Pinole City Council
April 15, 2025

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

PINOLE CITY COUNCIL

MEETING AGENDA
April 15, 2025
5:00 PM
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. Email comments to [email protected] Please indicate which item on the agenda you are commenting on in the subject line of your email.

City Council
Agenda - April 15, 2025

OTHER WAYS TO WATCH THE MEETING
LIVE ON CHANNEL 26. They are retelecast the following week. The Community TV Channel 26 schedule is published on the city’s website at www.pinole.gov.

VIDEO-STREAMED LIVE ON THE CITY’S WEBSITE, www.pinole.gov 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.pinole.gov. 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.

City Council
Agenda - April 15, 2025

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 - Please note: This item will be taken out of order at the 4/15/25 meeting. The Council will convene to Closed Session at the conclusion of the public portion of the agenda (following item #13).

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

City Council
Agenda - April 15, 2025

8. RECOGNITIONS / PRESENTATIONS / COMMUNITY EVENTS
A. Proclamations

1. Earth Day

2. Arbor Day

3. Autism Acceptance Month

4. Multiple Myeloma Awareness Month

5. Parkinsons Awareness Month
B. Presentations

1. Framework for Enhancing Climate Education at Pinole Valley High School by PVHS Earth Team

2. Pinole Valley High School Principal Introduction: Todd Irving

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 Regular City Council Meeting on April 1, 2025.

B. Receive the March 29, 2025 – April 11, 2025, List of Warrants in the Amount of $923,907.58 and the April 11, 2025, Payroll in the Amount of $558,630.11.

C. Adopt a Resolution Authorizing Acceptance of $952,000 in MTC Climate Implementation Grant Funds, Committing $123,331.18 in Matching Funds, and Providing Assurance to Complete the “Expanding Electric Vehicle Charging in Pinole, CA” Project Action: Adopt Resolution per staff recommendation (Lilly Whalen, Kapil Amin) D. Prop 218 Process- Solid Waste Collection Rates Action: Receive information regarding the franchise fee for Republic Services and approve 218 Notice (Kelcey Young) E. Council Retreat Summary Action: Receive Report (Kelcey Young) F. Adopt a Resolution Approving a Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity (PCN) for Diosa Restaurant located at 2361 San Pablo Avenue Action: Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (David Hanham)

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.

City Council
Agenda - April 15, 2025

None

11. OLD BUSINESS
None

12. NEW BUSINESS
A. Update on Partnership for the Bay’s Future Grant and Home Restoration Program Action:

Receive and file (Lilly Whalen)
B. FY 2025/26 Master Fee Schedule Action: Review Proposed Master Fee Schedule (Markisha Guillory)

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 6, 2025 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 72 hours prior to the meeting date set forth on this agenda. _______________________
Heather Bell, CMC
City Clerk
POSTED: Thursday, April 10, 2025 at 4:30 pm

CAMERON SASAI
MAYOR of the City of Pinole

EARTH DAY
APRIL 22, 2025
Dated this 15th day of April 2025
WHEREAS, April 22 is celebrated globally as Earth Day, a day dedicated to reflecting upon our responsibility to protect and sustain the natural world for future generations; and WHEREAS, this giving Planet is abundant with shared resources for all people and life when respectfully harnessed and nurtured and should not be exploited and depleted, but rather sustained, protected, and conserved for present and future generations by working with Nature and not against it; and WHEREAS, we recognize that our actions today significantly impact on the health of our planet, its ecosystems, and all forms of life that depend on a healthy environment; and WHEREAS, the natural, circular systems of Earth can offer lessons and solutions to rethink and reevaluate our current, unsustainable systems and transition to ones that revere and mirror natural systems while creating an economy and job market that is cleaner and greener; and WHEREAS, engaging in local and global efforts to combat climate change, conserve biodiversity, and reduce pollution is essential to creating a more sustainable future; and WHEREAS, the Earth Team was founded on Earth Day in 1994, and established at Pinole Valley High School in 2013. Pinole Valley High School Students: Angela Tran, Camila Castillo, Caroline Arreola, Natalie Szumlas, Ahmad Dharhan, Donovan Bantay, Melanie Saenz, and Dominique Acosta continue the mission to empower urban youth to become lifelong environmental stewards through experiential education, skills development, and the building of community connections; and WHEREAS, the impacts of climate change and increasing extreme weather events are a direct result of environmental exploitation by human beings, yet human beings also possess the knowledge, power, and resources to reverse damage and heal the planet and protect its existence for generations to come; and WHEREAS, the 2025 theme for Earth Day is "Our Power, Our Planet," focusing on renewable energy and urging a global shift towards clean energy sources.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, CAMERON SASAI, Mayor of the City of Pinole, County of Contra Costa, State of California, on behalf of the City Council and the entire City of Pinole hereby proclaim APRIL 22, 2025 AS EARTH DAY in the City of Pinole and urge all citizens to recognize their power as stewards of the Earth, participate in events that promote environmental health, and join together in the quest to build a sustainable world for generations to come.

ARBOR DAY
APRIL 25, 2025
WHEREAS, in 1872, the Nebraska Board of Agriculture established a special day to be set aside for the planting of trees; and
WHEREAS, this holiday, called Arbor Day, was first observed with the planting of more than a million trees in Nebraska; and
WHEREAS, Arbor Day is now observed throughout the nation and the world; and
WHEREAS, trees can be a solution to combating climate change by reducing the erosion of our precious topsoil by wind and water, cutting heating and cooling costs, moderating the temperature, cleaning the air, producing life-giving oxygen, and providing habitat for wildlife; and
WHEREAS, trees are a renewable resource giving us paper, wood for our homes, fuel for our fires, and countless other wood products; and WHEREAS, trees in our city increase property values, enhance the economic vitality of business areas, and beautify our community; and WHEREAS, trees can reduce the erosion of our precious topsoil by wind and water, cut heating and cooling costs, moderate the temperature, clean the air, produce oxygen and provide habitat for wildlife; and
WHEREAS, while most holidays celebrate something that has already happened and is worth remembering, Arbor Day represents a hope for the future. The simple act of planting a tree represents a belief that the tree will grow to provide us with clean air, water, cooling shade, habitat for wildlife, healthier communities, and endless natural beauty- all for a better tomorrow.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, CAMERON SASAI, Mayor of the City of Pinole, County of Contra Costa, State of California, on behalf of the City Council and the entire City of Pinole, do hereby proclaim APRIL 25, 2025 AS ARBOR DAY in the City of Pinole and I urge all citizens to celebrate Arbor Day and to support efforts to protect our trees and woodlands.

CAMERON SASAI
MAYOR of the City of Pinole
Dated: this 15th day of April 2025

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – April 1, 2025

CITY COUNCIL MEETING

MINUTES
April 1, 2025

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 Sasai 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
Cameron Sasai, Mayor
Anthony Tave, Mayor Pro Tem
Norma Martinez-Rubin, Council Member
Devin Murphy, Council Member
Maureen Toms, Council Member
B. STAFF PRESENT
Kelcey Young, City Manager
Heather Bell, City Clerk
Erica Gonzalez, Councilor
Roxane Stone, Deputy City Clerk
City Clerk Heather Bell announced the agenda had been posted on March 27, 2025 at 1:50 p.m. with all legally required written notices. The agenda had been amended on Friday, March 28, 2025 to include Item 8.B3. Written comments had been received in advance of the meeting, distributed to the City Council and staff, posted to the City website and made available to the public to view in the Council Chambers. Following an inquiry, the Council reported there were no conflicts with any items on the agenda.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – April 1, 2025

4. CONVENE TO A CLOSED SESSION – Please note: This item will be taken out of order at the 4/1/25 meeting. The Council will convene to Closed Session at the conclusion of the public portion of the agenda (following Item #13).

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 Kelcey Young, Human Resources Director Stacy Shell, Finance Director Markisha Guillory and Gregory Ramirez, IEDA
Employee Organizations: Pinole Police Employees Association (PPEA), AFSCME, Local 1, Local 512 and Management Compensation Plan (MCP) B. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Gov. Code § 54957
Title: City Manager

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:

No Report

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.

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

7. REPORTS & COMMUNICATIONS
A. Mayor Report

1. Announcements
Mayor Sasai reported on his attendance at a League of California Cities Transportation, Communications and Public Works Committee meeting where he represented the City of Pinole as an appointee of the League of California Cities Asian & Pacific Islander (API) Caucus.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – April 1, 2025

Mayor Sasai reported a presentation had been provided on the Power Safety Power Shut-Off (PSPS) Resource Guide from Southern California Edison and a legislative briefing on Assembly Bill (AB) 939, Safe Sustainable Traffic-Reducing Transportation Bond Act of 2026, intended to fund various transportation projects including transit, passenger rail, local streets, active transportation, zero emission vehicles and freight infrastructure improvements.

Mayor Sasai also honored Kaelyn Matthis, a Pinole Valley High School student, who was one of the 2025 Youth Hall of Fame Awardees honored by Contra Costa County for her perseverance in recognizing César Chávez Day. He intended to invite her to a future City Council meeting to speak on her achievements. He also invited the community to the City’s Annual Egg Hunt event scheduled for Saturday, April 5, 2025, from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. at Fernandez Park.

B. Mayoral & Council Appointments: None
C. City Council Committee Reports & Communications
Council member Martinez-Rubin reported she attended a joint League of California Cities Revenue and Taxation Policy Committee and Housing Community and Economic Development Policy Committee meeting to discuss shared interests, and received a presentation on green economic development and an informational presentation on recommendations from the City Managers’ Sales Tax Working Group. Discussions included the way taxation happened in the state and when it was appropriate to recommend any changes in law for reform in the way taxation worked. The Working Group established a definition about equitable e-commerce sales tax distribution, discussed sales tax rebate agreements and potentially a more equitable distribution of sales taxes so that the effects of e-commerce also include the number of trucks on city roads.

The Revenue and Taxation Policy Committee continued to advocate for the possibility of tax reform and had reached a consensus for the Bradley Burns Sales and Use Tax to be split so there would be an equitable distribution between the origin of the site where a purchase originated and its destination, with each city to receive 50 percent of the revenues. The effects would be statewide and the City of Pinole could see a 10 percent increase from what it currently received.

This was a proposal that did not currently exist, and the Committee had recommended potentially this plus or minus 10 percent for a city to allow for the flexibility of negotiating with the legislature.

The split would be prospective and revenues generated under existing agreements would not be subject to the split but there would be a phase-in of five years and the use of tax dollars in the county pools generated from out of state fulfillment would be allocated directly to the destination city. All information was available on the League of California Cities website.

Council member Murphy reported he attended the National League of Cities Municipal Bond 101 Training, with municipal bonds a critical tool for local governments since 1913, allowing funding of essential infrastructure projects at lower costs. He detailed the current efforts to tax municipal bonds, which would be an additional tax on local taxpayers, and again detailed the history of municipal bonds to fund essential infrastructure projects that helped cities like Pinole secure funding at reduced interest prices. He highlighted the number of municipal bonds issued since 2023 nationwide and the number of infrastructure improvements that could be funded over the next decade.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – April 1, 2025

Council member Murphy also highlighted current efforts by some members of Congress to remove the tax-exempt status for municipal bonds to offset federal spending. If that occurred, borrowing costs for local governments would increase forcing local jurisdictions to make more difficult choices. He emphasized as a Council member that he would continue to advocate for policies that protected the City’s ability to invest in Pinole’s future, educate the public about the importance of municipal bonds and ensure staff had the resources to continue to thrive.

Council member Toms reported she too had attended the joint League of California Cities Revenue and Taxation Policy Committee and Housing Community and Economic Development Policy Committee (of which she was a member) meeting, and also highlighted the discussions, including how to improve the tax income in a city, with much of the discussion related to development. The City was lucky to have a good Community Development Department, zoning codes and policies to promote economic development. There had also been discussion on AB 306, Building regulations: state building standards, which would impose a six-year moratorium on building regulations placing a stay of adopting or implementing any new building regulations to improve costs given the new codes involved higher development costs, and imposing all-electric development may pose issues providing services to new development. This legislation was intended to allow cities to catch up with respect to those codes.

AB 87, Housing Development: density bonuses: mixed-use developments: short-term rentals had also been discussed. The League of California Cities Housing Community and Economic Development Policy Committee would next meet in mid-June to discuss recommendations for additional bills including legislation related to pre-development funding for educator/workforce housing.

Council member Toms also reported she and Council member Murphy attended a Green Empowerment Zone meeting to discuss the High Road Economic Development Framework and priority tech upgrades for Contra Costa County, and taking inventory of manufacturing facilities in the County.

D. Council Requests for Future Agenda Items

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Rafael Menis reported that March 31, 2025 was Transgender Day of Visibility. He asked the City Council to consider adding a future agenda item for a proclamation recognizing the date in future years.

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
E. City Manager Report / Department Staff
City Manager Kelcey Young reminded everyone of the Annual Egg Hunt scheduled for Saturday, April 5, 2025 at Fernandez Park from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. She also reported the Community Development Department spent many hours with Pinole Seals to have everything ready on time for the pool to be open for use on April 14, 2025. The pool would be open for the general public on April 19, 2025 with the first 20 people in attendance to receive free recreational swims.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – April 1, 2025

City Manager Young added that Earth Walk would be held on April 19, 2025, from 9:00 a.m.to 11:00 a.m. at Fernandez Park and she planned to be in attendance. Additional information on community events was available on the City website at www.pinole.gov/events.

City Manager Young also reported the Youth Summer Camp had to date brought in $35,000 in revenue which was record breaking for the City of Pinole. She thanked the Community Development Department for its efforts. In addition, she commended the Public Works Department for its new pothole filling program with the use of a new asphalt spreader currently being used on Marlesta Road, Shawn Drive and Wright Avenue. More work would be done in the third and fourth weeks of April.

City Manager Young further commended both the Pinole Police and Public Works Departments for trying to make roads better and safer and reported in the beginning of the month of May speed limits on some City streets would be changed. She asked the public to be aware and adhere to reduced speed limits.

F. City Attorney Report: None

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED (Items 7D through 7F)
City Clerk Bell reported there were no comments from the public.

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED

8. RECOGNITIONS / PRESENTATIONS / COMMUNITY EVENTS
A. Proclamations

1. Arab American Heritage Month
The City Council read into the record a proclamation recognizing Arab American Heritage Month, with the proclamation to be presented to community members after the City Council meeting.

2. National Pet Day
The City Council read into the record a proclamation recognizing April 11, 2025 as National Pet Day, with the proclamation to be presented to Pinole resident Kit, a Shiba Inu in the City of Pinole.

3. César Chávez Day
The City Council read into the record a proclamation recognizing March 31, 2025 as César Chávez Day, with the proclamation to be presented to Ana Aviles Avila, Union President AFSCME, Local 1.

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Anthony Vossbrink stated as a pet owner and in light of National Pet Day, he asked the City Council to contribute or do its due diligence to improve the conditions of the City’s dog park.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – April 1, 2025

Ms. Vossbrink explained that the restrooms in Pinole Valley Park were missing toilet seat covers, the grounds had eroded with little maintenance other than changing the receptable for dog bags, new recyclable trash bins were needed, old shale rock rather than mulch or dirt had been dumped around the entry to the dog park cutting the feet of dogs trying to enter the dog park and the park fences were in disrepair with one section coming apart near the creek bridge. He suggested this was a quality-of-life issue for all pets and patrons of Pinole Valley Park. He also requested a presentation from the Executive Director for Contra Costa County Animal Services. He understood a presentation had already been provided to the City of Hercules.

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED

B. Presentations: None

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

A. Approve the Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting on March 18, 2025.

B. Receive the March 15, 2025 – March 28, 2025, List of Warrants in the Amount of $1,832,380.32 and the March 28, 2025 Payroll in the Amount of $529,776.26.

C. Stormwater Utility Area Assessment for Fiscal Year 2025/2026. Action: Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Heba El-Guindy)

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Rafael Menis reported he had submitted written comments to the City Clerk regarding Item 9A, with respect to the last Citizens to be Heard portion of the meeting that was missing the latter half of his comments, which he felt significantly impacted the meeting. He stated he had transcribed the relative segment of the recording for the meeting and emailed it to the City Clerk. He asked that the meeting minutes be amended to reflect the changes.

City Clerk Bell reported she had received the amended changes at 4:30 p.m. and had not had the opportunity to review the comments.

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
Council member Toms clarified with City Clerk Bell that Item 9A could be continued or staff could be directed to review that small piece and make a small revision working with Mr. Menis.

Council member Toms offered a motion, seconded by Council member Murphy to adopt the Consent Calendar, with the amendment to Item 9A, as stated by staff.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – April 1, 2025

On the motion, Council member Martinez-Rubin thanked Mr. Menis for transcribing the portion of the meeting minutes he wanted revised.

ACTION: Motion by Council members Toms/Murphy to adopt Consent Calendar Item 9A, subject to staff review of the revisions requested by and working with Mr. Menis, and Items 9B and 9C, as shown.

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

Absent: None

10. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None

11. OLD BUSINESS: None

12. NEW BUSINESS
A. Painted Crosswalk Sponsorship. Action: Receive Update on Painted Crosswalks (Kelcey Young)
City Manager Young provided a PowerPoint presentation on the Painted Crosswalk Sponsorship Program and reported that staff was currently looking for sponsors and volunteers to help enhance pedestrian safety and beautify downtown Pinole by transforming crosswalks into vibrant works of art. Three potential locations had been identified including San Pablo Avenue and Pinole Valley Road (either location or both); Pinole Valley Road at Pinole Valley High School and Pinole Valley Road at Pinole Valley Park (multiple options). She highlighted the potential ideas for artwork, emphasized the City would be open to all ideas based on feedback from artists in the community and clarified the crosswalks would still be required to adhere to standard criteria such as crosswalks near schools must be yellow.

Next steps included: work with the Council Subcommittee on guidelines and strategy; work with the City’s Commissions; a call for sponsors, artists and volunteers; request for donations and supplies; and then circle back to the Council Subcommittee for review.

Responding to questions from the City Council, City Manager Young clarified:
• Any formal proposals would be brought back to the Council Subcommittee and thereafter to the City Council for final approval. (Murphy)
• Reference to the “Subcommittee” needed to be clarified by staff whether it was an existing City Council Subcommittee or a new Subcommittee, with staff to get back to the City Council with verification. (Mayor Sasai)

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – April 1, 2025

• Acknowledged a recommendation for staff to contact the City’s Liaison with Republic Services with respect to Republic Services’ Household Hazardous Waste Program, where residents were allowed to drop off old paint to determine whether it was possible the used paint could be used as a resource for paint supplies. (Martinez-Rubin)

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Rafael Menis asked about the level of permanence the City Council was looking for in the crosswalks, whether the paint was intended to last a month, few months, a year, decade or longer; the cost range the City was anticipating each crosswalk would cost; whether sponsorships would be from individuals, groups, businesses or community organizations; whether joint sponsorships would be possible and the magnitude of expected sponsorships. In terms of the types of painted crosswalks, he noted the sample of a painted crosswalk located in the City of Santa Rosa included a Progress Pride Flag, and he asked if that would fit as an example flag for the crosswalk standards. He also asked about the timeline for the process given his understanding this project would go to a Council Subcommittee, then City Commissions would be asked to provide feedback and then the project would return to the City Council. He further asked if the project was intended to be completed this fiscal year or whether it would be a longer-term project.

City Manager Young clarified Council members Martinez-Rubin and Toms had been appointed to the Subcommittee. In response to the public comments, she clarified many of the questions remained to be determined, although when she had done similar programs in the past, the range of cost had been around $5,000 per crosswalk for supplies not including labor which was more expensive. Costs could depend on the level of volunteerism and how complicated the crosswalk.

She acknowledged all road paint wore down fairly quickly unless thermal plastic was considered, which required professional application and was not something volunteers could do. In addition, she acknowledged some data had shown that micro-plastics came off of the thermal plastic, which would be another consideration. There remained a lot to be discussed with the Council Subcommittee on the direction to be taken for this project.

Anthony Vossbrink understood the City had partial funding through a transportation grant that could be secured for part, if not all, of the project. Given the labor costs, he asked who would provide the labor, whether the Public Works Department would be charged or a separate crew considered minus any volunteer work, and whether efforts would be made to ensure the work was done properly. He noted the last time the City had the Public Works Department do some semimajor striping close to crosswalks up and down Pinole Valley Road and other places, they had not removed the old mileage imprints but had painted over the stencil, which had taken four to five people to do half an intersection. Weeks later, the paint job had been smeared due to passing traffic. He hoped the City would ensure the work was done right. He also asked whether the Traffic and Pedestrian Safety (TAPS) Committee would be represented on the Council Subcommittee, whether the TAPS Committee had been asked to provide any feedback on the project, and if not, suggested the TAPS Committee be disbanded since recent meetings had been canceled.

City Manager Young explained that City Commissions would include the TAPS Committee, which would also be asked to provide feedback for this project. She expressed the willingness to meet with Mr. Vossbrink in person to respond to any further questions or could respond to questions provided in writing.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – April 1, 2025

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED

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.

Rafael Menis commented on the number of street lights failing in the community including the lights outside City Hall and various points throughout the City. He asked whether there were any plans to provide an update on the City website including a timeline for repair. He also provided an update on the COVID-19 rate in the community as of March 22, 2025, which was 2.58 per 100,000 nationally, an improvement but still above where they were in October-November 2024.

He urged continued precautions for those who were immunocompromised, elderly and at greater risk from COVID-19, and encouraged wearing masks in indoor crowded settings and receive booster shots.

Mr. Menis also spoke to the extraordinary events occurring at the national level and reported on a series of events planned for April 5, 2025 in many cities including the cities of Hercules and San Pablo, titled, Hands Off, a non-violent, public protest against the actions of the Trump Administration and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), and Elon Musk in particular. He planned to attend the event from 11:00 a.m.to 1:00 p.m. at the intersection of San Pablo and Sycamore Avenues located in the City of Hercules. He hoped to see others participate.

He emphasized the current situation was unacceptable, the people needed to make it clear to the government through public protests, a First Amendment right, that they were not okay with this and needed to stand against it.

Anthony Vossbrink asked about the status of traffic security cameras throughout the City; the number of security cameras and how many were in working order. While a report had been provided six years ago, there had been no updates. Security cameras helped with speed and traffic violations and major incidents around crime in the City. He also asked for an update on why there were so many streetlight outages up and down San Pablo Avenue, many of which had been reported by others for months, and asked about the timing and queuing of stop lights up and down Pinole Valley Road that led to bad carbon emissions and which should be reduced.

Mayor Sasai reiterated the City Council will convene into Closed Session at this time as shown on the meeting agenda.

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Rafael Menis, speaking to Closed Session Item 4B, reiterated comments he made at the prior City Council meeting in praise of City Manager Young.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – April 1, 2025

Mr. Menis was surprised this topic was taking multiple City Council meetings, and while he was unaware of what occurred in Closed Session and behind closed doors, he found it odd this topic needed multiple meetings to resolve given the excellent work the City Manager had done.

Anthony Vossbrink also spoke to Closed Session Item 4B, and commented he and others over the past week or two had discussed the Closed Session. He asked what was going on with what he described as a long, drawn-out evaluation of the City Manager. The majority of people he had spoken to were of the opinion the City Manager had down a great job working with the City Council and the Mayor. The last time the City Council evaluated the performance of the City Manager the Closed Session was supposed to last one to one and a half hours, but actually went over two and a half hours. He suggested the voting public had a right to know what was happening behind closed doors.

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
Mayor Sasai reiterated the City Council would adjourn to Closed Session with a report out at the next City Council meeting.

14. ADJOURNMENT to Closed Session and thereafter to the Regular Meeting of April 15, 2025 in Remembrance of Amber Swartz.

At 6:04 p.m., Mayor Sasai adjourned the meeting to a Closed Session and thereafter to the Regular City Council Meeting of April 15, 2025 in Remembrance of Amber Swartz.

Submitted by:
_________________________________
Heather Bell, CMC
City Clerk
Approved by City Council:

CITY COUNCIL
REPORT 9.C.

DATE: APRIL 15, 2025
TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: Lilly Whalen, Community Development Director, 510-724-9832, [email protected]
Kapil Amin, Sustainability Project Manager, N/A, [email protected] SUBJECT: ADOPT A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ACCEPTANCE OF $952,000 IN

MTC CLIMATE IMPLEMENTATION GRANT FUNDS, COMMITTING
$123,331.18 IN MATCHING FUNDS, AND PROVIDING ASSURANCE TO COMPLETE THE “EXPANDING ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING IN
PINOLE, CA” PROJECT

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution (Attachment A) which will authorize the acceptance of $952,000 in grant funds awarded to the City of Pinole and administered by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), authorize allocation of local matching funds of $123,331.18, and state assurance to complete the project "Expanding Electric Vehicle Charging in Pinole, CA" for the MTC 2024 Climate Implementation Grants:

Capital Charging Infrastructure (Attachment B-submitted grant application).

BACKGROUND
In August 2024, City Council adopted the City's inaugural Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP) to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045, in alignment with the State’s Senate Bill 32 and Assembly Bill 1279. Pinole’s community-wide and municipal greenhouse gas (GHG) inventories identified the transportation sector as the largest source of emissions, accounting for 50% of the total GHG emissions. On average, Pinole residents drive alone in gas-powered vehicles and have a commute time of approximately 39 minutes, with 8% experiencing “super commutes” of 90 minutes or more. The CAAP outlines the following actions and measures to address the reduction of GHG emissions in the transportation sector:
• Installation of 267 level 2 chargers by 2030 and 323 level 2 chargers by 2045 • Increase passenger zero-emission vehicles (ZEV) use and adoption to 33% by 2030 • Increase commercial zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) use and adoption to 25% by 2030 • Electrify or otherwise decarbonize 30% of the municipal vehicle fleet by 2026 In December 2024, the City submitted a grant application totaling $1,075,250—with a required

11.47% local match of $123,331.18—in response to MTC's solicitation aligned with the CAAP goals of accelerating zero-emission vehicle adoption and expanding charging infrastructure.

The City received notice of award in March 2025 and was awarded $952,000 where $951,918.82 was requested.

REVIEW AND ANALYSIS
The MTC Climate Implementation Grants: Charging Infrastructure award will fund the installation of two types of Level 2 EV (Electric Vehicle) chargers in Pinole:
• Four (4) grid-connected Level 2 chargers (J1772, 240 volts/30 amps) with two charging ports each
• Nine (9) off-grid solar canopy Level 2 chargers, each with up to six charging ports Chargers will be installed at publicly accessible locations throughout the city, including Bayfront Park, the Pinole Senior Center, City Hall, the Pinole Swim Center, and the Pinole Farmers’ Market.

Off-grid solar canopy chargers were prioritized in the grant application due to their multiple benefits. Each canopy fits within a standard parking space, requires limited, ongoing maintenance, and relatively easy to construct, thereby enabling faster deployment. Powered by 100% renewable energy and equipped with battery storage and protected power outlets, these units provide emergency backup power during grid outages and help reduce dependency on the electrical grid, particularly during extreme weather events. See photos below as examples of off-grid solar canopy chargers.

Paired Power's Solar Canopy
EV Chargers
Beam Global's Solar Canopy EV
Chargers
Electrify America's
Solar Canopy EV
Chargers

FISCAL IMPACT
Accepting this grant will result in a positive fiscal impact. The total project cost is $1,075,250, with $952,000 covered by grant funds (rounded up from the $951,918.82 requested). A local match of $123,331.18 is required and is recommended to be funded through Measure S 2014 (Fund 106). This investment is expected to generate future revenue through usage-based fees.

ATTACHMENTS
A. Resolution
B. Charging Infrastructure Grant Application

RESOLUTION NO. 2025-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PINOLE AUTHORIZING THE

FILING OF AN APPLICATION FOR FUNDING ASSIGNED TO MTC AND

COMMITTING ANY NECESSARY MATCHING FUNDS AND STATING ASSURANCE TO

COMPLETE THE PROJECT
WHEREAS, (City of Pinole) (herein referred to as APPLICANT) is submitting an application to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) for ($952,000) in funding assigned to MTC for programming discretion, which includes federal funding administered by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and federal or state funding administered by the California Transportation Commission (CTC) such as Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STP) funding, Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) funding, Carbon Reduction Program (CRP) funding, Transportation Alternatives (TA) set-aside/Active Transportation Program (ATP) funding, and Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) funding (herein collectively referred to as REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING) for the (Expanding Electric Vehicle Charging in Pinole, CA) (herein referred to as PROJECT) for the (2024 Climate Implementation Grants: Capital Charging Infrastructure) (herein referred to as PROGRAM); and WHEREAS, the United States Congress from time to time enacts and amends legislation to provide funding for various transportation needs and programs, (collectively, the FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION ACT) including, but not limited to the Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STP) (23 U.S.C. § 133), the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) (23 U.S.C. § 149), the Carbon Reduction Program (CRP) (23 U.S.C. § 175), and the Transportation Alternatives (TA) set-aside (23 U.S.C. § 133); and
WHEREAS, state statutes, including California Streets and Highways Code §182.6, §182.7, and §2381(a)(1), and California Government Code §14527, provide various funding programs for the programming discretion of the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and the Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA); and WHEREAS, pursuant to the FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION ACT, and any regulations promulgated thereunder, eligible project sponsors wishing to receive federal or state funds for a regionally-significant project shall submit an application first with the appropriate MPO, or RTPA, as applicable, for review and inclusion in the federal Transportation Improvement Program (TIP); and
WHEREAS, MTC is the MPO and RTPA for the nine counties of the San Francisco Bay region; and
WHEREAS, MTC has adopted a Regional Project Funding Delivery Policy (MTC Resolution No. 3606, revised) that sets out procedures governing the application and use of REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING; and
WHEREAS, APPLICANT is an eligible sponsor for REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING; and
WHEREAS, as part of the application for REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING, MTC requires a resolution adopted by the responsible implementing agency stating the following:

• the commitment of any required matching funds; and
• that the sponsor understands that the REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING is fixed at the programmed amount, and therefore any cost increase cannot be expected to be funded with additional REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING; and
• that the PROJECT will comply with the procedures, delivery milestones and funding deadlines specified in the Regional Project Funding Delivery Policy (MTC Resolution No. 3606, revised); and
• the assurance of the sponsor to complete the PROJECT as described in the application, subject to environmental clearance, and if approved, as included in MTC's federal Transportation Improvement Program (TIP); and • that the PROJECT will have adequate staffing resources to deliver and complete the PROJECT within the schedule submitted with the project application; and • that the PROJECT will comply with all project-specific requirements as set forth in the PROGRAM; and
• that APPLICANT has assigned, and will maintain a single point of contact for all FHWA- and CTC-funded transportation projects to coordinate within the agency and with the respective County Transportation Agency (CTA), MTC, Caltrans, FHWA, and CTC on all communications, inquires or issues that may arise during the federal programming and delivery process for all FHWA- and CTC-funded transportation and transit projects implemented by APPLICANT; and • in the case of a transit project, the PROJECT will comply with MTC Resolution No. 3866, revised, which sets forth the requirements of MTC’s Transit Coordination Implementation Plan to more efficiently deliver transit projects in the region; and
• in the case of a highway project, the PROJECT will comply with MTC Resolution No. 4104, which sets forth MTC’s Traffic Operations System (TOS) Policy to install and activate TOS elements on new major freeway projects; and • in the case of an RTIP project, state law requires PROJECT be included in a local congestion management plan, or be consistent with the capital improvement program adopted pursuant to MTC’s funding agreement with the County Transportation Agency (CTA); and
WHEREAS, that APPLICANT is authorized to submit an application for REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING for the PROJECT; and
WHEREAS, there is no legal impediment to APPLICANT making applications for the funds; and
WHEREAS, there is no pending or threatened litigation that might in any way adversely affect the proposed PROJECT, or the ability of APPLICANT to deliver such PROJECT; and
WHEREAS, APPLICANT authorizes its Executive Director, General Manager, or designee to execute and file an application with MTC for REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING for the PROJECT as referenced in this resolution; and WHEREAS, MTC requires that a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the MTC in conjunction with the filing of the application.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the APPLICANT is authorized to execute and file an application for funding for the PROJECT for REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING under the FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION ACT or continued funding; and be it further
RESOLVED that APPLICANT will provide any required matching funds; and be it further
RESOLVED that APPLICANT understands that the REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING for the project is fixed at the MTC approved programmed amount, and that any cost increases must be funded by the APPLICANT from other funds, and that APPLICANT does not expect any cost increases to be funded with additional REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING; and be it further
RESOLVED that APPLICANT understands the funding deadlines associated with these funds and will comply with the provisions and requirements of the Regional Project Funding Delivery Policy (MTC Resolution No. 3606, revised) and APPLICANT has, and will retain the expertise, knowledge and resources necessary to deliver federally-funded transportation and transit projects, and has assigned, and will maintain a single point of contact for all FHWA- and CTC-funded transportation projects to coordinate within the agency and with the respective County Transportation Agency (CTA), MTC, Caltrans, FHWA, and CTC on all communications, inquires or issues that may arise during the federal programming and delivery process for all FHWA- and CTC-funded transportation and transit projects implemented by APPLICANT; and be it further
RESOLVED that PROJECT will be implemented as described in the complete application and in this resolution, subject to environmental clearance, and, if approved, for the amount approved by MTC and programmed in the federal TIP; and be it further RESOLVED that APPLICANT has reviewed the PROJECT and has adequate staffing resources to deliver and complete the PROJECT within the schedule submitted with the project application; and be it further
RESOLVED that PROJECT will comply with the requirements as set forth in MTC programming guidelines and project selection procedures for the PROGRAM; and be it further
RESOLVED that, in the case of a transit project, APPLICANT agrees to comply with the requirements of MTC’s Transit Coordination Implementation Plan as set forth in MTC Resolution No. 3866, revised; and be it further
RESOLVED that, in the case of a highway project, APPLICANT agrees to comply with the requirements of MTC’s Traffic Operations System (TOS) Policy as set forth in MTC Resolution No. 4104; and be it further
RESOLVED that, in the case of an RTIP project, PROJECT is included in a local congestion management plan, or is consistent with the capital improvement program adopted pursuant to MTC’s funding agreement with the County Transportation Agency (CTA); and be it further
RESOLVED that APPLICANT is an eligible sponsor of REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING funded projects; and be it further

RESOLVED that APPLICANT is authorized to submit an application for REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING for the PROJECT; and be it further RESOLVED that there is no legal impediment to APPLICANT making applications for the funds; and be it further
RESOLVED that there is no pending or threatened litigation that might in any way adversely affect the proposed PROJECT, or the ability of APPLICANT to deliver such PROJECT; and be it further
RESOLVED that APPLICANT authorizes its Executive Director, General Manager, City Manager, or designee to execute and file an application with MTC for REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING for the PROJECT as referenced in this resolution; and be it further
RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution will be transmitted to the MTC in conjunction with the filing of the application; and be it further RESOLVED that the MTC is requested to support the application for the PROJECT described in the resolution, and if approved, to include the PROJECT in MTC's federal TIP upon submittal by the project sponsor for TIP programming.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pinole held on the 15th day of April, 2025 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 15th day of April, 2025
____________________________________
Heather Bell, CMC
City Clerk

2024 CLIMATE PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION GRANTS
Charging Infrastructure Program Application Form

Overview
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) invites eligible Bay Area public agencies to submit project proposals to one or more of the following grant programs:

1. Regional Mobility Hubs

2. Parking Management

3. Charging Infrastructure

4. Active Transportation Capital Design Technical Assistance This is the application for the Charging Infrastructure Program. The Bay Area Charging Infrastructure Grant Program is part of MTC’s Transportation Electrification Initiative to expand access to clean mobility options and associated charging infrastructure across the Bay Area. MTC is seeking projects for the acquisition and installation of publicly accessible charging stations for electric vehicles (EVs) and/or electric mobility devices (bikes, scooters, assistive mobility devices, etc.).

Proposals should demonstrate strong readiness and must directly lead to the implementation of publicly accessible charging infrastructure.

Refer to the grant guide for more information.

Grant application due Friday, December 20, 2024 at 4:00p.m.

Application Form Instructions
• Provide the application form in Word format
• Submit application to James Choe at [email protected] with following email subject line: “JURISDICTION NAME 2024 Charging Infrastructure Application” • MTC staff will review the application information for eligibility and completeness of information provided
Overview Question
Application Overview
Climate Program
Implementation Grant
Selection
Indicate the program(s) for which you are submitting an application(s):
☐ Regional Mobility Hubs
☐ Parking Management
☒ Charging Infrastructure Program
☐ Active Transportation Capital Design Technical Assistance Please complete the relevant form for each program you are applying to.

2024 CLIMATE PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION GRANTS
Charging Infrastructure Program Application Form

Charging Infrastructure Application Form
Applicant Information
City of Pinole
Kapil Amin
[email protected]
Q1. Project Sponsor – primary grant recipient
must be an eligible applicant
5103720989
Pinole Public Works, Faby Guillen, [email protected]
Pinole Community Development, Lilly Whalen, [email protected] Pinole Public Works, Joe Bingaman, [email protected] Pinole City Manager, Kelcey Young, [email protected] Organization, Contact Name, Email 5
Q2. Partners – list all internal agency
departments and external partners that will be
involved with the various phases of
implementation, maintenance, and
operations. (Add rows as needed)
Organization, Contact Name, Email 6
Q3. Project Title Expanding Electric Vehicle Charging in Pinole, CA Q4. Project Description – provide a brief
summary of the proposed project, including
the project location and the number and types
of charging infrastructure (one paragraph
recommended).

The City of Pinole, located in the vibrant East Bay of the San Francisco Bay Area and conveniently accessible via Interstate 80, is taking a proactive approach to sustainable transportation by proposing the installation of electric vehicle (EV) charging stations at various City-owned facilities. This infrastructure will significantly advance the City’s Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP) Goals, State goals, and Federal goals. Grant funding in the amount of $ $951,918.83 is being requested to install (4) J1772 level 2 (240 volts/30 amp) connected to electrical service with 2 ports per charger and (9) off-grid, solar canopy, level 2 EV chargers with 6 ports per canopy. The chargers will installed across City-owned, publicly accessible facilities: Bayfront Park, Pinole Senior Center, Pinole City Hall, Pinole Swim Center, and Pinole Farmers’ Market.

The proposed project will comply with all other federal, state and local policies and Federal Build America, Buy America provisions.

Need and Benefits (30 Points)
Q5. Project Need and Goals – describe how
the project addresses a need identified in a
plan, policy, or study and helps meet state,
local, or program goals, particularly equity
goals. To the extent possible, describe:
• Purpose and need for the project
• Alignment with Plan Bay Area 2050 and
associated regional policies and programs,
including MTC’s climate, transportation,
and housing initiatives
• Alignment with the program goals to
advance clean mobility options, accelerate
the electrification transition, promote
equitable access, and support innovative
solutions
The City’s CAAP was developed to bring Pinole to carbon neutrality by 2045 in alignment with California Assembly Bill 1279. Pinole is following the State’s ambitious lead for adoption of more EVs.

California’s plan to ban sales of new gas vehicles by 2035 will result in an influx of EVs on the road. Pinole’s CAAP directs the installation of at least 267 level 2 chargers by 2030 and 323 level 2 chargers by 2045 to increase adoption and accommodation of increased EVs, in line with State goals. Pinole currently only has 2 City-owned EV chargers, making it’s 5.3 square miles a charging desert. The average Pinole resident drives alone in a gas vehicle and has a commute time of about 39 minutes with 8% having super commutes (90+ minutes).

A community and municipal greenhouse gas inventory revealed the transportation sectors as the greatest emitter making up about 50% of emissions. This grant funding will help significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Increasing EV adoption and publicly

2024 CLIMATE PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION GRANTS
Charging Infrastructure Program Application Form

• Alignment with local plans and goals
• Plan, policy, or study identifying the need
or purpose for the project
• Quantitative descriptions of need based on
analysis or research
Email supporting evidence (e.g., location
analysis or planning analysis) as part of the
supplemental materials packet described in
question Q24.
accessible chargers at the CAAP’s rate will result in 3,832 Metric Tons Co2e (MT) by 2030 and 13,839 MT by 2045. The State requires 50% of government fleet vehicle purchases be zero emission (ZEV) with a ramp up to 100% by 2027. These vehicle purchases will also comply with the City’s Procurement Policy which requires the increased purchase of ZEVs that are union and USA made. The hefty price tag of infrastructure impedes the City from making ZEV purchases at its desired frequency and this grant funding for infrastructure would remarkably ease this financial hurdle. Pinole’s CAAP goals align seamlessly with Plan Bay Area 2050 and MTC goals. With similar goals in building decarbonization; promoting alternative modes of clean transportation (transportation demand management, active transportation, carshare programs, EV adoption); climate adaptation (sea level rise, wildfire, and flooding); and more, Pinole is an outstanding candidate to receive this MTC grant funding. Pinole currently offers rebates for building decarbonization through the PEER program. The City is currently close to adoption of its first Active Transportation Plan. The City is also collaborating with the City of Hercules to apply for SB 1 Sea Level Rise funding.

Additionally, Pinole was proud to receive Prohousing Jurisdiction Designation. The City is also actively working to reduce speed limits and treatments on roadways such as San Pablo Ave. to increase pedestrian safety and foster active transportation. All to say, Pinole can be entrusted to responsibly and resourcefully use grant funds to ensure maximization of equity and community benefits.

Q6. Project Benefits – describe the
anticipated outcomes and benefits. To the
extent possible, include:
• Quantitative outcomes (e.g., anticipated
usage, users, number of charging events
per day, etc.)
• Estimate of the project’s daily CO2
reductions with explanation of calculation
and assumptions (applicants may use their
own calculations or the following formula:

GHG (tons) = 0.004309 * number of chargers *
estimated number of charging events per
charger per day)
• Qualitative benefits
• Note: Quantitative descriptions of need
and project benefits based on analysis and
research are preferred
The City of Pinole procures clean energy from MCE and will be upgrading to Marin Clean Energy’s Deep Green option which supplies 100% renewable electricity in adherence with the CAAP. This ensures the maximum reduction of GHG emissions with a clean mix of sourced electricity. The calculated projected use of these chargers factors in the anticipated uptick in EV adoption with State legislation, rebates and incentives, local governments’ educational efforts, non-profit and community-based organization efforts, and other people power that advocate for clean transportation. .004309*62 charging ports*3 charging events per charging port per day= .8 GHG tons reduction per day
Additional co-benefits of these proposed chargers include local economy boost and climate adaptation. Placing solar canopy chargers near the farmers’ market will bring business to local farms and adjacent small businesses such as restaurants and coffee shops along Old Town Pinole. Supporting these local, small businesses adds another layer of equity. Bayfront Park chargers provide access to the scenic Bay Trail which encourages active transportation as the trail serpentines through neighboring cities. With future plans to double the Pinole Senior Center as a climate resilience hub and which currently acts as a cooling center during extreme heat events, the placement of chargers is necessary. Furthermore, integrating offPage 47 of 201 2024 CLIMATE PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION GRANTS
Charging Infrastructure Program Application Form

grid solar canopy chargers that are wind and flood rated bring the dual benefit of climate adaption and mitigation. Being off-grid increases grid reliability for other connected chargers and decreases rolling blackouts. In the event of an outage, these canopy chargers would still be fully functional. Canopies come with a tilt feature to optimize productivity and solar capture. The canopies also have a protected power outlet to provide plug-in charging for emergency equipment during an outage. One of the greatest advantages of these off-grid chargers is not requiring construction and feasibility.

They also run on 100% renewable, solar energy.

Q7. Advancing Equity – describe the benefits
of the project to underserved or equity priority
communities (e.g., benefits to low-wage
workers, multifamily residences, communities
with particularly limited access to charging,
rural communities, communities lacking
access to affordable clean mobility options,
communities with disproportionate motor
vehicle pollution burden, communities
historically lacking in funding or other
support, etc.)
Pinole strongly upholds equity. Equity is embedded into the fabric of our outreach and engagement plans. For the Pinole Energy Enhancement Rebate Program, mailers were sent out to Western Pinole, where more disadvantaged communities reside, in advance of the remainder of residents in order to ensure they had priority in access. For our recently adopted single-use plastics ordinance, extensive outreach was conducted to small businesses and nonEnglish speaking business owners to ensure equitable legislation such as availability of free technical assistance, waivers, and extensions of time. For the CAAP’s development, significant and versatile outreach was conducted to reflect the voice and needs of marginalized groups such as local Tribes into the CAAP. Equity is a climate policy pillar of Pinole’s inaugural Climate Action and Adaptation Plan recognizing the disproportionate impacts of climate change. Pinole is within Contra Costa County, historically embroiled in environmental injustice, with four active oil refineries that contribute to higher asthma rates. The City closely works with the County, which lead frequent Transportation Electrification Coordination meetings, to strategize how to provide and plan charging infrastructure in regionally significant corridors to increase accessibility to all Contra Costa County residents and patrons. With major corridors running through it, such as the I-80 San Pablo Ave and Fitgerald Dr, Pinole draws disadvantaged communities from the City of Richmond, San Pablo, unincorporated El Sobrante and more.

Pinole’s Housing Element demonstrates the vulnerable communities that will benefit from new EV chargers. Western Pinole, where most of the City’s multifamily housing is, shows higher risk of displacement than other portions. One of Pinole’s tracts scored in the 81-90 percentile for pollution contributed by high diesel particulate, toxic releases, and lead. The northwestern region of Pinole has a less positive economic score with lower incomes and home values. Pinole also sees low resource areas for some community members. With a population of approximately 20,000 and about 5 square miles, the proposed chargers will be easily accessible to all community members and visitors.

2024 CLIMATE PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION GRANTS
Charging Infrastructure Program Application Form

In tandem with the proposed publicly accessible chargers, the CAAP directs coordinating with car share companies and community groups to develop an affordable, zero-emission vehicle share program to serve disadvantaged communities as well as develop an equitable charging fee structure that provides accessibility for all users. The City was recently awarded community engagement funds by Marin Clean Energy (MCE) which includes a subtask to increase the adoption of EVs and EV infrastructure including at multifamily properties as well as promotion of other equitable MCE programs and incentives such as electrical panel upgrades, charging at offpeak hours and battery storage that complement a smooth transition to EV adoption.

Design (25 Points)
Bay Front
Park/1 Tennent
Ave, Pinole, CA
94564/ A
shoreline park
that connects
with the SF Bay
Trail (owner
City of Pinole)
# of
Level 1
(L1) EV
chargers
18 Level
II
Chargers
(3 nongrid
connecte
d Solar
Canopies
with 6
Level II
chargers
each)
# of DC
fast
chargers
(DCFC)
At Bay Front Park, a beloved community
space that connects to the San Francisco
Bay Trail, all proposed chargers will be
solar canopy chargers. This approach
reflects the City’s commitment to
sustainability, resilience, and
community-centric planning, with each
site selected based on its unique
characteristics and needs. Solar canopy
chargers were chosen for their ease of
deployment, elimination of design and
construction fees, and operation on
100% renewable energy—providing a
significant advantage over gridconnected chargers.The inclusion of battery storage enhances the system’s
reliability, ensuring power availability
during emergencies and charging
capability during outages. Bay Front
Park’s open parking lot offers excellent
solar capture potential, and the
unobtrusive design of the canopies
preserves the park’s natural beauty while
complementing its role as a cherished
regional asset. Furthermore, installing
grid-connected chargers at this location
would require extensive infrastructure
work, which would be prohibitively costly
and environmentally damaging. This
makes solar canopy chargers not only the
most sustainable but also the most
practical choice for this well-loved
community space.

Q8. Locations and
Chargers – list the
following for each
project location:
• Location address
(or description) and
property owner
• Number and power
level (kW) of
chargers by type to
be installed
(Add rows as needed)
Pinole Senior
Center/ 2500
Charles Ave,
# of
Level 1
6 Level II
Chargers
(3
# of DC
fast
Grid-connected chargers were
strategically selected for the Pinole
Senior Center due to the existing a

2024 CLIMATE PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION GRANTS
Charging Infrastructure Program Application Form

Pinole, CA
94564/ A senior
center that
hosts seniors
activities, City
events, cooling
center, etc
(owner City of
Pinole)
(L1) EV
chargers
Traditio
nal GridConnect
ed
stations)
chargers
(DCFC)
Council-approved Capital Improvement
Program (CIP) project that includes the
installation of a large solar array in the
parking lot to support power generation
and resilience. The solar array will occupy
the majority of the parking lot, rendering
the installation of solar canopies for EV
charging stations incompatible with the
site’s layout. Additionally, off-grid
chargers at the front of the building
would obstruct the view of the building's
façade, which serves as an important
focal point for the community. The
proposed grid-connected chargers align
seamlessly with the CIP project’s existing
design and future plans for the Senior
Center to serve as a resilience hub,
further enhancing its critical role during
emergencies. These chargers do not
require new electrical service, making
them both a practical and cost-effective
solution that supports the site’s broader
sustainability goals.

Pinole City Hall/
2131 Pear St.,
Pinole, CA
94564/ City Hall
houses City
operations such
as Community
Development,
Public Works,
Finance, HR,
more (owner
City of Pinole)
# of
Level 1
(L1) EV
chargers
14 Level
II
Chargers
(1
Traditio
nal GridConnect
ed
station)
and 2
solar
canopies
with 6
chargers
each)
# of DC
fast
chargers
(DCFC)
The City has strategically selected a
combination of one grid-connected
charger and two solar canopy chargers
for City Hall to maximize sustainability
and functionality. A grid-connected
charger was chosen for the curbside
public parking area in front of City Hall,
where space constraints and tree shade
make solar canopies unviable. Solar
canopy chargers were selected for their
ease of deployment and climate-adaptive
capabilities, aligning with the City's
commitment to sustainability and
resilience. As the heart of civic
leadership, City Hall is ideally positioned
to lead by example, demonstrating
innovative, forward-thinking solutions to
address climate challenges. By
integrating both grid-connected and
solar canopy chargers, the City highlights
a flexible, practical approach to
expanding EV infrastructure while
inspiring broader adoption of clean
energy solutions within the community.

Pinole
Swimming
Pool/ 2450
# of
Level 1
12 Level
II
Chargers
# of DC
fast
Solar canopy chargers were selected for
the Pinole Swimming Center and Tiny
Tots Daycare due to their ease of

2024 CLIMATE PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION GRANTS
Charging Infrastructure Program Application Form

Simas Ave,
Pinole, CA
94564/ Tiny
Tots center and
Swim center
(owner City of
Pinole)
(L1) EV
chargers
(2 nongrid
connect
ed Solar
Canopie
s with 6
Level II
chargers
each)
chargers
(DCFC)
deployment, compatibility with the open
parking lot's optimal solar capture
potential, and climate-adaptive
capabilities. This location's unobstructed
design makes it ideal for solar canopy
chargers, ensuring maximum efficiency
and sustainability. By integrating these
chargers at this location, the City
demonstrates its commitment to
innovative, eco-friendly infrastructure
that aligns with community needs and
environmental stewardship.

Pinole Farmers’
Market/798
Fernandez Ave,
Pinole, CA
94564/ Farmers’
Market and
adjacent to
downtown
small
businesses
(owner City of
Pinole)
# of
Level 1
(L1) EV
chargers
12 Level
II
Chargers
(2 nongrid
connect
ed Solar
Canopie
s with 6
Level II
chargers
each
# of DC
fast
chargers
(DCFC)
Solar canopy chargers were selected for
the Pinole Farmers’ Market due to their
ease of deployment, the open parking
lot’s excellent solar capture potential,
and their climate-adaptive capabilities.

The unobstructed layout of this location
ensures optimal efficiency for the solar
canopies, making them a practical and
sustainable choice. Installing these
chargers at the Farmers’ Market
highlights the City’s commitment to
green energy solutions while supporting
a vital community gathering space.

List locations and information of chargers for other mobility options (e.g., electric bikes or bikeshare)
Q9. Public Accessibility – confirm that all
project chargers will be publicly accessible. If
locations or chargers are partially accessible,
describe the restrictions (e.g., parking lot
operating hours).

All proposed chargers will be fully accessible to the public 24 hours a day. Proposed chargers are being place on City-owned property at locations meant for public parking and usage.

Q10. Project Design – describe any project
design details, industry standards, or best
practices that will be applied to the project to
maximize utilization and usability and
minimize risks (e.g., vehicle and equipment
interoperability, charging connector type,
charging network interoperability, equipment
communication protocol, forwardcompatibility, payment options, wayfinding, safety measures, vandalism mitigation, etc.).

Pinole Council has recently adopted an EV charging policy that puts a usage limit on chargers in order to support equitable use of chargers and increase user circulation. The County is also developing EV charging etiquette that the City will use as a resource to fold into charger use implementation. The City will also use industry standards and best practices to maximize utilization and usability and minimize risks, which includes MTC recommendations such as interoperability with vehicles, equipment, and charging networks; charging connector types to broaden usage, accessible payment options, communication protocol, ADA accessibility, appropriate design for location, visible signage and wayfinding to chargers, and safety measures such as lighting and vandalism mitigation.

2024 CLIMATE PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION GRANTS
Charging Infrastructure Program Application Form

Q11. Operations & Maintenance – describe
the plan for the project’s ongoing operations
and maintenance to the extent known.

Considerations include:
• Establishing an uptime target and
approach for achieving that target
• Identifying operations and maintenance
activities, cost estimates, and responsible
parties
• Identifying funds to replace/fix components
that are vandalized, broken, or otherwise
rendered inoperable
• Determining third-party service
agreements, cost sharing, etc.

With the proposed chargers, City staff in Community Development and Public Works will establish an operation and maintenance plan working closely with the selected contractor. The plan will, at minimum, include
• strategies on establishing an uptime target and approach • identify maintenance activities
• cost estimates
• responsible parties such as third-party service providers or vendors
• fund identification to replace/fix components that are vandalized, broken, or otherwise rendered inoperable
A data collection plan will also be discussed between City staff and selected contractor and will potentially include:
• establishing performance measures and data collection process
• Collection of usage data automatically
• Collection of user survey data (potential data: EV adoption rates, vehicle trip distances, mode choice, use by
underserved communities)
• Collecting project data for MTC
Q12. MTC Complete Streets Checklist –
submit a completed MTC Complete Streets
Checklist form with your application. More
information can be found here. Please attach
the completed form in your application
submittal email.
(attached)
Readiness (25 Points)
Q13. Project Support – describe the public
and stakeholder engagement conducted to
inform this project and the support for this
project from agency decision makers
(Council/Board, Mayor’s/Administrator’s
Office, Managers, etc.), internal and external
implementation partners, the public, and
other key stakeholders.

The City’s CAAP is a vetted document that underwent extensive public and stakeholder outreach and engagement for 1.5 years before it was adopted by Council in August 2024. The City’s portfolio of accomplishments demonstrate its staunch support for clean energy and transportation. In May of 2024 Pinole was the first city in Contra Costa County to ban expansion and new construction of gas stations. The City’s PEER rebate program offers up to 50% on electrification measures such as panel upgrades to increase adoption of EVs. The City also hosted an EV car trunk or treat in partnership with Cool the Earth for the community to show off their EVs and educate neighbors and visitors on their benefits. Other CAAP projects that help increase EV adoption are adopting EV reach codes by 2025 based on Tier 2 CalGreen requirements and learning barriers of EV adoption in low to moderate income communities to mitigate them. CSW was consulted for layout plan for which this grant scope was developed after. CSW found new electric service will be required for City Hall chargers connected to the grid. To further emphasize project support, this layout plan was conducted in alignment with approved Capital Improvement Projects for Pinole and is a key City Manager and Council priority for 2025.

2024 CLIMATE PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION GRANTS
Charging Infrastructure Program Application Form

Q14. Project Scope and Timeline – list the applicable major project phases – Preliminary Engineering (PE); Project Approval & Environmental Document (PA&ED); Right of Way (ROW) clearance; Plans, Specifications, and Estimate (PS&E); Construction (CON) – and any other significant project tasks, key deliverables, or milestones. Briefly describe each phase, task, or milestone and indicate the date completed or the estimated start date. Other significant tasks or key milestones may include, but are not limited to:
• Project initiation approval
• Community and stakeholder engagement
• 30/60/90% design completed
• Utility project review and approval
• Agreements and permits secured
• Site rights or Right of Way (ROW) acquired
• Detailed scope of work including technical/engineering aspects, project timeline, and budget developed • Contractor or vendor procurement completed
Note: All funds for construction (CON) should be obligated by January 31, 2027. All projects should be constructed within 3 years of construction obligation. Project awards will be canceled, and funds will be reverted for use in future Climate Program grants if projects have not obligated construction by January 31, 2027.

Task/ Phase/ Deliverable/
Milestone Description Date Completed or Estimated Start Date Request for Proposals (RFP)
released for design and
construction of (4) grid-connected
chargers
Community Development (CDD) and Public
Works (PW) develop a RFP with a scope of work
that carries on work previously completed by
CSW for the City of Pinole Electric Vehicle
Charging Infrastructure Concept Plan, aligns with
federal, MTC, and Pinole, and development of
operations and maintenance and data collection
plans
Start: April 2025
Finish: June 2025
Request for Proposals released for
(15) off-grid solar canopy
CDD and PW develop scope of work for RFP
which includes alignment with federal, MTC and
Pinole procurement policies and development of
operations and maintenance and data
collections plans
Start: April 2025
Finish: June 2025
Score on-grid proposals Pinole assembles a scoring committee and selects an on-grid charger contractor Finish: August 2025 Score off-grid proposals Pinole assembles a scoring committee and selects an off-grid charger contractor Finish: September 2025 Contract with on-grid contractor Contracting agreement taken for Council approval Finish: October 2025
Contract with off-grid contractor Contracting agreement taken for Council approval Finish: November 2025
Community survey Surveys ask for public input on optimal locations for chargers Finish: February 2026
On-grid chargers installation Design and construction of on-grid chargers Finish: February 2028 off-grid chargers installation Delivery and placement of off-grid chargers Finish: February 2028

2024 CLIMATE PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION GRANTS
Charging Infrastructure Program Application Form

Cost-Effectiveness (20 Points)
Q15. Project Costs – list the project cost assumptions in the table below in as much detail as is available, including expense type (e.g., equipment, materials, software, construction labor, permits, site design services, contingency), number of units, and cost per unit. (Reminder: please consider all potential costs since this program cannot fund cost increases after award)
Expense Quantity Cost per Unit Total Cost Notes and Assumptions Off-grid solar canopy is capable of
charging up to 6 vehicles at a time, and
includes battery storage
9 $80,000 $720,000
We have discovered that Mobile Solar Panel
Electric Vehicle Charger Systems offered by Beam
Global are currently offered at a discounted rate
under the Cooperative Purchasing Agreement
with the California Department of General
Services (#1-22-61-16). We used this
information to guide the cost of the solar
canopies. One (1) EV ARC 2020 base model
canopy with 4.3 kW solar generation, six (6)
chargers and a 22kWh battery is approximately
$80,000 with installation.

On-grid chargers – units only 4 $14,000 $56,000
After reviewing our selected bid (bid tabulation
attached) of a 2022 capital improvement project
to install one (1) ChargePoint Level II charger to
serve two locations and create two EV-ready
locations at the Public Safety Facility, the cost for
a charging station for that project was $14,000.

This approximate cost was applied to each of the
4 proposed on-grid chargers.

Architecture and engineering fees for ongrid chargers 4 $5,500 $22,000 After reassessing the engineering design cost of a
2022 capital improvement project (contract
attached) to install one (1) ChargePoint Level II
charger to serve two locations on a dedicated
240V 40A circuit, the total cost for engineering
and architectural fees (not including RFI and
construction support) was $5,710. Therefore,
assumptions were updated to assume design

2024 CLIMATE PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION GRANTS
Charging Infrastructure Program Application Form

fees of about $5,500 per station, and the
requested funding was adjusted to $22,000.

Electrical Service Upgrade for City Hall 1 $4,000 $4,000 The engineering design requires a 400 AMP
electrical service upgrade for City Hall chargers
which will cost approximately $4,000
Construction of on-grid chargers 4 $29,500 $118,000
After reviewing the selected bid tabulation for
construction of the 2022 capital improvement
project to install one (1) ChargePoint Level II
charger to serve two (2) locations and create two
(2) additional EV-ready locations at the Public
Safety Facility, the total construction cost was
$59,000, not including the cost of charging
stations. Therefore, construction cost for
installation of one on-grid charger is assumed to
be $29,500 each and therefore the requested
funding for construction costs is $118,000.

Contingency 140,250
A 15% contingency is requested to address
potential unforeseen costs, including site-specific
challenges, supply chain issues and market
fluctuations.

Staff hours (RFP development, scoring,
meetings, community engagement,
council approval)
100 $150 $15,000
Q16. Total Project Cost $1,075,250

2024 CLIMATE PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION GRANTS
Charging Infrastructure Program Application Form

Q17. Grant Request – what is the grant funding amount requested of this program? $ 951,918.83
Q18. Match – an 11.47% match of the total project cost is required. Please list nonfederal match amount(s) and source(s). Indicate any unsecured amounts and sources, such as anticipated grant funding opportunities (Reminder: grant recipients must provide a minimum non-Federal match of 11.47% of Q16. Total Project Cost)
$ 123,331.18 of City funds
$17,342.74 per port
Q19. Cost per Port – calculate the total cost per charging port (total project cost divided by the total number of charging ports) With 10 canopies and 4 dual-port (on-grid) chargers, the total number of ports is 62.

2024 CLIMATE PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION GRANTS
Charging Infrastructure Program Application Form

Desired Qualifications (up to 22 additional points)
Q20. Project Location (up to 7
additional points) – if the project
includes site(s) in Transit-Oriented
Communities (TOC) policy locations,
please list the Corridor/Station
Name(s) of the TOC Policy areas (5
points), as well as any Equity Priority
Community (EPC) (2 points) locations.

The TOC and EPC layers can be
accessed in one map. See each layer
for locations and names.

A portion of the Tara Hills community is within the Pinole City boundary. The TOC and EPC layers map displayed this layer in Pinole.

Q21. E-mobility Charging Projects
(Up to 10 additional points) – if the
project incorporates electric
micromobility (e.g., electric bikes,
scooters) or shared mobility (e.g.,
electric bikeshare, carshare) charging
and associated equipment, please
describe.

While the project doesn’t propose a direct e-mobility charging project, he mobility of the solar canopy chargers provides the City with long-term flexibility to adapt to emerging transportation needs. Unlike fixed grid connected infrastructure, these units can be relocated or repurposed as demand shifts, ensuring that investments in sustainable charging solutions remain future-proof. Additionally, these chargers have the potential to be converted into e-mobility charging ports, supporting a wider range of electric transportation options as technology and community needs evolve. This adaptability ensures that the City’s commitment to clean energy and sustainable mobility remains both forward-thinking and resilient.

Q22. Scalable Solutions (Up to 5
additional points) – if applicable,
please describe how the project
implements an approach that
minimizes cost, infrastructural, policy,
or other barriers and demonstrates
solutions that can be scaled or
replicated in other areas.

Across all locations, off-grid solar canopy chargers provide a highly scalable, cost-effective, and replicable solution for expanding EV charging infrastructure while minimizing permitting, construction, and grid-reliance barriers. Their rapid one-day installation and excavationfree setup eliminate the need for costly electrical upgrades, significantly reducing both upfront and long-term costs. These chargers operate entirely on renewable energy, maximizing efficiency with a bifacial panel design that captures both direct and reflected sunlight while also shading parking lots to mitigate the urban heat island effect.

With no moving parts, motors, or annual maintenance requirements, solar canopy chargers offer a durable and low-maintenance alternative to grid-connected systems. Their modular and mobile design allows for flexible deployment, enabling easy expansion or relocation as demand evolves. These chargers can be implemented across diverse settings—urban, suburban, and rural—without the constraints of electrical infrastructure, making them an ideal model for other municipalities seeking to scale sustainable transportation solutions. By demonstrating the feasibility and benefits of off-grid solar charging, this project sets a precedent for broader adoption, reinforcing regional and statewide efforts to advance clean energy and equitable EV infrastructure.

2024 CLIMATE PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION GRANTS
Charging Infrastructure Program Application Form

Post-Award Requirements
Q23. Post-Award – please check the
boxes to acknowledge understanding
of the post-award requirements if
awarded funding.

These requirements do not need to be
completed for the application. More
information will be provided upon
award.
☒ Complete a Carbon Reduction Program (CRP) Project Alignment Confirmation Form
☒ Adopt a Resolution of Local Support
☒ Submit the project into the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) ☒ Obligate the project by January 31, 2027
☒ Attend a grant program kickoff meeting
☒ Provide quarterly progress reports and participate in check-in meetings ☒ Provide data for evaluation and reporting
☒ Complete project within three years of funding obligation ☒ Complete final closeout report
Supplemental Information
Q24. Supplemental Files – list all
additional files that are being
submitted to supplement the
application (e.g., letters of support,
charging location analysis, project
engineering and design files, etc.) and
indicate if the materials are in support
of a specific question or requirement.

Email the supporting files to James
Choe ([email protected]) as a
single separate attachment in addition
to this completed Application Form.

Include the word “SUPPLEMENTAL” in
the file name.

1. Layout plan of EV chargers for grant scope of work

2. Consultant CSW concept plan developed for City of Pinole

CITY COUNCIL
REPORT 9.D.

DATE: APRIL 15, 2025
TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: Kelcey Young, City Manager, 5107248933, [email protected] SUBJECT: PROP 218 PROCESS- SOLID WASTE COLLECTION RATES

RECOMMENDATION

1. Receive information regarding the franchise fee for Republic Services and;

2. Schedule a public hearing for June 3, 2025; and,

3. Direct mailing of the notice of the proposed rate increase to all affected parcels.

BACKGROUND
The City of Pinole holds a Franchise Agreement with Richmond Sanitary Service, Inc. dba Republic Services (Republic) dated May 15, 2001, which expires on June 30, 2025. The City Council previously authorized staff to commence negotiations with Republic for a new 15-year agreement. The City Council will be considering the new agreement at its meeting on June 3, 2025. Tonight, the City Council will begin the Proposition 218 process and set the Public Hearing for June 3, 2025. This agreement has not been negotiated for 25 years, and the fees and potential impacts have not been analyzed for many years. Other portions of the proposed rates include City fees to administer the franchise agreement; provide staffing for the City; support City infrastructure and street repair; and comply with state recycling/diversion mandates (including but not limited to AB 939 and SB 1383).

The franchise agreement with Republic is for collection services only. Many legislative compliance functions are served by the West Contra Costa Integrated Waste Management Authority (RecycleMore), a JPA that Pinole is a member of. Post-collection services, including other associated activities such as outreach and education, is dictated by the terms of the Post-Collection Agreement held by RecycleMore and Republic. The Post-Collection Agreement is set to also expire at the end of June 2025.

This proposed franchise agreement will include increased service levels for bulky pickups and will also include funds to improve roads, and tree debris removal. Additional details for the rate breakdown and fee study will be presented during the public hearing on June 3, 2025 at which time the final Franchise agreement is also anticipated to come before Council for adoption.

REVIEW AND ANALYSIS
Staff are finalizing negotiations with Republic for a fifteen-year term length. This term length is typical for modern franchise agreements and matches the term length negotiated by nearby Cities of San Pablo and Hercules. The negotiated agreement, if agreeable to the subPage 59 of 201 committee, and approved on June 3, 2025, by the City Council, would be effective on July 1, 2025, and expire on June 30, 2040.

The solid waste collection rates paid by Pinole residents and businesses are comprised of many different rate components, including the post-collection portion of the rate which is set by RecycleMore and not dictated by the City. Setting that portion of the rate aside, Republic has requested an increase in their portion of residential rates and commercial rates.

The City will now regulate industrial rates, enhancing transparency for the service which is already exclusive to Republic. The negotiated rate increase would be effective July 1, with the next rate increase scheduled for January 1, 2027 (18-month rate freeze). The City has funded a five-year, $200,000 per year offset of the initial rate increase paid by the City Waste Program Fee Fund Balance. Staff will return on June 3rd, with a side letter for consideration with Republic to implement the rate offset.

This adjustment to rates was negotiated over several months and is justified due to increased costs for hauling operations above the regular indexed increases in recent years, as well as future planning for other increased costs moving forward. The subsequent rates compare favorably to neighboring cities, and further information will be included in the June 3rd meeting.

As part of the new solid waste collection agreement negotiations, City staff contracted with R3 Consulting Group to conduct a Franchise Fee Study. The study analyzed and calculated:
• The City’s costs for performing the required management, administration, regulatory compliance and enforcement, solid waste collection and clean-up, and other obligations associated with the Republic Agreement and sanitation system. • An annual use charge to Republic for special and lasting access and use of government property in the public right-of-way for placement of solid waste containers and collection of their contents.
• The annualized costs of payment repair, maintenance and rehabilitation resulting from the unique impacts on City street pavement caused by Republic’s collection vehicles during the course of providing service.

A more detailed explanation of the proposed rates is in the attached Franchise Fee Study.

This item will also be more thoroughly explained during the public hearing. The third attachment includes all proposed solid waste collection rates including less common rates, and post collection rates which are controlled by the Recyclemore JPA and not Pinole.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Franchise Fee Study

2. Public Hearing Notice to be provided to residents to complete the 218 process

3. Proposed solid waste rates

FISCAL IMPACT
If the collection rates are approved, an increase in annual payments to the City from Republic Services is expected. The City will be responsible for annual payments of $200,000 for the first five years of the agreement to smooth the impact of the initial rate increase. There are sufficient funds available in the Solid Waste and Recycling fund to fulfill this obligation, and this appropriation will be incorporated into the FY 2025-2026 Annual Budget.

ATTACHMENTS
A. Fee Study
B. Pinole 2025 Prop 218 Solid Waste Notice - Public Hearing C. PROPOSED RATES7.1.25

FINAL REPORT
City of Pinole
submitted electronically on April 7, 2025
Solid Waste
Franchise Fee Study

TABLE OF CONTENTS
City of Pinole | Solid Waste Franchise Fee Study – R3 Report toc - i

1. Executive Summary
page 1

2. Methodology & Calculations
page 3

3. Findings & Conclusions
page 20

4. Recommendations
page 21

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City of Pinole | Solid Waste Franchise Fee Study – R3 Report 1 of 21 Background
The City of Pinole’s (City) Solid Waste Franchise Agreement (Agreement) dated May 15, 2001, with Richmond Sanitary Service, Inc. dba as Republic Services (Contractor) is for the collection of solid waste from Contractor’s solid waste service subscribers in the City. The Agreement provides the Contractor with the exclusive right to provide critical aspects of the City’s sanitation system, including solid waste collection and the other services and programs included in the Agreement. The Agreement specifies that the Contractor will charge solid waste service subscribers, with the Contractor billing and collecting revenues from subscribers and the City authorizing the maximum rates that the Contractor may charge pursuant to the rate adjustment methodology included in the Agreement.

Per the Agreement, the Contractor pays the City a Franchise Fee. This Study considers the Franchise Fee paying for the costs incurred by the City in managing, administering, enforcing, and supplementing the services provided in the Agreement, as well as the charge for the use of the public right-of-way for the special and lasting access to use it for set-out and collection of solid waste containers, along with the proportionate costs of the unique impacts to pavement caused by the Contractor’s solid waste collection vehicles during the course of providing sanitation service. The Contractor also pays the City a Rate Stabilization Fee and an AB 939 Fee. The City is also considering a Vehicle Impact Fee which would replace the Rate Stabilization Fee. For the purposes of this Study, the Rate Stabilization Fee is assumed to be eliminated at the end of Fiscal Year 2024-25.

Purpose
The purpose of this Study is to identify the amounts that may be considered for recovery through the Franchise Fee paid by the Contractor to the City and to develop the maximum amount that could be recovered via a new Vehicle Impact Fee (VIF). There are three components to this analysis. The first component includes the City’s proportionate costs (City’s Costs). The second component includes the proportionate charges for the Contractor’s use of the public right-of-way (Property Use Charges). The third is the City’s proportionate costs associated with pavement impacts (Pavement Impacts).

Methodology and Findings
To complete this Study, R3 reviewed and analyzed information provided by the City pertaining to the City’s Costs, Property Use Charges, and Pavement Impacts. Using that information, we then calculated the proportionate amounts necessary to cover the City’s costs, including staffing and other costs; use of government property in the public right-of-way; and pavement repair, maintenance, and rehabilitation costs caused by the Contractor’s solid waste collection vehicles during the course of providing sanitation service. All calculated amounts in this Study are in Fiscal Year (FY) 2023-24 dollars.

City’s Costs
The annual costs for management, administration, regulatory compliance and enforcement, solid waste collection and clean-up, and other obligations associated with the Contractor’s Agreement and the sanitation system includes: staffing salary and benefits, contracted services, operations and maintenance, supplies, and overhead for distributed costs including but not limited to property, utilities, insurance, human resources, payroll administration, accounts payable and receivable, and other finance functions.

Staffing costs are calculated based on estimated time allocations (based on assessment of current City employees) and other costs are calculated based on estimated share allocations associated with the sanitation system, with distributed overhead applied to both.

The calculation results are $461,784 in staffing costs and $112,745 in other costs, for annual proportionate City’s Costs totaling $574,529.

Additionally, there is $73,486 in Other Costs associated with AB 939 compliance.

Executive Summary
City of Pinole | Solid Waste Franchise Fee Study – R3 Report 2 of 21 Property Use Charges
The annual charge to the Contractor for use of government property in the public right-of-way is calculated as a function of estimates for the number of solid waste accounts setting out solid waste collection containers in the right-of-way, the set-out area used, the amount of time it is used, and the market value for the per square foot use of the public right-of-way.

The calculation result for the use of the public right-of-way is a proportionate annual total Property Use Charge of $441,521.

Pavement Impacts
The annualized costs for pavement repair, maintenance, and rehabilitation are calculated based on the proportionate impact to pavement from solid waste collection vehicles compared to other sources of impacts. This calculation accounts for five-year projections for growth in deferred maintenance only for the purposes of this Study. The calculation also accounts for the high loading and slow speed impacts on pavement associated with solid waste collection vehicles.

The calculation results for the proportionate Pavement Impacts caused by Contractor’s solid waste collection vehicles during the course of providing sanitation service is an annualized cost of $1,703,440.

Conclusions
Franchise Fee
The FY 2022-23 Franchise Fee paid Contractor to the City was $407,921 and the actual for FY 2023-24 was $432,818. The sum of FY 2023-24 annual City’s Costs and Property Use Charges calculated in this Study is $1,016,050, which is $521,152 (51%) higher than the FY 2023-24 Franchise Fee payments. The Franchise Fee is, therefore, not more than the sum of the City’s Costs and Property Use Charges.

AB 939 Fee
The FY 2022-23 AB 939 Fee paid Contractor to the City was $61,948 and the actual for FY 2023-24 was $62,080. The FY 2023-24 annual AB 939/SB 1383 City’s Costs calculated in this Study are $73,486, which is $11,406 (16%) higher than the FY 2023-24 AB 939 Fee payments. The AB 939 Fee is, therefore, not more than the sum of the City’s Costs for contract and programs associated with AB 939 and SB 1383 compliance.

Vehicle Impact Fee
The Pavement Impacts associated with the vehicles used in the solid waste system collection (refuse, recyclables and organics) are calculated at an annual value of $1,703,440. Should the City wish to implement a Vehicle Impact Fee, the annual amount collected by the Contractor should not be greater than this amount. Because the legal landscape for such fees remains unsettled, if the City does implement a Vehicle Impact Fee, we recommend setting the fee at a conservatively lower amount.

Limitations
This Study relies on information provided by the City, which we have reviewed and analyzed for reasonableness and accuracy but did not independently audit or verify. It was necessary to estimate certain values for information that the City did not have, and for which reasonable ranges are known to exist. When it was necessary to establish estimates or assumptions for those values, R3 relied on decades of professional experience working with dozens of local government agencies in California on solid waste utility and other local government public administration matters. Because changes to estimates and other underlying assumptions could change calculations, R3’s approach to this Study was to establish reasonable estimates and assumptions such that changes to them would minimize the potential for different ultimate findings. We have reviewed estimates and assumptions with City staff and legal counsel and have mutual concurrence on applicability and reasonableness of estimated and assumed values in this Study.

2. METHODOLOGY & CALCULATIONS
City of Pinole | Solid Waste Franchise Fee Study – R3 Report 3 of 21 City’s Costs
Methodology
R3 reviewed and analyzed information provided by the City pertaining to the General Fund costs incurred for management, administration, regulatory compliance and enforcement, solid waste collection and clean-up, and other obligations associated with the Contractor’s Agreement and the sanitation system.

These costs include and may not be limited to:
» Staffing costs, including salaries and benefits.
» Contracted services.
» Capital and equipment operations and maintenance.
» Supplies and materials.
» Overhead for distributed costs such as property, utilities, insurance, human resources, payroll administration, accounts payable and receivable, and other finance functions.

Using the total annual salary, benefit, and other cost information provided by the City, we estimated the proportion of costs associated with management and administration of the agreement and the sanitation system. We then calculated the proportionate totals and categorized them by the functions listed in the sections below.

Variables, Estimates and Assumptions
Staffing Costs
Variables associated with salaries and benefits include the allocation of time that positions are dedicated to management and administration of the Agreement and the sanitation system (including time supervising others with primary responsibility for these duties), the amount by which funding of salaries and benefits is paid by the General Fund, and the applicable amount of General Fund overhead.

The estimated time allocation by position category used in this Study (and based on historical experience) is shown in Table 1, on the following page, along with the explanation for the allocation values.

Methodology & Calculations
City of Pinole | Solid Waste Franchise Fee Study – R3 Report 4 of 21 Table 1: Allocations of Staffing Time by Position
Positions Time
Allocation Explanation
CITY MANAGEMENT - City Manager
(5%), Finance Director (5%), City Clerk
(3%), Public Works Director (10%) and
Capital Improvement Manager (5%)
3-10%
Estimated allocation representing proportion
of staff time spent on solid waste
Agreement and sanitation utility
management and administration. This
estimated allocation is informed by our prior
work experience in local governments as
well as our experience conducting similar
studies for local governments in California.

Public Works Maintenance Staff Varies
Estimated actual time spent by staff on
direct support of the sanitation system
associated with street sweeping, catch
basin cleaning, public solid waste
receptacle collection, illegal dumping cleanup, tree trimming for large vehicle access, pavement repair and city events clean-up.

R3 verified with City staff that the salaries and benefits included in this Study are paid by the General Fund – any non-General Fund portions of positions included in Table 1 have been excluded from the calculations. A General Fund overhead rate of 10% (for the distributed costs such as property, utilities, insurance, human resources, payroll administration, accounts payable and receivable, and other finance functions) is also applied to the total allocated costs. The 10% General Fund overhead rate used in this Study is an assumption informed by our prior work experience in local governments as well as our experience conducting similar studies for local governments in California. In our experience, when a City does calculate a General Fund overhead rate on its own, the result tends to be higher than the 10% used for the purposes of this Study (e.g., 25% or greater).

Other Costs
Variables associated with the City’s other (i.e., non-salary and benefit) costs include the proportionate allocation of those costs that are for management and administration of the Agreement and the sanitation system, the amount by which these costs are paid by the General Fund, and the applicable amount of General Fund overhead. The estimated time allocation by cost category used in this Study is shown in Table 2, on the next page, along with the explanation for the allocation values.

Methodology & Calculations
City of Pinole | Solid Waste Franchise Fee Study – R3 Report 5 of 21 Table 2: Allocations of Other Costs by Category
Cost Category Cost
Allocation Explanation
Consulting and legal costs for direct
and indirect management and
administration of Agreement and
sanitation system.
100%
All these costs are directly associated with
management and administration of the
Agreement and the sanitation system.

Catch Basin Waste Removal, Street
Sweeping, Illegal Dumping, and Tree
Trimming
80%
Estimated allocation based on proportion of such
activities that are associated with sanitation
services in the City (i.e., the proportion of waste
that is generated by Contractor’s solid waste
customers in the City compared to overall waste
generation in the City).

CalRecycle & SB 1383 Compliance,
Implementation and Enforcement
Costs and Public Solid Waste
Receptable Collection Costs
100%
All these costs are directly associated with
sanitation services in the City (i.e., the proportion
of waste that is generated by Contractor’s solid
waste customers in the City compared to overall
waste generation in the City).

R3 verified with City staff that the other costs included in this Study are paid by the General Fund – any non-General Fund portions of these costs as included in Table 2 have been excluded from the calculations. A General Fund overhead rate of 10% (for the for distributed costs such as property, utilities, insurance, human resources, payroll administration, accounts payable and receivable, and other finance functions) is also applied to the total allocated costs.

Analysis
Direct Management and Administration
This category includes City staffing and consulting costs for direct management and administration of the Agreement and the sanitation system, for a calculated $187,680 in annual staffing costs. Other costs include solid waste consulting services provided by R3 and other consultants, for $55,000 in annualized consulting costs for the cost of performing this Study as well as other activities necessary to support the management and oversight of the solid waste system utilizing consultants and temporary employees. The total calculated cost for this category is $242,680.

Indirect Management and Administration
This category includes City staffing costs for indirect management and administration, including supervision of those responsible for direct management and administration of the Agreement and the sanitation system and associated responsibilities. Allocated annual costs for staffing in this category are $64,285. There are no “Other costs” associated with this category.

CalRecycle and SB 1383 Compliance
This category includes City staff costs and other costs for various activities associated with the City’s need to implement Senate Bill 1383 (Short-Lived Climate Pollutants Act) as well as annual reporting to the State agency CalRecycle. There are $73,486 in “Other costs” included in this category.

Code Enforcement
This category would include City staffing costs for enforcing the solid waste provisions of the City’s Municipal Code, which includes illegal solid waste accumulations, illegal dumping, littering, improper

Methodology & Calculations
City of Pinole | Solid Waste Franchise Fee Study – R3 Report 6 of 21 waste collection setouts, nuisances, and the associated investigations, warnings, notices of violation, and administration of penalties. No costs associated with this category were identified by the City during completion of this Study. Though no such costs were identified, that does not mean that these costs do not exist. Future updates to this Study could result in identification of such costs.

Street Sweeping
This category includes $45,976 in City staffing costs and equipment, and operations and maintenance costs of $19,572 for the City’s street sweeping operations. Therefore, total costs associated with this category are $65,548.

Catch Basin Waste Removal
Solid waste that is not properly managed by waste generators or the Contractor, and not otherwise captured by street sweeping operations, accumulates in catch basins and other trash capture devices in the City’s storm drain system.

For the purposes of this Study, we do not assume that all mismanaged solid waste that ends up on the City’s catch basin system is generated by properties receiving solid waste services. Rather, because there is the possibility that some solid waste collected by catch basin waste removal operations was originally generated by other sources, this Study estimates that only 80% of the solid waste collected by catch basins was generated by properties receiving solid waste services. This assumption is consistent with other studies conducted by R3 (e.g., for the cities of Garden Grove and San Bruno) wherein street sweeping activities were allocated between 77.4% and 90% to the sanitation system.

This category includes City staffing, capital equipment, and operations and maintenance costs for the City’s catch basin waste removal operations. Allocated staffing costs for the Public Works maintenance crews are calculated to be $26,024 annually. The allocated and annualized costs for equipment are calculated to be $4,185 annually, for a calculated total in this category of $30,209.

Illegal Dumping Clean-up
The City’s Public Works maintenance crews also clean up solid waste materials that are illegally dumped throughout the City. As with catch basin waste removal, an 80% waste generation allocation is applied.

This category includes $13,663 in personnel costs and $1,588 in equipment to remove illegal dumping from rights-of-way and is calculated to be an annual cost of $15,250.

Public Waste Containers
This category includes City staff costs and other costs for collection of waste deposited in public waste containers in public rights-of-way and other public locations in the City, for a calculated annual cost of $75,395.

Waste Collection at City Events
This category includes City staff costs of $5,964 for collection of waste generated and disposed of at City public events.

Tree Trimming for Vehicle Access to Public Right-of-Way This category includes City staff costs of $47,711 and other costs of $27,488 for a total of $75,198 for trimming of the City’s street trees to provide safe clearance for collection vehicles to collect solid waste from the public right-of-way.

Annual Total of City’s Costs
Table 3, on the next page, shows the total of the City’s Costs for management and administration of the Agreement and the sanitation system as calculated in this Study, by category.

Methodology & Calculations
City of Pinole | Solid Waste Franchise Fee Study – R3 Report 7 of 21 Table 3: City’s Annual Costs by Category and in Total
Category Staffing Costs Other Costs Total
Direct Management &
Administration $187,680 $55,000 $242,680
Indirect Management &
Administration $64,285 $- $64,285
CalRecycle & SB 1383 Compliance,
Implementation & Enforcement $- $73,486 $73,486
Street Sweeping $45,976 $19,572 $65,548
Catch Basin Waste Removal $26,024 $4,185 $30,209
Illegal Dumping Response, Cleanup, Mitigation, & Prevention $13,663 $1,588 $15,250 Public Solid Waste Receptable
Collection $70,482 $4,913 $75,395
City Events Solid Waste Collection $5,964 $- $5,964
Tree Trimming for Large Vehicle
Curbside Access $47,711 $27,488 $75,198
Total Annual City’s Costs $461,784 $112,745 $574,529
Property Use Charges
Methodology
R3 reviewed and analyzed information provided by the City and the Contractor pertaining to Property Use Charges for Contractor’s use of the public right-of-way for collection of solid waste collection containers.

They then calculated the annual Property Use Charges based on:
» The setout area used for collection of solid waste containers (in square feet). » The amount of time that the area is used.
» The market value for use of the public right-of-way (in dollars per square foot). » The number of solid waste subscribers setting out collection containers in the public rightof-way.

Using these values, we calculated the market value for the Contractor’s use of government property in the City.

Methodology & Calculations
City of Pinole | Solid Waste Franchise Fee Study – R3 Report 8 of 21 Variables, Estimates, and Assumptions
Setout Area
Standard residential solid waste collection setouts include three solid waste collection containers, usually carts with wheels and lids, with one each for garbage, recycling, and organics waste streams. The setout area needed for placement of these containers is inclusive of the width of each container (typically two feet) as well as minimum required space between the containers and other objects such as cars (minimum of one feet). The set-out area also takes up available parking space and is, thus, assumed to extend six feet out from the curb. Taken altogether, the area for residential setouts is calculated as three containers that are each two feet wide, plus one foot between each container and other objects, for a total area ten feet wide times six feet in depth. The result is 60 square feet of setout area per serviced singlefamily residential property.

The amount of area used for commercial setouts (in this Study, use of the term commercial also always includes multi-family) can vary widely, as there is no standard commercial subscription size profile – each commercial solid waste subscriber can select from a range of container sizes, with most of them being larger than the containers used in residential areas. Given this complexity, this Study assumes that the average commercial setout area is twice that of the residential setout area, for 120 square feet. This estimate is likely lower than the average setout area needed in commercial areas and is, therefore, conservative.

Setout Time Usage
Standard residential solid waste collection is performed once weekly. Most residential containers are set out the evening prior to collection and are removed from the public right-of-way the following afternoon.

Thus, for the purposes of this Study, we assume that collection containers are in the public right-of-way for an average of 18 hours per day, one day per week, which amounts to approximately 10.71% of the time (18 hours divided by 24 per day divided by 7 days per week).

Commercial solid waste subscription setout times can vary widely – just as there is no standard commercial subscription size profile, likewise there is no standard collection frequency. Commercial solid waste subscribers can select collection frequency between once and six times per week, and with different frequencies for different waste streams. Given this complexity, this Study assumes that the average commercial collection frequently is twice weekly, 21.43% of the time. As with the setout area, this estimate is likely lower than the average commercial collection frequency and is, therefore, conservative.

Market Value for Use of Public Right-of-Way
To establish the market value for use of the public right-of-way, R3 conducted an online survey of recent purchases of bare land in the City and locally along the I-80 corridor between Hercules and Berkeley. R3 sampled twenty recent sales of bare land in the City, El Sobrante and Rodeo, which were sold for a median of $10.66 per square foot. To that value, R3 added the per square foot value of the City’s street pavement, which is calculated as a function of the total replacement value of the City’s streets ($140,414,777) divided by the area of the streets in square feet (10,290,677) both of which are contained in the City’s 2023-24 Pavement Management Program (PMP) Update (see next section).

The resultant value of the street improvements is $13.64 per square foot, which, when added to the $10.66 market value of bare land, yields $24.31 per square foot. This value is then divided by a rental realization rate of 1.89 (which is based on the estimated ratio of what it costs to purchase a property versus rent it) for a total annual per square foot use charge for the public right-of-way of $12.84. R3 believes this value to be conservative – other methodologies that could have been applied would have resulted in a higher estimated market value for the use of the public right-of-way. For example, had this Study used “parklet rental fee” charges (e.g., use of the public right-of-way for commercial activities like restaurant seating) established in other California communities, with an approximate average annual per

Methodology & Calculations
City of Pinole | Solid Waste Franchise Fee Study – R3 Report 9 of 21 square foot value of $15.00 per square foot, the results from this Study would be higher than estimated herein.1
Number of Subscriptions Setting Out Containers
The Contractor reports that there are 5,859 residential and 382 commercial solid waste service subscribers in the City. However, not all subscribers set out their containers in the public right-of-way for collection all the time. To account for non-setouts (either because subscribers don’t have waste materials to set out or because they receive on-premises service) we conservatively assume that only 90% of residential solid waste subscribers set out containers on a regular basis, for a resulting total of 5,273 average residential setouts. This 90% assumption is informed by our work overseeing solid waste collection operations for local governments throughout California; from that experience, we know that almost all residential solid waste customers set out their solid waste containers for collection each week (with the exceptions being when residents are on vacation or generate exceptionally low amounts of waste). The City’s Contractor provides weekly collection of solid waste containers to all residents.

It is also understood that most commercial subscribers do not set out containers in the public right-of-way, and therefore we conservatively assume that only 5% of commercial subscribers set out containers on a regular basis, for a resulting total of 19 average commercial setouts. The assumed 5% set-out rate for commercial customers is almost certainly low – were one to take field observations for these values, we believe that the actual rates of set-out would be higher than used for the purposes of this Study. However, we use the 5% set-out assumption for commercial subscribers in this Study as data regarding use of the public right-of-way by commercial subscribers in the City is not available.

Analysis and Total Annual Property Use Charges
Calculating the total annual Property Use Charges using the variables, estimates, and assumptions from the prior section is a function of multiplication, as shown in Table 4, below.

Table 4: Calculation of Total Annual Property Use Charges Variable Category Residential Commercial
Grand Total Annual
Property Use Charge
Setout Area 60 SF 120 SF
Setout Time Usage 10.71% 21.43%
Annual Use Charge $12.84 per SF $12.84 per SF
Number of Setouts 5,273 19
Total Annual Property
Use Charges $435,248 $6,273 $441,521
1 Had this Study used a $15 per square foot market value for the use of the public right-of-way, the resulting total annual property use charge would have been $515,797 – more than 17 percent higher than the amount used in this Study and shown in Table 4.

Methodology & Calculations
City of Pinole | Solid Waste Franchise Fee Study – R3 Report 10 of 21 Pavement Impacts
Methodology
R3 reviewed and analyzed information provided by the City pertaining to Pavement Impacts from the Contractor’s solid waste collection vehicles. We then calculated estimates of the proportionate share of the average annual pavement repair, maintenance, and rehabilitation costs associated with solid waste collection vehicles based on the proportionate impact to pavement from solid waste collection vehicle compared to other sources of impacts. Note that this analysis does not include Contractor’s street sweeping vehicles – if those vehicles were included in this analysis, the calculated Pavement Impacts would be slightly higher than shown in this Study.

The calculation accounts for the City’s annual repair costs, five-year projections for capital improvement costs, and five-year projections for annualized growth in deferred maintenance. The calculation also accounts for the high loading and slow speed impacts on pavement associated with solid waste collection vehicles.

The calculation proportionately allocates the average annual pavement management costs to solid waste vehicles based on:
» The equivalent single-axle load and proportionate impacts from speed for those vehicles compared to other vehicles.
» The number of vehicle trips on City streets.
» The proportion of vehicle trips that are made by trucks versus automobiles.2 Variables, Estimates, and Assumptions
The weight, loading, slow speed, and frequent stops that characterize solid waste collection vehicle operations impose unique and quantifiable impacts on the City’s street pavement. It is important to understand that, while calculation of vehicle impacts to pavement can be precise for individual vehicles, out of necessity we made certain assumptions about overall blended pavement impacts associated with several categories of vehicle types for the purposes of this Study. This is because we sought to calculate estimated impacts to all street pavement in the City, covering all vehicle uses, and precise traffic information at that scale is not currently available. Thus, we make informed assumptions regarding several variables necessary for this Study.

For each of these variables, there is a range of potentially reasonable values that may be used. We have selected values at the low end of the range to present findings that conservatively calculate estimated values of the pavement impacts associated with the Contractor’s solid waste collection vehicles during the course of providing sanitation service. Assumptions used are described in the following subsections, which reference sources supporting the summary provided here. We must note that changes in assumptions may result in material changes in calculation results and findings.

Factors Impacting Pavement Conditions
Street pavement repair, maintenance, and rehabilitation needs and their resulting costs are affected by several factors, including vehicle usage and utility cuts (for maintenance and repairs to underground utilities). Environmental conditions such as light and water also contribute to pavement repair, 2 Our analysis accounts for the distribution of vehicles among the 13 Federal Highway Administration vehicle classifications, which include passenger cars, SUVs/pick-ups, buses, and multiple truck and truck/trailer axle combinations.

Methodology & Calculations
City of Pinole | Solid Waste Franchise Fee Study – R3 Report 11 of 21 maintenance, and rehabilitation needs in combination with the primary impacts from vehicles and trench cuts, and thus not separately accounted for. This Study only focuses on the impacts to street pavement from vehicles, and the proportion of those impacts that are attributable to the Contractor’s solid waste collection vehicles as they perform sanitation service.

City’s Costs for Pavement Repair, Maintenance and Rehabilitation This Study accounts for the City’s annual “light maintenance” costs of pavement repairs for FY 2023-24 in which the City spent approximately $61,589 from the General Fund for street maintenance” activities performed by its Public Works Department. Additionally, the General Fund overhead rate of 10% (for the distributed costs such as property, utilities, insurance, human resources, payroll administration, accounts payable and receivable, and other finance functions) is also applied to the total allocated costs for “light maintenance” similarly to other City costs.

The City regularly projects its costs for “heavy maintenance” and rehabilitation of pavement resulting from degradation due to use. These projections, and the basis for them, are documented in the Pavement Management Program Update (PMP) reports which the City commissions with engineering consultants.

Per the City’s March 2024 PMP Update report (scenario 2), the City’s projected average annual pavement “heavy maintenance” and rehabilitation costs from 2024 through 2028 for its entire street network, are approximately $800,000.

City’s Costs Deferred Maintenance
The City regularly projects its costs for repair, maintenance, and rehabilitation of pavement resulting from degradation due to use. These projections, and the basis for them, are documented in the City’s 2024 PMP Update. Per the PMP, deferred pavement maintenance on the City’s streets3 (which is the result of degrading pavement conditions associated with the impacts of vehicles and that is not funded for repair during the planning term) is projected to increase by $18,361,430 between FY 2023-24 and FY 2027-28, which is $3,672,286 per year.4 Deferred maintenance is the result of impacts to pavement that should be subject to repair or rehabilitation, but for which such repair or rehabilitation is not planned due to funding constraints. Though repair or rehabilitation of the deferred maintenance impact is not planned, the pavement condition is impacted, in part due to solid waste collection vehicles and the City must address the deferred maintenance eventually. If deferred maintenance were never to be funded and addressed via repair and rehabilitation, pavement conditions would degrade to the point of being unnavigable by vehicles.

Axle Loading
Our methodology for calculating the proportionate amount of pavement maintenance, and rehabilitation impacts for the Contractor’s vehicles is grounded in the fact that all vehicles, including solid waste collection vehicles, degrade pavement during use. Measurement of that impact – also known as “vehicle loading” – can be estimated, quantified, and expressed as an Equivalent Single Axle Load (ESAL), which is a function of the vehicle’s weight and the distribution of that weight over the vehicle’s axles.

It is important to note that heavier vehicles (including solid waste vehicles) have more impacts on pavement and have a higher vehicle loading ESAL value. It is also important to note that ESAL values are associated 3 Deferred maintenance is planned maintenance that gets delayed and backlogged because of a lack of funding.

Deferred maintenance costs remain on the books until they are funded and the work is completed and recategorized in the City’s PMP.
4 Our analysis assumes funding based on the City’s budgeted pavement maintenance costs as presented in the PMP under Scenario 2 “Expected Annual Budget ($800 thousand)”.

Methodology & Calculations
City of Pinole | Solid Waste Franchise Fee Study – R3 Report 12 of 21 with vehicle loading only, and not the speed of the vehicle; it is therefore assumed that relative ESAL values between vehicle types are based on vehicles travelling at the same rate of speed.

For this analysis, R3 used the vehicle categories and average ESAL values shown in Table 5, below. Table 5 explains and cites supporting information for how the ESAL for each vehicle type was determined. It should be noted that solid waste collection vehicles are much heavier than most other typical vehicles on City roadways.

Table 5: ESAL Value Assumptions by Vehicle Type
Vehicle Type ESAL
Value Source
Automobiles (Passenger Cars) 0.0008
AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials) Design Guide with ESALs by
Vehicle Type
Average of All Other Trucks5 0.0171
Calculated Value Using AASHTO Design Guide with
ESALs by Vehicle Type, Federal Highway Administration
ESALs by Vehicle Type, Comparative Traffic Counts
Solid Waste Vehicle (Garbage) 1.0000
Calculated Values by Type Using Example Axle Weights
and AASHTO Axle Load Equivalency Factors Solid Waste Vehicle (Organics) 1.0000 Solid Waste Vehicle (Recycling) 0.7500
Given the assumed ESAL values in Table 5, a solid waste vehicle collecting garbage has 1,250 times the impact of an automobile. We are aware of other research concluding that the impacts of solid waste collection vehicles may be as high as 8,000-9,000 times the impact of passenger cars; thus, our assumed ESAL of “1” for garbage collection vehicles is on the low end of the range of ESALs for such vehicles.

Speed Impact
Impacts to flexible pavements (which are typical for residential streets) are also influenced by vehicle speeds, with impacts being exponentially higher when a load carrying vehicle is moving at a very slow speed.6 This is demonstrated in Chart 1, on the following page. 5 “All other trucks” means all vehicles with high loading and impact on street pavement other than solid waste vehicles, including pickup trucks, vans, box trucks, and a variety of other trucks with a lower average ESAL than solid waste collection vehicles.
6 Effect of truck speed on the response of flexible pavement systems to traffic loading; International Journal of Pavement Engineering, July 2020; Michael R. S. Mshali and Wynand JvdM. Steyn.

Methodology & Calculations
City of Pinole | Solid Waste Franchise Fee Study – R3 Report 13 of 21 Chart 1: Exponential Relationship Between Speed and Pavement Impacts Unlike typical traffic on residential streets, which tends to travel at or near the posted speed limit (25 miles per hour [mph] in the City), solid waste vehicles slow and stop for collection in front of each household, averaging approximately 4 mph to 8 mph.7 At these low speeds, and as shown in Chart 1, vehicles have approximately 2.2 to 2.6 times the impact to the pavement than they would travelling only at the 25 mph speed limit.

In this Study we conservatively assume that solid waste vehicles in the City may be travelling at a faster 10 mph average speed, and we thus assume that the relative impact of speed is a factor of 2, not the higher

2.2 to 2.6 factors corresponding with slower speeds as noted above. We apply this speed factor of 2 as a multiplier to the ESAL loading for solid waste collection vehicles in our analysis of impacts to residential streets only; the factor is not applied to the ESAL loading for arterial and collector streets, as those streets are not typically comprised of flexible pavements, solid waste collection vehicles stop less frequently on those streets (and thus have a higher average speed).

Vehicle Passes Per Day
By estimating the number and type of vehicles (i.e., solid waste collection vehicles, automobiles, and all other trucks) that travel on a street, and the average pavement impacts (measured in ESAL loading) associated with each vehicle type (described in the prior subsection), the total impacts that the pavement will experience can be estimated in a mathematical calculation. Our analysis makes informed assumptions about the number of vehicle passes (meaning trips down streets) by type for the two major types of streets identified by the City in its PMSU. Those two types of streets are: high-traffic-volume streets (namely arterial and collector streets) and low-traffic-volume streets (residential streets). Specific data for the City relating to the number of vehicle passes per day and the proportion of those passes that are comprised of trucks was not available for this Study.

For the low-traffic residential streets, we used an estimate of 582 vehicle passes per day based on City traffic counts. We also estimated that 5% of residential traffic trips were made by trucks, which we believe 7 Real-world activity, fuel use, and emissions of heavy-duty compressed natural gas refuse trucks; Science of the Total Environment 761, 2021; Gurdas S. Sandhu, H. Christopher Frey, Shannon Bartelt-Hunt, Elizabeth Jones.

0.00 0.50

1.00 1.50

2.00 2.50

3.00 3.50
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
Relative Impact
Average Speed (MPH)

Methodology & Calculations
City of Pinole | Solid Waste Franchise Fee Study – R3 Report 14 of 21 to be a conservative assumption – in communities where traffic trip information by vehicle type is available, the result is less than 5%, which yields a greater proportionate impact from solid waste vehicles.

For arterial and collector streets, we used an estimate of 14,972 passes per day based on City traffic counts.

For the percentage of those trips that are trucks, we started with a calculated value based on comparative traffic counts from the City of Torrance in 2023 and which is the same dataset that we used to estimate the average ESAL for “All other trucks” in Table 5. That analysis calculates the average daily traffic counts for all vehicles on commercial streets in that city, with 87.7% of the average daily traffic count being comprised of passenger cars and motorcycles and the remaining 12.3% being comprised of trucks. For the purposes of this Study, we have assumed an even higher percentage of arterial and collector street traffic being trucks, at 15% of the average daily traffic. As with the prior assumptions, this value is conservative in that it returns a low proportionate value for the impacts to streets from the Contractor’s solid waste vehicles.

Table 6, below, is a summary of the assumptions used in this Study related to average daily vehicles passes and the percentage that are trucks assumptions used in this Study.

Table 6: Vehicle Passes Per Day by Street Type
Street Type Vehicle Passes Per Day Percentage of Vehicle Passes That Are Trucks
Residential 582 5%
Arterial and Collector 14,972 15%
Vehicle Passes By Vehicle Type
The variables described in the prior subsection provide the overall number of vehicle passes per day, and the percentage of those passes that are trucks. To isolate the vehicle loading impacts to pavement associated with solid waste collection vehicles, we need to determine the number of passes that those vehicles make per day. This is a relatively simple calculation based on the weekly schedule of collections for solid waste collection services.

For the low-traffic residential streets, solid waste collection operations are on a weekly schedule. Since weekly collections are on both sides of the street, each street is driven twice (once in each direction) by a minimum of one of each type of solid waste collection vehicle. For the purposes of this Study, we assume that each solid waste collection vehicle makes two passes per week, or 0.286 passes per day, on residential streets. This value does not account for the fact that some streets are driven on during nonroute days so that collection vehicles can access streets on a given route, meaning that the actual average passes per week in the City must be higher than stated above.

Using the lower passes per week is conservative in that it returns a lower result for the street impacts from the Contractor’s solid waste vehicles. For the high-traffic arterial and collector streets, which are primarily commercial, the schedule for solid waste collection can vary. Solid waste collection services may be provided up to five or six times a week for larger waste generators and may be as low as weekly for smaller generators. Additionally, because solid waste generators in commercial areas are not all on the same collection schedules as residential accounts are, vehicles in commercial areas pass over the same streets multiple times to serve accounts with different collection schedules.

For the purposes of this Study, for arterial and collector streets, we assume that solid waste collection vehicles collecting garbage for landfill disposal pass over each street two times per day (once in each direction), while solid waste collection vehicles for organics and recycling pass over each street once per day (one half in each direction). Total passes for organics and recycling collection vehicles are less because it is generally the case that service levels for garbage are at least twice those of the corresponding organics or recycling service level. As with the number of passes on residential streets, this value does not account for the fact that some streets are driven on during non-route days so that

Methodology & Calculations
City of Pinole | Solid Waste Franchise Fee Study – R3 Report 15 of 21 collection vehicles can access streets on a given route, meaning that the actual average passes per week in the City must be higher than stated above. Using the lower passes per week is conservative in that it returns a lower result for the pavement impacts from the Contractor’s solid waste vehicles.

The number of passes per day for the remaining vehicle types – automobiles and other trucks – are simply calculated as a function of the total number of daily passes, the total number of those that are trucks (based on the percentages discussed in the prior section), and the number of passes for solid waste collection vehicles. For example, for the City’s residential streets, given the assumed 582 passes per day and 5% (29) of those being trucks, there are 553 automobile passes per day (582 x 95%). With three types of solid waste collection vehicles each passing 0.286 times per day (as described above), the total passes per day are 0.857 (3 x 0.286). The number of passes for all other trucks is 28.243 (29 minus

0.857). Table 7, below, provides a summary of vehicle passes per day by street type.

Table 7: Vehicle Passes Per Day by Vehicle Type and Street Type Vehicle Type Residential Streets Arterial and Collector Streets Automobiles (Passenger Cars) 552.900 12,726.509
Average of All Other Trucks 28.243 2,242.997
Solid Waste Vehicle (Garbage) 0.286 1.429
Solid Waste Vehicle (Organics) 0.286 0.714
Solid Waste Vehicle (Recycling) 0.286 0.714
Total 582 14,972
Percentage of Streets by Type
A final variable that needs to be addressed is the percentage of streets by type. This information is included in the City’s PMSU, including the relative area by street type, as shown in Table 8, below.

Table 8: Percentage of Streets by Type
Street Type Area (Square Feet) Percentage of Area
Residential 6,511,401 63.3%
Arterial 2,113,863 20.5%
Collector 1,665,413 16.2%
Total 10,290,677 100%

Methodology & Calculations
City of Pinole | Solid Waste Franchise Fee Study – R3 Report 16 of 21 Analysis
Percentage Impact for Solid Waste Vehicles by Street Type With the variables for ESAL by vehicle type, the multiplication factor for the relative impacts of speed for solid waste collection vehicles on residential streets, and the number of passes by vehicle type established, we then calculate the relative percentage impact associated with each vehicle type. This is calculated as a function of ESAL multiplied by speed factor (residential streets only) multiplied by the number of weekly passes, multiplied by ESAL, with the product being the total vehicle loading pavement impact by vehicle type per week.

Totaling the weekly total vehicle loading by vehicle types yields the total estimated loading experienced by each street type (residential vs. arterial and collector). From there, we calculate the percentage contribution to total vehicle loading for solid waste collection vehicles, which is the total weekly ESAL loading associated with solid waste collection vehicles divided by the total ESAL loading for the street.

Table 9, below, and Table 10, on the following page, show these calculations and the results.

Table 9: Calculation of Solid Waste Pavement Impacts – Residential Streets

A B C D E F
Vehicle Type
Average
ESAL /
Vehicle
(Per Table
5)
Relative
Impact
from
Speed
Passes /
Day /
Vehicle
Type
(Per Table
7)
Passes /
Week /
Vehicle
Type
(C x 7)
Total
Weekly
ESAL
Loading
(A x B x D)
Percent of
Total
ESAL
Loading
(E / 17.48)
Automobiles 0.0008 1x 552.900 3,870 3.10 17.72%
All Other Trucks 0.0171 1x 28.243 198 3.38 19.34%
Garbage Vehicles 1.0000 2x 0.286 2 4.00 22.89%
Organic Material Vehicles 1.0000 2x 0.286 2 4.00 22.89% Recycling Vehicles 0.7500 2x 0.286 2 3.00 17.17%
Total 582 4,074 17.48 100%
As shown in Table 9, for the City’s residential streets we calculated the percentage impacts for solid waste vehicles to be 62.94% of total impacts to residential street pavement (22.89% times 2 plus 17.17%).

Methodology & Calculations
City of Pinole | Solid Waste Franchise Fee Study – R3 Report 17 of 21 Table 10: Calculation of Solid Waste Vehicle Impacts – Arterial and Collector Streets

A B C E F
Vehicle Type
Average
ESAL /
Vehicle
(Per Table 5)
Passes /
Day /
Vehicle Type
(Per Table 7)
Passes /
Week /
Vehicle Type
(B x 7)
Total Weekly
ESAL
Loading
(A x C)
Percent of
Total ESAL
Loading
(E / 358.51)
Automobiles 0.0008 12,726.509 89,086 71.27 19.88%
All Other Trucks 0.0171 2,242.997 15,701 268.49 74.89%
Garbage Vehicles 1.0000 1.429 10 10.00 2.79%
Organic Material Vehicles 1.0000 0.714 5 5.00 1.39%
Recycling Vehicles 0.7500 0.714 5 3.75 1.05%
Total 14,972 104,807 358.51 100%
For the City’s arterial and collector streets, Table 10 calculates the percentage impact from solid waste vehicles to be 5.23% of the total impacts (2.79% plus 1.39% plus 1.05%).

Sources of Pavement Impacts
The City’s projected pavement maintenance repair needs are assumed to include impacts to pavement caused by vehicles and utility cuts. This Study assumes that the impacts of utility cuts on the City’s streets to be 10% of all pavement repair, maintenance, and rehabilitation needs. Thus, this Study allocates 90% of the average annual pavement repair, maintenance, and rehabilitation needs to vehicle impacts.

The 10% assumption for the value of impacts related to utility cuts is, in part, based on experience working in local government street maintenance operations, wherein pavement repair and rehabilitation needs for utility cuts were a fraction of overall pavement repair and rehabilitation needs. The 10% assumption if further informed by the Federal Highway Administration’s Manual for Controlling and Reducing the Frequency of Pavement Utility Cuts8 which references a case study from the District of Columbia in 1996 wherein “the combined area of the utility cuts in the District was over one percent of the total pavement surface area.” This Study further considers that the costs to repair and rehabilitate pavement that has been impacted by utility cuts is approximately double the costs to repair and rehabilitate pavement without utility cuts.9 Taken together, the 10% assumption for the pavement repair and rehabilitation amount associated with utility cuts used in this Study contemplates up to 5% of pavement service area being affected by utility cuts (nearly five times the area cited in the Federal Highway Administration Manual) at double the repair and rehabilitation costs for pavement not affected by 8 https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/utilities/utilitycuts/man01.cfm 9 Analysis of the Impact of Utility Cuts on Rehabilitation Costs in Santa Cruz County, CA; November 2002; Shahin & Associates Pavement Engineering.

Methodology & Calculations
City of Pinole | Solid Waste Franchise Fee Study – R3 Report 18 of 21 utility cuts. The results of the 10% assumption for the impacts of utility cuts is demonstrated in Table 11, below.10

Table 11: Average Annual Pavement Impacts from Vehicles Category Amount of Impacts
from All Sources
Reduction for Utility
Cuts
Amount of Impacts
from Vehicles
Average Annualized
Repair $861,589 -10% $775,430
Average Annualized
Deferred Maintenance $3,672,286 -10% $3,305,057
Total $4,533,875 -10% $4,080,488
Table 12, below, shows the breakdown of the average annual pavement impacts from all vehicles by street type, using the total from Table 11.

Table 12: Total Pavement Impacts from Vehicles by Street Type Variable Residential Arterial and Collector Total
Percentage of Streets
by Type (From Table 8) 63.3% 36.7% 100%
Total $2,581,919 $1,498,569 $4,080,488
Total Annual Pavement Impacts
Calculating the total annual Pavement Impacts using the variables, estimates, and assumptions from the prior section is a function of multiplication, as shown in Table 13, on the following page. 10 R3 is aware of a Study conducted by another consultant that found a higher percentage for the impacts of trench cutting (i.e., 25%). R3 has not had opportunity to review that study or the basis its conclusion. However, if this Study were to have used a 25% factor for the impacts of trench cutting, rather than 10%, the result would not change our ultimate findings. This is because using a 25% factor rather than a 10% factor would result in a reduction in the value of the total pavement impacts from Contractor’s vehicles shown in Table 13 by $678,234.

Methodology & Calculations
City of Pinole | Solid Waste Franchise Fee Study – R3 Report 19 of 21 Table 13: Calculation of Total Pavement Impacts from Contractor’s Vehicles Variables Residential Arterial and Collector
Grand Total
Annual Pavement Impacts
from Vehicles (From
Table 12)
$2,581,919 $1,498,569
Percentage Impacts from
Contractor’s Vehicles
(From Tables 9 and 10)

62.94% 5.23%
Total $1,625,065 $78,376 $1,703,440

3. FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS
City of Pinole | Solid Waste Franchise Fee Study – R3 Report 20 of 21 Franchise Fee
» The FY 2022-23 Franchise Fee paid to the City was $407,921 and the FY 2023-24 amount was $432,818.
» R3 calculated estimates of the City’s Costs and Property Use Charges based on actual and estimated cost information provided by the City, and with conservative assumptions for estimated values. The sum of FY 2023-24 annual City’s Costs ($574,529) and Property Use Charges ($441,521) calculated in this Study is $1,016,050. » Where assumptions were necessary to complete the analysis in this Study, attempts were made to apply conservative assumptions given a range of possible inputs. » The City’s Costs have been reviewed and confirmed by City staff as being representative of the actual time and costs incurred for these activities. Amounts of Property Use Charges are proportionately allocated to the Contractor with due recognition of the realities of the Contractor’s operations.
» The amounts calculated in this Study are $521,152 (51%) higher than the projected FY 2023-24 Franchise Fee payments.
» The Franchise Fee therefore is not more than necessary to cover the City’s costs incurred in managing and administering the Agreement and the sanitation system plus the value of the Contractor’s use of the public right-of-way. » R3 also calculated estimates for SB 1383/AB 939 related program compliance costs of $73,486.

The AB 939 Fess paid to the City were $62,080 in FY 2023-24. » The AB 939 Fee therefore is not more than necessary to cover the City’s costs incurred in complying with AB 939.
» R3 also calculated estimates of the Pavement Impacts from Contractor’s solid waste collection vehicles based on quantifiable impacts from such vehicles. The amount of annual Pavement Impacts calculated in this Study is $1,703,440.

4. RECOMMENDATIONS
City of Pinole | Solid Waste Franchise Fee Study – R3 Report 21 of 21 Annual Adjustments
All values calculated in this Study are in current FY 2023-24 dollars. Given that the City’s Costs, Property Use Charges, and Pavement Impacts will all tend to change over time in response to changing staffing, benefits, and other costs, it would be appropriate for the City to implement an annual adjustment to the Franchise Fee.

R3 recommends the City consider including an automatic annual adjustment that would change the fee in proportion to the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI).

Sources and Uses Accounting
Currently, the City’s Costs, Property Use Charges, and Pavement Impacts are not tied to Franchise Fee revenues in the City’s accounting system. The City could implement project code accounting and/or enterprise fund accounting for the Franchise Fee to better track source revenues and their uses. In either case, allocated and/or direct staffing and other costs could be tied to source revenues, while the Property Use Charges could be transferred out for general use.

R3 recommends the City consider implementing sources and uses accounting practices for Franchise Fee revenues, City’s Costs, Property Use Charges, and Pavement Impacts.

Periodic Recalculation
Over time, the City’s Costs associated with the Agreement and the sanitation system, the value of Property Use Charges for use of the public right-of-way, and the annualized costs associated with Pavement Impacts from the Contractor’s solid waste collection vehicles may change in ways that vary from the annual change in the CPI. Additionally, changes in City policies, programs, procedures, organization, geopolitical boundaries, laws, regulations, court rulings, and/or other factors may also trigger a need for recalculating fees.

R3 recommends the City consider updating this Study periodically (e.g., every five years) or more frequently if needed to recalculate fees in response to other factors.

Vehicle Impact Fees
As described in this Study, solid waste collection vehicles account for up to $1,703,440 of annual damage to the City’s street system. Should the City elect to implement a new Vehicle Impact Fee, we would recommend that the amount be considerably less than the amount calculated in the Study to be conservative given the unsettled legal landscape.

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING

PROPOSED CHANGES TO SOLID WASTE COLLECTION RATES
Hearing Date & Time: June 3, 2025, 6:00 PM
Hearing Location: Pinole City Council Chambers
2131 Pear Street, Pinole, California 94564
Why are you receiving this notice?
This notice is provided pursuant to California Constitution Article XIIID (also known as “Proposition 218”), which requires the City of Pinole ( City) to notify property owners and customers of proposed changes to solid waste collection rates. This notice describes proposed changes to the rates for this service and provides information about a public hearing to be held on June 3, 2025, at 6:00 p.m., at the Pinole City Council Chambers, 2131 Pear Street, Pinole, CA 94564. If adopted, the proposed rates for solid waste collection services will be in effect starting the 2025-2026 Fiscal Year, which begins on July 1, 2025. The solid waste collection fees are collected by Republic Services through their billing system.

What do the collection rates fund?
The City holds a franchise agreement with Richmond Sanitary Service, Inc. dba Republic Services (“Republic”) dated May 15, 2001, which expires on June 30, 2025. The franchise agreement with Republic is for solid waste collection services only. This agreement has not been negotiated for 25 years, and the fees and potential impacts have not been analyzed for many years. Other portions of the proposed rates include City fees to administer the franchise agreement; provide staffing for the City; support City infrastructure and street repair; and comply with state recycling/diversion mandates (including but not limited to AB 939 and SB 1383).

The rate structure was designed so that revenues derived from the proposed rates do not exceed the amount of revenue required services. The City fees were reviewed in a fee study prepared by a consultant and was published in the April 15, 2025 City Council meeting agenda packet and is available for review with the City Clerk.

New Solid Waste Collection Franchise Agreement.

This proposed franchise agreement will include increased service levels for bulky pickups and will also include funds to improve roads, and tree debris removal. The proposed rates are very similar to rates in neighboring cities, and a further breakdown is available in the April 15, 2025 City Council meeting agenda packet. Additional details for the rate breakdown and fee study will be presented during the public hearing on June 3, 2025.

Proposed Monthly Residential rates
July 1, 2025- December 31, 2026
• Solid waste collection services include garbage, recycling, and organic waste collection.
• Rates are based on the size of the garbage container
• The above table shows the rates for the weekly collection of the most common sized containers. Rates for larger containers or other less common services are set forth in the franchise agreement which is available upon request with the City Clerk.

Impact on your solid waste bill
Per the proposed rates, the monthly collection charge for a typical single-family residential customer would increase July 1, 2025 from the current $30.60 per month to $34.66 per month.

How do you file a protest or participate in the public hearing? The City will consider the new collection fees at a public hearing on Tuesday, June 3, 2025, at 6:00 p.m. at the Pinole City Council Chambers, 2131 Pear Street, Pinole, CA 1/1/2025 7/1/2025
Standard New
Collection Rate Collection Rate
20-gallon 28.63 31.31
35-gallon 30.60 34.66
35-gallon Sr. 27.57 32.66
65-gallon 53.58 66.59
95-gallon 76.82 95.83

94564. You are invited to present oral or written testimony at the Public Hearing. Any owner or customer of record of a parcel subject to the proposed rates may submit a written protest against the proposed rate revisions. If written protests are filed against the rates, for a majority of the affected parcels, the proposed rate revisions may not be adopted.

Written protests may be mailed, or hand delivered, to the City Clerk at 2131 Pear Street, Pinole, CA 94564, prior to 4:00p.m. on June 3, 2025, or hand delivered to the City Clerk at the public hearing on July 16, 2024. To be counted, a signed written protest must be received by the City Clerk before the conclusion of the public hearing. Protests submitted via e-mail or other electronic means will not be accepted. For any written protests, whether mailed or submitted in person to the City Clerk, please identify on the front of the envelope that the enclosed protest is for the public hearing on the Proposed Rate Changes – Solid Waste Collection Rates.

The City Council will hear and consider written and oral protests of all interested persons to the proposed rate changes at the public hearing. Oral comments at the public hearing will not qualify as formal protests unless accompanied by a written protest.

Upon the conclusion of the public hearing, if written protests, as outlined above, are not presented by a majority of property owners or customers of record, the City Council will be authorized to adopt the proposed rates. While both property owners and customers of record may submit written protests, only one protest will be counted for each parcel.

In accordance with Government Code section 53759, there is a 120-day statute of limitations for challenging any proposed rates, commencing from the later of the effective date of the new rates or of the date of the final passage, adoption, or approval of the resolution adopting the new rates.

City of Pinole
Proposed Solid Waste Collection Rates
July 1, 2025

RESIDENTIAL

Collection
Charge
Post
Collection
Charge
Vehicle
Impact
Fee
City AB
939 Fee
Total
Monthly
Rate
20-gallon $ 25.08 $ 7.56 $ 5.40 $ 0.83 $ 38.87
35-gallon $ 26.08 $ 13.27 $ 7.75 $ 0.83 $ 47.93
35-gallon Sr. $ 24.08 $ 13.27 $ 7.75 $ 0.83 $ 45.93
65-gallon $ 50.98 $ 24.66 $ 14.10 $ 1.51 $ 91.25
95-gallon $ 72.79 $ 37.02 $ 20.85 $ 2.19 $ 132.85

COMMERCIAL
7/1/2025 COMMERCIAL COLLECTION RATES (COMBINED)
BIN Times per Week
SIZE 1 2 3 4 5
1 YARD $ 355.63 $ 620.87 $ 885.92 $ 1,151.19 $ 1,416.24 2 YARD $ 586.06 $ 1,067.83 $ 1,549.81 $ 2,031.48 $ 2,513.41 3 YARD $ 801.72 $ 1,486.68 $ 2,171.72 $ 2,856.69 $ 3,541.72 4 YARD $ 1,009.62 $ 1,891.26 $ 2,772.91 $ 3,654.72 $ 4,536.21 5 YARD $ 1,212.89 $ 2,288.47 $ 3,363.83 $ 4,439.52 $ 5,514.76 6 YARD $ 1,414.38 $ 2,682.42 $ 3,950.65 $ 5,219.26 $ 6,487.21 7 YARD $ 1,614.27 $ 3,075.18 $ 4,536.75 $ 5,997.55 $ 7,458.62

COMMERCIAL CARTS

City of Pinole
Proposed Solid Waste Collection Rates
July 1, 2025

INDUSTRIAL

ONE TIME CHARGES
Rate Per Haul
MSW, Miscellaneous Trash, C&D, Green Waste, Wood, Dirt, Concrete, Cardboard, Metal 2025 Rate Adj 2025
Box Size Current 16.21% Total Rate
10 Yard 530.00 85.91 615.91
14 Yard 588.00 95.31 683.31
20 Yard 624.00 101.15 725.15
30 Yard 675.00 109.42 784.42
40 Yard 746.00 120.93 866.93
7/1/2025 INDUSTRIAL ROLL-OFF SERVICE RATES
Plus disposal rate (per ton)
Additional
Pickup
Size
1 yd $116.78
2 yd $183.98
3 yd $247.54
4 yd $309.15
5 yd $369.73
6 yd $429.77
7 yd $489.42
35 gal $14.31
65 gal $28.62
95 gal $42.94
RATE
$42.79
$11.30
$11.23
$81.78
$37.09
$116.78
$14.31
Overage Fee - Per Yard $116.78
$348.45
$128.49
$49.77
$38.03
Same as pull rate
Lock Replacement
Dry Run (Industrial Box)

SPECIAL SERVICES/ANCILLARY

CHARGES
Contamination - Per Cart
Overage Fee - Per Cart
Contamination - Per Yard
Cart Replacement
Additional Cart - Recy/Organic
Service
Return Trip
Cart Wash
RATE
Carryout Fee
Box Wash
Bin Wash (1-7 yd)

CITY COUNCIL
REPORT 9.E.

DATE: APRIL 15, 2025
TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: Kelcey Young, City Manager, 5107248933, [email protected] SUBJECT: COUNCIL RETREAT SUMMARY

RECOMMENDATION
Receive the Notes from the Council Retreat

BACKGROUND
On January 31, 2025 and February 1, 2025 the City Council attended a Council retreat created and facilitated by the City Manager, and supported by the City Clerk, City Attorney, and Executive Team. During the retreat, the Council had many team-building exercises and conversations and worked through six main exercises to focus on communication and Council alignment, culminating in twenty-four main initiatives that the Council identified to include in proposed initiatives in the 25/26 Fiscal Year Budget. Before the retreat started Council was asked to reflect on items they loved about Pinole, and what their priorities were for the upcoming year. Typed versions as well as photos of all of the worksheets for exercises two through six are attached. The first exercise also included drawings, so a summary of the exercise is below and photos of all the worksheets are attached. Some of the worksheets contain multiple exercises. It is important to note that no decisions or action items were decided upon at this retreat.

Day 1:

1. The first exercise was to "Identify/Build their Ideal Pinole". This was an exercise to reflect on items they enjoyed in Pinole as well as drawing and writing what they would like to see continue or come to fruition in Pinole. The discussion included items like a walk-able, safe community for pedestrians, cyclists, and residents, alongside a vibrant downtown district with well-utilized shops and restaurants. Smooth roadways, sidewalks, and trails, modern amenities for parks and public spaces, and mixed-use development were also identified. Then the Council members reviewed each other's sheets and identified items on each other's sheets that they had also included on theirs. The photos of these documents are attached.

2. The second exercise consisted of Council members writing about potential gaps (or areas they would like to see strengthened) that they saw in the community. They then had the opportunity to look at each other's sheets and identify similarities in alignment. Some gaps included not using the Community Corner to its full extent, lack of a Legislative Plan, lack of adequate lighting, lack of adequate way finding signage, lack of enough event spaces, poor street conditions, lack of civic engagement, little to no public arts, need for full Police staffing, and public safety, and need for balanced development. Then all the Council members identified alignment with each other's lists.

3. The third exercise was identifying then accumulating all the gaps that the Council was aligned with. Finally, using dots to determine the gaps that felt the most critical at that moment.

4. The fourth exercise consisted of identifying the six most critical gaps that council wanted to discuss at that time. This included:
• Lack of full use of Public Facilities
• Vacant Private Lots
• Vacant Public Lots
• Streets in Disrepar
• Lightning
• Lack of Legislative Plan

5. The fifth exercise was looking at the six gaps and looking at potential solutions with no judgment or concerns about whether solutions were good ideas or even feasible. Ideas included vacancy tax, increasing events, and many other ideas. The notes are attached.

Day 2:

6. The sixth exercise was to identify Council's biggest priorities and then work on alignment with Council and the Executive Team in order to start working on the final potential priorities for the 25/26 FY Budget. The notes focus on revitalizing Pinole through infrastructure upgrades (road repairs, street trees, lighting), community engagement (safe streets campaign, online portal), and economic development (cannabis tax, vacant building taxes, city property sales).

Additional ideas included micro-parks, food trucks, night markets, and utility enhancements.

Council members then reviewed each other's lists and identified alignment with their own priorities.

After the sixth exercise was completed, the Executive Team identified which of these priorities were also in the Strategic Plan, CAAP, other city plans or department work plans.

After all of these alignment exercises, the Council identified the final twenty-four potential key priorities to be brought back during the budget discussion for future discussion and potential adoption.

REVIEW AND ANALYSIS
While it is important to recognize that no decisions were made during this retreat, all the exercises were important in order for the Council to communicate, and discuss their potential key priorities. The discussed key priorities are as follows and will be communicated again in the budget process to help support Council during their budget decisions:

1. Sustainable Balanced Budget

2. Citywide Road Plan

3. Road Quick Wins

4. Citywide Road Maintenance Plan

5. Complete and Adopt the EOP

6. Developing City-Owned Property (Real Estate)

7. Selling and/or Developing Faria House and the Community Corner

9. 360 Public Assistance Portal

10. Debt Financing Program for Roads

11. Micro Loans for the Sewer Lateral Project Plan

12. PD Commendation Complaint Portal

13. Community Garden

14. Composting Pilot

15. Old Town District Lighting

16. Quarterly Fire Reports

17. Discussion of Oversight Body

18. CAAP Dashboard

19. Two Painted Crosswalks

20. Vision Zero and Safety PSAs

21. Public Facility Roofs for the Senior Center and Public Safety Building

23. Retain Staff, Improve Morale, Revisit Training Program Budget and see if previous cuts can be reversed

24. Plans for the Caretaker House

FISCAL IMPACT
No fiscal impact for these notes

ATTACHMENTS
A. Council Retreat Notes
B. #1 - Identifying Ideal Pinole and CM alignment
C. #2 - Identifying GAPS
D. #3- Identifying GAP Priorities (6 main priorities)
E. #4- Potential Solutions ( All Ideas Welcome)
F. #5 - Identifying Priorities and working on alignment with Council & Executive team

1 Exercise 1 - Identifying Ideal Pinole and CM alignment:

In this exercise, Council members drew their “Ideal Pinole” and wrote items that they would like to see in Pinole. The discussion included items like. • Walkable, safe for pedestrians, bicyclists, all people who live/visit Pinole • Vibrant, cozy downtown district with well-visited shops, restaurants, etc. • Easy to access for everyone
• Smooth roadways, sidewalks, trails
• Updated/modern amenities for Pinole parks, residents drawn to host family gatherings, picnic days
• Move mixed-use development in our Downtown District, where residents can walk, live, and consume
• Reduced air-pollution – less traffic, net-zero, more foot traffic, less cars Exercise 2 - Identifying GAPS:

In this exercise, Council members listed possible gaps. The following is a typed compilation of those identified gaps.
• Cultural/Historical Center to house Pinole artifacts documents • Relationship/Outreach to private property owners to promote City Council vision of "ideal" (safe, thriving Pinole)
• Plan to address future decreased fuel tax as errors multiply (associated: echarging stations) • Visible/Demonstrable animal control services now that we don't have an animal shelter
• Modernized public library - e.g., Lafayette's or San Pablo's • Practical, multi-use, multi-benefit "Community Corner" • Street sweeper runs infrequently on city streets

2 • Legislative plan to align with "ideal Pinole" and use for individual/Council advocacy
• Road rehab
• Lighting
• Power utility underground
• Tree trimming
• Sewer EIA and laterals
• Sidewalk curb
• Park field rehab
• Wayfinding
• Solar
• Traffic congestion
• Event spaces
• Too high of a threshold to add taxes to ballot
• Horrid streets (some of the worst in the Bay, according to MTC) • Inconsistent leadership (1-year rotation mayor)
• Poor delivery in communications and data transparency • Good schools' facilities, poor connection to City Hall • Lack of understanding of staff capacity at City Hall
• No bookstores, lackluster urban center
• Communication with strategies for change management
• Little to no public art
• No fine dining
• Public safety
• Police - fully staffed
• Fire - contract affordable
• Process to respond to advocacy opportunities
• Public request for assistance
• Balanced structural/physical developments, open space • Inventory of commercial vacant lots by 06/30/26
• Lack of civic engagement
• Participation of Council and Commission meetings
• Not enough interest in Boards and Commissions
• Not enough current funding to sustain long term and pay for various amenities

3 • Inequities that lead to lack of interest and ability to participate at Commission and Council level
• Education on pathways to be a representative
• Reasonable compensation (financial)
• Movement on vacant land, need for development
• Funding/movement on Complete Streets/Multi-Modal Infrastructure • Possible roadblocks to waterfront development
• Wayfinding-branding
Exercise 3 - Identifying GAP Priorities:

In this exercise, we pinpointed and gathered all the gaps the Council agreed on, then used dots to prioritize the most critical ones at that time. Below is a typed list of the prioritized gaps.
• Streets in disrepair (2)
• Lighting
• Lack of legislative plan
• Vacant public lots
• Vacant private lots
• Streets in disrepair
• Vacant Community Corner
• Vacant retail spaces
• Vacant Safeway site
• Sidewalk/gutters
• Parks - disrepair
• Lack of wayfinding
• Solar and roofing building
• Schools - poor connection to City Hall
• Complete Streets
• Older outdated library
• Tree problems
• Lack of full use of public facilities
• Lighting
• Lack of legislative plan
• Undergrounding utilities
• Sewer problems
• Inconsistent leadership

4 • Lack of understanding/staff capacity at City Hall
• Struggle with change management
• Lack of public art
• Lack of civic engagement
• Lack of funding - vacant public lots
• Vacant private lots
• Lack of vision - waterfront, lack of communication with citizens (property owners)
Exercise 4 - Potential Solutions (All Ideas Welcome)
This exercise was looking at the six gaps and looking at potential solutions for each prioritized gap. Below is the typed list of the potential solution for the 6 prioritized gaps.

Lack of legislative plan:
• Framework design
• Earmark list
• Specific lobby days (district)
• Cal Cities platform
• Pinole platform
• Roundtable with Congressman/other legislators
• Council discussion
• Transportation
• Climate action/sea level rise
• Unfunded mandates
• Housing
• Safety
• Equity and inclusion
• Measure X advocacy
• Liaison deck in (quarterly)
• Emergency planning/insurance

5 Lack of full use of public facilities:
• Opening Senior Center and events
• Caretaker house
• Community garden
• Agreements - non-profits
• Modernization - Senior Center
• Art exhibits
• Full sustainability - pool - night/year-round (rentals-revenue) • Expansion of Tiny Tot/partnership with schools
• Development expansion of public library
• Expansion of parking lot - For Farmers marked
• Solar panel - parking lots
Vacant private lots:
• Vacancy tax
• Impact fees
• City engagement outreach
• Communication with developers
• Assessment of barriers to development
• CE
• PPP
• Border social/summit
• EIFD
• Priority to property at risk - hazard
• Development
• Communicate development potential to owners
• Rezoning/updates
• Citywide communication
• Tax credit incentives - community
• Develop incentives - Pinole priorities
• CEPTED grant/loans
Vacant public lots:
• Create inventory - report to code enforcement
• Assess usage
• Appraisals

6 • Assess property owner - barriers • Public/private partnerships • Surplus Lands Act? • Discuss opportunities • Revisit General Plan/land use documents • Incorporate into ED work • Phased plan • Sale of city property/Faria house • Title work - who owns Streets in disrepair: • Identify worst streets (define criteria) • Street design (standard) • Fill vacancies PW • Describe improvements with grant request • Repave Brandt Ct. • Debt financing/larger road budget • Repave Sarah Dr. • Measure I • In-house road repair program • Community outreach education • On-call PW staff • Shared agreement with PW • Stronger PW reports (monthly) • Regulation - mitigate deterioration • Assess need for bond issuance Lighting: • Lighting lifestyle plan • Pedestrian lighting along creek • Pedestrian crossings • Expansion of solar • Parking lot light standards (consistent) • City Hall - exterior lighting (multicolor) • Lighting/projection public art • Maintenance program • Expansion of Glow Pinole

7 • Periodic monitoring of street light function
• Website link to PG&E - repair request
• Reflective street signs
• Natural surveillance
• String lighting Pinole downtown and parks
• Business adoption program
• Assessment (potential for tax fee)
Exercise 5 - Focusing on Aligned Gaps
This exercise consisted of identifying the six most critical gaps that council wanted to discuss at that time. This included:

1. Lack of legislative plan

2. Lack of full use of public facilities

3. Vacant private lots

4. Vacant public lots

5. Streets in disrepair

6. Lighting
Exercise 6 - Identifying Priorities and Working on Alignment with Council & Executive Team
This exercise was to identify Council's biggest priorities and then work on alignment with Council and Executive team. Below is the typed list. • Roads
• Finance debt
• City-backed micro loans (Pre-bid contraction)
• P3 for lot vacancies or opportunities for partnerships • Revisit General Plan and updates
• Hydrogen fueling station planning
• Fernandez Park recycled water plan costing
• Public building roof/solar
• Open space annex analysis
• Repair streets
• Sidewalks
• Add street trees
• Develop Community Corner
• Redevelop Safeway Shopping Center

8 • Fill vacant retail spaces
• Fill vacant office spaces
• Fernandez field lights
• Caretaker house used
• Year-round pool
• Repaving roads (Measure I)
• In-house maintenance program for residents
• Road plan
• Safe Streets Campaign
• Vision Zero education/campaign (signage)
• Selling/developing city-owned properties
• Old Town District overhead lighting
• Cannabis retail tax measure (2026)
• Online commendations/complaint portal (PD)
• Cultural conservation easement
• Digital billboards
• Plan for phased approach for permitting
• Retain staff and staff morale
• Balanced sustainable budget
• Emergency planning
• Roads
• Community Corner
• Caretaker house
• Open space - assessment
• Prebid contractors
• List of developers - provide to owners
• Attendance at regional conferences
• Imminent domain
• Updating fencing
• Standard guidelines
• Connection - funding - grants/private lot owners’ coordination • CE - cleaning up - loan properties
• Donating/acceptance of land
• Buying land
• City-backed micro-loans
• Temporary use private property
• Discuss land back program - cultural conservations
• Microparks
• Community gardens

9 • Work with county and BED workforce housing
• Report backs - broker
• Food trucks
• Night markets
• Community space
• EIFD
• Tax on heavy duty trucks, AB617
• Limiting encroachment permits/interagency coordination • 1 dig policy
• Vehicle impact fee
• Curb and gutter repair program
• Pedestrianizing streets
• Special tax
• Adopt A Street program
• Memorializing Street program
• Design - shovel ready
• Parcel tax - PW
• Incorporating traffic calming
• Flea market - parking lots swap meets
• Temporary use - Youth Center patio alcohol
• Explore use of vacant area next to Swim Center
• Block party permits - promotion
• Smoke-free events
• Art/Wine walk - 1st Fridays
• Repair classes - home maintenance
• Upgrades Park amenities
• Shade structure - rentals
• Update to Gazebo/Amphitheatre
• Kayak safety-instruction
• Wastewater treatment facility - expansions
• Mitigation measures - reduction of odors
• Public art - wastewater TP
• Sell WWTP
• Adding - inclusive parks
• Fernandez Park - recycle water irrigation
• Joint use agreement - schools
• Private/public - buildings
• Partnership with state - adding housing - public library etc. • Expansion of string lighting - parks

10 • Roof garden
• Conversion of rooftops - where possible
• Hydrogen facility at WestCat center
• Transportation hub - WestCat
• Autonomous car
• Painting of utility boxes
• Emergency management/CERT
• Drone shows
• Integration of ambient lighting
• Trail lighting
• Digital display boards
• Digital billboards
• LLAD
• Vacant building assessment (potential for tax fee)
24 Council Priorities:

These are 24 items identified as the main Council priorities.

1. Sustainable balanced budget

2. Road plan

3. Road quick wins

4. Road maintenance plan

5. EOP - complete and adopt

6. Developing city-owned property (real estate)

7. Selling and/or developing Faria house

8. Community Corner

9. 360 Public Assistance Portal

10. Debt financing for roads

11. Micro loans - sewer lateral project plan

12. PD commendation complaint portal

13. Community garden

14. Composting

15. Old Town District lighting

16. Quarterly fire reports

17. Discussion of oversight body

18. CHAP dashboard

19. Painted crosswalks (x2)

20. Vision Zero and PSAs

11 21. Public facility roofs

22. Senior and public safety

23. Retain staff and morale (revisit training programs)

24. Caretaker house

,
,
Scanned with
Iii CamScanner Page 110 of 201
, ~
-~

'
I
•
•
Scanned with :

Ii) CamScanne/ ···-·•'
•

I
··-----·············-····--·,
Scanned with :
(ii CamScanne,-:

-r • -
• • I
" d • ,~ -1-. (,;Jc., .... it" .f- • I ;It ~ ,.rk;--t-<. - t £.:o.__M.,• .. -1-- c:--• •<."' k_'-i'- \ •
. fA~c:. (aJ • •" f4'f t..--, ~ ~ \,e A .,iL,-=,c
~ ~ , •• td. '°'' . \.. ~Cf, ... ~c• .,
1 _ Pr~ O,t, ~ I!~ S-l-,cc.4-l \ '
-I or
•
•
Scanned with
!

CITY COUNCIL
REPORT 9.F.

DATE: APRIL 15, 2025
TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: David Hanham, Planning Manager, 510-724-9842, [email protected] SUBJECT: ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING A DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC

CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY (PCN) FOR DIOSA RESTAURANT
LOCATED AT 2361 SAN PABLO AVENUE

RECOMMENDATION
City staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution approving a Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity (PCN) for the on-site sale of beer, wine, and distilled spirits at Diosa Restaurant, to be located at 2361 San Pablo Avenue.

BACKGROUND
Veronica Rivera, on behalf of Diosa Restaurant, has requested City approval of a Finding of Public Convenience or Necessity (PCN) in order to apply for Conditional Use Permit (CUP 25- 01). The permit would allow the on-site sale and consumption of beer, wine, and distilled spirits at the restaurant located at 2361 San Pablo Avenue.

The California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) regulates the licensing of alcoholic beverage retailers under Section 23958 of the Business and Professions Code. A Type 47 license authorizes the on-site sale of beer, wine, and distilled spirits at bona fide eating establishments. In order to obtain a Type 47 license, a business must apply to ABC and secure a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) from the City.

When reviewing new license applications, ABC evaluates whether an “undue concentration” of licenses exists within the Census Tract. This determination is based on a ratio of on-sale licenses to population. In Census Tract 3591.03, ABC defines undue concentration as having more than five on-site (Type 47) alcohol licenses. Approval of Diosa Restaurant’s request would bring the number of active Type 47 licenses in the tract to six, thereby triggering an overconcentration finding.

According to ABC records, there are currently eleven active on-site alcohol sales licenses within Census Tract 3591.03, including beer and wine as well as full alcohol licenses. The following establishments hold these licenses:
• AMF Pinole Valley Lanes – 1580 Pinole Valley Road – Full alcohol • Pinole Creek Café – 2454 San Pablo Avenue – Full alcohol • Pear Street Bistro – 2395 San Pablo Avenue – Full alcohol • Tina’s Place – 2300 San Pablo Avenue – Full alcohol

• Antlers Tavern – 2284 San Pablo Avenue – Full alcohol • King Valley – 795 Fernandez Avenue – Beer and wine
• Kimchi House – 2400 San Pablo Avenue – Beer and wine
• China House Restaurant – 1971 San Pablo Avenue – Beer and wine • Bear Claw Restaurant/Café – 2340 San Pablo Avenue – Beer and wine • East Bay Coffee Company – 2539 San Pablo Avenue – Beer and wine • Diosa Restaurant – 2361 San Pablo Avenue – (Proposed Type 47) Once ABC identifies an undue concentration, the local governing body— the City Council— may approve a Finding of Public Convenience or Necessity to allow additional licenses.

Chapter 17.59 of the Pinole Municipal Code designates the City Council as the approving authority for PCN requests. A PCN determination is required before the Planning Commission may consider a Conditional Use Permit for alcohol sales.

If the City Council does not approve the PCN determination, Diosa Restaurant will not be eligible to obtain a Type 47 license from ABC for this location.

If the City Council does approve the PCN determination, the Planning Commission will subsequently consider the Conditional Use Permit (CUP 25-01) and may impose any necessary conditions. The Planning Commission’s decision on the CUP may be appealed to the City Council. Note that conditions may be placed on the CUP, but not on the PCN determination itself.

Representatives of Diosa Restaurant have stated that offering beer, wine, and spirits would enhance convenience for their customers and align with what is already available at other nearby establishments.

REVIEW AND ANALYSIS
Section 17.59.030(B) of the Pinole Municipal Code outlines five required findings that must be satisfied in order to make a Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity (PCN). Staff has prepared findings based on the applicant’s proposed operations statement and floor plans.

1. The proposed establishment of alcohol sales will promote the City’s economic health, consistent with the General Plan and any applicable Specific Plan policies to further zoning district purposes.

The proposed Type 47 license will allow Diosa Restaurant to offer a full range of food and beverage options, consistent with the commercial zoning and General Plan land use designations for the parcel. Additionally, the proposal implements Policy LU7.2 of the Land Use and Economic Development Element of the General Plan by supporting a local business that contributes to economic vitality. The ability to serve alcoholic beverages is expected to increase sales and enhance the restaurant’s revenue potential, thereby contributing to local sales tax generation.

2. The economic benefits associated with the establishment could not reasonably be achieved without the proposed alcohol sales.

Diosa Restaurant is a full-service establishment with a farm-to-table dining model and plans to host events featuring live music and local artists. Alcoholic beverages will complement the food offerings and enhance the dining and event experience. The ability to serve beer, wine, and spirits is considered essential to the restaurant’s business model and long-term viability.

3. The applicant has not operated a licensed establishment that has been the subject of verified complaints or violations regarding alcohol, public safety, or nuisance regulations.

According to ABC records, there are no identified infractions or violations associated with any existing licenses at this location. The applicant has not been the subject of any verified complaints related to alcohol sales or operations.

4. The Police Department has reported that the proposed establishment would not be expected to contribute to crime in the area.

The Pinole Police Department has reviewed the proposal and determined that the sale of beer, wine, and spirits at this location is not expected to result in an increase in crime. The Department has not raised any objections to the issuance of a PCN for Diosa Restaurant.

5. Alcoholic beverages sold by the applicant will be incidental to the other products available for sale at the establishment.

Diosa Restaurant will primarily serve meals along with a range of non-alcoholic beverages such as soda and iced tea. Alcoholic beverages will be served as a complement to food and dining experiences, including during special events. The alcohol service is intended to support, not define, the core restaurant operations.

FISCAL IMPACT
There are no adverse fiscal impacts to the City associated with this request.

ATTACHMENTS
A. Resolution

ATTACHMENT A
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-___

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

CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A DETERMINATION OF

PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY FOR THE ONSITE SALE AND CONSUMPTION OF BEER, WINE AND DISTILLED SPIRITS (TYPE 47 ALCOHOL LICENSE AT DIOSA RESTAURANT LOCATED AT 2361 SAN PABLO AVENUE (APN 401-162-003)
WHEREAS, the owner of Diosa Restaurant intends to apply for a Type 47 license from the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) to allow for the onsite sale and consumption of beer, wine, and distilled spirits, and has submitted a Conditional Use Permit application to the City of Pinole to permit such use; and
WHEREAS, the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control has notified the City that Census Tract 3591.03, in which the proposed establishment is located, has an undue concentration of on-site alcohol sales licenses; and WHEREAS, pursuant to California Business and Professions Code Section 23958.4, a determination of Public Convenience or Necessity is required to authorize additional on-site alcohol sales licenses in overconcentrated census tracts; and WHEREAS, the Pinole Police Department has reviewed the application and determined that the proposed onsite sale of beer, wine, and spirits at this location is not expected to increase calls for service or contribute to crime in the surrounding area; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered the request for a determination of Public Convenience or Necessity, including the staff report and required findings in accordance with Section 17.59.030(C) of the Pinole Municipal Code;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Pinole City Council does hereby take the following actions:

A. Makes the following findings:

1. The proposed Type 47 alcohol license for Diosa Restaurant is consistent with the City’s General Plan and any applicable Specific Plan, and furthers the purposes of the Commercial Mixed-Use Zoning District by supporting the City’s economic development objectives.

2. The economic benefits associated with the Type 47 alcohol sales could not reasonably be achieved without the proposed alcohol sales.

3. The applicant has not operated a licensed establishment, which has been the subject of verified complaints or violations regarding alcohol, public safety or nuisance statues or regulations;

4. The Police Department has reported that the proposed beer and wine sales at the existing establishment would not be expected to add to crime in the area; and

5. Alcoholic beverages sold by the applicant are incidental to the other products available for sale at the establishment located at 2361 San Pablo Avenue.

The City Council affirms a determination of Public Convenience or Necessity to support the issuance of a Type 47 license by the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control for the onsite sale and consumption of beer, wine, and distilled spirits at Diosa Restaurant, located at 2361 San Pablo Avenue, as a prerequisite to obtaining a Conditional Use Permit in accordance with Chapter 17.59 of the Pinole Municipal Code.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Pinole City Council held on the 15th day of April 2025 by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced, passed and adopted on adopted on this 15th day of April 2025
____________________________
Heather Bell
City Clerk

CITY COUNCIL
REPORT 12.A.

DATE: APRIL 15, 2025
TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM:

SUBJECT: UPDATE ON PARTNERSHIP FOR THE BAY’S FUTURE GRANT AND HOME

RESTORATION PROGRAM

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends City Council receive and file this report

BACKGROUND
In 2024, the City of Pinole was awarded a Policy Grant from the Partnership for the Bay’s Future (PBF), in collaboration with the Richmond Community Foundation (RCF Connects) and the Northern California Land Trust (NCLT). This grant supports the implementation of innovative housing strategies focused on equity, community stabilization, and increased homeownership opportunities for local residents, particularly first-time BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and People of Color) homebuyers. A key initiative of the policy work is a home restoration program that will use private investment in partnership with the City to acquire and rehabilitate vacant or blighted homes and prioritize BIPOC first-time homebuyers in their sale.

REVIEW AND ANALYSIS
The home restoration program is one of the flagship initiatives under the City’s Partnership for the Bay’s Future grant. This program will use innovative financing strategies – such as a Municipal Social Impact Bond —to acquire and rehabilitate vacant or distressed homes, with the goal of reselling them to first-time homebuyers. The program is designed to reduce blight, promote neighborhood stability, and provide pathways to homeownership for BIPOC residents.

While in the case of the Social Impact Bond, the City serves as the conduit for the bond, Pinole will bear no financial liability for this program.

To date, Housing Fellow Jared Murti and Jim Becker from RCF Connects have worked with City staff and community partners to identify an initial set of ten pilot properties. These vacant homes have been flagged for persistent code violations, tax delinquency, or extended vacancy. The program will prioritize energy-efficient rehabilitation, incorporate local BIPOC contractors, and partner with local down payment assistance programs to ensure affordability.

Council will receive an update on the project timeline, the structure of the bond, and early results of site evaluations and acquisition planning. The presenters will also outline next steps, including development of a municipal ordinance to authorize the bond issuance and initiation of investor outreach. This program is a component of the City’s strategy to implement the

Housing Element and advance equitable homeownership opportunities in Pinole.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact to receiving this report; future discussions will focus on the fiscal impact of a home restoration program.

ATTACHMENTS
None

CITY COUNCIL
REPORT 12.B.

DATE: APRIL 15, 2025
TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: Markisha Guillory, Finance Director, 510-724-9823, [email protected] SUBJECT: FY 2025/26 MASTER FEE SCHEDULE

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council review the proposed user and regulatory fees and the proposed Master Fee Schedule to be adopted at a public hearing on May 6, 2025.

BACKGROUND
Cities impose a user or regulatory fee for services related to an individual person or entity’s request or action. In accordance with industry best practice and California statute, user and regulatory fees should be set according to the estimated reasonable cost of service and should bear a fair and reasonable relationship to the payer’s burdens on, or benefits received from, the activities and/or services provided by the City.

The City’s Revenue Policy – User Fees and Charges, a component of the Financial and Investment Policies, states that the City is empowered to recapture, through fees, up to the full cost of providing specific services. Regular and consistent review of all fees is necessary to ensure that the costs associated with delivery of individual services have been appropriately identified, and that the City is fully recovering those costs.

Each fiscal year, user and regulatory fees are reviewed and set at the direction of the City Council. Through a public hearing, any new fees or fee increases are considered for adoption.

REVIEW AND ANALYSIS
In order to keep pace with general cost inflation for services provided to the community, staff is recommending that most fees, as noted below, be increased by the growth in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) over the past year. The CPI for the San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward region increased 2.7% over the past twelve months, from February 2024 through February 2025.

Additionally, staff is proposing several building and planning new fees to recover the cost of certain services provided that were not captured in the previous Master Fee Schedule. The new fees are noted below.

The following sections have been updated in the attached Master Fee Schedule (Attachment A):
• Building Fees- Most fees are increased by 2.7% based on CPI, except for fees limited to

amounts outlined in the California Government Code. Staff is recommending adding the following new building fees:
o Special Inspection Agency Application Review ($388) – Additional review beyond 2 hours will incur a charge per half hour at the current hourly rate. Renewal of Special Agency Application required every three years.
o Pre-application Meeting ($50/Division Involved) - Fee is flat regardless of number of staff involved in meeting; fee is per division included in meeting. o Deferred Submittal ($194) - Additional review beyond 1 hour will incur a charge per half hour at the current hourly rate.
o Rental Program Exemption ($291) - For requests for exemption from the Rental Health and Safety Program.
o Amnesty Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Fee ($1,499) and Amnesty Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit (JADU) Fee ($587) - To encourage the legalization of unpermitted ADUs and promote affordability, the following fee reductions apply to homeowners participating in the ADU Amnesty Program:
o Affordability Commitment Incentives: Homeowners who agree to restrict their ADU for a minimum of five (5) years to affordable rental rates receive the following fee reductions:

Moderate-Income ADU: 50% reduction in applicable Amnesty ADU fees.

Low-Income ADU: 100% reduction in applicable Amnesty ADU fees.

Equity-Based Incentive: Homeowners classified as moderate-income or lower are eligible for an additional fee reduction to increase participation:

Moderate- and Lower-Income Homeowners: 50% reduction in Amnesty ADU fees, regardless of affordability commitment.

This reduction may be combined with the affordability commitment incentives, allowing qualifying homeowners to receive up to a full waiver of Amnesty ADU fees when designating an ADU for low-income affordability.

All homeowners receiving fee reductions for restricting homes for affordability must enter into an affordability covenant with the City for the specified period of time and agree to annual third-party rent monitoring.
• Planning Fees- Most fees are increased by 2.7% based on CPI, except for deposits and fees limited to amounts outlined in the California Government Code. Staff is recommending adding the following new planning fees:
o Pre-application Meeting ($50/Division involved) - Fee is flat regardless of number of staff involved in meeting; fee is per division included in meeting. o Business License Review ($27) - Fee is flat regardless of number of staff involved in meeting; fee is per division included in meeting. o Zoning Verification Letter ($215) - Additional research beyond 1 hour will incur a charge per half hour at the current hourly rate.
o Pre-approved ADU Plan Submittal (2*Hourly Planning rate + *Hourly Building rate) - Additional review beyond 2 hours for Planning and 1 hour for Building will incur a charge per half hour at the current hourly rate.

• Engineering and Encroachment Permit Fees – Most fees are increased by 2.7% based on CPI, except for deposits.
• Recreation Fees – The fees remain unchanged as staff is conducting a separate fee study and will return to the City Council with the proposed fees at a future meeting. • Police Fees – The fees remain unchanged, except for the vehicle release fee which has increased from $120 to $160. Staff may recommend to Council at a later time that some fees be increased.
• Police Fines and Penalties – The fees remain unchanged as they are regulated by Pinole Municipal Code.
• Development Impact Fees – The fees have been updated to reflect the results of the study conducted in 2024 and adopted by the City Council on January 21, 2025. • Wastewater Utility Fees – The fees are subject to different approval thresholds and are determined by a different process. The current rates were approved by the City Council on August 6, 2024.
• Business Licenses Fees – The fees are determined by a different process. Pursuant to Pinole Municipal Code, they are reviewed at the end of each calendar year and only adjusted upward or downward by 5% with each cumulative 5% change in the CPI. The current base fee of $168 was set in December 2024 for the calendar year 2025. • Fire Prevention Fees – The fees align with those set and collected by the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District.

The next step is for the City Council to hold a public hearing at the May 6, 2025 Council meeting to adopt the proposed fees and the Proposed Master Fee Schedule for FY 2025/26.

FISCAL IMPACT
Any additional revenue expected from the Proposed Master Fee Schedule is intended to offset the cost of providing existing services associated with those fee-related regulatory functions and other programs.

ATTACHMENTS
A. Proposed Master Fee Schedule FY2025-26

Master Schedule of User and Regulatory Fees
Proposed: April 15, 2025

Fees Page
ADMINISTRATIVE FEES 1
BUSINESS LICENSE APPLICATION REVIEW FEES 3
RENTAL & BALCONY INSPECTION PROGRAM FEES 5
BUILDING FEES 6
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES 12
PLANNING FEES 13
CODE ENFORCEMENT FEES 17
ENGINEERING AND ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FEES 18
FIRE PREVENTION FEES 21
POLICE FEES 40
SPECIAL EVENT AND FILM PERMIT APPLICATION REVIEW FEES 44 RECREATION AND FACILITY RENTAL FEES 45
WASTEWATER (SEWER) UTILITY FEES 51
City of Pinole
Table of Contents
Master Schedule of User and Regulatory Fees

City of Pinole

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE - CITY CLERK ADMINISTRATIVE FEES
Fee Charge Basis Note
1 Hardcopy Records Request $0.10 per single sided page
2 Oversize documents $3 per page
3 Document Imaging $3 per sheet
4 Filing Fee - Notice of Intent to Circulate Initiative Petition $200 5 Garbage Service Exemption (Resolution No. 2005-39) $48 6 Administrative Fee for Waste Collection Lien (PMC

8.08.110(G)/Resolution No. 2008-165
$55
7 Appeal Fee for Business License Revocations, Massage Establishment /Operator Permits & Code Enforcement Actions (Resolution 2009- 122/11-19-2009)
$575 each
8 Requests Requiring Special Programming or Formatting Actual hourly rate plus cost of digital devices
[a]
Activity Description
[a] This fee applies to the creation of a new document or information not normally prepared, owned, used or retained by the City as part of the conduct of the Public's business. Fee also includes cost of any digital devices used to provide requested information. 1

City of Pinole

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE - FINANCE ADMINISTRATIVE FEES
Fee Charge Basis Note
1 Credit Card Transaction Processing Fee pass-through of vendor charge
% of amount paid by
credit card
[a]
2 Not Sufficient Funds Charge $25 each
3 Hourly Rates and Fees for Services Not Listed in this Fee Schedule a) Finance Personnel $138 per hour [b]
Activity Description
[a] Fee will only apply when credit card is used for payment of fees for development/fire-related fees, permits, plan review, etc. Fee is intended to serve as a pass-through based on vendor agreement.
[b] For services requested of City staff which have no fee listed in this Master Fee Schedule, the City Manager or the City Manager's designee shall determine the appropriate fee based on the following hourly rates for staff time involved in the service or activity. 2

City of Pinole

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE - BUSINESS LICENSES
Fee Charge Basis Note
1 Fixed Place of Business in Pinole (Includes Home Businesses & Pinole Contractors)
Per Year (includes one employee) $168
Additional Employees (2 to 20) $26 per employee
Additional Employees (over 21) $19 per employee
2 Rental Properties
Basic Fee for one Property (1 unit) $168
Each additional Unit (2-4 units) $19
Additional Units (5 or more) $11
3 Hotels and Motels
Basic Fee $168
Each Rental Unit $11
4 Bowling Alley
Basic Fee (includes 2 lanes) $168
Additional Lanes $57 each
5 Outside Licensed Contractors/Subcontractors
Annual fee for current calendar year $262
Semi-annual (6 consecutive months within the same calendar year) $144 Quarterly (3 consecutive months within the same calendar year) $85 6 Outside Personal/Professional Service $168 per year
7 Delivery Vehicles $168 per year
8 Public Amusements
Rides and Shows $141 per day
Carnival $1,432 per day
Circus
a) Base Fee $1,432 per day
b) Per Day, Per Show $286
9 Dance Hall $857 per year
10 Motion Picture Theatre $343 per year
11 Playhouse $343 per year
Activity Description
3

City of Pinole

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE - BUSINESS LICENSES
Activity Description Fee Charge Basis Note
12 Pool Hall
Base Fee $168 per year
Per Table Over Two $84 per year
13 Advertising Vehicles
Per Vehicle $12 per day
Minimum Tax $91
14 Billboard $168 per year
15 Auctioneer
Daily Fee $141
Annual Fee $1,174
16 Pawnbroker $857 per year
17 Astrology, etc. $417 per month
18 Peddlers, solicitors $168 per year
19 Photographers
Daily Fee $28
Door-to-door solicitation for taking photographs, for enlargements, frames, etc. - per quarter
$84 per quarter
20 Fire Sale $286 per day
21 Distribution of Advertising Matter
Per Year (includes one employee) $168
Additional Employees (2 to 19) $26 per employee
Additional Employees (over 20) $19 per employee
Less than 40 weeks a year $19 per employee, per day
22 Transfer of Ownership Fee $7
23 Exemption Certificate $32
24 Penalty-Per Municipal Code 5.04.180 Sec. A (50% of license fee) 50% [a] 25 State Mandated Fee (AB 1379) (applies to All Licenses) $4 [a] Renewal must be postmarked, or hand delivered to City Hall by close of business on January 31 of calendar year for which business license applies to avoid penalty.
4

City of Pinole

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE - RENTAL & BALCONY INSPECTION PROGRAM FEES Fee Note
1 Rental Inspection Program Fee
a) Base Fee (Covers Initial Inspection and First Reinspection) i) Single Family Unit, Duplex Unit, or Triplex Unit $397 ii) Multi-Family Unit Including Hotel/Motel Unit $249
b) Reinspection Fee (only applicable if required)
i) 2nd Reinspection 20% of initial fee
ii) 3rd Reinspection 30% of initial fee
iii) 4th Reinspection 40% of initial fee
2 Balcony Inpection Program Fee $199
3 Rental Program Exemption $291 [a]
[a] For requests for exemption from the Rental Health and Safety Program.

Activity Description
5

City of Pinole

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE - BUILDING FEES
Fee Note
1 HVAC Change-Out - Residential $199
2 Water Heater Change-Out - Residential $149
3 Residential Re-Roof
a) Up to 2,000 SF (Roof Area) $298
b) Each Add'l 1,000 SF or fraction thereof $99
4 Service Panel Upgrade - Residential $199
5 Battery Backup Storage - Residential $199
6 Electric Vehicle Charger - Residential $199
7 Generator - Residential $291 [b]
8 Residential Solar Photovoltaic System - Solar Permit
a) 15kW or less $225 [a]
b) Above 15kW $450 base fee, plus $15 per kW for each
kW above 15kW
[a]
9 Commercial Solar Photovoltaic System - Solar Permit
a) 50kW or less $1,000 [a]
b) 50kW – 250kW $1,000 base fee, plus $7 per kW for each kW above 50kW up to 250kW
[a]
c) Above 250kW $2,400 base fee, plus $5 per kW for each kW above 250 kW
[a]
10 Solar Thermal - Residential $315 [a]
11 Ground-Mount Solar - Residential $360 [a]
12 Swimming Pool / Spa Equipment Change-out Only $199
13 Swimming Pool Replaster - Residential $291 [b]
14 Residential Voluntary Seismic Retrofit – Push Piers Only (10 and fewer) $298 15 Retaining Wall
a) Wall Under 4' in height $398
b) Wall Over 4' in height
i) Up to 100 LF $795
ii) Each Additional 100 LF $49
16 CMU Wall
a) Wall Under 6' in height $398
b) Wall Over 6' in height
i) Up to 100 LF $795
ii) Each Additional 100 LF $49
17 Exterior Doors / Windows / Sliding Glass Doors - Retrofit / Repair a) Up to 5 $199
b) Over 5
18 Fences Requiring a Building Permit $199
19 Plumbing Permit $199
20 Mechanical Permit $199
21 Electrical Permit $199
22 Rooftop Solar Panel Removal and Replacement $199
23 Amnesty ADU Fee $1,499 [c]
24 Amnesty JADU Fee $587 [c]
[a] Total fees shall not exceed amounts outlined in California Government Code 66015(a)(1). [b] Fee is flat regardless of number of staff involved in meeting; fee is per division included in meeting.

A. Fees for Commonly Requested and Minor Miscellaneous Building Permit Types. Fees shown in this section (Section A.) include all applicable inspection, and plan review fees. Additional permit processing fees apply. Additional fees may apply for services provided by other City Departments (e.g. Planning Review), Technology Enhancement Fees, and Fees Collected on Behalf of Other Agencies.

Fee Description
6

City of Pinole

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE - BUILDING FEES
Fee Note
A. Fees for Commonly Requested and Minor Miscellaneous Building Permit Types. Fees shown in this section (Section A.) include all applicable inspection, and plan review fees. Additional permit processing fees apply. Additional fees may apply for services provided by other City Departments (e.g. Planning Review), Technology Enhancement Fees, and Fees Collected on Behalf of Other Agencies.

Fee Description
[c] To encourage the legalization of unpermitted ADUs and promote affordability, the following fee reductions apply to homeowners participating in the ADU Amnesty Program:

Affordability Commitment Incentives: Homeowners who agree to restrict their ADU for a minimum of five (5) years to affordable rental rates receive the following fee reductions:

Moderate-Income ADU: 50% reduction in applicable Amnesty ADU fees.

Low-Income ADU: 100% reduction in applicable Amnesty ADU fees.

Equity-Based Incentive: Homeowners classified as moderate-income or lower are eligible for an additional fee reduction to increase participation:

Moderate- and Lower-Income Homeowners: 50% reduction in Amnesty ADU fees, regardless of affordability commitment.

This reduction may be combined with the affordability commitment incentives, allowing qualifying homeowners to receive up to a full waiver of Amnesty ADU fees when designating an ADU for low-income affordability.

All homeowners receiving fee reductions for restricting homes for affordability must enter into an affordability covenant with the City for the specified period of time and agree to annual third-party rent monitoring. 7

City of Pinole

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE - BUILDING FEES
Total Valuation Permit Fee
$1 to $2,000 $199
$2,001 to $25,000 $298 for the first $2,000 plus $22 for each add'l $1,000 or fraction thereof, to and including $1,000
$25,001 to $50,000 $795 for the first $25,000 plus $28 for each add'l $1,000 or fraction thereof, to and including $1,000
$50,001 to $100,000 $1,491 for the first $50,000 plus $18 for each add'l $1,000 or fraction thereof, to and including $100,000
$100,001 to $500,000 $2,385 for the first $100,000 plus $13 for each add'l $1,000 or fraction thereof, to and including $500,000
$500,001 to $1,000,000 $7,553 for the first $500,000 plus $7 for each add'l $1,000 or fraction thereof, to and including $1,000,000
$1,000,001 and up $11,131 for the first $1,000,000 plus $5 for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof over $1,000,000
For permits for new construction, additions, tenant improvements or residential remodels requiring plumbing, electric, or mechanical review, the following percentages shall be added to the base permit fee Mechanical inspection fee = Base permit fee x .10
Determination of Valuation for Fee-Setting Purposes
● Building Valuation shall be based on the higher of 1) the applicant’s estimated valuation or 2) the most current Building Valuation as printed and published by the International Code Council and adjusted using the most current City Cost Index printed and published by R. S. Means Building Construction Cost Data. CRC, R108.3 Building permit valuations. Building permit valuation shall include total value of the work for which a permit is being issued, such as electrical, gas, mechanical, plumbing equipment, and other permanent systems, including materials and labor.

The final building permit valuation shall be set at an amount that allows the City to recover its costs of applicant plan check, permit and inspection activities.

Note: For construction projects with permit fees calculated using Section B, additional fees apply for permit issuance. Additional fees may apply for services provided by other City Departments (e.g. Planning Review), Technology Enhancement Fees, and Fees Collected on Behalf of Other Agencies (e.g. State of California). Additional fees apply for plan review, when applicable.

B. Base Permit Fee for New Buildings, Additions, Tenant Improvements, Residential Remodels, and Mechanical, Electrical, and/or Plumbing Permits Not Identified Elsewhere in This Fee Schedule
Plumbing inspection fee = Base permit fee x .10
Electrical inspection fee = Base permit fee x .10
7

City of Pinole

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE - BUILDING FEES
Fee Charge Basis Note
1 Building Plan Check Fees - Building
a) Plan Review Fee, if applicable 75% % of permit fee [a] b) Expedited Plan Check - At Application Submittal (when applicable) 1.5x standard plan check fee
c) Over the Counter Plan Review Fee $194 Per Hour [b];[c] d) Revision Application Fee (per hour) (1-hour minimum) $194 Per Hour e) Tract Home / Master Plan Construction (Production Units) 20% of standard plan check fee
[d]
f) Alternate Materials and Materials Review (per hour) $194 Per Hour g) Excess Plan Review Fee (4th and subsequent) (per hour) $194 Per Hour h) Revisions (per hour) $194 Per Hour
2 Building Plan Check Fees - Planning
(Fees Only Applied to Projects Requiring Review)
a) Zoning Clearance Verification $116
b) Planning Plan Check
i) Alterations/Additions - Residential $289
ii) New Construction - Single Family Residential $520
iii) New Construction - 2-4 Residential Units $982
iv) New Construction - 5+ Residential Units $2,543
v) New Construction - Non-Residential $982
vi) Alterations/Additions - Non-Residential $520
3 Building Plan Check Fees - Public Works Engineering
(Fees Only Applied to Projects Requiring Review)
a) Swimming Pool $215
b) Block Wall $108
c) Fence $108
d) Sign $108
e) Alterations/Additions - Residential $161
f) New Construction - Single Family Residential $430
g) New Construction - 2-4 Residential Units $645
h) New Construction - 5+ Residential Units $1,290
i) New Construction - Non-Residential $860
j) Alterations/Additions - Non-Residential $215
k) Trash Capture, SWPPP, and NPDES Review Fees See Eng. Fee Schedule l) Permits / Plan checks not listed above See footnote [e] C. Building Plan Review Fees
Activity Description
8

City of Pinole

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE - BUILDING FEES
Fee Charge Basis Note
C. Building Plan Review Fees
Activity Description
[a] Includes up to three plan checks. The City will bill hourly for additional plan review required. [b] For permits requiring only over the counter plan review, e.g. non-engineered plans.

When applicable, plan check fees shall be paid at the time of application for a building permit.

The plan checking fee is in addition to the building permit fee. Plan check fee applies to base building permit fee and mechanical, electrical, and plumbing inspection fees, when applicable.
[d] For identical buildings built by the same builder on the same lot or in the same tract and for which building permits are issued at the same time.
[e] Engineer/technician to determine hours and applicable fee at time of application. [c] Category added to fee schedule subsequent to initial adoption, allows for reduced plan check fee for over the counter / in-house plan check. 9

City of Pinole

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE - BUILDING FEES
Fee Note
1 Permit Processing Fee $81
2 Fire Permit Processing Fee $81
3 Outside Contractor Business License Processing Fee $65 4 Business License Inspection Fee
a) Residential Home Occupation $65
b) Non-Residential $145
5 General Plan Maintenance Fee (% of base building permit fee) 10% 6 Technology Fee (% of base building plan review and base building permit fee) 10% 7 Strong Motion Instrumentation (SMI) Fee Calculation
a) Category 1 Construction (1 to 3 Story Residential) Greater of $0.50 or valuation x .00013
[a]
b) Category 2 Construction (Over 3 story Residential and all Commercial) Greater of $0.50 or valuation x .00028
[b]
8 Building Standards (SB 1473) Fee Calculation (Valuation) a) $1 - $25,000 $1
b) $25,001 - $50,000 $2
c) $50,001 - $75,000 $3
d) $75,001 - $100,000 $4
e) Each Add'l $25,000 or fraction thereof Add $1
9 Temporary Certificate of Occupancy (per 30 Days) $291 10 Permit Extension $194
11 Permit Reactivation Fee
a) Reactivation Fee if All Inspections Have Been Performed and Approved Up to But Not Including Final Inspection
$194 [c]
b) Reactivation Fee - All Other Scenarios
i) Permit Expired Up to One Year 50% of Original Base
Building Permit Fee
ii) Permit Expired More than One Year 100% of Original Base Building Permit Fee
12 Permit Reissuance Fee $97 [d]
13 Damaged Building Survey (Fire, Flood, Vehicle Damage, Etc.) $290 14 AB 838 Violation Fees
a) Investigation resulting in Violations under AB 838 (per hour) (1-hour minimum) $194 b) Inspection Report Production for Violations under AB 838 (per hour) (1-hour minimum) $194 D. Other Fees
Activity Description
10

City of Pinole

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE - BUILDING FEES
Fee Note
D. Other Fees
Activity Description
Other Fees
15 Phased Inspection Fee (per inspection) $97
16 After Hours Inspection (per hour) (4-hour minimum) $232 17 Re-inspection Fee (2nd Time or More) (each) $97 [e]
18 Missed Inspection Fee $97 [f]
19 Duplicate Copy of Permit $65
20 Duplicate Copy of Certificate of Occupancy $32
21 Construction and Demolition Waste Management Review Fee $97 22 Fees for Services Not Listed in this Fee Schedule (per 1/2 hour) $97 23 Special Inspection Agency Application Review $388 [g] 24 Pre-application Meeting $50/Division involved [h]
25 Deferred Submittal $194 [i]
Violation Fees
26 Investigation Fee For Work Done Without Permits
(In addition to applicable permit fees)
equal to
permit fee
Refunds
27 Refunds
a) Fees Erroneously Paid or Collected by the City 100% refund b) Refund of Plan Review Fees - Prior to Plan Review Commencing up to 80% refund c) Refund of Permit Fees - Prior to Inspection Commencing up to 80% refund d) 180 Days After Payment of Fees no refund
28 Hardcopy Records Request $0.10
per single side page
29 Oversize documents $3
per page
[c] For reactivation of expired building permits that are no longer valid. [d] Example; change of contractor.
[e] Reinspection fee applies after the first re-inspection. [f] General inspection cancellations must be made before 7:00 AM on the scheduled day of inspection. Cancellations made after this time in addition to inspections scheduled with no responsible person on site during the inspection window will incur a missed inspection fee.
[g] Additional review beyond 2 hours will incur a charge per half hour at the current hourly rate. Renewal of Special Agency Application required every three years.
[h] Fee is flat regardless of number of staff involved in meeting; fee is per division included in meeting. [i] Additional review beyond 1 hour will incur a charge per half hour at the current hourly rate. [a] Category 1 Construction includes residential buildings 1 to 3 stories in height, excluding hotels and motels. Single family houses, duplexes and quadruplexes are considered Category 1. Condominiums and apartment buildings which are 3 stories or less in height are considered Category 1. [b] Category 2 Construction includes all buildings not considered Category 1 (i.e. residential buildings over 3 stories, all office buildings, warehouses, factories and other manufacturing or processing facilities, restaurants, and other non-residential buildings). 11

City of Pinole
MASTER FEE SCHEDULE - DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES1,2
3 Bedrooms 2 Bedrooms 1 Bedroom Office Commercial Food Service Industrial Institutional 1 Police $1,384.15 $1,126.17 $868.19 $0.67 $0.38 $0.38 $0.54 $0.18 2 Fire Protection $2,499.06 2033.28 $1,567.51 $1.21 $0.69 $0.69 $0.97 $0.32 3 Public Facilities &
Equipment
$4,609.19 3750.13 $2,891.07 $2.23 $1.28 $1.28 $1.78 $0.60 4 Wastewater Capacity $9,499.19 5509.53 N/A $1.33 $0.66 $11.21 $3.51 $0.76 5 Transportation $581.01 472.72 $364.43 $0.67 $1.41 $1.41 $1.21 $0.96 6 Drainage $261.36 149.33 N/A $0.10 $0.10 $0.10 $0.19 $0.23 7 Parks and Recreation $10,561.46 8593.02 $6,624.57 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 8 Subtotal $29,395.42 $21,634.18 $12,315.77 $6.21 $4.52 $15.07 $8.20 $3.05 9 Administration (3%) $881.86 649.03 $369.47 $0.19 $0.14 $0.45 $0.25 $0.09 10 Total $30,277.28 $22,283.21 $12,685.24 $6.40 $4.66 $15.52 $8.45 $3.14 1 Adopted on January 21, 2025 purusant to City Council Resolution 2025-03. 2 Additional impact Fees are required from other agencies, including the West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee (WCCTAC) and the the West Contra Costa Unified School District (WCCUSD). The WCCTAC's West County Subregional Transportation Mitigation Program (STMP) fees are collected by the City of Pinole and transmitted to the WCCTAC. The WCCUSD collects school facilities development fees for new residential, commercial and industrial construction resulting in new assessable area. The City requires proof of WCCUSD review, and when applicable, a certificate of payment issued by the District to confirm that required District development fees have been paid.

Facility Category
Fee per Dwelling Unit Fee per 1 Square Foot of Building Floor Area 12

City of Pinole

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE - PLANNING FEES
Fee Note
Design Review
1 Administrative Design Review: Single family residential additions; additions of less than 500 sf for multifamily and nonresidential
$780
2 Comprehensive Design Review – Small
New single family residence; new multifamily building with 2 to 4 units; multifamily and nonresidential additions 500 to 5,000sf
$3,978
3 Comprehensive Design Review – Medium
New multifamily building with 5 to 10 units; multifamily and nonresidential additions 5,001 to 10,000sf
$10,689
4 Comprehensive Design Review – Large
New multifamily building of 10 or more units; new nonresidential buildings; multifamily and nonresidential additions greater than 10,000sf
$20,000 Deposit;
$14,000 Minimum Fee
5 Sign Permit: New Sign/Approved Program, replace old sign as previously approved, etc. $462 6 Creative Sign Program: Encourage signs of unique design $806 7 Sign Program: 5 or more signs or greater than 200 sq. ft. of total aggregate sign area or building with 3 or more tenants.
$2,312
Use Permits
8 Similar Use Determination $349
9 Administrative Use Permits (AUP): Outdoor Dining $941 10 Temporary Use Permits (TUP) – Small.

Special one-day events, such as grand openings
Outdoor sales and display.

Seasonal sales (Christmas tree sales, pumpkin sales)
$376 [a]
11 Temporary Use Permits (TUP) – Large.

Construction yards and storage sheds
Expositions, concerts, clinics, amusement rides, and flea markets. $833 [a]
12 Conditional Use Permits (CUP) $5,575
13 Home Occupation Permit $151
14 Condo Conversion Permit $7,500 Deposit;
$5,000 Minimum Fee
15 Tree Removal Permit $231
16 Use Permit Amendments $2,774
17 Use Permit - Combined with Other Permits 100% of highest applicable permit fee, plus 50% of all other
applicable permit fees
Activity Description
13

City of Pinole

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE - PLANNING FEES
Activity Description Fee Note
Variances
18 Minor Deviation $710
19 Single Family Variance $1,774
20 All Other Variance Requests $5,086
Policy / Plan Amendments
21 Prezoning / Annexation $20,000 Deposit;
$14,000 Minimum Fee
22 Rezoning / Zoning Code Amendment (Includes Map and Text) $10,171 23 Minor Development Plan Amendment $462
24 General Plan Amendment $10,000 Deposit;
$7,000 Minimum Fee
25 Specific Plan Amendment $10,000 Deposit;
$7,000 Minimum Fee
Subdivision / Mapping
26 Subdivision / Tentative Map
a) Minor Subdivision / Parcel Map (4 Lots or Less) $5,000 Deposit; $3,500 Minimum Fee
b) Major Subdivision / Tract Map (5 or More Lots) $7,500 Deposit; $5,000 Minimum Fee
27 Lot Line Adjustment $2,000 Deposit;
$1,400 Minimum Fee
28 Lot Merger $2,000 Deposit;
$1,400 Minimum Fee
29 Easement / Street Vacation / Existing Utility Review $2,000 Deposit; $1,400 Minimum Fee
30 Final Map
a) Parcel Map $5,000 Deposit;
$3,500 Minimum Fee
b) Tract Map $7,500 Deposit;
$5,000 Minimum Fee
Environmental Review
31 Categorical Exemption $269
32 Initial Study $3,500 or Consultant Cost + 15%
33 Negative Declaration $5,000 Deposit;
$3,500 Minimum Fee
34 Mitigated Negative Declaration $10,000 Deposit;
$7,000 Minimum Fee
35 Environmental Impact Report Consultant Cost + 15%; Deposit TBD
14

City of Pinole

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE - PLANNING FEES
Activity Description Fee Note
Agreements
36 Development Agreement $10,000 Deposit;
$7,000 Minimum Fee
37 Affordable Housing Agreement $10,000 Deposit;
$7,000 Minimum Fee
38 Review of CC&R's $2,500 Deposit;
$1,750 Minimum Fee
Other Development Services
39 Extensions 1/2 Original Fee
40 Appeals of Department, Administrative and Planning Commission Actions (Per Appeal) $500 + $2,500 Deposit [b] 41 Zoning Administrator Hearing (Each Required Hearing) $521 42 Planning Commission / City Council Hearing (Each Required Hearing) $694 43 Records Research $100 per half hour after first hour 44 Address Assignment $330
45 Zoning Verification Letter $215 [c]
46 Pre-application Meeting $50/Division involved [d]
47 Pre-approved ADU Plan Submittal 2*hourly planning + * hourly building; at hourly rates every half
hour if exceeds
[e]
Public Noticing [e]
48 Project Notification Sign $269 per sign
(as needed)
49 Public Noticing (Administrative) $484
50 Public Noticing (Public Hearing Required) $753
51 Public Noticing (Deposit-Based Project) Deposit
Small Cell Wireless
52 Small Cell: Right of Way Pole Usage Fee $270 per pole annually [f] 53 Small Cell Wireless Attachment Fee $500 for first five + $100 for each additional
[f]
54 Small Cell Wireless New Pole $1,000 [f]
Affordable Housing Requests
55 Equity-Share Payoff Demand $347
56 Reconveyance $347
57 Density Bonus Application $462
Redevelopment (Successor Agency)
58 Loan Extension Application Fee (Commercial/Residential) $349 15

City of Pinole

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE - PLANNING FEES
Activity Description Fee Note
Technology Enhancement Fee
59 Technology Fee (% of plan review and permit fee) 10% Violation Fees
60 Penalty for Work Without Planning Approval equal to
permit fee
Hourly Rates and Fees for Services Not Listed in this Fee Schedule 61 Rates for Services Not Listed Above
a) Planning Personnel (per hour) $231
b) Contract Planning, Peer Review, Architecture Review, Etc. Pass through of Actual Cost + 15% c) Specialized Attorney Services Pass through of Actual Cost 62 Hardcopy Records Request $0.10
per single side page
63 Oversize documents $3
per page
Business License Review
64 Business License Review $27 [d]
[a] Temporary use permit fee may be reduced to $0 (no charge) for non-profit entities. [c] Additional research beyond 1 hour will incur a charge per half hour at the current hourly rate. [d] Fee is flat regardless of number of staff involved in meeting; fee is per division included in meeting. [e] Additional review beyond 2 hours for Planning and 1 hour for Building will incur a charge per half hour at the current hourly rate.

Funds expended for staff time shall not be dependent upon the City’s approval or disapproval of the application request. Any deposit amounts remaining after final project close out will be returned to applicant (less bond amounts held by the City).

Overview of Fee Structure
Fees may be either fixed fees, or Full Cost Recovery with Minimum Amount Due. When a fee is Full Cost Recovery with Minimum Amount Due, the minimum amount charged shall be the Minimum Fee. The City reserves the right to collect amounts in excess of the minimum fee when City costs or other review costs (e.g. consultant, County, attorney, etc.) exceed this amount.

Use of Full Cost Recovery with Minimum Amount Due
For fees collected using Full Cost Recovery with Minimum Amount Due, the City will provide an accounting of internal costs and other related costs (e.g. consultant, County, attorney, etc.), to support any amounts billed in excess of the minimum amount due.

Full Cost Deposits and Deposit Replenishment Policy
[b] Planning Commission Appeal requests initiated by the City Council members shall be accompanied by a $250 rather than $500 appellant fee.

The $250 may be refundable if the appeal initiated by a majority of the City Council members that hear the appeal request.

Applicants for full cost (deposit-based) submittals shall pay for all City staff and contract service provider time and materials required to process the application. A full cost reimbursement agreement shall be included with the project application submittal package. Projects outside the scope of this fee schedule will be subject to a full cost reimbursement agreement to be approved by the City Manager and/or City Council. This reimbursement agreement will include the identification of a work program and will include cost estimates for both City staff time and consultant services based on a defined scope of work.

Initial deposits will be collected and held by the City in a deposit account at the time the application is submitted. Project billing amounts will be drawn from the deposit account. If the deposit is reduced to below 20% of the initial deposit amount, the applicant will be notified and required to supplement the deposit account with an additional amount.

When more than one full cost application is submitted, the sum total of the initial full cost deposit amount may be reduced by up to 20% at the discretion of the Planning Director.
[f] Total fees shall not exceed amounts outlined in California Government Code 66015(a)(1). 16

City of Pinole

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE - PLANNING FEES
Activity Description Fee Note
As may be required by the Planning Department or Public Works Department for project evaluation or environmental review, all payment for attorney and consultant work shall be the responsibility of the applicant. 17

City of Pinole

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE - CODE ENFORCEMENT FEES
Fee Note
1 Courtesy Inspection
a) First Inspection No Charge
b) Second Inspection to Verify Violation Corrected No Charge c) Each Additional Inspection $85
2 Re-Inspection Fee $85
3 Abatement Warrant $340
4 Serving Notice $42
5 Lien Approval Fee $165
6 Special Assessment Approval Fee $165
7 Lien Release Fee $165
8 Tobacco Retailer License
a) New $332
b) Renewal $332
c) Late Renewal Same as Business Lic.
d) Suspension Appeal $332
e) Citation Appeal e
)
C
$332
9 Request for Extension of Time
a) First Request No Charge
b) Second and Subsequent Requests (each) $39
10 Oversized and Non-Motorized Vehicle Visitor Parking Permit bill hourly; 1-hour min. [a] 11 Appeals
a) Notice and Order Appeal $635
b) Notice of Violations Appeal $635
c) Administrative Citation Appeal $28
12 Technology Fee (% of Fee) 10%
13 Late Payment Penalty 5% of unpaid amount
14 Rates for Services Not Listed Above
a) Code Enforcement Personnel (per hour) $170
b) Specialized Services Including, but not limited to, Attorney and Abatement Services Pass through of Actual Cost 15 Hardcopy Records Request $0.10
per single side page
16 Oversize documents $3
per page
[a] Pinole Municipal Code Section 8.24.035.C.3
Activity Description
17

City of Pinole

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE - ENGINEERING AND ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FEES Fee Note
Encroachment Permit Fees
1 Permit Issuance Fee (applies to all encroachment permits) $165 2 Permit Renewal Fee / Time Extension $111
3 Permit Fee
a) Sewer Lateral
i) Base Permit Fee $221
ii) Video Inspection, If Required $110
b) Concrete Flat Work or Under Sidewalk Drain
i) Up to 500 SF $442
ii) Add for Each Additional 500 SF $110
c) Street Cut or Drainage Modifications
i) < 10 CY excavated $663
ii) Add for Each Additional 10 CY $331
d) Utility Pole - Set, Relocate or Remove $442
e) Utilities Structure Inspection $331
f) Storage in Public Right-of-Way for Moving Pods $110
g) Landscape Maintenance $110
h) Temporary Staging for Items Not Listed Above $110
i) Block Party Permit Permit Issuance Fee
j) Vendor Permit Permit Issuance Fee
k) Traffic Control Only $221
l) Major Project [a]
i) First Day $663
ii) Each Additional Day $331
m) Projects Greater than Two Weeks in Duration $4,000 Deposit n) Permit Types Not Listed $221
4 Other Applicable Fees, if Required
a) Traffic Control Plan Review $331
b) Revocable Encroachment Permit / Hold Harmless Agreement $552 5 Permit Bond / Deposit
a) One-year maintenance bond for street cuts equal to the value of the work or as determined by Public Works Director / City Engineer.

Varies - See description
b) Bond for concrete work, including curb, gutter and sidewalk drains. Deposit is equal to the value of the work or as determined by Public Works Director / City Engineer. Deposit is returned upon passing final inspection for concrete work.

Varies - See description
c) One-year maintenance bond for storm drainage modifications equal to the value of the work or as determined by Public Works Director / City Engineer.

Varies - See description
Activity Description
18

City of Pinole

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE - ENGINEERING AND ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FEES Activity Description Fee Note
Grading Fees
6 Grading Plan Review
a) 0 - 50 CY
b) 50 to 10,000 CY $994
c) 10,001 to 100,000 CY $1,435
d) Add for Each 10,000 CY above 100,000 $331
7 Grading Permit Issuance $221
8 Grading Permit Bond (per CY) $6
9 Grading Inspection
a) 0 - 50 CY
b) 50 to 10,000 CY $1,325 [b]
c) 10,001 to 100,000 CY $2,650 [c]
d) Add for Each 10,000 CY above 100,000 $221
Erosion and Clean Water (Including Full Trash Capture System) 10 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Construction Permit: C.6 Inspections (Permits for Construction Projects that Require Stormwater Pollution Prevention, Includes Monthly Inspection)
a) Less than 1-Acre Hillside Site, Requiring an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan $663 [d] b) More than 1-Acre Requiring an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan $1,325 [d] c) Re-Inspections (Due to Fail in Maintaining BMP's) $221 [d] 11 C.3 Fees for Projects Which Create or Replace More than 10,000 SF of Impervious Surface a) Stormwater Control Plan Review / Approval $994 [d]
b) Operations and Maintenance Plan Review / Approval $552 [d] c) Annual Inspection Fee
i) Up to 25,000 SF $883 [d]
ii) Greater than 25,000 SF $1,767 [d]
Oversize Load Permit Fee
12 Oversize Load Permit Fee
a) Per Day $18
b) Annual $99
Temporary Barricade Delivery / Pickup
13 Temporary Barricade Delivery / Pickup
a) Temporary Barricade Delivery / Pickup $221
b) Refundable Security Deposit TBD by Public Works Director / City Engineer
19

City of Pinole

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE - ENGINEERING AND ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FEES Activity Description Fee Note
Other
14 After Hours Inspection (per hour) (4-hour minimum) $265 15 Re-inspection Fee / Missed Inspection / Excessive Inspection Fee (2nd Time or More) $221 [e] 16 Excessive Resubmittals $221 [e]
17 Revisions $221
Expedited Permit / Plan Review Fees
18 Expedited Permit / Plan Review Fees 1.5x standard fee Technology Enhancement Fee
19 Technology Fee (% of plan review and permit fee) 10% Violation Fees
20 Investigation Fee For Work Done Without Permits
(In addition to applicable permit fees)
equal to
permit fee
Hourly Rates and Fees for Services Not Listed in this Fee Schedule 21 In-House Public Works Personnel $221
22 Contract Service Providers Pass through of Actual Cost + 15%
23 Attorney Services Pass through of Actual Cost
24 Pre-application Meeting $50/Division involved [f]
[b] Fee includes up to 8 inspections. Any additional inspections will be charged at hourly rate. [c] Fee includes up to 16 inspections. Any additional inspections will be charged at hourly rate. [f] Fee is flat regardless of number of staff involved in meeting; fee is per division included in meeting. [a] Major Projects include ground disturbing activities, projects lasting longer than three days, or projects that require permanent traffic control for the duration of the project (e.g. excavation, trenching, boring, etc.). [e] All fees include up to three plan checks and inspection and re-inspection. The City will bill hourly for additional plan review and inspections required.
[d] If a contract service provider is used for these reviews, the City may pass through of actual cost, plus 15% to the applicant, rather than fixed fee amounts listed.
20

City of Pinole

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE - FIRE PREVENTION FEES
Fee * Note

OPERATIONAL PERMITS
1 Aerosol Products
Permit to store, manufacture, or handle an aggregate quantity of Level 2 or Level 3 aerosol products in excess of 500 pounds net weight.
$316
2 Amusement Buildings
Permit to operate a special amusement building.
$316
3 Aviation Facilities
Permit to use Group-H or Group-S occupancies for aircraft servicing or the repair of aircraft, including aircraft fuel-servicing vehicles.

Does not include permits for hot works, flammable/combustible spraying operations, or hazardous materials.
$632
4 Carbon Dioxide Systems used in Beverage Dispensing Applications Permit to operate a carbon dioxide system used for beverage dispensing having more than 100 pounds of carbon dioxide.
$316
5 Carnivals, Fairs, Festivals, and Exhibitions
a) Permit to operate a carnival, fair, festival, or exhibition. Inspections conducted during normal work hours – (1.25 hours).
$395
b) Additional inspection time during normal business hours, per ½ hour. $158 c) Additional inspection time after normal business hours, per hour. $316 d) Overtime and Weekend Inspections: Two hour minimum fee. $632 6 Cellulous Nitrate Film
Permit to store, use, or handle cellulose nitrate film in a Group A occupancy. $474
7 Combustible Dust Production
Permit to operate facility with operations producing combustible dust (e.g., grain elevator, flower starch milk, fee mill, or a plan pulverizing aluminum, coal, cocoa, magnesium, spices or sugar, etc.).
a) Up to 2500 sq. ft. $316
b) More than 2500 sq. ft. $632
8 Combustible Fibers
Permit to store or handle combustible fibers in excess of 100 cu. ft. $632
9 Compressed Gas
Permit to store, use, or handle compressed gases at normal temperature and pressure in excess of the amounts listed in Table 105.6.9 of the CFC.
$395
10 Covered and Open Mall Buildings
Permit for the placement of retail fixtures and displays, concession equipment, displays of highly combustible goods, liquid or gas-fired equipment, and the use of open flame or flame producing equipment in the mall.
$395
11 Cryogenic Fluids
Permit to produce, store, transport on site, use, handle, or dispense cryogenic fluids in excess of the amounts listed in Table 105.6.11 of the CFC.
$395
Activity Description
21

City of Pinole

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE - FIRE PREVENTION FEES
Activity Description Fee * Note
12 Cutting and Welding
Permit to conduct cutting or welding operations.
$395
13 Dry Cleaning
Permit to engage in dry cleaning operations or to change to a more hazardous cleaning solvent in existing dry cleaning equipment.
$395
14 Explosives
Permit to manufacture, store, handle, sell, or use any quantity of explosives or explosive materials. See Pyrotechnic Special Effects Material section. a) Up to 100 lbs. $632
b) More than 100 lbs. $948
15 Gunpowder Sales
Permit for the resale of gunpowder (does not include inspection fees required in FC – 15b.3). a) Up to 100 lbs. $2
b) More than 100 lbs. $10
c) Inspection time, per ½ hour. $158
16 Fire Hydrants and Valves
Permit to use or operate fire hydrants or valves intended for fire suppression.

See Engineering Fee Schedule for temporary construction water supplies. $316
17 Flammable and Combustible Liquids
a) Permit to use or operate a pipeline for the transportation within facilities of flammable or combustible liquids.
$395
b) Permit to store, handle, or use Class I liquids. In excess of 5 gallons – Inside. $395 c) In excess of 10 gallons – Outside. $632
d) Permit to store, handle, or use Class II or Class III liquids. In excess of 25 gallons – Inside. $395 e) In excess of 60 gallons – Outside. $395
f) Permit to store, handle, or use class IIIB liquids in tanks or portable tanks for fueling motor vehicles at motor fuel dispensing facilities or where connected to fuel-burning equipment. $395
g) Permit to remove Class I or Class II liquids from an underground storage tank used for fueling motor vehicles by any means other than the approved, stationary on-site pumps normally used for dispensing purposes.
$395
h) Permit to place temporarily out of service (for more than 90 days) an underground, protected above-ground, or above-ground flammable or combustible liquid tank. $948
i) Permit to change the type of contents stored in a flammable or combustible liquid tank to a material that poses a greater hazard than that for which the tank was designed and constructed.
$395
j) Permit to manufacture, process, blend, or refine flammable or combustible liquids. $632 18 Floor Finishing
Permit to use Class I or Class II liquids for the refinishing of floorings in excess of 350 sq. ft. $395
19 Fruit and Crop Ripening
Permit to operate a fruit or crop ripening facility or conduct a fruit-ripening process using ethylene gas.
$316
22

City of Pinole

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE - FIRE PREVENTION FEES
Activity Description Fee * Note
20 Fumigation and Insecticidal Fogging
Permit to operate a business of fumigation or insecticidal fogging and to maintain a room, vault, or chamber in which a toxic or flammable fumigant is used.

N/C
21 Hazardous Materials
Permit to store, transport on site, dispense, use, or handle hazardous materials in excess of the amounts listed in Table 105.6.21 of the CFC.
a) 1-5 products. $316
b) 5-10 products. $948
c) 11 or more products. $1,580
22 HPM Facilities
Permit to store, handle, or use hazardous production materials. $1,580
High-Piled Storage
23 Permit to use a building or portion thereof for high-pile storage in excess of 500 square feet. $632 24 Up to 5,000 sq. ft. More than 5,000 sq. ft. $948
25 Hot Work
Permit to conduct hot work.
$158
26 Industrial Oven
Permit to operate an industrial oven.
$632
27 Lumber Yards and Woodworking Plants
Permit for the storage or processing of lumber exceeding 100,000 board feet. $632
28 Liquid- or Gas-Fueled Vehicles or Equipment in Assembly Buildings Permit to operate, display, or demonstrate liquid- or gas-fueled equipment in assembly buildings.
$316
29 LPG
a) Permit to dispense, store, and use LPG. $395
b) Permit to operate a plant/facility. $632
c) Permit to exchange cylinders only – no refilling. $316 30 Magnesium
Permit to melt, cast, heat, cast, or grind more than 10 lbs. $474
31 Miscellaneous Combustible Storage
Permit to store in any building or upon any premises in excess of 2,500 cu. ft. gross volume of combustible empty packing cases, boxes, barrels or similar containers, rubber tires, rubber, cork, wood or plastic pallets, or similar combustible materials. $632
Motor Fuel-Dispensing Facilities
32 Permit to operate automotive, marine, and fleet motor fuel-dispensing facilities. $632 33 Permit to dispense liquid fuels from tank vehicles into the fuel tanks of motor vehicles, marine craft, and other special equipment at approved locations. Also includes the limited or temporary fueling operations for special events (e.g., the fueling of watercraft from shore, piers, floats, or barges).
$316
23

City of Pinole

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE - FIRE PREVENTION FEES
Activity Description Fee * Note
34 Open Flames and Torches
Permit to remove paint with a torch, or to use a torch or open flame device in a wildfire risk area.
$316
35 Open Flames and Candles
Permit to use open flames or candles in connection with restaurants, public assemblies, or drinking establishments.
$316
36 Organic Coatings
Permit to manufacture any organic coating in excess of 1 gallon in one day. $316
37 Public Assemblies
Permit to operate place of assembly.
a) Occupancy load 50-100 $395
b) Occupancy load 101-200 $632
c) Occupancy load 201-299 $632
d) Occupancy load 300 + $948
38 Pyrotechnic Special Effects Material
Permit to use or handle fireworks or pyrotechnics.
a) Inspections during normal work hours – (2 hours). $632 b) Additional inspection time during normal business hours, per ½ hour $158 c) Additional inspection time after normal business hours, per hour $316 d) Overtime and weekend inspections: Two-hour minimum fee. $632 39 Permit to use or handle fireworks or pyrotechnics, including fireworks aerial displays. a) Inspections during normal work hours – (2.5 hours). $790 b) Additional inspection time during normal business hours, per ½ hour. $158 c) Additional inspection time after normal business hours, per hour $316 d) Overtime and weekend inspections: Three hour minimum fee. $948 40 Pyroxylin Plastics
Permit to store or handle more than of 25 lbs. of cellulose nitrate (pyroxylin) plastics, or to assemble or manufacture articles involving pyroxylin plastics. $316
41 Refrigeration Equipment
Permit to operate a mechanical refrigeration unit or system. $474
42 Repair Garages
Permit to operate an engine or motor vehicle repair garage, including automotive, marine and similar fueled apparatus.
a) 1 – 4 repair bays $395
b) 5 – 8 repair bays $474
c) More than 8 repair bays $632
43 Rooftop Heliport
Permit to operate a rooftop heliport.
$316
24

City of Pinole

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE - FIRE PREVENTION FEES
Activity Description Fee * Note
44 Spraying or Dipping
Permit to conduct spraying or dipping operations utilizing flammable or combustible liquids or the application of combustible powder.
$395
45 Storage of Scrap Tires and Tire Byproducts
Permit to establish, conduct, or maintain storage of scrap tires and tire byproducts in excess of 2,500 cu. ft. of total volume. See Tire Storage section $632
46 Temporary Membrane Structures and Tents
Permit to operate an air-supported temporary membrane structure, including tents and canopies, having an area in excess of 400 sq. ft. (inspections during normal work hours only). a) 401 sq. ft. to 699 sq. ft. $158
b) 700 sq. ft. to 5,000 sq. ft. $316
c) More than 5,000 sq. ft. $474
d) Additional inspection time during normal business hours, per ½ hour. $158 e) Additional inspection time after normal business hours, per hour. $316 f) Overtime and weekend inspections: Two-hour minimum fee. $632 g) Permit to extend the use of a tent, canopy, or air-supported structure for an additional 180 days. (1 extension per structure)
$316
47 Tire Rebuilding Plant
Permit to operate and maintain a tire rebuilding plant. $632
48 Waste Handling Facility
Permit to operate a wrecking yard, junkyard, or waste handling facility. $632
49 Wood Products
Permit to store chips, hogged material, lumber, or plywood in excess of 200 cu. ft. $632
50 Asbestos Removal
Permit to conduct asbestos removal operations.
$316
51 Automobile Wrecking or Dismantling Yard
Permit to operate an automobile wrecking or dismantling yard. $632
52 Battery Systems
Permit to operate stationary lead-acid battery systems having a liquid capacity of more than 50 gallons.
$316
53 Christmas Tree Sales
Permit to operate a Christmas Tree lot.
$632
54 Emergency Responder Radio Coverage
Permit to operate a facility with emergency responder radio coverage systems. $158
55 Model Rockets
a) Permit to sell model rocket motors or launch model rockets in excess of three launches per event. Permits are per site and are effective as long as site conditions remain unchanged. $316
b) Additional site inspection time, per half hour. $158 25

City of Pinole

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE - FIRE PREVENTION FEES
Activity Description Fee * Note
56 Tire Storage
Permit to store tires in excess of 1,000 cu. ft. inside buildings. $395
57 Oil Extraction Process
Permit to extract oil from organic material by a process that uses a volatile solvent or liquid carbon dioxide.
$316
58 Indoor Growing Operation
Permit to conduct an indoor growing operation, except agricultural greenhouses in an agricultural zone.
$316
LICENSED CARE FACILITY - 24 HOURS
59 Inspection of a 24-hour licensed care facility, including: Social Rehabilitation Facility, Residential Care Facility, Assisted Living, Residential Care Facility for the Elderly, Halfway Houses, Community Correction Centers, Re-entry Centers, Treatment Programs, Work Furlough, Alcoholism or Drug Abuse Recovery/Treatment Facility, Congregate Living Health Facility, Group Homes, Immediate Care Facility, and Infant Care Facility. a) Base Fee. $316
b) Plus $ 4.00 per unit/occupant. $4
c) Inspection of a 24-hour Infant Care Facility for children 2 ½ years of age and younger. i )Base Fee. $316
ii) Plus $ 4.00 per unit/occupant. $4
60 LICENSED CARE FACILITY - LESS THAN 24 HOURS
Inspection of a non-24-hour license care facility with occupant load greater than 6, including:

Adult Day Care, Adult Day Support Center, Child Day Care, Infant Day Care, and Large Family Day Care Home.
a) Adult or Day Care Facility (non-ambulatory) $316
b) Adult or Child Large Family Day Care $316
c) Adult or Child Day Care Center $316
d) Inspection of a Licensed Clinic $316
61 SCHOOLS - (E Occupancy)
Permit to operate and maintain a school.
a) Occupant load less than 50. $395
b) Occupant load 50-149. $632
c) Occupant load 150-499. $632
d) Occupant load 500 or greater. $948
62 HIGH-RISE/MID-RISE - FIRE & LIFE SYSTEM

SAFETY INSPECTION
a) High Rise Inspection of a Hi-Rise building (State certification inspection) - Pre 1974. $2,528 b) High Rise Inspection of a Hi-Rise building (State certification inspection) - Post 1974. $632 c) Plus $.006 per sq. ft. .006 / sq. ft.
26

City of Pinole

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE - FIRE PREVENTION FEES
Activity Description Fee * Note
63 Mid-Rise
a) Inspection and test of life safety systems (e.g., smoke management), including where such systems are installed in lieu of fire department access or when required for the mitigation of other life safety issues or requirements.
$632
b) Plus $.006 per sq. ft. .006 / sq. ft.
64 HOSPITALS – INSTITUTION / JAILS - Hospitals (medical, surgical, and psychiatric) and Nursing Homes
a) Inspection of hospital or nursing home. $632
b) Plus $ 4.00 per patient/bed. $4
65 Out-Patient Clinics
a) Inspection of out-patient clinic with more than 5 patients. $316 b) Plus $ 4.00 per unit/occupant. $4
66 Police Services Facilities (holding cells)
Inspection of police services facilities and DOJ review (includes the approval of Evacuation & Life Safety Procedures).
$316
67 Adult/Juvenile Detention Facilities
Inspection of adult and/or juvenile detention facilities. $948
MULTI-RESIDENTIAL - (hotel, motel, apartments, condominiums) 68 Motel/Hotel
a) Inspection of a hotel or motel. $474
b) Plus $ 4.00 per unit. $4.00 / unit
69 Apartments/Condominiums
a) Inspection of apartments or condominiums, three stories or more. $474 b) Plus $ 4.00 per unit. $4.00 / unit
c) Inspection of apartments or condominiums, less than three stories. i) 3 – 12 units, base fee. $115
ii) 13 - 30 units, base fee. $158
iii) Plus $ 3.00 per unit. $3.00 / unit
iv) 31 or more units, base fee. $158
v) Plus $ 4.00 per unit. $4.00 / unit
70 BURNING PERMIT - Agricultural Burn Permit - BAAQMD 5-401.11 a) Range Management. $158
b) Open Burning: Recreational-Bonfire Permit. Religious $316 c) Service Burn Permit. N/C

FALSE ALARMS
71 Nuisance (Repeated) False Alarms
Engine company response, after three (3) reported false alarms within a 180- day period.

Includes: alarm sounding, water-flow alarms, and smoke or heat detectors. $457
27

City of Pinole

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE - FIRE PREVENTION FEES
Activity Description Fee * Note

MISCELLANEOUS INSPECTIONS
72 Change of Occupancy/Site Inspection/Miscellaneous Inspection Site, miscellaneous, or requested inspection for a change of occupancy, including, but not limited to, inspections conducted when required by Building Official, Planning, or other governmental agency, and where not elsewhere listed. Provides 1 hour of inspection time. $316
73 Third or Non-Compliant Inspections
Inspection for third and/or non-compliant inspections, per inspection. $316
74 Group B/M Occupancy
a) Inspection of Group B/M Occupancy. Provides 1/2 hour of inspection time. $158 b) Additional inspection time, per 1/2 hour. $158
75 HOURLY INSPECTION – OVERTIME - INSTRUCTIONAL RATES
a) Additional inspection or instructional time during normal business hours, per half hour. $158 b) Additional inspection time or instructional time after normal business hours, per hour. $316 76 Overtime and weekend inspections: Two hour minimum fee. $632

COPY SERVICES
77 Photocopies
Letter or legal size, per page.
$ .20 / page
78 Laserfiche Retrieval
a) Minimum fee, provides ¼ hour. Additional time, per ¼ hour. $11 b) Plus $.20 per page. $ .20 / page
79 Copies of Photos - Fee, per ¼ hour. Plus actual cost of photos. $11 ● Inspection fees are based on $316.00 per hour during normal business hours. ● Normal business hours are between 8am - 5pm, Monday – Friday. ● Inspection and/or permit fees will be assessed at the time of the primary inspection. ● All inspection/permit fees include one (1) primary and one (1) re-inspection, unless otherwise noted.
● Occupancies requiring three (3) or more inspections for compliance will be assessed an additional $316.00 fee for each inspection.

Authority
Health & Safety Code: §§ 12101, 12640, 13109, 13113, 13116, 13131.5, 13143.2 (b), (c), (d), (e), 13143.9, 13145, 13146(a)(1)(b), (c), (e), 13146.1, 13146.2 (a), (b), 13146.3, 13916, 13235, 13862, 13869, 13869.7, 13875, 13874, 17921, 17948, 17962; Government Code: §§ 6103.7, 6253(b); California Fire Code: §§ 101.1, 101.2, 103.1, 103.2, 103.3, 105.1, 105.4, 901.2; Title 19, CCR: §§ 1.12, 3.28, 982, 1565.1, 1033, 1034, and 1035; Fire District Ordinance No. 2019-37. 28

City of Pinole

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE - FIRE PREVENTION FEES
Fee * Note

FIRE ENGINEERING AND PLAN REVIEW FEES

PLAN REVIEW
Preliminary Plan Review - Consultations - Meetings
1 In office design review/preliminary plan consultation meetings. Per half hour $158 2 Out of office design and/or consultation meetings.
$316.00 per hour, two (2) hour minimum
$632
Land Development
3 Major Subdivision Plan Review (5 or More Lots/Parcels) a) Review for access, hydrant placement
Fee includes two (2) hours plan review and one (1) visual inspection $948
b) Each additional site inspection, per hour $316
c) Re-submittals or revision $316
d) Additional plan review time, per half hour $158
4 Minor Subdivision Plan Review (1 to 4 Lots/Parcels)
a) Review for access, hydrant placement
Fee includes 1/2 hour plan review and one (1) visual inspection $474
b) Each additional site inspection, per hour $316
c) Re-submittals or revisions $316
d) Additional plan review time, per half hour $158
5 Single Family Home Review - access and water supply
a) Review for access, hydrant placement
Fee includes 1/2 hour plan review and one (1) visual inspection *(Does not includes review of fire sprinkler systems - see Section 5.4) $158
b) Each inspection, per hour $316
c) Re-submittals or revisions $316
d) Additional plan review time, per half hour $158
6 Multi-Family Home Review - access and water supply
a) Review for access, hydrant placement
Fee includes two (2) hours plan review and one (1) visual inspection $948
b) Each additional site inspection, per hour $316
c) Re-submittals or revisions $316
d) Additional plan review time, per half hour $158
7 Commercial Facility review - access and water supply
a) Review for access, hydrant placement
Fee includes one (1) hour plan review and one (1) visual inspection $632
b) Each additional site inspection, per hour $316
c) Re-submittals or revisions $316
d) Additional plan review time, per half hour $158
Activity Description
29

City of Pinole

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE - FIRE PREVENTION FEES
Activity Description Fee * Note
Temporary Access Roads and Water Supply
8 Install a Temporary Access Road - Residential and Commercial a) Minimum plan review base fee for one (1) and two (2) homes $316 b) Minimum plan review for large developments and commercial projects Fee includes one (1) hour plan review and one (1) field inspection $632
c) Each additional inspection, per hour $316
d) Re-submittals or revisions $316
e) Additional plan review time, per half hour $158
9 Install a Temporary Water Supply System
a) Minimum plan review base fee
Fee includes one (1) hour plan review and one (1) field inspection $632
b) Each additional inspection, per hour $316
c) Re-submittals or revisions $316
d) Additional plan review time, per half hour $158
Water Supply - Fire Service Mains - Fire Hydrants
10 Fire Service - Emergency Repair
a) Review of underground piping, placement and size
Fee includes one (1) hour plan review and one (1) visual inspection $632
b) Each additional inspection, per hour $316
c) Additional plan review time, per half hour $158
11 Private Fire Service Mains
a) Minimum plan review base fee of system
Fee includes one (1) hour plan review and one (1) visual inspection $632
b) Each additional inspection, per hour $316
c) Re-submittals or revisions $316
d) Additional plan review time, per half hour
Fire service main installation also requires hydro and flush. See 12 and 13. $158
12 Flush - Private Fire Service System
a) Minimum inspection base fee
Fee includes one (1) hour onsite inspection time
$316
b) Each additional inspection, per hour $316
13 Hydrostatic Test - Private Fire Service System
a) Minimum inspection base fee
Fee includes one (1) hour onsite inspection time
$316
b) Each additional inspection, per hour $316
14 Water Flow Information (office only, no field test required) a) Fee for water flow information
(Fire District information must be current within 6 months) $158
15 Water Flow Information Field Test
a) Minimum field test base fee
Fee includes field test for available fire flow for Hydrant and Fire Sprinkler Systems $632
b) Additional or multiple flow tests, per half hour $158 30

City of Pinole

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE - FIRE PREVENTION FEES
Activity Description Fee * Note
16 Rural Water Supply
a) Minimum plan review base fee of tank and underground piping Fee includes one (1) hour plan review and one (1) visual inspection $632
b) Each additional inspection, per hour $316
c) Re-submittals or revisions $316
d) Additional plan review time, per half hour $158
e) Rural water supply flush $316
Building Construction - New Buildings and Tenant Improvements 17 New Construction or Building Additions Plan Review
a) Minimum plan review base fee $948
b) Plus $.07 per square foot in excess of 2000 sq. ft.

Fee includes two (2) hours plan review and one (1) field inspection $.07 / sq ft
c) Additional inspections, per hour $316
d) Re-submittals or revisions $316
e) Additional plan review time, per half hour $158
18 Tenant Improvement Plan review (for building additions see 17) a) Minimum plan review base fee $632.00 $632
b) Plus $.07 per square foot in excess of 2000 sq. ft.

Fee includes one (1) hour plan review and one (1) field inspection $.07 / sq ft
c) Additional inspections, per hour $316
d) Re-submittals or revisions $316
e) Additional plan review time, per half hour $158
Fire Protection System
19 Tenant Improvement Fire Sprinklers (without calculations) a) Minimum plan review base fee $632
b) Plus $.50 per head in excess of 10 heads
Fee includes 1.5 hours plan review and one (1) field inspection $.50 / head
c) Each additional inspection (e.g., weld-o-let, hydro, visual, etc.), per hour $316 d) Re-submittals or revisions $316
e) Additional plan review time, per half hour $158
20 Tenant Improvement Fire Sprinklers (with calculations) a) Minimum plan review base fee $790
b) Plus $.50 per head in excess of 10 heads
Fee includes 1.5 hours plan review and one (1) field inspection $.50 / head
c) Each additional inspection (e.g., weld-o-let, hydro, visual, etc.), per hour $316 d) Re-submittals or revisions $316
e) Additional plan review time, per half hour $158
31

City of Pinole

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE - FIRE PREVENTION FEES
Activity Description Fee * Note
21 New Commercial Fire Sprinkler System (13 and 13 R systems) a) Minimum plan review base fee per riser $1,264
b) Plus $.50 per sprinkler head
Fee includes two (2) hours plan review and two (2) field inspections $.50 / head
c) Each additional inspection (e.g., weld-o-let, hydro, visual, etc.), per hour $316 d) Re-submittals or revisions $316
e) Additional plan review time, per half hour $158
22 Residential Fire Sprinkler System (single family home) a) Minimum plan review base fee
Fee includes one (1) hour plan review, one (1) overhead hydro and one (1) final inspection $632
b) Each additional inspection, per hour $316
c) Re-submittals or revisions $316
d) Additional plan review time, per half hour $158
23 Residential Fire Sprinkler System (multiple homes)
a) Minimum plan review base fee per model
For model only - Fee includes one (1) hour plan review, one (1) overhead hydro and one (1) final inspection
$790
b) Each additional lot (hydrostatic test and final inspection) $474 c) Each additional inspection (e.g., models, individual homes), per hour $316 d) Re-submittals or revisions $316
e) Additional plan review time, per half hour $158
24 Standpipe System
a) Minimum plan review base fee
Fee includes two (2) hours plan review and one (1) field inspection $948
b) Each additional inspection (e.g., hydro, flush, flow test, etc.), per hour $316 c) Re-submittals or revisions $316
d) Additional plan review time, per half hour $158
25 Spray Booth
a) Minimum plan review base fee
Fee includes one (1) hour plan review and one (1) field inspection $632
b) Each additional inspection, per hour $316
c) Re-submittals or revisions $316
d) Additional plan review time, per half hour $158
26 Pre-Action Fire Suppression System
a) Minimum plan review base fee
Fee includes one (1) hour plan review and two (2) field inspections *(Does not include fire alarm review - see Section 6.1) $948
b) Each additional inspection, per hour $316.00 $316
c) Re-submittals or revisions $316.00 $316
d) Additional plan review time, per half hour $158
32

City of Pinole

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE - FIRE PREVENTION FEES
Activity Description Fee * Note
27 Fixed Fire Suppressions System - (wet/dry chem, water mist, etc.) a) Minimum plan review base fee $632
b) Each additional separate system at same location
Fee includes one (1) hour plan review and one (1) field inspection $316
c) Each additional inspection, per hour $316
d) Re-submittals or revisions $316
e) Additional plan review time, per half hour $158
28 Clean Agent Fire Suppression System
a) Minimum plan review base fee
Fee includes one (1) hour plan review and up to three (3) hours of inspection time *(Does not include fire alarm review - see Section 6.1) $1,264
a) Each additional inspection, per hour $316
c) Re-submittals or revisions $316
d) Additional plan review time, per half hour $158
29 Fire Pump Installation
a) Minimum plan review base fee
Fee includes two (2) hours plan review and up to (5) hours of field inspection time *(Does not include review of generator or separate fuel storage tank) $2,212
b) Each additional inspection, per hour $316
c) Re-submittals or revisions $316
d) Additional plan review time, per half hour $158
30 Commercial Cooking (Hood and Duct ) Fire Suppression System a) Minimum plan review base fee $632
b) Each additional system review
Fee includes one (1) hour plan review and one (1) hour of inspection time $316
c) Each additional inspection, per hour $316
d) Re-submittals or revisions $316
e) Additional plan review time, per half hour $158
31 Smoke and Heat Vents $632
a) Minimum plan review base fee
Fee includes one (1) hour plan review and one (1) hour of inspection time $316
b) Each additional inspection, per hour $316
c) Re-submittals or revisions $158
d) Additional plan review time, per half hour
32 Smoke Management/Control System
a) Minimum plan review base feex
Fee includes three (3) hours plan review and up to four (4) hours of field inspection time $2,212
b) Each additional inspection, per hour $316
c) Re-submittals or revisions $316
d) Additional plan review time, per half hour $158
33

City of Pinole

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE - FIRE PREVENTION FEES
Activity Description Fee * Note
33 Explosion Control (includes: vents, dust collection, etc.) a) Minimum plan review base fee
Fee includes two (2) hours plan review and up to two (2) hours field inspection time $1,264
b) Each additional inspection, per hour $316
c) Re-submittals or revisions $316
d) Additional plan review time, per half hour $158
Fire Alarm System
34 Fire Alarm System
a) Minimum plan review base fee $790
b) Plus $10.00 per initiating and notification device
Fee includes two (2) hours plan review and up to one (1) hour of field inspection time $10.00 / device
c) Each additional inspection, per hour $316
d) Re-submittals or revisions $316
e) Additional plan review time, per half hour $158
f) Pre-wire inspections, per hour $316
35 Dedicated Function Fire Alarm System (i.e. sprinkler monitoring, elevator recall, etc.) a) Minimum plan review base fee $632
b) Plus $10.00 per initiating and notification device in excess of 4 devices Fee includes one (1) hour plan review and one (1) hour field inspection time $10.00 / device
c) Each additional inspection, per hour $316
d) Re-submittals or revisions $316
e) Additional plan review time, per half hour $158
36 Fire Alarm Panel Replacement Only
a) Minimum plan review base fee $632
b) Plus $10.00 per initiating and notification device, if altered Fee includes one (1) hour plan review and one (1) hour field inspection time $10.00 / device
c) Each additional inspection, per hour $316
d) Re-submittals or revisions $316
e) Additional plan review time, per half hour $158
37 High-Rise Fire Alarm (new and/or system upgrade)
a) Minimum plan review base fee $2,536
b) Plus $10.00 per initiating and notification device
Fee includes four (4) hours plan review and up to four (4) hours of field inspection time $10.00 / device
c) Each additional inspection, per hour $316
d) Re-submittals or revisions $316
e) Additional plan review time, per half hour $158
f) Pre-wire inspections, per hour $316
34

City of Pinole

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE - FIRE PREVENTION FEES
Activity Description Fee * Note
Flammable and Combustible Liquids Under/Aboveground Tanks-Piping-Dispensing 38 Install Underground Tanks
a) Minimum plan review base fee
Fee includes one (1) hour plan review and one (1) hour of site inspection time $632
b) Each additional tank $316
c) Each additional inspection, per hour $316
d) Re-submittals or revisions $316
e) Additional plan review time, per half hour $158
39 Remove Underground/Above-Ground Tank
a) Minimum plan review base fee
Fee includes one (1) hour plan review and two (2) hours of inspection/site time $948
b) Each additional inspection, per hour $316
40 Install Aboveground Tank
a) Minimum plan review base fee
Fee includes one (1) hour plan review and one (1) hour of site inspection time $632
b) Each additional tank $316
c) Each additional inspection, per hour $316
d) Re-submittals or revisions $316
e) Additional plan review time, per half hour $158
41 Abandon Underground/Above-Ground Tank in Place
a) Minimum plan review base fee
Fee includes one (1) hour plan review and two (2) hours of inspection/site time $948
b) Each additional inspection, per hour $316
42 Fuel Dispensing Modification (EVR, Dispenser change out, other component change out, etc.) a) Minimum plan review base fee
Fee includes one (1) hour plan review and one (1) hour of site inspection time $632
b) Each additional inspection, per hour $316
c) Re-submittals or revisions $316
d) Additional plan review time, per half hour $158
43 Apply Interior Coating to Flammable Liquid Tanks
a) Minimum plan review base fee
Fee includes one (1) hour plan review and two (2) hours of inspection/site time $948
b) Each additional inspection, per hour $316
44 Compressed Gas Systems: LPG-CNG - Medical-Cryogenics Container Exchange Programs; LPG Tank Installation Without Dispensing a) Minimum plan review base fee
Fee includes one (1) hour plan review and one (1) hour of site inspection time $632
b) Each additional inspection, per hour $316
c) Re-submittals or revisions $316
d) Additional plan review time, per half hour $158
35

City of Pinole

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE - FIRE PREVENTION FEES
Activity Description Fee * Note
45 LPG-CNG-Hydrogen (Tank Install and/or Dispensing)
a) Minimum plan review base fee
Fee includes 1.5 hours of plan review and two (2) hours of site inspection time $948
b) Each additional inspection, per hour $316
c) Re-submittals or revisions $316
d) Additional plan review time, per half hour $158
46 Medical or Compressed Gas Systems
a) Minimum plan review base fee
Fee includes one (1) hour plan review and two (2) site inspections $948
b) Each additional inspection, per hour $316
c) Re-submittals or revisions $316
d) Additional plan review time, per half hour $158
47 Cryogenics Fixed Installation
a) Minimum plan review base fee
Fee includes one (1) hour plan review and two (2) site inspections $948
b) Each additional inspection, per hour $316
c) Re-submittals or revisions $316
d) Additional plan review time, per half hour $158
48 Compressed Gas Storage
a) Minimum plan review base fee
Fee includes one (1) hour plan review and one (1) field inspection $632
b) Each additional inspection, per hour $316
c) Re-submittals or revisions $316
d) Additional plan review time, per half hour $158
Energy Storage System
49 Battery Systems/Energy Storage
a) Minimum plan review base fee
Fee includes one (1) hour plan review and one (1) field inspection $632
b) Each additional inspection, per hour $316
c) Re-submittals or revisions $316
d) Additional plan review time, per half hour $158
Special Hazards - Hazardous Materials, Mechanical System, etc. 50 Dust Collection Systems
a) Minimum plan review base fee
Fee includes one (1) hour plan review and two (2) site inspections $790
b) Each additional inspection, per hour $316
c) Re-submittals or revisions $316
d) Additional plan review time, per half hour $158
36

City of Pinole

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE - FIRE PREVENTION FEES
Activity Description Fee * Note
51 Explosives Storage
a) Minimum plan review base fee
Fee includes two (2) hours plan review and two (2) site inspections $1,264
b) Each additional inspection, per hour $316
c) Re-submittals or revisions $316
d) Additional plan review time, per half hour $158
52 Hazardous Materials Compliance review
a) Minimum review of MSDS, HMMP and/or HMIS submittals
Fee includes one (1) hour of review time
$316
b) Additional plan review time, per half hour $158
53 Hazardous Materials - Storage - Dispensing - Open/Closed Systems a) Minimum plan review base fee
Fee includes two (2) hours plan review and two (2) site inspections $1,264
b) Each additional system plan review, minimum two (2) hours $632 c) Each additional inspection, per hour $316
d) Re-submittals or revisions $316
e) Additional plan review time, per half hour $158
54 High-Pile or Rack Storage
a) Minimum plan review base fee
Fee includes 1.5 hours of plan review and 1.5 hours of site inspection time $948
b) Additional field inspection time, per hour $316
c) Re-submittals or revisions $316
d) Additional plan review time, per half hour $158
55 Mechanical Refrigeration System
a) Minimum plan review base fee
Fee includes one (1) hour plan review and two (2) site inspections $948
b) Each additional inspection, per hour $316
c) Re-submittals or revisions $316
d) Additional plan review time, per half hour $158
56 Plant Extraction System
a) Minimum plan review base fee
Fee includes two (2) hours plan review and one (1) site inspection $948
b) Each additional inspection, per hour $316
c) Re-submittals or revisions $316
d) Additional plan review time, per half hour $158
37

City of Pinole

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE - FIRE PREVENTION FEES
Activity Description Fee * Note
Miscellaneous Submittals - Alternative Means and Methods 57 Miscellaneous Submittals or Plans Review
Plans or submittals not described elsewhere
a) Minimum plan review base fee
Fee includes one (1) hour plan review and one (1) field inspection $632
b) Additional plan review time will be charged on hourly basis $316 c) Each additional inspection, per hour $316
d) Re-submittals or revisions $316
e) Additional plan review time, per half hour $158
58 Alternative Means and Methods Requests or Code Interpretation Review a) Minimum review base fee
Fee includes two (2) hours of plan review/consultation time $632
b) Additional plan review time, per half hour $158
59 Expedite Plan Review Requests and Reviews Expedited as a Result of Working without Approved Plans
a) Working without approved plans
i) Minimum plan review fees (overtime), two (2) hour minimum plus applicable plan review fees
$632
ii) Additional plan review time, per hour $316
b) Expedited Plans
i) Minimum plan review fees (reviewed after normal business hrs.), two (2) hours minimum plus applicable plan review fees
$632
ii) Additional plan review time, per hour $316
All revisions will be performed on an expedited/overtime basis at $316.00 per hour with a two hour minimum
Total fees will include all applicable plan review fees plus expedite/overtime fees 60 Demolition Permit Pursuant to Chapter 14, CFC $316
Copies, Laserfiche Retrieval
61 Photocopies - Minimum fee per page, letter or legal size $.20 / page 62 Laserfiche Retrieval
a) Minimum fee per 1/4 hour of review $11
b) Minimum fee per page, letter or legal size $.20 / page 63 Copies of Photos -$11.00 per 1/4 hour
Plus the actual cost of photos
$11
64 Instructional Services
a) Minimum instructional fee
Fee includes two (2) hours of instruction service during normal working hours $632
b) Additional plan review time, per half hour $158
38

City of Pinole

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE - FIRE PREVENTION FEES
Activity Description Fee * Note
Additional Charges and Inspection Time
65 Additional inspection during normal business hours, per 1/2 hour $158 66 Additional inspection time after normal business hours, per hour $316 67 Overtime and weekend inspections, two (2) hour minimum $632 68 Re-submittals or revisions $316
69 Additional plan review time, per half hour $158
Plan Archival
70 Plan Archival - Fee to archive plans electronically, per page $2 ● Minimum review and inspection fees are based on $316.00 per hour during normal business hours, unless otherwise noted. ● Normal business hours are between 8am - 5pm, Monday – Friday. ● All overtime fees are assessed at $316.00 per hour for a two-hour minimum, unless otherwise noted. ● Overtime rates apply to weekends, holidays, and all times outside normal business hours. ● Expedited plan reviews are conducted after normal business hours. ● Total fees assessed will be the sum of all applicable plan review fees including expedite/overtime fees. ● Revisions to previously submitted plans, including plans requiring re-submittal and/or client generated changes, will be assessed $316.00 for each hour of plan review. Reviews conducted and requiring more than one hour of plan review time during normal business hours will be assessed $158.00 per half hour.

Authority
Health & Safety: §§ 13114, 13131.5, 13143.2 (b, c, d, e), 13145, 13147, 13143.9, 13146 (a) (1) (b), (d), e), 13862, 13869, 13869.7, 13875, 13916, 17921, 17951, 17962 Government Code § 7303.7, 6253(b)
Fire District Ordinance: No. 2019-37
Title 19, CCR: § 1.12(a) & 3.28
California Fire Code: § 101.1, 101.2, 103.1, 103.2, 103.3, 105.1, 105.4, 901.2 * These fees are intended to mirror fees authorized by the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District. The District provides fire prevention services to the City of Pinole, under contract. If the District updates fees subsequent to the adoption of this schedule, this schedule shall be presumed to reflect updated amounts. In the case of discrepancies, fee amounts authorized by the District shall supersede the amounts listed above.
39

City of Pinole

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE - POLICE FEES
Fee Charge Basis Note
1 Vehicle Release
a) Vehicle Release $160
b) Victim (stolen car, etc.) Reduction No Charge
2 Fingerprinting fee
a) Live Scan-Residents (Service Fee) $40
b) Live Scan- Non-Residents (Service Fee) $50
c) Live Scan FBI Clearance $19 set by FBI
d) Live Scan DOJ Clearance $32 set by DOJ
3 Clearance Letter: Local Criminal History Check - Resident $25 4 Report Copies (No charge for domestic violence victims 530.5 PC(Identity Theft) and Face Page of Traffic Collision)
$1 per each 5 pages
5 Citation sign-offs
a) Residents Free per citation
b) Non-Residents (non-Pinole issued citation) $10 per citation 6 VIN Verification $30 per verification
7 Weapons Seizure, Storage & Return $125 each
8 Non-civil Subpoenas Actual Cost*
9 Sealing of Records Action Cost*
10 Audio/Video Tape Copies Actual Cost* + m'tls cost
11 Photographic prints Actual Cost* + m'tls cost
12 Restitution & Cost Recovery Actual Cost*
13 Statistical Report (datatrieve) Actual Cost*
14 Military Records Checks $15
15 Inspection of Records No Fee (per GC 6253(a)
16 Criminalistics Analysis and Investigative Services Actual Cost* 17 Civil Subpoena $6 per 1/4 hour per person
plus reproduction costs
18 Civil Subpoena appearance Actual Costs ($150
deposit) (Per GC 68096.1)
Activity Description
40