Minutes of the 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 held January 24, 2023
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/Oakley Public Financing Authority
Mayor Aaron Meadows called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Oakley City Council Chambers located at 3231 Main Street, Oakley, California. Vice Mayor Anissa Williams and Councilmembers George Fuller, Hugh Henderson and Shannon Shaw were also in attendance.
1.2 Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag (JROTC students)
JROTC students led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
1.3 Proclamation Recognizing January as Human Trafficking Prevention Month (Katrina Natale, Human Trafficking Task Force Director) Mayor Meadows presented the proclamation to Katrina Natale, Human Trafficking Task Force Director and Wendy Alvarez, her co-lead in the task force and with Community Violence Solutions.
Ms. Natale commented this month is a time to raise awareness and invigorate efforts to prevent human trafficking which includes Oakley. She mentioned the task force has started a relationship with Oakley to discuss how they can engage Police better and bring more awareness. She shared that the task force provides comprehensive services to victims, investigates and prosecutes human trafficking, and provides local programming to help youth protect themselves and identify potential situations. She thanked the Council.
2) PUBLIC COMMENTS
Nancy Huffaker, resident of Summerlake, thanked the Council and Public Works Department for addressing potholes.
Jennifer Solopow submitted an online comment regarding potholes on Sellers near E.
Cypress. Public Works Director/City Engineer Kevin Rohani connected with Ms.
Solopow prior to the meeting to provide her information.
Rebecca Mears submitted an online comment regarding types of local businesses needed, infrastructure needed to sustain growth, and the 637/639 Brownstone project. 3) CONSENT CALENDAR
3.1 Adopt a Resolution approving a side letter to the Oakley Police Officers Association Memorandum of Understanding (Jeri Tejeda, Human Resources Director)
3.2 Acceptance of work associated with the Senior Center Roof and HVAC Repair and Replacement Project – Capital Improvement Project Number 288 (Kevin Rohani, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer)
3.3 Adopt a Resolution Approving a Recognized Obligations Payment Schedule (ROPS) and Administrative Budget for the Fiscal Year of July 2023 through June 2024 (Tim Przybyla, Finance Director)
3.4 Adopt a Resolution adding standby pay to the approved compensation package (Jeri Tejeda, Human Resources Director)
No public comments were submitted.
It was moved by Councilmember Fuller and seconded by Councilmember Shaw to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion was unanimous and so ordered. (5-0) 4) PUBLIC HEARINGS
4.1 (Continued from October 11, 2022) Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments to Article 12 of Chapter 1 of Title 9 of the Oakley Municipal Code (“Special Land Uses”) – Adding Four Subsections to Address Drive-Through Restaurants, Carwashes, Gas Stations, and Self-Storage (RZ 04-21) (Ken Strelo, Planning Manager)
Planning Manager Ken Strelo presented the staff report and PowerPoint presentation.
City Attorney Derek Cole commented that he and staff came together after the last hearing and after letters were received to do an analysis and they found that the proposed buffer is not a common practice in other jurisdictions so they would be charting a new course with this, and as a practical matter, there are a limited number of properties (4) to which it would apply, 2 have no chance of developing, so only 2 properties would be affected by this and those are properties that developers have acquired and held for commercial purposes on a commercial corridor. He explained because there is a limited number of properties to which this buffer applies, although there is no intent, it could appear the City is targeting or spot zoning properties based on a generally applicable ordinance, and one developer raised such claim and other claims. He mentioned it has never been the City’s intent, but he also wants the Council to be aware what happens if they do this; it may force the owners of these properties into litigation. He shared he is not trying to put words in their mouths, but creating buffers may create a situation that would require property owners to act now legally to protect any rights they may have. He mentioned they have the general conditional use permit process plus these additional performance standards would allow the City to address any situations involving these properties; developers would still have to apply for a conditional use permit and there would still be CEQA review. He advised it is not in the best interest of the City to enact this part. He shared his assessment is that the City would be putting the parties in a situation to litigation to protect their rights. He mentioned he believes the City already has the controls it wants through its process and with these improvements so it is his recommendation that if the Council approves the ordinance that this part be removed, but it is the decision of the Council to make.
Mr. Strelo continued his report and presentation including a summary of amendments to the ordinance.
Vice Mayor Williams mentioned 500-foot buffer language with gas stations. She inquired since an important part of the drive through has been taken out, if this language could be universal and applied to all uses, i.e., drive throughs, car washes, etc.so that none of those get oversaturated in certain areas.
Mr. Strelo indicated staff can modify the ordinance language at the Council’s direction.
Vice Mayor Williams mentioned they are all conditional use, but they have experienced it is made to appear it is difficult to deny a conditional use permit and this doesn’t provide any added protection; they were told meeting after meeting they didn’t have sufficient reasons to deny even though they did. She inquired what additional protections are being included besides conditional use permits if they remove the buffer from sensitive areas.
Mr. Cole explained that the properties along the commercial corridor have been planned commercial since the beginning of Oakley with the General Plan and Specific Plan; there will always be inherent difficulties with that area and there are other properties along a very busy road with traffic along the commercial corridor that have ben entitled.
He mentioned if the Council targets traffic for specific projects, it presents some legal issues for the City. He mentioned there are protections with the conditional use permit process such as time changes for the properties such as near a school, staggering time of operation, traffic control measures and crosswalks, staggering signals, which may or may not work for all facilities, but there may be some ways to deal with it. He added that this means there would be intention to approve the project, but if there is intention to never permit that, it is a policy choice. He mentioned he is alerting the Council to realities; this commercial corridor (Laurel) has been planned for decades; if they change what to do with that part of the City, it is likely to attract a lawsuit. He mentioned the Council can decide to move forward; the Council makes policy, and he is an advisor.
Vice Mayor Williams commented they all want commercial at Laurel Plaza, they just didn’t think drive throughs were compatible and the 2008 Planning Commission was very clear about that. She mentioned if they can manage through conditional use permits and the developer is not willing to meet those conditions and the Council can deny, then that makes her feel more comfortable. She added they would love commercial, but there is a difference between commercial and fast-food drive throughs.
Councilmember Fuller inquired if Adam Hofmann with Hanson Bridgett was contacted by anyone and if the letters the Council received submitted by attorneys were published with the agenda. He expressed concern regarding the public not being aware of the change.
Mr. Cole indicated Mr. Hofmann was retained as a litigator for the City for the McDonald’s/Quick Quack lawsuit and Mr. Cole is the advisor.
Councilmember Fuller commented heard Mr. Cole said during open forum that he disagreed with what the Council did and therefore he was unable to carry the lawsuit.
Mr. Cole commented that is not what he said; it is inaccurate.
Councilmember Fuller inquired if Bryan Montgomery (former City Manager of Oakley) was contacted by Cole Huber LLP regarding the lawsuit as he was a big supporter of commercial development and the McDonald’s at Laurel Plaza and Cole Huber LLP has contracted with the city in which Mr. Montgomery now works.
Mr. Cole responded “no”. He indicated Cole Huber LLP has contracted with the City of Indio, one of 10 cities his firm represents as City Attorney, and there are 20 attorneys in his firm but he does not work with that city directly nor has he spoken with Mr.
Montgomery in approximately one year. He added he is not aware that anyone at the staff level has had any contact with him or that he has reached out to staff. He expressed he believes Mr. Montgomery advocated for these things when he was here, but they have not consulted with him since.
Councilmember Fuller commented it is a law partnership and even if another attorney represents that city and develops profits, those profits are spread among the partnership.
Mr. Cole responded he is not certain why he or his firm are an issue; they share profits from all agencies they represent throughout California. He assured his advice is based on his nearly 25 years of experience as an environmental and land use attorney.
Councilmember Fuller inquired if the letters from the attorneys were attached to the agenda when published.
Mr. Strelo indicated they were not; they were part of a previous public hearing for this item.
Mr. Cole mentioned this is a continued hearing from last year and those letters were provided before that meeting so those letters are already part of the record.
Councilmember Fuller indicated because of those letters, a new redlined version of the ordinance has been proposed which has completely changed the ordinance and they are not being fair to the public if they are not making them aware of the letters. He indicated the Council received the letters Monday.
Councilmember Fuller requested a written opinion from the City Attorney as comments prior to 18 months ago are gone. He mentioned they can pass ordinances but can also grant variances so if they go with the original ordinance, they are not stopping any developer from coming in, the developer would need to request a variance to come in; no one is cut out of the property, they just need approval.
Mr. Strelo commented that variances are typically reserved for development regulations such as inability to meet a setback or building height so this would be unique variance for an ordinance in place within the Zoning Code. He mentioned the findings for variances are difficult to meet in most cases so he hesitates to say here that variances would be allowed.
Councilmember Fuller commented he is hearing they are denying people use of their land, but the Council would not be denying any developer to convince the Council to grant a variance. He mentioned if the Council passes the original ordinance he is being told there could be a lawsuit, but if someone wants to build in Oakley, they can discuss it with the City and go over the parameters of development. He mentioned he hasn’t heard anyone at the City deny landowners use of their land. He inquired if they are saying if they go with the original ordinance, they are denying landowners use of their land.
Mr. Cole mentioned that the parties that own the two properties realistically affected by this ordinance acquired their properties years ago based on authorizations and representations in the General Plan, Specific Plan and Zoning Code. He mentioned efforts to develop one property has been unsuccessful and they are of the opinion that only certain commercial uses such as the special uses that are part of this ordinance would be viable and they would argue if the City adopts the buffer that it renders their ability to develop (pencil out) the property impossible. He added that they would argue that the effect of the ordinance buffer would be to render the land undevelopable. He indicated the City would fight that if forced into that. He expressed that if it is the pleasure of the Council to move forward, it is the Council’s choice, but with that comes a consequence. He explained the developer has made concerted effort over the years to try and develop the property and has expressed to the City only certain uses will pencil out which include the special uses. He explained if the Council includes this buffer, there is a very high likelihood the City will have to defend it in court; he wants the Council to understand that is what happens and it is his duty to inform the Council.
Mayor Meadows opened the public hearing. He mentioned one comment was submitted online and the person wishes to speak. He called upon Seth Furman.
Seth Furman with Safeway presented a PowerPoint presentation regarding the property at the corner of Laurel and O'Hara and indicated they want to develop soon. He requested clarification on the noise study and alternative fuel.
Vice Mayor Williams inquired when Safeway will come in. She mentioned Oakley has been waiting 20 years and she believes Oakley is bigger than Mountain House where Safeway recently opened.
Mr. Furman explained that their stores must open in terms of long-term success in the community so he does not have the magic ball when that will happen, but it is their intent to move forward sooner than later.
Vice Mayor Williams inquired if they are looking to have only a store and gas or if they are also looking to put in retail pads.
Mr. Furman mentioned they are looking at retail but cannot yet specify if that would include a drive through because have not gotten that far in the site planning process.
Vice Mayor Williams inquired if they could make an amendment to clarify alternative fuel.
Mr. Cole commented that the ordinance says, “Any new gas station shall consider including alternative fuels, pumps, as an option to customers with alternative fuel vehicles.”
Vice Mayor Williams indicated the City is not dictating, just suggesting it be considered.
Mr. Cole mentioned “shall consider” is not mandatory, but a directive that would drive the conditional use permit process.
Mr. McMurray shared that Mountain House has approximately 29,000 in population.
Shelly Fitzgerald commented she is excited to see Safeway come; the property wouldn’t be heavily affected by the original ordinance. She mentioned one commercial corridor was poorly planned that has left one elementary school in a very precarious position.
She expressed that in looking at policies today and updating them can either prevent or allow future problems in other areas of the city. She mentioned the school is in place and there are commercial properties that chose to purchase next to an elementary school. She suggested the Council should think about future school sites, future residential areas, and commercial businesses they want incorporated into those areas with all the growth that will be happening. She shared she found that Elk Grove has provisions for these uses with 100-feet of residential uses, Santa Barbara outright banned drive-through restaurants 40 years ago but last year had to deal with a grandfathered use and considered taking a conditional use permit away from a Chick-filA® because of the problems it is creating, and Brea rescinded approving a Raising Cane’s because of its proximity (within 200 feet) to an elementary school. She added many cities across the country are banning drive throughs entirely with focus on curbing emissions, reducing litter, improving pedestrian access and safety, and enhancing walkability within cities. She mentioned these ordinances are meant to protect cities and guide growth, not to single out property owners.
Mayor Meadows closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Fuller suggested they continue the item until Mr. Hofmann and the public have had an opportunity to review the letters and Mr. Hofmann has opined. He indicated Mr. Cole should recluse himself from the lawsuit as his firm also represents City of Indio where former Oakley City Manager Bryan Montgomery now works who supported the development at Laurel Plaza. He expressed he highly resents Mr. Benke indicating this is a property seizure and he is being targeted he has invited Mr. Benke to discuss affordable housing on the southwest corner. He mentioned people here want another grocery store. He mentioned if they are not going to continue the item and allow the public to view the letters, the original ordinance could pass because it doesn’t deny property rights in Oakley if a property owner meets what is required for a variance.
Vice Mayor Williams requested clarification regarding the action and next possible steps if the Council cannot yet reach consensus.
Mr. Strelo indicated the ordinance can be adopted as proposed, adopted with minor or significant changes (bring back to next meeting), or if no motion, the item would die without direction.
Vice Mayor Williams commented that car washes and gas stations have buffer language and there is no such similar language for drive throughs. She inquired if it would be a major change to add it.
Mr. Cole indicated those are in relation to saturation whereas they are talking about sensitive use so they are switching concepts but if the Council wants to look at a saturation concept, it can direct staff to draft language and bring it back.
Vice Mayor Williams commented that when she and Councilmember Higgins (former Council) first brought forth saturation, it was of concern across all uses, so she believes saturation needs to be back in and if staff is going to bring it back, include very clear and precise language to protect a more walkable, pedestrian-friendly community, including bigger buffers if near sensitive uses.
Mr. Cole mentioned if it is the pleasure of the Council to follow suit, the Council can make a motion to direct staff to continue to a date certain, perhaps the second meeting in February or first meeting in March, and staff will bring back an ordinance to address saturation of drive throughs and walkability near sensitive uses.
Councilmember Henderson suggested postponing the item until litigation is done. He mentioned if an ordinance is adopted now, the Council may have to do this again if the City loses in litigation.
Mr. Cole suggested they could continue the item if the Council accepts Councilmember Henderson’s premise and staff will re-notice if not continued to a date certain. He mentioned they have a court appearance date of April 17 for the McDonald’s/Quick Quack lawsuit; staff could get that result and bring it forth late spring.
Councilmember Fuller mentioned he is good with Vice Mayor Williams and Councilmember Henderson’s comments and until the lawsuit is adjudicated, he would like to direct Mr. McMurray to contact Mr. Hofmann to attend closed session or provide written opinion regarding the decisions the Council will be making.
Vice Mayor Williams inquired if a motion is made, could it be amended to include saturation and a walkability buffer if it is not continued to a date certain. She mentioned she doesn’t like not having a date certain because she does not like how long it is taking, but understands the impact to the community for the future.
Mr. Cole mentioned the Council can continue the item to a date uncertain pending the court’s decision in the McDonald’s/Quick Quack decision and when staff brings the ordinance back, saturation and walkability buffers will be included in the ordinance as Vice Mayor Williams suggested, and he or Mr. McMurray can request Mr. Hofmann to provide a opinion on the ordinance in relation to the lawsuit to the Council during a future closed session.
It was moved by Vice Mayor Williams and seconded by Councilmember Shaw to continue the item to a date uncertain and bring the ordinance back pending the court’s decision, with saturation and walkability buffer language included, and direct Mr.
Hofmann to provide an opinion regarding the ordinance in relation to the lawsuit. Motion was unanimous and so ordered. (5-0)
5) REGULAR CALENDAR
5.1 Appeal of Hearing Officer's Decision Regarding the Illegal use of Fireworks (Libby Vreonis, City Clerk / Kim Snodgrass, Deputy City Clerk) City Clerk Libby Vreonis presented the staff report.
City Attorney Derek Cole advised the Council of its scope of review. He mentioned as a procedural point, the neighbor stepped forward to accept responsibility after the hearing officer’s decision, but the Oakley Municipal Code does not provide a procedure that once a decision has been rendered that it can be reviewed again at the administrative level so it was recommended to the property owner to file an appeal to Council. He mentioned this is a de novo hearing meaning that the Council can look at all the evidence, including available body cam footage, and decide.
The Council agreed to hear oral evidence.
Mr. Flores, the property owner, explained he was cited for discharging fireworks and he never discharged any fireworks; he heard fireworks from his living room and went outside through his garage and started watering his grass. He mentioned he saw his neighbor to the left of him whom borrowed a tool from him earlier that day and asked if he could put it back in his garage. He indicated the neighbor walked into his garage, the police officer pulled up, and the officer never spoke with him, he only had an exchange with his neighbor, whatever they talked about. He commented he never discharged anything and never will. He explained he went through both appeals, told the Chief and hearing officer the same thing, and the final decision was that he more likely than not did it when in fact he did not. He mentioned his neighbor is here to comment and again, he did not discharge anything, the officer did not speak with him, and no one ran into his garage; his neighbor returned a tool to his garage.
Gonzolo Chayrez commented he would like to see the body camera footage. He explained he was full of toilet water because he was fixing his toilet that busted so he went through the garage, and there were fireworks going off all down the street. He indicated the officer did come and he made a joke with the officer, “Weren’t they pretty?” to imply that was a great show and admitted he had safe and sane fireworks/sparklers for his kids and they were going to watch and didn’t light those. He mentioned he never received a letter or anything showing there was debris, his hands weren’t black, there was no lighter in his hand, so these things bother him and the fact he smelled like toilet water when the officer came up.
Mayor Meadows requested clarification who the neighbor is that is taking responsibility.
Mr. Chayrez responded he is taking responsibility, he is on the body camera footage, and he made a mistake by joking with the officer and making such statement.
Mayor Meadows inquired if either Mr. Flores or Mr. Chayrez had any further comments.
Being none, he called upon the Council for any questions.
Vice Mayor Williams requested to see the body camera video and mentioned the officer is not present this evening.
Chief of Police Paul Beard confirmed that is correct.
Vice Mayor Williams inquired if the body camera footage shows fireworks happening.
Chief Beard explained the body camera procedure and what they would see if the body camera footage is played. He indicated no fireworks are seen on the body camera footage. He mentioned the video begins with 30 seconds of silence; this is the activation period, 30 seconds before the officer activates the body camera. He shared he viewed the footage and Officer Tyler Locke is the officer who responded and activated the camera when he pulled up to the property at 4799 Bayside. He mentioned that is when the dialogue begins with Officer Locke and Mr. Chayrez with Mr. Flores in the background.
Mayor Meadows requested the footage be played and it was.
Councilmember Henderson inquired if there were fireworks on the property.
Mr. Flores indicated he has no idea; he was inside and heard fireworks and came through his garage.
Councilmember Henderson inquired if there was evidence that fireworks were on the property.
Chief Beard responded that a report was not written so he can only go by the body camera footage and he does not see evidence of that.
Mr. Flores commented he would not allow fireworks on his property.
Councilmember Fuller commented he sees in the body camera footage that Mr.
Chayrez indicated the fireworks went off in the driveway that the officer found him on.
Mr. Chayrez commented he was returning tool and it was his sons that were letting off safe and sane fireworks in the street, not the driveway; they were little fireworks, no big booms coming from them. He mentioned the whole area/block shoots them off so for the officer to pinpoint a group of people is wrong in his case. He added he had just fixed a toilet and was returning a tool to the garage, but supposedly many people ran into the garage but he was the only one in it.
Councilmember Fuller asked Chief Beard if according to the ordinance, the property owner is responsible for fireworks on their property.
Chief Beard indicated the officer acted in accordance with the ordinance that the property owner is responsible for anything occurring on the property.
Vice Mayor Williams mentioned the report indicates the officer saw smoke, saw several people running in, and saw discharge. She mentioned it is hard to tell from the video that all took place so she is wondering how they know it actually came from there. She mentioned from the footage, Mr. Gonzolo mentioned that he is done with it so it does seem like it happened there.
Mr. Chayrez mentioned he made a mistake by saying it but even the officer said they could light those off.
Vice Mayor Williams clarified that it sounded like the officer referred to “big ones” and Mr. Chayrez responded to him that they were “all done with those, there are no more, but we do have the safe and sane”. She asked Mr. Flores if he was watering the lawn but didn’t see anything.
Mr. Flores indicated he went out with a hose so if something were brewing he could at least put it out.
Vice Mayor Williams shared that her house caught on fire because of fireworks, they made this ordinance, and they have to put their foot down somewhere.
Mr. Flores mentioned the City has in previous years sent citations to different people on their street and they have never been prosecuted because there was insufficient evidence. He commented that he can see how it all looks but he only went outside after hearing the fireworks from inside and thought maybe he could put out something if it is near his roof.
Vice Mayor Williams indicated she understand his position and the neighbor is taking responsibility is great because in the footage it sounds like he is taking responsibility and that is something they can work out between themselves, but because fireworks are an issue, they must send citations and have them enforced.
Councilmember Shaw commented that on the body camera footage, the officer pulled up to Mr. Flores’ house. She expressed concern that if the same happened at her house, she would be out there to find out why they are there. She expressed her other concern is that during the first appeal hearing, he denied a violation occurred period, then during the second appeal he denied being the responsible party, and the letter was sent by Mr. Chayrez and he didn’t take responsibility but just said he didn’t see Mr.
Flores shooting them off, so she is seeing a lot of shifting.
Mr. Flores commented he always has denied not doing it.
Councilmember Shaw commented it is optics; she sees smoke in the body camera footage and she is married to a law enforcement officer and knows how body camera video and delay works. She indicated she also has to trust the officer who says he saw remnants not in the street but in the driveway, and that the driveway is his residence, the optics don’t look great.
Mr. Flores mentioned during the first two hearings with the Chief and hearing officer, they never mentioned there were remnants in his driveway.
Councilmember Shaw explained they have to go by the evidence they were given and she is reading that the officer saw smoke and remnants in the driveway and saw several juveniles taking the spent firework shells and running into the garage while the property owner was watering the front lawn.
Mr. Flores commented there were no spent shells, no one ran into his garage, he asked who ran into his garage and they were unable to identify them, and he asked where was the debris they found and they were unable to tell him where it was found.
Councilmember Shaw read that an adult male admitted to hosting a firework show and his statement was recorded on the body camera footage.
Mr. Flores mentioned the officer didn’t voluntarily speak with him so he didn’t feel the need to have contact with the officer since he didn’t do anything, but if the officer were to have approached him, he would have engaged with him.
Councilmember Shaw mentioned the officer doesn’t know who owns the home; he is talking to the person who approached him.
Mr. Flores indicated he wishes the officer would have done more of an inspection and asked those questions. He explained it was brief; the officer was in the street and this had nothing to do with him.
Councilmember Shaw mentioned she would like to talk with the officer.
A public comment was submitted by Paul Olsson. He was called upon by the Mayor but he was not present.
Councilmember Fuller commented he believes the elements of the allegation have been met and moved for the finding to be sustained and the citation upheld.
It was seconded by Councilmember Henderson. Motion was unanimous and so ordered. (5-0)
6) REPORTS
6.1 CITY MANAGER
(a) City Manager
City Manager Joshua McMurray mentioned he will defer his time to the work session.
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 the NAACP breakfast and the NAACP was pleased the City of Oakley recognized Martin Luther King, Jr. Day for the first time in Oakley. He expressed concern regarding remarks made by Antioch Mayor Lamar Thorpe regarding controls placed on their Police.
Vice Mayor Williams reported she was appointed to the CalCities’ Environmental Quality Policy Committee to review bills, regulatory proposals and policy statements, and there are 3-4 meetings per year. She shared information regarding the legislative process: the regular season is 2023-2024, odd years for every session, and bills that die in odd years can be reintroduced in even years which is important for local control. She mentioned the 2023 advocacy priorities are to protect and expand investments, prevent and reduce homelessness, and increase supply of affordable housing while protecting local control.
She mentioned there is an ask for $3 billion to address both housing and homelessness and a request to reimburse cities $1 billion for unfunded mandates, recycling being one of those. She also reported as the Board Chair for Tri-Delta Transit, she attended MCE Regional Network Management’s Business Review, a forum to address how 27 agencies across the East Bay can work together to make a seamless connection and they are trying to put a Board together; Tri-Delta Transit and other agencies of their size have some trepidation because they don’t have a lot of skin in the game; it involves larger transit agencies who can take away from smaller, more rural areas so they will see if those concerns are heard. She mentioned Tri-Delta Transit meets tomorrow.
Councilmember Shaw reported she attended the retirement recognition for Ken Crockett with Diablo Water District for his 38 years of service on the Board. She mentioned she also attended the TRANSPLAN meeting as they needed a quorum and the Planning Commission had not yet assigned a new member which has now happened so she will not be attending future TRANSPLAN meetings. She reported she attended the Ironhouse Sanitary Board meeting and they had a great presentation about the impacts of recent storms on the sanitation system and storm water and how very little waste made because of their efforts that was good for the environment. She shared she was told the impacts to Oakley was minimal compared to Bethel Island so it was good to hear Oakley didn’t cause a lot of issues. She also reported she attended the CalCities’ New Mayors and Councilmembers Academy, she learned a lot, and came back with questions for the City Manager and City Attorney. She shared that she completed onboarding with Tri-Delta Transit today as its Director and she looks forward to serving Oakley in the position and its next meeting will be held tomorrow.
Councilmember Henderson reported he also attended the CalCities’ New Mayors and Councilmembers Academy and it was good training.
Mayor Meadows reported he attended the CCTA meeting and not much was on the agenda.
(b) Requests for Future Agendas
Councilmember Fuller requested the mutual aid agreement between Antioch and Oakley Police address protection for Oakley Police Officers responding to calls in Antioch. He also requested to prioritize switching the dispatch call center from the County to City of Brentwood. Mr. McMurray indicated the items could be addressed during the future staffing work session.
Mayor Meadows requested quarterly updates on all pending litigation beginning in February. Councilmember Fuller supported it.
Councilmember Shaw requested an update regarding AB 922 on social media and the Brown Act to provide clarification and additional training. It was supported by Vice Mayor Williams. Mayor Meadows requested the update be provided February 14.
Vice Mayor Williams requested a small business roundtable to bring together businesses, initiate networking, and hear what the business community needs in the absence of the Chamber, in addition to what the City is already doing. She suggested Councilmember Fuller may want to do a NGO roundtable. Councilmember Fuller supported it and suggested with NGOs it may involve formation education.
Mayor Meadows called for a brief recess. The Council reconvened. 7) WORK SESSION
7.1 Work Session – Library Initial Feasibility Analysis (Joshua McMurray, City Manager)
City Manager Joshua McMurray presented the staff report. Patrick O'Keefe with Management Partners provided a PowerPoint presentation.
Mr. O'Keefe provided an analysis overview, a public/private partnership example of the County’s Bay Point library project, comparison limits, information regarding the Oakley site area, a proposed public space development program, a proposed private development program, and three examples of using a public/private partnership approach (O’Hara/Acme-low density, O’Hara/Acme-medium density, and O’Hara/Acmehigh density with use of the Civic Center site), gap financing and recommendations.
Public Comments
Jimmy Ramirez shared he was raised in Oakley and the first library he visited became the Sheriff's substation on O'Hara. He mentioned he was frustrated when he attended Freedom High School because there was little space to study and when he went studied for college it was in between stacks at Barnes & Nobles, not at the library. He mentioned now he is a writer and researcher and there is not a place to do that in Oakley, but he can in Brentwood. He mentioned it is something to consider that Brentwood has four times the number of materials as Oakley. He expressed that in the legacy of Oakley it is important to remember that the Women’s Club had the first library in Oakley for Contra Costa County.
Nancy Huffaker shared she was a teacher in Oakley for mostly young children and it is a disservice to children to have such a small area to learn to read and enjoy literature.
She mentioned she now teaches ESL and Oakley needs more space to accommodate computers, Wi-Fi for citizenship applications, jobs, and meeting space for community groups. She expressed hope that the Council will consider one of the options to improve the library in the Oakley community.
Liz Fuller, Treasurer and Membership Coordinator for Friends of the Oakley Library, thanked the City for ARPA grant funds to provide library programs. She shared feedback and mentioned a common question they receive is if Oakley has a library. She shared that everyone agrees Oakley needs a new library and new residents are supportive of a new library. She shared that on December 31, the Freedom High School basin was full due to rain/storms, yet the library parking lot was full as 160 people were in attendance for their New Year’s event which included kids watching a marionette program, crafts, and a balloon drop. She mentioned they held the event on the high school side of the library that was too small, but when school is in session, they can’t host such events. She mentioned it feels like the library might happen this time and she is available to help however she can.
Andrea Freyler shared that she and her mother went to the Sheriff’s substation library.
She mentioned libraries bring ideas and people together. She explained she would take her children to the Walnut Creek library because the Oakley library wasn’t big enough and they were also able to go shopping, eat, and play in the park; it is the library that gets people there. She shared her nieces live in Oakley but visit the Brentwood library because they shop, eat and play in the park; it is the library that gets them there. She expressed hope that Oakley will have its own library. She mentioned both literacy rates property values increase in cities with thriving libraries. She thanked the Council for investing in Oakley’s future.
Lorena Campos, President of Friends of the Oakley Library, commented that the library is important as a resource center to enrich the community and bring people together and she wants future generations to have this. She indicated the most pressing need is for Oakley to have its own library resource center as the current library has only 3,000 square feet of space inside Freedom High School, limited resources and programs, and they have leaned on generous donations of other locations such as the Oakley Tavern and Black Bear Diner for meetings. She added that more space would allow the library to enhance its collections and events.
Joy Stephenson Kick, a Friends of the Oakley Library volunteer, submitted an online comment. She mentioned she is responsible for the Friends’ Book Sales that funds programs and due to lack of adequate space and visibility, they are unable to generate as much income as the Friends of the Brentwood Library ($70 compared to $1500). She expressed hope that Oakley will build a stand-alone library to display quality books to readers and so they may provide even more support to the community.
Judy Alcala submitted an online comment indicating Oakley needs to project images of a city, the library is important and needs to shine, it has outgrown its location, and to remember it is all about location.
Celeste Mucio submitted an online comment expressing frustration how long Oakley has been without a genuine community library space. She expressed she would like the project to come to fruition this time.
Mayor Meadows welcomed the County library staff to comment.
Alison McKee, County Librarian, provided information regarding the Bay Point Public/Private Partnership project mentioning that the developer will fund at least $4.2 million for the construction of the shell of the library but the library will need an additional $12 million in contributions. She mentioned they still need information from the developer where the shell ends and when they need to begin contributing funds. She explained she shared that because she doesn’t want the City to think $4.2 million is a reasonable amount to spend on a new library. She provided an update on the Library Foundation of Contra Costa, a 501(c)(3) non-profit; they received their certificate of incorporation, 5-member Board, and bylaws. She introduced Nicole Gamur, President of the Library Foundation of Contra Costa, to provide additional information.
Nicole Gamur commented that public libraries build communities and opportunities. She explained the intent of the Library Foundation of Contra Costa is to advance the Contra Costa Library’s mission to bring people and ideas together and bridge resource, opportunity and equity gaps within its 26 branches and service areas by seeking public and private funding to: 10 enhance collections, programming and resources, 2) to build and furnish new libraries and revitalize libraries, and 3) to obtain new technologies to provide additional programs for youth, adults and seniors. She mentioned in this effort, they will work closely with library administration and existing library support groups such as the Friends of the Oakley Library to set priorities and meet these objectives.
Regarding the status of the Foundation, she mentioned the Foundation was incorporated in November as a California public benefit corporation, last Thursday the foundation bylaws and conflict of interest policy were adopted, and a 5-member Board of Directors was elected. She shared they will have their first meeting in or around February. She mentioned they are operating under the fiscal sponsorship of the nonprofit Contra Costa organization called EdFund West. She mentioned they are currently working on the application for 501(c)(30 status and it could take several months for review by the IRS once submitted.
Councilmember Fuller requested clarification if the Foundation has received 501(c)(3) status.
Nicole confirmed they have not yet received the status.
Councilmember Fuller inquired how constricted they are on density.
Mr. McMurray explained that the Downtown Specific Plan allows 24 dwelling units per acre under option 1, 64 dwelling units per acre for option 2, and 130 dwelling units per acre for option 3. He indicated that staff can explore a higher level of density to bridge the gap to get a library if the Council should provide such direction. He mentioned he heard last April to be creative and staff is trying to do that. He shared they have some reserve funds, ARPA funds, and they have engaged a firm to relook at the service facilities fee as the last time was two decades ago.
Councilmember Fuller commented they are in a position where they could go beyond 130 units but not be constricted and in the process with the Downtown Specific Plan they could bring density down and transfer it into a building that would be more profitable on O’Hara.
Mr. McMurray mentioned they need to amend the Downtown Specific Plan if they will be increasing density. He commented that direction for staff was to bring a work session forth which staff held with the Planning Commission and will hold with the Council soon to provide analysis to give a starting point to explore. He mentioned the amount for a library in Oakley may be higher than in Bay Point but staff needs direction to determine that and to hire additional consultants to understand what they need and how to achieve it.
Councilmember Fuller inquired if there is an estimate how much it would cost to get a library in operation and to maintain it.
Mr. McMurray commented that they haven’t put pen to paper on the operations but something they cannot do right now is add hours to the current library because of it is constrained by size; a larger library allows them to expand hours. He asked Alison McKee to confirm that cost.
Ms. McKee mentioned there is a complex calculation to determine expansion of hours based on a variety of factors such as size of the facility, how many floors the facility has, etc., and the amount goes up every year.
Mayor Meadows inquired what Brentwood’s cost is for the current fiscal year.
Ms. McKee mentioned she doesn’t know offhand but they are paying for 12 extra hours at a cost of approximately $150-$200k. She indicated she can get exact costs and provide the information to Mr. McMurray tomorrow.
Councilmember Fuller inquired if it would be possible to bring in more services maybe with County support.
Mr. McMurray explained the library partners with other services that the County provides and East Contra Costa County lacks services so this could provide a framework to provide other services. He mentioned if they explore demolition of the Senior Center which is also used by the Veterans, they will need to have space. He mentioned this space could provide potential to partner with the County and other groups.
Councilmember Fuller inquired if the City doesn’t get financing for the regional park property if it could be declared surplus property and transfer proceeds of the sale of the regional park into the library.
Mr. McMurray indicated more research is needed, but he doesn’t believe it is deed restricted; however, they have a MOU stating how the property would be developed, but potentially there could be a path forward keeping in mind they would be required to go through proper disposal of that property.
Vice Mayor Williams commented that the plan works for her, she would like to push the limits of density, and it is a product needed and lacking in Oakley. She mentioned the location is great for grocery and transportation, so it makes sense. She inquired if the firm the City has engaged could begin searching for grants.
Mr. McMurray confirmed it can and state representation can also start looking at funding.
Vice Mayor Williams commented it is an aggressive timeline and she likes it. She inquired if they all agree today how long it would take to happen.
Mr. McMurray mentioned the request for proposals would be to bring on additional consultants and it could take several months of analysis to present to the Council. He mentioned if everything lines up, economics work, there is community support, and developers are on board (they have already expressed interest), staff could bring back more information this year. He mentioned he would stop there with commitment as this deserves a serious level of attention and if they are committing, he wants to make sure they can deliver.
Councilmember Shaw mentioned she is all for exploring density, but residents in the surrounding neighborhood may have a hard time swallowing putting it there without a library. She expressed she is not a fan of partial build if the housing goes in and there is no library.
Mayor Meadows commented at a high level, the City needs to determine what the facility needs are for City staff at build out. He mentioned he is in favor of housing on the O'Hara site and the library on this site. He questioned if the size is enough. He expressed he is in favor of increased density on that site and he would support a third floor of housing for 195 units which exceeds the 50-foot height limit which he would also support exceeding that height limit. He mentioned if they can add density, it adds more funds to what they can build and requires less out of any funding source from the City.
Councilmember Henderson agreed with comments made and suggested they move forward and get more detail.
Mayor Meadows commented that building housing there helps the City fund the library and it brings density to the Downtown to make it a viable Downtown where people can live, walk and patronize businesses.
Vice Mayor Williams concurred with Councilmember Shaw that she is not in favor of partial build. She indicated the library should occur before housing. She mentioned the presentation indicated even if they go up to 4 floors, they do not exceed density.
Mr. McMurray commented potentially and once they have an architect on board, they will have a better idea.
Vice Mayor Williams agreed with Mayor Meadows to regarding the size of the library; it needs to be as big as Brentwood’s and then add on Seniors and Veterans.
Councilmember Fuller agreed with everyone. He mentioned he sees no reason to constrict density on O’Hara, he likes option 3 and it provides 15,000 feet and room to expand out. He mentioned these will be small units which is important for the community to know that it meets 25% of affordable housing, the community will get equitable distribution of affordable housing, and there are no added taxes. He expressed concern regarding going to a bond for traffic funds for E. Cypress and they are getting thin with the regional park and library as they take maintenance and funds.
He mentioned the library is functional for everyone and he would rather see the money go into the library than other areas.
Mayor Meadows inquired how big of a building the Civic Center site could accommodate.
Mr. McMurray indicated it could accommodate 25,000 square feet the last time they looked.
Mr. Rohani added that is with 2 stories; a 3rd story would add square footage.
Mayor Meadows summarized that Council is supportive of a denser site at O’Hara and a library at the Civic Center site.
8) CLOSED SESSIONS
Mayor Meadows announced the closed session items.
8.1 CITY ATTORNEY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957
8.2 CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8
Property: 204 2nd Street, Oakley, CA, APN 035-132-002
Agency Negotiator: Joshua McMurray, City Manager
Negotiating Party: Juli Del Barba Favalora
Under Negotiation: Price and term of payment
9) ADJOURN
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m.
Respectively Submitted,
Libby Vreonis
City Clerk