Pinole City Council
March 3, 2026

1. Fossil Fuel Uses. Renovations and modifications associated with the selling, dispensing, and storage of fossil fuel are allowed only where such work is required to ensure preservation of health and safety consistent with regulatory standards; comply with regional, state or federal requirements; reduce fossil fuel use; or support the deployment of alternative fuel infrastructure.
a. Administrative Design Review approval is required for renovations and modifications. b. Renovations and modifications shall not increase the number of fossil fuel pumps. c. Maintenance and repair of existing fossil fuel service equipment is not considered a renovation or modification for the purposes of this Section.

2. Other Uses. Renovations and modifications that involve other permitted and conditionally permitted uses on the site (e.g., remodel of a convenience store, installation of alternative fuel pumps, installation of zero-emission vehicle charging stations) may be allowed subject to obtaining required permits.

3. Addition of Alternative Fuel. Plan check is required pursuant to Section 17.12.030 (Plan Check) for the expansion, modification or retrofit of an existing service station where the expansion, modification or retrofit incorporates alternative fuels, including hydrogen, electricity, biofuel, or any other renewable fuel. The designated approving authority may grant the expansion, modification or retrofit even if specified improvements result in a reduction of existing on-site parking. Renovations and modifications of service stations that include alternative fuel infrastructure may include a request for reduction of existing on-site parking spaces. The designated approving authority may approve a parking reduction without a Minor Deviation, Variance, or Conditional Use Permit when the applicant demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director, that the reduction is necessary to accommodate alternative fuel infrastructure.

C. Loss of Nonconforming Status for Service Stations.B. Conditions of Approval. In addition to any other conditions which may be imposed by the approving authority, any conditional use permit issued pursuant to this chapter shall include the following conditions:

1. If the operation of the service station is discontinued for any reason for a continuous period in excess of one hundred and eighty (180) days, such discontinuance of operation shall be grounds for revocation or modification of the conditional use permit, consistent with Section 17.16.070 (Permit Revocation or Modification).

1. If the service station is abandoned or ceases the selling, storing, and/or dispensing of fossil fuels for a continuous period in excess of six (6) months, the service station shall lose its nonconforming status and any subsequent use of the site shall be in conformity with regulations of the applicable zoning district. The Community Development Director shall have final determination on the date the service station became abandoned or ceased the selling, storing, and/or dispensing of fossil fuels.

2. If the service station loses its nonconforming status, the property owner shall be responsible for the removal of 2.

Upon revocation of the conditional use permit, the applicant shall remove all buildings, pumps, pump islands, signs, underground storage tanks, fences, walls, and all other structures and instruments related to the service station and shall return the property to substantially the condition it was in prior to the construction of the service station. The owner shall submit plans to the Community Development Department showing the proposed removal and obtain all required permits to complete the work. The owner shall complete the removal within six (6) months following the date the service station lost its nonconforming status, or as otherwise approved by the Community Development Director. Owners that do not complete the removal within required timeframes would be subject to code enforcement action.

3. The applicant to whom a conditional use permit has been granted shall keep on the premises the conditional use permit or a copy thereof. (Ord. 2010-02 § 1 (part), 2010)

17.34.040 LOCATION REQUIREMENTS.

A. Abutting Residential Zoning Districts or Uses. No new service stations shall be permitted. No alternative fuel station shall be permitted or located on lots abutting property in any residential zoning district or residential use, unless the designated approving authority can make the finding that the design and operation of the alternative fuel stationservice station, along with the conditions placed upon the entitlement applicationconditional use permit or Design Review, will ensure compatibility with the abutting property or use. Except, such locational or entitlement requirements are inapplicable where prohibited by law. In the event that the property adjacent to an existing service station or alternative fuel station is subsequently rezoned to a residential zoning district or to allow residential uses, such rezoning shall not cause the service station or alternative fuel station to be nonconforming in regard to this location requirement.

B. Proximity to Other Service Stations. In the City of Pinole, a maximum of two (2) service stations and/or alternative fuel stations are permitted at any single intersection; otherwise, service stations shall be separated by a minimum of five hundred (500) feet. However, the city may grant exceptions for stations that are required to relocate due to roadway expansion projects or where required for compliance with regulations. Separation distance shall be measured in a straight line from the property line of said service stations. Where two (2) service stations are located at a single intersection, the city encourages stations to be sited in such a manner as to service different flows of traffic. The city may waive the spacing requirements for infill sites or locations affected by roadway widening or other infrastructure improvements. (Ord. 2010-02 § 1 (part), 2010)

17.34.050 DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN STANDARDS FOR SERVICE STATIONS AND ALTERNATIVE FUEL STATIONS.

The following requirements apply to all new service stations and qualifying expansions/improvements to existing service stations and new alternative fuel stations, except where such requirements may be superseded by state or federal regulations.

Service station and alternative fuel station uses shall also comply with all applicable state and federal regulations regarding site design, pricing signs, containment, maintenance, and operations.

A. Frontage. The minimum public street frontage shall be one hundred and thirty-five (135) feet on each public street for all new alternative fuelservice stations.

B. Pump Islands. Service station and alternative fuel station pump islands may be placed in required yards provided they are no closer than fifteen (15) feet to the street right-of-way.

C. Setbacks. Generally, no building shall be located within thirty (30) feet of any public right-of-way or within fifteen (15) feet of any interior parcel line. However, to encourage a more pedestrian streetscape, a primary building with direct access from the street may be located a minimum of fifteen (15) feet from the right-of-way (and outside required landscape corridors). Where the site is located within the Three Corridors Specific Plan area, the development standards of the Specific Plan shall apply.

D. Building Placement and Orientation. Buildings shall be placed outside the required setback areas, but close to the street and oriented to the public view.

E. Building and Canopy Design. The service station or alternative fuel station building and/or canopy shall be designed for architectural compatibility with the surrounding area. Notwithstanding any other requirements in the Zoning Code, the maximum height for all service station buildings (including canopy) shall be twenty-five (25) feet. Pitched roofs are preferred, but not required. In order to reduce the visual impact of the canopy structure and corresponding lighting, the maximum height of the canopy clearance shall be fifteen (15) feet and the maximum width of the canopy fascia shall be thirty (30) inches. A lighting study shall be required in conjunction with the design review process to examine light pollution issues, including but not limited to safety and glare pursuant to The canopy fascia shall match the color and texture of the primary building. See Figure 17.34.050-1 (Service Station Building and Canopy Design). Deviations from these requirements may be allowed in conjunction with comprehensive design review (Section 17.12.150).

FIGURE 17.34.050-1

SERVICE STATION AND ALTERNATIVE FUEL STATION BUILDING AND CANOPY DESIGN F. Access Driveways.

1.a. Driveway dimensions. Driveway design shall be consistent with the City of Pinole Public Works Improvement Standards, except that the minimum width for driveways shall be thirty-five (35) feet. The width shall be expanded to fortyfive (45) feet whenever the driveway accesses a street with a width of, or with a planned ultimate width of, eighty-four (84) feet or greater. The throat depth for driveways shall be fifty (50) feet.

2.b. Driveway location. Driveways shall be no closer than forty (40) feet from the nearest intersecting point of street rightof-way lines, or as otherwise determined by the Public Works Director for traffic safety.

3.c. Number of driveways. No more than two (2) exterior points of access (driveways along abutting streets) shall be provided for each service station, regardless of the length or number of street frontages. No more than thirty-five percent (35%) of the street frontage shall be devoted to curb cuts. Within integrated developments, shared access driveways are preferred.

4.d. Accommodation of vehicle stacking. The internal circulation system shall allow for vehicle stacking without blocking ingress and egress on and off the site. The pump island shall be situated to provide stacking space for a minimum of two (2) vehicles behind the vehicle parked at the pump closest to the entrance and/or exit driveway. Sites shall be designed so that the space intended for vehicle stacking shall not block or interfere with the general circulation of traffic within integrated developments.

G. Accommodation of Refueling Trucks. The internal circulation system shall allow for safe and efficient fuel delivery.

Where new internal circulation accommodating fuel delivery is proposed, the turningTurning radius information for all fuel delivery trucks accessing the service station shall be provided in conjunction with conditional use permit or design review for review and approval to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director.

H. Landscaping. Landscaping shall be provided consistent with the requirements of Section 17.44.060 (Special Landscape Requirements) for service stations and alternative fuel stations.

I. Signs. Signs shall be consistent with the requirements of Chapter17.52 (Signs), including exempt gasoline pricing

signs.

J. Fences and Walls. A wall shall be provided between service stations abutting property in any agricultural or residential zoning district or residential use consistent with the requirements of Section 17.42.050 (Special Fence, Wall and Screening Requirements).

K. Lighting. Where there is change to the exterior lighting in conjunction with a permit application for new or modified structures, a lighting study shall be submitted to demonstrate consistency with the requirements of Chapter 17.46 (Lighting). In addition to the lighting requirements of Chapter17.46 (Lighting), canopy lighting shall be recessed so that the luminary does not extend below the surface of the underside of the canopy.

L. Noise. All outdoor noise generators associated with operation of the service station shall be identified by the applicant during the conditional use permit and/or comprehensive design review process and may require the submittal of a professional noise analysis to quantify noise sources and attenuate noise levels consistent with city noise standards. All outdoor speakers and video/audio pump stations and sound signals associated with the service stations shall be turned off daily between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. (Ord. 2010-02 § 1 (part), 2010)

17.34.060 ALTERNATIVE FUEL AND CHARGING STATIONS FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLES.

Plan check is required pursuant to Section17.12.030 (Plan Check) for the expansion, modification or retrofit of an existing service station where the expansion, modification or retrofit incorporates biodiesel or other alternative fuels, or charging stations for electric vehicles. The designated approving authority may grant the expansion, modification or retrofit even if specified improvements result in a reduction of existing on-site parking. (Ord. 2010-02 § 1 (part), 2010)

5. Three Corridors Specific Plan Chapter 6 Land Use and Development Standards – Table 6.2 Permitted Use Table for San Pablo Avenue [Amendment]
Excerpt of Table 6.2.

Text to be removed shown in strikeout text.

Text to be added shown in underline text.

LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

LAND USE

CLASSIFICATIONS
Old Town Sub-Area Service Sub-Area Mixed-Use Sub-Area

MDR RMU CMU OPMU PQI CMU OPMU OIMU PQI VHDR RMU CMU OPMU PQI Retail N P P P N P P P N N P P P N
Veterinary Facility N CUP P P N P P P N N CUP P P N
Automotive and Vehicle Use Listings
Alternative Fuel Station P P P P P P P P P P P P P P
Auto Parts Sales N CUP P P N P P P N N CUP P P N
Car Wash and Detailing N N N N N N N CUP N N N N N N
Service Stations N N N N N N N NCUP N N N N N N
Vehicle Services N N CUP CUP N CUP CUP CUP CUP N N CUP CUP N Industrial, Manufacturing, and Processing Use Listings
Manufacturing - Minor N CUP CUP N N N N CUP N N N N N N Cottage Industry N P P N N P P P N N CUP N N N
Personal Storage
Facility N N N N N N N CUP N N N N N N
Printing and Publishing N CUP P P N P P P N N CUP P P N Recycling Facility –
Collection N P P P P P P P P P P P P P
Recycling Facility –
Processing N N N N N N N CUP N N N N N N
Footnotes:
a – Home occupations must have no external evidence of business activity, (e.g.signs, noise, odor, vibration, etc.) orreduce available parking. No customers or employees are allowed at the home and no advertising which givesthe home addressis allowed.
b – Not allowed on first floor at street frontage, except for residential development on a property with an affordable housing agreement and when that development includes community benefits asspecified in the General Plan.
c – Square footage notto exceed 10,000 Square feet.
d – Not permitted if the same use is preexisting and within 200’ e – See Multi-Family Residential
CITY OF PINOLE – THREE CORRIDORS SPECIFIC PLAN
20San Pablo Avenue

6. Three Corridors Specific Plan Chapter 6 Land Use and Development Standards – Table 6.8 Permitted Use Table for Pinole Valley Road [Amendment]
Excerpt of Table 6.8.

Text to be removed shown in strikeout text.

Text to be added shown in underline text.

LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Old Town Sub-Area Service Sub-Area
Land Use Classifications

MDR HDR CMU PQI CMU OPMU PQI
Automotive and Vehicle Use Listings
Alternative Fuel Station P P P P P P P
Auto Parts Sales N N N N N N N
Car Wash and Detailing N N N N N N N
Service Stations N N N N N N N
Vehicle Services N N CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP
Industrial, Manufacturing, and Processing Use Listings
Cottage Industry N N P N P P N
Personal Storage Facility N N N N N N N
Printing and Publishing N MUP P N P P N
Recycling Facility – Collection N P P P P P P
Footnotes:
a –Home occupationsmust have no external evidence of business activity, (e.g.signs, noise, odor, vibration, etc.) orreduce available parking. No customers or employees are allowed at the home and no advertising which givesthe home addressis allowed.
b – Not allowed on first floor atstreet frontage
c – Square footage notto exceed 10,000 Square feet.
d – Not permitted if the same use is preexisting and within 300’ e – See Multi-Family Residential
CITY OF PINOLE – THREE CORRIDORS SPECIFIC PLAN
36Pinole Valley Road

7. Three Corridors Specific Plan Chapter 6 Land Use and Development Standards – Table 6.14 Permitted Use Table for Appian Way [Amendment]
Excerpt of Table 6.14.

Text to be removed shown in strikeout text.

Text to be added shown in underline text.

LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Land Use Classifications
RMU
Service Sub-Area

CMU OPMU PQI HDR
Mixed-Use Sub-Area

RMU CMU PQI
Automotive and Vehicle Use Listings
Alternative Fuel Station P P P P P P P P
Auto Parts Sales CUP P P N N CUP P N
Car Wash and Detailing N N CUP N N N N N
Service Stations N N NCUP N N N NCUP1 N
Vehicle Services N CUP CUP CUP N N CUP CUP
Industrial, Manufacturing, and Processing Use Listings
Manufacturing N N N N N N N N
Cottage Industry CUP CUP CUP N N CUP CUP N
Personal Storage Facility N N N N N N N N
Printing and Publishing CUP P P N N CUP P N
Recycling Facility – Collection P P P P P P P P
Recycling Facility – Processing N N N N N N N N
1 The service station must be accompanied with a larger retail establishment with a minimum of 50,000 square feet Footnotes:
a–Home occupationsmust have no external evidence of business activity, (e.g.signs, noise, odor, vibration, etc.) orreduce available parking. No customers or employees are allowed at the home and no advertising which givesthe home addressis allowed.
b – Not allowed on first floor atstreet frontage
c – Square footage notto exceed 10,000 Square feet.
d – Not permitted if the same use is preexisting and within 300’ e – See Multi-Family Residential
CITY OF PINOLE – THREE CORRIDORS SPECIFIC PLAN
54AppianWay

8. Three Corridors Specific Plan Chapter 11 Definitions [Amendment] Excerpt of Chapter 11.

Text to be removed shown in strikeout text.

Text to be added shown in underline text.

XI

DEFINITIONS
CITY OF PINOLE – THREE CORRIDORS SPECIFIC PLAN

11.0-1

11.1 DEFINITIONS
The following definitions describe unique terms used throughout this document for the purpose of establishing a clear and common understanding.

Accent Trees. Trees used to supplement the required street trees.

Adult Day Care Home. Pursuant to definitions of State law, an adult day care home is a home which provides supervision and non-medical care to six or fewer adults, including elderly persons, in the provider’s own home, on a less than 24-hour basis.

Adult-Related Uses. Those uses defined and regulated by Title 17, Chapter 17.56 of the City’s Zoning Code.

Alcoholic Beverage Sales. The retail sale of beer, wine, and/or other alcoholic beverages for on- or off premise consumption.

Alley. Alleys are narrow private drives serving commercial and residential development.

Alley Access Parking. Residential or commercial parking that is accessible from an alley.

Alternative Fuel Station. A retail business selling and dispensing motor vehicle fuel other than fossil fuels, including hydrogen, electricity, biofuel, or any other renewable fuel.

Arcade Frontage. An Arcade frontage is nearly identical in characterto the Gallery frontage except that the upper stories of the building may project over the public sidewalk and encroach into the public right-ofway. The sidewalk must be fully absorbed within the colonnade so that a pedestrian may access it. This frontage is typically for retail use. An encroachment permit is needed to construct this frontage type, but can be approved as part of Design Review.

Alley Access Parking

XI

DEFINITIONS
CITY OF PINOLE – THREE CORRIDORS SPECIFIC PLAN

11.0-19
gymnastics studios, environmental awareness, arts, communications, management). Also see “Indoor Fitness and Sports Facilities.”
Schools – Public. Public educational institutions such as community colleges, universities, elementary, middle/junior high schools, high schools, and military academies.

Service Station. A retail business selling and dispensing fossil fuels, including gasoline and diesel, for motor vehicles. Service stations may include the sale of other motor vehicle fuels gasoline or other motor vehicle fuels.

Setback. The required distance between a property line and a structure. The setback is measured from the property line and/orright ofway line.

Shopfront and Awning Frontage. This frontage is characterized by a façade which is aligned close to or directly on the right-of-way line with the building entrance at sidewalk grade. A shopfront and awning frontage has substantial glazing on the ground floor. Shopfront and awning frontages provide awnings or canopies cantilevered over the sidewalk. Plan Section

Prior Public Meeting References
City Council – April 2, 2024
Urgency Ordinance Establishing a Moratorium on New and Expanded Service Stations Item 10.A.
https://pinoleca.portal.civicclerk.com/event/56/files/agenda/84 City Council – May 7, 2024
Urgency Ordinance Extending the Moratorium
Item 9.6.
https://pinoleca.portal.civicclerk.com/event/57/files/agenda/110 Planning Commission – January 26, 2026
Recommendation on Zoning Code and Specific Plan Amendments by Planning Commission Item G.1.
https://pinoleca.portal.civicclerk.com/event/1045/files/agenda/1066

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

Permanent Service Station Ban Ordinance
Project Engagement
VIEWS
390

PARTICIPANTS
158

RESPONSES
1,341

COMMENTS
116

SUBSCRIBERS
1 How easy or difficult is it for you to access a gas station within or near Pinole when you need fuel? 155 respondents
51 %
20 %
15 %
11 %
3%
Very easy
Neither easy nor difficult
Somewhat easy
Somewhat difficult
Others

When purchasing fuel in Pinole, how would you describe typical wait times at gas stations? 150 respondents
41 %
29 %
15 %
11 %
3%
1%
Very short
About average
Somewhat short
Somewhat long
Not applicable/ I do not purchase fuel in Pinole
Very long

How familiar are you with the land-use and infrastructure considerations associated with gas stations (such as traffic circulation, groundwater protection, or site remediation requirements)? 150 respondents
41 %
22 %
19 %
15 %
3%
Not familiar at all
Very familiar
Somewhat familiar
Slightly familiar
Not sure

How would you rate gas prices at Pinole gas stations compared to gas stations in nearby cities? 148 respondents
49 %
21 %
10 %
10 %
9%
1%
About the same
Somewhat higher
Somewhat lower
Not sure
Much higher
Much lower

How concerned, if at all, are you about greenhouse gas emissions related to transportation? 146 respondents
40 %
24 %
20 %
11 %
5%
Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
Neither concerned nor unconcerned
Not unconcerned at all
Somewhat unconcerned

How familiar are you with the potential community impacts related to the production and distribution of gasoline (such as public health or proximity to industrial facilities)?
148 respondents
38 %
29 %
18 %
14 %
2%
Somewhat familiar
Very familiar
Slightly familiar
Not familiar at all
Not sure

Approximately what percentage of vehicles in your household rely primarily on gasoline for fuel? 150 respondents
74 %
13 %
7%
3%
3%
76-100%
26-50%
51-75%
1-25%
Others

How interested are you in having additional non-gasoline transportation or fueling options available in Pinole? 147 respondents
31 %
27 %
19 %
14 %
10 %
Not interested at all
Very interested
Somewhat interested
Neither interested nor uninterested
Somewhat uninterested

Do you have concerns about limiting or prohibiting new gas stations in Pinole? 147 respondents
50% Yes
39% No
11% Not sure
Please share any comments or concerns you would like the City to consider.

 21 Agree 12/19/2025
12/19/2025  5 Agree
 20 Agree 12/19/2025
12/21/2025  6 Agree
 12 Agree 12/19/2025
12/19/2025  2 Agree
I really think you guys need to keep your government noses out of the commercial sector. You guys are way to controlling. You want to turn Pinole into Berkeley?
The whole point of government is to regulate and look out for the people. This is their job, I'm glad they're considering this move. When have you ever struggled to get gas in Pinole? I don't think you have to drive more than mile from any point in the city to find a gas station. To Pinole leadership, yes please keep your noses where they are, looking out for the health and well being of your citizens.

I strongly believe competitive market forces should determine how many gas stations are in Pinole; not the City This proposed ordinance would prohibit gas stations from updating, improving, adding services like EV charging or markets.. don’t we want gas stations to upgrade and improve? Why prohibit that, won’t that lead to blight?? Consider all
The traffic there is on appian way and you guys still want to create more housing We need more affordable housing for people and affordable means $120-$140K per year for a household of four.

9 Agree 12/19/2025
9 Agree 12/19/2025
12/19/2025
8 Agree 12/19/2025
8 Agree 12/19/2025
7 Agree 12/20/2025
7 Agree 12/19/2025
7 Agree 12/19/2025
Let the market decide. don’t deprive citizens of their individual choice. Keep government out of it! Pinole residents shouldn't be restricted in any way if they need to buy gasoline Are you feeling restricted right now? Are you constantly running out of gas on the side of the road lamenting the lack of gas stations? Pinole residents should utilize their government for reasonable protections.

Because this proposal stopped the rebuilding of Safeway in Tara Hills I am against this ordinance. What a bleak area that is now. Very poor management in so many ways. How much money have you lost in tax revenue because of this decision.

I strongly believe that competitive market forces should determine number of gas stations in Pinole; not the City Your policy ordinance would effectively eliminate a Costco at the former Safeway location. Why not work on road infrastructure. Pinole roads stink.

I believe we need competitive markets for gas stations, grocery stores whatever. Limiting them makes it easier for business to control prices in their favor not the consumer. The plans for a Safeway store and gas stations would have been great for the City and it’s citizens.

Take your woke climate opinions to Berkeley. More gas stations add competition to lower fuel prices.

7 Agree 12/19/2025
7 Agree 12/19/2025
6 Agree 12/21/2025
6 Agree 12/20/2025
6 Agree 12/19/2025
12/21/2025  5 Agree
6 Agree 12/19/2025
If an existing station closed down, I think a new one should be able to replace it. If there were fewer stations, people would have to drive farther to get gas, which would create more greenhouse gas emissions, not less.

I don't see how limiting gas stations is going to do ANYTHING to limit global warming. By the time someone needs GAS it is to late. A gas vehicle has been purchased they are going to get gas somewhere if not in Pinole, and at that point it just does not matter. Your good intentions are dually noted, but your thinking process is just way to progressive.

Pinole is short sighted if they think limiting gas/fueling stations within the city will bring Pinole rainbows and sunshine! Do you understand the implications of thinking we (Pinole/California/USA) can go all electric in the coming years. We don'r have an electric grid to support that, and it would not be able to be established for years/decades. Rolling Brownouts and advertisements (sponsored by the state) not to use electricity between certain hours might be a clue. Get your heads out of the sand! There are other things you should focus on that can do more for the residents of Pinole! Gas powered vehicles will be with us for many more years.

Isn't this what prevented Pinole from having a new Safeway with a gas station?? Safeway is our primary grocery store and where we buy gas because it has the best prices so we now shop and fill up in Hercules instead of Pinole. This is lost sales tax and revenue for Pinole. I get the environment issues but think this a bad decision by the council.

I agree, we should be thinking of ways to attract the MOST tax revenue, not way of discouraging it.

It would be problematic if a grocery store such as Safeway did not move to, or stay in Pinole because we did not permit it to include its own gas station. I believe this already occurred, leading to closure of the Pinole Safeway.

6 Agree 12/19/2025
5 Agree 12/21/2025
4 Agree 12/20/2025
4 Agree 12/19/2025
4 Agree 12/19/2025
It will be years before fully alternative fuels(EV or hydrogen)are common. I patronize Chevron exclusively for personal reasons & many others don’t.

They are much higher priced than some alternatives. The needed taxes that the city would be missing out on by eliminating all future gas stations would be a bad move on the city’s part. It already killed the Pinole Appian center development. Not saying we should add a bunch of gas stations but banning any more or upgrades of current ones is a big mistake. People will go to nearby cities and spend their fuel $ there and all those new homes being built will have many cars needing fuel. I agree Pinole is starting to be an over regulated Berkeley, not good at all! The City of Pinole needs to become more realistic! Yes we live within the Bay Area Bubble, however, common sense needs to prevail! I believe gas stations provide a vital service to the community and limiting or banni.g stations put an undue burden on lower income individuals due too stations not having competition which would make it almost a monopoly for the very few existing stations We don't need more restrictions on gas stations at this time. Pinole should focus on other priorities, such as public safety, economic development, and roadway safety.

We have lost at least 5 stations in Pinole that I am adware of. More stations means more competition. Please do not prohibit new stations. That is a one sided highly political approach. Let the market decide. Please keep politics out of business. We need more stations, not less.

4 Agree 12/19/2025
4 Agree 12/19/2025
4 Agree 12/19/2025
3 Agree 12/19/2025
3 Agree 12/19/2025
3 Agree 12/19/2025
Question 2 is subjective and largely depends on the time of day people purchase gas. I typically go late at night or on weekends.

Restricting expansion could limit future upgrades and lead to aging or potentially unsafe stations over time. We already have a significant charging station areas at Pinole Vista, Transit Center among others. Adding a small number of additional chargers near Pinole Valley Shopping Center or downtown Pinole may be reasonable, but anything beyond that seems unnecessary. I own two hybrid vehicles and charge them exclusively at home, which is also the case for many electric vehicle owners.

We shouldn’t be Investing time and money in projects that are not a priority, resources would be better spent on community needs with a more direct impact. For example, adding lighting to the soccer fields on PV Rd. would be a far better investment. It is disheartening to see young children trying to practice without adequate lighting.

Pinole should not dictate the community's access to local fuel. You have better things to do with your time. Besides with 2 refineries (1 local), leaving California, we aren't going to see alot of new stations, so this is a moot question, and once again Pinole needs to address other local needs. we need more gas stations as the population of pinole increases with the low income housing coming which will create more crime in addition to more traffic.

I think having to drive farther to find gas causes more pollution. traffic and street being blocked, double parking by both cars and especially by delivery truck is really a problem and causes congestion especially during school hours already - dont need additional problems If there is a ban on new gas stations, what happens to the motorists who use gas and the old stations are not replaced, where do residents go to get gas?

2 Agree 1/8/2026
2 Agree 12/25/2025
Pinole is a town. Seems like there's too much effort being made on subjects beyond basic infrastructure (drive on our streets lately?). I want our city leaders dedicated to our city and looking for some future political ladder step. Take care of the basics 1st - public safety, Library, parks, streets, cleanliness, etc...

I like the idea of electric vehicles, but they are still too expensive. Making it harder to get gas is like taxing poorer and working class people (a longer drive to try and get cheaper gas elsewhere).

2 Agree 12/21/2025
2 Agree 12/20/2025
I feel the city should NOT develop a new ordinance to limit fossil fuel stations for the following reasons:

We continue to be told that the city is facing financial strain. New commercial businesses, and the improvement of existing businesses, can help combat our economic strain by increasing property tax, sales tax, permit fees, etc. Why would we limit or discourage commercial growth at this time? We should be doing as much as we can to encourage it!! Bring reliable commercial businesses into our city! Commercial business provide employment opportunities to the local community. New businesses increase the number of available jobs to our community members.

Access to Refueling stations supports workers, delivery services, and regional commerce. These will help improve the economy and Pinole should openly support doing what we can to improve the economy, not stifle it.

Gas stations are important to have during disasters. Modern stations include generators that remain operational during outages and provide resources during a disaster.

New gas stations will improve equity and accessibility by increasing our community’s access to essential transportation services.

State law and regulations outline appropriate environmental protections that are required for the safe operation of gas stations. If there is concern about environmental impact, utilize our already existing government agencies to ensure standards are met.

I don’t know the actual figures, but I believe fueling stations are a long term need that will bring consistent revenue and job opportunities into our city.

We are being told the city’s financial situation is dire. If that is true, limiting commercial growth is a luxury that our community politicians shouldn’t practice at this time. Allow the market, free trade, and the creativity of entrepreneurs decide what is, or isn’t, needed. Our city politicians have proven they struggle at managing the city’s long term financial needs….

With Phillips 66 and Valero, and later Shell Oil shutting down, we need more gas stations. The price of gas will be over $8 once the refineries close down.

2 Agree 12/19/2025
2 Agree 12/19/2025
2 Agree 12/19/2025
1 Agree 1/10/2026
1 Agree 1/10/2026
An out right ban is too drastic. Manage development of additional gas stations, or expansion of such facilities, on a case-by-case basis. An out right ban is more an ideological position, and ties the hands of future government officials to weigh choices and opportunities.

No Comment
I think there is no reason for anyone to build a new gas station anywhere in the Bay Area. Gasoline powered vehicles are adequately served by the existing network. Hopefully electric or other zero emissions vehicles will make up a growing percentage of the transportation fleet in the future This is ridiculous! This is nothing more than bullying people to get electric vehicles, which infrastructure in California cannot support. This ordinance is a strong arm attempt, once again, by the city of Pinole and is very discriminatory.

I am writing as a concerned resident to express my thoughts regarding the recent discussions about banning new gas stations in our city. While I understand the intent behind such policies, I strongly believe our time and resources would be better spent addressing the ongoing issues with our roads and infrastructure.

Many of our streets are in poor condition, with potholes, uneven pavement, and inadequate maintenance creating daily inconveniences and safety hazards for drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians alike. These problems affect commuters, emergency responders, and local businesses, and they contribute to vehicle damage and increased repair costs for residents.

Rather than focusing on restricting new gas stations, I urge the city to prioritize repairing and maintaining our roads. Improving infrastructure will have a direct and positive impact on public safety, traffic flow, and overall quality of life. Well-maintained roads also reflect positively on the city and demonstrate a commitment to responsible governance.

I respectfully ask that you reconsider your priorities and direct more attention and funding toward fixing our streets. This is an issue that affects nearly every resident and deserves immediate action

1 Agree 1/8/2026
1 Agree 1/5/2026
1/8/2026
1 Agree 12/28/2025
1 Agree 12/21/2025
Those are some vague questions that can be used either for or against new/existing infrastructure. Why not just ask if I think we should ban gas stations? Gas stations should be allowed on all of Fitzgerald as well as within 1000 feet of any freeway off-ramp or on-ramp. Just don’t put them downtown or in the residential areas.

I had a Tesla for over 5 years, but PGE cost have gotten to the point where I switched to a hybrid instead and get the same cost per mile plus the convenience of gas.

The city of Pinole is not well supported by public transit. The local bus does a fine job of getting you around town, but it is not really feasible to take it to other cities. The closest BART station to me is still a 20 minute car ride away, which is not conducive to opting for transit. Why does the BART not reach communities past Richmond? The north parts of the east bay have been neglected by BART, unlike the (wealthier) inland areas like Walnut Creek and Dublin. Why does Benecia, Vallejo, Pinole and these cities not get to benefit from BART? If BART is not an option in the future, then perhaps the city of Pinole could get some park and ride type of service to take people to the BART station.

This could further reduce the need for Pinole residents to drive Longer term if Hilltop mall ever actually redevelopes it needs to have a BART extension. That would help a ton of folks that commute from Pinole/tara Hills/Hercules to the ferry in Richmond or to the El Cerrito Del Norte bart station.

Unfortunately that would kinda require Richmond leadership to be competent which seems like a pipe dream This regulation proposal will have no significant effect on green house gas. You will make our ease of purchase more difficult. Pinole will lose the sales tax income on gasoline sales. Climate Change is not an issue of importance for our city council. Stick to local issues that improve our lives and not make it less convenient. We will vote against supporters of this business unfriendly ordinance.

No more gas stations. It would increase traffic

1 Agree 12/21/2025
1 Agree 12/20/2025
1/9/2026
1 Agree 12/20/2025
12/21/2025  1 Agree
1 Agree 12/20/2025
12/21/2025
I don't think we need more stations or for our stations to be expanded. A simple/reasonable updating of stations as needed for better fueling and safety is appreciated and I'm sure the independent stations would appreciate some kind of help with upgrades.

I definitely do not want to see more gas stations that are primarily intended to serve commuters who do not live in Pinole but travel along I-80 freeway. more gas stations bring in more tax revenue.. The city already has big problems with basic infrastructure issues such as the aging sewer system.

Taxes will be rising... no matter what we do.. why not let others that come into Pinole to shop pay for our infrastructure.

I believe we have more than enough gas stations to serve our community of 20,000 people and also those that come to shop here.

Attracting business and tax revenue INTO Pinole is the best strategy. And drivers commuting on 80 are a wonderful resource!! We need to develop the idea of bringing taxes INTO Pinole from people that don’t live here.

There are too many gas stations and fast food restaurants in Pinole. Neither is good or healthy for the community and our environment. There's a gas station practically every block, especially at the city center. The housing developments are also a huge concern for our community as it causes more congestion and the infrastructure is not there to serve this expansion, such as overpacked classrooms, more traffic, crime, pollution and there aren't any urgent care/ER facilities to serve this growing population. Dwindling resources would only create more problems in this small city.

Didn’t we have medical services and emergency services across the street from the middle school a while ago. Those shut down for a reason, and now they are building high density homes. I wonder if our politicians could have done more to keep those essential services here.

1 Agree 12/19/2025
1 Agree 12/19/2025
12/21/2025  5 Agree
1 Agree 12/19/2025
1 Agree 12/19/2025
1 Agree 12/19/2025
1 Agree 12/19/2025
These top comments are surprising, "We want more gas stations! Let the market decide!" We have too many gas stations already. This city is like 12 square miles in total and we have how many gas stations? I can think of 6-7 off the top of my head. Never has there been a line more than 1 car long in all the years I've lived here. Just as the market has a role, so does government. I for one support limiting certain industries with the goal of keeping our land and people healthy. What are these free market people hoping for 5 more gas stations so our downtown is just an asphalt jungle of gas smells and exhaust? When has the introduction of more gas stations ever had an effect on the price in any meaningful way. These comments all feel pretty disingenuous and makes me wonder who is actually the person behind the keyboard.

This feels too limiting. We have enough gas stations in Pinole; we do not need any more, but putting limits on expansion seems counterintuitive, considering all the new housing that's being built or was recently built. I own both an EV and a gas-powered car, mostly because the EV long charging times are highly inconvenient. Don't restrict gas stations, just build more EV charging stations. Or expand the gas stations to INCLUDE EV chargers.

The proposed ordinance will prohibit a gas station’s ability to upgrade, improve environmental protections, install EV chargers, etc.

This ordinance is a focused assault on gas stations… and doesn’t take community needs into consideration. affordable housing traffic in the future
We have enough gas stations
Great idea. We don’t need more gas stations!
There are plenty of gas stations in the city.

1 Agree 12/19/2025
1 Agree 12/19/2025
1 Agree 12/19/2025
1 Agree 12/19/2025
No more gas stations! There are plenty in Pinole. The old gas station that was on the corner of Tennent and San Pablo Ave contaminated much of the area just under Old Town with no remediation. Stop the madness! We need to drive electric vehicles and not rely on fossil fuels.

It seems that Pinole has plenty of gas stations and given the future direction toward other forms of energy, combined with the environmental impact of having gas stations, I think it makes a lot of sense to prohibit the future addition and expansion of gas stations in Pinole.

Have you measured greenhouse gas emissions around Trader Joe's/I 80/Pinole Valley Rd in the afternoon after students are released from school? I think the traffic circulation there is worse than at any gasoline fueling station I've observed in Pinole (cannot say the same about neighboring communities).

Prohibiting is too strong a word given that the infrastructure for electricity is substandard to say the least. and most people still drive a gasoline vehicle and will continue to do so. There are enough gas stations in Pinole right now, however, with the influx of hundreds if not thousands of new residents that could become a challenge. New housing should from now on also be mandated to include EV charging. Existing housing should be mandated to include EV charging where EVs are owned and used.

1 Agree 12/19/2025
12/19/2025  2 Agree
12/21/2025
1/20/2026
1/16/2026
1/16/2026
We have plenty of gas stations where dense housing is being considered. There are two large facilities in the Fitzgerald area, another across the freeway, two on Pinole Valley Road and a couple on the San Pablo corridor. Why would we need more gas stations as more people have moved to hybrids. Heck I forget to fill my hybrid and mainly use electricity. I like the Tesla charging station up at Fitzgerald and notice that people connect their cars and go shopping. It would be nice if another electric charging station is planned and it could be near any new housing development or revitalization of the business corridor.

I agree about the need for charging stations but I don't think you really speak for those of us not lucky enough to own a hybrid or electric vehicle.

The free market will drive this. Government control and manipulation is not the best answer.

I appreciate so much that Pinole is doing this to protect our environment and our health.

Most of the scientific papers that have climate change alarmism are paid for by companies that have an interest in non-fossil fuel energy solutions.

These papers cherry-pick data that supports the interests of the companies that paid for them, and ignore data that contradicts those interests. The science shows that the climate temperatures have varied wildly over history, including before there was significant, or any, human activity. To think that human activity has much affect on climate is arrogance.

People will always need gasoline and other fossil fuels. If they cannot get gas in Pinole, they will go elsewhere. So all this proposal will do is reduce revenue for Pinole.

This is America and competition is always better for the consumers. The city has already done in the Safeway Shopping Center by curtailing their plans for gas pumps and cheaper gas. The gas taxes are now going to Hercules so much for our roads. The other side is with any station upgrades or new stations tagging on EV charging stations or one day Hydrogen pumps could be additionally required as a bargaining item for the necessary approvals.

1/15/2026
1/14/2026
1/14/2026
1/12/2026
1/11/2026
1/10/2026
1/10/2026
1/10/2026
More EV chargers! The Pinole Supercharger on Fitzgerald is a great recent addition but it's often full or close to full with resulting frequent surge/more expensive pricing as a result. The non Tesla chargers at Sprouts are also regularly used and sometimes no free chargers available there too ... What about another SuperCharger in the Bowling Alley parking lot?? Gas cars are still very widely used. Having more gas stations would increase competition and drive down prices.

John gioria says go electric so te 2 zesty mayor's, Yellow and brown lick taints in agreement.

Additional gas stations are not needed, replace/fix the current ones with effective, modern and with compliant standards only.

The need for gas stations will dissipate naturally when and if enough people adopt use of fully electric or hydrogen cars instead of gas or hybrid cars.

Absolutely terrible survey. Biased and leading questions. Poor grammar, double-negative "not unconcerned" makes someone concerned. Diesel is not gasoline and therefore can be considered an alternate to gasoline in this survey but I have no doubt the council wants to restrict diesel access as well.

How much sales tax is the council denying the city, that could be used to fix our roads, by banning new/expansion of fuel stations? This does not address the priorities of the citizens: safety and good roads.

I am very concerned with your liberal agenda that has failed everywhere it's been attempted.

Stop with YOUR DEMOCRAT DRIVEN AGENDA and do what Pinole taxpayers PAY you to do.

Fix our roads, add amenities like gas stations that add to our life in many ways, fund police and do not force your political nonsense on them, look at the firefighters budget and the crushing debt of their BLOATED PENSIONS AND WAGES!!! Quit CONTOLLING EVERY ASPECY OF OUR LIVES. Let is make our own choices. I an on leaving this Communist area soon.

1/10/2026
1/9/2026
1/9/2026
1/9/2026
1/9/2026
1/8/2026
1/9/2026
1/8/2026
Don't listen to petroleum companies dire warnings about California denying itself. We don't need any more gas stations than those already existing.

Fix our ROADS
With all the new housing developments in Pinole, we need more gas stations and pumps, not less. Also, fixing our roads should be top priority. weather you like it or not, fossil feul is not going away.

I think it is a bad idea to limit the amount of pumps at a gas station. It is .ore important for people to have more pumps and more options.

Pinole seems like it already has more gas stations than other towns per capita. I don’t think we really need anymore.

That being said Pinole needs to really focus on alternatives by working with the county since right now travel by car is literally the only option since generally westcat service is so poor.

While I’m happy to see all the new developments going in I also had concerns that it seems like barely any retail or additional transit service/infrastructure is being planned to support all of the new residents which will just end up with them being car dependent too.

Working with the county destroying the local towns
The all electric mandate in CA will likely be delayed due to grid capacity issues. Let existing gas stations make improvements and allow the Safeway site establish a gas station is they deem it necessary to redevelop the site.

1/8/2026
1/8/2026
1/8/2026
1/8/2026
1/8/2026
1/8/2026
1/8/2026
1/5/2026
Fix the roads first
San Pablo though downtown from Richmond parkway to the bridge is soo bad.

We have more gas stations than new locally-owned restaurants it seems. No more has stations please!! Everyone goes to Safeway in Hercules anyway. Unless our old Safeway is to get a gas station- that’s ok.

Pinole needs to address issues that affect Pinole residents and stay in our lane...

I like where I get my gas and feel there are enough stations around town to pick from and that we don't necessarily have to have more stations as I don't have a problem now with what is available.

Not everyone has electric vehicles nor can afford them. If Safeway was to put their hat back in for acquiring the Tara Hills Safeway property I would support a lower priced reliable gas station.

Please fix the roads first.

I believe that there are plenty of gas stations in Pinole already. Our car is hybrid (EV + gas) and we trickle charge it at home and still use gas for longer trips but we would consider getting an EV for our next car if there was more charging infrastructure. Never once have we waited more than an minute in line for gas. I believe Pinole should be a progressive environmental leader and make the healthier choice for our residents and families. We don't need more gas stations in Pinole.

1/4/2026
1/3/2026
12/25/2025
12/23/2025
12/22/2025
12/20/2025
12/19/2025
12/19/2025
Forcing people to travel for fuel does not solve the problem you are wanting to address. would this limit new EV charging at gas stations? or adding markets? both of those don't seem problematic to me I drive a diesel so options are limited, but 2 fuel depots for me in Pinole is more than enough.

I think the market should determine how many gas stations are needed. Until we can make the alternative more affordable for most people, gas unfortunately is the option. Insurance for electric cars are very expensive and having electric panels doesn't even pay for itself anymore due to the waste of energy if you don't have a battery. The state recently reduced how much people can be paid out through PG&E so why would people opt to go "green" if it's so much more expensive? Make it more affordable then people will buy in! I don’t shop for gas in PInole I can get it much cheaper in Rodeo or downtown Walnut Creek the gas stations are just plain overpriced!!! We have enough gas stations for our 20,000 people living here in Pinole and for additional people who come to shop here.

You seem to be in the minority Mr./Ms./Mss./Them/They/It, The whole point of government is to regulate and look out for the people. This is their job, I'm glad they're considering this move. When have you ever struggled to get gas in Pinole? I don't think you have to drive more than mile from any point in the city to find a gas station. To Pinole leadership, yes please keep your noses where they are, looking out for the health and well being of your citizens. I do agree that some government regulation is in order, but I feel that it should be less than more. We seem to disagree. I'm with Reagan.

None at this time

12/19/2025
12/19/2025
12/19/2025
12/19/2025
12/19/2025  3 Agree
12/21/2025
12/19/2025
I believe we need to eventually stop using fossil fuels. The sooner we start, the better. However, a transition that takes into account the most disadvantaged citizens is important.

We do not need more gas stations.
n/a
We need more merchandise stores
We need more non-chain merchandise stores that would bring people to downtown. Maybe a beer garden, a florist, a boutique, we need to revitalize downtown.

The market will drive this.

No

Permanent Service Station Ban Ordinance
Project Engagement
VIEWS
397

PARTICIPANTS
267

RESPONSES
2,380

COMMENTS
237

SUBSCRIBERS
1 * Do you support or oppose the ordinance as describe above? 132 respondents
61 %
28 %
11 %
Oppose
Support
Not sure/need more information

* If you support the ordinance, what are your top reasons? (Select up to 3) 33 Respondents
70% 23 
64% 21 
36% 12 
33%
11 
27% 9 
18% 6 
18% 6 
12% 4 
9% 3 
6% 2 
0% 0 
Pinole already has enough gas stations; fueling access and wait times are generally adequate
Environmental and public health concerns (e.g., groundwater contamination, emissions, hazardous materials)
Encourages investment in alternative fuel infrastructure (EV charging, hydrogen, etc.)
Climate and sustainability goals: prioritize transition to cleaner transportation and expand EV charging instead of adding new gas stations
Aligns with state climate policies and positions Pinole as proactive in sustainability
Reduces land-use conflicts and preserves space for housing, parks, and retail
Improves community appearance by avoiding additional asphalt-heavy developments
Supports long-term planning for future transportation needs Helps manage traffic and safety issues near sensitive areas (schools, residential streets)
Provides clear and consistent development standards for businesses and residents
Other

If you oppose the ordinance, what are you top reasons? (Select up to 3) 78 Respondents
65% 51 
62% 48 
49% 38 
38% 30 
36% 28 
27%
21 
27% 21 
24% 19 
24% 19 
14% 11 
1% 1 
City priorities: resources should focus on roads, safety, and other infrastructure needs
Market and competition should determine the number of stations; limiting them may reduce competition and affect fuel prices Equity and affordability: many residents still rely on gasoline; EVs and charging can be costly or impractical for some households Some view the ordinance as unnecessary or overly restrictive for current community needs
Economic impacts: new or expanded stations can bring jobs and sales tax revenue; restrictions may shift purchases to neighboring cities Practical considerations: California's electric grid and charging infrastructure may not be ready for full EV adoption; transition will take time
Transition to EVs may not be realistic for all households due to cost and infrastructure gaps
Restrictions could limit redevelopment opportunities and discourage commercial growth
Residents may need to drive farther for fuel, increasing travel time and emissions
Fueling stations provide resilience during emergencies (e.g., backup power during outages)
Other

* Which approach do you think the City should take regarding the draft ordinance? (Select all applicable)
107 Respondents
60% 64 
18% 19 
16% 17 
16% 17 
9% 10 
8% 9 
1% 1 
* What information would help you decide? (Check all that apply) 12 Respondents
83% 10 
50% 6 
42% 5 
17% 2 
Don't move forward with the ordinance
Modify the ordinance to allow replacement-in-kind if a station closes (no net increase in total stations)
Keep the current draft ordinance as described above
Modify the ordinance to allow case-by-case review instead of a permanent ban
Modify the ordinance to allow new stations under a Conditional Use Permit with location limits and traffic/health mitigations Modify the ordinance to cap total pumps/stations citywide and require community/environmental safeguards
Other
Economic impact analysis (sales tax, jobs, redevelopment effects) Traffic and health impact analysis near sensitive areas (schools/downtown)
Grid capacity and resilience considerations during the transition Other

What is your primary vehicle type?
119 respondents
75 %
10 %
8%
3%
3%
Gasoline
Hybrid
Battery EV
Diesel
Plug-in Hybrid
Are you interested in additional non-gas fueling options in Pinole? 117 respondents
38% Not at all
32% Neutral
18% Very
13% Somewhat

What is your household reliance on gasoline?
117 respondents
64% 76-100%
12% 1-25%
12% 26-50%
8% 51-75%
4% 0%
What is your ZIP or neighborhood?
12 Agree 2/6/2026
 11 Agree 2/7/2026
You are limiting our future options !! You are putting in over 400 new units and may also put in many more if the Safeway is also slated to be business and residential. If you are so worried about fuel and going green why is the city constantly bringing in more high density housing to create more problems and more financial difficulty for our city
Why is Pinole not doing what is best for Pinole and its residents. Don't copy what it appears other neighboring communities are doing (?to be Progressive). Our roads need to be improved and repaved as well as our sidewalks. Safer roads and walk ways make for a safer city. It's bad enough we have had and will have refineries closing, raising the cost of Fuel as well as the main ingredient of many daily use products, by creating a fuel desert in our community, we lose the benefit of tax revenues, jobs and yes residents willed to travel further to buy fuel. My wife and I have just about had it with all the daft ideas politicians keep heaping on us. It may be time for us to make our exodus from the state (ever closer to our breaking point). The city is mirroring the state in saying we don't need a middle class. Ever closer to the tipping point!

 11 Agree 2/7/2026
 6 Agree 2/7/2026
 5 Agree 2/7/2026
 4 Agree 2/10/2026
 4 Agree 2/7/2026
 3 Agree 2/11/2026
 3 Agree 2/8/2026
 3 Agree 2/7/2026
Electric cars weigh more than gasoline cars up to 1000 lbs more for SUVS and 1500-3000 lbs more for Trucks. Our roads in Pinole are not doing very well and the Fourth Power Law, states that the damage a vehicle does to the road is proportional to the weight per axle raised to the fourth power. Thus an electric sedan is roughly 3 times damaging than its counterpart gas engine sedan and the SUV and trucks even more.

Something to think about as we push for more electric cars.

This is nonsense. Do not approve this ordinance. It is unwise and un necessary. 94564. Competition should dictate businesses; not some City ordinance 94564. How about more transparency from Pinole government? It's no coincidence government wants to increase housing density so it views allowing expansion of gas stations as an obstacle to that effort for increased housing density. This permanent gas station ban is totally unnecessary and can only hurt consumers by limiting fossil fuel availability who aren't interested or prepared to invest in higher retail cost EVs.
94564. Dumbest thing if herd of in a long time
I have a hard time as it is trying to get gas at the gas stations around because there’s not enough pumps. This is ridiculous.

You ask "What is your ZIP or neighborhood?" but should this not be the place for comments? Perhaps ask what comments then ask what is your ZIP.

Concentrate on road repair all over our community, provide security services at the Lucky/Planet Fitness shopping center…. and Fitzgerald shopping center as well. Shiutting down the Pinole Safeway has really affected the residents as we now have to travel into Hercules Safeway location (beautiful sturd), but horrendous parking any given day of the week! In addition there is NOT enough handicap parking spots in any of our shopping areas…. Especially in the Big 5/Planet Fitness parking lots. After taking up 15+ spots for charging stations, it’s a nightmare to find a spot that is close to the merchants we need to patronize… especially for Seniors!

 3 Agree 2/7/2026
 2 Agree 2/20/2026
 2 Agree 2/20/2026
 2 Agree 2/14/2026
 1 Agree 2/11/2026
 1 Agree 2/11/2026
 1 Agree 2/7/2026
 1 Agree 2/6/2026
2/23/2026
your survey does not allow for mistakes or variance I have 1 hybrid and 1 gas vechicle. 94564. Please DO NOT pass this ordinance especially with all the new housing developments the city has approved. I am disappointed by the city’s decision not to move forward with the updated Safeway /gas stations and instead are considering even more housing units. I do not feel the city is listening to the current resident’s concerns and our needs. This may push me to move to a city where home owners’ voices are actually listened to.

Please allow MORE gas stations especially since all the new housing development projects the city has approved. You are limiting our options at the expense of the residents. I do not feel represented by your choices.

Transportation wise, the city should be fixing its roads so they're not so potholed and worry less about additional gas stations which may or may not even be built.

Old town
94564. All new business will need approval before opening anyways. There is no need to pass an ordinance that restricts options. Instead, set realistic goals of improving clean technology options but leave in flexibility just in case.

I was wondering why the parks on wright and pvr are always closed I thought our taxes meen we can use them your thoughts on this matter would be helpful thanks The question, "What is your household reliance on gasoline?", is confusing. I rely on gasoline to get groceries but I guess I could walk to the grocery store. What percentage reliance would that be? 94564. This ordinance is nonsense would be move against the people. Please don't adapt Governor Newsom strategies by banning this and banning that - this is Pinole. The infrastructure is not given anywhere, especially when people live in high-density housing - where are they supposed to charge? Road maintenance should be the Number 1 TOP PRIORITY!

2/23/2026
2/22/2026
2/22/2026
2/22/2026
2/22/2026
2/21/2026
2/21/2026
2/21/2026
2/21/2026
2/21/2026
2/21/2026
2/21/2026
 1 Agree 2/21/2026
94564/Wright Ave
94803
94564
94564
94564
94564
94564
94564
94564
94564
94564
94564
94564 Please leave us alone. Government governs best that governs least! One job- fix our roads!

2/21/2026
2/21/2026
2/21/2026
2/21/2026
2/21/2026
2/21/2026
2/21/2026
2/21/2026
2/20/2026
2/20/2026
2/20/2026
2/19/2026
2/19/2026
2/18/2026
94564
Pinole Valley
94564
94564
94564
94564
94564
94564
94564
94564
94564
94564
94564
94564

2/14/2026
2/13/2026
 1 Agree 2/13/2026
2/12/2026
2/12/2026
2/12/2026
2/11/2026
2/11/2026
2/11/2026
2/11/2026
2/11/2026
2/11/2026
94564
94564
This ordance will do nothing to prevent global warming. Put the ordance on a ballot for people to decide. 94533
94564
94564
94564
94564
94564
94564. If the point is to decrease reliance on oil, start with the reliance, not the supplier. Neighborhood e-bikes so people don't use cars just to go to the shopping centers. Subsidized community grocery delivery vans to decrease short car rides. Paid for with a city tax on fuel station proceeds or something similar. I don't see this ban having any impact besides making gas more unaffordable. 94564
94564

2/11/2026
2/11/2026
2/11/2026
2/11/2026
2/11/2026
2/11/2026
2/11/2026
2/10/2026
2/10/2026
2/10/2026
2/9/2026
2/9/2026
2/9/2026
2/8/2026
94564
94564
94564
94564
94564
94564
94564
94564
94564
94564
94564
94564
94564
94564

2/8/2026
2/8/2026
2/7/2026
2/7/2026
2/7/2026
2/7/2026
2/7/2026
2/7/2026
2/7/2026
2/7/2026
2/7/2026
2/7/2026
2/7/2026
2/7/2026
94564
94564
94564
94564
94564
94564
94564
94564
94564
94564
94564
94564
94564
94564

2/7/2026
2/7/2026
2/7/2026
2/7/2026
2/7/2026
2/7/2026
2/7/2026
2/7/2026
2/7/2026
2/7/2026
2/6/2026
2/6/2026
2/6/2026
2/6/2026
Downtown Pinole
94564
94564
94564
94564
94564
94564
94564
94564
94564
94564
94564
94564
94564

2/6/2026
2/6/2026
2/6/2026
2/6/2026
2/6/2026
2/6/2026
2/6/2026
2/6/2026
2/6/2026
2/6/2026
2/6/2026
2/6/2026
2/6/2026
2/6/2026
94564
94806
94564
94564
94564
94564
94564
Pinole Valley. 94564
94564
94564
94564
94564
94564
94564

2/6/2026
2/6/2026
94564
94564
How easy or difficult is it for you to access a gas station within or near Pinole when you need fuel?
156 respondents
51 %
21 %
15 %
11 %
3%
Very easy
Neither easy nor difficult
Somewhat easy
Somewhat difficult
Others

When purchasing fuel in Pinole, how would you describe typical wait times at gas stations? 151 respondents
41 %
29 %
15 %
11 %
3%
1%
Very short
About average
Somewhat short
Somewhat long
Not applicable/ I do not purchase fuel in Pinole
Very long
How familiar are you with the land-use and infrastructure considerations associated with gas stations (such as traffic circulation, groundwater protection, or site remediation requirements)? 151 respondents
41 %
22 %
19 %
15 %
3%
Not familiar at all
Very familiar
Somewhat familiar
Slightly familiar
Not sure

How would you rate gas prices at Pinole gas stations compared to gas stations in nearby cities?
149 respondents
49 %
21 %
11 %
10 %
9%
1%
About the same
Somewhat higher
Somewhat lower
Not sure
Much higher
Much lower
How concerned, if at all, are you about greenhouse gas emissions related to transportation? 147 respondents
39 %
24 %
20 %
12 %
5%
Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
Neither concerned nor unconcerned
Not unconcerned at all
Somewhat unconcerned

How familiar are you with the potential community impacts related to the production and distribution of gasoline (such as public health or proximity to industrial facilities)? 150 respondents
38 %
29 %
18 %
13 %
2%
Somewhat familiar
Very familiar
Slightly familiar
Not familiar at all
Not sure
Approximately what percentage of vehicles in your household rely primarily on gasoline for fuel?
151 respondents
74 %
13 %
7%
3%
3%
76-100%
26-50%
51-75%
1-25%
Others

How interested are you in having additional non-gasoline transportation or fueling options available in Pinole?
148 respondents
31 %
26 %
19 %
14 %
10 %
Not interested at all
Very interested
Somewhat interested
Neither interested nor uninterested
Somewhat uninterested
Do you have concerns about limiting or prohibiting new gas stations in Pinole? 148 respondents
51% Yes
39% No
11% Not sure
Please share any comments or concerns you would like the City to consider.

21 Agree 12/19/2025
12/19/2025  5 Agree
20 Agree 12/19/2025
12/21/2025  6 Agree
12 Agree 12/19/2025
12/19/2025  2 Agree
 9 Agree 12/19/2025
 9 Agree 12/19/2025
12/19/2025
I really think you guys need to keep your government noses out of the commercial sector. You guys are way to controlling. You want to turn Pinole into Berkeley?
The whole point of government is to regulate and look out for the people. This is their job, I'm glad they're considering this move. When have you ever struggled to get gas in Pinole? I don't think you have to drive more than mile from any point in the city to find a gas station. To Pinole leadership, yes please keep your noses where they are, looking out for the health and well being of your citizens.

I strongly believe competitive market forces should determine how many gas stations are in Pinole; not the City
This proposed ordinance would prohibit gas stations from updating, improving, adding services like EV charging or markets.. don’t we want gas stations to upgrade and improve? Why prohibit that, won’t that lead to blight??
Consider all
The traffic there is on appian way and you guys still want to create more housing We need more affordable housing for people and affordable means $120-$140K per year for a household of four.

Let the market decide. don’t deprive citizens of their individual choice. Keep government out of it! Pinole residents shouldn't be restricted in any way if they need to buy gasoline Are you feeling restricted right now? Are you constantly running out of gas on the side of the road lamenting the lack of gas stations? Pinole residents should utilize their government for reasonable protections.

 8 Agree 12/19/2025
 8 Agree 12/19/2025
 7 Agree 12/20/2025
 7 Agree 12/19/2025
 7 Agree 12/19/2025
 7 Agree 12/19/2025
 7 Agree 12/19/2025
 6 Agree 12/21/2025
Because this proposal stopped the rebuilding of Safeway in Tara Hills I am against this ordinance. What a bleak area that is now. Very poor management in so many ways. How much money have you lost in tax revenue because of this decision.

I strongly believe that competitive market forces should determine number of gas stations in Pinole; not the City
Your policy ordinance would effectively eliminate a Costco at the former Safeway location. Why not work on road infrastructure. Pinole roads stink.

I believe we need competitive markets for gas stations, grocery stores whatever. Limiting them makes it easier for business to control prices in their favor not the consumer. The plans for a Safeway store and gas stations would have been great for the City and it’s citizens.

Take your woke climate opinions to Berkeley. More gas stations add competition to lower fuel prices.

If an existing station closed down, I think a new one should be able to replace it. If there were fewer stations, people would have to drive farther to get gas, which would create more greenhouse gas emissions, not less.

I don't see how limiting gas stations is going to do ANYTHING to limit global warming. By the time someone needs GAS it is to late. A gas vehicle has been purchased they are going to get gas somewhere if not in Pinole, and at that point it just does not matter. Your good intentions are dually noted, but your thinking process is just way to progressive.

Pinole is short sighted if they think limiting gas/fueling stations within the city will bring Pinole rainbows and sunshine! Do you understand the implications of thinking we (Pinole/California/USA) can go all electric in the coming years. We don'r have an electric grid to support that, and it would not be able to be established for years/decades. Rolling Brownouts and advertisements (sponsored by the state) not to use electricity between certain hours might be a clue. Get your heads out of the sand! There are other things you should focus on that can do more for the residents of Pinole!

 6 Agree 12/20/2025
 6 Agree 12/19/2025
12/21/2025  5 Agree
 6 Agree 12/19/2025
 6 Agree 12/19/2025
 5 Agree 12/21/2025
 4 Agree 12/20/2025
 4 Agree 12/19/2025
Gas powered vehicles will be with us for many more years.

Isn't this what prevented Pinole from having a new Safeway with a gas station?? Safeway is our primary grocery store and where we buy gas because it has the best prices so we now shop and fill up in Hercules instead of Pinole. This is lost sales tax and revenue for Pinole. I get the environment issues but think this a bad decision by the council.

I agree, we should be thinking of ways to attract the MOST tax revenue, not way of discouraging it.

It would be problematic if a grocery store such as Safeway did not move to, or stay in Pinole because we did not permit it to include its own gas station. I believe this already occurred, leading to closure of the Pinole Safeway.

It will be years before fully alternative fuels(EV or hydrogen)are common. I patronize Chevron exclusively for personal reasons & many others don’t. They are much higher priced than some alternatives. The needed taxes that the city would be missing out on by eliminating all future gas stations would be a bad move on the city’s part. It already killed the Pinole Appian center development. Not saying we should add a bunch of gas stations but banning any more or upgrades of current ones is a big mistake. People will go to nearby cities and spend their fuel $ there and all those new homes being built will have many cars needing fuel. I agree Pinole is starting to be an over regulated Berkeley, not good at all! The City of Pinole needs to become more realistic! Yes we live within the Bay Area Bubble, however, common sense needs to prevail!
I believe gas stations provide a vital service to the community and limiting or banni.g stations put an undue burden on lower income individuals due too stations not having competition which would make it almost a monopoly for the very few existing stations
We don't need more restrictions on gas stations at this time. Pinole should focus on other priorities, such as public safety, economic development, and roadway safety.

 4 Agree 12/19/2025
 4 Agree 12/19/2025
 4 Agree 12/19/2025
 4 Agree 12/19/2025
 3 Agree 12/19/2025
 3 Agree 12/19/2025
 3 Agree 12/19/2025
We have lost at least 5 stations in Pinole that I am adware of. More stations means more competition. Please do not prohibit new stations. That is a one sided highly political approach. Let the market decide. Please keep politics out of business. We need more stations, not less.

Question 2 is subjective and largely depends on the time of day people purchase gas. I typically go late at night or on weekends.

Restricting expansion could limit future upgrades and lead to aging or potentially unsafe stations over time.

We already have a significant charging station areas at Pinole Vista, Transit Center among others. Adding a small number of additional chargers near Pinole Valley Shopping Center or downtown Pinole may be reasonable, but anything beyond that seems unnecessary. I own two hybrid vehicles and charge them exclusively at home, which is also the case for many electric vehicle owners.

We shouldn’t be Investing time and money in projects that are not a priority, resources would be better spent on community needs with a more direct impact. For example, adding lighting to the soccer fields on PV Rd. would be a far better investment. It is disheartening to see young children trying to practice without adequate lighting.

Pinole should not dictate the community's access to local fuel. You have better things to do with your time.

Besides with 2 refineries (1 local), leaving California, we aren't going to see alot of new stations, so this is a moot question, and once again Pinole needs to address other local needs. we need more gas stations as the population of pinole increases with the low income housing coming which will create more crime in addition to more traffic.

I think having to drive farther to find gas causes more pollution. traffic and street being blocked, double parking by both cars and especially by delivery truck is really a problem and causes congestion especially during school hours already - dont need additional problems If there is a ban on new gas stations, what happens to the motorists who use gas and the old stations are not replaced, where do residents go to get gas?

 2 Agree 1/8/2026
 2 Agree 12/25/2025
 2 Agree 12/21/2025
Pinole is a town. Seems like there's too much effort being made on subjects beyond basic infrastructure (drive on our streets lately?). I want our city leaders dedicated to our city and looking for some future political ladder step. Take care of the basics 1st - public safety, Library, parks, streets, cleanliness, etc...

I like the idea of electric vehicles, but they are still too expensive. Making it harder to get gas is like taxing poorer and working class people (a longer drive to try and get cheaper gas elsewhere).

I feel the city should NOT develop a new ordinance to limit fossil fuel stations for the following reasons:

We continue to be told that the city is facing financial strain. New commercial businesses, and the improvement of existing businesses, can help combat our economic strain by increasing property tax, sales tax, permit fees, etc. Why would we limit or discourage commercial growth at this time? We should be doing as much as we can to encourage it!! Bring reliable commercial businesses into our city! Commercial business provide employment opportunities to the local community. New businesses increase the number of available jobs to our community members.

Access to Refueling stations supports workers, delivery services, and regional commerce. These will help improve the economy and Pinole should openly support doing what we can to improve the economy, not stifle it.

Gas stations are important to have during disasters. Modern stations include generators that remain operational during outages and provide resources during a disaster.

New gas stations will improve equity and accessibility by increasing our community’s access to essential transportation services.

State law and regulations outline appropriate environmental protections that are required for the safe operation of gas stations. If there is concern about environmental impact, utilize our already existing government agencies to ensure standards are met.

I don’t know the actual figures, but I believe fueling stations are a long term need that will bring consistent revenue and job opportunities into our city.

We are being told the city’s financial situation is dire. If that is true, limiting commercial growth is a luxury that our community politicians shouldn’t practice at this time. Allow the market, free trade, and the creativity of entrepreneurs decide what is, or isn’t, needed. Our city politicians have proven they struggle at managing the city’s long term financial needs….

 2 Agree 12/20/2025
 2 Agree 12/19/2025
 2 Agree 12/19/2025
 2 Agree 12/19/2025
 1 Agree 1/10/2026
 1 Agree 1/10/2026
With Phillips 66 and Valero, and later Shell Oil shutting down, we need more gas stations. The price of gas will be over $8 once the refineries close down.

An out right ban is too drastic. Manage development of additional gas stations, or expansion of such facilities, on a case-by-case basis. An out right ban is more an ideological position, and ties the hands of future government officials to weigh choices and opportunities.

No Comment
I think there is no reason for anyone to build a new gas station anywhere in the Bay Area. Gasoline powered vehicles are adequately served by the existing network. Hopefully electric or other zero emissions vehicles will make up a growing percentage of the transportation fleet in the future This is ridiculous! This is nothing more than bullying people to get electric vehicles, which infrastructure in California cannot support. This ordinance is a strong arm attempt, once again, by the city of Pinole and is very discriminatory.

I am writing as a concerned resident to express my thoughts regarding the recent discussions about banning new gas stations in our city. While I understand the intent behind such policies, I strongly believe our time and resources would be better spent addressing the ongoing issues with our roads and infrastructure.

Many of our streets are in poor condition, with potholes, uneven pavement, and inadequate maintenance creating daily inconveniences and safety hazards for drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians alike. These problems affect commuters, emergency responders, and local businesses, and they contribute to vehicle damage and increased repair costs for residents.

Rather than focusing on restricting new gas stations, I urge the city to prioritize repairing and maintaining our roads. Improving infrastructure will have a direct and positive impact on public safety, traffic flow, and overall quality of life. Well-maintained roads also reflect positively on the city and demonstrate a commitment to responsible governance.

I respectfully ask that you reconsider your priorities and direct more attention and funding toward fixing our streets. This is an issue that affects nearly every resident and deserves immediate action

 1 Agree 1/8/2026
 1 Agree 1/5/2026
1/8/2026
 1 Agree 12/28/2025
 1 Agree 12/21/2025
 1 Agree 12/21/2025
Those are some vague questions that can be used either for or against new/existing infrastructure. Why not just ask if I think we should ban gas stations? Gas stations should be allowed on all of Fitzgerald as well as within 1000 feet of any freeway off-ramp or on-ramp. Just don’t put them downtown or in the residential areas.

I had a Tesla for over 5 years, but PGE cost have gotten to the point where I switched to a hybrid instead and get the same cost per mile plus the convenience of gas.

The city of Pinole is not well supported by public transit. The local bus does a fine job of getting you around town, but it is not really feasible to take it to other cities. The closest BART station to me is still a 20 minute car ride away, which is not conducive to opting for transit. Why does the BART not reach communities past Richmond? The north parts of the east bay have been neglected by BART, unlike the (wealthier) inland areas like Walnut Creek and Dublin. Why does Benecia, Vallejo, Pinole and these cities not get to benefit from BART?
If BART is not an option in the future, then perhaps the city of Pinole could get some park and ride type of service to take people to the BART station. This could further reduce the need for Pinole residents to drive Longer term if Hilltop mall ever actually redevelopes it needs to have a BART extension. That would help a ton of folks that commute from Pinole/tara Hills/Hercules to the ferry in Richmond or to the El Cerrito Del Norte bart station.

Unfortunately that would kinda require Richmond leadership to be competent which seems like a pipe dream
This regulation proposal will have no significant effect on green house gas. You will make our ease of purchase more difficult. Pinole will lose the sales tax income on gasoline sales. Climate Change is not an issue of importance for our city council. Stick to local issues that improve our lives and not make it less convenient. We will vote against supporters of this business unfriendly ordinance.

No more gas stations. It would increase traffic
I don't think we need more stations or for our stations to be expanded. A simple/reasonable updating of stations as needed for better fueling and safety is appreciated and I'm sure the independent stations would appreciate some kind of help with upgrades.

 1 Agree 12/20/2025
1/9/2026
 1 Agree 12/20/2025
12/21/2025  1 Agree
 1 Agree 12/20/2025
12/21/2025
I definitely do not want to see more gas stations that are primarily intended to serve commuters who do not live in Pinole but travel along I-80 freeway.
more gas stations bring in more tax revenue.. The city already has big problems with basic infrastructure issues such as the aging sewer system. Taxes will be rising... no matter what we do.. why not let others that come into Pinole to shop pay for our infrastructure.

I believe we have more than enough gas stations to serve our community of 20,000 people and also those that come to shop here.

Attracting business and tax revenue INTO Pinole is the best strategy. And drivers commuting on 80 are a wonderful resource!!
We need to develop the idea of bringing taxes INTO Pinole from people that don’t live here.

There are too many gas stations and fast food restaurants in Pinole. Neither is good or healthy for the community and our environment. There's a gas station practically every block, especially at the city center.

The housing developments are also a huge concern for our community as it causes more congestion and the infrastructure is not there to serve this expansion, such as overpacked classrooms, more traffic, crime, pollution and there aren't any urgent care/ER facilities to serve this growing population. Dwindling resources would only create more problems in this small city.

Didn’t we have medical services and emergency services across the street from the middle school a while ago. Those shut down for a reason, and now they are building high density homes. I wonder if our politicians could have done more to keep those essential services here.

 1 Agree 12/19/2025
 1 Agree 12/19/2025
12/21/2025  5 Agree
 1 Agree 12/19/2025
 1 Agree 12/19/2025
 1 Agree 12/19/2025
 1 Agree 12/19/2025
These top comments are surprising, "We want more gas stations! Let the market decide!" We have too many gas stations already. This city is like 12 square miles in total and we have how many gas stations? I can think of 6-7 off the top of my head. Never has there been a line more than 1 car long in all the years I've lived here.

Just as the market has a role, so does government. I for one support limiting certain industries with the goal of keeping our land and people healthy. What are these free market people hoping for 5 more gas stations so our downtown is just an asphalt jungle of gas smells and exhaust? When has the introduction of more gas stations ever had an effect on the price in any meaningful way. These comments all feel pretty disingenuous and makes me wonder who is actually the person behind the keyboard.

This feels too limiting. We have enough gas stations in Pinole; we do not need any more, but putting limits on expansion seems counterintuitive, considering all the new housing that's being built or was recently built. I own both an EV and a gas-powered car, mostly because the EV long charging times are highly inconvenient.

Don't restrict gas stations, just build more EV charging stations. Or expand the gas stations to INCLUDE EV chargers.

The proposed ordinance will prohibit a gas station’s ability to upgrade, improve environmental protections, install EV chargers, etc.

This ordinance is a focused assault on gas stations… and doesn’t take community needs into consideration.
affordable housing traffic in the future
We have enough gas stations
Great idea. We don’t need more gas stations!
There are plenty of gas stations in the city.

 1 Agree 12/19/2025
 1 Agree 12/19/2025
 1 Agree 12/19/2025
 1 Agree 12/19/2025
 1 Agree 12/19/2025
12/19/2025  2 Agree
12/21/2025
No more gas stations! There are plenty in Pinole. The old gas station that was on the corner of Tennent and San Pablo Ave contaminated much of the area just under Old Town with no remediation. Stop the madness! We need to drive electric vehicles and not rely on fossil fuels.

It seems that Pinole has plenty of gas stations and given the future direction toward other forms of energy, combined with the environmental impact of having gas stations, I think it makes a lot of sense to prohibit the future addition and expansion of gas stations in Pinole.

Have you measured greenhouse gas emissions around Trader Joe's/I 80/Pinole Valley Rd in the afternoon after students are released from school? I think the traffic circulation there is worse than at any gasoline fueling station I've observed in Pinole (cannot say the same about neighboring communities).

Prohibiting is too strong a word given that the infrastructure for electricity is substandard to say the least. and most people still drive a gasoline vehicle and will continue to do so. There are enough gas stations in Pinole right now, however, with the influx of hundreds if not thousands of new residents that could become a challenge. New housing should from now on also be mandated to include EV charging. Existing housing should be mandated to include EV charging where EVs are owned and used.

We have plenty of gas stations where dense housing is being considered. There are two large facilities in the Fitzgerald area, another across the freeway, two on Pinole Valley Road and a couple on the San Pablo corridor. Why would we need more gas stations as more people have moved to hybrids. Heck I forget to fill my hybrid and mainly use electricity. I like the Tesla charging station up at Fitzgerald and notice that people connect their cars and go shopping. It would be nice if another electric charging station is planned and it could be near any new housing development or revitalization of the business corridor.

I agree about the need for charging stations but I don't think you really speak for those of us not lucky enough to own a hybrid or electric vehicle.

The free market will drive this. Government control and manipulation is not the best answer.

1/22/2026
1/22/2026
1/20/2026
1/16/2026
1/16/2026
1/15/2026
1/14/2026
The top 25 tax revenue incomes have 5 gas stations included on Pinole's list. You will have over 600 new homes / apartments so where will we all be getting gas if you keep decreasing the number of stations. We barely have enough to survive on so most can't buy new cars. We no longer have telephone poles - we have electric trees emitting EMF around the clock. Tell California and their agendas to stay out of our town because they are destroying it !!!
There are 5 gas stations on your top 25 tax revenue incomes plus they also bring in gas taxes. Also you are adding over 600 new homes / apartments so where will we be getting gas in the future. We don't have money for new vehicles - we barely have money to survive on ! PINOLE has to stop California's agenda that is destroying our town and leaving us tax payers with the bill.

I appreciate so much that Pinole is doing this to protect our environment and our health.

Most of the scientific papers that have climate change alarmism are paid for by companies that have an interest in non-fossil fuel energy solutions. These papers cherry-pick data that supports the interests of the companies that paid for them, and ignore data that contradicts those interests. The science shows that the climate temperatures have varied wildly over history, including before there was significant, or any, human activity. To think that human activity has much affect on climate is arrogance.

People will always need gasoline and other fossil fuels. If they cannot get gas in Pinole, they will go elsewhere. So all this proposal will do is reduce revenue for Pinole.

This is America and competition is always better for the consumers. The city has already done in the Safeway Shopping Center by curtailing their plans for gas pumps and cheaper gas. The gas taxes are now going to Hercules so much for our roads. The other side is with any station upgrades or new stations tagging on EV charging stations or one day Hydrogen pumps could be additionally required as a bargaining item for the necessary approvals.

More EV chargers! The Pinole Supercharger on Fitzgerald is a great recent addition but it's often full or close to full with resulting frequent surge/more expensive pricing as a result. The non Tesla chargers at Sprouts are also regularly used and sometimes no free chargers available there too ... What about another SuperCharger in the Bowling Alley parking lot??
Gas cars are still very widely used. Having more gas stations would increase competition and drive down prices.

1/14/2026
1/12/2026
1/11/2026
1/10/2026
1/10/2026
1/10/2026
1/10/2026
1/9/2026
1/9/2026
John gioria says go electric so te 2 zesty mayor's, Yellow and brown lick taints in agreement.

Additional gas stations are not needed, replace/fix the current ones with effective, modern and with compliant standards only.

The need for gas stations will dissipate naturally when and if enough people adopt use of fully electric or hydrogen cars instead of gas or hybrid cars.

Absolutely terrible survey. Biased and leading questions. Poor grammar, double-negative "not unconcerned" makes someone concerned. Diesel is not gasoline and therefore can be considered an alternate to gasoline in this survey but I have no doubt the council wants to restrict diesel access as well. How much sales tax is the council denying the city, that could be used to fix our roads, by banning new/expansion of fuel stations? This does not address the priorities of the citizens: safety and good roads.

I am very concerned with your liberal agenda that has failed everywhere it's been attempted.

Stop with YOUR DEMOCRAT DRIVEN AGENDA and do what Pinole taxpayers PAY you to do.

Fix our roads, add amenities like gas stations that add to our life in many ways, fund police and do not force your political nonsense on them, look at the firefighters budget and the crushing debt of their BLOATED PENSIONS AND WAGES!!!
Quit CONTOLLING EVERY ASPECY OF OUR LIVES. Let is make our own choices. I an on leaving this Communist area soon.

Don't listen to petroleum companies dire warnings about California denying itself. We don't need any more gas
stations than those already existing.

Fix our ROADS
With all the new housing developments in Pinole, we need more gas stations and pumps, not less. Also, fixing our roads should be top priority.

1/9/2026
1/9/2026
1/8/2026
1/9/2026
1/8/2026
1/8/2026
1/8/2026
1/8/2026
1/8/2026
weather you like it or not, fossil feul is not going away.

I think it is a bad idea to limit the amount of pumps at a gas station. It is .ore important for people to have more pumps and more options.

Pinole seems like it already has more gas stations than other towns per capita. I don’t think we really need anymore.

That being said Pinole needs to really focus on alternatives by working with the county since right now travel by car is literally the only option since generally westcat service is so poor.

While I’m happy to see all the new developments going in I also had concerns that it seems like barely any retail or additional transit service/infrastructure is being planned to support all of the new residents which will just end up with them being car dependent too.

Working with the county destroying the local towns
The all electric mandate in CA will likely be delayed due to grid capacity issues. Let existing gas stations make improvements and allow the Safeway site establish a gas station is they deem it necessary to redevelop the site.

Fix the roads first
San Pablo though downtown from Richmond parkway to the bridge is soo bad.

We have more gas stations than new locally-owned restaurants it seems. No more has stations please!! Everyone goes to Safeway in Hercules anyway. Unless our old Safeway is to get a gas station- that’s ok.

Pinole needs to address issues that affect Pinole residents and stay in our lane...

1/8/2026
1/8/2026
1/8/2026
1/5/2026
1/4/2026
1/3/2026
12/25/2025
12/23/2025
12/22/2025
I like where I get my gas and feel there are enough stations around town to pick from and that we don't necessarily have to have more stations as I don't have a problem now with what is available.

Not everyone has electric vehicles nor can afford them. If Safeway was to put their hat back in for acquiring the Tara Hills Safeway property I would support a lower priced reliable gas station.

Please fix the roads first.

I believe that there are plenty of gas stations in Pinole already. Our car is hybrid (EV + gas) and we trickle charge it at home and still use gas for longer trips but we would consider getting an EV for our next car if there was more charging infrastructure. Never once have we waited more than an minute in line for gas. I believe Pinole should be a progressive environmental leader and make the healthier choice for our residents and families. We don't need more gas stations in Pinole.

Forcing people to travel for fuel does not solve the problem you are wanting to address. would this limit new EV charging at gas stations? or adding markets? both of those don't seem problematic to me
I drive a diesel so options are limited, but 2 fuel depots for me in Pinole is more than enough.

I think the market should determine how many gas stations are needed. Until we can make the alternative more affordable for most people, gas unfortunately is the option. Insurance for electric cars are very expensive and having electric panels doesn't even pay for itself anymore due to the waste of energy if you don't have a battery. The state recently reduced how much people can be paid out through PG&E so why would people opt to go "green" if it's so much more expensive? Make it more affordable then people will buy in! I don’t shop for gas in PInole I can get it much cheaper in Rodeo or downtown Walnut Creek the gas stations are just plain overpriced!!!

12/20/2025
12/19/2025
12/19/2025
12/19/2025
12/19/2025
12/19/2025
12/19/2025
12/19/2025  3 Agree
12/21/2025
12/19/2025
We have enough gas stations for our 20,000 people living here in Pinole and for additional people who come to shop here.

You seem to be in the minority Mr./Ms./Mss./Them/They/It, The whole point of government is to regulate and look out for the people. This is their job, I'm glad they're considering this move. When have you ever struggled to get gas in Pinole? I don't think you have to drive more than mile from any point in the city to find a gas station. To Pinole leadership, yes please keep your noses where they are, looking out for the health and well being of your citizens. I do agree that some government regulation is in order, but I feel that it should be less than more. We seem to disagree. I'm with Reagan.

None at this time
I believe we need to eventually stop using fossil fuels. The sooner we start, the better. However, a transition that takes into account the most disadvantaged citizens is important.

We do not need more gas stations.
n/a
We need more merchandise stores
We need more non-chain merchandise stores that would bring people to downtown. Maybe a beer garden, a florist, a boutique, we need to revitalize downtown.

The market will drive this.

No