Pinole City Council
August 10, 2026

PINOLE PLANNING COMMISSION

MEETING AGENDA
August 10, 2026
7:00 PM
Attend in Person: PINOLE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS - 2131 PEAR STREET OR
Attend VIA ZOOM TELECONFERENCE – Details provided below How to Submit Public Comments:

In Person:

Attend meeting at the Pinole City Council Chambers, fill out a yellow public comment card and submit it to the City Clerk.

Via Zoom:

Members of the public may submit a live remote public comment via Zoom video conferencing. Download the Zoom mobile app from the Apple Appstore or Google Play. If you are using a desktop computer, you can test your connection to Zoom by clicking here. Zoom also allows you to join the meeting by phone.

From a PC, Mac, iPad, iPhone or Android:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/86505375301
Webinar ID: 865 0537 5301
By phone: +1 (669) 900-6833 or +1 (253) 215-8782 or +1 (346) 248-7799 • Speakers will be asked to provide their name and city of residence, although providing this is not required for participation.
• Each speaker will be afforded up to 5 minutes to speak • Speakers will be muted until their opportunity to provide public comment.

When the Chair opens the comment period for the item you wish to speak on, please use the “raise hand” feature (or press *9 if connecting via telephone) which will alert staff that you have a comment to provide and press *6 to unmute. To comment with your video enabled, please let the City Clerk know you would like to turn your camera on once you are called to speak.

Written Comments:

Please submit public comments to Planning Staff before the meeting via email to [email protected]. Please include your full name, city of residence and agenda item you are commenting on.

Planning Commission
Agenda - August 10, 2026

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.

Planning Commission
Agenda - August 10, 2026

A. CALL TO ORDER
B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
C. LAND ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Before we begin, we would like to acknowledge the Ohlone people, who are the traditional custodians of this land. We pay our respects to the Ohlone elders, past, present, and future, who call this place, Ohlone Land, the land that Pinole sits upon, their home. We are proud to continue their tradition of coming together and growing as a community. We thank the Ohlone community for their stewardship and support, and we look forward to strengthening our ties as we continue our relationship of mutual respect and understanding.

D. ROLL CALL
E. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD
The public may address the Planning Commission on items that are within its jurisdiction and not otherwise listed on the agenda. Planning Commissioners may discuss the matter brought to their attention, but by State law (Ralph M. Brown Act), action must be deferred to a future meeting. Time allowed: four (4) minutes each.

F. MEETING MINUTES:

1. Planning Commission Minutes for July 13, 2026
G. PUBLIC HEARINGS
At the beginning of an item, the Chair will read the description of that item as stated on the Agenda. The City Staff will then give a brief presentation of the proposed project. The Commission may then ask Staff questions about the item.

For those items listed as Public Hearings, the Chair will open the public hearing and ask the applicant if they wish to make a presentation. Those persons in favor of the project will then be given an opportunity to speak followed by those who are opposed to the project. The applicant will then be given an opportunity for rebuttal.

The Public Hearing will then be closed and the Commission may discuss the item amongst themselves and ask questions of Staff. The Commission will then vote to approve, deny, approve in a modified form, or continue the matter to a later date for a decision. The Chair will announce the Commission's decision and advise the audience of the appeal procedure.

Note: No Public Hearings will begin after 11:00 p.m. Items still remaining on the agenda after 11:00 p.m. will be held over to the next meeting.

1. Pinole Shores II Entitlements Extension
H. OLD BUSINESS
I. NEW BUSINESS
J. CITY PLANNER'S/COMMISSIONER'S REPORT
K. COMMUNICATIONS
L. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD (CONTINUED FROM ITEM E.)
Open only to members of the public who did not speak under the first Citizens to Be Heard Agenda Item.

The public may address the Planning Commission on items that are within its jurisdiction and not otherwise

Planning Commission
Agenda - August 10, 2026

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: four (4) minutes each.

M. NEXT MEETING(S)

1. Planning Commission Regular Meeting on September 14, 2026 at 7:00PM N. ADJOURNMENT
I hereby certify under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing Agenda was posted on the bulletin board at the main entrance of Pinole City Hall, 2131 Pear Street Pinole, CA, and on the City’s website, not less than 72 hours prior to the meeting date set forth on this agenda. _______________________
David Hanham
Planning Manager
POSTED: _______

1 July 13, 2026
1 DRAFT
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 F.1.

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-
2 3
3 ABSTAIN: Huey, Lam-Julian, Martinez
4 5 G. PUBLIC HEARINGS
6 7 1. UP26-0001 Tranquility Martial Arts
8 9 Associate Planner Justin Shiu provided a PowerPoint presentation for UP26-0001 for 10 Tranquility Martial Arts. He recommended the Planning Commission adopt Resolution 26- 11 07, with Exhibit A: Conditions of Approval, approving UP26-0001, a Conditional Use Permit 12 application providing for the establishment of a martial arts school at 1573 Tara Hills Drive. 13 14 Responding to questions from the Planning Commission, Messiers Hanham and Shiu 15 clarified the following:
16 17 • Acknowledged a condition could be imposed for drop-off and pick-up and require 18 members not to block parked vehicles when dropping off students to the martial arts 19 academy; the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) could be revoked for non-compliance 20 with the conditions of approval; the Commission may require a review of the CUP in 21 one year to determine if there had been any complaints, or language could be added 22 to Condition 7 of Exhibit A, Planning Commission Resolution 26-07 Conditions of 23 Approval. Acknowledged the request that such language be added to Condition 7. 24 (Martinez)
25 26 • Acknowledged a request to amend Condition 4 and require more trash cans be made 27 available on-site and maintained given the proximity of the middle school and the 28 anticipated influx of students. (Lam-Julian)
29 30 • The use of amplified sound could include the use of a speaker system or music 31 pumped through those systems that could be loud enough to impact nearby tenants; 32 staff was aware of no established decibel level limit, and any issues related to noise 33 could be an issue raised after a one-year review of the CUP. (Huey) 34 35 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
36 37 Roper Macaraeg, Applicant and Head Instructor, Tranquility Martial Arts, explained it was 38 his dream to open a school and he was now in the position to do so. He would ensure 39 safety during drop-off and pick-up and that parents were made aware of the parking 40 requirements. In terms of the decibel level at the school, amplified sound through the use 41 of speakers would be used only during exhibitions and would not be loud enough to impact 42 the neighbors and would likely occur when the nearby dry cleaners was closed. He stated 43 he had been practicing martial arts since he was ten years old, had been teaching for the 44 past 20 plus years and taught various martial arts.
45 46 Commissioner Menis referenced Condition 6, as written, and asked whether the applicant 47 planned to have music playing in the background during the day-to-day operations. 48

4 July 13, 2026
1 Mr. Macaraeg clarified the day-to-day operations would be the traditional dojo, where the 2 students would practice and he may yell at the students from time to time if they were not 3 listening.
4 Commissioner Menis again referenced Condition 6, which stated: Amplified Sound – The 5 applicant shall not include amplified sounds or music in operations, without prior approval 6 by the Planning Manager, and asked if that same process would be followed for special 7 events.
8 9 Mr. Hanham stated the applicant could email staff of any special events, and as long as 10 they were within the hours of operation that would be permitted. If complaints were to 11 occur, the applicant would be notified and if complaints continued, the CUP could be 12 brought back to the Planning Commission for additional modification of the condition. 13 14 Commissioner Lam-Julian asked about the number of families in the martial arts studio’s 15 current location.
16 17 Mr. Macaraeg advised the current location was located in space they rented at Legends 18 Dance Studio and Event Center in the City of Hercules, and which involved 18 people 19 including his family. Some students came to practice and moved on to other activities. 20 He planned to limit the number of students per class since he did not want the children to 21 run out of space when practicing and would likely limit the class size to 14 active students. 22 There would be a space for an open mat for students to practice on their own, as shown 23 on the floor plan. He planned for their 18 current students to move to the new location in 24 Pinole.
25 26 Anthony Vossbrink commented that if the CUP were to be conditioned for a review in one 27 year to address concerns raised about the drop-off and pick up periods, he asked if the 28 same condition would be imposed on Trader Joe’s or another martial arts studio located 29 on San Pablo Avenue, which were also heavily trafficked businesses. He suggested the 30 condition not just be imposed on this business and that there be some fairness provided. 31 He recommended the drop-off and pick-up periods be limited to two to three minutes. He 32 also asked if the business was self-insured in the event of a trip and fall accident in the 33 business or at the front door, and asked whether liability would be borne by the landlord, 34 business owner or the City of Pinole. He also asked whether the landlord could be asked 35 to clean-up the landscaping in the front area, which was in need of an upgrade and which 36 would help to attract other potential tenants.
37 38 Mr. Macaraeg appreciated the opportunity to bring the business to the City of Pinole. He 39 clarified he was a resident of Rodeo. He emphasized that child and student safety was 40 important for the school and himself, which was why he was limiting the number of 41 students per class. He reiterated he would ensure parents parked in such a way as to 42 keep the children safe and stated he had his own insurance as did the landlord, and he 43 also had a general disclaimer for his students.
44 45 Commissioner Martinez asked staff whether the landscaping could be addressed. 46 47 Mr. Hanham advised staff could speak with the property owner, but in this case he clarified 48 it was not the Appian 80 Center property owner, but another property owner staff would 49 have to speak to address the need to clean up the front landscaping. 50

5 July 13, 2026
1 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
2 3 Commissioner Martinez thanked the applicant for bringing the business to Pinole. He was 4 excited to see a new business and looked forward to it. 5 6 Commissioner Lam-Julian also welcomed the new business to Pinole. 7 8 Commissioner Huey congratulated the applicant on the expansion and for choosing the 9 City of Pinole. Her brother and godson participated in martial arts, and she had seen the 10 benefits martial arts had for new scholars and was excited to have this opportunity in 11 Pinole.
12 13 Commissioner Menis also thanked the applicant for bringing a martial arts studio to Pinole, 14 particularly in a shopping center that could use new businesses and revitalization of the 15 area.
16 17 Chairperson Sandoval also thanked the applicant for choosing the City of Pinole, wished 18 the business the best of luck and welcomed any input on what could be done for the 19 Planning Commission to be supportive.
20 21 Mr. Macaraeg thanked the Planning Commission for its time and effort and to staff for their 22 assistance during the application process.
23 24 Chairperson Sandoval offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Huey to approve 25 Resolution 26-07, as shown.
26 27 On the motion, Commissioner Martinez requested an addition to Condition 7, for a review 28 of the CUP after one year to determine whether there were any complaints regarding the 29 pick-up and drop-off, and if clearing the one-year hurdle, it would extend to a review of the 30 CUP to a three-or-five-year term.
31 32 Commissioner Lam-Julian recommended Condition 4 be amended to require regular 33 maintenance of the trash bins.
34 35 MOTION to adopt Resolution 26-07, with Exhibit A: Conditions of Approval, a Resolution 36 of the Planning Commission of the City of Pinole, County of Contra Costa, State of 37 California, Approving Conditional Use Permit UP26-0001 to Establish a Martial Arts 38 School at 1573 Tara Hills Drive, subject to:
39 40 • Modification to Condition 4, to require regular maintenance of trash. 41 42 • Modification to Condition 7, to include a review of the CUP after one year. 43 44 MOTION: Sandoval SECONDED: Menis APPROVED: 7-0
45 46 Chairperson Sandoval identified the 10-day appeal process of a decision of the Planning 47 Commission in writing to the City Clerk.
48 49 H. OLD BUSINESS
50

6 July 13, 2026
1 1. Select Planning Commission Ad-Hoc Subcommittee
2 3 Mr. Hanham provided the staff memorandum dated July 13, 2026. He recommended the 4 Planning Commission select a member to serve on the Planning Commission Ad-Hoc 5 Subcommittee for the 2026-2027 term. He clarified Commissioner Menis and Vice6 Chairperson Uch currently served on the Ad-Hoc Subcommittee, with a third 7 Commissioner to be appointed. There would likely be one more set of meetings to review 8 the Outdoor Dining Regulations, with no additional meetings foreseen in the near future 9 unless there were major policies the Planning Commission or City Council wanted to 10 review.
11 12 Commissioner Menis understood three members of the Planning Commission already 13 reviewed the Outdoor Dining Regulations, and if adding a third member to the Ad-Hoc 14 Subcommittee could exceed the parameters of the Brown Act for that project. He asked 15 staff to provide clarification.
16 17 Mr. Hanham clarified the next steps for the Outdoor Dining Regulations and the Objective 18 Development Design Standards (ODDS) were to bring them to the Planning Commission 19 and not the Ad-Hoc Subcommittee. There would be no issues with the Brown Act. 20 21 Commissioner Menis understood without those items there was nothing planned for the 22 Ad-Hoc Subcommittee in the near future.
23 24 Mr. Hanham commented in most cases the Ad-Hoc Subcommittee was used for the review 25 of major documents, policy changes, General Plan changes, rezones or Comprehensive 26 Design Reviews. He corrected his prior comments and stated there were no plans for the 27 next six months to bring something forward and he anticipated the Ad-Hoc Subcommittee 28 may be asked to meet one to two times over the next year. When asked, he commented 29 that in most cases, he would announce whether an Ad-Hoc Subcommittee meeting was 30 needed at a Planning Commission meeting at least a week before the meeting was 31 scheduled. Ad-Hoc Subcommittee meetings could be held once a quarter and he clarified 32 the Ad-Hoc Subcommittee was not a standing committee, with meetings to be scheduled 33 as needed.
34 35 Chairperson Sandoval was willing to serve on the Ad-Hoc Subcommittee if no one else 36 was able.
37 38 Commissioner Martinez expressed interest in serving on the Ad-Hoc Subcommittee. 39 40 MOTION to nominate Commissioner Martinez to serve on the Ad-Hoc Subcommittee. 41 42 MOTION: Sandoval SECONDED: Uch APPROVED: 7-0
43 44 2. Consideration of Adding Another Citizens to be Heard Agenda Item 45 46 Mr. Hanham provided the staff memorandum dated July 13, 2026. He recommended the 47 Planning Commission consider and discuss inclusion of another Citizen’s to be Heard item 48 on the Planning Commission agenda and provide direction to staff on modifying the 49 agenda.
50

7 July 13, 2026
1 2 Commissioner Martinez asked whether the item was needed since the Planning 3 Commission typically had only one to two public comments. Possibly a six-month pilot 4 program could be considered to see whether a second Citizens to be Heard item would 5 be used. If added to the agenda, he asked if someone spoke at the first Citizens to be 6 Heard, they not be permitted to speak at the second Citizens to be Heard at the end of 7 the meeting.
8 9 Commissioner Lam-Julian commented that several community members had commented 10 about adding a second public comment period, with many working residents, finding it 11 challenging to make public comment. Creating this opportunity to ask questions and 12 engage with the Planning Commission was important. She wanted to understand why the 13 Planning Commission would not allow people to speak more than once, while recognizing 14 some people may take advantage, but for many just learning about making pubic comment 15 and being aware of the Planning Commission and City Council, those people were trying 16 to learn and there should be more opportunities for the public to engage. 17 18 Commissioner Lam-Julian also suggested six months for a pilot program was short given 19 how the City worked and once in place with the City Clerk and in documentation, extending 20 the pilot program to a year should be considered. She pointed out that with fewer projects, 21 the Planning Commission meetings may be shorter and she would support allowing 22 people to speak more than once.
23 24 Commissioner Huey asked whether or not there was anything on the record where a 25 member of the public requested more speaking time, specifically with the Planning 26 Commission.
27 28 Mr. Hanham reported there had been speakers who had gone over the five-minute public 29 comment time limit for items that may or may not pertain to Planning Commission 30 business, and he was unaware of any complaints about public comments not being 31 allowed to be made. He clarified Citizens to be Heard was for items not on the meeting 32 agenda. This item had come up since the City Council provided two opportunities for 33 Citizens to be Heard on its meeting agenda and some people had taken advantage of the 34 second opportunity on the City Council meeting agenda to provide comments. 35 36 Commissioner Huey asked if there was a comparison or study of other Planning 37 Commissions in the region that also had two Citizens to be Heard comment periods. 38 39 Mr. Hanham was unaware of any other Planning Commission that had two public 40 comment periods.
41 42 Commissioner Menis clarified with Mr. Hanham for the City Council that there were 43 instances where people who were unable to speak during the first Citizens to be Heard on 44 the meeting agenda, had taken advantage of the opportunity to speak during the second 45 public comment period before the end of the meeting, which was why staff recommended 46 speakers be allowed to take advantage of either one or the other Citizens to be Heard, 47 either at the beginning or at the end of the meeting, consistent with City Council policy. 48 49
50

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

PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORT G.1.

DATE: AUGUST 10, 2026
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: DAVID HANHAM, PLANNING MANAGER
SUBJECT: PINOLE SHORES II ENTITLEMENTS EXTENSION

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing and adopt Resolution 26-08, approving an extension through June 10, 2027 for the entitlements adopted via Resolution 24-02 for the Pinole Shores II development project located at 850 San Pablo Avenue (APN 402-230-024)

BACKGROUND
In July of 1999, the Pinole Redevelopment Agency (the "Agency") adopted an Economic Development Strategy Plan. The Plan focused on blighted parcels along San Pablo Avenue that could be used to strengthen the City’s Industrial Park. The Plan identified the subject site at 836-848 San Pablo Avenue, the former Anthony Auto Wreckers site, as a site for future redevelopment. The project area is bordered to the south by the Pinole Shores I project, which includes two light industrial buildings, a building that is used for ancillary commercial uses (a restaurant, a commercial kitchen for small business and catering, and a gym). It is bordered to the east by an existing materials yard, to the north by the BNSF Railroad and Bay Trail, and to the west by existing residential developments. The Pinole Shores I project is also located on the original Anthony Auto Wreckers site. Upon purchase of the site, the Agency undertook environmental clean-up due to the prior use. Upon completion of the clean-up, in 2002, the Agency received a Covenant and Environmental Restriction from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board that restricts the use of the site to industrial, commercial or office use. Figure 1 shows the location of the Pinole Shores II Project.

In April 2005, the Agency approved a Disposition & Development Agreement (DDA) with the Panattoni Development Group for the development of the Pinole Shores Business Park at 836- 848 San Pablo Avenue. The project was designed to provide ownership opportunities for small business owners by creating approximately 149,871 square feet of light industrial business condominiums that could be used for manufacturing, office, warehousing, wholesale distribution, and retail purposes.

The proposed project has three major components: Comprehensive Design Review, a Conditional Use Permit, and a Parcel Map. The Comprehensive Design Review will review the design of the building, the landscape and parking plan, and overall consistency with the Pinole Shores I project. The Conditional Use Permit will determine if wholesale distribution will be allowed at the project site and if a reduction of parking may be granted. The Parcel Map will review the consolidation of five existing parcels through a Parcel Map into one parcel. See

Figure 2 is the current approved site plan and landscaping for the new development.

Figure 1: Project Location
Figure 2-- Approved Site Plan

The project would construct one new 43-foot-high “tilt-up” building. Tilt-up construction refers to a series of concrete panels which are poured into forms on the ground and then tilted up into place to comprise a building's exterior walls. The project proposes a total of 116,730 square feet of warehouse area and 4,996 square feet of office space. The project also includes the installation of parking, lighting, landscaping, and other ancillary improvements to accommodate the proposed development.

Uses and Layout
The one Building will be located in the middle of the property facing northeast to southwest, as stated above, will contain 116,730 square feet of warehouse/research/development/industrial space and 2,498 square feet of office space. The building will have roll-up doors and parking for 18 trucks at the loading docks. The building will also have 2,498 square feet of office space on the ground floor and 2,500 square feet on a mezzanine level. The ground-floor office spaces in each building will include a conference room, two private offices, a kitchen area, and four bathrooms, two accessible from the office and two from the warehouse area. Each building contains two staircases, one internal to the office space and connecting the ground floor with the mezzanine, and the other within the warehouse space, providing a connection from the warehouse floor to the mezzanine level.

Table 1 identifies the applications and entitlements granted for the construction of the Pinole Shores II Project. Table 2 outlines the major chronological milestones of the project.

Table 1 – Summary of Project Entitlements Issued for Pinole Square Project Items Entitlement Granted – May 8, 2023 Corresponding Resolution
Comprehensive Design
Review
Adopt a Comprehensive Design
Review for two buildings totaling
117,000 sf.

Reso 23-04
Notice Exemption
w/Studies
Adopt a Notice of Exemption in
accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act
Reso 23-04
Conditional Use Permit Adopt a Conditional Use Permit for a reduction of Parking and the ability
to have a Distribution Use
Reso 23-04
Parcel Map Adopt a Parcel Map to merge 5
parcels into one large parcel.

Reso 23-04

Table 2- Chronological Order of Pinole Shores Project II>> Date Item Approving Body Decision
1/22 Applicant submitted an Development
Application for a Parcel Map and
Comprehensive Design Review
n/a
4/22 Applicant submitted a Conditional Use
Application for reduced parking and the
ability to have a whole distribution use
added to the mix of project potentials
n/a
5/8/2023 Planning Commission Meeting The Planning Commission adopted Resolution 23-04 approving the
Comprehensive Design Review
and Parcel Map.
11/23 Applicant a new application for a
Comprehensive Design Review and
Conditional Use Permit to be able to
combine the two buildings into one large
building based on market research
n/a
2 nd Entitlement due to Building Change from two buildings to one building. Project was entitled June 10, 2024.

Conditional Use Permit Adopt a Conditional Use Permit for a reduction of Parking and the ability
to have a Distribution Use
Reso 24-02
Comprehensive Design
Review
Adopt a Comprehensive Design
Review for one building totaling
117,000 sf
Reso 24-02
Notice of Exemption
w/Studies
Adopt a Notice of Exemption in
accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act
Reso 24-02

6/10/2024 Planning Commission Meeting The Planning Commission adopted Resolution 24-02 approving the
Conditional Use Permit and
Comprehensive Design Review
6/10/2024
to
current
Staff working with the Applicant to work
on Conditions of Approval and potential
end users.
n/a
5/12/2026 Applicant applies for Extension n/a

REVIEW AND ANALYSIS
Framework for Extension
The following provides an overview of the framework for this extension request, as prescribed by the Municipal Code.

1. Permit Expiration. Section 17.10.100 (A) of the Pinole Municipal Code (PMC) states:

Unless a condition of approval or other provision of this title establishes a different time limit, any permit not exercised within one (1) year of approval shall expire and become void, except where an extension of time is approved in compliance with division C. below.

With a City Council approval date of June 10, 2024, the Pinole Shores II entitlements would have expired on June 10, 2026, unless the permit was “exercised,” or an extension was requested and granted.

2. Exercise of Permit. Section 17.10.100 (B) of the PMC states:

The exercise of a permit occurs when the property owner has performed substantial work and incurred substantial liabilities in good faith reliance upon such permit(s). A permit may be otherwise exercised pursuant to a condition of the permit or corresponding legal agreement that specifies that other substantial efforts or expenditures constitute exercise of the permit.

Based on the permitting history (see Table 2), City staff determined that the entitlements granted on June 10, 2024, have not yet been exercised, and an extension is required in order to keep the permits valid.

3. Maximum Time Allowed for Extension. Section 17.10.100 (C) of the PMC allows:

The Planning Commission may grant a maximum of three years from the original approval date for extension of the entitlements (i.e., through June 10, 2027).

4. Process and Procedures. Section 17.10.100 (C) of the PMC states

1. Process. The same approving authority that granted the original permit may extend the period within which the exercise of a permit must occur. Notice and/or public hearing shall be provided in the same manner as for the original permit. An application for extension shall be filed not less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date of the permit, along with appropriate fees and application submittal materials.

2. Conditions. The permit, as extended, may be conditioned to comply with any development standards that may have been enacted since the permit was initially approved.

3. Permit extension findings. The extension may be granted only when the designated approving authority finds that the original permit findings can be made and there are no changed circumstances or there has been diligent pursuit to exercise the permit that warrants such an extension.

The process for an extension requires that the review authority for an extension request is the original body that acted on the permit, and therefore, a request for an extension from the Planning Commission is required. During consideration of the extension request, the permit may be conditioned to comply with any development standards enacted since the permit was initially approved. Additionally, to approve the time extension, the Council must find that the original permit findings can be made and there are no changed circumstances or there has been diligent pursuit to exercise the permit that warrants such an extension.

Analysis of Request for Extension
The applicant has been working with staff since June 2024 to determine if their entitlements had been exercised, or if an extension was required. Based on the permitting history (see Table 2), City staff determined that the entitlements granted on June 10, 2024, by Resolution 202 have not yet been exercised, and an extension is required in order to keep the permits valid. The applicant submitted materials for a formal request for an extension of the entitlements on May 8, 2026. The request indicates that the COVID-19 pandemic, in addition to increasing construction costs, international supply chain issues, and a changing retail landscape, are the primary drivers for the request for an extension of time. They also indicated that they are continuing to negotiate with Safeway on project terms.

The Planning Commission can approve the extension based on the finding of fact that the original permit findings can be made, and no circumstances have changed to the Project.

Staff supports the Applicant’s request for an extension. While the delays in this project are unfortunate, it is not uncommon for projects of all types and sizes to have suffered delays during the last two years as a result of working out requirements with outside agencies and the development of new Staff to prepare plans and specifications. These related impacts, as well as supply chain disruptions and/or difficulty with financing.”

ATTACHMENTS
A. PC Resolution 26-08
B. 24-02 Reso - Pinole Shores II
C. Plan Set received 3.21.24
D. Planning response letter received 3.21.24
E. Pinole Shores II Design Review and CUP

PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 26-08

RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PINOLE APPROVING AN EXTENSION UNTIL JUNE 10, 2027 OF THE ENTITLEMENTS ADOPTED VIA RESOLUTIONS 24-02 FOR THE PINOLE SHORES II PROJECT (DR23- 12 AND CUP23-05) LOCATED AT 850 SAN PABLO AVENUE (APN:402-230-024) WHEREAS, John Diemer and Hector Vinas, on behalf of OneCore Global, Inc (Applicant) proposed to develop the Pinole Shores II Project; and WHEREAS, the Project site is located at 850 San Pablo Avenue (APN 402-230- 024); and
WHEREAS, the site is located in the Office Industrial Mixed Use (OIMU) District within the Service Sub-Area of the San Pablo Avenue corridor of the Three Corridors Specific Plan: and
WHEREAS, on June 10, 2024 under Resolution 24-02, the Applicant received approval of comprehensive design review (DR23-12) and conditional use permit for wholesale distribution and parking reduction (CUP23-05), to construct one building totaling 119,228 square feet; and
WHEREAS, there were delays due to Con-Fire comments, as well replacements of the original Architect and Engineers for the Projects; and WHEREAS, OneCore Global requested an extension for the entitlements that were approved on June 10, 2024; and

WHEREAS, in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Planning Commission adopted, Resolution 24-02, a Notice of Exemption w/Studies, which are hereby incorporated by reference; and
WHEREAS, no further environmental review is necessary for the project since the scope of the project has not changed or been altered since the previous adoption of the Notice of Exemption; and
WHEREAS, a notice of the public hearing to consider the proposed extension was distributed to all property owners within 300 feet of the project site and a notice was published in the July 31, 2026 edition of the West County Times; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a duly noticed public hearing,

ATTACHMENT A

considered all public comments received, the presentation by City staff, the staff report, and all other pertinent documents regarding the proposed request; and NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the above recitals are true and correct and made part of this resolution.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Pinole grants an extension of the entitlements until June 10, 2027, for the Pinole Shores II development project, as contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 2024-08, and makes the following findings:

1. The original permit findings, as made in City Council Resolution Nos. 2024-08 can still be made, and there have been no changed circumstances which prevent the Planning Commission from making such findings again;

2. The Applicant has diligently, under current circumstances, pursued exercising the permits granted by Resolution 24-02 and an extension of those permits is warranted.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the conditions of approval for Planning Commission Resolution 24-02 shall remain in full force and effect.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Pinole on this 10th day of August 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:
__________________________________
Gabriel Sandoval, Chair 2026-2027

ATTEST:
________________________________
David Hanham, Planning Manager

ATTACHMENT B

PINOLE SHORES PHASE 2
830-848 SAN PABLO AVE. PINOLE, CALIFORNIA
FOR:

GRP SHORES, LLC
·
·
·

ATTACHMENT C

102
105
IOb
101
124
121
135
140
I4b
14'1
150
151
152
153
154

KEYNOTES
PROPOSED DRIVEi--lAY, PER JURl5DIGTIONAL STANDARDS
GONGRETE PAVINe
PROPOSED LANDSC.APED AREA. SEE LAND5GAPINc5 PLANS
(N) SIDEWALK. SEE LAND5GAPIN5 PLANS FOR DEGORATIVE TREATMENT "4HERE OGC.UR5
EXTERIOR GONGRETE LANDINe
GONGRETE STAIR ON GRADE. TYPE "G"
PAINTED GONGRETE TILT-LIP SC.REEN i--lALL OR TRASH ENGLOSURE !;,!ALL. PAINT BOTH SIDES AND TOP OF !;,!ALL. SEE ARGHITEGTURAL DRAHINc55 FOR C.OLOR 5GHEDULE.

TRASH ENGLOSURE VII/ ROOF GOVERINe
2 POSITION BIKE RAGK BY "DERO ROUNDRAGK" - PARKING FOR 1 BIKES PROVIDED PER GITY REGUIRMENT OF 5511 OF TOTAL PARKINS 5PAGE5
GONGRETE TRUGK RAMP VIII 42" HIGH GONGRETE TILT-UP GUARD ON OPEN 5IDE(5).

PAINT ALL SIDES OF GUARD i--lA;,6 AND HANDRAILS. SEE ARGHITEGTURAL DRAHINc55 FOR GOLOR 5GHEDULE.

STEEL PIPE ElOLLARD PROTEGTION POST
20' HIDE MIN. FIRE LANE HITH 14' VERTIGAL GLEARANGE. DRIVEi--lAY 15 EITHER 30' OR 24' HIDE ALL AROUND SUILDING AND HAS :.e• MIN INSIDE AND 4e' MIN OUTSIDE TURNING RADIUS TO MEET FIRE TRUGK MANUVERING REGUIRMENT5.

EDGE OF :20' HIDE FIRE LANE
FULL SIZE TRACTOR TRAILER PARKINe 5PAGE
FULL SIZE TRACTOR/TRAILER TURNINc5 ARG
;'
;'
;' ;' /
;' ;' \, j>-��
/ '(
/
62 I
I----,
t----1
1----
I
1 b:ii'-11"
I
1--
-
-1
. I .1
1---- .
55 54
47 46
la () z►
la() z►
I <(
�
IL
t
I
151
I
I
@
•
/
/ /
•
•
/
/
/
/
,,, 152
/
/
,,, 151
•
/
•
•
/
/
•
•
/
•
18 ci
������=.i::!�EV _
G
2 121t---- FIRE LANE
•
•
•
----1;� ---------------------:--� ,.� :·· '� .. -
•
•
•
§ ��;'I< MOVEMENTS ANt, f=IRE LANE SITE FLAN
•
•
•
;'
;'
/
•
•
•
•
•
•
f62
'/
------------
•
•
"( I
-...J
p lJ...
o,
I !\1;,
151

FIRE LANE - -
•
•
•
118
\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
L---"\ \
I
�I "I0'-8"
I
I
I
I
I
.

I .

I
I
\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ) :

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
N
-
"'" -
r G
r
II)
SITE LEcSENt,
LANDSC.APE AREA
BUILDINc5 AREA
:♦:•:•:•:•:•:•:•: VEBETATED FLO�-THRU PLANTER
•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:• BIOSWALE -SEE C.IVIL �INGS
■ ■ • PATH OF TRAVEL
- - - - PROPERTY LINE
- - - - - - 20' 1-<IDE (MINJ FIRE LANE • DOC,K HI5H DOOR • DRIVE THRJ.J DOOR PARKING SPAc;E LABl:LS,
SEE SHEET A-I.I FOR PARKING GALGULATION5
FOR REGIUIRED AND PROVIDED c.oMPAc;T, EV
READY, EVC,5, VANPOOL/GLEAN AIR AND
AC,C,E55I6LE SPAc;ES
C, -WMF'Ac;T SPAc;E
EVR - ELEC,TRIC, Vl:Hle,LE READY SPAc;ES
EVC,5 - aa TR.IC, VEHIC,LE C,HAA6INe

STATION PROVIDED
EVVA - ElEC,TRIC, VEHIC,LE VAN AC,C,E55I6LE

EVHC, - ELEC,TRIC, VEHIC,LE STANDARD
AC,C,E55I6LE
e,AN AN - c;LEAN AIR / VANPOOL
HC,- STANDARD AC,C,E55I6LE SPAc;E
FIRE DEPARTMENT NOTE:

FIRE DEPARTMENT GOA WILL BE

INGLUDED IN PLAN SET WHEN
THEY ARE PROVIDED BY GGGFD.
16':9'

STANDARD PARKING STALL

PER C,ITY REGIUIREMENT
TYP. AC,C,ESSIBLE PARKINe
STALL WITH 5'-0" AC,C,!:55

AISLE PER
C,BC, 2022 116-502.2
TYP. VAN AC,C,ESSIBLE
AC,C,E55
PARl<INe STALL WITH �'-0"
AISLE PER C.BC,
2022 116-502.2
�1 L_____:!
j lt'-9' j

C,LEAN AIR PARKING ST ALL,

IN THE PAINT USED FOR

STALL STRIPING, THE
FOLLOWINe C,HAR.Ac;TERS
SUC,H THAT THE LOl'<ER

EDGE OF THE LAST WORD
ALl5N5 WITH THE END OF
STALL STRIPING AND 15

VISIBLE BENEATH A

PARKED VEHIC,LE,

GLEAN AIR/

VANPOOL/EV
PER GALeREEN 5�.106.5.2.1
I

ELEC,TRIC, VEHIC,LE
•
iB
e,HARelNG STATION,
•
�
� EVC,5 STALL SHALL
• PROVIDE SURFAc;E
� 'I MARKING STATINe,
�; • ii i EV C,HARelNe
� � ONLY
....,....,.....,...........,.....,,,, .
� I
f IN LETTER 12" Hl5H MINIMUM . P........,_--"'-.,___,.....::., THE LOWER EDeE OF THE � .h LAST !'<ORD AlleNS WITH
I g 1;1 THE END OF STALL STRIPINe
D 1------� • • AND 15 VISIBLE BENEATH A
PARKED VEHIC,LE.

Ii PER e,ee, 2022 I I6-bl2.q
NOTE,
FI/T\JRE C,HARelNe 5PAc;E5
GIUALIFY A5 DE5I5NA TED
PARl<INe AS DESC,RIBED IN
5EC,TION 5.106.5.2 SHALL
PROVIDE SURFAc;E
MARKING STATINe,

GLEAN AIR/

VANPOOL/EV
TRACTO�RAILER MANUVERIN<5
0 �--
PATH or DVERHN«;
,:;::�...,==�==----=-....;==j;PiiATfiiH"ilFi1ri1RoiN�T�\11£ELiiiir"aaa:_ � �==�-

TRUGK MANUVERING DIAGRAM SHOWN REPPRESENTS

LARGEST LEGAL TRAGTOR AND TRAILER SIZES THAT
GOULD BE EXPEGTED ON SITE. TYPIGALL Y THE
TRAILERS WILL BE SHORTER THAN THE 51' FEET SHOWN
HERE. THE ARGS ON THIS DIAGRAM ARE FROM A v-lB-61

AASHTO DIAGRAM AND USED ON OUR SITE PLAN TO
GHEGK MANUVERING GLEARANGES.
rsvl5lone �
lllt4
arehlteete, plannere
.2"150 eamlno dlablo
eulte 1
10 i'lalnut creek., ea
"145"11
("1.25) .256--604.2
�u
� � 00 �
< < �
::C:ooZ
�
00 �
� � �
�o�
� =� 0 00 u
= � "' 00 � � ��o
� .. z o�== zo
� � �
TRUCI<.

Q
N
Q
�
00 �
Q
"'
�
Q
"'
�
Q
"'
�
I
Q
N
I
N
Q
z
�
<
MOVE:ME:NTS AND
!='I� LANE:

SITE: PL.AN
cira,;n
�H
c.neG-w
�H
"'"''"'
OS!leil:20:24
ac.ale

AS SHOV'IN
J'"' no.
:2soc=i
&neet
A2.IA

3 2
1

C1.00

BUILDING (119,226 S.F.) FF ELEV.=73.7
18 DOCK (HI-DOORS) C1.01

IMP-A
FF ELEV.=73.7 IMP-B IMP-C

IMP-D IMP-F IMP-I IMP-H IMP-G
BUILDING (119,226 S.F.)
18 DOCK (HI-DOORS) IMP-J
IMP-E
DMA-B1
DMA-A1
DMA-F1 DMA-B2 DMA-J1 DMA-B2 DMA-C1 DMA-C1 DMA-B2 DMA-C1 DMA-B2 DMA-B3 DMA-B3 DMA-C2 DMA-C2 DMA-D1 DMA-E1 DMA-D1DMA-D1 DMA-G2 DMA-G2 DMA-G1 DMA-I1 DMA-H1 DMA-H1 DMA-J2 DMA-J2 DMA-I2 DMA-I2 DMA-I2 DMA-I2 DMA-I2
DMA-H2
DMA-H2
DMA-H2 DMA-H2
DMA-H2
DMA-H2
DMA-H2 DMA-H2
DMA-G3
DMA-G3
DMA-G3
DMA-G3
DMA-J2 DMA-X2 DMA-X1 DMA-X1DMA-X1 DMA-X1
DMA-X1 DMA-X1 DMA-B3
DMA-B1 DMA-E1
DMA-E2 DMA-B2 DMA-X2 C2.01

C2.02

BUILDING (119,226 S.F.) FF ELEV.=73.7
18 DOCK (HI-DOORS) C3.01

BUILDING (119,226 S.F.) FF ELEV.=73.7
18 DOCK (HI-DOORS) C3.02

BUILDING (119,226 S.F.) FF ELEV.=73.7
18 DOCK (HI-DOORS) C3.03

S W E N PRELIMINARY PLANT LIST CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE
L-1

S W E N CONCEPTUAL TREE
L-1.1 PLANTING PLAN

S W E N PRELIMINARY PLANT LIST PARKING STALL SHADING CALCULATIONS PARKING STALL SHADE L-2

L-3 PLANTING NOTES PRELIMINARY PLANT LIST

L-4 PRELIMINARY PLANT LIST

S W E N HYDRO-ZONE LAYOUT
L-5

L-6

W4 W4 W4 W4 W4 W4 W4 W4 S2 S2 S3 S3 S3 S3 S3 S5 S5 S2 S3 W4 W4 W4 1.1 1.7 1.2 1.4 1.7 1.8 2.1 2.5 3.0 1.7 1.8 1.8 2.0 2.5 3.3 4.1 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.9 2.2 2.9 3.6 3.8 2.9 2.7 2.5 1.7 1.4 1.5 1.9 2.1 2.4 2.7 3.0 2.9 2.3 3.6 4.0 3.1 1.2 1.4 1.7 2.1 2.3 2.4 2.6 2.6 2.3 1.8 5.9 5.8 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.4 2.3 1.9 1.1 6.6 8.5 1.4 1.7 2.0 2.3 2.4 2.4 2.2 1.9 1.6 1.3 1.1 4.7 7.5 8.5 2.4 2.7 2.7 2.5 2.2 2.0 1.7 1.5 1.3 1.3 4.6 5.9 3.4 3.1 2.2 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.7 1.6 1.7 1.8 2.0 2.3 2.9 1.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7 2.0 3.7 3.9 1.7 1.9 1.2 1.5 1.7 2.2 3.0 3.4 3.1 2.2 2.2 1.3 1.5 1.7 2.0 2.3 2.4 2.1 2.8 3.1 1.3 1.5 1.6 1.8 1.9 1.8 1.5 1.0 3.2 4.1 4.1 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.4 1.0 5.3 6.3 1.2 1.4 1.5 1.3 4.8 7.9 1.3 1.3 1.2 3.6 6.4 1.1 1.1 1.0 2.5 1.1 1.1 2.5 3.6 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.0 1.5 2.1 1.4 1.6 1.6 1.4 1.0 1.3 1.4 1.6 1.8 1.8 1.1 1.4 1.7 2.1 2.3 1.1 1.4 1.7 2.3 3.0 1.1 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.7 3.7 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.6 1.9 2.7 3.8 1.2 1.4 1.5 1.8 2.4 3.3 1.2 1.4 1.4 1.7 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.7 2.0 2.1 1.3 1.4 1.7 1.8 1.7 1.4 1.6 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.5 1.4 1.2 1.3 1.7 1.8 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.2 1.8 2.3 2.7 1.3 1.5 1.6 1.5 3.2 4.0 4.4 1.2 1.5 1.7 1.8 1.6 3.6 5.7 7.0 1.1 1.5 1.8 2.0 2.0 3.4 6.2 9.0 1.1 1.5 1.8 5.1 8.0 8.9 1.6 1.9 2.7 3.5 3.4 5.8 6.9 5.4 1.6 2.0 3.0 4.0 2.2 3.6 4.6 4.0 3.0 1.6 1.9 2.8 3.8 1.3 2.4 3.1 3.1 2.6 1.5 1.8 2.5 3.0 1.6 2.2 2.4 2.1 2.0 1.5 1.8 2.2 2.3 1.5 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.5 1.7 1.9 1.8 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.8 1.9 1.5 1.7 1.7 1.4 1.2 1.4 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.4 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.8 2.2 2.5 2.5 1.4 1.4 2.2 2.5 2.3 2.7 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.0 2.3 2.6 2.7 2.7 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.2 2.4 2.6 2.7 2.6 1.6 1.8 1.8 1.5 2.2 2.3 2.4 1.2 1.5 1.9 2.2 2.0 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.3 1.6 2.0 2.6 2.7 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.3 1.7 2.1 3.1 3.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.7 2.3 3.5 4.0 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.3 1.7 2.2 3.2 1.3 1.6 2.1 1.5 1.7 2.1 1.4 1.6 2.4 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.3 1.3 1.7 2.2 1.7 1.9 2.0 2.0 1.2 1.5 2.0 2.1 1.8 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.3 1.7 2.1 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.3 1.3 1.6 1.9 1.7 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.8 1.9 2.0 1.5 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.5 1.8 2.3 1.6 1.1 1.3 1.6 1.9 2.8 2.2 1.4 1.1 1.4 1.8 2.6 2.2 1.7 1.2 1.1 1.4 1.8 1.9 1.6 1.3 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.6 1.8 2.1 2.3 1.9 1.5 1.3 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.4 2.8 1.7 2.0 1.8 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.9 2.2 2.5 2.2 1.4 1.3 1.2 2.2 1.7 1.3 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.6 1.7 1.6 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.7 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.4 1.3 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.2 1.3 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.1 1.4 1.6 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.9 1.9 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.7 1.9 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.0 1.9 1.9 1.8 2.0 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.7 2.6 2.3 2.1 2.7 3.3 3.8 3.5 2.9 2.9 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.6 1.5 1.6 1.8 2.1 2.3 2.6 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.1 2.3 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.9 1.6 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.6 1.6 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.0 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.3 1.9 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.1 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.4 2.5 2.4 2.1 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.9 2.3 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.5 2.3 2.0 1.7 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.8 2.1 2.4 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.2 1.8 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.1 1.9 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.1 2.0 1.9 1.9 1.9 2.3 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.3 2.1 2.1 2.0 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.4 2.2 2.2 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.6 2.3 2.2 2.8 2.8 2.9 2.7 2.4 2.3 2.8 2.8 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.7 2.5 2.3 2.9 2.5 3.0 3.0 2.3 1.7 2.1 2.6 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.7 1.9 1.9 1.6 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.3 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.6 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.7 1.9 1.3 1.4 1.6 2.0 2.3 1.3 1.4 1.9 2.5 2.9 1.4 1.5 2.0 2.9 3.3 1.4 1.5 1.9 2.6 2.9 1.4 1.5 1.8 2.2 2.4 1.4 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.1 1.4 1.6 1.8 1.9 2.0 1.4 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.0 1.4 1.5 1.7 2.0 2.2 1.5 1.5 1.9 2.3 2.6 1.5 1.5 2.1 2.8 3.2 1.5 1.6 2.1 2.9 3.2 1.6 1.6 1.9 2.4 2.7 1.7 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.9 1.9 2.1 2.0 1.9 1.9 1.7 2.2 2.1 2.0 1.8 1.6 2.3 2.2 2.0 1.8 1.5 2.7 2.6 2.5 2.0 1.6 3.1 3.3 3.1 2.4 1.8 3.3 3.3 3.2 2.6 1.9 1.8 1.8 2.4 2.3 2.0 2.3 2.1 2.2 1.9 2.7 1.3 3.5 2.9 1.4 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.4 1.2 1.4 1.9 1.6 1.2 1.9 0.8 2.3 2.7 1.5 3.2 2.7 2.2 1.6 1.0 3.4 3.4 2.9 2.0 2.4 2.7 0.9 3.0 2.9 1.8 2.4 2.5 0.8 2.3 1.9 1.4 0.7 0.4 2.0 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.1 1.4 0.9 1.9 1.5 2.0 1.6 2.4 1.8 3.0 2.0 3.9 2.7 2.3 3.3 2.6 3.8 2.8 4.6 2.9 3.2 2.4 2.9 2.8 2.7 5.1 5.6 3.3 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.5 4.2 1.9 2.2 3.0 1.7 1.9 2.7 1.5 1.7 1.9 1.4 1.5 1.5 2.0 2.1 2.3 2.4 2.6 2.8 1.9 2.1 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.5 2.3 2.1 1.9 1.7 1.4 1.7 0.9 0.8 1.0 0.9 2.2 2.1 0.9 0.9 0.8 1.0 0.9 0.9 1.6 1.4 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.3 0.9 0.9 1.1 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.2 2.2 2.1 1.9 1.7 2.5 2.3 2.0 2.6 2.3 2.1 1.8 2.5 1.5 2.5 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.9 1.1 1.3 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.4 1.9 2.7 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.4 1.9 2.5 2.9 2.6 2.2 1.8 0.8 1.0 0.8 1.0 0.7 0.9 1.1 0.8 1.0 0.7 0.9 0.8 1.2 0.7 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.7 1.1 0.7 1.1 0.7 1.1 0.7 1.1 0.7 1.1 0.7 1.0 0.8 1.1 0.8 1.2 0.8 1.1 0.8 1.1 0.9 1.2 0.9 1.2 0.8 1.2 0.8 1.1 1.7 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.8 1.2 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.8 1.6 1.2 1.3 0.8 2.0 2.1 0.8 2.5 2.6 0.8 3.0 2.9 0.7 2.6 0.7 2.1 1.6 1.5 1.5 2.5 1.7 2.2 3.0 2.6 2.8 2.8 2.6 2.3 1.5 2.1 2.5 2.6 2.3 1.8 1.4 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.4 1.8 2.3 2.6 2.6 2.2 1.6 2.2 2.7 2.8 2.3 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.7 2.2 2.8 2.8 1.6 1.8 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.8 2.1 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.5 1.4 1.5 1.7 1.8 2.0 2.0 1.8 2.3 4.0 3.1 2.0 5.7 4.3 2.7 5.9 3.9 7.1 5.2 2.4 7.7 6.1 3.3 7.6 6.3 4.1 6.2 5.9 4.4 2.9 3.4 4.6 4.8 4.1 2.1 3.0 3.3 3.5 3.3 2.2 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.0 4.7 3.9 8.3 5.1 8.1 6.6 9.3 7.8 5.9 9.4 8.4 6.8 8.4 8.4 7.1 6.8 2.1 2.0 2.1 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.0 1.9 1.9 1.7 2.1 1.9 1.3 2.2 1.7 1.4 2.6 2.1 1.9 1.6 3.1 2.8 2.4 2.1 3.4 3.0 2.6 4.4 3.7 3.3 2.8 5.7 4.9 4.2 3.6 7.5 6.6 5.6 7.4 1.9 1.9 2.2 2.2 2.6 2.5 2.4 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.7 3.0 3.1 3.1 2.6 2.9 3.1 3.3 3.2 2.2 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.1 2.1 2.4 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.5 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.2 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.9 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.5 9.3 9.5 8.2 6.3 7.0 4.7 3.6 2.7 2.0 2.2 1.5 1.6 1.8 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.5 0.8 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 0.9 0.0 0.0 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.6 1.8 1.9 2.0 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.1 2.2 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.3 2.4 2.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 0.9 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.3 2.4 2.4 2.5 0.9 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.5 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.7 2.6 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.7 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.8 1.5 1.5 1.6 2.4 1.8 1.5 1.6 2.4 1.7 1.7 3.7 2.0 1.8 5.5 3.2 2.0 5.3 2.5 1.6 2.0 7.0 2.6 1.6 2.0 6.1 2.9 2.0 7.1 4.6 2.2 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.5 5.5 3.2 1.7 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 3.8 2.1 1.5 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.4 3.8 2.6 1.6 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 2.8 2.0 1.4 1.3 1.3 2.1 1.6 1.3 2.2 1.8 PROPERTY LINE INDUSTRIAL RAILROAD RESIDENTIAL INDUSTRIAL PHASE LINE RAILROAD 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.3 0.4 0.7 0.8 1.2 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.7 1.0 2.1 1.2 1.1 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.7 1.1 1.3 1.6 0.9 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.7 1.2 1.6 1.4 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 1.3 2.0 0.8 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.2 1.0 2.3 0.7 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.5 2.3 3.7 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.5 1.8 3.4 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.5 1.4 2.7 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.3 0.9 1.9 1.5 1.2 1.0 1.0 0.7 0.4 0.2 0.6 1.2 2.1 2.0 1.2 0.8 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.9 1.3 2.0 1.0 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.7 1.1 0.7 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.7 1.1 1.4 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.7 1.3 1.7 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.5 1.3 2.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.8 2.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.4 1.8 3.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 1.3 3.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.5 1.1 2.4 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.9 1.7 3.0 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.6 1.1 2.0 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.5 0.8 1.3 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.7 1.0 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.6 0.7 0.9 1.1 0.9 0.5 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.2 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.5 1.0 0.7 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.3 0.8 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.9 0.6 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.9 0.7 0.4 0.2 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 1.0 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.8 0.7 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.7 0.8 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 1.1 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.4 0.6 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 1.9 0.9 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 2.4 1.2 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 1.2 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 1.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.7 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.5 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.5 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.8 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.1 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.8 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.6 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 SCALE: 1"=30'-0" NORTH PHOTOMETRIC STUDY FILE: C:\Users\12093\Box\HCS\2023\201-300\2023.283 Pinole Shores\E0.1.dwg Mar 18, 2024 - 4:17pm 12093 4512 Feather River Dr #F, Stockton, CA 95219 209-478-8270 | www.hcs-eng.com Richard C. Smith, PE [email protected] Bhupendra Patel, PE [email protected] Elizabeth Aguilar [email protected] PROJECT # 2023.283

PINOLE SHORES

PINOLE , CALIFORNIA
APN 402-230-015, 016, 017, 018 & 020
FOR: PABLO PARK, LLC E0.1 Statistics Description Symbol Avg Max Min Max/Min Avg/Min DOCK AREA 2.0 fc 3.3 fc 1.3 fc 2.5:1 1.5:1 SIDEWALKS 2.0 fc 5.6 fc 0.4 fc 14.0:1 5.0:1 TRUCK DRIVE / PARKING 1.8 fc 2.9 fc 1.3 fc 2.2:1 1.4:1 AUTO DRIVE / PARKING 2.1 fc 9.0 fc 1.0 fc 9.0:1 2.1:1 Image QTY Manufacturer Catalog Description Number Lamps Lamp Output LLF Input Power S2 3 Lithonia Lighting RSX2 LED P3 40K R2 RSX Area Luminaire Size 2 P3 Lumen Package 4000K CCT Type R2 Distribution 1 21814 0.9 149.9762 S3 6 Lithonia Lighting RSX2 LED P3 40K R3 RSX Area Fixture Size 2 P3 Lumen Package 4000K CCT Type R3 Distribution 1 21736 0.9 149.98 S5 2 Lithonia Lighting RSX2 LED P3 40K R5 RSX Area Fixture Size 2 P3 Lumen Package 4000K CCT Type R5 Distribution 1 22316 0.9 299.96 W4 11 Lithonia Lighting RSX1 LED P3 40K R4 RSX Area Fixture Size 1 P3 Lumen Package 4000K CCT Type R4 Distribution 1 14206 0.9 109.44 Luminaire Locations Label MH S2 30' S3 30' S5 30' W4 30' PHOTOMETRIC STUDY PEDESTRIAN RAMP 7.2 fc 9.4 fc 3.9 fc 2.4:1 1.8:1 LANDSCAPE AREA #1 1.4 fc 3.0 fc 0.0 fc N/A N/A LANDSCAPE AREA #2 4.0 fc 7.7 fc 1.8 fc 4.3:1 2.2:1 LANDSCAPE AREA #3 3.0 fc 7.5 fc 1.3 fc 5.8:1 2.3:1 LANDSCAPE AREA #4 2.4 fc 3.3 fc 1.4 fc 2.4:1 1.7:1 LANDSCAPE AREA #5 1.9 fc 9.5 fc 0.0 fc N/A N/A

FILE: C:\Users\12093\Box\HCS\2023\201-300\2023.283 Pinole Shores\E0.2.dwg Mar 18, 2024 - 4:17pm 12093 4512 Feather River Dr #F, Stockton, CA 95219 209-478-8270 | www.hcs-eng.com Richard C. Smith, PE [email protected] Bhupendra Patel, PE [email protected] Elizabeth Aguilar [email protected] PROJECT # 2023.283

PINOLE SHORES

PINOLE , CALIFORNIA
APN 402-230-015, 016, 017, 018 & 020
FOR: PABLO PARK, LLC E0.2 LIGHTING SPEC. SHEETS

FILE: C:\Users\12093\Box\HCS\2023\201-300\2023.283 Pinole Shores\E0.3.dwg Mar 18, 2024 - 4:17pm 12093 4512 Feather River Dr #F, Stockton, CA 95219 209-478-8270 | www.hcs-eng.com Richard C. Smith, PE [email protected] Bhupendra Patel, PE [email protected] Elizabeth Aguilar [email protected] PROJECT # 2023.283

PINOLE SHORES

PINOLE , CALIFORNIA
APN 402-230-015, 016, 017, 018 & 020
FOR: PABLO PARK, LLC E0.3 POLE SPEC. SHEETS

Re: Comments for Pinole Shores II
The following pages list the responses to the planning division comments for the Pinole Shores II Project described in the Development Services department provided below, dated February 20, 2024, in reference to the application for the above subject project. Revisions to the plans or responses to the comments that relate to the architectural drawings are in blue italics under the comment numbers in the following pages. The new plans that accompany these responses are dated 3/18/24 and represent our first resubmittal.

Sincerely,
Michael Wunderle
Project Manager
HDO Architects-Planners
(925) 256-6042 ext. 19

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Planning Division
February 20, 2024
GRP Shores, LLC
C/o John Diemer
2530 N. University Drive #848300
Pembroke Pines, FL 33084
Re: Comments for Pinole Shores II Industrial Project.

Dear Mr. Diemer:

I am writing to you regarding the completeness of your application materials dated 11/22/2023 for the Pinole Shore II Industrial project located at 830-848 San Pablo Avenue. After reviewing your application materials, Staff has determined that your application is incomplete, and more information is needed for a complete application package. Staff has listed the Community Development Department comments in this document. Staff will have the remaining comments from the other departments (Police, Fire, Public Works, etc.) the week of February 26, 2024.

Community Development Comments:

CD-1: Page A2.1- should show the following:

1. Square footages should be listed on the building.

Added office, main warehouse and mezzanine level warehouse viewing area square

ATTACHMENT D

footages to site plan.

2. All of the stalls that are listed as compact need to have the C listed.

Added ‘C’ designation to all spaces that are compact.

3. All future EV parking stalls need to be listed as EV. The California Building Code lists the requirements for number of EV stall required.

Add to site plan. Do we need to show chargers?
Added required EV ready spaces, EVCS spaces and accessible EVCS spaces to the site plan per the California green building standards code. Also added 11 CA/V spaces which are clean air vehicle / vanpool spaces.

Chargers and charging spaces at required EVCS accessible spaces are provided and located in compliance with the requirements of chapter 11B.

Additional accessible EVCS spaces were added to the site plan in addition to the required accessible spaces already provided.

EV ready and EVCS spaces added to parking count on sheet A1.1.

Revised parking counts, requirements, and provided spaces in table on sheet A1.1.

Revised parking legend and parking space designations shown on the site plan sheet A2.1

4. The bike racks are referenced with note 146, however, there is no 146 listed on the plans of the location of the bike racks.

Added area to site plan near main entrance and office area that shows parking area for 7 bicycle racks to comply with city requirements. Keynote 146 calls out the area on the site plan sheet A2.1

5. This page needs to show the ADA path of travel from San Pablo Avenue to the project site.

Added a path of travel leaving our site and continuing onto neighboring property on sheet A2.1. Reconfigured parking onsite to better accommodate the existing crosswalk where the existing path of travel terminates on neighboring property.

Modified detail 1/A5.1 to show the accessible path of travel offsite and the route it takes from our site, through the neighboring properties, and to San Pablo Avenue. This detail is now a complete diagram.
.

CD-2 Page A2.1A- Should show the following:

1. All of the fire information will need to be updated to reflect the new Contra Costa County Fire Department requirements and code sections.

Removed outdated conditions of approval from plan set.

Planning confirmed that conditions of approval can be made available in our plans when they are ready, but may be provided after the plans are deemed complete. Old conditions of approval that were shown in the plan set were provided by Pinole Fire department and related to the version of the project with 2 separate warehouses on site. Fire comments and review is now handled by

CCC fire and its is unclear if conditions of approval can be provided prior to planning review as the process with CCC fire review is new and still being worked out. We await fire department comments per CCC review.

2. This page needs to show that all of the trucks can be put into place at one time. Staff needs to see all of the truck movements. You may need to add an additional page to show.

Most extreme truck movements now shown on sheet A2.1a. 135’ total pull out and maneuvering space for the trailer bays is provided and that is the industry standard. A new trailer maneuvering diagram was added to sheet A2.1A to show how the movements are derived. All turning arcs represent the most extreme size tractor and trailer legal in CA and are executable.

3. The fire access lane needs to be consistent throughout the development.

Added keynote 151 to sheets A2.1 and A2.1A to better describe the fire lane being provided onsite. Removed overall roadway width dimensions for clarity and added dimension calling out 20 min wide fire lane instead. Added red dashed lines to site plans on A2.1 and A2.1A to indicated were added to indicate edges of min. width of fire lane occur, Actual paved area always exceeds this minimum lane size. Also added min. turning radius dimensions to fire lane around the site. Turning radius of 28’ inside 48’ outside meets the requirements for the largest apparatus required by CCC fire.

CD- 3: Page A3.1- Should show the following:

1. The mezzanine level needs to show access availability as required by ADA law.

Added labels to warehousing viewing area on sheet A3.1 and clarified that the space is not accessible to the public and is therefore not required to be wheelchair accessible.

This space is not included as part of the office in the project calculations.

2. The mezzanine level needs to be identified as open space, warehouse viewing area, if offices will be in the area. If you are using the mezzanine for office space, then square footages of those offices will be required.

This space is not included as part of the office in the project calculations. It is an open warehouse viewing area that is counted towards the square footage of the general warehouse space. However, it is not intended for heavy storage.

3. The Key Notes and Floor Plan Legend
Key note legend is on sheet A3.1 towards the bottom of the sheet.

CD- 4 Page A3.2 - Should show the following:

1. Staff needs to see the particular skylight proposed.

Exact skylight spec image added to sheet A3.2.

Solar panels and solar panel requirements also added to sheet A3.2

2. Staff needs to know if the mechanical equipment is going on the roof. Also, if mechanical equipment is going on the roof, screening materials will need to be reviewed and approved.

Added to keynote 32 description on sheet A3.2 that better explains that the rooftop HVAC equipment will be used for approx. 2500 SF office space. The rest of the warehouse will be unconditioned space. The rooftop parapet will completely screen the HVAC equipment and this is apparent in detail 20/A3.2.

CD-5: Pager A4.l - Should show the following:

1. Colors E & Fare not shown in either legend or on the elevations itself. Keynote 34 calls out the color Metal Hollow and is not listed in legend of elevation colors. Keynote 35 states there is a decorative solid canopy, however, there is no illustrative of canopy (e.g. color, shape, size)
Colors E and F have been removed from the color legend for clarify. Additional information has been added to the elevation keynote legend on A4.1 which better describes the materials and colors of the different elevation elements. The color legend is designed to designate the large colored areas which show up as colored in the elevations for A4.1 (mainly the paint colors rather than finishes of smaller elevation elements)

2. The elevation does not show the differentiation of the parapet similar to the drawing on page A3.2.

Dimensions added to parapets to show the lengths of each section of parapet as well as the height changes in the parapet. Elevations have been modified to show more variety in parapet height to comply with the three corridor specific plan.

3. The photo quality has been improved. However, pursuant to the Three Corridor Specific Plan Public Realm Guidelines, rooflines shall not have more than 50ft runs without an interruption. Elevations will need to be changed in order to comply with the Specific Plan.

Rooflines have been modified to meet the requirement of no single roofline exceeding 50’ Elevations have been modified to show more variety in parapet height to comply with the three corridor specific plan.

Section from three corridors specific plan that was addressed:

ARCHITECTURE
a. Long, unbroken, horizontal roof lines are discouraged. Roof lines shall not run for more than 50 feet without interruption.

4. The only features that are shown on A4.1 and A4.2 has to do with the buildings. There is no articulation or rendering that measures the difference of the undulation of the buildings. There are no other architectural features shown on the plans (e.g., stamped concrete on the roads and/or sidewalks)
Elevations have been modified along with the rendered elevations on sheet A4.2 to better show depth and more prominent concrete expansion joints.

Renderings have also been enhanced to better show building surface and plane differentiation.

Labels have been added to the elevation dimensions on sheet A4.1 that identify which elevation runs are skewed.

Rooflines have been modified to meet the requirement of no single roofline exceeding 50’ Elevations have been modified to show more variety in parapet height to comply with the three corridor specific plan.

Elevation variety is achieved through color changes, windows, parapet height changes, expansion joints or screed line patterns in the walls.

CD- 6: Page A4-2 - Should show the following:

1. All trees shall be shown with at least 15 years of growth, consistent with view shed renderings.

Since many of the trees are not close to mature height, staff agreed during meetings that showing the mature tree height is more appropriate to understand the final screening of the building overall future look of the site from the outside.

CD- 7: Page A5.l - Should show the following:

1. At least one of the Site Photos shall have the building imposed to show the scale of the building located on the property.

Rendering has been added to sheet A5.2 that shows the building model placed on the site for scale. A5.2 is a new sheet added to set and sheet A5.1 now includes existing site photos and the accessible path of travel to San Pablo ave. Sheet A5.2 has a new aerial perspective view of the site with the building and site features shown. The sheet also shows an enhanced 2D aerial site plan with the landscape plan imposed on the site for reference.

CD- 8 Page A6.l - Should show the following:

1. There needs to be a timeframe for this photo. With the last project we used 10-15 years to show the full foliage of the trees.

Since many of the trees are not close to mature height, staff agreed during meetings that showing the mature tree height is more appropriate to understand the final screening of the building overall future look of the site from the outside.

2. The view of the site plan needs to be included into the neighborhood plan to show where the views were taken and to enlarge the photos.

Site plans and view arrows have been adjusted for better accuracy and clarity to correspond with the rendered views. An improved aerial rendered top down 2D site plan that shows the building and surrounding landscape plan has also been updated on sheet A5.1, new sheet A5.2 and sheet A6.1.

CD- 9 Page Cl.OD - Should show the following:

1. The old Parcel Map needs to be removed and replaced with the new Parcel Map showing the Parcel One.

New parcel map in process of getting signatures. Will need to be updated in civil plans.

As requested, The new, unrecorded, Parcel map information replaced the current legal description information, as shown on the title report.

CD-10: Pages C2.01 and C2.02 - Should show the following:

1. The plan does need to show grading lines.

Civil to argue this point.

This item was discussed and agreed that this level of detail is inappropriate for Preliminary Design Plans, during our zoom meeting with Planning Manager on Feb. 27, 2024.

2. The surface legend needs to match the drawings and illustrations.

Revised as requested.

3. The plan should show the existing association drainage as well as the utilities lines for your project.

The original “Parcel Exhibit” sheet C1.0, was replaced with “Existing Conditions” sheet, and clearly depicts all existing utilities, as desired.

4. The Storm Water Control Plan should show that all of the impervious services can be drained and that there is no overage identified on the site.

This item was discussed and agreed that we are treating all onsite impervious surfaces, during our zoom meeting with Planning Manager on Feb. 27, 2024.

CD-11: Page C3.01 -- Should show the following:

1. The plan needs to show the location of the associations facilities as well as your new facilities.

The original “Parcel Exhibit” sheet C1.0, was replaced with “Existing Conditions” sheet, and clearly depicts all existing utilities, as desired.

2. The plan needs to show that none of your project's drainage is not flowing into your facilities and your project is not draining into there drainage facilities.

We redesigned the new SD system to ensure that it is a “stand alone” system, and will not be conveyed into the existing system. It was also

discussed that the existing SD system and treatment vault were designed to handle full development on this site, per AM West plans in 2007.

3. The Plan should indicate the size of lines needed for the drainage of this project.

This item was discussed and agreed that this level of detail is inappropriate for Preliminary Design Plans, during our zoom meeting with Planning Manager on Feb. 27, 2024
CD-12 Page C3.02 - Should show the following:

1. The plan should show the proposed line size needed for this project.

This item was discussed and agreed that this level of detail is inappropriate for Preliminary Design Plans, during our zoom meeting with Planning Manager on Feb. 27, 2024
CD-13: Page C3.03 - Should show the following:

1. The plan needs to show the proposed line sizes for both the water lines and the fire water line.

This item was discussed and agreed that this level of detail is inappropriate for Preliminary Design Plans, during our zoom meeting with Planning Manager on Feb. 27, 2024

2. All other reviews and comments regarding water utilities will be completed by East Bay Municipal Utility District.

Agreed.

CD-17 Page EO.1- Should show the following:

1. The light arrays do not carry to the property lines. They only carry to the end of the road.

The plan needs to show that there is no light spillage onto adjoining properties.

Foot candles have been added at and past the property line

2. The plan needs to show all of the lighting standards (e.g. bollard lights, pole lighting, etc.) Lighting standards have been added to new sheet E0.2 and pole standards have been added to new sheet E0.3.

END OF COMMENTS. Comments reflect all city or 3rd party review comments that have been received by client and HDO as of 3/18/24. Please use this most recent submittal for all review action and activity.

TO: PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS
FROM: David Hanham, Planning Manager
SUBJECT: Pinole Shores II, 830-848 San Pablo Avenue
DATE: June 10, 2024
Property Owner City of Pinole
2131 Pear Street
Pinole, CA 94564
Applicant GRP Shores, LLC
J Diemer
2350 N. University Drive #848300
Pembroke Pines, FL 33084
Herdman Architecture & Design
16201 Scientific Way
Concord, CA 94520
File Planning Application PL23-0080
Comprehensive Design Review (CDR) DR 23-12
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Application 23-05
Request Comprehensive Design Review and Conditional Use Permit to develop a project consisting of construction of a tilt up wholesale distribution and warehouse buildings with accessory office space for a total of 116,730 square feet of warehouse and approximately 4,996 square feet of office floor area, as well as site preparation of the vacant 7.37-acre site and
consolidation of parcels.

Location 836-848 San Pablo Avenue, Pinole CA 94564
Assessor Parcel Number(s) 402-230-015, 402-230-016, 402-230-017, 402-230-018, and 402-230-020
Total Area 7.37 acres/321,020 sf
General Plan Land Use Designation SSA, Service Sub Area Specific Plan Sub-Area SSA, San Pablo Avenue Corridor /Service Sub-Area Zoning Classification OIMU, Office Industrial Mixed-Use Review Authority Comprehensive Design Review - Planning Commission – Pinole Municipal Code (PMC) §Table 17.10.060-01; Conditional Use Permit – Planning Commission – PMC § Table 17.10.060-01; Memorandum

ATTACHMENT E

California Environmental Quality Act Determination – Planning Commission – CA Public Resources Code §15022

BACKGROUND
In July of 1999, the Pinole Redevelopment Agency (the "Agency") adopted an Economic Development Strategy Plan. The Plan focused on blighted parcels along San Pablo Avenue that could be used to strengthen the City’s Industrial Park. The Plan identified the subject site at 836-848 San Pablo Avenue, the former Anthony Auto Wreckers site, as a site for future redevelopment. The project area is bordered to the south by the Pinole Shores I project, which includes two light industrial buildings, a building that is used for ancillary commercial uses (a restaurant, a commercial kitchen for small business and catering, and a gym). It is bordered to the east by an existing materials yard, to the north by the BNSF Railroad and Bay Trail, and to the west by existing residential developments. The Pinole Shores I project is also located on the original Anthony Auto Wreckers site. Upon purchase of the site, the Agency undertook environmental clean-up due to the prior use. Upon completion of the clean-up, in 2002, the Agency received a Covenant and Environmental Restriction from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board that restricts the use of the site to industrial, commercial or office use. See Figure 1 for proposed project location and surrounding area.

Figure 1: Project Location
In April of 2005, the Agency approved a Disposition & Development Agreement (DDA) with the Panattoni Development Group for the development of the Pinole Shores Business Park at 836-848 San Pablo Avenue. The project was designed to provide ownership opportunities for small businesses owners by creating approximately 149,871 square feet of light industrial, businesses condominiums that could be used for manufacturing, office, warehousing, wholesale distribution, and retail purposes.

In 2006, Pinole Shores I started construction on four buildings identified as 806, 812, 818 and 824 San Pablo Avenue. Each of these addresses have multiple suites due to condominiums maps that were approved for the four buildings. As the buildings were being built for Pinole Shores I, the developer started the financing process the Pinole Shores II project.

In March of 2007, the City and Panattoni Development Company entered into a new DDA for the construction of the Pinole Shores II project. In 2008 there was a collapse in the real estate market – for both commercial and residential real estate. At that time, the Panattoni Development Company determined that the proposed Pinole Shores II project was no longer financially feasible and decided not to purchase the remaining 7.37 acres that was to comprise the Pinole Shores II project. The City and Panettoni subsequently terminated the existing DDA.

On May 28, 2019, the City entered into an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with General Realty CE, LLC to purchase the property at 836-848 San Pablo. The negotiations resulted in the execution of a DDA with GRP Shores, LLC, (the “Applicant”) an affiliate of General Realty, on May 9, 2022. Certain terms and conditions of the DDA include the City obtaining the necessary easements needed from EBMUD and the Pinole Shores 1 existing project in order to access surface and underground areas needed for the development of the new proposed project. In addition, the Applicant is required to obtain the entitlements necessary to construct the proposed project prior to closing on the property.

In January of 2022, the Applicant submitted a Development Application for a Comprehensive Design Review, and a Parcel Map. In April of 2022, the Applicant submitted a Development Application for a Conditional Use Permit. The purpose of these applications was to construct two-tilt-up buildings totaling 117,943 square feet, a parcel map to consolidate the parcels from five to one, and to allow for a wholesale distribution and reduced parking at the project site. On May 8, 2023, the Planning Commission approved Resolution 23-04 approving a Conditional Use Permit, Comprehensive Design Review, Parcel Map consolidating 5 parcels into one, and a Notice of Exemption for California Environmental Quality Act, (CEQA) compliance.

In November of 2023, the Applicant submitted a Development Application for a Comprehensive Design Review and Conditional Use Permit for the purpose of building one tilt-up building totaling approximately 121,726 square feet (116,730 sf of warehousing, 2,498 sf of office space, and 2,498 sf mezzanine within the building), the ability to have wholesale distribution, and reduced parking.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project has three major components: Comprehensive Design Review, a Conditional Use Permit, and a Parcel Map. The Comprehensive Design Review will review the design of the building, the landscape and parking plan, and overall consistency with the Pinole Shores I project. The Conditional Use Permit will review will determine if wholesale distribution will be allowed at the project site and if a reduction of parking may be granted. The Parcel Map will review the consolidation of five existing parcels through a Parcel Map into one parcel. See Figure 2 for the proposed site plan and landscaping for the new development.

Figure 2 Site Plan
The project would construct one new 43-foot-high “tilt-up” building. Tilt-up construction refers to a series of concrete panels which are poured into forms on the ground and then tilted up into place to comprise a building's exterior walls The project proposes a total of 116,730 square feet of warehouse area 4,996 square feet of office space. The project also includes the installation of parking, lighting, landscaping, and other ancillary improvements to accommodate the proposed development. A more detailed landscape plan is outlined in Exhibit C of this report.

Uses and Layout
The one Building will be located in the middle of the property facing northeast to southwest as stated above will contain 116,730 square feet of warehouse/research/development/industrial space and 2,498 square feet of office space. The Building will have roll-up doors and parking for 18 trucks at the loading

docks. The building will also have the 2,498 square feet of office space on the ground floor and 2,500 square feet on a mezzanine level. The ground floor office spaces in each building will have a conference room, two private offices, a kitchen area, and four bathrooms, two of which are accessible from the office and two from the warehouse area. Each building contains two staircases, one internal to the office space and connects the ground floor with the mezzanine, and the other within the warehouse space providing a connection from the warehouse floor to the mezzanine level.

Parking
The project site will be improved with a 20-foot-wide exclusive access road which will extend from the southeast corner of the site along the perimeter of the building footprint to the southwest corner of the site. Through access will be provided from existing driveways at the adjacent Pinole Shores Business Park.

Access easements will be established to formalize access to the project site through the Pinole Shores Business Park.

The project includes 132 head-in parking spaces with dimensions of nine feet wide by 19 feet deep for passenger vehicles on the periphery of the site, surrounding the new structures. Of the 132 parking spaces, eight will be ADA accessible and four will be clean-air carpool/vanpool spaces. Pursuant to Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) requirements, 19 of the parking spaces be electric vehicle charging spaces, and 38 spaces be charger ready (with infrastructure installed for future charging).

There will be 23 trailer spaces (5 trailer parking spaces and 18 truck loading and unloading spaces at the loading docks. These spaces are equipped with two dock-high roll-up doors.

Accessibility
A pedestrian sidewalk is proposed to provide a connection between the new building and the Pinole Shores Business Park.

The project will install 2 Dero Roundrack at the front entrance of Building One and Building Two. The racks for both building will allow for 8 bike parking spaces, four bikes at Building One and four bikes at Building Two. It should be noted bike parking is not required for industrial pursuant to Section 17.48.120 (B) of the Pinole Municipal Code.

The West Contra Costa Transit Authority (WestCAT) serves the project site. The nearest westbound bus stop islocated on San Pablo Avenue adjacent to the Pinole Shores Business Park frontage, and the nearest eastbound bus stop is located across the street at the intersection of San Pablo Avenue and Meadow Avenue.

Landscaping
The applicant is proposing a full-scale preliminary landscape and irrigation plan for this project. The Preliminary Landscape and Irrigation Plan outlines trees, shrubs, ground cover over the project area. The preliminary landscape and irrigation plan on pages L1.00 – L4.00 (Exhibit C) outlines the landscaping requirements as outlined in Chapter 17.44. Landscaping. for this project. Pursuant to Section 17.44.030 final landscape plans are required and are listed in Conditions of Approval 52.

The project will install a sidewalk is proposed to provide a connection between Building Two and the Pinole Shores Business Park.

Development Standards
Table 1 compares the proposed project with the required development standards under Chapter 6 of the Three Corridors Specific Plan and in PMC §17.24.030 and 17.48.050. The table shows that a CUP is required for wholesale distribution at the site.

Table 1. Development Standards
Development
Standard
Code Requirement Proposal for Pinole
Shores II
Development
Complies?
Setbacks PMC- Table 17.24.020-1/Three Corridor Specific Plan - Front 0-5 feet 20 feet Yes
East Side 10 feet 64 feet Yes
West Side 10 feet 91 feet Yes
Rear 0-15 feet 66 feet Yes
Building
Height
4 stories/ 50 feet PMC -Table 17.24.020-1
/Three Corridor Specific Plan Table 6-3
1 story/40 feet Yes
Parking PMC §17.48.040:

Warehousing,
Wholesaling,
Research, and
Other Industrial:
1 Space/1,000 sf
of gross floor
area, plus 1
space for every 4
employees, and 2
loading spaces
Offices, Business
and Professional,
including
medical: 1
Space/250 sf of
gross floor area.

PMC §17.48.110:

Loading Space: 1
Space/10,000 sq
ft, plus 1 space
for additional
each 40,000 sq
feet
Total Required:
137 spaces required, plus 1
space for every 4 employees
and 4 loading spaces.

Details
- Warehouse/ Wholesale/
Research/ Other Industrial
space = 117 parking
spaces
- Employee Fractional:
1 space for every 4
employees1
- Office/ Mezzanine (4,996
sf) = 20 parking spaces
- Loading spaces; 4 spaces
Total Provided:
132 total parking
spaces.
5 loading spaces
Details:
- Warehouse/
Wholesale/
Research/ Other
Industrial space: 117
spaces provided.
- Employee fractional:
undetermined, as an
end-user has not
been identified.
- Office/ Mezzanine: 5
15 spaces provided.
- Loading spaces: 5
spaces provided
No, a CUP is
required2
1Number of employees unknown at this point in time as an end-user has not been identified. 2 The project is deficient by 5 spaces of the 20 spaces required for the office portion of the use. Additionally, the project does not meet the additional fractional requirement of 1 space per every 4 employees. A CUP is requested to waive these requirements for parking.

Development
Standard
Code Requirement Proposal for Pinole
Shores II
Development
Complies?
Landscaping PMC §17.44.050
General
Landscape
Development
Standards
PMC §17.44.060
Special
Landscape
Requirements
Applicable: PMC
§17.44.060. F.

On-Site
Pedestrian
Pathways.

PMC §17.44.060.

L.3 Parking Lot
Shade
Pages L1.0 through
L4.0 outlines the
landscape
requirements in

17.44.050.

Yes, the
applicant
has
prepared a
landscape
plan in
accordance
with
Chapter

17.44 of the
PMC
Overall Design
The structure is composed of concrete tilt-up wall panels with a similar color scheme and fenestration pattern. With respect to the color palette, the applicant proposes metallic white, light grey, dark grey with stamped concrete. With respect to the windows, the applicant proposes medium performance green reflective glazing with clear anodized mullions windows throughout both buildings. Figures 5 through 8 show the proposed design of the completed project.

Figure 5 Proposed Southeast Elevation

Figure 6: Proposed Southwest Elevation
Figure 7: Proposed Northwest Elevation
Figure 8: Proposed Northeast Elevation
Required Land Use Approvals
Entitlements and approvals required for the project include Comprehensive Design Review, a Conditional Use Permit, and a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) determination. Pursuant to PMC Table

17.10.060-1, the Planning Commission has approval authority of the Comprehensive Design Review, Conditional Use Permit, and CEQA determination. It should be noted that the Council has de novo approval authority of the entitlements on a timely filed appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision.

Ad-Hoc Committee Review
The Planning Commission’s Ad-Hoc Committee provided feedback on design treatments for the original design on May 5, 2022, for the original project that was approved by the Planning Commission on May 8, 2023. This feedback resulted in architectural revisions which added more details and interest to the buildings. Comments from the Ad-Hoc Committee are summarized below with the status noted in italics below the comment. Since the new project’s use and impacts were similar to those that were reviewed prior, Staff carried over these comments for the use of the new building.

1. Consider the building design to add a mixture of colors consistent with Pinole Shore I and eliminate the box style development.
• Based on the anticipated use of the buildings, the Applicant was unable to revise the box style of the buildings. However, the Applicant added assorted colors to the building to be consistent with Pinole Shores I. The applicant also added two-foot undulations for every 50 feet, consistent with the Specific Plan, which helps to break up building massing.

2. Consider use of native tree species as much as possible. • The Applicant will consult with the arborist, and a condition of approval (COA) No. 52 has been included in the draft resolution which would require the inclusion of more native trees where possible.

3. Ensure adequate lighting but minimize spillover light. • Preliminary lighting fixture details are included the plans, and a condition of approval (COA No. 41 has been included in the draft resolution that would require the project to comply with Chapter 17.46 of the City’s Municipal Code Lighting standards, which address levels of illumination.

4. Consider adding a traffic signal at the main entrance of Pinole Shores I and San Pablo Avenue. After reviewing this consideration from the Ad-Hoc Committee and the new use of the project, the Applicant will be completing the following:
• After collaborating with the Department of Public Works, the applicant’s traffic engineer and the environmental consultant, the developer agreed to make the following off-site improvements:
a. Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Meadow Avenue and the most eastern driveway of the Pinole Shores Industrial. Figure 4 shows the conditions of past recommendations as well as the traffic signal recommendation.

5. Sustainability of the building, including solar panels, EV (electric vehicle) parking, all electric buildings.
• The applicant is proposing to install 19 EV parking stalls, 38 EV ready stalls, incorporate sky lights and solar panels on the roofs, as well as make the buildings all electric. In the future, solar paneled covered parking could be installed where applicable with the approval of a building permit. Staff is requiring the applicant to submit a parking plan within the Parking Management Plan (COA No. 36) showing placement of the 19 charging stations and conduit for the additional locations consistent with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District.

Figure 4 Transportation Recommendation

ANALYSIS
The project has been reviewed for consistency with the City’s General Plan, the Three Corridor Specific Plan, and the Zoning Ordinance. As part of the consistency evaluation, the Planning Commission is required to make specific findings and other considerations consistent with Chapters 16.12 (Tentative Maps) and 17.12 (Entitlements) of the PMC in order to approve the Comprehensive Design Review, Conditional Use Permit, and Parcel Map. The following discussions expand on elements considered in the determination of consistency with findings.

General Plan Consistency
The property located at 836-848 San Pablo Avenue has a General Plan Land Use Designation of “SSA” (SubService Area). The SSA designation is intended to maintain and enhance existing land uses while providing land use flexibility and incentives to encourage new private investments and additional development.

Each Service-Sub Area has a different emphasis. San Pablo Avenue Corridor SSA is intended to preserve land for manufacturing and industrial uses, particularly “green industry.” A limited amount of general office, retail and residential uses may be permitted where they will not conflict with the principal industrial uses in the area.

POLICIES
The project helps to implement policies within different elements of the General Plan including the Community Character Element, Land Use and Economic Development Element, Circulation Element, Health and Safety Element, and the Sustainability Element. The policies below are a partial list of the most relevant to the project.

Community Character Element
POLICY CC.1.1 All new development and redevelopment shall adhere to the basic principles of high-quality urban design and architecture including, but

not limited to, human-scaled design, pedestrian orientation, and interconnectivity of street layout, siting buildings to highlight important intersections, entryways, focal points, and landmarks.

POLICY CC.1.2 Require all new development to incorporate high-quality site design, architecture and planning to enhance the overall quality of the built environment in Pinole and create a visually interesting and aesthetically pleasing town environment.

POLICY CC.1.5 Encourage project compatibility, interdependence, and support with neighboring uses, especially between commercial and mixed-use centers and the surrounding residential neighborhoods. Uses should relate to one another with pedestrian connections, transit options, shared parking, landscaping, public spaces, and the orientation and design of buildings.

Land Use and Economic Development Element
POLICY LU.3.3 Require design review of commercial and industrial projects to ensure compatibility with adjacent or nearby land uses, including intensity, access, internal circulation, visual characteristics, noise, odors, fire hazards, vibrations, smoke, discharge of wastes and nighttime lighting.

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.7.3 Continue to strive for a balance between the number of jobs in the Pinole Planning Area and the number of housing units available for workers by encouraging and supporting policies and programs, mixed-use projects which provide both housing and employment opportunities, and the development of affordable housing.

POLICY LU. 7.5 Ensure that new and existing developments can be adequately served by municipal services and facilities in accordance with City standards. New projects which require construction or expansion of public improvements shall pay their fair share of the costs necessary to improve or expand infrastructure to serve them, including street improvements, parks, water storage tanks, sewer and water service, and other public services.

Circulation Element
POLICY CE.1.1 Encourage strategic growth that concentrates future development along Pinole’s three primary transit corridors (San Pablo Avenue, Appian Way, and Pinole Valley Road).

POLICY CE.1.4 Encourage maximum utilization of the existing public transit system and alternate modes of transportation in Pinole.

POLICY CE.1.2 Coordinate development of the circulation system with sustainable land use planning.

POLICY CE.6.1 Encourage the use of carpooling and vanpooling to maintain an acceptable LOS on city streets and I-80.

POLICY CE.6.2 Implement transportation demand management strategies in conjunction with land uses in order to prevent future traffic congestion in the city.

Action CE.7.2.2 Require provision of adequate, convenient, and secure bike parking in conjunction with private development.

POLICY CE.8.1 Require development to provide pedestrian walkways that are safe, interconnected, and accessible by all members of the community.

Health and Safety Element
POLICY HS.6.1 Promote and encourage walking and bicycling as viable forms of transportation to services, shopping, and employment.

POLICY HS.7.3 Reduce the transport of runoff and surface pollutants off site.

Sustainability Element
POLICY SE.3.4 Reduce GHG emissions by reducing vehicle miles traveled and by increasing or encouraging the use of alternative fuels and transportation technologies.

POLICY SE.4.1 Explore and promote opportunities for the City’s use of sustainable energy sources (e.g., solar, wind, biomass, tidal energy generation, methane, geothermal, and hydropower).

POLICY SE.4.3 Pinole will promote and require renewable energy generation and cogeneration where feasible and appropriate.

POLICY SE.4.5 Pinole will continue to promote and support and require, where appropriate, the development of solar energy.

POLICY SE.7.4 In order to reduce vehicle miles traveled and traffic congestion, new development within 1,000 feet of an existing or planned transit stops should be designed to encourage the usage of public transit and minimize the dependence on the automobile through the application of site design guidelines.

Action SE.8.7.3 Require new commercial, multi-family residential, and mixed-use development to provide secure bicycle parking.

Staff Comment: The project is consistent with the General Plan, as demonstrated by the highlighted policies above. The project features high quality architectural design with internal aesthetic and functional connections between the new development and existing development. The project proposes infill development that realizes potential within the existing property to create new opportunities that expand industrial uses. As new construction, the project would be required to comply with current green building standards under the California Building Code, which include energy efficiency standards in buildings, compliance with solar requirements, and electric vehicle (EV) capable infrastructure. By constructing the building in manner proposed by the applicant, the project is consistent with current standards to manage stormwater runoff and intake to existing stormwater facilities. Additionally, new landscaping areas and plantings are proposed on site which creates parking lot shading. The new landscaping will be drought resistance and comply with current State-mandated water efficient standards.

Specific Plan and Zoning Consistency
The Pinole Shores II project is in the San Pablo Avenue Corridor of the Three Corridor Specific Plan. The project is in the service sub-area (SSA) and has a Specific Plan Land Use/Zoning Designation of Office Industrial Mixed-Use (OIMU). See Figure 9 for a map of the Specific Plan and Zoning designation. The intent of OIMU under the Specific Plan is to allow a wide range of office and light industrial development.

This designation is intended for office and light industrial uses with supporting retail and service uses. The predominant use allowed is office and/or light industrial. Retail must be ancillary to the principal industrial activity of the property and cannot exceed 10% of the total usable floor area. Public and quasi/public uses (community centers, public library, city hall, parks and other community-serving uses) are permitted.

At this time, the applicant does not have an end-user identified for this project. However, the applicant has indicated the building will be used primarily used for warehousing and distribution use, and wholesale distribution.

The project is consistent with the following Economic Development Strategy, Land Use, and Circulation Policies in the Specific Plan:

POLICIES
Land Use Policy 5. Support existing viable uses while encouraging a new mix of uses.

Land Use Policy 6. Actively promote the “revitalization” of underutilized land.

Circulation Policy 7. The City will ensure that there are clear rights-of-way for safe passage of pedestrians and bicyclists using San Pablo Avenue, Pinole Valley Road, and Appian Way Economic Development Strategy (San Pablo Avenue Corridor). Support economic development that will bring more housing, retail, and employment to the community.

Figure 9 Specific Plan Designation and Zoning
Specific Plan Zoning
Staff Comment: Based on the policies listed above from the Specific Plan, the project is consistent with the Specific Plan. The property is identified as Opportunity Site #5 in the Specific Plan, where light industrial uses were identified as a potential example of future development and office industrial mixed use would be desired. Additionally, the Specific Plan identifies that Green Industry is a permitted use by right in the OIMU designation. The project includes construction of a new light industrial building.

With the new construction of the building, the leasable space would be approximately 121,766 square feet upon completion of the project. (see Table 2).

Table 2: Total/Leasable Square Footage Proposed
Square Footage Warehouse/
Wholesale/ Research/
Other Industrial
Office Total Square
Footage
Pinole Shores II 116,730 (96%) 4,996 (4%) 121,726 (100%) Comprehensive Design Review Findings
In order to approve the Comprehensive Design Review, the Planning Commission must find for each of the required Comprehensive Design Review findings. Each finding is listed below followed by staff comment and conclusion.

1.The proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the general plan and complies with applicable zoning regulations, planned development, master plan or specific plan provisions, improvement standards, and other applicable standards and regulations adopted by the city.

Project
Location
Project
Location

SAN PABLO AVE

SAN PABLO AVE

Staff Comment: As stated above in this report, General Plan and Specific Plan goals and policies have been identified to satisfy consistency with the project. The project is compatible with the applicable zoning development standards for the project as shown in Table 1, and as otherwise permitted for provision of warehouse, research and development, distribution, and wholesale distribution.

Staff Conclusion: Based on the discussion above, the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, Three Corridor Specific Plan, and the City of Pinole Zoning Ordinance,

2. The proposed project will not create conflicts with vehicular, bicycle, or pedestrian transportation modes of circulation.

Staff Comment: As part of the environmental component of project a Traffic Impact Study and a Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis were conducted. Both studies showed that the traffic impacts were less than significant impact and will not create conflicts with implementation measures outlined in the document
Staff Conclusion: Based on the discussion above, the proposed project with not create conflicts with vehicular, bicycle or transportation modes of circulation.

3. The site layout (orientation and placement of buildings and parking areas), as well as the landscaping, lighting, and other development features, are compatible with and complement the existing surrounding environment and ultimate character of the area under the general plan and applicable specific plans.

Staff Comment: As shown on page A2.1 of the March 18, 2024, project plan set (Exhibit C), the proposed building is place strategically to complement existing Pinole Shore I buildings. The plans also show that the primary areas for distribution activity are shielded from existing residential units to the east and west of the project. All proposed lighting has been located such that none of it leaks to adjacent parcels and is consistent with the existing Pinole Shore I project.

As stated above, this project meets General Plan and Specific Plan consistency. The opportunities for landscaping and open space are limited on the property, however the project proposed landscaping areas consistent with the existing Pinole Shores I project. The landscape plans indicate that the landscaping area on the property frontage will be maintained.

Landscaping strips and pockets have been placed around the property while maintaining adequate room for parking and circulation. Pages L1.00 through L4.00 of the design package dated September 14, 2022 (Exhibit C) outline the conceptual landscape plan with potential tree, shrub and ground cover choices that are drought tolerant and well-suited to Pinole’s climate.

Staff Conclusion: Based on the above discussion, the project would be compatible with and complement the existing surrounding environment and ultimate character of the area.

4. Qualifying single-family residential, multi-family residential, and residential mixed-use projects shall comply with all relevant standards and guidelines in the city's currently adopted design guidelines for residential development.

Staff Comment: This finding is not applicable to due to this project not having a residential component.

Staff Conclusion: The finding is not applicable.

In conducting comprehensive design review, the Planning Commission must reflect on the following considerations. Each consideration is listed below followed by staff comment and conclusion.

1. Considerations relating to site layout, the orientation and location of building, signs, other structures, open spaces, landscaping, and other development features in relation to the physical characteristics, zoning, and land use of the site and surrounding properties.

Staff Comment: The Development Package dated March 18, 2024 (Exhibit C), as well as the assessment of the project in this report, demonstrates that the project has been designed to consider all of the development features applicable to the project site and surrounding properties.

The proposed development meets the applicable standards for the land use and zoning for the location.

Staff Conclusion: Based on the discussion in the staff report and the design package dated March 18, 2024. (Exhibit C), the site layout and other design features in relation to the physical characteristics of the site and surrounding properties have been considered.

2. Considerations relating to traffic, safety, and traffic congestion, including the effect of the development plan on traffic conditions on abutting streets, the layout of the site with respect to locations and dimensions of vehicular and pedestrian entrances, exits, driveways, and walkways, the adequacy of off-street parking facilities to prevent traffic congestion, and the circulation patterns within the boundaries of the development.

Staff Comment: As part of the environmental component of the project a Traffic Impact Study and a Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis were conducted. Both studies showed that the traffic impacts were less than significant impact and will not create conflicts with implementation measures outlined in the document. Conditions of Approval ENV – COA No. 113 outlines mitigations that will be required for this project.

The project proposes transportation demand management strategies. The design of the building allows for separation between the distribution component and the office component, which alleviates conflict between large delivery trucks and employee’s vehicles. The design of the project also complements the existing Pinole Shores I project so that the parking spaces between the two buildings can be shared and allow for pedestrian access.

Staff Conclusion: As documented in this report, the traffic impact analysis for this project and the proposed project design addresses and considered traffic, safety, traffic congestion and the effect of the development on traffic conditions. The project includes appropriately designed vehicle and pedestrian entrance, exits, driveways and walkways.

3. Considerations necessary to ensure that the proposed development is consistent with the general plan and all applicable specific plans or other city plans, including, but not limited to, the density of residential units.

Staff Comment: This finding is not applicable to this project due to the project not proposing any residential development.

Staff Conclusion: This finding is not applicable for this project.

4. Considerations relating to the availability of city services, including, but not limited to, water, sewer, drainage, police, and fire, and whether such services are adequate based upon city standards.

Staff Comment: The City sent communications to all of the City departments as well as EBMUD for input on availability of city services. Based on preliminary comments received of available utility information. this project has availability of water, sewer, drainage, police, and fire service.

Staff Conclusion: City services are available and adequate to serve the site. Also, the developer will pay impact fees and construct improvements to augment city services for this project.

Conditional Use Permit
Wholesale Distribution Use. At this time, the applicant does not have an end-user identified for this project. The applicant has indicated the buildings will be used primarily used for warehousing and distribution use, and/or wholesale distribution. Wholesaling and distribution are a use that is only allowed at the project site with the approval of a CUP.

Wholesaling and Distribution is listed in Table 17.20.030-1 in PMC § 17.20.030 as requiring a CUP in the OIMU Zoning District. Furthermore, Wholesaling and Distribution is defined by PMC §17.22.020. (H) as:

Establishments engaged in selling merchandise to retailers; to industrial, commercial, institutional, farm, or professional business users; or to other wholesalers; or acting as agents or brokers in buying merchandise for or selling merchandise to such persons or companies. Includes such establishments as agents, merchandise or commodity brokers, and commission merchants, assemblers, buyers, and associations engaged in the cooperative marketing of farm products, merchant wholesalers, and stores primarily selling electrical, plumbing, heating and air conditioning supplies and equipment.

The Applicant’s architect has indicated that the most likely end-user of the building a distribution and/or light manufacturing user. However, since the end-user is unknown at this point, the applicant is requesting approval of the CUP so the building can be marketed and potentially tenanted by a wholesale distribution use.

Parking Reduction. The project includes 132 head-in parking spaces with dimensions of nine feet wide by 19 feet deep for passenger vehicles on the periphery of the site, surrounding the new structures. In calculating required on-site parking for portions of the buildings slated for warehousing, wholesaling, research and other industrial uses, PMC §17.48.040 mandates a ratio of 1 space per every 1,000 sf of gross floor area plus 1 space per every 4 employees. The applicant has provided parking for the project that meets the standard requirement of 1 space per every 1,000 sf (for warehousing, wholesaling, research. However, the project does not meet the or 250 sf (for office) of gross floor area and does not meet the additional fractional requirement which is dependent on the number of employees. As the

applicant has not identified an end-user for this project at this time, the number of employees is unknown, and the fractional requirements has not been met. Section 17.48.060 establishes that Planning Commission may grant a reduction in required parking for any use (except for single-family, ADU or two-family dwellings) through approval of a CUP. Therefore, the applicant is requesting approval of the CUP to waive the further fractional requirement, which is employee dependent, in addition to five of the 20 required parking spaces associated with the requirement to provide 1 space per 250 sf of gross floor area of office.

The architect has reported that based on their understanding of the desired uses and their experience there could be between 100-150 employees within buildings depending on the end user. This estimate takes into consideration all shifts in a 24-hour period, which will depend significantly on the specific tenants. Distribution users would be on the lower end of this estimate, research and development, laboratories or more office-intensive use are on the higher end. The operating hours for this type of use which generally are 7 pm to 7 pm on weekdays however, some uses could require 24/7 operations, with the largest shift of employees being from 7 am to 3 pm. At the lower end of the estimated employee count, the reduction would account for 38 spaces; on the upper end of the estimated employee count, the reduction would account for 63 spaces.

If the reduction is approved by the Planning Commission and once an end user is identified the applicant will be required, per COA No. 38, to conduct a parking analysis utilizing actual employee numbers to ensure that Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures are sufficient to ensure the project is adequately parked. COA No. 39 ensures that the TDM plan is updated after the end-user is identified. If parking conditions are not satisfied, the applicant will be required to provide additional parking on their project site or apply for a Conditional Use Permit for shared parking with the Pinole Shores I site.

Findings. In order to approve the Conditional Use Permit to allow for wholesale distribution and a parking reduction at the project site, the Planning Commission must find for each of the required Conditional Use Permit findings in the PMC. The Commission must find that the project meets all of the Conditional Use Permit findings under Section 17.12.140 as well as meet three or more of the criteria under Section

17.48.060(B)(1). Each finding is listed below followed by staff comment and conclusion:

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

Staff Comment: As stated above in this report, General Plan and Specific Plan goals and policies have been identified to satisfy consistency with the project. The project is compatible with the applicable zoning development standards for the project as shown in Table 1, and as otherwise permitted for provision of warehouse, research and development, distribution, and wholesale distribution.

Staff Conclusion: Based on the discussion above, and with the exception of the fractional requirement for employee parking, the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, Three Corridor Specific Plan, and the City of Pinole Zoning Ordinance, and as otherwise permitted through State Law.

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.

Staff Comment: As shown on page A6.1 of the project plan dated March 18, 2024 (Exhibit C), the new buildings will be located in the rear of the existing Pinole Shores Business Park and approximately 120 feet from the nearest residential neighborhood to the east of the project site. On Page A6.1 shows the orientation of building has been designed such that the main entrances are located away from the existing residential properties to the west.

The Pinole Shores Business Park was established over 15 years ago. The approval of this project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, moral, comfort or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such use of to the general welfare of the City.

The Pinole Shores project is providing 132 parking spaces in the rear of the property for new building. The San Pablo Avenue Corridor general parking standards call for a reduction in parking when one of five conditions exist. Staff has listed three conditions that exist with the Pinole Shores II project.
1) Shared parking arrangements can demonstrate that peak hour parking demand will not coincide to generate demand that is greater than the parking provided. 2) The property is adequately served by and is in close proximity to frequent transit service. 4) A transportation demand management program will reduce parking demand at the site Staff Conclusion: Based on the orientation of the building and the existing Pinole Shores I project, and by the applying the General Parking Standards in the San Pablo Corridor of the Three Corridor Specific Plan the proposed project will not 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.

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

Staff Comment: The Development Package dated March 18, 2024 (Exhibit C), as well as the assessment of the project in this report demonstrates that the project has been designed to consider all of the development features applicable to the project site and surrounding properties.

Development would meet the applicable standards for the land use and zoning for the location, and as otherwise permitted though State Law.

The Pinole Shores project is providing 132 parking spaces in the rear of the property. The San Pablo Avenue Corridor general parking standards call for a reduction in parking when one of five conditions exist. Staff has listed three conditions that exist with the Pinole Shores II project. 1) Shared parking arrangements can demonstrate that peak hour parking demand will not coincide to generate demand that is greater than the parking provided.

2) The property is adequately served by and is in close proximity to frequent transit service. 4) A transportation demand management program will reduce parking demand at the site Staff Conclusion: Based on the discussion in the staff report and the design package dated March 18, 2024, relating to site layout and other design features in relation to the physical characteristics of the site and surrounding properties have been made.

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.

Staff Comment: This project is not contrary to specific intent clause, development regulations or performance standards established for the zoning district in which it is located. The proposed uses and related structure are compatible with other land uses, transportation, and service facilities in the vicinity. The structure that is being proposed is more modern in terms of design and functionality to the Center. As stated above, this project meets the development standards in the Three Corridor Specific Plan and the Pinole Municipal Code.

The Pinole Shores project is providing 132 parking spaces in the rear of the property for the building. The San Pablo Avenue Corridor general parking standards call for a reduction in parking when one of five conditions exist. Staff has listed three conditions that exist with the Pinole Shores II project.
1) Shared parking arrangements can demonstrate that peak hour parking demand will not coincide to generate demand that is greater than the parking provided. 2) The property is adequately served by and is in close proximity to frequent transit service. 4) A transportation demand management program will reduce parking demand at the site Staff Conclusion: Based on the analysis above, Staff concludes this finding has been met.

Parking Reduction Findings. Section 17.48.060 establishes that Planning Commission may grant a reduction in required parking through approval of a CUP. In addition to the required Conditional Use Permit findings under Section 17.12.140, in order to grant a reduction in parking the Commission must find that the project meets three or more of the criteria under Section 17.48.060(B)(1). Currently, the Applicant is proposing 132 parking spaces. Based on the parking requirements in the Municipal Code, this project does not meet the standard. The project is required to have 137 parking spaces plus one space for every four employees. At this time there is no end user. Once the Applicant has an end user, they are required to complete a parking ratio study to determine how many additional parking spaces are needed.

The Conditional Use Permit if granted will allow the applicant to waive the additional five parking spaces and the fractional requirement of the one space for every four employees.

Section 17.48.060 (Parking Waiver Findings). In addition to the required Conditional Use Permit findings under Section 17.12.140, in order to grant a reduction in required parking, the Planning Commission must

find that the project can be found to meet at least three of the four required criteria in PMC Section

17.48.060(B)(1) presented below. The criteria are in italics, followed by staff comments:
a. The use will be adequately served by the proposed parking due to the nature of the proposed operation; proximity to frequent transit service; transportation characteristics of persons residing, working, or visiting the site; or because the applicant has undertaken a travel demand management program that will reduce parking demand at the site.

Staff Comment: Depending on the use of the building (Wholesale/Distribution), the hours of operations (24/7), not all of the employees would be in the building at the same time. Due to all of the employees not being in the building, the personnel will not exceed the 132 parking spaces. Based on the site’s proximity to transit and implementation of a travel demand management program, and the 132 proposed parking spaces on site, and transit availability, there is adequate parking proposed. COA No. 38 & 39 require the applicant to complete a travel demand management program that will reduce demand at the site.

Staff Conclusion: Based on the analysis above, the use will be adequately served by the proposed parking and the criterion has been met.
b. Parking demand generated by the project will not exceed the capacity of or have a detrimental impact on the supply of on-street parking in the surrounding area.

Staff Comment: Based on the applicant’s parking analysis, the project will accommodate 132 parking spaces. The Pinole Shores Industrial has a cross access agreement that allows employees to park anywhere within the development. The Pinole Shores I and II projects will have approximately 373 parking spaces with the completion of this project. The supply of on-street parking should not be detrimentally impacted in the surrounding area.

Staff Conclusion: Based on the analysis above, Staff concludes that this criterion has been met. c. The site plan is consistent with the objectives of the zoning district and incorporates features such as unobtrusive off-street parking placed below the ground level of the project with commercial uses above or enclosed parking on the ground floor.

Staff Comment: The site plan meets the objectives of the Zoning District and due to the location of the buildings, tucked behind other buildings and not visible from San Pablo Avenue. This project is consistent with the Pinole Shores I project parking lot alignments that are behind and to the side of the buildings. The spirit of this finding is met as the parking surrounding the building is unobtrusive and professionally landscaped.

Staff Conclusion Based on the analysis above, Staff concludes that this criterion has been met:
d. The applicant has provided on-site parking for car share vehicles via a recorded written agreement between the landowner and the city that runs with the land. Agreement shall provide for proof of a perpetual agreement with a car share agency to provide at least one (1) car share vehicle on-site.

Staff Comment/Conclusion: This criterion is not needed to be evaluated since the first three have been met.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) provides several Categorical Exemptions which are applicable to categories of projects and activities that the Lead Agency has determined do not pose a risk of significant impacts on the environment. The subject project consists of development within the developed urban area of the City of Pinole. The project is exempt under §15332 of the State CEQA Guidelines (Class 32-Infill Development Projects), Sec. 15168 (Consistency with Program EIR) and Sec. 15183 (General Plan/Community Plan Exemption), and under Government Code §65457 (Consistency with Specific Plan). The detail of these exemptions is located in Exhibit B of this report.

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
Pursuant to California Government Code § 65090 to 65094, public notice must be given at least 10 days before the scheduled date of a hearing. The notice is required to state the date, time, and place of hearing, identify the hearing body, and provide a general explanation of the matter to be considered.

Notice of this hearing was provided in accordance with PMC §17.10.050 in the following manner:
1- Published in at least one newspaper of general circulation in the city. 2- Mailed to the owners of property within a radius of five hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property involved in the application. 3- Mailed to the owner of the subject real property or the owner's authorized agent and to each local agency expected to provide water, sewerage, streets, roads, schools, or other essential facilities or services to the proposed project. 4- Posted at City Hall.
5- Mailed to any person who has filed a written request for notice.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution 24-02 (Exhibit A) approving the Comprehensive Design Review, Conditional Use Permit, and CEQA Exemption for the Pinole Shores II Project at 836 -848 San Pablo Avenue.

EXHIBIT
A. Draft Resolution 24-02 – with Exhibit A, Conditions of Approval B. CEQA Determination – CEQA Exemption, with Environmental Studies C. Plan Set dated March 18, 2024
D. Transportation Demand Management Plan dated December 2022