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 July 9, 2024
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 Anissa Williams 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 Shannon Shaw and Councilmembers Hugh Henderson, Dr. George Fuller, and Aaron Meadows were also present.
City Attorney Derek Cole reported out of Closed Session from the special meeting held prior to this meeting that the City Council heard one anticipated litigation item regarding a letter received by the California Attorney General and in response to that item, the Council, by motion of Councilmember Meadows and second by Vice Mayor Shaw, directed the Oakley Police Department to discontinue sharing automatic license plate reader data with out of state agencies at this time. Motion was unanimous and so ordered. (5-0)
1.2 Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag
Councilmember Meadows led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
1.3 Proclamation Recognizing July as Parks and Recreation Month (Jesse Dela Cruz, Public Works Maintenance Manager and Troy Faulk, Recreation Manager) Mayor Williams announced the agenda item. Vice Mayor Shaw presented the proclamation to Public Works Maintenance Manager Jesse Dela Cruz and Recreation Manager Troy Faulk.
Mr. Dela Cruz thanked the City Council for its recognition of Public Works Maintenance and Recreation employees.
1.4 Tri-Delta Transit Update (Toan Tran, COO, Tri-Delta Transit) Tri-Delta Transit COO Toan Tran provided an update to the City Council, including a PowerPoint presentation, providing background information regarding Tri-Delta Transit, information regarding a system redesign project, and project goals, approach and its related schedule.
Dr. Fuller commented that Mr. Tran mentioned “new transportation”. He asked Mr. Tran if he could be more specific on that.
Mr. Tran explained that currently general services include a fixed route which includes cut-a-ways on Main Street and also Tri MyRide is offered, which is an on-demand Uber/Lyft type of service using Tri-Delta vehicles. He mentioned there are also opportunities to leverage relationships with transportation network companies where they would provide service and Tri-Delta would provide subsidies for people to use that service and customers would pay a fraction of the price, so Tri-Delta does not have to invest capital funds into a new service.
Mayor Williams commented about the Makers Boulevard at the Oakley Park & Ride.
1.5 Update from Contra Costa Transportation Authority Citizens Advisory Committee (Kai-Christian Torf, Committee Member)
Mayor Williams announced this update is rescheduled to a date uncertain.
1.6 Presentation on Oakley Veterans' Needs (Roy Manning, Assistant Commander/Service Officer for American Legion Post 202) Roy Manning, Assistant Commander/Service Officer for American Legion Post 202, stationed in Brentwood with focus on East County area, mentioned there are 232 members in this post, 2 million veterans male/female in all posts, and 13,000+ posts in the U.S. and overseas. He shared that the American Legion was founded in 1919 in Paris, France under President Roosevelt. He explained that at that time, if a veteran completed service and was discharged, it was up to them to find a way back, until the American Legion was formed. He mentioned Brentwood was chartered in 1922 at its current facility on 2nd Street in Brentwood and it has 40 Oakley members with their post, including a former marine, Dr. Fuller, whom he thanked for his service overseas and his service in the community. He shared that American Legion is involved in community activities such as parades, flags, a motorcycle group that conducts escorts for deceased veterans to cemeteries, and has youth activity and programs to take care of families of soldiers and veterans. He mentioned American Legion Baseball has 100,000 players from 12-18 years old and 600 teams nationally, and many want to play professionally; there are 60 former American Legion players in the Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, NY.
He mentioned they sponsor Boys & Girls State where they send youth to Sacramento to learn how to become politicians, almost every post has a Boy Scout troop, and they work closely with the ROTC program at Heritage High School of which 6 seniors recently graduated and 4 are medics. He shared information regarding the “Be The One” Program that their post became involved with three years ago but has been in existence since 2003, and they actively seek veterans in crisis. He mentioned there are 22 veterans, male and female, that commit suicide each day. He explained that this program finds who they can help, and it only takes a minute of time to talk to someone that is contemplating suicide. He left cards at the back and encouraged everyone to take one. He mentioned homeless that are veterans that are not counted in the 22 per day.
He mentioned you can offer them a phone #, the veterans crisis hotline, and they are doing a good job about desensitizing illness; they want people to know it may take nothing more than saying hello, provide card, and save a life. He mentioned you can ‘Be The One’ who saves a life.
Dr. Fuller inquired if he left cards in the back of the room and Mr. Manning confirmed that is correct.
Dr. Fuller thanked Mr. Manning and other veterans for their service. He mentioned there is a VFW post and a Marine post.
2) PUBLIC COMMENTS
Andrew Advincula submitted an online comment regarding reckless drivers doing donuts in California Visions that has gotten extremely bad recently and Police can’t/won’t do anything. He was called upon to speak but was not present.
Claudia Correia submitted an online comment regarding abandonment of Seniors of Oakley and disgraceful conditions of the current building including the swamp cooler and lack of storage, mentioning the City Council should be ashamed, excluding Dr. Fuller.
Enrique Samson provided photos to the Council and commented that he was originally from San Francisco, purchased a home in Richmond in 1999, and met his wife in 2002 and had two kids, and their home was broken into three times so his wife suggested they move to Oakley which they did, purchasing a new build near Main Street and Shady Oak Drive across the street from the big oak tree. He mentioned about 15 years ago, the builder would not construct a concrete wall completely around his home as he requested but rather it was built partially with an iron fence extending around the remainder which they paid for, and he had no choice but to accept it. He mentioned the sprinkler system installed by the builder was less than a foot away from the iron fence and rotted the iron fence. He mentioned he contacted the City to inquire what it was going to do about the rotting fence and the City told him there is no money and it is his responsibility, though it is not his responsibility; it is the City’s sprinkler system that has rotted the fence; it is not his sprinkler system. He shared that he has spoken with just about everyone in the City and nothing has been done. He mentioned one morning he awoke to a Bobcat on his property removing the fence, so he contacted the City and was told they are taking away the fence. He added that there is a refurbished fence near Gehringer but the City has no money for his fence and with it gone, they have people trespassing, cutting through his yard, and it is a safety issue because there is no protection for his house and is the reason he moved away from Richmond.
Bud Chaddock commented that he was in an accident at Brown Road and Laurel Road, the road that he keeps talking regarding speeders who hit and totaled his truck at 40mph without putting brakes on. He mentioned they are sore, and he is here today, and his wife is at the doctor. He gave a shout out to Oakley Police as their staff was on scene within 2 minutes, if that, along with EMTs. He mentioned they were very cooperative and worked with a person who was not helping the situation very beautifully. He commended Officer Canady for being professional. He mentioned with the new Safeway being built, he works for them, and thinks there should be an ordinance to address when deliveries can be made like at the stores he has worked at because residents do not want to hear trucks all night. He mentioned he contacted South Beach Clean Creeks Coalition regarding salmon poaching at Marsh Creek and someone contacted him who is also helping with Coyote Creek in San Jose and has good backing, and the person wants to speak with him further.
Doug Gamble commented on serious issues happening at The Oaks, including a kidnapping this morning; a resident was caught in the laundry room and held against her will for some time before being released. He mentioned he does not know the nature of it because no one at The Oaks is telling them anything about it. He mentioned usually when something happens, The Oaks sends out an email blast indicating what has happened and what residents need to lookout for but nothing has come out. He mentioned the people got into the building through a broken lock on the side door, a broken lock that has been there for months. He mentioned Building 67 has a similar problem where the locks have been broken and not fixed for an extended period of time.
He explained that this is allowing people to enter the building and do all sorts of things, apparently including kidnapping. He shared that no one feels safe in the building because of what has happened, and the kidnapping is more of a symptom of the problem; if management was taking care of the problems, it probably would not have happened, but there are a lot of problems that just get dropped. He mentioned one problem is the manager, Carla, who refuses to meet with tenants if she doesn’t feel the issue is significant enough or something she doesn’t want to discuss because she has made a decision and doesn’t want to reverse it, and she is hostile toward tenants. He mentioned one problem is that she doesn’t live here; all past managers have been residents of The Oaks; she lives in Bakersfield and commutes, so she is not always on site, not as often as they need since it is a problem complex. He mentioned they need a manager on site.
He shared that residents were most disturbed when she recently told them that they could not have keys to the club room because they were becoming too powerful and a bit uppity. He mentioned they are going to bring this information to Oke Johnson’s attention to see if they can get resolution. He indicated he reviewed minutes from previous City Council meetings when Oke was present and residents are concerned that the City Council is being told things are completed that are not, a good example being the locks on the doors. He mentioned something needs to be done and he is not sure what or how other than bringing the City Council up to speed.
Jackie Rider commented that residents at The Oaks have been promised for months that doors will be fixed, they are paying for secure buildings, and they are not getting it, and it is going to take someone getting severely hurt before they do something about it. She mentioned after telling them about it and putting in work order after work order after work order, nothing happens. She mentioned they have had homeless people sitting in their community room watching TV or reading the newspaper. She mentioned she doesn’t know what the solution should be; they can’t afford to pay to have the locks fixed. She mentioned they are in the process of setting up a trust fund for their rent to be deposited if things are not taken care of. She mentioned they are only interested in getting their rent checks. She shared that their last meeting with Oke was June 23 and he said the locks would be fixed that day and now they have another door, the main entrance, as well as the two side doors, that don’t lock. She mentioned they are seniors, not young people, and even if they were young people, they still don’t have security, and it is getting scary what is walking through their apartments.
Councilmember Meadows inquired if anyone is present from Winn Management. No one was present.
Mike Walko commented on the westbound traffic situation at Main and Cypress. He mentioned traffic is heavy and backed up on the number 3 lane. He suggested a traffic study and making lane 3 a right turn only lane, lane 2 a straight and left turn lane, and lane 1 a left turn only lane to improve traffic flow and eliminate back up across the railroad tracks which probably did contribute to a fatal accident there a few years ago.
Paul Seger addressed the new CEQA guidelines on the agenda which he finds a bit misleading and potentially an act of intentional misdirection. He mentioned the agenda states that every item is exempt from certain selected CEQA guideline sections and Public Resources Code Section 21065; at first glance it may seem like a comprehensive coverage but in reality, it is a selective interpretation that provides cover for those who understand its true intent to minimize environmental review and expedite project approval at the lowest cost to developers. He explained that it is problematic because the City as lead agency, has ultimate authority to determine the scope of CEQA review. He mentioned by selectively highlighting only exemptions, staff sidesteps the rigorous environmental scrutiny that the community deserves by implying that if Oakley staff states they determined the projects are exempt, that they are truly exempt; that is the end of the story. He mentioned this approach allows the City to perform the bare minimum required under CEQA and unless legally challenged, they get away with it indefinitely. He commented that in all honesty, most projects are legitimately exempt, but it’s a ploy; staff does not mention CEQA codes that grant themselves the ultimate authority to perform the minimum of CEQA guidelines. He mentioned CEQA Guidelines Section 15060 outlines that if City staff determines it is exempt, the project can proceed without further CEQA review. He commented on who is really asking the tough questions on behalf of the public. He referenced CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) and that it allows the City to declare a project exempt from CEQA so City staff is leading the charge, declaring everything exempt, in some form or fashion. He mentioned Public Resources Code Section 21080 grants City staff authority to determine whether a project is subject to CEQA and determine the appropriate level of environmental review. He mentioned these sections collectively empower City staff to make final determinations about all CEQA applicability and the level of review required. He mentioned these determinations are not subject to external oversight and remain uncontested unless an outside agency or group legally challenges the decision which is expensive and a burden on all parties. He added that by not critically questioning other CEQA sections, staff’s new CEQA tags throughout the agenda, is merely an act of selective transparency that undermines public trust and the intent of CEQA.
Paul Olsson submitted a speaker card. He did not wish to speak. He inquired when the City is going to stop illegal fireworks; they went on July 4, 5 and 6. 3) COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS
Dr. Fuller shared that his service dog, Ivar, developed a tumor on his spleen, had a splenectomy on June 21, and passed away June 23. He mentioned he loved being here and loved all. He mentioned in the public discussion regarding Mayor Williams’ trip to China, he heard a statement many times and he thinks he knows where it came from, that he is racially bigoted because he refers to the Chinese which is based on evil, fear, ignorance, and it does not exist. He shared that he did say that the United Nations has found that the communist government in China is one of the worst violators of human rights, especially when including Tiananmen Square with the slaughter of 10,000 people.
He mentioned Jamestown Foundation has found that China is a habitual violator of human rights, the U.S. Department of State has habitually found them violating rights and the U.S. Department of State has firmly suggest not to travel in China because of their violation of human rights which he will restate again, and again, and again as a statement of fact. He mentioned Amnesty International believes the same. He mentioned he refers to people living in China as Chinese as that is the correct demonym; they are communist Chinese as that is part of their identity, but not all Chinese are communists, and they are subject to inhumane conditions. He mentioned to bring it on, step in, if they want to keep going on the racial divide situation, but in the interim, he would like to call upon Mayor Williams to promptly place forth the gifts she received from the communists, from China, from whatever organization for her to travel, stay and be fed in China, and return, forthwith, so people can understand the gift that was received. 4) CONSENT CALENDAR
Dr. Fuller pulled items 4.7 and 4.9 for discussion.
It was moved by Councilmember Meadows and seconded by Vice Mayor Shaw to approve the remainder of the Consent Calendar. Motion was unanimous and so ordered. (5-0)
Item 4.7
Dr. Fuller mentioned this is the same thing he has objected to during the last 3-4 meetings, this time being the code department hiring outside to do the work. He mentioned he believes the City is farming out jobs that can be handled within the City.
He mentioned without a meet and confer process, staff should reach out to employees to see if they can fill it, and then work on a way to put it out to bid. He shared that he will vote no on this item.
It was moved by Councilmember Meadows and seconded by Councilmember Henderson to adopt the resolution. AYES: Henderson, Meadows, Shaw, Williams.
NOES: Fuller. (4-1)
Item 4.9
Dr. Fuller inquired if R&R Pacific Construction bid at approximately $6.5 million, $207,550 less than the next bid, which Mr. Rohani confirmed is correct. Dr. Fuller mentioned he will abstain.
It was moved by Vice Mayor Shaw and seconded by Councilmember Henderson to adopt the resolution. AYES: Henderson, Meadows, Shaw, Williams. ABSTENTIONS:
Fuller. (4-0-1)
4.1 Approve the Minutes of the Special Oakley City Council Meeting held June 11, 2024 (Libby Vreonis, City Clerk)
4.2 Approve Minutes from the Regular Joint City Council/City Council Acting as the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency/ Public Financing Authority Meeting held June 11, 2024 (Libby Vreonis, City Clerk)
4.3 Report Out of Closed Session Memo (Derek Cole, City Attorney)
4.4 Accept the Fiscal Year (FY) 2023/24 Fourth Quarter Report on the Capital Improvement Program (Kevin Rohani, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer)
4.5 Adopt a Resolution Awarding a Contract to Quality Sound for the Civic Center Amphitheater Sound System Project-CIP No. 319 (Troy Faulk, Recreation Manager)
4.6 Adopt a Resolution Establishing Special Speed Zones for Specific City Streets (Kevin Rohani, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer)
4.7 Adopt a Resolution Approving a Consulting Services Agreement between the City of Oakley and TRB and Associates, Inc. for On-Call services Related to Code Compliance Plan Review and Inspection Services for Fiscal Year 2024-2025 (Ken Strelo, Community Development Director)
4.8 Adopt a Resolution Awarding a Contract to CivicPlus for the Design, Hosting and Maintenance of a New City Website (Danielle Navarro, Assistant City Manager)
4.9 Adopt a Resolution for the Award of a Construction Agreement with R&R Pacific Construction, Inc. for the construction of the Laurel Road Widening (Cloverbrook Avenue to O’Hara Avenue) Project-Capital Improvement Project Number 280 (Kevin Rohani, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer)
4.10 Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to execute an amendment to the Consulting Services Agreement with BKF Engineers, Inc. to provide Additional Design and Construction Support Services for the Laurel Road Widening (Cloverbrook Avenue to O’Hara Avenue) Project-Capital Improvement Project Number 280 (Kevin Rohani, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer)
4.11 Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Consulting Services Agreement with BSK Associates to Provide Materials Testing and Special Inspections for the East Cypress Road Widening (Knightsen Avenue to Jersey Island Road) Project-Capital Improvement Project Number 247 (Kevin Rohani, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer)
4.12 Creating Zone 192 within the Oakley Special Police Tax Area consisting of the Rosewood Estates project (Subdivision 8787) located at 4073 Rose Avenue (APN 035-220-035-6) (Kevin Rohani, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer) 5) PUBLIC HEARINGS
5.1 Waive the First Reading and Introduce an Ordinance Amending Oakley Municipal Code Sections 9.1.404.c.9 and 9.1.1238.b.6 (Zoning Text Amendments- WineryRelated Uses and Carwash Highway Buffers) (RZ 02-24) (Ken Strelo, Community Development Director)
CEQA Determination: Find the project is categorically exempt under the Common- Sense-Exemption (14 Cal. Code Regs./CEQA Guideline § 15061(b)(3)) Community Development Director Ken Strelo presented the staff report and PowerPoint presentation.
Vice Mayor Shaw requested if they could separate them out for discussion and go one by one.
City Attorney Derek Cole noted for the record that the agenda for this item and other items that come after that there is a CEQA finding. He mentioned whenever staff has a land use matter before the Planning Commission or City Council, he works with the City Clerk to make sure that the CEQA determination they are asking the Council to make in that land use matter, whether a CUP, a rezone, or anything involving a zoning interpretation, it is specifically called out on the agenda. He mentioned court cases have made it clear that the Brown Act requires us to do that, so the default CEQA verbiage at the beginning of the agenda is meant to address the perfunctory things that are not land use actions, general language on agenda. He made clear for this specific item that staff has specifically identified CEQA action they are proposing the Council adopt for this item and they have called that out in the agenda.
Mayor Williams commented that she would also like to separate out the two items.
Mr. Strelo mentioned staff is proposing a single ordinance and suggested the Council could delete part of it if the Council does not wish to approve a part. He deferred to the City Attorney whether they could split this into two separate ordinances.
Dr. Fuller mentioned as there are CEQA questions, he would prefer to look at CEQA first, if that is the proper order.
Mr. Cole requested Dr. Fuller share any concerns regarding CEQA as that is a threshold matter to address first.
Dr. Fuller inquired about use of the common sense exemption mentioning since there is no new construction and nothing to worry about, it is common sense that CEQA is not needed. He shared he is thinking how can a new winery be built without sinking a foundation, and if there will be sinking of a foundation, there will be ground breaking; in the process there will be increased traffic to the area or at least that is the hope of the winery for people to go there so he is not certain how can we say there is no ground breaking, there is nothing new, and nothing will occur to upset the environment so we don’t need a CEQA, and yet they are talking about building wineries. He mentioned he hasn’t seen anything in the proposals that say they will be using existing buildings to open a winery which means a building will be built and people will go there. He mentioned he thinks they need to look at that and have a public hearing on CEQA. He added there are schools in the area that are concerned about products being grown in the area and there are people in the community that are worried about increased traffic and another use of commercial in the area. He mentioned he cannot buy into bypassing CEQA by saying it is common sense that they are not going to build anything when they know there will be groundbreaking, roads, and increased traffic.
Mr. Cole explained that the project at issue is not anything specific to any specific project at any specific site; at this point they are only amending the code to allow certain winery uses and car wash uses within certain zones within the City; it is discretionary project; they are amending the code to authorize something; there is no project yet, so he feels comfortable that adoption of code is exempt. He mentioned if someone comes forward with a CUP application, they would treat that as a project, there would be a project description, and staff could meaningful evaluate their proposal, but they are not there yet. He mentioned Dr. Fuller’s concerns are legitimate and staff can address CEQA once staff receives a CUP application.
Dr. Fuller inquired why CEQA is listed within 5.1 and must be approved now if they must look at every project with CEQA. He mentioned he cannot justify in his mind that he fully understands there will be no groundbreaking as he cannot imagine a winery being built without breaking ground, without something there. He mentioned at that point they may have to look at it, but in this item, they are looking to waive CEQA and build economic activity, but the question still remains why they must look at CEQA now if they are going to look at each individual project that comes in.
Mr. Cole explained that every time a decision-making body, the Planning Commission or City Council, makes a discretionary decision, whether to do something or not doing something, as in this item where it is to amend the zoning code to authorize this use in the abstract, not at a specific site as that will come later, it is a project under the definition of CEQA, and it is a project that requires that staff must make some finding. He mentioned their view is when they are simply amending the code and authorizing something, it can be looked at as a separate project and there are no specifics to formulate a project description of actually digging up land, improving land, building tasting rooms, or anything like that, so it is their belief this is appropriate to treat this code amendment under the common sense exemption as there are no CEQA impacts, but when a project comes forward, staff will require an initial study and it will go through CEQA analysis for every possible impact and staff would make a determination. He expressed that Dr. Fuller’s concerns are valid and they will get to those when they have actual applications, but they can't have applications until they amend the code to allow applications.
Dr. Fuller mentioned he is not commenting on car washes or wineries or anything else, he is only commenting on CEQA, and his discretionary vote is no.
Vice Mayor Shaw inquired if the zoning text amendment is approved ‘as is’ or if it is split, if nothing would automatically be allowed to be built and everything would still come before Council for approval. Mr. Strelo confirmed that is correct; this is a zoning text amendment; there is no physical project being proposed.
Vice Mayor Shaw inquired if it is only car washes and wineries being voted on, not CEQA that was being discussed as if it were a third part for vote. Mr. Strelo confirmed CEQA is not and explained it is a finding in the ordinance.
Vice Mayor Shaw commented that it is a requirement to show there is no CEQA issue with this.
Mr. Strelo explained there are projects that require a Notice of Determination be adopted by the decision-making body and this is not one of those; this is an exempt project.
Mayor Williams inquired if by changing the zoning text, it does not mean that projects are by right; someone could not just build a winery on their property; a process must happen. She also inquired if all are subject to CUPs.
Mr. Strelo mentioned the use for wineries and agricultural tasting rooms is currently a conditionally permitted use, it currently requires approval of a conditional use permit, and the proposed text would allow it in differently zoned lands within the same size of properties as currently allowed.
Mayor Williams inquired if tomorrow someone buys a property 40,000 sq. ft. that does not currently have any vineyards on it, and plants, and it takes 5 years minimum to mature, if there will be any time limits associated with projects or if staff anticipates applications will be for existing vineyards, so applications are not sitting for 5 years.
Mr. Strelo explained that as the language is proposed, it needs to be an existing vineyard in place at the time the application is submitted for a CUP; that is the intent of the ordinance.
Dr. Fuller inquired about the City’s definition of a vineyard. He mentioned he sees lots of brown vines that haven’t been irrigated for some time.
Mr. Strelo mentioned it is the agricultural production of grapes.
Dr. Fuller inquired if the vines are brown and the vineyard has not been irrigated, if it is classified as a vineyard.
Mr. Strelo mentioned if vines are growing, he would consider it a vineyard, as they can go dormant and come back.
Dr. Fuller commented that he swears he saw cannabis and economic development and should have taken a screenshot.
Dr. Fuller commented that they have discussed wineries which he can understand for economic development and use of the land, and agricultural products which people have asked him if they are agricultural products. He mentioned Continente has been wanting to change its commercial operation to cannabis; agricultural production seems to be another topic. He mentioned that agriculture production changes daily it seems with a lot of research happening with a lot of different things grown and he doesn’t want to try and project in future what an agricultural product will be. He mentioned the other topic is car washes. He agreed with Vice Mayor Shaw that they should bifurcate all three, put in wineries as there seems to be validity although he would like to see the success rate for small wineries, car washes he can kind of go along with, but not the agricultural product.
He mentioned they determined they put too many things into the Strategic Plan and they should tamper it down to concentrate on one or two items rather than ten at a time. He inquired why they can’t do that with these, bring back a proposed winery, then agricultural products, then look at car washes. He mentioned they could look at CEQA and vote on them separately. He commented that he hears how great wineries could be but he doesn’t want to decide on them when he has all of these other items in front of him as well.
Councilmember Meadows commented that he sees wineries and car washes. He mentioned you don’t have to have irrigation to have vineyard; he doesn’t have irrigation and there are many vineyards in Oakley that do not have irrigation. He shared that his vineyard turns brown in the winter but is green in the spring and just because a vineyard is brown, it doesn’t mean it’s dead.
Mayor Williams commented that the better the grapes are, the more struggle, so they don’t need to be irrigated. She shared that her vines look terrible in winter and plentiful in August when they pick. She mentioned that the staff report changed only slightly from when it was presented to the Planning Commission on May 7 but there was no mention of cannabis. She inquired if there was a secret staff report that they are unaware of. She mentioned everything she has researched suggests that cannabis is illegal to be infused in anything in a winery.
Mr. Strelo confirmed there was no draft version of a staff report that included cannabis; they do not have secret staff reports. He mentioned cannabis is illegal to grow outdoors, and 6 plants are allowed indoors. He mentioned there is no outdoor cannabis processing allowed, agricultural products by default cannot include outdoor cannabis growth, this ordinance has nothing to do with cannabis, and agricultural products is not meant to include cannabis in this code.
City Manager Joshua McMurray commented for the record that the agenda was published only once on July 2.
Vice Mayor Shaw inquired if approved, if this ordinance would this allow cannabis to be grown if legal which Mr. Strelo confirmed it would not.
Vice Mayor Shaw inquired if the theory was that (and it is not) with this ordinance the products they are talking about would allow cannabis growth, wouldn’t properties in R-20 and R-40 zoning already be able to grow cannabis. She mentioned that properties that are already R-20 or R-40 zoned can apply for a CUP for tasting rooms and this ordinance is to expand it for properties with vineyards that are greater than 20,000 sq. ft. to have the same ability that already exists in the code for R-20 and R-40 zoned properties.
Mr. Strelo confirmed that is correct.
Vice Mayor Shaw commented that approval of this ordinance does not change cannabis, it does not allow small vineyards to grow cannabis even though larger vineyards can’t, to clarify. She expressed she is in support of this. She mentioned it is already in R-20 and R-40 so she thinks it is smart but will discuss further in deliberation.
Mr. Strelo mentioned Oakley is a developing city; there are properties throughout the city that may have owners that sell to developers, and they become subdivisions and other owners that hold onto their properties that may have vineyards. He added that when the City incorporated it adopted a General Plan and some larger properties were designated for higher, relatively speaking, density in the future, and ultimately those properties were zoned R-10, R-12, R-6. He explained that this ordinance will allow those properties that are hold out properties to still have a large parcel and grow grapes but may not be zoned appropriately to apply for a CUP compared to an identical property that may have a different zoning designation as it relates to wineries, tasting rooms, and processing of agricultural products; this has zero to do with cannabis.
Mayor Williams mentioned staff marked the one property the ordinance would apply to for car washes. She inquired if staff has something similar for wineries; if staff knows how many properties potentially this would apply to for wineries in the city.
Mr. Strelo mentioned he does not have a count.
Mr. McMurray mentioned the reason that the ordinance is being brought forth is there is interest from a property owner, and he anticipates if approved, there could be more, and that they would have an application in the near future.
Mayor Williams opened the public hearing.
A speaker who did not identify herself mentioned her nephew is an attorney and his niche is cannabis; when cannabis is grown, it is tracked by seed, you can’t just grow it out in a field, it is treated like a drug, from seed to harvest to sale, you can’t mix the two.
She mentioned you can’t have a liquor license and also a cannabis license; it is not allowed, so it gives a little protection.
Mayor Williams closed the public hearing.
Vice Mayor Shaw expressed that she supports the section regarding wine-related uses and thinks it is great to allow some of the other properties similar to R-20 and R-40 to have the same opportunity. She mentioned car washes mimicking the buffering of gas stations, and she was on the Council when it happened, but the conversation started before she was elected. She shared that she sees drivers getting off the highway to get gas and then get back on the highway but doesn’t see a lot of people getting off the highway to wash their car and then get back on the highway; and that is why she thinks it sets better for gas stations than it does for car washes. She inquired if there is an argument why they would want to match it with gas stations.
Mr. Strelo mentioned there is not necessarily an argument; there are properties that have development interests and there are certain types of development that tend to help those properties take off and bring those businesses to Oakley. He mentioned staff knows through special land uses that having those businesses too saturated and near residential is not something from a voting standpoint that the majority of the City Council is in support of. He explained that this is an opportunity for some properties that have been awaiting commercial development for many years to possibly get that spark needed. He further explained that these are uses that come to Oakley and are looking to develop; they don’t want them going to the middle of town in a dense area but if there is another area such as the intersection provided, there could be an exception to that density saturation criteria.
Dr. Fuller commented that it has become a quagmire in the way that it has been presented. He mentioned he would like to see each one come back without agricultural products. He mentioned people are concerned about agricultural products, he knows what he saw, and people are asking if an agricultural product is cannabis. He shared that in his days at Iowa State that if it grew in the ground and was harvested for money, it was an agricultural product, but in talking with Mr. Cole, he mentioned kind of, but not really that it would ever be classified as that, and he can speak to that if he would like to, but he has consulted with him on it and Mr. Cole mentioned it probably would not be a problem, and there was another person who commented whom he thanked and mentioned you can see everything going around. He mentioned he would like to see them come back, with wineries bifurcated and taking out any consideration of agricultural products. He mentioned if there is a venture that is interested in new products to grow on their land, he thinks the City has a mechanism to require a permit. He suggested if the City is going to allow wineries, to delete reference to agricultural products or enhancement of economic activities under the ordinance section 1 b. He mentioned he fully understands these but doesn’t think they necessarily need to be put in the ordinance. He mentioned there is a cannabis wine available throughout the state, and he hasn’t drank in 40 years, and he doesn’t use dope, but he has been told you can go to CoCo Farms to buy it. He suggested eliminating the term “agricultural products”; if they want to have a winery, have the space, and have the necessary investment to produce and sell wine, they can look at that ordinance. He suggested they look at car washes separately.
Councilmember Meadows commented that car washes are mentioned in one location, at the four corners, and there is no housing in that area. He mentioned that there is a demand for additional car washes in Oakley, and if they can have a car wash in that location, away from residents, it is better for residents as it won’t disturb anyone and it takes one off the table. He expressed that he supports the ordinance and supports it ‘as is’.
Mayor Williams commented that she would like to make some clarifying points. She mentioned she thinks agricultural products is in this because wine is an agricultural product, and she doesn’t see how someone could have the winery without the agriculture.
Mr. Strelo commented that processing grapes to ferment into wine is processing an agricultural product and drying almonds would be processing an agricultural product. He referred to a slide in his presentation mentioning that the non-underlined section already exists in the ordinance, and they are proposing adding processing of agricultural products tonight.
Mr. Cole mentioned that the last phrase clarifies for processing agricultural products that it must contain an existing vineyard at time of the application, so it is narrowly drafted.
He agreed with the speaker that you cannot receive a state license to be involved in cannabis business and involved with alcohol at the same site which he believes is also true for tobacco.
Mayor Williams commented that this ordinance limits it further; some people have peach trees to make peach wine but that is not a vineyard. She inquired if this is only intended for grape vineyards.
Mr. Cole explained that the intent is to use sites with existing vineyards.
Vice Mayor Shaw commented that some may have issues with what agricultural products includes because there were two posts online saying item 5.1 is about cannabis. She mentioned she thinks that sparked a lot of questions because she knows she started to receive a lot of questions, and she spoke with a lot of people letting them know that was not what this was about. She mentioned even if this were to pass, and in the R-20 and R-40, you can’t have both a cannabis license and an alcohol license.
Dr. Fuller requested a point of order for outside text being brought in.
Mayor Williams hit the gavel to restore order mentioning Vice Mayor Shaw may finish her statement.
Dr. Fuller mentioned he has people telling him this is the information, and she [Vice Mayor Shaw] is bringing in things off her cell phone.
Vice Mayor Shaw continued, mentioning she did not say anything about her cell phone, but that there were two online posts by you [Dr. Fuller] saying this subject is about cannabis which sparked a lot of people to ask questions and reach out to her since that post so she can let them know this is not about cannabis. She mentioned the reason that people are inquiring about agricultural products is…
Mr. Cole interjected to help clarify that this is a legislative act and if Councilmembers rely on what they hear from constituents, that is the nature of legislating; if they were in a situation to decide a CUP or a quasi-judicial matter where Councilmembers are acting like judges, he would be concerned about outside information such as Facebook or Nextdoor; however, this is a legislative act and they are acting as legislators; it is a common function to rely on what they hear from constituents. He mentioned if you read something nowadays on social media, that is a form of communication so that is his response to the dialogue they are having now.
Vice Mayor Shaw continued, sharing that she believes that is why so many people were concerned about agricultural products. She mentioned if someone gets this and decides to stop selling alcohol so they can then get this and do it with cannabis, cannabis is still illegal in Oakley; they still can’t do it here. She mentioned they are saying you can’t have both, alcohol and cannabis, so this couldn’t pass, then they say they got it and will stop selling alcohol so they can start selling cannabis but cannot because it is still illegal in Oakley. She mentioned she thinks that is why there has been some confusion, and some people are reaching out, because there has been some information put out there that this is about cannabis. She shared that she has done her best to clear that up with people she has spoken with. She restated that she thinks that is why so many questions have come out about this.
Councilmember Meadows mentioned he knows they have all heard it over the years that Oakley wants to protect the vineyards. He mentioned they are sitting there until a developer comes along to develop them, but if they allow wineries for these parcels, it will protect at least those parcels for a while, and helps vineyard owners to continue to grow. He shared that wineries have currently cut back on grape purchasing as there is a massive oversupply of grapes and bulk wine, so this may help vineyards stay around a while longer.
Mayor Williams agreed with Councilmember Meadows and commented that the saying is that if you want to make a million in wine, you have to start with 2 million, so it is kind of a losing proposition from the beginning. She mentioned there is a draw; she heard many people were interested in wineries and tasting rooms when she ran for office. She also mentioned Brentwood and Knightsen have some good areas and it is providing good economic development, and she wants Oakley to stay as true to its agricultural roots as possible so she loves that part of the ordinance. She shared that she doesn’t like the car wash part of the ordinance. She mentioned it is no secret that she wanted the zoning amendments to be made and they ended up with what she felt was a watered-down version of the ordinance, but she was happy to get something passed and happy for the collaboration to get it passed. She commented that she does not see the benefit of this part of the ordinance to residents. She mentioned Oakley is already struggling with some of its commercial which she believes Councilmember Meadows will say is the exact reason why they need to change this, but they have some commercial that is already struggling that could put in a car wash and still is not building, specifically, at E. Cypress and Main. She mentioned she doesn’t want to give a plot of land away that is zoned a particular way if building is not happening on the parcels where these uses are currently zoned for. She mentioned if staff can separate out the two uses, wineries and car washes, she would support the winery portion.
Councilmember Henderson commented that car washes have been a hot topic; this one area doesn’t have housing around it, and it will still take an application to get a CUP. He mentioned when looking at commercial properties and trying to fill them, somebody would have to know they can make it work to make the investment in the area. He added that they would be approving that area, and when the property originally sold, they were hoping for a different commercial look for that property, but now it sits vacant on a main intersection when they show off our town. He suggested they let commercial businesses make a determination if the model works for them; if the Council approves, the Council is saying it is okay, but it would still come back for CUP, so he thinks they are kind of hurting themselves if they don’t move forward with that.
Vice Mayor Shaw slightly disagreed mentioning they had an application come in and they all wanted option 1 but that didn’t happen; this gas station ordinance was already in place when they bought that, so she feels like they lost that gamble. She mentioned she knows these are the businesses that are coming here, and Bridgehead industrial is coming, but she doesn’t know when, and there will be more uses that could go there and they may get someone who wants to put a different store there that is not a gas station.
She mentioned she feels they are hurting themselves if they fill all their commercial properties with more car washes.
Councilmember Meadows disagreed. He asked Mr. Cole if they could split the ordinance to remove car washes and vote only on wineries.
Vice Mayor Shaw said she would make a motion to change it and he [Mr. Cole] mentioned earlier they could.
Mr. Cole commented that the item was noticed as single ordinance for both wineries and car washes, and they could remove one of those because the greater includes the lesser. He mentioned that they would need to ensure that they pull out section 4 of the ordinance but also pull out 2c because it addresses car washes, but everything else can remain in. He mentioned if it is the pleasure of the City Council, they can move to approve the ordinance with the deletion of sections 2c and 4, and sections 5 and 6 can be renumbered accordingly.
Mr. Strelo commented that the proposed changes cover the body of the ordinance, but he would like to know if the title should change or if staff can add an additional ‘whereas’ to explain the deletions.
Mr. Cole reviewed the title.
Mayor Williams suggested everything after ‘agricultural products’ in the title could be deleted.
Mr. Cole advised if it is the pleasure of the Council, they could remove from the title the portion related to car washes and a ‘whereas’ provision was not necessary as the minutes will reflect the revisions.
Mr. Strelo added that if section 4 was removed, sections thereafter would be renumbered, of which Mr. Cole agreed.
Dr. Fuller agreed with Councilmember Henderson on car washes and he understands vineyard property owners want to develop their property. As far as priorities are concerned, he suggested they address car washes first then come back to wineries. He mentioned he believes he likes the wineries portion except the agricultural products part of it as it is confusing what is or is not included, including cannabis, in his opinion.
It was moved by Vice Mayor Shaw to waive the first reading and adopt the ordinance removing from the title everything after “winery related uses”, removing section 2c, removing section 4, and renumbering sections 5 and 6.
Mr. Cole clarified that the title is correct; however, they would leave in “finding the action exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act”.
Vice Mayor Shaw restated the motion to approve the text amendment, removing from the title all references to car washes, removing sections 2c and 4, and renumbering sections 5 and 6.
It was seconded by Mayor Williams.
Dr. Fuller requested the ordinance be read back as it will be appear.
Mr. Cole read the proposed changes explaining in the title of the ordinance, after “wineries, tasting rooms and processing of agricultural products” they would remove the word “and”, and remove the phrase with the numbers related to car washes, and they would pick back up with “finding the action exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act”. He mentioned in the ordinance, sections 2c and 4 would be removed, and current sections 5 and 6 would be renumbered to become sections 4 and 5.
Dr. Fuller asked if he would read those sections and Mr. Cole explained that the new section 4 would have the CEQA language and new section 5 would have the effective date.
Dr. Fuller mentioned he will abstain as he still thinks it is too confusing; it could come back to haunt them.
AYES: Henderson, Meadows, Shaw, Williams. ABSTAIN: Fuller. (4-0-1)
5.2 Waive the First Reading and Introduce an Ordinance recommending the City Council approve the project titled, Bernard Corners Rezone (RZ 01-24) (Evan Gorman, Associate Planner)
CEQA Determination: Find that the project is categorically exempt under the CEQA Common Sense Exemption (14 Cal. Code Regs./CEQA Guidelines § 15061(b)(3))
Associate Planner Evan Gorman presented the staff report and provided a PowerPoint presentation.
Dr. Fuller mentioned he has the same question on CEQA with the common sense exemption being applied because staff is saying there is no physical change, yet they would be rezoning it so can be built on, and that whole area has construction, traffic, and increased traffic, so he is baffled how it can be said there is no impact on the environment when they are asking for a rezone that will make an impact on the environment.
Mr. Gorman provided an analogy of a burrowing owl on the property wouldn’t know if we changed the law today, but when an application comes in to bulldoze and grade the property and have a project, the burrowing owl would know, or the site would be impacted, or neighbors would be impacted by the traffic. He mentioned they will have the same conversation when those aspects of the project are proposed, and they will review CEQA once more.
Dr. Fuller inquired when he [Mr. Gorman] says they will review CEQA again if that is when there is a CUP or building permit. He inquired how they will review it if it is not an adverse impact on the environment.
Mr. Gorman confirmed that when there is a specific project proposed, it will have an evaluation under CEQA.
Mr. Cole mentioned CEQA follows the Goldilocks Rule, his term and not anyone else’s, which is like the Goldilocks’ fairy tale of not too hot, not too cold, but just right. He explained that when review is required for a project, staff reviews it when it is just right; if they start review too early which is where they are at right now, they don’t have a project they can meaningfully evaluate as they don’t have all the details; if they wait too long, they are rubber stamping and they are not doing that, so they have to find the place where they can meaningfully conduct a CEQA review and he believes what Mr. Gorman is saying is that we are not there yet. He mentioned they will be there at some point if someone has a full-fledged application, so he wants to make clear that they are not shirking their responsibilities; a full review will be conducted with staff, consultants and a whole team, but when just making code changes, they don’t have to worry about that.
Dr. Fuller commented that he appreciates his explanation but does worry about CEQA.
Mr. Cole mentioned the law requires us to be worried about it but he wants to make clear that staff is taking it seriously and not trying to piecemeal or compartmentalize things to make it look like each step is by itself and minimal; they are not doing that. He mentioned there will be a full and robust CEQA review when they have something to review.
Vice Mayor Shaw commented that today they are changing paper and there is no environmental impact to that, there is no one wanting to go on a site right now, no store, nothing yet. She mentioned she feels like that is the difference; they have to put it in there because they are making a change, but changing a document on paper is not going to impact the environment, but when they bring the project forward that has more to do with it. She inquired if there is already a plan in place or if they want to see this ordinance in place and then go out and seek an applicant.
Mr. Gorman mentioned there was no mention of it with the application materials and in informal conversation they said they were looking for someone.
Vice Mayor Shaw inquired if when that person comes, and the application moves forward, at that time it would undergo CEQA review which Mr. Gorman confirmed is correct.
Mayor Williams mentioned it sounds like they are trying to streamline the process. She shared that she always thought it was commercial because it only makes sense to be commercial there, but this streamlines the process so it doesn’t get stuck; potentially someone who wants to develop it would have to go through a rezone at the time of the application if they don’t do it now preemptively to be business friendly.
Mr. Gorman clarified that in the early 1990s when the P-1 was established, it could have been commercial as P-1 allows you to customize it and right now is a good example, there are neighboring adjacent properties in the General Plan and each one has the same process, but this one lags behind because it needs that rezoning and the applicant is just requesting to be brought to the same as everyone else.
Mayor Williams opened the public hearing.
Victor Hoeke provided public comment, mentioning residents need Oakley to look like Oakley, not like Brentwood; everything on E. Cypress looks like Brentwood and Oakley has its uniqueness. He mentioned the way the property is situated, only the south side can be developed that faces residents and that will create a big change in decibels. He mentioned it also gives potential for developers to increase profits. He mentioned they need to think about what is going to look good, possibly residential housing to connect to the neighborhood behind it, but a smoke shop brings people who blast their music which they have already had to address; they don’t want things to make more noise, create ugliness or increase traffic. He mentioned Main Street is chaos and E. Cypress has traffic that is deadly; the lady who crashed her car into a train because her father didn’t know the sister-in-law was picking up her nephew and she decided to go through the bars and that was tragic. He mentioned there are jagged lines and people need to stay in their lanes near ARCO. He mentioned they need to figure out a better solution or change school drop off times so people have space to get to work. He mentioned there is a lot to think about who is trying to make a commission or quick buck, who is jumping in to develop, and building a three-story structure that is going to look ugly.
Applicant Brian Kelly commented that he has owned the property for quite some time and wants to bring the property into conformance with the General Plan designation of commercial; the PUD overlay zoning on it now is confusing, so he decided to take initiative for the rezoning to make it commercial use.
Mayor Williams closed the public hearing.
Dr. Fuller expressed concern that it is a small parcel; the storage bins and storefronts seem good and used quite frequently, there are residential units to the north, and he expects someday they will also be there. He inquired how the applicant is envisioning putting a project there without overcrowding it.
Mr. Kelly mentioned anyone bringing a viable project to the City would be required to go through the normal Planning Commission and Planning Department requirements with site plans, elevations, etc. He added that staff and the Planning Commission would have control over height, density etc., so it is a normal development process that every developer goes through.
Councilmember Meadows commented that he is okay with the request, it is cleaning up to what it should have been and is following the General Plan.
Vice Mayor Shaw agreed mentioning that she always thought this site was zoned properly so she thinks this is what it should be; it is right next to Hairy Hounds, it is a good spot for commercial, so she is in support.
Mayor Williams commented that she is also in support, it makes sense. She mentioned she thinks the speaker left but wants to ensure that it goes through the regular process; they don’t just build a 7-story mall here. She mentioned people should know it is an acceptable zoning and it would come before the Council to ensure the use.
It was moved by Councilmember Henderson and seconded by Councilmember Meadows to waive the first reading and introduce the ordinance. Motion was unanimous and so ordered. (5-0)
5.3 Adopt a resolution approving the project titled Oakley Village Subdivision 9577 Tentative Map Extension (TME 01-24) (Evan Gorman, Associate Planner) CEQA Determination: Find that the project is within the scope of the previously conducted environmental review for the approved tentative map and that no further review is necessary.
Dr. Fuller recused himself and left the room.
Associate Planner Evan Gorman presented the staff report and provided a PowerPoint presentation.
Mayor Williams opened the public hearing and called for public comments; there being none, she closed the public hearing.
It was moved by Councilmember Meadows and seconded by Vice Mayor Shaw to adopt the resolution. Motion was unanimous and so ordered. (5-0) Mayor Williams called for a brief recess at 8:42 p.m. The City Council reconvened at 8:48 p.m.
Dr. Fuller returned to the room.
5.4 Waive the First Reading and Introduce an Ordinance Approving the Burroughs Subdivision 9557 Development Agreement Amendment (DA 01-24) and Adopt a Resolution approving the Burroughs Subdivision 9557 Tentative Map Extension (TME 02-24) (Ken Strelo, Community Development Director) CEQA Determination: Find that the project is within the scope of the previously conducted environmental review for the approved tentative map and that no further review is necessary.
Community Development Director Ken Strelo presented the staff report and provided a PowerPoint presentation.
Dr. Fuller inquired if affordable units will be constructed within the project.
Mr. McMurray mentioned he made sure the purchase and sale agreement with KB Homes includes 17 lots graded and with utilities that will be deeded to the City and the City will find a developer to construct those affordable homes.
Dr. Fuller mentioned that is all because he [Mr. McMurray] and Mr. Strelo made sure it was in the purchase and sale agreement.
Mayor Williams commented that this is on a key corridor for the City and she inquired if extending the map will not impact improvements on E. Cypress which Mr. Strelo confirmed is correct.
Mayor Williams opened the public hearing.
Mike Walko provided public comment mentioning they live close to the property and got a report on the project. He shared that before that, he was on the Knightsen Town Council and they were trying to get a signal somewhere in that area as it is hard to get out onto E. Cypress Road now with traffic, especially during mornings, but part of the plan of this subdivision is the entrance to it is going to line up with Broadway where he lives and they are going to get a traffic light there. He inquired how the extension will impact that part of the plan for the E. Cypress improvement.
Mr. McMurray mentioned it will have no impact; the City is constructing those frontage improvements, the City has a contract in place, and construction is going to start next Monday. He added that the curb, gutter and sidewalk, along with the signalized intersection at Broadway, will still be completed with this project.
Mr. Walko requested clarification if it will be completed as part of the road project, not the subdivision project which Mr. McMurray confirmed is correct, mentioning the City took on the roadway project as a Capital Improvement Project.
Mayor Williams closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Meadows commented that the road work is starting Monday so in about a year from now, that project will be completed regardless of what is happening with the homes.
It was moved by Dr. Fuller and seconded by Vice Mayor Shaw to waive the first reading and introduce the ordinance. Motion was unanimous and so ordered. (5-0) 6) REGULAR CALENDAR
6.1 Adopt a Resolution to Establish an Oakley Senior Center Specific Sub-Committee (Joshua McMurray, City Manager)
Mr. McMurray presented the staff report. He mentioned it is well known that the City is talking about plans to demolish the building where the current Senior Center is located and the Oakley Senior Citizens Club, a non-profit, currently leases the building from the City to run the Oakley Senior Center. He mentioned he thought it would be a good idea to set up a short-term sub-committee consisting of staff, 2 Councilmembers and a small group of the Oakley Senior Citizens Club, to discuss issues as they approach this transition. He explained that the sub-committee will meet once a month starting this month and conduct 5-6 meetings until end of this year.
Mayor Williams inquired if seniors outside of that club are being considered for the subcommittee. She mentioned the Club has approximately 192 members but there may be other seniors outside of that.
Mr. McMurray mentioned their membership is growing and he has had many meetings with their President, Allan Perry, and when they last met, he agreed to this prior to him placing it on the agenda and they have a small group selected; the goal is not to have an ad-hoc committee that must be publicly noticed, but rather a smaller committee to discuss any issues. He mentioned the Oakley Senior Club is currently operating the center and has the most intimate knowledge of what is offered and the needs they are hearing from the community, so it is meant to be small and focused.
Vice Mayor Shaw inquired if he knows who they have selected to be on it. She mentioned they have Board members and club members and club members have expressed some frustration with the Board always speaking for them and that’s not necessarily what they want or like. She also mentioned people outside of the club now may be able to give ideas what they would like that the City could bring. She mentioned they may not have joined the club because they don’t like its direction so if they only listen to the club members, she is concerned they will not hear what the broader senior community may want.
Mr. McMurray mentioned this is just to talk about the transition and he agrees they need to engage the larger senior community, and they will do that, but the intent here is to establish a much smaller group. He added that he does not know who the Senior Club plans to bring but he does know it will be Allan and 3-4 people. He mentioned if the Council wants him to do additional outreach, they can direct that, but that was not the direction for tonight.
Vice Mayor Shaw mentioned not limiting it to Board members would be a good start.
Mr. McMurray commented that he thinks Allan discussed that with him, but he can reiterate that to him.
Mayor Williams inquired if there will be continuity just like the Councilmembers who will be on the committee that will not rotate.
Mr. McMurray confirmed they discussed having the same group meeting consistently over the next few months.
Mayor Williams inquired if it will be specified that it will be the same people meeting each time which Mr. McMurray confirmed it would.
Dr. Fuller inquired how he [Mr. McMurray] envisions how the Senior Club members will be chosen for the committee.
Mr. McMurray mentioned he does not and he does not recommend the City get involved with their selection.
Councilmember Meadows inquired what age constitutes a senior.
Vice Mayor Shaw commented that it is 55 in most communities, 62 in certain senior housing communities.
Mayor Williams inquired if there are any volunteers for the sub-committee.
Dr. Fuller mentioned he will volunteer, but he does not like the idea that they are not bound by the Brown Act; he thinks everyone should know what is going on. He mentioned it is his understanding they are going to have Mr. Perry and Mr. Dale Smith but that could change, and he thinks it should be no secret; the whole group should know ongoing what is taking place.
Councilmember Henderson volunteered to be on the sub-committee.
Vice Mayor Shaw suggested they have one person who has been involved in the library subcommittee and one who has not and she is not saying that should be her, but they have had many conversations with the seniors up to this point and there is some history there so she would like it to be one of the people within the library sub-committee group and one that is not.
Councilmember Meadows and Mayor Williams supported Vice Mayor Shaw and Councilmember Henderson.
Dr. Fuller commented that the continuity issue is silent. He expressed that his concern is with Vice Mayor Shaw’s initial statement that they don’t need seniors, they need young people that can bring in new businesses, and he cannot support her speaking for seniors in their best interests in this community.
Mayor Williams mentioned she would support Vice Mayor Shaw as she has shown time and time again as emergencies have come up with seniors that she is there, and with her professional career she has experience working with people and with the inevitable fear that comes with change with the Senior Center, she believes she would show compassion and help guide that, so she supports Vice Mayor Shaw. She mentioned she also supports Councilmember Henderson as there is history with it being a former fire building and that may be interesting.
Vice Mayor Shaw commented that she wasn’t originally suggesting herself but thought it would be Mayor Williams, but she is happy to step in if Mayor Williams has too much on her plate. She mentioned they have two seniors on the City Council so she did not just say only one could be here. She mentioned she works with seniors in her day job and something that she has experience with, so if Mayor Williams does not want to do it, she would take it.
It was moved by Councilmember Meadows to appoint Vice Mayor Shaw and Councilmember Henderson to the Oakley Senior Center Specific Sub-Committee. He mentioned he is less than 6 months away from that definition of a senior.
Dr. Fuller asked Vice Mayor Shaw if she said that someone from the library committee didn’t want two seniors on it.
Vice Mayor Shaw mentioned her suggestion was to have one person who is serving on the library committee because they have had many conversations with the seniors up until this point, and one not. She clarified that she made a comment about two seniors, and that you [Dr. Fuller] referenced that she only wanted one senior, and she was reminding him that there are two seniors on the Council right now.
Dr. Fuller inquired if there was a reply to that.
Vice Mayor Shaw confirmed there was not a reply, but a motion.
Mayor Williams seconded the motion.
AYES: Henderson, Meadows, Shaw, Williams. NOES: Fuller. (4-1) 7) REPORTS
7.1 CITY MANAGER
(a) City Manager
City Manager Joshua McMurray mentioned the City will be opening its cooling center tomorrow and Thursday this week, 12pm-6pm, in the Council Chambers. (b) Business License Update
Mr. McMurray mentioned the June business license update is attached. (c) Report from the Oaks Apartments
Mr. McMurray mentioned that The Oaks Apartments update is included, however there is no representative here this evening, but Oke Johnson will be here in August.
Vice Mayor Shaw commented she is very disappointed no one is here from The Oaks.
She shared she received information from a tenant that on June 16 there was more flooding in a different building, Building 81, causing several apartments to have to be evacuated; they are claiming it was due to a Band-Aid fix. She added that she received photos of the water and 4 of the units were vacant, and the resident that sent the photos was being sent to a hotel. She mentioned she is very disappointed this was not included in this report when it should have been. She mentioned there are photos of dryer units all the way down the hallway and rather than plugging the units into a hallway outlet, they were plugged into tenants’ units so the utility cost will apply to the tenants. She mentioned some of the residents spoke about locks not working for months and they [Winn] assured the Council last month that all the locks were working so she is beginning to believe that they [City Council] are being fed what they [Winn] think they [Winn] want to us [City Council] to hear and she is not ready to pull back on quarterly reports; she wants to pull them in a room to discuss because they had requested the good, the bad and the ugly. She mentioned she saw their occupancy rates are the same or have gone up. She mentioned they used to put in the report the new certifications being processed and said they wanted 90% occupancy by June 30 which has mysteriously disappeared from this report. She shared that she was fuming when she got this report and mentioned she gets calls from residents from The Oaks on a regular basis. She added she is quite disappointed, and that they didn't show today when they said they would as a condition of closing the committee, she thinks the Council should weigh that seriously.
Councilmember Meadows commented that he was not as disappointed as Vice Mayor Shaw with the report, but his thought was that they are not really making improvements.
He shared that Vice Mayor Shaw manages senior housing and he manages regular housing and if he was looking at these numbers, he would be embarrassed. He mentioned they had somebody call about air conditioning over the weekend and they dispatch for repair service or have someone in there to repair Monday morning. He mentioned with these work orders, he would be embarrassed if he were Winn, and even more embarrassed if he were the ownership group that has never really cared since day one, back when he was at a meeting at Delta Vista Middle School; they fed garbage to the Council then. He commented that he wouldn't mind if they had to come back. He mentioned they heard from seniors during public comment and Doug Gamble. He mentioned Mr. Gamble was on the committee and was not very vocal and was very reasonable when on the committee and tonight Mr. Gamble was more upset than through all the committee hearings. He expressed that he believes they were fed BS and now they are going backward. He inquired if the community rooms are locked and if residents have access by keys or if they are always open. He inquired how people got into the building. He mentioned they have heard about locks tonight and at every committee meeting. He mentioned he is not an attorney and will not advise, but they might want to look at options and it sounds like some may be going in that direction by having set up an escrow account.
Mayor Williams inquired if any code enforcement action could be taken for broken locks.
Mr. McMurray responded not really, these are landlord/tenant disputes, but life safety issues have been addressed in the past.
Mayor Williams commented that residents reach out to her all time as well with pictures of mold. She inquired if there is a way to match up code enforcement cases with how many complaints are coming into the City or how many resources of the City this is occupying. She shared she thinks there needs to be additional recourse that the City can’t have but if they have residents that have no choice but to call the City because an elevator going to the 4th floor is broken, she would like to see an additional layer of how many code enforcement complaints are received and how much of City resources that is taking up.
Councilmember Meadows inquired what would be a code enforcement issue.
Mr. McMurray mentioned he can provide it in the next update.
Vice Mayor Shaw inquired if there were any calls about flooding.
Mr. McMurray commented that he is not aware.
Vice Mayor Shaw mentioned regarding compliance and recertifications, recertifications in their type of housing must be done every month based on their annual move in date.
She mentioned this report show 25 annual recertifications due in May (23 completed, 2 pending), 37 annual recertifications due in June (34 completed, 3 pending), and now it is July; these things can be done up to 180 days in advance so it is no wonder that they cannot get their occupancy rate up if they can’t even recertify the people that currently live there.
Dr. Fuller expressed what is frustrating him is that he spoke about this when the ad-hoc committee first came together and what are they going to do if they [Winn] don't listen, and here they are again having these discussions while the ones hurting are the ones living there and they are not taking them into account. He mentioned the bottom line is the City is part owner and it is time to have legislation that has teeth; the City financed the building with bonds. He mentioned the City owes responsibility to the people and they need to stop talking about it and have legislation. He mentioned they have been at this quite a while.
Councilmember Meadows inquired what is the legislation he will bring to solve these problems.
Dr. Fuller commented that he will first stop talking about it and then ask Mr. McMurray to research it.
Councilmember Meadows commented that he [Dr. Fuller] does not have any ideas.
Dr. Fuller commented that if he [Councilmember Meadows] wants him [Dr. Fuller] to sit in Mr. McMurray’s seat, he would be happy to because he makes a lot of money.
Councilmember Meadows responded that he does not.
Dr. Fuller commented that he will let Mr. McMurray research it then.
Vice Mayor Shaw commented that while things are not fixed, she doesn’t think either of them [she and Councilmember Meadows] have said they have it under control; they said they would bring the Council reports and if it doesn’t work, they would bring it back. She mentioned they have given the residents a place to come and speak. She mentioned when they have had these meetings, they have heard things that they may have not otherwise heard directly from the residents. She mentioned that not everything is fixed, some things have changed as far as having the meetings in place, it is not working but they have done something, it is not going to get perfect, but they are showing they are not going to let it slide, and they brought residents and management to the table and communication is happening; they are not doing nothing. She mentioned if he has ideas, great, if not, they will continue to work on fixing it and she is not giving up on it.
Dr. Fuller suggested the City Manager research it and bring forth legislation that is enforceable rather than pontificating.
Mayor Williams asked Councilmember Meadows if the City ever steps in when he has a landlord dispute.
Councilmember Meadows mentioned no, unless there is a code enforcement violation.
Mayor Williams commented that is where the City has power. She mentioned she keeps hearing the City owns part of the building. She inquired what the City’s ownership in the building is.
Mr. McMurray mentioned the City has a financial interest in Building 53, the family building.
Mayor Williams inquired if that financial interest gives the City leverage over buildings other than 53.
Mr. McMurray responded that he does not believe so because they are separate parcels and owners.
Mayor Williams mentioned Vice Mayor Shaw had made a good point that they probably are going to watch the meeting videos and read the minutes. She shared that Vice Mayor Shaw spent several hours there explaining to residents the different layers of funding mechanisms and she requested they [Winn] tell us [City] which agency(ies) are overseeing certifications, but it is not in any of the reports. She mentioned she wants to know how many certifications they are behind on and she wants to know who provides their funding so the City knows who they can lean on from a legislative standpoint.
Vice Mayor Shaw mentioned Home, HUD and CTAC.
Mayor Williams commented she wants to know who they were submitted to and when. (d) Tyler ERP Conversion Update (Holly Sitton Orognen, Senior Project Manager, KOA Hills Consulting)
Mr. McMurray indicated staff, along with Holly Sitton Orognen from KOA Hills Consulting, are updating the City Council on a quarterly basis.
Ms. Sitton Orognen provided a PowerPoint presentation update on the Tyler ERP system.
7.2 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 Meadows reported since the last City Council meeting, he has attended a Contra Costa Transportation Authority meeting and a Marin Clean Energy meeting.
Councilmember Henderson reported he attended two Ironhouse Sanitary District meetings. He provided City staff kudos for their work on SummerFest and the parade.
He also reported he attended Friday Night Bites.
Vice Mayor Shaw reported she attended the Library subcommittee meeting, a Chamber mixer at Brownstone Gardens with Oakley, Brentwood and Discovery Bay Chambers mixed, a ribbon cutting for the Beer Isle, Oakley’s Juneteenth event, lunch at ODAT— Elevated Youth California is a student group trying to raise drug and smoking awareness in high schools and they wanted to present it to a select group of adults to see if it is something that would be supported, the swearing-in ceremony for Officer Todd Sorrell, the Knightsen Advisory meeting with a presentation by the Friends of the Oakley Library, the Brentwood Juneteenth event, the CalCities Policy Committee meeting for public safety where they voted to support the Homelessness, Drug Addiction and Theft Reduction Act to the full Board and they votes to support to amend their support on the retail theft legislation package to change it from support to neutral due to the inoperability clause, and it did get approved by the Board, so a letter has gone out from Calcities. She also reported she attended the Meet the Mayor and Vice Mayor event, the Tri-Delta Transit meeting where they had an update on the comprehensive operational analysis and they approved the annual budget, and the parade and Summerfest. She thanked Brentwood and Antioch Mayors for presenting certificates of recognition for Oakley’s 25th Anniversary. She mentioned she watched the Planning Commission meeting, and she was happy to see how the Safeway item went.
Mayor Williams reported she attended the Library stakeholder meeting, the Tri-Chamber mixer, the police officer swearing-in ceremony, the LUHSD Board meeting to present to Superintendent Volta on behalf of Oakley for his service, Brentwood’s Juneteenth event, the Community Services Policy Committee--they are watching AB 2157 (a new disclosure for non-profits and other organizations that contract with cities) and Housing Committee regarding Housing Element compliance audits (SB 1037 which would fine cities up to $50,000 per month for violations), Revenue & Taxation Committee (SB 1494 exempting new ADUs from property taxes when certain conditions are met, and the Transportation, Communications and Public Works Committee (broadband communications and autonomous vehicles). She mentioned for her policy committee, they heard from LISTAS California regarding disaster preparedness, and she reached out to them to see if they want to table any Oakley events. She mentioned there have been some implementation updates to Prop 1 which require them to work with our County and there is a lot of funding available if they can get a County-sponsored letter to apply for funding for services. She mentioned the Taxpayer Deception Act was ruled unconstitutional and will not appear on the November ballot, she attended the Advancing Women in Transit Award gala where Oakley Planning Commissioner Jeanne Krieg received an award, the ABAG General Assembly which she attended on behalf of the Senate but there were no Oakley representatives there and there was no quorum so she subbed in for Oakley as the voting delegate. She shared that BAFHA Board advanced its measure so it will appear on the November ballot. She mentioned that SB 7 is a gut and amend bill that will not allow cities to self-certify and the ABAG Board mentioned they are making clarity in the Housing Element process of priority. She mentioned there was a speaker there expressing concern regarding the California Forever Project which is 70% opposed by the residents of Suisun but there is talk about it going to the State Legislature if it doesn’t get the vote (with dwindling local control this is an area of concern; it is the agriculture that they are going after). She mentioned they discussed that the budget for ABAG is having structural deficit and they are looking to sell an ownership interest to fix the deficit. She mentioned there are also a lot of different boards that meet there, and she was kind of dismayed to see that East County does not have a voice on it. She mentioned there were work sessions on fire, green infrastructure, and she would like to see Oakley have more of a voice on some of the committees. She reported she attended the legislative recap for CalCities where important bills were discussed and she attended Senate floor sessions, and some cities are doing sales tax on cars purchased outside their jurisdiction. She inquired if Mr. McMurray was able to look up how all of that works.
Mr. McMurray responded that he reached out to that city manager and didn’t hear back.
Mayor Williams reported she got to be on the Senate floor when a journalism bill sponsored by Senator Glazer was passed, and she attended the 25th Anniversary parade and Summerfest. She mentioned the team should give themselves a pat on the back for the event, it was amazing, they are doing great things, it had a kid area great, and was impressive.
(b) Requests for Future Agendas
Vice Mayor Shaw requested a meeting with The Oaks, bring an agenda item to the City Council to discuss re-opening the committee or discuss what steps to move forward.
Mayor Williams supported it.
Dr. Fuller requested to add Disability Pride Month (July) to the proclamation list. Mayor Williams supported it.
8) WORK SESSIONS
None.
9) ADJOURN
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:47 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Libby Vreonis
City Clerk