Agenda packet — Oakley City Council, April 11, 2023 (part 1 of 2)

AGENDA

REGULAR JOINT MEETING OF THE OAKLEY CITY COUNCIL/OAKLEY CITY

COUNCIL ACTING AS THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE OAKLEY

REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY/ OAKLEY PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY Tuesday, April 11, 2023
6:30 PM
Oakley City Council Chambers located at 3231 Main Street, Oakley, California 94561.

Unless stated otherwise on the agenda, every item on the agenda is exempt from CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060(c), 15061(b)(3), 15273, 15378, 15301, 15323 and/or Public Resources Code Section 21065.

MISSION STATEMENT: The City of Oakley will create a resilient future that fosters and attracts a vibrant and evolving community that welcomes and values all people.

VISION STATEMENT: The City of Oakley celebrates our unique Delta lifestyle and small-town feel where we Live in a safe, dynamic community, Work together to build the future, and Play in our own backyard.

Agendas are posted in Oakley at Oakley City Hall-3231 Main Street, outside the gym at Delta Vista Middle School-4901 Frank Hengel Way and outside the Library at Freedom High School-1050 Neroly Road.

Agendas are also posted on the City’s Internet Website www.ci.oakley.ca.us.

A complete packet of information containing staff reports and exhibits related to each item is available for public review prior to an Oakley City Council and/or City Council Acting as the Successor Agency to the Oakley Redevelopment Agency/Oakley Public Financing Authority meeting at Oakley City Hall, 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Oakley City Council, Oakley City Council Acting as the Successor Agency to the Oakley Redevelopment Agency or Oakley Public Financing Authority regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection, during regular business hours, at the front counter in the Main Lobby of the Oakley City Hall located at 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561. Agendas may be picked up at the Oakley City Hall located at 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561 for no charge. To request information regarding placement on the City’s agenda e-mail distribution list, please contact us at (925) 625-7000.

The City of Oakley provides social media options to stay connected to City Hall through Facebook, Twitter, Next Door and Instagram. Other opportunities to connect with City Hall include Engage In Oakley, Oakley OnDemand on the City's website, and by emailing [email protected].

If you have a physically challenging condition and require special accommodations, please call the City Clerk’s office at (925) 625-7000.
1 Please keep cell phones/electronic devices turned off during the meeting. Please be advised that City Council meetings are video recorded and attendees may appear on video.

Information Regarding Public Comment
Members of the public may address the Council on items of interest that are within the City’s jurisdiction. In compliance with State law, the council may not take actionor have discussion on any item that is not specifically listed on the agenda. Public comment on items not listed on the agenda will be heard under the Public Comments section of the agenda. Public comments on items listed on the agenda will be heard as the Mayor calls the items. In compliance with State law, the Council may not take action on an item that is not specifically listed on the agenda. If you would like to speak on any agenda item, please fill out a public speaker card available in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk seated in the Council Chamber prior to the agenda item being called. The Mayor will call you by name to the podium to hear your comment.

PUBLIC COMMENTS ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES. Online public comments are accepted until 5 p.m. the day of the meeting and can be submitted at
https://www.ci.oakley.ca.us/online-public-comment-card/.

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

1.1 Call to Order and Roll Call of the Oakley City Council/Oakley City Council Acting as the Successor Agency to the Oakley Redevelopment Agency/Oakley Public Financing Authority

1.2 Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag (Sophia Williams, 5th Grade Laurel Elementary School Student)

2.PUBLIC COMMENTS
At this time, the public is permitted to address the Oakley City Council/Oakley City Council Acting as the Successor Agency to the Oakley Redevelopment Agency/Oakley Public Financing Authority on non-agendized items.

3.CONSENT CALENDAR
Consent Calendar items are typically non-controversial in nature and are considered for approval by the Oakley City Council/ Oakley City Council Acting as the Successor Agency to the Oakley Redevelopment Agency/Oakley Public Financing Authority with one single action. Members of the audience, Staff or the Oakley City Council/ Oakley City Council Acting as the Successor Agency to the Oakley Redevelopment Agency/Oakley Public Financing Authority who would like an item removed from the Consent Calendar for purposes of public input may request the Mayor remove the item. The public may request to remove an item(s) to provide input by completing a public speaker card and submitting it to the City Clerk prior to the item(s) being called by the Mayor.
2 3.1 Approve Minutes from the Regular Joint City Council/City Council Acting as the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency and Special Public Financing Authority Meeting Held March 28, 2023 (Libby Vreonis, City Clerk) Minutes 03-28-23

3.2 Accept Report Out of Closed Session Memo (Derek P. Cole, City Attorney) Memo

3.3 Award of Construction Contract to Campanella Corporation for the demolition of the Sheriff Annex Building – Capital Improvement Project Number 271 (Kevin Rohani, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer)
Staff Report

1. Resolution

2. Bid Summary

4.PUBLIC HEARINGS

4.1 Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments to Article 12 of Chapter 1 of Title 9 of the Oakley Municipal Code (“Special Land Uses”) – Adding Four Subsections to Address Drive-Through Restaurants, Carwashes, Gas Stations, and Self-Storage (RZ 04-21) (Continued from January 24, 2023) (Ken Strelo, Planning Manager)
Determine the Proposed project is Exempt from environmental analysis under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3).

Suggested Action: 1) Receive the Staff Report, 2) Receive Questions from the City Council, 3) Open the Public Hearing, 4) Receive Public Testimony, 5) Close the Public Hearing, 6) Deliberate, 7) Summarize the Deliberation 8) Waive the First Reading and Introduce the Ordinance
Staff Report

1. Notice of Public Hearing

2. Staff Report from January 24, 2023 City Council Meeting (Without Attachments)

3. Minutes from January 24, 2023 City Council Meeting (Applicable to Item only)

4. Minutes from October 11, 2022 City Council Meeting (Applicable to Item only)

5. Staff Report from September 13, 2022 City Council Meeting (Without Attachments)

6. Minutes from September 13, 2022 City Council Meeting (Applicable to Item only)

7. Staff Report from May 24, 2022 Work Session (Without Attachments)

8. Proposed Ordinance with Tracked Changes from January 24, 2023

9. Proposed Ordinance (Clean Version)
3 4.2 Quick Quack Car Wash at Laurel Plaza Conditional Use Permit (CUP 02-20) and Design Review (DR 08-20) – Request for approval to construct and operate a 3,596 square foot drive-through car wash facility; APN 035-510-009 (Ken Strelo, Planning Manager)
Determine the proposed project falls within the scope of an existing Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH #2008012068) analysis.

Suggested Action: Staff Recommendation: 1) Receive the Staff Report, 2) Receive Questions from the City Council, 3) Open the Public Hearing, 4) Receive Comments from the Applicant, 5) Receive Public Testimony, 6) Close the Public Hearing, 7) Deliberate, 8) Summarize the Deliberation 9) Adopt the Resolution Staff Report

1. Vicinity Map

2. Notice of Public Hearing

3. City Attorney's Supplemental Memorandum

4. Applicant's Plans

5. Staff Report from April 12, 2022 City Council Meeting (Without Attachments)

6. Minutes from April 12, 2022 City Council Meeting (Applicable to Item Only)

7. City Council Resolution No. 47-22 (Denial Resolution from May 10, 2022)

8. Proposed Resolution

4.3 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) Determine the proposed project falls within the scope of an existing Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH #2008012068) analysis.

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

12. Proposed Resolution

5.REGULAR CALENDAR

5.1 Selection of Non-Profit Organizations to Operate Beer and Wine Concessions at select City Special Events (Lindsey Bruno, Recreation Manager) Staff Report

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

6.REPORTS

6.1 CITY MANAGER
(a) City Manager

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
(b) Requests for Future Agendas

7.WORK SESSIONS

8.CLOSED SESSION

9.ADJOURN
5 Minutes of the Regular Joint Meeting of the Oakley City Council/Oakley City Council Acting as the Successor Agency to the Oakley Redevelopment Agency and Special Meeting of the Oakley Public Financing Authority held
March 28, 2023
1) OPENING MATTERS

1.1 Call to Order and Roll Call of the Oakley City Council/Oakley City Council Acting as the Successor Agency to the Oakley Redevelopment Agency/Oakley Public Financing Authority
Mayor Aaron Meadows called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Oakley City Council Chambers located at 3231 Main Street, Oakley, California. Vice Mayor Anissa Williams and Councilmembers George Fuller, Hugh Henderson and Shannon Shaw were also in attendance.

1.2 Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag
Councilmember Fuller led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.

1.3 Proclamation declaring March 2023 as National Prescription Drug Abuse Awareness Month (Mariella Sanding, Contra Costa County MEDS Coalition) Mayor Meadows announced Ms. Sandling will not be in attendance this evening.

1.4 Presentation by Mt. Diablo Resource Recovery (MDRR): SB 1383 Rollout in Oakley (Sal Evola, Mount Diablo Resource Recovery)
Sal Evola with Mount Diablo Resource Recovery (MDRR) provided a PowerPoint presentation.

Councilmember Shaw inquired where residents will place their pail if they do not currently have green waste.

Mr. Evola indicated everyone can have garbage recycling and organics with the cost and they will expand their center to offer workshops on composting.

Councilmember Shaw inquired if that is provided with no increased costs.

Mr. Evola confirmed that is correct.

Councilmember Fuller inquired if someone will be checking to see that residents are putting green waste in the green waste bin before it is collected.

Mr. Evola indicated their focus is education and outreach, then enforcement, and enforcement will not start this year but when implemented, it will be a three-strike process. He mentioned there will be no digging in the carts; by flipping the lid, they can tell what is visually apparent.

Councilmember Fuller inquired if there will be any weight limit. 6 Mr. Evola commented that most households in 100% compliance are within weight limits. He suggested residents wait until the night before garbage day to put waste in the green container as a best practice.

Mayor Meadows inquired if there are cameras on the trucks to monitor what is going in.

Mr. Evola mentioned they use the 3rd Eye system that helps monitor contamination with commercial service now and they are exploring it for residential service; it also provides photo documentation.

Vice Mayor Williams commented that Mr. Evola mentioned four of Oakley’s commercial businesses are out of compliance. She inquired when the commercial requirements were rolled out and how many businesses are complying and for those out of compliance, if there are any fines.

Mr. Evola mentioned before 2020, if a commercial business was generating more than 4 cubic yards of garbage, it had to have organic service, and in 2020, it changed to 2 cubic yards of garbage. He thanked City staff for working with MDRR staff to directly contact local businesses to get them into compliance. He did not have total numbers on how many businesses are compliant but mentioned Oakley is the most compliant city. He mentioned the organics containers are included in their rates and is mandated, so they have provided containers and education to businesses not in compliance. He explained the City adopted a NOIC that kicked compliance out to 2024.

Mayor Meadows inquired with commercial service if it is a requirement for 2 cubic yards.

Mr. Evola commented that SB 1383 applies to each and every commercial and residential customer. He explained the law prior to SB 1383 was AB 1826 that prior to 2020, required organic service if 4 cubic yards of garbage existed; after 2020, it required organic service if 2 cubic yards of garbage existed. He mentioned SB 1383 is intended to bring the number down to zero and apply to each and every customer, unless the customer has an exemption from the City. He mentioned some commercial businesses ae exempt because they do not generate any organic waste.

Mayor Meadows inquired if MDRR provides bins to everyone that doesn’t have one.

Mr. Evola mentioned that they provided bins to the four customers not in compliance. 2) PUBLIC COMMENTS
Mayor Meadows announced one online comment was submitted by Diane Merritt and will be made part of the meeting record. Ms. Merritt commented to thank the City of Oakley for its financial support for the Senior Center.

Bud Chaddock commented on Laurel Plaza and mentioned the consultant at the previous Council meeting who was paid for his opinion, suggested having small, communal businesses like in the Downtown as big box is not what the people want anymore nor is it a benefit to our city.
7 Donna Chaddock commented that during the March 14th City Council meeting she reiterated her view that she has had since March 2020 regarding Laurel Plaza and she was misquoted. What she said is that Shelley Fitzgerald didn’t take any money from corporations, it was from ordinary citizens, and the Councilmembers should vote with integrity. She mentioned the consultants during the previous Council meeting commented that the City lacks infrastructure to bring in big businesses and suggested shopping clusters could be considered for more retail as Oakley awaits population growth. She suggested the Council listen to the residents and the consultants the City of Oakley is paying for.
3) CONSENT CALENDAR

3.1 Approve Minutes from the Regular Joint City Council/City Council Acting as the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency/Public Financing Authority Meeting Held March 14, 2023 (Libby Vreonis, City Clerk)

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

3.3 Approving the Agreement with Ranchettes at Neroly, LLC for “Stormwater Management Facility Operations and Maintenance Agreement, and Right of Entry” for Subdivision 9284 Ranchettes at Neroly and authorizing the City Manager to execute the agreement (Kevin Rohani, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer

3.4 Filing of Fiscal Year (FY) 2022-23 Annual Reports for the City’s Maintenance and Services Community Facilities Districts and Police Services Special Tax (Kevin Rohani, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer)

3.5 Annexation No. 9 (Elm Lane Apartments) to the City of Oakley Community Facilities District No. 2018-1 (Fire Protection Services) (Kevin Rohani, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer)

3.6 Award of Contract for a Professional Services Agreement for On-Call Stormwater Program Services with Geosyntec Consultants for Fiscal Year 2023/24 and Fiscal Year 2024/25 (Kevin Rohani, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer)

3.7 Annual Progress Report on Implementation of the 2015-2023 Housing Element with SB 341 Reporting Requirements (Ken Strelo, Planning Manager)

3.8 Consideration of a Resolution Approving the City’s Investment Policy for Fiscal Year 2022/2023 (Tim Przybyla, Finance Director)
Councilmember Fuller pulled item 3.1.

Mayor Meadows pulled item 3.5.

Vice Mayor Williams pulled item 3.7.

It was moved by Councilmember Fuller and seconded by Vice Mayor Williams to approve the remainder of the Consent Calendar. Motion was unanimous and so ordered. (5-0) 8 Item 3.1
Councilmember Fuller requested Ms. Chaddock’s comment that Shelly Fitzgerald did not accept money from any corporations be incorporated into the minutes as a correction. It was moved by Councilmember Fuller and seconded by Vice Mayor Williams to approve the minutes with the correction. (5-0)
Item 3.5
City Manager Joshua McMurray commented that staff would like to pull the item and continue it to a date uncertain.

Item 3.7
Vice Mayor Williams pulled the item to provide visibility and requested the chart be placed on the screens that shows how many different types of housing in the 10-year period. She inquired if 85% is not affordable and how Oakley compares with other cities in terms of progress.

City Manager Joshua McMurray commented that the City has a good track record of having projects come to life and projects constructed; however, the City has limited control; it does what it can with state mandates to apply affordable housing overlay to remove as many barriers as possible and make the housing essentially a by right approval, but they have not hit marks on low to very low units with this past RHNA period. He mentioned he is not certain how Oakley compares with other cities in terms of progress.

It was moved by Vice Mayor Williams and seconded by Councilmember Fuller to approve the report. Motion was unanimous and so ordered. (5-0)
Mayor Meadows returned to Public Comments (Item 2.0) to provide Kari Arnold an opportunity to speak as she submitted a public comment card.

Ms. Arnold shared that she recently moved from Knightsen to Oakley and when living in Knightsen, there was a grow house for marijuana down the street from her house; Sheriff’s Office response to the site became frequent, there as a beating, someone was tied to a tree and there was a killing. She mentioned when she heard about Continente Ranch’s proposal to have a grow farm, she wanted to express her experience and concern. 4) PUBLIC HEARINGS

4.1 City of Oakley 2023-2031 Housing Element – Approval of a General Plan Amendment Adopting the City of Oakley 2023-2031 Housing Element (Ken Strelo, Planning Manager)
Planning Manager Ken Strelo presented the staff report and a memo regarding the HCD conditional approval letter dated 3/27/23 and a summary of clerical errors. He mentioned if the Council approves, staff will make changes and send to HCD tomorrow.

Chelsea Payne with Ascent Environmental provided a PowerPoint presentation. 9 Councilmember Fuller mentioned pages 111-112 do not seem to correlate with the sites shown; in particular, he expressed concern regarding Site L as he does not want to see 200-300 units of housing there.

Ms. Payne commented that there were candidate rezone sites and other potential sites reviewed and considered so that might be where he is seeing that site; staff will confirm. She explained with this action, the Council is not committing to those sites; it shows the City is considering enough sites to meet RHNA; the process of rezoning sites will take place over 3 years and that is a public process; this is an initial list so sites here may remain or fall off the list.

Councilmember Fuller commented that a community meeting was held 4/20/22 and he is curious to know if an ASL interpreter and blind interpreter were offered. He indicated he did not see any notice on the flyer that accommodation could be made.

Mr. Strelo responded that they did not have those services at that meeting held at the Oakley Recreation Center; they had Spanish translation and a live interpreter, and the building has ADA access. He added staff has no additional information other than the information on the flyer. He mentioned if there are any requests for future meetings, staff is happy to make meetings as inclusive as possible.

Councilmember Fuller indicated one of the most significantly marginalized groups in the community exceeds the norm of the area, the percentage of people that live here that are disabled and their socio-economic status is one of the most marginalized and affected groups of affordable housing and it needs to be addressed.

Ms. Payne commented she would agree with that. She mentioned disabled are considered in the special need groups in the Housing Element and they are addressed in the Fair Housing Assessment so that data is reflected here.

Councilmember Fuller mentioned it is state law and the City’s intent to not congregate affordable housing in one area, but rather disperse it city wide.

Ms. Payne confirmed that is correct.

Vice Mayor Williams commented that she understands the City was hit with a builder’s remedy because it did not hit the last target. She inquired if the Council certifies this, if the City is guaranteed to meet it this time.

Mr. Strelo confirmed that is correct.

Vice Mayor Williams inquired if there is a benefit to starting the work sooner even though they have a 3-year period.

Ms. Payne explained if the City does not meet the rezone target, the Housing Element would be non-compliant and HCD would decertify it which would open the City back up to builder’s remedy.

Vice Mayor Williams commented that there is an action item to work with the County on reducing fees. She inquired about any potential repercussions there might be to the City.

Mayor Meadows mentioned it is not just the County but also special districts. 10 Mr. Strelo mentioned the action item is to review the fees and meet as necessary to try and discuss any reduction needed and he does not believe there is penalty if those fees are never reduced.

Councilmember Fuller inquired which state agency this goes to.

Ms. Payne responded it goes to the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).

Mayor Meadows opened the open public hearing.

No public comments were submitted.

Mayor Meadows closed the public hearing.

Councilmember Fuller addressed community rehabilitation grants to rehabilitate housing already here that may be in need, disbursing affordable housing and getting it out, minimal or no housing for the income level of people needing housing, and two areas where there is overpayment of rent. He mentioned the City needs to address disabled; he can’t get behind that the most marginalized groups are disabled and have the greatest needs for affordable housing yet there was no interpretation, no ASL, and no blind interpreter for the community meeting.

It was moved by Vice Mayor Williams and seconded by Councilmember Shaw to adopt the resolution. AYES: Henderson, Meadows, Shaw, Williams. NOES: Fuller. (4-1) 5) REGULAR CALENDAR

5.1 Emergency Management Program Assessment Report (Joshua McMurray, City Manager)
City Manager Joshua McMurray presented the staff report, He introduced Chris Godley with Aegis Emergency Management. He mentioned the Assistant to the City Manager will oversee the program when the position is filled.

Chris Godley with Aegis Emergency Management provided a PowerPoint presentation.

Councilmember Fuller thanked Mr. Godley for recognizing people with disabilities and animals.

He mentioned the report indicates the City does not have a warning system. He inquired why Oakley does not have it and if it would be advantageous to have it.

Mr. Godley explained that the City doesn’t maintain its own warning system but has it through the County. He mentioned it may be challenging for a city this size to develop and maintain technology and staffing to administer warnings. He added that Oakley Police have Nixle.

Councilmember Fuller inquired if they can pinpoint it to Oakley.

Mr. Godley explained that geofencing technology is becoming better and better over time, especially for wireless private broadband carriers to execute alerts. 11 Councilmember Fuller inquired who will be the person to contact in Oakley.

Mr. Godley mentioned executive staff could activate alerts; however, he would prefer Mr.

McMurray to address the question.

Mr. McMurray mentioned the Assistant to the City Manager will be the point of contact and the City's PIO.

Councilmember Shaw inquired if the emergency management plan incorporates a mutual aid agreement with other cities for events such as large fires.

Mr. McMurray commented it does and depending on the severity of the disaster, Oakley may need to depend on other cities and the County.

Mr. Godley commented that the City is already enrolled in the California Master Aid Agreement so it will receive assistance for first responders and Emergency Management requires separate mutual aid agreements for other things after the event.

Vice Mayor Williams mentioned the E. Cypress relevant evacuation zones. She inquired if there is a time frame when staff will finalize this plan.

Mr. McMurray mentioned they will bring someone on board for the position and then look at the timeline but he anticipates it will be within this calendar year.

Vice Mayor Williams commented that she understands Nixle doesn’t count as a warning system.

She inquired if there are grants or something they can work on to reach a specific targeted audience and get to those areas.

Mr. Godley mentioned the County indicated it can provide better support to the City for general public preparedness and the community emergency response team (CERT) can bring information to residents.

No action was required of the City Council.

5.2 Authorization for the City Manager to Execute a Purchase and Sale Agreement with Kent A. Ipsen for the sale of property located at 3070 Main Street (APN 037- 200-010) (Joshua McMurray, City Manager)
Mr. McMurray presented the staff report.

No public comments were submitted.

It was moved by Councilmember Shaw and seconded by Vice Mayor Williams to adopt the resolution.

Councilmember Fuller requested an amendment to the motion for sale proceeds to be allocated to legal defense funds to sustain the lawsuit filed by O'Hara Properties.

City Attorney Derek Cole commented that it is not agendized under this item to allocate this significant amount of funds so he does not believe the Council has authority under the Brown Act to amend the motion to include this direction; however, it could be made in the future. 12 Councilmember Fuller indicated he will request a future agenda item at the end of the meeting.

Mr. Cole indicated that requesting a future agenda item is the best way to proceed; if there is Council consensus, staff can bring back the item to attribute the money to a specific purpose.

He mentioned under the Brown Act, this agenda item does not tell the public the City is committing funds to a specific use.

Motion was unanimous and so ordered on the resolution as presented. (5-0) Mayor Meadows announced a brief recess at 8:04 p.m. The Council reconvened at 8:16 p.m. 6) REPORTS

6.1 CITY MANAGER
(a) City Manager
City Manager Joshua McMurray announced there will be a community meeting tomorrow at 7:00 p.m. at the Oakley Recreation Center to discuss the 55-acre park; it will be recorded, and staff will launch an online survey for community input. He also announced that Science week begins Saturday at 10:00 a.m. at Ironhouse Sanitary District and ends April 7 at the Recreation Center, Oakley’s Got Talent auditions are April 5 at 6:00 p.m. at the Oakley Recreation Center, Taste of Oakley tickets are on sale, Friday Night Bites will be held April 7, 5:00-8:00 p.m., Art in the Park is April 15 at Civic Center (registration is open online for the Rock the Chalk portion of the event), Major League Fishing will be held April 19-21 (registration will be held April 18 at the Oakley Recreation Center), Economic Development held its second small business forum and registration is open for the next workshop to be held April 27 (Online Marketing and ECommerce), social media will go out linking library sessions that have been recorded, and registration is open for the next Entrepreneur Workshop on April 21 (CA Sales Tax Compliance).

Vice Mayor Williams mentioned she received a lot of questions regarding the last fishing tournament and comments that the City didn’t publicize it. She inquired what the City is doing to publicize the fishing tournament.

Mr. McMurray mentioned it was supposed to go through Oakley but it was switched at the beginning of the year to now go through Russo’s; registration will be held in Oakley and staff will push out publicity through social media.

6.2 OAKLEY CITY COUNCIL/OAKLEY CITY COUNCIL ACTING AS THE SUCCESSOR

Vice Mayor Williams reported she attended the environmental quality policy review where lots of bills were reviewed. She explained the group is through CalCities to help fix some of the unfunded mandates related to environmental quality. She mentioned they received from the Revenue and Taxation Committee, Sales Tax Modernization with e-commerce and there is focus to protect local revenues, state budget and legislation, and they are creating easier pathways for federal and state funding. She mentioned they are also working on making accountability go where funding is for homelessness. She addressed two bills in Government Transparency that CalCities is sponsoring, one regarding the Brown Act that will allow virtual options and the other regarding City Council salaries to increase diversity and allow more outstanding community members to come forward. She mentioned in Housing and Economic Development, there is a letter CalCities would like everyone to issue, and to approve SB 35 projects, in Public Safety there is a bill proposed to amend Prop 37 to increase accountability for repeat offenders, in Transportation, Communications and Public Works they are adding new regulations for flexibility with complying with advance clean fleet regulations, there is a new waste packaging coming where California will receive $5 billion between 2027-2037 to clean up plastics mess, a direct cost from manufacturers, and under SB 54, all materials must be recyclable and decomposable by 2032 with imposition of a $50,000 fine per day (manufacturers) if violated.

Councilmember Shaw reported she attended Tri-Delta Transit’s Appreciation Day on 3/16 where Tri-Delta honored 2 transit workers who were accident free for a number of years, she attended the birthday celebration and bench dedication for Alexis Gabe on 3/17 (she thanked Chief Beard for his work and support to the family), she attended the Ironhouse Sanitary District (ISD) meeting on 3/21; there is an opening at LAFCO for the special districts member alternate seatDirector Morgan and President Morrow have been nominated for the seat by ISD-and ISD is talking about rebranding. She also reported she attended the Tri-Delta Transit meeting on 3/22 and the Oakley Park and Ride lights are on and there is a new means-based pilot program for 6 months where they will give ADA applicants $22 to cover 8 one-way trips per month and they are bringing back the summer youth program, reducing the price from $60 to $30 for a 3-month unlimited pass for 5-17-year olds from June 1 to August 31. She announced on 4/27, Tri-Delta is hosting a Shred-it event with the City of Oakley; the drive-up event at the Park and Ride begins at 9:00 a.m. and there is no limit, they are taking shredding until trucks are full, and they have one truck and are hoping to secure a second truck. She also reported attending the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority (SJJPA) meeting virtually on 3/25; there was a long discussion regarding decommissioning the Antioch train station and while Antioch’s Mayor made a lot of arguments against closing the station, Supervisor Burgis, City staff, and former Mayor Kevin Romick spoke to make sure it moved forward. She also reported she attended the Center of Human Development ribbon cutting on 3/27 in Pittsburg. She shared she will be shadowing Senator Glazer tomorrow at the Capitol and will discuss funding options for E. Cypress and funding for Tri Delta.

Mayor Meadows inquired if there are 2 members running for the LAFCO position.

Councilmember Shaw explained that special districts get to nominate 2 people, but only 1 will be selected.

Mayor Meadows reported he also attended the SJJPA meeting and Supervisor Burgis brought it; Antioch would have kept station if not for her. He also reported he attended the CCTA 14 meeting and he regularly meets with the Executive Director of CCTA to discuss revenue sources for E. Cypress and Laurel. He also reported he attended the MCE meeting where they approved an $800+ million budget.
(b) Requests for Future Agendas
Councilmember Fuller requested two items: 1) funds from the sale of 3070 Main Street be used to allocation for defense of the O’Hara property lawsuit and 2) funds from the sale of surplus property located at the northwest corner of APN 037-160-018 be used to allocation for defense of the O’Hara property lawsuit.

Mr. McMurray mentioned with the surplus property, the City is in the 60-day waiting period now.

Councilmember Fuller indicated when the property is sold.

Vice Mayor Williams inquired what happens if funds are earmarked and not used for the lawsuit.

City Attorney Derek Cole commented that staff can include a provision to earmark the funds for litigation for the City’s cost of attorney fees or any damages and if the lawsuit settles or resolves and there are funds remaining, those funds will go back to the General Fund. Vice Mayor Williams supported it.

Vice Mayor Williams requested an item to look at modernizing participation at City Council meetings. Councilmember Fuller supported it.

Mayor Meadows requested an item to review facility needs for staff when they reach build-out.

Vice Mayor Williams supported it.
7) WORK SESSIONS

7.1 Work Session-Police Department Staffing (Joshua McMurray, City Manager and Paul Beard, Chief of Police)
Chief of Police Paul Beard addressed staffing levels, candidates in queue, and the Police Department structure. He shared the vision for a full-service Police Department, staffing issues, and provided an explanation of additional services. He addressed challenges: workspace concerns, special ops sergeant, fleet, equipment, trainers. He also addressed an "over hire" proposal: over hire timelines, move a position from the 24-25 FY. He covered mutual aid:
explanation, LEMA document, Department Policy 327, and mutual aid stats: 4 major incidents last year requiring mutual aid (Alexis Gabe, office involved shooting, Seattle suspect shot, another officer involved shooting). He also discussed the dispatch project: the reason the agenda item was brought forth, Strategic Advisory Services consulting exploration of Brentwood Dispatch, and cost factors pending.

No public comments were submitted.

Vice Mayor Williams mentioned that it sounds like from the presentation, the Chief feels comfortable with staffing but Police has pretty much outgrown the building. She inquired if allocating funds for equipment and space would be a better use of resources. 15 Chief Beard responded it would be as they need equipment. He shared they are a 40-person department and only have 24 helmets; he doesn’t want to share helmets. He also shared they have only 32 rifles that are important for users not to share for accuracy and proficiency.

Vice Mayor Williams commented that it sounds like for better police safety and to keep officers safe will be to equip them rather than hire more bodies.

Chief Beard expressed he is confident that in 2023, Oakley will see a healthy department doing all functions discussed today and the community should be well served, including their investment in doing patrol doing work.

Vice Mayor Williams inquired if numbers are available for the Brentwood Police ratio of number of officers to residents.

Chief Beard did not have those numbers.

Councilmember Henderson commented that having a traffic officer back is huge. He inquired if the special team will be in place before July 4th to handle fireworks issues.

Chief Beard responded that they may have one sergeant and one officer, but not all four.

Councilmember Henderson inquired if they are working on capital replacements for future budget.

Chief Beard inquired if he was referring to vehicles or persons managing the services.

Councilmember Henderson confirmed he is referring to vehicles. He would like to know if they are planning for the future so capital replacements will be in the budget.

Chief Beard explained it is in progress; if they get to a fully healthy fleet, he anticipates they will need to replace approximately 3 vehicles per year; the vehicle replacement plan will work handin-hand with the budget.

City Manager Joshua McMurray mentioned the City of Brentwood has a population of 66,455 with 72 sworn Police officers, a ratio of approximately 1 officer per every 922 residents (in response to Vice Mayor Williams’s inquiry).

Councilmember Fuller suggested the Council bifurcate into 3 areas of discussion instead of trying to discuss all at once.

Staffing
Councilmember Fuller commented there will be 1 new officer hired each year. He inquired how many total officers there will be.

Chief Beard responded that they are looking to have 42-43 officers including 2-3 over hires, over time, not all at once.

Councilmember Fuller inquired where money will come from to fund over hires. He inquired how they will sustain enough space and officers with population growth to keep up with the momentum.
16 Chief Beard mentioned they need to be reasonable how fast and far they grow. He explained that 1 officer per year is for fiscal year 24/25; they propose to add 2 officers that year, but he suggests moving 1 officer from that year to fiscal year 23/24 to hire in Jan 2024.

Mr. McMurray further explained that they have planned for two officers in 2025, 2027 and 2029 so they would take 1 of 2 officers in the fiscal year 24/25 budget and placing in 23/24 budget and hire in Jan 2024.

Councilmember Fuller inquired if there is funding for that.

Mr. McMurray explained they have cost savings that will provide for it. He explained with over hires, when an officer is off paid status is when they would hire to backfill a position so there is no impact on the Police budget.

Mayor Meadows commented it is not a true over hire; they are just hiring on an as needed basis.

Councilmember Fuller commented that he favors increased staff and safety that may require more work space to accommodate that growth and that takes funding; how that is put together is important too.

Mayor Meadows commented that Brentwood’s ratio of officers to residents is just about 1.1, Oakley will be about .9.

Councilmember Shaw inquired if it would be beneficial to have a substation to provide space for more officers as the department grows.

Chief Beard indicated the modeling of substations is beneficial; the officer responds to duty at the main station and works from the substation that would consist of a workstation, office equipment, a break room and restroom.

Councilmember Shaw inquired if the Police station can be built upward.

Mr. McMurray explained that the building was not designed for it; sometimes when restructuring a building it can cost more.

Councilmember Shaw inquired what the policy is for personal rifles.

Chief Beard responded they do not currently have a policy to address it but he purchases good rifles.

Councilmember Shaw commented she understands the struggles and appreciates having a tour of the Police Department; it opened her eyes not only to officers but to needs for the evidence room and equipment issues.

Vice Mayor Williams inquired if the City’s grant writers can look to see if grants are available to transition the City’s fleet to carbon neutral vehicles.

Mr. McMurray explained it is in the City’s climate action plan to become carbon neutral and the City has a grant writer who is aware of the needs for staffing and equipment, including vehicles; 17 however, no grant are available now, but they expect grants to open later this year. He mentioned they are fully invested in seeking funding to support operations.

Vice Mayor Williams inquired how we know that the ratio of 1:1000 is the right number for Oakley and why we are committed to that number.

Chief Beard explained the number is supported by calls for service, response times, caseloads, and other data points to come out with a general answer and numbers will vary year to year, but 1 officer for every 1,000 residents is a great base line.

Councilmember Shaw shared that her husband wrote a grant for an electric Police motorcycle, and she would love to look into it for Oakley.

Dispatch
Councilmember Fuller inquired if it is more costly if the City moves to having Brentwood dispatch and if there is a measure where they might improve service and citizen engagement.

Chief Beard mentioned the consultant met with Brentwood’s City Manager, Chief of Police, and dispatch supervisors and the report is still being refined so staff is awaiting to see how feasible it is. He shared that Brentwood has a lower vacancy rate for dispatch services than the Sheriff’s Office; Brentwood is down 1 person and the Sheriff’s Office is down more.

Mayor Meadows mentioned the Sheriff’s Office has more dispatchers though.

Chief Beard indicated he believes they may have 22 dispatchers.

Councilmember Fuller inquired if the Council will get a report.

Chief Beard mentioned the Strategic Advisory Services group will provide a full report.

Councilmember Fuller inquired if the report will compare level of service, i.e. response time, complaints, etc.

City Manager Joshua McMurray mentioned the report is not to that level of detail; it will look at big ticket items to begin discussion.

Vice Mayor Williams inquired if dispatch is more of a police function or community function, or in other words, if it benefits police officers or the community with response times to switch dispatch.

Chief Beard mentioned the County has served him well for 33 years; they are looking to see if Brentwood may be a better fit for Oakley Police; they still need to flush it out.

Vice Mayor Williams inquired if the report might provide compare and contrast and if there are any benefits that can be identified now.

Chief Beard mentioned the report will not provide a comparison; once they get the report, staff can make an assessment on their own.

Mayor Meadows inquired which cities the Sheriff’s Office currently serves. 18 Chief Beard responded it serves the cities of Danville, Pittsburg, Orinda and Lafayette.

Councilmember Shaw commented switching to Brentwood would be a huge overhaul; it is not just changing location; it comes with training, licensing agreements, IT involvement, etc. She mentioned County technology seems delayed, but it may be a matter of whether it is worth the cost to switch.

Chief Beard mentioned technology would change the way they retain records, the way officers see information to respond to calls, and the County is looking to change its system.

Mutual Aid
Councilmember Fuller commented that the mutual aid agreement is a voluntary document; anytime the Chief or City finds its officers in danger, the City can walk away or terminate the agreement. He expressed Oakley’s officers are trained and respond well, they are highly professional addressing systemic racism and operate as a Class A organization; he wants them to trust us and it is important for officers to know they are safe. He mentioned Antioch approaches Police force from a different perspective that is more aggressive than Oakley and he doesn’t want to open Oakley’s officers to abuse of the power structure in Antioch so he is looking for a solution. He mentioned Oakley is responsible and he wants it clear that everything that goes on will come back to Oakley.

Chief Beard commented that he and Chief Ford see the mutual aid agreement the same way and acknowledge the same document. He shared that full-blown mutual aid is rare; he is operating under his authority and policies, and he takes accountability for his officer’s actions.

Councilmember Fuller commented he doesn’t think Dr. Ford is getting the same support as Chief Beard and he would like the City Managers also sign as it carries heavier weight; he likes the idea of a letter signed and that is public so if the Mayor wants to change it or there is political pressure, this is in place and worked out ahead of time.

Chief Beard commented the document is on file (LEMA). He mentioned the document doesn’t achieve everything Councilmember Fuller is speaking to. He indicated he doesn’t want to get into commentary regarding another jurisdiction. He expressed it pains him there is any slight question mark that Oakley Police would hesitate to respond to provide mutual aid, no matter how they operate. He mentioned he wants any question mark off his department, and he is happy to sign a letter that states what has already been stated if that is the Council’s direction.

Councilmember Shaw inquired if Chief Beard could choose to send officers for mutual aid because he signed LEMA.

Chief Beard responded that is correct if they have resources to respond.

Councilmember Shaw mentioned our police officers adhere to Oakley policies and answer to Chief Beard and this would be true of any complaints by citizens; they would get directed to Chief Beard.

Councilmember Shaw mentioned the indemnification/liability limitation provisions in LEMA address some concern and the District Attorney has also signed this. She shared she looked at 19 Policy 327 and Lexipol who helps create Oakley policy that is also used by Brentwood and Antioch for policy (almost identical) and Lexipol provides updates.

Councilmember Shaw mentioned that not being able to use certain control holds (use of force policies under AB 1196) is a state restriction as of 9/30/2020; it is not city specific.

Councilmember Shaw mentioned military equipment under AB 481 (2021) effective January 1, 2022, provided agencies had to have a policy by May 2022 and surrounding agencies have equipment so they are great resources. She explained this is a state-wide bill and all agencies had to do it; it is not the Antioch Mayor doing these things. She mentioned she appreciates Chief Beard staying out of politics; she doesn’t want officers to hesitate to provide aid and appreciates that they give us aid and that we give them aid.

Vice Mayor Williams mentioned Councilmember Shaw took all of her points and she also applauded Chief Beard for staying out of politics. She expressed it is important to promote things we do here, not point out shortcomings of other cities and she doesn’t want to disparage other cities. She mentioned even though Antioch’s Mayor likes to take credit for those things, it was the state that required them.

Councilmember Fuller commented that the military equipment policy was up to individual cities to purchase, and individual cities have their own use of force policies; there is no uniform policy for the entire state that applies to weapons; we tailor what we need to do our own good. He mentioned he would appreciate a letter with the City Manager’s signing to cooperate.

Councilmember Henderson commented that the Council is getting way too much into the weeds of letting Chief Beard do his job; mutual aid is set up, policies are in place, and they should let the Chief do his job.

Councilmember Shaw commented she doesn’t agree with these letters. She inquired if they would go to each city with a letter. She indicated that is the purpose of LEMA and it can be updated to include Council suggestions. She also indicated other cities can have different use of force policies but officers are still held to the Chief’s standard; they are assisting other agencies but are still subject to Oakley policy. She mentioned the LEMA agreement works and she is concerned if they start getting into that level of detail, what happens with the agency they haven’t thought of; they are getting into weeds and should let law enforcement do its job.

Chief Beard expressed that he sees credibility of the concerns of each Councilmember; however, if he does something drastically different than other agencies he would be looked at with suspicion and doesn’t want that to impact his officers receiving less assistance or aid when needed.

Councilmember Fuller requested clarification of what he meant by the statement about suspicion.

Chief Beard commented it may be more important for Councilmember Fuller to define his statement on social media; he expressed he had to deal with his officers asking him if he is going to stop aiding Antioch. He explained he is trying to avoid a solidarity situation and Councilmember Fuller’s words have been characterized that Oakley will not support Antioch Police but that may not be what he meant so he requested Councilmember Fuller clarify his position on social media.
20 Councilmember Fuller commented he never said Oakley would stop; they have a responsibility to our officers and if they are being led into fire, they should respond but be protected. He mentioned if they have a threat for officers to be there, Oakley has responsibility to deal with it; hearing him say his department would run into suspicion and is not how his is run nor Chief Ford’s.

Chief Beard responded that he appreciates that and feels they need to offer that to Chief Ford.

Councilmember Fuller commented he wants both to say that; what he is hearing from others is that they are vulnerable, and he wants to support our officers.

Chief Beard commented he doesn’t want to be in a position that he is not supportive of aiding another agency.

Vice Mayor Williams commented that asking the City Manager and Chief Beard to sign a separate letter when there is already a document in place is creating a situation and it is clear Chief Beard does not feel comfortable with it.

Councilmember Shaw mentioned she did not say that officers respond to mutual aid no matter what; she wanted to clarify what mutual aid was in a statement she made; if action is needed, action is taken. She mentioned officers can respond anywhere if there is an immediate danger of life or property or if the person is fleeing a crime. She mentioned if Oakley officers see something happen in front of them, they cannot not do it because it is not in our city.

Mayor Meadows commented he is with the majority of Council; Police need to be able to do their job and have agreements in place to do it and he wants to offer resources but not tell the Chief how to do it.
8) CLOSED SESSION

8.1 PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.5(e)
Title: City Manager
Mayor Meadows announced the closed session item. He mentioned the meeting will be adjourned after closed session and the next regular meeting of the City Council will be held April 11, 2023.
9) ADJOURN
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:17 p.m.

Respectively Submitted,
Libby Vreonis
City Clerk
21 Date: March 28, 2023
To: Mayor and Members of City Council
From: Derek P. Cole, City Attorney
Cc: Joshua McMurray, City Manager
Subject: Closed Session Report-Out Memo
FOR CONSIDERATION AT THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 11, 2023 Background and Analysis
The City Council considered the following closed session item during its regular meeting held March 28, 2023:

PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.5(e)
Title: City Manager
Direction was provided to staff. There was no reportable action.

Fiscal Impact
None.

Recommendation
Receive and file this report.

Attachments
None.

MEMORANDUM
Office of the City Attorney
22 DATE: April 11, 2023
TO: Joshua McMurray, City Manager
FROM: Kevin Rohani, P.E. Public Works Director/City Engineer SUBJECT: Award of Construction Contract to Campanella Corporation for the demolition of the Sheriff Annex Building – Capital Improvement Project Number 271 Background and Analysis
The City’s adopted Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/23 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Budget designates funding for various infrastructure improvement projects. This is consistent with the City’s Strategic Goals to improve the quality of the City’s public infrastructure and to enhance the quality of life for our residents.

The Contra Costa County Sheriff Department had an annex building located at 210 O’Hara Avenue that serviced the Oakley area. This facility had been vacated for several years and is no longer in operation. This facility has deteriorated and has become a spot for the homeless to gather and create collateral problems. The County has agreed to give the property to the City for the development of housing units, which would ultimately fund the new Oakley Downtown Library. The demolition of this building is needed at this time to secure the site from a health and safety perspective.

Downtown Oakley has gone through major renovations and improvements over the last several years. This project will demolish the old Sheriff Annex Building located at 210 O’Hara Avenue.

On March 30, 2023, a total of nine (9) bids were received. After extensive review by staff, to ensure all bid documents were in order and complete, Campanella Corporation was found to be the lowest responsible bidder at a total cost of $90,000.

The above costs include not only the demolition and disposal of the buildings and structures, but also to perform substantial Asbestos and Lead abatement and disposal, which is required by California Environmental Regulations.

STAFF REPORT
Approved and Forwarded to the City Council
23 This project involves close coordination by staff with the property owners to ensure minimal inconveniences to the downtown community during the construction of the project. The project is anticipated to start in May of 2023.

Consistency with the Oakley Strategic Plan 27+
This item is consistent with the Strategic Plan 27+ Community Health and Safety goals.

Fiscal Impact
The FY 2022/23 budget has allocated funding from the General Capital Projects fund which will fully fund the construction of this project.

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the resolution approving the construction agreement with Campanella Corporation for an amount not to exceed $90,000 and authorizing the City Manager to execute the agreement.

Additionally, due to variables associated with construction projects, and to address unforeseen circumstances during construction; staff further recommends that the City Council authorize staff to execute future change orders to the construction contract as necessary in an amount not to exceed $45,000 for work beyond what is defined in the base project bid.

Attachments
1) Resolution
2) Bid Summary
24 Resolution No. XX-23 Page 1 of 1
RESOLUTION NO. XX-23

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

AN AGREEMENT WITH CAMPANELLA CORPORATION FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NUMBER 271 – SHERIFF ANNEX

BUILDING DEMOLITION PROJECT
WHEREAS, the City of Oakley prepared the plans, specifications, and estimates for Capital Improvement Project (CIP) No. 271 – Sheriff Annex Building Demolition Project; and
WHEREAS, the plans, specifications and special provisions were publicly advertised for bidding, with the bid period closing at 2:00 P.M. on March 30, 2023; and WHEREAS, nine (9) total bids were received prior to the close of the bidding process; and
WHEREAS, Campanella Corporation submitted the lowest responsible bid for a total cost of $90,000 for the work; and the bid summary is attached as Exhibit A; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Oakley that the Agreement with Campanella Corporation for the Sheriff Annex Building Demolition Project – CIP No. 271, for an amount not to exceed $90,000 is approved, and the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute the Agreement and change orders in an amount not to exceed $45,000 as necessary.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Oakley this 11th day of April 2023 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTENTIONS:

APPROVED:
___________________
Aaron Meadows, Mayor
ATTEST:
___
Libby Vreonis, City Clerk Date
25 26

STAFF REPORT
Agenda Date: ________
Agenda Item: ________
Approved and Forwarded to the City Council
Date: April 11, 2023
To: Joshua McMurray, City Manager
From: Ken Strelo, Planning Manager
Subject: Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments to Article 12 of Chapter 1 of Title 9 of the Oakley Municipal Code (“Special Land Uses”) – Adding Four Subsections to Address Drive-Through Restaurants,
Carwashes, Gas Stations, and Self-Storage (RZ 04-21) – Continued from January 24, 2023
Summary
This is a continued public hearing on a City-initiated request for approval of Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments to Article 12 of Chapter 1 of Title 9 of the Oakley Municipal Code (“OMC”), titled “Special Land Uses” (RZ 04-21). The amendments consist of adding four new subsections to address four special land uses as follows:

Drive-Through Restaurants (Subsection 9.1.1236); Carwashes (Subsection 9.1.1238); Gas Stations (Subsection 9.1.1240); and Self-Storage (Subsection 9.1.1242).

Staff recommends the City Council waive the first reading and introduce the ordinance approving Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments to Article 12 of Chapter 1 of Title 9 of the Oakley Municipal Code (“Special Land Uses”) (RZ 04-21).

Background
On October 11, 2022, the City Council voted 3 (Ayes) – 1 (Noes) to continue this item to a date certain (January 24, 2023). The October 11, 2022 continuation was based on the receival of multiple comment letters from various legal firms representing developers, property owners, and businesses. At that time, the City Attorney requested the City Council provide adequate time for the City Attorney and Staff to review the letters and determine whether any modifications to the proposed ordinance would be recommended. On January 24, 2023, the ordinance was brought back to the Council with various changes to address comments that were brought up in the received letters.

After opening the public hearing and deliberations, the City Council voted 5-0 to continue this item to a date uncertain pending a court’s decision on challenges to two drive-through restaurant conditional use permit denials (McDonald’s and Quick Quack).

The Council also directed Staff to add saturation and walkability language related to the drive-through uses, which would include car washes.
27 Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments (“Special Land Uses”) April 11, 2023

Page 2 of 6 ends

The project has additional background and history including work sessions, public hearings, and comments from citizens, affected property owners, and potential commercial businesses that could be impacted by the proposed ordinance. Details on that additional background and history on the project is available in the City Council Staff Reports dated January 24, 2023 and September 13, 2022 attached to this Staff Report.

Proposed Ordinance
The ordinance that was presented to the City Council on January 24, 2023 included the following additions to the previously proposed ordinance from October 11, 2022:
 The Performance Standards requiring any application for a proposed drivethrough restaurant, carwash, or gas station to include a traffic analysis to specifically analyze pedestrian/bicycle safety and queuing was amended to clarify the purpose of the traffic analysis is to provide recommendations to avoid conflicts between various modes of transportation.
 The Performance Standards requiring a minimum distance of 300-feet between the parcel lines of any school within the Antioch Unified School District, Brentwood Union School District, Oakley Union Elementary School District, or Liberty Union High School District and a drive-through restaurant, a carwash, or a gas station was removed from the ordinance.
 Operational Standards for all four uses were amended to be more general and less harsh on requiring a manager to handle potentially dangerous situations.

After the “hours of operation” condition, the rest was condensed into two conditions requiring operational plans related to 1) litter control, and/or recycling, and 2) noise, loitering, or other potential nuisances (including graffiti removal).

Operational plans subject to review and approval by the Community Development Director.
 The Performance Standard requiring a minimum buffer of 500 feet between gas stations unless located on an arterial intersection was amended to include an intersection of any two streets that each include four lanes of travel. The standard also included language that allows the applicable decision-making body to allow a gas station on a corner when otherwise not allowed if that station is part of a larger master planned development consisting of at least 45,000 square feet of building floor area. The proposed ordinance has been further amended to include stations within 1,000 feet of a highway on/off ramp to those otherwise not allowed.

During the deliberations at the January 24, 2023 meeting, comments received from the Council that were carried over to the motion and made as directions to Staff were 28 Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments (“Special Land Uses”) April 11, 2023

Page 3 of 6 ends

focused on drafting language addressing saturation of drive-throughs and walkability near “sensitive uses” (as defined in the ordinance).

Saturation of Drive-Through Restaurants and Carwashes
The City Council requested that Staff draft language to address saturation of drivethrough uses. This has been interpreted to mean drive-through uses as contained in the ordinance, which would be “drive-through restaurants” and “carwashes.” Language similar to saturation thresholds is already proposed for gas stations. Given the buffer to sensitive uses has been removed per direction of the City Attorney as a result of the legal challenge, and the uses are conditionally permitted in both C (General Commercial) District and RB (Retail Business) District, Staff has analyzed sizes of existing shopping centers and commercial pieces of land in an attempt to provide language for the City Council to consider for adoption.

The following list represents examples of commercial land in the City of Oakley both developed and undeveloped:
 Cypress Square Shopping Center (Raley’s anchor): 11.5 acres. Two existing drive-through restaurants.
 2190 Main Street (Starbucks and Round Table): 0.75 acres. One existing drivethrough restaurant.  101 Carol Lane (Popeye’s): 0.75 acres. One existing drive-through restaurant.  Boparai Plaza (Chevron, Domino’s): 1.60 acres. One existing gas station carwash and one existing drive-through restaurant.
 Emerson Commercial: 7.81 acres. One approved carwash. One approved drive-through restaurant.
 Laurel Plaza: 6.88 acres. On existing (currently vacant) bank drive-through.

Previously approved carwash and two drive-through restaurant.

There are other examples throughout the City, such as Burger King at Oakley Town Center Shopping, which is the only drive-through in a larger shopping center, Dutch Bros. on Main Street, and the carwashes associated with several gas stations. The Analysis section below includes the proposed language.

Walkability
Walkability to and from a commercial piece of land is an important component of a project’s design and is currently a focus of analysis. The proposed includes language requiring a traffic analysis to specifically analyze pedestrian/bicycle safety and queuing and provide recommendations to avoid conflicts between various modes of transportation, which would include pedestrians. This would inherently increase the walkability of any development for a drive-through restaurant, carwash, or gas-station. 29 Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments (“Special Land Uses”) April 11, 2023

Page 4 of 6 ends

However, Staff has taken this request from Council to want additional sureties for walkability and pedestrian safety and experience.

Analysis
Saturation
A saturation threshold for drive-through restaurants and carwashes comes down to a policy decision and thus Staff has provided saturation language in the proposed ordinance for Council consideration. Examples within the City of Oakley show that a single drive-through can be found to exist on a parcel of less than one-acre in size, and multiple drive-throughs can be found to exist on larger parcels. There can be positives and negatives to locating drive-through type uses in close proximity to one another.

One positive could be for residents looking to patronize more than one of the uses in a single trip. Another could be for kickstarting development of a commercial property leading to development of a larger variety of uses to allow for more multi-destination visitors. One negative could be queuing congestion, especially during high-use spillover times. The main desire for the proposed ordinance is to establish a multitude of performance and operational standards that would automatically apply to any proposed drive-through restaurant or carwash so as to allow for the potential positives, while minimizing the potential negatives.

The following additional standards have been added to the proposed ordinance for drive-through restaurants and carwashes for the purposes of addressing potential saturation:
 A conditional use permit for a [drive-through restaurant/carwash] use may only be considered for approval if the site for the proposed use is a minimum of 0.7 acres in size after any necessary right of way dedications, or the site is part of a larger commercial center with contiguous parcels that total at least 0.7 acres in size after any necessary right of way dedications.
 A conditional use permit for a [drive-through restaurant/carwash] use may only be considered for approval if the proposed use will not result in three or more total number of drive-through restaurants/carwashes for any commercial center of less than five acres in size after any necessary right of way dedications, or a commercial center with contiguous parcels of less than five acres in size after any necessary right of way dedications.
 A conditional use permit for a [drive-through restaurant/carwash] use may only be considered for approval if the proposed use will not result in four or more total number of drive-through restaurants/carwashes for any commercial center of less than eight acres after any necessary right of way dedications, or a commercial center with contiguous parcels of less than eight acres after any necessary right of way dedications.
30 Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments (“Special Land Uses”) April 11, 2023

Page 5 of 6 ends

These standards would ensure that any commercial center would have no more than a combination of two drive-through restaurants if less than five (net) acres in size, and no more than three if less than eight (net) acres in size. The proposed ordinance does not include a saturation threshold for any commercial center above eight acres in size.

Walkability
The following additional standards have been added to the proposed ordinance for drive-through restaurants and carwashes for the purposes of increasing walkability:
 Site plans shall be designed so drive-through lanes or regular use queuing areas shall not intersect or interfere with pedestrian access through the parking lot or drive aisles to the main entrance of the associated use from any of the on-site parking spaces for that use.

In other words, if an employee or customer parks in one of the parking spaces designed specifically for the use, the drive-through lane or queuing shall not cut across their access.
 Site plans shall be designed so access to the building from adjacent parcels and public rights of way is accomplished without direct interference with a drivethrough or queuing lane. In the event such a design is not achievable, the crossing shall be located a reasonable distance away from any building corners and enhanced with a raised crossing, signage, and an automatic or pedestrian operated warning light to vehicles.
 Site plans shall be designed so that all pedestrian walkways adjacent to a drivethrough lane shall contain a pedestrian barrier to prevent pedestrians from cutting through the drive-through lane. The barrier shall direct the pedestrian to safe areas to exit the walkway.
 Site plans shall be designed so all driveways with access to public rights of way have pedestrian sidewalks that connect directly to a path that leads to the main building, and that continue into the remainder of the shopping center, if applicable, with marked crossings where appropriate and recommended by the traffic analysis.

The four special land uses now include a revised and updated list of performance and operational standards that will be required either at application phase, design phase, or operational phase in a manner consistent for any similar use. These standards would become ordinance and will serve as standard conditions of approval specific to each of the four special land uses in addition to any conditions of approval adopted for any conditional use permit related to an applicable use. Since some of the standards require studies (such as a traffic analysis for pedestrian/bicycle safety and drive-through vehicle queuing for “Drive-Through Restaurants”), the information and technical analysis gathered will allow Staff to conduct more thorough analysis of any given project and provide that analysis to the appropriate decision making body during a project’s public 31 Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments (“Special Land Uses”) April 11, 2023

Page 6 of 6 ends

hearing. In practice, the ordinance will assist project applicants, Staff, and the Planning Commission/City Council in processing and approving development applications through the use of tools to identify and address potential incompatibility with surrounding uses that may not otherwise be identified through existing established thresholds or less objective analysis. The ordinance will also provide a level of fairness and standards for all similar uses, as it will apply regardless of the specific location a use is proposed.

Adoption of the proposed ordinance will implement the direction provided to Staff by a majority of the City Council from previous meetings combined with City Attorney and Staff recommended modifications based on previous letters received and legal opinions from the City Attorney.

Environmental
This project is exempt from further analysis under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) in that adoption of the ordinance will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.

Consistency with the Oakley Strategic Plan 27+
This item is consistent with the Strategic Plan 27+ Community and Economic Growth Goal and Strategic and Thoughtful Growth Sub-Goal.

Fiscal Impact
There is no fiscal impact to the General Fund in relation to this work session.

Recommendation
Staff recommends the City Council waive the first reading and introduce the ordinance approving Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments to Article 12 of Chapter 1 of Title 9 of the Oakley Municipal Code (“Special Land Uses”) (RZ 04-21).

Attachments

1. Notice of Public Hearing

2. Staff Report from January 24, 2023 City Council Meeting (Without Attachments)

3. Minutes from January 24, 2023 City Council Meeting (Applicable to Item only)

4. Minutes from October 11, 2022 City Council Meeting (Applicable to Item only)

5. Staff Report from September 13, 2022 City Council Meeting (Without Attachments)

6. Minutes from September 13, 2022 City Council Meeting (Applicable to Item only)

7. Staff Report from May 24, 2022 Work Session (Without Attachments)

8. Proposed Ordinance with Tracked Changes from January 24, 2023

9. Proposed Ordinance (Clean Version)
32 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 the item as described below:

Project Name: Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments to Article 12 of Chapter 1 of Title 9 of the Oakley Municipal Code (“Special Land Uses”) (RZ 04-21).

Project Location: Citywide.

Applicant: City of Oakley, 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561.

Request: This is a continued public hearing from January 24, 2023 on a City-initiated request for approval of Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments to Article 12 of Chapter 1 of Title 9 of the Oakley Municipal Code (“OMC”), titled “Special Land Uses” (RZ 04-21). The amendments consist of adding four new subsections to address four special land uses as follows: Drive-Through Restaurants (Subsection 9.1.1236); Carwashes (Subsection 9.1.1238); Gas Stations (Subsection

9.1.1240); and Self-Storage (Subsection 9.1.1242).

How to Review: The Staff Report and its attachments will be available for public review, on or before April 5, 2023 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. Interested persons are invited to submit written comments prior to 5:00 P.M. the day of the hearing to Ken Strelo, Planning Manager at [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. 33 STAFF REPORT
Approved and Forwarded to the City Council
Date: January 24, 2023
To: Joshua McMurray, City Manager
From: Kenneth W. Strelo, Planning Manager
Subject: Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments to Article 12 of Chapter 1 of Title 9 of the Oakley Municipal Code (“Special Land Uses”) – Adding Four Subsections to Address Drive-Through Restaurants,
Carwashes, Gas Stations, and Self-Storage (RZ 04-21) – Continued from October 11, 2022
Summary
This is a continued public hearing on a City-initiated request for approval of Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments to Article 12 of Chapter 1 of Title 9 of the Oakley Municipal Code (“OMC”), titled “Special Land Uses” (RZ 04-21). The amendments consist of adding four new subsections to address four special land uses as follows:

Drive-Through Restaurants (Subsection 9.1.1236); Carwashes (Subsection 9.1.1238); Gas Stations (Subsection 9.1.1240); and Self-Storage (Subsection 9.1.1242).

Background
On October 11, 2022, the City Council voted 3 (Ayes) – 1 (Noes) to continue this item to a date certain (January 24, 2023). This continuation was based on the receival of multiple comment letters from various legal firms representing developers, property owners, and businesses. At that time, the City Attorney requested the City Council provide adequate time for the City Attorney and Staff to review the letters and determine whether any modifications to the proposed ordinance would be recommended. On November 9, 2022, the City Council considered an urgency ordinance to impose a moratorium on the permitting of the four special land uses to allow time for evaluation of their land use and environmental impacts. That urgency ordinance failed due to not receiving the necessary 4/5ths vote needed to pass an urgency ordinance. The City Council voted 3 (Ayes) – 2 (Noes) in favor of passing the urgency ordinance.

The project has additional background and history including work sessions, public hearings, and comments from citizens, affected property owners, and potential 34 Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments to Article 12 of Chapter 1 of Title 9 of the Oakley Municipal Code (“Special Land Uses”)
January 24, 2023

Page 2 of 4 ends

commercial businesses that could be impacts by the proposed ordinance. Details on that additional background and history on the project is available in the City Council Staff Report dated September 13, 2022 and attached to this Staff Report.

Letters Received from Legal Firms for September 13, 2022 Public Hearing All public comments received in a timely manner are provided to the City Council prior to any given meeting. This section focuses solely on the three letters received from legal firms prior to the September 13, 2022 public hearing. Comments in these letters raised several issues some of which regarding the proposed buffer that would impact a small number of properties, the purpose of the additional traffic analysis for DriveThrough Restaurants, Carwashes, and Gas Stations, a number of operational standards related to the amount of responsibility being put onto business managers for dealing with unruly patrons or visitors to the property, and the setback required behind gas stations and other requirements within that standard. All three letters are attached as reference.

City Attorney Response to Letters
Based on legal review by the City Attorney, the very limited number of properties affected by the proposed buffers, coupled with the histories associated with those few properties, raise the appearance (though unintended) that the proposed ordinance is focused on just these specific properties, rather than on a broader class of commercial properties. Staff and the City Attorney were unable to identify other cities or counties in California that have enacted similar buffers, raising the concern that the novelty of the proposed buffer may support the perception the ordinance is targeted to a few specific properties, rather than commercial properties generally. In light of all the other performance standards incorporated into the Ordinance, Staff and the City Attorney believe the City has ample control over the proposed land uses, and the addition of the buffers is not necessary to achieve the Council's regulatory objectives.

Proposed Ordinance
In tune to the City Attorney’s response to the letters and other discussion regarding the other topics covered in the comment letters, the proposed ordinance has been drafted with changes from the version presented to the City Council at the October 11, 2022 public hearing. A summary of those changes is listed below:
 The Performance Standards requiring any application for a proposed drivethrough restaurant, carwash, or gas station to include a traffic analysis to specifically analyze pedestrian/bicycle safety and queuing have been amended to clarify the purpose of the traffic analysis is to provide recommendations to avoid conflicts between various modes of transportation.  The Performance Standards requiring a minimum distance of 300-feet between the parcel lines of any school within the Antioch Unified School District, 35 Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments to Article 12 of Chapter 1 of Title 9 of the Oakley Municipal Code (“Special Land Uses”)
January 24, 2023

Page 3 of 4 ends

Brentwood Union School District, Oakley Union Elementary School District, or Liberty Union High School District and a drive-through restaurant, a carwash, or a gas station have been removed from the ordinance.
 Operational Standards for all four uses have been amended to be more general and less harsh on requiring a manager to handle potentially dangerous situations. After the “hours of operation” condition, the rest is now condensed into two conditions requiring operational plans related to 1) litter control, and/or recycling, and 2) noise, loitering, or other potential nuisances (including graffiti removal). Operational plans subject to review and approval by the CDD.  The Performance Standard requiring a minimum buffer of 500 feet between gas station unless located on an arterial intersection has been amended to include an intersection of any two streets that each include four lanes of travel. The standard also includes language that allows the applicable decision making body to allow a gas station on a corner when otherwise not allowed if that station is part of a larger master planned development consisting of at least 45,000 square feet of building floor area.

Analysis
Adoption of the proposed ordinance will implement the direction provided to Staff by a majority of the City Council from previous meetings combined with City Attorney and Staff recommended modifications based on the letters received at the September 13, 2022 meeting. The four special land uses will include a list of several performance and operational standards that will be required either at application phase, design phase, or operational phase in a manner consistent for any similar use. These standards would become ordinance and will serve as standard conditions of approval specific to each of the four special land uses in addition to any conditions of approval adopted for any conditional use permit related to an applicable use. Since some of the standards require studies (such as a traffic analysis for pedestrian/bicycle safety and drive-through vehicle queuing for “Drive-Through Restaurants”), the information and technical analysis gathered will allow Staff to conduct more thorough analysis of any given project and provide that analysis to the appropriate decision making body during a project’s public hearing. In practice, the ordinance will assist project applicants, Staff, and the Planning Commission/City Council in processing and approving development applications through the use of tools to identify and address potential incompatibility with surrounding uses that may not otherwise be identified through existing established thresholds or less objective analysis. The ordinance will also provide a level of fairness and standards for all similar uses, as it will apply regardless of the specific location a use is proposed.
36 Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments to Article 12 of Chapter 1 of Title 9 of the Oakley Municipal Code (“Special Land Uses”)
January 24, 2023

Page 4 of 4 ends

Consistency with the Oakley Strategic Plan 27+
This item is consistent with the Strategic Plan 27+ Community and Economic Growth Goal and Strategic and Thoughtful Growth Sub-Goal.

Fiscal Impact
There is no fiscal impact to the General Fund in relation to this work session.

Attachments

1. Minutes from October 11, 2022 City Council Meeting (Applicable to Item only)

2. Staff Report from September 13, 2022 City Council Meeting (without attachments)

3. Minutes from September 13, 2022 City Council Meeting (Applicable to Item only)

4. Staff Report from May 24, 2022 Work Session (without attachments)

5. Proposed Ordinance with Tracked Changes from September 13, 2022 Version

6. Proposed Ordinance
37 Minutes of the Regular Joint Meeting of the Oakley City Council/Oakley City Council Acting as the Successor Agency to the Oakley Redevelopment Agency/Oakley Public Financing Authority held January 24, 2023
1) OPENING MATTERS

1.2 Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag (JROTC students)
JROTC students led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.

1.3 Proclamation Recognizing January as Human Trafficking Prevention Month (Katrina Natale, Human Trafficking Task Force Director) Mayor Meadows presented the proclamation to Katrina Natale, Human Trafficking Task Force Director and Wendy Alvarez, her co-lead in the task force and with Community Violence Solutions.

Ms. Natale commented this month is a time to raise awareness and invigorate efforts to prevent human trafficking which includes Oakley. She mentioned the task force has started a relationship with Oakley to discuss how they can engage Police better and bring more awareness. She shared that the task force provides comprehensive services to victims, investigates and prosecutes human trafficking, and provides local programming to help youth protect themselves and identify potential situations. She thanked the Council.
2) PUBLIC COMMENTS
Nancy Huffaker, resident of Summerlake, thanked the Council and Public Works Department for addressing potholes.

Jennifer Solopow submitted an online comment regarding potholes on Sellers near E.

Cypress. Public Works Director/City Engineer Kevin Rohani connected with Ms.

Solopow prior to the meeting to provide her information. 38 Rebecca Mears submitted an online comment regarding types of local businesses needed, infrastructure needed to sustain growth, and the 637/639 Brownstone project. 3) CONSENT CALENDAR

3.1 Adopt a Resolution approving a side letter to the Oakley Police Officers Association Memorandum of Understanding (Jeri Tejeda, Human Resources Director)

3.2 Acceptance of work associated with the Senior Center Roof and HVAC Repair and Replacement Project – Capital Improvement Project Number 288 (Kevin Rohani, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer)

3.3 Adopt a Resolution Approving a Recognized Obligations Payment Schedule (ROPS) and Administrative Budget for the Fiscal Year of July 2023 through June 2024 (Tim Przybyla, Finance Director)

3.4 Adopt a Resolution adding standby pay to the approved compensation package (Jeri Tejeda, Human Resources Director)
No public comments were submitted.

It was moved by Councilmember Fuller and seconded by Councilmember Shaw to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion was unanimous and so ordered. (5-0) 4) PUBLIC HEARINGS

4.1 (Continued from October 11, 2022) Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments to Article 12 of Chapter 1 of Title 9 of the Oakley Municipal Code (“Special Land Uses”) – Adding Four Subsections to Address Drive-Through Restaurants, Carwashes, Gas Stations, and Self-Storage (RZ 04-21) (Ken Strelo, Planning Manager)
Planning Manager Ken Strelo presented the staff report and PowerPoint presentation.

City Attorney Derek Cole commented that he and staff came together after the last hearing and after letters were received to do an analysis and they found that the proposed buffer is not a common practice in other jurisdictions so they would be charting a new course with this, and as a practical matter, there are a limited number of properties (4) to which it would apply, 2 have no chance of developing, so only 2 properties would be affected by this and those are properties that developers have acquired and held for commercial purposes on a commercial corridor. He explained because there is a limited number of properties to which this buffer applies, although there is no intent, it could appear the City is targeting or spot zoning properties based on a generally applicable ordinance, and one developer raised such claim and other claims. He mentioned it has never been the City’s intent, but he also wants the Council 39 to be aware what happens if they do this; it may force the owners of these properties into litigation. He shared he is not trying to put words in their mouths, but creating buffers may create a situation that would require property owners to act now legally to protect any rights they may have. He mentioned they have the general conditional use permit process plus these additional performance standards would allow the City to address any situations involving these properties; developers would still have to apply for a conditional use permit and there would still be CEQA review. He advised it is not in the best interest of the City to enact this part. He shared his assessment is that the City would be putting the parties in a situation to litigation to protect their rights. He mentioned he believes the City already has the controls it wants through its process and with these improvements so it is his recommendation that if the Council approves the ordinance that this part be removed, but it is the decision of the Council to make.

Mr. Strelo continued his report and presentation including a summary of amendments to the ordinance.

Vice Mayor Williams mentioned 500-foot buffer language with gas stations. She inquired since an important part of the drive through has been taken out, if this language could be universal and applied to all uses, i.e., drive throughs, car washes, etc.so that none of those get oversaturated in certain areas.

Mr. Strelo indicated staff can modify the ordinance language at the Council’s direction.

Vice Mayor Williams mentioned they are all conditional use, but they have experienced it is made to appear it is difficult to deny a conditional use permit and this doesn’t provide any added protection; they were told meeting after meeting they didn’t have sufficient reasons to deny even though they did. She inquired what additional protections are being included besides conditional use permits if they remove the buffer from sensitive areas.

Mr. Cole explained that the properties along the commercial corridor have been planned commercial since the beginning of Oakley with the General Plan and Specific Plan; there will always be inherent difficulties with that area and there are other properties along a very busy road with traffic along the commercial corridor that have ben entitled.

He mentioned if the Council targets traffic for specific projects, it presents some legal issues for the City. He mentioned there are protections with the conditional use permit process such as time changes for the properties such as near a school, staggering time of operation, traffic control measures and crosswalks, staggering signals, which may or may not work for all facilities, but there may be some ways to deal with it. He added that this means there would be intention to approve the project, but if there is intention to never permit that, it is a policy choice. He mentioned he is alerting the Council to realities; this commercial corridor (Laurel) has been planned for decades; if they change what to do with that part of the City, it is likely to attract a lawsuit. He mentioned the Council can decide to move forward; the Council makes policy, and he is an advisor. 40 Vice Mayor Williams commented they all want commercial at Laurel Plaza, they just didn’t think drive throughs were compatible and the 2008 Planning Commission was very clear about that. She mentioned if they can manage through conditional use permits and the developer is not willing to meet those conditions and the Council can deny, then that makes her feel more comfortable. She added they would love commercial, but there is a difference between commercial and fast-food drive throughs.

Councilmember Fuller inquired if Adam Hofmann with Hanson Bridgett was contacted by anyone and if the letters the Council received submitted by attorneys were published with the agenda. He expressed concern regarding the public not being aware of the change.

Mr. Cole indicated Mr. Hofmann was retained as a litigator for the City for the McDonald’s/Quick Quack lawsuit and Mr. Cole is the advisor.

Councilmember Fuller commented heard Mr. Cole said during open forum that he disagreed with what the Council did and therefore he was unable to carry the lawsuit.

Mr. Cole commented that is not what he said; it is inaccurate.

Councilmember Fuller inquired if Bryan Montgomery (former City Manager of Oakley) was contacted by Cole Huber LLP regarding the lawsuit as he was a big supporter of commercial development and the McDonald’s at Laurel Plaza and Cole Huber LLP has contracted with the city in which Mr. Montgomery now works.

Mr. Cole responded “no”. He indicated Cole Huber LLP has contracted with the City of Indio, one of 10 cities his firm represents as City Attorney, and there are 20 attorneys in his firm but he does not work with that city directly nor has he spoken with Mr.

Montgomery in approximately one year. He added he is not aware that anyone at the staff level has had any contact with him or that he has reached out to staff. He expressed he believes Mr. Montgomery advocated for these things when he was here, but they have not consulted with him since.

Councilmember Fuller commented it is a law partnership and even if another attorney represents that city and develops profits, those profits are spread among the partnership.

Mr. Cole responded he is not certain why he or his firm are an issue; they share profits from all agencies they represent throughout California. He assured his advice is based on his nearly 25 years of experience as an environmental and land use attorney.

Councilmember Fuller inquired if the letters from the attorneys were attached to the agenda when published.

Mr. Strelo indicated they were not; they were part of a previous public hearing for this item.
41 Mr. Cole mentioned this is a continued hearing from last year and those letters were provided before that meeting so those letters are already part of the record.

Councilmember Fuller indicated because of those letters, a new redlined version of the ordinance has been proposed which has completely changed the ordinance and they are not being fair to the public if they are not making them aware of the letters. He indicated the Council received the letters Monday.

Councilmember Fuller requested a written opinion from the City Attorney as comments prior to 18 months ago are gone. He mentioned they can pass ordinances but can also grant variances so if they go with the original ordinance, they are not stopping any developer from coming in, the developer would need to request a variance to come in; no one is cut out of the property, they just need approval.

Mr. Strelo commented that variances are typically reserved for development regulations such as inability to meet a setback or building height so this would be unique variance for an ordinance in place within the Zoning Code. He mentioned the findings for variances are difficult to meet in most cases so he hesitates to say here that variances would be allowed.

Councilmember Fuller commented he is hearing they are denying people use of their land, but the Council would not be denying any developer to convince the Council to grant a variance. He mentioned if the Council passes the original ordinance he is being told there could be a lawsuit, but if someone wants to build in Oakley, they can discuss it with the City and go over the parameters of development. He mentioned he hasn’t heard anyone at the City deny landowners use of their land. He inquired if they are saying if they go with the original ordinance, they are denying landowners use of their land.

Mr. Cole mentioned that the parties that own the two properties realistically affected by this ordinance acquired their properties years ago based on authorizations and representations in the General Plan, Specific Plan and Zoning Code. He mentioned efforts to develop one property has been unsuccessful and they are of the opinion that only certain commercial uses such as the special uses that are part of this ordinance would be viable and they would argue if the City adopts the buffer that it renders their ability to develop (pencil out) the property impossible. He added that they would argue that the effect of the ordinance buffer would be to render the land undevelopable. He indicated the City would fight that if forced into that. He expressed that if it is the pleasure of the Council to move forward, it is the Council’s choice, but with that comes a consequence. He explained the developer has made concerted effort over the years to try and develop the property and has expressed to the City only certain uses will pencil out which include the special uses. He explained if the Council includes this buffer, there is a very high likelihood the City will have to defend it in court; he wants the Council to understand that is what happens and it is his duty to inform the Council. 42 Mayor Meadows opened the public hearing. He mentioned one comment was submitted online and the person wishes to speak. He called upon Seth Furman.

Seth Furman with Safeway presented a PowerPoint presentation regarding the property at the corner of Laurel and O'Hara and indicated they want to develop soon. He requested clarification on the noise study and alternative fuel.

Vice Mayor Williams inquired when Safeway will come in. She mentioned Oakley has been waiting 20 years and she believes Oakley is bigger than Mountain House where Safeway recently opened.

Mr. Furman explained that their stores must open in terms of long-term success in the community so he does not have the magic ball when that will happen, but it is their intent to move forward sooner than later.

Vice Mayor Williams inquired if they are looking to have only a store and gas or if they are also looking to put in retail pads.

Mr. Furman mentioned they are looking at retail but cannot yet specify if that would include a drive through because have not gotten that far in the site planning process.

Vice Mayor Williams inquired if they could make an amendment to clarify alternative fuel.

Mr. Cole commented that the ordinance says, “Any new gas station shall consider including alternative fuels, pumps, as an option to customers with alternative fuel vehicles.”
Vice Mayor Williams indicated the City is not dictating, just suggesting it be considered.

Mr. Cole mentioned “shall consider” is not mandatory, but a directive that would drive the conditional use permit process.

Mr. McMurray shared that Mountain House has approximately 29,000 in population.

Shelly Fitzgerald commented she is excited to see Safeway come; the property wouldn’t be heavily affected by the original ordinance. She mentioned one commercial corridor was poorly planned that has left one elementary school in a very precarious position.

She expressed that in looking at policies today and updating them can either prevent or allow future problems in other areas of the city. She mentioned the school is in place and there are commercial properties that chose to purchase next to an elementary school. She suggested the Council should think about future school sites, future residential areas, and commercial businesses they want incorporated into those areas with all the growth that will be happening. She shared she found that Elk Grove has provisions for these uses with 100-feet of residential uses, Santa Barbara outright banned drive-through restaurants 40 years ago but last year had to deal with a 43 grandfathered use and considered taking a conditional use permit away from a Chick-filA® because of the problems it is creating, and Brea rescinded approving a Raising Cane’s because of its proximity (within 200 feet) to an elementary school. She added many cities across the country are banning drive throughs entirely with focus on curbing emissions, reducing litter, improving pedestrian access and safety, and enhancing walkability within cities. She mentioned these ordinances are meant to protect cities and guide growth, not to single out property owners.

Mayor Meadows closed the public hearing.

Councilmember Fuller suggested they continue the item until Mr. Hofmann and the public have had an opportunity to review the letters and Mr. Hofmann has opined. He indicated Mr. Cole should recluse himself from the lawsuit as his firm also represents City of Indio where former Oakley City Manager Bryan Montgomery now works who supported the development at Laurel Plaza. He expressed he highly resents Mr. Benke indicating this is a property seizure and he is being targeted he has invited Mr. Benke to discuss affordable housing on the southwest corner. He mentioned people here want another grocery store. He mentioned if they are not going to continue the item and allow the public to view the letters, the original ordinance could pass because it doesn’t deny property rights in Oakley if a property owner meets what is required for a variance.

Vice Mayor Williams requested clarification regarding the action and next possible steps if the Council cannot yet reach consensus.

Mr. Strelo indicated the ordinance can be adopted as proposed, adopted with minor or significant changes (bring back to next meeting), or if no motion, the item would die without direction.

Vice Mayor Williams commented that car washes and gas stations have buffer language and there is no such similar language for drive throughs. She inquired if it would be a major change to add it.

Mr. Cole indicated those are in relation to saturation whereas they are talking about sensitive use so they are switching concepts but if the Council wants to look at a saturation concept, it can direct staff to draft language and bring it back.

Vice Mayor Williams commented that when she and Councilmember Higgins (former Council) first brought forth saturation, it was of concern across all uses, so she believes saturation needs to be back in and if staff is going to bring it back, include very clear and precise language to protect a more walkable, pedestrian-friendly community, including bigger buffers if near sensitive uses.

Mr. Cole mentioned if it is the pleasure of the Council to follow suit, the Council can make a motion to direct staff to continue to a date certain, perhaps the second meeting in February or first meeting in March, and staff will bring back an ordinance to address saturation of drive throughs and walkability near sensitive uses. 44 Councilmember Henderson suggested postponing the item until litigation is done. He mentioned if an ordinance is adopted now, the Council may have to do this again if the City loses in litigation.

Mr. Cole suggested they could continue the item if the Council accepts Councilmember Henderson’s premise and staff will re-notice if not continued to a date certain. He mentioned they have a court appearance date of April 17 for the McDonald’s/Quick Quack lawsuit; staff could get that result and bring it forth late spring.

Councilmember Fuller mentioned he is good with Vice Mayor Williams and Councilmember Henderson’s comments and until the lawsuit is adjudicated, he would like to direct Mr. McMurray to contact Mr. Hofmann to attend closed session or provide written opinion regarding the decisions the Council will be making.

Vice Mayor Williams inquired if a motion is made, could it be amended to include saturation and a walkability buffer if it is not continued to a date certain. She mentioned she doesn’t like not having a date certain because she does not like how long it is taking, but understands the impact to the community for the future.

Mr. Cole mentioned the Council can continue the item to a date uncertain pending the court’s decision in the McDonald’s/Quick Quack decision and when staff brings the ordinance back, saturation and walkability buffers will be included in the ordinance as Vice Mayor Williams suggested, and he or Mr. McMurray can request Mr. Hofmann to provide a opinion on the ordinance in relation to the lawsuit to the Council during a future closed session.

It was moved by Vice Mayor Williams and seconded by Councilmember Shaw to continue the item to a date uncertain and bring the ordinance back pending the court’s decision, with saturation and walkability buffer language included, and direct Mr.

Hofmann to provide an opinion regarding the ordinance in relation to the lawsuit. Motion was unanimous and so ordered. (5-0)
5) REGULAR CALENDAR

5.1 Appeal of Hearing Officer's Decision Regarding the Illegal use of Fireworks (Libby Vreonis, City Clerk / Kim Snodgrass, Deputy City Clerk) City Clerk Libby Vreonis presented the staff report.

City Attorney Derek Cole advised the Council of its scope of review. He mentioned as a procedural point, the neighbor stepped forward to accept responsibility after the hearing officer’s decision, but the Oakley Municipal Code does not provide a procedure that once a decision has been rendered that it can be reviewed again at the administrative level so it was recommended to the property owner to file an appeal to Council. He 45 Minutes of Oakley City Council/Oakley City Council Acting as the Successor Agency to the Oakley Redevelopment Agency/Oakley Public Financing Authority held
October 11, 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/Oakley Public Financing Authority
Mayor Randy Pope 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 Aaron Meadows and Councilmembers Anissa Williams and George Fuller were also in attendance. Mayor Pope announced Councilmember Sue Higgins was absent due to attending a transportation conference in Seattle, Washington, representing the City and her committee assignment.

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

The City Council considered Public Comments and the Consent Calendar prior to presentation of proclamations while the City Clerk obtained the proclamations to present.

1.3 Presentation of Proclamations - 1. National Friends of the Library Month (Lorena Campos, Friends of the Oakley Library President) 2. Domestic Violence Awareness Month (Shannon Starzyk, Contra Costa Family Justice Center) 3. Red Ribbon Week (Patricia Britton & Van Le, Pride & Purpose Project Youth Advocates, Shameka Bolds, Pride & Purpose Project Coordinator, Fatima Matal Sol, CCC Alcohol and Other Drugs Program Chief) 4. Breast Cancer Awareness Month (Janet Jule, Antioch Medical Center Chief Nursing Officer)
Mayor Pope presented the proclamations. Recipients accepted and shared information. Pride & Purpose Project Youth Advocates Patricia Britton and Van Le provided red ribbons to the City Council.
2) PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
46 3.10 Adopt Resolution of Intention to Establish Community Facilities District No. 2022-2 (Summer Lake North Maintenance Services) (Kevin Rohani, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer)

3.11 Creating Zone 186 within the Oakley Special Police Tax Area consisting of the Summer Lake North project located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Bethel Island Road and East Cypress Road (Kevin Rohani, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer)

3.12 Review of Proclamation Request for Future Agenda (John Muir Community Health Fund Day) (Libby Vreonis, City Clerk)
One online public comment was submitted by Dwight Hodgen regarding item 3.8.

He inquired about the impact of extraction of water from the well on private party wells in the area. Public Works Director/City Engineer Kevin Rohani spoke directly with Mr. Hodgen prior to the meeting to answer his question.

It was moved by Councilmember Fuller and seconded by Vice Mayor Meadows to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion was unanimous and so ordered. (4-0) Presentation of proclamations occurred next, before Public Hearings. 4) PUBLIC HEARINGS

4.1 Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments to Article 12 of Chapter 1 of Title 9 of the Oakley Municipal Code (“Special Land Uses”)- Adding Four Subsections to Address Drive-Through Restaurants, Carwashes, Gas Stations, and Self-Storage (RZ 04-21) (Ken Strelo, Planning Manager) Planning Manager Ken Strelo shared staff recommends continuing this item to a date uncertain to allow time for staff to review and analyze comments submitted.

City Attorney Derek Cole explained there is a difference between continuing an item to a date certain or date uncertain. He shared if an item is continued to a date certain, staff does not have to re-notice. He mentioned the reason the agenda says a date uncertain doesn’t mean staff is going to push it off; it is because staff is looking for flexibility to do analysis and review, and respond to comments received. He mentioned the intention is to bring this item back at the beginning of the year, but staff does not yet have a date certain. He commented that the Council has the option to pick a date certain.

Mayor Pope called for public comments and shared that one written public comment was submitted (by Shelly Fitzgerald) inquiring about the delay which Mr. Cole explained.
47 Councilmember Fuller requested a moratorium on issuing any building permit, CUP, variance, or other item that would fall within the Zoning Code until the Council passes a zoning ordinance. He mentioned it has been 18 months since Councilmember Williams requested the item and it has gone back and forth since then, and the community is losing confidence that it will come together.

Councilmember Williams inquired what it would take to have moratorium.

Mr. Cole responded that they cannot discuss the substance of it because it is not on the agenda; it can be requested as a future agenda item; however, he can mention that a moratorium requires an urgency ordinance that would require time for him to draft and bring back.

Councilmember Fuller respectfully disagreed that it is not off the agenda.

Mr. Cole clarified if regarding the special land uses only, they could discuss further; however, if a blanket moratorium is desired, the Council may request it as a future agenda item.

Councilmember Fuller indicated he would accept special land uses for this meeting, but he wants a moratorium across the board to come back which he will request as a future agenda item, so the community has trust that the City is not just putting things off.

Mr. Cole commented the Council needs to give staff and legal counsel time to do the job well. He mentioned they may disagree with the developer request, but he wants to hear all comments and create zoning ordinances that work well for everyone. He also mentioned he can appreciate how people can say it is taking a long time, but he also appreciates considering all aspects to bring it forth while balancing all other tasks.

Councilmember Fuller mentioned he is not saying don’t look at it, but until it comes back and passes, he wants a moratorium, and the community needs to know they are going to have a zoning ordinance.

Mayor Pope commented he won’t be on the Council next year but would feel more comfortable to continue to a date certain in January 2023.

Councilmember Williams agreed with a moratorium for the special land uses until it is solidified and to bring the item back on a date certain, January 24, 2023. She mentioned she is not certain how many pending applications there may be or what affect this will have but she thinks a moratorium may be needed so the community knows the City is not just putting it off while more applications can potentially come in.
48 Mr. Cole commented it is up to the Council if a moratorium is wanted but he cannot draft it by Monday to meet the agenda deadline for the next Council meeting to be held October 25. He suggested he could bring it forth for the November Council meeting.

Councilmember Fuller inquired what happens if the Council passes a moratorium tonight.

Mr. Cole explained the Council cannot address a moratorium tonight as there has been no notice of it on the agenda.

Councilmember Fuller expressed concern regarding putting it off. He made a records request for every CUP, building permit, variance and design submitted until the item is brought back.

Vice Mayor Meadows inquired if Councilmember Williams’ motion was only to continue the item to a date certain, January 24, 2023, not a moratorium.

Councilmember Williams indicated her motion is to continue the item to January 24, 2023. It was seconded by Vice Mayor Meadows. AYES: Meadows, Pope, Williams. NOES: Fuller. (3-1)
5) REGULAR CALENDAR
None.
6) REPORTS

6.1 CITY MANAGER
(a) City Manager
City Manager Joshua McMurray reported the BNSF railroad signal arms have been malfunctioning. He shared BNSF indicated there were some faulty shunts on the track that have been fixed, but arms are still malfunctioning. He also shared that BNSF indicated technology warns the train operator of malfunction; however, he does not believe this creates comfort for residents or staff; BNSF needs to make sure the railroad arms are operational and safe, and staff has been in contact with BNSF repeatedly regarding this issue.

Councilmember Williams inquired if there is anything the City can do to hold BNSF accountable.

Mr. McMurray explained he wishes the City had more leverage but the railroad is higher on the totem pole than the City; however, contacts at BNSF have now been more responsive and he believes they are making positive traction. He mentioned the 1-800 number on the control cabinets has been ineffective. He expressed any comments the 49 STAFF REPORT
Agenda Date: ________
Agenda Item: ________
Approved and Forwarded to the City Council
Date: September 13, 2022
To: Joshua McMurray, City Manager
From: Kenneth W. Strelo, Planning Manager
Subject: Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments to Article 12 of Chapter 1 of Title 9 of the Oakley Municipal Code (“Special Land Uses”) – Adding Four Subsections to Address Drive-Through Restaurants,
Carwashes, Gas Stations, and Self-Storage (RZ 04-21)
Summary
This is a public hearing on a City-initiated request for approval of Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments to Article 12 of Chapter 1 of Title 9 of the Oakley Municipal Code (“OMC”), titled “Special Land Uses” (RZ 04-21). The amendments consist of adding four new subsections to address four special land uses as follows: Drive-Through Restaurants (Subsection 9.1.1236); Carwashes (Subsection 9.1.1238); Gas Stations (Subsection

9.1.1240); and Self-Storage (Subsection 9.1.1242).

Background
On April 13, 2021, the City Council held a Zoning Code Update Discussion Work Session where it was discussed that a comprehensive Zoning Code Update would likely follow adoption of the current Focused General Plan Update, but that an opportunity existed to conduct more specific updates for certain uses that may warrant immediate attention. As a result of that work session, the four uses addressed in this Staff Report were further researched by Staff and brought back to the City Council at the July 13, 2021 meeting for a second, more focused work session. After receiving a Staff presentation and holding discussions regarding each of the four special land uses, the City Council directed Staff to bring back ordinance language for consideration.

On September 28, 2021, the City Council held a public hearing on a City-initiated request for approval of Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments to Article 12 of Chapter 1 of Title 9 of the Oakley Municipal Code (“OMC”), titled “Special Land Uses” (RZ 04-21).

The proposed amendments consisted of adding four new subsections to address four special land uses as follows: Drive-Through Restaurants (Subsection 9.1.1236); 50 Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments to Article 12 of Chapter 1 of Title 9 of the Oakley Municipal Code (“Special Land Uses”)
September 13, 2022

Page 2 of 4 ends

Carwashes (Subsection 9.1.1238); Gas Stations (Subsection 9.1.1240); and SelfStorage (Subsection 9.1.1242). After deliberations, no action was taken on the item and the City Council directed Staff to seek out additional information from stake holders and provide more analysis on the impacts created by potential buffers and bring the item back for additional consideration in a future work session setting.

On May 24, 2022, the City Council held a second Work Session to discuss the four special land uses, including draft performance and operational standards and establishing potential buffers. This work session included a summary of feedback from commercial developers, brokers and property owners (see attached May 24, 2022 Staff Report) and an analysis of potential required buffers between the special land uses and uses such as residentially zoned land and public schools. As part of the work session, Staff gave a presentation that provided examples of how a 300-foot buffer from residential land and public schools would affect nearby commercially designated properties, and the manner in which some of those properties would be impacted. The City Council considered Staff and public input and discussed the topic both with Staff and amongst itself. City Council feedback led to a consensus that applications would be handled on a case by case basis, with the anticipation of additional standards in place (as a result of this ordinance), and that the addition of a 300-foot buffer from schools seemed appropriate.

At the conclusion of the Work Session, it was agreed on by the City Council for each member to complete the checklist of performance and operational standards that was included as an attachment to the May 24, 2022 Work Session Staff Report for each of the four special land uses and return it to the City Clerk. It was agreed through consensus that the completed checklists would be used to determine which performance/operational standards had at least three Councilmembers “In Favor,” and for those to be included in the proposed ordinance language. It was also agreed to by the Council that the answers from each Councilmember would be made a part of the packet for the ordinance introduction.

Results of Performance and Operational Standards Checklists All five Councilmembers either returned a checklist to Staff or made their selections known, allowing Staff to tally the responses and draft the ordinance accordingly.

Although the ordinance is proposed to reflect what a majority of the Council selected on their checklists, there are some standards that received comments with the submitted checklist. Staff has summarized the comments received on specific standards below.

Councilmembers’ Comments on Standards for Drive-Through Uses • #2: In relation to drive-through menu speakers. Okay with requiring spec sheet on menu board speaker and any sound reducing technologies it may incorporate, but not okay with requiring a detailed acoustical analysis. 51 Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments to Article 12 of Chapter 1 of Title 9 of the Oakley Municipal Code (“Special Land Uses”)
September 13, 2022

Page 3 of 4 ends

• #4: In relation to drive-through queuing and access. Not in favor of whole standard, but in favor of the portion that states, “The drive-through shall not take ingress or egress from a local residential road.” (Staff note: Any proposed standard can be separated into two or more standards).
• #5: In relation to drive-through lane screening. “Depends on public safety.” • #7: In relation to direction of menu board speakers. In favor of not pointing them toward adjacent residential uses.

Councilmembers’ Comments on Standards for Carwashes
• #7: Same as #7 for Drive-Through Uses.

Councilmembers’ Comments on Standards for Gas Stations
• None.

Councilmembers’ Comments on Standards for Self-Storage
• None.

Proposed Ordinance
The proposed ordinance has been drafted to include all proposed standards in the checklist. The City Council may choose to hold further discussion on the comments received on some of the standards and summarized above. If the Council has any recommended changes to the ordinance, Staff may be able to make non-substantive changes, so long as the direction is clear, without the need to continue the item to a later date. Separating out parts of a standard into different standards in order to reach a full consensus would be a non-substantive modification. Clarifying language within a standard may also be considered non-substantive. Adding entirely new standards that would affect land use would likely be considered a substantive change and may require a revised ordinance that may need to be re-noticed before introducing.

Analysis
Adoption of the proposed ordinance will implement the direction provided to Staff by the City Council. The performance and operational standards that will become ordinance will serve as standard conditions of approval specific to each of the four special land uses. Since some of the standards require studies (such as a traffic analysis for pedestrian/bicycle safety and drive-through vehicle queuing for “Drive-Through Restaurants”), the information and technical analysis gathered will allow Staff to conduct more thorough analysis of any given project and provide that analysis to the appropriate decision making body during a project’s public hearing. In practice, the ordinance will assist project applicants, Staff, and the Planning Commission/City Council in processing and approving development applications through the use of tools to identify and address potential incompatibility with surrounding uses that may not otherwise be identified through existing established thresholds or less objective analysis. The ordinance will 52 Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments to Article 12 of Chapter 1 of Title 9 of the Oakley Municipal Code (“Special Land Uses”)
September 13, 2022

Page 4 of 4 ends

also provide a level of fairness and standards for all similar uses, as it will apply regardless of the specific location a use is proposed.

Consistency with the Oakley Strategic Plan 27+
This item is consistent with the Strategic Plan 27+ Community and Economic Growth Goal and Strategic and Thoughtful Growth Sub-Goal.

Fiscal Impact
There is no fiscal impact to the General Fund in relation to this work session.

Attachments

1. Notice of Public Hearing

2. Staff Report from May 24, 2022 Work Session (without attachments)

3. Councilmembers’ Responses to Checklist of Performance and Operational Standards

4. Proposed Ordinance
53 Minutes of the Joint Meeting of the Oakley City Council/Oakley City Council Acting as the Successor Agency to the Oakley
Redevelopment Agency/Oakley Public Financing Authority held September 13, 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/Oakley Public Financing Authority
Mayor Randy Pope 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 Meadows and Councilmember Anissa Williams and George Fuller were in attendance. Mayor Pope announced Councilmember Higgins is out of state and would not be in attendance.

1.2 Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag (Angelina Gilbo, 5th Grade Student at Vintage Parkway Elementary School)
Vintage Parkway Elementary School 5th grade student Angelina Gilbo led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.

1.3 Reading/Presentation of Proclamations
Mayor Pope presented the following proclamations:

1. Library Card Sign up Month (Lisa Cano-Loomis, Contra Costa Library Manager) Contra Costa Library Manager Lisa Cano Loomis accepted the proclamation for Library Card Sign Up Month and shared current and upcoming programs. She introduced Lorena Campos, President of Friends of the Oakley Library. She provided library card applications, stickers and bookmarks.

2. Falls Prevention Week (Allen Perry, Oakley Seniors)
Oakley Seniors President Allen Perry accepted the proclamation. He mentioned Oakley Seniors are accepting memberships for new members and they provide free grocery give away every Thursday.

3. National Hispanic Heritage Month (Annalouisa Gonzalez-Ortega, Freedom High School Latinos Unidos Club Advisor)
Freedom High School Latinos Unidos Club Advisor Annalouisa Gonzalez-Ortega accepted the proclamation along with Latinos Unidos Club President Maria Rafael, Club Vice President Naomi Romero, and Club Treasurer Jose Ordonez. Ms. Gonzalez-Ortega mentioned they hold two meetings each month, share cultural events, and fundraise for scholarships for students to use post-high school.
54 Ken Strelo presented the staff report and PowerPoint presentation.

Councilmember Fuller inquired about existing artificial turf in Oakley.

Mr. Strelo explained non-functional turf in place prior to this ordinance would be allowed; future non-functional turf would be subject to the new ordinance.

Councilmember Williams inquired if it is 500 square feet for each lot or the development for landscaping in new developments and she inquired about the impact on water conservation.

Mr. Strelo responded it is the entire project, all front yards combined. He mentioned developers will use drought tolerant landscape in new front yards and the impact on water conservation is about the same as now.

Mayor Pope opened the public hearing.

Public Comment
Randi Adler shared she notices people are not taking care of landscaping and she called Code Enforcement because neighborhood landscaping in her area is overgrown and they didn’t return her calls, and the same for her call regarding her neighbor parking a giant RV in his driveway.

She mentioned she will not call law enforcement; she was just told to leave by the Chief of Police after she told the Council she was sexually harassed by them.

Mayor Pope closed the public hearing.

Councilmember Fuller commented that the ordinance works for him.

Mayor Pope inquired if new developments are required to do a physical barrier for weeds.

Mr. McMurray mentioned there are strict landscape requirements for new homes to control weeds. He also mentioned anyone with concerns about landscaping or other matters can call Code Enforcement and they will investigate it and work with the property owner to bring the property up to code.

It was moved by Councilmember Fuller and seconded by Councilmember Williams to waive the first reading and introduce the ordinance. Motion was unanimous and so ordered. (4-0)

4.2 Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments to Article 12 of Chapter 1 of Title 9 of the Oakley Municipal Code (“Special Land Uses?”) --Adding Four Subsections to Address Drive-Through Restaurants, Carwashes, Gas Stations, and Self-Storage (RZ 04-21) (Ken Strelo, Planning Manager)
Planning Manager Ken Strelo presented the staff report and PowerPoint presentation.

City Attorney Derek Cole mentioned there is no Brown Act issue here as mentioned in a comment letter. He explained the Council filled out a questionnaire that was provided to the City Clerk, it was presented to the Council and public at the same time, and the missing piece of the letter presented is that a majority of the Council must have communicated among each other and that didn’t happen; there is nothing here outside of proper procedure and careful measures were taken. He requested time to take a deeper look into comments received and report back at the October 11, 2022 Council meeting.
55 Mayor Pope opened the public hearing.

Councilmember Williams inquired if this ordinance will only affect new entitlements or existing entitlements as well.

Mr. Strelo responded it will only affect new applications, not existing entitlements.

Councilmember Fuller inquired if this will impact the Council’s decision already taken on the northwest corner of Laurel and O’Hara.

Mr. Strelo confirmed this ordinance will not affect any previous decisions.

Vice Mayor Meadows inquired how many properties at the 4 corners of Laurel & O’Hara are entitled.

Mr. Strelo responded that Laurel Plaza is entitled, but no other entitlements exist on the other three corners.

Mayor Pope inquired if there is a procedure for exceptions if an applicant’s project doesn’t satisfy one of the requirements.

Mr. Strelo mentioned it is not written in the ordinance now and it would be rare, but there is always an option for a variance if regarding a development regulation, i.e., set-backs, height, etc.

Public Comments
Four public comments were submitted to staff electronically from Matthew Francois, Rutan & Tucker, LLP, Andrew Sabey, Cox Castle Nicholson, William Mitchell, WT Mitchell Group, and Richard Randles.

Matthew Francois, Rutan & Tucker, LLP, legal counsel for Safeway, requested the Council to consider comments and make Safeway’s requested changes prior to acting on the Zoning Amendments.

Andrew Sabey, Cox Castle Nicholson, legal counsel for O’Hara Properties, LLC, indicated that approval of the current amendments would expose the City to substantial legal liability and as the process has unfolded, approval following the City’s actions to shield public review would violate the Brown Act.

William Mitchell, WT Mitchell Group, a commercial real estate developer evaluating sites in Oakley, supported the staff report with exception to Performance Standard 9.1.1240 c.3.

Richard Randles indicated the ordinance will hinder commercially zoned properties along Laurel and Main Street.

Randi Adler inquired if it is more profitable for the City to approve a new business if the City receives a franchise fee. She mentioned Comcast and Mt. Diablo Resource Recovery pay a franchise fee and that made garbage rates increase She inquired how far the City will go for franchise fees for car washes and fast-food at the expense of the health of its residents. 56 Natalie Mattei, Director of Real Estate for Safeway, introduced herself and Seth Burman. She mentioned the Council has received the letter submitted from Safeway’s land use counsel regarding its 8.7-acre land on the northeast corner of Laurel and O'Hara. She shared Safeway doesn’t have an immediate plan for this location but will develop. She expressed they have noncontroversial comments on drive-throughs and car washes as entitlement have expired and they are neutral on car washes and self-storage. She commented that arterial streets and uses are clean ups and they support traffic studies for pedestrian and bicyclist safety. She mentioned they request clarification on standards. She mentioned it is not a matter of if they will develop, but when they will develop. She requested minor edits be incorporated into the ordinance and staff’s recommendation to include these comments. She supported Mr. Cole’s request for continuance.

Liz Elias commented that the City doesn’t need any additional quantity of these uses; it has enough. She expressed the City needs more family friendly recreation, i.e., skate parks, roller rinks, things to do, other than underused parks.

Councilmember Fuller agreed with Ms. Mattei and expressed he would appreciate Mr. Cole’s analysis of the letters.

It was moved by Councilmember Fuller and seconded by Vice Mayor Meadows to continue the items to October 11, 2022. Motion was unanimous and so ordered. (3-1) 5) REGULAR CALENDAR

5.1 Urgency Ordinance Imposing a Moratorium on the Permitting of Hydrocarbon Development within City Limits to Allow for Evaluation of the Public Health and Environmental Impacts and the Enactment of Further and Appropriate Regulations Concerning the Same (Ken Strelo, Planning Manager)
Planning Manager Ken Strelo presented the staff report and PowerPoint presentation.

City Attorney Derek Cole explained the urgency ordinance is premised under the Government Code, in the Planning and Zoning Code. He mentioned he received an email inquiry regarding why this is urgent and he directed it to the Council as a public comment. He explained urgency in this context of the ordinance doesn’t mean means someone will put in an application tomorrow, but if the Council finds that someone could put in an application, the current ordinance is dated, changes in technology have taken place, and the Council doesn’t want to take a chance in next 2 years to receive an application, but rather take time to develop the appropriate changes to the ordinance, that would meet requirements for an urgency ordinance and moratorium under Government Code 65858. He added that “urgency” is parlance used but in government doesn’t always mean urgent. He mentioned a 4/5 vote is required to enact the urgency ordinance therefore with Councilmember Higgin’s absence, it would require unanimous vote of members of the Council present.

Vice Mayor Meadows inquired if the State is currently working on regulations.

Mr. Cole responded he understands the State is well along in the process but can’t say when they will have the regulations.
57 STAFF REPORT
Approved and Forwarded to the City Council
Date: May 24, 2022
To: Joshua McMurray, City Manager
From: Kenneth W. Strelo, Planning Manager
Subject: Work Session #2 to Discuss Drive-Through Restaurants, Carwashes, Gas Stations, and Self-Storage
Summary
This is a City Council Work Session to revisit discussion on Drive-Through Restaurants, Carwashes, Gas Stations, and Self-Storage. Specifically, this work session in intended to discuss the feasibility of 1) potentially establishing buffers between residential and commercially zoned properties, and 2) implementing other performance and operational standards, both in relation to the four special uses, as applicable.

The proposed amendments consisted of adding four new subsections to address four special land uses as follows: Drive-Through Restaurants (Subsection 9.1.1236); Carwashes (Subsection 9.1.1238); Gas Stations (Subsection 9.1.1240); and SelfStorage (Subsection 9.1.1242). After deliberations, no action was taken on the item and the City Council directed Staff to seek out additional information from stake holders and provide more analysis on the impacts created by potential buffers, and bring the item back for additional consideration in a future work session setting. 58 Work Session #2 to Discuss Drive-Through Restaurants, Carwashes, Gas Stations, and Self-Storage May 24, 2022

Page 2 of 5 ends

Main Items of Discussion
Potential Buffers
One of the main items discussed during the September 28, 2021 public hearing was the Performance Standards related to buffers between “Sensitive Uses” and proposed drive-through restaurants, carwashes, and gas stations. In these cases, “sensitive uses” was defined as follows:
“[A]ny Residential or Agricultural designated property, whether occupied or vacant, on the Oakley General Plan Land Use Map, any legal and conforming residential use, or any public or private school with students in any grade ranging from K-12.

Residential uses located in non-residential zoning districts and General Plan land use designations are not considered “Sensitive Uses” for the purposes of this subsection. Other uses may be considered as “Sensitive Uses” subject to the discretion of the Community Development Director.”
The buffer from sensitive uses was proposed at 300 feet as measured from a sensitive use’s property line to specific locations of the proposed use. For drive-through restaurants it was the building, drive-through lane, or entry driveways; for carwashes it was the building; and for gas stations it was the parcel lines, building, or entry driveways. There were other discussions on buffers, such as a minimum distance between gas stations of at least 500 feet except that two may be located on corners at arterial road intersections, minimum distance between carwashes of 500 feet, and minimum distance between self-storage facilities of 1,000 feet.

Performance and Operational Standards
The buffers mentioned above are part of what were included as performance standards in the previously proposed zoning ordinance text amendments considered by the City Council on September 28, 2021. In addition to those performance standards were operational standards. Examples of some of the other standards for the four uses included items such as litter control plans, requirements for acoustical analysis of specific noise generating sources, additional pedestrian circulation analysis, vehicle queuing requirements, and standards for self-storage mixed use project.

Analysis
Part of the City Council’s direction to Staff at the conclusion of the September 28, 2022 hearing was to speak to some of the commercial brokers or property owners for input.

Staff was able to speak with not only existing brokers and owners in the City, but also potential developers at a conference attended by the City’s Economic Development Analysist. The results of those conversations varied, but the theme centered around the challenges establishing such buffers would present for developability of affected commercial parcels, and as a direct result, the developability of the remainder of those commercial centers with affected parcels.
59 Work Session #2 to Discuss Drive-Through Restaurants, Carwashes, Gas Stations, and Self-Storage May 24, 2022

Page 3 of 5 ends

300-Foot Buffer from Residential, etc.

One exercise Staff conducted as part of this analysis was to look at several areas in the City where commercial land abuts residential land and analyze the impacts of a 300-foot buffer. The analysis showed the buffer would impact several undeveloped commercial sites and that portions of future commercial centers would be impacted, including:
• Land at the Laurel Road and O’Hara Avenue intersection; • The remaining portion of the commercial site on Laurel Road where ARCO is located;
• The vacant parcel to the west of Oakley Town Center (Lucky Shopping Center); • Northwest corner of Main Street and East Cypress Road; and • Most of the commercial properties along Main Street near the City’s southern border.

In addition to the vacant commercial land, Staff conducted an analysis on how such a buffer could have impacted the City’s current commercial businesses. Results of that analysis showed that several of the City’s current businesses that have been approved since incorporation would not have been allowed in their current location with such a buffer in place. Some of those businesses include the following:
• Starbucks at Main Street and Carol Lane;
• Popeye’s at Main Street and Carol Lane;
• Chevron gas station at Main Street and East Cypress Road; • Drive-through in Bopari Plaza on Main Street south of East Cypress Road; • ARCO gas station at Main Street and East Cypress Road; • 7/11 gas station at Main Street and Empire Avenue; and • The relative uses in the Emerson Commercial site.

Another factor that may not be as obvious is how future infill residential development could alter developability of commercial properties if such a buffer existed. For example, the City is currently updating the Housing Element and part of that process includes looking at additional sites for the Affordable Housing Overlay (“AHO”) District.

Some of those sites are allowed to be zoned commercial, and some of the currently proposed AHO are zoned commercial.

Placing the AHO on commercial properties is allowed by the state, and it serves two main purposes. The first is it allows more flexibility is site selection. Residential sites are often partially developed or in already established neighborhoods with much lower density than what the AHO would permit, potentially creating more difficulty on acceptance of the site by the state, or as a density conflict with the existing surrounding areas. The second main purpose is to bring more people to existing commercial uses, which results in a benefit to the City in meeting its housing needs, and to existing commercial uses by bringing potential customers within walking distance to those businesses which may offer commercial goods and services. As more commercial sites 60 Work Session #2 to Discuss Drive-Through Restaurants, Carwashes, Gas Stations, and Self-Storage May 24, 2022

Page 4 of 5 ends

are rezoned with the AHO, one less foreseeable impact of a buffer from residential uses would be if a commercial site with the AHO were to be developed with residential uses, thus creating a new buffer over viable commercial property located on major arterials or nearer the freeways. Bridgehead Road is one such example.

Based on the above analysis, Staff is recommending the applicability of 300-foot buffers from sensitive uses is no longer implemented, and instead, Staff and decision makers rely on the tools already provided by the Oakley Municipal Code, such as:
• The three uses previously proposed to be subject to the buffer already require the discretionary approval of conditional use permits;
• Staff is recommending several other performance and operational standards for the uses, which could be adopted as ordinance and integrated into the zoning code; and
• Accompanying design review applications can include design to increase compatibility between uses on a case-by-case basis.

Proposed 300-Foot School Buffer
One other factor considered by Staff was to apply the 300-foot buffer to the parcel lines of schools that are part of the four school districts within the City. It was found that although a few commercial sites would be affected, the impact City-wide was far less extreme than the 300-foot buffer from residential. The most notable affected sites were a residential site zoned Retail Business District across O’Hara Avenue from O’Hara Park Middle School, portions of the commercial sites on the northwest corner and southwest corners of Laurel Road and O’Hara Avenue near Laurel Elementary School, and a vacant site fronting Carpenter Road between La Grande and Almond Grove School.

The intent of this buffer would be to implement it from schools that are part of the Antioch Unified School District, Brentwood Elementary School District, Oakley Union Elementary School District, and Liberty Union High School District. The proposed standard would not include uses such as day care centers (which are typically in commercial zones) or locations where students are homeschooled. If the City Council is in favor of this buffer, it may consider directing Staff to craft more specific language to ensure the standard is applied as intended.

Presentation
A presentation will be given by Staff as a part of the oral report. The presentation will show how the 300-foot buffer from residential land impacts some of the areas discussed in this report. It will also show how the 300-foot buffer from schools will affect adjacent commercial land.
61 Work Session #2 to Discuss Drive-Through Restaurants, Carwashes, Gas Stations, and Self-Storage May 24, 2022

Page 5 of 5 ends

Performance and Operational Standards Checklist
Staff has created a checklist of the proposed performance and operational standards.

That checklist is attached to this Staff Report and has been provided to each Councilmember in hard copy. Staff is requesting that each Councilmember complete the list and provide a response of “In favor” or “Not in favor” for each standard listed.

The completed checklists can then be returned to the City Clerk at each Councilmember’s earliest convenience. The lists are not required to be completed during this Council Meeting. Staff will use the lists to assist in the deciding which standards to include in the future proposed ordinance. The results of each Councilmember’s list will also be made public in any future packet for consideration of ordinance language related to this topic.

Summary Analysis
In summary, due to the significant effect on existing commercial properties and foreseeable and unforeseeable effects on existing commercial properties that may be caused by future infill residential development, Staff is recommending the land use decisions remain on a case-by-case basis and rely on the existing discretion allowed by Staff and decisions makers and the conditional use process rather than establishing a buffer between certain commercial uses and residential uses. In addition, several performance and operational standards will further ensure the related uses perform and operate in specific manners as eventually ordained into the zoning code. Staff also recommends the Council consider establishing a buffer of 300 feet between schools in the City’s four school districts and the specific uses discussed in this Staff Report.

Consistency with the Oakley Strategic Plan 27+
This item is consistent with the Strategic Plan 27+ Community and Economic Growth Goal and Strategic and Thoughtful Growth Sub-Goal.

Fiscal Impact
There is no fiscal impact to the General Fund in relation to this work session.

Recommendation
Staff recommends the City Council receive the Staff Report and Staff Presentation, hold the Work Session, including receiving public comments, and provide Staff with oral and/or written direction on the topic of regulating all or some of the discussed uses.

Attachments

1. Notice of Work Session

2. Staff Report from July 13, 2021 Work Session

3. Staff Report from September 28, 2021 Public Hearing

4. Checklist of Draft Performance and Operational Standards 62 Ordinance No. 1 of 11
Tracked Changes from the January 24, 2023 proposed Ordinance are in red font and single underlined.

ORDINANCE NO. _________

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OAKLEY ADOPTING ZONING TEXT AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLE 12 OF CHAPTER 1 OF TITLE 9 OF THE OAKLEY MUNICIPAL CODE (“SPECIAL LAND USES”) – ADDING FOUR

SUBSECTIONS TO ADDRESS DRIVE-THROUGH RESTAURANTS, CARWASHES, GAS STATIONS, AND SELF-STORAGE (RZ 04-21)
The City Council of the City of Oakley does ordain as follows:

SECTION 1. Subsection 9.1.1210 of the Oakley Municipal Code, titled “Gasoline Service Stations. – Reserved,” is hereby amended to have the title, “Reserved.” SECTION 2. Subsection 9.1.1236, titled “Drive-Through Restaurants,” is hereby added to the Oakley Municipal Code in its entirety, as follows:
“9.1.1236 Drive-Through Restaurants.
a. Purpose and Intent. It is the purpose of this subsection to specify performance and operational standards for restaurants or food-related uses seeking to incorporate one or more drive-through lanes in association with the proposed use. 1) This subsection shall apply to any use proposed within the City of Oakley that is considered a “Drive-thru Restaurants and Services,” and that is a restaurant or food/drink-related business.
b. Definitions and Meanings.
1) For the purposes of this subsection “Drive-Through” is interchangeable with “Drive-thru” found elsewhere in the Oakley Municipal Code. 2) “Sensitive Uses,” as referenced in this subsection shall mean any Residential or Agricultural designated property, whether occupied or vacant, on the Oakley General Plan Land Use Map, any legal and conforming residential use, or any public or private school with students in any grade ranging from K-12. Residential uses located in non-residential zoning districts and General Plan land use designations are not considered “Sensitive Uses” for the purposes of this subsection. Other uses may be considered as “Sensitive Uses” subject to the discretion of the Community Development Director.
c. Performance Standards.
63 Ordinance No. 2 of 11
1) A conditional use permit for a drive-through restaurant use may only be considered for approval if the site for the proposed use is a minimum of

0.7 acres in size after any necessary right of way dedications, or the site is part of a larger commercial center with contiguous parcels that total at least 0.7 acres in size after any necessary right of way dedications. 2) A conditional use permit for a drive-through restaurant use may only be considered for approval if the proposed use will not result in three or more total number of drive-through restaurants/carwashes for any commercial center of less than five acres in size after any necessary right of way dedications, or a commercial center with contiguous parcels of less than five acres in size after any necessary right of way dedications. 3) A conditional use permit for a drive-through restaurant use may only be considered for approval if the proposed use will not result in four or more total number of drive-through restaurants/carwashes for any commercial center of less than eight acres after any necessary right of way dedications, or a commercial center with contiguous parcels of less than eight acres after any necessary right of way dedications. 4) An application for a proposed drive-through restaurant shall include a traffic analysis that specifically analyzes onsite and nearby pedestrian/bicycle safety and drive-through lane queuing for the purposes of providing recommendations to avoid conflicts between various modes of transportation. The traffic analysis shall also analyze drive-through vehicle queuing and make recommendations to the site planning design that results in avoiding or minimizing negative impacts to the surrounding area on- and off-site, including but not limited to:
i. Blocking access to parking spaces;
ii. Creating conflicts to internal circulation; or
iii. Spill back into adjacent main drive aisles or rights of way causing interference to vehicular, bicycle, or pedestrian flow or reduction in road capacity.

The drive-through shall not take ingress or egress from a local residential road.
7) The entire drive-through lane shall be screened from adjacent street and residential views to a height of at least three feet. Screening devices shall be a combination of berming, hedge and landscape materials, and solid walls as approved by the Community Development Director. 8) Menu boards shall be oriented or screened to avoid direct visibility from adjacent public streets.
9) The speaker box on menu boards shall be oriented away from adjacent residential uses or other commercial uses with an outdoor setting. 10) Pedestrian access to the building either from the parking lot or public right of way shall not cross the drive-through lane at any point between the last queuing area and end of the building facade where the pick-up window is located.
11) Site plans shall be designed so drive-through lanes or regular use queuing areas shall not intersect or interfere with pedestrian access through the parking lot or drive aisles to the main entrance of the associated use from any of the on-site parking spaces for that use.
12) Site plans shall be designed so access to the building from adjacent parcels and public rights of way is accomplished without direct interference with a drive-through or queuing lane. In the event such a design is not achievable, the crossing shall be located a reasonable distance away from any building corners and enhanced with a raised crossing, signage, and an automatic or pedestrian operated warning light to vehicles.
13) Site plans shall be designed so that all pedestrian walkways adjacent to a drive-through lane shall contain a pedestrian barrier to prevent pedestrians from cutting through the drive-through lane. The barrier shall direct the pedestrian to safe areas to exit the walkway.
14) Site plans shall be designed so all driveways with access to public rights of way have pedestrian sidewalks that connect directly to a path that leads to the main building, and that continue into the remainder of the shopping center, if applicable, with marked crossings where appropriate and recommended by the traffic analysis.
65 Ordinance No. 4 of 11
d. Operational Standards.
1) Hours of operation may be limited as a condition of approval in the conditional use permit as necessary to achieve compatibility with adjacent sensitive land uses.
2) The applicant shall prepare and submit an operational plan related to litter control, and/or recycling as a part of the conditional use permit application, subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Director. 3) The applicant shall prepare and submit an operational plan addressing noise, loitering or other potential nuisances that may be caused by employees, patrons, or other citizens while on the premises, subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Director. The operational plan shall include plans to ensure graffiti shall be removed within 48 hours of it being discovered by or reported to the businesses.” SECTION 3. Subsection 9.1.1238, titled “Carwashes,” is hereby added to the Oakley Municipal Code in its entirety, as follows:
“9.1.1238 Carwashes.
a. Purpose and Intent. It is the purpose of this subsection to specify performance and operational standards for carwashes.
1) This subsection shall apply to any carwash use proposed within the City of Oakley, including carwashes ancillary to gas stations, self-service carwashes, stand-alone automated carwashes, and carwash businesses that may include additional detailing whether indoors or under a shade structure.
b. Definitions and Meanings.
1) For the purposes of this subsection “Carwash” may include the types of carwashes listed above. If a part of this subsection only applies to specific type of carwash, it will be explicitly stated as such. Otherwise, the part applies to all types of carwashes.
2) “Sensitive Uses,” as referenced in this subsection shall mean any Residential or Agricultural designated property, whether occupied or vacant, on the Oakley General Plan Land Use Map, any legal and conforming residential use, or any public or private school with students in any grade ranging from K-12. Residential uses located in non-residential zoning districts and General Plan land use designations are not be considered “Sensitive Uses” for the purposes of this subsection. Other uses 66 Ordinance No. 5 of 11
may be considered as “Sensitive Uses” subject to the discretion of the Community Development Director.
c. Performance Standards.
1) A conditional use permit for a carwash use may only be considered for approval if the site for the proposed use is a minimum of 0.7 acres in size after any necessary right of way dedications, or the site is part of a larger commercial center with contiguous parcels that total at least 0.7 acres in size after any necessary right of way dedications.
2) A conditional use permit for a carwash use may only be considered for approval if the proposed use will not result in three or more total number of drive-through restaurants/carwashes for any commercial center of less than five acres in size after any necessary right of way dedications, or a commercial center with contiguous parcels of less than five acres in size after any necessary right of way dedications.
3) A conditional use permit for a carwash use may only be considered for approval if the proposed use will not result in four or more total number of drive-through restaurants/carwashes for any commercial center of less than eight acres after any necessary right of way dedications, or a commercial center with contiguous parcels of less than eight acres after any necessary right of way dedications.
4) An application for a proposed carwash shall include a traffic analysis that specifically analyzes onsite and nearby pedestrian/bicycle safety and queuing for the purposes of providing recommendations to avoid conflicts between various modes of transportation. The traffic analysis shall also analyze drive-through vehicle queuing and make recommendations to the site planning design that results in avoiding or minimizing negative impacts to the surrounding area on- and off-site, including but not limited to:
i. Blocking access to parking spaces;
ii. Creating conflicts to internal circulation; or
iii. Causing potential for spill back into adjacent main drive aisles or rights of way causing interference to vehicular, bicycle, or pedestrian flow or reduction in road capacity.

12) Site plans shall be designed so access to the building from adjacent parcels and public rights of way is accomplished without direct interference with a drive-through or queuing lane. In the event such a design is not achievable, the crossing shall be located a reasonable distance away from any building corners and enhanced with a raised crossing, signage, and an automatic or pedestrian operated warning light to vehicles.
13) Site plans shall be designed so that all pedestrian walkways adjacent to a drive-through lane shall contain a pedestrian barrier to prevent pedestrians 68 Ordinance No. 7 of 11
from cutting through the drive-through lane. The barrier shall direct the pedestrian to safe areas to exit the walkway.
14) Site plans shall be designed so all driveways with access to public rights of way have pedestrian sidewalks that connect directly to a path that leads to the main building, and that continue into the remainder of the shopping center, if applicable, with marked crossings where appropriate and recommended by the traffic analysis.
d. Operational Standards.
1) Hours of operation may be limited as a condition of approval in the conditional use permit as necessary to achieve compatibility with adjacent sensitive land uses.
2) The applicant shall prepare and submit an operational plan related to litter control, and/or recycling as a part of the conditional use permit application, subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Director. 3) The applicant shall prepare and submit an operational plan addressing noise, loitering or other potential nuisances that may be caused by employees, patrons, or other citizens while on the premises, subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Director. The operational plan shall include plans to ensure graffiti shall be removed within 48 hours of it being discovered by or reported to the businesses.” SECTION 4. Subsection 9.1.1240, titled “Gas Stations,” is hereby added to the Oakley Municipal Code in its entirety, as follows:
“9.1.1240 Gas Stations.
a. Purpose and Intent. It is the purpose of this subsection to specify performance and operational standards for gas stations.
1) This subsection shall apply to any gas station use proposed within the City of Oakley, whether or not they include a convenience store, carwash, or vacuum stations.

b. Definitions and Meanings.
1) For the purposes of this subsection “Gas Station” is interchangeable with “Gasoline Service Station” found elsewhere in the Oakley Municipal Code. 2) “Sensitive Uses,” as referenced in this subsection shall mean any Residential or Agricultural designated property, whether occupied or vacant, on the Oakley General Plan Land Use Map, any legal and conforming residential use, or any public or private school with students in 69 Ordinance No. 8 of 11
any grade ranging from K-12. Residential uses located in non-residential zoning districts and General Plan land use designations are not considered “Sensitive Uses” for the purposes of this subsection. Other uses may be considered as “Sensitive Uses” subject to the discretion of the Community Development Director.
c. Performance Standards.
1) An application for a gas station shall include a traffic analysis that specifically analyzes onsite and nearby pedestrian/bicycle safety for the purposes of providing recommendations to avoid conflicts between various modes of transportation. This analysis is in addition to any Vehicle Miles Traveled (“VMT”) or Level of Service (“LOS”) analysis that may already be required.
2) Any proposed gas station shall be minimum of 500 feet from an existing gas station, as measured between the shortest distance from either the perimeter of the gas station operations or parcel lines, subject to the determination by the Community Development Director, except that any intersection of two arterial streets (as defined in the City’s General Plan) or of any two existing streets each with at least four travel lanes (two in each direction) may have two gas stations on separate corners. An exception to the 500 foot buffer may also be considered if a gas station is located within 1,000 feet of a highway on/off ramp, or part of a larger master development plan consisting of at least 45,000 square feet of building floor area, subject to the approval of the applicable decision-making body. 3) The speakers on gas pumps shall comply with all applicable noise regulations in the Oakley General Plan.
4) Any new gas station shall include a parking location for fueling trucks that does not block or cross over any required drive aisles or off-street parking spaces.
5) Any new gas station shall consider including alternative fuels pumps as an option to customers with alternative fuel vehicles.
d. Operational Standards.
1) Hours of operation for all or any individual component of a gas station (i.e., pumps, convenience store, carwash, or vacuum stations) may be limited as a condition of approval in the conditional use permit as necessary to achieve compatibility with adjacent sensitive land uses.
2) The applicant shall prepare and submit an operational plan related to litter control, and/or recycling as a part of the conditional use permit application, subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Director. 70 Ordinance No. 9 of 11
3) The applicant shall prepare and submit an operational plan addressing noise, loitering or other potential nuisances that may be caused by employees, patrons, or other citizens while on the premises, subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Director. The operational plan shall include plans to ensure graffiti shall be removed within 48 hours of it being discovered by or reported to the businesses.” SECTION 5. Subsection 9.1.1242, titled “Self-Storage,” is hereby added to the Oakley Municipal Code in its entirety, as follows:
“9.1.1242 Self-Storage.
a. Purpose and Intent. It is the purpose of this subsection to specify performance and operational standards for self-storage.
1) This subsection shall apply to any self-storage use proposed within the City of Oakley, including self-storage uses that incorporate a component of frontage retail or other commercial activities.
b. Definitions and Meanings.
1) For the purposes of this subsection “Self-Storage” is interchangeable with “Mini-storage Facility” found elsewhere in the Oakley Municipal Code. Selfstorage does not refer to any sort of outdoor storage of materials, vehicles, equipment, etc. It applies to the conventional self-storage use where customers rent lockable space to store personal goods.
c. Performance Standards.
1) Any application for approval of a conditional use permit for a self-storage use shall include a demand study that supports the need for the new business in order to accommodate population growth within the City of Oakley rather than growth of surrounding jurisdictions. 2) Any self-storage proposed as a part of a mixed-use project with a retail/commercial frontage in the C (General Commercial) District shall meet the following minimum standards:
i. The project shall be designed so only the storefronts for the retail component and tenant spaces/buildings are directly accessible and visible from the main street frontage, with the exception of the selfstorage leasing office, which may also be accessible and visible. All building area for self-storage shall be located behind the frontage buildings.
71 Ordinance No. 10 of 11
ii. Off-street parking for the commercial component shall provide at least 1 parking space per 200 square feet of gross floor area, regardless of any known uses at the time of the conditional use permit application, unless those uses require a higher number of parking spaces for the relative floor area, in which case that number should be applied to that area.
iii. The storing or renting of moving vans/trucks shall only be allowed if explicitly stated in the conditional use permit. Moving vehicles may only consist of self-motorized vehicles and shall be stored in designated areas that do no occupy required parking or drive aisles associated with the self-storage. No moving vehicles may be stored in areas visible from the adjacent right of way(s) or be used as signage.
d. Operational Standards.
1) Hours of operation for entrance to the self-storage area may be limited as a condition of approval in the conditional use permit.
2) The applicant shall prepare and submit an operational plan related to litter control, and/or recycling as a part of the conditional use permit application, subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Director. 3) The applicant shall prepare and submit an operational plan addressing noise, loitering or other potential nuisances that may be caused by employees, patrons, or other citizens while on the premises, subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Director. The operational plan shall include plans to ensure graffiti shall be removed within 48 hours of it being discovered by or reported to the businesses.” SECTION 6. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

This project is exempt from environmental analysis under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3), because it can be seen with certainty that the proposed amendments will not have a significant effect on the environment in that they do not relax any land use requirements or bypass any project’s requirement to comply with CEQA.

SECTION 7. Effective Date and Posting.

This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after the date of its passage. The City Clerk shall cause the ordinance to be published within fifteen (15) days after its passage in a newspaper of general circulation, or by publishing a summary of the proposed ordinance, posting a certified copy of the proposed ordinance in the City Clerk’s Office at least five (5) days prior to the City Council meeting at which the ordinance is to be adopted, and within fifteen (15) days after its adoption, publishing a summary of 72 Ordinance No. 11 of 11
the ordinance with the names of the Council Members voting for and against the ordinance.

The foregoing ordinance was adopted with the reading waived at a regular meeting of the Oakley City Council on , 2023 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTENTIONS:

ABSENT:

APPROVED:
_____________________________________
Aaron Meadows, Mayor Date
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Libby Vreonis, City Clerk Date
73 Ordinance No. XX-23 1 of 11
ORDINANCE NO. XX-23

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OAKLEY ADOPTING ZONING TEXT AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLE 12 OF CHAPTER 1 OF TITLE 9 OF THE OAKLEY MUNICIPAL CODE (“SPECIAL LAND USES”) – ADDING FOUR

SUBSECTIONS TO ADDRESS DRIVE-THROUGH RESTAURANTS, CARWASHES, GAS STATIONS, AND SELF-STORAGE (RZ 04-21)
The City Council of the City of Oakley does ordain as follows:

SECTION 1. Subsection 9.1.1210 of the Oakley Municipal Code, titled “Gasoline Service Stations. – Reserved,” is hereby amended to have the title, “Reserved.” SECTION 2. Subsection 9.1.1236, titled “Drive-Through Restaurants,” is hereby added to the Oakley Municipal Code in its entirety, as follows:
“9.1.1236 Drive-Through Restaurants.
a. Purpose and Intent. It is the purpose of this subsection to specify performance and operational standards for restaurants or food-related uses seeking to incorporate one or more drive-through lanes in association with the proposed use. 1) This subsection shall apply to any use proposed within the City of Oakley that is considered a “Drive-thru Restaurants and Services,” and that is a restaurant or food/drink-related business.
b. Definitions and Meanings.
1) For the purposes of this subsection “Drive-Through” is interchangeable with “Drive-thru” found elsewhere in the Oakley Municipal Code. 2) “Sensitive Uses,” as referenced in this subsection shall mean any Residential or Agricultural designated property, whether occupied or vacant, on the Oakley General Plan Land Use Map, any legal and conforming residential use, or any public or private school with students in any grade ranging from K-12. Residential uses located in non-residential zoning districts and General Plan land use designations are not considered “Sensitive Uses” for the purposes of this subsection. Other uses may be considered as “Sensitive Uses” subject to the discretion of the Community Development Director.
c. Performance Standards.
1) A conditional use permit for a drive-through restaurant use may only be considered for approval if the site for the proposed use is a minimum of 74 Ordinance No. XX-23 2 of 11

The drive-through shall not take ingress or egress from a local residential road.
7) The entire drive-through lane shall be screened from adjacent street and residential views to a height of at least three feet. Screening devices shall be a combination of berming, hedge and landscape materials, and solid walls as approved by the Community Development Director. 8) Menu boards shall be oriented or screened to avoid direct visibility from adjacent public streets.
9) The speaker box on menu boards shall be oriented away from adjacent residential uses or other commercial uses with an outdoor setting. 10) Pedestrian access to the building either from the parking lot or public right of way shall not cross the drive-through lane at any point between the last queuing area and end of the building facade where the pick-up window is located.
11) Site plans shall be designed so drive-through lanes or regular use queuing areas shall not intersect or interfere with pedestrian access through the parking lot or drive aisles to the main entrance of the associated use from any of the on-site parking spaces for that use.
12) Site plans shall be designed so access to the building from adjacent parcels and public rights of way is accomplished without direct interference with a drive-through or queuing lane. In the event such a design is not achievable, the crossing shall be located a reasonable distance away from any building corners and enhanced with a raised crossing, signage, and an automatic or pedestrian operated warning light to vehicles.
13) Site plans shall be designed so that all pedestrian walkways adjacent to a drive-through lane shall contain a pedestrian barrier to prevent pedestrians from cutting through the drive-through lane. The barrier shall direct the pedestrian to safe areas to exit the walkway.
14) Site plans shall be designed so all driveways with access to public rights of way have pedestrian sidewalks that connect directly to a path that leads to the main building, and that continue into the remainder of the shopping center, if applicable, with marked crossings where appropriate and recommended by the traffic analysis.
76 Ordinance No. XX-23 4 of 11
d. Operational Standards.
1) Hours of operation may be limited as a condition of approval in the conditional use permit as necessary to achieve compatibility with adjacent sensitive land uses.
2) The applicant shall prepare and submit an operational plan related to litter control, and/or recycling as a part of the conditional use permit application, subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Director. 3) The applicant shall prepare and submit an operational plan addressing noise, loitering or other potential nuisances that may be caused by employees, patrons, or other citizens while on the premises, subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Director. The operational plan shall include plans to ensure graffiti shall be removed within 48 hours of it being discovered by or reported to the businesses.” SECTION 3. Subsection 9.1.1238, titled “Carwashes,” is hereby added to the Oakley Municipal Code in its entirety, as follows:
“9.1.1238 Carwashes.
a. Purpose and Intent. It is the purpose of this subsection to specify performance and operational standards for carwashes.
1) This subsection shall apply to any carwash use proposed within the City of Oakley, including carwashes ancillary to gas stations, self-service carwashes, stand-alone automated carwashes, and carwash businesses that may include additional detailing whether indoors or under a shade structure.
b. Definitions and Meanings.
1) For the purposes of this subsection “Carwash” may include the types of carwashes listed above. If a part of this subsection only applies to specific type of carwash, it will be explicitly stated as such. Otherwise, the part applies to all types of carwashes.
2) “Sensitive Uses,” as referenced in this subsection shall mean any Residential or Agricultural designated property, whether occupied or vacant, on the Oakley General Plan Land Use Map, any legal and conforming residential use, or any public or private school with students in any grade ranging from K-12. Residential uses located in non-residential zoning districts and General Plan land use designations are not be considered “Sensitive Uses” for the purposes of this subsection. Other uses 77 Ordinance No. XX-23 5 of 11
may be considered as “Sensitive Uses” subject to the discretion of the Community Development Director.
c. Performance Standards.
1) A conditional use permit for a carwash use may only be considered for approval if the site for the proposed use is a minimum of 0.7 acres in size after any necessary right of way dedications, or the site is part of a larger commercial center with contiguous parcels that total at least 0.7 acres in size after any necessary right of way dedications.
2) A conditional use permit for a carwash use may only be considered for approval if the proposed use will not result in three or more total number of drive-through restaurants/carwashes for any commercial center of less than five acres in size after any necessary right of way dedications, or a commercial center with contiguous parcels of less than five acres in size after any necessary right of way dedications.
3) A conditional use permit for a carwash use may only be considered for approval if the proposed use will not result in four or more total number of drive-through restaurants/carwashes for any commercial center of less than eight acres after any necessary right of way dedications, or a commercial center with contiguous parcels of less than eight acres after any necessary right of way dedications.
4) An application for a proposed carwash shall include a traffic analysis that specifically analyzes onsite and nearby pedestrian/bicycle safety and queuing for the purposes of providing recommendations to avoid conflicts between various modes of transportation. The traffic analysis shall also analyze drive-through vehicle queuing and make recommendations to the site planning design that results in avoiding or minimizing negative impacts to the surrounding area on- and off-site, including but not limited to:
i. Blocking access to parking spaces;
ii. Creating conflicts to internal circulation; or
iii. Causing potential for spill back into adjacent main drive aisles or rights of way causing interference to vehicular, bicycle, or pedestrian flow or reduction in road capacity.

The Community Development Director and/or City Engineer may require the queuing analysis include observation of similar nearby businesses. This analysis is in addition to any Vehicle Miles Traveled (“VMT”) or Level of Service (“LOS”) analysis that may already be required.
78 Ordinance No. XX-23 6 of 11
5) An application for a proposed carwash shall include a detailed acoustical analysis of noise generated by the use, and confirm that the use complies with the noise thresholds in the City of Oakley General Plan in relation to noise impacts on sensitive uses. If a generally accepted decibel variance allowance would result in the noise exceeding a threshold, the noise source shall be reduced until the analysis shows the noise, including any decibel variance allowance, falls within the thresholds in the General Plan. 6) There shall be no more than one carwash located within any shopping center or contiguous commercial properties that have internally shared access. In addition, no new carwash shall be proposed within 1,000 feet of an existing carwash as measured between the shortest distance from either the perimeter of the carwash operations or parcel lines, subject to the determination by the Community Development Director.
7) No portion of the required queuing as determined in the traffic analysis shall obstruct any drive aisles or off-street parking.
8) The entire carwash queuing lane shall be screened from adjacent street and residential views to a height of at least three feet. Screening devices shall be a combination of berming, hedge and landscape materials, and solid walls as approved by the Community Development Director. 9) Any speaker box on automated payment machine shall be oriented away from adjacent residential uses or other commercial uses with an outdoor setting.
10) Pedestrian access to the building either from the parking lot or public right of way shall not cross the queuing lane at any point between the automated payment machine and entrance to the carwash. Nor should it be located within 25 feet of the exit of the carwash.
11) Site plans shall be designed so drive-through lanes or regular use queuing areas shall not intersect or interfere with pedestrian access through the parking lot or drive aisles to the main entrance of the associated use from any of the on-site parking spaces for that use.
12) Site plans shall be designed so access to the building from adjacent parcels and public rights of way is accomplished without direct interference with a drive-through or queuing lane. In the event such a design is not achievable, the crossing shall be located a reasonable distance away from any building corners and enhanced with a raised crossing, signage, and an automatic or pedestrian operated warning light to vehicles.
13) Site plans shall be designed so that all pedestrian walkways adjacent to a drive-through lane shall contain a pedestrian barrier to prevent pedestrians 79 Ordinance No. XX-23 7 of 11
from cutting through the drive-through lane. The barrier shall direct the pedestrian to safe areas to exit the walkway.
14) Site plans shall be designed so all driveways with access to public rights of way have pedestrian sidewalks that connect directly to a path that leads to the main building, and that continue into the remainder of the shopping center, if applicable, with marked crossings where appropriate and recommended by the traffic analysis.
d. Operational Standards.
1) Hours of operation may be limited as a condition of approval in the conditional use permit as necessary to achieve compatibility with adjacent sensitive land uses.
2) The applicant shall prepare and submit an operational plan related to litter control, and/or recycling as a part of the conditional use permit application, subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Director. 3) The applicant shall prepare and submit an operational plan addressing noise, loitering or other potential nuisances that may be caused by employees, patrons, or other citizens while on the premises, subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Director. The operational plan shall include plans to ensure graffiti shall be removed within 48 hours of it being discovered by or reported to the businesses.” SECTION 4. Subsection 9.1.1240, titled “Gas Stations,” is hereby added to the Oakley Municipal Code in its entirety, as follows:
“9.1.1240 Gas Stations.
a. Purpose and Intent. It is the purpose of this subsection to specify performance and operational standards for gas stations.
1) This subsection shall apply to any gas station use proposed within the City of Oakley, whether or not they include a convenience store, carwash, or vacuum stations.
b. Definitions and Meanings.
1) For the purposes of this subsection “Gas Station” is interchangeable with “Gasoline Service Station” found elsewhere in the Oakley Municipal Code. 2) “Sensitive Uses,” as referenced in this subsection shall mean any Residential or Agricultural designated property, whether occupied or vacant, on the Oakley General Plan Land Use Map, any legal and 80 Ordinance No. XX-23 8 of 11
conforming residential use, or any public or private school with students in any grade ranging from K-12. Residential uses located in non-residential zoning districts and General Plan land use designations are not considered “Sensitive Uses” for the purposes of this subsection. Other uses may be considered as “Sensitive Uses” subject to the discretion of the Community Development Director.
c. Performance Standards.
1) An application for a gas station shall include a traffic analysis that specifically analyzes onsite and nearby pedestrian/bicycle safety for the purposes of providing recommendations to avoid conflicts between various modes of transportation. This analysis is in addition to any Vehicle Miles Traveled (“VMT”) or Level of Service (“LOS”) analysis that may already be required.
2) Any proposed gas station shall be minimum of 500 feet from an existing gas station, as measured between the shortest distance from either the perimeter of the gas station operations or parcel lines, subject to the determination by the Community Development Director, except that any intersection of two arterial streets (as defined in the City’s General Plan) or of any two existing streets each with at least four travel lanes (two in each direction) may have two gas stations on separate corners. An exception to the 500 foot buffer may also be considered if a gas station is located within 1,000 feet of a highway on/off ramp, or part of a larger master development plan consisting of at least 45,000 square feet of building floor area, subject to the approval of the applicable decision-making body. 3) The speakers on gas pumps shall comply with all applicable noise regulations in the Oakley General Plan.
4) Any new gas station shall include a parking location for fueling trucks that does not block or cross over any required drive aisles or off-street parking spaces.
5) Any new gas station shall consider including alternative fuels pumps as an option to customers with alternative fuel vehicles.
d. Operational Standards.
1) Hours of operation for all or any individual component of a gas station (i.e., pumps, convenience store, carwash, or vacuum stations) may be limited as a condition of approval in the conditional use permit as necessary to achieve compatibility with adjacent sensitive land uses.
81 Ordinance No. XX-23 9 of 11
2) The applicant shall prepare and submit an operational plan related to litter control, and/or recycling as a part of the conditional use permit application, subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Director. 3) The applicant shall prepare and submit an operational plan addressing noise, loitering or other potential nuisances that may be caused by employees, patrons, or other citizens while on the premises, subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Director. The operational plan shall include plans to ensure graffiti shall be removed within 48 hours of it being discovered by or reported to the businesses.” SECTION 5. Subsection 9.1.1242, titled “Self-Storage,” is hereby added to the Oakley Municipal Code in its entirety, as follows:
“9.1.1242 Self-Storage.
a. Purpose and Intent. It is the purpose of this subsection to specify performance and operational standards for self-storage.
1) This subsection shall apply to any self-storage use proposed within the City of Oakley, including self-storage uses that incorporate a component of frontage retail or other commercial activities.
b. Definitions and Meanings.
1) For the purposes of this subsection “Self-Storage” is interchangeable with “Mini-storage Facility” found elsewhere in the Oakley Municipal Code. Selfstorage does not refer to any sort of outdoor storage of materials, vehicles, equipment, etc. It applies to the conventional self-storage use where customers rent lockable space to store personal goods.
c. Performance Standards.
1) Any application for approval of a conditional use permit for a self-storage use shall include a demand study that supports the need for the new business in order to accommodate population growth within the City of Oakley rather than growth of surrounding jurisdictions. 2) Any self-storage proposed as a part of a mixed-use project with a retail/commercial frontage in the C (General Commercial) District shall meet the following minimum standards:
i. The project shall be designed so only the storefronts for the retail component and tenant spaces/buildings are directly accessible and visible from the main street frontage, with the exception of the selfstorage leasing office, which may also be accessible and visible. All 82 Ordinance No. XX-23 10 of 11
building area for self-storage shall be located behind the frontage buildings.
ii. Off-street parking for the commercial component shall provide at least 1 parking space per 200 square feet of gross floor area, regardless of any known uses at the time of the conditional use permit application, unless those uses require a higher number of parking spaces for the relative floor area, in which case that number should be applied to that area.
iii. The storing or renting of moving vans/trucks shall only be allowed if explicitly stated in the conditional use permit. Moving vehicles may only consist of self-motorized vehicles and shall be stored in designated areas that do no occupy required parking or drive aisles associated with the self-storage. No moving vehicles may be stored in areas visible from the adjacent right of way(s) or be used as signage.
d. Operational Standards.
1) Hours of operation for entrance to the self-storage area may be limited as a condition of approval in the conditional use permit.
2) The applicant shall prepare and submit an operational plan related to litter control, and/or recycling as a part of the conditional use permit application, subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Director. 3) The applicant shall prepare and submit an operational plan addressing noise, loitering or other potential nuisances that may be caused by employees, patrons, or other citizens while on the premises, subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Director. The operational plan shall include plans to ensure graffiti shall be removed within 48 hours of it being discovered by or reported to the businesses.” SECTION 6. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after the date of its passage. The City Clerk shall cause the ordinance to be published within fifteen (15) days after its passage in a newspaper of general circulation, or by publishing a summary of the proposed ordinance, posting a certified copy of the proposed ordinance in the City Clerk’s Office at least five (5) days prior to the City Council meeting at which the ordinance is to be adopted, and within fifteen (15) days after its adoption, publishing a summary of the ordinance with the names of the Council Members voting for and against the ordinance.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Oakley this 25th day of April 2023 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTENTIONS:

ABSENT:

APPROVED:
___________________
Aaron Meadows, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________ ___________________
Libby Vreonis, City Clerk Date
84 STAFF REPORT
Approved and Forwarded to the City Council
DATE: April 11, 2023
TO: Joshua McMurray, City Manager
FROM: Ken Strelo, Planning Manager
SUBJECT: Quick Quack Car Wash at Laurel Plaza Conditional Use Permit (CUP 02-20) and Design Review (DR 08-20) – Request for approval to construct and operate a 3,596 square foot drive-through car wash facility; APN 035-510-009
Summary
This is an application by Quick Quack Car Wash Holdings, LLC (“Applicant”) requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP 02-20) and Design Review (DR 08-20) to construct a new 3,596 square foot (“sf.”) drive-through car wash facility located on an approximately 0.8-acre parcel. In addition to the car wash facility, the applicant is requesting approval of vacuum and payment stations, trash enclosures, and associated site improvements (“Project”). The project site is located within the existing Laurel Plaza Shopping Center at the northwest corner of Laurel Road and O’Hara Avenue and is zoned RB (Retail Business) District: APN: 035-510-009.

Background
Project History
On April 12, 2022, this project was considered by the City Council resulting in denial (4- 1 vote) of the Conditional Use Permit and Design Review application through adoption of City Council Resolution No. 47-22 adopted on May 10, 2022. A copy of that resolution is attached for reference. The April 12, 2022 Staff Report (without attachments), applicable minutes from that meeting, and other related materials for consideration of the project are attached to this Staff Report as additional background and analysis of the project. This Staff Report will cover additional modifications proposed for the project since April 12, 2022, and include an updated analysis taking those modifications into consideration.

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.
85 Subject: Quick Quack Car Wash at Laurel Plaza
Date: April 11, 2023

Page 2 of 7 ends

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 April 12, 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 restrict hours of operation on days Oakley Union Elementary School District schools were in session to not open until 8:30 a.m. as opposed to the normal opening time of 7:00 a.m. Another condition required the applicant to conduct an additional acoustical analysis within 14 days of the car wash’s full opening for business in order to ensure operation would not exceed the General Plan thresholds as predicted in the acoustical analysis, and to take additional measures such as increasing landscaping if it did.

Planting of Perimeter Trees
The applicant has agreed to work with the Laurel Plaza owners to plant additional trees along the northern property line of Laurel Plaza in the general direction the carwash tunnel entrance opening would face. Staff has added this condition of approval, which would require the trees to be a minimum size of 60” box and be of a species selection and spaced out in a manner recommended by a licensed landscape architect and 86 Subject: Quick Quack Car Wash at Laurel Plaza
Date: April 11, 2023

Page 3 of 7 ends

acceptable to the City of Oakley. It is anticipated that at least three additional trees would be planted. It is noted that the City of Oakley typically requires trees of 24” box and sometimes 36” box when wanting a more immediate landscaping impact. Multiple 60” box size trees would provide even more landscaping impact than a 36” box size tree.

Acoustical Analysis Before Final Certificate of Occupancy As stated above, the project was already conditioned to conduct an additional acoustical analysis within 14 days of fully opening in order to ensure the operational noise levels did not exceed the General Plan thresholds. This condition will still remain and be modified to clarify that two separate acoustical analyses shall be conducted by an acoustical engineer selected by the City of Oakley at the expense of the applicant via a developer deposit account. One analysis shall be done during a soft opening, prior to a final certificate of occupancy being issued for the building rather than after fully opening.

The applicant has agreed to set the tunnel up to operate as it would under normal business use in order to maximize the accuracy of the acoustical analysis. The second analysis shall be done between five and seven months of the business being fully operational. The condition would also require the applicant to notify any interested parties, such as neighbors of the use, a reasonable amount of time before the date of both analyses and allow them to arrange for a third party licensed acoustical engineer to conduct their own readings on the same day. The City would use the findings of the acoustical engineer hired by the City, and the results of both analyses will be reported back to the City Council.

Should the initial acoustical analysis find the operation to exceed the General Plan thresholds, additional measures shall be put in place with retesting until the thresholds are met. A final certificate of occupancy shall not be issued until the acoustical analysis shows compliance with the General Plan thresholds. Should the second acoustical analysis find the operation to exceed the General Plan thresholds, the applicant shall take immediate action to reduce the level of noise reaching neighboring properties and retest as soon as those measures are in place. The City Council may also request the Conditional Use Permit be brought back for additional consideration.

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.
87 Subject: Quick Quack Car Wash 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 noise expected to be generated from the project would disrupt 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 April 12, 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 that the entirety of the use and all required setbacks, parking, landscaping and circulation is able to be accommodated;

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 adjacent roadways (Laurel Road and O’Hara Avenue) are both adequate to carry any traffic generated by the use; 88 Subject: Quick Quack Car Wash at Laurel Plaza
Date: April 11, 2023

Page 5 of 7 ends

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, agreed to plant additional trees between the plaza and adjacent residential properties to the north, and conduct additional acoustical analyses prior to issuance of a final certificate of occupancy and approximately six months after opening as a means to ensure the use is as compatible with surrounding uses and meets established General Plan thresholds related to noise;

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

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.

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 April 12, 2022 proposed resolution. The modification to add trees to the northern boundary of the plaza will not negatively affect the Design Review analysis and would be a positive addition to the plaza. The agreement to modify the acoustical analysis condition is not related to the Design Review and therefore does not affect Staff’s Design Review Analysis. 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 89 Subject: Quick Quack Car Wash at Laurel Plaza
Date: April 11, 2023

Page 6 of 7 ends

requirements, and locates the trash enclosure in a manner where it has minimal interference with the proposed use and other nearby uses;

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. Rooftop 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. 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, “Quick Quack Car Wash Restaurant at Laurel Plaza Conditional Use Permit (CUP 02-20) and Design Review (DR 08-20),” as conditioned.

Attachments

1. Vicinity Map

2. Notice of Public Hearing

3. City Attorney’s Supplemental Memorandum

4. Applicant’s Plans

5. Staff Report from April 12, 2022 City Council Meeting (Without Attachments)

6. Minutes from April 12, 2022 City Council Meeting (Applicable to Item Only)

7. City Council Resolution No. 47-22 (Denial Resolution from May 10, 2022)

8. Proposed Resolution
90 Subject: Quick Quack Car Wash at Laurel Plaza
Date: April 11, 2023

Page 7 of 7 ends

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)

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

4. Quick Quack Updated Noise Impact Study, dated December 8, 2021:
(https://www.ci.oakley.ca.us/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Quick-Quack-UpdatedNoise-Impact-Study_2021-12-08.pdf)

5. Quick Quack Noise Review Letter, dated January 31, 2022:
(https://www.ci.oakley.ca.us/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Quick-Quack-NoiseLetter_dated-2022-01-31.pdf)

6. Quick Quack Noise Review Letter, dated April 8, 2022:
(https://www.ci.oakley.ca.us/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Quick-Quack-NoiseLetter_dated-2022-04-08.pdf) Any other documents referenced in this Staff Report or in other documents made a part of this project’s public record can be requested from the City of Oakley Planning Division.
91 Vicinity Map
Quick Quack Car Wash at Laurel Plaza Conditional Use Permit (CUP 02-20) and Design Review (DR 08-20)
APN: 035-510-009
92 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: Quick Quack Car Wash at Laurel Plaza Conditional Use Permit (CUP 02-20) and Design Review (DR 08-20).

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

Oakley, CA 94561.

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

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

How to Review: The Staff Report and its attachments will be available for public review, on or before April 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].

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.
94 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.
95 © 2022 CARISSIMI ROHRER MCMULLEN ARCHITECTS AND PLANNERS, INC.

Carissmi Rohrer McMullen Architects and Planners, Inc.

Architects & Planners, Inc. CRM
phone: (916) 451-1500
5800 Stanford Ranch Road #720, Rocklin CA 95765 PLANNING DOCUMENTS City of Oakley MAR 17, 2022 RECEIVED 96 8
5 6
6 BUILDING

EXISTING

AT LAUREL PLAZA

OAKLEY, CALIFORNIA

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY

QUICK QUACK CAR WASH
E.

E TV. L BA C
& G. P.

N, ZOI REV
S.C.G.

YTI C

ES I TI L I T U

VICINITY MAP

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

RH A D I RAN I T A L
A B

CI V I L
I GNE

L N A ROF E S S I O

P DE RE
N I A
FOR

OF CAL I
STATE

T SI GE R
RE E N
97 LAUREL ROAD

POINT OF

BEGINNING

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

BUILDING

EXISTING
98 LAUREL ROAD

BUILDING

EXISTING
Scale: 1" = 10'

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

PARCEL C

LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
[Doc No. 2017-0089927]

BUILDING

EXISTING
100

LAUREL ROAD O'HARA LANE

BUILDING

EXISTING
101

LAUREL ROAD
LOT 5
508 M 24

PARCEL C

LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
[Doc No. 2017-0089927]

POINT OF

BEGINNING

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

BUILDING

EXISTING
102

LAUREL ROAD
LOT 5
508 M 24

PARCEL C

LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
[Doc No. 2017-0089927]

POINT OF

BEGINNING

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

BUILDING

EXISTING
103

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

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

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

Page 495 ends

Barba and Shirley A. Del Barba to Emma Del Barba, as to an undivided One-half (1/2) interest,recorded December 31, 1979, in Book 9677 of Official Records, Page 502. PARCEL TWO: An Easement for Access, Parking , Utilities and Drainage as shown in that certain document entitled “Amended and Restated Reciprocal Easement and Management Agreement and Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions, recorded September 27, 2017, in Instrument No. 2017-0177054, of Official Record, as amended by that document entitled “First Amendment to Amended and Restated Reciprocal Easement and Management Agreement and Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions, recorded August 2, 2019, in Instrument No. 2019-012216, of Official Records. EXCEPTION TABLE 1. Property taxes, which are a lien not yet due and payable, including any assessments collected with taxes to be levied for the fiscal year 2019-2020. (NOT A SURVEY MATTER) 2. Prior to close of escrow, please contact the Tax Collector's Office to confirm all amounts owing, including current fiscal year taxes, supplemental taxes, escaped assessments and any delinquencies. (NOT A SURVEY MATTER) 3. The lien of supplemental or escaped assessments of property taxes, if any, made pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 75) or Part 2, Chapter 3, Articles 3 and 4, respectively, of the Revenue and Taxation Code of the State of California as a result of the transfer of title to the vestee named in Schedule A or as a result of changes in ownership or new construction occurring prior to Date of Policy. (NOT A SURVEY MATTER) 4. Easement(s) for the purpose(s) shown below and rights incidental thereto, as granted in a document: Granted to: Pacific Gas and Electric Company, a corporation Purpose: Electrical Facilities Recording Date: October 29, 1908 Recording No: Book 138 of Deeds, Page 353, Contra Costa County Records (EASEMENT NOT DEFINED OF RECORD) 5. Easement(s) for the purpose(s) shown below and rights incidental thereto, as granted in a document: Granted to: Pacific Gas and Electric Company Purpose: Electrical Facilities Recording Date: August 14, 1987 Recording No: Book 13838, Page 143, of Official Records (EASEMENTS PLOTTED HEREON) 6. Easement(s) for the purpose(s) shown below and rights incidental thereto as delineated or as offered for dedication, on the map of said tract/plat; Purpose: No Ingress and Egress Affects: as shown on map Recording No: Book 508 of Maps, Page 24 (AREAS OF NON-ACCESS PLOTTED HEREON) 7. The requirement that a Deed be recorded to effectual the Lot Line Adjustment LLA-17-01, recorded May 24, 2017, in Instrument No. 2017-0089927, of Official Records (AS SHOWN HEREON) 8. Matters contained in that certain document Entitled: Amended and Restated Reciprocal Easement and Management Agreement and Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions Dated: February 06, 2017 Executed by: O’hara Properties, LLC Recording Date: September 27, 2017 Recording No: Instrument No. 2017-0177054, of Official Records Reference is hereby made to said document for full particulars. Modification(s) of said covenants, conditions and restrictions Recording Date: August 02, 2019 Recording No: Instrument No. 2019-0122166, of Official Records (EASEMENTS NOTED HEREON) (BLANKET IN NATURE) 9. Any rights of the parties in possession of a portion of, or all of, said Land, which rights are not disclosed by the public records. The Company will require, for review, a full and complete copy of any unrecorded agreement, contract, license and/or lease, together with all supplements, assignments and amendments thereto, before issuing any policy of title insurance without excepting this item from coverage. The Company reserves the right to except additional items and/or make additional requirements after reviewing said documents. (NOT A SURVEY MATTER) 10. The Company will require the following documents for review prior to the issuance of any title insurance predicated upon a conveyance or encumbrance from the entity named below: Limited Liability Company: O’Hara Properties, LLC a) A copy of its operating agreement, if any, and all amendments, supplements and/or modifications thereto, certified by the appropriate manager or member. b) If a domestic Limited Liability Company, a copy of its Articles of Organization and all amendments thereto with the appropriate filing stamps. c) If the Limited Liability Company is member-managed, a full and complete current list of members certified by the appropriate manager or member. d) A current dated certificate of good standing from the proper governmental authority of the state in which the entity is currently domiciled. e) If less than all members, or managers, as appropriate, will be executing the closing documents, furnish evidence of the authority of those signing. f) If Limited Liability Company is a Single Member Entity, a Statement of Information for the Single Member will be required. g) Each member and manager of the LLC without an Operating Agreement must execute in the presence of a notary public the Certificate of California LLC (Without an Operating Agreement) Status and Authority form. (NOT A SURVEY MATTER) 11. The search did not disclose any open mortgages or deeds of trust of record, therefore the Company reserves the right to require further evidence to confirm that the property is unencumbered, and further reserves the right to make additional requirements or add additional items or exceptions upon receipt of the requested evidence. (NOT A SURVEY MATTER) 12. The transaction contemplated in connection with this Report is subject to the review and approval of the Company’s Corporate Underwriting Department. The Company reserves the right to add additional items or make further requirements after such review. (NOT A SURVEY MATTER) TO: QUICK QUACK DEVELOPMENT, LLC, A DELAWARE LLC, AND THEIR RESPECTIVE SUCCESSOR AND OR ASSIGNS AND: FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE COMPANY This is to certify that this map or plat and the survey on which it is based were made in accordance with the 2016 Minimum Standard Detail Requirements for ALTA/NSPS Land Title Surveys, jointly established and adopted by ALTA and NSPS, and includes Items 2, 3, 4, 6(b),7(a), 7(b)(1), 8, 9, 11, and 17 of Table A thereof. The fieldwork was completed on July 31, 2020. DATE SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE SHANE R. BARBER L.S. 9097 REFERENCES 1 PARCEL MAP (508 M 24)
0 TOTAL0 ACCESSIBLE PARKING STANDARD PARKING0 DESCRIPTION PARKING SUMMARY COMPACT PARKING 0 STALLS 1. All distances shown hereon are in feet and decimals thereof. 2. This survey was prepared from information furnished in a Preliminary Title Report, prepared by Fidelity National Title Company, dated September 06, 2019 Order No. 01003253-010-PA-KD liability is assumed for matters of record not stated in said Preliminary Title Report that may affect the boundary lines, exceptions, or easements affecting the property. 3. Physical items shown on this survey are limited to those items visible as of the date of this survey. Subsurface structures, if any, are not shown with the exception of underground utility lines. The locations of these underground utility lines have been compiled from available plans and no warranty is implied as to the exact location of these lines. Said subsurface objects may include, but are not limited to, concrete footings, slabs, shoring, structural piles, utility vaults, piping, underground tanks, and any other subsurface structures not revealed by a surface inspection. 4. A.P.N.: 035-510-009 5. Zoning Note: This survey makes no evaluation as to compliance with zoning and building codes and/or ordinances other than current municipal building setback line locations. The subject property is currently zoned "RB; Retail Business; Information was obtained from the City of Oakley Planning Department Website on July 31, 2020. 6. Basis of Bearings: The bearing of North 01° 01' 36" East taken on the centerline of O'Hara Drive as shown on that certain Parcel Map filed for record on August 13, 2014 in Book 11 of Parcel Maps at Page 32, San Benito County Records was taken as the Basis of all Bearings shown hereon. 8. Flood Zone Note: The subject property is shown on the Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel Number 060766 0355 G, dated March 21, 2017, as being located in Flood Zone "X"; Areas of determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance flood. Information was obtained from the FEMA website (www.fema.gov) on July 28, 2020. [email protected] LAUREL RD

O'HARA AVE

EMPIRE AVE MAIN ST SITE
4 4 POST INDICATOR VALVE BACK FLOW PREVENTER CATCH BASIN / DROP INLET WATER METER FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION FENCE PROPERTY LINE LEGEND RECORD INFORMATION W/ REFERENCE TITLE REPORT EXCEPTION NUMBER GAS JOINT TRENCH OVERHEAD TELEPHONE SANITARY SEWER RETAINING WALL SIGN VALVE FIRE HYDRANT FOUND MONUMENT AS NOTED CENTERLINE EASEMENT UTILITY POLE W/ GUY WIRE BOLLARD LIGHT SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC STORM DRAIN WATER ADJACENT PROPERTY LINE STORM DRAIN MANHOLE GAS METER BUILDING LINE W/ DOOR MONITORING WELL TRANSFORMER ABBREVIATIONS CLEAN OUT TRAFFIC SIGNAL POLE 1 (100.00') FIRE SERVICE EDGE OF PAVEMENT MONUMENT LINE BUILDING OVERHANG FOUND IRON PIPE OR AS NOTED UTILITY BOX (SIZE VARIES) STREET LIGHT FLAG POLE NON-ACCESS LIGHT CONCRETE INDEX CONTOUR CONTOUR CURB TREE W/ SIZE AND ELEVATION CURB & GUTTER SPOT ELEVATION BL BUILDING EW EDGE OF WALK FC FACE OF CURB NO. NUMBER O.R. OFFICIAL RECORD PG&E PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC PM PARCEL MAP 05 AUG 2020 104

BUILDING EXISTING LAUREL ROAD EASEMENTS FOR ACCESS, PARKING, UTILITIES DRAINAGE AND ENCROACHMENTS

O'HARA LANE
[Doc No. 2017-0177054] BLANKET IN NATURE EASEMENTS FOR ACCESS, PARKING, UTILITIES DRAINAGE AND ENCROACHMENTS [Doc No. 2017-0177054] [BLANKET IN NATURE] PARCEL TWO PARCEL ONE EASEMENTS FOR ACCESS, PARKING, UTILITIES DRAINAGE AND ENCROACHMENTS [Doc No. 2017-0177054] [BLANKET IN NATURE] PARCEL TWO EASEMENTS FOR ACCESS, PARKING, UTILITIES DRAINAGE AND ENCROACHMENTS [Doc No. 2017-0177054] [BLANKET IN NATURE] PARCEL TWO 8 PARCEL B LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT [Doc No. 2017-0089927] 0.798± ACRES 5.00' PG&E EASEMENT [13838 O.R. 143] 5 POINT OF BEGINNING PARCEL B N 89°23'02" W 119.90' S 01°01'36" W 289.41' S 88°58'24" E 119.90'
S 01°01'36" W 290.26'

55.00' 55.00' 63.60' N 89°23'02" W 1259.88'
1293.05' N 01°01'36" E 1605.53'

22.50' 648.02'

9.9' FC 15.0' FC 15.3' FC 14.9' FC 15.3' FC

1.5' EW

15.9' FC 15.0' FC 15.1' FC "NO BUILDING OBSERVED" 12.7' FC 12.6' FC ACCESS
SITE
ACCESS
SITE
ACCESS
SITE ACCESS SITE NON-ACCESS [508 M 24] 6

NON-ACCESS
[508 M 24] 6
(BASIS OF BEARINGS)

55.00' 297.49' 350.52' 0 Scale 1" = ft 20 20 40 60
NORTH
105
A
B
1 2
N₂ N₂ CO₂ BANK SHOPS A FUTURE SHOPS B 4,000 S.F. 6,000 S.F. 15,000 S.F. FUTURE T
T

T FUTURE
© 2022 CARISSIMI ROHRER MCMULLEN ARCHITECTS AND PLANNERS, INC.

Carissmi Rohrer McMullen Architects and Planners, Inc. Architects & Planners, Inc. CRM phone: (916) 451-1500 5800 Stanford Ranch Road #720, Rocklin CA 95765 PLANNING DOCUMENTS 107
NORTH 0SCALE: 16 32 48 feet 1/16" = 1'-0" TREES QTY BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME CONT WUCOLS DIAMETER 4 Cercis occidentalis / Western Redbud 15 gal. Low 14 Lagerstroemia indica `Cherokee` / Cherokee Crape Myrtle 15 gal. Low 3 Zelkova serrata 'Village Green' / Village Green Sawleaf Zelkova 15 gal. Moderate SHRUBS QTY BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME CONT WUCOLS SPACING 230 Callistemon viminalis `Little John` / Dwarf Weeping Bottlebrush 5 gal Low 3` 101 Helictotrichon sempervirens `Blue Oats` / Blue Oat Grass 5 gal. Low 3` 26 Hemerocallis x `Stella de Oro` / Stella de Oro Daylily 1 gal Low 2`-6"26 Phormium x `Jester` / Variegated Mountain Flax 5 gal. Low 4` 56 Yucca x `Bright Star` / Variegated Spanish Dagger 5 gal Low 3` GROUND COVERS QTY BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME CONT WUCOLS SPACING SPACING 105 Senecio mandraliscae 'Blue Chalk Sticks' / Senecio 1 gal. Low 30" o.c. PLANT SCHEDULE PROPOSED QUICK QUACK CAR WASH EXISTING DRIVE ENTRANCE LAUREL ROAD EXISTING DRIVE AISLE PROPERTY LINE (TYP.) DRIVE-THRU DRIVEWAY CANOPY (VACUUM STATIONS) TRASH AND EQUIPMENT ENCLOSURE EXISTING DRIVE ENTRANCE HYDROZONE/PLANTING DESCRIPTION PLANT FACTOR (PF) IRRIG. METHOD Maximum Applied Water Allowance (MAWA). MAWA= (ETo) (Conversion factor) ((ETAF)(Landscape Area)) + ((1-ETAF) x SLA) (48.3) (.62) (.45 x 4,301) + (1-.45) X 0) =57,959 GALLONS Estimated Total Water use (ETWU). ETWU= (ETo)) (Conversion factor) ((ETAF) (Area)) (48.3) (.62) (1,604) = 48,033 GALLONS IRRIG. EFFICIENCY (IE) ETAF (PF/IE) LANDSCAPE AREA (Sq. Ft.) ETAF x AREA ESTIMATED TOTAL WATER USE (ETWU) TOTALS (A) 4,301 (B)1,604 ETWU Total 48,033 GAL. Total ETAF x Area Total Area (B) 1,604 (A) 4,301 Average ETAF (B / A) .37 Water Efficient Landscape Worksheet - (New plants only) Note: 1. Average ETAF for Regular Landscape Areas must be below .55 for residential areas and .45 for non-residential areas. LOW WATER USE PLANTS MODERATE WATER USE PLANTS REGULAR LANDSCAPE AREA .3.5 .81 .81 DRIP DRIP 4,251 50 .37 .62 1,573 31 47,105 GAL. 928 GAL. ETAF Calculations Regular Landscape Areas EXISTING PLANT LEGEND EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN BIKE RACK PROPERTY LINE (TYP) EXISTING TREE TO BE REMOVED EXISTING DRIVE AISLE DRIVEWAY EXISTING TREE TO BE REMOVED EXISTING ACCENT PAVEMENT APN: 035-510-009 SITE AREA 34,751 +/- S.F. VACUUM STALL PARKING: 11 STALLS PARKING STALLS: 5 STALLS ADA PARKING: 2 STALLS (VACUUM) NEW LANDSCAPE AREA: QUICK QUACK PARKING SITE ACRE .793 +/- ACRE 3,933 S.F. NEW OFF-SITE LANDSCAPE AREA: 368 S.F. TOTAL LANDSCAPE AREA: 4,301 S.F. ON-SITE LANDSCAPE %: 12.3% GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: COMMERCIAL (C) PROJECT CALCULATIONS PARKING AREA (2,014 S.F.) LIGHT STANDARD (TYP.) GENERAL NOTES 1. A soils fertility analysis report and recommendations by a certified soils analysis laboratory shall be completed prior to construction. Soil samples shall be collected after site rough grading has been completed. 2. All landscape planting areas shall receive a minimum 3" layer of organic mulch top dressing. 3. All new trees located within 7' of pavement or permanent structure shall have a root barrier. COMPLIANCE STATEMENT I have complied with the criteria of the City of Oakley MWELO ordinance and applied them accordingly for the efficient use of water in the landscape design plan. 3-9-22 IRRIGATION NOTES 1. Irrigation to all plant material shall be low volume drip and shall be operated by a weather based controller with a weather sensor. Irrigation shall conform to City of Oakley water conservation standards. 2. Irrigation infrastructure along the Laurel frontage shall be modified and incorporated into this project's irrigation system per Public Works conditions of approval. Shade Tree 0 @ 706 SF 0 @ 530 SF 0 @ 354 SF 0 @ 177 SF 0 SF TOTAL TREE SHADE 720 SF Paved Area (see hatched area on plan) TOTAL PARKING AREA = 2,014 SF 30% SHADE AREA REQUIRED = 602 SF TOTAL SHADE PROVIDED = 720 SF PERCENT SHADE = 35.5% PARKING LOT SHADE CALCULATIONS 30' Symbol Botanical Name/ Common Name Qty. @ full shade (Sq. Ft.) Qty. @ 3/4 Shade (Sq. Ft.) Qty. @1/2 shade (Sq. Ft.) Qty. @ 1/4 shade (Sq. Ft.) Total (Sq. Ft.) - - - - Shade Tree 0 @ 962 SF 0 @ 722 SF 1 @ 481 SF 1 @ 240 SF 720 SF 35' - - 480 240 Accent Tree 0 SF - Shade Tree 0 @ 491 SF 0 @ 368 SF 0 @ 246 SF 0 @ 123 SF 0 SF 25' - - - - 20' 0 @ 314 SF 0 @ 236 SF 0 @ 157 SF 0 @ 79 SF - - - - 50% 25% FLAG POLE TRANSFORMER VACUUM CANOPY LIGHT STANDARD (TYP.) PEDESTRIAN ACCESS EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN CANOPY LIGHT STANDARD (TYP.) © 2022 CARISSIMI ROHRER MCMULLEN ARCHITECTS AND PLANNERS, INC.

Carissmi Rohrer McMullen Architects and Planners, Inc.

Architects & Planners, Inc. CRM
phone: (916) 451-1500
5800 Stanford Ranch Road #720, Rocklin CA 95765 PLANNING DOCUMENTS OLIVE STREET LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE P.O. Box 2083 Petaluma CA 94952 707-280-8990 OliveStreetLandscape.com [email protected] 108
© 2022 CARISSIMI ROHRER MCMULLEN ARCHITECTS AND PLANNERS, INC.

Carissmi Rohrer McMullen Architects and Planners, Inc.

Architects & Planners, Inc. CRM
phone: (916) 451-1500
5800 Stanford Ranch Road #720, Rocklin CA 95765 PLANNING DOCUMENTS 109
1 3
4 5
6 7
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 16 16 16 17 17 18 21 14 22 22 22 18 22 22 14 23 23 12 31 35 22 22 20 20 27 15 24 25 28 26 35 33 12 30 2 11 15 16
123456789101112131415161718192021222324 25262728293031323334353637 37 33 38 38 5 12 16 22 22 26 26 27 30 30 30 31 3637
© 2022 CARISSIMI ROHRER MCMULLEN ARCHITECTS AND PLANNERS, INC.

Carissmi Rohrer McMullen Architects and Planners, Inc.

Architects & Planners, Inc. CRM
phone: (916) 451-1500
5800 Stanford Ranch Road #720, Rocklin CA 95765 PLANNING DOCUMENTS 110
2 4
1 1246891211101314151617181920721222353
3 5
6 7
8 9
9 10 11 12 13 14 14 15 16
1 6 17 18 19 19 21 23 22 20 21
8 14 13
1 7
© 2022 CARISSIMI ROHRER MCMULLEN ARCHITECTS AND PLANNERS, INC.

Carissmi Rohrer McMullen Architects and Planners, Inc.

Architects & Planners, Inc. CRM
phone: (916) 451-1500
5800 Stanford Ranch Road #720, Rocklin CA 95765 PLANNING DOCUMENTS 111
3 1234567891011121314 12 13 15
5 9 11 14
2 5
1 6
7 8 10 11
9 4
5 10 12 12 15
© 2022 CARISSIMI ROHRER MCMULLEN ARCHITECTS AND PLANNERS, INC.

Carissmi Rohrer McMullen Architects and Planners, Inc.

Architects & Planners, Inc. CRM
phone: (916) 451-1500
5800 Stanford Ranch Road #720, Rocklin CA 95765 PLANNING DOCUMENTS 112
© 2022 CARISSIMI ROHRER MCMULLEN ARCHITECTS AND PLANNERS, INC.

Carissmi Rohrer McMullen Architects and Planners, Inc.

Architects & Planners, Inc. CRM
phone: (916) 451-1500
5800 Stanford Ranch Road #720, Rocklin CA 95765 PLANNING DOCUMENTS 113
© 2022 CARISSIMI ROHRER MCMULLEN ARCHITECTS AND PLANNERS, INC.

Carissmi Rohrer McMullen Architects and Planners, Inc.

Architects & Planners, Inc. CRM
phone: (916) 451-1500
5800 Stanford Ranch Road #720, Rocklin CA 95765 PLANNING DOCUMENTS 114
© 2022 CARISSIMI ROHRER MCMULLEN ARCHITECTS AND PLANNERS, INC.

Carissmi Rohrer McMullen Architects and Planners, Inc.

Architects & Planners, Inc. CRM
phone: (916) 451-1500
5800 Stanford Ranch Road #720, Rocklin CA 95765 PLANNING DOCUMENTS 115
© 2022 CARISSIMI ROHRER MCMULLEN ARCHITECTS AND PLANNERS, INC.

Carissmi Rohrer McMullen Architects and Planners, Inc.

Architects & Planners, Inc. CRM
phone: (916) 451-1500
5800 Stanford Ranch Road #720, Rocklin CA 95765 PLANNING DOCUMENTS 116
© 2022 CARISSIMI ROHRER MCMULLEN ARCHITECTS AND PLANNERS, INC.

Carissmi Rohrer McMullen Architects and Planners, Inc.

Architects & Planners, Inc. CRM
phone: (916) 451-1500
5800 Stanford Ranch Road #720, Rocklin CA 95765 PLANNING DOCUMENTS 117
© 2022 CARISSIMI ROHRER MCMULLEN ARCHITECTS AND PLANNERS, INC.

Carissmi Rohrer McMullen Architects and Planners, Inc.

Architects & Planners, Inc. CRM
phone: (916) 451-1500
5800 Stanford Ranch Road #720, Rocklin CA 95765 PLANNING DOCUMENTS 118
© 2022 CARISSIMI ROHRER MCMULLEN ARCHITECTS AND PLANNERS, INC.

Carissmi Rohrer McMullen Architects and Planners, Inc.

Architects & Planners, Inc. CRM
phone: (916) 451-1500
5800 Stanford Ranch Road #720, Rocklin CA 95765 PLANNING DOCUMENTS 119
© 2022 CARISSIMI ROHRER MCMULLEN ARCHITECTS AND PLANNERS, INC.

Carissmi Rohrer McMullen Architects and Planners, Inc.

Architects & Planners, Inc. CRM
phone: (916) 451-1500
5800 Stanford Ranch Road #720, Rocklin CA 95765 PLANNING DOCUMENTS 120
© 2022 CARISSIMI ROHRER MCMULLEN ARCHITECTS AND PLANNERS, INC.

Carissmi Rohrer McMullen Architects and Planners, Inc.

Architects & Planners, Inc. CRM
phone: (916) 451-1500
5800 Stanford Ranch Road #720, Rocklin CA 95765 PLANNING DOCUMENTS 121
© 2022 CARISSIMI ROHRER MCMULLEN ARCHITECTS AND PLANNERS, INC.

Carissmi Rohrer McMullen Architects and Planners, Inc.

Architects & Planners, Inc. CRM
phone: (916) 451-1500
5800 Stanford Ranch Road #720, Rocklin CA 95765 PLANNING DOCUMENTS 122
© 2022 CARISSIMI ROHRER MCMULLEN ARCHITECTS AND PLANNERS, INC.

Carissmi Rohrer McMullen Architects and Planners, Inc.

Architects & Planners, Inc. CRM
phone: (916) 451-1500
5800 Stanford Ranch Road #720, Rocklin CA 95765 PLANNING DOCUMENTS 123

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

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

Zoning
Retail Business District (RB) – The purpose of the RB District is to retain small-scale businesses and facilities that will provide a wide range of services to adjacent 124
Subject: Quick Quack Car Wash at Laurel Plaza
Date: April 12, 2022

Page 2 of 11 ends

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

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

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

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

Existing Conditions and Surrounding Land Uses
The approximately 0.8-acre project site is located on the north side of Laurel road, approximately 200 feet west of the Laurel Road and O’Hara Avenue intersection. The site is part of a larger 7.01-acre Laurel Plaza commercial shopping center. The current site is improved with a bank, gas station and mini-mart, parking lot and drive aisles, onsite landscaping, frontage improvements along Laurel Road and O’Hara Avenue, and several graded pad areas for future commercial development. 125
Subject: Quick Quack Car Wash at Laurel Plaza
Date: April 12, 2022

Page 3 of 11 ends

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

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

Proposed Design Review
The Design Review Ordinance (OMC section 9.1.1604) sets forth duties to review, as well as procedures for review and approval of a Design Review application. OMC section 9.1.1604(d) requires Design Review approval for any structure that is above ground or alters the grade in any commercial district, and that the design review shall be heard as a public hearing. The proposed new development fits the criteria above and requires Design Review. The proposed design review covers all of the physical Figure 1. Aerial of Laurel Plaza and
Project Site
126
Subject: Quick Quack Car Wash at Laurel Plaza
Date: April 12, 2022

Page 4 of 11 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

The main body uses stucco in two colors, separated by a horizontal band in a third, darker color. Stone veneer is also proposed as a wainscot and as a siding in areas on the main architectural element at the southern end. Architectural pop outs of a different color are proposed at both the tunnel entrance and exit. Figure 2 shows the south 127
Subject: Quick Quack Car Wash at Laurel Plaza
Date: April 12, 2022

Page 5 of 11 ends

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

Figure 2. Color Rendering of South Elevation
In addition to the building architecture, the applicant has proposed canopies to cover the pay station and parking spaces that access the vacuum stations. The canopies will stand under 10 feet tall at their peak and consist of a curved overhang style design with standing seam metal roof and poles painted to match the buildings darker trim colors. 128
Subject: Quick Quack Car Wash at Laurel Plaza
Date: April 12, 2022

Page 6 of 11 ends

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

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

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

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

Since this traffic study was conducted, Quick Quack has modified the site plan by flipping the building’s north/south alignment. As a result, the driveway referenced in the recommendation no longer exists and instead an “escape lane” exit is located on that 129
Subject: Quick Quack Car Wash at Laurel Plaza
Date: April 12, 2022

Page 7 of 11 ends

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

Therefore, that recommendation is no longer relevant.

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

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

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

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;

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.
130
Subject: Quick Quack Car Wash at Laurel Plaza
Date: April 12, 2022

Page 8 of 11 ends

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

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

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

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

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

Design Review
The proposed plans were analyzed for consistency with the applicable development regulations in the Oakley Municipal Code and adopted City of Oakley Commercial and Industrial Guidelines (“Guidelines”).
131
Subject: Quick Quack Car Wash at Laurel Plaza
Date: April 12, 2022

Page 9 of 11 ends

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

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

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

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

1 Floor area ratio is the ratio of floor area (not just building coverage) of a building or buildings to the site they occupy.
132
Subject: Quick Quack Car Wash at Laurel Plaza
Date: April 12, 2022

Page 10 of 11 ends

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

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

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

Attachments

1. Vicinity Map

2. Public Hearing Notice

3. Applicant’s Plans

4. Proposed Conditional Use Permit and Design Review Resolution 133
Subject: Quick Quack Car Wash at Laurel Plaza
Date: April 12, 2022

Page 11 of 11 ends

In City Clerk’s Reading File

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

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

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

4. Quick Quack Updated Noise Impact Study, dated December 8, 2021:
(https://www.ci.oakley.ca.us/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Quick-Quack-UpdatedNoise-Impact-Study_2021-12-08.pdf) Any other documents referenced in this Staff Report or in other documents made a part of this project’s public record can be requested from the City of Oakley Planning Division.
134
Minutes of the Regular Joint Meeting of the
Oakley City Council/Oakley City Council Acting as the Successor Agency to the Oakley Redevelopment Agency/Oakley Public Financing Authority held
April 12, 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/Oakley Public Financing Authority
Mayor Randy Pope 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 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 to the Flag.

1.3 Proclamation Recognizing April 3 - 9, 2022 as National Library Week (Lisa Cano-Loomis, Library Manager)
Mayor Pope presented the proclamation to Lisa Cano-Loomis, Library Manager.

1.4 National Library Week Presentation (Lisa Cano-Loomis, Library Manager) Oakley Library Manager Lisa Cano-Loomis thanked the City Council for recognizing National Library Week. She provided a visual presentation including information regarding frequency of use of library services, new digital resources, virtual events, and upcoming events. She shared the library goes beyond books to offer resources such as a seed library, outdoor explorer backpacks, California State Library Park Pass (coming soon), and Discover & Go passes. She mentioned the library provides technology such as computer stations, mobile wi-fi, laptops, and a printer-copier. She briefly reviewed the most popular books in Oakley.

Mayor Pope thanked her for her presentation and called for public comments.

Public Comments
Liz Fuller commented she is retired after working for the CCC Library and managing the Oakley Library and Brentwood Library. She mentioned she is now working with Friends of the Oakley Library. She invited everyone to become members of the Friends and shared information regarding membership cost, member benefits, Friends’ support of the Library’s mission, and she provided membership forms.

Arnold Fitzpatrick, Jr. thanked the City Council for its work and invited the Council to stop by the Oakley Library Tuesday-Friday at 3pm. He shared his objective is to support and thank Lisa and her staff for the outstanding job they do which is so much with so little, and it is so much appreciated.
135

1.5 Contra Costa County Library Commission Update (Yolanda Pena-Mendrek, Commissioner)
Mayor Pope announced Ms. Mendrek is unable to attend this evening so her update will be postponed and rescheduled.

1.6 Presentation by American Rivers on Marsh Creek (Sarah Puckett, Director, California Central Valley River Conservation)
Sarah Puckett, Director, California Central Valley River Conservation, provided a presentation.

She shared she helped found Friends of Marsh Creek Watershed in 2004. She provided an overview of Marsh Creek Watershed and shared there is not a lot of shade, it is habitat to many species, and it is a great resource for the community to enjoy nature. She mentioned to make it better, the channel can be excavated to make it wider so it holds more water, and they can plant trees to provide shade. She indicated the City received a $1 million grant to widen the channel near Creekside Park, adjacent to the Honey Creekside housing development. She shared photos from 2007, 2012, 2014 and 2021 for comparison. She indicated the developer of Honey Creekside is working with their team to make room for creek widening. She mentioned options for the Oakley Creekside Park Restoration Project include relocating the existing bridge upstream to Honey Lane, replacing the existing 70-foot bridge with a 140-foot bridge, or relocating the existing bridge downstream to Laurel Road. She shared they are in the design phase of the project and next steps include soliciting input from the surrounding community and people using the trail and park, obtaining input and approval from the City Council, modeling and design the bridge, and then looking for and applying for implementation funding. 2) PUBLIC COMMENTS
Public Comments
Randi Adler shared she is a victim of identity theft through Facebook and Messenger; someone opened two accounts with her name through Chase online. She shared, a deposit is not required to open an account online with Chase Bank. She encouraged everyone to look at credit reports and lock everything if they are not using it. She also shared fraud alerts can be placed on credit reports so if something doesn’t seem right you can dispute it and comment. She mentioned it is also important to contact the IRS because hackers will file tax returns before you do and have it sent to them when you're responsible for that money. She recommended notifying the IRS and all other agencies who handle fraud through the Attorney General’s Office.

Gwyn Gabe, father of 24-year old Alexis Gabe whose disappearance occurred in Oakley, commented she has been missing since January 26. He shared there is an indescribable feeling of helplessness a parent feels when their child is missing because no matter how much they do, it doesn’t seem to be enough, but he and his family have hope she is out there and will be found and returned safely to them. He appealed to the City Council to join in their efforts to bring Alexis back home. He mentioned they have lived in Oakley for 8 years, his youngest son goes to Freedom High School, their eldest son and Alexis both worked in the area; Alexis worked at Rite Aid on Main Street for over 2 years and was loved by customers for her cheery, upbeat demeanor. He shared for the past 2 months they have been distraught over her disappearance.

He mentioned they have tried hard to keep her safe and this is a parent’s worst nightmare. He 136
shared this is an amazing community we live in; neighbors, friends, family, and strangers have given time and resources to support their endeavors, they have canvassed and conducted searches, put information on billboards, spoken with The Press, posted on social media, held events to support the cause, and they hope to offer a reward for anyone with information to come forward. He mentioned his appeal to the Council is for $10k to assist in the search for their daughter. He mentioned the community is like family and when one of your own is in need, they come together to support and the Council can demonstrate they truly have their backs in the worst of times. He commented they know Alexis is out there and they want her to feel through their actions she is loved and not alone. He mentioned they will keep looking for her however long it takes. He concluded with a quote from Loretta Scott King, “The greatness of a community is most accurately measured by the compassionate actions of its members”.

Mayor Pope inquired if the City has funds to donate toward the effort to find Alexis Gabe.

City Manager Joshua McMurray responded that staff is exploring options available to them.

Chief Beard also commented staff is exploring options.

Online Public Comments
Gwyn Gabe requested to speak (supra).

Christine Fuller requested the City Council consider aiding funding for a monetary reward for information or continued search efforts for Alexis Gabe.

Jacqueline de Guzman commented on a sideshow that occurred in her neighborhood on April 2, with over 60 cars at the intersection of Cypress and Sellers Avenue. She mentioned she learned an Oakley Police car was attacked, shots were fired from a participant, and people were hiding out in yards in the Delaney Park neighborhood. She mentioned multiple burnouts occur in her neighborhood weekly as well as people speeding up and down Sellers Avenue throughout her neighborhood. She urged the City Council to look into this more closely and direct Oakley Police to investigate these crimes more thoroughly.
3) CONSENT CALENDAR

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

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

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

3.4 Consideration of a Resolution Approving a Lease Agreement Between the City and Mulehead Growers, LLC for City-Owned Property Located at 1785 Walnut Meadows Drive, Oakley (APN 037-141-006) and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Agreement (Felicia Escover, Assistant to the City Manager) 137

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

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

3.7 Consideration of a Resolution Approving the $100,200 Purchase of a Scan Station Forensic 3-D RTC 360 Laser Scanner System and Related Training and Support from Precision Survey Supply (Tim Przybyla, Finance Director) It was moved by Vice Mayor Meadows and seconded by Councilmember Higgins to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion was unanimous and so ordered. (5-0) 4) PUBLIC HEARINGS

4.1 The Ranchettes at Neroly Design Review (DR 06-21) (Ariana Ruiz, Planning Technician)
Planning Technician Ariana Ruiz presented the staff report and shared a PowerPoint presentation. She mentioned the applicant is available to present if there are any questions.

Councilmember Fuller mentioned he is confused about the gate and requested more information.

Ms. Ruiz mentioned the gate was part of the original Conditions of Approval to be installed at the entry of Almondwood Place, if feasible. She commented that to meet the fire code, the gate must be 30 feet away from the adjacent roadway which would have placed the gate in front of the residence at 2990 Almondwood Place.

Councilmember Fuller mentioned he was confused because there is a handwritten note indicating to remove the gate and the staff report has the gate in there, so if approved tonight, he wants the motion and resolution to be clear if the gate will be there.

Ms. Ruiz confirmed the gate has been removed.

Councilmember Fuller suggested it be made clear the gate will not be there because the reports keep mentioning it will be there.

Mayor Pope opened the public hearing and called for public comments.

Public Comments
Rick Brown commented he lives on the corner of Almondwood Place. He inquired if any provision can be made for residents to get boats and RVs out of their driveways. He mentioned it is difficult to get out of their driveways now before the road is widened; they are using the vineyard to back into. He expressed his concern is if any parking will be on the street, they will not be able to get boats and RVs out of their driveways. He suggested red curbing. 138
Pat Leiser inquired if any members of the City Council have been down Almondwood Place to see the grading of the elevations. He mentioned part of this is promises made and promises kept; residents were told they would have a gate and that is now no longer going to happen. He explained his lot is on the right side and there is 6 feet of fill along the left side of his house that looks into his side yard and backyard; the adjacent foundation will be at the eaves of his roof.

He mentioned he spoke with Jackie and Brian, and they explained they can't fit the houses in if they don’t do this elevation. He shared a photo with the Council. He mentioned he requested on the south side of that lot to have a retaining wall and fence built so the resident can’t see into his backyard, and put trees between the fences, and they agreed, but he wants to put it on the record so it gets done. He mentioned the developer also said they would put a 7-foot fence on the lot and replace his 6-foot fence with a 7-foot fence. He commented he would appreciate if the Council drives by and looks at it. He shared he wasn’t expecting anything like that. He mentioned Brian shared with them there will be an HOA for the development. He requested they include there will be no overnight parking on the street in the HOA so they are not stuck to get in or out with their RVs and/or boats. He mentioned Brian was going to look into it.

Councilmember Fuller inquired who Jackie and Brian are.

Mr. Leiser responded they are Jackie Seeno and Brian Kesler.

Jackie Seeno, property owner and builder, mentioned she is available to answer any questions as well as Brian Kesler, Project Manager, and their architect. She shared that she spoke with the neighbors regarding the gate and as she mentioned previously on the record at the prior hearing, she would explore it if feasible and practical. She mentioned the plan did not initially include a gate and the gate does not meet the fire code because it requires a 30-foot clearance which they don’t have (it would land in the middle of the neighbor’s driveway); however, they are agreeable to put in the retaining wall, fence and landscape screening. She indicated the HOA language can address overnight parking and she would recommend if the Council should include something in the resolution that it provide for an exception should someone have a backyard wedding or event at their home where guests may be staying overnight and parking on the street.

Councilmember Fuller commented he prefers the developer go back to the drawing board and all of the neighbors are reassessed. He mentioned the residents from Almondwood and Ms.

Seeno have been discussing this project for over a year and they might be stepping on some toes. He commented one part of Almondwood is private and he would like to see her and City staff reconcile with the neighbors regarding some of the things he is hearing about. He commented he is not sure if he would be happy with someone’s roof line in his backdoor. He shared he is hesitant to say no or yes; he would like to see some of these issues reconciled and staff provide direction. He mentioned the staff report has handwritten notes and promises, but it would be nice to have it cleaner and codify it in the 4 corners of the document.

Councilmember Williams inquired if they could write it into the resolution so they get that fence and there is no confusion and there is some protection. She also inquired if they could also include language for the curbing so residents could have some recourse if it is not put into the HOA.

Mr. McMurray responded they can add it in the resolution if the Council approves and includes in its motion to have those additional conditions. He shared as drafted now, page 4 of the resolution, Condition of Approval 12 indicates the prior Condition of Approval which was 139
Condition 22 regarding the potential installation of the gate at Almondwood Place, would no longer remain in effect, with approval of the resolution as drafted.

Ms. Seeno explained there are a lot of different restrictions to the grading because of the septic; it doesn’t connect to City sewer because at the time it was approved, it was over 3,000 feet to the nearest sewer. She mentioned to make the site work and stay within restrictions, they had to grade differently or higher than might occur on another site. She shared they have worked with engineers to try and figure it out and it has taken 10 years to get to this point.

Mayor Pope suggested to add a Condition of Approval for overnight parking if the majority of the Council is in favor of it. He mentioned he is not sure how they address both sides of the street.

Mr. McMurray explained they can only address the north side because the south side is not property owned by the developer.

Mayor Pope commented another Condition of Approval would be for the 7-foot fence on the higher side.

Councilmember Williams commented landscaping should also be included.

Mayor Pope inquired whose land falls between the two fences and who maintains it (the land between Mr. Leiser’s property and the lot adjacent to his with the high grading he mentioned).

Ms. Seeno offered to prepare an exhibit to memorialize it.

Brian Kesler, Project Manager, responded that the wall will meet Mr. Lieser’s fence and the triangle in between is part of the front yard for Lot 13; it will be landscaped consistent with the front yard and they will add taller landscape screening.

It was moved by Councilmember Williams and seconded by Councilmember Higgins to adopt the resolution with an additional Conditions of Approval. Motion was unanimous and so ordered. (5-0)
Mayor Pope gave kudos to everyone for being good neighbors and working together.

4.2 Quick Quack Car Wash at Laurel Plaza Conditional Use Permit (CUP 02-20) and Design Review (DR 08-20) – Request for approval to construct and operate a 3,595 square foot drive-through car wash facility; APN 035-510-009 (Ken Strelo, Planning Manager)
Planning Manager Ken Strelo presented the staff report and shared a PowerPoint presentation.

He recommended Condition of Approval #10 require additional sound studies after the business is fully operational.

Vance Shannon, PreConstruction Manager with Quick Quack Car Wash and Applicant, provided a PowerPoint presentation including information on water conservation, minimizing sound, how they mitigated sound further by rotating their building 180 degrees, traffic flow and safety, how they mitigated impact to safety further by changing hours of operation to start after school is in session, Oakley codes allowing the business in this location, and a car wash and vacuums previously allowed and planned. He mentioned no CEQA issues have been presented and the Superintendent and Laurel Elementary School Principal are not opposed to the 140
development of Laurel Plaza as proposed. He also mentioned a school crossing guard is on duty to ensure children get to school safely and the site is consistent with site characteristics at the Arco Gas Station at Cypress Road and Main Street. He shared they will perform all traffic mitigation recommendations listed in the Traffic Study provided by Fehr & Peers such as high visibility crosswalks with advanced stop bars for all crosswalks at Laurel and Mercedes, modifying the signal phasing to include leading pedestrian intervals at the Laurel and Mercedes intersection, and install blank out “No Turn on Red” signage to increase pedestrian safety for eastbound and southbound approaches at the Laurel and Mercedes intersection which should be operational during school pick-up and drop-off hours.

Claire Pincock, Acoustical Consultant, MD Acoustics, commented that they look at existing data, and manufacture data to create a model and they project that. She referenced the other study done which took manufactured data and used that to create their model. She mentioned in their case, they have been working with Quick Quack for a while and they have gone out to multiple sites and have taken real-life data. She shared for this particular model, she took 48 different points of calibration to make sure their model is accurate, specifically focusing on the entrance as it was switched around to make sure that it will not exceed at the property line. She addressed concerns regarding the second story on residences and indicated the model included looking at the second story to ensure it meets the noise ordinance. She mentioned they try to make it as accurate as possible and no one has as much Quick Quack data as they do and no one can make a Quick Quack model the way they can without their data. She explained when she makes these models she leans toward being loud because it is very important for Quick Quack and them not to disturb residents because if they are over the noise level allowed by ordinance, they run risk of complaints and shutting down. She commented that she edges on the loud side, assumes silencers will only provide a 4-decibel reduction rather than the full 7 decibels, and she uses the loudest measurement to calibrate it to determine what is the absolute worst that can happen. She mentioned they have real-life data at 3 locations and applied that to the model.

Ben Huie, P.E., Kimley Horn and Associates, commented he looked at the Fehr & Peers study and summarized that at the intersection of Laurel and O’Hara, existing levels of service are acceptable, the previous study analyzed the entire Laurel Plaza, and even with additional traffic, it was only going to add five seconds of delay so it still meets the criteria for the City to have no additional traffic improvements. He mentioned this project would have even fewer trips because it is just the Quick Quack, not the entire Laurel Plaza. He added there is minimal traffic and with Quick Quack adjusting the hours of operation to begin at 8:30 a.m., there will be even fewer trips than shown in the study. He mentioned the peak hours of use are 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. so it will not coincide with school traffic times for drop-off or pick-up.

Councilmember Fuller asked Ms. Pincock what methodology was used for gathering data.

Ms. Pincock shared they went to four Quick Quack Car Wash locations and Moreno Valley most closely resembled the design for Oakley except that it has a shorter tunnel and the opening/exit is not quite as closed. She mentioned she takes measurements from those locations and when she makes her model, she sticks blowers in there and she runs the model. She indicated she places receivers on all of the areas where she took measurements to see how close the receivers match the real-life measurements they took and sees which is the loudest. She mentioned for these tunnels there were no silencers. She mentioned rather than just dropping 7 decibels, she calibrates without silencers and looks at every point, and if she is ever 5 decibels quieter than any point she has measured, she turns it up just to be safe. 141
Councilmember Fuller commented he is hearing she went to different Quick Quack Car Washes. He inquired if they are all uniform, if they are all built the same, and if they are all in the same area as this one will be located.

Ms. Pincock asked if he could clarify his question.

Councilmember Fuller inquired if the sound decibel level is the same as it will be in Oakley and if so, what is the premise.

Ms. Pincock responded the Quick Quacks use the same equipment so if the Oakley site lays it out the same, it will be the same. She mentioned this is why they average four and the Moreno Valley calibration is the most similar; it has the same liner, same number of blowers, and very similar length, just shorter, which means it actually is going to be louder so it was a conservative measurement for her to compare the Oakley location with Moreno Valley. She mentioned the opening will be a little bigger so a conservative way is to compare.

Councilmember Fuller inquired about the median measurement of the four locations.

Ms. Pincock responded that she took measurements at 12 different locations around each car wash so the median depends on where the measurements were taken; for example, at the entrance it is 102 decibels and at the exit it is 86 decibels.

Councilmember Fuller inquired if after she took noise levels if mufflers were installed and it was remeasured or mufflers are deemed to guarantee up to 7 decibels reduction and they are placed in those points.

Ms. Pincock responded mufflers provide a 70 dB reduction. She shared the other study lowered it by 7. She mentioned other data from consultants and manufacturers indicate between 5 and 7 decibels are lowered. She mentioned after she is done with her model from data taken at the four Quick Quacks, she ensures that no point is quieter than 5 decibels to account for those mufflers so she has a 5 decibel buffer; she knows the mufflers are going to provide at least 5 dB reduction so at that point she knows she is 5 decibels under the one at Moreno Valley and it is going to do at least that well, if not better.

Councilmember Fuller inquired if she is licensed as a sound expert.

Ms. Pincock responded, “Yes”.

Councilmember Fuller inquired as a sound expert, what the sound decibel is within a school.

Ms. Pincock responded there are no set standards for outdoors; indoor standards in California are not to exceed 65 decibels in a place where children will be, but there is no set law.

Councilmember Fuller inquired if there is any way of determining what the decibel level would be inside Laurel Elementary from the car wash site.

Ms. Pincock responded she can do that; it will take a study so she is unable to just give numbers.
142
Councilmember Fuller inquired as a licensed professional, what would be the recommendation for first through third graders to endure for decibels on an ongoing basis, especially if they are in special education or disabled and wear hearing aides.

Ms. Pincock indicated the interior standards are based more on mechanical noise and reverberation time and less based on noise from the exterior. She shared some standards she has seen say 45 decibels.

Councilmember Fuller inquired if there is any data if a child is disabled, wearing double hearing aids or wearing a cochlear implant.

Ms. Pincock mentioned research is still being done and brick and mortar schools offer quite a bit of reduction because they tend to be hefty buildings.

Councilmember Williams asked the applicant to provide the Council an idea of how many cars are going through the car wash per hour in a similar location.

Mr. Shannon responded that there are 350 cars on average per day with more in the evening and the car washes open and close as cars go through the conveyor. He mentioned the school is far enough away that there will be no sound effect from the car wash that they can prove with a study.

Councilmember Fuller commented there is no data.

Mr. Shannon mentioned they can present data, but the school is too far from the car wash.

Vice Mayor Meadows inquired how many cars can run through the car wash in one hour.

Efrain Corona, Vice President of Development, Quick Quack Car Wash, responded that if ran at full speed, it can accommodate up to 162 cars per hour; however, the most washed in 1 hour ever was just under 100 in any location. He mentioned usually the busiest hours are 4 p.m.-6 p.m. and data is measured at the property line which should be sufficient data when considering there is no impact to the school.

Councilmember Fuller commented he recalls when props went to jets and at LAX and Playa del Rey they demolished apartments, then at O’Hare in Illinois they finally said jets have to be muffled. He mentioned he doesn’t know what the decibel level was at Playa del Rey, but people couldn’t live there; the foundations are still there.

Mayor Pope called for a brief recess at 8:05 p.m.

The City Council reconvened at 8:14 p.m.

Public Comments
Shelly Fitzgerald presented on behalf of residents and property owners of Woodglen Estates, and the surrounding community. She mentioned they are requesting the Council deny the CUP to operate a Quick Quack Car Wash at Laurel Plaza. She indicated they want to make it clear they have no issue with Quick Quack specifically or car washes in general; the problem with this application is the site selection. She mentioned car washes are not listed in the retail business zoning. She expressed they do not believe the City can make the findings required to authorize 143
this CUP. She mentioned 2 out of 3 noise studies indicate Quick Quack Car Wash will violate Oakley’s noise ordinance. She shared 900 residents have signed a petition opposing a car wash, or any drive-through uses at this location. She indicated this type of use conflicts with multiple elements of the General Plan. She mentioned car washes are not allowed by right in retail business zoning nor are they listed as conditionally permitted. She mentioned the last sentence in paragraph 2 of page 1 of the staff report for tonight mentions, “Uses that are incompatible with residential uses due to noise, vibration, or other characteristics are not permitted in locations that may impact existing or future residential development.” She shared this site exists within a school zone as defined by California Penal Code Section 626 as “any area within 1,000 feet of a school” and this site abuts a residential zone which is to be protected against “intrusion of any incompatible land uses and disruptive traffic”. (References supporting quoted material are provided for in the hard copy of the presentation, made part of the meeting record). She mentioned the first sound study done by MD Acoustics in March 2021 for Quick Quack did not consider Table 1 of the noise ordinance which requires the allowable noise levels to be lowered by 5dB for simple tone noises such as blowers which are associated with car washes. She mentioned this study accurately indicates that the nearest receptor sites have two floors and reportedly the project would exceed the allowable noise level at 50 decibels at sensitive receptor sites, with a projected project noise at 55 decibels, and total noise level of 58 decibels. She referred to the second study done by MD Acoustics in December does take into consideration Table 1; however, it curiously only considers one floor of the receptor sites and although they purport the project noise level will comply, being at the maximum threshold of 50 decibels, the total combined noise level will exceed the ordinance at 57 decibels. She mentioned they should keep in mind that the majority of homes near the site are two-story homes, with many of them being tri-level, putting their primary living quarters on the second floor. She mentioned the third sound study conducted by CSDA found that noise generated by the planned Quick Quack Car Wash at Laurel Plaza is expected to exceed the 50-decibel noise limit by being up to 60 decibels at the residences directly to the north. She shared that this study took into consideration these elements, Table 1, elevation changes between the propertiesapproximately a 5-foot difference in elevation, current fence height, orientation of the car wash tunnel going from north to south, and the potential for future shops. She mentioned another component of the MD study requiring evaluation is they conducted at 24/7 study of ambient noise by placing their receptor out at Laurel Road next to the gas station pumps and recorded that the lowest level of sound was at 55 decibels from a reading taken between 9-10 p.m. on a Friday night. She shared a video of current ambient noise levels at the property line of a sensitive receptor; the recording was taken on a Saturday afternoon, precisely when a car wash will be its busiest. She compared how studies compare to the reality of living behind a car wash.

She shared a study done by Bollard Acoustics for Quick Quack at Watt Avenue in Sacramento and that it indicated the predicted noise levels produced by Quick Quack at the nearest residential property lines from the car wash would be 54dB which would comply with Sacramento’s daytime noise level criteria. She played a video of the noise taken by Monica Wilcoxon from her backyard. She shared that she and her husband have taken a couple of trips and have spoken with property owners west of and adjacent to the Calvine Road Quick Quack where they installed silencers, they narrowed the opening and closing, they flipped the tunnel 180 degrees, and these residents were ready to sell their property that had been in their family for 100 years and move. She mentioned they also spoke with residents behind the SuperClean which is one mile away at Empire and Laurel, and the Quick Quack in Brentwood which is 3 miles away, and they all had similar things to say, that the noise is terrible. She mentioned they should keep in mind that vacuums and blowers are not the only noise that comes with a car wash; there are slamming doors, people yelling, loud music, aging and breaking parts of equipment, etc. She shared a video someone took in a backyard of loud music playing from the other side of the wall. She mentioned they have spent the better part of the past year trying to 144
get the 7-Eleven to comply with idling laws, only to get intermittent peace. She inquired if they will be held responsible to ensure compliance with whatever conditions the City might impose on Quick Quack as well. She shared that 900 people signed a petition opposing the joint McDonald’s and Quick Quack proposal, mentioning concerns regarding safety, traffic, noise, blight, environmental, auto-oriented, not pedestrian-friendly, not neighborhood serving, and inappropriate zoning. She indicated that if the CUP is approved, in the Land Use Element, the following items will be violated: Policy 2.1.4 “promote the placement of the most intensive nonresidential development (commercial, business park and light industrial) in the Northwest Oakley Planning Area”, Policy 2.1.8 “discourage development that results in land use incompatibility”, Policy 2.2.3 “protect existing residential areas from intrusion of incompatible land uses and disruptive traffic”, and Policy 2.2.9 “consider the cumulative effects of development on community facilities and services, such as transportation and schools, throughout the planning process”. She mentioned the first goal of Oakley’s Noise element is to “Protect residents from the harmful and annoying effects of exposure to excessive noise”, and (Id, 9-11 to 9-12) industrial uses generally associated with fixed-source noise issues are “generally confined to the north end of the City of Oakley”. She added, in general, these uses are separated from residential uses and do not result in noise related complaints.” She mentioned they understand the intent of the noise ordinance and it is not to allow incompatible uses to push the limit of allowable decibels, but rather to protect the sensitive uses from intrusion of those incompatibilities, and by allowing car intensive uses in this neighborhood and in a school zone, they are discouraging walking and bicycling, they are not supporting safe routes to schools, and they are compromising pedestrian safety for the hundreds of children who use this route to get to and from school.

Diane Merritt commented she lives in the nearest home where the Quick Quack would be located, she is retired, and her health cannot tolerate the loud noises and car music that would occur if the Quick Quack is allowed to be built behind their homes. She shared that the sound wall is not tall enough to absorb the noises coming from the other side of her backyard. She mentioned she mostly lives on the second story of her tri-level home; it is where the kitchen, living room and backyard deck are located. She mentioned the sound study is based on the first level of her home which she is primarily not using. She mentioned trucks have been inappropriately idling behind her sound wall for lengths of time which resonates about 100 times louder over the sound wall into her home. She shared that an idling car with loud music recently was on the other side of the sound wall so she rattled her wind chimes and tree until he left. She shared another incident was an idling sweeper truck for at least 30 minutes so she drove around, took a picture of the truck, and asked the driver if he was waiting for someone. She mentioned he responded he was warming his truck up for work and she explained their homes are greatly affected by noise which is magnified by the wall. She mentioned homelessness, trash, fights, car racing, drinking, drug dealing, and abandoned vehicles mixed in with neighbors and children trying to walk through this area is not a safe environment. She shared a Core-Mark truck idled behind her sound wall for 80 minutes. She mentioned these are the daily occurrences she encounters living behind the 7-Eleven and they restock 2-3 times weekly. She shared once a semi-truck laid on its horn 5 times in a row and the sound blew as loud as a train; any respect for their privacy and enjoyment is out the window and this proves it. She mentioned the 7-Eleven was clearly a mistake to the quiet neighborhood and should never have been approved. She commented with a car wash there, they might as well put in a mini amusement park with strobe lights, light shows, sounds, bells and whistles, flashing signs, water spraying, heaters blowing, vacuum sucking and complete utter noise, not discreet at all. She mentioned it would be so distracting and would draw the same kind of people the 7-Eleven draws. She mentioned their property values will fall, they will not feel comfortable of having a party of any size in their backyards as it would be a total embarrassment to them. 145
Roberto Estrada commented it is important for the Council to deny the CUP as that is no place for that type of noise and the kids walk through there so this drive-through is no different from McDonald's. He shared he works for Safeway on Ygnacio Valley Road and nearby is a California Fish Grill, Starbucks, Mod Pizza, other restaurants, and Pet Smart and none of them paid for it. He mentioned they built out the property and the industry came. He suggested Blackhawk build and business will come.

Donna Chaddock requested the Council not be fooled by the applicants’ plans. She mentioned they claim they are changing lives for the better, but the Council should not be fooled by that statement; Quick Quack is not going to change lives for the better. She mentioned Mayor Pope said the problem with Laurel Plaza is one thing, but it is actually 3 things--location, location, location. She mentioned they will not give up fighting; there are 140 trees planted there to create a beautiful plaza. She encouraged the Council to walk the property and take a look at the leaves; that is what this is intended for. She shared her home is 700 feet west of Laurel Elementary and before they vote on this item, they should come to her home, sit on her front patio and listen to announcements at Laurel Elementary. She mentioned she can hear them clearly each day; it is one person, one voice on a speaker; and she can hear it on her front patio and in her backyard.

Bud Chaddock commented there were a lot of good points brought up earlier. He mentioned noise carries and it will sound like a concert down the street. He shared that in front of City Hall someone did a burn out and nothing is being done about it, but that is another issue. He mentioned safety for kids—the location is too busy and there are drugs and needles in the parking lot of which the City has cleaned some up, and there are 6-packs on the ground from 7- Eleven customers. He commented that a small restaurant might promote that in a different environment. He mentioned with decibels at the 180-mark with 7 less, sounds definitely will carry. He indicated the video shared earlier sounded like a jet plane taking off and the person earlier mentioned there could be up to 162 cars per hour which may sound like this. He mentioned he hears enough drag racing and that is not being stopped. He indicated this is like watching Waterworld; let it all go, tear itself up, and deal with it later. He referred to the chemicals that would be used, 18-23 gallons per car, and inquired what happens to the waste and what the toxins in the chemicals do.

Alicia Torres commented that this is a well-established neighborhood, one of most desirable, with most homes being owner-occupied and owners take pride in their homes; it is a beautiful area. She mentioned if the City approves the CUP, there will be idling cars creating pollution for homeowners, it will impact homeowners and kids walking to school, ingress/egress to the car wash will contribute to traffic in the area, the continual droning noise will be consistent 8:30am9pm, as well as constant music going on to try and get over the noise of the vacuums that will be a nuisance. She commented that homeowners wanting to sell will have to disclose these things that will bring down home values. She asked the Council to say no to the CUP.

Mary Roney commented she has been a Woodglen resident for 35 years and she agrees with everything in Shelly Fitzgerald’s presentation. She shared she is opposed to the CUP; it is incompatible with residential uses due to noise, vibrations and other characteristics as stated on the first page of the CUP staff report. She indicated it doesn’t fit within the 2008 definition of Laurel Plaza, a walkable, residential plaza, and the City never should have allowed a gas station and 7-Eleven at the plaza. She requested the City not continue to put businesses in that mimic the same traffic flows. She mentioned if they build out the area, business will come. 146
Jaime Spohn commented she is a long-time resident of Woodglen Estates from its beginning.

She mentioned Shelly Fitzgerald provided an excellent presentation. She expressed it is a public safety concern to have a drive-through in an urban area; children are at greater risk of being in a vehicle collision in proximity of a drive-through and children and pedestrian safety will be impacted by traffic generated for any drive-through business at the plaza, including the existing 7-Eleven. She mentioned they have property rights without commercial development adversely impacting livability and value of their homes. She shared the can hear coyotes near the canal outside and that will no longer exist with this. She mentioned this business is not compatible with Laurel Plaza and should not be near schools and their neighborhood. She requested the Council deny the CUP and look to Blackhawk to provide a plaza worthy of development for the betterment of the City.

Paul Seger commented he believes the Council received a letter from Greenfire Law providing how and why they can deny the CUP. He shared his observation before a private property rights discussion. He mentioned in 2011, during the Citywide Rezone, there were over 850 homes involved and Mayor Pope didn’t question that people were saying they didn’t receive notification; he seconded every motion to change the zoning for them and made no effort to have the City reach out further to have property owners informed. He mentioned Mayor Pope also supported a number of eminent domain cases; taking people’s homes makes the City different. He mentioned Mayor Pope also voted to rezone the Bistro which is probably the best-looking building in the City. He indicated that private property rights are unequally applied to the community. He commented that Councilmembers Higgins and Williams were making an attempt to limit the number of gas stations and undesirable businesses last year, but Mayor Pope took the position of developers, to get developers together to have a conversation, and did not consider the stakeholders which are the community residents. He mentioned it seems to always lean in favor of a few extra bucks.

Randi Adler inquired if the company was required to do an EIR because of all of the carbon monoxide in the air of all of the cars going through. She shared that 4 years ago, she almost died from pulmonary embolism and was on oxygen for a very long time. She mentioned all those cars will impact breathing of people on oxygen and will impact the neighborhood. She mentioned when she first moved from Los Angeles to the Bay Area, she was a teacher in an elementary school with ADHD students and any noise—planes, cars, etc. would impact their learning to pay attention. She mentioned this car wash is less than a mile away and questioned why the City needs another and how many the City needs that will affect children, people and lives. She shared that Mayor Pope lives next to this location and it impacts him. She indicated she would demand an EIR before considering it.

Tosha Grey urged the Council to deny the application for the CUP. She mentioned Shelly Fitzgerald did a great job presenting reasons the CUP should be denied. She indicated there is a difference between studies and reality; the applicant’s inconsistent sound study makes her question the integrity of the study and if they are manipulating data for desired results, results at the maximum allowed. She mentioned she questions the integrity of the study and intention of the applicant, and what kind of neighbor they will be down the road. She mentioned it was shared that the car wash is busiest in the evening when residents are more likely enjoying their quiet backyards. She mentioned the study didn’t account for noise attracted by this business.

She mentioned the original plan for this site included a bank, Rite Aid and grocery store and now it’s a 7-Eleven and talk of a McDonald’s and car wash, a far cry from a walkable outdoor center. She questioned what type of businesses a McDonald’s and Quick Quack would attract to complete the plaza. She inquired why the City is trying so hard to fit a square peg into a 147
round hole. She encouraged the City to bring businesses to benefit the community and this is not one of them. She commented that residents don’t oppose every applicant the developer brings forward, they don’t have group of people that oppose every project, and they have a community that cares. She mentioned it is a seller’s market and residents in the neighborhood are not selling because they care about their community; they are here to try and protect the life they have built in Oakley and what more could the City want other than residents committed to their community to uphold its quality. She mentioned the noise won’t affect students in class, but they will be impacted by it traversing to and from school, as well as the traffic. She requested that the City not continue to build upon one bad decision of allowing the 7-Eleven. She implored the City to continue to work with the developer to bring something that will benefit the adjacent neighborhood and surrounding community.

Matt Beinke with Blackhawk Properties, commended Quick Quack for agreeing to a postconstruction condition as most businesses would not agree to it. He explained that being able to prove they do conform to the CUP is a huge value because it is their risk, not yours; they get shut down. He mentioned there are discrepancies in the sound studies, but it doesn’t matter because once in place, the proof is in the pudding; they are going to conform or they get shut down. He indicated Quick Quack is complying with the City’s rules, its General Plan, its zoning which allows drive-throughs and car washes, one of which was already approved, and they are in compliance with City ordinances.

Online Public Comments
John Stanley commented the noise ordinance should be 70 decibels to the street. He mentioned they (Quick Quack) can even install sound damping equipment in the blower section.

He mentioned the wash will only be active if there is a vehicle in que for washing; it’s not just continuously on.

Paula Kemp commented that a car wash should not be put in on Laurel near the elementary school. She mentioned as a small city with limited expansion space and a rural feel, she thinks the City should be very judicious about what businesses are brought in and where they are placed. She encouraged the City to look for different businesses that will enhance the City’s feel and not more of the same.

Andrea Wacker commented she lives in the Woodglen neighborhood directly behind Laurel Plaza and she is adamantly against the car wash for reasons including increased car traffic to the school zone area, increased car emissions, queue line, and the incredibly loud speakers and equipment; and this plaza was supposed to be a pedestrian-friendly center. She mentioned with another proposed car-centric business, this is exactly opposite from the intended goal of the plaza. She mentioned they live in a neighborhood and want it to remain a neighborhood feel, with low noise level, and reduce cars to their local businesses. She mentioned all concerns presented for the McDonald’s remain valid concerns for the car wash at this plaza. She requested the Council vote no to the car wash.

Russ Fitzgerald requested denial of the Quick Quack CUP. He explained the elevation variance between Laurel Plaza and the residents of Woodglen Estates is significant, making the wall between them basically non-existent, leaving these residents highly vulnerable to any noise produced from Laurel Plaza. He mentioned as they have experienced in the past year, the noise produced from one idling truck at the 7-Eleven can impact their quality of life and having to fight for compliance of the CUP issued to them to have their trucks shut down during delivery has been exhausting. He mentioned the thought of a car wash tunnel operating 7 days a week is 148
unthinkable and a project of this intensity does not belong at this highly noise sensitive location.

He requested the Council help protect one of Oakley’s most highly desirable neighborhoods and the place he has called home for the past 25 years, Woodglen Estates. He requested the Council deny the CUP for Quick Quack Car Wash. He mentioned Oakley has many building sites that are more suitable for this type of business.

Lindsay Waters requested the Council consider denying approval of the Quick Quack Car Wash and mentioned it is a safety concern as an auto-focused use near the elementary school, there is a noise issue for the adjacent neighborhood, and a private sound study was conducted and findings conflicted with the sound study that the developers had done. She requested the Council not take away their right to enjoy their property by approving a business that violates sound ordinances.

Monica Wilcoxon commented that she used to live in Arden Manor in Sacramento for 25 years close to Watt Avenue and knew she would have to deal with that noise, but it was never an issue for her until the Quick Quack Car Wash opened up. Prior to the Quick Quack opening, she shared she enjoyed backyard barbeques with neighbors. She mentioned they were hoodwinked by Quick Quack and the County in that they told them what they wanted to hear and made promises that were not kept, including a sound wall that ended up being a man-made, fake stone fence with holes that could be seen through and was about 5 feet too low. She shared that every day from 7am to 10pm, they lived in noise pollution hell, the worst being the vacuums and reverberating bass from car stereos, so loud, it made their windows shake. She mentioned there is no sound wall that will mask that no matter what studies show. She explained that they tried to fight it for over a year with no help from Quick Quack or the County and finally moved, selling their home for about $50k below property values in their area because of the Quick Quack. She mentioned she tells everyone she knows that she takes it as a personal insult if they even become a customer.

Jessica Taylor with Greenfire Law, PC submitted a letter indicating she represents Shelly and Russell Fitzgerald who are working together with a community of concerned neighbors and citizens who share a fence line with Laurel Plaza in Oakley. Her letter, along with an attached carwash noise study prepared by CSDA Design Group, were made part of the meeting record.

Liz Elias commented that the Quick Quack Car Wash is yet another in a string of bad ideas being considered by the Council. She mentioned it is not needed because there are numerous car washes in the area, including the Arco at Main and Cypress, the new Quick Quack in Brentwood, and a third on Laurel. She also mentioned it is not a good fit for the location based upon the exact same criteria that resulted in denial of the CUP for a drive-through at the McDonald’s including same traffic and noise issues, same lack of being pedestrian-friendly, etc.

She commented it is time to stop filling up Oakley with gas stations, car washes and storage facilities. She mentioned the City’s street signage invites people to “live, discover, enjoy” or similar wording, however, there is not much to enjoy here; aside from Big Break there is basically nothing to do in Oakley; there are a ton of under-used green space parks and not much else. She added she is in favor of green space but Oakley already has enough and it needs actual recreational spaces as well, for example, a roller skating rink, ice skating rink and a place to rent boats or kayaks. She suggested a recreational park representing the agricultural history of the area as a tourist draw, with docents in period costumes, a blacksmith, general store, old time school, a few cabins/cottages, field of crops, etc., similar to what has begun at the East County Historical Museum with the Byer/Nail house and grounds. She suggested it is time to think outside the box and make Oakley a destination. 149
Kevin Tiernan commented he stands firmly against this “heavy vehicle traffic” opposite a school on an already overloaded road. He urged the Council to only allow what that property is zoned.

He mentioned the continued degradation of their community sits squarely on the Council and with fresh members and the strong community they continue to build, it will assist the community in appropriate growth. He added that Oakley should not be a dumping ground for other cities.

Marilyn Tiernan commented the same as Kevin Tiernan.

Diane Merritt requested to speak (supra).

Roberto Estrada requested to speak (supra). His written comment indicated he objects to any consideration of the Council’s approval of a CUP for Quick Quack at Laurel Plaza. He mentioned Quick Quack exceeds the noise level allowable within 100 feet of a residential community and it is still unsafe to allow any drive-through where school children are walking through. He mentioned the unlawful manipulation of sound studies performed by Quick Quack do not address 2nd story homes and a 3-foot sound wall.

Alfred Zaragoza requested the Council not accept the application from Quick Quack Car Wash.

He mentioned Oakley does not need another car wash in a residential neighborhood. He suggested putting it on the north side of Rose Avenue on Main Street.

Rebecca Mears commented she feels like this is a dead-end subject and doesn’t know why they continue revisiting something that is not aiding the community. She suggested finding a local business or something actually beneficial and needed. She mentioned another car wash is not needed as there are several in less than a 5-mile radius of this location. She opposes this car wash being in that area for multiple reasons and previously commented that something kids and families should be able to access would be more beneficial.

Eve Dooms commented she has zero respect for Quick Quack and they obviously have no respect for the people that would be affected by the noise and pollution they will be creating.

She asked the Council to consider the surrounding neighbors to the proposed Quick Quack will be robbed of their quiet enjoyment of, not only their yards, but inside their very homes, especially 2 story homes that are not protected by an ineffective sound wall. She also asked the Council to consider the water shortage; it is ridiculous to allow a water hog company to build anywhere when residents are having to let their lawns die because they don’t have enough water. She requested the Council stop the Quick Quack.

Councilmember Williams commented that the video they just heard was taken in someone’s backyard and she can’t imagine those decibels are acceptable. She expressed she appreciates all of the yields Quick Quack has made; she just has a lot of concerns how they go back. She inquired who conducts the sound study 14 days after if they don’t comply. She mentioned she is not so much concerned about safety but it does go against the intent of walkable businesses in that retail district for the plaza. She mentioned there are 3 new people on the Council because people didn’t agree with the 7-Eleven and direction it was going in. She mentioned she needs someone to say the noise from the backyard is within acceptable sound levels.

City Attorney Derek Cole commented that the Council may allow the applicant time for a rebuttal, they have sound experts here, and it would behoove the applicant to respond to those statements and videos or tell us they don’t want that opportunity. 150
Mayor Pope commented he will allow it if the Council requests.

Councilmember Fuller commented that this is what he has always envisioned for a city; the community comes together to have a City that thrives. He shared he has gotten the message the community wants no more car washes, fast-food or storage. He expressed concern it just doesn’t fit; the sound study measurements of 105 to 84, a number of times over 50 decibels. He shared he just heard they are going to give it a try and if it doesn’t work, they will shut it down; they are not convinced it will be within. He mentioned delivery trucks are idling behind 7-Eleven when the CUP says not to. He commented that this is a several million-dollar investment for Quick Quack and if they don’t meet noise levels, he doesn’t think it would get shut down; they would have to come to a compromise. He mentioned until jet engines in communities started having to silence engines they did not, and the noise can do damage to a community. He commented that it was a very professional presentation given by Ms. Fitzgerald, but he can’t use it scientifically because the data is not there. He mentioned if they could see his service dog when the videos were playing, he didn’t like noise. He shared he is not swayed by the school and does not want anyone going back there with the expense. He indicated Ms. Fitzgerald is correct; school zones are given extra protection and kids come first. He mentioned there are kids there that are young, with hypersensitivity or in special education with hyper hearing aids and they are saying the school is too far away but no one has measured it. He also mentioned the sound expert indicated 45 decibels is the highest and we’re talking about 50. He shared nothing has changed in regard to traffic; it is the same as McDonald’s. He mentioned they cannot mitigate the noise, traffic and disruption to the community and therefore his preference is to vote no to the CUP.

Councilmember Higgins thanked Councilmember Fuller for saying it so eloquently. She shared she can hear Freedom High School bells from her home that is 2.5 long city blocks away; sound carries. She mentioned she visited the Quick Quack in Brentwood and sat near the exit by the vacuums and had a headache within 10 minutes. She indicated the vibration gets to you; it is awful and deadly. She agreed the property is an eyesore and wants to lead our youth to do a trash pick-up. She indicated development would help, but not this development, and she is not going to okay it.

Councilmember Williams commented she would like for the applicant to have an opportunity to rebut the sound in the video.

Ms. Pincock commented that the sound is not the same and she took measurements all around the car washes. She explained when you stand under the blowers, sound is at 102, when you stand at the entrance, it is at 84, at the property line it is 46, and at the second-story windows you get 50. She mentioned she doesn’t know in the video where they took the measurement, but these residences are 250-feet away from the entrance and it seems from the video to have been a lot closer than that. She explained that sound dissipates once further away; it will be 50 decibels at the property line based on calibrations of multiple measurements. She mentioned they would only agree to a post-mitigation survey because they are confident in what they are going to do and because if they are wrong, the car wash won’t be able to function. She mentioned the difference with the study is the model because there is not a car wash currently there. She indicated they are doing their best to estimate and they are overestimating to be safe. She mentioned a post-mitigation survey will involve someone going out there with a sound meter and saying if it is over the allowed amount and they welcome staff to go with them or the City is always welcome to direct an independent study instead to ensure compliance. 151
Councilmember Williams expressed she does not want a situation where they have thrown up their hands. She mentioned the people in Sacramento sold their house so they must have had complaints. She indicated this project is different from the intent of the retail business district.

Vice Mayor Meadows inquired who would conduct the post-construction sound study.

Ms. Pincock responded that generally they would do it, but some cities have had someone else to conduct the study or a code compliance officer would come with them to conduct it.

City Manager Joshua McMurray mentioned another option to bolster the condition is the City could contract out directly to an acoustical consulting firm to ensure measurements are taken accurately. He shared that he heard the applicant is requesting continuance so the Council may want to hear from the applicant and the reason why they are requesting it.

Councilmember Fuller commented he is opposed to a continuation. He mentioned he appreciates what they have provided; the people have worked diligently for years to protect Laurel Plaza and are entitled to a decision tonight.

City Attorney Derek Cole commented that he didn’t hear a reason for the continuance and he is not aware why they are asking for it unless they want to step up and offer the reason.

Mayor Pope commented if it is the pleasure of the Council, he will give them an opportunity.

Efrain Corona, Vice President of Development with Quick Quack, commented that on Friday they were given new information and they didn’t have enough time to review the data and provide an accurate and appropriate response.

Mayor Pope inquired what additional data he is referring to.

Mr. Corona responded it was the sound study and letter from the attorney representing the group.

Mayor Pope commented that there are no teeth to the post-construction condition. He inquired what if it is built and it is not to standard. He mentioned if the CUP is approved, he would insist on stronger consequences if conditions are not met to impose immediate shut down or surrender of right to operate. He inquired if the vacuums are in a centralized station inside a building.

Mr. Corona responded that the vacuum system is a single system enclosed in masonry.

Mayor Pope commented that he walks and rides his bikes with his kids on the Delta DeAnza Trail and doesn’t remember hearing a car wash running, but he is hearing Councilmember Williams’ heater under her seat and he is sure the decibels of that is not the same as we’re talking about here; he understands how sound can be different and how it carries. He shared they have to rely on scientific experts for data. He mentioned they met with the applicant and property owner before at the site and he recommended more mitigation measures, but doesn’t see any of those implemented here. He commented that the report says the existing ambient is 55 decibels which already exceeds City standards so he doesn’t see how they can expect it to be lower. He shared he drove to the Quick Quack in Brentwood and was across the street and it is incredibly loud and unacceptable. He mentioned the City has 5 car washes and he doesn’t know how many are needed; the market dictates this, not the City Council, and he would make 152
the same argument for self-storage. He inquired what other businesses would this business attract, a symbiotic partnership or business. He responded to comments made earlier during public comment and mentioned he recalls things differently. He recalled the Council bending over backward to allow property owners to have zoning and grandfathered existing uses during the Citywide rezoning. He recalled the eminent domain cases mentioned were apartments and he doesn’t know what is worse--eminent domain or the landlord knowing for 20 years that the City planned to take the property and rented to tenants without informing them; it is unfortunate tenants got stuck in the middle. He recalled the zoning for gas stations and car washes and mentioned he was one of three to ask for that and ask people for solutions. He mentioned he already knows concerns as they live around it too. He commented that he recalls it differently than was mentioned during comments.

Councilmember Fuller commented he will be the first to deny the CUP for the Quick Quack.

City Attorney Derek Cole commented that if it is the Council’s pleasure to deny the project, similar to the McDonald’s item, the Council would make a tentative motion to deny the CUP and instruct staff to bring back findings in June that the Council can then consider for approval to finalize its decision.

Councilmember Fuller agreed and submitted his motion as Mr. Cole stated.

City Manager Joshua McMurray suggested to bring the item back in May.

Mr. Cole commented he meant May, not June.

City Manager Joshua McMurray suggested a date certain.

Mr. Cole commented it would be the first meeting in May.

Mayor Pope confirmed it would be May 10 and asked Councilmember Fuller if that would be the date indicated in his motion.

Councilmember Fuller confirmed it is.

Councilmember Higgins seconded the motion to tentatively deny the CUP.

AYES: Fuller, Higgins, Pope and Williams. NOES: Meadows. The motion passed to tentatively deny the CUP and direct staff to bring back findings for the Council to consider approving on May 10. (4-1)
5) REGULAR CALENDAR

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

Councilmember Fuller commented that this was not an easy transaction which shows that they made the right selection to have Joshua McMurray as City Manager. He mentioned City 153
Attorney Derek Cole and staff have worked hard along with him to put this together. He inquired if the previous City Manager had followed a different course a few years ago, if the City would be in this position now of having to ensure $28 million for the E. Cypress development.

Mr. McMurray responded in his opinion, “no”.

Councilmember Williams mentioned the public comment from DeNova and inquired what their letter is referencing.

Mr. McMurray explained that the City will try to recoup some of the investment made by future development within the Specific Plan. He mentioned there are parcels yet to be entitled, the City will be working with the developer(s) when the developments are presented to the City, and they will proceed in a fair and equitable matter in implementing the Specific Plan and requirement of that. He mentioned he can’t give detail because it is unknown, but they will work in good faith to ensure the intent of the Specific Plan is met.

Mr. Cole mentioned Section 8, pages 9 and 10, was drafted to provide flexibility; at this time it is hard to identify specific sources, and entitlements could be years in the future. He added they will work with future developers to ensure they are only conditioned to the extent that they generate fair share obligations. He mentioned there are nexus requirements, and federal and state requirements, and all of those will be followed. He shared they worked very hard to create flexibility for the City and a mechanism to ensure this developer would be fairly compensated.

Councilmember Williams inquired when they can expect some real-world improvements there.

Mr. McMurray explained that the trigger there is the issuance of the levee plans and there is still some work to be done on that, but he ensured he will work with the developer to issue as soon as possible. He indicated there is a 24-month trigger on the first section to complete the fullwidening of E. Cypress Road from the canal to the Bethel Island Road intersection which would provide 2 lanes of travel both east and west with a median that would significantly help the City’s ability to evacuate the area if needed.

Councilmember Higgins inquired if they could start buying into the fair-share rate now because 10 years from now that price triples; if DeNova doesn’t like having to do a fair-share rate on its frontage; if they bought now, they could help the City pay for it and not wait 10 years when it goes up three times or more.

Mr. McMurray commented he is happy to entertain discussing it with the developer.

Mayor Pope commented it is a tough situation. He shared they were in a meeting two weeks ago with the County Supervisor and County traffic staff and they showed them agreements including provisions for developers to pay and when Oakley incorporated, none of the provisions were followed and now they are cleaning it up. He gave kudos to staff for their efforts to find a solution. He shared he is fully in favor of it as they need a solution for public safety.

Vice Mayor Meadows shared he was also on the call with the County and most of the hours spent were okay, although certain members wanted to deflect back to the City. He pointed out that they approved a scanner tonight that will speed up response if there is an accident out there.
154
It was moved by Vice Mayor Meadows and seconded by Councilmember Williams to adopt the resolution to approve the agreement. Motion was unanimous and so ordered. (5-0)

5.2 Adopt the Oakley Strategic Plan SP27+ (Joshua McMurray, City Manager) City Manager Joshua McMurray presented the staff report and a PowerPoint presentation.

Councilmember Williams requested they consider under 5.5 policy framework, since she was skipped at the workshop meeting and was not able to voice her opinions about it, that it could be a Brown Act violation if they are getting things before the public receives the agenda. She suggested omitting it and that she is in favor of a heat sheet, but the Council should get agendas the same time as the public so there are no meetings happening before they are in front of the public at the scheduled meeting.

Councilmember Fuller inquired which page and section she is referring to.

Councilmember Williams responded it is page 14, the last page, and the last bullet point.

Councilmember Fuller commented he would not want that omitted.

Councilmember Williams asked if legal counsel could weigh in.

City Attorney Derek Cole requested clarification as to which section.

Councilmember Williams mentioned it refers to advance circulation of agendas and discussion with Council; if she wants an item pulled off, for example, and another Councilmember wants to know why it was pulled, then they start having meetings ahead of scheduled public meetings which feels like a slippery slope to her.

Mr. Cole explained it is not a violation to have a discussion about an agenda item if it stops there. He explained a serial meeting occurs when information is shared between 3 or more Councilmembers directly or indirectly as to what other Councilmembers are thinking, what their positions may be, what their questions are, or what their deliberative process is. He indicated a strict wall of separation is made to ensure Councilmembers understand agenda items and they are not learning of other Councilmembers thoughts or decisions before the meetings so they are not considered defacto meetings. He mentioned the other issue is materials. He shared there is a provision in the Brown Act that discusses materials delivered at the same time to the Council and public. He mentioned a court case invalidated action taken where the public received their set of documents after the Council received it. He mentioned he is comfortable with the language here and staff members reaching out to Councilmembers as long as it is about what the item is and not sharing what other Councilmembers are thinking or their deliberation process.

Councilmember Fuller commented in his 12 years on a dais, Oakley is one of the few cities that does not give an advanced copy of agendas to Councilmembers. He expressed it is bothersome because they get it and it is in public play. He mentioned he can go to the City Manager and say he likes it or doesn’t, but Mr. McMurray can’t say specifically who likes it or not, but Mr.

McMurray can talk to others without saying what he said. He also mentioned when the agenda comes out, he can talk to the City Manager about what he thinks and have further consideration if he wants it to be pulled before it goes public.
155
Mr. Cole did not disagree that many agencies may have followed that process and explained the court case recently came out in August 2021. He mentioned in that case, there was a clear discrepancy when the Board of Supervisors got their copies when the office was closed at that time as to when the public got it. He mentioned Councilmembers can have discussion with the City Manager but staff has to be clear not to share comments of other Councilmembers and are vigilant about it. He added if the Council is concerned about an item, they can share it with staff in advance of meetings but it has to be process-oriented where it can be in an open session like this. He indicated they should be very clear where to draw the line when they start sharing their positions or concerns because it could result in a serial meeting.

Councilmember Fuller commented he can live without advance staff reports, but he wants to know what is coming up and talk to the City Manager before it gets out to the public. He mentioned when staff sends out the agenda, he can’t call on anyone on the Council but can express his concern to the City Manager. He indicated the City Manager can say the reason we are doing this and he can take that information and talk to others or pull it, but the way it is being done now is breaking down a communication barrier between him and the City Manager. He mentioned he wants to be able to talk to the City Manager about his concerns. He shared he likes the way it is worded, "considered" ; it enhances communication with the City Manager which is very important, similar to his communication with the City Attorney.

Mr. Cole mentioned when a Councilmember talks to them, they know what to present to the Council because they know concerns and issues, so they can present that and the Council can have better dialogue, and the public can hear that; it is a way to provide a better open session discussion. He indicated if they share concerns and ideas with him, it is always about what the process is when an item comes forward. He mentioned if Councilmembers are going to share information in advance, the focus should be on how they can communicate their concerns and issues so the Council can have a better, more informed discussion, and discuss items in front of the public.

Mayor Pope mentioned he is going to pause the discussion for a public comment.

Public Comment
Paul Seger submitted a written comment but had to leave. Mayor Pope read his comment which indicated core values, transparency, accountable partnerships, even for this exercise, there are no community groups, advocacy groups, nor servicing special districts were contacted or invited to the table. He also indicated many, many suggestions were made regarding the General Plan update, including a letter suggesting outreach and fostering stakeholder engagement. He urged a continuance and more inclusion.

Councilmember Fuller suggested on page 6, item 2.3, to add “and the 4-lane bottleneck” or other similar wording after “to complete the Laurel Road extension”.

Mayor Pope recalled that from the discussion and suggested, "including the overpass".

Councilmember Fuller suggested on page 9, item 1.2, regarding face-to-face dialogue and to replace one-sided social media, he doesn’t like the word "replace". He suggested "alternative” to one-sided social media communication.

Mayor Pope suggested using the word “supplement" instead. 156
Councilmember Fuller agreed that would be good too.

Councilmember Fuller suggested on page 14, item 5.1, replace "accountable" with "create measurable partnerships", and on the same page, item 5.2, he doesn't want the Council included in “Team Oakley”. He mentioned on the other one, “celebrating successes and communicating obstacles for full transparency” means you’re looking for obstacles. He suggested, "reinforce Team Oakley, Council and staff by celebrating successes to create a positive learning environment."
Councilmember Higgins commented that if the Council gets the agenda 2 business days prior to the public, Councilmembers shouldn’t be able to put it on social media/NextDoor to say this is what is coming up because residents don’t have same opportunity to see the full background and the City should be releasing it, not the Councilmembers. She mentioned consider, but she doesn’t support it.

Vice Mayor Meadows commented it would have been nice to see some of these suggestions in writing so they could try and digest them together, but he is okay with most of what Councilmember Fuller mentioned. He mentioned the second to the last one he is okay with and the first one he is not so sure.

Mayor Pope commented he is on the same page as Councilmember Williams on advanced communication. He shared he thinks the practical application is fraught with problems. He mentioned he is fine with text amendments that he commented on, but others where he did not say anything, he does not feel the same way.

Mr. McMurray suggested since there are 4 or 5 items, they could address them one by one.

Councilmember Fuller mentioned the revision on page 6, item 2.3, "complete Laurel Road including the intersection widening at Laurel and O'Hara." Mr. McMurray suggested, “complete the Laurel Road widening which also includes the extension and overcrossing over the railroad track”. All Councilmembers were in favor of this revision.

Mayor Pope mentioned the revision to page 9, item 1.2, "as a supplement to one-sided social media”. All Councilmembers were in favor of this revision.

Councilmember Fuller mentioned the revision to page 14, item 5.1, replace "accountable" with “measureable". All Councilmembers were in favor of this revision.

Mayor Pope mentioned the revision to item 5.3, remove "communicating obstacles for full transparency" and replace with "celebrating successes to create a positive learning environment.” Mayor Pope, Vice Mayor Meadows, and Councilmembers Higgins and Williams were not in favor of this revision. Councilmember Fuller was in favor of the revision.

Mayor Pope referred to 5.5 regarding advance circulation and inquired if Councilmember Fuller wants to keep it.

Councilmember Fuller confirmed he wants to keep it.
157
Mayor Pope indicated a thumbs up would indicate they want to remove it. Mayor Pope and Councilmembers Higgins and Williams were in favor of removing it. Councilmember Fuller wanted to keep it. Vice Mayor Meadows abstained.

Vice Mayor Meadows referred to page 3, item 3.5. He mentioned the second bullet point and third bullet point conflict. He commented if they are doing a park, they should get rid of the third bullet point.

Mayor Pope mentioned he thought the discussion was they were going to be combined.

Mr. McMurray commented that he recalls the discussion was in essence if they constructed a park and wanted to license it out to a coffee kiosk or something like that. He mentioned they can structure it in a way that talks about a park but also exploring other opportunities to program that park.

Vice Mayor Meadows commented that a coffee kiosk can only be between 5th and DelAntico.

Mr. McMurray responded that they can remove the third bullet point and include a statement under the second bullet point that would allow them to explore programming opportunities.

Mayor Pope suggested, “Explore potential development of the area from 2nd to DelAntico including business opportunities and a park.”
Vice Mayor Meadows commented he doesn’t agree with that. He mentioned the previous Council approved Nature Properties to develop the property and it was not built; he thinks they couldn’t get financing because the project was obsolete before it was built because it looked like a pencil and was not feasible. He mentioned they are not going to run retail width wise, it is depth, so the project doesn’t work. He shared a lender called him about property further east on Main because a landowner wanted to do a project and wanted his opinion; it was the same thing because it was a linear project and would not be successful. He shared he pushed for the park to bring people there, he is okay with coffee, but he doesn’t agree with the building. He indicated he can go with Mr. McMurray’s proposed language in the second bullet.

Mr. McMurray suggested to remove the third bullet and under the second bullet, “Consider a park with potential opportunities for programming on north 2nd Street to Rose Avenue.” He mentioned this is not committing them, but they can consider all options available to them.

Vice Mayor Meadows suggested they further define programming.

Mr. McMurray suggested they include “economic development” before “programming”. All Councilmembers were in favor of this revision.

It was moved by Vice Mayor Meadows and seconded by Councilmember Williams to adopt the Oakley Strategic Plan 27+ with amendments that were approved. Motion was unanimous and so ordered. (5-0)
158
6) REPORTS

6.1 CITY MANAGER
(a) City Manager
City Manager Joshua McMurray announced the City will hold a Housing Element Update workshop April 20th beginning at 6:30 p.m. at the Oakley Recreation Center. He shared a flyer on the monitor that included a QR code for a survey in relation to the Housing Element Update, and he invited the community to attend. He mentioned there is a dedicated webpage for the Housing Element Update.

6.2 OAKLEY CITY COUNCIL/OAKLEY CITY COUNCIL ACTING AS THE SUCCESSOR

AGENCY TO THE OAKLEY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
(a) Reports from Council Liaisons to Regional Committees, Commissions and Boards AND Oakley City Council/Oakley City Council Acting as the Successor Agency to the Oakley Redevelopment Agency
Councilmember Fuller reported he attended the Delta Protection meeting and the Water Commissioner indicated they are at 39% of snow melt which places us in an extreme drought and we should expect consequences, all irrigation contracts, except some leases, will not be filled by the State this year, and expects the Governor will issue an emergency order soon to allow use of only 5% of normal consumption of water. He expressed it is upsetting the Delta balance; they are not going to take down the salinity barrier, but will build another; they are worried about ecological balance of the Delta and Bay. He mentioned reservoirs are at a record low and they can expect a lot of lawns to go brown during the summer. He shared the tunnel EIR is coming out soon and the recommendation is to get the resolutions in before the EIR comes out. He mentioned the tunnel is viewed as not fit for those on the Delta and the Delta historic preservation is becoming more active. He shared Eric Vink is leaving which is sad because he knows the Delta well. In relation to Lookout Slough, he mentioned the Delta Protection Commission wanted recreation and John Vance from Solano County Board of Supervisors provided 75 minutes of acrimony so he called for the question and they voted, otherwise they might still be there. He shared that is his last meeting and the Mayor of Rio Vista will step in; they share it with Solano County. He mentioned Diablo Water District is working on a rate increase and Prop 218 allows them to gain access to parcels for reimbursements. He shared he is waiting for more material on it.

Councilmember Higgins thanked Ellen Cross for helping them get through the Strategic Plan. In regard to Alexis Gabe, she mentioned she helped with flyers, walked a grid, financially contributed to shirts to help support, and she likes the idea of the City working toward a reward.

She shared she supports a stop the tunnel resolution. She mentioned she is excited for the Taste of Oakley on May 14 at the Oakley Recreation Center as Spinkl Cookies will be there; it is $12 per ticket. She mentioned Helping One Woman, Little League is underway so there are more cars around the parks; she encouraged everyone to go slower. She announced Chalk in the Park will be held April 23 in Civic Center Park.

Vice Mayor Meadows reported he and Mayor Pope sat in with Mr. McMurray for a meeting with the County Supervisor, County Administrator and Public Works staff to discuss E. Cypress and Bethel Island Road. He mentioned they need to keep pushing it along; he doesn’t think they made much progress with that meeting, but at least they are talking. He suggested staff keep 159
pushing the County as they need to come to the table and participate, and possibly pay their fair share.

Councilmember Williams reported that Helping One Woman is a national organization with a chapter in Discovery Bay where women can help other women who may be going through a rough time. She mentioned during each dinner of the chapter, someone is nominated to help and she nominated a friend who lost a second son recently to suicide. She explained she is the sponsor and it is a lot of work, but it is rewarding. She shared the community came together in Oakley to support and Brentwood businesses provided support.

Mayor Pope reported he attended the Mayors’ Conference and they are talking about going back to in-person meetings. He mentioned they discussed the constraints and limitations of the electrification of the transportation network. He shared everybody loves the idea, but what happens when everyone plugs in because there is not enough power now; a network of power distribution is needed. He also reported he attended Friday Night Bites; there are typically 8-10 food trucks. He mentioned as the weather warms up, there will be free concerts, dancing and food. He suggested supplemental lighting at the event until it becomes lighter out later. He reported the meeting with the County that Vice Mayor Meadows mentioned involved some pointing of the finger. He shared a glaring issue for him is that the County received an offer of dedication for the land for the bridge they need to build for the southern exit out of the area and they have not acted on it, and they are not going to, although they would support the City doing it which he thinks is problematic and more work needs to be done with the County on that. (b) Requests for Future Agendas
Councilmember Williams commented that kids have great mental struggles, and her friend found that their insurance cut them off from care they need; therapy is understaffed, and she would like to explore some form ad-hoc committee with neighboring cities to address solutions.

She mentioned Oakley should be a leader and influencer to get regional support.

Randi Adler suggested she could look into Kaiser; it is outsourcing.

Councilmember Williams responded they are on six-month wait list with Kaiser.

Councilmember Fuller commented he has Councilmember Higgins support for a resolution to support stopping the tunnel. He requested support for a resolution for 1383, refuse collection, to help cities with funding for changes that are mandated. He also requested to recognize Police Memorial Day in May.

Mayor Pope mentioned there are Police Week events in May locally, at the state capitol, and the national capitol. He shared Oakley is sending a contingent to the national event, but it would be nice to have something locally.
7) WORK SESSIONS
160
8) CLOSED SESSION

8.1 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9: (One potential case.)
Mayor Pope announced the closed session item.

The City Council held closed session in its antechambers. 9) ADJOURN
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:55 p.m.

Respectively Submitted,
Libby Vreonis
City Clerk
161
162
163
164
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 “QUICK QUACK CAR WASH AT LAUREL PLAZA CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP 02-20) AND DESIGN REVIEW (DR 08-20) LOCATED IN THE LAUREL PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LAUREL ROAD AND O’HARA AVENUE
(APN: 035-510-009)

FINDINGS
WHEREAS, on November 12, 2020, Quick Quack Car Wash Holdings, LLC (“Applicant”) filed an application requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP 02-20) and Design Review (DR 08-20) to construct a new 3,596 square foot (“sf.”) drivethrough car wash facility located on an approximately 0.8-acre parcel. In addition to the car wash facility, the applicant is requesting approval of vacuum and payment stations, trash enclosures, and associated site improvements (“Project”). The project site is located within the existing Laurel Plaza Shopping Center at the northwest corner of Laurel Road and O’Hara Avenue and is zoned RB (Retail Business) District: APN: 035-510-009; 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 February 22, 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 12, 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 02-20) and Design Review (DR 08-20); and
WHEREAS, on May 10, 2022, the City Council voted 4-1 and adopted Resolution No. 47-22 denying the proposed Project’s Conditional Use Permit (CUP 02-20) and Design Review (DR 08-20) 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 165
Resolution No. -23 Page 2 of 18 April 11, 2023
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, 2023, 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”).

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 02-20), the City Council finds:

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 that the entirety of the 166
Resolution No. -23 Page 3 of 18 April 11, 2023
use and all required setbacks, parking, landscaping and circulation is able to be accommodated;

3. That 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, agreed to plant additional trees between the plaza and adjacent residential properties to the north, and conduct additional acoustical analyses prior to issuance of a final certificate of occupancy and approximately six months after opening as a means to ensure the use is as compatible with surrounding uses and meets established General Plan thresholds related to noise;

C. Regarding the application requesting Design Review approval to develop an approximately 0.8-acre parcel within the Laurel Plaza shopping center with a new 3,596 square foot car wash (DR 08-20), the City Council finds:

The overall site planning meets required setbacks, circulation and parking, landscape, and buffer requirements, and locates the trash enclosure in a 167
Resolution No. -23 Page 4 of 18 April 11, 2023
manner where it has minimal interference with the proposed use and other nearby uses;

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. 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, “Quick Quack Car Wash at Laurel Plaza Conditional Use Permit (CUP 02-20) and Design Review (DR 08-20),” 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 March 17, 2022, as well as additional information acquired since that time and made a part of the project file.

THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO

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

Planning Department Conditions
General:

1. This Design Review is approved, as shown on the plans, date stamped by the Planning Department on March 17, 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 168
Resolution No. -23 Page 5 of 18 April 11, 2023
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 implemented as applicable, 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 City from any and all claims, damages and liability (including, but not limited to, damages, attorney fees, expenses of litigation, costs of court).

Hours of Operation:

9. Normal hours of operation for the car wash shall be from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.

On days Oakley Union Elementary School District schools are in session, the car wash hours of operation shall not begin until at least 8:30 a.m. and maintain the same closing time. The applicant shall work independently with the school district to obtain a calendar of days school is in session.

Noise:

10.The applicant agrees to at least two additional acoustical analyses by a licensed acoustical engineer selected by the City of Oakley at the expense of the applicant via a developer deposit account. One analysis shall be conducted during a soft opening, prior to issuance of a final certificate of occupancy. The applicant shall 169
Resolution No. -23 Page 6 of 18 April 11, 2023
set the tunnel up to operate as it would under normal business use in order to maximize the accuracy of the acoustical analysis. The second analysis shall be conducted between five and seven months of the business being fully operational.

The applicant shall notify adjacent neighbors and interested parties a reasonable amount of time before the date of the analyses to allow them to arrange for a third party licensed acoustical engineer to conduct their own readings on the same day.

Should the initial acoustical analysis conducted by the acoustical engineer hired by the City find the operation to exceed the General Plan thresholds, additional measures shall be put in place with retesting until the thresholds are met. A final certificate of occupancy shall not be issued until the additional acoustical analysis shows compliance with the General Plan thresholds. Should the second acoustical analysis find the operation to exceed the General Plan thresholds, the applicant shall take immediate action to reduce the level of noise reaching neighboring properties and retest as soon as those measures are in place. The City would use the findings of the acoustical engineer hired by the City, and the results of both analyses will be reported back to the City Council. The City Council may request the Conditional Use Permit be brought back for additional consideration.

Site Plan:

11.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.

12.A final 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.

13.Light poles shall be a maximum height 20 feet, including the base, and shall provide glare shields where adjacent to existing residences per the review and approval of the Community Development Director.

14.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.

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

Architectural Details:

16.Roof-mounted equipment shall be architecturally screened from view. 170
Resolution No. -23 Page 7 of 18 April 11, 2023

17.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:

18.The applicant shall plant additional trees along the northern property line of Laurel Plaza in the general direction the carwash tunnel opening would face. The trees shall be a minimum size of 60” box and be of a species selection and spaced out in a manner acceptable to a licensed landscape architect and the City of Oakley.

19.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.”

20.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.

21.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.

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

Signage:

23.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:

24.The Applicant shall submit a Waste Management Plan that complies with the City of Oakley Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance. 171
Resolution No. -23 Page 8 of 18 April 11, 2023
Building Division Conditions

25.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.

26.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:

27.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.

28.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.

29.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.

30.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.
172
Resolution No. -23 Page 9 of 18 April 11, 2023

31.PRECONSTRUCTION MEETING. Prior to issuance of any permit or the commencement of any site work, the general contractor shall:
a. 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;
b. 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.

32.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.

33.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.

34.DUST CONTROL. Blowing dust shall be reduced by timing construction activities so that paving and building construction begin as soon as possible 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 lateafternoon 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 173
Resolution No. -23 Page 10 of 18 April 11, 2023
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.

35.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.

36.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.
e. A full road closure will require a detour plan and a road closure permit issued by the Public Works Department.

37.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.

38.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 174
Resolution No. -23 Page 11 of 18 April 11, 2023
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.

39.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.

40.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.

41.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.

42.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.

THE FOLLOWING SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO THE APPROVAL OF THE GRADING PLAN:
175
Resolution No. -23 Page 12 of 18 April 11, 2023

43.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, on-site 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.

44.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 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 176
Resolution No. -23 Page 13 of 18 April 11, 2023
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

45.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 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.
177
Resolution No. -23 Page 14 of 18 April 11, 2023

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

46.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.

47.SIGHT DISTANCE EXHIBIT. For the project driveways’ ingress and egress, provide an exhibit that will analyze the sight distance required for the appropriate speed limit identified with this project as required by the City Engineer.

48.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.

49.JOINT TRENCH PLANS. The applicant shall submit Joint Trench Composite Plans to the City for review prior to approval of improvement plans or issuance of the building permit. 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 178
Resolution No. -23 Page 15 of 18 April 11, 2023
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.

50.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:

51.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.

52.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.

53.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.

54.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.

55.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 on179 Resolution No. -23 Page 16 of 18 April 11, 2023
site landscaping at the property owner’s expense to a standard acceptable and agreed upon by the City.

56.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.

57.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 "as-built" 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.

58.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 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.

59.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.
180
Resolution No. -23 Page 17 of 18 April 11, 2023
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.

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.
181
Resolution No. -23 Page 18 of 18 April 11, 2023
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
182

STAFF REPORT
Approved and Forwarded to the City Council
DATE: April 11, 2023
TO: Joshua McMurray, City Manager
FROM: Ken Strelo, Planning Manager
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 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.

Background
Project History
On February 22, 2022, this project was considered by the City Council resulting in denial (3-2 vote) of the Conditional Use Permit and Design Review application through adoption of City Council Resolution No. 25-22 adopted on March 22, 2022. The February 22, 2022 public hearing was continued from May 25, 2021, which was continued from April 27, 2021. A copy of the denial resolution, Staff Reports from the public hearings (without attachments), applicable minutes from that meeting, and other related materials for consideration of the project are attached to this Staff Report as additional background and analysis of the project. This Staff Report will cover additional modifications proposed for the project since February 22, 2022, and include an updated analysis taking those modifications into consideration. 183
Subject: McDonald’s Drive-Through Restaurant at Laurel Plaza Date: April 11, 2023

Page 2 of 7 ends

Oakley City CouncilApril 11, 2023

Oakley City Council
April 11, 2023