Agenda packet — Oakley City Council, April 12, 2022 (part 1 of 2)

AGENDA

REGULAR JOINT MEETING OF THE OAKLEY CITY COUNCIL/OAKLEY CITY

COUNCIL ACTING AS THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE OAKLEY

REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY/ OAKLEY PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY Tuesday, April 12, 2022
6:30 PM
Oakley City Council Chambers located at 3231 Main Street, Oakley, California 94561 MISSION STATEMENT: The City of Oakley exists to build and enhance a quality community and to serve the public in a friendly, efficient, responsive manner.

VISION STATEMENT: The City of Oakley will be recognized as a model of civic participation and a vibrant Delta community where families live, work, play, shop and visit.

Agendas are posted in Oakley at Oakley City Hall-3231 Main Street, outside the gym at Delta Vista Middle School-4901 Frank Hengel Way and outside the Library at Freedom High School-1050 Neroly Road; agendas are also posted on the City’s Internet Website www.ci.oakley.ca.us.

A complete packet of information containing staff reports and exhibits related to each item is available for public review prior to an Oakley City Council and/or City Council Acting as the Successor Agency to the Oakley Redevelopment Agency/Oakley Public Financing Authority meeting at Oakley City Hall, 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Oakley City Council, Oakley City Council Acting as the Successor Agency to the Oakley Redevelopment Agency or Oakley Public Financing Authority regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection, during regular business hours, at the front counter in the Main Lobby of the Oakley City Hall located at 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561.

Agendas may be picked up at the Oakley City Hall located at 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561 for no charge. To request information regarding placement on the City’s agenda e-mail distribution list, please contact us at (925) 625-7000.

We provide social media options to stay connected to City Hall through Facebook, Twitter, Next Door and Instagram. Other opportunities to connect with City Hall include Engage In Oakley, Oakley OnDemand on the city's website; and by emailing [email protected]. Constant Contacts. Please contact us at (925) 625-7000 for additional information or at www.oakleyinfo.com.

If you have a physically challenging condition and require special accommodations, please call the City Clerk’s office at (925) 625-7013.
1 Please keep cell phones/electronic devices turned off during the meeting. Please be advised that City Council meetings are video recorded and attendees may appear on video.

Members of the public may address the Council on items of interest that are within the City’s jurisdiction.

Public comment on items not listed on the agenda will be heard under the Public Comments section of the agenda. In compliance with State law, the Council may not take action on an item that is not specifically listed on the agenda. If you would like to speak on any agenda item, please fill out a blue speaker card available in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the agenda item being called. The Mayor will call you by name to the podium to hear your comments and you have up to 3 minutes to speak.

1.OPENING MATTERS
Oakley City Council/Oakley City Council Acting as the Successor Agency to the Oakley Redevelopment Agency/Oakley Public Financing Authority

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/Oakley Public Financing Authority

1.2 Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag

1.3 Proclamation Recognizing April 3 - 9, 2022 as National Library Week (Lisa Cano-Loomis, Library Manager)
Proclamation

1.4 National Library Week Presentation (Lisa Cano-Loomis, Library Manager)

1.5 Contra Costa County Library Commission Update (Yolanda Pena-Mendrek, Commissioner)

1.6 Presentation by American Rivers on Marsh Creek (Sara Puckett, Director, California Central Valley River Conservation)
2 2.PUBLIC COMMENTS
At this time, the public is permitted to address the Oakley City Council/Oakley City Council Acting as the Successor Agency to the Oakley Redevelopment Agency/Oakley Public Financing Authority on non-agendized items. PUBLIC COMMENTS ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES. In accordance with State Law, however, no action or discussion may take place on any item not appearing on the posted agenda.

3.CONSENT CALENDAR
Consent Calendar items are typically non-controversial in nature and are considered for approval by the Oakley City Council/ Oakley City Council Acting as the Successor Agency to the Oakley Redevelopment Agency/Oakley Public Financing Authority with one single action. Members of the audience, Staff or the Oakley City Council/ Oakley City Council Acting as the Successor Agency to the Oakley Redevelopment Agency/Oakley Public Financing Authority who would like an item removed from the Consent Calendar for purposes of public input may request the Mayor remove the item. Members of the public should submit any Speaker Cards related to the Consent Calendar in advance of the Consent Calendar being considered.

3.1 Approve Minutes from the Special City Council Meeting held March 22, 2022 (Libby Vreonis, City Clerk)
Minutes 03-22-22-Sp

3.2 Approve Minutes from the Regular Joint City Council/City Council Acting as the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency and Special Public Financing Authority Meeting held March 22, 2022 (Libby Vreonis, City Clerk) Minutes 03-22-22-Reg

3.3 Accept Report Out of Closed Session Memo (Derek Cole, City Attorney) Memo

3.4 Consideration of a Resolution Approving a Lease Agreement Between the City and Mulehead Growers, LLC for City-Owned Property Located at 1785 Walnut Meadows Drive, Oakley (APN 037-141-006) and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Agreement (Felicia Escover, Assistant to the City Manager) Staff Report

1. Site Map

2. Resolution

3. Lease Agreement

3.5 Reimbursement Agreement with Ironhouse Sanitary District related to Sewer Improvements Associated with Capital Improvement Project (CIP) Number 253 - Police Department Parking Lot Extension Project (Kevin Rohani, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer)
Staff Report

1. Resolution
3 2. Reimbursement Agreement

3.6 Approve the purchase of five (5) Electric Vehicle Charging Stations from ChargePoint associated with Capital Improvement Project (CIP) Number 215 - Downtown Parking Lot (Kevin Rohani, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer)
Staff Report

1. ChargePoint Proposal

2. Resolution

3.7 Consideration of a Resolution Approving the $100,200 Purchase of a Scan Station Forensic 3-D RTC 360 Laser Scanner System and Related Training and Support from Precision Survey Supply (Tim Przybyla, Finance Director) Staff Report

1. Resolution

2. Estimate

3. Sole Source Letter

4.PUBLIC HEARINGS

4.1 The Ranchettes at Neroly Design Review (DR 06-21) (Ariana Ruiz, Planning Technician)
Suggested Action: Staff Recommendation: 1) Receive the Staff Report, 2) Receive Questions from the City Council, 3) Open the Public Hearing, 4) Receive Comments from the Applicant, 5) Receive Public Testimony, 6) Close the Public Hearing, 7) Deliberate, 8) Summarize the Deliberation, 9) Adopt the Resolution Staff Report

1. Vicinity Map

2. Public Hearing Notice

3. Applicant's Plans

4. Landscape Plans

5. Gate Exhibit

6. Signed Letter dated March 15, 2022

7. Draft Resolution

4.2 Quick Quack Car Wash at Laurel Plaza Conditional Use Permit (CUP 02-20) and Design Review (DR 08-20) – Request for approval to construct and operate a 3,595 square foot drive-through car wash facility; APN 035-510-009 (Ken Strelo, Planning Manager)
Suggested Action: Staff Recommendation: 1) Receive the Staff Report, 2) Receive Questions from the City Council, 3) Open the Public Hearing, 4) Receive Comments from the Applicant, 5) Receive Public Testimony, 6) Close the Public Hearing, 7) Deliberate, 8) Summarize the Deliberation, 9) Adopt the Resolution 4 Staff Report

1. Vicinity Map

2. Notice of Public Hearing

3. Applicant's Plans

4. Proposed Conditional Use Permit and Design Review Resolution

5.REGULAR CALENDAR

5.1 Approve an Agreement between the City of Oakley and ACD-TI OAKLEY, LLC Concerning Reimbursement for Construction of Improvements Related to the Grand Cypress Preserve Project (Joshua McMurray, City Manager) Staff Report

1. Resolution

2. Reimbursement Agreement

5.2 Adopt the Oakley Strategic Plan SP27+ (Joshua McMurray, City Manager) Staff Report

1. Strategic Plan

2. Draft Resolution

6.REPORTS

6.1 CITY MANAGER
(a) City Manager

6.2 OAKLEY CITY COUNCIL/OAKLEY CITY COUNCIL ACTING AS THE

7.WORK SESSIONS

8.CLOSED SESSION

8.1 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9: (One potential case.)
5 9.ADJOURN
6 PROCLAMATION
Recognizing April 3-9, 2022 as National Library Week
WHEREAS, libraries are accessible and inclusive places that foster a sense of connection and build community; and WHEREAS, libraries connect people to technology, providing access to broadband internet, computers, and training that are critical for accessing education and employment opportunities; and WHEREAS, libraries offer opportunities for everyone to connect with new ideas and become their best selves through access to multimedia content, programs, and classes – in addition to books; and WHEREAS, today’s libraries and their services extend far beyond the four walls of a building, and everyone is welcome to use their resources; and
WHEREAS, in times of crisis, libraries and library professionals play an invaluable role in supporting their communities both in person and virtually; and
WHEREAS, libraries strive to develop and maintain programs and collections that are as diverse as the populations they serve and ensure equity of access for all; and
WHEREAS, to adapt to our changing world, libraries are expanding their resources and continuing to meet the needs of their patrons; and
WHEREAS, libraries have long served as trusted and treasured institutions for all members of the community regardless of race, ethnicity, creed, ability, sexual orientation, gender identity, or socio-economic status; and WHEREAS, libraries are cornerstones of democracy, promoting the free exchange of information and ideas for all; and WHEREAS, libraries, librarians, and library workers are joining library supporters and advocates across the nation to celebrate National Library Week.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that I, Randy Pope, Mayor of the City of Oakley along with the members of the Oakley City Council, hereby proclaim, National Library Week, April 3-9, 2022. During this week, we encourage all residents to connect with their library by visiting online or in person to access resources and services.

April 12, 2022
_________________
Randy Pope, Mayor
7 Minutes of the Special Meeting of the Oakley City Council held
March 22, 2022
1) Call to Order and Roll Call
Mayor Randy Pope called the special meeting to order at 5:31 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 also present.
2) Public Comments
3) Closed Session

3.1 CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6(a)
City Designated Representatives: Joshua McMurray, City Manager and Jeri Tejeda, Human Resources Director
Unrepresented Employees: Accounting Assistant (1), Accounting Manager (1), Administrative Assistant (5), Assistant to the City Manager (1), Building Inspector I (2), Capital Projects Engineer (1), Chief of Police (1), City Clerk/Paralegal (1), Code Enforcement Officer I (1), Code Enforcement Technician (2), Community Development Director (1), Custodian (1), Deputy City Clerk (1), Economic Development Analyst (1), Engineering Technician (1), Events Coordinator (1), Finance Director (1), Human Resources Director (1), Management Analyst (1), Office Assistant (1), Parks and Landscape Maintenance Tree Worker, (1) Parks and Landscape Maintenance Worker (2), Parks and Landscape Foreman (1), Parks and Landscape Manager (1), Park Ranger (1), Permit Center Technician I (1), Permit Technician II (1), Planning Manager (1), Planning Technician (1), Police Lieutenant (2), Police Records Assistant (3), Police Services Assistant (4), Principal Engineer (1), Public Works Administrative Specialist (1), Public Works Director/City Engineer (1), Public Works Maintenance Worker (1), Public Works Inspector II (1), Recreation Aide (4), Recreation Director (1), Recreation Leader (9), Senior Accounting Technician (1), Sports Field Laborer (1), Streets Maintenance Foreman (1).

3.2 CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS-Labor Negotiations with the Oakley Police Officers Association
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6(a)
8 City Designated Representatives: Joshua McMurray, City Manager and Jeri Tejeda, Human Resources Director
Represented Employees: Employees Covered by the Police Officers Association
Mayor Pope announced the items for Closed Session.

The City Council conducted Closed Session in the antechamber of the Council Chamber.
4) Adjourn
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:27 p.m.

Respectively Submitted,
Libby Vreonis
City Clerk
9 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)
10 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.”
11 “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. 12 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.
13 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 14 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.
15 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 16 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.
17 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.
18 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 19 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.
20 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 21 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 22 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.
23 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.
24 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.
25 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 26 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.
27 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 6th 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 28 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.
29 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.
30 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.
31 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 32 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 33 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 34 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) 35 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. 36 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.
37 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 38 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
39 Date: March 23, 2022
To: Mayor and Members of City Council
From: Derek P. Cole, City Attorney
Cc: Joshua McMurray, City Manager
Subject: Closed Session Report-Out Memo
FOR CONSIDERATION AT THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 12, 2022 Background and Analysis
The City Council considered the following closed session items during its special meeting held March 22, 2022:

CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6(a)
City Designated Representatives: Joshua McMurray, City Manager and Jeri Tejeda, Human Resources Director
Unrepresented Employees: Accounting Assistant (1), Accounting Manager (1), Administrative Assistant (5), Assistant to the City Manager (1), Building Inspector I (2), Capital Projects Engineer (1), Chief of Police (1), City Clerk/Paralegal (1), Code Enforcement Officer I (1), Code Enforcement Technician (2), Community Development Director (1), Custodian (1), Deputy City Clerk (1), Economic Development Analyst (1), Engineering Technician (1), Events Coordinator (1), Finance Director (1), Human Resources Director (1), Management Analyst (1), Office Assistant (1), Parks and Landscape Maintenance Tree Worker, (1) Parks and Landscape Maintenance Worker (2), Parks and Landscape Foreman (1), Parks and Landscape Manager (1), Park Ranger (1), Permit Center Technician I (1), Permit Technician II (1), Planning Manager (1), Planning Technician (1), Police Lieutenant (2), Police Records Assistant (3), Police Services Assistant (4), Principal Engineer (1), Public Works Administrative Specialist (1), Public Works Director/City Engineer (1), Public Works Maintenance Worker (1), Public Works Inspector II (1), Recreation Aide (4), Recreation Director (1), Recreation Leader (9), Senior Accounting Technician (1), Sports Field Laborer (1), Streets Maintenance Foreman (1).

MEMORANDUM
Office of the City Attorney
40 CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS-Labor Negotiations with the Oakley Police Officers Association
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6(a)
City Designated Representatives: Joshua McMurray, City Manager and Jeri Tejeda, Human Resources Director
Represented Employees: Employees Covered by the Police Officers Association Direction was provided to staff. There was no reportable action.

Fiscal Impact
None.

Recommendation
Receive and file this report.

Attachments
None.
41 DATE: April 12, 2022
TO: Joshua McMurray, City Manager
FROM: Felicia Escover, Assistant to the City Manager
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING A FIVE-YEAR

LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND MULEHEAD GROWERS, LLC FOR CITY-OWNED PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1785 WALNUT MEADOWS DRIVE, OAKLEY (APN 037-141-006) AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO

EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT
______________________________________________________________________ Background and Analysis
In March 2011, the City entered into a ten-year lease agreement with Mulehead Growers, LLC (hereinafter “Mulehead”) for the preservation of grape vines. The Agreement allowed Mulehead to transplant, plant, cultivate and harvest grape vines in the vacant 5.7-acre lot. This arrangement was advantageous to the City due to reduced maintenance responsibility of the parcel and beneficial to Mulehead who was able to transplant ancient grape vines from the Dupont Property that would’ve otherwise been lost.

The original agreement term was March 1, 2011 to February 28, 2021 but brought forth to the City Council in February of 2021 for a short-term extension. This short-term extension was to allow Mulehead to continue the maintenance of the vineyard through December 31, 2021. At the time of the extension, Mulehead was not interested in continuing the long-term lease due to declining yield from the vines and low prices for grapes. However, they agreed to continue the care and maintenance of the vineyard while a request for proposals was done to solicit proposals for the continued use of the property. Due to staff transitions, proposals were not solicited. Mulehead staff then reached out in early 2022 to express interest in a five-year lease.

During the term of the original lease agreement, Mulehead has successfully completed the vine relocation, provided a water source, and maintained the property as outlined in the agreement terms. The proposed Lease Agreement will continue the preservation of

STAFF REPORT
Approved and Forwarded to the City Council
42 the vines, upkeep of the parcel, and eliminate any City maintenance cost for the property.

Fiscal Impact
The Lease Agreement provides for General Fund revenue of $2,250 per year throughout the five-year term; a total of $11,250 for the entirety of the agreement. The City will also save General Fund money that would have otherwise been spent on site maintenance.

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the resolution approving a five-year Lease Agreement with Mulehead Growers, LLC for the lease of approximately 5.7 acres located at 1785 Walnut Meadows Drive, Oakley and authorizing the City Manager to execute the agreement.

Attachments
Site Map
Resolution
Lease Agreement
43 1785 WALNUT MEADOWS DRIVE, OAKLEY
APN 037-141-006
44 Resolution No. XX-XX Page 1 of 1
RESOLUTION NO. ____________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OAKLEY APPROVING A

FIVE-YEAR LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND MULEHEAD GROWERS, LLC FOR CITY-OWNED PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1785 WALNUT MEADOWS DRIVE, OAKLEY (APN 037-141-006) AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY

MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the City of Oakley (“City”) owns the property at 1785 Walnut Meadows Drive, comprising 5.7 acres of land; and
WHEREAS, the City entered into a ten-year lease agreement with Mulehead Growers, LLC (“Mulehead”) on March 1, 2011 to transplant, plant, cultivate and harvest grape vines into the then vacant lot; and
WHEREAS, the Lease Agreement was extended through December 31, 2021 to provide for continued vine care and maintenance; and
WHEREAS, Mulehead has successfully completed the vine relocation, provided a water source, put up fencing, and maintained the property as outlined in the original agreement terms and wishes to enter into a new five-year Lease Agreement; and WHEREAS, the City wishes to enter into a new Lease Agreement with Mulehead to provide for the preservation of the vines and maintenance of the parcel.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AND ORDERED, that the City Council of the City of Oakley does hereby approve and authorize the City Manager to sign on behalf of the City a certain Lease Agreement with Mulehead Growers, LLC, an exact copy of the Lease Agreement is attached hereto.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 12th day of April 2022 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTENTIONS:

ABSENT:

APPROVED:

________________
ATTEST: Randy Pope, Mayor
______ _____
Libby Vreonis, City Clerk Date
45 LEASE AGREEMENT FOR

PROPERTY LOCATED AT
1785 WALNUT MEADOWS DRIVE, OAKLEY, CA
APN # 037‐141‐006
This Agreement, dated April 12, 2022, and effective on May 1, 2022, is by and between the CITY OF OAKLEY, a public body, corporate and politic, hereinafter designated as "CITY, " and Fred Cline, doing business as Mulehead Growers, hereinafter designated as "TENANT," for the lease by TENANT of real property owned by CITY in the City of Oakley, County of Contra Costa, State of California, commonly described as 1785 Walnut Meadows Drive, Oakley, CA Main Street (approximately 5.7 acres), Assessor's Parcel No. 037‐141‐006, hereinafter referred to as the "Premises”.

TENANT hereby jointly and severally approves, agrees, and consents to the following terms and conditions:

1. TERM: The term of this tenancy shall be for five years, commencing May 1, 2022 and terminating on June 30, 2027; however, either party may terminate this Agreement as provided for herein.
2 LEASE RATE: The lease rate for the use of the above Premises shall be TWO THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY DOLLARS ($2,250) per year. TENANT agrees to pay said lease rent in advance on or before the May 31st of each year so long as tenancy continues. All checks and money orders shall be made payable to CITY of OAKLEY and shall be mailed to:

CITY OF OAKLEY
Attn: City Manager
3231 Main Street
Oakley, CA 94561
If any rent is not paid to the CITY within ten (10) days after due date, a late charge of FIVE HUNDRED NO/100 DOLLARS ($500) shall be added to the payment and the total sum shall become immediately due and payable to CITY. Failure to pay within twenty (20) days after the due date will incur an additional late charge of ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($1,000) which shall be added to the payment and the total sum shall become immediately due. Failure to pay within thirty (30) days shall immediately terminate this Agreement.

3. SECURITY DEPOSIT: CITY will hold a deposit in the amount of ONE THOUSAND NO/100 DOLLARS ($1,000), as security for the full and faithful performance by TENANT of all terms, conditions, and covenants of this Agreement.

Upon termination of this Agreement, the CITY may use any portion of the security deposit as may be reasonably necessary to remedy TENANT'S defaults of the provisions of this Lease Agreement, including, but not limited to, payment of unpaid rent due under paragraph 2 of this Agreement, cleaning of the Premises, repair of damage, or for storage of personal property which has be abandoned by 46 TENANT. Any remaining portion of the security deposit after such deduction shall be mailed to TENANT at TENANT's last known address.

4. UTILITIES: TENANT shall pay all costs in connection with TENANT's operations upon the Premises, including but not limited to costs of preparing the Premises for planting of crops, production costs, costs of tools and labor, electricity and other utilities, and costs of irrigation.

5. PERMITTED USE: TENANT shall utilize the Premises exclusively for the transplanting, planting, cultivating and harvesting of grape vines. Any other use will void this Agreement. TENANT agrees to uses sound viticultural practices throughout TENANT's use of the Premises.

TENANT shall not conduct or allow any machinery or equipment noises to occur on the Premises prior to 8:00 a.m. or after 6:00 p.m., nor at any time on Sundays. Such noise shall include, but not be limited to, vehicles, whether operating or idling, tractors, or any other farming equipment or machinery that creates noise.

6. TENANT'S MAINTENANCE AND REPAIRS OBLIGATIONS: Tenant shall keep the Premises in good order, condition and repair throughout the Lease Term. On the last day of the Lease Term, or on sooner termination of this Lease, Tenant shall surrender the Premises to CITY in good and sound condition, and clean and free of debris. TENANT shall have a right to remove all vines prior to conclusion of lease period or within thirty (30) days of the date of termination.

TENANT shall keep Premises in a clean, decent, safe, and sanitary condition, free from all accumulations of debris, filth, rubbish, garbage, rodents, and vermin. TENANT shall perform regular weed abatement and trash removal to the Premises.

TENANT shall take every care to prevent fires. In the event that the Premises is destroyed by fire, this Agreement shall immediately terminate and CITY shall not be responsible for any loss or damage to TENANT.

TENANT shall not allow non‐operating vehicles, or parts thereof, to remain on the Premises.

7. IMPROVEMENTS: Without the prior written consent of CITY in its sole discretion, Tenant shall not make or erect on the Premises or on any portions thereof, any building, improvement, structure or appurtenances thereto. TENANT agrees not to make or suffer any alterations to be made in or on said Property without first obtaining the written consent of CITY.

8. HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES: TENANT shall not store, keep, or use hazardous substances on the Premises. TENANT acknowledges that hazardous substances may permanently and materially impair the value and use of the Premises.

A "Hazardous Substance" is defined to mean any substance, material or waste, including asbestos and petroleum (including crude oil or any fraction thereon, which is or becomes designated, classified or regulated as being "toxic," "hazardous," a "pollutant" or similar designation under any federal, state or local law, regulation or ordinance.
47 TENANT agrees to defend, save, protect, indemnify and hold CITY harmless from and against all liabilities, claims, actions, foreseeable and unforeseeable consequential damages, costs, and expenses (including sums paid in settlement of claims and all consultant, expert and legal fees and expenses of CITY'S counsel) or loss directly or indirectly arising out of or resulting from the presence of any hazardous substance as a result of TENANT'S activities, in or around any part of the Premises, including those incurred in connection with any investigation of site conditions or any clean up, remedial, removal or restoration work, or any resulting damages or injuries to the person or property of any third parties or to any natural resources.

9. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS: During the Lease Term, TENANT shall comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, orders, rules, regulations and requirements of Federal, State, County, City and Municipal Governments, departments, bureaus, boards, commissions and officials with respect to the Premises, the improvements thereon or the use or occupancy thereof.

10. NOTICE OF TERMINATION: CITY may terminate this Lease at its sole discretion by providing TENANT written notice on or before December 1st of any given year. TENANT may terminate this Lease at anytime, but must provide CITY six (6) months notice of termination. CITY may terminate this Lease Agreement for non‐payment of the Lease rate, as provided for herein.

11. INSPECTION: The CITY reserves the right to enter the Premises between the hours of and to employ the proper representative or contractor in order to see that the Premises is being reasonably cared for, that no waste is being made, and that all things are done in the manner best calculated for the preservation of the Premises, and in full compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. CITY shall provide twenty‐four (24) hour notice of its entry, except in an emergency. 12 NOTICES: All notices given hereunder shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been given if personally delivered or deposited in the United States mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, and addressed to the other party as follows or as otherwise designated by written notice hereunder from time to time:

To TENANT: Fred Cline
Mulehead Growers
24737 Arnold Drive
Sonoma, CA 95476

To CITY: City of Oakley
3231 Main Street
Oakley, CA 94561
Attn: City Manager

48 13. HOLD HARMLESS: TENANT shall defend, indemnify, save, protect, and hold harmless CITY, its officers, agents, and employees from any and all claims, costs, and liability, including reasonable attorneys' fees, for any damage, injury or death, including without limitation all consequential damages from any cause whatsoever, to persons or property, arising directly or indirectly from or connected with this Agreement, including, but not limited to, any act under taken pursuant to the Agreement, or the TENANT'S use or possession of the Premises, save and except claims, costs, liability or litigation arising from the sole negligence or sole willful misconduct of CITY, its officers or employees, and, if required by CITY, will defend any such actions at the sole cost and expense of the TENANT.

14. SUBLETTING: TENANT shall not assign this tenancy or any interest therein and shall not sublet said premises or any part thereof without prior written approval from the CITY. Any such assignment or subletting without the CITY'S consent shall be void.

15. INSURANCE: CITY will not keep TENANT'S interest and property insured and TENANT waives the right to claim damages from the CITY for any damage resulting to said property in the event it is damaged or destroyed by fire or any other cause.

TENANT shall, prior to occupation of the premises, furnish or caused to be furnished to the CITY duplicate originals or appropriate certificates of the following insurance policies:

A. General Commercial Liability Insurance. TENANT shall obtain at its sole cost and keep in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement, general commercial liability insurance in the amount of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($100,000) per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury, and property damage. Said insurance shall provide that the policy shall operate as primary insurance, and that no other insurance effected by the CITY will be called upon to cover a loss covered thereunder.

B. Certificates of Insurance. TENANT shall file with the CITY, prior to occupation of the Premises, certificates of insurance which shall provide that no cancellation, major change in coverage, expiration, or nonrenewal will be made during the term of this Agreement, without thirty (30) days notice to the CITY prior to the effective date of such cancellation, or change in coverage. TENANT shall deliver copies of the insurance policy upon CITY request.

C. Prior to occupation of the Premises. TENANT shall file with the CITY the City of Oakley's standard endorsement form providing for each of the above requirements.

16. POSSESSORY INTEREST TAX: The County Assessor of Contra Costa County has invoked a possessory interest tax on all leases of CITY and other publicly‐owned properties. This tax is mandatory by law and is levied on the TENANT and not the Premises. The occupant of the Premises on the lien date, April 1 of the current year, is liable for full payment, even if TENANT subsequently vacates the Premises. TENANT therefore, must recognize and understand, in accepting this Lease Agreement, his interest therein may be subject to a possible possessory interest tax that the County Assessor may 49 legally impose on such possessory interest held by the TENANT. Each year, TENANT will pay the tax promptly.

17. CITY'S RIGHT OF RE‐ENTRY: TENANT shall not vacate or abandon the Premises at any time during the term of this Agreement. If CITY'S right of reentry is exercised following abandonment of the Premises by TENANT then CITY may consider any personal property belonging to TENANT and left on the Premises to have been abandoned, in which case CITY may dispose of all such personal property in any manner pursuant to law. CITY shall deem proper and is hereby expressly relieved of all liability for doing so.

18. WAIVER: The waiver by CITY of any breach of a specific term, covenant or condition herein contained shall not constitute a waiver of any other breach of that term, covenant or condition herein contained or any other term, covenant or condition herein contained.

19. WRITTEN AGREEMENT: Neither party has relied on any promise or representation not contained in this Agreement. All previous conversations, negotiations, representations, agreements and understandings, either written or oral, are of no further force or effect. This Lease Agreement may be modified only by a writing signed by both parties. The headings of the paragraphs are for convenience only and are not a part of this Lease Agreement, nor shall they be considered in construing the intent of this Lease Agreement.

20. ATTORNEY'S FEES: Should either party bring any legal action or proceeding for the breach of any term, covenant or condition of this agreement the court shall award reasonable attorneys' fees to one or more of the parties therein based upon the degree to which each party prevails in such action or proceeding, as determined by the court.

21. VENUE: In the event that either party brings any action against the other party under this Agreement, the parties agree that trial of such action shall be vested exclusively in the state courts of California in the County of Contra Costa or in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

22. WAIVER OF RELOCATION BENEFITS: TENANT warrants and represents to CITY that TENANT does not have nor shall TENANT claim any right to relocation benefits under any provision of any State of California or federal law and TENANT knowingly waives the right to make any claim against the CITY for relocation benefits in the event CITY elects to terminate this Agreement for any reason.

23. SEVERABILITY: The validity or illegality of a provision of this Agreement shall not affect the remainder of the Agreement.

24. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE: Time is of the essence with respect to each and all of the terms and provisions of this Agreement.
50 25. AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE: Each person and party signing this Agreement warrants that he/she has the authority to execute this Agreement and that the person or party will be bound by such signature.

26. COUNTERPARTS: This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be an original and all of which together shall constitute one agreement.

CITY TENANT

CITY OF OAKLEY MULEHEAD GROWERS
By: _____________________ By: _____________________
Joshua McMurray Fred Cline
City Manager Owner

ATTEST:
_____________________
Libby Vreonis
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________
Derek Cole
City Attorney
51 SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE

THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, NOTICE WILL BE DELIVERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS.

INSURER(S) AFFORDING COVERAGE
INSURER F :

INSURER E :

INSURER D :

INSURER C :

INSURER B :

INSURER A : NAIC #
NAME: CONTACT
(A/C, No): FAX
E-MAIL ADDRESS:

PRODUCER
(A/C, No, Ext): PHONE

INSURED
COVERAGES CERTIFICATE NUMBER: REVISION NUMBER:

IMPORTANT: If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(ies) must have ADDITIONAL INSURED provisions or be endorsed.

If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may require an endorsement. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s).

THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS

CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER(S), AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER, AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER.

OTHER:
(Per accident)
(Ea accident)
$
$
N / A

SUBR WVDADDL
INSD

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS

CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. $
$
$
$ PROPERTY DAMAGE
BODILY INJURY (Per accident)
BODILY INJURY (Per person) COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT

AUTOS ONLY

AUTOS ONLY AUTOS NON-OWNED OWNED SCHEDULED

ANY AUTO

AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY

Y / N WORKERS COMPENSATION
AND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY OFFICER/MEMBER EXCLUDED?
(Mandatory in NH) DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS below
If yes, describe under

ANY PROPRIETOR/PARTNER/EXECUTIVE
$
$
$ E.L. DISEASE - POLICY LIMIT E.L. DISEASE - EA EMPLOYEEE.L. EACH ACCIDENT EROTH- STATUTE PER
(MM/DD/YYYY) LIMITS POLICY EXP(MM/DD/YYYY) POLICY EFFLTR TYPE OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER INSR
DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS / LOCATIONS / VEHICLES (ACORD 101, Additional Remarks Schedule, may be attached if more space is required)

EXCESS LIAB
UMBRELLA LIAB EACH OCCURRENCE $ AGGREGATE $
$
OCCUR
CLAIMS-MADE DED RETENTION $
PRODUCTS - COMP/OP AGG $ GENERAL AGGREGATE $ PERSONAL & ADV INJURY $ MED EXP (Any one person) $
EACH OCCURRENCE $ DAMAGE TO RENTED
PREMISES (Ea occurrence) $ COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY CLAIMS-MADE OCCUR GEN'L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER: POLICY PRO- JECT LOC

CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE DATE (MM/DD/YYYY)

CANCELLATION

AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
ACORD 25 (2016/03)
© 1988-2015 ACORD CORPORATION. All rights reserved.

CERTIFICATE HOLDER
The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD
HIRED

AUTOS ONLY
3/10/2022
(PT) Heffernan Insurance Brokers
101 Second Street, Suite 120
Petaluma CA 94952
707-781-3400 707-781-0800 Great American Alliance Insurance Company 26832 CLINCEL-04 Care West Insurance Company 10520 Cline Cellars, Inc. and Mulehead Growers LLC
24737 Arnold Drive
Sonoma CA 95476
280031052
A X 1,000,000 X 1,000,000 20,000 1,000,000 2,000,000 X
Y Y PAC066311708 5/1/2021 5/1/2022
2,000,000 Liquor Liability 1,000,000
A 1,000,000 X
X X
CAP066311808 5/1/2021 5/1/2022
A X X
UMB066311908 5/1/2021 5/1/2022
10,000,000 10,000,000 X
0 B W12112001781 12/1/2021 12/1/2022
X
1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000
Re: 1785 Walnut Meadows Drive, Oakley, CA. City of Oakley is included as an additional insured (and primary) on General Liability policy per the attached endorsement, if required. Waiver of Subrogation is included on General Liability policy per the attached endorsement, if required.

City of Oakley
Attn : City Manager
3231 Main Street
Oakley, CA 94561 52
CG 00 01 04 13 © Insurance Services Office, Inc., 2012 Page 9 of 16 g. All interest on the full amount of any judgment
that accrues after entry of the judgment and
before we have paid, offered to pay, or
deposited in court the part of the judgment that
is within the applicable limit of insurance.

These payments will not reduce the limits of
insurance.

2. If we defend an insured against a "suit" and an
indemnitee of the insured is also named as a party
to the "suit", we will defend that indemnitee if all of the following conditions are met:
a. The "suit" against the indemnitee seeks
damages for which the insured has assumed
the liability of the indemnitee in a contract or
agreement that is an "insured contract";
b. This insurance applies to such liability
assumed by the insured;
c. The obligation to defend, or the cost of the
defense of, that indemnitee, has also been
assumed by the insured in the same "insured
contract";
d. The allegations in the "suit" and the information
we know about the "occurrence" are such that
no conflict appears to exist between the
interests of the insured and the interests of the
indemnitee;
e. The indemnitee and the insured ask us to
conduct and control the defense of that
indemnitee against such "suit" and agree that
we can assign the same counsel to defend the
insured and the indemnitee; and
f. The indemnitee:
(1) Agrees in writing to:
(a) Cooperate with us in the investigation,
settlement or defense of the "suit";
(b) Immediately send us copies of any
demands, notices, summonses or legal
papers received in connection with the
"suit";
(c) Notify any other insurer whose coverage
is available to the indemnitee; and
(d) Cooperate with us with respect to
coordinating other applicable insurance
available to the indemnitee; and
(2) Provides us with written authorization to:
(a) Obtain records and other information
related to the "suit"; and
(b) Conduct and control the defense of the
indemnitee in such "suit".

So long as the above conditions are met,
attorneys' fees incurred by us in the defense of
that indemnitee, necessary litigation expenses
incurred by us and necessary litigation expenses
incurred by the indemnitee at our request will be
paid as Supplementary Payments.

Notwithstanding the provisions of Paragraph

2.b.(2) of Section I Coverage A Bodily Injury
And Property Damage Liability, such payments will
not be deemed to be damages for "bodily injury"
and "property damage" and will not reduce the
limits of insurance.

Our obligation to defend an insured's indemnitee
and to pay for attorneys' fees and necessary
litigation expenses as Supplementary Payments
ends when we have used up the applicable limit of
insurance in the payment of judgments or
settlements or the conditions set forth above, or
the terms of the agreement described in
Paragraph f. above, are no longer met.

SECTION II WHO IS AN INSURED

1. If you are designated in the Declarations as:
a. An individual, you and your spouse are
insureds, but only with respect to the conduct
of a business of which you are the sole owner.
b. A partnership or joint venture, you are an
insured. Your members, your partners, and
their spouses are also insureds, but only with
respect to the conduct of your business.
c. A limited liability company, you are an insured.

Your members are also insureds, but only with
respect to the conduct of your business. Your
managers are insureds, but only with respect
to their duties as your managers.
d. An organization other than a partnership, joint
venture or limited liability company, you are an
insured. Your "executive officers" and directors
are insureds, but only with respect to their
duties as your officers or directors. Your
stockholders are also insureds, but only with
respect to their liability as stockholders.
e. A trust, you are an insured. Your trustees are
also insureds, but only with respect to their
duties as trustees.
53

Page 10 of 16 ends

2. Each of the following is also an insured:
a. Your "volunteer workers" only while performing
duties related to the conduct of your business,
or your "employees", other than either your
"executive officers" (if you are an organization
other than a partnership, joint venture or limited
liability company) or your managers (if you are
a limited liability company), but only for acts
within the scope of their employment by you or
while performing duties related to the conduct
of your business. However, none of these
"employees" or "volunteer workers" are
insureds for:
(1) "Bodily injury" or "personal and advertising
injury":
(a) To you, to your partners or members (if
you are a partnership or joint venture),
to your members (if you are a limited
liability company), to a co-"employee"
while in the course of his or her
employment or performing duties related
to the conduct of your business, or to
your other "volunteer workers" while
performing duties related to the conduct
of your business;
(b) To the spouse, child, parent, brother or
sister of that co-"employee" or
"volunteer worker" as a consequence of
Paragraph (1)(a) above;
(c) For which there is any obligation to
share damages with or repay someone
else who must pay damages because of
the injury described in Paragraph (1)(a)
or (b) above; or
(d) Arising out of his or her providing or
failing to provide professional health
care services.
(2) "Property damage" to property:
(a) Owned, occupied or used by;
(b) Rented to, in the care, custody or
control of, or over which physical control
is being exercised for any purpose by;
you, any of your "employees", "volunteer
workers", any partner or member (if you are
a partnership or joint venture), or any
member (if you are a limited liability
company).
b. Any person (other than your "employee" or
"volunteer worker"), or any organization while
acting as your real estate manager.
c. Any person or organization having proper
temporary custody of your property if you die,
but only:
(1) With respect to liability arising out of the
maintenance or use of that property; and
(2) Until your legal representative has been
appointed.
d. Your legal representative if you die, but only
with respect to duties as such. That
representative will have all your rights and
duties under this Coverage Part.

3. Any organization you newly acquire or form, other
than a partnership, joint venture or limited liability
company, and over which you maintain ownership
or majority interest, will qualify as a Named
Insured if there is no other similar insurance
available to that organization. However:
a. Coverage under this provision is afforded only
until the 90th day after you acquire or form the
organization or the end of the policy period,
whichever is earlier;
b. Coverage A does not apply to "bodily injury" or
"property damage" that occurred before you
acquired or formed the organization; and
c. Coverage B does not apply to "personal and
advertising injury" arising out of an offense
committed before you acquired or formed the
organization.

No person or organization is an insured with respect
to the conduct of any current or past partnership, joint venture or limited liability company that is not shown
as a Named Insured in the Declarations.

SECTION III LIMITS OF INSURANCE

1. The Limits of Insurance shown in the Declarations
and the rules below fix the most we will pay
regardless of the number of:
a. Insureds;
b. Claims made or "suits" brought; or
c. Persons or organizations making claims or
bringing "suits".

2. The General Aggregate Limit is the most we will
pay for the sum of:
a. Medical expenses under Coverage C;
b. Damages under Coverage A, except damages
because of "bodily injury" or "property damage"
included in the "products-completed operations
hazard"; and
c. Damages under Coverage B.
54 CG 00 01 04 13 © Insurance Services Office, Inc., 2012 Page 11 of 16

3. The Products-Completed Operations Aggregate
Limit is the most we will pay under Coverage A for
damages because of "bodily injury" and "property
damage" included in the "products-completed
operations hazard".

4. Subject to Paragraph 2. above, the Personal And
Advertising Injury Limit is the most we will pay
under Coverage B for the sum of all damages
because of all "personal and advertising injury"
sustained by any one person or organization.

5. Subject to Paragraph 2. or 3. above, whichever
applies, the Each Occurrence Limit is the most we
will pay for the sum of:
a. Damages under Coverage A; and
b. Medical expenses under Coverage C
because of all "bodily injury" and "property
damage" arising out of any one "occurrence".

6. Subject to Paragraph 5. above, the Damage To
Premises Rented To You Limit is the most we will
pay under Coverage A for damages because of
"property damage" to any one premises, while
rented to you, or in the case of damage by fire,
while rented to you or temporarily occupied by you
with permission of the owner.

7. Subject to Paragraph 5. above, the Medical
Expense Limit is the most we will pay under
Coverage C for all medical expenses because of
"bodily injury" sustained by any one person.

The Limits of Insurance of this Coverage Part apply
separately to each consecutive annual period and to
any remaining period of less than 12 months, starting
with the beginning of the policy period shown in the
Declarations, unless the policy period is extended
after issuance for an additional period of less than 12 months. In that case, the additional period will be
deemed part of the last preceding period for purposes
of determining the Limits of Insurance.

SECTION IV COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY

CONDITIONS

1. Bankruptcy
Bankruptcy or insolvency of the insured or of the
insured's estate will not relieve us of our
obligations under this Coverage Part.

2. Duties In The Event Of Occurrence, Offense,
Claim Or Suit
a. You must see to it that we are notified as soon
as practicable of an "occurrence" or an offense
which may result in a claim. To the extent
possible, notice should include:
(1) How, when and where the "occurrence" or
offense took place;
(2) The names and addresses of any injured
persons and witnesses; and
(3) The nature and location of any injury or
damage arising out of the "occurrence" or
offense.
b. If a claim is made or "suit" is brought against
any insured, you must:
(1) Immediately record the specifics of the
claim or "suit" and the date received; and
(2) Notify us as soon as practicable.

You must see to it that we receive written
notice of the claim or "suit" as soon as
practicable.
c. You and any other involved insured must:
(1) Immediately send us copies of any
demands, notices, summonses or legal
papers received in connection with the
claim or "suit";
(2) Authorize us to obtain records and other
information;
(3) Cooperate with us in the investigation or
settlement of the claim or defense against
the "suit"; and
(4) Assist us, upon our request, in the
enforcement of any right against any
person or organization which may be liable
to the insured because of injury or damage
to which this insurance may also apply.
d. No insured will, except at that insured's own
cost, voluntarily make a payment, assume any
obligation, or incur any expense, other than for
first aid, without our consent.

3. Legal Action Against Us
No person or organization has a right under this
Coverage Part:
a. To join us as a party or otherwise bring us into
a "suit" asking for damages from an insured; or
b. To sue us on this Coverage Part unless all of
its terms have been fully complied with.

A person or organization may sue us to recover on
an agreed settlement or on a final judgment
against an insured; but we will not be liable for
damages that are not payable under the terms of
this Coverage Part or that are in excess of the
applicable limit of insurance. An agreed settlement
means a settlement and release of liability signed
by us, the insured and the claimant or the
claimant's legal representative.
55

Page 12 of 16 ends

4. Other Insurance
If other valid and collectible insurance is available
to the insured for a loss we cover under
Coverages A or B of this Coverage Part, our
obligations are limited as follows:
a. Primary Insurance
This insurance is primary except when
Paragraph b. below applies. If this insurance is
primary, our obligations are not affected unless
any of the other insurance is also primary.

Then, we will share with all that other
insurance by the method described in
Paragraph c. below.
b. Excess Insurance
(1) This insurance is excess over:
(a) Any of the other insurance, whether
primary, excess, contingent or on any
other basis:
(i) That is Fire, Extended Coverage,
Builder's Risk, Installation Risk or
similar coverage for "your work";
(ii) That is Fire insurance for premises
rented to you or temporarily
occupied by you with permission of
the owner;
(iii) That is insurance purchased by you
to cover your liability as a tenant for
"property damage" to premises
rented to you or temporarily
occupied by you with permission of
the owner; or
(iv) If the loss arises out of the
maintenance or use of aircraft,
"autos" or watercraft to the extent not
subject to Exclusion g. of Section I
Coverage A Bodily Injury And
Property Damage Liability.
(b) Any other primary insurance available to
you covering liability for damages
arising out of the premises or
operations, or the products and
completed operations, for which you
have been added as an additional
insured.
(2) When this insurance is excess, we will have
no duty under Coverages A or B to defend
the insured against any "suit" if any other
insurer has a duty to defend the insured
against that "suit". If no other insurer
defends, we will undertake to do so, but we
will be entitled to the insured's rights
against all those other insurers.
(3) When this insurance is excess over other
insurance, we will pay only our share of the
amount of the loss, if any, that exceeds the
sum of:
(a) The total amount that all such other
insurance would pay for the loss in the
absence of this insurance; and
(b) The total of all deductible and selfinsured amounts under all that other insurance.
(4) We will share the remaining loss, if any,
with any other insurance that is not
described in this Excess Insurance
provision and was not bought specifically to
apply in excess of the Limits of Insurance
shown in the Declarations of this Coverage
Part.
c. Method Of Sharing
If all of the other insurance permits contribution
by equal shares, we will follow this method
also. Under this approach each insurer
contributes equal amounts until it has paid its
applicable limit of insurance or none of the loss
remains, whichever comes first.

If any of the other insurance does not permit
contribution by equal shares, we will contribute
by limits. Under this method, each insurer's
share is based on the ratio of its applicable
limit of insurance to the total applicable limits of
insurance of all insurers.

5. Premium Audit
a. We will compute all premiums for this
Coverage Part in accordance with our rules
and rates.
b. Premium shown in this Coverage Part as
advance premium is a deposit premium only.

At the close of each audit period we will
compute the earned premium for that period
and send notice to the first Named Insured.

The due date for audit and retrospective
premiums is the date shown as the due date
on the bill. If the sum of the advance and audit
premiums paid for the policy period is greater
than the earned premium, we will return the
excess to the first Named Insured.
c. The first Named Insured must keep records of
the information we need for premium
computation, and send us copies at such times
as we may request.

6. Representations
By accepting this policy, you agree:
a. The statements in the Declarations are
accurate and complete;
56 CG 00 01 04 13 © Insurance Services Office, Inc., 2012 Page 13 of 16 b. Those statements are based upon
representations you made to us; and
c. We have issued this policy in reliance upon
your representations.

7. Separation Of Insureds
Except with respect to the Limits of Insurance, and
any rights or duties specifically assigned in this
Coverage Part to the first Named Insured, this
insurance applies:
a. As if each Named Insured were the only
Named Insured; and
b. Separately to each insured against whom claim
is made or "suit" is brought.

8. Transfer Of Rights Of Recovery Against Others
To Us
If the insured has rights to recover all or part of
any payment we have made under this Coverage
Part, those rights are transferred to us. The
insured must do nothing after loss to impair them.

At our request, the insured will bring "suit" or
transfer those rights to us and help us enforce
them.

9. When We Do Not Renew
If we decide not to renew this Coverage Part, we
will mail or deliver to the first Named Insured
shown in the Declarations written notice of the
nonrenewal not less than 30 days before the
expiration date.

If notice is mailed, proof of mailing will be sufficient proof of notice.

SECTION V DEFINITIONS

1. "Advertisement" means a notice that is broadcast
or published to the general public or specific
market segments about your goods, products or
services for the purpose of attracting customers or
supporters. For the purposes of this definition:
a. Notices that are published include material
placed on the Internet or on similar electronic
means of communication; and
b. Regarding web sites, only that part of a web
site that is about your goods, products or
services for the purposes of attracting
customers or supporters is considered an
advertisement.

2. "Auto" means:
a. A land motor vehicle, trailer or semitrailer
designed for travel on public roads, including
any attached machinery or equipment; or
b. Any other land vehicle that is subject to a
compulsory or financial responsibility law or
other motor vehicle insurance law where it is
licensed or principally garaged.

However, "auto" does not include "mobile
equipment".

3. "Bodily injury" means bodily injury, sickness or
disease sustained by a person, including death
resulting from any of these at any time.

4. "Coverage territory" means:
a. The United States of America (including its
territories and possessions), Puerto Rico and
Canada;
b. International waters or airspace, but only if the
injury or damage occurs in the course of travel
or transportation between any places included
in Paragraph a. above; or
c. All other parts of the world if the injury or
damage arises out of:
(1) Goods or products made or sold by you in
the territory described in Paragraph a.
above;
(2) The activities of a person whose home is in
the territory described in Paragraph a.
above, but is away for a short time on your
business; or
(3) "Personal and advertising injury" offenses
that take place through the Internet or
similar electronic means of communication;
provided the insured's responsibility to pay
damages is determined in a "suit" on the
merits, in the territory described in Paragraph
a. above or in a settlement we agree to.

5. "Employee" includes a "leased worker".
"Employee" does not include a "temporary
worker".

6. "Executive officer" means a person holding any of
the officer positions created by your charter,
constitution, bylaws or any other similar governing
document.

7. "Hostile fire" means one which becomes
uncontrollable or breaks out from where it was
intended to be.

8. "Impaired property" means tangible property, other
than "your product" or "your work", that cannot be
used or is less useful because:
a. It incorporates "your product" or "your work"
that is known or thought to be defective,
deficient, inadequate or dangerous; or
b. You have failed to fulfill the terms of a contract
or agreement;
if such property can be restored to use by the
repair, replacement, adjustment or removal of
"your product" or "your work" or your fulfilling the
terms of the contract or agreement.
57 STAFF REPORT
Approved and Forwarded to the City Council
DATE: April 12, 2022
TO: Joshua McMurray, City Manager
FROM: Kevin Rohani, P.E. Public Works Director/City Engineer SUBJECT: Reimbursement Agreement with Ironhouse Sanitary District related to Sewer Improvements Associated with Capital Improvement Project (CIP) Number 253 – Police Department Parking Lot Expansion Project Background and Analysis
Capital Improvement Project (CIP) No. 253 involves the construction of the Police Department Parking Lot Expansion Project. During the initial design process, Ironhouse Sanitary District (ISD) informed the City that they have a failing sewer line within the project limits on Ruby Street. City staff met with ISD to discuss the replacement of the ISD sewer line and its inclusion as a part of the construction phase of the City project. To prevent any future sewer failures and to protect the health and safety of the public, ISD needs to replace this sewer line and to prevent complications as a result of its failure.

The City has partnered with ISD on other projects in the past, and most recently the Downtown Reconstruction Project along Main Street that was completed in 2017. The City and ISD recognize the risk that raw sewage poses to public health and safety and has determined that the sewer replacement should be done with the utility construction phase of the CIP 253 Project. City staff met with ISD to discuss the design and construction to replace the sewer line and include the work with the utility construction phase of the Police Department Parking Lot Expansion Project. As a result, ISD agreed to have the City’s contractor install the new sewer as a part of the police parking lot project.

Staff from City and ISD have continued to work together and collaborate on the details of the sewer project to ensure that the needs and requirements of both agencies are accommodated. An agreement was reached between the City and ISD to incorporate the sewer improvements into the CIP 253 scope of work.

Accordingly, ISD agreed to reimburse the City for the total amount that the City will expend on the additional design costs, administrative costs, and construction costs for 58 ISD’s sanitary sewer portion of the project through the attached reimbursement agreement.

The reimbursement amount includes, but is not limited to, City administrative costs, and construction costs for an amount of $76,426. The sewer construction costs are an estimate for the work, and ISD will be responsible for reimbursing the final expended amount at the conclusion of the sewer line construction. Understanding the sense of urgency to maintain the City’s project schedule, ISD’s Board of Directors approved the reimbursement agreement at a special meeting held on March 15, 2022.

Fiscal Impact
The approval of this reimbursement agreement will not impact the City’s General Fund.

There are sufficient funds in the project budget to cover the additional sewer construction costs for the project. However, the agreement requires that the City be reimbursed for the total design, administrative, and construction costs expended. The City shall be paid in full after the sewer improvements are installed and have been accepted by both ISD and the City, leaving no net cost to the City for these sewer improvements.

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the Resolution approving the Reimbursement Agreement with Ironhouse Sanitary District for the construction costs of the sewer line associated with CIP 253 – Police Department Parking Lot Project and authorizes the City Manager to sign the agreement.

Attachments
1) Resolution
2) Reimbursement Agreement
59 Resolution No. __-22 Page 1
RESOLUTION NO. __-22

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OAKLEY APPROVING

A REIMBURSEMENT AGREEEMENT WITH IRONHOUSE SANITARY DISTRICT RELATED TO CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NUMBER 253 – POLICE

DEPARTMENT PARKING LOT EXPANSION PROJECT
WHEREAS, on November 10, 2020, by adopting Resolution No. 135-20, the City Council awarded a design contract to Freyer and Laureta, Inc., for the design of CIP No. 253 – Police Department Parking Lot Expansion Project; and WHEREAS, Freyer and Laureta, Inc., prepared plans, special provisions, and cost estimates related to CIP Project No. 253 – Police Department Parking Lot Expansion Project; and
WHEREAS, Ironhouse Sanitary District (ISD) has a failing sanitary sewer line within the project limits and needs to be replaced; and WHEREAS, ISD and the City have reached an agreement on the scope of sanitary sewer improvements to be performed by the City as part of CIP 253, and estimated costs to design and replace the sewer line for an amount of $76,426; and WHEREAS, the City and ISD have agreed upon a reimbursement agreement that requires ISD to pay the City for the total amount that the City will expend on the ISD portion of the project, including but may not be limited to, City administrative costs, construction costs, increases due to further change orders, unforeseen underground conditions, claim for additional reimbursement from the contractor, and stop notices filed by subcontractors; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AND ORDERED, by the City Council of the City of Oakley that the Reimbursement Agreement with Ironhouse Sanitary District related to CIP Project No. 253 – Police Department Parking Lot Expansion Project is approved, and the City Manager is authorized to execute said Agreement.

A copy of the Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Oakley at a meeting held on this 12th day of April, 2022 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTENTIONS:
60 Resolution No. __-22 Page 2
APPROVED:
_______________________
Randy Pope, Mayor
ATTEST:

Libby Vreonis, City Clerk Date
61 REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT

BETWEEN THE IRONHOUSE SANITARY DISTRICT
AND

THE CITY OF OAKLEY
THIS REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is made and entered into this ____ day of March 2022 by and between the Ironhouse Sanitary District, a California special district (“District”) and the City of Oakley, a California municipal corporation (“City”). District and City are sometimes individually referred to as “Party” or collectively as “Parties”.

RECITALS
A. The City’s adopted Five-Year Capital Improvement Program includes project Number 253, the Police Department Parking Lot Expansion Project (“Project”), which will involve the grading and paving of a new parking lot that will connect the existing Police Department parking lot to West Ruby Street.

B. The District owns sanitary pipe along West Ruby Street, and the District has a future project to upgrade and upsize their existing sewer line in order to maintain capacity within their system.

C. The District has requested that the City construct these sewer improvements along West Ruby Street as a part of the Project, including the installation of two new manholes and two new 12” pipe segments.

D. The City has retained R & R Pacific Construction (“Contractor”) to complete the Project, and the City has agreed to direct the Contractor to perform the sewer improvements in addition thereto.

E. The District will be responsible for obtaining physical survey information and for providing a design for the sewer improvements.

F. The purpose of this Agreement is to clarify and define the terms of the District’s reimbursement to the City for the District’s sewer line installation.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above recited premises, together with the mutual covenants herein contained and attached hereto, it is agreed that:
62 AGREEMENT

1. Scope of Work. Parties agree that the Contractor, R&R Pacific Construction (“Contractor”), shall competently and efficiently install sewer facilities for the District at West Ruby Street (“Work”), as set forth in Exhibit “A,” attached hereto and incorporated herein, and that the District shall reimburse the City for all costs and expenses incurred in the Contractor’s performance of the Work. The District shall also be responsible for obtaining the physical survey information and for providing a design for the Work. The District shall have the Work inspected by its own forces or by contract at its own cost and expense and shall make an inspector available at all times during the construction of the Work. The Work shall be completed to the reasonable satisfaction of the District.

2. Contract Value. The District’s total compensation for the Work performed under this Agreement shall not exceed $76,426, to be paid as: (1)  lump sum; (2) ☒ lump sum with progress payments; (3)  per attached schedule of rates and charges, with a guaranteed not to exceed price of $__________ (“Reimbursement”). Said amount is an estimate for the Work.

District shall be responsible for any additional costs related to the Work. Additional costs could include, but may not be limited to, increases due to further change orders, unforeseen underground conditions, claims for additional reimbursement from the Contractor, and stop notices filed by subcontractors. The City will consult with the District prior to incurring additional costs.

3. Reimbursement. Following transmittal of the deposit, the City shall transmit monthly bills to the District for the costs associated with the Contractor’s performance of the Work for the preceding month, detailing the costs associated with the Work and requesting payment. The District shall issue payment to the City within thirty (30) days of receipt of the invoice from the City.

4. Work Performance and Guarantee. The City provides no guarantee or warrantee for any of the Work performed by the Contractor.

5. Indemnification.
a. The District shall defend, indemnify and hold the City and its directors, officers, employees, partners, contractors or agents, harmless from and against any and all claims, actions, causes of actions, demands, or liabilities of whatsoever kind and nature, including judgments, interest, reasonable attorney’s fees, and all other costs, fees, expenses, and charges to the extent that such claims arise out of, were caused by, or result from any breach of the performance of this Agreement or the negligence, gross negligence, or willful misconduct of the District, its directors, officers, employees, partners, contractors or agents.
b. The City shall defend, indemnify, and hold the District and its directors, officers, employees, partners, contractors or agents, harmless from and against any and all claims, actions, causes of actions, demands, or liabilities of whatsoever kind and nature, including judgments, interest, reasonable attorneys' fees, and all other costs, fees, expenses, and charges to the extent that such claims arise out of, were caused by, or 63 result from any breach of the performance of this Agreement or the negligence, gross negligence, or willful misconduct of the City, its directors, officers, employees, partners, contractors or agents.

6. Term and Termination. The term of this Agreement shall commence when it is fully executed by the Parties and shall continue until the Work is concluded or the Agreement is terminated by either party.
a. Parties may terminate this Agreement by providing thirty (30) calendar days written notice to the other party. Thereafter, the City shall have no further obligation to complete the Work. The District shall be responsible for the payment of costs incurred by City up to and including the date of termination regardless of which party terminates this Agreement.

7. Time of Essence. Time is expressly made of the essence with respect to the performance by the City and the District of each and every obligation and condition of this Agreement.

8. Attorneys’ Fees. If any legal action is brought by either party to interpret or enforce any terms or provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to its reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.

9. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the matters set forth herein. Any amendments, modifications, or changes to this Agreement shall be in writing and signed by both parties.

10. Waivers. Waiver of a breach or default under this Agreement shall not constitute a continuing waiver or a waiver of a subsequent breach of the same or any other provision of this Agreement.

11. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement or the application of any such provision shall be held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable to any extent, the remaining provisions of this Agreement and the application thereof shall remain in full force and effect and shall not be affected, impaired or invalidated.

12. Successors and Assigns. This Agreement shall be binding upon the parties hereto and their respective heirs, legal representatives, successors and assigns.

13. Jurisdiction. This Agreement shall be administered and interpreted under the laws of the State of California without regard to its choice of law rules. Jurisdiction and venue of litigation arising from this Agreement shall be in the County of Contra Costa, State of California.

14. Notices. All notices or other communications required or permitted hereunder shall be in writing, and shall be personally delivered, sent by pre-paid First Class U.S. Mail, registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, or delivered or sent by email with 64 evidence of completed transmission, and shall be deemed received upon the earlier of (i) the date of delivery to the address of the person to receive such notice if delivered personally or by messenger or overnight courier; (ii) three (3) business days after the date of posting by the United States Post Office if by mail; or (iii) when sent if given by email. Any notice, request, demand, direction, or other communication sent by email must be confirmed within forty-eight (48) hours by letter mailed or delivered. Other forms of electronic transmission such as text messages or instant messages are not acceptable manners of notice required hereunder. Notices or other communications shall be addressed as follows:

To the City:

Jason Kabalin, Capital Projects Engineer
3231 Main Street
Oakley, CA 94561
925-625-7040

To the District:

Vivian Housen, District Engineer
450 Walnut Meadows Drive
Oakley, CA 94561
925-518-3487
with a copy to:

Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
1901 Harrison Street
Suite 900
Oakland, CA 94612
Attn: Leah Castella
Tel: (510) 273-8778
Any party may change its address for notice by written notice to the other party in the manner provided in this Section 12.

15. Interpretation. The titles to the sections of this Agreement are not a part of this Agreement and shall have no effect upon the construction or interpretation of any part of this Agreement.

As used in this Agreement, masculine, feminine or neuter gender and the singular or plural number shall each be deemed to include the others where and when the context so dictates.

The word “including” shall be construed as if followed by the words “without limitation.” This Agreement is the product of negotiations among the Parties, and it shall not be construed as if it had been prepared by one of the Parties, but rather as if all of the Parties have prepared the same. Any rule of construction to the effect that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party shall not apply in interpreting this Agreement. 65 66

EXHIBIT A
W. RUBY STREET SCOPE OF WORK

1. Survey Rim Elevation and Invert of Pipe to South @ OT171

2. Survey Rim Elevation and Invert of Pipe to North @ OT170

3. Survey Rim Elevation and Depth to Manhole Bench @ OT168

4. Survey Rim Elevation and Invert of Pipe to South @ OT240 (Wildcat Way and Fuschia Way, not shown)

5. Based on information provided, District will provide details for new facilities to be installed as shown in yellow.

6. Following District sketch, install two (2) proposed new manholes and two (2) proposed new 12” pipe segments as shown in yellow.
67 STAFF REPORT
Approved and Forwarded to the City Council
DATE: April 12, 2022
TO: Joshua McMurray, City Manager
FROM: Kevin Rohani, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer SUBJECT: Approve the purchase of five (5) Electric Vehicle Charging Stations from ChargePoint associated with Capital Improvement Project (CIP) Number 215 – Downtown Parking Lot
Background and Analysis
The development and renovation of downtown Oakley has been a priority project for many years; and substantial improvements to the downtown area have been constructed in the past few years. The goal for the community is to have a downtown that is thriving and vibrant and will serve as a solid foundation for the economic vitality of Oakley for decades to come.

The new downtown parking lot project that is being constructed on the north side of Main Street, adjacent to the Entrepreneur Building has parking spots dedicated for Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging Stations. These include 6 parking spaces for standard EV’s, served by 3 dual port chargers, and 2 ADA parking spaces served by 2 single port chargers for additional EV charging stations.

Staff extensively researched several different Electric Vehicle Charging Station manufacturers in consultation with Marin Clean Energy (MCE) that has been setting the standard for clean energy in Oakley for the past 8 years; and offers rebates to agencies for the use of EV charging stations. After this research and analysis, staff chose ChargePoint as the selected company to furnish the new EV charging stations due to performance, customer care, rigorous testing and durability and an industry leading warranty to protect the new EV charging stations.

Section 3.6.010 of the City’s Purchasing Ordinance provides an exemption to the competitive bidding requirement for contracts involving specialized services and purchases involving goods that are of a technical nature. However, the City solicited several EV charging vendors and received three quotes. After careful evaluation of the different products, staff chose ChargePoint’s product, not based on the lowest bid but because its technical features and specialized services were deemed to most closely meet the City’s needs. The extensive testing, performance, reliability, and warranty that ChargePoint offers was superior when compared to other vendors. 68 Another added benefit to using ChargePoint is their cooperative agreements with other electric vehicle charging operators, such as EVGo, Plug Share, and Sema Connect to name a few. This means that customers who have accounts set up with one of these competitive companies, can use the City’s ChargePoint stations as well.

ChargePoint is the industry leader in providing networked EV charging stations throughout the United States. ChargePoint operates 180,000 charging stations and has established partnerships with large and small agencies in both the private and public sectors. The EV charging stations for the new downtown parking lot project are Level 2 chargers that are the industry standard for such a commercial application.

To use a ChargePoint station, customers create an account on ChargePoint’s website or download the mobile application. Customers have two options: acquire a ChargePoint Card that can be used at the station or use their cellphone to pay. The electric vehicle charging station will be open and available for use 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. The City will operate these charging stations at a cost neutral to the City, that is designed to cover energy costs, transaction fees, and regular equipment maintenance.

All EV charging station usage data is available to the City in a cloud database and includes a wide variety of reports to help provide an ongoing review of each station; including revenues received, actual electrical costs, station performance and maintenance needs. Staff can review and analyze the data received from these stations for additional deployment of EV charging stations throughout the community.

The purchase of the EV charging stations now, will account for the longer manufacturing timelines that are being experienced across all products, and will have the timing of delivery of the new EV charging stations by summer, when the new parking lot will be close to completion and ready for the installation of the EV charging stations.

Fiscal Impact
The approval of this resolution will not impact the City of Oakley FY 2021/22 General Fund Budget. As part of the mid-year budget adjustment process, funds were allocated for this project, which will be used to purchase the new EV charging stations in the amount of $59,184.18.

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the resolution approving the purchase of five (5) EV Charging Stations from ChargePoint in the amount of $59,184.18.

Attachments

1. ChargePoint Proposal

2. Resolution
69 Quotation
Driving a Better Way™
chargepoint.com \i2\
Sales Representative: Sophia Sparks Quote Number: Q-188934-1 E-Mail: [email protected] Date: 4/1/2022
Telephone: Expires On: 4/27/2022
Primary Contact:
\i1\ \i2\
Bill To Address

\IS1\
City of Oakley
3231 Main St
Oakley California 94561-3147
United States
Ship To Address

\IS2\
City of Oakley
3231 Main St
Oakley California 94561-3147
United States
Product Name Product Description Qty Unit Price Total Price CT4011-GW1 Single Output Gateway North America, Bollard Unit - 208/240V @30A with Cord Management
2 USD 4,869 USD 9,738
CT4021-GW1 Dual Output Gateway North America, Bollard Unit - 208/240V @30A with Cord Management
3 USD 7,007 USD 21,021
CT4001-CCM CT4000 Bollard Concrete Mounting Kit. Bolts: 5/8 - 11 x 9” F1554 Grade 55 hot-dipped galvanized threaded bolts - 3 ea.

Nuts: 5/8 - Heavy Galvanized Hex Nuts (DH Rated) - 12 ea.

Washers: Galvanized Washers (ASTM F436) - 9 ea. Plastic Template - 1 ea
5 USD 105 USD 525
CT4000-PMGMT CT4000 Power Management Kit. Allows both ports on a dual port station to share a single 40A circuit (Power Share). Also allows a CT4000 to be set up to operate at a lower current (Power Select).
5 USD 55 USD 275
CPCLD-COMMERCIAL5Prepaid Commercial Cloud Plan subscription with station management features such as: Custom Video
uploads and Automatic Software Updates, driver and fleet management features including: Access Control and Pricing & Automatic Payment Collection, as well as energy and
power management features which include Power Sharing.

Real-time dashboards and reports provided for applicable features. Station Activation purchase required.
8 USD 1,385 USD 11,080
CPSUPPORT-ACTIVE Initial Station Activation & Configuration Service includes activation of cloud services and configuration of radio groups, custom groups, connections, access control, visibility control, pricing, reports and alerts. One time initial service per station. 5 USD 0 USD 0
© 2021 ChargePoint, Inc.
254 East Hacienda Avenue, Campbell, CA 95008 USA

Page 1 of 3 ends

70 Product Name Product Description Qty Unit Price Total Price CPSUPPORTSITEVALIDCustomer works with their own contractor to perform all construction and station installation services. ChargePoint will then engage an authorized ChargePoint Partner to
perform Site Validation of electrical capacity, transformers, panels, breakers, wiring, cellular coverage and that the station installation meets all ChargePoint published
requirements and local codes. Upon successful Site
Validation, the customer will be eligible to obtain warranty coverage under a ChargePoint Maintenance plan, sold
separately. Note, a failed Site Validation will incur a second validation fee to repeat the validation after the site deficiencies are corrected. Priced per AC station.
1 USD 0 USD 0
CT4000-ASSURE5 5 prepaid years of ChargePoint Assure for CT4000 station. Includes Parts and Labor Warranty, Remote
Technical Support, On-Site Repairs when needed, Unlimited Configuration Changes, and Reporting.
5 USD 2,620 USD 13,100
Quote Total: USD 55,739.00
Estimated Tax: USD 2,761.43
Shipping Fee: USD 683.75
Grand Total: USD 59,184.18
Quote Acceptance
+ Each Assure and Cloud Services subscription that you purchase for a Charging Station will commence ninety (90) days from the date the Charging Station associated with that subscription is shipped to you and will last for the subscription length selected in the applicable order.
+ All pricing is confidential between Customer and ChargePoint. + All prices are FCA ChargePoint warehouse(s).
+ Customer to be invoiced at time of shipment.
+ Sales tax in applicable states and shipping costs will be applied to this quote at time of invoicing. + All invoices are Net 30 days.
+ Credit Checks are required for new customers.
+ Pricing does not include installation or mounting services unless specifically quoted above. + Additional Purchase Terms and Conditions can be found at http://www.chargepoint.com/termsandconditions + Additional terms and conditions for ChargePoint Assure can be found at http://www.chargepoint.com/legal/assure + Purchaser confirms that the shipping and billing information provided in the Quotation is accurate for ChargePoint’s shipping and invoicing purposes.

By signing this quote I hereby acknowledge that I have the authority to purchase the product detailed on this document on behalf of my organization. Furthermore, I agree to the above terms and conditions and that this signed quote shall act as a purchase order.
© 2021 ChargePoint, Inc.
254 East Hacienda Avenue, Campbell, CA 95008 USA

Page 2 of 3 ends

71 Signature : \signature1\ Title : \t1\
Name (Print) : \fullname1\ Date : \D1\
Company Name : \CompanyName_1\
Accounts Payable Contact Name : \AccountPayableContactName_1\ Accounts Payable Contact E-Mail : \AccountsPayableContactEmail_1\ Requested Ship Date : \dsrequestedshipdate_1\
© 2021 ChargePoint, Inc.
254 East Hacienda Avenue, Campbell, CA 95008 USA

Page 3 of 3 ends

72 Resolution No. __-22 Page 1
RESOLUTION NO. __-22

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OAKLEY, AUTHORIZING STAFF TO PURCHASE FIVE (5) ELECTRIC VEHICLE

CHARGING STATIONS RELATED TO CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (CIP) NUMBER 215 – DOWNTOWN PARKING LOT PROJECT
WHEREAS, as part of the Fiscal Year 2021/22 Budget, the City of Oakley approved a 5-year Capital improvement Program (CIP); and WHEREAS, Project Number 215 is to construct a parking lot on the north side of Main Street in downtown Oakley; and
WHEREAS, on February 22, 2022 the Oakley City Council approved a midyear budget adjustment which allocated additional funds for CIP 215 - Downtown Parking Lot; and
WHEREAS, the new downtown parking lot project that is being constructed has parking spots dedicated for Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging Stations; and WHEREAS, ChargePoint, Inc is the industry leader in electric vehicle charging stations and has submitted a proposal to provide five (5) electric vehicle stations for an amount not to exceed $59,184.18; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Oakley hereby authorizes staff to purchase five (5) electric vehicle charging stations and associated hardware.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Oakley at a meeting held on the 12th of April 2022 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTENTIONS:

APPROVED:

_______________________
ATTEST: Randy Pope, Mayor
Libby Vreonis, City Clerk Date
73 STAFF REPORT
Approved and Forwarded to the City Council
DATE: April 12, 2022
TO: Joshua McMurray, City Manager
FROM: Tim Przybyla, CPA, Finance Director
SUBJECT: Consideration of a Resolution Approving the $100,200 Purchase of a Scan Station Forensic 3-D RTC 360 Laser Scanner System and Related Training and Support from Precision Survey Supply
Background and Analysis
In the interest of reducing staff time and expediting the processing of crime scenes and accidents, the Oakley Police Department researched and selected the Scan Station Forensic 3-D RTC 360 laser scanner system. This system is manufactured by Leica Geosystems and is the only 3-D laser scanning system made which combines all of the features and support infrastructure required to support the investigation mission of the Oakley Police Department. After a recent collision on Cypress Avenue, traffic was held to a complete stop for hours, while the scene of the collision was investigated. The use of this 3-D scanner system could have cut down considerably on the time to process the scene and it would provide very scientific and compelling evidence to support the case.

The cost estimate provided by Precision Survey Supply (PSS) for the equipment, training and support is $92,138.19, without tax, after the 18% discount that Precision has extended to the City of Oakley Police Department. With tax, the total cost is anticipated to be $100,200. PSS is an authorized Lieca Geosystems Public Safety distributor for the State of California and the only distributor that offers the training and support that will be needed for the Oakley Police Department to utilize this system effectively and preserve crime scenes and crash scenes exactly the way they are discovered, while completing the on-site investigation in roughly 25% of the time it takes to process scenes without this state-of-the-art system. Because PSS is a sole source provider for this system, the City’s Purchasing Ordinance exempts this purchase from the competitive bidding process. Less costly 3-D scanning systems are available and were considered by Oakley Police Department. However, this particular system was selected as the best fit for the City of Oakley because of its high-quality, dependability and high level of support that accompanies this system.
74 Fiscal Impact
The impact to the General Fund for this purchase of equipment and related support will be $100,200, which will come from the Oakley Police Department budget after a budget transfer in from the existing balance in the Contingency line item of the NonDepartmental budget.

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends the City Council adopt the attached resolution, approving the $100,200 purchase of the Scan Station Forensic 3-D RTC 360 laser scanner system and related training and support.

Attachments
1) Resolution
2) Estimate
3) Sole Source Letter
75 Resolution No. XX -22 Page 1 of 1
RESOLUTION NO. XX-22

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OAKLEY APPROVING THE $100,200 PURCHASE OF A SCAN STATION FORENSIC 3-D RTC 360 LASER

SCANNER SYSTEM AND RELATED TRAINING AND SUPPORT FROM PRECISION

SURVEY SUPPLY
WHEREAS, it is a goal of the City of Oakley to protect our public and prioritize safe streets, healthy neighborhoods, and robust community resources to benefit our most valued assets - our people; and
WHEREAS, the City of Oakley would like to reduce the time that it takes the Oakley Police Department to process crimes and crash scenes; and WHEREAS, the Oakley Police Department has researched and selected the Scan Station Forensic 3-D RTC 360 Laser Scanner System (3-D Scanner), for which Precision Survey Supply (PSS) is a sole source vendor/trainer, as the best option to expedite the processing of crime scenes and crash scenes while providing very scientific and compelling evidence; and
WHEREAS, PSS has offered the City of Oakley an 18% discount on the purchase of this 3-D Scanner for a total cost of approximately $100,200; and WHEREAS, there is sufficient funding available in the City of Oakley Fiscal Year 2021/2022 Budget from the General Fund’s Contingency line item budget to cover this cost.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AND ORDERED, that the City Council of the City of Oakley does hereby approve the $100,200 Purchase of a Scan Station Forensic 3-D RTC 360 Laser Scanner System and related training and support from Precision Survey Supply.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 12th day of April 2022 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTENTIONS:

APPROVED:
________________
ATTEST: Randy Pope, Mayor
__________________________ ________________
Libby Vreonis, City Clerk Date
76 Precision Survey Supply, LLC
8628 Utica Avenue #800
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 US
909-931-4040
[email protected]
www.precisionsurveysupply.com
Estimate

ADDRESS
Sergeant Cartwright
Oakley Police Department
3231 Main St.

Oakley, CA 94561

SHIP TO
Sergeant Cartwright
Oakley Police Department
3231 Main St.

Oakley, CA 94561
ESTIMATE # DATE
32001 03/01/2022

SALES REP
SE

ACTIVITY QTY RATE AMOUNT
6012673
Leica RTC360 Laser Scanner Kit
838300 RTC360 Scan Head
817063 GVP730, Transport Container for RTC360
Laser Scanner and Accessories
799191 GEB361 Lithium Ion Battery
799187 GKL341, Charger Prof 5000. Charges up
to 4 batteries, including power cable.
842065 RTC360 Flash Drive - 256GB
636767 RTC360 Rain Cover
6013561 1 yr RTC360 Laser Scanner CCP Basic
1 78,336.65 78,336.65
842066
GST80, Lightweight Tripod for RTC360 Laser
Scanner
1 2,300.00 2,300.00
864515
Cyclone REGISTER 360 Permanent
1 5,050.00 5,050.00
6012199
Cyclone REGISTER 360 CCP 1yr
Includes:
- Technical support by telephone and/or email
- Software module updates
1 910.00 910.00
914470
Cyclone PUBLISHER Permanent
1 4,050.00 4,050.00
6015916
Cyclone PUBLISHER CCP 1yr.

Technical support by telephone/email.

Software updates.
1 730.00 730.00
916318
IMS MAP 360 Pro Permanent Edition
Includes Core Service CAD
Includes Animation Component
Includes Point Cloud Edition Service
1 6,700.00 6,700.00
77 ACTIVITY QTY RATE AMOUNT
6015993
MAP360 Pro CCP - 1 year
Technical support by telephone/email
Software updates
1 1,480.00 1,480.00
PSS32230
High Definition Scanning External Data Collector
MSI Gaming Series laptop
Windows Home Edition
Intel® Core i7 Processor 11 Generation Intel Core
17 High Res Display
64GB RAM
6 GB Dedicated Nvidia Video Card
2TB SSD NVMe
1 3,399.00 3,399.00
PSS32215
On-Site Forensic Training
Accepted By:

Signature:
4 days total at customer site. Forensic training
manuals provided to attendees.

Maximum class size of 8. Equipment, computers
and facilities provided by
customer. Travel and expenses of the trainer
included.
1 9,408.00 9,408.00
Does not include applicable taxes or shipping charges. Thank you! SUBTOTAL 112,363.65 DISCOUNT 18% -20,225.46
TOTAL $92,138.19
Accepted By Accepted Date
78 Leica Geosystems Inc.
5051 Peachtree Corners Circle, Suite 250
Norcross, GA 30092
http://psg.leica-geosystems.us/
Federal Tax ID 161516976
Tuesday, March 1, 2022
Re: Sole Source Letter for Leica Public Safety Group
Oakley Police Department
Please accept this statement confirming Precision Survey Supply is an authorized Leica Geosystems Public Safety distributor for the state of California. PSS is the only distributor that offers ACTAR training as well as certified MAP360 training Leica laser scanner systems is the only 3D laser scanning systems available which works, day or night, long range, and eye safe. Defeats “The CSI effect”. Preserving the scene exactly the way it was discovered. Enables prosecutors to place the jury into the scene.

Leica Geosystems operates a Segment base distribution model for the US. Our network of distributors is based on the company’s background and expertise. Leica represents and warrants that the Distributor, under this Agreement will be performed in a professional manner with reasonable skill, care and diligence, all in accordance with prudent Forensic practices. PSS has historically offered additional unique aspects in relation to Leica equipment:
• PSS provides 24-hour, lifetime operational support for all products they sell • PSS provides a unique training program that encompasses not only equipment use, but also aspects of crime and crash scene reconstruction.

Please contact PSS for information regarding these sole source aspects of their company’s offerings.

Dietrich Evans
Public Safety Group Regional Manager – West
Leica Geosystems, Inc.

Direct: 925 719 0667 | Fax: 925 790 2455
79 STAFF REPORT
Approved and Forwarded to the City
DATE: April 12, 2022
TO: Joshua McMurray, City Manager
FROM: Ariana Ruiz, Planning Technician
SUBJECT: Ranchettes at Neroly Design Review (DR 06-21) – Request for Design Review approval of thirteen (13) single-family residential lots within the Ranchettes at Neroly Subdivision 9284; APNs 041-080-001 and - 002.

Summary
This is a public hearing on an application by Cyrus Land Investments, LLC (“Applicant”) requesting Design Review (DR 06-21) approval of floors plans, elevations, colors, and materials of 13 single-family residential lots located within Subdivision 9284 known as the “Ranchettes at Neroly”. The application also consists of three floor plans, with eight elevations proposed. Proposed homes consist of single-story plans ranging from 2,995 square-feet to 3,365 square-feet of livable area (“Project”). The project site is located at the southeast corner of Oakley Road and Neroly Road. The site is zoned R-20 (SingleFamily Residential) District. APNs: 041-080-001 and -002.

Background
General Plan and Zoning
 The General Plan Land Use Designation for the project site is Residential Low, as depicted in the Oakley 2020 General Plan Figure 2-2 (Land Use Diagram).  The project site is zoned R-20 (Single-Family Residential) District.

Existing Conditions and Surrounding Land Uses
The approximately 7.14-acre project site is located on the south side of Oakley Road, east of Neroly Road, and north of Almondwood Place. The site has recently been graded in association with the approved Tentative Map but is otherwise currently undeveloped.

The project site consists of two parcels directly adjacent to one another. These parcels are located at the southeast corner of Oakley Road and Neroly Road. 80 Subject: Ranchettes at Neroly Design Review (DR 06-21) Date: April 12, 2022

Page 2 of 6 ends

Properties located to the west, east,
and south are zoned R-40 (SingleFamily Residential) District. The site directly to the west is currently
undeveloped. The parcels to the
south and east contain existing
single-family residences.

To the north of the project site,
following Oakley Road, the parcels
are zoned for Light Industrial District.

These parcels currently contain light
industrial uses, legal nonconforming single-family
residences, and vineyards. Figure 1 (above) shows an aerial view of the site from the Contra Costa County GIS website (https://ccmap.cccounty.us).

Project Description
Background
In 2012, a Vesting Tentative Map that resulted in a 7-lot subdivision (9284) was approved.

A Variance was also approved for a lot that did not meet the minimum lot area. In 2018, the vesting Tentative Map was revised. The City Council approved the request for a General Plan Amendment to amend the land use designation from single-family residential very low to low density. This application also requested a rezone of the parcels from R-40 District to R-20 District and approval of a Tentative Map to subdivide the property to a total of thirteen (13) lots. At the time of approval, the design review was deferred to a later date.

This resolution also approved Conditions of Approval which are requested to be modified through the current application for approval of this Design Review. These conditions are highlighted later in this report.

Design Review
Per Oakley Municipal Code 9.1.1604, Design Review shall be required in any residential, commercial, industrial or public and semi-public zoning district for any permitted or conditionally permitted establishment of use on a property that is not already developed with full frontage improvements and on-site improvements, for new above ground buildings or structures, whether intended to be permanent or temporary, for house plans, elevations and landscaping for any custom home or residential subdivision.

Floor Plans and Architecture
In compliance with the approved resolution, all thirteen (13) homes have been proposed as single-story. Figure 3 below shows the coversheet provided of the Applicant’s plans Figure 1 - Aerial View of Project Site
81 Subject: Ranchettes at Neroly Design Review (DR 06-21) Date: April 12, 2022

Page 3 of 6 ends

which depict each elevation type. Each floor plan includes garage space to store up to three cars. Plans 1 and 2 contain front-facing garages and Plan 3 contains a 2-car garage front facing the street with a side loaded single-car garage. Figure 2 below shows the coversheet provided of the Applicant’s plans which depict each elevation type.

Figure 2 - Ranchettes at Neroly Streetscape of Front Elevations The proposed floor plans range from 2,995 square-feet to 3,316 square-feet. Although each floor plan differs from one another, each have a total of four (4) bedrooms, three (3) baths, kitchen, dining room, and capacity for a gathering room. Each plan includes a covered patio at the rear of the home. For lots containing a larger side yard setback, a side yard lanai has also been proposed, expanding the building footprint.

The four proposed architectural styles shared across the plans are: French Cottage, Mediterranean, East Bay Modern, and French Pavilion. There are a total of 12 color and material schemes that are used through the thirteen elevations. The Materials and Colors Board notes the proposed roofing tile, multiple colors used for the body of the home, along with stone veneer or brick and the proposed lighting. Each plan uses a variety of architectural elements, such as false shutters, stone and brick veneer, light fixtures. Both window and door trimming are reflected throughout the entirety of the homes. The lanais proposed within the rear and side yards are proposed with wrapped stone or brick veneer.

All plans propose different rooflines between the various architectural styles with French Cottage style using hip-style roofing, Mediterranean utilizing a combination of mansard and hip-styles, and East Bay Modern and French Pavilion implementing gable-style roofing.

Master Plotting Plans
The Master Plotting Plan shows the lots and which home is proposed for each. The Master Plotting Plan also notes the proposed setbacks from property lines and is included within the Applicant’s plans. Of the thirteen homes, there are four Plan 1’s, four Plan 2’s, and five Plan 3’s.

Environmental Review
The proposal for the house designs and other design elements of the subdivision falls within the scope of the original subdivision’s California of Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) analysis.
82 Subject: Ranchettes at Neroly Design Review (DR 06-21) Date: April 12, 2022

Page 4 of 6 ends

Subdivision 9284 was analyzed through an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (State Clearing House #: 2018072023). These documents were prepared and dated July 6, 2018 and made available for public comment between the dates July 10th and August 8th of 2018. The City Council adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration with adoption of Resolution 111-18 for the Tentative Map approval.

Analysis
Design Review
Design Review applications are governed by section 9.1.1604 Design Review of the Oakley Municipal Code. A Design Review application may be granted when the following standards have been met:
a) Site planning, including building siting (location), setback and orientation; entries, circulation, and parking; landscape setbacks and buffers; and location of trash, loading and service areas, and mechanical equipment. b) Architecture, including massing and grouping; facades, entries, and roofs; materials and colors; and screening of trash, loading and service areas, and mechanical equipment.
c) Landscaping and site elements, including general landscape areas; entry and plaza enhancements; parking lot landscaping; walls and fences; and lighting.
d) Streetscapes, including major community entries; highlighted intersections; and district entries.

The proposed plans were also analyzed for consistency with the applicable development regulations in the Oakley Municipal Code and adopted Residential Design Guidelines (“Guidelines”).

Conditions of Approval
Condition #11 from Resolution 111-18 noted the feasibility of hooking up into public sewer should be reevaluated upon submittal of the improvement plans if public sewer was available within 300 feet of the project site. If so, the improvements plans should have included plans to hook into public sewer. At the time the improvement plans were submitted, and to present day, public sewer is not located within 300-feet of the project site, therefore the Applicant has proposed to install septic systems with each lot.

Flag Lot
Resolution 111-18 conditioned the applicant to minimize the flag lot of Lot #12 due to access and safety concerns. The applicant has modified the design of Lots #11, 12, and 13 by consolidating the driveways to comply with East Contra Costa County Fire Protection District and Public Works and Engineering Division. The newly proposed design eliminates the flag lot proposed for Lot #12 as the shared driveway creates a shared access for these lots.
83 Subject: Ranchettes at Neroly Design Review (DR 06-21) Date: April 12, 2022

Page 5 of 6 ends

Fencing
The applicant has also proposed to install good neighbor privacy fencing as a part of the project. The wood fencing is proposed at a height of 6’ with steel post as required per the Residential Design Guidelines for Estate Lots. Condition #22 of Resolution 111-18 also noted the following:
“The Applicant shall install a gate at the entrance of Almondwood Place. The design, location, and mechanism for the ongoing maintenance of the gate shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director and City Engineer.”
The applicant submitted a detailed gate exhibit showing the constraints with this condition.

The ECCCFPD requires automatic gates are placed at least 30’ from the path of travel of the adjacent roadway to prevent stacking. Additionally, this would place the gate opening directly in front of the driveway located a neighboring property 2990 Almondwood Place.

The Planning Division met with the applicant of the project and discussed the potential removal of this gate. The applicant worked in good faith with property owners along Almondwood Place who would be affected by the removal of this condition. A letter has been provided by a majority of the neighboring properties agreeing to continue the project without installation of a gate. A condition has also been added within the resolution that will make that condition null and void.

Landscaping
Approved resolution requires landscaping within the public right-of-way and front yards.

The submitted landscape plan (Attachment #4) highlights drought-tolerant landscaping within these areas, notes two street trees for each lot, and four street trees for corner lots.

The proposed landscaping is in compliance with Oakley’s Residential Design Guidelines will conform to the Oakley Water Efficient Ordinance (WELO) and Oakley’s established Guidelines for Implementation.

General Plan Analysis
The City of Oakley’s Residential Design Guidelines promote the use of high-quality materials throughout the entirety of the proposed home. The applicant has proposed four architectural styles. The styles proposed are East Bay Modern, French Cottage, French Pavilion, and Mediterranean. The City of Oakley’s Residential Design Guidelines promote the use of high-quality materials throughout the entirety of the proposed home. The guidelines also encourage the change of materials and colors should happen naturally, without turning the corner of the same wall plane. The materials of each are continued until an appropriate break of materials. Exterior light fixtures proposed for each home are also consistent with the architectural style of the home.

This development helps to promote goals and policies outlined within Oakley’s General Plan by promoting semi-rural larger lots, and more upscale residential development.

Goals as listed within the Land Use Element request new residential developments are 84 Subject: Ranchettes at Neroly Design Review (DR 06-21) Date: April 12, 2022

Page 6 of 6 ends

created to preserve existing neighborhoods and to reflect the high quality of life in Oakley.

The proposed architecture and siting are designed to integrate with the existing neighborhood along Almondwood Place. These policies reflected within the General Plan’s Goal 2.8 Community Character also request future development projects exhibit superior design features. The proposed architectural plans help achieve the goal of exhibiting design excellence, while preserving Oakley’s small town and agrarian character.

Policy 2.2.10 requires residences to be located away from areas of excessive noise, smoke, dust, odor, and lighting, and ensure that adequate provisions, including buffers or transitional uses, are made to ensure the health and well-being of existing and future residents. The parcels along Oakley Road, directly across from the Light industrial uses, have implemented a larger setback than required per the zoning district. Although the R20 District requires a minimum setback of 25’, the homes proposed are noted at 25’, 35’, 36’, and 50’. The increased setback for residential development proposed and adjacent to the Light Industrial District will help minimize conflicts.

Fiscal Impact
The approval of this Design Review application will not impact the General Fund. This is a developer-funded account. All Staff time and City of Oakley generated materials related to the processing of this application, including reproduction of physical copies and postage for public hearing notices, are charged to the account.

Findings
Draft findings for the Design Review can be found in the proposed resolution.

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends the City Council adopt the resolution approving the “Ranchettes at Neroly Design Review (DR 06-20)”, as conditioned.

Attachments

1. Vicinity Map

2. Public Hearing Notice

3. Applicant’s Plans

4. Landscape Plans

5. Gate Exhibit

6. Signed Letter dated March 15, 2022

7. Draft Resolution
85 Vicinity Map
Ranchettes at Neroly Design Review (DR 06-21) APN: 041-080-001 and -002 86 City of Oakley
3231 Main Street
Oakley, CA 94561
www.oakleyinfo.com

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given that on April 12, 2022, at 6:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, the City Council of the City of Oakley will hold a Public Hearing at the Council Chambers located at 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561 for the purposes of considering an item as described below:

Project Name: The Ranchettes at Neroly Design Review (DR 06-21).

Project Location: Southeast Corner of Oakley Road and Neroly Road, Oakley, CA 94561.

APN’s: 041-080-001 and -002.

Applicant: Cyrus Land Investments, LLC, 4021 Port Chicago Hwy, Concord, CA 94520. [email protected]
Request: This is a public hearing on an application by Cyrus Land Investments, LLC (“Applicant”) requesting Design Review (DR 06-21) approval of floors plans, elevations, colors, and materials of 13 single-family residential lots located within Subdivision 9284 known as the “Ranchettes at Neroly”. The application also consists of three floor plans, with eight elevations proposed. Proposed homes consist of single-story plans ranging from 2,995 square-feet to 3,365 square-feet of livable area. The project site is located at the southeast corner of Oakley Road and Neroly Road. The site is zoned R-20 (Single-Family Residential) District. APN’s: 041-080-001 and -002.

How to Review: The Staff Report and its attachments will be available for public review, on or before April 7, 2022 at City Hall, 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561 or online at www.ci.oakley.ca.us/agendas-minutes-videos-archive/ by navigating to the April 12, 2022 agenda. (Note: City Hall is closed on the 1st and 3rd Fridays of each month). Interested persons are invited to submit written comments prior to 5:00 P.M. the day of, and may testify at, the public hearing. Written comments may be submitted to Ariana Ruiz, Planning Technician at the City of Oakley, 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561 or by email to [email protected].

NOTICE IS ALSO GIVEN pursuant to Government Code Section 65009(b) that, if this matter is subsequently challenged in Court by you or others, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else has raised at a Public Hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Oakley City Clerk at, or prior to, the Public Hearing. 87 'DWH5(9
',6&29(5<'(6,*1
*5283
&\UXV/DQG,QYHVWPHQWV//&
5DQFKHWWHVDW1HURO\
2DNOH\&$
/RW /RW /RW /RW
9LFLQLW\0DS
$
6+((7,1'(;
$ &29(56+((7& 0$67(53/277,1*3/$1$ 3/$1)5217(/(9$7,216/276 $ 3/$1)5217(/(9$7,216/276 $D 3/$1$/7)/2253/$1$ 3/$1/27(/(9$7,216$ 3/$1/27(/(9$7,216$ 3/$1/27(/(9$7,216$ 3/$1/27(/(9$7,216$ 3/$1)5217(/(9$7,216/276 $ 3/$1)5217(/(9$7,216/276
$ 3/$1)/2253/$1$ 3/$1/27(/(9$7,216$ 3/$1/27(/(9$7,216$ 3/$1/27 (/(9$7,216$ 3/$1/27(/(9$7,216$ 3/$1)5217(/(9$7,216/276 $ 3/$1)5217(/(9$7,216/276 $ 3/$1)/2253/$1$ 3/$1/27(/(9$7,216$ 3/$1/27(/(9$7,216$ 3/$1/27(/(9$7,216$ 3/$1/27(/(9$7,216$ 3/$1/27(/(9$7,216$ &2/25%2$5'(;+,%,7$ &2/25%2$5'6&+(0(6$ &2/25%2$5'6&+(0(6$ 3/$1)/2253/$1$D 3/$1$/7)/2253/$1 88 2$./(<52$'
1(52/<52$'
$/021':22'3/$&(

/27&29(5$*(

/27&29(5$*(

/27&29(5$*(

/27&29(5$*(

/27&29(5$*(

/27&29(5$*(

/27&29(5$*(

/27&29(5$*(
/27&29(5$*(

/27&29(5$*(

/27&29(5$*(

/27&29(5$*(

/27&29(5$*(

0$67(53/277,1*3/$12$./(<&$
',6&29(5<'(6,*1
*5283
$/7
6,1*/(
6725<
$/7
6,1*/(
6725<

6,1*/(
6725<

&28173(5&(173/$1

*5$1'727$/+20(6

727$/3(5&(17

',675,%87,217$%/(
7<3,&$/0,1,080/276(7%$&.65=21,1*
5$1&+(77(6$71(52/<6&$/(

327(17,$//($&+
),(/'$5($
0$5&+
6(37,&7$1. &

6,1*/(
6725<

6,1*/(
6725<

89 'DWH5(9
',6&29(5<'(6,*1
*5283
2$./(<&$
$71(52/<
&\UXV/DQG,QYHVWPHQWV//&
5$1&+(77(6
)URQW(OHYDWLRQV
/RW
3ODQ

)UHQFK3DYLOLRQ
6FKHPH
/RW

)UHQFK3DYLOLRQ
6FKHPH $
90 'DWH5(9
',6&29(5<'(6,*1
*5283
2$./(<&$
$71(52/<
&\UXV/DQG,QYHVWPHQWV//&
5$1&+(77(6
)URQW(OHYDWLRQV
/RW
3ODQ

(DVW%D\0RGHUQ
6FKHPH
/RW

(DVW%D\0RGHUQ
6FKHPH $
91 'DWH5(9
',6&29(5<'(6,*1
*5283
2$./(<&$
$71(52/<
&\UXV/DQG,QYHVWPHQWV//&
5$1&+(77(6
3ODQ
)ORRU3ODQ
$
92 'DWH5(9
',6&29(5<'(6,*1
*5283
2$./(<&$
$71(52/<
&\UXV/DQG,QYHVWPHQWV//&
5$1&+(77(6
3ODQ$OW
)ORRU3ODQ/RW
$D
93 'DWH5(9
',6&29(5<'(6,*1
*5283
2$./(<&$
$71(52/<
&\UXV/DQG,QYHVWPHQWV//&
5$1&+(77(6

)UHQFK3DYLOLRQ
(OHYDWLRQV
3ODQ$/7/RW
5RRI3ODQ
5LJKW
5HDU
/HIW
$
94 'DWH5(9
',6&29(5<'(6,*1
*5283
2$./(<&$
$71(52/<
&\UXV/DQG,QYHVWPHQWV//&
5$1&+(77(6

)UHQFK3DYLOLRQ
(OHYDWLRQV
3ODQ/RW
5RRI3ODQ
5LJKW
5HDU
/HIW
$
95 'DWH5(9
',6&29(5<'(6,*1
*5283
2$./(<&$
$71(52/<
&\UXV/DQG,QYHVWPHQWV//&
5$1&+(77(6

(DVW%D\0RGHUQ
(OHYDWLRQV
3ODQ/RW
5RRI3ODQ
5LJKW
5HDU
/HIW
$
96 'DWH5(9
',6&29(5<'(6,*1
*5283
2$./(<&$
$71(52/<
&\UXV/DQG,QYHVWPHQWV//&
5$1&+(77(6

(DVW%D\0RGHUQ
(OHYDWLRQV
3ODQ/RW
5RRI3ODQ
5LJKW
5HDU
/HIW
$
97 'DWH5(9
',6&29(5<'(6,*1
*5283
2$./(<&$
$71(52/<
&\UXV/DQG,QYHVWPHQWV//&
5$1&+(77(6
)URQW(OHYDWLRQV
/RW
3ODQ

(DVW%D\0RGHUQ
6FKHPH
/RW

)UHQFK&RWWDJH
6FKHPH $
98 'DWH5(9
',6&29(5<'(6,*1
*5283
2$./(<&$
$71(52/<
&\UXV/DQG,QYHVWPHQWV//&
5$1&+(77(6
)URQW(OHYDWLRQV3ODQ
/RW

)UHQFK&RWWDJH
6FKHPH
/RW

)UHQFK&RWWDJH
6FKHPH
$

99 'DWH5(9
',6&29(5<'(6,*1
*5283
2$./(<&$
$71(52/<
&\UXV/DQG,QYHVWPHQWV//&
5$1&+(77(6
3ODQ
)ORRU3ODQ
$
100
'DWH5(9
',6&29(5<'(6,*1
*5283
2$./(<&$
$71(52/<
&\UXV/DQG,QYHVWPHQWV//&
5$1&+(77(6
3ODQ$OW
)ORRU3ODQ/RW

$D
101
'DWH5(9
',6&29(5<'(6,*1
*5283
2$./(<&$
$71(52/<
&\UXV/DQG,QYHVWPHQWV//&
5$1&+(77(6

(DVW%D\0RGHUQ
(OHYDWLRQV
3ODQ/RW
5RRI3ODQ
$

5LJKW
5HDU
/HIW
$
102
'DWH5(9
',6&29(5<'(6,*1
*5283
2$./(<&$
$71(52/<
&\UXV/DQG,QYHVWPHQWV//&
5$1&+(77(6
5RRI3ODQ
%

)UHQFK&RWWDJH
(OHYDWLRQV
3ODQ/RW
5LJKW
5HDU
/HIW
$
103
'DWH5(9
',6&29(5<'(6,*1
*5283
2$./(<&$
$71(52/<
&\UXV/DQG,QYHVWPHQWV//&
5$1&+(77(6
5RRI3ODQ
%

)UHQFK&RWWDJH
(OHYDWLRQV
3ODQ/RW

5LJKW
5HDU
/HIW
$
104
'DWH5(9
',6&29(5<'(6,*1
*5283
2$./(<&$
$71(52/<
&\UXV/DQG,QYHVWPHQWV//&
5$1&+(77(6
5RRI3ODQ
%

)UHQFK&RWWDJH
(OHYDWLRQV
3ODQ/RW
5LJKW
5HDU
/HIW
$
105
'DWH5(9
',6&29(5<'(6,*1
*5283
2$./(<&$
$71(52/<
&\UXV/DQG,QYHVWPHQWV//&
5$1&+(77(6
/RW

)UHQFK3DYLOLRQ
6FKHPH
)URQW(OHYDWLRQV3ODQ

(DVW%D\0RGHUQ
6FKHPH
/RW

$
106
'DWH5(9
',6&29(5<'(6,*1
*5283
2$./(<&$
$71(52/<
&\UXV/DQG,QYHVWPHQWV//&
5$1&+(77(6
)URQW(OHYDWLRQV3ODQ
/RW

0HGLWHUUDQHDQ
6FKHPH
/RW

)UHQFK&RWWDJH
6FKHPH

$
107
'DWH5(9
',6&29(5<'(6,*1
*5283
2$./(<&$
$71(52/<
&\UXV/DQG,QYHVWPHQWV//&
5$1&+(77(6
3ODQ
)ORRU3ODQ
$
108
'DWH5(9
',6&29(5<'(6,*1
*5283
2$./(<&$
$71(52/<
&\UXV/DQG,QYHVWPHQWV//&
5$1&+(77(6

)UHQFK3DYLOLRQ
(OHYDWLRQV
3ODQ/RW
5RRI3ODQ
5LJKW
/HIW 5HDU
$
109
'DWH5(9
',6&29(5<'(6,*1
*5283
2$./(<&$
$71(52/<
&\UXV/DQG,QYHVWPHQWV//&
5$1&+(77(6
3ODQ/RWV

(DVW%D\0RGHUQ
(OHYDWLRQV
5RRI3ODQ
5LJKW
/HIW 5HDU
$

110
'DWH5(9
',6&29(5<'(6,*1
*5283
2$./(<&$
$71(52/<
&\UXV/DQG,QYHVWPHQWV//&
5$1&+(77(6

0HGLWHUUDQHDQ
(OHYDWLRQV
3ODQ/RW
5RRI3ODQ
5LJKW
/HIW 5HDU
$
111
'DWH5(9
',6&29(5<'(6,*1
*5283
2$./(<&$
$71(52/<
&\UXV/DQG,QYHVWPHQWV//&
5$1&+(77(6

)UHQFK&DWWRDJH
(OHYDWLRQV
3ODQ/RW
5RRI3ODQ
5LJKW
/HIW 5HDU
$
112
'DWH5(9
',6&29(5<'(6,*1
*5283
2$./(<&$
$71(52/<
&\UXV/DQG,QYHVWPHQWV//&
5$1&+(77(6
3ODQ/RWV

(DVW%D\0RGHUQ
(OHYDWLRQV
5RRI3ODQ
5LJKW
/HIW 5HDU
$
113
114
115
116

FRONT YARD
COVER SHEET L-0 SHEET INDEX: L-0 FRONT YARD COVER SHEET L-1.1 FRONT YARD IRRIGATION PLAN AND IRRIGATION LEGEND L-1.2 FRONT YARD IRRIGATION PLAN L-1.3 FRONT YARD IRRIGATION NOTES AND DETAILS L-1.4 FRONT YARD NOTES AND WELO DOCUMENTATION L-2.1 FRONT YARD PLANTING PLAN AND PLANT LIST L-2.2 FRONT YARD PLANTING PLAN L-2.3 FRONT YARD PLANTING NOTES AND DETAILS "I HAVE COMPLIED WITH THE CRITERIA OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA MODEL WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE AND APPLIED THEM FOR THE EFFICIENT USE OF WATER IN THE LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION DESIGN PLAN" LANDSCAPE CONCEPT STATEMENT: RICHARD STOVER: LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT DATE THE LANDSCAPE DESIGN IS INTENDED TO CONTINUE THE EXISTING COMPOSITION ALONG THE STREET FRONTAGE WITH PLANTING COMPLEMENTARY TO THE ADJACENT PARCELS, PROVIDING AN AESTHETICALLY PLEASING BALANCE, THAT IS BOTH LOW IN WATER-USE AND LOW MAINTENANCE. 09-27-21 KEVIN ROHANI: CITY ENGINEER DATE JESSE DELA CRUZ: PARKS & LANDSCAPE SUPERINTENDENT DATE REVIEWED FOR CONFORMANCE WITH CITY OF OAKLEY STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS. APPROVAL FOR CONSTRUCTION IS SUBJECT TO THE INFORMATION SHOWN HEREIN. THE CITY OF OAKLEY AND THE UNDERSIGNED ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS THAT MAY EXIST ON THESE PLANS. APPROVALS:

THE RANCHETTS AT NEROLY
SUBDIVISION #9284

OAKLEY, CALIFORNIA
RW Stover & Associates, Inc.

Landscape Architecture
1620 North Main Street, Suite 4
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Ph: 925.933.2583 VICINITY MAP SUBDIVISION # 9284 THE RANCHETTS AT NEROLY OAKLEY, CALIFORNIA FRONT YARD CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS ALBERT D. SEENO CONSTRUCTION CO. NOT TO SCALE 117

OAKLEY ROAD
NEROLY ROAD ALMONDWOOD PLACE 123 84 5 SIGHT TRIANGLE CONCRETE IMPERVIOUS SIDEWALK (REFER TO CIVIL PLANS) PROJECT STORMDRAIN (SEE CIVIL PLANS) 12' CONCRETE IMPERVIOUS SIDEWALK (REFER TO CIVIL PLANS) 4' 4' TOTAL LANDSCAPE AREA: 3,277 SF TURF: 570 SF (17.4% OF 25% MAX.) TOTAL LANDSCAPE AREA: 4,407 SF TURF: 794 SF (18.0% OF 25% MAX.) TOTAL LANDSCAPE AREA: 5,606 SF TURF: 1,052 SF (18.7% OF 25% MAX.) TOTAL LANDSCAPE AREA: 7,328 SF TURF: 908 SF (12.4% OF 25% MAX.) TOTAL LANDSCAPE AREA: 3,383 SF TURF: 572 SF (16.9% OF 25% MAX.) TOTAL LANDSCAPE AREA: 5,857 SF TURF: 870 SF (14.8% OF 25% MAX.) IMPERVIOUS CONCRETE SIDEWALK (REFER TO CIVIL PLANS) SIGHT TRIANGLE PROPERTY LINE (TYP.) BLDG. SETBACK (TYP.) BLDG. SETBACK (TYP.) PROPERTY LINE (TYP.) SEPTIC TANK (TYP. SEE CIVIL PLANS) STORM DRAIN (TYP.) EXISTING GAS LINE WATER LINE (TYP.) SWALE (TYP.) CENTER LINE CENTER LINE SUBDIVISION 5225 (219 M 21) 10+00
11+00
12+00
13+00
14+00 06+00 07+00 08+00 09+00
02+00
03+00
04+00
05+00
01+00 CONC. WALK TO SIDE YARD (TYP.) 2 2 2 2 2 1 22.0316.4 15.4 F 413.2 FF F 1 23.0 410.3 13.4 516.3 22.0 39.2 11.4 1 1 23.0 313.9 13.4 68.6 FFF F F F F F F F F F 1 22.0317.8 13.2 1 212.1 32.011.6 2 S S S S S S 1.0" 20 1.0" 20 1.0" 20 1.6" 15 1.6" 15 1.6" 15 5.3" 15 5.3" 155.3" 15 4.5" 10 5.3" 15 0.5" 20 0.5" 20 1.6" 15 1.0" 20 0.5" 20 1.0" 20 4.0" 12 4.0" 12 4.0" 12 49.2 5.3" 15 49.2 5.3" 15 513.7 415.2 1.6" 15 1.6" 15 412.21.6" 15 5.3" 15 310.21.6" 15 3' 3' EXISTING 7" AGRICULTURE IRRIGATION WATER LINE. VERIFY EXACT LOCATION IN FIELD WITH SITE SUPERINTENDENT. (SEE STREET TREE NOTE ON PLANTING PLAN)

THE RANCHETTS AT NEROLY
SUBDIVISION #9284
OAKLEY, CALIFORNIA REFER TO SHEET L-1.3 TO L-1.4 FOR IRRIGATION NOTES AND DETAILS

FRONT YARD
IRRIGATION PLAN L-1.1
MATCH LINE REFER TO SHEET L-1.2 GRAPHIC NOTE: IRRIGATION PLAN IS A SCHEMATIC REPRESENTATION OF THE DESIGN. ALL IRRIGATION PIPES AND VALVES SHOWN IN PAVING AREAS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ADJACENT PLANTERS ALONG BACK OF PAVING AS SITE CONSTRAINTS ALLOW. SLEEVE LOCATIONS ARE SHOWN RELATIVE TO RELATED SITE PAVING LOCATIONS. IRRIGATION LEGEND: 'HUNTER' XC-600i 6-STATION EXTERIOR WALL-MOUNT CONTROLLER WITH '#WSS-SEN SOLAR-SYNC RECEIVER WIRED TO CONTROLLER 'HUNTER' #WSS-SEN 'SOLAR-SYNC' ET WEATHER SENSOR MOUNTED ON HOUSE. EAVELINE FREE OF ANY OVERHEAD OBSTRUCTION 'FEBCO' #825Y 3/4" REDUCED PRESSURE BACKFLOW PREVENTER ASSEMBLY; PROVIDE R-19 INSULATION BAG 'RAINBIRD' FS-100-B 1" BRASS FLOW SENSOR WITH SUPERIOR 1" 3100 SERIES NORMALLY CLOSED MASTER CONTROLLER VALVE. FLOW SENSOR SHALL BE WIRED TO CONTROLLER WITH #EV-CAB-SEN COMMUNICATION CABLE INSIDE 1" PVC CONDUIT. NEW #WM-NLC-075 MULTI-JET 3/4" LEAD-FREE BRASS WATER SUBMETER 'KING BROS' SCHEDULE 80 PVC BALL VALVE; LINE SIZE 'RAINBIRD' #PESB-PRS-D SERIES REMOTE CONTROL VALVE,1" SIZE 'RAINBIRD' #PESB-PRS-D SERIES REMOTE CONTROL VALVE,1" SIZE; WITH 'AMIAD' FILTER WITH #150 MESH SCREEN MAIN LINE: 1-1/4" SCHEDULE 40 PVC PIPE WITH SCHEDULE 40 PVC SOLVENT- WELD FITTINGS; ALL CUTS TO BE SQUARE, PRIMER TO BE USED. PROVIDE 18" (MIN.) COVER LATERAL LINE: CLASS 200 PVC PIPE WITH SCHEDULE 40 PVC SOLVENT-WELD 3/4" FITTINGS; SEE PLAN FOR LINE SIZE. ALL CUTS TO BE SQUARE, PRIMER 1" TO BE USED. PROVIDE 12" (MIN.) COVER 1-1/4" 4" SCHEDULE 40 PVC PIPE SLEEVES UNDER PAVING (6" FOR SHARED PIPES GROUPED IN SLEEVES); PROVIDE 24" (MIN.) COVER BELOW FINISH BASE ROCK GRADE CONTROLLER STATION NUMBER GALLONS PER MINUTE PRECIPITATION RATE (INCHES PER HOUR) OPERATING PRESSURE (PSI) 'RAINBIRD' FLUSH VALVE; #MDCFCAP REMOVABLE FLUSH CAP WITH #MDCFCOUP COUPLING 'RAINBIRD' XFD SERIES ON-SURFACE DRIPLINE #XFD-09-18-500 PIPE WITH #LD16STK PLASTIC STAKES (OR EQUAL) AT 36" O.C. EMITTERS AT 18" SPACING, 0.90 GPH FLOW. PROVIDE EASY FIT COMPRESSION FITTINGS AND ADAPTERS PER MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS. INSTALL DRIPLINE AT 18" O.C. PER INSTALLATION DETAILS. DO NOT EXCEED 300' IN ANY SINGLE LENGTH OF TUBING. 'HUNTER #PROS-04-PRS40-MP1000 90, 360 LAWN 6" POP-UP SPRAY HEAD 'RAINBIRD' #1401 FULL CIRCLE BUBBLER (0.25 GPM) ON IPS FLEX PIPE; (1) PER PLANT; SECURE TO GRADE IN PLANT BASIN 'RAINBIRD' #1401 FLOOD BUBBLER (0.25 GPM)ON IPS FLEX PIPE; (2) PER PROPOSED TREE; SECURE TO GRADE IN TREE BASIN POINT-OF-CONNECTION TO WATER SUPPLY: PROVIDE CONNECTION TO DOMESTIC WATER SERVICE WITH COMPRESSION 'TEE' AND ADAPT TO NEW 1-1/4" PVC MAIN LINE; EXTEND TO NEW 3/4" SUBMETER. VERIFY LOCATION WITH PROJECT SUPERINTENDENT IN FIELD. VERIFY A MINIMUM AVAILABLE STATIC WATER PRESSURE OF 70 PSI; IF EXCEEDS 85 PSI INSTALL 'WILKINS' #600 PRESSURE REGULATOR IN 10" ROUND VALVE BOX. VERIFY A MINIMUM AVAILABLE FLOW OF 17.9 GPM. EXTERIOR WALL-MOUNT CONTROLLER: PROVIDE 120 VOLT POWER WITHIN RIGID CONDUIT FROM SOURCE STUBBED-OUT BY ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR TO CONTROLLER LOCATION; FINAL LOCATION ON WALL TO BE COORDINATED WITH PROJECT SUPERINTENDENT. ALL ABOVE GRADE CONTROL WIRES SHALL BE CONTAINED WITHIN PVC ELECTRICAL CONDUIT SECURELY FASTENED TO EXTERIOR WALL. 12FS XX 0.00 0.00" 0.00 118
9 10 11 1213 6 7 OAKLEY ROAD ALMONDWOOD PLACE LANDSCAPE IN THIS AREA NOT A PART OF SCOPE

LIMIT OF WORK
12'
TOTAL LANDSCAPE AREA: 6,669 SF
TURF: 1,515 SF (22.7% OF 25% MAX.)
TOTAL LANDSCAPE AREA: 1,605 SF
TURF: 400 SF (24.9% OF 25% MAX.)
TOTAL LANDSCAPE AREA: 6,478 SF
TURF: 1,156 SF (17.8% OF 25% MAX.)
TOTAL LANDSCAPE AREA: 6,563 SF
TURF: 1,090 SF (16.6% OF 25% MAX.)
TOTAL LANDSCAPE AREA: 6,384 SF
TURF: 961 SF (15.0% OF 25% MAX.)
TOTAL LANDSCAPE AREA: 5,439 SF
TURF: 865 SF (15.9% OF 25% MAX.) TOTAL LANDSCAPE AREA: 4,230 SF TURF: 745 SF (17.6% OF 25% MAX.)
BUILDING SETBACK (TYPICAL) IMPERVIOUS CONCRETE SIDEWALK (REFER TO CIVIL PLANS) LIMIT OF WORK CONCRETE MOW BAND LIGHT POLE (TYP.) CONCRETE MOW BAND EXISTING GAS LINE (SEE CIVIL PLANS) PROPERTY LINE (TYP.) BLDG. SETBACK (TYP.) SEPTIC TANK (TYP. SEE CIVIL PLANS) SEPTIC TANK (TYP. SEE CIVIL PLANS) BLDG. SETBACK (TYP.) STORM DRAIN (TYP.) WATER LINE (TYP.) SWALE (TYP.) SUBDIVISION 5225 (219 M 21)

PARCEL 'C'
(56PM24)
STERUD
(6447 O.R. 541) STERUD (6447 O.R. 541) SUBDIVISION 5225 14+00
15+00
16+00
17+00
18+00
19+00
05+00
06+00
07+00
08+00 CONC. WALK TO SIDE YARD (TYP.) CONC. WALK TO SIDE YARD (TYP.) 11.0 28.0 32.6 F F 2 1 F F 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 42.015.4 22.039.514.8 32.0 117.6 24.5 417.8 F F F F 316.4 217.9 F F 42.015.3317.7 217.5 411.7 FF F F F F F F 216.8 32.013.0 2 2 38.222.013.5416.1 1 S S S S S SS 514.9 F F 1.0" 20 1.0" 20 1.0" 20 1.0" 20 1.0" 20 1.6" 15 1.6" 15 1.6" 15 1.6" 15 5.3" 15 4.5" 10 4.5" 10 1.6" 12 4.5" 105.3" 15 4.5" 10 4.5" 10 5.3" 15 4.5" 10 0.5" 20 1.0" 20 4.0" 12 3.5" 12 1.6" 15 1.6" 15 1.6" 15 1.6" 15 510.3 1.6" 15 49.2 1 5.3" 15 3' 3' 3' EXISTING 7" AGRICULTURE IRRIGATION WATER LINE. VERIFY EXACT LOCATION IN FIELD WITH SITE SUPERINTENDENT. (SEE STREET TREE NOTE ON PLANTING PLAN)

THE RANCHETTS AT NEROLY
SUBDIVISION #9284
OAKLEY, CALIFORNIA REFER TO L-1.1 FOR IRRIGATION LEGEND REFER TO SHEET L-1.3 TO L-1.4 FOR IRRIGATION NOTES AND DETAILS

FRONT YARD
IRRIGATION PLAN L-1.2 GRAPHIC NOTE: IRRIGATION PLAN IS A SCHEMATIC REPRESENTATION OF THE DESIGN. ALL IRRIGATION PIPES AND VALVES SHOWN IN PAVING AREAS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ADJACENT PLANTERS ALONG BACK OF PAVING AS SITE CONSTRAINTS ALLOW. SLEEVE LOCATIONS ARE SHOWN RELATIVE TO RELATED SITE PAVING LOCATIONS.

MATCH LINE REFER TO SHEET L-1.1
119

THE RANCHETTS AT NEROLY
SUBDIVISION #9284

OAKLEY, CALIFORNIA

FRONT YARD

IRRIGATION NOTES
AND DETAILS L-1.3 IRRIGATION NOTES: GENERAL NOTES: DO NOT WILLFULLY INSTALL THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM AS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS WHEN IT IS OBVIOUS IN THE FIELD THAT OBSTRUCTIONS, GRADE DIFFERENCES OR DIFFERENCES IN AREA DIMENSIONS EXIST THAT MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED IN THE DESIGN OF THE SYSTEM. SUCH OBSTRUCTIONS OR DIFFERENCES SHOULD BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. NOTIFY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OF ANY ASPECTS OF LAYOUT, WHICH WILL PROVIDE INCOMPLETE OR INSUFFICIENT WATER COVERAGE OF PLANT MATERIAL AND DO NOT PROCEED UNTIL THE INSTRUCTIONS ARE OBTAINED. IN THE EVENT THIS NOTIFICATION IS NOT PERFORMED, THE IRRIGATION CONTRACTOR SHALL ASSUME FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY REVISIONS NECESSARY. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE IRRIGATION CONTRACTOR TO FAMILIARIZE HIMSELF WITH ALL THE GRADE DIFFERENCES, LOCATION OF WALKS, RETAINING WALLS, ETC. PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTIONS. IT SHALL BE THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT IN PLACE (BY ALL MEANS NECESSARY) ALL EXISTING UTILITIES UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED ON THE PANS. CITY STANDARD DRAWINGS, SPECIFICATIONS, SPECIFIC NOTES & DETAIL DRAWINGS AND THE SOILS REPORT TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER GENERAL DRAWINGS AND PLANS UNLESS OTHERWISE DIRECTED. ANY DEVIATION FROM APPROVED PLANS DURING CONSTRUCTION WILL REQUIRE 48 HOURS PRIOR NOTICE TO THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. AT LEAST ONE SET OF PLANS SHALL BE ON THE SITE AT ALL TIMES FOR INSPECTION. IRRIGATION CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL STATE, COUNTY AND CITY LAWS AND ORDINANCES; AND REGULATIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, O.S.H.A. AND INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION RELATING TO THE SAFETY AND CHARACTER OF WORK, EQUIPMENT AND LABOR PERSONNEL. THE IRRIGATION CONSULTANT ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY BEYOND THE ADEQUACY OF THE DESIGN CONTAINED HEREIN. DRAWINGS: DUE TO THE SCALE OF DRAWINGS, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO INDICATE ALL OFFSETS, FITTINGS, SLEEVES, ETC., WHICH MAY BE REQUIRED. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ALSO CAREFULLY INVESTIGATE THE STRUCTURAL AND FINISHED CONDITIONS AFFECTING ALL OF HIS WORK, PLAN HIS WORK ACCORDINGLY AND FURNISH SUCH FITTINGS, ETC. AS MAY BE NECESSARY TO MEET SUCH CONDITIONS. DRAWINGS ARE GENERALLY DIAGRAMMATIC AND INDICATIVE OF THE WORK TO BE INSTALLED. THE WORK SHALL BE INSTALLED IN SUCH A MANNER AS TO AVOID CONFLICTS BETWEEN IRRIGATION SYSTEM, PLANTING AND ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES. ALL PIPING, VALVES, ETC. SHOWN WITHIN PAVED AREAS ARE FOR DESIGN CLARIFICATION ONLY AND SHALL BE INSTALLED IN PLANTING AREAS WHERE POSSIBLE. CONTROLLER: IRRIGATION CONTRACTOR IS TO PROGRAM TIMING OF STATIONS ON CONTROLLER TO IRRIGATE IN THE MOST EFFICIENT, WATER CONSERVING MANNER POSSIBLE. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE CONTRACTOR AND/OR THE OWNER TO PROGRAM THE IRRIGATION CONTROLLERS TO PROVIDE THE MINIMUM AMOUNT OF WATER NEEDED TO SUSTAIN PROPER PLANT HEALTH. THIS INCLUDES MAKING ADJUSTMENTS TO THE PROGRAM FOR SEASONAL WEATHER CHANGES, PLANT MATERIAL NEEDS, WATER REQUIREMENTS, CHANGES IN ELEVATION, SUN, SHADE AND WIND EXPOSURES. CONTRACTOR SHALL ASSUME RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGE, EROSION, PUDDLING, ETC. DUE TO IMPROPER PROGRAMMING. ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR TO SUPPLY 120-VOLT A.C. (2.5 AMP) SERVICE & DISCONNECT, JUNCTION BOX AND CONDUIT, AS NECESSARY, TO CONTROLLER LOCATION. IRRIGATION CONTRACTOR TO MAKE FINAL CONNECTION FROM ELECTRICAL STUB-OUT TO CONTROLLER. INSTALL NEW 9-VOLT DURACELL BATTERY(S) IN EACH CONTROLLER (IF REQUIRED) TO RETAIN PROGRAM IN MEMORY DURING TEMPORARY POWER FAILURES. CONTROLLER SHALL HAVE GROUND WIRE AS PER MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS. VALVES: BACKFLOW DEVICE, ISOLATION AND CONTROL VALVE LOCATIONS SHOWN ARE DIAGRAMMATIC. INSTALL IN GROUNDCOVER / SHRUB AREAS WHERE POSSIBLE (NOT IN LAWN AREA), AND AT THE EDGES OF THE PLANTING AREAS SO AS TO NOT INTERFERE WITH PLANT HOLE EXCAVATION. INSTALL VALVE BOXES 12 INCHES FROM AND PERPENDICULAR TO: WALKS, CURBS, LAWN, ETC. AND EACH BOX SHALL BE 12 INCHES APART. THE SHORT SIDE OF VALVE BOX SHALL BE PARALLEL TO WALK, CURB, LAWN EDGE, ETC. INSTALL (1) VALVE PER RECTANGULAR BOX INLINE WITH THE LENGTH OF THE BOX. LOCATE QUICK COUPLING VALVES AND/OR HOSE BIBS 2 INCHES FROM HARDSCAPE AREA. WIRING: CONTROL WIRES SHALL BE U.L. APPROVED FOR DIRECT BURIAL IN GROUND, COPPER SIZE #14-1. COMMON GROUND WIRE SHALL HAVE WHITE INSULATION JACKET. CONTROL WIRE SHALL HAVE INSULATION JACKET OF COLOR OTHER THAN WHITE. SPLICING SHALL BE DONE WITH 3M #3570 SCOTCHLOK SEAL PACKS. SPLICING OF 24-VOLT WIRES WILL NOT BE PERMITTED EXCEPT IN VALVE BOXES. LEAVE A 24 INCH COIL OF EXCEL WIRE AT EACH SPLICE AND AT 100 FEET ON CENTER ALONG WIRE RUN. TAPE WIRE IN BUNDLES AT 10 FEET ON CENTER. NO TAPING PERMITTED IN SLEEVES. INSTALL A CONTROL WIRE FOR EACH EXTRA STATION LEFT ON THE CONTROLLER AND A SPARE CONTROL WIRE OF A DIFFERENT COLOR ALONG THE ENTIRE MAIN LINE. LOOP 24 INCHES OF EXCESS WIRE INTO EACH SINGLE VALVE BOX AND INTO ONE VALVE BOX IN EACH GROUP OF VALVES. HEADS: THE IRRIGATION CONTRACTOR SHALL FLUSH AND ADJUST ALL SPRINKLER HEADS FOR OPTIMUM PERFORMANCE AND TO PREVENT OVERSPRAY ONTO WALKS, ROADWAYS, AND FENCES. THIS SHALL INCLUDE SELECTING THE BEST DEGREE OF ARC TO FIT THE SITE CONDITIONS AND TO THROTTLE THE FLOW CONTROL AT EACH VALVE TO OBTAIN THE OPTIMUM OPERATING PRESSURE FOR EACH SYSTEM. HEAD LAYOUT AND QUANTITY IS AS CLOSE AS POSSIBLE AT THE SCALE O THE DRAWING, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ADJUST AND ADD HEADS AS NECESSARY TO PROVIDE OPTIMUM PERFORMANCE AND COVERAGE OF ALL PLANTED AREAS. AT HEADS WHERE LOW HEAD DRAINAGE WILL OCCUR, USE MANUFACTURERS INTEGRAL IN-HEAD CHECK VALVE OR APPROVED IN-LINE CHECK VALVE. ALL SPRINKLER HEADS SHALL BE SET PERPENDICULAR TO THE FINISH GRADE OF THE AREA TO BE IRRIGATED UNLESS OTHERWISE DESIGNATED ON THE PLANS. HEADS SHALL BE SET ½" BELOW AND 12" AWAY FROM ADJACENT WALKS, CURBS OR HEADERS. ON-GRADE DRIP LINE SYSTEM: ALL DRIP LINE TO BE SET ON GRADE IN PARALLEL ROWS AS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE COMPLETE COVERAGE OF GROUND COVER AREAS AS WELL AS SHRUB PLANTING. EMITTERS PROVIDE 0.90 GALLONS PER HOUR FLOW (APPROXIMATELY 1.0 GALLON PER 100 LINEAR FEET OF DRIP LINE). DESIGN LIMITS RECOMMEND NOT EXCEEDING 200 FEET OF TUBING FOR ANY SINGLE LENGTH. STAKE TUBING TO GRADE WITH GALVANIZED TIE-DOWN STAKES AT 3 FT. (MAX.) SPACING. PROVIDE XF DRIPLINE INSERT FITTINGS FOR ALL CONNECTIONS. PROVIDE REMOVABLE THREADED END CAPS AT THE TERMINUS OF EACH DRIP LINE LENGTH FOR EASY FLUSHING OF SYSTEM. PIPING/TRENCHING: INSTALL MAIN LINE PIPING WITH CONCRETE THRUST BLOCKS AS PER MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATION. MAIN AND LATERAL LINES SHALL BE SURROUNDED WITH A MINIMUM OF 2" OF SAND OR ROCK FREE SOIL. PIPE SEALANT COMPOUND SHALL BE RECTOR SEAL T+2, PERMATEX 51 OR LASCO #905305. PRESSURE THE MAIN LINE @ 150 PSI FOR 2 HOURS AND THE LATERAL LINES @ 100 PSI FOR 2 HOURS, WHERE IT IS NECESSARY TO EXCAVATE ADJACENT TO EXISTING TREES, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL USE ALL POSSIBLE CARE TO AVOID INJURY TO TREES, AND TREE ROOT SYSTEMS. EXCAVATION IN AREA WHERE TWO (2) INCH AND LARGER ROOTS EXIST SHALL BE DONE BY HAND. CUT ROOTS ONE (1) INCH AND LARGER IN DIAMETER SHALL BE PAINTED WITH TWO COATS OF TREE SEAL, OR EQUAL. TRENCHES ADJACENT TO TREES SHOULD BE CLOSED WITHIN TWENTY-FOUR (24) HOURS; AND WHERE THIS IS NOT POSSIBLE, THE SIDE OF THE TRENCH ADJACENT TO THE TREE SHALL BE KEPT SHADED WITH WET BURLAP OR CANVAS. SLEEVES: THE IRRIGATION CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE WITH THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND OTHER SUBCONTRACTORS FOR THE LOCATION AND THE INSTALLATION OF SLEEVES, CONDUIT OR PIPE THROUGH WALLS, UNDER ROADWAYS, PAVING, STRUCTURES, ETC. PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. IN ADDITION TO THE SLEEVES AND CONDUITS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS, THE IRRIGATION CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE COORDINATION AND/OR INSTALLATION OF SLEEVES AND CONDUITS OF SUFFICIENT SIZE UNDER ALL PAVED AREAS. IRRIGATION SYSTEM: THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM IN CURRENTLY POTABLE, SET UP FOR POSSIBLE RETROFIT TO RECYCLED WATER SOURCE IN FUTURE. DESIGN IS BASED ON A MINIMUM OPERATING PRESSURE (PSI) AND A FLOW DEMAND (GPM) AS NOTED ON PLAN. THE IRRIGATION CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY WATER PRESSURE PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. REPORT ANY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE WATER PRESSURE INDICATED ON THE DRAWINGS AND THE ACTUAL PRESSURE READING AT THE IRRIGATION POINT-OF CONNECTION TO THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. FAILURE TO DO SO WILL RESULT IN THE CONTRACTOR BEING RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY NECESSARY CHANGES DUE TO THIS DIFFERENCE. GUARANTEE: ALL CONSTRUCTION, PARTS AND PRODUCTS BY THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR AND/OR HIS SUBCONTRACTORS SHALL BE GUARANTEED FOR ONE (1) FULL YEAR AFTER THE BEGINNING OF THE MAINTENANCE PERIOD. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPLACE (AT NO EXPENSE TO THE OWNER) ANY AND ALL IRRIGATION PRODUCTS THAT ARE IN AN UNACCEPTABLE CONDITION FOR THE TIME OF USE. REPLACEMENT OF ANY ITEMS SHALL MATCH ORIGINAL DESCRIPTION OF ITEM(S) ON CONSTRUCTION PLANS AND SHALL BE INSTALLED PER SPECIFICATION. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT BE HELD LIABLE FOR LOSS OF IRRIGATION PARTS OR PRODUCTS DUE TO VANDALISM, ACCIDENTAL CAUSES, OR ACTS OF NEGLECT BY OTHERS THAN THE CONTRACTOR, HIS AGENTS OR EMPLOYEES. DO NOT BID, ORDER MATERIALS OR INSTALL ANY OR ALL OF SYSTEM BEFORE READING THE IRRIGATION NOTES IN THEIR ENTIRETY. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ASSUME FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR ALL CHANGES, REVISIONS AND OR ADDITIONS TO SYSTEM DUE TO FAILURE TO DO SO. NOTE: LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE, IRRIGATION AUDIT, IRRIGATION SURVEY, AND IRRIGATION WATER USE ANALYSIS SHALL BE SUBMITTED WITH THE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION IN COMPLIANCE WITH STATE OF CALIFORNIA MODEL WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE. REFER TO SHEET L-1.4 FOR IRRIGATION NOTES AND WATER CALCULATIONS MASTER CONTROL VALVE AND FLOW SENSOR XFD ON-SURFACE DRIPLINE FLUSH POINT WITH EASY FIT COMPRESSION FITTINGS XFD ON-SURFACE DRIPLINE INSERT ADAPTER FOR 1" OR LARGER PVC XFD ON-SURFACE DRIPLINE QUICK LAYOUT XFCV Dripline Maximum Lateral Lengths (Feet) Inlet Pressure psi 12" Spacing 18" Spacing Nominal Flow (gph) Nominal Flow (gph) 0.6 0.9 0.6 0.9 20 192 136 254 215 30 289 205 402 337 40 350 248 498 416 50 397 281 573 477 60 436 309 637 529 NOTES: 1. DISTANCE BETWEEN LATERAL ROWS AND EMITTER SPACING TO BE BASED ON SOIL TYPE, PLANT MATERIALS AND CHANGES IN ELEVATION. DISTANCE BETWEEN LATERAL ROWS FOR BOTTOM 1/3 OF SLOPE TO BE SPACED GREATER THAN OPTIMAL ROW DISTANCE. SEE RAIN BIRD XFD DRIPLINE INSTALLATION GUIDE FOR SUGGESTED SPACING. 2. LENGTH OF LONGEST DRIPLINE LATERAL SHOULD NOT EXCEED 200 FEET. 3. WHEN ELEVATION CHANGE EXCEEDS 8 FEET IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT A NEW DRIPLINE ZONE BE CREATED. 4. WHEN USING 17MM INSERT FITTINGS WITH DESIGN PRESSURE OVER 50PSI, IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT STAINLESS STEEL CLAMPS BE INSTALLED ON EACH FITTING. BOTTOM 1/3 OF SLOPE TOP 2/3 OF SLOPE XFC ON-SURFACE DRIPLINE - SLOPED LAYOUTPVC DRIP MANIFOLD FROM RAIN BIRD CONTROL ZONE VALVE KIT (SIZED TO MEET LATERAL FLOW DEMAND) BARB X MALE FITTING: RAIN BIRD XFF-MA FITTING (TYPICAL) PVC SUPPLY HEADER PVC SCH 40 TEE OR EL (TYPICAL) ON-SURFACE DRIPLINE: RAIN BIRD XF SERIES DRIPLINE (TYPICAL) POTABLE: XFD DRIPLINE NON-POTABLE: XFDP DRIPLINE FLUSH POINT: SEE RAIN BIRD XFD DETAILS FOR FLUSH POINT INSTALLATION PVC FLUSH HEADER 7 1 6 5 5 4 32 7654321 120

THE RANCHETTS AT NEROLY
SUBDIVISION #9284

OAKLEY, CALIFORNIA

FRONT YARD

NOTES AND WATER
CALCULATIONS L-1.4 SOIL MANAGEMENT REPORT: A. The Contractor shall submit soil samples to the laboratory for analysis and recommendations. 1. Soil sampling shall be conducted in accordance with the laboratory protocol, including protocols regarding adequate sampling depth for the intended plants. 2. Soil analysis may include: a. Soil texture b. Infiltration rate determined by laboratory test or soil infiltration rate table c. pH d. Total soluble salts e. Sodium f. Percent organic matter g. Recommendations B. Contractor shall submit soil report and recommendations to the City as part of the certificate of completion. C. The soil analysis report shall be made available, in a timely manner, to the professionals preparing the landscape design plans and irrigation design plans to make any necessary adjustments to the design plans. D. The contractor shall submit documentation verifying implementation of the soil analysis report recommendations to the City with certificate of completion. [Ord.3-2010 3 (Exh. A), eff.3-12-2010 SOIL PREPARATION AMENDMENTS AND BACKFILL MIX: (THE FOLLOWING SOIL AMENDMENT PREPARATIONS ARE FOR BID PURPOSES ONLY, CONTRACTOR TO CONDUCT SOILS FERTILITY ANALYSIS TEST AND SUBMIT RESULTS TO CITY PRIOR TO IMPLEMENTING TEST RESULTS RECOMMENDATIONS). MIX The Landscape Contractor shall amend existing soil, by rototilling, 6 cu. yd. CCW 'Super Humus' compost and 20 lbs. organic fertilizer 'Phyta-Boost' 7-2-1 per 1,000 sq. ft . into the top 6 inches of soil in all planting areas. (or equal) Pit Planting Mix: for trees and shrubs mix 1/3 compost amendment and 2/3 amended topsoil as noted above. TREE PLANTING: (THE FOLLOWING SOIL AMENDMENT PREPARATIONS ARE FOR BID PURPOSES ONLY, CONTRACTOR TO CONDUCT SOILS FERTILITY ANALYSIS TEST AND SUBMIT RESULTS TO CITY PRIOR TO IMPLEMENTING TEST RESULTS RECOMMENDATIONS). The trees are to be planted as per detail on plan. Trees shall typically be located a minimum of 4 feet from curbs, walks, headers, buildings, overheads, and other trees within the project. backfill shall be the 'Pit Planting Mix' as noted above. All trees shall receive organic fertilizer 'Phyta Boost' 7-1-2 -pelleted (or equal) for 15 gallon trees: 1 lb., 1/ 2 lb.for 5 gallon trees and shrubs: Mix fertilizer with backfill soil and thoroughly water trees immediately after planting. Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance Project Information Date: 9-24-2021 Project: The Ranchetts at Neroly Project Applicant: RW Stover and Associates, Inc. Contact: Rick Stover Address: 1620 North Main Street, Suite 4, Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Email: [email protected] Phone: 925.933.2583 ext 105 Property Owner/ or Representative: A.D. Seeno Construction Co, Inc. Contact: Bryan Kesler - Project Manager Address: 4021 Port Chicago Highway, Concord CA Email: [email protected] Phone: 925-766-5769 Project Address: Subdivivision #9284, Oakley CA (Neroly Road & Almondwood Place) Total Landscape Area (square feet): See planting plan SQ.FT. per lot Project Type: Residential Water Supply Type: Potable Documentation Package: Water Efficient Landscape Worksheet: YES Soil Management Report: YES Landscape Design Plan: YES Irrigation Design Plan: YES Grading Design Plan: REFER TO CIVIL ENGINEER PLANS Applicant Statement: "I agree to complied with the criteria of the state of California model water efficient landscape ordinance and applied them for the efficient use of water in the landscape and irrigation design plan" _______________________________________ ___9-24-21__ Applicant Signature Date 121

OAKLEY ROAD

NEROLY ROAD ALMONDWOOD PLACE
1 2
3 8
4 5 SIGHT TRIANGLE CONCRETE IMPERVIOUS SIDEWALK (REFER TO CIVIL PLANS) PROJECT STORMDRAIN (SEE CIVIL PLANS) 12' CONCRETE IMPERVIOUS SIDEWALK (REFER TO CIVIL PLANS) 4' 4' TOTAL LANDSCAPE AREA: 3,277 SF TURF: 570 SF (17.4% OF 25% MAX.) TOTAL LANDSCAPE AREA: 4,407 SF TURF: 794 SF (18.0% OF 25% MAX.) TOTAL LANDSCAPE AREA: 5,606 SF TURF: 1,052 SF (18.7% OF 25% MAX.) TOTAL LANDSCAPE AREA: 7,328 SF TURF: 908 SF (12.4% OF 25% MAX.) TOTAL LANDSCAPE AREA: 3,383 SF TURF: 572 SF (16.9% OF 25% MAX.) TOTAL LANDSCAPE AREA: 5,857 SF TURF: 870 SF (14.8% OF 25% MAX.) IMPERVIOUS CONCRETE SIDEWALK (REFER TO CIVIL PLANS) SIGHT TRIANGLE PROPERTY LINE (TYP.) BLDG. SETBACK (TYP.) BLDG. SETBACK (TYP.) PROPERTY LINE (TYP.) SEPTIC TANK (TYP. SEE CIVIL PLANS) STORM DRAIN (TYP.) EXISTING GAS LINE WATER LINE (TYP.) SWALE (TYP.) CENTER LINE CENTER LINE SUBDIVISION 5225 (219 M 21) 10+00
11+00
12+00
13+00
14+00 06+00 07+00 08+00 09+00
02+00
03+00
04+00
05+00
01+00 CONC. WALK TO SIDE YARD (TYP.)
CR
C
M
M
M
C
C
M
R
R
D
C
M
C
C
C
C
C
M
C
C
M
T
T
T
T
T
T
M LOMANDRA LONGIFOLIA QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA CALLISTEMON VIMINALIS 'LITTLE JOHN' ACACIA REDOLENS 'LOW BOY' REFER TO SHEET L-2.2 FOR PLANTING DETAILS REFER TO SHEET C-1 AND C-2 FOR CITY GENERAL NOTES

STREETSCAPE
PLANTING PLAN L-2.1

STREETSCAPE
PLANTING DETAILS L-2.2 LOMANDRA ULMUS PARVIFOLIA CALLISTEMON VIMINALIS TYPICAL DRIVEWAY TYPICAL IMPERVIOUS DRIVEWAYS (SEE CIVIL) ACACIA REDOLENS 6 FT. HEIGHT WOOD FENCE (TYPICAL) REFER TO SHEET L-2.3 FOR DETAIL 6 FT. HEIGHT WOOD FENCE (TYPICAL) REFER TO SHEET L-2.3 FOR DETAIL 3 FT. WIDE WOOD GATE TO MATCH FENCE (TYPICAL) 6 FT. HEIGHT WOOD FENCE (TYPICAL) REFER TO SHEET L-2.3 FOR DETAIL 3 FT. WIDE WOOD GATE TO MATCH FENCE (TYPICAL) EXISTING 7" AGRICULTURE IRRIGATION WATER LINE. VERIFY EXACT LOCATION IN FIELD WITH SITE SUPERINTENDENT. (SEE STREET TREE NOTE) REFER TO SHEET L-2.2 FOR PLANTING NOTES AND DETAILS

THE RANCHETTS AT NEROLY
SUBDIVISION #9284

OAKLEY, CALIFORNIA
RW Stover & Associates, Inc.

Landscape Architecture
1620 North Main Street, Suite 4
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Ph: 925.933.2583

FRONT YARD
PLANTING PLAN L-2.1 PLANT MATERIALS LIST MATURE WUCOLS SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE HxW WATER USE TREES: ARBUTIS 'MARINA' STRAWBERRY TREE 15 GA 28'x20' LOW CERCIS OCCINDENTALIS WESTERN REDBUD 15 GA 10'x10' LOW LAGER. 'CHEROKEE' (STANDARD) CRAPE MYRTLE 15 GA 24'x18' LOW MAGNOLIA GRANDIFLORA 'LITTLE GEM' SOUTHERN MAGNOLIA 15 GA 25'x15' MED PISTACIA CHINENSIS 'RED PUSH' CHINESE PISTACHE 24" BOX 35'x25' LOW QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA COAST LIVE OAK 24" BOX SIZE LOW ULMUS PARVIFOLIA CHINESE ELM 15 GA SIZE MED SHRUBS: ACACIA REDOLENS 'LOW BOY' PROSTRATE ACACIA 5 GA 0'x0' LOW ANIGOZANTHOS 'BUSH BABY' KANGAROO PAW 5 GA 2'x2' LOW CALLISTEMON VIMIN. 'LITTLE JOHNSON' DWARF BOTTLEBRUSH 5 GA 3'x4' LOW CISTUS x SKANBERGII PINK ROCKROSE 5 GA 3'x5' LOW PHORMIUM 'DAZZLER' DWARF FLAX 5 GA 3'x5' LOW ELAEAGNUS PUN. 'MACULATA' GOLDEN ELEAGNUS 5 GA 8'x8' LOW FEIJOA SELLOWIANA PINEAPPLE GUAVA 5 GA 8'x8' LOW HETEROMELES ARBUTIFOLIA TOYON 5 GA 8'x8' LOW LOMANDRA LONGIFOLIA 'SEA BREEZE' MAT RUSH 5 GA 3'x4' LOW MUHLENBERGIA RIGENS DEER GRASS 5 GA 3'x4' LOW PENNISETUM 'BUNNY TAILS' BUNNY TAILS 5 GA 2'x2' LOW ARCTOSTAPHYLOS 'POINT REYES' PROS. MANZANITA 5 GA 1'x4' LOW ROSEMARINUS 'TUSCAN BLUE' TUSCAN ROSEMARY 5 GA 4'x4' LOW TEUCRIUM FRUTICANS BUSH GERMANDER 5 GA 3'x3' LOW WESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA COAST ROSEMARY 5 GA 3'x5' LOW GROUND COVERS: C COPROSMA 'KIRKII' CREEPING COPROSMA 1 GA@ 48" O.C. 2'x4' LOW D DESCHAMSIA CESPITOSA TUFTED HAIR GRASS 1 GA@ 48" O.C. 4'x4' LOWM MYOPORUM PARVIFOLIUM MYOPORUM 1 GA@ 48" O.C. 1'x6' LOW R ROSMARINUS 'HUNTINGTON BLUE' PROSTRATE ROSEMARY 1 GA@ 48" O.C. 2.5'x8' LOW

T DWARF TALL FESCUE SOD FESCUE ROLLS HIGH
MATCH LINE REFER TO SHEET L-2.2 STREET TREE NOTE: LOCATE AND INSTALL PROPOSED STREET TREES (OAKLEY ROAD) IN COORDINATION WITH SITE SUPERINTENDENT TO PROVIDE MAXIMUM CLEARANCE FROM EXISTING AGRICULTURAL IRRIGATION PIPE. 122
9 10 11 1213 6 7 OAKLEY ROAD ALMONDWOOD PLACE LANDSCAPE IN THIS AREA NOT A PART OF SCOPE

PARCEL 'C'
(56PM24)
STERUD
(6447 O.R. 541) STERUD (6447 O.R. 541) SUBDIVISION 5225 14+00
15+00
16+00
17+00
18+00
19+00
05+00
06+00
07+00
08+00 CONC. WALK TO SIDE YARD (TYP.) CONC. WALK TO SIDE YARD (TYP.) R R D M C M C C M M M C C C C M D D R R R R C R 4' C M C M C M C M T T T T T TT C TYPICAL IMPERVIOUS DRIVEWAYS (SEE CIVIL) 6 FT. HEIGHT WOOD FENCE (TYPICAL) REFER TO SHEET L-2.3 FOR DETAIL 3 FT. WIDE WOOD GATE TO MATCH FENCE (TYPICAL) 6 FT. HEIGHT WOOD FENCE (TYPICAL) REFER TO SHEET L-2.3 FOR DETAIL 3 FT. WIDE WOOD GATE TO MATCH FENCE (TYPICAL) EXISTING 7" AGRICULTURE IRRIGATION WATER LINE. VERIFY EXACT LOCATION IN FIELD WITH SITE SUPERINTENDENT. (SEE STREET TREE NOTE) REFER TO L-2.1 FOR PLANT LIST. REFER TO SHEET L-2.3 FOR PLANTING NOTES AND DETAILS

THE RANCHETTS AT NEROLY
SUBDIVISION #9284

OAKLEY, CALIFORNIA
RW Stover & Associates, Inc.

Landscape Architecture
1620 North Main Street, Suite 4
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Ph: 925.933.2583

FRONT YARD
PLANTING PLAN L-2.2
MATCH LINE REFER TO SHEET L-2.1
123

THE RANCHETTS AT NEROLY
SUBDIVISION #9284

OAKLEY, CALIFORNIA
RW Stover & Associates, Inc.

Landscape Architecture
1620 North Main Street, Suite 4
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Ph: 925.933.2583

FRONT YARD

PLANTING NOTES
AND DETAILS L-2.3 TYPICAL FENCE PLACEMENT AT HOUSE WALLS: FENCE LINE TO MEET GARAGE SIDE OF HOUSE 8 FT. BACK OF FRONT OF HOUSE; FENCE LINE TO MEET BEDROOM SIDE OF HOUSE 12 IN. BACK OF FRONT OF HOUSE. PLANTING NOTES GENERAL NOTES: The Landscape Contractor shall inspect the site and be familiar with all existing site conditions prior to submitting his bid. Contractor shall not willfully proceed with construction as shown when it is obvious that obstructions, landscape area and/or grade differences exist that may not have been known during design. such conditions shall immediately be brought to the attention of the Landscape Architect. The contractor shall assume full responsibility for all necessary revisions due to failure to give such notification. Contractor shall be responsible for making himself familiar with all underground utilities, pipes, structures and obstructions. Contractor shall take sole responsibility for all costs incurred due to damage and/or replacement of these items. Contractor shall be responsible for coordination between trades and subcontractors as required to accomplish landscape operations. The Landscape Contractor shall be responsible for any damage to existing facilities caused by or during the performance of his work. All repairs shall be made at no cost to the Owner. Planting shall be installed in conformance with all applicable local codes and ordinances by experienced workmen and a licensed Landscape Contractor who shall obtain all necessary permits and pay all required fees. SOIL MANAGEMENT REPORT: A. The Contractor shall submit soil samples to the laboratory for analysis and recommendations. 1. Soil sampling shall be conducted in accordance with the laboratory protocol, including protocols regarding adequate sampling depth for the intended plants. 2. Soil analysis may include: a. Soil texture b. Infiltration rate determined by laboratory test or soil infiltration rate table c. pH d. Total soluble salts e. Sodium f. Percent organic matter g. Recommendations B. Contractor shall submit soil report and recommendations to the City as part of the certificate of completion. C. The soil analysis report shall be made available, in a timely manner, to the professionals preparing the landscape design plans and irrigation design plans to make any necessary adjustments to the design plans. D. The contractor shall submit documentation verifying implementation of the soil analysis report recommendations to the City with certificate of completion. [Ord.3-2010 3 (Exh. A), eff.3-12-2010 SOIL PREPARATION AMENDMENTS AND BACKFILL MIX: (THE FOLLOWING SOIL AMENDMENT PREPARATIONS ARE FOR BID PURPOSES ONLY, CONTRACTOR TO CONDUCT SOILS FERTILITY ANALYSIS TEST AND SUBMIT RESULTS TO CITY PRIOR TO IMPLEMENTING TEST RESULTS RECOMMENDATIONS). The Landscape Contractor shall amend existing soil, by rototilling, 6 cu. yd. BFI 'Super Humus' compost and 15 lbs. organic balanced fertilizer 'Phyta-Boost' (7-1-2) per 1,000 sq. ft .available from California Organics or equal into the top 6 inches of soil in all planting areas. (or equal) Pit Planting Mix: for trees and shrubs mix 1/3 organic amendment, 2/3 amended topsoil as noted above. TREE PLANTING: (THE FOLLOWING SOIL AMENDMENT PREPARATIONS ARE FOR BID PURPOSES ONLY, CONTRACTOR TO CONDUCT SOILS FERTILITY ANALYSIS TEST AND SUBMIT RESULTS TO CITY PRIOR TO IMPLEMENTING TEST RESULTS RECOMMENDATIONS). The trees are to be planted as per detail on plan. Trees shall typically be located a minimum of 4 feet from curbs, walks, headers, buildings, overheads, and other trees within the project. backfill shall be the 'Pit Planting Mix' as noted above. All trees shall receive organic fertilizer 'Phyta boost' 7-1-2 avail. from California Fertilizer Company Inc.(or equal) for 15 gallon trees: 1 cup, for 5 gallon trees and shrubs: 1/2 cup. Thoroughly water trees immediately after planting. ROOT BARRIERS: All trees less than 6' from paved surface shall receive a linear type root barrier 24" deep and 20' long along adjacent paving edges, centered on the tree trunk. (See detail) TREE PLANTING SETBACKS: All trees are to be installed allowing the following setback requirements: · 3 Ft. minimum from paved surfaces · 5 Ft. from mailboxes· 10 Ft. from streetlights· 10 Ft. from fire hydrants and potable mainlines, water meters· 10 Ft. from driveways· 10Ft. minimum from storm drain, sanitary sewer, water, telephone, electrical main and gas lines, or as required by ironhorse sanitary district, Diablo Water District and PG&E. · 15 Ft. from stop signs or curb returns SHRUB PLANTING: (THE FOLLOWING SOIL AMENDMENT PREPARATIONS ARE FOR BID PURPOSES ONLY, CONTRACTOR TO CONDUCT SOILS ANALYSIS TEST AND SUBMIT RESULTS TO CITY PRIOR TO IMPLEMENTING TEST RESULTS RECOMMENDATIONS). The shrubs shall be spotted as per plan and the locations approved prior to the digging of the holes. Shrub backfill shall be the 'Pit Planting Mix' as noted in 'Backfill soil mixes'. All shrubs shall receive 'Phyta-Boost' 7-1-2 organic fertilzer avail from California Fertilizer Company Inc.(or equal) at the following rates: For 5 gallon shrubs:1/2 cup for, 1gallon shrubs:1/4 cup. Thoroughly water shrubs immediately after planting. Do not plant any plant within 2'0" of any building wall.

MULCHING: Mulch all planting areas, excluding lawn and storm water bioswale areas, having a slope less than 2:1 with a 3 inch minimum depth of recycled wood fiber, UV stabilized,dyed-colorfast black with a PH of no higher than 5.0. and free of noxious weeds and foreign materials. #135 Black Chip from 'Re-User Inc.' or approved equal.

MAINTENANCE: The Contractor shall maintain the project for 90 days (or as requested by owner) following the approval to begin the maintenance period. During the entire maintenance period, watering, cultivating, weeding, mowing, repair/tightening of stakes and ties, restoration of basins, provision of supplemental water by hand in addition to irrigation system as necessary. No pre-emergence herbicides shall be applied- hand remove weeds. Only organic fertilizers shall be applied such as those specified above. Install per manufacturer's recommendations. At the end of the 90 day maintenance period all areas are to be weed free andall plant material is to be in a healthy, thriving condition. Integrated pest management practices shall be implemented.

SUBSTITUTIONS: Requests for substitutions of plant varieties shall be made to the Landscape Architect within 15 days after signing of contract.

GUARANTEE: All construction, trees and shrubs by the Landscape Contractor and/or his subcontractors shall be guaranteed for (1) one year after beginning of maintenance period. The contractor shall replace, at no expense to the Owner, any and all landscape materials that are in an unacceptable condition for time of use, and trees or shrubs that are dead or not in a vigorous, healthy growing condition; within two weeks of notification of such condition. Replacement shall be of the same kind and size as theoriginally specified item and shall be replaced as originally described on the drawings. The Contractor shall not be held liable for loss of plant materials during the guarantee period due to vandalism, accidental causes or acts of neglect by others than the Contractor, his agents and employees.CLEAN UP: At the end of each work day, at the inspection for substantial completion and before acceptance of project, clean paved areas that are dirtied or stained by construction operations, by sweeping or washing, and remove defacements and stains. Remove construction equipment, excess materials and tools. Haul from Owners property the debris resulting from construction, and dispose of legally. Remove remaining temporary protection at time of acceptance by Owner unless otherwise agreed.

FERTILIZERS: Available California Fertilizers Company Inc. 1-800-269-5690 www.organicag.com www.californiaorganicfertilizers.com. Compost available from BFI 408-888-7632 www.bfi.com NOTE: Install jute netting per manufacturer's requirements on landscape slopes 2.5:1 and greater. CONCRETE PAVING DETAIL 4" THICK CONCRETE SEE CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR FINISH REINFORCING BAR PER SOILS REPORT CLASS II AGGREGATE BASE PER SOILS REPORT 3/4" DEEP X 1/4" WIDE CONTROL JOINT SCORE LINE (SEE PLAN FOR LOCATIONS) COMPACTED SUBGRADE PER SOILS REPORT 4" FINISH GRADE NO SCALE 6" 10" 3" BARK DRESSING IN SHRUB BED 6" X 6" CONCRETE W/ #3 BAR CONTINUOUS COMPACTED SUBGRADE 2" 6" SQ. FINISH GRADE ON TURF SIDE EASE EDGES WITH 1/2" RADIUS NOTE: PROVIDE 1/2" FIBER EXPANSION JOINTS AT 20 FT. (MAX.) INTERVALS CONCRETE MOWBAND NO SCALE 124
T 1, 3 & 12 FIRE DEPT. FIRE TRUCK STAKING MAIN ROAD CURB TO DRIVE WAY CURB EXISTING CONC. DRIVEWAY APRON MIN. SIZE DOUBLE SWING GATE

EXISTING CURB RADIUS START TO END EXISTING CURB RADIUS START TO END EXISTING CONC. DRIVEWAY EXISTING EDGE OF ASPHALT PAVEMENT PROPOSED NEW CURB AND GUTTER

PROPOSED NEW ROAD WAY WIDTH EXISTING ROAD WAY WIDTH EXISTING ROAD WAY WIDTH

PROPOSED NEW ROADWAY GATES EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT
Q:\Drafting\Autocad\CAD\(1) CURRENT CD'S\RANCHETTES AT NEROLY\220210_CURRENT FLOOR PLANS\PLAN 2\PLAN 2_BASE.dwg, 3/7/2022 2:45:54 PM, DWG To PDF.pc3 125
126
Resolution No. XX-21 Page 1 of 8 April 12, 2022
RESOLUTION NO. XX-22

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF OAKLEY CITY COUNCIL MAKING FINDINGS AND APPROVING THE PROJECT KNOWN AS “RANCHETTES AT NEROLY DESIGN REVIEW (DR 06-21)” WITHIN THE RANCHETTES AT NEROLY SUBDIVISION 9284 LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEST CORNER OF OAKLEY ROAD AND NEROLY ROAD; APNS 041-080-001 AND -002.

FINDINGS
WHEREAS, on May 1, 2021, Cyrus Land Investments, LLC (“Applicant”) filed an application requesting Design Review (DR 06-21) approval of floors plans, elevations, colors, and materials of 13 single-family residential lots located within Subdivision 9284 known as the “Ranchettes at Neroly”. The application also consists of three floor plans, with eight elevations proposed. Proposed homes consist of single-story plans ranging from 2,995 square-feet to 3,365 square-feet of livable area. The project site is located at the southeast corner of Oakley Road and Neroly Road. The site is zoned R-20 (SingleFamily Residential) District. APNs: 041-080-001 and -002.; and WHEREAS, the Applicant’s Plans include house floor plans and architectural elevations, color and material schemes, conceptual front yard landscaping, and a master plotting plan (“Plans”); and
WHEREAS, on March 14, 2022, the project application was deemed complete per Government Code section 65920 et. seq; and
WHEREAS, the project site is designated as Residential Low (RL) on the Oakley General Plan Land Use Map per City council Resolution No. 111-18, and zoned R-20 (Single-Family Residential) District per Ordinance No. 15-18; and WHEREAS, the proposal for house designs and other design elements of the subdivision fall within the scope of the original subdivision’s California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) analysis. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and filed with the Contra Costa County Clerk and Governor’s Office of Planning and Research on July 6, 2018. No further environmental analysis is required; and WHEREAS, on or before March 1, 2022, the Notice of Public Hearing for the project was posted at Oakley City Hall located at 3231 Main Street, outside the gym at Delta Vista Middle School located at 4901 Frank Hengel Way, outside the library at Freedom High School located at 1050 Neroly Road, and at the project site. The notice was also mailed out to all owners of property within a 500-foot radius of the project’s boundaries, interested agencies, and to parties requesting such notice; and WHEREAS, on April 12, 2022, the City Council opened the public hearing and received a report from City Staff, oral and written testimony from the Applicant and public, and deliberated on the project. At the conclusion of its deliberations, the City Council took 127
Resolution No. XX-21 Page 2 of 8 April 12, 2022
a vote and adopted this resolution to approve the project, as revised by the City Council during its deliberations; and
WHEREAS, if any term, provision, or portion of these Findings or the application of these Findings to a particular situation is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void, or unenforceable, the remaining provisions of these Findings, or their application to other actions related to the Project, shall continue in full force and effect unless amended or modified by the City; and

WHEREAS, these Findings are based on the City’s General Plan, the City’s Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, Oakley Residential Design Guidelines, Vesting Tentative Map 9284, the R-20 District, the project plans, and the information submitted to the City Council at its April 12, 2022 meeting, both written and oral, including oral information provided by the Applicant, as reflected in the minutes of such meetings, together with the documents contained in the file for the Project (hereafter the “Record”).

A. Regarding the application requesting Design Review approval for “Ranchettes at Neroly Design Review (DR 06-21)”, the City Council finds that:

1. Site planning, including building siting (location), setback and orientation; entries, circulation, and parking; landscape setbacks and buffers; and location of trash, loading and service areas, and mechanical equipment in that the overall site panning meets required setbacks, circulation and parking, landscape, and buffer requirements; and

2. Architecture, including massing and grouping; facades, entries, and roofs; materials and colors; and screening of trash, loading and service areas, and mechanical equipment in that the architecture and massing of the proposed homes meet the criteria as noted within the adopted Oakley Residential Design Guidelines. The Architectural Character of the proposed singlefamily homes is consistent with the applicable design guidelines as noted through the Applicant’s plans which vary in style, materials, and colors; and

3. Landscaping and site elements, including general landscape areas; entry and plaza enhancements; parking lot landscaping; walls and fences; and lighting in that the front-yard landscaping for each lot is adequately landscaped, including landscaping along the frontage of Oakley Road, Neroly Road, and Almondwood Place. Each lot contains two (2) street trees with the exception of corner lots, which contain four (4) street trees as required per the Residential Design Guidelines. Proposed lighting is sufficient, and will provide additional pedestrian safety; and

4. Streetscapes, including major community entries; highlighted intersections; and district entries in that the streetscape this project will conduct full frontage improvements to the public right-of-way and private property will be installed in compliance with the standards for review as highlighted in the Residential Design Guidelines.
128
Resolution No. XX-21 Page 3 of 8 April 12, 2022
B. The Project complies with Measure J Growth Management requirements.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT, on the basis of the above Findings and the Record, the City Council approves the Applicant’s request for approval of the project titled, “Ranchettes at Neroly (DR 06-21),” subject to the following Conditions of Approval:

Conditions of Approval
Applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Oakley Municipal Code. Any exceptions must be stipulated in these Conditions of Approval. Conditions of Approval are based on the plans date stamped received by the Planning Division on May 1, 2021 and made a part of the City Council’s meeting packet for April 12, 2022, as well as additional information acquired since that time and made a part of the project file.

THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO

THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED (BOLD CONDITIONS ADDED OR AMENDED AT PUBLIC HEARING):

Planning Department Conditions
General:

1. This Design Review is approved, as shown on the plans, date stamped by the Planning Division on March 23, 2022, and as modified by the following conditions of approval, subject to final review by the Community Development Director.

2. This Design Review shall be effectuated within a period of two years from the adoption date of this resolution through issuance of a building permit related to the homes approved with this project. An extension of time may be granted by the City Council upon written request by the applicant filed with the Planning Division within the effective period of this original approval.

3. All construction drawings and plot plans submitted for plan check shall be in substantial compliance with the plans presented to and approved by the City Council on April 12, 2022, and as conditioned herein.

4. All conditions of approval shall be satisfied by the owner/developer. All costs associated with compliance with the conditions shall be at the owner/developer’s expense.

5. Noise generating construction activities, including such things as power generators, shall be limited to the hours of 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, and shall be prohibited on City, State and Federal Holidays. 129
Resolution No. XX-21 Page 4 of 8 April 12, 2022
The restrictions on allowed working days and times may be modified on prior written approval by the Community Development Director.

6. Should archaeological materials be uncovered during grading, trenching or other on- site excavation(s), earthwork within 30 yards of these materials shall be stopped until a professional archaeologist who is certified by the Society of Professional Archaeology (SOPA) has had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find and suggest appropriate mitigation(s), if deemed necessary.

7. The Applicant shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City of Oakley, the City Approving Authorities, and the officers, agents, and employees of the City from any and all claims, damages and liability (including, but not limited to, damages, attorney fees, expenses of litigation, costs of court).

8. Any model home complex shall have a copy of the City of Oakley’s General Plan Land Use Map posted within the sales office or included with the informational material provided to prospective home buyers.

California Environmental Quality Act:

9. The Applicant/Developer shall implement all applicable mitigation measures included it the Subdivision 8728 (Cypress Estates) Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration filed with the Contra Costa County Clerk and Governor’s Office of Planning and research on November 1, 2005 and on file with the City of Oakley Planning Division.

Development Regulations:

10. All development regulations applicable to the R-20 District within section

9.1.404 of the OMC shall apply, unless otherwise specified in this resolution.

Referenced Resolution and Conditions of Approval

11. All Conditions of Approval of City Council Resolution No. 111-18 shall remain effective unless explicitly superseded either by a specific condition of approval or obvious design by this Resolution. The Community Development Director shall have final say in any disputes regarding whether a specific condition remains in effect.

12. Condition of Approval 22 of City Council Resolution No. 111-18, regarding the installation of a gate across Almondwood Place shall no longer remain in effect due to the constraints of the proposed gate.
130
Resolution No. XX-21 Page 5 of 8 April 12, 2022
Architectural Details:

13. All plan/elevation combinations that show any materials other than stucco on a column or front facade, where the side elevation is not visible on the plans, shall have that material wrap all sides of the column or around the front facade to the next change in plane. Where wraps are completely visible on the plans, they should continue to either the change in plane, or to the fence line or point where the second story begins, as shown on the approved plans.

14. All trimming and shutters, etc. shall be painted on all three sides in the applicable color. Exceptions may be made for stucco over foam trim where a clean line may not be attainable where the trim meets the house, subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Director.

15. Plot plans shall be submitted with as close as possible to an equal number of architectural types for each plan. In the event any specific architectural type is being proposed too often, or excluded from the mix, Staff may postpone issuing building permits until it can be shown that a more even mix of all types, subject to the total numbers represented by each plan, will exist at build out without over concentration or exclusion in any specific area.

Landscaping:

16. Front yard and right-of-way landscaping shall conform to the Oakley Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (“WELO”), and the Guidelines for Implementation of the City of Oakley Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and shall be installed prior to final occupancy. The plan shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and shall be certified to be in compliance with the City’s Water Conservation Ordinance by including the following signed statement on the cover sheet or same sheet as the WELO calculations in a visible text box: “These plans are certified to conform to the Oakley Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance.”

17. California native drought tolerant plants shall be used as much as possible. All trees shall be a mix of 15-gallon and 24-inch box; all shrubs shall be a minimum five-gallon size, except as otherwise noted.

18. All landscaped areas not covered by shrubs or groundcover shall be covered with bark or acceptable alternative as reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director. On slopes greater than 3 to 1, the applicant shall use an alternative to bark per the review and approval of the Community Development Director. Areas covered with bark shall use a weed barrier.

19. Each residential lot shall have a minimum of two trees along the street frontage, with the exception of corner lots, which shall have four, per the review and approval of the Community Development Department. The Community 131
Resolution No. XX-21 Page 6 of 8 April 12, 2022
Development Department may allow for a reduction of frontage trees on any given lot line where constraints may occur that limit the number of installed trees.

20. A street tree plan shall be submitted for review prior to issuance of Building Permits. The street trees may be located in the right of way or private property landscaping. If located on the private properties, the trees shall be located as close as feasible to the right of way.

21. The Applicant shall maintain all private landscaping until occupancy.

Energy Efficiency:

23. Air conditioning condenser units shall be located to take advantage of natural shade. Condensers should not be placed on the west or south elevation of a home, unless shade is provided. The location of the condenser shall be added to all plot plans for review and approval of the Community Development Director.

24. Design and site units so as to take advantage of natural heating and cooling, sun and wind exposure, and solar energy opportunities.

Waste Management Plan:

25. The Applicant shall submit a Waste Management Plan that complies with the City of Oakley Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance.

Building Division Conditions

26. Plans shall meet the currently adopted Uniform Codes as well as the newest T-24 Energy requirements from the State of California Energy Commission. To confirm the most recent adopted codes please contact the Building Division at (925) 625-7005.

27. Prior to requesting a Certificate of Occupancy from the Building Division, all Conditions of Approval required for occupancy must be completed. When the Public Works Division and the Planning Division place Conditions of Approval on the project, those divisions will sign off on the project prior to the request for a Building division final inspection. Similarly, if the Health Department and/or Fire Department reviewed and approved the original plans, those departments must sign off on the project prior to the request for a final inspection by the Building Division.

28. Should an improperly abandoned well be discovered on site the project applicant shall obtain a well abandonment permit from the Contra Costa County Environmental Health Department and contract a licensed contractor to 132
Resolution No. XX-21 Page 7 of 8 April 12, 2022
properly abandon the well per state and local regulations for the approval of the City Engineer.

ADVISORY NOTES

THE FOLLOWING ADVISORY NOTES ARE PROVIDED TO THE APPLICANT AS A COURTESY BUT ARE NOT A PART OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.

ADVISORY NOTES ARE PROVIDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INFORMING THE

APPLICANT OF ADDITIONAL ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS THAT MUST BE MET IN ORDER TO PROCEED WITH DEVELOPMENT.

A. The applicant/owner should be aware of the expiration dates and renewing requirements prior to requesting building or grading permits.

B. The project will require a grading permit pursuant to the Ordinance Code.

C. Applicant shall comply with the requirements of Ironhouse Sanitary District.

D. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Diablo Water District.

E. Comply with the requirements of the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District.

F. Comply with the requirements of the Building Inspection Division. Building permits are required prior to the construction of most structures.

G. This project may be subject to the requirements of the Department of Fish and Game. It is the applicant's responsibility to notify the Department of Fish and Game, P.O. Box 47, Yountville, California 94599, of any proposed construction within this development that may affect any fish and wildlife resources, per the Fish and Game Code.

H. This project may be subject to the requirements of the Army Corps of Engineers.

It is the applicant's responsibility to notify the appropriate district of the Corps of Engineers to determine if a permit is required, and if it can be obtained.

I. The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit for construction within existing City rights of way.
133
Resolution No. XX-21 Page 8 of 8 April 12, 2022
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Oakley at a meeting held on the April 12, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTENTIONS:

APPROVED:

Randy Pope, Mayor
ATTEST:

Libby Vreonis, City Clerk Date
134

STAFF REPORT
Approved and Forwarded to the City
DATE: April 12, 2022
TO: Joshua McMurray, City Manager
FROM: Kenneth W. Strelo, Planning Manager
SUBJECT: Quick Quack Car Wash at Laurel Plaza Conditional Use Permit (CUP 02-20) and Design Review (DR 08-20) – Request for approval to construct and operate a 3,595 square foot drive-through car wash facility; APN 035-510-009
Summary
This is an application by Quick Quack Car Wash Holdings, LLC (“Applicant”) requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP 02-20) and Design Review (DR 08-20) to construct a new 3,596 square foot (“sf.”) drive-through car wash facility located on an approximately 0.8-acre parcel. In addition to the car wash facility, the applicant is requesting approval of vacuum and payment stations, trash enclosures, and associated site improvements (“Project”). The project site is located within the existing Laurel Plaza Shopping Center at the northwest corner of Laurel Road and O’Hara Avenue and is zoned RB (Retail Business) District: APN: 035-510-009.

Background
General Plan
Commercial (“CO”) - The Commercial (CO) designation provides for neighborhood, community, and regional-serving retail and service uses; limited office uses; restaurants; service stations; highway-oriented and visitor-serving commercial and lodging; auto-serving and heavy commercial uses; public and semi-public uses; public gathering facilities, and similar and compatible uses. Because the designation encompasses a broad range of uses, the allowed uses and development form on a particular site will depend upon the zoning and the characteristics of surrounding land uses. Uses that are incompatible with residential uses due to noise, vibration, or other characteristics are not permitted in locations that may impact existing or future residential development. (City of Oakley General Plan).

Zoning
Retail Business District (RB) – The purpose of the RB District is to retain small-scale businesses and facilities that will provide a wide range of services to adjacent 135
Subject: Quick Quack Car Wash at Laurel Plaza
Date: April 12, 2022

Page 2 of 11 ends

neighborhoods and to the community as a whole. Properties in the RB District are intended for small-scale developments that are adjacent to, or within the vicinity of, residential districts. The RB District is found to be compatible with the CO General Plan Designation per Table 2-6 of the General Plan (General Plan/Zoning Compatibility Matrix). The RB District use allowances and development regulations are found in Oakley Municipal Code (OMC) Section 9.1.504.
(https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Oakley/#!/Oakley09/Oakley091.html) Entitlement History
The Laurel Plaza shopping center was first approved by the City Council on March 11, 2008 through the adoption of Resolution No. 24-08. The approval included the following: 1) Rezoning the property from Neighborhood Business (remnant County zone) to Retail Business (valid City zone), 2) a Tentative Map to subdivide the 7.01-acre site into 5 commercial lots, 3) a Conditional Use Permit for a Rite Aid with a drivethrough, and 4) a Development Plan for the Rite Aid with a drive-through.

Subsequent entitlements approved by the Planning Commission on April 21, 2008 (PC Resolution No. 05-08) covered development of the remaining parcels within the center, including: a bank with four drive-throughs (existing), grocery store (Fresh and Easy, since withdrawn), and the two larger retail buildings toward the rear of the site (Shop A at 6,000 sf. and Shop B at 15,000 sf.). The Rite Aid on the corner was never pursued for development, and the Fresh and Easy application was withdrawn; however, the site was developed with all off and on site infrastructure when the first building housing the BAC Community Bank was constructed on the most western parcel of the site.

On May 9, 2017, nearly 9 years after the last entitlements and with nothing but the bank moving forward with development, the City Council approved a Conditional Use Permit and Design Review for the Laurel Plaza Mini-Mart and Gas Station (City Council.

Resolution No. 55-17). This approval included a 25 foot by 80 foot car wash tunnel to be located in a north/south orientation and on the west side of the store. Free-use outdoor vacuums were also approved. The gas station and retail store was constructed without the car wash and vacuums.

Existing Conditions and Surrounding Land Uses
The approximately 0.8-acre project site is located on the north side of Laurel road, approximately 200 feet west of the Laurel Road and O’Hara Avenue intersection. The site is part of a larger 7.01-acre Laurel Plaza commercial shopping center. The current site is improved with a bank, gas station and mini-mart, parking lot and drive aisles, onsite landscaping, frontage improvements along Laurel Road and O’Hara Avenue, and several graded pad areas for future commercial development. 136
Subject: Quick Quack Car Wash at Laurel Plaza
Date: April 12, 2022

Page 3 of 11 ends

The site is located on a main City arterial,
Laurel Road, and is adjacent to a
residential neighborhood to the north and
west. The corner site properties to the
south, across Laurel Road, and to the east
across O’Hara Avenue are of the same
General Plan Land Use Designation and
Zoning, and currently vacant. The large
vineyard located kitty-corner and on the
southeast corner of the intersection is of
the same General Plan Land Use
Designation, but zoned General
Commercial District (C). The active
vineyard encompasses the entire parcel.

Figure 1 (left) shows an aerial view of
Laurel Plaza and the project site from Google Earth imagery dated June 29, 2021 Project Description
Proposed Conditional Use Permit
CUPs are required in order to establish a land use within a zoning district that does not allow establishment by right, but does allow the granting of a land use permit after a public hearing (OMC Section 9.1.1602(f)). Approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is required in order to establish a “Drive-thru Restaurant and Services” use in the RB District (OMC Section 9.1.504(c)(9)). When approving or conditionally approving a CUP, the decision making body must make specific findings. Those findings relate to whether the site is adequate for the operation, whether the location can be accessed and the streets leading to it can handle the generated traffic, whether the use fits in with the intended character of the area as set forth in the zoning ordinance and General Plan, whether the use allows for continued growth and orderly development of the area and is consistent with various elements of the General Plan, and whether the proposed use and any conditions attached thereto are in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Analysis section of this Staff Report looks at the project in relation to these required findings in more detail.

Proposed Design Review
The Design Review Ordinance (OMC section 9.1.1604) sets forth duties to review, as well as procedures for review and approval of a Design Review application. OMC section 9.1.1604(d) requires Design Review approval for any structure that is above ground or alters the grade in any commercial district, and that the design review shall be heard as a public hearing. The proposed new development fits the criteria above and requires Design Review. The proposed design review covers all of the physical Figure 1. Aerial of Laurel Plaza and
Project Site
137
Subject: Quick Quack Car Wash at Laurel Plaza
Date: April 12, 2022

Page 4 of 11 ends

development of the project, such as the site development, architecture and elevations, landscaping and design of the storm water treatment.

Proposed Site Plan
The project proposed on the approximately 0.8-acre site includes a drive-through car wash main building (3,596 sf. and apx. 30 feet high at peak) that includes two parallel queue lanes that can hold approximately 10 vehicles combined, 11 vacuum stations with 11 parking spaces (1 ADA accessible station/space) covered by a canopy, and five additional parking spaces (1 ADA accessible). The building and car wash tunnel are oriented in a north/south direction with the tunnel entrance on the north and exit with blowers on the south. Landscaping, lighting, and pedestrian walkways and pavement striping are also proposed. The car wash entrance is only accessible from northern portion of the parcel where it abuts the main drive aisle in the shopping center, and the vacuums are accessible either after passing through the car wash or from the east side of the parcel where the visitors also exit. There are driveways on each side of the site that enter from Laurel Road. These are shared driveways with each respective parcel to the east and west and are also shared ingress/egress for the entire shopping center.

Pedestrian access to the site is provided from west and east of the parcel as well through an ADA accessible ramp entering from the Laurel Road sidewalk at the front of the site. Table 1 provides a summary of the site plan information.

Table 1. Summary of Site Plan Information
Existing Proposed Total
Site ≈ 0.8 acres. No change ≈ 0.8 acres.

Building 0 sf. 3,596 sf. 3,596 sf.

Parking Spaces 0 16 16
Trees 10 (to be removed) 20 new 15-gallon 20 (plus 1 in right of way)
Proposed Architecture
The 3,596 sf, one-story building is rectangular in shape with a flat roof that includes a parapet with cornice to decoratively screen rooftop equipment. The height of the cornice is 21’4” at the northern portion of the building, and 18’0” in the middle of the building. The southern end of the building which faces Laurel Road is designed as a raised architectural that includes a hip-style standing seam metal roof. It stands at 30’0”.

The main body uses stucco in two colors, separated by a horizontal band in a third, darker color. Stone veneer is also proposed as a wainscot and as a siding in areas on the main architectural element at the southern end. Architectural pop outs of a different color are proposed at both the tunnel entrance and exit. Figure 2 shows the south 138
Subject: Quick Quack Car Wash at Laurel Plaza
Date: April 12, 2022

Page 5 of 11 ends

elevation (tunnel exist that faces Laurel Road). Complete color elevations can be found on sheets 23 and 24 of the Applicant’s Plans (Attachment 3).

Figure 2. Color Rendering of South Elevation
In addition to the building architecture, the applicant has proposed canopies to cover the pay station and parking spaces that access the vacuum stations. The canopies will stand under 10 feet tall at their peak and consist of a curved overhang style design with standing seam metal roof and poles painted to match the buildings darker trim colors. 139
Subject: Quick Quack Car Wash at Laurel Plaza
Date: April 12, 2022

Page 6 of 11 ends

Environmental Review
The Laurel Plaza Shopping Center was analyzed pursuant to CEQA in an Initial Study resulting in a Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND). The Notice of Determination (NOD) for the IS/MND (SCH #2008012068) was filed with the Contra Costa County Clerk and Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) on March 31, 2008. Mitigation Measures were adopted for the following impact categories: Aesthetics; Air Quality; Biological Resources; Cultural Resources; Hydrology and Water Quality; Noise; Transportation/Circulation; and Utilities and Service Systems.

Since the original CEQA analysis included development of the whole shopping center, changes from the original plan are only required to be re-analyzed where they may differ from the original project. In this case, the proposed project and the adjacent proposed project for a car wash were jointly analyzed for traffic-related impacts and compared to those originally analyzed. The potential traffic impacts were analyzed by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. in a study titled, “Oakley McDonald’s and Quick Quack Traffic Analysis,” dated March 15, 2021. In addition to being conducted by Kimley-Horn, the study was peer reviewed by the City by TJKM Transportation Consultants. Per the conclusion of the traffic study, the proposed project would not result in any new traffic impacts compared to the previously approved project. The project would generate approximately 626 fewer trips daily, 28 fewer trips in the AM peak hour, and 22 fewer trips in the PM.

Since there is no new mitigation required for this project, the project has been deemed to be within the scope of the previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH # 2008012068). No additional environmental review is necessary.

Analysis
Laurel Plaza Supplemental Traffic Operations Analysis Assessment Work Session A supplemental traffic study dated January 7, 2022 was conducted for the Laurel Plaza shopping center with a focus on two projects, including the subject project and a recently denied project (McDonald’s Drive-Through Quick Serve Restaurant at Laurel Plaza Conditional Use Permit (CUP 03-20) and Design Review (DR 09-20)). During that work session, the City Council individually provided feedback to Staff and the applicants based on recommendations in the study. The recommendations for the McDonald’s project are now moot, but the recommendation specific to the Quick Quack project are still relevant and summarized below:
 To provide for safe and more efficient on-site circulation, shift the Quick Quack internal connector south to align with the McDonalds driveway.

Since this traffic study was conducted, Quick Quack has modified the site plan by flipping the building’s north/south alignment. As a result, the driveway referenced in the recommendation no longer exists and instead an “escape lane” exit is located on that 140
Subject: Quick Quack Car Wash at Laurel Plaza
Date: April 12, 2022

Page 7 of 11 ends

side. This would likely only be used by customers that either accidentally enter the drive-through queue lanes, or that decide to exit prior to continuing with a car wash.

Therefore, that recommendation is no longer relevant.

Other recommended enhancements included installing signs within Laurel Plaza to deter non-customers from using Laurel Plaza as student drop-off and pick-up. There were also three recommended off-site enhancements as follows:
 Modifying the traffic signal phasing and timing to install leading pedestrian intervals at the intersection to improve pedestrian visibility and reduce potential conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles.
 Installing blank out “No Turn on Red” signage for the eastbound and southbound approaches. This signage should be operational during school pick-up and dropoff periods only.  Installing high-visibility crosswalks with advanced stop bars for all crosswalks.

These recommendations have been identified as enhancing the existing conditions rather than conditions on the proposed project. They have not been proposed as conditions of approval on the proposed project.

Conditional Use Permit
The proposed use is defined as “Drive-through Restaurant and Services”, which is allowed in the Retail Business (RB) District with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The purpose of a CUP is to allow for uses that are not allowed by right, and to ensure that the proposed land use is compatible with the surrounding land uses in the neighborhood.

Conditional Use Permit Findings
There are five required findings that must be made in order for a conditional use permit to be approved (OMC Section 9.1.1602(f)). The five findings are summarized as follows:

1. The site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use;

2. The site relates to streets and highways adequate in width and pavement type to carry traffic generated by the use;

3. The proposed use will be arranged, designed, constructed, operated, and maintained so as to be compatible with the intended character of the area as intended in the General Plan and applicable zoning;

4. The proposed use allows for the continued growth and orderly development of the community and is consistent with the various elements of the General Plan; and

5. The proposed use, including conditions of approval, will be established in compliance with CEQA.
141
Subject: Quick Quack Car Wash at Laurel Plaza
Date: April 12, 2022

Page 8 of 11 ends

In the case of the proposed use, the site is adequate in size and shape in that the entirety of the use and all required setbacks, parking, landscaping and circulation is able to be accommodated. The adjacent roadways (Laurel Road and O’Hara Avenue) are both adequate to carry any traffic generated by the use. (Findings 1 and 2).

The use will be arranged, designed, constructed, operated, and maintained to be compatible with the intended character of the area and General Plan and zoning in that the applicant has taken input from the public, City Council and Staff and flipped the building to move the dryer blowers further from the adjacent residential uses to the north of Laurel Plaza to further reduce the potential noise impact they may cause. It is noted that the original acoustical analysis found that the dryer blowers even in the original orientation of the building would not be expected to exceed the General Plan noise thresholds. Flipping the building has been analyzed to further reduce the noise on adjacent residential uses per the follow up acoustical analysis. The applicant has agreed to conduct additional acoustical analysis once the use is fully operational to confirm the noise levels and if necessary, due to an unexpected exceedance of General Plan thresholds, further mitigate the noise through planting of additional landscaping at the property line or other measures. This has been addressed through a condition of approval. Normal hours of operation are conditioned to be from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. The applicant has also proposed to not open the car wash for business on days Oakley Union Elementary School District schools are in session until 8:30 a.m. This would ensure operation is not started until most school age pedestrians are in class. (Finding 3).

As designed and operated through the applicant’s requests and included conditions of approval the use will allowed for continued orderly growth consistent with the various applicable General Plan elements. (Finding 4).

The project falls within the scope of the Laurel Plaza environmental analysis and has been shown to not create any new potentially significant impacts not already identified and mitigated for in the original CEQA analysis. (Finding 5).

Staff’s analysis finds that the proposed “Drive-through Restaurant and Services” use, as proposed and conditioned is found to be consistent with the required findings as found in OMC Section 9.1.1602(f).

Design Review
The proposed plans were analyzed for consistency with the applicable development regulations in the Oakley Municipal Code and adopted City of Oakley Commercial and Industrial Guidelines (“Guidelines”).
142
Subject: Quick Quack Car Wash at Laurel Plaza
Date: April 12, 2022

Page 9 of 11 ends

Circulation/Parking
Vehicular access to the proposed car wash is mostly from the northern entrance that connects to the main driveway running through the shopping center. It is also possible if only access to the vacuum stations is desired from the driveway that access the center from Laurel Plaza and to the east of the parcel. This is one more vehicle than the drive-through lanes are designed to queue, but the parking lot is able to handle this additional vehicle without any impacts to circulation or parking or create any spillover into the main shopping center drive aisle or onto Laurel Road. Pedestrian circulation and access to nearby sites is found to be adequate and identified well through striping.

On-site/off-street parking complies with the Oakley Municipal Code. The parking area, including spaces that have access to the vacuum stations, consists of 16 spaces (2 ADA accessible). OMC off-street parking requirements do not have an established criteria for stand-alone car washes; however, given customers using the site are either in their vehicles going through the wash, or parked at a vacuum station, the only other parking needs would be employees, and there would be at five spaces for that, not including shared shopping center spaces outside of the parcel.

Building Design
This section analyzes the proposed building’s compliance with applicable development regulations and design guidelines. The proposed rectangular building is 30 feet tall at the highest point of the hip element facing Laurel Road. OMC allows buildings up to 35 feet tall in the RB District; therefore, the proposed height complies with the municipal code. Maximum site coverage and floor area ratio1 (FAR) for the RB District are 40% and 1.0, respectively. The building, trash enclosure, and vacuum canopies occupy approximately 17% of the site and since those are all single-story, they result in a FAR of approximately .17. The proposed site coverage and FAR, even with the trash enclosure and vacuum canopies, are well below the maximum allowances, and comply with the municipal code.

Architecture on the building consists of quality materials and is of a color palette that complements both the existing mini-mart and bank (beige and brown tones). The architectural style is similar to the different from the mini-mart and bank in that it does include the elevated hip roof at the main “storefront.” A yellowish paint color is used for the architectural pop outs at the entrance and exit of the tunnel. This choice of color allows a bit of the corporate theme to be used while maintaining consistent with Oakley’s design guidelines of using secondary materials such as stone veneer.

1 Floor area ratio is the ratio of floor area (not just building coverage) of a building or buildings to the site they occupy.
143
Subject: Quick Quack Car Wash at Laurel Plaza
Date: April 12, 2022

Page 10 of 11 ends

Design Review Findings
Staff’s analysis finds that the proposed site development and building design, as proposed and conditioned, is found to be meet the standards of review as found in OMC Section

9.1.1604(f). Complete findings are found in the attached Proposed Resolution and summarized below:
 The overall site planning meets required setbacks, circulation and parking, landscape, and buffer requirements, and locates the trash enclosure in a manner where it has minimal interference with the proposed use and other nearby uses;  Architecture and massing of the building meets the criteria as found in the adopted Oakley Commercial and Industrial Design Guidelines. Roof top equipment is screened from public view.
 The site is adequately landscaped, including the addition of trees for aesthetic and parking lot shade. Lighting is sufficient, and as conditioned, will provide additional pedestrian safety.
 The streetscape is existing and already in compliance with the standards for review.

Findings
Draft findings for the Conditional Use Permit and Design Review can be found in the proposed resolution.

Fiscal Impact
The approval of these entitlements will not impact the General Fund. This is a developer funded account. All Staff time and City of Oakley generated materials are charged to the account and paid for by the developer.

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends the City Council approve the project titled, “Quick Quack Car Wash Restaurant at Laurel Plaza Conditional Use Permit (CUP 02-20) and Design Review (DR 08-20),” as conditioned.

Attachments

1. Vicinity Map

2. Public Hearing Notice

3. Applicant’s Plans

4. Proposed Conditional Use Permit and Design Review Resolution 144
Subject: Quick Quack Car Wash at Laurel Plaza
Date: April 12, 2022

Page 11 of 11 ends

In City Clerk’s Reading File

1. Oakley McDonald’s and Quick Quack Traffic Analysis, dated March 15, 2021:
(https://www.ci.oakley.ca.us/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/McDonalds-and-QuickQuack-Traffic-Analysis_03-15-2021.pdf

2. Laurel Plaza Supplemental Traffic Operations Analysis Assessment, dated January 7, 2022: (https://www.ci.oakley.ca.us/wpcontent/uploads/2022/01/Laurel-Plaza-Supplemental-Traffic-OperationsAnalysis-Assessment_2022-01-07.pdf)

3. Quick Quack Noise Impact Study, dated March 15, 2021:
(https://www.ci.oakley.ca.us/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Quick-Quack-NoiseImpact-Study_03-15-2021.pdf)

4. Quick Quack Updated Noise Impact Study, dated December 8, 2021:
(https://www.ci.oakley.ca.us/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Quick-Quack-UpdatedNoise-Impact-Study_2021-12-08.pdf) Any other documents referenced in this Staff Report or in other documents made a part of this project’s public record can be requested from the City of Oakley Planning Division.
145
Vicinity Map
Quick Quack Car Wash at Laurel Plaza Conditional Use Permit (CUP 02-20) and Design Review (DR 08-20)
APN: 035-510-009
146
City of Oakley
3231 Main Street
Oakley, CA 94561
www.oakleyinfo.com

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given that on April 12, 2022 at 6:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, the City Council of the City of Oakley will hold a Public Hearing at the Council Chambers located at 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561 for the purposes of considering an application for a Conditional Use Permit and Design Review as described below:

Project Name: Quick Quack Car Wash at Laurel Plaza Conditional Use Permit (CUP 02-20) and Design Review (DR 08-20).

Project Location: North of Laurel Rd. within the Laurel Plaza Shopping Center. APN 035-510-009.

Oakley, CA 94561
Applicant: Quick Quack Car Wash Holdings, LLC. 1380 Lead Hill Blvd., Suite 260, Roseville, CA 95661.

Request: Application by Quick Quack Car Wash Holdings, LLC. (“Applicant”), requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP 02-20) and Design Review (DR 08-20) to construct a new 3,596 sf. drive-through car wash facility located on an approximately 0.8-acre parcel. In addition to the car wash facility, the applicant is requesting approval of vacuum and payment stations, trash enclosures, and associated site improvements (“Project”). The project site is located within the existing Laurel Plaza Shopping Center at the northwest corner of Laurel Road and O’Hara Avenue and is zoned RB (Retail Business) District: APN: 035-510-009.

How to Review: The Staff Report and its attachments will be available for public review, on or before April 7, 2022 at City Hall, 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561 or online at www.ci.oakley.ca.us/agendas-minutes-videos-archive/ by navigating to the April 12, 2022 agenda and clicking the project title link. (Note: City Hall is closed on the 1st and 3rd Fridays of each month). Interested persons are invited to submit written comments prior to and may testify at the public hearing. Written comments may be submitted to Kenneth W. Strelo, Planning Manager at the City of Oakley, 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561 or by email to [email protected].

Carissmi Rohrer McMullen Architects and Planners, Inc.

Architects & Planners, Inc. CRM
phone: (916) 451-1500
5800 Stanford Ranch Road #720, Rocklin CA 95765 PLANNING DOCUMENTS City of Oakley MAR 17, 2022 RECEIVED 148
8 5
6 6

BUILDING

EXISTING

AT LAUREL PLAZA

OAKLEY, CALIFORNIA

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY

QUICK QUACK CAR WASH
E.

E TV. L BA C
& G. P.

N, ZOI REV
S.C.G.

YTI C

ES I TI L I T U

VICINITY MAP

NOT TO SCALE
STORE # 27-034
Exp.6-30-2022
No. 33142
F A

RH A D I RAN I T A L
A B

CI V I L
I GNE

L N A ROF E S S I O

P DE RE
N I A
FOR

OF CAL I
STATE

T SI GE R
RE E N
149

LAUREL ROAD

POINT OF

BEGINNING

PARCEL B
N 89°23'02" W
119.90' S 01°01'36" W 289.41'
S 88°58'24" E 119.90' S 01°01'36" W 290.26' 55.00'
648.02' 55.00'
350.52'

BUILDING

EXISTING
150

LAUREL ROAD

BUILDING

EXISTING
Scale: 1" = 10'

DETAIL A
A
151

LAUREL ROAD
LOT 5
508 M 24
[Doc No. 2017-0089927]

PARCEL C

LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
[Doc No. 2017-0089927]

BUILDING

EXISTING
152

LAUREL ROAD O'HARA LANE

BUILDING

EXISTING
153

LAUREL ROAD
LOT 5
508 M 24

PARCEL C

LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
[Doc No. 2017-0089927]

POINT OF

BEGINNING

PARCEL B
N 89°23'02" W
119.90' S 01°01'36" W 289.41'
S 88°58'24" E 119.90' S 01°01'36" W 290.26' 55.00' 55.00' N 89°23'02" W 1259.88'
648.02' 55.00'
350.52' 297.49'

BUILDING

EXISTING
154

LAUREL ROAD
LOT 5
508 M 24

PARCEL C

LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
[Doc No. 2017-0089927]

POINT OF

BEGINNING

PARCEL B
N 89°23'02" W
119.90' S 01°01'36" W 289.41'
S 88°58'24" E 119.90' S 01°01'36" W 290.26' 55.00' 55.00' N 89°23'02" W 1259.88'
648.02' 55.00'
350.52' 297.49'

BUILDING

EXISTING
155

NOTES VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE LEGAL DESCRIPTION THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED OAKLEY, IN THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: PARCEL ONE: All that real property situate in the City of Oakley, County of Contra Costa, State of California, described as follows: Being a portion of Lot 1 as shown on the Map entitled “Subdivision Map 9188” recordedOctober 8, 2008, in Book 508 of Maps, at Pages 24-26, Contra Costa County Records, more particularly described as follows:Beginning at the southwest corner of said Lot 1; thence from said point of beginning along theperimeter boundary of said Lot 1 the following Two (2) courses and distances:

North 1° 1’ 36” East 290.26 feet;
South 88° 58’ 24” East 119.80 feet;
Thence leaving the perimeter of said Lot South 1° 01’ 36” West 289.40 feet to the South line of said Lot 1; thence along said South line North 89° 23’ 02” West 119.90 feet to the point of beginning for this description.

As shown as Parcel B, in that certain “Lot Line Adjustment LLA 17-01”, recorded May 24, 2017, instrument No. 2017-0089927, of Official Records. EXCEPTING THEREFROM: All oil, gas and other hydrocarbon substances and all other minerals and associatedsubstances contained within or underlying the said property which are at or below a depth of 500 feet from the surface therefrom, with any right of surface entry as reserved in the Deed from Louis Del Barba et al, recorded December 31, 1979, in Book 9677 of Official Records,

Page 495 ends

Oakley City CouncilApril 12, 2022

Oakley City Council
April 12, 2022