Agenda packet — Pinole City Council, July 13, 2026

PINOLE PLANNING COMMISSION

MEETING AGENDA
July 13, 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.

Page 1 of 34 ends

Planning Commission
Agenda - July 13, 2026

Page 2 ends

OTHER WAYS TO WATCH THE MEETING
LIVE ON CHANNEL 28 and CHANNEL 1070. Meetings are broadcast again the following week on channel 1070 (previously channel 26). The Pinole Community TV program schedule is published on the City’s website at www.Pinole.gov/PCTV
VIDEO-STREAMED LIVE ON THE CITY’S WEBSITE, www.Pinole.gov/PCTV. Meeting videos remain archived on the site for five (5) years. Pinole Community TV can also be streamed live from Roku, Apple TV, or Amazon Fire.

TEMPORARY NOTICE: Some Comcast subscribers may also be able to see PCTV Government Media programming on Channel 30 while we work through an FCC must-carry requirement.

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.

Page 2 of 34 ends

Planning Commission
Agenda - July 13, 2026

Page 3 ends

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 June 8, 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.

1. UP26-0001 Tranquility Martial Arts
H. OLD BUSINESS

1. Select Planning Commission Ad-Hoc Subcommittee

2. Consideration of Adding Another Citizens to be Heard Agenda Item I. NEW BUSINESS
J. CITY PLANNER'S/COMMISSIONER'S REPORT
K. COMMUNICATIONS

Page 3 of 34 ends

Planning Commission
Agenda - July 13, 2026

Page 4 ends

L. NEXT MEETING(S)

1. Planning Commission Regular Meeting on July 27, 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: _______

Page 4 of 34 ends

1 June 8, 2026
1 DRAFT
2 3 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
4 PINOLE PLANNING COMMISSION
5 6 June 8, 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: 7:03 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, Uch, Vice-Chairperson Menis and Chairperson 27 Sandoval
28 29 Commissioners Absent: Huey, Lam-Julian and Martinez 30 31 Staff Present: David Hanham, Planning Manager
32 Heba El-Guindy, Public Works Director
33 Justin Shiu, Associate Planner
34 35 Vice-Chairperson Menis reported on his ex-parté communications to his email list about the 36 topics on the meeting agenda, with Commissioner Uch about Item G. and stated he checked 37 briefly with the Chair but did not have ex-parté communications with the Chair. 38 39 E. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD
40 41 There were no Citizens to be Heard.
42 43 F. MEETING MINUTES
44 45 1. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for April 27, 2026 46 47 Vice-Chairperson Menis referenced Page 10 of 96 of the agenda packet, the Planning 48 Commission meeting minutes for April 27, 2026 and requested the following revision to Lines 49 36 through 38:
50 F.1.

Page 5 of 34 ends

2 June 8, 2026
1 More precise language for future flyers could be used to ensure it was more specific 2 to Pinole and not as generalized for the Bay Area.
3 4 And to Page 20 of 96 of the agenda packet, Lines 42 through 45, as follows:
5 6 He [Commissioner Bender] had come across a city that had established a threshold 7 for determining the crime incidents in an area, and if it was exceeded by 20 percent 8 it was a problem, and was included in the policy for that jurisdiction, which policy 9 Pinole did not have.
10 11 Chairperson Sandoval referenced Page 16 of 96 of the agenda packet, Lines 34 through 35, 12 and requested the following revision:
13 14 Fitzgerald Drive, Appian Way and the San Pablo Avenue Shopping Corridor were 15 identified as the busiest beats.
16 17 Commissioner Bender acknowledged the revision the Vice-Chair offered to Page 20 of 96 18 of the agenda packet, Lines 42 through 45 was accurate. 19 20 MOTION with a Roll Call vote to approve the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for April 21 27, 2026, as modified by the Planning Commission.
22 23 MOTION: Sandoval SECONDED: Menis APPROVED: 4-0-
24 3
25 ABSENT: Huey, Lam-Julian, Martinez
26 27 G. RE-ORGANIZATION OF PLANNING COMMISSION
28 29 1. Select Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson and Ad Hoc Committee 30 31 Planning Manager David Hanham presented the staff report dated June 8, 2026, and 32 welcomed nominations for Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson and the Ad Hoc Committee, 33 which all carried a one-year term for 2026/27.
34 35 Chairperson Sandoval nominated himself as the Chair of the Planning Commission. 36 37 Vice-Chairperson Menis nominated himself as the Chair of the Planning Commission. 38 39 There were no further nominations.
40 41 A Roll Call vote was taken to select Gabriel Sandoval as the Chairperson of the Planning 42 Commission for 2026/27.
43 44 Passed: 3-1-3
45 Ayes: Bender, Sandoval, Uch
46 Noes: Menis
47 Abstain: None
48 Absent: Huey, Lam-Julian, Martinez
49 50

Page 6 of 34 ends

3 June 8, 2026
1 A Roll Call vote was taken to select Rafael Menis as the Chairperson of the Planning 2 Commission for 2026/27.
3 4 Failed: 1-3-3
5 Ayes: Menis
6 Noes: Bender, Sandoval, Uch
7 Abstain: None
8 Absent: Huey, Lam-Julian, Martinez
9 10 Vice-Chairperson Menis nominated Commissioner Uch as the Vice-Chairperson of the 11 Planning Commission.
12 13 Commissioner Uch nominated himself as the Vice-Chairperson of the Planning 14 Commission.
15 16 There were no further nominations.
17 18 A Roll Call vote was taken to select Andrew Uch as the Vice-Chairperson of the Planning 19 Commission for 2026/27.
20 21 Passed: 4-0-3
22 Ayes: Bender, Menis, Sandoval, Uch
23 Noes: None
24 Abstain: None
25 Absent: Huey, Lam-Julian, Martinez
26 27 Chairperson Sandoval thanked the Planning Commission for selecting him to continue as 28 the Chair and staying the momentum over the past year. He clarified with staff that 29 Commissioners Bender, Menis and now Vice-Chairperson Uch currently served on the 30 Ad-Hoc Committee.
31 32 Commissioner Bender reported he would exit the Ad-Hoc Committee. 33 34 Vice-Chairperson Uch expressed a desire to remain on the Ad-Hoc Committee. 35 36 Commissioner Menis also asked to remain on the Ad-Hoc Committee and asked whether 37 the committee would meet in a more routine fashion.
38 39 Mr. Hanham acknowledged the Ad-Hoc Committee had met infrequently over the last 40 couple of months to ensure it did not turn into a standing committee, which would have to 41 comply with the requirements of the Brown Act. Staff planned to bring the Outdoor Dining 42 Policy and Objective Development Design Standards (ODDS) to the Planning 43 Commission in the next 60-days and comments were expected back from staff for final 44 edits. A meeting would be scheduled with the Ad-Hoc Committee to allow one more 45 review of the document. He suggested when the remainder of the Planning 46 Commissioners were present at the next Planning Commission meeting, another 47 Commissioner be selected to join Commissioner Menis and Vice-Chairperson Uch on the 48 Ad-Hoc Committee. He clarified the Planning Commission may take action on the two 49 appointments at this time.
50

Page 7 of 34 ends

4 June 8, 2026
1 MOTION to appoint Commissioner Menis and Vice-Chairperson Uch to serve on the Ad2 Hoc Committee for 2026/27. 3 4 MOTION: Sandoval SECONDED: Menis PPROVED: 4-0-3
5 ABSENT: Huey, Lam-Julian, Martinez
6 7 Mr. Hanham reiterated the third member of the Ad-Hoc Committee would be selected at 8 the next meeting of the Planning Commission.
9 10 H. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None
11 12 I. OLD BUSINESS: None
13 14 J. NEW BUSINESS
15 16 1. Review of Proposed Preliminary Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Fiscal Years 17 2026/27 through 2030/31 for Consistency with the General Plan 18 19 Public Works Director Heba El-Guindy provided a PowerPoint presentation for the Proposed 20 Preliminary Capital Improvement Plan Fiscal Years 2026/27 – FY 2030/31 and the Annual 21 & Priority FY 2026/27 Capital Projects. The proposed five-year CIP contained 49 projects 22 under five categories (Facilities, Parks, Sanitary Sewer, Stormwater, and Roads) and 7 23 infrastructure assessments, and the FY 2026/27 Annual and Priority Projects including 9 24 Facilities, 5 Parks, 9 Sanitary Sewer, 3 Stormwater, and 16 Roads projects in addition to 25 4 Infrastructure Assessments. Project priorities had been based on state or regional 26 mandated targets and associated reporting and standard requirements, priority needs in 27 terms of a review of existing deficiencies and potential impacts, funding sources and grant 28 funding deadlines, project schedules and ongoing progress. 29 30 All projects in all categories were highlighted, along with the review and approval process 31 for the CIP and the Five-Year CIP Budget Summary (which was not identical to the 32 information in the agenda packet due to recent adjustments to minimize impacts on the 33 General Fund and the use of Measure S funds), and the General Plan Consistency Matrix. 34 35 The Planning Commission was asked to review the Proposed Five-Year CIP and adopt 36 Resolution 26-06 as contained in Attachment A to the June 8, 2026 staff report, and find 37 the projects proposed in the CIP for FY 2026/27 through 2030/31 were consistent with the 38 Pinole General Plan.
39 40 Responding to questions from the Planning Commission, Mr. Hanham and Ms. El-Guindy 41 clarified the following:
42 43 • Pinole Signals Upgrade (RO2502) would not include an audio component, which 44 was planned for the future. The project would cover the pedestrian push button 45 and replace them with an updated version but would not have the countdown 46 signals, which involved a different upgrade. (Bender) 47 48
49 50

Page 8 of 34 ends

5 June 8, 2026
1 • Plum Street Parking Lot Improvements (FA2302) was clarified and intended to 2 provide a secure parking area for the Pinole Police Department (PPD) vehicles in 3 the Plum Street parking lot, scheduled for 2027/28, and with the parking lot to be 4 redesigned, which would involve community outreach and consultation. (Bender) 5 6 • Battery Storage at Youth and Swim Centers (FA2601), met the 2024 Climate 7 Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP) and General Plan Goals/Policies, Goal CS.1, 8 Goals HS.6, SE.3, SE.4 and SE.7 2025, and acknowledged it also met Goal SE.9. 9 (Menis)
10 11 • Upgrade of City Pools (FA2502), met Policy GM4.1, Goal CS.1, Goal CS.9 and 12 Policy CS.9.1. Staff clarified upgrades provided in 2025/26 were relevant to the 13 General Plan goals and policies but staff was uncertain there were adequate funds 14 to implement similar upgrades in 2026/27. Two electric panels had been replaced, 15 which enhanced the efficiency and reduced energy consumption and two pumps 16 were replaced that were outdated, along with the installation of a new auto filter. 17 The types of upgrades implemented in 2025/26 were relevant and in 2026/27 most 18 of the upgrades involved repairs. Replacement of an existing shed was a priority 19 of the Community Services Department along with repairs to the pool. (Menis) 20 21 • Plum Street Parking Lot Improvements (FA2302), clarified the policy consistency 22 matrix showed the project consistent with General Plan Goals/Policies, Policy CS 23 2.6, although Page 40 of 96 of the agenda packet had shown the project consistent 24 with Goal CE.6, which staff acknowledged a request to review. Staff clarified the 25 project was changed in 2025 and that was one of the changes applied after the 26 agenda packet had been published. (Menis)
27 28 • Pinole Creek Trail Upgrade (PA2601) was shown as consistent with Goal CS.2, 29 Goal CS.3, Policy CS 2.6 & 3.1 and Policy GM.4.1, and staff acknowledged a 30 recommendation to include Policy CS 3.3, as applicable. (Menis) 31 32 • WPCP Solar and Battery (SS2406), was shown as consistent with Goal CS.6, 33 Policy CS.6.1; Goal SE.3, Policy SE.1.3; Goal CS.7, Policy CS.7.1; Goal GM.4 and 34 Policy GM.4.1. Staff acknowledged a request to review whether Goal CS.7 and 35 Policy CS7.1 applied to this project with staff clarifying the goal to minimize energy 36 usage and replace the fleet gradually to zero emissions, including electric vehicles 37 and equipment. The project involved the installation of solar panels and battery 38 backup, a design plan only and staff would reevaluate the project to ensure which 39 goals and policies applied. (Menis)
40 41 • Old Town Traffic Calming (RO2403), the project would be delayed due to the 42 infrastructure demands of the San Pablo Avenue Bridge Replacement Project. 43 Whether the project would also be delayed due to the parklet review and outdoor 44 dining regulations, the Public Works Director would work with the Planning 45 Manager on the different requirements. Improvements had also been slated in the 46 Specific Plan and in the Active Transportation Plan (ATP). Outdoor dining would 47 complement but not affect the improvements planned, with most design 48 components to come at a later date based on the different style of projects. (Menis) 49

Page 9 of 34 ends

6 June 8, 2026
1 • Staff referenced a study with the county that would include an advisory committee, 2 and once established, it could be brought forward to the Planning Commission and 3 City Council in the hopes there would be representation from the City, although the 4 City had been collaborating with the county on scoping, study of the selection and 5 a consultant would work on the project. The City’s financial contribution was only 6 $25,000, based on staff hours and advice from the advisory committee, with most 7 of the project to be grant funded. Staff expected significant changes from the study 8 given San Pablo Avenue was a relatively old corridor, the design of the sidewalks 9 and levels of structures did not meet the environment desired to be established for 10 the downtown and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance was required 11 with some slopes and pavement conditions that would have to be addressed. 12 Working with the county would allow the City to pursue additional grant funds for 13 design and construction. (Menis)
14 15 • Road Maintenance Repairs (RO2401), clarified the statement that $250,000 of the 16 FY 2025/26 funds had to be reassigned to the Roble Road Stormwater 17 Improvements Project to ensure continuation of the project's environmental review 18 and design, since the City had a consultant for the project on board and the funding 19 for the project was from Measure S funds, which would go back to the General 20 Fund at the end of the fiscal year and not be reallocated back to the project in FY 21 2025/26. Staff had to find a way to fund the ongoing work and pay the consultant, 22 and some funds had to be reallocated from maintenance of the $350,000 23 dedicated to each zone into the Roble Road project. Staff was able to amalgamate 24 the funds for the maintenance activities in Zone 1 from other applicable funds, 25 described as “shoveling” funds to get the work done. Staff did not expect that to 26 happen this year. (Menis)
27 28 • Pinole Smart Signals (RO2303), as to whether Policy GM3.1 could be applied to 29 the project would be reviewed by staff. (Menis)
30 31 • Tennent Avenue/Bay Trail Gap Closure Crossing of UPRR (RO1902), staff 32 clarified the City had been awarded an additional $700,000 in Strategic 33 Management Planning Program (STMP) funds, and staff applied for grant funds 34 for the improvements across the railroad tracks, and another grant a few weeks 35 back from the Federal-State partnership grant program. Staff did not expect a 36 local match in FY 2026/27. (Menis)
37 38 • Recycled Water Feasibility (IN2103), the project was found to be consistent with 39 General Plan Goals/Policies OS.8.1, Policy OS.8.7, Goal SE.9, Policy SE.9.1 and 40 Policy SE.9.4, and staff acknowledged a request for more detail to be provided for 41 each goal and policy. (Menis)
42 43 • Battery Storage at Youth and Swim Centers (FA2601) and EV Charging 44 Infrastructure (FA2501), had both been shown as being consistent with the CAAP. 45 Staff could add more projects that were consistent with the CAAP, and clarified 46 staff had continued an existing list from years ago, but could add elements from 47 the CAAP that could be added to the other projects. (Vice-Chairperson Uch) 48 49

Page 10 of 34 ends

7 June 8, 2026
1 • Confirmed increased costs for projects in materials and transportation that affected 2 how much the City could achieve, with the City working within available resources, 3 with adjustments constantly being made to project scopes. Most facilities had 4 some flexibility to scope as to what could be afforded. As an example, when the 5 City replaced two compressors of the HVAC system for the PPD building, they had 6 been scoped on available funds. Another example, two of the seven HVAC units 7 at the Youth Center had been scoped based on available funds. (Chairperson 8 Sandoval)
9 10 • Clarified the City shared costs with the City of Hercules for projects in the Pinole11 Hercules Wastewater Treatment Plant that were split almost 50-50; with sewer 12 projects in the City solely funded by the City of Pinole. (Chairperson Sandoval) 13 14 • The City of Pinole held regular coordination meetings with the East Bay Municipal 15 Utility District (EBMUD) and coordinating projects benefited both agencies. As an 16 example, the resurfacing of Orleans Drive involved the use of Enterprise Funds, 17 due to damage caused by the sewer project. EBMUD did not contribute to that 18 since it did not have any work, with the contractor having damaged the water line 19 that had been repaired by EBMUD on a number of occasions. For the Tennent 20 Avenue project, the City planned to replace the sewer lines at the same time as 21 the replacement of the water lines and it was likely the costs would be split in 22 collaboration with EBMUD on the funding for resurfacing the road. (Chairperson 23 Sandoval)
24 25 • Senior Center Auxiliary Parking Lot (FA1901), the City awarded a contract in 2021, 26 the project had been deferred to 2028, and the project was not a priority, and the 27 hope was for the location to be redeveloped through a development application 28 rather than utilization as a parking lot. (Chairperson Sandoval) 29 30 • Road Rehabilitation (RO2301), clarified as shown, the allocation from Measure J 31 was $1.2 million for this year and $450,000 in the next year, with the revenue 32 relatively consistent around $450,000 per year; but since the City had not 33 implemented road rehabilitation projects for a number of years, the account had 34 accumulated a number of funds the City was trying to utilize. (Chairperson 35 Sandoval)
36 37 • Vehicle Impact Fees (VIFs) were clarified. A total of $750,000 was identified for 38 FY 2026/27, which would increase up to $900,000 in following years, while the 39 accumulation was expected to be $1.2 million per year. There was room for 40 adjustment in future years, but the use of the funds was set up in the way it had 41 been due to the way and the timing in which the funds were received. Funding 42 would be used for road repairs, mainly allocated for that purpose, but road related 43 projects may be considered in the future. Some of the unfunded projects, like 44 traffic calming, Safe Routes to School as examples, would be evaluated in the 45 future, whether they were a priority for the community and what applicable funds 46 could be allotted to them. Staff was aware roads were the primary concern for the 47 community, which was why the main focus for the use of the funds was for road 48 repairs or rehab. (Menis)
49

Page 11 of 34 ends

8 June 8, 2026
1 PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
2 3 There were no comments from the public.
4 5 PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
6 7 Commissioner Menis provided the following comments on the CIP:
8 9 • Recycled Water Feasibility Study (IN2103), read into the record General Plan 10 Goals/Policies, Policy Goal OS.8.1, Policy OS.8.7, Goal SE.9, Policy SE.9.1 and 11 Policy SE.9.4. Suggested Goal OS.8 should also be included in Attachment C, the 12 City of Pinole General Plan Consistency Matrix Proposed FY 2026/27 – FY 13 2030/31 Capital Improvement Plan, IN2103, but was unsure Goal SE.9 fit for 14 IN2103. Also suggested the font size for one of the documents provided (which 15 document was not identified) be consistent with the other documents and with 16 consideration of at least a 10-point font.
17 18 • Page 91 of 96 of the agenda packet, suggested reformatting the Sustainability 19 Element Policies under Goal SE.3, to be reordered to be in numerical order. 20 21 • Suggested Policy CS3.3 could also be applied to Pinole Creek Trail Upgrade 22 (PA2601), Fernandez Park Improvements (PA2401) and Improvements to City 23 Parks (PA2501).
24 25 • Plum Street Parking Lot Improvements (FA2302), Page 40 of 96 of the agenda 26 packet, confirmed the intent to reference General Plan Goals/Policy CS2.6, not 27 Goal CE.6.
28 29 • WPCP Solar and Battery (SS2406), Page 54 of 96 of the agenda packet, strike 30 reference to General Plan Goals/Policies CS.7 and CS7.1. 31 32 • Pinon-3 Sewer Capacity SS2402, Page 58 of 96 of the agenda packet, 33 recommended Goal CS.7 be included in the General Plan Goals/Policies. 34 35 • Pavement Marking and Signage Upgrades (RO2504), Page 70 of 96 of the agenda 36 packet, General Plan Goals/Policies, suggested Goal CS.10 and Policy CS 10.2 37 did not apply to the project, although staff advised the goals and policies would 38 apply since restriping did not necessarily mean duplicating the existing marking, 39 but could be the establishment of bike lanes. Staff clarified they were combining 40 funds from the Pavement Rehabilitation Project, which included bicycle lanes 41 along Pinole Valley Road. Also, with respect to streets with no lane indicators, 42 Public Works sometimes would add that to ensure everyone knew the markings. 43 Suggested staff mark that under the type of CIP category. 44 45 • Pinole Signals Upgrade (RO2502), Page 72 of 96 of the agenda packet, suggested 46 Policies GM3.1 and GM3.7 may fit and should be added to the General Plan 47 Goals/Policies, with staff to check whether or not the policies applied. 48

Page 12 of 34 ends

9 June 8, 2026
1 • Pinole Smart Signals (RO2303), Page 78 of 96 of the agenda packet, add Policy 2 GM 3.1 to the General Plan Goals/Policies.
3 4 • Safety Improvements on Arterial Roadways (RO2302), Page 79 of 96 of the 5 agenda packet, recommended Goal CE.3 be eliminated from the General Plan 6 Goals/Policies and Goal CE.4 be included, with staff clarifying the focus of 7 improvements would be on pedestrians and bicyclists with the project to include 8 multi-modal components. Staff recommended Goal CE.3 remain but Goal CE.4 9 could be added.
10 11 • Road Rehabilitation (RO2301), Page 80 of 96 of the agenda packet, recommended 12 adding Policy CE3.2 to the General Plan Goals/Policies. 13 14 • Any goal or policy listed in the packet should also be listed in the glossary for ease 15 of reference.
16 17 Commissioner Bender was pleased to see the Senior Center Parking Lot continue to be 18 pushed out, but expected there would be some elements of the community that would 19 want to see a parking lot. If the project returned, he hoped there would be a preliminary 20 layout provided to illustrate just how few parking spaces could be accommodated on the 21 lot based on circulation and compliance with C.3 requirements since the parcel was 22 greater than 5,000 square feet in size.
23 24 As to Pinole Smart Signals (RO2303), Commissioner Bender referenced the history, 25 status or impact if delayed, and commented that the first sentence read: Deployment of 26 the Smart Signals Project is expected to result in operational and safety improvements for 27 all modes of transportation, such as decrease in travel time and total delay, reduction in 28 number of stops and secondary accidents, reduction of fuel consumption and greenhouse 29 gas emissions, and reduction of response time for emergency vehicles. He was 30 concerned reading that statement and was nervous when Civil Engineers proposed such 31 projects, as opposed to the engineers who were more traffic focused, since based on his 32 experience as a resident of the downtown and when he stood at John Street at San Pablo 33 Avenue, he saw green lights all the way through old town when looking to the west, which 34 was when there was more speeding. He hoped since this would become a project soon 35 that there would be some bulwark to not let the Civil Engineers have their way. 36 37 Ms. El-Guindy advised the former Public Works Director had prepared the original 38 description from the project itself. She clarified the improvements to be implemented were 39 mainly in other jurisdictions with a priority for transit movements. The City did not have 40 the frequency of that transit service within Pinole, with most of the upgrades through 41 detection and battery backup within the cabinets, and if there was any disruption in the 42 energy, the backup could supplement operations and there would be no safety concerns. 43 44 Commissioner Bender reported a new Traffic Officer had made the same comment to him 45 recently while on San Pablo Avenue, that when all green lights were seen, that was when 46 the speeding really started.
47 48 Ms. El-Guindy commented the Local Road Safety Plan had shown the majority of injury 49 and fatal collisions were on the arterial corridors of Appian Way, Pinole Valley Road and 50 San Pablo Avenue.

Page 13 of 34 ends

10 June 8, 2026
1 Ms. El-Guindy stated that was why the ATP and the various documents they were working 2 on planned to establish Complete Streets to safely accommodate all modes of travel on 3 all of the corridors. The space allocated for auto travel lanes, whether through the width 4 or number of lanes, would go down, which would affect travel speeds. The City also 5 recently implemented speed reductions along some segments of Pinole Valley Road and 6 San Pablo Avenue in the vicinity of the schools and park areas. 7 8 Commissioner Bender added he had recently been in the City of Emeryville where some 9 speed reductions had been accommodated on the various streets and where above new 10 signs there were new speed limit notifications in yellow, which had been very effective. 11 12 Vice-Chairperson Uch suggested the following projects also fell within the CAAP including 13 San Pablo Avenue Bicycle and Pedestrian Gap Closure (IN2501) and ATP (IN2106). He 14 understood the CAAP was an extension of the General Plan, and it was important to stress 15 that and make Pinole a model city, particularly one that was only 3.5 miles in length, and 16 pedestrians and cyclists should be made safe and the City should focus on the CAAP. As 17 an example, the City of Davis, while a university campus community was also a bikeable 18 community, and Pinole should also strive to be bikeable and rely on modes of transit not 19 tied to fossil fuels and global events.
20 21 Ms. El-Guindy commented there were a number of documents in process that were also 22 an extension of the General Plan, such as the ATP. At some point, the City would have 23 to place a limit, otherwise it would have to refer to multiple documents in terms of goals 24 and policies.
25 26 Mr. Hanham added that usually when looking at additional plans like the CAAP and the 27 ATP, that was usually within the scope of the project and would be included, and most of 28 the project descriptions were usually inclusive of elements of those plans. Usually when 29 the projects were scoped was when the documents were referred to since the CAAP and 30 the ATP should have already been approved by the Planning Commission and the City 31 Council as consistent with the General Plan.
32 33 Mr. Hanham also clarified, when asked, that the CAAP did not come before the Planning 34 Commission but had been adopted by the City Council. The next round would come 35 before the Planning Commission when the document was updated. The Planning 36 Commission would not see individual policies from the CAAP, ATP or Parks Master Plan 37 or other plans that had goals and polices since they should already be part of the scope 38 of the project before reaching that point.
39 40 Vice-Chairperson Uch explained he had raised the concern because only two CIP projects 41 had been listed that fell within the scope of the CAAP or the ATP, while there were many 42 projects that fell within that scope.
43 44 Ms. El-Guindy explained the reason the two projects had been listed as falling within the 45 scope of the CAAP was because they received climate-related grants and had been 46 highlighted as a result.
47 48 Chairperson Sandoval was pleased to see some of the projects were lower on the list, 49 such as the Senior Center Parking Lot and Plum Street Parking Lot Improvements, and 50 agreed with Commissioner Bender’s comments about the projects.

Page 14 of 34 ends

11 June 8, 2026
1 Chairperson Sandoval commented that repaving was a big priority, such as an area along 2 Pinole Valley Road that had potholes everywhere, and any work that could be done to 3 address that was appreciated. Similarly, there were areas that needed work in the 4 intersection between I-80 and Pinole Valley Road, which may be under Caltrans’ 5 jurisdiction. He was pleased to see the City was making some progress. 6 7 Traffic and pedestrian safety were also a priority, and Chairperson Sandoval was pleased 8 the speed limits had been changed on Pinole Valley Road, but there had been no notice 9 to the public. He was also pleased to see pedestrian improvements for crosswalks, noting 10 the City of El Cerrito had some crosswalks that had sensors at the body and foot level for 11 ADA compliance and seeing something like that in Pinole would be great. He was also 12 pleased to see some future traffic calming measures and noted the City of Walnut Creek 13 had used bollards in between the lanes of a four-lane roadway, which made the road 14 narrower slowing traffic.
15 16 Chairperson Sandoval would like to see things that would potentially realize savings or 17 revenue for the City, such as recycled water from the Pinole-Hercules Wastewater 18 Treatment Plant that could be used for irrigation such as for the soccer fields, which could 19 be a cost savings measure and a way to save water during a drought. Further, there could 20 be potential revenue options, such as harvesting the natural gas from the Pinole-Hercules 21 Wastewater Treatment Plant or recycled back into the plant for energy or to power other 22 equipment for the City, or be sold or for other potential uses. 23 24 Chairperson Sandoval reported he toured the West County Wastewater facility, where 25 improvements were being made to take the waste, dehydrate it and turn it into fuel and 26 partnering with Republic Services and the landfill to potentially turn that gas into hydrogen, 27 which the City could potentially look into in the long term as potential revenue for the City. 28 He was otherwise pleased to see some progress being made with some projects and was 29 glad to see the sales tax measure covered some of the gaps including grant opportunities. 30 31 Ms. El-Guindy offered an invitation to anyone interested in touring the Pinole-Hercules 32 Wastewater Treatment Plant. With respect to traffic calming and reduced speed limits, 33 the City had promoted the reduction of the speed limit on the City’s website and on social 34 media, but not everyone followed the postings. The project had been delayed for a long 35 time, and the City was pleased to implement it. She added as part of the Pavement 36 Rehabilitation Project, two flat top speed humps, which would be wide and cover the width 37 of the crosswalk, were planned on Pinole Valley Road at primary crosswalks in the vicinity 38 of the schools and the soccer field, and the parabolic speed humps on Shea Drive would 39 be removed and replaced at more appropriate locations. The new speed humps would 40 be at a similar elevation as the sidewalk and would enhance visibility combined with 41 enhanced pavement markings, enhancing safety and slowing traffic. 42 43 Commissioner Menis referenced San Pablo Avenue Bicycle and Pedestrian Gap Closure 44 (IN2501) and ATP (IN2106), and suggested they could potentially do a lot of the work the 45 Vice-Chair had suggested in the CAAP, by referencing Goal CE.7, which would apply to 46 both of the projects. Also, in response to the Chair’s comments, he noted originally when 47 the City discussed recycled water feasibility, it was a much broader project and what was 48 being discussed in the CIP for Recycled Water Feasibility (IN2103), was much narrower, 49 and was just the piping from the treatment plan to the Phillips 66 Refinery in Rodeo. 50

Page 15 of 34 ends

12 June 8, 2026
1 Chairperson Sandoval supported a more expansive project than just water for the refinery 2 but irrigation for plants around the City and soccer fields and any other uses the City may 3 have. He asked staff for direction, whether to accept the resolution or make modifications 4 based on the feedback to direct any changes.
5 6 Mr. Hanham recommended if the Planning Commission were to direct changes based on 7 adding different policies, he would recommend as part of the adoption of the resolution, it 8 include the changes made and comments on specific programs, which would be added 9 as part of the comments to the City Council.
10 11 Ms. El-Guindy suggested the Planning Commission could offer a motion with the changes 12 given that there was a significant number, and she had kept track of the recommended 13 changes.
14 15 Mr. Hanham suggested the individual changes did not have to be listed, a motion could 16 be made to approve subject to the changes discussed, with the changes to be shown in 17 the meeting minutes.
18 19 Ms. El-Guindy explained she had to finalize the comments this evening, and upload for 20 the City Council which was why she had taken notes.
21 22 MOTION with a Roll Call vote for the Planning Commission to agree to adopt the various 23 suggested changes made and comments over the course of the meeting. 24 25 MOTION: Menis SECONDED: Sandoval APPROVED: 4-0-
26 3
27 ABSENT: Huey, Lam-Julian, Martinez
28 29 MOTION with a Roll Call vote to adopt Resolution 26-06, a Resolution of the Planning 30 Commission of the City of Pinole, County of Contra Costa, State of California, 31 Recommending the City Council of the City of Pinole Find that the Proposed Capital 32 Improvement Plan for Fiscal Years 2026/27 through 2030/31 were in Conformance with the 33 City of Pinole General Plan.
34 35 MOTION: Sandoval SECONDED: Menis APPROVED: 4-0-
36 3
37 ABSENT: Huey, Lam-Julian, Martinez
38 39 Ms. El-Guindy thanked the Planning Commission for the feedback. 40 41 Chairperson Sandoval thanked Ms. El-Guindy for the presentation. 42 43 Commissioner Menis thanked Ms. El-Guindy for being so receptive to the feedback and 44 willingness to collaborate to improve the document.
45 46 K. CITY PLANNER’S/COMMISSIONER’S REPORT
47 48 Mr. Hanham provided the following updates:
49 50 • Staff was working on temporary use permits.

Page 16 of 34 ends

13 June 8, 2026
1 2
3 • Staff planned to present an extension request for the Pinole Shores II entitlements in 4 the next couple of months.
5 6 • Staff had a potential Conditional Use Permit (CUP) application. 7 8 • A demolition permit had been approved for the former Kmart and the building had 9 been demolished.
10 11 • Staff was working with a couple of property owners on potential Zoning Ordinance 12 Text Amendments, with more information at a later date. 13 14 Commissioner Bender asked that the Public Works Manager be made aware of three trees 15 located on San Pablo Avenue to the west of the John Street intersection and adjacent to the 16 WestCAT bus turnout, that appeared to be distressed. 17 18 L. COMMUNICATIONS
19 20 Commissioner Menis reported that upcoming community events included: the Senior Food 21 Distribution at the Senior Center from 10:00 to 11:00 a.m. on June 9, 2026 with eligibility 22 requirements; the June 10, 2026 Traffic and Pedestrian Safety Committee (TAPS) meeting 23 had been canceled; and on June 14, 2026 from 12:00 Noon to 2:00 p.m. there would be a 24 combined Pride and Juneteenth celebration at Fernandez Park. He also reported he 25 received communication from a resident who asked how to learn about the progress of a 26 sewer lateral project and who to contact, whether the Public Works or Planning Departments. 27 28 Mr. Hanham advised that such work would be done through the Public Works Department 29 or through the Public Works/Sewer Department.
30 31 Associate Planner Justin Shiu advised the work would be through the Public Works 32 Department, and one could check the Public Works Department page on the City website for 33 a phone number and email contact information.
34 35 PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
36 37 Anthony Vossbrink asked for an update on the following:
38 39 • Safeway/Tara Hills project and whether there were plans to develop the property. 40 41 • Status of permitting for outdoor dining for Dave’s Hot Chicken and the use of outdoor 42 tables, which had been permanently screwed into the sidewalk and alleyway, 43 expressing concern with the precedent that could be set if it was allowed to continue 44 and which was currently a public safety hazard for the sidewalk. 45 46 • Status of the Flood Control District’s promise to repair a breach in the creek behind 47 the bowling alley and Sprouts.
48 49 • Status of repair to the crossover bridge that was in disrepair past Fire Station 74, with

Page 17 of 34 ends

14 June 8, 2026
1 the concrete bridge wiped out several years ago. Two sawhorses with blinking yellow 2 lights had been in place for four years.
3 • Regarding the crossover bridge past Fire Station 74, understood the City had 4 allocated no funds for repair of the concrete abutment or batteries in the flasher lights 5 and reported a vehicle recently crashed into the corner house, damaging the property 6 as a result of the curb.
7 8 • Status of temporary delineators or signage in the center median strips up and down 9 Pinole Valley Road and San Pablo Avenue and Appian Way, which needed 10 replacement and with the turnabouts in the center median strips in need of 11 replacement or upgrade.
12 13 • Status of the recycling bins which had been ordered for the dog park and barbeque 14 grove that were currently being stored in the Corporation Yard and not installed other 15 than three or four bins that had been installed in the soccer field. 16 17 Mr. Hanham reported code enforcement was working to address the outdoor tables and 18 chairs at Dave’s Hot Chicken. If the business owner wanted the outdoor furniture to be 19 permanent, the business must obtain an outdoor dining permit or the furniture would be 20 required to be removed. He acknowledged other restaurants had put out tables and chairs 21 and did not have administrative use permits, which staff was also addressing. He also 22 reported staff had no updates on the Safeway project and Public Works Department issues 23 would have to be referred to the Public Works Director. He understood issues with the Flood 24 Control District were being addressed through the Public Works Department, but he was 25 unaware of the status.
26 27 Sheila Grist commented as a long-time resident, Pinole Valley Road south to north at the 28 Pinole-Hercules Wastewater Treatment Plant had been 25 miles per hour (MPH) since 1989. 29 The City later discovered the route was a corridor and increased the speed limit to 35 MPH 30 and simply placed a number three over the number two on the signs. While most traffic 31 traveled around 30 MPH, there was still speeding that did not slow down from Simas Avenue 32 to the freeway. The speed limit was 25 MPH from Pinole Valley High School (PVHS) to the 33 freeway and most people thought after PVHS the speed would go back up to 30 MPH. She 34 suggested speed humps in front of PVHS would not help. She described an incident she 35 personally experienced when she had been sitting at the red light at Estates Avenue and 36 Pinole Valley Road around 8:30 a.m. traveling east to the freeway and had a right light, when 37 a vehicle traveling at least 90 MPH went by her and under the freeway into Old Town. She 38 emphasized her concern with the lack of speed enforcement from the PPD. 39 40 Chair Sandoval advised the Planning Commission would take note of the comments and he 41 thanked the speakers for their comments.
42 43 M. NEXT MEETING
44 45 1. Planning Commission Regular Meeting on June 22, 2026 at 7:00 p.m. 46 47 N. ADJOURNMENT: 9:40 p.m.
48 49 Transcribed by:
50

Page 18 of 34 ends

15 June 8, 2026
1 Sherri D. Lewis
2 Transcriber

Page 19 of 34 ends

PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORT G.1.

DATE: JULY 13, 2026
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: JUSTIN SHIU, ASSOCIATE PLANNER
SUBJECT: UP26-0001 TRANQUILITY MARTIAL ARTS

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Resolution 26-07 approving UP26-0001, a Conditional Use Permit application providing for the establishment of a martial arts school at 1573 Tara Hills Drive.

BACKGROUND
Applicant Roper Macaraeg submitted an application requesting approval consideration for Conditional Use Permit UP26-0001 to establish Tranquility Martial Arts, a martial arts school, at 1573 Tara Hills Drive. The proposal involves use of the existing interior tenant space. No exterior changes are proposed to the site.

The proposed use at 1573 Tara Hill Drive (APN 402-282-002) is located in the Appian 80 Shopping Center at the eastern portion of the site containing a pad building with two currently operating businesses. The pad building is located on a parcel under separate ownership from the other parcels within the Appian 80 Shopping Center. The approximately 2,470 square foot tenant space was previously occupied by Her 365 Fitness. The location can be accessed by automobile from Tara Hills Drive through the Appian 80 Shopping Center parking lot. The tenant space is located approximately 50 feet south of the stairs that connect to the sidewalk on Tara Hills Drive. Bicycle parking is available approximately 50 feet to the south of the tenant space. The nearest bus stop is located approximately 700 feet east of the tenant space, near the intersection of Appian Way and Canyon Drive.

The project is located along Tara Hills Drive, near the Appian Way intersection, within an area regulated by the Three Corridors Specific Plan. The site has a Specific Plan land use/zoning designation of Commercial Mixed Use (CMU) and is located within the Service Sub-Area of the Appian Way corridor. To the west and south of the site are the other parcels comprising the Appian 80 Shopping Center that share the same land use/zoning designation. Suburban residential zoning (R-1) is located further west of the Appian 80 Shopping Center. To the north, across Tara Hills Drive, is the Appian Professional Plaza site that has a designation of Office Professional Mixed Use (OPMU) within the Service Sub-Area. To the east, across Appian Way, is the CVS site that has a designation of CMU within the Service Sub-Area. Interstate 80 is located south of the shopping center. The site and surrounding parcels have a General Plan land use designation of Service Sub-Area.

The project falls under the land use classification of “Schools – Private, Special/Studio”, which requires approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The Specific Plan lists uses in its

Page 20 of 34 ends

definition of “Schools – Private, Special/Studio” that include “facilities, institutions and conference centers that offer specialized programs in personal growth and development (e.g. fitness training studios, gymnastics instructions and aerobics and gymnastics studios, environmental awareness, arts, communications, management).” The Specific Plan requires approval of a CUP for establishment of a new use under “Schools – Private, Special/Studio” based on the land use designation, sub-area and corridor applicable to the site. Table

17.10.060-1 Approving Authority for Land Use Entitlements shows the Planning Commission as the approval authority for CUP applications. A draft resolution and conditions of approval are attached for approval consideration (Attachment A).

REVIEW AND ANALYSIS
Proposed Project
The proposed project aims to establish a martial arts school at 1573 Tara Hills Drive.

The applicant describes the project as a martial arts school teaching martial arts to kids, teens, and adults. Business operations involve regular classes and seminars teaching martial arts, as well as sales of martial arts gear and school merchandise.

One employee is expected to operate the use. The estimated maximum number of attendees in a class is 35 people, which includes students, parents/guardians of students, and one employee. Each class is expected to be about one hour.

The use is proposed to be operated within the timeframes listed below:
• Mondays through Thursdays – 12:00pm to 10:00pm
• Fridays through Sundays – 7:00am to 10:00pm
The applicant further notes that not all hours may be used right away and that a few classes are currently planned at the start. This may include three classes on Mondays and Fridays and two classes on Tuesdays and Thursdays. There may be potential classes on Wednesday, but this is not yet confirmed. The broader timeframes were added to the application to allow for flexibility and growth in the future. Weekends are intended for belt tests or seminars for self-defense and karate. The majority of students are expected to be kids and teens, with potential for an adult class if there is interest.

The proposed hours are incorporated in the draft conditions of approval (Attachment A).

The project generally proposes making minimal changes to existing built conditions.

The layout and use of the space is shown in the proposed conceptual floor plan (Attachment B). The applicant will obtain approval from the Building Division as required for the new occupancy and where needed for proposed tenant improvements.

General Plan Consistency
The project meets the intent of the General Plan Land Use designation “Service SubArea (SSA)”, which is further expanded upon in the Three Corridors Specific Plan. SSA as described in the General Plan, Chapter 5 Land Use and Economic Development, for Appian Way is intended to “maintain and enhance the regional gateway area into Pinole and capitalize on freeway access to upgrade existing development and attract a desirable mix of commercial services and residential uses.” As the project provides commercial services available to residents, the project is compatible with the

Page 21 of 34 ends

envisioned uses in SSA.

The project is located on land designated to allow for commercial services and contributes to the variety of commercial services in the Service Sub-Area. It is consistent with the following applicable General Plan policies:

POLICY LU.1.1 Increase land use diversity along the San Pablo Avenue, Pinole Valley Road and Appian Way corridors; reduce residential density on large land holdings designated for Suburban Residential land use; and maintain other land use designations for a variety of residential, commercial, light industrial, recreational, open space and public purposes which (1) protect environmental resources; (2) provide a mix of housing types, densities and tenure; (3) ensure that a variety of commercial and industrial goods, services and employment opportunities are available; and (4) offer a range of recreational and public facilities to meet the needs of residents.

POLICY LU.7.1 Provide sufficient land for commercial and industrial uses to allow for development that provides basic goods and services to Pinole residents.

POLICY LU.7.2 Provide for economic development which (1) maintains the City’s ability to finance services and the construction and maintenance of public improvements; (2) offers local employment opportunities for Pinole residents to reduce inter-city commuting; and (3) assures the availability and diversity of resident-serving goods and services.

Specific Plan Consistency
The site is located in the Appian Way corridor of the Three Corridors Specific Plan. As such, the project review also considers the allowable land use and development standards of the Appian Way corridor in the Specific Plan.

In the Appian Way corridor, the site is located within the Service Sub-Area. The Service Sub-Area in the Appian Way corridor is envisioned in the Specific Plan as the area that “will serve as the regional gateway into Pinole and will capitalize on its existing reputation as a regional shopping center by upgrading existing development, and attracting increasingly desirable commercial tenants”, from Three Corridors Specific Plan Chapter 6, Section 6.7. The project fills an existing vacant tenant space, which contributes to increasing the availability of commercial opportunities and services.

The purpose of CMU land use/zoning in the Specific Plan is to designate properties for commercial and mixed-use development. While predominantly commercial, the designation provides for the integration of retail and service commercial uses with office and/or residential uses. Under Table 6.14 Permitted Use Table for Appian Way, CMU in the Service Sub-Area allows for the land use type “Schools – Private, Special/Studio” with approval of a CUP. The applicant has submitted the CUP request for approval consideration as required.

The Specific Plan establishes development standards for new construction and expansion of buildings within the Specific Plan area. As the project does not propose expansion of the building, these development standards are not applicable to the proposal.

Page 22 of 34 ends

Zoning Code Consistency
The Zoning Code (Title 17 of the Pinole Municipal Code) provides standards applicable to development and uses in general. The project is located in an area covered by the Three Corridors Specific Plan, which supersedes the Zoning Code where there are differences between the two. As the project does not result in exterior changes to the site, the project does not conflict with development standards in the Zoning Code or Specific Plan applicable to new development and additions. The use is consistent with allowable uses that can be approved with a CUP established in the Specific Plan, which supersedes the Zoning Code.

CEQA Determination
The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Existing Facilities (Class 1). As provided under the Class 1 exemption, the project involves little to no expansion of the existing structure and is only constructing alterations in the interior of the building.

Approval Findings
In reviewing a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) application, Planning Commission will consider approval findings under Pinole Municipal Code Section 17.12.140, copied below. A CUP may be granted if Planning Commission determines that the proposed use complies with all of the findings. Below each of the findings, Staff has provided the Staff assessment of the Project’s consistency with the findings. For project approval, the draft resolution and conditions of approval are included as Attachment A. a. The proposed use is consistent with the general plan, any applicable specific plans, and all applicable provisions of this title.

Staff Review: The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan, Specific Plan, and applicable provisions of the Zoning Code, as described above in the General Plan, Specific Plan, and Zoning Code Consistency sections, and as conditioned (Attachment A). The project is located on a site that accommodates commercial uses and contributes to increasing commercial opportunities and services in the Service SubArea of the Appian Way corridor, consistent with the General Plan and Specific Plan.

Staff has determined that the project is consistent with applicable provisions of the Zoning Code.
b. The establishment, maintenance, or operation of the use applied for will not, under the circumstances of the particular case (location, size, design, and operating characteristics), be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such use or to the general welfare of the city.

Staff Review: The proposed use, as conditioned, would not be detrimental to people or to the general welfare of the City. The proposed use will occupy an existing tenant space on site, resulting in no new expansions. The use would be located in a shopping center that has been largely vacant and would not conflict with nearby uses, as conditioned. Staff has determined that this finding has been met.

Page 23 of 34 ends

c. The site of the proposed use is physically suitable for the type, density and intensity of the use and related structures being proposed.

Staff Review: The proposed use does not involve expansion of the building that would change the density and intensity of development. The shopping center has been largely vacated. The proposed use can be accommodated by the existing facilities. Staff has determined that this finding has been met.
d. It will not be contrary to the specific intent clauses, development regulations, or performance standards established for the zoning district in which it is located. The proposed use and related structures are compatible with other land uses, transportation and service facilities in the vicinity.

Staff Review: As described above under General Plan, Specific Plan, and Zoning Code Consistency sections, the project meets the intent of the General Plan and Specific Plan designations assigned to the site. The project does not result in expansion of the structure, and it would meet applicable standards that apply, as conditioned. The proposed use is compatible with the intent of the zoning district to accommodate a variety of commercial uses. The site can be served by the shopping center’s existing parking lot, bike racks, and walkways. Staff has determined that this finding has been met.

ATTACHMENTS
A. Attachment A. Reso 26-07 with Exhibit A COA
B. Attachment B. Plan Set 6.4.26

Page 24 of 34 ends

PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 26-07
WITH EXHIBIT A: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PINOLE, COUNTY OF

CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT UP26-0001 TO ESTABLISH A MARTIAL ARTS SCHOOL AT 1573 TARA HILLS DRIVE WHEREAS, Roper Macaraeg filed an application for Conditional Use Permit UP26-0001 with the City of Pinole to establish Tranquility Martial Arts, a martial arts school, at 1573 Tara Hills Drive (APN 402-282-002); and
WHEREAS, the property is located within the Appian Way corridor of the Three Corridors Specific Plan and has a Specific Plan land use/zoning designation of Commercial Mixed Use (CMU) in the Service Sub-Area; and
WHEREAS, the proposed use falls under the “Schools – Private, Special/Studio” land use definition in the Three Corridors Specific Plan; and
WHEREAS, the approval of a Conditional Use Permit is required for new uses under “Schools – Private, Special/Studio” located in parcels designated CMU in the Service Sub-Area in Appian Way corridor of the Three Corridors Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, the use is proposed to occupy the existing building, and minimal changes are proposed to the exterior of the building and the site; and WHEREAS, the project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Class 1). As provided under Class 1, the project involves little to no expansion of the existing structure; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Table 17.10.060-1 of the Pinole Municipal Code, the Planning Commission of the City of Pinole is the appropriate authority to hear and act on this project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Pinole has conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider UP26-0001 on July 13, 2026; and WHEREAS, after the close of public hearing, the Planning Commission considered all public comments received both before and during the public hearing, the presentation of the staff report by city staff, and all other pertinent documents regarding the proposed development.

NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission hereby finds that:

1. The proposed use is consistent with the general plan, any applicable specific plans, and all applicable provisions of this title; and
Attachment A

Page 25 of 34 ends

2. The establishment, maintenance, or operation of the use applied for will not, under the circumstances of the particular case (location, size, design, and operating characteristics), be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such use or to the general welfare of the city; and

3. The site of the proposed use is physically suitable for the type, density and intensity of the use and related structures being proposed; and

4. It will not be contrary to the specific intent clauses, development regulations, or performance standards established for the zoning district in which it is located. The proposed use and related structures are compatible with other land uses, transportation and service facilities in the vicinity; and

5. The subdivision request is Categorically Exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15301.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Pinole:

A. Hereby approves UP26-0001 as provided in the staff report, and subject to the Conditions of Approval attached as Exhibit A to this Resolution.

B. The approval of UP26-0001 shall expire on July 13, 2027, unless exercised or a written request has been submitted to the City, prior to the expiration date within the timeframe and procedures established under Chapter 17.10 of the Pinole Municipal Code.

The above action is final unless an appeal is filed pursuant to Chapter 17.10 of the Pinole Municipal Code within ten (10) calendar days following Planning Commission action.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Pinole on this 13th day of July 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

_________________________________
Gabriel Sandoval, Chair 2026-2027

ATTEST:
________________________________
David Hanham, Planning Manager

Page 26 of 34 ends

Exhibit A
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 26-07 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL As Reviewed by Planning Commission 1 of 2 1573 Tara Hills Drive July 13, 2026 UP26-0001
Timing/
Implementation
Monitoring
Department /
Division
Verification

1. GENERAL CONSISTENCY – The project shall be consistent with the approved plan set received June 4, 2026 and project descriptions unless otherwise specified in these conditions of approval and shall be consistent with all applicable federal, state & local laws, and pertinent sections of the Pinole Municipal Code.