Pinole City Council
March 3, 2026

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

PINOLE CITY COUNCIL

MEETING AGENDA
March 3, 2026
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 - March 3, 2026

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 Deputy City Clerk, Roxane Stone at (510) 724-8937 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) 724-8937. 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 - March 3, 2026

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

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

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

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

A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Gov. Code § 54956.9(d)(2) or (d)(3)
Number of Potential Cases: 1

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

8. RECOGNITIONS / PRESENTATIONS / COMMUNITY EVENTS

City Council
Agenda - March 3, 2026

A. Proclamations

1. Prescription Drug Awareness Month

2. American Red Cross Month

3. Developmental Disibilities Awareness Month

4. Multiple Myeloma Awareness Month

5. Honoring Fire Chief Lewis Broschard Upon His Retirement B. Presentations

1. Restrictions on Oversized Vehicles on San Pablo Avenue

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 February 3, 2026 and February 17, 2026.

B. Receive the February 14, 2026 – February 27, 2026, List of Warrants in the Amount of $676,045.93 and the February 27, 2026, Payroll in the Amount of $552,811.23.

C. Receive and File Annual Progress Report on Housing Element Implementation Action:

Receive report (David Hanham, Justin Shiu)
D. Receive and File Housing Successor Annual Report for FY24/25 Action: Receive and file the Housing Successor Agency Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2024-25 (Lilly Whalen) E. FY 2026/27 Financial and Investment Policies Action: Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Markisha Guillory)
F. Second Reading of an Ordinance Amending Section 2.12.010 to Modify the Start Time of Regularly Scheduled City Council Meetings Action: Waive Second Reading and Adopt an Ordinance Amending Section 2.12.010 to Modify the Start Time of Regularly Scheduled City Council Meetings (Eric Casher)

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

A. Residential Health and Safety Rental Inspection Program: Housing Fellow Update; Amend Administrative Regulations, Authorize 1.0 FTE Housing Inspector, and Adopt new CostRecovery Fees Action: Adopt Resolutions per Staff Recommendation (Lilly Whalen, Jared Murti, Housing Fellow)

City Council
Agenda - March 3, 2026

B. Waive the First Reading and Introduce a Zoning Code and Specific Plan Amendment to Prohibit New Service Stations, Establish Regulations for Existing Legal Nonconforming Service Stations, and Establish Regulations for Alternative Fuel Stations Action: Waive the First Reading and Introduce Zoning Code (Pinole Municipal Code Chapter 17) and Specific Plan Amendments (David Hanham, Justin Shiu)

11. OLD BUSINESS
A. None

12. NEW BUSINESS
A. None

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 March 17, 2026 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. _______________________
Roxane Stone, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
POSTED: Thursday, February 26, 2026 at 2:10 pm

MULTIPLE MYELOMA AWARENESS MONTH
MARCH2026
WHEREAS, Multiple Myeloma (or Myeloma) is a cancer of plasma cells in the bone marrow, and is called "multiple" because it can occur at various sites in the body; and
WHEREAS, Multiple Myeloma causes a variety of adverse health effects, including a weakened immune system, anemia, kidney damage, and bone deterioration; and
WHEREAS, Multiple Myeloma affects approximately 35,000 to 36,000 new cases in the United States annually and globally it is estimated at 188,000 new cases per year; and
WHEREAS, this disease is most common in men, and individuals between the ages of 40 to 70, and is more prevalent in Afrian American individuals compared to other racial groups; and
WHEREAS, although a cure has not been developed, great strides have been made in the development of the new innovative treatments to effectively manage the disease, leading to remission and improved quality of life in many patients; and
WHEREAS, Multiple Myeloma Awareness Month, is an opportunity to provide further education so that new cases can be more readily detected and promptly treated, improving health outcomes and bringing comfort to patients and their families.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, ANTHONY TAVE, 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 MARCH 2026 AS MULTIPLE MYELOMA AWARENESS MONTH and encourage all Pinole citizens to observe this month by raising awareness and educating yourselves and others.

MAYOR of the City of Pinole
Dated: March 3, 2026

Eric Casher, City Attorney

OVERVIEW OF REGULATIONS

RELATED TO OVERSIZED

VEHICLES ON SAN PABLO
AVENUE

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council receive a presentation on the regulation of trucks and other oversized vehicles on San Pablo Avenue (SPA).
2

• This information is presented at the request of the City Council, which directed staff to prepare a presentation on oversized vehicle restrictions on San Pablo Avenue.

BACKGROUND
3

BACKGROUND
• San Pablo Avenue, also known as State Route 123, runs through many East Bay cities and is a highway maintained in part by CalTrans. • A portion of SPA runs through Pinole and is not part of SR123, making that particular portion a City right-of-way.
• Given that the right of way has portions that are within CalTrans and the City of Pinole’s jurisdiction, there will be a need for multiple agencies to be consulted and involved in any decision to restrict use of SPA limiting oversized vehicles. 4

BACKGROUND
• There was an average daily volume
of 318 of medium and heavy-duty
trucks on San Pablo Avenue in
2023*.
• *This is the most recent data currently available to the City
5

RESTRICTIONS OF USE UNDER

LOCAL LAW
• Chapter 10.48 of the Pinole Municipal Code places restrictions on the use of streets.
• Section 10.48.030 allows the City to establish truck routes by resolution for oversized vehicles.
• Section 10.48.040 allows trucks to leave a truck route and use other streets when making pickups and deliveries, and other limited circumstances. 6

RESTRICTIONS OF USE UNDER
LOCAL LAW CONT.
• San Pablo Avenue is an established truck route, along with Pinole Valley Road, Appian Way, and Tennent Avenue. (See map on next slide) • The truck route permits use of San Pablo Avenue by oversized vehicles and provides drivers with a guide for permitted roads in the City of Pinole.
• Failure to use these established routes could result in citations for an oversized vehicle.
7

8

REGIONAL ROUTES
• San Pablo Avenue is an established truck route, not only for the City of Pinole, but for the City of Hercules and Contra Costa County. • These routes are contiguous throughout multiple jurisdictions and are coordinated in partnership with neighboring local agencies. • Any change to the route in Pinole would have a broader regional impact and may involve coordination with other agencies.
9

RESTRICTIONS OF USE UNDER

STATE LAW
• While Vehicle Code Section 21101(c) provides that local authorities may prohibit the use of certain classes of vehicles from using particular highways, Section 21104 requires Department of Transportation (DOT) approval for such restrictions.
• CVC 21104: “No ordinance or resolution proposed to be enacted under Section 21101 or subdivision (d) of Section 21100 is effective as to any highway not under the exclusive jurisdiction of the local authority enacting the same, except that an ordinance or resolution which is submitted to the Department of Transportation by a local legislative body in complete draft form for approval.”
10

RESTRICTIONS OF USE UNDER STATE
LAW • CalTrans Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices:
• A proposed local ordinance restricting truck travel must:
• Designate an unrestricted alternate route
• Investigation of designates alternate routes shall be made with attention to:
• Geometrics
• Increase in distance of travel and comparison in time of travel • Railroad grade crossings
• Present traffic and practical capacity of proposed alternates • Structural adequacy of pavement for heavy truck traffic • Heavy grades
• Proximity to schools or school routes
• Developed residential areas
11

RELEVANT CASE LAW
• California Dump Truck Owners Ass'n v Davis (ED Cal 2002) 302 F Supp 2d 1139, 1144 • Facts: The plaintiffs, a group of dump truck owners, challenged a city ordinance that restricted oversized trucks from certain streets. • Rule: local restrictions must be based on a safety concern, or a size/weight restriction. • To create a ban on oversized vehicles, the City needs to establish that a safety concern exists, or that the size of the vehicles permitted on the road needs to be adjusted, with a clear reason why.
• Skyline Materials, Inc. v City of Belmont (1961) 198 CA2d 449, 454. • Facts: Skyline Materials, a concrete supplier, challenged a city ordinance limiting certain industrial vehicles. • Rule: Restrictions cannot be arbitrary, unreasonable, or confiscatory. • Cities may regulate truck traffic, but the regulations must clearly relate to legitimate concerns and be a reasonable limitation to withstand legal challenge. 12

RELEVANT CASE LAW
• The City of San Leandro, in the past, attempted to prohibit trucks from using certain city streets. This ordinance was challenged and found to be a violation of both the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the California Constitution Article 1, Section 19. • The ordinance deprived a rock company, for which the route was essential, of substantially all of its land and this constituted an excessive regulation of land.
• There were no reasonable alternative roads for the trucks to their rock quarry. • The City of Lafeyette attempted to shut down a road and only allow traffic to those who has an established need to use the road. • The City’s reason for closure was because the road was “no longer needed.” • The First District Court of Appeals held that it was not within the scope of the City’s police power to close a road. 13

CONSIDERATIONS
• If the City Council were to move forward with establishing restrictions on oversized vehicles, a substantial record of findings would need to be prepared to establish the safety concerns and danger presented.
• Alternate routes would need to be established by ordinance as designated truck routes for oversized vehicles traveling through Pinole.
• As an alternative to restricting truck traffic, staff can work to identify the source of the trucks causing complaints and attempt to work with the company or operator on a solution. 14

NEXT STEPS
• Staff are happy to receive direction from the City Council on any next steps. 15

City of Pinole
QUESTIONS?

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 3, 2026

CITY COUNCIL MEETING

MINUTES
February 3, 2026

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 Tave called the Regular Meeting of the City Council to order at 5:00 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance.

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

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

Code § 87105.

A. COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT
Anthony Tave, Mayor
Devin Murphy, Mayor Pro Tem
Norma Martinez-Rubin, Council Member
Maureen Toms, Council Member
Cameron Sasai, Council Member
B. STAFF PRESENT
Melissa Klawuhn, Acting City Manager/Police Chief
Eric Casher, City Attorney
Fiona Epps, Communications Director
Markisha Guillory, Finance Director
Roxane Stone, Deputy City Clerk
Deputy City Clerk Roxane Stone announced the agenda had been posted on January 29, 2026 at 3:40 p.m. with all legally required written notices. 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.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 3, 2026

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

4. CONVENE TO A CLOSED SESSION:

A. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
Gov. Code §54956.8
Property: Assessor’s Parcel Number: 401-230-016
Agency Negotiators: Community Development Director Lilly Whalen, City Attorney Eric Casher
Negotiating Parties: Patrick Donovan, Project Manager, On Air Communications Inc.

Authorized Agent: Crown Castle
B. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
Gov. Code §54957.6
Agency designated representatives: City Attorney Eric Casher, Human Resources Director Stacy Shell
Unrepresented employee: Interim City Manager
C. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Gov. Code §54956.9(d)(4): Initiation of Litigation
Number of Potential Cases: One

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

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED

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

At 6:03 p.m., Mayor Tave reconvened the meeting into open session. There was no reportable action for Closed Session Items 4A and 4B. For Item 4C, direction was given to initiate legal action and the name of the defendants and other particulars could be disclosed to anyone who inquired once the action was formally commenced.

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.

Ann Moriarty, Friends of Pinole Creek Watershed and Jodie Ingals, Pinole Garden Club, described the City of Pinole’s Community Services Department’s collaboration with the Pinole Garden Club and Friends of Pinole Creek Watershed on the Pinole Pollinator Pathway Project.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 3, 2026

The project would be planted with a majority of California natives with a commitment to being pesticide free, the gardens would be both public and private and would welcome pollinators such as birds, butterflies, bumble bees and other native bees and insects. The existing public gardens included the garden at Bay Front Park at the base of the Bay Trail Pedestrian Bridge, a model garden in Fernandez Park, the Pinole Library Native Garden, the Blue Star Garden at I-80 and the Pollinator Garden in the Upper Watershed. The installation of the native pollinator garden would be celebrated on February 7, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. at Fernandez Park. This would be a public garden sponsored by the City of Pinole, planted with keystone species and native plants and located by the children’s play structure. Different activities were planned during the event, with garden medallions in two different sizes, to be offered for sale to those who participated.

Everyone was encouraged to attend.

7. REPORTS & COMMUNICATIONS
A. Mayor Report

1. Announcements: None
B. Mayoral & Council Appointments: None
C. City Council Committee Reports & Communications
Council member Toms reported she attended the East Bay Leadership Council Wastewater Testing Webinar, with East Bay Leadership having kicked off 2026 with a Special Joint Task Force meeting co-hosted by the Health, Water, Energy and Environment Task Forces, and with a representative from the California Department of Public Health having shared how the state used wastewater surveillance to track disease outbreaks and guide public health decisions. She reported she had asked why the City of Pinole had not been included as a participant and was informed there was a good sampling throughout Contra Costa County of participants in the program. She was also told there was uncertainty about funding to continue let alone expand the program; however, she indicated the City’s willingness to participate if the opportunity came up.

Council member Toms also attended the Road Maintenance Town Hall and thanked the Mayor and City staff for a great job presenting the issues. She reported the East Bay Wildfire Government Coalition had not met since the meeting location at El Cerrito City Hall was under renovation, although a SPUR Report on Bay Area Fire Mitigation Strategies had been posted on the agency website which identified how communities could come together to prepare and recover from wildfire. She also attended the Policy Committee for Housing, with a presentation from the cities of Humbolt and Arcadia, on their 7th Cycle Housing Element, and reported their Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) numbers were much higher than the 6th Cycle.

Council member Sasai reported he attended a meeting of the West Contra Costa Transportation Commission (WCCTC) and he had been selected as Chair, Rebecca Saltzman representing the City of El Cerrito as Vice-Chair and appointments had been made to the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA). He added the WCCTC by-laws would be changed at its next meeting to allow for two alternate seats to the CCTA, and WCCTC received a presentation and overview of the Hercules Hub Project, a regional transportation development on the Hercules waterfront. He highlighted the specifics of that project.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 3, 2026

Council member Sasai also reported he had recently been appointed to the League of California Cities Policy Committee on Environmental Quality; attended the Contra Costa Immigrant Rights Alliance, and reported on the discussion of the closure of the immigration courts in San Francisco.

As a result, an influx of people was expected to go to the nearest immigration court located in the City of Concord. Additional topics had also been discussed during the meeting.

Council member Sasai thanked the City Attorney and the Acting City Manager/Police Chief for their support for the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Free Zone Policy, and reported since the City’s adoption of an ordinance in December 2025, several cities in the state had used the City’s language and proposed their own similar ordinances. He emphasized the importance of the City of Pinole being the first to adopt such an ordinance and others who had followed with the implementation of similar ordinances. The City’s ordinance was strong and restricted immigration enforcement on all public property unless there was a court order or judicial warrant.

Council member Sasai also thanked the Acting City Manager/Police Chief for responding to complaints about the traffic signals on Pinole Valley Road and I-80 near Kaiser and Starbucks.

The traffic signals had little delay between turning red or green resulting in near misses. He was informed that Caltrans operated the signals and the County also played a part, and once the County had been informed, the County would communicate with Caltrans to address the timing of the lights.

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy wished everyone Happy Black History Month, urged everyone to take a moment to reflect and consider how they may develop a brighter current state, and remember on February 3, 1870 that black men for the first time were granted the right to vote through the ratification of the 15th Amendment. He emphasized that Black History Month was both a celebration of resilience and achievement and a call to remain vigilant to protect civil rights and democratic participation for all.

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy also reported the Pinole Library would close on March 1, 2026, to accommodate important construction improvements. Other libraries would be available outside of Pinole and he would share updates so that residents could be informed accordingly and plan for alternative library services during the closure. He thanked City staff, the Mayor, community partners and the participants who provided feedback during the Roads Maintenance Town Hall.

He also reported receiving emails from residents about sidewalk vendors, with greater interest whether or not sidewalk vendors were legal. He encouraged residents to reach out to the Community Development Department, which developed and distributed resources for sidewalk vendors, with the materials clarifying permitting requirements, operational guidelines and available resources.

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy further reported on January 29, 2026, community partners, educators and local leaders in West County had come together for a joint meeting with the West Contra Costa Unified School District (WCCUSD) Community School Support Collaborative and the WCCUSD Systems Change Collaborative. The meeting focused on strengthening partnerships and elevating youth leadership including learning from the City of Richmond’s collaboration with West County schools through the Y-Plan Initiative, a collaborative effort between the City of Richmond and the U.C. Berkeley Y-Plan Team, to engage youth in the planning process and address their unique needs. A larger report would be provided at the WCCUSD Board of Trustees’ first meeting of the month of March.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 3, 2026

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy added that he had been appointed by the President of the League of National Cities, to serve on the Finance Administration and Intergovernmental Relations Committee for 2026, which committee played a critical role in protecting how cities funded essential services and infrastructure. With this appointment, it placed the City of Pinole on the front line of national advocacy, safeguarding federal funding streams and preserving and keeping tools cities relied on, specifically tax-exempt municipal bonds, which he highlighted. He was honored to represent the City in this way and bring all of the issues back to the League of National Cities.

D. Council Requests for Future Agenda Items
Council member Sasai requested staff be directed to provide an overview of a Wage Theft Ordinance and to discuss options to implement such an ordinance for the City of Pinole as a future agenda item.

On the motion, Council member Toms asked whether an ordinance was needed. She asked whether the City should spend the money on an ordinance or whether the City could rely on state law.

City Attorney Eric Casher explained while there were some state laws, this would be unique since it would be the City withholding or refusing to issue a Certificate of Occupancy or final close out of a local project based on prevailing wage violations or if a contractor did not comply with certain labor laws. Staff could look into the matter further if directed to return with a presentation.

ACTION: Motion by Council member Sasai/Mayor Pro Tem Murphy to direct staff to add to a future agenda, an overview of a Wage Theft Ordinance and to discuss options to implement such an ordinance for the City of Pinole.

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

Absent: None
ACTION: Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Murphy/Council member Toms to direct staff to prepare a proclamation recognizing and honoring Contra Costa County Fire Protection District Fire Chief Lewis Broschard on his retirement.

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

Absent: None
Mayor Pro Tem Murphy offered a motion, seconded by Council member Toms to direct staff to receive a presentation from Marin Clean Energy (MCE) and provide direction, as appropriate.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 3, 2026

City Attorney Casher reported a presentation from MCE had been scheduled for the month of June, and the Mayor Pro Tem explained he understood but the motion was intended as a formality.

ACTION: Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Murphy/Council member Toms to direct staff to receive a presentation from Marin Clean Energy and provide direction, as appropriate.

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

Absent: None
E. City Manager Report / Department Staff
Acting City Manager/Police Chief Melissa Klawuhn reported Bob Hall & Associates had been selected to conduct the nationwide executive search for the City’s next City Manager; Probolsky Research had been selected to poll public sentiment about ballot measures and community priorities to move forward in the next several weeks; the Public Works Department had been busy submitting for grant and funding opportunities; a request had been submitted for Transportation Development Act Article 3 (TDA-3) funding for traffic control improvements on San Pablo Avenue, with application made to the Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) for traffic data analytics and community outreach and engagement. The Public Works Department also recently submitted a grant application to the Federal Railroad Administration Federal State Partnership for the Intercity Passenger Rail Program, to assist with the right-of-way (ROW) and construction of the Tennant Avenue at-grade railroad crossing improvements project.

In addition, the Pinole Police Department (PPD) had been invited to the Special Olympics Luncheon on February 12, 2026 in the City of Pleasant Hill. The City of Pinole was one of the top revenue collectors for the Special Olympics and Officers Lewis and Witschi would attend.

F. City Attorney Report: None
PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED (Items 7A through 7F)
Deputy City Clerk Stone reported there were no comments from the public.

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED

8. RECOGNITIONS / PRESENTATIONS / COMMUNITY EVENTS
A. Proclamations

1. Black History Month
The City Council read into the record a proclamation recognizing the month of February as Black History Month.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 3, 2026

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Sanai Daniels McCockran President and Gerald Davis, Vice-President, African American Student Union, Pinole Valley High School (PVHS), thanked the City Council for the proclamation.

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
Council member Sasai thanked the student leaders for their participation. He acknowledged the Black History Month proclamation as read into the record, and commented the proclamation should also include the recognition of Nuclear Chemist James Harris, who helped to discover Elements #104 and #105 on the periodic table and who was also the grandfather of Pinole artist Iamsu. He was honored to serve with the City officials listed in the proclamation. He also invited the public to the PVHS Black History Month Jubilee scheduled for February 28, 2026 from 1:00 to 2:30 p.m. at PVHS, with more information at [email protected].

Mayor Tave was excited to celebrate Black History Month and also looked forward to the PVHS Black History Month Jubilee and the celebration of Black History. He too urged everyone to participate.

B. Presentations

1. The State of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the City of Pinole – Communications Director, Fiona Epps
Communications Director Fiona Epps provided a PowerPoint presentation on the state of Artificial Intelligence (AI), which included an overview of the definition of AI, a software system capable of performing tasks that typically required human intelligence, such as pattern recognition, decisionmaking, or language understanding, often using algorithms and neural networks to compute; the background of AI technology including federal and state frameworks; an overview of the California AI Accountability Act, Senate Bill (SB) 896; the background of the City’s AI approach, generative and AI opportunities and risks and ethical considerations.

The City of Pinole’s AI Policy established a comprehensive, yet flexible, governance structure for Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems used by, or on behalf of the City of Pinole. The policy enabled the City of Pinole to use AI systems responsibly for the benefit of the community while safeguarding against potential harms. The City’s AI Policy and key objectives when purchasing, configuring, developing, operating, or maintaining AI systems; user-specific rules when engaging in high-risk generative AI use cases; prohibited uses; Department usage of AI; future uses of AI including training and communication and the AI and the Information Technology (IT) Plan 2026- 2031 were highlighted in depth.

Communications Director Epps explained that the next steps would include the final review and approval of the AI Policy collection, which would require a draft to be sent to the unions for review.

A final draft of the AI Policy would be presented to the City Manager for review and approval since it was an administrative policy, after that would be implementation where external and internal communications would come into play. Monitoring would occur with quarterly revisions to the AI Policy given the ever-and-rapidly changing technology, quarterly revisions of the AI Policy, monitoring of state and federal policies and participation in GovAI Coalition Activities.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 3, 2026

Responding to questions from the City Council, Communications Director Epps and Acting City Manager/Police Chief Klawuhn clarified the following:
• Staff used quite a few policy resources in the development of the City’s AI Policy, including examples from other cities including Walnut Creek, Concord, Lafayette and a number of Bay Area policies along with shared examples from the Public Managers Association (PMA). The Communications Director attended the GovAI Coalition Conference and connected with other cities and communicated with IT staff who were facing the same issues. Some cities already had approved AI polices and put those policies in place.

Templates vetted by both the GovAI Coalition in terms of governance frameworks in municipal settings were used as well as a template from the Municipal Information System Association of California. Bits and pieces of all of this information had been applied to the City of Pinole’s specific situation in preparation of an AI Policy that worked for the City of Pinole. (Sasai)
• The City currently did not have any approved AI policies at this time, although the PPD had an AI Policy that was specific to the PPD. Recent legislation that spoke specifically to criminal reports generated by law enforcement went into effect January 1, 2026. The system used by the PPD, Lexipol, was being reviewed to ensure compliance with the new legislation. (Sasai)
• Clarified policies in terms of generational application, with the City having addressed the issue of bias, equity and a human-centered approach in the guiding principles of the AI Policy. There were a lot of predictive analytics that could produce erroneous results, and AI was not always correct. There was also a lot of AI failure occurring since the machine learning algorithms relied on protected information such as race, gender and disability status, which could lead to adverse outcomes due to societal structural inequities built into the system. The City did not have any machine learning technologies that relied on this type of data, but the key themes in the AI Policy had been human oversight and data safeguards, which staff was of the opinion could help to prevent any adverse outcomes.

Bias awareness training for staff would also be very important which could help prevent misrepresentation in AI generated imagery. Staff recommended the use of authentic Pinole Community Television (PCTV) photos for communications or stock images. Staff was also exploring the possibility of revising or adding an addendum to the City’s branding guidelines that would restrict the use of AI generated imagery in communications. (Sasai) • AI usage subject to the Public Records Act (PRA) was something staff had yet to better define. Currently, pursuant to the City’s records retention guidelines and policies, AI was not clearly defined, but it could be categories according to the records retention schedule, and could include correspondence used for drafts, data, reports dropped into generative AI, but mostly apply to the output when dropping information into CoPilot, as an example. (Sasai)
• Users of the data used could be reminded that the public may request to see the work flow. Staff was uncertain of the exact content that could be applied to the records retention policies, but it could be generative AI as a catch-all and there were many policies that could apply. It was a safe approach to tell people whatever was placed in generative AI, it could be subject to the PRA. (Sasai)

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 3, 2026

• Staff strongly encouraged, as outlined in the AI Policy, City-approved AI applications, which would be safer, vetted and IT had assessed those applications for risks. Staff would ask that users use City e-mail addresses and accounts, but if one chose to use a generative AI territory, they need to review the terms and conditions and were required to understand those terms and conditions. (Sasai)
• Clarified again the California AI Accountability Act, SB 896. There had been no recent changes in the legislation other than a federal executive order that came out in December 2025, which dealt with White House filings and emphasis on inconsistent state regulations that could create costly compliance burdens for economic growth. SB 896 focused more on government transparency, not so much on private entity regulation. (Sasai) • Clarified SB 524, Law enforcement agencies: artificial intelligence, which was specific to law enforcement reports. In terms of draft retention, for law enforcement reports drafted through AI, the first draft must also be retained with the final draft of the crime report. The reports were subject to the retention of the crime reports and subject to the same PRA requirements of those crime reports. There were also additional disclaimer requirements, including that the report was generated through AI and that it had been reviewed by an officer. (Sasai)
• The PowerPoint presentation before the City Council at this time was the current state of the City’s AI Policy. It was an administrative policy that impacted employees. The typical process was to run the policy by the unions and allow them to provide feedback then move it to the City Manager for approval. If the City Council wanted the AI Policy to be brought back as a Consent Calendar item or a discussion item to allow the City Council to provide feedback, that could be done. (Sasai)
• As to whether AI had improved services to residents and what metric would be used to evaluate the effectiveness of those tools moving forward, staff was in the beginning stages of exploring and using AI. As an example, the recent Town Hall on road maintenance had used public input as part of a hybrid meeting to test out the transcription capabilities which helped to produce an accurate report. Microsoft CoPilot had been used to organize that information into a report the Acting City Manager distributed to the City Council. Another example where AI was a great benefit to the public had also been used at a Town Hall meeting, where the live streaming of the meeting had been able to be transcribed in real time, allowing a member of the public to have that information translated into their language (into any Google language live while watching the Town Hall). That had been a real impactful benefit to the public of the use of AI. (Mayor Pro Tem Murphy) • As to how the success of AI would be measured moving forward, staff had not established specifics for the use of the AI tools and how they impacted the public. As part of the AI Policy, staff wanted to implement a way for people to give feedback, suggestions and comments around AI since they were still learning how AI could be used to better serve the public. Staff already discovered that using AI internally had helped staff save time, improve productivity and do more with less. When measuring success with the AI applications and the public, that would depend on specific projects or applications when AI was being used to compare, such as the level of engagement of non-English speakers before versus after the use of the AI translation tool. (Mayor Pro Tem Murphy)

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 3, 2026

• Acknowledged the need to identify the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) before an AI Policy was adopted whether it was done by the City Manager or the City Council. (Mayor Pro Tem Murphy)
• The AI Policy would apply to employees, interns and volunteers making it an administrative policy, as determined by the City Manager. (Mayor Pro Tem Murphy) • As to what issues would determine supporting a requirement for the AI Policy to come before the City Council for review and approval prior to administrative/City Manager approval if the City Council requested the policy be brought back, staff would follow the City Council direction. (Mayor Pro Tem Murphy)
• None of the PPD technologies fell under the prohibited uses in the AI Policy. The PPD used the Peach Safety Report Program, which complied with the policies and the requirements of the Department of Justice. (Mayor Pro Tem Murphy) • Clarified again the user-specific rules of the AI Policy. When opting-out of data collection, if possible, the user-rules applied to staff usage of generative AI. As an example, when opting-out of data collection when possible meant if there was an option to opt-out of the data collection, staff should select that before entering in/dropping data into the generative AI platform. Clarified many of the generative AI platforms such as ChatGPT were opensource platforms where the data would go into the AI abyss. Opting-out, would allow the data that was dropping-in in a little box that would not be shared with the entire world.

While not always an option, when there was an option to opt-out, staff would be asked to check that box. (Martinez-Rubin)
• Acknowledged a request to first pose questions before considering KPIs, the usual route before undertaking a process that would yield any potential measures of any process or outcomes and staff was thanked for thinking along those lines. Also, acknowledged the suggestion the AI Policy did not necessarily need to come back to the City Council since it was an administrative policy. Acknowledged the role of the City Council to develop legislative policies and while it would be a bonus to get back that information, it was not essential. (Martinez-Rubin)

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Rafael Menis argued if the City was considering the use of AI or large language models, it should also consider the following: the substantial harms caused by the creation and ongoing renovation of those models in terms of the raw computational resources required to run those models; the physical land it occupied along with water consumed, power consumed, carbon dioxide emissions created with that power, colossal theft of all knowledge and its reassembly into pseudo-valid statements; and the inherent and unavoidable risk of confabulations or hallucinations or lies and the like where large language models fundamentally could run into issues with simple tasks. As examples, how many “r’s” in the word strawberry and did two plus two equal four. He noted the default assumption about computers was that they would always do the same thing in the same way, but they were deterministic. Large language models were probabilistic and not deterministic; they could make errors, they could be subtle, designed to tell things one wanted to hear even when they were not true, and to use the things that made up matter and style without question.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 3, 2026

Mr. Menis added that even in those narrow areas where large language models were matching models or generative AI could do tasks that generated benefit, it still eroded the fundamental capability of the human that used it to undertake the tasks that were being outsourced to AI, even for skilled professionals like doctors, as Bloomberg had noted. There were also numerous harmful uses of AI, as noted in some of the points the City had addressed in its policies, but more broadly, the harm that AI could cause would be in conflict with the City of Pinole’s values and the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP), and the City should not use AI for any purpose.

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
Council member Toms commented that during the latest League of California Cities Conference, there had been a live demonstration of AI. While a great tool, it was only a tool and would not replace humans in terms of editing, checking and the like. She found the most important policy the City had was to review and revise, as necessary. She added that since it was administrative, the AI Policy did not need to come back to the City Council for approval and should be kept on the administrative side of things with staff.

Council member Sasai stated there were many productive uses for AI, such as language access.

He noted the City of San Jose’s City Council had live AI translations for different languages which was a useful AI tool. Many of the City Council members had been approached by different firms and initiatives that used AI, such as community outreach, which could be made more efficient with AI technology. As an example, Google had different applications that were geared more towards cities and towns. He recognized that many lawmakers had embraced AI technology and he recognized it would happen and be a part of the reality for many people. He also recognized that AI was intended as a tool and not a replacement for jobs.

Council member Sasai reported he spoke with the President of Local 1 and people from the Contra Costa Labor Council (but had not spoken with Local 512 or the Pinole Police Employees’ Association (PPEA)) about AI. Based on those conversations, they were not grasping all of AI, which was new technology. He commented the takeaways were the concerns with any use of AI that took a significant portion of the work away from staff and the jobs of others, along with privacy concerns. He understood there was an opt-out policy as part of data collection, when possible, and suggested that policy be tightened a bit to be a requirement given the concern that as employee/staff used AI more and more, the data would be used by those companies to learn how to do the employee/staff jobs and it could be a reality in the near future that some jobs across departments could be replaced with AI. He did not want to contribute to that danger. He encouraged staff to continue to reach out to staff and the unions for input on the AI Policy.

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy thanked staff for the presentation for one of the issues many were still learning about. He acknowledged the work of the Communications Director and her team. He also appreciated the transparency on the process as to how staff was recommending moving forward from this moment. He had been a member of the City Council when the City did not have an IT Plan and there had been struggles to have conversations about bringing the City into the 20th century in terms of technology and consider what other cities had done to move forward.

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy found the guiding principles to be a value, which a lot of residents were looking for when discussing AI. The City had wonderful values and the Strategic Plan, which had not talked enough about IT and AI, and he appreciated starting there.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 3, 2026

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy emphasized AI had been used as a tool, and he had questions around GovAI and the improvement of productivity through AI. He wanted to know how much more productivity the City was getting through AI and how it would affect organized labor and address workers’ fear of losing their jobs to AI. He supported a public review of the process given the number of unanswered questions amid the public’s distrust with the use of AI, and wanted to create more trust between the City Council, staff and the public. He added the City should also consider other agencies, such as the CCCFPD since he was unsure the policy integrated the CCCFPD or whether the Fire Chief had been consulted on the AI Policy. He appreciated the process that had been developed thus far, recognized a number of unanswered questions in 2025 when the Mayor had asked for this agenda item, and suggested the answers to more and more questions would be possible through public engagement and review.

Mayor Tave recognized that technology would always influence the community and there had been fears in the past when new technology had been created. He was pleased with the presentation in a public forum and suggested the AI Policy, as outlined, kept human intuition and the human element included. He was also pleased photographs of staff had been included in the PowerPoint presentation. As the City decided how to use AI, he suggested fencing (parameters) be included with AI usage to ensure boundaries were provided while highlighting the human element citizens expected. He supported the item’s return to the City Council on the Consent Calendar to allow the information on the public record and to engage public comment.

Council member Sasai agreed with the benefit of placing the item on the Consent Calendar to allow the public and the City Council the opportunity to weigh-in on the fully completed AI policy, which he recognized was an administrative policy to be approved by the City Manager.

ACTION: Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Murphy/Mayor Tave to direct staff to release the Draft Artificial Intelligence Policy for public review and return with a Final Artificial Intelligence Policy for City Council consideration; establish an annual reporting process on the City’s use of Artificial Intelligence, including approved applications, compliance with Artificial Intelligence Policy, any incidents and upcoming regulatory changes; and direct staff to finalize and implement Artificial Intelligence requirements for vendors including disclosure, compliance with the City’s Artificial Intelligence Policy and Incident Reporting for inclusion in future Requests for Proposals and contracts.

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

Absent: None

2. 360 Public Assistance Portal (Citizen Request Portal) – Acting City Manager, Chief of Police Melissa Klawuhn and Communications Director Fiona Epps
Communications Director Epps and Acting City Manager/Police Chief Klawuhn provided a PowerPoint presentation on the 360 Public Assistance Portal (Citizen Request Portal).

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 3, 2026

The presentation included an overview of Council Priorities for Fiscal Year (FY) 2025/26 for a 360 Public Assistance Portal, a digital platform that enabled residents to submit service requests, track issues, and access City support resources in a streamlined and transparent manner. The Police Commendation/Complaint Form involved the implementation of a commendation/complaint portal with multi-lingual translation a plus. The current methods for tracking and transparency, current state of digital service requests, different categories of web forms, what was intended to be accomplished with the 360 Public Assistance Portal (Citizen Request Portal) and the workflow once a request was submitted, along with key features and benefits of the Citizen Request Portal and implementation timeline were all highlighted.

The PPD Commendation/Complaint Form was also highlighted and included an overview of CueHit, which offered an additional way to provide feedback.

Responding to questions from the City Council, Communications Director Epps and Acting City Manager/Police Chief Klawuhn clarified the following:
• The Citizen Request Portal would offer a central place for a request to be made and tracked. Oftentimes, many questions on social media were answered with one response.

Some required more work from staff and may require a referral to a City Department.

These requests would best be serviced by being inserted into the portal. Staff would have to explore and discuss with the City Departments the types of requests to be tracked as part of the portal. The portal would replace staff responses to questions via e-mail and staff still needed to discuss how that would work, whether the question was easily answered in one shot or whether it would require more work from a specific City Department. (Sasai)
• Information on residents’ addresses and demographic information were optional. Staff still needed to determine the required fields to serve the residents better and e-mail/telephone and first name at the least would likely be required, although some departments required a first and last name. All data on the site would be secured and the City’s network security should offer comfort in providing information. If residents were not comfortable using the electronic form, a resident could always contact City staff by telephone or come to City Hall in-person. (Sasai)
• Quotes had been gathered for the portal which would be built by the City’s existing website vendor at a cost of $10,000. The cost was already in the budget for this fiscal year under Professional Services - Website Improvements. (Sasai)
• Acknowledged a request to speak with the City’s website vendor about the possibility of an added feature for the public sector as a consumer of services, to also include indication when the request/compliant for service was going to be met, so that internally as the City Departments were acquainted with the work flow to address certain requests of service there would be a better way to estimate when a request would be met. As an example, Amazon provided notification to its customers on the status of ordered items. Another example was offered which Council member Martinez-Rubin had personally experienced, when a permit request was submitted to the City for the replacement of windows. In that case, no status was provided on the estimate of time it would take to receive a permit, which ultimately took six months. (Martinez-Rubin)

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 3, 2026

• Consumers of public services would find it helpful and advantageous once a request was made or complaint filed, to be notified of the progress as part of the work flow.

Acknowledged again a request for the City’s website vendor to provide the cost of featuring the status of a request in the work flow rather than just “in progress” so that the portal could offer a means to manage expectations and lower public frustration. (MartinezRubin) • Clarified code enforcement actions would not be entered into the Citizen Request Portal since there was a separate system for the management of code enforcement complaints.

The portal would only come into play as a way to notify the person about the status of the request and ability to etrack it internally or code enforcement could be contacted to provide additional details and information. The portal would also include a feature for staff to mark a request as “confidential,” to be hidden from view. (Toms) • There would be space for the actual text for the complaint or commendation on the PPD form, which would include an open field for information to be included. Clarified required information on the commendation and complaint form had no mandatory field other than acknowledgement at the end to check a box. Anonymous complaints could be made that the PPD would investigate without the complainant providing a name, contact information and the like; however, staff acknowledged if that information was not provided, no followup could be done. As to whether there would be a requirement for someone to identify themselves as not being a bot when leaving a complaint or commendation, staff suggested a “reCAPTCHA” could be included in the forms. (Martinez-Rubin) • Clarified again the estimated cost of the new portal was $10,000 to build the system with an additional $1,500 annually for the website subscription to maintain the portal. This quote was much cheaper than quotes from outside applications at about $12,000 annually.

Staff was currently evaluating the software systems being used, mapping renewal data in the Five-Year Plan to phase out some software, and when building the new portal and using it, staff should feel comfortable the portal would do the same things that any software being replaced could do. At this time, no software was being replaced other than merging website forms. (Mayor Tave)
• Described the Pinole App as a remote control to the City website. If there was a link on the website, it could be included on the app on the Report a Problem button on the app.

As to whether community engagement would be provided when the new portal was rolled out, the community would be notified through social media. The Pulse featured programs on the front page of the City website and it would replace the Report a Problem button on the City website. Acknowledged a suggestion for a fun community activity as part of the roll-out of the new portal when implemented. As an example, information could be provided to the public during the upcoming Farmer’s Market in the summer, although staff was uncertain the portal would be ready for roll-out at that time. (Mayor Tave)

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

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 3, 2026

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy commended the Communications Director on the presentation and the advances made since his election to the City Council in 2020. He appreciated the work to reach this point, emphasized the importance for people to know that in 2025, the City Council’s current composition held a retreat with a number of priorities having been discussed, one of which was the Citizen Request Portal. He recalled conversations that the City had a great website, although there was some disconnect in certain Departments needing additional support and coordination to solve some of the more complex problems. He liked the Report a Problem subsection of the City website and found the portal an incredible and positive step for the City. He also thanked the City Council for the fact they all identified the portal as a priority with the Communications Director having done a great job integrating the feedback from the City Council and speaking to others to make this happen.

Having spoken with residents about the improvements to communications, Mayor Pro Tem Murphy acknowledged there were still people who were challenged attempting to navigate City government. Staff had done a great job addressing those who were challenged and providing support. He was excited to see this project through and serve as an Ambassador to residents to use the portal.

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy also responded to Council member Martinez-Rubin’s recommendation at some point to leverage the data received and the processing of the completed service deliveries, which would eventually inform the vendor how things were being done and in what department, timewise. He noted in 2020, most of the City’s permitting requests were done through e-mail and spreadsheets, which were etracked to show how quickly the request was turned around. This was why in the prior presentation he had emphasized the importance of KPIs which allowed them to track and reinforce how the City’s policies and operations were not moving with people, and those service completion times could be a great opportunity to explore. He could see that as the future of City government, similar to how it was done in the private sector, when the individual knew when something was to come back to them and were otherwise notified of the status of any service changes. He was excited about that data possibility and how staff may consider how to meet those KPIs through the use of the portal.

Council member Sasai commented he received feedback from residents’ years go about e-mails being sent and then falling through the cracks. He suggested the portal would strengthen case constituent management and make sure everything was closed out and issues addressed. He thanked the Communications Director and looked forward to the implementation of the new portal.

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 January 20, 2026 and the Minutes of the Special City Council meeting on January 27, 2026.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 3, 2026

B. Receive the January 17, 2026 – January 30, 2026, List of Warrants in the Amount of $957,782.07 and the January 30, 2026, Payroll in the Amount of $535,819.62.

C. Adopt a Resolution to Surplus Vehicles from the Police Department. Action:

Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation. (Justin Rogers) D. Fiscal Year (FY) 2026/27 Budget Development Process and Timeline. Action:

Receive a Report (Markisha Guillory)
E. Approve the Municipal Pooling Authority Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement (JPA) for Providing Property, Worker’s Compensation, Public Liability and Other Insurance Coverages to the City of Pinole. Action: Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Stacy Shell)
Council member Sasai requested Items 9A and 9C be pulled for discussion.

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Rafal Menis speaking to Item 9C, noted when reviewing the list of vehicles being surplused that one was a trailer made in 2018. He asked for more detail why it was being scrapped and the expected usable life of a given police vehicle.

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
Acting City Manager/Police Chief Klawuhn explained the trailer had been listed in the surplus vehicle was an electronic sign trailer, often informing of road closures. She could not speak to the longevity of the trailers since she was unfamiliar with their general lifespan, although the City received grant funding for the replacement of the trailer and would seek grant funding for a second trailer.

For Item 9A, Council member Sasai reported he previously spoke to the Deputy City Clerk about a request to revise Page 1 of the Special City Council Meeting Minutes of January 27, 2026, to reflect that he had been present and participated in the Special Meeting, arriving at approximately 6:50 p.m.

For item 9C, Council member Sasai asked for clarification of the process for surplus vehicles and how funds were used for replacement vehicles, if all vehicles went to auction or were disposed of, the anticipated value of auctioning the six vehicles that had been listed and whether there were any other vehicles across all departments that may qualify as beyond their life or close to it. He also asked whether the six vehicles were stored in the public parking lot on Pear Street.

Acting City Manager/Police Chief Klawuhn confirmed for the most part that the surplus vehicles would go to auction, and whatever money was generated would be placed in the replacement fund. Any time a vehicle was either at the end of service or the cost of repairs outweighed the maintenance of the vehicle, they would be submitted to the City Council for approval to surplus the items to allow the money to be put towards replacements. She also clarified she did not have a ballpark of the sale of the six vehicles at auction, but could get back to the City Council with information. She verified the auction companies would take a percentage of the funds.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 3, 2026

Acting City Manager Police Chief Klawuhn was unaware of the status of the fleets from other City Departments but that was something she could find out and bring back to the City Council. The current list of six vehicles was a comprehensive list for the PPD at this time. The PPD was taking a strong look at its fleet given the number of vehicles reaching a maximum life as a patrol vehicle and she noted it had been some time since the PPD last submitted a surplus request to the City Council. Most of the vehicles were being stored across the street from the PPD, although the Harley Davidson and sign trailer were within the secured parking lot of the PPD by St. Joseph.

ACTION: Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Murphy/Council member Toms to approve Consent Calendar Item 9A, as amended by Council member Sasai, and Items 9B, 9C, 9D and 9E, as shown.

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

Absent: None

10. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Resolution Calling for Special Election and Submitting Question Regarding Office of Elected Mayor to Voters. Action: Adopt a Resolution Calling for Special Election and Submitting Question Regarding Office of Elected Mayor to Voters (Eric Casher)
City Attorney Casher provided a PowerPoint presentation on a Resolution Calling for a Special Election and Elected Mayor Ballot Measure, which included an overview of the background of the December 2, 2025 request by the City Council majority for staff to prepare the necessary materials to submit to voters the question of whether the office of Elected Mayor shall be established pursuant to Government Code Section 34900 in the City of Pinole. He also highlighted the current makeup of the City Council comprised of five members elected at-large, and the position of Mayor annually based on the number of votes in the previous election. The procedural requirements for a ballot measure, powers of the Mayor, salary of an Elected Mayor and the fiscal impacts were all detailed.

City Attorney Casher recommended the City Council consider the adoption of the proposed resolution calling for a Special Election and submitting to voters the question of creating the office of Elected Mayor. If the City Council voted to move forward, staff also sought direction on the compensation for an Elected Mayor.

Responding to questions from the City Council, City Attorney Casher clarified the following:
• The City ordinance for City Council salaries went into effect in August 2024. When a Council member was newly elected that Council member received the salary of $950 per month, whereas Council members in office at the time did not receive the new salary adjustment. Only two members of the City Council currently have that salary. (MartinezRubin)

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 3, 2026

• Pinole was a General Law City, with a City Council-City Manager form of government. A General Law City with an Elected Mayor could become a Charter City, with the process for doing that requiring the City Council to direct staff to prepare a resolution to place a ballot measure for the City to become a Charter City. An Elected Mayor could not unilaterally create a Charter City. That would require City Council direction, a resolution approving that and a ballot measure with the voters to decide whether or not the City would become a Charter City. A Charter City ballot measure needed to be a General Election ballot. The next General Election was in November 2028. Typically, Charter Cities had the ability to establish a Strong Mayor, which was the case currently if the City Council were to direct a ballot measure and the voters decided to become a Charter City, even if there was a Rotating Mayor, the City Council may still establish that appointed Mayor to be a Strong Mayor, but the same would be true for an Elected Mayor. (Martinez-Rubin) • Elected Mayor compensations, as provided in the PowerPoint presentation, were again clarified. Identified the City of San Ramon as the most comparable to Pinole, which city paid its Elected Mayor $100 more per month than other members of the City Council. Staff was unaware of the responsibilities the Elected Mayor had in each of the cities shown, and with the information not an apples-to-apples comparison. Some cities may have higher compensation based on responsibilities, duties and time commitments. Clarified under state law, Council members’ salaries were set by statute and capped based on the population of a particular city. For the City of Pinole, as an example, there was a maximum amount the City could compensate Council members, but under state law there was no limitation or restriction on the amount of the salary for an Elected Mayor. (Martinez-Rubin) • Clarified the limitations on salaries for Council members was outlined in the Government Code. Again clarified the compensation for an Elected Mayor had no state law restriction, it was open. The example cities, as outlined in the PowerPoint presentation, showed a range in compensation. The cities shown that had a City Council-City Manager form of government included the cites of Richmond, Union City, Newark and San Leandro.

Confirmed the City of Martinez, which had not been included on the list of cities, had an Elected Mayor. Staff was uncertain whether that jurisdiction had a City Council-City Manager form of government but that could be reviewed. Confirmed the City of Petaluma, which was of similar size to Pinole, had a City Council-City Manager form of government but staff was unsure that city had an Elected Mayor.

A prior staff report which had been provided to the City Council included a list of cities with Elected Mayors. The vast majority of cities in the region had a City Council-City Manager form of government. For a Strong Mayor, that was where the Mayor had more or less the authority of the City Manager and acted as the City administrator but those were rare situations. There were several cities with Elected Mayors that still had City Council-City Manager forms of government. (Mayor Pro Tem Murphy)
• Clarified again state restrictions on City Council salaries based on population size. Staff would have to review the history of the legislation and why it had been set in that way, but the legislation had been adjusted for inflation and other reasons. (Mayor Pro Tem Murphy)

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 3, 2026

• Clarified again how a City could become a Charter City. Confirmed a City with an Appointed Mayor could become a Charter City. The item before the City Council, if approved, would adopt a resolution calling for a Special Election and submit the question regarding the office of an Elected Mayor. It would not create a Charter City. (Sasai) • The measure, if passed, would not approve a full-time salary for an Elected Mayor. The City Council would set the salary for the Elected Mayor as part of this discussion, with the roles and responsibilities of the Elected Mayor as described in the ordinance. It would not be a full-time position, but consistent with the current Mayor. (Sasai) • Clarified again the Pinole Municipal Code (PMC) set Council member’s salaries at $950, and those elected before 2024 did not receive the updated compensation, with the idea that a Council member who was in office should not increase their own compensation while on the Council, and the higher salary was for newly-elected Council members only. (Sasai)
• If passed, the measure would not create veto authority or power for the Elected Mayor and would not allow an Elected Mayor to unilaterally appoint Commissioners, and the powers of the Elected Mayor were similar to what currently existed in the ordinance. (Sasai)
• If there was interest in having a Primary Election for an Elected Mayor, that could be established as the process, but as the ordinance now read, it was just an election for the Mayor position. (Toms)
• In the event there was a vacancy on the City Council, the City Council would make an appointment to fill the vacancy, with that process outlined in the PMC even if everyone decided to run for the office of Elected Mayor, as an example. (Mayor Tave)

PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
Ann Moriarty wanted to give the City Council the benefit of the doubt if the voters of Pinole wanted an Elected Mayor, although it seemed there were two ways to do that, and two ways for the City Council to understand where citizens stood. The City Council could be fiscally irresponsible and commit political suicide by voting to spend up to $58,000 plus of taxpayers’ funds to place the question on the ballot measure in June or vote no to authorize this ballot measure and instead submit a well-thought-out question to the voters on the Citywide poll, which was already scheduled for the spring. In speaking with the City Attorney, this would not cost the City a dime and get them the same information. The current proposal would only slow the process down. If the City Council’s thought was to understand where the citizens of Pinole were on the subject, she assumed they were wise enough to make the right choice.

Kent Moriarty was unclear why members of the City Council had been pushing so hard to change the City’s system of government to that of an Elected Mayor. Residents had not asked for it and appeared to be opposed to it. He was opposed to it since consolidating more power in one person would create problems for the City, and the current system of rotating the Mayor was more democratic since eventually the Council members the voters felt most represented them rotated into the Mayoral position.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 3, 2026

Mr. Moriarty suggested if there was really no agenda behind the proposal and the City Council simply wanted to take the temperature of the room and know what the community wanted, the City Council should add the question to the poll already planned for free. Rushing into an expensive Special Election was not justified and he seriously questioned why anyone would support doing so.

Richard Cossel thanked the City Council for its service to the City and the people, which was appreciated. He recognized the City Council was compensated and while it would be nice to give more, on this matter he was confused. He questioned the underlying purpose and asked if there was a particular problem that could not be fixed with the current Council since he understood an Elected Mayor would have the same tasks and authority. He questioned the need for a Special Election as opposed to waiting for a General Election. He noted that 90 percent or more of cities the size of Pinole did not have an Elected Mayor and again questioned why Pinole needed it. In 2018, he stated that almost 80 percent of the population voted no on Proposition P to change term limits and he questioned whether 80 percent of the population would vote for an Elected Mayor, as opposed to keeping the 100-year history of Pinole doing things the way they had been done. He emphasized no one had been able to explain why an Elected Mayor was being placed on the ballot and given that unknown there were reasons not to do so including cost and animosity.

Peter Murray congratulated Mayor Tave on his election as Mayor. He read into the record comments he found on the Nextdoor platform and an opinion on this topic, which raised some of the same questions and concerns expressed by the previous speakers.

Debbie Long voiced her opposition to having an Elected Mayor in the small City of Pinole; however, she also responded specifically to the Mayor Pro Tem’s post on Nextdoor, which had likely broken the Brown Act in the form of a serial meeting. The Mayor Pro Tem had been clarifying the item of an Elected Mayor and his perception of misinformation, yet he was not specific and had stated the City could not make this choice on its own. It appeared the Mayor Pro Tem was not listening since residents had established that an election was not appropriate given there had been no public outcry. The Council had not considered polling as with other ballot measures and the costs of putting this on the ballot, up to $57,000 plus staff time as well as the cost of the November ballot, was not financially a sound decision given the City’s budget constraints. The Mayor Pro Tem also stated this ballot measure would not change the current form of government, yet he continued to point out this new structure would directly impact leadership, accountability and stability. Currently, all Council members had demonstrated the necessary qualities to serve and she asked whether the Mayor Pro Tem was diminishing current City Council members’ qualifications. She stated this was the Mayor Pro Tem’s third attempt to push this item through and asked if his suggestion was that he was the only one who could successfully lead the City.

Ms. Long found the Mayor Pro Tem was continually trying to change the form of government and if he was not elected as a Strong Mayor, the Council majority could vote to give him more power, as well as more financial compensation. The Mayor Pro Tem had expressed the opposition to this measure was due to personal grievances and political grudges, but nothing could be further from the truth. She wished she had the time to state the 44 plus names of the individuals who had posted on Nextdoor, all denouncing an election and need for an Elected Mayor.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 3, 2026

Ms. Long added that according to the Mayor Pro Tem, the City of Pinole had frequent turnovers and inconsistency in leadership, and if he was referring to losing two City Managers in as many years, then he was part of that as well. Nowhere in the Mayor Pro Tem’s posting had he articulated how the City would be better served under an Elected Mayor. She suggested the Mayor Pro Tem had made a public post for all of the City Council to read since only two members could have any discussion on the comment on the topic, which she found clearly in violation of the Brown Act for a serial meeting. As she had previously stated, “No Kings in Pinole.” She added this was not just about the Mayor Pro Tem but the rest of the City Council as well. She hoped their vote reflected the citizens of Pinole and not the alliances on the City Council.

William Horton opposed Item 10A for a separately Elected Mayor since the cost would be unnecessary taking funds away from police, fire, parks and streets. The existing Mayoral rotation worked fine and provided four people one year each as Mayor, and there had been no public outreach such as polling. As a result, he would not vote in June to waste money for an Elected Mayor.

Mark Zimmerman commented the PowerPoint presentation listed six cities with an Elected Mayor to support a decision for an Elected Mayor, although those cities were three to six times larger than the City of Pinole. He suggested Pinole should not be compared to the larger cities and the cities listed paid the Mayor more than Council members, and some provided the same benefit package as City employees, including a pension. The City of Richmond, the nearest city to Pinole, paid its Mayor $84,000; $73,000 more than the current Council received. The assertion was that the ballot was about democracy and let the people decide, but it seemed to be a move by one or more to satisfy political ambitions and a desire to have a full-time job with benefits courtesy of Pinole taxpayers. The City Council could set that salary and benefits.

Mr. Zimmerman also noted that the PowerPoint presentation estimated the fiscal impacts from placing the measure on the ballot, which estimate had doubled since the December 2025 meeting, along with additional unidentified costs for staff time, consultants and legal experts in addition to a potential salary increase and benefits. Including the cost of the ballot measure, the estimated cost was $154,000 not counting unidentified costs. He suggested the salary could start off at $100,000 a year for both the salary and benefits and over ten years it could be another million dollars without inflation. There was no need for the ballot measure, but if the City must proceed, he asked that polling be done first. He understood City staff already issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) for three upcoming proposed tax increases, and the question of an Elected Mayor could simply be added to that poll at no additional cost.

Marcia Joswick asked the City Council to do the right thing and vote no on this resolution since the estimated cost for one ballot measure on the June 2026 ballot was estimated at more than $55,000, with unknown additional costs. She questioned why the City would move forward with a ballot measure when a poll was already in the planning stages and this item should be added to it. She asked the City Council to do its duty to spend taxpayer monies in ways that were fiscally responsible, which was why she and constituents voted for them. She suggested the ballot measure was not fiscally responsible and was a waste of money, especially when essential needs were not being met. She commented that residents had heard the often excuse the City did not have the money to pay for that. She again asked the City Council to do the right thing and take fiscally responsible action and vote no on the resolution.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 3, 2026

Jennifer Horne read into the record written comments dated February 3, 2026, as follows: Good evening. My name is Jennifer Horne and I am here to speak on Agenda Item 10A. I was prepared to urge a “NO” vote on the resolution at issue until I became aware of and read Mayor Pro Tem Devin Murphy’s mid-December post on Next Door, which I have submitted, along with my comments, for the record. In light of this post, I believe that a vote on the current resolution is premature. In his mid-December Next Door post, Mayor Pro Tem Murphy announced that he would soon be sworn in as Mayor Pro Tem. In response, a person posted the following question:
“What happened to the current mayor?”
Here, in relevant part, is Mayor Pro Tem Murphy’s response: “I’m pleased to share that we are advancing a ballot measure that would establish a directly elected Mayor, putting the choice of leadership in the hands of Pinole residents - not the Council. This change would modernize our system and provide consistency and accountability in leadership. The measure will go before voters in June 2026.” Why is this response so concerning? Because at the time of this post, the requisite process to bring this measure to a ballot had not been followed. Staff still had to prepare all applicable documents, a public meeting still needed to be scheduled, the people of Pinole still had to be heard, and the Council still had to vote to place the measure on the ballot. Mayor Pro Tem Murphy did not communicate this process in his post, and the public was left with the impression that its sole opportunity to speak regarding this measure was through a vote on a ballot measure in June 2026.

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy’s statement that the measure “will go” before voters in June 2026 also made me wonder how he could be so definite about that. Had a majority of this Council already decided to vote “yes” on this measure after “discuss[ing] [or] deliberat[ing] . . . on [it]. . . “outside of a public meeting? I don’t know, but the post certainly raises that possibility, and casts a long shadow both over this proceeding and the propriety of a vote tonight. It is therefore incumbent on this Council to slow this process down and postpone tonight’s vote, to ensure maximum transparency and full compliance with the law. Take a poll and/or hold a townhall meeting, and listen to what the citizens of Pinole really think about our current governance structure. By doing either or both before you vote, you might just unearth an actual reason for this measure and gauge public sentiment. This Council would be much better able to determine if an expenditure of $55,000+ dollars plus to place this measure on the ballot is justified. In closing, I have to say that this measure brings to mind a sticker that someone I worked with had on his office door: “If something ain’t broke, fix it until it is.” Unless this Council fully develops the need for this measure before voting to place it on the ballot, you risk “fixing” our current governing structure until it, and the City we love, are both “broke.”
Cathy McFarland commented the Mayor and City Council were to serve and protect the community and the City and not systematically destroy the City by taking out the perfect protocol for Mayor that had been effective for most of the City’s existence. She found the City Council had been too focused on a self-serving agenda for wanting a Special Election and Elected Mayor, which would be another financial hit to residents and which seemed to be constantly and consistently occurring. This effort had already wasted a lot of time and money while the most important items for the community and City had been neglected. Residents had lost confidence on who was representing the City. She emphasized that a properly functioning City needed a good City Manager, a good contract for the PPD, well maintained roads and be financially sound, all of which was lacking. She stressed that residents had the power to vote and to recall.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 3, 2026

Rafael Menis commented he was not speaking for or against the resolution. He asked the following questions: whether the term limits mentioned by a prior commenter as part of Measure P applied to the position of an Elected Mayor if created or established separately by ordinance, whether the cost of the measure was based primarily on the June ballot as opposed to the November General Election ballot or whether there was a flat cost or a range of costs. In terms of public support for this measure, he noted while the people in the Council Chambers and those who had commented were not necessarily a sample of the voter base of Pinole as a whole, it was notable that the vast majority of people who had spoken in-person and comments he had seen online were opposed to this measure. Technically speaking in terms of political success for the measure, the City Council would want to see more public support for the item in the Council Chambers before voting to place it before the voters as a whole, and separately, whether it should be considered as a polling item. As to the timing of the measure, he asked if it would be correct the reason it was being timed for the June election as opposed to a November election would be to allow for the first election of Mayor to occur in this cycle rather than in 2028.

Christian Green recognized Black History Month, a time which honored progress, representation and the ongoing passion for democracy. He strongly supported an Elected Mayor system. As a long-time resident, he found the City had shown what progress looked like in the community, including the Mayor Pro Tem who became the City’s first Black-elected official, which had shown when residents were in power to choose their leaders, the government became more inclusive, more accountable, and more representative of the people it served. Black History taught that democracy was stronger when the voice of the people grew louder, with the fight for voting rights and fair representation, and progress came from expanding participation and not limiting it. An Elected Mayor would give people a direct say in who led the City and created clearer accountability, stronger public engagement and leadership that answered directly to the voters who knew who was setting the City’s vision when trust increased and civic participation rose.

Mr. Green added that cities with Elected Mayors saw a higher voter turnout in local elections, clearer leadership during times of crisis and more transparent decision making. Power conceded nothing without a demand, and scripture in Proverbs 29:2, stated, “When the righteous thrive, the people rejoice …” Giving the people the power to chose their Mayor is how to ensure leadership that reflected shared values. A vote for Mayor would be a vote for accountability, transparency and people having a stronger voice in the City’s future. He urged the City Council to place the measure before the voters and allow the community the opportunity to share the City’s next leadership.

PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
Mayor Pro Tem Murphy commented he was not the only one to encourage conversation. A lot of residents had come out to encourage conversations and he thanked residents on both sides. He explained that he had been elected to the City Council in 2020, and had committed each day in his role to ensure he was serving the needs of voters, which was why he decided to step into a second term, reaching numerous voters in the City to set a mandate for the need for increasing civic engagement. One of the items that was so important about this referendum, from the City Council perspective, was that it increased civic engagement and everyone was thanked for making their voices heard.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 3, 2026

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy noted this conversation occurred prior to his election to the City Council from prior electeds and residents who had discussed this topic, and while it may have not have been put forward as an agenda item, they had asked for this to happen.

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy took the opportunity to read into the record the following written comments from former Mayor Vincent Salimi, received via email and dated January 30, 2026: Hello Heather, I hope you are well. I have a comment for item 10 A agenda, I am sorry I will be in LA for work. I am writing in support of the Pinole City Council’s upcoming consideration of a resolution to place before voters the question of whether the City of Pinole should transition to an elected mayor form of governance, as authorized under California Government Code Section 34900.

This action is not about predetermining the outcome of that question. Rather, it is about affirming transparency, civic participation, and the fundamental right of residents to decide how their city is governed. Allowing voters to weigh in strengthens trust in local government and reinforces an open and democratic process.

I also wish to share a personal perspective as a former mayor. Under Pinole’s current system, a 12-month mayoral term is simply not long enough to meaningfully set priorities, build momentum, and see complex initiatives through to completion. Effective leadership, particularly in today’s challenging municipal environment requires continuity, accountability, and sufficient time to deliver results.

In addition, if the City is to expect strong leadership and effective governance, both the mayor and councilmembers should be equipped with the tools necessary to do the job well. This includes adequate staff support and compensation that allows elected officials to serve in a serious, professional, and full-time capacity when needed. These structural considerations are ultimately policy choices for the community to evaluate, which is precisely why placing this question before voters is so important.

Regardless of individual views on the merits of an elected mayor system, I strongly support giving Pinole residents the opportunity to decide this question for themselves.

I encourage the City Council to move this item forward so the community can have a clear voice in shaping the City’s future governance. Thank you for your continued leadership and for fostering a transparent and inclusive civic process.

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy explained he had shared the letter because he had seen a lot of people blame him. He acknowledged this was not about him, but about the residents of Pinole. His job as a policy maker was to ensure he was bringing new ideas to support residents. He brought numerous ideas around the environment, economic development and housing. This was one of the areas he brought around governance since the City must do something about the current system which he suggested was not working. As noted by the City Attorney, there were things that this measure did not do, and that was okay and something for the City Council to consider in the future, one of which was the possibility of changing the City into a Charter City, which this measure did not do, nor was he proposing that be done. One other thing this measure would not do was to change the City from a City Council-City Manager form of government to a different form of government. The measure would set a political mandate for residents to decide who wanted their Mayor to be.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 3, 2026

Whether one agreed or not, as an individual and as a resident of Pinole and an eligible voter, Mayor Pro Tem Murphy stated the City Council had the right to make that decision for themselves.

As an agency, the goal of the City Council was to educate the pros and cons of that decision and have an election. He knew there were people who continued to want to make personal attacks against him and he was used to that from that individual, but he emphasized the City Council had the responsibility to improve the quality of life of Pinole residents and to engage people in discussion. He suggested the reason the City Council was so diverse was because it continued to open doors for conversations even against people who opposed them and whether they supported this measure or not.

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy fully supported the resolution and suggested the City Council should move forward with it. He suggested with or without this measure, the City Council would continue to make Pinole move forward and no matter how one felt about him, he acknowledged the job was challenging and difficult, but his responsibility was to the 6,000 voters who voted for him and he would not stop working to move the City forward, which was his goal and mission.

Council member Martinez-Rubin asked for clarity about a Council member posting online on social media, such as on Nextdoor. She asked whether that was a violation of the Brown Act and related to that whether making statements in past, present or future tense with definitive verbiage was a violation of the Brown Act. She also asked for clarity on the polling. She understood the polling that was upcoming in the spring was related to revenue generating streams and asked whether or not an additional question about the public’s interest in an Elected Mayor would involve an additional cost, and what that cost would be.

City Attorney Casher explained he had not seen the social media posts and was unaware of the actual content, but more broadly, the Brown Act required that any of the City’s business be conducted in a public meeting. Many members of the City Council or electeds throughout the state had social media accounts and posted things, and again not aware of the exact substance of the comments, he could not comment whether or not it was a violation of the Brown Act. He could look into it and advise the City Council. Generally speaking, he explained that the Brown Act prohibited any discourse, dialogue or decisions being made by the City Council outside of a public meeting. If there were multiple Council members discussing an item and deciding on it outside of this space, it would be a violation of the Brown Act and was the most obvious example, but there was also nuance to that.

City Attorney Casher acknowledged there were some comments that a “decision had been made,” but again he had not seen the comments and was not aware when the comments had been posted. Pursuant to the staff report, the City Council had directed staff to bring this item forward at the December 2, 2025 meeting.

Council member Martinez-Rubin asked for clarity on the estimated range of costs to place the measure on the ballot and the timing of placing the measure on the ballot.

City Attorney Casher explained the costs were set by Contra Costa County which administered elections. At the time the presentation had initially been made, estimated costs were provided and staff was able to verify the costs for this cycle with the County, which was $3 to $4.50 per registered voter, a formula used by the County.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 3, 2026

City Attorney Casher acknowledged primary elections were more expensive with higher costs for a June primary versus a November election. In terms of the timing for this measure on the June ballot, he had been asked to bring this item forward at this meeting as directed by the City Council.

If the City were to move forward with a primary election, this would have to go to the County by March 6, 2026, which was why the item had been scheduled for this meeting in February, so if any changes needed to be made, there would be another meeting in the month of February to bring forward a final version.

Finance Director Markisha Guillory responded to the question of adding another question to the current polling efforts and explained the standard was usually about two measures. The City already had three measures, and to add a fourth may change the scope. The polling firms the City had worked with in the last round expressed concern at that time with three measures. The current polling firm supported three measures, which was the industry standard. Adding another measure would make the survey much longer, could cause survey fatigue and skew the survey results, and four measures would push the limits and change the scope of work.

Mayor Tave understood that if another question was added to the survey, there was the potential to diminish the quality and reliability of the survey, which the Finance Director confirmed.

Council member Martinez-Rubin did not support the agenda item in that an Elected Mayor in a small diverse City like Pinole was not necessary. Developing meaningful policy, the role of a full Council was doable when Council members had equal authority and the City currently had that with rotating Mayors. Democratic ideology centered around government by the people, where power was exercised through free, fair and regular elections. In Pinole, free spoke to voters having a choice as to who would be elected to the City Council and who would become its Mayor.

There had been free elections for Council members in the City every two years, which had resulted in a City Council where often a majority rather than unanimous agreement, took ideas to reality of what the City ought to address, what was given priority and who ended up on City Commissions and Committees, regardless of whether the ways to address issues were sensible, practical or economically feasible. Council members did not always agree on what made Pinole better, especially when there were proposals where the intent appeared to be self-serving or a precursor to unproven policy to benefit the citizenry.

Council member Martinez-Rubin commented on essential matters such as infrastructure, economic development and safety where the City Council generally agreed; it was how they got to that agreement that may cause tensions and differences. Ignoring those tensions and differences was idealistic since as diverse as the City was, the City Council and the City’s voters had varied opinions and values, resulting in varied social, educational and political backgrounds.

Council member Martinez-Rubin added that the majority of the state’s 482 cities employed a City Manager, where the Mayor was often chosen by the City Council or had limited direct independent authority. This form of government, separated political policy making, elected Council from administrative operations by the appointed professional City Manager. Key benefits included increased efficiencies, and expertise in City management, enhanced professionalism in staffing, reduced corruption, improved non-partisan service delivery and increased accountability as the City Manager was accountable to the elected City Council. This form of government was a local government system combining the political leadership of an elected Council with the administrative experience of an appointed professional manager.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 3, 2026

The City Council made policy decisions while the City Manager oversaw day-to-day operations and department heads and promoted non-partisan professional management, which was well and good when voters were informed of the intentions of their elected representatives.

Council member Martinez-Rubin recognized in Pinole there had been a gradual transition to electing Council members with charismatic eagerness to make Pinole better. Now some Council members supported having an Elected Mayor to illustrate democracy. She questioned whether Pinole needed an Elected Mayor who required staff and a salary higher than other Council members, questioned how an Elected Mayor in Pinole would make the City better, and in her opinion would be a precursor to proposing a charter or Strong Mayor, tilting further the authority of said Mayor and placing the executive power on one individual, the Elected Mayor, which was a form of government not supported and one that did not exist in most cities in California.

Council member Sasai thanked everyone for their participation whether for or against this ballot measure. He invited everyone to continue to participate, particularly during the budget season.

He recognized there would likely not be full agreement on this issue, but hoped the City Council could achieve a mutual understanding on the measure based on the facts, which was why he had asked the City Attorney for clarity on a number of questions. It was important to ensure starting from a foundation of facts, and he thanked everyone for listening.

Council member Sasai recognized some members of the public had picked apart some Council members’ comments about how they would characterize the current system as being archaic, and while he would not have used that term to characterize the current Mayoral system, it was a long-standing policy that had been in place for some time. He also responded to the comments “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it,” which he found to be a terrible way to look at policy and law, since there was always room to refine policy and that concept assumed the system was working for everyone, with the harm obvious and immediate, and they must go beyond that sentiment, and investigate and refine better policies to ensure those policies worked for everyone.

Council member Sasai commented on what was expected of the person who served as the Mayor for the City of Pinole. When he served as Mayor in 2025, he had been honored by the experience.

He asked whether the public wanted a Mayor who just showed up for meetings and cast a vote, or someone more deeply engaged in the community who participated in all community events and other events and offered a number of examples. He pointed out the role of Mayor took away from families but was a responsibility and passion for many with little compensation.

Council member Sasai commented the entire City Council membership had different amounts of resources and time to commit to the role. Thinking about those who had initially served Pinole as Mayors and Council members, he described them as primarily land-owning wealthy white men, but over time that had changed and just recently younger people had become involved, such as with his election to the City Council. He appreciated this conversation and this item, which highlighted many of the inequities of the current system, and why low-income people and people who had historically not been part of the process were becoming representatives of the City and representing a larger part of the City as a result.

When thinking about the role of the Mayor, Council member Sasai commented it was not just extra authority, but extra responsibility and he wanted that to be kept in mind when considering the current Mayoral rotating system.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 3, 2026

Council member Sasai commented that the role of the Mayor had regional power, was part of the Contra Costa Mayors Conference, which made appointments to several agencies and the Mayor shifted the culture of the City and beyond. He suggested an Elected Mayor would provide more choice for the voters, and other than the price tag, he could not see anything wrong with that since it would benefit all.

In terms of not having formal polling on this issue, Council member Sasai commented of the measures he had seen in the state where there had been a transition from an appointed to an Elected Mayor, overwhelmingly those measures had passed by more than 70 percent. While those cities were not Pinole, there was that track record.

Council member Toms thanked the speakers present who spoke on the issue and noted of the 12 speakers, only one was in support of the measure. She also recognized those who provided comments in writing and pointed out only one of the letters had been in support and that was the letter read into the record from former Mayor Salimi. She acknowledged former Mayor Salimi’s comments that 12-months was not long enough to set and implement the priority of the Mayor, but noted the Mayor did not set the priorities, the City Council did, which was an important point.

Council member Toms opposed the resolution because the existing rotation practice worked well.

There were four people, not everyone got a turn during their term, but the Mayor always had at least two years-experience. A directly Elected Mayor may result in someone who had never served as Mayor. If three people ran for the Office of an Elected Mayor, someone may get around 34 percent of the vote, as an example, and they could be the Mayor without any experience. She noted the staff report indicated an Elected Mayor could collect a larger stipend or salary, taking the majority of the City Council to approve. If a mid-term Council member ran or won the Elected Mayor, it would create a vacancy on the Council that would require a costly Special Election to fill the vacancy, or the vacancy would be filled by City Council appointment and the argument of democracy would not apply when filling the vacancy. If a Council member at the end of their term decided to run for Elected Mayor and did not win, the City would have lost an experienced Council member, which had occurred in a nearby city.

Council member Toms added that residents had supported an additional sales tax measure in 2024, and a member of the public informed her they felt betrayed by the City Council for tripling their travel budget, increasing the monthly stipend and now this proposal for an unnecessary election issue, which actions were making residents feel used. She suggested the City Council needed to show citizens they were responsible with the extra funding the citizenry had voted for to support the City and the City Council needed to focus on what they told taxpayers they would be using the funds for, and focus on hiring a City Manager, getting a PPD contract, maintaining roads and not focus on something no one had asked for. The public had not weighed-in, was not asked for an Elected Mayor, and there had been no polling. The City had gone to great extent to use the Budgeting Tool for residents when they worked on the budget, and it was important to have public input on expenditures for the fiscal year, but somehow $57,000 did not need a poll, which was troubling.

Council member Toms further commented the Mayoral position was largely ceremonial, the Mayor acted as the presiding officer for Council meetings, and the City’s official representative at public events, and held no more executive power than other members of the City Council.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 3, 2026

Each Council member had their own interests and that would not change. Any Council member could continue doing that work and that work could continue as Mayor. Also, the rotation of the Mayor promoted equity and representation on the City Council and thereby the community, and the rotation of the role ensured that no single special interest group could monopolize the bully pulpit, and by limiting the Mayor’s individual authority and duration of service, the system diffused political power across the entire City Council making it harder for special interests to exert influence. It also promoted a clear separation of powers and allowed Council members to focus on the big picture of policy planning without the distraction of administrative tasks or personnel management, which was handled by a professional City Manager.

Council member Toms found the current system worked and each member of the City Council had the opportunity to rotate as Mayor. She had been able to set aside some of her own personal obligations for one year, to devote attention to when she had served as Mayor, and she recognized not everyone would be able to do that for four years. She reiterated the proposal and the expense was a prime example of misplaced priorities by the City Council if this were to pass.

There were higher priorities for City funds and staff resources, such as roads and public safety.

She suggested citizens deserved better than the City Council approving this resolution without really having public input other than attending a City Council meeting. She reiterated that no polling had been done and she asked her fellow Council members to vote no on the resolution.

If there was an outcry by those who wanted the City Council to spend its time and limited City funds to bring the item back, that could be done.

Mayor Tave recognized the City Council was currently comprised of five very well qualified and seasoned members, which was good for Pinole. He had seen a slightly different leadership with every Mayoral rotation. As an example, during a prior strategic planning session, there were almost 50 things that had been clearly outlined that Pinole needed, including roads, public safety, parks and the like, which list had been published in a memorandum prepared by a former City Manager and shared with the public. With five individuals, there was a difficult time prioritizing all of the items. He had been focused on roads since he had been elected to the City Council and the City was finally getting to a point to perform that work.

Mayor Tave found governance the most important and most powerful thing in the City was not the Mayor or the City Council, but the voice and vote of the people. The responsibilities of the Mayor were to run the City Council meetings, agenda setting and ensure they were moving forward, but another Mayor would be appointed in the next rotation. With this ballot measure, voters would decide whether to consider an Elected Mayor. He believed in that kind of governance and the public making the decision, to retain the Mayoral rotation or change to some type of consistent leadership such as an Elected Mayor. The City Council had not yet discussed the parameters or responsibilities of an Elected Mayor, compensation, or whether there would be term limits, all of which the City Council still needed to discuss. He emphasized they were empowering the citizenry to make that decision, which he suggested was the right thing. He supported putting the measure on the ballot and supported consistent leadership to set the tone for the citizenry.

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy reiterated the need to keep moving the City forward, and as policy makers the City Council’s mandate and responsibility was to suggest ideas, particularly when the City had the ability for residents to decide which of those ideas would be codified. He thanked staff and the residents for the discussion.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 3, 2026

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy offered a motion for the City Council to adopt a resolution calling for a Special Election and submitting to the voters the question regarding the Office of an Elected Mayor; and the City Council direct staff to work in coordination with the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem to develop and implement a public education and communications plan so residents have clear, accessible and factual information well before ballots are cast. The plan should include at minimum, a dedicated page on the City website with a full text of the measure and impartial explanation of what changes and what does not change, including the City Council/City Manager form of government, key dates and how to participate. This plan should also include a plain language Frequently Asked Questions, addressing common questions about authority, accountability and impacts and also multiple outreach channels, including mailers if appropriate, social media, Pinole Community Television, e-mail lists and community partners with translations and accessibility accommodations consistent with City practices.

Mayor Tave seconded the motion but asked that compensation be kept the same as the City’s ordinance with a term of two years for an Elected Mayor. He asked whether that amendment was acceptable to the maker of the motion.

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy was happy to include a friendly amendment about changing the resolution, as included in the staff report, for an additional $100 per month for an Elected Mayor (consistent with the City Council) with residents to decide the term limits. He asked the City Attorney to provide clarification since he understood that the voters and not the City Council would decide whether there would be a two-year or a four-year term for an Elected Mayor.

City Attorney Casher explained the voters would decide the term for an Elected Mayor, either two or four years. The PMC had term limits which provided Council members could not serve beyond three terms. If the voters elected a two-term Elected Mayor, as an example, three consecutive terms could be allowed (six-years) and the individual could not run again without sitting out a cycle, which was consistent with City Council members. If the City Council so directed, that same term limit for the Elected Mayor position could be included and that language could be incorporated into the PMC.

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy understood there would be three questions voters would consider if the action before the City Council at this time passed. He asked the City Attorney to provide clarification.

City Attorney Casher clarified there would be three questions on the ballot as it related to the term, assuming it was not literally the same vote count, whichever had the highest vote count, two or four years was what would be adopted as the term for an Elected Mayor. For the issue of term limits, state law did not have a term limit set for Elected Mayors, so the Council through ordinance could determine whatever that term limit would be, which could be changed later on and after the ballot measure was in effect at any point. It would be good to know that so that it could be incorporated into the language of the ordinance and final approval, but again it could also be changed after the ballot measure was in effect at any point.

On the original motion, Council member Sasai acknowledged reform cost money and resources, and based on his experience on the City Council he had proposed ordinances around things like the environment, gun prevention, public safety and wage theft, among others. He understood such reforms usually cost in the range of $2,000 to $20,000.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 3, 2026

City Attorney Casher clarified the range of costs associated with bringing an ordinance forward depended on the complexity of the ordinance. If a simple, straightforward change such as changing the City Council meeting time, as an example, that was very straightforward, although in another example changes to the Cannabis Ordinance was very involved and complex and involved more time. He confirmed the range could be between $2,000 and $20,000.

Council member Sasai reiterated reforms took resources, and he encouraged the public to take that into consideration and comment on that process any time a member of the City Council proposed a new ordinance or new program initiative that would be an expenditure.

City Attorney Casher referenced Section 7, Page 102 of the City’s ordinance, which provided the Mayor shall sign the categories of documents, which he had used to illustrate the types of things other cities had done, but it provided that the Mayor will sign all written contracts and conveyances made or entered into by the City. He recommended that language be stricken since currently the Mayor did not sign all contracts. Contracts were already signed by the City Manager, City Clerk and approved as to form by the City Attorney. He recommended removal of that language based on City Council approval, which should be included in the motion.

Mayor Tave asked that the motion be amended, to include striking the language that the Mayor will sign all written contracts and conveyances made or entered into by the City.

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy accepted the amendment to the motion.

Council member Toms referenced the second part of the motion that had to do with public information and commented staff already had a work program. This was not on their priority list and would move some of the other priorities the City Council had previously established due to the timing, and she wanted that to be acknowledged.

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy responded and confirmed Council member Toms’ understanding, commenting the City Council had approved items in the past, including an item Council member Toms requested at the prior City Council meeting, where staff stated they did not have the time or the work plan to do something, but the item was still moved forward and this would be consistent with what had been done in the past, which was why his motion had included a subcommittee where they could also support staff with the development of an education plan, again consistent with what the City Council had done in the past.

Council member Martinez-Rubin commented she was dumbstruck by some of the comments made on the dais, and found it incredible how actions by the City Council could be made to appear that current situations were favored, when the context was different for situations in which they had to vote.

ACTION: Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Murphy/Mayor Tave for the City Council to adopt a resolution calling for a Special Election and submitting to the voters the question regarding the Office of an Elected Mayor; and the City Council direct staff to work in coordination with the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem to develop and implement a public education and communications plan so residents have clear, accessible and factual information well before ballots are cast. The plan should include at minimum, a dedicated page on the City website with a full text of the measure and impartial explanation of what

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 3, 2026

changes and what does not change, including the City Council/City Manager form of government, key dates and how to participate. This plan should also include a plain language Frequently Asked Questions, addressing common questions about authority, accountability and impacts and also multiple outreach channels, including mailers if appropriate, social media, Pinole Community Television, e-mail lists and community partners with translations and accessibility accommodations consistent with City practices; and subject to striking the language in the ordinance that the Mayor will sign all written contracts and conveyances made or entered into by the City.

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

Absent: None
B. Conduct a Public Hearing and Adopt a Resolution Confirming the Community Services Master Fee Schedule. Action: Continue to February 17, 2026 (Andrea Dwyer)
City Attorney Casher advised the item would be continued to the City Council meeting of February 17, 2026. He asked that the public hearing be opened and a motion made to continue the item to February 17, 2026.

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

PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED

ACTION: Motion by Council member Toms/Mayor Pro Tem Murphy to continue the public hearing to consider the adoption of a resolution confirming the Community Services Master Fee Schedule, to February 17, 2026.

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

Absent: None

11. OLD BUSINESS: None

12. NEW BUSINESS: None

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

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 3, 2026

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 reported COVID-19 rates in the Contra Costa County region were still at a Very Low level, but with some Moderate, High and Very High data results in Alameda County, and with overall trends indicating the virulent level in Contra Costa County and the state as a whole was flat; however, he continued to encourage people to get vaccinated/or get a booster shot and wear masks in crowded indoor areas. He also asked the City Council to adjourn the meeting in memory of Alex Pretti, another American citizen killed whether by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) or Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents.

Mark Zimmerman asked the City Attorney if he had the ability to submit written comments through a Council member so they could potentially be read if they were longer than three-minutes.

City Attorney Casher advised there were no limits on Council member statements or discussion and Council members could take as long as they liked.

14. ADJOURN to the Regular City Council Meeting of February 17, 2026 in Remembrance of Amber Swartz and Alex Pretti.

At 10:30 p.m., Mayor Pro Tem Tave adjourned to a Regular City Council Meeting on February 17, 2026 in Remembrance of Amber Swartz and Alex Pretti.

Submitted by:
_________________________________
Heather Bell-Spears CMC
City Clerk
Approved by City Council:

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 17, 2026

CITY COUNCIL MEETING

MINUTES
February 17, 2026

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 Tave called the Regular Meeting of the City Council to order at 5:00 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance.

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

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

Code § 87105.

A. COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT
Anthony Tave, Mayor
Devin Murphy, Mayor Pro Tem
Norma Martinez-Rubin, Council Member
Maureen Toms, Council Member
Cameron Sasai, Council Member
B. STAFF PRESENT
Melissa Klawuhn, Acting City Manager/Police Chief
Eric Casher, City Attorney
Fiona Epps, Communications Director
Markisha Guillory, Finance Director
Andrea Dwyer, Community Services Director
Stacy Shell, Human Resources Director
Roxane Stone, Deputy City Clerk
Deputy City Clerk Roxane Stone announced the agenda had been posted on February 12, 2026 at 5:30 p.m. with all legally required written notices. Item 4A on the meeting agenda would be considered on a future agenda.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 17, 2026

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.

4. CONVENE TO A CLOSED SESSION:

A. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
Gov. Code §54957.6
Agency designated representatives: Human Resources Director Stacy Shell, Finance Director Markisha Guillory and Gregory Ramirez, IEDA Employee organization: The Pinole Police Employees Association (PPEA) Item to be considered on a future agenda.

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

None

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.

Debbie Long commented on the arguments in favor of an Elected Mayor, as presented by Mayor Tave, Mayor Pro Tem Murphy and Council member Sasai and repeated statements that nothing would change from what the current Mayor did; however, every argument pointed to a Strong Mayor. More than once policy decisions were stated, but according to the City Attorney that would not change unless voted upon at any time by the Council majority. It was stated that the Mayor would just show up for two Council meetings a month but there was evidence to show that statement was untrue. Many times the Mayor, as well as other members of the City Council, were present for many public events and assigned to regional boards.

Ms. Long added that it was stated that an Elected Mayor had more regional power, but that was also untrue since when attending any regional event, even as a non-Elected Mayor, there was just that much more influence. Often five Council members had differing priorities and it was difficult to render what was most important. Once again, the majority of the City Council would ultimately make that decision. Since this was not the power of an Elected Mayor, she asked whether it was assumed that the Council majority would give the Elected Mayor that power. An Elected Mayor shifted the culture, and once again she asked if there was an authority that would be given over to an Elected Mayor by a Council majority. It was also stated that an Elected Mayor would give more choice to the voters, and she disagreed and suggested that it was democracy to have more diversified representation spread throughout the community, which offered much more choice and representation to the voters.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 17, 2026

Ms. Long commented it was stated by the Council majority, time and time again there would be better leadership with an Elected Mayor. She reminded the Council majority of their words when describing Council member Toms in 2024, when her Mayoral term ended. Council member Sasai stated “She showed exemplary leadership and pushed us forward on environmental issues.” Mayor Pro Tem Murphy stated “We came to rely on her leadership and guidance.” Mayor Tave stated “A great leader and it’s great to keep the same Council for consistency.” Council member Martinez-Rubin stated “She had shared expertise.” For the Council majority that was of the opinion an Elected Mayor would provide better leadership, she asked whether they were lying then or whether they were lying now to the people. She suggested the answer was clear, they were trying to deceive the people now and the reason was because it met their objectives of moving up a political ladder and it fed egos.

Ms. Long added that while it was said that an Elected Mayor would not receive a higher salary, it was also said several times by the City Attorney that could be changed at any time by a Council majority, just by giving an Elected Mayor more power would do. She pointed out the Council majority had a record of giving itself hefty increases in salary and travel expenses and their track record spoke for itself. She stated a Mayoral rotation of the City Council would produce levels of experience, leadership, purpose, presence, and involvement as historically had been the case.

Mary Horton commented she was speaking not as a critic but as a colleague, and as a former Mayor of the City of Pinole. She commented on the effort to change the annual Mayoral rotation to an Elected Mayor via a June ballot. She highlighted her background as the former Mayor having been elected five times. She commented on past attempts of former City Councils to place tax measures on the ballot which had failed and which had been humiliating and embarrassing, although the City’s first tax measure finally passed in 1998. She urged the City Council not to get ahead of the people and pointed out people did not line up at the podium if they were happy.

People came to the City Council if they were confused or angry, and concerned why nearly $50,000 could be spent on a ballot measure, and they were confused as to why Council members needed $60,000 for a travel budget when $3,000 per Council member had sufficed. She pointed out both items passed by a split 3-2 vote. She read into the record a quote from Thomas Jefferson, and emphasized what was important to the people were roads, parks, police and fire and not having to attend a Council meeting but see services performed that the people needed.

Ms. Horton suggested if the City had an additional $50,000 or $100,000, she would rather see the funds spent on potholes, paving the parking spots in the dog park and touch-up San Pablo Avenue, Appian Way, or Tara Hills Drive where people commuted daily. She heard comments about the need for diversity in the Mayor’s chair, and pointed out there had been multiple examples of diversity with past Mayors. She had been elected as part of the first female majority on the City Council. She urged the City Council to keep the Mayoral rotation and stated she would not support the item on the June ballot.

7. REPORTS & COMMUNICATIONS
A. Mayor Report: None

1. Announcements: None
B. Mayoral & Council Appointments: None

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 17, 2026

C. City Council Committee Reports & Communications
Council member Toms reported she attended the Contra Costa Mayors Conference, with a presentation from the Executive Director of the Contra Costa and Solano Counties Food Bank, about long-time programs. She also attended the governing body of the Green Empowerment Zone (GEZ), and reported enabling legislation for the GEZ had been amended last year to allow the appointment of seven Directors who lived or worked within the GEZ representing the environment or environmental justice organizations. One of the seven Directors appointed had been Pinole resident Pete Srivarom. She added that the U.C. Berkeley Labor Center had been working with the GEZ and she provided an update on their work plan and goals.

Council member Toms also requested the meeting adjourn in memory of Lea Deuel, a Pinole resident and daycare provider for over 50-years, whose background and family she highlighted, and who lovingly served multi-generations.

Council member Sasai requested the meeting adjourn in memory of Reverend Jesse Jackson.

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy was pleased to celebrate Black History Month and Lunar New Year and he looked forward to the proclamations on the meeting agenda. He reported he had been appointed by the Contra Costa Mayors to represent the City of Pinole and the Contra Costa Mayors Conference at the East Bay Economic Development Alliance, with the Board of Directors having recently met to receive a presentation from BART General Manager Bob Powers on some of the system’s current priorities and updates as well as an upcoming transportation measure that would impact all counties in the Bay Area and the potential impacts on BART operations. He also represented the City of Pinole on the West Contra Costa Transportation Authority (WestCAT), and explained that the funding of the transportation measure would also impact WestCAT and AC Transit. He encouraged people to become educated on the upcoming measure.

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy also reported he was the Chair of the Marin Clean Energy (MEC) Technical Committee and participated in a series of budget workshops over the past two weeks and facilitated the last Technical Committee meeting. He detailed the MCE budget highlights and encouraged residents to stay involved in the MCE Board of Directors meetings, with a meeting scheduled for February 19, 2026 at 6:30 p.m.. Meetings were available online and the meeting agenda was available on the MCE website. He highlighted the meeting agenda to evaluate options for rate reductions or rollbacks to support MCE customers during ongoing economic challenges.

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy added he also attended a meeting of RecycleMore and highlighted the actions taken including updating the Employee Handbook for the agency, setting the Workplan for Senate Bill (SB) 1383, Election of Officers, and reported RecyleMore meetings for the next year would take place in the City of San Pablo, with more information on the RecycleMore website.

Council member Martinez-Rubin reported she attended the Pinole Pollinator Pathway Project at Fernandez Park, sponsored by Friends of Pinole Creek Watershed and the City of Pinole, and she provided input on the Council Procedures, as drafted by the Council Procedures Subcommittee. She stated the Council Procedures Subcommittee would next meet on March 18, 2026 to discuss the format of City Council meetings and possible revisions to better include and engage the community and become more efficient on conducting meetings.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 17, 2026

Council member Martinez-Rubin also attended the WestCAT Board of Directors meeting where the highlight was the results of an on-board survey with passengers of WestCAT buses from September and November 2025, and she highlighted the results of the survey. The WestCAT Board met on the second Thursday of each month at 6:30 p.m. in the Pinole Council Chambers, with the meeting televised on Comcast Channels 26 and 28.

D. Council Requests for Future Agenda Items
ACTION: Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Murphy/Council member Toms to direct staff to provide an update from the Contra Costa Community College District, to explore opportunities for partnership and to receive a report from the Chancellor and/or College President.

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

Absent: None
E. City Manager Report / Department Staff
Acting City Manager/Police Chief Melissa Klawuhn invited community members to attend a Meet with the Recruiter Outreach and Input Session scheduled for March 14, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. at the Youth Center. More information would be provided as part of Item 8B (1). She also reported on February 21, 2026 Tiny Tots would hold an Open House from 9:30 a.m. to 12:00 Noon at the Tiny Tots location at 2454 Simas Avenue. The facility would be open to the public to visit and learn about early learning and pre-K classes, with more information available on the City event calendar on the City website.

Acting City Manager/Police Chief Klawuhn added that Pinole Community Television (PCTV) staff attended the Alliance for Community Media Conference in Sacramento, with PCTV having participated in several workshops on a number of topics and the key takeaways were highlighted.

Also, the Bay Front Chamber of Commerce would host the State of the Cities Address on March 12, 2026 from 7:30 to 9:45 a.m. at Leila by the Bay Restaurant in the City of Hercules, with Mayor Tave to speak on behalf of the City of Pinole and with tickets available online through Eventbrite.

F. City Attorney Report: None
PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED (Items 7A through 7F)
Deputy City Clerk Stone reported there were no comments from the public.

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED

8. RECOGNITIONS / PRESENTATIONS / COMMUNITY EVENTS
A. Proclamations

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 17, 2026

1. Japanese Day of Remembrance
The City Council read into the record a proclamation recognizing February 19, 2026, as Japanese Day of Remembrance.

Council member Sasai thanked the City Council for the acknowledgement of Japanese Day of Remembrance. When first elected to the City Council in 2022, this recognition was one of the items he requested be returned each year. He was pleased the item was on the meeting agenda.

He also recognized Virgina Fujita, former Mayor and Council member of the City of Pinole, who had Japanese-American ancestry and noted he was the second of that group to represent the City of Pinole as well. He reported his grandparents had been incarcerated during World War II, and there was a saying in the Japanese-American community, Never Again, and learning from the past to inform how to move in the future. He recognized what happened from 1941 through 1944 was a lack of individualized process, and targeting people based on their ancestry with citizens detained without trial or access to an attorney. When considering the meaning of the proclamation, he suggested the same situation was being repeated in the present day. As representatives, he stated the City Council had authority to make change and legislate and he thanked the City Council for leading the way to ensure and acknowledge that due process was being dismantled in real time and they should lead the way in the Bay Area.

2. Lunar New Year
The City Council read into the record a proclamation recognizing February 17, 2026 as Lunar New Year.

3. Pinole Historical Society
The City Council read into the record a proclamation honoring the Pinole Historical Society.

Jo Ann Gannotti, Secretary for the Pinole Historical Society, thanked the City Council for the proclamation.

Peter Murray, a member of the Pinole Historical Society Board of Directors, also thanked the City Council for the proclamation. He recognized the founding members of the Pinole Historical Society, and members’ effort to categorize documents and search for old sites in Pinole, such as the location of the adobe, which location was secret to ensure its preservation. While it was unfortunate the Pinole Historical Society had been unable to secure a site for a museum, the preservation efforts continued and he looked forward to working with the youth of Pinole to continue the efforts and grow interest. He also highlighted essays prepared by elementary school children to direct their focus on Pinole history, which effort he hoped would continue moving forward to ensure more home-grown Pinole history buffs.

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
Council member Martinez-Rubin reported the Pinole Historical Society prided itself on having identified mostly photographs and documents that contributed to the archives by Pinole residents.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 17, 2026

Council member Martinez-Rubin was hopeful as there was an increased interest in the histories of specific groups that there would be continued preservation of the history of the City and its different communities. She recognized there was knowledge and familiarity of the City’s history from legacy families who had been in Pinole for years, which was important. She hoped to build upon the good work that residents had created that made up the City’s history. She thanked the members of the Pinole Historical Society and looked forward to increasing its membership. She also looked forward to people visiting and sharing at the Pinole Historical Society booth at the Farmer’s Market.

B. Presentations

1. City Manager Executive Search Kick-Off – Bob Hall & Associates, Joe Gorton
Acting City Manager/Police Chief Klawuhn introduced Joe Gorton, the Executive Recruiter with Bob Hall & Associates who would provide a presentation and the kick-off efforts for the Pinole City Manager position.

Joe Gorton, Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Bob Hall & Associates, provided a PowerPoint presentation for the Pinole City Manager Recruitment, which included an overview of his background; the recruitment process and timeline for community engagement and recruitment; candidate screening; City selection process; finalists and when a City Manager is selected and request for feedback on the ideal City Manager candidate, desired experience and qualifications, desired leadership and management style, desired community engagement and communication style and collaboration and partnerships.

Responding to questions from the City Council, Mr. Gorton clarified the following:
• The oral assessment with the City Council would be conducted in Closed Session and not open to the public. Bob Hall & Associates would offer questions for the City Council to consider to be developed in concert with the Human Resources (HR) Department and the City Council. The City Council would have ample opportunity to provide input to those questions to ensure those being developed elicited the responses the City Council was looking for to make a good and timely decision on a City Manager candidate. (MartinezRubin) • Community engagement was again highlighted with a Meet with the Recruiter Outreach and Input Session scheduled for March 14, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. at the Youth Center. (Martinez-Rubin)
• Community engagement would be designed for transparency and to receive feedback and provide the City Council with that feedback in a forum in which it could review. Again highlighted the community engagement process. (Martinez-Rubin) • Most of the candidates would contact Bob Hall & Associates confidentially for numerous reasons, including confidentiality prior to a job offer since the candidate did not want to potentially cause issues at the current workplace, and the recruiter would work with the HR Department on the confidential process. (Mayor Pro Tem Murphy)

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 17, 2026

• Acknowledged oftentimes new Council members or the community may not have a full understanding of the role of the City Manager and education was important. A public presentation of the roles and goals of the City Council and the City Manager was typically provided and it was expected the Pinole Municipal Code (PMC) outlined these roles. To have effective governance, the City Council and City Manager must integrate and grow in the same direction and while that doesn’t always happen, sometimes it did. Clarified the City Manager would be subject to the candidate pool that applied, likely there would be a mix, and possibly there could be candidates desirous to relocate to the Bay Area, and pay and personal goals of the candidate would be taken into consideration. There were challenges for smaller agencies, like Pinole, with some candidates climbing the ladder, with the recruiter to discuss the goals and aspirations of the candidates and what the City Council could live with, such as what the candidate would be willing to accept. Clarified much of the work of the recruiter was to try to recruit the best possible candidate, with the best pedigree that would be with the City forever. (Mayor Pro Tem Murphy) • Described the screening criteria or assessment methods outside of the oral assessments used to evaluate a candidate’s track record or tenure, management style and ability to sustain long-term initiatives, through screening interviews, review of the candidate’s cover letter and résumé. Described the City Manager Code of Ethics (which identified a minimum of two-years in a City) and the recruiter would ask direct questions whether or not a candidate had short-tenures at different agencies. The City Council also had the opportunity to review résumés and cover letters and ask the very same questions as the recruiter, although the hope was that the recruiter would have already asked those questions prior to an interview taking place. (Mayor Pro Tem Murphy)

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

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
Mayor Tave asked for clarification how the recruitment firm would capture the policy and governance portion and balancing that skill set for a City Manager.

Mr. Gorton acknowledged that was always a challenge. He commented that was expected to be captured through the screening interview as part of a discussion with the candidate, where they would learn whether the candidate had been successful in their current position. He explained it would depend on the fit, the priorities and vision of both the City Manager and the City Council.

Mayor Tave would like to see the recruiter capture how the candidate balanced those two issues and keeping the public informed.

Council member Toms reported she met with Mr. Gorton earlier in the week. There were three areas she was interested in, which included leadership and management style, with City staff to be the backbone. She would like to see a City Manager who was good with City staff, worked as a team, and got the team working together. In addition, engagement and community style with the public, making sure the public was aware of the different aspects of what staff was working on and being able to manage five bosses adequately.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 17, 2026

Council member Toms wanted to ensure the City Manager candidate was able to push back and tell any member of the City Council that confirmation was needed from the City Council as a whole and not an individual member. She sought a City Manager who was strong enough to indicate that to a Council member if that occurred and to push back without repercussions.

Council member Martinez-Rubin added she also had individual conversations with Mr. Gorton prior to the City Council meeting. She would like the City Manager candidate to have a sense of integrity and ethics, the City Manager to uphold the City Manager Code of Ethics to the best possible, and the City Manager to be assertive yet diplomatic with the community and Council members. She found there was a lot to learn on the dais and she appreciated a collegial relationship with the City Council to allow an opportunity for input and feedback on an individual level when reports were presented by the City Manager and staff and when there was a request to the City Manager. She was counting on the candidate’s level of competency with respect to fiscal issues including adaptability and resilience, ability to juggle new state mandates that were oftentimes unfunded and balance that with individual requests City Council members may make in any given year. Also, the candidate to have the financial and budget management skills so that the City Manager could educate and let the City Council know of the impacts of short-term requests relative to long-term mandates and long-term debt the City may have as well as forthcoming expenses the City Council may not see.

Council member Martinez-Rubin sought a City Manager who was able to walk a fine line of advising the City Council, while implementing decisions and withstanding a sensed degree of pressure, with the City Council having discussions on the spot, and a willingness to get back and evaluate those requests. It was important for a new City Manager to let the City Council know the time needed for the best evaluation exercise for staff to be responsive to the City of Pinole.

Council member Martinez-Rubin further sought a City Manager who was collaborative and teamoriented with their own staff so staff was not micromanaged, had visionary and strategic thinking on the part of someone who knew project and city management, a sense of humor and a degree of fun making every day a personal challenge and opportunity for growth, personally, individually and professionally, that in turn transferred to the work with staff and in turn with the City Council.

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy emphasized the importance of the community engagement practices.

He asked for clarification of the reference to youth and schools in the PowerPoint presentation in terms of engagement.

Mr. Gorton explained that generally he would reach out to the West Contra Costa Unified School District (WCCUSD) or other groups to see if there was a Youth Program or Youth Council, and he would gather that information to determine who would fit.

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy recommended Mr. Gorton contact the Principals or their designated alternatives. He also commented that the Principal of Pinole Valley High School (PVHS) was a wonderful advocate for educational institutions and given changes in the district at Pinole Middle School, Mr. Gorton should engage with that school as well. He also recommended other stakeholders/partners should include the Pinole Library, tenant associations and Homeowner Associations (HOAs) including the Pinole Grove Tenants Association, new associations in the City and civic advocacy groups such as the Rotary, Lions Clubs and Pinole for Fair Government.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 17, 2026

Mr. Gorton explained that he generally would receive information on stakeholders/partners from the City. He would reach out directly to those groups and introduce himself and invite feedback via a meeting on Zoom. He also confirmed that while he had worked with the City of Pinole in the past, he did not have any information on stakeholder/partner feedback.

Council member Sasai had no additional comments on the process, which was very straightforward and standard. He looked forward to seeing how this effort advanced in the coming months. As to the ideal qualities of a City Manager candidate, integrity was the number one factor, and he was uncertain how that would be vetted through conversation given it was a challenge for every single job, but should be prioritized. He would like to see someone who was receptive and adaptive to good feedback, and taking feedback seriously and not personally.

Council member Sasai commented a former City Manager had stated it didn’t matter what other cities did and how they addressed issues. Pinole needed someone who was in constant conversations regionally, knew how best to perform in their job, address policy issues and recognize that new Council members come in and don’t always know how City government functioned. He expected a level of educational awareness and respect in terms of the City Manager authority pursuant to the PMC, and one who would defer to the City Council in terms of how it voted on issues, and in terms of how laws and policies were implemented the City Manager should defer to the City Attorney.

Council member Sasai added that interagency collaboration was important, and while not a requirement that the candidates be from the area, he expected the candidate to understand how to liaise with different departments/agencies and push items forward. The candidate should also have intercultural competency, which should be seen in practice in terms of how a City Manager communicated with residents given that the community was very diverse with different backgrounds and ages. He sought a City Manager who had prior experience in constituent affairs, knew how to respond to each constituent differently and was respectful and followed up.

Mayor Tave sought a recruitment process with structured conversations with data behind it along with transparency in response to the tough questions; a City Manager who could clearly communicate the way and path forward; communicate to the full Council and receive direction from the full Council; a candidate who could address unfunded state mandates that affected smaller cities more than larger cities; possibly forecasting and ability to communicate where the City was in its spend curve and where it expected to be; and follow the City Manager Code of Ethics and ability to balance governance and operations.

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy asked how comfortable Mr. Gorton felt with the feedback moving forward with the process and next steps.

Mr. Gorton stated he was very comfortable with the excellent feedback provided. He commented that carefully designed questions from the City Council would be very effective, particularly if they were to touch on questions that were important to each Council member.

Mr. Gorton provided his contact information for Bob Hall & Associates, which was also available on the company website, and advised anyone may contact him with feedback outside of the meeting.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 17, 2026

2. Pinole Community Television Performance Dashboard
Communications Director Fiona Epps provided a PowerPoint presentation on the PCTV Performance Dashboard, which included an overview of the background of the PCTV Community Media Center Strategy for Fiscal Year (FY) 25/26 and the City Council request to bring back: 1) a proposed framework to measure community engagement in alignment with strategic communication goals; and 2) include a proposal for an annual public forum focused for PCTV services and programs that would help explore membership tiers and fees; PCTV Strategy Goals & Objectives; the PCTV Dashboard Metrics; PCTV Performance Dashboard, Community Meeting Stats; top types of programs aired; community engagement statistics and proposed annual public forum.

Responding to questions from the City Council, Communications Director Epps and Acting City Manager/Police Chief Klawuhn clarified the following:
• The percentages by City views on the PCTV Performance Dashboard, as shown in the PowerPoint presentation, was 51 percent from the City of Pinole. Clarified the percentages shown for views from other cities could be attributed to when the City conducted outreach events. As an example, a lot of visitors came to Pinole to attend the Annual Car Show and National Night Out. Another factor for viewers outside of Pinole could be with the online viewership where the City’s events were more accessible and social media also played a part with PCTV on social media that provided widespread viewership across the Bay Area. Clarified the data of viewership was from the viewer’s IP address. (Mayor Pro Tem Murphy)
• The information in the Community Media Stats referred to local bulletins submitted to the City or received by staff via email, which could be posted and was from a number of sources. Most often it was the City of Pinole posting about upcoming events, meetings, surveys that may be available and things from different agencies such as information from the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD), different County services, the Bay Front Chamber of Commerce or any local agency providing information that could be posted on upcoming events. There was also a page on the City website to allow the submittal of local bulletins and local residents may also provide local bulletins. No fee was associated with submitting local bulletins. (Martinez-Rubin)
• Staff was trying to increase sponsored ads, not for the purposes of advertising, but to sponsor public access programming. The City was offering a promotion where businesses may send their business information (graphics or video) that could be posted for free on the local public channels in an attempt to add content to the channels, build relationships and increase the community’s awareness of PCTV. Staff was in discussion with the Bay Front Chamber of Commerce about strengthening that partnership. There was also a pricing structure available on the City website for structured ads. (Martinez-Rubin) • The Pinole Police Department (PPD) Blotter was no longer available on PCTV. When the PPD updated to the Records Information Management System (RIMS), it eliminated the Police Blotter, which had been done by hand by a dispatcher on a daily/weekly basis.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 17, 2026

Citizen RIMS had been substituted as the source of information and any member of the public may pull historical data. Citizen RIMS could be accessed through the PPD website. (Martinez-Rubin)
• Acknowledged a recommendation to consider some element of the travel program sponsored through the Senior Center. (Martinez-Rubin)
• Acknowledged a recommendation to allow residents who travelled outside Pinole to somehow bring back something about having identified themselves as a resident of Pinole, who was now in a different location and talking to residents or business owners in that location and sharing their travel experiences. This would not be done live, keeping personal information safe, but programming could be presented as content possibly two months after the fact, as an example, so as to develop content and participation, with something about Pinole mentioned during that trip and also consider ways to promote the City’s logo. (Martinez-Rubin)
• Clarified average views were 11-minutes in length. (Mayor Tave) • If anyone wanted to film their own content, it could be submitted to PCTV, which would screen the content to ensure compliance with Federal Communication Commission (FCC) standards and ensure no copyrighted material was used prior to airing any content. (Mayor Tave)

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

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED

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

A. Approve the Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting on February 3, 2026.

B. Receive the January 31, 2026 – February 13, 2026, List of Warrants in the Amount of $1,412,701.55 and the February 13, 2026 Payroll in the Amount of $557,031.97 C. Adopt a Resolution Approving the Submission of an Application to the California Coastal Commission for Whale Tail Grant Funds and Designating the Authorized Representative. Action: Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Lilly Whalen, Kapil Amin)

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 17, 2026

D. FY 2025/26 Second Quarter Investment Report. Action: Receive a Report (Markisha Guillory)
E. Placement of Liens for Delinquent Unpaid Waste Collection Charges Falling Delinquent between September and December 2025, Considered at an Administrative Hearing on February 4, 2026. Action: Adopt a Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Roxane Stone)
For Item 9A, Council member Martinez-Rubin requested the following revisions:

to read:

Ignoring those tensions and differences was idealistic since as diverse as the City was, the City Council and the City’s voters had varied opinions and values, resulting in varied social, educational and political backgrounds.

She [Council member Martinez-Rubin] questioned whether Pinole needed an Elected Mayor who required staff and a salary higher than other Council members, questioning whether an Elected Mayor in Pinole would make the City better, and in her opinion would be a precursor to proposing a charter or Strong Mayor, tilting further the authority of said Mayor and placing the executive power on one individual, the Elected Mayor, which was a form of government not supported and one that did not exist in most cities in California Deputy City Clerk Stone requested the February 3, 2026 meeting minutes be continued to the next City Council meeting to allow her time to review the revisions.

ACTION: Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Murphy/Council member Toms to continue Consent Calendar Item 9A to the next meeting of the City Council.

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

Absent: None

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

ACTION: Motion by Council member Sasai/Mayor Pro Tem Murphy to adopt Consent Calendar Items 9B, 9C, 9D and 9E, as shown.

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

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 17, 2026

Abstain: None

Absent: None

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED

10. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Introduction of an Ordinance Amending Section 2.12.010 to Modify the Start Time of Regularly Scheduled City Council Meetings. Action: Introduction of an Ordinance Amending Section 2.12.010 to Modify the Start Time of Regularly Scheduled City Council Meetings (Eric Casher)
City Attorney Casher presented the staff report dated February 17, 2026, and recommended the City Council introduce and waive the first reading of an ordinance amending Section 2.12.010, “Time of Regular Meetings” to modify the start time of regularly scheduled City Council meetings.

Council member Martinez-Rubin asked whether the work of the Council Procedures Subcommittee would affect the proposed changes to the ordinance.

City Attorney Casher explained this ordinance was very specific to the meeting time and location, with the City Council having provided direction to move the meeting time to 5:30 p.m., which would not impact the work of the Council Procedures Subcommittee. However, the City Council meeting time had been referenced in the Council Procedures and that could come back to align with the ordinance once adopted.

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

PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
ACTION: Motion by Council members Martinez-Rubin/Toms to introduce and waive the first reading of an ordinance amending Section 2.12.010, “Time of Regular Meetings” to modify the start time of regularly scheduled City Council meetings.

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

Absent: None
B. Community Services Master Fee Schedule. Action: Conduct Public Hearing and Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Andrea Dwyer, Markisha Guillory)
Community Services Director Andrea Dwyer provided a PowerPoint presentation on the Community Services Department Master Fee Schedule Updates, which included an overview of the background of the annual comprehensive schedule of user and regulatory fees.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 17, 2026

In this case, the fees related to just the Community Services Department, and included fees collected for requests such as reserved use of City facilities, participation in various City programs, and an examination and adjustment of the fees as part of normal operations.

Community Services Director Dwyer reported that currently a comprehensive fee study was being conducted, and would be presented to the City Council later in FY 2025/26, but since the Community Services programs were beginning registration in early spring for summer camps and classes, staff recommended that the City Council consider adjustments to the Community Services fees at this time.

The benefits of fee adjustments, recommended adjustments, cost recovery analysis, future analysis and considerations and cost recovery levels were all highlighted.

Responding to questions from the City Council, Community Services Director Dwyer clarified the following:
• The requirements for security guards for private facility rentals where security guard officers provided protection on-site, were familiar with the facility and were present to deescalate any situation. To be equitable to all people who rented City facilities for events, the number of people determined the number of security guards required regardless of the rental. (Toms)
• City of Pinole sponsored events would not have security guards but full-time staff may be present. (Mayor Pro Tem Murphy)
• As to whether there was some flexibility in hiring security guards, clarified the City did not receive revenue from the use of security guards. Since the City had done fairly well with its facility rentals, staff had to consider a Request for Proposal (RFP) for on-call services, specifically for a security guard company to be selected through the bidding process, with the City to use the lowest bidder. The application form for the rental of City facilities, included no option for someone to hire their own security guard (although that had happened in the past with some nonprofit groups). Security guards were hired by the City, worked for the City and followed the City’s rules. The application form asked about the type of event, number of people and whether or not alcohol would be served, which affected the costs for the rental of a City facility. (Martinez-Rubin) • Confirmed alcohol was the only mood enhancing substance listed on the form for renting City facilities. While there could be other forms or paraphernalia or mood enhancing substances, due to the process in which to obtain an alcohol permit through the PPD and the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC), additional security would be required along with compliance with other parameters. Staff could check how other jurisdictions were handling this concern and work with the City Attorney on possibly identifying other mood enhancing substances. The City’s Facility Rental Policy may have to be amended after further research, but it would potentially not change the Master Fee Schedule because how security guards would be applied in the policy would not change. (Martinez-Rubin)

PUBLIC HEARING OPENED

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 17, 2026

Rafael Menis reported he had provided written comments on Item 10B, but referenced Page 124 of 206 of the agenda packet, Master Fee Schedule, Community Services Department Fees, and commented there were a few cases where the redline changed from a monthly to a three-month segment, and other cases where it changed from a four-week session to a weekly session. He asked why it was being restructured in that way. Also, while there were fee increases in many categories, there was no fee increase for the summer Tiny Tot program for two-days. He asked whether that was because it was a lower cost demand. In addition, as to the questions about other substances being used at events besides alcohol, he suggested the City could potentially have liability issues if an event planner, as an example, indicated a desire to have a rave and participants used Ecstasy or other drugs. He suggested the main reason people had alcohol at events was because it was a legal substance to consume at a state and federal level, whereas other substances had differing legality at the state and federal level, which may need to be reflected in the City’s guidelines. He asked the City Attorney for an opinion.

PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
Council member Sasai asked about the non-resident and resident rates for facility rentals and asked about the percentage split between the two when City facilities were rented.

Community Services Director Dwyer stated she could provide a report to the City Manager but suggested a substantial number of non-residents had reserved City facilities; one had been as far away as the City of Antioch.

Council member Sasai referenced the non-resident base rate for the first nine hours, as shown, and asked for clarification.

Community Services Director Dwyer clarified there was no maximum but explained it was not cost prohibitive to rent a facility for one to two hours and then have to turnover the hall, which took about an hour, with a minimum of five hours between set up and tear down, and staff also provided a cheaper rate for cleanup and decorative hours, with an option to reserve at that cheaper rate.

If the event reached seven hours, as an example, one could purchase additional hours from there.

Council member Sasai asked about the fees for the security guards and asked if a security guard would be required if there was an event hosting ten people.

Community Services Director Dwyer explained it would depend, since if it was a party that started for ten people, one security guard would be required, and if alcohol was served two security guards would be required.

Mayor Tave commented looking at the park rental for a baseball field, as identified on Page 121 of 206 of the agenda packet, it was $20 and for a night game $15/hour, and Community Services Director Dwyer clarified the increase was due to the lights.

Mayor Tave found those fees to be low. He was curious how the fields were used since it appeared the field did not get any of that money and asked if that was normal or should the fee be increased.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 17, 2026

Community Services Director Dwyer commented the fees had been substantially lower a few years ago. She explained the intent was to create enough of a fee where one would want to book the entire season. The City had a great relationship with both local and non-local groups for the season, and those groups were doing 20 to 40 possible games, well worth the rate since they did not require staff the day of the event, but the City prepped and maintained the fields and all of that money went back into the maintenance of the fields. She also clarified the cost covered the cost for lights during the game, but the groups did not want to create client flight or a fee where groups would not want to book with the City at all. She added the City was at 152 percent for cost recovery of the City’s fields.

ACTION: Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Murphy/Council member Toms to adopt a resolution approving the Updated Community Services Master Fee Schedule.

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

Absent: None

11. OLD BUSINESS: None

12. NEW BUSINESS
A. FY 2025/26 Mid-Year Budget Review (Second Quarter Financial Report.) Action:

Receive Report and Adopt Resolution Authorizing Budget Amendments (Markisha Guillory)
Finance Director Markisha Guillory provided a PowerPoint presentation on the FY 2025/26 MidYear Budget Review (Second Quarter Financial Report), which included an overview of the purpose of the mid-year budget review; budget highlights – General Fund and Non-General Funds, General Fund Adopted Budget Overview; General Fund Revenue Budget Summary; General Fund Expenditure Budget Summary; General Fund Budget Summary; Measure I Update; and summaries for the Recreation, Building and Planning, PCTV Fund, Sewer Enterprise Fund Budgets and a summary of the proposed budget amendments.

Finance Director Guillory recommended the City Council receive the Fiscal Year (FY) 2025/26 Second Quarter Financial Report and adopt a resolution authorizing budget amendments.

Responding to questions from the City Council, Finance Director Guillory clarified the following:
• The budget adjustment for the Cable Access TV Fund (Fund 505) and plans to engage in sponsorships had not materialized. The former City Manager had plans for proposed sponsorships that did not happen and since those efforts were not moving forward, the budget adjustment had been made, as shown in the PowerPoint presentation. (Sasai) • The Measure I Update and budgeted expenditures were as outlined in the PowerPoint presentation. Measure I was a General Tax and could be used for any general municipal purpose and was part of the General Fund and accounted for in a separate fund.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 17, 2026

Measure I funds had been accounted for similarly to Measure S funds. Confirmed during a Town Hall meeting with the public the discussion included projections staff thought may be left over after covering the gap projected and citizens had been able to weigh-in on priorities around those projections. However, once the budget was developed, the number staff had projected, which was between $400,000 to $500,000 had not materialized, and was needed to further fill the gap in City operations due to non-discretionary costs, increases in the medical rates higher than projected and rates from the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS). The Measure I budgeted expenditures included: Police Department - $1,752,454, Road Maintenance - $182,752, Park Maintenance - $356,256 and Recreation Programs - $300,000. These numbers were in the adopted budget. The Town Hall had been held before the adopted budget with staff again going off of projections. Reiterated the amounts reflected the proportion of funds needed to fill the gaps. (Sasai and Martinez-Rubin)
• The General Fund Expenditure Budget Summary and Proposed Budget Adjustments included the payment of consultant fees for polling, funds for code enforcement abatement and funds for a portion of a position that needed to be captured in the Public Works Budget. The $33,000 for the polling consultant was a one-time expense. (Martinez-Rubin) • The budget projections for the end of the year were again clarified, as was the Measure I update and how the budgeted revenue of $2,599,000 was being expended, as outlined in the PowerPoint presentation. While it was thought there would be residual Measure I funds available where the City could have been able to do other things, such as more funding towards roads, those funds were ultimately needed to fill the $2.6 million gap the City would otherwise have had. Before the passage of Measure I, the City was already facing a $1.6 million deficit, with $844,000 pulled from the reserves as a one-time transfer and there had to be a backfill going forward. Starting this current budget with a deficit, and with the passage of Measure I, the gap had been filled. In addition, there was growth in other areas, as previously described, which ended up absorbing the $2.6 million and there were no funds left to do extra things. Recognized the concern with the inability to put more funds into roads, while also recognizing this was a mid-year budget review with more discussions on the budget as part of the budget process. (Mayor Tave)

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Rafael Menis provided the following comments on the Mid-Year Budget Review (Second Quarter Financial Report):
- Page 180 of 206 of the agenda packet, for interdepartmental charges, expenditures totaled $1,020. He understood the concept of interdepartmental charges that should zero out for any given quarter, and asked the reason why there was an expenditure noted. - Page 24 of the FY 2025/26 Second Quarter Financial Report, (Page 182 of 206 of the agenda packet) Non-General Funds, Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund (Fund 206), had shown a growth allocation payment and the revenue was at 92 percent of budget and trending higher due to a larger growth allocation.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 17, 2026

Commented the January 20, 2026 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) stated the City’s population was either declining or remaining roughly flat for the past several years and asked if it was growth in the number of calls, growth in sales tax dollars or some other category.
- Page 17 of the FY 2025/26 Second Quarter Financial Report (Page 175 of 206 of the agenda packet), General Fund Expenditures, as to the inadvertently missed positions with regards to code enforcement and Public Works, asked whether there was a similar way they were both removed and if there was a connection between the two, or whether they were two items that just happened to not get caught by the various eyes looking at the budget. Expressed concern this was two instances across two different departments and was curious to have more detail as to how it had been inadvertently removed.

Anthony Vossbrink asked about the parks and recreation maintenance budget and a reference by the Mayor about baseball diamond park fees, which could be related to when the baseball teams held practices during the day versus at night. He also asked whether a fee had been charged for the use of the fields, or whether a number had just been put into the budget since lights were not needed in the afternoon for the baseball diamond at Fernandez Park or Pinole Valley Road. Referencing the new soccer field at Pinole Valley Road and Wright Avenue, he understood there had been a quick opening although more time should have been taken to evaluate the drainage situation given there were major drainage issues on the soccer fields. He asked about the cost and whether that was included in the maintenance budget as well as general repairs to parks including the bridge creek planks that were broken out at the Senior Center, the creek bridge and the dog park soccer field creek bridge, which needed two to three planks replaced, and which had been brought up several times. He asked if that was part of general maintenance or had it been placed on a list of back burner items.

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
Mayor Pro Tem Murphy thanked staff for the presentation and looked forward to the upcoming Finance Subcommittee meeting to further discuss the budget. He offered a motion to move the item, which was seconded by Mayor Tave.

Council member Toms referenced Page 7 of the PowerPoint presentation and stated she had calculated the numbers for sales taxes received with the two Measure S’s and Measure I, and the baseline sales and use taxes, which was at $10 million, quite a bit more than the property tax the City received. She highlighted that figure, which would be an important item at a future meeting when discussing gas stations.

ACTION: Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Murphy/Mayor Tave to receive the Fiscal Year (FY) 2025/26 Second Quarter Financial Report and adopt a resolution authorizing budget amendments.

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

Absent: None

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 17, 2026

B. Approve and Authorize the Mayor to Execute the Employment Agreement for Garrett Evans to Become the Interim City Manager. Action: Adopt a Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Stacy Shell)
Human Resources Director Stacy Shell presented the staff report dated February 17, 2026, and recommended the City Council approve and authorize the Mayor to execute the Employment Agreement for Garrett Evans to become the Interim City Manager.

Mayor Tave reported pursuant to Government Code Section 54953(c)(3), agenda Item 12(B) was a recommendation to approve and authorize the Mayor to execute the Employment Agreement for Garrett Evans to become the Interim City Manager. On December 16, 2025, the City Council directed staff to negotiate an Employment Agreement with Retired Annuitant Garrett Evans, to serve as the Interim City Manager at the rate of $131.22 per hour, with an effective date of employment on March 9, 2026. The fiscal impact of this employment agreement was offset with the salary and benefits attrition from the current City Manager vacancy.

Garrett Evans introduced himself to the City Council and the public. He stated it was an honor and he looked forward to the opportunity to work for the City of Pinole, achieving and keeping continuous goals and objectives, going into the budget by June, and assisting the City Council and staff.

Responding to questions from the City Council, Human Resources Director Shell clarified the following:
• Mr. Evans would have a start date of March 9, 2026 and was anticipated to serve as Interim City Manager until the full-time City Manager was appointed by the City Council, anticipated anywhere between June, maybe August 2026, when the position would be filled permanently. (Martinez-Rubin)
• The Employment Agreement with Mr. Evans was just and fair compensation, with the compensation for the Interim City Manager dictated by CalPERS since Mr. Evans was a Retired Annuitant, and the City was required to pay a Retired Annuitant who filled a City Manager role at the same rate as posted on the publicly available salary schedule, the hourly rate of the previous City Manager, and the rate the City must pay Mr. Evans. (Mayor Pro Tem Murphy)

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Anthony Vossbrink asked the Mayor and City Council how they decided to move forward with an agreement for an Interim City Manager when the City was looking at having a permanent City Manager on-board sometime in June, July if not August 2026. Based on his recollection, the last time there was this issue, former City Manager Andrew Murray departed the City and former Police Chief Neil Gang took over the position. He asked about the cost savings of having the current Police Chief continue in her dual role for another two months, and emphasized given the significant financial impacts that the public deserved to know the reasons why the City Council made the decision to move forward with this item.

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 17, 2026

Council member Martinez-Rubin asked if the City Council could respond to the question posed by the speaker.

City Attorney Casher explained the City Council may address the comment, but he would recommend and advise against disclosing anything discussed in Closed Session since many of those conversations had been discussed in Closed Session. The City Council may provide an overview summary and general thoughts, but specific conversations in Closed Session should remain in Closed Session.

ACTION: Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Murphy/Council member Toms to approve and authorize the Mayor to execute the Employment Agreement for Garrett Evans to become the Interim City Manager.

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

Absent: None

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

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

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

Marlia Holmes, Manager, Pinole Library, provided a brief update on recent successes and what lay ahead for the Pinole Library. She highlighted library programming and stated the Pinole Library had hosted a Lunar New Year Celebration with 250 attendees for a multigenerational event celebrating culture, connectivity and learning; along with a range of creative and educational programs which reflected the heart of Pinole, including the Character Design Workshop, inspiring young artists to develop their own original characters and storytelling skills. In addition, the Library hosted Read to A Dog Program, building confidence and literacy in their youngest readers in a supportive and non-judgmental environment, and a Screen-Printing workshop allowing adults the opportunity to explore hands-on creativity and self-expression.

Ms. Holmes stated as the Pinole Library celebrated its successes it also had to prepare for the transition on March 1, 2026 when the Pinole Library would close for infrastructure upgrades and reopen in February 2027. Improvements would include a new HVAC system. new roof, upgrades to electrical lighting and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) upgrades to the parking lot. After February 28, 2026, all Pinole Library holds would move to the El Sobrante Library with the Pinole Book Drop to be closed. Patrons may return materials to any other Contra Costa County Library location.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – February 17, 2026

Everyone was invited to a last gathering on February 28, 2026, the last date of service from 12:00 to 2:00 p.m. when the library would host a With Love for Pinole Library program, a time for reflection and celebration. Lunch would be served at 1:00 p.m. with community members able to write messages on their heart wall and memory jar, and Ms. Holmes hoped that families, long time patrons and new visitors would join them. She looked forward to reopening as a stronger and more accessible and ready-to-serve facility for Pinole patrons.

Rafael Menis reported he may have been recently exposed to the Influenza A virus which was currently at a High distribution rate in California and increasing rapidly per the latest Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) charts. He also reported COVID-19 rates remained Low with one Very High and one Medium in Alameda County. Most sites in Contra Costa County remained Low or Very Low, with one shared site between Contra Costa and Alameda counties with a Medium rating. He continued to encourage people to wear masks, particularly due to the flu which could be fatal to the elderly and immuno-compromised and otherwise disadvantaged populations. He commented that one of the successes of the 2021 winter season with masking and the lock down was not limiting the death rate from COVID-19 prior to the vaccines but limiting flu transmission for that year.

Mr. Menis also commented that a member of the community rebuked him for focusing on white people who had been killed by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents. A valid criticism, he reported U.S. citizen Keith Porter Jr. had been killed by an off-duty ICE agent on New Year’s Eve, per the LA Times Review. The circumstances in that case were more disputed than the incidences involving Renee Nicole Good and Alex Pretti, with witness statements stating the victim had been walking away from the ICE agent when repeatedly shot in the back. He asked the City Council to adjourn the meeting in memory of Keith Porter Jr.

Council member Toms reiterated her request for the meeting to adjourn in memory of Lea Deuel.

Council member Sasai also reiterated his request the meeting adjourn in memory of Reverend Jesse Jackson, a Civil Rights icon, someone through his actions had shown that regardless of color, minoritizing individuals should not just be seen and heard but also be empowered.

14. ADJOURN to the Regular City Council Meeting of March 3, 2026 in Remembrance of Amber Swartz, Lea Deuel, Reverend Jesse Jackson and Keith Porter Jr.

At 8:30 p.m., Mayor Pro Tem Tave adjourned to a Regular City Council Meeting on March 3, 2026 in Remembrance of Amber Swartz, Lea Deuel, Reverend Jesse Jackson and Keith Porter Jr.

Submitted by:
_________________________________
Heather Bell-Spears CMC
City Clerk
Approved by City Council:

CITY COUNCIL
REPORT 9.C.

DATE: MARCH 3, 2026
TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: David Hanham, Planning Manager, 510-724-9842, [email protected] Justin Shiu, Consultant Planner, 510-724-9035, [email protected] SUBJECT: RECEIVE AND FILE ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT ON HOUSING

ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council receive and file the 2025 Annual General Plan Housing Element Progress Report to submit to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”).

BACKGROUND
Section 65400 of the State of California Government Code requires cities to provide an annual report to their legislative body (city council), the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), and the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) on the status of their General Plan Housing Element and progress in its implementation. The General Plan Housing Element Annual Report includes information about a City’s progress in meeting identified housing needs and efforts to encourage the maintenance, improvement, and development of new housing opportunities. Staff submits these annual General Plan Housing Element Progress Reports to HCD prior to the April 1st deadline in accordance with State law.

Every eight years, each jurisdiction in California is required to update their Housing Element.

The Housing Element is a required component of the General Plan and identifies policies, programs, and actions to create opportunities for the development of new housing and to preserve existing housing stock. State law does not require that jurisdictions develop housing, but rather requires them to adequately plan to meet the existing and projected housing needs of all economic segments of their community.

State Housing Element law focuses on both the production and geographic distribution of new housing units and requires that each municipality strive to meet their “fair share” of the regional need for low- and moderate-income housing. To create a Housing Element showing it can meet the local housing needs, a jurisdiction must first know how much housing it must plan for and estimate how much will be needed at a variety of affordability levels in order to match the needs of the people who will live there. This process begins with the State determining the total number of new homes needed in the nine-county Bay Area and how affordable those homes need to be based on Area Median Income, which is established on an annual basis by county. For reference, in 2025, the Area Median Income for Contra Costa County was $159,800 for a 4-person household.

The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) then develops a methodology to distribute a share of the region’s housing need to each city/town and county in the region. This need allocation is called the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). Each local government must then update its Housing Element to show the locations where housing can be built and the policies and strategies necessary to meet the community’s housing needs, including identifying sites that are zoned with enough capacity to meet the RHNA allocation. The process is complete once the State reviews and certifies local Housing Elements. Local jurisdictions are then obligated to report on progress of Housing Element implementation annually.

The City of Pinole 2023-2031 Housing Element was adopted on April 4, 2023 and certified by HCD June 6, 2023. The Housing Element covers the years 2023 through 2031 and includes information about how the City has planned for a RHNA of 500 units of various income levels during the eight-year period. The Element focuses on the City’s ability to accommodate projected housing needs, provide housing opportunities to meet the needs of all income levels and special needs, remove governmental constraints, maintain the housing stock, affirmatively further fair housing, and increase housing education and outreach.

REVIEW AND ANALYSIS
The City of Pinole Annual General Plan Housing Element Progress Report for 2025 is included as Attachment 1. The report includes statistics about annual building activity for affordable housing projects, annual building activity for rehabilitated housing units, updated information about the City’s RHNA progress, and implementation status of the programs included in the adopted Housing Element.

Housing Activity in 2025
Accessory dwelling units (ADUs) continued to contribute to new building permits in 2025, with permits issued for the construction of ten units. This is comparable to the nine ADUs/JADUs permitted in 2024. Housing Element Program No. 4 requires the City to track and monitor ADU production to ensure annual output meets the RHNA projection of at least three ADUs per year, with a target of five per year, as well as to assess the geographic distribution of ADUs across neighborhoods. Of the ADUs permitted in 2025, five were located on the east side of Pinole and five on the west side (see Figure 1).

In total, 42 units were issued building permits in 2025—significantly higher than the nine units permitted in 2024. Much of this increase (31 units) was driven by permits for five buildings within the Appian Village condominium and townhome project at 2151 Appian Way. Additional permits are expected as the applicant submits materials for the remaining buildout of the 154- unit project.

Two major development projects were completed in 2025 and issued certificates of occupancy: Vista Woods Senior Apartments (179 units) and Valor Village (33 units). One SB9 unit permit was also approved. Other multifamily housing projects with entitlements are in various stages of obtaining construction permits. Table 1 provides a summary of these projects.

The City anticipates continued progress toward RHNA goals in 2026 and beyond as entitled projects receive building permits and move toward completion (see Table 2).

Table 1 – Summary of Housing Permit Issuance Activity in 2025 Location Housing Current Status in 2025
Type
Number
of New
Units Planning
Permit
Approved
Building
Permit
Issued
Construction
Completed, Occupancy
Granted
3340 Silver
Ct
ADU/
JADU
1 ●
1508 San
Pablo Ave
ADU/
JADU
1 ●
1041 Tara
Hills Dr
ADU/
JADU
1 ●
1381 Hazel
St
ADU/
JADU
1 ●
3757 Victor
St
ADU/
JADU
1 ●
7 Doolin Ct ADU/
JADU
1 ●
2707
Carmen Ct
ADU/
JADU
1 ●
2326
Estrella Ct
ADU/
JADU
1 ●
3835 Victor
St
ADU/
JADU
1 ●
715 2nd
Ave
ADU/
JADU
1 ●
2151
Appian
Way, Bldg
1 Multifamily 8 ●
2151
Appian
Way, Bldg
2 Multifamily 8 ●
2151
Appian
Way, Bldg
7 Multifamily 5 ●
2151 Multifamily 5 ●

Appian
Way, Bldg
10 2151
Appian
Way, Bldg
19 Multifamily 5 ●
2321 Monte
Verde Dr
Single
Family,
SB9
1 ●
TOTAL 42
Figure 1: Geographic distribution of ADUs permitted in 2025 Housing Rehabilitation
In 2025, the City issued 476 residential permits for residential rehabilitation and improvements, which include roofing projects, water heater replacements, heat pumps, HVAC, furnace replacements, plumbing, electrical work, solar projects, window/patio door replacement projects, decks/patio covers, foundation work, and home remodel/addition projects. To further support electrification and weatherization, the City is expanding its instant online permitting system—currently used for solar—to include EV chargers, heat pumps, HVAC, and other common projects. This effort, funded through grants from MCE and the California Energy Commission, will also offer no-cost permits for heat pump installations and local rebates, complementing a new virtual all-electric resource center.

Pipeline Projects
In 2025, progress continues on five large development projects, which are various stages of permitting and are expected to produce an approximate 618 additional units over the next

several years (see Table 2). There is an affordability component to each of these “pipeline” projects, either due to the nature of the project as a 100% affordable development, or the project’s compliance with the City’s inclusionary housing requirement.

Table 2 – Major Development Projects in “Pipeline”
Pipeline Projects Stage Affordability
Very
Low
Low Moderate Above
Mod.

Total
811 San Pablo
(SAHA Veteran’s
Apartments)
Complete. Certificate of
Occupancy Issued
28 5 0 0 33
600 Roble (Vista
Woods Senior
Apartments)
Complete. Certificate of
Occupancy Issued
7 135 37 0 179
2151 Appian
(Appian Village
Condominiums)
Under Construction
(partial); permit review
required for remaining
project
0 8 23 123 154
2801 Pinole Valley
(Apartments)
Grading Permit Under
Review
2 2 0 25 29
1500 Fitzgerald
(Apartments)
Entitled October 2022,
extended August 2024
13 14 0 196 223
TOTAL Estimate Pipeline Units 50 164 60 344 618
Housing Program Implementation
Table D in the attached Annual Progress Report highlights the City's ongoing efforts to facilitate housing production, streamline permitting, and support affordable housing initiatives.

Some key achievements include continued progress under Program 4 (Facilitate ADU Production). The City has exceeded its annual target of three to five ADUs per year, issuing eight ADU permits and two JADU permits in 2025. An updated ADU ordinance was adopted in March 2025, which included establishment of an ADU Amnesty Program.

The City also launched the Pinole ADU Concierge — a dedicated webpage that consolidates ADU/JADU development standards, permit requirements, and related programs in one location (https://www.pinole.gov/accessory-dwelling-units-adus/). In addition, an ADU Fast Track program was developed to provide shorter review timelines and priority processing for applications that meet established criteria. Work is also underway on analyzing ADU geographic distribution, with GIS mapping initiated in 2025.

Major program tasks in Program 5 (SB 9 Technical Assistance and Facilitation) were completed. The program’s goal includes adopting zoning amendments and objective design standards by Q2 2025, making a lot split application available by Q1 2024, and facilitating 10 SB 9 applications over the 8-year planning period. Zoning code amendments were adopted in

March 2025, which included SB 9 unit development and urban lot split standards, permit processes, and objective design standards for single family residential zoning districts (applicable to SB 9 unit development projects). The SB 9 Lot Split single-family application has been incorporated into the City’s online permitting and licensing system. To date, the City has approved six SB 9 applications.

Efforts to support mixed-use and affordable housing development have also advanced. In Program 6 (Incentives for Mixed-Use Developments), zoning amendments for park fee waivers and parking reductions were adopted, and CEQA clearance is under review. While no major mixed-use projects were received in 2025, the City remains prepared to facilitate entitlements.

In Program 7 (Development of the Housing Successor’s Low and Moderate Income Housing Asset Fund Policy), the 15% inclusionary unit requirement has been maintained, and the housing fund policy guide, in-lieu fee alternative, and funding sources are in progress with assistance from the City's new Housing Fellow. The Housing Fellow and the Northern California Land Trust have planned a series of community workshops for March 2026 to engage residents in discussions about housing preservation, production, and protection, and to support the development of a policy guide. Under Program 8 (Affordable Housing Incentives), a priority and expedited review process to cut review times has been prepared, and zoning amendments including a park fee waiver were adopted in March 2025.

The City has also made significant progress on zoning amendments and permit streamlining initiatives. Zoning code amendments identified under Program 12 (Zoning Amendments) were adopted, addressing emergency shelters, low-barrier navigation centers, manufactured homes, SB 9 implementation, group homes and residential care facilities, updated definitions, density bonus provisions, and parking reductions. Under Program 13 (SB 330 Objective Design Standards and SB 35 Streamlining Compliance), objective design standards have been drafted, with adoption anticipated in 2026. For Program 14 (Fee Evaluation and Publicization), the comprehensive fee review was completed and an updated fee schedule adopted, with ongoing evaluations planned through 2029. Under Program 15 (Permit Streamlining), zoning amendments to streamline review for lot consolidations and density bonus projects were adopted in March 2025, further improving processing efficiency.

The City remains committed to housing rehabilitation through multiple initiatives. Under Program 16 (Rehabilitation Assistance), the City continues to provide information about available resources, including the Pinole Energy Enhancement Rebate Program (PEER), which processed 39 applications as of September 2025. With support from the Housing Fellow, the City is pursuing local, state, and federal funding opportunities to reinstate a local rehabilitation assistance program. In 2025, the Housing Fellow secured a technical assistance grant to develop a social impact bond ordinance and program aimed at acquiring and rehabilitating homes for affordable housing. Efforts also include reinstating the City’s Rehabilitation Assistance Program to improve housing conditions. A redesign and relaunch of the rental inspection program is underway to provide comprehensive monitoring of rental properties, ensure compliance with health and safety standards, and establish a transparent system for identifying at-risk units. Additionally, the City received an AARP microgrant to launch the Pinole Accessible Living Program, delivering eight workshops in 2025 focused on

home accessibility and universal design for seniors and persons with disabilities.

Three interns (two housing policy interns and one GIS intern) worked for the City in 2025 and helped advance various aspects of the Housing Element, including preparation of outreach materials aimed at developers and property owners to highlight development opportunities (Program 2), GIS mapping for initial review of ADU distribution (Program 4), and ADU outreach and information distribution (Program 23).

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact from receiving the annual report. Individual programs and projects designed to implement the Housing Element goals and objectives are funded through individual programs and project accounts in the City’s budget and Capital Improvement Plan.

ATTACHMENTS
A. 2026 Annual Progress Report

Jurisdiction Pinole
Reporting Year 2025
Housing Element Planning Period 6th Cycle
Current Year
Deed
Restricted 0
Non-Deed
Restricted 0
Deed
Restricted 0
Non-Deed
Restricted 0
Deed
Restricted 0
Non-Deed
Restricted 3
Deed
Restricted 2
Non-Deed
Restricted 3
Deed
Restricted 4
Non-Deed
Restricted 3
27 42
Units by Structure Type Entitled Permitted Completed
Single-family Attached 0 0 0
Single-family Detached 2 1 0
2 to 4 units per structure 0 0 0
5+ units per structure 0 31 212
Accessory Dwelling Unit 9 9 2
Mobile/Manufactured Home 0 0 0
Total 11 41 214
Infill Housing Developments and Infill Units Permitted # of Projects Units 16 41
00 10
10 10
0 0
0 Income Rental Ownership Total
Acutely Low 00 0
Extremely Low 00 0
Very Low 00 0
Low 00 0
Moderate 00 0
Above Moderate 00 0
Total 0 0 0
Streamlining Provisions Used - Permitted Units # of Projects Units SB 9 (2021) - Duplex in SF Zone 11
SB 9 (2021) - Residential Lot Split 00
AB 2011 (2022) 00
SB 6 (2022) 00
SB 423 (2023) 00
Ministerial and Discretionary Applications # of Units
Ministerial 10 10
Discretionary 00
Density Bonus Applications and Units Permitted
Number of Applications Submitted Requesting a Density Bonus 0 Number of Units in Applications Submitted Requesting a Density Bonus 0 Number of Projects Permitted with a Density Bonus 0
Number of Units in Projects Permitted with a Density Bonus 0 Housing Element Programs Implemented and Sites Rezoned Count 39 0
Cells in grey contain auto-calculation formulas
Programs Implemented
Sites Rezoned to Accommodate the RHNA
(Jan. 1 - Dec. 31)
01/31/2023 - 01/31/2031
Units Constructed - SB 423 Streamlining Permits
Number of SB 423 Streamlining Applications Approved
Very Low
Low
Moderate
Acutely Low
Extremely Low
Data is auto-populated based on data entered in Tables A, A2, C, and D Total Housing Applications Submitted:

Number of Proposed Units in All Applications Received:

Total Housing Units Approved:

Total Housing Units Disapproved:

Total Units
Housing Applications Summary
Use of SB 423 Streamlining Provisions - Applications
Number of SB 423 Streamlining Applications
Above Moderate
Indicated as Infill
Not Indicated as Infill
Building Permits Issued by Affordability Summary
Income Level

SUMMARY

Jurisdiction Pinole ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT Note: "+" indicates an optional field Reporting Year 2025 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31) Housing Element Implementation Planning Period 6th Cycle 01/31/2023 - 01/31/2031
Date
Application
Submitted
2 34 6
Prior APN+ Current APN Street Address Project Name+
Local
Jurisdiction
Tracking ID
Unit Category
(SFA,SFD,2 to 4,5+,ADU,MH)
Tenure
R=Renter
O=Owner
Date
Application
Submitted
(see
instructions)
Acutely LowIncome Deed
Restricted
Acutely LowIncome Non
Deed
Restricted
Extremely LowIncome Deed
Restricted
Extremely LowIncome Non
Deed
Restricted
Very LowIncome
Deed
Restricted
Very LowIncome
Non Deed
Restricted
Low-Income
Deed
Restricted
Low-Income
Non Deed
Restricted
ModerateIncome Deed
Restricted
ModerateIncome Non
Deed
Restricted
Above
ModerateIncome
Total

PROPOSED
Units by
Project
Summary Row: Start Data Entry Below 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 31 10 360332007
3340 SILVER CT
3340 SILVER CT
ADU BP23-0021 ADU O 7/25/2025 11
402030013
1508 SAN PABLO AVE
1508 SAN PABLO
AVE ADU BP23-0226 ADU O 2/13/2025 11
403293007
1041 TARA HILLS DR
1041 TARA HILLS
DR ADU BP23-0297 ADU O 3/6/2025 11
402012014
1381 HAZEL ST
1381 HAZEL ST
ADU BP23-0323 ADU O 6/26/2024 11
360382029
3757 VICTOR ST
3757 VICTOR ST
ADU BP24-0221 ADU O 1/9/2025 11
360382029
7 DOOLIN CT 7 DOOLIN CT ADU BP24-0252 ADU O 4/4/2025 11 360681005
2707 CARMEN CT
2707 CARMEN CT
ADU BP24-0306 ADU O 4/22/2025 11
360031036
2326 ESTRELLA CT
2326 ESTRELLA CT
ADU BP25-0136 ADU O 9/25/2025 1 1
360193002
3835 VICTOR ST
3835 VICTOR ST
JADU BP25-0162 ADU O 12/1/2025 1 1
402040003 715 2ND AVE 715 2ND AVE JADU BP25-0104 ADU O 9/8/2025 1 1 430260013 209 N RANCHO PL 209 N RANCHO PL SB9 SBN25-0001 SFD O 10/1/2025 11 00 Table A
Cells in grey contain auto-calculation formulas
1 5
Project Identifier Unit Types
Housing Development Applications Submitted
Proposed Units - Affordability by Household Incomes
A

Total
Approved
Units by
Project
Total
Disapproved
Units by
Project
Streamlining Historic Sites Application Status Project Type Notes 7 8 9 10 12 13 14
Total

APPROVED
Units by
project
Total

DISAPPROVE
D Units by
Project
Please select
state
streamlining
provision/s the
application was
submitted
pursuant to.

Is this project
located on a site
with an
associated
historical
designation as
outlined in
Government
Code Section
65400(a)(2)(N)
and reported on
Table L?
Did the
housing
development
application
seek incentives
or concessions
pursuant to
Government
Code section
65915?
Were
incentives or
concessions
requested
pursuant to
Government
Code section
65915
approved?
Please
indicate the
status of the
application.

Is the project
considered a
ministerial
project or
discretionary
project?
Notes+
10 0
1 NONE No No N/A Approved Ministerial1 NONE No No N/A Approved Ministerial1 NONE No No N/A Approved Ministerial1 NONE No No N/A Approved Ministerial1 NONE No No N/A Approved Ministerial1 NONE No No N/A Approved Ministerial1 NONE No No N/A Approved Ministerial1 NONE No No N/A Approved Ministerial1 NONE No No N/A Approved Ministerial1 NONE No No N/A Approved Ministerial1 NONE No No N/A Approved Ministerial Density Bonus Law
Applications
11

Jurisdiction Pinole ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT
Reporting Year 2025
(Jan. 1 - Dec.
31) Housing Element Implementation Cells in grey contain auto-calculation f ormulas Planning Period 6th Cycle 01/31/2023 - 01/31/2031
Table A2
Streamlining Historic Sites Infill
Housing without
Financial Assistance or
Deed Restrictions
Term of
Affordability or
Deed Restriction
Notes
23 56 89 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Prior APN+ Current APN Street Address Project Name+ Local Jurisdiction Tracking ID
Unit
Category
(SFA,SFD,2 to
4,5+,ADU,MH)
Tenure
R=Renter
O=Owner
Acutely LowIncome
Deed
Restricted
Acutely LowIncome Non
Deed
Restricted
Extremely
LowIncome Deed
Restricted
Extremely
LowIncome Non Deed
Restricted
Very LowIncome
Deed
Restricted
Very LowIncome
Non Deed
Restricted
LowIncome Deed
Restricted
LowIncome
Non Deed
Restricted
ModerateIncome
Deed
Restricted
ModerateIncome Non
Deed
Restricted
Above
ModerateIncome
Entitlement
Date
Approved
# of Units
issued
Entitlements
Acutely
LowIncome Deed
Restricted
Acutely
LowIncome
Non Deed
Restricted
Extremely
LowIncome Deed
Restricted
Extremely
LowIncome
Non Deed
Restricted
Very LowIncome
Deed
Restricted
Very LowIncome
Non Deed
Restricted
LowIncome Deed
Restricted
LowIncome
Non Deed
Restricted
ModerateIncome
Deed
Restricted
ModerateIncome Non
Deed
Restricted
Above
ModerateIncome
Building
Permits Date
Issued
# of Units
Issued Building
Permits
Acutely
LowIncome Deed
Restricted
Acutely
LowIncome
Non Deed
Restricted
Extremely
LowIncome Deed
Restricted
Extremely
LowIncome
Non Deed
Restricted
Very LowIncome
Deed
Restricted
Very LowIncome
Non Deed
Restricted
LowIncome Deed
Restricted
LowIncome
Non Deed
Restricted
ModerateIncome
Deed
Restricted
ModerateIncome Non
Deed
Restricted
Above
ModerateIncome
Certificates of
Occupancy or
other forms of
readiness
(see instructions)
Date Issued
# of Units
issued
Certificates
of
Occupancy
or other
forms of
readiness
Please select
the state
streamlining
provision the
project was

APPROVED
pursuant to.
(may select
multiple)
Is this project
located on a
site with an
associated
historical
designation as
outlined in
Government
Code Section 65400(a)(2)(N)
and reported
on Table L?
Infill Units?
Y/N+
Assistance
Programs for Each
Development
(may select
multiple - see
instructions)
Deed
Restriction
Type
(may select
multiple - see
instructions)
For units affordable
without financial
assistance or deed
restrictions, explain how
the locality determined
the units were
affordable
(see instructions)
Term of
Affordability or
Deed Restriction
(years) (if affordable
in perpetuity enter
1000)+
Number of
Demolished/Destr
oyed Units
Demolished
or
Destroyed
Units
Demolished
/Destroyed
Units
Owner or
Renter
Total Density Bonus
Applied to the Project
(Percentage Increase in
Total Allowable Units or
Total Maximum
Allowable Residential
Gross Floor Area)
Number of Other
Incentives,
Concessions,
Waivers, or Other
Modifications
Given to the
Project (Excluding
Parking Waivers
or Parking
Reductions)
List the
incentives,
concessions,
waivers, and
modifications
(Excluding
Parking
Waivers or
Parking
Modifications)
Did the project
receive a reduction
or waiver of parking
standards? (Y/N)
Notes+
Summary Row: Start Data Entry Below 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 3 2 11 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 3 4 3 27 41 0 0 0 0 33 0 142 1 37 0 1 214 0 360332007 3340 SILVER CT
3340 SILVER CT
ADU BP23-0021 ADU O 1
7/25/2025 1
1 10/9/2025 1 0 NONE No Y
10 ADUs/JADUs permitted in
2025. Assumption f or 3 v ery
low, 3 low, 3, moderate, 1 abov e
moder based on ABAG ADU
Af f ordability Surv ey Findings
and Recommendations -
30/30/30/10 split - Jan 28 2026
402030013
1508 SAN PABLO
AVE
1508 SAN PABLO
AVE ADU BP23-0226 ADU O 1
2/13/2025 1
1 2/13/2025 1 0 NONE No Y
10 ADUs/JADUs permitted in
2025. Assumption f or 3 v ery
low, 3 low, 3, moderate, 1 abov e
moder based on ABAG ADU
Af f ordability Surv ey Findings
and Recommendations -
30/30/30/10 split - Jan 28 2026
403293007
1041 TARA HILLS
DR
1041 TARA HILLS
DR ADU BP23-0297 ADU O 1
3/6/2025 1
1 3/24/2025 1 0 NONE No Y
10 ADUs/JADUs permitted in
2025. Assumption f or 3 v ery
low, 3 low, 3, moderate, 1 abov e
moder based on ABAG ADU
Af f ordability Surv ey Findings
and Recommendations -
30/30/30/10 split - Jan 28 2026
402012014 1381 HAZEL ST
1381 HAZEL ST
ADU BP23-0323 ADU O 1
6/26/2024 1
1 12/22/2025 0 0 NONE No Y
10 ADUs/JADUs permitted in
2025. Assumption f or 3 v ery
low, 3 low, 3, moderate, 1 abov e
moder based on ABAG ADU
Af f ordability Surv ey Findings
and Recommendations -
30/30/30/10 split - Jan 28 2026
360382029 3757 VICTOR ST
3757 VICTOR ST
ADU BP24-0221 ADU O 1
1/9/2025 1
1 1/15/2025 1 0 NONE No Y
10 ADUs/JADUs permitted in
2025. Assumption f or 3 v ery
low, 3 low, 3, moderate, 1 abov e
moder based on ABAG ADU
Af f ordability Surv ey Findings
and Recommendations -
30/30/30/10 split - Jan 28 2026
360382029 7 DOOLIN CT 7 DOOLIN CT ADU BP24-0252 ADU O 1 4/4/2025 1
1 4/7/2025 1 0 NONE No Y
10 ADUs/JADUs permitted in
2025. Assumption f or 3 v ery
low, 3 low, 3, moderate, 1 abov e
moder based on ABAG ADU
Af f ordability Surv ey Findings
and Recommendations -
30/30/30/10 split - Jan 28 2026
360681005 2707 CARMEN CT
2707 CARMEN CT
ADU BP24-0306 ADU O 1
4/22/2025 1
1 5/5/2025 1 1 10/20/2025 1 NONE No Y
10 ADUs/JADUs permitted in
2025. Assumption f or 3 v ery
low, 3 low, 3, moderate, 1 abov e
moder based on ABAG ADU
Af f ordability Surv ey Findings
and Recommendations -
30/30/30/10 split - Jan 28 2026
360031036
2326 ESTRELLA
CT
2326 ESTRELLA CT
ADU BP25-0136 ADU O 1
9/25/2025 1
1 9/30/2025 1 0 NONE No Y
10 ADUs/JADUs permitted in
2025. Assumption f or 3 v ery
low, 3 low, 3, moderate, 1 abov e
moder based on ABAG ADU
Af f ordability Surv ey Findings
and Recommendations -
30/30/30/10 split - Jan 28 2026
360193002 3835 VICTOR ST
3835 VICTOR ST
JADU BP25-0162 ADU O 1
12/1/2025 1
1 12/9/2025 1 0 NONE No Y
10 ADUs/JADUs permitted in
2025. Assumption f or 3 v ery
low, 3 low, 3, moderate, 1 abov e
moder based on ABAG ADU
Af f ordability Surv ey Findings
and Recommendations -
30/30/30/10 split - Jan 28 2026
402040003
715 2ND AVE
715 2ND AVE
JADU BP25-0104 ADU O 1
9/8/2025 1
1 9/8/2025 1 0 NONE No Y
10 ADUs/JADUs permitted in
2025. Assumption f or 3 v ery
low, 3 low, 3, moderate, 1 abov e
moder based on ABAG ADU
Af f ordability Surv ey Findings
and Recommendations -
30/30/30/10 split - Jan 28 2026
401240017 401500001 2151 APPIAN WAY APPIAN VILLAGE BLDG 1, UNIT 1-8 BP23-0179 5+ O 1 7 4/11/2022 8 1 7 8/14/2025 8 0 NONE No Y INC 45 401240017 401500002 2151 APPIAN WAY APPIAN VILLAGE BLDG 2, UNIT 9-16 BP23-0181 5+ O 1 1 6 4/11/2022 8 1 1 6 8/14/2025 8 0 NONE No Y INC 45 401240017 401500005
2151 APPIAN
WAY

APPIAN VILLAGE
BLDG 7, UNIT 55-
59 BP23-0183 5+ O 1 4 4/11/2022
5 1 4 7/31/2025 5 0 NONE No Y INC 45
401240017 401500008
2151 APPIAN
WAY

APPIAN VILLAGE
BLDG 10, UNIT 70-
74 BP23-0187 5+ O 1 4 4/11/2022
5 1 4 7/31/2025 5 0 NONE No Y INC 45
401240017 401500015
2151 APPIAN
WAY

APPIAN VILLAGE
BLDG 19, UNIT 117-
121
BP23-0186 5+ O 1 4 4/11/2022
5 1 4 7/31/2025 5 0 NONE No Y INC 45
360460026
2321 MONTE

VERDE DR
2321 MONTE VERDE DR SB9 UNIT
BP24-0123 SFD O 1 10/11/2023
1 1 10/9/2025 1 0 SB 9 (2021) - Duplex in SF Zone No Y
402060019 NOB HILL AVE NOB HILL AVE SB9
UNIT
MISC24-0017 SFD O 1 1/16/2025 1 0 0 SB 9 (2021) - Duplex in SF Zone No Y 430260013 209 N Rancho PL 209 N Rancho PL
SB9
SBN25-0001 SFD O 1 10/1/2025 1 0 7/28/2025 0 NONE No Y
403361068 1090 Amend St 1090 Amend St
ADU
BP23-0039 ADU O 0 1 2/15/2024 1 3/3/2025 0 NONE No Y
360031033 2309 Estrella Ct 2309 Estrella Ct
ADU
BP23-0057 ADU O 0 1 3/19/2024 1 3/17/2025 0 NONE No Y
403264013 941 Marlesta Rd 941 Marlesta Rd
ADU
BP23-0265 ADU O 0 1 2/27/2024 1 5/15/2025 0 NONE No Y
360351015 3361 Diablo Cir 3361 Diablo Cir
ADU
BP23-0294 ADU O 0 1 2/13/2024 1 11/26/2025 0 NONE No Y
360100003 4001 Pinole Valley
Rd
4001 Pinole Valley
Rd ADU
BP23-0379 ADU O 0 1 11/13/2023 1 5/6/2025 0 NONE No Y
402-023-002, 402-023-003, 402-023-
007
600 Roble Av e Vista Woods BP21-0187 5+ R 7 135 37 9/27/2021 179
7 135 37 1/26/2022 179 7 135 37 5/19/2025 179 NONE No Y DB 55 77.2% 6 On-Site
Improv ements, Dev elopment Standards Modif ication
Yes
402-166-030
811 San Pablo
Av e
Valor Village (SAHA
Project) BP22-0304 5+ R 26 7 6/28/2021
33 26 7 6/1/2023 33 26 7 3/14/2025 33 NONE No Y VHHP DB 55 73.7% 3 On-Site
Improv ements, Dev elopment Standards Modif ication
Yes
403361010 961 Barkley Ct 961 Barkley Ct ADU BP22-0272 ADU O 0 1 1/31/2024 1 1 7/28/2025 1 NONE No Y Density Bonus
1 Unit Types Affordability by Household Incomes - Completed Entitlement Affordability by Household Incomes - Building Permits Affordability by Household Incomes - Certificates of Occupancy 4 7 10
Note: "+" indicates an optional field
Housing with Financial Assistance
and/or Deed Restrictions Project Identifier Demolished/Destroyed Units Annual Building Activity Report Summary - New Construction, Entitled, Permits and Completed Units A2

Jurisdiction Pinole ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT
Reporting Year 2025
(Jan. 1 - Dec.
31) Housing Element Implementation
Planning Period 6th Cycle 01/31/2023 - 01/31/2031
Table A2
23 56
Prior APN+ Current APN Street Address Project Name+
Local
Jurisdiction
Tracking ID
Unit Category
(SFA,SFD,2 to
4,5+,ADU,MH)
Tenure
R=RenterO=Owner
Acutely LowIncome Deed
Restricted
Acutely LowIncome Non
Deed
Restricted
Extremely
Low- Income
Deed
Restricted
Extremely
Low- Income
Non Deed
Restricted
Very LowIncome Deed Restricted
Very LowIncome Non
Deed
Restricted
Low- Income
Deed
Restricted
Low- Income
Non Deed
Restricted
ModerateIncome
Deed
Restricted
ModerateIncome Non
Deed
Restricted
Above
ModerateIncome
Entitlement
Date Approved
# of Units
issued
Entitlements
Acutely
LowIncome Deed
Restricted
Acutely
LowIncome Non Deed
Restricted
Extremely
LowIncome Deed
Restricted
Extremely
LowIncome Non Deed
Restricted
Summary Row: Start Data Entry Below 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 30 3 2 110000 360332007 3340 SILVER CT 3340 SILVER CT ADU BP23-0021 ADU O 1 7/25/2025 1
402030013 1508 SAN PABLO AVE 1508 SAN PABLO AVE ADU BP23-0226 ADU O 1 2/13/2025 1
403293007 1041 TARA HILLS DR 1041 TARA HILLS DR ADU BP23-0297 ADU O 1 3/6/2025 1
402012014 1381 HAZEL ST 1381 HAZEL ST ADU BP23-0323 ADU O 1 6/26/2024 1
360382029 3757 VICTOR ST 3757 VICTOR ST ADU BP24-0221 ADU O 1 1/9/2025 1
360382029 7 DOOLIN CT 7 DOOLIN CT ADU BP24-0252 ADU O 1 4/4/2025 1
360681005 2707 CARMEN CT 2707 CARMEN CT ADU BP24-0306 ADU O 1 4/22/2025 1
360031036 2326 ESTRELLA CT 2326 ESTRELLA CT ADU BP25-0136 ADU O 1 9/25/2025 1
360193002 3835 VICTOR ST 3835 VICTOR ST JADU BP25-0162 ADU O 1 12/1/2025 1
402040003
715 2ND AVE 715 2ND AVE JADU BP25-0104 ADU O 1
9/8/2025 1
401240017 401500001 2151 APPIAN WAY APPIAN VILLAGE BLDG 1, UNIT 1-8 BP23-0179 5+ O 1 7 4/11/2022 8 401240017 401500002 2151 APPIAN WAY APPIAN VILLAGE BLDG 2, UNIT 9-16 BP23-0181 5+ O 1 1 6 4/11/2022 8 401240017 401500005 2151 APPIAN WAY APPIAN VILLAGE BLDG 7, UNIT 55-59 BP23-0183 5+ O 1 4 4/11/2022 5401240017 401500008 2151 APPIAN WAY

APPIAN VILLAGE
BLDG 10, UNIT 70-
74 BP23-0187 5+ O 1 4 4/11/2022
5 401240017 401500015 2151 APPIAN WAY

APPIAN VILLAGE
BLDG 19, UNIT 117-
121
BP23-0186 5+ O 1 4 4/11/2022
5 360460026 2321 MONTE VERDE DR 2321 MONTE VERDE DR SB9 UNIT BP24-0123 SFD O 1 10/11/2023 1 1 Unit Types Affordability by Household Incomes - Completed Entitlement Affordab 4 Project Identifier
Annual Building Activity Report Summary - New Construction, Entitled, Permits and Completed Units

Jurisdiction Pinole ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT
Reporting Year 2025
(Jan. 1 - Dec.
31) Housing Element Implementation
Planning Period 6th Cycle 01/31/2023 - 01/31/2031
402060019 NOB HILL AVE NOB HILL AVE SB9 UNIT MISC24-0017 SFD O 1 1/16/2025 1 430260013 209 N Rancho PL 209 N Rancho PL SB9 SBN25-0001 SFD O 1 10/1/2025 1 403361068 1090 Amend St 1090 Amend St ADU BP23-0039 ADU O 0360031033 2309 Estrella Ct 2309 Estrella Ct ADU BP23-0057 ADU O 0403264013 941 Marlesta Rd 941 Marlesta Rd ADU BP23-0265 ADU O 0 360351015 3361 Diablo Cir 3361 Diablo Cir ADU BP23-0294 ADU O 0 360100003 4001 Pinole Valley Rd 4001 Pinole Valley Rd ADU BP23-0379 ADU O 0 402-023-002, 402-023-003, 402-023-
007
600 Roble Ave Vista Woods BP21-0187 5+ R 7 135 37 9/27/2021 179
402-166-030 811 San Pablo Ave Valor Village (SAHA Project) BP22-0304 5+ R 26 7 6/28/2021 33 403361010 961 Barkley Ct 961 Barkley Ct ADU BP22-0272 ADU O 0

Cells in grey contain auto-calculation formulas
Streamlining Historic Sites
89 11 12 13 14
Very LowIncome
Deed
Restricted
Very LowIncome Non
Deed
Restricted
LowIncome Deed
Restricted
LowIncome
Non Deed
Restricted
ModerateIncome
Deed
Restricted
ModerateIncome Non
Deed
Restricted
Above
ModerateIncome
Building
Permits Date
Issued
# of Units Issued
Building Permits
Acutely LowIncome
Deed
Restricted
Acutely LowIncome Non
Deed
Restricted
Extremely
LowIncome Deed
Restricted
Extremely
LowIncome Non Deed
Restricted
Very LowIncome
Deed
Restricted
Very LowIncome
Non Deed
Restricted
LowIncome Deed
Restricted
LowIncome
Non Deed
Restricted
ModerateIncome
Deed
Restricted
ModerateIncome Non
Deed
Restricted
Above
ModerateIncome
Certificates of
Occupancy or other
forms of readiness
(see instructions)
Date Issued
# of Units
issued
Certificates of
Occupancy or
other forms
of readiness
Please select the
state
streamlining
provision the
project was

APPROVED
pursuant to.
(may select
multiple)
Is this project
located on a site
with an
associated
historical
designation as
outlined in
Government
Code Section
65400(a)(2)(N)
and reported on
Table L?
0 3 2 3 4 3 27 41 0 0 0 0 33 0 142 1 37 0 1 214
1 10/9/2025 1 0 NONE No1 2/13/2025 1 0 NONE No1 3/24/2025 1 0 NONE No 1 12/22/2025 0 0 NONE No
1 1/15/2025 1 0 NONE No1 4/7/2025 1 0 NONE No1 5/5/2025 1 1 10/20/2025 1 NONE No 1 9/30/2025 1 0 NONE No
1 12/9/2025 1 0 NONE No
1 9/8/2025 1 0 NONE No
1 7 8/14/2025 8 0 NONE No
1 1 6 8/14/2025 8 0 NONE No
1 4 7/31/2025 5 0 NONE No1 4 7/31/2025 5 0 NONE No
1 4 7/31/2025 5 0 NONE No
1 10/9/2025 1 0 SB 9 (2021) - Duplex in SF Zone No
bility by Household Incomes - Building Permits Affordability by Household Incomes - Certificates of Occupancy 7 10
Note: "+" indicates an optional field

Cells in grey contain auto-calculation formulas
Note: "+" indicates an optional field
0 0 SB 9 (2021) - Duplex in SF Zone No0 7/28/2025 0 NONE No 1 2/15/2024 1 3/3/2025 0 NONE No1 3/19/2024 1 3/17/2025 0 NONE No1 2/27/2024 1 5/15/2025 0 NONE No1 2/13/2024 1 11/26/2025 0 NONE No1 11/13/2023 1 5/6/2025 0 NONE No 7 135 37 1/26/2022 179 7 135 37 5/19/2025 179 NONE No
26 7 6/1/2023 33 26 7 3/14/2025 33 NONE No
1 1/31/2024 1 1 7/28/2025 1 NONE No

Infill
Housing without
Financial Assistance or
Deed Restrictions
Term of
Affordability or
Deed Restriction
Notes
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Infill Units?
Y/N+
Assistance
Programs for Each
Development
(may select multiple
- see instructions)
Deed Restriction
Type
(may select
multiple - see
instructions)
For units affordable
without financial
assistance or deed
restrictions, explain how
the locality determined the
units were affordable
(see instructions)
Term of Affordability
or Deed Restriction
(years) (if affordable
in perpetuity enter
1000)+
Number of
Demolished/Destro
yed Units
Demolished
or Destroyed
Units
Demolished/
Destroyed
Units
Owner or
Renter
Total Density Bonus
Applied to the Project
(Percentage Increase in
Total Allowable Units or
Total Maximum Allowable
Residential Gross Floor
Area)
Number of Other
Incentives,
Concessions,
Waivers, or Other
Modifications Given
to the Project
(Excluding Parking
Waivers or Parking
Reductions)
List the
incentives,
concessions,
waivers, and
modifications
(Excluding
Parking Waivers
or Parking
Modifications)
Did the project
receive a reduction or
waiver of parking
standards? (Y/N)
Notes+
0 Y
10 ADUs/JADUs permitted in
2025. Assumption for 3 very low, 3
low, 3, moderate, 1 above moder
based on ABAG ADU Affordability
Survey Findings and
Recommendations - 30/30/30/10
split - Jan. 28, 2026
Y
10 ADUs/JADUs permitted in
2025. Assumption for 3 very low, 3
low, 3, moderate, 1 above moder
based on ABAG ADU Affordability
Survey Findings and
Recommendations - 30/30/30/10
split - Jan. 28, 2026
Y
10 ADUs/JADUs permitted in
2025. Assumption for 3 very low, 3
low, 3, moderate, 1 above moder
based on ABAG ADU Affordability
Survey Findings and
Recommendations - 30/30/30/10
split - Jan. 28, 2026
Y
10 ADUs/JADUs permitted in
2025. Assumption for 3 very low, 3
low, 3, moderate, 1 above moder
based on ABAG ADU Affordability
Survey Findings and
Recommendations - 30/30/30/10
split - Jan. 28, 2026
Y
10 ADUs/JADUs permitted in
2025. Assumption for 3 very low, 3
low, 3, moderate, 1 above moder
based on ABAG ADU Affordability
Survey Findings and
Recommendations - 30/30/30/10
split - Jan. 28, 2026
Y
10 ADUs/JADUs permitted in
2025. Assumption for 3 very low, 3
low, 3, moderate, 1 above moder
based on ABAG ADU Affordability
Survey Findings and
Recommendations - 30/30/30/10
split - Jan. 28, 2026
Y
10 ADUs/JADUs permitted in
2025. Assumption for 3 very low, 3
low, 3, moderate, 1 above moder
based on ABAG ADU Affordability
Survey Findings and
Recommendations - 30/30/30/10
split - Jan. 28, 2026
Y
10 ADUs/JADUs permitted in
2025. Assumption for 3 very low, 3
low, 3, moderate, 1 above moder
based on ABAG ADU Affordability
Survey Findings and
Recommendations - 30/30/30/10
split - Jan. 28, 2026
Y
10 ADUs/JADUs permitted in
2025. Assumption for 3 very low, 3
low, 3, moderate, 1 above moder
based on ABAG ADU Affordability
Survey Findings and
Recommendations - 30/30/30/10
split - Jan. 28, 2026
Y
10 ADUs/JADUs permitted in
2025. Assumption for 3 very low, 3
low, 3, moderate, 1 above moder
based on ABAG ADU Affordability
Survey Findings and
Recommendations - 30/30/30/10
split - Jan. 28, 2026
Y INC 45Y INC 45Y INC 45Y INC 45Y INC 45Y
Density Bonus
Housing with Financial
Assistance and/or Deed
Restrictions
Demolished/Destroyed Units

Y
YYYYYYY DB 55 77.2%
6 On-Site Improvements, Development Standards Modification Yes
Y VHHP DB 55 73.7%
3 On-Site Improvements, Development Standards Modification Yes
Y

Jurisdiction Pinole ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT
Reporting Year 2025 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31) Housing Element ImplementationPlanning Period 6th Cycle 01/31/2023 - 01/31/2031 1 Projection
Period 34
RHNA Allocation
by Income Level
Projection
Period -
06/30/2022-
01/30/2023
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031
Total Units
to Date (all
years)
Total Remaining
RHNA by
Income Level
Deed Restricted - - - - - - - - - - Non-Deed Restricted - - - - - - - - - - Deed Restricted - - - - - - - - - - Non-Deed Restricted - - - - - - - - - - Deed Restricted - 26 - - - - - - - - Non-Deed Restricted - - - 3 - - - - - -
Deed Restricted - 7 - 2 - - - - - - Non-Deed Restricted - - - 3 - - - - - - Deed Restricted - 1 - 4 - - - - - - Non-Deed Restricted - - - 3 - - - - - - Above Moderate 223 3 13 9 27 - - - - - - 52 171
500
3 47 9 42 - - - - - - 101 399
Income Level
Very Low
- -
This table is auto-populated once you enter your jurisdiction name and current year data. Past year information comes from previous APRs.

Please contact HCD if your data is different than the material supplied here 2 Table B
Regional Housing Needs Allocation Progress
Permitted Units Issued by Affordability
92 8 Moderate
121
69 87
12 29
Please note: The APR form can only display data for one planning period. To view progress for a different planning period, you may login to HCD's online APR system, or contact HCD staff at [email protected] Low - -
*For years prior to 2025, data on deed-restricted vs. non-deed restricted Extremely Low-Income units is approximated from whether the projects reported any deed-restricted Very Low-Income Units. If you wish to edit this historical data for accuracy or have any questions about the data, you may login to HCD's online APR system, or contact HCD staff at [email protected] Units*For jurisdictions that received RHNA determinations for the current cycle prior to the passage of AB 3093 (September 19, 2024):- You were not allocated Acutely Low-Income and Extremely Low-Income RHNA targets, therefore the allocations in Field 1 are listed as "0" - If you wish to set your own targets in these income categories for informational purposes, contact HCD staff at [email protected]. - All Acutely Low-Income and Extremely Low-Income units reported during the cycle are counted towards Very-Low Income RHNA progress 79 Total RHNA
-
57 Low
*For years prior to 2025, Acutely Low-Income units are reported within the Extremely Low-Income categoryPlease Note: Table B does not currently contain data from Table F or Table F2 for prior years. You may login to the APR system to see Table B that contains this data.Extremely Low -
B

Jurisdiction Pinole ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT
Reporting Year 2025
(Jan. 1 - Dec.
31) Housing Element Implementation
Planning Period 6th Cycle 01/31/2023 - 01/31/2031
Date of
Rezone Rezone Type
2 4 5 6 7 9 10 11
APN Street Address Project Name+
Local
Jurisdiction
Tracking ID+
Date of
Rezone
Very LowIncome Low-Income Moderate- Income Above Moderate- Income Rezone Type Parcel Size (Acres) General Plan Designation Zoning Minimum Density Allowed Maximum Density Allowed Realistic Capacity Vacant/Nonvacant Description of Existing Uses Note: "+" indicates an optional fieldCells in grey contain auto-calculation formulas Summary Row: Start Data Entry Below
3 8
Project Identifier RHNA Shortfall by Household Income Category Sites Description 1 Sites Identified or Rezoned to Accommodate Shortfall Housing Need and No Net-Loss Law Table C
C

Jurisdiction Pinole
Reporting Year 2025 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31)
1 2 345 6
Name of Program Objective
Projected Completion
Date in Housing
Element
Applicable Cycle Status of Program Implementation Program Implementation Details Provision of Adequate Sites and Site Inventory Monitoring (Program 1) Quantified Objective: Provide adequate sites to accommodate the City’s entire RHNA allocation of 500 units, including the 83 units not met with pending projects or projected ADUs. No net loss of capacity below the RHNA requirement during the planning period.
9/30/2027 6th Cycle Continuous
In 2025, adequate sites remain available to accommodate the RHNA allocation of 500 units. No change resulting in net loss of capacity below RHNA requirement. Annual review of surplus parcels conducted. Additional opportunities sites available, but no change resulting from loss of capacity requiring additional sites has occurred.

Publicize and Promote Residential Sites Inventory (Program 2) Quantified Objective 1: Maintain accurate and publicly available residential site inventory throughout the planning period. 10/3/2023 6th Cycle Completed Site inventory posted on the City website within 6 months of Housing Element adoption.

Publicize and Promote Residential Sites Inventory (Program 2) Quantified Objective 2:Outreach with 100 percent of RHNA site owners twice during the planning period. 12/31/2031 6th Cycle In Progress
Discussions held with some RHNA site owners and affordable housing developers; outreach will continue in 2026. Outreach materials were prepared by the Housing Policy Intern and will be sent to RHNA site owners.

Materials contain zoning information, staff contacts, and an invitation to reach out for discussion. Materials will be sent in 2026.

Outreach to Developers and Technical Assistance to Applicants (Program 3) Quantified Objective 1: Technical assistance to all affordable housing applicants. 12/31/2031 6th Cycle Continuous
Pre-application planning meetings continue to be available by request. Staff met with and provided zoning and development process information to parties interested in development, including sharing information on City development standards, housing incentives, technical considerations, and application processing. However, no major residential development project applications were received in 2025. A developer interest list was created within 6 months of Housing Element adoption.

Outreach to Developers and Technical Assistance to Applicants (Program 3) Quantified Objective 2: Make the comprehensive coordinated review with all city departments standard operating procedure for all residential developments. 12/31/2031 6th Cycle Continuous
Initial comprehensive coordinated review procedures were formulated. However, no major residential development project applications were received in 2025.

Outreach to Developers and Technical Assistance to Applicants (Program 3) Qunatified Objective 3: Annual review of available funding sources and contact to other agencies and developers. 12/31/2031 6th Cycle In Progress
Outreach to developers and public agencies will continue into 2025. Annual review of fundings sources were evaluated. Annual outreach to faith-based organizations was completed.

ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT
Housing Element Implementation
Housing Programs Progress Report
Describe progress of all programs including local efforts to remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and develo Table D
Program Implementation Status pursuant to GC Section 65583 D

Facilitate ADU Production
(Program 4)
Quantified Objective: Increased production of ADUs from 3 to 5 per year. 4/4/2025 6th Cycle Continuous 10 building permits were issued for ADUs in 2025. Zoning ordinance amendments for ADU updates were completed in March 2025. The ADU Amnesty Program was adopted in March 2025. Additionally, a fee waiver/reduction is offered to owners who designate ADUs in the ADU Amnesty Program to be affordable to low or moderate income households. The ADU Fast Track program was finalized and implemented around August 2025. Mapping of ADU geographic distribution has started and is being further expanded in 2026.

SB 9 Technical Assistance and Facilitation (Program 5)
Quantified Objective: Facilitation of 10 SB 9 applications. 6/30/2025 6th Cycle In Progress Zoning ordinance amendments for SB9 were adopted in March 2025. The lot split form was created then incorporated into the online permitting system.In 2025, two SB9 applications were approved (one lot split, one unit development). In total, six SB 9 applications were approved during the planning period.

Incentives for Mixed-Use Developments (Program 6)
Quantified Objective 1: Amended zoning ordinance with adopted incentives. 4/4/2029 6th Cycle Completed Zoning ordinance amendments for incentives were adopted in March 2025. Amendments included park impact fee waivers on affordable units beyond the minimum required. Staff had begun review of environmental documents.

Incentives for Mixed-Use Developments (Program 6)
Quantified Objective 2: Entitlement of three mixed-use projects using one or more of the available incentives. 12/31/2031 6th Cycle In Progress No mixed-use project applications were received in 2025.

Development of Housing Successor’s Low and Moderate Income Housing Asset Fund Policy (Program 7) Quantified Objective 1: Create a housing fund policy guide, create in-lieu fee alternative and funding source. 4/4/2026 6th Cycle In Progress
In Fall 2025, a community survey on housing issues in Pinole was developed and distributed. In addition, the Housing Fellow and the Northern California Land Trust have planned a series of community workshops for March 2026. These workshops aim to engage residents in discussions about housing preservation, production, and protection, and to support the development of a policy guide.A draft in-lieu fee structure has been prepared. Individual meetings and focus groups with developers will begin in the spring to gather feedback on the proposed fee. After incorporating community input, the draft policy guide will be presented to the City Council for review.

Development of Housing Successor’s Low and Moderate Income Housing Asset Fund Policy (Program 7) Quantified Objective 2: For applicable development projects, maintain a minimum requirement of 15 percent inclusionary units, and of those 40 percent of units affordable to very low income households. 12/31/2031 6th Cycle Completed The minimum 15% inclusionary unit requirements has been maintained in the zoning code.

Affordable Housing Incentives (Program 8)
Quantified Objective: Adoption of priority review process. 4/4/2025 6th Cycle Completed Priority and expedited review processes were prepared, however no new projects with affordable units were received in 2025. Zoning code amendments to the affordable housing chapter, including the updates to review bodies and park fee waiver, were adopted in March 2025.

Affordable Housing Incentives (Program 8)
Quantified Objective 2: Completion of initial review of affordable housing developments within prescribed timeline. Expedited review of projects to take 50% less time than the normal City review process. 12/31/2031 6th Cycle Continuous No new projects with affordable units were received in 2025.

Housing for Extremely
Low, Very Low, Low, and Moderate Income Households and Special Needs Households, Including Persons with Disabilities (Program 9) Quantified Objective 1: Annual contact of developers. 12/31/2031 6th Cycle In Progress The City supported two paid Housing Policy Interns in the summer of 2025. One intern focused on developing outreach collateral to RHNA site owners and affordable housing developers, managed and tracked the Developer Interest List, promoted the City’s Affordable Housing Incentives Program, researched best practices for permitting incentives to inform policy development, and collaborated with faith-based and nonprofit organizations to identify development opportunities.The second intern promoted the City’s ADU programs—including the ADU Amnesty Program, Fast Track Program, and proposed fee waivers—developed homeowner outreach materials using tools like Canva, conducted neighborhood-level outreach to raise awareness of ADU incentives, tracked ADU development trends to support citywide data analysis, and assisted with internal reporting by preparing summaries of findings and future recommendations.

Housing for Extremely Low, Very Low, Low, and Moderate Income Households and Special Needs Households, Including Persons with Disabilities (Program 9) Quantified Objective 2: Assist 25 lower income or special needs households with the fee waiver program. 12/31/2031 6th Cycle In Progress
The City received an AARP microgrant to establish an educational workshop series focused on the elderly and persons with disabilities, to support home accessibility and universal design. The Pinole Accessible Living Program offered eight workshops that covered practical guidance, expert advice, and hands-on tips to support home upgrades that promote long-term independence. Recordings from the workshops are hosted on the City’s website and will be promoted on the City’s community television programming channel. The City is still seeking funding that would support a fee-waiver program for universal design.Beginning in FY 25/26, the City contracted with Contra Costa Health Services’ Health, Housing, and Homeless Services Division to provide Coordinated Outreach Referral and Engagement (CORE) services. CORE’s mission is to engage and stabilize individuals experiencing homelessness through consistent outreach, connecting them to health and basic needs services, and facilitating permanent housing solutions. Funding for this program will be supported by Housing Asset funds.

Housing for Extremely
Low, Very Low, Low, and Moderate Income Households and Special Needs Households, Including Persons with Disabilities (Program 9) Quantified Objective 3: Use of one or more incentives for lower income and/or households with persons with disability housing development in one project throughout the planning period. 12/31/2031 6th Cycle In Progress
Zoning code amendments for reduced parking standards, reduced senior parking requirements, and park fee waivers were adopted in March 2025. No new applications were received in 2025.

Senior Housing Incentives
(Program 10)
Quantified Objective 1: Use of one or more incentives for senior housing development in one project throughout the planning period. 12/31/2031 6th Cycle In Progress
No senior housing development applications were received in 2025. Incentives that have been developed and completed include reducing parking requirements through zoning code amendments were adopted in March 2025. Incentives in progress include permit fee waivers and enhanced rebates. The City used an AARP microgrant to launch the Pinole Accessible Living Program, offering eight workshops on home accessibility and universal design for seniors and persons with disabilities. While educational resources are available online and through community TV, the City is actively seeking funding to establish a no-permit fee program that incentivizes universal design upgrades.The City was awarded a California Energy Commission (CEC) Decarbonization Grant, and a portion of the funds is being used to continue the Pinole Energy Enhancement Program (PEER), which provides substantial local rebates for home energy efficiency and weatherization projects.

Home Sharing and Tenant Matching (Program 11)
Quantified Objective: 10 tenant matches completed throughout the planning period. 4/4/2026 6th Cycle In Progress The City entered into a five-year contract with Front Porch’s Home Match program, and will be kicking off the Pinole Match program in the spring of 2026.

Zoning Amendments (Program 12)
Quantified Objective: Not Applicable [Adopt Zoning Code Amendments] 4/4/2025 6th Cycle Completed Zoning code amendments for emergency shelters, low barrier navigation centers, manufactured homes, SB 9, group homes and residential care facilities, definitions, density bonus, and parking reduction were adopted in March 2025 SB 330 Objective Design Standards and SB 35 Streamlining Compliance (Program 13) Quantified Objective 1: Adopted zoning amendments. 4/4/2025 6th Cycle In Progress Objective design standards have been drafted, with expected adoption in 2026.

SB 330 Objective Design Standards and SB 35 Streamlining Compliance (Program 13) Quantified Objective 2: Faster permit turnaround time. 12/31/2031 6th Cycle In Progress No SB 35 applications were received in 2025. Information on SB 35 will be added on the City's website. If received, SB 35 applications will have streamlined processing and review consistent with State requirements.

Fee Evaluation and Publicization (Program 14)
Quantified Objective: Reviewed and amended fee schedule as appropriate. 4/4/2024 6th Cycle Completed Completed review of fees and updated the fee schedule.

Permit Streamlining (Program 15)
Quantified Objective: Amended zoning ordinance. 4/4/2025 6th Cycle Completed The online permitting system has been implemented. Zoning ordinance amendments to streamline review of density bonus and lot consolidation were adopted in March 2025. Priority processing procedures for projects providing affordable units beyond minimum requirements and density bonus projects has been prepared.

2023-2031 H.E.:

Rehabilitation Assistance (Program 16)
Quantified Objective 1: Provide information about County and other rehabilitation programs to 40 households, landlords, or developers annually. 12/31/2031 6th Cycle Continuous
City staff continues to assist homeowners and provide information at City Hall on rehabilitation assistance resources, including energy efficient rebate programs. Information on energy efficiency upgrade programs is published in The Pulse newsletters. Energy efficient program handouts and information on how to get building permits has been provided at outreach events and workshops. The City hosted workshops at the Senior Center providing information to seniors on topics such as accessibility upgrades to homes and selecting contractors.In 2025, the City assisted an income-restricted senior homeowner in Pinole whose home required significant repairs by connecting them with the County’s Neighborhood Preservation Program (NPP).The PEER program, a collaboration with the County, continued into its second year, with 48 applications received/ 39 permits issued since the start of the program. The City continues to explore funding availability through local, state, and federal programs. 2023-2031 H.E.: Rehabilitation Assistance (Program 16)
Quantified Objective 2: Rehabilitation of 20 units throughout the planning period, 5 extremely low, 5 very low, 5 low, and 5 moderate. 12/31/2031 6th Cycle Continuous
In 2025, the City issued 476 residential permits for residential rehabilitation and improvements, which include roofing projects, water heater replacements, heat pumps, HVAC, furnace replacements, plumbing, electrical work, solar projects, window/patio door replacement projects, decks/patio covers, foundation work, and home remodel/addition projects.The Pinole Energy Enhancement Rebate Program (PEER), a collaboration with the County, continued in 2025, with 39 permits issued. The City continues to explore funding availability through local, state, and federal programs. 2023-2031 H.E.: Acquisition/ Rehabilitation of Properties (Program 17) Quantified Objective 1: Provide information about County and other rehabilitation programs to 40 households annually. 12/31/2031 6th Cycle Continuous
The Housing Fellow secured a technical assistance grant from the Bay Area Housing Finance Authority (BAHFA) to hire bond counsel for developing the social impact bond ordinance and program. The team is currently engaging banks to participate in the project, while initial work to score homes for program prioritization is underway in partnership with the Richmond Community Foundation.The City, in partnership with the PBF Housing Fellow, is redesigning and relaunching the rental inspection program to provide comprehensive monitoring of rental properties, ensure compliance with health and safety standards, and create a transparent system for identifying at-risk units. Software has been procured, staffing to support the program has been identified, and appropriate fees to sustain the program are being developed. Program is expected to launch in spring 2026.

2023-2031 H.E.:

Acquisition/ Rehabilitation of Properties (Program 17)
Quantified Objective 2: Development of 50 units, including the 33-unit SAHA project, during the planning period. 12/31/2031 6th Cycle In Progress
The 33-unit SAHA development (Valor Village) was completed and occupied in 2025. The City continues to maintain partnership with nonprofit organizations to pursue rehabilitation. The City and PBF Housing Fellow are working on a municipal Social Impact Bond program to rehabilitate abandoned properties, create affordable housing, and foster economic equity by involving BIPOC contractors. Work also includes reinstating the City’s Rehabilitation Assistance Program to improve housing conditions. 2023-2031 H.E.: Housing Preservation/Below Market Rate Regulations and Conversions (Program 18) Quantified Objective 1: Contact of property owners and affordable housing developers/ providers at least twice throughout the planning period to pursue preservation or extension of at-risk units that are set to expire in the next 10 years. 12/31/2031 6th Cycle In Progress
The City is working with ECHO Housing on a contract to provide fair housing services to the community on an annual basis. After the housing fund policy guide is completed, in 2027 staff will contact property owners and affordable housing developers/providers to pursue preservation or extension of at-risk units that are set to expire in the next 10 years, utilizing Housing Successor funds. 2023-2031 H.E.: Housing Preservation/Below Market Rate Regulations and Conversions (Program 18) Quantified Objective 2: Ensure that 100% of housing for low- and moderate-income units assisted or constructed by the former Redevelopment Agency remains in compliance with rental and resale restrictions. 12/31/2031 6th Cycle Continuous Compliance monitoring is ongoing. 2023-2031 H.E.: Housing Preservation/Below Market Rate Regulations and Conversions (Program 18) Quantified Objective 3: Annual compliance monitoring of all affordable units (anticipated over 400). 12/31/2031 6th Cycle Continuous Compliance monitoring is ongoing. 2023-2031 H.E.: PlaceBased Improvements (Program 19)
Quantified Objective 1: Completed Capital Improvement Projects 12/31/2031 6th Cycle In Progress The City continues a partnership with BayREN on rebate programs for energy efficiency upgrades. Various capital improvement projects are overseen by the Public Works Department, in conjunction with other departments, and are under review/in progress. There has been substantial work or completion of projects regarding safety improvements at Appian Way and Marlesta Road, the Park Master Plan, improvements at Fernandez Park, and obtaining grant writing professional services. 2023-2031 H.E.: PlaceBased Improvements
(Program 19)
Quantified Objective 2: Adopted Environmental Justice Element 12/31/2023 6th Cycle Completed The environmental justice element was reviewed by Planning Commission in 2025 and adopted by City Council in 2026. 2023-2031 H.E.: Fair Housing Resources and Services (Program 20) Quantified Objective 1: Provide annual workshops or information fairs with the County fair housing provider or another qualified fair housing provider. Provide fair housing resources or referrals to 50 households annually. 12/31/2031 6th Cycle In Progress The City has been coordinating with fair housing providers on workshops. 2023-2031 H.E.: Fair Housing Resources and Services (Program 20) Quantified Objective 2: Provide fair housing resources or referrals to 50 households annually. 12/31/2031 6th Cycle Continuous
Resources/information are provided on an ongoing basis as questions are received. Resources are provided at City Hall, community events, outreach events, and workshops. An estimate of total households that obtained information online, posted information, or reading handouts could not be made; the number of households that took print outs of information at community events, workshops, and City Hall is estimated to be approximately 10. 2023-2031 H.E.: Displacement Prevention/Housing Mobility (Program 21) Quantified Objective 1: Conducted workshop within one year of adoption. 4/4/2024 6th Cycle In Progress The City has been coordinating with fair housing providers on workshops.

2023-2031 H.E.:

Displacement Prevention/Housing Mobility (Program 21)
Quantified Objective 2: Provide resources on source of income discrimination and housing choice vouchers to 35 households annually. 12/31/2031 6th Cycle In Progress
The City connected with ECHO Housing to make information on fair housing resources and workshops available. Additional resources are being developed to provide information more focused on income discrimination and housing choice vouchers. Additionally, a fee waiver/reduction is offered to owners that designate ADUs in the ADU Amnesty Program to be affordable to low or moderate income households. 2023-2031 H.E.: Housing Resources Education (Program 22) Quantified Objective: Provision of housing information to approximately 75 residents annually. 12/31/2031 6th Cycle Continuous
The City continues to provide housing information resources through a variety of mediums. In 2025, the City hosted a series of workshops at the senior center to support home accessibility and universal design, conducted a variety of ADU outreach work aimed at providing information to owners/renters, participated in events such as national night outreach, and distributed information through social media and newsletters. A variety of handouts are made available at City Hall. Housing resources are also posted online. 2023-2031 H.E.: ADU, JADU, and SB 9 Education and Promotion (Program 23) Quantified Objective: Increased development of ADUs from 3 to 5 annually. Development of 1 JADU annually. 12/31/2031 6th Cycle Continuous
An ADU webpage was prepared in 2025, which consolidated ADU/JADU standards, permit requirements, and ADU program information in one place. An ADU outreach effort was coordinated by the Housing Policy Intern to share ADU resources and information at the farmer's markets, workshops, community events, newsletters, and webinars. The City reached out to ADU designers to make them aware of the pre-approved ADU plans program. 8 permits for ADUs and 2 permits for JADUs were issued in 2025.

78 9
Quantified Outcomes:

Category
Quantified Outcomes:

Count Supporting Documents
Units 500 Housing Element: https://www.pinole.gov/general-plan/ Other 1 Site inventory: https://www.pinole.gov/services/housingelement-sites-inventory-2/ Other NoneOther 1 NoneOther NoneOther None
opment of housing as identified in the housing element.

Units 10
ADU webpage: https://www.pinole.gov/accessory-dwellingunits-adus/ Other 6
Zoning Code Chapter 17.71: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/pinole/latest/pinole_ca/0-0-0-31948 Other 1
Zoning Code Chapter 17.32: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/pinole/latest/pinole_ca/0-0-0-9716 Other NoneOther NoneOther 1
Zoning Code Chapter 17.32: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/pinole/latest/pinole_ca/0-0-0-9716 Other 1
Zoning Code Chapter 17.32: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/pinole/latest/pinole_ca/0-0-0-9716 Other None

Other None
Households NoneHouseholds None

Other None
Households NoneOther 1 NoneOther NoneOther NoneOther 1 NoneOther 1 Ordinance No. 2025-01Zoning Code Chapter 17.38: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/pinole/latest/pinole_ca/0-0-0-9874

Households 40 None
Units 39 NoneHouseholds 40 None

Units 33 None
Other NoneOther NoneUnits 300 NoneOther NoneOther 1 NoneOther NoneHouseholds 10 NoneOther None

Households None
Households 75
Affordable Housing and Housing Resources: https://www.pinole.gov/departments/affordable-housing/ Units 10 None

Jurisdiction Pinole ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT
Reporting
Period 2025
(Jan. 1 - Dec.
31) Housing Element Implementation
Planning 6th Cycle 01/31/2023 - 01/31/2031
Description of
Commercial
Development Bonus
Commercial Development Bonus
Date Approved
34 APN Street Address Project Name+
Local
Jurisdiction
Tracking ID+
Very Low
Income
Low
Income
Moderate
Income
Above Moderate
Income
Description of
Commercial
Development Bonus
Commercial Development Bonus
Date Approved
Summary Row: Start Data Entry Below
Units Constructed as Part of Agreement
Commercial Development Bonus Approved pursuant to GC Section 65915.7 Table E
Note: "+" indicates an optional field
Project Identifier
1 2
Cells in grey contain auto-calculation formulas
(CCR Title 25 §6202)
Annual Progress Report January 2020
E

Jurisdiction Pinole ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT Note: "+" indicates an optional field Reporting Period 2025
(Jan. 1 - Dec.
31) Housing Element Implementation Cells in grey contain auto-calculation formulas Planning Period 6th Cycle 01/31/2023 - 01/31/2031
The description should adequately document how each unit complies with subsection (c) of Government Code Section 65583.1+.

For detailed reporting requirements, see the chcklist here:

Extremely LowIncome+ Very Low- Income+ Low-Income+ TOTAL UNITS+ Extremely Low- Income+ Very Low- Income+ Low-Income+ TOTAL UNITS+ https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community- development/docs/adequate-sites-checklist.pdf Rehabilitation ActivityPreservation of Units At-RiskAcquisition of UnitsMobilehome Park PreservationTotal Units by Income Table F
Please note this table is optional: The jurisdiction can use this table to report units that have been substantially rehabilitated, converted from non-affordable to affordable by acquisition, and preserved, including mobilehome park preservation, consistent with the standards set forth in Government Code section 65583.1, subdivision (c). Please note, motel, hotel, hostel rooms or other structures that are converted from non-residential to residential units pursuant to Government Code section 65583.1(c)(1)(D) are considered net-new housing units and must be reported in Table A2 and not reported in Table F.

Activity Type
Units that Do Not Count Towards RHNA+
Listed for Informational Purposes Only
Units that Count Towards RHNA +
Note - Because the statutory requirements severely limit what can be counted, please contact HCD at [email protected] and we will unlock the form which enable you to populate these fields.

Units Rehabilitated, Preserved and Acquired for Alternative Adequate Sites pursuant to Government Code section 65583.1(c) Annual Progress Report January 2020
F

Jurisdiction Pinole ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT
Note: "+" indicates an optional field
Reporting Period 2025 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31) Housing Element Implementation Cells in grey contain auto-calculation formulasPlanning Period 6th Cycle 01/31/2023 - 01/31/2031 Notes
23 6
Prior APN+ Current APN Street Address Project Name+
Local
Jurisdiction
Tracking ID
Unit
Category
(2 to 4,5+)
Tenure
R=Renter
Very LowIncome Deed
Restricted
Very LowIncome
Non Deed
Restricted
Low- Income Deed
Restricted
Low- Income
Non Deed
Restricted
ModerateIncome Deed
Restricted
ModerateIncome Non
Deed
Restricted
Above
ModerateIncome
Total Moderate Income
Units Converted from
Above Moderate
Date
Converted Notes
Summary Row: Start Data Entry Below 00 0 0 0 0 0 0
Table F2
Above Moderate Income Units Converted to Moderate Income Pursuant to Government Code section 65400.2 For up to 25 percent of a jurisdiction’s moderate-income regional housing need allocation, the planning agency may include the number of units in an existing multifamily building that were converted to deed-restricted rental housing for moderate-income households by the imposition of affordability covenants and restrictions for the unit. Before adding information to this table, please ensure housing developments meet the requirements described in Government Code 65400.2(b). 5 Project Identifier Unit Types
1 4
Affordability by Household Incomes After Conversion Units credited toward Moderate Income RHNA F2

Jurisdiction Pinole
Reporting Period 2025
(Jan. 1 - Dec.
31)
Period 6th Cycle 01/31/2023 - 01/31/2031 ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT Housing Element Implementation
23 4
APN Street Address Project Name+
Local
Jurisdiction
Tracking ID+
Realistic
Capacity
Identified in
the Housing
Element
Entity to whom the site
transferred Intended Use for Site
1 Summary Row: Start Data Entry Below
Note: "+" indicates an optional fieldCells in grey contain auto-calculation formulas Table G
Locally Owned Lands Included in the Housing Element Sites Inventory that have been sold, leased, or otherwise disposed of Project Identifier
NOTE: This table must only be filled out if the housing element sites inventory contains a site which is or was owned by the reporting jurisdiction, and has been sold, leased, or otherwise disposed of during the reporting G

Jurisdiction Pinole Note: "+" indicates an optional field Reporting Period 2025
(Jan. 1 - Dec.
31)
Cells in grey contain auto-calculation formulas
Designation Size Notes
1 23 4 5 6 7
APN Street Address/Intersection Existing Use Number of Units Surplus Designation Parcel Size (in acres) Notes 401-162-001-2 2301 San Pablo Ave Vacant Surplus Land 0.18 Community Corner 401-120-035-1 2100 San Pablo Ave Other Surplus Land 2.31 Faria House NOTE: This table must contain an inventory of ALL surplus/excess lands the reporting jurisdiction owns Summary Row: Start Data Entry Below
Parcel Identifier

ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT
Housing Element Implementation
Table H
Locally Owned Surplus Sites
H

Jurisdiction Pinole ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT
Reporting Period 2025
(Jan. 1 - Dec.
31) Housing Element Implementation
Planning Period 6th Cycle 01/31/2023 - 01/31/2031
Project Type Date
Units
(Beds/Student
Capacity) Granted
Notes
23 5 6
APN Street Address Project Name+
Local
Jurisdiction
Tracking ID+
Unit Category
(SH - Student Housing) Date
Very LowIncome Deed
Restricted
Very LowIncome Non
Deed
Restricted
Low- Income
Deed
Restricted
Low- Income
Non Deed
Restricted
ModerateIncome Deed
Restricted
ModerateIncome Non
Deed
Restricted
Above
ModerateIncome
Total Additional
Beds Created Due
to Density Bonus
Notes
Summary Row: Start Data Entry Below
Note: "+" indicates an optional field
Cells in grey contain auto-calculation formulas
Table J
Student housing development for lower income students for which was granted a density bonus pursuant to subparagraph (F) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 65915 Project Identifier Units (Beds/Student Capacity) Approved 1 4
NOTE: STUDENT HOUSING WITH DENSITY BONUS
ONLY. This table only needs to be completed if there
were student housing projects WITH a density bonus
approved pursuant to Government Code65915(b)(1)(F)
Annual Progress Report January 2020
J

Jurisdiction Pinole ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT
Reporting Period 2025 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31)Planning Period 6th Cycle 01/31/2023 - 01/31/2031 No Does the Jurisdiction have a local tenant preference policy? If the jurisdiction has a local tenant preference policy, provide a link to the jurisdiction's webpage containing authorizing local ordinance and supporting materials.

Notes
Table K
Tenant Preference Policy
Local governments are required to inform HCD about any local tenant preference ordinance the local government maintains when the jurisdiction submits their annual progress report on housing approvals and production, per Government Code 7061 (SB 649, 2022, Cortese). Effective January 1, 2023, local governments adopting a tenant preference are required to create a webpage on their internet website containing authorizing local ordinance and supporting materials, no more than 90 days after the ordinance becomes operational.

K

Jurisdiction Pinole Note: "+" indicates an optional field Reporting Period 2025
(Jan. 1 - Dec.
31)
Cells in grey contain auto-calculation formulas
Size Notes
34 APN Street Address/Intersection Date of Designation Designation Level Historic Site Period Areas of Significance Parcel Size (in acres) Notes Summary Row:

Historical Resources
Parcel Identifier
1 Designation
2 NOTE: This table needs to be completed with any sites within your jurisdiction that were newly added to a National, State, or Local register of historic places within the reporting year. If none, leave blank.

ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT
Housing Element Implementation
Table L
L

Jurisdiction Pinole
Reporting Year 2025 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31)
Total Award Amount Total award amount is auto-populated based on amounts entered in rows 15-26.

Task $ Amount Awarded $ Cumulative Reimbursement Requested Other Funding Notes Summary of entitlements, building permits, and certificates of occupancy (auto-populated from Table A2) Current Year
Deed Restricted 0Non-Deed Restricted 0Deed Restricted 0Non-Deed Restricted 0Deed Restricted 0Non-Deed Restricted 3Deed Restricted 0Non-Deed Restricted 3Deed Restricted 0Non-Deed Restricted 3 2 11
Current Year
Deed Restricted 0Non-Deed Restricted 0Deed Restricted 0Non-Deed Restricted 0Deed Restricted 0Non-Deed Restricted 3Deed Restricted 2Non-Deed Restricted 3Deed Restricted 4Non-Deed Restricted 3 2742
Current Year
Deed Restricted 0Non-Deed Restricted 0Deed Restricted 0Non-Deed Restricted 0Deed Restricted 33Non-Deed Restricted 0Deed Restricted 142Non-Deed Restricted 1Deed Restricted 37Non-Deed Restricted 0 1 214
Moderate
Above Moderate
Total Units
Completed Entitlement Issued by Affordability Summary
Income Level
Very Low
Low
Moderate
Above Moderate
Total Units
Building Permits Issued by Affordability Summary
Income Level
Very Low
Low
Acutely Low
Extremely Low
Total Units
Certificate of Occupancy Issued by Affordability Summary Income Level
Very Low
Low
Moderate
Above Moderate
Acutely Low
Extremely Low
Acutely Low
Extremely Low

ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT
Local Early Action Planning (LEAP) Reporting
(CCR Title 25 §6202)
Please update the status of the proposed uses listed in the entity’s application for funding and the corresponding impact on housing within the region or jurisdiction, as applicable, categorized based on the eligible uses specified in Section 50515.02 or 50515.03, applicable.
$ -
Task Status

CITY COUNCIL
REPORT 9.D.

DATE: MARCH 3, 2026
TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: Lilly Whalen, Community Development Director, 510-724-9832, [email protected]
SUBJECT: RECEIVE AND FILE HOUSING SUCCESSOR ANNUAL REPORT FOR FY24/25

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council receive and file the Housing Successor Agency Annual Report for Fiscal Year (“FY”) 2024-25 (covering July 1, 2024-June 30, 2025) to submit to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”).

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

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

The report is due to HCD by April 1st each year and must be posted on the City’s website1.

The report for FY 2024-25 is presented to the City Council to receive and file with HCD. 1 https://www.pinole.gov/former-redevelopment-agency/

REVIEW AND ANALYSIS
The City is meeting all requirements imposed by Health and Safety Code Section 34176.1.

The City’s progress on major requirements is summarized below.

Housing Asset Fund Activity and Balance
As of June 30, 2025, the Housing Asset Fund had a balance of approximately $8.3 million, of which $3.5 million is cash and the remainder is non-cash assets. Annual revenues totaled

$180,489 from investment income and loan repayments2
.

There were $197,188 in Housing Asset Fund expenditures in FY 2024-25. All expenses were administrative items such as professional services, building maintenance and utilities, housing compliance monitoring, and staff costs for time related to Housing Successor administration.

Real Property Assets and Loans Receivables
As of June 30, 2025, the City owns two remaining Housing Successor properties with a value of $355,062: Grove Vacant Land and Faria House Vacant Land. Grove Vacant Land is restricted as open space and cannot be developed. The Faria House was listed for sale in FY 2024-25.

Two properties previously owned by the Housing Successor, 811 San Pablo Ave and 612 Tennent Ave, were sold in FY 2022-23 to be developed with affordable and market rate housing. 811 San Pablo Avenue (Valor Village) opened in May of 2025 with 33 very-low and low-income rental units, and 612 Tennent Avenue was redeveloped into a four-unit apartment building, with one of the units reserved for low-income households.

The Housing Asset Fund has approximately $4.4 million in notes and loans receivable with various developers who developed and operate affordable housing in Pinole.

Additionally, the City has $259,552 in outstanding First-Time Homebuyer Loans and Housing Rehabilitation Loans. The First-Time Homebuyer and Housing Rehabilitation Loans have different maturity dates through 2099.

Expenditure Proportionality Requirements
Expenditures from the Housing Asset Fund must meet specific proportionality requirements by income level and age:
• Administrative and monitoring expenses have an annual maximum limit. Pinole spent $197,188 on administration and monitoring in FY 2024-25, which is well below the $270,7003 annual limit.
• Up to $500,000 may be spent annually on homeless prevention and rapid rehousing solutions for homelessness. To date, no Housing Asset Funds have been spent on this category, as the City prioritized funding for affordable housing development. Pinole had an unhoused population of 12 based on the 2025 Contra Costa County Annual Point-inTime Count Report. Beginning in FY 25/26, the City contacted Contra Costa Health Services’ Health, Housing, and Homeless Services Division to provide Coordinated Outreach Referral and Engagement (CORE) services. CORE’s mission is to engage and stabilize individuals experiencing homelessness through consistent outreach, connecting them to health and basic needs services, and facilitating permanent housing solutions. Funding for this program will be supported by Housing Asset funds. • If Housing Asset Funds are spent on housing development projects or programs, specific income levels must be assisted within a five-year compliance period (see Appendix 1 of Attachment A for more details). FY 2024-25 marks the first year of the third five-year compliance period, beginning July 1, 2024, and ending June 30, 2029.

The Housing Successor has not assisted affordable housing development thus far in the current compliance period. Staff will ensure income targets are met with any future expenditures in the five-year compliance period.
• Housing Asset Funds may not be used to assist senior rental housing units if more than 50% of deed-restricted rental housing units assisted by the Housing Successor, City, or the former Agency in the prior 10 years were restricted to seniors. In the prior ten years, the Housing Successor, City, and former Agency assisted two affordable rental housing developments with 37 units, none of which are restricted to seniors. Therefore, the Housing Successor may assist up to 37 senior rental units at this time.

The City is meeting all Housing Asset Fund requirements and will continue to ensure compliance with future expenditures.

Excess Surplus
Housing Successors may not accumulate a high balance known as “excess surplus”. Excess surplus is a cash balance that is higher than the greater of $1 million or the sum of all cash deposits to the Housing Asset Fund in the prior four years. Housing successors must spend or encumber any excess surplus within three fiscal years or transfer its excess surplus to HCD to spend on statewide housing programs. The intent of the law is to encourage housing successors to spend available affordable housing funds on a timely basis.

The Housing Successor did not have any excess surplus in FY 2024-25. 2 The $650,000 Pro-Housing award was received by the City during FY25/26 and therefore will be reported in the FY25/26 annual report.
3 HCD has annually published an adjusted limit amount for administrative costs, reflecting the change in the Consumer Price Index from the prior year. Although HCD has not yet published the update for FY 2024-25, applying the same methodology and index HCD has previously used would yield a limit adjusted for inflation for FY 2024-25 of $270,700.

FISCAL IMPACT
There are no implications of receiving and filing this annual report on the City’s activities as the Housing Successor.

ATTACHMENTS
A. Pinole 2024-25 HSA Annual Report
B. Health and Safety Code Section 34176.1.

HOUSING SUCCESSOR ANNUAL REPORT
City of Pinole
Fiscal Year 2024-25

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

Pinole Housing Successor Annual Report 2024-25 1

INTRODUCTION
This Housing Successor Agency Annual Report (“Annual Report”) presents information on Fiscal Year (“FY”) 2024-25 expenditures and activities as required by Health and Safety Code (“HSC”) Section 34176.1(f), including but not limited to a housing successor’s compliance with certain expenditure requirements over the year as well as a five-year planning period. This Annual Report is required of any housing successor to a former redevelopment agency.

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

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

The Housing Successor’s FY 2024-25 audited financial statements will be posted on the City website and are incorporated herein by reference.

SCOPE OF THIS HOUSING SUCCESSOR ANNUAL REPORT
This Annual Report is limited to the City’s activities as it relates to its role as a housing successor. This may include, but is not limited to, financial activities, property disposition, loan administration, monitoring of covenants, and affordable housing development. This Annual Report describes compliance with various annual, five-year, and ten-year housing expenditure and production requirements. FY 2024-25 marks the first year of the third five-year compliance period, beginning July 1, 2024, and ending June 30, 2029.

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