Pinole City Council
May 2, 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
May 2, 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 541
City Council
Agenda – May 2, 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 541
Pinole City Council
Agenda –May 2, 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.

A. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Gov. Code § 54957
Title: City Manager

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 541
City Council
Agenda – May 2, 2023

8. RECOGNITIONS / PRESENTATIONS / COMMUNITY EVENTS
A. Proclamations

1. Honoring Postman Choi

2. Municipal Clerk’s Week

3. Public Works Month

4. Public Service Employee Recognition Week

5. Local and Community History Month
B. Presentations

1. Earth Day Video

2. CCTA

3. Mosquito & Vector Control District Services Overview

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 April 18, 2023 Council meeting.

B. Receive the April 15, 2023 – April 28, 2023 – List of Warrants in the Amount of $332,880.43 and the April 28, 2023, Payroll in the Amount of $ 468,346.17.

C. Approve Funds to Award an On-Call Contract to SKL Solutions to Meet Regulatory Compliance for the Sanitary Sewer Collection System [Action: Adopt resolution per staff recommendation (Mishra)]
D. Letter of Support for Assembly Bill (AB) 1 Regarding Collective Bargaining [Action: Approve Letter of Support per Staff Recommendation (Murray)] E. Letter of Support for State Transit Funding [Action: Approve Letter of Support per Staff Recommendation (Mishra)]
F. Letter of Opposition for Senate Bill (SB) 423 Regarding Streamlined Housing Approvals [Action: Approve Letter of Opposition per Staff Recommendation (Murray)]

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.

None

11. OLD BUSINESS
None
4 of 541
City Council
Agenda – May 2, 2023

12. NEW BUSINESS
A. City Road Condition and Pavement Management Program Update [Receive Report (Mishra)]
B. Update on Pinole Perks Community Gift Card Program [Action: Receive Report and Provide Direction (Whalen)]
C. Policies Related to Environmentally Preferable Purchases and Practices [Action:

Receive Report and Provide Direction Provide Direction (Whalen)]

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 May 16, 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: April 27, 2023 at 12:00 pm
5 of 541
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – April 18, 2023

CITY COUNCIL MEETING

MINUTES
April 18, 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 5:01 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance.

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

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

A. COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT
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
Eric Casher, City Attorney
Heather Bell, City Clerk
Sanjay Mishra, Public Works Director
Stacy Shell, Human Resources Director
Roxane Stone, Deputy City Clerk
City Clerk Heather Bell announced the agenda had been posted on Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 2:30 p.m. with all legally required written notices. No written comments had been received in advance of the meeting.

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

4. CONVENE TO A CLOSED SESSION
9A
6 of 541
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – April 18, 2023

Citizens may address the Council regarding a Closed Session item prior to the Council adjourning into the Closed Session, by first providing a speaker card to the City Clerk.

A. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
Gov. Code § 54957.6
Agency designated representatives: City Manager Andrew Murray, City Attorney Eric Casher and Human Resources Director Stacy Shell
Employee Organization: All groups
B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Gov. Code § 54956.9(d)(1)
Number of Potential Cases: 1

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

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED

5. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION TO ANNOUNCE RESULTS OF CLOSED SESSION At 6:42 p.m., Mayor Murphy reconvened the meeting into open session.

City Attorney Eric Casher reported there was no reportable action for Item 4A. For Item 4B, the City Council had directed staff to take action to opt into the National Settlement and Opioid Class Action Litigation against Teva/Allergan/CVS/Walgreens and Walmart which would make the City eligible for proceeds from the settlement funds in that litigation.

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 continued to improve but he recommended the continued wearing of masks indoors.

He also announced that Earth Walk would be held on Saturday, April 11 from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. starting at Fernandez Park and he encouraged interested participants to sign up on the City website.

Irma Ruport, reported she had come to City Hall on Thursday, April 13 at 10:30 a.m. and found the front doors of City Hall locked. Although someone had later opened the door, a side door which was to be used for emergencies or other uses was open but was not intended for public use and there had been no notice on the front doors of City Hall notifying the public why the offices were closed. She also reported on March 29, 2023 the Finance Subcommittee held a meeting at the same time as the Traffic and Pedestrian Safety (TAPS) Committee. 7 of 541
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – April 18, 2023

Ms. Ruport stated the TAPS Committee had been unaware Committee members must be present in-person and the meeting had to be rescheduled. She added due to the recession years ago there had been a reduction in City staff with City Offices closed on Fridays. Since the economy had improved, she suggested there was no longer any reason for the City Offices to be closed on Fridays.

In response to the Mayor, City Manager Murray confirmed he would respond offline to the comments about the concerns with the closure of City Hall.

Mayor Murphy moved onto Item 8 at this time.

8. RECOGNITIONS / PRESENTATIONS / COMMUNITY EVENTS
A. Proclamations

1. National Arbor Day
The City Council read into the record a proclamation recognizing National Arbor Day.

2. Arab American Heritage Month
The City Council read into the record a proclamation recognizing Arab American Heritage Month.

3. Earth Day
The City Council read into the record a proclamation recognizing Earth Day.

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Sophia Ly, Pinole Valley High School Earth Team, thanked the City Council for the recognition and support and highlighted some of the projects Earth Team had accomplished this year, which included planting a native pollen garden to support populations of butterflies, creation of planting guides for local native plant gardens and the planned distribution of native wildflowers to community members at the upcoming Earth Day Nature Walk, as well as having led a number of community cleanup events.

Ann Moriarty, Friends of Pinole Creek Watershed, reported in 2022 the Friends of Pinole Creek Watershed provided a presentation to the City Council on the Trash Assessment Project “data and asks.” She also reported the International Baccalaureate group at Pinole Valley High School was setting up a Go-Fund Me page for a Swim-a-Thon to support the work of Pinole Valley High School’s Earth Team and the Friends of Pinole Creek Watershed, with the goal a $1,000 grant.

At this time, Ms. Moriarty highlighted the status of the “asks” made in 2022, which included a Food Ordinance Update. The City’s Climate Awareness and Action Plan included a pilot program for takeout containers and she understood an ordinance was being crafted. A request for a Cityowned trash bin inventory and high-capacity bins had been delayed due to the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) but she looked forward to that happening in the next couple of years. 8 of 541
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – April 18, 2023

High trash areas of concerns had been identified as the trail and pedestrian bridge behind the Pinole Valley Shopping Center and Pinole Valley High School and those areas had been supplied with trash bins. Another high trash area of concern was the Pinole Library and efforts were being made with the County to modify an existing dumpster so that it could be used for immediate trash and the City’s maintenance crew was working with the unhoused community in the area. Another ask was an Adopt-a-Street/Spot Program, with Pinole Creek Allies having initiated the work on a program.

Additional asks included litter awareness outreach and educational programs; Pinole Creek yard signs had been designed with information on the Pinole Creek Watershed; Pinole Valley High School Principal Kibby Kleiman held Pinole Creek Awareness Month in February 2023 and a Pinole Valley High School photography exhibit was planned at City Hall; monthly trash cleanups included seven community cleanups and annual coastal cleanup hosted by the City of Pinole, with community members engaged and motivated; the Rotary Club, Earth Team and others from outside the Pinole area also helped to clean up the Pinole Creek Watershed. The data for the volume of trash removed, volunteer efforts and upcoming events over the next year starting with Earth Day on April 22 and culminating with October Pinole Dumpster Day were also highlighted.

Interested persons were encouraged to join all events with more information on the Friends of Pinole Creek Watershed website.

Anthony Vossbrink, Pinole, congratulated the Earth Team for its accomplishments. He requested an update on the needed trash bins throughout the City, in and around the dog park area, the area of the barbeque grill and areas of the City that had older trash cans absent covers and no recyclable bins. He emphasized the need to replace those bins immediately for the City to be good stewards of Earth Day and the community. He also asked for consideration of replacing old plastic micro-fiber sandbags the City used frequently throughout the year which were bad pollutants for creeks, streams, rivers, the Bay, the ocean and associated wildlife.

Cordell Hindler, Richmond, congratulated the Earth Team crew for the proclamation. He encouraged all Council members to celebrate Earth Day and the community to take part in the activities planned.

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
Mayor Murphy thanked the Earth Team and Friends for the Pinole Creek Watershed for the information provided and for all their hard work to better the environment and the community.

B. Presentations: None
The City Council returned to Item 7.

7. REPORTS & COMMUNICATIONS
A. Mayor Report

1. Announcements
9 of 541
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – April 18, 2023

Mayor Murphy reported the City would start its new Centenarian Program and anyone in the community celebrating a birthday of 100 years or older would be honored and celebrated through the City’s new Centenarian Program by emailing the City’s Recreation Department at [email protected] or making application at the Pinole Senior Center. He thanked the Community Services Department for leading the program.

Mayor Murphy also reported the Contra Costa County Board of Education would meet on April 19, 2023 at 5:00 p.m. to discuss a resolution and next steps to create workforce housing in the County. Additional information was available at tiny.cc/edworkforcehousing, and Marin Clean Energy (MCE) would hold an in-person Board meeting on Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 7:00 p.m.

B. Mayoral & Council Appointments

1. Planning Commission [Action: Consider Appointments (Bell)] City Clerk Bell provided the staff report and asked the City Council to make the following appointments to the Planning Commission: Frankie Martinez, Christy Lam-Julian and John Bender, whose terms would expire on April 30, 2027, with recruitment efforts to continue for a fourth seat which remained unfilled.

Council member Martinez-Rubin a member of the Interview Subcommittee, looked forward to the new Planning Commissioners and to joint meetings between the City Council and the Planning Commission on items of interest.

Mayor Pro Tem Toms expressed her appreciation to both current Planning Commission Chair Ann Moriarty and long-time Planning Commissioner David Kurrent, who both chose not to reapply.

She welcomed the new Planning Commissioners and pointed out that Mr. Bender had served as a Planning Commissioner in the past.

As to why the Interview Subcommittee chose not to make a recommendation for the fourth seat which remained vacant and in response to Council member Tave, Mayor Pro Tem Toms, also a member of the Interview Subcommittee, explained the Subcommittee sought an applicant who had the knowledge of the basic planning process and knowledge of the role of the Planning Commission.

Council member Martinez-Rubin added there had also been interest from an applicant who had the volunteer and professional experience that would complement the composition and role a Planning Commissioner would have representing the City.

Council member Tave emphasized the need for a full complement of the Planning Commission given all of the work in the City. He expressed his appreciation to those Commissioners who had served and chosen not to reapply as well as those who had applied to serve.

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Rafael Menis, Pinole, also recognized Planning Commissioners Moriarty and Kurrent, who had served but had chosen not to reapply to the Planning Commission and who had done great work and would be missed. He commented on the challenges for the Planning Commission to achieve a quorum due to the stricter attendance requirements after the pandemic. 10 of 541
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – April 18, 2023

Mr. Menis asked why the Interview Subcommittee had chosen not to recommend applicant Gabriel Sandoval to the fourth seat. Having reviewed Mr. Sandoval’s application, he believed Mr. Sandoval would have been an appropriate applicant for the Planning Commission.

Irma Ruport, Pinole, agreed with the staff recommendation but suggested that Mr. Sandoval should be appointed to the fourth remaining seat on the Planning Commission. She opposed continued recruitment given Mr. Sandoval had been the first to apply and she found it unfair he was not being considered. She detailed Mr. Sandoval’s background and suggested he was well qualified.

Ms. Ruport also commented on her own personal experience having been interviewed in the past for a vacancy on a City Commission/Committee, which included one of the current Interview Subcommittee members. At that time, she had been informed she was too political to be appointed. She had recently been appointed to the Community Services Commission. She asked the City Council to avoid using political reasons for not appointing applicants and suggested in the future interviews should be open to the public.

Cordell Hindler, Richmond, agreed with the prior speakers and liked the idea of filling the vacancies.

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
Mayor Pro Tem Toms reiterated her comments and noted the difference between the applicants being recommended for appointment and the one not being put forward had to do with an understanding of the planning process and the role of the Planning Commission. She offered a motion to adopt the staff recommendation.

Council member Martinez-Rubin stood behind the decision the Interview Subcommittee had been tasked to do and having read all applications and having served on the Planning Commission herself for eight years and knowing what was required, the recommendation from the Interview Subcommittee was appropriate. She suggested the candidates recommended to be appointed to the Planning Commission would bring skills that would complement the Planning Commission.

As to whether the interviews could be public and in response to the Mayor, City Clerk Bell confirmed that was possible. She explained that subcommittees had been created since they were not Brown Act bodies but if the City Council chose to move away from that practice that was an option confirmed by the City Attorney.

ACTION: Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Toms/Council member Martinez-Rubin to appoint John Bender, Christy Lam-Julian and reappoint Frankie Martinez to the Planning Commission for four years.

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

Absent: None
11 of 541
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – April 18, 2023

Council member Sasai offered a motion, seconded by Council member Tave to appoint Gabriel Sandoval to the Planning Commission.

On the motion, Council member Martinez-Rubin pointed out the Interview Subcommittee process was in place as defined and disregarding the process meant the City Council did not trust the recommendation of its peers. She asked if that was the case.

Council member Tave trusted the judgment of the Interview Subcommittee but people were needed to serve and he clarified with the City Clerk it had been difficult to find volunteers and there was an applicant who should be given the opportunity to serve.

While the points made by the Interview Subcommittee were valid, Council member Tave remained concerned with the continuity of government and the importance of the Planning Commission to help decisions made by the City Council. It was possible the vacancy could continue another year, which was why he had seconded the motion.

Mayor Pro Tem Toms recognized the City Council had the right to discuss and either agree or disagree with the Interview Subcommittee recommendations.

Council member Sasai explained he had made the motion since in his opinion the City had a wellqualified applicant, someone who was born and raised in Pinole, and there were difficulties attracting young talent and leadership. Based on Mr. Sandoval’s background working with an elected official, he had experience with someone who represented the district in which the City of Pinole was located who was regularly exposed to policy and had a say in the process. His motion was not a lack of trust or judgment of the Interview Subcommittee but in this instance he disagreed with its assessment and the City Council had the right to vote on the recommendation.

Council member Martinez-Rubin pointed out that very well qualified on paper did not always mean well qualified in practice. Of the candidates the Interview Subcommittee had not recommended, she suggested it meant they had not demonstrated that level of qualification relative to the applicant pool received. She and the Mayor Pro Tem were aware the vacancies had been there for some time. She had based her recommendation on what was on paper, what had been presented during the interview with the candidate, as well as input from staff in terms of what was needed to bring the candidate up to speed on the Planning Commission.

ACTION: Motion by Council members Sasai/Tave to appoint Gabriel Sandoval to the Planning Commission for a term of four years.

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

Absent: None
C. City Council Committee Reports & Communications
12 of 541
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – April 18, 2023

Mayor Pro Tem Toms reported the next WestCAT Board meeting had been scheduled for Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 6:30 p.m. in the Pinole Council Chambers and would be the first inperson hybrid meeting since the pandemic. She also reported the Finance Subcommittee had recently met and the Municipal Code Update Subcommittee planned to meet in the next week.

Council member Sasai reported he had attended the Mayors’ Conference and he briefed the Council on the presentations and discussions. He had also met with the Principal of Pinole Valley High School to discuss some organizations’ achievements for the year and how the Principal had approached school safety and who desired that students be recognized by the City for their achievements on a regular basis, which was something he [Council member Sasai] hoped the City Council would consider when moving forward with proclamations and recognitions for different members of the community.

Council member Tave reported he had attended a meeting of RecycleMore and briefed the Council on the presentations and discussions. He also commented on an email that had been received on April 16, 2023 from a member of the Richmond City Council regarding the Martinez Refinery and a modeling map that had been shown in the San Francisco Chronicle as it related to flaring and metals being dispersed in the area. The map was a Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) model to inform a third party testing group on testing soils to determine the extent of the impact to communities in the Bay Area. The cities of Pinole, Hercules and a bit of Richmond had been included in the map but the map had not been finalized.

Council member Tave reported he had been informed that third party testing was underway around the Martinez Refinery and beyond per the map, with more information available as that occurred. He would be asking for a future agenda item for a presentation from that group on the potential impacts to the City of Pinole. Additional information was available at cchealth.org\hazmat\mrc. Additionally, the Hazardous Materials Commission would meet on April 19, 2023 via Zoom, and while this topic was not on the agenda public comment could be provided by calling Zoom ID# 922-7979-8338 or telephoning 1-646-518-9805.

Council member Martinez-Rubin reported she had attended the League of California Cities City Leader’s Summit with a number of sessions relatable to the City of Pinole, which she highlighted at this time. The public may access the slide decks for the presentations which were available at the calcity.org website.

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Rafael Menis, Pinole, asked whether Council member Tave was aware of the time schedule for soil sampling and whether testing would take place in the City of Pinole or in the portions of the BAAQMD map referenced.

Council member Tave understood the methodology was to start testing at ground zero then outward and there were baselines to be tested for and anything in an elevated nature would be considered an impact.

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
D. Council Requests for Future Agenda Items
13 of 541
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – April 18, 2023

ACTION: Motion by Council member Tave/Mayor Murphy for City staff to reach out to Michael Kent, with the Hazardous Materials Committee to give a presentation on the Martinez Refinery, explain the maps, have a discussion to inform the community on potential impacts and define the terms of “risk,” “proximity” and “toxicity” and the next steps in the timeline for informing the public, as a future agenda item.

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

Absent: None
Council member Martinez-Rubin requested that staff report back on the status of the bathrooms at Pinole Valley Park as a future agenda item and was informed by City Manager Murray that he would provide a status report as part of the City Manager’s Report.

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Cordell Hindler, Richmond, requested that staff bring back the revisions to the City Council procedures and have a presentation on plans for the Port of Oakland as it was recovering from the pandemic as future agenda items.

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED

E. City Manager Report / Department Staff
City Manager Murray provided the following updates: The City of Pinole would celebrate Earth Month with numerous activities planned starting with Earth Walk scheduled for Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 9:00 a.m. at Fernandez Park; a Year in Review of 2022 and a look ahead for what had been planned for this calendar year for 2023 was available on the City website and on social media; the women’s restroom at the dog park had been out of commission as a result of an accident but would be completely repaired and reopened by the end of next week; thirty-nine potholes had been filled over the course of the past month but no centerline striping, red curb painting, patch paving or crack sealing had been done due to weather and the work would be done weather permitting with a report out at the last Council meeting of every month.

City Manager Murray also reported the City Council had approved a future agenda item for a presentation from the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation but the agency was unable to make a presentation. The City Council had also requested a presentation from Public Bank East Bay, with a presentation on public banks to be provided at a future meeting.

City Manager Murray further reported that the City Council would hold a Special City Council meeting on Tuesday, April 25 for a budget workshop and baseline CIP presentation and a Special City Council meeting on Saturday, April 29, 2023 in the Council Chambers at 9:00 a.m. to review the 2020-2025 Strategic Plan and other work plan items for the remainder of the calendar year and the next fiscal year. He also provided an overview of the tentative agenda items for the May 2, 2023 regular City Council meeting.
14 of 541
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – April 18, 2023

Council member Martinez-Rubin reported she had received emails about the men’s restroom at Fernandez Park being locked and asked staff to check into the matter with a report back.

Council member Tave asked the status of the Parks Master Plan and whether it would be ready for the budget process, and City Manager Murray noted the City Council had recently approved the contract with the vendor. An internal kick-off meeting with the vendor had found that the vendor would need to conduct an assessment of all park facilities. Staff expected that assessment would be completed this calendar year with projects to be incorporated into not this year’s but the following year’s CIP.

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Anthony Vossbrink, Pinole, thanked Council member Martinez-Rubin for bringing up the subject around the status of the City’s park facilities, particularly the restrooms in Fernandez Park but he was disappointed it had taken two months for the City Manager and the Public Works Department to notify the public of the estimated time for repair and completion, with nothing posted at the park itself to inform the public. He reported the doors to the men’s room were broken providing no privacy or decency; the restrooms in the baseball diamond park and the water fountains along the basketball court were in disrepair; restrooms were in need of maintenance such as new paint and other improvements, and that work should be done before the Parks Master Plan was fulfilled; a light on top of the restroom roof was to turn on at 6:00 p.m. and remain on throughout the night but it was inoperable; lights in and around the women’s parking lot restroom remained inoperable; street lights remained out and the barbeque lights remained out. He wanted the City Council to inform the public who would be held accountable for these maintenance items.

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
F. City Attorney Report
City Attorney Casher reported he had provided the City Council with a report on April 17, 2023 regarding the resolution of a case where Californians for Homeownership (petitioners) had filed a writ petition challenging the initial adoption of the City’s Housing Element in January 2023. Since that time, the City had received comments on the Housing Element, staff had worked with the Housing Element Consultants and the City Council had recently adopted a Revised Housing Element. Staff had been working collaboratively with the petitioners since the case had been filed, and with the recent adoption of the Revised Housing Element the petitioners had dismissed the case and were not seeking any damages or attorneys’ fees from the City, with petitioners pleased with the efforts the City had taken to promote homeownership.

In response to Council member Tave, City Attorney Casher explained that the challenge to the City’s action had been a procedural challenge, that the City had adopted the Housing Element before it was technically allowed to do so, with no damages involved. Once the City had adopted the Revised Housing Element there were no damages that could have been received from the court.

Mayor Pro Tem Toms reported the same organization had filed lawsuits against other jurisdictions that had not yet adopted their Housing Elements.
15 of 541
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – April 18, 2023

City Attorney Casher added that almost every city in the State of California had received similar letters from Californians for Homeownership with a threat of litigation. Pinole was not unique in that regard other than the fact the case had been dismissed.

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Deputy City Clerk Stone 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 28, 2023 Joint City Council and Planning Commission Meeting and the Minutes of the April 4, 2023 meeting.

B. Receive the April 1, 2023 – April 14, 2023 – List of Warrants in the Amount of $1,751,614.89 and the April 14, 2023 Payroll in the Amount of $473,889.10.

C. Approval of House Moving Permit [Action: Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Mishra)]
D. Resolution of Local Support for OBAG 3 Grant Program [Action: Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Kaur)]
E. Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Fourth Amendment to the Agreement with Client First Technology Consulting to Provide Professional Support Services During the Upgrade and Migration of the Permit Tracking and Online Application System and Appropriate Funding [Action: Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Whalen)]
F. Resolution of Support for Contra Costa County and the Inflation Reduction Act Conference [Action: Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Rogers)] G. Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into an Agreement with CDW-G to Purchase Mobile Digital Computers (MDC) and Related Equipment to Replace Current MDCS at a Total Cost of $135,363 [Action: Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Gang)]
H. Approval of Financial and Investment Policies for Fiscal Year (FY) 2023/24 [Action: Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Guillory) Council member Tave asked that Item 9C be removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion. 16 of 541
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – April 18, 2023

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Irma Ruport, Pinole, spoke to Item 9C and asked whether the neighbors where the home would be relocated on Brandt Court had been notified or surveyed regarding the house moving permit, whether the associated reports/attachments had been brought to date, and whether the City was liable in the event of any damage from moving the home. As to Item 9H, she commented the Finance Subcommittee had met on March 29, she had participated in the meeting and Pages 155 to 159 of the agenda packet for the item involved grant policies and procedures for the City.

Having worked for the Department of Justice Grant Funding Programs, she suggested the City should be more proactive in obtaining grants and there should be grant training for City staff. The City Manager had emailed her to inform her that a Request for Proposal (RFP) for a grant writer would be put out, and she asked that the grant writer have experience and be able to train other City staff.

Rafael Menis, Pinole, referenced Item 9E, which was the fourth amendment to the agreement with Client First Technology Consulting, as shown. He asked whether this would be the final amendment given there had been several prior amendments and he understood the fourth amendment to the agreement was intended to address unanticipated problems due to the extensive nature of the project configuration.

Tom White, spoke to Item 9C, and explained that he had received a letter of support and he hoped the City Council had received some of the other reports and letters from the Pinole and Hercules Historical Societies and the family of the resident in the home (founder of the City of Hercules).

He commented on his involvement with the Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association in restoring and moving other homes in the Berkeley area that had been successfully restored. He had received several preservation awards for the work done for homes that were of historical value, including the subject residence which had been listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and which had been part of the historic nature of the City of Hercules and was closely aligned with the City of Pinole. He suggested the home would fit well within the historic nature of the City of Pinole on Brandt Court. He had worked with the Planning and Public Works Departments to provide all of the necessary applications and permits and the house moving company had a great deal of experience moving buildings in the City of Pinole and in the Bay Area. He looked forward to residing in the home after its relocation. The home would be allelectric with on-site photovoltaics, battery backup, Electronic Vehicle (EV) charging, native plants and with a low carbon footprint.

Jeff Rubin, Pinole, speaking to Item 9C, suggested the City had an opportunity to save a historic building that was part of the area’s history and was important to many people. The building had been built in 1904, was on the National Registry of Historic Places, contributed to the architectural heritage of the City of Hercules, was similar to many homes from the same era in the City of Pinole, and would be a great fit for the City with Hercules and Pinole sharing a symbiotic history.

He noted a significant part of the City of Pinole had been employed at the Hercules Powder Company, the communities shared schools and resources and were linked by family members who lived in both communities. The cities have been intertwined historically, economically, and architecturally and continue to be so to this day.
17 of 541
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – April 18, 2023

Susan Keeffe, Hercules, a member of the Hercules Historical Society, also speaking to Item 9C, thanked the Pinole City Council for finding a home for the Queen Anne residence. She too spoke to the histories of Hercules and Pinole and stated the home would be restored to its former greatness.

Lisa Jackson, 350 Contra Costa, spoke to Item 9F, and expressed her appreciation for the City Council’s support of a resolution in support of Contra Costa County and the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) Conference, with 350 Contra Costa one of the hosts along with the Greenbelt Alliance and the three community colleges of Contra Costa County. She looked forward to the City of Pinole accepting its role as a community partner and appreciated the fact the City Council was forward thinking about climate and environmental justice. The conference would be a great opportunity to collaborate and discuss funding through the IRA, the State and the County and communicate with Contra Costa County and other agencies. The conference would focus on allelectric energy transformation, environmental justice regarding the green economy and workforce advancement. Everyone was invited to attend.

Cordell Hindler, Richmond, also referenced Item 9F and encouraged the City Council to attend the conference emphasizing the importance for the City of Pinole to be represented. He otherwise suggested the City Council approve the Consent Calendar, as is.

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
Speaking to Item 9C, Council member Tave asked why the relocation of the home had to come before the City Council for approval, to which City Attorney Casher explained that pursuant to the Pinole Municipal Code (PMC) and as outlined in the April 18, 2023 staff report, there were conditions that must be met to move a residence. Pursuant to Chapter 12.28 of the PMC, Moving of Buildings, Section 12.28.010, City Council approval at a regular meeting was required which was why this was before the City Council and why it had not been approved administratively.

Council member Sasai clarified with the Public Works Director that any damage to the City’s roadways as a result of the movement of the residence would be borne by the applicant. He was otherwise pleased to see the Queen Anne residence would be restored in the City of Pinole and would be all-electric.

Public Works Director Sanjay Mishra explained this application had occurred before his tenure with the City of Pinole but he understood staff had not notified the neighbors on Brandt Court of the house movement. There remained building and planning processes to be completed and staff may approach residents if they had any comments, if the City Council so directed. Outreach would be in the form of a flyer asking whether anyone had any comments to City staff. The application had previously been considered and approved by the Planning Commission and the remaining building and planning processes did not involve public engagement; however, if the City Council directed that neighbors be notified, if would be done Mayor Murphy offered a motion, seconded by Council member Tave to amend Item 9C, with staff directed to send a letter to the neighbors on Brandt Court to update them on the approval of the house moving permit.
18 of 541
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – April 18, 2023

On the motion, Council member Tave expressed concern with the fact neighbors had not yet been notified of the house movement and City Manager Murray reiterated the project had already gone through all of the entitlement processes and public notification regarding the planning approvals, with the approval of the final building permit at the staff level. He recalled there had been a lot of neighborhood awareness and engagement on this topic although not about the home itself, but on the shape of the street, and as part of that the City Council had previously appropriated CIP funds for the renovation of Brandt Court. While the requirement of City Council approval of a permit to move the home may be an anomaly of the PMC, updating the PMC could be something the City Council may consider in the future. It would be appropriate to notify residents of the date of the house being moved and staff could do that at the direction of the City Council.

Mayor Pro Tem Toms suggested rather than amend Item 9C, the City Council should vote on the entire Consent Calendar with a modification to Item 9C, as suggested by the Mayor. She questioned amending something (Item 9C) that was not yet being approved.

On the discussion, City Attorney Casher suggested action could be taken either way.

ACTION: Motion by Mayor Murphy/Council member Tave to amend Item 9C, upon approval direct staff to draft and send a letter informing the residents on Brandt Court about the moving permit date and the details associated with the house moving permit.

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 approve Consent Calendar Items A through H.

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. Traffic and Pedestrian Safety (TAPS) Committee Report [Discuss and Provide Direction (Mishra)]
19 of 541
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – April 18, 2023

Public Works Director Mishra presented the staff report which included an overview of the Traffic and Pedestrian Safety (TAPS) Committee Report.

Mayor Pro Tem Toms clarified with the Public Works Director the costs for the TAPS Committee recommendation to fund advertisement of TAPS Committee activities to residents would be $7,000, and multiple approaches could be considered with the cost for about 5,000 residents.

Council member Sasai again clarified the cost for the TAPS Committee recommendation with Public Works Director Mishra who again clarified that the costs for flyers for advertising TAPS Committee activities would be $7,000 and “other means,” which meant the use of social media and the use of recreational flyers. Advertisements on social media would be through Facebook and Nextdoor and not through paid advertisements.

Council member Martinez-Rubin clarified with Public Works Director Mishra the interest in promoting TAPS Committee activities was due to the fact the TAPS Committee was of the belief that many residents were not aware of TAPS Committee activities. The intent was to broadcast TAPS Committee activities to the entire City.

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Rafael Menis, Pinole, suggested the TAPS Committee request for funding be tied into the City’s broader Communication and Engagement Plan, with the City working on more engagement with the community as a whole with signage and banners. He suggested if the City Council approved the TAPS Committee request, it should tie into the broader Communication and Engagement Plan for all City activities. He commented on his efforts to communicate with the community by notifying those on his email list about community activities and he understood the Mayor Pro Tem did the same with her own email list, with those lists fundamentally private entities. If the City distributed flyers, it could draw the attention from those not on a private email list or from a particular Council member and it would have the formal imprinter of the City behind it. He urged the City Council to support the TAPS Committee recommendations but tied into the City’s broader Communication and Engagement Plan.

Irma Ruport, Pinole, liked the TAPS Committee recommendations, liked the reports from the Public Works Director and the projects in which the TAPS Committee was involved, which were very important. She referenced a flyer from Contra Costa Marketplace, which she understood reached 50,000 people and she strongly recommended consideration of advertising in this publication at least a page a month or every quarter. She also commented that the recreation newsletter was awesome, was distributed every two to three months, and detailed all activities.

She questioned why the City could not do the same. She urged the City Council to get started on a newsletter regardless of the cost and again commended the work of the Public Works Director to get more people engaged and involved. As an aside, she reported there had been comments on the Nextdoor platform asking what was happening in the City.

Anthony Vossbrink, Pinole, agreed the TAPS Committee recommendations were a good idea, but before the City Council expended any funds on flyers, he suggested the history of the TAPS Committee should be reviewed. A large majority of TAPS Committee meetings had been canceled and/or postponed over the last several years, a continuing problem into 2022/23, including the most recent meeting which had been canceled hours before the meeting absent any explanation and notice to the public or posting on Pinole Community Television (PCTV). 20 of 541
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – April 18, 2023

Mr. Vossbrink also understood the Police Chief was to provide a report to the TAPS Committee on traffic issues in the City but that had not been done. He suggested the City of San Ramon be used as an example of an appropriate police report.

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
Council member Martinez-Rubin acknowledged the public comments regarding the history of the TAPS Committee which could not be ignored in that in the past many TAPS Committee meetings had been canceled but there was now more interest than in the past to promote the activities of the Committee. She suggested the City Council should follow through and blend in with the Communication and Engagement Plan as well as promote all City Commissions/Committees.

She was curious whether staff could follow through operating on the recommendations from the Communication and Engagement Plan.

City Manager Murray acknowledged legislative bodies were now required to meet in-person which had been a challenge. The latest TAPS Committee did not have a quorum to meet in-person which had resulted in the cancelation of that meeting. The Communication and Engagement Plan did not provide any specific direction for how to promote the activities of an individual Commission and the City Manager acknowledged the long history of the TAPS Committee meetings having been canceled, although that had somewhat improved over the course of the last year with Committee members having been appointed and regular meetings scheduled; however, there had not always been business to discuss and it was at the discretion of the Committee whether or not to meet. He suggested there was a lack of familiarity with the community at-large regarding the purpose of the TAPS Committee, which had been re-envisioned to be a forum for community members to share concerns related to traffic and pedestrian safety issues as the first public forum beyond staff. The community may not have a high degree of awareness of that as with other City Commissions/Committees.

City Manager Murray liked the idea coming out of the pandemic and returning to in-person meetings for a single mailing on how to work through the City’s Commission/Committees, and allowing the public to become of aware of their roles to serve on those bodies. He added that Council-appointed Commissioners/Committee members were free to request a report out to the City Council, with the Public Works Director the lead on that with the TAPS Committee. He stated there would be a future City Council agenda item to review all City Commissions/Committees.

Council member Tave emphasized there were many agenda items related to the City’s roads. He supported the recommended mailer but would like to start the conversation on a broader scale.

The TAPS Committee was fully qualified to have those conversations and have that data. If a mailer was distributed to the public, he asked that it be very succinct and the messaging be consistent with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards, to ensure the mailer was readable. He emphasized the importance of community input.

Mayor Pro Tem Toms suggested regular channels should be used for communication, such as looking at advertising in some of the circulations and whether that could be done in coordination with the recreation newsletter. She offered a motion, seconded by Council member Tave to approve the request from the TAPS Committee for funding to repair and repave the creek side asphalt trail from Sarah Court to the pedestrian bridge over Pinole Creek, and fund advertisement of TAPS committee activities to residents.
21 of 541
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – April 18, 2023

On the motion, Council member Martinez-Rubin spoke to the recommendation for funding to repair and repave the creek side asphalt trail from Sarah Court to the pedestrian bridge over Pinole Creek, and while that was the most obvious for the TAPS Committee to advocate, there was also a section between San Pablo Avenue and Pinole Valley Road that had pavement that could be repaired. She asked that that section be considered as well, and identify who was responsible for that section and blend that request in with the CIP.

ACTION: Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Toms/Council member Tave for the City Council to approve the request from the TAPS Committee for funding to repair and repave the creek side asphalt trail from Sarah Court to the pedestrian bridge over Pinole Creek and fund advertisement of TAPS committee activities to residents.

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

Absent: None
Council member Martinez-Rubin offered a motion that the funding for the repair and re-pavement of the creek side asphalt trail from Sarah Court to the pedestrian bridge over Pinole Creek include funding for the Pinole Creek trail section between San Pablo Avenue and Pinole Valley Road and that it be made part of the 2023/24 CIP.

On the motion, City Manager Murray reiterated the City Council would be holding a Special Meeting on April 25 to review the baseline budget and CIP and that meeting was intended to have the City Council surface new ideas it would potentially like to recommend in the next budget so staff could go back and vet them. Council member Martinez-Rubin’s recommendation could be considered at that time, which would allow staff the opportunity to vet the request and return with a recommendation in the CIP.

Mayor Murphy asked staff to note the recommendation for that future discussion.

B. City Road Condition and Pavement Management Program Update [Action:

Discuss and Provide Direction (Mishra)]
Public Works Director Mishra provided a PowerPoint presentation on the City Road Condition and Pavement Management Program Update, which included an overview of the Pavement Management and Technical Assistance Program (P-TAP) an overall regional program in the Bay Area to update and assess overall pavement conditions; Pavement Condition Index (PCI), a numerical rating for street conditions with examples of PCI conditions in the City of Pinole; StreetSaver – Dashboard 2023; City Network Summary of the arterial, collector and residential/local streets in Pinole and their current pavement condition categories; how the City’s PCI compared to Bay Area jurisdictions (2019); funding and treatment options; and the StreetSaver – Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) funding scenarios and the strategies moving forward including the need for public engagement to obtain input, run various funding need scenarios and use those need scenarios to develop a Long-term Financial Plan (LTFP).
22 of 541
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – April 18, 2023

Mayor Pro Tem Toms again clarified with Public Works Director Mishra the ongoing source of funds and his understanding that Measure J return to source of funds could be used for roadway repair. As the City Council discussed the CIP, she asked that staff provide more clarification on the use of Measure J funds for road repair.

Mayor Pro Tem Toms also clarified the current pavement condition categories and commented that if the City were to consider a capital tax increment bond issue to upgrade roads, the funds could not be used for maintenance. For the next City Council meeting at which time the CIP would be discussed, she wanted more detail on the current pavement condition categories as shown in the PowerPoint presentation, whether bonds could be used for those repairs, and what categories could be considered for a bond issuance with the knowledge the public would have to be engaged to determine whether or not there was interest in a bond issue to improve the City’s road conditions.

Council member Sasai spoke to the funding and treatments and asked for a breakdown of the grants the City had applied for and had received funding and what grants the City had applied for and had not received funding.

Council member Sasai also asked whether funding from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) would be applicable to road treatments and repairs and whether funding from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) could be considered with respect to the County being placed on the Disaster Proclamation List regarding recent winter storms.

Public Works Director Mishra advised the City had applied for OBAG 3 for this year and had received $1.02 million for one project and had successfully applied for another grant, receiving $239,000. Applications had also been made for earmark funding, but he was unaware of the status. Staff had also applied for the Highway Bridge Program (HBP) and had received funds for the design project for the San Pablo Avenue Bridge. In previous years, the San Pablo Road rehab work had been done with OBAG 2 and some STEM funds. The West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee (WCCTAC) had also provided some grants. Total CIP projects had received about 25 percent of their funding from grants. As to the BIL funding, it could be another source.

The City would receive some funding from FEMA but it would be linked specifically to a disaster and would not really count much towards the road rehab scenarios.

City Manager Murray explained that the grant funding for road projects was well defined with traditional and universally known mechanisms for street funding. Over time there had been less interest among funding agencies to fund road reconstruction but instead consider Complete Streets and multimodal projects for a number of reasons, with new and different funding options related to infrastructure and inflation reduction targeted more towards resilience, environmental initiatives and other things.

Council member Sasai asked whether the City had exhausted its grant opportunities and City Manager Murray explained there were annual grant opportunities through MTC, the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) and Caltrans along with grant opportunities in other service areas. He noted that grants had migrated more towards pilot projects and experimental and demonstration projects than routine road re-pavement. There were other grant opportunities, which was why a grant consultant would be sought, and the City was well connected and tapped into those grant opportunities for roadways.
23 of 541
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – April 18, 2023

Council member Martinez-Rubin appreciated not omitting the consideration of roads that made up the 16.9 percent (Condition V – Failed to Very Poor) category, and including roads with a Condition V had shown her the Public Works Director had that broader perspective of attending to all City roads to the extent possible. It appeared given the current state of affairs of granting agencies, federal and regional, that the City would have to rely on residents as a future source of funding. As part of any financial plan, she asked that any possible revenue source be included so that it did not become a surprise to residents about what the City had done given the current situation of available funding for road pavement programs.

Council member Martinez-Rubin also spoke to the condition of City streets as a result of the large trash haulers that exacerbated current conditions, with the weight of those vehicles breaking the pavement. She asked staff to research whether it was possible to have some part of an agreement with the trash hauler to offset the costs for such damage to City streets.

Public Works Director Mishra understood such a request could be considered as part of the renegotiation of the City’s Franchise Agreement.

City Manager Murray again detailed the next steps. The PCI was a question for the City Council and the community, with the knowledge it would take resources to improve the City’s street conditions. As staff had suggested, a community engagement process over the next few months could dig into the question of the street conditions and allow data to be brought back to the City Council on what the community desired as the right street condition and what that could cost, and identify resources, which could be folded into the Draft LTFP to be discussed during the summer.

Council member Tave commented that his street had gone from a PCI of 53 to a PCI of 44 between 2018 and the present. He asked what was being done internally now for the City’s roads.

Public Works Director Mishra explained that pothole filling and repairs were helpful, but the City did not have the ability to completely pave a street given the lack of sufficient staff and equipment.

City Manager Murray walked through the StreetSaver scenarios and the required financial resources to improve the PCI. If the City really wanted to improve its roads, he stated that significant investment would be needed beyond grant funding.

Council member Tave asked to what degree the City had experienced escalating costs, to which City Manager Murray explained that the StreetSaver had tools to estimate escalation but even if other communities had roads in need of rehabilitation it did not mean there was competition for materials because it was unknown whether those cities had the resources to pay for those improvements. He acknowledged the costs for construction had increased and there would be more bang for the buck with more investment at the front end. Making significant investment over the course of a couple of years rather than spreading the work out over ten years and the timing of that work would become a consideration to get a better price.

Council member Tave commented on the studies done for the City’s roads, including Complete Streets and wayfinding, with the Road Condition and Pavement Management Program just for paving and not for other items. He suggested this issue would be with the City forever and he was worried about getting the money all at once from a bond, as an example. 24 of 541
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – April 18, 2023

Council member Tave would like to see a funding vehicle that was sustainable over time, such as Measure S, which had served the City well. He wanted to ensure everything was well thought out.

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Irma Ruport, Pinole, thanked the Public Works Director for the reports and charts. Having learned that PCI was a numerical rating for road conditions, she understood the City’s streets had not been visually inspected, with a metric having selected the streets to be paved. She pointed out that MTC liked a “fix it first” mentality that meant the roads that were in good shape were fixed first, which was why many roads remained in need of repair, an attitude she did not support. She also pointed out that streets in her neighborhood, including Rising Glen Road and Glen Court, which were cul-de-sacs with less than 20 homes and which had been paved over and over had not been included in the chart. She found the report to be excellent, the metrics okay, but the streets must be inspected visually. For the streets in poor shape, she suggested a fabulous patchup job should be done since they would only become worse and worse. She also suggested that Marlesta Road was the worst and while many potholes had been filled that had to be done repeatedly.

Rafael Menis, Pinole, understood the P-TAP Report had been created in 2022 and he asked whether the City Council and staff had access to the report prior to the meeting since there appeared to be a mismatch between the staff report, the PowerPoint presentation and the P-TAP Report regarding the current PCI index for the City of Pinole, which should be clarified. Page 229 of 395 of the agenda packet of the P-TAP Report, Table ES-1 – Summary of different funding levels (Scenarios), had shown the same backlog for five years as if the City had done nothing as shown in this table, and the PCI change would have been markedly worse if the City had done nothing, and the shear amount of cost backlog was pretty substantial at the funding level they were at. The only way to get the backlog down at a minimal level would be to go to the $55 million over the five-year plan, which would be a significant cost. He found the maps listed in the various scenario outcomes to be beneficial to show where the City would be in the future.

Mr. Menis referenced Figure 17, 5-Year Scenario PCI Summary, as shown on Page 258 of 395 that was detailed and noted that due to the rain and other various climate effects, the City may have already hit the unfunded level PCI setting aside the backlog entirely. Figure 18, 5-Year Scenario Backlog Summary 2022/2023, was the decision year and the breakpoint in backlog, as shown. While the data in the Report was great much of it was from April 2022, and much may not apply given the significant rainfall and road degradation as a result.

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
Mayor Murphy suggested given the lateness of the hour that the City Council continue this item to the City Council meeting of May 2, 2023, which would allow another opportunity to discuss this item in combination with the CIP.

Council member Tave wanted to continue the discussion and agreed that the item should be continued. He offered a motion to continue the item to the next meeting of the City Council scheduled for April 25 to allow a more robust discussion including what funding vehicles may be associated.
25 of 541
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – April 18, 2023

City Manager Murray clarified the Special City Council meeting for April 25 was intended as a discussion of the baseline budget and CIP, and while this topic could be discussed, the consultants the City had hired to work on the LTFP would be conducting an analysis on the types of revenue that would be good fits for this program and other funding needs. Staff would not be ready to provide an analysis and recommendation for funding options in time for the May 2, 2023 City Council meeting.

Mayor Murphy again referenced the strategy moving forward for public engagement and obtaining input, running various funding needs scenarios to develop the LTFP, and he suggested possibly on May 2 the City Council may have some ideas that could be provided as direction to staff.

Council member Tave offered a motion, seconded by Mayor Murphy to continue the City Road Condition and Pavement Management Program Update to the next Regular City Council meeting.

On the motion, Council member Martinez-Rubin reiterated the staff recommendation but based on the motion she questioned whether the discussion would be more of the same since community input was need along with recommendations from outside expertise. She understood there would not be any new information that would be presented at the May 2 City Council meeting.

City Manager Murray explained that staff would not generate any new information for the May 2 meeting but the City Council had additional deliberation it wanted to have on the data already provided to be able to provide direction, and staff had no problem with a continuance of the item.

ACTION: Motion by Council member Tave/Mayor Murphy to continue the City Road Condition and Pavement Management Program Update to the next Regular City Council meeting.

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

Absent: None
C. City Council Salaries and Benefits [Action: Discuss and Provide Direction (Bell)]
City Clerk Bell presented the staff report and asked the City Council to provide direction to staff whether or not to increase the City Council member salary through a PMC update and adopt the Elected Officials Benefits Plan.

Council member Sasai commented that as the staff report had stated, City Council salaries were set by State statute and based on population. For cities with a population of 35,000 or less, the City Council salary was initially set at $300 per month, and may be increased annually as set forth in the statute. He asked if that was because the City of Pinole was a General Law as opposed to a Charter City.

City Attorney Casher advised that was state law. He had not researched whether that restriction would be different if Pinole was a Charter City.
26 of 541
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – April 18, 2023

Council member Martinez-Rubin asked for clarification of the statement in the staff report that rather than provide a cash payment to elected officials for medical in-lieu, the City would deposit the same medical in-lieu amount into a Deferred Compensation Plan. She asked whether that benefit currently existed.

Human Resources Director Stacy Shell explained that currently the City Council was eligible to receive a cash in-lieu to enroll into a medical plan and that cash needed to be directed into a Deferred Compensation Plan versus provided to the City Council as compensation. Currently, the City had a 457 Deferred Compensation Plan available to City staff, that Plan would be made available to City Council members and the funds currently provided to City Council members as in-lieu of medical enrollment would then be deferred into the Compensation Plan.

Council member Tave asked whether the same rules applied to all Brown Act bodies in the City.

There had been past discussions about providing stipends to City Commissions/Committees, and City Council Bell advised this statute was specific to the City Council. There were plans to bring forward an item that would address the composition and creation documents for all City Commissions/Committees.

Mayor Murphy advised that discussion would come before the City Council at a meeting in June.

Mayor Pro Tem Toms asked whether the City Council could review this item on a regular basis.

When considered in 2016/17, it had been years in the making and now in 2023 was at an odd cycle. Possibly, it could be reviewed at the end of the year, during the budget or when employee compensation was discussed. She sought some regular period of review to ensure it was automatically done.

City Clerk Bell reported she had reviewed the practices of other cities, which were all across the board, but some revisited this topic every two years in-line with the election of new Council members, and the City Council could provide that additional direction.

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Rafael Menis, Pinole, read into the record Government Code Section 3516(a)(2)(A), and asked if that referred to a Charter City or meant as a general rule applied to all General Law cities. As to the defined benefits, he was under the impression if an elected desired to take up the City’s offer of health insurance the elected would have to pay for the entire amount but the staff report indicated some of the costs were offset separately from Council member salaries, and he asked for clarification. Also, the fiscal impact would have a higher increase in salary per month above and beyond the raw salary increase as defined in the staff report, implying partial coverage of the health care costs.

City Clerk Bell clarified the staff report had intended to show the increase per month for all five Council members, with an increase of $984.55 per month for all five Council members.

Irma Ruport, Pinole, supported the staff recommendation but suggested the salary increases be consistent with the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and be revisited every two years at election time.

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
27 of 541
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – April 18, 2023

Council member Tave clarified with staff that if the City Council voted in the affirmative with the staff recommendation, the increase would not go into effect until a Council member was reelected.

City Attorney Casher clarified that if the City Council approved the increase it would go into effect for all Council members at the end of the next election cycle. He also clarified that Government Code Section 3516 set a statutory maximum the City Council may give itself in salary but there could be a ballot measure to raise Council members’ salaries in an amount identified by voters.

Council member Martinez-Rubin understood that up until now Council members’ salaries had not matched any increase in annual CPI, and City Clerk Bell confirmed there had been no adjustments made over the years. The statute set the increase at five percent.

Council member Sasai commented he had spoken with other Council members in neighboring cities and other agencies, and a member of WCCTAC had raised a discussion of stipends for Committee members in terms of an equity issue. While not in context with the current discussion, he commented that a $7,000 stipend per year, as an example, discouraged those who were Low Income who were either single mothers or fathers from considering being an elected official.

Council member Sasai agreed with the Mayor Pro Tem and City Clerk that the issue should be revisited on a regular basis, every two years at an election cycle, which should be part of any motion. He suggested the most equitable option would be to base Council member salaries on household income but he recognized that was an entirely separate conversation and had not been attempted in local government. He supported the staff recommendation.

In response to the Mayor, City Manager Murray explained that the Management Compensation Plan was relatively new, had been revisited frequently after its adoption for fine tuning, but since its establishment the City Council had acted on it as part of the budget adoption process by granting a Cost-Of-Living-Adjustment (COLA) for the employees who were employed under it as part of the budget process. Other aspects of the plan would be reviewed on an as-needed basis.

Council member Tave offered a motion, seconded by Council member Sasai to direct staff to increase the City Council member salary through a Pinole Municipal Code Update at the rate of $759.41.

On the motion, Council member Martinez-Rubin asked that the motion be modified to make it clear the salary increase would be $759.41 “per month.” ACTION: Motion by Council members Tave/Sasai to direct staff to increase the City Council member salary through a Pinole Municipal Code Update at the rate of $759.41 per month.

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

Absent: None
28 of 541
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – April 18, 2023

ACTION: Motion by Mayor Murphy/Mayor Pro Tem Toms to adopt the Elected Officials Benefits Plan.

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

Absent: None
City Clerk Bell asked whether the City Council desired a motion to direct staff to reconsider the City Council salaries every two years.

Mayor Murphy offered a motion to direct staff to reconsider the Elected Officials Benefits Plan and City Council salaries determination every two years.

On the motion, Mayor Pro Tem Toms asked whether the PMC update needed to be done before the new Council took effect to avoid a two-year wait and urged that be kept in mind, and City Clerk Bell confirmed staff would take that into consideration.

ACTION: Motion by Mayor Murphy/Mayor Pro Tem Toms to direct staff to reconsider the Elected Officials Benefits Plan and City Council salaries determination every two years.

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.

Cordell Hindler, Richmond, opposed the City Council cutting off speakers at three minutes and suggested the Council should listen to constituents and everyone should be treated equally.

Speaking to the discussion of Pride celebrations during the April 4, 2023 City Council meeting, he had comments but had not been able to express them at that time. He expressed concern with the length of Council meetings and the ability of the public to comment.

Anthony Vossbrink, Pinole, concurred and suggested speakers should not be limited in their time to speak, particularly those providing comments via Zoom. He pointed out that members of the public who had spoken in-person had been allowed additional time to finish their thoughts and it was discriminatory that others had not been allowed to do the same. 29 of 541
Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – April 18, 2023

With respect to Earth Day, Mr. Vossbrink suggested the City Council review the cost of using burlap sack bags rather than materials that harmed the environment. He wanted Pinole to be a leader in that effort. He added there were issues with the timing of the door locks for the public restrooms near the Wastewater Treatment Plant near the Bay Trail.

14. ADJOURNMENT to the Special City Council Meeting of April 25, 2023, in Remembrance of Amber Swartz.

At 10:35 p.m., Mayor Murphy adjourned the meeting to the Special City Council Meeting of April 25, 2023 in Remembrance of Amber Swartz.

Submitted by:
_________________________________
Heather Bell, CMC
City Clerk
Approved by City Council:
30 of 541
31 of 541
32 of 541
33 of 541
34 of 541
35 of 541
36 of 541
37 of 541
38 of 541
39 of 541
40 of 541
41 of 541

CITY COUNCIL
REPORT
9C
DATE: MAY 2, 2023
TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: SANJAY MISHRA, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: APPROVE FUNDS TO AWARD AN ON-CALL CONTRACT TO SKL

SOLUTIONS TO MEET REGULATORY COMPLIANCE FOR THE

SANITARY SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM

RECOMMENDATION
City staff recommends that the Council adopt a resolution (Attachment A) to:

1. Approve funds in an amount not to exceed $426,781 (over a period of four years) for on-call consulting services with SKL Solutions.

BACKGROUND
The City owns and operates approximately 49 miles of sewer pipelines and 2 sewage lift stations. This system collects and conveys wastewater generated at residential, commercial, and industrial buildings to the City’s wastewater treatment plant (WWTP).

The wastewater collection system must have sufficient capacity for wastewater flows from both existing and planned development, as well as the ability to accommodate increased flows that occur during the wet season. Adequate short- and long-term maintenance must also be performed on the system to preserve its operating condition.

The City relies upon its Sanitary Sewer Management Plan, which was recently updated, to guide the day-to-day operation and maintenance of the system.

Several studies and our historic records show that our collection system experiences high levels of inflow and infiltration (I/I), which are when stormwater and groundwater enter the sanitary sewer collection system. In response, the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) has included in our current operating permit a condition that the City inspect the condition of all pipes with an in-pipe video camera by March 31, 2023. To date City have completed approximately 12miles of in-pipe video camera. City staff have met with the RWQCB representative and provided details of this progress.

The City’s wastewater collection system is aging with some segments are over 50 years old. Segments of the collection system will require replacement/rehabilitation to address inflow and infiltration as well as extend the useful life of the collection system. 42 of 541
City Council Report
May 2, 2023 2
The City has made progress towards completing condition assessment of the collection system. The City has made the necessary preparations in equipment, tools, staff assignments, and training to complete in-pipe and manhole inspections. This effort will be completed entirely with the City’s internal resources, instead of using the services of contractors. City staff collects video data using PACP-compliant standards and software and will collect manhole inspection data using mobile GIS applications. To date, 13.3 miles of pipe condition assessment data has been connected to GIS. City staff inspected

11.5 miles of pipe in July-October 2022. The City plans to continue inspection using City staff and equipment and return to a schedule of performing regular inspections in April 2023.

REVIEW & ANALYSIS
The City issued a request for services of qualified consultants to provide On-Call Consulting Services for Wastewater/Stormwater Infrastructure to support the City for compliance with NPDES permit tasks, including condition assessment, engineering assessment and spot repair methods, geographic information system (GIS) integrations, engineering design, construction management, and project management. The City issued a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) No. PW-2022-02 on October 7, 2022 and approved several qualified consultants on November 15, 2022 to provide on-call services.

In February and March 2023, the City issued requests for proposals for three task orders to seven on-call consultants, to provide services under the following categories:

Task Order 1: Regulatory, Program Development and Support Services Task Order 2: O&M Assessments and Optimization Services Task Order 3: Inventory Management/Data Management, Visualization, and Asset Assessment Services
The City only received proposals from one consultant, SKL Solutions, for each of the three tasks. City staff reached out to all of the other on-call consultants to discuss why they did not submit a proposal for the services requested. All the other on-call consultants either were too busy or were not able to provide the staff augmentation required to support the above requested tasks.

SKL solutions has worked with City of Pinole in the recent past and has helped to develop the City’s Sanitary Sewer Management Plan. They are well qualified to do the work needed. Staff recommends the City Council accept the proposal and approve the budget in an amount not to exceed $426,781 for the three task orders noted above.

The proposed costs for the task orders are $184,523, $93,478, and $148,780, respectively for Task Order1, 2 and 3 (Attachment B). In addition, staff recommends that City Council authorize the City Manager or his designee to issue change orders as necessary to complete additional work within contract authority. 43 of 541
City Council Report
May 2, 2023 3

FISCAL IMPACT
There are sufficient funds in the sewer enterprise fund for these task orders.

ATTACHMENT(S)
A. Resolution
B. SKL Solutions proposals
44 of 541
RESOLUTION NO. 2023 – XX

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

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING FUNDS TO

AWARD AN ON-CALL CONTRACT TO SKL SOLUTIONS TO MEET REGULATORY

COMPLIANCE FOR THE SANITARY SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM
WHEREAS, City council recognizes the importance of maintaining regulatory compliance for the sanitary sewer collection system and the need for an on-call services to assist with the operational improvements needed to achieve this, and WHEREAS, staff requested proposals from seven on-call consultants during February and March of 2023 and received proposals from only one firm i.e., SKL Solutions; and
WHEREAS, SKL solutions have provided services to City of Pinole recently to update our Sanitary Sewer Management Plan and can provide the requested services; and
WHEREAS, after careful consideration and evaluation, the City council has determined that the proposal submitted by SKL solutions meets the City’s requirements and it is in the best interest of the City; and WHEREAS, SKL Solutions is qualified to perform the services; and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pinole as follows:

1. SKL Solutions proposal was found to be the most responsive and responsible and meets the City’s needs.

2. The City council approves a not to exceed amount of $426,781 (over four years) for on-call services to meet the regulatory needs of the City’s sanitary Sewer collection system.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a special meeting of the Pinole City Council held on the 20th day of December 2022 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 2nd day of May 2023.
____________________________
Heather Bell, CMC
City Clerk

ATTACHMENT A
45 of 541
TASK ORDER NUMBER 1: Regulatory, Program Development and Support Services Consultant will perform Regulatory Requirement Check, Program Development and Support Services at the request of the City and provide weekly updates by email to the City of the work performed and time expended. Work will be reported at a subtask level in communications and billings, based on the nature of work performed, as agreed upon with City staff. Subtasks may be added without an amendment and will be used primarily for the purpose of tracking and reporting to the City. Initial subtasks are listed below. If proposed hours are not provided below, provide estimated hours for the task for a city similar in size to that of Pinole.

TASK DESCRIPTION PROPOSED
HOURS

TOTAL COST

REGULATORY
Operational Emergency Response Plans

1. SSO Packet 18 9,440

2. Pump Station Emergency Response Packet 8 7,840

3. Water Monitoring Program (Sampling) 5 4,100

4. Emergency Equipment Audit 8 1,440

5. SSO Training Review 16 9,423

6. SSO Failure Analysis Reports 12 2,160

7. Technical Reports 40 7,200
Safety Program (Development, Review, Audit)

1. Title 8 Policies and Procedure Review 195 90,000

2. Title 8 Training Schedule 12 2,160

3. Forms Review 12 2,160

4. Safety Committee Inspection 32 5,760

5. OSHA Form 300a 6 1,080

6. Safety Tailgates 4 720

PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT AND SUPPORT
Training Program

1. Inspect Documentation 8 1,440

2. Assessments 20 3,600

3. Software 40 7,200

4. Competency Based Training and Assessments 2 360

5. CEU Information for CWEA 6 1,080

6. Train the Trainer 40 7,200

7. Training Schedule 8 1,440

8. Individualized Training Plans 20 3,600

9. Training Library Development 2 360
Policy and Procedures (Development, Review, Audit)

1. Procurement Policy 14 2,520

2. Communication Policy 14 2,520

3. Training Policy 14 2,520
Operational Outreach Program

1. Define Strategy 32 5,760

2. Fliers 8 1,440
TOTALS 596 $ 184,523

ATTACHMENT B
46 of 541
SKL Solutions Inc.
1625 Culpepper Dr
Petaluma, CA 94954
Engineering and Operations Management
Senior Engineer $ 180 / hr
Operations Management Consultant $ 180 / hr
SUBCONSULTANT: DKF SOLUTIONS
HOURLY-BASED BILLINGS 180 hrs $ 26,100
Safety Program (Development, Review, Audit)

1. Title 8 Policies and Procedure Review 180* $ 145 / hr DKF #2210152-1 Item 1 DELIVERABLE-BASED BILLINGS see attached breakdown $ 83,543 Operational Emergency Response Plans

1. SSO Packet $ 6,200 DKF #2211153-1 Items 1-2

2. Pump Station Emergency Response Packet $ 6,400 DKF #2211153-1 Item 5

3. Water Monitoring Program (Sampling) $ 3,200 DKF #2211153-1 Item 6

5. SSO Training Review $ 6,543 DKF #2211153-1 Items 3-4 Safety Program (Development, Review, Audit)

1. Title 8 Policies and Procedure Review $ 61,200 DKF #2210152-1 Items 2-29

RATE SCHEDULE
City of Pinole - 2022 On-Call Services - Task Order Number 1 DKF (subconsultant) SEE ATTACHED PROPOSALS
47 of 541
48 of 541
Item
#
Item description Cost Each Extension Notes
1 Develop/Update the following CalOSHA compliance policies/procedures to reflect CalOSHA requirements and City structure and practices:
· Bloodborne Pathogens
· Confined Space
· Electrical Safety - Low Voltage
· Emergency Action Plan
· Excavation/Trenching
· Fall Protection
· Forklift
· FIre Prevention
· Lockout/Tagout
· Hazard Communication
· Hearing Conservation
· Heat Illness Prevention
· IIPP
· PPE
· Respiratory Protection - Voluntary Program per CalOSHA requirements · Silica
· Traffic Control/Flagger
$145/hour $ 26,100.00
To be billed hourly at $145/hour. An estimated180hours will be required.
2 Bloodborne Pathogens companion online training course $ 1,600.00 $ 1,600.00 3 Confined Space companion online training course $ 1,800.00 $ 1,800.00 4 Electrical Safety - Low Voltage companion online training course $ 1,800.00 $ 1,800.00 5 Emergency Action Plan companion online training course $ 1,600.00 $ 1,600.00 6 Fall Protection companion online training course $ 1,800.00 $ 1,800.00 7 Forklift companion online training course $ 1,800.00 $ 1,800.00 8 Fire Prevention companion online training course $ 1,600.00 $ 1,600.00 9 Lockout/Tagout companion online training course $ 1,800.00 $ 1,800.00 10 Hazard Communication companion online training course $ 1,800.00 $ 1,800.00 11 Hearing Conservation companion online training course $ 1,800.00 $ 1,800.00 12 Heat Illness Prevention companion online training course $ 1,600.00 $ 1,600.00 13 IIPP companion online training course $ 1,600.00 $ 1,600.00 14 PPE companion online trainig course $ 1,600.00 $ 1,600.00 15 Respiratory Protection companion online training course $ 1,800.00 $ 1,800.00 16 Silica companion online training course $ 1,800.00 $ 1,800.00 17 Traffic Control companion online training course $ 1,800.00 $ 1,800.00 18 Excavation companion online training course $ 1,800.00 $ 1,800.00 19 Provide one classroom instruction on Excavation Competent Person for up to 12 employees.
$ 3,600.00 $ 3,600.00
20 Provide 4hours of classroom and hands-on instruction on confined space entry in accordance with CCR Title 8 5157.
$ 3,000.00 $ 3,000.00 The fee will provide training for up to 12 employees.

Attachment 1.0: City of Pinole- Proposal #2210152-1
Fees for companion online training courses includes two draft reviews. Each additional review to be billed at $300. Each course will be placed on the District's Vector Solutions account for employee access and training management.
49 of 541
21 Provide classroom training on qualified low voltage electrical workers for up to 12 employees.
$ 2,800.00 $ 2,800.00
22 Provide 6hours of fall protection competent person training for up to 12 employees.
$ 3,000.00 $ 3,000.00
23 Provide forklift operator training and qualification for up to 12 employees. $ 3,600.00 $ 3,600.00 24 Provide one classroom instruction on Hearing Conservation for up to 20 employees.
$ 2,400.00 $ 2,400.00
25 Provide one classroom instruction on Lockout/Tagout for up to 20 employees. $ 2,400.00 $ 2,400.00 26 Provide 1st aid/cpr/aed training for up to 12 employees. $ 1,900.00 $ 1,900.00 27 Provide traffic control/flagger training for up to 15 employees. $ 2,800.00 $ 2,800.00 28 Develop a New Employee Safety Orientation online training course and post to the City's Vector Solutions account.
$ 3,900.00 $ 3,900.00
29 Annual audiogram for 12 employees. $ 2,400.00 $ 2,400.00 This is an estimate - actual cost may differ based on audiogram vendor 2022 costs.

Total Estimated Fee $ 87,300.00
50 of 541
TASK ORDER NUMBER 2: O&M ASSESSMENTS AND OPTIMIZATION SERVICES Consultant will perform O&M Assessments and Optimization Services at the request of the City and provide weekly updates by email to the City of the work performed and time expended. Work will be reported at a subtask level in communications and billings, based on the nature of work performed, as agreed upon with City staff. Subtasks may be added without an amendment and will be used primarily for the purpose of tracking and reporting to the City. Initial subtasks are listed below. If proposed hours are not provided below, provide estimated hours for the task for a city similar in size to that of Pinole.

TASK DESCRIPTION PROPOSED
HOURS

TOTAL COST

1. IT Software/Equipment for Field Personnel 8 1,440 1

2. Provide and Install SmartCover Systems, Train
Staff on Deployment and Management - 19,358 2,3

3. Mutual Aid Program Setup 4 720

4. Planner/Scheduler 40 7,200

5. Construction Management for CCTV and
Manhole Rehabilitation 40 7,200

6. Camera Selection 4 720

7. SL-RAT Instruction and Implementation 16 2,880 1

8. Nozzle Selection 4 720

9. Jet Truck Cleaning Techniques 8 1,440

10. Siphon Cleaning Instruction 8 1,440

11. Cured in Place Point Repair Crew
Implementation 80 14,400 1

12. Manhole Grout Rehabilitation Crew
Implementation 40 7,200 1

13. Inventory Controls 16 2,880

14. First Responder Program 8 1,440

15. Pump Station Asset Scanning with Matterport 8 6,440 4

16. 24/7 Emergency Response Assistance 80 14,400

17. Onsite Staff Assessments and Individualized
training Programs
16 2,880

18. Easement Tactics and Safety 4 720
TOTALS 384 $ 93,478
Assumptions

1. Task costs do not include equipment, tools, materials, and software required for implementation, based on the assumption the City would provide/purchase them directly.

2. Task cost includes lump sum of $5,800 for SKL Solutions Inc. for location selection, installation, software setup and other implementation support.

3. Task cost includes lump sum of $13,558 for SmartCover initial equipment delivery, installation, and data service and the first year of lease-to-own costs, per the attached SmartCover invoices 24607 and 24910. This would transfer ownership and lease-to-own responsibility from SKL Solutions Inc. to the City of Pinole. Estimated remaining costs of lease-to-own (two years) would be $10,800 per year plus sales tax for equipment per SmartCover Systems quote dated 8/25/2022, and costs for any additional data services or parts and materials required by the City.

These remaining costs are assumed to be paid directly by the City.

4. Task cost include lump sum of $5,000 for Matterport scanning and data processing and delivery. 51 of 541
$180 / hr
$225 / hr
$100 / hr
$180 / hr
$180 / hr
$180 / hr
$180 / hr
$210 / hr
$180 / hr
/ hr
$156 / hr
Overtime $186 / hr
10 %
10 %
IRS rates
Billing Rate Escalation
Escalation would be as follows:
    Through August 22, 2023 – 0%
    January 1, 2024 and annually thereafter – The lower of the following per year:
 August 22, 2023 and annually thereafter (or the effective dates of new determinations by the State) – Construction Inspector rates set to Prevailing Wage multiplied by 1.8 rounded to the nearest whole dollar/hour
o 3 percent
o Consumer Price Index, San Francisco Area – Annual increase from October to October Sub-Consultants
Other Direct Costs
Mileage
Construction Manager
Construction Inspector Prevailing Wage x 1.8
Based on determination NC-63-3-9-2022-1 effective August 22, 2022 Standard Markups
ArcGIS, Asset Management Systems, and Other Database Integrations Senior Engineer or Operations Management Consultant
Construction Management and Inspection Services
Senior Construction Manager
Condition Assessment Program Support
Senior Engineer or Operations Management Consultant
Information Systems and Database Support and Management Services Engineering and Operations Management / Program Development Support Services Senior Engineer
Operations Management Consultant
Condition Assessment Program Services
Task Order No. 2
Project Management
Project Manager
Principal in Charge
Administrative Assistant
Rate Schedule
City of Pinole On-Call Consulting Services
52 of 541
Invoice
DATE
1/18/2023
INVOICE #
24607

BILL TO
SKL Solutions Inc.
1621 Zinfandel Drive
Petaluma, CA 94954-7415
USA
Attn: Stephen Miksis

SHIP TO
SKL Solutions Inc.
2131 Pear St
Pinole, CA 94564-1774
USA
Attn: Sanjay Mishra
P.O. NUMBER
SQ-EMiksis
TERMS
Net 30

DUE DATE
2/17/2023
Rep
BQ
Total
Balance Due
Payments/Credits
HADRONEX, Inc. DBA SmartCover®
Systems™
2110 Enterprise Street
Escondido, CA 92029 USA
Terms and Conditions

1.Payment: Net 30 days

2.Late charges: A service charge of 1.5% per month will be added to all balances unpaid 30 days after invoice.

3.Cancellation: For orders equal to or greater than $10,000, a 15% restocking charge is applied for cancellation.

Total
Payments Applied
ITEM CODE DESCRIPTION QTY U/M Rate Disc. AMOUNT
CP-H Comprehensive Package - Includes System
Hardware, ASM, Parts & Power Warranty (1 of 3
Plan)
4 ea 2,670.00 10,680.00T
SC-Q-SB-15 SubSonic™ Systems - Dual Sensor (Ultra-Sonic & Pressure), Includes E-Box, Standard Range 15
Foot DSM, PowerPack, Bracket, E-Square
Antenna, & Installation Kit.
4 ea 0.00 CP-H 0.00T
ASM-SC1 SmartCover® – Website access, updates,
satellite connectivity, data storage, SmartTrend,
phone/online tech support. - REQUIRED
4 ea 0.00 CP-H 0.00
System ID Numbers (SIN)
11213, 11214, 11215, 11216
Install Labor Installation Labor 4 ea 400.00 1,600.00
Freight Out Cost of goods being shipped out 1 120.00 120.00 Total sales tax calculated by AvaTax 1,053.00 1,053.00

0.00% 0.00
$13,453.00
$13,453.00
$0.00
53 of 541
Invoice
DATE
2/10/2023
INVOICE #
24910

BILL TO
SKL Solutions Inc.
1621 Zinfandel Drive
Petaluma, CA 94954-7415
USA
Attn: Stephen Miksis

SHIP TO
SKL Solutions Inc.
1621 Zinfandel Drive
Petaluma, CA 94954-7415
USA
Attn: Stephen Miksis
P.O. NUMBER TERMS DUE DATE
2/10/2023
Rep
Total
Balance Due
Payments/Credits
HADRONEX, Inc. DBA SmartCover®
Systems™
2110 Enterprise Street
Escondido, CA 92029 USA
Terms and Conditions

1.Payment: Net 30 days

2.Late charges: A service charge of 1.5% per month will be added to all balances unpaid 30 days after invoice.

3.Cancellation: For orders equal to or greater than $10,000, a 15% restocking charge is applied for cancellation.

Total
Payments Applied
ITEM CODE DESCRIPTION QTY U/M Rate Disc. AMOUNT
ASM-RD-1Y 2/10/23-2/9/24 SmartRain™ - Rain data service for one site.
1 ea 105.00 105.00
System ID Numbers (SIN)
11555
Total sales tax calculated by AvaTax 0.00 0.00

0.00% 0.00
$105.00
$105.00
$0.00
54 of 541
1 SmartCover® Level Monitor Quotation
4 Units
3 Year Lease to Own Plan
For
City of Pinole, CA
Offered by
SmartCover® Systems™

Quotation Date: 8/25/2022
By: Brogan Quist
Regional Sales Manager – Northern California
[email protected] / 760.207.8348
55 of 541
Proposal Summary
Description
Overview
SmartCover is a complete end-to-end solution including:
• Remote Sensing System located at each monitoring site (SC-Q-SB-15) • Full warranty support for all parts for the entire agreement period • Advanced Iridium Satellite Communications
• Data Storage and Management
• Cloud-based user software with 24/7 browser access
• Note: The City provides traffic control.
• Initial Website set up and in-person website training will be provided by a SmartCover Systems representative • Ability to estimate flow if customer requests using “SmartFLOE • Ability to overlay local rain data (SmartRain) per customer request Year 1
Part
Number Service Description details
Price
(Each) 4 Systems
CP-H-3 Comprehensive Monitoring Service Program $2,700 $10,800 Installation Labor Installation of SmartCover® Systems™ by Trained SmartCover® Systems™ Field Tech $400 $1,600
CA Tax Applicable sales tax to be added at invoice and
taxes are subject to change. TBD
Total $12,400
Year 2
Part
Number Service Description details
Price
(Each) 4 Systems
CP-H-3 Comprehensive Monitoring Service Program $2,700 $10,800 CA Tax Applicable sales tax to be added at invoice and
taxes are subject to change. TBD
Total $10,800
Year 3
Part
Number Service Description details
Price
(Each) 4 Systems
CP-H-3 Comprehensive Monitoring Service Program $2,700 $10,800 CA Tax Applicable sales tax to be added at invoice and
taxes are subject to change. TBD
Total $10,800
3 Year Total - $34,000
56 of 541
Above Pricing Assumes These Conditions
• CP-H-3 pricing above is equivalent to $225 a unit/month • Labor is Not Included Beyond Installation
Payment Terms
• Paid annually, at the beginning of each year.
• After year 3, the customer owns the hardware.
• A comprehensive Monitoring Service Program is available for years 4 and beyond at a lower rate than the first 3 years.

Cancellation Terms
• Cancellation within two years of the commencement of the contract period is subject to 66% of the three-year cost; cancellation thereafter is subject to the full three-year contract cost.

Delivery
● Standard: (4) weeks upon receipt of a Purchase Order and with receipt of complete engineering and site information from the customer as requested. ● All customers will be notified of the shipment date upon Order Acknowledgement. ● Actual availability may vary depending on total demand. The “Standard 4 weeks” is not a guarantee but a good faith estimate. It is strongly recommended that order be placed as early as possible. Reasonable efforts will be made to provide earlier delivery if requested.

ADDITIONAL TERMS & CONDITIONS, LIMITED WARRANTY
Mutual Hold Harmless
SmartCover agrees, to the fullest extent permitted by law, to indemnify and hold harmless the Customer from any and all claims that may arise, or damages that may result, to SmartCover or SmartCover staff to the extent caused by SmartCover’s negligence during the performance of this contract. Customer agrees, to the fullest extent permitted by law, to indemnify and hold harmless SmartCover, its officers, directors, employees and subcontractors (collectively, SmartCover) from any and all claims that may arise, to the extent caused by the Customer's negligent acts in connection with the installation, operation, or use of the SmartCover, and the acts of its contractors, subcontractors or consultants or anyone for whom the Customer is legally liable. Neither SmartCover nor the Customer shall be obligated to indemnify the other party in any manner whatsoever for the other party’s negligence.

Loss of Communications
Customer acknowledges that SmartCover is not responsible for the loss of wireless communication or internet communications or any communications used in the operation of this system.

Advisory Only
SmartCover is an advisory service only. As such, SmartCover and its founders, owners, or staff are not responsible for any damage of any kind or from any cause whatsoever that may result from, in relation to, in connection with, due to, or as a result of the installation or operation of the system, including without limitation, equipment failure, or any consequential damages caused by, or resulting from, the use or installation of the SmartCover system.

Limited Warranty
57 of 541
The equipment components of the SmartCover are warranted free from material defects of material and workmanship for a period of one year from the date of installation.

Unless otherwise stated, the SmartCover warranty herein is a parts-only warranty.

Should the Customer discover any condition that might invoke a warranty claim, they are to expeditiously and without delay notify the SmartCover Technical Services group.

Upon notification, SmartCover will assess and instruct the user on follow-on actions.

Should a component fail as a result of a defect in material or workmanship, SmartCover will replace the component or repair it at the SmartCover location. For all valid warranty claims, as determined by SmartCover reasonable freight charges to and from Customer shall be paid by SmartCover. In all cases, SmartCover shall determine the shipping method and/or carrier unless otherwise agreed to in writing by Customer and SmartCover. Upon approval of a warranty failure by SmartCover, SmartCover will either repair or replace the defective component at SmartCover sole discretion.

The foregoing warranty is exclusive. Repair or replacement in the manner provided above shall be the sole and exclusive remedy for breach of warranty and shall constitute fulfillment of all liabilities of SmartCover with respect to the quality and performance of the products. This warranty does not cover damage or repairs or replacements by any cause beyond the control of SmartCover, including acts of nature, improper use, lack of proper maintenance, vandalism, or unauthorized repair.

SmartCover shall not be liable for any actual, exemplary, indirect or consequential damages, including damages for loss of goodwill or profits and/or losses, that stem from a failure or malfunction of the SmartCover system.

SmartCover does not provide traffic control. Customer must provide traffic control for installation and servicing of all units.

In no event shall SmartCover’s liability, whether in contract or in tort (including negligence and strict liability), exceed the price of the Product from which such liability arises.

Rights to Use
The SmartCover® family of products and all resulting data produced by them are proprietary and protected by a suite of intellectual property assets including but not limited to patents, trademarks and copyrights. The right to use these products and data is limited to the purchaser only. Any disclosure, use or other unauthorized disposition of any SmartCover® product or proprietary data outside the purchaser’s organization, including third-party consultants, is prohibited.
58 of 541
Acceptance
The undersigned have read, acknowledge and agree to this offer.

Please include this entire document with Purchase Order.

Signatures
SmartCover Systems City of Pinole, CA
____________________ _____________________________
Signature Signature
Brogan Quist
_____________________________
Printed Name
_____________________________
Title
Date: 8/25/2022 _____________________________
Date

01/09/2023
Elizabeth Miksis
CFO
59 of 541
TASK ORDER NUMBER 3: INVENTORY MANAGEMENT/DATA MANAGEMENT,

VISUALIZATION, AND ASSET ASSESSMENT SERVICES
Consultant will perform Inventory Management/Data Management, Visualization, and Asset Assessment Services at the request of the City and provide weekly updates by email to the City of the work performed and time expended. Work will be reported at a subtask level in communications and billings, based on the nature of work performed, as agreed upon with City staff. Subtasks may be added without an amendment and will be used primarily for the purpose of tracking and reporting to the City. Initial subtasks are listed below. If proposed hours are not provided below, provide estimated hours for the task for a city similar in size to that of Pinole.

TASK DESCRIPTION PROPOSED
HOURS

TOTAL COST

INVENTORY MANAGEMENT/DATA MANAGEMENT,

AND VISUALIZATION

1. Data Management Review 24 9,580 1

2. Work Order Process 24 4,320

ASSET ASSESSMENT

1. CMMS/EMS Inspection 16 7,890 2

2. Desktop Module Review 8 1,440

3. Mobile Work Order Platform Review 8 1,440

4. Outside Software Integration 16 2,880

5. ArcGIS Online 16 2,880

6. Collector App 16 2,880

7. Work Order Creation Review 16 2,880

8. PACP/MACP Data Review 80 12,000

9. I&I Reduction Strategies 80 14,400

10. Smoke Testing 80 28,100 3

11. Flood Testing 24 4,320

12. Remote Sensor Deployment 32 5,760

13. Sump Pump Inspections 16 2,880

14. Creek Crossing Inspections 40 7,200

15. Wet Weather Manhole Inspections 24 6,340 4

16. Manhole Rain Inundation Inspections 16 2,880

17. Manhole Tidal Inspections 4 720

18. Onsite Inspections for Condition Assessment 120 25,110 5

19. Pump Station and Forcemain Opportunities
Assessments 16 2,880
TOTALS 676 $ 148,780
Assumptions

1. Task cost includes lump sum of $5,260 for Existing Data Management Process Review.

2. Task cost includes lump sum of $5,010 for Beehive/Hydraulic Model/ArcGIS Existing Data Collection, Review, and Schema.

3. Task includes $13,700 (including markup) for MSI Services for five (5) days of smoke testing equipment and personnel. Anticipated scope of inspection work is approximately 45,000 LF of sewer main and connected laterals tributary to the Pinon trunk sewer as shown on the attached map.

4. Task cost includes lump sum of $2,020 for Inspection and Monitoring Strategies Consultation.

5. Task cost includes lump sum of $3,510 for Condition Assessment and Cleaning Program Evaluation. 60 of 541
$180 / hr
$225 / hr
$100 / hr
$180 / hr
$180 / hr
$180 / hr
CCTV Defect Coding $0.30 / ft
Manhole Defect Coding $60 / manhole
$150 / hr
$180 / hr
$150 / hr
$210 / hr
$180 / hr
/ hr
$156 / hr
Overtime $186 / hr
10 %
10 %
IRS rates
Billing Rate Escalation
Escalation would be as follows:
    Through August 22, 2023 – 0%
    January 1, 2024 and annually thereafter – The lower of the following per year:

Rate Schedule
City of Pinole On-Call Consulting Services
PACP/MACP (Coding and Data Management)
Data QA/QC or Project Coordinator (Scheduling, Tracking and Office Support) Data QA/QC
Engineering and Operations Management / Program Development Support Services Senior Engineer
Operations Management Consultant
Condition Assessment Program Services
Task Order No. 3
Project Management
Project Manager
Principal in Charge
Administrative Assistant
ArcGIS, Asset Management Systems, and Other Database Integrations Senior Engineer or Operations Management Consultant
Construction Management and Inspection Services
Senior Construction Manager
Condition Assessment Program Support
Senior Engineer or Operations Management Consultant
Information Systems and Database Support and Management Services Construction Manager
Construction Inspector Prevailing Wage x 1.8
Based on determination NC-63-3-9-2022-1 effective August 22, 2022 Standard Markups
 August 22, 2023 and annually thereafter (or the effective dates of new determinations by the State) – Construction Inspector rates set to Prevailing Wage multiplied by 1.8 rounded to the nearest whole dollar/hour
o 3 percent
o Consumer Price Index, San Francisco Area – Annual increase from October to October Sub-Consultants
Other Direct Costs
Mileage
61 of 541
62 of 541

CITY COUNCIL
REPORT
9D

DATE: MAY 2, 2023
TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: ANDREW MURRAY, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR ASSEMBLY BILL (AB) 1

REGARDING COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council consider approving a letter of support for California Assembly Bill (AB) 1.

BACKGROUND
At its meeting of April 4, 2023, the City Council approved as a future agenda item a letter of support for AB 1. The bill (attached) was introduced in December 2022 and would enact the Legislature Employer-Employee Relations Act, to provide employees of the Legislature the right to form, join, and participate in the activities of employee organizations of their own choosing for the purpose of representation on all matters of employer-employee relations. The League of California Cities has not taken a position on this bill. City staff has drafted a letter 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 letter on this State legislation.

ATTACHMENTS
A AB 1 Legislative Counsel’s Digest
B Draft City of Pinole Support Letter for AB 1
63 of 541
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 17, 2023
california legislature—2023–24 regular session
ASSEMBLY BILL No. 1
Introduced by Assembly Members McKinnor, Bryan,
Wendy Carrillo, Haney, Kalra, Lee, McCarty, Ortega, and Reyes (Principal coauthor: Assembly Member Boerner)
(Principal coauthor: Senator Wiener)
(Coauthors: Assembly MembersAddis, Alanis, Arambula,Berman, Bonta,Cervantes,Connolly, Flora,Mike Fong, Friedman,Holden, Jackson, Jones-Sawyer, Maienschein, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas, Santiago, Schiavo, Ting, Ward, and Wood) Wicks, Wood, and Zbur)
(Coauthors: Senators Becker, Blakespear, Cortese, Durazo, Gonzalez, Laird, and Newman) Newman, and Smallwood-Cuevas)
December 5, 2022
An act to add Chapter 12.5 (commencing with Section 3599.50) to Division 4 of Title 1 of the Government Code, relating to the Legislature. legislative counsel’s digest
AB 1, as amended, McKinnor. Collective bargaining: Legislature.

Existing law, the Ralph C. Dills Act (Dills Act), governs collective bargaining between the state and recognized state public employee organizations. Existing law excludes certain employees from coverage under the Dills Act, including, among others, managerial employees, supervisory employees, and confidential employees, as defined. Existing law creates the Public Employment Relations Board and authorizes it, among other things, to determine appropriate state employee bargaining units, as specified.

Corrected 4-20-23—See last page. 98

ATTACHMENT A
64 of 541
This bill would enact the Legislature Employer-Employee Relations Act, to provide employees of the Legislature the right to form, join, and participate in the activities of employee organizations of their own choosing for the purpose of representation on all matters of employer-employee relations. The bill would prescribe rights, duties, and prohibitions in this context that parallel those in the Dills Act. The bill would prohibit the Public Employment Relations Board from including employees of the Legislature in a bargaining unit that includes employees other than those of the Legislature. The bill would make it a misdemeanor for any person to willfully resist, prevent, impede, or interfere with any member of the board, or any of its agents, in the performance of duties pursuant to its provisions. By expanding the definition of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would provide that the provisions of the Legislature Employer-Employee Relations Act are severable. The bill would become operative on July 1, 2024.

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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.

State-mandated local program: yes.

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
line 1 SECTION 1. Chapter 12.5 (commencing with Section 3599.50) line 2 is added to Division 4 of Title 1 of the Government Code, to read:
line 3
line 4 Chapter 12.5. Legislature Employer-Employee Relations line 5
line 6 3599.50. This chapter shall be known, and may be cited, as the line 7 Legislature Employer-Employee Relations Act.
line 8 3599.51. The Legislature finds and declares that it is the line 9 purpose of this chapter to promote full communication between line 10 the Legislature and its employees by providing a reasonable method line 11 of resolving disputes regarding wages, hours, and other terms and line 12 conditions of employment between the Legislature and public line 13 employee organizations. It is also the purpose of this chapter to line 14 promote the improvement of personnel management and 98 AB 1 — 2 —
65 of 541
line 1 employer-employee relations within the Legislature by providing line 2 a uniform basis for recognizing the right of employees of the line 3 Legislature to join organizations of their own choosing and be line 4 represented by those organizations in their employment relations line 5 with the Legislature. It is further the purpose of this chapter, in line 6 order to foster peaceful employer-employee relations, to allow line 7 employees of the Legislature to select one employee organization line 8 as the exclusive representative of the employees in an appropriate line 9 unit and to permit the exclusive representative to receive financial line 10 support from those employees who receive the benefits of this line 11 representation.
line 12 3599.52. For purposes of this chapter:
line 13 (a)  “Board” means the Public Employment Relations Board. line 14 The powers and duties of the board described in Section 3541.3 line 15 also apply, as appropriate, to this chapter.
line 16 (b)  “Employee of the Legislature” or “employee” means any line 17 employee of either house of the Legislature, except all of the line 18 following:
line 19 (1)  Members of the Legislature.
line 20 (2)  Appointed officers of the Legislature, such as the Secretary line 21 of the Senate and the Chief Clerk of the Assembly. line 22 (3)  Department or office leaders, such as chiefs-of-staff, staff line 23 directors, and chief consultants. “Department or office leader” line 24 means any supervisory employee having authority, in the interest line 25 of the employer, to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, promote, line 26 discharge, assign, reward, or discipline other employees, or line 27 responsibility to direct them, or effectively to recommend this line 28 action, if, in connection with the foregoing, the exercise of any line 29 authority is not of a merely routine or clerical nature, but requires line 30 the use of independent judgment.
line 31 (4)  Confidential employees. “Confidential employee” means line 32 any employee who is required to develop or present management line 33 positions with respect to employer-employee relations or whose line 34 duties normally require access to confidential information line 35 contributing significantly to the development of management line 36 positions.
line 37 (c)  “Employee organization” means any organization that line 38 includes employees of the Legislature and that has as one of its line 39 primary purposes representing these employees in their relations line 40 with the Legislature.
98 — 3 — AB 1
66 of 541
line 1 (d)  “Legislature” means the Assembly Committee on Rules or line 2 the Senate Committee on Rules. For the purposes of bargaining line 3 or meeting and conferring in good faith, “Legislature” means the line 4 the Assembly Committee on Rules or the Senate Committee on line 5 Rules, or their designated representatives, acting with the line 6 authorization of their respective houses.
line 7 (e)  “Maintenance of membership” means that all employees line 8 who voluntarily are, or who voluntarily become, members of a line 9 recognized employee organization shall remain members of that line 10 employee organization in good standing for a period as agreed to line 11 by the parties pursuant to a memorandum of understanding, line 12 commencing with the effective date of the memorandum of line 13 understanding. A maintenance of membership provision does not line 14 apply to any employee who within 30 days prior to the expiration line 15 of the memorandum of understanding withdraws from the line 16 employee organization by sending a signed withdrawal letter to line 17 the employee organization and a copy to the Controller’s office. line 18 (f)  “Mediation” means effort by an impartial third party to assist line 19 in reconciling a dispute regarding wages, hours, and other terms line 20 and conditions of employment between representatives of the line 21 Legislature and the recognized employee organization or line 22 recognized employee organizations through interpretation, line 23 suggestion, and advice.
line 24 (g)  “Recognized employee organization” means an employee line 25 organization that has been recognized by the Legislature as the line 26 exclusive representative of the employees in an appropriate unit. line 27 3599.54. Any person who willfully resists, prevents, impedes, line 28 or interferes with any member of the board, or any of its agents, line 29 in the performance of duties pursuant to this chapter, shall be guilty line 30 of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction thereof, shall be sentenced line 31 to pay a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000). line 32 3599.55. The initial determination as to whether charges of line 33 unfair practices are justified, and, if so, what remedy is necessary line 34 to effectuate the purposes of this chapter, is a matter within the line 35 exclusive jurisdiction of the board, except that, in an action to line 36 recover damages due to an unlawful strike, the board shall not line 37 award strike-preparation expenses as damages, and shall not award line 38 damages for costs, expenses, or revenue losses incurred during, line 39 or as a consequence of, an unlawful strike. Procedures for 98 AB 1 — 4 —
67 of 541
line 1 investigating, hearing, and deciding these cases shall be devised line 2 and promulgated by the board and shall include all of the following:
line 3 (a)  Any employee or employee organization, or the Legislature, line 4 has the right to file an unfair practice charge, except that the board line 5 shall not do either of the following:
line 6 (1)  Issue a complaint respecting a charge based upon an alleged line 7 unfair practice that occurred more than six months prior to the line 8 filing of the charge.
line 9 (2)  Issue a complaint respecting conduct also prohibited by the line 10 provisions of the agreement between the parties until the grievance line 11 machinery of the agreement, if it exists and covers the matter at line 12 issue, has been exhausted, either by settlement or binding line 13 arbitration. However, when the charging party demonstrates that line 14 resort to contract grievance procedures would be futile, their line 15 exhaustion is not necessary. The board has discretionary line 16 jurisdiction to review a settlement or arbitration award reached line 17 pursuant to the grievance machinery solely for the purpose of line 18 determining whether it is repugnant to the purposes of this chapter. line 19 If the board finds that the settlement or arbitration award is line 20 repugnant to the purposes of this chapter, it shall issue a complaint line 21 on the basis of a timely filed charge, and hear and decide the case line 22 on the merits; otherwise, it shall dismiss the charge. The board line 23 shall, in determining whether the charge was timely filed, consider line 24 the six-month limitation set forth in paragraph (1) to have been line 25 tolled during the time it took the charging party to exhaust the line 26 grievance machinery.
line 27 (b)  The board shall not enforce agreements between the parties line 28 or issue a complaint on any charge based on an alleged violation line 29 of an agreement that would not also constitute an unfair practice line 30 under this chapter.
line 31 (c)  The board may issue a decision and order directing an line 32 offending party to cease and desist from the unfair practice and to line 33 take such affirmative action, including, but not limited to, the line 34 reinstatement of employees with or without backpay, as will line 35 effectuate the policies of this chapter.
line 36 3599.56. Employees of the Legislature have the right to form, line 37 join, and participate in the activities of employee organizations of line 38 their own choosing for the purpose of representation on all matters line 39 of employer-employee relations. Employees of the Legislature line 40 also have the right to refuse to join or participate in the activities 98 — 5 — AB 1
68 of 541
line 1 of employee organizations, except that the parties are not precluded line 2 from agreeing to a maintenance of membership provision pursuant line 3 to a memorandum of understanding. In any event, employees of line 4 the Legislature have the right to represent themselves individually line 5 in their employment relations with the Legislature. line 6 3599.57. Employee organizations have the right to represent line 7 their members in their employment relations with the Legislature, line 8 except that once an employee organization is recognized as the line 9 exclusive representative of an appropriate unit, the recognized line 10 employee organization is the only organization that may represent line 11 that unit in employment relations with the Legislature. Employee line 12 organizations may establish reasonable restrictions regarding who line 13 may join and may make reasonable provisions for the dismissal line 14 of individuals from membership. This section does not prohibit line 15 any employee from appearing on the employee’s own behalf in line 16 the employee’s employment relations with the Legislature. line 17 3599.58. All employee organizations have the right to have line 18 membership dues, initiation fees, membership benefit programs, line 19 and general assessments deducted pursuant to subdivision (a) of line 20 Section 1152 and Section 1153 until an employee organization is line 21 recognized as the exclusive representative for employees in an line 22 appropriate unit, and then any deductions as to any employee in line 23 the negotiating unit are not permissible except to the exclusive line 24 representative.
line 25 3599.59. (a)  Once an employee organization is recognized as line 26 the exclusive representative of an appropriate unit, it may enter line 27 into an agreement with the Legislature providing for organizational line 28 security in the form of a maintenance of membership deduction. line 29 (b)  The Legislature shall furnish the recognized employee line 30 organization with sufficient employment data to allow the line 31 organization to calculate membership fees, and shall deduct the line 32 amount specified by the recognized employee organization from line 33 the salary or wages of every employee for the membership fee. line 34 These fees shall be remitted monthly to the recognized employee line 35 organization along with an adequate itemized record of the line 36 deductions, including, if required by the recognized employee line 37 organization, machine readable data.
line 38 3599.60. The scope of representation is limited to wages, hours, line 39 and other terms and conditions of employment, except that the line 40 scope of representation does not include consideration of the merits, 98 AB 1 — 6 —
69 of 541
line 1 necessity, or organization of any service or activity provided by line 2 law.
line 3 3599.61. (a)  Except in cases of emergency as provided in line 4 subdivision (b), the Legislature shall give reasonable written notice line 5 to each recognized employee organization affected by any law, line 6 rule, or resolution directly relating to matters within the scope of line 7 representation proposed to be adopted by the Legislature, and shall line 8 give such recognized employee organizations the opportunity to line 9 meet and confer with the Legislature.
line 10 (b)  In cases of emergency when the Legislature determines that line 11 a law, rule, or resolution must be adopted immediately without line 12 prior notice or meeting with a recognized employee organization, line 13 the Legislature shall provide notice and opportunity to meet and line 14 confer in good faith at the earliest practical time following the line 15 adoption of the law, rule, or resolution.
line 16 3599.62. (a)  The Legislature shall meet and confer in good line 17 faith regarding wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of line 18 employment with representatives of recognized employee line 19 organizations, and shall consider fully such presentations as are line 20 made by the employee organization on behalf of its members prior line 21 to arriving at a determination of policy or course of action. For line 22 purposes of this section, the term “meet and confer in good faith” line 23 means that the Legislature and representatives of recognized line 24 employee organizations have the mutual obligation to personally line 25 meet and confer promptly upon request by either party and continue line 26 to meet and confer for a reasonable period of time in order to line 27 exchange freely information, opinions, and proposals, and to line 28 endeavor to reach agreement on matters within the scope of line 29 representation prior to the adoption by the state of its final budget line 30 for the ensuing year. The process should include adequate time line 31 for the resolution of impasses.
line 32 (b)  The Legislature shall freely provide to representatives of line 33 recognized employee organizations nonconfidential information line 34 that is necessary and relevant to their scope of representation. line 35 However, this chapter does not require the Legislature to provide line 36 confidential information to representatives of recognized employee line 37 organizations. For purposes of this subdivision, “confidential line 38 information” means any information contained in records that are line 39 exempt from public disclosure under federal or state law. line 40 “Confidential information” does not include the name, job title, 98 — 7 — AB 1
70 of 541
line 1 office, workplace location, work telephone number and email line 2 address, and home or personal telephone number and email address, line 3 if on file with the Legislature, for employees in the bargaining unit line 4 of the recognized employee organization.
line 5 3599.63. If an agreement is reached between the Legislature line 6 and the recognized employee organization, the parties shall jointly line 7 prepare a written memorandum of understanding reflecting the line 8 terms of the agreement, which shall be presented, when appropriate, line 9 to the Legislature for adoption as a resolution. line 10 3599.64. A side letter, appendix, or other addendum to a line 11 properly ratified memorandum of understanding shall be expressly line 12 identified by the parties if that side letter, appendix, or other line 13 addendum is to be incorporated in a subsequent memorandum of line 14 understanding submitted to the Legislature for adoption as a line 15 resolution.
line 16 3599.65. If the Legislature does not fully fund any provision line 17 of the memorandum of understanding that requires the expenditure line 18 of funds, either party may reopen negotiations on all or part of the line 19 memorandum of understanding. The parties are not precluded from line 20 agreeing to and effecting those provisions of the memorandum of line 21 understanding that do not require legislative action for passage of line 22 a statute.
line 23 3599.66. (a)  If a memorandum of understanding has expired, line 24 and the Legislature and the recognized employee organization line 25 have not agreed to a new memorandum of understanding and have line 26 not reached an impasse in negotiations, subject to subdivision (b), line 27 the parties to the agreement shall continue to give effect to the line 28 provisions of the expired memorandum of understanding, including line 29 provisions that supersede existing law, arbitration provisions, line 30 no-strike provisions, and agreements regarding matters covered line 31 in the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. Sec. 201 et line 32 seq.).
line 33 (b)  If the Legislature and the recognized employee organization line 34 reach an impasse in negotiations for a new memorandum of line 35 understanding, the Legislature may implement any or all of its line 36 last, best, and final offer through adoption of a resolution. line 37 Implementation of the last, best, and final offer does not relieve line 38 the parties of the obligation to bargain in good faith and reach an line 39 agreement on a memorandum of understanding if circumstances 98 AB 1 — 8 —
71 of 541
line 1 change, and does not result in a waiver of rights that the recognized line 2 employee organization has under this chapter.
line 3 3599.67. If, after a reasonable period of time, the Legislature line 4 and the recognized employee organization fail to reach an line 5 agreement, the Legislature and the recognized employee line 6 organization may agree upon the appointment of a mediator line 7 mutually agreeable to the parties, or either party may request the line 8 board to appoint a mediator. When both parties mutually agree line 9 upon a mediator, the costs of mediation shall be divided one-half line 10 to the Legislature and one-half to the recognized employee line 11 organization. If the board appoints the mediator, the costs of line 12 mediation shall be paid by the board.
line 13 3599.68. A reasonable number of employee representatives of line 14 recognized employee organizations shall be granted reasonable line 15 time off without loss of compensation or other benefits when line 16 formally meeting and conferring with the Legislature on matters line 17 within the scope of representation. This section applies only to line 18 employees, as defined by Section 3599.52, and only for periods line 19 when a memorandum of understanding is not in effect. line 20 3599.69. It is unlawful for the Legislature to do any of the line 21 following:
line 22 (a)  Impose or threaten to impose reprisals on employees, line 23 discriminate or threaten to discriminate against employees, or line 24 otherwise interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees because of line 25 their exercise of rights guaranteed by this chapter. For purposes line 26 of this subdivision, “employee” includes an applicant for line 27 employment or reemployment.
line 28 (b)  Deny to employee organizations rights guaranteed to them line 29 by this chapter.
line 30 (c)  Refuse or fail to meet and confer in good faith with a line 31 recognized employee organization.
line 32 (d)  Dominate or interfere with the formation or administration line 33 of any employee organization, or contribute financial or other line 34 support to it, or in any way encourage employees to join any line 35 organization in preference to another.
line 36 (e)  Refuse to participate in good faith in the mediation procedure line 37 set forth in Section 3599.67.
line 38 3599.70. It is unlawful for an employee organization to do any line 39 of the following:
98 — 9 — AB 1
72 of 541
line 1 (a)  Cause or attempt to cause the Legislature to violate Section line 2 3599.69.
line 3 (b)  Impose or threaten to impose reprisals on employees, line 4 discriminate or threaten to discriminate against employees, or line 5 otherwise interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees because of line 6 their exercise of rights guaranteed by this chapter. line 7 (c)  Refuse or fail to meet and confer in good faith with the line 8 Legislature in relation to the employees for whom it is the line 9 recognized employee organization.
line 10 (d)  Refuse to participate in good faith in the mediation procedure line 11 set forth in Section 3599.67.
line 12 3599.71. (a)  Judicial review of a unit determination is allowed line 13 only under either of the following circumstances:
line 14 (1)  When the board, in response to a petition from the line 15 Legislature or an employee organization, agrees that the case is line 16 one of special importance and joins in the request for review. line 17 (2)  When the issue is raised as a defense to an unfair practice line 18 complaint. A board order directing an election shall not be stayed line 19 pending judicial review.
line 20 (b)  Upon receipt of a board order joining in a request for judicial line 21 review, a party to the case may petition for a writ of extraordinary line 22 relief from the unit determination decision or order. line 23 (c)  Any charging party, respondent, or intervenor aggrieved by line 24 a final decision or order of the board in an unfair practice case, line 25 except a decision of the board not to issue a complaint in such a line 26 case, may petition for a writ of extraordinary relief from the line 27 decision or order.
line 28 (d)  The petition shall be filed in the district court of appeal in line 29 the appellate district where the unit determination or unfair practice line 30 dispute occurred. The petition shall be filed within 30 days after line 31 issuance of the board’s final order, order denying reconsideration, line 32 or order joining in the request for judicial review, as applicable. line 33 Upon the filing of the petition, the court shall cause notice to be line 34 served upon the board and thereupon shall have jurisdiction of the line 35 proceeding. The board shall file in the court the record of the line 36 proceeding, certified by the board, within 10 days after the clerk’s line 37 notice unless the time is extended by the court for good cause line 38 shown. The court has jurisdiction to grant to the board any line 39 temporary relief or restraining order it deems just and proper and line 40 in like manner to make and enter a decree enforcing, modifying, 98 AB 1 — 10 —
73 of 541
line 1 or setting aside the order of the board. The findings of the board line 2 with respect to questions of fact, including ultimate facts, if line 3 supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a line 4 whole, are conclusive. The provisions of Title 1 (commencing line 5 with Section 1067) of Part 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure relating line 6 to writs, except where specifically superseded herein, apply to line 7 proceedings pursuant to this section.
line 8 (e)  If the time to petition for extraordinary relief from a board line 9 decision has expired, the board may seek enforcement of any final line 10 decision or order in a district court of appeal or a superior court line 11 in the district where the unit determination or unfair practice case line 12 occurred. If, after a hearing, the court determines that the order line 13 was issued pursuant to procedures established by the board and line 14 that the person or entity refuses to comply with the order, the court line 15 shall enforce the order by writ of mandamus. The court shall not line 16 review the merits of the order.
line 17 3599.72. (a)  The Legislature shall grant exclusive recognition line 18 to employee organizations designated or selected pursuant to rules line 19 established by the board for employees of the Legislature or an line 20 appropriate unit thereof, subject to the right of an employee to line 21 self-represent.
line 22 (b)  The board shall establish reasonable procedures for petitions line 23 and for holding elections and determining appropriate units line 24 pursuant to subdivision (a).
line 25 (c)  The board, as it determines appropriate bargaining units, line 26 shall not include employees of the Legislature in a bargaining unit line 27 that includes employees other than those of the Legislature. The line 28 board shall not include within a bargaining unit employees from line 29 both the Assembly and Senate.
line 30 (d)  The board shall establish procedures whereby recognition line 31 of employee organizations formally recognized as exclusive line 32 representatives pursuant to a vote of the employees may be revoked line 33 by a majority vote of the employees only after a period of not less line 34 than 12 months following the date of such recognition. line 35 3599.73. The Legislature shall adopt reasonable rules for all line 36 of the following:
line 37 (a)  Registering employee organizations, as defined by line 38 subdivision (c) of Section 3599.52.
line 39 (b)  Determining the status of organizations as employee line 40 organizations.
98 — 11 — AB 1
74 of 541
line 1 (c)  Identifying the officers and representatives who officially line 2 represent employee organizations.
line 3 3599.74. Notwithstanding any other law, if a decision by an line 4 administrative law judge regarding the recognition or certification line 5 of an employee organization is appealed, the decision is the final line 6 order of the board if the board does not issue a ruling that line 7 supersedes the decision on or before 180 days after the appeal is line 8 filed.
line 9 3599.75. (a)  In determining an appropriate unit, the board is line 10 governed by the criteria in subdivision (b). However, the board line 11 shall not direct an election in a unit unless one or more of the line 12 employee organizations involved in the proceeding seeks or agrees line 13 to an election in the unit.
line 14 (b)  In determining an appropriate unit, the board shall take into line 15 consideration all of the following criteria:
line 16 (1)  The internal and occupational community of interest among line 17 the employees, including, but not limited to, all of the following:
line 18 (A)  The extent to which they perform functionally related line 19 services or work toward established common goals. line 20 (B)  The history of employee representation in state government line 21 and in similar employment.
line 22 (C)  The extent to which the employees have common skills, line 23 working conditions, job duties, or similar educational or training line 24 requirements.
line 25 (2)  The effect that the projected unit will have on the meet and line 26 confer relationships, emphasizing the availability and authority of line 27 the Legislature’s representatives to deal effectively with employee line 28 organizations representing the unit, and taking into account such line 29 factors as work location, the numerical size of the unit, the line 30 relationship of the unit to organizational patterns of the Legislature, line 31 and the effect on the existing classification structure or existing line 32 classification schematic of dividing a single class or single line 33 classification schematic among two or more units. line 34 (3)  The effect of the proposed unit on efficient operations of line 35 the Legislature and the compatibility of the unit with the line 36 responsibility of the Legislature and its employees to serve the line 37 public.
line 38 (4)  The number of employees and classifications in a proposed line 39 unit and its effect on the operations of the Legislature, on the 98 AB 1 — 12 —
75 of 541
line 1 objectives of providing the employees the right to effective line 2 representation, and on the meet and confer relationship. line 3 (5)  The impact on the meet and confer relationship created by line 4 fragmentation of employees or any proliferation of units among line 5 the employees of the Legislature.
line 6 3599.76. (a)  (1)  All initial meet and confer proposals of line 7 recognized employee organizations shall be presented to the line 8 Legislature at a public meeting, and those proposals thereafter are line 9 a public record.
line 10 (2)  All initial meet and confer proposals or counterproposals of line 11 the Legislature shall be presented to the recognized employee line 12 organization at a public meeting, and those proposals or line 13 counterproposals thereafter are a public record. line 14 (b)  Except in cases of emergency as provided in subdivision line 15 (d), meeting and conferring shall not take place on any proposal line 16 subject to subdivision (a) until not less than seven consecutive line 17 days have elapsed to enable the public to become informed, and line 18 to publicly express itself regarding the proposals, as well as line 19 regarding other possible subjects of meeting and conferring, and line 20 thereafter, the Legislature shall, in an open meeting, hear public line 21 comment on all matters related to the meet and confer proposals. line 22 (c)  Forty-eight hours after any proposal that includes any line 23 substantive subject that has not first been presented in proposals line 24 for public reaction pursuant to this section is offered during any line 25 meeting and conferring session, the proposal and the position, if line 26 any, taken by the representatives of the Legislature are a public line 27 record.
line 28 (d)  Subdivision (b) does not apply when the Legislature line 29 determines that, due to an act of God, natural disaster, or other line 30 emergency or calamity affecting the state, and that is beyond the line 31 control of the Legislature or recognized employee organization, line 32 it must meet and confer and take action upon a proposal line 33 immediately and without sufficient time for the public to become line 34 informed and to publicly express itself. In those cases, the results line 35 of the meeting and conferring shall be made public as soon as line 36 reasonably possible.
line 37 3599.77. This chapter does not apply Section 923 of the Labor line 38 Code to employees of the Legislature.
line 39 3599.78. This chapter does not modify or eliminate any existing line 40 wages, hours, or terms and conditions of employment for 98 — 13 — AB 1
76 of 541
line 1 employees of the Legislature. All existing wages, hours, and terms line 2 and conditions of employment for employees of the Legislature line 3 shall remain in effect unless and until changed in accordance with line 4 the Legislature’s procedures or pursuant to a memorandum of line 5 understanding or agreement between the Legislature and a line 6 recognized employee organization.
line 7 3599.79. If any provision of this chapter, or the application line 8 thereof to any person or circumstances, is held invalid, the line 9 invalidity shall not affect any other provision or application of this line 10 chapter that can be given effect without the invalid provision or line 11 application and, to this end, the provisions of this chapter are line 12 severable.
line 13 3599.80. Expenses incurred by the Legislature in relation to a line 14 properly ratified memorandum of understanding pursuant to this line 15 chapter are subject to Section 7.5 of Article IV of the California line 16 Constitution.
line 17 3599.81. This chapter shall become operative on July 1, 2024. line 18 SEC. 2. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to line 19 Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution because line 20 the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school line 21 district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or line 22 infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty line 23 for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of line 24 the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within line 25 the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California line 26 Constitution.
line 27
line 28
CORRECTIONS: line 29
Heading—Line 3. line 30
line 31
O
98 AB 1 — 14 —
77 of 541

CITY OF PINOLE
City Hall Phone: (510) 724-9000
2131 Pear Street FAX: (510) 724-9826
Pinole, CA 94564 www.ci.pinole.ca.us
May 3, 2023
The Honorable Tina McKinnor
Member, California State Assembly
1021 O Street, Suite 5520
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: AB 1 (McKinnor) Collective Bargaining.

Notice of Support
Dear Assembly Member Tina McKinnor,
The City Council of Pinole writes to express its support for AB 1, which would enact the Legislature Employer-Employee Relations Act, to provide employees of the Legislature the right to form, join, and participate in the activities of employee organizations of their own choosing for the purpose of representation on all matters of employer-employee relations. The City Council of Pinole supports expanding collective bargaining rights to these employees.

For these reasons, the City Council of Pinole supports AB 1.

Sincerely,
Devin T. Murphy
Mayor
City of Pinole
Cc: Honorable Senator Nancy Skinner (Via email)
Honorable Assembly Member Buffy Wicks (Via email)
Sam Caygill, East Bay Division, League of California Cities (Via email) League of California Cities (Via email: [email protected])

ATTACHMENT B
78 of 541

CITY COUNCIL
REPORT
9E
DATE: MAY 2, 2023
TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: SANJAY MISHRA, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR

ANDREW MURRAY, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR STATE TRANSIT FUNDING

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council consider approving a letter of support for State transit funding.

BACKGROUND
At its meeting of March 21, 2023, the City Council approved as a future agenda item a letter of support for State transit funding.

COVID fundamentally changed how people in our community and all Californians work and travel for their daily needs. Transit ridership continues to recover across the State, but it might be years before many transit agencies are financially stable again. Transit agencies across the State are on the brink of collapse and without additional funding, services will be cut.

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

ATTACHMENTS
A Draft City of Pinole Letter of Support
79 of 541

CITY OF PINOLE
City Hall Phone: (510) 724-9000
2131 Pear Street FAX: (510) 724-9826
Pinole, CA 94564 www.ci.pinole.ca.us
May 3, 2023
The Honorable Nancy Skinner
Member, California State Senate
Chair, Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee
1021 O Street, Suite 8630
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: Support for Transit Funding
Dear Senator Skinner, Assemblymember Wicks, and Assemblymember Ting, As FY 2023-24 budget negotiations continue, Pinole strongly urges you to strengthen California’s economy, increase job access for all, reduce traffic congestion, clean our air, and decrease climate change emissions by prioritizing a multi-year funding package for transit agencies across California to prevent severe service cuts, adapt to changing travel patterns, and regrow ridership.

COVID fundamentally changed how people in our community and all Californians live, work, and travel for their daily needs. Ridership continues to recover across the State and although agencies are responding to the changing needs of their communities as quickly as possible, it may be years before many agencies are financially stable again.

Transit agencies across the State are on the brink of collapse and unless State lawmakers step in and save California’s transit agencies, services will be cut, stations will be shuttered, and more Californians will be forced off of transit and into already clogged, polluting, and expensive highways — or simply be stranded without access to vital jobs, services, and community connections that they currently access through transit.

Whether or not they use transit, all Californians depend on healthy transit systems. Every person on a bus or train is one less car on the road competing for parking and increasing wear and tear on the State’s costly highway system. Public transit is essential to California’s economy and to the everyday lives of millions of Californians.

Without State funding to address their budget shortfalls, transit operators across California will be forced to implement drastic service cuts that will send public transit into a death spiral and lead to irreversible disinvestment in an essential public utility. Rising fares and degraded service will cause transit ridership to fall dramatically across the State, which will further decrease transit agencies’ revenue. This will further starve transit agencies, and routes and services will be cut across California. In other words, if the State takes no action, declining public transit ridership will reverse the State’s investments in

ATTACHMENT A
80 of 541
an integrated, multimodal transportation network that builds off of our existing infrastructure.

Millions of Californians rely on public transportation to access work, school, and other destinations each day. Slashing public transit service would exacerbate poverty throughout California, substantially reducing access to jobs, education and healthcare for low-income Californians.

Additionally, supporting and expanding transit cleans our air and helps the State meet its climate goals. While California has made strides on reducing other climate change emission sources, tailpipe emissions and other local air pollutants from gas cars exacerbate poor air quality which causes thousands of premature deaths in California each year. California cannot be a climate leader without robust public transportation, and allowing our transit systems to fall into disarray would run entirely contrary to our climate goals.

We must save public transportation in California. Our state depends on it and we look forward to working with you to build a more prosperous, secure, and clean California for all by ensuring that transit agencies receive the emergency funding and ongoing investment they need.

Sincerely,
Devin T. Murphy
Mayor
City of Pinole
Cc: Honorable Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (Via email)
Honorable Assemblymember Phil Ting, Chair, Assembly Committee on Budget (Via email)
Sam Caygill, East Bay Division, League of California Cities (Via email) League of California Cities (Via email: [email protected]) 81 of 541

CITY COUNCIL
REPORT
9F

DATE: MAY 2, 2023
TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: ANDREW MURRAY, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: LETTER OF OPPOSITION FOR SENATE BILL (SB) 423

REGARDING STREAMLINED HOUSING APPROVALS

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council consider approving a letter of opposition to California Senate Bill (SB) 423.

BACKGROUND
At its meeting of April 4, 2023, the City Council approved as a future agenda item a letter of opposition to SB 423. The bill (attached) was introduced in February 2023 and would expand SB 35 (Chapter 366, Statutes of 2017) provisions and eliminate the January 1, 2026 sunset date. The League of California Cities has taken an oppose position on this bill and has submitted a letter of opposition, attached. City staff has drafted a letter of opposition (attached) based on the League of California Cities’ letter 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 letter on this State legislation.

ATTACHMENTS
A SB 423 Legislative Counsel’s Digest
B League of California Cities SB 423 Opposition Letter
C Draft City of Pinole Opposition Letter to SB 423
82 of 541
AMENDED IN SENATE MARCH 28, 2023
SENATE BILL No. 423
Introduced by Senator Wiener
(Principal coauthor: Assembly Member Wicks)
(Coauthor: Senator Hurtado)
(Coauthor: Assembly Member Grayson)
February 13, 2023
An act to amend Section 65913.4 of the Government Code, relating to land use.
legislative counsel’s digest
SB 423, as amended, Wiener. Land use: streamlined housing approvals: multifamily housing developments.

Existing law, the Planning and Zoning Law, authorizes a development proponent to submit an application for a multifamily housing development that is subject to a streamlined, ministerial approval process, as provided, and not subject to a conditional use permit, if the development satisfies specified objective planning standards, including, among others, that the development proponent has committed to record, prior to the issuance of the first building permit, a land use restriction or covenant providing that any lower or moderate-income housing units required, as specified, remain available at affordable housing costs, as defined, or rent to persons and families of lower or moderate-income for no less than specified periods of time. Existing law repeals these provisions on January 1, 2026.

This bill would authorize the Department of General Services to act in the place of a locality or local government, at the discretion of that department, for purposes of the ministerial, streamlined review for development on property owned by or leased to the state. The bill would 98 ATTACHMENT A
83 of 541
delete the January 1, 2026, repeal date, thereby making these provisions operative indefinitely.

This bill would modify the above-described objective planning standards, including by deleting the standard that prohibits a multifamily housing development from being subject to the streamlined, ministerial approval process if the development is located in a coastal zone, and by providing an alternative definition for “affordable housing costs” for a development that dedicates 100% of units, exclusive of a manager’s unit or units, to lower income households. The bill would, among other modifications, delete the objective planning standards requiring development proponents to pay at least the general prevailing rate of per diem wages and utilize a skilled and trained workforce and would instead require a development proponent to certify to the local government that certain wage and labor standards will be met, including a requirement that all construction workers be paid at least the general prevailing rate of wages, as specified. The bill would require the Labor Commissioner to enforce the obligation to pay prevailing wages. By expanding the crime of perjury, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would specify that the requirements to pay prevailing wages, use a workforce participating in an apprenticeship, or provide health care expenditures do not apply to a project that consists of 10 or fewer units and is not otherwise a public work.

This bill would define “objective planning standards” to exclude specified standards, including local building codes, fire codes, other codes requiring detailed technical specifications, and standards that are not reasonably ascertainable by the local government within specified time limits, as described.

Existing law requires a local government to approve a development if the local government determines the development is consistent with the objective planning standards. Existing law requires, if the local government determines a submitted development is in conflict with any of the objective planning standards, the local government to provide the development proponent written documentation of the standards the development conflicts with and an explanation for the conflict within certain timelines depending on the size of the development. Existing law, the Housing Accountability Act, prohibits a local agency from disapproving a housing development project, as described, unless it makes specified written findings.

This bill would instead require approval if a local government’s planning director or any equivalent local government staff, including 98 SB 423 — 2 —
84 of 541
all relevant planning and permitting departments, equivalent position determines the development is consistent with the objective planning standards. The bill would make conforming changes. The bill would require all departments of the local government that are required to issue an approval of the development prior to the granting of an entitlement to also comply with the above-described streamlined approval requirements within specified time periods. The bill would prohibit a local government from requiring a development proponent to provide consultant studies, as described, or other studies requiring, prior to approving a development that meets the requirements of the above-described streamlining provisions, compliance with any standards necessary to receive a postentitlement permit or studies, information, or other materials that are unnecessary to ascertain consistency do not pertain directly to determining whether the development is consistent with the objective planning standards. standards applicable to the development.

The bill would, for purposes of these provisions, establish that the total number of units in a development includes (1) all projects developed on a site, regardless of when those developments occur, and (2) all projects developed on sites adjacent to a site developed pursuant to these provisions if, after January 1, 2023, the adjacent site had been subdivided from the site developed pursuant to these provisions.

Existing law authorizes the local government’s planning commission or any equivalent board or commission responsible for review and approval of development projects, or as otherwise specified, to conduct any design review or public oversight of the development.

This bill would remove the above-described authorization to conduct public oversight of the development and would only authorize design review to be conducted by the local government’s planning commission or any equivalent board or commission responsible for design review.

By imposing additional duties on local officials, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities.

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 no reimbursement is required by this act for specified reasons.
98 — 3 — SB 423
85 of 541
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.

State-mandated local program: yes.

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
line 1 SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares that it has line 2 provided reforms and incentives to facilitate and expedite the line 3 construction of affordable housing. Those reforms and incentives line 4 can be found in the following provisions:
line 5 (a)  Housing element law (Article 10.6 (commencing with line 6 Section 65580) of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of Title 7 of the line 7 Government Code).
line 8 (b)  Extension of statute of limitations in actions challenging the line 9 housing element and brought in support of affordable housing line 10 (subdivision (d) of Section 65009 of the Government Code). line 11 (c)  Restrictions on disapproval of housing developments line 12 (Section 65589.5 of the Government Code).
line 13 (d)  Priority for affordable housing in the allocation of water and line 14 sewer hookups (Section 65589.7 of the Government Code). line 15 (e)  Least cost zoning law (Section 65913.1 of the Government line 16 Code).
line 17 (f)  Density Bonus Law (Section 65915 of the Government line 18 Code).
line 19 (g)  Accessory dwelling units (Sections 65852.150 and 65852.2 line 20 of the Government Code).
line 21 (h)  By-right housing, in which certain multifamily housing is line 22 designated a permitted use (Section 65589.4 of the Government line 23 Code).
line 24 (i)  No-net-loss-in zoning density law limiting downzonings and line 25 density reductions (Section 65863 of the Government Code). line 26 (j)  Requiring persons who sue to halt affordable housing to pay line 27 attorney’s fees (Section 65914 of the Government Code) or post line 28 a bond (Section 529.2 of the Code of Civil Procedure). line 29 (k)  Reduced time for action on affordable housing applications line 30 under the approval of development permits process (Article 5 line 31 (commencing with Section 65950) of Chapter 4.5 of Division 1 line 32 of Title 7 of the Government Code).
line 33 (l)  Limiting moratoriums on multifamily housing (Section 65858 line 34 of the Government Code).
98 SB 423 — 4 —
86 of 541
line 1 (m)  Prohibiting discrimination against affordable housing line 2 (Section 65008 of the Government Code).
line 3 (n)  California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Part 2.8 line 4 (commencing with Section 12900) of Division 3 of Title 2 of the line 5 Government Code).
line 6 (o)  Community Redevelopment Law (Part 1 (commencing with line 7 Section 33000) of Division 24 of the Health and Safety Code, and line 8 in particular Sections 33334.2 and 33413 of the Health and Safety line 9 Code).
line 10 (p)  Streamlining housing approvals during a housing shortage line 11 (Section 65913.4 of the Government Code).
line 12 (q)  Housing sustainability districts (Chapter 11 (commencing line 13 with Section 66200) of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government line 14 Code).
line 15 (r)  Streamlining agricultural employee housing development line 16 approvals (Section 17021.8 of the Health and Safety Code). line 17 (s)  The Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (Senate Bill 330 (Chapter line 18 654 of the Statutes of 2019)).
line 19 (t)  Allowing four units to be built on single-family parcels line 20 statewide (Senate Bill 9 (Chapter 162 of Statutes of 2021)). line 21 (u)  The Middle Class Housing Act of 2022 (Section 65852.24 line 22 of the Government Code).
line 23 (s)
line 24 (v)  Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act of 2022 line 25 (Chapter 4.1 (commencing with Section 65912.100) of Division line 26 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code).
line 27 SEC. 2. Section 65913.4 of the Government Code is amended line 28 to read:
line 29 65913.4. (a)  A development proponent may submit an line 30 application for a development that is subject to the streamlined, line 31 ministerial approval process provided by subdivision (c) and is line 32 not subject to a conditional use permit or any other nonlegislative line 33 discretionary approval if the development complies with line 34 subdivision (b) and satisfies all of the following objective planning line 35 standards:
line 36 (1)  The development is a multifamily housing development that line 37 contains two or more residential units.
line 38 (2)  The development and the site on which it is located satisfy line 39 all of the following:
98 — 5 — SB 423
87 of 541
line 1 (A)  It is a legal parcel or parcels located in a city if, and only line 2 if, the city boundaries include some portion of either an urbanized line 3 area or urban cluster, as designated by the United States Census line 4 Bureau, or, for unincorporated areas, a legal parcel or parcels line 5 wholly within the boundaries of an urbanized area or urban cluster, line 6 as designated by the United States Census Bureau. line 7 (B)  At least 75 percent of the perimeter of the site adjoins parcels line 8 that are developed with urban uses. For the purposes of this section, line 9 parcels that are only separated by a street or highway shall be line 10 considered to be adjoined.
line 11 (C)  (i)  A site that meets the requirements of clause (ii) and line 12 satisfies any of the following:
line 13 (I)  The site is zoned for residential use or residential mixed-use line 14 development.
line 15 (II)  The site has a general plan designation that allows residential line 16 use or a mix of residential and nonresidential uses. line 17 (III)  The site is zoned for office or retail commercial use and line 18 meets the requirements of Section 65852.24.
line 19 (ii)  At least two-thirds of the square footage of the development line 20 is designated for residential use. Additional density, floor area, line 21 and units, and any other concession, incentive, or waiver of line 22 development standards granted pursuant to the Density Bonus Law line 23 in Section 65915 shall be included in the square footage line 24 calculation. The square footage of the development shall not line 25 include underground space, such as basements or underground line 26 parking garages.
line 27 (3)  (A)  The development proponent has committed to record, line 28 prior to the issuance of the first building permit, a land use line 29 restriction or covenant providing that any lower or moderate line 30 income housing units required pursuant to subparagraph (B) of line 31 paragraph (4) shall remain available at affordable housing costs line 32 or rent to persons and families of lower or moderate-income for line 33 no less than the following periods of time:
line 34 (i)  Fifty-five years for units that are rented. line 35 (ii)  Forty-five years for units that are owned. line 36 (B)  The city or county shall require the recording of covenants line 37 or restrictions implementing this paragraph for each parcel or unit line 38 of real property included in the development.
line 39 (4)  The development satisfies clause (i) or (ii) of subparagraph line 40 (A) and satisfies subparagraph (B) below:
98 SB 423 — 6 —
88 of 541
line 1 (A)  (i)  For a development located in a locality that is in its sixth line 2 or earlier housing element cycle, the development is located in line 3 either of the following:
line 4 (I)  In a locality that the department has determined is subject line 5 to this clause on the basis that the number of units that have been line 6 issued building permits, as shown on the most recent production line 7 report received by the department, is less than the locality’s share line 8 of the regional housing needs, by income category, for that line 9 reporting period. A locality shall remain eligible under this line 10 subclause until the department’s determination for the next line 11 reporting period.
line 12 (II)  In a locality that the department has determined is subject line 13 to this clause on the basis that the locality did not adopt a housing line 14 element that has been found in substantial compliance with housing line 15 element law (Article 10.6 (commencing with Section 65580) of line 16 Chapter 3) by the department. A locality shall remain eligible under line 17 this subclause until such time as the locality adopts a housing line 18 element that has been found in substantial compliance with housing line 19 element law (Article 10.6 (commencing with Section 65580) of line 20 Chapter 3) by the department.
line 21 (ii)  For a development located in a locality that is in its seventh line 22 or later housing element cycle, is located in a locality that the line 23 department has determined is subject to this clause on the basis line 24 that the locality did not adopt a housing element that has been line 25 found in substantial compliance with housing element law (Article line 26 10.6 (commencing with Section 65580) of Chapter 3) by the line 27 department by the statutory deadline, or that the number of units line 28 that have been issued building permits, as shown on the most recent line 29 production report received by the department, is less than the line 30 locality’s share of the regional housing needs, by income category, line 31 for that reporting period. A locality shall remain eligible under line 32 this subparagraph until the department’s determination for the next line 33 reporting period.
line 34 (B)  The development is subject to a requirement mandating a line 35 minimum percentage of below market rate housing based on one line 36 of the following:
line 37 (i)  The locality did not adopt a housing element pursuant to line 38 Section 65588 that has been found in substantial compliance with line 39 the housing element law (Article 10.6 (commencing with Section line 40 65580) of Chapter 3) by the department, did not submit its latest 98 — 7 — SB 423
89 of 541
line 1 production report to the department by the time period required line 2 by Section 65400, or that production report submitted to the line 3 department reflects that there were fewer units of above line 4 moderate-income housing issued building permits than were line 5 required for the regional housing needs assessment cycle for that line 6 reporting period. In addition, if the project contains more than 10 line 7 units of housing, the project does either of the following:
line 8 (I)  The project dedicates a minimum of 10 percent of the total line 9 number of units, before calculating any density bonus, to housing line 10 affordable to households making at or below 80 percent of the area line 11 median income. However, if the locality has adopted a local line 12 ordinance that requires that greater than 10 percent of the units be line 13 dedicated to housing affordable to households making below 80 line 14 percent of the area median income, that local ordinance applies. line 15 (II)  (ia)  If the project is located within the San Francisco Bay line 16 area, the project, in lieu of complying with subclause (I), dedicates line 17 20 percent of the total number of units, before calculating any line 18 density bonus, to housing affordable to households making below line 19 120 percent of the area median income with the average income line 20 of the units at or below 100 percent of the area median income. line 21 However, a local ordinance adopted by the locality applies if it line 22 requires greater than 20 percent of the units be dedicated to housing line 23 affordable to households making at or below 120 percent of the line 24 area median income, or requires that any of the units be dedicated line 25 at a level deeper than 120 percent. In order to comply with this line 26 subclause, the rent or sale price charged for units that are dedicated line 27 to housing affordable to households between 80 percent and 120 line 28 percent of the area median income shall not exceed 30 percent of line 29 the gross income of the household.
line 30 (ib)  For purposes of this subclause, “San Francisco Bay area” line 31 means the entire area within the territorial boundaries of the line 32 Counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Mateo, line 33 Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma, and the City and County of San line 34 Francisco.
line 35 (ii)  The locality’s latest production report reflects that there line 36 were fewer units of housing issued building permits affordable to line 37 either very low income or low-income households by income line 38 category than were required for the regional housing needs line 39 assessment cycle for that reporting period, and the project seeking line 40 approval dedicates 50 percent of the total number of units, before 98 SB 423 — 8 —
90 of 541
line 1 calculating any density bonus, to housing affordable to households line 2 making at or below 80 percent of the area median income. line 3 However, if the locality has adopted a local ordinance that requires line 4 that greater than 50 percent of the units be dedicated to housing line 5 affordable to households making at or below 80 percent of the area line 6 median income, that local ordinance applies.
line 7 (iii)  The locality did not submit its latest production report to line 8 the department by the time period required by Section 65400, or line 9 if the production report reflects that there were fewer units of line 10 housing affordable to both income levels described in clauses (i) line 11 and (ii) that were issued building permits than were required for line 12 the regional housing needs assessment cycle for that reporting line 13 period, the project seeking approval may choose between utilizing line 14 clause (i) or (ii).
line 15 (C)  (i)  A development proponent that uses a unit of affordable line 16 housing to satisfy the requirements of subparagraph (B) may also line 17 satisfy any other local or state requirement for affordable housing, line 18 including local ordinances or the Density Bonus Law in Section line 19 65915, provided that the development proponent complies with line 20 the applicable requirements in the state or local law. If a local line 21 requirement for affordable housing requires units that are restricted line 22 to households with incomes higher than the applicable income line 23 limits required in subparagraph (B), then units that meet the line 24 applicable income limits required in subparagraph (B) shall be line 25 deemed to satisfy those local requirements for higher income units. line 26 (ii)  A development proponent that uses a unit of affordable line 27 housing to satisfy any other state or local affordability requirement line 28 may also satisfy the requirements of subparagraph (B), provided line 29 that the development proponent complies with applicable line 30 requirements of subparagraph (B).
line 31 (iii)  A development proponent may satisfy the affordability line 32 requirements of subparagraph (B) with a unit that is restricted to line 33 households with incomes lower than the applicable income limits line 34 required in subparagraph (B).
line 35 (D)  The amendments to this subdivision made by the act adding line 36 this subparagraph do not constitute a change in, but are declaratory line 37 of, existing law.
line 38 (5)  The development, excluding any additional density or any line 39 other concessions, incentives, or waivers of development standards line 40 for which the development is eligible pursuant to the Density Bonus 98 — 9 — SB 423
91 of 541
line 1 Law in Section 65915, is consistent with objective zoning line 2 standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design line 3 review standards in effect at the time that the development is line 4 submitted to the local government pursuant to this section, or at line 5 the time a notice of intent is submitted pursuant to subdivision (b), line 6 whichever occurs earlier. For purposes of this paragraph, “objective line 7 zoning standards,” “objective subdivision standards,” and line 8 “objective design review standards” mean standards that involve line 9 no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and are line 10 uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform line 11 benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the line 12 development applicant or proponent and the public official before line 13 submittal. These standards may be embodied in alternative line 14 objective land use specifications adopted by a city or county, and line 15 may include, but are not limited to, housing overlay zones, specific line 16 plans, inclusionary zoning ordinances, and density bonus line 17 ordinances, subject to the following:
line 18 (A)  A development shall be deemed consistent with the objective line 19 zoning standards related to housing density, as applicable, if the line 20 density proposed is compliant with the maximum density allowed line 21 within that land use designation, notwithstanding any specified line 22 maximum unit allocation that may result in fewer units of housing line 23 being permitted.
line 24 (B)  In the event that objective zoning, general plan, subdivision, line 25 or design review standards are mutually inconsistent, a line 26 development shall be deemed consistent with the objective zoning line 27 and subdivision standards pursuant to this subdivision if the line 28 development is consistent with the standards set forth in the general line 29 plan.
line 30 (C)  It is the intent of the Legislature that the objective zoning line 31 standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design line 32 review standards described in this paragraph be adopted or line 33 amended in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 905 of line 34 the Statutes of 2004.
line 35 (D)  The amendments to this subdivision made by the act adding line 36 this subparagraph do not constitute a change in, but are declaratory line 37 of, existing law.
line 38 (E)  A project that satisfies the requirements of Section 65852.24 line 39 shall be deemed consistent with objective zoning standards, line 40 objective design standards, and objective subdivision standards if 98 SB 423 — 10 —
92 of 541
line 1 the project is consistent with the provisions of subdivision (b) of line 2 Section 65852.24 and if none of the square footage in the project line 3 is designated for hotel, motel, bed and breakfast inn, or other line 4 transient lodging use, except for a residential hotel. For purposes line 5 of this subdivision, “residential hotel” shall have the same meaning line 6 as defined in Section 50519 of the Health and Safety Code. line 7 (6)  The development is not located on a site that is any of the line 8 following:
line 9 (A)  Either prime farmland or farmland of statewide importance, line 10 as defined pursuant to United States Department of Agriculture line 11 land inventory and monitoring criteria, as modified for California, line 12 and designated on the maps prepared by the Farmland Mapping line 13 and Monitoring Program of the Department of Conservation, or line 14 land zoned or designated for agricultural protection or preservation line 15 by a local ballot measure that was approved by the voters of that line 16 jurisdiction.
line 17 (B)  Wetlands, as defined in the United States Fish and Wildlife line 18 Service Manual, Part 660 FW 2 (June 21, 1993), unless the line 19 development within the wetlands has been authorized by a permit line 20 or other approval issued pursuant to federal or other state law. line 21 (C)  Within a very high fire hazard severity zone, as determined line 22 by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to line 23 Section 51178, or within a high or very high fire hazard severity line 24 zone as indicated on maps adopted by the Department of Forestry line 25 and Fire Protection pursuant to Section 4202 of the Public line 26 Resources Code. This subparagraph does not apply to sites line 27 excluded from the specified hazard zones by a local agency, line 28 pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 51179, or sites that have line 29 adopted fire hazard mitigation measures pursuant to existing line 30 building standards or state fire mitigation measures applicable to line 31 the development.
line 32 (D)  A hazardous waste site that is listed pursuant to Section line 33 65962.5 or a hazardous waste site designated by the Department line 34 of Toxic Substances Control pursuant to Section 25356 of the line 35 Health and Safety Code, unless either of the following apply:
line 36 (i)  The site is an underground storage tank site that received a line 37 uniform closure letter issued pursuant to subdivision (g) of Section line 38 25296.10 of the Health and Safety Code based on closure criteria line 39 established by the State Water Resources Control Board for line 40 residential use or residential mixed uses. This section does not 98 — 11 — SB 423
93 of 541
line 1 alter or change the conditions to remove a site from the list of line 2 hazardous waste sites listed pursuant to Section 65962.5. line 3 (ii)  The State Department of Public Health, State Water line 4 Resources Control Board, Department of Toxic Substances Control, line 5 or a local agency making a determination pursuant to subdivision line 6 (c) of Section 25296.10 of the Health and Safety Code, has line 7 otherwise determined that the site is suitable for residential use or line 8 residential mixed uses.
line 9 (E)  Within a delineated earthquake fault zone as determined by line 10 the State Geologist in any official maps published by the State line 11 Geologist, unless the development complies with applicable seismic line 12 protection building code standards adopted by the California line 13 Building Standards Commission under the California Building line 14 Standards Law (Part 2.5 (commencing with Section 18901) of line 15 Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code), and by any local line 16 building department under Chapter 12.2 (commencing with Section line 17 8875) of Division 1 of Title 2.
line 18 (F)  Within a special flood hazard area subject to inundation by line 19 the 1 percent annual chance flood (100-year flood) as determined line 20 by the Federal Emergency Management Agency in any official line 21 maps published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. line 22 If a development proponent is able to satisfy all applicable federal line 23 qualifying criteria in order to provide that the site satisfies this line 24 subparagraph and is otherwise eligible for streamlined approval line 25 under this section, a local government shall not deny the application line 26 on the basis that the development proponent did not comply with line 27 any additional permit requirement, standard, or action adopted by line 28 that local government that is applicable to that site. A development line 29 may be located on a site described in this subparagraph if either line 30 of the following are met:
line 31 (i)  The site has been subject to a Letter of Map Revision line 32 prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and line 33 issued to the local jurisdiction.
line 34 (ii)  The site meets Federal Emergency Management Agency line 35 requirements necessary to meet minimum flood plain management line 36 criteria of the National Flood Insurance Program pursuant to Part line 37 59 (commencing with Section 59.1) and Part 60 (commencing line 38 with Section 60.1) of Subchapter B of Chapter I of Title 44 of the line 39 Code of Federal Regulations.
98 SB 423 — 12 —
94 of 541
line 1 (G)  Within a regulatory floodway as determined by the Federal line 2 Emergency Management Agency in any official maps published line 3 by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, unless the line 4 development has received a no-rise certification in accordance line 5 with Section 60.3(d)(3) of Title 44 of the Code of Federal line 6 Regulations. If a development proponent is able to satisfy all line 7 applicable federal qualifying criteria in order to provide that the line 8 site satisfies this subparagraph and is otherwise eligible for line 9 streamlined approval under this section, a local government shall line 10 not deny the application on the basis that the development line 11 proponent did not comply with any additional permit requirement, line 12 standard, or action adopted by that local government that is line 13 applicable to that site.
line 14 (H)  Lands identified for conservation in an adopted natural line 15 community conservation plan pursuant to the Natural Community line 16 Conservation Planning Act (Chapter 10 (commencing with Section line 17 2800) of Division 3 of the Fish and Game Code), habitat line 18 conservation plan pursuant to the federal Endangered Species Act line 19 of 1973 (16 U.S.C. Sec. 1531 et seq.), or other adopted natural line 20 resource protection plan.
line 21 (I)  Habitat for protected species identified as candidate, line 22 sensitive, or species of special status by state or federal agencies, line 23 fully protected species, or species protected by the federal line 24 Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. Sec. 1531 et seq.), line 25 the California Endangered Species Act (Chapter 1.5 (commencing line 26 with Section 2050) of Division 3 of the Fish and Game Code), or line 27 the Native Plant Protection Act (Chapter 10 (commencing with line 28 Section 1900) of Division 2 of the Fish and Game Code), unless line 29 the development within the habitat has been authorized by a permit line 30 or approval issued pursuant to federal or other state law. line 31 (J)  Lands under conservation easement.
line 32 (7)  The development is not located on a site where any of the line 33 following apply:
line 34 (A)  The development would require the demolition of the line 35 following types of housing:
line 36 (i)  Housing that is subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, line 37 or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and line 38 families of moderate, low, or very low income.
line 39 (ii)  Housing that is subject to any form of rent or price control line 40 through a public entity’s valid exercise of its police power. 98 — 13 — SB 423
95 of 541
line 1 (iii)  Housing that has been occupied by tenants within the past line 2 10 years.
line 3 (B)  The site was previously used for housing that was occupied line 4 by tenants that was demolished within 10 years before the line 5 development proponent submits an application under this section. line 6 (C)  The development would require the demolition of a historic line 7 structure that was placed on a national, state, or local historic line 8 register.
line 9 (D)  The property contains housing units that are occupied by line 10 tenants, and units at the property are, or were, subsequently offered line 11 for sale to the general public by the subdivider or subsequent owner line 12 of the property.
line 13 (8)  Except as provided in paragraph (9), a proponent of a line 14 development project approved by a local government pursuant to line 15 this section shall require in contracts with construction contractors, line 16 and shall certify to the local government, that the following line 17 standards specified in this paragraph will be met in project line 18 construction, as applicable:
line 19 (A)  A development that is not in its entirety a public work for line 20 purposes of Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 1720) of Part 7 line 21 of Division 2 of the Labor Code and approved by a local line 22 government pursuant to Article 2 (commencing with Section line 23 65912.110) or Article 3 (commencing with Section 65912.120) line 24 shall be subject to all of the following:
line 25 (i)  All construction workers employed in the execution of the line 26 development shall be paid at least the general prevailing rate of line 27 per diem wages for the type of work and geographic area, as line 28 determined by the Director of Industrial Relations pursuant to line 29 Sections 1773 and 1773.9 of the Labor Code, except that line 30 apprentices registered in programs approved by the Chief of the line 31 Division of Apprenticeship Standards may be paid at least the line 32 applicable apprentice prevailing rate.
line 33 (ii)  The development proponent shall ensure that the prevailing line 34 wage requirement is included in all contracts for the performance line 35 of the work for those portions of the development that are not a line 36 public work.
line 37 (iii)  All contractors and subcontractors for those portions of the line 38 development that are not a public work shall comply with both of line 39 the following:
98 SB 423 — 14 —
96 of 541
line 1 (I)  Pay to all construction workers employed in the execution line 2 of the work at least the general prevailing rate of per diem wages, line 3 except that apprentices registered in programs approved by the line 4 Chief of the Division of Apprenticeship Standards may be paid at line 5 least the applicable apprentice prevailing rate. line 6 (II)  Maintain and verify payroll records pursuant to Section line 7 1776 of the Labor Code and make those records available for line 8 inspection and copying as provided in that section. This subclause line 9 does not apply if all contractors and subcontractors performing line 10 work on the development are subject to a project labor agreement line 11 that requires the payment of prevailing wages to all construction line 12 workers employed in the execution of the development and line 13 provides for enforcement of that obligation through an arbitration line 14 procedure. For purposes of this subclause, “project labor line 15 agreement” has the same meaning as set forth in paragraph (1) of line 16 subdivision (b) of Section 2500 of the Public Contract Code. line 17 (B)  (i)  The obligation of the contractors and subcontractors to line 18 pay prevailing wages pursuant to this paragraph may be enforced line 19 by any of the following:
line 20 (I)  The Labor Commissioner through the issuance of a civil line 21 wage and penalty assessment pursuant to Section 1741 of the Labor line 22 Code, which may be reviewed pursuant to Section 1742 of the line 23 Labor Code, within 18 months after the completion of the line 24 development.
line 25 (II)  An underpaid worker through an administrative complaint line 26 or civil action.
line 27 (III)  A joint labor-management committee through a civil action line 28 under Section 1771.2 of the Labor Code.
line 29 (ii)  If a civil wage and penalty assessment is issued pursuant to line 30 this paragraph, the contractor, subcontractor, and surety on a bond line 31 or bonds issued to secure the payment of wages covered by the line 32 assessment shall be liable for liquidated damages pursuant to line 33 Section 1742.1 of the Labor Code.
line 34 (iii)  This paragraph does not apply if all contractors and line 35 subcontractors performing work on the development are subject line 36 to a project labor agreement that requires the payment of prevailing line 37 wages to all construction workers employed in the execution of line 38 the development and provides for enforcement of that obligation line 39 through an arbitration procedure. For purposes of this clause, line 40 “project labor agreement” has the same meaning as set forth in 98 — 15 — SB 423
97 of 541
line 1 paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 2500 of the Public line 2 Contract Code.
line 3 (C)  Notwithstanding subdivision (c) of Section 1773.1 of the line 4 Labor Code, the requirement that employer payments not reduce line 5 the obligation to pay the hourly straight time or overtime wages line 6 found to be prevailing does not apply to those portions of line 7 development that are not a public work if otherwise provided in a line 8 bona fide collective bargaining agreement covering the worker. line 9 (D)  The requirement of this paragraph to pay at least the general line 10 prevailing rate of per diem wages does not preclude use of an line 11 alternative workweek schedule adopted pursuant to Section 511 line 12 or 514 of the Labor Code.
line 13 (E)  A development of 50 or more housing units approved by a line 14 local government pursuant to this section shall meet all of the line 15 following labor standards:
line 16 (i)  The development proponent shall require in contracts with line 17 construction contractors and shall certify to the local government line 18 that each contractor of any tier who will employ construction craft line 19 employees or will let subcontracts for at least 1,000 hours shall line 20 satisfy the requirements in clauses (ii) and (iii). A construction line 21 contractor is deemed in compliance with clauses (ii) and (iii) if it line 22 is signatory to a valid collective bargaining agreement that requires line 23 utilization of registered apprentices and expenditures on health line 24 care for employees and dependents.
line 25 (ii)  A contractor with construction craft employees shall either line 26 participate in an apprenticeship program approved by the California line 27 Division of Apprenticeship Standards pursuant to Section 3075 of line 28 the Labor Code, or request the dispatch of apprentices from a line 29 state-approved apprenticeship program under the terms and line 30 conditions set forth in Section 1777.5 of the Labor Code. A line 31 contractor without construction craft employees shall show a line 32 contractual obligation that its subcontractors comply with this line 33 clause.
line 34 (iii)  Each contractor with construction craft employees shall line 35 make health care expenditures for each employee in an amount line 36 per hour worked on the development equivalent to at least the line 37 hourly pro rata cost of a Covered California Platinum level plan line 38 for two adults 40 years of age and two dependents 0 to 14 years line 39 of age for the Covered California rating area in which the line 40 development is located. A contractor without construction craft 98 SB 423 — 16 —
98 of 541
line 1 employees shall show a contractual obligation that its line 2 subcontractors comply with this clause. Qualifying expenditures line 3 shall be credited toward compliance with prevailing wage payment line 4 requirements set forth in this paragraph.
line 5 (iv)  (I)  The development proponent shall provide to the local line 6 government, on a monthly basis while its construction contracts line 7 on the development are being performed, a report demonstrating line 8 compliance with clauses (ii) and (iii). The reports shall be line 9 considered public records under the California Public Records Act line 10 (Division 10 (commencing with Section 7920.000) of Title 1), and line 11 shall be open to public inspection.
line 12 (II)  A development proponent that fails to provide the monthly line 13 report shall be subject to a civil penalty for each month for which line 14 the report has not been provided, in the amount of 10 percent of line 15 the dollar value of construction work performed by that contractor line 16 on the development in the month in question, up to a maximum line 17 of ten thousand dollars ($10,000). Any contractor or subcontractor line 18 that fails to comply with clauses (ii) and (iii) shall be subject to a line 19 civil penalty of two hundred dollars ($200) per day for each worker line 20 employed in contravention of clauses (ii) and (iii). line 21 (III)  Penalties may be assessed by the Labor Commissioner line 22 within 18 months of completion of the development using the line 23 procedures for issuance of civil wage and penalty assessments line 24 specified in Section 1741 of the Labor Code, and may be reviewed line 25 pursuant to Section 1742 of the Labor Code. Penalties shall be line 26 deposited in the State Public Works Enforcement Fund established line 27 pursuant to Section 1771.3 of the Labor Code.
line 28 (v)  Each construction contractor shall maintain and verify line 29 payroll records pursuant to Section 1776 of the Labor Code. Each line 30 construction contractor shall submit payroll records directly to the line 31 Labor Commissioner at least monthly in a format prescribed by line 32 the Labor Commissioner in accordance with subparagraph (A) of line 33 paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 1771.4 of the Labor line 34 Code. The records shall include a statement of fringe benefits. line 35 Upon request by a joint labor-management cooperation committee line 36 established pursuant to the Federal Labor Management Cooperation line 37 Act of 1978 (29 U.S.C. Sec. 175a), the records shall be provided line 38 pursuant to subdivision (e) of Section 1776 of the Labor Code. line 39 (vi)  All construction contractors shall report any change in line 40 apprenticeship program participation or health care expenditures 98 — 17 — SB 423
99 of 541
line 1 to the local government within 10 business days, and shall reflect line 2 those changes on the monthly report. The reports shall be line 3 considered public records pursuant to the California Public Records line 4 Act (Division 10 (commencing with Section 7920.000) of Title 1) line 5 and shall be open to public inspection.
line 6 (vii)  A joint labor-management cooperation committee line 7 established pursuant to the Federal Labor Management Cooperation line 8 Act of 1978 (29 U.S.C. Sec. 175a) shall have standing to sue a line 9 construction contractor for failure to make health care expenditures line 10 pursuant to clause (iii) in accordance with Section 218.7 or 218.8 line 11 of the Labor Code.
line 12 (9)  Notwithstanding paragraph (8), a development that is subject line 13 to approval pursuant to this section is exempt from any requirement line 14 to pay prevailing wages, use a workforce participating in an line 15 apprenticeship, or provide health care expenditures if it satisfies line 16 both of the following:
line 17 (A)  The project consists of 10 or fewer units. line 18 (B)  The project is not a public work for purposes of Chapter 1 line 19 (commencing with Section 1720) of Part 7 of Division 2 of the line 20 Labor Code.
line 21 (10)  The development shall not be upon an existing parcel of line 22 land or site that is governed under the Mobilehome Residency Law line 23 (Chapter 2.5 (commencing with Section 798) of Title 2 of Part 2 line 24 of Division 2 of the Civil Code), the Recreational Vehicle Park line 25 Occupancy Law (Chapter 2.6 (commencing with Section 799.20) line 26 of Title 2 of Part 2 of Division 2 of the Civil Code), the line 27 Mobilehome Parks Act (Part 2.1 (commencing with Section 18200) line 28 of Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code), or the Special line 29 Occupancy Parks Act (Part 2.3 (commencing with Section 18860) line 30 of Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code).
line 31 (b)  (1)  (A)  (i)  Before submitting an application for a line 32 development subject to the streamlined, ministerial approval line 33 process described in subdivision (c), the development proponent line 34 shall submit to the local government a notice of its intent to submit line 35 an application. The notice of intent shall be in the form of a line 36 preliminary application that includes all of the information line 37 described in Section 65941.1, as that section read on January 1, line 38 2020.
line 39 (ii)  Upon receipt of a notice of intent to submit an application line 40 described in clause (i), the local government shall engage in a 98 SB 423 — 18 —
100 of 541
line 1 scoping consultation regarding the proposed development with line 2 any California Native American tribe that is traditionally and line 3 culturally affiliated with the geographic area, as described in line 4 Section 21080.3.1 of the Public Resources Code, of the proposed line 5 development. In order to expedite compliance with this subdivision, line 6 the local government shall contact the Native American Heritage line 7 Commission for assistance in identifying any California Native line 8 American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with line 9 the geographic area of the proposed development. line 10 (iii)  The timeline for noticing and commencing a scoping line 11 consultation in accordance with this subdivision shall be as follows:
line 12 (I)  The local government shall provide a formal notice of a line 13 development proponent’s notice of intent to submit an application line 14 described in clause (i) to each California Native American tribe line 15 that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic line 16 area of the proposed development within 30 days of receiving that line 17 notice of intent. The formal notice provided pursuant to this line 18 subclause shall include all of the following:
line 19 (ia)  A description of the proposed development. line 20 (ib)  The location of the proposed development. line 21 (ic)  An invitation to engage in a scoping consultation in line 22 accordance with this subdivision.
line 23 (II)  Each California Native American tribe that receives a formal line 24 notice pursuant to this clause shall have 30 days from the receipt line 25 of that notice to accept the invitation to engage in a scoping line 26 consultation.
line 27 (III)  If the local government receives a response accepting an line 28 invitation to engage in a scoping consultation pursuant to this line 29 subdivision, the local government shall commence the scoping line 30 consultation within 30 days of receiving that response. line 31 (B)  The scoping consultation shall recognize that California line 32 Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with line 33 a geographic area have knowledge and expertise concerning the line 34 resources at issue and shall take into account the cultural line 35 significance of the resource to the culturally affiliated California line 36 Native American tribe.
line 37 (C)  The parties to a scoping consultation conducted pursuant line 38 to this subdivision shall be the local government and any California line 39 Native American tribe traditionally and culturally affiliated with line 40 the geographic area of the proposed development. More than one 98 — 19 — SB 423
101 of 541
line 1 California Native American tribe traditionally and culturally line 2 affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed development line 3 may participate in the scoping consultation. However, the local line 4 government, upon the request of any California Native American line 5 tribe traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area line 6 of the proposed development, shall engage in a separate scoping line 7 consultation with that California Native American tribe. The line 8 development proponent and its consultants may participate in a line 9 scoping consultation process conducted pursuant to this subdivision line 10 if all of the following conditions are met:
line 11 (i)  The development proponent and its consultants agree to line 12 respect the principles set forth in this subdivision. line 13 (ii)  The development proponent and its consultants engage in line 14 the scoping consultation in good faith.
line 15 (iii)  The California Native American tribe participating in the line 16 scoping consultation approves the participation of the development line 17 proponent and its consultants. The California Native American line 18 tribe may rescind its approval at any time during the scoping line 19 consultation, either for the duration of the scoping consultation or line 20 with respect to any particular meeting or discussion held as part line 21 of the scoping consultation.
line 22 (D)  The participants to a scoping consultation pursuant to this line 23 subdivision shall comply with all of the following confidentiality line 24 requirements:
line 25 (i)  Section 7927.000.
line 26 (ii)  Section 7927.005.
line 27 (iii)  Subdivision (c) of Section 21082.3 of the Public Resources line 28 Code.
line 29 (iv)  Subdivision (d) of Section 15120 of Title 14 of the line 30 California Code of Regulations.
line 31 (v)  Any additional confidentiality standards adopted by the line 32 California Native American tribe participating in the scoping line 33 consultation.
line 34 (E)  The California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 line 35 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code) line 36 shall not apply to a scoping consultation conducted pursuant to line 37 this subdivision.
line 38 (2)  (A)  If, after concluding the scoping consultation, the parties line 39 find that no potential tribal cultural resource would be affected by line 40 the proposed development, the development proponent may submit 98 SB 423 — 20 —
102 of 541
line 1 an application for the proposed development that is subject to the line 2 streamlined, ministerial approval process described in subdivision line 3 (c).
line 4 (B)  If, after concluding the scoping consultation, the parties line 5 find that a potential tribal cultural resource could be affected by line 6 the proposed development and an enforceable agreement is line 7 documented between the California Native American tribe and the line 8 local government on methods, measures, and conditions for tribal line 9 cultural resource treatment, the development proponent may submit line 10 the application for a development subject to the streamlined, line 11 ministerial approval process described in subdivision (c). The local line 12 government shall ensure that the enforceable agreement is included line 13 in the requirements and conditions for the proposed development. line 14 (C)  If, after concluding the scoping consultation, the parties line 15 find that a potential tribal cultural resource could be affected by line 16 the proposed development and an enforceable agreement is not line 17 documented between the California Native American tribe and the line 18 local government regarding methods, measures, and conditions line 19 for tribal cultural resource treatment, the development shall not line 20 be eligible for the streamlined, ministerial approval process line 21 described in subdivision (c).
line 22 (D)  For purposes of this paragraph, a scoping consultation shall line 23 be deemed to be concluded if either of the following occur:
line 24 (i)  The parties to the scoping consultation document an line 25 enforceable agreement concerning methods, measures, and line 26 conditions to avoid or address potential impacts to tribal cultural line 27 resources that are or may be present.
line 28 (ii)  One or more parties to the scoping consultation, acting in line 29 good faith and after reasonable effort, conclude that a mutual line 30 agreement on methods, measures, and conditions to avoid or line 31 address impacts to tribal cultural resources that are or may be line 32 present cannot be reached.
line 33 (E)  If the development or environmental setting substantially line 34 changes after the completion of the scoping consultation, the local line 35 government shall notify the California Native American tribe of line 36 the changes and engage in a subsequent scoping consultation if line 37 requested by the California Native American tribe. line 38 (3)  A local government may only accept an application for line 39 streamlined, ministerial approval pursuant to this section if one of line 40 the following applies:
98 — 21 — SB 423
103 of 541
line 1 (A)  A California Native American tribe that received a formal line 2 notice of the development proponent’s notice of intent to submit line 3 an application pursuant to subclause (I) of clause (iii) of line 4 subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) did not accept the invitation to line 5 engage in a scoping consultation.
line 6 (B)  The California Native American tribe accepted an invitation line 7 to engage in a scoping consultation pursuant to subclause (II) of line 8 clause (iii) of subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) but substantially line 9 failed to engage in the scoping consultation after repeated line 10 documented attempts by the local government to engage the line 11 California Native American tribe.
line 12 (C)  The parties to a scoping consultation pursuant to this line 13 subdivision find that no potential tribal cultural resource will be line 14 affected by the proposed development pursuant to subparagraph line 15 (A) of paragraph (2).
line 16 (D)  A scoping consultation between a California Native line 17 American tribe and the local government has occurred in line 18 accordance with this subdivision and resulted in agreement line 19 pursuant to subparagraph (B) of paragraph (2).
line 20 (4)  A project shall not be eligible for the streamlined, ministerial line 21 process described in subdivision (c) if any of the following apply:
line 22 (A)  There is a tribal cultural resource that is on a national, state, line 23 tribal, or local historic register list located on the site of the project. line 24 (B)  There is a potential tribal cultural resource that could be line 25 affected by the proposed development and the parties to a scoping line 26 consultation conducted pursuant to this subdivision do not line 27 document an enforceable agreement on methods, measures, and line 28 conditions for tribal cultural resource treatment, as described in line 29 subparagraph (C) of paragraph (2).
line 30 (C)  The parties to a scoping consultation conducted pursuant line 31 to this subdivision do not agree as to whether a potential tribal line 32 cultural resource will be affected by the proposed development. line 33 (5)  (A)  If, after a scoping consultation conducted pursuant to line 34 this subdivision, a project is not eligible for the streamlined, line 35 ministerial process described in subdivision (c) for any or all of line 36 the following reasons, the local government shall provide written line 37 documentation of that fact, and an explanation of the reason for line 38 which the project is not eligible, to the development proponent line 39 and to any California Native American tribe that is a party to that line 40 scoping consultation:
98 SB 423 — 22 —
104 of 541
line 1 (i)  There is a tribal cultural resource that is on a national, state, line 2 tribal, or local historic register list located on the site of the project, line 3 as described in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (4). line 4 (ii)  The parties to the scoping consultation have not documented line 5 an enforceable agreement on methods, measures, and conditions line 6 for tribal cultural resource treatment, as described in subparagraph line 7 (C) of paragraph (2) and subparagraph (B) of paragraph (4). line 8 (iii)  The parties to the scoping consultation do not agree as to line 9 whether a potential tribal cultural resource will be affected by the line 10 proposed development, as described in subparagraph (C) of line 11 paragraph (4).
line 12 (B)  The written documentation provided to a development line 13 proponent pursuant to this paragraph shall include information on line 14 how the development proponent may seek a conditional use permit line 15 or other discretionary approval of the development from the local line 16 government.
line 17 (6)  This section is not intended, and shall not be construed, to line 18 limit consultation and discussion between a local government and line 19 a California Native American tribe pursuant to other applicable line 20 law, confidentiality provisions under other applicable law, the line 21 protection of religious exercise to the fullest extent permitted under line 22 state and federal law, or the ability of a California Native American line 23 tribe to submit information to the local government or participate line 24 in any process of the local government.
line 25 (7)  For purposes of this subdivision:
line 26 (A)  “Consultation” means the meaningful and timely process line 27 of seeking, discussing, and considering carefully the views of line 28 others, in a manner that is cognizant of all parties’ cultural values line 29 and, where feasible, seeking agreement. Consultation between line 30 local governments and Native American tribes shall be conducted line 31 in a way that is mutually respectful of each party’s sovereignty. line 32 Consultation shall also recognize the tribes’ potential needs for line 33 confidentiality with respect to places that have traditional tribal line 34 cultural importance. A lead agency shall consult the tribal line 35 consultation best practices described in the “State of California line 36 Tribal Consultation Guidelines: Supplement to the General Plan line 37 Guidelines” prepared by the Office of Planning and Research. line 38 (B)  “Scoping” means the act of participating in early discussions line 39 or investigations between the local government and California line 40 Native American tribe, and the development proponent if 98 — 23 — SB 423
105 of 541
line 1 authorized by the California Native American tribe, regarding the line 2 potential effects a proposed development could have on a potential line 3 tribal cultural resource, as defined in Section 21074 of the Public line 4 Resources Code, or California Native American tribe, as defined line 5 in Section 21073 of the Public Resources Code.
line 6 (8)  This subdivision shall not apply to any project that has been line 7 approved under the streamlined, ministerial approval process line 8 provided under this section before the effective date of the act line 9 adding this subdivision.
line 10 (c)  (1)  If Notwithstanding any local law, if a local government’s line 11 planning director or any equivalent local government staff, line 12 including all relevant planning and permitting departments, line 13 equivalent position determines that a development submitted line 14 pursuant to this section is consistent with the objective planning line 15 standards specified in subdivision (a) and pursuant to paragraph line 16 (3) of this subdivision, it the local government shall approve the line 17 development. Upon a determination that a development submitted line 18 pursuant to this section is in conflict with any of the objective line 19 planning standards specified in subdivision (a), the local line 20 government staff or relevant local planning and permitting line 21 department that made the determination shall provide the line 22 development proponent written documentation of which standard line 23 or standards the development conflicts with, and an explanation line 24 for the reason or reasons the development conflicts with that line 25 standard or standards, as follows:
line 26 (A)  Within 60 days of submittal of the development to the local line 27 government pursuant to this section if the development contains line 28 150 or fewer housing units.
line 29 (B)  Within 90 days of submittal of the development to the local line 30 government pursuant to this section if the development contains line 31 more than 150 housing units.
line 32 (2)  If the local government’s planning director or any equivalent line 33 local government staff equivalent position fails to provide the line 34 required documentation pursuant to paragraph (1), the development line 35 shall be deemed to satisfy the objective planning standards line 36 specified in subdivision (a).
line 37 (3)  For purposes of this section, a development is consistent line 38 with the objective planning standards specified in subdivision (a) line 39 if there is substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person line 40 to conclude that the development is consistent with the objective 98 SB 423 — 24 —
106 of 541
line 1 planning standards. The local government shall not determine that line 2 a development, including an application for a modification under line 3 subdivision (g), (h), is in conflict with the objective planning line 4 standards on the basis that application materials are not included, line 5 if the application contains substantial evidence that would allow line 6 a reasonable person to conclude that the development is consistent line 7 with the objective planning standards.
line 8 (4)  For purposes of evaluating consistency with the objective line 9 planning standards under this section, the local government shall line 10 not require a development proponent to provide consultant studies line 11 requiring presubmittal scope approval by the local government or line 12 other studies or materials that are unnecessary to ascertain line 13 consistency with the objective planning standards. line 14 (4)  Upon submittal of an application for streamlined, ministerial line 15 approval pursuant to this section to the local government, all line 16 departments of the local government that are required to issue an line 17 approval of the development prior to the granting of an entitlement line 18 shall comply with the requirements of this section within the time line 19 periods specified in paragraph (1).
line 20 (d)  (1)  Any design review of the development may be conducted line 21 by the local government’s planning commission or any equivalent line 22 board or commission responsible for design review. That design line 23 review shall be objective and be strictly focused on assessing line 24 compliance with criteria required for streamlined projects, as well line 25 as any reasonable objective design standards published and adopted line 26 by ordinance or resolution by a local jurisdiction before submission line 27 of a development application, and shall be broadly applicable to line 28 development within the jurisdiction. That design review shall be line 29 completed, and if the development is consistent with all objective line 30 standards, the local government shall approve the development as line 31 follows and shall not in any way inhibit, chill, or preclude the line 32 ministerial approval provided by this section or its effect, as line 33 applicable:
line 34 (A)  Within 90 days of submittal of the development to the local line 35 government pursuant to this section if the development contains line 36 150 or fewer housing units.
line 37 (B)  Within 180 days of submittal of the development to the line 38 local government pursuant to this section if the development line 39 contains more than 150 housing units.
98 — 25 — SB 423
107 of 541
line 1 (2)  If the development is consistent with the requirements of line 2 subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (9) of subdivision (a) and line 3 is consistent with all objective subdivision standards in the local line 4 subdivision ordinance, an application for a subdivision pursuant line 5 to the Subdivision Map Act (Division 2 (commencing with Section line 6 66410)) shall be exempt from the requirements of the California line 7 Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section line 8 21000) of the Public Resources Code) and shall be subject to the line 9 public oversight timelines set forth in paragraph (1). line 10 (3)  If a local government determines that a development line 11 submitted pursuant to this section is in conflict with any of the line 12 standards imposed pursuant to paragraph (1), it shall provide the line 13 development proponent written documentation of which objective line 14 standard or standards the development conflicts with, and an line 15 explanation for the reason or reasons the development conflicts line 16 with that objective standard or standards consistent with the line 17 timelines described in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c). line 18 (e)  (1)  Notwithstanding any other law, a local government, line 19 whether or not it has adopted an ordinance governing automobile line 20 parking requirements in multifamily developments, shall not line 21 impose automobile parking standards for a streamlined line 22 development that was approved pursuant to this section in any of line 23 the following instances:
line 24 (A)  The development is located within one-half mile of public line 25 transit.
line 26 (B)  The development is located within an architecturally and line 27 historically significant historic district.
line 28 (C)  When on-street parking permits are required but not offered line 29 to the occupants of the development.
line 30 (D)  When there is a car share vehicle located within one block line 31 of the development.
line 32 (2)  If the development does not fall within any of the categories line 33 described in paragraph (1), the local government shall not impose line 34 automobile parking requirements for streamlined developments line 35 approved pursuant to this section that exceed one parking space line 36 per unit.
line 37 (f)  Notwithstanding any law, a local government shall not line 38 require any of the following prior to approving a development that line 39 meets the requirements of this section:
98 SB 423 — 26 —
108 of 541
line 1 (1)  Studies, information, or other materials that do not pertain line 2 directly to determining whether the development is consistent with line 3 the objective planning standards applicable to the development. line 4 (2)  (A)  Compliance with any standards necessary to receive a line 5 postentitlement permit.
line 6 (B)  This paragraph does not prohibit a local agency from line 7 requiring compliance with any standards necessary to receive a line 8 postentitlement permit after a permit has been issued pursuant to line 9 this section.
line 10 (C)  For purposes of this paragraph, “postentitlement permit” line 11 has the same meaning as provided in subparagraph (A) of line 12 paragraph (3) of subdivision (j) of Section 65913.3. line 13 (f)
line 14 (g)  (1)  If a local government approves a development pursuant line 15 to this section, then, notwithstanding any other law, that approval line 16 shall not expire if the project satisfies both of the following line 17 requirements:
line 18 (A)  The project includes public investment in housing line 19 affordability, beyond tax credits.
line 20 (B)  At least 50 percent of the units are affordable to households line 21 making at or below 80 percent of the area median income. line 22 (2)  (A)  If a local government approves a development pursuant line 23 to this section, and the project does not satisfy the requirements line 24 of subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (1), that approval shall line 25 remain valid for three years from the date of the final action line 26 establishing that approval, or if litigation is filed challenging that line 27 approval, from the date of the final judgment upholding that line 28 approval. Approval shall remain valid for a project provided line 29 construction activity, including demolition and grading activity, line 30 on the development site has begun pursuant to a permit issued by line 31 the local jurisdiction and is in progress. For purposes of this line 32 subdivision, “in progress” means one of the following:
line 33 (i)  The construction has begun and has not ceased for more than line 34 180 days.
line 35 (ii)  If the development requires multiple building permits, an line 36 initial phase has been completed, and the project proponent has line 37 applied for and is diligently pursuing a building permit for a line 38 subsequent phase, provided that once it has been issued, the line 39 building permit for the subsequent phase does not lapse. 98 — 27 — SB 423
109 of 541
line 1 (B)  Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), a local government may line 2 grant a project a one-time, one-year extension if the project line 3 proponent can provide documentation that there has been line 4 significant progress toward getting the development construction line 5 ready, such as filing a building permit application. line 6 (3)  If the development proponent requests a modification line 7 pursuant to subdivision (g), (h), then the time during which the line 8 approval shall remain valid shall be extended for the number of line 9 days between the submittal of a modification request and the date line 10 of its final approval, plus an additional 180 days to allow time to line 11 obtain a building permit. If litigation is filed relating to the line 12 modification request, the time shall be further extended during the line 13 pendency of the litigation. The extension required by this paragraph line 14 shall only apply to the first request for a modification submitted line 15 by the development proponent.
line 16 (4)  The amendments made to this subdivision by the act that line 17 added this paragraph shall also be retroactively applied to line 18 developments approved prior to January 1, 2022. line 19 (g)
line 20 (h)  (1)  (A)  A development proponent may request a line 21 modification to a development that has been approved under the line 22 streamlined, ministerial approval process provided in subdivision line 23 (c) if that request is submitted to the local government before the line 24 issuance of the final building permit required for construction of line 25 the development.
line 26 (B)  Except as provided in paragraph (3), the local government line 27 shall approve a modification if it determines that the modification line 28 is consistent with the objective planning standards specified in line 29 subdivision (a) that were in effect when the original development line 30 application was first submitted.
line 31 (C)  The local government shall evaluate any modifications line 32 requested pursuant to this subdivision for consistency with the line 33 objective planning standards using the same assumptions and line 34 analytical methodology that the local government originally used line 35 to assess consistency for the development that was approved for line 36 streamlined, ministerial approval pursuant to subdivision (c). line 37 (D)  A guideline that was adopted or amended by the department line 38 pursuant to subdivision (m) (n) after a development was approved line 39 through the streamlined, ministerial approval process described in 98 SB 423 — 28 —
110 of 541
line 1 subdivision (c) shall not be used as a basis to deny proposed line 2 modifications.
line 3 (2)  Upon receipt of the development proponent’s application line 4 requesting a modification, the local government shall determine line 5 if the requested modification is consistent with the objective line 6 planning standard and either approve or deny the modification line 7 request within 60 days after submission of the modification, or line 8 within 90 days if design review is required.
line 9 (3)  Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the local government may line 10 apply objective planning standards adopted after the development line 11 application was first submitted to the requested modification in line 12 any of the following instances:
line 13 (A)  The development is revised such that the total number of line 14 residential units or total square footage of construction changes line 15 by 15 percent or more. The calculation of the square footage of line 16 construction changes shall not include underground space. line 17 (B)  The development is revised such that the total number of line 18 residential units or total square footage of construction changes line 19 by 5 percent or more and it is necessary to subject the development line 20 to an objective standard beyond those in effect when the line 21 development application was submitted in order to mitigate or line 22 avoid a specific, adverse impact, as that term is defined in line 23 subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (j) of Section line 24 65589.5, upon the public health or safety and there is no feasible line 25 alternative method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse line 26 impact. The calculation of the square footage of construction line 27 changes shall not include underground space.
line 28 (C)  (i)  Objective building standards contained in the California line 29 Building Standards Code (Title 24 of the California Code of line 30 Regulations), including, but not limited to, building plumbing, line 31 electrical, fire, and grading codes, may be applied to all line 32 modification applications that are submitted prior to the first line 33 building permit application. Those standards may be applied to line 34 modification applications submitted after the first building permit line 35 application if agreed to by the development proponent. line 36 (ii)  The amendments made to clause (i) by the act that added line 37 clause (i) shall also be retroactively applied to modification line 38 applications submitted prior to January 1, 2022. line 39 (4)  The local government’s review of a modification request line 40 pursuant to this subdivision shall be strictly limited to determining 98 — 29 — SB 423
111 of 541
line 1 whether the modification, including any modification to previously line 2 approved density bonus concessions or waivers, modify the line 3 development’s consistency with the objective planning standards line 4 and shall not reconsider prior determinations that are not affected line 5 by the modification.
line 6 (h)
line 7 (i)  (1)  A local government shall not adopt or impose any line 8 requirement, including, but not limited to, increased fees or line 9 inclusionary housing requirements, that applies to a project solely line 10 or partially on the basis that the project is eligible to receive line 11 ministerial or streamlined approval pursuant to this section. line 12 (2)  (A)  A local government shall issue a subsequent permit line 13 required for a development approved under this section if the line 14 application substantially complies with the development as it was line 15 approved pursuant to subdivision (c). Upon receipt of an line 16 application for a subsequent permit, the local government shall line 17 process the permit without unreasonable delay and shall not impose line 18 any procedure or requirement that is not imposed on projects that line 19 are not approved pursuant to this section. The local government line 20 shall consider the application for subsequent permits based upon line 21 the objective standards specified in any state or local laws that line 22 were in effect when the original development application was line 23 submitted, unless the development proponent agrees to a change line 24 in objective standards. Issuance of subsequent permits shall line 25 implement the approved development, and review of the permit line 26 application shall not inhibit, chill, or preclude the development. line 27 For purposes of this paragraph, a “subsequent permit” means a line 28 permit required subsequent to receiving approval under subdivision line 29 (c), and includes, but is not limited to, demolition, grading, line 30 encroachment, and building permits and final maps, if necessary. line 31 (B)  The amendments made to subparagraph (A) by the act that line 32 added this subparagraph shall also be retroactively applied to line 33 subsequent permit applications submitted prior to January 1, 2022. line 34 (3)  (A)  If a public improvement is necessary to implement a line 35 development that is subject to the streamlined, ministerial approval line 36 pursuant to this section, including, but not limited to, a bicycle line 37 lane, sidewalk or walkway, public transit stop, driveway, street line 38 paving or overlay, a curb or gutter, a modified intersection, a street line 39 sign or street light, landscape or hardscape, an above-ground or line 40 underground utility connection, a water line, fire hydrant, storm 98 SB 423 — 30 —
112 of 541
line 1 or sanitary sewer connection, retaining wall, and any related work, line 2 and that public improvement is located on land owned by the local line 3 government, to the extent that the public improvement requires line 4 approval from the local government, the local government shall line 5 not exercise its discretion over any approval relating to the public line 6 improvement in a manner that would inhibit, chill, or preclude the line 7 development.
line 8 (B)  If an application for a public improvement described in line 9 subparagraph (A) is submitted to a local government, the local line 10 government shall do all of the following:
line 11 (i)  Consider the application based upon any objective standards line 12 specified in any state or local laws that were in effect when the line 13 original development application was submitted. line 14 (ii)  Conduct its review and approval in the same manner as it line 15 would evaluate the public improvement if required by a project line 16 that is not eligible to receive ministerial or streamlined approval line 17 pursuant to this section.
line 18 (C)  If an application for a public improvement described in line 19 subparagraph (A) is submitted to a local government, the local line 20 government shall not do either of the following:
line 21 (i)  Adopt or impose any requirement that applies to a project line 22 solely or partially on the basis that the project is eligible to receive line 23 ministerial or streamlined approval pursuant to this section. line 24 (ii)  Unreasonably delay in its consideration, review, or approval line 25 of the application.
line 26 (i)
line 27 (j)  (1)  This section shall not affect a development proponent’s line 28 ability to use any alternative streamlined by right permit processing line 29 adopted by a local government, including the provisions of line 30 subdivision (i) of Section 65583.2.
line 31 (2)  This section shall not prevent a development from also line 32 qualifying as a housing development project entitled to the line 33 protections of Section 65589.5. This paragraph does not constitute line 34 a change in, but is declaratory of, existing law. line 35 (j)
line 36 (k)  The California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 line 37 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code) line 38 does not apply to actions taken by a state agency, local government, line 39 or the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District to:
98 — 31 — SB 423
113 of 541
line 1 (1)  Lease, convey, or encumber land owned by the local line 2 government or the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District line 3 or to facilitate the lease, conveyance, or encumbrance of land line 4 owned by the local government, or for the lease of land owned by line 5 the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District in association line 6 with an eligible TOD project, as defined pursuant to Section line 7 29010.1 of the Public Utilities Code, nor to any decisions line 8 associated with that lease, or to provide financial assistance to a line 9 development that receives streamlined approval pursuant to this line 10 section that is to be used for housing for persons and families of line 11 very low, low, or moderate income, as defined in Section 50093 line 12 of the Health and Safety Code.
line 13 (2)  Approve improvements located on land owned by the local line 14 government or the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District line 15 that are necessary to implement a development that receives line 16 streamlined approval pursuant to this section that is to be used for line 17 housing for persons and families of very low, low, or moderate line 18 income, as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code. line 19 (k)
line 20 (l)  For purposes of establishing the total number of units in a line 21 development under this chapter, a development or development line 22 project includes both of the following:
line 23 (1)  All projects developed on a site, regardless of when those line 24 developments occur.
line 25 (2)  All projects developed on sites adjacent to a site developed line 26 pursuant to this chapter if, after January 1, 2023, the adjacent site line 27 had been subdivided from the site developed pursuant to this line 28 chapter.
line 29 (l)
line 30 (m)  For purposes of this section, the following terms have the line 31 following meanings:
line 32 (1)  “Affordable housing cost” has the same meaning as set forth line 33 in Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code. line 34 (2)  (A)  Subject to the qualification provided by subparagraphs line 35 (B) and (C), “affordable rent” has the same meaning as set forth line 36 in Section 50053 of the Health and Safety Code. line 37 (B)  For a development for which an application pursuant to this line 38 section was submitted prior to January 1, 2019, that includes 500 line 39 units or more of housing, and that dedicates 50 percent of the total line 40 number of units, before calculating any density bonus, to housing 98 SB 423 — 32 —
114 of 541
line 1 affordable to households making at, or below, 80 percent of the line 2 area median income, affordable rent for at least 30 percent of these line 3 units shall be set at an affordable rent as defined in subparagraph line 4 (A) and “affordable rent” for the remainder of these units shall line 5 mean a rent that is consistent with the maximum rent levels for a line 6 housing development that receives an allocation of state or federal line 7 low-income housing tax credits from the California Tax Credit line 8 Allocation Committee.
line 9 (C)  For a development that dedicates 100 percent of units, line 10 exclusive of a manager’s unit or units, to lower income households, line 11 “affordable rent” shall mean a rent that is consistent with the line 12 maximum rent levels stipulated by the public program providing line 13 financing for the development.
line 14 (3)  “Department” means the Department of Housing and line 15 Community Development.
line 16 (4)  “Development proponent” means the developer who submits line 17 a housing development project application to a local government line 18 under the streamlined, ministerial review process pursuant to this line 19 section.
line 20 (5)  “Completed entitlements” means a housing development line 21 that has received all the required land use approvals or entitlements line 22 necessary for the issuance of a building permit. line 23 (6)  “Health care expenditures” include contributions under line 24 Section 401(a), 501(c), or 501(d) of the Internal Revenue Code line 25 and payments toward “medical care,” as defined in Section line 26 213(d)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code.
line 27 (7)  “Housing development project” has the same meaning as in line 28 Section 65589.5.
line 29 (8)  “Locality” or “local government” means a city, including a line 30 charter city, a county, including a charter county, or a city and line 31 county, including a charter city and county.
line 32 (9)  “Moderate-income housing units” means housing units with line 33 an affordable housing cost or affordable rent for persons and line 34 families of moderate income, as that term is defined in Section line 35 50093 of the Health and Safety Code.
line 36 (10)  “Objective planning standards” shall not include standards line 37 in the California Building Standards Code (Title 24 of the line 38 California Code of Regulations), local building codes, fire codes, line 39 noise ordinances, other codes requiring detailed technical line 40 specifications, studies that are evaluated with subsequent permits, 98 — 33 — SB 423
115 of 541
line 1 or other standards that are not reasonably ascertainable by the local line 2 government within the time limits set forth in subdivisions (c) and line 3 (d). Excluded objective planning standards include, but are not line 4 limited to, construction logistics plans, plumbing plans, electrical line 5 plans, grading, excavation plans, geotechnical studies, and offsite line 6 public improvement plans.
line 7 (11)
line 8 (10)  “Production report” means the information reported line 9 pursuant to subparagraph (H) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) line 10 of Section 65400.
line 11 (12)
line 12 (11)  “State agency” includes every state office, officer, line 13 department, division, bureau, board, and commission, but does not line 14 include the California State University or the University of line 15 California.
line 16 (13)
line 17 (12)  “Reporting period” means either of the following:
line 18 (A)  The first half of the regional housing needs assessment line 19 cycle.
line 20 (B)  The last half of the regional housing needs assessment cycle. line 21 (14)
line 22 (13)  “Urban uses” means any current or former residential, line 23 commercial, public institutional, transit or transportation passenger line 24 facility, or retail use, or any combination of those uses. line 25 (m)
line 26 (n)  The department may review, adopt, amend, and repeal line 27 guidelines to implement uniform standards or criteria that line 28 supplement or clarify the terms, references, or standards set forth line 29 in this section. Any guidelines or terms adopted pursuant to this line 30 subdivision shall not be subject to Chapter 3.5 (commencing with line 31 Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government line 32 Code.
line 33 (n)
line 34 (o)  The determination of whether an application for a line 35 development is subject to the streamlined ministerial approval line 36 process provided by subdivision (c) is not a “project” as defined line 37 in Section 21065 of the Public Resources Code.
line 38 (o)
line 39 (p)  Notwithstanding any law, for purposes of this section and line 40 for development on property owned by or leased to the state, the 98 SB 423 — 34 —
116 of 541
line 1 Department of General Services may act in the place of a locality line 2 or local government, at the discretion of the department. line 3 (p)
line 4 (q)  The provisions of clause (iii) of subparagraph (E) of line 5 paragraph (8) of subdivision (a) relating to health care expenditures line 6 are distinct and severable from the remaining provisions of this line 7 section. However, the remaining portions of paragraph (8) of line 8 subdivision (a) are a material and integral part of this section and line 9 are not severable. If any provision or application of paragraph (8) line 10 of subdivision (a) is held invalid, this entire section shall be null line 11 and void.
line 12 (q)
line 13 (r)  It is the policy of the state that this section be interpreted line 14 and implemented in a manner to afford the fullest possible weight line 15 to the interest of, and the approval and provision of, increased line 16 housing supply.
line 17 SEC. 3. The Legislature finds and declares that ensuring access line 18 to affordable housing is a matter of statewide concern and is not line 19 a municipal affair as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI line 20 of the California Constitution. Therefore, Section 2 of this act line 21 amending Section 65913.4 of the Government Code applies to all line 22 cities, including charter cities.
line 23 SEC. 4. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to line 24 Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution because line 25 a local agency or school district has the authority to levy service line 26 charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or line 27 level of service mandated by this act or because costs that may be line 28 incurred by a local agency or school district will be incurred line 29 because this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a line 30 crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, line 31 within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, or line 32 changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 line 33 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution.

O
98 — 35 — SB 423
117 of 541
1400 K Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95814 • 916.658.8200 • calcities.org March 14, 2023
The Honorable Scott Wiener
Chair, Senate Committee on Housing
1021 O Street, Suite 3330
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: SB 423 (Wiener) Streamlined housing approvals: multifamily housing developments: SB 35 (Chapter 366, Statutes of 2017) Expansion.

Notice of Opposition
Dear Senator Wiener:

The League of California Cities (Cal Cities) writes to express our opposition to your measure, SB 423, which would greatly expand SB 35 (Chapter 366, Statutes of 2017) provisions and eliminate the January 1, 2026 sunset date.

On any given day, newspaper headlines in California and across the nation are highlighting the state’s growing housing supply and affordability crisis. Seven in ten Californians view housing affordability as one of the top problems in their community, and there is growing concern from residents that housing prices are so expensive, younger generations will be priced out of ever being able to buy a home.

City officials intimately understand this crisis as it plays out in their communities every day. Local leaders are working to find creative solutions so homes of all income levels can be built. They’re taking on these difficult and complex tasks, and in many cases successfully planning for more than 2.5 million new homes statewide, all while navigating the state’s annual barrage of overreaching housing bills that have thus far demonstrated limited success.

SB 423 is the latest overreaching bill. This measure would double-down on the recent trend of the state overriding its own mandated local housing plans by forcing cities to approve certain housing projects without regard to the needs of the community, opportunities for environmental review, or public input. While it may be frustrating for some developers to address neighborhood concerns about traffic, parking, and other development impacts, those directly affected by such projects have a right to be heard. Public engagement also often leads to better projects. Not having such outlets will increase public distrust in government and result in additional ballot measures limiting housing development.

Instead of continuing to pursue top-down, one-size-fits-all legislation, lawmakers should partner with local officials. That’s why the League of California Cities is calling on the Governor and lawmakers to include a $3 billion annual investment in the state budget

ATTACHMENT B
118 of 541
to help cities prevent and reduce homelessness and spur housing development.

Targeted, ongoing funding is the only way cities can find community-based solutions that get our residents off the streets and keep them in their homes. California will never produce the number of homes needed with an increasingly state driven, by-right housing approval process. What is really needed is a sustainable state investment that matches the scale of this long-term crisis.

For these reasons, Cal Cities respectfully opposes your measure, SB 423. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (916) 658-8264.

Sincerely,

Jason Rhine
Assistant Director, Legislative Affairs
Cc: Members, Senate Committee on Housing

119 of 541

CITY OF PINOLE
City Hall Phone: (510) 724-9000
2131 Pear Street FAX: (510) 724-9826
Pinole, CA 94564 www.ci.pinole.ca.us
May 3, 2023
The Honorable Scott Wiener
Chair, Senate Committee on Housing
1021 O Street, Suite 3330
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: SB 423 (Wiener) Streamlined housing approvals: multifamily housing developments: SB 35 (Chapter 366, Statutes of 2017) Expansion.

Notice of Opposition
Dear Senator Scott Wiener,
The City Council of Pinole writes to express its opposition to SB 423, which would expand SB 35 (Chapter 366, Statutes of 2017) provisions and eliminate the January 1, 2026 sunset date.

On any given day, newspaper headlines in California and across the nation are highlighting the state’s growing housing supply and affordability crisis. Seven in ten Californians view housing affordability as one of the top problems in their community, and there is growing concern from residents that housing prices are so expensive, younger generations will be priced out of ever being able to buy a home.

City officials intimately understand this crisis as it plays out in their communities every day. Local leaders are working to find creative solutions so homes of all income levels can be built. They’re taking on these difficult and complex tasks, and in many cases successfully planning for more than 2.5 million new homes statewide, all while navigating the state’s annual barrage of overreaching housing bills that have thus far demonstrated limited success.

SB 423 is the latest overreaching bill. This measure would double-down on the recent trend of the state overriding its own mandated local housing plans by forcing cities to approve certain housing projects without regard to the needs of the community, opportunities for environmental review, or public input. While it may be frustrating for some developers to address neighborhood concerns about traffic, parking, and other development impacts, those directly affected by such projects have a right to be heard. Public engagement also often leads to better projects. Not having such outlets will increase public distrust in government and result in additional ballot measures limiting housing development.

Instead of continuing to pursue top-down, one-size-fits-all legislation, lawmakers should partner with local officials. That’s why the League of California Cities is calling on the Governor and

ATTACHMENT C
120 of 541
lawmakers to include a $3 billion annual investment in the state budget to help cities prevent and reduce homelessness and spur housing development. Targeted, ongoing funding is the only way cities can find community-based solutions that get our residents off the streets and keep them in their homes. California will never produce the number of homes needed with an increasingly state driven, by-right housing approval process. What is really needed is a sustainable state investment that matches the scale of this long-term crisis.

For these reasons, the City Council of Pinole respectfully opposes SB 423.

Sincerely,
Devin T. Murphy
Mayor
City of Pinole
Cc: Honorable Senator Nancy Skinner (Via email)
Honorable Assembly Member Buffy Wicks (Via email)
Sam Caygill, East Bay Division, League of California Cities (Via email) League of California Cities (Via email: [email protected]) 121 of 541

CITY COUNCIL
DATE: MAY 2, 2023
TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: SANJAY MISHRA, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: CITY ROAD CONDITION AND PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM UPDATE

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council receive an update on the condition of the City’s roads and the City’s Pavement Management Program, review the present funding sources, and review the pavement sections targeted for treatment in the upcoming fiscal year.

BACKGROUND
The City Council requested a future City Council agenda item on the state of the City’s roads and a strategy to address the road conditions.

Staff provided an update on the City’s pavement condition and presented various scenarios and funding needs for those scenarios during the April 18, 2023, City Council meeting. The City Council staff report (with attachment) and presentation for that item are attached.

The City Council received the information, deliberated on the subject, and decided to continue this item to the next Council meeting (May 2, 2023).

REVIEW AND ANALYSIS
Street condition is a service level decision that each community needs to make, in consideration of financial resources and competing demands. Over the next few months, there will be a public engagement process to get community input on the desired street condition level. After gathering community feedback, staff will make a recommendation to City Council about the appropriate street condition level and associated funding needs to incorporate into the City’s Long Term Financial Plan.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact to receiving this report.
12A
122 of 541
City Council Report
May 2, 2023 2

ATTACHMENTS
A: April 18, 2023, City Council staff report and attachment for City Road Condition and Pavement Management Program Update
B: April 18, 2023, City Council presentation for City Road Condition and Pavement Management Program Update
123 of 541

CITY COUNCIL
DATE: APRIL 18, 2023
TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: SANJAY MISHRA, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: CITY ROAD CONDITION AND PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM UPDATE

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council receive an update on the condition of the City’s roads and the City’s Pavement Management Program, review the present funding sources, and review the pavement sections targeted for treatment in the upcoming fiscal year.

BACKGROUND
The City Council requested a future City Council agenda item on the state of the City’s roads and a strategy to address the road conditions.

The City operates a Pavement Management Program, which involves regularly assessing the condition of all of the City’s public roads; identifying where to invest the City’s limited resources for road repair and maintenance to achieve the highest return on investment; scheduling repair and maintenance projects; preparing plans, specifications, and engineer’s estimates for projects; and implementing repair and maintenance projects. The Pavement Management Program is a key component of the City’s Capital Improvement Program.

The City of Pinole participates with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) in their Pavement Technical Assistance Program (P-TAP). Through P-TAP, the City receives funding through which an MTC-selected consultant assesses the conditions of all of the City’s public roads, resulting in a pavement condition index (PCI) score for the City’s public roads.

The City of Pinole participates in P-TAP once every two years, which is the typical cycle.

The City last participated in P-TAP Round 22 (PTA-22, 2021/2022), at which time the citywide PCI for Pinole was determined to be 57. There is a decrease from the PCI of 62 determined in 2019.

In total, 52.02 centerline miles (118.63 lane miles) in the City were inspected. Each of 351 pavement sections were inspected and assigned an index score. This most recent inspection shows the City of Pinole has a backlog of approximately $32 million in

ATTACHMENT A
124 of 541
City Council Report
April 18, 2023 2
pavement maintenance and repair work. The backlog is the accumulated cost of road rehabilitation projects that would be required to bring the City’s PCI score to 70 but have been deferred due to funding constraints.

The following table is a breakdown of the City’s current road network pavement condition categories.

Approximately 37.9% of the City’s road network has a PCI of 70 or better.

Table 1: Current Pavement Condition Categories
Current Condition Categories Arterial Collector Residential Network Condition I ‐ Good to Excellent (PCI 70 ‐ 100) 9.1% 6.4% 22.5% 37.9% Condition II/III ‐ At Risk to Fair (PCI 50 ‐ 69) 4.2% 2.4% 16.1% 22.7% Condition IV ‐ Poor (PCI 25 ‐ 49) 5.9% 2.8% 13.8% 22.5% Condition V ‐ Failed to Very Poor (PCI 0 ‐ 24) 1.3% 4.6% 11.0% 16.9% Total 20.5% 16.2% 63.4% 100.0%
Funding for the City’s Pavement Management Program historically has come from our local tax Measure S 2014 and other occasional State and federal grants. The City has historically allocated $500,000 per year for pavement maintenance from Measure S 2014.

Senate Bill 1 (SB1) increased funding for Pinole by approximately $350,000 annually.

In the past, the City has performed slurry seals and some overlays with this funding allocation. The PTAP-22 Pavement Condition Report includes a decision matrix to aid in selecting the most opportunistic sections of roadway to schedule for maintenance and rehabilitation.

The five funding scenarios detailed below are five‐year projections and provide useful “what‐if” information on expected PCI and backlog values that may occur at different funding constraints. The attached P-TAP 22 report analyses the following five scenarios.

Scenario 1 – Current Budget
Scenario 2 – Constant PCI
Scenario 3 – Plus 5 PCI Increase
Scenario 4 – Optimal PCI Conditions
Scenario 5 – Unfunded Scenario
Please note the budget figures are not adjusted for inflation and represent costs in 2022 dollars.

Based on the current roadway conditions, it is estimated that it would cost the City approximately $55 million over the next five years to bring the entire network to an average PCI of optimal (79‐84 PCI range) by the end of 2026. 125 of 541
City Council Report
April 18, 2023 3
If the City were to maintain its current level of expenditures on road maintenance and repair, approximately $1,000,000 annually, it is anticipated that the City’s average PCI will decrease from 57 to 52 over the next five years.

The Pavement Condition Report advises spending on preventive maintenance, which follows the advice of P-TAP, as it generates better results and saves money in the long run, rather than repairing failed pavements. ATTACHMENT A – 2021/22 Pavement Management Report provides a cost summary (Section III – Page 65 of the report) and a Network Condition Summary for all the above scenarios and provides an in-depth analysis. The report also lists road segments that can be programmed for rehabilitation under different budget scenarios.

REVIEW AND ANALYSIS
The lifecycle of a typical road is 25 to 30 years. The road deteriorates by 35% in its first 10 to 12 years. Cities are tasked with directing limited resources to a road system that has varying PCI scores throughout. The roads with the lowest PCI most often receive the most complaints from drivers. But getting the most out of our limited resources means choosing the right roads to treat at the right stage of life. MTC, our technical partner, calls it “fix it first”. This means we fix the roads that are in good shape first to extend their useful life.

There are three primary types of treatment relied upon to extend the life of a road. They include preventative treatment, cape seal/thin overlay, and reconstruction. • Preventive treatment, which includes minor patching, crack sealing, and slurry seal, is typically for a road with a PCI of 70 and costs an estimated $5 per square yard;
• A cape seal or thin overlay is for a road with a PCI of 50 to 70 and costs $20 to $40 per square yard; and
• Once the road is below a PCI of 25, replacement is the only option and can cost in excess of $130+ per square yard, or 30 time the cost of preventive measures.

The economics of road repair clearly show that the City can treat four times more road miles with a slurry seal than a thin overlay. Preventative treatments are recommended every five years for roads with a PCI of 70 or higher. For one mile of road in the worst shape, if we continue to defer its rehabilitation, we can direct the same amount of resources to 30 times or 30 miles of roads still in good shape.

Street condition is a service level decision that each community needs to make, in consideration of financial resources and competing demands. Over the next few months, there will be a public engagement process to determine the appropriate street condition level. After gathering community feedback, staff will make a recommendation to City Council about the appropriate street condition level and associated funding needs to incorporate into the City’s Long Term Financial Plan.
.
126 of 541
City Council Report
April 18, 2023 4

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

ATTACHMENTS
ATTACHMENT A: 2021/2022 Pavement Management Report

127 of 541
Page | 1
Pavement Management Technical Assistance (P‐TAP) Round 22

2021/2022 Pavement Management Report
Final Report (04/25/22)
Pavement Management Technical
Assistance Program (P‐TAP) Round 22
Prepared By:

AMS Consulting
5627 Stoneridge Drive, Suite 320
Pinole, CA 94588
128 of 541
Page | 2
Pavement Management Technical Assistance (P‐TAP) Round 22 TABLE OF CONTENTS  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................... 4 INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................................7 What is a Pavement Management System? .....................................................................................7 Why is a Pavement Management System important? .....................................................................8 Scope .................................................................................................................................................8 CURRENT STATE OF ROADS.................................................................................................................... 9 Road Network....................................................................................................................................9 Arterial ...........................................................................................................................................9 Collector.........................................................................................................................................9 Residential/Local..........................................................................................................................10 Pavement Condition Assessment....................................................................................................11 Pavement Condition Index (PCI) .....................................................................................................12 Local PCI Comparison ......................................................................................................................13 Maintenance and Rehabilitation Strategies ...................................................................................15 Types of Treatments for roads with a PCI between 70 – 100 (Light Maintenance) ...................16 Types of Treatments for roads with a PCI between 60 – 90 (Heavy / Light Maintenance)........17 Types of Treatments for roads with a PCI 69 or Less (Light / Heavy Rehab)..............................18 Mill and AC Overlay ‐ Rehabilitation Treatment.............................................................................18 AC Overlay with Rubberized Chip Seal ‐ Rehabilitation Treatment................................................19 Full‐Depth‐Reclamation (FDR).........................................................................................................19 Reconstruction.................................................................................................................................19 Pavement Needs..............................................................................................................................20 BUDGET SCENARIOS............................................................................................................................. 21 Scenario 1 – Current Funding Scenario ...........................................................................................23 Scenario 2 – Constant PCI................................................................................................................26 Scenario 3 – Plus 5 PCI Increase ......................................................................................................28 Scenario 4 – Optimal PCI Conditions...............................................................................................30 Scenario 5 – Unfunded Scenario .....................................................................................................32 CONCLUSIONS......................................................................................................................................34 APPENDices..........................................................................................................................................37 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FIGURES  Figure ES  1 – Overview of City’s Current Pavement Condition..............................................................4

129 of 541
Page | 3
Pavement Management Technical Assistance (P‐TAP) Round 22 FIGURES  Figure 1. Pavement Life Expectancy.....................................................................................................10 Figure 2. Sample of Pavement Distress Types......................................................................................12 Figure 3. Sample of PCI Condition Categories......................................................................................12 Figure 4. Street‐by‐Street Map of Pavement Condition Index (2021) ..................................................13 Figure 5. Local Agency PCI Comparison................................................................................................14 Figure 6. Standard Deterioration Curve ...............................................................................................16 Figure 7. Current Budget PCI and Backlog Breakdown.........................................................................23 Figure 9. Current Budget Map ‐ 2026 Condition Category Summary ...................................................25 Figure 9. Constant PCI and Backlog......................................................................................................26 Figure 10. Constant PCI Map ‐ 2026 Condition Category Summary .....................................................27 Figure 11. Plus 5 PCI Increase PCI and Backlog.....................................................................................28 Figure 12. Plus 5 PCI Map ‐ 2026 Condition Category Summary ..........................................................29 Figure 13. Optimal PCI and Backlog......................................................................................................30 Figure 14. Optimal PCI Map ‐ 2026 Condition Category Summary.......................................................31 Figure 15. Unfunded PCI and Backlog ..................................................................................................32 Figure 16. Unfunded PCI Map ‐ 2026 Condition Category Summary....................................................33 Figure 17. 5‐Year Scenario PCI Summary .............................................................................................35 Figure 18. 5‐Year Scenario Backlog Summary ......................................................................................36

TABLES   Table 1. City Network Summary Statistics............................................................................................11 Table 2. Current Pavement Condition Categories................................................................................15 Table 3. 5‐Year Needs Breakdown .......................................................................................................20 Table 4. Scenario Summary..................................................................................................................22 Table 5. Current Budget Scenario.........................................................................................................24 Table 6. Current Budget ‐ 2026 Condition Category Summary.............................................................24 Table 7. Constant PCI Summary ...........................................................................................................26 Table 8. Constant PCI ‐ 2026 Condition Category Summary.................................................................27 Table 9. Plus 5 PCI Scenario..................................................................................................................28 Table 10. Plus 5 PCI ‐ 2026 Condition Category Summary....................................................................29 Table 11. Optimal PCI Scenario ............................................................................................................30 Table 12. Plus 5 PCI ‐ 2026 Condition Category Summary....................................................................31 Table 13. Unfunded PCI Scenario.........................................................................................................32 Table 14. Plus 5 PCI ‐ 2026 Condition Category Summary....................................................................33

130 of 541
Page | 4
Pavement Management Technical Assistance (P‐TAP) Round 22 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Pinole’s street network is 52.02 centerline miles in length and covers approximately 10,296,208 square feet of pavement.  This network is an essential asset and is among the most valuable assets maintained by the City.   This asset is worth over $130.8 million to replace1. Through the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Pavement Management Technical Assistance Program (P‐TAP), the City completed a comprehensive pavement management update that included field inspections and an update of the City’s pavement management software.  With the most recent inspection information and treatments, the City’s overall pavement condition index (PCI) is 57, which is classified as “At‐Risk to Fair” for MTC standards.  The PCI is a numerical rating from 0 – 100, with 0 being a failed street, and 100 being a brand new pavement.  Approximately 37.9% of the City’s roads have a PCI of 70 and above (Figure ES 1)
Figure ES  1 – Overview of City’s Current Pavement Condition 1 The valuation is assessed by the assumption of replacing the entire street network with a new street valued in today’s dollar.

37.9%

22.7%

22.5%

16.9%
Current Pavement Condition (%)
131 of 541
Page | 5
Pavement Management Technical Assistance (P‐TAP) Round 22 An adequately designed asphalt street typically lasts twenty years without the need of total reconstruction.  However, if conditions change, such as higher daily traffic usage, then reconstruction of the pavement may be warranted sooner.   Extending the life of the pavement with pavement preservation, as opposed to the replacement of pavement is the goal of a pavement management program.

Five budget scenarios were evaluated as part of the P‐TAP update.  AMS used the MTC StreetSaver pavement management software to run various budget scenarios.  Based on a series of assumptions, StreetSaver allocates available funds across the street network, recommends improvements, and forecasts future PCI if recommendations are implemented.

The five funding scenarios detailed below are five‐year projections and provides useful “what‐if” information on expected PCI and backlog values that may occur at different funding constraints.

Backlog is the cost of a project that is recommended for treatment in the first year but deferred to the following years due to funding constraints.  The following scenarios were analyzed and detailed below.

Scenario 1 – Current Budget
 Average funding of $1.0 million per year on maintenance and rehabilitation.  PCI decreases from 57 to 54
 Backlog increases from $31.8 to $48.0 million
 46% of City streets will have a PCI equal to or greater than 70 Scenario 2 – Constant PCI
 Average funding of $1.7 million per year for maintenance and rehabilitation  PCI is constant at 57 at the end of five years
 Backlog increases from $31.8 to $42.5 million
 50.2% of City streets will have a PCI equal to or greater than 70 132 of 541
Page | 6
Pavement Management Technical Assistance (P‐TAP) Round 22 Scenario 3 – Plus 5 PCI Increase
 Average funding of $3.0 million per year for maintenance and rehabilitation  PCI increases to 62 at the end of five years
 Backlog increases from $31.8 to $39.2 million
 62.2% of City streets will have a PCI equal to or greater than 70 Scenario 4 – Optimal PCI Conditions
 Average funding of $11 million per year for maintenance and rehabilitation  PCI increases to 84 at end of five years
 Backlog decreases from $31.8 to $1.8 million
 95.3% of City streets will have a PCI equal to or greater than 70 Scenario 5 – Unfunded Scenario
 Average funding of $0 million per year for maintenance and rehabilitation  PCI decreases to 47 at end of five years
 Backlog increases from $31.8 to $49.8 million
 32.0% of City streets will have a PCI equal to or greater than 70 Table ES 1 – Summary of different funding levels (Scenarios) Scenario 1. Current
Budget ($1M
Budget)
Scenario 2.

Constant
PCI
Scenario 3.

Plus 5 PCI
Increase
Scenario 4.

Optimal PCI
Conditions
Scenario 5.

Unfunded
$0 (PCI)
Average Yearly Budget   $1,000,000   $2,227,482   $3,470,017   $11,016,647   $0 Total Budget for 5 Years $5,000,000 $11,137,408 $17,350,084 $55,083,235 $0 Current PCI 57 57 57 57 57
Current Backlog $31,784,206 $31,784,206 $31,784,206 $31,784,206 $31,784,206 Current % in 'Good' condition 37.90% 37.90% 37.90% 37.90% 37.90% PCI after 5 years (change) 54 (‐3) 57 (0) 62 (+5) 84 (+27) 47 (‐10) Backlog after 5 years $48,087,650   $42,520,326   $39,243,160   $1,782,564   $49,794,929 % 'Good' in 5 years 41.4 50.9 62.2 95.1 31.9
% 'Fair' in 5 years 14.4 14.0 10.9 2.2 16.4
% 'Poor' in 5 years 17.8 8.8 1.5 1.5 25.4
% 'Very Poor' in 5 years 26.4 26.3 25.4 1.2 26.3
133 of 541
Page | 7
Pavement Management Technical Assistance (P‐TAP) Round 22

INTRODUCTION
Paved streets in the City of Pinole are among the many assets utilized by every resident, visitor, and business.  A good street network enhances public safety, promotes mobility, and enables economic activity.  The City is responsible for 52.02 centerline miles of roads or 118.63 lane miles2.  This asset comprises over 10.2 million square feet of asphalt concrete and is estimated at $130.8 million to replace.

AMS Consulting (AMS) was selected as the City’s Pavement Management Consultant through the MTC P‐TAP program.  The program helpslocal agenciesin the San Francisco Bay Area update their pavement management program through inspection surveys and reporting.  The program is designed to help agencies stretch their pavement expenditures by:
 Implementing, updating, and maintaining pavement management databases; and  Providing updated pavement condition data of the network and each street segment.

What is a Pavement Management System?
Pavement Management is the systematic process that is used to oversee the City’s paved surfaces by measuring the condition, tracking the maintenance and rehabilitation of pavement sections.  These pavement sections can be organized by area, zones, and functional classifications.  Effective pavement management strategies include condition assessment, life‐cycle costs analysis, and budget projections that can identify segments of pavement in need of maintenance or repair.

Please note, the pavement management software is a network‐level support tool for planning and budgeting purposes.  The City is not bound by StreetSaver’s recommendation and is not a substitute for sound engineering judgment.  Pavement management projects can be manually added or removed 2 Lane mile is equal to 5,280 linear feet multiplied by the number of lanes. 134 of 541
Page | 8
Pavement Management Technical Assistance (P‐TAP) Round 22 from the StreetSaver’s recommended sections selected for treatment based on other special considerations.

Why is a Pavement Management System important?
The City’s paved surfaces are a vital asset to the community.  It is essential that this asset is preserved and maintained.   The pavement management program seeks a balance between pavement maintenance and rehabilitation of existing surfaces.  The most cost‐effective way to correct any paved surface problem is to address issues when they first appear.  That is why funds are targeted to paved areas or sections rated in fair or good condition for preventative maintenance.  Without maintenance, these paved asphalt concrete surfaces would quickly deteriorate and be more expensive to fix in the future.

Scope
As part of the P‐TAP Round 22 grant, AMS was responsible for inspecting Arterial, Collector, and Residential streets.  For each pavement section, a Pavement Condition Index (PCI) score was assigned, which gives a numerical indication of the pavement's current condition.

The condition assessment results are used to determine the remaining useful life and develop on‐going major maintenance strategies.  Cost analysis also provides the City with an understanding of its short‐ term pavement needs.   This information projects the annual costs for maintenance and rehabilitation to bring the overall network PCI to optimal conditions. 135 of 541
Page | 9
Pavement Management Technical Assistance (P‐TAP) Round 22 CURRENT STATE OF ROADS
Road Network
The City’s road network is classified into three functional classifications:

Arterial
These roadways provide a high degree of mobility while allowing direct access to abutting properties.

These roadways serve major activity centers in an urban setting and have the highest volume and longest trip demand within a city. They interconnect other major corridors to accommodate trips entering and leaving the City. These roads also serve the need for “intra‐area” travel between the business district and outlying residential areas. An example of an arterial in Pinole is Pinole Valley Road.

Also, Arterials primarily serve intra‐urban or local travel, carrying traffic from Collector streets to and from other parts of the City and limited access roadways. Access to properties bordering these streets is subordinate to the primary function of moving traffic. The typical design speed on an arterial is 45 miles per hour, and it has two or four lanes. Parking is generally not provided on arterials.

Collector
The primary function of Collectorstreetsis a combination of access and mobility. These streets provide links between Local streets and Arterials. They are designed to serve neighborhood traffic rather than cross‐town traffic, including trips between adjacent neighborhoods. The design speed for collectors is typically 35 miles per hour. On‐street parking is usually provided. 136 of 541
Page | 10
Pavement Management Technical Assistance (P‐TAP) Round 22 Residential/Local
Unlike other categories, local roads are not intended for long‐distance travel except at the origin or destination end of a trip. These roads are typically classified by default after arterial and collector streets have been identified. Local roads provide the highest level of accessibility and carry no through traffic movement. The primary function of local streets is access to adjacent land uses. Parking is usually offered along local roads, and speed limits are typically 25 miles per hour.

Each street is not built the same and therefore does not share the same deterioration curves or have the same life expectancy.  Figure 1 is an example of the City’s current life expectancy for pavement.

The useful life for an arterial is much shorter than a residential street, which is due to the amount of traffic.

Figure 1. Pavement Life Expectancy
137 of 541
Page | 11
Pavement Management Technical Assistance (P‐TAP) Round 22 The City of Pinole owns and manages 52.02 centerline miles of pavement.   This equatesto 118.63 lane miles.  Table 1 is a summary of the City’s road network.

Table 1. City Network Summary Statistics
Functional
Classification
Total
Sections
Total
Center
Miles
Total Lane
Miles
Total Area
(SF) PCI
Arterial 25 7.26 24.97 2,113,863 58
Collector 23 7.3 18.75 1,655,413 51
Residential/Local 302 37.46 74.91 6,526,932 56
350.00 52.02 118.63 10,296,208

Pavement Condition Assessment
A pavement surface assessment is completed by identifying surface distresses within each pavement management section.  Inspections entail evaluating a representative sample (10% of the area) and identifying eight different types of pavement surface distresses; three severities (low, medium, and heavy), and quantifying them.   Figure 2 is an example of eight different surface distress types.

Inspectors use StreetSaver as a tool to calculate the condition of each management section.

StreetSaver is an industry‐standard (modified ASTM 6433) software used to generate a pavement rating known as a PCI (Pavement Condition Index).  A PCI rating index is a numerical value between 0 to 100, with 0 being a failed road and 100 being a brand‐new street (Figure 3).  The PCI is calculated using StreetSaver system algorithms that MTC developed. 138 of 541
Page | 12
Pavement Management Technical Assistance (P‐TAP) Round 22 Figure 2. Sample of Pavement Distress Types
Figure 3. Sample of PCI Condition Categories
Pavement Condition Index (PCI)
After the 2021 pavement management update and recent pavement projects (slurry and resurfacing), the City’s overall network PCI is 57 PCI. The overall network condition is a weighted average PCI, which is equal to each managementsection PCI multiplied by its area and divided by the network'stotal area. 139 of 541
Page | 13
Pavement Management Technical Assistance (P‐TAP) Round 22 Figure 4 is a street‐by‐street map of the pavement condition index.

Figure 4. Street‐by‐Street Map of Pavement Condition Index (2021) Local PCI Comparison
Figure 5 is a PCI comparison of local agencies Contra Costa County.  Results were obtained from the MTC Vital Signs website.  MTC results3 show that the City’s overall network PCI is 10 points below the San Francisco Bay Area average PCI (67).
3 PCI Results are from the latest MTC Pothole report 2019.

Current Condition Categories
Condition I ‐ Good to Excellent (PCI 70 ‐ 100)
Condition II/III ‐ At Risk to Fair (PCI 50 ‐ 69)
Condition IV ‐ Poor (PCI 25 ‐ 49)
Condition V ‐ Failed to Very Poor (PCI 0 ‐ 24)
140 of 541
Page | 14
Pavement Management Technical Assistance (P‐TAP) Round 22 Figure 5. Local Agency PCI Comparison
141 of 541
Page | 15
Pavement Management Technical Assistance (P‐TAP) Round 22 Table 2 is a breakdown of the City’s current road network pavement condition categories.

Approximately 37.9% of the City’s road network has a PCI of 70 or better.

Table 2. Current Pavement Condition Categories
Current Condition Categories Arterial Collector Residential Network Condition I ‐ Good to Excellent (PCI 70 ‐ 100) 9.1% 6.4% 22.5% 37.9% Condition II/III ‐ At Risk to Fair (PCI 50 ‐ 69) 4.2% 2.4% 16.1% 22.7% Condition IV ‐ Poor (PCI 25 ‐ 49) 5.9% 2.8% 13.8% 22.5% Condition V ‐ Failed to Very Poor (PCI 0 ‐ 24) 1.3% 4.6% 11.0% 16.9% Total 20.5% 16.2% 63.4% 100.0%
Maintenance and Rehabilitation Strategies
The City’s current maintenance activities vary from project to project; each maintenance activity is based upon the section’s functional classification (arterial, collector, and local), surface type, and PCI.

Figure 6 illustrates a general pavement life cycle curve.  The curve shows that pavements deteriorate only 40 percent in quality in the first 75 percent of theirlife; this deterioration subsequently accelerates rapidly, resulting in another 40 percent drop in quality in the next 12 percent of life.   Therefore, investing in preventative maintenance in the good streets(70 and above) can save the City a significant amount of money in rehabilitation and reconstruction costs in the future.  MTC recommends that the City continues its efforts in utilizing the recommended cost‐effective treatments such as crack seals, slurry seals, and microsurfacing.  City staff has reviewed the maintenance strategies, and AMS has updated the StreetSaver pavement management system.  Part of the update was to review and revise the system unit costs.  These unit costs are used to calculate total funding and budget need calculation.

These unit costs are “Total Project Costs” that include but are not limited to administration, construction, design, etc.
142 of 541
Page | 16
Pavement Management Technical Assistance (P‐TAP) Round 22 Figure 6. Standard Deterioration Curve
Types of Treatments for roads with a PCI between 70 – 100 (Light Maintenance) Crack Sealing4
Surface Crack is an inevitable distress and is one of the first signs of distress that occurs at the pavement surface.  If this distress is neglected over time, it can grow to a pothole and eventually sub‐ base failure if left untreated.  Crack Sealing is a cost‐effective treatment and can treat all types of cracks greater than 1/8”.   This treatment slows the deterioration and can extend a pavement life three to five years.

Fog Seals5
Fog Seal is a single application, typically light, of emulsified asphalt to an existing asphalt surface.  This maintenance treatment can be used to renew an oxidized road (weathered), improve the surface appearance, seal minor cracks and surface voids, and inhibit raveling.  This treatment extends the pavement life two to four years.
4 https://roadresource.org/treatment_resources/crack_seal 5 https://roadresource.org/treatment_resources/fog_seal $4.00/sy
$26.00/sy
$55.00/sy
$126.75/sy
143 of 541
Page | 17
Pavement Management Technical Assistance (P‐TAP) Round 22 Slurry Seals6
Slurry seal is a surface treatment designed to extend the life of asphalt pavements in good condition by providing skid resistance, restricting moisture intrusion, protecting the structure from further oxidation and raveling, and restoring a uniform black appearance. The slurry seal provides quick construction times and minimal disruption to the traveling public. This treatment can extend the life of the pavement by five to seven years.

Microsurfacing7
Microsurfacing is a surface treatment designed to extend the life of asphalt pavements in good condition by providing skid resistance, restricting moisture intrusion, protecting the structure from further oxidation and raveling, and restoring a uniform black appearance. It is the most economical choice when leveling is required. Micro surfacing boasts quick construction times and minimal disruption to the traveling public.  This treatment extends the pavement life six to eight years.

Types of Treatments for roads with a PCI between 60 – 90 (Heavy / Light Maintenance) Chip Seal8
A chip seal is a roadway surface treatment that consists of a layer(s) of asphalt binder (hot or emulsion) with a layer(s) of embedded aggregate. Chip seals provide a new skid‐resistant wearing surface, stops raveling, seals minor cracks, and retards further deterioration of the existing roadway.   Chip seal binders can be polymer‐modified to improve aggregate retention and provide for a quicker return to traffic.  This treatment can be used on roads with a PCI of 60 and above and can extend the pavement life five to seven years.

Cape Seals9
A cape seal is a roadway surface treatment designed to extend pavements' lives in fair to good condition, consisting of a chip seal treatment covered by a slurry seal or microsurfacing treatment.

Cape seals provide the benefits of both the chip seal and the slurry seal or micro surfacing treatment, 6 https://roadresource.org/treatment_resources/slurry_seal 7 https://roadresource.org/treatment_resources/micro_surfacing 8 https://roadresource.org/treatment_resources/chip_seal 9 https://roadresource.org/treatment_resources/cape_seal 144 of 541
Page | 18
Pavement Management Technical Assistance (P‐TAP) Round 22 namely sealing moderate cracks, providing skid resistance, sealing the pavement against moisture intrusion, protecting the structure further oxidation, and raveling, and restoring a uniform black appearance.

The chip seal can be polymer‐modified to improve aggregate retention and provide for a quicker return to traffic.  Cape seals boast short construction times and reasonable disruption to the traveling public.

This treatment excels in urban areas where stand‐alone chip seals are not be welcomed, but the need for sealing cracks is warranted.  This treatment can be used on roads with a PCI of 60 and above and can extend the pavement life eight to ten years.

Types of Treatments for roads with a PCI 69 or Less (Light / Heavy Rehab) Cold‐in‐Place Recycling
10 A cost‐effective, long‐lasting, greener alternative to conventional maintenance and rehabilitation techniques. Cold In‐place Recycling (CIR) is a process that cold mills and recycles the top 2‐5 inches of asphalt using a continuous train operation. CIR significantly reduces trucking, time, and natural resources to substantially lower project costs by reusing existing material. Generally, any road that is a candidate for mill & fill is a candidate for CIR.   This treatment adds fifteen‐twenty years with a combined appropriate wearing course.   This treatment is typically 20%‐50% less expensive than conventional maintenance and reconstruction methods.

Mill and AC Overlay ‐ Rehabilitation Treatment
This treatment targets streets in at‐risk to fair condition with signs of load‐related distresses with necessary profile grade adjustment.   The treatment consists of cold milling (also known as cold plane/grinding) the existing surface to a pre‐determined depth with specialized milling equipment to provide properly required grades.  A new layer of asphalt concrete is then placed after the completion of the milling operation.
10 https://roadresource.org/treatment_resources/cold_in_place_recycling 145 of 541
Page | 19
Pavement Management Technical Assistance (P‐TAP) Round 22 AC Overlay with Rubberized Chip Seal ‐ Rehabilitation Treatment This treatment targets streets in poor condition that need to be rehabilitated.   This construction method involves grinding the edges of the existing pavement, placing a 3/8” layer of asphalt‐rubber binder and aggregate pre‐coated with paving asphalt (called rubberized chip seal), and then placing a new surface course of 1.5” to 1.75” thick of asphalt concrete over the newly established chip seal layer.  This method is known as Stress Absorbing Membrane Interlayer (SAMI).  The rubberized chip seal interlayer provides increased flexibility and reduces the likelihood of surface reflective cracking.

Full‐Depth‐Reclamation (FDR)
FDR is a cost‐effective, long‐lasting, greener alternative to deep rehabilitation or removal and replacement techniques. Full Depth Reclamation (FDR) is an engineered rehabilitation technique. The entire thickness of the asphalt pavement and a predetermined portion of the underlying materials (base, subbase, and subgrade) is uniformly pulverized and blended to provide an upgraded, homogeneous material. The reclaimed materials may be improved and strengthened by using Mechanical, Chemical, or Bituminous stabilization. FDR isn't only for roads in poor condition; it is also a viable design process for increasing pavement's structural capacity in good condition.

Reconstruction
Pavement reconstruction is a treatment that is needed when a road has reached the end of its design life, or the pavement has severe cross‐section deficiencies due to traffic or environmental factors.  These roadstypically have a PCI of 25 and below, and reconstruction isrequired to restore the service life.  Reconstruction is equivalent to a new pavement that involves rebuilding the pavement layers from the ground up to replace the pavement.   This treatment is the most expensive in comparison to the other treatments in the maintenance strategy. 146 of 541
Page | 20
Pavement Management Technical Assistance (P‐TAP) Round 22 Pavement Needs
The pavement management program develops a maintenance strategy that will improve the road network's overall condition to an optimal PCI (79‐84 PCI range).  The overall weighted average PCI is 57 PCI, which falls under the “At‐Risk to Fair” Category.  This scenario answers the most common question, “if the City had all the money in the world, what would it cost to update the road network?” Table 3 below represents the 5‐Year breakdown to get the road network into optimal conditions and addressthe backlog.  Currently, the City’s backlog is approximately $31.8 million. The backlog is derived from the work scheduled in prior years but deferred due to insufficient funding resources.  Please note that the cost of the needs has been front‐loaded.  The front‐loaded costs are due to the pavement management system's need to bring the entire pavement network to optimal conditions and maintain those conditions for the next five years.   To keep the PCI at optimal levels, the City would need to spend approximately $55 million by the end of year 2026.  The pavement management software is more cost‐effective to repair the street in the first year rather than waiting to fix them in the subsequent years.  Generally speaking, roads appear to be in good condition for a long time; however, when roads fail, they fail quickly, and repair costs can increase if the recommended maintenance treatments are deferred.  Should the City not invest in maintenance or rehabilitation treatments on streets for the next five years, the overall network PCI will decrease to 47.

Table 3. 5‐Year Needs Breakdown
City Needs
Year PM Rehab Cost Total PCI
Treated
PCI
Untreated
2022 $520,919 $31,263,287 $31,784,206 79 57
2023 $112,469 $7,066,461 $7,178,930 80 54
2024 $39,254 $6,736,222 $6,775,476 82 52
2025 $49,785 $6,035,231 $6,085,016 84 49
2026 $54,886 $3,204,721 $3,259,607 84 47
$777,313 $54,305,922 $55,083,235
147 of 541
Page | 21
Pavement Management Technical Assistance (P‐TAP) Round 22 BUDGET SCENARIOS  Following the inspection of the City’s road network and analyzing maintenance and rehabilitation needs, the next step in developing a cost‐effective maintenance and rehabilitation strategy is to run “what‐if” scenarios.  The advantages of a pavement management program such as StreetSaver, the ability to forecast the treatments and conditions based on budget constraints or predict future costs based on targeted network PCI goals.  The following scenarios have been analyzed:

Scenario 1 – Current Budget
 Average funding of $1.0 million per year on maintenance and rehabilitation.  PCI decreases from 57 to 54
 Backlog increases from $31.8 to $48.0 million
 46% of City streets will have a PCI equal to or greater than 70 Scenario 2 – Constant PCI
 Average funding of $1.7 million per year for maintenance and rehabilitation  PCI is constant at 57 at the end of five years
 Backlog increases from $31.8 to $42.5 million
 50.2% of City streets will have a PCI equal to or greater than 70 Scenario 3 – Plus 5 PCI Increase
 Average funding of $3.0 million per year for maintenance and rehabilitation  PCI increases to 62 at the end of five years
 Backlog increases from $31.8 to $39.2 million
 62.2% of City streets will have a PCI equal to or greater than 70 Scenario 4 – Optimal PCI Conditions
 Average funding of $11 million per year for maintenance and rehabilitation  PCI increases to 84 at end of five years
 Backlog decreases from $31.8 to $1.8 million
 95.3% of City streets will have a PCI equal to or greater than 70 148 of 541
Page | 22
Pavement Management Technical Assistance (P‐TAP) Round 22 Scenario 5 – Unfunded Scenario
 Average funding of $0 million per year for maintenance and rehabilitation  PCI decreases to 47 at end of five years
 Backlog increases from $31.8 to $49.8 million
 32.0% of City streets will have a PCI equal to or greater than 70 Table 4. Scenario Summary
Scenario 1. Current
Budget ($1M
Budget)
Scenario 2.

Constant
PCI
Scenario 3.

Plus 5 PCI
Increase
Scenario 4.

Average
Needs
Scenario 5.

Unfunded
$0 (PCI)
Average Yearly Budget   $1,000,000   $2,227,482   $3,470,017   $11,016,647   $0 Total Budget for 5 Years $5,000,000 $11,137,408 $17,350,084 $55,083,235 $0 Current PCI 57 57 57 57 57
Current Backlog $31,784,206 $31,784,206 $31,784,206 $31,784,206 $31,784,206 Current % in 'Good' condition 37.90% 37.90% 37.90% 37.90% 37.90% PCI after 5 years (change) 54 (‐3) 57 (0) 62 (+5) 84 (+27) 47 (‐10) Backlog after 5 years $48,087,650   $42,520,326   $39,243,160   $1,782,564   $49,794,929 % 'Good' in 5 years 41.4 50.9 62.2 95.1 31.9
% 'Fair' in 5 years 14.4 14.0 10.9 2.2 16.4
% 'Poor' in 5 years 17.8 8.8 1.5 1.5 25.4
% 'Very Poor' in 5 years 26.4 26.3 25.4 1.2 26.3
149 of 541
Page | 23
Pavement Management Technical Assistance (P‐TAP) Round 22 Scenario 1 – Current Funding Scenario11
The City’s current budget is approximately $1 million per year or $5 million at the end of five years.  Implementing this budget scenario (Figure 7, Table 5) decreases the overall network PCI to 52 by the end of 2026.  By the end of the analysis, the backlog increases to $48.1 million.

Figure 7. Current Budget PCI and Backlog Breakdown
11 Estimated current budget values were obtained from: http://www.californiacityfinance.com/#TRANSPORTATION 150 of 541
Page | 24
Pavement Management Technical Assistance (P‐TAP) Round 22 Table 5. Current Budget Scenario
Scenario 1. Current Budget ($1M Budget)
Year Budget Backlog PCI
2022 $1,000,000 $30,784,625 58
2023 $1,000,000 $35,859,607 56
2024 $1,000,000 $41,267,710 54
2025 $1,000,000 $46,085,892 53
2026 $1,000,000 $48,087,650 52
Table 6 is a breakdown of the City’s network condition at the end of the year 2026.  Results show

41.4% of roads with a PCI of 70 or better.

Table 6. Current Budget ‐ 2026 Condition Category Summary Scenario 1.

Current
Budget
($1M
Budget)
% Change
at end of 5
years
% 'Good' in 5 years 41.4 3.5
% 'Fair' in 5 years 14.4 ‐8.3
% 'Poor' in 5 years 17.8 ‐4.7
% 'Very Poor' in 5 years 26.4 9.5
Figure 9 is a projected PCI map of 2026 if the current budget scenario is implemented. 151 of 541
Page | 25
Pavement Management Technical Assistance (P‐TAP) Round 22 Figure 8. Current Budget Map ‐ 2026 Condition Category Summary Current Condition Categories
Condition I ‐ Good to Excellent (PCI 70 ‐ 100)
Condition II/III ‐ At Risk to Fair (PCI 50 ‐ 69)
Condition IV ‐ Poor (PCI 25 ‐ 49)
Condition V ‐ Failed to Very Poor (PCI 0 ‐ 24)
152 of 541
Page | 26
Pavement Management Technical Assistance (P‐TAP) Round 22 Scenario 2 – Constant PCI
This scenario (Figure 9, Table 7) analyzes the cost to maintain the overall network PCI at 57 at the end of five years.  It would cost approximately $11.1 million to implement this scenario.  System results show that the overall backlog increases to $42.5 million at the of the year 2026.

Figure 9. Constant PCI and Backlog
Table 7. Constant PCI Summary
Scenario 2. Constant PCI
Year Budget Backlog PCI
2022 $289,700 $31,494,468 57
2023 $2,274,579 $34,946,634 57
2024 $3,012,092 $38,315,045 57
2025 $2,677,863 $41,410,446 57
2026 $2,883,174 $42,520,326 57
153 of 541
Page | 27
Pavement Management Technical Assistance (P‐TAP) Round 22 Approximately 50.9% (Table 8) of City streets will have a PCI equal to or greater than 70 PCI (Condition Category I).

Table 8. Constant PCI ‐ 2026 Condition Category Summary Scenario 2.

Constant
PCI
% Change
at end of 5
years
% 'Good' in 5 years 50.9 13.0
% 'Fair' in 5 years 14.0 ‐8.7
% 'Poor' in 5 years 8.8 ‐13.7
% 'Very Poor' in 5 years 26.3 9.4
Figure 10 is a projected PCI map of 2026 if the Constant PCI is implemented.

Figure 10. Constant PCI Map ‐ 2026 Condition Category Summary Current Condition Categories
Condition I ‐ Good to Excellent (PCI 70 ‐ 100)
Condition II/III ‐ At Risk to Fair (PCI 50 ‐ 69)
Condition IV ‐ Poor (PCI 25 ‐ 49)
Condition V ‐ Failed to Very Poor (PCI 0 ‐ 24)
154 of 541
Page | 28
Pavement Management Technical Assistance (P‐TAP) Round 22 Scenario 3 – Plus 5 PCI Increase
Figure 11, Table 9 represents the costs and impacts of increasing the overall network by 5 points to a PCI of 62.  Implementing this scenario would cost approximately $17.4 million by the end of five years.

System results show that the backlog increases to $39.2 million.

Figure 11. Plus 5 PCI Increase PCI and Backlog
Table 9. Plus 5 PCI Scenario
Scenario 3. Plus 5 PCI Increase
Year Budget Backlog PCI
2022 $5,212,807 $26,571,370 62
2023 $2,914,624 $31,137,891 62
2024 $3,393,069 $34,250,174 62
2025 $2,621,687 $38,540,630 62
2026 $3,207,897 $39,243,160 62
155 of 541
Page | 29
Pavement Management Technical Assistance (P‐TAP) Round 22 Approximately 62.2% (Table 10) of City streets will have a PCI equal to or greater than 70 PCI (Condition Category I).

Table 10. Plus 5 PCI ‐ 2026 Condition Category Summary
Scenario 3.

Plus 5 PCI
Increase
% Change
at end of 5
years
% 'Good' in 5 years 62.2 24.3
% 'Fair' in 5 years 10.9 ‐11.8
% 'Poor' in 5 years 1.5 ‐21.0
% 'Very Poor' in 5 years 25.4 8.5
Figure 12 is a projected PCI map of 2026 if the Plus 5 PCI Increase is implemented.

Figure 12. Plus 5 PCI Map ‐ 2026 Condition Category Summary 156 of 541
Page | 30
Pavement Management Technical Assistance (P‐TAP) Round 22 Scenario 4 – Optimal PCI Conditions
Figure 13, Table 11 represents the costs and impacts of bringing the City’s road network to optimal conditions. This scenario uses the City’s total needs and distributing the costs evenly over five years.

Distributing costs evenly equeates to approximately $11M/year for the next five years.  System results show that the City’sroad network achieves optimal PCI conditions, while the backlog decreasesto $1.8 million at the end of the year 2026.

Figure 13. Optimal PCI and Backlog
Table 11. Optimal PCI Scenario
Scenario 4. Optimal PCI Conditions
Year Budget Backlog PCI
2022 $11,016,647 $20,767,637 65
2023 $11,016,647 $17,384,359 69
2024 $11,016,647 $13,292,011 74
2025 $11,016,647 $9,003,266 79
2026 $11,016,647 $1,782,564 84
157 of 541
Page | 31
Pavement Management Technical Assistance (P‐TAP) Round 22 Approximately 95.1% (Table 12) of City streets will have a PCI equal to or greater than 70 PCI (Condition Category I).

Table 12. Plus 5 PCI ‐ 2026 Condition Category Summary
Scenario 4.

Optimal PCI
Conditions
% Change
at end of 5
years
% 'Good' in 5 years 95.1 57.2
% 'Fair' in 5 years 2.2 ‐20.5
% 'Poor' in 5 years 1.5 ‐21.0
% 'Very Poor' in 5 years 1.2 ‐15.7
Figure 14 is a projected PCI map of 2026 if the Optimal PCI is implemented.

Figure 14. Optimal PCI Map ‐ 2026 Condition Category Summary Current Condition Categories
Condition I ‐ Good to Excellent (PCI 70 ‐ 100)
Condition II/III ‐ At Risk to Fair (PCI 50 ‐ 69)
Condition IV ‐ Poor (PCI 25 ‐ 49)
Condition V ‐ Failed to Very Poor (PCI 0 ‐ 24)
158 of 541
Page | 32
Pavement Management Technical Assistance (P‐TAP) Round 22 Scenario 5 – Unfunded Scenario
Figure 15, Table 13 represents the costs and impacts of implementing an unfunded scenario.

Implementing this scenario would decrease the overall network PCI to 47, while the backlog would increase from $31.8 million to $49.8 million by the end of the year 2026.

Figure 15. Unfunded PCI and Backlog
Table 13. Unfunded PCI Scenario
Scenario 5. Unfunded $0 (PCI)
Year Budget Backlog PCI
2022 $0 $31,784,206 57
2023 $0 $37,518,280 54
2024 $0 $43,143,461 52
2025 $0 $47,634,604 49
2026 $0 $49,794,929 47
159 of 541
Page | 33
Pavement Management Technical Assistance (P‐TAP) Round 22 Approximately 31.9% (Table 14) of City streets will have a PCI equal to or greater than 70 PCI (Condition Category I).

Table 14. Plus 5 PCI ‐ 2026 Condition Category Summary
Scenario 5.

Unfunded
$0 (PCI)
% Change
at end of 5
years
% 'Good' in 5 years 31.9 ‐6.0
% 'Fair' in 5 years 16.4 ‐6.3
% 'Poor' in 5 years 25.4 2.9
% 'Very Poor' in 5 years 26.3 9.4
Figure 16 is a projected PCI map of 2026 if the Unfunded PCI is implemented.

Figure 16. Unfunded PCI Map ‐ 2026 Condition Category Summary Current Condition Categories
Condition I ‐ Good to Excellent (PCI 70 ‐ 100)
Condition II/III ‐ At Risk to Fair (PCI 50 ‐ 69)
Condition IV ‐ Poor (PCI 25 ‐ 49)
Condition V ‐ Failed to Very Poor (PCI 0 ‐ 24)
160 of 541
Page | 34
Pavement Management Technical Assistance (P‐TAP) Round 22 CONCLUSIONS  The City of Pinole currently has 52.02 centerline miles of paved roads or 118.63 lane miles. After updating the City’s pavement management system with inspections and recent maintenance and rehabilitation treatments, the City’s overall network condition is 57 PCI.  Approximately 37.9% of the City’s road network has a PCI of 70 or better.  The City’s current backlog is about $31.8 million.

The first recommended scenario the City should consider is the Optimal PCI Conditions/Optimal PCI Scenario.   This scenario distributes the total needs' costs evenly over five years and averages to approximately $11 million per year.  System resultsshow that the City’sroad network achieves optimal PCI conditions (Figure 17), while the backlog decreases to $1.8 million at the end of the year 2026 (Figure 18).  In addition, this scenario shows that 95.1% of City streets will have a PCI of 70 or better.

The second scenario recommended is increasing the overall network by 5 PCI points to 62 (Figure 17).

This scenario shows that it would cost approximately $3.5 million per year or $17.4 million by the end of five years. Results also show that the backlog increases to $39.2 million (Figure 18).  In addition, this scenario shows that 62.2% of City streets will have a PCI of 70 or better.

The third scenario recommended is keeping the overall network PCI constant at 57 at the end of five years (Figure 17).  In order to maintain a constant PCI it would cost approximately $11.1 million by  the end of 2026.  Results show that the backlog increases to $42.5 million (Figure 18), while 50.9% of City streets will have a PCI of 70 or better.

The fourth scenario recommended is using the City’s current budget of $5 million over five years.

System results show that implementing this scenario decreases the overall network PCI to 54 (Figure 17), while the backlog increasesto $48 million (Figure 18). In addition, 41.4% of City streets will have a PCI of 70 or better.
161 of 541
Page | 35
Pavement Management Technical Assistance (P‐TAP) Round 22 The fifth and least recommended in comparison to the otherscenariostested isthe unfunded PCI.  This scenario shows that the overall network PCI decreases to 47 (Figure 17), while the backlog increases to $49.8 million (Figure 18).  32.0% of city streets will have a PCI of 70 or better.

Figure 17. 5‐Year Scenario PCI Summary
162 of 541
Page | 36
Pavement Management Technical Assistance (P‐TAP) Round 22 Figure 18. 5‐Year Scenario Backlog Summary
163 of 541
Page | 37
Pavement Management Technical Assistance (P‐TAP) Round 22

APPENDICES
SECTION I – PCI REPORT
SECTION II – NEEDS AND NETWORK SUMMARY STATISTICS
SECTION II – NETWORK CONDITION AND COST SUMMARY
SECTION IV – SECTIONS SELECTED FOR TREATMENT
SECTION V – OTHER BACKUP DOCUMENTS
164 of 541
Pavement Management Technical Assistance (P‐TAP) Round 22 SECTION I
 PCI REPORT1 (sorted by Road Name)
1 Summer 2021 Projects have been entered and calculated 165 of 541

SECTION PCI
The Section PCI contains a PCI reported sorted by Street Name (ascending) ST ID – Street Identification
SEC ID – Street Section Identification
STREET NAME – Street Name
BEGIN LOCATION – Start of the management section
END LOCATION – End of the management section
FC – This is a group of streets or roadway subsystems that are classified pending on the level of service and traffic.

A – Arterial
C – Collector
R – Residential/Local
O – Other (user defined)
SURFACE TYPE – Type of pavement surface. A – Asphalt Concrete, O – Asphalt Concrete over Asphalt Concrete P-Portland Cement Concrete,
LENGTH – Length of management section
WIDTH – Width of management section
AREA – Area of management section
LAST M&R TREATMENT – Recent treatment (maintenance or rehabilitation) M&R DATE – Date of most recent treatment
PCI – Pavement Condition Index of the management section – Last Calculated PCI The Pavement Condition Index is a rating derived from the Pavement Management System (PMS). The rating is based from the visual distress inspection information that consists of the MTC inspection guidelines (Alligator Cracking, Block Cracking, Distortion, Longitudinal and Transverse Cracking, Rutting, and Weathering and Raveling) or any maintenance and rehabilitation information that was entered into the PMS.
166 of 541

Below are images of what streets look like in the condition category:

CONDITION CATEGORY RATING
Condition Category I (PCI 70 – 100, Pavement is classified in Very good to excellent condition and has little distress).

Condition Category II/III (PCI 51-69, Pavements are classified in the Good Category and have significant non-load and load related distresses).
167 of 541

Condition Category Good IV (PCI 26-50, Pavement are classified in the Poor Category and have major distress).

Condition Category V (PCI 0 – 25, Pavement is classified in the very poor to failed category and has extensive amounts of major distress)
168 of 541
City of Pinole
Printed: 4/25/2022
Section PCI/RSL Listing
Street ID Section ID Length Width Area Functional Class Surface Type Current
Street Name From To PCI
Remaining
Life
2NDAVE 010 2ND AVENUE NOB HILL AVE SAN PABLO AVE 566 27 15,282 R - Residential/Local A - AC 47 8.45 3RDAVE 010 3RD AVENUE NOB HILL AVE SAN PABLO AVE 585 27 15,795 R - Residential/Local A - AC 60 15.45 4THAVE 010 4TH AVENUE MARLESTA AVE NOB HILL AVE 263 26 6,838 R - Residential/Local O - AC/AC 85 40.03 4THAVE 020 4TH AVENUE NOB HILL AVE SAN PABLO AVE 611 26 15,886 R - Residential/Local A - AC 62 16.74 5THAVE 010 5TH AVENUE NOB HILL AVE SAN PABLO AVE 656 26 17,056 R - Residential/Local A - AC 86 29.94 ADOBE 005 ADOBE ROAD PINOLE VALLEY RD PAVEMENT CHANGE 621 21 13,041 R - Residential/Local A - AC 93 33.33 ADOBE 015 ADOBE ROAD PAVEMENT CHANGE CUL-DE-SAC 318 34 10,812 R - Residential/Local A - AC 92 32.83 010 ALAMO STREET ESTATES AVE 100 FT. EAST OF 968 32 30,976 R - Residential/Local A - AC 21

HIGUERA AVE
ALAMO 0.00
020 ALAMO STREET 100 FT. EAST OF 1,086 32 34,752 R - Residential/Local A - AC 46

HIGUERA AVE
ALAMO PONDEROSA TR 7.78
ALBERC 010 ALBERDAN CIRCLE SHAWN DR SHAWN DR 2,001 36 72,036 R - Residential/Local A - AC 29 1.36 ALBECT 010 ALBERDAN COURT ALBERDAN CIR CUL DE SAC 211 36 7,596 R - Residential/Local A - AC 15 0.00 ALFRED 010 ALFRED DRIVE BELFAIR DR HAZEL ST 376 31 11,656 R - Residential/Local A - AC 85 29.35 ALHAMB 010 ALHAMBRA WAY MORAGA DR CUL DE SAC 1,568 36 56,448 R - Residential/Local A - AC 56 12.29 ALICE 010 ALICE WAY HENRY AVE HENRY AVE 2,171 31 67,301 R - Residential/Local A - AC 51 10.38 ALTAMI 010 ALTAMIRANO CIRCLE FRANCISCA CT FRANCISCA CT 628 24 15,072 R - Residential/Local A - AC 85 37.16 ALVARE 010 ALVAREZ AVENUE SAN PABLO AVE GATE 672 29 19,488 R - Residential/Local A - AC 46 7.59 AMEND 010 AMEND STREET MANN DR CUL DE SAC 973 36 35,028 R - Residential/Local A - AC 92 32.83 ANNECT 010 ANNE COURT HENRY AVE CUL DE SAC 174 31 5,394 R - Residential/Local A - AC 56 13.10 ANTONI 010 ANTONIA CIRCLE OAK RIDGE RD OAK RIDGE RD 994 24 23,856 R - Residential/Local A - AC 75 23.03 ANTOCT 010 ANTONIA COURT ANTONIA CIRCLE CUL DE SAC 279 33 9,207 R - Residential/Local A - AC 85 36.31 APPACT 010 APPALOOSA COURT GOULARTE DR CUL DE SAC 388 30 11,640 R - Residential/Local A - AC 42 5.83 APPATR 010 APPALOOSA TRAIL SIMAS AVE BUCKSKIN RD 222 52 11,544 R - Residential/Local A - AC 27 0.68 APPATR 020 APPALOOSA TRAIL BUCKSKIN RD GOULARTE DR 802 45 36,090 R - Residential/Local A - AC 40 5.20 APPIAN 010 APPIAN WAY SOUTH CITY LIMITS MICHAEL DR 1,386 54 74,844 A - Arterial A - AC 30 1.23 APPIAN 020 APPIAN WAY MICHAEL DR I-80 EAST ON RAMP 1,237 74 91,538 A - Arterial O - AC/AC 79 22.50 APPIAN 030 APPIAN WAY I-80 EAST ON RAMP I-80 WEST ON RAMP 482 74 35,668 A - Arterial O - AC/AC 79 22.50 APPIAN 040 APPIAN WAY I-80 WEST ON RAMP MANN DR 1,276 76 96,976 A - Arterial O - AC/AC 80 23.28 APPIAN 050 APPIAN WAY MANN DR SAN PABLO AVE 3,276 61 199,836 A - Arterial O - AC/AC 80 23.28 ARROYO 010 ARROYO AVENUE MADERA ST VICTOR ST 566 32 18,112 R - Residential/Local A - AC 62 16.19 AVISWY 010 AVIS WAY SHEA DR HOUSE #3130 500 32 16,000 R - Residential/Local A - AC 28 1.00 AVISWY 020 AVIS WAY HOUSE #3130 CUL DE SAC 295 32 9,440 R - Residential/Local A - AC 34 3.26 BANTRY 010 BANTRY ROAD O`CONNOR RD HANLEY DR 724 33 23,892 R - Residential/Local A - AC 61 15.85 BARKLE 010 BARKLEY COURT KILDARE WAY CUL DE SAC 482 36 17,352 R - Residential/Local A - AC 14 0.00 BARRET 010 BARRETT COURT PONDEROSA TR CUL DE SAC 163 36 5,868 R - Residential/Local A - AC 74 22.40 Criteria: 1 MTC StreetSaver
169 of 541
Street ID Section ID Length Width Area Functional Class Surface Type Current
Street Name From To PCI
Remaining
Life
BAYVIE 010 BAY VIEW FARM ROAD SUNNYVIEW DR HOUSE #1059 333 38 12,654 R - Residential/Local A - AC 87 30.74 BAYVIE 020 BAY VIEW FARM ROAD HOUSE #1059 PINON AVE 1,352 38 51,376 R - Residential/Local A - AC 53 11.33 BELDEN 010 BELDIN STREET APPIAN WAY CUL-DE-SAC 405 38 15,390 R - Residential/Local A - AC 47 7.77 BELFAI 010 BELFAIR DRIVE BAYVIEW FARM RD PINON AVE 1,413 31 43,803 R - Residential/Local A - AC 67 20.23 BELMON 010 BELMONT WAY MARLESTA RD CUL-DE-SAC 734 36 26,198 R - Residential/Local O - AC/AC 79 31.71 BELMON 020 BELMONT WAY SAN PABLO END 228 28 6,384 R - Residential/Local A - AC 26 0.44 BERNAR 010 BERNARDO COURT OAK RIDGE RD CUL DE SAC 228 31 7,068 R - Residential/Local A - AC 85 37.16 BETTY 010 BETTY AVENUE MEADOW AVE EAST MEADOW AVE 407 24 9,768 R - Residential/Local A - AC 47 8.19 BLUEJA 010 BLUE JAY CIRCLE GALBRETH RD END OF LOOP 1,212 25 30,300 R - Residential/Local A - AC 89 41.94 BOXCAN 010 BOX CANYON ROAD BUCKSKIN RD DEAD END 295 31 9,145 R - Residential/Local A - AC 45 7.20 BOYLE 010 BOYLE COURT KILKENNY WAY CUL DE SAC 203 36 7,308 R - Residential/Local A - AC 43 6.43 BRANDT 010 BRANDT COURT PINOLE VALLEY RD CUL DE SAC 244 34 8,296 R - Residential/Local A - AC 0 0.00 BRAZIL 010 BRAZIL COURT WRIGHT AVE DEAD END 485 36 17,460 R - Residential/Local A - AC 13 0.00 BRENDA 010 BRENDA COURT BELFAIR DR CUL DE SAC 214 31 6,634 R - Residential/Local A - AC 92 32.83 BRETT 010 BRETT COURT PINON AVE CUL DE SAC 371 34 12,614 R - Residential/Local A - AC 91 32.47 BUCKSK 010 BUCKSKIN ROAD APPALOOSA TR SHADY DRAW 736 31 22,816 R - Residential/Local A - AC 38 4.66 BUENAV 010 BUENA VISTA DRIVE QUINAN AVE/PARK DR HOUSE #440 1,507 23 34,661 R - Residential/Local O - AC/AC 66 17.72 BUENAV 020 BUENA VISTA DRIVE HOUSE #440 END OF LOOP 788 23 18,124 R - Residential/Local O - AC/AC 93 46.23 CALAIS 010 CALAIS DRIVE CUL DE SAC (EAST) ORLEANS DR 915 24 21,960 R - Residential/Local A - AC 18 0.00 CANYON 010 CANYON DRIVE APPIAN WAY EL TORO WAY 1,144 38 43,472 R - Residential/Local A - AC 87 39.28 CANYON 020 CANYON DRIVE EL TORO WAY FOOTHILL AVE 1,176 38 44,688 R - Residential/Local A - AC 35 3.35 CAROLO 431 CARLOTTA CIRCLE GATELY DRIVE GATELY DRIVE 1,403 33 46,299 R - Residential/Local A - AC 71 23.29 CARMEL 010 CARMELITA WAY RAMONA ST DEAD END 1,372 36 49,392 R - Residential/Local A - AC 20 0.00 CARMEN 010 CARMEN COURT GOULARTE DR CUL DE SAC 155 30 4,650 R - Residential/Local A - AC 36 3.88 CAROL 010 CAROL STREET WRIGHT AVE REMUDA WAY 1,409 36 50,724 R - Residential/Local A - AC 20 0.00 CHAPPA 010 CHAPPARAL COURT TAMALPAIS DR CUL DE SAC 425 32 13,600 R - Residential/Local A - AC 14 0.00 CHARLE 010 CHARLES ST VALLEY RD SAN PABLO AVE 534 33 17,622 R - Residential/Local A - AC 57 13.06 CHRIST 010 CHRISTIAN COURT PONDEROSA TR CUL DE SAC 272 36 9,792 R - Residential/Local A - AC 71 20.56 CLARK 010 CLARK COURT FARIA AVE CUL DE SAC 429 32 13,728 R - Residential/Local A - AC 84 32.97 COLINA 010 COLINA COURT SAVAGE AVE CUL DE SAC 137 30 4,110 R - Residential/Local A - AC 85 35.97 010A COLLINS AVENUE PINOLE VALLEY RD - 614 32 19,648 R - Residential/Local A - AC 75

WEST ENTRANCE
COLLIN TOMAR CT 24.61
010B COLLINS AVENUE TOMAR CT PINOLE VALLEY RD - 754 32 24,128 R - Residential/Local A - AC 75

EAST ENTRANCE
COLLIN 24.61
COLUSA 010 COLUSA STREET ESTATES AVE LA REINA ST 2,486 36 89,496 R - Residential/Local A - AC 66 19.23 CORTE 010 CORTE CRUZ COURT HOKE DR CUL DE SAC 544 33 17,952 R - Residential/Local O - AC/AC 93 46.23 COSTA 010 COSTA COURT HOKE DR CUL DE SAC 421 31 13,051 R - Residential/Local A - AC 44 6.62 Printed: 4/25/2022
City of Pinole Section PCI/RSL Listing
Criteria: 2 MTC StreetSaver
170 of 541
Street ID Section ID Length Width Area Functional Class Surface Type Current
Street Name From To PCI
Remaining
Life
CRESTV 010 CRESTVIEW DRIVE SAN PABLO AVE END OF LOOP 2,339 31 72,509 R - Residential/Local A - AC 87 30.51 CUADRA 010 CUADRA COURT TENNENT AVE DEAD END 382 32 12,224 R - Residential/Local A - AC 58 13.98 CURRAN 010 CURRAN COURT PONDEROSA TR CUL DE SAC 356 36 12,816 R - Residential/Local A - AC 47 8.40 CURRYC 432 CURRY COURT CARLOTTA CIRCLE CUL-DE-SAC 101 37 3,737 R - Residential/Local A - AC 73 25.07 DALESS 010 DALESSI DRIVE APPIAN WAY END 400 33 13,200 R - Residential/Local A - AC 2 0.00 DANNY 010 DANNY COURT BAYVIEW FARM RD CUL DE SAC 405 36 14,580 R - Residential/Local A - AC 84 34.64

DE LA BRIANDAIS
COURT
DELABR 010 GOULARTE DR CUL DE SAC 568 30 17,040 R - Residential/Local A - AC 38 4.42 DEANCT 010 DEAN COURT PONDEROSA TR CUL DE SAC 379 36 13,644 R - Residential/Local A - AC 53 11.40 DELARO 010 DEL AROSA COURT STOKES AVE CUL DE SAC 126 27 3,402 R - Residential/Local A - AC 17 0.00 DELMON 010 DEL MONTE DRIVE PINOLE SHORES DR CITY LIMITS 701 30 21,030 R - Residential/Local A - AC 49 9.32 DELMON 020 DEL MONTE DRIVE SAN PABLO AVE BRIDGE 525 37 19,425 R - Residential/Local A - AC 7 0.00 DIABLO 010 DIABLO CIRCLE SIMAS AVE SIMAS AVE 1,081 32 34,592 R - Residential/Local A - AC 93 33.33 DIABCT 010 DIABLO COURT SIMAS AVE CUL DE SAC 492 32 15,744 R - Residential/Local A - AC 23 0.00 DOIDGE 010 DOIDGE AVENUE WRIGHT AVE MOORE CT 1,366 35 47,810 R - Residential/Local A - AC 50 9.19 DOIDGE 020 DOIDGE AVENUE MOORE CT MARCUS ST 2,144 31 66,464 R - Residential/Local A - AC 0 0.00 DOIDGE 030 DOIDGE AVENUE MARCUS ST WRIGHT AVE 881 35 30,835 R - Residential/Local A - AC 6 0.00 DOIDGE 040 DOIDGE AVENUE WRIGHT AVE DEAD END 1,577 31 48,887 R - Residential/Local A - AC 26 0.40 DOLORE 010 DOLORES COURT PINOLE VALLEY RD CUL DE SAC 311 31 9,641 R - Residential/Local A - AC 21 0.00 DOOLIN 010 DOOLIN COURT KILLARNEY RD CUL DE SAC 190 29 5,510 R - Residential/Local A - AC 52 10.38 DORACT 010 DORA COURT FRANCIS DR CUL DE SAC 406 31 12,586 R - Residential/Local A - AC 56 13.09 DOWNER 010 DOWNER STREET PINOLE VALLEY RD HENRY AVE 1,394 37 51,578 R - Residential/Local A - AC 89 31.72 DUNCAN 010 DUNCAN ROAD SARAH DR DEAD END 412 38 15,656 R - Residential/Local A - AC 35 3.41 DUTRA 010 DUTRA COURT HAZEL ST CUL DE SAC 189 31 5,859 R - Residential/Local A - AC 74 22.41

EAST MEADOW
AVENUE
EMEADO 010 MEADOW AVE MEADOW AVE 1,211 24 29,064 R - Residential/Local A - AC 64 18.06 EBSEN 010 EBSEN COURT SARAH DR CUL DE SAC 213 36 7,668 R - Residential/Local O - AC/AC 79 31.69 ELTORO 010 EL TORO WAY CANYON DR CUL DE SAC 739 32 23,648 R - Residential/Local A - AC 73 24.58 ELLERH 010 ELLERHORST STREET TENNENT AVE DEAD END 303 36 10,908 R - Residential/Local A - AC 5 0.00 ELMST 020 ELM STREET LAUREL AVE FERN AVE 213 28 5,964 R - Residential/Local O - AC/AC 37 4.71 EMMADR 010 EMMA DRIVE ALICE WAY HENRY AVE 1,737 31 53,847 R - Residential/Local A - AC 61 15.84 ENCINA 010 ENCINA AVENUE ROBLE AVE DEAD END 386 28 10,808 R - Residential/Local A - AC 56 13.10 ENLOWC 010 ENLOW COURT PONDEROSA TR CUL DE SAC 245 36 8,820 R - Residential/Local A - AC 83 28.25 ESTATE 010 ESTATES AVENUE SIMAS AVE RAMONA ST 2,330 38 88,540 C - Collector A - AC 94 22.65 ESTATE 020 ESTATES AVENUE RAMONA ST PINOLE VALLEY RD 2,090 38 79,420 C - Collector A - AC 34 1.80 ESTREL 010 ESTRELLA COURT PINOLE VALLEY RD CUL DE SAC 174 27 4,698 R - Residential/Local A - AC 18 0.00 FAHEY 010 FAHEY COURT HENRY AVE CUL DE SAC 228 31 7,068 R - Residential/Local A - AC 57 13.67 Printed: 4/25/2022
City of Pinole Section PCI/RSL Listing
Criteria: 3 MTC StreetSaver
171 of 541
Street ID Section ID Length Width Area Functional Class Surface Type Current
Street Name From To PCI
Remaining
Life
FARIAV 010 FARIA AVENUE ESTATES AVE CLARK CT 500 32 16,000 R - Residential/Local A - AC 13 0.00 FARIAV 020 FARIA AVENUE CLARK CT PONDEROSA TR 1,427 38 54,226 R - Residential/Local A - AC 55 12.54 FARICT 010 FARIA COURT FARIA AVE CUL DE SAC 104 61 6,344 R - Residential/Local A - AC 50 9.89 FERNAV 010 FERN AVENUE SAN PABLO AVE VALLEYVIEW ST 519 28 14,532 R - Residential/Local O - AC/AC 93 46.23 FERNAN 010 FERNANDEZ AVENUE PRUNE ST PEAR ST 401 34 13,634 R - Residential/Local A - AC 2 0.00 FERNAN 015 FERNANDEZ AVENUE PEAR ST SAN PABLO AVE 148 29 4,292 R - Residential/Local A - AC 59 13.82 010 FITGERALD DRIVE CALTRANS RIGHT OF 892 82 73,144 C - Collector O - AC/AC 57 WAY
FITZGE JOVITA LN 10.03
FITZGE 020 FITGERALD DRIVE JOVITA LN APPIAN WAY 3,198 70 223,860 C - Collector O - AC/AC 81 25.98 FLAMIN 010 FLAMINGO COURT GALBRETH RD CUL DE SAC 234 33 7,722 R - Residential/Local A - AC 90 32.00 FOOTHI 010 FOOTHILL AVENUE CANYON DR RIDGECREST RD 827 38 31,426 R - Residential/Local A - AC 18 0.00 FRANCI 15 FRANCIS DRIVE CUL DE SAC DEAD END (NORTH) 2,042 32 65,344 R - Residential/Local A - AC 58 14.26 FRANCT 010 FRANCISCA COURT OAK RIDGE RD CUL DE SAC 864 32 27,648 R - Residential/Local A - AC 86 29.98 FRASER 010 FRASER COURT FRANCIS DR CUL DE SAC 509 31 15,779 R - Residential/Local A - AC 85 29.57 GALBRE 15A GALBRETH ROAD PINOLE VALLEY RD BLUE JAY CIR 2,026 33 66,858 R - Residential/Local A - AC 90 42.83 GALBRE 15B GALBRETH ROAD BLUE JAY CIR END OF CUL DE SAC 608 33 20,064 R - Residential/Local A - AC 90 42.83 GARRIT 010 GARRITY COURT PONDEROSA TR CUL DE SAC 476 36 17,136 R - Residential/Local A - AC 32 2.57 GATLEY 010 GATLEY DRIVE PINOLE SHORES DRIVE CARLOTTA CIR 119 25 2,975 R - Residential/Local A - AC 79 25.58 GEOFFR 010 GEOFFREY COURT SARAH DR CUL DE SAC 158 26 4,108 R - Residential/Local A - AC 34 3.08 GERZCT 010 GERZ COURT ESTATES AVE CUL DE SAC 227 32 7,264 R - Residential/Local A - AC 81 26.84 GLENCT 010 GLEN COURT MARIONOLA WAY CUL DE SAC 382 32 12,224 R - Residential/Local A - AC 90 32.00 GOULAR 010 GOULARTE DRIVE MENDOCINO CT APPALOOSA TR 1,212 38 46,056 R - Residential/Local A - AC 42 5.99 GOULAR 020 GOULARTE DRIVE APPALOOSA TR POULOS CT 892 30 26,760 R - Residential/Local A - AC 33 2.79 GRANAD 010 GRANADA COURT PINOLE VALLEY RD CUL DE SAC 431 27 11,637 R - Residential/Local A - AC 15 0.00 GREENF 010 GREENFIELD CIRCLE RIDGECREST DR END OF LOOP 1,228 25 30,700 R - Residential/Local A - AC 22 0.00 HAMILT 010 HAMILTON DRIVE DOIDGE AVE DEAD END 329 35 11,515 R - Residential/Local A - AC 17 0.00 HANLCT 010 HANLEY COURT MARLESTA RD CUL DE SAC 276 30 8,280 R - Residential/Local A - AC 63 17.18 HANLDR 010 HANLEY DRIVE LIMERICK RD MARLESTA RD 480 38 18,240 R - Residential/Local A - AC 84 34.41 HANSEN 010 HANSEN PLACE ROBLE AVE CUL DE SAC 236 26 6,136 R - Residential/Local A - AC 47 8.13 HAZEL 005 HAZEL STREET SUNNYVIEW DR DEAD END 270 36 9,720 R - Residential/Local A - AC 87 30.74 HAZEL 015 HAZEL STREET DEAD END PINON AVE 798 36 28,728 R - Residential/Local A - AC 57 13.38 HELENA 010 HELENA COURT PINOLE VALLEY RD CUL DE SAC 252 27 6,804 R - Residential/Local A - AC 17 0.00 HEMLEB 010 HEMLEB COURT BAYVIEW FARM RD CUL DE SAC 501 31 15,531 R - Residential/Local A - AC 84 28.75 HENRY 010 HENRY AVENUE RIDGECREST RD LEWIS LN 266 38 10,108 R - Residential/Local A - AC 59 12.39 HENRY 020 HENRY AVENUE LEWIS LN OAK RIDGE DR 1,044 38 39,672 R - Residential/Local A - AC 87 30.74 HENRY 030 HENRY AVENUE OAK RIDGE DR PINOLE VALLEY RD 1,901 38 72,238 R - Residential/Local A - AC 87 30.74 HENRY 040 HENRY AVENUE PINOLE VALLEY RD ALICE WAY 1,606 37 59,422 R - Residential/Local A - AC 66 19.23 Printed: 4/25/2022
City of Pinole Section PCI/RSL Listing
Criteria: 4 MTC StreetSaver
172 of 541
Street ID Section ID Length Width Area Functional Class Surface Type Current
Street Name From To PCI
Remaining
Life
HENRY 050 HENRY AVENUE ALICE WAY FRANCIS DR 926 37 34,262 R - Residential/Local A - AC 86 29.98 HENRY 060 HENRY AVENUE FRANCIS DR DEAD END 1,437 31 44,547 R - Residential/Local A - AC 69 19.36 HERMCT 010 HERMOSA COURT ESTATES AVE CUL DE SAC 141 27 3,807 R - Residential/Local A - AC 51 9.90 HERMST 010 HERMOSA STREET ESTATES AVE LUCAS ST 940 32 30,080 R - Residential/Local A - AC 65 18.49 HERMST 020 HERMOSA STREET LUCAS AVE SIMAS AVE 1,217 32 38,944 R - Residential/Local A - AC 87 38.83 HIGUER 010 HIGUERA AVENUE RAMONA ST ALAMO ST 379 32 12,128 R - Residential/Local A - AC 89 31.42 HILLVI 010 HILL VIEW LANE FARIA AVE PONDEROSA TR 1,079 36 38,844 R - Residential/Local A - AC 70 19.96 HOKECT 010 HOKE COURT CORTE CRUZ CUL DE SAC 552 33 18,216 R - Residential/Local O - AC/AC 94 51.00 HOKEDR 010 HOKE DRIVE SHEA DR CORTE CRUZ 951 36 34,236 R - Residential/Local A - AC 14 0.00 HOLLID 010 HOLLIDAY COURT PONDEROSA TR CUL DE SAC 207 36 7,452 R - Residential/Local A - AC 55 12.41 HOYTT 010 HOYTT COURT PINOLE VALLEY RD CUL DE SAC 138 31 4,278 R - Residential/Local A - AC 39 4.88 HUTCHI 010 HUTCHINSON COURT PINON AVE CUL DE SAC 521 34 17,714 R - Residential/Local A - AC 86 29.98 IGNACI 010 IGNACIO COURT OAK RIDGE RD CUL DE SAC 106 40 4,240 R - Residential/Local A - AC 87 30.74 JOHANN 010 JOHANNA COURT PINOLE VALLEY RD CUL DE SAC 242 27 6,534 R - Residential/Local A - AC 62 16.05 JOHNST 010 JOHN STREET SAN PABLO AVE PRIVATE DRIVE 686 25 17,150 R - Residential/Local A - AC 89 31.42 JONES 010 JONES AVENUE SAN PABLO AVE GATE 700 19 13,300 R - Residential/Local A - AC 41 5.68 JORDAN 010 JORDAN WAY WRIGHT AVE CUL DE SAC 625 36 22,500 R - Residential/Local A - AC 0 0.00 JULIA 010 JULIA COURT PINOLE VALLEY RD CUL DE SAC 137 27 3,699 R - Residential/Local A - AC 22 0.00 KELLEY 010 KELLEY COURT MANN DR CUL DE SAC 234 26 6,084 R - Residential/Local A - AC 73 24.96 KENMAR 010 KENMAR COURT MARLESTA RD CUL DE SAC 254 30 7,620 R - Residential/Local A - AC 66 19.39 KILDAR 010 KILDARE WAY SHAWN DR TARA HILLS DR 1,289 36 46,404 R - Residential/Local A - AC 23 0.00 KILDAR 020 KILDARE WAY TARA HILLS DR MARLESTA RD 665 36 23,940 R - Residential/Local A - AC 7 0.00 KILKEN 010 KILKENNY WAY KILDARE WAY TARA HILLS DR 1,792 36 64,512 R - Residential/Local A - AC 38 4.53 KILRUS 010 KILRUSH COURT KILKENY WAY CUL DE SAC 399 36 14,364 R - Residential/Local A - AC 12 0.00 KITTER 010 KITTERY WAY KILDARE WAY SHAWN DR 951 36 34,236 R - Residential/Local A - AC 8 0.00 KYERST 010 KYER STREET HERMOSA ST ESTATES AVE 491 32 15,712 R - Residential/Local A - AC 64 17.87 LACANA 010 LA CANADA COURT SAVAGE AVE CUL DE SAC 424 32 13,568 R - Residential/Local A - AC 85 36.33 LAREIN 010 LA REINA STREET HERMOSA ST RAMONA ST 525 36 18,900 R - Residential/Local A - AC 87 30.74 LASALC 010 LA SALLE COURT LA SALLE DR CUL DE SAC 239 24 5,736 R - Residential/Local A - AC 10 0.00 LASALL 010 LA SALLE DRIVE TENNENT AVE CALAIS DR 367 24 8,808 R - Residential/Local A - AC 26 0.36 LASSEN 010 LASSEN WAY SIMAS AVE DEAD END 704 36 25,344 R - Residential/Local A - AC 40 4.96 LAUREL 010 LAUREL AVENUE SAN PABLO AVE PRIVATE DRIVE 586 28 16,408 R - Residential/Local O - AC/AC 84 28.28 LEFEBV 010 LE FEBVRE WAY SUMMIT DR TEMP DEAD END 477 29 13,833 R - Residential/Local A - AC 46 8.00 LEROY 010 LEROY AVENUE LE FABVRE WY CUL DE SAC 407 28 11,396 R - Residential/Local A - AC 53 10.85 LEWIS 010 LEWIS LANE HENRY AVE CUL DE SAC 421 26 10,946 R - Residential/Local A - AC 17 0.00 LIMERI 010 LIMERICK ROAD TARA HILLS DR O`CONNER DR 1,313 34 44,642 R - Residential/Local A - AC 68 20.77 Printed: 4/25/2022
City of Pinole Section PCI/RSL Listing
Criteria: 5 MTC StreetSaver
173 of 541
Street ID Section ID Length Width Area Functional Class Surface Type Current
Street Name From To PCI
Remaining
Life
LUCAS 010 LUCAS AVENUE ESTATES AVE RAMONA ST 970 32 31,040 R - Residential/Local A - AC 86 29.98 LUCAS 020 LUCAS AVENUE RAMONA ST CUL DE SAC 175 29 5,075 R - Residential/Local A - AC 55 12.36 LYNNDR 010 LYNN DRIVE SARAH DR MICHAEL DR 827 38 31,426 R - Residential/Local A - AC 30 1.67 MADERA 010 MADERA STREET DOIDGE AVE WRIGHT AVE 488 32 15,616 R - Residential/Local A - AC 20 0.00 MADRON 010 MADRONE AVENUE SAN PABLO AVE PRIVATE DRIVE 141 16 2,256 R - Residential/Local A - AC 74 25.70 434 MAIDEN LANE SAN PABLO DRIVE 52 21 1,092 R - Residential/Local A - AC 70 (DOES NOT INCLUDE
PCC)
MAIDEN TO ROAD NARROWS 22.47
434A MAIDEN LANE ROAD NARROWS (52' N. 115 21 2,415 R - Residential/Local P - PCC 87

OF SAN PABLO)
MAIDEN END OF PCC 65.94
MAJORV 010 MAJOR VISTA COURT CRESTVIEW DR CUL DE SAC 555 31 17,205 R - Residential/Local A - AC 87 30.50 MANNDR 005 MANN DRIVE APPIAN WAY PAVEMENT CHANGE 642 37 23,754 R - Residential/Local A - AC 20 0.00 MANNDR 015 MANN DRIVE PAVEMENT CHANGE MCDONALD DR 1,091 37 40,367 R - Residential/Local A - AC 67 18.20 MARCST 010 MARCUS STREET S/O DOIDGE AVE WRIGHT AVE 393 35 13,755 R - Residential/Local A - AC 30 1.81 MARCST 020 MARCUS STREET DOIDGE AVE CUL DE SAC 1,164 35 40,740 R - Residential/Local A - AC 8 0.00 MARIAC 010 MARIA COURT PINOLE VALLEY RD CUL DE SAC 127 27 3,429 R - Residential/Local A - AC 20 0.00 MARION 010 MARIONOLA WAY TESORO CT HOUSE #1199 665 38 25,270 R - Residential/Local A - AC 38 4.55 MARION 020 MARIONOLA WAY HOUSE #1199 MARLESTA RD 694 32 22,208 R - Residential/Local A - AC 10 0.00 MARLES 010 MARLESTA ROAD HANLEY DR HOUSE #600 750 38 28,500 C - Collector A - AC 59 8.01 MARLES 020 MARLESTA ROAD HOUSE #600 KILDARE WAY 1,241 38 47,158 C - Collector A - AC 90 20.77 MARLES 030 MARLESTA ROAD KILDARE WAY MCDONALD DR 1,700 36 61,200 C - Collector A - AC 62 8.97 MARLES 040 MARLESTA ROAD MCDONALD DR APPIAN WAY 1,536 36 55,296 C - Collector A - AC 68 11.07 MARLES 050 MARLESTA ROAD APPIAN WAY CUL DE SAC 808 36 29,088 C - Collector A - AC 0 0.00 MARLIN 010 MARLIN COURT PINOLE VALLEY RD CUL DE SAC 239 31 7,409 R - Residential/Local A - AC 29 1.28 MARTIN 010 MARTINEZ COURT PINOLE VALLEY RD CUL DE SAC 468 36 16,848 R - Residential/Local A - AC 19 0.00 MCDONA 010 MCDONALD DRIVE MARLESTA RD CUL DE SAC 1,844 37 68,228 R - Residential/Local A - AC 85 36.31 MEADOW 010 MEADOW AVENUE MARLESTA RD NOB HILL AVE 687 24 16,488 R - Residential/Local A - AC 89 31.42 MEADOW 020 MEADOW AVENUE NOB HILL AVE SAN PABLO AVE 927 24 22,248 R - Residential/Local A - AC 85 29.35 MEENA 433 MEEHAN COURT CARLOTTA CIRCLE CUL-DE-SAC 129 38 4,902 R - Residential/Local A - AC 77 24.30 MENDCT 010 MENDOCINO COURT GOULARTE DR CUL DE SAC 211 30 6,330 R - Residential/Local A - AC 30 1.72 MENDDR 010 MENDOCINO DRIVE SIMAS AVE TAMALPAIS DR 696 37 25,752 R - Residential/Local A - AC 83 28.11 MENDDR 020 MENDOCINO DRIVE TAMALPAIS DR GOULARTE DR 921 27 24,867 R - Residential/Local A - AC 48 8.52 MICHAE 010 MICHAEL DRIVE APPIAN WAY CUL DE SAC 636 32 20,352 R - Residential/Local A - AC 51 9.91 MONTCL 010 MONTCLAIR COURT SANTA BARBARA DR CUL DE SAC 204 32 6,528 R - Residential/Local A - AC 84 32.97 MONTEV 010 MONTE VERDE DRIVE PINOLE VALLEY RD ALHAMBRA WAY 1,126 36 40,536 R - Residential/Local A - AC 62 16.40 MONTVI 010 MONTE VISTA DRIVE PINOLE VALLEY DR ALHAMBRA WAY 1,403 36 50,508 R - Residential/Local A - AC 55 12.21 MOORE 010 MOORE COURT DOIDGE AVE CUL DE SAC 377 32 12,064 R - Residential/Local A - AC 20 0.00 Printed: 4/25/2022
City of Pinole Section PCI/RSL Listing
Criteria: 6 MTC StreetSaver
174 of 541
Street ID Section ID Length Width Area Functional Class Surface Type Current
Street Name From To PCI
Remaining
Life
MORAGA 010 MORAGA DRIVE SAVAGE AVE SIMAS AVE 918 36 33,048 R - Residential/Local A - AC 57 13.60 MORAGA 020 MORAGA DRIVE SIMAS AVE TAMALPAIS DR 854 32 27,328 R - Residential/Local A - AC 91 32.66 NAOMI 010 NAOMI COURT SHEA DR CUL DE SAC 328 27 8,856 R - Residential/Local A - AC 15 0.00 NEVACT 010 NEVA COURT PINOLE VALLEY RD CUL DE SAC 111 27 2,997 R - Residential/Local A - AC 26 0.41 NOBHIL 010 NOB HILL AVENUE MEADOW AVE SUNNYVIEW DR 949 24 22,776 R - Residential/Local A - AC 88 31.05 NOBHIL 020 NOB HILL AVENUE SUNNYVIEW DR HOUSE #1100 502 32 16,064 R - Residential/Local A - AC 62 16.41 NOBHIL 030 NOB HILL AVENUE HOUSE #1100 APPIAN WAY 1,353 32 43,296 R - Residential/Local O - AC/AC 93 48.53

NORTH RANCHO
PLACE
010 CITY LIMITS (OFF N 376 36 13,536 R - Residential/Local A - AC 64

RANCHO RD)
NRANCH CUL DE SAC 18.12
010 O CONNOR DRIVE CITY LIMITS (HOUSE 479 34 16,286 R - Residential/Local A - AC 87 #401)
OCONNE BANTRY RD 30.52
OAKRID 010 OAK RIDGE ROAD HENRY AVE IGNACIO CT 472 30 14,160 C - Collector A - AC 75 13.43 OAKRID 020 OAK RIDGE ROAD IGNACIO CT SAN PABLO AVE 1,464 27 39,528 C - Collector A - AC 80 15.63 OLINDA 010 OLINDA COURT PINOLE VALLEY RD CUL DE SAC 172 27 4,644 R - Residential/Local A - AC 32 2.56 ORLEAN 010 ORLEANS DRIVE CUL DE SAC (WEST) TENNENT AVE 1,158 25 28,950 R - Residential/Local A - AC 21 0.00 ORLEAN 020 ORLEANS DRIVE TENNENT AVE NORTH DEAD END 483 24 11,592 R - Residential/Local O - AC/AC 89 38.38 OWENS 010 OWENS COURT SHEA DR CUL DE SAC 500 32 16,000 R - Residential/Local A - AC 50 9.41 PAGECT 010 PAGE COURT KILKENNY WAY CUL DE SAC 357 36 12,852 R - Residential/Local A - AC 23 0.00 PALOMA 010 PALOMA STREET ESTATES AVE DEAD END 802 38 30,476 R - Residential/Local A - AC 62 16.73 PALOS 010 PALOS COURT STOKES AVE CUL DE SAC 129 27 3,483 R - Residential/Local A - AC 16 0.00 PARKST 010 PARK STREET QUINAN AVE TENNENT AVE 235 35 8,225 R - Residential/Local A - AC 77 26.50 010 PATRICK DRIVE DEAD END SOUTH OF 1,030 25 25,750 R - Residential/Local A - AC 66

NOB HILL AVE
PATRIC SUNNYVIEW DR 19.31
PEACH 010 PEACH STREET TENNENT AVE DEAD END 362 32 11,584 R - Residential/Local A - AC 1 0.00 PEARST 010 PEAR STREET OAK RIDGE RD TENNENT AVE 613 32 19,616 R - Residential/Local A - AC 28 1.12 PEARST 020 PEAR STREET TENNENT AVE FERNANDEZ AVE 218 31 6,758 R - Residential/Local A - AC 18 0.00 PFEIFL 010 PFEIFFER LANE PFEIFER WAY DEAD END 234 21 4,914 R - Residential/Local A - AC 15 0.00 PFEIFW 010 PFEIFFER WAY DOIDGE AVE PFEIFER LANE 838 22 18,436 R - Residential/Local A - AC 6 0.00 PFEIFW 020 PFEIFFER WAY PFEIFER LANE CUL DE SAC 362 29 10,498 R - Residential/Local A - AC 29 1.45 PINEAV 010 PINE AVENUE SMITH AVE DEAD END 531 26 13,806 R - Residential/Local A - AC 20 0.00

PINOLE SHORES
DRIVE
010 SAN PABLO AVE 100 SOUTH OF 531 65 34,515 R - Residential/Local A - AC 41

OVERPASS
PINOLE 5.69

PINOLE SHORES
DRIVE
020 100 SOUTH OF 917 42 38,514 R - Residential/Local A - AC 45

OVERPASS
PINOLE DEL MONTE DR 7.50

PINOLE SHORES
DRIVE
PINOLE 030 DEL MONTE DR CUL DE SAC 592 42 24,864 R - Residential/Local A - AC 87 30.74 010 PINOLE VALLEY ROAD CITY LIMITS EAST OF 1,897 38 72,086 A - Arterial A - AC 46

MARLIN CT

PINOLE CREEK BRIDGE
#6
PINOLV 6.12
Printed: 4/25/2022
City of Pinole Section PCI/RSL Listing
Criteria: 7 MTC StreetSaver
175 of 541
Street ID Section ID Length Width Area Functional Class Surface Type Current
Street Name From To PCI
Remaining
Life
020 PINOLE VALLEY ROAD PINOLE CREEK BRIDGE 2,131 50 106,550 A - Arterial A - AC 50 #6

BRIDGE WEST OF

SAVAGE ST
PINOLV 7.61
030 PINOLE VALLEY ROAD BRIDGE WEST OF 2,484 39 96,876 A - Arterial A - AC 44

SAVAGE ST

COLLINS AVE (NORTH
INT)
PINOLV 5.42
035 PINOLE VALLEY ROAD COLLINS AVE (NORTH 760 50 38,000 A - Arterial O - AC/AC 30 INT)
PINOLV SIMAS AVE 1.17
PINOLV 045 PINOLE VALLEY ROAD SIMAS AVE GRANADA CT 1,929 61 117,669 A - Arterial O - AC/AC 71 16.66 PINOLV 050 PINOLE VALLEY ROAD GRANADA CT ESTATES AVE 2,502 61 152,622 A - Arterial O - AC/AC 71 16.66 PINOLV 055 PINOLE VALLEY ROAD ESTATES AVE I-80 OFF-RAMP 840 60 50,400 A - Arterial A - AC 48 6.93 PINOLV 065 PINOLE VALLEY ROAD I-80 OFF-RAMP HENRY AVE 1,386 60 83,160 A - Arterial A - AC 56 9.78 PINOLV 070 PINOLE VALLEY ROAD HENRY AVE TENNENT AVE 751 42 31,542 A - Arterial A - AC 45 5.76 PINOLV 080 PINOLE VALLEY ROAD TENNENT AVE SAN PABLO AVE 1,650 32 52,800 A - Arterial A - AC 39 3.82 PINONA 010 PINON AVENUE SAN PABLO AVE BELFAIR DR 1,448 38 55,024 R - Residential/Local A - AC 46 7.98 PINONA 020 PINON AVENUE BELFAIR DR DEAD END 547 38 20,786 R - Residential/Local A - AC 55 11.81 PLUMST 010 PLUM STREET SCHOOL ENTRANCE TENNENT AVE 410 36 14,760 R - Residential/Local A - AC 0 0.00 020 PLUM STREET TENNENT AVE DEAD END NORTH OF 341 36 12,276 R - Residential/Local A - AC 9

FERNANDEZ AV
PLUMST 0.00
PONDER 010 PONDEROSA TRAIL FARIA AVE FARIA AVE 2,036 36 73,296 R - Residential/Local A - AC 76 23.66 PONDER 020A PONDEROSA TRAIL FARIA AVE HOLIDAY CT 634 38 24,092 R - Residential/Local A - AC 85 29.14 020B PONDEROSA TRAIL HOLIDAY CT DEAD END SOUTH OF 1,531 38 58,178 R - Residential/Local A - AC 85

ALAMO ST
PONDER 29.14
010 POQUITO COURT CUL DE SAC S. OF 253 34 8,602 R - Residential/Local A - AC 48

CANYON DR
CUL DE SAC N. OF

CANYON DR
POQUIT 8.79
POTRER 010 POTRERO COURT PINOLE VALLEY RD CUL DE SAC 248 27 6,696 R - Residential/Local A - AC 36 3.67 POULOS 010 POULOS COURT GOULARTE DR CUL DE SAC 322 30 9,660 R - Residential/Local A - AC 40 5.16 PRIMRO 010 PRIMROSE LANE PINON AVE LOPES CT 546 32 17,472 R - Residential/Local A - AC 48 8.92 PRIMRO 020 PRIMROSE LANE LOPES CT CUL DE SAC 665 32 21,280 R - Residential/Local A - AC 91 32.47 PRUNE 010 PRUNE STREET DEAD END TENNENT AVE 301 34 10,234 R - Residential/Local A - AC 15 0.00 PRUNE 020 PRUNE STREET TENNENT AVE FERNANDEZ AVE 238 34 8,092 R - Residential/Local A - AC 12 0.00 010 QUINAN AVENUE SAN PABLO AVE BUENA VISTA DR 533 36 19,188 R - Residential/Local A - AC 54 (SOUTH INT)
QUINAN 12.00
020 QUINAN AVENUE BUENA VISTA DR 258 27 6,966 R - Residential/Local A - AC 9 (SOUTH INT)

BUENA VISTA DR
(NORTH INT)
QUINAN 0.00
RAFAEL 010 RAFAELA STREET PINOLE VALLEY RD JOHN ST 502 28 14,056 R - Residential/Local A - AC 85 35.97 RAILAV 010 RAILROAD AVENUE TENNENT AVE END 300 35 10,500 R - Residential/Local A - AC 36 3.68 RAMEY 010 RAMEY COURT ORLEANS DR CUL DE SAC 121 25 3,025 R - Residential/Local A - AC 37 4.08 RAMONA 010 RAMONA STREET PINOLE VALLEY RD LUCAS AVE 2,321 38 88,198 R - Residential/Local A - AC 42 6.08 RAMONA 020 RAMONA STREET LUCAS AVE SIMAS AVE 1,444 38 54,872 R - Residential/Local A - AC 59 14.71 Printed: 4/25/2022
City of Pinole Section PCI/RSL Listing
Criteria: 8 MTC StreetSaver
176 of 541
Street ID Section ID Length Width Area Functional Class Surface Type Current
Street Name From To PCI
Remaining
Life
REBECC 010 REBECCA DRIVE SARAH DR MICHAEL DR 1,027 32 32,864 R - Residential/Local A - AC 39 4.95 REMUDA 010 REMUDA WAY CAROL ST SIMAS AVE 932 36 33,552 R - Residential/Local A - AC 17 0.00 RIDGEC 010 RIDGECREST ROAD CANYON DR HOUSE #1569 367 32 11,744 R - Residential/Local A - AC 73 21.28 RIDGEC 020 RIDGECREST ROAD HOUSE #1569 TESORO CT 1,880 37 69,560 R - Residential/Local A - AC 86 35.93 RISING 010 RISING GLEN ROAD MARLESTA RD CUL DE SAC 897 32 28,704 R - Residential/Local A - AC 69 21.56 ROBERT 010 ROBERT COURT ALICE WAY CUL DE SAC 211 27 5,697 R - Residential/Local A - AC 55 12.50 ROBLE 010 ROBLE AVENUE SAN PABLO AVE ENCINA AVE 251 28 7,028 R - Residential/Local O - AC/AC 85 40.04 ROBLE 020 ROBLE AVENUE ENCINA AVE PINON AVE 420 29 12,180 R - Residential/Local A - AC 47 8.06 ROGERS 010 ROGERS WAY NOB HILL AVE SAN PABLO AVE 650 32 20,800 R - Residential/Local A - AC 83 34.06 RUFFAV 010 RUFF AVENUE FARIA AVE PALOMA ST 1,113 32 35,616 R - Residential/Local A - AC 93 33.33 RUFFCT 010 RUFF COURT FARIA ST CUL DE SAC 371 32 11,872 R - Residential/Local A - AC 84 33.97 SAMUEL 010 SAMUEL STREET PINOLE VALLEY RD DEAD END 369 19 7,011 R - Residential/Local A - AC 58 13.97 005 SAN PABLO AVENUE CITY LIMITS AT CHURCH PAVEMENT TRANSITION 440 70 30,800 A - Arterial A - AC 22

AT DURSEY DR
SANPAB 0.00
010 SAN PABLO AVENUE PAVEMENT TRANSITION 443 70 31,010 A - Arterial A - AC 35

AT DURSEY DR
SANPAB BELMONT WAY 2.60
SANPAB 020 SAN PABLO AVENUE BELMONT WAY PINOLE SHORES DR 1,813 58 105,154 A - Arterial A - AC 47 6.25 SANPAB 030 SAN PABLO AVENUE PINOLE SHORES DR SUNNYVIEW DR 1,506 72 108,432 A - Arterial O - AC/AC 77 19.62 SANPAB 040 SAN PABLO AVENUE SUNNYVIEW DR APPIAN WAY 1,892 72 136,224 A - Arterial O - AC/AC 78 20.45 SANPAB 050 SAN PABLO AVENUE APPIAN WAY OAK RIDGE RD 1,706 66 112,596 A - Arterial A - AC 54 8.66 SANPAB 055 SAN PABLO AVENUE OAK RIDGE RD BRIDGE (HERCULES CL) 2,205 60 132,300 A - Arterial A - AC 51 7.67 SANDRA 010 SANDRA COURT REBECCA DR CUL DE SAC 288 26 7,488 R - Residential/Local A - AC 51 9.81

SANTA BARBARA
DRIVE
SANTAB 010 RAMONA ST SILVERADO DR 843 36 30,348 R - Residential/Local A - AC 83 33.70 SARACT 010 SARAH COURT SHEA DR CUL DE SAC 756 44 33,264 R - Residential/Local O - AC/AC 89 38.38 SARADR 010 SARAH DRIVE APPIAN WAY LYNN DR 168 52 8,736 C - Collector A - AC 37 2.47 SARADR 020 SARAH DRIVE LYNN DR HOUSE #1980 2,269 38 86,222 C - Collector A - AC 16 0.00 SARADR 030A SARAH DRIVE HOUSE #1980 SHEA DR 1,009 24 24,216 C - Collector A - AC 19 0.00 030C SARAH DRIVE HOUSE #1980 (PCC 1,009 24 24,216 C - Collector P - PCC 63 shoulders)
SARADR SHEA DR 23.09
SARITA 371 SARITA COURT PINOLE VALLEY RD CUL DE SAC 106 27 2,862 R - Residential/Local A - AC 40 5.08 SAVAGE 015 SAVAGE AVENUE SIMAS AVE PINOLE VALLEY RD 2,425 38 92,150 R - Residential/Local A - AC 67 20.21 SEVILL 010 SEVILLE COURT MONTE VERDE DRIVE CUL DE SAC 569 32 18,208 R - Residential/Local A - AC 46 7.58 SHADYD 010 SHADY DRAW SIMAS AVE DEAD END 705 38 26,790 R - Residential/Local A - AC 33 2.68 SHAWN 010 SHAWN DR CITY LIMITS TARA HILLS DR 720 36 25,920 R - Residential/Local A - AC 3 0.00 SHEADR 010 SHEA DRIVE PINOLE VALLEY RD SARAH DR 2,579 35 90,265 C - Collector A - AC 22 0.00 SILVRC 010 SILVER COURT SIMAS AVE CUL DE SAC 307 36 11,052 R - Residential/Local A - AC 37 4.27 Printed: 4/25/2022
City of Pinole Section PCI/RSL Listing
Criteria: 9 MTC StreetSaver
177 of 541
Street ID Section ID Length Width Area Functional Class Surface Type Current
Street Name From To PCI
Remaining
Life
SILVAD 010 SILVERADO DRIVE SIMAS AVE PRIVATE DRIVE 1,524 38 57,912 R - Residential/Local A - AC 46 7.78 SILVCT 010 SILVERCREST COURT VICTOR AVE CUL DE SAC 554 31 17,174 R - Residential/Local A - AC 87 37.20

SILVERCREST
STREET
SILVST 010 VICTOR AVE DEAD END 389 31 12,059 R - Residential/Local A - AC 90 32.00 SIMAS 005 SIMAS AVENUE DEAD END PINOLE VALLEY RD 144 34 4,896 R - Residential/Local A - AC 6 0.00 SIMAS 010 SIMAS AVENUE PINOLE VALLEY RD DIABLO CT 1,746 38 66,348 C - Collector O - AC/AC 82 26.88 SIMAS 015 SIMAS AVENUE DIABLO CT APPALOOSA TR 2,628 38 99,864 C - Collector O - AC/AC 82 26.17 SIMAS 020 SIMAS AVENUE APPALOOSA TR PINOLE VALLEY RD 2,111 36 75,996 C - Collector O - AC/AC 82 25.74 SMITH 010 SMITH AVENUE SAN PABLO AVE DEAD END 711 19 13,509 R - Residential/Local A - AC 30 1.84 SONOMA 010 SONOMA WAY MORAGA DR MENDOCINO AVE 982 32 31,424 R - Residential/Local A - AC 88 31.09 STOKES 010 STOKES AVENUE DOIDGE AVE MOORE CT 1,074 32 34,368 R - Residential/Local A - AC 47 7.96 SUMMCT 010 SUMMIT COURT SUMMIT DR CUL DE SAC 118 30 3,540 R - Residential/Local A - AC 89 31.42 SUMMDR 010 SUMMIT DRIVE CUL DE SAC (SOUTH) BUENA VISTA DR 493 24 11,832 R - Residential/Local A - AC 74 24.50 020 SUMMIT DRIVE BUENA VISTA DR CUL DE SAC (NORTH- 884 28 24,752 R - Residential/Local A - AC 83 EAST)
SUMMDR 27.80
SUNVCT 010 SUNNYVIEW COURT MARLESTA DR CUL DE SAC 261 25 6,525 R - Residential/Local O - AC/AC 85 40.03 SUNVDR 010 SUNNYVIEW DRIVE MARELSTA RD SAN PABLO AVE 1,108 34 37,672 R - Residential/Local A - AC 89 31.42 SUNVDR 020A SUNNYVIEW DRIVE SAN PABLO AVE BAY VIEW FARM RD 600 38 22,800 R - Residential/Local A - AC 88 41.05 020B SUNNYVIEW DRIVE BAY VIEW FARM RD DEAD END AT WOY 1,197 38 45,486 R - Residential/Local A - AC 88 CIRCLE
SUNVDR 41.05
TAMALP 010 TAMALPAIS DRIVE SIMAS AVE MENDOCINO DR 2,281 36 82,116 R - Residential/Local A - AC 51 10.41 TAPER 010 TAPER STREET PINOLE VALLEY RD DEAD END 352 31 10,912 R - Residential/Local A - AC 24 0.00 010 TARA HILLS DRIVE CITY LIMITS(HOUSE 3,214 62 199,268 C - Collector A - AC 26 #885)
TARAHI APPIAN WAY 0.20
TENNAV 010 TENNENT AVENUE PINOLE VALLEY RD SAN PABLO AVE 1,411 36 50,796 A - Arterial A - AC 34 2.37 TENNAV 020 TENNENT AVENUE SAN PABLO AVE LA SALLE DR 1,368 36 49,248 A - Arterial A - AC 23 0.00 TENNAV 030 TENNENT AVENUE LA SALLE DR BRIDGE 1,576 36 56,736 A - Arterial A - AC 20 0.00 TENNCT 010 TENNENT COURT TENNENT AVE CUL DE SAC 158 24 3,792 R - Residential/Local A - AC 27 0.78 TERRY 010 TERRY COURT MENDOCINO DR CUL DE SAC 341 29 9,889 R - Residential/Local A - AC 35 3.50 TESORO 010 TESORO COURT RIDGECREST RD CUL DE SAC 447 32 14,304 R - Residential/Local A - AC 87 30.51 THOMAS 010 THOMAS COURT TERRY CT CUL DE SAC 398 30 11,940 R - Residential/Local A - AC 31 2.09 TOMAR 010 TOMAR COURT COLLINS AVE CUL DE SAC 107 32 3,424 R - Residential/Local A - AC 45 7.22 TOWNS 010 TOWNS COURT WRIGHT AVE CUL DE SAC 222 36 7,992 R - Residential/Local A - AC 21 0.00 VALLAV 010 VALLEY AVENUE SAN PABLO AVE CHARLES AVE 165 28 4,620 R - Residential/Local A - AC 56 12.60 VALLDR 010 VALLEY VIEW DRIVE FERN AVE BUENA VISTA DR 189 28 5,292 R - Residential/Local A - AC 85 29.14 VICTOR 010 VICTOR STREET DOIDGE AVE WRIGHT AVE 555 32 17,760 R - Residential/Local A - AC 12 0.00 VICTOR 020 VICTOR STREET WRIGHT AVE SILVERCREST ST 1,127 36 40,572 R - Residential/Local A - AC 84 34.11 Printed: 4/25/2022
City of Pinole Section PCI/RSL Listing
Criteria: 10 MTC StreetSaver
178 of 541
Street ID Section ID Length Width Area Functional Class Surface Type Current
Street Name From To PCI
Remaining
Life
VINCEN 010 VINCENT DRIVE DOIDGE AVE DEAD END 446 35 15,610 R - Residential/Local A - AC 21 0.00 010 VON DOLLEN COURT GOULARTE DR/POULOS 580 30 17,400 R - Residential/Local A - AC 44 CT
VONDOL CUL DE SAC 6.76
WALLAC 010 WALLACE COURT KILKENNY WAY CUL DE SAC 565 36 20,340 R - Residential/Local A - AC 27 0.73 WALTER 010 WALTER AVENUE SAN PABLO AVE DEAD END 419 21 8,799 R - Residential/Local A - AC 5 0.00 WALTON 010 WALTON COURT WRIGHT AVE CUL DE SAC 153 35 5,355 R - Residential/Local A - AC 11 0.00

WHIPPOORWILL
COURT
WHIPOR 010 GALBRETH RD CUL DE SAC 609 33 20,097 R - Residential/Local A - AC 86 35.93 WILDE 010 WILDE COURT KILDARE WAY CUL DE SAC 201 36 7,236 R - Residential/Local A - AC 87 30.74 WILLOW 010 WILLOW STREET PEACH ST DEAD END 284 28 7,952 R - Residential/Local A - AC 8 0.00 WOODSI 010 WOODSIDE COURT VICTOR AVE CUL DE SAC 561 31 17,391 R - Residential/Local A - AC 87 38.33 WRIGHT 010 WRIGHT AVENUE PINOLE VALLEY RD VICTOR ST 2,200 38 83,600 C - Collector A - AC 22 0.00 WRIGHT 020 WRIGHT AVENUE VICTOR ST DOIDGE AVE 2,294 38 87,172 C - Collector A - AC 3 0.00 WRIGHT 030 WRIGHT AVENUE DOIDGE AVE DEAD END 1,832 38 69,616 C - Collector A - AC 16 0.00 ZOECT 010 ZOE COURT ORLEANS DR CUL DE SAC 271 27 7,317 R - Residential/Local A - AC 44 7.00 Total Section Length: 275,661
Total Section Area: 10,296,208
Printed: 4/25/2022
City of Pinole Section PCI/RSL Listing
Criteria: 11 MTC StreetSaver
179 of 541
Pavement Management Technical Assistance (P‐TAP) Round 22 SECTION II
 Preventative Maintenance and Rehabilitation Decision Tree  Budget Needs – Projected PCI/Cost Summary
 Budget Needs – Preventative Maintenance Treatment/ Cost Summary  Budget Needs – Rehabilitation Maintenance Treatment/ Cost Summary 180 of 541

PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE (PM) DECISION TREE
Preventative maintenance is the most cost-effective application to extend the life of streets and investment. Preventive Maintenance is designed to slow pavement deterioration.

This preventative maintenance report shows treatments and costs associated with preventative maintenance (Category I PCI Range = PM Treatment greater than/equal to 70 PCI). The PM decision tree is broken down by functional class and surface type.

A management section with a PCI equal to/less than 70 is classified under the rehabilitation decision tree.

Below is a PM decision tree description:

Decision Tree Number/ID – This number is associated with the decision tree functional classification and surface type Functional Classification – This is a group of streets or roadway subsystems that are classified pending on the level of service and traffic.

A – Arterial
C – Collector
R – Residential/Local
O – Other (user defined)
Surface Type – Is the type of surface specific for a management section. The classifications are:

AC – Asphalt Concrete
AC/AC – Asphalt Concrete over Asphalt Concrete
PCC – Portland Cement Concrete
AC/PCC – Asphalt Concrete over Portland Cement Concrete Treatment Type and Descriptions – There are three categories for PM treatment (category I greater than equal to 70 PCI):

Cost per Square Yard – Unit cost assigned to each treatment with an exception of crack seal which is a linear foot unit.

Years Between Crack Seal – Defines the number of years between crack seal applications Years Between Seal – Defines the number of years between surface seal applications # of Surface Seals before Overlay – Sets the maximum number of surface seals that can be applied before a “restoration” treatment is recommended.
181 of 541

REHABILITATION MAINTENANCE DECISION TREE
This rehabilitation decision tree report shows treatments and costs associated with rehabilitation maintenance (Category II – V PCI range 0 to 69 PCI. The rehabilitation decision tree is broken down by functional class and surface type. A management section with a PCI equal to/greater than 70 is classified under the rehabilitation decision tree.

Below is a PM decision tree description:

Decision Tree Number/ID – This number is associated with the decision tree functional classification and surface type Functional Classification – This is a group of streets or roadway subsystems that are classified pending on the level of service and traffic.

A – Arterial
C – Collector
R – Residential/Local
O – Other (user defined)
Surface Type – Is the type of surface specific for a management section. The classifications are:

AC – Asphalt Concrete
AC/AC – Asphalt Concrete over Asphalt Concrete
PCC – Portland Cement Concrete
AC/PCC – Asphalt Concrete over Portland Cement Concrete Condition Category
Condition Category II (50-69 PCI)– Good, Non-Load Related – Light Rehabilitation Condition Category III (50-69 PCI)– Good, Load Related – Light Rehabilitation Condition Category IV (25-49 PCI) – Poor – Moderate Rehabilitation Condition Category V (0-24 PCI) – Very Poor – Heavy Rehabilitation Treatments – Treatment is assigned based on the management section PCI rating Cost per Square Yard – Unit cost assigned to each treatment 182 of 541
Arterial AC I - Very Good Crack Treatment SEAL CRACKS $1.50 4 Surface Treatment SLURRY SEAL $4.00 8
Restoration Treatment THIN AC OVERLAY(1.5 INCHES) $23.50 4 II - Good, Non-Load Related RUBBER CAPE SEAL $26.00
III - Good, Load Related THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5 INCHES) $53.00 IV - Poor MILL AND THICK OVERLAY $55.00
V - Very Poor RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) $126.75
AC/AC I - Very Good Crack Treatment SEAL CRACKS $1.50 4 Surface Treatment SLURRY SEAL $4.00 8
Restoration Treatment THIN AC OVERLAY(1.5 INCHES) $23.50 4 II - Good, Non-Load Related RUBBER CAPE SEAL $26.00
III - Good, Load Related THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5 INCHES) $53.00 IV - Poor MILL AND THICK OVERLAY $55.00
V - Very Poor RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) $126.75
AC/PCC I - Very Good Crack Treatment SEAL CRACKS $1.50 4 Surface Treatment SLURRY SEAL $3.50 5
Restoration Treatment THIN AC OVERLAY(1.5 INCHES) $23.50 4 II - Good, Non-Load Related RUBBER CAPE SEAL $15.00
III - Good, Load Related THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5 INCHES) $33.50 IV - Poor MILL AND THICK OVERLAY $35.50
V - Very Poor RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) $126.75
PCC I - Very Good Crack Treatment DO NOTHING $0.00 4
Surface Treatment DO NOTHING $0.00 5
Restoration Treatment DO NOTHING $0.00 4
II - Good, Non-Load Related DO NOTHING $0.00
III - Good, Load Related DO NOTHING $0.00
IV - Poor THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5 INCHES) $33.50
V - Very Poor RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) $126.75
# of Surface
Seals before
Overlay
Functional
Class
City of Pinole
Printed: 5/2/2022
Decision Tree
Surface Condition Category Treatment Type Treatment Yrs Between Crack Seals
Yrs Between
Surface Seals
Cost/Sq Yd,
except Seal
Cracks in LF:

Functional Class and Surface combination not used
Criteria: 1 MTC StreetSaver
Selected Treatment is not a Surface Seal
183 of 541
Collector AC I - Very Good Crack Treatment SEAL CRACKS $1.50 4 Surface Treatment SLURRY SEAL $4.00 8
Restoration Treatment THIN AC OVERLAY(1.5 INCHES) $23.50 4 II - Good, Non-Load Related RUBBER CAPE SEAL $26.00
III - Good, Load Related RUBBER CAPE SEAL $26.00
IV - Poor MILL AND THICK OVERLAY $55.00
V - Very Poor RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) $126.75
AC/AC I - Very Good Crack Treatment SEAL CRACKS $1.50 4 Surface Treatment SLURRY SEAL $4.00 8
Restoration Treatment THIN AC OVERLAY(1.5 INCHES) $23.50 4 II - Good, Non-Load Related RUBBER CAPE SEAL $26.00
III - Good, Load Related RUBBER CAPE SEAL $26.00
IV - Poor MILL AND THICK OVERLAY $55.00
V - Very Poor RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) $126.75
AC/PCC I - Very Good Crack Treatment SEAL CRACKS $1.50 4 Surface Treatment SLURRY SEAL $3.50 5
Restoration Treatment THIN AC OVERLAY(1.5 INCHES) $23.50 4 II - Good, Non-Load Related RUBBER CAPE SEAL $15.00
III - Good, Load Related RUBBER CAPE SEAL $15.00
IV - Poor MILL AND THICK OVERLAY $35.50
V - Very Poor RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) $126.75
PCC I - Very Good Crack Treatment DO NOTHING $0.00 4
Surface Treatment DO NOTHING $0.00 5
Restoration Treatment DO NOTHING $0.00 4
II - Good, Non-Load Related DO NOTHING $0.00
III - Good, Load Related DO NOTHING $0.00
IV - Poor THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5 INCHES) $55.00
V - Very Poor RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) $126.75
# of Surface
Seals before
Overlay
Functional
Class
City of Pinole
Printed: 5/2/2022
Decision Tree
Surface Condition Category Treatment Type Treatment Yrs Between Crack Seals
Yrs Between
Surface Seals
Cost/Sq Yd,
except Seal
Cracks in LF:

Functional Class and Surface combination not used
Criteria: 3 MTC StreetSaver
Selected Treatment is not a Surface Seal
184 of 541
Residential/Local AC I - Very Good Crack Treatment SEAL CRACKS $1.50 4 Surface Treatment SLURRY SEAL $4.00 8
Restoration Treatment THIN AC OVERLAY(1.5 INCHES) $20.75 4 II - Good, Non-Load Related RUBBER CAPE SEAL $26.00
III - Good, Load Related RUBBER CAPE SEAL $26.00
IV - Poor THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5 INCHES) $45.00
V - Very Poor RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) $107.25
AC/AC I - Very Good Crack Treatment SEAL CRACKS $1.50 4 Surface Treatment SLURRY SEAL $4.00 8
Restoration Treatment THIN AC OVERLAY(1.5 INCHES) $20.75 4 II - Good, Non-Load Related RUBBER CAPE SEAL $26.00
III - Good, Load Related RUBBER CAPE SEAL $26.00
IV - Poor THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5 INCHES) $45.00
V - Very Poor RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) $107.25
AC/PCC I - Very Good Crack Treatment SEAL CRACKS $1.50 4 Surface Treatment SLURRY SEAL $3.00 8
Restoration Treatment THIN AC OVERLAY(1.5 INCHES) $20.75 4 II - Good, Non-Load Related RUBBER CAPE SEAL $14.00
III - Good, Load Related RUBBER CAPE SEAL $14.00
IV - Poor MILL AND THICK OVERLAY $33.25
V - Very Poor RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) $107.25
PCC I - Very Good Crack Treatment DO NOTHING $0.00 4
Surface Treatment DO NOTHING $0.00 8
Restoration Treatment DO NOTHING $0.00 4
II - Good, Non-Load Related DO NOTHING $0.00
III - Good, Load Related DO NOTHING $0.00
IV - Poor THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5 INCHES) $45.00
V - Very Poor RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) $107.25
# of Surface
Seals before
Overlay
Functional
Class
City of Pinole
Printed: 5/2/2022
Decision Tree
Surface Condition Category Treatment Type Treatment Yrs Between Crack Seals
Yrs Between
Surface Seals
Cost/Sq Yd,
except Seal
Cracks in LF:

Functional Class and Surface combination not used
Criteria: 5 MTC StreetSaver
Selected Treatment is not a Surface Seal
185 of 541

BUDGET NEEDS – PROJECTED PCI/COST SUMMARY
The purpose for the budget needs report is to show your agency what it needs to do to fix the management sections that need to be fixed and the associated treatment costs with unlimited funds. The needs calculation is typically calculated over a 5-year period but can be adjusted by the user.

The budget needs project PCI/cost summary report shows what the PCI values would be over a five-ear period and how much the treatments would cost each year. In addition, the report would show what the network condition would be if no treatments were not applied. The costs are derived from the agency’s preventative and rehabilitation maintenance trees.

Below is a description of the Budget Needs – Project PCI/Cost Summary report Inflation Rate and Interest Rate – This value is user-defined and impacts the overall cost of the analysis period Year – Analysis year
PCI Untreated – Overall network PCI when treatments are not applied PCI Treated – Overall network PCI when treatments are applied Cost – The cost per analysis period when treatment costs are applied PM Cost – Preventative Maintenance (PM) Cost is the cost that is projected for preventative maintenance treatment over a 5-year period
% PM – Preventative Maintenance (PM) Percent is the percent value that is set aside for preventative maintenance Total Cost – Total cost over a 5-year period
186 of 541
Year PCI Treated PCI Untreated PM Cost Rehab Cost Cost
2022 79 57 $520,919 $31,263,287 $31,784,206
2023 80 54 $112,469 $7,066,461 $7,178,930
2024 82 52 $39,254 $6,736,222 $6,775,476
2025 84 49 $49,785 $6,035,231 $6,085,016
2026 84 47 $54,886 $3,204,721 $3,259,607
Total Cost
$55,083,235
PM Total Cost
$777,313
% PM

1.41% $54,305,922
Rehab Total Cost
Needs - Projected PCI/Cost
Summary
Printed: 5/2/2022
City of Pinole
Inflation Rate = %3.00
Criteria: 1 MTC StreetSaver
187 of 541

BUDGET NEEDS – PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE TREATMENT / COST SUMMARY This report shows the quantities and cost per year for preventative maintenance that is needed for the agency’s road network.

Below is a description of the Budget Needs – Preventative Maintenance Treatment/Cost Summary:

Treatment – The preventative maintenance treatment applied. All treatments can be referred back to the jurisdiction’s PM decision tree.

Year – The year the specific treatment is applied
Area Treated – The area treated is the projected quantity amount of the given treatment during the analysis year. Treatment unit costs are in sq.yd. with an exception of linear feet (seal cracks).

Cost – The cost is the projected cost that is associated with the specified treatment in the analysis period. 188 of 541
Treatment Year Area Treated Cost
SEAL CRACKS 2022 1,166.49 sq. yd. $1,752
2023 301.98 sq. yd. $470
2025 4,118.45 sq. yd. $6,784
2026 9,001.79 sq. yd. $15,285
Total 14,588.71 $24,291
SLURRY SEAL 2022 129,789.22 sq. yd. $519,167
2023 27,184 sq. yd. $111,999
2024 9,249.89 sq. yd. $39,254
2025 9,837.78 sq. yd. $43,001
2026 8,796 sq. yd. $39,601
Total 184,856.89 $753,022
Inflation Rate = %3.00
City of Pinole Needs - Preventive Maintenance
Treatment/Cost Summary
Printed: 5/2/2022
Criteria: 1 MTC StreetSaver
Total Quantity 199,445.6 $777,313
189 of 541

BUDGET NEEDS – REHABILITATION MAINTENANCE TREATMENT/COST SUMMARY This report shows the quantities and cost per year for rehabilitation maintenance that is needed for the agency’s road network.

Below is a description of the Budget Needs – rehabilitation maintenance treatment/cost summary:

Treatment – The rehabilitation maintenance treatment applied. All treatments can be referred back to the jurisdiction’s rehabilitation decision tree.

Year – The year the specific treatment is applied
Area Treated – The area treated is the projected quantity amount of the given treatment during the analysis year. All treatment unit costs are in sq.yd.

Cost – The cost is the projected cost that is associated with the specified treatment in the analysis period. 190 of 541
Treatment Year Area Treated Cost
RUBBER CAPE SEAL 2022 108,219.11 sq.yd. $2,813,705
2023 10,447 sq.yd. $279,773
2024 57,856.78 sq.yd. $1,595,892
2025 9,161.11 sq.yd. $260,279
2026 16,474.33 sq.yd. $482,095
Total 202,158.33 sq.yd. $5,431,744
RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) 2022 193,430.56 sq.yd. $22,060,534 2023 32,088.89 sq.yd. $3,989,482
2024 32,662.33 sq.yd. $3,975,760
2025 29,340.67 sq.yd. $3,840,982
2026 14,193 sq.yd. $1,713,253
Total 301,715.44 sq.yd. $35,580,011
THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5 INCHES) 2022 86,454.89 sq.yd. $3,890,470 2023 27,913.11 sq.yd. $1,293,777
2024 9,102.89 sq.yd. $434,578
2025 18,103.56 sq.yd. $890,206
2026 19,929.11 sq.yd. $1,009,373
Total 161,503.56 sq.yd. $7,518,404
MILL AND THICK OVERLAY 2022 45,428.67 sq.yd. $2,498,578 2023 26,538.89 sq.yd. $1,503,429
2024 12,510.67 sq.yd. $729,992
2025 17,367.11 sq.yd. $1,043,764
Total 101,845.33 sq.yd. $5,775,763
Needs - Rehabilitation
Treatment/Cost Summary
Printed: 5/2/2022
City of Pinole
Inflation Rate = %3.00
Criteria: 1 MTC StreetSaver
Total Cost $54,305,922
191 of 541
Pavement Management Technical Assistance (P‐TAP) Round 22 SECTION III
• Budget Scenarios – Cost Summary
o Scenario 1 – Current Budget
o Scenario 2 – Constant PCI
o Scenario 3 – Plus 5 PCI Increase
o Scenario 4 – Optimal PCI
o Scenario 5 – Unfunded Scenario
• Budget Scenarios – Network Condition Summary
o Scenario 1 – Current Budget
o Scenario 2 – Constant PCI
o Scenario 3 – Plus 5 PCI Increase
o Scenario 4 – Optimal PCI
o Scenario 5 – Unfunded Scenario
192 of 541

BUDGET SCENARIOS – COST SUMMARY REPORT
This report summarizes the test scenarios given a specific budget or goal a jurisdiction has in mind. This report is designed to maximize a jurisdiction’s funding cost-effectively.

Below is a description of the Cost Summary Report:

Year – Analysis year
PM Amt – Preventative Maintenance (PM) amount that is applied during the analysis year. This amount is subtracted from the given budget value
PM % - Preventative Maintenance (PM) % value that is applied during the analysis year. A percentage amount is subtracted from the overall budget and applied during each analysis year.

Budget – Dollar amount value that is used for calculation and analysis Condition Category – This category shows the amount allocated to management sections with PCI values in the condition category II – V range for treatment
Project Rehab – This column show the amount set aside for special projects. The special projects rehab are rehabilitation projects that the user can override the PMS system for any given analysis year Preventative Maintenance – The preventative maintenance column show the total dollar amount that is being applied to management sections during the analysis year
Project PM – This column show the amount set aside for special projects. The special projects PM are preventative maintenance projects that the user can override the PMS system for any given analysis year Funded Stop Gap – This column shows the dollar amount allocated to management sections that need stop gap. Stop gap is often defined as localized distresses such as potholes, etc.

Deferred Maintenance – This column shows the dollar amount of how much the jurisdiction is deferring each analysis year. These management sections were earmarked for treatment bud were not funded Surplus PM – This column shows the dollar amount not allocated after rehabilitation and PM funds were allocated Unmet Stop gap – This column shows the dollar amount of stop gap that was not met and deferred 193 of 541
City of Pinole Scenarios - Cost Summary
Interest: 4.70% Inflation: 3.00% Printed: 5/2/2022
Scenario: #PTAP 22 - Scenario 1 - Current
Funding ($1M)
2022 $1,000,000
$967,507
$0
$0
$967,507
$0
$32,037 $0 $30,784,625 $0
$187,760
1%
$0
$0
II
III
IV
V
NonProject
Project
Funded
Unmet
Project
Total
2023 $1,000,000
$972,772
$3,250
$0
$969,522
$0
$26,800 $0 $35,859,607 $0
$37,721
1%
$0
$0
II
III
IV
V
NonProject
Project
Funded
Unmet
Project
Total
2024 $1,000,000
$967,100
$0
$0
$967,100
$0
$32,687 $0 $41,267,710 $0
$36,466
1%
$0
$0
II
III
IV
V
NonProject
Project
Funded
Unmet
Project
Total
2025 $1,000,000
$984,953
$0
$0
$984,953
$0
$12,693 $2,107 $46,085,892 $0
$33,261
1%
$0
$0
II
III
IV
V
NonProject
Project
Funded
Unmet
Project
Total
2026 $1,000,000
$982,837
$0
$0
$982,837
$0
$16,453 $0 $48,087,650 $0
$17,334
1%
$0
$0
II
III
IV
V
NonProject
Project
Funded
Unmet
Project
Total
Functional Class Rehabilitation Prev. Maint. Stop Gap
Summary
Stop Gap
Funded Unmet
Arterial $4,051,918 $17,684 $0 $50,020
Collector $0 $31,458 $0 $70,980
Residential/Local $823,251 $71,528 $0 $191,542
Grand Total: $4,875,169 $120,670 $0 $312,542
Year PM Budget Rehabilitation Surplus PM Deferred Stop Gap Preventative
Maintenance
Criteria:

Scenarios Criteria:
1 194
MTC StreetSaver
of 541
City of Pinole Target-Driven Scenarios - Cost Summary
Interest: 4.7% Inflation: 3% Printed: 5/2/2022
Target: Overall 57
Scenario: PTAP 22 - S3: Maintain Current PCI (57)
Objective: Minimum Network Average PCI
2022 $0
$0
$0
$289,700
$0
$0
II
III
IV
V
NonProject
Project
Project
Total $0
$0
$289,700 $31,494,468
2023 $0
$0
$1,923,950
$350,629
$0
$0
II
III
IV
V
NonProject
Project
Project
Total $1,923,950
$0
$2,274,579 $34,946,634
2024 $0
$0
$2,972,838
$39,254
$0
$0
II
III
IV
V
NonProject
Project
Project
Total $2,972,838
$0
$3,012,092 $38,315,045
2025 $0
$0
$2,628,078
$49,785
$0
$0
II
III
IV
V
NonProject
Project
Project
Total $2,628,078
$0
$2,677,863 $41,410,446
2026 $0
$0
$2,841,680
$41,494
$0
$0
II
III
IV
V
NonProject
Project
Project
Total $2,841,680
$0
$2,883,174 $42,520,326
Functional Class Rehabilitation Prev. Maint. Summary
Arterial $5,084,556 $303,100
Collector $1,120,061 $278,662
Residential/Local $4,161,929 $189,100
Total: $10,366,546 $770,862 Grand Total: $11,137,408
Year Rehabilitation Preventive Maintenance Total Cost Deferred Scenarios Criteria: 1 MTC StreetSaver
195 of 541
City of Pinole Target-Driven Scenarios - Cost Summary
Interest: 4.7% Inflation: 3% Printed: 5/2/2022
Target: Overall 62
Scenario: PTAP 22 - S3: Plus 5 PCI Increase
Objective: Minimum Network Average PCI
2022 $0
$0
$4,691,888
$520,919
$0
$0
II
III
IV
V
NonProject
Project
Project
Total $4,691,888
$0
$5,212,807 $26,571,370
2023 $0
$0
$2,802,155
$112,469
$0
$0
II
III
IV
V
NonProject
Project
Project
Total $2,802,155
$0
$2,914,624 $31,137,891
2024 $828,395
$0
$2,525,420
$39,254
$0
$0
II
III
IV
V
NonProject
Project
Project
Total $3,353,815
$0
$3,393,069 $34,250,174
2025 $0
$0
$2,571,902
$49,785
$0
$0
II
III
IV
V
NonProject
Project
Project
Total $2,571,902
$0
$2,621,687 $38,540,630
2026 $150,540
$0
$1,430,314
$44,962
$0
$0
II
III
IV
V
NonProject
Project
Project
Total $3,162,935
$1,582,081
$3,207,897 $39,243,160
Functional Class Rehabilitation Prev. Maint. Summary
Arterial $7,697,799 $304,207
Collector $1,099,698 $275,596
Residential/Local $7,785,198 $187,586
Total: $16,582,695 $767,389 Grand Total: $17,350,084
Year Rehabilitation Preventive Maintenance Total Cost Deferred Scenarios Criteria: 1 MTC StreetSaver
196 of 541
City of Pinole Scenarios - Cost Summary
Interest: 4.70% Inflation: 3.00% Printed: 5/2/2022
Scenario: #PTAP 22 - S4 - Average Needs
2022 $11,016,647
$10,851,266
$2,192,075
$262,364
$6,389,048
$2,007,779
$165,277 $0 $20,767,637 $0
$140,226
1%
$0
$0
II
III
IV
V
NonProject
Project
Funded
Unmet
Project
Total
2023 $11,016,647
$10,845,715
$147,970
$46,999
$2,797,206
$7,853,540
$169,918 $0 $17,384,359 $0
$7,725
1%
$0
$0
II
III
IV
V
NonProject
Project
Funded
Unmet
Project
Total
2024 $11,016,647
$10,831,749
$1,408,324
$0
$1,164,570
$8,258,855
$182,476 $0 $13,292,011 $0
$8,558
1%
$0
$0
II
III
IV
V
NonProject
Project
Funded
Unmet
Project
Total
2025 $11,016,647
$10,849,145
$190,195
$96,206
$2,124,287
$8,438,457
$167,177 $0 $9,003,266 $0
$7,474
1%
$0
$0
II
III
IV
V
NonProject
Project
Funded
Unmet
Project
Total
2026 $11,016,647
$10,836,452
$369,395
$0
$1,430,314
$9,036,743
$101,881 $61,165 $1,782,564 $0
$965
1%
$0
$0
II
III
IV
V
NonProject
Project
Funded
Unmet
Project
Total
Functional Class Rehabilitation Prev. Maint. Stop Gap
Summary
Stop Gap
Funded Unmet
Arterial $10,987,030 $308,999 $0 $0
Collector $12,619,712 $280,469 $0 $42,045
Residential/Local $30,607,585 $197,261 $0 $122,903
Grand Total: $54,214,327 $786,729 $0 $164,948
Year PM Budget Rehabilitation Surplus PM Deferred Stop Gap Preventative
Maintenance
Criteria:

Scenarios Criteria:
1 197
MTC StreetSaver
of 541
City of Pinole Scenarios - Cost Summary
Interest: 4.70% Inflation: 3.00% Printed: 5/2/2022
Scenario: #PTAP 22 - Scenario 5 - Zero Funding
2022 $0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0 $0 $31,784,164 $0
$191,321
0%
$0
$0
II
III
IV
V
NonProject
Project
Funded
Unmet
Project
Total
2023 $0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0 $0 $37,518,280 $0
$37,737
0%
$0
$0
II
III
IV
V
NonProject
Project
Funded
Unmet
Project
Total
2024 $0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0 $0 $43,143,461 $0
$36,466
0%
$0
$0
II
III
IV
V
NonProject
Project
Funded
Unmet
Project
Total
2025 $0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0 $0 $47,634,604 $0
$33,727
0%
$0
$0
II
III
IV
V
NonProject
Project
Funded
Unmet
Project
Total
2026 $0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0 $0 $49,794,929 $0
$20,197
0%
$0
$0
II
III
IV
V
NonProject
Project
Funded
Unmet
Project
Total
Functional Class Rehabilitation Prev. Maint. Stop Gap
Summary
Stop Gap
Funded Unmet
Arterial $0 $0 $0 $55,109
Collector $0 $0 $0 $70,980
Residential/Local $0 $0 $0 $193,360
Grand Total: $0 $0 $0 $319,448
Year PM Budget Rehabilitation Surplus PM Deferred Stop Gap Preventative
Maintenance
Criteria:

Scenarios Criteria:
1 198
MTC StreetSaver
of 541

BUDGET SCENARIOS – NETWORK CONDITION SUMMARY REPORT
This report shows the impacts on the overall network PCI given a specific budget or goal an agency wants to meet. An overall network PCI is generated for each analysis year. In addition, this report also shows the percent breakdown of condition category before and after the test budget scenario. The breakdown is categorized by Functional Classification. 199 of 541
Year Budget PM Year Budget PM Year Budget PM
2022 $1,000,000 1.48%
2023 $1,000,000 1.48%
2024 $1,000,000 1.48%
2025 $1,000,000 1.48%
2026 $1,000,000 1.48%
Projected Network Average PCI by Year
With Selected Treatment Treated Centerline
Miles
Treated
Lane Miles
Year Never Treated
2022 57 58 2.24 6.04
2023 54 56 1.93 4.47
2024 52 54 0.97 2.63
2025 49 53 9.76 19.53
2026 47 52 2.24 5.40
Percent Network Area by Functional Class and Condition Category Condition
Condition in base year 2022, prior to applying treatments.

Arterial Collector Res/Loc Other Total
I 9.1% 6.4% 22.5% 0.0% 37.9%
II / III 4.2% 2.4% 16.1% 0.0% 22.7%
IV 5.9% 2.8% 13.8% 0.0% 22.5%
V 1.3% 4.6% 11.0% 0.0% 16.9%
Total 20.5% 16.1% 63.4% 0.0% 100.0%
Condition
Condition in year 2022 after schedulable treatments applied.

Arterial Collector Res/Loc Other Total
I 10.6% 6.4% 22.6% 0.0% 39.5%
II / III 4.2% 2.4% 16.1% 0.0% 22.7%
IV 4.4% 2.8% 13.7% 0.0% 20.9%
V 1.3% 4.6% 11.0% 0.0% 16.9%
Total 20.5% 16.1% 63.4% 0.0% 100.0%
Condition
Condition in year 2026 after schedulable treatments applied.

Arterial Collector Res/Loc Other Total
I 12.6% 6.2% 22.6% 0.0% 41.4%
II / III 2.6% 0.9% 10.8% 0.0% 14.4%
IV 2.1% 1.6% 14.1% 0.0% 17.8%
V 3.2% 7.4% 15.8% 0.0% 26.4%
Total 20.5% 16.1% 63.4% 0.0% 100.0%
Scenarios - Network Condition Summary
Printed: 5/2/2022
City of Pinole
Scenario: #PTAP 22 - Scenario 1 - Current
Funding ($1M)
Interest: 4.7% Inflation: 3%
Criteria: MTC StreetSaver
Scenarios Criteria:
1 200 of 541
City of Pinole Target-Driven Scenarios
Network Condition Summary
Interest: 4.70% Inflation: 3.00% Printed: 5/2/2022
Projected Network Average PCI by year
Year Never Treated With Selected Treatment Without Selected Treatment Target: Overall 57
Scenario: PTAP 22 - S3: Maintain Current PCI (57)
Objective: Minimum Network Average PCI
2022 57 57 57
2023 54 57 54
2024 52 57 52
2025 49 57 49
2026 47 57 47
Percent Network Area by Functional Classification and Condition Class Condition in base year 2022, prior to applying treatments.

Condition Class Arterial Collector Res/Loc Other Total
I 9.1% 6.4% 22.5% 0.0% 37.9%
II / III 4.2% 2.4% 16.1% 0.0% 22.7%
IV 5.9% 2.8% 13.8% 0.0% 22.5%
V 1.3% 4.6% 11.0% 0.0% 16.9%
Total 20.5% 16.1% 63.4% 0.0% 100.0%
Condition in year 2022 after schedulable treatments applied.

Condition Class Arterial Collector Res/Loc Other Total
I 9.1% 6.4% 22.5% 0.0% 37.9%
II / III 4.2% 2.4% 16.1% 0.0% 22.7%
IV 5.9% 2.8% 13.8% 0.0% 22.5%
V 1.3% 4.6% 11.0% 0.0% 16.9%
Total 20.5% 16.1% 63.4% 0.0% 100.0%
Condition in year 2026 after schedulable treatments applied.

Condition Class Arterial Collector Res/Loc Other Total
I 14.2% 7.9% 28.7% 0.0% 50.9%
II / III 2.6% 0.8% 10.6% 0.0% 14.0%
IV 0.5% 0.0% 8.3% 0.0% 8.8%
V 3.2% 7.4% 15.8% 0.0% 26.4%
Total 20.5% 16.1% 63.4% 0.0% 100.0%
Scenarios Criteria: 1 MTC StreetSaver
201 of 541
City of Pinole Target-Driven Scenarios
Network Condition Summary
Interest: 4.70% Inflation: 3.00% Printed: 5/2/2022
Projected Network Average PCI by year
Year Never Treated With Selected Treatment Without Selected Treatment Target: Overall 62
Scenario: PTAP 22 - S3: Plus 5 PCI Increase
Objective: Minimum Network Average PCI
2022 57 62 57
2023 54 62 54
2024 52 62 52
2025 49 62 49
2026 47 62 47
Percent Network Area by Functional Classification and Condition Class Condition in base year 2022, prior to applying treatments.

Condition Class Arterial Collector Res/Loc Other Total
I 9.1% 6.4% 22.5% 0.0% 37.9%
II / III 4.2% 2.4% 16.1% 0.0% 22.7%
IV 5.9% 2.8% 13.8% 0.0% 22.5%
V 1.3% 4.6% 11.0% 0.0% 16.9%
Total 20.5% 16.1% 63.4% 0.0% 100.0%
Condition in year 2022 after schedulable treatments applied.

Condition Class Arterial Collector Res/Loc Other Total
I 13.1% 6.4% 26.7% 0.0% 46.2%
II / III 4.2% 2.4% 16.1% 0.0% 22.7%
IV 1.9% 2.8% 9.6% 0.0% 14.3%
V 1.3% 4.6% 11.0% 0.0% 16.9%
Total 20.5% 16.1% 63.4% 0.0% 100.0%
Condition in year 2026 after schedulable treatments applied.

Condition Class Arterial Collector Res/Loc Other Total
I 18.3% 7.9% 36.0% 0.0% 62.2%
II / III 0.0% 0.8% 10.1% 0.0% 10.9%
IV 0.0% 0.0% 1.5% 0.0% 1.5%
V 2.2% 7.4% 15.8% 0.0% 25.4%
Total 20.5% 16.1% 63.4% 0.0% 100.0%
Scenarios Criteria: 1 MTC StreetSaver
202 of 541
Year Budget PM Year Budget PM Year Budget PM
2022 $11,016,647 1.48%
2023 $11,016,647 1.48%
2024 $11,016,647 1.48%
2025 $11,016,647 1.48%
2026 $11,016,647 1.48%
Projected Network Average PCI by Year
With Selected Treatment Treated Centerline
Miles
Treated
Lane Miles
Year Never Treated
2022 57 65 13.91 32.81
2023 54 69 7.19 18.96
2024 52 74 7.11 18.90
2025 49 79 16.19 33.64
2026 47 84 18.21 40.12
Percent Network Area by Functional Class and Condition Category Condition
Condition in base year 2022, prior to applying treatments.

Arterial Collector Res/Loc Other Total
I 9.1% 6.4% 22.5% 0.0% 37.9%
II / III 4.2% 2.4% 16.1% 0.0% 22.7%
IV 5.9% 2.8% 13.8% 0.0% 22.5%
V 1.3% 4.6% 11.0% 0.0% 16.9%
Total 20.5% 16.1% 63.4% 0.0% 100.0%
Condition
Condition in year 2022 after schedulable treatments applied.

Arterial Collector Res/Loc Other Total
I 14.4% 6.9% 37.8% 0.0% 59.1%
II / III 4.2% 1.8% 8.4% 0.0% 14.4%
IV 1.9% 2.8% 6.3% 0.0% 11.0%
V 0.0% 4.6% 10.9% 0.0% 15.5%
Total 20.5% 16.1% 63.4% 0.0% 100.0%
Condition
Condition in year 2026 after schedulable treatments applied.

Arterial Collector Res/Loc Other Total
I 20.5% 15.8% 58.7% 0.0% 95.1%
II / III 0.0% 0.2% 1.9% 0.0% 2.2%
IV 0.0% 0.0% 1.5% 0.0% 1.5%
V 0.0% 0.0% 1.3% 0.0% 1.3%
Total 20.5% 16.1% 63.4% 0.0% 100.0%
Scenarios - Network Condition Summary
Printed: 5/2/2022
City of Pinole
Scenario: #PTAP 22 - S4 - Average Needs
Interest: 4.7% Inflation: 3%
Criteria: MTC StreetSaver
Scenarios Criteria:
1 203 of 541
Year Budget PM Year Budget PM Year Budget PM
2022 $0 0%
2023 $0 0%
2024 $0 0%
2025 $0 0%
2026 $0 0%
Projected Network Average PCI by Year
With Selected Treatment Treated Centerline
Miles
Treated
Lane Miles
Year Never Treated
2022 57 57 0 0
2023 54 54 0 0
2024 52 52 0 0
2025 49 49 0 0
2026 47 47 0 0
Percent Network Area by Functional Class and Condition Category Condition
Condition in base year 2022, prior to applying treatments.

Arterial Collector Res/Loc Other Total
I 9.1% 6.4% 22.5% 0.0% 37.9%
II / III 4.2% 2.4% 16.1% 0.0% 22.7%
IV 5.9% 2.8% 13.8% 0.0% 22.5%
V 1.3% 4.6% 11.0% 0.0% 16.9%
Total 20.5% 16.1% 63.4% 0.0% 100.0%
Condition
Condition in year 2022 after schedulable treatments applied.

Arterial Collector Res/Loc Other Total
I 9.1% 6.4% 22.5% 0.0% 37.9%
II / III 4.2% 2.4% 16.1% 0.0% 22.7%
IV 5.9% 2.8% 13.8% 0.0% 22.5%
V 1.3% 4.6% 11.0% 0.0% 16.9%
Total 20.5% 16.1% 63.4% 0.0% 100.0%
Condition
Condition in year 2026 after schedulable treatments applied.

Arterial Collector Res/Loc Other Total
I 5.4% 6.2% 20.2% 0.0% 31.9%
II / III 3.7% 0.9% 11.8% 0.0% 16.4%
IV 8.2% 1.6% 15.6% 0.0% 25.4%
V 3.2% 7.4% 15.8% 0.0% 26.4%
Total 20.5% 16.1% 63.4% 0.0% 100.0%
Scenarios - Network Condition Summary
Printed: 5/2/2022
City of Pinole
Scenario: #PTAP 22 - Scenario 5 - Zero Funding
Interest: 4.7% Inflation: 3%
Criteria: MTC StreetSaver
Scenarios Criteria:
1 204 of 541
Pavement Management Technical Assistance (P‐TAP) Round 22 SECTION IV
• Budget Scenarios – Sections Selected For Treatment
o Scenario 1 – Current Budget
o Scenario 2 – Constant PCI
o Scenario 3 – Plus 5 PCI Increase
o Scenario 4 – Average Needs
205 of 541

BUDGET SCENARIOS – SECTIONS SELECTED FOR TREATMENT
The sections selected for treatment report shows in detail the management sections selected each analysis year for M&R treatment.

This report helps the jurisdiction with identifying which streets are needed for M&R each analysis year.

Below is a description of the sections selected for treatment:

Year – Analysis year
Street Name – Name of Street
Beginning Location – Start of the management section
End Location – End of the management section
Section ID – Management section identifier
FC – This is a group of streets or roadway subsystems that are classified pending on the level of service and traffic.

A – Arterial
C – Collector
R – Residential/Local
O – Other (user defined)
Surface – Type of management section surface (AC, AC/AC, PCC, etc.) PCI – Management section pavement condition index
Cost – Associated and projected cost applied to the management section Cost Effectiveness Rating – The rating is the weight cost – effectiveness ratio of the recommended treatment. The system is programmed to determine and select sections identified as needing treatment using a ratio. The sections with the highest ratios are selected first until all available funds have been exhausted. The management sections requiring PM/Rehab but not selected for the initial year are reconsidered in the following years of the analysis period. These are deferred maintenance costs and are based on the unmet needed treatments deferred in the present year.

Treatment – Treatment contains the type of treatment the system is recommending for the management section

206 of 541
Year Budget PM Year Budget PM Year Budget PM
2022 $1,000,000 1.48%
2023 $1,000,000 1.48%
2024 $1,000,000 1.48%
2025 $1,000,000 1.48%
2026 $1,000,000 1.48%
Area ID
Year:

Street Name Begin Location End Location Street ID Section ID FC Surface
Type Cost Rating Treatment
Current
Length Width Area PCI
PCI
Before
PCI
After
Treatment
2022
4TH AVENUE MARLESTA AVE NOB HILL AVE 4THAVE 010 263 26 6,838 R AC/AC 84 85 91 $3,040 27,948 SLURRY SEAL APPIAN WAY I-80 EAST ON
RAMP
I-80 WEST ON
RAMP
APPIAN 030 482 74 35,668 A AC/AC 79 80 87 $15,853 55,961 SLURRY SEAL

CURRY COURT CARLOTTA
CIRCLE
CUL-DE-SAC CURRYC 432 101 37 3,737 R AC 73 74 82 $1,661 32,350 SLURRY SEAL KELLEY COURT MANN DR CUL DE SAC KELLEY 010 234 26 6,084 R AC 73 74 82 $2,704 29,745 SLURRY SEAL MADRONE AVENUE SAN PABLO AVE PRIVATE DRIVE MADRON 010 141 16 2,256 R AC 74 75 83 $1,003 29,441 SLURRY SEAL ROBLE AVENUE SAN PABLO AVE ENCINA AVE ROBLE 010 251 28 7,028 R AC/AC 84 85 91 $3,124 27,950 SLURRY SEAL SUNNYVIEW COURT MARLESTA DR CUL DE SAC SUNVCT 010 261 25 6,525 R AC/AC 84 85 91 $2,900 27,948 SLURRY SEAL Treatment Total $30,285
BARRETT COURT PONDEROSA TR CUL DE SAC BARRET 010 163 36 5,868 R AC 74 75 77 $37 427,230 SEAL CRACKS PONDEROSA TRAIL FARIA AVE FARIA AVE PONDER 010 2,036 36 73,296 R AC 76 77 79 $418 442,016 SEAL CRACKS

SAN PABLO AVENUE PINOLE SHORES
DR
SUNNYVIEW DR SANPAB 030 1,506 72 108,432 A AC/AC 77 78 80 $594 1,188,648 SEAL CRACKS SAN PABLO AVENUE SUNNYVIEW DR APPIAN WAY SANPAB 040 1,892 72 136,224 A AC/AC 78 79 80 $703 1,254,700 SEAL CRACKS Treatment Total $1,752

PINOLE VALLEY ROAD BRIDGE WEST OF

SAVAGE ST

COLLINS AVE
(NORTH INT)
PINOLV 030 A AC $592,020 10,665 MILL AND THICK

OVERLAY
2,484 39 96,876 44 45 100
PINOLE VALLEY ROAD TENNENT AVE SAN PABLO AVE PINOLV 080 A AC $322,667 10,941 MILL AND THICK

OVERLAY
1,650 32 52,800 39 40 100
Treatment Total $914,687

HOYTT COURT PINOLE VALLEY
RD
CUL DE SAC HOYTT 010 R AC $21,390 7,954 THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5

INCHES)
138 31 4,278 39 40 100

SARITA COURT PINOLE VALLEY
RD
CUL DE SAC SARITA 371 R AC $14,310 7,943 THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5

INCHES)
106 27 2,862 40 40 100
TOMAR COURT COLLINS AVE CUL DE SAC TOMAR 010 R AC $17,120 7,733 THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5

INCHES)
107 32 3,424 45 45 100
Treatment Total $52,820
Year 2022 Area Total 552,196 Year 2022 Total $999,544
Interest: 4.70%
City of Pinole Scenarios - Sections Selected for Treatment Inflation: 3.00% Printed: 5/2/2022
Scenario: #PTAP 22 - Scenario 1 - Current
Funding ($1M)
Scenarios Criteria:
** - Treatment from Project Selection 1 MTC StreetSaver 207 of 541
Area ID
Year:

Street Name Begin Location End Location Street ID Section ID FC Surface
Type Cost Rating Treatment
Current
Length Width Area PCI
PCI
Before
PCI
After
Treatment
2023

MAIDEN LANE SAN PABLO DRIVE
(DOES NOT

INCLUDE PCC)

TO ROAD

NARROWS
MAIDEN 434 52 21 1,092 R AC 70 69 79 $3,250 4,464 RUBBER CAPE SEAL Treatment Total $3,250
BELMONT WAY MARLESTA RD CUL-DE-SAC BELMON 010 734 36 26,198 R AC/AC 79 79 86 $11,993 25,943 SLURRY SEAL EBSEN COURT SARAH DR CUL DE SAC EBSEN 010 213 36 7,668 R AC/AC 79 79 86 $3,511 25,940 SLURRY SEAL EL TORO WAY CANYON DR CUL DE SAC ELTORO 010 739 32 23,648 R AC 73 72 81 $10,826 27,142 SLURRY SEAL Treatment Total $26,330
5TH AVENUE NOB HILL AVE SAN PABLO AVE 5THAVE 010 656 26 17,056 R AC 86 85 86 $60 416,417 SEAL CRACKS CRESTVIEW DRIVE SAN PABLO AVE END OF LOOP CRESTV 010 2,339 31 72,509 R AC 87 86 87 $233 407,908 SEAL CRACKS MAJOR VISTA COURT CRESTVIEW DR CUL DE SAC MAJORV 010 555 31 17,205 R AC 87 86 87 $56 407,940 SEAL CRACKS NOB HILL AVENUE MEADOW AVE SUNNYVIEW DR NOBHIL 010 949 24 22,776 R AC 88 87 88 $68 387,122 SEAL CRACKS

O CONNOR DRIVE CITY LIMITS
(HOUSE #401)
BANTRY RD OCONNE 010 479 34 16,286 R AC 87 86 87 $53 407,754 SEAL CRACKS Treatment Total $470

PINOLE VALLEY ROAD CITY LIMITS EAST

OF MARLIN CT

PINOLE CREEK
BRIDGE #6
PINOLV 010 A AC $453,742 10,412 MILL AND THICK

OVERLAY
1,897 38 72,086 46 44 100
PINOLE VALLEY ROAD ESTATES AVE I-80 OFF-RAMP PINOLV 055 A AC $317,240 10,264 MILL AND THICK

OVERLAY
840 60 50,400 48 46 100
PINOLE VALLEY ROAD HENRY AVE TENNENT AVE PINOLV 070 A AC $198,540 10,477 MILL AND THICK

OVERLAY
751 42 31,542 45 43 100
Treatment Total $969,522
Year 2023 Area Total 358,466 Year 2023 Total $999,572
Area ID
Year:

Street Name Begin Location End Location Street ID Section ID FC Surface
Type Cost Rating Treatment
Current
Length Width Area PCI
PCI
Before
PCI
After
Treatment
2024

GATLEY DRIVE PINOLE SHORES
DRIVE
CARLOTTA CIR GATLEY 010 119 25 2,975 R AC 79 76 85 $1,403 20,209 SLURRY SEAL

SIMAS AVENUE PINOLE VALLEY
RD
DIABLO CT SIMAS 010 1,746 38 66,348 C AC/AC 82 80 88 $31,284 39,165 SLURRY SEAL Treatment Total $32,687

SAN PABLO AVENUE BELMONT WAY PINOLE

SHORES DR
SANPAB 020 A AC $681,743 10,243 MILL AND THICK

OVERLAY
1,813 58 105,154 47 42 100
Treatment Total $681,743
Interest: 4.70%
City of Pinole Scenarios - Sections Selected for Treatment Inflation: 3.00% Printed: 5/2/2022
Scenario: #PTAP 22 - Scenario 1 - Current
Funding ($1M)
Scenarios Criteria:
** - Treatment from Project Selection 2 MTC StreetSaver 208 of 541
Area ID
Year:

Street Name Begin Location End Location Street ID Section ID FC Surface
Type Cost Rating Treatment
Current
Length Width Area PCI
PCI
Before
PCI
After
Treatment
2024
BOX CANYON ROAD BUCKSKIN RD DEAD END BOXCAN 010 R AC $48,510 7,480 THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5

INCHES)
295 31 9,145 45 40 100
HANSEN PLACE ROBLE AVE CUL DE SAC HANSEN 010 R AC $32,549 7,400 THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5

INCHES)
236 26 6,136 47 43 100

PINOLE SHORES
DRIVE
100 SOUTH OF

OVERPASS
DEL MONTE DR PINOLE 020 R AC $204,298 7,462 THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5

INCHES)
917 42 38,514 45 41 100
Treatment Total $285,357
Year 2024 Area Total 228,272 Year 2024 Total $999,787
Area ID
Year:

Street Name Begin Location End Location Street ID Section ID FC Surface
Type Cost Rating Treatment
Current
Length Width Area PCI
PCI
Before
PCI
After
Treatment
2025
GERZ COURT ESTATES AVE CUL DE SAC GERZCT 010 227 32 7,264 R AC 81 77 85 $3,528 19,527 SLURRY SEAL

MEEHAN COURT CARLOTTA
CIRCLE
CUL-DE-SAC MEENA 433 129 38 4,902 R AC 77 73 82 $2,381 22,098 SLURRY SEAL Treatment Total $5,909

ADOBE ROAD PAVEMENT
CHANGE
CUL-DE-SAC ADOBE 015 318 34 10,812 R AC 91 86 87 $36 375,372 SEAL CRACKS ALTAMIRANO CIRCLE FRANCISCA CT FRANCISCA CT ALTAMI 010 628 24 15,072 R AC 85 83 85 $64 642,666 SEAL CRACKS AMEND STREET MANN DR CUL DE SAC AMEND 010 973 36 35,028 R AC 91 86 87 $114 375,372 SEAL CRACKS ANTONIA COURT ANTONIA CIRCLE CUL DE SAC ANTOCT 010 279 33 9,207 R AC 85 83 84 $40 610,707 SEAL CRACKS BAY VIEW FARM ROAD SUNNYVIEW DR HOUSE #1059 BAYVIE 010 333 38 12,654 R AC 87 83 84 $54 409,624 SEAL CRACKS BERNARDO COURT OAK RIDGE RD CUL DE SAC BERNAR 010 228 31 7,068 R AC 85 83 85 $30 642,666 SEAL CRACKS BLUE JAY CIRCLE GALBRETH RD END OF LOOP BLUEJA 010 1,212 25 30,300 R AC 89 87 88 $94 671,000 SEAL CRACKS BRENDA COURT BELFAIR DR CUL DE SAC BRENDA 010 214 31 6,634 R AC 91 86 87 $22 375,465 SEAL CRACKS BRETT COURT PINON AVE CUL DE SAC BRETT 010 371 34 12,614 R AC 91 86 87 $44 385,037 SEAL CRACKS CANYON DRIVE APPIAN WAY EL TORO WAY CANYON 010 1,144 38 43,472 R AC 87 85 86 $162 668,643 SEAL CRACKS CLARK COURT FARIA AVE CUL DE SAC CLARK 010 429 32 13,728 R AC 84 81 82 $69 538,996 SEAL CRACKS COLINA COURT SAVAGE AVE CUL DE SAC COLINA 010 137 30 4,110 R AC 85 82 84 $19 621,870 SEAL CRACKS

COLLINS AVENUE PINOLE VALLEY

RD - WEST

ENTRANCE
TOMAR CT COLLIN 010A 614 32 19,648 R AC 75 71 74 $153 410,180 SEAL CRACKS

COLLINS AVENUE TOMAR CT PINOLE VALLEY

RD - EAST

ENTRANCE
COLLIN 010B 754 32 24,128 R AC 75 71 74 $187 410,180 SEAL CRACKS

DANNY COURT BAYVIEW FARM
RD
CUL DE SAC DANNY 010 405 36 14,580 R AC 84 82 83 $68 577,162 SEAL CRACKS Interest: 4.70%
City of Pinole Scenarios - Sections Selected for Treatment Inflation: 3.00% Printed: 5/2/2022
Scenario: #PTAP 22 - Scenario 1 - Current
Funding ($1M)
Scenarios Criteria:
** - Treatment from Project Selection 3 MTC StreetSaver 209 of 541
Area ID
Year:

Street Name Begin Location End Location Street ID Section ID FC Surface
Type Cost Rating Treatment
Current
Length Width Area PCI
PCI
Before
PCI
After
Treatment
2025

DOWNER STREET PINOLE VALLEY
RD
HENRY AVE DOWNER 010 1,394 37 51,578 R AC 89 85 86 $196 400,229 SEAL CRACKS ENLOW COURT PONDEROSA TR CUL DE SAC ENLOWC 010 245 36 8,820 R AC 83 79 81 $49 411,896 SEAL CRACKS FLAMINGO COURT GALBRETH RD CUL DE SAC FLAMIN 010 234 33 7,722 R AC 90 85 86 $29 391,419 SEAL CRACKS FRANCISCA COURT OAK RIDGE RD CUL DE SAC FRANCT 010 864 32 27,648 R AC 86 82 83 $128 413,633 SEAL CRACKS FRASER COURT FRANCIS DR CUL DE SAC FRASER 010 509 31 15,779 R AC 85 81 83 $77 414,142 SEAL CRACKS

GALBRETH ROAD PINOLE VALLEY
RD
BLUE JAY CIR GALBRE 15A 2,026 33 66,858 R AC 90 88 89 $193 665,536 SEAL CRACKS

GALBRETH ROAD BLUE JAY CIR END OF CUL DE
SAC
GALBRE 15B 608 33 20,064 R AC 90 88 89 $58 665,536 SEAL CRACKS GLEN COURT MARIONOLA WAY CUL DE SAC GLENCT 010 382 32 12,224 R AC 90 85 86 $45 391,419 SEAL CRACKS HANLEY DRIVE LIMERICK RD MARLESTA RD HANLDR 010 480 38 18,240 R AC 84 81 83 $89 587,083 SEAL CRACKS HAZEL STREET SUNNYVIEW DR DEAD END HAZEL 005 270 36 9,720 R AC 87 83 84 $42 409,512 SEAL CRACKS HENRY AVENUE LEWIS LN OAK RIDGE DR HENRY 020 1,044 38 39,672 R AC 87 83 84 $169 409,596 SEAL CRACKS

HENRY AVENUE OAK RIDGE DR PINOLE VALLEY
RD
HENRY 030 1,901 38 72,238 R AC 87 83 84 $308 409,624 SEAL CRACKS HENRY AVENUE ALICE WAY FRANCIS DR HENRY 050 926 37 34,262 R AC 86 82 83 $159 413,633 SEAL CRACKS HERMOSA STREET LUCAS AVE SIMAS AVE HERMST 020 1,217 32 38,944 R AC 87 85 86 $147 654,484 SEAL CRACKS HIGUERA AVENUE RAMONA ST ALAMO ST HIGUER 010 379 32 12,128 R AC 89 84 85 $48 403,414 SEAL CRACKS HUTCHINSON COURT PINON AVE CUL DE SAC HUTCHI 010 521 34 17,714 R AC 86 82 83 $82 413,633 SEAL CRACKS IGNACIO COURT OAK RIDGE RD CUL DE SAC IGNACI 010 106 40 4,240 R AC 87 83 84 $19 409,596 SEAL CRACKS JOHN STREET SAN PABLO AVE PRIVATE DRIVE JOHNST 010 686 25 17,150 R AC 89 84 85 $68 403,414 SEAL CRACKS LA CANADA COURT SAVAGE AVE CUL DE SAC LACANA 010 424 32 13,568 R AC 85 82 84 $61 638,048 SEAL CRACKS LA REINA STREET HERMOSA ST RAMONA ST LAREIN 010 525 36 18,900 R AC 87 83 84 $81 409,624 SEAL CRACKS LAUREL AVENUE SAN PABLO AVE PRIVATE DRIVE LAUREL 010 586 28 16,408 R AC/AC 84 79 81 $92 499,751 SEAL CRACKS LUCAS AVENUE ESTATES AVE RAMONA ST LUCAS 010 970 32 31,040 R AC 86 82 83 $144 413,621 SEAL CRACKS MARLESTA ROAD HOUSE #600 KILDARE WAY MARLES 020 1,241 38 47,158 C AC 90 85 86 $174 536,317 SEAL CRACKS MCDONALD DRIVE MARLESTA RD CUL DE SAC MCDONA 010 1,844 37 68,228 R AC 85 83 84 $295 610,707 SEAL CRACKS MEADOW AVENUE MARLESTA RD NOB HILL AVE MEADOW 010 687 24 16,488 R AC 89 84 85 $65 403,414 SEAL CRACKS

MONTCLAIR COURT SANTA BARBARA
DR
CUL DE SAC MONTCL 010 204 32 6,528 R AC 84 81 82 $33 538,996 SEAL CRACKS MORAGA DRIVE SIMAS AVE TAMALPAIS DR MORAGA 020 854 32 27,328 R AC 91 86 87 $91 382,186 SEAL CRACKS

ORLEANS DRIVE TENNENT AVE NORTH DEAD
END
ORLEAN 020 483 24 11,592 R AC/AC 89 86 87 $24 1,096,038 SEAL CRACKS PARK STREET QUINAN AVE TENNENT AVE PARKST 010 235 35 8,225 R AC 77 73 76 $60 448,850 SEAL CRACKS

PINOLE SHORES
DRIVE
DEL MONTE DR CUL DE SAC PINOLE 030 592 42 24,864 R AC 87 83 84 $106 409,596 SEAL CRACKS PONDEROSA TRAIL FARIA AVE HOLIDAY CT PONDER 020A 634 38 24,092 R AC 85 80 82 $122 414,585 SEAL CRACKS Interest: 4.70%
City of Pinole Scenarios - Sections Selected for Treatment Inflation: 3.00% Printed: 5/2/2022
Scenario: #PTAP 22 - Scenario 1 - Current
Funding ($1M)
Scenarios Criteria:
** - Treatment from Project Selection 4 MTC StreetSaver 210 of 541
Area ID
Year:

Street Name Begin Location End Location Street ID Section ID FC Surface
Type Cost Rating Treatment
Current
Length Width Area PCI
PCI
Before
PCI
After
Treatment
2025

PONDEROSA TRAIL HOLIDAY CT DEAD END

SOUTH OF

ALAMO ST
PONDER 020B 1,531 38 58,178 R AC 85 80 82 $293 414,585 SEAL CRACKS PRIMROSE LANE LOPES CT CUL DE SAC PRIMRO 020 665 32 21,280 R AC 91 86 87 $73 385,037 SEAL CRACKS

RAFAELA STREET PINOLE VALLEY
RD
JOHN ST RAFAEL 010 502 28 14,056 R AC 85 82 84 $64 621,870 SEAL CRACKS RIDGECREST ROAD HOUSE #1569 TESORO CT RIDGEC 020 1,880 37 69,560 R AC 86 83 85 $292 579,183 SEAL CRACKS ROGERS WAY NOB HILL AVE SAN PABLO AVE ROGERS 010 650 32 20,800 R AC 83 80 82 $105 593,552 SEAL CRACKS RUFF COURT FARIA ST CUL DE SAC RUFFCT 010 371 32 11,872 R AC 84 81 83 $58 570,451 SEAL CRACKS

SANTA BARBARA
DRIVE
RAMONA ST SILVERADO DR SANTAB 010 843 36 30,348 R AC 83 80 82 $155 582,667 SEAL CRACKS SARAH COURT SHEA DR CUL DE SAC SARACT 010 756 44 33,264 R AC/AC 89 86 87 $69 1,096,038 SEAL CRACKS SILVERCREST COURT VICTOR AVE CUL DE SAC SILVCT 010 554 31 17,174 R AC 87 84 85 $68 596,012 SEAL CRACKS SILVERCREST STREET VICTOR AVE DEAD END SILVST 010 389 31 12,059 R AC 90 85 86 $45 391,419 SEAL CRACKS

SONOMA WAY MORAGA DR MENDOCINO
AVE
SONOMA 010 982 32 31,424 R AC 88 84 85 $129 405,878 SEAL CRACKS SUMMIT COURT SUMMIT DR CUL DE SAC SUMMCT 010 118 30 3,540 R AC 89 84 85 $14 403,422 SEAL CRACKS

SUMMIT DRIVE CUL DE SAC
(SOUTH)
BUENA VISTA DRSUMMDR 010 493 24 11,832 R AC 74 70 73 $94 414,090 SEAL CRACKS

SUMMIT DRIVE BUENA VISTA DR CUL DE SAC
(NORTH-EAST)
SUMMDR 020 884 28 24,752 R AC 83 78 80 $141 411,629 SEAL CRACKS SUNNYVIEW DRIVE MARELSTA RD SAN PABLO AVE SUNVDR 010 1,108 34 37,672 R AC 89 84 85 $149 403,414 SEAL CRACKS

SUNNYVIEW DRIVE SAN PABLO AVE BAY VIEW FARM
RD
SUNVDR 020A 600 38 22,800 R AC 88 86 87 $75 672,847 SEAL CRACKS

SUNNYVIEW DRIVE BAY VIEW FARM
RD

DEAD END AT

WOY CIRCLE
SUNVDR 020B 1,197 38 45,486 R AC 88 86 87 $149 672,847 SEAL CRACKS VALLEY VIEW DRIVE FERN AVE BUENA VISTA DRVALLDR 010 189 28 5,292 R AC 85 80 82 $27 414,587 SEAL CRACKS

VICTOR STREET WRIGHT AVE SILVERCREST
ST
VICTOR 020 1,127 36 40,572 R AC 84 82 83 $191 556,775 SEAL CRACKS

WHIPPOORWILL
COURT
GALBRETH RD CUL DE SAC WHIPOR 010 609 33 20,097 R AC 86 83 85 $85 579,183 SEAL CRACKS WILDE COURT KILDARE WAY CUL DE SAC WILDE 010 201 36 7,236 R AC 87 83 84 $31 409,624 SEAL CRACKS WOODSIDE COURT VICTOR AVE CUL DE SAC WOODSI 010 561 31 17,391 R AC 87 85 86 $67 632,663 SEAL CRACKS Treatment Total $6,784

PINOLE VALLEY ROAD PINOLE CREEK
BRIDGE #6

BRIDGE WEST

OF SAVAGE ST
PINOLV 020 A AC $711,518 9,903 MILL AND THICK

OVERLAY
2,131 50 106,550 50 43 100
Treatment Total $711,518
2ND AVENUE NOB HILL AVE SAN PABLO AVE 2NDAVE 010 R AC $83,496 7,249 THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5

INCHES)
566 27 15,282 47 41 100

BETTY AVENUE MEADOW AVE EAST MEADOW
AVE
BETTY 010 R AC $53,369 7,266 THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5

INCHES)
407 24 9,768 47 40 100
Interest: 4.70%
City of Pinole Scenarios - Sections Selected for Treatment Inflation: 3.00% Printed: 5/2/2022
Scenario: #PTAP 22 - Scenario 1 - Current
Funding ($1M)
Scenarios Criteria:
** - Treatment from Project Selection 5 MTC StreetSaver 211 of 541
Area ID
Year:

Street Name Begin Location End Location Street ID Section ID FC Surface
Type Cost Rating Treatment
Current
Length Width Area PCI
PCI
Before
PCI
After
Treatment
2025
CURRAN COURT PONDEROSA TR CUL DE SAC CURRAN 010 R AC $70,022 7,253 THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5

INCHES)
356 36 12,816 47 41 100
ROBLE AVENUE ENCINA AVE PINON AVE ROBLE 020 R AC $66,548 7,274 THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5

INCHES)
420 29 12,180 47 40 100
Treatment Total $273,435
Year 2025 Area Total 1,773,922 Year 2025 Total $997,646 Area ID
Year:

Street Name Begin Location End Location Street ID Section ID FC Surface
Type Cost Rating Treatment
Current
Length Width Area PCI
PCI
Before
PCI
After
Treatment
2026
BARRETT COURT PONDEROSA TR CUL DE SAC BARRET 010 163 36 5,868 R AC 74 70 79 $2,936 19,584 SLURRY SEAL MENDOCINO DRIVE SIMAS AVE TAMALPAIS DR MENDDR 010 696 37 25,752 R AC 83 77 85 $12,882 18,832 SLURRY SEAL Treatment Total $15,818
4TH AVENUE MARLESTA AVE NOB HILL AVE 4THAVE 010 263 26 6,838 R AC/AC 84 88 89 $3 7,150,767 SEAL CRACKS APPIAN WAY I-80 EAST ON
RAMP
I-80 WEST ON
RAMP
APPIAN 030 482 74 35,668 A AC/AC 79 83 85 $129 1,681,173 SEAL CRACKS BUENA VISTA DRIVE HOUSE #440 END OF LOOP BUENAV 020 788 23 18,124 R AC/AC 92 89 89 $3 16,694,218 SEAL CRACKS CORTE CRUZ COURT HOKE DR CUL DE SAC CORTE 010 544 33 17,952 R AC/AC 92 89 89 $3 16,694,218 SEAL CRACKS

CURRY COURT CARLOTTA
CIRCLE
CUL-DE-SAC CURRYC 432 101 37 3,737 R AC 73 79 81 $22 734,822 SEAL CRACKS FERN AVENUE SAN PABLO AVE VALLEYVIEW ST FERNAV 010 519 28 14,532 R AC/AC 92 89 89 $2 16,694,218 SEAL CRACKS

HOYTT COURT PINOLE VALLEY
RD
CUL DE SAC HOYTT 010 138 31 4,278 R AC 39 87 88 $5 969,239 SEAL CRACKS KELLEY COURT MANN DR CUL DE SAC KELLEY 010 234 26 6,084 R AC 73 78 80 $36 558,095 SEAL CRACKS MADRONE AVENUE SAN PABLO AVE PRIVATE DRIVE MADRON 010 141 16 2,256 R AC 74 79 81 $13 558,713 SEAL CRACKS

PINOLE VALLEY ROAD BRIDGE WEST OF

SAVAGE ST

COLLINS AVE
(NORTH INT)
PINOLV 030 2,484 39 96,876 A AC 44 85 86 $262 1,001,607 SEAL CRACKS PINOLE VALLEY ROAD TENNENT AVE SAN PABLO AVE PINOLV 080 1,650 32 52,800 A AC 39 85 86 $143 1,001,607 SEAL CRACKS ROBLE AVENUE SAN PABLO AVE ENCINA AVE ROBLE 010 251 28 7,028 R AC/AC 84 88 89 $3 7,275,110 SEAL CRACKS

SARITA COURT PINOLE VALLEY
RD
CUL DE SAC SARITA 371 106 27 2,862 R AC 40 87 88 $4 969,239 SEAL CRACKS SUNNYVIEW COURT MARLESTA DR CUL DE SAC SUNVCT 010 261 25 6,525 R AC/AC 84 88 89 $3 7,150,767 SEAL CRACKS TOMAR COURT COLLINS AVE CUL DE SAC TOMAR 010 107 32 3,424 R AC 45 87 88 $4 969,239 SEAL CRACKS Treatment Total $635
SAN PABLO AVENUE APPIAN WAY OAK RIDGE RD SANPAB 050 A AC $774,448 9,597 MILL AND THICK

OVERLAY
1,706 66 112,596 54 43 100
Interest: 4.70%
City of Pinole Scenarios - Sections Selected for Treatment Inflation: 3.00% Printed: 5/2/2022
Scenario: #PTAP 22 - Scenario 1 - Current
Funding ($1M)
Scenarios Criteria:
** - Treatment from Project Selection 6 MTC StreetSaver 212 of 541
Treatment Total $774,448

DEL MONTE DRIVE PINOLE SHORES
DR
CITY LIMITS DELMON 010 R AC $118,348 7,047 THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5

INCHES)
701 30 21,030 49 40 100
OWENS COURT SHEA DR CUL DE SAC OWENS 010 R AC $90,041 7,036 THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5

INCHES)
500 32 16,000 50 41 100
Treatment Total $208,389
Year 2026 Area Total 460,230 Year 2026 Total $999,290
Grand Total Section Area: 3,373,086 Grand Total $4,995,839 Interest: 4.70%
City of Pinole Scenarios - Sections Selected for Treatment Inflation: 3.00% Printed: 5/2/2022
Scenario: #PTAP 22 - Scenario 1 - Current
Funding ($1M)
Scenarios Criteria:
** - Treatment from Project Selection 7 MTC StreetSaver 213 of 541
Interest: 4.70%
City of Pinole Target-Driven Scenarios - Sections Selected for Treatment Inflation: 3.00% Printed: 5/2/2022
Target: Overall 57
Scenario: PTAP 22 - S3: Maintain Current PCI (57)
Objective: Minimum Network Average PCI
Year: 2022
Street Name
Treatment: SLURRY SEAL
Begin Location End Location Street ID Section ID FC Surface PCI Cost Rating APPIAN WAY MICHAEL DR I-80 EAST ON RAMP APPIAN 020 A AC/AC 87 $40,684 55,961 APPIAN WAY I-80 EAST ON RAMP I-80 WEST ON RAMP APPIAN 030 A AC/AC 87 $15,853 55,961 APPIAN WAY I-80 WEST ON RAMP MANN DR APPIAN 040 A AC/AC 88 $43,101 57,396 APPIAN WAY MANN DR SAN PABLO AVE APPIAN 050 A AC/AC 88 $88,816 57,396 FITGERALD DRIVE JOVITA LN APPIAN WAY FITZGE 020 C AC/AC 89 $99,494 40,899 2022 - SLURRY SEAL Total $287,948
Street Name
Treatment: SEAL CRACKS
Begin Location End Location Street ID Section ID FC Surface PCI Cost Rating BARRETT COURT PONDEROSA TR CUL DE SAC BARRET 010 R AC 77 $37 427,230 PONDEROSA TRAIL FARIA AVE FARIA AVE PONDER 010 R AC 79 $418 442,016 SAN PABLO AVENUE PINOLE SHORES DR SUNNYVIEW DR SANPAB 030 A AC/AC 80 $594 1,188,648 SAN PABLO AVENUE SUNNYVIEW DR APPIAN WAY SANPAB 040 A AC/AC 80 $703 1,254,700 2022 - SEAL CRACKS Total $1,752
Year 2022 Total $289,700
Year: 2023
Street Name
Treatment: SLURRY SEAL
Begin Location End Location Street ID Section ID FC Surface PCI Cost Rating 4TH AVENUE MARLESTA AVE NOB HILL AVE 4THAVE 010 R AC/AC 91 $3,131 27,914 ALFRED DRIVE BELFAIR DR HAZEL ST ALFRED 010 R AC 91 $5,336 16,336 ANTONIA CIRCLE OAK RIDGE RD OAK RIDGE RD ANTONI 010 R AC 83 $10,921 21,253 BELMONT WAY MARLESTA RD CUL-DE-SAC BELMON 010 R AC/AC 86 $11,993 25,943 CURRY COURT CARLOTTA CIRCLE CUL-DE-SAC CURRYC 432 R AC 81 $1,711 30,993 DUTRA COURT HAZEL ST CUL DE SAC DUTRA 010 R AC 82 $2,683 21,339 EBSEN COURT SARAH DR CUL DE SAC EBSEN 010 R AC/AC 86 $3,511 25,940 EL TORO WAY CANYON DR CUL DE SAC ELTORO 010 R AC 81 $10,826 27,142 GATLEY DRIVE PINOLE SHORES DRIVE CARLOTTA CIR GATLEY 010 R AC 86 $1,362 20,323 GERZ COURT ESTATES AVE CUL DE SAC GERZCT 010 R AC 88 $3,326 19,413 HEMLEB COURT BAYVIEW FARM RD CUL DE SAC HEMLEB 010 R AC 90 $7,110 17,267 KELLEY COURT MANN DR CUL DE SAC KELLEY 010 R AC 81 $2,786 28,509 ** - Treatment from Project Selection 1 MTC StreetSaver 214 of 541
Year: 2023
Street Name
Treatment: SLURRY SEAL
Begin Location End Location Street ID Section ID FC Surface PCI Cost Rating MADRONE AVENUE SAN PABLO AVE PRIVATE DRIVE MADRON 010 R AC 82 $1,033 28,297 MEADOW AVENUE NOB HILL AVE SAN PABLO AVE MEADOW 020 R AC 91 $10,185 16,349 MEEHAN COURT CARLOTTA CIRCLE CUL-DE-SAC MEENA 433 R AC 84 $2,245 23,042 MENDOCINO DRIVE SIMAS AVE TAMALPAIS DR MENDDR 010 R AC 89 $11,789 18,087 OAK RIDGE ROAD HENRY AVE IGNACIO CT OAKRID 010 C AC 82 $6,483 23,481 OAK RIDGE ROAD IGNACIO CT SAN PABLO AVE OAKRID 020 C AC 86 $18,096 24,846 ROBLE AVENUE SAN PABLO AVE ENCINA AVE ROBLE 010 R AC/AC 91 $3,218 27,915 SAN PABLO AVENUE PINOLE SHORES DR SUNNYVIEW DR SANPAB 030 A AC/AC 87 $49,638 36,798 SAN PABLO AVENUE SUNNYVIEW DR APPIAN WAY SANPAB 040 A AC/AC 88 $62,361 37,385 SIMAS AVENUE PINOLE VALLEY RD DIABLO CT SIMAS 010 C AC/AC 89 $30,373 39,897 SIMAS AVENUE DIABLO CT APPALOOSA TR SIMAS 015 C AC/AC 89 $45,716 35,147 SIMAS AVENUE APPALOOSA TR PINOLE VALLEY RD SIMAS 020 C AC/AC 89 $34,790 33,099 SUNNYVIEW COURT MARLESTA DR CUL DE SAC SUNVCT 010 R AC/AC 91 $2,987 27,914 TESORO COURT RIDGECREST RD CUL DE SAC TESORO 010 R AC 92 $6,549 14,177 2023 - SLURRY SEAL Total $284,430
Street Name
Treatment: SEAL CRACKS
Begin Location End Location Street ID Section ID FC Surface PCI Cost Rating 5TH AVENUE NOB HILL AVE SAN PABLO AVE 5THAVE 010 R AC 86 $60 416,417 CRESTVIEW DRIVE SAN PABLO AVE END OF LOOP CRESTV 010 R AC 87 $233 407,908 MAJOR VISTA COURT CRESTVIEW DR CUL DE SAC MAJORV 010 R AC 87 $56 407,940 NOB HILL AVENUE MEADOW AVE SUNNYVIEW DR NOBHIL 010 R AC 88 $68 387,126 O CONNOR DRIVE CITY LIMITS (HOUSE #401) BANTRY RD OCONNE 010 R AC 87 $53 407,758 2023 - SEAL CRACKS Total $470
Street Name
Treatment: MILL AND THICK OVERLAY
Begin Location End Location Street ID Section ID FC Surface PCI Cost Rating PINOLE VALLEY ROAD CITY LIMITS EAST OF MARLIN CT PINOLE CREEK BRIDGE #6 PINOLV 010 A AC 100 $453,742 10,412 PINOLE VALLEY ROAD BRIDGE WEST OF SAVAGE ST COLLINS AVE (NORTH INT) PINOLV 030 A AC 100 $609,781 10,532 PINOLE VALLEY ROAD HENRY AVE TENNENT AVE PINOLV 070 A AC 100 $198,540 10,477 SAN PABLO AVENUE BELMONT WAY PINOLE SHORES DR SANPAB 020 A AC 100 $661,887 10,375 2023 - MILL AND THICK OVERLAY Total $1,923,950
Target-Driven Scenarios - Sections Selected for Treatment Year 2023 Total $2,208,850
** - Treatment from Project Selection 2 MTC StreetSaver 215 of 541
Year: 2024
Street Name
Treatment: SLURRY SEAL
Begin Location End Location Street ID Section ID FC Surface PCI Cost Rating ADOBE ROAD PINOLE VALLEY RD PAVEMENT CHANGE ADOBE 005 R AC 95 $6,149 9,289 DIABLO CIRCLE SIMAS AVE SIMAS AVE DIABLO 010 R AC 95 $16,311 9,271 RUFF AVENUE FARIA AVE PALOMA ST RUFFAV 010 R AC 95 $16,794 9,269 2024 - SLURRY SEAL Total $39,254
Street Name
Treatment: MILL AND THICK OVERLAY
Begin Location End Location Street ID Section ID FC Surface PCI Cost Rating PINOLE VALLEY ROAD PINOLE CREEK BRIDGE #6 BRIDGE WEST OF SAVAGE ST PINOLV 020 A AC 100 $690,794 10,025 PINOLE VALLEY ROAD ESTATES AVE I-80 OFF-RAMP PINOLV 055 A AC 100 $326,758 10,148 SAN PABLO AVENUE APPIAN WAY OAK RIDGE RD SANPAB 050 A AC 100 $729,992 9,787 SAN PABLO AVENUE OAK RIDGE RD BRIDGE (HERCULES CL) SANPAB 055 A AC 100 $857,738 10,017 2024 - MILL AND THICK OVERLAY Total $2,605,282
Street Name
Treatment: THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5 INCHES)
Begin Location End Location Street ID Section ID FC Surface PCI Cost Rating BOX CANYON ROAD BUCKSKIN RD DEAD END BOXCAN 010 R AC 100 $48,510 7,480 PINOLE SHORES DRIVE 100 SOUTH OF OVERPASS DEL MONTE DR PINOLE 020 R AC 100 $204,298 7,462 SEVILLE COURT MONTE VERDE DRIVE CUL DE SAC SEVILL 010 R AC 100 $96,585 7,449 TOMAR COURT COLLINS AVE CUL DE SAC TOMAR 010 R AC 100 $18,163 7,479 2024 - THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5 INCHES) Total $367,556
Year 2024 Total $3,012,092
Year: 2025
Street Name
Treatment: SLURRY SEAL
Begin Location End Location Street ID Section ID FC Surface PCI Cost Rating ESTATES AVENUE SIMAS AVE RAMONA ST ESTATE 010 C AC 94 $43,001 19,302 2025 - SLURRY SEAL Total $43,001
Street Name
Treatment: SEAL CRACKS
Begin Location End Location Street ID Section ID FC Surface PCI Cost Rating ADOBE ROAD PAVEMENT CHANGE CUL-DE-SAC ADOBE 015 R AC 87 $36 375,372 ALTAMIRANO CIRCLE FRANCISCA CT FRANCISCA CT ALTAMI 010 R AC 85 $64 642,666 AMEND STREET MANN DR CUL DE SAC AMEND 010 R AC 87 $114 375,372 ANTONIA COURT ANTONIA CIRCLE CUL DE SAC ANTOCT 010 R AC 84 $40 610,707 BAY VIEW FARM ROAD SUNNYVIEW DR HOUSE #1059 BAYVIE 010 R AC 84 $54 409,624 Target-Driven Scenarios - Sections Selected for Treatment BERNARDO COURT OAK RIDGE RD CUL DE SAC BERNAR 010 R AC 85 $30 642,666 ** - Treatment from Project Selection 3 MTC StreetSaver 216 of 541
Year: 2025
Street Name
Treatment: SEAL CRACKS
Begin Location End Location Street ID Section ID FC Surface PCI Cost Rating BLUE JAY CIRCLE GALBRETH RD END OF LOOP BLUEJA 010 R AC 88 $94 671,000 BRENDA COURT BELFAIR DR CUL DE SAC BRENDA 010 R AC 87 $22 375,465 BRETT COURT PINON AVE CUL DE SAC BRETT 010 R AC 87 $44 385,037 CANYON DRIVE APPIAN WAY EL TORO WAY CANYON 010 R AC 86 $162 668,643 CLARK COURT FARIA AVE CUL DE SAC CLARK 010 R AC 82 $69 538,996 COLINA COURT SAVAGE AVE CUL DE SAC COLINA 010 R AC 84 $19 621,870

COLLINS AVENUE PINOLE VALLEY RD - WEST

ENTRANCE
TOMAR CT COLLIN 010A R AC 74 $153 410,180

COLLINS AVENUE TOMAR CT PINOLE VALLEY RD - EAST

ENTRANCE
COLLIN 010B R AC 74 $187 410,180
DANNY COURT BAYVIEW FARM RD CUL DE SAC DANNY 010 R AC 83 $68 577,162 DOWNER STREET PINOLE VALLEY RD HENRY AVE DOWNER 010 R AC 86 $196 400,229 ENLOW COURT PONDEROSA TR CUL DE SAC ENLOWC 010 R AC 81 $49 411,896 FLAMINGO COURT GALBRETH RD CUL DE SAC FLAMIN 010 R AC 86 $29 391,419 FRANCISCA COURT OAK RIDGE RD CUL DE SAC FRANCT 010 R AC 83 $128 413,633 FRASER COURT FRANCIS DR CUL DE SAC FRASER 010 R AC 83 $77 414,142 GALBRETH ROAD PINOLE VALLEY RD BLUE JAY CIR GALBRE 15A R AC 89 $193 665,536 GALBRETH ROAD BLUE JAY CIR END OF CUL DE SAC GALBRE 15B R AC 89 $58 665,536 GLEN COURT MARIONOLA WAY CUL DE SAC GLENCT 010 R AC 86 $45 391,419 HANLEY DRIVE LIMERICK RD MARLESTA RD HANLDR 010 R AC 83 $89 587,083 HAZEL STREET SUNNYVIEW DR DEAD END HAZEL 005 R AC 84 $42 409,512 HENRY AVENUE LEWIS LN OAK RIDGE DR HENRY 020 R AC 84 $169 409,596 HENRY AVENUE OAK RIDGE DR PINOLE VALLEY RD HENRY 030 R AC 84 $308 409,624 HENRY AVENUE ALICE WAY FRANCIS DR HENRY 050 R AC 83 $159 413,633 HERMOSA STREET LUCAS AVE SIMAS AVE HERMST 020 R AC 86 $147 654,484 HIGUERA AVENUE RAMONA ST ALAMO ST HIGUER 010 R AC 85 $48 403,414 HUTCHINSON COURT PINON AVE CUL DE SAC HUTCHI 010 R AC 83 $82 413,633 IGNACIO COURT OAK RIDGE RD CUL DE SAC IGNACI 010 R AC 84 $19 409,596 JOHN STREET SAN PABLO AVE PRIVATE DRIVE JOHNST 010 R AC 85 $68 403,414 LA CANADA COURT SAVAGE AVE CUL DE SAC LACANA 010 R AC 84 $61 638,048 LA REINA STREET HERMOSA ST RAMONA ST LAREIN 010 R AC 84 $81 409,624 LAUREL AVENUE SAN PABLO AVE PRIVATE DRIVE LAUREL 010 R AC/AC 81 $92 499,751 LUCAS AVENUE ESTATES AVE RAMONA ST LUCAS 010 R AC 83 $144 413,621 MARLESTA ROAD HOUSE #600 KILDARE WAY MARLES 020 C AC 86 $174 536,317 MCDONALD DRIVE MARLESTA RD CUL DE SAC MCDONA 010 R AC 84 $295 610,707 MEADOW AVENUE MARLESTA RD NOB HILL AVE MEADOW 010 R AC 85 $65 403,414 MONTCLAIR COURT SANTA BARBARA DR CUL DE SAC MONTCL 010 R AC 82 $33 538,996 MORAGA DRIVE SIMAS AVE TAMALPAIS DR MORAGA 020 R AC 87 $91 382,186 Target-Driven Scenarios - Sections Selected for Treatment ORLEANS DRIVE TENNENT AVE NORTH DEAD END ORLEAN 020 R AC/AC 87 $24 1,096,038 ** - Treatment from Project Selection 4 MTC StreetSaver 217 of 541
Year: 2025
Street Name
Treatment: SEAL CRACKS
Begin Location End Location Street ID Section ID FC Surface PCI Cost Rating PARK STREET QUINAN AVE TENNENT AVE PARKST 010 R AC 76 $60 448,850 PINOLE SHORES DRIVE DEL MONTE DR CUL DE SAC PINOLE 030 R AC 84 $106 409,596 PONDEROSA TRAIL FARIA AVE HOLIDAY CT PONDER 020A R AC 82 $122 414,585 PONDEROSA TRAIL HOLIDAY CT DEAD END SOUTH OF ALAMO ST PONDER 020B R AC 82 $293 414,585 PRIMROSE LANE LOPES CT CUL DE SAC PRIMRO 020 R AC 87 $73 385,037 RAFAELA STREET PINOLE VALLEY RD JOHN ST RAFAEL 010 R AC 84 $64 621,870 RIDGECREST ROAD HOUSE #1569 TESORO CT RIDGEC 020 R AC 85 $292 579,183 ROGERS WAY NOB HILL AVE SAN PABLO AVE ROGERS 010 R AC 82 $105 593,552 RUFF COURT FARIA ST CUL DE SAC RUFFCT 010 R AC 83 $58 570,451 SANTA BARBARA DRIVE RAMONA ST SILVERADO DR SANTAB 010 R AC 82 $155 582,667 SARAH COURT SHEA DR CUL DE SAC SARACT 010 R AC/AC 87 $69 1,096,038 SILVERCREST COURT VICTOR AVE CUL DE SAC SILVCT 010 R AC 85 $68 596,012 SILVERCREST STREET VICTOR AVE DEAD END SILVST 010 R AC 86 $45 391,419 SONOMA WAY MORAGA DR MENDOCINO AVE SONOMA 010 R AC 85 $129 405,878 SUMMIT COURT SUMMIT DR CUL DE SAC SUMMCT 010 R AC 85 $14 403,422 SUMMIT DRIVE CUL DE SAC (SOUTH) BUENA VISTA DR SUMMDR 010 R AC 73 $94 414,090 SUMMIT DRIVE BUENA VISTA DR CUL DE SAC (NORTH-EAST) SUMMDR 020 R AC 80 $141 411,629 SUNNYVIEW DRIVE MARELSTA RD SAN PABLO AVE SUNVDR 010 R AC 85 $149 403,414 SUNNYVIEW DRIVE SAN PABLO AVE BAY VIEW FARM RD SUNVDR 020A R AC 87 $75 672,847 SUNNYVIEW DRIVE BAY VIEW FARM RD DEAD END AT WOY CIRCLE SUNVDR 020B R AC 87 $149 672,847 VALLEY VIEW DRIVE FERN AVE BUENA VISTA DR VALLDR 010 R AC 82 $27 414,587 VICTOR STREET WRIGHT AVE SILVERCREST ST VICTOR 020 R AC 83 $191 556,775 WHIPPOORWILL COURT GALBRETH RD CUL DE SAC WHIPOR 010 R AC 85 $85 579,183 WILDE COURT KILDARE WAY CUL DE SAC WILDE 010 R AC 84 $31 409,624 WOODSIDE COURT VICTOR AVE CUL DE SAC WOODSI 010 R AC 86 $67 632,663 2025 - SEAL CRACKS Total $2,602
Street Name
Treatment: MILL AND THICK OVERLAY
Begin Location End Location Street ID Section ID FC Surface PCI Cost Rating PINOLE VALLEY ROAD I-80 OFF-RAMP HENRY AVE PINOLV 065 A AC 100 $555,324 9,509 2025 - MILL AND THICK OVERLAY Total $555,324
Street Name
Treatment: THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5 INCHES)
Begin Location End Location Street ID Section ID FC Surface PCI Cost Rating 2ND AVENUE NOB HILL AVE SAN PABLO AVE 2NDAVE 010 R AC 100 $83,496 7,249 ALICE WAY HENRY AVE HENRY AVE ALICE 010 R AC 100 $367,709 7,072 Target-Driven Scenarios - Sections Selected for Treatment BETTY AVENUE MEADOW AVE EAST MEADOW AVE BETTY 010 R AC 100 $53,369 7,266 ** - Treatment from Project Selection 5 MTC StreetSaver 218 of 541
Year: 2025
Street Name
Treatment: THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5 INCHES)
Begin Location End Location Street ID Section ID FC Surface PCI Cost Rating CURRAN COURT PONDEROSA TR CUL DE SAC CURRAN 010 R AC 100 $70,022 7,253 DEL MONTE DRIVE PINOLE SHORES DR CITY LIMITS DELMON 010 R AC 100 $114,901 7,174 DOIDGE AVENUE WRIGHT AVE MOORE CT DOIDGE 010 R AC 100 $261,217 7,173 FARIA COURT FARIA AVE CUL DE SAC FARICT 010 R AC 100 $34,662 7,121 HANSEN PLACE ROBLE AVE CUL DE SAC HANSEN 010 R AC 100 $33,525 7,269 HERMOSA COURT ESTATES AVE CUL DE SAC HERMCT 010 R AC 100 $20,801 7,112 MENDOCINO DRIVE TAMALPAIS DR GOULARTE DR MENDDR 020 R AC 100 $135,865 7,238 MICHAEL DRIVE APPIAN WAY CUL DE SAC MICHAE 010 R AC 100 $111,196 7,111 OWENS COURT SHEA DR CUL DE SAC OWENS 010 R AC 100 $87,419 7,158 POQUITO COURT CUL DE SAC S. OF CANYON DR CUL DE SAC N. OF CANYON DR POQUIT 010 R AC 100 $46,999 7,221 PRIMROSE LANE PINON AVE LOPES CT PRIMRO 010 R AC 100 $95,461 7,208 ROBLE AVENUE ENCINA AVE PINON AVE ROBLE 020 R AC 100 $66,548 7,274 SANDRA COURT REBECCA DR CUL DE SAC SANDRA 010 R AC 100 $40,912 7,119 TAMALPAIS DRIVE SIMAS AVE MENDOCINO DR TAMALP 010 R AC 100 $448,652 7,067 2025 - THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5 INCHES) Total $1,498,158
Year 2025 Total $1,498,158
Year: 2026
Street Name
Treatment: SLURRY SEAL
Begin Location End Location Street ID Section ID FC Surface PCI Cost Rating BARRETT COURT PONDEROSA TR CUL DE SAC BARRET 010 R AC 79 $2,936 19,584 PONDEROSA TRAIL FARIA AVE FARIA AVE PONDER 010 R AC 81 $36,665 19,557 2026 - SLURRY SEAL Total $39,601
Street Name
Treatment: SEAL CRACKS
Begin Location End Location Street ID Section ID FC Surface PCI Cost Rating APPIAN WAY MICHAEL DR I-80 EAST ON RAMP APPIAN 020 A AC/AC 85 $330 1,681,173 APPIAN WAY I-80 EAST ON RAMP I-80 WEST ON RAMP APPIAN 030 A AC/AC 85 $129 1,681,173 APPIAN WAY I-80 WEST ON RAMP MANN DR APPIAN 040 A AC/AC 86 $291 1,966,440 APPIAN WAY MANN DR SAN PABLO AVE APPIAN 050 A AC/AC 86 $600 1,966,440 BUENA VISTA DRIVE HOUSE #440 END OF LOOP BUENAV 020 R AC/AC 89 $3 16,694,218 CORTE CRUZ COURT HOKE DR CUL DE SAC CORTE 010 R AC/AC 89 $3 16,694,218 FERN AVENUE SAN PABLO AVE VALLEYVIEW ST FERNAV 010 R AC/AC 89 $2 16,694,218 FITGERALD DRIVE JOVITA LN APPIAN WAY FITZGE 020 C AC/AC 87 $535 1,658,483 Target-Driven Scenarios - Sections Selected for Treatment 2026 - SEAL CRACKS Total $1,893
** - Treatment from Project Selection 6 MTC StreetSaver 219 of 541
Year: 2026
Street Name
Treatment: MILL AND THICK OVERLAY
Begin Location End Location Street ID Section ID FC Surface PCI Cost Rating FITGERALD DRIVE CALTRANS RIGHT OF WAY JOVITA LN FITZGE 010 C AC/AC 100 $503,093 6,708 MARLESTA ROAD HANLEY DR HOUSE #600 MARLES 010 C AC 100 $196,027 6,857 MARLESTA ROAD KILDARE WAY MCDONALD DR MARLES 030 C AC 100 $420,941 6,724 2026 - MILL AND THICK OVERLAY Total $1,120,061
Street Name
Treatment: THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5 INCHES)
Begin Location End Location Street ID Section ID FC Surface PCI Cost Rating ALHAMBRA WAY MORAGA DR CUL DE SAC ALHAMB 010 R AC 100 $317,664 6,758 BAY VIEW FARM ROAD HOUSE #1059 PINON AVE BAYVIE 020 R AC 100 $289,121 6,870 DEAN COURT PONDEROSA TR CUL DE SAC DEANCT 010 R AC 100 $76,783 6,864 DOOLIN COURT KILLARNEY RD CUL DE SAC DOOLIN 010 R AC 100 $31,008 6,953 FARIA AVENUE CLARK CT PONDEROSA TR FARIAV 020 R AC 100 $305,160 6,741 HOLLIDAY COURT PONDEROSA TR CUL DE SAC HOLLID 010 R AC 100 $41,937 6,757 LEROY AVENUE LE FABVRE WY CUL DE SAC LEROY 010 R AC 100 $64,132 6,909 LUCAS AVENUE RAMONA ST CUL DE SAC LUCAS 020 R AC 100 $28,560 6,761 MONTE VISTA DRIVE PINOLE VALLEY DR ALHAMBRA WAY MONTVI 010 R AC 100 $284,236 6,775 PINON AVENUE BELFAIR DR DEAD END PINONA 020 R AC 100 $116,975 6,811 QUINAN AVENUE SAN PABLO AVE BUENA VISTA DR (SOUTH INT) QUINAN 010 R AC 100 $107,982 6,799 ROBERT COURT ALICE WAY CUL DE SAC ROBERT 010 R AC 100 $32,061 6,748 VALLEY AVENUE SAN PABLO AVE CHARLES AVE VALLAV 010 R AC 100 $26,000 6,730 2026 - THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5 INCHES) Total $1,721,619
Year 2026 Total $2,338,587
Grand Total $11,137,408
Target-Driven Scenarios - Sections Selected for Treatment ** - Treatment from Project Selection 7 MTC StreetSaver 220 of 541
Interest: 4.70%
City of Pinole Target-Driven Scenarios - Sections Selected for Treatment Inflation: 3.00% Printed: 5/2/2022
Target: Overall 62
Scenario: PTAP 22 - S3: Plus 5 PCI Increase
Objective: Minimum Network Average PCI
Year: 2022
Street Name
Treatment: SLURRY SEAL
Begin Location End Location Street ID Section ID FC Surface PCI Cost Rating 4TH AVENUE MARLESTA AVE NOB HILL AVE 4THAVE 010 R AC/AC 91 $3,040 27,948 ALFRED DRIVE BELFAIR DR HAZEL ST ALFRED 010 R AC 92 $5,181 14,920 ANTONIA CIRCLE OAK RIDGE RD OAK RIDGE RD ANTONI 010 R AC 84 $10,603 21,645 APPIAN WAY MICHAEL DR I-80 EAST ON RAMP APPIAN 020 A AC/AC 87 $40,684 55,961 APPIAN WAY I-80 EAST ON RAMP I-80 WEST ON RAMP APPIAN 030 A AC/AC 87 $15,853 55,961 APPIAN WAY I-80 WEST ON RAMP MANN DR APPIAN 040 A AC/AC 88 $43,101 57,396 APPIAN WAY MANN DR SAN PABLO AVE APPIAN 050 A AC/AC 88 $88,816 57,396 BELMONT WAY MARLESTA RD CUL-DE-SAC BELMON 010 R AC/AC 87 $11,644 26,266 CURRY COURT CARLOTTA CIRCLE CUL-DE-SAC CURRYC 432 R AC 82 $1,661 32,350 DUTRA COURT HAZEL ST CUL DE SAC DUTRA 010 R AC 83 $2,604 21,802 EBSEN COURT SARAH DR CUL DE SAC EBSEN 010 R AC/AC 87 $3,408 26,263 EL TORO WAY CANYON DR CUL DE SAC ELTORO 010 R AC 82 $10,511 28,242 FITGERALD DRIVE JOVITA LN APPIAN WAY FITZGE 020 C AC/AC 89 $99,494 40,899 GATLEY DRIVE PINOLE SHORES DRIVE CARLOTTA CIR GATLEY 010 R AC 87 $1,323 20,235 GERZ COURT ESTATES AVE CUL DE SAC GERZCT 010 R AC 89 $3,229 18,983 HEMLEB COURT BAYVIEW FARM RD CUL DE SAC HEMLEB 010 R AC 91 $6,903 16,141 KELLEY COURT MANN DR CUL DE SAC KELLEY 010 R AC 82 $2,704 29,745 MADRONE AVENUE SAN PABLO AVE PRIVATE DRIVE MADRON 010 R AC 83 $1,003 29,441 MEADOW AVENUE NOB HILL AVE SAN PABLO AVE MEADOW 020 R AC 92 $9,888 14,937 MEEHAN COURT CARLOTTA CIRCLE CUL-DE-SAC MEENA 433 R AC 86 $2,179 23,287 MENDOCINO DRIVE SIMAS AVE TAMALPAIS DR MENDDR 010 R AC 91 $11,446 17,216 OAK RIDGE ROAD HENRY AVE IGNACIO CT OAKRID 010 C AC 84 $6,294 24,942 OAK RIDGE ROAD IGNACIO CT SAN PABLO AVE OAKRID 020 C AC 88 $17,568 25,759 ROBLE AVENUE SAN PABLO AVE ENCINA AVE ROBLE 010 R AC/AC 91 $3,124 27,950 SIMAS AVENUE PINOLE VALLEY RD DIABLO CT SIMAS 010 C AC/AC 90 $29,488 40,352 SIMAS AVENUE DIABLO CT APPALOOSA TR SIMAS 015 C AC/AC 90 $44,384 34,935 SIMAS AVENUE APPALOOSA TR PINOLE VALLEY RD SIMAS 020 C AC/AC 90 $33,776 32,631 SUNNYVIEW COURT MARLESTA DR CUL DE SAC SUNVCT 010 R AC/AC 91 $2,900 27,948 TESORO COURT RIDGECREST RD CUL DE SAC TESORO 010 R AC 94 $6,358 12,215 2022 - SLURRY SEAL Total $519,167
** - Treatment from Project Selection 1 MTC StreetSaver 221 of 541
Year: 2022
Street Name
Treatment: SEAL CRACKS
Begin Location End Location Street ID Section ID FC Surface PCI Cost Rating BARRETT COURT PONDEROSA TR CUL DE SAC BARRET 010 R AC 77 $37 427,230 PONDEROSA TRAIL FARIA AVE FARIA AVE PONDER 010 R AC 79 $418 442,016 SAN PABLO AVENUE PINOLE SHORES DR SUNNYVIEW DR SANPAB 030 A AC/AC 80 $594 1,188,648 SAN PABLO AVENUE SUNNYVIEW DR APPIAN WAY SANPAB 040 A AC/AC 80 $703 1,254,700 2022 - SEAL CRACKS Total $1,752
Street Name
Treatment: MILL AND THICK OVERLAY
Begin Location End Location Street ID Section ID FC Surface PCI Cost Rating PINOLE VALLEY ROAD CITY LIMITS EAST OF MARLIN CT PINOLE CREEK BRIDGE #6 PINOLV 010 A AC 100 $440,526 10,522 PINOLE VALLEY ROAD BRIDGE WEST OF SAVAGE ST COLLINS AVE (NORTH INT) PINOLV 030 A AC 100 $592,020 10,665 PINOLE VALLEY ROAD ESTATES AVE I-80 OFF-RAMP PINOLV 055 A AC 100 $308,000 10,349 PINOLE VALLEY ROAD HENRY AVE TENNENT AVE PINOLV 070 A AC 100 $192,757 10,599 PINOLE VALLEY ROAD TENNENT AVE SAN PABLO AVE PINOLV 080 A AC 100 $322,667 10,941 SAN PABLO AVENUE BELMONT WAY PINOLE SHORES DR SANPAB 020 A AC 100 $642,608 10,475 2022 - MILL AND THICK OVERLAY Total $2,498,578
Street Name
Treatment: THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5 INCHES)
Begin Location End Location Street ID Section ID FC Surface PCI Cost Rating ALVAREZ AVENUE SAN PABLO AVE GATE ALVARE 010 R AC 100 $97,440 7,689 APPALOOSA COURT GOULARTE DR CUL DE SAC APPACT 010 R AC 100 $58,200 7,875 APPALOOSA TRAIL BUCKSKIN RD GOULARTE DR APPATR 020 R AC 100 $180,450 7,938 BOX CANYON ROAD BUCKSKIN RD DEAD END BOXCAN 010 R AC 100 $45,725 7,735 BOYLE COURT KILKENNY WAY CUL DE SAC BOYLE 010 R AC 100 $36,540 7,822 COSTA COURT HOKE DR CUL DE SAC COSTA 010 R AC 100 $65,255 7,794 GOULARTE DRIVE MENDOCINO CT APPALOOSA TR GOULAR 010 R AC 100 $230,280 7,865 HOYTT COURT PINOLE VALLEY RD CUL DE SAC HOYTT 010 R AC 100 $21,390 7,954 JONES AVENUE SAN PABLO AVE GATE JONES 010 R AC 100 $66,500 7,899 LASSEN WAY SIMAS AVE DEAD END LASSEN 010 R AC 100 $126,720 7,950 PINOLE SHORES DRIVE SAN PABLO AVE 100 SOUTH OF OVERPASS PINOLE 010 R AC 100 $172,575 7,898 PINOLE SHORES DRIVE 100 SOUTH OF OVERPASS DEL MONTE DR PINOLE 020 R AC 100 $192,570 7,713 POULOS COURT GOULARTE DR CUL DE SAC POULOS 010 R AC 100 $48,300 7,940 RAMONA STREET PINOLE VALLEY RD LUCAS AVE RAMONA 010 R AC 100 $440,990 7,859 REBECCA DRIVE SARAH DR MICHAEL DR REBECC 010 R AC 100 $164,320 7,951 SARITA COURT PINOLE VALLEY RD CUL DE SAC SARITA 371 R AC 100 $14,310 7,943 SEVILLE COURT MONTE VERDE DRIVE CUL DE SAC SEVILL 010 R AC 100 $91,040 7,691 TOMAR COURT COLLINS AVE CUL DE SAC TOMAR 010 R AC 100 $17,120 7,733 Target-Driven Scenarios - Sections Selected for Treatment VON DOLLEN COURT GOULARTE DR/POULOS CT CUL DE SAC VONDOL 010 R AC 100 $87,000 7,785 ** - Treatment from Project Selection 2 MTC StreetSaver 222 of 541
Year: 2022
Street Name
Treatment: THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5 INCHES)
Begin Location End Location Street ID Section ID FC Surface PCI Cost Rating ZOE COURT ORLEANS DR CUL DE SAC ZOECT 010 R AC 100 $36,585 7,766 2023 - SLURRY SEAL Total $0
Year 2023 Total $0
Year: 2023
Street Name
Treatment: SLURRY SEAL
Begin Location End Location Street ID Section ID FC Surface PCI Cost Rating SAN PABLO AVENUE PINOLE SHORES DR SUNNYVIEW DR SANPAB 030 A AC/AC 87 $49,638 36,798 SAN PABLO AVENUE SUNNYVIEW DR APPIAN WAY SANPAB 040 A AC/AC 88 $62,361 37,385 2023 - SLURRY SEAL Total $111,999
Street Name
Treatment: SEAL CRACKS
Begin Location End Location Street ID Section ID FC Surface PCI Cost Rating 5TH AVENUE NOB HILL AVE SAN PABLO AVE 5THAVE 010 R AC 86 $60 416,417 CRESTVIEW DRIVE SAN PABLO AVE END OF LOOP CRESTV 010 R AC 87 $233 407,908 MAJOR VISTA COURT CRESTVIEW DR CUL DE SAC MAJORV 010 R AC 87 $56 407,940 NOB HILL AVENUE MEADOW AVE SUNNYVIEW DR NOBHIL 010 R AC 88 $68 387,126 O CONNOR DRIVE CITY LIMITS (HOUSE #401) BANTRY RD OCONNE 010 R AC 87 $53 407,758 2023 - SEAL CRACKS Total $470
Street Name
Treatment: MILL AND THICK OVERLAY
Begin Location End Location Street ID Section ID FC Surface PCI Cost Rating PINOLE VALLEY ROAD PINOLE CREEK BRIDGE #6 BRIDGE WEST OF SAVAGE ST PINOLV 020 A AC 100 $670,674 10,117 SAN PABLO AVENUE OAK RIDGE RD BRIDGE (HERCULES CL) SANPAB 055 A AC 100 $832,755 10,108 2023 - MILL AND THICK OVERLAY Total $1,503,429
Street Name
Treatment: THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5 INCHES)
Begin Location End Location Street ID Section ID FC Surface PCI Cost Rating ALAMO STREET 100 FT. EAST OF HIGUERA AVE PONDEROSA TR ALAMO 020 R AC 100 $178,973 7,562 BELDIN STREET APPIAN WAY CUL-DE-SAC BELDEN 010 R AC 100 $79,259 7,547 BETTY AVENUE MEADOW AVE EAST MEADOW AVE BETTY 010 R AC 100 $50,306 7,516 CURRAN COURT PONDEROSA TR CUL DE SAC CURRAN 010 R AC 100 $66,003 7,499 HANSEN PLACE ROBLE AVE CUL DE SAC HANSEN 010 R AC 100 $31,601 7,519 LE FEBVRE WAY SUMMIT DR TEMP DEAD END LEFEBV 010 R AC 100 $71,240 7,542 PINON AVENUE SAN PABLO AVE BELFAIR DR PINONA 010 R AC 100 $283,374 7,545 Target-Driven Scenarios - Sections Selected for Treatment ROBLE AVENUE ENCINA AVE PINON AVE ROBLE 020 R AC 100 $62,727 7,525 ** - Treatment from Project Selection 3 MTC StreetSaver 223 of 541
Year: 2023
Street Name
Treatment: THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5 INCHES)
Begin Location End Location Street ID Section ID FC Surface PCI Cost Rating SILVERADO DRIVE SIMAS AVE PRIVATE DRIVE SILVAD 010 R AC 100 $298,247 7,562 STOKES AVENUE DOIDGE AVE MOORE CT STOKES 010 R AC 100 $176,996 7,533 2023 - THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5 INCHES) Total $176,996
Year 2023 Total $176,996
Year: 2024
Street Name
Treatment: RUBBER CAPE SEAL
Begin Location End Location Street ID Section ID FC Surface PCI Cost Rating PINOLE VALLEY ROAD SIMAS AVE GRANADA CT PINOLV 045 A AC/AC 78 $360,635 7,263 PINOLE VALLEY ROAD GRANADA CT ESTATES AVE PINOLV 050 A AC/AC 78 $467,760 7,263 2024 - RUBBER CAPE SEAL Total $828,395
Street Name
Treatment: SLURRY SEAL
Begin Location End Location Street ID Section ID FC Surface PCI Cost Rating ADOBE ROAD PINOLE VALLEY RD PAVEMENT CHANGE ADOBE 005 R AC 95 $6,149 9,289 DIABLO CIRCLE SIMAS AVE SIMAS AVE DIABLO 010 R AC 95 $16,311 9,271 RUFF AVENUE FARIA AVE PALOMA ST RUFFAV 010 R AC 95 $16,794 9,269 2024 - SLURRY SEAL Total $39,254
Street Name
Treatment: MILL AND THICK OVERLAY
Begin Location End Location Street ID Section ID FC Surface PCI Cost Rating SAN PABLO AVENUE APPIAN WAY OAK RIDGE RD SANPAB 050 A AC 100 $729,992 9,787 2024 - MILL AND THICK OVERLAY Total $729,992
Street Name
Treatment: THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5 INCHES)
Begin Location End Location Street ID Section ID FC Surface PCI Cost Rating 2ND AVENUE NOB HILL AVE SAN PABLO AVE 2NDAVE 010 R AC 100 $81,064 7,377 ALICE WAY HENRY AVE HENRY AVE ALICE 010 R AC 100 $356,999 7,172 DEL MONTE DRIVE PINOLE SHORES DR CITY LIMITS DELMON 010 R AC 100 $111,554 7,289 DOIDGE AVENUE WRIGHT AVE MOORE CT DOIDGE 010 R AC 100 $253,609 7,286 FARIA COURT FARIA AVE CUL DE SAC FARICT 010 R AC 100 $33,652 7,229 HERMOSA COURT ESTATES AVE CUL DE SAC HERMCT 010 R AC 100 $20,195 7,216 MENDOCINO DRIVE TAMALPAIS DR GOULARTE DR MENDDR 020 R AC 100 $131,908 7,363 MICHAEL DRIVE APPIAN WAY CUL DE SAC MICHAE 010 R AC 100 $107,958 7,214 OWENS COURT SHEA DR CUL DE SAC OWENS 010 R AC 100 $84,872 7,269 Target-Driven Scenarios - Sections Selected for Treatment POQUITO COURT CUL DE SAC S. OF CANYON DR CUL DE SAC N. OF CANYON DR POQUIT 010 R AC 100 $45,630 7,343 ** - Treatment from Project Selection 4 MTC StreetSaver 224 of 541
Year: 2024
Street Name
Treatment: THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5 INCHES)
Begin Location End Location Street ID Section ID FC Surface PCI Cost Rating PRIMROSE LANE PINON AVE LOPES CT PRIMRO 010 R AC 100 $92,681 7,329 SANDRA COURT REBECCA DR CUL DE SAC SANDRA 010 R AC 100 $39,721 7,223 TAMALPAIS DRIVE SIMAS AVE MENDOCINO DR TAMALP 010 R AC 100 $435,585 7,166 2024 - THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5 INCHES) Total $475,306
Year 2024 Total $475,306
Year: 2025
Street Name
Treatment: SLURRY SEAL
Begin Location End Location Street ID Section ID FC Surface PCI Cost Rating ESTATES AVENUE SIMAS AVE RAMONA ST ESTATE 010 C AC 94 $43,001 19,302 2025 - SLURRY SEAL Total $43,001
Street Name
Treatment: SEAL CRACKS
Begin Location End Location Street ID Section ID FC Surface PCI Cost Rating ADOBE ROAD PAVEMENT CHANGE CUL-DE-SAC ADOBE 015 R AC 87 $36 375,372 ALTAMIRANO CIRCLE FRANCISCA CT FRANCISCA CT ALTAMI 010 R AC 85 $64 642,666 AMEND STREET MANN DR CUL DE SAC AMEND 010 R AC 87 $114 375,372 ANTONIA COURT ANTONIA CIRCLE CUL DE SAC ANTOCT 010 R AC 84 $40 610,707 BAY VIEW FARM ROAD SUNNYVIEW DR HOUSE #1059 BAYVIE 010 R AC 84 $54 409,624 BERNARDO COURT OAK RIDGE RD CUL DE SAC BERNAR 010 R AC 85 $30 642,666 BLUE JAY CIRCLE GALBRETH RD END OF LOOP BLUEJA 010 R AC 88 $94 671,000 BRENDA COURT BELFAIR DR CUL DE SAC BRENDA 010 R AC 87 $22 375,465 BRETT COURT PINON AVE CUL DE SAC BRETT 010 R AC 87 $44 385,037 CANYON DRIVE APPIAN WAY EL TORO WAY CANYON 010 R AC 86 $162 668,643 CLARK COURT FARIA AVE CUL DE SAC CLARK 010 R AC 82 $69 538,996 COLINA COURT SAVAGE AVE CUL DE SAC COLINA 010 R AC 84 $19 621,870

COLLINS AVENUE PINOLE VALLEY RD - WEST

ENTRANCE
TOMAR CT COLLIN 010A R AC 74 $153 410,180

COLLINS AVENUE TOMAR CT PINOLE VALLEY RD - EAST

ENTRANCE
COLLIN 010B R AC 74 $187 410,180
DANNY COURT BAYVIEW FARM RD CUL DE SAC DANNY 010 R AC 83 $68 577,162 DOWNER STREET PINOLE VALLEY RD HENRY AVE DOWNER 010 R AC 86 $196 400,229 ENLOW COURT PONDEROSA TR CUL DE SAC ENLOWC 010 R AC 81 $49 411,896 FLAMINGO COURT GALBRETH RD CUL DE SAC FLAMIN 010 R AC 86 $29 391,419 FRANCISCA COURT OAK RIDGE RD CUL DE SAC FRANCT 010 R AC 83 $128 413,633 FRASER COURT FRANCIS DR CUL DE SAC FRASER 010 R AC 83 $77 414,142 GALBRETH ROAD PINOLE VALLEY RD BLUE JAY CIR GALBRE 15A R AC 89 $193 665,536 Target-Driven Scenarios - Sections Selected for Treatment GALBRETH ROAD BLUE JAY CIR END OF CUL DE SAC GALBRE 15B R AC 89 $58 665,536 ** - Treatment from Project Selection 5 MTC StreetSaver 225 of 541
Year: 2025
Street Name
Treatment: SEAL CRACKS
Begin Location End Location Street ID Section ID FC Surface PCI Cost Rating GLEN COURT MARIONOLA WAY CUL DE SAC GLENCT 010 R AC 86 $45 391,419 HANLEY DRIVE LIMERICK RD MARLESTA RD HANLDR 010 R AC 83 $89 587,083 HAZEL STREET SUNNYVIEW DR DEAD END HAZEL 005 R AC 84 $42 409,512 HENRY AVENUE LEWIS LN OAK RIDGE DR HENRY 020 R AC 84 $169 409,596 HENRY AVENUE OAK RIDGE DR PINOLE VALLEY RD HENRY 030 R AC 84 $308 409,624 HENRY AVENUE ALICE WAY FRANCIS DR HENRY 050 R AC 83 $159 413,633 HERMOSA STREET LUCAS AVE SIMAS AVE HERMST 020 R AC 86 $147 654,484 HIGUERA AVENUE RAMONA ST ALAMO ST HIGUER 010 R AC 85 $48 403,414 HUTCHINSON COURT PINON AVE CUL DE SAC HUTCHI 010 R AC 83 $82 413,633 IGNACIO COURT OAK RIDGE RD CUL DE SAC IGNACI 010 R AC 84 $19 409,596 JOHN STREET SAN PABLO AVE PRIVATE DRIVE JOHNST 010 R AC 85 $68 403,414 LA CANADA COURT SAVAGE AVE CUL DE SAC LACANA 010 R AC 84 $61 638,048 LA REINA STREET HERMOSA ST RAMONA ST LAREIN 010 R AC 84 $81 409,624 LAUREL AVENUE SAN PABLO AVE PRIVATE DRIVE LAUREL 010 R AC/AC 81 $92 499,751 LUCAS AVENUE ESTATES AVE RAMONA ST LUCAS 010 R AC 83 $144 413,621 MARLESTA ROAD HOUSE #600 KILDARE WAY MARLES 020 C AC 86 $174 536,317 MCDONALD DRIVE MARLESTA RD CUL DE SAC MCDONA 010 R AC 84 $295 610,707 MEADOW AVENUE MARLESTA RD NOB HILL AVE MEADOW 010 R AC 85 $65 403,414 MONTCLAIR COURT SANTA BARBARA DR CUL DE SAC MONTCL 010 R AC 82 $33 538,996 MORAGA DRIVE SIMAS AVE TAMALPAIS DR MORAGA 020 R AC 87 $91 382,186 ORLEANS DRIVE TENNENT AVE NORTH DEAD END ORLEAN 020 R AC/AC 87 $24 1,096,038 PARK STREET QUINAN AVE TENNENT AVE PARKST 010 R AC 76 $60 448,850 PINOLE SHORES DRIVE DEL MONTE DR CUL DE SAC PINOLE 030 R AC 84 $106 409,596 PONDEROSA TRAIL FARIA AVE HOLIDAY CT PONDER 020A R AC 82 $122 414,585 PONDEROSA TRAIL HOLIDAY CT DEAD END SOUTH OF ALAMO ST PONDER 020B R AC 82 $293 414,585 PRIMROSE LANE LOPES CT CUL DE SAC PRIMRO 020 R AC 87 $73 385,037 RAFAELA STREET PINOLE VALLEY RD JOHN ST RAFAEL 010 R AC 84 $64 621,870 RIDGECREST ROAD HOUSE #1569 TESORO CT RIDGEC 020 R AC 85 $292 579,183 ROGERS WAY NOB HILL AVE SAN PABLO AVE ROGERS 010 R AC 82 $105 593,552 RUFF COURT FARIA ST CUL DE SAC RUFFCT 010 R AC 83 $58 570,451 SANTA BARBARA DRIVE RAMONA ST SILVERADO DR SANTAB 010 R AC 82 $155 582,667 SARAH COURT SHEA DR CUL DE SAC SARACT 010 R AC/AC 87 $69 1,096,038 SILVERCREST COURT VICTOR AVE CUL DE SAC SILVCT 010 R AC 85 $68 596,012 SILVERCREST STREET VICTOR AVE DEAD END SILVST 010 R AC 86 $45 391,419 SONOMA WAY MORAGA DR MENDOCINO AVE SONOMA 010 R AC 85 $129 405,878 SUMMIT COURT SUMMIT DR CUL DE SAC SUMMCT 010 R AC 85 $14 403,422 SUMMIT DRIVE CUL DE SAC (SOUTH) BUENA VISTA DR SUMMDR 010 R AC 73 $94 414,090 Target-Driven Scenarios - Sections Selected for Treatment SUMMIT DRIVE BUENA VISTA DR CUL DE SAC (NORTH-EAST) SUMMDR 020 R AC 80 $141 411,629 ** - Treatment from Project Selection 6 MTC StreetSaver 226 of 541
Year: 2025
Street Name
Treatment: SEAL CRACKS
Begin Location End Location Street ID Section ID FC Surface PCI Cost Rating SUNNYVIEW DRIVE MARELSTA RD SAN PABLO AVE SUNVDR 010 R AC 85 $149 403,414 SUNNYVIEW DRIVE SAN PABLO AVE BAY VIEW FARM RD SUNVDR 020A R AC 87 $75 672,847 SUNNYVIEW DRIVE BAY VIEW FARM RD DEAD END AT WOY CIRCLE SUNVDR 020B R AC 87 $149 672,847 VALLEY VIEW DRIVE FERN AVE BUENA VISTA DR VALLDR 010 R AC 82 $27 414,587 VICTOR STREET WRIGHT AVE SILVERCREST ST VICTOR 020 R AC 83 $191 556,775 WHIPPOORWILL COURT GALBRETH RD CUL DE SAC WHIPOR 010 R AC 85 $85 579,183 WILDE COURT KILDARE WAY CUL DE SAC WILDE 010 R AC 84 $31 409,624 WOODSIDE COURT VICTOR AVE CUL DE SAC WOODSI 010 R AC 86 $67 632,663 2025 - SEAL CRACKS Total $625
Street Name
Treatment: MILL AND THICK OVERLAY
Begin Location End Location Street ID Section ID FC Surface PCI Cost Rating FITGERALD DRIVE CALTRANS RIGHT OF WAY JOVITA LN FITZGE 010 C AC/AC 100 $488,440 6,765 MARLESTA ROAD HANLEY DR HOUSE #600 MARLES 010 C AC 100 $190,317 6,919 PINOLE VALLEY ROAD I-80 OFF-RAMP HENRY AVE PINOLV 065 A AC 100 $555,324 9,509 2025 - MILL AND THICK OVERLAY Total $1,234,081
Street Name
Treatment: THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5 INCHES)
Begin Location End Location Street ID Section ID FC Surface PCI Cost Rating BAY VIEW FARM ROAD HOUSE #1059 PINON AVE BAYVIE 020 R AC 100 $280,700 6,968 DEAN COURT PONDEROSA TR CUL DE SAC DEANCT 010 R AC 100 $74,546 6,961 DOOLIN COURT KILLARNEY RD CUL DE SAC DOOLIN 010 R AC 100 $30,105 7,062 FARIA AVENUE CLARK CT PONDEROSA TR FARIAV 020 R AC 100 $296,272 6,822 HOLLIDAY COURT PONDEROSA TR CUL DE SAC HOLLID 010 R AC 100 $40,716 6,839 LEROY AVENUE LE FABVRE WY CUL DE SAC LEROY 010 R AC 100 $62,264 7,011 LUCAS AVENUE RAMONA ST CUL DE SAC LUCAS 020 R AC 100 $27,728 6,844 MONTE VISTA DRIVE PINOLE VALLEY DR ALHAMBRA WAY MONTVI 010 R AC 100 $275,958 6,859 PINON AVENUE BELFAIR DR DEAD END PINONA 020 R AC 100 $113,568 6,898 QUINAN AVENUE SAN PABLO AVE BUENA VISTA DR (SOUTH INT) QUINAN 010 R AC 100 $104,837 6,887 ROBERT COURT ALICE WAY CUL DE SAC ROBERT 010 R AC 100 $31,127 6,829 2025 - THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5 INCHES) Total $1,337,821
Year 2025 Total $2,572,527
Year: 2026
Street Name
Treatment: RUBBER CAPE SEAL
Begin Location End Location Street ID Section ID FC Surface PCI Cost Rating Target-Driven Scenarios - Sections Selected for Treatment CARLOTTA CIRCLE GATELY DRIVE GATELY DRIVE CAROLO 431 R AC 76 $150,540 3,972 ** - Treatment from Project Selection 7 MTC StreetSaver 227 of 541
2026 - RUBBER CAPE SEAL Total $150,540
BARRETT COURT PONDEROSA TR CUL DE SAC BARRET 010 R AC 79 $2,936 19,584 PONDEROSA TRAIL FARIA AVE FARIA AVE PONDER 010 R AC 81 $36,665 19,557 2026 - SLURRY SEAL Total $39,601
4TH AVENUE MARLESTA AVE NOB HILL AVE 4THAVE 010 R AC/AC 89 $3 7,150,767 ALFRED DRIVE BELFAIR DR HAZEL ST ALFRED 010 R AC 86 $46 387,522 ALVAREZ AVENUE SAN PABLO AVE GATE ALVARE 010 R AC 88 $23 969,239 ANTONIA CIRCLE OAK RIDGE RD OAK RIDGE RD ANTONI 010 R AC 80 $146 394,366 APPALOOSA COURT GOULARTE DR CUL DE SAC APPACT 010 R AC 88 $14 969,239 APPALOOSA TRAIL BUCKSKIN RD GOULARTE DR APPATR 020 R AC 88 $42 969,239 APPIAN WAY MICHAEL DR I-80 EAST ON RAMP APPIAN 020 A AC/AC 85 $330 1,681,173 APPIAN WAY I-80 EAST ON RAMP I-80 WEST ON RAMP APPIAN 030 A AC/AC 85 $129 1,681,173 APPIAN WAY I-80 WEST ON RAMP MANN DR APPIAN 040 A AC/AC 86 $291 1,966,440 APPIAN WAY MANN DR SAN PABLO AVE APPIAN 050 A AC/AC 86 $600 1,966,440 BELMONT WAY MARLESTA RD CUL-DE-SAC BELMON 010 R AC/AC 85 $96 769,859 BOX CANYON ROAD BUCKSKIN RD DEAD END BOXCAN 010 R AC 88 $11 969,239 BOYLE COURT KILKENNY WAY CUL DE SAC BOYLE 010 R AC 88 $9 969,239 BUENA VISTA DRIVE HOUSE #440 END OF LOOP BUENAV 020 R AC/AC 89 $3 16,694,218 CORTE CRUZ COURT HOKE DR CUL DE SAC CORTE 010 R AC/AC 89 $3 16,694,218 COSTA COURT HOKE DR CUL DE SAC COSTA 010 R AC 88 $15 969,239 CURRY COURT CARLOTTA CIRCLE CUL-DE-SAC CURRYC 432 R AC 81 $22 734,822 DUTRA COURT HAZEL ST CUL DE SAC DUTRA 010 R AC 79 $38 393,434 EBSEN COURT SARAH DR CUL DE SAC EBSEN 010 R AC/AC 85 $29 769,168 EL TORO WAY CANYON DR CUL DE SAC ELTORO 010 R AC 80 $142 522,159 FERN AVENUE SAN PABLO AVE VALLEYVIEW ST FERNAV 010 R AC/AC 89 $2 16,694,218 FITGERALD DRIVE JOVITA LN APPIAN WAY FITZGE 020 C AC/AC 87 $535 1,658,483 GATLEY DRIVE PINOLE SHORES DRIVE CARLOTTA CIR GATLEY 010 R AC 83 $16 402,260 GERZ COURT ESTATES AVE CUL DE SAC GERZCT 010 R AC 84 $34 400,494 GOULARTE DRIVE MENDOCINO CT APPALOOSA TR GOULAR 010 R AC 88 $53 969,239 HEMLEB COURT BAYVIEW FARM RD CUL DE SAC HEMLEB 010 R AC 85 $63 391,470 HOYTT COURT PINOLE VALLEY RD CUL DE SAC HOYTT 010 R AC 88 $5 969,239 JONES AVENUE SAN PABLO AVE GATE JONES 010 R AC 88 $16 969,239 KELLEY COURT MANN DR CUL DE SAC KELLEY 010 R AC 80 $36 558,095 LASSEN WAY SIMAS AVE DEAD END LASSEN 010 R AC 88 $30 969,239 Target-Driven Scenarios - Sections Selected for Treatment Street Name
Treatment: SLURRY SEAL
Begin Location End Location Street ID Section ID FC Surface PCI Cost Rating Street Name
Treatment: SEAL CRACKS
Begin Location End Location Street ID Section ID FC Surface PCI Cost Rating ** - Treatment from Project Selection 8 MTC StreetSaver 228 of 541
Year: 2026
Street Name
Treatment: SEAL CRACKS
Begin Location End Location Street ID Section ID FC Surface PCI Cost Rating MADRONE AVENUE SAN PABLO AVE PRIVATE DRIVE MADRON 010 R AC 81 $13 558,713 MEADOW AVENUE NOB HILL AVE SAN PABLO AVE MEADOW 020 R AC 86 $87 387,654 MEEHAN COURT CARLOTTA CIRCLE CUL-DE-SAC MEENA 433 R AC 82 $27 582,431 MENDOCINO DRIVE SIMAS AVE TAMALPAIS DR MENDDR 010 R AC 85 $109 394,073 OAK RIDGE ROAD HENRY AVE IGNACIO CT OAKRID 010 C AC 77 $99 403,928 OAK RIDGE ROAD IGNACIO CT SAN PABLO AVE OAKRID 020 C AC 82 $213 468,576 PINOLE SHORES DRIVE SAN PABLO AVE 100 SOUTH OF OVERPASS PINOLE 010 R AC 88 $40 969,239 PINOLE SHORES DRIVE 100 SOUTH OF OVERPASS DEL MONTE DR PINOLE 020 R AC 88 $45 969,239 PINOLE VALLEY ROAD CITY LIMITS EAST OF MARLIN CT PINOLE CREEK BRIDGE #6 PINOLV 010 A AC 86 $195 1,001,607 PINOLE VALLEY ROAD BRIDGE WEST OF SAVAGE ST COLLINS AVE (NORTH INT) PINOLV 030 A AC 86 $262 1,001,607 PINOLE VALLEY ROAD ESTATES AVE I-80 OFF-RAMP PINOLV 055 A AC 86 $137 1,001,607 PINOLE VALLEY ROAD HENRY AVE TENNENT AVE PINOLV 070 A AC 86 $86 1,001,607 PINOLE VALLEY ROAD TENNENT AVE SAN PABLO AVE PINOLV 080 A AC 86 $143 1,001,607 POULOS COURT GOULARTE DR CUL DE SAC POULOS 010 R AC 88 $12 969,239 RAMONA STREET PINOLE VALLEY RD LUCAS AVE RAMONA 010 R AC 88 $102 969,239 REBECCA DRIVE SARAH DR MICHAEL DR REBECC 010 R AC 88 $38 969,239 ROBLE AVENUE SAN PABLO AVE ENCINA AVE ROBLE 010 R AC/AC 89 $3 7,275,110 SAN PABLO AVENUE BELMONT WAY PINOLE SHORES DR SANPAB 020 A AC 86 $284 1,001,607 SARITA COURT PINOLE VALLEY RD CUL DE SAC SARITA 371 R AC 88 $4 969,239 SEVILLE COURT MONTE VERDE DRIVE CUL DE SAC SEVILL 010 R AC 88 $21 969,239 SIMAS AVENUE PINOLE VALLEY RD DIABLO CT SIMAS 010 C AC/AC 87 $122 2,108,690 SIMAS AVENUE DIABLO CT APPALOOSA TR SIMAS 015 C AC/AC 87 $241 1,711,274 SIMAS AVENUE APPALOOSA TR PINOLE VALLEY RD SIMAS 020 C AC/AC 86 $207 1,497,680 SUNNYVIEW COURT MARLESTA DR CUL DE SAC SUNVCT 010 R AC/AC 89 $3 7,150,767 TESORO COURT RIDGECREST RD CUL DE SAC TESORO 010 R AC 87 $53 376,941 TOMAR COURT COLLINS AVE CUL DE SAC TOMAR 010 R AC 88 $4 969,239 VON DOLLEN COURT GOULARTE DR/POULOS CT CUL DE SAC VONDOL 010 R AC 88 $20 969,239 ZOE COURT ORLEANS DR CUL DE SAC ZOECT 010 R AC 88 $9 969,239 2026 - SEAL CRACKS Total $2,566
Street Name
Treatment: MILL AND THICK OVERLAY
Begin Location End Location Street ID Section ID FC Surface PCI Cost Rating MARLESTA ROAD KILDARE WAY MCDONALD DR MARLES 030 C AC 100 $420,941 6,724 Target-Driven Scenarios - Sections Selected for Treatment 2026 - MILL AND THICK OVERLAY Total $420,941
** - Treatment from Project Selection 9 MTC StreetSaver 229 of 541
Year: 2026
Street Name
Treatment: RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC)
Begin Location End Location Street ID Section ID FC Surface PCI Cost Rating PINOLE VALLEY ROAD COLLINS AVE (NORTH INT) SIMAS AVE PINOLV 035 A AC/AC 100 $602,335 3,928

SAN PABLO AVENUE CITY LIMITS AT CHURCH PAVEMENT TRANSITION AT DURSEY DR
SANPAB 005 A AC 100 $488,209 3,928

SAN PABLO AVENUE PAVEMENT TRANSITION AT DURSEY
DR
BELMONT WAY SANPAB 010 A AC 100 $491,537 3,928
2026 - RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) Total $1,582,081
Street Name
Treatment: THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5 INCHES)
Begin Location End Location Street ID Section ID FC Surface PCI Cost Rating ALHAMBRA WAY MORAGA DR CUL DE SAC ALHAMB 010 R AC 100 $317,664 6,758 ANNE COURT HENRY AVE CUL DE SAC ANNECT 010 R AC 100 $30,355 6,676 CHARLES ST VALLEY RD SAN PABLO AVE CHARLE 010 R AC 100 $99,169 6,673 DORA COURT FRANCIS DR CUL DE SAC DORACT 010 R AC 100 $70,829 6,674 ENCINA AVENUE ROBLE AVE DEAD END ENCINA 010 R AC 100 $60,823 6,673 HAZEL STREET DEAD END PINON AVE HAZEL 015 R AC 100 $161,669 6,641 HENRY AVENUE RIDGECREST RD LEWIS LN HENRY 010 R AC 100 $56,884 6,708 MORAGA DRIVE SAVAGE AVE SIMAS AVE MORAGA 010 R AC 100 $185,980 6,618 VALLEY AVENUE SAN PABLO AVE CHARLES AVE VALLAV 010 R AC 100 $26,000 6,730 2026 - THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5 INCHES) Total $1,009,373
Year 2026 Total $1,989,119
Grand Total $17,350,084
Target-Driven Scenarios - Sections Selected for Treatment ** - Treatment from Project Selection 10 MTC StreetSaver 230 of 541
Year Budget PM Year Budget PM Year Budget PM
2022 $11,016,647 1.48%
2023 $11,016,647 1.48%
2024 $11,016,647 1.48%
2025 $11,016,647 1.48%
2026 $11,016,647 1.48%
Area ID
Year:

Street Name Begin Location End Location Street ID Section ID FC Surface
Type Cost Rating Treatment
Current
Length Width Area PCI
PCI
Before
PCI
After
Treatment
2022
3RD AVENUE NOB HILL AVE SAN PABLO AVE 3RDAVE 010 585 27 15,795 R AC 60 61 71 $45,630 3,926 RUBBER CAPE SEAL 4TH AVENUE NOB HILL AVE SAN PABLO AVE 4THAVE 020 611 26 15,886 R AC 62 63 73 $45,893 3,979 RUBBER CAPE SEAL ARROYO AVENUE MADERA ST VICTOR ST ARROYO 010 566 32 18,112 R AC 62 63 73 $52,324 3,585 RUBBER CAPE SEAL BANTRY ROAD O`CONNOR RD HANLEY DR BANTRY 010 724 33 23,892 R AC 61 62 72 $69,022 3,679 RUBBER CAPE SEAL

BELFAIR DRIVE BAYVIEW FARM
RD
PINON AVE BELFAI 010 1,413 31 43,803 R AC 67 68 77 $126,542 4,306 RUBBER CAPE SEAL COLUSA STREET ESTATES AVE LA REINA ST COLUSA 010 2,486 36 89,496 R AC 66 67 76 $258,544 3,978 RUBBER CAPE SEAL

EAST MEADOW
AVENUE
MEADOW AVE MEADOW AVE EMEADO 010 1,211 24 29,064 R AC 64 65 74 $83,963 4,050 RUBBER CAPE SEAL EMMA DRIVE ALICE WAY HENRY AVE EMMADR 010 1,737 31 53,847 R AC 61 62 72 $155,558 3,678 RUBBER CAPE SEAL HANLEY COURT MARLESTA RD CUL DE SAC HANLCT 010 276 30 8,280 R AC 63 64 74 $23,920 3,809 RUBBER CAPE SEAL

HENRY AVENUE PINOLE VALLEY
RD
ALICE WAY HENRY 040 1,606 37 59,422 R AC 66 67 76 $171,664 3,978 RUBBER CAPE SEAL HENRY AVENUE FRANCIS DR DEAD END HENRY 060 1,437 31 44,547 R AC 69 70 79 $128,692 3,386 RUBBER CAPE SEAL HERMOSA STREET ESTATES AVE LUCAS ST HERMST 010 940 32 30,080 R AC 65 66 75 $86,898 3,900 RUBBER CAPE SEAL

JOHANNA COURT PINOLE VALLEY
RD
CUL DE SAC JOHANN 010 242 27 6,534 R AC 62 63 73 $18,876 3,530 RUBBER CAPE SEAL KENMAR COURT MARLESTA RD CUL DE SAC KENMAR 010 254 30 7,620 R AC 66 67 76 $22,014 4,081 RUBBER CAPE SEAL KYER STREET HERMOSA ST ESTATES AVE KYERST 010 491 32 15,712 R AC 64 65 74 $45,391 3,879 RUBBER CAPE SEAL LIMERICK ROAD TARA HILLS DR O`CONNER DR LIMERI 010 1,313 34 44,642 R AC 68 69 78 $128,966 4,151 RUBBER CAPE SEAL

MANN DRIVE PAVEMENT
CHANGE
MCDONALD DR MANNDR 015 1,091 37 40,367 R AC 67 68 77 $116,616 3,367 RUBBER CAPE SEAL MARLESTA ROAD MCDONALD DR APPIAN WAY MARLES 040 1,536 36 55,296 C AC 68 69 78 $159,744 3,519 RUBBER CAPE SEAL

MONTE VERDE DRIVE PINOLE VALLEY
RD
ALHAMBRA WAY MONTEV 010 1,126 36 40,536 R AC 62 63 73 $117,104 3,694 RUBBER CAPE SEAL NOB HILL AVENUE SUNNYVIEW DR HOUSE #1100 NOBHIL 020 502 32 16,064 R AC 62 63 73 $46,408 3,695 RUBBER CAPE SEAL

NORTH RANCHO
PLACE

CITY LIMITS (OFF

N RANCHO RD)
CUL DE SAC NRANCH 010 376 36 13,536 R AC 64 65 75 $39,104 4,090 RUBBER CAPE SEAL PALOMA STREET ESTATES AVE DEAD END PALOMA 010 802 38 30,476 R AC 62 63 73 $88,042 4,038 RUBBER CAPE SEAL

PATRICK DRIVE DEAD END SOUTH

OF NOB HILL AVE
SUNNYVIEW DR PATRIC 010 1,030 25 25,750 R AC 66 67 76 $74,389 4,029 RUBBER CAPE SEAL RISING GLEN ROAD MARLESTA RD CUL DE SAC RISING 010 897 32 28,704 R AC 69 70 79 $82,923 4,240 RUBBER CAPE SEAL

SAVAGE AVENUE SIMAS AVE PINOLE VALLEY
RD
SAVAGE 015 2,425 38 92,150 R AC 67 68 77 $266,212 4,303 RUBBER CAPE SEAL Treatment Total $2,454,439
4TH AVENUE MARLESTA AVE NOB HILL AVE 4THAVE 010 263 26 6,838 R AC/AC 84 85 91 $3,040 27,948 SLURRY SEAL Interest: 4.70%
City of Pinole Scenarios - Sections Selected for Treatment Inflation: 3.00% Printed: 5/2/2022
Scenario: #PTAP 22 - S4 - Average Needs
Scenarios Criteria:
** - Treatment from Project Selection 1 MTC StreetSaver 231 of 541
Area ID
Year:

Street Name Begin Location End Location Street ID Section ID FC Surface
Type Cost Rating Treatment
Current
Length Width Area PCI
PCI
Before
PCI
After
Treatment
2022
APPIAN WAY I-80 EAST ON
RAMP
I-80 WEST ON
RAMP
APPIAN 030 482 74 35,668 A AC/AC 79 80 87 $15,853 55,961 SLURRY SEAL APPIAN WAY I-80 WEST ON
RAMP
MANN DR APPIAN 040 1,276 76 96,976 A AC/AC 80 81 88 $43,101 57,396 SLURRY SEAL APPIAN WAY MANN DR SAN PABLO AVE APPIAN 050 3,276 61 199,836 A AC/AC 80 81 88 $88,816 57,396 SLURRY SEAL

CURRY COURT CARLOTTA
CIRCLE
CUL-DE-SAC CURRYC 432 101 37 3,737 R AC 73 74 82 $1,661 32,350 SLURRY SEAL

GATLEY DRIVE PINOLE SHORES
DRIVE
CARLOTTA CIR GATLEY 010 119 25 2,975 R AC 79 80 87 $1,323 20,235 SLURRY SEAL KELLEY COURT MANN DR CUL DE SAC KELLEY 010 234 26 6,084 R AC 73 74 82 $2,704 29,745 SLURRY SEAL MADRONE AVENUE SAN PABLO AVE PRIVATE DRIVE MADRON 010 141 16 2,256 R AC 74 75 83 $1,003 29,441 SLURRY SEAL ROBLE AVENUE SAN PABLO AVE ENCINA AVE ROBLE 010 251 28 7,028 R AC/AC 84 85 91 $3,124 27,950 SLURRY SEAL SUNNYVIEW COURT MARLESTA DR CUL DE SAC SUNVCT 010 261 25 6,525 R AC/AC 84 85 91 $2,900 27,948 SLURRY SEAL Treatment Total $163,525
BARRETT COURT PONDEROSA TR CUL DE SAC BARRET 010 163 36 5,868 R AC 74 75 77 $37 427,230 SEAL CRACKS PONDEROSA TRAIL FARIA AVE FARIA AVE PONDER 010 2,036 36 73,296 R AC 76 77 79 $418 442,016 SEAL CRACKS

SAN PABLO AVENUE PINOLE SHORES
DR
SUNNYVIEW DR SANPAB 030 1,506 72 108,432 A AC/AC 77 78 80 $594 1,188,648 SEAL CRACKS SAN PABLO AVENUE SUNNYVIEW DR APPIAN WAY SANPAB 040 1,892 72 136,224 A AC/AC 78 79 80 $703 1,254,700 SEAL CRACKS Treatment Total $1,752

PINOLE VALLEY ROAD CITY LIMITS EAST

OF MARLIN CT

PINOLE CREEK
BRIDGE #6
PINOLV 010 A AC $440,526 10,522 MILL AND THICK

OVERLAY
1,897 38 72,086 46 47 100

PINOLE VALLEY ROAD BRIDGE WEST OF

SAVAGE ST

COLLINS AVE
(NORTH INT)
PINOLV 030 A AC $592,020 10,665 MILL AND THICK

OVERLAY
2,484 39 96,876 44 45 100
PINOLE VALLEY ROAD ESTATES AVE I-80 OFF-RAMP PINOLV 055 A AC $308,000 10,349 MILL AND THICK

OVERLAY
840 60 50,400 48 49 100
PINOLE VALLEY ROAD HENRY AVE TENNENT AVE PINOLV 070 A AC $192,757 10,599 MILL AND THICK

OVERLAY
751 42 31,542 45 46 100
PINOLE VALLEY ROAD TENNENT AVE SAN PABLO AVE PINOLV 080 A AC $322,667 10,941 MILL AND THICK

OVERLAY
1,650 32 52,800 39 40 100

SAN PABLO AVENUE BELMONT WAY PINOLE

SHORES DR
SANPAB 020 A AC $642,608 10,475 MILL AND THICK

OVERLAY
1,813 58 105,154 47 48 100
Treatment Total $2,498,578
DEL AROSA COURT STOKES AVE CUL DE SAC DELARO 010 R AC $40,541 3,292 RECONSTRUCT

STRUCTURE (AC)
126 27 3,402 17 18 100

MARIA COURT PINOLE VALLEY
RD
CUL DE SAC MARIAC 010 R AC $40,863 3,292 RECONSTRUCT

STRUCTURE (AC)
127 27 3,429 20 21 100

SAN PABLO AVENUE CITY LIMITS AT
CHURCH

PAVEMENT

TRANSITION AT

DURSEY DR
SANPAB 005 A AC $433,767 4,421 RECONSTRUCT

STRUCTURE (AC)
440 70 30,800 22 23 100
TENNENT AVENUE SAN PABLO AVE LA SALLE DR TENNAV 020 A AC $693,576 4,421 RECONSTRUCT

STRUCTURE (AC)
1,368 36 49,248 23 24 100
Interest: 4.70%
City of Pinole Scenarios - Sections Selected for Treatment Inflation: 3.00% Printed: 5/2/2022
Scenario: #PTAP 22 - S4 - Average Needs
Scenarios Criteria:
** - Treatment from Project Selection 2 MTC StreetSaver 232 of 541
Area ID
Year:

Street Name Begin Location End Location Street ID Section ID FC Surface
Type Cost Rating Treatment
Current
Length Width Area PCI
PCI
Before
PCI
After
Treatment
2022
TENNENT AVENUE LA SALLE DR BRIDGE TENNAV 030 A AC $799,032 4,421 RECONSTRUCT

STRUCTURE (AC)
1,576 36 56,736 20 21 100
Treatment Total $2,007,779
2ND AVENUE NOB HILL AVE SAN PABLO AVE 2NDAVE 010 R AC $76,410 7,600 THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5

INCHES)
566 27 15,282 47 47 100
ALAMO STREET 100 FT. EAST OF

HIGUERA AVE
PONDEROSA TR ALAMO 020 R AC $173,760 7,676 THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5

INCHES)
1,086 32 34,752 46 46 100
ALVAREZ AVENUE SAN PABLO AVE GATE ALVARE 010 R AC $97,440 7,689 THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5

INCHES)
672 29 19,488 46 46 100
APPALOOSA COURT GOULARTE DR CUL DE SAC APPACT 010 R AC $58,200 7,875 THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5

INCHES)
388 30 11,640 42 42 100
APPALOOSA TRAIL BUCKSKIN RD GOULARTE DR APPATR 020 R AC $180,450 7,938 THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5

INCHES)
802 45 36,090 40 40 100
BELDIN STREET APPIAN WAY CUL-DE-SAC BELDEN 010 R AC $76,950 7,655 THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5

INCHES)
405 38 15,390 47 47 100

BETTY AVENUE MEADOW AVE EAST MEADOW
AVE
BETTY 010 R AC $48,840 7,622 THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5

INCHES)
407 24 9,768 47 47 100
BOX CANYON ROAD BUCKSKIN RD DEAD END BOXCAN 010 R AC $45,725 7,735 THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5

INCHES)
295 31 9,145 45 45 100
BOYLE COURT KILKENNY WAY CUL DE SAC BOYLE 010 R AC $36,540 7,822 THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5

INCHES)
203 36 7,308 43 43 100
COSTA COURT HOKE DR CUL DE SAC COSTA 010 R AC $65,255 7,794 THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5

INCHES)
421 31 13,051 44 44 100
CURRAN COURT PONDEROSA TR CUL DE SAC CURRAN 010 R AC $64,080 7,605 THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5

INCHES)
356 36 12,816 47 47 100

DEL MONTE DRIVE PINOLE SHORES
DR
CITY LIMITS DELMON 010 R AC $105,150 7,483 THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5

INCHES)
701 30 21,030 49 49 100
GOULARTE DRIVE MENDOCINO CT APPALOOSA TR GOULAR 010 R AC $230,280 7,865 THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5

INCHES)
1,212 38 46,056 42 42 100
HANSEN PLACE ROBLE AVE CUL DE SAC HANSEN 010 R AC $30,680 7,626 THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5

INCHES)
236 26 6,136 47 47 100

HOYTT COURT PINOLE VALLEY
RD
CUL DE SAC HOYTT 010 R AC $21,390 7,954 THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5

INCHES)
138 31 4,278 39 40 100
JONES AVENUE SAN PABLO AVE GATE JONES 010 R AC $66,500 7,899 THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5

INCHES)
700 19 13,300 41 41 100
LASSEN WAY SIMAS AVE DEAD END LASSEN 010 R AC $126,720 7,950 THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5

INCHES)
704 36 25,344 39 40 100

LE FEBVRE WAY SUMMIT DR TEMP DEAD
END
LEFEBV 010 R AC $69,165 7,655 THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5

INCHES)
477 29 13,833 46 46 100
MENDOCINO DRIVE TAMALPAIS DR GOULARTE DR MENDDR 020 R AC $124,335 7,575 THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5

INCHES)
921 27 24,867 48 48 100

PINOLE SHORES
DRIVE
SAN PABLO AVE 100 SOUTH OF

OVERPASS
PINOLE 010 R AC $172,575 7,898 THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5

INCHES)
531 65 34,515 41 41 100

PINOLE SHORES
DRIVE
100 SOUTH OF

OVERPASS
DEL MONTE DR PINOLE 020 R AC $192,570 7,713 THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5

INCHES)
917 42 38,514 45 45 100
Interest: 4.70%
City of Pinole Scenarios - Sections Selected for Treatment Inflation: 3.00% Printed: 5/2/2022
Scenario: #PTAP 22 - S4 - Average Needs
Scenarios Criteria:
** - Treatment from Project Selection 3 MTC StreetSaver 233 of 541
Area ID
Year:

Street Name Begin Location End Location Street ID Section ID FC Surface
Type Cost Rating Treatment
Current
Length Width Area PCI
PCI
Before
PCI
After
Treatment
2022
PINON AVENUE SAN PABLO AVE BELFAIR DR PINONA 010 R AC $275,120 7,657 THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5

INCHES)
1,448 38 55,024 46 46 100
POQUITO COURT CUL DE SAC S. OF

CANYON DR
CUL DE SAC N.

OF CANYON DR
POQUIT 010 R AC $43,010 7,553 THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5

INCHES)
253 34 8,602 48 48 100
POULOS COURT GOULARTE DR CUL DE SAC POULOS 010 R AC $48,300 7,940 THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5

INCHES)
322 30 9,660 40 40 100
PRIMROSE LANE PINON AVE LOPES CT PRIMRO 010 R AC $87,360 7,536 THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5

INCHES)
546 32 17,472 48 48 100

RAMONA STREET PINOLE VALLEY
RD
LUCAS AVE RAMONA 010 R AC $440,990 7,859 THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5

INCHES)
2,321 38 88,198 42 42 100
REBECCA DRIVE SARAH DR MICHAEL DR REBECC 010 R AC $164,320 7,951 THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5

INCHES)
1,027 32 32,864 39 40 100
ROBLE AVENUE ENCINA AVE PINON AVE ROBLE 020 R AC $60,900 7,632 THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5

INCHES)
420 29 12,180 47 47 100

SARITA COURT PINOLE VALLEY
RD
CUL DE SAC SARITA 371 R AC $14,310 7,943 THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5

INCHES)
106 27 2,862 40 40 100

SEVILLE COURT MONTE VERDE
DRIVE
CUL DE SAC SEVILL 010 R AC $91,040 7,691 THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5

INCHES)
569 32 18,208 46 46 100
SILVERADO DRIVE SIMAS AVE PRIVATE DRIVE SILVAD 010 R AC $289,560 7,676 THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5

INCHES)
1,524 38 57,912 46 46 100
STOKES AVENUE DOIDGE AVE MOORE CT STOKES 010 R AC $171,840 7,640 THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5

INCHES)
1,074 32 34,368 47 47 100
TOMAR COURT COLLINS AVE CUL DE SAC TOMAR 010 R AC $17,120 7,733 THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5

INCHES)
107 32 3,424 45 45 100

VON DOLLEN COURT GOULARTE

DR/POULOS CT
CUL DE SAC VONDOL 010 R AC $87,000 7,785 THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5

INCHES)
580 30 17,400 44 44 100
ZOE COURT ORLEANS DR CUL DE SAC ZOECT 010 R AC $36,585 7,766 THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5

INCHES)
271 27 7,317 44 44 100
Treatment Total $3,890,470
Year 2022 Area Total 2,871,921 Year 2022 Total $11,016,543 Area ID
Year:

Street Name Begin Location End Location Street ID Section ID FC Surface
Type Cost Rating Treatment
Current
Length Width Area PCI
PCI
Before
PCI
After
Treatment
2023
3RD AVENUE NOB HILL AVE SAN PABLO AVE 3RDAVE 010 585 27 15,795 R AC 60 70 79 $46,999 4,324 RUBBER CAPE SEAL CHRISTIAN COURT PONDEROSA TR CUL DE SAC CHRIST 010 272 36 9,792 R AC 71 70 79 $29,137 3,292 RUBBER CAPE SEAL HILL VIEW LANE FARIA AVE PONDEROSA TR HILLVI 010 1,079 36 38,844 R AC 70 69 78 $115,583 3,281 RUBBER CAPE SEAL

MAIDEN LANE SAN PABLO DRIVE
(DOES NOT

INCLUDE PCC)

TO ROAD

NARROWS
MAIDEN 434 52 21 1,092 R AC 70 69 79 $3,250 4,464 RUBBER CAPE SEAL Treatment Total $194,969
Interest: 4.70%
City of Pinole Scenarios - Sections Selected for Treatment Inflation: 3.00% Printed: 5/2/2022
Scenario: #PTAP 22 - S4 - Average Needs
Scenarios Criteria:
** - Treatment from Project Selection 4 MTC StreetSaver 234 of 541
Area ID
Year:

Street Name Begin Location End Location Street ID Section ID FC Surface
Type Cost Rating Treatment
Current
Length Width Area PCI
PCI
Before
PCI
After
Treatment
2023
APPIAN WAY MICHAEL DR I-80 EAST ON
RAMP
APPIAN 020 1,237 74 91,538 A AC/AC 79 78 86 $41,905 54,499 SLURRY SEAL BELMONT WAY MARLESTA RD CUL-DE-SAC BELMON 010 734 36 26,198 R AC/AC 79 79 86 $11,993 25,943 SLURRY SEAL EL TORO WAY CANYON DR CUL DE SAC ELTORO 010 739 32 23,648 R AC 73 72 81 $10,826 27,142 SLURRY SEAL FITGERALD DRIVE JOVITA LN APPIAN WAY FITZGE 020 3,198 70 223,860 C AC/AC 81 81 88 $102,479 40,149 SLURRY SEAL

MEEHAN COURT CARLOTTA
CIRCLE
CUL-DE-SAC MEENA 433 129 38 4,902 R AC 77 76 84 $2,245 23,042 SLURRY SEAL Treatment Total $169,448
5TH AVENUE NOB HILL AVE SAN PABLO AVE 5THAVE 010 656 26 17,056 R AC 86 85 86 $60 416,417 SEAL CRACKS CRESTVIEW DRIVE SAN PABLO AVE END OF LOOP CRESTV 010 2,339 31 72,509 R AC 87 86 87 $233 407,908 SEAL CRACKS MAJOR VISTA COURT CRESTVIEW DR CUL DE SAC MAJORV 010 555 31 17,205 R AC 87 86 87 $56 407,940 SEAL CRACKS NOB HILL AVENUE MEADOW AVE SUNNYVIEW DR NOBHIL 010 949 24 22,776 R AC 88 87 88 $68 387,122 SEAL CRACKS

O CONNOR DRIVE CITY LIMITS
(HOUSE #401)
BANTRY RD OCONNE 010 479 34 16,286 R AC 87 86 87 $53 407,754 SEAL CRACKS Treatment Total $470

PINOLE VALLEY ROAD PINOLE CREEK
BRIDGE #6

BRIDGE WEST

OF SAVAGE ST
PINOLV 020 A AC $670,674 10,117 MILL AND THICK

OVERLAY
2,131 50 106,550 50 49 100

SAN PABLO AVENUE OAK RIDGE RD BRIDGE
(HERCULES CL)
SANPAB 055 A AC $832,755 10,108 MILL AND THICK

OVERLAY
2,205 60 132,300 50 49 100
Treatment Total $1,503,429
ALAMO STREET ESTATES AVE 100 FT. EAST OF

HIGUERA AVE
ALAMO 010 R AC $380,205 3,196 RECONSTRUCT

STRUCTURE (AC)
968 32 30,976 21 19 100
MARLESTA ROAD APPIAN WAY CUL DE SAC MARLES 050 C AC $421,946 3,387 RECONSTRUCT

STRUCTURE (AC)
808 36 29,088 0 0 100

NEVA COURT PINOLE VALLEY
RD
CUL DE SAC NEVACT 010 R AC $36,786 3,196 RECONSTRUCT

STRUCTURE (AC)
111 27 2,997 26 24 100
SARAH DRIVE LYNN DR HOUSE #1980 SARADR 020 C AC $1,250,722 3,387 RECONSTRUCT

STRUCTURE (AC)
2,269 38 86,222 15 11 100
SARAH DRIVE HOUSE #1980 SHEA DR SARADR 030A C AC $351,274 3,387 RECONSTRUCT

STRUCTURE (AC)
1,009 24 24,216 19 15 100

SHEA DRIVE PINOLE VALLEY
RD
SARAH DR SHEADR 010 C AC $1,309,370 3,387 RECONSTRUCT

STRUCTURE (AC)
2,579 35 90,265 22 18 100

TARA HILLS DRIVE CITY

LIMITS(HOUSE
#885)
APPIAN WAY TARAHI 010 C AC $2,890,549 3,387 RECONSTRUCT

STRUCTURE (AC)
3,214 62 199,268 26 22 100

WRIGHT AVENUE PINOLE VALLEY
RD
VICTOR ST WRIGHT 010 C AC $1,212,688 3,387 RECONSTRUCT

STRUCTURE (AC)
2,200 38 83,600 22 18 100
Treatment Total $7,853,540
ALICE WAY HENRY AVE HENRY AVE ALICE 010 R AC $346,601 7,260 THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5

INCHES)
2,171 31 67,301 51 49 100
Interest: 4.70%
City of Pinole Scenarios - Sections Selected for Treatment Inflation: 3.00% Printed: 5/2/2022
Scenario: #PTAP 22 - S4 - Average Needs
Scenarios Criteria:
** - Treatment from Project Selection 5 MTC StreetSaver 235 of 541
Area ID
Year:

Street Name Begin Location End Location Street ID Section ID FC Surface
Type Cost Rating Treatment
Current
Length Width Area PCI
PCI
Before
PCI
After
Treatment
2023
DOIDGE AVENUE WRIGHT AVE MOORE CT DOIDGE 010 R AC $246,222 7,385 THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5

INCHES)
1,366 35 47,810 50 48 100
FARIA COURT FARIA AVE CUL DE SAC FARICT 010 R AC $32,672 7,324 THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5

INCHES)
104 61 6,344 50 48 100
HERMOSA COURT ESTATES AVE CUL DE SAC HERMCT 010 R AC $19,607 7,307 THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5

INCHES)
141 27 3,807 51 49 100
MICHAEL DRIVE APPIAN WAY CUL DE SAC MICHAE 010 R AC $104,813 7,305 THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5

INCHES)
636 32 20,352 51 49 100
OWENS COURT SHEA DR CUL DE SAC OWENS 010 R AC $82,400 7,368 THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5

INCHES)
500 32 16,000 50 48 100
SANDRA COURT REBECCA DR CUL DE SAC SANDRA 010 R AC $38,564 7,315 THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5

INCHES)
288 26 7,488 51 49 100
TAMALPAIS DRIVE SIMAS AVE MENDOCINO DR TAMALP 010 R AC $422,898 7,254 THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5

INCHES)
2,281 36 82,116 51 49 100
Treatment Total $1,293,777
Year 2023 Area Total 1,618,201 Year 2023 Total $11,015,633 Area ID
Year:

Street Name Begin Location End Location Street ID Section ID FC Surface
Type Cost Rating Treatment
Current
Length Width Area PCI
PCI
Before
PCI
After
Treatment
2024
ARROYO AVENUE MADERA ST VICTOR ST ARROYO 010 566 32 18,112 R AC 62 70 79 $55,511 3,574 RUBBER CAPE SEAL BANTRY ROAD O`CONNOR RD HANLEY DR BANTRY 010 724 33 23,892 R AC 61 69 78 $73,225 3,718 RUBBER CAPE SEAL CARLOTTA CIRCLE GATELY DRIVE GATELY DRIVE CAROLO 431 1,403 33 46,299 R AC 71 69 78 $141,899 4,357 RUBBER CAPE SEAL EMMA DRIVE ALICE WAY HENRY AVE EMMADR 010 1,737 31 53,847 R AC 61 69 78 $165,032 3,717 RUBBER CAPE SEAL

JOHANNA COURT PINOLE VALLEY
RD
CUL DE SAC JOHANN 010 242 27 6,534 R AC 62 70 79 $20,026 3,493 RUBBER CAPE SEAL

MONTE VERDE DRIVE PINOLE VALLEY
RD
ALHAMBRA WAY MONTEV 010 1,126 36 40,536 R AC 62 70 79 $124,236 3,714 RUBBER CAPE SEAL PINOLE VALLEY ROAD SIMAS AVE GRANADA CT PINOLV 045 1,929 61 117,669 A AC/AC 71 68 78 $360,635 7,263 RUBBER CAPE SEAL PINOLE VALLEY ROAD GRANADA CT ESTATES AVE PINOLV 050 2,502 61 152,622 A AC/AC 71 68 78 $467,760 7,263 RUBBER CAPE SEAL Treatment Total $1,408,324

SAN PABLO AVENUE PINOLE SHORES
DR
SUNNYVIEW DR SANPAB 030 1,506 72 108,432 A AC/AC 77 77 85 $51,127 37,644 SLURRY SEAL SAN PABLO AVENUE SUNNYVIEW DR APPIAN WAY SANPAB 040 1,892 72 136,224 A AC/AC 78 78 86 $64,232 38,398 SLURRY SEAL

SIMAS AVENUE PINOLE VALLEY
RD
DIABLO CT SIMAS 010 1,746 38 66,348 C AC/AC 82 80 88 $31,284 39,165 SLURRY SEAL

SIMAS AVENUE APPALOOSA TR PINOLE VALLEY
RD
SIMAS 020 2,111 36 75,996 C AC/AC 82 80 88 $35,833 33,203 SLURRY SEAL Treatment Total $182,476
Interest: 4.70%
City of Pinole Scenarios - Sections Selected for Treatment Inflation: 3.00% Printed: 5/2/2022
Scenario: #PTAP 22 - S4 - Average Needs
Scenarios Criteria:
** - Treatment from Project Selection 6 MTC StreetSaver 236 of 541
Area ID
Year:

Street Name Begin Location End Location Street ID Section ID FC Surface
Type Cost Rating Treatment
Current
Length Width Area PCI
PCI
Before
PCI
After
Treatment
2024
SAN PABLO AVENUE APPIAN WAY OAK RIDGE RD SANPAB 050 A AC $729,992 9,787 MILL AND THICK

OVERLAY
1,706 66 112,596 54 50 100
Treatment Total $729,992
ALBERDAN COURT ALBERDAN CIR CUL DE SAC ALBECT 010 R AC $96,032 3,103 RECONSTRUCT

STRUCTURE (AC)
211 36 7,596 15 9 100
ALBERDAN CIRCLE SHAWN DR SHAWN DR ALBERC 010 R AC $910,708 3,103 RECONSTRUCT

STRUCTURE (AC)
2,001 36 72,036 29 24 100
APPALOOSA TRAIL SIMAS AVE BUCKSKIN RD APPATR 010 R AC $145,944 3,103 RECONSTRUCT

STRUCTURE (AC)
222 52 11,544 27 22 100

APPIAN WAY SOUTH CITY
LIMITS
MICHAEL DR APPIAN 010 A AC $1,118,245 4,167 RECONSTRUCT

STRUCTURE (AC)
1,386 54 74,844 30 23 100
AVIS WAY SHEA DR HOUSE #3130 AVISWY 010 R AC $202,279 3,103 RECONSTRUCT

STRUCTURE (AC)
500 32 16,000 28 23 100
BARKLEY COURT KILDARE WAY CUL DE SAC BARKLE 010 R AC $219,371 3,103 RECONSTRUCT

STRUCTURE (AC)
482 36 17,352 14 8 100
BELMONT WAY SAN PABLO END BELMON 020 R AC $80,710 3,103 RECONSTRUCT

STRUCTURE (AC)
228 28 6,384 26 21 100

BRANDT COURT PINOLE VALLEY
RD
CUL DE SAC BRANDT 010 R AC $104,882 3,103 RECONSTRUCT

STRUCTURE (AC)
244 34 8,296 0 0 100
BRAZIL COURT WRIGHT AVE DEAD END BRAZIL 010 R AC $220,737 3,103 RECONSTRUCT

STRUCTURE (AC)
485 36 17,460 13 7 100

CALAIS DRIVE CUL DE SAC
(EAST)
ORLEANS DR CALAIS 010 R AC $277,627 3,103 RECONSTRUCT

STRUCTURE (AC)
915 24 21,960 18 12 100
CARMELITA WAY RAMONA ST DEAD END CARMEL 010 R AC $624,434 3,103 RECONSTRUCT

STRUCTURE (AC)
1,372 36 49,392 20 15 100
CAROL STREET WRIGHT AVE REMUDA WAY CAROL 010 R AC $641,273 3,103 RECONSTRUCT

STRUCTURE (AC)
1,409 36 50,724 20 15 100
CHAPPARAL COURT TAMALPAIS DR CUL DE SAC CHAPPA 010 R AC $171,937 3,103 RECONSTRUCT

STRUCTURE (AC)
425 32 13,600 14 8 100
DALESSI DRIVE APPIAN WAY END DALESS 010 R AC $166,880 3,103 RECONSTRUCT

STRUCTURE (AC)
400 33 13,200 2 0 100
DEL MONTE DRIVE SAN PABLO AVE BRIDGE DELMON 020 R AC $245,579 3,103 RECONSTRUCT

STRUCTURE (AC)
525 37 19,425 7 0 100

DOLORES COURT PINOLE VALLEY
RD
CUL DE SAC DOLORE 010 R AC $121,886 3,103 RECONSTRUCT

STRUCTURE (AC)
311 31 9,641 21 16 100

PINOLE VALLEY ROAD COLLINS AVE
(NORTH INT)
SIMAS AVE PINOLV 035 A AC/AC $567,759 4,167 RECONSTRUCT

STRUCTURE (AC)
760 50 38,000 30 23 100
WRIGHT AVENUE VICTOR ST DOIDGE AVE WRIGHT 020 C AC $1,302,438 3,288 RECONSTRUCT

STRUCTURE (AC)
2,294 38 87,172 3 0 100
WRIGHT AVENUE DOIDGE AVE DEAD END WRIGHT 030 C AC $1,040,134 3,288 RECONSTRUCT

STRUCTURE (AC)
1,832 38 69,616 15 5 100
Treatment Total $8,258,855
BAY VIEW FARM ROAD HOUSE #1059 PINON AVE BAYVIE 020 R AC $272,524 7,053 THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5

INCHES)
1,352 38 51,376 53 49 100
Interest: 4.70%
City of Pinole Scenarios - Sections Selected for Treatment Inflation: 3.00% Printed: 5/2/2022
Scenario: #PTAP 22 - S4 - Average Needs
Scenarios Criteria:
** - Treatment from Project Selection 7 MTC StreetSaver 237 of 541
Area ID
Year:

Street Name Begin Location End Location Street ID Section ID FC Surface
Type Cost Rating Treatment
Current
Length Width Area PCI
PCI
Before
PCI
After
Treatment
2024
DEAN COURT PONDEROSA TR CUL DE SAC DEANCT 010 R AC $72,375 7,046 THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5

INCHES)
379 36 13,644 53 49 100
DOOLIN COURT KILLARNEY RD CUL DE SAC DOOLIN 010 R AC $29,228 7,158 THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5

INCHES)
190 29 5,510 52 48 100
LEROY AVENUE LE FABVRE WY CUL DE SAC LEROY 010 R AC $60,451 7,100 THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5

INCHES)
407 28 11,396 53 49 100
Treatment Total $434,578
Year 2024 Area Total 1,645,275 Year 2024 Total $11,014,225 Area ID
Year:

Street Name Begin Location End Location Street ID Section ID FC Surface
Type Cost Rating Treatment
Current
Length Width Area PCI
PCI
Before
PCI
After
Treatment
2025
4TH AVENUE NOB HILL AVE SAN PABLO AVE 4THAVE 020 611 26 15,886 R AC 62 69 78 $50,149 3,950 RUBBER CAPE SEAL DUTRA COURT HAZEL ST CUL DE SAC DUTRA 010 189 31 5,859 R AC 74 70 79 $18,496 3,100 RUBBER CAPE SEAL HANLEY COURT MARLESTA RD CUL DE SAC HANLCT 010 276 30 8,280 R AC 63 70 79 $26,139 3,697 RUBBER CAPE SEAL NOB HILL AVENUE SUNNYVIEW DR HOUSE #1100 NOBHIL 020 502 32 16,064 R AC 62 69 78 $50,711 3,565 RUBBER CAPE SEAL OAK RIDGE ROAD HENRY AVE IGNACIO CT OAKRID 010 472 30 14,160 C AC 75 68 77 $44,700 3,145 RUBBER CAPE SEAL PALOMA STREET ESTATES AVE DEAD END PALOMA 010 802 38 30,476 R AC 62 69 78 $96,206 4,040 RUBBER CAPE SEAL Treatment Total $286,401
ANTONIA CIRCLE OAK RIDGE RD OAK RIDGE RD ANTONI 010 994 24 23,856 R AC 75 71 80 $11,586 20,154 SLURRY SEAL EBSEN COURT SARAH DR CUL DE SAC EBSEN 010 213 36 7,668 R AC/AC 79 76 84 $3,725 24,952 SLURRY SEAL ESTATES AVENUE SIMAS AVE RAMONA ST ESTATE 010 2,330 38 88,540 C AC 94 89 94 $43,001 19,302 SLURRY SEAL GERZ COURT ESTATES AVE CUL DE SAC GERZCT 010 227 32 7,264 R AC 81 77 85 $3,528 19,527 SLURRY SEAL

HEMLEB COURT BAYVIEW FARM
RD
CUL DE SAC HEMLEB 010 501 31 15,531 R AC 84 80 88 $7,543 18,385 SLURRY SEAL MEADOW AVENUE NOB HILL AVE SAN PABLO AVE MEADOW 020 927 24 22,248 R AC 85 81 88 $10,805 17,854 SLURRY SEAL MENDOCINO DRIVE SIMAS AVE TAMALPAIS DR MENDDR 010 696 37 25,752 R AC 83 79 87 $12,507 18,835 SLURRY SEAL OAK RIDGE ROAD IGNACIO CT SAN PABLO AVE OAKRID 020 1,464 27 39,528 C AC 80 73 82 $19,198 22,322 SLURRY SEAL SIMAS AVENUE DIABLO CT APPALOOSA TR SIMAS 015 2,628 38 99,864 C AC/AC 82 79 87 $48,500 34,555 SLURRY SEAL Treatment Total $160,393

ADOBE ROAD PAVEMENT
CHANGE
CUL-DE-SAC ADOBE 015 318 34 10,812 R AC 91 86 87 $36 375,372 SEAL CRACKS ALTAMIRANO CIRCLE FRANCISCA CT FRANCISCA CT ALTAMI 010 628 24 15,072 R AC 85 83 85 $64 642,666 SEAL CRACKS AMEND STREET MANN DR CUL DE SAC AMEND 010 973 36 35,028 R AC 91 86 87 $114 375,372 SEAL CRACKS ANTONIA COURT ANTONIA CIRCLE CUL DE SAC ANTOCT 010 279 33 9,207 R AC 85 83 84 $40 610,707 SEAL CRACKS BAY VIEW FARM ROAD SUNNYVIEW DR HOUSE #1059 BAYVIE 010 333 38 12,654 R AC 87 83 84 $54 409,624 SEAL CRACKS Interest: 4.70%
City of Pinole Scenarios - Sections Selected for Treatment Inflation: 3.00% Printed: 5/2/2022
Scenario: #PTAP 22 - S4 - Average Needs
Scenarios Criteria:
** - Treatment from Project Selection 8 MTC StreetSaver 238 of 541
Area ID
Year:

Street Name Begin Location End Location Street ID Section ID FC Surface
Type Cost Rating Treatment
Current
Length Width Area PCI
PCI
Before
PCI
After
Treatment
2025
BERNARDO COURT OAK RIDGE RD CUL DE SAC BERNAR 010 228 31 7,068 R AC 85 83 85 $30 642,666 SEAL CRACKS BLUE JAY CIRCLE GALBRETH RD END OF LOOP BLUEJA 010 1,212 25 30,300 R AC 89 87 88 $94 671,000 SEAL CRACKS BRENDA COURT BELFAIR DR CUL DE SAC BRENDA 010 214 31 6,634 R AC 91 86 87 $22 375,465 SEAL CRACKS BRETT COURT PINON AVE CUL DE SAC BRETT 010 371 34 12,614 R AC 91 86 87 $44 385,037 SEAL CRACKS CANYON DRIVE APPIAN WAY EL TORO WAY CANYON 010 1,144 38 43,472 R AC 87 85 86 $162 668,643 SEAL CRACKS CLARK COURT FARIA AVE CUL DE SAC CLARK 010 429 32 13,728 R AC 84 81 82 $69 538,996 SEAL CRACKS COLINA COURT SAVAGE AVE CUL DE SAC COLINA 010 137 30 4,110 R AC 85 82 84 $19 621,870 SEAL CRACKS

COLLINS AVENUE PINOLE VALLEY

RD - WEST

ENTRANCE
TOMAR CT COLLIN 010A 614 32 19,648 R AC 75 71 74 $153 410,180 SEAL CRACKS

COLLINS AVENUE TOMAR CT PINOLE VALLEY

RD - EAST

ENTRANCE
COLLIN 010B 754 32 24,128 R AC 75 71 74 $187 410,180 SEAL CRACKS

DANNY COURT BAYVIEW FARM
RD
CUL DE SAC DANNY 010 405 36 14,580 R AC 84 82 83 $68 577,162 SEAL CRACKS

DOWNER STREET PINOLE VALLEY
RD
HENRY AVE DOWNER 010 1,394 37 51,578 R AC 89 85 86 $196 400,229 SEAL CRACKS ENLOW COURT PONDEROSA TR CUL DE SAC ENLOWC 010 245 36 8,820 R AC 83 79 81 $49 411,896 SEAL CRACKS FLAMINGO COURT GALBRETH RD CUL DE SAC FLAMIN 010 234 33 7,722 R AC 90 85 86 $29 391,419 SEAL CRACKS FRANCISCA COURT OAK RIDGE RD CUL DE SAC FRANCT 010 864 32 27,648 R AC 86 82 83 $128 413,633 SEAL CRACKS FRASER COURT FRANCIS DR CUL DE SAC FRASER 010 509 31 15,779 R AC 85 81 83 $77 414,142 SEAL CRACKS

GALBRETH ROAD PINOLE VALLEY
RD
BLUE JAY CIR GALBRE 15A 2,026 33 66,858 R AC 90 88 89 $193 665,536 SEAL CRACKS

GALBRETH ROAD BLUE JAY CIR END OF CUL DE
SAC
GALBRE 15B 608 33 20,064 R AC 90 88 89 $58 665,536 SEAL CRACKS GLEN COURT MARIONOLA WAY CUL DE SAC GLENCT 010 382 32 12,224 R AC 90 85 86 $45 391,419 SEAL CRACKS HANLEY DRIVE LIMERICK RD MARLESTA RD HANLDR 010 480 38 18,240 R AC 84 81 83 $89 587,083 SEAL CRACKS HAZEL STREET SUNNYVIEW DR DEAD END HAZEL 005 270 36 9,720 R AC 87 83 84 $42 409,512 SEAL CRACKS HENRY AVENUE LEWIS LN OAK RIDGE DR HENRY 020 1,044 38 39,672 R AC 87 83 84 $169 409,596 SEAL CRACKS

HENRY AVENUE OAK RIDGE DR PINOLE VALLEY
RD
HENRY 030 1,901 38 72,238 R AC 87 83 84 $308 409,624 SEAL CRACKS HENRY AVENUE ALICE WAY FRANCIS DR HENRY 050 926 37 34,262 R AC 86 82 83 $159 413,633 SEAL CRACKS HERMOSA STREET LUCAS AVE SIMAS AVE HERMST 020 1,217 32 38,944 R AC 87 85 86 $147 654,484 SEAL CRACKS HIGUERA AVENUE RAMONA ST ALAMO ST HIGUER 010 379 32 12,128 R AC 89 84 85 $48 403,414 SEAL CRACKS HUTCHINSON COURT PINON AVE CUL DE SAC HUTCHI 010 521 34 17,714 R AC 86 82 83 $82 413,633 SEAL CRACKS IGNACIO COURT OAK RIDGE RD CUL DE SAC IGNACI 010 106 40 4,240 R AC 87 83 84 $19 409,596 SEAL CRACKS JOHN STREET SAN PABLO AVE PRIVATE DRIVE JOHNST 010 686 25 17,150 R AC 89 84 85 $68 403,414 SEAL CRACKS LA CANADA COURT SAVAGE AVE CUL DE SAC LACANA 010 424 32 13,568 R AC 85 82 84 $61 638,048 SEAL CRACKS LA REINA STREET HERMOSA ST RAMONA ST LAREIN 010 525 36 18,900 R AC 87 83 84 $81 409,624 SEAL CRACKS LAUREL AVENUE SAN PABLO AVE PRIVATE DRIVE LAUREL 010 586 28 16,408 R AC/AC 84 79 81 $92 499,751 SEAL CRACKS Interest: 4.70%
City of Pinole Scenarios - Sections Selected for Treatment Inflation: 3.00% Printed: 5/2/2022
Scenario: #PTAP 22 - S4 - Average Needs
Scenarios Criteria:
** - Treatment from Project Selection 9 MTC StreetSaver 239 of 541
Area ID
Year:

Street Name Begin Location End Location Street ID Section ID FC Surface
Type Cost Rating Treatment
Current
Length Width Area PCI
PCI
Before
PCI
After
Treatment
2025
LUCAS AVENUE ESTATES AVE RAMONA ST LUCAS 010 970 32 31,040 R AC 86 82 83 $144 413,621 SEAL CRACKS MARLESTA ROAD HOUSE #600 KILDARE WAY MARLES 020 1,241 38 47,158 C AC 90 85 86 $174 536,317 SEAL CRACKS MCDONALD DRIVE MARLESTA RD CUL DE SAC MCDONA 010 1,844 37 68,228 R AC 85 83 84 $295 610,707 SEAL CRACKS MEADOW AVENUE MARLESTA RD NOB HILL AVE MEADOW 010 687 24 16,488 R AC 89 84 85 $65 403,414 SEAL CRACKS

MONTCLAIR COURT SANTA BARBARA
DR
CUL DE SAC MONTCL 010 204 32 6,528 R AC 84 81 82 $33 538,996 SEAL CRACKS MORAGA DRIVE SIMAS AVE TAMALPAIS DR MORAGA 020 854 32 27,328 R AC 91 86 87 $91 382,186 SEAL CRACKS

ORLEANS DRIVE TENNENT AVE NORTH DEAD
END
ORLEAN 020 483 24 11,592 R AC/AC 89 86 87 $24 1,096,038 SEAL CRACKS PARK STREET QUINAN AVE TENNENT AVE PARKST 010 235 35 8,225 R AC 77 73 76 $60 448,850 SEAL CRACKS

PINOLE SHORES
DRIVE
DEL MONTE DR CUL DE SAC PINOLE 030 592 42 24,864 R AC 87 83 84 $106 409,596 SEAL CRACKS PONDEROSA TRAIL FARIA AVE HOLIDAY CT PONDER 020A 634 38 24,092 R AC 85 80 82 $122 414,585 SEAL CRACKS

PONDEROSA TRAIL HOLIDAY CT DEAD END

SOUTH OF

ALAMO ST
PONDER 020B 1,531 38 58,178 R AC 85 80 82 $293 414,585 SEAL CRACKS PRIMROSE LANE LOPES CT CUL DE SAC PRIMRO 020 665 32 21,280 R AC 91 86 87 $73 385,037 SEAL CRACKS

RAFAELA STREET PINOLE VALLEY
RD
JOHN ST RAFAEL 010 502 28 14,056 R AC 85 82 84 $64 621,870 SEAL CRACKS RIDGECREST ROAD HOUSE #1569 TESORO CT RIDGEC 020 1,880 37 69,560 R AC 86 83 85 $292 579,183 SEAL CRACKS ROGERS WAY NOB HILL AVE SAN PABLO AVE ROGERS 010 650 32 20,800 R AC 83 80 82 $105 593,552 SEAL CRACKS RUFF COURT FARIA ST CUL DE SAC RUFFCT 010 371 32 11,872 R AC 84 81 83 $58 570,451 SEAL CRACKS

SANTA BARBARA
DRIVE
RAMONA ST SILVERADO DR SANTAB 010 843 36 30,348 R AC 83 80 82 $155 582,667 SEAL CRACKS SARAH COURT SHEA DR CUL DE SAC SARACT 010 756 44 33,264 R AC/AC 89 86 87 $69 1,096,038 SEAL CRACKS SILVERCREST COURT VICTOR AVE CUL DE SAC SILVCT 010 554 31 17,174 R AC 87 84 85 $68 596,012 SEAL CRACKS SILVERCREST STREET VICTOR AVE DEAD END SILVST 010 389 31 12,059 R AC 90 85 86 $45 391,419 SEAL CRACKS

SONOMA WAY MORAGA DR MENDOCINO
AVE
SONOMA 010 982 32 31,424 R AC 88 84 85 $129 405,878 SEAL CRACKS SUMMIT COURT SUMMIT DR CUL DE SAC SUMMCT 010 118 30 3,540 R AC 89 84 85 $14 403,422 SEAL CRACKS

SUMMIT DRIVE CUL DE SAC
(SOUTH)
BUENA VISTA DRSUMMDR 010 493 24 11,832 R AC 74 70 73 $94 414,090 SEAL CRACKS

SUMMIT DRIVE BUENA VISTA DR CUL DE SAC
(NORTH-EAST)
SUMMDR 020 884 28 24,752 R AC 83 78 80 $141 411,629 SEAL CRACKS SUNNYVIEW DRIVE MARELSTA RD SAN PABLO AVE SUNVDR 010 1,108 34 37,672 R AC 89 84 85 $149 403,414 SEAL CRACKS

SUNNYVIEW DRIVE SAN PABLO AVE BAY VIEW FARM
RD
SUNVDR 020A 600 38 22,800 R AC 88 86 87 $75 672,847 SEAL CRACKS

SUNNYVIEW DRIVE BAY VIEW FARM
RD

DEAD END AT

WOY CIRCLE
SUNVDR 020B 1,197 38 45,486 R AC 88 86 87 $149 672,847 SEAL CRACKS VALLEY VIEW DRIVE FERN AVE BUENA VISTA DRVALLDR 010 189 28 5,292 R AC 85 80 82 $27 414,587 SEAL CRACKS

VICTOR STREET WRIGHT AVE SILVERCREST
ST
VICTOR 020 1,127 36 40,572 R AC 84 82 83 $191 556,775 SEAL CRACKS Interest: 4.70%
City of Pinole Scenarios - Sections Selected for Treatment Inflation: 3.00% Printed: 5/2/2022
Scenario: #PTAP 22 - S4 - Average Needs
Scenarios Criteria:
** - Treatment from Project Selection 10 MTC StreetSaver 240 of 541
Area ID
Year:

Street Name Begin Location End Location Street ID Section ID FC Surface
Type Cost Rating Treatment
Current
Length Width Area PCI
PCI
Before
PCI
After
Treatment
2025

WHIPPOORWILL
COURT
GALBRETH RD CUL DE SAC WHIPOR 010 609 33 20,097 R AC 86 83 85 $85 579,183 SEAL CRACKS WILDE COURT KILDARE WAY CUL DE SAC WILDE 010 201 36 7,236 R AC 87 83 84 $31 409,624 SEAL CRACKS WOODSIDE COURT VICTOR AVE CUL DE SAC WOODSI 010 561 31 17,391 R AC 87 85 86 $67 632,663 SEAL CRACKS Treatment Total $6,784

FITGERALD DRIVE CALTRANS RIGHT
OF WAY
JOVITA LN FITZGE 010 C AC/AC $488,440 6,765 MILL AND THICK

OVERLAY
892 82 73,144 56 49 100
MARLESTA ROAD HANLEY DR HOUSE #600 MARLES 010 C AC $190,317 6,919 MILL AND THICK

OVERLAY
750 38 28,500 59 50 100
PINOLE VALLEY ROAD I-80 OFF-RAMP HENRY AVE PINOLV 065 A AC $555,324 9,509 MILL AND THICK

OVERLAY
1,386 60 83,160 56 49 100
Treatment Total $1,234,081
DIABLO COURT SIMAS AVE CUL DE SAC DIABCT 010 R AC $205,014 3,013 RECONSTRUCT

STRUCTURE (AC)
492 32 15,744 23 14 100
DOIDGE AVENUE MOORE CT MARCUS ST DOIDGE 020 R AC $865,472 3,013 RECONSTRUCT

STRUCTURE (AC)
2,144 31 66,464 0 0 100
DOIDGE AVENUE MARCUS ST WRIGHT AVE DOIDGE 030 R AC $401,523 3,013 RECONSTRUCT

STRUCTURE (AC)
881 35 30,835 6 0 100
DOIDGE AVENUE WRIGHT AVE DEAD END DOIDGE 040 R AC $636,591 3,013 RECONSTRUCT

STRUCTURE (AC)
1,577 31 48,887 26 17 100
ELLERHORST STREET TENNENT AVE DEAD END ELLERH 010 R AC $142,041 3,013 RECONSTRUCT

STRUCTURE (AC)
303 36 10,908 5 0 100

ESTATES AVENUE RAMONA ST PINOLE VALLEY
RD
ESTATE 020 C AC $1,222,214 3,193 RECONSTRUCT

STRUCTURE (AC)
2,090 38 79,420 34 20 100

ESTRELLA COURT PINOLE VALLEY
RD
CUL DE SAC ESTREL 010 R AC $61,176 3,013 RECONSTRUCT

STRUCTURE (AC)
174 27 4,698 18 9 100
FARIA AVENUE ESTATES AVE CLARK CT FARIAV 010 R AC $208,347 3,013 RECONSTRUCT

STRUCTURE (AC)
500 32 16,000 13 3 100
FERNANDEZ AVENUE PRUNE ST PEAR ST FERNAN 010 R AC $177,538 3,013 RECONSTRUCT

STRUCTURE (AC)
401 34 13,634 2 0 100

FOOTHILL AVENUE CANYON DR RIDGECREST
RD
FOOTHI 010 R AC $409,219 3,013 RECONSTRUCT

STRUCTURE (AC)
827 38 31,426 18 9 100
GARRITY COURT PONDEROSA TR CUL DE SAC GARRIT 010 R AC $223,140 3,013 RECONSTRUCT

STRUCTURE (AC)
476 36 17,136 32 25 100

GRANADA COURT PINOLE VALLEY
RD
CUL DE SAC GRANAD 010 R AC $151,534 3,013 RECONSTRUCT

STRUCTURE (AC)
431 27 11,637 15 5 100
GREENFIELD CIRCLE RIDGECREST DR END OF LOOP GREENF 010 R AC $399,766 3,013 RECONSTRUCT

STRUCTURE (AC)
1,228 25 30,700 22 13 100
HAMILTON DRIVE DOIDGE AVE DEAD END HAMILT 010 R AC $149,945 3,013 RECONSTRUCT

STRUCTURE (AC)
329 35 11,515 17 7 100

HELENA COURT PINOLE VALLEY
RD
CUL DE SAC HELENA 010 R AC $88,600 3,013 RECONSTRUCT

STRUCTURE (AC)
252 27 6,804 17 8 100
HOKE DRIVE SHEA DR CORTE CRUZ HOKEDR 010 R AC $445,810 3,013 RECONSTRUCT

STRUCTURE (AC)
951 36 34,236 14 4 100
Interest: 4.70%
City of Pinole Scenarios - Sections Selected for Treatment Inflation: 3.00% Printed: 5/2/2022
Scenario: #PTAP 22 - S4 - Average Needs
Scenarios Criteria:
** - Treatment from Project Selection 11 MTC StreetSaver 241 of 541
Area ID
Year:

Street Name Begin Location End Location Street ID Section ID FC Surface
Type Cost Rating Treatment
Current
Length Width Area PCI
PCI
Before
PCI
After
Treatment
2025
JORDAN WAY WRIGHT AVE CUL DE SAC JORDAN 010 R AC $292,988 3,013 RECONSTRUCT

STRUCTURE (AC)
625 36 22,500 0 0 100

JULIA COURT PINOLE VALLEY
RD
CUL DE SAC JULIA 010 R AC $48,168 3,013 RECONSTRUCT

STRUCTURE (AC)
137 27 3,699 22 13 100
KILDARE WAY SHAWN DR TARA HILLS DR KILDAR 010 R AC $604,258 3,013 RECONSTRUCT

STRUCTURE (AC)
1,289 36 46,404 23 14 100
KILDARE WAY TARA HILLS DR MARLESTA RD KILDAR 020 R AC $311,739 3,013 RECONSTRUCT

STRUCTURE (AC)
665 36 23,940 7 0 100

SAN PABLO AVENUE PAVEMENT

TRANSITION AT

DURSEY DR
BELMONT WAY SANPAB 010 A AC $477,221 4,046 RECONSTRUCT

STRUCTURE (AC)
443 70 31,010 35 25 100
SARAH DRIVE APPIAN WAY LYNN DR SARADR 010 C AC $134,441 3,193 RECONSTRUCT

STRUCTURE (AC)
168 52 8,736 37 24 100

TENNENT AVENUE PINOLE VALLEY
RD
SAN PABLO AVE TENNAV 010 A AC $781,712 4,046 RECONSTRUCT

STRUCTURE (AC)
1,411 36 50,796 34 24 100
Treatment Total $8,438,457
FARIA AVENUE CLARK CT PONDEROSA TR FARIAV 020 R AC $296,272 6,822 THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5

INCHES)
1,427 38 54,226 55 50 100
HOLLIDAY COURT PONDEROSA TR CUL DE SAC HOLLID 010 R AC $40,716 6,839 THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5

INCHES)
207 36 7,452 55 50 100
LUCAS AVENUE RAMONA ST CUL DE SAC LUCAS 020 R AC $27,728 6,844 THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5

INCHES)
175 29 5,075 55 50 100

MONTE VISTA DRIVE PINOLE VALLEY
DR
ALHAMBRA WAY MONTVI 010 R AC $275,958 6,859 THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5

INCHES)
1,403 36 50,508 55 49 100
PINON AVENUE BELFAIR DR DEAD END PINONA 020 R AC $113,568 6,898 THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5

INCHES)
547 38 20,786 55 49 100

QUINAN AVENUE SAN PABLO AVE BUENA VISTA DR
(SOUTH INT)
QUINAN 010 R AC $104,837 6,887 THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5

INCHES)
533 36 19,188 54 49 100
ROBERT COURT ALICE WAY CUL DE SAC ROBERT 010 R AC $31,127 6,829 THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5

INCHES)
211 27 5,697 55 50 100
Treatment Total $890,206
Year 2025 Area Total 2,991,001 Year 2025 Total $11,016,322 Area ID
Year:

Street Name Begin Location End Location Street ID Section ID FC Surface
Type Cost Rating Treatment
Current
Length Width Area PCI
PCI
Before
PCI
After
Treatment
2026

EAST MEADOW
AVENUE
MEADOW AVE MEADOW AVE EMEADO 010 1,211 24 29,064 R AC 64 70 79 $94,501 3,831 RUBBER CAPE SEAL KYER STREET HERMOSA ST ESTATES AVE KYERST 010 491 32 15,712 R AC 64 69 78 $51,088 3,612 RUBBER CAPE SEAL MARLESTA ROAD MCDONALD DR APPIAN WAY MARLES 040 1,536 36 55,296 C AC 68 68 78 $179,794 3,100 RUBBER CAPE SEAL

NORTH RANCHO
PLACE

CITY LIMITS (OFF

N RANCHO RD)
CUL DE SAC NRANCH 010 376 36 13,536 R AC 64 70 79 $44,012 3,884 RUBBER CAPE SEAL Interest: 4.70%
City of Pinole Scenarios - Sections Selected for Treatment Inflation: 3.00% Printed: 5/2/2022
Scenario: #PTAP 22 - S4 - Average Needs
Scenarios Criteria:
** - Treatment from Project Selection 12 MTC StreetSaver 242 of 541
Treatment Total $369,395

ADOBE ROAD PINOLE VALLEY
RD

PAVEMENT
CHANGE
ADOBE 005 621 21 13,041 R AC 93 86 92 $6,524 13,307 SLURRY SEAL ALFRED DRIVE BELFAIR DR HAZEL ST ALFRED 010 376 31 11,656 R AC 85 79 87 $5,831 18,132 SLURRY SEAL BARRETT COURT PONDEROSA TR CUL DE SAC BARRET 010 163 36 5,868 R AC 74 70 79 $2,936 19,584 SLURRY SEAL DIABLO CIRCLE SIMAS AVE SIMAS AVE DIABLO 010 1,081 32 34,592 R AC 93 86 92 $17,304 13,296 SLURRY SEAL PONDEROSA TRAIL FARIA AVE FARIA AVE PONDER 010 2,036 36 73,296 R AC 76 72 81 $36,665 19,557 SLURRY SEAL RUFF AVENUE FARIA AVE PALOMA ST RUFFAV 010 1,113 32 35,616 R AC 93 86 92 $17,817 13,294 SLURRY SEAL TESORO COURT RIDGECREST RD CUL DE SAC TESORO 010 447 32 14,304 R AC 87 81 89 $7,156 17,193 SLURRY SEAL Treatment Total $94,233
2ND AVENUE NOB HILL AVE SAN PABLO AVE 2NDAVE 010 566 27 15,282 R AC 47 87 88 $18 969,239 SEAL CRACKS 4TH AVENUE MARLESTA AVE NOB HILL AVE 4THAVE 010 263 26 6,838 R AC/AC 84 88 89 $3 7,150,767 SEAL CRACKS ALAMO STREET 100 FT. EAST OF

HIGUERA AVE
PONDEROSA TR ALAMO 020 1,086 32 34,752 R AC 46 87 88 $40 969,239 SEAL CRACKS ALVAREZ AVENUE SAN PABLO AVE GATE ALVARE 010 672 29 19,488 R AC 46 87 88 $23 969,239 SEAL CRACKS APPALOOSA COURT GOULARTE DR CUL DE SAC APPACT 010 388 30 11,640 R AC 42 87 88 $14 969,239 SEAL CRACKS APPALOOSA TRAIL BUCKSKIN RD GOULARTE DR APPATR 020 802 45 36,090 R AC 40 87 88 $42 969,239 SEAL CRACKS APPIAN WAY I-80 EAST ON
RAMP
I-80 WEST ON
RAMP
APPIAN 030 482 74 35,668 A AC/AC 79 83 85 $129 1,681,173 SEAL CRACKS APPIAN WAY I-80 WEST ON
RAMP
MANN DR APPIAN 040 1,276 76 96,976 A AC/AC 80 84 86 $291 1,966,440 SEAL CRACKS APPIAN WAY MANN DR SAN PABLO AVE APPIAN 050 3,276 61 199,836 A AC/AC 80 84 86 $600 1,966,440 SEAL CRACKS BELDIN STREET APPIAN WAY CUL-DE-SAC BELDEN 010 405 38 15,390 R AC 47 87 88 $18 969,239 SEAL CRACKS

BELFAIR DRIVE BAYVIEW FARM
RD
PINON AVE BELFAI 010 1,413 31 43,803 R AC 67 73 75 $333 481,317 SEAL CRACKS

BETTY AVENUE MEADOW AVE EAST MEADOW
AVE
BETTY 010 407 24 9,768 R AC 47 87 88 $12 969,239 SEAL CRACKS BOX CANYON ROAD BUCKSKIN RD DEAD END BOXCAN 010 295 31 9,145 R AC 45 87 88 $11 969,239 SEAL CRACKS BOYLE COURT KILKENNY WAY CUL DE SAC BOYLE 010 203 36 7,308 R AC 43 87 88 $9 969,239 SEAL CRACKS BUENA VISTA DRIVE HOUSE #440 END OF LOOP BUENAV 020 788 23 18,124 R AC/AC 92 89 89 $3 16,694,218 SEAL CRACKS COLUSA STREET ESTATES AVE LA REINA ST COLUSA 010 2,486 36 89,496 R AC 66 71 74 $714 427,992 SEAL CRACKS CORTE CRUZ COURT HOKE DR CUL DE SAC CORTE 010 544 33 17,952 R AC/AC 92 89 89 $3 16,694,218 SEAL CRACKS COSTA COURT HOKE DR CUL DE SAC COSTA 010 421 31 13,051 R AC 44 87 88 $15 969,239 SEAL CRACKS CURRAN COURT PONDEROSA TR CUL DE SAC CURRAN 010 356 36 12,816 R AC 47 87 88 $15 969,239 SEAL CRACKS

CURRY COURT CARLOTTA
CIRCLE
CUL-DE-SAC CURRYC 432 101 37 3,737 R AC 73 79 81 $22 734,822 SEAL CRACKS DEL AROSA COURT STOKES AVE CUL DE SAC DELARO 010 126 27 3,402 R AC 17 86 87 $12 364,347 SEAL CRACKS

DEL MONTE DRIVE PINOLE SHORES
DR
CITY LIMITS DELMON 010 701 30 21,030 R AC 49 87 88 $25 969,239 SEAL CRACKS FERN AVENUE SAN PABLO AVE VALLEYVIEW ST FERNAV 010 519 28 14,532 R AC/AC 92 89 89 $2 16,694,218 SEAL CRACKS

GATLEY DRIVE PINOLE SHORES
DRIVE
CARLOTTA CIR GATLEY 010 119 25 2,975 R AC 79 81 83 $16 402,260 SEAL CRACKS GOULARTE DRIVE MENDOCINO CT APPALOOSA TR GOULAR 010 1,212 38 46,056 R AC 42 87 88 $53 969,239 SEAL CRACKS HANSEN PLACE ROBLE AVE CUL DE SAC HANSEN 010 236 26 6,136 R AC 47 87 88 $8 969,239 SEAL CRACKS Interest: 4.70%
City of Pinole Scenarios - Sections Selected for Treatment Inflation: 3.00% Printed: 5/2/2022
Scenario: #PTAP 22 - S4 - Average Needs
Scenarios Criteria:
** - Treatment from Project Selection 13 MTC StreetSaver 243 of 541
Area ID
Year:

Street Name Begin Location End Location Street ID Section ID FC Surface
Type Cost Rating Treatment
Current
Length Width Area PCI
PCI
Before
PCI
After
Treatment
2026

HENRY AVENUE PINOLE VALLEY
RD
ALICE WAY HENRY 040 1,606 37 59,422 R AC 66 71 74 $474 428,058 SEAL CRACKS HENRY AVENUE FRANCIS DR DEAD END HENRY 060 1,437 31 44,547 R AC 69 72 75 $342 364,278 SEAL CRACKS HERMOSA STREET ESTATES AVE LUCAS ST HERMST 010 940 32 30,080 R AC 65 70 73 $248 411,582 SEAL CRACKS

HOYTT COURT PINOLE VALLEY
RD
CUL DE SAC HOYTT 010 138 31 4,278 R AC 39 87 88 $5 969,239 SEAL CRACKS JONES AVENUE SAN PABLO AVE GATE JONES 010 700 19 13,300 R AC 41 87 88 $16 969,239 SEAL CRACKS KELLEY COURT MANN DR CUL DE SAC KELLEY 010 234 26 6,084 R AC 73 78 80 $36 558,095 SEAL CRACKS KENMAR COURT MARLESTA RD CUL DE SAC KENMAR 010 254 30 7,620 R AC 66 71 74 $61 443,367 SEAL CRACKS LASSEN WAY SIMAS AVE DEAD END LASSEN 010 704 36 25,344 R AC 39 87 88 $30 969,239 SEAL CRACKS

LE FEBVRE WAY SUMMIT DR TEMP DEAD
END
LEFEBV 010 477 29 13,833 R AC 46 87 88 $16 969,239 SEAL CRACKS LIMERICK ROAD TARA HILLS DR O`CONNER DR LIMERI 010 1,313 34 44,642 R AC 68 73 76 $331 463,633 SEAL CRACKS MADRONE AVENUE SAN PABLO AVE PRIVATE DRIVE MADRON 010 141 16 2,256 R AC 74 79 81 $13 558,713 SEAL CRACKS

MANN DRIVE PAVEMENT
CHANGE
MCDONALD DR MANNDR 015 1,091 37 40,367 R AC 67 70 73 $329 351,539 SEAL CRACKS

MARIA COURT PINOLE VALLEY
RD
CUL DE SAC MARIAC 010 127 27 3,429 R AC 20 86 87 $12 364,347 SEAL CRACKS MENDOCINO DRIVE TAMALPAIS DR GOULARTE DR MENDDR 020 921 27 24,867 R AC 48 87 88 $29 969,239 SEAL CRACKS

PATRICK DRIVE DEAD END SOUTH

OF NOB HILL AVE
SUNNYVIEW DR PATRIC 010 1,030 25 25,750 R AC 66 71 74 $205 435,346 SEAL CRACKS

PINOLE SHORES
DRIVE
SAN PABLO AVE 100 SOUTH OF

OVERPASS
PINOLE 010 531 65 34,515 R AC 41 87 88 $40 969,239 SEAL CRACKS

PINOLE SHORES
DRIVE
100 SOUTH OF

OVERPASS
DEL MONTE DR PINOLE 020 917 42 38,514 R AC 45 87 88 $45 969,239 SEAL CRACKS

PINOLE VALLEY ROAD CITY LIMITS EAST

OF MARLIN CT

PINOLE CREEK
BRIDGE #6
PINOLV 010 1,897 38 72,086 A AC 46 85 86 $195 1,001,607 SEAL CRACKS

PINOLE VALLEY ROAD BRIDGE WEST OF

SAVAGE ST

COLLINS AVE
(NORTH INT)
PINOLV 030 2,484 39 96,876 A AC 44 85 86 $262 1,001,607 SEAL CRACKS PINOLE VALLEY ROAD ESTATES AVE I-80 OFF-RAMP PINOLV 055 840 60 50,400 A AC 48 85 86 $137 1,001,607 SEAL CRACKS PINOLE VALLEY ROAD HENRY AVE TENNENT AVE PINOLV 070 751 42 31,542 A AC 45 85 86 $86 1,001,607 SEAL CRACKS PINOLE VALLEY ROAD TENNENT AVE SAN PABLO AVE PINOLV 080 1,650 32 52,800 A AC 39 85 86 $143 1,001,607 SEAL CRACKS PINON AVENUE SAN PABLO AVE BELFAIR DR PINONA 010 1,448 38 55,024 R AC 46 87 88 $64 969,239 SEAL CRACKS POQUITO COURT CUL DE SAC S. OF

CANYON DR
CUL DE SAC N.

OF CANYON DR
POQUIT 010 253 34 8,602 R AC 48 87 88 $10 969,239 SEAL CRACKS POULOS COURT GOULARTE DR CUL DE SAC POULOS 010 322 30 9,660 R AC 40 87 88 $12 969,239 SEAL CRACKS PRIMROSE LANE PINON AVE LOPES CT PRIMRO 010 546 32 17,472 R AC 48 87 88 $21 969,239 SEAL CRACKS

RAMONA STREET PINOLE VALLEY
RD
LUCAS AVE RAMONA 010 2,321 38 88,198 R AC 42 87 88 $102 969,239 SEAL CRACKS REBECCA DRIVE SARAH DR MICHAEL DR REBECC 010 1,027 32 32,864 R AC 39 87 88 $38 969,239 SEAL CRACKS RISING GLEN ROAD MARLESTA RD CUL DE SAC RISING 010 897 32 28,704 R AC 69 74 77 $205 482,462 SEAL CRACKS ROBLE AVENUE SAN PABLO AVE ENCINA AVE ROBLE 010 251 28 7,028 R AC/AC 84 88 89 $3 7,275,110 SEAL CRACKS Interest: 4.70%
City of Pinole Scenarios - Sections Selected for Treatment Inflation: 3.00% Printed: 5/2/2022
Scenario: #PTAP 22 - S4 - Average Needs
Scenarios Criteria:
** - Treatment from Project Selection 14 MTC StreetSaver 244 of 541
Area ID
Year:

Street Name Begin Location End Location Street ID Section ID FC Surface
Type Cost Rating Treatment
Current
Length Width Area PCI
PCI
Before
PCI
After
Treatment
2026
ROBLE AVENUE ENCINA AVE PINON AVE ROBLE 020 420 29 12,180 R AC 47 87 88 $14 969,239 SEAL CRACKS

SAN PABLO AVENUE CITY LIMITS AT
CHURCH

PAVEMENT

TRANSITION AT

DURSEY DR
SANPAB 005 440 70 30,800 A AC 22 84 86 $122 596,121 SEAL CRACKS

SAN PABLO AVENUE BELMONT WAY PINOLE

SHORES DR
SANPAB 020 1,813 58 105,154 A AC 47 85 86 $284 1,001,607 SEAL CRACKS

SARITA COURT PINOLE VALLEY
RD
CUL DE SAC SARITA 371 106 27 2,862 R AC 40 87 88 $4 969,239 SEAL CRACKS

SAVAGE AVENUE SIMAS AVE PINOLE VALLEY
RD
SAVAGE 015 2,425 38 92,150 R AC 67 73 75 $700 480,871 SEAL CRACKS

SEVILLE COURT MONTE VERDE
DRIVE
CUL DE SAC SEVILL 010 569 32 18,208 R AC 46 87 88 $21 969,239 SEAL CRACKS SILVERADO DRIVE SIMAS AVE PRIVATE DRIVE SILVAD 010 1,524 38 57,912 R AC 46 87 88 $67 969,239 SEAL CRACKS STOKES AVENUE DOIDGE AVE MOORE CT STOKES 010 1,074 32 34,368 R AC 47 87 88 $40 969,239 SEAL CRACKS SUNNYVIEW COURT MARLESTA DR CUL DE SAC SUNVCT 010 261 25 6,525 R AC/AC 84 88 89 $3 7,150,767 SEAL CRACKS TENNENT AVENUE SAN PABLO AVE LA SALLE DR TENNAV 020 1,368 36 49,248 A AC 23 84 86 $195 596,121 SEAL CRACKS TENNENT AVENUE LA SALLE DR BRIDGE TENNAV 030 1,576 36 56,736 A AC 20 84 86 $224 596,121 SEAL CRACKS TOMAR COURT COLLINS AVE CUL DE SAC TOMAR 010 107 32 3,424 R AC 45 87 88 $4 969,239 SEAL CRACKS

VON DOLLEN COURT GOULARTE

DR/POULOS CT
CUL DE SAC VONDOL 010 580 30 17,400 R AC 44 87 88 $20 969,239 SEAL CRACKS ZOE COURT ORLEANS DR CUL DE SAC ZOECT 010 271 27 7,317 R AC 44 87 88 $9 969,239 SEAL CRACKS Treatment Total $7,648
MARLESTA ROAD KILDARE WAY MCDONALD DR MARLES 030 C AC $420,941 6,724 MILL AND THICK

OVERLAY
1,700 36 61,200 62 49 100
Treatment Total $420,941
AVIS WAY HOUSE #3130 CUL DE SAC AVISWY 020 R AC $126,613 2,925 RECONSTRUCT

STRUCTURE (AC)
295 32 9,440 34 24 100
CANYON DRIVE EL TORO WAY FOOTHILL AVE CANYON 020 R AC $599,370 2,925 RECONSTRUCT

STRUCTURE (AC)
1,176 38 44,688 34 24 100
DUNCAN ROAD SARAH DR DEAD END DUNCAN 010 R AC $209,984 2,925 RECONSTRUCT

STRUCTURE (AC)
412 38 15,656 35 24 100
GEOFFREY COURT SARAH DR CUL DE SAC GEOFFR 010 R AC $55,098 2,925 RECONSTRUCT

STRUCTURE (AC)
158 26 4,108 34 23 100
GOULARTE DRIVE APPALOOSA TR POULOS CT GOULAR 020 R AC $358,914 2,925 RECONSTRUCT

STRUCTURE (AC)
892 30 26,760 33 22 100
KILRUSH COURT KILKENY WAY CUL DE SAC KILRUS 010 R AC $192,655 2,925 RECONSTRUCT

STRUCTURE (AC)
399 36 14,364 12 0 100
KITTERY WAY KILDARE WAY SHAWN DR KITTER 010 R AC $459,184 2,925 RECONSTRUCT

STRUCTURE (AC)
951 36 34,236 8 0 100
LA SALLE COURT LA SALLE DR CUL DE SAC LASALC 010 R AC $76,934 2,925 RECONSTRUCT

STRUCTURE (AC)
239 24 5,736 10 0 100
LA SALLE DRIVE TENNENT AVE CALAIS DR LASALL 010 R AC $118,136 2,925 RECONSTRUCT

STRUCTURE (AC)
367 24 8,808 26 13 100
Interest: 4.70%
City of Pinole Scenarios - Sections Selected for Treatment Inflation: 3.00% Printed: 5/2/2022
Scenario: #PTAP 22 - S4 - Average Needs
Scenarios Criteria:
** - Treatment from Project Selection 15 MTC StreetSaver 245 of 541
Area ID
Year:

Street Name Begin Location End Location Street ID Section ID FC Surface
Type Cost Rating Treatment
Current
Length Width Area PCI
PCI
Before
PCI
After
Treatment
2026
LEWIS LANE HENRY AVE CUL DE SAC LEWIS 010 R AC $146,812 2,925 RECONSTRUCT

STRUCTURE (AC)
421 26 10,946 17 4 100
LYNN DRIVE SARAH DR MICHAEL DR LYNNDR 010 R AC $421,496 2,925 RECONSTRUCT

STRUCTURE (AC)
827 38 31,426 30 18 100
MADERA STREET DOIDGE AVE WRIGHT AVE MADERA 010 R AC $209,447 2,925 RECONSTRUCT

STRUCTURE (AC)
488 32 15,616 20 7 100

MANN DRIVE APPIAN WAY PAVEMENT
CHANGE
MANNDR 005 R AC $318,597 2,925 RECONSTRUCT

STRUCTURE (AC)
642 37 23,754 20 7 100
MARCUS STREET S/O DOIDGE AVE WRIGHT AVE MARCST 010 R AC $184,487 2,925 RECONSTRUCT

STRUCTURE (AC)
393 35 13,755 30 19 100
MARCUS STREET DOIDGE AVE CUL DE SAC MARCST 020 R AC $546,418 2,925 RECONSTRUCT

STRUCTURE (AC)
1,164 35 40,740 8 0 100
MARIONOLA WAY HOUSE #1199 MARLESTA RD MARION 020 R AC $297,861 2,925 RECONSTRUCT

STRUCTURE (AC)
694 32 22,208 10 0 100

MARLIN COURT PINOLE VALLEY
RD
CUL DE SAC MARLIN 010 R AC $99,372 2,925 RECONSTRUCT

STRUCTURE (AC)
239 31 7,409 29 17 100

MARTINEZ COURT PINOLE VALLEY
RD
CUL DE SAC MARTIN 010 R AC $225,971 2,925 RECONSTRUCT

STRUCTURE (AC)
468 36 16,848 19 6 100
MENDOCINO COURT GOULARTE DR CUL DE SAC MENDCT 010 R AC $84,900 2,925 RECONSTRUCT

STRUCTURE (AC)
211 30 6,330 30 19 100
MOORE COURT DOIDGE AVE CUL DE SAC MOORE 010 R AC $161,807 2,925 RECONSTRUCT

STRUCTURE (AC)
377 32 12,064 20 7 100
NAOMI COURT SHEA DR CUL DE SAC NAOMI 010 R AC $118,780 2,925 RECONSTRUCT

STRUCTURE (AC)
328 27 8,856 15 1 100

OLINDA COURT PINOLE VALLEY
RD
CUL DE SAC OLINDA 010 R AC $62,287 2,925 RECONSTRUCT

STRUCTURE (AC)
172 27 4,644 32 21 100

ORLEANS DRIVE CUL DE SAC
(WEST)
TENNENT AVE ORLEAN 010 R AC $388,287 2,925 RECONSTRUCT

STRUCTURE (AC)
1,158 25 28,950 21 8 100
PAGE COURT KILKENNY WAY CUL DE SAC PAGECT 010 R AC $172,376 2,925 RECONSTRUCT

STRUCTURE (AC)
357 36 12,852 23 10 100
PALOS COURT STOKES AVE CUL DE SAC PALOS 010 R AC $46,716 2,925 RECONSTRUCT

STRUCTURE (AC)
129 27 3,483 16 2 100
PEACH STREET TENNENT AVE DEAD END PEACH 010 R AC $155,369 2,925 RECONSTRUCT

STRUCTURE (AC)
362 32 11,584 1 0 100
PEAR STREET OAK RIDGE RD TENNENT AVE PEARST 010 R AC $263,096 2,925 RECONSTRUCT

STRUCTURE (AC)
613 32 19,616 28 17 100

PEAR STREET TENNENT AVE FERNANDEZ
AVE
PEARST 020 R AC $90,641 2,925 RECONSTRUCT

STRUCTURE (AC)
218 31 6,758 18 5 100
PFEIFFER LANE PFEIFER WAY DEAD END PFEIFL 010 R AC $65,909 2,925 RECONSTRUCT

STRUCTURE (AC)
234 21 4,914 15 1 100
PFEIFFER WAY DOIDGE AVE PFEIFER LANE PFEIFW 010 R AC $247,270 2,925 RECONSTRUCT

STRUCTURE (AC)
838 22 18,436 6 0 100
PFEIFFER WAY PFEIFER LANE CUL DE SAC PFEIFW 020 R AC $140,803 2,925 RECONSTRUCT

STRUCTURE (AC)
362 29 10,498 29 18 100
PINE AVENUE SMITH AVE DEAD END PINEAV 010 R AC $185,171 2,925 RECONSTRUCT

STRUCTURE (AC)
531 26 13,806 20 7 100
Interest: 4.70%
City of Pinole Scenarios - Sections Selected for Treatment Inflation: 3.00% Printed: 5/2/2022
Scenario: #PTAP 22 - S4 - Average Needs
Scenarios Criteria:
** - Treatment from Project Selection 16 MTC StreetSaver 246 of 541
Area ID
Year:

Street Name Begin Location End Location Street ID Section ID FC Surface
Type Cost Rating Treatment
Current
Length Width Area PCI
PCI
Before
PCI
After
Treatment
2026

PLUM STREET SCHOOL

ENTRANCE
TENNENT AVE PLUMST 010 R AC $197,966 2,925 RECONSTRUCT

STRUCTURE (AC)
410 36 14,760 0 0 100

PLUM STREET TENNENT AVE DEAD END

NORTH OF

FERNANDEZ AV
PLUMST 020 R AC $164,650 2,925 RECONSTRUCT

STRUCTURE (AC)
341 36 12,276 9 0 100

POTRERO COURT PINOLE VALLEY
RD
CUL DE SAC POTRER 010 R AC $89,809 2,925 RECONSTRUCT

STRUCTURE (AC)
248 27 6,696 35 25 100
PRUNE STREET DEAD END TENNENT AVE PRUNE 010 R AC $137,262 2,925 RECONSTRUCT

STRUCTURE (AC)
301 34 10,234 15 1 100

PRUNE STREET TENNENT AVE FERNANDEZ
AVE
PRUNE 020 R AC $108,533 2,925 RECONSTRUCT

STRUCTURE (AC)
238 34 8,092 12 0 100

QUINAN AVENUE BUENA VISTA DR
(SOUTH INT)

BUENA VISTA DR
(NORTH INT)
QUINAN 020 R AC $93,431 2,925 RECONSTRUCT

STRUCTURE (AC)
258 27 6,966 9 0 100
RAILROAD AVENUE TENNENT AVE END RAILAV 010 R AC $140,830 2,925 RECONSTRUCT

STRUCTURE (AC)
300 35 10,500 36 25 100
REMUDA WAY CAROL ST SIMAS AVE REMUDA 010 R AC $450,010 2,925 RECONSTRUCT

STRUCTURE (AC)
932 36 33,552 17 4 100
SHADY DRAW SIMAS AVE DEAD END SHADYD 010 R AC $359,316 2,925 RECONSTRUCT

STRUCTURE (AC)
705 38 26,790 33 22 100
SHAWN DR CITY LIMITS TARA HILLS DR SHAWN 010 R AC $347,648 2,925 RECONSTRUCT

STRUCTURE (AC)
720 36 25,920 3 0 100

SIMAS AVENUE DEAD END PINOLE VALLEY
RD
SIMAS 005 R AC $65,667 2,925 RECONSTRUCT

STRUCTURE (AC)
144 34 4,896 6 0 100
TENNENT COURT TENNENT AVE CUL DE SAC TENNCT 010 R AC $50,860 2,925 RECONSTRUCT

STRUCTURE (AC)
158 24 3,792 27 16 100
Treatment Total $9,036,743
ALHAMBRA WAY MORAGA DR CUL DE SAC ALHAMB 010 R AC $317,664 6,758 THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5

INCHES)
1,568 36 56,448 56 48 100
ANNE COURT HENRY AVE CUL DE SAC ANNECT 010 R AC $30,355 6,676 THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5

INCHES)
174 31 5,394 56 49 100
CHARLES ST VALLEY RD SAN PABLO AVE CHARLE 010 R AC $99,169 6,673 THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5

INCHES)
534 33 17,622 57 49 100
DORA COURT FRANCIS DR CUL DE SAC DORACT 010 R AC $70,829 6,674 THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5

INCHES)
406 31 12,586 56 49 100
ENCINA AVENUE ROBLE AVE DEAD END ENCINA 010 R AC $60,823 6,673 THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5

INCHES)
386 28 10,808 56 49 100
HAZEL STREET DEAD END PINON AVE HAZEL 015 R AC $161,669 6,641 THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5

INCHES)
798 36 28,728 57 50 100
HENRY AVENUE RIDGECREST RD LEWIS LN HENRY 010 R AC $56,884 6,708 THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5

INCHES)
266 38 10,108 59 50 100
MORAGA DRIVE SAVAGE AVE SIMAS AVE MORAGA 010 R AC $185,980 6,618 THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5

INCHES)
918 36 33,048 57 50 100
VALLEY AVENUE SAN PABLO AVE CHARLES AVE VALLAV 010 R AC $26,000 6,730 THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5

INCHES)
165 28 4,620 56 48 100
Treatment Total $1,009,373
Interest: 4.70%
City of Pinole Scenarios - Sections Selected for Treatment Inflation: 3.00% Printed: 5/2/2022
Scenario: #PTAP 22 - S4 - Average Needs
Scenarios Criteria:
** - Treatment from Project Selection 17 MTC StreetSaver 247 of 541
Year 2026 Area Total 3,471,985 Year 2026 Total $10,938,333 Grand Total Section Area: 12,598,383 Grand Total $55,001,056 Interest: 4.70%
City of Pinole Scenarios - Sections Selected for Treatment Inflation: 3.00% Printed: 5/2/2022
Scenario: #PTAP 22 - S4 - Average Needs
Scenarios Criteria:
** - Treatment from Project Selection 18 MTC StreetSaver 248 of 541
Pavement Management Technical Assistance (P‐TAP) Round 22 SECTION V
 Backup Information
o M&R Information
249 of 541

SECTION V – BACKUP INFORMATION
250 of 541
City of Pinole
Printed: 2/6/2022
M & R History
Comments
AC
Width
Maintenance
Date
St ID Sec ID Street Name
2NDAVE 010 2ND AVENUE Residential/Local
Functional Class
Treatment Sq. Ft. Thickness
PCI Prior to
M&R
PCI after
M&R
Cost of
Maintenance
Begin Location

NOB HILL AVE
End Location
SAN PABLO AVE 566 27 15,282
Length Area
Surface
Type
Pre-Combine?
Area ID
47 Current
PCI
06/01/2006 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 72 81 $0
Comments
AC
Width
Maintenance
Date
St ID Sec ID Street Name
3RDAVE 010 3RD AVENUE Residential/Local
Functional Class
Treatment Sq. Ft. Thickness
PCI Prior to
M&R
PCI after
M&R
Cost of
Maintenance
Begin Location

NOB HILL AVE
End Location
SAN PABLO AVE 585 27 15,795
Length Area
Surface
Type
Pre-Combine?
Area ID
60 Current
PCI
06/01/2006 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 77 85 $0
Comments
AC/AC
Width
Maintenance
Date
St ID Sec ID Street Name
4THAVE 010 4TH AVENUE Residential/Local
Functional Class
Treatment Sq. Ft. Thickness
PCI Prior to
M&R
PCI after
M&R
Cost of
Maintenance
Begin Location

MARLESTA AVE
End Location
NOB HILL AVE 263 26 6,838
Length Area
Surface
Type
Pre-Combine?
Area ID
85 Current
PCI
06/01/2009 THIN AC OVERLAY(1.5 INCHES) 0 0 18 100 $0
Comments
AC
Width
Maintenance
Date
St ID Sec ID Street Name
4THAVE 020 4TH AVENUE Residential/Local
Functional Class
Treatment Sq. Ft. Thickness
PCI Prior to
M&R
PCI after
M&R
Cost of
Maintenance
Begin Location

NOB HILL AVE
End Location
SAN PABLO AVE 611 26 15,886
Length Area
Surface
Type
Pre-Combine?
Area ID
62 Current
PCI
06/01/2006 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 81 89 $0
Comments
AC
Width
Maintenance
Date
St ID Sec ID Street Name
5THAVE 010 5TH AVENUE Residential/Local
Functional Class
Treatment Sq. Ft. Thickness
PCI Prior to
M&R
PCI after
M&R
Cost of
Maintenance
Begin Location

NOB HILL AVE
End Location
SAN PABLO AVE 656 26 17,056
Length Area
Surface
Type
Pre-Combine?
Area ID
86 Current
PCI
06/01/2006 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 82 89 $0
09/05/2019 SLURRY SEAL 17,056 0 58 69 $0 Crack seal, repair isolated base failures, slurry seal, and reinstall
existing striping.

Criteria: 1 MTC StreetSaver
251 of 541
Comments
AC
Width
Maintenance
Date
St ID Sec ID Street Name
ADOBE 015 ADOBE ROAD Residential/Local
Functional Class
Treatment Sq. Ft. Thickness
PCI Prior to
M&R
PCI after
M&R
Cost of
Maintenance
Begin Location

PAVEMENT CHANGE
End Location
CUL-DE-SAC 318 34 10,812
Length Area
Surface
Type
Pre-Combine?
Area ID
92 Current
PCI
09/07/2021 SEAL CRACKS 0 0 83 84 $0
09/08/2021 DEEP PATCH 0 0 84 87 $0
09/09/2021 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 87 93 $0
Comments
AC
Width
Maintenance
Date
St ID Sec ID Street Name
ALFRED 010 ALFRED DRIVE Residential/Local
Functional Class
Treatment Sq. Ft. Thickness
PCI Prior to
M&R
PCI after
M&R
Cost of
Maintenance
Begin Location

BELFAIR DR
End Location
HAZEL ST 376 31 11,656
Length Area
Surface
Type
Pre-Combine?
Area ID
85 Current
PCI
06/01/2007 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 81 88 $0
Comments
AC
Width
Maintenance
Date
St ID Sec ID Street Name
ALHAMB 010 ALHAMBRA WAY Residential/Local
Functional Class
Treatment Sq. Ft. Thickness
PCI Prior to
M&R
PCI after
M&R
Cost of
Maintenance
Begin Location

MORAGA DR
End Location
CUL DE SAC 1,568 36 56,448
Length Area
Surface
Type
Pre-Combine?
Area ID
56 Current
PCI
06/01/2007 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 75 84 $0
Comments
AC
Width
Maintenance
Date
St ID Sec ID Street Name
ALICE 010 ALICE WAY Residential/Local
Functional Class
Treatment Sq. Ft. Thickness
PCI Prior to
M&R
PCI after
M&R
Cost of
Maintenance
Begin Location

HENRY AVE
End Location
HENRY AVE 2,171 31 67,301
Length Area
Surface
Type
Pre-Combine?
Area ID
51 Current
PCI
06/01/2009 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 74 82 $0 Data entered after subsequent information recorded.

Comments
AC
Width
Maintenance
Date
St ID Sec ID Street Name
ALTAMI 010 ALTAMIRANO CIRCLE Residential/Local
Functional Class
Treatment Sq. Ft. Thickness
PCI Prior to
M&R
PCI after
M&R
Cost of
Maintenance
Begin Location

FRANCISCA CT
End Location
FRANCISCA CT 628 24 15,072
Length Area
Surface
Type
Pre-Combine?
Area ID
86 Current
PCI
09/01/2013 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 56 68 $0 Data entered after subsequent information recorded.
09/07/2021 SEAL CRACKS 0 0 71 74 $0
09/08/2021 DEEP PATCH 0 0 74 78 $0
09/09/2021 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 78 86 $0
Printed: 2/6/2022
M & R History City of Pinole
Criteria: 2 MTC StreetSaver
252 of 541
Comments
AC
Width
Maintenance
Date
St ID Sec ID Street Name
AMEND 010 AMEND STREET Residential/Local
Functional Class
Treatment Sq. Ft. Thickness
PCI Prior to
M&R
PCI after
M&R
Cost of
Maintenance
Begin Location

MANN DR
End Location
CUL DE SAC 973 36 35,028
Length Area
Surface
Type
Pre-Combine?
Area ID
92 Current
PCI
06/01/2006 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 78 86 $0
09/07/2021 SEAL CRACKS 0 0 83 84 $0
09/08/2021 DEEP PATCH 0 0 84 87 $0
09/09/2021 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 87 93 $0
Comments
AC
Width
Maintenance
Date
St ID Sec ID Street Name
ANNECT 010 ANNE COURT Residential/Local
Functional Class
Treatment Sq. Ft. Thickness
PCI Prior to
M&R
PCI after
M&R
Cost of
Maintenance
Begin Location

HENRY AVE
End Location
CUL DE SAC 174 31 5,394
Length Area
Surface
Type
Pre-Combine?
Area ID
56 Current
PCI
06/01/2009 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 57 68 $0 Data entered after subsequent information recorded.

Comments
AC
Width
Maintenance
Date
St ID Sec ID Street Name
ANTOCT 010 ANTONIA COURT Residential/Local
Functional Class
Treatment Sq. Ft. Thickness
PCI Prior to
M&R
PCI after
M&R
Cost of
Maintenance
Begin Location

ANTONIA CIRCLE
End Location
CUL DE SAC 279 33 9,207
Length Area
Surface
Type
Pre-Combine?
Area ID
86 Current
PCI
09/01/2013 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 49 63 $0 Data entered after subsequent information recorded.
09/07/2021 SEAL CRACKS 0 0 71 74 $0
09/08/2021 DEEP PATCH 0 0 74 78 $0
09/09/2021 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 78 86 $0
Comments
AC
Width
Maintenance
Date
St ID Sec ID Street Name
ANTONI 010 ANTONIA CIRCLE Residential/Local
Functional Class
Treatment Sq. Ft. Thickness
PCI Prior to
M&R
PCI after
M&R
Cost of
Maintenance
Begin Location

OAK RIDGE RD
End Location
OAK RIDGE RD 994 24 23,856
Length Area
Surface
Type
Pre-Combine?
Area ID
75 Current
PCI
09/01/2013 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 61 71 $0 Data entered after subsequent information recorded.

Printed: 2/6/2022
M & R History City of Pinole
Criteria: 3 MTC StreetSaver
253 of 541
Comments
AC/AC
Width
Maintenance
Date
St ID Sec ID Street Name
APPIAN 020 APPIAN WAY Arterial
Functional Class
Treatment Sq. Ft. Thickness
PCI Prior to
M&R
PCI after
M&R
Cost of
Maintenance
Begin Location

MICHAEL DR
End Location
I-80 EAST ON RAMP 1,237 74 91,538
Length Area
Surface
Type
Pre-Combine?
Area ID
80 Current
PCI
06/01/2007 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 39 58 $0
06/01/2009 THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5 INCHES) 0 0 93 100 $0
Comments
AC/AC
Width
Maintenance
Date
St ID Sec ID Street Name
APPIAN 030 APPIAN WAY Arterial
Functional Class
Treatment Sq. Ft. Thickness
PCI Prior to
M&R
PCI after
M&R
Cost of
Maintenance
Begin Location
I-80 EAST ON RAMP
End Location
I-80 WEST ON RAMP 482 74 35,668
Length Area
Surface
Type
Pre-Combine?
Area ID
80 Current
PCI
06/01/2007 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 29 53 $0
06/01/2009 THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5 INCHES) 0 0 91 100 $0
Comments
AC/AC
Width
Maintenance
Date
St ID Sec ID Street Name
APPIAN 040 APPIAN WAY Arterial
Functional Class
Treatment Sq. Ft. Thickness
PCI Prior to
M&R
PCI after
M&R
Cost of
Maintenance
Begin Location
I-80 WEST ON RAMP
End Location
MANN DR 1,276 76 96,976
Length Area
Surface
Type
Pre-Combine?
Area ID
81 Current
PCI
06/01/2009 THIN AC OVERLAY(1.5 INCHES) 0 0 48 100 $0
Comments
AC/AC
Width
Maintenance
Date
St ID Sec ID Street Name
APPIAN 050 APPIAN WAY Arterial
Functional Class
Treatment Sq. Ft. Thickness
PCI Prior to
M&R
PCI after
M&R
Cost of
Maintenance
Begin Location

MANN DR
End Location
SAN PABLO AVE 3,276 61 199,836
Length Area
Surface
Type
Pre-Combine?
Area ID
81 Current
PCI
06/01/2009 THIN AC OVERLAY(1.5 INCHES) 0 0 53 100 $0
Comments
AC
Width
Maintenance
Date
St ID Sec ID Street Name
BARRET 010 BARRETT COURT Residential/Local
Functional Class
Treatment Sq. Ft. Thickness
PCI Prior to
M&R
PCI after
M&R
Cost of
Maintenance
Begin Location

PONDEROSA TR
End Location
CUL DE SAC 163 36 5,868
Length Area
Surface
Type
Pre-Combine?
Area ID
74 Current
PCI
09/01/2012 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 55 66 $0 Data entered after subsequent information recorded.
10/01/2018 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 68 77 $0
Printed: 2/6/2022
M & R History City of Pinole
Criteria: 4 MTC StreetSaver
254 of 541
Comments
AC
Width
Maintenance
Date
St ID Sec ID Street Name
BAYVIE 010 BAY VIEW FARM ROAD Residential/Local
Functional Class
Treatment Sq. Ft. Thickness
PCI Prior to
M&R
PCI after
M&R
Cost of
Maintenance
Begin Location

SUNNYVIEW DR
End Location
HOUSE #1059 333 38 12,654
Length Area
Surface
Type
Pre-Combine?
Area ID
88 Current
PCI
06/01/2007 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 81 88 $0
09/07/2021 SEAL CRACKS 0 0 75 77 $0
09/08/2021 DEEP PATCH 0 0 77 81 $0
09/09/2021 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 81 89 $0
Comments
AC
Width
Maintenance
Date
St ID Sec ID Street Name
BAYVIE 020 BAY VIEW FARM ROAD Residential/Local
Functional Class
Treatment Sq. Ft. Thickness
PCI Prior to
M&R
PCI after
M&R
Cost of
Maintenance
Begin Location
HOUSE #1059
End Location
PINON AVE 1,352 38 51,376
Length Area
Surface
Type
Pre-Combine?
Area ID
53 Current
PCI
06/01/2007 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 71 80 $0
Comments
AC
Width
Maintenance
Date
St ID Sec ID Street Name
BELFAI 010 BELFAIR DRIVE Residential/Local
Functional Class
Treatment Sq. Ft. Thickness
PCI Prior to
M&R
PCI after
M&R
Cost of
Maintenance
Begin Location

BAYVIEW FARM RD
End Location
PINON AVE 1,413 31 43,803
Length Area
Surface
Type
Pre-Combine?
Area ID
68 Current
PCI
06/01/2007 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 71 80 $0
Comments
AC/AC
Width
Maintenance
Date
St ID Sec ID Street Name
BELMON 010 BELMONT WAY Residential/Local
Functional Class
Treatment Sq. Ft. Thickness
PCI Prior to
M&R
PCI after
M&R
Cost of
Maintenance
Begin Location

MARLESTA RD
End Location
CUL-DE-SAC 734 36 26,198
Length Area
Surface
Type
Pre-Combine?
Area ID
80 Current
PCI
06/01/2006 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 55 67 $0 Combined from BELMON010, BELMON020 6/25/2010
06/01/2009 THIN AC OVERLAY(1.5 INCHES) 0 0 52 100 $0 Data entered after subsequent information recorded. - Combined
from BELMON010, BELMON020
6/25/2010
06/01/2009 THIN AC OVERLAY(1.5 INCHES) 0 0 73 100 $0 Combined from BELMON010, BELMON020 6/25/2010
Printed: 2/6/2022
M & R History City of Pinole
Criteria: 5 MTC StreetSaver
255 of 541
Comments
AC
Width
Maintenance
Date
St ID Sec ID Street Name
BERNAR 010 BERNARDO COURT Residential/Local
Functional Class
Treatment Sq. Ft. Thickness
PCI Prior to
M&R
PCI after
M&R
Cost of
Maintenance
Begin Location

OAK RIDGE RD
End Location
CUL DE SAC 228 31 7,068
Length Area
Surface
Type
Pre-Combine?
Area ID
86 Current
PCI
09/01/2013 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 56 68 $0 Data entered after subsequent information recorded.
09/07/2021 SEAL CRACKS 0 0 71 74 $0
09/08/2021 DEEP PATCH 0 0 74 78 $0
09/09/2021 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 78 86 $0
Comments
AC
Width
Maintenance
Date
St ID Sec ID Street Name
BETTY 010 BETTY AVENUE Residential/Local
Functional Class
Treatment Sq. Ft. Thickness
PCI Prior to
M&R
PCI after
M&R
Cost of
Maintenance
Begin Location

MEADOW AVE
End Location
EAST MEADOW AVE 407 24 9,768
Length Area
Surface
Type
Pre-Combine?
Area ID
47 Current
PCI
06/01/2006 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 75 83 $0
Comments
AC
Width
Maintenance
Date
St ID Sec ID Street Name
BLUEJA 010 BLUE JAY CIRCLE Residential/Local
Functional Class
Treatment Sq. Ft. Thickness
PCI Prior to
M&R
PCI after
M&R
Cost of
Maintenance
Begin Location

GALBRETH RD
End Location
END OF LOOP 1,212 25 30,300
Length Area
Surface
Type
Pre-Combine?
Area ID
89 Current
PCI
09/07/2021 SEAL CRACKS 0 0 77 79 $0
09/08/2021 DEEP PATCH 0 0 79 82 $0
09/09/2021 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 82 90 $0
Comments
AC
Width
Maintenance
Date
St ID Sec ID Street Name
BRENDA 010 BRENDA COURT Residential/Local
Functional Class
Treatment Sq. Ft. Thickness
PCI Prior to
M&R
PCI after
M&R
Cost of
Maintenance
Begin Location

BELFAIR DR
End Location
CUL DE SAC 214 31 6,634
Length Area
Surface
Type
Pre-Combine?
Area ID
92 Current
PCI
06/01/2007 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 81 88 $0
09/07/2021 SEAL CRACKS 0 0 83 84 $0
09/08/2021 DEEP PATCH 0 0 84 87 $0
09/09/2021 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 87 93 $0
Printed: 2/6/2022
M & R History City of Pinole
Criteria: 6 MTC StreetSaver
256 of 541
Comments
AC
Width
Maintenance
Date
St ID Sec ID Street Name
BRETT 010 BRETT COURT Residential/Local
Functional Class
Treatment Sq. Ft. Thickness
PCI Prior to
M&R
PCI after
M&R
Cost of
Maintenance
Begin Location

PINON AVE
End Location
CUL DE SAC 371 34 12,614
Length Area
Surface
Type
Pre-Combine?
Area ID
91 Current
PCI
06/01/2007 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 81 89 $0
09/07/2021 SEAL CRACKS 0 0 81 83 $0
09/08/2021 DEEP PATCH 0 0 83 86 $0
09/09/2021 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 86 92 $0
Comments
AC/AC
Width
Maintenance
Date
St ID Sec ID Street Name
BUENAV 010 BUENA VISTA DRIVE Residential/Local
Functional Class
Treatment Sq. Ft. Thickness
PCI Prior to
M&R
PCI after
M&R
Cost of
Maintenance
Begin Location

QUINAN AVE/PARK DR
End Location
HOUSE #440 1,507 23 34,661
Length Area
Surface
Type
Pre-Combine?
Area ID
66 Current
PCI
06/01/2009 THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5 INCHES) 0 0 13 100 $0
Comments
AC/AC
Width
Maintenance
Date
St ID Sec ID Street Name
BUENAV 020 BUENA VISTA DRIVE Residential/Local
Functional Class
Treatment Sq. Ft. Thickness
PCI Prior to
M&R
PCI after
M&R
Cost of
Maintenance
Begin Location
HOUSE #440
End Location
END OF LOOP 788 23 18,124
Length Area
Surface
Type
Pre-Combine?
Area ID
93 Current
PCI
06/01/2009 THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5 INCHES) 0 0 8 100 $0
09/07/2021 SEAL CRACKS 0 0 83 84 $0
09/08/2021 DEEP PATCH 0 0 84 87 $0
09/09/2021 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 87 93 $0
Comments
AC
Width
Maintenance
Date
St ID Sec ID Street Name
CALAIS 010 CALAIS DRIVE Residential/Local
Functional Class
Treatment Sq. Ft. Thickness
PCI Prior to
M&R
PCI after
M&R
Cost of
Maintenance
Begin Location

CUL DE SAC (EAST)
End Location
ORLEANS DR 915 24 21,960
Length Area
Surface
Type
Pre-Combine?
Area ID
19 Current
PCI
06/01/2007 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 79 87 $0
Printed: 2/6/2022
M & R History City of Pinole
Criteria: 7 MTC StreetSaver
257 of 541
Comments
AC
Width
Maintenance
Date
St ID Sec ID Street Name
CANYON 010 CANYON DRIVE Residential/Local
Functional Class
Treatment Sq. Ft. Thickness
PCI Prior to
M&R
PCI after
M&R
Cost of
Maintenance
Begin Location

APPIAN WAY
End Location
EL TORO WAY 1,144 38 43,472
Length Area
Surface
Type
Pre-Combine?
Area ID
87 Current
PCI
09/01/2013 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 49 63 $0 Data entered after subsequent information recorded.
09/07/2021 SEAL CRACKS 0 0 74 76 $0
09/08/2021 DEEP PATCH 0 0 76 80 $0
09/09/2021 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 80 88 $0
Comments
AC
Width
Maintenance
Date
St ID Sec ID Street Name
CAROLO 431 CARLOTTA CIRCLE Residential/Local
Functional Class
Treatment Sq. Ft. Thickness
PCI Prior to
M&R
PCI after
M&R
Cost of
Maintenance
Begin Location

GATELY DRIVE
End Location
GATELY DRIVE 1,403 33 46,299
Length Area
Surface
Type
Pre-Combine?
Area ID
72 Current
PCI
06/01/2007 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 78 86 $0
Comments
AC
Width
Maintenance
Date
St ID Sec ID Street Name
CHARLE 010 CHARLES ST Residential/Local
Functional Class
Treatment Sq. Ft. Thickness
PCI Prior to
M&R
PCI after
M&R
Cost of
Maintenance
Begin Location

VALLEY RD
End Location
SAN PABLO AVE 534 33 17,622
Length Area
Surface
Type
Pre-Combine?
Area ID
57 Current
PCI
06/01/2007 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 77 85 $0
Comments
AC
Width
Maintenance
Date
St ID Sec ID Street Name
CHRIST 010 CHRISTIAN COURT Residential/Local
Functional Class
Treatment Sq. Ft. Thickness
PCI Prior to
M&R
PCI after
M&R
Cost of
Maintenance
Begin Location

PONDEROSA TR
End Location
CUL DE SAC 272 36 9,792
Length Area
Surface
Type
Pre-Combine?
Area ID
71 Current
PCI
09/01/2012 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 34 55 $0 Data entered after subsequent information recorded.
10/01/2018 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 42 59 $0
Printed: 2/6/2022
M & R History City of Pinole
Criteria: 8 MTC StreetSaver
258 of 541
Comments
AC
Width
Maintenance
Date
St ID Sec ID Street Name
CLARK 010 CLARK COURT Residential/Local
Functional Class
Treatment Sq. Ft. Thickness
PCI Prior to
M&R
PCI after
M&R
Cost of
Maintenance
Begin Location

FARIA AVE
End Location
CUL DE SAC 429 32 13,728
Length Area
Surface
Type
Pre-Combine?
Area ID
84 Current
PCI
09/01/2012 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 61 71 $0 Data entered after subsequent information recorded.
09/07/2021 SEAL CRACKS 0 0 69 72 $0
09/08/2021 DEEP PATCH 0 0 72 76 $0
09/09/2021 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 76 84 $0
Comments
AC
Width
Maintenance
Date
St ID Sec ID Street Name
COLINA 010 COLINA COURT Residential/Local
Functional Class
Treatment Sq. Ft. Thickness
PCI Prior to
M&R
PCI after
M&R
Cost of
Maintenance
Begin Location

SAVAGE AVE
End Location
CUL DE SAC 137 30 4,110
Length Area
Surface
Type
Pre-Combine?
Area ID
85 Current
PCI
06/01/2007 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 81 88 $0
09/07/2021 SEAL CRACKS 0 0 70 73 $0
09/08/2021 DEEP PATCH 0 0 73 77 $0
09/09/2021 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 77 85 $0
Comments
AC
Width
Maintenance
Date
St ID Sec ID Street Name
COLLIN 010A COLLINS AVENUE Residential/Local
Functional Class
Treatment Sq. Ft. Thickness
PCI Prior to
M&R
PCI after
M&R
Cost of
Maintenance
Begin Location

PINOLE VALLEY RD -

WEST ENTRANCE
End Location
TOMAR CT 614 32 19,648
Length Area
Surface
Type
Pre-Combine?
Area ID
75 Current
PCI
06/01/2007 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 80 88 $0 Split From COLLIN 010A 9/9/2021 09/07/2021 SEAL CRACKS 0 0 56 59 $0
09/08/2021 DEEP PATCH 0 0 59 66 $0
09/09/2021 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 66 75 $0
Comments
AC
Width
Maintenance
Date
St ID Sec ID Street Name
COLLIN 010B COLLINS AVENUE Residential/Local
Functional Class
Treatment Sq. Ft. Thickness
PCI Prior to
M&R
PCI after
M&R
Cost of
Maintenance
Begin Location

TOMAR CT
End Location

PINOLE VALLEY RD -

EAST ENTRANCE
754 32 24,128
Length Area
Surface
Type
Pre-Combine?
Area ID
75 Current
PCI
06/01/2007 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 80 88 $0 Split From COLLIN 010B 9/9/2021 09/07/2021 SEAL CRACKS 0 0 56 59 $0
09/08/2021 DEEP PATCH 0 0 59 66 $0
09/09/2021 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 66 75 $0
Printed: 2/6/2022
M & R History City of Pinole
Criteria: 9 MTC StreetSaver
259 of 541
Comments
AC
Width
Maintenance
Date
St ID Sec ID Street Name
COLUSA 010 COLUSA STREET Residential/Local
Functional Class
Treatment Sq. Ft. Thickness
PCI Prior to
M&R
PCI after
M&R
Cost of
Maintenance
Begin Location

ESTATES AVE
End Location
LA REINA ST 2,486 36 89,496
Length Area
Surface
Type
Pre-Combine?
Area ID
66 Current
PCI
06/01/2012 SEAL CRACKS 0 0 70 73 $0
06/02/2012 DEEP PATCH 0 0 73 77 $0
06/03/2012 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 77 85 $0
Comments
AC/AC
Width
Maintenance
Date
St ID Sec ID Street Name
CORTE 010 CORTE CRUZ COURT Residential/Local
Functional Class
Treatment Sq. Ft. Thickness
PCI Prior to
M&R
PCI after
M&R
Cost of
Maintenance
Begin Location

HOKE DR
End Location
CUL DE SAC 544 33 17,952
Length Area
Surface
Type
Pre-Combine?
Area ID
93 Current
PCI
06/01/2009 THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5 INCHES) 0 0 22 100 $0
09/07/2021 SEAL CRACKS 0 0 83 84 $0
09/08/2021 DEEP PATCH 0 0 84 87 $0
09/09/2021 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 87 93 $0
Comments
AC
Width
Maintenance
Date
St ID Sec ID Street Name
CRESTV 010 CRESTVIEW DRIVE Residential/Local
Functional Class
Treatment Sq. Ft. Thickness
PCI Prior to
M&R
PCI after
M&R
Cost of
Maintenance
Begin Location

SAN PABLO AVE
End Location
END OF LOOP 2,339 31 72,509
Length Area
Surface
Type
Pre-Combine?
Area ID
87 Current
PCI
09/05/2019 SLURRY SEAL 72,509 0 80 88 $0 Crack seal, repair isolated base failures, slurry seal, and reinstall
existing striping.

Comments
AC
Width
Maintenance
Date
St ID Sec ID Street Name
CUADRA 010 CUADRA COURT Residential/Local
Functional Class
Treatment Sq. Ft. Thickness
PCI Prior to
M&R
PCI after
M&R
Cost of
Maintenance
Begin Location

TENNENT AVE
End Location
DEAD END 382 32 12,224
Length Area
Surface
Type
Pre-Combine?
Area ID
58 Current
PCI
06/01/2007 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 75 84 $0
Comments
AC
Width
Maintenance
Date
St ID Sec ID Street Name
CURRAN 010 CURRAN COURT Residential/Local
Functional Class
Treatment Sq. Ft. Thickness
PCI Prior to
M&R
PCI after
M&R
Cost of
Maintenance
Begin Location

PONDEROSA TR
End Location
CUL DE SAC 356 36 12,816
Length Area
Surface
Type
Pre-Combine?
Area ID
47 Current
PCI
09/01/2012 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 62 72 $0 Data entered after subsequent information recorded.

Printed: 2/6/2022
M & R History City of Pinole
Criteria: 10 MTC StreetSaver
260 of 541
Comments
AC
Width
Maintenance
Date
St ID Sec ID Street Name
CURRYC 432 CURRY COURT Residential/Local
Functional Class
Treatment Sq. Ft. Thickness
PCI Prior to
M&R
PCI after
M&R
Cost of
Maintenance
Begin Location

CARLOTTA CIRCLE
End Location
CUL-DE-SAC 101 37 3,737
Length Area
Surface
Type
Pre-Combine?
Area ID
74 Current
PCI
06/01/2007 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 81 88 $0
Comments
AC
Width
Maintenance
Date
St ID Sec ID Street Name
DANNY 010 DANNY COURT Residential/Local
Functional Class
Treatment Sq. Ft. Thickness
PCI Prior to
M&R
PCI after
M&R
Cost of
Maintenance
Begin Location

BAYVIEW FARM RD
End Location
CUL DE SAC 405 36 14,580
Length Area
Surface
Type
Pre-Combine?
Area ID
85 Current
PCI
06/01/2007 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 78 86 $0
09/07/2021 SEAL CRACKS 0 0 70 73 $0
09/08/2021 DEEP PATCH 0 0 73 77 $0
09/09/2021 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 77 85 $0
Comments
AC
Width
Maintenance
Date
St ID Sec ID Street Name
DEANCT 010 DEAN COURT Residential/Local
Functional Class
Treatment Sq. Ft. Thickness
PCI Prior to
M&R
PCI after
M&R
Cost of
Maintenance
Begin Location

PONDEROSA TR
End Location
CUL DE SAC 379 36 13,644
Length Area
Surface
Type
Pre-Combine?
Area ID
53 Current
PCI
09/01/2012 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 54 66 $0 Data entered after subsequent information recorded.

Comments
AC
Width
Maintenance
Date
St ID Sec ID Street Name
DELMON 010 DEL MONTE DRIVE Residential/Local
Functional Class
Treatment Sq. Ft. Thickness
PCI Prior to
M&R
PCI after
M&R
Cost of
Maintenance
Begin Location

PINOLE SHORES DR
End Location
CITY LIMITS 701 30 21,030
Length Area
Surface
Type
Pre-Combine?
Area ID
49 Current
PCI
06/01/2007 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 81 89 $0
Comments
AC
Width
Maintenance
Date
St ID Sec ID Street Name
DORACT 010 DORA COURT Residential/Local
Functional Class
Treatment Sq. Ft. Thickness
PCI Prior to
M&R
PCI after
M&R
Cost of
Maintenance
Begin Location

FRANCIS DR
End Location
CUL DE SAC 406 31 12,586
Length Area
Surface
Type
Pre-Combine?
Area ID
56 Current
PCI
06/01/2009 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 58 69 $0 Data entered after subsequent information recorded.

Printed: 2/6/2022
M & R History City of Pinole
Criteria: 11 MTC StreetSaver
261 of 541
Comments
AC
Width
Maintenance
Date
St ID Sec ID Street Name
DOWNER 010 DOWNER STREET Residential/Local
Functional Class
Treatment Sq. Ft. Thickness
PCI Prior to
M&R
PCI after
M&R
Cost of
Maintenance
Begin Location

PINOLE VALLEY RD
End Location
HENRY AVE 1,394 37 51,578
Length Area
Surface
Type
Pre-Combine?
Area ID
90 Current
PCI
06/01/2009 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 70 79 $0 Data entered after subsequent information recorded.
09/07/2021 SEAL CRACKS 0 0 78 80 $0
09/08/2021 DEEP PATCH 0 0 80 83 $0
09/09/2021 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 83 90 $0
Comments
AC
Width
Maintenance
Date
St ID Sec ID Street Name
DUTRA 010 DUTRA COURT Residential/Local
Functional Class
Treatment Sq. Ft. Thickness
PCI Prior to
M&R
PCI after
M&R
Cost of
Maintenance
Begin Location

HAZEL ST
End Location
CUL DE SAC 189 31 5,859
Length Area
Surface
Type
Pre-Combine?
Area ID
74 Current
PCI
06/01/2007 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 81 88 $0
Comments
AC/AC
Width
Maintenance
Date
St ID Sec ID Street Name
EBSEN 010 EBSEN COURT Residential/Local
Functional Class
Treatment Sq. Ft. Thickness
PCI Prior to
M&R
PCI after
M&R
Cost of
Maintenance
Begin Location

SARAH DR
End Location
CUL DE SAC 213 36 7,668
Length Area
Surface
Type
Pre-Combine?
Area ID
80 Current
PCI
06/01/2009 THIN AC OVERLAY(1.5 INCHES) 0 0 10 100 $0
Comments
AC/AC
Width
Maintenance
Date
St ID Sec ID Street Name
ELMST 020 ELM STREET Residential/Local
Functional Class
Treatment Sq. Ft. Thickness
PCI Prior to
M&R
PCI after
M&R
Cost of
Maintenance
Begin Location

LAUREL AVE
End Location
FERN AVE 213 28 5,964
Length Area
Surface
Type
Pre-Combine?
Area ID
37 Current
PCI
06/01/2009 THIN AC OVERLAY(1.5 INCHES) 0 0 10 100 $0
Comments
AC
Width
Maintenance
Date
St ID Sec ID Street Name
ELTORO 010 EL TORO WAY Residential/Local
Functional Class
Treatment Sq. Ft. Thickness
PCI Prior to
M&R
PCI after
M&R
Cost of
Maintenance
Begin Location

CANYON DR
End Location
CUL DE SAC 739 32 23,648
Length Area
Surface
Type
Pre-Combine?
Area ID
74 Current
PCI
09/01/2013 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 73 82 $0 Data entered after subsequent information recorded.

Printed: 2/6/2022
M & R History City of Pinole
Criteria: 12 MTC StreetSaver
262 of 541
Comments
AC
Width
Maintenance
Date
St ID Sec ID Street Name
EMEADO 010 EAST MEADOW
AVENUE
Residential/Local
Functional Class
Treatment Sq. Ft. Thickness
PCI Prior to
M&R
PCI after
M&R
Cost of
Maintenance
Begin Location

MEADOW AVE
End Location
MEADOW AVE 1,211 24 29,064
Length Area
Surface
Type
Pre-Combine?
Area ID
64 Current
PCI
06/01/2006 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 79 87 $0
Comments
AC
Width
Maintenance
Date
St ID Sec ID Street Name
EMMADR 010 EMMA DRIVE Residential/Local
Functional Class
Treatment Sq. Ft. Thickness
PCI Prior to
M&R
PCI after
M&R
Cost of
Maintenance
Begin Location

ALICE WAY
End Location
HENRY AVE 1,737 31 53,847
Length Area
Surface
Type
Pre-Combine?
Area ID
61 Current
PCI
06/01/2009 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 62 72 $0 Data entered after subsequent information recorded.

Comments
AC
Width
Maintenance
Date
St ID Sec ID Street Name
ENCINA 010 ENCINA AVENUE Residential/Local
Functional Class
Treatment Sq. Ft. Thickness
PCI Prior to
M&R
PCI after
M&R
Cost of
Maintenance
Begin Location

ROBLE AVE
End Location
DEAD END 386 28 10,808
Length Area
Surface
Type
Pre-Combine?
Area ID
56 Current
PCI
06/01/2007 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 76 84 $0
Comments
AC
Width
Maintenance
Date
St ID Sec ID Street Name
ENLOWC 010 ENLOW COURT Residential/Local
Functional Class
Treatment Sq. Ft. Thickness
PCI Prior to
M&R
PCI after
M&R
Cost of
Maintenance
Begin Location

PONDEROSA TR
End Location
CUL DE SAC 245 36 8,820
Length Area
Surface
Type
Pre-Combine?
Area ID
84 Current
PCI
09/01/2012 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 54 66 $0 Data entered after subsequent information recorded.
09/07/2021 SEAL CRACKS 0 0 69 72 $0
09/08/2021 DEEP PATCH 0 0 72 76 $0
09/09/2021 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 76 84 $0
Comments
AC
Width
Maintenance
Date
St ID Sec ID Street Name
FAHEY 010 FAHEY COURT Residential/Local
Functional Class
Treatment Sq. Ft. Thickness
PCI Prior to
M&R
PCI after
M&R
Cost of
Maintenance
Begin Location

HENRY AVE
End Location
CUL DE SAC 228 31 7,068
Length Area
Surface
Type
Pre-Combine?
Area ID
57 Current
PCI
06/01/2009 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 59 70 $0 Data entered after subsequent information recorded.

Printed: 2/6/2022
M & R History City of Pinole
Criteria: 13 MTC StreetSaver
263 of 541
Comments
AC
Width
Maintenance
Date
St ID Sec ID Street Name
FARICT 010 FARIA COURT Residential/Local
Functional Class
Treatment Sq. Ft. Thickness
PCI Prior to
M&R
PCI after
M&R
Cost of
Maintenance
Begin Location

FARIA AVE
End Location
CUL DE SAC 104 61 6,344
Length Area
Surface
Type
Pre-Combine?
Area ID
50 Current
PCI
09/01/2012 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 51 64 $0 Data entered after subsequent information recorded.

Comments
AC/AC
Width
Maintenance
Date
St ID Sec ID Street Name
FERNAV 010 FERN AVENUE Residential/Local
Functional Class
Treatment Sq. Ft. Thickness
PCI Prior to
M&R
PCI after
M&R
Cost of
Maintenance
Begin Location

SAN PABLO AVE
End Location
VALLEYVIEW ST 519 28 14,532
Length Area
Surface
Type
Pre-Combine?
Area ID
93 Current
PCI
06/01/2009 THIN AC OVERLAY(1.5 INCHES) 0 0 50 100 $0
09/07/2021 SEAL CRACKS 0 0 83 84 $0
09/08/2021 DEEP PATCH 0 0 84 87 $0
09/09/2021 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 87 93 $0
Comments
AC/AC
Width
Maintenance
Date
St ID Sec ID Street Name
FITZGE 010 FITGERALD DRIVE Collector
Functional Class
Treatment Sq. Ft. Thickness
PCI Prior to
M&R
PCI after
M&R
Cost of
Maintenance
Begin Location

CALTRANS RIGHT OF
WAY
End Location
JOVITA LN 892 82 73,144
Length Area
Surface
Type
Pre-Combine?
Area ID
57 Current
PCI
06/01/2009 THIN AC OVERLAY(1.5 INCHES) 0 0 76 100 $0
Comments
AC/AC
Width
Maintenance
Date
St ID Sec ID Street Name
FITZGE 020 FITGERALD DRIVE Collector
Functional Class
Treatment Sq. Ft. Thickness
PCI Prior to
M&R
PCI after
M&R
Cost of
Maintenance
Begin Location

JOVITA LN
End Location
APPIAN WAY 3,198 70 223,860
Length Area
Surface
Type
Pre-Combine?
Area ID
82 Current
PCI
06/01/2009 THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5 INCHES) 0 0 37 100 $0
Comments
AC
Width
Maintenance
Date
St ID Sec ID Street Name
FLAMIN 010 FLAMINGO COURT Residential/Local
Functional Class
Treatment Sq. Ft. Thickness
PCI Prior to
M&R
PCI after
M&R
Cost of
Maintenance
Begin Location

GALBRETH RD
End Location
CUL DE SAC 234 33 7,722
Length Area
Surface
Type
Pre-Combine?
Area ID
90 Current
PCI
09/07/2021 SEAL CRACKS 0 0 79 81 $0
09/08/2021 DEEP PATCH 0 0 81 84 $0
09/09/2021 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 84 91 $0
Printed: 2/6/2022
M & R History City of Pinole
Criteria: 14 MTC StreetSaver
264 of 541
Comments
AC
Width
Maintenance
Date
St ID Sec ID Street Name
FRANCI 15 FRANCIS DRIVE Residential/Local
Functional Class
Treatment Sq. Ft. Thickness
PCI Prior to
M&R
PCI after
M&R
Cost of
Maintenance
Begin Location

CUL DE SAC
End Location
DEAD END (NORTH) 2,042 32 65,344
Length Area
Surface
Type
Pre-Combine?
Area ID
58 Current
PCI
06/01/2009 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 57 68 $0 Data entered after subsequent information recorded.

Comments
AC
Width
Maintenance
Date
St ID Sec ID Street Name
FRANCT 010 FRANCISCA COURT Residential/Local
Functional Class
Treatment Sq. Ft. Thickness
PCI Prior to
M&R
PCI after
M&R
Cost of
Maintenance
Begin Location

OAK RIDGE RD
End Location
CUL DE SAC 864 32 27,648
Length Area
Surface
Type
Pre-Combine?
Area ID
86 Current
PCI
09/01/2013 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 54 66 $0 Data entered after subsequent information recorded.
09/07/2021 SEAL CRACKS 0 0 73 75 $0
09/08/2021 DEEP PATCH 0 0 75 79 $0
09/09/2021 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 79 87 $0
Comments
AC
Width
Maintenance
Date
St ID Sec ID Street Name
FRASER 010 FRASER COURT Residential/Local
Functional Class
Treatment Sq. Ft. Thickness
PCI Prior to
M&R
PCI after
M&R
Cost of
Maintenance
Begin Location

FRANCIS DR
End Location
CUL DE SAC 509 31 15,779
Length Area
Surface
Type
Pre-Combine?
Area ID
86 Current
PCI
06/01/2009 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 62 72 $0 Data entered after subsequent information recorded.
09/07/2021 SEAL CRACKS 0 0 72 75 $0
09/08/2021 DEEP PATCH 0 0 74 79 $0
09/09/2021 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 79 86 $0
Comments
AC
Width
Maintenance
Date
St ID Sec ID Street Name
GALBRE 15A GALBRETH ROAD Residential/Local
Functional Class
Treatment Sq. Ft. Thickness
PCI Prior to
M&R
PCI after
M&R
Cost of
Maintenance
Begin Location

PINOLE VALLEY RD
End Location
BLUE JAY CIR 2,026 33 66,858
Length Area
Surface
Type
Pre-Combine?
Area ID
90 Current
PCI
09/07/2021 SEAL CRACKS 0 0 77 79 $0 FLAGGERS
09/08/2021 DEEP PATCH 0 0 79 83 $0 FLAGGERS
09/09/2021 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 83 90 $0 FLAGGERS
Printed: 2/6/2022
M & R History City of Pinole
Criteria: 15 MTC StreetSaver
265 of 541
Comments
AC
Width
Maintenance
Date
St ID Sec ID Street Name
GALBRE 15B GALBRETH ROAD Residential/Local
Functional Class
Treatment Sq. Ft. Thickness
PCI Prior to
M&R
PCI after
M&R
Cost of
Maintenance
Begin Location

BLUE JAY CIR
End Location
END OF CUL DE SAC 608 33 20,064
Length Area
Surface
Type
Pre-Combine?
Area ID
90 Current
PCI
09/07/2021 SEAL CRACKS 0 0 77 79 $0
09/08/2021 DEEP PATCH 0 0 79 83 $0
09/09/2021 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 83 90 $0
Comments
AC
Width
Maintenance
Date
St ID Sec ID Street Name
GARRIT 010 GARRITY COURT Residential/Local
Functional Class
Treatment Sq. Ft. Thickness
PCI Prior to
M&R
PCI after
M&R
Cost of
Maintenance
Begin Location

PONDEROSA TR
End Location
CUL DE SAC 476 36 17,136
Length Area
Surface
Type
Pre-Combine?
Area ID
33 Current
PCI
09/01/2012 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 33 55 $0 Data entered after subsequent information recorded.

Comments
AC
Width
Maintenance
Date
St ID Sec ID Street Name
GATLEY 010 GATLEY DRIVE Residential/Local
Functional Class
Treatment Sq. Ft. Thickness
PCI Prior to
M&R
PCI after
M&R
Cost of
Maintenance
Begin Location

PINOLE SHORES
DRIVE
End Location
CARLOTTA CIR 119 25 2,975
Length Area
Surface
Type
Pre-Combine?
Area ID
79 Current
PCI
06/01/2007 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 79 87 $0
Comments
AC
Width
Maintenance
Date
St ID Sec ID Street Name
GERZCT 010 GERZ COURT Residential/Local
Functional Class
Treatment Sq. Ft. Thickness
PCI Prior to
M&R
PCI after
M&R
Cost of
Maintenance
Begin Location

ESTATES AVE
End Location
CUL DE SAC 227 32 7,264
Length Area
Surface
Type
Pre-Combine?
Area ID
81 Current
PCI
06/01/2012 SEAL CRACKS 0 0 82 84 $0
06/02/2012 DEEP PATCH 0 0 84 87 $0
06/03/2012 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 87 93 $0
Printed: 2/6/2022
M & R History City of Pinole
Criteria: 16 MTC StreetSaver
266 of 541
Comments
AC
Width
Maintenance
Date
St ID Sec ID Street Name
GLENCT 010 GLEN COURT Residential/Local
Functional Class
Treatment Sq. Ft. Thickness
PCI Prior to
M&R
PCI after
M&R
Cost of
Maintenance
Begin Location

MARIONOLA WAY
End Location
CUL DE SAC 382 32 12,224
Length Area
Surface
Type
Pre-Combine?
Area ID
90 Current
PCI
09/01/2013 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 75 84 $0 Data entered after subsequent information recorded.
09/07/2021 SEAL CRACKS 0 0 79 81 $0
09/08/2021 DEEP PATCH 0 0 81 84 $0
09/09/2021 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 84 91 $0
Comments
AC
Width
Maintenance
Date
St ID Sec ID Street Name
HANLDR 010 HANLEY DRIVE Residential/Local
Functional Class
Treatment Sq. Ft. Thickness
PCI Prior to
M&R
PCI after
M&R
Cost of
Maintenance
Begin Location

LIMERICK RD
End Location
MARLESTA RD 480 38 18,240
Length Area
Surface
Type
Pre-Combine?
Area ID
84 Current
PCI
09/07/2021 SEAL CRACKS 0 0 69 72 $0
09/08/2021 DEEP PATCH 0 0 72 76 $0
09/09/2021 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 76 84 $0
Comments
AC
Width
Maintenance
Date
St ID Sec ID Street Name
HANSEN 010 HANSEN PLACE Residential/Local
Functional Class
Treatment Sq. Ft. Thickness
PCI Prior to
M&R
PCI after
M&R
Cost of
Maintenance
Begin Location

ROBLE AVE
End Location
CUL DE SAC 236 26 6,136
Length Area
Surface
Type
Pre-Combine?
Area ID
47 Current
PCI
06/01/2007 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 69 78 $0
Comments
AC
Width
Maintenance
Date
St ID Sec ID Street Name
HAZEL 005 HAZEL STREET Residential/Local
Functional Class
Treatment Sq. Ft. Thickness
PCI Prior to
M&R
PCI after
M&R
Cost of
Maintenance
Begin Location

SUNNYVIEW DR
End Location
DEAD END 270 36 9,720
Length Area
Surface
Type
Pre-Combine?
Area ID
88 Current
PCI
06/01/2007 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 78 86 $0 Split From HAZEL 005 11/26/2012 09/07/2021 SEAL CRACKS 0 0 75 77 $0
09/08/2021 DEEP PATCH 0 0 77 81 $0
09/09/2021 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 81 89 $0
Printed: 2/6/2022
M & R History City of Pinole
Criteria: 17 MTC StreetSaver
267 of 541
Comments
AC
Width
Maintenance
Date
St ID Sec ID Street Name
HAZEL 015 HAZEL STREET Residential/Local
Functional Class
Treatment Sq. Ft. Thickness
PCI Prior to
M&R
PCI after
M&R
Cost of
Maintenance
Begin Location

DEAD END
End Location
PINON AVE 798 36 28,728
Length Area
Surface
Type
Pre-Combine?
Area ID
57 Current
PCI
06/01/2007 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 78 86 $0 Split From HAZEL 015 11/26/2012 Comments
AC
Width
Maintenance
Date
St ID Sec ID Street Name
HENRY 010 HENRY AVENUE Residential/Local
Functional Class
Treatment Sq. Ft. Thickness
PCI Prior to
M&R
PCI after
M&R
Cost of
Maintenance
Begin Location

RIDGECREST RD
End Location
LEWIS LN 266 38 10,108
Length Area
Surface
Type
Pre-Combine?
Area ID
59 Current
PCI
09/07/2021 SEAL CRACKS 0 0 0 0 $0 AM/PM SPLIT W/ FLAGGERS 09/08/2021 DEEP PATCH 0 0 0 45 $0 AM/PM SPLIT W/ FLAGGERS 09/09/2021 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 45 60 $0 AM/PM SPLIT W/ FLAGGERS Comments
AC
Width
Maintenance
Date
St ID Sec ID Street Name
HENRY 020 HENRY AVENUE Residential/Local
Functional Class
Treatment Sq. Ft. Thickness
PCI Prior to
M&R
PCI after
M&R
Cost of
Maintenance
Begin Location

LEWIS LN
End Location
OAK RIDGE DR 1,044 38 39,672
Length Area
Surface
Type
Pre-Combine?
Area ID
88 Current
PCI
09/01/2013 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 63 73 $0 Data entered after subsequent information recorded.
09/07/2021 SEAL CRACKS 0 0 75 77 $0 AM/PM SPLIT W/ FLAGGERS 09/08/2021 DEEP PATCH 0 0 77 81 $0 AM/PM SPLIT W/ FLAGGERS 09/09/2021 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 81 89 $0 AM/PM SPLIT W/ FLAGGERS Comments
AC
Width
Maintenance
Date
St ID Sec ID Street Name
HENRY 030 HENRY AVENUE Residential/Local
Functional Class
Treatment Sq. Ft. Thickness
PCI Prior to
M&R
PCI after
M&R
Cost of
Maintenance
Begin Location

OAK RIDGE DR
End Location
PINOLE VALLEY RD 1,901 38 72,238
Length Area
Surface
Type
Pre-Combine?
Area ID
88 Current
PCI
09/01/2013 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 60 71 $0 Data entered after subsequent information recorded.
09/07/2021 SEAL CRACKS 0 0 75 77 $0 AM/PM SPLIT W/ FLAGGERS 09/08/2021 DEEP PATCH 0 0 77 81 $0 AM/PM SPLIT W/ FLAGGERS 09/09/2021 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 81 89 $0 AM/PM SPLIT W/ FLAGGERS Printed: 2/6/2022
M & R History City of Pinole
Criteria: 18 MTC StreetSaver
268 of 541
Comments
AC
Width
Maintenance
Date
St ID Sec ID Street Name
HENRY 040 HENRY AVENUE Residential/Local
Functional Class
Treatment Sq. Ft. Thickness
PCI Prior to
M&R
PCI after
M&R
Cost of
Maintenance
Begin Location

PINOLE VALLEY RD
End Location
ALICE WAY 1,606 37 59,422
Length Area
Surface
Type
Pre-Combine?
Area ID
66 Current
PCI
06/01/2009 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 71 80 $0 Data entered after subsequent information recorded.

Comments
AC
Width
Maintenance
Date
St ID Sec ID Street Name
HENRY 050 HENRY AVENUE Residential/Local
Functional Class
Treatment Sq. Ft. Thickness
PCI Prior to
M&R
PCI after
M&R
Cost of
Maintenance
Begin Location

ALICE WAY
End Location
FRANCIS DR 926 37 34,262
Length Area
Surface
Type
Pre-Combine?
Area ID
86 Current
PCI
06/01/2009 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 72 80 $0 Data entered after subsequent information recorded.
09/07/2021 SEAL CRACKS 0 0 73 75 $0
09/08/2021 DEEP PATCH 0 0 75 79 $0
09/09/2021 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 79 87 $0
Comments
AC
Width
Maintenance
Date
St ID Sec ID Street Name
HENRY 060 HENRY AVENUE Residential/Local
Functional Class
Treatment Sq. Ft. Thickness
PCI Prior to
M&R
PCI after
M&R
Cost of
Maintenance
Begin Location

FRANCIS DR
End Location
DEAD END 1,437 31 44,547
Length Area
Surface
Type
Pre-Combine?
Area ID
69 Current
PCI
06/01/2009 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 59 70 $0 Data entered after subsequent information recorded.

Comments
AC
Width
Maintenance
Date
St ID Sec ID Street Name
HERMCT 010 HERMOSA COURT Residential/Local
Functional Class
Treatment Sq. Ft. Thickness
PCI Prior to
M&R
PCI after
M&R
Cost of
Maintenance
Begin Location

ESTATES AVE
End Location
CUL DE SAC 141 27 3,807
Length Area
Surface
Type
Pre-Combine?
Area ID
51 Current
PCI
06/01/2012 SEAL CRACKS 0 0 64 67 $0
06/02/2012 DEEP PATCH 0 0 67 72 $0
06/03/2012 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 72 81 $0
Printed: 2/6/2022
M & R History City of Pinole
Criteria: 19 MTC StreetSaver
269 of 541
Comments
AC
Width
Maintenance
Date
St ID Sec ID Street Name
HERMST 010 HERMOSA STREET Residential/Local
Functional Class
Treatment Sq. Ft. Thickness
PCI Prior to
M&R
PCI after
M&R
Cost of
Maintenance
Begin Location

ESTATES AVE
End Location
LUCAS ST 940 32 30,080
Length Area
Surface
Type
Pre-Combine?
Area ID
65 Current
PCI
06/01/2012 SEAL CRACKS 0 0 70 73 $0
06/02/2012 DEEP PATCH 0 0 73 77 $0
06/03/2012 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 77 85 $0
Comments
AC
Width
Maintenance
Date
St ID Sec ID Street Name
HERMST 020 HERMOSA STREET Residential/Local
Functional Class
Treatment Sq. Ft. Thickness
PCI Prior to
M&R
PCI after
M&R
Cost of
Maintenance
Begin Location

LUCAS AVE
End Location
SIMAS AVE 1,217 32 38,944
Length Area
Surface
Type
Pre-Combine?
Area ID
87 Current
PCI
06/01/2012 SEAL CRACKS 0 0 75 78 $0
06/02/2012 DEEP PATCH 0 0 78 81 $0
06/03/2012 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 81 89 $0
09/07/2021 SEAL CRACKS 0 0 73 76 $0
09/08/2021 DEEP PATCH 0 0 76 80 $0
09/09/2021 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 80 88 $0
Comments
AC
Width
Maintenance
Date
St ID Sec ID Street Name
HIGUER 010 HIGUERA AVENUE Residential/Local
Functional Class
Treatment Sq. Ft. Thickness
PCI Prior to
M&R
PCI after
M&R
Cost of
Maintenance
Begin Location

RAMONA ST
End Location
ALAMO ST 379 32 12,128
Length Area
Surface
Type
Pre-Combine?
Area ID
89 Current
PCI
09/01/2012 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 71 80 $0 Data entered after subsequent information recorded.
09/07/2021 SEAL CRACKS 0 0 77 79 $0
09/08/2021 DEEP PATCH 0 0 79 83 $0
09/09/2021 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 83 90 $0
Comments
AC
Width
Maintenance
Date
St ID Sec ID Street Name
HILLVI 010 HILL VIEW LANE Residential/Local
Functional Class
Treatment Sq. Ft. Thickness
PCI Prior to
M&R
PCI after
M&R
Cost of
Maintenance
Begin Location

FARIA AVE
End Location
PONDEROSA TR 1,079 36 38,844
Length Area
Surface
Type
Pre-Combine?
Area ID
70 Current
PCI
09/01/2012 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 51 64 $0 Data entered after subsequent information recorded.
10/01/2018 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 62 72 $0
Printed: 2/6/2022
M & R History City of Pinole
Criteria: 20 MTC StreetSaver
270 of 541
Comments
AC/AC
Width
Maintenance
Date
St ID Sec ID Street Name
HOKECT 010 HOKE COURT Residential/Local
Functional Class
Treatment Sq. Ft. Thickness
PCI Prior to
M&R
PCI after
M&R
Cost of
Maintenance
Begin Location

CORTE CRUZ
End Location
CUL DE SAC 552 33 18,216
Length Area
Surface
Type
Pre-Combine?
Area ID
94 Current
PCI
06/01/2009 THICK AC OVERLAY(2.5 INCHES) 0 0 20 100 $0
09/07/2021 SEAL CRACKS 0 0 85 86 $0 Data entered after subsequent information recorded.
09/08/2021 DEEP PATCH 0 0 86 89 $0 Data entered after subsequent information recorded.
09/09/2021 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 89 94 $0
Comments
AC
Width
Maintenance
Date
St ID Sec ID Street Name
HOLLID 010 HOLLIDAY COURT Residential/Local
Functional Class
Treatment Sq. Ft. Thickness
PCI Prior to
M&R
PCI after
M&R
Cost of
Maintenance
Begin Location

PONDEROSA TR
End Location
CUL DE SAC 207 36 7,452
Length Area
Surface
Type
Pre-Combine?
Area ID
55 Current
PCI
09/01/2012 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 53 65 $0 Data entered after subsequent information recorded.

Comments
AC
Width
Maintenance
Date
St ID Sec ID Street Name
HUTCHI 010 HUTCHINSON COURT Residential/Local
Functional Class
Treatment Sq. Ft. Thickness
PCI Prior to
M&R
PCI after
M&R
Cost of
Maintenance
Begin Location

PINON AVE
End Location
CUL DE SAC 521 34 17,714
Length Area
Surface
Type
Pre-Combine?
Area ID
86 Current
PCI
06/01/2007 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 71 80 $0
09/07/2021 SEAL CRACKS 0 0 73 75 $0
09/08/2021 DEEP PATCH 0 0 75 79 $0
09/09/2021 SLURRY SEAL 0 0 79 87 $0
Comments
AC
Width
Maintenance
Date
St ID Sec ID Street Name
IGNACI 010 IGNACIO COURT Residential/Local
Functional Class
Treatment Sq. Ft. Thickness
PCI Prior to
M&R
PCI after
M&R
Cost of
Maintenance
Begin Location