Agenda packet — Pinole City Council, June 8, 2026

PINOLE PLANNING COMMISSION

MEETING AGENDA
June 8, 2026
7:00 PM
Attend in Person: PINOLE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS - 2131 PEAR STREET OR
Attend VIA ZOOM TELECONFERENCE – Details provided below How to Submit Public Comments:

In Person:

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

Via Zoom:

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

From a PC, Mac, iPad, iPhone or Android:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/86505375301
Webinar ID: 865 0537 5301
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 5 minutes to speak • Speakers will be muted until their opportunity to provide public comment.

When the Chair 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:

Please submit public comments to Planning Staff before the meeting via email to [email protected]. Please include your full name, city of residence and agenda item you are commenting on.

Page 1 of 96 ends

Planning Commission
Agenda - June 8, 2026

Page 2 ends

OTHER WAYS TO WATCH THE MEETING
LIVE ON CHANNEL 28 and CHANNEL 1070. Meetings are broadcast again the following week on channel 1070 (previously channel 26). The Pinole Community TV program schedule is published on the City’s website at www.Pinole.gov/PCTV
VIDEO-STREAMED LIVE ON THE CITY’S WEBSITE, www.Pinole.gov/PCTV. Meeting videos remain archived on the site for five (5) years. Pinole Community TV can also be streamed live from Roku, Apple TV, or Amazon Fire.

TEMPORARY NOTICE: Some Comcast subscribers may also be able to see PCTV Government Media programming on Channel 30 while we work through an FCC must-carry requirement.

If none of these options are available to you, or you need assistance with public comment, please contact Planning Manager David Hanham at (510) 724-8912 or [email protected].

Americans With Disabilities Act: In compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, if you need special assistance to participate in a City Meeting or you need a copy of the agenda, or the agenda packet in an appropriate alternative format, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (510) 724-8928. Notification at least 48 hours prior to the meeting or time when services are needed will assist the City staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility to the meeting or service.

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

CITIZEN PARTICIPATION:

Persons wishing to speak on an item listed on the Agenda may do so when the Chair asks for comments in favor of or in opposition to the item under consideration. After all of those persons wishing to speak have done so, the hearing will be closed and the matter will be discussed amongst the Commission prior to rendering a decision.

Any person may appeal an action of the Planning Commission or of the Planning Manager by filing an appeal with the City Clerk, in writing, within ten (10) days of such action. Following a Public Hearing, the City Council may act to confirm, modify or reverse the action of the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission may act to confirm, modify, or reverse the action of the Planning Manager. The cost to appeal a decision is $500 and a minimum $2,500 deposit fee.

Note: If you challenge a decision of the Commission regarding a project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in writing delivered to the City of Pinole at, or prior to, the public hearing.

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.

Page 2 of 96 ends

Planning Commission
Agenda - June 8, 2026

Page 3 ends

A. CALL TO ORDER
B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
C. 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.

D. ROLL CALL
E. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD
The public may address the Planning Commission on items that are within its jurisdiction and not otherwise listed on the agenda. Planning Commissioners may discuss the matter brought to their attention, but by State law (Ralph M. Brown Act), action must be deferred to a future meeting. Time allowed: five (5) minutes each.

F. MEETING MINUTES:

1. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for April 27, 2026 G. RE-ORGANIZATION OF PLANNING COMMISSION

1. Select Chairperson, Vice Chairperson, and Ad-Hoc Committee H. PUBLIC HEARINGS
At the beginning of an item, the Chair will read the description of that item as stated on the Agenda. The City Staff will then give a brief presentation of the proposed project. The Commission may then ask Staff questions about the item.

For those items listed as Public Hearings, the Chair will open the public hearing and ask the applicant if they wish to make a presentation. Those persons in favor of the project will then be given an opportunity to speak followed by those who are opposed to the project. The applicant will then be given an opportunity for rebuttal.

The Public Hearing will then be closed and the Commission may discuss the item amongst themselves and ask questions of Staff. The Commission will then vote to approve, deny, approve in a modified form, or continue the matter to a later date for a decision. The Chair will announce the Commission's decision and advise the audience of the appeal procedure.

Note: No Public Hearings will begin after 11:00 p.m. Items still remaining on the agenda after 11:00 p.m. will be held over to the next meeting.

I. OLD BUSINESS
J. NEW BUSINESS

1. Review of Proposed Preliminary Capital Improvement Plan Fiscal Years 2026/27 through 2030/31 for Consistency with the General Plan
K. CITY PLANNER'S/COMMISSIONER'S REPORT

Page 3 of 96 ends

Planning Commission
Agenda - June 8, 2026

Page 4 ends

L. COMMUNICATIONS
M. NEXT MEETING(S)

1. Planning Commission Regular Meeting on June 22, 2026 at 7:00PM N. ADJOURNMENT
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. _______________________
David Hanham
Planning Manager
POSTED: _______

Page 4 of 96 ends

1 April 27, 2026
1 DRAFT
2 3 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
4 PINOLE PLANNING COMMISSION
5 6 April 27, 2026
7 8 THIS MEETING WAS HELD IN A HYBRID FORMAT
9 BOTH IN-PERSON AND ZOOM TELECONFERENCE
10 11
12 A. CALL TO ORDER: 7:07 p.m.
13 14 B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
15 16 C. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: Before we begin, we would like to acknowledge the 17 Ohlone people, who are the traditional custodians of this land. We pay our respects to 18 the Ohlone elders, past, present and future, who call this place, Ohlone Land, the land 19 that Pinole sits upon, their home. We are proud to continue their tradition of coming 20 together and growing as a community. We thank the Ohlone community for their 21 stewardship and support, and we look forward to strengthening our ties as we continue 22 our relationship of mutual respect and understanding. 23 24 D. ROLL CALL
25 26 Commissioners Present: Bender, Huey, Lam-Julian, Uch, Vice-Chairperson Menis and 27 Chairperson Sandoval
28 29 Commissioners Absent: Martinez
30 31 Staff Present: David Hanham, Planning Manager
32 Justin Shiu, Associate Planner
33 Justin Rogers, Commander, Pinole Police Department
34 35 Vice-Chairperson Menis reported on his ex-parté communications to his email list about the 36 topics on the meeting agenda and community events occurring this week. 37 38 E. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD
39 40 Anthony Vossbrink expressed concern with multiple infrastructure issues in the City, which 41 had been raised on numerous occasions, but nothing had been resolved by the City 42 Council or the Interim City Manager, which raised concerns particularly given the City 43 Council would be asking voters to consider an increase in taxes on the November ballot. 44 He also reported both bridges at the Pinole Senior Center were in disrepair. Two major 45 plank boards on the bridge went out a few weeks ago. The Public Works Department had 46 replaced one board, with no replacement of the other board. Pothole repair was needed 47 and while some had been repaired others had not, and there was now a large hole in the 48 bridge at the Pinole Senior Center, with no cones placed for protection or closure of the 49 bridge, causing a potential safety hazard to the public. In addition, the dog park bridge 50 near Pinole Creek, had similar issues.

F.1.

Page 5 of 96 ends

2 April 27, 2026
1 Mr. Vossbrink emphasized pothole repair was needed throughout the City, drains were 2 clogged, and while some issues may be under the purview of Caltrans, he asked the City 3 Council to contact Caltrans rather than depend on City staff and the public to request 4 needed repairs. Additionally, he expressed concern with the lack of checks and balances 5 and what continued to happen with the failure of the bridge past Fire Station 74 on Pinole 6 Valley Road. This bridge has been in disrepair for some time and no General Funds or 7 grant monies had been set aside for repair. Lastly, the batteries on the barricades/horses 8 on the bridge needed to be replaced; a home across the street had been hit by a speeding 9 motorist around the hair pin curve, which demolished half of the homeowner’s fence in the 10 front yard; and he urged the City to enforce its codes related to the continued violations 11 with outdoor seating at Dave’s Hot Chicken.
12 13 Chair Sandoval encouraged the speaker to work with the Public Works Department to 14 follow-up on the infrastructure needs, report to Caltrans any issues under its purview and 15 contact State representatives in the event there was no response from Caltrans. 16 17 Vice-Chairperson Menis asked staff to respond to who was in charge of City staff, and 18 Planning Manager David Hanham clarified the City Manager, not the City Council, was in 19 charge of City staff.
20 21 F. MEETING MINUTES
22 23 1. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for April 13, 2026 24 25 MOTION with a Roll Call vote to approve the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for April 26 13, 2026, as shown.
27 28 MOTION: Sandoval SECONDED: Huey APPROVED: 6-0-
29 1
30 ABSENT: Martinez
31 32 G. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None
33 34 Mr. Hanham asked that the Planning Commission consider Item I. New Business, prior to 35 Item H. Old Business and asked for a motion to amend the meeting agenda. 36 37 MOTION with a Roll Call vote to modify the meeting agenda and consider agenda Item I. 38 New Business prior to Item H. Old Business.
39 40 MOTION: Sandoval SECONDED: Huey APPROVED: 6-0-
41 1
42 ABSENT: Martinez
43 44 I. NEW BUSINESS
45 46 1. Housing Successor Fund Policy Guide
47 48 Jared Murti, Housing Fellow, Partnership for the Bay’s Future and Asn Ndiaye, Executive 49 Director of the Northern California Land Trust (NCLT) detailed their backgrounds and 50 presented the April 27, 2026 staff report. It was noted a fully prepared Housing Successor

Page 6 of 96 ends

3 April 27, 2026
1 Fund Policy Guide would be presented to the Planning Commission for endorsement at a 2 future meeting in June, and thereafter to the City Council for approval. 3 Staff recommended the Planning Commission receive the introduction report to the 4 Partnership for the Bay’s Future Fellowship Program and the Housing Successor Fund 5 Policy Guidebook engagement efforts and preliminary findings, and that the Planning 6 Commission provide feedback and recommendations.
7 8 Responding to questions from the Planning Commission, Messiers Murti, Ndiaye and 9 Hanham clarified the following:
10 11 • Assembly Bill (AB) 482, Chiu, Tenant Protection Act of 2019: tenancy: rent caps, 12 was approved in 2019, which created annual state limits for rent increases, 13 effectively preventing rent gauging, with a maximum limit of 10 percent per year 14 for any rental property in California. The baseline number was 5 percent plus the 15 annual Consumer Price Index (CPI) with a limit of 10 percent. (Bender) 16 17 • In terms of the in-lieu fee and per the direction of Housing Element Program 7, the 18 City had investigated the creation of an in-lieu fee; however, as noted in the April 19 27, 2026 staff report, it was unlikely an in-lieu fee would be necessary to fulfill the 20 City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) obligations but it would limit the 21 City’s ability to develop affordable housing. City staff looked at the RHNA and 22 were confident they would be able to meet the 500 units by 2031, but if imposing 23 the maximum of $49 per square foot rental housing development instead, that 24 would mean that the inclusionary units would not necessarily be developed and 25 would not cover the same number of units.
26 27 As an example, if there were 100 units, 15 affordable units would have to be built, 28 but if considering the in-lieu fee to cover that, it would be around $1 million and 29 that fee would have to be $150 per square foot to actually cover the cost of building 30 the units. If the City were to charge the maximum of $49 per square foot rental 31 housing development, it would not generate enough money to build the 15 32 affordable units. (Bender)
33 34 • As noted in the staff report, the analysis found that fees $9 to $25 per square foot 35 for ownership style housing development, and $12 to $49 per square foot rental 36 housing development was the feasible range of possible fees. In-lieu fees were 37 based on nexus studies that looked at the impact of market rate housing and 38 development on housing needs for low-income households. The equation used to 39 arrive at the numbers had shown there was less of a nexus impact of ownership 40 than rental housing. Rental properties also had a longer-term revenue generating 41 process than the amount of money involved in homeownership, which was the 42 breakpoint why the fees were different. (Uch)
43 44 • The Tenant Retention Program would reserve funds from the Housing Successor 45 Fund dedicated to Pinole residents in need of financial assistance. Modeled after 46 other local housing retention programs, this program’s eligibility criteria prioritized 47 residents that were at urgent risk of losing housing. The Project Team had not 48 reached out to the Family Justice Center as it related to the potential loss of

Page 7 of 96 ends

4 April 27, 2026
1 housing due to a domestic violence situation and someone being behind on their 2 rental payments, as examples, but could do so immediately. (Lam-Julian) 3 4 • One of the programs under consideration was the County’s Housing Security 5 Fund, which was a county-wide community fund that covered costs that could 6 otherwise prevent people including seniors, veterans and families from getting 7 back into housing, and protected participating property owners who offered those 8 screened renters an opportunity. It was possible Pinole could tap into that 9 resource. Also, through the Coordinated Outreach Referral & Engagement 10 (CORE) Team, there were stories about the use of the County Housing Security 11 Fund to address such situations. Acknowledged a recommendation to also 12 consider The SAFE Center, which had not yet opened its doors officially, a place 13 where immigrants and non-immigrants could visit to build community, access 14 services and learn more about resources in Contra Costa Couty. (Lam-Julian) 15 16 • The Just/Good Cause Eviction Program required landlords to provide a valid legal 17 reason before evicting a tenant, preventing arbitrary or retaliatory evictions. There 18 was a statewide version that included baseline protections for the owner and the 19 tenant, and staff was looking into potential gaps in state law to determine the 20 associated costs. If there were no gaps, cases of harassment, or cash for keys or 21 other ways people were getting residents out, they would not move forward with it. 22 (Lam-Julian)
23 24 • The Rent Stabilization Ordinance would implement limits on rent increases, only 25 allowing for gradual and percentage-based increases. It would also aim to protect 26 tenants from arbitrary evictions. Currently, the City of Pinole had no local rent 27 control or rent stabilization ordinance. To gain information about those unofficially 28 renting their homes would require more research about hidden housing rental 29 stock, off-paper leases, or casual arrangements and it was hoped through the 30 rental inventory work that information could be clarified. (Lam-Julian) 31 32 • Acknowledged the information that the Contra Costa County Developmental 33 Disabilities Council would be discussing affordable housing for the disabled 34 community at an upcoming meeting. (Lam-Julian)
35 36 • The contract with CORE started in June/July 2025, for a one-year period as a pilot 37 program. If the pilot program went well, sometime this year the City Council may 38 consider a three to five-year model. It was clarified within the Housing Successor 39 Fund for the allotted purposes, one was for engagement and prevention of 40 homelessness, which set aside up to $500,000. The City’s current contract with 41 CORE was in the range of $35,000 and the contract was currently shared amongst 42 four cities. The number may change in the next year. CORE provided an update 43 to the City Council on its work at a recent meeting in March 2026. (Huey) 44 45 • As to the Tenant Retention Program, examples from other cities were being 46 reviewed, with some cities better able to fund the program than others. The City 47 of El Cerrito had $25,000 in its fund and staff had reached out to El Cerrito to learn 48 how the funds were drawn, with the understanding that program had an average 49 grant of $2,500 per person. (Huey)

Page 8 of 96 ends

5 April 27, 2026
1 2
3 • Other jurisdictions that had Tenant Retention Programs would be reviewed to 4 determine an appropriate amount for the Pinole program so that it was an available 5 resource while getting a better understanding of the need and the funds that would 6 be drawn on an annual basis. (Huey)
7 8 • Whether there would be the flexibility to move funds to the different programs, as 9 an example if the CORE team did not annualize the entire $35,000 of its contract, 10 could any unspent funds be shifted to the Tenant Retention Program, it was 11 clarified that was not possible given the fixed contract with CORE, which was 12 through Contra Costa County; however, the Tenant Retention Program was 13 intended to prevent homelessness and fell under the same set-aside funds to be 14 used in the prevention of homelessness. (Huey)
15 16 • As noted in the staff report, the City of Pinole was the Housing Successor to the 17 former Redevelopment Agency for Pinole. The duration of the Housing Successor 18 Agency was unknown, but the funding stream was sitting between $3 and $4.5 19 million. The funds would be used for the housing programs and no additional funds 20 were coming into the Housing Successor Agency. Once the funds had been 21 exhausted, no additional funds would be identified. Staff highlighted the details of 22 the closure of the Pinole Redevelopment Agency in 2012, leading to the Housing 23 Successor Agency, and clarified the City had a number of years before the funds 24 in the Housing Successor Agency were exhausted. (Vice-Chairperson Menis) 25 26 • As to the annual maximum contribution of $500,000 to CORE, it was understood 27 the City had loaned out some monies for development that may trickle back into 28 the fund, with the allotment an annual cap set-aside. (Vice-Chairperson Menis) 29 30 • Clarified a typographical error on Page 25 of 28 of the agenda packet, and the last 31 sentence of the information for the Tenant Retention Program was missing a word 32 at the end and likely should have read: If the City pursues this type of program, it 33 is likely that the El Cerrito set-aside within the Contra Costa Housing Successor 34 Fund will be a great model to follow after, but staff would have to verify this 35 information. (Vice-Chairperson Menis)
36 37 • As to the Downpayment Assistance Program, which read: Downpayment 38 assistance programs can assist eligible homebuyers with purchasing a home in 39 Pinole. NCLT currently operates a downpayment assistance program through 40 CalHome, offering up to $200,000 specifically to first-time homebuyers in Alameda 41 County, this was “per purchase” and a maximum of $200,000 or 40 percent of the 42 home price, whichever was less. NCLT had 13 transactions in the last two years 43 with two currently in the pipeline. The range of values of transactions was between 44 $450,000 and $750,000, with most of the homes people were purchasing between 45 $500,000 and $600,000 and with the downpayment assistance between $100,500 46 and $200,000. The terms would be a secondary loan on the property for 30-years 47 with no payments on the loan and it was forgivable at the end of the term. (Vice48 Chairperson Menis) 49

Page 9 of 96 ends

6 April 27, 2026
1 2
3 • The funding source for the Downpayment Assistance Program was through the 4 State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), and a state 5 investment in affordable home ownership, through the CalHOME Program, which 6 created lower mortgage payments, was separate from the Housing Successor 7 Agency, and involved funds the state had provided for the last several years. The 8 idea was the loan would be paid back if sold within a specific period of time, likely 9 five years. (Vice-Chairperson Menis)
10 11 • The Rent Stabilization Ordinance and the Just/Good Cause Eviction Programs 12 were again highlighted, with arbitrary evictions defined as eviction through rent an 13 increase or passthrough increases that AB 1482 did not prevent. AB 1482 allowed 14 for a maximum limit on the increase in rents but there was no restriction on any 15 passthrough costs as part of the bill. As an example, if someone purchased a 16 building and were thinking of significant improvements or changes on the property, 17 that would be an expensive investment and passing on those costs to the existing 18 residents was an allowed use as part of AB 1482. There were efforts to consider 19 enough protection for residents so that even if the building was sold, the tenants 20 would not be driven out through rent increases. (Vice-Chairperson Menis) 21 22 • The Right to Legal Counsel Policy currently read: Guarantees free or low-cost 23 legal representation for tenants facing eviction - proven to dramatically reduce 24 displacement rates, and in some cases was a grant to a legal aid fund to support 25 people who were facing eviction and have a resource center. In the City of San 26 Francisco, for instance, there were staff members/attorneys who worked for the 27 City in the same way as if one was facing criminal charges, and it would depend 28 on the jurisdiction how that policy was structured. Feedback from the Planning 29 Commission and the public was sought on this item. (Vice-Chairperson Menis) 30 31 • Attachment A, a flyer asking for feedback on Affordable Housing in Pinole, was 32 clarified, with the language in the flyer which read: Pinole faces one of California’s 33 most severe housing crises. Over half of extremely low-income households pay 34 more than 30% of their income on housing, and the state requires Pinole to plan 35 for 500 new units by 2031. We need your help to develop Pinole’s affordable 36 housing policy, in the context of the state housing crisis. More precise language 37 for future flyers could be used to ensure it was not as specific to Pinole and more 38 generalized for the Bay Area. Acknowledged some language edits that were 39 offered for future flyers. (Vice-Chairperson Menis)
40 41 • Acknowledged a recommendation for the headers in the Policy Recommendations 42 document to include Tagalog and Mandarin along with English and Spanish. Staff 43 clarified for the community engagement events translation services would be 44 available upon request and would include Spanish, Tagalog and Mandarin. (Vice45 Chairperson Menis) 46 47 • Richmond Community Foundation’s (RCF) role in the program was clarified with 48 NCLT the main collaborator on the Policy Guidebook. RCF had insight where their

Page 10 of 96 ends

7 April 27, 2026
1 expertise was relevant and was the primary collaborator with the Social Impact 2 Bond and Homeownership Programs.
3 4 • RCF had run a similar program out of the City of Richmond for the past 15-years, 5 with the program being modeled on that program in collaboration with the RCF. 6 (Vice-Chairperson Menis)
7 8 • As to how funds should be split between the various categories of preservation 9 and production, that was a big piece of community feedback with the dollars spread 10 differently in the categories, with examples provided, where it cost less to preserve 11 a unit than to develop a new unit. Things around tenant protections could be more 12 impactful at the individual scale with smaller sums of monies, such as grants 13 through the Tenant Protection Program. Some cities had recurring revenue from 14 housing measures which set those targets, with the majority considered protection. 15 Some cities such as the cities of Berkeley, San Francisco and San Jose had 16 measures from their General Funds, with the monies allocated on an annual basis, 17 and some housing measures had set percentages. (Vice-Chairperson Menis) 18 19 • Of the list of policy recommendations, whether they had been implemented in 20 nearby cities comparable to the City of Pinole, many cities had in-lieu fees, such 21 as the City of Berkeley. Based on discussions with City of Berkeley staff, they had 22 adjusted the scale for both exemptions to the inclusionary fee and the potential in23 lieu fee from a per unit cap and per unit fee basis to a square footage basis. Larger 24 cities such as San Francisco and Oakland used in-lieu fees, which had been very 25 effective and allowed the funds to be spread more evenly and they also considered 26 gap financing, which had the desired impact of creating affordable housing. (Chair 27 Sandoval)
28 29 • The Tenant Retention Program, as outlined in the staff report, included an example 30 from the City of EL Cerrito, and was a very impactful program on an individual 31 household basis and tended to be popular for residents and housing providers who 32 were able to cure non-payment issues and retain tenants. The Downpayment 33 Assistance Program was also again highlighted, with the evidence mixed, since 34 the program allowed a limited number of people to benefit from housing, although 35 it would create pathways for people to be able to develop homeownership. The 36 Community Land Trusts Program was also again highlighted, and was something 37 that could be a way for people to get their first step into housing or stay in the 38 community, with an example provided of a property that had recently turned over 39 with an initial purchase price of $68,000 in the early 1990s. In that case, the 40 resident passed away and the property was sold for $180,000 in 2018; the property 41 was located in the City of Berkeley.
42 43 As to the Rent Stabilization Ordinance Program, there were ordinances in the cities 44 of Richmond, Oakland, Berkeley, San Francisco, San Jose and Mountain View 45 that had taken different approaches given constraints from AB 1482 and the Costa46 Hawkins Rental Housing Act of 1995. The Just/Good Cause Eviction Programs 47 could be copied and pasted from almost every city in the Bay Area, with more than 48 half of the cities in the Bay Area having those ordinances on the books. As to the 49 Right to Legal Counsel Policy, that was more specifically concentrated in the larger

Page 11 of 96 ends

8 April 27, 2026
1 cities in the Bay Area, including the cities of San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose 2 and Berkeley and more information could be provided at a later date from Marin 3 County. (Chair Sandoval)
4 • As to whether there had been any idea of the City of Pinole paying into a regional 5 or East Bay fund rather than considering its own Legal Aid Counsel Policy, that 6 had been considered and should be a program that would benefit from the 7 involvement of the entire county. Legal aid organizations could also be identified. 8 The City of Pinole had finalized a contract with Echo Housing Corporation which 9 provided tenant/landlord services, both in work groups and getting people 10 education on their rights as well as dispute resolution support, and would be a 11 great entity to continue conversations. (Chair Sandoval) 12 13 • Rent Stabilization Ordinance was again clarified and it was noted that rent control 14 was part of the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act of 1995, and there was vacancy 15 de-control as part of all rent stabilization ordinances in California. If someone left 16 a unit, the property owner was allowed to reprice or reset the rent at market rate. 17 Also, costs that the property owner incurred for utilities, home improvements or 18 various allowed uses would still be included potentially as something that could be 19 recouped as part of rent increases on an annual basis. In terms of the annual set 20 limit of rent increases, the CPI was used as a rule of thumb, but the numbers vary 21 widely across the Bay Area. (Chair Sandoval)
22 23 PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
24 25 There were no comments from the public.
26 27 PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
28 29 Commissioner Lam-Julian encouraged some info-graph breaking down the categories of 30 Extremely Low and Very Low-Income price points for the community engagement planned 31 for May 7 and May 13, 2026, to make it more digestible and accessible for the public to 32 understand. She also recommended the public be provided more information about AB 33 1482. She understood the Housing Element had broken down the housing income 34 categories.
35 36 Mr. Hanham explained the Housing Element had information on the income levels, but he 37 was uncertain purchase prices for buildings had been included. 38 39 Mr. Murti commented that affordable units had set rent fees at 30 percent of different tiers 40 of the Area Median Income (AMI) for the region, and that was a breakdown that would be 41 seen from the state as it issued to the county level, which could be referenced. 42 43 Commissioner Lam-Julian would also like to know what the spread looked like in Pinole, 44 and how Pinole compared to other jurisdictions in the Bay Area. 45 46 Commissioner Huey appreciated the community engagement would allow two 47 opportunities to provide feedback; found the CORE Team a great idea and she advocated 48 for such teams to go out into the community and meet people where they provided 49 essential services. She liked the fact that health and basic needs services were 50 highlighted as well as permanent housing since it was a precursor to good health and well

Page 12 of 96 ends

9 April 27, 2026
1 being for community members. She also understood there were resources at the county 2 level and through non-profits that people could be referred to. 3 4 Commissioner Huey also hoped to include the fellow managed care plans in Contra Costa 5 County in those resources, with Medical members eligible to obtain enhanced care 6 management, which included community supports and provided interim housing and 7 stability for the unhoused.
8 9 Vice-Chairperson Menis offered the following comments on the Housing Successor Fund 10 Policy Guide:
11 12 - Include in the info-graphic what the AMI would look like for multiple different years as 13 it changed over time, since Pinole’s AMI had changed drastically since 2020, which 14 may provide a better understanding of the breakdown and identify who would fall under 15 the category and how that changed over time.
16 17 - For the Rent Stabilization Ordinance, understood AB 1482 and the Costa-Hawkins 18 Rental Housing Act of 1995, limited what could be done under rent stabilization, and 19 asked about the range of caps that had been implemented in Contra Costa County, in 20 particular West County and cities of a similar size to Pinole. 21 22 Mr. Ndiaye reported the cities of San Jose and San Francisco used the CPI and depending on 23 the year, the CPI was from two to five percent. In 2023, there was a CPI of 7 percent, and things 24 increased depending on the inflationary scale. Cities with tighter rent control were a percentage 25 of the CPI, either 50, 60 or 80 percent of CPI and may end up with a situation where the rent 26 increases were tighter. Before AB 1482, the City of San Jose was at 5 percent of CPI, the City of 27 San Francisco at 60 percent of CPI, the City of Berkeley 80 percent of CPI and the City of East 28 Palo Alto at CPI.
29 30 Vice Chairperson Menis continued his comments, as follows:
31 32 - Suggested it would be a good idea to have a PowerPoint presentation when presenting 33 to the Planning Commission, City Council or other groups in the future, which allowed 34 one to reference the document.
35 36 - Attachment B Community Engagement One-Pager, had shown for the elderly 37 population, 35 percent of the households were identified as in the Low-Income 38 category. Asked if they fall under the AMI bracket of Extremely Low, Very Low or Low 39 categories, he suggested lower than Moderate Income could be identified. 40 41 - Attachment B had shown the Extremely Low-Income group as two-thirds facing severe 42 housing costs burden and overpayment. Asked where the data was coming from, and 43 was informed the source would have to be followed up. 44 45 - Attachment A, Community Engagement Flyer, had shown over half of the Extremely 46 Low households in Pinole paid more than 30 percent of their income on housing and 47 asked if the data was from the Housing Element or a survey planned to be conducted 48 at a later time, and was informed the information was data from the Housing Element 49 and a census survey.
50

Page 13 of 96 ends

10 April 27, 2026
1 2
3 4 - When creating a guidebook asked how high-level it would be, whether a list of 5 programs or including the levels as with the General Plan or the Pinole Municipal Code 6 (PMC), and was informed it would be a policy document/overview with a level of detail 7 that particular piece of policy would be set but still allow staff to develop a finalized 8 version of each piece of the guidebook, which would be brought back at a later time, 9 described as a planning document rather than an ordinance. 10 11 - Suggested the overall way what had been categorized was a good idea with the City 12 having historically focused on the production side of things, since that was what the 13 RHNA and Housing Element had focused on, producing raw housing, while it was 14 important to keep people in their homes and keep their homes intact. The central 15 category of protections was important to focus on, and important for the City to 16 consider, but had not been done historically since it had been a higher conflict problem. 17 18 Commissioner Bender appreciated the consideration of other municipalities, and the fact they had 19 been limited by and large as being similar to Pinole, since other study groups in the past included 20 other communities where the economic disparity was substantial. He was pleased to see the 21 inclusion of information from the City of Berkley given there were always interesting things coming 22 out of that city, most of it he found to be positive, and also a fact that there was more development 23 taking place there than in Pinole for whatever reason and it was not all affordable housing but 24 also market rate housing.
25 26 Commissioner Bender was saddened by the in-lieu fee issue, but understood the economies of 27 scale. He was also pained by the Very Low level, and he could envision projects in Pinole with 28 four to six units that may not pencil out if they had to provide affordable units, as opposed to the 29 in-lieu fee but he understood where that was coming from. When asked, he would prefer a bit 30 higher threshold since many projects could not happen and there was a gap occurring in housing. 31 He understood at the macro-level those conversations were starting to take place by the 32 proponents of affordable housing, which was a good thing. 33 34 Commissioner Uch liked the mention of the Community Land Trusts, with the Housing Element 35 having focused on housing production, with land one of the most expensive pieces of the puzzle 36 when building housing. He understood the NCLT mostly dealt with selling property the NCLT 37 owned, and asked if they also maintained rental properties. 38 39 Mr. Ndiaye stated NCLT did both and also had commercial properties with two-thirds of their units’ 40 rentals, with a high degree of resident engagement and self-governance. One-third of NCLT 41 properties were condominiums or single-family homes and NCLT was working to develop a 42 ground-up construction of rental and ownership products, and by owning the land they could 43 maintain the affordable long-term for ground-up construction products at a scale of 25 or fewer 44 units, a good option for affordable homeownership. NCLT would also like to partner with a 45 traditional affordable housing developer at some point. 46 47 Chair Sandoval thanked everyone for the work being done. He found there was a different way 48 to view the strategies that could be implemented; some could be implemented at the 49 administrative level or at the City Council level at no cost to the City with strategies that could 50 involve a cost to the City due to funding.

Page 14 of 96 ends

11 April 27, 2026
1 2
3 4 As a staffer in the State Senate, Chair Sandoval had worked on Rental Assistance Programs and 5 saw what it did at the state and county levels during the pandemic, which had been life-changing 6 for many people and would be an excellent strategy, but he acknowledged it would cost money. 7 He also saw it at work when programs were implemented in both Contra Costa and Alameda 8 counties. He agreed the City had done great work on production, but preservation and protection 9 was important, and the City should pursue some of the strategies, such as the Emergency Rental 10 Assistance. The Legal Right to Counsel could be more of a regional thing, with the City paying 11 into an organization or partnering with other cities for a more regional legal fund and the City 12 should explore a Just/Good Cause Eviction Program, which had not passed the first time it was 13 considered, but hopefully could be adopted in the future. He would also like to see a Rent 14 Stabilization Ordinance specific to Pinole, noting that under AB 1482, the limit of 10 percent could 15 still be a lot, and seeing what would be a reasonable percentage for Pinole where they have their 16 own protections whether one or two percent plus CPI, should be explored in the future. 17 18 Chair Sandoval was also in support of a Downpayment Assistance Program. He commented he 19 could not afford to purchase a home in the City where he lived and while not his employer’s fault, 20 housing costs had increased significantly whereas wages and salaries had not kept up. He 21 currently lived with his parents and recognized the challenges to save up for a downpayment. 22 Were he to rent, he would likely pay half of his income in rent, which was not a good practice and 23 stronger protections for renters in Pinole would be a great thing as would opening gateways and 24 making it easier to purchase a home and have property would be an excellent policy for Pinole to 25 have. He understood some of the policies cost money. He also saw there were different 26 strategies that could be presented to the City Council for consideration that could be considered 27 now, while others could be considered in the long-term. 28 29 Vice-Chairperson Menis recalled a few years ago that Council member Sasai mentioned social 30 housing, the City directly owning housing stock. He asked whether that was something that had 31 been considered as part of the policy set.
32 33 Mr. Ndiaye explained that NCLT was part of a housing coalition and considered to be part of that 34 overall solution, but they had not included social housing in this policy set given the state-led 35 efforts. Coalition members were looking at large numbers to make social housing happen in the 36 state, and given the scale of resources they were currently looking at in Pinole, they were not 37 exploring social housing at this time since the costs were prohibitive. Some informative session 38 or memorandum could be considered if people were interested. 39 40 Vice-Chairperson Menis suggested that topic could tie into the in-lieu fees and public land policies. 41 42 Chairperson Sandoval added the policies were very important since maintaining affordable 43 housing and one’s home in general was key to preventing homelessness given that one missed 44 paycheck and an unlucky circumstance could have an impact. The policies and programs were 45 important to address that potential. Anything the City could do as leaders to keep housing 46 affordable and prevent homelessness and provide responsive strategies was important. 47 48 Commissioner Lam-Julian understood the RHNA cycle was every seven years, which should be 49 clarified in the community engagement piece. Also, it needed to be made clear to the public that 50 the City’s RHNA goal of 500 units should be reached by 2031. She again suggested information

Page 15 of 96 ends

12 April 27, 2026
1 that was digestible for the public to be able to participate. 2 3 Chair Sandoval advised there was no recommended action for this item. 4 Mr. Hanham clarified the policy guidelines would come back to the Planning Commission which 5 would provide a formal recommendation to the City Council. He thanked the Planning 6 Commission for the feedback.
7 8 H. OLD BUSINESS
9 10 1. Information on Police Department Crime Reporting Data 11 12 Mr. Hanham presented the April 27, 2026 staff report on the Pinole Police Department (PPD) Crime 13 Reporting Data, and recommended the Planning Commission accept the report. 14 15 Responding to questions from the Planning Commission, Mr. Hanham and Commander Justin 16 Rogers clarified the following:
17 18 • The PPD used Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED), a 19 multidisciplinary approach to reducing crime and fear by designing the built environment 20 to maximize natural surveillance, control access, and reinforce territoriality. It tried to deter 21 criminal behavior by enhancing visibility, promoting legitimate activity, and fostering a 22 sense of community ownership, often resulting in lower crime rates and improved quality 23 of life. The five principles of CPTED included natural surveillance, natural access control, 24 territorial reinforcement, maintenance and management and activity support, which had 25 been outlined in the staff report. (Lam-Julian)
26 27 • The City did not have districts, but beats, which changed over the course of time 28 depending on population, in terms of activity and the like, and it was acknowledged the 29 average crime reporting finding may have to be refined to reflect modern times. (Lam30 Julian) 31 32 • The City was broken into three beats; three areas of responsibility for the officers on-duty 33 with the beats assigned to all four shifts of PPD officers who did not typically go outside of 34 the area where assigned. Fitzgerald Drive, Appian Way and the Fitzgerald Avenue 35 Shopping Corridor were identified as the busiest beats. Recently, there had been 12 36 business-related thefts (non-alcohol related) in the Fitzgerald Drive Corridor, with seven 37 arrests made. A map of the beats for future reference could be provided. (Lam-Julian) 38 39 • Clarified as part of Attachment A, Item E1, memorandum for the Supplemental Information 40 for CUP 23-04 – Anabi Shell Station, and the first paragraph of the conclusion as shown 41 on Page 19 of 28 of the agenda packet, which read: Staff has concluded that after meeting 42 with the Police Department on December 12, 2023, and January 3, 2024, the Department 43 determined that the sale of beer and wine at this station would not significantly contribute 44 to crime statistics. Additionally, the Police Department has no reason to believe that this 45 station selling beer and wine would have a negative impact on the crime rate. Staff 46 clarified the statement that the PPD determined that the sale of beer and wine at this 47 station would not significantly contribute to crime statistics meant of a similar type of 48 business, adding to the population of similar businesses would not increase the crime rate 49 associated with those types of businesses (beer and wine sales). (Lam-Julian)

Page 16 of 96 ends

13 April 27, 2026
1 2
3 4 • CPTED was not necessarily used to project what crime may be, but ideas and considered 5 when a business was set up to allow the best way to prevent crime at the business, and 6 was where the environmental designs would come into play. As an example, if a liquor 7 store experienced a large increase in theft, the PPD would work with the business and 8 use CPTED to make the environment less likely to be victimized. 9 10 The PPD reviewed the majority of establishments that were involved in alcohol sales and 11 reviewed their base crime rate and Calls for Service (CFS) and across the computer-aided 12 design (CAD) system when the locations were checked, there was a consistent level and 13 it was not foreseen that any particular location was having problems more than another. 14 Offering another example, if there were five liquor stores within the Fitzgerald Drive area 15 and a sixth liquor store came in, based on the crime data of the five existing stores, the 16 sixth store was not foreseen to add additional crime that was already there and using the 17 conditional use and CPTED, the sixth store would not result in a significant increase in 18 crime and would be less likely to increase crime in the area as long as the business 19 followed the CPTED criteria. The PPD was unaware of any business not following 20 CPTED, which was part of the conditional use. If the PPD saw robberies or thefts from 21 stores that sold alcohol overall citywide, it may skew the numbers, but when broken down 22 by beat, it would rise only in the beat area versus adding an additional liquor store on the 23 Fitzgerald Drive Corridor, as an example.
24 25 Another example, if a store was located on San Pablo Avenue, and there was an increase 26 in robberies and thefts or other issues the PPD was responding to at those locations, the 27 PPD would likely be able to say they were already having issues and if more of the same 28 type of business was brought in, it would increase the problem. If the PPD determined 29 there was an oversaturation of those types of businesses and there was an increase of 30 crime in the area, the PPD would look at seriously reaching out to code enforcement and 31 help the current businesses with CPTED. Once there was a reduction of crime in the area 32 and CPTED improvements, the PPD could then consider adding another similar business. 33 34 As to what average would flag a concern to be proactive rather than reactive, the problem 35 was that oversaturation was not showing an increase in crime related to the business, and 36 that was not a subject that was weighed upon when asked the question. If the State 37 Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) was concerned with oversaturation and 38 recognized the concerns of citizens, that would be a discussion unrelated to crime, since 39 the crime statistics had not shown an increase in crime when bringing in another like 40 business to be able to say there would be oversaturation and not a good idea because of 41 public safety. (Lam-Julian)
42 43 • Acknowledged a recommendation when a CUP for a business that sold alcohol was 44 reviewed by the PPD, the PPD take into consideration whether the business would trigger 45 an oversaturation. ABC regulated alcohol sales licenses through census tracts. Pinole 46 was in five or six different census tracts, and with the downtown and community area with 47 a lot of alcohol permits within a certain area, it could become oversaturated quickly, which 48 was why ABC had the Public Convenience Necessity (PCN) determination. The PCN 49 allowed the local agency to decide whether it would be okay to allow the business based 50 on specific findings through a CUP process. The City was oversaturated based on the

Page 17 of 96 ends

14 April 27, 2026
1 census tracts. (Lam-Julian)
2 3
4 • Acknowledged there were concerns from members of the community about the number 5 of alcohol sales related businesses in Pinole and the number of thefts in the community, 6 and a request that the crime statistics clearly identify whether or not the reported crime 7 was related to alcohol sales. (Lam-Julian)
8 9 • Crime rates and the number of crime incidents was clarified. CFS were the first thing the 10 PPD looked at when the PPD inquired about activity in an area. CFS were separated out 11 into actual crimes. Crime rates and CFS were two separate items and would produce two 12 separate numbers. (Huey)
13 14 • Attachment A, Item E1, Memorandum dated January 8, 2024, and Table 1: Crime 15 Incidents from 10/7/2023 through 12/19/2023, was information that had been included for 16 CUP 23-04 – Anabi Shell Station, with the time frame chosen because it was the holiday 17 season, Halloween through Christmas, the most highly populated time of year. Confirmed 18 that retail thefts increased during the holiday season as compared to any other time of the 19 calendar year, but whether it was a significant increase would have to be confirmed. 20 (Huey)
21 22 • Confirmed the time frame data collection would impact the CFS and the crimes being 23 reported; but whether the types of crimes were strictly theft or an uptick in Driving under 24 the Influence (DUI), as an example, would have to be clarified. (Huey) 25 26 • As to whether there was a way to measure CPTED efficacy would depend on the ask of 27 the business and the time the business was given to make improvements. As an example, 28 if the business/liquor store was asked to clean up the windows of ads to improve visibility 29 and the PPD came back in a week to see if changes were made, they would set that time 30 frame. Whether there would be a difference in the crime statistics was unknown since 31 they had not used any type of measurement for that beyond CFS and crime in the area. 32 The PPD also tried to conduct crime suppression and have units in the area to bring the 33 number down, which could take a month or six months, depending on the type of crime 34 and activity, and based on other CFS that may take the officer away from the area when 35 they were trying to saturate an area. If the PPD set a time frame and goals for the officers 36 and the businesses in terms of CPTED, they may see a difference in a few months. (Vice37 Chairperson Menis) 38 39 • An assessment form was used with a security survey with the business, and with the PPD 40 to make suggestions on the form. There was no point system, it was just a service where 41 the PPD made suggestions to the business to become less of a target and more appealing 42 to the community. A point system could be explored which may help the community 43 outreach unit as to who needed their guidance first. Acknowledged a recommendation for 44 a point scale for vulnerabilities. (Vice-Chairperson Menis) 45 46 • Clarified what was not expected to add crime in an area was a difficult question to answer. 47 As an example, the crime rate for the Chevron Station which had a freeway offramp nearby 48 could be measured versus the Anabi Shell Station’s current crime rate, but the PPD was 49 unsure how to measure that at this time. (Vice-Chairperson Menis)

Page 18 of 96 ends

15 April 27, 2026
1 2
3 4 • The definition of districts versus beats was again clarified, with a district an older term 5 used years ago, and with beats and districts able to be used interchangeably as a defined 6 area within a city. Districts were typically seen in larger areas where there were beats 7 inside of districts, but in Pinole districts and beats were interchangeable. (Vice8 Chairperson Menis) 9 10 • There had been no uptick in crime since the Anabi Shell Station had been approved to 11 sell alcohol over the past three months and based on the PPD’s weekly business reports. 12 (Chair Sandoval)
13 14 • When a business did not follow CPTED, typically the number one problem was the 15 business continued to fall victim to crime and other issues such as getting attention from 16 code enforcement. As an example, there could be overgown landscaping and inability to 17 access the front door, and there could be a punitive cost from code enforcement if that 18 situation was not addressed. CPTED was not intended as a punitive action but a way to 19 make the community and environment better around the business. (Chair Sandoval) 20 21 PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
22 23 Anthony Vossbrink commented the Fitzgerald Drive Corridor was one of the highest beats for crime. 24 He asked what proactive measures were being taken by the PPD since he understood the PPD was 25 short officers, there were budget restrictions and possibly some morale problems. He added there 26 had been fewer citations issued in the corridor. The City Council voted to reduce speed limits, but 27 had not voted or increased the number of citations for violating the speed limits, with the PPD issuing 28 more warnings than citations. Many people came into Pinole off of the freeway, from out of town 29 and into the Fitzgerald Drive Corridor with the knowledge they would not be cited for traffic violations 30 or arrested for retail thefts. He also understood the big box retailers and smaller businesses had 31 policies where they did not contact the police in the event of theft until the offender was in the parking 32 lot, which would likely have an impact on crime rates. Also poor lighting and the lack of a police 33 presence could be a factor and some small businesses had to use their own security cameras. 34 35 Mr. Vossbrink stated at one time the City had multiple security cameras, but the PPD did not want to 36 inform the public via signage that a certain beat or area, parking lot or public right-of-way was under 37 surveillance other than the skate park on Pinole Valley Road. He suggested the PPD was hurting 38 itself and the City by not parking its vehicles as decoys to provide more police presence in and around 39 the Fitzgerald Drive Corridor on a regular basis and not just during the holidays. He also suggested 40 the PPD should have its officers filling out police reports in front of Target, Lucky, HomeGoods and 41 BevMo, as examples, and not behind other businesses where the police vehicles were not visible to 42 the public and where the vehicle could serve as a deterrent. He also asked about the status of 43 security cameras Citywide and how many were broken.
44 45 PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
46 47 Commander Rogers reported there were a total of 42 cameras Citywide with three currently 48 inoperable. The PPD was working to solve the problem through the Information Technology (IT) 49 Department in the hopes a reasonable solution could be found that was within the City ‘s budget. He 50 reiterated last week 12 crimes had been reported by businesses in the Fitzgerald Drive Corridor, with

Page 19 of 96 ends

16 April 27, 2026
1 seven arrests made. He also reported the PPD had put emphasis back on writing citations. 2 3
4 Commander Rogers acknowledged there had been a systematic problem throughout, during and 5 after COVID-19, when officers were not as productive enforcing traffic laws across the board and 6 across the country. Strides had been made to promote traffic safety and write citations when 7 applicable.
8 9 Commissioner Huey supported local businesses, activation of new businesses and expansion but 10 noted alcohol sales were not always neutral. They carried well documented public health and safety 11 impacts the City should proactively be planning for, acknowledge potential future impacts and crime 12 related to such businesses, and take the opportunity to establish clear guidelines or broaden non13 traditional risk indicators for consideration. As an example, health and crime were linked hand in 14 hand with excessive alcohol consumption, which could be exacerbated by increased access and 15 lead to poor health, which was linked to an increase in crime. Beyond the crime statistics perhaps 16 the City may consider reviewing alcohol-related emergency room visits, domestic violence that 17 involved alcohol use, which could possibly lead to the conclusion there could be a risk of increasing 18 alcohol sales. While she understood alcohol sales were part of economic vitality, and there was no 19 formal request or any expectation at this time, she wanted to offer that perspective. 20 21 Vice-Chairperson Menis suggested in response to Commissioner Huey’s comments that if the City 22 wanted to include public health impacts, it should be considered separately rather than linked to 23 crime indirectly, given there were many health impacts that should not be crimes, but still had broader 24 impacts on the community, which was why the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) had 25 broad categories of impacts that were not crimes, but still made the community worse. He 26 understood Commissioner Huey was not talking about what the PPD could evaluate but what would 27 not be detrimental to the public health, given that there were some public health and morality clauses 28 in the PCN evaluation.
29 30 Mr. Hanham advised he would have to check the code and that information could be provided to the 31 Planning Commission as an informational item, with the findings to make the PCN and approve a 32 CUP. There were also conditions of approval for such uses that would be mandatory as part of the 33 PMC. There could be ways to amend the findings if the Planning Commission wanted to consider 34 when it reviewed projects, although whether alcohol was being purchased from the store or 35 purchased elsewhere would have to be narrowed down, and from a general perspective that would 36 have to be reviewed since there may be other issues, but could be added in as part of Commissioner 37 Huey’s comments.
38 39 Vice-Chairperson Menis commented that was why there was the overconcentration metric in the first 40 place.
41 42 Commissioner Bender had sympathy with the comments raised by Commissioner Huey. He had 43 not come across a city that had established a threshold for determining the crime incidents in an 44 area, and if it was exceeded by 20 percent it was a problem, and was included in the policy for that 45 jurisdiction, which policy Pinole did not have.
46 47 Commissioner Bender understood ABC would reevaluate the Type 20 Licenses in 2028, to 48 determine whether counties and/or cities and towns would be under a moratorium. He noted the 49 cities of Albany and Pleasant Hill were under a moratorium for Type 20 licenses, and if a business 50 wanted a Type 20 license it would have to purchase an existing Type 20 license.

Page 20 of 96 ends

17 April 27, 2026
1 2 Mr. Hanham read into the record the criteria for the PCN. 3 4 Senior Planner Justin Shiu noted there were general findings for Conditions of Approval for various 5 types of uses that requested a CUP. Findings included consistency with the General Plan, Specific 6 Plans and Zoning Code, and the establishment, maintenance and operation of the use would not 7 under the circumstances of the particular case, including locations, size, design and operating 8 characteristics, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort or general welfare of 9 persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such use, or to the general welfare of the City. 10 11 Chair Sandoval thanked Commander Rogers for the insight and information. No action was being 12 requested of the Planning Commission other than to accept the report. 13 14 J. CITY PLANNER’S/COMMISSIONER’S REPORT
15 16 Mr. Hanham provided the following updates:
17 18 • The Planning Commission Ad Hoc Committee finalized the last set of comments for the 19 Objective Development Design Standards (ODDS), with comments pending from the 20 Community Development Director and City Attorney, and meetings with the Planning 21 Commission and City Council to be scheduled thereafter. 22 23 • The Planning Commission Ad Hoc Committee would consider comments from the Outdoor 24 Dining regulations at a future meeting, to also be reviewed by the Community Development 25 Director and City Attorney.
26 27 • The developer applied for a demolition permit for the former Kmart property. 28 29 • Staff had been working with potential developers for the property at 890 San Pablo Avenue. 30 31 • Staff received inquiries about the property at 720 San Pablo Avenue. 32 33 • Staff was finalizing the Lot Line Adjustment (LLA) and parcel map for the land donation for 34 the Post Office building.
35 36 • The City Council recently adopted the Active Transportation Plan (ATP). 37 38 Commissioner Lam-Julian reported there was a partially paved path with lights behind the Faria 39 House. She asked if that was City property.
40 41 Mr. Hanham explained the City had an easement through the area, and while the City owned the 42 Faria House, it did not own the property on the two trail sides. 43 44 Commissioner Lam-Julian reported she had walked through the area and found the lights were 45 broken, there was ivy and blackberries and people were letting their dogs run around the property. 46 47 Mr. Hanham advised that code enforcement and the Public Works Department would have to look 48 into the matter.
49

Page 21 of 96 ends

18 April 27, 2026
1 PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
2 3
4 Anthony Vossbrink asked about the status of the following:
5 6 • Dave’s Hot Chicken and the use of outdoor dining tables and chairs that were obstructing 7 the sidewalk pathway and which encouraged other businesses to place similar outdoor 8 furniture on the sidewalk.
9 10 • Diosa Restaurant, and commented on his understanding the Interim City Manager was to 11 meet with the City Attorney and an attorney for the owner/operator who wanted to reclaim 12 part of the Farmer’s Market parking lot and he recommended they use the parking lot at the 13 church on Pinole Valley Road next to the Pinole Library or the parking lot behind King Valley 14 Tea House, which was a City parking lot.
15 16 • Pinole Library improvements with the City having received $4 million for the project, half of 17 which involved grant funds, and asked how much the project was costing the City or the 18 county. He also asked why the Pinole Library had taken second position to the Kensington 19 Library, which was getting more with the same amount of money and it had taken less time 20 for the improvements to be completed. The Kensington Library also involved interior and 21 exterior improvements whereas the Pinole Library only involved interior improvements. He 22 was concerned no signage had been posted on the site to inform the public how their tax 23 dollars were being used, how the project was being funded or a construction timeline. The 24 only signage was construction signs on the fence and a small sign identifying access to the 25 tennis courts. He added the restrooms were not open and the water fountains next to the 26 tennis courts needed repair.
27 28 PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
29 30 Mr. Hanham advised code enforcement was addressing the issue with Dave’s Hot Chicken to 31 remove the tables and chairs or go through the permit process for outdoor dining; Diosa Restaurant 32 was being worked out between the restaurant and the Farmer’s Market with the City acting as a go 33 between; Pinole Library was a county project with all funding through the county and he was 34 uncertain the City had contributed any funds for the library improvements, other than the yearly costs, 35 and any signage on the property would have to be addressed with the county. 36 37 Chair Sandoval reported he presented the Appian 80 Planning Commission Resolution to the City 38 Council, fielded questions and received feedback. It was a good presentation. 39 40 Vice-Chairperson Menis stated he was in the audience during the presentation, suggested the Chair 41 had done a good job, but asked whether the Chair had the contact information for the property owner. 42 43 Chair Sandoval advised he did not get contact information about the property owner from Council 44 member Martinez-Rubin, who reported she had been in contact with the property owner who had 45 something planned, but did not share any other details. 46 47 K. COMMUNICATIONS
48 49 Vice-Chairperson Menis reported upcoming community events included: the Senior Food 50 Distribution at the Senior Center from 10:00 to 11:00 a.m. on April 28, 2026 with eligibility

Page 22 of 96 ends

19 April 27, 2026
1 requirements; a City Council Finance Subcommittee meeting on April 29, 2026 at 5:00 p.m. in a 2 hybrid format in the Council Chambers; and a General Strike would be held on May 1, 2026, with 3 more information at maydaystrong.org.
4 L. NEXT MEETING
5 6 1. Planning Commission Regular Meeting on May 11, 2026 at 7:00 p.m. 7 8 M. ADJOURNMENT: 10:00 p.m.
9 10 Transcribed by:
11 12 Sherri D. Lewis
13 Transcriber

Page 23 of 96 ends

PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORT G.1.

DATE: JUNE 8, 2026
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: DAVID HANHAM, PLANNING MANAGER
SUBJECT: SELECT CHAIRPERSON, VICE CHAIRPERSON, AND AD-HOC

COMMITTEE

RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission will select the Planning Commission Chair, Planning Commission Vice-Chair and Ad-Hoc Committee composition. All of these positions have a term of one-year.

BACKGROUND
Annually, around the end of April or in the following meetings, the Planning Commission selects the Chair, Vice-Chair and Ad-hoc Committee composition. All of these positions have a term of one-year.

REVIEW AND ANALYSIS
Section 2.40.030 of the Pinole Municipal Code sets the parameters for the selection of the Chair, Vice-Chair, and Ad-Hoc Subcommittee composition. Section 2.40.030 states:

The Commission shall elect a Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson from among the appointed members for a term of one (1) year, subject to other provisions of law, and may elect such other officers as it may determine.

The Ad-Hoc Subcommittee is composed of three Planning Commissioners who meet sporadically to provide input on Planning Commission-related projects on an as-needed basis.

ATTACHMENTS
None

Page 24 of 96 ends

PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORT J.1.

DATE: JUNE 8, 2026
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: HEBA EL-GUINDY, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF PROPOSED PRELIMINARY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FISCAL YEARS 2026/27 THROUGH 2030/31 FOR CONSISTENCY WITH

THE GENERAL PLAN

RECOMMENDATION
The Public Works Department recommends the Planning Commission review the Proposed Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and adopt attached Resolution 26-06 (Attachment A) finding that the projects proposed in the CIP for Fiscal Year (FY) 2026/27 through FY 2030/31 are consistent with the Pinole General Plan.

BACKGROUND
A Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is a comprehensive planning document used by the City to identify, plan, and fund capital projects, infrastructure assessments, and equipment purchases.

Capital projects are usually “brick and mortar” improvements, such as street or utility projects, but also include projects that achieve economic development, housing goals, or further other policy objectives of the City.

Sections 65401 and 65402 of the California Government Code require that a local agency’s CIP be in conformance with the General Plan. General Plan conformity can be best described as CIP projects furthering the achievements of goals, policies, and infrastructure in the General Plan. State law also mandates that this determination of conformance be made by a designated planning agency. For the City of Pinole, the designated planning agency is the Planning Commission. The purpose of this staff report is to present the Public Works CIP projects for FY 2026/27 through FY 2030/31 so that the Planning Commission can review and make a determination of consistency with the Pinole’s General Plan.

The proposed CIP lists 49 planned citywide public improvement projects and 7 infrastructure assessments for FY 2026/27 through FY 2030/31. The capital budget for FY 2026/27 contains 41 capital projects and 4 infrastructure assessments. Priority projects and infrastructure assessments proposed for FY 2026/27 fall under the following asset groups, with the Project Charters included under Attachment B.
• 8 Facilities
• 5 Parks
• 9 Sanitary Sewer
• 3 Stormwater
• 16 Streets & Roads

Page 25 of 96 ends

• Infrastructure Assessments

REVIEW AND ANALYSIS
Funding is estimated for the proposed CIP projects that support the goals and policies of the following elements of the General Plan:
• Community Character
• Growth Management
• Land Use & Economic Development
• Housing
• Circulation
• Community Services and Facilities
• Health and Safety
• Natural Resources and Open Space
• Sustainability
The proposed CIP includes funding for projects over the next five fiscal years that support General Plan policies and enhance public infrastructure, amenities, and services in Pinole. Funding sources include various grants, gas tax fund, growth impact fees, public facilities fund, Measure J, and sewer enterprise fund.

The proposed CIP is consistent with, and helps implement various General Plan goals and policies which are identified in the individual project charters in Attachment B. It should be noted that the last two pages of Attachment B also contains an overall list of applicable General Plan goals and policies.

The CIP’s General Plan consistency review is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as this review is not considered a project pursuant to the definition of a project in Section 15378 contained in the CEQA Guidelines in that the consistency review will not result in potentially significant physical changes in the environment. Specific projects within the CIP will include project-specific environmental review as part of future review and implementation.

There are no fiscal impacts to assessing the five-year CIP in relation to consistency with the General Plan.

The five-year CIP identifies projects with estimated total costs of $86,352,623 including $5,450,000 of unfunded projects beyond FY 2026/27. The FY 2026/27 capital projects are fully funded with a budget totaling $19,699,623.

ATTACHMENTS
A. Reso 26-06
B. CIP Summary and Project Charters
C. Consistency Matrix

Page 26 of 96 ends

PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 26-06

RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PINOLE, COUNTY

OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF PINOLE FIND THAT THE PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
FOR FISCAL YEARS 2026/27 THROUGH 2030/31 IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE CITY

OF PINOLE GENERAL PLAN
WHEREAS, the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) includes designated funding for planned public improvement projects so that the City may continue to maintain public infrastructure, enhance public facilities, work towards satisfying community needs, and help fulfill existing General Plan goals; and
WHEREAS, each year the Planning Commission of the City of Pinole reviews capital projects that will be planned, initiated, or constructed during the ensuing fiscal year for conformity with the General Plan as required by State Planning and Zoning Law (Government Code Section 65401); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the Proposed five-year CIP, which includes capital projects to be planned, initiated, or constructed during Fiscal Year 2026/27, through 2030/31, for conformity with the General Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the Proposed CIP and determined that the projects specifically support the goals and policies of the following General Plan Elements: Community Character, Growth Management, Land Use & Economic Development, Housing Element, Circulation, Community Services and Facilities, Health and Safety, Natural Resources and Open Space, and Sustainability; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Planning Commission’s action to determine whether a proposed new or modified CIP project is in conformance with the General Plan, is not subject to the CEQA, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 in that General Plan conformance findings required by State law is not a project as defined under CEQA; and additionally, since this is consistency finding, the previous environmental documentation for the General Plan is adequate CEQA documentation; and
WHEREAS, on June 8, 2026, the Planning Commission reviewed the Proposed CIP for Fiscal Years 2026/27 through 2030/31 for consistency with the General Plan at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition to the projects; and
WHEREAS, at the June 8, 2026 Planning Commission meeting, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the Attachment A

Page 27 of 96 ends

Planning Commission considered all the facts relating to the consistency of the Proposed CIP for Fiscal Years 2026/27 through 2030/31 with the General Plan.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Pinole hereby determines that those projects in the Proposed CIP for Fiscal Years 2026/27 through 2030/31 conform to and are consistent with the City of Pinole General Plan.

The above action is final unless an appeal is filed pursuant to Chapter 17.10 of the Pinole Municipal Code within ten (10) calendar days following Planning Commission action.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Pinole on this 8th day of June 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

_________________________________
________________, Chair 2026-2027

ATTEST:
________________________________
David Hanham, Planning Manager

Page 28 of 96 ends

CITY OF PINOLE
FY 2026-27 THROUGH FY 2030-31

FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
SOURCES BY FUND FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 FY 2028-29 FY 2029-30 FY 2030-31 5-Year Total 1 100 - General Fund $ - $ 200,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 200,000 2 105 - Measure S 2006 $ 350,000 $ 350,000 $ 350,000 $ 350,000 $ 100,000 $ 1,500,000 3 106 - Measure S 2014 $ 340,000 $ 743,000 $ 250,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 1,633,000 4 200 - Gas Tax $ 2,000,000 $ 1,280,000 $ 1,100,000 $ 1,100,000 $ 1,100,000 $ 6,580,000 212 - Building and Planning (Climate Grants) $ 1,199,495 $ 352,000 $ 1,551,495 5 214 - Solid Waste $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
6 215 - Grant: TLC $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
7 215 - Grant: Climate Implementation Grant - MTC $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 8 215 - Grant: HSIP $ 239,040 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 239,040 9 215 - Measure J $ 1,250,000 $ 450,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 950,000 $ 950,000 $ 4,600,000 10 215 - Grant: OBAG $ 600,000 $ 420,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 1,020,000 11 275 - Parkland Dedication $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
12 276 - Growth Impact Fees $ 1,880,000 $ 1,750,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 4,230,000 13 324 - Public Facilities Fund $ 300,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 300,000 14 325 - City Street Improvements $ 1,200,000 $ 450,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 1,950,000 = 325 - Grant: TDA Article 3 $ 250,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 250,000 16 325 - Grant: STMP Fees $ 1,405,000 $ 1,100,000 $ 500,000 $ - $ - $ 3,005,000 17 325 - Grant: HBP $ 2,394,000 $ 940,000 $ 27,018,000 $ - $ - $ 30,352,000 325 - Grant: Cal Recycle $ 47,088
18 377 - Arterial Streets Rehabilitation $ 750,000 $ 450,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 1,200,000 19 500 - Sewer Enterprise Fund $ 5,375,000 $ 13,390,000 $ 3,040,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 22,005,000 21 207- NPDES Stormwater $ 120,000 $ 120,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 240,000 22 Vehicle Impact Fee $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Sources Total $ 19,699,623 $ 21,995,000 $ 33,558,000 $ 2,950,000 $ 2,700,000 $ 80,902,623 23 Unfunded Total $ - $ 1,700,000 $ 2,400,000 $ 950,000 $ 400,000 $ 5,450,000 Total Sources Required $ 19,699,623 $ 23,695,000 $ 35,958,000 $ 3,900,000 $ 3,100,000 $ 86,352,623 Attachment B

Page 29 of 96 ends

CITY OF PINOLE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN: FY 2026-27

ACCOUNT SUMMARY

FACILITIES
PRJ # PROJECT FY 2026-27 106-343-47201 276-343-47201 324-343-47201 215-342-47205 212 Unfunded FA2602 Upgrade of Corporation Yard
FA2601 Battery Storage at Youth and Swim Centers $300,000 $300,000 FA2502 Upgrade of City Pools $ 200,000 $ - $ 200,000 $ - $ - $ - FA2501 EV Charging Infrastructure $ 675,000 $ 75,000 $ - $ - $ $ 600,000 $ - FA2401 Tiny Tots Upgrades $ 250,000 $ - $ 250,000 $ - $ - $ - FA2302 Plum Street Parking Lot Improvements $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - FA2301 Public Safety Building Modernization $ 170,000 $ - $ 170,000 $ - $ - $ - FA2202 Senior Center Modernization $ 150,000 $ - $ 150,000 $ - $ - $ - FA1901 Senior Center Auxiliary Parking Lot $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - FA1703 City Hall Modernization $ 100,000 $ - $ 100,000 $ - $ - $ - FA1702 Citywide Roof Repairs and Replacement $ 300,000 $ - $ - $ 300,000 $ - $ - PARKS
PRJ # PROJECT FY 2026-27 276-345-47203 214-345-47203 106-345-47203 Unfunded PA2601 Pinole Creek Trail Upgrade $299,495 $ 299,495
PA2501 Improvements to City Parks $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ - $ - $ - PA2402 Mural Preservation $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
PA2401 Fernandez Park Improvements $ 350,000 $ 350,000 $ - $ - $ - PA2202 Skatepark Rehabilitation $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ - $ - $ - PA1901 Pinole Valley Park Soccer Field Rehabilitation $ 210,000 $ 210,000 $ - $ - $ -

SANITARY SEWER
PRJ # PROJECT FY 2026-27 500-641-47201 500-642-47201 276-642-47207 Unfunded SS2501 Replacement of Blowers at the Treatment Plant $ 120,000 $ - $ 120,000 $ - $ - SS2407 Private Sewer Lateral Program $ 100,000 $ - $ 100,000 $ - SS2406 WPCP Solar and Battery $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ -
SS2405 Lower Tennent Trunk Sewer Capacity $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ - $ - $ - SS2404 WPCP Boiler Replacement $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
SS2403 WPCP Centrifuge Replacement $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
SS2402 Pinon-3 Sewer Capacity $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ - $ - $ - SS2203 Effluent Outfall $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 $ - $ - $ - SS2101 Secondary Clarifier Rehabilitation $ 425,000 $ 425,000 $ - $ - $ - SS2002 Water Pollution Control Plant Lab Remodel $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ - $ - $ - SS1702 Sewer Pump Station Rehabilitation $ 1,000,000 $ - $ 1,000,000 $ -

STORMWATER
PRJ # PROJECT FY 2026-27 106-344-47206 276-344-47206 207-344-4706 Unfunded SW2501 Stormwater Upgrade & Trash Capture $ 120,000 $ - $ 120,000 $ - SW2401 Storm Drain Creek Discharge & System Improvements $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ - SW2001 Roble Road Storm Drainage Improvements $ - $ - $ -

Page 30 of 96 ends

STREETS & ROADS
PRJ # PROJECT FY 2026-27 106-342-47205 215-342-47205 105-342-47205 276-342-47205 325-342-42101 500-641-42101 200-342-47205 377-342-47205 Potential Vehicle Impact Fee Unfunded
RO2601 Traffic Control and Safety Improvements on San Pablo Ave $250,000 $250,000 RO2507 ADA Transition Plan Update $ 350,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 350,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - RO2506 Traffic Calming Program $ 200,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 200,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - RO2505 Safe Routes to Schools $ 100,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 100,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - RO2504 Pavement Marking and Signage Upgrades $ 100,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 100,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - RO2503 City Streetlights Upgrade $ 250,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 250,000 $ - $ - $ - RO2502 Pinole Signals Upgrade $ 200,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 200,000 $ - $ - $ - RO2501 Accessibility Improvements Project $ 150,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 150,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - RO2404 Crosswalk Tennent Ave at Prune St $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - RO2403 Old Town Traffic Calming $ 100,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 100,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - RO2402 Sidewalk Rehabilitation Program $ 200,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 200,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - RO2401 Road Maintenance Repairs $ 350,000 $ - $ - $ 350,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - RO2303 Pinole Smart Signals $ 100,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 100,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - RO2302 Safety Improvements on Arterial Roadways $ 439,040 $ - $ 239,040 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 200,000 $ - $ - $ - RO2301 Road Rehabilitation $ 3,357,088 $ - $ 1,250,000 $ - $ - $ 107,088 $ - $ 2,000,000 $ - $ - RO2102 Tennent Ave Rehabilitation $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - RO1902 Tennent Avenue/Bay Trail Gap Clossure Crossing of UPRR $ 1,345,000 $ - $ 600,000 $ - $ - $ 745,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - RO1710 San Pablo Avenue Bridge Over BNSF Railroad $ 2,894,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 2,894,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

INFRASTRUCTURE ASSESSMENTS
PRJ # ASSESSMENT FY 2026-27 106-343-42101 106-344-42101 500-642-42101 500-641-42101 325-342-42101 377-342-47205 Unfunded IN2501 San Pablo Avenue Bicycle and Pedestrian Gap Closure IN2106 Active Transportation Plan $ 20,000 $ 20,000
IN2105 Appian Way Complete Streets $ 200,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ - IN2103 Recycled Water Feasibility $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ - $ - IN2101 Emergency Power for Critical Facilities $ - $ - $ - $ - IN1703 Storm Drain Master Plan $ 275,000 $ 95,000 $ 180,000 $ - $ - Uses by Project Total $ 19,699,623
LEGEND:
• Project numbers: FA = Facilities; PA = Parks; SS = Sanitary Sewer; SW = Storm Water; RO = Streets & Roads; IN = Infrastructure Assessments * Project cost to be split 50% with the City of Hercules

Page 31 of 96 ends

FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 FY 2028-29 FY 2029-30 FY 2030-31 5-Year Total $ - $ 200,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 200,000
$ 350,000 $ 350,000 $ 350,000 $ 350,000 $ 100,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 340,000 $ 743,000 $ 250,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 1,633,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 1,280,000 $ 1,100,000 $ 1,100,000 $ 1,100,000 $ 6,580,000 $ 1,199,495 $ 352,000
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ 239,040 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 239,040
$ 1,250,000 $ 450,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 950,000 $ 950,000 $ 4,600,000 $ 600,000 $ 420,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 1,020,000
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ 1,880,000 $ 1,750,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 4,230,000 $ 300,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 300,000
$ 1,200,000 $ 450,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 1,950,000 $ 250,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 250,000
$ 1,405,000 $ 1,100,000 $ 500,000 $ - $ - $ 3,005,000
$ 2,394,000 $ 940,000 $ 27,018,000 $ - $ - $ 30,352,000 $ 47,088
$ 750,000 $ 450,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 1,200,000
$ 5,375,000 $ 13,390,000 $ 3,040,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 22,005,000 $ 120,000 $ 120,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 240,000
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ 19,699,623 $ 21,995,000 $ 33,558,000 $ 2,950,000 $ 2,700,000 $ 80,902,623 $ - $ 1,700,000 $ 2,400,000 $ 950,000 $ 400,000 $ 5,450,000 $ 19,699,623 $ 23,695,000 $ 35,958,000 $ 3,900,000 $ 3,100,000 $ 86,352,623 325 - City Street Improvements
325 - Grant: TDA Article 3
325 - Grant: STMP Fees
Total Sources Required
325 - Grant: HBP
377 - Arterial Streets Rehabilitation
500 - Sewer Enterprise Fund
Sources Total
Unfunded Total
207- NPDES Stormwater
Vehicle Impact Fee
325 - Grant: CalRecycle
105 - Measure S 2006

CITY OF PINOLE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN: FY 2026-27 THROUGH FY 2030-31

FUNDING SUMMARY

SOURCES BY FUND
100 - General Fund
106 - Measure S 2014
200 - Gas Tax
275 - Parkland Dedication
324 - Public Facilities Fund
215 - Measure J
215 - Grant: OBAG
276 - Growth Impact Fees
214 - Solid Waste
215 - Grant: TLC
215 - Grant: HSIP
215 - Grant: Climate Implementation Grant - MTC
212 - Building and Planning Fund

Page 32 of 96 ends

FACILITIES
PRJ # PROJECT FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 FY 2028-29 FY 2029-30 FY 2030-31 5-Year Total FA2602 Upgrade of Corporation Yard $400,000 $400,000
FA2601 Battery Storage at Youth and Swim Centers $300,000 $300,000 FA2502 Upgrade of City Pools $ 200,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 200,000 FA2501 EV Charging Infrastructure $ 675,000 $ 395,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 1,070,000 FA2401 Tiny Tots Upgrades $ 250,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 250,000 FA2302 Plum Street Parking Lot Improvements $ - $ 220,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 220,000 FA2301 Public Safety Building Modernization $ 170,000 $ 230,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 400,000 FA2202 Senior Center Modernization $ 150,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 150,000 FA1901 Senior Center Auxiliary Parking Lot $ - $ - $ 1,050,000 $ 500,000 $ - $ 1,550,000 FA1703 City Hall Modernization $ 100,000 $ 300,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 400,000 FA1702 Citywide Roof Repairs and Replacement $ 300,000 $ 400,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 700,000 PARKS
PRJ # PROJECT FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 FY 2028-29 FY 2029-30 FY 2030-31 5-Year Total PA2601 Pinole Creek Trail Upgrade $ 299,495 $ 299,495
PA2501 Improvements to City Parks $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 1,000,000 PA2402 Mural Preservation $ - $ 100,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 100,000 PA2401 Fernandez Park Improvements $ 350,000 $ 400,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 750,000 PA2202 Skatepark Rehabilitation $ 150,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 150,000 PA1901 Pinole Valley Park Soccer Field Rehabilitation $ 210,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 210,000

SANITARY SEWER
PRJ # PROJECT FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 FY 2028-29 FY 2029-30 FY 2030-31 5-Year Total SS2501 Replacement of Blowers at the Treatment Plant $ 120,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 120,000 SS2407 Private Sewer Lateral Program $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 500,000 SS2406 * WPCP Solar and Battery $ 250,000 $ 600,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 850,000 SS2405 Lower Tennent Trunk Sewer Capacity $ 500,000 $ 3,550,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 4,050,000 SS2404 * WPCP Boiler Replacement $ - $ 660,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 660,000 SS2403 * WPCP Centrifuge Replacement $ - $ - $ 990,000 $ - $ - $ 990,000 SS2402 Pinon-3 Sewer Capacity $ 1,000,000 $ 1,960,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 2,960,000 SS2203 * Effluent Outfall $ 1,500,000 $ 1,600,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 3,100,000 SS2101 * Secondary Clarifier Rehabilitation $ 425,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 425,000 SS2002 * Water Pollution Control Plant Lab Remodel $ 200,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 200,000 SS1702 Sewer Pump Station Rehabilitation $ 1,000,000 $ 4,350,000 $ 1,950,000 $ - $ - $ 7,300,000

STORMWATER
PRJ # PROJECT FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 FY 2028-29 FY 2029-30 FY 2030-31 5-Year Total SW2501 Stormwater Upgrade & Trash Capture $ 120,000 $ 120,000 $ 100,000 $ 90,000 $ 70,000 $ 500,000 SW2401 Storm Drain Creek Discharge & System Improvements $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 750,000 SW2001 Roble Road Storm Drainage Improvements $ - $ 1,200,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 1,200,000

Page 33 of 96 ends

STREETS & ROADS
PRJ # PROJECT FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 FY 2028-29 FY 2029-30 FY 2030-31 5-Year Total RO2601 Traffic Control and Safety Improvements on San Pablo Ave $250,000 $250,000 RO2507 ADA Transition Plan Update $ 350,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 350,000 RO2506 Traffic Calming Program $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 850,000 RO2505 Safe Routes to Schools $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 50,000 $ 450,000 RO2504 Pavement Marking and Signage Upgrades $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 500,000 RO2503 City Streetlights Upgrade $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 1,100,000 RO2502 Pinole Signals Upgrade $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 900,000 RO2501 Accessibility Improvements Project $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 750,000 RO2404 Crosswalk Tennent Ave at Prune St $ - $ 50,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 50,000 RO2403 Old Town Traffic Calming $ 100,000 $ 200,000 $ 900,000 $ - $ - $ 1,200,000 RO2402 Sidewalk Rehabilitation Program $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 1,000,000 RO2401 Road Maintenance Repairs $ 350,000 $ 350,000 $ 350,000 $ 350,000 $ 100,000 $ 1,500,000 RO2303 Pinole Smart Signals $ 100,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 100,000 RO2302 Safety Improvements on Arterial Roadways $ 439,040 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 439,040 RO2301 Road Rehabilitation $ 3,357,088 $ 1,550,000 $ 1,550,000 $ 1,550,000 $ 1,550,000 $ 9,557,088 RO2102 Tennent Ave Rehabilitation $ - $ 750,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 750,000 RO1902 Tennent Avenue/Bay Trail Gap Clossure Crossing of UPRR $ 1,345,000 $ 1,120,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 2,465,000
RO1710 ** San Pablo Avenue Bridge Over BNSF Railroad $ 2,894,000 $ 1,240,000 $ 27,518,000 $ - $ - $ 31,752,000

INFRASTRUCTURE ASSESSMENTS
PRJ # ASSESSMENT FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 FY 2028-29 FY 2029-30 FY 2030-31 5-Year Total IN2501 San Pablo Avenue Bicycle and Pedestrian Gap Closure IN2106 Active Transportation Plan $ 20,000 $ 20,000
IN2105 Appian Way Complete Streets $ 200,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 200,000 IN2103 Recycled Water Feasibility $ 100,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 100,000 IN2101 Emergency Power for Critical Facilities $ - $ 200,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 200,000 IN1703 Storm Drain Master Plan $ 275,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 275,000 Uses by Project Total $19,699,623 $23,695,000 $35,958,000 $3,900,000 $3,100,000 $86,352,623 LEGEND:
• Project numbers: FA = Facilities; PA = Parks; SS = Sanitary Sewer; SW = Storm Water; RO = Streets & Roads; IN = Infrastructure Assessments * Project cost to be split 50% with the City of Hercules

Page 34 of 96 ends

Project Origin : Priority Score : Medium
Budget
New Expansion
Replacement X Renovation
Land/Row Acq. Required
Rehabilitation
$ - $ 400,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 400,000
6/30/2028
Budget Project Estimate
FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 FY 2028-29 FY 2029-30 FY 2030-31 FY 2026 - 2031 $ 30,000 $ 30,000
$ 350,000 $ 350,000
$ 20,000 $ 20,000
$ - $ 400,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 400,000
$ 400,000 $ 400,000
$ - $ 400,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 400,000
FA2602 - UPGRADE OF CORPORATION YARD
Functional Area :

History, Status, or Impact if Delayed
Increased maintenance costs of the aging building within the Treatment Plant.

General Plan Goals/Policies
Policy GM.4.1, Goal CS.1, Goal CS.9, Policy CS.9.1
Summary of Capital Cost
Projected Budget
USE(S)
Planning

TOTAL FUNDS
Construction
Contingency

TOTAL USES

SOURCE(S)
106 - Measure S 2014

Page 35 of 96 ends

Project Origin : Priority Score : High - Ongoing
Budget
New Expansion
Replacement X Renovation
Land/Row Acq. Required
Rehabilitation
$ 300,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 300,000
6/30/2027
Budget Project Estimate
FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 FY 2028-29 FY 2029-30 FY 2030-31 FY 2026 - 2031 $ 30,000 $ 30,000
$ 250,000 $ 250,000
$ 20,000 $ 20,000
$ 300,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 300,000
$ 300,000 $ 300,000
$ 300,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 300,000
FA2601 - BATTERY STORAGE AT YOUTH AND SWIM CENTERS
Functional Area :

Type of CIP Unappropriated Subsequent Years
Description
Year 1
FY 2026-27
Year 2
FY 2027-28
Year 3
FY 2028-29
Year 4
FY 2029-30
Year 5
FY 2030-31
Project Estimate
FY 2026 - 2031
Estimated
Expenditures
To-Date
$ -
Project Start 7/1/2026 Estimated Completion
Design
This project will be carried out in collaboration with MCE, and planned to install battery storage units to enhance utilization and effectiveness of the solar panels located at the City's Youth Center and the Swim Center. This project is expected to reduce energy usage and associated costs.

History, Status, or Impact if Delayed
This project is initiated as part of the City's environmental sustainability and resiliance efforts.

General Plan Goals/Policies
2024 Climate Action and Adaptation Plan. Goal CS.1, Goals HS.6, SE.3, SE.4, SE.7 Summary of Capital Cost
Projected Budget
USE(S)
Planning

TOTAL FUNDS
Construction
Contingency

TOTAL USES

SOURCE(S)
212 - Building&Planning-Climate Grant

Page 36 of 96 ends

Project Origin : Priority Score : Medium - Ongoing
Budget
New Expansion
Replacement X Renovation
Land/Row Acq. Required
Rehabilitation
$ 200,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 300,000
6/30/2027
Budget Project Estimate
FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 FY 2028-29 FY 2029-30 FY 2030-31 FY 2026 - 2031 $ 20,000 $ 20,000
$ 160,000 $ 160,000
$ 20,000 $ 20,000
$ 200,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 200,000
$ 200,000 $ 200,000
TOTAL FUNDS $ 200,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 200,000
Construction
Contingency

TOTAL USES

SOURCE(S)
276 - Growth Impact Fees
Design
The City’s pool has five (5) lanes with depth ranges from 3.5 feet to 9 feet. The City also offers a small pool for beginners, small children or parent getting their children use to the water. The children’s pool measures 25′ x 25′ and is two and a half (2.5) feet deep. The facility and pool offer amenities such as a handicap chair lift and full lockers to put your personal items and showers. In FY 2025/26, the two pumps were replaced, a mini-split HVAC system installed, an auto filler installed, along with plumping and other upgrades. The FY 2026/27 fund will assist in implementing further upgrades to the facility including amenties.

History, Status, or Impact if Delayed
Increased maintenance costs and potential for additional closures to avoid safety or liability issues.

General Plan Goals/Policies
Policy GM.4.1, Goal CS.1, Goal CS.9, Policy CS.9.1
Summary of Capital Cost
Projected Budget
USE(S)
Planning
Description
Year 1
FY 2026-27
Year 2
FY 2027-28
Year 3
FY 2028-29
Year 4
FY 2029-30
Year 5
FY 2030-31
Project Estimate
FY 2026 - 2031
Estimated
Expenditures
To-Date
$ 100,000.00
Project Start 7/1/2025 Estimated Completion
FA2502 - UPGRADE OF CITY POOLS
Functional Area :

Type of CIP Unappropriated Subsequent Years

Page 37 of 96 ends

Project Origin : Priority Score : High - Ongoing
Budget
X New Expansion
Replacement Renovation
Land/Row Acq. Required
Rehabilitation
$ 675,000 $ 395,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 1,070,000
6/30/2028
Budget Project Estimate
FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 FY 2028-29 FY 2029-30 FY 2030-31 FY 2026 - 2031 $ 80,000 $ 80,000
$ 545,000 $ 370,000 $ 915,000
$ 50,000 $ 25,000 $ 75,000
$ 675,000 $ 395,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 1,070,000
$ 75,000 $ 43,000 $ 118,000
$ 600,000 $ 352,000 $ 952,000
TOTAL FUNDS $ 675,000 $ 395,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 1,070,000 Construction
Contingency

TOTAL USES

SOURCE(S)
106 - Measure S 2014
212 - Building&Planning-Climate Grant
Design
In August 2024, City Council adopted the City’s Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP) to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045, in alignment with the State’s Senate Bill 32 and Assembly Bill 1279. Pinole’s community-wide and municipal greenhouse gas (GHG) inventories identified the transportation sector as the largest source of emissions, accounting for 50% of the total GHG emissions. In December 2024, the City’s Community Development Department submitted to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) an application requesting $952,000 in grant funds in addition to a required 11% local match ($118,000) for a total Project cost of 1,070,000 for expanding the EV charging infrastructure in alignment with the Pinole’s CAAP goals.

History, Status, or Impact if Delayed
The CAAP recommends installation of 267 level 2 chargers by 2030 and 323 level 2 chargers by 2045, increasing passenger zero-emission vehicles (ZEV) use to 33% by 2030, increasing commercial zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) use to 25% by 2030, and electrifying or otherwise decarbonizing 30% of the municipal vehicle fleet by 2026.

General Plan Goals/Policies
2024 Climate Action and Adaptation Plan. Goal CS.1, Goals HS.6, SE.3, SE.4, SE.7 Summary of Capital Cost
Projected Budget
USE(S)
Planning
Description
Year 1
FY 2026-27
Year 2
FY 2027-28
Year 3
FY 2028-29
Year 4
FY 2029-30
Year 5
FY 2030-31
Project Estimate
FY 2026 - 2031
Estimated
Expenditures
To-Date
$ -
Project Start 7/1/2026 Estimated Completion
FA2501 - EV CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE
Functional Area :

Type of CIP Unappropriated Subsequent Years

Page 38 of 96 ends

Project Origin : Priority Score : High
Budget
New Expansion
Replacement Renovation
Land/Row Acq. Required
X Rehabilitation
$ 250,000.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 250,000
6/30/2027
Budget Project Estimate
FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 FY 2028-29 FY 2029-30 FY 2030-31 FY 2026 - 2031 $ 230,000 $ 230,000
$ 20,000 $ 20,000
$ 250,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 250,000
$ 250,000 $ 250,000
$ 250,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 250,000
FA2401 - TINY TOTS UPGRADES
Staff Recommendation

TOTAL FUNDS

SOURCE(S)
276 - Growth Impact Fees

TOTAL USES
Summary of Capital Cost
Projected Budget
USE(S)
Planning
Design
Construction
Contingency
Goal CS.1, Policy CS.1.1; Goal CS.3, Policy CS.3.1
Estimated
Expenditures
to-date
$ -
Project Start 7/1/2026 Estimated Completion
Description
Pinole Tiny Tots interior and exterior facility maintenance including flooring, painting, bathrooms, and appliances as funding permit. Upgrades likely to include exterior siding, eaves, and trim repairs and painting. Interior office, main room, kitchen, and restrooms painting and some upgrades. Upgrades could also include needed repairs and parts replacement of the playground equiplment.

History, Status, or Impact if Delayed
The current exterior and interior paint is from approximately 20 years ago and shows discoloration, fading, chipping, and weathering. Similarly, th facility has againg kitchen appliances, playground equipment, carpets, etc.

General Plan Goals/Policies
Project Estimate
FY 2026 - 2031
Functional Area : Facilities
Type of CIP Unappropriated Subsequent Years
Year 1
FY 2026-27
Year 2
FY 2027-28
Year 3
FY 2028-29
Year 4
FY 2029-30
Year 5
FY 2030-31

Page 39 of 96 ends

Project Origin : Priority Score : Low
Budget
New Expansion
Replacement X Renovation
Land/Row Acq. Required
Rehabilitation
$ - $ 220,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 220,000
6/30/2028
Budget Project Estimate
FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 FY 2028-29 FY 2029-30 FY 2030-31 FY 2026 - 2031 $ 20,000 $ 20,000
$ 180,000 $ 180,000
$ 20,000 $ 20,000
$ - $ 220,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 220,000
$ 220,000 $ 220,000
$ - $ 220,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 220,000
FA2302 - PLUM STREET PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENTS
Staff Recommendation

TOTAL FUNDS
Project Start 7/1/2027
General Plan Goals/Policies
Projected Budget
Goal CE.6
Summary of Capital Cost
To provide a secure parking area for Police vehicles in the Plum Street parking lot. The parking lot will remain open for the public. A portion of the parking lot planned to be secured with security gate for Police vehicles. The layout of the parking lot likely to be redesigned. In addition, bicycle parking will be provided to the public.

Functional Area : Facilities
Estimated
Expenditures
to-date
$ -
Year 1
FY 2026-27
Year 5
FY 2030-31
Description
Type of CIP Unappropriated Subsequent Years
Project Estimate
FY 2026 - 2031
Year 2
FY 2027-28
Year 3
FY 2028-29
Year 4
FY 2029-30
Estimated Completion
276 - Growth Impact Fees

TOTAL USES
History, Status, or Impact if Delayed
USE(S)
Planning
Design
Construction
Contingency

SOURCE(S)

Page 40 of 96 ends

Project Origin : Priority Score : High - Phased
Budget
New Expansion
Replacement X Renovation
Land/Row Acq. Required
Rehabilitation
$ 170,000.00 $ 230,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 1,050,000
6/30/2027
Budget Project Estimate
FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 FY 2028-29 FY 2029-30 FY 2030-31 FY 2026 - 2031 $ 40,000 $ 40,000
$ 150,000 $ 170,000 $ 320,000
$ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 40,000
$ 170,000 $ 230,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 400,000
$ 170,000 $ 230,000 $ 400,000
$ 170,000 $ 230,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 400,000
FA2301 - PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING MODERNIZATION
Staff Recommendation

TOTAL FUNDS

TOTAL USES

SOURCE(S)
276 - Growth Impact Fees
Summary of Capital Cost
Projected Budget
USE(S)
Planning
Design
Construction
Contingency
Policy CS.2.6, Goal CS.1, Policy CS.1.1, Policy SE.1.3
Estimated
Expenditures
to-date
$ 650,000.00
Project Start 7/1/2024 Estimated Completion
Description
In FY 2025/26, the Public Safety Building roof was replaced, two HVAC compressors were replaced, some of the office furtniture was replaced, and some of the flooring was replaced. To extend the useful life of the Public Safety building, there are several items that still require attention including but not limited to replacement of additional flooring areas, water heaters, light fixtures, fans, bathroom fixtures, cleanning of ducts, etc. In addition, the building requires additional painting, and the locker rooms also require renovation.

History, Status, or Impact if Delayed
Delayed upgrades results in increasing maintenance needs and associated costs.

Page 41 of 96 ends

Project Origin : Priority Score : High
Budget
New Expansion
Replacement X Renovation
Land/Row Acq. Required
Rehabilitation
$ 150,000.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 335,000
6/30/2027
Budget Project Estimate
FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 FY 2028-29 FY 2029-30 FY 2030-31 FY 2026 - 2031 $ 130,000 $ 130,000
$ 20,000 $ 20,000
$ 150,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 150,000
$ 150,000 $ 150,000
$ 150,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 150,000
FA2202 - SENIOR CENTER MODERNIZATION
Staff Recommendation

TOTAL FUNDS

SOURCE(S)
276 - Growth Impact Fees

TOTAL USES
Summary of Capital Cost
Projected Budget
USE(S)
Planning
Design
Construction
Contingency
Policy CS.2.6, Goal CS.1, Policy CS.1.1, Policy SE.1.3
Estimated
Expenditures
to-date
$185,000
Project Start 7/1/2024 Estimated Completion
Description
This ongoing project includes an internal facilities condition assessment followed by implementation of improvements to modernize the existing Senior Center building located at 2525 Charles Avenue. Work include upgrades to energy system, roof repairs, and interior renovations.

History, Status, or Impact if Delayed
General Plan Goals/Policies
Project Estimate
FY 2026 - 2031
Functional Area : Facilities
Type of CIP Unappropriated Subsequent Years
Year 1
FY 2026-27
Year 2
FY 2027-28
Year 3
FY 2028-29
Year 4
FY 2029-30
Year 5
FY 2030-31

Page 42 of 96 ends

Project Origin : Priority Score : Low
Budget
New X Expansion
Replacement Renovation
Land/Row Acq. Required
Rehabilitation
$ - $ - $ 1,050,000 $ 500,000.00 $ - $ 1,676,655
6/30/2030
Budget Project Estimate
FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 FY 2028-29 FY 2029-30 FY 2030-31 FY 2026 - 2031 $ 100,000 $ 100,000
$ 870,000 $ 450,000 $ 1,320,000
$ 80,000 $ 50,000 $ 130,000
$ - $ - $ 1,050,000 $ 500,000 $ - $ 1,550,000
$ 1,050,000 $ 500,000 $ 1,550,000
$ - $ - $ 1,050,000 $ 500,000 $ - $ 1,550,000
USE(S)
Goal CE.5, Goal CS.1, Policy GM.4.1
Estimated
Expenditures
to-date
$ 126,655.00
Project Start 7/1/2024 Estimated Completion
FA1901 - SENIOR CENTER AUXILIARY PARKING LOT
Fowler Lot Re-Use Committee
Summary of Capital Cost
Projected Budget
Description
On February 2, 2021 City Council adopted Resolution 2021-07 and awarded a contract to a consultant for the preliminary engineering and design for the parking lot. The parking lot will be designed to be a multi-benefit project that includes pavement structural section, striping, lighting, bicycle parking, electric vehicle charging stations, stormwater capture and retention, and drought tolerant landscaping. The final design will offer the maximum number of parking spaces while allowing access for both vehicles and pedestrians and include aesthetic design components.

On June 7, 2022, City Council directed staff to incorporate the installation of a solar canopy and backup battery system at the site.

History, Status, or Impact if Delayed
On April 16, 1990 City Council adopted Resolution 2380 authorizing the purchase of 2548 Charles Street. At the time of purchase, City Council determined that construction of a Senior Center was necessary, and that this property was needed to provide sufficient parking for the Center. The parcel is surrounded by municipal parking lots which serve the Senior Center and Old Town Pinole. The Fowler House tenants remained in the properly till 2010 and many discussions took place to determine the best use of the property. It was determined that the house had asbestos and lead paint. On July 17, 2018, City Council adopted Resolution 2018-67 to create the Fowler Lot Re-use Committee to evaluate the reuse and redevelopment of the property. The Committee evaluated uses for the lot and determined the best use of the property is a parking lot. On October 16, 2018, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2018-93 to approve a contract with a construction company to abate and demolish the Fowler house. The property demolition was completed on March 11, 2019. On July 21, 2020, City Council adopted Resolution 2020–68 to accept the final recommendation of the Committee.

General Plan Goals/Policies
Project Estimate
FY 2026 - 2031
Functional Area : Facilities
Type of CIP Unappropriated Subsequent Years

TOTAL FUNDS

TOTAL USES
Planning
Design
Construction
Contingency

SOURCE(S)
Unfunded
Year 1
FY 2026-27
Year 2
FY 2027-28
Year 3
FY 2028-29
Year 4
FY 2029-30
Year 5
FY 2030-31

Page 43 of 96 ends

Project Origin : Priority Score : High - Ongoing
Budget
New Expansion
Replacement X Renovation
Land/Row Acq. Required
Rehabilitation
$ 100,000.00 $ 300,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 400,000
6/30/2028
Budget Project Estimate
FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 FY 2028-29 FY 2029-30 FY 2030-31 FY 2026 - 2031 $ 10,000 $ - $ 10,000
$ 80,000 $ 270,000 $ 350,000
$ 10,000 $ 30,000 $ 40,000
$ 100,000 $ 300,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 400,000
$ 100,000 $ 300,000 $ 400,000
$ 100,000 $ 300,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 400,000
FA1703 - CITY HALL MODERNIZATION
Staff Recommendation

TOTAL FUNDS

SOURCE(S)
276 - Growth Impact Fees

TOTAL USES
Summary of Capital Cost
Projected Budget
USE(S)
Planning
Design
Construction
Contingency
Policy CS.2.6, Goal CS.1, Policy CS.1.1, Policy SE.1.3
Estimated
Expenditures
to-date
$ -
Project Start 7/1/2025 Estimated Completion
Description
Interior improvements and exterior painting to extend the life of the City Hall building and improve its functionality for staff and the public. In FY 2025/26, improved office cubicels, replacement of some of the office blinds, and carpet areas and entry doors were improved. Remaining fund will be used in FY 2026/27 for improving the service counters.

Upgrades planned for FY 2027/28 could include flooring, light fixtures, and addition of a lactation room. Also interior and exterior surfaces require repainting as the paint system has reached the end of its useful life with fading, chipping paint, along with water and mildew damage. Futire improvements will also include replacement of the City seal and addition of a wall-mounted flagpole and multi-color lighting.

History, Status, or Impact if Delayed
Future exterior painting is necessary to maintain external protection from the environment.

Page 44 of 96 ends

Project Origin : Priority Score : High - Phased
Budget
New Expansion
X Replacement Renovation
Land/Row Acq. Required
Rehabilitation
$ 300,000.00 $ 400,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 700,000
6/30/2028
Budget Project Estimate
FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 FY 2028-29 FY 2029-30 FY 2030-31 FY 2026 - 2031 $ 250,000 $ 350,000 $ 600,000
$ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 100,000
$ 300,000 $ 400,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 700,000
$ 300,000 $ 300,000
$ 400,000 $ 400,000
$ 300,000 $ 400,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 700,000
Design
Summary of Capital Cost
Projected Budget
Policy GM.4.1, Goal CS.1, Goal CS.9, Policy CS.9.1
Estimated
Expenditures
to-date
$ -
Project Start 7/1/2026 Estimated Completion
FA1702 - CITYWIDE ROOF REPAIRS AND REPLACEMENT
End of Life Cycle
USE(S)
Planning
Description
Roof repairs and replacement at City facilities including roofs of City Hall. Based on the October 2022 finalized evaluation report, the Public Safety Building roof was prioritized and replaced in FY 2025/26 in addition to roof repairs of the Senior Center and Youth Center.

History, Status, or Impact if Delayed
In 2015, comprehensive visual roof inspections were completed by a contractor on various City owned facilities. The purpose of the inspection was to identify the extent, if any, of moisture intrusion into the existing roof assemblies, document observed roof system deficiencies, determine the overall condition of the existing roof systems and to estimate the service life of the inplace roof assemblies.

General Plan Goals/Policies
Project Estimate
FY 2026 - 2031
Functional Area : Facilities
Type of CIP Unappropriated Subsequent Years

TOTAL FUNDS

TOTAL USES
Construction
Contingency

SOURCE(S)
324 - Public Facilities Fund
276 - Growth Impact Fees
Year 1
FY 2026-27
Year 2
FY 2027-28
Year 3
FY 2028-29
Year 4
FY 2029-30
Year 5
FY 2030-31

Page 45 of 96 ends

Project Origin : Priority Score : TBD
Budget
New Expansion
Replacement X Renovation
Land/Row Acq. Required
Rehabilitation
$ 299,495 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 299,495
6/30/2027
Budget Project Estimate
FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 FY 2028-29 FY 2029-30 FY 2030-31 FY 2026 - 2031 $ 20,000 $ 20,000
$ 250,000 $ 250,000
$ 29,495 $ 29,495
$ 299,495 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 299,495
$ 299,495 $ 299,495
TOTAL FUNDS $ 299,495 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 299,495
Construction
Contingency

TOTAL USES

SOURCE(S)
212 - Building&Planning-Climate Grant
Design
This state grant fund was pursued to commence improvements of the unimproved/dirt trail section located between Pinole High School and the shopping plaza. The initial improvements will include benches with shading, debris and vegetation removal, and simple art that is appropriate for the environment. Additional grant funds to be pursued for future upgrades including replacement/rehabilitation of pedestrian/bike bridge, surfacing the trail with permeable pavement, and trail type lighting.

History, Status, or Impact if Delayed
Reduce maintenance costs, and improve quality of trail and amenities to increase walking and cycling.

General Plan Goals/Policies
Goal CS.2, Goal CS.3, Policy CS 2.6 & 3.1, Policy GM.4.1 Summary of Capital Cost
Projected Budget
USE(S)
Planning
Description
Year 1
FY 2026-27
Year 2
FY 2027-28
Year 3
FY 2028-29
Year 4
FY 2029-30
Year 5
FY 2030-31
Project Estimate
FY 2026 - 2031
Estimated
Expenditures
To-Date
Project Start 7/1/2026 Estimated Completion
PA2601 - PINOLE CREEK TRAIL UPGRADE
Functional Area :

Type of CIP Unappropriated Subsequent Years

Page 46 of 96 ends

Project Origin : Priority Score : High - Annual
Budget
New Expansion
Replacement X Renovation
Land/Row Acq. Required
Rehabilitation
$ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 1,150,000 6/30/2031
Budget Project Estimate
FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 FY 2028-29 FY 2029-30 FY 2030-31 FY 2026 - 2031 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 100,000
$ 160,000 $ 160,000 $ 160,000 $ 160,000 $ 160,000 $ 800,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 100,000
$ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 1,000,000 TOTAL FUNDS $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 1,000,000 Construction
Contingency

TOTAL USES

SOURCE(S)
276 - Growth Impact Fees
Design
This annual project is intended to implement upgrades to the City’s parks and fields such as the replacement of restrooms with ones that are equipped with fire retardant roofs and durable, fire-resistant building materials. Other potential upgrades would cover lighting, playground equipment, shaded structures, furnishings, installation of welcome kiosk and wayfinding signs, enhancing landscaping, public art, and paving trails. Identified improvements will be based on community input and aim to beautify the City’s parks and enhance safety, health and quality of life.

History, Status, or Impact if Delayed
Reduce maintenance costs, and improve quality of parks and amenities.

General Plan Goals/Policies
Goal CS.2, Goal CS.3, Policy CS 2.6 & 3.1, Policy GM.4.1 Summary of Capital Cost
Projected Budget
USE(S)
Planning
Description
Year 1
FY 2026-27
Year 2
FY 2027-28
Year 3
FY 2028-29
Year 4
FY 2029-30
Year 5
FY 2030-31
Project Estimate
FY 2026 - 2031
Estimated
Expenditures
To-Date
$ 150,000.00
Project Start 7/1/2025 Estimated Completion
PA2501 - IMPROVEMENTS TO CITY PARKS
Functional Area :

Type of CIP Unappropriated Subsequent Years

Page 47 of 96 ends

Project Origin : Priority Score : Low
Budget
New Expansion
Replacement Renovation
Land/Row Acq. Required
X Rehabilitation
$ - $ 100,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 100,000
6/30/2028
Budget Project Estimate
FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 FY 2028-29 FY 2029-30 FY 2030-31 FY 2026 - 2031 $ 100,000 $ 100,000
$ - $ 100,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 100,000
$ 100,000 $ 100,000
$ - $ 100,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 100,000
PA2402 - MURAL PRESERVATION
Functional Area : Parks Council Request
Type of CIP Unappropriated Subsequent Years
Description
Year 1
FY 2026-27
Year 2
FY 2027-28
Year 3
FY 2028-29
Year 4
FY 2029-30
Year 5
FY 2030-31
Project Estimate
FY 2026 - 2031
Estimated
Expenditures
To-Date
$ -
Project Start 7/1/2027 Estimated Completion
Design
Preservation and enhancment of murals in the City, community participation will be sought as applicable. Staff will pursue grant funds to implement this project sooner if possible.

History, Status, or Impact if Delayed
Most of the murals are now faded and is expected to continue to deteriorate over time.

General Plan Goals/Policies
Goal CC.1, Policy CC.1.3; Goal CC.5, Policy CC.5.1
Summary of Capital Cost
Projected Budget
USE(S)
Planning

TOTAL FUNDS
Construction
Contingency

TOTAL USES

SOURCE(S)
106 - Measure S 2014

Page 48 of 96 ends

Project Origin : Priority Score : High - Phased
Budget
New Expansion
Replacement X Renovation
Land/Row Acq. Required
Rehabilitation
$ 350,000 $ 400,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 850,000
6/30/2028
Budget Project Estimate
FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 FY 2028-29 FY 2029-30 FY 2030-31 FY 2026 - 2031 $ 30,000 $ 30,000
$ 300,000 $ 360,000 $ 660,000
$ 20,000 $ 40,000 $ 60,000
$ 350,000 $ 400,000 $ - $ - $ 750,000
$ 350,000 $ 400,000 $ 750,000
$ 350,000 $ 400,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 750,000
PA2401 - FERNANDEZ PARK IMPROVEMENTS
Functional Area : Parks Staff Recommendation
Type of CIP Unappropriated Subsequent Years
Description
Year 1
FY 2026-27
Year 2
FY 2027-28
Year 3
FY 2028-29
Year 4
FY 2029-30
Year 5
FY 2030-31
Project Estimate
FY 2026 - 2031
Estimated
Expenditures
To-Date
$ 100,000.00
Project Start 7/1/2024 Estimated Completion
Design
Some upgrades were taken place in FY 2025/26 including replacement of a sewer lateral. Additional upgrades are needed to improve the baseball field and decrease water and energy usage in addition to infrastructure improvements to increase accessibility and safety.

History, Status, or Impact if Delayed
General Plan Goals/Policies
Goal CS.1, Policy CS.1.1, Policy CS.1.3; Goal CS.3, Policy CS.3.1; Goal CS.9, Policy CS.9.1, Goal SE.4, Policy SE.4.2 Summary of Capital Cost
Projected Budget
USE(S)
Planning

TOTAL FUNDS
Construction
Contingency

TOTAL USES

SOURCE(S)
276 - Growth Impact Fees

Page 49 of 96 ends

Project Origin : Priority Score : Medium
Budget
New Expansion
X Replacement Renovation
Land/Row Acq. Required
Rehabilitation
$ 150,000.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 150,000
6/30/2027
Budget Project Estimate
FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 FY 2028-29 FY 2029-30 FY 2030-31 FY 2026 - 2031 $ 10,000 $ 10,000
$ 130,000 $ 130,000
$ 10,000 $ 10,000
$ 150,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 150,000
$ 150,000 $ 150,000
$ 150,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 150,000
PA2202 - SKATEPARK REHABILITATION
Council Request

TOTAL FUNDS

SOURCE(S)
276 - Growth Impact Fees

TOTAL USES
Summary of Capital Cost
Projected Budget
USE(S)
Planning
Design
Construction
Contingency
Goal CS.2, Goal CS.3, Policy CS 2.6 & 3.1, Policy GM.4.1 Estimated
Expenditures
to-date
$ -
Project Start 7/1/2026 Estimated Completion
Description
The ramps at the skatepark have settled and need to be replaced, and the construction of a retaining wall may be needed.

History, Status, or Impact if Delayed
General Plan Goals/Policies
Project Estimate
FY 2026 - 2031
Functional Area : Parks
Type of CIP Unappropriated Subsequent Years
Year 1
FY 2026-27
Year 2
FY 2027-28
Year 3
FY 2028-29
Year 4
FY 2029-30
Year 5
FY 2030-31

Page 50 of 96 ends

Project Origin : Priority Score : High - Ongoing
Budget
New Expansion
Replacement X Renovation
Land/Row Acq. Required
Rehabilitation
$ 210,000.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 250,000
6/30/2027
Budget Project Estimate
FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 FY 2028-29 FY 2029-30 FY 2030-31 FY 2026 - 2031 $ 10,000 $ 10,000
$ 180,000 $ 180,000
$ 20,000 $ 20,000
$ 210,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 210,000
$ 210,000 $ 210,000
$ 210,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 210,000
PA1901 - PINOLE VALLEY PARK SOCCER FIELD REHABILITATION Council Request

TOTAL FUNDS

SOURCE(S)
276 - Growth Impact Fees

TOTAL USES
Summary of Capital Cost
Projected Budget
USE(S)
Planning
Design
Construction
Contingency
Goal CS.1, Goal CS.3, Policy CS 3.1, Policy GM.4.1
Estimated
Expenditures
to-date
$ 40,000.00
Project Start 7/1/2025 Estimated Completion
Description
There are two soccer fields at Pinole Valley Park which are utilized on an annual basis, the Wright Avenue Soccer Field at the southerly end, and Savage Avenue Soccer Field at the northern end. Both fields are heavily used by soccer leagues and the general public. In FY 2025/26, some upgrades to the irrigation system and damaged turf areas were replaced. The remaining funds will be used in FY 2026/27 to fund installation of prefabricated restrooms along with associated utility connections.

Page 51 of 96 ends

Project Origin : Priority Score : High - Ongoing
Budget
New Expansion
X Replacement Renovation
Land/Row Acq. Required
Rehabilitation
$ 120,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 120,000
6/30/2027
Budget Project Estimate
FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 FY 2028-29 FY 2029-30 FY 2030-31 FY 2026 - 2031 $ 100,000 $ 100,000
$ 20,000 $ 20,000
$ 120,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 120,000
$ 120,000 $ 120,000
TOTAL FUNDS $ 120,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 120,000
Construction
Contingency

TOTAL USES

SOURCE(S)
500 - Sewer Enterprise Fund
Design
One of the three blowers at teh Treatment Plant was replaced in FY 2025/26, and the two remaining blowers were ordered. This project will fund the remaining costs for replcing the two blowers. The project was initiated because the existing treatment plant blowers are obsolete. The blower manufacturer (Aerzen) has notified the City that certain components are no longer available for purchase as replacement parts. In order to avoid equipment downtime, the blowers will be replaced in advance of needing the replacement parts that are no longer available.

History, Status, or Impact if Delayed
Two remaining blowers are outdated and replacement parts are no longer available, which could adversely impact operations if dusabled.

General Plan Goals/Policies
Policy GM.4.1, Goal CS.6, Policy CS.6.1
Summary of Capital Cost
Projected Budget
USE(S)
Planning
Description
Year 1
FY 2026-27
Year 2
FY 2027-28
Year 3
FY 2028-29
Year 4
FY 2029-30
Year 5
FY 2030-31
Project Estimate
FY 2026 - 2031
Estimated
Expenditures
To-Date
$ -
Project Start 7/1/2025 Estimated Completion
SS2501 - REPLACEMENT OF BLOWERS AT THE TREATMENT PLANT
Functional Area :

Type of CIP Unappropriated Subsequent Years

Page 52 of 96 ends

Project Origin : Priority Score : High - Annual
Budget
New Expansion
X Replacement Renovation
Land/Row Acq. Required
Rehabilitation
$ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 500,000 6/30/2030
Budget Project Estimate
FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 FY 2028-29 FY 2029-30 FY 2030-31 FY 2026 - 2031 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 500,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 500,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 500,000 TOTAL FUNDS $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 500,000 Construction
Contingency

TOTAL USES

SOURCE(S)
500 - Sewer Enterprise Fund
Design
Revolving fund to support property owners/residents in repairing or replacing their private sewer laterals under a reimbursement agreement. Guidelines of the Program were developed in FY 2025/26 and approved by the City Council.

History, Status, or Impact if Delayed
This program will support the City's sewer collection system and treatment plant regulatory compliance through a reduction in flows from infiltration and inflow (I&I). I&I reduction will reduce treatment costs and may reduce the scope of or need for future capacity improvements.

General Plan Goals/Policies
Goals HS.2, Policy HS.2.5; Goal HS.7, Policy HS.7.6; Goal CC.2, Policy CC.2.2 Summary of Capital Cost
Projected Budget
USE(S)
Planning
Description
Year 1
FY 2026-27
Year 2
FY 2027-28
Year 3
FY 2028-29
Year 4
FY 2029-30
Year 5
FY 2030-31
Project Estimate
FY 2026 - 2031
Estimated
Expenditures
To-Date
$ -
Project Start 7/1/2025 Estimated Completion
SS2407 - PRIVATE SEWER LATERAL PROGRAM
Functional Area : Sanitary Sewer Staff Recommendation
Type of CIP Unappropriated Subsequent Years

Page 53 of 96 ends

Project Origin : Priority Score : High - Phased
Budget
X New Expansion
Replacement Renovation
Land/Row Acq. Required
Rehabilitation
$ 250,000.00 $ 600,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 850,000
6/30/2028
Budget Project Estimate
FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 FY 2028-29 FY 2029-30 FY 2030-31 FY 2026 - 2031 $ 40,000 $ 40,000
$ 210,000 $ 210,000
$ 600,000 $ 600,000
$ 250,000 $ 600,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 850,000
$ 250,000 $ 600,000 $ - $ - $ 850,000
$ 250,000 $ 600,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 850,000
SS2406 - WPCP SOLAR AND BATTERY
Master Plan
Design
Construction
Contingency
Functional Area : Sanitary Sewer
Type of CIP Unappropriated Subsequent Years
Year 1
FY 2026-27
Year 2
FY 2027-28
Year 3
FY 2028-29
Year 4
FY 2029-30
Year 5
FY 2030-31
Project Estimate
FY 2026 - 2031
Estimated
Expenditures
to-date
Project Start 7/1/2026 Estimated Completion
Description
Planning and design for renewable solar energy generation and battery storage project at the Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP). Install three (3) photovoltaic (PV) arrays with a total PV capacity of 496 kW: a carport array (50-kW), a ground-mount PV array in the public park area to the southwest of the WPCP (175-kW), and a ground-mount PV array along the northeast perimeter of the WPCP, adjacent to the public pathway that runs along the canal (271-kW).

Install a 575 kWh capacity battery energy storage system (BESS), controls, and a 450-kW diesel generator. Staff are also planning on the installation of EV chargers, and has been in coordination with PG&E in this regard.

History, Status, or Impact if Delayed
In 2024, Tetra Tech prepared an Energy Conservation, Generation, and Storage Assessment study for City facilities which included: 1) evaluation of energy conservation, energy generation, energy storage, and electric vehicle measures and 2) a renewable microgrid analysis to determine the technical and economic feasibility of installing new renewable energy generation systems and battery storage at the Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP). Recommendations included addition of photovoltaic (PV) panel arrays at three different locations, a battery energy storage system (BESS) and generator. Construction costs will be estimated during the final design, and will be budgeted in the following fiscal years.

General Plan Goals/Policies
Goal CS.6, Policy CS.6.1; Goal SE.3, Policy SE.1.3; Goal CS.7, Policy CS.7.1; Goal GM.4, Policy GM.4.1 USE(S)
Planning

TOTAL FUNDS

TOTAL USES
Summary of Capital Cost
Projected Budget

SOURCE(S)
500 - Sewer Enterprise Fund

Page 54 of 96 ends

Project Origin : Priority Score : High - Phased
Budget
New X Expansion
X Replacement Renovation
Land/Row Acq. Required
Rehabilitation
$ 500,000.00 $ 3,550,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 4,050,000
6/30/2028
Budget Project Estimate
FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 FY 2028-29 FY 2029-30 FY 2030-31 FY 2026 - 2031 $ 30,000 $ 30,000
$ 420,000 $ 420,000
$ 3,370,000 $ 3,370,000
$ 50,000 $ 180,000 $ 230,000
$ 500,000 $ 3,550,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 4,050,000
$ 500,000 $ 3,550,000 $ - $ - $ 4,050,000
$ 500,000 $ 3,550,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 4,050,000
SS2405 - LOWER TENNENT TRUNK SEWER CAPACITY
Master Plan
500 - Sewer Enterprise Fund
Summary of Capital Cost
Projected Budget
USE(S)
Goal CS.6, Policy CS.6.1; Goal GM.4, Policy GM.4.1
Estimated
Expenditures
to-date
Project Start 7/1/2026 Estimated Completion
Description

TOTAL FUNDS

TOTAL USES
Planning
Design
Construction
Contingency

SOURCE(S)
Tennent-1 improvements as identified in the Sanitary Sewer Collection System Master Plan. This project includes the replacement of approximately 130 feet of 24-inch diameter pipeline, 1,250 feet of 30-inch diameter pipeline, and 10 feet of 36-inch diameter pipeline along Tennent Avenue and inside of the Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP) with 1,390 feet of 36-inch to 42-inch diameter pipeline.

History, Status, or Impact if Delayed
The Sanitary Sewer Collection System Master plan identified capacity deficiencies which result in surcharging of the gravity sewer and cause sanitary sewer overflows (SSO's) during modeled peak wet weather flow (PWWF) conditions.

General Plan Goals/Policies
Project Estimate
FY 2026 - 2031
Functional Area : Sanitary Sewer
Type of CIP Unappropriated Subsequent Years
Year 1
FY 2026-27
Year 2
FY 2027-28
Year 3
FY 2028-29
Year 4
FY 2029-30
Year 5
FY 2030-31

Page 55 of 96 ends

Project Origin : Priority Score : Medium
Budget
New Expansion
X Replacement Renovation
Land/Row Acq. Required
Rehabilitation
$ - $ 660,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 660,000
6/30/2028
Budget Project Estimate
FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 FY 2028-29 FY 2029-30 FY 2030-31 FY 2026 - 2031 $ 600,000 $ 600,000
$ 60,000 $ 60,000
$ - $ 660,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 660,000
$ 660,000 $ 660,000
$ - $ 660,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 660,000
SS2404 - WPCP BOILER REPLACEMENT
End of Life Cycle

TOTAL FUNDS

SOURCE(S)
500 - Sewer Enterprise Fund
Goal CS.1, Goal CS.6, Policy CS.6.1

TOTAL USES
Summary of Capital Cost
Projected Budget
USE(S)
Planning
Design
Construction
Contingency
Description
This project will replace the anaerobic digester process boilers at the Wastewater Treatment Plant.

History, Status, or Impact if Delayed
The anaerobic digestion process at the WPCP includes hot water boilers to heat water for use in the digester sludge heat exchanger. Two 40 HP Natural Gas Scotch Boilers, manufactured by Hurst Boiler & Welding Co., Inc. were installed in 2006 during the Anaerobic Digester Improvements project.

General Plan Goals/Policies
Estimated
Expenditures
to-date
Project Start 7/1/2027 Estimated Completion
Project Estimate
FY 2026 - 2031
Functional Area : Sanitary Sewer
Type of CIP Unappropriated Subsequent Years
Year 1
FY 2026-27
Year 2
FY 2027-28
Year 3
FY 2028-29
Year 4
FY 2029-30
Year 5
FY 2030-31

Page 56 of 96 ends

Project Origin : Priority Score : Medium
Budget
New Expansion
X Replacement Renovation
Land/Row Acq. Required
Rehabilitation
$ - $ - $ 990,000 $ - $ - $ 990,000
6/30/2029
Budget Project Estimate
FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 FY 2028-29 FY 2029-30 FY 2030-31 FY 2026 - 2031 $ 900,000 $ 900,000
$ 90,000 $ 90,000
$ - $ - $ 990,000 $ - $ - $ 990,000
$ 990,000 $ 990,000
$ - $ - $ 990,000 $ - $ - $ 990,000
SS2403 - WPCP CENTRIFUGE REPLACEMENT
End of Life Cycle

TOTAL FUNDS

TOTAL USES

SOURCE(S)
500 - Sewer Enterprise Fund
Summary of Capital Cost
Projected Budget
USE(S)
Planning
Design
Construction
Contingency
Goal CS.1, Goal CS.6, Policy CS.6.1
Estimated
Expenditures
to-date
Project Start 7/1/2028 Estimated Completion
Description
This project will replace the dewatering centrifuge at the Wastewater Treatment Plant.

History, Status, or Impact if Delayed
The solids handling process at the WPCP includes solids dewatering using centrifuges. One of two centrifuges at the WPCP was originally installed in 2006 and reused and relocated to the Solids Handling Building during the plant upgrades completed in 2019. The centrifuge is an Alfa Laval, Aldec G2-95 unit.

Page 57 of 96 ends

Project Origin : Priority Score : High - Phased
Budget
New X Expansion
X Replacement Renovation
Land/Row Acq. Required
Rehabilitation
$ 1,000,000.00 $ 1,960,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 9,677,623
6/30/2028
Budget Project Estimate
FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 FY 2028-29 FY 2029-30 FY 2030-31 FY 2026 - 2031 $ 250,000 $ 250,000
$ 650,000 $ 1,750,000 $ 2,400,000
$ 100,000 $ 210,000 $ 310,000
$ 1,000,000 $ 1,960,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 2,960,000
$ 1,000,000 $ 1,960,000 $ 2,960,000
$ 1,000,000 $ 1,960,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 2,960,000
SS2402 - PINON-3 SEWER CAPACITY
Master Plan

TOTAL FUNDS

TOTAL USES
500 - Sewer Enterprise Fund
Goal CS.6, Policy CS.6.1; Goal GM.4, Policy GM.4.1
Summary of Capital Cost
Projected Budget
USE(S)
Description
The Pinon-2 project was completed in FY 2025/26, thereby replacing sewer lines along segments of Pinon Avenue and Orleans Drive along with pavement improvements. The Pinon-3 improvements as identified in the Sanitary Sewer Collection System Master Plan. This project includes the replacement of approximately 820 feet of 6-inch to 10-inch diameter pipeline along San Pablo Avenue, 680 feet of 8-inch to 10-inch diameter pipeline along Pinon Avenue, 890 feet of 6-inch to 8-inch diameter pipeline along Appian Way, 290 feet of 6-inch diameter pipeline along Meadow Avenue, and 290 feet of 6-inch diameter pipeline between Meadow Avenue and San Pablo Avenue with 2,970 feet of 10-inch to 15-inch diameter pipelines.

General Plan Goals/Policies
Estimated
Expenditures
to-date
$ 6,717,623.00
Project Start 7/1/2022 Estimated Completion
Project Estimate
FY 2026 - 2031
Functional Area : Sanitary Sewer
Type of CIP Unappropriated Subsequent Years
Year 1
FY 2026-27
Year 2
FY 2027-28
Year 3
FY 2028-29
Year 4
FY 2029-30
Year 5
FY 2030-31
Planning
Design
Construction
Contingency

SOURCE(S)

Page 58 of 96 ends

Project Origin : Priority Score : High
Budget
New X Expansion
Replacement Renovation
Land/Row Acq. Required
X Rehabilitation
$ 1,500,000.00 $ 1,600,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 3,100,000
6/30/2028
Budget Project Estimate
FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 FY 2028-29 FY 2029-30 FY 2030-31 FY 2026 - 2031 $ 450,000 $ 450,000
$ 850,000 $ 1,400,000 $ 2,250,000
$ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 400,000
$ 1,500,000 $ 1,600,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 3,100,000
$ 1,500,000 $ 1,600,000 $ 3,100,000
$ 1,500,000 $ 1,600,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 3,100,000
Design
Summary of Capital Cost
Projected Budget
Policy GM.4.1, Goal CS.6, Policy CS.6.1
Estimated
Expenditures
to-date
$ -
Project Start 7/1/2026 Estimated Completion
SS2203 - EFFLUENT OUTFALL
Regulatory Requirement
USE(S)
Planning
Description
The Effluent Outfall project is intended to reduce pressure in the effluent pipe during extreme storm events. Effluent pumping capacity of the treatment plant is limited by the capacity of the pipe size at the effluent outfall in Rodeo.

Increasing the pipe size at the Effluent Outfall Eductor Station will increase the wet weather effluent pumping capacity and increase the lifespan of the effluent pipe by reducing the pressure in the line during storm events. This project requires coordination with Rodeo.

History, Status, or Impact if Delayed
The RWQCB adopted a 40% reduction in nitrogen discharge limits for the San Francisco Bay Region. Options to meet the future permit limits will be evaluated.

General Plan Goals/Policies
Project Estimate
FY 2026 - 2031
Functional Area : Sanitary Sewer
Type of CIP Unappropriated Subsequent Years

TOTAL FUNDS

TOTAL USES
Construction
Contingency

SOURCE(S)
500 - Sewer Enterprise Fund
Year 1
FY 2026-27
Year 2
FY 2027-28
Year 3
FY 2028-29
Year 4
FY 2029-30
Year 5
FY 2030-31

Page 59 of 96 ends

Project Origin : Priority Score : High
Budget
New Expansion
X Replacement Renovation
Land/Row Acq. Required
Rehabilitation
$ 425,000.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 425,000
6/30/2027
Budget Project Estimate
FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 FY 2028-29 FY 2029-30 FY 2030-31 FY 2026 - 2031 $ 315,000 $ 315,000
$ 67,500 $ 67,500
$ 42,500 $ 42,500
$ 425,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 425,000
$ 425,000 $ 425,000
$ 425,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 425,000
SS2101 - SECONDARY CLARIFIER REHABILITATION
End of Life Cycle

TOTAL FUNDS

TOTAL USES

SOURCE(S)
500 - Sewer Enterprise Fund
Summary of Capital Cost
Projected Budget
USE(S)
Design
Construction SC 5
Construction SC 3, SC 4
Contingency
Goal CS.1, Goal CS.6, Policy CS.6.1
Estimated
Expenditures
to-date
$ -
Project Start 7/1/2026 Estimated Completion
Description
The Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP)/Treatment Plant has five secondary clarifiers which slow the flow to allow the microorganisms and other solids to settle to the bottom of the clarifier where they can be returned to aeration tanks to continue treating waste.

History, Status, or Impact if Delayed
Secondary Clarifiers 1 and 2 (SC1 and SC 2) were constructed in the early 1970s and are peripheral feed clarifiers. Secondary Clarifiers 3 and 4 (SC 3 and SC 4) were constructed in the early 1980s and are center feed clarifiers. Secondary Clarifier 5 (SC 5) was constructed in early 2000 and is a center feed, flocculator clarifier. In the first quarter of FY 2022-23, a preliminary inspection of the center column of the SC 5 was completed to examine the current condition and determine the scope of work for rehabilitation. In the second quarter of FY 2022-23, it was determined that SC 3 & SC 4 also require rehabilitation. Previously, this project was titled, "Secondary Clarifier - Center Column Rehabilitation" which only focused on the rehabilitation work required for SC 5.

Page 60 of 96 ends

Project Origin : Priority Score : High - Ongoing
Budget
New Expansion
Replacement X Renovation
Land/Row Acq. Required
Rehabilitation
$ 200,000.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 200,000
6/30/2027
Budget Project Estimate
FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 FY 2028-29 FY 2029-30 FY 2030-31 FY 2026 - 2031 $ 20,000 $ 20,000
$ 150,000 $ 150,000
$ 30,000 $ 30,000
$ 200,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 200,000
$ 200,000 $ 200,000
$ 200,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 200,000
SS2002 - WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PLANT LAB REMODEL
Regulatory Requirement

TOTAL FUNDS

TOTAL USES

SOURCE(S)
500 - Sewer Enterprise Fund
Summary of Capital Cost
Projected Budget
USE(S)
Planning
Design
Construction
Contingency
Policy GM.4.1, Goal CS.1, Policy CS.2.6
Estimated
Expenditures
to-date
$ -
Project Start 7/1/2026 Estimated Completion
Description
The California Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (ELAP) is responsible for accrediting environmental testing labs including the Pinole - Hercules WPCP. The 2019 ELAP inspection results indicated the lab apparatus, countertops, and the fume hood are past their useful life and recommended replacement. Staff has already received quotes to replace the appliances, countertops, and cabinets. Likely payements to contractors will take place in FY 2026/27.

History, Status, or Impact if Delayed
General Plan Goals/Policies
Project Estimate
FY 2026 - 2031
Functional Area : Sanitary Sewer
Type of CIP Unappropriated Subsequent Years
Year 1
FY 2026-27
Year 2
FY 2027-28
Year 3
FY 2028-29
Year 4
FY 2029-30
Year 5
FY 2030-31

Page 61 of 96 ends

Project Origin : Priority Score : Medium - Phased
Budget
New Expansion
X Replacement Renovation
Land/Row Acq. Required
Rehabilitation
$ 1,000,000.00 $ 4,350,000 $ 1,950,000 $ - $ - $ 7,300,000 6/30/2029
Budget Project Estimate
FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 FY 2028-29 FY 2029-30 FY 2030-31 FY 2026 - 2031 $ 70,000 $ 70,000
$ 380,000 $ 380,000
$ 550,000 $ 4,000,000 $ 1,800,000 $ 6,350,000
$ 350,000 $ 150,000 $ 500,000
$ 1,000,000 $ 4,350,000 $ 1,950,000 $ - $ - $ 7,300,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 4,350,000 $ 1,950,000 $ 7,300,000
$ 1,000,000 $ 4,350,000 $ 1,950,000 $ - $ - $ 7,300,000 SS1702 - SEWER PUMP STATION REHABILITATION
End of Life Cycle

TOTAL FUNDS

TOTAL USES

SOURCE(S)
500 - Sewer Enterprise Fund
Summary of Capital Cost
Projected Budget
USE(S)
Planning
Design
Construction
Contingency
Policy GM.4.1, Goal CS.6, Policy CS.6.1
Estimated
Expenditures
to-date
$ -
Project Start 7/1/2026 Estimated Completion
Description
The City owns and operates two lift stations to convey flow from low lying areas to high elevations where the flow continues by gravity to the wastewater treatment plant. Both pump stations have reached the end of their useful life and need to be rehabilitated. The two pump stations are located on San Pablo Ave. and Hazel St. In FY 2019/20, this project was renamed to include both pump stations. Previously, this project was titled, “Hazel Street Sewer Pump Rehabilitation.” This project also includes the San Pablo Lift Station Force Main, approximately 640 feet of existing 6- inch will be replaced with 8-inch diameter force main.

History, Status, or Impact if Delayed
The City recently completed a Sanitary Sewer Master Plan. In the first fiscal year of construction, the Hazel Street Lift Station will be replaced, followed by the replacement of the San Pablo Ave. Lift Station. The Hazel Street Lift Station will be replaced in coordination with RO2301.

Page 62 of 96 ends

Project Origin : Priority Score : High - Annual
Budget
X New Expansion
Replacement Renovation
Land/Row Acq. Required
X Rehabilitation
$ 120,000 $ 120,000 $ 100,000 $ 90,000 $ 70,000 $ 600,000 6/30/2031
Budget Project Estimate
FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 FY 2028-29 FY 2029-30 FY 2030-31 FY 2026 - 2031 $ 20,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 8,000 $ 58,000
$ 90,000 $ 100,000 $ 80,000 $ 70,000 $ 55,000 $ 395,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 7,000 $ 47,000
$ 120,000 $ 120,000 $ 100,000 $ 90,000 $ 70,000 $ 500,000 $ 120,000 $ 120,000 $ 100,000 $ 90,000 $ 70,000 $ 500,000 $ 120,000 $ 120,000 $ 100,000 $ 90,000 $ 70,000 $ 500,000 SW2501 - STORMWATER UPGRADE & TRASH CAPTURE
Functional Area :

Type of CIP Unappropriated Subsequent Years
Description
Year 1
FY 2026-27
Year 2
FY 2027-28
Year 3
FY 2028-29
Year 4
FY 2029-30
Year 5
FY 2030-31
Project Estimate
FY 2026 - 2031
Estimated
Expenditures
To-Date
$ 100,000.00
Project Start 7/1/2025 Estimated Completion
Design
On April 7, 2015, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) adopted the Statewide Trash Provisions which address the impacts trash has on the beneficial uses of surface waters. The Trash Provisions establish a statewide water quality objective for trash and a prohibition of trash discharge. The City is required to demonstrate full compliance with the Trash Provisions by 2030, with preliminary milestones of 35% by 2026 and 70% by 2028. The City will complete this project as required under the State- Issued Trash Amendments and NPDES Permit. The tasks necessary to achieve compliance will include design, installation, and long-term maintenance of full trash capture devices. With the assistance of consulting services, before and after analysis and corrections to the stormwater map took place, and the City is now at almost 100% compliance. Additional improvements are being pursued to achieve regional credits, and grant funds is also being pursued to assist with the project costs.

History, Status, or Impact if Delayed
This project is needed to meet requirements or be potentially subjected to penalties.

General Plan Goals/Policies
Goal CS.7, Policy CS.7.1; Goals OS.1, Policy OS.1.2; Goal CC.2, Policy CC.2.2 Summary of Capital Cost
Projected Budget
USE(S)
Planning

TOTAL FUNDS
Construction
Contingency

TOTAL USES

SOURCE(S)
207 - NPDES Stormwater

Page 63 of 96 ends

Project Origin : Priority Score : High - Phased
Budget
New Expansion
X Replacement Renovation
Land/Row Acq. Required
X Rehabilitation
$ 150,000.00 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000.00 $ 150,000.00 $ 850,000 6/30/2031
Budget Project Estimate
FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 FY 2028-29 FY 2029-30 FY 2030-31 FY 2026 - 2031 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 100,000
$ 120,000 $ 120,000 $ 120,000 $ 120,000 $ 120,000 $ 600,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 50,000
$ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 750,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 750,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 750,000 SW2401 - STORM DRAIN CREEK DISCHARGE & SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS End of Life Cycle
USE(S)
Planning
Summary of Capital Cost
Projected Budget
Goal CS.7, Policy CS.7.1; Goals OS.1, Policy OS.1.2; Goal CC.2, Policy CC.2.2 Estimated
Expenditures
to-date
$ 100,000.00
Project Start 7/1/2025 Estimated Completion
Description
Improvements implemented in FY 2025/26 include replacement of the Delores Court stormwater pipeline, with remaining funds to be utilized in FY 2026/27. The condition assessments have identified a number of storm drain pipelines that are structurally deteriorated and failing where they discharge into Pinole Creek. A systematic rehabilitation or replacement of failing storm drain infrastructure will be prioritized as part of the Storm Drain Master Plan.

History, Status, or Impact if Delayed
Design

TOTAL FUNDS

TOTAL USES
Construction
Contingency

SOURCE(S)
106 - Measure S 2014
General Plan Goals/Policies
Delays in upgrades increased maintenance costs in past years and community impacts by flooding.

Project Estimate
FY 2026 - 2031
Functional Area : Stormwater
Type of CIP Unappropriated Subsequent Years
Year 1
FY 2026-27
Year 2
FY 2027-28
Year 3
FY 2028-29
Year 4
FY 2029-30
Year 5
FY 2030-31

Page 64 of 96 ends

Project Origin : Priority Score : Ongoing Design High
Budget
New X Expansion
Replacement Renovation
Land/Row Acq. Required
Rehabilitation
$ - $ 1,200,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 1,450,000
6/30/2028
Budget Project Estimate
FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 FY 2028-29 FY 2029-30 FY 2030-31 FY 2026 - 2031 $ 1,100,000 $ 1,100,000
$ 100,000 $ 100,000
$ - $ 1,200,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 1,200,000
$ 1,200,000 $ 1,200,000
$ - $ 1,200,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 1,200,000
SW2001 - ROBLE ROAD STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
Staff Recommendation

TOTAL FUNDS

TOTAL USES

SOURCE(S)
Unfunded
Summary of Capital Cost
Projected Budget
USE(S)
Planning
Design
Construction
Contingency
Policy GM.4.1, Goal CS.7, Policy CS.7.1
Estimated
Expenditures
to-date
$ 250,000.00
Project Start 7/1/2025 Estimated Completion
Description
The existing system appears to have capacity issues at Roble Ave. and Encina Ave. that warrant review and upgrade.

This project will assess the collection system for capacity and hydraulic profile and upgrade the system as necessary.

Funding in the amount of $250,000 was reallocated from another project in FY 2025/26 in order to fund the planning, envrionemntal review, design, and construction cost estimates of the Roble Road Storm Drainage Improvements.

Staff will seek grant funds to pursue project construction in FY 2027/28.

History, Status, or Impact if Delayed
Delayed upgrades impacts increases maintenance costs.

General Plan Goals/Policies
Project Estimate
FY 2026 - 2031
Functional Area : Stormwater
Type of CIP Unappropriated Subsequent Years
Year 1
FY 2026-27
Year 2
FY 2027-28
Year 3
FY 2028-29
Year 4
FY 2029-30
Year 5
FY 2030-31

Page 65 of 96 ends

Project Origin : Priority Score : High
Budget
X New Expansion
Replacement Renovation
Land/Row Acq. Required
Rehabilitation
$ 250,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 250,000
6/30/2027
Budget Project Estimate
FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 FY 2028-29 FY 2029-30 FY 2030-31 FY 2026 - 2031 $ 40,000 $ 40,000
$ 210,000 $ 210,000
$ 250,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 250,000
$ 250,000 $ 250,000
TOTAL FUNDS $ 250,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 250,000
Construction
Contingency

TOTAL USES

SOURCE(S)
325 - Grant: TDA Article 3
Design
This project will implement the following traffic operational and safety improvements: (1) Add a crosswalk across San Pablo Avenue at Fifth Avenue with associated ADA compliant curb ramps, equipped with a regulatory High-Intensity Activated CrosswalK (HAWK) signal; (2) Add a Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) at the existing crossing across San Pablo Avenue at Madrone Avenue; (3) Construct necessary widening of sidewalks to allow installation of accessible curb ramps and new poles of the HAWK and RRFB devices; (4) Construct necessary median improvements to improve crossings safety and allow installation of traffic control devices; and, (5) Improve signage and pavement markings on San Pablo Avenue between Third Avenue and Adams Court to enhance safety conditions. Local match to this grant will be funded by other projects.

History, Status, or Impact if Delayed
This project aims to improve safety conditions on San Pablo Avenue, including crossings safety by community members including seniors at Fifth Avenue.

General Plan Goals/Policies
Goal CE.4, Policy GM.3.3, Policy GM.3.7
Summary of Capital Cost
Projected Budget
USE(S)
Planning
Description
Year 1
FY 2026-27
Year 2
FY 2027-28
Year 3
FY 2028-29
Year 4
FY 2029-30
Year 5
FY 2030-31
Project Estimate
FY 2026 - 2031
Estimated
Expenditures
To-Date
$ -
Project Start 7/1/2026 Estimated Completion
RO2601 - TRAFFIC CONTROL AND SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS ON SAN PABLO AVENUE Functional Area :

Type of CIP Unappropriated Subsequent Years

Page 66 of 96 ends

Project Origin : Priority Score : High
Budget
X New Expansion
Replacement Renovation
Land/Row Acq. Required
Rehabilitation
$ 350,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 350,000
6/30/2027
Budget Project Estimate
FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 FY 2028-29 FY 2029-30 FY 2030-31 FY 2026 - 2031 $ 350,000 $ 350,000
$ 350,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 350,000
$ 350,000 $ 350,000
TOTAL FUNDS $ 350,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 350,000
Construction
Contingency

TOTAL USES

SOURCE(S)
325 - City Street Improvements
Design
This is to update the City of Pinole 2004 ADA Transition Plan for Public Improvements. A number of updates to the guidelines and standards for the construction of new and the upgrading of existing public improvements have been issued by a number of federal and state agencies since 2004, thereby resulting in the need for updating the City's Plan. It should also be noted that locations of deficiencies and associated cost of improvements as described in the Transition Plan are outdated.

History, Status, or Impact if Delayed
Staff has been implementing public improvements based on the most up-to-date federal and state standards plans and specifications, which is somtimes inconsistent with the City's Transition Plan.

General Plan Goals/Policies
Goal CE.4, Policy GM.3.3, Policy GM.3.7
Summary of Capital Cost
Projected Budget
USE(S)
Planning
Description
Year 1
FY 2026-27
Year 2
FY 2027-28
Year 3
FY 2028-29
Year 4
FY 2029-30
Year 5
FY 2030-31
Project Estimate
FY 2026 - 2031
Estimated
Expenditures
To-Date
$ -
Project Start 7/1/2025 Estimated Completion
RO2507 - ADA TRANSITION PLAN UPDATE
Functional Area :

Type of CIP Unappropriated Subsequent Years

Page 67 of 96 ends

Project Origin : Priority Score : High for FY 26/27
Budget
X New Expansion
Replacement Renovation
Land/Row Acq. Required
Rehabilitation
$ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 850,000 6/30/2031
Budget Project Estimate
FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 FY 2028-29 FY 2029-30 FY 2030-31 FY 2026 - 2031 $ 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
$ 200,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 650,000
$ 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 2026-27
Year 2
FY 2027-28
Year 3
FY 2028-29
Year 4
FY 2029-30
Year 5
FY 2030-31
Project Estimate
FY 2026 - 2031
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. Funding for FY 2025/26 was combined with the Pavement Rehabilitation Project for relevant traffic calming improvements.

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
Unfunded

Page 68 of 96 ends

Project Origin : Priority Score : High for FY 26/27
Budget
X New Expansion
Replacement Renovation
Land/Row Acq. Required
Rehabilitation
$ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 50,000 $ 450,000 6/30/2031
Budget Project Estimate
FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 FY 2028-29 FY 2029-30 FY 2030-31 FY 2026 - 2031 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 40,000
$ 80,000 $ 80,000 $ 80,000 $ 80,000 $ 50,000 $ 370,000
$ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 40,000
$ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 50,000 $ 450,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000
$ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 50,000 $ 350,000
$ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 50,000 $ 450,000 RO2505 - SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOLS
Functional Area :

Type of CIP Unappropriated Subsequent Years
Description
Year 1
FY 2026-27
Year 2
FY 2027-28
Year 3
FY 2028-29
Year 4
FY 2029-30
Year 5
FY 2030-31
Project Estimate
FY 2026 - 2031
Estimated
Expenditures
To-Date
$ -
Project Start 7/1/2025 Estimated Completion
Design
The purpose of this annual Safe Routes to School (SR2S) project is to provide minor capital improvements to enhance the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists on public roads in school areas. In coordination with the City’s TAPS and the School District, staff will address safety concerns and develop strategies to encourage the use of alternative modes of transportation in the vicinity of schools. SR2S improvements may include enhancements to pavement markings, regulatory and advisory signs, installation of traffic control devices such as Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB), and minor concrete improvements.

History, Status, or Impact if Delayed
Addressing community concerns in a timely manner, thereby enhancing the sense of safety and increasing walking and cycling.

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
Unfunded

Page 69 of 96 ends

Project Origin : Priority Score : High - Phased
Budget
New Expansion
Replacement X Renovation
Land/Row Acq. Required
Rehabilitation
$ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 500,000 6/30/2031
Budget Project Estimate
FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 FY 2028-29 FY 2029-30 FY 2030-31 FY 2026 - 2031 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 500,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 500,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 500,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 500,000 RO2504 - PAVEMENT MARKING AND SIGNAGE UPGRADES
Functional Area :

Type of CIP Unappropriated Subsequent Years
Description
Year 1
FY 2026-27
Year 2
FY 2027-28
Year 3
FY 2028-29
Year 4
FY 2029-30
Year 5
FY 2030-31
Project Estimate
FY 2026 - 2031
Estimated
Expenditures
To-Date
$ -
Project Start 7/1/2025 Estimated Completion
Design
Per the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), local governments are required to maintain a minimum level of retro-reflectivity for longitudinal pavement markings and for signs. These standards promote safety while providing sufficient flexibility for agencies to choose a maintenance method that best matches their specific conditions. The purpose of this annual project is to upgrade and refresh existing pavement markings and replace damaged signs as needed throughout the City per the requirements set forth by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). It is recommended that this type of project be continued on an annual basis because the retro-reflectivity of pavement markings and signage degrade over time and can pose a safety hazard for road users.

FY 2025/26 funds was combined with the Pavement Rehabilitation Project to fund relevant improvements.

History, Status, or Impact if Delayed
Not meeting requirements and potential increase in maintenance and replacement costs.

General Plan Goals/Policies
Goal CE.3, Policy CE.3.2; Policy GM.3.3, Goal CS.10, Policy CS 10.2; Goal CE.7; Goal SE.8, Policy SE.8.7 Summary of Capital Cost
Projected Budget
USE(S)
Planning

TOTAL FUNDS
Construction
Contingency

TOTAL USES

SOURCE(S)
325 - City Street Improvements

Page 70 of 96 ends

Project Origin : Priority Score : Medium
Budget
New Expansion
Replacement X Renovation
Land/Row Acq. Required
Rehabilitation
$ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 1,100,000 6/30/2031
Budget Project Estimate
FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 FY 2028-29 FY 2029-30 FY 2030-31 FY 2026 - 2031 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 50,000
$ 220,000 $ 220,000 $ 180,000 $ 180,000 $ 180,000 $ 980,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 70,000
$ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 1,100,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 500,000
$ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 600,000
$ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 1,100,000 RO2503 - CITY STREETLIGHTS UPGRADE
Functional Area :

Type of CIP Unappropriated Subsequent Years
Description
Year 1
FY 2026-27
Year 2
FY 2027-28
Year 3
FY 2028-29
Year 4
FY 2029-30
Year 5
FY 2030-31
Project Estimate
FY 2026 - 2031
Estimated
Expenditures
To-Date
Project Start 7/1/2025 Estimated Completion
Design
This annual project will implement upgrades to City owned streetlights (currently within Pinole 523 streetlights owned by the City, and 902 streetlights owned by PG&E) and install new streetlights in areas where the streetlights do not meet standards for spacing and illumination. Adequate neighborhood street lighting improves safety by improving nighttime visibility and provides sidewalk and road users with an increased sense of security. Street lighting can also provide a sense of place and a more pleasing environment in residential and commercial areas, such as the addition of string lighting on San Pablo Avenue City’s downtown area.

History, Status, or Impact if Delayed
Adverse impacts on sense of safety and security, and increased City costs for maintenance and replacement.

General Plan Goals/Policies
Goal CS.1, Goal CS.2, Goal CS.10. Policy CS10.2
Summary of Capital Cost
Projected Budget
USE(S)
Planning

TOTAL FUNDS
Construction
Contingency

TOTAL USES

SOURCE(S)
377 - Arterial Streets Rehabilitation
Unfunded

Page 71 of 96 ends

Project Origin : Priority Score : High - Phased
Budget
New Expansion
Replacement X Renovation
Land/Row Acq. Required
Rehabilitation
$ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 1,078,000 6/30/2031
Budget Project Estimate
FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 FY 2028-29 FY 2029-30 FY 2030-31 FY 2026 - 2031 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 80,000
$ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 120,000 $ 120,000 $ 690,000 $ 30,000 $ 30,000 $ 30,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 130,000
$ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 900,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 400,000
$ 200,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 500,000
$ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 900,000 RO2502 - PINOLE SIGNALS UPGRADE
Functional Area :

Having consistent signal equipment at all City signalized intersections will save on maintenance costs and provide the best operational efficiency and safety for our residents. Key improvements will be made in coordination with the City’s Traffic and Pedestrian Safety Commission (TAPS). This annual program is not intended to design and construct new signals due to the high costs associated with a new installation. New signal installation will typically be accompanied by a new development as a project mitigation, or as an individual City CIP subject to meeting signal warrants. FY 2025/26 funds was dedicated to the installation of ADA compliant pedestrian push buttons at 18 traffic signals with the remaining fund to be used in FY 2026/27.

History, Status, or Impact if Delayed
Delayed upgrades increase the cost of maintenance and cost of capital improvements.

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)
377 - Arterial Streets Rehabilitation
215 - Measure J

Page 72 of 96 ends

Project Origin : Priority Score : High - Annual
Budget
New Expansion
Replacement Renovation
Land/Row Acq. Required
X Rehabilitation
$ 150,000.00 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000.00 $ 150,000.00 $ 750,000 6/30/2031
Budget Project Estimate
FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 FY 2028-29 FY 2029-30 FY 2030-31 FY 2026 - 2031 $ 135,000 $ 135,000 $ 135,000 $ 135,000 $ 135,000 $ 675,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ 75,000
$ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 750,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 300,000
$ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 450,000
$ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 750,000 RO2501 - ACCESSIBILITY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
Functional Area : Streets & Roads Staff Recommendation
Type of CIP Unappropriated Subsequent Years
Description
Year 1
FY 2026-27
Year 2
FY 2027-28
Year 3
FY 2028-29
Year 4
FY 2029-30
Year 5
FY 2030-31
Project Estimate
FY 2026 - 2031
Estimated
Expenditures
to-date
Project Start 7/1/2025 Estimated Completion
Design
Title II of the Americans with Disability Act (ADA) requires local governments to make pedestrian crossings accessible to people with disabilities by providing curb ramps. To allow people with disabilities to cross streets safely, local governments must provide curb ramps at pedestrian crossings and at public transportation stops where walkways intersect with a vertical curb. To comply with ADA requirements, the curb ramps provided must meet specific standards for width, slope, cross slope, placement, and other features. Per ADA standards, all streets constructed after January 26, 1992 must provide curb ramps in compliance with ADA standards. In addition, any street that was constructed prior to 1992, but was altered after 1992, must also provide ADA-compliant curb ramps. The purpose of this project is to upgrade existing pedestrian curb ramps and to install new pedestrian curb ramps at high priority areas and locations with high levels of pedestrian activity. Some of the FY 2025/26 funds were combined with the Pavement Rehabilitation Project for implementation of ADA compliant curb ramps.

History, Status, or Impact if Delayed
Following ADA compliance is a requirement. Delays in pursuing these improvements could adversely impact the community's accessibility and safety needs, and potentially subject the City to liabilities.

General Plan Goals/Policies
Goal CE.4, Policy CE.4.5; Goal SE.8, Policy SE.8.7; Goal CE.1, Policy CE.1.4; Goal CE.3, Policy CE.3.2; Goal CS.2, Policy CS.2.6; Goal CS.10, Policy CS 10.2; Goal H.3, Policy H.3.1; Goal GM.3, Policy GM.3.7; Goal HS.6, Policy HS.6.1
Summary of Capital Cost
Projected Budget
USE(S)
Planning

TOTAL FUNDS
Construction
Contingency

TOTAL USES

SOURCE(S)
325 - City Street Improvements
215 - Measure J

Page 73 of 96 ends

Project Origin : Priority Score : Medium
Budget
X New Expansion
Replacement Renovation
Land/Row Acq. Required
Rehabilitation
$ - $ 50,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 50,000
6/30/2028
Budget Project Estimate
FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 FY 2028-29 FY 2029-30 FY 2030-31 FY 2026 - 2031 $ 5,000 $ 5,000
$ 45,000 $ 45,000
$ - $ 50,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 50,000
$ 50,000 $ 50,000
$ - $ 50,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 50,000
RO2404 - CROSSWALK TENNENT AVE AT PRUNE ST
Functional Area : Streets & Roads Council Request
Type of CIP Unappropriated Subsequent Years
Description
Year 1
FY 2026-27
Year 2
FY 2027-28
Year 3
FY 2028-29
Year 4
FY 2029-30
Year 5
FY 2030-31
Project Estimate
FY 2026 - 2031
Estimated
Expenditures
To-Date
$ -
Project Start 7/1/2026 Estimated Completion
Design
Assessment of the intersections control and establishment of crosswalks (high visibility) at the intersections of Tennent Avenue at Prune Street. This assessment is planned to be performed by staff in FY 2026/27 with construction/implementation planned for FY 2027/28.

History, Status, or Impact if Delayed
General Plan Goals/Policies
Goal CS.10, Policy CS.10.2; Goal SE.8, Policy SE.8.8; Goal HS.6, Policy HS.6.1; Goal CE.4; Goal CS.2, Policy CS.2.6 Summary of Capital Cost
Projected Budget
USE(S)
Planning

TOTAL FUNDS
Construction
Contingency

TOTAL USES

SOURCE(S)
106 - Measure S 2014

Page 74 of 96 ends

Project Origin : Priority Score : Medium
Budget
X New Expansion
Replacement Renovation
Land/Row Acq. Required
Rehabilitation
$ 100,000 $ 200,000 $ 900,000 $ - $ - $ 1,200,000
6/30/2029
Budget Project Estimate
FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 FY 2028-29 FY 2029-30 FY 2030-31 FY 2026 - 2031 $ 10,000 $ 50,000 $ 200,000 $ 260,000
$ 90,000 $ 150,000 $ 700,000 $ 940,000
$ 100,000 $ 200,000 $ 900,000 $ - $ - $ 1,200,000
$ 100,000 $ 100,000
$ 200,000 $ 900,000 $ 1,100,000
$ 100,000 $ 200,000 $ 900,000 $ - $ - $ 1,200,000
RO2403 - OLD TOWN TRAFFIC CALMING
Functional Area : Streets & Roads Council Request
Type of CIP Unappropriated Subsequent Years
Description
Year 1
FY 2026-27
Year 2
FY 2027-28
Year 3
FY 2028-29
Year 4
FY 2029-30
Year 5
FY 2030-31
Project Estimate
FY 2026 - 2031
Estimated
Expenditures
To-Date
$ -
Project Start 7/1/2026 Estimated Completion
Design
ADA compliant curb ramps were implemented in the Downtown area in FY 2025/26. Minor improvements are planned in FY 2026/27 such as street furniture, string lighting, and other measures to improve the road enviroment for users. Additional more significant improvements will be implemented in future years especially following constriction of the San Pablo Avenue Bridge Replacement Project. Such improvements will include traffic calming devices, bicycle facilities, improved pedestrian facilities, improved lighting, etc. San Pablo Avenue is an important regional corridor, and staff will pursue grant funds to design and implement future improvements.

History, Status, or Impact if Delayed
This project will implement improvements in Old Town gradually given the significant upgrades needed.

General Plan Goals/Policies
Goal GM.2, Policy GM.3.3, Policy GM.3.7; Goal SE.8, Policy SE.8.7; Goal CE.1, Policy CE.1.4; Goal CE.3, Policy CE.3.2; Goal CE.4, Policy CE.4.5; Goal CE.5; 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
Unfunded

Page 75 of 96 ends

Project Origin : Priority Score : High - Annual
Budget
New Expansion
Replacement Renovation
Land/Row Acq. Required
X Rehabilitation
$ 200,000.00 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000.00 $ 200,000.00 $ 1,000,000 6/30/2031
Budget Project Estimate
FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 FY 2028-29 FY 2029-30 FY 2030-31 FY 2026 - 2031 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 25,000
$ 180,000 $ 180,000 $ 180,000 $ 180,000 $ 180,000 $ 900,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ 75,000
$ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 400,000
$ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 600,000
$ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 1,000,000 RO2402 - SIDEWALK REHABILITATION PROGRAM
Staff Recommendation
USE(S)
Planning
7/1/2025 Estimated Completion
Description
According to the California Streets and Highway Code, the owner of a property fronting a public street must maintain the sidewalk, curb and gutter, and park strip area in a condition that will not endanger persons or property or interfere with the convenient use of the area. Purpose of this annual program is to assist property owners in maintaining the sidewalks in a safe manner. In doing so, the program assists residents in maintaining the condition of walkways for which they have maintenance responsibility.

History, Status, or Impact if Delayed
General Plan Goals/Policies
Summary of Capital Cost
Projected Budget
Design
Construction
Project Estimate
FY 2026 - 2031
Functional Area : Streets & Roads
Type of CIP Unappropriated Subsequent Years
Year 1
FY 2026-27
Year 2
FY 2027-28
Year 3
FY 2028-29
Year 4
FY 2029-30
Year 5
FY 2030-31
Goal CE.4, Policy CE.4.5; Goal SE.8, Policy SE.8.7; Goal CE.1, Policy CE.1.4; Goal CE.3, Policy CE.3.2; Goal CS.2, Policy CS.2.6; Goal CS.10, Policy CS 10.2; Goal H.3, Policy H.3.1; Goal GM.3, Policy GM.3.7; Goal HS.6, Policy HS.6.1
Estimated
Expenditures
to-date
Project Start

TOTAL FUNDS

TOTAL USES
Contingency

SOURCE(S)
325 - City Street Improvements
215 - Measure J

Page 76 of 96 ends

Project Origin : Priority Score : High - Annual
Budget
New Expansion
Replacement Renovation
Land/Row Acq. Required
X Rehabilitation
$ 350,000.00 $ 350,000 $ 350,000 $ 350,000.00 $ 100,000.00 $ 1,600,000 6/30/2031
Budget Project Estimate
FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 FY 2028-29 FY 2029-30 FY 2030-31 FY 2026 - 2031 $ -
$ 320,000 $ 320,000 $ 320,000 $ 320,000 $ 100,000 $ 1,380,000 $ 30,000 $ 30,000 $ 30,000 $ 30,000 $ 120,000
$ 350,000 $ 350,000 $ 350,000 $ 350,000 $ 100,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 350,000 $ 350,000 $ 350,000 $ 350,000 $ 100,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 350,000 $ 350,000 $ 350,000 $ 350,000 $ 100,000 $ 1,500,000 RO2401 - ROAD MAINTENANCE REPAIRS
Staff Recommendation
USE(S)
Planning
Summary of Capital Cost
Projected Budget
Estimated
Expenditures
to-date
$ 100,000.00
Project Start 7/1/2025 Estimated Completion
Description
The City was devided into five zones to allow for a proactive approach in maintaining the roads including potholing, repair of street lights, replacement of faded and missing signs, enhancement of pavement markings, etc. It should be noted that these improvements are in addition to the citywide maintenance activities in response to public requests.

It should also be noted that $250,000 of the FY 2025/26 funds had to be reassigned to the Roble Road Stormwater Improvements Project to ensure continuation of the project's environmental review and design.

History, Status, or Impact if Delayed
Design

TOTAL FUNDS

TOTAL USES
Construction
Contingency

SOURCE(S)
105 - Measure S 2006
General Plan Goals/Policies
Goal CE.3, Policy CE.3.2; Policy GM.3.3, Goal CS.10, Policy CS 10.2; Goal CE.7; Goal SE.8, Policy SE.8.7 Project Estimate
FY 2026 - 2031
Functional Area : Streets & Roads
Type of CIP Unappropriated Subsequent Years
Year 1
FY 2026-27
Year 2
FY 2027-28
Year 3
FY 2028-29
Year 4
FY 2029-30
Year 5
FY 2030-31

Page 77 of 96 ends

Project Origin : Priority Score : High - Ongoing
Budget
X New Expansion
Replacement Renovation
Land/Row Acq. Required
Rehabilitation
$ 100,000.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 100,000
6/30/2027
Budget Project Estimate
FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 FY 2028-29 FY 2029-30 FY 2030-31 FY 2026 - 2031 $ 100,000 $ 100,000
$ 100,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 100,000
$ 100,000 $ 100,000
$ 100,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 100,000
RO2303 - PINOLE SMART SIGNALS
Staff Recommendation

TOTAL USES

TOTAL FUNDS

SOURCE(S)
276 - Growth Impact Fees
Summary of Capital Cost
Projected Budget
USE(S)
Planning
Design
Construction
Contingency
Goal CS.10, Policy CS 10.2
Estimated
Expenditures
to-date
$ -
Project Start 7/1/2026 Estimated Completion
Description
The Smart Signals project will develop, manage, and implement ITS initiatives that improve the safety and efficiency of multimodal mobility, maximize highway and arterial system throughput, and improve operational efficiency, safety, and reduce environmental impact throughout Contra Costa County. Contra Costa Tranportation Authority is the project lead and will coordinate the project throughout the county. Twelve traffic signals have been identified as candidates for the Smart Signals project. These signals are located on Pinole arterial roadways (Appian Way & San Pablo Avenue).

History, Status, or Impact if Delayed
Deployment of the Smart Signals Project is expected to result in operational and safety improvements for all modes of transportation, such as decrease in travel time and total delay, reduction in number of stops and secondary accidents, reduction of fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, and reduction of response time for emergency vehicles. The initial cost estimate of construction is $1,499,829 of which CCTA will receive $1,345,527 in OBAG funds. The City's match requirement of $154,302 was paid in FY 2023/24. The additional match/contingency of $100,000 is programmed to secure the upcoming implementation of improvements that will soon commence sequencially in the various cities and in unincorporated county areas.

General Plan Goals/Policies
Project Estimate
FY 2026 - 2031
Functional Area : Streets & Roads
Type of CIP Unappropriated Subsequent Years
Year 1
FY 2026-27
Year 2
FY 2027-28
Year 3
FY 2028-29
Year 4
FY 2029-30
Year 5
FY 2030-31

Page 78 of 96 ends

Project Origin : Priority Score : High - Ongoing
Budget
X New Expansion
Replacement Renovation
Land/Row Acq. Required
Rehabilitation
$ 439,040.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 439,040
6/30/2027
Budget Project Estimate
FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 FY 2028-29 FY 2029-30 FY 2030-31 FY 2026 - 2031 $ 30,000 $ 30,000
$ 380,000 $ 380,000
$ 29,040 $ 29,040
$ 439,040 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 439,040
$ 239,040 $ 239,040
$ 200,000 $ 200,000
$ 439,040 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 439,040
RO2302 - SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS ON ARTERIAL ROADWAYS
Staff Recommendation
Planning
Contingency

TOTAL FUNDS

TOTAL USES
Construction
Design

SOURCE(S)
215 - Grant: HSIP
377 - Arterial Streets Rehabilitation
Summary of Capital Cost
Projected Budget
USE(S)
Policy GM.3.3, Goal CE.3, Goal CS.10, Policy CS 10.2
Estimated
Expenditures
to-date
$ -
Project Start 7/1/2025 Estimated Completion
Description
This project will install pedestrian crossing enhancements at three crossings on arterial roadways. The enhancements include continental crosswalk markings, median refuge islands, advanced stop bars and Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons (RRFB). The three crossings are: San Pablo Avenue at Third Avenue; San Pablo Avenue at Quinan Street; and Pinole Valley Road at Savage Avenue. 90% design plans have been produced and currently coordinating with Caltrans prior to initiating the Request for Bids for project construction.

History, Status, or Impact if Delayed
Some of the project funding for improvements was secured through Cycle 11 HSIP grant funds.

Page 79 of 96 ends

Project Origin : Priority Score : High - Annual
Budget
New Expansion
Replacement Renovation
Land/Row Acq. Required
X Rehabilitation
$ 3,357,088.00 $ 1,550,000 $ 1,550,000 $ 1,550,000.00 $ 1,550,000.00 $ 9,557,088 6/30/2031
Budget Project Estimate
FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 FY 2028-29 FY 2029-30 FY 2030-31 FY 2026 - 2031 $ 107,088 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 307,088 $ 2,900,000 $ 1,350,000 $ 1,350,000 $ 1,350,000 $ 1,350,000 $ 8,300,000 $ 350,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 950,000 $ 3,357,088 $ 1,550,000 $ 1,550,000 $ 1,550,000 $ 1,550,000 $ 9,557,088 $ 1,250,000 $ 450,000 $ 450,000 $ 450,000 $ 450,000 $ 3,050,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 1,100,000 $ 1,100,000 $ 1,100,000 $ 1,100,000 $ 6,400,000 $ 60,000 $ 60,000
$ 47,088 $ 47,088
$ 3,357,088 $ 1,550,000 $ 1,550,000 $ 1,550,000 $ 1,550,000 $ 9,557,088 RO2301 - ROAD REHABILITATION
Pavement Management Program
USE(S)
Planning
Estimated Completion
Description
Based on the most current P-TAP report and field inspections, various segments will be recommended annually for rehabilitation. The purpose of this annual program is to rehabilitate and maintain the City’s pavement condition. This project will prolong the lifespan of the current pavement and prevent further deterioration and reduction in the Pavement Condition Index (PCI – a numerical rating system from 0/complete failure to 100/excellent condition).

Depending on the assessed PCI and type of deficiencies, this project will include preventive measures such as crack sealing, slurry seal, micro-surfacing, and cape seal for pavement in fair to good condition. Restoration measures such as grind and overlay, dig-outs, and cold-in-place recycling for pavement in fair to poor condition.

Rehabilitation/Reconstruction measures to remove and replace pavement in poor to failed condition.

History, Status, or Impact if Delayed
Continued deterioration of pavement conditions on the various road types, thereby resulting in higher maintenance and reconstruction costs. It should be noted that the total budget for FY 2025/26-FY2026/27 is $3,150,000 given the additional supplemntal funds under the signaning and striping project, traffic calming project and others. For future fiscal years, the preliminary assumption is to use Gas Tax and Measure J funds until additional fund is secured such as the Vehicle Impact Fees.

General Plan Goals/Policies
Summary of Capital Cost
Projected Budget
Design
Project Estimate
FY 2026 - 2031
Functional Area : Streets & Roads
Type of CIP Unappropriated Subsequent Years
Year 1
FY 2026-27
Year 2
FY 2027-28
Year 3
FY 2028-29
Year 4
FY 2029-30
Year 5
FY 2030-31
Policy GM.3.3, Goal CE.3, Goal CS.10, Policy CS 10.2
Estimated
Expenditures
to-date
$ -
Project Start 7/1/2025

TOTAL FUNDS

TOTAL USES
Construction
Contingency

SOURCE(S)
215 - Measure J
200 - Gas Tax
325 - Grant: STMP Fees
325 - Calrecycle Grant Fund

Page 80 of 96 ends

Project Origin : Priority Score : Medium
Budget
New Expansion
Replacement Renovation
Land/Row Acq. Required
X Rehabilitation
$ - $ 750,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 787,805
6/30/2028
Budget Project Estimate
FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 FY 2028-29 FY 2029-30 FY 2030-31 FY 2026 - 2031 $ 80,000 $ 80,000
$ 650,000 $ 650,000
$ 20,000 $ 20,000
$ - $ 750,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 750,000
$ 180,000 $ 180,000
$ 570,000 $ 570,000
$ - $ 750,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 750,000
RO2102 - TENNENT AVE REHABILITATION
Pavement Management Program
USE(S)
Planning
Summary of Capital Cost
Projected Budget
Estimated
Expenditures
to-date
$ 37,805.00
Project Start 7/1/2027 Estimated Completion
Description
The construction impacts from the WPCP upgrade project resulted in pavement deterioration. This project will rehabilitate Tennent Avenue from San Pablo Avenue to the WPCP. In February 2021, the City selected a consultant to complete the preliminary engineering for this project.

History, Status, or Impact if Delayed
In preparation of this project, the City retained a consultant to perform internal CCTV on this section of roadway. The inspection was completed in early 2021. Coordinating collection system improvements with street resurfacing projects ensures that sewer improvements are made prior to the resurfacing so that manholes and valve covers may be properly realigned, and repairs and replacements are made in a cost-effective manner. This also avoids cutting and patching recently paved streets. The City of Hercules will reimburse $86,430 for this project. In addition, this project is being coordinated with RO1902 for efficient implementation.

Design

TOTAL FUNDS

TOTAL USES
Construction
Contingency

SOURCE(S)
200 - Gas Tax
500 - Sewer Enterprise Fund
General Plan Goals/Policies
Policy CE.1.4, Policy CS.2.6, Policy CS.3.3, Policy H.3.1, Policy GM.3.3, Goal CE.3, Goal CS.10, Policy CS 10.2 Project Estimate
FY 2026 - 2031
Functional Area : Streets & Roads
Type of CIP Unappropriated Subsequent Years
Year 1
FY 2026-27
Year 2
FY 2027-28
Year 3
FY 2028-29
Year 4
FY 2029-30
Year 5
FY 2030-31

Page 81 of 96 ends

Project Origin : Priority Score : High - Ongoing
Budget
X New Expansion
Replacement Renovation
Land/Row Acq. Required
Rehabilitation
$ 1,345,000.00 $ 1,120,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 2,545,000
6/30/2028
Budget Project Estimate
FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 FY 2028-29 FY 2029-30 FY 2030-31 FY 2026 - 2031 $ 75,000 $ 75,000
$ 1,150,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 2,150,000
$ 120,000 $ 120,000 $ 240,000
$ 1,345,000 $ 1,120,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 2,465,000
$ 745,000 $ 700,000 $ 1,445,000
$ 600,000 $ 420,000 $ 1,020,000
$ 1,345,000 $ 1,120,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 2,465,000
RO1902 - TENNENT AVENUE/BAY TRAIL GAP CLOSSURE CROSSING OF UPRR Staff Recommendation
USE(S)
Planning
Summary of Capital Cost
Projected Budget
Estimated
Expenditures
to-date
$ 80,000.00
Project Start 7/1/2025 Estimated Completion
Description
In 2018, the East Bay Regional Park District completed a trail link to connect Pinole Shores Regional Shoreline to Bayfront Park trail. There remains a small gap on Tennent Ave. from Bayfront Park to Railroad Ave. Improvements to Tennent Ave. at the Railroad Crossing will facilitate safe movement of bicycles and pedestrians. Since project inception, the scope of work has evolved to include improvements that would maximize parking on Railroad Avenue for park users. In February 2021, the City selected a consultant to complete the preliminary engineering for this project.

History, Status, or Impact if Delayed
WCCTAC held its STMP Call for Projects in 2018 which committed $100k in funding for preliminary engineering from the 2006 STMP program for this project. City staff also submitted an OBAG 3 application in July 2022 to compete for funding for this project. If awarded, the City will need a match of $345k.

Design

TOTAL FUNDS

TOTAL USES
Construction
Contingency

SOURCE(S)
325 - Grant: STMP Fees
215 - Grant: OBAG
General Plan Goals/Policies
Policy CE.1.4, Policy CS.2.6, Policy CS.3.3, Policy H.3.1, Policy GM.3.3, Goal CE.3, Goal CS.10, Policy CS 10.2 Project Estimate
FY 2026 - 2031
Functional Area : Streets & Roads
Type of CIP Unappropriated Subsequent Years
Year 1
FY 2026-27
Year 2
FY 2027-28
Year 3
FY 2028-29
Year 4
FY 2029-30
Year 5
FY 2030-31

Page 82 of 96 ends

Project Origin : Priority Score : High - Ongoing
Budget
New Expansion
X Replacement Renovation
Land/Row Acq. Required
Rehabilitation
$ 2,894,000.00 $ 1,340,000 $ 27,518,000 $ - $ - $ 33,232,000 6/30/2029
Budget Project Estimate
FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 FY 2028-29 FY 2029-30 FY 2030-31 FY 2026 - 2031 $ 300,000 $ 200,000 $ 1,150,000 $ 1,650,000
$ 2,394,000 $ 940,000 $ 3,334,000
- $ 25,868,000 $ 25,868,000
$ 200,000 $ 100,000 $ 500,000 $ 800,000
$ 2,894,000 $ 1,240,000 $ 27,518,000 $ - $ - $ 31,652,000 $ 2,394,000 $ 940,000 $ 27,018,000 $ 30,352,000
$ 500,000 $ 400,000 $ 500,000 $ 1,400,000
$ 2,894,000 $ 1,340,000 $ 27,518,000 $ - $ - $ 31,752,000 RO1710 - SAN PABLO AVENUE BRIDGE OVER BNSF RAILROAD
End of Life Cycle

TOTAL FUNDS
325 - Grant: STMP Fees

TOTAL USES
Project Management
Planning & Design & R-O-W
Construction
Contingency

SOURCE(S)
325 - Grant: HBP
Summary of Capital Cost
Projected Budget
USE(S)
Estimated
Expenditures
to-date
$ 1,480,000.00
Project Start 7/1/2020
Policy CE.1.4, Policy CS.2.6, Policy CS.3.3, Policy H.3.1, Policy GM.3.3, Goal CE.3, Goal CS.10, Policy CS 10.2 Estimated Completion
Description
The San Pablo Avenue bridge over the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railroad is an integral part of the area’s transportation network. The age (80 years old) and condition assessment (deficient) of the bridge supports replacement. The City was approved for initial funding from the Caltrans Highway Bridge Program (HBP). In February 2020, the City awarded a contract to a consultant for preliminary engineering (PE) to advance the project. The PE will be completed in two phases due to funding limitations. Completion of preliminary design is necessary to develop a final cost estimate for the project.

History, Status, or Impact if Delayed
General Plan Goals/Policies
Caltrans approved all technical environmental studies with NEPA and CEQA planned for approval by the end of FY 2025/26. Design and right-of-way phase to commence in July of 2026 followed by construction in late 2027-early 2028. Construction is expected to take two years given the need to construct a temporary bridge while the permanent bridge is under construction.

Project Estimate
FY 2026 - 2031
Functional Area : Streets & Roads
Type of CIP Unappropriated Subsequent Years
Year 1
FY 2026-27
Year 2
FY 2027-28
Year 3
FY 2028-29
Year 4
FY 2029-30
Year 5
FY 2030-31

Page 83 of 96 ends

Project Origin : Priority Score : High - Ongoing
Budget
New Expansion
X Replacement Renovation
Land/Row Acq. Required
Rehabilitation
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 25,000
6/30/2027
Budget Project Estimate
FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 FY 2028-29 FY 2029-30 FY 2030-31 FY 2026 - 2031 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
IN2501 - SAN PABLO AVENUE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN GAP CLOSURE Functional Area : Streets & Roads End of Life Cycle
Type of CIP Unappropriated Subsequent Years
Description
Year 1
FY 2026-27
Year 2
FY 2027-28
Year 3
FY 2028-29
Year 4
FY 2029-30
Year 5
FY 2030-31
Project Estimate
FY 2026 - 2031
Estimated
Expenditures
to-date
$ 25,000.00
Project Start 7/1/2025 Estimated Completion
Planning & Design & R-O-W
The Study aims to identify and evaluate enhancements to bicycle and pedestrian improvements along San Pablo Avenue from Richmond Parkway to the Pinole-Hercules city limit. The County will lead the Study and associated reporting to MTC on the RM3 funds to be expended within the set Study budget and schedule. In addition to sharing the local match, the attached Cooperative Agreement, for example, outlines collaboration between the County and the City on developing the Study scope of work, selection of the consultant, and participation in staff; policy and technical meetings. The Study recommendations for improvements within Pinole will be developed based on adopted City policies and priorities, and approval of the recommendations will be within the City Council discretion.

History, Status, or Impact if Delayed
Contra Costa County in coordination with the City of Pinole, submitted an application for Cycle 1 of the RM3 program to fund the San Pablo Avenue Enhanced Bicycle and Pedestrian Gap Closure Study. The Study was one of seven projects selected by MTC for funding with a total project cost of $500,000 including $425,000 of RM3 funds and $75,000 local match. The local match to be shared between the County (share of $50,000) and the City (share of $25,000) as detailed in the Cooperative Agreement approved by the County Board on June 10, 2025 and by the City Council on July 1, 2025.

General Plan Goals/Policies
Policy CE.1.4, Policy CS.2.6, Policy CS.3.3, Policy H.3.1, Policy GM.3.3, Goal CE.3, Goal CS.10, Policy CS 10.2 Summary of Capital Cost
Projected Budget
USE(S)
Project Management

TOTAL FUNDS
Construction
Contingency

TOTAL USES

SOURCE(S)
Grant funded and led by the County

Page 84 of 96 ends

Project Origin : Priority Score : High - Ongoing
Budget
New Expansion
X Replacement Renovation
Land/Row Acq. Required
Rehabilitation
$ 20,000.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 238,000
10/30/2026
Budget Project Estimate
FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 FY 2028-29 FY 2029-30 FY 2030-31 FY 2026 - 2031 $ 20,000 $ 20,000
-
$ 20,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 20,000
$ 20,000 $ 20,000
$ 20,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 20,000
IN2106 - ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Functional Area : Streets & Roads End of Life Cycle
Type of CIP Unappropriated Subsequent Years
Description
Year 1
FY 2026-27
Year 2
FY 2027-28
Year 3
FY 2028-29
Year 4
FY 2029-30
Year 5
FY 2030-31
Project Estimate
FY 2026 - 2031
Estimated
Expenditures
to-date
$ 218,000.00
Project Start 7/1/2021 Estimated Completion
Planning & Design & R-O-W
Development of the City’s Active Transportation Plan (ATP) was first added to the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) in 2021 (Project IN2106). On March 7, 2023, the City Council approved a Consulting Services Agreement between the City and GHD, Inc. for the development of the City’s ATP. The ATP aims to outline strategies and actions that will support and encourage the use of environmentally sustainable modes of travel including walking, cycling, and use of public transit. The consultant’s work scope included a review of policies and plans, data collection and analysis, recommend strategies and capital improvement projects, develop concept improvements that incorporate the community’s feedback, and develop a cost estimate for the recommended projects.

History, Status, or Impact if Delayed
The ATP was approved by the City Council on April 21, 2026. The additional scope and associated cost will fund additional community consultation/community workshop and any potential plan update that may be arise as a result.

General Plan Goals/Policies
Policy CE.1.4, Policy CS.2.6, Policy CS.3.3, Policy H.3.1, 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)
106 - Measure S 2014

Page 85 of 96 ends

Project Origin : Priority Score : High
Budget
New Expansion
Replacement Renovation
Land/Row Acq. Required
Rehabilitation
$ 200,000.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 200,000
6/30/2027
Budget Project Estimate
FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 FY 2028-29 FY 2029-30 FY 2030-31 FY 2026 - 2031 $ 200,000 $ 200,000
$ 200,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 200,000
$ 100,000 $ 100,000
$ 100,000 $ 100,000
$ 200,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 200,000
IN2105 - APPIAN WAY COMPLETE STREETS
Staff Recommendation
Planning
Design
Construction
Summary of Capital Cost
Projected Budget
Policy CE.1.4, Policy CS.2.6, Policy CS.3.3, Policy H.3.1, Policy GM.3.3, Goal CE.3, Goal CS.10, Policy CS 10.2 Estimated
Expenditures
to-date
$ -
Project Start 7/1/2026 Estimated Completion
Description
Completion of preliminary engineering and design to provide continuous sidewalks and bike lanes along Appian Way beginning from unincorporated El Sobrante to about 1500 linear feet north of the City limit within Pinole. In December 2021, City Council approved a Cooperative Funding Agreement with WCCTAC to receive STMP funds to complete preliminary design for this project.

History, Status, or Impact if Delayed
Contingency
USE(S)

TOTAL FUNDS

TOTAL USES

SOURCE(S)
325 - Grant: STMP Fees
377 - Arterial Streets Rehabilitation
This project will connect with the Contra Costa County’s project to provide continuous sidewalks and bike lanes along Appian Way from San Pablo Dam Rd. in unincorporated El Sobrante. This project will involve coordination with Contra Costa County. This is a valuable project, and its planning and design need to proceed not to jeopradise the regional grant fund. The construction phase of this project is currently unfunded and appears in the Unfunded and Unprogrammed list.

General Plan Goals/Policies
Project Estimate
FY 2026 - 2031
Functional Area : Infrastructure Assessment
Type of CIP Unappropriated Subsequent Years
Year 1
FY 2026-27
Year 2
FY 2027-28
Year 3
FY 2028-29
Year 4
FY 2029-30
Year 5
FY 2030-31

Page 86 of 96 ends

Project Origin : Priority Score : High
Budget
New Expansion
Replacement Renovation
Land/Row Acq. Required
Rehabilitation
$ 100,000.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 115,152
6/30/2027
Budget Project Estimate
FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 FY 2028-29 FY 2029-30 FY 2030-31 FY 2026 - 2031 $ 100,000 $ 100,000
$ 100,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 100,000
$ 100,000 $ 100,000
$ 100,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 100,000
IN2103 - RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY
Council Request

TOTAL FUNDS

TOTAL USES
Planning
Design
Construction
Contingency

SOURCE(S)
500 - Sewer Enterprise Fund
Summary of Capital Cost
Projected Budget
USE(S)
Policy OS.8.1, Policy OS.8.7, Goal SE.9, Policy SE.9.1, Policy SE.9.4 Estimated
Expenditures
to-date
$ 15,152.25
Project Start 7/1/2025 Estimated Completion
Description
Updated Recycled Water feasibility study and master plan will allow the City to plan and phase the construction of future recycled water distribution system infrastructure. The study will identify potential recycled water customers, evaluate the quantity, quality, and recycled water distribution system options to address the needs of potential users in surrounding areas, seek opportunities to phase the construction of a recycled water delivery system, and develop planning-level cost options for the phased system.

History, Status, or Impact if Delayed
Recycled water delays or eliminates the need to construct more potable water facilities, sustains the economy with increased water supply reliability, protects the environment, safeguards investments in parks and landscaping with drought proof or drought resistant water supply, and contributes to a green and healthy environment. In 2019, East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) prepared an Updated Recycled Waster Plan which considered the potential for potable reuse in EBMUD’s water service area. The development of a new recycled water supply for the Phillips 66 refinery in Rodeo using effluent from the Pinole-Hercules and Rodeo wastewater treatment plants was among the recommended non-potable reuse projects. This project is estimated to deliver up to 3.67 MGD of recycled water to the refinery for use in their boilers and cooling towers. The combined final disinfected effluent from both plants would be pumped at the Rodeo Pump Station to the refinery for treatment a new advanced recycled water treatment plan. This project was recommended by EBMUD because it would deliver a large amount of water to a single customer, with comparatively few pipelines required due to the short distance between the sources of wastewater and the Phillips 66 Refinery.

Page 87 of 96 ends

Project Origin : Priority Score : Medium
Budget
X New Expansion
Replacement Renovation
Land/Row Acq. Required
Rehabilitation
$ - $ 200,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 200,000
6/30/2028
Budget Project Estimate
FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 FY 2028-29 FY 2029-30 FY 2030-31 FY 2026 - 2031 $ 200,000 $ 200,000
$ - $ 200,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 200,000
$ 200,000 $ 200,000
$ - $ 200,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 200,000
IN2101 - EMERGENCY POWER FOR CRITICAL FACILITIES
Council Request
Project Estimate
FY 2026 - 2031
Functional Area : Infrastructure Assessment
Type of CIP Unappropriated Subsequent Years
Year 1
FY 2026-27
Year 2
FY 2027-28
Year 3
FY 2028-29
Year 4
FY 2029-30
Year 5
FY 2030-31
Policy GM.4.1, Policy CS.2.6, Goal CS.9, Goal HS.4
Estimated
Expenditures
to-date
$ -
Project Start 7/1/2027 Estimated Completion
Description
During severe natural hazard events, it is highly likely that utility power will not be available for an extended period of time. Critical facilities will need reliable sources of sustained electrical power to continue operations. This project will:
1) identify critical facilities in need of back-up power in coordination with an Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) , 2) assess power loads in each critical facility that requires back-up power, 3) determine the costs and technology options including solar battery storage, and 4) make any additional recommendations to Council before advancing to construction.

History, Status, or Impact if Delayed
The Public Safety Building, Fire Station 74, and the Water Pollution Control Plant have stand by generators.

General Plan Goals/Policies
Summary of Capital Cost
Projected Budget
USE(S)
Planning
Design
Construction
Contingency

TOTAL FUNDS

TOTAL USES

SOURCE(S)
100 - General Fund

Page 88 of 96 ends

Project Origin : Priority Score : High - Ongoing
Budget
New Expansion
Replacement Renovation
Land/Row Acq. Required
Rehabilitation
$ 275,000.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 455,060
10/30/2026
Budget Project Estimate
FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 FY 2028-29 FY 2029-30 FY 2030-31 FY 2026 - 2031 $ 275,000 $ 275,000
$ 275,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 275,000
$ 95,000 $ 95,000
$ 180,000 $ 180,000
$ 275,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 275,000
IN1703 - STORM DRAIN MASTER PLAN
Staff Recommendation

TOTAL FUNDS

TOTAL USES
Planning
Design
Construction
Contingency

SOURCE(S)
106 - Measure S 2014
500 - Sewer Enterprise Fund
Summary of Capital Cost
Projected Budget
USE(S)
Policy GM.4.1, Policy CS.7.1
Estimated
Expenditures
to-date
$ 180,060.00
Project Start 7/1/2024 Estimated Completion
Description
Preparation of a storm drain master plan will provide an analysis of the existing collection system. The plan will identify system deficiencies related to capacity, functionality, and permit compliance. The plan can serve to guide future budget allocations for improvements to the system.

History, Status, or Impact if Delayed
General Plan Goals/Policies
Project Estimate
FY 2026 - 2031
Functional Area : Infrastructure Assessment
Type of CIP Unappropriated Subsequent Years
Year 1
FY 2026-27
Year 2
FY 2027-28
Year 3
FY 2028-29
Year 4
FY 2029-30
Year 5
FY 2030-31

Page 89 of 96 ends

Goals and Policies
Community Character Element
GOAL CC.1 Maintain Pinole’s unique qualities and sense of place to preserve the established historic and small-town character of the city.

POLICY CC.1.2 Require all new development to incorporate high-quality site design, architecture and planning to enhance the overall quality of the built environment in Pinole and create a visually interesting and aesthetically pleasing town environment.

POLICY CC.1.3 To enhance a sense of arrival and create a strong appealing image that promotes community identity, the City shall develop community entry features at key gateways or city entries along Interstate 80. Entryways shall incorporate landscaping, trees, structural architectural elements, signage and public art.

POLICY CC.1.5 Encourage project compatibility, interdependence and support with neighboring uses, especially between commercial and mixed-use centers and the surrounding residential neighborhoods. Uses should relate to one another with pedestrian connections, transit options, shared parking, landscaping, public spaces, and the orientation and design of buildings.

GOAL CC.2 Emphasize and enhance the visual and physical connection between the city’s natural environment and the community’s quality of life.

POLICY CC.2.1 Provide visual and physical connections between the natural environment and the built environment through careful site design, building placement, architectural features that allow views of Pinole’s unique environment such as ridgelines or the San Pablo Bay shoreline, public access to open space such as via the Bay Trail, and the use of native vegetation in the urban environment such as for landscape buffers for sidewalk areas and street trees.

POLICY CC.2.2 Preserve natural resources within the built environment, including trees, marshes, creeks and hillsides.

GOAL CC.5 Enhance the quality of life in Pinole by acknowledging the cultural diversity and by promoting, preserving and sustaining the cultural and performing arts.

POLICY CC.5.1 Celebrate the city’s cultural diversity through public art, cultural centers and community events for the benefit and enjoyment of all residents.

POLICY CC.5.2 Develop programs and facilities that promote the cultural and performing arts in Pinole.

Growth Management Element
GOAL GM.1 Regional Planning. Support cooperative transportation, land use and public service planning in Contra Costa County.

POLICY GM.1.1 West Contra Costa County Planning Activities. Achieve efficient public service delivery by coordinating with affected jurisdictions and agencies concerning public and private developments.

GOAL GM.3 Efficient Transportation. Support land use patterns that make efficient use of the transportation system and enhance public safety.

POLICY GM.3.1 Transportation Management. Make more efficient use of the regional and subregional transportation system.

POLICY GM.3.3 Provide Adequate Transportation Facilities and Services. Provide adequate transportation facilities while maintaining neighborhood integrity.

POLICY GM.3.7 Mobility-Impaired. Support efforts to provide safe and convenient transportation systems for all citizens of Pinole, particularly mobility-impaired individuals.

GOAL GM.4 Compact Development and Service Areas. Encourage infill and redevelopment in areas that are already served by utilities, infrastructure and public services.

POLICY GM.4.1 Planning for Present and Future Community Needs. Plan for, provide and maintain a level of public infrastructure facilities and services that adequately serves the present and future needs of the community.

Land Use & Economic Development Element
GOAL LU.1 Preserve and enhance the natural resources, high-quality residential neighborhoods and commercial areas, and small-town (semi-rural) character of Pinole.

POLICY LU.1.3 Establish and implement a continuing program of civic beautification, gateway or entryway enhancement, tree planting, maintenance of homes and streets, and other measures which will promote an aesthetically desirable environment and attractive neighborhood areas.

GOAL LU.4 Preserve and strengthen the identity and quality of life of Pinole’s residential neighborhoods.

POLICY LU.4.1 Ensure all new development, renovation or remodeling preserves and strengthens Pinole’s residential neighborhoods by requiring projects to be harmoniously designed and integrated with the existing neighborhood.

GOAL LU.6 Protect and enhance the natural resources of the San Pablo Bay waterfront for the enjoyment of Pinole residents.

POLICY LU.6.3 Provide waterfront parks, pedestrian pathways and recreation areas that are safe, accessible, and attractive for public use.

Housing Element
GOAL H.2 Protect Existing Character and Heritage. Protect and enhance the integrity and distinctive character and heritage of Pinole encouraging the development of high quality, well-designed housing and conserving existing housing.

POLICY H.2.4 Maintain Existing Housing and Neighborhood Amenities. Maintain Pinole’s lifestyle characteristics by encouraging the maintenance of existing housing stock, and in particular housing with historic value, and preserving the amenities of existing neighborhoods.

GOAL H.3 Provide Adequate Services and Facilities. Provide adequate services and facilities to meet the needs of the city’s current and future population.

POLICY H.3.1 Plan For Public Facility and Services Needs. Future development shall be planned based on public facility and service capacity, community-wide needs, sound citywide and neighborhood planning and public improvement programming.

POLICY H.3.4 Encourage new pedestrian-oriented development. Encourage new development and redevelopment that places residences in close proximity to a variety of services and facilities.

Circulation Element
GOAL CE.1 Reduce vehicle miles traveled and encourage the use of public transit.

POLICY CE.1.1 Encourage strategic growth that concentrates future development along Pinole’s three primary transit corridors (San Pablo Avenue, Appian Way and Pinole Valley Road).

POLICY CE.1.3 Encourage development that is sensitive to both local and regional transit measures and that promotes the use of alternative modes of transportation.

POLICY CE.1.4 Encourage maximum utilization of the existing public transit system and alternate modes of transportation in Pinole.

GOAL CE.3 Provide timely input and effective means (as appropriate) of programming street and highway improvements to maintain the objective peak hour level of service without detrimentally impacting community character or commercial activity.

POLICY CE.3.2. Maintain roadway network at or above established LOS thresholds.

GOAL CE.4 Establish programs to support sidewalk, trail and street enhancements, where feasible.

POLICY CE.4.5 Inventory sidewalk conditions to identify opportunities for enhancements to the circulation system and to help prioritize repair and maintenance activities as funding becomes available.

GOAL CE.5 Provide adequate parking and loading facilities while encouraging alternative means of transportation.

GOAL CE.7 Support bicycle use as a mode of transportation by enhancing infrastructure to accommodate bicycle and rides.

POLICY CE.7.1 Enhance the City’s Bikeway network through the use of Class I, II, and III bikeways.

POLICY CE.7.3 Establish a network of multi-use paths to facilitate safe and direct off-street bicycle and pedestrian travel.

Page 90 of 96 ends

Community Services and Facilities Element
GOAL CS.1 Provide safe, attractive and efficiently designed infrastructure and sustainable facilities to serve the public.

POLICY CS.1.1 The City will strive to provide safe, attractive and efficiently designed facilities for public and quasi-public organizations.

POLICY CS.1.3 The City will endeavor to provide convenient access to community facilities and services to all areas of the community.

GOAL CS.2 Ensure and maintain a high level of public safety in the community.

POLICY CS.2.6 The City will continue to fund the repair, maintenance and expansion of facilities to respond to evolving service needs.

GOAL CS.3 Provide adequate and high-quality recreational opportunities and programs for the community.

POLICY CS.3.1 Continue to provide a variety of recreational opportunities that serve and represent all aspects of the community.

POLICY CS.3.3 Expand and organize a multi-use trail system.

GOAL CS.6 Provide adequate, economical and dependable wastewater collection service and treatment.

POLICY CS.6.1 The City shall continue to make capital improvements to the wastewater collection and treatment system to maintain system capability and reliability.

GOAL CS.7 Minimize flooding.

POLICY CS.7.1 The City will ensure that the storm drain system has adequate capacity to minimize street flooding and, where feasible, shall expand the capacity of the system to control storm flows.

GOAL CS.9 Provide economical and dependable community services while conserving energy resources.

POLICY CS.9.1 The City will seek opportunities to improve the energy efficiency of facilities and operations.

GOAL CS.10 Provide safe, efficient roadway infrastructure to support multiple modes of transportation and to meet existing and future circulation needs.

POLICY CS.10.2 The City will update, where possible, the existing roadway network to enhance pedestrian, bicycle and transit circulation while maintaining safe vehicular circulation.

Health and Safety Element
GOAL HS.1 Minimize the potential for loss of life, injury, damage to property, economic and social dislocation, and unusual public expense due to natural and man-made hazards GOAL HS.2 Protect the community from the risk of flood damage and improve surface water quality.

POLICY HS.2.4 Continue to monitor studies that identify anticipated changes in sea level and create appropriate standards and improvements to minimize flood risks.

POLICY HS.2.5 Establish appropriate capital improvements and management programs to reduce wet weather sewer treatment demand and avoid discharge to the shallow water outfall.

GOAL HS.3 Minimize hazards of soil erosion, weak and expansive soils, potentially hazardous soils materials, other hazardous materials, geologic instability and seismic activity.

POLICY HS.3.5 Require proper handling, storage, disposal and cleanup of hazardous materials to prevent leakage, potential explosions, fires or the escape of harmful gases and to prevent individually innocuous materials from combining to form hazardous substances, especially at the time of disposal.

GOAL HS.4 Ensure that government agencies, citizens and businesses are prepared for an effective response and recovery in the event of emergencies or disasters.

POLICY HS.4.1 Continue to provide essential emergency public services during natural catastrophes POLICY HS.4.3 Incorporate technological enhancements in new and substantially remodeled structures and facilities to support and improve emergency services.

GOAL HS.6 Support multiple forms of transportation and a circulation system design that reduces vehicle trips and emissions.

POLICY HS.6.1 Promote and encourage walking and bicycling as viable forms of transportation to services, shopping and employment.

GOAL HS.7 Ensure that all new development meets or exceeds state and federal water quality standards.

POLICY HS.7.1 Support Regional, state and federal clean water programs.

POLICY HS.7.3 Reduce the transport of runoff and surface pollutants.

POLICY HS.7.6 Establish appropriate capital improvements and management programs to reduce wet weather sewer treatment demand and avoid discharge to the shallow water outfall.

Natural Resources and Open Space Element
GOAL OS.1 Ensure the preservation of natural resources by determining appropriate land use and compatibility with natural resources and open space.

POLICY OS.1.2 Agency Cooperation. Work with Federal, State and local regulatory and trustee agencies to promote the long-term sustainability of local natural resources.

Sustainability Element
GOAL SE.3 The City will reduce its contribution to climate change and mitigate and adapt to the effects of climate change as appropriate.

POLICY SE.3.1 Reduce greenhouse gas emissions from City operations and community sources by a minimum of 15 percent below current or baseline levels by the year 2020.

POLICY SE.3.4 Reduce GHG emissions by reducing vehicle miles traveled and by increasing or encouraging the use of alternative fuels and transportation technologies.

POLICY SE.1.3 Enhance the energy efficiency of all City facilities.

GOAL SE.4 Optimize energy efficiency and renewable energy.

POLICY SE.4.2 Explore opportunities for City-wide expansion of Programs and Facilities related to energy efficiency and conservation.

GOAL SE.5 Achieve a solid waste diversion of 75% of the waste stream by 2020.

GOAL SE.7 Air quality will be maintained and improved for the City of Pinole and the Bay Area as a region and not decline below levels measured in early 1990’s.

POLICY SE 7.3 Support efforts to comprehensively address air quality issues through education, regulation, and innovation.

GOAL SE.8 Utilize transit options and reduce vehicle miles traveled and single-occupancy vehicle use.

POLICY SE.8.7 Work to improve Pinole’s pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure and to meet the needs of all pedestrians and bicyclists.

POLICY SE.8.10 Support and promote the use of low- and zero-emissions vehicles, alternative fuels, and other measures to directly reduce emissions from motor vehicles.

Page 91 of 96 ends

City of Pinole
FY 2026/27 – FY 2030/31 Capital Improvement Plan
General Plan Consistency Matrix

CITY OF PINOLE

GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY MATRIX
PROPOSED FY 2026/27 – FY 2030/31 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Project number acronyms are as follows: The General Plan Element acronyms are as follows:

FA
PA
SS
SW
RO
IA
= Facilities
= Parks
= Sanitary Sewer
= Stormwater
= Streets & Roads
= Infrastructure Assessments
CC
GM
LU
H
CS
HS
OS
SE
= Circulation Element
= Growth Management
= Land Use and Economic Development
= Housing Element
= Community Services and Facilities
= Health and Safety
= Natural Resources and Open Space Element
= Sustainability Element
Represents projects scheduled in future years (FY 2025/26- FY 2028/29)
Appendix I of the Revised Proposed CIP
(Attachment C) describes the applicable General
Plan goals and policies.

Project # Project Name General Plan
Goals / Policies

FACILITIES
FA2602 Upgrade of Corporation Yard Goal GM 4.1, Goal CS.1, Goal CS.9, Policy CS 9.1 FA2601 Battery Storage at Youth and Swim Centers Goals CS.1, HS.6, SE.3, SE.4, SE.7 2024 Climate Action and Adaptation Plan
FA2502 Upgrade of City Pools Goal CS.1, Goal CS.9, Policy CS.9.1 FA2501 Zero Emission Vehicle and EV Charging
Infrastructure
Goals CS.1, HS.6, SE.3, SE.4, SE.7
2024 Climate Action and Adaptation Plan.

FA2401 Tiny Tots Facility Improvements Goal CS.1, Policy CS.1.1, Goal CS.3, Policy CS.3.1 FA2302 Plum St. Parking Lot Improvements Policy CS.2.6
FA2301 Public Safety Building Modernization Policy CS.2.6, Goal CS.1, Policy CS.1.1, Policy SE.1.3 FA2202 Senior Center Modernization Policy CS.2.6, Goal CS.1, Policy CS.1.1, Policy SE.1.3 FA1901 Senior Center Auxiliary Parking Lot (formerly known as Fowler House lot reuse) Goal CE.5, Goal CS.1, Policy GM.4.1 Attachment C

Page 92 of 96 ends

City of Pinole
FY 2026/27 – FY 2030/31 Capital Improvement Plan
General Plan Consistency Matrix
Project # Project Name General Plan
Goals / Policies
FA1703 City Hall Modernization (formerly known as Paint City Hall) Policy CS.2.6, Goal CS.1, Policy CS.1.1, Policy SE.1.3 FA1702 Citywide Roof repairs and replacement Policy GM.4.1, Goal CS.1, Goal CS.9, Policy CS.9.1 PARKS
PA2601 Pinole Creek Trail Upgrade Goal CS.2, Goal CS.3, Policy CS 2.6 & 3.1, Policy GM.4.1 PA2501 Improvements to City Parks Goal CS.2, Goal CS.3, Policy CS 2.6 & 3.1, Policy GM.4.1 PA2402 Mural Preservation Goal CC.1, Policy CC.1.3; Goal CC.5, Policy CC.5.1 PA2401 Fernandez Park Improvements
Goal CS.1, Policy CS.1.1, Policy CS.1.3; Goal CS.3,
Policy CS.3.1; Goal CS.9, Policy CS.9.1, Goal SE.4,
Policy SE.4.2
PA2202 Skatepark Rehabilitation Goal CS.2, Goal CS.3, Policy CS 2.6 & 3.1, Policy GM.4.1 PA1901 Pinole Valley Soccer Field Rehabilitation Goal CS.1, Goal CS.3, Policy CS 3.1, Policy GM.4.1

SANITARY SEWER
SS2501 Replacement of Blowers at the Treatment Plant Goal CS.1, CS.6, Policy CS.6.1 SS2407 Private Sewer Lateral Program Goals HS.2, Policy HS.2.5; Goal HS.7, Policy HS.7.6; Goal CC.2, Policy CC.2.2
SS2406 WPCP Solar and Battery Goal CS.6, Policy CS.6.1; Goal SE.3, Policy SE.1.3; Goal CS.7, Policy CS.7.1; Goal GM.4, Policy GM.4.1
SS2405 Lower Tennent Trunk Sewer Capacity Goal CS.6, Policy CS.6.1; Goal GM.4, Policy GM.4.1 SS2404 WPCP Boiler Replacement Goal CS.1, Goal CS.6, Policy CS.6.1 SS2403 WPCP Centrifuge Replacement Goal CS.1, Goal CS.6, Policy CS.6.1

Page 93 of 96 ends

City of Pinole
FY 2026/27 – FY 2030/31 Capital Improvement Plan
General Plan Consistency Matrix
Project # Project Name General Plan
Goals / Policies
SS2402 Pinon-3 Sewer Capacity Goal CS.6, Policy CS.6.1; Goal GM.4, Policy GM.4.1 SS2203 Effluent Outfall Policy GM.4.1, Goal CS.6, Policy CS.6.1 SS2101 Secondary Clarifier Rehabilitation Goal CS.1, Goal CS.6, Policy CS.6.1 SS2002 Water Pollution Control Plant Lab Remodel Policy GM.4.1, Goal CS.1, Policy CS.2.6 SS1702 Sewer Pump Stations Rehabilitation Policy GM.4.1, Goal CS.6, Policy CS.6.1

STORMWATER
SW2501 Stormwater System Upgrade and Trash Capture Goal CS.7, Policy CS.7.1; Goals OS.1, Policy OS.1.2; Goal CC.2, Policy CC.2.2
SW2401 Storm Drain Creek Discharge Improvements Goal CS.7, Policy CS.7.1; Goals OS.1, Policy OS.1.2; Goal CC.2, Policy CC.2.2
SW2001 Roble Road Drainage Improvements -
Construction Policy GM.4.1, Goal CS.7, Policy CS.7.1

STREETS AND ROADS
RO2601 Traffic Control and Safety Improvements on San
Pablo Avenue Goal CE.4, Policy GM.3.3, Policy GM.3.7
RO2507 ADA Transition Plan Update Goal CE.4, Policy GM.3.3, Policy GM.3.7 RO2506 Traffic Calming Program Policy GM.3.3, Goal CE.3, Goal CS.10, Policy CS 10.2 RO2505 Safe Routes to Schools Policy GM.3.3, Goal CE.3, Goal CS.10, Policy CS 10.2 RO2504 Pavement Markings and Signage Upgrade Goal CE.3, Policy CE.3.2; Policy GM.3.3, Goal CS.10, Policy CS 10.2; Goal CE.7; Goal SE.8, Policy SE.8.7
RO2503 City Streetlights Upgrade Goal CS.1, Goal CS.2, Goal CS.10. Policy CS10.2 RO2502 Pinole Signals Upgrade Goal CS.1, Goal CS.2, Goal CS.10. Policy CS10.2

Page 94 of 96 ends

City of Pinole
FY 2026/27 – FY 2030/31 Capital Improvement Plan
General Plan Consistency Matrix
Project # Project Name General Plan
Goals / Policies
RO2501 Accessibility Improvements Project
Goal CE.4, Policy CE.4.5; Goal SE.8, Policy SE.8.7; Goal CE.1, Policy CE.1.4; Goal CE.3, Policy CE.3.2; Goal CS.2, Policy CS.2.6; Goal CS.10, Policy CS 10.2; Goal H.3,
Policy H.3.1; Goal GM.3, Policy GM.3.7; Policy HS.6.1
RO2404 Crosswalk Tennent Avenue at Prune Street
Goal CS.10, Policy CS.10.2; Goal SE.8, Policy SE.8.8;
Goal HS.6, Policy HS.6.1; Goal CE.4; Goal CS.2, Policy
CS.2.6
RO2403 Old Town Traffic Calming
Goal GM.2, Policy GM.3.3, Policy GM.3.7; Goal SE.8,
Policy SE.8.7; Goal CE.1, Policy CE.1.4; Goal CE.3,
Policy CE.3.2; Goal CE.4, Policy CE.4.5; Goal CE.5; Goal CS.10, Policy CS.10.2
RO2402 Sidewalk Rehabilitation Program
Goal CE.4, Policy CE.4.5; Goal SE.8, Policy SE.8.7; Goal CE.1, Policy CE.1.4; Goal CE.3, Policy CE.3.2; Goal CS.2, Policy CS.2.6; Goal CS.10, Policy CS 10.2; Goal H.3,
Policy H.3.1; Goal GM.3, GM.3.7; Goal HS.6, Policy
HS.6.1
RO2401 Road Maintenance Repairs Goal CE.3, Policy CE.3.2; Policy GM.3.3, Goal CS.10, Policy CS 10.2; Goal CE.7; Goal SE.8, Policy SE.8.7
RO2303 Pinole Smart Signals Goal CS.10, Policy CS 10.2
RO2302 Safety Improvements on Arterial Roadways Policy GM.3.3, Goal CE.3, Goal CS.10, Policy CS 10.2 RO2301 Road Rehabilitation Policy GM.3.3, Goal CE.3, Goal CS.10, Policy CS 10.2 RO2102 Tennent Avenue Rehabilitation Policy CE.1.4, Policy CS.2.6, Policy CS.3.3, Policy H.3.1, Policy GM.3.3, Goal CE.3, Goal CS.10, Policy CS 10.2
RO1902 Tennent Avenue/Bay Trail Gap Closure Crossing
of UPRR Tracks
Policy CE.1.4, Policy CS.2.6, Policy CS.3.3, Policy H.3.1, Policy GM.3.3, Goal CE.3, Goal CS.10, Policy CS 10.2

Page 95 of 96 ends

City of Pinole
FY 2026/27 – FY 2030/31 Capital Improvement Plan
General Plan Consistency Matrix
Project # Project Name General Plan
Goals / Policies
RO1710 San Pablo Avenue Bridge over BNSF Railroad Policy CE.1.4, Policy CS.2.6, Policy CS.3.3, Policy H.3.1, Policy GM.3.3, Goal CE.3, Goal CS.10, Policy CS 10.2

INFRASTRUCTURE ASSESSMENTS
IN2501 San Pablo Avenue Bicycle and Pedestrian Gap
Closure
Policy CE.1.4, Policy CS.2.6, Policy CS.3.3, Policy H.3.1, Policy GM.3.3, Goal CE.3, Goal CS.10, Policy CS 10.2
IN 2106 Active Transportation Plan Policy CE.1.4, Policy CS.2.6, Policy CS.3.3, Policy H.3.1, Policy GM.3.3, Goal CE.3, Goal CS.10, Policy CS 10.2
IN2105 Appian Way Complete Streets Policy CE.1.4, Policy CS.2.6, Policy CS.3.3, Policy H.3.1, Policy GM.3.3, Goal CE.3, Goal CS.10, Policy CS 10.2
IN2103 Recycled Water Feasibility Study Policy OS.8.1, Policy OS.8.7, Goal SE.9, Policy SE.9.1, Policy SE.9.4
IN2101 Emergency Power for Critical Facilities Policy GM.4.1, Policy CS.2.6, Goal CS.9, Goal HS.4 IN1703 Storm Drainage Master Plan Policy GM.4.1, Policy CS.7.1

Page 96 of 96 ends

Pinole City CouncilJune 8, 2026

Pinole City Council
June 8, 2026