PINOLE PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING AGENDA
April 27, 2026
7:00 PM
Attend in Person: PINOLE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS - 2131 PEAR STREET OR
Attend VIA ZOOM TELECONFERENCE – Details provided below How to Submit Public Comments:
In Person:
Attend meeting at the Pinole City Council Chambers, fill out a yellow public comment card and submit it to the City Clerk.
Via Zoom:
Members of the public may submit a live remote public comment via Zoom video conferencing. Download the Zoom mobile app from the Apple Appstore or Google Play. If you are using a desktop computer, you can test your connection to Zoom by clicking here. Zoom also allows you to join the meeting by phone.
From a PC, Mac, iPad, iPhone or Android:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/86505375301
Webinar ID: 865 0537 5301
By phone: +1 (669) 900-6833 or +1 (253) 215-8782 or +1 (346) 248-7799 • Speakers will be asked to provide their name and city of residence, although providing this is not required for participation.
• Each speaker will be afforded up to 5 minutes to speak • Speakers will be muted until their opportunity to provide public comment.
When the Chair opens the comment period for the item you wish to speak on, please use the “raise hand” feature (or press *9 if connecting via telephone) which will alert staff that you have a comment to provide and press *6 to unmute. To comment with your video enabled, please let the City Clerk know you would like to turn your camera on once you are called to speak.
Written Comments:
Please submit public comments to Planning Staff before the meeting via email to [email protected]. Please include your full name, city of residence and agenda item you are commenting on.
Planning Commission
Agenda - April 27, 2026
OTHER WAYS TO WATCH THE MEETING
LIVE ON CHANNEL 26. They are retelecast the following week. The Community TV Channel 26 schedule is published on the city’s website at www.pinole.gov.
VIDEO-STREAMED LIVE ON THE CITY’S WEBSITE, www.pinole.gov and remain archived on the site for five (5) years.
If none of these options are available to you, or you need assistance with public comment, please contact Planning Manager David Hanham at (510) 724-8912 or [email protected].
Americans With Disabilities Act: In compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, if you need special assistance to participate in a City Meeting or you need a copy of the agenda, or the agenda packet in an appropriate alternative format, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (510) 724-8928. Notification at least 48 hours prior to the meeting or time when services are needed will assist the City staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility to the meeting or service.
Note: Staff reports are available for inspection on the City Website at www.pinole.gov. You may also contact the City Clerk via e-mail at [email protected].
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION:
Persons wishing to speak on an item listed on the Agenda may do so when the Chair asks for comments in favor of or in opposition to the item under consideration. After all of those persons wishing to speak have done so, the hearing will be closed and the matter will be discussed amongst the Commission prior to rendering a decision.
Any person may appeal an action of the Planning Commission or of the Planning Manager by filing an appeal with the City Clerk, in writing, within ten (10) days of such action. Following a Public Hearing, the City Council may act to confirm, modify or reverse the action of the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission may act to confirm, modify, or reverse the action of the Planning Manager. The cost to appeal a decision is $500 and a minimum $2,500 deposit fee.
Note: If you challenge a decision of the Commission regarding a project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in writing delivered to the City of Pinole at, or prior to, the public hearing.
Ralph M. Brown Act. Gov. Code § 54950. In enacting this chapter, the Legislature finds and declares that the public commissions, boards and councils and the other public agencies in this State exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business. It is the intent of the law that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly. The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies, which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.
Planning Commission
Agenda - April 27, 2026
A. CALL TO ORDER
B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
C. LAND ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Before we begin, we would like to acknowledge the Ohlone people, who are the traditional custodians of this land. We pay our respects to the Ohlone elders, past, present, and future, who call this place, Ohlone Land, the land that Pinole sits upon, their home. We are proud to continue their tradition of coming together and growing as a community. We thank the Ohlone community for their stewardship and support, and we look forward to strengthening our ties as we continue our relationship of mutual respect and understanding.
D. ROLL CALL
E. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD
The public may address the Planning Commission on items that are within its jurisdiction and not otherwise listed on the agenda. Planning Commissioners may discuss the matter brought to their attention, but by State law (Ralph M. Brown Act), action must be deferred to a future meeting. Time allowed: five (5) minutes each.
F. MEETING MINUTES:
1. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for April 13, 2026 G. PUBLIC HEARINGS
At the beginning of an item, the Chair will read the description of that item as stated on the Agenda. The City Staff will then give a brief presentation of the proposed project. The Commission may then ask Staff questions about the item.
For those items listed as Public Hearings, the Chair will open the public hearing and ask the applicant if they wish to make a presentation. Those persons in favor of the project will then be given an opportunity to speak followed by those who are opposed to the project. The applicant will then be given an opportunity for rebuttal.
The Public Hearing will then be closed and the Commission may discuss the item amongst themselves and ask questions of Staff. The Commission will then vote to approve, deny, approve in a modified form, or continue the matter to a later date for a decision. The Chair will announce the Commission's decision and advise the audience of the appeal procedure.
Note: No Public Hearings will begin after 11:00 p.m. Items still remaining on the agenda after 11:00 p.m. will be held over to the next meeting.
H. OLD BUSINESS
1. Information on Police Department Crime Reporting Data I. NEW BUSINESS
1. Housing Successor Fund Policy Guide
J. CITY PLANNER'S/COMMISSIONER'S REPORT
K. COMMUNICATIONS
L. NEXT MEETING(S)
Planning Commission
Agenda - April 27, 2026
1. Planning Commission Regular Meeting on May 11, 2026 at 7:00PM M. ADJOURNMENT
I hereby certify under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing Agenda was posted on the bulletin board at the main entrance of Pinole City Hall, 2131 Pear Street Pinole, CA, and on the City’s website, not less than 72 hours prior to the meeting date set forth on this agenda. _______________________
David Hanham
Planning Manager
POSTED: _______
1 April 13, 2026
1 DRAFT
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 F.1.
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-
5 0
6 7 G. PUBLIC HEARINGS
8 9 1. UP25-0007 The Queen Relaxation & Body Works – 1660 San Pablo Avenue 10 11 Mr. Hanham presented the staff report dated April 13, 2026. He recommended the 12 Planning Commission adopt Resolution 26-05 approving a Conditional Use Permit for 13 Queen Relaxation & Body Works located at 1660 San Pablo Avenue. 14 15 Responding to questions from the Planning Commission, Mr. Hanham clarified the 16 following:
17 18 • Acknowledged there were a number of existing similar establishments that were 19 located nearby and throughout the City of Pinole and a request that the staff report 20 be updated with identification of all of the similar business in Pinole. Staff also 21 clarified the business would be located within tenant space on the ground floor of 22 the building located at 1660 San Pablo Avenue. (Martinez) 23 24 • Acknowledged a request for staff to detail the services other similar establishments 25 that were within proximity to the proposed business offered to their clients. (Lam26 Julian) 27 28 • Acknowledged Page 17 of 21 of the agenda packet, the first WHEREAS clause of 29 Resolution 26-05, would be corrected to reflect the correct address to read: 1660 30 San Pablo Avenue. (Uch)
31 32 • Acknowledged again there were a number of existing similar establishments in 33 Pinole and clarified some of them offered different massage services to that being 34 proposed by the subject applicant, who also offered sauna treatments and showers 35 for patrons and more in-depth services as compared to the other businesses. Also, 36 some of the other businesses had either one or two massage rooms, whereas the 37 applicant would have a number of treatment rooms. The other establishments also 38 did not have a way to expand within their existing structures given the limited 39 spaces. (Vice-Chairperson Menis)
40 41 • The Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (CCCFPD) and Building 42 Department would ensure fire access and exits as part of the review of the formal 43 plans when submitted. (Vice-Chairperson Menis)
44 45 • The applicant had identified a couple of locations where the sauna could be 46 located, it would not affect anything on the outside of the building. Entry to the 47 various treatment rooms, sauna and restrooms were identified. (Vice-Chairperson 48 Menis)
49
4 April 13, 2026
1 2 • As noted in the staff report, Under the Three Corridors Specific Plan, the CMU 3 zoning district allows for Personal Services - Restricted uses with approval of a 4 Conditional Use Permit. The use classification is defined as “personal service 5 establishments (e.g., check cashing services, fortune tellers, psychics, palm 6 readers, and similar services, tattooing, piercing, massage parlors, and similar 7 services) tending to have a blighting and/or deteriorating effect upon surrounding 8 areas and which may need to be dispersed to minimize their adverse impacts. 9 These uses may also include accessory retail sales of products related to the 10 services provided.” As to how a blighting effect was determined, staff clarified the 11 analysis was subjective and done when the General Plan and Three Corridors 12 Specific Plan were updated.
13 14 As an example, for check cashing services, an assumption was made what those 15 businesses were and there was subjectiveness when put into the PMC. The City 16 was fortunate the Pinole Police Department (PPD) did yearly random checks on 17 those businesses, and took a proactive approach to ensure such establishments 18 were not a blight on the community, played by the same rules and were all certified 19 and up to date, as required. (Vice-Chairperson Menis) 20 21 • As to what concentration of similar businesses was deemed acceptable, staff 22 suggested similar businesses could all be in one center with different services 23 provided. No number had been identified to regulate how many similar businesses 24 should be located within close proximity of another. Staff noted like businesses 25 liked to be in the general area of the same (such as fast-food restaurants). There 26 was currently no standard of how many like businesses were allowed in a certain 27 area in the PMC, other than to ensure the businesses followed the rules and were 28 certified, as required. (Vice-Chairperson Menis)
29 30 • Massage therapy had been listed as a use that required a Conditional Use Permit 31 (CUP), since additional permits may be required from the PPD or through the 32 public health department or others, and the City required a CUP to ensure the 33 business maintained its requirements. In this case, this was a use that required a 34 CUP because the use involved certification or stricter conditions to ensure the 35 business ran smoothly within the City. Personal Restricted Uses were intended to 36 differentiate There was also recognition that massage parlors, which had a certain 37 reputation in the past, were used by a lot of people for bodily injuries, athletic 38 injuries, occupational therapy and body wellness and the like. Given the 39 certifications needed and since the business needed to go through the PPD, that 40 was why a CUP was required. (Chair Sandoval)
41 42 • In the event the applicant planned to expand into additional suites or if the business 43 planned to expand upstairs or down the hall in the future, the Planning Commission 44 could be informed the business was expanding into different areas of the building. 45 However, at this time, all improvements were being done in an existing suite and 46 through tenant improvements, which did not have to come back to the Planning 47 Commission for review. (Chair Sandoval)
48 49 PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
50
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-
35 0
36 37 Chair Sandoval read into the record the appeal process as shown on Page 2 of the April 38 13, 2026 meeting agenda.
39 40 H. OLD BUSINESS: None
41 42 I. NEW BUSINESS: None
43 44 J. CITY PLANNER’S/COMMISSIONER’S REPORT
45 46 Mr. Hanham suggested if the Planning Commission wanted to add a second Citizens to be 47 Heard to the meeting agenda, that could be included on a future agenda. He otherwise had 48 no update other than all projects were moving forward. 49 50 Vice-Chairperson Menis supported bringing back a future agenda item for a second Citizens
8 April 13, 2026
1 to be Heard under the same rules as the City Council. 2 Vice-Chairperson Menis stated the City Council allowed for public comment at the beginning 3 of the meeting and also at the end of the meeting for those unable to comment the first time. 4 He suggested it would be worthwhile to have a second Citizens to be Heard at the end of the 5 meeting, even though Planning Commission meetings started at 7:00 p.m. since some 6 people may still not be able to attend or call-in at the beginning of the meeting. The second 7 opportunity would be beneficial for the Planning Commission to hear from the public and he 8 did not see it would be used often.
9 10 Commissioner Huey supported the future discussion on this topic, but also recommended 11 that the Commission consider scaling back the public comment time period from five to three 12 minutes. She suggested people had very flexible schedules and she wanted to provide the 13 public the opportunity to speak.
14 15 Chair Sandoval asked if the item were to be approved whether a member of the public would 16 be allowed to comment once at the beginning of the meeting and again a second time at the 17 end of the meeting.
18 19 Mr. Hanham suggested that would be up to the Planning Commission and a point to bring 20 up as part of the rules of using Citizens to be Heard. If a second Citizens to be Heard were 21 added and if a meeting went beyond 11:00 p.m., the meeting would have to be continued for 22 the item since it could not be cut out. The time period for Citizens to be Heard could also be 23 discussed, currently limited at five minutes whereas the City Council limit was three minutes. 24 If there were two Citizens to be Heard, staff would support reducing the time period to three 25 minutes for each Citizens to be Heard, which could be discussed further related to the rules 26 and regulations for the item.
27 28 Chair Sandoval suggested if a member of the public commented twice they should reduce 29 the time limit, particularly if the same person commented on both Citizens to be Heard, or the 30 Commission could consider the citizen speaking once for one or the other Citizens to be 31 Heard.
32 33 Mr. Hanham stated as part of a future discussion, staff could provide different alternatives. 34 35 MOTION to bring forward as a future agenda item discussion of adding a second Citizens to 36 be Heard period to the standard agenda format of Planning Commission meetings. 37 38 MOTION: Menis SECONDED: Lam-Julian APPROVED: 6-
39 1
40 NOES: Martinez
41 42 PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
43 44 There were no comments from the public.
45 46 PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
47 48 Commissioner Lam-Julian asked about the status of the former Kmart and Safeway 49 properties and the date for Appian Village to open, and Mr. Hanham reported the demolition 50 permit had been received and was under review for the Kmart property; staff received no
9 April 13, 2026
1 plans for the new apartment building; and there had been no inquiries for potential applicants 2 or input from the actual landowners for the Appian 80 property. 3 Mr. Hanham added that Appian Village was close to approval of a temporary use permit for 4 the sales office and the occupancy of the first five buildings was expected around the end of 5 summer or the beginning of fall.
6 7 Commissioner Martinez understood when the restriping was done for Appian Village some 8 parking on the street had been reduced, which had created parking issues for the dentist 9 office across the street. Before Appian Village was formally open, he asked that staff work 10 with the developer to ensure the Homeowner’s Association (HOA) for Appian Village include 11 language that would require anyone parking in the few parking spaces be allowed to park for 12 24/hours or less, so that the parking spots would be available for visitors to the area, given 13 the parking issues for the dental and medical offices within proximity to the development. He 14 hoped that would be done before the facility was approved to open. 15 16 Mr. Hanham clarified that all of the units would have their own parking garage, as well as 17 additional guest parking spaces on-site. The only thing the City had limited was guest 18 parking, not the on-site parking. He would have to review what had been approved. 19 Currently, the area was not red striped in front of the dental/medical offices and nothing 20 prevented parking unless No Parking signs were posted on Appian Way. He was aware that 21 people parked in the area for the school in the after-school hours. 22 23 Mr. Hanham recalled the dental offices were part of a condominium project and when the 24 map was redone, which had been approved by the Planning Commission, there was enough 25 parking based on the units that were being provided. Currently, there were no restrictions 26 for the on-street parking on Appian Way but he would check with the Public Works 27 Department.
28 29 Commissioner Martinez commented that many people did not use their garages for vehicles 30 but for storage, and while Appian Village had two car garages, given the development had 31 been given a concession for reduced parking, there needed to be assurance that would not 32 impact the community around them, particularly since there had already been impacts from 33 the development.
34 35 Mr. Hanham pointed out the development was not yet open and whatever the impacts on the 36 dental or medical offices was created by those uses unless it was construction vehicles 37 parking on the street, which could be one issue. Staff would review the situation but pointed 38 out Appian Village was similar to Vista Woods, Pinole Vista and BCRE, which all had 39 approved parking concessions. He would have to review the HOA and covenants, conditions 40 and restrictions (CC&Rs) for Appian Village, which may require parking in the garages and 41 he could email the developer to see if that was the case. Again, there were currently no 42 parking restrictions on Appian Way that would not allow for on-street parking. He would also 43 review the conditions of approval for the project with a report back at the next Planning 44 Commission meeting.
45 46 Associate Planner Justin Shiu suggested staff could also look at the plan set and double 47 check with the Public Works Department.
48 49 K. COMMUNICATIONS
50
10 April 13, 2026
1 Vice-Chairperson Menis reported on upcoming community events. 2 3 Those events included: the Senior Food Distribution at the Senior Center from 10:00 to 11:00 4 a.m. on April 14, 2026; City Council Finance Subcommittee meeting on April 15, 2026 at 5:00 5 p.m. in a hybrid format in the Council Chambers; and Earth Walk would be held on April 18, 6 2026 from 9:00 to 11:30 a.m. at Fernandez Park.
7 8 L. NEXT MEETING
9 10 1. Planning Commission Regular Meeting on April 27, 2026 at 7:00 p.m. 11 12 M. ADJOURNMENT: 8:26 p.m.
13 14 Transcribed by:
15 16 Sherri D. Lewis
17 Transcriber
PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORT H.1.
DATE: APRIL 27, 2026
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: DAVID HANHAM, PLANNING MANAGER
SUBJECT: INFORMATION ON POLICE DEPARTMENT CRIME REPORTING DATA
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission accept the report.
BACKGROUND
Over the last couple of years, the City has had several projects that have included alcohol sales. Those projects have been for both onsite and off-site consumption. With each change in liquor license, a conditional use permit is required. Off-site alcohol sales are usually conducted in grocery stores, liquor stores, and convenience stores. On-site alcohol sales are usually conducted for restaurants, bars, or major events (e.g., sporting events, carnivals, and concerts).
The City regulates alcohol sales under Chapter 17.59 of the Pinole Zoning Code, Alcohol Sales. Chapter 17.59 requires the applicant to complete a Conditional Use Permit Process and a Public Conveniences Necessity (PCN) determination. Each of these processes requires information from the Police Department regarding crimes in the area and whether the new application will increase crime there. The City Council's findings for the PCN are in Section
17.59.030(C), and the Planning Commission's required information is in Section 17.59.030(A) The City Council Finding regarding Police Input for PCN approval consideration is found in Section 17.59.030 (C)(4), which states that “the Police Department has reported that the proposed establishment would not be expected to add crime in the Area.” The Planning Commission Information regarding Police input for CUP approval consideration is found in Section 17.59.030 (A)(3), which states that “the extent to which the crime reporting district in which the subject site is located exceeds the average for crime reporting districts subject to the jurisdiction of the Police Department.”
REVIEW AND ANALYSIS
For the last two projects (Anabi Shell and Diosa Restaurant), the Planning Commission has asked about the matrix or decision-making process the Police Department goes through to make the findings as stated above.
In the case of the Anabi Project, Staff met with the Police Department and provided the Planning Commission with crime statistics in the Fitzgerald Drive corridor (Attachment A). Table 1 of that report showed that crimes and incidents in the Fitzgerald Drive
Corridor in October through December 2023 average 29% of the total reported crime incidents in Pinole. Of those reported crimes and incidents, on average, 31% were thefts. After discussions with the Police Department, they determined that no indication allowing beer and wine to be sold off premises at the Anabi Shell Station would increase crime levels in the area.
The Police Department also indicated there is no way to predict how much crime in the future would be associated with the addition of Anabi Shell's ability to sell beer and wine.
Staff have met with the Police Department on two occasions and discussed how, in the future, we can make the two necessary findings for alcohol sales in the City. The Police Department reviews these projects as well as other projects using the Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) method of crime prevention. .
CPTED is a multidisciplinary approach to reducing crime and fear by designing the built environment to maximize natural surveillance, control access, and reinforce territoriality.
It tries to deter criminal behavior by enhancing visibility, promoting legitimate activity, and fostering a sense of community ownership, often resulting in lower crime rates and improved quality of life.
The five (5) principles of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) are the following:
1. Natural Surveillance - This principle involves designing spaces to maximize visibility, allowing residents and users to observe the environment naturally Strategies: Installing windows overlooking parking lots, using low landscaping (three-foot rule), and installing proper lighting to eliminate blind spots
2. Natural Access Control - This strategy uses design elements to guide people to and from entrances, reducing opportunities for intruders while guiding legitimate users
Strategies: Using walkways, fences, and landscaping to create a clear, single point of entry, and locking doors/windows
3. Territorial Reinforcement - This creates a clear distinction between public and private spaces, strengthening a sense of ownership, which encourages residents to defend their space
Strategies: Fences, signage, landscaping, and pavement designs that clearly define property boundaries
4. Maintenance and Management - A well-maintained area signals that space is cared for, creating a sense of guardianship that discourages vandalism and criminal behavior
Strategies: Promptly repairing broken lights, removing graffiti, and maintaining
landscaping (the "broken windows" theory)
5. Activity Support -This principle involves designing spaces to encourage legitimate social activities, which increases the presence of authorized users and reduces opportunities for crime.
Strategies: Placing seating in public areas, hosting community events, and creating functional, high-use public spaces.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Item E1 PCSR
Item E1
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: David Hanham, Planning Manager
SUBJECT: Supplemental Information for CUP 23-04 – Anabi Shell Station DATE: January 8, 2024
This Memorandum supplements the Staff Memorandum dated December 11, 2023i.
BACKGROUND
The Shell Station has been operating at 1401 Fitzgerald since 2007. The business has twelve fueling stations, a convenience store, and a car wash. The 2,667-square-foot convenience store is open twenty-four hours and is staffed by one to five employees on approximately three to four shifts, depending on the needs of the business. The applicant is seeking approval for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow Beer and Wine alcohol sales (Type 20 license) for off-site consumption.
The Planning Commission, at its regular meeting of December 11, 2023, received an oral report from the Planning Manager on the CUP request, opened and closed the public hearing, and deliberated on the item. Staff recommended the adoption of Attachment A, which approves CUP 23-04, permitting the off-premises sale of beer and wine subject to conditions of approval at the Anabi Shell Station at 1401 Fitzgerald Drive. As a result of the deliberations, the Planning Commission moved to continue the item to its next regular meeting January 8, 2024. The Planning Commission directed Staff to provide additional data regarding crime statistics along the Fitzgerald Drive corridor from Appian Way to Interstate 80 (I-80) per Pinole Municipal Code (PMC) Section 17.59.030A.3 on pages three and four of the Staff Report dated December 11, 2023 (Attachment B).
ANALYSIS
PMC Section 17.59.030 prescribes the review process required to authorize a CUP for alcohol sales.
PMC Section 17.59.030A.3 requires that the Planning Commission review “the extent to which the crime reporting district in which subject site is located exceeds the average for crime reporting districts subject to the jurisdiction of the Police Department.”
Staff met with the Police Department to review this project prior to the December 11, 2023, Planning Commission meeting. After a formal review by the Police Department, the Police Department determined that crime reporting for the district does not exceed the average for crime reporting districts.
The Police Department did not raise any objections or concerns related to this alcohol sales request.
At the December 11, 2023, hearing the Planning Commission directed Staff to provide additional data regarding crime statistics along the Fitzgerald Drive corridor from Appian Way to I-80. City Staff has Memorandum
Attachment A
Item E1
collected crime data for the Fitzgerald Drive Corridor from October 7 to December 29, 2023. Table 1 presents the weekly results of total reported crimes and incidents in Pinole compared to the number of crimes and incidents specifically within the Fitzgerald Drive Corridor. The table shows that crimes and incidents in the Fitzgerald Drive Corridor in October through December of 2023 average 29% of the total reported crime incidents in Pinole. Of those reported crimes and incidents, on average 31% were thefts. After discussions with the Police Department, there is no indication that allowing beer and wine to be sold off-premises at the Anabi Shell Station would increase crime levels in the area.
Table 1: Crime Incidents from 10/7/2023 through 12/29/2023 Week in 2023 *Total
Reported
Crime
Incidents in
Pinole
Crime
Incidents
within the
Fitzgerald
Drive
Corridor
% of
Fitzgerald
Drive
Corridor
Crime
Incidents
compared to
Total
Incidents
Thefts within
the
Fitzgerald
Drive
Corridor
% of
Fitzgerald
Drive
Corridor
Thefts
compared to
Total
Fitzgerald
Drive
Corridor
Crime
Incidents
10/7-10/13 87 18 21% 5 28%
10/14- 10/20 93 28 30% 9 32%
10/21-10/27 63 15 24% 7 47%
10/28- 11/3 84 23 27% 6 26%
11/4- 11/10 76 28 37% 7 25%
11/11- 11/17 100 31 31% 9 29%
11/18- 11/24 81 28 35% 6 21%
11/25- 12/1 68 22 32% 7 32%
12/2-12/8 80 24 30% 7 29%
12/9- 12/15 75 17 23% 5 29%
12/16- 12/22 74 20 27% 7 35%
12/23- 12/29 73 27 37% 9 33%
TOTAL 954 281 Average:
29%
84 Average:
31%
*From Police Blotter, available online:
https://www.ci.pinole.ca.us/city_government/police/crime_statistics
CONCLUSION
Staff has concluded that after meeting with the Police Department on December 12, 2023, and January 3, 2024, the Department determined that the sale of beer and wine at this station would not significantly contribute to crime statistics. Additionally, the Police Department has no reason to believe that this station selling beer and wine would have a negative impact on the crime rate.
Consistent with the Staff Recommendation presented in the Staff Report dated December 11, 2023, Staff recommends adoption of Resolution 24-01 (Attachment A) approving conditional use permit CUP
Item E1
23-04, which permits the off-premises sale of beer and wine subject to conditions of approval at the Anabi Shell Station at 1401 Fitzgerald Drive (Attachment A).
ATTACHMENTS
A. Resolution 24-01 with Exhibit A: Conditions of Approval B. Staff Report dated December 11, 2023, with Site Plan/Floor Plan i
Staff Report available online at https://cdnsm5-
hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_10946972/File/City%20Government/City%20Clerk/Agendas/Planning%20Co mmission%20Agendas/2023/12-11-23/12-11-2023%20PC%20Meeting%20Agenda%20and%20Packet.pdf
PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORT I.1.
DATE: APRIL 27, 2026
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: JARED MURTI, HOUSING FELLOW AND ASN NDIAYE, EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR OF THE NORTHERN CALIFORNIA LAND TRUST
SUBJECT: HOUSING SUCCESSOR FUND POLICY GUIDEBOOK
RECOMMENDATIONS AND INPUT
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission receive an introduction report to the Partnership for the Bay’s Future Fellowship program and the Housing Successor Fund Policy Guidebook engagement efforts and preliminary findings and provide feedback and recommendations.
BACKGROUND
In compliance with Program 7 of the City of Pinole’s 2023-2031 Housing Element, the City is developing a Policy Guidebook for the City’s Housing Successor Asset Fund in collaboration with Northern California Land Trust through the Partnership for the Bay’s Future Fellowship program.
Since 1969, California has required that all local governments adequately plan to meet the housing needs of everyone in the community, at all income levels. Local governments meet this requirement by adopting housing plans as part of the general plan. Referred to as the Housing Element, this report sets forth the City’s overall housing objectives in the form of goals, policies, and programs. In order for “Housing to Meet the Needs of All Income Levels and Special Needs Groups”, Program 7 calls for the “Development of Housing Successor’s Low and Moderate Income Asset Fund Policy”. The Policy Guidebook will set priorities and goals for the use of affordable housing funds in the City’s as well as investigate the creation of an in-lieu fee as an alternative to the inclusionary housing requirement.
The City of Pinole is the Housing Successor to the former Redevelopment Agency of the City of Pinole, which was dissolved statewide in 2012. At the time of dissolution, a housing successor was to be selected to accept the transfer of and be responsible for the remaining assets and liabilities of a former redevelopment agency. Housing Asset Funds may be spent on administrative costs, homeless prevention and rapid rehousing services, Affordable housing development assisting households earning up to 80 percent of the Area Median Income.
The Partnership for the Bays Future (PBF) is a partnership between multiple organizations with the collective goal of advancing equitable, sustainable, and affordable housing solutions in the region. In 2024, the City submitted a joint application for their Housing Fellowship program with Northern California Land Trust (NCLT) and the Richmond Community
Foundation (RCF). The PBF Housing Fellowship Program places fellows in local jurisdictions for two years with the goal of achieving specific housing program objectives for the jurisdiction in collaboration with the community based organizations in the joint application. In 2025, the City of Pinole was selected as one of the ten host agencies and in February, the Housing Fellow began work in collaboration with NCLT and RCF on multiple housing programs. One of the assigned projects is the development of the Housing Element Program 7 Policy Guidebook
REVIEW AND ANALYSIS
Program 7 of the Housing Element provided direction on pursuing the development of Housing Successor’s Low and Moderate Income Housing Asset Fund Policy (i.e., the Housing Successor Fund Policy Guidebook). The following sections contain an overview of preliminary considerations for possible programs and priorities that may be included in the Housing Successor Fund Policy Guidebook to guide the use of the fund.
Items listed are preliminary, and initial feedback is welcome from the Planning Commission for items of interest, areas to further explore, or any other comments or impressions from the Commission. Additionally, there are upcoming community engagement opportunities on May 7th and May 13th to receive community feedback on policies (Attachments A and B). A draft Housing Successor Fund Policy Guidebook will be brought back to Planning Commission after it has been further developed and compiled.
Housing Element Program 7. Development of Housing Successor’s Low and Moderate Income Housing Asset Fund Policy.
The City will develop a Housing Successor’s Low and Moderate Income Housing Asset Fund Policy. The policy will set priorities and goals for the use of affordable housing funds in the City as well as investigate the creation of an in-lieu fee as an alternative to the inclusionary housing requirement. The policy guide will ensure efficient and productive use of the resources. The policy guide will consider RHNA requirements, local housing needs and demographics, and fair housing objectives, among other factors. To encourage housing mobility and choice across Pinole, the City will prioritize use of limited affordable funding to create affordable housing developments and provide ownership of housing for moderate and lower-income households in higher opportunity areas of the City, including those with healthy environment, access to transportation and resources, and higher education scores, more common in eastern Pinole. The City is also including a waiver of park impact fees for affordable units beyond the inclusionary housing requirement (per Program 8). The City will continue to require 15 percent of the units located in new residential developments of four or more to be affordable, and of those units, 40 percent must be affordable to very low-income households with the construction of units off-site as an alternative. The City will pursue creation of an in-lieu fee alternative for the inclusionary housing requirement to provide flexibility for smaller projects and to create a new funding source for affordable housing projects.
Please note that the park impact fee waiver and continuation of inclusionary housing referenced in Program 7 were completed and incorporated into the Zoning Code.
In-Lieu Fee
Per the direction of Housing Element Program 7, the City investigated creation of an inlieu fee. The purpose of an in-lieu fee is to provide property developers with an alternative option to the City's on-site affordable housing requirement. Currently, the City requires all new residential developments of four or more units to price at least 15% of available units as affordable, with 40% of the affordable rental units reserved for deeply affordable units (PMC 17.32.020). An In Lieu fee would be paid 'in-lieu' of developing those affordable units and is generally intended to cover the cost it would take to develop those units elsewhere. The goal of these fees is to be not so high that it halts development or so low that it doesn't adequately fund alternative affordable housing development. Program 7 of the Housing element requires the City “pursue [the] creation of an in-lieu fee alternative for the inclusionary housing requirement to provide flexibility for smaller projects and to create a new funding source for affordable housing projects”.
In 2025, the City of Pinole commissioned a report on the feasibility of an in-lieu fee for the City’s Inclusionary Housing Policy. To evaluate the feasibility of an in-lieu fee, the City’s housing policy consultant firm RSG conducted a financial analysis of six different prototypical residential developments in Pinole The analysis found that fees $9 to $25 per square foot for ownership style housing development, and $12 to $49 per square foot rental housing development where the feasible range of possible fees. This would mean that any fee higher than the proposed amounts would create too high a cost burden on development projects and render the programs no longer financially viable.
Because the maximum feasible fee would not adequately cover the cost of developing a comparable number of affordable housing units, City Staff is recommending not to move forward with the development of an In-Lieu Fee. So far, the Inclusionary Housing Policy has not negatively impacted development rates in the City, and the existing under 4-unit exemption currently supports smaller developments in the City.
The primary purpose of an in-lieu fee would be to strengthen development trends in the City, however City Staff are confident that the current rate of development will meet existing goals and Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) targets. Pinole has constructed 339 new housing units from 2021-2025. This is an increase of about 5% of the existing housing stock as of 2021 (which was 7,169 units). Out of 339 new units, Pinole has constructed 262 affordable (very-low to moderate) units since 2021. The City is 38% through the 6th RHNA cycle and has attained 20% of overall RHNA targets to date. Of the RHNA targets, the City has attained 24% of Very Low Income total, 17% Low income, 9% Moderate and 23% Above Moderate. This is an overall 20% attainment to date, however, does not include units under construction or that have received a certificate of occupancy. In addition, the City has a major condo project under construction (Appian Village) not included in this total. When finished, this project alone will boost the City to over 51% overall attainment of 6th cycle RHNA. The first Phase of construction will be sold this summer, with the remaining units developed in additional phases. I expect construction to continue for another 2 years. Based on this information, it is unlikely that an in-lieu fee will be necessary to fulfill the City’s RHNA obligations but will limit the City’s ability to develop affordable housing.
Program and Policy Recommendations
The following are programs, priorities, and policy recommendations that could be further examined and incorporated into the Housing Successor Fund Policy Guidebook.
NCLT’s recommendations aim to practice the 3-P housing model, a comprehensive framework that policymakers use to address affordability crises, centering 1.) preservation, 2.) protection, and 3.) production. Attachments A and B show the types of polices that might be under each of the three categories.
The first two programs discussed focus on supporting community members currently or at risk of experiencing homelessness. Successor Agencies are authorized to use the Housing Successor Fund for “homeless prevention and rapid rehousing services for individuals and families who are homeless or would be homeless but for this assistance, including the provision of short-term or medium-term rental assistance, contributions toward the construction of local or regional homeless shelters, housing relocation and stabilization services including housing search, mediation, or outreach to property owners, credit repair, security or utility deposits, utility payments, rental assistance for a final month at a location, moving cost assistance, and case management, or other appropriate activities for homelessness prevention and rapid rehousing of persons who have become homeless” (CA HSC34176.1(a)(2). Based on this, the City has allocated resources for outreach and engagement efforts and for a rental assistance program.
Coordinated Outreach Referral & Engagement (CORE) Team
The Affordable Housing Division of the Pinole Community Development Department has contracted a dedicated CORE outreach team shared between the Cities of Pinole, Hercules, El Cerrito and San Pablo using the Housing Successor Funds. This team “works to engage and stabilize homeless individuals living outside through consistent outreach to facilitate and/or deliver health and basic need services and secure permanent housing. CORE teams serve as an entry point into Contra Costa's coordinated entry system for unsheltered persons and work to locate, engage, stabilize and house chronically homeless individuals and families. The outreach teams identify individuals living on the streets, assess their housing and service needs, and facilitate connection to shelter and services.” This contract renews annually and can have a lasting positive impact on Pinole residents.
Tenant Retention Program
The Tenant Retention Program will reserve funds from the Housing Successor Fund, dedicated for Pinole residents in need of financial assistance. Modeled after other local housing retention programs, this program’s eligibility criteria will prioritize residents that are at urgent risk of losing housing.
The City of El Cerrito contributes an annual set-aside contribution to the County Housing Security Fund, which can be used to support tenants retain housing. The fund is flexible; it can be used for rent owed, or additional barriers to retaining housing such as bills, license renewal, medical costs. Applicants must demonstrate they will be able to retain their housing following the support, and each disbursement is approved by City Staff. The program approves 6-8 applicants annually with an average disbursement of
$2500. If the City pursues this type of program, it is likely that the El Cerrito set-aside within the Contra Costa Housing Successor Fund will be a great Downpayment Assistance Program
Downpayment assistance programs can assist eligible homebuyers with purchasing a home in Pinole. NCLT currently operates a downpayment assistance program through CalHome, offering up to $200,000 specifically to first-time homebuyers in Alameda County.
Community Land Trusts
Nonprofits hold land permanently in community trust, keeping homes affordable across generations.
Rent Stabilization Ordinance
A rent stabilization ordinance would implement limits on rent increases, only allowing for gradual and percentage-based increases. It would also aim to protect tenants from arbitrary evictions. Currently, the city of Pinole has no local rent control or rent stabilization ordinance.
Just/Good Cause Eviction
Requires landlords to provide a valid legal reason before evicting a tenant, preventing arbitrary or retaliatory evictions.
Right to Legal Counsel
Guarantees free or low-cost legal representation for tenants facing eviction - proven to dramatically reduce displacement rates.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Community Engagement Flyer
B. Community Engagement One-Pager
Attachment A
Affordable Housing Policies for Pinole, CA
Políticas de Vivienda Asequible para Pinole, CA
Northern California Land Trust
nclt.org · Spring 2026
Pinole faces one of California's most severe housing crises. Over half of extremely low-income households pay more than 30% of their income on housing. The state requires Pinole to plan for 500 new units by 2031. NCLT recommends the 3 P's strategy — Preservation, Protection, and Production — to address these needs.
Pinole enfrenta una de las crisis de vivienda más graves de California. Más de la mitad de los hogares de ingresos extremadamente bajos gastan más del 30% en vivienda. El estado requiere planificar 500 nuevas unidades para 2031. NCLT recomienda las 3 P's: Preservación, Protección y Producción.
WHO NEEDS HOUSING IN PINOLE? · ¿QUIÉN NECESITA VIVIENDA EN PINOLE? 35%
Elderly Population
Adultos Mayores
39% of elderly households are lowincome. Affordable senior housing is a priority.
18%
Young Adults 25–34
Jóvenes 25–34 años
Fastest-growing age group; benefit
most from smaller, more affordable
units.
12%
Disabled Residents
Residentes Discapacitados
Need universally designed, accessible
housing with multi-bedroom options.
8.3%
Extremely Low Income
Ingresos Extrem. Bajos
Earn 0–30% AMI; ⅔ face severe housing
cost burden and overpayment.
1 PRESERVATION · PRESERVACIÓN
Small Sites Programs
Programas para Sitios Pequeños
Nonprofits acquire small rental buildings (2–25
units) to prevent displacement and ensure longterm affordability for existing residents.
Downpayment Assistance Loans
Préstamos para Enganche
Low-interest or forgivable loans help low-income
households purchase homes and build lasting
community wealth.
Habitability & Foreclosure Prevention
Habitabilidad y Prevención Hipotecaria
Grants and legal aid help homeowners —
especially seniors — maintain safe homes and
avoid foreclosure.
Community Land Trusts (CLTs)
Fideicomisos Comunitarios de Tierra
Nonprofits hold land permanently in community
trust, keeping homes affordable across
generations. This is the NCLT model.
2 PROTECTION · PROTECCIÓN
Rent Stabilization
Estabilización de Renta
Caps annual rent increases (AB 1482 limits
increases to a max of 10%) so long-term tenants
can stay in their homes.
Just / Good Cause Eviction
Causa Justa para el Desalojo
Requires landlords to provide a valid legal reason
before evicting a tenant, preventing arbitrary or
retaliatory evictions.
Right to Legal Counsel
Derecho a Asesoría Legal
Guarantees free or low-cost legal representation
for tenants facing eviction — proven to
dramatically reduce displacement rates.
Emergency Rental Assistance
Asistencia de Emergencia para Renta
Short-term financial support for households at
immediate risk of eviction due to job loss,
medical costs, or other hardships.
3 PRODUCTION · PRODUCCIÓN
Site Identification
Identificación de Sitios
Map underutilized parcels and publicly owned
land for affordable housing development,
prioritizing high-displacement neighborhoods.
Zoning & Land-Use Reform
Reforma de Zonificación
Allow higher-density and mixed-use development
near transit. SB 330 streamlines permitting while
protecting existing tenants during
redevelopment.
Affordable Housing Incentives
Incentivos de Vivienda Asequible
Fee waivers, density bonuses, and tax credits
encourage developers to include deed-restricted
affordable units in new projects.
In-Lieu Fees & Public Land
Tarifas en Sustitución y Tierra Pública
Developers build affordable units on-site or pay
into a city housing fund; public parcels are
prioritized for CLT development.
PINOLE HOUSING NEED BY INCOME GROUP (RHNA 2023–2031)
Income Group / Grupo de Ingresos % AMI Units % Total
Extremely Low / Extremadamente Bajo 0–30% 60 12.0%
Very Low / Muy Bajo 30–50% 61 12.2%
Low / Bajo 50–80% 69 13.8%
Moderate / Moderado 80–120% 87 17.4%
Above Moderate / Sobre Moderado >120% 223 44.6%
TOTAL — 500 100%
Sources: NCLT Policy Workshop · Pinole Housing Element 2023–2031 · AB 1482 · SB 330 · PolicyLink (2018) · Terner Center (Dec 2024) · ABAG Northern California Land Trust (NCLT) · 3120 Shattuck Ave, Berkeley CA 94705 · nclt.org Get Involved · Participe Attachment B