Pinole City Council
January 12, 2026

1 January 12, 2026
1 2
3 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
4 PINOLE PLANNING COMMISSION
5 6 January 12, 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: 7:00 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, Uch, Lam-Jullian, Martinez, Vice-Chairperson 27 Menis and Chairperson Sandoval
28 29 Commissioners Absent: None
30 31 Staff Present: David Hanham, Planning Manager
32 Erica Gonzalez, City Attorney’s Office
33 Justin Shiu, Senior Planner
34 35 Vice-Chairperson Menis reported on his ex-parté communications to his email list about the 36 topics on the meeting agenda.
37 38 E. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD
39 40 Anthony Vossbrink, stated a while back some members of the Planning Commission and 41 other members of the community brought up to the Planning Manager and other people 42 at City Hall, the fact that City parks were in disrepair, particularly the park off of Appian 43 Way where the seesaw benches were broken, which was to be investigated and repaired. 44 To date the seesaw benches remained broken and unusable by the public. The same 45 park included a steep drop-off at the sidewalk with no guard or hand rails or Americans 46 with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessibility, which also should be addressed. In addition, 47 water fountains were broken in many City parks, one of the restrooms at Bay Front Park 48 had been vandalized and remained unusable, wooden planks at the Fernandez Park49 Senior Center bridge were rotten and similarly wooden planks on the bridge across from 50 the Pinole Soccer Field to the dog park needed repair. 2 January 12, 2026
1 Mr. Vossbrink commented although these issues had been reported to the Police 2 Department or the Public Works Department by members of the community, he 3 understood the City’s Public Works Manager did not want Public Works staff to work on 4 these issues.
5 6 Planning Manager David Hanham advised he would forward the comments to the Public 7 Works Manager.
8 9 Commissioner Martinez asked that any communication with the Public Works Manager be 10 done electronically via email and that the Acting City Manager be copied as well as the 11 City’s legal team given the sense of urgency so the repairs could be handled quickly. 12 13 F. MEETING MINUTES
14 15 1. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for December 8, 2025 16 17 MOTION with a Roll Call vote to approve the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for 18 December 8, 2025, as shown.
19 20 MOTION: Sandoval SECONDED: Menis APPROVED: 5-0-2
21 ABSTAIN: Lam-Julian, Martinez
22 23 G. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
24 25 1. MISC25-0009 Study Session for Self-Storage at 890 San Pablo Avenue 26 27 Senior Planner Justin Shiu provided a PowerPoint presentation for the Study Session for 28 a self-storage facility to be located at 890 San Pablo Avenue, which included an overview 29 of a prior proposal for a self-storage facility project in 2018, which had been approved by 30 the Planning Commission in 2019 by a vote of 4-3. The project had been appealed to the 31 City Council and the City Council denied the project in 2019, with the determination 32 outlined in Attachment F, 2019 City Council Resolution of Denial of Design Review Appeal 33 for 890 San Pablo Avenue, attached to the January 12, 2026 staff report. The elevations 34 of the final design and the renderings denied by the City Council were also provided in the 35 staff report.
36 37 Mr. Shiu explained the applicant was interested in revisiting the concept for a self-storage 38 facility along with other uses. No development plans or application had been received by 39 City staff and no approval could be taken at this time. The Planning Commission may 40 receive the presentation and ask questions of the applicant and provide feedback for 41 general consideration. Once a formal development application was received, the Planning 42 Commission could comprehensively review the specific design and uses proposed for 43 approval at that time.
44 45 Erica Gonzalez, City Attorney’s Office, reiterated this was a Study Session only and would 46 not constitute a preliminary review, public hearing or a formal evaluation of the potential 47 proposed development project. A formal development application had not been received 48 or filed with the Planning Department. The Planning Commission may receive the 49 presentation and ask questions of the prospective applicant. 3 January 12, 2026
1 Ms. Gonzalez explained the purpose of the Study Session was for high-level feedback for 2 general considerations as the applicant explored conceptual designs and potential site 3 constraints. In accordance with due process and fair hearing standards, the Planning 4 Commission should refrain from discussions, comments or conclusions that indicated its 5 potential decision or definitive stance on future applications should it be presented to the 6 Planning Commission. Doing so, would be considered engaging in a premature 7 deliberation or expression of an opinion on the merits of a project before it was presented 8 to the Planning Commission which may indicate a bias, which would necessitate the 9 recusal of the affected Commissioner should that be taken this evening once the project 10 was formally presented in the future.
11 12 Responding to questions from the Planning Commission, Messiers Shiu and Hanham and 13 Ms. Gonzalez clarified the following:
14 15 • Page 22 of 86 of the agenda packet, Attachment B, Planning Commission staff 16 report dated August 26, 2019, clarified Land Use and Economic Development 17 Element, Goal LU.7, Policy LU7.1, Policy LU7.2 and the City’s Regional Housing 18 Needs Allocation (RHNA) numbers. Page 23 of 86 of the agenda packet, Table 1. 19 Storage Facilities in Pinole, was also clarified. Staff responded to questions 20 related to whether or not the proposed plan met the intended goals, which should 21 be phrased as a general question as to what would be done to meet the goals, but 22 not phrased as to whether or not the project did or did not meet those goals to 23 avoid any bias. As to whether or not the project met the stated goals and policies, 24 the Planning Commission would make that consistency finding when a full project 25 was brought forward to the Planning Commission. (Martinez) 26 27 • Clarified the number of existing storage units in Pinole had been based on County 28 records. (Martinez)
29 30 • Staff was unsure whether the developer was aware of the Vista Woods and 31 Satellite Affordable Housing Associates (SAHA) developments located on either 32 side of the project site on San Pablo Avenue, which had been built since the 2019 33 City Council denial of the original project. (Martinez) 34 35 • The existing zoning for the site was Office Industrial Mixed-Use (OIMU). The 36 project involved discretionary review and should some sort of concept be brought 37 for an Office use, as an example, the Planning Commission could make a more 38 specific determination or have a conversation with the applicant on the potential 39 tenants and uses. (Uch)
40 41 • Page 24 of 86 of the agenda packet, Attachment B, Table 2. Development 42 Standards and Proposed Project, clarified the parking requirements. As part of its 43 discretionary review, the Planning Commission may determine the appropriate 44 number of parking spaces for the proposed use considering the context and site 45 area. The original project had included a parking study and traffic report providing 46 professional guidance on the ratios for parking. (Uch) 47 48
4 January 12, 2026
1 • In response to concerns with the site constraints for the Pinole Shores II project 2 due to contamination of the soil, that issue only applied to the Pinole Shores II site, 3 although that site was adjacent to the property at 890 San Pablo Avenue. Clarified 4 a Phase I study for Pinole Shores II had studied environmental hazards and 5 documentation applicable to the original project for 890 San Pablo Avenue had not 6 identified any specific issues; however, if a project was brought before the Planning 7 Commission another Phase II analysis would be done as part of the 8 documentation. Staff acknowledged the initial reports for the original project were 9 old and a new submittal would likely include another Phase I environmental 10 assessment of hazardous materials on the site and include any mitigations that 11 might be needed. (Vice-Chairperson Menis)
12 13 • Page 27 of 86 of the agenda packet, Table 3. Trip Generation, clarified the figures 14 in the table served as general guidance. The applicant should clarify whether the 15 information contained in the table, was reasonable or reflected the typical sizes for 16 storage units that could be used as an estimate. (Vice-Chairperson Menis) 17 18 • Acknowledged concern some of the documentation provided was not clearly 19 legible, particularly Page 48 of 86 of the agenda packet, Sheet L1, with the text in 20 the landscape narrative challenging to read, and Page 42 of 86 of the agenda 21 packet, A.14, where the lighting details were also not legible. Staff was asked to 22 split the pages amongst multiple letter pages so the text would not be as reduced 23 in size. Staff clarified when a formal application was made, the documentation 24 would be provided on larger paper. (Vice-Chairperson Menis) 25 26 • Acknowledged a request for the applicant to be provided the 2019 Pinole Insight 27 Market Analytics, Void Analysis Report, prepared by HdL Econ Solutions, which 28 included good data points. (Martinez)
29 30 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
31 32 Beau Reinberg, Applicant, 3167 Fee Fee Road, Bridgeton, MO, explained the 33 development process had started in 2017, with the current owners of the property who 34 had gone through a lengthy application process with the City. At that time, they received 35 a lot of good feedback with the goal of the materials to show the extent of the applicant’s 36 willingness to work on what was best for the City of Pinole while also within their business 37 model and show what they did on a nationwide basis.
38 39 Mr. Reinberg stated the applicant tried to take feedback from staff, the City Council, the 40 Planning Commission and the community through study sessions to reach a solution that 41 would be well received by the residents of Pinole. As stated, the project started in 2017 42 with a husband and wife who owned the property for years. Early in the process, the 43 husband had a stroke and Mr. Reinberg stated he worked with the wife to take the project 44 to the finish line. Ultimately, the original project was denied, and he went back to Missouri. 45 Around two months ago, the son of the property owners reached out to him and informed 46 him his parents had passed away and he was working through the process of the estate. 47 48
5 January 12, 2026
1 Mr. Reinberg had thought the property would be developed and was surprised it had not 2 been developed and improved over the ensuing years, which spoke to the fact the site 3 was challenging with easements and oil lines and it was not an easy site to develop. 4 5 When considering the next steps, Mr. Reinberg reported he reached out to City staff and 6 requested a study session to reintroduce the project and answer any questions. At this 7 time, he provided a PowerPoint presentation which provided an overview of the project 8 site and highlighted the community need for storage units which served one in ten 9 households, supported downsizing and small businesses and local residents and involved 10 low impact land use with little traffic to be generated. 11 12 Given the desire for a mixed-use concept, the project would involve affordable small office 13 suites, live-work support and daytime economic activities, with low trip generation, and 14 secure indoor loading. Community benefits would include minimal traffic, high quality 15 architecture, job creation and tax base enhancement through property tax, impact fees 16 and support of the retail sales tax. The project would also include controlled access, 24/7 17 surveillance and on-site management. The project would provide high quality infill 18 development to be aligned with the Specific Plan goals and would be community serving 19 with a low impact use.
20 21 In terms of the design, Mr. Reinberg explained the project would reduce massing and 22 provide enhanced articulation, as compared to the original submittal, while also balancing 23 the economic goals and objectives for a feasible and sustainable project along with the 24 goals and objectives of the plan for the City of Pinole. In terms of the operational 25 commitments, those included hours of operation, noise controls, lighting and security 26 measures.
27 28 Mr. Reinberg highlighted the design evolution of the massing and compared having one 29 versus two buildings and three versus four stories. Based on feedback from staff, the 30 Planning Commission and the public, the applicant worked to come up with something 31 that worked for them and the rest of the area. He also provided a San Pablo Avenue 32 streetscape comparison, which showed what the facility may look like, replacing the 33 vacant frontage with an active designed building, improving the corridor aesthetics along 34 San Pablo Avenue, with pedestrian-scale architectural articulation consistent with the San 35 Pablo Avenue Specific Plan vision. Additional conceptual plans showed the nighttime 36 appearance and safety lighting, with the lighting to be fully shielded, downcast with light37 emitting diodes (LED) lighting with no spillover to adjacent residential properties and with 38 enhanced pedestrian and vehicle safety consistent with the City lighting standards. The 39 lighting levels would be reviewed and approved during plan check. 40 41 Mr. Reinberg emphasized he was committed to working with City staff and taking 42 feedback. He wholeheartedly believed there was a need within the community for a Class 43 A, self-storage mixed-use development and he was willing and able to take feedback, 44 ideas and thoughts from the Planning Commission to present a development plan to staff 45 that was ultimately acceptable and have an opportunity to present that plan to the Planning 46 Commission.
47 48 Ms. Gonzalez reiterated the parameters of the study session and stated there could be 49 clarifying questions from the Planning Commission.
50 6 January 12, 2026
1 Responding to questions from the Planning Commission, Messiers Reinberg and Hanham 2 clarified the following:
3 4 • The project would support retail sales taxes by enabling retailers the ability to 5 maximize square footage for sales space versus warehouse space, since 6 oftentimes a retailer may only be able to use a certain amount of square footage 7 for backstock and different things, with the use able to maximize the amount of 8 space customers could buy product by using the facility for storage and using their 9 entire footprint for retail sales. This was where they had seen retail increases 10 occur. (Bender)
11 12 • The property had become vacant between 2014/15 when the initial business was 13 closed and the property had sat vacant for over ten years. (Bender) 14 15 • Acknowledged the recommendation to review the 2019 Pinole Insight Market 16 Analytics, Void Analysis Report, prepared by HdL Econ Solutions. Recognized the 17 concerns raised about the City’s long-term maintenance and operational needs, 18 such as road repair and housing needs and would work with staff to obtain 19 information about those issues. Clarified impact fees were tied to traffic, roads, 20 water and the Fire Department, with a lot of that tied to square footage. Explained 21 how infill lots were typically filled with parking spaces and not a lot of square 22 footage and noted the use would maximize the square footage on the parcel, 23 maximizing potential impact fees to be generated from the parcel. Suggested the 24 vertical side of things could help assist and maximize the fees generated from the 25 development. (Martinez)
26 27 • Impact fees were a one-time fee for capital improvements based on the impact of 28 a project. The City used property taxes and sales taxes which were ongoing each 29 year for maintenance needs. Reported the City’s Impact Fee Update Study had 30 been recently updated. (Martinez)
31 32 • The project, when open and operational, would have two full-time employees. 33 (Martinez)
34 35 • Acknowledged a recommendation to not use ChatGPT for a presentation in the 36 future which would bias him against the project in the future. (Vice-Chairperson 37 Menis)
38 39 • Page 73 of 86 of the agenda packet, Page 2 of Attachment F, 2019-106 City 40 Council Resolution of Denial of Design Review Appeal for 890 San Pablo Avenue, 41 where the City Council found the project was not consistent with the General Plan, 42 as outlined, and clarified it was too early in the process to determine how the 43 proposed project would address the concerns as outlined in the attachment. Staff 44 reiterated that the applicant had yet to provide a fully developed application to the 45 City and it would be unfair to anticipate how that future application would be 46 completed and submitted. (Vice-Chairperson Menis)
47 48
49 7 January 12, 2026
1 • Acknowledged the concept for an office incubator design may have waned since 2 2019 and there were a lot of office vacancies currently in Pinole, but most of that 3 challenge was due to renting office space for six months to a year if not three years, 4 and that type of commitment was very difficult for small and growing businesses. 5 The type of office suites concept being offered would be for a short-term duration, 6 only a month that someone could lease the space. (Vice-Chairperson Menis) 7 8 • The applicant clarified Impact Fees would be a one-time fee. As the development 9 application was furthered, the applicant would be able to dig into the indirect sales 10 tax revenue from the project. Based on traffic and different municipal needs, the 11 applicant asserted it would be a low impact project that would be a benefit to the 12 City due to the larger property structure that was not generating a lot of traffic that 13 would produce wear and tear on the roads. The project would also not have a 14 number of restrooms, with wear and tear on water and sewer utilities and there 15 would be a benefit to a larger structure in terms of higher property taxes, with 16 municipal support through schools, fire and different taxing districts. It should be 17 taken into consideration that the project given its scale would have a higher tax 18 than was provided currently, which was very little and had been for ten years. 19 20 • Raised a concern that the one-time fee may not offset ongoing needs (Vice21 Chairperson Menis) 22 23 • Pages 83 through 86 of the agenda packet, Attachment I, Three Corridors Specific 24 Plan, Table 6.2, land use classifications, clarified as to whether the design could 25 be adjusted with less storage and more business support services, (which uses 26 would be permitted by right) could be looked into as the applicant went through the 27 application process and re-evaluated the product in the project for the development 28 submission. (Vice-Chairperson Menis)
29 30 • Acknowledged appreciation for the level of detail and number of renderings 31 provided as part of the study session (from 2019), particularly the three32 dimensional visualizations from different viewpoints from the site. Acknowledged 33 concerns with Pages 50 (aerial view from the southeast) and 52 (aerial view from 34 the northeast) of 86 of the agenda packet, in that some areas had relatively less 35 articulation. Based on the views provided on Page 65 (photo simulation View 7) 36 of 86 of the agenda packet, while there were good articulation and variation in color 37 and shape in the front building, there was less in the areas where the building 38 overlapped with the other building and the back of the building. The applicant 39 clarified the goal of the elevations and renderings were to show the first approach 40 and process of adapting to feedback. Things would be incorporated into the final 41 development plan based on feedback but there was a good baseline 42 understanding based on some of the newer projects being developed, design 43 standards that had been approved since 2017 and what the applicant would 44 ultimately present to the Planning Commission to achieve a look and design the 45 City was looking for. The renderings and elevations provided were described as 46 artifacts, with the applicant to submit a new project, take a lot of the initial feedback 47 from this study session and any continued feedback to ensure the project met the 48 goals of the City of Pinole. (Vice-Chairperson Menis) 49 8 January 12, 2026
1 • Clarified again the project would have fewer sewer impacts given the design 2 involved fewer restrooms due to the physical size of the office spaces themselves; 3 however, in response to concerns about the initial proposal lacking adequate 4 restrooms that could be taken into consideration to see what could be done to 5 make the project as marketable and as customer focused as possible. (Vice6 Chairperson Menis) 7 8 • Clarified the oil lines that ran through the property involved a Chevron line that ran 9 through a number of parcels, ran on an angle and through Pinole Shores. Where 10 the oil line traveled in the other direction and where it landed was unknown, 11 although staff understood the oil line did not run through the Vista Woods 12 development. There was also a 30 or 50-foot easement running through the back 13 of the property and an East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) line that ran 14 through the property. Some of the site plans showed those lines with the building 15 cut off at an angle due to the Chevron easement. (Chair Sandoval) 16 17 • Staff also clarified the EBMUD easement was where the parking area separated 18 between the two buildings and was an issue that had come up in 2018. This would 19 not affect the potential uses on the site. Since the lines existed, a Phase I 20 preliminary environmental assessment would be done. The applicant clarified the 21 impact of the lines, and while on the owner’s property, the easements indicated 22 the owner of the line had to be able to access the line with a type of vehicle at 23 different hours, and depending on the location of the line, what could be built on 24 the other side of it and how the line could be accessed prohibited certain things in 25 different areas. As an example, there had been soils issues on the Pinole Shores 26 II property and there were certain criteria for development due to the soil issues. 27 At this time, there was nothing on the property to restrict development with the 28 environmental documents having noted the pipeline had been decommissioned 29 for over 60-years although the pipeline remained in the easement. (Chair 30 Sandoval)
31 32 • Confirmed a new market analysis had been done to verify there remained a 33 demand for self-storage unit development. (Chair Sandoval) 34 35 • Clarified again the concept for small office incubator spaces, with the applicant 36 open to listening to the feedback and hearing how they could balance the concept 37 with their economic model, for Class A self-storage and ancillary uses to 38 complement the primary use, and with an effort to accommodate the goals of the 39 City and surrounding areas to ensure the design worked well with the primary use 40 for a Class A climate controlled self-storage facility. (Chair Sandoval) 41 42 • Clarified as they go through the development process anything proposed must be 43 commercially viable. The applicant would always think about how to attract and 44 appeal to the consumer being targeted and again acknowledged the importance 45 of the recommendation to review the 2019 Pinole Insight Market Analytics, Void 46 Analysis Report, prepared by HdL Econ Solutions. (Martinez) 47 9 January 12, 2026
1 • Acknowledged a recommendation to review the ideas proposed by ROIC for the 2 former Kmart site since the ideas that were relevant in 2019 in terms of colors and 3 combinations may not be relevant in 2026. (Martinez)
4 5 • Acknowledged a request for information on the property tax revenue to Pinole for 6 a project similar to that being proposed and any referenceable information related 7 to businesses generating retail tax revenue. Clarified again the project must work 8 economically for the applicant and the City and the applicant could focus on that 9 information when going through the process. (Martinez) 10 11 • Acknowleged a recommendation to review Mercado La Paloma located in the City 12 of Los Angeles, which involved an industrial mixed-use property that converted an 13 old garment factory to retail community space and was a creative way to reuse the 14 property. (Lam-Julian)
15 16 Ms. Gonzalez commented the Planning Commission was starting to get into making 17 recommendations. She recognized the Chair opened the public hearing, with the 18 applicant asked to make a presentation which had been made, and the Commission had 19 engaged with the presenter on clarifying questions. She clarified when the members of 20 the public had the opportunity to speak, there was no project before the Planning 21 Commission to approve or disapprove but public comment would need to be opened and 22 later closed and then the Planning Commission could have further discussions and make 23 recommendations or further suggestions to the applicant within the parameters earlier 24 discussed.
25 26 Staff reported there were no comments from the public. 27 28 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
29 30 Ms. Gonzalez again stated the Planning Commission may offer recommendations based 31 on the parameters discussed.
32 33 Commissioner Martinez referenced the last rendering of the materials package and asked 34 whether there was any way the applicant could consider a combination of retail or office 35 space, and suggested windows would go a long way with nice lighting. Those elements 36 would make the building more inviting rather than having just huge walls. 37 38 Vice-Chairperson Menis asked to what extent the Planning Commission was allowed to 39 consider and prioritize the revenue generated by a project in determining the preferable 40 uses.
41 42 Ms. Gonzalez commented in general she could provide more specific guidance if and 43 when an application was presented, but that should not be part of the discussion at this 44 time. She further clarified the Planning Commission may offer recommendations for the 45 potential applicant to consider in terms of revenue when presented to the Planning 46 Commission in the future, but the Planning Commission should not make any ruling or 47 statement of preference as to how that should be done in the comments to be provided. 48 49 Vice-Chairperson Menis stated many of his comments had been made during the question 50 phase.
10 January 12, 2026
1 In terms of the split of uses in the first building, assuming the applicant planned a similar 2 bi-building split, Vice-Chairperson Menis commented that one building was almost entirely 3 storage and the other a mix of storage and other uses. He asked about the amount of 4 space the applicant was willing to allocate to non-storage uses in the smaller building. 5 6 Mr. Reinberg advised they were looking at a mixed-use concept and he appreciated the 7 feedback and desire to have a mixed-use approach. He would consider that feedback as 8 he worked to complete the development proposal and application but it was currently 9 premature in the process to say how much mixed-use there would be at this time. 10 11 Vice-Chairperson Menis asked whether Commissioner Martinez’s questions about 12 windows was linked to the first or second building since the first building, as reflected in 13 Attachment C, Project Description and Traffic Memo dated May 10, 2019, had a fair 14 amount of windows at several points, including the west elevation (Page 38 of 86 of the 15 agenda packet, Preliminary Elevations, A.10), east elevation and (Page 40 of 86 of the 16 agenda packet Preliminary Elevations A.12), with windows on most of the public facing 17 sides. He suggested that would be a worthwhile rendering to show what it looked like for 18 the in-between the buildings space which would not have much of an impact on the public 19 perception, but shape the relationship of the two buildings to each other and how they 20 would integrate stylistically. Based on Attachment C, there would be a fair amount of 21 windows on the front building.
22 23 Commissioner Martinez clarified his comments about windows and noted there were some 24 glass windows as referenced on the front of Attachment D, Planning Commission 25 Renderings, and a sketch which had been included in the agenda packet. 26 27 Mr. Reinberg clarified the differences between windows and glazing, used in part because 28 a self-storage facility with too many windows would become a security issue and they 29 could not have a window into a storage unit. The inside of the window on elevated floors 30 sometimes used a glazing or faux technique offering the appearance of a frosted or tinted 31 window to improve aesthetics but was not an actual window, as opposed to the first floor, 32 where one would want window visibility. Such design elements would be part of the 33 development of the design application.
34 35 Commissioner Martinez commented that if office space, it was likely one would want 36 windows, which would be more inviting.
37 38 Vice-Chairperson Menis also spoke to Attachment D and suggested a way in the new 39 design to take the articulation and variety of colors in the first building and expand that out 40 more to the second building, and while some articulation and color design was being 41 proposed it was sharper on the first building. Referencing Page 50 of 86 of the agenda 42 packet, the front page of Attachment D, it had shown the shading of the front building and 43 he suggested the top space could use more variety and articulation of color. 44 45 Commissioner Bender referenced Attachment C, Planning Commission Plan Set, the 46 frontage along San Pablo Avenue, and noted the ground floor had some version of 47 translucent glass for the lobby and then proposed office space which wrapped around 48 both sides. There were also references to spandrel glass, which was opaque glass 49 material.
50 11 January 12, 2026
1 Chair Sandoval suggested given the project had not been approved the first go-around a 2 creative use of the space may be more successful in the future. 3 4 Mr. Reinberg asked whether residential would be an allowed use in the OIMU District. 5 6 Mr. Shiu clarified residential development would require the approval of a Conditional Use 7 Permit (CUP); however, a CUP was required for the self-storage facility anyway and 8 residential could be part of the application.
9 10 Mr. Hanham explained the allowed density for the site would be 20 to 30 dwelling units 11 per acre. Once a proposal was made, it would have to be compared to the standards of 12 the Three Corridors Specific Plan, which would permit a structure of 40 feet in height, or 13 four stories, but an affordable housing development could include waivers and possibly a 14 taller building.
15 16 Vice-Chairperson Menis commented that when reviewing the Land Use and Development 17 Standards for the OIMU District, Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) would be permitted by 18 right, but ADUs may not work in the OIMU District.
19 20 Mr. Shiu clarified for an ADU, a primary dwelling unit must be on-site prior to requesting 21 approval of an ADU and absent that component, just an ADU would not be permitted. 22 23 Commissioner Lam-Julian asked whether the applicant would consider leaning more 24 towards retail industrial mixed-use, and again offered the example of Mercado La Paloma 25 in Los Angeles.
26 27 Mr. Hanham referenced the Pinole Shores II development that had multiple uses 28 associated with the project including retail, a kitchen incubator and a restaurant as part of 29 the industrial potion of the project. He understood Commissioner Lam-Julian was 30 suggesting potentially the property could do the same type of thing as Pinole Shores II 31 had done but on a smaller scale due to the size of the subject property. 32 33 Commissioner Lam-Julian again asked whether the applicant would consider going that 34 route.
35 36 Ms. Gonzalez clarified the applicant was not required to make a statement as to which 37 way he may or may not go now, but that recommendation could be made as consideration 38 for a future application. She clarified that Commissioner Lam-Julian had provided an 39 example for consideration in consideration of a potential future application. 40 41 Chair Sandoval noted the City of Emeryville had similar development the applicant may 42 also consider as a potential idea, which involved multi-level development but on the taller 43 side, and which included different uses within the project, such as industrial, commercial, 44 retail and health care settings.
45 46 Mr. Reinberg stated he would take a look at those developments. 47 48 Mr. Hanham explained for the benefit of the applicant when going through the permitted 49 uses table, that he would find that many uses required a CUP, but only one CUP would 50 be considered for the project.
12 January 12, 2026
1 Mr. Hanham added that when the applicant was close to making application, it could be 2 brought to the Planning Commission Design Review Ad-Hoc Committee for more specific 3 feedback and recommendations prior to the full Planning Commission for formal 4 consideration.
5 6 H. OLD BUSINESS: None
7 8 I. NEW BUSINESS: None
9 10 J. CITY PLANNER’S/COMMISSIONER’S REPORT
11 12 Messiers Shiu and Hanham provided the following updates:
13 14 • The next meeting of the Planning Commission may include three or four items. 15 16 • The City Council would hear the Planning Commission recommendations for 17 potential redevelopment of the Appian 80 Workshop in the first quarter of 2026. 18 Representation from the Planning Commission was encouraged to be present to 19 speak to the item, either the Chair or someone nominated to be the spokesperson 20 for the Planning Commission. Commissioners may also speak as a private citizen 21 on the matter.
22 23 Ms. Gonzalez recommended the appointment of a spokesperson from the Planning 24 Commission be agendized at a future Planning Commission meeting. 25 26 Chair Sandoval offered a motion, approved by general consensus, to add the appointment 27 of a spokesperson from the Planning Commission to attend a future City Council meeting on 28 behalf of the Planning Commission to speak to the Planning Commission recommendations 29 for the Appian 80 Shopping Center on the January 26, 2026 meeting agenda. 30 31 • Staff also continued to prepare a report to the State Department of Housing and 32 Community Development (HCD) regarding updates to the City’s Housing Element 33 over the past couple of years, to be considered by the City Council in March 2026. 34 35 • The City’s gas station moratorium would be considered by the Planning Commission 36 on January 26, 2026 and the City Council at its second meeting of February 2026. 37 38 • A Parcel Map for the United States Post Office was being finalized. 39 40 • Staff continued to work with the Pinole Vista and Appian 80 property owners as to 41 the status of the properties with no additional updates at this time. 42 43 • Staff hoped to present the Parklet and Outdoor Dining Regulations and Objective 44 Development Design Standards (ODDS) to the Planning Commission in February. 45 46 • The Uptown Yard yearly use permit review and the applicant’s request for 47 recommended changes to the operating schedule was scheduled to be reviewed by 48 the Planning Commission on January 26, 2026.
49 13 January 12, 2026
1 • The Planning Commission Academy would be held March 11 through 13, 2026 in 2 Anaheim, with Chair Sandoval and Commissioners Huey and Uch to attend along 3 with staff (Hanham and Shiu). Another Commissioner may attend but must let staff 4 know immediately.
5 6 PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
7 8 Anthony Vossbrink, asked about the status of the following: the Faria House property, 9 property across from the Pinole Valley High School (PVHS) corner where the former Union 10 76 Gas Station was located, a fencing proposal in front of St. Joseph Church and the Pinole 11 Police Department, open property across the street from the United States Post Office and 12 the Tara Hills//Safeway Shopping Center. He asked whether the City had a grid chart 13 showing the status of pending grants the City had applied for in the past year or 18 months, 14 including the value of the grant and whether the City had been successful in obtaining the 15 grant. He understood the City obtained a grant for the San Pablo Avenue Bridge and asked 16 whether those same grant funds or another grant could be considered to repair the bridge 17 next to Fire Station 74 at the sharp turnout along Pinole Valley Road. He noted two 18 sawhorses had been placed in the area, the batteries in the sawhorses had gone out, and at 19 night the area was dark along the corner with only concrete barriers to protect the area. 20 21 Mr. Vossbrink also asked for an update from the Contra Costa Flood Control and Water 22 Conservation District (FCWCD) as it related to the area behind Sprouts where there was a 23 landslide breach, which has become worse on the northeast side of the creek between the 24 Sprouts parking lot and the retail property stores. There were also breaches farther down by 25 the school across the street which had been impacted by the latest rain storms and tarps that 26 had been placed in the area had been blown off. He understood this area was to be 27 evaluated by the FCWCD and while some trimming of vegetation and trees had been done, 28 nothing had been done to address the breaches.
29 30 Mr. Hanham reported City-owned properties for sale continued to be for sale and while he 31 understood the City Council had considered some offers in executive session, he had no 32 further information. In terms of the issues with the FCWCD, he would have to reach out to 33 the Public Works Department about what was being done since the area referenced was the 34 purview of the FCWCD. In terms of the status of grants, there may be some information 35 internally, but he was uncertain that information was available for external purposes. He 36 would ask if that was something staff could present to the City Council. 37 38 In response to the inquiry about property located at 2995 Pinole Valley Road, Mr. Hanham 39 stated that was privately-owned property that was for sale and no applications had been filed 40 for the property. As to the status of the Pinole Vista and Appian 80 properties, staff continued 41 to work with the property owners in the hopes of getting the properties developed or 42 redeveloped. Staff was also working with Pinole Vista on a demolition permit to demolish the 43 Kmart building since there were code enforcement issues with the building and there was a 44 desire to remove the building quickly. Entitlements for the property were good through 45 October 2026. He added the issues with City parks and bridges were under the purview of 46 the Public Works Department and he would have to check with the Department on the status 47 of the inquiries.
48 49
50 14 January 12, 2026
1 Commissioner Martinez commented on the receipt of maintenance and operations questions 2 and asked if the Planning Commission was the body to address those issues, or whether the 3 issues should be directed to the City Council to be tracked and resolved, particularly given 4 many issues had been reported for years and had not been addressed. 5 6 Mr. Hanham suggested the Planning Commission was used to raise the concerns since the 7 Planning Commission was a body of the City and the Planning Commission made 8 recommendations to the City Council. He acknowledged there were items that should go to 9 the City Council since the Planning Commission had no jurisdiction over those issues and 10 only had purview over land use or some entitlement that the Planning Commission had the 11 ability to govern or make a decision. Concerns which had been raised in the past had been 12 funneled to the Public Works Director and Public Works Foreman as a courtesy, and the 13 Planning Commission and planning staff had no control or authority over the status of the 14 work.
15 16 Ms. Gonzalez recommended when public comments were made outside of the jurisdiction 17 of this body, at that time the member of the public could be directed to the appropriate staff 18 member. It was a courtesy for staff to relay those messages to the appropriate department 19 but this was a good item to refer the member of the public to the appropriate body. 20 21 Commissioner Martinez commented some of the concerns were serious and should be 22 brought to the next level. He was concerned some of the issues had gone on for years, with 23 nothing done and it should be brought to the leadership’s attention since otherwise it looked 24 like the City was not doing something, which was not good for governance. 25 26 Mr. Hanham advised he could provide the speaker with the number for Public Works and 27 reiterated that anything related to operations and maintenance issues were all Public Works 28 issues where the Planning Commission had no jurisdiction. The concerns would be relayed 29 to the appropriate staff person in the Public Works Department. As to the concerns with the 30 FCWCD, that was a county and not a City issue. He understood after speaking with the 31 Public Works Department, during City Council meetings, members of the public had been 32 asked to call certain phone numbers where a work order process could be started with the 33 Public Works Department. He would continue to inform the Public Works Department of the 34 concerns and added the comments would be included in the meeting minutes. 35 36 Chair Sandoval thanked staff for forwarding the comments to the appropriate people. 37 38 PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
39 40 K. COMMUNICATIONS
41 42 Vice-Chairperson Menis reported the Senior Food Distribution would be held on January 13, 43 2026 from 10:00 to 11:00 a.m. at the Pinole Senior Center for low-income eligible persons 44 over 55 years of age and a Pinole resident; a Special City Council meeting was scheduled 45 for January 13, 2026; a Finance Subcommittee meeting was scheduled for January 14, 2026 46 at 3:00 p.m., and a West Contra Costa Unified School District (WCCUSD) Listening Session 47 was scheduled for January 14, 2026 from 6:00 to 7:00 p.m. at Pinole Middle School. 48 49 PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
50 15 January 12, 2026
1 Anthony Vossbrink, appreciated the time Commissioner Martinez and others took to address 2 some of the past/old issues he had raised and noted the majority of the issues had been 3 reported before by residents calling in and were documented with a case number. However, 4 oftentimes there was no call back from anyone at City Hall or from Public Works to provide a 5 status update, requiring the public to call back, which was unfair to the community. Those 6 concerns had been raised with the past two City Managers and people needed to be held 7 accountable for what they should be doing.
8 9 Mr. Vossbrink commented in some instances the issues raised to the level of lawsuits. He 10 emphasized he also reported Caltrans issues in the past, which he detailed at this time and 11 suggested it was time for the City to do what was right for the taxpayers and have a follow12 up protocol with City staff to be held accountable rather than the City hiring, firing, staff getting 13 raises and changing job titles to keep someone in the same position rather than addressing 14 the City’s basic infrastructure problems. He further commented that often he had seen Public 15 Works members doing one job at one place or another, hanging out at the dog park or at Fire 16 Station 74 or the soccer and baseball fields in the afternoon. He reiterated that Caltrans 17 needed to be held accountable for required repairs on Caltrans property, including pothole 18 repair and the replacement of non-operable lights. He hoped to hear back from someone 19 and did not want to put it all on the Interim City Manager. 20 21 Chair Sandoval recommended the speaker reach out to the City Council. As to the Caltrans 22 issues, he made a note, and explained that speakers could reach out to their state 23 representatives since Caltrans was a state agency. He noted Caltrans had an online system 24 where customers may submit a service request by providing basic information about the 25 location of the issue, and while Caltrans may take some time to respond given the number 26 of service requests in the district, they were doing their best. 27 28 PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
29 30 Vice-Chairperson Menis suggested Caltrans’ lack of response for the ramp leading from 31 Pinole Valley Road onto I-80 eastbound was due to the fact it was getting close to 32 implementing a land expansion project, although Chair Sandoval was uncertain but was 33 aware that anything on Pinole Valley Road was under the City’s jurisdiction. 34 35 Mr. Hanham clarified Caltrans had an easement over the bridges, and underneath the 36 freeway sometimes Caltrans had maintenance agreements with cities to work on sidewalks 37 and streets on that level. In terms of the on- and off-ramps in Pinole, it could be a matter of 38 scheduling since some projects in the region were currently underway, and it may be possible 39 Caltrans was getting closer to addressing the issues raised. 40 41 L. NEXT MEETING
42 43 1. Planning Commission Regular Meeting on January 26, 2026 at 7:00 p.m. 44 45 M. ADJOURNMENT: 9:27 p.m.
46 47 Transcribed by:
48 49 Sherri D. Lewis
50 Transcriber