Pinole City Council
July 13, 2026

1 July 13, 2026
1 2
3 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
4 PINOLE PLANNING COMMISSION
5 6 July 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, Menis, Vice27 Chairperson Uch, and Chairperson Sandoval 28 29 Commissioners Absent: None
30 31 Staff Present: David Hanham, Planning Manager
32 Justin Shiu, Associate Planner
33 34 Commissioner Menis reported on his ex-parté communications to his email list about the 35 topics on the meeting agenda.
36 37 E. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD
38 39 Anthony Vossbrink referred to a senior citizen, Tito Montances, who was reported missing 40 from Bay Front Park where he had come to fish in the area but did not come home and 41 had yet to be found. He also referenced an incident in 2025, that involved a husband and 42 wife from El Sobrante, who had been attacked on the trail with the wife later dying from 43 her injuries. He had asked the City Council and the Mayor, who had ignored previous 44 requests from the public, to place this matter on a City Council agenda and give serious 45 concern to providing health and safety in the immediate area. He requested solar light 46 lamp posts be installed in the entry way near the railroad tracks and front parking lot and 47 in the middle of the parking lot to illuminate the area at night, along with new signage to 48 be posted to warn the public of potential risks, and to also post the hours of park usage 49 given the current signs were outdated and faded with small print. 50 2 July 13, 2026
1 Mr. Vossbrink pointed out when an individual had been hit in the crosswalk on Tennent 2 Avenue in front of the bank and St. Joseph Church, the City had paid $100,000 to install 3 safety bumpers at Plum and Pear Streets and Tennent Avenue, which were currently in 4 disrepair and should be refurbished. He also referenced damages on the Pinole Creek 5 Bridge above Station 74, which was a safety hazard and an incident where someone had 6 turned off of the semi-hair pin turn before the soccer field and crashed into a picket fence 7 of a private residence, resulting in the resident bearing the costs for repair. There were 8 two saw horses in the area with flashing lights that needed to be replaced along with 9 maintenance of vegetation along the concrete barriers. These issues had not been 10 addressed for years. In addition, the public restrooms which had locked doors needed to 11 be retubed at the dog park, Fernandez and Bay Front Parks and the hours of operation 12 for the restrooms should be extended. He asked that these matters be directed to the 13 appropriate City Departments for a response since to date there had been no answers 14 provided from anyone from the City.
15 16 Chairperson Sandoval commented since the issues were not under the purview of the 17 Planning Commission, he would encourage the speaker to address the concerns with the 18 City Council and the Public Works Department.
19 20 Planning Manager David Hanham advised the City website included a link to file any 21 complaints with the Public Works Department.
22 23 Commissioner Menis asked whether it would be possible for the City to consider a new 24 Capital Improvement Project (CIP) to improve the lights and signage at Bay Front Park. 25 He understood the City recently considered some improvements in that area through an 26 agreement with the railroad company.
27 28 Mr. Hanham explained if the project was something the City Council and staff could do it 29 would be cost out for total costs for improvements, but would likely not be included in the 30 current CIP unless there were serious issues that could be addressed quickly and 31 inexpensively.
32 33 F. MEETING MINUTES
34 35 1. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for June 8, 2026 36 37 Commissioner Menis requested a revision to Page 15 of 34 of the agenda packet, Lines 46 38 through 49, as follows:
39 40 Also, in response to the Chair’s comments, he [Commissioner Menis] noted originally 41 when the City discussed recycled water feasibility, it was a much broader project and 42 what was being discussed in the CIP for Recycled Water Feasibility (IN2103), was 43 much narrower, and was just the piping from the treatment plant to the Phillips 66 44 Refinery in Rodeo.
45 46 MOTION with a Roll Call vote to approve the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for June 47 8, 2026, as modified by Commissioner Menis.
48 49
50 3 July 13, 2026
1 MOTION: Sandoval SECONDED: Bender APPROVED: 4-0-3
2 ABSTAIN: Huey, Lam-Julian, Martinez
3 4 G. PUBLIC HEARINGS
5 6 1. UP26-0001 Tranquility Martial Arts
7 8 Associate Planner Justin Shiu provided a PowerPoint presentation for UP26-0001 for 9 Tranquility Martial Arts. He recommended the Planning Commission adopt Resolution 26- 10 07, with Exhibit A: Conditions of Approval, approving UP26-0001, a Conditional Use Permit 11 application providing for the establishment of a martial arts school at 1573 Tara Hills Drive. 12 13 Responding to questions from the Planning Commission, Messiers Hanham and Shiu 14 clarified the following:
15 16 • Acknowledged a condition could be imposed for drop-off and pick-up and require 17 members not to block parked vehicles when dropping off students to the martial arts 18 academy; the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) could be revoked for non-compliance 19 with the conditions of approval; the Commission may require a review of the CUP in 20 one year to determine if there had been any complaints, or language could be added 21 to Condition 7 of Exhibit A, Planning Commission Resolution 26-07 Conditions of 22 Approval. Acknowledged the request that such language be added to Condition 7. 23 (Martinez)
24 25 • Acknowledged a request to amend Condition 4 and require more trash cans be made 26 available on-site and maintained given the proximity of the middle school and the 27 anticipated influx of students. (Lam-Julian)
28 29 • The use of amplified sound could include the use of a speaker system or music 30 pumped through those systems that could be loud enough to impact nearby tenants; 31 staff was aware of no established decibel level limit, and any issues related to noise 32 could be an issue raised after a one-year review of the CUP. (Huey) 33 34 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
35 36 Roper Macaraeg, Applicant and Head Instructor, Tranquility Martial Arts, explained it was 37 his dream to open a school and he was now in the position to do so. He would ensure 38 safety during drop-off and pick-up and that parents were made aware of the parking 39 requirements. In terms of the decibel level at the school, amplified sound through the use 40 of speakers would be used only during exhibitions and would not be loud enough to impact 41 the neighbors and would likely occur when the nearby dry cleaners was closed. He stated 42 he had been practicing martial arts since he was ten years old, had been teaching for the 43 past 20 plus years and taught various martial arts.
44 45 Commissioner Menis referenced Condition 6, as written, and asked whether the applicant 46 planned to have music playing in the background during the day-to-day operations. 47 48 Mr. Macaraeg clarified the day-to-day operations would be the traditional dojo, where the 49 students would practice and he may yell at the students from time to time if they were not 50 listening.
4 July 13, 2026
1 Commissioner Menis again referenced Condition 6, which stated: Amplified Sound – The 2 applicant shall not include amplified sounds or music in operations, without prior approval 3 by the Planning Manager, and asked if that same process would be followed for special 4 events.
5 6 Mr. Hanham stated the applicant could email staff of any special events, and as long as 7 they were within the hours of operation that would be permitted. If complaints were to 8 occur, the applicant would be notified and if complaints continued, the CUP could be 9 brought back to the Planning Commission for additional modification of the condition. 10 11 Commissioner Lam-Julian asked about the number of families in the martial arts studio’s 12 current location.
13 14 Mr. Macaraeg advised the current location was located in space they rented at Legends 15 Dance Studio and Event Center in the City of Hercules, and which involved 18 people 16 including his family. Some students came to practice and moved on to other activities. 17 He planned to limit the number of students per class since he did not want the children to 18 run out of space when practicing and would likely limit the class size to 14 active students. 19 There would be a space for an open mat for students to practice on their own, as shown 20 on the floor plan. He planned for their 18 current students to move to the new location in 21 Pinole.
22 23 Anthony Vossbrink commented that if the CUP were to be conditioned for a review in one 24 year to address concerns raised about the drop-off and pick up periods, he asked if the 25 same condition would be imposed on Trader Joe’s or another martial arts studio located 26 on San Pablo Avenue, which were also heavily trafficked businesses. He suggested the 27 condition not just be imposed on this business and that there be some fairness provided. 28 He recommended the drop-off and pick-up periods be limited to two to three minutes. He 29 also asked if the business was self-insured in the event of a trip and fall accident in the 30 business or at the front door, and asked whether liability would be borne by the landlord, 31 business owner or the City of Pinole. He also asked whether the landlord could be asked 32 to clean-up the landscaping in the front area, which was in need of an upgrade and which 33 would help to attract other potential tenants.
34 35 Mr. Macaraeg appreciated the opportunity to bring the business to the City of Pinole. He 36 clarified he was a resident of Rodeo. He emphasized that child and student safety was 37 important for the school and himself, which was why he was limiting the number of 38 students per class. He reiterated he would ensure parents parked in such a way as to 39 keep the children safe and stated he had his own insurance as did the landlord, and he 40 also had a general disclaimer for his students.
41 42 Commissioner Martinez asked staff whether the landscaping could be addressed. 43 44 Mr. Hanham advised staff could speak with the property owner, but in this case he clarified 45 it was not the Appian 80 Center property owner, but another property owner staff would 46 have to speak to address the need to clean up the front landscaping. 47 48 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
49 5 July 13, 2026
1 Commissioner Martinez thanked the applicant for bringing the business to Pinole. He was 2 excited to see a new business and looked forward to it. 3 4 Commissioner Lam-Julian also welcomed the new business to Pinole. 5 6 Commissioner Huey congratulated the applicant on the expansion and for choosing the 7 City of Pinole. Her brother and godson participated in martial arts, and she had seen the 8 benefits martial arts had for new scholars and was excited to have this opportunity in 9 Pinole.
10 11 Commissioner Menis also thanked the applicant for bringing a martial arts studio to Pinole, 12 particularly in a shopping center that could use new businesses and revitalization of the 13 area.
14 15 Chairperson Sandoval also thanked the applicant for choosing the City of Pinole, wished 16 the business the best of luck and welcomed any input on what could be done for the 17 Planning Commission to be supportive.
18 19 Mr. Macaraeg thanked the Planning Commission for its time and effort and to staff for their 20 assistance during the application process.
21 22 Chairperson Sandoval offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Huey to approve 23 Resolution 26-07, as shown.
24 25 On the motion, Commissioner Martinez requested an addition to Condition 7, for a review 26 of the CUP after one year to determine whether there were any complaints regarding the 27 pick-up and drop-off, and if clearing the one-year hurdle, it would extend to a review of the 28 CUP to a three-or-five-year term.
29 30 Commissioner Lam-Julian recommended Condition 4 be amended to require regular 31 maintenance of the trash bins.
32 33 MOTION to adopt Resolution 26-07, with Exhibit A: Conditions of Approval, a Resolution 34 of the Planning Commission of the City of Pinole, County of Contra Costa, State of 35 California, Approving Conditional Use Permit UP26-0001 to Establish a Martial Arts 36 School at 1573 Tara Hills Drive, subject to:
37 38 • Modification to Condition 4, to require regular maintenance of trash. 39 40 • Modification to Condition 7, to include a review of the CUP after one year. 41 42 MOTION: Sandoval SECONDED: Menis APPROVED: 7-0
43 44 Chairperson Sandoval identified the 10-day appeal process of a decision of the Planning 45 Commission in writing to the City Clerk.
46 47 H. OLD BUSINESS
48 49 1. Select Planning Commission Ad-Hoc Subcommittee 50 6 July 13, 2026
1 Mr. Hanham provided the staff memorandum dated July 13, 2026. He recommended the 2 Planning Commission select a member to serve on the Planning Commission Ad-Hoc 3 Subcommittee for the 2026-2027 term. He clarified Commissioner Menis and Vice4 Chairperson Uch currently served on the Ad-Hoc Subcommittee, with a third 5 Commissioner to be appointed. There would likely be one more set of meetings to review 6 the Outdoor Dining Regulations, with no additional meetings foreseen in the near future 7 unless there were major policies the Planning Commission or City Council wanted to 8 review.
9 10 Commissioner Menis understood three members of the Planning Commission already 11 reviewed the Outdoor Dining Regulations, and if adding a third member to the Ad-Hoc 12 Subcommittee could exceed the parameters of the Brown Act for that project. He asked 13 staff to provide clarification.
14 15 Mr. Hanham clarified the next steps for the Outdoor Dining Regulations and the Objective 16 Development Design Standards (ODDS) were to bring them to the Planning Commission 17 and not the Ad-Hoc Subcommittee. There would be no issues with the Brown Act. 18 19 Commissioner Menis understood without those items there was nothing planned for the 20 Ad-Hoc Subcommittee in the near future.
21 22 Mr. Hanham commented in most cases the Ad-Hoc Subcommittee was used for the review 23 of major documents, policy changes, General Plan changes, rezones or Comprehensive 24 Design Reviews. He corrected his prior comments and stated there were no plans for the 25 next six months to bring something forward and he anticipated the Ad-Hoc Subcommittee 26 may be asked to meet one to two times over the next year. When asked, he commented 27 that in most cases, he would announce whether an Ad-Hoc Subcommittee meeting was 28 needed at a Planning Commission meeting at least a week before the meeting was 29 scheduled. Ad-Hoc Subcommittee meetings could be held once a quarter and he clarified 30 the Ad-Hoc Subcommittee was not a standing committee, with meetings to be scheduled 31 as needed.
32 33 Chairperson Sandoval was willing to serve on the Ad-Hoc Subcommittee if no one else 34 was able.
35 36 Commissioner Martinez expressed interest in serving on the Ad-Hoc Subcommittee. 37 38 MOTION to nominate Commissioner Martinez to serve on the Ad-Hoc Subcommittee. 39 40 MOTION: Sandoval SECONDED: Uch APPROVED: 7-0
41 42 2. Consideration of Adding Another Citizens to be Heard Agenda Item 43 44 Mr. Hanham provided the staff memorandum dated July 13, 2026. He recommended the 45 Planning Commission consider and discuss inclusion of another Citizen’s to be Heard item 46 on the Planning Commission agenda and provide direction to staff on modifying the 47 agenda.
48 49
7 July 13, 2026
1 Commissioner Martinez asked whether the item was needed since the Planning 2 Commission typically had only one to two public comments. Possibly a six-month pilot 3 program could be considered to see whether a second Citizens to be Heard item would 4 be used. If added to the agenda, he asked if someone spoke at the first Citizens to be 5 Heard, they not be permitted to speak at the second Citizens to be Heard at the end of 6 the meeting.
7 8 Commissioner Lam-Julian commented that several community members had commented 9 about adding a second public comment period, with many working residents, finding it 10 challenging to make public comment. Creating this opportunity to ask questions and 11 engage with the Planning Commission was important. She wanted to understand why the 12 Planning Commission would not allow people to speak more than once, while recognizing 13 some people may take advantage, but for many just learning about making pubic comment 14 and being aware of the Planning Commission and City Council, those people were trying 15 to learn and there should be more opportunities for the public to engage. 16 17 Commissioner Lam-Julian also suggested six months for a pilot program was short given 18 how the City worked and once in place with the City Clerk and in documentation, extending 19 the pilot program to a year should be considered. She pointed out that with fewer projects, 20 the Planning Commission meetings may be shorter and she would support allowing 21 people to speak more than once.
22 23 Commissioner Huey asked whether or not there was anything on the record where a 24 member of the public requested more speaking time, specifically with the Planning 25 Commission.
26 27 Mr. Hanham reported there had been speakers who had gone over the five-minute public 28 comment time limit for items that may or may not pertain to Planning Commission 29 business, and he was unaware of any complaints about public comments not being 30 allowed to be made. He clarified Citizens to be Heard was for items not on the meeting 31 agenda. This item had come up since the City Council provided two opportunities for 32 Citizens to be Heard on its meeting agenda and some people had taken advantage of the 33 second opportunity on the City Council meeting agenda to provide comments. 34 35 Commissioner Huey asked if there was a comparison or study of other Planning 36 Commissions in the region that also had two Citizens to be Heard comment periods. 37 38 Mr. Hanham was unaware of any other Planning Commission that had two public 39 comment periods.
40 41 Commissioner Menis clarified with Mr. Hanham for the City Council that there were 42 instances where people who were unable to speak during the first Citizens to be Heard on 43 the meeting agenda, had taken advantage of the opportunity to speak during the second 44 public comment period before the end of the meeting, which was why staff recommended 45 speakers be allowed to take advantage of either one or the other Citizens to be Heard, 46 either at the beginning or at the end of the meeting, consistent with City Council policy. 47 48
49 8 July 13, 2026
1 Chairperson Sandoval clarified again with Mr. Hanham that if the Planning Commission 2 decided to add a second Citizens to be Heard, a speaker would only be allowed to speak 3 during one or the other Citizens to be Heard, depending on the direction of the Planning 4 Commission.
5 6 Mr. Hanham stated he would speak with the City Clerk about that topic and clarify whether 7 a member of the public could speak during both Citizens to be Heard. 8 9 PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
10 11 Anthony Vossbrink echoed the Planning Commission’s points in favor of having certain 12 time frames and he would be open to a nine-to-12-month test for a second Citizens to be 13 Heard. Given what was happening in the City politically and financially and since the Civil 14 Grand Jury Report had given the City an “F” rating, he welcomed more lines of 15 communication with the public either via Town Hall meetings or any other discussions 16 relating to the Planning Commission.
17 18 Mr. Vossbrink otherwise commented there may be a point in time when the City may have 19 to consider selling some City-owned properties, which would be a separate agenda item. 20 He noted many people were unfamiliar with the system, what was on meeting agendas, 21 and in this case reported residents had not been noticed of the Planning Commission 22 meeting on Pinole Community Television (PCTV), until just prior to the start of the meeting, 23 which should be investigated. There was a new City Manager, the public may have 24 questions, may not be able to wait for another City Council or Planning Commission 25 meeting, and some meetings were not held each month since oftentimes meetings were 26 canceled. He also suggested possibly the time period for public comment could be 27 reduced, but members of the public should be allowed to complete their thoughts and not 28 be dismissed or rudely cut off when hitting the time limit. He suggested those things be 29 considered before any action was taken.
30 31 PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
32 33 Commissioner Bender suggested it would be appropriate to add a second Citizens to be 34 Heard for general comments and that speakers be limited to one or the other Citizens to 35 be Heard. He was unsure a pilot program should be considered in that it should either be 36 done or not. He supported the Planning Commission following what the City Council had 37 done.
38 39 Commissioner Martinez thanked Commissioner Lam-Julian for being a proponent for 40 improving communication between the Planning Commission and the community. He 41 agreed to go along with the group and add a second Citizens to be Heard, and not consider 42 a pilot program and follow what the City Council had done. He emphasized the goal of 43 improving communication between the public and the City was critical, particularly with the 44 Civil Grand Jury having issued the City of Pinole an “F” rating. The second Citizens to be 45 Heard was a tool the City could use to engage the community and was a good thing. 46 Whether a speaker could speak at only one or the other Citizens to be Heard, he looked 47 forward to staff providing clarification and urged compliance with the regulations. 48 49
9 July 13, 2026
1 Commissioner Lam-Julian suggested it made sense to follow suit with what the City 2 Council was doing, and if there was a need to reduce the time period for public comment 3 from five to three minutes, that made sense. She also agreed that speakers either speak 4 during one or the other Citizens to be Heard, subject to clarification from the City Clerk. 5 6 Commissioner Huey felt strongly about this topic when last discussed for the reasons 7 Commissioner Lam-Julian raised. There were a lot of families unable to make the meeting 8 until later and she was also sympathetic to the staff who had to staff the Commission 9 where meetings could run late. If adding a second Citizens to be Heard, which she 10 supported, she would like it to be limited to speakers speaking during one or the other 11 Citizens to be Heard, for the sake of respecting everyone’s time. She agreed adding a 12 second Citizens to be Heard would open the lines of communication and add 13 transparency, which was important. This process was done by the City Council and she 14 was surprised other Planning Commissions in the region did not do the same. 15 16 Commissioner Menis suggested having multiple Citizens to be Heard was a good idea, 17 which he had supported in the past. He was unsure how to fairly address the caller’s 18 request to allow speakers to complete their comments when their time was up, and 19 suggested a flat five-minute time limit should be considered. As someone who frequently 20 and moderately used the second Citizens to be Heard during City Council meetings, if no 21 one was using the item it was not an issue, but if someone did want to use it, it improved 22 the lines of communication with the City, which was a benefit. 23 24 Vice-Chairperson Uch shared the opinion that it was important to expand access for 25 people to communicate, particularly when people may not have faith in the institution. 26 People should have the opportunity to speak on matters that affected everyone, people 27 may not be able to be present for the beginning of the meeting and the City should account 28 for that. He supported a second Citizens to be Heard to be placed on the meeting agenda, 29 as staff had suggested, near the end of the meeting agenda, and restrict it to speaking 30 during either one or the other Citizens to be Heard. 31 32 Chairperson Sandoval commented he found the item unnecessary while he also 33 understood the need to be more open in terms of government, and when people were 34 questioning what the City was doing. He found the public had been using the City 35 Planner’s Report portion of the agenda as a second Citizens to be Heard during his tenure 36 on the Planning Commission. He supported the second Citizens to be Heard, if it mirrored 37 City Council policy, preferred the speaker speak during one or the other Citizens to be 38 Heard, and reduce the time limit for public comments to three minutes. 39 40 Chairperson Sandoval asked Commissioners to opine on the staff recommendations. 41 42 There was consensus to support Option B, Adding another "Citizens to be Heard" agenda 43 item potentially after the "Communications" section. 44 45 Chairperson Sandoval offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bender, to add a 46 second "Citizens to be Heard" agenda item potentially after the "Communications" section, 47 and that an individual may only speak on one or the other Citizens to be Heard, with both 48 to have a three-minute time limit.
49 10 July 13, 2026
1 On the motion, Commissioner Menis requested an amendment that speakers be allowed 2 a four-minute time limit for both Citizens to be Heard. 3 4 Vice-Chairperson Uch seconded the amendment.
5 6 Chairperson Sandoval as the maker of the initial motion and Commissioner Bender as the 7 second, accepted the amendment.
8 9 MOTION to add a second "Citizens to be Heard" agenda item potentially after the 10 "Communications" section, with the proviso that an individual may only speak on one or 11 the other Citizens to be Heard, with both to have a four-minute time limit. 12 13 MOTION: Sandoval SECONDED: Bender APPROVED: 7-0
14 15 I. NEW BUSINESS: None
16 17 K. CITY PLANNER’S/COMMISSIONER’S REPORT
18 19 Mr. Hanham reported the Planning Commission meeting of August 10, 2026 would include 20 an extension of entitlements for Pinole Shores II.
21 22 Mr. Shiu reported there was a new Interactive Planning Zoning Map on the Planning Division 23 webpage, for owners interested to know what they could do on their properties and for new 24 development. The map allows one to select their parcel or search for an address and find a 25 link to the Zoning Code, which helps people to understand development parameters and 26 what new businesses or uses could go unto a specific property. 27 28 Commissioner Lam-Julian asked for an update on Valor Village which she understood was 29 just taking applicants, and an update on the Safeway property. 30 31 Mr. Hanham clarified Valor Village had tenants in the buildings for six to eight months, and 32 they could be advertising for open units. He had no update for the Safeway property but 33 noted that the entitlements for the property would expire in October 2026. 34 35 L. COMMUNICATIONS
36 37 Commissioner Menis reported that upcoming community events included: a general food 38 distribution this date at the Senior Center; Planning Commission meeting July 13, 2026; 39 Senior Food Distribution from 10:00 to 11:00 a.m. at the Senior Center on July 14, 2026; 40 FROYO with the 5-0 on July 16, 2026 at Menchie’s Frozen Yogurt from Noon to 2:00 p.m.; 41 Pinole-Hercules Wastewater Subcommittee meeting on July 16, 2026, 7:00 to 8:30 p.m. in 42 the Council Chambers; and Pinole Creek Clean-Up on July 18, 2026 from 10:00 a.m. to Noon 43 behind the Pinole Valley High School (PVHS) parking lot at 2885 Pinole Valley Road. 44 45 PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
46 47 Anthony Vossbrink asked about the status of property behind 7-Eleven, status of any plans 48 for the sale of City-owned property including the status of the Faria House and asked whether 49 there was a list on the City website of the different vacant City properties for sale or for lease. 50 11 July 13, 2026
1 Mr. Vossbrink also commented on a rumor in the community that Uptown Yard was doing so 2 well they wanted to expand and had offered to purchase part or all of the Community Corner. 3 He asked for an update on the status of the property. He otherwise found it a mistake the 4 City had canceled the annual Car Show due to budget reasons and noted the City Council 5 implemented the two public comment periods three to four years ago and he had been an 6 active participant for that change.
7 8 Mr. Hanham understood the speaker was referring to the BCRE project. He understood the 9 developer was involved in another project in the County and was completing that project first 10 before working on the Pinole project but staff would follow-up. He was unaware of any plans 11 for Uptown Yard to purchase property but acknowledged the business was doing well. He 12 added that City properties for sale may be posted on the City website under the Economic 13 Development page portion of the Community Development Department or under the City 14 Manager page, if they were listed.
15 16 As to the Faria House, Mr. Hanham stated there had been some interest but he was unaware 17 of any confirmed offers on the property, which would have to be clarified by the City Manager 18 or the City Council.
19 20 PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
21 22 M. NEXT MEETING
23 24 1. Planning Commission Regular Meeting on July 27, 2026 at 7:00 p.m. 25 26 N. ADJOURNMENT: 8:38 p.m.
27 28 Transcribed by: Reviewed and Edited by:
29 30 Sherri D. Lewis City Staff
31 Transcriber