Pinole City Council
April 7, 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
April 7, 2026
5:30 PM
Attend in Person: PINOLE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS - 2131 PEAR STREET OR
140 E. SHAW AVENUE, FRESNO, CA 93710 (Teleconference- Mayor Pro Tem Devin T. Murphy) OR
Attend VIA ZOOM TELECONFERENCE – Details provided below How to Submit Public Comments:

In Person:

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

Via Zoom:

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

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

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

Written Comments:

All comments received before 3:00 pm the day of the meeting will be posted on the City’s website on the agenda page (Agenda Page Link) and provided to the City Council prior to the meeting. Written comments will not be read aloud during the meeting. Email comments to [email protected] Please indicate which item on the agenda you are commenting on in the subject line of your email.

City Council
Agenda - April 7, 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) 724-8928. Notification at least 48 hours prior to the meeting or time when services are needed will assist the City staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility to the meeting or service.

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

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

City Council
Agenda - April 7, 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 LABOR NEGOTIATORS
Gov. Code § 54957.6
Agency designated representatives: Interim City Manager, Garrett Evans, City Attorney, Eric Casher, and Human Resources Director, Stacy Shell, Gregory Ramirez, IEDA Employee organizations: AFSCME Local 1
B. 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

City Council
Agenda - April 7, 2026

E. City Manager Report / Department Staff
F. City Attorney Report

8. RECOGNITIONS / PRESENTATIONS / COMMUNITY EVENTS
A. Proclamations

1. Parkinson's Awareness Month

2. Autism Acceptance Month

3. Arab American Heritage Month

4. National Pet Day
B. Presentations

1. Clean California Community Designation Sign Unveiling and Installation Suggestions

2. Coordinated Outreach Referral and Engagement (CORE): Fiscal Year 2025- 2026 Update

3. Update of the 2008 Neighborhood Traffic Calming Policy

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

A. Approve the Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting on March 17, 2026 and the Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting on March 24, 2026.

B. Receive the March 14, 2026 – April 3, 2026 – List of Warrants in the Amount of $1,142,270.19 and the March 27, 2026 Payroll in the Amount of $557,954.25.

C. Adopt a resolution authorizing acceptance of $299,495 from the Caltrans Clean California Local Grant Program and designating the City Manager as the City's authorized signatory for grant agreement execution Action: Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Lilly Whalen, Kapil Amin)
D. Adopt a Resolution Approving Side Letter Agreement to the Memorandum of Understanding Between the City of Pinole and Pinole Police Employee Association to Establish a Filling of Vacant Shifts Program Action: Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Stacy Shell) E. Adopt a Resolution Approving a Side Letter Agreement to the Memorandum of Understanding Between the City of Pinole and Pinole Police Employee Association to Amend Health Plan Premium Contributions Action: Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Stacy Shell)
F. Stormwater Utility Area Assessment For Fiscal Year 2026-2027 Action: Adopt Resolution

City Council
Agenda - April 7, 2026

per Staff Recommendation (Heba El-Guindy)
G. Adopt a Resolution Approving Contra Costa County Regional Alternative Compliance (RAC) Joint Powers Authority Participation; Approval of Joint Powers Agreement; Authorizing the Joint Powers Authority (JPA) to Establish One or More Community Facilities Districts; and Approving a Joint Community Facilities Agreement Action: Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Heba El-Guindy)

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. None

11. OLD BUSINESS
A. None

12. NEW BUSINESS
A. Receive Update On Capital Projects, Inspection And Permitting, And Maintenance Operations Action: Receive Report (Heba El-Guindy)

13. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD (Continued from Item 6) (Public Comments) Open only to members of the public who did not speak under the first Citizens to Be Heard, Agenda Item 6 Citizens may speak under any item not listed on the Agenda. The time limit is 3 minutes for City Council items and is subject to modification by the Mayor. Individuals may not share or offer time to another speaker.

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

14. ADJOURNMENT to the Regular City Council Meeting of April 21, 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, April 2, 2026, at 3:00 PM

cchealth.org
Coordinated
Outreach Referral
and Engagement
(CORE):

Fiscal Year 2025-
2026 Update
Pinole City Council
Jenny Robbins, LCSW
Community Response Director
Shelby Ferguson, MSW
CORE Program Director
April 7, 2026

cchealth.org
CORE: What We Do
Housing
Focused
Street
Outreach
Linkages to health and behavioral health
Direct placement into shelter & warming center
Encampment abatement support
Transportation to appointments
Connection to Community Resources
Housing placement

cchealth.org
Pinole Partnership: Background
Pilot Year 1:

July 1, 2024 –
June 30, 2025
Tri-City CORE
Team
El Cerrito, San
Pablo & H3
Pilot Year 2:

July 1, 2025 –
June 30, 2026
Quad City
CORE Team
El Cerrito, San
Pablo, Hercules
and Pinole

cchealth.org
Housing Needs in Pinole
7 30
55 12
40 81
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
Point In Time Count Lost Housing In Pinole Served By CORE In Pinole 2024 2025

cchealth.org
Community Partnership and Impact

cchealth.org
Dollar Tree Grocery Outlet O’Reilly Auto Parts Pet Food Express Lucky’s Michael’s Big 5 Target 7/11 ACE Hardware Shell America’s Best
Eyeglasses
Safeway Home Depot CORE Pinole PD
Business Outreach

cchealth.org
Pinole Community Activities
West Contra
Costa Unified
School District
YMCA
Senior Center Pinole Library

cchealth.org
Pinole Outcomes & Impacts
7/01/25 – 12/31/25

cchealth.org
CORE in Pinole
7/01/25 – 12/31/25
44 unduplicated participants served in Pinole
37 individuals (84%)
have roots in Pinole
33 individuals (75%)
reported a disabling
condition
Low Income & Loss of Job were the
leading causes of homelessness
12 individuals (35%)
exited to stable housing
28 individuals (68%)
reported being first
time homeless
Of all contacts
made, 49%
were made by
the Pinole CORE
Team

cchealth.org
Fiscal Year 2025-2026
7/01/25 – 12/31/25
Pinole
CORE Team
26 participants served through 46 contacts
85 emergency supplies; 100 housing coordination
services; 15 animal services
77% lost housing in West County
42% women served are Domestic Violence Survivors
15 warming center placements

cchealth.org
Pinole Success Story
Since 2017, CORE has periodically
engaged a chronically unhoused
individual in Pinole. Although the
individual briefly entered housing,
they were unable to maintain it
and returned to homelessness.

When CORE reconnected with
them in July 2025, the focus shifted
to securing stable housing. Their
consistent engagement helped the
individual earn a permanent
supportive housing opportunity,
which they accepted in Dec 2025.

Upon entering housing, the
individual expressed joy, relief, and
renewed hope for their future.

Their success demonstrates how
determination, stable housing, and
supportive services can transform a
life.

A Pathway from Homelessness to Hope

cchealth.org
Thank you!

CITY COUNCIL MEETING

MEETING ON
04-07-2026
UPDATE OF THE 2008

NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC

CALMING POLICY

Project Origin : Priority Score :

Budget
X New Expansion
Replacement Renovation
Land/Row Acq. Required
Rehabilitation
$ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 850,000 6/30/2030
Budget Project Estimate
FY 2025-26 FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 FY 2028-29 FY 2029-30 FY 2025 - 2030 $ 30,000 $ 30,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 120,000
$ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 120,000 $ 120,000 $ 120,000 $ 660,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 70,000
$ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 850,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 850,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 850,000 RO2506 - TRAFFIC CALMING PROGRAM
Functional Area :

Type of CIP Unappropriated Subsequent Years
Description
Year 1
FY 2025-26
Year 2
FY 2026-27
Year 3
FY 2027-28
Year 4
FY 2028-29
Year 5
FY 2029-30
Project Estimate
FY 2025 - 2030
Estimated
Expenditures
To-Date
$ -
Project Start 7/1/2025 Estimated Completion
Design
Following to the City’s Traffic Calming Policy and its future update, this project will fund the installation of physical traffic calming devices to reduce or eliminate the negative effects of auto traffic on residential streets. This can be achieved by causing drivers to reduce their driving speeds or to use alternative major corridors through the use of engineering solutions and the installation of physical devices. These devices could include driver feedback signs, curb extensions, speed cushions, and roundabouts. Traffic calming plans are developed based on data collection and analysis, as well as community outreach and consultation to alleviate neighborhood traffic concerns and community safety issues.

History, Status, or Impact if Delayed
Reflect communities needs in street design and enhance safety conditions, which in turn reduce the need for traffic enforcement, General Plan Goals/Policies
Policy GM.3.3, Goal CE.3, Goal CS.10, Policy CS 10.2
Summary of Capital Cost
Projected Budget
USE(S)
Planning

TOTAL FUNDS
Construction
Contingency

TOTAL USES

SOURCE(S)
325 - City Street Improvements

REVIEW ELEMENTS - CONSULTATION
 Petition Process
 Consideration and input by the
affected community
 Review by TAPS
 Consideration by the City Council

REVIEW ELEMENTS - ANALYSIS
 Local and Minor/Residential Collector per the HCM
(Existing policy: more than 1,500 veh/day and 150 veh/hr)  85% percentile speed is higher than the speed limit
(Existing policy: 67% of motorists exceed the 25 m/h speed limit)  One lane/direction for a two-way street and one travel lane for a one-way street (Per existing policy)
 Abutting land uses (ex. schools, senior housing)
 Visibility and safety conditions

REVIEW ELEMENTS - MEASURES
 Safety education and enforcement
 Signage and pavement markings
 Multi-modal facilities design
 On-street parking design
 Landscaping and street furniture

REVIEW ELEMENTS - MEASURES
 Devices:
 Traffic circle & roundabout
 Center median/gateway effect
 Parabolic & flat-topped speed humps
 Bulbout/choker
 Chicane
 One-way street
 Half & full-road closure
 Diagonal diverter
 Lighting effect
 Utilities effect

Q & A

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – March 17, 2026

CITY COUNCIL MEETING

MINUTES
March 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
Norma Martinez-Rubin, Council Member
Maureen Toms, Council Member
Cameron Sasai, Council Member*
*Remote Attendance

COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT
Devin Murphy, Mayor Pro Tem
B. STAFF PRESENT
Garrett Evans, Interim City Manager
Heather Bell-Spears, City Clerk
Melissa Klawuhn, Police Chief
Eric Casher, City Attorney
Markisha Guillory, Finance Director
Heba El-Guindy, Public Works Director
Justin Rogers, Pinole Police Commander
Franco Dalao, Pinole Police Officer

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – March 17, 2026

Roxane Stone, Deputy City Clerk
City Clerk Heather Bell-Stone announced the agenda had been posted on March 12, 2026 at 3:30 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. She added that Council member Sasai was joining the meeting remotely per the provisions of Assembly Bill (AB) 2449.

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: 2100 San Pablo Avenue
Agency Negotiators: Interim City Manager Garrett Evans and City Attorney Eric Casher
Negotiating party: Art Pakpour
Under negotiation: Price and Terms
B. 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 organizations: The Pinole Police Employees Association (PPEA)

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Cathy McFarland, suggested the City needed to have transparency moving forward on any and all matters which affected the City and suggested residents had the right to know who was or was not supporting the City during Closed Sessions. The City of Pinole had approximately 20,000 residents, four Council members and a Mayor, three of whom had questionable judgment and alternative agendas. Providing that transparency allowed the public to make informed decisions on who to support during the November election. She welcomed the Interim City Manager and hoped he was strong-willed and would do his best to protect Pinole residents. She stated that questions from the public related to the prior two City Managers, who had left the City and their associated compensations when they departed, had not been answered. Residents should not have to pay for anyone leaving a position or pay for anyone who had not performed the job they were hired to do. Moving forward, the City should identify any and all contract terms for this type of work.

Ms. McFarland added the City needed the long overdue contract approved for the Pinole Police Department (PPD), to support hard-working police officers and emergency response teams. The City Council had postponed and ignored the PPD long enough. She suggested if Council member Sasai was the lone person opposed to the PPD contract, he needed to remove himself due to his past ideology of defunding the police since residents needed to remain safe and protected.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – March 17, 2026

Rafael Menis, referenced Item 4B and reported he recently received a survey, which he was unsure was from the City, which highlighted several potential tax measures, including a potential special sales tax increase dedicated to public safety. He asked whether the City or the Pinole Police Employees Association (PPEA) had the results of the survey at this time.

City Attorney Eric Casher advised the question could be taken under submission.

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED

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

At 6:41 p.m., Mayor Tave reconvened the meeting into open session. There was no report from the Closed Session.

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

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

Willian Horton expressed his opposition to Measure D, which would be on the June 2, 2026 ballot for a directly Elected Mayor, which he found to be a waste of $55,000. He would vote no on Measure D since it did not guarantee any new funds or new ideas but it would still result in five people voting for the budget as they did now. It would not increase the Pinole quality of life, or improve police, fire, parks and streets. It would solve a problem that did not exist, and he had only heard about the issue from the Council majority who put the issue on the ballot.

Debbie Long asked where the two Council members attending remotely were located.

City Clerk Bell-Spears reported Council member Sasai was attending remotely and was at a work conference out of state and Mayor Pro Tem Murphy was absent.

Ms. Long read into the record excerpts from comments made by community members who had posted on NextDoor, and which had been written shortly after the City Council’s decision to put an Elected Mayor on the ballot, as follows:

Last night was very hard and sad to see. This was preplanned and how they were going to vote.

I appreciate Norma Rubin-Martinez and Maureen Toms for their questions and their vocal noes to this proposed expense. The speakers all asked to not accept the expense and stop what has worked for a hundred years. Everything how it was going was already in place. The Pinole citizens weren’t heard but were actually unheard. They have already determined that they want to end a rotating Mayor and pay to have an election of close to $60,000 of taxpayer money. They determined that the Mayor can be two-or-four year terms. The City Attorney presented us with city comparisons, several cities like Union City, Newark comparing city size. We are small 20,000 people compared to Newark’s whose population is approximately 46,000. They way they came up with comparisons is not correct.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – March 17, 2026

The City Attorney’s didn’t have a lot of answers to our questions. Three of the Council members who pushed for this Special Election were Devin Murphy, Cameron Sasai and Anthony Tave. I worked on the campaign for Cameron and Devin, but have been out of the loop for 18 months. I see what I’ve missed, as citizens of Pinole, I or we, lay complacent this is what happens behind the closed doors. Do we want this for our City? Pinole residents you need to call, email, visit City Hall, whatever it takes to get your message out there. If we all just lay down just like last night, they Devin, Anthony and Cameron walked all over the citizens of Pinole. We need our roads fixed, we need our City to be ADA compliant.

So far I have not read one good reason to change the system to an Elected Mayor. I like the current arrangement. Council members meet as equals and must work with cooperation and compromise in the best interests of the community. Each Council member serves a term as Mayor knowing any pet agenda will not gain much traction.

Jennifer Horn read into the record written comments/emails that had been received two weeks ago related to the topic of an Elected Mayor, as follows:

Jacqulin Nostaja, Dear City Council Members, Please VOTE NO on this item number, 10.A currently listed on the City Council Agenda scheduled for February 3, 2026. The City of Pinole does not need a full time and fully paid mayor to manage our City. I don’t see how a dedicated mayor will improve the safety and lives of Pinole’s citizens. In fact, it could hurt more people, depending on the authoritarian nature of this individual, the increased budget and more staff hours required to establish a mayor. There will be less funding to take care of infrastructure needs. I don’t appreciate that the City wants to spend money to fund a ballot measure before all of the details are known (mostly budget and level of control and power) and what the impact there will be on City and its citizens. It is frivolous to spend tens of thousands of dollars to “see” if the citizens want a dedicated mayor. There are a number of less expensive ways to ask residents about their opinion on this topic. If a majority of people like the idea, then reconsider including it on the November 2026 ballot, since some of you may be running for re-lection. In the future, I will vote no to re-elect any Council member who votes yes to establish a special election for the June 2026 ballot. Thank you for your consideration. Jacqulin Nostaja Jonathan B. Jarvis, I am writing in opposition to the proposed ballot measure to change the Pinole mayor position to elected vs a rotation of elected city council members. Having worked in government for more than 40 years, I can offer a few insights on soft power vs hard power. An old adage of the government is “if it’s not broken, don’t try to fix it”. I have seen nothing “broken” about the current system. The city functions efficiently through elected city council, the professional staff, guided by the input of citizens. A rotating mayor is the height of democracy, as power is shared among the city council and no one council member can rule over the others.

Pinole is a small city in the much larger Bay area, and I for one, appreciate the access to the city council and the city staff to propose and discuss issues. I have witnessed strong “authoritarian” style governance and it rarely serves the public well. The public are left with the only recourse to just wait till the next election or seek an expensive and ugly recall. The question really is about soft power vs hard power. As we are witnessing in the federal government, hard power, unchecked, can have serious consequences to the public. Hard power generally serves only the individual and a selected few. Successful soft power leaders work to build their skills of collaboration, communication, team work, active listening, and consensus building.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – March 17, 2026

The question is really “what will serve the people of Pinole the best?”: In my opinion that is a consensus-based city council with a rotating mayor, the system we currently have. Jonathan B.

Jarvis.

Kent Moritarty, continued reading into the record written comments/emails as follows:

Jodie Ingalls, Council, I voice my opposition to Agenda Item 10A Resolution Calling For Special Election And Submitting Questions Regarding Office Of Elected Mayor To Voters.* It is not a question of whether or not the citizens of Pinole want an elected Mayor; the question first is whether or not they want to spend $37k-$55k estimated to find out if they want an elected Mayor, especially when this question could be included in the already scheduled poll and not cost them anything.* It is financially irresponsible to spend taxpayers money in this manner. You are not actually listening to the residents of Pinole if you think they want to spend their money on this.* I worry about how this will shape the future of Pinole government into the future; will the Mayor position attract up and coming politicians to serve one or two terms on their way to higher positions. Individuals who have no real ties to the city and do not plan to make Pinole their permanent home.* I could go on but I know I will only echo what others have said or will say on this matter. I have not encountered one person who is in favor of this. As an example there are 15 houses on my small street, each with two potential voters; of those 30 people 12 people (including myself) that I have spoken with are opposed to this. All 12 Pinole voters that I am in a book club with are opposed to this, most of which attended the January 20th council meeting and will be attending tonight or sending in their opposition. I urge you not to put the question on the June ballot nor any ballot. Please spend your energy and Pinole taxpayer's money on more pressing matters that will ACTUALLY make a difference in the lives of the people who live here.

Sincerely, Jodie Ingalls Pinole resident.

Ann Moriarty, concluded continued reading into the record written comments/emails as follows:

Janet Wilks, Council - I am urging you all to vote against placing the mayor question on the ballot. $56,000 to just ask the question. Take a look at social media. One - a single voice in favor - and that person lives in Hercules! Several thousand hits on posts on this topic. Your constituents are watching. Stop the unending parade of increasing the cost of living in Pinole. Have you noticed that 'affordability' is the national outcry? Have you noticed that the fight against the consolidation of executive power is at the heart of every protest on the streets of our country? Pay heed to the voice of the people you represent. Janet Wilks.

Unidentified, I would like to voice my strong opposition to the City Council’s move to establish an Elected Mayor for the City of Pinole, which allows for a concentration on of power in one individual.

I have seen the negative impact that one individual council member, during their turn as mayor, can have on the operations of the city and the city staff. With our current system, such a negative impact is not able to grow roots, and no single individual can make a power grab, as the mayoral title shifts each year. With a rotating mayor, we benefit from a diverse representation bringing fresh ideas and perspectives each year. The added expense of putting this to a vote in a special election is spending money we should be putting toward city priorities.

Melanie Norton, I vote no on Agenda item 10a. Melanie Norton Resident of Pinole

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – March 17, 2026

Nancy Andrina, To whom it may concern, Please VOTE NO on 10 a, no need for a direct Mayor Election. Thank you. Nancy Andrina.

Noreen Buller, Dear City Council please mark my objection to the idea of changing how we elect a mayor. Keep mayor rotation as it is! thank you, Noreen Buller- Realtor, Security Pacific Real Estate Brokerage.

Paula Jarvis, I would like to express my opposition to the proposal that we, the citizens of Pinole, begin the process to have an Elected Mayor system for Pinole. Please enter my attached comments into the public record. Thank you, Paula Jarvis citizen of Pinole.

Pierrette Johnston, I have been a Pinole resident for over 25 years and have found that the governing system we have has worked fine. It makes no sense to have a paid position for mayor! We are not a large city, other cities our size do not have a paid mayor, why do we need one? With the belt tightening going on in the economy, including in the city finances why would the council think this is a good idea?! Please do not move forward with this plan, I do not support it. Pierrette Johnston
Cathy McFarland commented she had an informative meeting with the Directors of Finance and Public Works to go over a long list of questions about finances and projects. She reported the adopted budget for 2024/25 had authorized revenues totaling $49.7 million and expenditures totaling $96.1 million. A budget projection had assumed the net use of fund balance of $46.3 million for all funds combined, which was not a balanced budget, but a financial disaster plan.

She commented that retained fund balances at that rate were depleted and gone. She was informed the expenditures were for a five-year plan, but the adopted budget stated it was for 2024.

She would like to know the truth and asked for accuracy about the figures being represented.

She also detailed the original road maintenance budget for 2024/25 through many different funds, which was over $11.7 million, although only $1.6 million was actually spent.

The 2025/26 budget had over $8 million and at six months, the total spent was only $769,000, which added to over $17 million not currently spent in the last year and a half. Although the Public Works Director stated there were limited funds currently to fix roads as planned, she could not answer questions where the money went.

Ms. McFarland added the reason the Finance Director gave during a recent City Council meeting about not wanting to put an Elected Mayor item on the November ballot, was deceptive and an unfounded excuse. The Finance Director had stated “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.” She emphasized residents were tax fatigued and the wasted money for the self-serving June survey was appalling. She also found the consistent 3-2 majority was clearly sending red flags that the community and the City needed to pay attention to address. She suggested each and every resident needed to come together, scrutinize and question each and every action and item being presented, and preserve the City and stop the mind set taxpayers were the open financial wallets for whatever the City Council wanted.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – March 17, 2026

Richard Cossel described his theory of pothole government, with potholes not repaired, because if they were, the City could not ask for more money. He also reported he received a rebate form/card in the mail and asked how the City was able to pay for rebates given his understanding the City was broke. After review, he found the source for the rebate was related to $250,000 in Public Works weatherization, $65,000 in professional services for strategic energy institute partnerships and Measure S 2014 funds, which were intended to be used for general purposes in Pinole, such as police, fire and maintenance of parks and streets. He suggested the City Council gets taxpayers to provide money for pothole repair which was in turn used for special projects. He questioned what other things the City Council was using taxpayer funds for that were not related to police, fire and maintenance of parks and streets. He also highlighted the following expenditures: $40,000 for a Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) Consultant, $25,000 for a Safety Update, $50,000 for an Inclusionary Housing Nexus Study, $14,000 for Pride Event, $5,000 for Earth Day and $3,000 for United Against Hate Week (UAHW). He found the City Council was wasting money and he urged the City Council to vote no on an Elected Mayor.

7. REPORTS & COMMUNICATIONS
A. Mayor Report
There was no report.

1. Announcements: None
B. Mayoral & Council Appointments: None
C. City Council Committee Reports & Communications
Council member Martinez-Rubin reported she attended the Contra Costa Mayors Conference with a representative from the State Hospital Council who provided a presentation on the State of Hospitals in California, with many issues intractable at this time given federal cuts and unknowns.

She found the presentation to be disheartening given when there was a reduction in hospital and clinic services, if funded by the state, it affected the population, which had already been disproportionally represented or affected with greater health disparities. She hoped the Contra Costa Mayors would continue to raise this issue whether hospitals were public or private.

Council member Martinez-Rubin also reported she had participated in reading The Wild Robot, to the third-grade class at Stewart Elementary School; joined Pinole Police Officers to honor 2025 Officer of the Year, Andre Roberts; attended the State of the City Address which she highlighted and attended a recent WestCat Board meeting. She commented on the impacts on transportation given the increased expense of fuel and the fact taxpayers would be asked to consider an upcoming tax measure related to transportation on the November 2026 ballot. She urged taxpayers to be informed on the regional and local tax measures that were planned for the November ballot.

Council member Toms wished everyone a Happy Irish Heritage Month and Happy St. Patrick’s Day. She too attended the Contra Costa Mayors Conference, with one of the highlights the hospital desert West County had experienced, which was likely to move to Central and East Counties and other parts of the State and which highlighted the dire need given the federal budget.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – March 17, 2026

Council member Toms also attended the dinner honoring Andre Roberts as the City of Pinole’s Officer of the Year, which event had been sponsored by the Elks Club, who also honored officers throughout the cities in West County and the Sheriff’s Department. She also attended the State of the City Breakfast sponsored by the Bay Front Chamber of Commerce which included updates from the Mayors of the cities of Hercules, Pinole and Rodeo, and an update from Contra Costa County Supervisor Shanelle Scales-Preston on County budget issues.

In addition, Council member Toms attended a Bay Front Chamber of Commerce meeting with upcoming events including Bottles & Bites, a fundraiser for education at the Hercules Community Center, March 22, 2026 from 1:00 to 4:30 p.m.; Spring Mega-Mixer for Chamber of Commerce members and non-members at the Berkeley Country Club, April 21, 2026 and the Polar Plunge at the Hercules Sport Center on March 18, 2026, with more information for sponsoring any of the participants to take the plunge on social media. She also planned to attend the March 19, 2026 Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Executive Committee meeting; March 20, 2026 East Bay Regional Communication System Authority (EBRCSA) meeting and the East Bay Wildfire Government Coalition meeting on March 25, 2026.

Council member Sasai reported he attended the WestCAT Board meeting and highlighted the agenda items including the extension of the Employment Agreement for the General Manager, who had been highly engaged, responsive and effective in his role, and he looked forward to continuing to work with him in the future. The WestCAT Board also reviewed and approved an increase to the WestCat Procurement Policy.

Council member Sasai also reported he was attending the National League of Cities Conference in Washington D.C. representing the City of Pinole, to stay informed on federal funding opportunities and evolving requirements as policies shifted at the national level. He found the discussions around Opioid Settlement funds very impactful and he hoped to bring best practices and information back to the community for future conversations with staff about the funding. He also planned to meet with Congressman John Garamendi and his staff to advocate for federal funding on behalf of the City of Pinole. He planned to request support for the acquisition of Rapid Deploy Crash Resistant Barricades in partnership with the City of Hercules, which would significantly enhance safety at community events, such as the Annual Car Show and any events where there were road closures so as to prevent unauthorized vehicle access into pedestrian areas. The barricades would reduce the need for extensive staffing during road closures, lower operational costs and improve event readiness and safety for the community. He thanked staff for preparing the request and prioritizing the safety of residents.

D. Council Requests for Future Agenda Items: None
E. City Manager Report / Department Staff
Interim City Manager Garrett Evans thanked the Mayor, City Council, staff and the community for the warm welcome to the City. He reported City staff was working on a myriad of capital improvement projects, development agreements, budgets and events. It was an honor working with the team and he looked forward to the next several months as the City recruited and appointed a new City Manager.

F. City Attorney Report: None

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – March 17, 2026

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. Nowruz
The City Council read into the record a proclamation recognizing March 20, 2026 as Nowruz, which was presented to Ushain Pakpour, who thanked the City Council for the proclamation on behalf of the Iranian community.

2. International Women’s History Day and Women’s History Month The City Council read into the record a proclamation recognizing March 8, 2026 as International Women’s History Day and the month of March as Women’s History Month.

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

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
B. Presentations

1. HdL Market Analytics Report
Finance Director Markisha Guillory introduced Principal Managing Director Barry Foster, HdL EconSolutions, who provided a PowerPoint presentation on Insight Market Analytics for the City of Pinole, and which included an overview of the consumer demographic profile, consumer demand & market supply assessment, VOID Retail Opportunities and community profile.

Responding to questions from the City Council, Interim City Manager Evans, Finance Director Guillory and Mr. Foster clarified the following:
• VOID Retail Opportunities was again clarified, as were the big box retailers that preferred to go through the city processes easily and have cities work and welcome those retailers with site opportunities. Reported the International Council of Shopping Centers would hold an event in Monterey this month, with Mr. Foster planning to attend to represent a number of cities as part of an opportunity to match cities and locations with possible utilitarian restaurant users. (Martinez-Rubin)
• HdL worked with the City of Hercules on a program which offered up to $50,000 in grants to help with startup costs for small businesses. (Martinez-Rubin)

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – March 17, 2026

• HdL also worked on a digital gift card program for small businesses throughout the State of California, which programs were important for the small business Mom and Pops and not intended for the big box retailers. Such programs may be a good fit for Pinole. (Martinez-Rubin)
• In terms of middle-sized retailers, the focus would be to find opportunities (physical locations) for those businesses in Pinole, which would take the right kind of footprint and market. Those retailers also sought an easy permitting/entitlement process. The City of Hercules’ program for small businesses was identified as a successful example and that could be applied to mid-sized businesses. (Martinez-Rubin) • The VOID Retail Opportunities used a specific software system where a location could be picked for a specific business to determine whether there was a void in Pinole and identify the nearest location of the business, and where in the Pinole marketplace there could be a good fit for the business. The data in the VOID Retail Opportunities showed significant dollars Pinole residents were spending outside of the community. As an example, while Pinole had a Big 5, the business had recently been purchased by another company, was not currently growing and involved a much smaller footprint than Dick’s Sporting Goods. (Toms)
• The demographics for the City of Pinole, racial diversity and economic diversity and those trends had been part of the market analysis. HdL encouraged the City Council to read the full VOID Analysis which had more information than the PowerPoint presentation, and which would show the footprint of the business, potential for sales tax revenue, contact information for the business and what kind of location the business desired to locate.

While there were duplicates in the VOID Analysis in terms of the businesses, businesses that were thought to be a good fit for Pinole were identified and there was a lot of leakage in those categories. (Sasai)
• The category of lawn garden and equipment supply store, as an example, had shown 100 percent leaving Pinole in the VOID Analysis. (Mayor Tave) • For the category of clothing, a total of $17.8 million had been shown leaving Pinole and for some of the categories that were 90 percent and above, they had looked at the categories and how many dollars were being spent, and how much was leaking out. (Mayor Tave)
• The Interim City Manager working with the Community Development Director would review the available spaces in Pinole, looking at the leakage and comparing that data, while also looking at the businesses looking to come into Pinole, time to market, balanced with incentive programs, particularly for the smaller businesses where prevailing wages had been a challenge. All factors would be weighed while looking at ways as to how the City could capture some of the leakage, some of which was caused by Amazon and Walmart. (Mayor Tave)
• The full report from HdL would be posted on the City website. (Mayor Tave)

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – March 17, 2026

• The opportunity gap and listing of retail shops by type was again clarified. The full report had taken into account online sales by category and product, which would be in the opportunity number and whatever was not being spent physically within the City of Pinole was leaking out, and included Internet online sales. (Martinez-Rubin)

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

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED

2. Pinole Traffic Related Incidents – Police Chief Melissa Klawuhn Interim City Manager Evans thanked Police Chief Melissa Klawuhn and her team for pulling the report together.

Police Chief Klawuhn introduced Commander Justin Rogers, who oversaw the Operations Bureau and Officer Franco Dalao, the newest Traffic Officer. A PowerPoint presentation was provided on Pinole Related Traffic Incidents, July 1 – December 31, 2025, which included an overview of traffic collisions from July to December 2025; a six month comparison of traffic collisions for the period of January–June 2025 and July–December 2025, and primary collision factors and collisions at intersections with a six month comparison for the same period; Collision Map: 6 Month Comparison for the same time period and a comparison of Driving under the Influence (DUI) offenses and citations, all for the same time period, with all vehicle collision data available on Citizen RIMS at pinole.citizenrims.com.

The following grants were also highlighted: Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) Grant - the City was awarded $50,000 from a total request of $266,000 in September 2025, to be used for DUI checkpoints, impaired driving training and extra enforcement patrols, DUI saturation patrols, distracted driving and pedestrian operations; and a Cannabis Tax Fund Grant through the California Highway Patrol (CHP) – the City was awarded $99,000 of a total request of $174,000 in June 2025, to be used for traffic motorcycle officer training for impaired driving and driving under the influence of drugs and alcohol and signage for DUI and impaired driving checkpoints.

Police Chief Klawuhn also reported that Officer Dalao had completed two grants for this year, including another OTS Grant and Cannabis Tax Fund Grant, to be used for more equipment and training. In addition, a motorcycle had been purchased with the use of Cannabis Tax Fund Grant funds which was in the process of being outfitted.

Responding to questions from the City Council, Police Chief Klawuhn, Commander Rogers and Officer Dalao clarified the following:
• The primary factor for collisions were unsafe turning movements. Whenever someone directed off the course of travel in an unsafe way, it was determined to be an unsafe turning movement and not necessarily due to an unsafe lane selection, which was a separate section that was tracked. (Toms)

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – March 17, 2026

• The trend in pedestrian and vehicle collisions typically occurred in shopping center parking lots due to people walking to and from the businesses and not paying attention. The Fitzgerald Drive and Appian Way intersection was a common area for pedestrian/vehicle collisions. With the passage of AB 2147 in 2022, the Freedom to Walk Act, limited enforcement capabilities for jaywalking unless it was determined to put someone in immediate hazard of a collision where enforcement could be done. This could affect the statistical information being provided. (Toms)
• Acknowledged concerns with traffic movements off of I-80 coming from the City of Hercules and getting off on the westbound off-ramp onto Pinole Valley Road. Pursuant to Section 22100 of the Vehicle Code for an Improper Lane Position, if there was a left-turn only and an arrow on the ground, it was only a left turn and if someone were to go from the right lane into the left lane, that was considered an improper turn, and the driver could be cited since that movement could cause a collision. People were urged to be aware of the roadway markings and roadway positions and know which way to go. (MartinezRubin) • Red-light violations occurred mostly along Fitzgerald Drive and Appian Way, Tennent Avenue, Estates Avenue and Pinole Valley Road and near the I-80 on- and off-ramps.

City cameras were located at Appian Way and Fitzgerald Drive that could be reviewed by the PPD, but there was no red-light camera/photo system in the area. (Martinez-Rubin) • In the event someone was the victim of a hit and run accident, they were encouraged to be a good witness by keeping in mind the make, model, vehicle, license number, description of the driver and direction of travel. The PPD conducted significant follow-up for hit and run incidents or any collisions based on the information available and with internal systems able to be used to secure personal information, such as access to the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) registration. The PPD would exhaust all resources in the hopes of a successful outcome of finding the person at fault. (Martinez-Rubin) • The most recent DUI checkpoint in Pinole resulted in no arrests. Statistically, DUI checkpoints did not necessarily have a very strong outcome of DUI arrests but served as a deterrent from drinking and driving and was used as an educational tool for drivers who came through the checkpoint. Oftentimes, law enforcement partnered with Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) and provided written materials on MADD, information on the Cannabis Grant and other materials that could be distributed at the checkpoint about DUI and impaired driving. (Sasai)
• Two PPD officers were trained in the use of Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR). In the new grant cycle, there had been a request for additional LIDAR and radar training and a request for funds to buy additional LIDAR units to outfit officers in each shift so they could utilize that resource while on patrol. (Sasai)
• Minor citations were clarified, with lights and registration a large share of the citations and the data also reflected parking enforcement with many citations for improperly parked vehicles or other equipment violations for parked vehicles. That information could be separated out but currently the information reflected all of the citations and those that officers had moved during traffic stops. (Sasai)

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – March 17, 2026

• Acknowledged concerns there was a section of the roadway near the senior and veterans housing on San Pablo Avenue that had no lane striping and with residents reaching out about close calls regarding vehicles getting close in the left and right lanes. As to the number of collisions that had occurred in that corridor, staff did not currently have that information but it could be provided via email. (Sasai) • Acknowledged there were certain areas of the City that should have improved street markings, although the PPD was good at communicating that need with Public Works, with the knowledge it took time to get things done. In the meantime, the PPD would be proactive and maintain a visible presence. Hopefully, that would slow people down, with enforcement a deterrent and option to slow the speed of traffic until all markings were completed. (Mayor Tave)
• Clarified again the six-month data and comparisons for traffic citations as part of the PowerPoint presentation, with the data having identified all citations that had been issued for that period for moving or non-moving citations or other infraction. When enforcement stops were made by the PPD, the PPD had the discretion whether or not to issue a citation.

Oftentimes, the PPD took a humanistic approach when making enforcement stops and could provide a warning, where applicable and warranted. As to how many of the citations issued were for Pinole residents or people outside of Pinole, that information could be gleaned from Stop Data from the state. (Mayor Tave)
• The PPD provided a presentation about traffic safety to the Pinole Senior Center in December 2025, and those efforts would continue. The PPD also reached out to Vista Woods about a potential presentation. Staff also noted the DMV had a Priority Reexamine Form that could be used as a resource when there was a certain factor, whether medical, a disability or old age, where the PPD, could force the driver to retake the driver’s exam through the DMV based on specific factors. The DMV would administer the test to determine whether the driver was still fit to drive. That resource was available to protect older drivers. (Martinez-Rubin)
• In terms of driverless vehicles, the Police Chief recently attended a session with a safety consultant from Tesla, who spoke about automated vehicles. There was a range of automated vehicles from non- to fully-automated, with the technology ever changing, and with the CHP the representative for that development for the State, since there would be enforcement actions that local police departments and the Sherrif’s Department would have to take once those vehicles were more prevalent on the roads. Depending on the level of automation, the responsibility of the driver would also shift, with laws and legislation forthcoming. (Mayor Tave)

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Rafael Menis commented that recently there had been a major power outage in the City of San Francisco with the external communication for many of the automated vehicles having broken down and with the vehicles blocking city streets. He asked if the City had any plan for what to do if that situation occurred in Pinole. He also referenced the heat map density for collisions for the January-June 2025 period for the intersection of Appian Way and San Pablo Avenue, where Appian Way turned into Pinon Avenue, which had been marked as a collision point.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – March 17, 2026

While he recognized the Active Transportation Plan (ATP) had a left hand turn signal being installed as one of the proposed improvements, Mr. Menis was uncertain what timeline that improvement would occur. If someone was turning left on the green light and someone was going straight through the intersection, the person going straight had the right of way or a pedestrian had the right of way, but if someone turning right was to stay in the right lane, he asked if they could turn left and stay in the left lane, or whether they had to wait for all cars turning right to move through first and then turn left. He also asked the City Council to move forward on the ATP’s implementation of having a properly signalized left hand turn intersection to ensure fewer collisions.

There was a brief conversation between Officer Dalao and Mr. Menis from the audience which was not captured for the record.

Officer Dalao explained the intersection had a left turn lane, a straight lane and a right onto San Pablo Avenue eastbound, and the opposite on Pinon Avenue had a straight lane and a left onto eastbound San Pablo Avenue. Both Pinon Avenue traffic turning left and Appian Way traffic turning left, could turn at the same time, as long as traffic was clear for the straight traffic and not impeding and safe to do so, they could turn. He added the Appian Way traffic had to stop for a red turn because for Pinon Avenue traffic to make a left turn in that area, they had to have a green light, and that would force Appian Way to have to stop to clear traffic.

Mayor Tave asked that the conversation between Officer Dalao and Mr. Menis be summarized since he wanted to ensure the questions were answered but comprehensively.

Interim City Manager Evans suggested the Public Works Director could provide more clarification offline and in more detail.

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 March 3, 2026.

B. Receive the February 28, 2026 – March 13, 2026 List of Warrants in the Amount of $1,270,786.68 and the March 13, 2026 Payroll in the Amount of $546,837.01.

C. Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Award a Contract to Energy Resources Integration, LLC for the Development of a Municipal Building Decarbonization Plan in the Amount of $72,300 Fully Funded by California Energy Commission Grant Funds. Action: Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Lilly Whalen, Kapil Amin)

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – March 17, 2026

D. Second Read and Adoption of a Pinole Municipal Code and Three Corridors Specific Plan Amendment to Prohibit New Service Stations, Establish Regulations for Existing Legal Nonconforming Service Stations, and Establish Regulations for Alternative Fuel Stations. Action: Adopt Ordinance on Second Reading (David Hanham, Justin Shiu)
E. Adopt a Resolution to Approve the Purchase of Two Blowers for the Wastewater Treatment Plan (CIP Project #SS2501). Action: Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Heba El-Guindy)

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Rafael Menis provided the following comments on the Consent Calendar:
- Item 9B, Page 48 of 359 of the agenda packet, Vendor: PER03, California Public Employees’ Retirement System, noted several instances where there was interest assessed due to untimely payments which he did not recall seeing on prior lists of warrants. Was curious as to why this happened and whether there were ways for the City to prevent this from happening in the future.
- Item 9D, was glad to see the City was moving forward and supported the item. - Item 9E, commented on the semi-emergency purchase of new blowers and noted members of the public frequently issued criticism over expenditures in the $5,000 to $50,000 range. This expenditure would be $237,000 and he agreed this was an appropriate item to bring forward since the City would need to have the blowers before there no replacement available; but it was worthwhile to note, there were no members of the public to comment on the significant expenditure on the Consent Calendar.

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
Interim City Manager Evans advised he would do more research on Item B and provide that to the City Council. For Item 9E, he would work with the City Council to identify a preferred threshold for the placement of items on the regular business portion of the meeting agenda as opposed to the Consent Calendar.

ACTION: Motion by Council members Sasai/Toms to approve Consent Calendar Items 9A through 9E, as shown.

Vote: Passed 4-0-1
Ayes: Tave, Martinez-Rubin, Sasai, Toms
Noes: None
Abstain: None

Absent: Murphy

10. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None

11. OLD BUSINESS: None

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – March 17, 2026

12. NEW BUSINESS
A. Adopt a Resolution to Accept the Safety Improvements at Appian Way and Marlesta Road (CIP Project #RO1714) as Complete and Approve Filing of Notice of Completion. Action: Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Heba El-Guindy)
Interim City Manager Evans introduced the item and reported the project came in approximately 16 percent below budget. He thanked staff for that result and the community for its investment through the use of Measure S funds.

Public Works Director Heba El-Guindy provided a PowerPoint presentation on the Safety Improvements at the Intersection of Appian Way and Marlesta Road (CIP Project #RO1714), which included an overview of the improvements: new traffic control signal, high visibility crosswalks across the intersection legs, Green bicycle lanes treatment on Appian Way, slurry seal of the intersection and advance warning signs; the project schedule and the construction funding.

Public Works Director El-Guindy recommended the City Council adopt a Resolution to Accept the Safety Improvements at Appian Way and Marlesta Road (CIP Project #RO1714) as Complete and Approve Filing of Notice of Completion.

Responding to questions from the City Council, Public Works Director El-Guindy clarified the following:
• Staff acknowledged a concern from a local resident on Marlesta Road that a WestCat bus traveling on Marlesta Road turning onto Appian Way had not been picked up by the sensors. While the sensors on Marlesta Road were in the position they were supposed to be, staff would follow-up and coordinate with the County. (Toms) • Staff acknowledged a concern of instances where from Marlesta Road onto Appian Way turning right towards the Bay, there was a lengthy period before the green light signal, which could be an issue with the timing and/or the detection, and staff would follow-up. (Martinez-Rubin)
• Acknowledged appreciation for the completion of the project and for the safety improvements provided, particularly for crossing pedestrians. (Martinez-Rubin) City Clerk Bell-Spears reported Council member Sasai had exited the meeting via his remote participation.

Mayor Tave thanked staff for the short-to-the-point presentation for a project that would ensure the intersection was safer and which he described as a celebrated win for the Public Works Department and the City of Pinole.

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – March 17, 2026

Rafael Menis was pleased the City got the project done on time, well under budget, around 19 percent under the contingency and 7 percent under the non-contingency costs. He asked the Public Works Director in her experience how often had she seen projects under budget by this amount.

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
Public Works Director El-Guindy stated it did happen that projects came in under budget and it depended on the type of project. In this case, the timing of when the signal equipment was ordered versus when the actual construction had taken place had worked in the City’s favor. She also commended her predecessor, the former Public Works Director Sanjay Mishra, who had also worked on the project.

ACTION: Motion by Council members Toms/Martinez-Rubin to adopt a Resolution to Accept the Safety Improvements at Appian Way and Marlesta Road (CIP Project #RO1714) as Complete and Approve Filing of Notice of Completion.

Vote: Passed 3-0-2
Ayes: Tave, Martinez-Rubin, Toms
Noes: None
Abstain: None

Absent: Murphy, Sasai

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

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

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

Rafael Menis reported on the overall rates of COVID-19 and Influenza Type A in the region of Contra Costa County and in the state as a whole, with COVID-19 rates significantly declining but with a site in Alameda County that was high. Nationally, the levels were low for COVID-19 with Influenza Type A at the low level in the state and very low for the country; however, and while it may be safe to be maskless in crowded areas, those who were immunocompromised or caring for elderly individuals should continue to maintain precautions.

Mr. Menis also reported that Indivisible North Bay would be holding a rally on March 28, 2026 at the Fernandez Park gazebo from 10:00 to 11:00 a.m. with the community invited, although with space limited due to the City’s permitting rules. People were asked to register in advance at mobilize.us/indivisiblenortheastbay/event/911746. Following that event, a protest was planned at the intersection of San Pablo and Tennent Avenues from 11:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m., with the PPD notified of the event and with increased support to be provided. Interested persons may register for the event at mobilize.us/mobilize/event/902827.

Pinole City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes – March 17, 2026

14. ADJOURN to the Special City Council Meeting of March 24, 2026 in Remembrance of Amber Swartz.

At 8:46 p.m., Mayor Tave adjourned to a Special City Council Meeting on March 24, 2026 in Remembrance of Amber Swartz.

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

Pinole City Council Special Meeting
Minutes – March 24, 2026

CITY COUNCIL MEETING

MINUTES
March 24, 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 Special Meeting of the City Council to order at 6:00 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*
*Arrived at 6:30 p.m.

B. STAFF PRESENT
Garrett Evans, Interim City Manager
Heather Bell-Spears, City Clerk
Eric Casher, City Attorney
Melissa Klawuhn, Police Chief
Markisha Guillory, Finance Director
Fiona Epps, Communications Director
Roxane Stone, Deputy City Clerk
City Clerk Heather Bell-Spears announced the agenda had been posted on March 23, 2026 at 12:00 p.m. with all legally required written notices.

Pinole City Council Special Meeting
Minutes – March 24, 2026

City Clerk Bell-Spears also reported for Special Meetings, the noticing requirement was 24-hours in advance of the meeting time. She added that 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. 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.

Jennifer Horn continued reading into the record written comments/emails received related to the topic of an Elected Mayor/Measure D, as follows:

Joan Goularte, The current city council gets paid, and the mayor for that year gets a stipend.

That's enough! The city manager makes a good salary and that is who really runs the city. Use the $25k and pave the sink hole at the park on PVR. Joan Goularte.

Roberta Bartlett, I am against this special election. The cost involved with this action could be better spent on a number of things this city needs: Road repair Additional police officers Traffic safety on San Pablo Avenue in front of the new senior housing. More street sweeping.

Modernizing San Pablo Avenue Bring businesses to Appian 80 Shopping Center. A rotating mayor keeps ideas new and gives all council members equal time. I am against a permanent mayor position due to the cost of a maintaining salary plus benefits. Roberta Bartlett.

Susan Dunlap, I have lived in Pinole for 40 years since moving here as a teacher at Richmond High School. I have found the rotating position of mayor to work effectively for a city the size of Pinole. I urge you to vote no on this proposal to spend approximately $25,000 on an election to see if citizens want to switch to a rotating position. I support the recent increased stipend for council members given your responsibilities but I have not seen any outreach to the citizens to explain the need for or benefit of this change. Given our current fiscal situation, I do not support spending our tax dollars on the election or if we changed to the directly-elected mayor position, the ongoing increased costs of that position. Please vote no on this proposal! Susan Dunlap.

Theresa Bailey, Please do not change the format for the mayor and expect taxpayers to pay $25000. Please take the time to slowly drive thru the streets of Pinole to note the poor condition of our streets. The potholes are terrible. Before spending money, look at what the city needs for repairs. $25,000 is not a lot of money for repairs but one pothole filled would help. Thank you Theresa Bailey.

Joe Sosensky, I have been reading about the Pinole City Council's proposal to put a question on the ballot to determine whether the city will have a full-time, fully paid mayor's position. Clearly, the city of Pinole has been struggling to fund our basic services already.

Pinole City Council Special Meeting
Minutes – March 24, 2026

We have one of the higher sales tax rates in California and a new increase put into effect every few years. Our 10.25% rate is as much as three percent higher than that of other communities.

The additional salary to be paid a full-time mayor- as well as likely additional compensation- could be better used to address current or future shortfalls in funding… William Horton opposed Measure D which would drain $55,000 from the City’s budget to create a separately Elected Mayor, the current Mayoral rotation still worked well and four different Mayors in a four-year period provided a good variety of leadership. He quoted Theodore Roosevelt and pointed out all Council members were democratically elected by the voters and anytime a Council member became Mayor, they would have a couple of years working with citizens and the budget, which experience benefited everyone. Measure D would not guarantee new funds or ideas and he planned to vote no on Measure D.

Rafael Menis invited everyone to a protest on March 28, 2026 from 11:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. at the intersection of Tennent and San Pablo Avenues, registration required. Interested participants could also join an earlier rally at the Fernandez Park gazebo from 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. He noted due to the City’s permit requirements, registration was limited and people were asked to register at mobilize.us. He was otherwise surprised to find when going through the registration process for the permit, to learn amplified sound was not permitted at the gazebo or in Fernandez Park, although in the past he had seen amplified sound allowed during numerous events at Fernandez Park.

Debbie Long commented that in the last week the ballot arguments in favor of or against Measure D, for an Elected Mayor were due. No arguments had been submitted in favor of an Elected Mayor or a rebuttal to the argument against Measure D to be placed on the November ballot. It looked like the Council majority in support of spending $55,000 of taxpayer money to place this on the ballot could not defend their own position. This justified the position that the three Council members who voted to place the item on the ballot were fiscally irresponsible.

Ms. Long also commented that during the March 17, 2026 City Council meeting, she had asked where Council member Sasai and Mayor Pro Tem Murphy were, and while it was unclear, it appeared that Council member Sasai participated in the meeting via Zoom whereas Mayor Pro Tem Murphy was expected to join in. While asking a follow-up question, whether both Council members were out of state, she was informed yes but no other further explanation was given. In doing a follow-up, she found that both Council members were in Washington D.C. on the taxpayers’ dime again. She asked why this was not listed on the meeting agenda since both Council members knew well ahead of time they would not be at the meeting, as well as it being a requirement of the Brown Act. This appeared to be a known requirement since on February 25, 2026, during the Community Services Commission meeting, that meeting agenda stated that Commissioner Avila was attending via Zoom and her location was specific with the name of the hotel and full address including the City where she was participating. She asked why this information had not been included for Council members who don’t attend meetings in-person.

She asked if they were trying to deliberately keep their travel a secret.

Ms. Long added if a City Council member in the State of California and pursuant to the Brown Act Zoomed in from a remote location that was not posted on the meeting agenda and did not meet specific legal exceptions, such as just cause or emergency circumstances, it generally negated their ability to participate in that meeting and prevented their votes from being counted.

Pinole City Council Special Meeting
Minutes – March 24, 2026

Ms. Long requested that any votes taken by Council member Sasai be removed from the March 17, 2026 meeting. She could only deduce this lack of information was done to conceal that both Council members were in Washington D.C. at taxpayers’ expense. She requested a response from the City Attorney either via email or at the next City Council meeting.

Peter Murray continued reading into the record written comments/emails received related to the topic of an Elected Mayor/Measure D, as follows:

Joe Sosensky, …As cities go, Pinole is a relatively small one. I don't feel there is a need for a fulltime mayor at additional expense. I believe our established structure of rotating mayors is functioning reasonably well. Now it's simply up to our elected officials to use our resources wisely and effectively spent. Thank you for your attention. Joe Sosensky Pinole resident.

Bill Miller, I think it’s fine the way it is.

Diane Strong, I think it’s fine the way it is!
Elena Lyman, Hello I am a Pinole resident and I support our City Council and Mayor-Pro-Tems. I do not support spending $25,000 to put a question on the ballot. Please spend that money on our roads or our community events. Thank you very much, Elena Lyman.

Earl and Shirley Hogg, To the Pinole City Council, We oppose the paid position for the Mayor of Pinole. If our City Manager is unable to handle the finances of the City of Pinole, perhaps he needs to be replaced. Respectfully yours, Earl and Shirley Hogg.

Basem Khalil, Pinole is a small town, a municipality. Lately, the city council is engaging in nonessential issues such as parades, denying ICE from using city property ….

Mary Horton, former Mayor of the City of Pinole, spoke in favor of a rotational Mayor system and against Measure D, for a directly Elected Mayor. She commented that diversity, equity and inclusion was currently under fire and she found as a past Mayor who had rotated in the Mayor’s chair four times, the best way to preserve diversity was through that methodology. There had been diversity on the City Council and through former Mayors, and through the rotational system that diversity was preserved and very important in Pinole. While a Council member suggested this was all about white men, she pointed out that had not been the case since 1990, when she had been a member of the City Council. She supported the rotational Mayor methodology and reiterated her opposition to Measure D.

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy asked staff to look into the amplification issue at City parks and get back to the City Council.

5. OLD BUSINESS
A. Commercial Cannabis Workshop. Action: Provide direction per Staff Recommendation (Eric Casher, Fiona Epps, Melissa Klawuhn, Markisha Guillory)

Pinole City Council Special Meeting
Minutes – March 24, 2026

Interim City Manager Garrett Evans introduced the Commercial Cannabis Workshop, with the City Attorney and other Department Heads to provide background information.

City Attorney Eric Casher provided a PowerPoint presentation and was joined by Police Chief Melissa Klawuhn, Finance Director Markisha Guillory and Communications Director Fiona Epps.

An overview of Procedure and Implementation of a Commercial Cannabis Program was provided and included the background of cannabis consumption which was legal under state law and which allowed local governments to regulate or prohibit commercial cannabis businesses within their jurisdiction.

During the November 4, 2025 City Council meeting, staff was directed to prepare a presentation and report regarding the process and implementation of a Commercial Cannabis Program via ordinance. The types of cannabis businesses; regulations; economic contributions/fiscal impact; community and engagement plan and public safety impact were all highlighted.

Staff recommended the City Council provide direction regarding any or all or the following:
• Prepare a Request for Proposal (RFP) for a consultant to conduct an analysis of potential expenditures and revenues associated with establishing a cannabis program.
• Initiate the proposed outreach and communication strategy to engage the community in the preparation of a Commercial Cannabis Ordinance. • Prepare a draft Commercial Cannabis Ordinance, including the types of allowed cannabis businesses, and the requirements to obtain a permit, to include in the ordinance.

Interim City Manager Evans reported he had reached out to a developer who had sited several cannabis dispensary/retail stores in Contra Costa County to solicit feedback about the City of Pinole, and who informed him a 5,000 square foot store generated between $15 to $20 million.

Cities may have four to five percent gross receipts, with the cities of Berkeley, San Francisco and Richmond at about five percent and Contra Costa County about four percent. For Pinole, between $600,000 to $800,000 a year was anticipated from such a facility, if done well, and where public safety and all other concerns were taken into account. If directed by the City Council, a consultant would be able to double check everything.

Responding to questions from the City Council, Interim City Manager Evans, City Attorney Casher, Finance Director Guillory, Communications Director Epps, and Police Chief Klawuhn clarified the following:
• The estimated costs of attorney’s fees and staff costs for drafting a Fiscal Impact Report could be provided to the City Council and indirect staff costs could be captured as well. (Toms)
• With respect to security, staff was in favor of having security on-site and noted some cities required security on-site after hours and some had moved to a camera system with a live feed directly to the Police Department, which would be beneficial to the Pinole Police Department (PPD). (Sasai)

Pinole City Council Special Meeting
Minutes – March 24, 2026

• In terms of armed security, that could be discussed further given there would be some benefit but that should be analyzed and looked into further. (Sasai) • Typically, the retailer would provide an operating agreement that would include a site plan and security plan and detail what was proposed by way of security. Some locations may require heightened security. The City could add as part of a City ordinance, either codified through the Pinole Municipal Code (PMC) or permitting process, minimum standards for security that would be consistent for any and all commercial retailers, and more information could be gathered with proposed recommendations for the City Council to consider. Also, the operating agreement could state at the discretion of the Police Chief, security could be increased or decreased giving the Police Chief flexibility. (Sasai)
• The City of Pittsburg, as an example, regulated cannabis business licenses by permitting one license per 25,000 in population, and the Pittsburg City Council worked to ensure there was no concentration of such businesses within one zone. (Sasai) • The State requirements and buffer zones for cannabis dispensaries and cultivation sites would be taken into consideration with sites mapped where a potential facility could be located and staff would work with the City Council to determine acceptability. The buffer zones mandated by the State of California was 600-feet from a daycare and schools and such establishments but the City could have stricter standards. Most cities had stricter standards and data could be pulled for City Council review. (Sasai) • The types of cannabis businesses were again clarified. There were many factors in the type of establishment permitted in a city. Oftentimes, it was due to revenue generation depending on the particular permitted use, with public safety a concern with all of the types of cannabis businesses. An economic analysis and consultant led-analysis would inform and provide data on that topic. It was noted that cultivation and processing of cannabis could have odors and some communities had not permitted those types of cannabis businesses as a result. (Sasai)
• Cultivation/distribution/delivery types of cannabis businesses would be a challenge for revenue versus retail stores, which was pretty regulated. Weedmaps, where one could learn, find and order weed, would show that deliveries were currently occurring throughout the community, and it was difficult to gage those numbers but it was easier on the retail dispensary side. Whether this effort would allow the City to generate revenue from existing deliveries, as an example, was one of the conditions the consultant should be challenged with on how cities could best capture that revenue, a critical component that could be brought back to the City Council. (Sasai) • Interim City Manager Evans reached out to a developer who sited several cannabis dispensary/retail stores in Contra Costa County and during those discussions, there was feedback provided whether there was interest in the Pinole area for such businesses. Input was provided that cannabis businesses liked retail areas and locations near the freeway, which increased the client base. (Martinez-Rubin)

Pinole City Council Special Meeting
Minutes – March 24, 2026

• Acknowledged a request for the consultant to include in any analysis why commercial cannabis should be considered as a potential revenue source, relative to what would be generated and the start-up costs for a business that would offer one type of activity only, such as retail only; request to provide information on the potential revenue that could be generated from storefront activity relative to everything else that had to occur to have the product in the storefront; request for a business plan to be part of any agreement if it came to that; and consider the costs of legal fees for potentially drafting an ordinance and costs across City departments in the long-term. Given the unknowns, acknowledged concern with the costs for ongoing administration and enforcement.

Also acknowledged a request for additional information on the type and size of business activity they were speaking of, the number of potential dispensaries that could be potentially located in Pinole, how many industrial areas Pinole had and how much accommodation there could be for the type of business that would meet the minimum State requirements for a buffer zone for such businesses, along with a possible increase of the buffer zone if the City were to impose stricter regulations.

Acknowledged the emphasis that all of this information would help the City Council make an informed decision. (Martinez-Rubin)
• Also, acknowledged a request to initiate the proposed outreach and communication strategy to engage the community in the preparation of a Commercial Cannabis Ordinance prior to engaging a consultant, given that community engagement was essential to guide any policy the City Council may consider and since the staff report indicated it was a given the City Council would consider an ordinance, rather than an assessment of whether there was a need for a Commercial Cannabis Ordinance, with the only point of argument being to generate money. Acknowledged concerns with normalizing the use of a drug and the perception there would be no harm with its use.

Acknowledged a request for staff to assess the societal impacts of having a retail cultivation that was just beyond dollars, and look at real case studies and cities, possibly two to three facilities in Contra Costa County, and share with the City Council whether there were any issues with loitering or traffic, as examples, and share that data point with the City Council. Whether that would be part of an analysis a consultant would do, it was suggested there could be an ad-alternate to the RFP for specifics that could be added into the contract. (Martinez-Rubin)
• Acknowledged a request to review the commercial cannabis regulations and zoning restrictions for Solano, Napa and Marin Counties. (Mayor Pro Tem Murphy) • A Commercial Cannabis Study would include some of the factors outlined in the PowerPoint presentation such as projected revenues and expenditures associated with establishing a Commercial Cannabis Program, licensing and application fees for the dispensaries, staffing needs, regulatory compliance costs and anticipated market activity. A more detailed analysis that included other factors could expand the scope of work. Staff confirmed the goal would be to have a licensing program for commercial cannabis that was cost recoverable. (Mayor Pro Tem Murphy)

Pinole City Council Special Meeting
Minutes – March 24, 2026

• Whether there would be ongoing review periods or opportunities to revise the Commercial Cannabis Program after implementation, that could be done since the ordinance could always be amended through a first and second read as part of an ordinance amendment. (Mayor Pro Tem Murphy)
• Commercial cannabis licenses would be reviewed in the same way the City reviewed typical licensing through the Community Development Department and a business license application review would be included. Staff could confirm compliance with state licensing requirements as well. In terms of the potential revocation of a commercial cannabis license, the license would include requirements for compliance and there would be a renewal period and possibly periodic checks to ensure compliance. If the applicant failed to comply with any reporting requirements, that could be the basis for removal of rescission of a license and would be a policy decision and something where the City Council could provide direction. (Mayor Pro Tem Murphy) • In terms of community engagement related to Proposition 64, the Control, Regulate, and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act, staff had not done much community engagement at this time, but that would change if the City Council were to consider leading any kind of public workshops. Information on Proposition 64 was available online. (Mayor Pro Tem Murphy)
• Whether staff was considering data from other cities, which had shown the impacts from cannabis businesses on crime rates, no specific data sets were available from the cities that had commercial cannabis businesses. That information was difficult to quantify. Speaking with Police Chiefs in cities with commercial cannabis businesses, they were unable to provide hard numbers but staff could push for more information.

Staff emphasized the more proactive they were in the safety plan and working with the developers to ensure they had a solid security plan, both hard security and physical security of the location and practices, such as how businesses were securing cash and product after hours, would help deter crime. Acknowledged a request for more baseline data about how commercial cannabis businesses were impacting crime, when that crime was happening, in what businesses and what cities, which information would be helpful. (Mayor Pro Tem Murphy)
• In terms of specific locations where there was an increase in crime, that data was currently collected now whether a commercial business or residential and the Pinole Police Department (PPD) looked at Calls for Service (CFS) and worked with the resident or business to mitigate the volume of CFS as much as possible, which would carry over for this type of business as well. (Mayor Pro Tem Murphy) • Staff recommended the City increase its camera system in the event commercial cannabis businesses were permitted. A live feed camera would come directly to the PPD and would assist in the response to a location, although there was no staff to monitor the cameras at all times. Most of the time camera systems were used after the fact to identify individuals who were responsible for a crime. (Mayor Pro Tem Murphy)

Pinole City Council Special Meeting
Minutes – March 24, 2026

• It was the Police Chief’s opinion that a commercial cannabis business be placed as far away from the freeway as possible, since if a crime occurred it allowed the PPD a better chance to apprehend suspects before reaching the freeway while recognizing from a business standpoint, it made sense for such a business to be closer to the freeway where people who may not be residents may stop in and make purchases. Staff reported the area of Fitzgerald Drive experienced a lot of shoplifting with most calls to the PPD from the businesses themselves. This had been a challenge since oftentimes those committing the crimes were not citizens of Pinole but people committing the crimes and leaving the City. Acknowledged a request that a follow-up presentation include data that proved the location of a commercial cannabis facility should not be near a freeway. Staff acknowledged not every type of commercial cannabis business, as outlined in the PowerPoint presentation, needed freeway visibility such as warehouse/distribution, which made sense to be located in a more industrial area. Staff could provide the best data possible, but there were lots of variables on this topic. (Mayor Pro Tem Murphy)
• The City received $99,000 as part of a Cannabis Grant for this current fiscal year.

Another application had been submitted in February 2026 for $174,000 in funding. The funding the City had received allowed for the purchase of a traffic motorcycle, which would be on the street soon. Funds also provided training for PPD officers to recognize impaired drivers and outreach and education materials about driving under the influence of cannabis. Staff would follow-up on the status of funding for the grant application submitted in February 2026. (Mayor Pro Tem Murphy) • The process for considering commercial cannabis licenses was yet to be determined.

There could be an RFP process or a Request for Qualification (RFQ) for operators but again the process was yet to be determined with the City Council to weigh-in along with collaboration with the community. Clarified the operating agreements would come before the City Council for approval with the issuance of the license an administrative function. (Mayor Pro Tem Murphy)
• Confirmed much of the prior data on this topic, which had last been discussed in 2021, had to be updated. (Mayor Tave)
• If the City Council were to move forward to develop a Commercial Cannabis Ordinance, it would involve a first and second read, although staff was interested in hearing from the community and having more workshops and standalone discussions, which would take some time. If moving forward with a consultant that would also take some time resulting in a lengthy process. (Mayor Tave)
• A social equity program could be included in the RFP and could be considered and discussed. (Mayor Tave)
• If the City Council decided to move forward, a Commercial Cannabis Program could be set up. If as an example the City Council decided to issue two licenses, an RFP for operators to submit a proposal for those two licenses would be issued, to be evaluated and assessed with a recommendation brought forward to the City Council. (Mayor Pro Tem Murphy)

Pinole City Council Special Meeting
Minutes – March 24, 2026

• An agreement would be approved by the City Council in an open meeting and weighin on the terms of the agreement, if needed. It would be a competitive procurement, since the City did not have anything in its current Procurement Policy for this type of procurement, but that process would be developed through this process and include identification of the standards to be set, qualifications, and then development of a procurement policy for those retailers through this exercise. (Mayor Pro Tem Murphy)

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Debbie Long stated she was not necessarily opposed to commercial cannabis but was opposed at this time. The City had too much on its plate and she commented on the time the City Council had taken to have the current discussion, staff time required to follow through and get all of this done, which cost money. The City was again coming to residents to consider several taxes and that money could be better spent towards potholes. She asked whether the grants discussed were specific to PPD needs or whether the funds could be used for consultants or cover any staff time. She suggested there were plenty of cannabis clubs to meet anyone’s needs, with locations in El Sobrante and at Hilltop in Richmond. She knew people who used cannabis and was not judging anyone that did, but it was a matter of timing and now was not the time. She would also like to ensure there were enough tools included in a permit for commercial cannabis to ensure strict compliance.

As an example, Ms. Long stated it should not take three strikes you’re out, but it would depend on the strike. She suggested any crime was too much crime. She also wanted more information on police calls to such facilities, such as what would the call entail, who was the victim and how was the victim affected. She reiterated one crime was too many, the timing was not right to pursue this topic but possibly next year. She emphasized the City needed to figure out what it was doing between the budget and taxes.

Cathy McFarland suggested the City Council was considering adding cannabis dispensaries to save the City from mismanagement and irresponsible spending of tax dollars. She commented a basic study for the project could cost between $25,000 and $50,000 or more. She asked the City Council to stop wasting money and create solutions to problems. Rather, she wanted to see the vacant lots, as identified in the City’s asset list dated June 3, 2024, in which the City was paying taxes, insurance and maintenance, to be sold to gain revenue for the City.

Ms. McFarland stated she had shared in October or November 2025, a list of the top 20 dangerous cities in the state, two of which were located in Contra Costa County; the cities of Richmond and Antioch. She pointed out all 20 cities had cannabis sales. She suggested there was a correlation between drugs and crimes, and referenced two reports to support her comments, which information she had previously submitted for the record. She added the City had mentioned both of those cities in the PowerPoint presentation as examples for pushing cannabis dispensaries in Pinole in 2025.

Ms. McFarland also reported total cannabis sales for the State of California for 2024 was approximately $4.6 billion, and in Contra Costa County $107 million, with total alcohol sales in the State of California in 2024 at $29.4 billion. She suggested the City wanted to encourage and profit off of those with addictions for money by allowing cannabis shops, but at the same time educate people about the use of cannabis. She found that to be an oxymoron.

Pinole City Council Special Meeting
Minutes – March 24, 2026

Ms. McFarland suggested they were creating a problem and coming up with a solution that never fixed the problem but would be used as a revenue stream of income. She supported no cannabis dispensaries in Pinole.

Peter Murray commented this issue had been debated years ago. He questioned what happened to all of the documentation from prior discussions, expressing concern the City could spend upwards of $60,000 for someone to tell them the same thing that was already somewhere in a drawer at City Hall. He understood the City Attorney was present for those presentations at that time and again questioned whether the City was going to rehash what had already been discussed or whether there were some new findings. He questioned whether the City may possibly permit two licenses for commercial cannabis businesses and suggested they were not needed in Pinole since there were plenty of dispensaries outside of Pinole. He also questioned whether or not serious numbers had been identified to address all of the issues that could be created if this was permitted and what would be done for those people who had problems with cannabis, or the fact it could lead to a deeper involvement in drugs. There were already issues in Oakland, San Francisco and Richmond, and those were not the communities he wanted to emulate. Pinole was a virtuous City, and should be desired as a family town not a high-end metropolitan city that accepted such issues. He suggested cannabis was not needed, it had been decided years ago it was not needed, and the City Council should learn from the people who preceded them.

Mary Horton urged the City Council to listen to the people. She was aware Council members have had conversations, supporters and special interests that had encouraged this dialogue, but she encouraged the City Council to keep the eye on the ball. She found this type of business was not needed and Pinole had a small police force. Pinole had problems in its small city with limited time and money to deal with them. Restaurants along San Pablo Avenue and more were suffering since COVID-19, and she wondered where the staff time, devotion, resources and money had gone to help struggling local restaurants/businesses. There had also been graffiti on a local building reading “fire the Mayor and fix the roads” with the response from the Mayor at that time they would “get those people who graffitied the building and hold them to account.” The problems in the City were roads, ancillary crime, keeping the City safe and maintaining parks, which were the issues in front of the City Council. She suggested if going to the voters for support, there would likely be a solid and decisive no, and she begged the City Council to look at the issues in front of them and possibly table this topic for another time, again with other jurisdictions handling cannabis just fine. She urged the City Council to vote no.

Jesson de Leon stated he had called in after seeing the Special Meeting agenda item. Based on a fiscal perspective, the $600,000 in projected revenue was generously on the high end considering the State of California and the Governor had reduced taxes for existing cannabis businesses because the cannabis industry was in decline. When considering fiscal responsibility, he urged the City Council to consider other avenues for revenue such as perhaps a gross receipts tax on existing businesses, which utilized the retailers currently in Pinole. As someone who moved to Pinole specifically for the family-oriented community, he would not want cannabis in the City, not because he wanted to deny access to those who needed it, but because there were so many other locations where cannabis could be accessed. Pinole did not have the infrastructure in place for the robust regulations that would be required to start a cannabis program.

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED

Pinole City Council Special Meeting
Minutes – March 24, 2026

Council member Toms commented there had been a proposal for an Economic Study and it was stated the item had not been budgeted. If the City Council were to modify the budget, she asked where the funds would come from, particularly since the budget was so tight.

Finance Director Guillory confirmed the budget was tight and would recommend the funds come from the Unassigned Fund Balance that could be used for one-time uses.

Council member Sasai asked about the sequencing of the action items that staff recommended the City Council provide direction. He found it made no sense to move forward with the items simultaneously since some of the data from the Commercial Cannabis Study would inform the questions asked about the information presented during the outreach to be conducted. Similarly, the feedback from residents during the outreach would determine what should be included in the ordinance to be drafted, such as the number of permits, buffer zones, impacts to public safety and the like, and which would inform next steps. He asked if the staff recommendation was to sequence the recommendations as outlined in the PowerPoint presentation.

City Attorney Casher deferred to others, but noted currently there was no recommendation for sequencing. Staff viewed the recommendations as next steps needed to move the item forward.

Staff could receive direction and he acknowledged Council member Martinez-Rubin had recommended having Town Halls and webinars to help inform the consultant-driven process and noted this could be approached in a number of different ways. There was no recommendation on sequencing, but it was a recommendation to consider an RFP and the community engagement as next steps.

Council member Sasai found information from both steps could inform the process and he would wait for discussion from the rest of the City Council on sequencing. He asked about impaired driving statistics, and for cities and counties where there was a presence or concentration of cannabis dispensaries, whether an increase in impaired driving had occurred.

Police Chief Klawuhn did not have the data on what was specifically being asked but she could attempt to get that information.

Council member Sasai responded to public comment about cannabis being a gateway drug. He suggested any data or information would be helpful to understand whether that was true and whether cannabis was a gateway drug to prohibited substances. He asked whether staff had conducted any research.

City Attorney Casher suggested that would be part of a community engagement and education plan. It was important to level set and have those conversations with the community to ensure there was alignment with their understanding of the facts and available studies.

Council member Sasai looked forward to having those conversations with the community. He otherwise recommended moving forward with the first two staff recommendations, and when considering the cost of a cannabis program also consider the return in investment, which a Commercial Cannabis Study would show. While they may be over or under approximating the potential revenue, that study would be helpful. He was curious to see how other cities had put into place a Community Benefits Agreement and what it paid for.

Pinole City Council Special Meeting
Minutes – March 24, 2026

If there were cannabis dispensaries in Pinole, Council member Sasai suggested the operators should pay for improvements in the City, such as revitalization, public art, things that could help with graffiti, Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) and how that could be funded, possible funding of micro grants for small businesses in Pinole to possibly rehabilitate properties, surveillance and anything that could enhance public safety for all businesses in Pinole.

Council member Sasai acknowledged the former Mayors in the Council Chambers and thanked them for their comments. He also looked forward to seeing the meeting minutes and discussion about cannabis that a former City Council had conducted in previous years, and would like to listen to the people, which was why the outreach and communication strategy was so important.

He looked forward to feedback from the community on their appetite for cannabis dispensaries in Pinole and other types of businesses, and moving from there if that was something the community wanted to move forward with.

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy acknowledged the public comments on some of the issues and questioned the communication and engagement plan and did not envy staff on the work necessary to educate the public today about things that had been instilled wrongfully over the past few decades. He would like to see the City move forward with the Community Engagement Plan. He suggested there were stakeholders, partners and businesses who could help with that effort. He wanted to see staff reach out to Kaiser as an opportunity for that public education, since he assumed there were resources and data that explained cannabis as a medicine. He also asked staff to reach out to Stanford Botanicals Wellness LLC, a small business in Pinole centered on herbal medicine since 2020, and which had been a participant in many City events.

And, also reach out to NORML, an organization that was fundamentally built around education and research on cannabis. He wanted residents to have the space to speak up and a space for residents to have a basis of facts and approach to education that was open and clear-eyed on what commercial cannabis meant for the City along with the health impacts of cannabis. He feared a lack of education of the public and ideally with the Communication and Engagement Plan he hoped to avoid misinformation. He trusted the Communications Director and her team would ensure that would not happen.

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy commented that Proposition 64 was great internally for staff to understand what that meant for the State and they now had to reiterate what that meant for the public. The organizations he mentioned could be helpful to develop some of the research and data. While commercial cannabis could be a revenue and cost recoverable opportunity, the value of the research and data could help this issue and future City Councils. He recognized there was some content around a previous City Council in 2020, and he would like to see that information.

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy also found the Economic Study would be valuable and he thanked the Finance Director for outlining the skeleton of what that would look like. He was excited to identify the types of cannabis businesses and not center only on storefront and distribution, and would be interested in how the RFQ or RFP process could ensure a scope to help understand the types of businesses they could have in Pinole and their economic impact. It was important to understand the health impacts and an economic analysis of each business, if possible, which he understood the Economic Study would include.

Finance Director Guillory suggested those topics would be covered under a basic study, which typically looked at the various types of activities.

Pinole City Council Special Meeting
Minutes – March 24, 2026

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy further commented that the ordinance sounded like a good idea, necessary and 21st century government, and he supported that as well. He pointed out Pinole was behind other cities on this issue but the time they took to get here was important, and he valued those who made a decision early on to restrict commercial cannabis since they allowed themselves the possibility of looking at other cities and seeing what they had done. They now had more data that could come back and he thanked staff for the openness to bringing more data back to the City Council.

Council member Martinez-Rubin noted during the March 17, 2026 City Council meeting, HdL provided a presentation on revenue generation, specifically on tax revenue generation, and the report and information provided listed a number of potential types of businesses that could be of interest to consider. They had not talked much about viability but it was based on the market as currently known. She found it interesting that commercial cannabis was not on the list nor were retail dispensaries for products and what they saw were consumer goods and purchases for sale taxes that helped the City. She understood that HdL advised on cannabis regulations and should the City go that route, she would like HdL as a potential consultant to help mesh the data that was available on tax generation since they were part of the study a consultant would have. Also, HdL could provide information on the market size and demand in Pinole, and within a certain distance from Pinole, cannabis products from other nearby cities. She would be interested in having HdL also provide something that would inform what the competitive landscape was given there were existing dispensaries in nearby cities, and accessibility was not an issue. Medicinal cannabis products were also available as they were delivered into the City of Pinole, with accessibility not an issue. She asked whether the Economic Study would provide information on market size and demand and tax revenue projections.

Finance Director Guillory confirmed the study would provide market size and demand but she was unsure it would provide tax revenue projections but could inquire.

Council member Martinez-Rubin would also like to know that information in terms of how much was actually coming into a City. She asked the Interim City Manager if the amount quoted from a developer he had spoken with was specifically about taxes, since for every dollar of purchase the City would only get a certain percentage of that on any type of product sold. She would want information about what it would take in terms of gross receipts and type of activity in order to generate the kind of revenue via taxes that would support the costs associated with implementing a business program for commercial cannabis. She would also want to see an analysis of compliance fees and security requirements, as discussed as an issue, and the impacts of the tax restrictions on business viability as well as the administration process required to keep businesses of this type in Pinole, whatever type that might be as listed in the PowerPoint presentation.

Council member Martinez-Rubin noted HdL was acquainted with such businesses throughout the State and had spoken to the complexity of taxes involved, whether they were from direct purchases on-site as well as from deliveries given current tax law, and where taxes would actually go. She agreed a lot had to be clarified before even suggesting an ordinance, because data was needed in the context of what was known to be an issue. She was not expecting quantitative data on all of the questions asked and noted the City Council would have to get to a point to decide as best as possible based on what was presented and what the public sentiment was on the different issues.

Pinole City Council Special Meeting
Minutes – March 24, 2026

Mayor Tave stated the HdL report that had been presented to the City Council on March 17, 2026, had about $17 million worth of clothing that was purchased outside of Pinole. This discussion was about getting more information to communicate with the public. He also highlighted a number of milestones in the State of California related to cannabis, including: Proposition 19 in 1972, the nation’s first ballot to legalize cannabis failed; in 1975, the state decriminalized the possession of cannabis up to one ounce; in 1996, the Compassionate Use Act, Proposition 215 allowed doctors to issue a medical license for someone to use cannabis for medical reasons; in 2003, Senate Bill (SB) 420 allowed medical patients to form cooperatives and collectives to collectively purchase cannabis without having to pay an enormous amount; in 2010, SB 1449 reduced possession of cannabis to less than an ounce to a criminal infraction; in 2014, Proposition 47 downgraded the possession of many controlled substances from felonies to misdemeanors; in 2015, the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act (MMRSA) was passed; in 2016, Proposition 64, Adult Use of Marijuana Act passed; in 2018, legal commercial recreational sales began; in 2019, SB 94 streamlined regulations by merging medical and recreational laws under the Medical and Adult Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act; in 2021, the Department of Cannabis Control was established; and in 2025, the Social Equity Program Extension was established. All of this information had shown this was not new, or something that was that complex, although HdL would be hard pressed to level out since the cannabis laws were different from city to city.

Mayor Tave found the City had taken a good approach by keeping general information in this discussion, but the City deserved a deep dive into this topic since people in Pinole used cannabis/marijuana for varying reasons, and the City needed to take a look and ensure doing a comprehensive report and bring it back to citizens for comment. He also recognized there were concerns in the community on the potential number of licenses, what a cannabis business would look like, the hours of operation and the like, which concerns were acknowledged but which he found to be over policing of cannabis in the past, and now people were starting to realize there was a different perspective. He was in favor of a more comprehensive report, but he asked to lean on some of the other city partners in the area who had tried and failed some tactics, or some of the different regulations they tried to put into place as a comparison, to allow a better conversation moving forward. He welcomed any motion to provide to staff.

Council member Sasai commented that eight years ago, Measure R was on the ballot for a countywide measure to legalize cannabis dispensaries, cultivation and allow revenue from businesses, which measure passed by 71.44 percent. He asked the City Clerk if there was any way to place a quick call to the County Clerk Recorder to see if the aggregated data could be provided on how Pinole residents voted on the measure, and City Clerk Bell-Spears confirmed that could be done.

Council member Sasai added that AB 1775, passed a year or two ago, allowed for on-site consumption and sale of food and beverages at dispensaries. He asked for that to be included in the commercial cannabis analysis in the RFP as well as part of the discussion during the community outreach.

Mayor Tave commented this issue had been around for a long time, and there could be families that had been impacted by laws that were unjust before, which was why they had to find a way to weave some restorative justice into this topic so that revenue from such businesses that was going to the City somehow weaved its way back into the community.

Pinole City Council Special Meeting
Minutes – March 24, 2026

There had also been impacts to law enforcement as well, and the Mayor would like to see how other communities had seen that revenue stream go back to their police and fire departments.

Council member Martinez-Rubin offered a motion, seconded by Council member Toms, to direct staff to design and implement a series of workshops to inform and assess the need for a Cannabis Program in the City of Pinole.

Council member Sasai asked if the motion was different from the outreach strategy staff had outlined in the staff report.

On the motion, Council member Martinez-Rubin commented that her motion and the staff recommendation probably overlapped, but the way she read what was presented as part of the staff report was that it would be prior to an ordinance. In her mind, it was an assumption an ordinance would occur. Her motion was to have a series of workshops to inform everyone and the public, to discuss even further some of the items they had discussed during this workshop.

The series of workshops could have themes along the lines of the categories of the types of questions that had been raised. She found the two processes would overlap but her motion was intended to inform future direction.

Council member Sasai agreed there was not enough information to just draft an ordinance at this time. He suggested the analysis provided by a consultant could provide information given to residents who engaged in the outreach plan as well as answer any questions anyone may have.

He clarified the motion, as stated, was not in total alignment with the outreach and communication strategy staff had prepared.

Council member Martinez-Rubin reiterated her intent for the motion, as stated. While her motion was a different purpose from the staff recommendation for the outreach and communication strategy, she was attempting to ask for an assessment to identify the need for an ordinance. The City Council had discussions to bring them to this point and the City Council itself, among them had generated a number of questions given the unknowns. She wanted to combine the City Council’s perspectives with questions in their minds, along with whatever may be generated from the public, and they could meet at some point or not, but it was another way to obtain data that would inform the direction to take. The motion would not negate the need for a study by a consultant, specifically around the numbers piece, and whatever quantitative data there could be could complement both, which would be informative.

Mayor Tave commented he would prefer adding an ad-alt to the RFP and to have that outreach component, since presently there was not enough data and answers to questions that had been raised, which was the purpose of the workshop. He wondered if the consultant could do that work, which may make more sense, and where they would have more content to have a discussion. He sought an opportunity for the consultant to put facts in front of them to allow for a deeper conversation and asked if that might offer a better route.

Council member Martinez-Rubin noted that Mayor Pro Tem Murphy had brought up a need for a lesson in history and or the process of the different legal statutes that had occurred. The very act of having opportunities to have discussions and raise questions was educational in and of itself.

Pinole City Council Special Meeting
Minutes – March 24, 2026

Council member Martinez-Rubin stated her motion was very general and staff could design a series of workshops based on what they had heard at this time and what had been discovered in the process of developing an RFP, and learning from the prospective consultants what they could offer. Offering an opportunity for people to have more inquiries and questions would be informative. She referenced the process the City Council had taken when updating the City seal and how they had used existing venues and opportunities or events the City already had, which were not workshops, but were periods of time spent with members of the public where information was provided, and that along with a survey which asked for input and which allowed the opportunity to raise questions or just broadly open up the question, whether there was a need for a cannabis program in Pinole and what was envisioned, would open up the opportunity for people to comment.

Council member Sasai suggested the City seal process had been beautifully done, and provided a lot of feedback from the community and as a result the City ended up with a great product, but he found that a discussion about commercial cannabis would be more complex given the impacts and the number of factors the community should consider before providing true feedback after all of the data had been presented. The analyses would provide the community with that necessary data to then make a determination whether there was an appetite for commercial cannabis.

Mayor Tave commented the City seal process had been done masterfully. He applauded the work done with the help of a consultant who had guided the conversations. Presently, they were discussing getting that consultant on-board to help with that and he agreed with the comments this was not an easy topic. He suggested having a professional working with the team to come up with a process was essential and for the City Council to try to bombard staff with questions as they had during this discussion, and looking for answers was a good thing because they were asking the questions. This was a workshop to start the discussion, get feedback and bring it together with a consultant. He understood the intent of the motion but found the language staff had included for an outreach program was sufficient.

Mayor Tave suggested possibly an Ad Hoc Committee could be considered which had worked for the City seal process.

Council member Toms suggested that could be part one since there had not been surveys or a lot of public outreach other than having this topic on two agendas. She agreed the City did not know the public’s appetite for this topic before spending the money for a Fiscal Impact Study or having staff time expended to draft an ordinance, since the City had not heard from the public.

Also, this topic was not on the City Council priority list.

Mayor Tave suggested the City had been discussing this topic for some time. Based on his discussions with community members, people used cannabis for medical reasons, cannabis for recreational reasons and went to dispensaries outside Pinole. He recognized the comments but emphasized the need to have answers to many questions prior to the City Council moving forward with an ordinance. The community needed answers given there was some bias, and misinformation on both sides of the dais that needed to be addressed with facts. He again heard the comments provided by Council member Martinez-Rubin, and for him those comments had been well received, but he suggested there should be that guiding hand of a consultant to have this conversation in depth to allow for real and meaningful communication with the general public as a whole.

Pinole City Council Special Meeting
Minutes – March 24, 2026

Council member Martinez-Rubin explained they were not necessarily asking for answers from the public, but offering an opportunity to ask questions and she suggested one in a series of workshops could provide that opportunity for inquiry by the public.

Mayor Tave suggested the current workshop had provided the well-received content Commissioner Martinez-Rubin was asking for, and he question what else was needed.

Council member Martinez-Rubin suggested the use of the Senior Center and another venue that was not in a formal setting would allow the opportunity for back-and-forth discussions and open inquiries so that the City Council and staff could get some sense of the kinds of things that were questions and allowed the public to provide feedback. She again wanted to see a venue where people could come together knowing that there was a theme to the workshop that could be any one of the areas where there was a set of questions that were discussed at this workshop, and then open it up to public inquiries.

Mayor Tave stated to facilitate that conversation was why he suggested an Ad Hoc Committee.

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy asked for the motion to be restated.

City Clerk Bell-Spears advised the original motion was to direct staff to design and implement a series of workshops to inform and assess the need for a Cannabis Program in the City of Pinole.

In response to the Mayor Pro Tem, Council member Martinez-Rubin clarified her motion, as reread into the record, was not intended to exclude consideration of an ordinance, she was just reiterating the motion, which she again read into the record as follows: to direct staff to design and implement a series of workshops to inform and assess the need for a Cannabis Program in the City of Pinole. She affirmed that the workshops would include the possibility of an ordinance, which was the reason for the questions.

On the motion, Council member Sasai asked about the number of workshops, venues, timeline and the like. He also asked that the staff costs and staff hours be approximated.

Council member Martinez-Rubin suggested that would be determined based on staff’s availability and what staff considered feasible given other priority items that the City Council had established.

Council member Sasai asked staff to respond since staff put in the work to draft the outreach and communication strategy. The motion as stated was a different approach and would be in addition to the staff recommendation. He asked staff how they saw the timeline duration, staff costs and staff time and when that data would be brought back to the City Council for another round of consideration.

Interim City Manager Evans suggested an Ad Hoc Committee would be a wonderful way to pull the information together and bounce ideas off the members on what was enough time. He suggested there would be a handful of hours to pull all of this together into a legible format, and the pre-data gathering that had come up needed to be done. A workshop at the Senior Center or other venues could be done and staff could lead the discussion, with the public to provide input that would also include discussion of a possible ordinance.

Pinole City Council Special Meeting
Minutes – March 24, 2026

The Interim City Manager added that he could provide a more concrete number working with staff on the costs involved, but that could also be something that could be discussed with an Ad Hoc Committee. He commented that if staff returned at the April 7, 2026 City Council meeting with the creation of an Ad Hoc Committee, they could then bounce ideas off in a Zoom team meeting quickly and ensure they were going down the right path, and provide feedback from the Ad Hoc Committee to the full City Council thereafter.

Council member Sasai suggested that was a great suggestion. He supported an Ad Hoc Committee given the engagement needed with the public, stakeholders, including industry and labor. He recommended moving forward with an Ad Hoc Committee that was a good first step as opposed to a series of workshops given there were many things to iron out first.

ACTION: Motion by Council members Martinez-Rubin/Toms to direct staff to design and implement a series of workshops to inform and assess the need for a Cannabis Program in the City of Pinole.

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

Absent: None
Council member Sasai offered a motion, seconded by Mayor Tave to establish an Ad Hoc Committee to discuss the topic of Commercial Cannabis Programs.

On the motion, Mayor Pro Tem Murphy asked the Finance Director whether legalized cannabis was considered a consumer good, to which Finance Director Guillory advised she was not aware of that and would have to do some research.

Interim City Manager Evans commented it was an excise tax more than what would be seen on a Bradley Burns.

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy commented it had been referenced during the meeting that HdL provided a presentation at the March 17, 2026 City Council meeting about consumer goods. He hypothesized that commercial cannabis or any cannabis legalized would be considered a consumer good, since it was taxable and legal. He asked for clarification. He also asked if HdL was paid to provide the report or whether the report was provided for free.

Finance Director Guillory confirmed HdL had been paid for the report provided to the City Council and which was an update to a report prepared in 2019 as part of the Market Analytics Report.

She added there was a separate arm of HdL that conducted studies on cannabis, and that would not have been automatically included in the report presented. She further clarified the report had been geared to the City of Pinole specifically and what the City had now in terms of its tax base, and where some of the gaps were. Since the City of Pinole did not currently have commercial cannabis businesses, it had not been included in the report.

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy wanted to ensure that while commercial cannabis was not currently in Pinole, it was considered a consumer good in the State of California, pursuant to Proposition 64.

Pinole City Council Special Meeting
Minutes – March 24, 2026

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy emphasized the importance of that information being provided given the amount of misinformation in the Council Chambers. He would like to see the Ad Hoc Committee discuss the consumer good idea.

Council member Sasai could include that in the motion and could also further amend his motion that the Ad Hoc Committee discuss the advancement of a possible Commercial Cannabis Program and ordinance to include everything discussed at this meeting, the outreach and communication strategy and a targeted outreach to stakeholders.

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy further commented he would not support an Ad Hoc Committee for this item. He suggested the City Council should follow the staff recommendations to prepare an RFP for a consultant to conduct an analysis of potential expenditures and revenues associated with establishing a cannabis program and initiate the proposed outreach and communication strategy to engage the community in the preparation of a commercial cannabis ordinance. As to the staff recommendation to prepare a draft Commercial Cannabis Ordinance, including the types of allowed cannabis businesses and the requirements to obtain a permit to include in the ordinance, he would like to see staff provide examples from some of the cities referenced or the expanded list of cities and counties he had requested from Solano, Napa and Marin Counties. While okay with an Ad Hoc Committee, it would deter from the actual work that needed to be done, and move those items forward, as staff had recommended, and subject to the feedback provided by the City Council. He also saw the value of having a consultant move the conversations forward in a structured way beyond what they had today.

Council member Martinez-Rubin asked whether the Ad Hoc Committee would also consider the need to assess whether a Cannabis Program was needed in Pinole.

Council member Sasai suggested the Ad Hoc Committee should discuss the outreach process to determine whether or not the people of Pinole had an appetite for this type of program and it was not the Ad Hoc Committee making the decision. He reiterated the outreach and communication strategy included in the staff report was work already done and he saw no other amendments were needed.

Council member Martinez-Rubin clarified it would be the purpose of the outreach and education, and she suggested there be an element of assessment to determine the need for a Cannabis Program, which was not foreign to the discussion but a necessity to include input. If the Ad Hoc Committee recommended there be opportunities for public input on the need for a Cannabis Program that would complement much of what was being discussed.

Council member Sasai found this discussion to be circular in nature. He suggested the City just needed to hear from the people of Pinole, whether or not they wanted to move forward with commercial cannabis and noted in his interactions with residents he found support.

Mayor Tave suggested the Ad Hoc Committee was well defined and there was enough information to vote on the motion. He suggested if a Council member had concern, that member should work with the Interim City Manager to have more input with the Ad Hoc Committee, without violating the Brown Act, which would be a good platform to get more information vetted out. He hoped the Ad Hoc Committee would return with recommendations moving forward.

Pinole City Council Special Meeting
Minutes – March 24, 2026

Council member Sasai suggested what Council member Martinez-Rubin was asking would prolong the process that had already been laid out by staff. If appointed to the Ad Hoc Committee, he would advocate that the life of the Ad Hoc Committee not be an extended one to two-year process but allow a couple of workshops to get people on board.

Mayor Tave understood if the motion passed an Ad Hoc Committee could be formed at the next City Council meeting, which was when they could well define the outcomes from the Ad Hoc Committee. He suggested an Ad Hoc Committee would help digest the information and come back with recommendations to the City Council, which was the best process to allow a decision to be reached.

City Clerk Bell-Spears clarified the motion with Council member Sasai, to establish an Ad Hoc Committee of the City Council to discuss issues related to Commercial Cannabis Programs and discuss the consumer goods question as well as discuss advancement of a possible Commercial Cannabis Program and ordinance to include everything discussed at this meeting, the outreach and communication strategy and a targeted outreach to stakeholders.

Council member Sasai wanted it clear in the motion that the primary reason for the Ad Hoc Committee was to move forward with an initial outreach plan for informal workshops, and that information be taken back to the City Council at the end of the duration of the Ad Hoc Committee.

In response to the Mayor, City Clerk Bell-Spears advised the creation of an Ad Hoc Committee would be agendized under Council Appointments.

City Attorney Casher responded to Mayor Tave’s question as to how much time would be involved to draft an ordinance if the results were overwhelming in favor of an ordinance that he would look at other agencies in the area to find another city that had a comparable program that Pinole was trying to establish. He noted there were a lot of examples out there.

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy asked that the motion be amended and that the Ad Hoc Committee have a closure within 60-days.

Council member Sasai accepted the recommendation for a closure of 60-days for the Ad Hoc Committee.

Council member Martinez-Rubin expressed concern with that limited amount of time given they were in the budget period where staff would be occupied with that process and it could be a burden to staff.

Interim City Manager Evans acknowledged staff would be busy with the budget but could work with the Ad Hoc Committee and try to hit the deliverables as much as possible. Should staff reach a point where additional time was needed, they could come back to the full City Council with an interim report of the progress to date and request additional time, if needed.

ACTION: Motion by Council members Sasai/Mayor Tave to establish an Ad Hoc Committee to: discuss the topic of Commercial Cannabis Programs; discuss the advancement of a possible Commercial Cannabis Program and ordinance to include everything discussed at this meeting, the outreach and communication strategy and a targeted outreach to

Pinole City Council Special Meeting
Minutes – March 24, 2026

stakeholders; with the primary reason for the Ad Hoc Committee to move forward with an initial outreach plan for informal workshops and that information be taken back to the City Council at the end of the duration of the Ad Hoc Committee, and with the Ad Hoc Committee to have a closure of 60-days, which could be extended, if needed, to be discussed by the City Council.

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 Sasai to direct staff to prepare a Request for Proposal (RFP) for a consultant to conduct an analysis of potential expenditures and revenues associated with the establishment of a Cannabis Program.

On the motion, Council member Sasai asked that the timeline for the RFP be brought back to the City Council.

Interim City Manager Evans explained it would take 30-days to write the RFP, possibly 45-days for responses, another 30- to 45-days to review responses and prepare an item for the City Council, which could be another 30-days. He added, when asked, that the Ad Hoc Committee would run regardless of the process decided.

Council member Martinez-Rubin asked whether it was understood that a number of the questions that were asked about what would be included in data/information to be received from the consultant would be included in the RFP.

Interim City Manager Evans stated that would be the intent over the next 30-days.

ACTION: Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Murphy/Council member Sasai to direct staff to prepare a Request for Proposal (RFP) for a consultant to conduct an analysis of potential expenditures and revenues associated with the establishment of a Cannabis Program.

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

Absent: None

6. NEW BUSINESS
A. Voter Survey Results. Action: Receive a Report and Provide Direction (Markisha Guillory)
Finance Director Guillory introduced Joshua Emeneger, Principal Researcher, Probolsky Research, who provided an extensive PowerPoint presentation on the City of Pinole, Voter Survey Executive Results Presentation, dated March 2026.

Pinole City Council Special Meeting
Minutes – March 24, 2026

The presentation provided the voter survey results for various tax measures and highlighted the survey methodology. Based on the responses to questions in the survey, the following conclusions were identified:
• Facebook was determined to be the top social app and website used regularly by voters. • 99 percent rate of respondents found the quality of life in Pinole as good or fair. • 71 percent of respondents were satisfied with the job the City was doing in providing services to residents.
• 79 percent of the respondents were satisfied with fire and paramedic emergency response service and response times.

• 78 percent of respondents were satisfied with police services. • 57 percent of respondents were unsatisfied with the Public Works. • 44 percent of respondents agreed that the City managed taxpayer money responsibly. • 49 percent of respondents agreed that the City operated transparently. • 94 percent of respondents agreed that it’s smarter to invest in needed infrastructure improvements now rather than paying high repair costs later. • 77 percent of respondents thought there was a need for additional funds to maintain the level of City services and facilities.

A breakdown of the percentages of respondents’ responses to a number of questions on the survey related to providing effective public safety and maintaining streets and sidewalks as the most important services, and providing effective public safety as the service with the highest satisfaction was identified, with the largest gap between the importance and satisfaction maintaining streets and sidewalks at 48 percent.

A breakdown was also provided on responses to questions about the various tax measures (with each question followed by a series of follow-up questions and message effectiveness, which were also highlighted and outlined in the PowerPoint presentation), as follows:

Question: To repair and improve Pinole’s aging streets and roads; fix potholes; repair, construct, and improve sidewalks and pedestrian safety improvements; upgrade storm drains to reduce flooding; and complete other essential infrastructure improvements; shall the City of Pinole issue bonds in an amount not to exceed twenty million dollars with bonds repaid from property taxes levied at legal rates, requiring independent citizen oversight, annual audits, and all funds spent locally and not for salaries or pensions; until ended by voters, requiring twothirds approval?

The measure had majority support.

Pinole City Council Special Meeting
Minutes – March 24, 2026

Question: To repair and improve Pinole’s aging streets and roads; fix potholes; repair, construct, and improve sidewalks and pedestrian safety improvements; upgrade storm drains to reduce flooding; and complete other essential infrastructure improvements; shall the City of Pinole issue bonds in an amount not to exceed twenty million dollars, with bonds repaid from property taxes levied at legal rates, requiring independent citizen oversight, annual audits, and all funds spent locally and not for salaries or pensions; until ended by voters, requiring twothirds approval?

The measure retained majority support.

Question: Shall City of Pinole establish a transactions and use (sales) tax by 0.25% to fund Pinole Police Department services such as patrol response, training, equipment, and dispatch, with all revenue kept local, independent citizens’ oversight and annual audits, generating approximately one million three hundred thousand dollars per year, until ended by voters, requiring two-thirds approval?

The measure had plurality opposition by a small margin.

Question: Shall City of Pinole establish a $250 per-parcel annual special tax, to fund Pinole Police Department services such as patrol/response, training, equipment, dispatch, with all revenue kept local, independent citizens’ oversight and annual audits, generating approximately one million five hundred thousand dollars per year, until ended by voters, requiring two-thirds approval?
The measure had majority opposition.

Question: Shall City of Pinole establish a transactions and use (sales) tax by 0.25% to fund Pinole Police Department services such as patrol response, training, equipment, and dispatch, with all revenue kept local, independent citizens’ oversight and annual audits, generating approximately one million three hundred thousand dollars per year, until ended by voters, requiring two-thirds approval?
The measure gained plurality support by a small margin.

Question: Shall City of Pinole establish a $250 per-parcel annual special tax, to fund Pinole Police Department services such as patrol/response, training, equipment, dispatch, with all revenue kept local, independent citizens’ oversight and annual audits, generating approximately one million five hundred thousand dollars per year, until ended by voters, requiring two-thirds approval?
The measure retained majority opposition.

It was also highlighted that 53 percent of respondents would for sure vote for a Pinole Infrastructure Bond Tax Measure, in response to the Question: There may be an additional tax measure placed on the November ballot by Contra Costa County. If approved by voters, the additional 0.625% Transactions and Use (sales) Tax would generate approximately $150 million to support general operations of the County for a period of five years. Out of the following potential tax measures on the November ballot, which would you for sure vote for? Select all that apply.

Pinole City Council Special Meeting
Minutes – March 24, 2026

Mr. Emeneger concluded the public safety tax measure was a no-go; it did not start or end up with majority support as the infrastructure tax measure, which was a challenge, particularly since a two-thirds vote would be required; the infrastructure tax measure had the highest gap between important and satisfaction and had shown that if they were to choose a tax measure, the infrastructure tax measure was the way to go.

If the City Council were to consider the route of the two-thirds dedicated special tax, it was possible but it would take quite a bit of investment in outreach. It was also possible to consider a General Tax, and at the same time have an advisory vote which would require 50+1, and have an advisory vote letting voters know this was for infrastructure, streets, repair of potholes, and fixing sidewalks. If both passed, voters could be informed it was more obtainable with the 50+1, and the advisory vote letting them reassure voters this was where the funds would go, even though it would go to the General Fund, and was the most likely pathway for success if they wanted to pass one of the measures.

Mr. Emeneger also highlighted the likely voter demographics, respondent demographics by gender, age group, ethnicity, education, household income and home type; demographics by party preference, vote propensity, survey mode, and survey language. He reiterated based on the polling results, there was a somewhat clear resolution that of the three potential tax measures, both the public safety measures whether a sales tax or a bond or a parcel tax, would have trouble passing and would not likely get the two-thirds vote required. The infrastructure tax measure may reach a two-thirds vote, but the most likely obtainable method would be to consider a General Sales Tax Measure with an advisory vote, to reassure voters that was where the money would go.

Responding to questions from the City Council, Mr. Emeneger clarified the following:
• While a two-thirds vote for an infrastructure bond was doable it would require a lot of outreach and education. Again, recommended consideration of a General Sales Tax Measure with an advisory vote. (Martinez-Rubin)
• Clarified Slide 2 of the PowerPoint presentation that had shown what websites were regularly used by voters and which was based on the responses from the respondents, with Facebook.com and You Tube the top two websites used regularly. The data was based on a question in the poll and not based on data from an outside source. (Mayor Pro Tem Murphy)
• Clarified again the outcomes to questions about the various tax measures, as shown in the PowerPoint presentation, and clarified the introduction used to the messaging when asking the questions about the various tax measures. (Mayor Pro Tem Murphy) • Clarified the Question: Shall City of Pinole establish a $250 per-parcel annual special tax, to fund Pinole Police Department services such as patrol/response, training, equipment, dispatch, with all revenue kept local, independent citizens’ oversight and annual audits, generating approximately one million five hundred thousand dollars per year, until ended by voters, requiring two-thirds approval?, with the consultant having worked with City staff to figure out what type of amounts could be used to test as part of the question. (Mayor Pro Tem Murphy)

Pinole City Council Special Meeting
Minutes – March 24, 2026

• The $250 dollar amount, had been run by City staff and the City Attorney for all ballot language. It was also clarified that while some of the numbers had been numeric and some written out in the questions about each tax measure, that had not been intentional but when speaking of total amounts, it was commonplace to write the figure out, which was why the consultant followed legal advice to do that. When considering an amount per parcel, it was common to show the amount in a numerical form. The consultant had followed Best Practices when it came to recreating the ballot languages. (Mayor Pro Tem Murphy)
• Reiterated there would be more support for a General Tax but which had not been tested and they had focused on the infrastructure tax measure, and for that measure the consultant was of the opinion with 50 +1 that had a very good chance of passing. (Toms)
• As to whether a taxable bond could be considered a General Tax, the consultant would have to return with clarification but anything that would go into the General Fund would be just the 50+1, and when speaking of that, any type of tax measure that could just get to that 50+1 and out of the special election, out of the dedicated funding and out of the two-thirds requirement would make it more electorally attainable. (Toms) • Reiterated 44 percent of respondents agreed the City managed taxpayer money responsibly and 38 percent disagreed, with 18.5 percent unsure. Of those surveyed, a percentage were unsure, particularly as they asked normative questions such as whether money was being spent responsibly and where they tended to see more unsure responses. It was also observed that when it came to questions about managing taxpayer money responsibly and transparent questions, over time the unsure category rose. Over the past couple of years, the disagree category had also risen and this was a national phenomenon seen everywhere given the national narrative affecting local politics. Given what was happening at the national level, responses to such questions had been more negative. What was seen was also in line with other communities in the state, but again the national narrative had affected perceptions at the local level. (Mayor Tave)

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Rafael Menis reported he found online information about a case before the Supreme Court of the State of California, City of San Jose v. the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, which had been decided on December 18, 2025. That case stated cities could incur pension bond debt without a two-thirds vote to pay for already incurred obligations, such as unfunded pension liabilities, even though it would ordinarily trigger the two-thirds majority vote requirement for debt in excess of the City’s revenue in a given year, as shown in the California Constitution Article 16, subsection 18, subdivision a. The Supreme Court said for their holding that there was an obligation to address retirement plans and it was legal for cities to do that without a two-thirds vote, but he was unsure whether that would necessarily apply to road infrastructure since it was a fact specific to pensions and unfunded liabilities around pensions where there was already a legal debt obligation around that, but he wanted to bring it to the City Attorney and staff’s attention.

Pinole City Council Special Meeting
Minutes – March 24, 2026

Mr. Menis added he had provided written comments about the financial path the City was on. He commented that in 2024, the City had four financial scenarios to consider: some revenue measures, some revenue measures and some cuts, a bunch of cuts, or one revenue measure, a sales tax and some significant cuts starting in 2030. Pursuant to Page 15 of 230 of the agenda packet, the City was on the path for Budget Scenario 4, which meant if the City did not do additional tax measures like those they were discussing whether bonds, additional sales taxes or other measures, the City would be facing $10 million a year and increasing cuts starting in 2030 and moving on from there, and people needed to be aware of that.

Mary Horton noted the public was not to have any drinks in the Council Chambers, and given some Council members had drinks/water at the dais, that restriction should be equalized and possibly updated. She commented she heard constant comments about the City’s infrastructure, roads, potholes, lighting along Pinole Valley Road which was unsafe and liability for the City which needed to be considered. Also, salaries, pensions, increased salaries, and travel expenses, were all factored into when people were asked if they would consider more taxes. Perception was reality, people wanted to know how trips to Washington D.C. helped Pinole, its infrastructure and the PPD, and she asked that the City Council keep that in mind when considering this issue.

Debbie Long was unsure how to address all of the information which was a lot to take in in one evening. She would never support another General Sales Tax Measure from anyone in the City, since it had never been used for what it had been promised. The PPD was told that Measure I would help the PPD and they were still looking at a contract since the City could not satisfy the needs of the PPD, even with Measure I. If considering another shell game and trying to get another General Bond passed, she would not support that either. If considering a specific bond, that would be valid since it could only be used for the purpose for which it was specified. If the City Council were to consider any tax bond, it needed to specify whether it would include an annual increase, which was happening with a lot of the tax revenues that had a five percent or Cost-of-Living (COLA) increase added every year. She understood the City of El Cerrito had one and by the time it was over people would pay a couple thousand a year. If the City Council were to consider a specific bond, it needed to be specific within how it would be read. She did not believe in the past the City Council had proven there was any dedicated funding when there was a General Sales Tax measure, since it was dumped into the General Reserves and would be used for travel expenses, or for what had been paid out to Council members. And, when discussing the need to inform people, she found that no one participating in the survey had been informed about the mismanagement of money and the City Council just passed another one tonight, mismanaging a marijuana bill when there were so many other things for staff to work on.

She stated there was talk about hard money but never talk about the cost to staff and therein lay the problem, the City Council was not listening to the people.

Cathy McFarland commented the survey for the three potential ballot measures included the main concerns residents had as a top priority for years, although the City used those items to get added funds and never really delivered. The current population of Pinole was approximately 18,000 persons with 12,000 voters per the City Clerk, and 400 people were randomly polled. Given that,

96.65 percent of the voting residents were not represented and the survey only represented 3.35 percent of the voters in Pinole. In reality, the sample-sized survey as well as prior and upcoming surveys were a waste of time and taxpayers’ money. She questioned the request to consider a $20 million bond given how the City Council had managed prior monies with infrastructure.

Pinole City Council Special Meeting
Minutes – March 24, 2026

Ms. McFarland stated the original road maintenance budget for 2024/25 through the many different funds was $11.7 million but only $1.6 million was actually spent. The budget for 2025/26 was $8.3 million and at six months the total actually spent was $1.1 million and at a recent meeting with the Directors of Finance and Public Works, no one had answered questions as to where the slated money for roads had gone. Pinole voters voted for an increase in sales taxes in 2024, which passed, and the PPD and emergency response teams had been without a contract for almost a year, yet the City had a revenue income coming in from 2024/25 totaling $612,000 and for 2025/26 for the first six months was $982,000. Now, there was a desire for another increase and she highlighted all of the impacts to residents from the increases in sales taxes and property taxes. She commented the City received an eight percent increase up to 40 percent for the five years. She suggested the City had overtaxed fatigued residents.

Jennifer Horn found the poll had shown that residents were pretty happy with a good quality of life, satisfied with the job the City was doing providing services, the PPD, fire and paramedics but no one mentioned the need to change the City’s governing structure, which three members of the City Council voted for at a cost to taxpayers of $57,000. There was no question on the poll for that or a box to check, but an Other category where that concern could have been expressed.

Only 4.8 percent had checked that box as compared to public safety, which respondents at 68 percent noted compared to the streets that were mentioned by 65 percent of respondents, parks mentioned by 48 percent of respondents, and managing City finances rated 38 percent or fifth among all issues that voters were concerned about. This concern was elsewhere in the poll, with a majority of respondents having agreed with a hypothetical person who suggested the City should figure out how to balance the budget without new taxes, and a majority also stated they would vote no on a sales tax measure if they knew the City received other funds from other sources.

In addition, Ms. Horn stated the gap between the importance and satisfaction on this issue of managing finances underscored the concern with how the City managed its finances. She found the poll had shown that the citizens of Pinole wanted this City Council to manage taxpayer money responsibly and in a manner consistent with the real concerns that the people had, police, fire, parks, streets and the like, and perhaps those who voted to spend $57,000 to put Measure D on the ballot, a measure citizens were not clamoring for and a measure even its proponents now would not support in writing, would remember those concerns in the future.

William Horton commented on the trouble he sensed on the November ballot. He commented a $250 parcel tax as shown on Pages 27 and 42 of the PowerPoint presentation, was far below a two-thirds vote, and the City Council would be well advised to see that citizens did not want a parcel tax. A sales tax of a quarter percent as shown on Pages 26 and 41 of the PowerPoint presentation were below the two-thirds approval needed and would be an uphill battle. A $20 million bond issue per Pages 15 and 24 of the PowerPoint presentation, spoke to the story of this complicated document, and again it was below the two-thirds approval needed and they may get it or not, which was a gamble with all of the other taxes on the November ballot. He added an advisory measure may pass, but a tax measure on the same ballot may fail, which had happened around 30 years ago when citizens passed an advisory measure but did not pass the tax to pay for it. He urged caution on what the City sought and stated it may get some surprises with the votes.

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED

Pinole City Council Special Meeting
Minutes – March 24, 2026

Mayor Tave asked what would happen if the electorate passed an advisory measure but not the funding.

City Attorney Casher commented he would have to look into that and had not considered that scenario.

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy commented when he worked on ballot measures in the past with that scenario, the City could be set to work on an issue but people may not want to invest, although the data spoke to clear support for repairing roads which everyone was aligned with. He asked whether the 400 respondents represented a statistically significant sample size.

Mr. Emeneger explained that was standard and he offered a comparison and noted for other cities with larger votes, they would survey 300 people, which was perfectly acceptable for polling. The fact they polled 400 people for a city the size of Pinole was very, very thorough and statistically significant.

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy referenced the question asked about the infrastructure bond, and asked about the timeline if that were to pass.

Mr. Emeneger explained they had added the language until ended by voters to the second to last clause in the question, which read: To repair and improve Pinole’s aging streets and roads; fix potholes; repair, construct, and improve sidewalks and pedestrian safety improvements; upgrade storm drains to reduce flooding; and complete other essential infrastructure improvements; shall the City of Pinole issue bonds in an amount not to exceed twenty million dollars with bonds repaid from property taxes levied at legal rates, requiring independent citizen oversight, annual audits, and all funds spent locally and not for salaries or pensions; until ended by voters, requiring two-thirds approval? In the past, they may have an A and B test, where there was a sunset clause, and one that says until ended by voters to see if there was any difference. In this case, they added the language until ended by voters, which explained the timeline for the measure.

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy asked what direction was being asked of the City Council for this item.

Interim City Manager Evans would like the City Council to accept the report and staff would return with other types of activities, as previously mentioned. This was a component from the April 2024 Strategic Planning Financial Report, in particular, Scenario 1, which looked at strong revenue strategies; a parcel tax was Strategy 3, a Sales and Use Tax, which was approved by the Community was Strategy 2.

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy understood the City Council would file and receive the report. He commented the City Council adopted the Long-Term Financial Plan (LTFP) in 2022. It included the idea of a cannabis tax measure, and he asked about the next steps once this report was filed.

Interim City Manager Evans explained that action would tie into the Special Meeting scheduled for March 31, 2026 when the City Council would receive a budget update, and allow a better understanding of the projections over the next five to ten years similar to what had been included in the report from April 2024. The challenge was that certain expenditures were outpacing revenues and the City needed to come up with strategies to address that.

Pinole City Council Special Meeting
Minutes – March 24, 2026

Mayor Tave commented on the idea to issue a bond to help with pension obligations and asked if that was something that could be done.

Finance Director Guillory clarified the City had the 2006 Pension Obligation Bonds through 2036.

In response to Mayor Tave as to whether or not there could be two bonds, Interim City Manager Evans suggested speaking to a financial advisor, and he referred to NHA to lay out the pros and cons of layering two bonds at once and the capacity within the General Fund.

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy understood the City had until August to place a ballot measure on the ballot, was informed by City Clerk Bell-Spears it was typically the first week of August and staff would count back from there in terms of bringing it to the City Council.

ACTION: Motion by Council members Sasai/Toms to Receive the Report on the Voter Survey Results.

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

Absent: None

7. ADJOURNMENT to the Special City Council Meeting of March 31, 2026 in Remembrance of Amber Swartz.

At 9:48 p.m., Mayor Tave adjourned to a Special City Council Meeting on March 31, 2026 in Remembrance of Amber Swartz.

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

CITY COUNCIL
REPORT 9.C.

DATE: APRIL 7, 2026
TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: Lilly Whalen, Community Development Director, 510-724-9832, [email protected]
Kapil Amin, Sustainability Project Manager, N/A, [email protected] SUBJECT: ADOPT A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ACCEPTANCE OF $299,495 FROM

THE CALTRANS CLEAN CALIFORNIA LOCAL GRANT PROGRAM AND

DESIGNATING THE CITY MANAGER AS THE CITY'S AUTHORIZED

SIGNATORY FOR GRANT AGREEMENT EXECUTION

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution (Attachment A) that authorizes acceptance of $299,495 from Caltrans Clean California Local Grant Program (Attachment B- scope and schedule Attachment C-grant budget Attachment D-project area) and designating the City Manager as the authorized signatory for the grant agreement execution (Attachment E-Restricted Grant Agreement)

BACKGROUND
The establishment of Creekside Park, an envisioned green space with amenities for public enjoyment, responds to community calls for cleaner and more welcoming public spaces. The project area lies within the Pinole Valley corridor adjacent to Pinole Valley High School, a neglected section of property which has accumulated litter over time. A pro-bono concept design spearheaded by Friends of Pinole Creek Watershed (Attachment F) provides the vision for transforming the space and outlines necessary components to form the park such as creek restoration, trail pavement, art sculptures, trellis, wayfinding signs, picnic tables, and more. For a couple of years, staff has been pursuing grant funding in a piecemeal approach since it is atypical for one grant program to cannot every component of the park given its comprehensive nature. Staff was notified of the Community Cleanup and Employment Pathway (CCEP) Grant Program, an initiative of the Clean California Program, administered by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). The program's seeks to integrate cleanup, workforce development, and community engagement to create cleaner, safer, and more equitable public spaces throughout California. Staff identified Creekside Park as a strong contender in alignment with the objectives of the program and the City.

REVIEW AND ANALYSIS
The City initially applied for the maximum grant amount of $200,000. Caltrans offered the City a 50% increase for a maximum $300,000 award and so the describe scope was enhanced accordingly. The City's proposal was bolstered by being one of the first 30 communities to receive a Clean California Community designation in the same month the grant solicitation was

released. The proposal was also strengthened by the City's demonstration of in-kind contributions such as pro-bono Friends of Pinole Creek watershed volunteer hours, City facility rentals, City communications/engagement, pro-bono concept design by BASE and more totaling a contribution of ~$250,000.A portion of the project area is privately owned and is in process of being donated to the City. All work will be performed along the trails in the described project area and not in the creek itself. The awarded grant scope is detailed below.

The deadline to complete the scope is April 2027.
• Removing and hauling debris
• Removing invasive plants
• Planting native vegetation
• Developing trail and wayfinding signage
• Implementing erosion control
• Implementing community input and education
• Procuring and installing
o Information board
o Art/sculptures
o Monument signs
o Picnic tables
o Benches
o Tri-stream receptacles
Partners committed to this project include Friends of Pinole Creek Watershed, Pinole Valley High School Earth Team, CiviCorps, the Pinole Creek Unhoused Stewards cohort of Safe Organized Spaces Richmond (SOS Richmond), and Nations of Lisjan Tribe. The grant award will provide paid opportunities and career growth through three workforce tiers: transitional jobs for unhoused residents with SOS Richmond, youth internships with Earth Team, and greensector training with CiviCorps for young adults seeking long-term careers. Additionally the transformed green space will provide benefit to Pinole residents and visitors some of whom come from underserved and historically excluded communities. Establishment of the park aligns with the following goals in the City's Climate Action and Adaptation Plan:
• SLR-1g Partner with West Contra Costa Unified School District, private schools in Pinole, East Bay Parks, East Bay Municipal Utility District, Friends of Pinole Creek Watershed, 350 Contra Costa, or similar entities to create educational opportunities for the community around the Pinole Creek Watershed. These programs would focus on educating youth in Pinole on the importance of natural shoreline ecosystems, their role in climate resilience, biodiversity, and local, native species. The programs would also include information on how people can actively get involved in adapting to climate change in their homes and neighborhoods and provide hands-on volunteer opportunities for the community to participate.
• CS-1: Increase carbon sequestration and prepare the urban forest for climate change, extreme heat, drought, and wildfire by adopting policies developed through the Community Urban Forest Plan
• EH-1: Reduce the impacts of extreme heat in Pinole by planting vegetation and trees to reduce urban temperatures and the urban heat island effect • TR-1: Create a safe and connected active transportation network linked to Pinole Creek to increase active transportation mode share to 5.5% by 2030 and 11.5% by 2045.

• TR-1f: Partner with schools, youth sports leagues, the Pinole Police Department, and community groups such as Friends of Pinole Creek Watershed, 511 Contra Costa, Pinole Valley Earth Team, Pinole Rotary, Pinole Community Services Commission and local Tribes to teach students and families bicycle and pedestrian safety and educate them on the safe route availability and the health and environmental benefits of walking and bicycling, as well as the history of the Pinole Creek ecosystem and surrounding natural lands.

FISCAL IMPACT
Acceptance of this grant has a positive fiscal impact as it will provide $299,495 in needed funding to respond to community calls for cleaner and more welcoming public spaces and advancement of our Climate Action and Adaptation Plan's environmental and equity goals.

ATTACHMENTS
A. Resolution
B. Revised proposal
C. 10-24-25 Budget-marked up
D. Creekside Park Clean CA Revised Map
E. City of Pinole Creekside Park Phase 1 R1
F. Pro-bono design Pinole Creekside Park

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PINOLE,

COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
AUTHORIZING RECEIPT OF $299,495 FROM THE CALTRANS CLEAN

CALIFORNIA LOCAL GRANT PROGRAM AND DESIGNATING THE CITY

MANAGER TO ENTER INTO, EXECUTE AND DELIVER A RESTRICTED GRANT

AGREEMENT AND ASSOCIATED DOCUMENTS FOR RECEIPT OF FUNDS WHEREAS, in August 2024 the City of Pinole adopted its inaugural Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP) to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045 in alignment with AB 1279; and
WHEREAS, Creekside Park is an envisioned green space with amenities for public enjoyment and responds to community calls for cleaner and more welcoming spaces; and WHEREAS, Staff was notified of the Community Cleanup and Employment Pathway Grant Program, an initiative of the Clean California Program administered by Caltrans; and
WHEREAS Creekside Park and Climate Action and Adaptation Plan aligns with the grant program’s objectives of cleanup, workforce development, and community engagement to cleaner, safer, and more equitable public spaces throughout California; and
WHEREAS on September 16, 2025, City Council accepted a resolution accepting the Clean California Designation and directing the City Manager to accept funding from Caltrans; and
WHEREAS, the City’s adopted Grants Management Policy and Procedures requires the City Council to authorize the acceptance of all grants.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pinole resolves as follows:

SECTION 1: The City of Pinole does hereby accept the CalTrans Clean California Program award in the amount of $299,495 for the Creekside Park scope and SECTION 2: The City Manager is authorized and directed to enter into, execute, and deliver a standard agreement for receipt of funding in the amount of $299,495 and any and all other documents required or deemed necessary or appropriate to evidence and secure the grant, the City’s obligations related thereto, and all amendments thereto.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pinole held on the 7th day of April, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was regularly introduced, passed, and adopted on the 7th day of April, 2026.
___________________________________
Heather Bell, CMC
City Clerk

Line-Item Budget
Category Partner/Group Description Cost per hr/unit Qty / Hrs Total Cost Estimate Pro Bono A. Cleanup
and
Abatement
Abatement
SOS Richmond
Pinole Creek
Unhoused
Stewards
Creek debris removal and
hauling with light equipment. $48 500 $24,000.00
Abatement
Earth Team
Supervisor
Creek debris removal and
hauling with light equipment. $32 32 $1,024.00
Abatement Earth Team
Creek debris removal and
hauling with light equipment. $17 320 $5,440.00
Abatement FOPCW In-kind pro bono work 500 $0.00 $ 20,000.00 Restoration
Earth Team
Supervisor
Invasive removal and
treatment, waddle installation
support, handwork (native
vegetation planting or mulch
installation).
$32 32 $1,024.00
Restoration
Earth Team
Students
Invasive removal and
treatment, waddle installation
support, handwork (native
vegetation planting or mulch
installation).
$17 320 $5,440.00

Restoration
SOS Richmond
Pinole Creek
Unhoused
Stewards
Invasive removal and
treatment, waddle installation
support, handwork (native
vegetation planting or mulch
installation).
$48 500 $24,000.00
Restoration Nations of Lisjan
Invasive removal and
treatment, waddle installation
support, handwork (native
vegetation planting or mulch
installation).
$200 40 $8,000.00
Restoration FOPCW
Invasive removal and
treatment, waddle installation
support, handwork (native
vegetation planting or mulch
installation). In-kind pro bono
work
$0 500 $0.00
$ 20,000.00
Restoration CiviCorps
Invasive removal and
treatment, waddle installation
support, handwork (native
vegetation planting or mulch
installation).
$48 500 $24,000.00
Disposal Fees Landfill tipping and recycling — — $7,000.00 A. Total
Abatement
and
Restoration
$99,928.00
$ 40,000.00

Trail and
Wayfinding
Signage
“Don't Trash Pinole Creek" or
similar signs with posts and
concrete.
$250 12 $3,000.00
Information
Board plus
display
materials
Interpretive sign along
Creekside Park that educate
the public about its natural
and cultural history
$5,000 1 $5,000.00
Art/Scuptures
(two
locations)
Trailside art to increase public
awareness of the history and
cultural importance of the
creek to the Native
Community
$10,000 2 $20,000.00
Monument
Sign (two
locations)
consultation with Nations of
Lisjan will inform the final
design of the monument signs
$10,000 2 $20,000.00
Picnic Tables $3,500 3 $10,500.00
Benches $3,500 6 $21,000.00
Tri-Stream
Receptacles
Pads, post install, labeling for
trash/recycling/organics,
including shipping
$5,000 4 $20,000.00
Tools, Safety
Gear, Etc
Tools, equipment, safety gear,
and cleanup supplies needed
for community cleanup
activities and planting
$12,000.00
Erosion
Control
Waddles $10,000.00

Planting
Ground Covers, Perennials,
grasses, wildflower seed
(natives)
$30,000.00
Soil
Amendment/
Mulch (in CY)
Soil amendment, organic
mulch - in kind
$50 130 $ 6,500.00 $ 5,000.00
B. Total
Materials
and Supplies
$158,000.00
$ 5,000.00
Installation
(prevention) CivicCorps Install signs and receptacles,
assist with concrete $47 130 $6,110.00
Installation
(prevention)
Public Works
Lead making concrete bases
for receptacles; installation of
waddles, etc
$75 70 $5,250.00
C. Total
Install
Prevention
$11,360.00
Education City of Pinole Facility rentals for meetings
and engagement $516 4 $2,064.00 $ 4,128.00
Education City of Pinole Facility rentals for meetings
and engagement
In-Kind 8 $ 4,128.00
Education City of Pinole Communication Engagement In-Kind $ 3,280.00 Education City of Pinole Communication Engagement $82 40 $3,280.00 Education FOPCW In-Kind 150 $0.00 $ 6,000.00
Education Earth Team In-Kind 20 $0.00 $ 340.00
Education SF Academy of Art Public Service Annoucements In-Kind 400 $0.00 $ 6,800.00

D. Total
Planning &
Education
$5,344.00
$ 20,548.00
Conceptual
Plans and
Budgeting
BASE In-kind $0.00
$ 16,000.00
Consultation Nations of Lisjon $200 12 $2,400.00
E. Total
Consultation
and Planning
$2,400.00
$ 16,000.00
Subtotal
A+B+C+D $277,032.00
$ 81,548.00
C.

Administrati
on (8% of
total)
Project management,
reporting, coordination,
compliance.
— — $22,162.56
TOTAL

PROJECT
COST
$299,194.56
$ 248,772.00

Sarah Drive
60 ft
Scale:

MAP LEGEND
P
ni ole
Valley
Ro
a
d
t
o
HWY I-80 ------->
Pinole Valley High School
Pinole Library
Pinole Creek
Creekside Site - Revised 1/14/25
Sarah Ct-Pinole Valley Road

C L E A N C A C O M M U N I T Y C L E A N U P A N D

E M P L O Y M E N T P A T H W A Y G R A N T P R O G R A M HWY I-80
Hwy I-80
Access Point to Site
Creekside Trail
Shopping Center
Current Zachichi Parcel
APN: 430-461-025 (City
owned parcel)
Waste Location
APN 430-330-027:

Pinole Valley
High School
Pinole Library
Sarah Ct
<----- to HWY I-80
Access View (next page)
Resulting Parcel After
Donation to City of Pinole

City of Pinole
Agreement Number 04-CCEP-06
AMS ADV ID: 0426000314
Project Number: CCEP-5126(023)

Clean California Local Grant Program (State)
Restricted Grant Agreement
This Restricted Grant Agreement (RGA), between the State of California acting by and through its Department of Transportation, referred to herein as CALTRANS, and the CITY OF PINOLE, hereinafter referred to as AGENCY, will commence on April 15, 2026, or upon approval by CALTRANS, whichever occurs later. This RGA is of no effect unless approved by CALTRANS.

AGENCY shall not receive payment for work performed prior to approval of this RGA and before receipt of Notice to Proceed from CALTRANS. This RGA shall expire on November 30, 2027.

Recitals

1. Under this RGA, CALTRANS intends to convey State restricted grant funds to AGENCY, pursuant to Budget Act Line Item 2660-130-0001, who will implement the project pursuant to the attached Approved Grant Application and Amendment(s) to Grant Application, Attachment III under the terms, covenants, and conditions of this RGA.

2. CALTRANS and AGENCY intend that only funds that are authorized as restricted grants will be subject to this RGA, and that no funds that should be the subject of a Joint Powers Agreement, Interagency Agreement, or other non-grant agreement shall be subject to this RGA.

3. WHEREAS, the Clean CA Program, through its Clean CA Local Grants Program, is authorized under California Streets and Highways Code Section 91.41 to provide funding and resources to support local projects that advance the program's goals and objectives;

4. WHEREAS, California Streets and Highways Code Section 91.41 provides the legislative authority for the Clean CA Program to advance the following intent and objectives:
a. Reduce Waste and Beautify Public Spaces: The primary goal of the program is to allocate grants to local and regional public agencies, transit agencies, and tribal governments to reduce waste and debris within public rights-of-way, tribal lands, parks, pathways, transit centers, and other public spaces. The program aims to enhance, rehabilitate, restore, or install measures to beautify and improve these public spaces. b. Improve Public Health and Community Placemaking: The program seeks to enhance public health, cultural connection, and community placemaking by improving public spaces for walking and recreation. By investing in the improvement of these spaces, it aims to create a positive and welcoming environment for the community. c. Promote Equity for Underserved Communities: The program places a strong emphasis on advancing equity for underserved communities.
d. Support Sustainable Practices: The program encourages the implementation of sustainable practices in the beautification and enhancement of public spaces. This includes greening efforts, such as providing shade and reducing the urban heat island effect, as well as using native, low-water plants.
e. Engage Local Communities: The program promotes community engagement by requiring project proposals to reflect community priorities. It encourages the involvement of local communities in the development and selection of projects to ensure they meet the needs and preferences of the affected population.
f. Prohibit Displacement of Persons Experiencing Homelessness: The program prohibits

City of Pinole
Agreement Number 04-CCEP-06
AMS ADV ID: 0426000314
Project Number: CCEP-5126(023)

grants from funding projects that displace persons experiencing homelessness. This reflects the intention to address public space improvements without negatively impacting vulnerable populations.
g. Transparent and Efficient Grant Allocation: The program requires the program to issue a call for projects and announce grant awards. The guidelines for allocating grants must include project selection criteria and program evaluation metrics.

5. WHEREAS, the purpose of this RGA is to authorize Caltrans districts to enter into agreements with local agencies to support the development, implementation, and funding of local agencies partnership projects that align with the goals and priorities of the Clean CA Program and comply with California Streets and Highways Code Section 91.41;

6. WHEREAS, this RGA establishes a framework for Caltrans districts to provide financial contributions and other assistance to local agencies, fostering effective collaboration and coordination to deliver successful transit partnership projects;

7. WHEREAS, this RGA emphasizes transparency, objective evaluation, and fair allocation of resources, ensuring that projects scoring higher based on established criteria receive prioritization for funding and implementation;

8. WHEREAS, the Clean CA Program facilitates collaboration between Caltrans districts and local agencies to support litter abatement and public space beautification efforts on locally owned public right-of-way while creating workforce development opportunities for individuals facing barriers to employment that align with the goals and priorities of the Clean CA Program and comply with California Streets and Highways Code Section 91.41;

9. WHEREAS, the Clean CA Program, in partnership with Caltrans districts, seeks to enhance local right-of-way areas to address waste management challenges, graffiti mitigation, and public space beautification, thereby contributing to create cleaner, safer, and more equitable public spaces throughout California;

10. WHEREAS, the Clean CA Program, established by the State of California, is a transformative initiative which promotes sustainable transportation alternatives, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and combatting climate change to improve the overall quality of life for residents and visitors of California;

11. WHEREAS, the Clean CA Program envisions a comprehensive approach to address transportation challenges, enhance transit infrastructure, and support local agencies in their efforts to create efficient, safe, and environmentally friendly transit options;

12. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and mutual covenants herein contained, the Parties enter into this RGA to advance the purpose and intent of the Clean CA transit initiative, harnessing the legislative authority provided under California Streets and Highways Code Section 91.41, and collaborating on transit partnership projects that contribute to a sustainable, innovative, and well-connected transportation network throughout the State of California.

Now, Therefore, based upon the terms, covenants, and conditions of this RGA, the parties agree as follows:

Section I
AGENCY Agrees:

City of Pinole
Agreement Number 04-CCEP-06
AMS ADV ID: 0426000314
Project Number: CCEP-5126(023)

To timely and satisfactorily complete all Project work described in Attachment III (“Project Work”) within the project budget and in accordance with the items of this RGA.

Section ll
CALTRANS Agrees:

That when conducting an audit of the costs claimed by AGENCY under the provisions of this RGA, to conduct the audit in accordance with applicable laws and regulations.

Section lII
It Is Mutually Agreed:

1. Under this RGA, CALTRANS will convey State grant restricted funds to AGENCY, pursuant to Budget Act Line Item 2660-130-0001, and AGENCY will use the funds to only conduct the scope of work identified in this agreement and authorized by Streets and Highway Code section 91.41 The funds subject to this RGA must be identified as available to a public entity that is responsible for implementing the scope of work authorized under the Clean California Program in CALTRANS’ budget, and AGENCY represents and warrants that it is a public entity that is responsible for implementing the scope of work authorized under the Clean California Program.

2. Under this restricted grant, funds may be only used for the purposes set forth in this RGA, AGENCY Resolution (Attachment IV), Approved Grant Application and Amendment(s) to Grant Application (Attachment III), and the Grant Program Guidelines (Attachment I), and the funds may only be used for costs and expenses that are directly related to such purpose.

3. AGENCY shall perform all the duties and obligations described in City of Pinole Creekside Park Phase 1: Creek Cleanup, Restoration & Community Employment, hereinafter “Project”, subject to the terms and conditions of this RGA and Approved Grant Application and Amendment(s) to Grant Application (Attachment III), which are attached hereto as Attachment III.

4. The resolution authorizing AGENCY to execute this RGA pertaining to the above-described Project is attached hereto as Attachment IV.

5. All services performed by AGENCY pursuant to this RGA shall be subject to and performed in accordance with California Streets and Highways Code §91.41 including, but not limited to, Government Code Section 14460(a)(1), as well as all applicable Federal, State, and Local laws, regulations, and ordinances, all applicable CALTRANS policies and procedures, and all applicable CALTRANS published manuals, including, but not limited to, the Grant Program Guidelines (Attachment I).

California Government Code Section 14460(a)(1) provides: “The department [CALTRANS], and external entities that receive state and federal transportation funds from the department, are spending those funds efficiently, effectively, economically, and in compliance with applicable state and Federal requirements. Those external entities include, but are not limited to, private for profit and nonprofit organizations, local transportation agencies, and other local agencies that receive transportation funds either through a contract with the department or through an agreement or grant administered by the department.”

City of Pinole
Agreement Number 04-CCEP-06
AMS ADV ID: 0426000314
Project Number: CCEP-5126(023)

6. Project funding is as follows:

Fund Title Fund Source Dollar Amount
Clean California Funds State General Fund (0001)
Budget Item 2660-130-0001
State Program Code

20.30.010.900
FY 2025/26 $299,495.00
Local Match/In-Kind $248,772.00
Total Project Costs $548,267.00
For Caltrans Use Only
I hereby Certify upon my own personal knowledge that budgeted funds are available for encumbrance.

Accounting Officer Printed
Name
Accounting Officer
Signature
Date Amount Certified

7. This RGA is exempt from the legal review and approval by the Department of General Services, pursuant to Legal Opinions of the Attorney General: 58 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 586 (1975), 63 Ops.

Cal. Atty. Gen. 290 (1980), 74 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 10 (1991), and 88 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 56.

8. Notification of Parties
a. AGENCY’s Project Manager for Project is Kapil Amin (510) 372-0989. b. CALTRANS’ District Partnership Liaison is Ida Tu (510) 496-9069. “District Partnership Liaison” as used herein includes his/her designee.
c. All notices herein provided to be given, or which may be given, by either party to the other, shall be deemed to have been fully given when made in writing and received by the parties at their respective addresses:

City of Pinole
Attention: Kapil Amin, Sustainability Project Manager
Phone Number: (510) 372-0989
Email: [email protected]
Address: 2131 Pear Street, Pinole, CA 94564
California Department of Transportation, District Partnership Liaison District 4 Clean California
Attention: Ida Tu, Clean CA Grant Manager
Phone Number: (510) 496-9069
Email: [email protected]
Address: 111 Grand Avenue, Oakland, CA 94612

City of Pinole
Agreement Number 04-CCEP-06
AMS ADV ID: 0426000314
Project Number: CCEP-5126(023)

9. Period of Performance
a. Reimbursable work under this RGA shall begin no earlier than on April 15, 2026, following the written approval of CALTRANS and AGENCY’s receipt of the Notice to Proceed letter of this RGA by CALTRANS. All reimbursable work shall terminate no later than July 30, 2027.

Project closeout and final invoicing to CALTRANS must be submitted no later than November 30, 2027. Work incurred after July 30, 2027, will not be reimbursed. Payment shall be forfeit for any and all invoicing submitted to CALTRANS after November 30, 2027. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Caltrans will reimburse for actual close out costs incurred by AGENCY through November 30, 2027 (which, in total, shall not exceed 5% of the grant award). b. If requested by the CALTRANS District Partnership Liaison, AGENCY will attend a kickoff meeting with CALTRANS to be scheduled within one (1) week from receipt of Notice to Proceed sent by CALTRANS.

10. Changes in Terms/Amendments
This Agreement may only be amended or modified by mutual written agreement of the parties.

11. Cost Limitation
a. The maximum total amount granted and reimbursable to AGENCY pursuant to this RGA by CALTRANS shall not exceed $299,495.00.
b. It is agreed and understood that the Clean CA funds are limited to the amount granted.

CALTRANS will only reimburse the cost of services actually incurred in accordance with the provisions of this RGA and as authorized by the CALTRANS District Partnership Liaison at or below that fund limitation established herein.

12. Termination
a. CALTRANS reserves the right to terminate this RGA upon written notice to AGENCY at least 30 days in advance of the effective date of such termination in the event CALTRANS determines (at its sole discretion) that AGENCY failed to proceed with PROJECT Work in accordance with the terms of this RGA. In the event of termination for convenience, CALTRANS will reimburse AGENCY for all allowable, authorized, and non-cancelled costs up to the date of termination.

AGENCY shall return any unused advance amounts which cannot be supported by eligible expenditure documentation.
b. This RGA may be terminated by either party for any reason by giving written notice to the other party at least 30 days in advance of the effective date of such termination. In the event of termination for convenience, CALTRANS will reimburse AGENCY for all costs that are expressly allowable, pre-authorized in writing, and non-cancellable, up to the date of termination. c. AGENCY has 60 days after the Termination Date to submit accurate invoices to CALTRANS to make final allowable payments for Project costs in accordance with the terms of this RGA.

Failure to submit invoices within this period of time shall result in a waiver by AGENCY of its right to reimbursement of expended costs. Costs that are reimbursed and later determined to be ineligible for reimbursement shall be returned by AGENCY to CALTRANS.

13. Budget Contingency Clause
a. It is mutually agreed that if the US Congress or the State Legislature fail to appropriate or allocate funds during the current year and/or any subsequent years covered under this RGA do not appropriate sufficient funds for the program, this RGA shall be of no further force and effect.

City of Pinole
Agreement Number 04-CCEP-06
AMS ADV ID: 0426000314
Project Number: CCEP-5126(023)

In this event, CALTRANS shall have no liability to pay any funds whatsoever to AGENCY or to furnish any other considerations under this RGA and AGENCY shall not be obligated to perform any provisions of this RGA.
b. The certification of FY 2025/26 funds will be contingent upon the passage of the FY 2023/24 Budget. Payment for any work performed that is funded by FY 2023/24 will be delayed if the FY 2023/24 Budget is not signed by June 30, 2023. Pursuant to Government Code (GC), Section 926.10, no late payment penalty shall accrue during any time period for which no Budget Act in effect. If funding for any fiscal year is reduced or deleted by US Congress or State Legislature for purposes of this program, CALTRANS shall have the option to either terminate this RGA with no liability occurring to CALTRANS or offer an RGA Amendment to AGENCY to reflect reduced amount.

14. Payment and Invoicing
a. AGENCY, its contractors, subcontractors and sub-recipients, shall establish and maintain an accounting system and records that properly accumulate and segregate incurred Project costs and matching funds by line. The accounting system of AGENCY, its contractors, all subcontractors, and sub-recipients shall conform to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and any standards specified by the source of funds, to enable the determination of incurred costs at interim points of completion, and to provide support for reimbursement payment vouchers or invoices.
b. The method of payment for this RGA will be based on the actual allowable costs that are incurred in accordance with the provisions of this RGA and in the performance of the Approved Grant Application and Amendment(s) to Grant Application (Attachment III). CALTRANS will reimburse AGENCY for expended actual allowable direct costs, and including, but not limited to, labor costs, travel, and contracted consultant services costs incurred by AGENCY in performance of the Project Work. Indirect costs are reimbursable only if the AGENCY has identified the estimated indirect cost rate in Attachment II and an approved Indirect Cost Allocation Plan or an Indirect Cost Rate Proposal as set forth in Section III–Cost Principles, Item 16d. The total cost shall not exceed the cost reimbursement limitation set forth in Section III–Cost Limitations, Item 11a. Actual costs shall not exceed the estimated wage rates, labor costs, travel, and other estimated costs and fees set forth in Attachment III without an amendment to this RGA, as agreed between CALTRANS and AGENCY. c. Reimbursement of AGENCY expenditures will be authorized only for those allowable costs actually incurred by AGENCY in accordance with the provisions of this RGA and in the performance of Project Work. AGENCY must not only have incurred the expenditures on or after the start date and the issuance of the Notice to Proceed letter for this RGA and before the Expiration Date but must have also paid for those costs to claim any reimbursement. d. The AGENCY indirect cost rate must be approved in writing by the California Department of Transportation Independent Office of Audits and Investigations or federal cognizant agency before any reimbursement payment is made by CALTRANS to AGENCY for such cost. e. Travel expenses and per diem rates are not to exceed the rate specified by the State of California Department of Human Resources for similar employees (i.e. non-represented employees) unless written verification is supplied that government hotel rates were not then commercially available to AGENCY, its subrecipients, contractors, and/or subcontractors, at the time and location required as specified in the California Department of Transportation's Travel Guide Exception Process at the following link: https://travelpocketguide.dot.ca.gov/.

City of Pinole
Agreement Number 04-CCEP-06
AMS ADV ID: 0426000314
Project Number: CCEP-5126(023)

Also see website for summary of travel reimbursement rules. f. AGENCY shall submit invoices to CALTRANS at least quarterly, but no more frequently than monthly, in arrears upon completion of project tasks, milestone and/or deliverables in accordance with the Project Timeline in Attachment III to the satisfaction of CALTRANS District Partnership Liaison
g. Invoices shall reference this RGA Number and shall be signed and submitted to CALTRANS District Partnership Liaison, as stated in Section III–Notification of Parties, Item 8c. h. Invoices shall include the following information:
1) Names of the AGENCY personnel performing work
2) Dates and times of Project Work
3) Locations of Project Work
4) Itemized costs as set forth in Attachment III, including identification of each employee, contractor or subcontractor staff who provided services during the period of the invoice, the number of hours and hourly rates for each employee, contractor, sub-recipient or subcontractor staff member, authorized travel expenses with receipts, receipts for authorized materials or supplies, and contractor, subrecipient and subcontractor invoices. 5) AGENCY shall submit written progress reports with each set of invoices to allow CALTRANS District Partnership Liaison to determine if AGENCY is performing to expectations, is on schedule, is within funding cost limitations, to communicate interim findings, and to afford occasions for airing difficulties respecting special problems encountered so that remedies can be developed.
i. Incomplete or inaccurate invoices shall be returned to the AGENCY unapproved for correction.

Failure to submit invoices on a timely basis may be grounds for termination of this RGA for material breach per Section III–Termination, Item 12.
j. CALTRANS will reimburse AGENCY for all allowable Project costs at least quarterly, but no more frequently than monthly, in arrears as promptly as CALTRANS fiscal procedures permit upon receipt of an itemized signed invoice.
k. The RGA Expiration Date refers to the last date for AGENCY to incur valid Project costs or credits and is the date this RGA expires. AGENCY has until July 30, 2027, to make final allowable payments to Project contractors or vendors, and November 30, 2027, to submit the Project’s Final Report, as defined in Attachment I and a final invoice to CALTRANS for reimbursement for allowable Project costs. Any unexpended Project funds not invoiced by the 60th day will be reverted and will no longer be accessible to reimburse late Project invoices contractor.
l. The final invoice will be paid upon submission by AGENCY to CALTRANS and acceptance by CALTRANS of the Final Delivery Report. Complete final delivery reports and invoices must be submitted to CALTRANS by November 30, 2027.

15. Quarterly Progress Reporting
a. AGENCY shall submit written quarterly progress reports to the CALTRANS District Partnership Liaison to determine if AGENCY is performing to expectations, is on schedule, is within funding cost limitations, to communicate interim findings, and to afford occasions for airing difficulties respecting special problems encountered so that remedies can be

City of Pinole
Agreement Number 04-CCEP-06
AMS ADV ID: 0426000314
Project Number: CCEP-5126(023)

developed.

16. Cost Principles
a. AGENCY agrees to comply with Title 2, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards.
b. AGENCY agrees, and will assure that its contractors, sub-recipients, in-kind contributors, and subcontractors will be obligated to agree, that (a) Contract Cost Principles and Procedures, 48 CFR, Federal Acquisition Regulations System, Chapter 1, Part 31, et seq., shall be used to determine the allowability of individual Project cost items and (b) and (b) all parties shall comply with Federal administrative procedures in accordance with 2 CFR, Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards.

Every sub-recipient receiving Project funds as a sub-recipient, contractor, or subcontractor under this RGA shall comply with Federal administrative procedures in accordance with 2 CFR, Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards to the extent applicable. c. Any Project costs for which AGENCY has received payment or credit that are determined by subsequent audit to be unallowable under 2 CFR, Part 200, and/or Part 48, Chapter 1, Part 31, are subject to repayment by AGENCY to CALTRANS. Should AGENCY fail to reimburse moneys due CALTRANS within 30 days of discovery or demand, or within such other period as may be agreed in writing between the parties hereto, CALTRANS is authorized to intercept and withhold future payments due AGENCY from CALTRANS or any third-party source, including, but not limited to, the State Treasurer, the State Controller or any other fund source.
d. Prior to AGENCY seeking reimbursement of indirect costs, AGENCY must have identified estimated indirect cost rate in Attachment II, prepare and submit annually to CALTRANS for review and approval an indirect cost rate proposal and a central service cost allocation plan (if any) in accordance with 2 CFR, Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards and Chapter 5 of the Local Assistance Procedures Manual which may be accessed at: https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dotmedia/programs/local-assistance/documents/lapm/ch05.pdf e. AGENCY agrees and shall require that all its agreements with consultants and subrecipients contain provisions requiring adherence to this section in its entirety except for section c, above.

17. Americans with Disabilities Act
By signing this Agreement, AGENCY assures CALTRANS that in the course of performing Project Work, it will fully comply with the applicable provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, as amended, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability, as well as all applicable regulations and guidelines issued pursuant to the ADA (42 USC Section 12101 et seq.).

18. Iran Contracting Act
AGENCY must complete and submit to CALTRANS the Iran Contracting Act Certification certifying that it is not on the most current DGS list of Entities Prohibited from Contracting with Public Entities in California per the Iran Contracting Act, 2010 (https://www.dgs.ca.gov/PD/Resources/PageContent/Procurement-Division-Resources-List-Folder/List-of-Ineligible-Businesses), before the

City of Pinole
Agreement Number 04-CCEP-06
AMS ADV ID: 0426000314
Project Number: CCEP-5126(023)

Agreement has been executed, unless Contractor is exempted from the certification requirement by Public Contract Code Section 2205(c) or (d). If claiming an exemption, the proposed Contractor shall provide written evidence that supports an exemption under Public Contract Code Section 2203(c) or (d) before execution of the Agreement.

19. Indemnification
a. Neither CALTRANS nor any officer or employee thereof is responsible for any injury, damage, or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by AGENCY, its officers, employees, agents, its contractors, its subrecipients, or its subcontractors under or in connection with any work, authority, or jurisdiction conferred upon AGENCY under this RGA.

It is understood and agreed that AGENCY shall fully defend, indemnify, and save harmless CALTRANS and all of CALTRANS’ officers and employees from all claims, suits, or actions of every name, kind, and description brought forth under, including, but not limited to, tortuous, contractual, likeness statutes under California Civil Code §§ 3344 and 3344.1, inverse condemnation, or other theories or assertions of liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by AGENCY, its officers, employees, agents, contractors, subrecipients, or subcontractors under this RGA.
b. AGENCY agrees to fully defend, indemnify, and save harmless CALTRANS and all of its officers and employees from any and all claims, lawsuits, or legal actions, including reasonable attorneys’ fees and legal costs, relating to intellectual property claims arising from or related to the Project and/or any work procured under this RGA, including but not limited to claims based on (1) U.S. federal or state trademark infringement laws, (2) patent infringement laws (3) 17 U.S.C. §§ 101-810 (the Copyright Act of 1976, as modified), (4) 17 U.S.C. § 106A(a) (the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990, “VARA”), (5) 17 U.S.C. § 113, (6) California Civil Code § 987 (the California Art Preservation Act), California Civil Code §989, or (7) any other rights arising under U.S. federal or state laws or under the laws of any other country that conveys rights and protections of the same nature as those conveyed under 17 U.S.C. §106A(a) and California Civil Code §987, including intellectual property claims arising from or related to breach of contract, inverse condemnation, conversion, and/or taking of property.

20. Nondiscrimination Clause (2 CCR 11105 Clause b)
a. During the performance of this RGA, the AGENCY, its contractors, its subrecipients, and its subcontractors shall not deny the contract's benefits to any person on the basis of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, or military and veteran status, nor shall they discriminate unlawfully against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, or military and veteran status. AGENCY shall ensure that the evaluation and treatment of employees and applicants for employment are free of such discrimination. b. AGENCY shall comply with the provisions of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code Sections 12900 et seq.), the regulations promulgated thereunder (California Code of Regulations, Title 2, Sections 11000 et seq.), the provisions of Article 9.5, Chapter 1, Part 1,

City of Pinole
Agreement Number 04-CCEP-06
AMS ADV ID: 0426000314
Project Number: CCEP-5126(023)

Division 3, Title 2 of the Government Code (Gov. Code Sections 11135-11139.5), and the regulations or standards adopted by CALTRANS to implement such article. c. AGENCY shall permit access by representatives of the Department of Fair Employment and Housing and CALTRANS upon reasonable notice at any time during the normal business hours, but in no case less than 24 hours' notice, to such of its books, records, accounts, and all other sources of information and its facilities as said Department or CALTRANS shall require to ascertain compliance with this clause.
d. AGENCY and its contractors, its sub-recipients, and its subcontractors shall give written notice of their obligations under this clause to labor organizations with which they have a collective bargaining or other agreement.
e. AGENCY shall include the nondiscrimination and compliance provisions of this clause in all agreements with its sub-recipients, contractors, and subcontractors, and shall include a requirement in all agreements with all of same that each of them in turn include the nondiscrimination and compliance provisions of this clause in all contracts and subcontracts they enter into to perform work under this RGA.

21. Retention of Records/Audits
a. AGENCY, its contractors, subcontractors, and sub-recipients, agree to comply with Title 2, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards.
b. AGENCY, its contractors, subcontractors, and sub-recipients shall establish and maintain an accounting system and records that properly accumulate and segregate incurred Project costs and matching funds by line. The accounting system of AGENCY, its contractors, all subcontractors, and sub-recipients shall conform to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), enable the determination of incurred costs at interim points of completion, and provide support for reimbursement payment vouchers or invoices. All accounting records and other supporting papers of AGENCY, its contractors, subcontractors and sub-recipients connected with Project performance under this RGA shall be maintained for a minimum of three (3) years from the date of final payment to AGENCY and shall be held open to inspection, copying, and audit by representatives of CALTRANS, the California State Auditor, and auditors representing the federal government. Copies thereof will be furnished by AGENCY, its contractors, its subcontractors, and sub-recipients upon receipt of any request made by CALTRANS or its agents. In conducting an audit of the costs and match credits claimed under this RGA, CALTRANS will rely to the maximum extent possible on any prior audit of AGENCY pursuant to the provisions of State and AGENCY law. In the absence of such an audit, any acceptable audit work performed by AGENCY’s external and internal auditors may be relied upon and used by CALTRANS when planning and conducting additional audits. c. For the purpose of determining compliance with applicable State and AGENCY law in connection with the performance of AGENCY’s contracts with third parties pursuant to Government Code Section 8546.7, AGENCY, AGENCY’s sub-recipients, contractors, subcontractors, and CALTRANS, shall each maintain and make available for inspection all books, documents, papers, accounting records, and other evidence pertaining to the performance of such contracts, including, but not limited to, the costs of administering those various contracts. All of the above referenced parties shall make such materials available at their respective offices at all reasonable times during the entire Project period and for three (3) years from the date of final payment to AGENCY under this RGA. CALTRANS, the

City of Pinole
Agreement Number 04-CCEP-06
AMS ADV ID: 0426000314
Project Number: CCEP-5126(023)

California State Auditor, or any duly authorized representative of CALTRANS or the United States Department of Transportation, shall each have access to any books, records, and documents that are pertinent to a Project for audits, examinations, excerpts, and transactions, and AGENCY shall furnish copies thereof if requested. d. AGENCY, its subrecipients, contractors, and subcontractors will permit access to all records of employment, employment advertisements, employment application forms, and other pertinent data and records by the State Fair Employment Practices and Housing Commission, or any other agency of the State of California designated by CALTRANS, for the purpose of any investigation to ascertain compliance with this RGA.
e. Additionally, all grants may be subject to a pre-award audit prior to execution of this RGA to ensure AGENCY has an adequate financial management system in place to accumulate and segregate reasonable, allowable and allocable costs.
f. Any contract with a contractor, subcontractor, or sub-recipient entered into as a result of this RGA shall contain all the provisions of this article.

22. Adjudication of Facts in Disputes
a. Any dispute concerning a question of fact arising under this RGA that is not disposed of by agreement shall be decided by the CALTRANS Contract Officer, who may consider any written or verbal evidence submitted by AGENCY. The CALTRANS Contract Officer shall issue a written decision within 30 days of receipt of the dispute. If AGENCY rejects the decision of the CALTRANS Contract Officer, AGENCY can pursue any and all remedies authorized by law. Neither party waives any rights to pursue remedies authorized by law.
b. Neither the pendency of a dispute nor its consideration by CALTRANS Contract Officer will excuse AGENCY from full and timely performance in accordance with the terms of this RGA.

23. Third-Party Contracts
a. AGENCY shall perform the work contemplated with resources available within its own organization and no portion of the work shall be contracted to a third party without prior written authorization by the CALTRANS District Partnership Liaison unless expressly included (subrecipient identified) in Attachment III as Project Work. b. All State-government-funded procurements must be conducted using a fair and competitive procurement process. AGENCY may use its own procurement procedures as long as the procedures comply with the local AGENCY’s laws, rules, and ordinances governing procurement and all applicable provisions of State law, including, without limitation, the requirement that the AGENCY endeavor to obtain at least three (3) competitive bids for solicitation of goods, services, and consulting services (see Part 2, Chapter 2, Articles 3 and 4 of the Public Contract Code); a qualifications-based solicitation process, for which statements of qualifications are obtained from at least three (3) qualified firms for architecture and engineering services (see Title 1, Division 5, Chapter 10 of the Government Code); and, the applicable provisions of the State Contracting Manual (SCM), Chapter 5, which are not inconsistent with this Item 23, Third Party Contracts. The SCM can be found and the following link: https://www.dgs.ca.gov/OLS/Resources/PageContent/Office-of-Legal-Services-Resources-List-Folder/State-Contracting.

City of Pinole
Agreement Number 04-CCEP-06
AMS ADV ID: 0426000314
Project Number: CCEP-5126(023)

c. Any contract entered into as a result of this RGA shall contain all the provisions stipulated in this RGA to be applicable to AGENCY’s sub-recipients, contractors, and subcontractors.

Copies of all agreements with sub-recipients, contractors, and subcontractors, must be submitted to the CALTRANS District Partnership Liaison. d. CALTRANS does not have a contractual relationship with the AGENCY’s subrecipients, contractors, or subcontractors, and the AGENCY shall be fully responsible for all work performed by its subrecipients, contractors, or subcontractors. e. Prior authorization in writing by the CALTRANS District Partnership Liaison shall be required before AGENCY enters into any non-budgeted sub-agreement. AGENCY shall provide an evaluation of the necessity or desirability of incurring such costs. AGENCY shall retain all receipts for such purchases or services and shall submit them with invoices per Section III–Payment and Invoicing, Item 14(h)(4), above. f. Any contract entered into by AGENCY as a result of this RGA shall mandate that travel and per diem reimbursements and third-party contract reimbursements to subrecipients, contractors, and subcontractors, will be allowable as Project costs only after those costs are incurred and paid for by the subrecipients, contractors, and subcontractors. Travel expenses and per diem rates for subcontractors shall be reimbursed pursuant to Section III–Payment and Invoicing, Item 14c, above.

24. Drug-Free Workplace Certification
By signing this RGA, AGENCY hereby certifies under penalty of perjury under the laws of California that AGENCY will comply with the requirements of the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1990 (Gov. Code Sections 8350 et seq.) and will provide a Drug-Free workplace by doing all of the following:
a. Publish a statement notifying employees that unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensation, possession, or use of a controlled substance is prohibited and specifying actions to be taken against employees for violations, as required by Government Code Section 8355(a). b. Establish a Drug-Free Awareness Program as required by Government Code Section 8355(a)(2) to inform employees about all of the following:
1) The dangers of drug abuse in the workplace.
2) The person's or organization's policy of maintaining a Drug-Free workplace. 3) Any available counseling, rehabilitation, and employee assistance programs. 4) Penalties that may be imposed upon employees for drug abuse violations. c. Provide, as required by Government Code Section 8355(a)(3), that every employee who works on the proposed contract or grant:
1) Will receive a copy of the company's Drug-Free policy statement. 2) Will agree to abide by the terms of the company's statement as a condition of employment on the contract or grant.
d. Failure to comply with these requirements may result in suspension of payments under this RGA or termination of this RGA or both, and AGENCY may be ineligible for the award of any future state contracts if CALTRANS determines that any of the following has occurred: (1) AGENCY has made a false certification or, (2) AGENCY violates the certification by failing to

City of Pinole
Agreement Number 04-CCEP-06
AMS ADV ID: 0426000314
Project Number: CCEP-5126(023)

carry out the requirements as noted above.

25. Relationship of Parties
It is expressly understood that this agreement is executed by and between two (2) independent governmental entities and is not intended to, and shall not be construed to, create the relationship of agent, servant, employee, partnership, joint venture or association, or any other relationship whatsoever other than that of an independent party.

26. State-Owned Data
a. AGENCY agrees to comply with the following requirements to ensure the preservation, security, and integrity of State-owned data on portable computing devices and portable electronic storage media:
1) Encrypt all State-owned data stored on portable computing devices and portable electronic storage media using government-certified Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) cipher algorithm with a 256-bit or 128-bit encryption key to protect CALTRANS data stored on every sector of a hard drive, including temp files, cached data, hibernation files, and even unused disk space.
2) Data encryption shall use cryptographic technology that has been tested and approved against exacting standards, such as FIPS 140-2 Security Requirements for Cryptographic Modules.
3) Encrypt, as described above, all State-owned data transmitted from one computing device or storage medium to another.
4) Maintain confidentiality of all State-owned data by limiting data sharing to those individuals contracted to provide services on behalf of the State, and limit use of State information assets for State purposes only.
5) Install and maintain current anti-virus software, security patches, and upgrades on all computing devices used during the course of the Agreement. 6) Notify the CALTRANS District Partnership Liaison immediately of any actual or attempted violations of security of State-owned data, including lost or stolen computing devices, files, or portable electronic storage media containing State-owned data. 7) Advise the owner of the State-owned data, the AGENCY Information Security Officer, and the AGENCY Chief Information Officer of vulnerabilities that may present a threat to the security of State-owned data and of specific means of protecting that State-owned data. b. AGENCY agrees to use the State-owned data only for State purposes under this Agreement. c. AGENCY agrees to not transfer State-owned data to any computing system, mobile device, or desktop computer without first establishing the specifications for information integrity and security as established for the original data file(s) (State Administrative Manual (SAM) Section 5335.1).

27. CALTRANS’ Use of “Before” and “After” Project Photographs a. AGENCY acknowledges it provided a “Before” photograph of the Project with the AGENCY’s application for the Clean California Local Grant Program. AGENCY acknowledges and agrees it must provide an “After” photograph of the Project as part of the close out reporting process. b. AGENCY warrants it is the copyright owner of the “Before” and “After” Project photographs. c. Neither the “Before” nor “After” Project photographs shall include the faces of any

City of Pinole
Agreement Number 04-CCEP-06
AMS ADV ID: 0426000314
Project Number: CCEP-5126(023)

individuals.
d. AGENCY grants to CALTRANS an irrevocable, perpetual, royalty-free, sublicensable, unlimited, worldwide license to prepare derivative works, make, publish, display, and distribute two-dimensional reproductions and/or copies, digitally and in print, of the “Before” and “After” Project photographs, or derivatives thereof, for non-commercial purposes or any State government purposes. This includes, but is not limited to, reproductions used in brochures, media publicity, public outreach campaigns (including television and social media campaigns), education, and exhibition catalogues or other similar publication. e. When applicable, AGENCY shall obtain and provide to CALTRANS any and all documentation CALTRANS reasonably determines is necessary or desirable to perfect the license described in this RGA to CALTRANS. This documentation shall be provided to CALTRANS within fifteen (15) days of written notice that this documentation is required.

28. Limited Grant of Rights to CALTRANS for Use of Educational Programming (“educational programming”) Created or Produced for Project and Visual Art Located Outside of State Right-ofWay (“Artwork”) Created or Produced for Project a. Educational programming:
i. AGENCY shall obtain from any and all copyright owner(s) of educational programming a sublicensable, irrevocable, perpetual, royalty-free, unlimited, worldwide license to prepare derivative works, make, publish, display, and distribute two-dimensional reproductions and/or copies, digitally and in print, of the educational programming created or produced for Project under this RGA, or derivatives thereof, for non-commercial purposes or any State government purposes. This includes, but is not limited to, reproductions used in brochures, media publicity, public outreach campaigns (including television and social media campaigns), education, exhibition catalogues or other similar publication. AGENCY shall obtain any and all other intellectual property rights necessary to make this grant to CALTRANS as described in this RGA.
ii. AGENCY grants to CALTRANS an irrevocable, perpetual, royalty-free, sublicensable, unlimited, worldwide license to prepare derivative works, make, publish, display, and distribute two-dimensional reproductions and/or copies, digitally and in print, of the educational programming created or produced for Project under this RGA, or derivatives thereof, for non-commercial purposes or any State government purposes. This includes, but is not limited to, reproductions used in brochures, media publicity, public outreach campaigns (including television and social media campaigns), education, and exhibition catalogues or other similar publication.
iii. When applicable, AGENCY shall obtain and provide to CALTRANS any and all documentation CALTRANS reasonably determines is necessary or desirable to perfect the license or sublicense described in this RGA to CALTRANS. This documentation shall be provided to CALTRANS within fifteen (15) days of written notice that this documentation is required.
iv. To the extent any logos, including trademarks or service marks, belonging to third parties and/or the AGENCY are used on educational programming created or produced for Project under this RGA, AGENCY agrees to obtain and grant all necessary rights for CALTRANS to use and allow agents of CALTRANS to use the logos in connection with use of the educational programming for non-commercial purposes or State government purposes. This includes but is not limited to reproductions used in brochures, media publicity, public outreach

City of Pinole
Agreement Number 04-CCEP-06
AMS ADV ID: 0426000314
Project Number: CCEP-5126(023)

campaigns (including television and social media campaigns), education and exhibition catalogues or other similar publication. This documentation shall be provided to CALTRANS within fifteen (15) days of written notice that this documentation is required. b. Artwork:
i. AGENCY shall obtain from the artist(s), or any other copyright owner(s) of Artwork, a sublicensable, irrevocable, perpetual, royalty-free, unlimited, worldwide license to prepare derivative works, make, publish, display, and distribute two-dimensional reproductions and/or copies, digitally and in print, of Artwork created or produced for Project under this RGA, or derivatives thereof, for non-commercial purposes or any State government purposes. This includes, but is not limited to, reproductions used in brochures, media publicity, public outreach campaigns (including television and social media campaigns), education, and exhibition catalogues or other similar publication. AGENCY shall obtain any and all other intellectual property rights necessary to make this grant to CALTRANS as described in this RGA.
ii. AGENCY grants to CALTRANS an irrevocable, perpetual, royalty-free, sublicensable, unlimited, worldwide license to prepare derivative works, make, publish, display, and distribute two-dimensional reproductions and/or copies, digitally and in print, of Artwork created or produced for Project under this RGA, or derivatives thereof, for non-commercial purposes or any State government purposes. This includes, but is not limited to, reproductions used in brochures, media publicity, public outreach campaigns (including television and social media campaigns), education, and exhibition catalogues or other similar publication.
iii. AGENCY shall obtain and provide to CALTRANS any and all documentation CALTRANS reasonably determines is necessary or desirable to perfect the license or sublicense described in this RGA to CALTRANS. This documentation shall be provided to CALTRANS within fifteen (15) days of written notice that this documentation is required.

29. Government Purpose Rights for Inventions
a. Inventions are any idea, methodologies, design, concept, technique, invention, discovery, improvement or development regardless of patentability made solely by AGENCY or jointly with the AGENCY’s contractor, subcontractor and/or subrecipient during the term of this RGA and in performance of any work under this RGA, provided that either the conception or reduction to practice thereof occurs during the term of this RGA and in performance of work issued under this RGA.
b. CALTRANS will have Government Purpose Rights to any inventions created as a result of the Project. “Government Purpose Rights” are the unlimited, irrevocable, worldwide, perpetual, royalty-free, non-exclusive rights, and licenses to use, modify, reproduce, perform, release, display, create derivative works from, and disclose any said invention. “Government Purpose Rights” also include the right to release or disclose said invention(s) outside CALTRANS for any State government purpose and to authorize recipients to use, modify, reproduce, perform, release, display, create derivative works from, and disclose the invention(s) for any State government purpose. “Government Purpose Rights” do not include any rights to use, modify, reproduce, perform, release, display, create derivative works from, or disclose the invention(s)

City of Pinole
Agreement Number 04-CCEP-06
AMS ADV ID: 0426000314
Project Number: CCEP-5126(023)

for any commercial purpose.

30. Additional Intellectual Property Provisions
a. To the extent any intellectual property is created or produced for Project under this RGA, and not covered in other provisions of this RGA, AGENCY agrees to take reasonable steps to ensure that CALTRANS has the rights necessary to allow for use of the intellectual property in a fashion substantially similar to other rights for non-commercial uses and State government purposes described in this RGA.
b. If additional uses are reasonably determined to be needed by CALTRANS for public outreach purposes, AGENCY will obtain rights and grant CALTRANS and its agents said additional rights for use of the “Before” and “After” Project photos, Artwork created or produced for Project under this RGA, and educational programming created or produced for Project under this RGA.

The grant will be an irrevocable, non-exclusive, perpetual, royalty-free, sublicensable, unlimited, worldwide license.
c. When requested to so do by AGENCY, all reproductions and/or copies by CALTRANS of “Before” or “After” Project photographs, educational programming, and Artwork shall contain a credit to the Artist/ Copyright owner(s) and a copyright notice in substantially the following form:
© [Artist/Copyright owner’s name, date of publication]. AGENCY bears sole responsibility to promptly notify CALTRANS, in writing, about instances where such accreditation is requested and provide the Artist/ Copyright owner’s name and date of publication. CALTRANS will make reasonable efforts to affix the copyright notice in a timely manner. d. Required disclaimer language for educational programming and Artwork created or produced for Project under this RGA.
i. Educational programming: AGENCY must place a disclaimer statement in a conspicuous manner on the educational programming created or produced for Project under this RGA a disclaimer that states the content of the educational programming does not reflect the official views or policies of CALTRANS. The educational programming does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.
ii. Artwork: AGENCY must place a disclaimer statement in a conspicuous manner on or in close proximately to the Artwork created or produced for Project under this RGA a disclaimer statement that the contents of the artwork do not reflect the official views or policies of CALTRANS.
e. Avoidance of Infringement: In performing work under this RGA, AGENCY and its employees agree to avoid designing or developing any items that infringe one or more patents or other intellectual property rights of any third party. If AGENCY or its employees becomes aware of any such possible infringement in the course of performing any work under this RGA, AGENCY or its employees shall immediately notify CALTRANS in writing. f. Contractors, Subcontractors, and Subrecipients: Through contract with its sub-recipients, contractors, and subcontractors, AGENCY shall affirmatively bind by contract all of its contractors, subcontractors, subrecipients, and service vendors (hereinafter “AGENCY’s Contractor/Subcontractor/Subrecipient”) providing services under this RGA to conform to the provisions of paragraphs 31-33 of this RGA. In performing services under this RGA, AGENCY’s Contractor/Subcontractor/Subrecipient shall agree to avoid designing or developing any items that infringe one (1) or more patents or other intellectual property rights of any third party. If AGENCY’s Contractor/Subcontractor/Subrecipient becomes aware of any such possible

City of Pinole
Agreement Number 04-CCEP-06
AMS ADV ID: 0426000314
Project Number: CCEP-5126(023)

infringement in the course of performing any work under this RGA, AGENCY’s Contractor/Subcontractor/Subrecipient shall immediately notify the AGENCY in writing, and AGENCY will then immediately notify CALTRANS in writing.

31. Visual Art Located on California State Right-of-Way AGENCY agrees if Project involves visual art located on California State right-of-way, Project must be submitted and adhere to CALTRANS’ most current Transportation Art Proposal process, policies, guidelines, and requirements. Information regarding CALTRANS’ Transportation Art program can be found at https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-andcommunity-livability/lap-liv-j-transportation-art. AGENCY bears sole responsibility for ensuring that any Project will be timely submitted through CALTRANS’ Transportation Art Proposal process, approved, and installed prior to any deadlines as required by this RGA. a. AGENCY acknowledges that funds provided by CALTRANS under this RGA shall not be used for maintenance outside of the project time limits as provided in this RGA. b. AGENCY acknowledges that the CALTRANS’ Transportation Art Proposal process requires, among other things, CALTRANS ownership of any tangible visual final artwork, an unlimited, irrevocable copyright assignment to CALTRANS of the final artwork, and waiver of moral rights under California Civil Code § 987 (the California Art Preservation Act) and 17 U.S.C. § 106A(a) (the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990, “VARA”) of the final artwork. c. AGENCY acknowledges that any submittal to the CALTRANS’ Transportation Art Proposal process includes restrictions on the type of work that can be located on California State right-ofway.

32. Assumption of Risk and Indemnification Regarding Exposure to Environmental Health Hazards In addition to, and not a limitation of, AGENCY’s indemnification obligations contained elsewhere in this Agreement, AGENCY hereby assumes all risks of the consequences of exposure of AGENCY’s employees, agents, Subcontractors, Subcontractors’ employees, and any other person, firm, or corporation furnishing or supplying work services, materials, or supplies in connection with the performance of this Agreement, to any and all environmental health hazards, local and otherwise, in connection with the performance of this Agreement. Such hazards include, but are not limited to, bodily injury and/or death resulting in whole or in part from exposure to infectious agents and/or pathogens of any type, kind or origin. AGENCY also agrees to take all appropriate safety precautions to prevent any such exposure to AGENCY’s employees, agents, Subcontractors, Subcontractors’ employees, and any other person, firm or corporation furnishing or supplying work services, materials, or supplies in connection with the performance of this Agreement. AGENCY also agrees to indemnify and hold harmless CALTRANS, the State of California, and each and all of their officers, agents and employees, from any and all claims and/or losses accruing or resulting from such exposure. Except as provided by law, AGENCY also agrees that the provisions of this paragraph shall apply regardless of the existence or degree of negligence or fault on the part of CALTRANS, the State of California, and/or any of their officers, agents and/or employees.

33. Mandatory Organic Waste Recycling
It is understood and agreed that pursuant to Public Resources Code Sections 42649.8 et seq., if AGENCY or its subcontractor generates two (2) cubic yards or more of organic waste or commercial solid waste per week, AGENCY or its subcontractor shall arrange for organic waste or commercial waste recycling services that separate/source organic waste for organic waste

City of Pinole
Agreement Number 04-CCEP-06
AMS ADV ID: 0426000314
Project Number: CCEP-5126(023)

recycling. AGENCY shall provide proof of compliance, i.e. organic waste recycling services or commercial waste recycling services that separate/source organic waste recycling, upon request from CALTRANS District Partnership Liaison

34. Project Close Out/Closeout Report
a. AGENCY will provide a final close out report to the CALTRANS District Partnership Liaison no later than November 30, 2027.

CALTRANS reserves the right to inspect the project location prior to approving the final invoice and closeout report.
b. CALTRANS reserves the right to withhold final payment to AGENCY pending receipt and approval of the final closeout report by the CALTRANS District Partnership Liaison. c. Payments shall be forfeit if invoices are submitted after November 30, 2027.

35. ADA Compliance
All entities that provide electronic or information technology or related services that will be posted online by CALTRANS must be in compliance with Government Code Sections 7405 and 11135 and the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 or subsequent version, published by the Web Accessibility Initiative of the World Wide Web Consortium at a minimum Level AA success. All entities will respond to and resolve any complaints/deficiencies regarding accessibility brought to their attention.

36. Prevailing Wages and Labor Code Compliance
AGENCY shall comply with any and all applicable labor and prevailing wage requirements in Labor Code Sections 1720 through 1815 and implementing regulations for any public works or maintenance contracts and subcontracts executed for the AGENCY’s work on or for the Project.

37. In the event of any inconsistency between the provisions which constitute this RGA, the following order of precedence shall apply:

I. This Restricted Grant Agreement (as amended);
II. The CALTRANS Local Grant Program Guidelines;
III. Approved Indirect Cost Rate (if applicable);
IV. Approved Grant Application (as amended); and
V. AGENCY Resolution.

38. Survival
AGENCY’s representations, the indemnification provisions in paragraph 21, intellectual property provisions in paragraphs 30, 31, 32, and 33, and all other provisions which by their inherent character establish ongoing obligations shall remain in full force and effect, regardless of any expiration and/or termination of this RGA.

39. Sanctions
No agreements under this RGA shall be made with individuals and/or entities that are determined to be a target of sanctions by the State of California while such sanctions are in

City of Pinole
Agreement Number 04-CCEP-06
AMS ADV ID: 0426000314
Project Number: CCEP-5126(023)

effect.

Section IV
Attachments:

The following attachments are incorporated into and are made a part of this RGA by this reference and attached hereto.

I. Clean CA Community Cleanup and Employment Pathway (CCEP) Grant Program Guidelines II. Approved Indirect Cost Rate (if applicable)
III. Approved Grant Application and Amendment(s) to Grant Application (if applicable) IV. AGENCY Resolution

City of Pinole
Agreement Number 04-CCEP-06
AMS ADV ID: 0426000314
Project Number: CCEP-5126(023)

In Witness Whereof, the parties hereto have executed this RGA on the day and year first herein above written:

AGENCY NAME
City of Pinole
By:

Printed Name:

Garrett Evans
Title:

Interim City Manager
Date:

CALTRANS DISTRICT PARTNERSHIP LIAISON

CLEAN CALIFORNIA PROGRAM
By:

Printed Name:

Ida Tu
Title:

Clean CA Grant Manager
Date:

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

CLEAN CALIFORNIA PROGRAM
By:

Printed Name:

Walter Yu
Title:

Clean California Program Director
Date:

City of Pinole
Agreement Number 04-CCEP-06
AMS ADV ID: 0426000314
Project Number: CCEP-5126(023)

PINOLE CREEK WATERSHED Pinole Creek Places of Interest
National Geographic, Esri, Garmin, HERE, UNEP-WCMC, USGS, NASA, ESA, METI, NRCAN, GEBCO, NOAA, increment P Corp.

May 1, 2023 0 2 4 8 mi
0 3 6 12 km
1:288,895
8 miles

SAN PABLO BAY

PINOLE CREEK WATERSHED
1 PINOLE CREEKSIDE PARK CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
CITY OF PINOLE, FRIENDS OF PINOLE CREEK WATERSHED 28 APRIL 2025 The Pinole Creek Watershed is an unique watershed
whose waters flow through the East Bay hills and the town of Pinole before entering the San Pablo Bay. Historically, the creek was home to native anadromous steelhead trout that nested in the upper watershed. The upper watershed remains relatively undeveloped and with the completion
of several major projects, steelhead are returning.

However, as Pinole has grown, so have threats to Pinole Creek’s environmental health*.

As Pinole Creek flows down to San Pablo Bay, it picks up a disheartening amount of trash due to littering and illegal dumping of household trash and larger items such as
furniture and vehicle tires*.

The Creek offers opportunities to increase social and
ecological connectivity along its entire length, inviting the people of Pinole to celebrate the water, the riparian
vegetation and the rainbow trouts!
*Text from Friends of Pinole Creek Watershed website

PINOLE CREEK | EXISTING CONDITIONS + OPPORTUNITIES FOR SOCIAL AND ECOLOGICAL CONNECTIVITY

NATIVE PLANTING
GA
R
D
E
N

0.6 miles
HIGHWAY 80

SAN PABLO BAY

FERNANDEZ
PARK

SALMON PASSAGE

DOWNSTREAM

RIPARIAN VEGETATIO
N
2 PINOLE CREEKSIDE PARK CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
CITY OF PINOLE, FRIENDS OF PINOLE CREEK WATERSHED 28 APRIL 2025 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 BAYFRONT PARK

FERNANDEZ PARK

COLLINS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
MALL

PINOLE VALLEY HIGH SCHOOL

PINOLE LIBRARY

PINOLE SWIMMING POOL

SAVAGE AVENUE PARK

ELLERHORST ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

PINOLE DOG PARK

PINOLE VALLEY PARK

PINOLE SKATE PARK

PINOLE VALLEY PARK TRAILS

SOBRANTE RIDGE REGIONAL PARK

SOBRANTE RIDGE REGIONAL PRESERVE

BAY AREA RIDGE TRAILHEAD

OPPORTUNITIES FOR SOCIAL AND

ECOLOGICAL CONNECTIVITY

OPPORTUNITIES FOR CONNECTIVITY

RIPARIAN VEGETATION

PINOLE TOWN

SCOPE OF WORK
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
12 13
13 14
15 16
14 15
16

PINOLE CREEK | COMMUNITY INPUT AND PROGRAM PREFERENCES

POLLINATOR GARDEN

EDUCATIONAL SIGNAG
E

TRASH & RECYCLING
BIN
S

WATER LOG
ART

LIGHTING

COMMUNITY BOARD

BENCHES

MINI WATER FRONT

PICNIC TABLES
SHADE

BOULDERS
STUMPS

NEW BRIDGE
3 PINOLE CREEKSIDE PARK CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
CITY OF PINOLE, FRIENDS OF PINOLE CREEK WATERSHED 28 APRIL 2025

PINOLE CREEKSIDE PARK CONCEPT PLAN
1 PINOLE VALLEY

HIGH SCHOOL
MALL
1 1

PINOLE VALLEY ROAD
4 1 2
5 8
6 7
7 5
9 3
6 PINOLE CREEK
ENTRANCE 1
ENTRANCE 2
ENTRANCE 3
SARAH
COURT
PATH
2 9
9 4 PINOLE CREEKSIDE PARK CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
CITY OF PINOLE, FRIENDS OF PINOLE CREEK WATERSHED 28 APRIL 2025 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
HIGLIGHTED ENTRANCE:

OVERHEAD WOODEN

TRELLIS PLANTED WITH VINES

OR SCULPTURE

WOODEN BRIDGE

PICNIC AREA

HABITAT RESTORATION

PARK TREAD TRAIL

FENCE WITH ART

ART EXPRESSION OF CREEK

AND SALMON

SIGNAGE

TRASH BINS

LIGHTING ALONG THE TRAIL

KEY AND PRIORITIES
4 3
3 3
8 8

PINOLE CREEKSIDE PARK CONCEPT PLAN - ENTRANCE 1

PARK TREAD
(E) RIPARIAN VEGETATION
MEADOW

PINOLE VALLEY
HIGH SCHOOL 1

PINOLE VALLEY ROAD
2 3 4
5 6
5 PINOLE CREEK
5 PINOLE CREEKSIDE PARK CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
CITY OF PINOLE, FRIENDS OF PINOLE CREEK WATERSHED 28 APRIL 2025 LEGEND
7 1

ENTRANCE
2 LOG/STUMP/

BOULDER EDGE
3 4

PICNIC TABLE

TRASH BINS
5 6 7

ART SIGNAGE LIGHTING

PINOLE CREEKSIDE PARK CONCEPT PLAN - PATH

PARK TREAD
(E) RIPARIAN VEGETATION
MEADOW

PINOLE VALLEY

HIGH SCHOOL
1 2
3 PINOLE CREEK
6 PINOLE CREEKSIDE PARK CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
CITY OF PINOLE, FRIENDS OF PINOLE CREEK WATERSHED 28 APRIL 2025 LEGEND
1 SHADE
2 LIGHTING
3 ART ON FENCE

PINOLE CREEKSIDE PARK CONCEPT PLAN - ENTRANCE 1

PROPOSED INTERVENTIONS

EXISTING
MEADOW

PLANTING

PARK TREAD TRAIL

SALMON ART

ON FENCE

LIGHTING
ART
SHADE

LOCATION

PINOLE VALLEY

HIGH SCHOOL
MEADOW

PLANTING
7 PINOLE CREEKSIDE PARK CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
CITY OF PINOLE, FRIENDS OF PINOLE CREEK WATERSHED 28 APRIL 2025

PINOLE CREEKSIDE PARK CONCEPT PLAN - ENTRANCE 2

PARK TREAD
(E) RIPARIAN VEGETATION
MEADOW
(E) ASPHALT

PINOLE VALLEY

HIGH SCHOOL
1 2
3 4
5 6

PINOLE CREEK
MALL 5
5 6
8 PINOLE CREEKSIDE PARK CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
CITY OF PINOLE, FRIENDS OF PINOLE CREEK WATERSHED 28 APRIL 2025 LEGEND
7 2

STUMP EDGING
3 4

PICNIC TABLE

TRASH BINS
5 6
7 ART SIGNAGE

LIGHTING
8 9
10 WATER LOG BOULDERS

COMMUNITY
BOARD
9 8
10 11

ENTRANCE
11 12
WOODEN
BRIDGE
12 1

WATER FRONT

PROPOSED INTERVENTIONS
PINOLE CREEKSIDE PARK CONCEPT PLAN - ENTRANCE 2

EXISTING

LOCATION

PINOLE VALLEY

HIGH SCHOOL

WOODEN BRIDGE

BOULDERS
ART

WATER FRONT

PARK TREAD TRAIL

LIGHTING
PICNIC
TABLES
9 PINOLE CREEKSIDE PARK CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
CITY OF PINOLE, FRIENDS OF PINOLE CREEK WATERSHED 28 APRIL 2025

WOODEN
BRIDGE

ENTRANCE

OVERHEAD

TRELLIS
PINOLE CREEKSIDE PARK CONCEPT PLAN - ENTRANCE 2

EXISTING

LOCATION

PROPOSED INTERVENTIONS

SIGNAGE
ART
10 PINOLE CREEKSIDE PARK CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
CITY OF PINOLE, FRIENDS OF PINOLE CREEK WATERSHED 28 APRIL 2025

PINOLE CREEKSIDE PARK CONCEPT PLAN - ENTRANCE 3
(E) ASPHALT
(E) RIPARIAN VEGETATION
MEADOW

SARAH COURT
1 2
3 4
5 6

PINOLE CREEK
4 11 PINOLE CREEKSIDE PARK CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
CITY OF PINOLE, FRIENDS OF PINOLE CREEK WATERSHED 28 APRIL 2025 LEGEND
1 ENTRANCE
3 TRASH BINS
2 SIGNAGE
4 ART
5 COMMUNITY BOARD
6 LIGHTING

CITY COUNCIL
REPORT 9.D.

DATE: APRIL 7, 2026
TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: Stacy Shell, Human Resources Director, 510-741-3864, [email protected] SUBJECT: ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING SIDE LETTER AGREEMENT TO THE

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF PINOLE

AND PINOLE POLICE EMPLOYEE ASSOCIATION TO ESTABLISH A

FILLING OF VACANT SHIFTS PROGRAM

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution approving a Side Letter Agreement to amend the Pinole Police Employees Association (PPEA) Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to establish a filling of vacant shifts program.

BACKGROUND
In April 2025, the Police Department Command Staff met with PPEA representatives to discuss the process for mandating employees to fill vacant shifts. The PPEA MOU and the Pinole Police Department Policy Manual do not specify this process, and there was a desire to establish a fair and consistent method for the assignment of mandatory overtime.

After discussions, the City drafted a side letter to formalize the proposed process, however PPEA decided to incorporate the mandated overtime process as a proposal into current labor negotiations for a successor MOU between the City and PPEA.

On January 23, 2026, PPEA representatives informed the City’s labor negotiations team of their intent to withdrawal the proposal from bargaining to resolve the matter quickly by way of a side letter agreement.

REVIEW AND ANALYSIS
The Police Department Command Staff met with PPEA representatives in February 2026 to discuss the side letter and related procedures. The proposed side letter includes the following items in summary:
• Vacant shifts will initially be filled on a voluntary basis. If a shift is not voluntarily filled, employees will be required to work all or part of the shift, with seniority-based inverse selection on a rotational basis.
• Once an employee is mandated to work a minimum of four hours, their name will be placed at the bottom of the force list.
• Employees are permitted one exemption from mandatory overtime each calendar year.

The exemption cannot be used on July 4, December 25, or December 31.

• Employees mandated to work on July 4, December 25, or December 31 with less than 24 hours' notice will be paid double their regular rate. • Employees mandated to fill a shift must not work more than 16 consecutive hours and must be allowed an 8-hour rest period between shifts.
• Employees will not be mandated to work overtime during their scheduled vacation.

During the annual vacation sign-up, employees must include travel days to be excluded from mandated overtime. Accruals will be deducted only for employees’ regularly scheduled days off.
• There are rules for filling vacant supervisory shifts by Officers in Charge.

FISCAL IMPACT
None

ATTACHMENTS
A. Resolution
B. Filling of Shifts and OIC SLA

Attachment A
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-XX

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

CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A SIDE LETTER

AGREEMENT TO THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDINGS (MOU) BETWEEN

THE CITY OF PINOLE AND THE PINOLE POLICE EMPLOYEE ASSOCIATION (PPEA) TO ESTABLISH A FILLING OF VACANT SHIFTS PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the PPEA represents the law enforcement employees of the City; and WHEREAS, in April 2025, the Police Department Command Staff met with PPEA representatives to discuss the process for mandating employees to fill vacant shifts; and WHEREAS, the City drafted a side letter to formalize the proposed process, however PPEA decided to incorporate the mandated overtime process as a proposal into current labor negotiations for a successor MOU between the City and PPEA; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the provisions of the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act, the City and the representatives of PPEA began negotiations in May 2025 and continue to meet and confer in good faith in an effort to reach agreement on terms for a successor MOU; and
WHEREAS, on January 23, 2026, PPEA representatives informed the City’s labor negotiations team of their intent to withdrawal the proposal from bargaining to resolve the matter quickly by way of a side letter agreement.; and
WHEREAS, in February 2026, the Police Department Command Staff met with PPEA representatives to develop a side letter agreement detailing a program to fill vacant shifts; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pinole does hereby approve the side letter agreement to establish a filling of vacant shifts program and authorizes the City Manager to execute and implement the side letter agreement with PPEA, attached hereto as Exhibit A, and incorporated herein by this reference.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Pinole City Council held on the 7th day of April 2026 by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

I, hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was regularly introduced, passed, and adopted on this 7th day of April 2026.

______________________________________
Heather Bell-Spears, CMC
City Clerk

Exhibit A

CITY COUNCIL
REPORT 9.E.

DATE: APRIL 7, 2026
TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: Stacy Shell, Human Resources Director, 510-741-3864, [email protected] SUBJECT: ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING A SIDE LETTER AGREEMENT TO

THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF

PINOLE AND PINOLE POLICE EMPLOYEE ASSOCIATION TO AMEND

HEALTH PLAN PREMIUM CONTRIBUTIONS

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution approving a Side Letter Agreement between the City of Pinole and PPEA related to Article 6.1 – Medical Insurance Program.

BACKGROUND
The City’s personnel procedures and requirements, which apply to all competitive service City employees, are codified in the City’s Personnel Rules (Personnel Rules), which the City Council approves and adopts. The Personnel Rules cover issues such as equal opportunity; recruitment and selection; discipline; and workplace policies.

The wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment for represented employees are negotiated with the designated labor units and the agreements between the parties are outlined in MOUs, which complement the Personnel Rules. The State of California MeyersMilias-Brown Act (MMBA) governs labor relations between municipalities and their represented employee unions, including the negotiation of MOUs. The City Council is responsible for approving wages, including employee benefits, hours, and terms and conditions of employment for all employees.

Each recognized employee bargaining unit negotiates with the City to provide their members with a customized package of competitive employee benefits outlined in their respective MOU.

Among the benefits offered to select employee groups is the CalPERS medical insurance program.

The current MOU between the City and PPEA expired on June 30, 2025. In accordance with the provisions of the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act, the City and the representatives of PPEA continue to meet and confer in good faith in an effort to reach agreement on terms for a successor MOU.

REVIEW AND ANALYSIS
Under the current PPEA MOU, effective January 1, 2025, the City’s contribution toward employee medical insurance is based on the 2024 CalPERS Kaiser rates for single, two-party,

and family coverage.

Because a successor MOU has not yet been finalized, the City’s contribution remained at the 2024 rate levels when the January 1, 2026 CalPERS Kaiser rate increases took effect. As a result, PPEA members experienced higher out-of-pocket contributions compared to members of other bargaining units that reached successor agreements with updated contribution terms prior to the expiration of their MOUs.

On February 4, 2026, the City’s negotiation team provided a draft side letter agreement regarding health premium cost sharing that would maintain the existing model used for all bargaining units, including the PPEA. The historical and universal model for determining the City’s contribution amount towards monthly medical contributions for all employees is up to the Kaiser monthly premium amount of the prior Plan Year at the appropriate level of eligibility (single, single plus one, or family).

On March 10, 2026, the PPEA representatives notified the City in writing that it had agreed in concept to the draft side letter but countered with non-substantive edits. The attached side letter agreement will prospectively increase the City’s contribution towards PPEA members’ monthly health premium based on coverage eligibility to the following amounts as soon as administratively possible:
2025 Kaiser Rates
One Party Coverage: $1,112.90
Two Party Coverage: $2,225.80
Family Coverage: $2,893.54

FISCAL IMPACT
The historical model was used for determining FY 2025/2026 adopted budget so no additional budget appropriation is required.

ATTACHMENTS
A. Resolution
B. PPEA SLA Health Premium Contributions

Attachment A
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-XX

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

CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A SIDE LETTER

AGREEMENT TO THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) BETWEEN

THE CITY OF PINOLE AND THE PINOLE POLICE EMPLOYEE ASSOCIATION (PPEA) TO AMEND HEALTH PLAN PREMIUM CONTRIBUTIONS
WHEREAS, the PPEA represents the law enforcement employees of the City; and WHEREAS, the current MOU between the City and PPEA expired on June 30, 2025; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the provisions of the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act, the City and the representatives of PPEA continue to meet and confer in good faith in an effort to reach agreement on terms for a successor MOU; and WHEREAS, under the current PPEA MOU, effective January 1, 2025, the City’s contribution toward employee medical insurance is based on the 2024 CalPERS Kaiser rates for single, two-party, and family coverage; and
WHEREAS, because a successor MOU has not yet been finalized, the City’s contribution remained at the 2024 rate levels when the January 1, 2026 CalPERS Kaiser rate increases took effect; and
WHEREAS, on February 4, 2026, the City’s negotiation team presented a proposed side letter agreement regarding health premium cost sharing that would align the PPEA member contributions with other bargaining groups who had already reached agreement on terms for successor MOUs; and
WHEREAS, on March 10, 2026, the PPEA representatives accepted the proposed side letter agreement to amend the current MOU in increase the City’s contribution towards PPEA members’ monthly health premium based on coverage eligibility; and WHEREAS, this modification will take effect as soon as administratively possible after Council adoption and subject to CalPERS requirements.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pinole does hereby approve the side letter agreement to amend health plan premium contributions and authorizes the City Manager to execute and implement the side letter agreement with PPEA, attached hereto as Exhibit A, and incorporated herein by this reference.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Pinole City Council held on the 7th day of April 2026 by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

I, hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was regularly introduced, passed, and adopted on this 7th day of April 2026.

______________________________________
Heather Bell-Spears, CMC
City Clerk

THE CITY OF PINOLE AND PINOLE POLICE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION

SIDE LETTER OF AGREEMENT

MEDICAL CONTRIBUTIONS

I. Parties
The Parties to this Side Letter of Agreement (herein after “Side Letter”) are the City of Pinole (hereinafter referred to as the “City”) and the Pinole Police Employees Association (hereinafter referred to as the “Association”).

II. Background
The Parties are the signatories to a 2023-2025 Memorandum of Understanding (hereinafter referred to as the “MOU”) setting forth terms and conditions of employment for certain City employees that expired on June 30, 2025. The Parties are currently in negotiations for a successor MOU. On June 5, 2025, the City offered to continue the current medical contribution model, subject to CalPERS requirements. The terms set forth below outline the Parties understanding regarding this benefit. The Parties agree as follows:

III. Agreement of the Parties
The City currently provides for the CalPERS medical insurance program. As soon as administratively possible after Council adoption and subject to CalPERS requirements, for fulltime regular employees, the City shall contribute toward the employee’s health premium based on employees’ coverage eligibility the 2025 CalPERS Kaiser rates for one-party, twoparty and family coverage as follows:
2025 Kaiser Rates
One Party Coverage: $1,112.90
Two Party Coverage: $2,225.80
Family Coverage: $2,893.54
For part-time regular employees working at least 20 hours per week, the City will make a prorated premium contribution based on the percentage of hours regularly scheduled to work in relation to full-time. The pro-rated premium is based on the contribution maximum for regular full-time employees.

IV. General Provisions
A. This Side Letter will take effect upon adoption by the City Council of the City of Pinole and the terms herein subject to the Parties’ agreement as memorialized above.

B. The written terms herein embody the entire Side Letter of Agreement between the Parties.
[SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE]
Exhibit A

City of Pinole – Pinole Police Employees Association
Side Letter of Agreement – Medical Contributions Page 2 of 2

SIGNATURES
Agreed to this ______________ day of _______________, 2026.

CITY OF PINOLE
___________________________________ ________________
Garrett Evans, Interim City Manager Date
___________________________________ ________________
Stacy Shell, Human Resources Director Date

PINOLE POLICE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION
___________________________________ ________________
Amy Sorensen, President Date
___________________________________ ________________
Stacy McPherson, Labor Representative Date

CITY COUNCIL
REPORT 9.F.

DATE: APRIL 7, 2026
TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: Heba El-Guindy, Public Works Director, [email protected] SUBJECT: STORMWATER UTILITY AREA ASSESSMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026- 2027

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution (Attachment A) approving a rate of $35.00 per Equivalent Runoff Unit (ERU) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2026-2027 and authorizing the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (District) to adopt the FY 2025-2026 Stormwater Utility Area Fee for the City of Pinole.

BACKGROUND
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act), and its implementing regulations, requires that certain industrial facilities, construction sites, and municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) obtain coverage for their stormwater discharges under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. In California, the federal NPDES stormwater permit program is administered and enforced by the State Water Resources Control Board through the nine (9) Regional Water Quality Control Boards (Water Boards).

The Water Board for the San Francisco Bay Region (hereinafter San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board, SFRWQCB) is charged with making critical water quality decisions, including setting standards, issuing waste discharge requirements and NPDES permits, determining compliance and enforcing requirements for nine counties (Alameda, Contra Costa, San Francisco, Santa Clara, San Mateo, Marin, Sonoma, Napa, and Solano).

The NPDES permits are issued approximately every five years and include applicable provisions of the state Porter-Cologne Act, which is the principal legislation for controlling stormwater pollutants in California.

On November 15, 2015, the SFRWQCB reissued its Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES permit (MRP) to 76 municipalities to regulate discharge of stormwater runoff from the municipal separate storm sewer systems draining into the San Francisco Bay. The reissued MRP, referred to as MRP 2.0, took effect on January 1, 2016, and expired on December 31, 2020.

MRP 2.0 was administratively extended until the issuance of the next permit, MRP 3.0. The SFRWQCB adopted the Final Order for the third issuance of the MRP, or MRP 3.0, on May 11, 2022 (Order No. R2-2022-0018).

The City of Pinole, eighteen other cities/towns, the unincorporated Contra Costa County and the District joined together as member agencies to form the Contra Costa Clean Water Program (CCCWP) and work collectively as Contra Costa permittees under the NPDES permit

issued by the SFRWQCB. The CCCWP assists its member agencies with implementation of stormwater quality activities and completion of the MRP mandates for new development guidelines, monitoring, program training, and public education. The CCCWP Program Manager directs staff and acts under the direction of the Management Committee which is made up of one representative from each member agency.

The permit mandates included in the MRP are costly for the City of Pinole and other copermittees. To implement the mandates in an economical manner, municipalities share resources and implement some activities regionally. The Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA) is a consortium of nine San Francisco Bay Area municipal stormwater programs, including CCCWP, focused on regional challenges and opportunities to improve the quality of stormwater through the development of programs that would be more cost-effective if implemented on a regional level. Regional activities include development of new programs, studies and water quality monitoring for pollutants, public education, and reporting required by the MRP.

At the local level, staff focuses on local development design and plan checking, inspection of construction sites and commercial and industrial facilities, street sweeping, maintenance of trash capture devices, and other forms of maintenance activities to reduce stormwater pollution in order to meet the MRP mandates. A comprehensive review of the City’s activities and annual accomplishments related to MRP compliance are detailed in a report prepared annually and submitted to the SFRWQCB.

In 1992, AB 2768 was passed which allowed a municipality to request formation of a Stormwater Utility Area (SUA) and an assessment to pay for MRP implementation costs. The CCCWP Management Committee recommended the formation of stormwater utilities as the most cost-effective method for meeting the permit mandates. Sixteen city councils, including the Pinole City Council, and the County Board of Supervisors adopted resolutions requesting that the District form a SUA for their territories.

The District Board of Supervisors provided public notice to all affected property owners before the establishment of the SUA’s on June 22, 1993, creating 17 Stormwater Utility Areas. This 1993 Board action also set the first-year assessment rates for each SUA, as well as maximum rates. Assessments were collected for Fiscal Year 1993–1994 through 2000–2001. On May 9, 2000, the District separated the City of Oakley from SUA 17 and established it SUA 18. The District does not collect assessments for the cities of Richmond and Brentwood since these two cities collect their NPDES levy as a sewer fee.

It should be noted that the District has legal authority to form SUAs within the City of Pinole’s boundaries and levy stormwater utility assessments to fund NPDES Program activities for, and on behalf of the City of Pinole. The District also estimates the number of ERUs in Pinole’s SUAs, the number of parcels to be assessed, and the estimated remaining revenue for the current fiscal year. Annually, the City determines the cost to be assigned to a single ERU for the forthcoming fiscal year and through a City Council approved resolution, request the District to adopt SUA levies based on said amount. The District is charged with preparation of necessary reports, resolutions, ordinances, and public notices to complete the public hearing process for adoption of the proposed assessments for the next fiscal year.

Within each jurisdiction, the amount of assessment each property receives is based on the

amount of drainage it produces. The benchmark unit, or ERU, is a single-family residential parcel from 5,000 sq ft to 20,000 sq ft in size. Approximately 2/3 of all of Pinole’s single-family residential parcels fall into this category. Multi-family units and single-family residential parcels that are less than 5000 sq ft in size have a smaller assessment, while commercial properties and residential properties greater than 20,000 sq ft in size have a larger assessment.

Since FY 2001-2002, the assessment in the City of Pinole has been $35.00 per year per ERU.

Under the current County Ordinance, the highest assessment that can be imposed in the City of Pinole is $35.00 per ERU.

REVIEW AND ANALYSIS
Staff recommends maintaining assessments at their current level of $35.00 per ERU.

Maintaining the current level of funding is vital to maintain current activities and meet MRP compliance.

It is expected that requirements of the MRP 3.0 will cause the City to expend additional funds locally to meet permit mandates. Mandates of MRP 3.0 require local government compliance without a dedicated funding source. However, the potential cost and fines associated with noncompliance are significant.

FISCAL IMPACT
The District maintains a separate fund for each SUA. All administrative costs incurred by the District in operating the SUAs, including maintenance of the assessment database, preparation of reports and documents, adjusting assessment and reviewing data on disbursements to Pinole and expenditure by Pinole, are borne by the fund.

The District maintains accounting records for Program Activities expenditures which are MRP related activities delineated in the CCCWP Agreement, funded by member agencies and governed by the CCCWP Management Committee. The District charges for Program Activity costs, calculates the proration of Program Activity costs, and debits SUA Fund of member agencies of said costs incurred.

Annually, but not later than January 31, May 31, and September 10, the District instructs the County Auditor-Controller to disburse revenue from the fund to the individual member agencies including the City of Pinole. The amount to be disbursed each time shall be the fund balance less the following deduction: $3,000 or two percent (2%) of the estimated total assessment, whichever is greater.

The SUA assessment is estimated to generate approximately $305,831 based on $35 per year per ERU for FY 2026-2027. Approximately $6,116.62 (2% of estimated SUA) will be held by the District. In addition, the District’s cost for calculating the Program Activity costs and the SUA is approximately $584 while the County’s cost for collecting the SUA with the property tax bill is approximately $5,596. The City’s estimated share of participation in the CCCWP for FY 2026-2027 is $52,224.71.

Therefore, the SUA assessment will generate an estimated $241,309.67 to fund local MRP compliance activities that otherwise would have been funded by the General Fund.

ATTACHMENTS
A. Resolution

RESOLUTION NO. 2026-

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PINOLE,

COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE RATE OF $35.00 PER EQUIVALENT RUNOFF UNIT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026-2027 AND

AUTHORIZING THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT TO ADOPT THE FISCAL YEAR 2026-2027

STORMWATER UTILITY AREA FEE FOR THE CITY OF PINOLE
WHEREAS, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act) requires that stormwater discharges in urbanized areas be regulated by a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit; and
WHEREAS, in California, the federal NPDES stormwater permit program is administered and enforced by the State Water Resources Control Board through the nine (9) Regional Water Quality Control Boards (Water Boards); and WHEREAS, the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFRWQCB) is charged with making critical water quality decisions, including setting standards, issuing waste discharge requirements and NPDES permits, determining compliance and enforcing requirements for nine counties including Contra Costa; and WHEREAS, the Contra Costa Clean Water Program (CCCWP) is comprised of nineteen (19) cities, including the City of Pinole, along with the unincorporated Contra Costa County and Contra Costa Flood Control and Water Conservation District (District) and work collectively as “Contra Costa Permittees” under a joint Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP) issued by the SFRWQCB; and
WHEREAS, in 1993, the City of Pinole authorized the District to establish a stormwater pollution management utility district to fund NPDES permit activities; and WHEREAS, the District established Stormwater Utility Areas under Contra Costa County’s Stormwater Utility Assessment (SUA) Drainage Ordinance No. 93-47; and WHEREAS, the SUA agreement between the City of Pinole and the District requires the City to determine the annual SUA rate in its Stormwater Utility Area; and WHEREAS, the SUA rate is based on the Equivalent Runoff Unit (ERU); and WHEREAS, it is the intent of the City of Pinole to utilize funds received from its SUA for complying with the NPDES permit conditions (MRP 2.0 and MRP 3.0), preventing stormwater pollution and performing drainage system maintenance activities.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT, the City Council of the City of Pinole hereby approves the rate of $35.00 per Equivalent Runoff Unit (ERU) for Fiscal Year 2023-2027 and authorizes the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water

Conservation District (District) to adopt the Fiscal Year 2026-2027 Stormwater Utility Area (SUA) fee for the City of Pinole.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Pinole City Council held on the 7th day of April 2026 by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was regularly introduced, passed, and adopted on the 7th day of April 2026.

Heather Bell-Spears, CMC
City Clerk

CITY COUNCIL
REPORT 9.G.

DATE: APRIL 7, 2026
TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: Heba El-Guindy, Public Works Director, [email protected] SUBJECT: ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING CONTRA COSTA COUNTY

REGIONAL ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE (RAC) JOINT POWERS
AUTHORITY PARTICIPATION; APPROVAL OF JOINT POWERS
AGREEMENT; AUTHORIZING THE JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY (JPA) TO ESTABLISH ONE OR MORE COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICTS; AND

APPROVING A JOINT COMMUNITY FACILITIES AGREEMENT

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Approve participation in the Contra Costa County Regional Alternative Compliance (RAC) Joint Powers Authority (JPA), adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment A) to approve the proposed Joint Powers Agreement (Attachment B), and authorize the Interim City Manager to execute the Joint Powers Agreement.

2. Direct staff to take such actions as necessary to participate in the RAC System, including preparation of an ordinance to revise the City’s stormwater ordinance to incorporate participation in the RAC System as an approved alternative compliance for meeting applicable stormwater treatment requirements.

3. Authorize staff to collaborate with the RAC JPA Administrator to support RAC System implementation.

4. Authorize the JPA to establish one or more Community Facilities Districts (CFD), accept applications from property owners, annex properties to the CFD, and levy special taxes to finance ongoing maintenance costs for Off-Site GSI Projects; and approve a joint community facilities agreement.

BACKGROUND
The Contra Costa Clean Water Program (CCCWP) was established in 1991 by Contra Costa municipalities in anticipation of municipal stormwater permitting requirements under the federal Clean Water Act and California water quality laws, with encouragement from regional water regulators. CCCWP is a collaborative program composed of 19 Contra Costa cities and towns, the unincorporated areas of Contra Costa County, and the Flood Control and Water Conservation District, whose main objective is to jointly implement National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater permit requirements. Some permit provisions are more cost-effective to implement on a regional basis, such as water quality monitoring, public education, and special studies.

The Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP) imposes several obligations on local governments. Under Provision C.3.d, regulated new development and redevelopment projects must incorporate on-site Low Impact Development (LID) or Green Stormwater Infrastructure (GSI) to treat stormwater before it reaches local waterways. Many sites, particularly small infill properties, parcels with steep slopes, or locations with underground utility conflicts face serious constraints that make on-site treatment difficult or infeasible (refer to Attachment C, CCC RAC System Overview, pp. 3–4).

In addition, under MRP Provision C.3.j, municipalities must retrofit a quantifiable amount of existing impervious surface with GSI over the permit term. This requirement can be costly and resource-intensive when implemented through numerous small, distributed projects (refer to Attachment C, CCC RAC System Overview, p. 3). Moreover, cities must comply with pollutant load reduction targets under the PCBs TMDL (Provision C.12.c), which require locating stormwater treatment facilities in areas with historically high pollutant loads.

To address these challenges, Contra Costa County (CCC), the Cities of San Pablo and Walnut Creek, and the County Flood Control District partnered with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to pilot the Regional Alternative Compliance (RAC) System (refer to Attachment D, Fact Sheet, p. 1). Existing rules and guidance authorizing alternative compliance pathways legally support the RAC System. The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (San Francisco Bay Water Board) reviewed and approved the RAC System under MRP Provision C.3.e, the section explicitly devoted to alternative compliance (refer to Attachment C, CCC RAC System Overview, p. 8).

The CCC RAC System is an innovative, regionally supported approach to fulfilling state-mandated stormwater treatment obligations. Developed through a partnership between CCCWP, the EPA, and the San Francisco Bay Water Board, the RAC System provides an off-site, alternate compliance mechanism for the GSI that would normally be required on-site.

The RAC System allows both public agencies and private developers to purchase “compliance units” generated by certified Off-Site GSI projects constructed elsewhere in the county. These units represent an equivalent amount of stormwater treatment required for regulatory compliance.

The RAC System addresses long-standing challenges including constrained development sites, high costs of distributed GSI projects, and the need to target legacy pollutant areas.

Participation in the RAC System is enabled through a new Joint Powers Authority (JPA), which provides administrative support, financial mechanisms, and the governance structure necessary to manage Off-Site GSI projects and maintain ongoing compliance. The JPA is responsible for administering Off-Site GSI certification, compliance unit accounting, project verification, long-term maintenance funding mechanisms, and annual reporting to the Water Board (refer to Attachment 4, Draft JPA Term Sheet, Sections 6 & 11).

Importantly, the JPA would enable the participating agencies to levy a special tax under the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, as amended (Mello-Roos Act) on private properties that voluntarily choose to participate in the RAC System (Participating Properties) to fund maintenance of the Off-Site GSI projects. Pursuant to the Mello-Roos Act, in order for the JPA to form a Community Facilities District (CFD) that may include Participating Properties in the City (either at the time of CFD formation or by annexation to the CFD) and levy special taxes to finance maintenance of Off-Site GSI projects, the JPA and the City must enter into a