(e) For purposes of this section, “critical public infrastructure” includes, but is not limited to, transit, roads, airports, ports, water storage, and conveyance, wastewater treatment facilities, landfills, powerplants, and railroads.
(f) The California Coastal Commission or the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission may deem existing sea level rise information or sea level rise plans prepared by a local government to satisfy one or all of the requirements of subdivisions (b) and (c).
SEC. 3.SEC. 2. Section 30985.7 is added to the Public Resources Code, to read:
30985.7. (a) A local government is encouraged to consult with the California Coastal Commission, on or before January 1, 2029, in preparation of a local coastal program or an amendment to a local coastal program pursuant to this division to ensure that, upon formal submission of the local coastal program or an amendment to the local coastal program to the California Coastal Commission, the materials are sufficient for a thorough and complete review.
(b) A local government’s participation in an early consultation pursuant to this section is voluntary. An early consultation is intended to help a local government to timely meet the requirements of this division. Participation in an early consultation at any time shall not prevent a local government from submitting a sea level rise plan as required by this division.
(c) If a local government seeks to engage in an early consultation at any time with the California Coastal Commission, the following shall occur:
(1) A local government shall initiate the early consultation by notifying California Coastal Commission staff in writing that the local government seeks to engage in a consultation. After providing this notification, the local government shall provide the California Coastal Commission a summary report on the status of its efforts to develop a sea level rise plan pursuant to Section 30985, including any draft components as outlined in subdivisions (b) and (c) of Section 30985, and may provide a draft local coastal program or an amendment to a local coastal program that is intended to satisfy the requirement of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 30985.
(2) An early consultation may include a singular meeting or regular meetings. The meeting schedule shall be mutually agreed upon by the local government and the California Coastal Commission. (3) California Coastal Commission staff shall offer written recommendations to a local government about what may preclude certification of a local coastal program or an amendment to a local coastal program, including, but not limited to, information about what satisfies the requirements of subdivisions (b) and (c) of Section 30985.
(4) California Coastal Commission staff shall provide recommendations in a reasonable timeframe that is mutually agreed upon by both the local government and the commission.
SEC. 4.The Legislature finds and declares that the addition of Section 30527 to the Public Resources Code serves the public purpose of protecting coastal resources and public accessibility to the coastline and does not constitute a gift of public funds within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XVI of the California Constitution.
CITY COUNCIL
REPORT 9.J.
DATE: JULY 1, 2025
TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: Roxane Stone, Deputy City Clerk, [email protected] SUBJECT: PLACEMENT OF LIENS FOR DELINQUENT UNPAID WASTE COLLECTION CHARGES FALLING DELINQUENT BETWEEN JANUARY AND APRIL 2025, CONSIDERED AT AN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING ON JUNE 5, 2025
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the placement of liens for the purpose of collecting outstanding payments for garbage collection services pursuant to PMC Section 8.08.110 (b) and (c).
BACKGROUND
Pursuant to Section 8.08 of the Pinole Municipal Code, an administrative hearing was held on June 5, 2025, regarding unpaid garbage collection services that fell delinquent between January and April 2025. No parties attended the hearing to protest the charges. The administrative hearing was the final step in the process to collect the delinquencies, prior to Council approval to place the liens on the subject properties to recover the full amount owed, including delinquent charges and administrative fees.
FISCAL IMPACT
The City of Pinole receives an administrative recovery charge for each lien at the time of tax settlement or payment of the lien. There are 80 properties on which liens are being imposed, representing a total of $46,082.03 in delinquent service charges. The total administrative recovery fee is $60 per lien; a portion of which is remitted to Contra Costa County. The administrative recovery fees are $4,980.00; the total lien amount including recovery fees are $51,062.03.
Following approval by Council, a revised list will be provided to the City Clerk for recording, removing properties where accounts have been brought current since the publication of this report.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Resolution
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-XX
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF PINOLE, CALIFORNIA, PLACING LIENS
ON PROPERTIES SITUATED IN THE CITY OF PINOLE, COUNTY OF CONTRA
COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS
UNPAID WASTE COLLECTION CHARGES FROM AN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING CONDUCTED JUNE 5, 2025
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Municipal Code of the City of Pinole, Chapter 8.08, Section 8.08.090, subscription to garbage collection service is required for all premises in the City of Pinole, and the premises described in Exhibit "A" located in the City of Pinole, County of Contra Costa, State of California, were provided with garbage collection services as required by PMC, Chapter 8.08; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Section 8.08.110, the owners of said premises were notified in writing of their requirement to subscribe to and make payment for garbage collection services as provided in said Code Section; and WHEREAS, the owners of the premises failed to make payment for garbage collection services as required (collection charges fell delinquent between January and April 2025); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Section 8.08.110, a hearing was held on June 5, 2025; and
WHEREAS, as a result thereof, the City of Pinole has incurred expenses for delinquent collection charges and administrative costs as enumerated in Exhibit "A"*, which amounts remain unpaid.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that pursuant to Section 8.08.110 of the Municipal Code of the City of Pinole, the City Council of the City of Pinole does hereby place a lien against said premises for the amounts as described above and as applicable to each specific premise identified as Exhibit "A" attached hereto and, by this reference, incorporated herein; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby directed to record this resolution with the Office of the Recorder of Contra Costa County, California.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 1st day of July 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 this 1st day of July 2025.
_________________________________
Heather Bell, CMC
City Clerk
* Exhibit A is not included as an attachment to this resolution that is posted on the City website or disseminated as part of the City Council Agenda Packet. The names of the individuals are confidential until the liens are recorded and become public record.
CITY COUNCIL
REPORT 9.K.
DATE: JULY 1, 2025
TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: Heba El-Guindy, Public Works Director, [email protected] SUBJECT: ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF PINOLE AND CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FOR
THE SAN PABLO AVENUE ENHANCED BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN GAP
CLOSURE STUDY
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment A) authorizing approval of the Cooperative Agreement (Attachment B) between the City of Pinole and Contra Costa County for the San Pablo Avenue Enhanced Bicycle and Pedestrian Gap Closure Study, and authorizing the City Manager to sign the Agreement.
BACKGROUND
Bay Area voters approved Regional Measure 3 (RM3) on June 5, 2018. RM3 is a competitive grant program to fund bicycle and pedestrian access improvements on and in the vicinity of the state-owned toll bridges connecting to rail transit stations and ferry terminals. The Bay Area Toll Authority (BATA) adopted a phasing schedule for increasing the toll amount with the first, second, and third dollars of the toll increases taking effect on January 1, 2019, January 1, 2022, and January 1, 2025, respectively.
The RM3 program provides a total of $150 million in funding administered by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). MTC’s Resolution No. 4639 established policies, procedures, and project selection criteria specific to the RM3 Safe Routes to Transit and Bay Trail (SR2TBT) grant program. Applications for Cycle 1 of the SR2TBT program were due to MTC by October 14, 2024, with $75 million available for programming. MTC received 51 applications requesting approximately $315 million, approximately four times the available amount in Cycle 1 of the program.
Contra Costa County in coordination with the City of Pinole, submitted an application for Cycle 1 of the RM3 program to fund the San Pablo Avenue Enhanced Bicycle and Pedestrian Gap Closure Study (Study). The Study aims to identify and evaluate enhancements to bicycle and pedestrian improvements along San Pablo Avenue from Richmond Parkway to the PinoleHercules city limit. The Study was one of seven projects selected by MTC for funding with a total project cost of $500,000 including $425,000 of RM3 funds and $75,000 local match. The local match to be shared between the County (share of $50,000) and the City (share of $25,000) as detailed in the attached Cooperative Agreement (Attachment B). On June 10, 2025, the County Board of Supervisors approved Resolution 2025-199 requesting that MTC support placing the Study on the federal Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and
programming of the RM3 funds. The Resolution also authorized the Director of the Department of Conservation and Development to sign on behalf of the County the attached Cooperative Agreement with the City of Pinole.
REVIEW AND ANALYSIS
San Pablo Avenue (also SR 123 segments) is a major corridor with a regional significance as it runs throughout the entire length of Western Contra Costa County and portions of western Alameda County (an approximate length of 18.56 miles). The Study area covers the segment of San Pablo Avenue between Richmond Parkway in the southwest and the Pinole/Hercules city limit in the northeast (an approximate length of 3.19 miles) traveling through unincorporated County and City areas.
The County will lead the Study and associated reporting to MTC on the RM3 funds to be expended within the set Study budget and schedule. In addition to sharing the local match, the attached Cooperative Agreement, for example, outlines collaboration between the County and the City on developing the Study scope of work, selection of the consultant, and participation in staff; policy and technical meetings. The Study recommendations for improvements within Pinole will be developed based on adopted City policies and priorities, and approval of the recommendations will be within the City Council discretion.
FISCAL IMPACT
Total study costs, including consultant services, are planned at a not-to-exceed amount of $500,000 including $425,000 of RM3 funds and a local match of $75,000. The County’s allocation for the local match is in the amount of $50,000, while the City’s remaining share of the local match is in the amount of $25,000. If approved by the City Council, the City’s share of the local match of $25,000 will be funded by Measure S funds in Fiscal Year 2025/26.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Resolution
B. Cooperative Agreement
RESOLUTION NO. 2025 – xx
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PINOLE, OF THE
COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APROVING
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PINOLE AND CONTRA
COSTA COUNTY FOR THE SAN PABLO AVENUE ENHANCED BICYCLE AND
PEDESTRIAN GAP CLOSURE STUDY
WHEREAS, Bay Area voters approved Regional Measure 3 (RM3) on June 5, 2018. RM3 is a competitive grant program to fund bicycle and pedestrian access improvements on and in the vicinity of the state-owned toll bridges connecting to rail transit stations and ferry terminals; and
WHEREAS, the Bay Area Toll Authority (BATA) adopted a phasing schedule for increasing the toll amount with the first, second, and third dollars of the toll increases on January 1, 2019, January 1, 2022, and January 1, 2025, respectively; and WHEREAS, the RM3 program provides a total of $150 million in funding administered by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) with $75 million available for programming under Cycle 1 of the program; and WHEREAS, Contra Costa County in coordination with the City of Pinole, submitted an application for Cycle 1 of the RM3 program to fund the San Pablo Avenue Enhanced Bicycle and Pedestrian Gap Closure Study (Study) by the due date of October 14, 2024; and
WHEREAS, the Study aims to identify and evaluate enhancements to bicycle and pedestrian improvements along San Pablo Avenue from Richmond Parkway to the PinoleHercules city limit traveling through unincorporated County and City areas; and WHEREAS, the Study was one of seven projects selected by MTC for funding with a total project cost of $500,000 including $425,000 of RM3 funds and $75,000 local match.
The local match to be shared between the County (share of $50,000) and the City (share of $25,000); and
WHEREAS, a Cooperative Agreement between the City of Pinoile and Contra Costa County is attached as Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, on June 10, 2025, the County Board of Supervisors approved Resolution 2025-199 requesting that MTC support placing the Study on the federal Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and programming of the RM3 funds. The Resolution also authorized the Director of the Department of Conservation and Development to sign on behalf of the County the Cooperative Agreement with the City (Exhibit A); and
WHEREAS, the current adopted capital budget has sufficient Measure S funds to fund the City’s local match of $25,000 in Fiscal Year 2025/26; and
NOW THERFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pinole as follows:
1. Approve the Cooperative Agreement (Exhibit A) between the City of Pinole and Contra Costa County for the San Pablo Avenue Enhanced Bicycle and Pedestrian Gap Closure Study to be funded by $425,000 of RM3 funds, $50,000 County share of local match, and $25,000 City share of local match for a total Study cost of $500,000.
2. Authorize the City Manager to execute the Cooperative Agreement (Exhibit A)
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Pinole City Council held on the 1st day of July 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 1st day of July 2025.
____________________________
Heather Bell
City Clerk
CITY COUNCIL
REPORT 9.L.
DATE: JULY 1, 2025
TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: Heba El-Guindy, Public Works Director, [email protected] SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH CONSOR NORTH AMERICA, INC. (FORMERLY
QUINCY ENGINEERING, INC.) FOR ADDITIONAL SERVICES FOR THE SAN
PABLO AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AT THE BNSF RAILROAD
PROJECT (PROJECT NO. RO1710)
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the attached Resolution authorizing approval of a Fourth Amendment to the Consulting Services Agreement between the City and Consor North America, Inc. for additional services and increased compensation by a not-to-exceed amount of $199,300 associated with the San Pablo Avenue Bridge Replacement at the BNSF Railroad (Project No. RO1710).
BACKGROUND
The San Pablo Avenue bridge over the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (BNSF) is an integral part of the area’s transportation network. The age and condition assessment of the bridge supports its replacement. In response to multiple funding applications, this City project was awarded funding from three grant programs namely:
1. Highway Bridge Program (HBP) grant funds in the total amount of $3,742,163 for the Preliminary Engineering (PE) phase.
2. Transportation for Livable Communities (TLC) grant funds in the total amount of $387,000 for the PE phase.
3. Subregional Transportation Mitigation Program (STMP) grant funds in the total amount of $1,600,000 for PE and Construction phases.
It should be noted that the PE phase encompasses the Project Initiation and Development (PID) activities, the Project Approval and Environmental Document (PA&ED), and the project design Plans, Specifications, and cost Estimates (PS&E) including right-of-way assessment and estimate.
The City entered into a Consulting Services Agreement dated May 26, 2020 with Quincy Engineering, Inc. covering the PE scope of work of the San Pablo Avenue Bridge Replacement at the BNSF Railroad (Project No. 1710) with an initial consultant compensation amount not-toexceed $877,900. On July 6, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution 2021-54 approving the First Amendment to the Agreement that increased the consultant compensation by $49,800 to complete additional traffic analysis, a wetlands delineation report, and payment for
BNSF environmental fees. On July 19, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution 2022-62 approving a Second Amendment that increased the consultant compensation by an additional $83,400 for added PE services. On November 11, 2024, the City executed a Third Amendment that extended the Agreement retroactively from July 1, 2023 to December 31, 2026 and amended the Consultant’s business name from Quincy Engineering, Inc. to Consor North America, Inc.
REVIEW AND ANALYSIS
The San Pablo Avenue Bridge Replacement at the BNSF Railroad (Project No. 1710) is included in the City’s Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) approved by City Council on June 17, 2025. Funding details shown on Project No. 1710 charter take into account expenditure to date.
With the recommended adoption of the attached Resolution (Attachment A) will approve a Fourth Amendment to the Agreement to add the attached scope of work (Attachment B) including development of additional roadway and bridge alternatives, Preliminary Site Assessment, and changes to the environmental studies and documents under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California Environment Quality Act (CEQA). This Fourth Amendment will also increase the consultant compensation by an additional not-toexceed amount of $199,300. This increase in compensation will be funded by the awarded grant funds, particularly by the HBP fund.
It should be noted that the ongoing NEPA technical studies and CEQA document and associated approval by Caltrans are expected to be completed by the end of calendar year 2025, to be followed by the PS&E phase starting in 2026.
FISCAL IMPACT
The San Pablo Avenue Bridge Replacement at the BNSF Railroad (Project No. 1710) is included in the five-year CIP approved by City Council on June 17, 2025. The additional services (Attachment B) and increased compensation in the not-to-exceed amount of $199,300 will be primarily funded by HBP grant fund and could be supplemented by TLC and STMP grant funds if necessary.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Resolution
B. Amendment 4
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-___
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PINOLE,
COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A FOURTH
AMENDMENT TO THE CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH CONSOR NORTH AMERICA, INC. (FORMERLY QUINCY ENGINEERING, INC.) FOR
ADDITIONAL SERVICES ASSOCIATED WITH THE SAN PABLO AVENUE BRIDGE
REPLACEMENT AT THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE RAILROAD (PROJECT NO. RO1710)
WHEREAS, the City of Pinole (“City”) entered into a Consulting Services Agreement dated May 26, 2020 (”Agreement”) with Quincy Engineering, Inc. (“Consultant”) for a compensation amount of $877,900 for the San Pablo Avenue Bridge Replacement at the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railroad included in the City’s Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) as Project No. 1710; and WHEREAS, on July 6, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution 2021-54 to authorize the City Manager to execute a First Amendment to the Agreement to increase the Consultant compensation by $49,800 to complete additional traffic analysis, a wetlands delineation report, and payment for BNSF environmental fees that were not included in the original scope of work; and
WHEREAS, on July 19, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution 2022-62 to authorize the City Manager to execute a Second Amendment to the Agreement to increase the Consultant compensation by $83,400 for additional services under the Preliminary Engineering (PE) phase of the project; and
WHEREAS, on November 11, 2024, the City executed a Third Amendment to extend the Agreement retroactively from July 1, 2023 to December 31, 2026 and to amend the Consultant’s business name from Quincy Engineering, Inc. to Consor North America, Inc.; and
WHEREAS, this is a Fourth Amendment to the Agreement to add the attached scope (Exhibit A) including development of additional roadway and bridge alternatives, Preliminary Site Assessment, and changes to the NEPA technical studies and CEQA document with additional Consultant compensation of a not-to-exceed amount of $199,300; and
WHEREAS, the additional Consultant compensation in this Fourth Amendment will be funded by grant funds awarded to the project under the Highway Bridge Program (HBP), Subregional Transportation Mitigation Program (STMP), and Transportation for Livable Communities (TLC) as per the City’s Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) approval by City Council on June 17, 2025.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pinole does hereby approve the Fourth Amendment to the Consulting Services Agreement
with Consor North America, Inc. for the San Pablo Avenue Bridge Replacement at the BNSF Railroad (CIP Project No. RO1710) for additional services (Exhibit A) and increased compensation by a not-to-exceed amount of $199,300.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Pinole City Council held on the 1st day of July 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 1st day of July 2025.
____________________________
Heather Bell
City Clerk
SCOPE OF WORK
This scope of work documents the changes required to provide Preliminary Engineering, Caltrans Bridge Type Selection, and environmental clearance for the San Pablo Avenue Bridge at BNSF Railroad. The changes include additional time due to the Caltrans review and approval process, development of additional roadway and bridge alternatives, development of the Preliminary Site Assessment, and changes due to the NEPA technical studies and the CEQA document.
The Scope of Amendment 4 is as follows:
TASK 1- PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND COORDINATION
Task 1.1 – Project Management
Consor will provide Project Management tasks which include coordination with the City, Team management, product development tracking, Team and stakeholder communication, and project progress and budget reporting. Quincy will update, develop, track, and lead the following project management tasks:
• Critical Path Schedule and updates
• Monthly Invoices, Progress Reports, and Look-Ahead Summaries • Prepare all submittals for the City
Task 1 Deliverables:
• Project schedule and updates, Monthly Invoicing, Progress Reports • Submittal Preparation
• Bi-monthly PDT Meetings
TASK 2- PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING
Task 2.2 – Preliminary Roadway Plans
Consor developed an additional roadway and detour alternative based on City and stakeholder feedback.
This new alignment that was developed utilized the site topographic survey. Consor verified the new alignment meets design standards, considers right-of-way, safety, utility, environmental, and other potential impacts. Consor developed the following:
• A proposed vertical profile based on the railroad requirements and the structure depth. • Preliminary Plan and Profile (Geometric Approval) drawings for the proposed alignment. • An “Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Construction Cost” which will include appropriate contingency factors for this level of design.
Deliverables:
• Roadway plans and estimate for additional roadway alternative.
Task 2.3 – Advanced Planning Studies & Type Selection Memo Consor developed five Advanced Planning Studies (APS’s) based on the site restrictions, roadway alignments, railroad constraints along with an associated structure cost using the bridge’s deck area. Three APS's were originally scoped. The two additional alternatives were developed based on City and community meeting feedback.
Consor also finalized the Type Selection Report process, which also included a Type Selection Meeting and comment resolution. This mandatory Caltrans requirement was enacted after the May 2020 contract date.
Consor attended the video conference meeting with Caltrans Structures Local Assistance and other Caltrans Functional Units that documented bridge type and design strategy. Consor developed meeting materials including agenda, PowerPoint presentation, sign-in sheet, and meeting notes that will be distributed to meeting participants afterwards for review. This meeting provided the opportunity for the project team to gain concurrence from Caltrans on the recommended bridge and retaining wall alternatives.
Deliverables:
• Two additional Bridge APS
• Type Selection Report Process & Meeting
Task 2.7 – Initial Site Assessment & Preliminary Site Investigation Initial Site Assessment
HDR will perform the following in general accordance with the ASTM International Standard E1527-21 Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process, the Caltrans Standard Environmental Reference (SER) Volume 1: Guidance for Compliance, Chapter 10 - Hazardous Materials, Hazardous Waste, and Contamination, and US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Standards and Practices for All Appropriate Inquiries (AAI) (40 CFR Part 312). Exceptions to the ASTM Standard include no title searches, property appraisals, or interviews will be performed for the Project area. The purpose of an ISA is to evaluate the Project area for the presence of Recognized Environmental Conditions (REC).
Database Review
HDR will review pertinent data, including previous studies provided by the City and Project Team, Contra Costa County (County) and Caltrans Bridge Inspection Reports (BIRs) and maintenance records for the San Pablo Avenue Bridge, site investigation reports, groundwater monitoring reports, and federal and state records within one-mile radius of the Project area.
As part of the study, the following sources will be reviewed for the purpose of determining the potential for RECs within the Project limits that may impact the proposed improvements:
• Environmental Data Resources (EDR) Radius Map™ Report with GeoCheck®, EDR Aerial Photo • Decade Report, EDR Historical Topo Map Report, EDR Certified Sanborn Map Report, and the EDR • City Directory Image Report
• Department of Toxic Substances Control EnviroStor Database
• State Water Resources Control Board GeoTracker Database • United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey • County Land Use and Zoning Maps
• County Office of the Assessor records
HDR will order an EDR database search for the Project, which is a database search of regulated underground storage tanks, active and closed case files of cleanup operations, hazardous materials treatment, storage, and disposal facility (TSDF), historical cleaners and auto shops, and regulated sites.
HDR will review available records to determine the potential presence of RECs based on previous land use and historical operations at or near the Project area. This research will also be used to help support the lack of RECs at the Project area.
Field Reconnaissance
HDR will conduct a field reconnaissance to assess the existing conditions at and in the vicinity of the Project area, and to visually observe indications of RECs within the Project limits. The visual observations will be documented, and photographs of the site conditions at the time of the visit will be taken. Consor will obtain authorization from BNSF to encroach upon the area beneath the Bridge so that HDR can have access the entire Project area for the site reconnaissance.
ISA Report
The results of the database search and site reconnaissance will be summarized and presented in a report, describing the existing or potential RECs at the Project area. HDR will submit a Draft ISA Report to the City and Project Team, and then incorporate the comments received into the Final ISA Report. The report will comply with the California Environmental Quality Act/National Environmental Policy Act (CEQA/NEPA) requirements. If there are existing or potential RECs at the Project area, HDR will provide recommendations in the ISA Report to conduct specific sampling at the Project area. This additional field sampling would be performed as part of a Preliminary Site Investigation (PSI) to confirm the presence or lack of suspected RECs.
Deliverables:
• Draft Initial Site Assessment Report (PDF)
• Final Initial Site Assessment Report (PDF)
Assumptions:
The following assumptions were used in preparing our scope and fee for the Project. • Access to the entire Project area will be provided to HDR at no cost; including the access along the BNSF railroad tracks to confirm RECs and evaluate sampling for the PSI and structural elements of the bridge.
• Soil sampling and testing will not be performed as part of the ISA work.
• There will be one round of comments for revision of the Draft ISA Report and comments will be compiled and provided at one time to HDR.
• Review and completion of the Final ISA Report will be accomplished within 180 days, to avoid having to update the ISA or letting it expire (within 1 year).
Preliminary Site Investigation (PSI)
HDR will conduct a PSI for the Project area that will evaluate soil along the bridge approaches and beneath the bridge adjacent to pilings (as feasible), in areas proposed for soil disturbance during construction activities. The PSI will be performed in accordance with the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) International Standard E1903-19, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Process, and the Caltrans Standard Environmental Reference (SER), Volume 1: Guidance for Compliance, Chapter 10 - Hazardous Materials, Hazardous Waste, and Contamination.
Field Work
HDR will prepare a Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) and a Health and Safety Plan (HASP) for the proposed field work activities. Sample locations will be marked in white paint and USA North 811 will be notified a minimum of 72 hours prior to the start of field sampling. HDR will obtain applicable permits, rights of entry, or drilling permits, as needed, and subcontract a licensed drilling company to perform the field work. HDR will provide oversight during drilling and sampling activities. Samples will be submitted to a state-certified laboratory, following chain of custody protocol, and analyzed for specific constituents of concern (COC).
Although leaded fuel has been prohibited in California since the 1980s, aerially deposited lead (ADL) from vehicle emissions may still be present in surface and near-surface soils in unpaved areas along California highways and roadways. Since lead is ubiquitous in the environment, sampling and analysis of soil is performed during project development to determine if lead concentrations are at levels that require special management and/or disposal. Shallow soil samples will be collected at both ends of the bridge roadway to evaluate ADL levels.
Approximately two to three borings will be sampled using a direct push technology (DPT) rig to collect samples to 5 feet below ground surface (bgs). Soil samples will be collected in areas of exposed soil along the shoulders of the San Pablo Avenue. Soil samples will be contained in the 5-foot acetate liner, and the liner will be capped at each end with a Teflon sheet and plastic lid, labeled, and placed into an ice chest with ice. The chain of custody will be completed in the field and relinquished to the laboratory upon delivery to a State Certified Laboratory for analysis. Shallow soil samples will be analyzed for ADL at depth intervals of 0-1, 1-2, and 2-3 ft bgs using EPA 6010 and pH using EPA 9045. Select samples from the borings will be analyzed for metals using California Administrative Manual (CAM) 17 methods EPA 6010/7471A and volatile organic compounds (VOC) using EPA 8260.
All boreholes will be backfilled with grout and capped with native soil to match the surrounding areas. The DPT rig sampling device is 2.25 inches in diameter, therefore minimal drill cuttings will be generated, thereby lowering the amount of investigation derived waste produced.
Up to three hand auger borings will be attempted beneath the bridge around the bridge pilings, if access and positioning are feasible away from the railroad tracks. Sampling beneath the bridge will be attempted to 3 feet below ground surface (ft bgs), in order to obtain adequate data for classification of soil. Samples will be logged on the chain-of-custody which will be given to the laboratory upon delivery of the soil samples for analyses. The borings will be backfilled with grout and capped with native soil. The soil samples will be analyzed for common railroad contaminants including metals using CAM 17 methods EPA 6010/7471A, semivolatile organic compounds (SVOC) using EPA 8270C, polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) using EPA 8270C, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) using EPA 8082.
Structural Elements
HDR will conduct a structural elements investigation for asbestos containing material (ACM) and lead based paint (LBP) from the bridges. The bridge structures have a potential to contain ACM and LBP, based on construction information and age. The ACM/LBP investigation will be conducted under direction and quality control of a California Certified Asbestos Consultant (CAC #05-3872) and California Certified Lead Inspector/Assessor (CDPH #LRC-2886).
ACM is defined in Title 8, CCR Section 1529, as any material that has more than one percent (1%) asbestos.
Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations Section 1735 requires a pre-demolition survey for ACM. Under the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 61, ACM is material containing more than 1% asbestos as determined using the methods specified in Appendix A, Subpart E, 40 CFR Part 763, Section 1, PLM.
In accordance with the US EPA's NESHAP regulation, facilities planned for renovation or demolition must be inspected for ACMs prior to the planned renovation or demolition. The DTSC classifies ACM as hazardous waste if it is friable and contains 1% or more asbestos as hazardous waste. DTSC considers non-friable bulk asbestos containing waste to be non-hazardous regardless of its asbestos content, so it is not subject to regulation under Title 22, Division 4.5, of the CCR. The asbestos NESHAP (40 CFR 61, Subpart M, Section
61.145) requires the identification and removal of all ACM prior to demolition or renovation, in combination, the EPA and Cal/OSHA requirements govern the testing, handling, and disposal of materials containing asbestos.
LBP is defined in Title 17, CCR, Division 1, Chapter 8, as paint or other surface coatings that contain an amount of lead equal to, or more than one milligram per square centimeter (1.0 mg/cm2); or half of one percent (0.5%) by weight. The EPA and California Department of Public Health (CDPH) define LBP as paint having a lead content equal to or greater than 0.5% by weight or 5,000 parts per million (ppm) by paint chip analysis.
California Division of Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) considers any level of lead in paint to be a potential exposure hazard for the worker.
Before 1978, lead was a common ingredient in paint because it added strength, shine, and extended the life of the paint. LBP is recognized as a potential health risk due to the known toxic effects of lead exposure (primarily through ingestion) on the central nervous system, kidneys, and blood stream. Title 17 of the CCR presumes that paint on structures built before January 1, 1978, is LBP, and disturbance of that structure requires use of lead safe work practices including containment and cleaning the work area after the Project is completed.
Structural Elements Field Sampling
HDR will perform field sampling to screen structural elements for hazardous materials along the bridge. Prior to field work, HDR will evaluate the bridge construction information and include the data in the SAP and HASP for the materials that will be sampled. The bridge is constructed of concrete and has some painted surfaces, as well as wrapped piping secured to the western side of the bridge. The pipe wrap may contain ACM, along with joint compound within the bridge deck. Samples for ACM will be collected from various portions of the bridge including the deck, railings, joints, and curbs. Painted surfaces along the curbs and bridge corner signs will be sampled for LBP. Approximately seven samples from each homogenous material will be collected for ACM and LBP.
HDR will secure rights of entry, and plan to conduct destructive sampling of the bridge for ACM and LBP. HDR will collect and analyze samples of suspected ACM and LBP from the bridge structure and document the sample locations with photographs and sketches. Samples will be submitted to an accredited laboratory to be analyzed for asbestos using Polarized Light Microscopy (PLM) by EPA Method 600/R-93-116, and LBP using EPA Method SW 849 3050B/7000B, Flame Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy (AAS).
PSI Report
The results of the PSI will be summarized and presented in a report, describing the drilling methods, sampling procedures, analytical results, data evaluation, conclusions, and recommendations for worker safety and soil management (re-use or disposal). HDR will submit a Draft PSI Report to the City/County and Project Team, and then incorporate comments received into the Final PSI Report. The report will comply with the CEQA/NEPA requirements.
Deliverables:
• Draft PSI Report (PDF)
• Final PSI Report (PDF)
Assumptions:
• The types of work and limits of the Project were provided by Consor and the City of Pinole. • A delineation of the limits of hazardous wastes is not a part of our scope of work. • Access to the Project area will be provided to HDR at no cost. • BNSF access and permits will be provided by Consor to HDR, including BNSF Flagger (as needed), at no additional cost to HDR. Access along the railroad tracks will be necessary to access areas beneath the bridge and to position the sampling rig in areas near pilings to obtain samples.
• HDR will sample only areas readily accessible without resorting to methods requiring special Cal/OSHA certifications or permits including confined space, harnessing, scuba, repelling, trench or tunnel, etc. • Concealed spaces, cavities, covered materials, and otherwise inaccessible spaces that might contain suspect materials will not be sampled. HDR will not dismantle or otherwise destroy infrastructure to reach otherwise inaccessible suspected hazardous materials. • Grading or clearing to gain access to the drilling locations will not be required. • No restrictions on work times will be imposed for a typical 8-hour workday. • Work will be performed in 2025, following the ISA.
• HDR’s deliverables will be provided in PDF format.
Detailed Site Investigation (DSI) OPTIONAL
Based on the Caltrans SER, if the PSI indicates contamination that may impact the project is present, but does not adequately delineate it, then a Detailed Site Investigation (DSI) is necessary. A DSI determines the source, full nature and extent of contamination so that remediation costs, impacts to project scope and schedule, and future liability can be realistically estimated. This information is critical to support the analysis of alternatives in the environmental document. If needed, HDR will prepare a DSI to determine mitigation options, costs, schedule and remediation options. The details of the DSI will be based upon the information from the PSI and areas of concern that will impact the Project.
The DSI will determine whether contamination extends beyond property lines as adjacent properties are potential sources or recipients of contamination which will control the risk to the project and Caltrans. The results of the DSI will be summarized and presented in a report, describing the findings of the investigation data evaluation, conclusions, and recommendations for the Project. HDR will submit a Draft DSI Report to the City and Project Team, and then incorporate comments received into the Final DSI Report.
Deliverables:
• Draft DSI Report (PDF)
• Final DSI Report (PDF)
Assumptions:
• The types of work and limits of the Project were provided by Consor and the City of Pinole. • A delineation of the limits of hazardous wastes will be the focus of the scope of work. • Access to the Project area will be provided to HDR at no cost. If needed, BNSF access and permits will be provided by Consor to HDR, including BNSF Flagger, at no additional cost to HDR. Access along the railroad tracks will be necessary to drive to the area beneath the bridge and to position the sampling rig in areas near pilings to obtain samples.
Task 2.7.1 – Database Review
WRECO will review all pertinent data, including previous studies provided by the City and Project Team, Contra Costa County (County) and Caltrans Bridge Inspection Reports (BIRs) and maintenance records for the San Pablo Avenue Bridge, site investigation reports, groundwater monitoring reports, and federal and state records within one-mile radius of the Project area.
As part of the study, the following sources will be reviewed for the purpose of determining the potential for RECs within the Project limits that may impact the proposed improvements:
• Environmental Data Resources (EDR) Radius Map™ Report with GeoCheck®, EDR Aerial Photo Decade Report, EDR Historical Topo Map Report, EDR Certified Sanborn Map Report, and the EDR City Directory Image Report
• Department of Toxic Substances Control’s EnviroStor Database • Regional Water Quality Control Board’s GeoTracker Database • United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey
• County Land Use and Zoning Maps
• County Office of the Assessor/Recorder records
• County Building and Planning Department records
• County Department of Environmental Health, California Environmental Reporting System (CERS), and Certified Unified Program Agencies (CUPA)
WRECO will order an EDR database search for the Project, which is a database search of all regulated underground storage tanks, active and closed case files of cleanup operations, hazardous materials treatment, storage, and disposal facility (TSDF), historical cleaners and auto shops, and regulated sites.
WRECO will review these available records to determine the potential presence of RECs based on previous land use and any historical operations at or near the Project area. This research will also be used to help support the lack of RECs at the Project area.
Task 2.7.2 – Field Reconnaissance
WRECO will conduct a field reconnaissance to assess the existing conditions at and in the vicinity of the Project area, and to visually observe any indications of RECs within the Project limits. The visual observations will be documented, and photographs of the site conditions at the time of the visit will be taken. The data from the site reconnaissance will be compared to the historical information and EDR database findings to determine if there are existing or potential RECs at the Project area.
Task 2.7.3 – ISA Report
The results of the database search and site reconnaissance will be summarized and presented in a report, describing the existing or potential RECs at the Project area. WRECO will submit a Draft ISA Report to the City and Project Team, and then incorporate the comments received into the Final ISA Report. The report will comply with the California Environmental Quality Act/National Environmental Policy Act (CEQA/NEPA) requirements. If there are existing or potential RECs at the Project area, WRECO will provide
recommendations in the ISA Report to conduct specific sampling at the Project area. This additional field sampling would be performed as part of a Preliminary Site Investigation (PSI) to confirm the presence or lack of suspected RECs.
Task 2.7 Assumptions:
• Access to the Project area will be provided to WRECO at no cost. • Soil sampling and testing will not be performed as part of the ISA work. • A PSI will be recommended in the ISA Report if necessary. • The actual scope of the PSI field work will depend on the findings and recommendations of the ISA.
TASK 4- ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES/PERMITTING
Task 4.3 – Environmental Documentation
Task 4.3.2- Draft IS/MND
Panorama completed the first Administrative Draft IS/MND in October 2022. Panorama will update the IS/MND based on project changes and revisions to CEQA requirements. Panorama will then submit the Administrative Draft IS/MND and all supporting appendices to the City of Pinole and City of Hercules for review and comment.
Panorama will address and incorporate the City’s comments on the Administrative Draft IS/MND and prepare the Draft IS/MND and associated notices. We have included one virtual meeting between Panorama and the City’s staff to clarify responses on any comments. Once the Draft IS/MND is determined completed, Panorama will file the NOC with the State Clearinghouse. We assume the City will provide the mailing list to Panorama and Panorama will prepare and mail the Notice of Intent (NOI) to Adopt an MND. Panorama assumes that up to 100 notices will be sent. Panorama will send the notice to the County Clerk as well, and will place an advertisement in one local newspaper. Panorama will coordinate with the City to file the document with the State Clearinghouse via the online CEQA Submit portal. In accordance with Assembly Bill 434, the IS/MND will be remediated to meet the State of California accessibility requirements. Panorama will prepare up to ten bound hard copies of the IS/MND which will be delivered to City for local circulation. The IS/MND will go through a 30-day public review.
Task 4.3.3- Final IS/MND
Panorama will prepare draft responses to comments received during the public review on the IS/MND to be included as an appendix to the Draft IS/MND (making it into the Final IS/MND). It is assumed that no more than 20 comments will be received. The draft responses will be submitted to City staff for review and comment. Panorama will address and incorporate the City’s comments on the responses to comments and provide the City with the final responses. It is assumed that one virtual meeting would be held between Panorama and City staff during finalization of the IS/MND. Panorama assumes that we do not need to attend
the hearing for approval of the IS/MND and project and that City staff involved in the project will attend hearings held regarding the project. Panorama will provide the Notice of Determination for filing within 5 working days of approval of the project for the City to file with the County Clerk and the Office of Planning and Research.
Local Assistance Procedures Manual EXHIBIT 10-H1
Cost Proposal
Note: Mark-ups are Not Allowed
Project:
Consultant
Project No. Date 2/25/2025
DIRECT LABOR
Classification/Title Initials Initial Hourly
Rate Range Total
Principal Engineer JPJ $ 114.45 $80 - $170 $ 12,818.40
Senior Engineer AKM $ 86.52 $55 - $125 $ 3,460.69
Principal Engineer SAM $ 94.20 $80 - $170 $ 7,536.26
Professional Engineer TLT $ 62.52 $45 - $100 $ 5,001.68 Senior Engineer SeEn $ 87.02 $55 - $125 $ -
Professional Engineer PrEn $ 61.82 $45 - $100 $ -
Engineering Designer EnDe $ 45.28 $35 - $95 $ -
CAD Technician CADt $ 41.50 $30 - $65 $ -
0 $ - $ - $ -
Subtotal: $ 28,817.02
LABOR COSTS
a) Subtotal Direct Labor Costs $ 28,817.02
b) Anticipated Salary Increases (see page 2 for calculation) $ - c) Total Direct Labor Costs [(a) + (b)] $ 28,817.02
INDIRECT COSTS
e) Total Fringe Benefits [(c) x (d)] $ 11,238.64
g) Overhead [(c) x (f)] $ 37,689.79
i) Gen & Admin [(c) x (h)] $ -
j) Total Indirect Costs [(e) + (g) + (i)] $ 48,928.43
FIXED FEE k) TOTAL FIXED FEE [(c) + (j)] x fixed fee 10.00%] $ 7,774.54 l) CONSULTANT’S OTHER DIRECT COSTS (ODC) – ITEMIZE (Add additional pages if necessary) Unit Unit Cost Total
Miles $ 0.670 $ -
Day $ - $ -
EA $ - $ -
EA $ - $ -
$ -
EA $ -
EA $ -
EA $ -
EA $ -
EA $ -
EA $ -
$ 11.01 $ 11.01
$ 11.01
m) SUBCONSULTANTS’ COSTS (Add additional pages if necessary) HDR 68,622.00$
Panorama 45,147.00$
0 -$
m) TOTAL SUBCONSULTANTS’ COSTS $ 113,769.00
n) Total Other Direct Costs INCLUDING SUBCONSULTANTS [(l)+(m)] $ 113,780.01 TOTAL COST [(c) + (j) + (k) + (n)] $ 199,300.00
NOTES:
Mounting Boards for Presentations
Mileage Costs
Per Diem/Hotel
Equipment Rental and Supplies
Permit Fees
Vendor Reproduction
Vellum
4. "Range" shown for initial salary at time of cost submittal. This is subject to escalation. 1 l) TOTAL OTHER DIRECT COSTS
Newsletters (Translation and printing)
Title Report
Miscellaneous
1. Key personnel must be marked with an asterisk (*) and employees that are subject to prevailing wage requirements must be marked with two asterisks (**). All costs must comply with the Federal cost principles. Subconsultants will provide their own cost proposals. 81/2 X 11 Reproduction
2. The cost proposal format shall not be amended. Indirect cost rates shall remain fixed for the life of the contract.
3. Anticipated salary increases calculation (page 2) must accompany. 11 X 17 Reproduction
312
d) Fringe Benefits (Rate: 39.00%):
f) Overhead (Rate: 130.79%):
h) General and Administrative (Rate: 0.00%):
Description of Item Quantity
0 Name
Jurrens, Jason
Senior Engineer
Professional Engineer
Mitchell, Andrew
McCauley, Scott
Truchement, Thomas
Exhibit 10-H1 Cost Proposal Page 1 of 3
Cost-Plus-Fixed Fee or lump sum or Firm Fixed Price contracts (Design, Engineering and Environmental Studies)
N202830CA.00
Consor North America, Inc.
Contract No. 0
San Pablo Avenue Bridge Replacement Project
Hours
112
Engineering Designer
CAD Technician 0
40 0
80 80
0 0
Prime Consultant Subconsultant 2nd Tier Subconsultant
Local Assistance Procedures Manual EXHIBIT 10-H1
Cost Proposal
Total Hours per Cost
Proposal
Avg Hourly
Rate 5 Year Contract Duration
312 = $92.36 Year 1 Avg Hourly Rate
Avg Hourly Rate Proposed Escalation
Year 1 $92.36 + 5% = $96.98 Year 2 Avg Hourly Rate
Year 2 $96.98 + 5% = $101.83 Year 3 Avg Hourly Rate
Year 3 $101.83 + 5% = $106.92 Year 4 Avg Hourly Rate
Year 4 $106.92 + 5% = $112.27 Year 5 Avg Hourly Rate
Estimated % Completed
Each Year
Total Hours per Cost
Proposal
Total Hours
per Year
Year 1 100.00% * 312 = 312 Estimated Hours Year 1
Year 2 0.00% * 312 = 0 Estimated Hours Year 2
Year 3 0.00% * 312 = 0 Estimated Hours Year 3
Year 4 0.00% * 312 = 0 Estimated Hours Year 4
Year 5 0.00% * 312 = 0 Estimated Hours Year 5
Total Total = 312
Avg Hourly Rate Estimated hours
(calculated above) (calculated above)
Year 1 $92.36 * 312 = $28,817.02 Estimated Hours Year 1 Year 2 $96.98 * 0 = $0.00 Estimated Hours Year 2
Year 3 $101.83 * 0 = $0.00 Estimated Hours Year 3
Year 4 $106.92 * 0 = $0.00 Estimated Hours Year 4
Year 5 $112.27 * 0 = $0.00 Estimated Hours Year 5
Total Direct Labor Cost with Escalation = $28,817.02
Direct Labor Subtotal before Escalation = $ 28,817.02
Estimated total of Direct Labor Salary Transfer to Page 1 Increase = $0.00
NOTES:
2. An estimation that is based on direct labor multiplied by salary increase % multiplied by the # of years is not acceptable. (i.e. $250,000 x 2% x 5 yrs = $25,000 is not an acceptable methodology)
3. This assumes that one year will be worked at the rate on the cost proposal before salary increases are granted.
4. Calculations for anticipated salary escalation must be provided.
Exhibit 10-H1 Cost Proposal Page 2 of 3
Cost-Plus-Fixed Fee or Lump Sum or Firm Fixed Price Contracts (Calculations for Anticipated Salary Increases)
4. Calculate Total Costs including Escalation (Multiply Average Hourly Rate by the number of hours)
3. Calculate estimated hours per year (Multiply estimate % each year by total hours)
2. Calculate hourly rate for all years (Increase the Average Hourly Rate for a year by proposed escalation %) Direct Labor Subtotal per
Cost Proposal
$ 28,817.02
1. Calculate Average Hourly Rate for 1st year of the contract (Direct Labor Subtotal divided by total hours)
1. This is not the only way to estimate salary increases. Other methods will be accepted if they clearly indicate the % increase, the # of years of the contract, and a breakdown of the labor to be performed each year.
Cost per
Year
Local Assistance Procedures Manual EXHIBIT 10-H1
Cost Proposal
Certification of Direct Costs:
1. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP)
2. Terms and conditions of the contract
3. Title 23 United States Code Section 112 - Letting of Contracts
4. 48 Code of Federal Regulations Part 31 - Contract Cost Principles and Procedures
5. 23 Code of Federal Regulations Part 172 - Procurement, Management, and Administration of Engineering and Design Related Service
6. 48 Code of Federal Regulations Part 9904 - Cost Accounting Standards Board (when applicable) Prime Consultant or Subconsultant Certifying:
Name: Title *:
Signature : Date of Certification (mm/dd/yyyy): 2/25/2025 Email: [email protected]
Address: 2868 Prospect Park Dr, Suite 250, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 List services the consultant is providing under the proposed contract:
*An individual executive or financial officer of the consultant’s or subconsultant’s organization at a level no lower than a Vice President or a Chief Financial Officer, or equivalent, who has authority to represent the financial information utilized to establish the cost proposal for the contract.
Final CEQA Document & Preliminary Site Assessment
Regional Manager
916.368.9181
Jason Jurrens, P.E.
Exhibit 10-H1 Cost Proposal Page 3 of 3
I, the undersigned, certify to the best of my knowledge and belief that all direct costs identified on the cost proposal(s) in this contract are actual, reasonable, allowable, and allocable to the contract in accordance with the contract terms and the following requirements:
All costs must be applied consistently and fairly to all contracts. All documentation of compliance must be retained in the project files and be in compliance with applicable federal and state requirements. Costs that are noncompliant with the federal and state requirements are not eligible for reimbursement.
Local governments are responsible for applying only cognizant agency approved or Caltrans accepted Indirect Cost Rate(s).
Phone Number:
Cost Proposal
Project Number: N202830CA.00
Task No. TASKS Principal Engineer
Senior Engineer
Principal Engineer
Professional Engineer
Senior Engineer
Professional Engineer
Engineering Designer
CAD Technician
Consor Total Hours
Consor Total
Labor Dollars
Consor Labor
Consor Profit
Consor NLF Budget
NLF + Escalation
Task Cost
Task Hours
HDR
Panorama
Subconsultant Subtotal
JPJ AKM SAM TLT SeEn PrEn EnDe CADt Direct Labor
Labor + OH
Multiplier Fee Multiplier
Actual Labor
Multiplier
No. Initial Hourly Rate $114.45 $86.52 $94.20 $62.52 $87.02 $61.82 $45.28 $41.50 $0.00 Key Personnel No No No No No No No No No
Prevailing Wage No No No No No No No No No
2.6979 10% 2.9677
0 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0
1.0 PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND COORDINATION 0 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 27,172$ 80 $0
1.1 Project Management 80 80 $9,156 $24,702 $2,470.20 $27,172 $27,172 $0
2.0 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING 0 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 58,348$ 232 $0
2.2 Preliminary Road Plans 12 40 52 $4,834 $13,042 $1,304.19 $14,346 $14,346 $0
2.3 APS and Type Selection Memo 12 80 80 172 $13,911 $37,531 $3,753.14 $41,285 $41,285 $0
2.7 Initial Site Assessment & Prelimiary Site Assessment 8 8 $916 $2,470 $247.02 $2,717 $2,717 $43,622 $43,622
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES/PERMITTING 0 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 -$ 0 $0
4.3 Environmental Documentation 0 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0
4.3.2 Draft IS/MND 0 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $17,601 $17,601
4.3.3 Final IS and MND 0 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $27,546 $27,546 0 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0
0 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0
Start Subtotal - Hours 112 40 80 80 0 0 0 0 0 312 $28,817.02 $77,745.45 $7,774.54 $85,519.99 $85,520 85,520$ 312 0 Anticipated Salary Increases $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00Other Direct Costs 11 $11.01 $11.01 $25,000 25,000Total Cost $12,818 $3,461 $7,536 $5,002 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $28,817 $28,817 $77,745 $7,775 $85,531 $85,531 $68,622 $45,147 $0 $113,769 Project Name: San Pablo Avenue Bridge Replacement Project 2025_02_27 Pinole San Pablo Ave Bridge Amendment 4 Cost.xlsm Project 1 Hrs 2/27/2025
City of Pinole, Contra Costa County
SAN PABLO AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Hour and Fee Estimate for HDR|WRECO Tasks
Prepared by HDR|WRECO
Green - indicates PM Hours
Blue Indicates
QC Hours
Gold
Indicates
PA/PC Hours Escalation: 100% in 2025
OH Rate Fee
Employee
Ochoa,
Analette
Abjelina
McAssey,
Melissa
Smith,
Andrew Dobson, Nikki
Rek, Paula
Malgorzata
Vallecillo,
Stefan Diego
Stanley,
Vanessa
Multiplier 2.62 2.62 2.62 2.62 2.62 2.62 2.62
Billing Raw Rate 126.8 76.55 60.49 46.67 41.84 42.33 37.62 Basic Tasks
1 Project Management and Meetings 1 10 4 20 20 55 2,733.26 $ 3,766.43 $ 649.97 $ 7,149.66 $ 2 Initial Site Assessment (ISA)
Database Review 1 6 2 9 431.81 $ 595.03 $ 102.68 $ 1,129.52 $ Field Reconnaissance 1 4 6 11 598.53 $ 824.77 $ 142.33 $ 1,565.63 $ Reporting
Draft Submittal 6 8 36 4 54 2,790.70 $ 3,845.58 $ 663.63 $ 7,299.91 $ Final Submittal 2 2 4 2 10 544.44 $ 750.24 $ 129.47 $ 1,424.15 $ 3 Prelimnary Site Investigation (PSI/w Structural Elements) Health and Safety and Prep for field work 2 6 6 2 16 879.74 $ 1,212.28 $ 209.20 $ 2,301.22 $ Workplan, permits, schedule/organization 2 6 18 2 4 2 34 1,684.34 $ 2,321.02 $ 400.54 $ 4,405.90 $ Field sampling/mark/clear boring locations 4 12 24 40 2,152.16 $ 2,965.68 $ 511.78 $ 5,629.62 $ Reporting
Draft Submittal 10 20 40 4 74 4,009.46 $ 5,525.04 $ 953.45 $ 10,487.95 $ Final Submittal 2 4 8 2 16 852.10 $ 1,174.19 $ 202.63 $ 2,228.92 $ Subtotal Labor 1 40 66 148 16 24 24 319 16,676.54 $ 22,980.26 $ 3,965.68 $ 43,622.48 $ Sub Consultant
EDR Report 400.00 $
Soil Testing Lab 10,000.00 $
EMSL for SE Sampling 1,000.00 $
CAC/CDPH 2,000.00 $
Drilling/Traffic Control 7,500.00 $
Utility Location 2,200.00 $
Drum Disposal - $
Permitting 1,500.00 $
Subtotal Subconsultant 24,600.00 $
Expense
Travel & Per Diem 250.00 $
Field Supplies 150.00 $
Subtotal Expense 400.00 $
Total Project Tasks
Optional Tasks
4 Detailed Site Investigation
Costs to be verified Data Review 4 4 6 14 828.18 $ 1,141.23 $ 196.94 $ 2,166.35 $ following PSI Workplan, permits, schedule/organization 2 8 32 2 4 2 50 2,458.70 $ 3,388.09 $ 584.68 $ 6,431.47 $ Field sampling/mark/clear boring locations 4 8 24 36 1,910.20 $ 2,632.26 $ 454.25 $ 4,996.71 $ Reporting
Draft Submittal 10 20 44 4 78 4,196.14 $ 5,782.28 $ 997.84 $ 10,976.26 $ Final Submittal 2 2 4 4 12 628.12 $ 865.55 $ 149.37 $ 1,643.04 $ Subtotal Labor 0 22 42 110 10 4 2 190 10,021.34 $ 13,809.41 $ 2,383.08 $ 26,213.83 $ Sub Consultant
Drilling 12,000.00 $
Utility Survey 2,200.00 $
Permitting 1,500.00 $
Drum Disposal 5,000.00 $
Soil Testing Lab 13,000.00 $
Subtotal Subconsultant 33,700.00 $
Expense
Travel & Per Diem 250.00 $
Field Supplies 150.00 $
Subtotal Expense 400.00 $
Total Optional Tasks
Total Project Cost 128,936.31 $
Labor
68,622.48 $
Labor
60,313.83 $
TOTALS BY TASK
Hours Labor Cost Total
137.80% 10%
January 24, 2025
TASK
DESCRIPTION
Principal
Engineer
Senior
Geologist
Senior
Geologist Geologist 2
Technical
Editor
Project
Coordinator
Project
Accountant
Cost Proposal
Note: Mark-ups are Not Allowed Prime Consultant X Subconsultant 2nd Tier Subconsultant Consultant
Project No. 2368 Contract No. 20-2830 Date 2/26/2025
DIRECT LABOR
hours Actual Hourly Rate Total
10 $67.07 $670.70
52 $67.07 $3,487.64
100 $56.23 $5,623.00
46 $50.88 $2,340.48
4 $49.28 $197.12
36 $49.28 $1,774.08
LABOR COSTS
a) Subtotal Direct Labor Costs $14,093.02
b) Anticipated Salary Increases (see page 2 for sample) $0.00 c) TOTAL DIRECT LABOR COSTS [(a) + (b)] $14,093.02
FRINGE BENEFITS
d) Fringe Benefits (Rate: 17.00% ) e) Total Fringe Benefits [(c) x (d)] $2,395.81
f) Overhead (Rate: 142.00% g) Overhead [(c) x (f)] $20,012.09 h) General and Administrative (Rate: 29.00% i) Gen & Admin [(c) x (h)] $4,086.98 j) Total Indirect Costs [(e) + (g) + (i)] $26,494.88
FIXED FEE k) TOTAL FIXED FEE [(c) + (j)] x fixed fee 10% $4,058.79 I) CONSULTANT'S OTHER DIRECT COSTS (ODC) - ITEMIZE (Add additional pages if necessary) Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total
mile $0.00
each $0.00
$0.00
Noticing and Final IS/MND Printing 1 each 500.31 $500.31 sq.ft $0.00
package $20 $0.00
I) TOTAL OTHER DIRECT COSTS $500.31
m) SUBCONSULTAN'TS COSTS (Add additional pages if necessary) m) TOTAL SUBCONSULTANTS' COSTS $0.00
n)TOTAL OTHER DIRECT COSTS INCLUDING SUBCONSULTANTS [(l)+(m)] $500.31 TOTAL COSTS [(c)+(j)+(k)+(n)] $45,147.00
NOTES:
1 Key personnel must be marked with an asterisk (*) and employees that are subject to prevailing wage requirements must be marked with two asterisks (**). All costs must comply with the Federal cost principles. Subconsultants will provide their own costs proposals. 2 The cost proposal format shall not be amended. Indirect cost rates shall be updated on an annual basis in accordnace with the consutlant's annual accounting period and established by a cognizant agency or accepted by Caltrans 3 Anticipated salary increase calculation (page 2) must accompany.
Consultant Contract No. Date 12/10/2020
Avg Hourly 5 Year Contract
Rate Duration
$14,093.02 = $56.83 Year 1 Avg Hourly Rate
Avg Hourly Rate
Year 1 $56.83 + = $59.10 Year 2 Avg Hourly Rate
ENV. PLANNER/SCI II Charlotte Hummer
PROJECT MANAGER Garett Peterson *
Classification/Title Name
PRINCIPAL Tania Treis/Susanne Heim
DIRECTOR Rita Wilke*
Permit Fees
Plan Sheets
PLANNER I Lacar Musgrove
CARTOGRAPHER/GIS II Corey Fong
(CALCULATIONS FOR ANTICIPATED SALARY INCREASES)
Panorama Environmental, Inc.
1. Calculate Average Hourly Rate for 1st year of the contract (Direct Labor Subtotal divided by total hours) Proposed Escalation
4%
per Cost Proposal
2. Calculate hourly rate for all years (Increase the Average Hourly Rate for a year by proposed escalation per Cost Proposal
248
EXHIBIT 10-H1 COST PROPOSAL
ACTUAL COST-PLUS-FIXED FEE OR LUMP SUM (FIRM FIXED PRICE) CONTRACTS (DESIGN, ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES)
Panorama Environmental, Inc.
Direct Labor Subtotal Total Hours
ACTUAL COST-PLUS-FIXED FEE OR LUMP SUM (FIRM FIXED PRICE) CONTRACTS Subconsultant 2:
Subconsultant 3:
Subconsultant 4:
EXHIBIT 10-H COST PROPOSAL (EXAMPLE #1) PAGE 2 OF 3
Subconsultant 1:
Postage/Overnight/Delivery
Description of Item
Mileage Costs
Equipment Rental and Supplies
CITY COUNCIL
REPORT 10.A.
DATE: JULY 1, 2025
TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: Eric Casher, City Attorney, N/A, [email protected] Heba El-Guindy, Public Works Director, [email protected] Melissa Klawuhn, Police Chief, [email protected]
SUBJECT: FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE AMENDING PINOLE MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 10.40 “STOPPING, STANDING AND PARKING” SECTION
10.40.050 “NO PARKING AREAS DESIGNATED” TO INCLUDE
RESTRICTIONS RELATED TO PARKING NEAR INTERSECTIONS IN
COMPLIANCE WITH ASSEMBLY BILL 413 (“DAYLIGHTING LAW”)
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council waive the first reading and introduce by title only an ordinance amending Pinole Municipal Code Chapter 10.40 “Stopping, Standing and Parking” Section 10.40.050 “No Parking Areas Designated” to include restrictions related to parking near intersections in compliance with Assembly Bill 413 (“Daylighting Law”)
BACKGROUND
In October 2023, California’s legislature passed Assembly Bill (AB) 413, a state-mandated local program known as the “Daylighting Law,” which prohibits vehicles from parking, stopping, or standing within twenty (20) feet of a marked or unmarked crosswalk on the approach side of the road. Daylighting is the concept that traffic safety is improved by creating more visibility at intersections by pushing parked vehicles or other obstructions back away from crosswalks to improve visibility. By keeping the area next to crosswalks clear, drivers can better see people using or about to use the crosswalk.
The law creates a new section of the California Vehicle Code, section 22500 (n), to prohibit stopping, standing, or parking a vehicle within twenty (20) feet of any unmarked or marked crosswalk, or within fifteen (15) feet of any crosswalk with a curb extension. The bill also allows cities to establish a different distance by ordinance that is justified by established traffic standards and has marked the different distance at the intersection using curb paint or a sign.
While the law went into effect on January 1, 2024, enforcement of the law could not begin until January 1, 2025. Implementing the law will include public education about the new law and Parking Enforcement Officer training to enforce the new law.
Currently, the Pinole Municipal Code allows for the use of curb paint or signs to restrict parking within twenty feet of a crosswalk at an intersection, with the exception that a bus may stop at a designated bus stop, or within twenty feet of the approach to any traffic signal, boulevard stop sign or official electric flashing device. (See Pinole Municipal Code Sections 10.40.040 (H) and (I).) The proposed Ordinance (see Attachment) amends Section 10.40.040 of Chapter 10.40 of Title 10 of the Pinole Municipal Code to adopt parking regulation updates consistent with state law.
REVIEW AND ANALYSIS
Pedestrian “daylighting” is a proven strategy to make crosswalks safer by pushing parked vehicles back away from crosswalks to improve visibility. The intent of the state Daylighting Law is to create better visibility of pedestrians at intersection crossing locations. Vehicles that are parked immediately adjacent to marked or unmarked crossings limit visibility of pedestrians, which increases the risk for pedestrian related severe injury or fatal collisions.
AB 413 codifies the Daylighting Law by making it unlawful to stop, stand, or park within twenty (20) feet on the approach side of a marked or unmarked crosswalk. Specifically, the newly created California Vehicle Code Section 22500 (n), prohibits stopping, standing, or parking a vehicle within twenty (20) feet of any unmarked or marked crosswalk, or within fifteen (15) feet of any crosswalk with a curb extension.
Section 10.40.040 of Chapter 10.40 of Title 10 of the Pinole Municipal Code regulates designated no parking areas within the City of Pinole. Currently, Section 10.40.040 allows for the use of curb paint or signs to restrict parking within twenty feet of a crosswalk at an intersection in any business district or within twenty feet of the approach to any traffic signal, boulevard stop sign or official electric flashing device. Relevant here, Section 10.40.040 provides:
“10.40.040 NO PARKING AREAS – DESIGNATED.
No operator of any vehicle shall stop, stand, park or leave standing, whether attended or unattended, such vehicle in any of the following places, except when necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic or in compliance with the direction of a police officer or other authorized officer, or traffic sign or signal:
. . .
C. In any area where the city traffic engineer determines that the parking or stopping of a vehicle would constitute a traffic hazard or would endanger life or property, when such area is indicated by appropriate signs or by red paint upon the curb surface; D. In any area established by resolution of the Council as a no-parking area, when such area is indicated by appropriate signs or by red paint upon the curb surface; . . .
F. In any area where the parking or stopping of any vehicle would constitute a traffic hazard or would endanger life or property;
. . .
H. At any place within twenty feet of a point on the curb immediately opposite the midblock end of a safety zone, when such place is indicated by appropriate signs or by red paint upon the curb surface;
I. At any place within twenty feet of a crosswalk at an intersection when such place is indicated by appropriate signs or by red paint upon the curb surface, except that a bus may stop at a designated bus stop;
J. Within twenty-five feet of the approach to any traffic signal, boulevard stop sign or official electric flashing device.”
The proposed ordinance adopts parking regulations consistent with the new state law by adding language to Section 10.40.040 as a new subsection prohibiting parking “Within 20 feet of the vehicle approach side of any marked or unmarked crosswalk or within 15 feet of any crosswalk where a curb extension is present.
Signs or curb paint is not required.”
AB 413 restricts parking on the approach side of an intersection crossing citywide without the need for curb paint or signs. “Marked” and “unmarked” crosswalks as defined by the California Vehicle Code (CVC) 275, consist of: “crosswalks” are defined as either: (a) that portion of a roadway included within the prolongation or connection of the boundary lines of sidewalks at intersections where the intersecting roadways meet at approximately right angles, except the prolongation of such lines from an alley across a street, or (b) any portion of a roadway distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing by lines or other markings on the surface.
Both “marked” and “unmarked” crosswalks exist at all intersections, thus this new law requires agencies to strike the balance between designating parking prohibitions through markings and/or signs and their subsequent maintenance, educating residents, and working with law enforcement.
Generally, staff strives to strike a balance between driver education, curb markings and/or installation of signs, and enforcement to achieve compliance. Because this law would result in a substantial increase to required maintenance, staff does not recommend the implementation of red curb and/or signs at every intersection crossing location within the City. The Public Works team marked red curbs at six priority locations last year, and more recently added eighteen additional locations. Below is a complete list of locations carried out consist with the requirements under AB 413:
• Valley Avenueat San Pablo Ave
• Third Avenue at San Pablo Avenue
• Second Avenue at San Pablo Avenue
• Rogers Way at San Pablo Avenue
• Quinan Street at Buena Vista Street
• Pinole Valley Road at Ellerhorst Street
• Pinole Valley Road at Downer Street
• Orleans Drive at Tennent Avenue
• Kilkenny Way at Tara Hills Drive
• Kilkenny Way at Kildare Way
• Kildare Way at Barkley Court
• Kildare Way at Marlesta Road
• Kildare Way at Tara Hills Drive
• Kelly Court at Mann Drive
• Fourth Avenue at San Pablo Avenue
• Fifth Avenue at San Pablo Avenue
• Amend Street at Mann Drive
• 80 feet on San Pablo from Fourth Avenue to Fifth Avenue • Dolores Court at Pinole Valley Road
• Estrella Court at Pinole Valley Road
• Granada Court at Pinole Valley Road
• Ramona Street at Estates Avenue
• Simas at Pinole Valley Road
• Wright Avenue at Carol Street
For all other locations, staff intends to follow the same approach taken for designations around fire hydrants.
The California Vehicle Code prohibits parking near fire hydrants. Most of these locations are not designated using red curb or signs, which is also consistent with practice taken by most agencies in California. AB 413 also allows local agencies like the City of Pinole to establish a different distance by ordinance that is justified by established traffic standards and corner sight lines, and has marked the different distance at the intersection using curb paint or a sign. Staff is not making such recommendation at this time.
While the law went into effect in 2024, local jurisdictions could only issue warnings until January 1, 2025.
Now, local agencies may issue citations even if the area isn't marked with red curbs or signs. Although no local ordinance is required to adopt this state law, staff recommends adoption an ordinance for public transparency. Implementing the law will include public education about the new law and Parking Enforcement Officer training to implement the new law.
To enforce the state law, the City’s schedule of parking violations and fines needs to be updated with the applicable section of the California Vehicle Code that establishes the legal framework for the daylighting law so that officers can issue citations for vehicles illegally parked in these zones. The schedule currently
imposes a fine of $40 for violation of Municipal Code Section 10.40.040 subsections (A) through (H).
The enforcement of AB 413 will be gradual to allow for widespread community education. Information about the law is currently available on the City’s website. Significant efforts are ongoing to educate the community of the “daylighting” law through social media posts, flyers, and newsletter articles throughout the remainder of the year. Early enforcement may include warnings to educate motorists given the recent authority to issue citations starting January 1, 2025.
Staff has prepared a draft ordinance (see Attachment) amending 10.40.040 of Chapter 10.40 of Title 10 of the Pinole Municipal Code to adopt parking regulation updates consistent with state law.
FISCAL IMPACT
It is anticipated that the ordinance will increase revenue to the General Fund because Parking Enforcement staff will be able to cite vehicles for parking within an unmarked daylighting zone. However, it is not known how much revenue will increase.
There are no fiscal impacts for the new enforcement of CVC 22500(n) known at this time, as no additional parking enforcement and citation administration resources are needed for implementation, and revenues from the fine are unknown at this time. Staff will track and report any fiscal impacts as part of the mid-cycle budget process for Fiscal Year 2026-2027.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Pinole-Daylighting Ordinance
1 ORDINANCE NO. 2025-XX
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PINOLE
ORDINANCE AMENDING PINOLE MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 10.40 “STOPPING, STANDING AND PARKING” SECTION 10.40.050 “NO PARKING AREAS DESIGNATED”
TO INCLUDE RESTRICTIONS RELATED TO PARKING NEAR INTERSECTIONS IN COMPLIANCE WITH ASSEMBLY BILL 413 (“DAYLIGHTING LAW”)
WHEREAS, in October 2023, California’s legislature passed Assembly Bill (AB) 413, also known as the Daylighting Law, to enhance pedestrian safety. Daylighting is the concept that traffic safety is improved by creating more visibility at intersections by pushing parked vehicles or other obstructions back away from crosswalks to improve visibility. By keeping the area next to crosswalks clear, drivers can better see people using or about to use the crosswalk; and WHEREAS, AB 413 adds Section 22500 (n) to the California Vehicle Code to prohibit stopping, standing, or parking a vehicle within twenty (20) feet of any unmarked or marked crosswalk, or within fifteen (15) feet of any crosswalk with a curb extension.
WHEREAS, California Vehicle Code, Section 22507, authorizes the City of Pinole (“City”) to establish its own regulations concerning unmarked or marked crosswalks, that are not in conflict with state law by resolution or ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the City’s regulations regarding stopping, standing and parking are codified at Section 10.40.040 of Chapter 10.40 of Title 10 of the Pinole Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the purpose of this Ordinance is to amend the City’s parking regulations to incorporate new state legislation and to enable the City to implement “daylighting” which would increase visibility at intersections by prohibiting parking within a certain distance of intersections and crosswalks thereby improving safety for pedestrians, bicyclists, and motor vehicles.
WHEREAS, the Council has considered all relevant information, the staff report, oral testimony if any, and all other information presented during the open and properly agendized City Council meeting, and adopts the findings herein.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PINOLE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Recitals.
The above recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Ordinance.
SECTION 2. Municipal Code Amendment.
The City Council hereby approves the amendment to Section 10.40.040 “No Parking Areas Designated” of Chapter 10.40 “Stopping, Standing and Parking” of Title 10 of the Pinole Municipal Code as set forth in the text amendment shown in attached Exhibit A, which is incorporated herein by reference and available for review in the
2 City Clerk’s office during normal business hours. Text that appears in double underline reflects additions to Section 10.40.040.
SECTION 3. CEQA.
Approval of the amendments is exempt from environmental review in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), the general exemption for projects with no potential for significant effect on the environment. As a series of text amendments and additions, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the Municipal Code Amendment will have a significant effect on the environment.
SECTION 4. Severability.
If any provision of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of this Ordinance, including the application of such part or provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby and shall continue in full force and effect. To this end, provisions of this Ordinance are severable. The City Council of the City of Pinole hereby declares that it would have passed each Section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase hereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases be held unconstitutional, invalid, or unenforceable.
SECTION 5. Effective Date.
In accordance with California Government Code Section 36937, this Ordinance shall take effect and be in force on the thirty-first day after adoption.
SECTION 6. Publication.
The City Clerk is directed to cause this Ordinance to be published in a manner required by law.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Pinole City Council held on July 1, 2025, the City Council passed this Ordinance by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
IN WITNESS of this action, I sign this document and affix the corporate seal of the City of Pinole on July 1, 2025.
____________________________
Heather Bell, CMC
City Clerk
3 EXHIBIT A
10.40.040 NO PARKING AREAS – DESIGNATED.
No operator of any vehicle shall stop, stand, park or leave standing, whether attended or unattended, such vehicle in any of the following places, except when necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic or in compliance with the direction of a police officer or other authorized officer, or traffic sign or signal:
A. Within any divisional island unless authorized and clearly indicated with appropriate signs or markings;
B. On either side of any street between the projected property lines of any public walk, public steps, street or thoroughfare terminating at such street, when such area is indicated by appropriate signs or by red paint upon the curb surface; C. In any area where the city traffic engineer determines that the parking or stopping of a vehicle would constitute a traffic hazard or would endanger life or property, when such area is indicated by appropriate signs or by red paint upon the curb surface; D. In any area established by resolution of the Council as a no-parking area, when such area is indicated by appropriate signs or by red paint upon the curb surface; E. Upon, along or across any railway track in such manner as to hinder, delay or obstruct the movement of any car traveling upon such track;
F. In any area where the parking or stopping of any vehicle would constitute a traffic hazard or would endanger life or property;
G. On any street or highway where the use of such street or highway or a portion thereof is necessary for the cleaning, repair or construction of the street or highway or the installation on underground utilities, or where the use of the street or highway or any portion thereof is authorized for a purpose other than the normal flow of traffic or where the use of the street or highway or any portion thereof is necessary for the movement of equipment, articles or structures of unusual size, and the parking of such vehicle would prohibit or interfere with such use or movement; provided, that signs giving notice of such no parking are erected or placed at least twenty-four hours prior to the effective times of such no parking;
4 H. At any place within twenty feet of a point on the curb immediately opposite the midblock end of a safety zone, when such place is indicated by appropriate signs or by red paint upon the curb surface;
I. At any place within twenty feet of a crosswalk at an intersection when such place is indicated by appropriate signs or by red paint upon the curb surface, except that a bus may stop at a designated bus stop;
J. Within twenty-five feet of the approach to any. traffic signal, boulevard stop sign or official electric flashing device.;
K. Within 20 feet of the vehicle approach side of any marked or unmarked crosswalk or within 15 feet of any crosswalk where a curb extension is present. Signs or curb paint is not required.