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 August 8, 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. Vice Mayor Anissa Williams and Councilmembers Dr. George Fuller, Hugh Henderson and Shannon Shaw were also present.
1.2 Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag
Councilmember Henderson led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
1.3 Update from Contra Costa Advisory Council on Aging (Michael Rigsby) Michael Rigsby, Contra Costa Advisory Council on Aging, provided an update.
Vice Mayor Williams asked him to share specifically what the organization has done for Oakley Seniors.
Mr. Rigsby explained lack of transportation and housing have been major issues, but he is not certain that they have made progress in these areas with price increasing.
Vice Mayor Williams inquired how connected the Advisory Council is with Tri-Delta. She mentioned seniors attend their Board meetings.
Mr. Rigsby did not have that information.
1.4 Native American Presentation (Wyatt Moore, East Bay Regional Parks District)
Wyatt Moore with East Bay Regional Parks District provided a presentation.
1.5 Update from Nonprofits Awarded American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund Grants (a) Liz Fuller, Treasurer/Membership Chair, Friends of the Oakley Library and Lorena Campos, President, Friends of the Oakley Library (b) Cyler Craig, Pastor, Oakley Church (AKA Revive Church)
Liz Fuller, Treasurer/Membership Chair and Lorena Campos, President, both with the Friends of the Oakley Library, provided information to the City Council how ARPA grant funds have been utilized. They also thanked Assemblymember Lori Wilson for her contribution.
Vice Mayor Williams inquired if they could still offer programs if there were no grant.
Ms. Campos shared that funding from donations and book sales have been down since the pandemic and the Library wouldn't have been able to do as many programs or have the quality of programs without the grant. Ms. Fuller added that the Library has jumped in to have programs
Vice Mayor Williams inquired if the numbers provided are over the previous year or an average of years because of the pandemic.
Ms. Fuller responded she didn’t, but probably should have; programming before the pandemic was way down and these are high numbers, but they have had a good year.
Dr. Fuller thanked them for the work they have done with the grant funding as well as the human element they bring to provide a cohesive package to bring the community together with events and support. He expressed that the future library will be a focal point for all in the community and they being recipients of the Non-profit of the Year Award was amply earned.
Mayor Meadows thanked them for their work and thanked Assemblymember Lori Wilson for naming the Friends of the Oakley Library as the Non-profit of the Year Award recipient for Assembly District 11.
Pastor Cyler Craig, Oakley Church (formerly Revive Church) provided information to the City Council how ARPA grant funds have been utilized.
Councilmember Shaw shared that she attended the event, the turnout was great, and she thanked them for putting it on.
Vice Mayor Williams commented that ARPA funds are one-time funds, and this is a great event that made a big difference. She inquired about their plan to continue the event.
Pastor Craig mentioned they will continue to do outreach, grow their congregation, grow contributions, and grow their giving back program.
Vice Mayor Williams thanked them for being a good partner. 2) PUBLIC COMMENTS
Michael Dupray provided an online public comment that was made part of the meeting record. He also read it into the record. Mr. Dupray’s comments and the following comments were made in relation to apartments on Carol Lane:
Patti Tompkin commented she has lived at The Oaks for 14 years, there is no security, there are two broken doors that don’t lock and no rails, she doesn’t think there are fire guidelines as residents can’t get downstairs when the elevator doesn’t work, she waited 45 minutes in a stairwell during a fire, she has been waiting since April for a door replacement that the fire marshal kicked in, they have roaches, and she wants safety for seniors.
Bettie Rumsey commented on lack of railings on the side of sidewalks, sharing that several seniors have fallen and broken hips and dislocated shoulders. She mentioned when rent is a few days late, eviction notices are issued, and people can’t afford to go elsewhere. She shared they have issues with drugs, prostitution, kids disrespecting elders, and management wants tenants to take pictures and do their work. She shared many have health conditions and her health condition has worsened since living there.
Jackie Rider commented that she is a 6-year resident, she moved out of building 59 because it is a roach hotel, and she moved to building 67 because she understood it has different owners/investors. She invited the Council to the building to smell it. She mentioned there are 3 maintenance workers for 500 units and tenants shouldn’t suffer because they are understaffed. She shared that she had to buy an air conditioning unit and wait for someone to hook it up to her phone (Bluetooth) and when she walked outside, it disconnected, so she has no way to turn it off. She commented that maintenance makes promises and doesn’t come through, they need bars in the bathtub, there are no rails on ramps to walk up to the building and she fell, management no longer accepts money orders for rent payments even though they don’t bounce, leaving them only two options to pay rent, and management’s bookkeeper makes errors.
Gloria Kehler commented that she has been in The Oaks (building 67) for 1 ½ years, she is a smoker and smokes outside; however, she lives next door to someone who smokes inside and someone across the hall that smokes pot, and she has complained of it and nothing has been done; the whole building is that way; smoke hits you at door and no one is getting 3-day notices or knocks on the door to request it stop. She mentioned management raised rent 9% when there has been only an 8% social security increase.
She also mentioned management doesn’t have enough people, so no one shows up.
Harold Tidwell commented that he has lived 10 years in building 59 and it is too bad that they have to come to City Hall to complain about living conditions and the Council should do something to fix it.
Josephine Basulto commented that she lives in building 53, it is a bad building, it has roaches that were sprayed but it didn’t work, and bombs were used but it barely did anything to the roaches. She mentioned she went in to take them out and had an asthma attack and management will only bomb again which doesn’t do anything. She mentioned her grandkids cry because they are afraid roaches will get on them. She shared that there is no security, homeless people wash themselves in the washrooms, her grandkids are cursed at, and she has made 5-6 maintenance requests since September of last year that are still pending. She mentioned management removed her dishwasher and there were roaches underneath and they just stuck another one in. She shared both she and her grandchild are on asthma medication.
Patricia James commented on behalf of her dad in building 59. She mentioned it took him 3 months to get rails in his shower which happened because she went every single day and complained. She mentioned the management does not take care of the residents and many people don’t have someone to advocate for them. She shared that the stairs are filthy--they are black because they have not been cleaned, the elevator smells, and floors are not mopped. She mentioned she is glad they are coming together as a group to stand up as something needs to be done and she wants to help support them.
Bonnie McCord commented that she is the roach lady, has been locked out and has had to live in different apartments, there have been two floods, thousands of roaches, and she had a bag full of roaches. She explained one year ago, management had someone treat her apartment and she was told by the exterminator that the roaches came from next door and her neighbor refused to let them in to treat, then there were no treatments as of August of last year, so she was living with roaches, she complained, and nothing was done. She shared that she began to get sick; the bombs affected her lungs, and her doctor told her she cannot have the bombs so management stopped bombing. She mentioned the exterminators recently came and the same exterminator as last year told her it’s not her fault, the roaches are coming from elsewhere. She shared that the roaches were in her dishwasher, stove, freezer, and refrigerator so she called elder abuse who spoke with management. She mentioned management said they offered her a place to stay but they did not, so she stayed with neighbors, and management locked her out of her apartment while cleaning when she only needed to get her clothes. She mentioned she had to sanitize everything she owned and rent a storeroom to keep it in.
The following public comment was non-related to previous comments:
Marivel Mendoza commented that she is a first-generation Mexican American woman who lives here, micro-assaults are one of three types of micro-aggressions which are conscious, deliberate, and derogatory. She mentioned white supremacy and a Board of Supervisors meeting where people didn’t think it exists because they are thinking of overt actions, i.e., racial slurs, swastikas and hate crimes. She added there are things more socially acceptable, things not called out that go with a pass, kind of like microaggressions, i.e., color-blindness, virtuous victim narratives, what about me mentality, denial of white privilege, or denial of racism. She explained she moved into her house before Covid and has lived in the neighborhood peacefully, her neighbor is quiet and her family is lovely, but the neighbors that moved in next door to them are horrible and racist. She explained they have called Police and they tried to do the right thing by asking them if they have tried to talk to the neighbors, but there are only so many neighborly things that you can do for people who have committed to be hateful. She commented that some will denounce what is happening but there must be something that happens in the City of Oakley because it is not fair that her neighbor has been in her home for over 20 years and is nervous to go outside and to see social media posts from the hateful neighbor. She expressed that Oakley has no room for that and there are a lot of people that do not stand for it.
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 July 11, 2023 (Libby Vreonis, City Clerk)
3.2 Approve Minutes from the Special City Council Meeting held July 19, 2023 (Libby Vreonis, City Clerk)
3.3 Accept Report Out of Closed Session Memo (Derek P. Cole, City Attorney)
3.4 Waive the Second Reading and Adopt Ordinance No. 7-23 Amending an existing P-1 (Planned Unit Development) District for the Project Know as Sellers Avenue Subdivision 9614 (RZ 01-22) APN 033-150-013 (Ken Strelo, Planning Manager)
3.5 City of Oakley Quarterly Investment Report (4th Quarter FY 2022/23) (Jeri Tejeda, HR Director)
3.6 City of Oakley as Successor Agency to the Oakley Redevelopment Agency Quarterly Investment Report (4th Quarter FY 2022/23) (Jeri Tejeda, HR Director)
3.7 Consideration of a Resolution Authorizing the Purchase of a 2023 Ford F550 4WD Diesel Super Duty for $107,957.64 from Big Valley Ford Lincoln of Stockton (Kevin Rohani, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer)
3.8 Agreement with Mark Thomas & Co. Inc. for Engineering Design Services associated with Bridgehead Road Widening (Railroad Tracks to Main Street) Capital Improvement Project Number 300 (Kevin Rohani, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer)
3.9 Resolution of the City Council of the City of Oakley Renewing the City of Oakley Military Equipment Policy as Enacted in Chapter 39 of Title 4 of the Oakley Municipal Code (Derek P. Cole, City Attorney)
3.10 Designating Vice Mayor Anissa Williams as Voting Delegate and Councilmember Shannon Shaw as an Alternate Voting Delegate for League of California Cities Annual Conference September 20-22, 2023, and Directing the City Clerk to complete and forward the voting delegate form to the League of California Cities (Libby Vreonis, City Clerk) Items 3.1, 3.4 and 3.10 were pulled by Dr. Fuller for discussion and item 3.2 was pulled by Vice Mayor Williams for discussion.
It was moved by Councilmember Shaw and seconded by Councilmember Henderson to approve the remainder of the Consent Calendar. Motion was unanimous and so ordered. (5-0)
Item 3.1
Dr. Fuller requested to change “2020” to “2021” in the fireworks discussion within the minutes.
Vice Mayor Williams commented the whole conversation has been taken out of context and she wants to correct the record as she has had multiple conversations with Chief Beard that he said anecdotally that “this felt like a very bad year”, not saying it was worse than 2021, but he experienced that both in Oakley and at his home, so he wanted to step up enforcement. She mentioned when she and Councilmember Shaw were asking questions about it, it was not because they were disputing, but rather agreeing with Chief Beard. She asked Chief Beard if that is how he took it and he confirmed that he did.
Councilmember Shaw commented that her understanding is that changes to the minutes would be reviewed by staff and brought back to the Council as a general practice rather than making changes on the fly.
It was moved by Dr. Fuller and seconded by Councilmember Henderson to approve the minutes with the change from “2020” to “2021” in the section addressing the fireworks update. AYES: Fuller, Henderson, Meadows. NOES: Shaw, Williams. (3-2) Item 3.2
Vice Mayor Williams asked the City Clerk and City Manager if the City received any comments regarding the female Councilmembers bullying any of the participants.
City Manager Joshua McMurray responded that the City did not receive any comments.
Vice Mayor Williams commented that in checking social media, she did not receive any such comments either, but as a point of procedure, she inquired if there would be any notation in the minutes if that occurred during the meeting.
City Clerk Libby Vreonis responded that it would have been briefly noted.
Councilmember Shaw inquired if the consultants reported being cut off, interrupted, and disturbed by any Councilmembers.
City Manager Joshua McMurray responded that he does not recall hearing any such comments.
Councilmember Shaw requested confirmation that the meeting was to listen to the community, but also for the Council to talk with the consultants, look at the plans because they had not seen them before that night, and point out things they liked or disliked about the two potential plans.
City Manager Joshua McMurray responded that the meeting was an opportunity for the public and Council to view and comment on the two alternatives that were presented.
Dr. Fuller recalled that the Council broke from the dais at that point and there was discussion between the public and consultants; there was no recording, minutes, or action taken. He mentioned they were not in session during such time, but when the meeting reconvened, minutes were taken again.
It was moved by Dr. Fuller and seconded by Councilmember Shaw to approve the minutes as presented. Motion was unanimous and so ordered. (5-0) Item 3.4
Dr. Fuller announced he would abstain and left the room.
It was moved by Vice Mayor Williams and seconded by Councilmember Shaw to waive the second reading and adopt the ordinance. AYES: Henderson, Meadows, Shaw, Williams. ABSTENTION: Fuller. (4-0-1)
Item 3.10
Dr. Fuller commented he will vote no for three reasons: 1) The League of California Cities has let Oakley down for decades, most recently with its endorsement of AB 1657, and if Oakley doesn’t seat anyone at the General Assembly and others do the same, then there may be no quorum and they can find some other way to govern, 2) Vice Mayor Williams and Councilmember Shaw serve on the Tri-Delta Transit Board and vote on the budget and are very active in its policies which he sees as a conflict of interest and in his mind he has seen instances that both have favored transit over City so he doesn’t want to send somebody up that is not going to focus on the City, and 3) both Vice Mayor Williams and Councilmember Shaw have shown support for AB 1657 and what ABAG, BAHFA and MTC are doing. He mentioned he does not want to see Oakley as a supporter in the General Assembly in the advertisements where a vote is taken.
Councilmember Shaw commented she is assigned by the City Council to sit on the TriDelta Transit Board, that she approved things way before she was on the City Council, and is told she voted for it and supported it because she went to the ribbon cutting which she was a Planning Commissioner when she did; she doesn’t think that has anything to do with the CalCities’ delegate and then to say she supports this bill which she was not provided the proper information on at the last meeting to give a complete analysis for herself and not just hearing how someone else reads between the lines on it is not a fair assessment. She indicated the Council came to an agreement that they all support local control and that they would look into it further and that is what the minutes reflect. She commented that she is tired of false accusations. She mentioned he (Fuller) can say what he says online but now that he has brought it up here she can address it; they are blatant lies, he continues to attack and make false statements, and what he just said was completely false; she did not say that she supported the bill and if he does not trust the people on the Council to do the Council’s will and vote on something that they all agree on, then maybe that is his issue, not her nor Vice Mayor Williams’ issue.
Vice Mayor Williams commented that for clarity on what a voting delegate and alternate voting delegate do as she has attended CalCities’ meetings before, there are certain things that are prepared as a city and they reflect the City’s will, just like when the Council is elected, they are supposed to represent their constituents’ will. She mentioned she can disagree with the majority of Council; however, her job is to echo what the Council is saying; she must hear all the things said, use her good judgment, and take into consideration she has been elected by the people to do their bidding which is exactly what a CalCities’ delegate is, and to say if enough people just don’t vote is a pipedream and if he (Fuller) can show her anytime in history when people have not voted there has been change, she will eat her words. She mentioned that is just taking an inactive step and she believes she has been elected to take active steps and support the people. She mentioned he (Fuller) has levied accusations on public record today about how being on Tri-Delta Transit that they (she and Councilmember Shaw) have demonstrated conflicts of interest; just like every other accusation that has ever been levied by him, there is actually no proof, no standing, and yes, she and Councilmember Shaw are very passionate about transit because as they saw a whole group of seniors, there is a community that relies on transit so they are super passionate about it. She expressed that they want the community to be able to experience the best quality of life and transit can enable that, but never once has there been a conflict of interest; she was elected by the people of Oakley to serve on the City Council and she was selected by her peers to serve on Tri-Delta Transit; there is a difference in whom she is reporting to, so unfounded accusations need to stop because never once has any one of them been correct.
It was moved by Vice Mayor Williams and seconded by Councilmember Henderson to designate Vice Mayor Williams as Voting Delegate and Councilmember Shaw as Alternate Voting Delegate for the League of California Cities Annual Conference Business Meeting to be held September 22, 2023. AYES: Henderson, Meadows, Shaw, Williams.
NOES: Fuller. (4-1)
4) PUBLIC HEARINGS
4.1 Grand Cypress Preserve Development Agreements Master Amendment (DA 01-23) (Ken Strelo, Planning Manager)
Mayor Meadows announced the item will be continued to the next regular meeting to be held September 12, 2023. He mentioned the public hearing will be open September 12, 2023. He called for public comments. Online public comments were submitted by Ed Aparis from PG&E and Barbara and Richard Du Mont; both were made part of the meeting record.
5) REGULAR CALENDAR
5.1 Appeal of Administrative Hearing Officer's Decision, 20 W. Bolton Road, Oakley, California (Libby Vreonis, City Clerk)
City Attorney Derek Cole recused himself. Andy Pinasco with Neumiller & Beardslee provided legal representation for the City.
City Clerk Libby Vreonis presented the staff report.
Appellant, Pamela (Elowsky) Massoni, commented that Code Enforcement stated to her that so long as she was in communication with them regarding their progress, she would not receive these citations. She mentioned they applied for a permit to dismantle the storage addition, motorcycle shed and carport and were denied, and the citations kept accumulating so she dismantled them anyway.
Mayor Meadows inquired if she had dismantled some of this already, which Appellant confirmed she had dismantled the storage addition to the main house, motorcycle shed and carport; they were all screwed together.
Mayor Meadows inquired when she dismantled them, and Appellant responded it began in January and went through the middle of April.
Vice Mayor Williams inquired if citations can only be appealed at the $1300 amount or if they can be appealed when $300 and $700 citations are issued, and Mrs. Vreonis responded that every citation may be appealed by the person receiving the citation by submitting a written appeal to the City Clerk’s Office within 10 days of receiving the citation.
Vice Mayor Williams inquired if there was any communication regarding the earlier citations, and Mrs. Vreonis responded that there were no written requests for appeal submitted for earlier citations.
Vice Mayor Williams inquired why Appellant did not appeal earlier citations, and Appellant responded it was because she was in contact with Code Enforcement who stated to her that if she kept them up to date as to what was going on, because they had a septic issue that was not leaching, that she (Code Enforcement) would not give her citations.
Vice Mayor Williams inquired if the Code Enforcement Officer is here and Mrs. Vreonis responded that the Code Enforcement Officer is not present; however, Community Development Director Brent Smith is available for any questions.
Vice Mayor Williams inquired if that would have been the process if Code Enforcement and Appellant were in communication so that it wouldn’t get to this escalation point and Community Development Director Brent Smith responded that for all code enforcement cases, staff strives for voluntary compliance, and they will go to almost no ends to get that. He explained that the first contact with someone is a courtesy to let them know that work done without a permit requires a permit, assuming the person did not know. He mentioned that messaging typically informs the person to stay in contact with them (Code Enforcement), Building will typically let them know if they have obtained the permit and provide 10 days for them to comply. He assured the Council that here, the communication was not positive, not progressive, and gave no indication to staff that the case would be resolved; staff was left no choice, and they do everything they can to allow someone to stay in their house and avoid substandard living conditions, and they have reached this point and will continue to work productively toward resolution. He mentioned if they just stayed in communication, after a year with no permits is inadequate and provided no evidence of resolution.
Vice Mayor Williams inquired what the ballpark estimate would be if Appellant would have obtained the permits, and Mr. Smith responded he doesn’t have the information in front of him, but it can be provided; a good rule of thumb is 1-3% of a project cost.
Appellant commented that she requested on several occasions to meet with someone to discuss what was needed to accomplish these tasks because on the phone she gets nervous and forgets and can’t remember anything, so she wanted to sit down with someone to go over these things because she unfamiliar with it and was never given the opportunity nor acknowledged that she made the request.
Vice Mayor Williams inquired if Appellant had a licensed contractor doing the work and Appellant confirmed she did. Vice Mayor Williams commented that is his job to do.
Mayor Meadows commented that some of this is licensed contractor work, and some isn’t.
Dr. Fuller inquired if Appellant is saying she paid the $130 and $700 series of citations and Appellant confirmed she is not. He inquired why the Council is only considering the last 4 citations.
Appellant commented that she had taken them down; they (Code Enforcement) gave her the citation without inspecting it because she hadn’t pulled the permit, but she had requested the permit which was denied because they (Building) said it was unsafe.
Dr. Fuller inquired if she is saying now that she will pay the fines and Appellant replied, “Will I? If I absolutely have to. Can I? At the moment, no.” Dr. Fuller commented that when he went through the staff report he understood that all fines would be considered but before him now are five highlighted items. He inquired when deciding if the Council should only consider the five highlighted items, and why they are not looking at the others.
Mrs. Vreonis explained that the staff report mentions Appellant is contesting all fines; however, the matter before the Council is Appellant’s appeal of the administrative hearing officer’s decision which addresses fines in the amount of $5,330.
Mayor Meadows inquired if she only appealed those amounts.
Mrs. Vreonis confirmed that is correct; she only appealed those amounts, the earlier rounds of citations in the amounts of $130 (AC-21-000534) and $700 (AC-22-000179) were not appealed.
Dr. Fuller inquired if the earlier citations should be set aside for consideration since they have not been appealed and the only thing the Council is adjudicating is the five highlighted citations which Mrs. Vreonis confirmed is correct.
Vice Mayor Williams inquired if a payment plan is possible if the Council decides to uphold the administrative hearing officer’s decision and City Manager Joshua McMurray responded that it can be at the pleasure of the Council with direction given to staff regarding time.
Vice Mayor Williams commented that Appellant stated that each of the buildings had been removed as of April. She inquired if staff had any follow-up since then to see if it is satisfactory because if the Council decides to uphold it, additional citations could be issued, and Mr. McMurray responded that the Community Development Director is stating that staff would need to be invited onto the property; the property is not visible from the street as it is fenced.
Mayor Meadows commented that he assumed citations in the amounts of $130 and $700 that were not appealed have not been paid and Appellant confirmed they have not. He inquired if a lien has been placed on the property and Mr. Smith explained for resolution, they would typically inspect the property to confirm if the structures were taken down and this would be after the fact. Mr. Smith suggested legal counsel weigh in because the earlier citations have not been paid and the time for appeal has passed. Mr. Smith indicated a City inspector can inspect to confirm if the structures have been taken down if the property owner can contact staff and schedule.
Councilmember Shaw inquired if Appellant has contacted staff since taking the structures down and Appellant indicated she has been a little stressed, she has severe ADHD, she forgets a lot, and she has been trying to work to save money and pay her fines.
Councilmember Shaw inquired if Appellant has attempted to pay any of the existing fines starting in June 2021 or called the City to make payment arrangements and Appellant responded she has not, she was unaware she could make payment arrangements, sometimes Code Enforcement told her she could disregard them so she was uncertain which citations she was to pay, and she was uncertain in the administrative citation appeal hearing which violations she was being fined.
Dr. Fuller commented that the fines not appealed total $3,320 and the total amount appealed is $5,330. He inquired how much latitude the Council has in its decision because he is wondering if the Council can uphold the fine but hold it in abeyance and if Appellant pays the reminder of the fines and brings the property up to satisfactory code that they dismiss the remainder, and if she doesn’t, she is responsible for the whole amount.
Andy Pinasco, legal counsel, commented that it is his understanding that on the basis of penalties, it has been the practice of this Council that they can formulate reduced penalties based on a balance of equities and it is entirely in the authority of the Council to do so and provide direction to staff to execute through liens or agreement without waiving any compliance with the law; compliance with the law is not within jurisdiction, but what is within jurisdiction is the penalty . He explained the hearing officer is unable to do that because the hearing officer is limited to his authority through the administrative process.
He mentioned this is the tail end of the administrative process, this is the final stop, and this is where the Council, as the policy makers of the City, is hearing these issues de novo, meaning “everything”, and that is why the Council is receiving all this information.
Dr. Fuller commented that Appellant would be responsible for fines in the amount of $3,320 and she would be required in a reasonable amount of time to make sure all the codes are satisfactorily met, and if she does this, the Council will dismiss the $5,330; however, if she does not, she will be responsible for the entire amount.
Mayor Meadows clarified that is Dr. Fuller’s proposal and Dr. Fuller stated that is his proposal.
Mayor Meadows inquired if they could discuss the status of the property right now and Mr.
Pinasco advised they could discuss.
Mayor Meadows asked Appellant if anyone is living in the property, if there is power and if the septic tank was removed, and Appellant responded that her dog is living there, there is no power and the septic tank was removed because they had planned to go to City sewage but it cost $163,000 so she had to retract that idea: her contractor left with her savings, and she has been struggling.
Councilmember Henderson proposed the Council uphold the administrative hearing officer’s decision and establish a 6-month payment plan.
Mayor Meadows requested clarification if he is proposing six monthly payments or to defer the payments for 6 months and Councilmember Henderson clarified it is a payment plan to have $5,330 paid off within 6 months. Mayor Meadows commented that would be $888 each month for 6 months. Ms. Massoni suggested she could work it off.
Dr. Fuller amended the proposal that the execution of the payment agreement for $5,330 (citations AC-23-00004 and AC-23-000006) be held in abeyance for 12 months to allow Appellant to pay $3,320 on the prior citations and to bring the property up to suitable expectations, and if not Appellant will be responsible for the whole amount, but if she does, the $5,330 will be dismissed.
Mr. Pinasco explained that if the maker of the motion would like to change his motion to accept the amendment that is a friendly amendment and it can go forward as one motion, but if not, then there are two competing motions.
Councilmember Henderson commented that he is not changing his motion.
Mayor Meadows asked Councilmember Henderson if he would be willing to change his motion to accept an amendment from 6 months to 12 months and Councilmember Henderson confirmed he would. Mayor Meadows commented that the payment would be $444-$445 each month and Appellant commented that she can do that. Vice Mayor Williams seconded the motion.
Mr. Pinasco advised that there is a motion and a second, if there is no second on the second motion then the Council can vote on the first motion; if there is a second on the second motion then the second motion gets voted on first so if there is no second, the motion dies for lack of a second.
Mayor Meadows inquired if there is a second on Dr. Fuller’s motion. There being none, the motion died.
Mr. Pinasco requested clarification that the motion is to affirm the administrative hearing officer’s decision and create a 12-month payment plan for full payment and they do not have to be equal payments for all the fines with the condition that the property be brought into compliance. Councilmember Henderson confirmed that is correct.
Dr. Fuller inquired if it is the $8,200 figure that they are voting on, and Mr. Pinasco confirmed that is correct. Mayor Meadows commented that is incorrect and Dr. Fuller confirmed it is for $5,330.
Mr. Pinasco requested clarification on the motion if the 12-month payment plan is to satisfy the total amount owing and Councilmember Henderson confirmed it is for $5,330 and the other citations he does not believe should be on the table tonight because this is regarding the appeal. Mr. Pinasco commented that the remainder would be subject to jurisdiction and means staff would use to collect.
Councilmember Shaw commented that she wants to make sure that an appointment will be scheduled for staff to inspect and confirm the structures have been removed.
Appellant requested clarification if it is for the items she has removed and the container which Councilmember Shaw confirmed is correct. Councilmember Shaw added that she still wants Appellant to work with staff to get it inspected and have those things done to ensure they are safe; she doesn’t want to wait 12 months for it to be inspected.
AYES: Henderson, Meadows, Shaw, Williams. NOES: Fuller. (4-1) Mayor Meadows called for a break at 8:32 p.m. The City Council reconvened at 8:43 p.m.
5.2 Review and Adoption of 2023 Economic Development Work Plan (Harumi Murata, Economic Development Analyst)
Economic Development Analyst Harumi Murata presented the staff report and introduced consultant Vicki Doll, Principal of Chabin Concepts, who presented a PowerPoint presentation.
Vice Mayor Williams inquired about the work plan and if a property needs to be shovel ready to get a developer to take it to the next step, and if she would weigh that and the marketing plan as the heaviest items. Ms. Doll confirmed she would because the City does not want to market if they don’t have anywhere to put them.
Vice Mayor Williams mentioned the City does not own all the properties where these potential sites have been identified, so she would like to know what work is being done to discuss this with the landowners, what is the City’ responsibility, and how they can help get that moving. Ms. Doll suggested the City speak with the landowners and ask if they have plans for the site and if they are interested in developing it. City Manager Joshua McMurray agreed and indicated staff is talking with property owners throughout the year.
Vice Mayor Williams mentioned she would guess property owners would want to see the potential of their properties and if the City can help market it, it would seem like a win-win for everyone. Mr. McMurray indicated there would have to be a willing property owner and willing business to locate to Oakley and staff try to match those interests. Ms. Doll emphasized that a willing property owner is key and even if all of the infrastructure is not in place, if the City has a plan and knows the type of industry it wants, it reduces a lot of risk for those looking; it doesn’t have to be move-in ready but get as close as possible.
Mayor Meadows commented on and requested revisions within the Plan on the following:
• Page 2, Part B, Competitive Analysis, Assets: “Oakley has miles of waterfront that could support a range of development opportunities”. He mentioned Oakley has miles of waterfront but most of it is restricted or already developed; the only areas he sees as being developed or redeveloped are the 3 marinas and 55-acre park site.
• Page 2, Part B, Competitive Analysis, Challenges: “95% of working population leave the city for employment”. He commented that he does not see this as a challenge, but rather an opportunity if Oakley had jobs for the population. Ms. Doll agreed and mentioned it can be a challenge, but they also documented it as an opportunity within one of the appendices. He reiterated he does not think that is a challenge.
• Page 2, Part B, Competitive Analysis, Challenges:”Senior population growing (age 60+)”. He mentioned it is probably true everywhere. Ms. Doll mentioned the key is that the workforce is getting slim. He mentioned that is not what the graphs say later, and he thinks Oakley may be better off than other places and he does not see it as a challenge.
• Page 4, Target Industry Rationale, last bullet, “Seller” (include “s”). • Page 10, Location One Information System. He mentioned predominant users/sites are on the East Coast and the one located in California seemed large.
He inquired if there are better ways they could be marketing the properties and if this is something they really could use. Ms. Doll explained the City would not necessarily need to use it right away but it would be something they could use if they want to promote site proposals it would be a good tool to use. • Page 14, Market Access and Transportation Infrastructure, “Several freight and passenger airports are located within less than two-hour drive”. He mentioned he believes it is 5 airports: Sacramento, San Jose, San Francisco, Oakland and Stockton. He added there are also Buchannan and Byron airports; Byron might be utilized for freight.
• Page 15, “Median age (34 years)…” He mentioned it goes back to his comment made previously.
• Page 15, “Training Resources”. He suggested paragraph be completely rewritten to reflect Contra Costa College, Diablo Valley College in Pleasant Hill and Los Medanos College in Pittsburg (Brentwood and San Ramon are its satellite campuses).
• Page 16, Challenges, “The share of Oakley’s population with higher education degrees…” He mentioned Oakley could pull from surrounding areas for higher education workforce if needed. Also, “95% of Oakley’s working population leaves the city for employment.” (see previous comment).
• Page 17, Real Estate and Infrastructure, Sites and Buildings, “There is land available in Oakley that is suitable for near-term development-small and large agriculture parcels-but nothing is ready for the market…” He commented Oakley does not really have land that is zoned agriculture so that should be deleted but Oakley does have land with grapevines so it would have commercial or lightindustrial. • Page 18, Challenges, “Climate change-rising ocean level will lift groundwater…”.
He commented that Diablo Water District is worried about the water table lowering so here there is some conflict.
• Page 20, Quality of Place, Housing, “…price of homes for sale and rent are increasing dramatically”. He mentioned they are not increasing dramatically; they were increasing but have been flat; “drastically” should be taken out. • Page 21, Challenges, “There are no emergency housing shelters in Oakley”. He commented that it is true, but he does not see how it is a challenge with economic development. Ms. Doll explained that in looking at the quality of place, if it would be a place people would be attracted to and feel safe living, to attract and keep workers. He asked if an emergency housing shelter would do that and Ms. Doll explained it is indicative. He mentioned they met with a company a couple of weeks ago interested in coming to Oakley and that wasn’t their concern.
Dr. Fuller commented on and requested revisions within the Plan on the following:
• Pages 4, 21, “Park”. He requested a footnote on each that these are previous designs and the City is in the process of reworking those designs. • Page 6, Agricultural Technology. He mentioned he likes the idea of moving into agriculture to the east and north. He shared a tractor shop wanted to come in so there are people thinking about it. He mentioned areas such as Sacramento, Stockton, Modesto and Merced have agriculture and Oakley has it nearby and he would like to tap into it.
• Page 18, “The conventional structure is that cities operate water and wastewater services although services provide by private companies or through a utility district, like in Oakley, are seen in parts of the country.” He inquired if she recommends a single-source structure. Ms. Doll explained that she doesn’t think she can make that recommendation; however, what they recommend overall is reducing risk.
Dr. Fuller requested an opportunity to read through the rewrite and have a comparison to the original when it is completed.
Vice Mayor Williams requested clarification regarding the next step since the action is to review and adopt. Mr. McMurray indicated the revisions can be made and brought back at a future Council meeting.
No action was taken by the City Council. Staff was directed to bring the item back for the Council’s consideration when revisions have been made, including tracked changes.
5.3 Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager or Mayor to Sign and Send Letters of Support or Opposition to Legislation (Danielle Navarro, Assistant City Manager)
Assistant City Manager Danielle Navarro presented the staff report.
Vice Mayor Williams commented that the Council does not always agree with CalCities and although CalCities promotes local control, unfortunately, it sometimes supports items that erode that local control. She expressed concern if the Council is using CalCities as the guidepost, but she is uncertain what the workaround is.
Mayor Meadows inquired if the additions Mrs. Navarro included would cover that if it follows Oakley policy and Mrs. Navarro confirmed they would.
Vice Mayor Williams inquired if anything they would be sending a letter for would have had some prior discussion. She mentioned she wants to streamline the process and provide letters, but she has concerns about a blanket statement. She mentioned having staff notify the Council when a letter is going to be sent may get in to Brown Act violations if they are discussing it and then what is the point of having a policy.
Dr. Fuller commented that things are moving very rapidly not only in ABAG, MTC and BAHFA, but in other areas and the system is slow to respond so he can see the need for a mechanism to speed things up. He mentioned he is gun shy, having worked with the former City Manager who said he had authority to sign the letters based on a comment made at the dais 15 years prior. He added he didn’t trust him and neither did the community in his perception and he doesn’t want that to come back but he does want a way to speed it up. He shared that he thought about a process where the City Manager or Mayor writes a letter and unless there are any objections the letter will be brought to the dais, but he considered that could be deemed a meeting and the public doesn’t get a chance to be involved so he is not certain what the solution is. He commented that in his opinion they do not use special meetings enough and find too many reasons not to meet as some on the dais may find it inconvenient, but he finds that matters lag and if there are three Councilmembers who are willing to meet and provide direction, they could have letters move forward faster. He also commented he is opposed to providing carte blanche to the City Manager or Mayor.
Mayor Meadows commented that he agrees the process needs to be faster, but he doesn’t have a solution. He mentioned some of what comes out of CalCities is okay, and other things are detrimental to Oakley and some of the other agencies. He commented that Oakley is part of CalCities and some that have sat up on the dais previously have questioned membership; he doesn’t know what the City pays for it or gets for it. Dr. Fuller mentioned it is around $7k per year. Mayor Meadows mentioned he is okay with the policy and if there is an issue, they could rescind the policy.
Councilmember Henderson commented that the other situation that could happen is that the City Manager or Mayor could draft the letter to present at the next meeting or call for a special meeting. He mentioned this process would get it started so he thinks the policy is a good tool, but there will be circumstances where once the letter is drafted it will need Council approval. Dr. Fuller agreed.
Vice Mayor Williams inquired if that would be possible.
Mr. McMurray responded he thinks it would be possible in most circumstances, but they might miss an opportunity with timing; they try to do the best they can but have missed a lot of opportunities and missing some rather than a lot is the better of two options. He suggested staff could add a bullet point to include Councilmember Henderson’s suggestion; if there is uncertainty from either the City Manager or Mayor, they could schedule the item for the next regular meeting if within time constraint or schedule a special meeting if they could have a quorum.
Vice Mayor Williams commented that their current process is one of the Councilmembers brings up most of the letters so they would be able to throw their weight around with a more streamlined process. She supported working in safeguards if there are letters in question that they could escalate it.
Councilmember Shaw agreed it is not perfect as written now, but something needs to happen to get their voices out there so she would support it and trusts that they understand their position on most things such as they support local control, and they can always rescind the policy if needed. She mentioned she would like to discuss it again next year and see if any revisions need to be made. She supported it with a provision that if there is any grey area it be brought for discussion at the next regular meeting or special meeting if needed.
Dr. Fuller requested a provision that addresses holding a special meeting if needed and mentioned if the Council adopts a philosophy of being more flexible for special meetings, he believes it will work well.
Councilmember Shaw commented that reference keeps being made that some are opposed to special meetings, but she is not aware that they have had a special meeting during her time on the Council nor has she been asked to have one and it is not something she is opposed to; she has made herself available anytime when she has been asked by the City.
It was moved by Vice Mayor Williams and seconded by Councilmember Shaw to adopt the resolution with amendments proposed by Councilmember Henderson. Motion was unanimous and so ordered. (5-0)
5.4 Adopt a Resolution (1) Declaring as exempt surplus property the real property located at 3080 Main Street (APN 037-200-011); (2) Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Purchase and Sale Agreement with Kent A. Ipsen concerning this property; and (3) Finding the declaration of surplus property and authorization for sale are categorically exempt under the class 12 exemption of the California Environmental Quality Act (Joshua McMurray, City Manager)
City Manager Joshua McMurray presented the staff report.
It was moved by Dr. Fuller and seconded by Vice Mayor Williams to adopt the resolution as submitted. Motion was unanimous and so ordered. (5-0) 6) REPORTS
6.1 CITY MANAGER
(a) City Manager
City Manager Joshua McMurray reported on E. Cypress Road from Knightsen Avenue east to Bethel Island Road. He mentioned work is scheduled to begin in the next few weeks for the signalized intersection at Knightsen Avenue and East Cypress Road and staff is in the process of wrapping up the inclusion for the Burroughs property which the City is a partial owner, through the Central Valley Project handled by the Reclamation District. He explained that will happen in the next few months and then the City can begin work around October on the frontage improvements to widen E. Cypress Road from Knightsen Avenue to the canal section west of Jersey Island Road and the work will take approximately one year. He also reported in relation to the Library, that the former substation on O’Hara Avenue has been fully demolished, the site should be cleaned by the end of the week, and the County can now deed the property to the City. He added that the City has already begun work with Urban Field Studio, its’ consultant, on the secondary analysis to justify initial assumptions and they expect to bring something before the Council in October or November. He announced the Fishing Derby on Saturday, August 12, 8am-11am, at the Oakley-Antioch Pier, the Movie in the Plaza on August 26 beginning at 4pm with games and activities and the movie starting at dusk, and the Friday Night Bites and concert on September 1 beginning at 5pm. (b) City Council Compensation
City Attorney Derek Cole presented the staff report.
Vice Mayor Williams inquired if there will be a definition to address “substantive” regarding attendance to receive the additional $150 per committee they are appointed to as currently there is no repercussion for not attending.
Mr. Cole mentioned he will include language to address it as some committees may be more robust than others and he would want to distinguish that and he will bring it forward for Council review.
Vice Mayor Williams pointed out that the increase would not take effect until the next election. She mentioned she has not seen “Council pay” in the budget, this would substantially increase that cost for good reason, the Council has been supportive of staff pay increases, the Council makes big decisions, and she would like to attract people who will take it seriously; $1,275 is not a career path but compensates a person for the effort that residents expect. She inquired if this increase would be something that they would see in the budget.
Mr. McMurray explained the City already has a budget item set up for the City Council that includes salaries. He recommended the Council propose the amount and before bringing it back, staff can run the numbers to confirm if the budget can absorb the cost, although off the cuff, he believes the City can absorb the number being discussed.
Councilmember Shaw provided amounts it would cost for childcare during meetings for someone on the Council (on high end $580) and she would not want to exclude anyone from any group from participating so while initially she thought the proposed number was a big jump, the workload has increased, there were only three candidates on the ballot (one write-in) in the 2022 election, and she thinks this could attract different groups of people. She shared that she works full-time with flexibility to attend meetings and events; however, not everyone has that flexibility, and this increase may allow someone to work part-time and serve on the Council or allow someone to serve on the Council who may need to pay for childcare. She mentioned she considered an amount less than this, but it doesn’t take effect until the next election, they have time to work it into the budget, and it provides compensation for time spent at meetings, events, work put in to prepare for meetings, and gas. She also mentioned that this compensation will still be on the lower end compared to surrounding cities which she understands given Oakley’s population, but they are putting in great effort and they are likely only getting paid pennies for the amount they collectively do.
Dr. Fuller mentioned this bill came out of Emeryville where a Councilmember left for an income around $150-200k/year and people thought she would have stayed if the Council salary was greater. He mentioned he found it insulting that CalCities is saying they can’t find good people to run because salaries are insufficient. He shared that he is against it and doesn’t see the need for raises for Councilmembers; he would do this job for free and a lot of other people who are dedicated servants would do the same.
Councilmember Shaw commented that she thinks the five of them are in position that they can, and she is not saying they are not qualified to do the job; they are, and doing it every day; however, there are qualified people that can do this job that may not be in the same financial position. She mentioned it is not about attracting more qualified people, just attracting more people that want to do good for our city. She added that she is not saying that pay will provide more qualified candidates; they had three candidates in the last election who were all qualified. She mentioned the increase would give someone the opportunity and ability to serve, i.e., have childcare that they would not otherwise have while they do their civic duty. She commented that she believes their pay is less than the Director of Ironhouse Sanitary District and within $10 of Clayton. She mentioned their City’s population and their obligation to residents have increased since the last increase in 2014 and all five of them do a good job of making themselves available to residents.
Vice Mayor Williams mentioned anyone can waive it if they wish to serve out of the goodness of their heart and in looking at the current Council and those who ran, the residents’ average age of 34 is not represented because those are the moms and the workers. She commented that 95% of people commute outside of Oakley, and voices are not being heard because people have to come to a Council meeting to be heard and that is not being representative, and she feels that they are excluding an entire segment of population that wants to get involved to do good for our community but cannot so they either complain on social media or send emails that they hope get answered. She mentioned they could open a room and provide childcare for elected but it would likely cost more than this increase.
Mr. Cole advised they do not have to vote tonight; this is to provide staff direction. He mentioned he will bring something back in the fall with $1,275 stipend and $150 for committees and define what is required to receive it, and the Council can scale back from there if it chooses.
Dr. Fuller commented that they have not heard from Councilmember Henderson or Mayor Meadows, and he doesn’t want to have staff continue if three of them might vote against it. He expressed that he doesn’t see Council pay as a priority and they are spending more time on this than he would prefer.
Councilmember Henderson commented that he wants to see options include $800 and $1,000, explaining that 4-6 hours prior to meetings is usually spent to read and prepare for meeting and at a wage of $20-$25/hour that would be around $800-$1,000. He mentioned they need to do something but doesn’t think that they need to go all the way to the top.
Councilmember Shaw commented that the $1,275 she mentioned did not include any extra for additional meetings and that amount could account for those. She expressed that she is fine with having some options but is not a fan of additional pay for committees, commissions and boards since the Mayor assigns those and they can change each year.
She suggested the Council look at how much time it puts in for the benefit of the future Council because this is not for the current Council.
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
Dr. Fuller reported he attended Sensory Playtime at the Oakley Library, a program offered through ARPA grant funds, and saw the need for larger library space for children with ADHD and autism to be able to focus on the activities without distraction. He also reported attending the convocation for the Liberty Union High School District. He mentioned he watched the 83-minute ABAG Housing Committee report and Berkeley Mayor Jesse Arreguin discussed regional discretion and a regional bond to bring forward in November 2024 and AB 1487 which must have passed earlier. He mentioned AB 1657 is out of committee in its original form in the Senate and waiting to go on the floor on August 14; he believes it will be passed before September 1. He mentioned SB 555 is in the Assembly which gives the State more control with a housing authority which Glazer and Frazier voted for. He mentioned they want to make it a regional bond issue which means they will vote like they did on BART; all ABAG population centers will vote on $20 billion more in bonds for regional development of housing and places that have greater RHNA requirements are talking about the need for it to be an equitable distribution, meaning they will fund it, but it will be in a manner of what they want and where they want to make it a regional style of government. He mentioned it will be out of the housing committee and fully underway by December 2023, with a campaign to get it passed by November 2024. He added that as soon as AB 1657 is out of the legislature, it is ready to go, and they will start on their March 2024 bid for $20 billion in bonds and looking for more State control of how it goes. He added that ABAG, BAHFA and MTC are pushing it and CalCities is behind it as well. He mentioned ABAG is talking about a unified voice, and it would support new construction and preservation which is what Berkeley wants and he sees that as highly discriminatory, not in my backyard, and would move it out to an equitable situation that people would vote for because it sounds nice, and he thinks they will have their work cut out for them. He mentioned BAHFA is hosting workshops toward the middle and end of August if anyone would like to hear what this is about.
Mayor Meadows mentioned he thinks it is Plan Bay Area 2050 referenced in the Economic Development Plan.
Councilmember Henderson reported he attended the park workshop, the Senior Center fundraiser at the Rec Center, Diablo Water District, Movie in the Park, National Night Out, and Friday Night Bites.
Vice Mayor Williams reported she was invited to celebrate the Dream Team in Antioch but couldn’t attend. She explained that the group meets to play basketball a couple times each week and the lead person teaches life skills to boys. She explained she met with the lead person for the program, and he is exploring how to bridge services to Oakley as he has received a number of inquiries from Oakley residents regarding the program. She mentioned she directed him to funding resources and is mentioning it here because she thinks it would be a great program for Oakley. She reported she attended a CalCities meeting where ABAG and MTC provided a presentation on Bay Area Plan 2050 and they shared that road shows would be coming to cities to explain their plans for housing and transportation. She mentioned she would like to know the dates and locations of the roadshows. She also mentioned the regional approach to unhoused and to keep in mind although the numbers of unhoused on the streets in Oakley may seem low, there are people unseen who live in their cars that are working two jobs but can’t afford an apartment, for example. She mentioned there was some misinformation online regarding the Tri-Delta Park and Ride. She explained that ECCTA purchased land for the Oakley Park and Ride lot in 2008, she confirmed with City Manager Joshua McMurray that it was not a City sale, in 2008, an environmental study was completed and construction plans were completed, in 2009, Tri-Delta received a large grant from the federal government to purchase the land, in 2008-2009 the funding could only be spent on the land acquisition and it was, and it took until 2019 to secure additional funding to build. She mentioned Covid happened before any building could happen. She explained potentially what could have happened if Tri-Delta would have taken those funds to purchase the land, they would have had to turn it into some sort of operations station without funding to construct or they would have owed the federal government the $545k they spent on that and that money would have come from Oakley taxpayers; at least when it was federal funds, it was distributed across the nation. She mentioned approval of the Oakley Park and Ride lot was brought to the City Council on April 26, 2011, and just because someone sits on a board and promotes transit doesn’t mean that they have voting power before they became a Councilmember.
Councilmember Shaw reported she attended the Ironhouse Sanitary District meeting, the Planning Commission meeting virtually, the 55-acre park community meeting, as an appointee to Tri-Delta she took a tour where Tri-Delta buses are made, she attended the Yellow Roof Foundation groundbreaking, the Tri-Delta Transit Board meeting, the CalCities’ East Bay Division meeting (she wants to talk to Sam to get the most out of it; the speakers were brief and they didn’t get a lot of time for Q&A), a virtual Education Workforce Housing forum, the Elected Women’s Luncheon, she was invited to provide a welcome message and be a speaker for the Commission for Women and Girls’ Commission Appointment workshop, she attended Senator Glazer’s Women Making Herstory celebrating Janet Frazier/Network of Care, Friday Night Bites, and met with Claire Alaura from Senator Glazer’s Office to discuss E. Cypress and other matters in Oakley.
Mayor Meadows reported he also attended the LUHSD convocation and briefly spoke, National Night Out (3 locations), the Yellow Roof Foundation groundbreaking, and the Mayors Conference last Thursday where he sat with the three mayors from East Contra Costa County and his statement in relation to BAHFA was that if the bond measure passes, to send us money for jobs, not housing. He mentioned although he cannot speak for the other East County Mayors, it appeared they were all in agreement with his statement. He mentioned it is his son Anthony’s last meeting as he is going to school in two weeks and thanked him for attending meetings over the past 8-9 months. He mentioned San Francisco has issued 186 building permits this calendar year and its RHNA requirements are 82,000 units to be built by 2031; they’re just not doing it and those areas need to step it up.
(b) Requests for Future Agendas
Councilmember Henderson requested a team building workshop for the Council. Vice Mayor Williams seconded.
Councilmember Henderson requested a social media policy for the Council.
Councilmember Shaw seconded. Dr. Fuller commented they tried that once and it cost $20k.
Dr. Fuller requested a series of training sessions regarding AB 1657 and related topics.
Mayor Meadows seconded. Dr. Fuller requested staff include materials he provided to Mr.
McMurray previously. Mr. McMurray suggested one workshop until staff has direction and mentioned all materials will be distributed at the time the agenda packet is distributed. Dr.
Fuller suggested everyone study information on the topics, available at www.abag.ca.gov . Vice Mayor Williams requested someone to perform a policy analysis and Mr. McMurray confirmed that would be staff.
Vice Mayor Williams requested to receive a schedule on upcoming updates to the Council from commissions, committees, and boards, as well as school superintendents. Mr.
McMurray offered to provide the information.
Vice Mayor Williams requested neighboring jurisdictions meet to have a regional committee approach on items. Mr. McMurray explained that Mayors and City Managers in far East County previously held quarterly meetings years ago and he can look into doing that again. Mayor Meadows seconded.
Vice Mayor Williams requested a presentation by the Dream Team. Mr. McMurray requested the information be provided to him so he may first facilitate more information.
Mayor Meadows requested an ad hoc committee be formed for senior housing at Carol Lane to address things under the City’s control, i.e., code enforcement, and if the project operates like it is supposed to. Vice Mayor Williams and Councilmember Shaw seconded. 7) WORK SESSIONS
None.
8) CLOSED SESSION
Mayor Meadows mentioned the next regular meeting will be held September 12, 2023, beginning at 6:30pm in the Oakley City Council Chambers. He announced the closed session items.
8.1 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-ANTICIPATED LITIGATIONINITIATION OF LITIGATION Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2). One potential case.
8.2 CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8
Property: 3570 Main Street, Oakley, CA, APN 037-160-025 Agency Negotiator: Joshua McMurray, City Manager
Negotiating Party: Juli Del Barba Favalora
Under Negotiation: Price and term of payment
9) ADJOURN
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:55 p.m.
Respectively Submitted,
Libby Vreonis
City Clerk