 150 days or more 450 -
Workers working less than 150 days 860 -
Source: 2017 Census of Agriculture, Table 7, Contra Costa County, https://www.nass.usda.gov/Quick_Stats/CDQT/chapter/2/table/7/state/CA/county/013/year/2017.

Large Households
State housing law defines large households as those consisting of five or more members.

Large households are considered a special needs group because it may be difficult for these households to secure adequately sized, affordable housing. In order to balance affordable housing along with other financial responsibilities, large households tend to reside in smaller dwelling units, which may lead to overcrowding.

In 2020, approximately 12 percent (832) of Pinole’s 6,792 households were considered large households. This is a similar proportion as seen countywide. Of those large households, 71 percent (588) lived in owner-occupied units, while 29 percent (244) lived in rental housing.

Between 2010 and 2020, the percentage of households in the City that are large households remained unchanged as did the distribution between renters and homeowners of large households. In 2010, approximately 12 percent (833) of Pinole’s 6,775 households were considered large households. Of those large households, 71 percent (595) lived in owneroccupied units, while 29 percent (238) lived in rental housing.

In Pinole, the proportion of large households that are owners (71 percent) is comparable to the general proportion of ownership households citywide. There is a higher proportion of large households owning their home compared to Contra Costa County (64 percent). 227 of 565
Housing Needs Assessment

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 66
Table 37: Large Households by Tenure, 2020
Household Type (Size) Owner-Occupied
Households
Renter-Occupied
Households
Total Households
Pinole
Five-person Household 373 73% 138 27% 511 8%
Six-person Household 157 65% 83 35% 240 4%
Seven-or-more-person
Household
58 72% 23 28% 81 1%
Total Large Households 588 71% 244 29% 832 12%
Total of All Households 4,732 70% 2,060 30% 6,792 100%
Contra Costa County
Five-person Household 19,568 65% 10,598 35% 30,166 8%
Six-person Household 7,423 65% 3,934 35% 11,357 3%
Seven-or-more-person
Household
4,360 60% 2,880 40% 7,240 2%
Total Large Households 31,351 64% 17,412 36% 48,763 12% Total of All Households 266,238 67% 132,061 33% 398,299 100% Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2016-2020), Table B25009.

Large households tend to have more difficulty purchasing housing due to the financial constraints of supporting a larger household and because there is limited housing stock of adequate size. Additionally, rental units with three or more bedrooms are not common, and large affordable rental units are even less common. This can lead to overcrowded housing conditions.

Table 38 provides a summary of housing problems experienced by large households in Pinole by tenure. As previously noted, the types of housing problems include overcrowding, overpayment (cost burden), and households lacking kitchen or plumbing facilities. CHAS 2014–2018 data indicates that 55 percent of large households experience at least one of the housing problems. Analyzing by tenure, 81 percent of large renter households and 43 percent of large owner households have at least one form of housing problem.

As of 2020, 27 percent of the City’s housing stock has four or more bedrooms (refer to Table 18). This equates to 1,810 housing units with four or more bedrooms to serve the estimated 832 large households that require at least four bedrooms to avoid over-crowded conditions.

However, these figures do not consider whether it is actually large households who occupy these housing units. One must also consider whether these housing units with four or more bedrooms are affordable to large households. Table 38 shows that 34 percent of large households experience a cost burden and 6 percent experience a severe cost burden. Large households that rent have over twice the rate of overpayment (52 percent) than large homeowner households (24 percent).
228 of 565
Housing Needs Assessment

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 67
Table 38: Large Households by Housing Problems and Tenure, Pinole, 2018 Household Type Large-Household
Renters
Large-Household
Owners
Total
Large Households
Total Households 270 580 850
Large Households with Any
Housing Problem1
81% 220 43% 250 55% 470
Large Households with Cost
Burden (> 30%)2
52% 125 24% 100 34% 225
Large Households with
Severe Cost Burden (> 50%)2
4% 10 7% 30 6% 40
Source: HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), 2014-2018 data, Table 4 and Table 7.

Notes: Data presented in this table are based on special tabulations from sample Census data. The number of households in each category usually deviates slightly from the 100 percent total due to the need to extrapolate sample data out to total households. Interpretations of these data should focus on the proportion of households in need of assistance rather than on precise numbers. 1The four housing problems are: incomplete kitchen facilities, incomplete plumbing facilities, more than 1 person per room, and cost burden greater than 30 percent.
2Cost burden occurs when housing costs exceed 30 percent of household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus utilities). For owners, housing cost is "select monthly owner costs," which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes. Severe cost burden occurs when housing costs exceed 50 percent of household income.

Female-Headed Households
Female-headed households who do not have a spouse present are a special needs group because they tend to experience comparatively low rates of homeownership, lower incomes, and high poverty rates. Female-headed households are often further characterized by whether they have children in the household. Table 39 shows the number of female-headed households by tenure and presence of children. In 2020, 15.5 percent of households in Pinole were female-headed households. This is higher than the County where femaleheaded households comprise 12.0 percent of all households. Female-headed households in Pinole have a higher rate of homeownership than those in the County (54 percent and 49 percent, respectively). However, female-headed households with children have lower homeownership rates than the County; only 9 percent of female-headed households with children own their home in Pinole compared to 15 percent in the County. Of the 1,050 female-headed households in Pinole, 300 had children under 18 and 750 had no children present.
229 of 565
Housing Needs Assessment

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 68
Table 39: Female-Headed Households by Tenure in Pinole, 2020 Household Type Owner- Occupied
Households
Renter- Occupied
Households
Total % of Total
Households
Total Households 4,732 2,060 6,792
Female householder,
no spouse present,
with children under 18
93 2.0% 207 10.0% 300 4.4%
Female householder,
no spouse present,
without children
469 9.9% 281 13.6% 750 11.0%
Total Female-Headed
Households
562 11.9% 488 23.7% 1,050 15.5%
Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2016-2020), Table B25115.

In Pinole, only 1 percent of female-headed households (11 households) are below the poverty line. All of those 11 households have children under age 18 present. All femaleheaded households without children are above the poverty line. About 3 percent of all female-headed households with children under 18 are below the poverty line. This is significantly lower than the female-headed household poverty rate in Contra Costa County (17 percent for those female-headed households without children and 25 percent for those with children). 8
Table 40: Female-Headed Households by Poverty Status in Pinole, 2020 Household Type Income Below
Poverty Level
Income Above Poverty
Level
Total % of Total
Households
Total Households 308 6,484 6,792
Female householder,
no spouse present,
with children under 18
11 3.6% 1,039 16.0% 1,050 15.5%
Female householder,
no spouse present,
without children
159 51.6% 887 13.7% 1,046 15.4%
Total Female-Headed
Households
170 55.2% 1,926 29.7% 2,096 30.9%
Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2016-2020), Table B17017.

Homelessness
Data on homelessness in Contra Costa County is based on the 2022 2020 Point-in-Time Count (PITC) information provided to HUD by the Richmond/Contra Costa County 8 US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-year Data (2016–2020), Table B17010. 230 of 565
Housing Needs Assessment

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 69
Continuums of Care (CoCs) in the application for CoC Homeless Assistance Programs. The PIT Count provides a count of sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons on a single night during the last ten days in January. A follow-up survey sampling of unsheltered and sheltered individuals is conducted two weeks following the count. Per the Contra Costa Health Services website, there were significant inconsistencies discovered in the data of the 2022 PITC and Contra Costa Health Services has been unable to verify the accuracy of the data.9 As such, this element is utilizing the most recent PITC data available from Contra Costa Health, which is the 2020 PITC. The 2023 PITC Annual Report has not yet been released at the time of the writing of this element.

As shown in Table 41, Contra Costa County had an estimated homeless count of 2,295 persons (668 are sheltered and 1,627 unsheltered). Of these homeless, 319 people (13.9 percent) were in households with adults and children under 18.

Table 41: Homelessness by Household Type and Shelter Status, Contra Costa County Variable People in
Households
Composed Solely of
Children Under 18
People in
Households with
Adults and Children
People in
Households without
Children Under 18
Sheltered - Emergency Shelter 0 159 359
Sheltered - Transitional Housing 0 32 118
Unsheltered 0 128 1,499
Source: US Department of Housing and Urban Development, Continuum of Care Homeless Populations and Subpopulations Reports (2019) Figure 9 analyzes the race of the homeless population and shows that the White population makes up the greatest share of the homeless population (45 percent) followed by Black people (34 percent). The Black or African American population and American Indian or Alaskan Native population are disproportionately affected by homelessness, as these groups make up a relatively large share of the homeless population despite making up a small share of the overall population.
9 Contra Costa Health Services. Data Reports, Point in Time Count. https://cchealth.org/h3/coc/reports.php#PIT
231 of 565
Housing Needs Assessment

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 70
Figure 9: Racial Group Share of General and Homeless, Contra Costa County, 2019 Source: US Department of Housing and Urban Development, Continuum of Care Homeless Populations and Subpopulations Reports (2019); US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B01001(A-I).

Figure 10 shows that 16.6 percent of the homeless population is Hispanic/Latinx. 14.47% 3.09%33.77%45.01% 3.66% 0.48% 17.21%8.72% 55.85%

17.74%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
American
Indian or Alaska
Native
(Hispanic and
Non-Hispanic)
Asian / API
(Hispanic and
Non-Hispanic)
Black or African
American
(Hispanic and
Non-Hispanic)
White (Hispanic
and NonHispanic)
Other Race or
Multiple Races
(Hispanic and
Non-Hispanic)
Percent of Population
Share of Homeless Population Share of Overall Population 232 of 565
Housing Needs Assessment

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 71
Figure 10: Latinx Share of Homeless Populations, Contra Costa County, 2019 Source: US Department of Housing and Urban Development, Continuum of Care Homeless Populations and Subpopulations Reports (2019); US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B01001(A-I).

Table 42 shows some of the unique challenges that persons experiencing homelessness in Contra Costa face. Of the 2,295 homeless persons counted, 22.6 percent suffer from severe mental illness, 21.5 percent contend with chronic substance abuse, 5 percent are veterans, 5 percent are victims of domestic violence, and 0.4 percent live with HIV/AIDS.

Table 42: Characteristics of Persons Experiencing Homelessness, Contra Costa County, 2019 Variable Chronic
Substance
Abuse
HIV/AIDS Severely
Mentally Ill
Veterans Victims of
Domestic
Violence
Sheltered - Emergency Shelter 86 4 128 25 28
Sheltered - Transitional Housing 31 1 27 14 6
Unsheltered 377 4 364 75 80
Percent of Total 21.5% 0.4% 22.6% 5.0% 5.0%
Source: US Department of Housing and Urban Development, Continuum of Care Homeless Populations and Subpopulations Reports (2019) Notes: These challenges/characteristics are counted separately and are not mutually exclusive, as an individual may report more than one challenge/characteristic. These counts should not be summed.

16.56%

83.44%

25.42%

74.58%

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%
Hispanic/Latinx Non-Hispanic/Latinx
Percent of Population
Share of Homeless Population Share of Overall Population 233 of 565
Housing Needs Assessment

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 72
Table 43 shows a count of individuals that were identified as unsheltered in West Contra Costa County during the January 2022 2020 Point In Time Count (PITC). Pinole had 53 7 unsheltered individuals, an significant increase from 3 in 2019. West Contra Costa County saw an increase large increase in the unsheltered population from 510 in 2019 to 877 513 in 20222020. Though the 2023 PITC has not yet been released, an estimate from the Pinole Police Department identified from 5 – 10 unsheltered homeless persons in the City, and noted the most individuals in Pinole experiencing homelessness are homeless by choice. The Pinole Police Department’s Community Outreach Unit includes its Homeless Outreach Program.

Table 43: Homeless Population—Unsheltered Individuals in West Contra Costa County Homeless Population 2019 Unsheltered
Population
20222020 Unsheltered
Population
Pinole 3 753
Crockett 12 356
El Cerrito 8 3124
El Sobrante 16 139
Hercules 1 07
North Richmond 38 3122
Richmond 333 632280
Rodeo 41 2762
San Pablo 58 8467
West County Total 510 877513
Source: Contra Costa Health Services. 20202022 Homeless Point-In-Time Count and Survey.

According to California Department of Education Enrollment Data shown in Table 44, over the 2019-2020 academic year, 2,209 students in Contra Costa County experienced homelessness, and 99 of those students were in Pinole. The California Department of Education considers students to be homeless if they are unsheltered, living in temporary shelters for people experiencing homelessness, living in hotels/motels, or temporarily doubled up and sharing the housing of other persons due to the loss of housing or economic hardship. Student homelessness increased in Pinole between the 2018-19 and 2019-20 academic years by 15 students (18 percent) despite having decreased countywide by 365 students (14 percent) over the same period.

Table 44: Students in Local Public Schools Experiencing Homelessness Geography 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20
Pinole 68 84 84 99
Contra Costa County 2,116 2,081 2,574 2,209
Bay Area 14,990 15,142 15,427 13,718
234 of 565
Housing Needs Assessment

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 73
Source: California Department of Education, California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System, Cumulative Enrollment Data (Academic Years 2016-2017, 2017-2018, 2018-2019, 2019-2020).

Notes: Totals reflect the number of unduplicated primary and short-term enrollments within the academic year (July 1 to June 30) in public schools. The data used for this table was obtained at the school site level, matched to a file containing school locations, geocoded and assigned to jurisdiction, and finally summarized by geography.

Resources
There are a number of regional programs available in close proximity to Pinole to assist persons experiencing homelessness. To help meet the special needs of the homeless, the Contra Costa Crisis Center operates a 24-hour homeless hotline that connects homeless individuals and families to resources available in the County. Through the center, homeless persons are given emergency motel vouchers, provided free voicemail boxes, and referred to local service programs, including housing assistance, job training, substance abuse treatment, counseling, and emergency food, health care, and other vital services.

Table 45 lists facilities with various programs designed for people experiencing homelessness.
235 of 565
Housing Needs Assessment

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 74
Table 45: County Homeless Facilities
Agency Name Program Name
Interim Housing (Emergency Shelters)
Bay Area Community Services Don Brown Shelter
Bay Area Rescue Mission Men's Emergency Shelter
Bay Area Rescue Mission Women and Families Shelter
Berkeley Food and Housing Project Central County Warming Center Contra Costa Health Services Homeless Program Brookside Adult Interim Housing Contra Costa Health Services Homeless Program Brookside Adult Interim Housing for Veterans Contra Costa Health Services Homeless Program Calli House Youth Shelter Contra Costa Health Services Homeless Program Concord Adult Interim Housing Contra Costa Health Services Homeless Program Philip Dorn Respite Center Contra Costa Health Services Homeless Program Philip Dorn Respite Center for Veterans Greater Richmond Interfaith Program Emergency Shelter
Greater Richmond Interfaith Program West County Warming Center Interfaith Council of Contra Costa Winter Nights Shelter SHELTER, Inc. Mountain View House
STAND for Families Against Violence Emergency Shelter
Trinity Center Trinity Winter Shelter
Transitional Housing
Bay Area Rescue Mission Men's Transitional Housing Program Bay Area Rescue Mission Women & Family Transitional Housing Bi-Bett Corporation Uilkema House
Contra Costa Health Services Homeless Program Appian House: Youth Contra Costa Health Services Homeless Program Pomona Apartments SHELTER, Inc. Casa Verde
STAND STAND for Families Against Violence
STAND STAND Transitional Housing
Source: Contra Costa Health Services: Health, Housing, and Homeless Services Division, Annual Point-in-Time Count Report, August 2020, Appendix A.

The City will continue to prioritize its limited resources to support affordable housing solutions affordable to those with extremely low, very low, and low incomes, particularly those who may experience homelessness or are at risk of losing access to permanent housing.

Emergency shelters are defined by the California Health and Safety Code Section 50801 as “housing with minimal supportive services for homeless persons that is limited to occupancy of six months or less by a homeless person. No individual or household may be denied 236 of 565
Housing Needs Assessment

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 75
emergency shelter because of an inability to pay.” The City Zoning Ordinance allows the development of emergency shelters by right in the Office Industrial Mixed Use zone.

Persons with Disabilities
People living with disabilities may have a wide range of housing needs, depending on the type and severity of their disability. Housing affordability is a major concern for individuals with disabilities, particularly for those whose disability impacts their income earning potential. Design accommodations to navigate within the home and to/from the residence are another challenge for persons with disabilities. Access often requires specially designed dwelling units that include features such as wider doorways, ramps in place of stairs, and elevators for units with multiple stories. These modifications have the potential to be expensive and are not usually found in older dwelling units. Ongoing enforcement of the City's Building Code ensures that new construction will be accessible to disabled persons, though all units may not have all the features needed by specific individuals. Additionally, housing with adequate access to public facilities and public transit are important for this special needs group.

The US Census Bureau categorizes disabilities as follows:
• Hearing difficulty: deaf or has serious difficulty hearing • Vision difficulty: blind or has serious difficulty seeing even with glasses • Cognitive difficulty: has serious difficulty concentrating, remembering, or making decisions
• Ambulatory difficulty: has serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs • Self-care difficulty: has difficulty dressing or bathing • Independent living difficulty: has difficulty doing errands alone, such as visiting a doctor’s office or shopping
Based on the 2016-2020 American Community Survey, there are 2,389 individuals, or 12.4 percent of the population, living with at least one form of disability in Pinole. This is slightly higher than the County where 11.2 percent of the population has a disability.10 Further information about the type of disabilities residents experience and how it compares to Contra Costa County is illustrated in Figure 11.

The most prevalent types of disability are ambulatory and independent living difficulties.

Ambulatory issues are the highest reported disability Citywide. A large population with walking difficulty creates a need for single-story housing, elevators, transit access, wheelchair access, larger homes for live-in help, and proximity to health facilities. 10 Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2016-2020), Table C18108. 237 of 565
Housing Needs Assessment

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 76
Figure 11: Disability by Type
Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2016-2020), Table S1810.

Notes: These disabilities are counted separately and are not mutually exclusive, as an individual may report more than one disability. These counts should not be summed.

Compared to the County, Pinole has a larger share of the population experiencing each type of disability. Ambulatory and independent living disabilities are the most prevalent, at 8.4 percent and 7.9 percent, respectively, see Figure 11.

Figure 12 shows Pinole has an overall low distribution of the population with a disability, the entirety of the City has less than 10% of its population with disability which highlights there are no extreme concentration of persons with disabilities.

8.4%

7.9%

6.3%

3.8% 3.6%

2.6%

5.7%

5.4%

4.7%

2.4%

3.1%

1.9%
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
8%
9%
With an
ambulatory
difficulty
With an
independent
living difficulty
With a
cognitive
difficulty
With a self-care
difficulty
With a hearing
difficulty
With a vision
difficulty
Proportion of Adult Population Reporting Disability
Type
Pinole Contra Costa County
238 of 565
Housing Needs Assessment

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 77
Table 46 shows the elderly population in the City and County and their disability status. In Pinole, 8 percent of people aged 65 and above have one type of disability and 16 percent have two or more disabilities. Twenty-five percent of the elderly population in Pinole experiences at least one type of disability, which is lower than the County’s 31 percent.

However, the rate of elderly persons experiencing a disability is twice that of the citywide disability rate of 12.4 percent.

Figure 12: Population with a Disability 2015-2019
239 of 565
Housing Needs Assessment

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 78
Table 46: Elderly People with Disabilities
Disability Status # of Elderly
People with a
Disability
% of
People Age 65+
(total 4,169)
# of Elderly
People with a
Disability
% of People
Age 65+
(total 178.981)
Pinole Contra Costa County
1 type of disability 354 8% 24,799 14%
2+ types of disability 680 16% 31,425 18%
Total Elderlywith a Disability 1,034 25% 56,224 31%
Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2016-2020), Table C18108.

Persons with Development Disabilities
A subgroup of disabled residents is those who are developmentally disabled. Many developmentally disabled persons are able to live and work independently. However, more severely disabled individuals require a group living environment with supervision, or an institutional environment with medical attention and physical therapy. Because developmental disabilities exist before adulthood, the first housing issue for the developmentally disabled is the transition from living with a parent/guardian as a child to an appropriate level of independence as an adult.

In Pinole, an estimated 146 individuals have a developmental disability, of which 81 individuals (55 percent) are under age 18.11 Table 35 lists resources available in the City for persons with developmental disabilities. Local services to support persons with developmental disabilities include Cole Vocational Services and Pathway to Choices, which provide living services, adult day programs, behavior management, and competency training to people with developmental disabilities. Program 9 includes developing a fee waiver program that would provide low or no-cost building permits to age-qualified, ELI households, and households with persons with disabilities, including developmental disabilities, to make improvements to their home for universal design.

The California Department of Developmental Services (DDS) currently provides communitybased services through 21 community-based nonprofit corporations known as regional centers. The regional centers serve as a local resource to help find and access services and support available to individuals and families once eligibility is determined. The Regional Center of the East Bay provides service to developmentally disabled individuals throughout Contra Costa and Alameda counties. According to the California Department of Developmental Services, as of December 2019, the Regional Center of the East Bay served 11 California Department of Developmental Services, Consumer Count by California ZIP Code and Age Group (2020), as referenced in ABAG 2023-2031 Housing Element Data Package, Table DISAB-04.) 240 of 565
Housing Needs Assessment

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 79
21,009 residents with developmental disabilities in the region. Table 47 displays the breakdown of type of developmental disabilities served at the Regional Center. The largest populations served are those with an intellectual disability (43 percent) followed by autism (40 percent).

Table 47: Developmental Disability by Type, 2019
Regional Center of the East Bay
Developmental Disability Individuals Percent
Autism 8,459 40%
Cerebral Palsy 2,426 12%
Epilepsy 2,368 11%
Intellectual Disability 9,127 43%
Other 3,367 16%
Total* 21,009 N/A
Source: California Department of Developmental Service (December 2019), Consumers by Diagnosis and Regional Center. *People may have more than one type of disability, so individual disability categories will not sum to total.

A number of housing types are appropriate for people living with a developmental disability, including rent-subsidized homes, licensed single-family homes, and homes available through the Housing Choice Voucher program, Program 21. The design of housing accessibility modifications, the proximity to services and transit, and the availability of group living opportunities represent some of the considerations that are important in serving this group. Incorporating barrier-free designs in all new multifamily housing, as required by California and federal fair housing laws, along with affordability, is especially important in housing for disabled residents.

Elderly Persons
The US Census defines persons 65 years of age and older as elderly. Pinole’s elderly population has special housing needs associated with affordability, maintenance, and upkeep of their homes, as well as physical access. Elderly persons are more likely to have fixed incomes and have a substantial portion of their financial resources in non-liquid assets, such as property. They often spend a higher percentage of their income on food, housing, medical care, and personal care comparative to non-elderly persons. Elderly persons may have special needs related to housing location and construction. Because of limited mobility, elderly persons typically need closer access to medical services, shopping, public transit, and other amenities. In terms of housing construction, elderly persons may need ramps, handrails, elevators, lower cabinets and counters, and special security devices to allow for greater self-protection. In addition, the elderly may require assistance with housekeeping, maintenance, and repairs to remain in their own homes for as long as possible. Special consideration should be given for recreational and social amenities for the elderly. 241 of 565
Housing Needs Assessment

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 80
As shown in Table 48, an estimated 22 percent of the City’s population (4,174 persons) was at least 65 years old in 2020. The percentage of the population that is elderly has steadily been increasing since 1990. Between 2010 and 2020, 1,326 additional people fit the definition of elderly. Table 6 provides a more detailed breakdown of population growth by specific age categories, revealing that the largest percentage increase in population belonged to the 65-74 age group (78.3 percent increase or 1,219 individuals).

Table 48: Elderly Population, 1990–2020
1990 2000 2010 2020
65 years and over 1,723 2,456 2,848 4,174
Total Population 17,460 19,039 18,390 19,343
Percent of Total 10% 13% 15% 22%
Source: US Census Bureau, Decennial Census (1990-2010). American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2016-2020), Table DP05.

According to the 2020 US Census data shown in Table 49, 35 percent of Pinole’s households are headed by one person aged 65 or over. This is higher than the 26 percent of Contra Costa County households.

Table 49: Householders by Age
Pinole Contra Costa County
Householder Age Households Percent Households Percent
15-24 years 54 0.8% 6,634 1.7%
25-34 years 2,003 29.5% 121,924 30.6%
35-64 years 2,381 35.1% 165,541 41.6%
65-74 years 1,424 21.0% 59,638 15.0%
75-84 years 635 9.3% 30,479 7.7%
85+ years 295 4.3% 14,083 3.5%
Total 6,792 100% 398,299 100%
Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2016-2020), Table B25007.

As indicated in Table 50, the 2020 median household income for Pinole households with a householder aged 65 and older was $85,556, which is 14 percent higher than in Contra Costa County, at $75,172. The median income for all households regardless of age is $104,904 citywide and $103,997 countywide (a difference of less than 1 percent). The median income of the elderly population in Pinole is approximately $19,500 less (18 percent lower) than the median income citywide. The lower incomes of the elderly may partially be explained by the fact that elderly populations often live on a fixed income; tend to have a significant portion of their net worth tied up in non-liquid assets, such as property; and have a higher incidence of disability (see Table 46), which may affect earning potential. 242 of 565
Housing Needs Assessment

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 81
Table 50: Median Household Income for Elderly Households (65+ Years) Householder Age Pinole Median Income Contra Costa County Median Income 65 Years and Older $85,556 $75,172
All Households $104,904 $103,997
Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2016-2020), Table S1903.

Based on HUD’s 2014-2018 data CHAS data shown in Table 51, 39 percent of elderly households in Pinole are low income (below 80 percent of the area median family income).

Contra Costa County was nearly the same at 40 percent. According to 2020 US Census information, approximately 3 percent of Pinole’s seniors fell below the poverty line, compared to 3.7 percent citywide.12
Table 51: Income Distribution, Elderly Households (62+ Years)1 Income Pinole Contra Costa County
HUD Area Median Family Income (HAMFI) Number % Number % = 30% of HAMFI 310 10% 19,620 14%
> 30% - 50% of HAMFI 460 15% 18,185 13%
> 50% - 80% of HAMFI 440 14% 18,605 13%
> 80% - 100% of HAMFI 405 13% 13,530 10%
> 100% of HAMFI 1470 48% 72,225 51%
Total 3,085 100% 142,165 100%
Source: US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD, Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data (2014-2018), Table 5.
1 HUD defines “elderly” as people aged 62 and up. However, the US Census Bureau defines “elderly” as people aged 65 and older.

Table 52 summarizes the housing problems experienced by elderly households in Pinole.

According to the 2014-2018 CHAS data, 31.6 percent of all elderly households experience some type of housing problem. This includes 48.7 percent of renters and 27.5 percent of owners. For households with at least one person 62 years and older, 81 percent resided in owner-occupied units and 19 percent resided in renter-occupied units.13 12 US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-year Data (2016–2020), Table S1701. 13 HUD CHAS Data (2014-2018), Table 5.
243 of 565
Housing Needs Assessment

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 82
Table 52: Elderly Households by Housing Problems and Tenure, 2018 Housing Problem Type Elderly Owners Elderly Renters Total Elderly % of Elderly with any Housing Problem1 27.5% 48.7% 31.6% % of Elderly with Cost Burden (> 30%)2 26.0% 42.9% 29.2% % of Elderly with Severe Cost Burden (>50%)2 14.1% 32.1% 17.6% All Elderly Households 2,490 80.7% 595 19.3% 3,085 100% Source: 2014-2018 HUD CHAS data, Table 5 and Table 7.
1 The four housing problems are: incomplete kitchen facilities, incomplete plumbing facilities, more than 1 person per room, and cost burden greater than 30 percent.
2 Cost burden occurs when housing costs exceed 30 percent of household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus utilities). For owners, housing cost is "select monthly owner costs", which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes. Severe cost burden occurs when housing costs exceed 50 percent of household income.

The increasing number of elderly persons in the population is creating more demand for affordable, accessible, and low-maintenance housing. As residents age, they may desire alternatives to single-family units, opting for smaller multifamily units or assisted care living.

Another option for seniors looking to downsize is accessory dwelling units, which could house seniors or their caregivers. Based on the demographic trends, the need for senior housing is considered a high priority.

Pinole Grove Senior Apartments at 800 John Street offers 70 affordable, one- and twobedroom senior apartments. Amenities include a community room, a landscaped courtyard, a library, and a hair salon. Units must be occupied by at least one resident who is at least 62 year of age or older. A minimum of 28 units are rent restricted to very low-income households (50 percent of AMI), and 41 units are restricted for moderate-income households (120 percent of AMI).

Westmont of Pinole (formerly Pinole Senior Village) provides independent living, assisted living, and memory care options for seniors. As of 2022, 31 moderate-income and 6 very lowincome beds are required to be maintained. In 2018, as a condition of the sale of the property, a covenant was recorded that allowed the owner to reduce the rent restricted units according to the schedule in Table 32. By 2028, there will not be any rent-restricted bed requirements at this facility. The owner cannot raise the rent on any rent-restricted beds and may only reduce restricted beds by voluntary vacation of such bed by an eligible tenant.

The Pinole Senior Center provides social, educational, recreational, health, nutritional, and consumer services and activities to more than 1,000 yearly participants. The Senior Center (2500 Charles Avenue) can be set up to serve as a cooling center during extreme heat events.

Per City guidelines, the Senior Center will be opened as a cooling center if the National Weather Service forecasts that Pinole will experience two consecutive days with high temperatures of 95 degrees or more and necessary staff is available. A need-based, no-cost annual membership is available to eligible seniors and is funded by donations from community members.
244 of 565
Housing Needs Assessment

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 83
The City will address the needs of the elderly population through policies and programs that address affordability and special design guidelines for the elderly through Program 10 which includes participation in regional assistance programs, an aging in place low or no-cost building permit, and waiving park impact fees for developments with affordable senior units.

Extremely Low-Income Households
HUD defines extremely low-income households as those with income less than 30 percent of the HUD area median family income (HAMFI). Table 53 summarizes the housing problems experienced by extremely low-income householdsin Pinole. According to the 2014–2018 CHAS data provided by HUD, there are 555 extremely low-income households in Pinole, which represents about 8.3 percent of all households in the City. In 2018, 8.3 percent of Pinole households were in the extremely low-income category, which is a very slight decrease from 8.6 percent in 2013. Extremely low-income households comprise a smaller share of all households in Pinole compared to the County (12.3 percent of Contra Costa County households). About 47 percent of the extremely low-income households rented their dwelling units; 53 percent owned their dwelling.

Table 53: Extremely Low-Income Households with Housing Problems, 2018 Extremely LowIncome
Renter-Occupied
Extremely LowIncome
Owner-Occupied
Extremely LowIncome
Total Households
Households with Income < 30% of HAMFI 260 295 555
with any Housing Problem1
220 165 385
with Cost Burden (> 30%)2
205 165 370
with Severe Cost Burden (>50%)2
165 155 320
Source: HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) Data, 2014-2018, Summary Level Data for Pinole.

1. The four housing problems are: incomplete kitchen facilities, incomplete plumbing facilities, more than 1 person per room, and cost burden greater than 30 percent.

2. Cost burden occurs when housing costs exceed 30 percent of household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus utilities). For owners, housing cost is "select monthly owner costs," which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes. Severe cost burden occurs when housing costs exceed 50 percent of household income.

About one-third of all households in Pinole experienced at least one housing problem. Of the extremely low-income households in Pinole, 69.4 percent experienced at least one type of housing problem, with renters higher at 84.6 percent and owners at 55.9 percent. Housing problems for extremely low-income households are a regional issue, and Pinole fares better than the County overall, which has a rate of 80.1 percent. Based on 2018 HUD CHAS data, an estimated 40 extremely low-income households in Pinole lack complete plumbing or kitchen facilities.14 However, many of these households may live in units without complete kitchens, 14 HUD CHAS Data (2014-2018), Table 3.
245 of 565
Housing Needs Assessment

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 84
but who received provided meals. ACS 2018 data show 84 housing units lacking complete kitchen facilities, but 75 of those had meals included in rent (only 9 housing units are without a kitchen and without meals provided.)15
Extremely Low-Income Households and Overpayment
About 66.7 percent of extremely low-income households were paying more than 30 percent of their income on housing costs, regardless of tenure type. About 55.9 percent of extremely low-income homeowners and 78.8 percent of renters are overpaying. There was also a high rate of households suffering from a severe cost burden (paying more than 50 percent of their incomes on housing). This was the case for about 57.7 percent of all extremely lowincome households (52.5 percent for extremely low-income owners and 63.5 percent of extremely low-income renters). All these characteristics occurred at a much higher rate among extremely low-income households than in the City as a whole. At least 28.7 percent of all households in Pinole were overpaying, and 12.7 percent were severely overpaying. The County’s extremely low-income households experience a cost burden at a rate of 79 percent and an extreme cost burden at a rate of 65.9 percent.

Extremely Low-Income Households and Overcrowding
In addition to the overpayment problems mentioned above, Pinole’s extremely low-income households have an overcrowding problem, though it is not as widespread as the overpayment problem. Overcrowding is defined as more than 1.0 occupant per room (excluding kitchens, bathrooms, and garages). According to 2014-2018 HUD estimates in Table 31, 421 households out of all households in Pinole (regardless of income level or tenure) were living in overcrowded conditions, which represents about 6.3 percent of the total 6,670 households in the City. Examining only the 555 extremely low-income households in the City, 7.0 percent (39 households) experience overcrowding. Overcrowding only affected the extremely low-income renters even though 53.2 percent of extremely lowincome households are owner occupied. The rate of severe overcrowding among extremely low-income renters is over four times higher in Pinole than it is countywide (13.5 percent in the City and 3.0 percent in the County.) Extremely low-income renters in Pinole are disproportionately affected by overcrowded living conditions. This indicates a need for larger affordable rental units.

Pinole households with incomes less than 30 percent of the AMI are significantly more affected by housing problems than other income groups. The needs of extremely lowincome households include housing units designed for transient/homeless populations, multifamily rental housing, factory-built housing, mobile homes, supportive housing, singleroom occupancy units, and workforce housing. 15 US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-year Data (2014–2018), Table B25054. 246 of 565
Housing Needs Assessment

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 85
Summary of Housing Needs
Pinole’s overarching housing needs include addressing high housing costs; accommodating demographic age shifts; diversifying the housing stock; and giving consideration to these special needs groups:
• Elderly (35% of households)
• People with disabilities (12% of population)
o Ambulatory disabilities (8.4% of adults)
o Independent living disabilities (7.9% of adults)
• Large households (12% of households)
• Extremely low-income households (8.3% of households)
High Housing Costs
High housing costs in Pinole are representative of a regional and statewide issue. Home values have increased steadily since 2012. The median rental price has increased 30 percent since 2015 (see Table 24). In Pinole, 2,768 households (42 percent) experience some form of overpayment, with 849 households (13 percent) experiencing severe overpayment.

Overpayment is especially problematic for extremely low-income households, 66.7 of whom experience housing cost burden and 57.7 percent experience a severe cost burden. A high rate of overcrowding is seen among extremely low-income renters (15 percent of these households are overcrowded and 13.5 percent are severely overcrowded). Renters earning 50-80% of the HUD AMI are another group with high overcrowding (19 percent of these households are overcrowded).

Demographic Age Shifts
Planning for an aging population is of utmost importance. In 2020, 22 percent of Pinole’s population was 65 years old or older (see Table 6). About 35 percent of households are headed by a resident over 65 years old (see Table 49). Housing to accommodate seniors may take the form of age-restricted developments, smaller units, multifamily housing, ADUs, and housing with increased support services and proximity to healthcare. Universal design practices should be implemented with new construction, given that a high proportion of elderly persons experience some form of disability, particularly ambulatory disabilities.

Affordability should be prioritized. The median income for elderly in Pinole is $19,500 less (18 percent lower) than the median income citywide. About 39 percent of elderly households are low income and 30 percent of households moved into their home prior to 1989 (30 years ago). This suggests a need for low-income housing repair assistance to help seniors in aging housing stock retrofit to age in place. Program 9 includes a fee waiver that would provide low or no-cost building permits to age-qualified, ELI households, and disabled households to make improvements to their home for universal design.
247 of 565
Housing Needs Assessment

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 86
Another age group to plan for is the 25-34 year age group. This group had the largest population increase out of all age groups between 2010 and 2020 and now comprises 18 percent of the population (see Table 6). About 30 percent of households have householders aged 25-34 (see Table 49). This group would benefit from having a greater supply of smaller housing units, multifamily housing, ADUs, more affordable rental units, and housing designed for the first-time homebuyer. Because this age group has a higher propensity to start families, a portion of housing production for this demographic should set aside larger units as well.

The under age 14 population in Pinole declined by 28 percent between 2000 and 2020. The 0-4-year age group decreased 19.8 percent and the 5-14 age group decreased by 31.2 percent over that time. Although the rate of decline of the population under age 14 tempered between 2010 and 2020 to just 6 percent, these long-range trends are markedly different than the County trends. In the County, the 0-4 year age group decreased by 0.1 percent and the 5-14 age group increased by 1.3 percent between 2000 and 2020. Average household size and average family size have decreased in Pinole since 2010 despite having increased in the County. These shifting demographics may indicate that as families grow, they are priced out of the housing market, or Pinole families are choosing to have fewer children, or a combination of both. To plan for an inclusive community that includes families with children, the City may consider emphasizing family-friendly housing practices. This could take many forms including affordable-by-design multifamily housing, rent-restricted units for a variety of income levels, and ensuring a portion of new rental housing has larger, multi-bedroom units.

Special Needs Groups
In addition to the special needs of elderly and extremely low-income households mentioned above, people with disabilities and large households are other special needs groups that make up a considerable share of the population and/or households. People with disabilities make up 12.4% of population—with ambulatory (8.4%) and independent living (7.9%) disabilities being the most prevalent—and have very similar housing needs as elderly persons.

Large households (those with 5 or more people) make up 12 percent of all households in Pinole. Over a third (34 percent) of large households experience a cost burden. Pinole has a slightly higher proportion of 5-or-more-person households than the state or County. These factors suggest a need for larger units. Table 38 shows that 34 percent of large households experience a cost burden and 6 percent experience a severe cost burden. Large households that rent have over twice the rate of overpayment (52 percent) than large homeowner households (24 percent).
248 of 565
Housing Needs Assessment

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 87
Diversifying Housing Stock
About 70 percent of Pinole’s housing stock is single-family homes, and 70 percent of housing units are owner-occupied. Introducing a variety of housing building types and more rental housing opportunities would facilitate a more inclusive community. Examples include agerestricted developments, smaller affordable-by-design units, multifamily housing, ADUs, universal design practices to accommodate those with disabilities, and housing with increased support services.
249 of 565
Constraints on Housing

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 88
Constraints on Housing
The provision of adequate and affordable housing opportunities is an important goal of the City. However, a variety of factors can constrain the development, maintenance, and improvement of housing. This section describes these constraints, including private market forces, governmental codes and regulations, and the physical and natural environment, and analyzes the impact on the production and preservation of housing.

Governmental Constraints
Potential governmental constraints include, but are not limited to, growth management measures, land use controls, development standards, building codes, processing fees and procedures, exactions, property taxes, and site improvement costs. Governmental constraints can limit or deter the operations of the public, private, and nonprofit housing development sectors, making it difficult to meet the demand for housing and limiting supply in a region. Such constraints can limit access to housing for various ethnic, racial, or social groups, or prevent lower-income households from having adequate housing opportunities.

The City of Pinole has the authority to regulate the location, base density, and type of residential development that occurs within the City. This authority is asserted in several ways, including land use controls, site improvement requirements, fees and exactions, permit processing procedures, and other factors that may influence the development, maintenance, and improvement of housing. Like all local jurisdictions, the City of Pinole has a number of procedures, fees, and regulations it requires developers to follow. Additionally, like any agency, the City is constrained by resource availability and other factors beyond its control. Below is a summary of key issues.

Land Use Controls
The City of Pinole sets forth policies to guide new development and the use of land within the City limits through its General Plan. These policies, in conjunction with the Three Corridors Specific Plan (2010) and Zoning Ordinance, control the amount and distribution of land allocated for different uses within the City and how this land can be developed.

General Plan
The City of Pinole adopted an updated General Plan in October 2010. The General Plan is a comprehensive, long-range general policy document that expresses the community’s vision and establishes five key topics: Sustainability, Priority Development Areas, Economic Development, Recreation and Resources, and Housing. The General Plan Vision identifies Housing as a key topic and states the City will need diverse housing opportunities for people who work and live in Pinole and the region. The Land Use and Economic Development 250 of 565
Constraints on Housing

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 89
Element of the General Plan identifies the location, distribution, density, and intensity of land use within the City.

The City completed a comprehensive Zoning Ordinance update to correspond with the adopted General Plan in 2010; the Three Corridors Specific Plan adopted with the General Plan established new standards and guidelines for development around Specific Plan corridors consisting of San Pablo Avenue, Pinole Valley Road, and Appian Way. These regulations establish the base considerations and standards for land uses and development within the City. Adopted base densities for residential uses are included in the analysis of the sites discussed in the Sites Section.

The General Plan identifies five residential land use designations, as follows:

R – Rural (0.0 to 0.2 dwelling unit per acre). Includes sites where development shall be clustered to preserve at least 90% of the property in a natural condition and predominantly free of development to protect visual and environmental resources. This designation is typical for sites that are characterized by steep slopes, contain environmental resources, have visual significance in the community, are integral to riparian systems, or which have been identified as having limited development potential due to service delivery constraints.

These parcels also create opportunities for urban agriculture uses, including agricultural parks and specialty crop farming. Other uses, such as telecommunications facilities, solar collectors, and wind energy conversion systems, may be considered provided they are designed to preserve the natural landscape. These areas help preserve remaining natural Figure 13: General Land Use Map
251 of 565
Constraints on Housing

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 90
landscapes. In certain areas of the city, they can also provide open space buffers between Pinole and neighboring communities, serve as fire breaks, provide connections between neighborhoods and recreational areas, and may provide an educational resource.

LDR - Low Density Residential (0.21 to 1 dwelling unit per acre). Includes sites located adjacent to open space areas or near environmental resources where it transitions to residential land uses. This designation is typical of sites where larger lot sizes are appropriate to ensure flexible siting and design to maintain scenic and environmental resources.

SR - Suburban Residential (1.1 to 10 dwelling units per acre). Provides for single-family development that is typical of most residential areas of the City. This is the single largest residential category.

MDR - Medium Density Residential (10.1 to 20 dwelling units per acre). Intended for attached dwelling units, typically two or three stories, which include on-site usable open space. Medium Density Residential land use would include townhomes, apartments, condominiums and planned unit developments.

HDR - High Density Residential (20.1 to 35 dwelling units per acre). Provides for higher density multifamily areas, typically two or three stories, usually located near transit corridors or arterial roadways and located in close proximity to commercial services.

The General Plan describes Specific Plan land use designations as follows:

SSA - Service Sub-Area (10.1 to 50.0 dwelling units per acre). The Service Sub-Area is intended to maintain and enhance existing land uses while providing land use flexibility and incentives to encourage new private investment and additional development. Each service sub-area is described as follows.

San Pablo Avenue: Preserve land for manufacturing and industrial uses, particularly “green industry.” A limited amount of general office, retail and residential uses may be permitted where they will not conflict with the principal industrial uses in the area.

Pinole Valley Road: Maintain and increase existing employment opportunities and encourage new housing opportunities while accommodating commercial uses that serve residents through mixed-use development. This is a transitional area that serves residential neighborhoods in Pinole Valley and serves as a gateway immediately south of the historic Old Town.

Appian Way: Maintain and enhance the regional gateway area into Pinole and capitalize on freeway access to upgrade existing development and attract a desirable mix of commercial services and residential uses.

OTSA - Old Town Sub-Area (10.1 to 50.0 dwelling units per acre). The Old Town Sub-Area will maintain and enhance the residential, commercial and mixed-use character, scale and style of Old Town Pinole. All types of commercial and residential uses as either a single use 252 of 565
Constraints on Housing

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 91
or in combination with other allowable commercial and residential uses are allowed within this area, at intensities that preserve the character of Old Town Pinole. The designation is intended to encourage ground-floor, pedestrian-friendly retail sales and service uses with upper floors of office and/or residential uses. Residential uses may include single-family and multi-family residential uses.

MUSA - Mixed-Use Sub-Area (10.1 to 50.0 dwelling units per acre). The Mixed-Use SubArea encourages mixed residential and commercial development that is united by transit and pedestrian improvements, parks and public spaces. This land use designation allows all types of commercial and residential uses as either a single use or in combination with other allowable commercial and residential uses at densities and intensities that support transit service. The designation is intended to encourage ground floor, pedestrian-friendly retail sales and service uses with upper floors of office and residential uses. Residential uses may include single-family and multi-family residential uses.

The density and intensity ranges for the Three Corridors Specific Plan Area land use categories are shown in Table 54. Development incentives are granted for a project where the project promotes transit-oriented development (TOD) objectives or other City objectives as identified in a Specific Plan, the Redevelopment Plan, or approved planned development, or through any other similar planning document adopted for the area. Incentives may include increased density, reduced parking, greater building height, or other deviations from regular zoning standards.

Table 54: Three Corridors Specific Plan Areas Development Densities and Intensities Sub-Area Density (du/acre)
Normal (max) With TOD Incentives (max)
Mixed-Use 35 50
Old Town 35 50
Service 35 50
Source: City of Pinole General Plan
Three Corridors Specific Plan
The Three Corridors Specific Plan expands upon the vision of the sub-area land use designations provided in the General Plan (SSA, OTSA, and MUSA) for each of the three corridors within the Specific Plan. The document establishes the allowable land uses and development standards within each of the three corridors. Development standards include the establishment of standard and special building height requirements, provision of height exceptions, building placement/setback requirements, allowed frontage types, allowed building types, and allowable parking types. Where a standard is not addressed in the Specific Plan, the standard from the Zoning Ordinance would apply. Where there are conflicts 253 of 565
Constraints on Housing

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 92
in allowable uses and standards between the Specific Plan and Zoning Ordinance, the Specific Plan would govern.

Development Standards
In general, the City's Zoning Ordinance (Title 17 of the Pinole Municipal Code) establishes development standards for new development, such as densities, height, parking, and setbacks, to implement the development envisioned in the General Plan. The Three Corridors Specific Plan contains development standards applicable when a property is located within the Specific Plan area. As with other cities, Pinole’s development standards and requirements are intended to protect the long-term health, safety, and welfare of the community while implementing the goals and policies of the General Plan and Specific Plan.

Height Limits
The City has one type of height limit in residential districts: a maximum height measured from finished grade to the top of the roof or parapet walls. Height limits in the R, R-1, R-2, and R-3 is 35 feet and 20 feet in the LDR district. For the R-4 and mixed-use zones (RMU, CMU, OIMU), the height limit is 50 feet. The height limits do not constrain development from reaching their prescribed General Plan densities.

For development located within the Three Corridors Specific Plan area, the height standards are based on the corridor and the sub-area designation, as provided in Table 55.

Table 55: Three Corridors Specific Plan Height Standards Corridor Sub-Area
Old Town Mixed Use Service
San Pablo Avenue* 40 feet or 3 stories 50 feet or 4 stories 50 feet or 4 stories Pinole Valley Road* 40 feet or 3 stories 50 feet or 4 stories n/a Appian Way** n/a 35 feet or 4 stories 75 feet or 6 stories * Step back at a 45 degree angle above the second story when adjacent to single family home/zone with 35 foot height limit, or above the third story when across the street from single family home/zone with 35 foot height limit or less. ** Height is limited to 35 feet where development is located within 60 feet of an existing single family home or zone with a height limit of 35 feet of less.

Setbacks
All residential zones have setbacks, which are the minimum distances between a structure and a lot line. Setbacks in Pinole vary between the residential zones depending on density.

The lower density (LDR and R-1) zones are largely uniform, with 20-foot front setbacks, 5- to 10-foot side setbacks, and 20-foot rear setbacks. The medium to higher density (R-2, R-3, R4) have 0-foot front setbacks, 5-foot side setbacks, and 15-foot rear setbacks. Mixed use 254 of 565
Constraints on Housing

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 93
zones (RMU, CMU, OPMU, and OIMU) have 0-foot front and side setbacks with 15-foot rear setbacks, with OPMU and OIMU having 10-foot side setbacks. While all setbacks reduce the amount of land that is developable on a site, the setbacks do not constrain projects from reaching the maximum housing density in a zone.

Table 56: Primary Building Development Standard for City of Pinole Base Zoning Districts District
Lot
Area
(min sq
ft)
Setback (minimum distance between
structure and property line)
Building
Height
(max ft)
Allowed Density
(units/acre)
Front
Yard
Side
Yard
Side
Yard for
Second
Story
Street
Side
Yard
Rear
Yard Min Max
R 5 ac. 1 30 15 15 20 30 30 N/A 0.2
LDR 43,560 20 102 15 154
204 20 0.21 1.0
R-1 6,000 20 5
3 12 104
204 35 1.1 10
R-2 3,000 0 5 10 10 15 35 10.1 20
R-3 1,500 0 5 5 10 15535 20.1 35
R-4 N/A 0 5 5 10 155 50 35.1 50
RC 5,000 0 0 0 0 0 50 N/A N/A
RMU N/A 0 0 0 10 155 50 20.1 35
CMU N/A 0 0 0 10 155 50 20.1 30
OPMU N/A 0 10 10 10 155 50 N/A N/A
OIMU N/A 0 10 10 10 15550 N/A N/A
Source: City of Pinole Municipal Code 17.24.020
Notes:

1. The approving authority may approve lots less than five (5) acres in size and reduced setbacks for clustering of units to preserve open space or other resources as part of comprehensive design review.

2. The combined side yard setbacks shall not be less than twenty (20) feet.

3. Within required side yards, at least one (1) side shall provide four (4) feet of unobstructed surface to allow unobstructed access between the front and rear yards.

4. Listed setback distance or twenty percent (20%) of lot width inside yard and twenty percent (20%) of lot depth in rear yard, whichever is less.

5. If abutting non-residential property, there is no minimum rear yard setback.

For development located within the Three Corridors Specific Plan area, setback standards are based on the corridor and the sub-area designation, as provided below. 255 of 565
Constraints on Housing

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 94
Table 57: Three Corridors Specific Plan Setback Standards Corridor Setback
Sub-Area
Old Town Mixed Use Service
San Pablo
Avenue*
Build to Front Line 0-5 feet 0-10 feet 0-5 feet
Minimum Side Yard 0 feet, except 15 feet
if abutting residential
0 feet, except 15 feet
if abutting
residential
0 feet, except 15 feet
if abutting
residential
Minimum Rear Yard 5 feet, except 15 feet
if abutting residential
0 feet, except 15 feet
if abutting
residential
0 feet, except 15 feet
if abutting
residential
Pinole
Valley
Road*
Build to Front Line 0-5 feet n/a 0-5 feet
Minimum Side Yard 0 feet, except 15 feet
if abutting residential
n/a 0 feet, except 15 feet
if abutting
residential
Minimum Rear Yard 5 feet, except 15 feet
if abutting residential
n/a 0 feet, except 15 feet
if abutting
residential
Appian
Way**
Build to Front Line n/a 0-10 feet 0-5 feet
Minimum Side Yard n/a 0 feet, except 20 feet
if abutting
residential
0 feet, except 20 feet
if abutting
residential
Minimum Rear Yard n/a 0 feet, except 20 feet
if abutting
residential
0 feet, except 20 feet
if abutting
residential
* Step back at a 45 degree angle above the second story when adjacent to single family home/zone with 35 foot height limit, or above the third story when across the street from single family home/zone with 35 foot height limit or less. ** 35 foot height limit within 60 feet of side or rear property line when adjacent to single family home/zone with 35 foot height limit.

Parking
The Pinole Municipal Code Chapter 17.48 establishes parking standards for various types of land uses, including residential development. High parking requirements can reduce the potential land available for development and increase the cost of development. A recent estimate of parking construction costs in major cities found that in 2022 the national average cost per parking space is $24,748 and the cost in San Francisco per parking space was $30,316.16
The minimum parking requirements for residential developments in Pinole are shown in 16 Transportation Cost and Benefit Analysis II – Parking Costs. Victoria Transport Policy Institution. https://www.vtpi.org/tca/tca0504.pdf
256 of 565
Constraints on Housing

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 95
Table 58. As a part of Program 12 the City will further study the parking requirements in the City as a constraint to development and will take action to ensure that parking requirements do not act as a constraint to development by doing one of more of the following: remove or reduce guest parking, remove covered parking requirements, allow tandem parking, and reduce minimum parking requirements.

Chapter 17.48 of the Pinole Municipal Code also provides for reduced parking and shared parking through the Conditional Use Permit process with approval by the Planning Commission. The process for obtaining a shared parking agreement or parking reduction has defined processes and standards. The City is currently processing a CUP for reduced parking requirements. A variance is not needed for a reduction of parking standards. The parking requirements for Pinole have not been a constraint to multi-family and below market-rate developments. Conditional Use Permits (CUPs) may be requested in applications proposing shared parking arrangements and parking reductions below minimum parking ratios. A reduced parking proposal is being used for residential projects at the Collins House (612 Tennent Ave) and the adjacent property (2279 Park Street). Both projects feature an increase in residential units beyond the previous use: a conversion of a building from two units to include four units for Collins House and a proposal for three units at 2279 Park Street. Both projects have constraints in providing onsite parking spaces. However, the CUP process allows for flexibility in exploring alternative parking arrangements to provide for reductions in standard parking requirements based on specific project needs and available parking resources on the site and in the area to meet needs. The parking requirements for Pinole have not been a constraint to multi-family and below market-rate developments.

As a part of Program 12, the City will reduce the level of approval for a parking reduction and shared parking agreement from a conditional use permit to an administrative use permit.

An administrative use permit is a staff level approval. To obtain reduced parking, there are currently four criteria and an applicant must meet three of them. The City will revise the standards for reduced parking in Section 17.48 of the zoning ordinance to make it easier to obtain, such as reducing the number of required findings or increasing the number of available criteria.

In conversations with developers pursuing projects in the City, parking was not noted as a constraint on their projects. In particular, larger multifamily projects have been subject to the City’s inclusionary housing requirements and have been eligible for reduced parking under State Density Bonus law. Additionally, the context of some development projects (e.g., senior housing development with reduced parking need or location of a project allowing for shared parking) have allowed for further flexibility in meeting parking need unique to specific characteristics of a project. The City has recently approved over 600 units, including 235 affordable units. The parking requirements have not been a constraint to residential development.
257 of 565
Constraints on Housing

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 96
The City is including multiple programs to review and reduce parking requirements including a reduction of parking standards for lower income household developments including SROs in Program 9 and reducing parking standards for senior housing development in Program

10. Parking requirements for ADUs are compliant with state law.

Table 58: Parking Requirements by Land Use
Land Use Type Required Parking Spaces
Residential Uses
Boarding and
Rooming Houses
1 space per family (based on designed
capacity) plus 0.8 spaces/employee during the
peak employment shift and 0.8 spaces per fulltime resident staff Dwelling, SingleFamily - studio1 space per dwelling unit (garage enclosed or covered)
Dwelling, SingleFamily - one bedroom2 spaces per dwelling unit (garage enclosed or covered), tandem parking spaces permitted
Dwelling, SingleFamily - two to four
bedrooms
2 spaces per dwelling unit (1 space must be
garage enclosed or covered), tandem parking
spaces permitted in Old Town
Dwelling, SingleFamily - five or more
bedrooms
3 spaces per dwelling unit (2 spaces must be
garage enclosed or covered and accessed
independently; the third space may be
tandem)
Dwelling, Multiple-Family
Studio units
1 space per dwelling unit (garage enclosed or
covered) plus 0.3 spaces per dwelling unit for
visitor parking
One-bedroom units

1.5 spaces per dwelling unit (1 space must be
garage enclosed or covered) plus 0.3 spaces
per dwelling unit for visitor parking
Two+ bedroom units
2 assigned spaces per dwelling unit (1 space
must be garage enclosed or covered) plus 0.3
spaces per dwelling unit for visitor parking
Accessory Dwelling Unit
1 space per bedroom or ADU, whichever is less, except parking may be waived as provided in Chapter 17.70, Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units
Senior units, studio, one- and twobedroom units 1 space per dwelling unit Senior units, three + bedroom
units 1 space per dwelling unit plus 1 additional off-street space Mobile Home Park 2 parking spaces per home site
Source: City of Pinole Municipal Code 17.48.050
258 of 565
Constraints on Housing

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 97
Cumulative Effect of Development Standards
The cumulative effect of development standards is not likely to constrain the ability of developers to achieve maximum densities on site development. The combination of setback, height, and parking requirements do not impede the ability of projects to reach the maximum density. The City of Pinole has permissive standards for development, especially in the Three Corridors Specific Plan areas. The standards are not uncommon and are similar to other housing-friendly zoning ordinances. The City has recently permitted over 600 units, including 235 affordable units complying with these development standards, or modified where needed through State density bonus provisions. As a part of the housing element update the City had conversations with developers with projects in the City to discuss their experience developing in Pinole. Developers were asked to identify any constraints they experienced in the development process. No setback, height, or parking requirement was noted in conversations with developers as a restriction on their development. The development standards do not constrain the ability for projects to meet the densities in each zone.

The City of Pinole does not utilize any floor area ratio, maximum floor area, or maximum lot coverage standards to limit the size of buildings in the City. Projects are limited by height and setbacks.

Recent projects in Pinole demonstrate that the existing development standards (including setbacks and height requirements) do not constrain development from meeting, and in many cases exceeding, the maximum allowable density in each zone. All of the five projects include affordable housing. In most cases, concessions for density bonuses and inclusionary housing were also leveraged to achieve densities beyond the allowable maximum. Table 59 compares the approved projects with the development standards of the relevant zone.

Three of the recent projects exceed the maximum allowable density due to density bonus for affordable housing. Of these, two still comply with the standard maximum height and one used the concession to exceed the height limit. The SAHA affordable housing project exceeds the density of the zone while meeting the height and setback requirements of the CMU zone.

The BCRE project used an incentive through compliance with state affordable housing law to receive a height increase from 50 to 60 feet. This project retained the existing commercial uses and building located in the center of the site and added more commercial uses and residential units to the site. Working around the existing building led to the increased height to accommodate the floor area.
259 of 565
Constraints on Housing

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 98
Table 59: Comparison of Development Standards of Recent Projects Project Zone Actual Density / Max
Density Allowed
Actual Height/
Max Height
Actual Setbacks /
Allowed Setbacks
Appian Village RMU/CMU 20.9 / 32.7* 37’2” ft** / 50 ft
Side: 5 ft / 10 ft
Rear: 5 ft / 15 ft
BCRE Mixed-Use OPMU 16.6 / 30 60 ft / 50 ft
Front: 77 ft / 0 ft
Side: 5 ft / 0 ft
Rear: 10 ft / 0-15 ft
Pinole Vista CMU 37.6 / 30 55 ft / 75 ft
Front: 67 ft / 0 ft
Side: 77, 142 ft / 0 ft
Rear: 167 ft / 15 ft
SAHA Affordable
Veteran’s Housing CMU 55 / 30 48 ft / 50 ft
Front: 0 Ft / 0 ft
Side: 15 ft / 15 ft
Rear: 15 ft / 15 ft
Vista Woods VHDR 89 / 50 60 ft / 50 ft
Front: 0 ft / 0 ft
Side: 1 ft, 14 ft / 15 ft
Rear: 15 ft / 15 ft
*Densities proportional to acreage between two zones.
**Tallest building height.

Source: City of Pinole.

Inclusionary Housing Requirements
Pinole Municipal Code Chapter 17.32.02 stipulates that, for all rental or ownership developments of four or more units, at least 15 percent of the total units must be constructed and offered for sale or rent as affordable housing units. Of those units, no less than 40 percent (or 6 percent of the total) must be made available to very low-income households.

The City has seen recent development complying with these standards, including development of over 600 units and 235 affordable units. Two recent projects are one hundred percent affordable projects. The recently approved Pinole Vista project includes inclusionary units of 48 percent (13) very low income units and 52 percent (13) low income units, which exceeded the required percentage of very low income units by the inclusionary housing ordinance. The developer increased the proportion of very low units to take advantage of state density bonus laws. Another recent development includes a subdivision of four units that increased from three to four units to provide one moderate income forsale unit. This and other recently approved market and affordable housing projects demonstrate that the cumulative regulations have been able to facilitate a variety of new housing development, such that 80% of the City's RHNA could be met with currently 260 of 565
Constraints on Housing

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 99
approved projects. Recent development trends demonstrate that the City’s inclusionary housing requirements do not constraint development.

Incentives for constructing affordable housing may include density bonuses, fee subsidies or deferrals, and design incentives as follows:

1. Density Bonus. Consistent with California Government Code Sections 65915 through 65918, qualifying projects can receive a density bonus by right.

2. Fee Subsidy or Deferral. The City Council may subsidize or defer payment of city development impact fees and/or building permit fees applicable to the affordable housing units or the project of which they are a part. The affordability control covenant shall include the terms of the fee subsidy or deferral.

3. Design Modifications. The granting of design modifications relative to affordable housing requirements shall require approval of the City Council and shall meet all applicable zoning requirements of the city. Modifications to typical development standards may include the following:
a. Reduced minimum setbacks;
b. Reduced minimum building separation requirements;
c. Reduced square footage requirements;
d. Reduced parking requirements;
e. Reduced minimum lot sizes and/or dimensions;
f. Reduced street standards;
g. Reduced on-site open space requirements;
h. Increased height limitations;
i. Increased maximum lot coverage;
j. Increased floor area ratio;
k. Allowance for live-work units within multi-family residential zoning districts; l. In lieu of reduced setbacks, allowance for attached dwelling units, if shown to be necessary to make the project feasible; or
m. Other regulatory incentives or concessions proposed by the developer or the city that result in identifiable, financially sufficient, and actual cost reductions. n. Priority Processing. After receiving the required discretionary approvals, the residential development that provides affordable housing units may be entitled to priority processing of building and engineering approvals, subject to the approval of the City Manager.
261 of 565
Constraints on Housing

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 100
The City does not collect in-lieu fees through the City’s inclusionary requirement, it utilizes an incentive based approach to achieving affordable housing on-site. An alternative method of compliance is the construction of affordable units at an off-site alternative location. The lack of an in-lieu fee option can act as a constraint on development, especially on smaller projects that may end up providing a higher proportion of affordable units due to their small size. As a part of Program 7, the City will pursue creation of an in-lieu fee alternative for the inclusionary housing requirement to provide flexibility for smaller projects and to create a new funding source for affordable housing projects. The inclusionary fee will help ensure that the inclusionary requirements do not constrain smaller projects and that smaller projects are providing an equal proportion of affordable units as larger projects. the City will study the possibility of adopting a set of in-lieu fees.

Density Bonus
The City’s Zoning Ordinance includes a provision for granting density bonuses as an incentive for the production of affordable housing in Section 17.38.020. The City’s Density Bonus provision within the Municipal Code is not up to date with the latest updates to California Government Code 65915. Through Program 12, the City will update its Zoning Ordinance to ensure compliance with state density bonus law. Where development is proposed that is eligible for density bonuses and their associated waivers and incentives under State Law, the provisions under California Governmental Code Section 65915 are applied to the project.

As part of Program 12, the City will update the Zoning Ordinance to reflect the latest provisions set forth in California Government Code 65915. Program 12 will include amendments to the density bonus provisions to comply with state law. Specifically, the update will increase the maximum density bonus from 35 to 50 percent with the criteria and allowances under state density bonus law, add student housing as a housing type that is eligible for density bonus incentives, and reduce parking from 2 to 1.5 spaces for two and three bedroom units and from 2.5 to 2 spaces for four or more bedroom units. The City is complying with state density bonus law though the code is not yet updated.

Providing for a Variety of Housing Types
Table 60 shows the allowed uses in residential zones in the Zoning Code. As discussed in the next section, accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units are allowed in all residential zoning districts under Section 17.20.020 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance. Singlefamily residential zoning includes six districts: R, LDR, R-1, R-2, R-3, and RMU. Single-family dwellings are permitted as a matter of right in most multifamily residential districts except R-4 and is only allowed in one mixed-use district (RMU).

Multifamily residential zoning includes R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4, and RMU (Residential Mixed Use), CMU (Commercial Mixed Use), OPMU (Office Professional Mixed Use), and OIMU (Office Industrial Mixed Use) mixed-use districts. Multifamily units are permitted as a matter of right in the R-2, R-3, R-4 districts; they are also permitted in the RMU and CMU districts. 262 of 565
Constraints on Housing

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 101
Table 60: Allowed Residential Uses Under the Zoning Code Land Uses R LDR R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 RC RMU CMU OPMU OIMU
Dwelling, Accessory/
Junior Accessory1

P P P P P P N P P P P
Dwelling, Multifamily N N N P P P N P P N N
Dwelling, Single Family P P P P P N N P N N N
Dwelling, Two-Family N N N P P N N N N P P
Dwelling, Three- and
Four-Family

N N N P P P N P P N N
Emergency Shelter 2 N N N N N N N N N N P
Group Residential N P P P P P N C C N N
Manufactured Home P P P P P P N N N P N
Mobile Home Park C C C C C C N N N N N
Residential Care Facilities P P P P P P N P P N N
Single Room Occupancy
Facilities

N N N C C C N C C N N
Supportive Housing
(located in housing of a
type permitted in the
zone)

P P P P P P P P P P P
Transitional Housing 2
(located in housing of a
type permitted in the
zone)

N P P P P P P P P P P
Source: City of Pinole Municipal Code 17.20.020
Note: P = Permitted; C = Conditionally Permitted; N=Not Allowed 1 See additional regulations for Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units in Chapter 17.70. 2 See additional regulations for Emergency Shelters in Chapter 17.62.

Where a property is located within the Three Corridors Specific Plan area, the Specific Plan establishes the list of allowable residential uses based on the corridor, sub-area, and land use/zoning designation. The exhibits below (Table 61, Table 62, Table 63) show the allowable residential uses in the three corridor areas of the Specific Plan. In general, multifamily residential is permitted by right throughout the Specific Plan area with some exceptions such as prohibition on Public Quasi-Public Institutional (PQI) parcels, required Conditional Use Permit approval in OPMU, and limitation of units on the ground floor at street frontages in certain locations. Single family residential is not permitted outside of the Old Town Sub-Area.

Second dwelling units (or ADUs/JADUs) are allowed consistent with the locational requirements as provided under the Zoning Code; and the Zoning Code would take precedence over the Specific Plan for any conflicts between the Specific Plan and Zoning Code regarding ADUs/JADUs to maintain consistency with requirements under State law. 263 of 565
Constraints on Housing

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 102
Table 61: Permitted Land Uses for San Pablo Avenue
Land Uses Old Town Sub-Area Service SubAreaMixed-Use Sub-Area

MDR RMU CMU OPMU CMU OPMU VHR RMU CMU OPMU
Dwelling, Multifamily P P P
1 P1 P1 P1 P P P1 P1
Dwelling, Second Unit CUP N/A2 N/A2 N/A2 N/A2 N/A2 N/A2 N/A2 N/A2 N/A2 Dwelling, Single-family P P N N N N N N N N
Dwelling, Two-family P
3 P3 N3 N N N N N N N
Family Day Care Home, Small
(6 children or less)

P P P P P
3 P3 P P P3 P
Family Day Care Home, Large
(7 – 24 children)
P
4 P4 P4 P4 P P P P P N
Home Occupation P P P P P
4 P4 P3 P3 P4 P
Live-Work Facility P P P P P P N P P P
Residential Care Home CUP P P P CUP CUP CUP P
4 CUP1 CUP1
Emergency Shelter/
Temporary Home
N N N N CUP1 CUP1 CUP N CUP1 CUP1
1 Not allowed on first floor at street frontage, except for residential development on a property with an affordable housing agreement and when that development includes community benefits as specified in the General Plan. 2 See Multi-Family Residential
3 Not permitted if the same use is preexisting and within 200’ 4 Home occupations must have no external evidence of business activity, (e.g. signs, noise, odor, vibration, etc.) or reduce available parking.

No customers or employees are allowed at the home and no advertising which gives the home address is allowed.

Table 62: Permitted Use Table for Pinole Valley Road
Land Uses Old Town Sub-Area Service Sub-Area

MDR HDR CMU CMU OPMU
Dwelling, Multifamily P P P
1 P1 P1
Dwelling, Second Unit N/A2 N/A2 N/A2 N/A2 N/A2
Dwelling, Single-family P N N N N
Dwelling, Two-family N/A2 N/A2 N/A2 N/A2 N/A2
Family Day Care Home, Small (6 children or less) N P P P 3 P3
Family Day Care Home, Large (7 – 24 children) CUP4 CUP4 CUP4 P P Home Occupation N P P P
4 P4
Live-Work Facility P P P P P
Residential Care Home CUP P P CUP1 CUP1
Emergency Shelter/ Temporary Home N N N CUP1 CUP1
1 Not allowed on first floor at street frontage
264 of 565
Constraints on Housing

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 103
2 See Multi-Family Residential
3 Not permitted if the same use is preexisting and within 300’ 4 Home occupations must have no external evidence of business activity, (e.g. signs, noise, odor, vibration, etc.) or reduce available parking.

No customers or employees are allowed at the home and no advertising which gives the home address is allowed.

Table 63: Permitted Use Table for Appian Way
Land Uses
Service Sub-Area Mixed-Use Sub-Area

RMU CMU OPMU HDR RMU CMU
Dwelling, Multifamily P P P
1 P P P1
Dwelling, Second Unit N/A2 N/A2 N/A2 N/A2 N/A2 N/A2
Dwelling, Single-family N N N N N N
Dwelling, Two-family N/A2 N/A2 N/A2 N/A2 N/A2 N/A2
Family Day Care Home, Small (6
children or less)
P
3 P3 P3 P3 P3 P3
Family Day Care Home, Large (7 – 24
children)

CUP CUP CUP N CUP CUP
Home Occupation P
4 P4 P4 P4 P4 P4
Live-Work Facility P P P P P P
Residential Care Home CUP CUP1 CUP1 CUP CUP CUP1
Emergency Shelter/ Temporary Home N N N N N N
1 Not allowed on first floor at street frontage
2 See Multi-Family Residential
3 Not permitted if the same use is preexisting and within 300’ 4 Home occupations must have no external evidence of business activity, (e.g. signs, noise, odor, vibration, etc.) or reduce available parking.

No customers or employees are allowed at the home and no advertising which gives the home address is allowed.

Accessory Dwelling Units
Accessory dwelling units (ADU) and junior accessory dwelling units (JADU) are attached or detached dwelling units that provide complete independent living facilities for one or more persons and are located on a lot with a proposed or existing primary residence. ADUs provide additional housing opportunities for people of all ages and economic levels. The City of Pinole allows and regulates ADUs and JADUs in Chapter 17.70 of the Municipal Code and in compliance with California Government Code Sections 65852.2 and 65852.22. ADUs are permitted on lots with an existing or proposed single-family or multifamily residence, subject to a ministerial approval process through building permit plan check review. The City streamlines the permitting of ADUs by processing them as a plan check in a building permit application review and does not require separate planning permits for ADUs.

The City will continue to update the ADU ordinance as necessary and work with the state to ensure compliance with state law as part of its ADU production program (Program 4), which includes efforts to spur the development of affordable housing through the construction of 265 of 565
Constraints on Housing

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 104
ADUs. The City is also creating a Home Sharing and Tenant Matching Program to help senior residents age in place and encourage ADU and JADU development (Program 11).

Senate Bill 9
Effective January 1, 2022, Senate Bill (SB) 9 requires ministerial approval of a housing development with no more than two primary units in a single-family zone, the subdivision of a parcel in a single-family zone into two parcels, or both. SB 9 facilitates the creation of up to four housing units in the lot area typically used for one single-family home. The City has not received any SB9 applications as of October 2022 but has seen some interest from homeowners. Promotion of SB9 opportunities in the City is included as a part of Program 23.

The City has not adopted an SB9 ordinance or objective standards. The City will amend the zoning ordinance in Program 12 to reflect the provisions of California Government Code Section 65852.21. Additionally, to facilitate and provide for technical assistance of SB 9 units, the City is including Program 6.

Emergency Shelters
An emergency shelter is housing with minimal supportive services for unhoused persons that is limited to occupancy of 180 days or less per calendar year by an unhoused person.

No individual or household may be denied emergency shelter because of an inability to pay.

The City’s emergency shelter requirements are provided in Article IV Special Use Standards of the Zoning Ordinance. Pursuant to SB 2, the City of Pinole permits emergency shelters by right without discretionary review in the Three Corridors Specific Plan Office Industrial Mixed Use (OIMU) zone.

The Zoning Ordinance permits emergency shelters by right in the OIMU zone subject to the same development and management standards as other permitted uses in the zone. In addition, the following requirements regulate future emergency shelters to enhance compatibility (Chapter 17.62):
• Emergency shelters of more than ten persons shall be situated more than 300 feet from another emergency shelter.
• A maximum of 30 beds shall be available in the facility, unless a conditional use permit is approved for a greater number. The maximum number of beds does not apply in situations of City- or statewide designated disasters or catastrophic conditions. • Smoke detectors, approved by the Fire Department, shall be provided in all sleeping and food preparation areas for emergency shelters.
• The size of an emergency shelter shall be in character with the surrounding neighborhood.
266 of 565
Constraints on Housing

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 105
• The emergency shelter shall have an interior, on-site waiting and client intake area that is a minimum of 200 square feet. The emergency shelter shall include a landscaped exterior waiting area that is a minimum of 100 square feet. • Off-street parking shall be provided at the rate of one space per three beds plus one space per employee, and may only be required based on demonstrated need, provided that the same parking requirements are applied for other residential or commercial uses in the same zone.
• Exterior lighting shall be consistent with Zoning Code requirements. • Emergency shelters shall provide on-site management and support staff at all times during shelter use.
• Emergency shelters must have on-site security during the hours that the shelter is in operation.

Assembly Bill 139 (2019) modified the allowed parking standards for emergency shelters.

The City may now only require parking to meet the needs of staff working at the shelter and may not impose any standards based on the number of beds or persons served. The City’s existing ordinance requires one space for each three beds and one per each employee, which is not reflective of recent changes to state law.

The City is including Program 12 to amend the Emergency Shelter ordinance to comply with AB 139 and all state standards for emergency shelters. The City will also review the other standards for emergency shelters to verify that they are required for all other uses in the zone and are not unique to emergency shelters beyond those allowed by state law.

The City is compliant with AB 2339 (2023) that requires zoning designations identified to allow emergency shelters as a permitted use without a conditional use or other discretionary permits in a zone that also allows residential uses. The City allows emergency shelters without a conditional use or other discretionary permits in the OIMU zone. Under the general Zoning Code standards, this is a mixed-use zone that permits residential uses including twofamily dwellings, supportive housing, and transitional housing. The OIMU zone in Three Corridors Specific Plan also allows live-work facilities by right and multi-family residential with a CUP.

Emergency shelters are allowed by-right in the OIMU zone. Pinole has 35.4 acres of land zoned OIMU, all of which is located in the northwestern area of the City along San Pablo Avenue in the Three Corridors Specific Plan. Emergency shelters in land zoned OIMU allows for proximity to public transit, employment centers and some commercial amenities and resources along one of the City’s major commercial throughfares. The area is fit for human habitation, has access to infrastructure and is located in the most walkable corridor of the City. There are a number of residential uses at varying densities adjacent to this zone. The zone does not allow for heavy industrial uses. Building in the OIMU zone may have heights up to 50 feet and no front yard setbacks. Required setbacks include 10-foot side and 15-foot rear setbacks. Other residential uses allowed in the OIMU zone include two-family dwellings, 267 of 565
Constraints on Housing

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 106
ADUs and JADUs, supportive housing, and transitional housing. The OIMU standards will not preclude or constrain the development of emergency shelters.

The latest homeless point-in-time count indicated that there are 53 7 unsheltered homeless individuals living in Pinole; the City needs to ensure that at least 1,400 sf of floor area could be available for emergency shelter development or conversion. Based on a review of the City’s standards and shelter need, there are 5.6 acres of vacant land and multiple underutilized lots in the OIMU zone that meet the requirements and can accommodate the City’s shelter need. The 5.6 acres of vacant land in the OIMU zone are within 0.5 miles of transit stops along San Pablo Avenue.

Low Barrier Navigation Centers
Low barrier navigation centers (LBNC) are service-enriched shelters that are focused on moving individuals into more permanent housing. LBNCs provide temporary housing while case managers connect individuals experiencing homelessness to shelter, public benefits, and health services. Under the Housing for Homeless Act (2019), local governments are required to allow LBNCs by right in areas zoned for mixed uses and nonresidential zones that permit multifamily uses.

Pinole does not currently explicitly allow LBNCs in any zone, though this would not prevent their development if an application for one were received. Through Program 12, the City will amend its zoning code pursuant to Government Code Section 65583 to allow for LBNCs by right in areas zoned for mixed uses and nonresidential zones that permit multifamily uses.

Manufactured Homes
The permitting of modular, or manufactured, housing on foundations is subject to the same development standards as conventional single-family units, consistent with Government Code Section 65852.3. The City of Pinole permits modular homes by right in all residential zones that permit single-family dwellings by right except in the Residential Mixed Use (RMU) district. As part of the zoning code amendment program, Program 12, the City will amend the zoning code in RMU to permit manufactured homes on permanent foundations as if they were single-family homes.

Supportive and Transitional Housing
Supportive or transitional housing that serves up to six individuals is allowed by right in all residential zones except in the Rural (R) zone. Supportive or transitional housing that serves more than six individuals, provides on-site services, and is licensed by the state as a group home.

Supportive housing is a permitted use by-right in every residential zone in the City. This includes all zones in the City were multifamily and mixed uses are allowed, as well as nonresidential zones permitting multifamily uses, as shown in Table 60. 268 of 565
Constraints on Housing

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 107
Transitional housing is also permitted use by-right in every zone in the City were multifamily and mixed uses are allowed, as well as nonresidential zones permitting multifamily uses, as shown in Table 59. Transitional housing is not permitting in the rural (R) zone; however, only single-family dwellings are permitted in this zone, and no multifamily uses or mixed-use are permitted.

As defined in section 17.22.020 of the Pinole Municipal Code, both supportive and transitional housing “shall be permitted, conditionally permitted or prohibited in the same manner as other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone under this code and applicable state law.”
While the City allows these uses by right in most cases, the City does not have objective design standards for these types of homes to add certainty to the development process. As part of Program 13, the City will create and adopt objective development standards.

Single-Room Occupancy Units
Single-room occupancy (SRO) residences are small, one-room units occupied by a single individual, and may either have a shared or private kitchen and bathroom facilities. SROs are rented on a monthly basis, typically without a rental deposit, and can provide an entry point into the housing market for extremely low-income, formerly unhoused, and disabled persons. SRO units are allowed in five multifamily zones including in both mixed-use and exclusively residential zones (R-2, R-3, R-4, CMU, and RMU) upon the granting of a conditional use permit.

There is no potential constraint on the development of SRO residences. The code allows the construction of very small, efficiency, or micro-units of all affordability levels in all zones that allow residential uses. The City’s zoning code does not establish specific unit size limitations; minimum unit sizes follow standards established by the California Building Code.

The City’s definition for SROs is “multi-unit housing for very low-income persons that typically consists of a single room and shared bath and also may include a shared common kitchen and common activity area. SROs may be restricted to seniors or be available to persons of all ages. Subsidized versions may be supervised by a government housing agency.” SROs are eligible for reduced parking standards through Program 9 and affordable housing incentives in Program 8.

Development Review and Permitting Procedures
The efficiency and timing of a jurisdiction’s processes for review and approval of residential development has a significant impact on the amount and pace of housing construction. The procedures for development review and permitting in the City of Pinole are described below. 269 of 565
Constraints on Housing

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 108
Permit Processing Procedure
The requirements of the permit processing procedure have the potential to act as a constraint to the development of housing. The time and uncertainty of the review and revision cycle can contribute significantly to the overall cost of the project, ability to obtain and maintain funding, and the cost of each dwelling unit. Certainty and consistency in permit processing procedures and reasonable processing times are important to ensure that the developmental review and approval process does not act as a constraint to development by adding excessive costs or discouraging housing development.

Permitted uses are those uses allowed without discretionary approval of the use. In general, residential uses are either permitted by right or not permitted, with some exceptions.

Therefore, discretionary review based solely on allowing a residential use is uncommon.

Discretionary review is more typical for the physical development or modification of a residential structure.

The Zoning Code provides for certain variances or reductions in standards with discretionary review. The discretionary review processes allow for consideration of certain deviations from standards following consideration by the Community Development Director or the Planning Commission and determination that findings in the municipal code have been met. For single family residential structures, minor deviations for limited modification of maximum height by 10 percent and setbacks by 5 percent may be approved by the Community Development Director following a public hearing. Parking reductions may be granted through a Conditional Use Permit approved by Planning Commission. For other types of deviations from standards, a variance may be requested for consideration by the Planning Commission. Although discretionary review may extend the time required for application processing, they provide flexibility when warranted by special circumstances applicable to a project and for which there may be no other remedy. In some instances, a Conditional Use Permit or Variance may be processed concurrently with another entitlement request such as Comprehensive Design review that also requires discretionary review.

Design Review
Design Review is the discretionary review process through the Planning Division to review proposed residential development and modifications, and it is separated into Administrative Design Review and Comprehensive Design Review. Administrative Design Review is the stafflevel review process applicable to single family residential additions. Comprehensive Design Review requires approval by the Planning Commission and encompasses all new residential developments.

The Comprehensive Design Review process is single, comprehensive discretionary approval of the physical design for compliance with the site design standards.

As a part of the Design Review process, applications are reviewed by the Design Review AdHoc Subcommittee meeting (see step 4 below). This is a voluntary ad-hoc meeting of City 270 of 565
Constraints on Housing

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 109
staff and three planning commission members to review the plan set and make recommendations on the proposed plans. The applicant does not attend and there is no fee.

The Design Review Ad-Hoc Subcommittee meeting serves as a working session between staff and three planning commission members to provide detailed review and recommendations to the applicant and the full Planning Commission. The intent and purpose is to streamline the approval process and the number of meetings and hearings before the full Planning Commission. This provides constructive feedback to the applicant very early in the process and helps applicants understand what the Planning Commission is looking for and reduce the number of Planning Commission reviews on their project. It helps save time and increase certainty of approval for applicants.

The majority of projects have one Design Review Ad-Hoc Subcommittee meeting and only one meeting and hearing before the Planning Commission. At most, large projects with significant comments in the first Design Review Ad-Hoc Subcommittee meeting may have a second meeting.

In a review of development projects since 2015, the Design Review Ad-Hoc Subcommittee meeting process never resulted in a reduction of density, size of units, or number of units for any project. As a part of Program 13, the City is developing a set of objective design standards that will provide even greater clarity and certainty to the Comprehensive Design Review process and help to further reduce the approval process and increase the certainty that projects will be approved in one Planning Commission Hearing.

City staff conducts preliminary reviews to assist applicants prior to application submittal at no additional cost. This allows staff and the prospective applicant to identify important project issues early in the development review process. Further, the City has prepared Residential Design Guidelines to clarify City expectations for proposed new residential development, which can assist applicants prior to application submittal. ADUs, interior remodels and minor exterior modification, such as reroofs, siding work, and deck work, are only subject to ministerial review through the building permit plan check process and involve short processing times; these approvals may be issued over the counter or typically within four to six weeks depending on completeness of the submittal, the extensiveness of comments, and the responsiveness of applicants. A single family residential addition requiring Administrative Design Review is normally processed between six to eight weeks depending on the completeness of the application; approval can typically be provided within three to four weeks following determination that the application is complete.

New development requires Comprehensive Design Review, which applies to new single family residences and larger multifamily residential structures. A new single family residence may require three to four months to process depending on application completeness, responsiveness to comments and resubmittals, public noticing requirements, and scheduling of public hearings. Multifamily developments generally require longer review times due to the complexity of the projects, which can range from four months to a year (or longer), especially if more extensive studies are required due to the scale of development, 271 of 565
Constraints on Housing

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 110
site constraints, and potential impacts. Whenever possible, the City processes all project applications concurrently in order to maximize the efficiency of processing and save time and cost for both the City and the developer. Comprehensive design review is generally done concurrently with required environmental review.

The City conducted a review of recent projects since 2015 that went through the Comprehensive Design Review Process. The Comprehensive Design Review process was not used to reduce the density, size of units, or number of units for any project. Two recent projects increased in size throughout the review process, with the Pinole Vista project increasing from 214 to 223 units and the Hazel Street subdivision increasing from three to four units, including one unit for sale at the moderate income level.

All of the reviewed projects were approved in one Planning Commission hearing.

As a part of Program 13, the City is developing a set of objective design standards that will provide clarity to the Comprehensive Design Review process and help to speed up the length of the approval process and certainty that projects will be approved in one Planning Commission Hearing.

Step-by-Step Permit Process
The City review process is typically as follows:

1. Application Submittal

2. Application is routed to Planning Division. Additional routing is done for Public Works Department, Fire Department, Police Department, and outside agency preliminary comments, depending on the scope of the project

3. The Planning Division provides the applicant with an application status letter commenting on the completeness of the application within 30 days of application submittal.
a. Letter will identify if the Application is complete or what items are required to determine a complete Application.
b. Resubmittal in response to the Completeness Letter will restart the 30-day review process cycle.

4. (Optional) Design Review Ad-Hoc Subcommittee Meeting, scheduled within 30 days of determination of complete application or receipt of a complete plan set that shows compliance with design standards.
a. Design Review Ad-Hoc Subcommittee provides initial feedback on project design for new development projects. At least one meeting but no more than two are held.
b. Meetings can be held simultaneously with completeness review, preparation of the environmental review document, or preparation of materials for the 272 of 565
Constraints on Housing

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 111
Planning Commission meeting, and it may not necessarily add time to the overall entitlement review process.

5. California Environmental Quality Act Review. Environmental review can be initiated during the application review process.
a. CEQA Exemptions / Consistency Analyses require 1-5 months to process. b. Negative / Mitigated Negative Declarations (ND/MND) require between 6-9 months to process
c. Environmental Impact Reports (EIR) require between 9–12 months to process, including public review and response to comments.

6. Planning Commission public hearing is scheduled based on the level of environmental review needed, consistent with requirements under CEQA:
a. CEQA Exemption/Consistency with EIR – at least 30 days. b. Negative Declaration/Mitigated Negative Declaration – at least 30 days, pending no significant change to document based on comments received. c. Draft Environmental Impact Report – at least 45 days, pending no significant change to document based on comments received.

7. City Council (if required) public hearing is scheduled 30–45 days after the Planning Commission public hearing.

Recent Permit Processing Examples
Recent permit processing examples for five multifamily and two single family projects are shown below. The average for multifamily was 363 days. The average for single family was 110 days. The average of all seven projects together was 291 days.

Multifamily
Vista Woods – 179-unit affordable senior apartment (180 days from application to approval)

1. Applied for Comprehensive Design Review on March 31, 2021.

2. Application and CEQA materials complete on August 17, 2021.

3. Planning Commission hearing held and approval granted September 27, 2021.

4. Permit Issuance:
a. Building Permit
i. Applied August 24, 2021
ii. Issued January 26, 2022
273 of 565
Constraints on Housing

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF PINOLE 112
SAHA – 33-unit affordable apartment (135 days from application to approval)

1. Applied for Comprehensive Design Review on February 22, 2021.

2. Application and CEQA materials complete on May 20, 2021.

3. Planning Commission hearing held and approval granted July 7, 2021.

4. Permit Issuance:
a. Grading Permit
i. Applied July 5, 2022
b. Building Permit
i. Applied December 13, 2022
Appian Village – 154 unit townhomes and condominiums (405 days from application to approval)