Pinole City Council
March 23, 2026

1 March 23, 2026
1 2
3 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
4 PINOLE PLANNING COMMISSION
5 6 March 23, 2026
7 8 THIS MEETING WAS HELD IN A HYBRID FORMAT
9 BOTH IN-PERSON AND ZOOM TELECONFERENCE
10 11
12 A. CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m.
13 14 B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
15 16 C. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: Before we begin, we would like to acknowledge the 17 Ohlone people, who are the traditional custodians of this land. We pay our respects to 18 the Ohlone elders, past, present and future, who call this place, Ohlone Land, the land 19 that Pinole sits upon, their home. We are proud to continue their tradition of coming 20 together and growing as a community. We thank the Ohlone community for their 21 stewardship and support, and we look forward to strengthening our ties as we continue 22 our relationship of mutual respect and understanding. 23 24 D. ROLL CALL
25 26 Commissioners Present: Bender, Huey, Lam-Julian, Martinez, Uch, Vice-Chairperson 27 Menis and Chairperson Sandoval
28 29 Commissioners Excused: None
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 topic on the meeting agenda and other topics.
36 37 E. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD
38 39 There were no comments from the public.
40 41 F. MEETING MINUTES
42 43 1. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for February 23, 2026 44 45 MOTION with a Roll Call vote to approve the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for 46 February 23, 2026, as shown.
47 48 MOTION: Sandoval SECONDED: Bender APPROVED: 6-0-1 49 ABSTAIN: Martinez
50 2 March 23, 2026
1 G. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None
2 3 H. OLD BUSINESS: None
4 5 I. NEW BUSINESS
6 7 1. General Plan Conformity for Disposition of Property Located at 2101 Pear Street 8 9 Planning Manager David Hanham presented the staff report dated March 23, 2026. He 10 recommended the Planning Commission adopt Resolution 26-04 finding that the proposed 11 disposition of public property located at 2101 Pear Street conforms to the City of Pinole 12 General Plan, pursuant to Government Code §65402.
13 14 Responding to questions from the Planning Commission, Mr. Hanham clarified the 15 following:
16 17 • The square footage of property at 2101 Pear Street was approximately .5 acres 18 (21,780 square feet) and the approximate square footage of the building itself was 19 46,036 square feet. (Martinez)
20 21 • Page 24 of 24 of the agenda packet, Attachment B, Exhibit A-1, Legal Description, 22 for Parcel B, contained the surveyed square footage of the parcel, shown at 23 18,633.7+ square feet. (Vice-Chairperson Menis)
24 25 • Confirmed the property at 2101 Pear Street would remain a Post Office at this time. 26 If the building was not used as a Post Office, any other use must be consistent 27 with the existing Public/Quasi-Public Institutional (PQI) Zoning, which would be 28 reviewed by the Planning Commission as part of any development review. If the 29 property were sold to a commercial use, as an example, a General Plan 30 Amendment (GPA) and rezone would be required to be approved by the Planning 31 Commission prior to City Council approval; however, there were currently no plans 32 to change the existing use as a Post Office. The business entity that ran the Post 33 Office desired to purchase the property after leasing the property for years. (Lam34 Julian) 35 36 • The background of the project was again clarified, as outlined in the staff report. 37 Why and what generated the sale of the property was an action handled by the 38 Administrator’s Office. (Vice-Chairperson Menis)
39 40 • Staff could not guess the intent of the business entity who was purchasing the 41 property and it was unknown whether the current use as a Post Office was 42 intended for the long term. The General Plan consistency as outlined in the staff 43 report was again clarified. As noted in the staff report, because the General Plan 44 designation for the site remains unchanged and the proposed disposition would 45 not prevent development of the property in accordance with the General Plan, the 46 proposed disposition is consistent with the long-term planning framework 47 established by the City of Pinole General Plan. (Vice-Chairperson Menis) 48 3 March 23, 2026
1 • Based on the action being taken at this time, and since the General Plan was a 2 fluid document and could change at any time, the Planning Commission could only 3 review the action at the time of the project, which was how staff had determined 4 consistency with the General Plan. (Vice-Chairperson Menis) 5 6 • The PQI Zoning had been in place for at least 30-years, and it was assumed the 7 Post Office use would remain but staff could not guess the intent of the business 8 entity purchasing the property, and it was unknown whether the intended use as a 9 Post Office was for the long term. (Vice-Chairperson Menis) 10 11 • Community Services Element, GOAL CS.1 which read: Provide safe, attractive, 12 and efficiently designed infrastructure and sustainable facilities to serve the public 13 and POLICY CS.1.1, which read: The City will strive to provide safe, attractive, and 14 efficiently designed facilities for public and quasi-public organizations, were again 15 clarified, as outlined in the staff report. The Post Office was a public site, which 16 facility served the public for years and was located in a relatively safe place. Staff 17 had identified this goal and policy as applicable to the project as a result. (Vice18 Chairperson Menis) 19 20 • Whether the Planning Commission may suggest covenants be attached to the 21 disposition of the property when the City Council considered this action, staff 22 understood no covenants could be imposed. The Planning Commission was only 23 approving the conformity of the sale of the property. (Vice-Chairperson Menis) 24 25 • Attachment A, Resolution of Approval 26-04, used the term “acquisition” in both 26 the first and third WHEREAS clauses and the BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED 27 clause. Staff acknowledged the term should be revised to read “dispositions.” 28 (Bender)
29 30 • Acknowledged a typographical error in the title of Resolution 26-04, to be 31 corrected. (Bender)
32 33 PUBLIC COMMENT OPENED
34 35 There were no comments from the public.
36 37 PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
38 39 Commissioner Martinez commented he spent time in the Post Office and the building was 40 in a much-needed state of repair and was another City-owned piece of property that was 41 not being maintained. He suggested they were lucky someone had come forward to 42 acquire the property, particularly since the City had not done a good job with maintenance. 43 He supported anything the City could do to close the gap in much needed funding which 44 could address the bigger issue, the lack of maintenance in the City. He found this a good 45 time to offload the property, particularly when the government typically signed long-term 46 contracts. While he was unaware of the contract details for the lease of the building, he 47 was certain it could not be turned around for another use anytime soon. 4 March 23, 2026
1 Commissioner Martinez stated while he liked the architecture of the building, because of 2 the lack of maintenance by the City and since the City lacked the funds to properly 3 maintain the building, he supported the sale of the property. 4 5 Vice-Chairperson Menis asked who was currently responsible to maintain the building, to 6 which Mr. Hanham stated the City, as the owner of the building, was responsible for its 7 maintenance.
8 9 Vice-Chairperson Menis asked if there was a way to approve the item as long as it 10 continued to meet the conditions in the goals and policies as outlined in the staff report. 11 12 Mr. Hanham explained that any new project would be required to come before the 13 Planning Commission. He reiterated, as outlined in the staff report, the project currently 14 met the goals and policies, as staff had outlined. If the Post Office wanted to change the 15 design of the building, as an example, that would require approval from the City, which 16 was why staff had identified Goal CS.1 and Policy CS1.1 from the Community Services 17 Element, which was based just on this action and not anything in the future. 18 19 Vice-Chairperson Menis found they were evaluating not just the existing property itself, 20 but the disposition of the property, such as whether the action of the City of Pinole selling 21 the property at 2101 Pear Street to another entity met certain land use element goals. He 22 asked for clarification if what was really being done was that the City did not have sufficient 23 funds to ensure the infrastructure was safe and therefore the sale would generate funds 24 to offset that.
25 26 Mr. Hanham was unaware of the details of the sales agreement to be approved by the 27 City Council. The Planning Commission was only directed to consider the land use and 28 he described it as a narrow scope for the Planning Commission. 29 30 Vice-Chairperson Menis commented if the Planning Commission had a narrow scope, at 31 this time he would suggest Goal CS.1 and Policy CS1.1 of the Community Services 32 Element did not fit with the action of sale or disposition of the property. He agreed that 33 Policy LU7.6, as outlined in the staff report, did since it was clearly looking at the sale or 34 exchange of City-owned land.
35 36 Vice-Chairperson Menis offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Martinez, to amend 37 Resolution 26-04, and strike Goal CS.1 and Policy CS1.1 of the Community Services 38 Element from Section 3, Page 2, of the resolution.
39 40 MOTION with a Roll Call vote to amend Resolution 26-04 and strike Goal CS.1 and Policy 41 CS1.1 from Section 3, Page 2 of the resolution.
42 43 MOTION: Menis SECONDED: Martinez APPROVED: 5-2
44 NOES: Uch, Sandoval
45 46 Commissioner Bender agreed with Commissioner Martinez that this was an ideal sale to 47 offload the property. While the building had been remodeled a few years ago to address 48 asbestos, it was a tired facility, over 60-years old and in need of a remodel. Now that would 49 be the task of the new property owner and not the taxpayers. 50 5 March 23, 2026
1 MOTION with a Roll Call vote to adopt Resolution 26-04, A Resolution of the City of Pinole 2 Planning Commission that the Proposed Disposition of Property Located at 2101 Pear Street, 3 APN: 401-163-003 Conformed to the City’s General Plan, subject to:
4 5 • Correction of typographical errors on the title of the resolution in the and first and 6 third WHEREAS clauses and the BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED clause, and change 7 the use of the term acquisition to read disposition.
8 9 • Goal CS.1 and Policy CS.1.1 to be removed from Section 3, Page 2 of the 10 resolution.
11 12 MOTION: Sandoval SECONDED: Menis APPROVED: 7-0
13 14 J. CITY PLANNER’S/COMMISSIONER’S REPORT
15 16 Mr. Hanham provided the following updates:
17 18 • Summarized his attendance at the Planning Commission Academy. 19 20 • Staff was working on some Lot Line Adjustments (LLAs) and would have a 21 Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for review at the next Planning Commission meeting 22 on April 13, 2026.
23 24 • Staff was working to create a matrix of how the Pinole Police Department (PPD) 25 evaluated alcohol sales.
26 27 • There may be some housing items brought before the Planning Commission soon, 28 with the Housing Element continuing to be maintained and policies implemented. 29 30 Vice-Chairperson Menis asked about the status of the Objective Development Design 31 Standards (ODDS), to which Mr. Hanham stated he hoped to bring the ODDS to the Planning 32 Commission the second meeting of April or first meeting in May. The ODDS were currently 33 being reviewed by the City Attorney and Community Development Director, with the final 34 draft to be reviewed by the Planning Commission Ad Hoc Committee. 35 36 Commissioner Lam-Julian asked about the status of the former Kmart and Safeway 37 properties.
38 39 Mr. Hanham reported the developer for the Kmart property had submitted the demolition 40 permit, which was currently being reviewed by staff. He had no additional update on the 41 status of entitlements for the property and he had no new updates for the Safeway property 42 but staff planned to meet with the property owner.
43 44 PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
45 46 Anthony Vossbrink asked about the status of the following: Caltrans under and overpass 47 lighting which had been out for over six months at Pinole Valley Road and the I-80 ingress 48 and egress; Caltrans signage that was not clearly visible; and pothole repair and drain 49 maintenance needs on the west side of the on- and off-ramps. 6 March 23, 2026
1 Mr. Vossbrink also asked about the status of the Contra Costa Flood Control District 2 (CCFCD) repair to a breach in Pinole Creek behind Sprouts. He reported that a meeting had 3 been held between Council member Martinez-Rubin and Friends of Pinole Creek, who took 4 pictures of the breach, and who agreed pressure should be put on the CCFCD to make the 5 repairs. Also, he asked about the status of addressing the chairs obstructing half of the 6 sidewalk at Dave’s Hot Chicken, which was a code violation; and the status of lighting at the 7 Bay Front Park parking lot to provide security and commented on his understanding that 8 more lighting and security cameras were to be installed in the parking lot after a resident had 9 been killed in the park. Many of these issues were old and needed to be addressed. 10 11 In addition, street lighting throughout the City needed to be addressed; the corner of Pinole 12 Valley Road/Sarah Drive/Granada Court had two telephone poles blocking the Americans 13 with Disabilities Act (ADA) crosswalk, and the closure of Pinole Library included signage at 14 the property from the City and construction company, but no signage from the County. 15 16 Chair Sandoval recommended the speaker reach out to the City to see if there was a 17 maintenance agreement with Caltrans with respect to the concerns about the freeway lighting 18 and signage since that may be a City issue if the City had a maintenance agreement with 19 Caltrans. As to the potholes on the on-ramp, he encouraged the speaker to submit a 20 customer service request to Caltrans or follow-up with a State legislator if follow-up was 21 needed. As to the issues with the CCFCD, that was a County agency and the speaker could 22 reach out to the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors (BOS) and follow-up with the City 23 Council and Public Works Department about the concerns at Bay Front Park and telephone 24 poles blocking the sidewalk, as mentioned.
25 26 Mr. Hanham reported code enforcement was addressing the issue at Dave’s Hot Chicken. 27 28 PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
29 30 Commissioner Uch highlighted his attendance at the Planning Academy. He was pleased to 31 learn about the priorities of other cities and was interested in state laws that had been passed, 32 particularly transit bills around transit corridors. He found the academy had been a good 33 opportunity to learn and meet other Planning Commissioners throughout the state. 34 35 Chair Sandoval also attended the Planning Academy with a diversity of topics and ideas 36 discussed, and noted it was interesting to hear other Planning Commissioners’ perspectives 37 across the state. He thanked City staff for the accommodations and for planning the event. 38 39 K. COMMUNICATIONS
40 41 Vice-Chairperson Menis reported upcoming community events included the Senior Food 42 Distribution at the Senior Center from 10:00 to 11:00 a.m. on March 24, 2026, with application 43 eligibility required; Special City Council meeting on March 24, 2026 at 6:00 p.m. for a 44 Commercial Cannabis Workshop and Voter Survey results of various potential tax measures; 45 Community Services Commission meeting on March 25, 2026 at 5:00 p.m. and a rally was 46 planned for March 28, 2026 from 10:00 to 11:00 a.m. at the Fernandez Park gazebo followed 47 by a protest from 11:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. at the intersection of Tennent and San Pablo 48 Avenues.
49 50 PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
7 March 23, 2026
1 Anthony Vossbrink suggested it would be a good idea for the Planning Commission to follow 2 the protocols of the City Council and have Citizens to be Heard both at the beginning and 3 end of the meeting agenda. He also asked whether the Interim City Manager had announced 4 whether he would hold office hours that would be open to the public as his predecessors had 5 done. He urged better collaboration between the County Librarian and the City of Pinole, 6 with regard to the Pinole Library closure and understood the library would be closed for a 7 year and asked what improvements would be made during that time. 8 9 Mr. Vossbrink also asked whether the City would be credited by the County for the time the 10 library was closed. He added that while signs had been posted on the fencing around the 11 library by the construction company, there was no signage to indicate the tennis courts were 12 open and there was no alternative parking provided for anyone who wanted to enjoy the 13 tennis courts or the creek park since the parking at the Pinole Library was blocked off. 14 15 Chair Sandoval suggested the speaker follow up with the City Manager’s Office regarding 16 his office hours, and the Parks and Recreation and Public Works Departments regarding the 17 library.
18 19 Vice-Chairperson Menis asked about the protocol to amend the meeting agendas to be 20 structured like the City Council with public comment at the beginning and end of the meetings. 21 22 Mr. Hanham explained he would have to review the request, which may fall under the 23 Planning Commission rules and responsibilities and could bring back information at the next 24 meeting.
25 26 Vice-Chairperson Menis also asked whether the City could address the concerns regarding 27 the Pinole Library or whether those concerns would be better directed to the County. He also 28 asked if all of the parking in the library parking lot was intended to be blocked off or whether 29 that issue would be better addressed with the Community Service Director. 30 31 Mr. Hanham stated he would reach out to the Community Services Director. As to the 32 parking at the Pinole Library, typically when construction occurred, the entire property was 33 blocked off. He would follow up to see if any portion of the parking lot could be used for the 34 tennis courts.
35 36 PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
37 38 L. NEXT MEETING
39 40 1. Planning Commission Regular Meeting on April 13, 2026 at 7:00 p.m. 41 42 M. ADJOURNMENT: 7:57 p.m.
43 44 Transcribed by:
45 46 Sherri D. Lewis
47 Transcriber