Minutes of the Regular Joint Meeting of the Oakley City Council/Oakley City Council Acting as the Successor Agency to the Oakley Redevelopment Agency and Special Meeting of the Oakley Public Financing Authority held
March 22, 2022
1) OPENING MATTERS
1.1 Call to Order and Roll Call of the Oakley City Council/Oakley City Council Acting as the Successor Agency to the Oakley Redevelopment Agency and Special Meeting of the Oakley Public Financing Authority Mayor Randy Pope called the meeting to order at 6:33 p.m. in the Oakley City Council Chamber located at 3231 Main Street, Oakley, California. Vice Mayor Aaron Meadows and Councilmembers Anissa Williams, George Fuller and Sue Higgins were in attendance.
1.2 Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag
Mayor Pope led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
1.3 Contra Costa Mosquito and Vector Control District Board Update (Michael Krieg, President)
Michael Krieg, President of the Contra Costa Mosquito and Vector Control District provided an overview of the District and its status. He discussed the budget, reserves, financial ratings, rodent and mosquito issues to watch, a possible future parking structure at the District site to help accommodate its fleet, technology advancements to allow field technicians to report in real time, and use and placement of mosquito fish.
Mayor Pope thanked him for the update.
2) PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
3) CONSENT CALENDAR
3.1 Approve Minutes from the Regular Joint City Council/City Council Acting as the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency/Public Financing Authority Meeting held March 8, 2022 (Libby Vreonis, City Clerk)
3.2 Approve Minutes from the Special Meeting of the Oakley City Council held March 10, 2022 (Libby Vreonis, City Clerk)
3.3 Waive the Second Reading and Adopt an Ordinance Repealing Ordinance No. 06-09 RE: Assignment of Planning Commission Functions (Derek Cole, City Attorney)
3.4 Consideration of a Resolution Establishing the Rate per Equivalent Runoff Unit for FY 2022/23 and Requesting the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District to Adopt an Annual Parcel Assessment for Drainage Maintenance and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Program (Kevin Rohani, P.E. Public Works Director/City Engineer)
3.5 Award of Construction Contract to Ghilotti Bros. Inc., for the Main Street/Cypress Road Intersection Repair and Resurfacing Project – CIP 264 (Kevin Rohani, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer)
3.6 City of Oakley General Plan Annual Progress Report Calendar Year 2021 (Ken Strelo, Planning Manager)
Councilmember Fuller pulled items 3.2 and 3.6.
Vice Mayor Meadows pulled item 3.5.
It was moved by Vice Mayor Meadows and seconded by Councilmember Higgins to approve the remainder of the Consent Calendar. Motion was unanimous and so ordered (5-0).
Item 3.2
Councilmember Fuller requested the following revision to the minutes to document what was excluded from the Mission under reference to Section 4.2:
“Councilmember Fuller moved to approve the Mission, Vision and Values as amended during the Strategic Plan Meeting held February 15, 2022, with the Mission amended further to include at the end of the statement, All people without regard to their race, color, religion, gender identity, national origin, ethnicity, disability, or sexual orientation.” He mentioned Ms. Cross of Strategy Driver, Inc. stated the mission statement stopped with the term “all people” to ensure brevity in the mission statement, thus any identifiers would not be allowed.
He requested the following comments also be included:
“Councilman Fuller commented that he was appalled that the City Council will be debating whether certain demographic marginalized groups will be denied proclamations from the City. The reason they would be denied proclamations is they make people uncomfortable and are controversial.”
“Councilman Fuller gave the definition of white solidarity as a group of white people who refuse to acknowledge race, or other marginalized demographic groups because it makes some members of the group uncomfortable, and they are concerned they are controversial.”
Councilmember Fuller referred to a comment from the audience made after he discussed the Civil Rights Acts of 1964, 1965, and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) but he mentioned he could not say what it was because he did not hear it. He mentioned if the City Clerk has it, she can include it. He also mentioned if this gets voted down, he requests this language be included in the minutes for this meeting.
Councilmember Fuller moved to approve the minutes as he amended it.
City Clerk Libby Vreonis mentioned she has no record of the comment Councilmember Fuller referred to made by a member of the audience.
Councilmember Fuller commented he did not hear it either. He mentioned he has talked to Mr. McMurray about having microphones for the audience.
Mayor Pope mentioned the meeting was held at the Recreation Center to allow for larger capacity for the public to participate, but he does not think there was recording capability.
Mrs. Vreonis confirmed there was no audio or video recording for that meeting. She mentioned the minutes are summarized, not verbatim; therefore, the intent was not to exclude anything. She also mentioned there will be an item coming forward to discuss a more formal policy of the minutes.
Councilmember Higgins seconded the motion.
Mayor Pope suggested if it passes, that Councilmember Fuller submit the edits in writing to the City Clerk.
Motion was unanimous and so ordered. (5-0)
Councilmember Fuller passed a paper containing his edits along the Council to the City Clerk.
Item 3.5
Vice Mayor Meadows inquired if Ghilotti Bros. will complete paving during spring break.
Director of Public Works/City Engineer Kevin Rohani responded they will.
Vice Mayor Meadows expressed concern regarding it being completed on time with their track record. He mentioned there is no equipment on site; they have taken everything out.
Mr. Rohani responded staff is working with Ghilotti Bros. and a great deal of the paving will happen at night. He mentioned they are a large construction company and have many projects; it has taken longer than anticipated. He also mentioned it is not a City project, but is managed and owned by Tri-Delta, and it is his understanding there have been a number of issues with the project causing some delay, but they are now in the home stretch of the project. He confirmed paving will occur before schools are back in session and staff will provide notification for the public.
It was moved by Vice Mayor Meadows and seconded by Councilmember Fuller to adopt the resolution. Motion was unanimous and so ordered. (5-0) Item 3.6
Councilmember Fuller requested information regarding Brownstone and Main, the preliminary design, and what they can expect there.
Planning Manager Ken Strelo responded that there is a commercial development center project for a planning entitlement on the northwest corner of Brownstone and Main that has not moved forward since July 2021 and staff is unaware where the process is. He mentioned they have heard the property may be for sale, but they are still at the incomplete application stage; they are awaiting engineering plans for grading, drainage, etc. He mentioned the project would need to handle all storm drain run off and treatment onsite so there are some challenges.
Mayor Pope mentioned there are public comments for Brownstone.
Mr. Strelo mentioned the public comments may be for item 7.1 because Brownstone is one of the potential affordable housing overlay sites.
Mayor Pope asked Bud Chaddock to confirm which item he wishes to provide comment.
Mr. Chaddock confirmed he wishes to speak regarding item 7.1.
Councilmember Williams inquired if the City is held to anything if there are no entitlements on this property and the owner sells the property.
Mr. Strelo confirmed she is correct and mentioned the list in the General Plan refers to any projects they process during the year and this project has not been approved.
Vice Mayor Meadows commented that Mr. Strelo mentioned earlier there are issues with storm drainage in that area.
Mr. Strelo explained that entire area needs storm drain line C to go down and behind the properties on Brownstone ultimately to Marsh Creek. He mentioned there was a project that came before the Council about a year or so ago for modification with the same issues to resolve for storm drainage. He mentioned the interim plan is to treat and collect on site.
Vice Mayor Meadows inquired if it is foreseeable for a storm drain line to be put in at the location in the near future to run to Marsh Creek.
Mr. Strelo responded it is foreseeable, but they do not know when and it is expensive to build so it may be above the capability of this small 50-unit subdivision.
It was moved by Councilmember Fuller and seconded by Vice Mayor Meadows to accept the report. Motion was unanimous and so ordered. (5-0) 4) PUBLIC HEARINGS
4.1 Consideration of an Application to Increase Residential Solid Waste Collection Rates, Pursuant to the Franchise Agreement between the City of Oakley and Oakley Disposal Services, Inc., DBA Mt. Diablo Resource Recovery-Oakley (MDRR) (Tim Przybyla, Finance Director) Finance Director Tim Przybyla presented the staff report and PowerPoint presentation.
He highlighted the following key points of the application to increase residential solid waste collection rates: MDRR is requesting a $1.74 million or 23.3% increase to cover increasing costs, plus RRI adjustments over 5 years; $1.3 million or 74.8% of the increase is due to SB 1383 which mandates food waste recycling and requires weekly green waste pickup; with RRIs, the Option 1 increase over 5 years will be 37.5%; MDRR has offered Option 2, which results in a 53.6% increase, with MDRR carrying losses for 3 years and being reimbursed in years 4 and 5 with 0% interest; the total revenue from existing customers is the same over the 5-year period; after the 5 years, rates should be reset closer to Option 1 rates plus an RRI; and staff recommends Option 2 to ease shorter-term inflation pressures on Oakley residents who may have suffered financial impacts of COVID, however, this option results in higher rates in years 4 and 5. He explained with either option the amount ends up the same; residents either pay more in the beginning and less at the end or vice versa. He shared charts regarding MDRR rate increase factors, revenue comparison of the two options, and annual rates of the two options for a 5-year period. He discussed pros and cons of both options. He explained if not for SB 1383 and CARB compliance, the base rate increases would be minimal; however, the City is forced to comply with these State-mandated programs.
Councilmember Fuller inquired if MDRR has looked at other options like service reduction and if so, why it cannot accommodate it.
Sal Evola with MDRR responded that they looked at service reductions and anything they could, but they do not want to reduce the experience of their customers in regard to frequency and duration of current service. He shared they didn’t skip a beat during COVID; they adequately provided staffing for vehicles to ensure garbage is collected on time and they don’t want to disrupt the level of service they have provided since the inception of the franchise agreement with Oakley.
Councilmember Fuller inquired what will be the difference in service provided.
Mr. Evola explained new services are required with the State mandate, including a weekly collection of green waste, and MDRR will provide more outreach and will be monitoring collection with more inspections. He mentioned the costs in Oakley are so high is because green waste is picked up every other week. He explained there is cost to MDRR for additional drivers, trucks and routes that must be added. He mentioned Discovery Bay, Knightsen and Rio Vista are similar so this is not unique to Oakley. He mentioned this is the biggest change the legislation requires them to implement and unfortunately is one of the biggest cost drivers.
Councilmember Fuller commented he spoke with a person at the landfill who mentioned they have a limit of 5,000 tons per day. He inquired about MDRR’s limit and any excess.
Mr. Evola responded that MDRR’s capacity at its transfer station is approximately 1,200 tons per day. He mentioned before COVID, it was a little under that. He shared with COVID, more people were staying at home and cleaning up their homes to bring things to the transfer station. He mentioned some of the increase in recycling is due to the China National Sword of 2017-2018, which prompted MDRR to reinvest in its recycling operations to send as little as possible to the landfill. He mentioned their focus has been on technology and outreach to educate communities and schools, as well as being present at events to provide information, to do a better job to minimize what goes to the landfill.
Councilmember Fuller mentioned MDRR made a large capital investment prior to COVID to build a new operational center which was substantial to accommodate this change.
Mr. Evola commented that while many companies like them cut back and laid off employees during COVID, MDRR kept a full staff and reinvested $10 mil + capital investment into its recycling facility to keep up with the changing dynamics of the global marketplace and to build a better product that is more marketable to ensure as much as possible is staying out of the landfill. He shared this is one example of what they have done and how committed they have been. He invited the Council to visit the facility. He mentioned they are excited about it and hope to get others excited about it.
Councilmember Higgins inquired when residents would begin to pay and when residents would see the weekly increase of green waste collection if the Council approves this.
Mr. Evola responded that the resolution is written for the fee increase to begin July 1, 2022, and annually rates would shift to coincide with all the other City fees. He mentioned MDRR will educate the public. He explained this is an unfunded state mandate and MDRR is having to build an organics receiving facility at its transfer station in Pittsburg. He explained the reasoning for it is once food waste is placed with green waste, there are vectors, and their permits as well as permits from Bay Area Air Quality Management District do not allow outdoor receipt and processing of green waste once food waste is placed with it. He mentioned they hope to begin construction on the building on June 1, 2022. He explained they are in the stage of plan checks with the City of Pittsburg, they already have been granted all of their discretionary entitlements, and construction is expected to take 12-18 months. He shared that in advance of operating, they will provide education outreach, updates to City Council and schools, and notification to customers well in advance of going to weekly service. He mentioned Oakley has some large lots and many people do composting at home so they will increase outreach and education for those customers right away. He mentioned those that don’t have room or time for it; they would start when the building is operational. He shared they have been preparing for this for 4-5 years and they thought with COVID, the state would provide some relief to their industry; however, the state did not back off on the timeline for implementation, but rather it gave cities a little time before they are penalized for not implementing the law. He mentioned the Council adopted a Notice of Intent to Comply at a former Council meeting to provide Oakley additional time so it would not come under fire from the state. He expressed he appreciates working with staff and they agree with the points made during the presentation. He explained this is not a one-size-fits-all; there are other communities that have decided to go with a 5-year option, but they want to do what is right for Oakley. He mentioned MDRR will implement what the Council decides.
Councilmember Williams asked Mr. Evola if he can illuminate the audience on the profit model in which MDRR operates and explain if MDRR is getting rich off this increase.
Mr. Evola responded that MDRR is allowed to only make 10% on the contract. He explained there are some years where MDRR comes before the Council for the RRI which is like a COLA, and every 4, 5 or 6 years, MDRR comes before the Council for the base rate which is what is in front of them and it provides a deep dive into their audited financial statements that have been submitted to the City. He explained base rates are also used when there are new services to implement. He mentioned staff did a great job of pointing out that if not for SB 1383, state unfunded mandates, which makes up 17.41% of this increase, and the California Air Resources Board makes up another
1.51%; this base rate, this deep dive, would be minimal. He mentioned MDRR serves at their pleasure and are trying to help residents be in compliance with those laws, but if not for the law, it would be a minimal increase.
Mayor Pope called for public comments. There being none, he moved to deliberations.
Councilmember Fuller commented his intent is to get after the legislature about tax credits for the changes coming about with these unfunded mandates as it takes more out of a family income from someone making less than those with income at a higher end. He mentioned if the State is going to require unfunded mandates on people at the local level it should provide a tax credit. He expressed appreciation for what MDRR has done. He shared they met a few times to review service reduction versus maintaining service and he has come to know MDRR much better over the past 3-4 years. He mentioned MDRR does immense work for the community and unless customers do not put out their containers, they are always going to have a truck coming to pick up refuse timely and in a professional manner. He mentioned he has one situation that is disappointing. He shared he sat through many sessions with MDRR and City staff going over detail and asking for more, and yesterday afternoon is the first he has heard that staff is looking for ministerial approval. He commented that this would allow the City Manager to approve the rate increases with other fees that they really don’t see a whole lot and it would kind of just disappear. He commented it is like the railroad station; an individual makes great budgets, but the only way he cannot vote for the railroad is to not approve the whole budget which he does not approve of. He expressed similarly, he disapproves of ministerial approval. He explained he is an elected official and if he approves this, he will be imposing a substantial fee on residents; he should make the decision and allow people to voice their opinion; they have the option to recall him or not vote for him in the next election, but the decision ought to rest with the City Council. He mentioned that section is a deal breaker and people can yell and scream at the City Manager, but he is not elected.
Councilmember Williams requested the City Manager explain the process of how other fees are handled and why. She mentioned this is a standard percentage RRI increase and it would not come back and be approved for an increase by 50%, for example.
City Manager Joshua McMurray responded that the provision would allow the City Manager to approve a rate increase that is equal to or less than the RRI, the standard index that the disposal industry uses. He explained it would not provide the City Manager with any other approval authority; he would have no approval authority for the base rate; the provision only speaks to the RRI adjustment that MDRR can ask for as set forth in their franchise agreement. He further explained that the provision allows him authority only on the RRI piece and nothing over what the RRI is in that particular year.
Councilmember Williams commented she knew about this, had her questions answered, and it makes sense as it follows the same process as all other City fees.
Mr. McMurray commented that the master fee schedule goes to the Council for approval for all City fees at the same time and this takes the RRI process and places it in the master fee schedule. He mentioned it is standard in other jurisdictions and is why it is being proposed, but if it is the pleasure of the City Council, they can continue to have the current practice in place; it does not make a difference to him.
Vice Mayor Meadows inquired how it is handled in other cities where MDRR provides services.
Mr. McMurray responded it is a combination of both.
Mr. Evola responded that Concord approves it in a master fee schedule and the City Manager approves it in Pittsburg; it doesn’t go to Council. He mentioned what staff has proposed is a hybrid of the two; it is still approved by Council, but instead of it being a stand-alone item, it is included in the master fee schedule. He mentioned Concord did this years ago so that all fees come to the Council for review at the same time; it is more cohesive and there is a nexus. He shared for all the cities they serve, if it is a base year, it comes to the Council. He explained that in index years, there are no discretionary items; it is only to determine if the calculation is correct or not.
Vice Mayor Meadows inquired if this fee is included in the master fee schedule and the Council has issue with this fee, if it can be pulled and the remainder of the fees can be voted on.
Mr. McMurray confirmed that is correct.
Mr. Evola mentioned it is very similar to the Consent Calendar where items can be pulled and other items can be voted on.
Mayor Pope requested the slide be brought up on the screen showing option 1 and 2 in comparison. He commented option 2 spreads the cost and puts it off until later which he doesn’t like for a number of reasons. He mentioned the rate increase is based on an index which they have no control over. He shared he has no problem with the City Manager having that authority and the City Council ultimately approves it when reviewing the master fee schedule every year. He mentioned if voters have a problem with it, they bring it to the Council and the Council can address it during its consideration of the master fee schedule. He expressed he is in favor of option 1.
Vice Mayor Meadows expressed he also prefers option 1 because the overall dollar is cheaper over time.
Mr. Przybyla commented that for the customer that is here for the five years, it would be the exact same amount; they are just paying less at the beginning and more at the end.
Councilmember Williams commented the amounts are the same.
Mayor Pope commented that the total amount is the same after 5 years, but a resident living here the first 2 years could reap the benefit then move and the person moving in thereafter would be paying a higher rate but without receiving the benefit. He mentioned none of the people moving into the new housing to be built would get the benefit; it is not fair or equitable; it is kicking the can down the road; customers would pay dramatically more in years 4 and 5. He mentioned those are some of the reasons he is in favor of option 1.
Vice Mayor Meadows commented for a 96-gallon container, the total 5-year increase under option 1 is a $22.75 increase, and for option 2 it is a $32.50 increase, almost $10 more over 5-year period.
Mayor Pope commented that presumably after the 5-year period, they would reevaluate and it would go down, but his skeptical side is that fees goes up, but never come down.
Mr. Przybyla commented that he reviewed the numbers and they are the same in the end. He mentioned customers would be paying less in early years and paying more in the end to catch up. He explained it is like taking a loan in earlier years for services being provided, they are carrying the losses, but in the latter years they have to pay more and that is why it goes up. He mentioned it would likely reset closer to option 1 because option 1 projects what it would cost for the annual cost; it could cost higher at the end and less at the beginning, but the amounts add up to be the same with either option after 5 years.
Councilmember Fuller commented he agrees with option 1 but doesn’t agree with ministerial approval. He expressed he thinks they are skirting the issue; approval should reside with the Council. He mentioned the increases will impact households differently and will have a bigger impact on some households than others and that is why he would like a tax credit based on income. He mentioned as it goes on it increases and he appreciates MDRR taking the loss in first couple of years. He also mentioned MDRR has been very good to provide no rate increases during the pandemic, has made sure refuse has been picked up, and has made exceptions and found a way to deal with it when bills were not paid. He commented he can work with that, but ministerial approval is not something he likes.
Mr. Przybyla clarified that 2.77% is the RRI in option 1 which is closer to the amounts they should expect to see. He explained it is like a CPI, every year it is published and it provides what the index is this year and it rolls into the contract which is almost an automatic approval; however, it would come to the Council in the master fee schedule for review and approval, but he is not sure how they could deny MDRR that increase anyway. He commented it was not staff’s intention to hide anything from Councilmember Fuller.
Councilmember Fuller commented he didn’t mean that; what he meant is that MDRR would not get a rate increase if it needs it. He mentioned the Council should be aware of it.
Councilmember Williams commented that the Council approves the master fee schedule so it does have control over review and approval of the fee; it is just doing it one time with all fees rather than pulling this fee out for separate review. She mentioned it makes sense to see the total fees at one time because if they piecemeal it in, they may forget something they approved months ago. She expressed she is more in favor of option 2; she gets what Mayor Pope is saying about some customers may not see the benefit depending on when they move here, but it is such a big jump all of a sudden and then year 6 would probably provide another increase so it would feel like fees are increasing drastically. She shared she can go either way. She mentioned Brentwood has different levels of service and it is not good so she would not recommend, for example, reducing recycling service, which is something she has discussed with MDRR, especially with everyone getting Amazon packages. She mentioned we are stuck with this increase; it is just a matter of deciding which option is best. She shared she is thinking of gas at $6.00/gallon right now.
Mayor Pope commented that garbage trucks burn gas too though.
Councilmember Higgins commented she likes making payments and it will even out; by 2024, the price for the 32-gallon container in options 1 and 2 are almost the same. She expressed she prefers option 2.
It was moved by Councilmember Williams and seconded by Councilmember Higgins to adopt the resolution approving option 2 as written.
Councilmember Fuller amended the motion to approve option 2 with no ministerial approval of future fee increases.
Mayor Pope announced the amendment to the original motion died for lack of a second.
A vote on the original motion was as follows: AYES: Higgins, Williams. NOES: Fuller, Meadows, Pope. (2-3)
Mayor Pope announced it loses 2-3.
It was moved by Councilmember Fuller and seconded by Vice Mayor Meadows to adopt the resolution approving option 1 without ministerial approval of future fee increases.
The vote on the motion was as follows: AYES: Fuller, Meadows. NOES: Higgins, Pope, Williams. (2-3) The motion did not pass.
It was moved by Vice Mayor Meadows and seconded by Mayor Pope to adopt the resolution approving option 1 as written. AYES: Meadows, Pope, Williams. NOES:
Fuller, Higgins. (3-2) The motion passed.
Mayor Pope called for a brief recess at 7:37pm.
The City Council reconvened at 7:42 pm.
5) REGULAR CALENDAR
5.1 A Resolution of the City of Oakley City Council Making Findings and Denying the Project Known as McDonald’s Drive-Through Quick Serve Restaurant at Laurel Plaza Conditional Use Permit (CUP 03-20) and Design Review (DR 09-20) Located in the Laurel Plaza Shopping Center on the Northwest Corner of Laurel Road and O’Hara Avenue (APN: 035-510-006) (Derek Cole, City Attorney)
City Attorney Derek Cole presented the staff report. He mentioned the item returns to the Council from two meetings ago and during the last meeting, the Council directed staff and him to prepare findings that would explain the Council’s reasoning for denying this project. He indicated the agenda packet that was provided two meetings ago had a resolution that would approve the project, but by a 3-2 vote, the Council tentatively expressed its desire to deny the project and he was directed to prepare findings. He mentioned before the Council is a set of findings that reflect what he understood was the Council's decision. He commented on the style drafting this, indicating when they spoke about this a year and half ago, the Council sat in quasi-judicial capacity when they heard this item and he used the analogy that they had their judge hats on. He mentioned both sides presented evidence, the applicant put forth compelling evidence that would have, in staff’s opinion, allowed the Council to issue the conditional use permit; the applicant made many changes to their project at staff’s request, that all unfolded over the course of 4-5 meetings and workshops. He added that equally, the Council also heard from several members of the public. He shared in his 12 years as City Attorney for Oakley, he is not certain that they have ever had that level of participation with one exception around 2010-2011. He mentioned members of the public provided evidence which caused 3 members of the City Council to agree with them and 2 agreed with the applicant; it was a close decision. He mentioned for the sake of intellectual honesty and for the sake of presenting to a court, and he is not saying someone is going to sue, but if someone does sue, the resolution would provide the reasoning and a Superior Court judge could look at the Council’s findings. He mentioned he thinks it is important to send the message that the Council took its time to consider the matter, both sides presented evidence, and they were sincere, and he drafted the findings with that in mind. He commented that the findings that he felt were consistent with the Council’s direction were numbers 3 and 4. He mentioned he never thought 1 and 2 were at issue and that doesn’t mean that the Council approved of the project; the applicant must meet the burden on all 5 elements to carry the day and at least 3 Councilmembers didn’t feel the applicant met all 5 elements. He shared he saw a letter from legal counsel that came in at the end of the day shortly before this meeting.
He mentioned he is very familiar with the legal standards for findings that a Superior Court would apply and the findings drafted for 3 and 4 state the ultimate conclusion of the City Council. He mentioned the Council does not have to get into specifics as long as there is an ultimate finding of fact which essentially meet the standards under the Topanga case that is mentioned. He added that the Council can get into more detail if it wants to, but his sense is that the Council has heard a lot of evidence and it appears that 3 Councilmembers relied on statements of the surrounding community and there were many members of the surrounding community that were here and spoke in detail, and that is what informed the Council’s decision. He expressed he believes the findings summarize the Council’s decision and are stated in a level of generality because of the nature of the hearing and the considerable testimony the Council received. He recommended, if it remains the will of the majority of the Council, to adopt the resolution as drafted. He noted there is no public hearing because they are done with that, but there is a Brown Act which provides that the public has a right to address the Council on every matter appearing on an agenda. He commented that it gets a little into the weeds, but anyone wishing to speak tonight would have the opportunity to appear and speak, but this is not technically a public hearing. He mentioned it gets a little confusing with the difference between the usual Brown Act public comment and a public hearing public comment; the usual legal significance is it is related to whether a person can exhaust a challenge to a legal action for purposes of presenting it to a court. He shared he mentions this in case the Council has received any public speaker cards on this item; even though the public hearing has closed, people have the right to speak under the Brown Act and they will have 3 minutes to speak.
Mayor Pope commented he has public speaker cards and they will be called upon to speak when the time is right. He confirmed with the Councilmembers that they received a copy of the letter from the law firm.
Councilmember Williams commented that she knows the City Attorney mentioned the findings can be fairly general, but she thinks there should be more specific language why the Council denied it. She mentioned 3 and 4 are very similar which is fine, but she wants to make sure the Council is holding up its end of the bargain and if the case is seen, there needs to be more specifics. She mentioned she was hoping more detail could be added regarding the standards for the retail business district, to retain small scale businesses, especially in response to this letter where it is talking about it is fine with the General Plan. She shared she thinks they need to include what the intent of the retail business area is in the resolution. She mentioned it talks about how Laurel is the Main artery, but this property has gone through so many ideations and in 2008, they talked about not wanting a drive-through, so she thinks something needs to be included to indicate what the property has always been intended to be. She requested more specificity. She explained if seen in court, the City can provide evidence of the intent since 2008, but she thinks it should be in there from the beginning so it is very clear that this property has had a long history of this is not going to work for us.
Mr. Cole responded if the Council wishes to direct him to do that, he can go back and bring forth a revised draft resolution at a future meeting. He mentioned just so everyone understands what the setting would be if there is a legal challenge, any challenger would say ultimate findings are not supported by substantial evidence. He mentioned he talked about the substantial evidence standard before; it is evidence that is reasonable, credible and of solid value; the court doesn’t weigh the evidence, there is not a 50% + threshold; the court looks to if there is some reasonable evidence that the Council could rely on. He also mentioned that his sense is that if they are required to defend themselves, he would put forth all that Councilmember Williams mentions in a summary of evidence and walk through that evidence, explain to the court all of the various changes, cite the speakers who brought forth evidence to support the general findings.
He shared that his opinion is that they have met the basic standard to inform the court of their decision and he believes they would not be precluded in raising all of the points Councilmember Williams mentioned. He mentioned he is comfortable where they are at, but he can go back and bring forth more specificity if that is the Council’s direction.
Mayor Pope called for public comments.
Public Comments
Bud Chaddock thanked the Council for its decision last time. He shared he feels the neighborhood, children and traffic congestion on said road are the evidence. He mentioned there have been things on both sides and he understand they are trying to work it out, but the community is just as important as a corporation. He shared they took a trip to Grass Valley and every town is looking the same; they saw a Quick Quack and a McDonald’s and at 2 p.m. on a Monday afternoon, the Quick Quack had people out onto the street which is evidence in his mind. He mentioned you don’t have to drive far in any direction to see the same and he thinks Oakley wants to set itself apart as they have always talked about doing, but they would not be doing that if the project is approved. He commented that he sees Oakley as more than following a pattern like other cities. He mentioned it takes courage and guts to vote the way the Council did and he thinks they need more guts, not to follow the leader and be like everybody else; every town looks same. He shared that he had lunch at Bethel Island and it was calm with birds, eagles, etc.; he doesn’t want it built up and expressed concern how people are going to get out of there the way it is being built.
Donna Chaddock thanked the Council for its time in listening. She shared that they have been attending Council meetings for a year and have learned so much how decisions are made, how funds are allocated, and how resources are gathered and used. She commented she admires each of them for their public service; they are elected officials, anybody in this position must have heart for the community, and she does not believe they would be there otherwise. She thanked the Council. She mentioned they are still here to urge the Council to reject this CUP because they want to see Laurel Plaza developed in a way that is consistent to create a community that is inviting. She shared that they have been participating in this matter for over a year and attending the planning meetings. She mentioned she has heard the Council say it wants Oakley to be a destination city, but no one will drive to Laurel Plaza for that as that is not its intended purpose. She commented they don’t want a drive-through restaurant across from an elementary school; it is not the appropriate location. She urged the Council to create Laurel Plaza as a loving, inviting place where people can go and enjoy themselves. She asked the Council to please vote no.
Mayor Pope called for any other public comment. There being none, he moved to Council deliberation.
Councilmember Fuller agreed with what Mr. Cole said and mentioned he is not an attorney but he doesn’t know why they would have to put everything out there until they are ready to put everything out there.
Councilmember Higgins commented it is important to support the resolution. She mentioned supporting the resolution means they accept voting no. She mentioned she does not want to not support the resolution as she was just urged to do so she is going to support it. She mentioned she already said no.
Mayor Pope commented it is a little confusing because a yes vote is to say no.
It was moved by Councilmember Higgins and seconded by Councilmember Fuller to adopt the resolution. AYES: Fuller, Higgins, Williams. NOES: Meadows, Pope. (3-2) The motion passed.
6) REPORTS
6.1 CITY MANAGER
(a) City Manager
City Manager Joshua McMurray announced a third public workshop will be held to discuss the objectives of the City’s Strategic Plan on Thursday, March 31, 2022, beginning at 6:30 p.m. He also announced Friday Night Bites will be held in the Civic Center Plaza on Friday, April 1st at 5 p.m.
A person in the audience asked a question.
Mayor Pope indicated the person asked where the Strategic Plan workshop will be held.
Mr. McMurray responded it will be held at the Oakley Recreation Center located on O’Hara Avenue.
6.2 OAKLEY CITY COUNCIL/OAKLEY CITY COUNCIL ACTING AS THE
SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE OAKLEY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
(a) Reports from Council Liaisons to Regional Committees, Commissions and Boards AND Oakley City Council/Oakley City Council Acting as the Successor Agency to the Oakley Redevelopment Agency
Councilmember Fuller reported he attended a three-hour Delta Protection Commission and will have more detail next time on it. He mentioned Eric Vink is leaving after 8 years of doing a great job. He announced DWR will have a hearing on Lookout Slough. He mentioned Solano County is making a big move to limit recreational use on Lookout Slough.
Mayor Pope reported the City is working on a backway out of E. Cypress so it is not like a cul-de-sac. He shared they have been engaged in meetings and progress is being made toward a road out of E. Cypress.
(b) Requests for Future Agendas
None.
7) WORK SESSION
7.1 Work Session on the 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element Update (Ken Strelo, Planning Manager)
Planning Manager Ken Strelo presented the staff report.
Chelsea Pane, Director of Urban Design and Planning at Ascent Environmental, shared a PowerPoint presentation. reviewed the agenda, provided an overview of the Housing Element, shared the project schedule, and provided information regarding opportunities for community engagement. She also reviewed the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) including the breakdown of housing needs by income level and progress. She discussed the Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) District including default zoning to accommodate the RHNA, density and affordability, current AHO sites, capacity on current AHO sites, and provided a preliminary summary of housing capacity for the target 2023-2031 RHNA. She shared key changes to State laws including no net loss (SB 166), realistic capacity requirements, SB 9 lot splits, estimated acres needed, and AHO sites and new potential sites. She reviewed potential rezone sites individually in relation to zoning and the General Plan and capacity on the potential AHO sites. She shared discussion points including if staff should move forward with applying the AHO zoning to these seven potential sites, if any of the sites are not appropriate for the AHO overlay, and if there are other sites or general areas of the city that staff and the consultants should consider.
Councilmember Williams mentioned they can designate different overlays, but they can’t force a builder to build there, this just meets the state requirements, and it is not protected.
Ms. Pane indicated that is correct.
Public Comments
Mayor Pope called for Shelly Fitzgerald to speak. Ms. Fitzgerald responded she has no comment as her questions were answered in the presentation.
Pat Rice submitted a written comment requesting Section 8 housing be a limited percentage of any affordable housing approved project.
Eileen Duke commented she understands the need for affordable housing, rent is ridiculous, and it is hard for younger people to be able to afford housing to get out of their parents’ homes. She requested clarification what is meant by affordable housing, apartment buildings or single-family homes. She inquired if Section 8 vouchers would be accepted as payment. She mentioned there are many 911 calls to Carol Lane which has Section 8 housing. She commented she is surprised that the Carol Lane apartments and senior housing have not already met the quota and she is not sure what the quota is for other Contra Costa cities. She mentioned if someone receives $2500/month in a Section 8 voucher for housing and rent is $4000/month in Danville, Section 8 people will not be living in Danville, but they will be living in Oakley if rent is $2500/month. She shared she is concerned about it. She mentioned when she moved to Oakley in 1989, all of Oakley was affordable housing and that is why they moved to Oakley so they could afford it, but they had to work to make their mortgage payment and take on the commute. She expressed that anyone long-standing in Oakley put their sweat into building this community and could not use Section 8 and she does not want to see Oakley turn into something other than the beautiful city that the Council has envisioned.
Maggie Diodoro commented she has similar questions. She mentioned everyone is aware of what goes on at Carol Lane and she doesn’t want to see that for the rest of Oakley. She commented that people are paying $600,000 for homes that were $120,000 and they are going to have apartments and Section 8’s right next to them and it is not fair. She mentioned Oakley is not that big and she would think that the Carol Lane apartments would satisfy the quota. She inquired what the quota is for Danville, Walnut Creek, if they have any, and if there is any stipulation on that and where this all goes. She also inquired if it is by city or county. She mentioned she agrees there should be housing that is affordable but people have to work for it, not pay for it with money from the state because if you get something for free, you see what happens. She expressed she wants to see Oakley continue as the Council has envisioned and she does not want Oakley to be viewed as a city where people do not want to go like downtown Oakland because they might get shot and she has seen a change in Oakley in the past few years with Section 8’s coming into the city. She commented she hopes they have more of a say in where they go so that affordable housing/apartments are not right next to homes that people have paid a lot of money for.
Karen Hines commented she is co-owner of Brownstone Gardens and has run the event center for 17 years. She mentioned one of properties next to them on the southwest corner of Brownstone and Main Street is one of the proposed properties for affordable housing. She expressed she cannot imagine apartments going in next door to a wedding venue that they have put a lot of blood, sweat and tears into. She mentioned crime increases with Section 8 and she is concerned guests will no longer book weddings at their venue because they will be worried about their cars being broke into in the parking lot. She also mentioned their venue makes noise and they already receive complaints from people who are not close to their property. She indicated housing nearby will not like the noise and it would be crazy to have it next to their venue. She recommended the Council consider having it located somewhere else.
Marilyn Tiernan commented she may be putting the cart before the horse, but the condition of the road on Brownstone is that it is tiny; it is big enough for one horse with a buggy. with the condition of the road. She mentioned Karen has done a beautiful job with Brownstone Gardens and she has not heard of any problems with it during the time she has lived on the road for 36 years. She shared that the road has a dip so noise echoes, safety on the road is horrendous, and kids are walking the road every day to and from school. She mentioned kids hide in her driveway for fear of people attacking them. She expressed that they have a right to enjoy their properties. She commented for underprivileged, one of the stipulations is that they are not in a food desert; here there are no grocery stores by these locations. She also commented that children deserve a safe pathway to school. She expressed she enjoys the community, loves the city and plans to stay involved in it, and appreciates all the Council is doing as it is not an easy job.
Randi Adler commented they have talked about assisted living for a long time instead of apartments and that would stop crime and they need more assisted living for the elderly.
She mentioned if these people are so inclined to put affordable housing in they would actually build assisted living. She mentioned taxes just increased and she wants to know who will take care of the taxes for low-income housing as she does not think it will be the other residents. She commented that she will start a GoFundMe page and get an injunction to stop it because they are not going to watch this city be ruined. She urged the Council to stop this and make it reasonable for people living here who are paying taxes and enjoy their city and also put in something reasonable where the City does not have to put in more Police officers and that will not overcrowd schools. She mentioned again they will get an injunction and start a GoFundMe page. She indicated to the Council to try it and see what happens.
Mary Roney submitted a written comment to inquire what makes Oakley designated as 30 dwellings per acre and if Oakley can change its designation to less dwellings per acre.
Tosha Grey mentioned the presentation asks if any of the sites are not appropriate for the overlay. She inquired what criteria should they be considering to make that decision.
She also inquired how they look at traffic generated by high density development at any of the sites, but specifically for her as to the O’Hara site which they have had a lot of recent discussion about traffic at that intersection. She also inquired how sites were chosen, what criteria was used, and if property owners were involved as part of the discussion. She commented that someone mentioned assisted living or senior housing and she thinks that is a fabulous idea. She inquired if either of those fulfill the state state requirement, and if so, can they be specifically designated for that. She thanked the Council for its effort to listen to the community and balance state mandates with wants of the community.
A letter was provided to the Council from staff submitted by T. Levias for review.
Councilmember Williams inquired how many of the City’s existing overlays have been developed into projects.
Mr. Strelo responded that Elm Lane is under construction; the units will count toward the current cycle; they will not count toward the 6
th upcoming cycle.
Councilmember Williams mentioned the City has had this cycle for the past 8 years and in that time only 1 project has come to fruition.
Mr. Strelo confirmed that is correct.
Councilmember Williams commented she understands from living in Danville that they do 10% up to 120% in the same building and she thinks that is important because if anyone has been to the apartments at Carol Lane, you can tell management treats them as someone not paying as much rent as to someone who is paying more and she thinks that makes a difference in the way people are treated. She mentioned if laundry and elevators are never working, how are people going to treat their living space. She added that no matter what amount people are paying for rent, they deserve to be treated with dignity and that is not what is happening there right now. She inquired if they can designate each of the sites to require units to be 10% up to 120%. She mentioned if you are paying $3500/month in rent, you are not going to stand for things being broken and those people are going to become the voice for other people living there that don’t have that voice like at Carol Lane. She indicated she would like to see sites closer to transit. She mentioned Tri-Delta goes out to Brownstone and Main but she doesn’t believe they have as regular routes so they need to consider sites that have access to transit and also grocery stores as mentioned.
Ms. Pane responded that the Council cannot mandate that the sites be mixed-income development, but they can do something that is considered inclusionary where the Council can mandate that all new market rate housing include a portion of affordable housing. She added that the Council cannot deny a 100% affordable project that comes forward for that reason. She explained it is not allowed under State law to place those kind of restrictions (mixed-income) on new affordable housing.
Councilmember Williams inquired if it would meet the numbers the City need if the City required all of the new affordable housing to be inclusionary.
Ms. Pane responded that it would help down the road for no net loss because if a project that comes forward that is 100% market rate with no affordable, the City doesn’t get any credits for RHNA, but if a project is required to have affordable, then yes, the City gets to credit those units to RHNA.
Councilmember Williams inquired if an affordable housing developer doesn’t come to a designated site, but a commercial developer does and the City decides to go with commercial development, if the City would then have to pick another affordable housing site to have no net loss.
Ms. Pane confirmed that the City would have to pick another site.
Councilmember Fuller inquired if there were any criteria set how to choose these locations. He inquired if anyone came to the Council for direction before starting this project.
Mr. Strelo responded that is what they are here for tonight. He explained they didn’t want to come without sites; if any sites are not wanted, they can take them off the table or consider others. He mentioned they have already made it so commercial designated and zoned sites can have the overlay and multi-family zoning, M-9, M-12 and M-17, can have the overlay, but they haven’t done any single-family overlay yet. He mentioned some sites in the presentation are zoned R-6 and R-15. He explained R-15 is a 15,000 sq. ft lot, the parcels near O’Hara and wouldn’t be a first option. He mentioned staff recommends the Council bring R-6 into the fold because otherwise they essentially have no sites; they don’t have enough multi-family acreage to put all of the overlay on it; they need other zoning districts to come in. He mentioned another thing they are looking for ideally is a vacant site. He mentioned as Ms. Pane brought up in her presentation, they could run into could run into difficulties with sites that are not completely vacant. He mentioned they want to make it as easy as possible to get these approved. He mentioned size is another matter; anything over 10-acres they are not looking to do at this time which would hopefully resolve another project like what they have on Carol Lane which is a very large, multi-family project for Oakley; Oakley just doesn’t have a lot of multi-family zoning and that one is by far the largest. He mentioned those were the general criteria looked at. He explained that there are many different sites that would meet that criteria, but they wanted to get things kick-started because they didn’t have time to do a meeting from scratch and then come back months later with potential sites.
He mentioned it benefits Oakley if it is able to amend its affordable housing overlay and do the rezoning on sites before the next housing element is adopted. He explained it benefits the City in how many units they have to do and how they need to implement it.
He mentioned they cannot separate out senior from family apartments. He commented that the Twin Oaks apartments next to Lucky's is a senior, mixed-use residential project and is almost 100% affordable (exception being 1 manager unit). He shared that the projects can be anything; they don’t have to be apartments, but apartments are most logical when trying to get density of this range; it is hard to so with town homes or small homes. He mentioned Section 8 has nothing to do with this; Section 8 is a housing voucher done on individual properties and does not play into the City’s housing element or affordable housing overlay.
Councilmember Fuller inquired why there has been no development at Brownstone and Main and around that area. He shared he heard from Mr. Montgomery and Mr.
McMurray that it is difficult to build there.
Mr. Strelo responded that staff has seen 1 development application and it was halted.
He mentioned that is one reason they chose sites in that area because if there are incentives for developers to come to that area whether for affordable housing or a mixed-use project, that is to the benefit of the area in general as far as progress on development goes. He shared that they have not experienced that commercial development has been interested in these sites. He mentioned he does not want to speculate too much why developers are not submitting applications, but storm drainage could be a reason.
Mayor Pope mentioned he has a list of questions raised during public comment. He mentioned one question was what makes a site not appropriate. He commented that it may have been covered when Mr. Strelo discussed some of the criteria. He inquired if anything would be a deal killer. He mentioned conflicting neighboring uses.
Mr. Strelo responded that very large sites, over 10 acres, are not deal killers but not recommended as a first selection.
Ms. Pane mentioned it is actually written into state law that any site over 10 acres is too big unless proven otherwise so it becomes difficult to get them approved by the state.
Mayor Pope mentioned senior housing was another question that was brought up and they heard that yes, they can use it, but cannot mandate it or restrict it.
Mayor Pope addressed another question that was brought up regarding 30 units per acre.
Ms. Pane explained that Oakley is considered metropolitan because it is within the Bay Area that is a metropolitan region and its population is above 25,000. She explained small cities below 25,000 in the Bay Area are considered suburban jurisdictions and would have a density of 20, but because Oakley’s population exceeds 25,000, Oakley is at 30 units per acre, the default density. She mentioned in the past that the number of 30 was treated as a safe haven; if the numbers were at 30 the state would ask no questions if a site is appropriate for lower-income. She further explained that the 5th cycle default was 30 units as well, but the City argued in the Housing Element that 24 units per acre was a feasible density for Oakley and it passed muster with the state at that time which the same with many jurisdictions she worked with during that time; the state accepted density lower than the default density, but now, the state is getting more stringent in its review. She mentioned there is a chance they could get analysis by the state or they could hire an economist to provide an analysis to argue lower density based on various factors, but it is very challenging in other agencies she has worked with and they have not been allowed more often than not. She explained that time is important and they have to weigh how much time would they spend on that versus compliance. She shared in her experience, it would be challenging to argue for lower density in Oakley.
Mayor Pope inquired if the density number makes it more or less likely to develop under that overlay, for example, if a developer would be more likely to develop the property if the number is higher.
Ms. Pane confirmed the theory is that the default density is a more viable density.
Mayor Pope mentioned questions regarding Mai and Brownstone were addressed.
Mayor Pope inquired what density Carol Lane was built under.
City Manager Joshua McMurray responded it was built as 24 dwelling units per acre at the base density, but they applied for a 35% density bonus so it was built with 32.4 dwelling units per acre.
Mayor Pope inquired if all affordable housing projects can apply for that same bonus.
Mr. McMurray responded that is correct and the bonus density requirements have changed; it can be upward of 80% now.
Mayor Pope commented if the Council approves this at 30 dwelling units per acre, they could double it.
Mayor Pope mentioned a question was brought up how the density is chosen and what other cities are required to have.
Ms. Pane explained that every city and county in California is given a housing allocation. She shared that she has worked with about a dozen jurisdictions just in this cycle and RHNA has gone up in these other agencies, sometimes a 2-3 times increase since the previous cycle. She mentioned Oakley’s numbers have decreased a little which is unusual as other rural areas have increased.
Mayor Pope commented that the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) is assigned under state law to provide the numbers. He asked Ms. Pane to explain their process.
Ms. Pane confirmed that is correct; HCD assigns ABAG the regional target of housing units and there is a very detailed process ABAG goes through to propose, weigh in on, and vote on methodologies. She mentioned there are various factors that are considered and each jurisdiction is given an allocation based on the final adoption of the RHNA allocation by ABAG; these are the final numbers for Oakley’s RHNA allocation that they have to prepare a Housing Element to show how Oakley is going to accommodate.
Mayor Pope commented that they already talked about Brownstone has potential conflict with adjacent uses.
Mayor Pope addressed infrastructure. He mentioned if one of these projects comes in, it would have to contribute to traffic impacts, roads, schools, sewer and water.
Mr. Strelo explained the general improvements would be similar to any private development project which includes dedication of right of way frontage and of that frontage; for example, at Brownstone and Main or any road where the frontage is currently undeveloped, that development would have to dedicate what the current right of way is, and put in street, curb, gutter, sidewalk, bike lanes (if appropriate) and landscaping.
Mayor Pope commented that sewer, water, power and storm drains would all have to be brought in and connect somewhere and development would do all of that.
Mr. Strelo responded that is correct, depending on what is available. He mentioned the developer of affordable housing is not getting breaks on any of that. He added that if sewer is available, the developer could hook up to it, otherwise a septic system would be used, but for a large-scale project, it is probably not ideal. He mentioned it is the same for a storm drain and everything else.
Mayor Pope mentioned a question was brought up regarding current property owners’ input. He inquired if staff solicited them or if property owners have asked the City for the overlay.
Mr. Strelo responded that staff looked at potential sites to get discussions kick-started and property owners were notified of the work session, but there has not been enough time to meet with property owners individually.
Mayor Pope recalled the Council held a discussion about 10 years ago with some property owners regarding which owners wanted or did not want to stay in agriculture zoning.
Mr. Strelo mentioned that was the City-wide Rezone and that was to give an option to the property owners which zoning they wanted to apply to their property. He mentioned in this case, if the property owner were to have the affordable housing overlay, they could essentially ignore it and just not take advantage of it.
Mayor Pope commented it doesn’t limit them.
Mr. Strelo explained it doesn’t require them to do anything or limit them.
Mayor Pope commented that they spoke about SB 9 that allows lot-splitting and accessory dwelling units (ADUs). He mentioned they talked about the 80% bonus. He inquired if they could also do lot splits and ADUs to increase density.
Mr. Strelo responded that it is difficult for a developer to do that because of the rules and regulation regarding adjacent properties, etc. He mentioned SB 9 will probably not be used much for counting affordable housing as it is just not going to apply. He mentioned they do have some ADUs and they can project out but it should be similar to previous years and not in a linear fashion. He mentioned they have 10 and will try to get those approved. He mentioned if they see a large uptick then who knows, but SB 9 probably won’t affect their numbers much.
Councilmember Higgins mentioned near Dutch Bros. and the proposed Wendy's there is an empty lot and Sandy Point is across. She inquired about that area for sites.
Mr. Strelo responded that they can look at that area if there are any parcels she has in mind. He mentioned he believes at Sandy Point there is a commercial site between the hotel and Bridgehead Road. He inquired if she is referring to the property behind Arco or the larger River Oaks Crossing property.
Councilmember Higgins responded she is referring to both.
Mr. Strelo indicated he will look into both; he is not sure if River Oaks Crossing is permitted to have residential.
Vice Mayor Meadows commented that Section 8 is funding coming from HUD, the federal government, that local jurisdictions administer. He mentioned for Oakley, the Contra Costa Housing Authority administers. He shared as of January 1, 2020, a landlord is not allowed to turn down an application based on Section 8.
Mayor Pope mentioned staff is looking for direction on sites.
Councilmember Fuller commented that in Los Angeles 50 years ago or more, the southeast part of the city was built for people needing affordable housing which is an inhumane way to deal with needs of people for housing which is the same as he sees here in Oakley at proposed sites at Brownstone, Cypress and down Main. He mentioned there are no restaurants or groceries nearby. He mentioned Mr. Montgomery and Mr. McMurray both indicated it is difficult for developers to build there because of drainage, but all of a sudden they can put all sorts of people there for affordable housing. He commented that he can point out areas all night, but there is no criteria to work off of; there is no criteria for equitable distribution of affordable housing throughout the city, there is no criteria on how many units per acre or if they want to diversify it and spread out more so they don’t have large units. He mentioned in District 5 there are 4 units so most of it is there; it creates district wars. He mentioned he has no criteria to work from and he doesn’t think staff has it either. He shared a personal story regarding Police academy graduates who could not wear their uniforms in the affordable housing projects in which they lived in San Pedro because their families were home alone during the day and they were concerned for them. He indicated they need affordable housing, but he doesn’t like the idea of it mostly going in the southeast area of the city.
Councilmember Williams commented they haven’t yet heard a solution where units can go; everyone is saying they don’t want it next to them, but everyone had the benefit of lower housing when they moved into Oakley and salaries have not kept up. She requested they find good locations with access to food, grocery stores, transportation and viable jobs. She mentioned she likes near Amazon where there are industrial jobs.
She indicated this is not something new; it is not a new law; it has been around forever.
She commented that with the last cycle that began 8 years ago, there has been only 1 project executed so there is no guarantee the sites will be developed. She mentioned is it disheartening to hear that no one wants it next to them because people need places to live. She shared she came to Oakley because it was affordable but now so many people have been classed out because housing is priced so high. She explained they need to have this because she wants her kids to be able to afford to stay in Oakley. She expressed she wants to make sure they select sites that give people opportunities. She also expressed that she likes that Councilmember Higgins suggested a solution.
Vice Mayor Meadows mentioned it was brought up where sites are located and districts.
He shared that there are 2 sites in District 1 where he lives, but the majority of all built projects or projects under construction are also in District 1 and that should also be taken into consideration.
Mr. Strelo commented that staff didn’t take into consideration districts. He mentioned they will look into the sites near Bridgehead Road and for closeness to grocery and other things mentioned, but they still will look for vacant sites.
Vice Mayor Meadows commented that there are 2 sites in District 1, but all current projects he is aware or that have been built are in District 1, with the exception of 1 other in District 5 that he is aware of.
Councilmember Higgins commented she is still good with Empire Station across from the Diamond Hills gym near the railroad tracks. She inquired what is happening with the lot next to it.
Mr. Strelo responded the lot next to it is in the proximity of the Randall-Bold Water Treatment and there has been resistance to any residential north of Neroly Road in that vicinity. He mentioned he can connect with CCWD again to see if anything has changed, but it would be challenging to place residential there. He shared that in the last cycle, just east of that site, a site was proposed and taken off.
Councilmember Higgins commented that she likes Empire Station and by Dutch Bros. and Amazon. She inquired about the corner of Rose and Main across from ISD.
Mr. Strelo responded they have no projects or applications for that site.
Mayor Pope commented if anyone does not like this, stop electing the people in Sacramento because they are taking away local control every day. He mentioned they think a top-down, boilerplate, carbon copy is for everybody and that is not why he moved his family to Oakley; he moved here because it is unique and they should not be able to control Oakley’s destiny. He shared this is one of the reasons he ran for City Council. He encouraged anyone opposed to call or write a letter to our representatives because they are steamrolling us. He mentioned the government definition of affordable housing is different, like apples and oranges, than what they may call affordable such as a working family being able to afford a home. He mentioned this is another reason that splitting the City into districts is a bad idea; they just saw a conflict and they are not even in district yet. He commented that for criteria they need sites close to transit, grocery stores, hospitals, services and schools. He mentioned Oakley doesn’t fit that and he believes ABAG is wrong and the City needs to do everything in their power to correct their error. He mentioned as Councilmember Fuller indicated, the sites need to be close to grocery stores and other things. He mentioned sometimes lower-income folks need transportation and sites need to be close to bus routes or BART. He mentioned more affordable housing near BART in Antioch would be good. He shared that Antioch has a huge development on the other side of Hwy160 and if services are going in around that area, he would like to consider sites nearby in Oakley so their residents can access those services. He mentioned he does not people in a desert of services. He expressed he is not in favor of a 30% buffer at the front end; he prefers the minimum to satisfy the law while not encouraging what he thinks is a mistake which is building affordable housing where people can’t survive. He mentioned if they need to do 30 units per acre do that and if they do 80%, that is even more reason that the City has no control. He shared he likes Councilmember Higgins’ idea of River Oaks Crossing or the northwest side. He mentioned the area was once considered for big-box commercial but would need more residents to support commercial there. He added that many sites in the City are infrastructure deserts. He commented that storm drains and sewer are expensive to put in and staff mentioned a 50-unit project could not afford to put it in, but perhaps a 300-unit project could afford to put it in to benefit everyone else around them to hook in. He requested staff look to areas of the City where economic development can tap into the development and get something positive out of it.
Mr. Strelo commented there is a minimum and maximum of 1/2 acre to 10 acres that should be looked at and staff feels that 1-5 acres is most viable.
Mayor Pope expressed they don’t want another Carol Lane.
Mr. Strelo commented there has been enough input from the Council over the years that they don’t want another project in Oakley like that again.
Mayor Pope called for recess at 9:33 p.m.
The City Council reconvened at 9:43.
7.2 2092 Oakley Road Preliminary General Plan Amendment (PA 08-21) - Work Session to discuss the merits of a potential project to amend the General Plan Land Use Designation of an approximately 9.9-acre site from Commercial (CO) to Multi-Family Residential, Low Density (ML) (Ariana Ruiz, Planning Technician) Planning Technician Ariana Ruiz presented the staff report and PowerPoint presentation.
Applicant Dan Cosgrove, Managing Partner of this parcel and owner of the building La Michoacan Bakery operates from and previously owned a parcel next to it. He shared he is the CEO of Mercantile Systems and he has an understanding of commercial property in Oakley. He mentioned after analysis of the property with its current zoning for commercial, it is not financially viable and that is the reason for their proposal.
Ralph Strauss with SDG architects referred to a slide on the PowerPoint. He explained that the site has some unique challenges with circulation, access and visibility and they cannot make it work for commercial. He mentioned they have studied a wide variety of commercial solutions for the site, none of which has probability and they looked at other options for a variety of solutions. He mentioned this housing is affordable by design, affordable being different from the discussion this evening. He mentioned the residential will support surrounding commercial and there will be pedestrian links to Main and to Oakley Road for access. He shared that all 3 designs have 2 car garages and additional parking, with small backyards.
Owen Poole commented they are looking for direction. He shared many years ago he was involved in the Holly Creek Development and spent time with Virgil Calisesi who owned the property next to it and it was always meant to be part of the housing development but the deal never got done. He discussed the proximity to the park, circulation, median in the middle, right in, right out have made it difficult to make it commercially viable.
Public Comments
Mary Roney mentioned she was going to ask if any of the homes meet affordable housing discussed earlier, but her question was answered. She inquired if affordable allows 30 people per acre.
Mayor Pope clarified it is 30 units per acre.
Ms. Roney inquired since they don’t meet the requirements if they can request for a percentage or number of units to fall into the low-income requirements as Councilmember Williams suggested earlier.
Marilyn Tiernan was called upon but was not present.
Mayor Pope mentioned the Council received written comments from Mr. Bailey and he moved to deliberation.
Mayor Pope requested the location slide showing the project site be displayed.
Councilmember Williams commented that they mentioned the site is not commercially viable. She inquired how long they have been marketing it. She mentioned in general, she doesn’t like rezoning commercial to residential.
The applicant mentioned it has been 3 years.
Councilmember Williams mentioned affordable means different things. She inquired what the houses will go for.
The applicant shared they are thinking $600k.
Councilmember Williams inquired if they would be open to a percentage being actual affordable housing.
The applicant responded they are open to discuss anything.
Councilmember Higgins inquired how they could do a right in, right out without crashing.
Mayor Pope explained it would be west bound in, west bound out. He mentioned staff could determine if a light is needed at the intersection or if a turn lane would be needed or desirable.
Councilmember Higgins commented in Brentwood there is a neighborhood where there are 6 homes in a court and it is unsafe with one-way streets. She inquired if this would be the same.
The architect responded there are two-way streets with full driveway aprons with two driveway parking spaces.
Councilmember Higgins inquired if the driveway is big enough for RVs and boats.
The architect responded they are not.
Councilmember Higgins inquired if there are any single-story homes.
The architect explained the homes are not designed yet, but they are able to provide more homes if they build up.
Vice Mayor Meadows mentioned the applicant quoted a price estimate but he assumes he will be selling to a builder.
The applicant responded he is not sure yet.
Vice Mayor Meadows commented he is not keen on all three plans, but is leaning toward Plan A. He mentioned he understands the constraints on the site for commercial and that it is not viable for that purpose.
Mayor Pope commented a number of these projects have come forward and he only recalls one that was approved on the other side of Raley’s. He mentioned although the applicant didn’t make the argument, he sees that this project would provide customers for the commercial nearby so there is economic incentive. He shared he is empathetic to the constraints of the site, but generally, he looks for the biggest benefits to the residents of the City and residents of the project. He inquired if they can make it a private, gated community with private roads. He requested clarification which area is the alley and which is the path.
The architect explained where they were and where the access paths are located.
Mayor Pope commented he likes the court concept, but they must be careful how they execute it.
Mayor Pope commented they have the direction to look into housing to help meet the low-income RHNA requirement.
Mayor Pope mentioned they are looking to them for ideas to benefit the City; the City would be giving away possible sales tax revenue, services, commercial, etc.
Mr. Poole commented what the City doesn’t want is a substandard commercial site because it will always be struggling and that is why they are here. He mentioned any of the 3 plans will be strong and there will be an HOA so there will be no boats or RVs on the properties, with the properly managed with the right HOA, they will get Councilmember Williams’ children living here and his children living here. He mentioned it is a unique, upscale development, a young, urban type of site. He mentioned they can get some young people in that don’t leave town.
Mayor Pope inquired if there is an amenity that isn’t present, something attractive to the project, another project multi-generational park, something unique. He mentioned he would look for something special.
Councilmember Fuller commented he likes the design and the urban, smaller houses that may be attractive for young families. He mentioned he is not inclined to give up a commercial site, the City is losing light industrial and commercial, one of the reasons the City incorporated, and it is turning into residential.
Mr. Poole mentioned there is a similar development in downtown Pleasant Hill where there is a very good relationship between the housing and nearby commercial.
Councilmember Higgins commented there are homes near the Jack-in-the-Box in Brentwood by Sand Creek Road that are exactly this that have young families with no kids, but dogs. There they have issues with nowhere to walk the dogs, but here there would be sidewalks. She mentioned the Council approved townhomes for the Cypress area, but she is not sure if they were ever built, modeled after what was built in Pleasant Hill near Gregory Lane.
Vice Mayor Meadows shared there was a study about 2 years ago that indicated the City is oversaturated in commercial zoning. He agreed with Mr. Poole that this site is not a good commercial site. He mentioned there will be issues with ingress and egress for homes; if they have it for commercial, it will kill a commercial project. He mentioned there is no curb on Main, there is a current elevation issue, and there is a cell tower on the site that might be able to be moved. He mentioned he thinks everyone knows he does not want to lose commercial, but this site is not viable for commercial.
Mayor Pope mentioned that Randi Adler put in public comment for item 2.0 and was in a discussion with Police during that time so he would like to provide her the opportunity to speak.
Randi Adler thanked the Council for its support for her with her recent hip replacement.
She commented she has an issue with Police. She shared her daughter is abused by her boyfriend and Officer England has shown he doesn’t care and told her it is her (Ms.
Adler’s) fault. She mentioned some officers should not be officers or they should be retrained to actually care about what is going on in their communities. She mentioned women and some men are in relationships where they are being abused and have no way out. She shared her daughter’s boyfriend has been looking online for an AK-47 to try and kill them. She expressed she needs help and she is going to get a restraining order, but it is just a piece of paper and she hopes they don’t show up dead. 8) ADJOURN
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m.
Respectively Submitted,
Libby Vreonis
City Clerk