Pinole City Council
January 26, 2026

1 January 26, 2026
1 2
3 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
4 PINOLE PLANNING COMMISSION
5 6 January 26, 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: 7:01 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-Julian, 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 34 Vice-Chairperson Menis reported on his ex-parté communications to his email list about the 35 topics on the meeting agenda and other community events. 36 37 E. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD
38 39 Cathy McFarland commented on the City’s migration towards the State of California’s 40 cleaner environment and now the City wanted service stations prohibited. 41 42 Chairperson Sandoval advised that public comments on service stations would be 43 discussed as part of agenda Item G(1) and he asked the speaker to hold her comment 44 until that point in the meeting.
45 46 F. MEETING MINUTES
47 48 1. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for January 12, 2026 49 2 January 26, 2026
1 Vice-Chairperson Menis referenced Page 11 of 132 of the agenda packet, Lines 8 through 2 18, of the January 12, 2026 meeting minutes, and noted most of the statement in the bullet 3 point which had been attributed to him were primarily comments made by the applicant [Beau 4 Reinberg].He also asked that the bullet point include a statement that “He [Vice-Chairperson 5 Menis] had raised a concern that the one-time fee may not offset ongoing needs.” 6 7 MOTION with a Roll Call vote to approve the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for 8 January 12, 2026, as amended by Vice-Chairperson Menis. 9 10 MOTION: Sandoval SECONDED: Menis APPROVED: 6-0-1
11 ABSENT: Martinez
12 13 G. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
14 15 1. Zoning Code and Specific Plan Amendment PA25-004: New Service Station 16 Prohibitions and Provisions for Modifications and Alternative Fueling 17 Stations
18 19 Associate Planner Justin Shiu provided a PowerPoint presentation on the Zoning Code 20 and Specific Plan Amendments PA25-004: New Service Station Prohibitions and 21 Provisions for Modifications and Alternative Fueling Stations. He asked the Planning 22 Commission to adopt Resolution 26-01, recommending to the City Council the adoption 23 of proposed Pinole Municipal Code (PMC) and Specific Plan amendments, as provided in 24 Resolution 26-01, Attachment A, Exhibit A, or with additional recommendations for 25 revisions that may be provided by the Planning Commission. 26 27 Mr. Shiu also identified a typographical error in the January 26, 2026 staff report, and 28 noted Page 22 of 132 of the agenda packet, Table 1. Existing Service Stations, had shown 29 the Chevron at 2298 Appian Way as being in the Commercial Mixed Use (CMU) District 30 Service Sub-Area of the Appian Way Corridor, but the CMU should be corrected to read 31 Office Professional Mixed Use (OPMU) Zoning District. 32 33 Responding to questions from the Planning Commission, Mr. Shiu and Planning Manager 34 David Hanham clarified the following:
35 36 • Page 22 of 132 of the agenda packet, Table 1. Existing Service Stations, listed the 37 eight existing service stations in the City, seven of which were located within the 38 corridors covered by the Specific Plan, and one in the Regional Commercial (RC) 39 Zoning District outside of the Specific Plan. The majority of the service stations 40 were existing nonconforming uses as they were not permitted or conditionally 41 permitted uses under the current Zoning Code and Specific Plan. (Bender) 42 43 • Attachment A, Page 37 of 132 of the agenda packet, acknowledged a 44 recommendation to revise the third WHEREAS clause to read: WHEREAS, as 45 further provided in the urgency ordinance, fossil-fuel based transportation remains 46 the largest contributor of greenhouse gas emissions, and the City desire to aid in 47 reducing severe negative public health impacts that residents are experiencing, 48 and will continue to experience, by banning the development of new service 49 stations, prohibiting the expansion of existing service stations, and encourage the 50 use of zero emission vehicles; and ( Bender)
3 January 26, 2026
1 • Attachment A, Pages 56 and 57 of 132 of the agenda packet, Section 17.32.050 2 Development and Design Standards, E. Building and Canopy Design, 3 acknowledged a recommendation to revise the fourth sentence to read: In order 4 to reduce the visual impact of the canopy structure and corresponding lighting, the 5 maximum height of the canopy clearance shall be fifteen (15) feet and the 6 maximum height of the canopy fascia shall be thirty (30) inches. (Bender) 7 8 • Pages 45 through 50 of the agenda packet, Table 17.20.03-1, Allowed Uses and 9 Required Entitlements for City of Pinole Base Zoning District, Alternative Fuel 10 Stations would be permitted in the RC, CMU, OPMU and Office Industrial Mixed 11 Use (OIMU) Zoning Districts. Staff clarified the Zoning Code established the 12 general standards in the City, whereas the Three Corridors Specific Plan was the 13 more specific document that applied to many of the major corridors including San 14 Pablo Avenue, Pinole Valley Road and Appian Way. The Specific Plan document 15 was more detailed in zoning designations in each corridor and sub-area, and the 16 Specific Plan document established where exactly the Alternative Fuel Stations 17 would be permitted. (Bender)
18 19 • Page 23 of 132 of the agenda packet, clarified the information under Review and 20 Analysis of the January 26, 2026 staff report, particularly the last sentence of the 21 first paragraph which read: Additionally, the amendments consider enhancements 22 to existing provisions in the Zoning Ordinance that incentivize the expansion, 23 modification, or retrofit of an existing service station to incorporate biodiesel or 24 other alternative fuels or charging stations for electric vehicles, clarifying a new 25 service station would require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and modification of 26 a Use Permit, or discretionary review associated with modifications, and for fuel 27 stations it would be permitted by use in many of the Districts that previously allowed 28 for service stations, reducing some of the application fee requirements associated 29 with some of those uses, and reduce the time associated with notices for a hearing 30 and the like. This was driven by state regulations taking away the discretionary 31 review process for alternative fuel stations, which offered an incentive to reduce 32 permitting costs and fees associated with those uses. 33 34 There was also an existing provision in the code which allowed for some parking 35 reductions to be carried over, if the applicant could show why it was required to 36 accommodate new alternative fuel service stations. (Uch) 37 38 • Pages 45 through 50 of 132 of the agenda packet, Table 17.20.030-1, Allowed 39 Uses and Required Entitlements for City of Pinole Base Zoning Districts. Clarified 40 Alternative Fuel Stations were not permitted in the Low Density Residential (LDR), 41 Suburban Residential (R-1), Medium Density (R-2), High Density (R-3), Very High 42 Density (R-4), Rural (R), Residential Mixed Use (RMU), Open Space (OS), Parks 43 and Recreation (PR), Public Quasi-Public Institutional (PQI) and San Pablo Bay 44 Conservation Zoning Districts. (Uch)
45 46 • A new multifamily or commercial development, as an example, would require 47 Comprehensive Design Review and would require review by the Planning 48 Commission. (Uch)
49 4 January 26, 2026
1 • The Planning Commission may consider potential conflicting impacts between 2 uses and or how uses may be brought together, and should a new use come and 3 a property be redeveloped with new structures, as an example, the project would 4 require Planning Commission comprehensive design review. (Uch) 5 6 • Alternative fuel stations were already regulated by the state which dictated how 7 they could be reviewed. Many electric vehicle (EV) charging stations, as an 8 example, went through a ministerial review process for a building permit regardless 9 of any design aspects that the City may impose. (Uch) 10 11 • Page 29 of 232 of the agenda packet, Section 17.23.030(C), Loss of Non12 conforming Status for Service Stations, (1) had been amended by staff to read: If 13 the service station is abandoned or ceases the selling, storing, and/or dispensing 14 of fossil fuels for a continuous period in excess of six (6) months, the service station 15 shall lose its nonconforming status and any subsequent use of the site shall be in 16 conformity with regulations of the applicable zoning district. The Community 17 Development Director shall have final determination on the date the service station 18 became abandoned or ceased the selling, storing, and/or dispensing of fossil fuels. 19 Clarified the environmental remediation was intended to be captured in the six20 month period, as reflected in the amendment, with the six-month period added as 21 a minimum time limit. The Community Development Director may extend that 22 period, should additional time for cleanup be needed. The regulatory agencies 23 would impose the standards for any cleanup and included the State Water 24 Resources Control Board (WRCB) and Department of Toxic Substances Control 25 (DTSC). The City would not bear the responsibility to report to these agencies, the 26 service stations would need to coordinate with the state agencies and it would fall 27 under the property owners’ responsibility; however, the City may provide guidance 28 to the property owner, if needed. (Huey)
29 30 • As to whether there had been any harm to the existing nonconforming service 31 stations during the City’s Urgency Ordinance and moratorium, staff was unaware 32 but when preparing the proposed Zoning Code and Specific Plan Amendments, 33 the City’s Sustainability Fellow had reached out to the City’s service station owners 34 and some had shared their thoughts and comments, but there were no specific 35 challenges and there were no major objections to the prohibition. (Vice36 Chairperson Menis) 37 38 • Page 22 of 132 of the agenda packet, again clarified the typographical error in 39 Table 1. Existing Service Stations, which had shown the Chevron at 2298 Appian 40 Way as being in the Commercial Mixed Use (CMU) District Service Sub-Area of 41 the Appian Way Corridor, but CMU should be corrected to read Office Professional 42 Mixed Use (OPMU) Zoning District. (Vice-Chairperson Menis) 43 44 • Page 64 of 132 of the agenda packet, Land Use Development Standards, clarified 45 the standards for Alternative Fuel Stations in the OPMU and CMU Districts which 46 would be permitted with a Use Permit for occupancy and be considered as a 47 Conforming Use. (Vice-Chairperson Menis)
48 5 January 26, 2026
1 • The use would be nonconforming if it had the (N) designation “Not Permitted.” 2 Staff also clarified that the existing service stations on Pinole Valley Road had 3 been established prior to 2010, and were legal nonconforming uses when the 4 General Plan and Specific Plan had been adopted. (Vice-Chairperson Menis) 5 6 • Page 24 of 132 of the agenda packet, Section 17. 12.080 (B), had been amended 7 to read: Applicability. Administrative design review is required for all structural 8 additions to single family, multi-family and non-residential structures, and as 9 otherwise required in this Title. There were other sections in the PMC which 10 mentioned administrative design review but had not been specifically mentioned 11 in this section, which mostly addressed single-family, additions, multifamily and 12 commercial additions not more than 500 square feet in size, and other portions of 13 the PMC included fence exceptions for additional height required through the 14 administrative design review process that were not specifically mentioned. Also, 15 this modification had been added as a catch-all. (Vice-Chairperson Menis) 16 17 • Page 29 of 132 of the agenda packet, Section 17.34.030(C)(2) had been amended 18 to read: If the service station loses its nonconforming status, the property owner 19 shall be responsible for the removal of all buildings, pumps, pump islands, signs, 20 underground storage tanks, fences, walls, and all other structures and instruments 21 related to the service station, and shall return the property to substantially the 22 condition it was in prior to the construction of the service station. The owner shall 23 submit plans to the Community Development Department showing the proposed 24 removal and obtain all required permits to complete the work. The owner shall 25 complete the removal within six (6) months following the date the service station 26 lost its nonconforming status, or as otherwise approved by the Community 27 Development Director. Clarified the Community Development Director would 28 determine the timeline, if a specific timeline was recommended, and this regulation 29 was currently open-ended. If the property owner did not follow the timeline in the 30 regulation, code enforcement could be imposed to start the code enforcement 31 process. If all code enforcement remedies were exhausted and the removal was 32 not done, the City may step in and start abatement proceedings with a lien placed 33 on the property to allow the City to recover any applicable fees. 34 35 Additionally, in terms of the potential for lead gasoline and hazardous substances, 36 those hazards would be regulated under federal or state laws, and those regulatory 37 agencies would monitor any remediation the service station would require when 38 discontinuing operations. (Vice-Chairperson Menis)
39 40 • Pages 30 and 31 of 132 of the agenda packet, Section 17.34.050, Development 41 and Design Standards for Service Stations and Alternative Fuel Stations, (E), 42 Building and Canopy Design, reiterated the Specific Plan would override the 43 Zoning Code when there was a conflict, although the Specific Plan did not include 44 any specific height requirements for accessory type structures, which would 45 capture fuel canopies, but there were structural compatibility and design guideline 46 requirements that would apply to this section. Possibly the Specific Plan phrasing 47 could be stricken from this section to avoid any conflicts. (Vice-Chairperson Menis) 48 6 January 26, 2026
1 • Attachment A, Pages 45 through 50 of 132 of the agenda packet, again clarified 2 the Zoning Districts which permit or did not permit Alternative Fuel Stations, and 3 clarified in consultation with the City Attorney, many of the alternative fuel 4 infrastructure pieces could not be required to go through the discretionary review 5 process, and the infrastructure itself not required to have a CUP. The permitted 6 uses being shown in the table provided a cleaner method to note the specific types 7 of fueling that would be allowed and would not be in violation of any prohibition on 8 discretionary review. (Vice-Chairperson Menis)
9 10 • Attachment A, Pages 56 and 57 of 132 of the agenda packet, Section 17.34.050 11 Development and Design Standards for Service Stations and Alternative Fuel 12 Stations, G. Accommodation of Refueling Trucks, clarified the text amendment 13 shown in this section was intended to capture all types of review processes and a 14 broader application of the requirement. (Vice-Chairperson Menis) 15 16 • Attachment A, Pages 56 and 57 of 132 of the agenda packet, Section 17.34.050 17 Development and Design Standards for Service Stations and Alternative Fuel 18 Stations (E), clarified the language that had been stricken from this section would 19 have required a lighting study in conjunction with the design review process. This 20 was a cleanup item, with the provision and requirement for a lighting study having 21 been merged with subsection (K), Lighting, which read: Where there is change to 22 the exterior lighting in conjunction with a permit application for new or modified 23 structures, a lighting study shall be submitted to demonstrate consistency with the 24 requirements of Chapter 17.46 (Lighting). In addition to the lighting requirements 25 of Chapter 17.46 (Lighting), canopy lighting shall be recessed so that the luminary 26 does not extend below the surface of the underside of the canopy. (Vice27 Chairperson Menis) 28 29 • Attachment A, Page 37 of 132 of the agenda packet, acknowledged the Vice30 Chair’s statement the third WHEREAS clause was intended to be past tense. 31 (Vice-Chairperson Menis)
32 33 • Attachment D, Survey Results, Pages 99 through 125 of 132 of the agenda packet, 34 staff clarified there were no specific identifiers in the survey results. (Vice35 Chairperson Menis) 36 37 • Page 25 of 132 of the agenda packet, Section 17.22.020(G)(7), had been 38 amended to read: ALTERNATIVE FUEL STATION. A retail business whose 39 primary on-site use is the sale and dispensing of motor vehicle fuel other than fossil 40 fuels, including hydrogen, electricity, and biofuel. Vehicle services, which are 41 incidental to fuel services, are included under “Vehicle Services - Minor.” Staff 42 clarified these types of energy sources had been referenced in the City’s Climate 43 Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP). If one of these service stations changed 44 owners or ownership transferred, there would be no change to the regulations, but 45 if the specific type of use ceased and no fueling dispensing storage for more than 46 six months, the existing nonconformity would be gone. Change in ownership and 47 rebranding would be permitted and the service station would have to continue as 48 a service station. If the service station were to close, the zoning designation would 49 remain the same, just the permitted use would change. (Chairperson Sandoval) 7 January 26, 2026
1 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
2 3 Whitney Villa Greswold noted that in the year 2050, her children would be 30 and 32 years 4 old, and according to the state’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment under High 5 Emissions Scenarios, which the area could be heading towards without more global 6 unified action, average temperatures could rise by approximately four degrees above late 20th 7 century averages. Rising temperatures would spur drastic changes to the weather 8 with more prolonged and extreme heat, higher frequency and severity of fires, more 9 droughts and severe rain. The world had not experienced such extreme warming at such 10 a rapid rate and the tipping points to climate destruction were unknown. With 11 environmental protection rollbacks, she suggested the City of Pinole needed to do its part 12 to encourage emission reductions. Global issues could be solved at the local level and 13 she suggested the purpose of government was to look out for the best interests of 14 residents by taking into account sound science. The proposed ban on new service 15 stations was part of a larger portfolio of actions the City should take to reduce emissions 16 and increase community reliance to climatic events that would incur in the coming years. 17 The City could include more bicycle/pedestrian paths, support transit, increase EV 18 chargers, support community emergency response team training, fire hazard mitigation 19 and the like. Proud to be a resident of a City that had foresight and made decisions based 20 on science and who watched out for the health and safety of its residents, she supported 21 the ordinance to prohibit new service stations in the City. 22 23 Cathy McFarland commented on the City’s migration towards the state’s cleaner 24 environment. The City now wanted service stations prohibited, and provisions and 25 modifications for alternative fuel stations. She found that Pinole was following the state 26 down the rabbit hole with unrealistic goals of all-electric, and suggested it was all about 27 balance and what the system could support along with the cost of operating that system. 28 The state could not support the current grid system on an extremely hot day and as of 29 2024, there were only 1.8 million registered electric vehicles in the state. Most people 30 were barely surviving financially and could not afford a new vehicle, let alone the 31 outrageous electric costs to operate electric vehicles now or in the future. 32 33 Per the top 25 sales tax revenue generators for the City, Ms. McFarland noted five were 34 gas stations which provided the City gas tax revenues. She commented the City also 35 added high density homes with approximately 200 units built with another 400 units to be 36 built in the near future. She questioned where they would get the gas to operate those 37 units. The City needed to take care of Pinole’s residents, with the state’s pro-housing 38 agenda not protecting the community given all of the project’s residents had been 39 subjected to. The City also built senior housing with little parking, which had caused many 40 new issues in the surrounding areas including safety issues. She noted the City now 41 wanted $390,000 from residents for those areas to help correct the problem. This was the 42 first of three major problems the City was facing, with more pro-housing developments to 43 be built with the same blueprints on Appian Way and Fitzgerald Drive. 44 45 Ms. McFarland added a storm drain project that was to be built prior to and near the senior 46 project had doubled over its projected estimate to over $700,000. She understood in 47 talking with a City department head there had been issues with the contractor that helped 48 to inflate the new price. The City’s lack of oversight rushing into this pro-housing project 49 would cost the City around $740,000 and the City may turn to residents to pay. 8 January 26, 2026
1 Ms. McFarland added a Walk Score had shown the City of Pinole was a car dependent 2 City. On average there were around 21,000 vehicles a day in Pinole, a lot of traffic, all of 3 which would need to continue fueling up. In addition, the City’s impact fees and how they 4 would be spent in upcoming years had shown the City was not there for its residents, with 5 the majority of those fees to go towards City-owned property and not to the roads or police. 6 She asked what would happen when taking away the tax revenue from fueling stations 7 and additional gas taxes, and the City became all housing, with no money to support the 8 City. She suggested the City was creating its own problems which were greatly multiplied 9 daily, asked that each and every decision count now and for the future of the entire City 10 of Pinole, and that decisions made be right for the City and its residents. 11 12 Anthony Vossbrink asked what brought the original subject up, assuming it was the City 13 Council, and suggested that be revisited to see where they were, where they were going 14 and why they were there in the first place. He asked whether state or federal agencies 15 had imposed a mandate for the City. He found it odd this started at the same time that 16 some members of the City Council pushed through a moratorium absent public feedback. 17 He suggested there could be an ulterior motive and he would like to know what it was 18 since it could be political.
19 20 Mr. Vossbrink added at the time the Appian 80 project was to get underway the moratorium 21 had been imposed, which stopped the project since Safeway found out what was 22 happening in the City and with the City Council. He learned in planning meetings with the 23 public that Safeway had shown its plans for the property, which included 12 to 18 gas 24 pumps. While things had been green-lit at that time, the majority of the City Council 25 decided against it, and the City lost that income and gas taxes to neighboring cities. Many 26 people, including former City Council member Pete Murray, suggested the City Council 27 consider what Lucky Stores had done and who the City offered a rubber stamp on EV 28 charging stations. The City could have considered EV charging stations to match the 29 number of proposed gas pumps rather than lose the entire Safeway project. He also found 30 it odd the Union 76/Valero Station had been grandfathered-in and picked up additional 31 gas pumps, which occurred at the same time. That service station opened up a couple of 32 years late but was allowed a new gas station after breaking ground twice. He suggested 33 looking at what happened in that situation.
34 35 Mr. Vossbrink further commented the City had not wanted to consider realigning or re36 queuing the lights on Pinole Valley Road to limit and reduce carbon emissions and the 37 egress/ingress to the freeway, with traffic back up that caused many problems and carbon 38 emissions along Pinole Valley Road.
39 40 Shoshana Wechsler supported the adoption of Resolution 26-01. A West County resident, 41 and Coordinator for the Sunflower Alliance, an environmental justice organization and 42 Chair of the County Sustainability Commission, but speaking as a Contra Costa County 43 resident, responded to the questions raised by the previous caller as to why to do this. 44 She commented on the President’s calls to drill and lead the nation back to the stone age 45 of increased fossil fuel production and consumption by any means necessary. Despite 46 the President’s mythologizing about the new Golden Age that awaited, the facts on the 47 ground and in the shared air and waters, told a different story. The world was in a fossil 48 fuel emergency that was intensifying rapidly. She found the City of Pinole was taking 49 action by protecting residents from fossil fuel-related pollution and worsening 50 environmental impacts of climate change.
9 January 26, 2026
1 While some were worried about running out of gas or possible gas spikes, and while 2 serious issues, Ms. Wechsler noted the City of Pinole had eight gas stations, running out 3 of gas was not a real likelihood and gas prices were in the hands of a volatile global market 4 and not City government. On a local level, the City could minimize exposure to known 5 health hazards like benzine and carcinogens emitting from gas stations. When speaking 6 of affordability, one also had to factor in the high price of work missed and spiking health 7 care costs and the costs of human life. She noted that 80 percent of gas stations had 8 been projected to be unprofitable by 2035, and remediating a gas station could cost more 9 than $2 million, with an average cost of over $243,000 per site. She asked the City 10 planners to adopt the resolution and recommended the City Council adopt the zoning code 11 amendments.
12 13 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
14 15 Vice-Chairperson Menis provided the following comments on the agenda item and in 16 response to the public comment:
17 18 • A reference to $390,000 costing citizens was not the net cost to the City; it was the 19 amount of a grant in total with the matching portion of local funds for the City at around 20 $130,000.
21 22 • Referenced Attachment D, survey results, which responses addressed questions 23 about the free market, prices and the potential harm to store owners; and important 24 to note, the ordinance, as amended, would not shut down any existing gas stations 25 now, in 2035 or in 2050, but would prohibit the construction of new gas stations, 26 expansion of gas station pumps at existing gas stations and if the pumps stopped at 27 existing gas stations for a period of time they would no longer be allowed. 28 29 • Appreciated the overall polite and reasoned tone taken by both sides in the survey 30 results, and while he recognized one of the respondents had used obscenities and 31 race-based remarks about Council members, he suggested as a community the City 32 could do better about expressing its thoughts and views on issues without stooping 33 to Ad hominem and making racist attacks as a matter of policy. 34 35 • Page 25 of 132 of the agenda packet, Section 17.22.020(G)(7), definition for 36 ALTERNATIVE FUEL STATION and Attachment A, Page 49 of 132 of the agenda 37 packet, noted hydrogen had the potential for seepage issues that biofuels and 38 gasoline may not due to the nature of the molecule and how the gas was stored. 39 Suggested fire conditions be imposed on the permitted by right use for Alternative 40 Fuel Stations.
41 42 Mr. Shiu clarified that permitted by right meant it was a land use that was allowed on the site 43 without any special discretionary review and approval. There would be applicable standards 44 outside local regulatory standards, such as state or federal standards. 45 46 • Page 29 of 132 of the agenda packet, Section 17.34.030(C), Loss of Nonconforming 47 Status for Service Stations, recommended the end of the clause include a reference 48 to the segments of the PMC that spoke to what happened if there was no compliance 49 with this section.
10 January 26, 2026
1 Mr. Shiu suggested it could be noted the use could be subject to code enforcement in the 2 event of non-compliance, which would happen to any use that did not comply with the PMC. 3 4 Mr. Hanham suggested if the Vice-Chair wanted to refer to another section of the PMC, there 5 could be reference to code enforcement actions since there were a number of different 6 sections in the code. He did not recommend limiting it to one section, rather to state that 7 non-compliance could result in code enforcement action. 8 9 Chairperson Sandoval referenced Page 52 of 132 of the agenda packet, Section 17.22.020 10 Allowed Use Definitions, and suggested “renewable fuels” be added to the definitions. He 11 did not want to limit to specifics and recommended leaving it open ended in the event of a 12 solar or water-powered vehicle or some other form of transportation that was necessarily 13 defined, but could still be defined, as “renewable” or “green technology.” The same change 14 should be made to Pages 55 and 56 of 132 of the agenda packet, Section 17.34.030 15 Operation and Modification of Service Stations (B)(3), Addition of Alternative Fuel. 16 17 Mr. Shiu confirmed the change could be made anywhere the definition of Alternative Fuel 18 was shown in the documents.
19 20 Chairperson Sandoval otherwise referenced the required setbacks for the pump stations and 21 asked whether the same setbacks would apply to EV charging stations. He commented if a 22 parking lot or prior gas station was converted, as an example, EV infrastructure could be 23 placed closer to the street, and asked whether the infrastructure must be 15-feet from the 24 public right-of-way (ROW).
25 26 Mr. Shiu explained the standard was in the Zoning Code. For many sites EV charging 27 stations were permitted or conditionally permitted. For Alternative Fuel Stations, EV charging 28 stations would be a permitted use and would refer to the setback standards in the Three 29 Corridors Specific Plan, which he described as very generous. EV charging stations as a 30 standalone and not the primary use of the site was governed by typical building code 31 requirements.
32 33 Vice-Chairperson Menis continued his comments, as follows:
34 35 • Page 24 of 132 of the agenda packet, Section 17.12.080 (B), which currently read:
36 Applicability. Administrative design review is required for all structural additions to 37 single family, multi-family and non-residential structures, and as otherwise 38 required in this Title, and recommended this section be modified to specifically detail 39 what would be “otherwise required in this Title.”
40 41 • Page 52 of 132 of the agenda packet, Section 17.22.020 Allowed Use Definitions, 42 recommended an expanded definition of “fossil fuels” be included, while also 43 clearly defining what was being included in the definition. Expressed concern with 44 potential changes from the federal government related to the use of fossil fuels in 45 the future and offered a number of examples where that may happen. 46 47 Mr. Shiu confirmed a more detailed definition could be considered for fossil fuels. If there 48 were changes imposed by the federal government, the City would have to follow those 49 changes.
50 11 January 26, 2026
1 Mr. Hanham confirmed if the federal government changed the definition of fossil fuels, the 2 PMC would have to be amended automatically as had been done with changes to state 3 and federal housing codes.
4 5 Speaking to the public comments about the background of the Appian 80 Shopping Center 6 project, Vice-Chairperson Menis noted the initial proposal had been in place before the 7 gas station moratorium. Had the developer used the approved entitlements, the project 8 would not have been impacted by the moratorium. He also responded to the concerns 9 raised by members of the public that the City’s moratorium had allowed the property to 10 become blighted, which he stated was not accurate since the original property owner could 11 have built under the approved entitlements. The property had been sold and the current 12 property owner allowed the property to become blighted. 13 14 Messiers Shiu and Hanham clarified the original entitlements for the Appian 80 Shopping 15 Center had been approved in 2020. There had been extensions after that time with the 16 last extension ending in 2023. The property had been sold in 2022 and the new property 17 owner allowed the entitlements to expire. None of the requirements of the moratorium 18 had been in effect at that time.
19 20 Vice-Chairperson Menis also recognized that some gas station properties had been 21 grandfathered-in such as the Union 76/Valero Station since it was approved before the 22 moratorium was enacted. He asked staff to provide clarification. 23 24 Mr. Hanham confirmed the entitlements for the Union 76/Valero Station had been 25 approved far in advance of the moratorium. There had been PG&E issues that caused 26 delay in construction. This service station would have become a legal nonconforming use 27 with the passage of the ordinance, but at the time it was current and the emergency 28 ordinance would not have affected the construction of that project. 29 30 Vice-Chairperson Menis added there was also some confusion about the overall scope of 31 the ordinance and the zoning text amendments. He reiterated the ordinance, as amended, 32 would not shut down existing gas stations and the approximate 21,000 vehicles passing 33 through the City could still continue to get gas as they did today. He also took the 34 opportunity to highlight many of the findings in Attachment D for the survey results, and 35 based on the responses, the existing network of gas stations in Pinole would remain 36 permitted and would provide an adequate support base for vehicles passing through the 37 City. He hoped with the shift from electric vehicles and associated infrastructure in the 38 future, the number of internal combustion powered vehicles on the road would decrease 39 and the need for gas service stations would likewise drop over time. 40 41 Vice-Chairperson Menis added even given the broader concerns over the practically of this 42 ordinance or its infringement on the free market, per the survey results, which he again 43 highlighted, respondents had not identified that as a concern. He also recognized the 44 concern that the vast majority of people in Pinole primarily relied on gasoline powered 45 vehicles and the ability to continue to access fossil fuels to power those vehicles along 46 with the concerns with the cost of acquiring new or used electric vehicles. He noted the 47 most likely reason a service station would close down would be due to the free market, as 48 evidenced by the survey results.
49 12 January 26, 2026
1 When there were fewer internal combustible vehicles on the street and where it was no 2 longer profitable to own and maintain the gas service stations, they may close naturally. 3 At that point, non-internal combustible vehicles may presumably be reduced in price where 4 the affordability concern would no longer be valid.
5 6 Commissioner Lam-Julian asked what extra revenue the City received from gas stations. 7 She understood the revenue generated from grocery stores was miniscule. 8 9 Mr. Hanham explained the City budget outlined all of the gas taxes the City received, staff 10 did not have that information at hand at this time but it was available in the budget. 11 12 Chairperson Sandoval again requested the addition of “renewable fuels” in the definitions 13 to capture new types of fuels a service station or alternative fuel station could adapt to. 14 15 Vice-Chairperson Menis commented he looked at the agenda packet for the January 20, 16 2026 City Council meeting when the City Council considered the Annual Comprehensive 17 Financial Report (ACFR). The ACFR included information on the taxable sales category 18 for the last 10 fiscal years. Page 474 of the City Council agenda packet included 19 information on taxable sales by category and fuel and service stations as a business 20 group, and included the sale of gas and convenience store goods, which reached a peak 21 of $412,186 point of sale total in Fiscal Year (FY) 2021, but declined to $335,807 in FY 22 2024/25. This was considerably less than the general consumer good category or 23 restaurants/hotels category but close to matching the building/construction category, with 24 food and drugs higher.
25 26 Vice-Chairperson Menis reiterated a request to amend Page 24 of 132 of the agenda 27 packet, Section 17.12.080(B), which currently read: Applicability. Administrative design 28 review is required for all structural additions to single family, multi-family and non29 residential structures, and as otherwise required in this Title, and recommended this 30 section be modified to explain more explicitly the statement “otherwise required in this Title.” 31 He left it up to staff whether to include the specifics in the staff report, or the text itself. 32 33 Vice-Chairperson Menis reiterated a request to amend Page 29 of 132 of the agenda 34 packet, Section 17.34.030(C)(2), and suggested it would be worthwhile to indicate in this 35 section some of the potential consequences for non-compliance with this section, such 36 “as would occur in any other loss of use,” “x” would happen in this order and identify the 37 potential consequences to be clear to the public and those relying on that segment of the 38 ordinance.
39 40 The Vice-Chairperson again referenced Page 31 of 132 of the agenda packet, Section 41 17.34.050, Development and Design Standards for Service Stations and Alternative Fuel 42 Stations (E) Building and Canopy Design, and asked that the language reading “or 43 Specific Plan” in the notwithstanding clause be stricken. 44 45 Mr. Shiu suggested leaving that section as written, since the Specific Plan did include 46 different height standards depending on the Zoning District and Sub-Areas that could be 47 higher than the 25-foot regulation shown in this section. 48 49
13 January 26, 2026
1 Mr. Hanham added there were gas stations in the RC Zoning District outside of the 2 Specific Plan and that standard would be associated to those stations within the RC 3 Zoning District. If standards in the Specific Plan were already set, they would be used for 4 those stations in the Three Corridors Specific Plan. The way Section 17.34.050(E) had 5 been written, and while vague, there were two different areas; one non-Specific Plan and 6 the other Specific Plan, with different standards in each. 7 8 Vice-Chairperson Menis understood, although this was a notwithstanding clause in 9 Section 17.34.050(E) and the text in this section stated it overrode Specific Plans, but the 10 Specific Plan would still govern.
11 12 Mr. Shiu understood the concern was that this section, as written, may provide 13 unnecessary restrictions to heights that would otherwise be provided in the Specific Plan, 14 in which they should strike the reference to “or Specific Plan” in this section, since it would 15 override the Zoning Code.
16 17 Vice-Chairperson Menis referenced Page 57 of 132 of the agenda packet, Section 18 17.34.050, Development and Design Standards, C. Setbacks, which included new language 19 which read: Where the site is located within the Three Corridors Specific Plan area, the 20 development standards of the Specific Plan shall apply as compared to subsection (E), 21 Building and Canopy Design, which read: The service station or alternative fuel station 22 building and/or canopy shall be designed for architectural compatibility with the 23 surrounding area. Notwithstanding any other requirements in the Zoning Code or Specific 24 Plan, the maximum height for all service station buildings (including canopy) shall be 25 twenty-five (25) feet. Pitched roofs are preferred, but not required. In order to reduce the 26 visual impact of the canopy structure and corresponding lighting, the maximum height of 27 the canopy clearance shall be fifteen (15) feet and the maximum width of the canopy fascia 28 shall be thirty (30) inches. The canopy fascia shall match the color and texture of the 29 primary building. See Figure 17.34.050-1 (Service Station Building and Canopy Design). 30 Deviations from these requirements may be allowed in conjunction with comprehensive 31 design review (Section 17.12.150).
32 33 Mr. Shiu again understood the concern with the interpretation and recommended striking 34 the language or Specific Plan from the notwithstanding clause of Section 17.34.050 (E). 35 36 Vice-Chairperson Menis reiterated his request that “fossil fuels” be added to the definitions 37 to clarify what fossil fuels were.
38 39 Mr. Hanham advised that a definition of fossil fuels could be added. 40 41 Chairperson Sandoval recommended for clarity that fossil fuels be defined as fuels derived 42 from fossil fuels or which were petroleum based. As an example, petroleum-based fuels 43 such as both gas and diesel could be both renewable in the sense if they had carbon 44 captured gasoline that was renewable or biodiesel, fuel derived biologically and used in 45 the same way as a fossil fuel. He would be cautious and wanted to keep the definition 46 vague in a way and not limit a future type of fuel whatever that may be. He preferred not 47 to specifically define fossil fuels.
48 49
14 January 26, 2026
1 Vice-Chairperson Menis asked if the Chair had concerns with the proposed definition of 2 Alternative Fuel Station, as shown on Page 52 of 132 of the agenda packet. He again 3 recommended a clarification for fossil fuels.
4 5 Chairperson Sandoval again suggested being cautious with the definition since most 6 gasoline sold in the state was around 10 to 15 percent Ethanol, which was a biofuel. He 7 again suggested the definition be vague.
8 9 Vice-Chairperson Menis recommended “biofuel” be defined. 10 11 Chairperson Sandoval reiterated the need to be cautious because there were different 12 fuels that contained different percentages of alcohol and Ethanol, and he offered 13 examples.
14 15 Vice-Chairperson Menis wanted to clarify the intent to the City Council on what would 16 become law and what would not. Again, he wanted more specificity on fossil fuels, as 17 discussed and he wanted the definitions the City was required to use to be noted assuming 18 some of them, such as biofuel, was explicitly defined as a kind of alternative fuel source 19 in state code.
20 21 Mr. Shiu stated staff could do some research on definitions in the state code if that was 22 the direction from the Planning Commission.
23 24 Chairperson Sandoval would be open to defining fossil fuels as a petroleum-based fuel. 25 26 Vice-Chairperson Menis was unsure that should be done since some people still burned 27 coal. Rather, he sought a proper definition of “biofuel” and “fossil fuels,” without which 28 there could be situations where there could be prohibitions. 29 30 Chairperson Sandoval again recommended fossil fuels be defined as “petroleum-based,” 31 which would identify the issue and to counter that, an argument could be made for grey 32 hydrogen, which was sometimes petroleum derived and sometimes used as a renewable 33 resource, but not necessarily green fuel. He was of the opinion the Planning Commission 34 could be considering something contrary to the intent. 35 36 Commissioner Bender agreed with the Chair’s opinion. He too found the discussion was 37 going too far. He was not thrilled about the use of hydrogen as a fuel source, but he would 38 let it stand. He stated there was a bigger intent for this ordinance to put a stop to new gas 39 stations and he was comfortable with that and overall, with the way the ordinance had 40 been laid out.
41 42 Vice-Chairperson Menis expressed concern if following the Chair’s suggestion to narrow 43 the definition of fossil fuels to petroleum-based, which could run into the other direction 44 and narrow the definition of alternative fuels. He commented there had been direct 45 conversion of coal into oil and then gasoline and asked if that would count as a petroleum46 based derivative. He noted the current definition of fossil fuels in the ordinance, if it were 47 not changed, would cover that. If petroleum-based was added to the definition to fossil 48 fuels, he expressed concern they could be adding an exception. 49 15 January 26, 2026
1 Chairperson Sandoval was unaware of any vision for a vehicle to use coal and gas to 2 power a vehicle in the future. The definition could be left as is and be open to interpretation 3 later on.
4 5 Vice-Chairperson Menis would be open to that but did not want to narrow the definition of 6 fossil fuels.
7 8 Chairperson Sandoval did not want to get too narrow and wide at the same time. 9 10 At this time, Vice-Chairperson Menis withdrew his suggestion on that particular topic. He 11 also referenced Page 60 of 132 of the agenda packet, Land Use and Development 12 Standards, and clarified with staff the land use classifications shown for Alternative Fuel 13 Station and Service Stations, and why some uses were barred, with the intent to line up 14 with the permitted status for Service Stations, which was a carryover item. 15 16 MOTION with a Roll Call vote to adopt Resolution 26-01, with Exhibit A: Municipal Code 17 Amendments, a Resolution of the City of Pinole Planning Commission Recommending 18 that the City Council adopt an Ordinance to Prohibit New Service Stations, include 19 Standards for Operation and Modification of Service Stations, and Provide for Alternative 20 Fuel Stations by Amending Chapters 17.12, 17.20, 17.22 and 17.34 of the Pinole 21 Municipal Code and Chapters 6 and 11 of the Three Corridors Specific Plan, subject to 22 the following modifications:
23 24 • Chapter 17.12, Entitlements, Section 17.12.080, Administrative Design Review, B. 25 Applicability, staff recommended inclusion in the staff report to the City Council, 26 various other types of projects that may require administrative design review. 27 28 • Chapter 17.34, Automobile Service Stations and Alternative Fuel Stations, Section 29 17.34.030, Operation and Modification of Service Stations, C. Loss of Nonconforming 30 Status for Service Stations, (2), to add additional text referencing code enforcement 31 actions for corrections after loss of nonconforming status. 32 33 • Chapter 17.34 Automobile Service Stations and Alternative Fuel Stations, Section 34 17.34.050, Development and Design Standards for Service Stations and Alternative 35 Fuel Stations, E. Building and Canopy Design, strike the added text which read: or 36 Specific Plan.
37 38 • Chapter 17.22, Allowed Use Definitions, Section 17.22.020, Allowed Use Definitions, 39 G. Automobile and Vehicle Uses, 7. Alternative Fuel Station, to be amended to read:
40 ALTERNATIVE FUEL STATION. A retail business selling and dispensing motor 41 vehicle fuel other than fossil fuels, including hydrogen, electricity, biofuel or any 42 other renewable fuel. Vehicle services which are incidental to fuel services are 43 included under “Vehicle Services - Minor,” and potentially make the same 44 modifications in the documents anywhere the phrase Alternative Fuel Station was 45 used.
46 47 MOTION: Menis SECONDED: Sandoval APPROVED: 6-0-1
48 ABSENT: Martinez
49 16 January 26, 2026
1 Chairperson Sandoval identified the 10-day appeal process of a decision of the Planning 2 Commission in writing to the City Clerk.
3 4 H. OLD BUSINESS
5 6 1. Appian 80 Ideas and Concepts for Resolution to City Council 7 8 Mr. Hanham presented the staff report dated January 26, 2026, and recommended the 9 Planning Commission select a Planning Commissioner to bring the Appian 80 Ideas and 10 Concepts Resolution to the City Council.
11 12 Chairperson Sandoval was interested in serving as the Planning Commission 13 spokesperson but asked of the role and what was expected when he attended the City 14 Council meeting.
15 16 Mr. Hanham stated a staff report on the Appian 80 Ideas and Concepts Resolution would 17 be presented to the City Council at an upcoming City Council meeting. After the staff 18 presentation, he would turn it over to the Planning Commission representative for further 19 discussion/questions from the City Council on the presentation. 20 21 Commissioner Bender suggested it made sense the Chair would serve as the 22 spokesperson for the Planning Commission who was also the instigator of the Appian 80 23 Ideas and Concepts.
24 25 Vice-Chairperson Menis agreed and while he would have liked to have made the 26 presentation, he recognized Chairperson Sandoval was the Chair and it was his idea and 27 reasonable he would explain the presentation.
28 29 Chairperson Sandoval welcomed any additional feedback the Planning Commission may 30 like forwarded to the City Council.
31 32 PUBLIC COMMENT OPENED
33 34 There were no comments from the public.
35 36 PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
37 38 Commissioner Uch clarified with Mr. Hanham that Planning Commissioners may attend 39 the future City Council meeting when the item was presented, sit in the audience but not 40 sit together so as not to violate the Brown Act, and Planning Commissioners may address 41 the City Council as private citizens if commenting on the item. 42 43 Commissioner Uch agreed the Chair should represent the Planning Commission. He 44 otherwise complimented the Chair on a great job handling Planning Commission 45 meetings.
46 47 Vice-Chairperson Menis reported that he offered public comment during City Council 48 meetings all the time and there were no issues.
49 17 January 26, 2026
1 MOTION to select Chairperson Sandoval to present the Appian 80 Ideas and Concepts 2 Resolution to the City Council.
3 4 MOTION: Sandoval SECONDED: Bender APPROVED: 6-0-1
5 ABSENT: Martinez
6 7 I. NEW BUSINESS: None
8 9 J. CITY PLANNER’S/COMMISSIONER’S REPORT
10 11 Messiers Shiu and Hanham provided the following updates:
12 13 • The next Planning Commission meeting scheduled for February 9, 2026 would 14 include a CUP review for Uptown Yard.
15 16 • The Safety and Environmental Justice Elements had been adopted by the City 17 Council and the Planning Commission was thanked for its work on the documents. 18 19 • The Lighting and Landscaping Assessment District (LLAD) for Appian Village had 20 been approved with staff highlighting the purpose of the LLAD. 21 22 • Staff had been in contact with the property owners for the former Kmart building who 23 were proceeding with the demolition process, and with the entitlements for the project 24 having been extended to October 2026.
25 26 • The property owner for Pinole Shores was in the process of preparing building plans. 27 28 • An upcoming Planning Commission meeting would include coordination with the 29 Public Works Department for a Subdivision/Parcel Map for someone who wanted to 30 donate land to the City.
31 32 Vice-Chairperson Menis asked if the demolition for the former Kmart property occurred prior 33 to the expiration of the entitlements in October 2026, and if that meant it would keep the 34 entitlements going.
35 36 Mr. Hanham clarified the applicant may submit for building permit plans any time up to 37 October 2026. The demolition was a condition of approval of the project the applicant had 38 to comply with prior to issuance of a building permit. 39 40 PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
41 42 There were no comments from the public.
43 44 PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
45 46 K. COMMUNICATIONS
47 48 Vice-Chairperson Menis reported on upcoming community events. 49 18 January 26, 2026
1 Those events included January 27, 2026, Senior Food Distribution at the Senior Center from 2 10:00 to 11:00 a.m.; Special City Council meeting on January 27, 2026 at 6:00 p.m. for a 3 Closed Session; the Community Services Commission meeting scheduled for January 28, 4 2026 was to be canceled and he invited everyone to a protest on Saturday, January 31, 2026 5 from 11:00 to 2:15 p.m. at the intersection of Tennent and San Pablo Avenues. 6 7 PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
8 9 Anthony Vossbrink asked staff for an update on the property behind the 7-Eleven on Pinole 10 Valley Road, which project had been stalled, and for an update on the Parklet Regulations. 11 He reported a new restaurant in the Trader Joe’s Shopping Center, Dave’s Hot Chicken or 12 an adjoining business, had violated public access and asked staff to check on the matter. 13 He also expressed concern other retailers in the same shopping center had placed outdoor 14 wrought-iron tables and chairs, which obstructed 40 to 50 percent of the existing sidewalk 15 causing possible pedestrian hazards. He noted many businesses in Pinole routinely placed 16 signage/story boards outside of their stores on weekends, which also obstructed the sidewalk 17 corridors up and down Pinole Valley Road, Fitzgerald Drive Shopping Centers, the downtown 18 and along San Pablo Avenue. In one instance, a story board had been chained in front of 19 Pear Street Bistro for around a year and a half, obstructing access to the light switch to cross 20 the street. That sign was finally removed after completion of a development behind the 21 Senior Center. He suggested more active code enforcement and follow-up be provided on 22 those issues in the community. He also asked the Vice-Chair to provide an explanation about 23 a previous comment he made about lane expansion on the Pinole Valley Road on-ramp near 24 Jack in the Box, which was needed to help the flow of traffic. 25 26 PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
27 28 Chairperson Sandoval asked when the Parklet Regulations would go into effect, to which Mr. 29 Hanham explained the City had existing regulations on outdoor dining businesses must 30 adhere to, and staff would have to take a look at the shopping centers to determine whether 31 outdoor dining had been approved. If not, code enforcement could be asked to look into the 32 matter. The outdoor dining furniture was not supposed to impede the path of travel and that 33 was something staff would have to check.
34 35 Chairperson Sandoval also recommended the speaker reach out to Code Enforcement with 36 any code enforcement issues.
37 38 Mr. Hanham added the use of A-frame signage was not allowed in certain districts and staff 39 would have to take a look at that as well. Oftentimes such signage was used on the 40 weekends when City offices were closed and it could be something for code enforcement to 41 research. He also clarified the property behind 7-Eleven was a 29-unit apartment complex 42 with a 17,000 square foot commercial addition to the back of the building, which sat behind 43 7-Eleven and which was an ongoing project. There had been some issues with faults on the 44 property and due to that major expense, the City allowed the activation of the exercise of the 45 entitlements and they were pushing that forward to see the progress. The City may take 46 action based on the conditions of approval and what had been done up to this point. 47 48 Mr. Hanham also acknowledged there had been a real estate sign posted near Pear Street 49 Bistro advertising a subdivision that had been built some time ago. 50 19 January 26, 2026
1 Mr. Hanham was uncertain the developer had permission for the sign, but in lot of cases 2 developers placed signs and arrows advertising new development. The development in 3 question occurred prior to his time with the City.
4 5 Mr. Shiu clarified the owner of the property behind 7-Eleven was working on another project, 6 and the Pinole project had outstanding comments on the grading permit, with staff waiting for 7 a response.
8 9 Vice-Chairperson Menis responded to the speaker’s question directed to him, and explained 10 he had referenced a project that the County Department of Transportation brought before 11 the City of Pinole in 2020, possibly 2019, where they had discussed various projects linked 12 to Measure J and C funds and Smart Streets and how that was linked to the expansion of 13 the on-ramps. One project had been listed for Pinole, but did not include a timeline and 14 involved the expansion of the eastbound on-ramp from Pinole Valley Road to I-80 eastbound, 15 from one to two lanes to relieve some of the traffic issues. The project depended on County 16 and Caltrans funding and was not something where the City of Pinole had direct influence. 17 18 Mr. Hanham commented in most cases the projects could be something recommended by 19 the City, but anything to do with the on- and off-ramps were part of the Association of Bay 20 Area Governments (ABAG) Regional Transportation Plan, and he was uncertain of the status 21 of those projects.
22 23 Vice-Chairperson Menis asked whether an approved outdoor dining permit for Peet’s Coffee 24 automatically extended to cover Dave’s Hot Chicken, and Mr. Hanham commented staff 25 would have to determine what had been approved for the shopping center. If staff could not 26 locate an approved outdoor dining permit for the businesses in the shopping center, the 27 businesses would be required to obtain approval of outdoor dining permits. 28 29 L. NEXT MEETING
30 31 1. Planning Commission Regular Meeting on February 9, 2026 at 7:00 p.m. 32 33 M. ADJOURNMENT: 9:44 p.m.
34 35 Transcribed by:
36 37 Sherri D. Lewis
38 Transcriber