Agenda packet — Oakley City Council, April 11, 2023 (part 2 of 2)

Legal History and Discussion
Following the denial, the Laurel Plaza property owner filed an action challenging the denials in Contra Costa Superior court. The City is defending this action, filed as a writ of mandate, and would be prepared to oppose the petition if it proceeds to a court hearing.

Often, parties in litigation attempt to avoid court resolutions through settlement negotiations. In this case, City Staff, the City Attorney, and legal counsel engaged in informal settlement discussions with representatives for the property owner. As part of those discussions, the property owner identified it would accept additional modifications to the McDonald’s and Quick Quack project if the City were to reverse its denials of both projects. Those modifications are described within the section below titled “Additional Modifications.”
For the purpose of resolving the property owner’s lawsuit, this application is returning to provide the City Council an opportunity to further consider the project, as modified. The parties in this lawsuit have both reserved all their rights, claims, and defenses, and if the Council declines to approve the project, the litigation would resume and proceed to court resolution.

Importantly, the City Council is not required to approve the project. In considering the modified project, the Council must decide the matters based on the evidence received during the public hearings. A memorandum regarding the “substantial evidence” necessary to sustain the Council’s decision, prepared by the City Attorney, is included as an attachment to this Staff Report. As that memorandum details, if the Council chooses to approve the project, it must find that the evidence supports each of the findings required for approval of conditional use permits.

Additional Modifications
The applicant has agreed to make additional modifications to the project as it was proposed and conditioned at the February 22, 2022 public hearing. Prior to the resolution for denial, a resolution was presented to the City Council to accompany a Staff recommendation of approval of the project, as conditioned. All of those conditions are included as conditions of approval for the currently proposed resolution, and the applicant had agreed to implement all of the conditions. One of those conditions was to provide additional lighting, visibility, and warning signage where the pedestrian access crosses the drive-through aisle between Laurel Road and the building.

Off-Site Pedestrian Enhancements
The supplement traffic analysis for Laurel Plaza identified several pedestrian enhancement recommendations for the intersection of the project driveway entrance/Laurel Road/Mercedes Lane. These recommendations were not necessarily 184
Subject: McDonald’s Drive-Through Restaurant at Laurel Plaza Date: April 11, 2023

Page 3 of 7 ends

impacts associated with the proposed use, rather recommendations to enhance pedestrian safety due to observations of Laurel Plaza being used as a drop-off/pick-up area for students resulting in additional pedestrian traffic across Laurel Road. The traffic analysis also identified other recommendations directly tied to the McDonald’s project, which were integrated into the project plans presented on February 22, 2022 and again for this consideration. In addition to the changes to the plans, McDonald’s offered to implement the off-site pedestrian enhancements as part of the Community Benefit Program, which is a voluntary action by a developer that does not factor into Staff’s recommendation on the project.

As part of the informal settlement discussions, the property owner has agreed to install the recommended pedestrian enhancement improvements, and McDonald’s has agreed to have them be a condition of approval for their project. The off-site pedestrian enhancement include the following improvements:
 Install high-visibility crosswalks with advanced stop bars for all crosswalks at the intersection of Laurel Road & Mercedes Lane.
 Modify the signal phasing to include leading pedestrian intervals at the Laurel Road/Mercedes Lane intersection to improve pedestrian visibility and reduce conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles.
 Install blank out “No Turn on Red” signage to increase pedestrian safety for the eastbound and southbound approaches at the Laurel Road/Mercedes Lane intersection. The blank out signs should be operational during school pick-up and drop-off hours.

For the last bullet, Staff notes that the recommended signage already exists for eastbound traffic. The condition will only require the signage be installed for the southbound approach.

Analysis
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.
185
Subject: McDonald’s Drive-Through Restaurant at Laurel Plaza Date: April 11, 2023

Page 4 of 7 ends

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.

In the denial resolution, the City Council was not required to make findings of denial but did indicate it was unable to make Findings #3 and 4 because the project would not be consistent with the character of, and would adversely affect the quiet enjoyment of, the surrounding and developed residential uses in the vicinity of the property.

When considering the information and analysis provided for the project to date, including the various modifications to the project site plan and architecture leading to the February 22, 2022 public hearing, the additional modifications described above, and the City Attorney’s attached memo, the proposed project, as conditioned, meets the required findings for approval of a conditional use permit. The below findings of approval are also included in the proposed resolution.

1. That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use and all yards, spaces, walls and fences, parking, loading, landscaping and other features required by this title to adapt the use with land and uses in the neighborhood, in that all applicable development standards for the RB District are met and the drive-through aisle is able to queue up to 12 automobiles, which is the industry standard for similar uses;

2. That the site for the proposed use relates to streets and highways adequate in width and pavement type to carry the quantity and kind of traffic generated by the proposed use, in that the site is accessed from Laurel Road, the City’s highest 186
Subject: McDonald’s Drive-Through Restaurant at Laurel Plaza Date: April 11, 2023

Page 5 of 7 ends

traveled arterial street, which will eventually serve this entire intersection of commercial development;

3. The proposed use will be arranged, designed, constructed, operated and maintained so as to be compatible with the intended character of the area and shall not change the essential character of the area from that intended by the General Plan and the applicable zoning ordinances, in that the General Plan intended the area for commercial uses, and the zoning ordinance allows drivethroughs with approval of a CUP, and the applicant has taken input from the public, City Council and Staff on project design up to the most recent set of plans, and has agreed to install off-site pedestrian enhancement improvements for the public benefit;

4. That the proposed use provides for the continued growth and orderly development of the community and is consistent with the various elements and objectives of the General Plan, in that it is consistent with the Land Use Element by creating a new commercial use in a commercial designation that is compatible with the applicable zoning district on the same site, as conditioned in this resolution; and

Design Review
Since the Conditional Use Permit was denied the Design Review became a moot application; however, Staff did recommend approval of the Design Review and included findings in the February 22, 2022 proposed resolution. The modification to install offsite pedestrian enhancement improvements not negatively affect the Design Review. The below findings of approval are also included in the proposed resolution:

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: 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; 187
Subject: McDonald’s Drive-Through Restaurant at Laurel Plaza Date: April 11, 2023

Page 6 of 7 ends

2. Architecture, including massing and grouping; facades, entries and roofs; materials and colors; and screening of trash, loading and service areas, and mechanical equipment: 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;

3. Landscaping and site elements, including general landscape areas; entry and plaza enhancements; parking lot landscaping; walls and fences; and lighting:

The site is adequately landscaped, including the addition of trees for aesthetics and parking lot shade, and a screen wall to soften the appearance of cars queued in the drive-through. Lighting is sufficient, and as conditioned, will provide additional pedestrian safety; and

4. Streetscapes, including major community entries; highlighted intersections; and district entries: 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, “McDonald’s DriveThrough Quick Serve Restaurant at Laurel Plaza Conditional Use Permit (CUP 03-20) and Design Review (DR 09-20),” as conditioned.

Attachments

1. Vicinity Map

2. Notice of Public Hearing

3. City Attorney’s Supplemental Memorandum

4. Applicant’s Plans

5. Staff Report from April 27, 2021 (Without Attachments)

6. Minutes from April 27, 2021 (Applicable to Item Only)

7. Staff Report from May 25, 2021 City Council Meeting (Without Attachments)

8. Minutes from May 25, 2021 City Council Meeting (Applicable to Item Only)

9. Staff Report from February 22, 2022 City Council Meeting (Without Attachments)

10.Minutes from February 22, 2022 City Council Meeting (Applicable to Item Only) 188
Subject: McDonald’s Drive-Through Restaurant at Laurel Plaza Date: April 11, 2023

Page 7 of 7 ends

11.City Council Resolution No. 25-22 (Denial Resolution from March 22, 2022)

12.Proposed Resolution
Available Online or by Contacting the City of Oakley

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/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Laurel-PlazaSupplemental-Traffic-Operations-Analysis-Assessment_2022-01-07.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.
189
Vicinity Map
McDonald’s Drive-Through Quick Serve Restaurant at Laurel Plaza Conditional Use Permit (CUP 03-20) and Design Review (DR 09-20)
APN: 035-510-006
190
City of Oakley
3231 Main Street
Oakley, CA 94561
www.oakleyinfo.com

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given that on April 11, 2023 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: McDonald’s Drive-Through Quick Serve Restaurant at Laurel Plaza Conditional Use Permit (CUP 03-20) and Design Review (DR 09-20).

Project Location: North of Laurel Rd. within the Laurel Plaza Shopping Center. APN 035-510-006.

Oakley, CA 94561.

Applicant: Core States Group (Zach Michels), 6500 Chippewa St., Ste. 200, St. Louis, MO 63109. [email protected].

Request: This is a public hearing on an application by Core States Group (“Applicant”) requesting Design Review (DR 09-20) approval to develop an approximately 1.7-acre parcel within the Laurel Plaza Shopping Center with a new 4,365 sf. quick serve restaurant with dine-in and drive-through service. Applicant also requests approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP 03-20) to operate the drive-through service use (“Project”). The project site consists of an existing parcel fronting on Laurel Road and within the Laurel Plaza Shopping Center, which is located on the northwest corner of Laurel Road and O’Hara Avenue. The site is zoned RB (Retail Business) District. APN 035-510-006.

How to Review: The Staff Report and its attachments will be available for public review, on or before April 5, 2023 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 11, 2023 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 Ken Strelo, Planning Manager 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. 191

MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 11, 2023
TO: Joshua McMurray, City Manager
FROM: Derek P. Cole, City Attorney
SUBJECT: Memorandum Supplementing Agenda Item:

McDonalds and Quick Quack Applications
This memorandum is intended to supplement the Staff Report for the McDonald’s and Quick Quack conditional use permit applications. In this memorandum, I write to describe some basic legal concepts related to the City Council’s discretion and decision-making in these matters.

Quasi-Judicial versus Quasi-Legislative Actions
At the outset, I note that the Council will be acting in its “quasi-judicial” capacity.

Essentially, the Council will be acting like a judge in considering evidence in the light of applicable law. The Council must determine whether the project applicants have submitted “substantial evidence” to allow the Council to make the findings for issuance of a conditional use permit (“CUP”).

This type of decision is different than a decision made in the Council’s “quasi-legislative” capacity, in which the Council establishes (rather than applies) land-use policies and regulations. In “quasi-legislative” matters, because the Council is acting like a legislature, the scope of its decision-making is broad and minimally limited.

The same is not true of a “quasi-judicial” matter. In this type of matter, the Council is not creating or amending policies; it is instead applying those policies that it (and its predecessor councils) has established in documents such as the City General Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
192
Subject: Memorandum Supplementing Agenda Item: McDonalds and Quick Quack Applications April 11, 2023
Substantial Evidence Versus Speculation
In quasi-judicial land use matters, applications are usually subjected to a “substantial evidence” standard. California courts have described “substantial evidence” as evidence that is “reasonable, credible, and of solid value.” Courts have stated that personal observations may equate to substantial evidence in non-technical matters. But when technical matters are involved, courts generally uphold decisions backed by expert and professional opinions.

Courts have also made clear that speculation is not substantial evidence. This is true of speculation given by laypersons as well as experts. Courts have described speculation as including “conjecture,” “unsupported opinion,” and argumentative statements.

In sum, while the Council has a duty to receive all comments provided during a public hearing, it cannot rely on speculative comments to support a decision for or against a project.
193
1 A 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 BCDEFGHI DOCUMENTS PREPARED BY CORESTATES, INC., INCLUDING THIS DOCUMENT, ARE TO BE USED ONLY FOR THE SPECIFIC PROJECT AND SPECIFIC USE FOR WHICH THEY WERE INTENDED. ANY EXTENSION OF USE TO ANY OTHER PROJECTS, BY OWNER OR BY ANY OTHER PARTY, WITHOUT THE EXPRESSED WRITTEN CONSENT OF CORESTATES, INC. IS DONE UNLAWFULLY AND AT THE USERS OWN RISK. IF USED IN A WAY OTHER THAN THAT SPECIFICALLY INTENDED, USER WILL HOLD CORESTATES, INC. HARMLESS FROM ALL CLAIMS AND LOSSES. User: ZMICHELS Plot Date/Time: Feb. 08, 22 - 13:16:42 Drawing: P:\McDonalds\Proto\Oakley, CA (Laurel and Mercedes) 004-5010 -MCD.26879\CIVIL\Drawings\Presentation\MCD.26879-P-SITE.dwg ;C1 COVER SHEET SITE LOCATION ENGINEER SEAL 4240 Jurupa Street Suite 402
Ontario, CA 91761
Phone (909) 467-8940
Fax (909) 467-8919
[email protected] DOCUMENT REVISIONS REV DATE COMMENT BY CLIENT CHECKED BY: SHEET NO. JOB #: SCALE: DRAWN BY: DATE: SHEET TITLE THE CONTRACTOR IS SPECIFICALLY CAUTIONED THAT THE LOCATION AND/OR ELEVATION OF EXISTING UTILITIES AS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS IS BASED ON DESIGN DRAWINGS, RECORDS OF THE VARIOUS UTILITY COMPANIES, AND WHERE POSSIBLE, MEASUREMENTS TAKEN IN THE FIELD. CORE STATES, INC. DOES NOT GUARANTEE THAT LOCATIONS SHOWN ARE EXACT. THE CONTRACTOR MUST CONTACT THE APPROPRIATE UTILITY COMPANIES AT LEAST 72 HOURS BEFORE ANY EXCAVATION TO REQUEST EXACT FIELD LOCATIONS OF UTILITIES. Call before you dig. Know what'sbelow. CIVIL CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR MCDONALDS AT OAKLEY, CA LAUREL RD, OAKLEY, CA 94561 (004-5010) MCD.26879 2/8/22 KC McDonald's USA, LLC R ZM COVER SHEET C1 N.T.S. McDONALD'S - STORE No. 004-5010 LAUREL ROAD, OAKLEY, CA 94561 CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR ALERT TO CONTRACTOR: 1. THE SITE WORK FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SHALL MEET OR EXCEED ALL CITY AND/OR COUNTY AND STATE STANDARDS FOR SITE WORK. 2. ALL NECESSARY INSPECTIONS AND/OR CERTIFICATIONS REQUIRED BY CODES AND/OR UTILITY SERVICE COMPANIES SHALL BE PERFORMED PRIOR TO ANNOUNCED BUILDING POSSESSION AND THE FINAL CONNECTION OF SERVICES. McDonald's Corporation SHEET INDEX SHEET SHEET TITLE PREPARED BY REVISION C1 COVER SHEET CORE STATES C5 SITE PLAN CORE STATES C6 TRUCK PLAN CORE STATES C7 LANDSCAPE PLAN CORE STATES LP1 ELEVATIONS EVERGREEN DESIGN - ELEVATIONS SECURITY LIGHTING CORE STATES LINE OF SITE DIAGRAM A2.1 2D COLOR RENDERING CORE STATES CORE STATES DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT CONTACTS: DEVELOPER McDONALD'S USA, LLC 2999 OAK ROAD WALNUT CREEK, CA 94597 CONTACT: DREW SANCHEZ (650) 350-9471 CIVIL ENGINEER CORE STATES GROUP 4240 EAST JURUPA STREET, SUITE 402 ONTARIO, CA 91761 CONTACT: TRAVIS VINCENT (909) 467-8940 ARCHITECT CORE STATES GROUP 4240 EAST JURUPA STREET, SUITE 402 ONTARIO, CA 91767 CONTACT: MIKE YAO (909) 467-8937 SURVEYOR PLBA, INC. 981 CORPORATE CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 150 POMONA, CA 91768 CONTACT: CARLOS UREÑA 888-714-9642 EXT. 4001 GOVERNING AGENCIES CONTACTS: PLANNING SERVICES PLANNING DIVISION 3231 MAIN ST. OAKLEY, CA 94561 (925) 625-7000 BUILDING AND SAFETY BUILDING DIVISION 3231 MAIN ST. OAKLEY, CA 94561 (925) 625-7005 GRADING PLAN -- PHOTOMETRIC PLAN A2.0 CORE STATES McDONALD'S DRIVE-THROUGH QUICK SERVE RESTAURANT AT LAUREL PLAZA (CUP 03-20, DR 09-20) VICINITY MAP SITE - LINE OF SITE DIAGRAM CORE STATES City of Oakley FEB 8, 2022 RECEIVED 194
DRIVE
THRU

NO PARKING
THANK
YOU
DRIVE

THRU DRIVE
THRU

THRU DRIVE NO PARKING
115' 42.33' 28.17' 11.83'
F
R20.5'
R5'
R20'
R4'
R4'
R4'
R1.5'
R1.5'
R3'
R3'
R3'
R1.5'
R1.5' 19' 24' 19'
9'
9' 19'
9'
19' 19' 24' 9' 5' 9' 8' 9'
19' 9' 32'

5.5'

53.29' 57.71'
149.52' 144.44'

6.5'
12'
10'
R37.5'
R32.5'
R20.5'
R32.5'
R4'R4'
5'
R20'
B
Q
B
B 24' 24' 19'
9'
9' 19'
C
C
C
C
D
D
E
X
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
N
F
G
G
G 7' 7'
H
H
H
I
I
I
K
L
L
L
M
O
L M
L
G
G
P
P
P P
P
H
B
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q

24.5'
R
F G
G
H
19'
Q 9' 9'
19' 22.66' 9'
19' 24.2' 9'
19' 24.12'
E E
E E
E
E
VU
T
S
S
S
S
S 96.79'

45.13'
W
W AB
X
X

X AB AB ABAB
R4'
R4'
R3'
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
J
J 5'
R30' R25.5'
Z PROPOSED BUILDING FF=58.40 S5 S6
9' AA 10.76'

18.8' 22'
A
8' 10' 35 367 AC AC AC AC AD AE AD 9'
K
R87.98' S8 AF
Q
DRIVE
THRU DRIVE 35°'
THRU
50°' 25°' 35°'
15' S3 S3 S2 S2 S7 S7 S1 S1
B
B
B
J
J
C
C
L
L
M
M
N
6'
12'

5.75'
14'
15'
1'
10'
12'

5.75'
R4'
R32.5'
R32.5'
R1.5'
R1.5' S4
1 A
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I DOCUMENTS PREPARED BY CORESTATES, INC., INCLUDING THIS DOCUMENT, ARE TO BE USED ONLY FOR THE SPECIFIC PROJECT AND SPECIFIC USE FOR WHICH THEY WERE INTENDED. ANY EXTENSION OF USE TO ANY OTHER PROJECTS, BY OWNER OR BY ANY OTHER PARTY, WITHOUT THE EXPRESSED WRITTEN CONSENT OF CORESTATES, INC. IS DONE UNLAWFULLY AND AT THE USERS OWN RISK. IF USED IN A WAY OTHER THAN THAT SPECIFICALLY INTENDED, USER WILL HOLD CORESTATES, INC. HARMLESS FROM ALL CLAIMS AND LOSSES. User: KCARTER Plot Date/Time: Feb. 08, 22 - 11:23:20 Drawing: \\core-eng.com\panzura\Project Data\PROJECTS\McDonalds\Proto\Oakley, CA (Laurel and Mercedes) 004-5010 -MCD.26879\CIVIL\Drawings\Presentation\MCD.26879-P-SITE.dwg ;C5 SITE PLAN SITE LOCATION ENGINEER SEAL 4240 Jurupa Street Suite 402
Ontario, CA 91761
Phone (909) 467-8940
Fax (909) 467-8919
[email protected] DOCUMENT REVISIONS REV DATE COMMENT BY CLIENT CHECKED BY: SHEET NO. JOB #: SCALE: DRAWN BY: DATE: SHEET TITLE THE CONTRACTOR IS SPECIFICALLY CAUTIONED THAT THE LOCATION AND/OR ELEVATION OF EXISTING UTILITIES AS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS IS BASED ON DESIGN DRAWINGS, RECORDS OF THE VARIOUS UTILITY COMPANIES, AND WHERE POSSIBLE, MEASUREMENTS TAKEN IN THE FIELD. CORE STATES, INC. DOES NOT GUARANTEE THAT LOCATIONS SHOWN ARE EXACT. THE CONTRACTOR MUST CONTACT THE APPROPRIATE UTILITY COMPANIES AT LEAST 72 HOURS BEFORE ANY EXCAVATION TO REQUEST EXACT FIELD LOCATIONS OF UTILITIES. Call before you dig. Know what'sbelow. CIVIL CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR MCDONALDS AT OAKLEY, CA LAUREL RD, OAKLEY, CA 94561 (004-5010) MCD.26879 2/8/22 KC McDonald's USA, LLC R ZM 1" = 20' 20 10 5 0 20 GRAPHIC SCALE SITE KEY NOTES: ENLARGED DRIVE-THRU SCALE: 1"=10' SEE ENLARGED DRIVE-THRU INSET. THIS SHEET. SITE PLAN C5 1" = 20' DIGITAL OUTDOOR MENU BOARD. REFER TO SHEET CD-1 FOR FOUNDATION DETAIL. WELCOME POINT GATEWAY (FOR REFERENCE ONLY) "ANY LANE ANY TIME" SIGN (FOR REFERENCE ONLY) SIGNAGE NOTES: 1. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, REFER TO SIGN PLAN SET BY OTHERS FOR DETAILS AND FOOTINGS. 2. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL ELECTRICAL AND COMMUNICATION CONDUIT AND WIRING PER THE MANUFACTURES SPECIFICATIONS. 3. VERIFY SIGNAGE WITH SIGN ORDER REQUEST FORM. 4. VERIFY ALL SIGNAGE LOCATIONS WITH McDONALD'S REPRESENTATIVE BEFORE INSTALLATION. DRIVE-THRU CANOPY WITH BUILT IN COD (FOR REFERENCE ONLY) SIGN LEGEND S5 DIRECTIONAL SIGN (FOR REFERENCE ONLY) S6 PULL FORWARD SIGN (FOR REFERENCE ONLY) S7 DIGITAL PRE-BROWSE BOARD. REFER TO SHEET CD-1 FOR FOUNDATION DETAIL. S1S2S3S4S8 MOBILE ORDER PICKUP SIGNS (FOR REFERENCE ONLY) WV

H Y D SITE LEGEND EXISTING PROPERTY BOUNDARY LINE EXISTING ROAD CENTERLINE PROPOSED DITCH CENTERLINE PROPOSED LIMITS OF BMP / DETENTION EXISTING CURB PROPOSED CURB PROPOSED CONCRETE SIDEWALK PROPOSED ASPHALT PAVEMENT EXISTING CURB AND GUTTER PROPOSED CURB AND GUTTER PROPOSED CONCRETE PAVEMENT PROPOSED LANDSCAPE AREA EXISTING SANITARY STRUCTURES MB PROPOSED RIP RAP EXISTING WATER STRUCTURES PROPOSED WATER STRUCTURES PROPOSED SANITARY STRUCTURES PROPOSED STORM STRUCTURES X PROPOSED PARKING COUNT A. PROPOSED MCDONALDS 4,597 BUILDING. REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR DETAILS. B. PROPOSED CONCRETE CURB PER CITY STANDARD PLAN NO. C-02. C. PROPOSED CONCRETE PAD. REFER TO CONSTRUCTION DETAIL SHEETS. D. PROPOSED ACCESSIBLE PARKING STRIPING. MUST BE LONG LIFE EPOXY. REFER TO CONSTRUCTION DETAIL SHEETS. E. PROPOSED PARKING STRIPING (TYP.). MUST BE LONG LIFE EPOXY. REFER TO CONSTRUCTION DETAIL SHEETS. F. PROPOSED RAISE PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALK. REFER TO CONSTRUCTION DETAIL SHEETS. G. PROPOSED ACCESSIBLE CURB RAMP WITH 3' DEEP DETECTABLE WARNING. REFER TO CONSTRUCTION DETAIL SHEETS. H. PROPOSED CONCRETE SIDEWALK. REFER TO CONSTRUCTION DETAIL SHEETS. I. PROPOSED ASPHALT PAVEMENT. REFER TO CONSTRUCTION DETAIL SHEETS. J. PROPOSED DETECTOR LOOP(S) TO BE INSTALLED / REPLACED AT EXISTING DRIVE THRU WINDOWS AS DIRECTED BY MCDONALD’S CONSTRUCTION MANAGER. REFER TO CONSTRUCTION DETAIL SHEETS. K. PROPOSED GUARDRAIL/HANDRAIL WITH PICKETS. REFER TO CONSTRUCTION DETAIL SHEETS. L. PROPOSED YELLOW DRIVE-THRU DIRECTION PAVEMENT MARKINGS. REFER TO CONSTRUCTION DETAIL SHEETS. M. PROPOSED YELLOW "DRIVE THRU" PAVEMENT MARKINGS. REFER TO CONSTRUCTION DETAIL SHEETS. N. PROPOSED 6" WIDE YELLOW STRIPE. REFER TO CONSTRUCTION DETAIL SHEETS. O. PROPOSED YELLOW "THANK YOU" PAVEMENT PARKING. REFER TO CONSTRUCTION DETAIL SHEETS. P. PROPOSED TRAFFIC FLOW ARROWS. REFER TO CONSTRUCTION DETAIL SHEETS. Q. PROPOSED LANDSCAPE AREA PER LANDSCAPE PLANS. R. PROPOSED TRASH ENCLOSURE. REFER TO SHEETS FD1 AND FD2. S. PROPOSED DEPRESSED CURB SECTION. REFER TO CONSTRUCTION DETAIL SHEETS. T. PROPOSED TYPE III LANDSCAPE INLET PER CITY ST. PLAN NO. SD-10. U. PROPOSED MITERED END SECTION PIPE CUT GROUTED WITH RIP RAP. V. PROPOSED RIP RAP PROTECTIVE APRON. REFER TO CONSTRUCTION DETAIL SHEETS. W. PROPOSED SCREENING WALL. REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR DETAILS. X. PROPOSED BIKE RACKS. REFER TO CONSTRUCTION DETAIL SHEETS. Y. EXISTING LANDSCAPE PLANTER TO REMAIN. Z. APPLY SEAL COAT TO EXISTING ASPHALT. PAVEMENT TO REMAIN. AA. PROPOSED THREE-FOOT WIDE CONCRETE V-GUTTER PER CITY STANDARD PLAN NO. SD-02. AB. PROPOSED LIGHT POLE. REFER FOR SHEET CD-2 FOR FOUNDATION DETAILS AND PHOTOMETRIC PLAN FOR LIGHT FIXTURE HEAD DETAILS. AC. PROPOSED PARKING STALL ASPHALT PAVEMENT. REFER TO CONSTRUCTION DETAIL SHEETS. AD. PROPOSED ADA SIGN, "MINIMUM FINE $250" SIGN, AND POST. REFER TO CONSTRUCTION DETAIL SHEETS. AE. PROPOSED ADA SIGN, "VAN ACCESSIBLE" & "MINIMUM FINE $250" SIGN. REFER TO CONSTRUCTION DETAIL SHEETS. AF. PROPOSED DELIVERY RAMP. 195
DRIVE
THRU

NO PARKING
THANK
YOU
DRIVE

THRU DRIVE
THRU

THRU DRIVE NO PARKING F
F
F
F PROPOSED BUILDING FF=58.40
1 A
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I DOCUMENTS PREPARED BY CORESTATES, INC., INCLUDING THIS DOCUMENT, ARE TO BE USED ONLY FOR THE SPECIFIC PROJECT AND SPECIFIC USE FOR WHICH THEY WERE INTENDED. ANY EXTENSION OF USE TO ANY OTHER PROJECTS, BY OWNER OR BY ANY OTHER PARTY, WITHOUT THE EXPRESSED WRITTEN CONSENT OF CORESTATES, INC. IS DONE UNLAWFULLY AND AT THE USERS OWN RISK. IF USED IN A WAY OTHER THAN THAT SPECIFICALLY INTENDED, USER WILL HOLD CORESTATES, INC. HARMLESS FROM ALL CLAIMS AND LOSSES. User: KCARTER Plot Date/Time: Feb. 08, 22 - 11:26:41 Drawing: \\core-eng.com\panzura\Project Data\PROJECTS\McDonalds\Proto\Oakley, CA (Laurel and Mercedes) 004-5010 -MCD.26879\CIVIL\Drawings\Presentation\MCD.26879-P-SITE.dwg ;C6 TRUCK PLAN SITE LOCATION ENGINEER SEAL 4240 Jurupa Street Suite 402
Ontario, CA 91761
Phone (909) 467-8940
Fax (909) 467-8919
[email protected] DOCUMENT REVISIONS REV DATE COMMENT BY CLIENT CHECKED BY: SHEET NO. JOB #: SCALE: DRAWN BY: DATE: SHEET TITLE THE CONTRACTOR IS SPECIFICALLY CAUTIONED THAT THE LOCATION AND/OR ELEVATION OF EXISTING UTILITIES AS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS IS BASED ON DESIGN DRAWINGS, RECORDS OF THE VARIOUS UTILITY COMPANIES, AND WHERE POSSIBLE, MEASUREMENTS TAKEN IN THE FIELD. CORE STATES, INC. DOES NOT GUARANTEE THAT LOCATIONS SHOWN ARE EXACT. THE CONTRACTOR MUST CONTACT THE APPROPRIATE UTILITY COMPANIES AT LEAST 72 HOURS BEFORE ANY EXCAVATION TO REQUEST EXACT FIELD LOCATIONS OF UTILITIES. Call before you dig. Know what'sbelow. CIVIL CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR MCDONALDS AT OAKLEY, CA LAUREL RD, OAKLEY, CA 94561 (004-5010) MCD.26879 2/8/22 KC McDonald's USA, LLC R ZM 1" = 20' 20 10 5 0 20 GRAPHIC SCALE PROPOSED SAWCUT LINE EXISTING PROPERTY BOUNDARY LINE EXISTING ROAD CENTERLINE EXISTING ADJOINING PROPERTY LINE EXISTING CURB SITE LEGEND PROPOSED CURB PROPOSED MOUNTABLE CURB EXISTING SANITARY STRUCTURES PROPOSED ROAD CENTERLINE PROPOSED ASPHALT PROPOSED CONCRETE PROPOSED DITCH CENTERLINE PROPOSED LIMITS OF BMP / DETENTION WV

H Y D EXISTING WATER STRUCTURES PROPOSED PARKING COUNT PROPOSED BUILDING X BOUNDARY & TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY APN: 035-510-006, LOT 5 OAKLEY CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA PREPARED BY: ZIEBATECH LAND SURVEYING DATED: 02/27/2020 TRUCK PLAN C6 1" = 20' 33 17.8 Max 46° Horiz Max 10° Vert 23.5 4 2.5
3 12.5 WB-40 - Intermediate Semi-Trailer Overall Length 45.499ft Overall Width 8.000ft Overall Body Height 13.500ft Min Body Ground Clearance 1.334ft Track Width 8.000ft Lock-to-lock time 4.00s Max Steering Angle (Virtual) 20.30° 196
STM
STM
STM
STM
STM
DRIVE
THRU

NO PARKING

THANK YOU

DRIVE THRU

THRU DRIVE NO PARKING E E E E E E E E E E E E E E
STM STM G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G F F F F F F F F F E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E W W W W S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S E E E E E E E E E E E E E S S S S S S S S 58 57 58 58 58 57 58 57 58 58 RIM 57.95 RIM 56.60RIM 56.61 PROPOSED BUILDING FF=58.40 58 57 57 58 58 58 FS-TC 58.08 FS-TC 56.96 TC 58.29 FS 57.79 (FS 58.35) (FS 58.29) TC 58.35 FS 57.85 TC 57.73 (FS 57.23) TC 58.07 FS 57.57 FS 58.40 FS-TC 56.96 TC 58.05 (FS 57.55) TC 58.12 (FS 57.62) FS-TC 58.07 FS-TC 58.15 FS 58.40 FS 58.40FS 58.40 FS 58.40 FS 58.40 TC 58.35 FS 57.85 TC 58.31 FS 57.81 FS 58.35 FS 58.37 FS 58.35 FS 58.37 FS 58.35 TC 57.41 (FS 56.91) TC 57.35 (FS 56.85) FS-TC 56.81 (FS-TC 56.83) FS 58.39 TC 58.44 FS 57.94 TC 58.08 FS 57.58 TC 58.00 FS 57.50 TC 58.30 FS 57.80 TC 58.54 FS 58.04 TC 58.15 FS 57.65 TC 58.09 FS 57.59 FS-TC 57.63 FS-TC 57.61 TC 57.94 FS 57.44 TC 57.85 FS 57.35 TC 58.47 FS 57.97 TC 57.71 FS 57.21 FS-TC 58.35 (TC 57.67) (FS 57.17) TC 57.76 (FS 57.26) TC 57.19 (FS 56.69) TC 57.07 (FS 56.57) TC 57.09 (FS 56.59) TC 57.59 FS 57.09 FS 58.40 TC 58.60 FS 58.10 FS 57.71 FS 57.74 FS 57.71 FS 57.71FL-TC 57.35 FS-TC 57.37 (FS-TC 56.76) (FS-TC 56.77) TC 57.49 FS 56.99 TC 57.49 FS 56.99 (FS 56.72) TC 58.35 FS 57.85 FS 58.40 TC 58.35 FS 57.85 TC 57.76 (FS 57.26) TC 57.81 (FS 57.31) FS-TC 58.00 FS-TC 58.35 TC 58.39 FS 57.89 TC 58.40 FS 58.07 TC 57.53 FS 57.03 TC 57.58 FS 57.08 FS-TC 57.07 FS-TC 57.02 FS 57.14 FS-TC 57.58 FS-TC 57.56 TC 58.35 FS 57.85TC 57.92 FS 57.42 TC 57.60 FL 57.10 TC 57.90 FS 57.40 TC 58.12 FS 57.62 TC 57.86 FS 57.36 TC 57.75 FS 57.25 TC 57.60 FS 57.10 TC 57.47 FS 56.97 TC 57.21 FS 56.71 TC 57.18 FS 56.68 TC 57.12 (FS 56.62) FS 57.11 FS 56.86 FS 56.88 FS 56.80 FS 56.82 (FS 56.48) (FS 56.50) TC 57.09 (FS 56.59) TC 57.16 FS 56.66 TC 57.22 FS 56.72 TC 57.12 (FS 56.62) (FS 57.00) RIM 58.35 RIM 57.23 RIM 56.56 RIM 58.19 TC 57.66 FS 57.16 FS 57.75 RIM 58.22 RIM 58.29 RIM 57.67 RIM 57.88 RIM 58.29 TC 58.05 FS 57.55 TC 58.26 FS 57.76 TC 57.94 FS 57.44 (FS 56.51) (FS 56.53) TC 57.22 (FS 56.72) TC 57.23 FS 56.73 TC 57.27 FS 56.77 TC 57.44 FS 56.94 TC 57.59 FS 57.09 TC 57.48 FS 56.98 TC 57.89 FS 57.39 TC 57.97 FS 57.47 FS-TC 58.00 TC 57.63 FS 57.13 TC 58.17 FS 57.67 TC 58.08 FS 57.58 TC 58.33 FS 57.83 TC 58.43 FS 57.93 TC 58.14 FS 57.64 TC 58.05 FS 57.55 TC 57.85 FS 57.35 TC 58.52 FS 58.02 TC 57.91 FS 57.41 TC 57.83 (FS 57.33) TC 58.40 FS 58.07 FS 58.40 FS 58.40 TC 57.33 FS 56.83 TC 58.14 FS 57.64 TC 58.09 FS 57.59 TC 58.06 FS 57.56 TC 58.15 FS 57.65 TC 58.24 FS 57.74 TC 58.33 FS 57.83 FS 57.13 TC 58.01 FS 57.51 FS 56.86 FS 56.86 FS 56.80 FS 56.72 FS 56.72 FS 56.80 TC 58.39 FS 57.89 FS 57.74 TC 58.39 TC 58.40 FS 57.90 TC 58.27 FS 57.77 FS 57.72FS 57.72 FS 57.68 FS 57.68 FS 58.40 FS 57.54 TC 58.25 FS 57.75 TC 58.31 FS 57.81 FS 57.97 FS 57.97FS 57.95 (FS 57.11) TC 58.58 FS 58.08 TC 58.61 FS 58.11 TC 58.35 FS 57.85 TC 58.40 FS 57.90 TC 57.48 FS 56.98 TC 57.69 FS 57.19 FS 57.85 FS-TC 57.81 1 A 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 BCDEFGHI DOCUMENTS PREPARED BY CORESTATES, INC., INCLUDING THIS DOCUMENT, ARE TO BE USED ONLY FOR THE SPECIFIC PROJECT AND SPECIFIC USE FOR WHICH THEY WERE INTENDED. ANY EXTENSION OF USE TO ANY OTHER PROJECTS, BY OWNER OR BY ANY OTHER PARTY, WITHOUT THE EXPRESSED WRITTEN CONSENT OF CORESTATES, INC. IS DONE UNLAWFULLY AND AT THE USERS OWN RISK. IF USED IN A WAY OTHER THAN THAT SPECIFICALLY INTENDED, USER WILL HOLD CORESTATES, INC. HARMLESS FROM ALL CLAIMS AND LOSSES. User: KCARTER Plot Date/Time: Feb. 08, 22 - 11:10:25 Drawing: \\core-eng.com\panzura\Project Data\PROJECTS\McDonalds\Proto\Oakley, CA (Laurel and Mercedes) 004-5010 -MCD.26879\CIVIL\Drawings\Presentation\MCD.26879-P-SITE.dwg ;C7 GRADING PLAN SITE LOCATION ENGINEER SEAL 4240 Jurupa Street Suite 402
Ontario, CA 91761
Phone (909) 467-8940
Fax (909) 467-8919
[email protected] DOCUMENT REVISIONS REV DATE COMMENT BY CLIENT CHECKED BY: SHEET NO. JOB #: SCALE: DRAWN BY: DATE: SHEET TITLE THE CONTRACTOR IS SPECIFICALLY CAUTIONED THAT THE LOCATION AND/OR ELEVATION OF EXISTING UTILITIES AS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS IS BASED ON DESIGN DRAWINGS, RECORDS OF THE VARIOUS UTILITY COMPANIES, AND WHERE POSSIBLE, MEASUREMENTS TAKEN IN THE FIELD. CORE STATES, INC. DOES NOT GUARANTEE THAT LOCATIONS SHOWN ARE EXACT. THE CONTRACTOR MUST CONTACT THE APPROPRIATE UTILITY COMPANIES AT LEAST 72 HOURS BEFORE ANY EXCAVATION TO REQUEST EXACT FIELD LOCATIONS OF UTILITIES. Call before you dig. Know what'sbelow. CIVIL CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR MCDONALDS AT OAKLEY, CA LAUREL RD, OAKLEY, CA 94561 (004-5010) MCD.26879 2/8/22 KC McDonald's USA, LLC R ZM 1" = 10' 10 5 2.5 0 10 GRAPHIC SCALE CUT/FILL VOLUMES CUT 8.3 CY FILL 835.1 CY NET 826.81 CY GRADING PLAN C7 1" = 10' ABBREVIATIONS FF FINISH FLOOR FL FLOW LINE FG FINISHED GRADE FS FINISH SURFACE INV INVERT ELEVATION TC TOP OF CURB TP TOP OF PAVEMENT TG TOP OF GRATE LIP GUTTER LIP RIM RIM (XX) EXISTING ELEVATION 2151 2150 STM STM RIM XX.XX TC XX.XX WV HY D FS XX.XX (RIM XX.XX) (TC XX.XX) (FS XX.XX) EXISTING PROPERTY BOUNDARY LINE EXISTING ROAD CENTERLINE PROPOSED DITCH CENTERLINE PROPOSED LIMITS OF BMP / DETENTION PROPOSED STORM PIPE EXISTING 5' INTERVAL CONTOUR LINE EXISTING 1' INTERVAL CONTOUR LINE PROPOSED 5' INTERVAL CONTOUR LINE PROPOSED 1' INTERVAL CONTOUR LINE PROPOSED GRADE BREAK PROPOSED SPOT SHOTS MATCH EXISTING ELEVATION EXISTING SPOT SHOTS EXISTING CURB PROPOSED CURB PROPOSED CONCRETE SIDEWALK PROPOSED ASPHALT PAVEMENT EXISTING CURB AND GUTTER PROPOSED CURB AND GUTTER PROPOSED CONCRETE PAVEMENT PROPOSED LANDSCAPE AREA EXISTING SANITARY STRUCTURES EXISTING WATER STRUCTURES PROPOSED RIP RAP GRADING LEGEND MB PROPOSED SANITARY STRUCTURES PROPOSED STORM STRUCTURES 197
LOD

LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD
LOD

LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD

LOD LOD LOD
LOD
LOD

LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD
LOD
LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD GESE BEAQ (14) EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN & APPLY TOWARDS REQUIREMENTS GESE CODA (13) BEAQ (16) PICH (2) WEFR (7) PICH (1) HESE (16) CODA (20) PICH (1) PICH (1) CODA (9) PICH (1) GESE PICH (4) BEAQ (30) WEFR (23) HESE (55) LIMIT OF WORK LINE LIMIT OF WORK LINE STM STM DRIVE
THRU

NO PARKING

THANK YOU

DRIVE THRU

DRIVE THRU
THRU

DRIVE NO PARKING E E E E E E E
STM G G G G G G G F F F F E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E W W S S S S S S S S S E E E E E E SS S CODA (5) CODA (11) BEAQ (27) HESE (14) EXISTING TREES (2) TO BE REMOVED EXISTING TREES (2) TO BE REMOVED RHUM (14) RHUM (15)
LAIN (1)
CODA (12)
LAIN (2)
WEFR (17)
HESE (52)
HESE (15)
CODA (7)
HESE (7) PLANTING LEGEND SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME MIN. SIZE WUCOLS QUANTITY REMARKS NOTE: ALL TREES SHALL BE CONTAINER-GROWN. SEE SPECIFICATIONS FOR PROPER ROOT QUALITY. Carolina Jessamine - - - - - - - - - 1 Gallon Low 4130 164 7667103 Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Decomposed Granite, Tan Color, 3" Deep over Weed Barrier Fabric Gelsemium sempervirens Blue Oat Grass Coast Rosemary Dwarf Yeddo Hawthorn Lowfast Cotoneaster Chinese Pistache White Crepe Myrtle Compact Oregon Grape 5 Gallon 5 Gallon 1 Gallon 5 Gallon 5 Gallon Helictotrichon sempervirens WEFR Westringia fruticosa RHUM Rhaphiolepis umbellatat 'Minor' HESE CODA Cotoneaster dammeri 'Lowfast' PICH Pistachia chinensis 24" Box LAIN Lagerstroemia indica 'Natchez' 24" Box BEAQ GROUND COVERS Berberis aquifolium 'Compacta' SHRUBS & ORNAMENTAL GRASSES TREES Shredded Wood Mulch, All Planting Areas, 3" Deep - - - - - - Allow to grow naturally, shall not be sheared LANDSCAPE CALCULATIONS TOTAL SITE AREA: 74,443 SF SITE AREA FOR THIS PROJECT: 26,747 SF LANDSCAPE AREA REQUIRED (15%): 4,012 SF LANDSCAPE AREA PROVIDED: 7,457 SF (27.8% OF SITE AREA) STREET TREES STREETS TREES EXISTING, NOT A PART OF THIS PROJECT INTERIOR TREES TREES REQUIRED IN REQUIRED LANDSCAPE: 12 TREES (1 TREE PER 600 SF) TREES PROVIDED: 12 TREES (2 EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN) (10 NEW PISTACHE TREES) TREES REQUIRED IN PARKING AREAS: 3 TREES (1 PER 6 SPACES, 20 SPACES TOTAL) TREES PROVIDED IN PARKING AREAS: 3 TREES SHADE CALCULATION FOR PARKING AREAS TOTAL PARKING AREA ASPHALT: 3,369 SF SPECIES QTY MATURE SHADE AREA* TOTAL SHADE AREA REQUIRED SHADE AREA 50%: 1,685 SF LAGERSTROEMIA 1 113 SF 113 SF PISTACHE 3 707 SF 2,121 SF PROVIDED MATURE TREE SHADE AREA: 2,234 SF TOTAL PARKING AREA SHADE CALCULATION 2,234 SF PERCENTAGE: 66% *BASED ON SUNSET GARDEN BOOK THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL ROOT BARRIERS NEAR ALL NEWLY-PLANTED TREES THAT ARE LOCATED WITHIN FIVE (5) FEET OF PAVING OR CURBS. ROOT BARRIERS SHALL BE "CENTURY" OR "DEEP-ROOT" 24" DEEP PANELS (OR EQUAL). BARRIERS SHALL BE LOCATED IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO HARDSCAPE. INSTALL PANELS PER MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHALL THE CONTRACTOR USE ROOT BARRIERS OF A TYPE THAT COMPLETELY ENCIRCLE THE ROOTBALL. ROOT BARRIERS MULCHES AFTER ALL PLANTING IS COMPLETE, CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL 3" THICK LAYER OF 1-1/2" SHREDDED WOOD MULCH, NATURAL (UNDYED), OVERLANDSCAPE FABRIC IN ALL PLANTING AREAS (EXCEPT FOR TURF AND SEEDED AREAS). CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT SAMPLES OF ALL MULCHES TO LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AND OWNER FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. ABSOLUTELY NO EXPOSED GROUND SHALL BE LEFT SHOWING ANYWHERE ON THE PROJECT AFTER MULCH HAS BEEN INSTALLED (SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS OF THE "GENERALGRADING AND PLANTING NOTES" AND SPECIFICATIONS). Scale 1" = 20' 0' 10' 20' 40' EXISTING LANDSCAPING IN THIS AREA TO REMAIN 1 12" caliper, 10'-12' high 1 12" caliper, 10'-12' high SEE WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE WORKSHEET FOR MWELO WATER USE CALCULATIONS. Replace disturbed landscape areas with like kind plants (ground cover, shrubs) SPACING - - - 3' o.c. 5' o.c. 3' o.c. 2.5' o.c. 4' o.c. 4' o.c. Per Plan Per Plan - - - Landscape Planting 1 A 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 BCDEFGHI DOCUMENTS PREPARED BY CORESTATES, INC., INCLUDING THIS DOCUMENT, ARE TO BE USED ONLY FOR THE SPECIFIC PROJECT AND SPECIFIC USE FOR WHICH THEY WERE INTENDED. ANY EXTENSION OF USE TO ANY OTHER PROJECTS, BY OWNER OR BY ANY OTHER PARTY, WITHOUT THE EXPRESSED WRITTEN CONSENT OF CORESTATES, INC. IS DONE UNLAWFULLY AND AT THE USERS OWN RISK. IF USED IN A WAY OTHER THAN THAT SPECIFICALLY INTENDED, USER WILL HOLD CORESTATES, INC. HARMLESS FROM ALL CLAIMS AND LOSSES. User: DARCY Plot Date/Time: Feb. 03, 22 - 20:42:07 Drawing: C:\Users\darcy\Documents\DBLA\_PROJECTS\2020\EDG\McDonalds - Oakley CA\MCD-Oakley CA LP_2022-02-03.dwg ;LP-1 SITE LOCATION ENGINEER SEAL 4240 Jurupa Street Suite 402
Ontario, CA 91761
Phone (909) 467-8940
Fax (909) 467-8919
[email protected] DOCUMENT REVISIONS REV DATE COMMENT BY CLIENT CHECKED BY: SHEET NO. JOB #: SCALE: DRAWN BY: DATE: SHEET TITLE THE CONTRACTOR IS SPECIFICALLY CAUTIONED THAT THE LOCATION AND/OR ELEVATION OF EXISTING UTILITIES AS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS IS BASED ON DESIGN DRAWINGS, RECORDS OF THE VARIOUS UTILITY COMPANIES, AND WHERE POSSIBLE, MEASUREMENTS TAKEN IN THE FIELD. CORE STATES, INC. DOES NOT GUARANTEE THAT LOCATIONS SHOWN ARE EXACT. THE CONTRACTOR MUST CONTACT THE APPROPRIATE UTILITY COMPANIES AT LEAST 72 HOURS BEFORE ANY EXCAVATION TO REQUEST EXACT FIELD LOCATIONS OF UTILITIES. Call before you dig. Know what'sbelow. CIVIL CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR MCDONALDS AT OAKLEY, CA LAUREL RD, OAKLEY, CA 94561 (004-5010) MCD.26879 02/04/2022 DB McDonald's USA, LLC R ZM (800) 680-6630
11801 Pierce Street, Suite 200
Riverside, CA 92505
www.EvergreenDesignGroup.com EVERGREEN D E S I G N G R O U P 11/30/23 DARCY R . BRANDON - 3 5 7 0 2/4/2022 1" = 20' LP-1
198

L I G H T I N G

SECURITY
TM
1/31/2022 SL2101003_R1.AGI
1"=20' 0"
Allowed EPA 13.6 @
Wind Load 90MPH
Regional Drawing# 004-5010

LAUREL ROADOAKLEY, CA
38566
Mounting Height=24' (22' Pole + 2' Base)
VS
DRIVE
THRU

GNI KRAP ON

THANK YOU

DR VI E THRU

DR VI E THRU
115'
D
R
V
I
E
T
H
R
U
ON

GNI KRAP

42.33' 28.17' 11.83'
AREA:
74,443 SQ. FT. OR

1.709 ACRES
ZONED "RB"
DOC # 2019-0122166 O.R.

ALSO EXCEPTION # 11
T
T
DIRT

AC PAVEMENT
DIRT
DIRT
A
C
P
AV
E
M
E
N
T

AC PAVEMENT

CONCRETE

STAMPED PAVEMENT

STAMPED

PAVEMENT
C
O
N
C
C
O
N
C
C
O
N
C
CONC
CONC
CONC. WALK
CONC

AC CONC
PAV

PLANTER PLANTER

PLANTER
CONC
C
O
N
C
EB
8"
3"
3" 3" 2"
3"
8" 2"
3" 3"
4"
6"
SLB EB
CTVB
TMH
EB
8"
6"
3"
SLB
EB
TSB
TSB
TSB
TSB
TSB
TSB
EB
EB
EM
ATCV
6"PIPE
6"PIPE
6"PIPE
GAS 4"PIPE 4"PIPE
STUB
8"
4" 4"
EB
6" 3"
F
L
U
S
H
C
U
R
B
F
L
U
S
H
C
U
R
B
4"
5"
2"
2"
3"
3"
3"
3"
3"
2"
7"
CTVB
3" 2"
4"
3"
3"
3"
2"
2"
2"
2"
2"
2"
2"
2"
2" 3"
5"
5"
5"
4"
4"
4"
12"SD
12"SD
1 8
"
S
D
1 8
"
S
D
12 "
SD
12"SD 12"SD
12 "SD
12 "SD
12 "SD
12"SD
12"SD
12"SD
1 2
"
SD
6 "SS
6 "SS
6"SS
6"SS
8 "SS
8 "SS
4"SS
8 "
W
8 "
W
8 "
W
8 "
W
8 "W
8 "W
8 "W
8"W 8"W 8"W 8"W 8"W 8"W
6 "
W
6 "
W
6 "
W
6"W
6"W
12"SD
12"SD
12"SD
3 "SD
3"SD
3"SD
(PER

RECORD)
(PER RECORD)
CB
CB
GR=54.91
INV=48.3%%P(REC)
CB
GR=55.4%%P(REC)
INV=51.7%%P(REC)

COVERED BY DIRT
INV=49.7%%P
GR=52.68
CB
INV=52.2%%P
GR=55.51
CB
CB
GR=56.34
INV=53.3%%P
INV=47.6%%P(REC)
GR=53.67
CB
18"SD
D SDMH
SLB
CB ONSITE BM #1
ONSITE BM #2
LAUREL ROAD(110' R/W)

MEDIAN ISLAND WITH SMALL TREES
EXCEPTION # 9

PG & E EASEMENT
13838 O.R. 143
508 MAPS 24

NO ACCESS
EXCEPTION # 10
LOT 5
508 MAPS 24
APN: 035-510-006
S
S
S
D Y H
D Y H
H Y D
D Y H
WV
WV
WV
WV
WV
WV
WV
WV
WV

C C C C
5 5
.
0 0
'
GR=53.92 INV=49.5±(REC)
CB
CB GR=57.17 INV=54.4±
GR=53.85 INV=51.3±(REC)
CB

PLANTER

PLANTER
DOC#2011-0011200 O.R.

WATER EASEMENT
EXCEPTION # 14 A2@180
MH: 21
L2WMH: 11
MH: 11L2W
L2WMH: 11
MH: 21A
MH: 21A2@180
A2@180MH: 21
L2WMH: 11
L2WMH: 11
MH: 21A
A
MH: 21
MH: 21A
A
MH: 21

4.0 0.9 3.6 2.2

4.4 1.4 1.1 1.1 1.0 0.8

3.2 4.8

1.1 2.8 2.8 3.0 2.8 2.6 2.9 2.7 2.8

0.7 4.5

6.0 1.1 1.9 3.4

3.7 3.3

0.6 0.7

1.2 2.2

4.0 5.9

6.1 6.3

6.4 6.3

6.1 5.9

5.9 3.1

0.8 4.6

6.1 6.1

6.1 5.8

5.3 3.4

1.9 1.1

0.7 0.8 0.7

4.3 0.6

0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.1 0.7 0.9 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 1.0 0.5

0.5 1.0 0.7

1.3 0.1

0.6 0.9

1.1 0.8

0.7 0.6

0.7 1.1

1.3 1.4

1.5 1.8

1.5 0.1

0.2 0.9

2.1 0.8

0.3 2.6

3.3 0.1

3.0 1.2

2.5 0.4

7.4 6.7 4.7 1.0 1.1 1.7 2.9 4.3 6.4 7.6 6.0

1.8 4.3 6.3 7.5 5.0 6.8 7.3 5.4 4.3 5.5 6.8

7.0 0.9 1.1 2.9

5.0 5.2 7.1

6.8 4.4

6.9 3.5 1.3 1.1 1.2 1.8 3.0 4.5 6.2

7.2 3.4 4.8 6.1 5.0 6.3 7.5

7.5 5.3 4.0 3.7 6.2 6.5

2.0 7.0 5.0 6.1 4.8 3.4 2.0 1.2 1.0 1.2 2.0 3.2 4.5 5.9 5.5

5.0 1.9 2.8 3.7 4.4 4.8 5.2 5.1 4.7 4.2 3.6 6.7 6.9

6.9 0.9

6.1 3.2 4.5 6.0 7.1 5.2 6.9 6.7 5.6 4.7 5.6 6.9

6.7 1.1

5.9 7.3 6.6 4.6 3.2 1.9 1.2

4.4 6.4 6.9

6.96.7 6.2

1.9 3.4

2.4 2.5 2.3 2.0

3.1 2.8 2.4 2.1 2.0 1.7

3.5 3.9

3.6 1.8

2.3 2.3 2.4 2.3 1.8 1.5 1.5 1.8 2.3 2.8 3.0 3.5

5.0 1.3

6.6 3.6 3.5 3.3 3.4 3.4 3.6

4.9 5.1 4.8

1.8 4.8

1.7 5.0

6.45.7 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.0

2.2 4.92.0

2.4 1.5 1.2 1.9 3.2 4.6 5.9 6.9 5.4 6.7 6.5 5.2 4.7

3.1 4.5 5.6 6.1 5.7 6.2 5.8 4.7 3.5

3.9 3.8 6.2 6.5

1.2 3.0

5.2 1.9

5.6 5.5 5.6 5.4 4.5 3.4 3.1 3.3 2.8

3.8 4.1

2.4 3.6 3.9 4.2 4.0 3.8 3.4 3.0 1.7 1.6 1.3 1.3 1.9 5.1

6.3 3.2 4.6 6.5 7.5 5.1 7.4 7.0 5.2 4.0 6.4 6.6

1.9 2.2

2.2 4.3 6.8 7.7 6.4 7.4 7.3 5.0 4.1 5.5 6.9

5.3 2.1

6.1 2.2 3.2 4.5 5.6 6.1 5.9 6.2 5.8 4.8 3.7 5.6

6.4 6.6

2.5 6.5 5.2 4.1 6.5 6.7

1.1 5.4

4.2 3.4 4.7 6.1

2.21.81.9 1.0 1.9 3.6 6.0 7.0 7.0 6.4 5.4 5.0 4.6

6.5 3.2

2.3 2.1

7.0 6.7 5.9 5.4 3.8 2.4

5.3 5.13.3 3.11.86.4

1.3 6.1 3.6

6.5 7.4 4.9 7.2 7.0 5.2 4.3 5.5 6.8

3.6 3.3

2.7 2.5

2.4 3.5 4.8 6.1 7.0 5.1 7.1 5.3 6.3 6.6

7.1 4.6

2.5 4.4 4.1 3.7

7.1 4.4

5.4 5.0

2.1 2.4 1.9 2.0 4.2 4.0

1.9 1.9 1.8 1.5 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.8 2.0 2.3 2.1

2.6 5.6 6.3 6.3 5.7 6.2 5.8 4.6 3.3 2.1 1.3

5.1 3.3 2.6 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.7 2.1 2.5 2.7 3.1 3.4 3.2 2.8 2.6 5.8 5.8

2.6 5.2 6.6 6.6

4.0 4.4 4.1 3.7 3.4 2.9 4.1 3.7

3.9 1.1 1.8 2.9 1.5 1.2 1.4 3.3

2.3 2.3

4.2 6.8 5.4 1.9 1.5 3.7

4.6 3.1

1.5 6.0 5.9 2.8 2.6

1.4 2.9 2.7 2.4 2.2 2.2 3.5 3.3

2.5 1.5 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.3 2.0 2.1 2.3 2.6

1.2 1.7

2.7 1.9

3.3 2.0

1.7 6.7

4.6 1.7

3.3 4.7 6.8 7.3 7.2 4.6 3.2 2.0

4.7 1.5

4.9 2.5

1.2 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.7 2.5 2.1

1.8 2.0

2.5 2.3

3.7 3.9

4.3 3.6

1.5 1.1 2.8 3.9 1.1

2.2 Calculation SummaryLabel CalcType Units Avg Max Min Avg/Min Max/MinPAVED SURFACE READINGS Illuminance Fc 4.04 7.7 0.9 4.49 8.56PEDESTRIAN AREAS Illuminance Fc 2.97 7.3 1.0 2.97 7.30PROPERTY LINE READINGS Illuminance Fc 2.07 6.4 0.1 Luminaire ScheduleSymbol Qty Label Arrangement LLF Description Lum. Watts

20.70 64.00
EPA Mtg Height Pole Type
5 A SINGLE 0.900 RAR2-480L-240-5K7-4W-SCP/40F 226.9 .55 21 SES-18-40-1-GL-TA-xx (4")3 A2@180 BACK-BACK 0.900 RAR2-480L-240-5K7-4W-SCP/40F 226.9 1.1 21 SES-18-40-1-GL-TA-xx (4")5 L2W SINGLE 0.900 RWSC-36L-5K-DO-U-WH-SCP/40F 14.4 11 199
Welcome Welcome 4240 East Jurupa Street,
Suite 402,
Ontario, CA 91761 www.core-states.com McDonald's USA, LLC 07/02/2020 200
4240 East Jurupa Street,
Suite 402,
Ontario, CA 91761 www.core-states.com McDonald's USA, LLC 07/02/2020 201
202
Welcome Welcome
203
204

STAFF REPORT
Approved and Forwarded to the City
DATE: April 27, 2021
TO: Bryan Montgomery, City Manager
FROM: Kenneth W. Strelo, Principal Planner
SUBJECT: McDonald’s Drive-Through Quick Serve Restaurant at Laurel Plaza Conditional Use Permit (CUP 03-20) and Design Review (DR 09-20) – Request for approval to construct and operate a 4,365 square foot quick serve restaurant with dine-in and drive-through service; APN 035-510-006
Summary
This is an application by Core States Group (“Applicant”) requesting Design Review (DR 09-20) approval to develop an approximately 1.7-acre parcel within the Laurel Plaza shopping center with a new 4,365 square foot quick serve restaurant with dine-in and drive-through service. Applicant also requests approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP 03-20) to operate the drive-through service use (“Project”). The project site consists of an existing parcel fronting on Laurel Road and within the Laurel Plaza Shopping Center, which is located on the northwest corner of Laurel Road and O’Hara Avenue. The site is zoned RB (Retail Business) District. APN 035-510-006.

Fiscal Impact
None. This is a developer funded account. All Staff time and City of Oakley generated materials are charged to the account.

Background
General Plan
Commercial (“CO”) - This designation allows for a broad range of commercial uses typically found adjacent to residential neighborhoods, downtowns, and freeways. The particular form of commercial zoning for different areas of the City will depend, among other factors, on the characteristics of surrounding land uses. General types of 205
Subject: McDonald’s Drive-Through Quick Serve Restaurant at Laurel Plaza Date: April 27, 2021

Page 2 of 9 ends

commercial uses include retail and service facilities, and limited office uses. Through sensitive design, commercial uses can be located near single-family residences with minimal disruption or impact. Typical uses will vary widely in size and purpose and include large-scale retail, regional-serving retail, grocery and convenience stores, salons, professional offices, restaurants, drug stores, dry cleaners, post office facilities, banks, and other uses of similar character and impacts. (City of Oakley 2020 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 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.

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 (existing), grocery store (Fresh and Easy, since withdrawn), drivethrough (tenant not known at the time), and retail pad buildings. The drive-through building approved with this plan was designed as a multi-tenant building with included drive-through component. Since the above approvals, the Rite Aid on the corner never came to fruition, and the Fresh and Easy withdrew their application; 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. 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.

Today, the gas station is existing, but decided to forego the car wash and vacuums. 206
Subject: McDonald’s Drive-Through Quick Serve Restaurant at Laurel Plaza Date: April 27, 2021

Page 3 of 9 ends

Existing Conditions and Surrounding Land Uses
The approximately 1.7-acre project site is located on the north side of Laurel road, approximately 320 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.

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 kittycorner 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 the site from the Contra Costa County GIS website (https://ccmap.cccounty.us).

Project Description
Proposed Conditional Use Permit
Approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is required in order to establish a “Drivethru Restaurant and Services” use in the RB District (OMC Section 9.1.504(c)(9)). The CUP only applies to the “drive-through” component of the use. The restaurant component is permitted by right and not subject to any discretion.

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)). 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 Figure 1. Aerial of Project Site
207
Subject: McDonald’s Drive-Through Quick Serve Restaurant at Laurel Plaza Date: April 27, 2021

Page 4 of 9 ends

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 undertaken by the Planning Commission1 and 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 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 1.7-acre site includes one restaurant (4,365 square feet (sf.)) with drive-through, a parking lot with drive aisles and parking spaces, landscaping and lighting, and pedestrian walkways and pavement striping. About half of the parcel is already improved with parking and drive aisles, as this was done when the shopping center main drive aisles and parking were installed with the bank. 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. Once in the shopping center, there are drive entrances into the McDonald’s parking lot, which also leads to the drive-through.

Table 1 provides a summary of the site plan information.

Table 1. Summary of Site Plan Information
Existing Proposed Total
Site 1.7 acres (apx.
74,443 sf. No change 1.7 acres (apx. 74,443 sf.

Building 0 sf. 4,365 sf. 4,365 sf.

Parking Spaces 51 20 71
Trees 48 13 58 (3 existing to be
removed)
Another aspect of the site plan is the pedestrian access and circulation. The project plans were analyzed in the “Oakley McDonald’s and Quick Quack Traffic Analysis” conducted by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., dated March 15, 2021. That analysis found that there are many existing and proposed pedestrian facilities provided on- and off-site to assist with pedestrian access to the McDonald’s project site. Existing

1 City Council acts as the Planning Commission per Ordinance No. 06-09 208
Subject: McDonald’s Drive-Through Quick Serve Restaurant at Laurel Plaza Date: April 27, 2021

Page 5 of 9 ends

pedestrian facilities include crosswalks, sidewalks, ADA ramps, and crossing guards for the Laurel Elementary School. Proposed pedestrian facilities include pedestrian pathways and ADA ramps that connect to the restaurant from both the sidewalk on Laurel Road and from the internal shopping center. The traffic analysis included a couple of recommendations related to lighting and signage, which are covered in more detail in the “Analysis” section of this Staff Report.

Proposed Architecture
The 4,365 sf, one-story restaurant building is rectangular in shape with a flat roof that includes a parapet to screen rooftop equipment. The main body uses stucco in two colors, which are “Fairview Taupe” by Benjamin Moore for the main building, and “Iron Ore” by Sherwin Williams for the wall accents. A beige colored cultured stone called “Foundation” by Hewn Stone is proposed along most of the building base with extension to the top of parapet in line with the three drive–through windows. Corner elements of the building are enhanced with wood-grain, aluminum vertical batten siding that reaches from the ground to the top of parapet. Aluminum canopies are proposed above windows and at entrances. Figure 2 shows a color rendering of the north (faces interior parking lot) and south (alongside main drive-through aisle and facing Laurel Road) elevations.

Figure 2. Color Rendering of North and South Elevations 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. 209
Subject: McDonald’s Drive-Through Quick Serve Restaurant at Laurel Plaza Date: April 27, 2021

Page 6 of 9 ends

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 (includes the adjacent proposed car wash) 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. The study also concluded the drive-through queue for the proposed project is sufficient and no site changes are recommended. The pedestrian analysis found adequate pedestrian circulation and recommended the addition of lighting and warning signage for drivers at the walkway that crosses the drive-through aisle.

Also, it is recommended to keep landscaping near the northwest corner of the parcel cut back and low to allow for better visibility.

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
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. In order to remain fair and objective, when analyzing a CUP application, Staff may not consider the type of food being offered for sale for drive-through restaurants (e.g. burgers, chicken, ice cream, coffee, etc.), specific brand or franchise behind the application, or whether the same business already exists in Oakley. In short, Staff allows the free market to play out, and focuses on analyzing the use, in this case a “drive-through”, in relation to the General Plan, applicable zoning district, and required findings for a CUP.

Conditional Use Permit Findings
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 210
Subject: McDonald’s Drive-Through Quick Serve Restaurant at Laurel Plaza Date: April 27, 2021

Page 7 of 9 ends

OMC Section 9.1.1602(f). Complete findings are found in the attached Proposed Resolution and summarized below:
 The site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use;  The site relates to streets and highways adequate in width and pavement type to carry traffic generated by the use;
 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;
 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  The proposed use, including conditions of approval, will be established in compliance with CEQA.

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”).

Circulation/Parking
Vehicular access to the proposed McDonald’s is possible from two driveways that enter the shopping center off of Laurel Road. Both vehicular and pedestrian circulation was analyzed in the traffic study, including queuing for the drive-through. The traffic analysis found no issues with the on-site circulation. Queuing for the drive-through was found to be adequate. The model ran 1,000 iterations of demand from a Saturday night and found that 95% of the iterations result in a maximum of 13 vehicles or less. 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 there are recommendations to further enhance pedestrian safety. Some existing pedestrian connectivity includes: signalized crosswalks at Laurel Road and Mercedes Lane intersection with ADA ramps at each end of the crosswalk; a crossing guard on the west leg of that intersection during school hours; and eastbound right turn restriction on red from Mercedes Lane during student activity. Pedestrian access to McDonald’s is possible from the existing sidewalk on the north side or Laurel Road, or from within Laurel Plaza. ADA ramps and marked crosswalks are both existing on the site, and proposed as part of the new development. Recommendations to further enhance pedestrian safety include additional lighting, visibility, and warning signage be provided where the pedestrian access crosses the drive-through aisle between Laurel Road and the building. In addition, it is recommended that the landscaping within the pedestrian 211
Subject: McDonald’s Drive-Through Quick Serve Restaurant at Laurel Plaza Date: April 27, 2021

Page 8 of 9 ends

pathway, north of the drive-through entrance, allow for pedestrian visibility to oncoming vehicles traveling to and from the intersection of Laurel Road and Mercedes Lane.

On-site/off-street parking complies with the Oakley Municipal Code. The parking lot is proposed to accommodate 71 parking spaces, including 3 ADA spaces. OMC off-street parking requirements establish a minimum of 1 parking space per 150 sf. of net public area. The gross floor area (includes the net public area plus all other floor area) of the restaurant would require 29 spaces. 71 spaces is more than adequate and would provide additional shared parking for any future uses in the center.

Building Design
This section analyzes the proposed building’s compliance with applicable development regulations and design guidelines. The proposed rectangular building is 21.5 feet tall at the highest point of the parapet. 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 ratio2 (FAR) for the RB District are 40% and 1.0, respectively.

The building occupies approximately 6% of the site and since it is a single-story building, results in a FAR of approximately .06. The proposed site coverage and FAR, even with the trash enclosure, 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. The architectural style is different from the mini-mart and bank in that it does not include hipped roofs or any roof pitch or peaked elements, rather corner elements with a flat parapet roof. The proposed architecture combines the corporate theme with Oakley’s demand for secondary materials, such as the stone and wood-grain aluminum siding.

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;

2 Floor area ratio is the ratio of floor area (not just building coverage) of a building or buildings to the site they occupy.
212
Subject: McDonald’s Drive-Through Quick Serve Restaurant at Laurel Plaza Date: April 27, 2021

Page 9 of 9 ends

 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, and a screen wall to soften the appearance of cars queued in the drive-through. 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.

Attachments

1. Vicinity Map

2. Public Hearing Notice

3. Applicant’s Plans

4. Proposed Conditional Use Permit and Design Review Resolution

5. Staff Report Power Point Presentation
In City Clerk’s Reading File

1. Oakley McDonald’s and Quick Quack Traffic Analysis, dated March 15, 2021 213
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 April 27, 2021
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 Sue Higgins 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 Randy Pope and Councilmembers Aaron Meadows, Anissa Williams and George Fuller were also present.

1.2 Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag (Mayor Higgins)
Councilmember Meadows led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.

Mayor Higgins announced item 5.1 will be continued to the City Council meeting to be held May 25, 2021.

City Attorney Derek Cole explained that the applicant for the project in item 5.1 is missing a key person to speak tonight on behalf of the application submitted; therefore, the public hearing is being continued to May 25. He mentioned it is not uncommon for project items to be continued as the City wants the applicant to be fully prepared to allow the City Council to be presented with information to make the best informed decision. He mentioned if anyone wishes to speak on item 5.1, they may speak tonight when the item is called, but the item will be continued to May 25. He added that public comments are being heard right now for items that are not on the agenda, but there will be time to provide comments on item 5.1 when that item is called.

Councilmember Fuller commented if someone wishes to speak on item 3.1, they can do that during item 3.1.; the Mayor will call the item and take public comment then.

Councilmember Fuller commented that he was not consulted of the continuation, he believes it is out of order and it is an insult that he is just hearing of it.

Mr. Cole explained staff was fully intending to move forward but the applicant is missing a key component and it became clear around 6:15 p.m. this evening that the applicant’s consultant is not available so the Council is hearing of it now.
2) PUBLIC COMMENTS
An anonymous caller indicated they were glad to see Mr. Montgomery leaving as the person does not believe he has done the city well.

Gilbert Fuentes submitted an online comment and also commented he is reaching out to Councilmembers and Police to share concerns regarding ongoing violence on Hearthstone 214

4.4 Ratify Election: Adopt Ordinance No. 03-21 Authorizing the Levy of a Special Tax on Parcels of Land within Tax Area Zone 181 within the Oakley Special Police Tax Area for Police Protection Services for the Vintner View project (APNs 034-590-028 through 034-590-036) and the Cypress Estates project (APNs 035-415-001 through 035-415-030) (Kevin Rohani, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer)

4.5 Approving the Agreement with Meritage Homes of California for “Stormwater Management Facility Operations and Maintenance Agreement, and Right of Entry” for Subdivision 9503 and authorizing the City Manager to execute the agreement (Kevin Rohani, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer)

4.6 Acceptance of Park, Pond, and Storm Drain Pump Station Improvements associated with Gilbert Property Subdivision 9033, Parcel A at Delaney Park located near East Cypress Road and Delaney Parkway
(Kevin Rohani, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer)

4.7 Acceptance of Subdivision Improvements Associated with the Gilbert Property Subdivision 9033 for the Sellers Avenue Improvements and East Cypress Road Phase 1 Frontage Improvements
(Kevin Rohani, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer)

4.8 Annexation No. 27 Cypress Estates (Subdivision 8728) to the City of Oakley Community Facilities District No. 2015-2 (Parks, Street Light, Landscape and Stormwater Services) (Kevin Rohani, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer)

4.9 Fourth Amendment to Agreement between the City of Oakley and Cole Huber LLP for City Attorney Services (Bryan Montgomery, City Manager) It was moved by Councilmember Fuller and seconded by Councilmember Meadows to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion was unanimous and so ordered. (5-0) 5) PUBLIC HEARINGS

5.1 McDonald’s Drive-Through Quick Serve Restaurant at Laurel Plaza Conditional Use Permit (CUP 03-20) and Design Review (DR 09-20) – Request for approval to construct and operate a 4,365 square foot quick serve restaurant with dine-in and drive-through service; APN 035-510-006. (Ken Strelo, Principal Planner) Mayor Higgins called for public comments.

Online comments are summarized for the meeting record. Comments were submitted in opposition of approval of the conditional use permit by Melissa Emery, Andres Arenas, Erin Pina, Nicole Prins, Karyn Martin, Marco Batcha, Chrishan Ross, Mary Roney, Jessica Blome with Greenfire Law, PC, Renee Pearson, ShaiLynne Jensen, Karen Riach, Pamela Miller, Susan Menke, Jimmy Saliani, Lindsay Waters, Marissa Holder, Andrea Wacker, Diana Patterson, Priscilla Wiley, Lisa Sanchez, Veronica Mangante, Kerry Stewart, Susie Gillilan, Shelly Fitzgerald, Sean Ireland, Christine Dugan-Ihm, Laura Seeno, Eric Walters, Elsa Santiago, Japheth Hardy, Gregory Hetrick, Cary Hilt, Marci Lozoya, Eve Dooms, Ken and Lori 215
Faulkenstrom, Valerie Ferreira, Stephanie Wessels and Tosha Gray. Online comments submitted by Diane Merritt and Ross Hillesheim did not indicate their position.

Mr. Greg Hetrick submitted a written comment via email. Mr. Greg Hetrick submitted a written comment via email. Mr. Hetrick identified himself as the Superintendent of the Oakley Union Elementary School District (OUESD). Mr. Hetrick wrote that the OUESD had reviewed the projects slated for construction on Laurel Plaza. The OUESD, and Mr. Hetrick, believed the projects would impact the district and the safety of the students.

Mr. Hetrick continued that there are over 1,000 students at both Laurel Elementary School and O’Hara Middle School. Transportation for those students continues throughout the day. Also, a large number of students leave both schools periodically throughout the school day. The safety of those children would be in jeopardy from the vehicle traffic generated by the Laurel Plaza project.

Mr. Hetrick closed his transmittal, stating the number one priority is protecting the safety and well-being of the children of Oakley. Mr. Hetrick noted that the restaurant construction at Laurel Plaza would be a detriment to the safety and well-being of the children.

Diane Merritt requested the City Council consider the neighborhood, not just revenue. She indicated McDonald’s portrays a squeaky clean image on the outside but reinforces eating bad foods through its marketing and there is no escaping it with placement of it directly across the street from an elementary school. She expressed it doesn’t meet school standards for healthy eating, accompanying pollution is not good for the neighborhood, and crime rates are higher around fast food outlets. She requested the City Council consider safety of the school and neighborhood in the surrounding location.

Mary Roney expressed concern regarding the special permit for the drive-through and pedestrian crossing. She indicated increased traffic that would come with the establishment increases chances of an accident occurring. She requested the City Council consider the impact on the neighborhood as the drive-through may be open 21 hours a day. She expressed she does not believe the City Council should set precedence to allow fast food restaurants to locate within school zones.

Ross Hillesheim commented he is a neighboring property owner and has had his business in Oakley for the past 10 years. He expressed support for the use. He mentioned comments shared indicate that people are clearly distinguishing between restaurants and fast-food; however, the type of restaurant is not something people have ability to discriminate against. He added that Laurel Plaza has been a commercial property for over 15 years and during the time of this pandemic, with jobs lost, it is not good precedence to set to not allow businesses that have been deemed essential.

Tosha Gray urged the City Council to take into serious consideration the surrounding community near the quick serve, drive-through in Laurel Plaza. She expressed concern regarding noise, blight, traffic, student and pedestrian safety, and the direct negative impact for the adjacent Woodglen neighborhood that has existed since 1985. She requested the City Council exercise its legal right to deny this conditional use permit.

Conan Moats reiterated it is within the City Council’s legal right to deny the conditional use permit as the issue is the drive-through and the drive-through is not zoning protected. He 216
implored the City Council to deny the conditional use permit for reasons including safety, negative dietary habits that would be promoted, traffic during school drop off times, precedence being set if the City Council is willing to grant a conditional use permit to any business wanting to change the zoning within the City, and homeowners adjacent to the drive-through that would encounter traffic at all hours. He expressed he would like to move forward positively and is not opposed to fast-food or other establishments as businesses are needed for revenue, but this process is wrong as it is not taking into issues into consideration. He mentioned the traffic report is 14 years old which provides an obsolete impact on the community. He expressed that he doesn’t appreciate people having to wait an hour to provide public comment and the Council should have made this item a priority.

Mr. Montgomery commented that cities are required to establish a zoning code which sets forth rules and regulations that inform property owners what can or cannot be done with property. He explained that this is a scenario where the applicant has proposed a project that meets all requirements and the applicant has provided all required studies, therefore staff must provide an objective review, not an emotional review. He mentioned for future projects, the City Council may want to choose to change the rules; however, the existing rules were adopted in 2004 when none of current City Councilmembers were here and it would not be fair to change the rules in the middle of the game on the applicant.

Conan Moats commented he believes it is improper for the City Manager to rebut a public comment.

Mr. Cole commented that the Mayor is calling for public comments and if the City Manager or City Attorney want to respond, they have ability to do so as ultimately they have to advise the City Council and it is the City Council that takes action. He mentioned at this point, anyone who has not already spoken may speak for 3 minutes and if anyone speaks that has already spoken, the line will be muted. He announced again that the item is being continued and will be heard in full on May 25. He asked that people whom have already spoken show courtesy to allow others to speak.

Chrishan Ross commented that she moved to Oakley because she thought that it had promise but is not finding a lot of trust building with this City Council. She expressed concern regarding interrupting a public meeting with a closed session item and having voices quieted and muted for the City Manager to speak on a topic when it was not his turn. She mentioned she is upset by the entire process as very concerned citizens expressing their positions should be good thing, but they are feeling stifled. She requested the City Council not shun people who want to speak on behalf of children and not put profit over children.

Eve Dooms commented that her children and others walk through Laurel Plaza en route to school and if children are going to use it, she wants it to be safe. She mentioned accidents in fast food drive-throughs happen a lot more than people know and with an elementary school 200 feet away, it is irresponsible for the City Council to think it is okay to allow this establishment with a drive-through as eating and driving is a distraction. She urged the City Council to deny the conditional use permit if it cares about the children and recommended the Council watch the movie Super Size Me.

Shelly Fitzgerald commented that Mr. Hillesheim is correct that the City Council cannot distinguish the type of restaurant for laurel Plaza; however she and others are asking the City Council to deny the conditional use permit for the drive-through as there is no need for it directly across from the school. In relation to the applicant not being fully prepared this evening, she 217
inquired if she were unable to attend the meeting tonight because she didn’t have her stuff together, if the item would have been delayed.

Mr. Cole commented that the City Council has an obligation to be fair to everyone, a lot of opposition came in today and yesterday via public comments, and it is actually fair as the applicant did not have the benefit of key consultant this evening. He mentioned no privilege is being given, it was a concern by himself and staff in the interest of being fair to all parties, as at the end of the day, it will help the City Council to make a more informed decision. He explained that staff suggested continuing the item in the interest of fairness. He shared that in land use decisions with some controversy, often they have continuance; he sees it in his practice and throughout the state. He added that courts often do the same to allow facts and issues in the interest of fairness. He shared he understands the frustration as people want to be heard and they are being heard now and will be heard again.

Kerry Stewart commented that many residents didn’t realize plans were happening across the street from the school and have spent the last couple of days just figuring out how to speak on the item.

Rick Onolfo commented that the McDonald’s shouldn’t be put in that area as it will create more traffic, accidents and noise and there is already a location near Walnut Meadows and Big Break Road. He mentioned he can hear the Popeye’s loud speaker beyond the railroad tracks. He expressed it is not fair to adjacent neighborhoods, nor to children who have to sleep and go school across the street to that school.

Roberto Estrada commented that the decision for the Chevron/7-Eleven was made during one night at the objection of residents. He mentioned the drive-through is inconsistent with the mission statement of the City and it is irresponsible to jeopardize the safety of the community.

He shared he has been awakened 4 times this past month by drunks whom have purchased alcohol at the 7-Eleven and believes Laurel Plaza should be shut down at 10 p.m., the conditional use permit should allow dine-in only and close by 9 p.m., and the architecture should adhere to the same scheme of the bank.

Lindsay Waters commented she feels like their voices are being stifled as everyone has had to wait for over an hour to make comments when the City Council knows there are residents waiting to comment. She expressed she is not asking the City Council to reject business, but is requesting smart development. She mentioned drivers get distracted when coming out of the drive-through and elementary age children don’t have awareness maturity to be cautious of drivers. She added that this project could be fatal to development and she feels residents’ voices are not being heard. She commented that the City Attorney’s job is to protect the City Council and the traffic study is 14 years old. She suggested the applicant provide a more recent report.

Paul Seger commented he is speaking again as a resident and in no other capacity. He thanked Mr. Montgomery for misrepresenting the facts of the project as the conditional use permit is not already approved for the drive-through. He mentioned Vice Mayor Pope commented during the recent Strategic Planning that Empire and Laurel is the most dangerous intersection in Oakley and Laurel will be the main thoroughfare to Sellers, therefore, he cannot wrap his head around why the City Council would allow this business to make it the most dangerous area. He suggested the City Council take a close look at land use in its General Plan considering safety in this location with a drive-through and a gas station selling alcohol. 218
A public comment was made (name inaudible) comparing the Brentwood Sand Creek Road intersection area which is home to a Quick Quack car wash, McDonald’s, liquor store, and Dollar Tree, to Laurel Plaza. The person indicated it doesn’t meet this City’s vision and the City Council represents the people who voted for them so if there is consensus that the people don’t agree with it, the City Council should reject the conditional use permit for the drive-through and the Quick Quack car wash as well.
6) REGULAR CALENDAR

6.1 Confirmation of Appointment of Interim City Manager/City Manager and Report Per California Government Code Section 54953(c)(3) Regarding Interim City Manager/City Manager Compensation and Benefits (Derek Cole, City Attorney) Mr. Cole commented that the Closed Session was held before item 5.1 as a lot has happened in the past week with the City Manager going to another city and the City Council does not have another meeting before he leaves on May 7. He indicated special meetings are more difficult to try and hold so staff tried to compact all that needs to be done into this meeting. He shared that the custom in Oakley is to have closed session items at end of the meeting agenda and many cities hold closed sessions at the beginning of their, so to the City’s credit, it has closed session items at the end so that other items needing to be heard can be addressed. He indicated that staff made an accommodation this time because it didn’t want to wait until the end because after closed session, most people will be off the call and not participating. He shared it was his call to move the item up so that the candidate could be announced at a time when people would still be watching and engaged so if people want to follow, they can. He mentioned doing both in the same meeting for an interim City Manager is not something they usually would do with a City Manager selection. He shared there was a short amount of time and staff has provided the best available notice it could working at a sprint to make sure the item could forward tonight. He mentioned the conditional use permit item is an important item and one of the most controversial item the City Council has had come forward in a while. He expressed he understands the frustration and expressed that the interim City Manager item is also very important. He mentioned the City Council provided direction that Joshua McMurray be appointed as interim City Manager and staff should perform a search for a new City Manager.

He indicated staff will bring back proposals for executive search firms which it will aim to have at the next meeting so the City Council can review and approve the request for proposals and hopefully start the process in June and have an appointment by fall. He mentioned until such time as a permanent City Manager is appointed, the proposed salary for the interim City Manager is $230k per year. He shared that currently, Mr. McMurray’s salary as Community Development Director is $162,500 as of 2019 and recently a 5% adjustment was made for consolidation of his positions of Economic Development Director and Community Development Director; therefore, the increase is from $170k to $230k. He noted $230k is fairly well below what other City Managers in East County are making. He shared that staff is required to announce a salary change to an executive officer salary by law, it must be made in open session, and the salary implications report must be provided before a vote is taken. He mentioned the City Council doesn’t need to provide a vote for an executive search, but it will need to vote on the appointment of Joshua McMurray as interim City Manager and public comment must be provided.

Mayor Higgins called for public comment.
219

STAFF REPORT
Approved and Forwarded to the City Council
DATE: May 25, 2021
TO: Joshua McMurray, Interim City Manager
FROM: Kenneth W. Strelo, Principal Planner
SUBJECT: Continued Public Hearing for McDonald’s Drive-Through Quick Serve Restaurant at Laurel Plaza Conditional Use Permit (CUP 03-20) and Design Review (DR 09-20) – Request for approval to construct and operate a 4,365 square foot quick serve restaurant with dine-in and drive-through service; APN 035-510-006
Summary
This is a continued public hearing on an application by Core States Group (“Applicant”) requesting Design Review (DR 09-20) approval to develop an approximately 1.7-acre parcel within the Laurel Plaza shopping center with a new 4,365 square foot quick serve restaurant with dine-in and drive-through service. Applicant also requests approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP 03-20) to operate the drive-through service use (“Project”). The project site consists of an existing parcel fronting on Laurel Road and within the Laurel Plaza Shopping Center, which is located on the northwest corner of Laurel Road and O’Hara Avenue. The site is zoned RB (Retail Business) District. APN 035-510-006.

Fiscal Impact
None. This is a developer funded account. All Staff time and City of Oakley generated materials are charged to the account.

Background
This item was original scheduled to be heard by the City Council on April 27, 2021. The April 27, 2021 Staff Report is attached and should be referred to for the following information:
220
Subject: Continued Public Hearing for McDonald’s Drive-Through Quick Serve Restaurant at Laurel Plaza Date: May 25, 2021

Page 2 of 3 ends

 Background, including General Plan Land Use Designation, Zoning District, Entitlement History of the Laurel Plaza Shopping Center, and Existing Conditions and Surrounding Uses;
 Project Description, including the Proposed Conditional Use Permit, and Proposed Design Review;
 Environmental Review; and
 Analysis, including the Conditional Use Permit and Design Review.

Items from April 27, 2021 Staff Report that are included in this continued Staff Report include the Summary, Staff’s Recommendation, attachments, and list of items in the City Clerk’s Reading File. In order to avoid redundancy, attachments listed in the April 27, 2021 Staff Report are now attached to this Staff Report only.

April 27, 2021 Public Hearing
This item was scheduled to be heard by the Oakley City Council as Item 5.1 on the April 27, 2021 Regular Oakley City Council Agenda. Per the recommendation by Derek Cole, City Attorney, the City Council continued the item to a date certain (May 25, 2021). The main reason for this recommendation was the unavailability of a key member of the applicant’s technical team related to the traffic study. An oral presentation was not provided by Staff, and the City Council did not deliberate on the project, but the public hearing was opened to allow public comments via the call-in line.

The City Council also acknowledged receipt of several public comments received via the online submittal portal both prior to and on the day of the meeting. In addition to the comments received via the online portal, the City Council received a letter from Jessica L. Blome of Greenfire Law, PC on April 26, 2021. Since many of these comments were received after completion of the agenda and project packet, Staff drafted a memo to summarize and respond to the comments received up until 2:30 P.M. on the day of the public hearing. That memo was made available prior to the public hearing and is attached to this Staff Report. The minutes for item 5.1 from the April 27, 2021 City Council Meeting are also attached for additional reference.

Analysis
The technical analysis for the project is included in the April 27, 2021 Staff Report. That analysis is based on factual information and technical studies and compare those to the adopted design standards and applicable land use regulations. As a reminder, the Conditional Use Permit is for the drive-through and not the food service itself.

Regardless of the type of drive-through use, the analysis would objectively focus on site design, traffic and circulation impacts, and other items related to the drive-through, but not on the type of food being served, or the nutritional value of the menu. While those are important personal decisions for people to make, they are not required findings for approving a drive-through.
221
Subject: Continued Public Hearing for McDonald’s Drive-Through Quick Serve Restaurant at Laurel Plaza Date: May 25, 2021

Page 3 of 3 ends

There may be a general misconception that the traffic study only compares current traffic generated by the center versus what the use would create. The entire Laurel Plaza Shopping Center was previously studied for traffic impacts assuming build out of the center, which included drive-throughs. Mitigation measures were adopted and still apply to any project moving forward. In addition, the updated traffic study has found the proposed drive-through would generate less daily and peak-hour trips than what was originally anticipated.

Citizen Planning Advisor’s Comments
Emails were received by two of the Citizen Planning Advisors as quoted or summarized below:
 “It seems the design criteria meet city requirements. Obviously, many Oakley citizens are unhappy with the anticipated businesses but that has nothing to do with our responsibilities as CPA.”
 A second CPA stated they did not have any comments.

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

Attachments

1. City Attorney Memo to City Council dated May 17, 2021

2. Vicinity Map

3. Public Hearing Notice for April 27, 2021 Meeting

4. Applicant’s Plans

5. Project Staff Report from April 27, 2021 (without attachments)

6. City Council Minutes from April 27, 2021 for Item 5.1 (excerpt)

7. Memo to City Council “Summary of Public Comments Received with Staff Response”, dated April 27, 2021

8. Proposed Conditional Use Permit and Design Review Resolution

9. Staff Report Power Point Presentation
In City Clerk’s Reading File

1. Oakley McDonald’s and Quick Quack Traffic Analysis, dated March 15, 2021 222
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
May 25, 2021
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 Sue Higgins called the meeting to order at 6:31 p.m. in the Oakley City Council Chambers located at 3231 Main Street, Oakley, California. Vice Mayor Randy Pope and Councilmembers Aaron Meadows and George Fuller were also present. Councilmember Anissa Williams joined via teleconference.

1.2 Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag (Mayor Higgins)
Vice Mayor Pope led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.

1.3 Proclamation Declaring May 16-22, 2021 as Special Districts Week (Chad Davisson, Chief Helmick and Dan Muelrath)
Mayor Higgins asked if General Manager Chad Davisson, Fire Chief Brian Helmick or General Manager Dan Muelrath were on the line to press *9. No one requested to speak. She read the proclamation into the record.

Interim City Manager Joshua McMurray asked for a moment as he was receiving messages that callers cannot hear the audio for call-in.

Mayor Higgins responded the meeting will be paused to correct the audio. 2) PUBLIC COMMENTS
Mayor Higgins called for public comments.

Mr. McMurray explained staff has to manually lower all previous hands raised on the call. He requested Mayor Higgins call for public comments again in about a minute when staff is done.

When all hands were lowered, Mayor Higgins called again for public comments.

Caller *8794: The caller acknowledged the City is seeing an uptick in property crimes and vandalism and he would like to see Oakley Police step up more patrols which he is seeing some of.

Caller *0873: Liz Elias commented that the phone call-in is awkward and it would be more efficient if handled by video conference like Zoom. She mentioned there has been an uptick in side shows and vehicles doing donuts on Main Street by Laurel which is dangerous. She suggested Police could patrol the area late evening to help curtail the activity. 223
Caller *Mendoza: The caller commented she echoes the comments made about Zoom as it is a lot easier to get on.

Caller *Murray was called upon 3 times without response.

Joni Smith submitted a written comment expressing concern regarding the proposed change in density of 637 Brownstone Road (PA 04-21). A copy of the comment in its entirety is available on the City’s website and through the City Clerk’s Office. 3) PUBLIC HEARINGS

3.1 Continued from April 27th. McDonald’s Drive-Through Quick Serve Restaurant at Laurel Plaza Conditional Use Permit (CUP 03-20) and Design Review (DR 09-20) – Request for approval to construct and operate a 4,365 square foot quick serve restaurant with dine-in and drive-through service; APN 035-510-006. (Ken Strelo, Principal Planner)
Principal Planner Ken Strelo presented the staff report.

Mr. Cole explained that his memorandum supplementing the staff report addresses the comments received to date and the Council’s discretion to act. He mentioned the CUP is a quasi-judicial decision and the Council can consider the evidence and apply existing policies, including the laws of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance as they exist today. He mentioned the question is whether the applicant has provided sufficient evidence that the project meets the 5 factors. He mentioned the project is subject to a CUP because of the drive-through; the issue is not whether there should or should not be a restaurant (fast food or otherwise) as it is already permitted. He mentioned evidence to be considered for the 5 factors requires some statement of fact, some relevant observation or something measurable that can be relied on; it does not include lay opinion.

Mr. McMurray mentioned Chris Kinzel with TJKM Transportation Consultants is on the line and available to address questions and comments made.

Project applicant Kevin McAuley with McDonald’s USA shared a presentation regarding the design and layout of the McDonald’s.

Ben Huie, Traffic Engineer with Kimley-Horn shared information regarding the traffic study they prepared for the project. He mentioned the traffic study previously prepared in 2007 analyzed multiple uses, including a fast food restaurant with e drive-through present and future conditions up to 2025. He mentioned their analysis was to compare the trips generated from the previous project and the current project and if the current project did not generate more trips, the previous study would hold. He explained trip generation is not based on population, but rather square footage of the project. He shared the square footage of the current project is smaller than the previous project resulting in fewer daily and A.M. and P.M. trips generated. They concluded the project does not result in any new traffic impact. He mentioned there was a comment regarding Danville data. He explained that the Danville data was used to determine the amount of time it takes a person to go through the drive-through before the next person goes through and the data is not used to calculate trip generation. 224
Brad Goldblatt commented his family owns the other McDonald’s in Oakley and looks forward to opening this McDonald’s which will provide employment to over 60 people.

Chris Kinzel with TJKM Transportation Consultants shared TJKM provided a peer review of the 2007 study to look at trips generated and circulation. He mentioned when the study was performed in 2007, it used the 7th edition of the reference manual and the 10th edition has updated data which was used in their analysis. He mentioned the size of the building as well as experience and studies are taken into account with the current data. He mentioned they concur with the findings of the 2007 traffic study; it is accurate, reasonable and applies proper standards.

Vice Mayor Pope commented he will reserve his comments for later.

Councilmember Williams inquired if a real-time site study is ever conducted or if projects always rely upon data in manuals.

Mr. Huie responded that manuals are developed from data collected at fast food sites and averages are created from various studies. He mentioned because there is no McDonald’s currently on the site, they have to rely on this type of data.

Councilmember Williams inquired if the data takes into consideration school sites across the street from fast food restaurants in areas where there is already a lot of traffic.

Mr. Huie responded the studies are conducted all across the nation, but there is no information provided regarding what the sites are located next to.

Councilmember Williams indicated she will reserve her comments until after public comments.

Councilmember Fuller commented he is glad to see Mr. Strelo opened the door to mitigation and thanked Mr. McMurray for providing information regarding CEQA projects yesterday. He shared he spent 30 hours studying documents to prepare for this meeting. He inquired if a preliminary review was conducted in 2002.

Mr. Strelo responded the 2008 traffic study is for Laurel Plaza and there was nothing in the negative declaration for Laurel Plaza regarding a 2002 preliminary study. He mentioned it may have been based on the General Plan EIR and tiered off of that, but for the project itself, it was based on the 2008 traffic study.

Councilmember Fuller referenced page 4 of the initial study and mentioned it indicates there were significant issues with the project in January 2008, but because they have been mitigated, the project can move forward. He reference page 41 of the initial study that there will be an 8- foot fence to dispense noise. He inquired if the fence has been built.

Mr. Strelo responded he believes it refers to the existing wall between the residences and the plaza built on the north and western portion of the site which is between 8-10 feet at various locations of the site.

Councilmember Fuller commented that City standards for noise are in the Municipal Code, but he understands from the EIR that the City can impose stricter standards. 225
Mr. Strelo explained that the analysis requires what is adopted in the General Plan for different land use categories, both impacts that may be created by a project that is being proposed and impacts that may be put onto existing uses; for instance, the neighboring business, the Quick Quack, submitted an acoustical analysis which staff has asked them to revisit which looked at the sound impacts of the car wash and blowers on adjacent properties. He explained here, the sounds studies have already been done with the original study for the site and the sound wall exists.

Councilmember Fuller inquired if stricter sounds controls were to be put in place, if it would be under the CUP.

Mr. Strelo responded that if it were done through the CUP, evidence would have to be found that the drive-through is creating sound above and beyond what the General Plan has adopted as the thresholds.

Councilmember Fuller commented he is discussing the drive-through, but provided an example if a lawnmower shop were located next to a funeral parlor, if sounds could be restricted through the CUP for the lawnmower shop.

Mr. Strelo commented if the sound exceeded the threshold there could be mitigation to reduce noise or the project could be redesigned to be under the threshold. He mentioned sound studies are not based on a single noise, but an average throughout the day and night.

Councilmember Fuller commented that hypothetically, the City could put conditions on the noise levels.

Mr. Strelo commented if the noise exceeds the threshold allowed in the General Plan, the City could put conditions on it to lower the noise under the threshold.

Councilmember Fuller inquired if this particular CUP can have conditions on it to reduce noise levels.

Mr. Strelo responded that there is no evidence that noise levels here exceed the General Plan threshold.

Councilmember Fuller mentioned that on page 44, it is marked that there will be no impact to schools. He inquired why it would say there is no impact on the schools with the project.

Mr. Strelo responded he is not aware which section Councilmember Fuller is referring to but if it is for public services, it includes fire and police impacts. He commented that he believes in California the payment of school impact fees is mitigation for any impact on schools and all of the City’s projects are subject to school impact fees.

Councilmember Fuller commented that in all of the documents he has gone through, he sees Laurel Elementary School but he did not see mention of children, pedestrian safety of children, or any information requested for OUESD input. He inquired why there are no studies on children.

Mr. Strelo responded that he does not know why children are not mentioned in the study. He explained that the studies follow the protocol for traffic studies and in addition staff requested a pedestrian safety study be conducted which was amended into the traffic report. 226
Councilmember Fuller referred to page 47, showing that in 2008, this project would have a significant impact on traffic, but the 2017 report shows there was a decrease. He inquired why traffic would be shown to decrease.

Mr. Strelo explained that the original environmental study showed a cumulative impact on traffic and the mitigation for cumulative impacts on traffic is payment of both the City’s traffic mitigation impact fee and the County‘s traffic mitigation impact fee. He mentioned the new study or addendum to the study shows there are no new trips generated therefore there are no new impacts; however, the project is still subject to the original CEQA mitigation which is payment of the traffic mitigation impact fees.

Councilmember Fuller commented the initial study indicates that the project will have an impact on alternate transportation (other than cars) which is part of the General Plan. He asked Mr.

Strelo to comment how to negate that.

Mr. Strelo responded he would like to review that portion of the initial study before trying to comment.

Councilmember Fuller referenced page 47 for Mr. Strelo. He also referenced page 63 regarding environmental effects which would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings directly or indirectly. He inquired why the study would say there are no impacts to elementary school children, human beings, going to and from school or around the project area. He mentioned from what he has read with the EIR, the City doesn’t have to worry about mitigation if it is marked less than significant impacts. He inquired if that is correct.

Mr. Strelo responded there is no mitigation proposed if it is less than significant through project design or CUP. He indicated here, the initial study finds if there is less than significant impacts with mitigation then mitigation needs to be adopted to lower it to a less than significant threshold and if that does not lower it to a less than significant threshold, then an EIR is required and impacts must be disclosed. He mentioned there were no new findings that would suggest that there was evidence that there is a significant impact on parts A through D of that section.

Councilmember Fuller commented the school pedestrian traffic around the school was seen as a less than significant impact.

Mr. Strelo responded that he is pretty sure what was seen is that this project includes frontage improvement which include sidewalks, signalized intersections, a signalized crosswalk, and school drop off zones. He mentioned he is partially speculating because he does not have the document in front of him, but it was found that there were no significant impacts to the site which is commercial.

Councilmember Fuller referred to page 25 which addresses habitat impact, but when he went through the biological report, it said approximately 9 specific species would be impacted but would not live there. He inquired if a report says an animal or flower will not live at the project site if that is sufficient for mitigation.

Mr. McMurray commented that the General Plan provides guidance as to potential habitat and it is very common for sites that have some habitat potential, additional studies are done to determine if there is suitable habitat and additional analysis is done on a case-by-case basis as projects come through. He mentioned the General Plan may have said there is some sensitive habitat here, but when the initial study was done, there was no finding of suitable habitat. He 227
mentioned it is not uncommon before grading that the project must undergo a preconstruction survey; if no suitable habitat exists, grading may be commenced; if suitable habitat exists, they will have to follow additional measures.

Councilmember Fuller referred to the 2008 addendum which shows there will be a significant increase in noise. He referred to page 20 which refers to no impact on the schools under public services.

Mr. McMurray explained the CEQA initial study has certain areas the State says have to be addressed including environmental review. He mentioned when the analysis is being done, they look at what has been done previously. He mentioned the City adopted its General Plan in 2002 and Environmental Impact Report which is very broad and addresses all of the impacts to the build out of the City in general. He shared that this site is designated commercial so when a subsequent environmental review is done, it is already assumed that the analysis has already been done in the General Plan and this site is assumed to hold the same capacity for commercial property today. He mentioned that is why when reviewing the Laurel Plaza study, Councilmember Fuller is finding no impact or less than significant impact because they have been previously analyzed and already disclosed.

Councilmember Fuller commented Mr. Strelo mentioned the 2002 report was not looked at, only the 2008 report, but Mr. McMurray is suggesting the 2002 report was looked at for impacts to the schools and it carries forward to 2008.

Mr. McMurray explained the site is already zoned commercial so it is assumed to hold all of the uses both permitted and conditionally permitted.

Councilmember Fuller asked Mr. Cole if he is bound to make decisions by what he sees as mistakes made by previous Councils in regard to proper mitigation in 2002.

Mr. Cole confirmed he is bound to those decisions. He pointed out that the restaurant is already a permitted use that does not require Council approval. He mentioned there have been a series of plans and approvals of that commercial site and CEQA was performed. He explained the way that CEQA works is that once finalized and not challenged, it creates the base for moving forward so any subsequent projects are looked at from what was studied and what is current; there is no going back to change the base line. He indicated as a general rule the Appendix G goes through checklists which is applied to the drive-through and they can only look at the difference of impacts from then to today. What staff and the consultants are saying is that what is proposed today doesn’t go beyond what was studied before and for what has gone beyond, it has been mitigated.

Councilmember Fuller inquired how many lanes Laurel Road had in 2002.

Mr. Strelo said he does not know for sure but he believes it was two.

Councilmember Fuller inquired what the number of enrolled students was in 2002.

Mr. Strelo indicated he does not know the answer to that question.

Councilmember Fuller commented he believes it is higher now. He indicated it would be good to know if the Woodglen neighborhood children go to Laurel and O’Hara and if that has changed since 2002. He mentioned vehicles are addressed in the traffic report and even though it says 228
trips are reduced, he doesn’t see that when driving and doesn’t understand how that will be when the McDonald’s goes in. He expressed concern children are not mentioned anywhere in the report. He mentioned he does not see any measure of the smoke, grease or exhaust mentioned regarding particle matter. He also expressed concern regarding the study addressing air quality in Bethel Island and Concord rather than Oakley. He mentioned noise is defined as unwanted sound and provided examples of wanted and unwanted sound. He mentioned a conversation level happening at the car wash may be acceptable during the day, but at 9 p.m., the same conversation level may be unwanted sound.

Mr. Strelo responded that this project is not looking at the noise levels of the car wash.

Councilmember Fuller referred to page 4 that indicates the City may impose more restrictive noise level standards, but it is not being applied.

Mr. McMurray explained when a noise study in conducted, existing ambient noise is taken into consideration.

Councilmember Fuller commented that residents may not appreciate the noise levels from the car wash.

Mr. Cole mentioned it goes back to what he said in the beginning of his presentation; the Council is considering existing laws and evidence presented for the 5 factors. He mentioned there are 2 factors which may apply: 1) 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, and 2) 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. He mentioned Councilmember Fuller provided good examples of wanted and unwanted noise. He explained in the General Plan there are noise standards so when the project is considered, the Council’s authority is limited. He mentioned the Council has to look at what is provided in the General Plan and if the applicant can establish that he/she has met such standards, the applicant is deemed to have met the standard. He added that the Council does not have discretion to look outside the General Plan if the applicant has met the standard of the General Plan.

Councilmember asked is CEQA is to address all environmental effects.

Mr. Cole mentioned CEQA addresses thresholds and Appendix G which he referred to earlier provides the checklist for impacts and for each impact there is a threshold that applies. He explained thresholds are not written in CEQA law or regulations; the Appendix is used for the thresholds. He mentioned with noise impacts at the local level, the threshold of significance is measure by the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. He mentioned if the applicant is meeting the General Plan and Zoning standards, the applicant has satisfied the requirement.

Interim City Manager Joshua McMurray added that CEQA is meant to disclose impacts; it is not to say there are no impacts because impacts may exist and can be mitigated. He explained staff knows there will be some level of traffic and noise because that is what commercial projects do, but he is confident the studies address impacts and mitigated them fully and he is confident the traffic studies adhere to all applicable standards required. He mentioned the sound study was not done for McDonald’s, only the Quick Quack Car Wash which is not on the agenda tonight.

Councilmember Fuller commented he will summarize his thoughts during deliberation. 229
Councilmember Meadows mentioned the design wasn’t necessarily what the City was looking for.

Mr. Strelo mentioned the architecture lacked a pyramid roof such as the nearby gas station and bank structures. He shared that staff asked the applicant if they could integrate it into the design. He mentioned the parapet roof was proposed to accommodate the restaurant’s equipment and staff asked that it be screened from up close and from far away. He shared that the applicant declined that request and asked if there was anything else they could do in which staff asked the applicant to add vertical elements at the pick-up and payment windows and the three elements near the bottom of the building.

Councilmember Meadows inquired if staff is satisfied with the current design.

Mr. Strelo responded it is not perfect to match other architecture in the plaza, but that architecture may not be perfect. He mentioned this was sufficient for the franchise to maintain its iconic look that Oakley has honored in the past and the colors were changed to compliment the gas station and bank.

Mayor Higgins inquired if there is an agreement with the school to have parking there.

Mr. McMurray commented he has spoken to the property owner on many occasions and the property owner has no agreement with the school to allow parking at the project site.

Mayor Higgins commented that people park there and walk their children across to the school with the help of a volunteer crossing guard and this landowner has every right to tow vehicles or cite people trespassing on his property. She mentioned the property owner has been a good neighbor to allow the use the property to park for school for years and if people park there that are not patronizing the restaurant, the property owner can disallow people to park there. She mentioned any restaurant is still going to bring traffic. She mentioned the City has a noise ordinance.

Mr. McMurray confirmed the City does have a noise ordinance and the noise element in the General Plan.

Mayor Higgins commented that the study does not show new trips. She asked if the study addresses that people will be passing through and this will be a stop along the way.

Mr. Strelo explained that the traffic study looks at it all, including multi-use trips, such as the gas station, and McDonald’s. He mentioned no new trips are included because in 2008, the trips included development on all sites in the location, not just McDonald’s; the study was based on all square footage of the plaza, and that is what is the number of trips generated for the project is based on. He mentioned an engineering firm reviewed the study and the 10th edition has more information and is even more accurate. He shared that when looking at what is proposed now and what was previously done, and when replacing numbers with the 10th edition data, today’s project produces less daily and A.M. and P. M. peak hour trips. He mentioned any impacts to the school or crosswalk have already been accounted for in the initial plaza study and the new traffic study doesn’t show any new impacts that exist. He mentioned that there have been comments shared that the McDonald’s is going to endanger children; however, the traffic study doesn’t show the McDonald’s will add any impact on their safety. 230
Mayor Higgins inquired if children have to be 12 years old to be unaccompanied. She also inquired if the drive-through will have an ADA component.

Mr. Strelo responded he is uncertain; he is only aware of ADA compliant parking spaces.

Mayor Higgins inquired if the drive-through is ADA compliant.

Mr. McAuley commented that all McDonald drive-throughs they construct are ADA compliant; they have signage to let the driver know that they can pull forward for staff assistance and all sites are inspected for ADA compliance and are 100% ADA compliant upon completion.

Councilmember Williams was called upon for any questions. She responded she will reserve comments until after public comments are heard.

Councilmember Fuller suggested the Council allow the public more than 3 minutes to speak.

Mr. Cole explained that City Council Resolution 10-10 provides 3 minutes for each public comment; however, the Council could vote to suspend the procedural rule on a case-by-case basis.

Vice Mayor Pope inquired how many people are on the line (teleconference).

Recreation Director Lindsey Bruno responded there are 64 people on the call.

Vice Mayor Pope indicated 3 minutes for each person to speak assuming all 64 speak, will already push the meeting beyond a reasonable and respectful time. He commented that the rule is in place for a purpose to respect everyone’s time and he wants everyone to be able to participate; therefore, he is not in favor.

Councilmember Fuller indicated the applicant has been allowed many times to speak.

Mr. Cole further explained that an applicant with a land use project is given 10 minutes to speak, exclusive of questions, and he does not believe the applicant here has exceeded that amount of time, on April 27 or tonight. He mentioned the Council always has time to ask questions of the applicant. He also mentioned that the rule is that 11 p.m. is the hour of adjournment which requires a majority vote of the Council to continue past 11 p.m. He added that if a meeting is not continued, it usually becomes a special meeting. He mentioned that McDonald’s is important to the applicant and people in favor or not in favor of the project, but there are also other items to be addressed on the agenda.

Mayor Higgins commented the meeting will proceed with each speaker having 3 minutes for public comments.

Caller *6113: Roberto Estrada commented that the City Attorney seems to be leaning toward being biased toward McDonald’s. He mentioned Councilmember Fuller made good points about items not spelled out in the traffic study, especially about children and pedestrian safety, and the school was not addressed. He mentioned he is opposed to the drive-through and the McDonald’s should be a sit-in only restaurant. He suggested the Council should push to make builders to attract boutique shops and small retail.
231
Caller *8794: The caller commented that a comment that we don’t go back and look at what was studied before but they can look at how it was studied. He mentioned the methodology used for trip generation lacks ability to address intersectionality of overlapping traffic impacts of various land uses. He shared there was a case in Florida where it was found that there is a significant deficiency in trip generation data and the methodology has been found to be inaccurate in multiple projects with overlapping uses. He commented he believes it is a self-served method and staff should not look at only what was studied, but how it was studied.

Caller *0873: Liz Elias commented she is against the City’s consideration of the CUP for the drive-through. She mentioned it is unfortunate that the restaurant is already permitted because it is bad all around: kids habitually cross the street to get picked up, there will be noise pollution, and the air pollution is unhealthy. She expressed concern that when considering impacts with the car wash, the City only looked at the EIR rather than the cumulative effect on all projects.

She mentioned the 14-year old study does not address that residential construction increases traffic. She suggested if only what could be changed could be considered, areas near the freeway are more appropriate than schools and the neighborhood. She expressed that studies ignore public input, the real experts who live in the neighborhoods, rather than other places. She mentioned the job of government is to take care of its citizens, not to run it like a business. She requested the Council respect the City’s agricultural heritage and stop sucking up to developers.

Caller *0514: Linda Carter commented the environmental impact of 12 cars sitting idle at a time is not addressed by the traffic study and she would like clarification on the number of cars expected. She shared that ongoing movement of vehicles and idle car movement should be focused on and attention should be given on the health impact. She shared that idle vehicles produce air pollutants and air toxins; with children being picked up whom are closer to the ground. She mentioned these pollutants can cause children to have an increase in asthma which can result in lung damage or adverse health impacts. She mentioned children are already exposed to pollutants when they are dropped off and picked up and this project will be compounding the level of air pollution. She strongly recommended the Council consider an environmental study be conducted for air quality and any impacts be mitigated if necessary.

Caller *4001: Jacquelyn Seefeldt commented she is a contractor with Child Protective Services and there is no minor law in California; it is based on maturity; therefore it would be ignorant to believe children won’t be walking home alone. She mentioned the Council should consider that Brentwood allowed the In and Out Burger restaurant and drive-through but that is a traffic study that failed as vehicles are hit almost daily when stopped in the intersection because there is not enough room for them in the drive-through. She expressed vehicles move into other lanes to go around the sitting traffic. She requested the Council consider this when making its decision.

Caller *2196 was called upon 3 times without response.

Caller *5450: Starla Wise commented she opposes the drive-through due to traffic and proximity to Laurel Elementary School. She mentioned the location is 1.5 miles from Freedom High school and there is already traffic with the elementary school traffic. She also mentioned elementary students will be crossing 4 lanes of traffic and drivers distracted by food and likely in a hurry will be exiting onto Laurel many times per day when elementary school students are in the crosswalk. She commented that there are no rules for elementary students to be accompanied by an adult to walk home. She mentioned inexperienced high school drivers will be visiting the restaurant before school for breakfast, during lunch and after school before practice for food during times when elementary school children will be using the crosswalk. She expressed she does not believe inexperienced high school drivers were considered in the traffic 232
report. She shared that she was present when the Burger King was built in Brentwood across from Liberty High School and traffic increased substantially. She expressed there have already been 2 injuries and a 12-year old was killed when walking to school. She mentioned this is a safety issue and she asked the Council to consider the safety of children and the community before all else.

Caller *8099: Lindsay Waters commented she is aware the Council is acting in a quasi-judicial role and believes Mr. Cole’s input is completely biased. She expressed safety concerns as the location includes a school zone and asked for current traffic reports using data that resembles the Oakley community layout. She mentioned she would like to be assured since 2007 that the report includes all new developments. She inquired why ordinances were not implemented years ago to protect school zones. She shared everyone knows this is a terrible idea but the City is stuck to deny it or get sued. She expressed concern that developers might apply for additional drive-throughs on the other corners near the school and she wants to know how to prevent that from happening as ordinances still are not in place and the Council will have to consider them. She shared the bank in the plaza has a drive-through which is only in operation weekdays beginning at 9 a.m. and open no later than 6 p.m. and is closed on weekends. She mentioned if the applicant insists on equity, have the same hours as the bank; it doesn’t open until after school starts. She requested the Council deny the CUP.

Caller *9317: The caller expressed objection to the CUP. She mentioned it is a bad idea. She asked the Council to consider how many people are on the call who are concerned and mentioned they would be at City Hall if they could be. She asked the Council to represent its citizens. She expressed there is a lot of talk about change and fairness, but she believes the Council is favoring the applicant and developer. She referred to Oakley Municipal Code Section

9.1.104 which indicates the City will retain small scale businesses which do not appear in general commercial. She mentioned nothing about the McDonald’s speaks to small scale and she requested that the ordinance not be overlooked. She commented it is unfair to allow a fast food drive-through as it will negatively impact citizens who have invested hundreds of thousands of dollars into the City. She inquired how the Council cannot take into consideration the type of businesses that go in as they have different impacts. She requested the Council deny the CUP.

Caller *4814: Chrishan Ross, commented that the Council meeting held on April 27, 2021 lacked professionalism and mismanaged public comments. She mentioned the Council kept constituents wanting to make public comments on hold for an hour. She expressed it is alarming that the City Attorney interrupted public comments. She mentioned it makes her wonder who is running the city and if the elected can represent her. She mentioned if there is a question, the Planning Commission should communicate with the Council, not the City Attorney as he/she should only speak for clarification purposes. She voiced concern regarding the McDonald’s double drive-through and Quick Quack Car Wash so close to an elementary school, middle school and high school. She mentioned a solid Planning Commission would be aware of potential risks and safety issues, not rely on skewed, outdated data, and would demonstrate a strategic approach to development in a safe and responsible manner. She expressed if the City’s leadership wants to maintain Oakley’s small town character, while strongly encouraging the development of new industry to employ the growing workforce, it would deny the drivethrough because of traffic and safety. She indicated the Council needs to make sure the health, safety and welfare of residents is considered. She commented that Police would not be staging officers off Laurel Road on Mercedes and Holmes if Police is not concerned about traffic. She requested the Council deny the CUP for the drive-through and Quick Quack Car Wash and design a better plan congruent with the existing neighborhood and City growth. 233
Caller *2306: Tasha Gray commented that a drive-through presents an imminent safety hazard for students and pedestrians and the environment for the school and residents, particularly in the Woodglen neighborhood which has existed since 1985. Long before it was approved for commercial. She expressed over 40 comments in opposition to the project were submitted on April 27, many made by members of the School District, including the Superintendent and crossing guard and she believes the Council should weigh heavily their educated and experienced input. She mentioned the community requests the Council consider exercising its discretion and legal right to deny the CUP for the drive-through. She mentioned none of the points made by Greenfire Law have been mentioned; its letter provided in detail the negative impacts of the drive-through, the traffic study that is 14 years old, the population increase (44%), that Laurel Road was not the main access point at the time the study was conducted, and how the restaurant with the drive-through will change the area. She mentioned there were 2 comments in support of the project, one being the adjacent commercial property owner, and she understands the financial gain he stands to risk. She mentioned he is a resident of Alamo, not Oakley. She mentioned the project is not in the best interest of the residents and urged the Council to deny it.

Caller *7843: Lisa Suarez commented she would prefer two conditions if the Council decides to approve the CUP: 1) the developer should build north and west buildings before the restaurant is built to complete the Plaza which would allow more small scale retail and 2) limit drivethrough hours to 5 a.m.-10 p.m. due to the restaurant’s proximity to the residential neighborhood.

Caller *2196: Donna Chaddock referenced the book Fast Food Nation by Eric Schlosser which explains how the fast food industry has transformed roads, cities and highways across the nation and how small business have been diminished due to fast food restaurants. She commented that the first speaker mentioned the intersection of Laurel and Mercedes, but he didn’t mention that is where Laurel Elementary is located and it is dangerous. She mentioned Mr. Cole’s memo to the Council provides the Council has an opportunity to act as the judge as to whether the applicant has provided sufficient evidence for the findings and she does not believe the applicant has presented sufficient evidence. She mentioned the traffic study was done long ago, traffic on roads have increased and residents do not want a drive-through or car wash. She requested the Council adhere to the City’s Mission Statement and make an informed decision and listen to the people who do not want a drive-through or car wash.

Caller *Mendoza: Maribel Mendoza commented it is interesting that the traffic study was done in Danville and she is wondering if any studies were done at the Brentwood or other Oakley McDonald’s locations. She urged the Council to consider the projected traffic at the location when new high density homes are completed, that the location is near a sports center and across from the elementary school. She compared traffic at In and Out Burger on Lone Tree Way and indicated traffic from this project will unlikely be contained to the plaza unless a security guard is present. She mentioned she agrees the City needs revenue, but does not agree this is the best course of action. She requested the Council think about the kids. She inquired if the sports season has been taken into account with the traffic studies. She commented the person doing the traffic study thinks residents don’t know about studies and the wool can be pulled over their eyes, but that is not the case. She requested the Council go back and look at the study.

Caller *4970: Mary Roney commented she is opposed to the drive-through at Laurel Plaza as 70% of the McDonald’s business will be from the drive-through and there will be an impact on pedestrian safety and neighbors. She requested the Council consider the noise level from the 234
drive-through speakers in relation to the hours of operation. She concurred with other speakers that the CUP should be investigated more deeply.

Caller *6424: Ross Hillesheim commented he owns the 7-Eleven and Chevron gas station near the project and has obtained two CUPs in Oakley; he has enjoyed his experience with staff and the Council. He mentioned at O’Hara and Laurel, the General Plan has commercial planned properties over 300,000 square feet of future development. He explained that the Public Works and Engineering Department has planned for foreseen traffic at this intersection and have planned for the retail space. He indicated the proposed McDonald’s is approximately 1% of the General Plan’s proposed 300,000 square feet of retail at that intersection. He mentioned drivethroughs have been declared an essential business by the Governor during the pandemic. He added that with the economic problems experienced during the pandemic, increased jobs in Oakley will be great. He shared that in response to the comment made that he has a financial interest in it, he can prove he does not have a financial interest in it.

Mayor Higgins called for 5 minute break at 9:17 p.m.

After 5 minutes, the Council reconvened.

Caller *3699: Conan Moats commented that the project and cheerleading by staff is what is wrong with local government. He expressed concern regarding how to mitigate a kid who gets hit at the intersection of Mercedes and Laurel. He inquired how many deaths it will take to achieve a level of significance. He mentioned if Oakley is truly “A Place for Families in the Heart of the Delta” it will deny the CUP for the drive-through. He expressed he doesn’t accept the apology of Mr. Cole nor of the applicant for not being present at the last minute on April 27. He mentioned the live-streaming is not legible on the website. He mentioned the City Attorney indicated the restaurant cannot be addressed and wonders why the Goldblatt family does not speak to the drive-through but rather only the restaurant. He mentioned the Superintendents comments have not been considered which speaks volumes to our City. He expressed the need for a Planning Commission as the information presented is bogus and assumes compliance. He urged the Council to deny the CUP.

Caller *2867: The caller thanked Ross Hillesheim for providing a 24-hour alcohol, tobacco and environmentally polluting 7-Eleven/gas station that causes disturbances. She commented that she does not understand what the Council is trying to do by adding a McDonald’s to that. She indicated residents are better than that and the Council should be better than that.

Written comments opposed to the project or specifically the CUP were provided by Irene Segovia, Liz Elias, Veronica Mangante, Mary Roney, Sherie Suhrie, Lisa Van Norsdall, Jaime Spohn, Christine Dugan-Ihm, Isaac Hoffman, Linda Carter, Heather Watters, Nadine Somerhalder, Marci Lozoya, Larry DelaBriandais, Lindsay Waters, Connie Holt, Rachel Kinder, Mindi Wade, Kerry Stewart, Elsa Santiago, Shelly Fitzgerald, Kathleen Estrada, Valerie Ferreria, Hollie Johnson, Lisa Galeano, Roberto Estrada, Leia Montgomery, Donna Chaddock, Jacquelyn Seefeldt, Samantha Madruga, and Tosha Gray.

Written comments in support of the project or specifically the CUP were provided by Dana Bockstahler with BAC Bank and Sean Ireland.

Written comments provided by Diane Merritt, Chrishan Ross, Eve Dooms, Donna Chaddock did not indicate their position, but provided they would like to speak. 235
A copy of the written comments in their entirety are available on the City’s website and through the City Clerk’s Office.

Mayor Higgins closed the public hearing.

Mr. Cole advised that pursuant to City Council Resolution 10-10, the applicant, who has the burden of proof, can make a rebuttal up to 10 minutes.

Applicant Kevin expressed no rebuttal.

Mr. Cole shared a hypothetical situation to illustrate the issue. In response to public comments, he mentioned if the Council denies this project tonight, it doesn’t guarantee there won’t be a fast food restaurant at this location. He provided an example of a Chipotle or Peet’s Coffee that usually have no drive-throughs but can generate a lot of traffic at the time parents are dropping off their kids to elementary schools. He mentioned the City doesn’t have the ability to stop the developer from having other restaurants from locating at this site. He shared he mentions it because some of the comments heard tonight indicate the Council can stop traffic being generated from this site which the Council cannot. He mentioned if the developer can find a tenant, it will not mean there will not be traffic. He explained that here, the Council is dealing with the restaurant using a drive-through and the Council may consider the impacts of the drivethrough with its surroundings and whether it has heard evidence for or against the drivethrough.

Vice Mayor Pope requested a continuance as the Council has heard a lot of public comments about the traffic study, which information is not provided in the record or in the packet; therefore, he does not believe the Council can make a quasi-judicial ruling of items not in evidence; it cannot make a decision on an item not seen. He expressed he wants to see an analysis of pedestrian impacts in the traffic study during school hours and when done, he wants a public work session so the Council can properly digest the study, have experts explain it, and have the public involved. He also expressed he wants to make sure the design review is handled separately from the CUP. He indicated that nobody has talked about the design of this restaurant which he believes is horrid. He made a motion for continuance.

Mr. Cole commented that the motion would be to continue the matter until such time a traffic study can be performed considering the pedestrian impacts of the school across the street, a work session will be provided to digest the results of that study, and the design will be heard separately after the CUP. He mentioned staff probably cannot agree to a time certain for the continuance because staff would have to get with the applicant to determine the timing. He mentioned it could be August, but he will leave it to staff.

Mr. McMurray concurred with Mr. Cole in that the item should be continued indefinitely as staff will have to re-notice for the work session, design review and CUP. He mentioned staff has direction if approved.

Councilmember Williams seconded the motion.

Councilmember Fuller commented he appreciates Vice Mayor Pope’s comment because the focus has been on the safety of kids and no children have been mentioned in the traffic reports.

He expressed that the community should be able to look at a professional evaluation. He 236
requested all evidence and testimony to be able to be used later (everything to remain static until mid-August) and is in favor of the continuance if under those conditions.

Mr. Cole explained that everything today becomes part of the record; therefore, the Council can rely on what it heard today, including all verbal and written comments, when continuing the item to a later date.

The motion was carried to continue the public hearing to a date uncertain and direct staff to have a traffic study prepared including pedestrian impacts and to bring back the results of that traffic study to a work session with the design review heard separately from the CUP at a future meeting. AYES: Higgins, Fuller, Pope, Williams. NOES: Meadows. (4-1)

3.2 Public Hearing – Burroughs Rezone (RZ 01-21) and Vesting Tentative Map (TM 01- 21) - An application requesting approval of a Rezone (RZ 01-21) and Vesting Tentative Map (TM 01-21) to rezone the property from the A-3 (Heavy Agriculture) District to the Planned Development (P-1) District and to subdivide the approximately 43.24-acre project site into 208 single-family residential lots with associated site improvements and amenities. The project site is designated Single-Family High (SH) in the Oakley 2020 General Plan and Zoned A-3 (Heavy Agriculture). The Project is located at the northeast corner of E. Cypress Rd. and Knightsen Ave. (APN’s: 032-081-026 and 032-081-025) (Joshua McMurray, Interim City Manager)
Interim City Manager Joshua McMurray presented the staff report.

The applicant spoke regarding open space and roadway improvements provided with the project.

Caller *6113: Roberto Estrada requested the Council consider no more high density homes. He mentioned parking is terrible in high density home neighborhoods. He mentioned lots should be a minimum size of 6,000 square feet.

Caller *2306: The caller agreed that there has been a long going battle to fight high density housing in Oakley. The caller commented she cannot see the map and presentation well and she expressed concern with the meeting format as some callers may not have been heard because of the technical difficulties due to the format. She requested the Council consider the traffic impact assuming the main highway access would be either by Cypress Road or Laurel Road.

Mayor Higgins closed the public hearing.

Vice Mayor Pope echoed the comments made by the first public speaker. He mentioned these are 6,000 square foot lots which are small, not luxury lots. He shared that generally when there are higher density projects, he weighs the trade off or benefit to the City as a whole, and he believes this project provides it through the trails offered to all residents; therefore, he supports it.

Councilmember Meadows inquired if the project will be sold as a whole and if there is a split between Burroughs and the City.
237

STAFF REPORT
Approved and Forwarded to the City Council
DATE: February 22, 2022
TO: Joshua McMurray, City Manager
FROM: Kenneth W. Strelo, Planning Manager
SUBJECT: Second Continued Public Hearing for McDonald’s Drive-Through Quick Serve Restaurant at Laurel Plaza Conditional Use Permit (CUP 03-20) and Design Review (DR 09-20) – Request for approval to construct and operate a 4,365 square foot quick serve restaurant with dine-in and drive-through service; APN 035-510-006 Summary
This is a second continued public hearing on an application by Core States Group (“Applicant”) requesting Design Review (DR 09-20) approval to develop an approximately 1.7-acre parcel within the Laurel Plaza shopping center with a new 4,365 square foot quick serve restaurant with dine-in and drive-through service. Applicant also requests approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP 03-20) to operate the drive-through service use (“Project”). The project site consists of an existing parcel fronting on Laurel Road and within the Laurel Plaza Shopping Center, which is located on the northwest corner of Laurel Road and O’Hara Avenue. The site is zoned RB (Retail Business) District. APN 035-510-006.

Fiscal Impact
None. This is a developer funded account. All Staff time and City of Oakley generated materials are charged to the account.

Background
April 27, 2021 Public Hearing
This item was originally heard by the City Council on April 27, 2021. The April 27, 2021 Staff Report is attached and should be referred to for the following information regarding the project:
238
Subject: Second Continued Public Hearing for McDonald’s Drive-Through Quick Serve Restaurant Date: February 22, 2022

Page 2 of 10 ends

Items from the April 27, 2021 Staff Report that are included in this continued Staff Report include the Summary, Staff’s Recommendation, attachments, and list of items in the City Clerk’s Reading File. Some attachments listed in the April 27, 2021 Staff Report are now attached to or referenced in this Staff Report only, while others are not attached to either but remain a part of the public record.

On April 27, 2021 during the Regular Oakley City Council Meeting the City Council continued the item to a date certain (May 25, 2021), per recommendation by the City Attorney. The main reason for this recommendation was the unavailability of a key member of the applicant’s technical team related to the traffic study. An oral presentation was not provided by Staff, and the City Council did not deliberate on the project, but the public hearing was opened to allow public comments via the call-in line.

The City Council received verbal public comments over the call-in line, and also acknowledged receipt of several public comments received via the online submittal portal both prior to and on the day of the meeting. In addition to the comments received via the online portal, the City Council received a letter from Jessica L. Blome of Greenfire Law, PC on April 26, 2021. Since many of these comments were received after completion of the agenda and project packet, Staff drafted a memo to summarize and respond to the comments received up until 2:30 P.M. on the day of the public hearing. That memo was made available prior to the April 27, 2021 public hearing and is attached to this Staff Report. The applicable minutes for item 5.1 from the April 27, 2021 City Council Meeting are also attached for additional reference.

May 25, 2021 Continued Public Hearing
The City Council continued the public hearing on May 25, 2021. The Staff Report from that hearing item is attached. As with the April 27, 2021 Staff Report, items listed as attachments are not separately included, and instead have been made direct attachments or references to this February 22, 2022 Staff Report, as necessary, or have been excluded and remain a part of the public record. The applicable minutes from the May 25, 2021 public hearing are also attached.

After receiving the staff report and presentation, the City Council received public comment, asked questions of the City Attorney, Staff, technical experts, and the 239
Subject: Second Continued Public Hearing for McDonald’s Drive-Through Quick Serve Restaurant Date: February 22, 2022

Page 3 of 10 ends

applicant, and then deliberated on the project. At the end of deliberations, the City Council directed Staff to require a supplemental analysis that focused on the pedestrian safety and any potential impacts to the nearby land uses, specifically with Laurel Elementary School on Mercedes Lane. The Council also directed Staff to bring the completed supplemental analysis back to the Council for a work session discussion, which was eventually scheduled for the January 25, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting.

January 25, 2022 Laurel Plaza Supplemental Traffic Operations Analysis Assessment Work Session
On January 25, 2022, the City Council held a work session to discuss the traffic analysis requested at the May 25, 2021 public hearing. Staff hired Fehr and Peers to conduct the additional analysis and funded the studies through a pass-through account paid for by the two project applicants and property owner. Only City Staff managed the study from start through to the final document. The Staff Report from that Work Session is attached for reference, and it includes summaries of the data collected, review of the site plans, and conclusion recommendations to enhance operations of the proposed projects and nearby public right of way. The draft minutes from that meeting can be found as a consent calendar item on this meeting’s Agenda (February 22, 2022 City Council Agenda Item 3.3).

At the conclusion of the Work Session, the City Council individually provided feedback to Staff and the applicants. Some feedback required actions on the part of both project applicants (McDonald’s and Quick Quack) through implementation of the recommended enhancements to their respective sites and working with City Staff on solutions to implement the recommended off-site improvements. For McDonald’s those on-site enhancements included:
 Eliminating spaces 35, 36, and 37 to increase the drive-through throat depth and accommodate additional vehicle queues.
 Shifting the drive-through pedestrian crossing to the east, bulb out the pedestrian areas adjacent to the crossing, and incorporate a raised crossing to improve pedestrian visibility. Additionally, including a 10-to15-foot pedestrian barrier (i.e., fence) to the right of pedestrians exiting the McDonald’s building to increase visibility to vehicles exiting the drive-through.
 Providing at least four bicycle parking spaces.

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.
240
Subject: Second Continued Public Hearing for McDonald’s Drive-Through Quick Serve Restaurant Date: February 22, 2022

Page 4 of 10 ends

 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.

Modifications to Plans
The applicant has made several modifications to the plans to address the recommendations in the supplemental traffic study as summarized below:
 Applicant has eliminated parking spaces 35, 36, and 37 in order to increase drive-through throat depth and better accommodate additional vehicle queues so they don’t interfere with parking space access. Figure 1 shows a before and after for this area of the site plan.

Figure 1. Before and After Drive-Through Queue Portion of Site Plan Previous Plans Current Plans
 Applicant has shifted the drive-through pedestrian crossing to the east, has bulbed out the pedestrian areas adjacent to the crossing, has incorporated a raised crossing to improve pedestrian, and has included a pedestrian barrier adjacent to the drive aisle. Figure 2 (next page) shows a close up of the redesigned area of the site plan with applicable notes from plans. 241
Subject: Second Continued Public Hearing for McDonald’s Drive-Through Quick Serve Restaurant Date: February 22, 2022

Page 5 of 10 ends

Figure 2. Close Up of Drive-Through Pedestrian Crossing Area with Notes  Applicant has added bike parking spaces, which are located between the building and drive-through ordering boards. Refer to Figure 1, “Current Plans” – Notation “X”.

Drive-Through Screen Wall
In response to a City Council comment received during the January 25, 2022 Work Session, the applicant has included a detail on their plans that show the drive-through screen wall as a 3-foot high solid wall consisting of a stucco exterior colored to match the main building. This wall will eventually be mostly screened from the non-drive through side due to landscaping, but the existence of the solid wall should provide additional deterrence from pedestrians potentially cutting through the drive-through lane other than at the striped crosswalk at the eastern end.

Building Design and Architecture
The applicant has modified the building architecture from what was presented at the May 25, 2021 public hearing. The revised architecture has the same base color scheme but with a darker stone veneer. Other changes include the addition of a main pyramid roof on a raised architectural feature at the main pedestrian entrance, a gabled raised architectural element that faces the interior of the center, and two other raised elements that carry the veneer all the way up and around the back side where it is above the roofline. Figure 3 (next page) shows the previous and current proposed colored renderings of the building from all four sides. “F” – Proposed raised
pedestrian crosswalk.
“K” – Proposed guardrail /
handrail with pickets.
242
Subject: Second Continued Public Hearing for McDonald’s Drive-Through Quick Serve Restaurant Date: February 22, 2022

Page 6 of 10 ends

Figure 3. Previous and Current Proposed Colored Renderings Analysis
Original Analysis and Recent On-Site Recommendations
The original analysis for the project is included in the April 27, 2021 Staff Report. That analysis is based on factual information and technical studies and the adopted design standards and applicable land use regulations. Since that analysis was conducted, the Supplemental Traffic Study was produced and discussed during the January 25, 2022 Work Session. The on-site recommendations from that work session that were incorporated into the McDonald’s plans include: 1) the removal of three parking spaces near the rear of drive-through queue; 2) safety enhancements to the drive-through pedestrian crossing by shifting it east, raising it, and deterring pedestrians from crossing the drive-through further west by installing a barrier that funnels people to the crosswalk; and 3) inclusion of bike racks.

Pre
vio
u
s
C
urre
nt
243
Subject: Second Continued Public Hearing for McDonald’s Drive-Through Quick Serve Restaurant Date: February 22, 2022

Page 7 of 10 ends

Other Recommendations (Shopping Center of Off-Site)
Other recommendations were included in the supplement traffic study, including the recommendation to install signs within Laurel Plaza to deter non-customers from using the shopping center for drop-off and pick-up of school children, and a few off-site enhancements for the intersection of Laurel Road and Mercedes Lane. Since the use of the site for student drop-off and pick-up is a private property matter that comes down to how the property owner wants to manage the public access to the property, this can remain a recommendation, but should not be a condition of approval for the land use entitlements. Likewise, the proposed enhancements related to off-site improvements do not fall solely on the proposed use, especially since Laurel Plaza was already approved for similar square footage and higher vehicle trips rate, which was publicly adopted through the CEQA Mitigated Negative Declaration process.

Laurel Plaza is one commercially zoned property amongst the four corners at Laurel Road and O’Hara Avenue and build out of the City under the current General Plan would include all four corners being developed with commercial uses. The observations with school drop-off and pick-up identified in the supplemental traffic study, such as vehicles queuing on Laurel Road from Mercedes Lane and students being dropped off/picked up or walked to school from the Laurel Plaza parking lot, are occurring whether Laurel Plaza is further developed or not. The enhancements being recommended in the supplemental traffic study, such as modifying traffic signal timing, installing “no turn on red” signage, and installing high visibility crosswalks with advanced stop bars are additional potential benefits to the City of Oakley, but not directly required as mitigation or a condition of development for Laurel Plaza. Staff is recommending the City not include any of the off-site recommendations as conditions of approval for either of the McDonald’s or future projects in Laurel Plaza, unless any required future studies find a nexus between the use and the potential impact.

Community Benefit Program
In recognition that the off-site traffic-related enhancements are not adopted mitigation measures or proposed as conditions of approval, the Applicant has provided Staff written confirmation that they agree to initiate the City of Oakley’s Community Benefit Program to implement the off-site enhancements as recommended by the City of Oakley Public Works and Engineering Department. Since participation in the Community Benefit Program is neither a condition of approval nor a factor in a project’s findings, the applicant participating in it offers a solution for the applicant to share in the completion of the off-site enhancements without them being tied directly to the project.

This would result in both a benefit to the community and avoid any precedent being established of requiring private development projects to implement additional off-site enhancements not related to any CEQA mitigation or the proposed use’s direct impacts.

Although the Community Benefit Program is 100% voluntary, it would be the best option in implementing some of the off-site enhancements recommended in the supplemental traffic study without direct costs to the City.
244
Subject: Second Continued Public Hearing for McDonald’s Drive-Through Quick Serve Restaurant Date: February 22, 2022

Page 8 of 10 ends

Conditional Use Permit
The Conditional Use Permit approval is required for the drive-through and not the food service itself. Regardless of the type of drive-through use, the analysis would objectively focus on site design, traffic and circulation impacts, and other items related to the drive-through, but not on the type of food being served, or the company proposing to operate the business. The findings required for approval of a conditional use permit are found in Oakley Municipal Code Section 9.1.1602, part “f”. In summary, they require an analysis to ensure the following (paraphrased standards):
 The site is big enough and shaped correctly for the use’s development;  The streets accessing the site can accommodate the use’s generated traffic;  The proposed use is designed to be compatible with the intended character of the area and won’t change the essential character of the area from that intended by the General Plan and applicable zoning;
 The proposed use provides for the continued growth and orderly development of the community and is consistent with various elements of the General Plan; and  The proposed use complies with CEQA.

The required findings can be made for the proposed drive-through. 1) The site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed use and all yards, spaces, wall and fences, etc. to adapt the land use to those I the neighborhood. The applicant has shown the site can handle substantial queues in the drive-through and has implemented recommended n-site safety enhancement to further strengthen the compliance with the required finding. 2) Laurel Road and O’Hara Avenue are both arterials within the City of Oakley and ultimately designed to handle not only the traffic generated by this proposed drive-through use, but also build out of the entire City of Oakley. 3) The intended character of the area is for commercial uses. The proposed use is not only compatible with the intended character, but is a commercial use specifically conditionally permitted within the applicable zoning district or RB (Retail Business) District. 4) The proposed use will provide for the continued growth and orderly development of the community, in that it has been designed to meet all applicable zoning regulations and building code requirements, including ADA accessibility, and the building design is subject to discretionary Design Review approval. 5) The use complies with CEQA, as explained in the previous proposed findings, in that the project falls within the scope of the original Laurel Plaza Shopping Center Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH #2008012068), and applicable mitigation measures from that MND will also apply to the proposed project.

For the reasons stated above and included in the attached proposed resolution, Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit to operate a drive-through use, as conditioned.
245
Subject: Second Continued Public Hearing for McDonald’s Drive-Through Quick Serve Restaurant Date: February 22, 2022

Page 9 of 10 ends

Design Review
The building has been modified since the previous public hearing in a manner that uses the same color scheme, but adds a darker and more prominently used stone veneer, and a standing seam metal roof where applicable. The removal of the three parking spaces and shifting of the drive-through pedestrian crossing benefit the overall site functionality and vehicular and pedestrian safety. Overall, the building modifications and enhancements to the site plan are improvements over the previously submitted plans.

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, and a screen wall to soften the appearance of cars queued in the drive-through.

Lighting is sufficient, and as conditioned, will provide additional pedestrian safety. Finally, 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.

Attachments

1. Vicinity Map

2. Notice of Public Hearing

3. Project Staff Report from April 27, 2021 City Council Meeting (without attachments) (Item 5.1)

4. City Council Minutes from April 27, 2021 for Item 5.1 (excerpt)

5. Project Staff Report from May 25, 2021 City Council Meeting (without attachments) (Item 3.1)

6. City Council Minutes from May 25, 2021 for Item 3.1 (excerpt)

7. City Attorney Memo to City Council dated May 17, 2021

8. Laurel Plaza Supplemental Traffic Operations Analysis Assessment Work Session Staff Report from January 25, 2022 City Council Meeting (without attachments) (Item 7.1)

9. Applicant’s Plans

10.Proposed Conditional Use Permit and Design Review Resolution 246
Subject: Second Continued Public Hearing for McDonald’s Drive-Through Quick Serve Restaurant Date: February 22, 2022

Page 10 of 10 ends

Available Online or at City Hall for Viewing

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) 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.
247
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
February 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 6:32 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 in attendance.

1.2 Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag
Mayor Pope led the Pledge of Allegiance.

1.3 Proclamation Recognizing February 17, 2022, as California State PTA's 125th Anniversary
Mayor Pope read the proclamation into the record.
2) PUBLIC COMMENTS
Online Public Comments
Natasha Woods commented she lives in the neighborhood across from the proposed Quick Quack Car Wash and the car wash at this location will bring additional traffic where children walk and ride bikes, as well as noise. She indicated it seems redundant as there is already a car wash at Laurel and Empire. She requesting the Council consider revoking the conditional use permit (CUP).

Steph De La Rosa commented Oakley does not need another gas station, storage, car wash, mini mart, fast food or another Mexican food place.

Public Comment Card
Conan Moats addressed the discussion of appointment of another member to the Planning Commission which occurred during the last City Council meeting. He shared he was personally insulted, but more importantly, it was a waste of taxpayer money and time. He commented that 3 months ago, there was an open call to apply for the 248
Mr. Cole commented that the action is approving the resolution so if Councilmember Fuller wants to remove two items and approve the resolution without them, it approves the resolution, but there would have to be a separate resolution for the other two items which would be of concern for the record.

Councilmember Fuller commented he will let the motion stand. He expressed it is frustrating for him the way CIPs and budget are brought forth together for approval because if they don’t approve of a CIP, they have to say no to the budget. He mentioned he wants to look at CIPs and the budget separately. He expressed he doesn’t approve of the train platform.

Mayor Pope called for a second to the motion. The motion died for lack of a second to the motion.

It was moved by Councilmember Higgins and seconded by Councilmember Williams to adopt the resolution. AYES: Higgins, Meadows, Pope, Williams. NOES: Fuller (4-1) 4) PUBLIC HEARINGS

4.1 Second Continued Public Hearing for McDonald’s Drive-Through Quick Serve Restaurant at Laurel Plaza Conditional Use Permit (CUP 03-20) and Design Review (DR 09-20) – Request for approval to construct and operate a 4,365 square foot quick serve restaurant with dine-in and drive-through service; APN 035-510-006 (Ken Strelo, Planning Manager) Planning Manager Ken Strelo presented the staff report and a PowerPoint presentation.

Mayor Pope commented he would like to hear from the applicant, take questions from the City Council, hear public comments, then close the public hearing.

City Attorney Derek Cole requested to speak before the Council heard from the applicant. He requested to put the CUP finding slide back on the screen which contains 5 factors that the Council can look at in determining whether to approve or deny the CUP for the project. He explained that the factors don’t allow the Council to take into account things like fast food causes obesity, fast food is unhealthy, we don’t want any more fast food in the City or along the lines of they prefer something else; these are things beyond their control. He shared they are here because in 2006 when a prior City Council approved the overall project, they left this piece open if a developer wanted to put a fast-food restaurant or a restaurant with a drive-through. He commented that a restaurant with a drive-through is already allowed. If mentioned is a developer decided to put a business in that doesn’t use a drive-through, they would not be here today. He explained the restaurant is not the issue; the drive-through with the restaurant is what gives the Council authority to review these 5 factors. He mentioned he feels it is important to put into context East Cypress and Laurel Road. He explained the East Cypress Specific Plan includes 5,000 entitled residential lots and 80% of those lots are moving forward so there will be an amount of traffic that will generate, but the roads are 249
designed to accommodate that traffic. He mentioned he believes it is important to consider the amount of traffic from the many homes to be built each year in comparison to a single drive-through across the street from the school. He added that it is important to put the future history in context as there will be considerably more traffic, far more than this project will generate and than the residential development already entitled, and is a factor the Council should consider when making its decision. He commented there is a parking issue across the street when children are dropped off to school, but the Council should keep in mind that something happening on public property for lack of an adequate queuing line during peak times is spilling over to private property. He mentioned there is a fairness issue there the Council should take into consideration; if a developer has done everything it can, is it fair to hold a developer to it and deny the project for a condition that is beyond its control. He expressed he believes these are all things appropriate for the Council to consider.

Kevin McCauley, on behalf of the applicant, and owner/operator of McDonald’s, Brad Goldblatt, addressed the Council. Mr. Goldblatt shared he is the local McDonald’s on Main Street owner and operator which opened in 1993 and has served the community for 28 years. He mentioned it is a family business spanning 3 generations with over 50 employees. He explained the new McDonald’s will provide an opportunity to hire 50 more Oakley residents, it has a beautiful design, and state of art technology for efficiency. He shared they have partnered with many different organizations in Oakley including schools for student achievement awards, 500 free meals for Impact Soccer; and food donation programs, including a weekly donation to the Oakley Seniors. He shared they also help support Ronald McDonald charities and houses. He mentioned they take food quality and food safety seriously and take care of their staff and guests with highest standards. He requested the Council consider approval of the project. He mentioned this will be an incredible addition to Oakley.

Kevin McCauley shared a PowerPoint presentation including elevation changes, site plan changes, drive-through speaker decibels, and a queuing plan, if needed.

Councilmember Fuller commented he is confused by what Mr. Cole has said. He mentioned he is holding a memorandum dated June 25, 2007, from Mr. Strelo that was used during a Council meeting discussing Laurel Plaza and there was mention of a QSR, 2 coffee shops with drive-throughs, a Rite Aid, and bank building. He mentioned he has the QSR and diagrams. He asked for clarification to what then Councilmember Carol Rios commented, according to the minutes, that the proposed development looks similar to the shopping center in Brentwood at Balfour and Walnut which is unattractive and struggling. He went on to share that the minutes indicate she voiced concern with safety issues and she indicated she is looking for a destination shopping center at this corner. He shared that the minutes also reflect that Councilmember Brad Nix mentioned that good efforts have been made by the developer, but additional safety features are needed and the project will benefit Oakley economically. He mentioned they approved Rite Aid, but mentioned they would need to come back to replace the QSR and coffee and thereafter Fresh & Easy was approved. He expressed he is confused because Mr.

Cole said in 2006 it was all approved.
250
Mr. Cole explained that in 2006, basic entitlements were approved which included insertion into a zoning ordinance that a drive-through restaurant could be allowed subject to a CUP and that was his reference. He mentioned there has been a detailed and complex attempt by the owner to entitle and get started some of these businesses that Councilmember Fuller mentioned, but it is his understanding that the developer was never able to do it as practical business matter.

Mr. Strelo commented that the staff report from April 27 has the entitlement history; originally when the project came forward it was for the Rite Aid drive-through and design review which also included the conceptual plan, square footage, and other potential types of uses on the remainder of the site. He explained that is how the CEQA study is done, by looking at the square footage for the site which he believes was 39,000 square feet of commercial space all combined. He mentioned it included 2 other drive-throughs, a fast food drive-through and coffee shop/multi-tenant drive-through, similar to Domino’s at Cypress and Main or the Starbucks near Round Table Pizza, so several tenants but one drive-through for one of the tenants. He shared the drive-through, restaurant and CVS never came to fruition so in April, just after the Council originally approved the project, the Planning Commission looked at the Fresh & Easy project, proposed in the area where the 2 drive-throughs were proposed. He shared a supplemental study was done to identify any new impacts the Fresh & Easy project would have that were not identified with the previous uses and it did not have any new impacts so entitlements were received, and unfortunately, Fresh & Easy pulled stores from U.S. and that project never came to fruition. He mentioned in the meantime, B.A.C. Bank was built and remains now. He shared that approximately 9 years later after that first entitlement, the Chevron project came forward, was approved, and was constructed. Since then, he mentioned staff received applications around November 2020 for the McDonald’s and Quick Quack car wash. He shared that as part of the Chevron project, it included an ancillary car wash that was never built but was part of the approvals, and the Quick Quack car wash is not a replacement for it, but it is proposed in approximately the same area.

Councilmember Fuller commented that in 2007 it was an unsafe situation with a QSR and coffee shop and now there are 30,000 more people in Oakley.

Councilmember Williams commented that Resolution 05-08 dated April 21, 2008, partially talks about what Councilmember Fuller was just referencing, but it also includes, “highlights of the plaza include a pedestrian accessible shopping center that has been designed to create an open, walkable center and neighborhood hub” so she thinks that may be part of the reason why the Council at that time said that the drivethrough wouldn’t work and the Planning Commission turned it down indicating it wanted something better. She inquired if Laurel Road was intended to be a major arterial in 2008.

Mr. Strelo confirmed it has always been intended to be an arterial. 251
Councilmember Williams commented that a walkable center was the Council’s vision then and is her vision now so she is wondering why the plan deviated. She mentioned the developer has held onto it which is admirable, but the Council has called out over time that it is not the right fit so she was wondering if Laurel had always been an intended thoroughfare. She mentioned McDonald’s brought up a slide that mentioned the number of cars at particular times, 9-10 a.m., with 70 cars. She inquired where the data is coming from and how long ago it was estimated.

Kevin McCauley responded that it is current data from the other existing location in Oakley as of today and it is what their estimate would be.

Vice Mayor Meadows inquired if staff is happy with the design brought back by McDonald’s.

Mr. Strelo confirmed staff is happy with the design. He mentioned staff went back and forth with the applicant to get to this design.

Mayor Pope called for public comments. He mentioned comments are limited to 3 minutes, everyone should maintain a professional, business-like atmosphere where people are comfortable speaking with no audible reaction, i.e., boos or applause, so everyone feels that they can be heard.

Online Public Comments
Michael Dupray commented regarding peer reviewed, scholarly studies on traffic safety and health effects from fast food and drive throughs near schools. He suggested policy interventions limiting the proximity of fast-food restaurants to schools will help reduce adolescent obesity. He expressed his hope is that this drive-through and type of restaurant are not allowed there.

Samantha Greneir commented that safety needs to be the first priority and it will only create a further unsafe environment for children walking, biking or driving to school, as well as add traffic to an already impacted road. She urged the Council not to add a drive-through to the McDonald’s.

Wendy Wacker made safety suggestions for Laurel Plaza traffic operations.

Michael Rhodes expressed concern regarding trash and fast food near Laurel Elementary.

Andrea Wacker expressed opposition to the drive-through, commenting on hours of operation, noise from cars and speakers, garbage, crime, loitering and emissions from vehicles. She urged the Council to vote no on the drive-through. 252
Heather Watters requested the Council deny the drive-through for safety and also indicated the location is not acceptable or logical for a fast-food chain.

Karen Riach commented there are other locations on Laurel to place a McDonald’s and car wash. She mentioned homeless already loiter at the neighboring McDonald’s and the location was never zoned for a car wash to back up to the backyards of Oakley residents.

Juli Del Barba Favalora commented she has followed the process and with continued progress there will be challenges, but she feels confident the Council has taken into account the many concerns and she is hopeful that an outcome which satisfies all will be achieved.

Shelly Fitzgerald submitted a letter, petition signatures, comments of people who signed the petition, and maps.

Danielle Campbell expressed strong opposition to the CUP for the drive-through for health and safety reasons. She indicated in 2008, the plaza was approved for retail business that invited pedestrian-friendly shopping and patronage from the Oakley community and it should be developed with the community in mind.

Rebecca Mears expressed opposition to the McDonald’s and Quick Quack car wash on Laurel because it is dangerous and because of its negative impacts on the community.

She requested the Council find a better local business to benefit the community for that area.

Kevin Tiernan expressed opposition to the drive-through for safety reasons and opposition to the car wash.

Marilyn Tiernan expressed opposition to the drive-through for safety reasons. She requested the Councilmembers consider if they would let their children walk across that road, let alone with a drive-through.

Lindsay Waters requested to speak.

Public Comment Cards
Conan Moats commented that the meeting now demonstrates success; he feels like the community has already won. He mentioned Vice Mayor Meadows inquired if staff is happy. He mentioned if the community had not come together to indicate it is unsafe, the drive-through would have been approved. He commended the residents for coming together. He mentioned he appreciates the applicant mentioning McDonald’s does charitable work, but he also feels McDonald’s believes in Adam Smith’s theory of selfinterest to make money. He explained they have spent tens of thousands of dollars since the last meeting to try to change it to get it to pass. He mentioned the McDonald’s community benefit program seems quid pro quo; it seems odd that McDonald’s is 253
making these suggestions to benefit the community at same time they are applying. He commented the traffic seems unrealistic and the number of cars doesn’t take into consideration Freedom High School as there is no school nearby the McDonald’s on Main. He implored the City to do what is right for its residents; the City needs more businesses and to attract more businesses, but the CUP for McDonald’s is not right.

Shelly Fitzgerald referred to maps she intended to share with the Council, but she understands they were emailed to the Council. She mentioned she has heard a number of times the CUP cannot be denied because of existing entitlements, but they have done research and cannot find anything supporting prior approval for a CUP for a drivethrough restaurant at Laurel Plaza. She mentioned on the first map approved on Resolution 24-08, the Council approved the Rite Aid, but everything else on that map was continued to a later date for a lot of concerning reasons, cited by Mr. Strelo in the June 25 memo. She mentioned in his memo he stated that the adjoining buildings are an important component of the outdoor rooms, they wanted to create shade, a reason to sit outside, and have natural surveillance and monitoring by businesses facing the outdoor amenities; the shopping center is fragmented by multiple drive-throughs that complicate pedestrian circulation; and the design of the center revolves around 4 drivethrough uses that appear to function as stand-alone uses. She mentioned in a later staff report, staff mentioned multiple times that the developer will be replacing the 2 drivethroughs at the front of the site with the neighborhood market which is what they came back for on April 21 and they were approved in Resolution 05-08 for the Fresh & Easy, the bank, and the retail pads. She mentioned again, the staff report indicates the neighborhood market replaced the QSR and coffee drive-through. She shared she has asked herself several times if the Council has discretion to deny the CUP so she researched it and found in the Oakley Municipal Code that an application for a CUP is an application “to establish a land use within a land use district that does not the establishment by right.” She commented that the restaurant is allowed but the CUP is a discretional right, but it does allow the granting of a land use permit after a public hearing. She mentioned it has been acknowledged by staff that the Council has discretion to approve or deny the CUP after the public hearing. She shared in her mind, the fear of being sued by a big corporation or developer who “changes the rules” in the middle of the game is unfounded. She added that considering the Federal Court should show respect for the local authority’s professional judgment, in the decision in McDonald’s Corp v. City of Norton Shores, a higher court will likely see that this is the type of decision that Federal law gives local officials broad discretion to make. She mentioned that is what they are asking the Council for tonight, for its discretion. She commented that a City Council that would deny a CUP for a drive-through within a school zone would certainly be seen as exercising the utmost professional judgment.

A person in the audience asked if he could read Michael Dupray's comment because Mr. Dupray was not feeling well and was unable to attend.

Mayor Pope responded he could not and the City Council received his written comment.

Another person in the audience asked if Mayor Pope could read it. 254
Mayor Pope responded that the Council has accepted written comments and it is not customary to read those comments, but he will read this comment tonight. He read Mr.

Dupray’s comment into the record.

Lindsay Waters commented that feeling like getting up to speak is redundant is an understatement. She mentioned over the last year, she, along with other residents, have worked tirelessly to perform research regarding CUPs in jurisdictions of City Councils and the decision-making process, they have read case law trying to educate themselves on the rights they do have, they have reached out to neighbors, they have met with the developer, City leaders, Police and the Council, they have attended Council meetings, commented publicly and emailed, they have organized a community alliance group, Oakley Residents United, they have held signs at the proposed site to educate the community, they gathered a petition of over 880 signatures in opposition to the proposed CUP, and they have reached across barriers of prestige and title, shaking hands and voicing safety concerns. She mentioned they expect their voices have been heard and their sentiments understood and ultimately a decision made in the best interest of the community, more specifically, our children. She mentioned they have either used or attempted to successfully use every avenue that they have for their plea to be heard, but have received a repeated sentence, "It has already been approved", but if it were already approved, they wouldn’t be here tonight. She shared it is clear that the restaurant is already approved, but the drive-through is not. She mentioned just recently a drive-through was approved for Main Street but no one came forth to oppose it because there are not the same concerns. She mentioned another quote they hear is ”We have checked all of the safety boxes; it is safe.” She asked if it is safe, why there are no other that exist in the County when it seems the most lucrative place for them.

She mentioned another pushed upon phrase is “The owner has property rights; we cannot infringe on their property rights”. She mentioned this is zoned for business; it is not zoned for drive-through restaurant, a completely separate discretionary component that the Council has the right to deny; it is simply zoned for a walk-up restaurant and that is as far as their right go. She mentioned threat of a lawsuit if the Council denies the application is deplorable, a threat being explored against the interest of safety of pedestrians, most young, school-aged children unaware of distracted drivers. She commented Mayor Pope voted against the gas station and she can’t imagine he feels this is any safer. She commented Vice Mayor Meadows addressed public safety in his campaign and she asked him to consider safety concerns the project presents. She commented Councilmember William’s children attend the school along with her daughter and requested she keep their faces in mind when the Council deliberates. She applauded Councilmember Fuller’s unwavering commitment to children’s safety and expressed appreciation for Councilmember Higgins’ service to the community. She requested the Council consider denying the CUP.

Roberto Estrada expressed concern regarding the safety of children and increased traffic due to more homes being built in relation to the project. He mentioned if approved, this is an accident waiting to happen. He agreed with the previous two 255
speakers and requested the Council follow the mission statement to have a quality and safe community.

Diane Merritt shared she lives in Woodglen Estates and she is against the drive-through as it is in the worst location in Oakley in defense of grammar school children; no matter if there is signage for people not to walk over the drive-through lanes, it is difficult for people to obey signage now as they are used to the way they are walking and will take a chance to try to get away with it. She mentioned inevitably, a school child who doesn’t know how to read and a careless drivers will collide, and a child will be seriously injured or killed. She commented children should never be put in a leave it to chance situation and the City should never take this kind of risk.

Ann Marlow-Rendler inquired if anyone on the Council lives in Woodglen. She shared getting onto Laurel in the morning is already difficult and dangerous with traffic driving fast and adding this McDonald’s is insane and wrong; there is not one good thing about putting it on that corner. She mentioned there are three schools, high school kids drive crazy and will go there, and parents not walking their kids across the street will still park there. She expressed Oakley needs friendly businesses like an independent coffee shop to provide a nice, calm center to walk up and enjoy. She indicated the neighborhood will suffer along with elementary school if approved. She mentioned if the Council doesn’t believe her, they can try to get onto O’Hara or Laurel from Woodhill at 7:30-7:45am with traffic.

Alicia Torres shared her personal story when she was 19 years old and hit a 10-year old boy whose bike went halfway under her car and the terror she felt when she thought he was dead. She shared his brother helped him to his feet and to his bicycle and they rode off. She mentioned although she was told the boy was at fault for not following signals when he darted into the street, she was distracted and terrified. She commented that this situation is similar and you can teach children to obey traffic signals, but she dreads the day they will hear about kids getting hit.

Matt Beinke with O'Hara Properties mentioned they have owned Laurel Plaza for 20 years and have 20,000 residential units and over 2 million square feet of commercial space in the County so this is not his first hearing or controversial conversation. He commented that commercial comes after housing and everyone has opinions on uses and so do they. He shared they lost some opportunities due to market and changes in technology. He mentioned Mr. Strelo mentioned they have 37,000 square feet, but it is actually 57,000 square feet, but it was significantly reduced with what they had to do for the front, reducing it by 20,000 square feet which is significant. He expressed he understands it is a controversial use, but it is an allowed use. He mentioned they are held to industry standards and aside from emotions, they must go through the process, and they have gone through that for the center. He compared it to a residential subdivision where the lots and roads are already put in and now there are no more entitlements, they just need to build. He explained they wouldn’t be here if the City had an active Planning Commission, but it could still be appealed to the City Council. He commented that the traffic analysis and other reports were done following industry 256
standards, by technical experts, not based on opinion. He mentioned the last study they did at the request of the City, but it was not part of the project initially. He reminded them there is 500,000 square feet potentially coming to Laurel and O'Hara and this has always been a high traffic area even before the City incorporated. He mentioned while there are complexities with some projects, but here it is straight forward; they are following the rules of California land use law and they are all held to that standard. He expressed he gets it is a safety concern, but this project is not creating the problem for the school. He commended McDonald’s for trying to help solve concerns as it is not a requirement for the project. He shared that the school district has been invited to engage in residential and commercial projects they have handled, but rather than come to the table, the school district sends letters at 4:59 p.m. to the City Council. He explained they did the traffic analysis, they have come up with proposals and ideas that are not required, and they want to see a positive impact, but it would be nice to see everyone in the room. He mentioned the school district’s track record has not been good, but he hopes it will change with the new Superintendent. He expressed he expects it to be approved because as a matter of law it should be approved; any denial of the project would be unsupported by substantial evidence and would be arbitrary and capricious.

Karen Riach agreed with everything said. She commented the school should be a focal point and there are other areas appropriate for a drive-through, even on Laurel, but not across from an elementary school. She indicated they should be ashamed of themselves and have some respect. She requested if the Council approves the restaurant to approve it without a drive-through.

Mary Roney agreed with the opposition comments made. She mentioned she sent a letter and even through the CUP meets the 5 criteria, it doesn’t meet the Plaza approval plans for a walkable center for that area. She shared a McDonald’s without a drivethrough does and she is okay with that. She mentioned the homes on E. Cypress will add traffic to Laurel Road and it is bad enough with the gas station; she can’t imagine what it will be like with a car wash, the gas station and a drive-through restaurant. She expressed she is opposed to it. She mentioned idling cars create pollutants and more houses will only increase the numbers and the people living there will be breathing in the pollutants, not Mr. Beinke.

Liz Elias commented that many people spoke loudly against the drive-through and the Council should extrapolate; for every one person that comments, there are hundreds more that haven’t bothered to comment because they are disgusted and tired of inaction, being ignored, and shouted down, and the vote always going against what the people want. She requested the Council listen to the people and do their job, not planned schemes. She mentioned a traffic survey at the behest of the applicant is not exactly unbiased or accurate. She commented that Laurel will get busier with new houses coming in, the traffic survey is inaccurate due to COVID, the community is not happy with it, it is not safe, it is a bad idea, there is plenty of legal precedence for denying CUPs, and it can still be voted down. She mentioned sooner or later someone 257
will be killed before the City wakes up to install safety measures. She urged the Council to be proactive and deny the CUP, listen to the people, and turn it down.

Bill Chaddock commented that community programs are good. He shared he works for a huge grocery chain and he has seen ugly side of community benefit programs and it needs to be watched. He mentioned McDonald’s food for seniors is not good for sodium. He shared other cities are combating CUPs; i.e., Dublin has drive-throughs that are causing too many problems. He asked if they want a better standard of life here or just the same as everyone else has. He commented he was watching a cattle shoot, the drive-through, to get the hamburger because that is where the beef is. He responded to the comment made regarding the school district being part of the problem and mentioned the school is where it is way before anything else. He shared this is a good neighborhood, it is wonderful, and needs to be a safe place. He asked how much revenue the City gets from these projects, i.e., Amazon, and how many Oakley residents are hired as employees.

Donna Chaddock commented they have been attending Council meetings for one year and have a vested interest; they don’t want to see a fast-food drive through and there is not one person that has said they are in favor of it. She mentioned Mr. Strelo recommended the Council adopt the resolution and Mr. Cole, 2 or 3 sessions ago, indicated the Council gets to choose yes or no. She also mentioned she is glad O'Hara Properties got up to speak. She read the 3rd factor from the slide on the screen, when performing a CUP analysis, “Project will be designed, constructed, and operated in a manner compatible with intended character of the General Plan and zoning regulations.” She commented that O'Hara Properties talked to the City Council and negotiated because the community didn’t want it then and they don’t want it now at that site or a Quick Quack car wash. She asked the Council what it will decide, to vote with the community or with the corporation.

M. Lozoya submitted a comment card and did not wish to speak, but rather have her comment entered into the record. Mayor Pope read her comment into the record which indicated to say no to the CUP for the drive-through as it is too close to the school; it is a very busy intersection with too many students, families and traffic. She requested the Council vote down the CUP to ensure the safety for all of the citizens of Oakley.

Paul Seger commented it is clear this intersection is gold with all of the traffic; it is going to be the entrance into the city. He mentioned the issue is not the restaurant. He added that one of the Councilmembers confusingly stated it is already approved and there is nothing they can do, but the CUP has not been approved. He mentioned it has been over a year now; the owner willingly tried to move forward without the traffic study before compelled to do a new traffic study, but the new traffic study doesn’t have a cumulative impact of all 4 corners and traffic generated when completely built out. He shared he is not a fan of McDonald’s; this is low-hanging fruit, but this provides an opportunity to do something clever with the development. He expressed he feels the developer is lazy. He mentioned the McDonald’s shows how important and dramatic this corner will be; there are 3 other corners to build on and this is put on the Council 258
because it is supposed to be a neighborhood development and he hopes the Council sees clear to doing so. He expressed he doesn’t appreciate outsiders talking down upon the Superintendent. He asked the Council to put their child at this school and vote how it will impact their family and friends. He mentioned great points were made by others and indicated Councilmembers Fuller and Williams did a great job stepping up.

Tosha Grey commented that the City Council has been presented with findings from the community and from Greenfire Law, and as implied from the supplemental traffic study.

She mentioned in regard to the project’s consistency with various elements of the General Plan, there is a recurring theme reiterated on the City’s website as well as in the language of the General Plan, policy 2.3, to promote community and residential development that supports the small-town character, goal 3.2 to promote walking and bicycling, and 2.2 to promote the high-quality of life in Oakley. She mentioned the Council is charged with a difficult challenge of balancing the intended small-town character while promoting long-term economic success. She mentioned 41% of responses in the City’s recent survey felt Oakley is headed in the wrong direction; there are too many gas stations and fast-food being built relative to other businesses. She mentioned no comments of support have been made for the project other than comments of those with financial interest. She commented the proposed site exists within a school zone and the developer was aware the site was located within a school zone when they purchased it. She mentioned school-aged pedestrians exist at this location, primarily from Laurel Elementary and O’Hara Park Middle School; whether they cut through Laurel Plaza or use the sidewalks along O’Hara and Laurel, this project will force them to traverse along traffic of a gas station, quick-serve drive-through, and ultimately a car wash. She added that additional safety measures added from a supplemental traffic study are appreciated although it is unlikely that they would have been submitted by the applicant if not for the safety concerns presented by the local community. She indicated the only way to mitigate the inherent dangers of a quick-serve drive-through adjacent to a school and in the path of pedestrian children is to not build a quick-serve drive-through in a school zone. She mentioned the existing gas station is a prime example of a project that completely disregards the safety of existing surrounding uses, with ability to sell tobacco products less than 400 feet from an elementary school and 700 feet from ball fields. She mentioned the City has passed an ordinance preventing tobacco sales within 1,000 feet from schools or parks, adopted in December 2018, just months after the business was granted its license. She expressed it is unfortunate the prior Council did not exercise its right previously of discretionary decision-making in approving the sale of tobacco products in front of an elementary school. She requested the prior poor planning and decision-making not pave the way and set precedence for the remaining development of this project. She shared teachers ask their students to double-check their work and ask them to check if their answer seems logical or reasonable and if no, the student should go back and check their work.

She asked the Council if the placement of a fast-food drive-through not only within a school zone but within 150 feet of an elementary school sounds logical and if their answer is no, she urged them to please go back and check their work, have the developer check their work, and come back with a project that is logical consistent with the existing surrounding uses.
259
Chrishan Ross addressed her concerns regarding the Quick Quack car wash and drivethrough McDonald’s and their safety risks and issues. She expressed she feels their voices need to be heard and needs met. She added it is incumbent upon the City Council if it wants to maintain the small-town character to deny the CUP for the drivethrough. She shared she can’t imagine their neighborhoods being burdened with such poor additions. She shared she is a teacher and can’t imagine how students could concentrate with sounds of a car wash or drive-through orders. She mentioned this is not a smart plan and there are smart people on the Council that can make good decisions for the best interest of the community. She expressed she hopes they are not afraid of a legal battle. She offered to be the first to contribute to a “Go Fund Me” campaign if the City needs it.

Mark Sutter shared he has been a Woodglen resident for 24 years, it is a great neighborhood, and he has lived there a long time. In regard to the traffic analysis, he mentioned he is not sure where the comment is founded that the area always been a high traffic area. He commented it was a 2-lane road with stop signs, with no Police Department or City Hall, so is a wrong statement. He shared he walked from Woodglen to 7 Eleven where there was trash within 400 feet and he wonders how much worse it will get. He expressed he hopes the decision is heard from their point of view, not swayed by there could be liability of being sued by the developer. He mentioned if a drive-through car leaves and kills a child, it is on their conscious. He inquired who they can call if someone is sleeping behind their homes. He mentioned he thinks there is a higher cost to a child getting killed. He begged them not to let it happen to their neighborhood. He commented the growth on E. Cypress is out of control and is overpopulating the road and the only thing that is preventing something tragic from happening is the land owner who hasn’t sold his property to allow that property to be developed all the way through.

Kelly Kroll mentioned she grew up in Los Angeles and New York and could have moved anywhere but fell in love with Oakley because it has so much potential. She mentioned she doesn’t know if anyone here profiting knows the roads already have a lot of traffic or if they know about the girl that died in the crosswalk on Laurel before the gas station was built. She expressed she wants Oakley to prosper and for businesses to come and it would be nice for parents to meet up; i.e., a coffee house for parents. She shared she would also love a library.

Mayor Pope called for a brief recess at 8:17 p.m.

The City Council reconvened at 8:23 p.m.

Mayor Pope called for deliberation/discussion.

Councilmember Williams commented regarding the CUP, she thinks they have seen all of the reasons why it checks all of the boxes, but the one things she comes back to is the intended character of the General Plan and zoning code and she doesn’t see how 260
this fits. She expressed she knows they have been told about pending litigation from their attorney and the landowner, but she has a list of CUPs that were denied because it didn’t satisfy the Council beyond a reasonable doubt. She shared as recently as November 2021, the Napa City Council denied a CUP for a drive-through because idling cars would lead to increased GHGs. She mentioned they recently went through a General Plan update and she feels they should adhere to it. She shared that Walnut Creek also denied a drive-through at an intense location because they couldn’t in good conscious approve it; this also is an intense use. She mentioned she wishes the former Council would have said this is a sensitive zone because the landowners living next to the plaza have a property right too. She shared she can hear school bells on Kay where she resides all day long and she cannot imagine the decibels from the speakers will be less. She commented that this doesn’t fit with the general character of the General Plan.

She referenced Resolution 05-08 that highlights the plaza will be a pedestrian-friendly shopping center designed to be walkable and a neighborhood hub. She mentioned this is a great opportunity for McDonald’s to bring a charming feel, a walk-up restaurant will still provide the same school traffic they would get, but it is because of the drive-through component she thinks they wouldn’t want to do that, but that is what that center was designed for. She commented that nothing has been brought to her beyond a reasonable doubt that this fits into the intended character.

City Attorney Derek Cole commented that the legal standard of review, whether the Council approves or does not approve, is a substantial evidence standard of review. He mentioned if the Council approves the project and the opponent challenges, they would have to show the Council’s findings on disputed elements were not supported by substantial evidence. He mentioned conversely, if the Council denies the project and is challenged, they would have to show the reason for the Council’s denial did not have substantial evidence. He explained substantial evidence is defined by legal precedence as evidence that is reasonable, credible and of solid value; it is not 50%+1 or proof beyond a reasonable doubt. He mentioned there has to be some evidence to support the decision. He mentioned he wants to make sure the Council understands that if their decision is for the project, they have to find substantial evidence to support each of the each of the 5 elements and if against the project, they must find that one or more of those elements cannot be supported by substantial evidence.

Councilmember Fuller expressed tonight is what he envisions Oakley and he is touched that the community came together because of the safety of children. He shared he was on a school board and heard over and over again that the best people to advise about the community is the local community. He mentioned they have a responsibility to children. He shared he had 22 years in law enforcement and 22 years teaching, mostly special education and the schools don’t get it; they don’t walk or cross in the crosswalk or encounter the cars that could knock them down; children are not safe in that area. He commented that 14 years ago it was said and he is saying the same now; coffee shop drive-throughs were discussed 14 years ago and two councilmembers said the drivethroughs were not safe, and now there are 30,000 more people. He mentioned the Supreme Court said the same thing; the best decision is made by the local community. 261
He expressed his decision needs to be based on is what is right, and in this case, it is a no vote.

Vice Mayor Meadows commented there are 5 reasons they can deny the CUP. He inquired which one they would be denying on.

Mayor Pope inquired if Vice Mayor Meadows is asking a rhetorical question.

Vice Mayor Meadows responded it is not 2 and he would question them.

Mayor Pope responded 3 and 4. He expressed he is troubled by it because it conflicts with values; no matter what the Council chooses, it violates values. He mentioned he respects the property right of property owners as long as it doesn’t interfere with their neighbors and their enjoyment of their property. He mentioned he sees the property owner here and the property owners adjacent to them and how this use would impact them. He shared he also values safety, children, families and schools, but considers if somebody in proximity of a school should have to suffer from decisions of those before them and if children should be in danger because of decisions before them. He commented he appreciates accommodations the applicant has made. He mentioned alignment of the que was brought up tonight and currently it will back onto Laurel and cause accidents there; he thinks there is a solution, but they are not there yet. He mentioned it conflicts with children; there is a risk for them to walk across drive-throughs and cutting through lots, the reason he voted against the Chevron, because the design would encourage kids to cut through and adults have to protect them. He suggested if the City Council approves, to have an additional condition of approval to restrict hours of operations of the drive-through during pick up and drop off times to eliminate the potential for conflict. He mentioned someone inquired about revenue from projects; every quarter staff produces a report which is available to the public. He mentioned it comes down to location; if this project were like the one on Main Street, no one spoke in opposition, and even if further down on Laurel, he is not sure there would be the same numbers of opposition, but across from the elementary school calls for special consideration. He shared there is a Taco Bell that you can walk up to on a beach and there is no drive-through; location necessitates special consideration. He shared the Council requested an additional traffic report which says traffic already exceeds standard certain times of certain times of day which coincide with pick up and drop off times which further supports restrictions on drive-through times. He mentioned the City doesn’t own the land or control it so if the community wants to pool its resources and build something, please do, but someone else has done so and deserves to be heard.

He commented that the hours of operation of the project have not been discussed. He suggested if the City Council approves, it consider those conditions because of the close proximity to neighbors just over the fence and because of the elevation on this parcel, you can see over sound wall. He inquired when the property was zoned commercial.

Mr. McMurray responded it was before the City incorporated; it was neighborhood business and in the County it is retail business.
262
Mayor Pope inquired when the homes were built. Someone responded in 1986.

Mayor Pope commented that the homes were built in 1986 and the City incorporated in 1999. He expressed disappointment that no members of the school board were present.

He shared an analogy of tomato trucks on both sides of the freeway going in opposite directions, north and south, even though they both might have closer drop off locations if they switched routes. He explained it is a free market economy, they live in a free country, and they do not have central control.

Councilmember Williams commented since they heard from so many homeowners; there is a court case that provides the owner of real property may testify as to the value of their property even though they are not qualified as an expert which she thinks is important to goes back to when the residents purchased their homes and what the center was intended for. She mentioned she is sympathetic with the developer and provided an example of the Taco Bell Mayor Pope mentioned earlier; to fit in, it does not have a drive-through and it changed its menu and now they even serve alcohol. She encouraged McDonald’s that this is an opportunity to do something creative to fit in with the neighborhood and not just try to fit it in because that is not what the plaza is intended for and she considers the landowners that were there before the plaza purchase.

Councilmember Fuller shared he is thinking about where government fits in with business. He commented the capitalistic country balances itself on free enterprise, but not allow people to be exploited or oppressed by business; they must balance government with community concerns properly addressed along with free enterprise. He shared he believes it is the Council’s responsibility to ensure the safety of the community at the local level and also allow free enterprise in the best interest of all in the community.

Vice Mayor Meadows commented he believes in free enterprise and property rights. He mentioned the property has been commercial as long as he can remember; it was commercial when the homes were approved. He also mentioned it has been known that Laurel was to be a major road for decades. He moved for approval of the CUP and design review, as conditioned.

Mayor Pope announced the motion died for lack of a second.

Mayor Pope mentioned the only way he may consider approval is if there are additional conditions of approval; i.e., at minimum, hours of operation for the drive-through and all business operations there for neighborhood peace and quiet. He commented he would like to see the alignment of the drive-through changed, but with the hours restricted, he could compromise on that.

Councilmember Williams requested clarification if Mayor Pope is proposing the drivethrough would be closed during certain times. 263
Mayor Pope commented that the drive-through would not be allowed to operate during student drop off and pick up times.

Councilmember Williams mentioned the drop off time is between 7:40 a.m. to 8:06 a.m.

Mayor Pope suggested the drive-through be closed 1/2 hour before and after.

Councilmember Williams commented that the pick-up times are staggered every day and is different on Wednesdays.

An audience member suggested they consider T-K and EDLC kids as well.

Mayor Pope commented he would also like to see a mandatory shut down time.

Mr. McMurray explained the Municipal Code already provides for reduction of decibels at 10 p.m.

Councilmember Fuller commented they have a motion with no second. He inquired where that leaves the Council with the CUP and any other item.

Mr. Cole explained the Council needs to see if another motion can be made and if no motion with a second, the Mayor can declare a deadlock, but they are not there yet. He mentioned moving approval as presented died so it is off the table. He advised one option would be to deny it outright and if so, staff needs to bring the item back as he would need to prepare findings to outline the reasoning and evidence to support their denial because the applicant would be entitled to it and a court would require the finding to be adopted should litigation follow. He mentioned if this is the direction, the Council would tentatively deny the project subject to the City Attorney to prepare findings for the Council’s consideration at a future meeting. He advised another option would be as Mayor Pope indicated, an alternative motion could be made to add conditions of approval if reasonably specific, the Council could approve the project as presented with additional conditions of approval; for example, it would spell out hours of operation for the drive-through. He mentioned if the Council did that, it would be approving everything else, the negative declaration and design review. He mentioned staff can do that with the Council’s direction.

Mayor Pope commented he is trying to figure out how to split the baby.

Mr. Cole mentioned they must have evidence what the hours will be so the Council has the ability to draft something if it is its’ will.

Mr. Strelo commented that right now, he does not have it but is taking notes.

Mr. Cole advised another option if the Council denies the project and they have to come back with findings or they could try to formulate something tonight by splitting the baby 264
or otherwise coming up with a solution that works and be done with it. He commented he doesn’t know what the applicant would do as the applicant would be put under the gun to try and figure it out now. He mentioned he knows it will be going to another meeting, but the Council may want to vet that through now and allow the applicant to help, if feasible, which he doesn’t know--do they block it off or put a rope across; maybe they can do that. He indicated it may be better to give staff time to work with the applicant if at least 3 want to do that.

Mr. McMurray responded that the applicant is here and can give the hours of operation.

Kevin McCauley responded that it would open at 5 a.m. or 6 a.m. and close at 10 p.m. or 11 p.m. He shared they are open to looking at a different drive-through stack if the Council provides that direction.

Mayor Pope commented he met with the property owner and the construction manager and he wants to respect property rights, the neighborhood and the school. He mentioned if they can come up with a solution to satisfy that, he would be happy to approve.

Kevin McCauley commented that they do a lot of drive-throughs and this is the best they have come up with to date and most efficient, but it is no problem to continue looking at it.

Mayor Pope commented unless there is any motion of consensus, they can give staff direction to work with the applicant.

It was moved by Councilmember Higgins and seconded by Councilmember Williams to deny the CUP.

Mr. Cole inquired so he is clear that the motion is to tentatively deny the project with direction for the City Attorney to bring back the resolution with findings to justify the denial. He mentioned the applicant is entitled to this which would be done at a future meeting.

Councilmember Higgins confirmed that is her motion.

Councilmember Williams confirmed she still seconds it.

Mayor Pope called for any further discussion.

Councilmember Fuller inquired if they are voting to deny the CUP.

Mr. Cole explained that is correct, but that they still have to submit findings and rule.

Councilmember Fuller requested clarification if he approves, it would deny the CUP. 265
Mayor Pope requested confirmation that a ‘yes’ vote would mean no to the CUP.

Mr. Cole confirmed that is correct. He shared he will be out of the office next week so if denied, it would come back on March 22.

Mr. McMurray suggested the Council pick a date certain so staff does not have to renotice.

Mr. Cole requested if it is the pleasure of the Council to deny it, that it be brought back on March 22 for the Council to consider the findings.

Mayor Pope requested the City Clerk call the vote and she did. The following vote was taken: AYES: Fuller, Higgins, Williams. NOES: Meadows, Pope. (3-2) Mayor Pope announced the motion passes 3-2 and confirmed staff has received sufficient direction.
5) REGULAR CALENDAR
6) REPORTS

6.1 CITY MANAGER
(a) City Manager
City Manager Joshua McMurray announced Friday, March 4, Friday Night Bites will be hosted at City Hall, there are 2 Strategic Plan meetings coming up to be held March 10 and 31 at 6:30 p.m.

Due to attendees clearing the room, Mayor Pope suggested they take a 30 second pause. He thanked everyone for attending and welcomed everyone to stay but to keep voices to a quiet tone to allow the remainder of the meeting to be conducted.

Mr. McMurray continued with his report. He repeated what he said previously for his report and added that the 2 Strategic Plan meetings will be held at the Oakley Recreation Center.

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
Vice Mayor Meadows reported he attended MCE’s board meeting last week. He announced transportation meetings for February have been canceled. 266
267
268
269
270
Resolution No. -23 Page 1 of 18 April 11, 2023
RESOLUTION NO. -23

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF OAKLEY CITY COUNCIL MAKING FINDINGS AND APPROVING 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)

FINDINGS
WHEREAS, on November 23, 2020, Zach Michels of Core States Group (“Applicant”) filed an application requesting Design Review (DR 09-20) approval to develop an approximately 1.7-acre parcel within the Laurel Plaza shopping center with a new 4,365 square foot quick serve restaurant with dine-in and drive-through service.

Applicant also requests approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP 03-20) to operate the drive-through service use (“Project”). The project site consists of an existing parcel fronting on Laurel Road and within the Laurel Plaza Shopping Center, which is located on the northwest corner of Laurel Road and O’Hara Avenue. The site is zoned RB (Retail Business) District. APN 035-510-006; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant’s Plans include site plan, grading plan, conceptual landscape plans, building elevations, storm water control plan, truck circulation plan, and water efficient landscape ordinance calculations; (“Plans”); and WHEREAS, on January 13, 2021 the project application was deemed complete per Government Code section 65920 et. seq; and
WHEREAS, the project site is designated Commercial (CO) on the Oakley 2020 General Plan Land Use Map, and zoned RB (Retail Business) District; and WHEREAS, the proposed project falls within the scope of the original Laurel Plaza Shopping Center Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH #2008012068) California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) analyses; and WHEREAS, on April 27, 2021, at a duly noticed public hearing for the project, per recommendation from the City Attorney, the City Council announced the item would be continued to a date certain (May 25, 2021). The Mayor then opened the public hearing and received written and oral testimony from the public. Upon conclusion of the public comments, the City Council continued the item to May 25, 2021; and WHEREAS, on May 25, 2021, the City Council re-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 continued the item to a date uncertain and directed Staff to require an additional traffic analysis that focused on the pedestrian safety and any potential impacts to nearby land uses, specifically the elementary school on Mercedes Lane; and 271
Resolution No. -23 Page 2 of 18 April 11, 2023
WHEREAS, on February 22, 2022, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the Project and after deliberations directed Staff to return with a resolution to deny the proposed Project’s Conditional Use Permit (CUP 03-20) and Design Review (DR 09-20); and
WHEREAS, on March 22, 2022, the City Council voted 3-2 and adopted Resolution No. 25-22 denying the proposed Project’s Conditional Use Permit (CUP 03- 20) and Design Review (DR 09-20) on the basis of being unable to make all of the required findings to approve a Conditional Use Permit; and WHEREAS, following denial of the Project, the Laurel Plaza property owner filed an action challenging the denial in Contra Costa Superior Court; and WHEREAS, as the City defends the legal challenge, filed as a writ of mandate, City Staff, the City Attorney, and legal counsel have engaged in informal settlement discussion with representatives of the property owner; and WHEREAS, as part of the informal settlement discussions, the property owner identified they would accept additional modifications to the Project as described in the Staff Report should the project be reconsidered and approved; and WHEREAS, for purpose of resolving the property owner’s lawsuit, this application is returning to provide the City Council an opportunity to further consider the project, as modified; and
WHEREAS, on or before March 31, 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 emailed/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, 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 Ordinance, the Oakley Commercial and Industrial Design Guidelines, the project plans, and the applicable information submitted to the City Council at its April 11, 2023 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”).

272
Resolution No. -23 Page 3 of 18 April 11, 2023
A. The proposed project falls within the scope of the original Laurel Plaza Shopping Center Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH #2008012068) California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) analyses, thereby requiring filing of a CEQA Notice of Determination with the Contra Costa County Clerk and Governor’s Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse following project approval.

B. Regarding the application requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit to operate a “Drive-through Restaurant and Services” (CUP 03-20), the City Council finds:

2. That the site for the proposed use relates to streets and highways adequate in width and pavement type to carry the quantity and kind of traffic generated by the proposed use, in that the site is accessed from Laurel Road, the City’s highest traveled arterial street, which will eventually serve this entire intersection of commercial development;

3. The proposed use will be arranged, designed, constructed, operated and maintained so as to be compatible with the intended character of the area and shall not change the essential character of the area from that intended by the General Plan and the applicable zoning ordinances, in that the General Plan intended the area for commercial uses, and the zoning ordinance allows drive-throughs with approval of a CUP, and the applicant has taken input from the public, City Council and Staff on project design up to the most recent set of plans, and has agreed to install off-site pedestrian enhancement improvements for the public benefit;

5. That the proposed use, including any conditions attached thereto, will be established in compliance with the applicable provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, in that the proposed use has been found, after additional analysis, to fall within the scope of the original Laurel Plaza Shopping Center Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH #2008012068), and applicable mitigation measures from that MND will also apply to the proposed project.
273
Resolution No. -23 Page 4 of 18 April 11, 2023
C. Regarding the application requesting Design Review approval to develop an approximately 1.7-acre parcel within the Laurel Plaza shopping center with a new 4,365 square foot quick serve restaurant with dine-in and drive-through service (DR 09-20), the City Council finds:

3. Landscaping and site elements, including general landscape areas; entry and plaza enhancements; parking lot landscaping; walls and fences; and lighting: The site is adequately landscaped, including the addition of trees for aesthetic and parking lot shade, and a screen wall to soften the appearance of cars queued in the drive-through. Lighting is sufficient, and as conditioned, will provide additional pedestrian safety; and

4. Streetscapes, including major community entries; highlighted intersections; and district entries: The streetscape is existing and already in compliance with the standards for review.

D. 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, “McDonald’s Drive-Through Quick Serve Restaurant at Laurel Plaza Conditional Use Permit (CUP 03-20) and Design Review (DR 09-20),” 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 February 8, 2022, as well as additional information acquired since that time and made a part of the project file.
274
Resolution No. -23 Page 5 of 18 April 11, 2023

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 Department on February 8, 2022, and as conditioned herein.

2. This approval shall be effectuated within a period of one (1) year from the effective date of this resolution by pulling a building or grading permit and if not effectuated shall expire on April 11, 2024. Prior to said expiration date, the applicant may apply for an extension of time pursuant to the provisions of the Zoning Code.

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 11, 2023, 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.

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. All mitigation measures addressed in the environmental document for the original Laurel Plaza Shopping Center (SCH #2008012068) shall be complied with and addressed as outlined in the Mitigation Monitoring Program approved for this project (incorporated as Exhibit A), per the review and approval of the Community Development Director.

8. The Applicant shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City of Oakley, the City Approving Authorities, and the officers, agents, and employees of the 275
Resolution No. -23 Page 6 of 18 April 11, 2023
City from any and all claims, damages and liability (including, but not limited to, damages, attorney fees, expenses of litigation, costs of court).

Site Plan:

9. All parking stall striping shall be double striped. Parking stalls shall be 9 feet wide by 19 feet deep and all drive aisles shall be a minimum 24 feet in width as reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director.

10. A lighting and photometric plan shall be submitted prior to the issuance of building permits. The minimum requirement shall be one foot of candle light within public parking areas and pedestrian pathways.

11. Light poles shall be a maximum height 21 feet and shall provide glare shields where adjacent to existing residences per the review and approval of the Community Development Director.

12. Trash enclosures shall match Oakley Disposal and City standards and shall provide adequate space to accommodate both trash and recycling. Also, trash enclosures shall be constructed with a roof to match the building design and materials, have metal gates, and when appropriate be surrounded by landscaping with climbing vines on three sides per the review and approval of the Community Development Director.

13. Storage shall be contained inside the building. Storage containers are not allowed and pallets, boxes, cardboard etc. shall not be stored outside.

14. In order to further enhance pedestrian safety the applicant shall include the following on the construction drawings:
a. Provide additional lighting, visibility, and warning signage where the pedestrian access crosses the drive-through aisle between Laurel Road and the building; and
b. The applicant shall design and maintain the landscaping within the pedestrian pathway north of the drive-through entrance to allow for better pedestrian visibility to oncoming vehicles traveling to and from the intersection of Laurel Road and Mercedes Lane.

Off-Site Pedestrian Enhancements:

15. The applicant shall install high-visibility crosswalks with advanced stop bars for all crosswalks at the intersection of Laurel Road and Mercedes Lane, per the review and approval of the Community Development Director and City Engineer.
276
Resolution No. -23 Page 7 of 18 April 11, 2023

16. The applicant shall fund the modification of the signal phasing to include leading pedestrian intervals at the Laurel Road/Mercedes Lane intersection to improve pedestrian visibility and reduce conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles.

17. The applicant shall install blank out “No Turn on Red” signage to increase pedestrian safety for the southbound approach at the Laurel Road/Mercedes Lane intersection, per the review and approval of the Community Development Director and City Engineer. The blank out signs should be operational during school pick-up and drop-off hours.

Architectural Details:

18. Roof-mounted equipment shall be architecturally screened from view.

19. All exterior light fixtures shall be of quality design and materials, and parking lot lights shall match existing parking lot lights in the shopping center to the maximum extent possible. Specs for the exterior fixtures, including building lights, shall accompany the construction drawings for building permits, and be subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Director.

Landscaping:

20. A landscaping and irrigation plan for all front yard, right-of-way, parks, open space, and trail 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.”

21. 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.

22. 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.

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

Signage:
277
Resolution No. -23 Page 8 of 18 April 11, 2023

24. All proposed permanent and temporary signage shall meet the requirements of the Laurel Plaza Master Sign Program approved by the City of Oakley on April 21, 2008, as applicable, and with the City’s Zoning Ordinance. All proposed signage shall be reviewed by the Planning and Building Divisions.

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.

Public Works and Engineering Conditions

THE FOLLOWING SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF AN ENCROACHMENT AND/OR GRADING PERMIT:

28. GENERAL. All public improvements shall be made according to the latest adopted City Standard Drawings and Specifications. All work shall conform to the applicable City ordinances. The adjacent public right-of-way shall be kept clear of all job-related dirt and debris at the end of the day. Dirt and debris shall not be washed into storm drainage facilities. The storing of goods and materials on the sidewalk and/or the street will not be allowed unless a special permit is issued. The developer's representative in charge shall be at the job site during all working hours. Failure to maintain the public right-of-way according to this condition may result in the City performing the required maintenance at the developer's expense.

29. ENCROACHMENT PERMIT. All work in the public right-of-way, including any lockage or partial closure of sidewalks will require an Encroachment Permit.

Special provisions such as limitations on works hours, protective enclosures, or other means to facilitate public access in a safe manner may be required. 278
Resolution No. -23 Page 9 of 18 April 11, 2023

30. GRADING PERMIT. All earthwork must comply with the City’s Grading Ordinance. A Grading Permit must be issued by the public works department prior to site disturbance.

31. PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTIONS. The developer or their representative shall notify the Engineering Inspector at least forty-eight (48) hours before starting any work pertaining to on-site drainage facilities, grading or paving, and all improvements in approved plans. Failure to do so will result in rejection of work that was completed without inspection.

32. PRECONSTRUCTION MEETING. Prior to issuance of any permit or the commencement of any site work, the general contractor shall:

33. Along with the project applicant, attend a pre-construction meeting with the City Engineer to discuss the project conditions of approval, working hours, site maintenance and other construction matters;
a. Acknowledge in writing that they have read and understand the project conditions of approval and will make certain that all project sub-contractors have read and understand them prior to commencing work and that a copy of the project conditions of approval will be posted on site at all times during construction.

34. CONSTRUCTION STREET PARKING. No vehicle having a manufacturer's rated gross vehicle weight exceeding ten thousand (10,000) pounds shall be allowed to park on the portion of a street which abuts property in a residential zone without prior approval from the City Engineer.

35. EROSION CONTROL. Interim and final erosion control plans shall be prepared and submitted to the Public Works Department. A Notice of Intent (NOI) and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be submitted to the State SMARTS system for projects disturbing more than one acre and obtain a WDID number. A maximum of two weeks is allowed between clearing of an area and stabilizing/building on an area if grading is allowed during the rainy season. Interim erosion control measures, to be carried out during construction and before installation of the final landscaping shall be included. Interim erosion control method shall include, but are not limited to: silt fences, fiber rolls (with locations and details), erosion control blankets, City standard seeding specification, filter berms, check dams, retention basins, etc. Provide erosion control measures as needed to protect downstream water quality during winter months. The grading, drainage, erosion control plans and SWPPP shall be in compliance with applicable measures contained in the City of Oakley’s NPDES Permit.

36. DUST CONTROL. Blowing dust shall be reduced by timing construction activities so that paving and building construction begin as soon as possible 279
Resolution No. -23 Page 10 of 18 April 11, 2023
after completion of grading, and by landscaping disturbed soils as soon as possible. Further, water trucks shall be present and in use at the construction site. All portions of the site subject to blowing dust shall be watered as often as deemed necessary by the City, or a minimum of three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites in order to insure proper control of blowing dust for the duration of the project. Watering on public streets shall not occur.

Streets will be cleaned by street sweepers or by hand as often as deemed necessary by the City Engineer, or at least once a day. Watering associated with on-site construction activity shall take place between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. and shall include at least one late-afternoon watering to minimize the effects of blowing dust. All public streets soiled or littered due to this construction activity shall be cleaned and swept daily during the workweek to the satisfaction of the City. Demolition or earthwork activities shall be halted when wind speeds (instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 MPH. All trucks hauling soil, sand, or other loose debris shall be covered.

37. SILT AND MUD IN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. It is the responsibility of contractor and homeowner to make sure that all dirt tracked into the public right-of-way is cleaned up daily. Mud, silt, concrete and other construction debris SHALL NOT be washed into the City’s storm drains. Construction entrances must be in place per the Erosion Control Plan.

38. TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN. The project sponsor will be required to work with the Public Works Department to develop a traffic control plan per the current California MUTCD. This plan will include, but not be limited to, the following measures:
a. Construction activities shall be strategically timed and coordinated to minimize traffic disruption for schools, residents, businesses, and special events. The schools located on the haul route shall be contacted to help with the coordination of the trucking operation to minimize traffic disruption. b. Flag persons shall be placed at locations necessary to control one-way traffic flow, if required. All flag persons shall have the capability of communicating with each other to coordinate the operation. c. Prior to construction, advance notification of all affected residents and emergency services shall be made regarding one-way operation, specifying dates and hours of operation and lane closures on main arterial and collector streets and will be permitted only between the hours of 8:30 A.M. to 2:30 P.M. on M, T, TH & F. 8:30 A.M. to 12:00 P.M. on W. d. The traffic control plan shall be reviewed for compliance to the project’s Haul Route, approved by the City of Oakley.
280
Resolution No. -23 Page 11 of 18 April 11, 2023
e. A full road closure will require a detour plan and a road closure permit issued by the Public Works Department.

39. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN. The Applicant shall submit a construction management plan that shall incorporate at a minimum the Earth Movement Plan, Traffic Control Plan, Project Schedule, site security fencing, employee parking, construction staging area, construction trailer, and proposed outhouse locations. The public street shall not be used for any construction related activities, including parking for workers and storage of vehicles.

40. RESTORATION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS. The developer shall repair or replace all existing improvements not designated for removal that are damaged or removed because of developer's operations. Improvements such as, but not limited to: curbs, gutters, sidewalks, driveways, signs, pavements, raised pavement markers, thermoplastic pavement markings, etc. shall be repaired and replaced to a condition equal to or better than the original condition.

Existing improvement to be repaired or replaced shall be at the direction of the Public Works & Engineering Inspector and shall comply with all Title 24 Disabled Access provisions. Developer shall request a walk-through with the Engineering Construction Inspector before the start of construction to verify existing conditions.

41. SIDEWALK REPAIR. The developer shall repair and replace to existing City standards any sidewalk damaged now or during construction of this project.

Sidewalk repair shall match existing color, texture and design, and shall be constructed per City Standard Details. The limits of sidewalk repair will be determined by the Public Works Inspector during the construction phase of the project.

42. CURB AND GUTTER. The developer shall repair and replace to existing City standards any curb and gutter damaged now or during construction of this project. New curb and gutter shall be constructed per City Standard Details.

The limits of curb and gutter repair will be determined by the Public Works Inspector during the construction phase of the project.

43. CONSTRUCTION NOISE. Between the hours of 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., weekdays and 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. weekends and holidays, construction, alteration or repair activities shall be allowed. No individual piece of equipment shall produce a noise level exceeding eighty-five (85) dBA at twenty-five (25) feet. If the device is located within a structure on the property, the measurement shall be made at distances as close to twenty-five (25) feet from the device as possible. The noise level at any point outside of the property plane shall not exceed eighty-five (85) dBA. Pickup and delivery of materials and equipment is restricted to the hours listed above unless prior written approval is obtained by the Public Works Department.
281
Resolution No. -23 Page 12 of 18 April 11, 2023

44. GOOD HOUSEKEEPING. Good housekeeping practices shall be observed at all times during the course of construction. Superintendence of construction shall be diligently performed by a person or persons authorized to do so at all times during working hours. The storing of goods and/or materials on the sidewalk and/or the street will not be allowed unless a special permit is issued by the Engineering Division. The adjacent public right-of-way shall be kept clear of all job-related dirt and debris at the end of the day. Dirt and debris shall not be washed into storm drainage facilities. The storing of goods and materials on the sidewalk and/or the street will not be allowed unless a special permit is issued. The developer's representative in charge shall be at the job site during all working hours. Failure to maintain the public right-of-way according to this condition may result in the City performing the required maintenance at the developer's expense.

45. ACCESS AGREEMENT. Provide copy for City’s review of the private joint access agreement and maintenance agreement with adjoining parcels within the project to utilize share access and utilities

THE FOLLOWING SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO THE APPROVAL OF THE GRADING PLAN:

46. GEOLOGY AND SOIL MITIGATION MEASURES. A geotechnical investigation shall be conducted for the project to determine the surface and sub-surface conditions at the site and to determine the potential for surface fault rupture on the site. The geotechnical study shall provide recommendations for site grading as well as the design of foundations, retaining walls, concrete slab-on-grade construction, excavation, drainage, onsite utility trenching and pavement sections. The soils report shall include specific criteria and standards governing site grading, drainage, pavement design, retaining wall design, and erosion control. All recommendations of the investigation shall be incorporated into project plans. One copy of the geologic report shall be submitted with the grading permit and public improvement application. Prior to issuance of any permit, the applicant’s soils engineer shall review the final grading and drainage plans to ensure that designs for foundations, retaining walls, site grading, and site drainage are in accordance with their recommendations. The applicant’s soils engineer’s approval shall then be conveyed to the City either by letter or by signing the plans.

47. GRADING.
a. Grade any slopes with a vertical height of four (4) feet or more at a slope of 3H to 1V. Retaining walls that may be installed to reduce the slope must be masonry and comply with the City’s building code.
b. Retaining wall or other suitable option acceptable by the City Engineer is required where the grade differential between property or adjacent lots are greater than 6”. Retaining walls are required to be identified on the grading 282
Resolution No. -23 Page 13 of 18 April 11, 2023
plans and shall have a note stating a separate building permit is required for retaining wall greater than four (4) feet in height. c. At least one week prior to commencement of grading, the applicant shall post the site and mail to the owners of property within 300 feet to the exterior boundary of the project site notice that construction work will commence.

The notice shall include a list of contact persons with the name, title, phone number and area of responsibility. The person responsible for maintaining the list shall be included. The list shall always be kept current and shall consist of persons with authority to indicate and implement corrective action in their area of responsibility. The names of the individual responsible for noise and litter control shall be expressly identified in the notice. The notice shall be reissued with each phase of major grading activity. A copy of the notice shall be concurrently transmitted to the City Engineer. The notice shall be accompanied by a list of the names and addresses of the property owners noticed, and a map identifying the area noticed. d. Submit a Haul Route Plan to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to importing or exporting any material from the site. The plan shall include the location of the borrow or fill area, the proposed haul routes, the estimated number and frequency of trips, and the proposed schedule of hauling. Based on this plan, the City Engineering shall determine whether pavement condition surveys must be conducted along the proposed haul routes to determine what impacts the trucking activities may have. The project proponents shall be responsible to repair to their pre-construction condition any roads along the utilized routes.
e. Prior to commencement of any site work that will be result in a land disturbance of one acre or more, the applicant shall provide evidence to the City Engineer that the requirements for obtaining a State General Construction Permit have been met. Such evidence may be a copy of the Notice of Intent Letter sent by the State Water Resources Control Board.

The WDID Number shall be shown on the grading plan prior to approval by the City Engineer.
f. The burying of any construction debris is prohibited on construction sites

48. NPDES – NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM.

Comply with all rules, regulations and procedures of the NPDES for municipal, construction and industrial activities as promulgated by the California State Water Resources Control Board, the Regional Water Quality Control Board (Central Valley – Region IV), including the Stormwater C.3 requirements as detailed in the Guidebook available at www.cccleanwater.org Compliance shall include developing long-term best management practices (BMP’s) for the reduction or elimination of storm water pollutants. The project design shall incorporate wherever feasible, the following long-term BMP’s in 283
Resolution No. -23 Page 14 of 18 April 11, 2023
accordance with the Contra Costa Clean Water Program for the site’s storm water drainage.
 Offer pavers for household driveways and/or walkways as an option to buyers.
 Minimize the amount of directly connected impervious surface area.  Delineate all storm drains with “No Dumping, Drains to the Delta” permanent metal markers per City Standards.
 Construct concrete driveway weakened plane joints at angles to assist in directing run-off to landscaped/pervious areas prior to entering the street curb and gutter.
 Distribute public information items regarding the Clean Water Program to buyers.
 Other alternatives as approved by the City Engineer.
 Prepare an Operations and Maintenance Manual for the project’s storm water control measures.

THE FOLLOWING SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO THE APPROVAL OF THE IMPROVEMENT PLAN:

49. DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS.
a. Collect and convey all stormwater entering and /or originating on this property, without diversion and within an adequate storm drainage facility, to an adequate natural watercourse having definable bed and banks, or to an existing adequate public storm drainage facility that conveys the storm waters to an adequate natural watercourse.
b. Submit a final hydrology and hydraulic report including 10-year and 100- year frequency event calculations for the proposed drainage system and stormwater pond to the city Engineer for review and approval. The report shall includes study of the downstream stormdrain facilities to confirm its adequacy and mitigate on-site so that the peak flows of post-project conditions do not exceed the pre-project peak flows.
c. Design and construct all storm drainage facilities in compliance with the Municipal Code and City design standards.
d. Prevent storm drainage from draining across the sidewalk(s) and driveway(s) in a concentrated manner.
e. On-site parking area and driveways shall not surface drain across public sidewalk or driveway aprons.

50. SIGHT DISTANCE EXHIBIT. For the project driveways’ ingress and egress, provide an exhibit that will analyze the sight distance required for the 284
Resolution No. -23 Page 15 of 18 April 11, 2023
appropriate speed limit identified with this project as required by the City Engineer.

51. DESIGN CHANGES. The Applicant's registered Engineer shall notify the City Engineer, in writing, at least 72 hours in advance of all differences between the proposed work and the design indicated on the plans. Any proposed changes shall be subject to the approval of the City before altered work is started. A plan revision must be submitted for approval by the City Engineer.

52. JOINT TRENCH PLANS. The applicant shall submit Joint Trench Composite Plans to the City for review prior to approval of improvement plans or recordation of the final map. The developer shall provide joint trench composite plans for the underground electrical, gas, telephone, cable television and communication conduits and cables including the size, location and details of all trenches, locations of building utility service stubs and meters and placements or arrangements of junction structures as a part of the improvement Plan submittals for the project. The composite drawings and/or utility improvement plans shall be signed by a licensed civil engineer. The joint trench plans shall include street and/or site lighting and associated photometrics. A letter shall be provided by PG&E stating that public streetlight billing will be per Rule LS2A, and that private lights shall be metered with billing to the owner.

Pole numbers, assigned by PG&E, shall be clearly delineated on the plans.

53. UTILITIES & UNDERGROUNDING.
a. Underground all new and existing utility distribution facilities per City of Oakley code section Title 6 Chapter 8 Underground Utility Districts. b. All utility boxes shall be installed underground, and all wires and cables must be installed in conduits. Compliance with this condition shall be at the discretion of the City Engineer.
c. Above ground utility boxes shall be camouflaged per the review and approval of the City Engineer.
d. A written approval from Diablo Water District and Iron House Sanitary District must be provided that all underground utility improvements have passed all testing requirements prior to commencement of paving a street.

THE FOLLOWING SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE BUILDING PERMIT:

54. PAD CERTIFICATION. A letter from a licensed land surveyor stating that the building pad was constructed in accordance with the approved plans shall be provided prior to commencing with foundation construction of the building. 285
Resolution No. -23 Page 16 of 18 April 11, 2023

55. SOILS ENGINEER CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION. During construction, all excavations and grading shall be inspected by the applicant’s soils engineer prior to placement of concrete and/or backfill so they can verify that the actual conditions are as anticipated in the design-level geotechnical report and recommend appropriate changes in the recommendations contained in the report, if necessary. The results of the construction observation and testing should be documented in an “as-built” letter/report prepared by the applicants’ soils engineer and submitted to the City before any building permit is granted.

56. RIGHTS OF ENTRY. Furnish necessary rights of way, rights of entry, permits and/or easements for the construction of off-site, temporary or permanent, public and private road and drainage improvements.

57. ACCESS AGREEMENTS. Develop for the City’s review and approval and enter into a private joint access agreement that allows the adjacent parcels within the project to utilize common drive aisles.

58. LANDSSCAPE AGREEMENT. Enter into an agreement with the City that requires the right of way landscaping adjacent to the site to be maintained as part of the on-site landscaping at the property owner’s expense to a standard acceptable and agreed upon by the City.

59. AGREEMENT FOR STORMWATER BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OBLIGATIONS. The property owner shall enter into an agreement with the City for maintenance of the stormwater filtration devices required to be installed on this project. The agreement will specify that certain routine maintenance shall be performed by the property owner and will specify device maintenance reporting requirements. The agreement will also specify routine inspection requirements, permits and payment of fees. The agreement shall be recorded prior to release of any occupancy permits.

60. AS-BUILT PLANS. After completion of the construction of all work, the original plans shall have all changes (change orders and field changes) clearly marked.

The "as-built" plans shall again be signed and "wet-stamped" by the civil engineer who prepared the plans, attesting to the changes. The original "asbuilt" plans shall be review and approved the Engineering Inspector. A Mylar and AutoCAD disk of the approved "as-built" plans shall be provided to the City before acceptance of improvements.

61. ANNEXATIONS
a. The applicant shall establish a funding mechanism to cover the ongoing financial impact their project has on fire protection services provided in the City. All costs associated with meeting this condition of approval shall be paid for by the applicant. Compliance with this requirement shall be to the 286
Resolution No. -23 Page 17 of 18 April 11, 2023
satisfaction of the City Engineer and shall be completed prior to final map approval.
b. The applicant shall establish a funding mechanism to cover the ongoing financial impact their project has on police services provided in the City. All costs associated with meeting this condition of approval shall be paid for by the applicant. Compliance with this requirement shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and shall be completed prior to final map approval. c. The applicant shall establish a funding mechanism to cover the ongoing financial impact their project has on maintenance and operation services associated with public landscaping, parks, streetlighting, and stormwater facilities. All costs associated with meeting this condition of approval shall be paid for by the applicant. Compliance with this requirement shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and shall be completed prior to final map approval.

62. IMPACT FEES. Comply with the requirements of the development impact fees listed below, in addition to those noticed by the City Council in Resolution 85- 00 and 08-03. The applicant shall pay the fees in the amounts in effect at the time each building permit is issued.
a. Traffic Impact Fee (authorized by Ordinance No. 14-00, adopted by Resolution 49-03);
b. Regional Transportation Development Impact Mitigation Fee or any future alternative regional fee adopted by the City (authorized by Ordinance No. 14-00, adopted by Resolution No. 73-05);
c. Park Land Dedication In-Lieu Fee (adopted by Ordinance No. 03-03); d. Park Impact Fee (authorized by Ordinance No. 05-00, adopted by Resolution No. 19-03);
e. Public Facilities Fee (authorized by Ordinance No. 05-00, adopted by Resolution No. 18-03);
f. Fire Facilities Impact Fee (adopted by Resolution No. 24-21); g. General Plan Fee (adopted by Resolution No. 53-03).

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.
287
Resolution No. -23 Page 18 of 18 April 11, 2023
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.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Oakley at a meeting held on the April 11, 2023 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTENTIONS:

APPROVED:

Aaron Meadows, Mayor
ATTEST:

Libby Vreonis, City Clerk Date
288
DATE: April 11, 2023
TO: Joshua McMurray, City Manager
FROM: Lindsey Bruno
SUBJECT: Selection for Special Event Beer and Wine Concession at Select City Special Events
______________________________________________________________________ Background and Analysis
Each year the Recreation Division hosts special events throughout the year that are designed to bring residents and visitors to Oakley and activate our downtown area. A group of those events include food and adult beverage sales (beer and wine). Those events include: Concerts in the Park in partnership with Foodie Crew on May 5, June 2, August 4, September 1 and October 6, Summer Fest on July 1, Heart of Oakley on September 23 and Oaktober Fest on October 21.

On February 14, 2023 a Request for Proposal for Beer and Wine Concessions was released for non-profit organizations to submit their proposals. The proposal was advertised on social media including Facebook, and Instagram as well as included in the Oakley eNews for four weeks. The deadline for nonprofit organizations to submit their proposals was March 14th, and staff received six proposals from organizations including:
 St. Anthony Knights of Columbus 10414
 Pillars of Hope
 Adventure Therapy
 Rotary Club of Oakley
 Be Exceptional
 East County All Star Fundraising
The applicants who were selected will be required to submit a report following the event that they are selected for and then present to the City Council by January of 2024.

Consistency with the Oakley Strategic Plan 27+
The Oakley Strategic Plan 27+ highlights that community and collaborative partnerships are a primary goal. Partnering with non-government organizations, the RFP provided the City of Oakley the opportunity to foster and maintain strong relationships with these types of groups and to assist them in their community efforts. Additionally, the Strategic Plan 2027+

STAFF REPORT
Approved and Forwarded to the City Council
289
goal of providing our residents, businesses and visitors an opportunity to recreate and relax which are also reflected in the goals of the events offered.

Fiscal Impact
There is no fiscal impact associated with the selection of the non-profit organizations.

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommend dividing the events up so that all non-profit organizations that submitted an RFP are able to fundraise for their organizations.

Staff reviewed the submissions and assessed them on three categories:

Demonstration of experience selling beer/wine at large scale events, Demonstration of the staff/volunteer capacity, Demonstration of alignment with Strategic Plan 27+, staff also considered how each non-profit organizations proposal best aligned to the various events.

Based on the assessment staff recommends the assignment of organizations to events below:

Summer Fest- Rotary Club of Oakley
Heart of Oakley Festival- East County All Star Fundraising Oaktober Festival- St. Anthony Knights of Columbus 10414 May and June Concerts in the Park- Pillars of Hope
August and September Concerts in the Park- Adventure Therapy October Concert in the Park- Be Exceptional
Should an organization be unavailable for the event they were selected for, staff recommend that another non-profit organization that submitted an RFP be selected based on the assessment.

Attachments

1. St. Anthony Knights of Columbus 10414 Proposal

2. Pillars of Hope Proposal

3. Adventure Therapy Proposal

4. Rotary Club of Oakley Proposal

5. Be Exceptional Proposal

6. East County All Star Fundraising Proposal
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
1 Adventure Therapy Foundation
EIN: 61-1896557
1156 Lake Park Dr
Oakley, CA 94561
925-724-9319
[email protected]
Dear RFP,
Within the attached document, you will find the details of Adventure Therapy Foundation’s proposal to operate an alcoholic event beverage concession at the Oakley Summer Fest, Heart of Oakley Festival, and Oaktober Festival.

Adventure Therapy Foundation is a nonprofit specializing in aiding cancer survivors in emotional recovery using various platforms and programs. Any funding we receive helps to keep these programs running and enriches our community, easing burdens and helping survivors and their families lead more fulfilling lives.

We appreciate the opportunity to submit this proposal and look forward to your reply.

Sincerely,
Contact:

Lauren Huffmaster
Director
925-724-9319
[email protected]
302
2 Proposal Summary
Since its founding in 2018, Adventure Therapy Foundation, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, has created life-changing programs that aid survivors in emotional recovery from cancer.

ATF establishes the tools to eliminate fear, isolation, and broken identity after a diagnosis. Without clarity, these “emotional side effects” will continue unnecessarily during early survivorship. Our goal is to reduce the time cancer negatively affects emotional health and limit unnecessary suffering by clarifying the emotional aspect of cancer.

The lack of understanding of the emotional response to cancer leads to confusion, shame, additional fear, and extended healing time. Creating and developing educational materials and support programs to define these typical responses will guide survivors and their loved ones to awareness and allow them to shift an often-daunting perspective.

We have spent years developing our retreats, educational philosophy, and online learning platforms. All of our programs are created to work together, and now they can do so. Our Kinship Program systematically incorporates each of our programs, offering a variety of modalities to produce the most significant impact possible.

Some of our sponsored programs include coaching, virtual education, and community retreats. The Kinship Program is designed to combine these individual programs into a year-long all-encompassing experience for survivors and their families. The funds raised at the Oakley Summer Fest, Heart of Oakley Festival, and Oaktober Festival would enhance the quality of our retreats, help our Kinship Program gain momentum, and strengthen the lives of those who are going through the cancer experience.

Our Kinship Program is run by volunteers who want to build relationships with others impacted by cancer. This program as well as our retreats and one-day events are dependent on volunteer support.

Our Programs Director and Founder will work to establish a delivery schedule and create a volunteer plan for these community events. With the support of our Board, we will apply for the ABC permit. Our Marketing team will push the event out on social media, our website, and our newsletter.
303
3 Background and Experience
Adventure Therapy Foundation minimizes the emotional devastation that can occur following a diagnosis and the length of time families endure this emotional hardship.

Much of the culture around cancer focuses solely on the “cancer patient.” This perspective focuses on a disease and its treatments with little consideration for the person. By acknowledging more than the physical impact of cancer, we encourage a people-first perspective of those impacted. Our work defines the shared experiences in cancer and helps shift the culture toward a person-centered approach.

The programs we use to achieve our vision include (a) RISE, a module-based educational platform using expert and survivor voices to articulate the experience of cancer; (b) retreats, which encourage families to embrace a resilient mindset and acknowledge the possibilities beyond fear while eliminating isolation; (c) podcasts, used as a guide for information and support for survivors and their loved ones; and (d) educational conferences, for additional instruction.

For years, ATF has participated in events that benefit nonprofits. Our committed staff and dedicated volunteers have been successful in working to support the Oakley community. Our volunteer scheduling experience includes participation at farmers’ markets, retreats, one-day events, wellness checks, virtual support, and oncology conferences.

For two years, we have hosted an Art Walk at Campos Family Winery, which serves guests wine and food while selling art, raffle tickets, and swag. This event requires more than 30 volunteers to ensure the event runs smoothly. Our Programs Director utilizes local volunteers and the families we serve to cover all scheduling needs.

Though we have never obtained an ABC license, our board members have done so many times while supporting events through the Rotary Club of Brentwood. With their guidance, we are confident in our ability to succeed.
304
4 References
Melissa Cakebread
925-759-1864
[email protected]
Client Served
Monica Bailey
415-218-8946
[email protected] Client
Served and Art Walk Attendee
Becky Olivier
925-783-8207
[email protected]
Client Served and Art Walk Attendee
305
- 1 -
Notice is hereby given that the follow events are also included in the list of events where beverage concessions will be available:

Concerts in the Park
The Concerts in the Park occur on the First Friday of the month from 5pm-9pm in conjunction with the Foodie Crew food truck series. Estimated attendance at each of the concerts varies between 800-1000 people.

Friday, May 5, 2023
Friday, June 2, 2023
Friday, August 4, 2023
Friday, September 1, 2023
Friday, October 6, 2023
All non-profits shall acknowledge receipt and acknowledge and accept Addendum No. 1 by signing in the space below and submitting with their proposal. ________________________
Representative Signature
________________________
Date
________________________
Organization Name
ADDENDUM No. 1

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
Event Beverage Concession Services
Oakley Summer Fest, Heart of Oakley,
and Oaktober Festival and Concerts in the Park
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
514 W. 4th St. Antioch, Ca, 94509
Phone: (925) 978 4161
Email: [email protected]
Website: Beexceptionprograms.com
To Whom It Mat Concern:

Be Exceptional would like to enter this proposal to the City of Oakley for being the Event Beverage Concession Services RFP at some of their events during the 2023 year. I, Joseph Ogo Be Exceptional’s Director/CFO, am the contact regarding this proposal and reside at 400 H St.

Antioch CA, 94509, and can be contacted by phone at 503 975 5239 with any questions or concerns in regard to this proposal.

Joseph Ogo 03/13/2023
315
514 W. 4th St. Antioch, Ca, 94509
Phone: (925) 978 4161
Email: [email protected]
Website: Beexceptionprograms.com
This proposal is for Be Exceptional to be responsible for providing all staff, beer, wine, and any other supplies and equipment necessary for the concession operations for the event or events we are chosen for.

We would appreciate consideration for at least the Oaktober Fest and would also like to have a chance to take on one other event. Be Exceptional will facilitate the beer and wine sales at events by first consulting with the city of Oakley in at least two preplanning meetings to figure out the appropriate amount of beer and wine to purchase, the number of booths wanted, and how many staff members need to be in attendance. We will provide a minimum of two craft beers and two wines and would serve beer and wine in cups, not cans or bottles. We will make sure we purchase and have the beer and wine on hand at least one week prior to the event. Be Exceptional will have the permits (a copy of the approved ABC Daily Permit, and proof of valid certified Responsible Beverage Service) that are required on hand 2 weeks prior to the event. Be Exceptional already works with the City of Oakley Parks and Recreation and has insurance in place. Our staff will have Be Exceptional shirts on and will follow all policies in place. We would set up and clean up for the event appropriately. We have done booths at events in the past, so we have tables, an awning, and promotional stuff for our organization. Within 10 business days of the event conclusion, Be Exceptional will submit a written report detailing the total sales and profit. Additionally, by the end of January 2024 we will present a report to the City Council outlining how the funds raised by the event were used to benefit the organization and the community. Be Exceptional’s goal is to use the funds that we earn to continue to provide inclusive recreational classes and social events for people of all abilities to people within the Oakley area. We are qualified to provide services at the events because of the experience we have had in coordinating several events throughout the years. 316
514 W. 4th St. Antioch, Ca, 94509
Phone: (925) 978 4161
Email: [email protected]
Website: Beexceptionprograms.com
Be Exceptional has been involved in many community events and is excited to use our experience with the City of Oakley to provide the beer and wine at events. We have put on many recitals throughout the years which has allowed to us learn how to handle volunteer/staff coordination, working with the event hosts, providing food and beverages to purchase during intermission, and providing an inclusive environment to all. We have worked at local wineries and other community events in the past to help provide support (pour beer and wine) to other non-profits when they had fundraisers there. Be Exceptional appreciates the opportunity to work with the City of Oakley to provide the beer and wine at some of their events.

References:

Elite Dance Studio- Louise Green - 925 352 5837
Oakley Parks and Recreation Jessica Hicks - 925 671 7041 Special Haven David Chuey- 650 703 0511
317
- 1 -
Notice is hereby given that the follow events are also included in the list of events where beverage concessions will be available:

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
Event Beverage Concession Services
Oakley Summer Fest, Heart of Oakley,
and Oaktober Festival and Concerts in the Park
03/14/2023
Be Exceptional
318
319
320
321
322
323
- 1 -
Notice is hereby given that the follow events are also included in the list of events where beverage concessions will be available:

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
Event Beverage Concession Services
Oakley Summer Fest, Heart of Oakley,
and Oaktober Festival and Concerts in the Park
3/9/2023
East County All Star Fundraising
(Anissa Williams)
324

Oakley City CouncilApril 11, 2023

Oakley City Council
April 11, 2023