Pinole City Council
April 13, 2026

1 April 13, 2026
1 2
3 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
4 PINOLE PLANNING COMMISSION
5 6 April 13, 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 Absent: 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 Anthony Vossbrink asked the Planning Commission to consider a future agenda item for 40 a second Citizens to be Heard at the end of the meeting agenda and possibly limit it to 41 three minutes, particularly since many people who worked may be unable to provide public 42 comment at the start of the meeting. He otherwise commented that the Public Works 43 Department claimed improvements had been made to the dog park, such as removal of a 44 tree stump, but they also removed a third of the existing mature trees in the large dog park 45 absent any public comment and removed a large branch that provided shade that dogs 46 and children used to climb, which posed no hazard. He suggested any time more than 25 47 percent of a tree was cut, the City should bring in an outside arborist to consult. He added 48 that none of the drinking fountains in the dog park were operable nor were the fountains 49 operable at the public tennis courts outside of the Pinole library. 50 2 April 13, 2026
1 Mr. Vossbrink also suggested the City along with the County Librarian and construction 2 company, should have notified the public about what funds were being spent related to 3 the Pinole Library renovations including the start date of the project, time of the closure of 4 the library, tennis patrons assured the courts would remain open during construction and 5 identification of alternatives to parking. While a small sign had been installed to identify 6 the tennis courts ingress/egress in the alleyway, the City needed to do a better job 7 informing the public, rather than some of the questionable spending by the City Council. 8 He would like to see potholes repaired and lights replaced that were out around the I-80 9 ingress/egress, some of which were related to Caltrans and others the responsibility of the 10 City of Pinole.
11 12 Chair Sandoval suggested the speaker reach out to the Public Works Director directly or 13 to the City Council with respect to the issues with the Public Works Department via email 14 or in writing.
15 16 Vice-Chairperson Menis advised he had also requested consideration of a second 17 Citizens to be Heard at the end of the meeting agenda at the March 23, 2026 Planning 18 Commission meeting, with staff to look into what was required to make that happen. 19 20 Planning Manager David Hanham reported the Pinole Municipal Code (PMC) did not have 21 a set agenda. He was unsure a second Citizens to be Heard was needed since Planning 22 Commission meetings started at 7:00 p.m., two hours later than City Council meetings, 23 with more than enough time for people to participate. He noted if the Planning 24 Commission had more than a couple of items on the agenda, as an example, the second 25 Citizens to be Heard may not happen before 10:30 or 11:00 p.m. He suggested it was 26 difficult for Planning Commission meetings to have that second Citizens to be Heard due 27 to the way the Planning Commission worked, and the start time of the meeting where that 28 second opportunity would land in terms of the length of the meeting, although it was up to 29 the Planning Commission if it wanted to add a second Citizens to be Heard, which could 30 be discussed at the next meeting. At this time, he would recommend only one Citizens to 31 be Heard be agendized for the reasons stated.
32 33 Vice-Chairperson Menis commented on the requirement for an independent arborist 34 inspection for major tree trims and asked if the PMC required a certified arborist for tree 35 work or whether the Public Works Department would sign off on its own work. 36 37 Mr. Hanham reported Public Works Manager Joe Bingaman was a certified arborist and it 38 was possible the tree trimming referenced was his decision. He clarified for private 39 property, a third-party arborist report was required but not on City property. 40 41 Vice-Chairperson Menis asked who would address the concerns with the drinking 42 fountains, to which Mr. Hanham stated the concerns raised about the trees, the drinking 43 fountains, anything about the dog park and ingress/egress issues at the Pinole Library 44 were all Public Works issues. If anyone had a complaint they could email Joe Bingaman 45 directly at [email protected] or Public Works Director Heba El-Guindy at 46 [email protected].
47 48 F. MEETING MINUTES
49 50 1. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for March 23, 2026 3 April 13, 2026
1 MOTION with a Roll Call vote to approve the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for 2 March 23, 2026, as shown.
3 4 MOTION: Sandoval SECONDED: Martinez APPROVED: 7-0
5 6 G. PUBLIC HEARINGS
7 8 1. UP25-0007 The Queen Relaxation & Body Works – 1660 San Pablo Avenue 9 10 Mr. Hanham presented the staff report dated April 13, 2026. He recommended the 11 Planning Commission adopt Resolution 26-05 approving a Conditional Use Permit for 12 Queen Relaxation & Body Works located at 1660 San Pablo Avenue. 13 14 Responding to questions from the Planning Commission, Mr. Hanham clarified the 15 following:
16 17 • Acknowledged there were a number of existing similar establishments that were 18 located nearby and throughout the City of Pinole and a request that the staff report 19 be updated with identification of all of the similar business in Pinole. Staff also 20 clarified the business would be located within tenant space on the ground floor of 21 the building located at 1660 San Pablo Avenue. (Martinez) 22 23 • Acknowledged a request for staff to detail the services other similar establishments 24 that were within proximity to the proposed business offered to their clients. (Lam25 Julian) 26 27 • Acknowledged Page 17 of 21 of the agenda packet, the first WHEREAS clause of 28 Resolution 26-05, would be corrected to reflect the correct address to read: 1660 29 San Pablo Avenue. (Uch)
30 31 • Acknowledged again there were a number of existing similar establishments in 32 Pinole and clarified some of them offered different massage services to that being 33 proposed by the subject applicant, who also offered sauna treatments and showers 34 for patrons and more in-depth services as compared to the other businesses. Also, 35 some of the other businesses had either one or two massage rooms, whereas the 36 applicant would have a number of treatment rooms. The other establishments also 37 did not have a way to expand within their existing structures given the limited 38 spaces. (Vice-Chairperson Menis)
39 40 • The Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (CCCFPD) and Building 41 Department would ensure fire access and exits as part of the review of the formal 42 plans when submitted. (Vice-Chairperson Menis)
43 44 • The applicant had identified a couple of locations where the sauna could be 45 located, it would not affect anything on the outside of the building. Entry to the 46 various treatment rooms, sauna and restrooms were identified. (Vice-Chairperson 47 Menis)
48 49
4 April 13, 2026
1 • As noted in the staff report, Under the Three Corridors Specific Plan, the CMU 2 zoning district allows for Personal Services - Restricted uses with approval of a 3 Conditional Use Permit. The use classification is defined as “personal service 4 establishments (e.g., check cashing services, fortune tellers, psychics, palm 5 readers, and similar services, tattooing, piercing, massage parlors, and similar 6 services) tending to have a blighting and/or deteriorating effect upon surrounding 7 areas and which may need to be dispersed to minimize their adverse impacts. 8 These uses may also include accessory retail sales of products related to the 9 services provided.” As to how a blighting effect was determined, staff clarified the 10 analysis was subjective and done when the General Plan and Three Corridors 11 Specific Plan were updated.
12 13 As an example, for check cashing services, an assumption was made what those 14 businesses were and there was subjectiveness when put into the PMC. The City 15 was fortunate the Pinole Police Department (PPD) did yearly random checks on 16 those businesses, and took a proactive approach to ensure such establishments 17 were not a blight on the community, played by the same rules and were all certified 18 and up to date, as required. (Vice-Chairperson Menis) 19 20 • As to what concentration of similar businesses was deemed acceptable, staff 21 suggested similar businesses could all be in one center with different services 22 provided. No number had been identified to regulate how many similar businesses 23 should be located within close proximity of another. Staff noted like businesses 24 liked to be in the general area of the same (such as fast-food restaurants). There 25 was currently no standard of how many like businesses were allowed in a certain 26 area in the PMC, other than to ensure the businesses followed the rules and were 27 certified, as required. (Vice-Chairperson Menis)
28 29 • Massage therapy had been listed as a use that required a Conditional Use Permit 30 (CUP), since additional permits may be required from the PPD or through the 31 public health department or others, and the City required a CUP to ensure the 32 business maintained its requirements. In this case, this was a use that required a 33 CUP because the use involved certification or stricter conditions to ensure the 34 business ran smoothly within the City. Personal Restricted Uses were intended to 35 differentiate There was also recognition that massage parlors, which had a certain 36 reputation in the past, were used by a lot of people for bodily injuries, athletic 37 injuries, occupational therapy and body wellness and the like. Given the 38 certifications needed and since the business needed to go through the PPD, that 39 was why a CUP was required. (Chair Sandoval)
40 41 • In the event the applicant planned to expand into additional suites or if the business 42 planned to expand upstairs or down the hall in the future, the Planning Commission 43 could be informed the business was expanding into different areas of the building. 44 However, at this time, all improvements were being done in an existing suite and 45 through tenant improvements, which did not have to come back to the Planning 46 Commission for review. (Chair Sandoval)
47 48 PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
49 5 April 13, 2026
1 Victoria Lee, Applicant, 2701Oharte Road, Richmond, Owner, Queen Relaxation & Body 2 Works, welcomed any questions from the Planning Commission with staff having covered 3 the details of the application.
4 5 Scott Maskell, identified himself as the Property Manager of the Pinole Office Center 6 where the business would be located. He stated the proposed business had been 7 discussed with the existing tenants in the building and there had been positive responses 8 from all of the businesses. One of the tenants, Jiva Health, was a diabetes clinic which 9 found the business would be helpful to their clients, and another tenant, a beauty salon 10 which catered to the elderly, looked forward to the business opening. 11 12 Mr. Maskell reported the office center had 41 parking spaces, and there were always 13 approximately a dozen parking spaces available with plenty of parking. The center did not 14 face the street and was in the back hidden away. With the new tenant and in response to 15 concerns from the existing tenants, a 16-camera surveillance system had been installed. 16 He suggested the business would benefit the area and the existing businesses in the 17 building. He hoped the Planning Commission would approve the CUP. 18 19 Commissioner Martinez commented he had used an insurance agent in the center years 20 ago and the area was dark in the evenings and there were few trash cans. He asked 21 whether the lighting had been updated.
22 23 Mr. Maskell confirmed the lights had been updated to light emitting diodes (LEDs). He 24 was a Real Estate Broker and had access to a maintenance crew and had ensured the 25 lights were upgraded throughout the building. Also, two concrete trash cans were located 26 on-site and were maintained on a regular basis.
27 28 Commissioner Lam-Julian was pleased a camera surveillance system had been installed 29 along with improvements to the lights around the building. She was aware of a situation 30 where a tenant on the top floor had been robbed and asked whether any other incidents 31 had come up. She also commented that spas were in a vulnerable situation given they 32 typically had older customers. Since the building was situated back from the street, she 33 asked whether the site had experienced any questionable behavior. 34 35 Mr. Maskell understood no loss had been incurred with the theft referenced which had 36 been immediately reported. The surveillance cameras would record constantly and had 37 infrared capabilities with coverage in the parking lot. Other than some minor issues with 38 the homeless, which had been curtailed by reprogramming the elevators, there had been 39 no issues. He had been managing the property since 2015, and there had been no 40 incidents in the elevator since it had been reprogrammed. There had been issues with 41 cars broken down that were left in the parking lot, but that issue had been resolved quickly. 42 43 Vice-Chairperson Menis asked about the retention period of the camera data, to which Mr. 44 Maskell explained the camera system had a capacity of five terabytes and between 25 45 and 30 days. He reiterated the elevators had been reprogrammed and were operable 46 during normal business hours and off between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. 47 48 Commissioner Martinez commented the building had shown wear and tear and asked 49 whether it would be rehabbed in terms of new exterior paint and the like. 50 6 April 13, 2026
1 Mr. Maskell stated the exterior of the building had been painted around two years ago. 2 The parking lot needed work and they had contractors come in. When the weather 3 improved, some concrete driveway that had failed would be removed and the area would 4 be repaved.
5 6 Anthony Vossbrink asked if this building was the same property that at one time the 7 occupant/owner/landlord, an ophthalmologist had been responsible for maintaining or 8 upgrading the property to something more acceptable and compatible with the other office 9 complex across the alleyway/street. He suggested more should be required for upgrades 10 to the building to avoid falling into further disrepair. He questioned how many massage 11 parlors were needed in Pinole within a half or three quarter-mile radius of one another and 12 suggested West County did not need to be known as the massage parlor capital. He 13 understood the existing massage parlors in Pinole were not doing well post-COVID and 14 he was not certain similar businesses would like this competition in the same area. 15 16 Mr. Vossbrink suggested the building be repainted with a fresh coat of paint. He also 17 asked about the applicant’s experience operating a massage parlor, and questioned 18 whether the property owner was looking for a quick tenant to get tax revenue or whether 19 there were other tenant opportunities that had not been considered. Given this was only 20 a partial tenant, he asked if they were taking up 25 or 50 percent of the building. He 21 recalled having been inside the building, there was a dark stairwell that was scary and he 22 was unsure if it was secured at night with security cameras, which should be addressed. 23 He also asked whether the business would be subject to annual review. 24 25 Mr. Maskell reported the property owners had worked on-site for many years, owned the 26 building and recently retired in December 2025, having sold their practice to Jiva Health. 27 He was unaware of any stairways that were dark, possibly because the lighting had been 28 improved. Other potential tenants had been declined so as to not compete with the 29 existing tenants in the building or the potential tenants had not met certain qualifications. 30 31 Mr. Hanham clarified the reference to Dr. Lee, an ophthalmologist, was not in this building 32 but further down on San Pablo Avenue in the 1300 block of San Pablo Avenue. 33 34 PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
35 36 Vice-Chairperson Menis asked whether the Planning Commission could consider the 37 competition effects on other businesses within the region, or whether that was outside the 38 purview of the Commission.
39 40 Mr. Hanham stated that was outside the purview of the Planning Commission, which was 41 not involved in the economics or the viability of the business and it was up to the business 42 to decide whether their business could be viable within a certain area. The Planning 43 Commission was to determine whether the land use and zoning was compatible with the 44 proposed use. The only way the City would become involved was if there was a land use 45 issue, such as if the City Council and Planning Commission decided only one massage 46 parlor could be located within a certain distance of another. 47 48 Vice-Chairperson Menis read into the record Policy CC.3 and Policy CC.3.2, as outlined 49 on Pages 13 and 14 of 21 of the agenda packet, as shown in the April 13, 2026 staff report. 50 7 April 13, 2026
1 Commissioner Martinez commented the signage along San Pablo Avenue listed all of the 2 tenants in the building and he asked whether the new tenant would also be identified. 3 4 Mr. Hanham explained the building had an approved Master Sign Program and when the 5 tenant submitted signage, it would be reviewed for compliance with the Master Sign 6 Program.
7 8 Commissioner Martinez clarified no neon light would be proposed for the business sign, 9 and Mr. Hanham advised neon lighting was not permitted and when the sign was 10 submitted, it would be reviewed to ensure compliance with the Master Sign Program and 11 the PMC.
12 13 Vice-Chairperson Menis recalled when a massage parlor came before the City in the past, 14 the City wanted to prevent the de facto establishment of a red-light district in the City of 15 Pinole, which was the reason for the requirements to ensure the therapists were qualified, 16 and had necessary permits. He recalled that was why such uses had been flagged as 17 tending to have a “blighted or deteriorating effect,” and why it fell under that restricted use. 18 19 Commissioner Lam-Julian also commented on the other massage parlor businesses in 20 Pinole and conversations about a more robust offering. In this case, the business would 21 also offer deep tissue massage and a sauna option, which services were desired by 22 members of the community who traveled outside Pinole to seek out these services. She 23 found the business would provide a robust offering in Pinole with added services that were 24 not currently offered by others.
25 26 MOTION with a Roll Call vote to adopt Resolution 26-05, with Exhibit A: Conditions of 27 Approval, a Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Pinole, County of Contra 28 Costa, State of California, Approving a Conditional Use Permit (CUP 23-01) for a Wellness 29 Center and Massage Therapy Establishment (Queen Relaxation and Bodyworks) located at 30 1660 San Pablo Avenue, APN: 401-350-059, subject to the correction of the address in the 31 first WHEREAS clause on Page 17 of 21 of the agenda packet, to read: 1660 San Pablo 32 Avenue.
33 34 MOTION: Sandoval SECONDED: Bender APPROVED: 7-0
35 36 Chair Sandoval read into the record the appeal process as shown on Page 2 of the April 37 13, 2026 meeting agenda.
38 39 H. OLD BUSINESS: None
40 41 I. NEW BUSINESS: None
42 43 J. CITY PLANNER’S/COMMISSIONER’S REPORT
44 45 Mr. Hanham suggested if the Planning Commission wanted to add a second Citizens to be 46 Heard to the meeting agenda, that could be included on a future agenda. He otherwise had 47 no update other than all projects were moving forward. 48 49 Vice-Chairperson Menis supported bringing back a future agenda item for a second Citizens 50 to be Heard under the same rules as the City Council. 8 April 13, 2026
1 Vice-Chairperson Menis stated the City Council allowed for public comment at the beginning 2 of the meeting and also at the end of the meeting for those unable to comment the first time. 3 He suggested it would be worthwhile to have a second Citizens to be Heard at the end of the 4 meeting, even though Planning Commission meetings started at 7:00 p.m. since some 5 people may still not be able to attend or call-in at the beginning of the meeting. The second 6 opportunity would be beneficial for the Planning Commission to hear from the public and he 7 did not see it would be used often.
8 9 Commissioner Huey supported the future discussion on this topic, but also recommended 10 that the Commission consider scaling back the public comment time period from five to three 11 minutes. She suggested people had very flexible schedules and she wanted to provide the 12 public the opportunity to speak.
13 14 Chair Sandoval asked if the item were to be approved whether a member of the public would 15 be allowed to comment once at the beginning of the meeting and again a second time at the 16 end of the meeting.
17 18 Mr. Hanham suggested that would be up to the Planning Commission and a point to bring 19 up as part of the rules of using Citizens to be Heard. If a second Citizens to be Heard were 20 added and if a meeting went beyond 11:00 p.m., the meeting would have to be continued for 21 the item since it could not be cut out. The time period for Citizens to be Heard could also be 22 discussed, currently limited at five minutes whereas the City Council limit was three minutes. 23 If there were two Citizens to be Heard, staff would support reducing the time period to three 24 minutes for each Citizens to be Heard, which could be discussed further related to the rules 25 and regulations for the item.
26 27 Chair Sandoval suggested if a member of the public commented twice they should reduce 28 the time limit, particularly if the same person commented on both Citizens to be Heard, or the 29 Commission could consider the citizen speaking once for one or the other Citizens to be 30 Heard.
31 32 Mr. Hanham stated as part of a future discussion, staff could provide different alternatives. 33 34 MOTION to bring forward as a future agenda item discussion of adding a second Citizens to 35 be Heard period to the standard agenda format of Planning Commission meetings. 36 37 MOTION: Menis SECONDED: Lam-Julian APPROVED: 6-1
38 NOES: Martinez
39 40 PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
41 42 There were no comments from the public.
43 44 PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
45 46 Commissioner Lam-Julian asked about the status of the former Kmart and Safeway 47 properties and the date for Appian Village to open, and Mr. Hanham reported the demolition 48 permit had been received and was under review for the Kmart property; staff received no 49 plans for the new apartment building; and there had been no inquiries for potential applicants 50 or input from the actual landowners for the Appian 80 property. 9 April 13, 2026
1 Mr. Hanham added that Appian Village was close to approval of a temporary use permit for 2 the sales office and the occupancy of the first five buildings was expected around the end of 3 summer or the beginning of fall.
4 5 Commissioner Martinez understood when the restriping was done for Appian Village some 6 parking on the street had been reduced, which had created parking issues for the dentist 7 office across the street. Before Appian Village was formally open, he asked that staff work 8 with the developer to ensure the Homeowner’s Association (HOA) for Appian Village include 9 language that would require anyone parking in the few parking spaces be allowed to park for 10 24/hours or less, so that the parking spots would be available for visitors to the area, given 11 the parking issues for the dental and medical offices within proximity to the development. He 12 hoped that would be done before the facility was approved to open. 13 14 Mr. Hanham clarified that all of the units would have their own parking garage, as well as 15 additional guest parking spaces on-site. The only thing the City had limited was guest 16 parking, not the on-site parking. He would have to review what had been approved. 17 Currently, the area was not red striped in front of the dental/medical offices and nothing 18 prevented parking unless No Parking signs were posted on Appian Way. He was aware that 19 people parked in the area for the school in the after-school hours. 20 21 Mr. Hanham recalled the dental offices were part of a condominium project and when the 22 map was redone, which had been approved by the Planning Commission, there was enough 23 parking based on the units that were being provided. Currently, there were no restrictions 24 for the on-street parking on Appian Way but he would check with the Public Works 25 Department.
26 27 Commissioner Martinez commented that many people did not use their garages for vehicles 28 but for storage, and while Appian Village had two car garages, given the development had 29 been given a concession for reduced parking, there needed to be assurance that would not 30 impact the community around them, particularly since there had already been impacts from 31 the development.
32 33 Mr. Hanham pointed out the development was not yet open and whatever the impacts on the 34 dental or medical offices was created by those uses unless it was construction vehicles 35 parking on the street, which could be one issue. Staff would review the situation but pointed 36 out Appian Village was similar to Vista Woods, Pinole Vista and BCRE, which all had 37 approved parking concessions. He would have to review the HOA and covenants, conditions 38 and restrictions (CC&Rs) for Appian Village, which may require parking in the garages and 39 he could email the developer to see if that was the case. Again, there were currently no 40 parking restrictions on Appian Way that would not allow for on-street parking. He would also 41 review the conditions of approval for the project with a report back at the next Planning 42 Commission meeting.
43 44 Associate Planner Justin Shiu suggested staff could also look at the plan set and double 45 check with the Public Works Department.
46 47 K. COMMUNICATIONS
48 49 Vice-Chairperson Menis reported on upcoming community events. 50 10 April 13, 2026
1 Those events included: the Senior Food Distribution at the Senior Center from 10:00 to 11:00 2 a.m. on April 14, 2026; City Council Finance Subcommittee meeting on April 15, 2026 at 5:00 3 p.m. in a hybrid format in the Council Chambers; and Earth Walk would be held on April 18, 4 2026 from 9:00 to 11:30 a.m. at Fernandez Park.
5 6 L. NEXT MEETING
7 8 1. Planning Commission Regular Meeting on April 27, 2026 at 7:00 p.m. 9 10 M. ADJOURNMENT: 8:26 p.m.
11 12 Transcribed by:
13 14 Sherri D. Lewis
15 Transcriber