The public record
Tuesday, October 17, 2023 · Government meeting record
The 30-second read
Recorded outcomeWhy it matters
The official meeting record is available below. Item-level plain-language summaries are not available yet.
What happens next
No later meeting or follow-up date is stated in the reviewed record.
This source published text without speaker turns, so speakers and timestamps are not shown.
>> GOOD EVENING, ESTEEMED GUESTS, MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, IN PERSON AND ONLINE, AND FELLOW COMMISSIONERS. THE OAKLEY PLANNING COMMISSION'S CALL TO ORDER AT 6:30 P.M.. THE FIRST CALL OF BUSINESS IS ROLLCALL. [ ROLL BEING CALLED ] WE WILL BEGIN WITH THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. IF COMMISSIONER CREEK, WOULD YOU PLEASE KINDLY LEAD US. >> I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE PUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. >> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER CREEK. MOVING ON TO PUBLIC COMMENTS. THIS TIME IS RESERVED FOR THE PUBLIC COMMENTS, FOR ITEMS WHICH ARE NOT ON THE AGENDA. I DO NOT HAVE ANY PUBLIC SPEAKER CARDS IN FRONT OF ME SUBMITTED AT THIS POINT. HOWEVER, FOR THE FUTURE, REFERENCE TO SUBMIT A PUBLIC COMMENT, PLEASE COMPLETE A SPEAKER CARD IN THE LOBBY AND SUBMIT IT TO OUR CITY CLERK. MOVING ON TO CONSENT CALENDAR. ITEM 3.1. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WHICH WAS HELD IN AUGUST, THE 15th OF 2023. IF THERE IS NO DISCUSSION, WOULD SOMEONE LINK TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR THE MINUTES AS READ? >> I WILL MOVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM THE LAST MEETING. >> MOVED BY CHAIR REDUCE GO. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? >> I SECOND. >> MOVED AND SECONDED. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED, SAY NAY. HEARING NONE, THE MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. >> GRAND CYPRESS DEVELOPMENT MASTER AMENDMENT. MR. STREET LOW, WILL YOU KINDLY DO YOUR PRESENTATION? >> ABSOLUTELY. THANK YOU, GOOD EVENING. I WILL PULL UP A SHORT POWERPOINT TO ASSIST. >> GOOD EVENING, CHAIR, VICE CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. THIS IS AN ITEM THAT THE COMMISSION DID PREVIOUSLY AND TOOK ACTION ON. THE REQUEST HERE IS FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO READ THE RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE MASTER AMENDMENT. THIS IS FOR THE GRAND CYPRESS PRESERVE PROJECT, WHICH MAKES UP A LARGE MAJORITY OF THE EAST CYPRESS CORRIDOR SPECIFIC PLAN AREA, LOCATED IN EASTERN OAKLEY, ON WHAT IS KNOWN AS HODGES STRIPE. THE OUTLINED BLUE AREA MAKES UP --ALL UNDER CONTROL OF ONE. ALL OF THE PROPERTIES UNDER THE DEVELOPMENT ARE IN THE CYPRESS CORRIDOR SPECIFIC PLAN. THEY ALL HAVE A TENTATIVE MAP TO APPROVE FOR A CERTAIN NUMBER OF UNITS, DEVELOPMENT, DESIGN, ET CETERA. AS MENTIONED BEFORE, IT IS ALL UNDER ONE ENTITY. THE GENERAL PLAN IN THIS AREA IS FOR A SPECIFIC PLAN LISTED IN THE GENERAL PLAN MAP. THE ZONING WAS THE CITY'S FIRST SPECIFIC PLAN, IT IS SP-1. THIS IS JUST TO GO OVER A LITTLE BIT OF THE HISTORY . AT THE OUT START, THE PROJECT WAS ORIGINALLY HEARD BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN JULY. THE PLANNING COMMISSION VOTED, I THINK, 4-0, WITH ONE ABSENT AT THE MEETING. TO GO BACK TO WITH THE REQUEST IS, THE REQUEST IS FOR AN EXTENSION OF THE TERM. THERE ARE SEVERAL PROJECTS OUT THERE THAT HAVE A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THAT WAS SET TO EXPIRE THIS NOVEMBER. THE DEVELOPER, KNOWING THAT MUCH MORE TIME WOULD BE NEEDED TO COMPLETE THIS LARGE PROJECT, HAD REQUESTED AN EXTENSION TO 2035. THE CITY AND DEVELOPER HAS BEEN IN SEVERAL COMMUNICATIONS, TRYING TO COME UP WITH SOLUTIONS TO GIVE RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION FOR EAST CYPRESS ROAD, WHICH YOU ALL KNOW IS A VERY IMPORTANT ASPECT OF THE IMPROVEMENTS IN THAT AREA OF TOWN, FOR SEVERAL REASONS. IN THOSE DISCUSSIONS, THERE HAS BEEN A REQUEST FOR FURTHER EXTENSION OF THE TERMS, WHICH WE WILL EXPLAIN IN JUST A SECOND. AFTER THIS WAS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL BY THE CITY COUNCIL, THE ITEM WAS CONTINUED AT ITS FIRST HEARING. WE CAME BACK TO THAT DATE, THE CITY COUNCIL CONTINUED TO BE UNCERTAIN. THE REASON FOR THAT WAS TO ALLOW FOR MORE DISCRETION AMONG STAFF AND DEVELOPERS. SO THOSE HAVE HAPPENED. THEY HAVE COME BACK WITH THE REQUEST FOR EXTENSIONS UNTIL 2045, WHICH WOULD BE AN ADDITIONAL 20 YEARS OVER THE ORIGINAL EXPIRATION DATE OF 2025. THEY FILED THAT REQUEST WITH US IN MID-SEPTEMBER. THIS IS A LIST OF THE MAP AND PROJECTS THAT ARE LOCATED IN THIS AREA, JUST TO GIVE A HISTORY OF THIS. THIS IS STRAIGHT OUT OF THE STAFF REPORT. THIS IS A SUMMARY OF, BASICALLY, THE MEAT OF THE MASTER AMENDMENT. IT EXTENDS THE TERM FOR ALL FIVE D.A.S FROM 2025 TO 2045. THE MITIGATION MEASURES ARE LISTED THERE. WHAT THIS CLARIFIES IS, AFTER SOME REVIEW OF THE OLD CITY TRANSITION AGREEMENT THAT WAS DONE, AND THE ADAPTATION, AND THE ORIGINAL EAST CYPRESS CORRIDOR EIR, WE WANTED TO BE CLEAR THAT THE --PROJECT UNDER A DIFFERENT DEVELOPER, THE YOU -- THE UNITS DID NOT APPLY. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT GIVES THE GRAND CYPRESS PRESERVE DEVELOPERS A LITTLE PEACE OF MIND ON THIS PROJECT. SO THIS IS A SUMMARY OF THE ANALYSIS, THE MASTER AMENDMENT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ORIGINAL PLAN, IT WOULD HELP TO FACILITATE THE DEVELOPMENT OF THEREBY ALLOWING MORE TIME, FOR ALL THE TIME AND MONEY THAT HAS BEEN SPENT ON THE MAPS, TO MAKE SURE IT DOES NOT EXPIRE. THE SNAPS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE PLAN. WE SEE THAT IS A GOOD THING. IT IS ALSO CONSISTENT WITH THE OAKLEY STRATEGIC PLAN. THIS DEVELOPMENT LEADS TO MUCH MORE IMPORTANT INFRASTRUCTURE THAT IS NEEDED IN THE AREA FOR BETTER EVACUATION OF THAT AREA. AND ESSENTIALLY WIDENING OF CYPRESS ROAD, WHICH AT THIS TIME IS THE NUMBER ONE PRIORITY. THE FULL FINDINGS ARE PRESENTED IN THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION. THIS RESOLUTION IS ASKING THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DEVELOP AN ORDINANCE TO APPROVE THIS REQUEST. THAT CONCLUDES THE STAFF'S PRESENTATION. THEY ARE IN THE AUDIENCE IF THE CITY COUNCIL HAS ANY QUESTIONS FOR THEM, AND I AM HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS AS WELL. >> THANK YOU, MR. STREET LOW. AT THIS TIME, TO ANY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSIONERS HAVE QUESTIONS? TO STAFF OR TO APPLICANTS? WE DON'T ? OKAY. YOU DO? >> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT, IF POSSIBLE. >> GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS ANDREW HAHN. I'M A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE GRAND CYPRESS PRESERVE. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH, MR. HAHN, FOR BEING HERE. I APPRECIATE IT. I'M CURIOUS, 10 YEARS VERSUS 20 YEARS, WHY THE NEED FOR 20 YEARS? >> YES. STEPPING BACK, AS THE STAFF HAS EXPLAINED, THIS COMPONENT IS A PART OF A LARGER NEGOTIATION AND AGREEMENT SURROUNDING THE FINANCING OF INFRASTRUCTURE THAT WILL GO TO THE CITY COUNCIL NEXT WEEK. SO THIS IS JUST ONE COMPONENT. BACK IN JULY, WE CAME BEFORE YOU TO ASK FOR THE 10 YEAR EXTENSION, WHICH YOU HAVE GRANTED. THE REASON FOR THE ADDITIONAL 10 YEARS WE ARE REQUESTING IS NOT SO MUCH THAT WE WILL ARE WE EXPECT TO USE THE ADDITIONAL 10 YEARS. BUT IT IS MORE OF AN INSURANCE'S, IF YOU WILL, TO PROVIDE EXTRA TIME FOR US TO METHODICALLY AND THOUGHTFULLY EXECUTE ON THIS PROJECT. WE EXPECT THAT THE ADDITIONAL 10 YEARS HE GRANTED IN JULY WILL BE SUFFICIENT FOR US TO COMPLETE HER DEVELOPMENT. BUT I AM OF THE AGE WHERE I HAVE LIVED THROUGH A COUPLE OF EVENTS THAT I DID NOT ANTICIPATE IN MY LIFETIME. SUCH AS THE GREAT RECESSION IN 2007-2008, THAT HALTED ALL DEVELOPMENTS FOR 5+ YEARS . WE HAVE ALL BEEN THROUGH THE PANDEMIC. THESE WERE JUST UNEXPECTED EVENTS IN LIFE. SO I THINK GIVING US AN ADDITIONAL 10 YEARS WILL GIVE US A CUSHION, ALTHOUGH UNLIKELY WE WILL EXERCISE THAT, IT WOULD GIVE US SOMEWHAT OF AN INSURANCE SO THAT WE DO NOT HAVE TO, IF IN THE UNLIKELY EVENT THAT SOMETHING HAPPENED, AND WE EXHAUSTED THE 10 YEARS, VERSUS AS HAVING TO COME BACK AND BRING THE UNCERTAINTY OF BRINGING TO THE PUBLIC HEARING , I WOULD CHARACTERIZE OUR REQUEST FOR THAT ADDITIONAL 10 YEARS AS MORE OR LESS LIKE AN EXTRA CUSHION OR INSURANCE FOR THIS PROJECT. >> THANK YOU. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? YES, COMMISSIONER PRICE. >> THIS IS FOR STAFF. IS THIS GOING TO AFFECT THE TIMELINE FOR GETTING EAST CYPRESS ROAD DEVELOPMENT DONE, BY EXTENDING THIS OUT? >> THIS WILL NOT HAVE ANY NEGATIVE EFFECT ON THE TIMELINE FOR THAT. >> ALL RIGHT, VERY GOOD. IF THERE ARE NO OTHER QUESTIONS RIGHT NOW, LET'S OPEN THIS UP AS A PUBLIC HEARING. WOULD YOU LIKE TO STILL ADDRESS US? AT THIS POINT ? DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD? >> THERE IS NOTHING ELSE TO ADD, OTHER THAN WE APPRECIATE THE CONSIDERATION OF THE ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION BY STAFF. >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> DO WE HAVE ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON THIS MATTER? ANYTHING ONLINE? NO? OKAY, GOOD. SO WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT THIS POINT, AND WE WILL MOVE ON TO DELIBERATION. SO, TO QUICKLY SUMMARIZE HERE, YOU ARE ASKING US TO APPROVE , TO HAVE AN ADVISORY VOTE FOR ADOPTION OF THIS PROPOSED RESOLUTION AND ALL RECOMMENDATIONS, CORRECT? >> YES. >> ALL RIGHT. WOULD ANY COMMISSION OR LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION? >> I MOVE THE ADOPTION. >> THANK YOU. >> OF THE MOTION. I COULD NOT THINK OF THE WORD. >> THANK YOU. WE HAVE A SECOND? >> I SECOND. >> OKAY. A SECOND TO ADOPT THE PROPOSAL, THE CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE THE PROJECT AS THE GRAND CYPRESS PRESERVE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS MASTER AMENDMENT DA . ALL OF THOSE, SAY AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED, NAY. HEARING NONE, THE MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. THANK YOU. >> ITEM 4.2. 2480 OAKLEY ROAD SUBDIVISION TENTATIVE MAP EXTENSION. DOES THE STAFF HAVE A REPORT OR PRESENTATION TO MAKE? >> WE DO. WE APPRECIATE YOUR PATIENCE. IT WILL TAKE ME A MOMENT, THIS IS THE FIRST AND I HAVE WORKED THIS. I APPRECIATE IT. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU AGAIN FOR YOUR PATIENCE THERE. MY NAME IS EVAN GORMAN. IT IS A PLEASURE TO PRESENT FOR YOU TONIGHT. TONIGHT, WE ARE PREVENTING ITEM 4.2. 2480 OAKLEY ROAD SUBDIVISION 9537, WHICH IS A TENTATIVE MAP EXTENSION REQUEST. WE ARE GOING TO START WITH AN OVERVIEW OF OAKLEY. WE HAVE A STAR PLACED ON THE PROJECT LOCATION. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT AN AREA ON THE WEST SIDE OF TOWN. NOW WE WILL GET YOU A BIT CLOSER IN. AND THE SITE IS A 4.6 ACRE PARCEL NORTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF LIVE OAK AND OAKLEY ROAD. THE ORIGINAL PROJECT IS A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED TENTATIVE MAP, LOCATED AT 2480 OAKLEY ROAD. THE MAP SUBDIVIDED THE PARCEL INTO 22 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOT AND ONE ADDITIONAL LOT, REPRESENTING A FUTURE PRIVATE ROAD THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO EXTEND THE APPROVAL OF THE MAP FOR THREE YEARS. NO PHYSICAL CHANGES ARE BEING MADE IN THE PROJECT. THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION IN YOUR PACKET TONIGHT WOULD GRANT A THREE-YEAR EXTENSION. THE ORIGINAL EXPIRATION DATE WAS FOR THIS PAST MONTH, IN SEPTEMBER. AND THEY SUBMITTED JUST BEFORE THAT TO HAVE IT REVIEWED. NOW, FOR THE RULES OF THE ROAD, THE SUBDIVISION MAP ALLOWS THE CITY COUNCIL TO EXTEND THE APPROVAL PERIOD FOR THE SUBDIVISION MAP. THE TOTAL, THOSE EXTENSIONS TOGETHER SHALL NOT EXCEED SIX ADDITIONAL YEARS FROM THE ORIGINAL EXPIRATION DATE. THIS REQUEST IS FOR A THREE-YEAR EXTENSION, SORRY, THIS REQUEST FOR A THREE-YEAR EXTENSION IS THE FIRST SUCH REQUEST FOR THIS PROJECT. WITH NO PHYSICAL CHANGES TO THE MAP , AND WITHOUT THE CHANCE FOR ADDITIONAL PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS, SHOULD THE MAP EXPIRE, STAFF RECOMMENDS THE PLANNING COMMISSION ADOPT THE RESOLUTION, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVED THIS TENTATIVE MAP EXTENSION, WHICH WOULD EXTEND THE APPROVAL FOR AN ADDITIONAL THREE YEARS. I AM AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS, IF YOU HAVE ANY. AND I ALSO HAVE THE ORIGINAL MAP WITH ME AS WELL --THE ORIGINAL APPLICANT'S IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THEM. >> ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS? >> I HAD A CURIOSITY ABOUT THE PRIVATE ROAD. CAN YOU SPEAK MORE ON THAT? >> YES. IT IS NOT IN THE ORIGINAL APPROVAL. >> OKAY, SO THE PRIVATE ROAD? >> A PRIVATE ROAD THAT IS NOT ACCESSIBLE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR QUESTION. >> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER RAMIREZ. WITH THE APPLICANT LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION AT THIS POINT? >> I AM THE APPLICANT, GORDON WONG. WE HAD A COUPLE PEOPLE INTERESTED IN THE PROJECT, TO DEVELOP IT. THE PANDEMIC DEFINITELY MADE IT A LITTLE HARDER, AS WELL AS THE STORM MANAGEMENT PROJECT. BUT IT IS A PRETTY HEALTHY PROJECT. IT WILL BRING SOME NEW HOMES TO THE AREA. ANY QUESTIONS, I AM FREE TO ANSWER. >> THANK YOU. >> LET'S SEE. WE WILL PROBABLY OPEN THIS UP AS A PUBLIC HEARING. I DO HAVE ONE PUBLIC COMMENT IN FRONT OF ME RIGHT NOW. MISS ANNA DAISY CORONADO. WOULD YOU PLEASE COME APPROACH AND MAKE YOUR COMMENT? SORRY, YOU WILL HAVE TIME IN FRONT OF YOU TO SIGNIFY HOW MUCH TIME YOU HAVE FOR YOUR PUBLIC COMMENT. >> YES, GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS ANNA DAISY CORONADO, THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. MY CONCERN IS THAT IT IS NOT SAFE BECAUSE THERE IS A SCHOOL IN THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY. I WISH ONE DAY YOU COULD DRIVE THROUGH THERE WHEN IT IS SCHOOL HOURS. IT IS VERY UNSAFE FOR THE KID. IT IS AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. IT IS NOT GATED. IN MY CONCERN IS , OKAY, HIS PLAN IS TO DO 22 HOUSES, PERFECT. NICE, BEAUTIFUL. BUT HE IS NOT THINKING ABOUT SAFETY, KIDS, SCHOOL THAT IS NOT GATED. WHAT IF A FIRE, FOR EXAMPLE, WHAT IF A FIRE WAS IN A HOUSE. HOW IS THE FAMILY OF THE HOUSE GOING TO GET OUT? WHEN I SEE THE PLANNING, 22 HOUSES AROUND, AND IN THE STREET, THERE IS NO WAY. THE PROPERTY, IT IS NOT 4.6. IT IS ACTUALLY FOUR ACRES, BECAUSE I LIVE ON AN ACRE. SO WHEN WE BOUGHT THAT PLACE, THE LAST OWNER SPECIFIED US VERY CLEARLY. SHE SAID IT IS FIVE ACRES WITH THE HOME. IT IS NOT 4.6. SO I DO CARE ABOUT THE CHILDREN, BECAUSE I AM A MOTHER. IF YOU GUYS CONSIDER IT, TO LOOK AT THE PLANNING VERY CLOSELY, YOU GUYS WILL NOT REGRET IT. I APPRECIATE YOU GUYS HEARING ME. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, MS. CORONADO. I WOULD LIKE AT THIS POINT, ACTUALLY, TO ASK STAFF IF YOU HAVE ANY WAY IN ON THIS. SAFETY IS OBVIOUSLY A HUGE CONCERN FOR ANY FAMILY HERE. DO WE HAVE ANY , WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT? OKAY. >> YES, ABSOLUTELY. THANK YOU, CHAIR. FOR THIS ORIGINAL APPLICATION, YOU KNOW, IN 2020, WHEN SUBMITTED, IT WAS REVIEWED BY OUR PUBLIC WORKS TEAM, IT GETS ROUTED TO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT AS WELL. IT IS A KEY AN IMPORTANT PART OF US IN THE PROJECT. ON THIS PROJECT, THAT REVIEW WAS THE SAME AS THOSE OTHER PROJECTS. IT WAS REVIEWED. ANY SUGGESTED CHANGES WERE WORKED INTO THE PROJECT AS IT DEVELOPED AND REACHED THE CITY COUNCIL HEARING. AND THEN CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL WERE ALSO PROVIDED BY BOTH OUR TEAM AND OUTSIDE AGENCIES IN ORDER TO ADDRESS ANY CONCERNS TO THE PROJECT. SO THAT ORIGINAL APPROVAL .2 THE COUNSEL IN 2020. FROM THERE, ONCE THEY RECEIVED THAT APPROVAL, A SERIES OF COURT CASES OVER THE LAST FOUR DECADES HAVE PROTECTED THE DEVELOPERS APPROVAL FROM ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS ONCE IT IS APPROVED. ANY CONDITIONAL CONDITIONS AFTER THE 2020 APPROVAL, THE FOLKS THAT APPLIED WOULD HAVE TO AGREE WITH IT. SO HERE, WE HAVE SET SOME, WE HAVE WORKED WITH THEM ON LANGUAGE TO UPDATE SOME OF THEM. ANY FUTURE CONCERNS THAT WERE NOT ADDRESSED DURING THE FIRST REVIEW. SO WE ARE JUST LOOKING FOR AN EXTENSION TONIGHT. >> OKAY, THANK YOU FOR THAT COMMENT. SO IT SOUNDED TO ME, IF I'M CORRECT, THAT PART OF YOUR CONCERN IS SAFETY OF CHILDREN. RIGHT? BECAUSE OF THE TRAFFIC THAT THIS WILL CREATE, THE ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC? >> RIGHT. HE DID SAY 20 AND 20, I DO AGREE WITH HIM, WHAT HAPPENED WITH THAT. BUT IF YOU GUYS SEE THE MAP, IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT IT IS COMMERCIAL, IT IS NOT RESIDENTIAL. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT CHANGE IS. >> OKAY. >> IF IT IS ALL RIGHT TO THE CHAIR, THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION WAS TO CHANGE IT FROM COMMERCIAL TO RESIDENTIAL, IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE THIS MAP. AND THAT WAS APPROVED IN 2020. OH, I APOLOGIZE. IT WAS ORIGINALLY LIGHT AND INDUSTRIAL. THAT WAS FROM LIGHT INDUSTRIAL TO RESIDENTIAL. IN ORDER FOR THIS MAP TO BE APPROVED, IT HAD CHANGED. SINCE THEN, IT HAS NOT REZONED. >> FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE, DO YOU THINK IT IS SAFE IN THE VICINITY OF THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL NEARBY, FOR CHILDREN'S SAFETY? >> WELL, IT HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICIALS AND THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT. SO FOR THOSE ITEMS LIKE TRAFFIC, YOU WILL HAVE TO REFER TO THEM. >> RIGHT NOW, WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE PLAN ITSELF, BUT JUST THE EXTENSION PERIOD FOR THE APPLICANTS. >> CHAIR, A FATE MAY ASK REALLY QUICK, ONE THING TO CONSIDER HERE IS, WITH FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PROPERTY, THE CITY WILL REQUIRE ADDITIONAL RIGHT-OF-WAY, WHICH WILL INCLUDE FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THIS REPARTEE. ULTIMATELY, IT WILL RESULT IN A MUCH SAFER PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT. >> EXCELLENT. LET'S SEE, DO WE HAVE ANY FURTHER COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS? IF NOT, WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND CALL FOR DELIBERATION. IT'S BEEN THAT I WILL ALLOW YOU A VERY QUICK COMMENT. >> I WILL BE QUICK, I KNOW YOU GUYS ARE BUSY BUSY. I DO LIKE WHAT HE THINKS, BUT IS THAT TAKING AWAY MY PROPERTY? IF YOU'RE TRYING TO DO THE GUTTERS, THE SIDEWALK, AND, YOU KNOW. >> MS. CORONADO, FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE MEETING GOING PROPERLY, COULD WE MAYBE PERHAPS TALK TO YOU AFTER? >> ALL RIGHT. THAT IS FINE, SORRY. >> BECAUSE THIS IS NOT PERTAINING TO THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR. THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR IS TO EXTEND THE TIMELINE FOR THIS PROJECT. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. WE CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING AT THIS POINT. WE WILL GO IN FOR DELIBERATION. WOULD ANY COMMISSION OR LIKE TO CONSIDER A MOTION TO EXTEND THE MOTION FOR AN ADDITIONAL THREE YEARS ON THIS PROJECT? >> I WILL MOVE A MOTION TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS PRESENTED FOR THE THREE-YEAR EXTENSION. >> THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? >> ALL RIGHT. A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER PRICE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED, SAY NAY. OKAY, SORRY. 4-150 MOTION CARRIES AND IS APPROVED. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THE REGULAR CALENDAR, WE HAVE NO ITEMS UNDER THAT SECTION. AT THIS POINT, WE WILL MOVE TO REPORTS. DO WE HAVE ANY REPORTS FROM STAFF MEMBERS? >> YES, JUST REALLY QUICK. A FRIENDLY REMINDER THAT THIS SATURDAY, FROM 12:00 TO 4:00:02 IS THE CITY'S OKTOBERFEST HERE IN THE CITY CENTER. I JUST WANTED TO LET THE PLANNING COMMISSION KNOW THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS PROGRESSING ON OUR REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FROM THE ACTION PLAN. WE LIKELY WILL BE TAKING THAT REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BEFORE MAKING IT PUBLIC AND SEEKING PROPOSALS. I JUST WANTED TO GIVE YOU A QUICK UPDATE ON THAT. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY REPORTS FROM COMMISSION MEMBERS? COMMISSIONER PRICE? >> IS A REPRESENTATIVE FROM THIS GROUP TO THE COMMITTEE FOR EAST COUNTY, THE LAST TWO MEETINGS HAVE BEEN CANCELED, SO THERE IS NOTHING GOING ON THERE. >> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER PRICE. ANY OTHER REPORTS? ALL RIGHT. HEARING NONE, DO WE HAVE FUTURE AGENDA REPORTS? >> REALLY, REALLY COOL EVENT I GOT TO ATTEND HERE AT THE CITY PLAZA. JUST A BEAUTIFUL EVENT. A LOT OF YOUNG PEOPLE AT FREEDOM HIGH SCHOOL INTO OAKLEY. I JUST WANT TO APPLAUD THE CITY FOR MAKING THE SPACE AVAILABLE FOR FOLKS TO COME TOGETHER, GRIEVE, CONVENE. IT WAS REALLY EXCITING TO MEET WITH SOME VETERANS WHO ARE OAKLEY-BASED, TO GATHER AND COME TOGETHER AT SOME OF OUR SMALL FAMILY BUSINESSES. IT WAS JUST A REALLY, REALLY BEAUTIFUL SATURDAY MORNING EVENT. I'M VERY EXCITED FOR THIS COMING COMMUNITY WEEKENDS EVENT. JUST GO, PARKS AND REC AT OAKLEY. FOR REAL. >> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER RAMIREZ. ALL RIGHT. NO FUTURE AGENDA REQUEST AT THIS POINT? SPENT >> I HAVE ONE. >> ALL RIGHT, GO AHEAD. >> I THINK SOME OF THE CONVERSATIONS THAT HAVE COME UP TONIGHT AND OTHER CONVERSATIONS IN THE PAST REGARDING SCHOOL SAFETY AND THE FUTURE OF OAKLEY AND OUR PROJECTS THAT ARE IN SUCH VICINITY TO OUR SCHOOLS, WHICH ARE SIX SUCH JEWELS OF OUR COMMUNITY. HOW CAN WE BE IN A MUCH MORE PROACTIVE MIND-SET WITH OUR ELEMENTARY, MIDDLE, AND HIGH SCHOOL LEADERS. SO I WOULD LOVE TO BRING THE SUPERINTENDENT OF OAKLEY WHO LEADS HER ELEMENTARY AND MIDDLE SCHOOLS. I DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEIR AGENCY IS LEADING, BUT I WOULD LOVE TO SEE MORE SYNERGY BETWEEN US AND OUR SCHOOLS HERE. >> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER RAMIREZ. IS THIS SOMETHING THAT WE CAN ARRANGE? OR DOES THIS FALL UNDER, ESSENTIALLY, THE DEFINITION OF WHAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION BUSINESSES USUALLY? >> HOWEVER WE PROCEED HERE, JUST FROM A PROCEDURE POINT OF VIEW, ANY REQUEST FOR A FUTURE AGENDA SHOULD AT LEAST HAVE SOME DISCUSSION, A MOTION IN A SECOND, AND A MAJORITY VOTE IN ORDER TO BRING IT BACK. FOR SOMETHING LIKE THIS, WE ARE LOOKING FOR A PRESENTATION FROM THE CITY --. WE JUST ASK THAT WHATEVER THAT MAY BE, THAT IT BE CLARIFIED, TO SEE IF THERE IS A NEED FOR A FUTURE AGENDA. WE WOULD ALSO BE HAPPY IF WE WANTED TO GET STAFF DIRECTION TO GO BACK AND MEET WITH THEIR CITY MANAGER TO FIND OUT WHAT THE BEST WAY FORWARD FOR THIS IS. ALLOW US TO COME BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITH SOME FEEDBACK. AND THEN IF THERE IS STILL A DESIRE FOR A MORE OFFICIAL AGENDA ITEM , WE CAN POSSIBLY DO THAT. IT IS ULTIMATELY UP TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. >> IT STILL WILL ULTIMATELY REQUIRE A MOTION IN A SECOND. FOR AN AGENDA ITEM. YES. >> IF YOU WILL DO YOUR DUE DILIGENCE RIGHT NOW, THAT IS OKAY. RIGHT? >> ABSOLUTELY. PERFECT. WOULD THAT SATISFY YOU, COMMISSIONER RAMIREZ? >> I MAKE A MOTION TO START A CONVERSATION WITH A POTENTIAL PRESENTATION THAT LOOKED LIKE WHAT TRIED TRI-DELTA BROUGHT TO THE TABLE. >> THAT WOULD BE FINE. THE ONLY REASON I MENTION THIS IS BECAUSE YOU WOULD WANT TO CHECK WITH THE SUPERINTENDENT, IF THEY ARE AVAILABLE FOR SUCH A THING, AND IF THERE IS AN INTEREST TO DO SO. IF THERE IS, WE COULD HAVE A PRESENTATION. WE COULD DO THAT, WE SCHEDULE PRESENTATIONS ALL THE TIME. THAT WOULD BE DIFFERENT THAN A PUBLIC HEARING ITEM. >> RIGHT. I THINK THAT MAKES A LITTLE BIT MORE SENSE. WOULD YOU STILL LIKE TO MAKE A FORMAL MOTION? >> IT IS UP TO YOU. >> YES, JUST LIKE MR. STREET LOW SAID, WE COULD BRING THE AGENDA ITEMS TO THE TABLE. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE AN MOTION FOR AWESOME CITY STAFF TO DISCUSS THIS WITH OUR HIGH SCHOOL, MIDDLE SCHOOL, OR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL LEADERS TO INVITE THEM TO --THE PLANNING COMMISSION. >> THANK YOU. SOME OF BY COMMISSIONER RAMIREZ. WE HAVE A SECOND? HEARING NONE, THE MOTION DIES. OKAY. DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER REQUESTS FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS? HEARING NONE , LET'S SEE, WE DO NOT HAVE ANYTHING ON OUR SESSION. AT THIS POINT, I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO THANK MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, THANK YOU FOR YOUR PASSION, THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. WHAT WE CAN DO BETTER, RIGHT? AND I ALSO WOULD LIKE TO THANK ANYONE WHO IS WITH US ONLINE, THANK YOU FOR BEING WITH US VIRTUALLY. STAFF, YOU ALWAYS DO AN AMAZING JOB. WE APPRECIATE YOU FOR BEING HERE. AT THIS POINT, I CALL THIS MEETING.
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Oakley Planning Commission held October 17, 2023 1) OPENING MATTERS 1.1 Call to Order and Roll Call of the Oakley Planning Commission Chair Oleksii Chuiko called the meeting to order at 6:30pm in the Oakley City Council Chambers located at 3231 Main Street, Oakley, California. Vice Chair Diego Verduzco and Commissioners Leonard Price, Jeanne Krieg and Jimmy Ramirez were also present. 1.2 Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag Commissioner Krieg led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 2) PUBLIC COMMENTS None. 3) CONSENT CALENDAR 3.1 Approve Minutes from the Special Planning Commission Meeting held August 15, 2023 (Kim Snodgrass, Deputy City Clerk) It was moved by Vice Chair Verduzco and seconded by Commissioner Price to approve the minutes. Motion was unanimous and so ordered. (5-0) 4) PUBLIC HEARINGS 4.1 Grand Cypress Preserve Development Agreements Master Amendment (DA 01-23)-Continued from September 12, 2023 Regular City Council Meeting (Ken Strelo, Planning Manager) Planning Manager Ken Strelo presented the staff report and provided a PowerPoint presentation. Commissioner Ramirez asked the applicant why 20 years is needed rather than 10 years.
Andrew Han, representative for the development group, ACD-TI Oakley, LLC, explained this component is part of a larger negotiation and agreement surrounding financing the infrastructure and will go to the City Council next week. He mentioned in July, they came before the Planning Commission to ask for the 10-year extension which was granted, and the reason for the additional 10-years is not so much that they intend to utilize the additional 10 years, but rather an assurance to provide extra time for them to execute this project methodically and thoughtfully. He mentioned he believes the initial 10-year extension granted in July will be sufficient for its development; however, he has lived through unexpected events such as the Great Recession in 2007-2008 and more recently the pandemic, so the additional 10 years will provide a cushion and an assurance, although it is unlikely that they will exercise it. He mentioned should there be another such unexpected event, they avoid having to bring it back again and having uncertainty. Commissioner Price asked Mr. Strelo if this will impact the timeline to get E. Cypress Road development done and Mr. Strelo confirmed this will have no negative impact on the timeline. Chair Chuiko opened the public hearing. Mr. Han commented that he appreciates the Planning Commission’s consideration, and he concurs with the analysis and recommendation of staff. No public comments were submitted. Chair Chuiko closed the public hearing. It was moved by Commissioner Krieg and seconded by Commissioner Price to adopt the resolution as presented. Motion was unanimous and so ordered. (5-0) 4.2 2480 Oakley Road Subdivision 9537 Tentative Map Extension (TME 01-23) (Evan Gorman, Associate Planner) Associate Planner Evan Gorman presented the staff report and provided a PowerPoint presentation. Commissioner Ramirez inquired in relation to the private road if it will be a gated community. Mr. Gorman responded that it is not gated in the original approval, and the private road is accessible. Applicant Gordon Wong of GKW Architects, Inc. mentioned they would like the extension and there are a couple of people interested in the project to develop it. He commented that the pandemic definitely made it a little harder as well as stormwater on the project, but it is a pretty healthy project, and they hope to bring new homes to the area.
Chair Chuiko opened the public hearing. Ana Daisy Coronado commented that she is the owner of property located at 2480 Oakley Road and does not believe this project is safe. She explained that there is an elementary school behind the property, the property is not gated, and she wishes they can drive through during school hours to see that it is very unsafe. She mentioned that with 22 houses, if there is a fire, people will not be able to get out. She also mentioned the previous owner told her it is 5 acres with a home; it is not 4.6; it is 4 acres, and she lives on 1 acre. She mentioned that as a mother, she cares about children. She requested the Planning Commission consider what she has mentioned, and it look at it closely. Chair Chuiko commented that safety is a huge concern for anything the City does and requested comments from staff. Mr. Gorman shared that in 2020, when the original application was submitted, it was routed to Public Works to confirm conformance with City requirements as well as the fire department, a key review for any project. He mentioned that review of this project was the same as for any project and any suggested changes were worked into the project as it developed to reach a City Council hearing, and conditions of approval were provided by staff and outside agencies to address any concerns about the project. He mentioned that the original approval went to the City Council for approval in 2020, and once approval was received, there are a series of court cases over the past four decades which protect a developer’s approval from additional conditions after that approval has been granted. He explained that any additional conditions of approval after the 2020 approval would require the developer agreeing to them. He mentioned staff have worked with the developer to update the language on some of the conditions and staff does not see any future concerns that weren’t addressed during the initial review. Chair Chuiko inquired if the concern is regarding safety of children with traffic. Ms. Coronado mentioned she agrees that the approval was granted in 2020, but it is her understanding that the property is commercial, not residential, and she is not sure how it changed. Mr. Gorman explained that the original application was to change it from light industrial to residential to accommodate this map, and it was approved in 2020. Chair Chuiko inquired if from staff’s perspective it is safe with the elementary school nearby. Mr. Gorman mentioned it has been reviewed by public safety officials and the City’s Public Works Department; for items such as traffic, he must rely on their expertise. Chair Chuiko provided a reminder that they are not talking about the plan itself right now, only the extension for the applicant.
Mr. Strelo mentioned that with future development of the property, the City will acquire additional right-of-way which will include frontage improvements for the property, i.e., curb, gutter, and sidewalk, that will ultimately result in a much safer pedestrian environment. Chair Chuiko closed the public hearing. Ms. Coronado inquired if the frontage improvements would take away her property. Chair Chuiko explained that because her comment does not pertain to the motion on the floor to extend the timeline, he will ask staff to follow up with her after the meeting. It was moved by Vice Chair Verduzco and seconded by Commissioner Price to adopt the resolution as presented. AYES: Chuiko, Krieg, Price, Verduzco. NOES: Ramirez. (4- 1) 5) REGULAR CALENDAR None. 6) REPORTS 6.1 Reports from Staff Members Planning Manager Ken Strelo announced Oaktober Fest will be held Saturday, 12pm- 4pm, in the Civic Center Plaza. He reported that the Planning Division is progressing on the request for proposals for the Climate Action Plan and staff will take the request for proposals to the City Council for review and approval before making it public and seeking proposals from professional consultants. 6.2 OAKLEY PLANNING COMMISSION (a) Reports from Commission Members Commissioner Price reported he is the appointed representative for the Planning Commission to the TRANSPLAN Committee for East County and the last two meetings have been canceled, therefore he has nothing to report. Commissioner Ramirez reported he attended the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention in Oakley at Civic Center Park put on by people at Freedom High School and he applauded the City for making space available to allow people to gather together for the Saturday morning event. He mentioned he is excited for the Oaktober Fest event and commended Parks & Recreation staff for their work. (b) Requests for Future Agendas Regarding being more proactive to bring staff and school leaders together for projects that are in close vicinity to schools to address safety, it was moved by Commissioner
Ramirez to request a future agenda item for City staff to invite school leaders to provide a presentation to the Planning Commission. The motion died due to lack of a second. 7) WORK SESSIONS None. 8) ADJOURN There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:03 p.m. Respectively Submitted, Libby Vreonis City Clerk
Showing the first 24,000 of 115,322 characters. The full document is at the source.
AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE OAKLEY PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, October 17, 2023 6:30 PM Oakley City Council Chamber, 3231 Main Street, Oakley, California. Unless stated otherwise on the agenda, every item on the agenda is exempt from CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060(c), 15061(b)(3), 15273, 15378, 15301, 15323 and/or Public Resources Code Section 21065. MISSION STATEMENT: The City of Oakley will create a resilient future that fosters and attracts a vibrant and evolving community that welcomes and values all people. VISION STATEMENT: The City of Oakley celebrates our unique Delta lifestyle and small-town feel where we Live in a safe, dynamic community, Work together to build the future, and Play in our own backyard. Agendas are posted in Oakley at Oakley City Hall-3231 Main Street, outside the gym at Delta Vista Middle School-4901 Frank Hengel Way and outside the Library at Freedom High School-1050 Neroly Road; agendas are also posted on the City’s Internet Website www.ci.oakley.ca.us. A complete packet of information containing staff reports and exhibits related to each item is available for public review prior to an Oakley Planning Commission meeting at Oakley City Hall, 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Oakley Planning Commission regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection, during regular business hours, at the front counter in the Main Lobby of the Oakley City Hall located at 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561. Agendas may be picked up at the Oakley City Hall located at 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561 for no charge. To request information regarding placement on the City’s agenda e-mail distribution list, please contact us at (925) 625-7000. We provide social media options to stay connected to City Hall through Facebook, Twitter, Next Door and Instagram. Other opportunities to connect with City Hall include Engage In Oakley, Oakley OnDemand on the city's website; and by emailing info@ci.oakley.ca.us. Please contact us at (925) 625-7000 for additional information or visit www.oakleyinfo.com. If you have a physically challenging condition and require special accommodations, please call the City Clerk’s office at (925) 625-7013. 1
Please keep cell phones/electronic devices turned off during the meeting. Please be advised that Oakley Planning Commission meetings are video recorded and attendees may appear on video. Members of the public may address the Oakley Planning Commission on items of interest that are within the City’s jurisdiction. Public comment on items not listed on the agenda will be heard under the Public Comments section of the agenda. In compliance with State law, the Oakley Planning Commission may not take action on an item that is not specifically listed on the agenda. If you would like to speak on any agenda item, please fill out a public speaker card available in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the agenda item being called. The Oakley Planning Commission Chair will call you by name to the podium to hear your comments and you have up to 3 minutes to speak. 1.OPENING MATTERS 1.1 Call to Order and Roll Call of the Oakley Planning Commission 1.2 Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag 2.PUBLIC COMMENTS At this time, the public is permitted to address the Planning Commission on non-agendized items. 3.CONSENT CALENDAR Consent Calendar items are typically non-controversial in nature and are considered for approval by the Planning Commission with one single action. Members of the audience, Staff or the Planning Commission who would like an item removed from the Consent Calendar for purposes of public input may request the Chair remove the item. The public may request to remove an item(s) to provide input by completing a public speaker card and submitting it to the City Clerk prior to the item(s) being called by the Chair. 3.1 Approve Minutes from the Special Planning Commission Meeting held August 15, 2023 (Kim Snodgrass, Deputy City Clerk) Minutes 081523 4.PUBLIC HEARINGS 4.1 Grand Cypress Preserve Development Agreements Master Amendment (DA 01-23) – Continued from September 12, 2023 Regular City Council Meeting (Ken Strelo, Planning Manager) Suggested Action: Staff Recommendation: 1) Receive the Staff Report, 2) Receive Questions from the Planning Commission, 3) Open the Public Hearing, 4) Receive Comments from the Applicant, 5) Receive Public Testimony, 6) Close the Public 2
Hearing, 7) Deliberate, 8) Summarize the Deliberation 9) Adopt the Resolution CEQA Determination: Recommend the City Council find that the project is within the scope of the East Cypress Corridor Specific Plan Revised Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2004092011) certified by the City Council through adoption of Resolution No. 46-09 on March 10, 2009 Staff Report 1. Vicinity Map 2. Notice of Public Hearing 3. Grand Cypress Preserve Development Agreements Master Amendment 4. Proposed Resolution 4.2 2480 Oakley Road Subdivision 9537 Tentative Map Extension (TME 01-23) (Evan Gorman, Associate Planner) Suggested Action: Staff Recommendation: 1) Receive the Staff Report, 2) Receive Questions from the Planning Commission, 3) Open the Public Hearing, 4) Receive Comments from the Applicant, 5) Receive Public Testimony, 6) Close the Public Hearing, 7) Deliberate, 8) Summarize the Deliberation 9) Adopt the Resolution CEQA Determination: Find that there are no new environmental impacts associated with the proposed extension in that any environmental impacts are within the scope of the Negative Declaration adopted through City Council Resolutions No. 88-20 and No. 89-20. Staff Report 1. Vicinity Map 2. Public Hearing Notice 3. Approved Tentative Map 4. Draft Resolution 5.REGULAR CALENDAR 6.REPORTS 6.1 Reports from Staff Members 6.2 OAKLEY PLANNING COMMISSION (a) Reports from Commission Members (b) Requests for Future Agendas 7.WORK SESSIONS 3
8.ADJOURN 4
Minutes of the Special Meeting of the City of Oakley Planning Commission August 15, 2023 1) OPENING MATTERS 1.1 Call to Order and Roll Call of the Oakley Planning Commission Chair Oleksii Chuiko called the meeting to order at 6:30p.m. in the Oakley City Council Chambers located at 3231 Main Street, Oakley, California. Vice Chair Diego Verduzco and Planning Commissioner Leonard Price were also present. Planning Commissioners Jeanne Krieg and Jimmy Ramirez were absent. 1.2 Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag Vice Chair Verduzco led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag 2) PUBLIC COMMENTS Staff received one online comment from Jennifer Solopow regarding construction and roadwork during school hours on E. Cypress and Picasso. Public Works Director, Kevin Rohani provided an email response to Ms. Solopow, which was also provided to the Planning Commission. 3) CONSENT CALENDAR 3.1 Approve Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting held July 18, 2023 (Kim Snodgrass, Deputy City Clerk) It was moved by Vice Chair Verduzco and seconded by Commissioner Price to approve the minutes. Motion was unanimous and so ordered. (3-0) 4) PUBLIC HEARINGS 4.1 Adoption of the State of California Density Bonus Law (SBDL) - Repeal Local Density Bonus Regulations (Oakley Municipal Code 9.1.412) and Replace with Adoption of the State Density Bonus Law by Reference (RZ 03-23) (Ken Strelo, Planning Manager) Planning Manager Ken Strelo presented the Staff Report. Chair Chuiko asked if this is consistent with what other cities are doing. Mr. Strelo responded that several other cities will be doing this as well. 5
Chair Chuiko asked if essentially, we are doing what every other city is doing in our county. Mr. Strelo confirmed that is correct, for cities that choose to do it, it will be very similar. It was moved by Vice Chair Verduzco and seconded by Commissioner Price to adopt the resolution. Motion was unanimous and so ordered. (3-0) 5) REGULAR CALENDAR None 6) REPORTS 6.1 Reports from Staff Members None 6.2 OAKLEY PLANNING COMMISSION (a) Reports from Commission Members Commissioner Price reported the TRANSPLAN meeting was canceled due to lack of agenda items. (b) Requests for Future Agendas None 7) WORK SESSIONS None 8) ADJOURN There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:43p.m. Respectively Submitted, Kim Snodgrass Deputy City Clerk 6
STAFF REPORT City of Oakley | 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561 O (925) 625-7000 | F (925) 625-9859 | www.ci.oakley.ca.us DATE: October 17, 2023 TO: Joshua McMurray, City Manager FROM: Ken Strelo, Planning Manager SUBJECT: Grand Cypress Preserve Development Agreements Master Amendment (DA 01-23) – Continued from September 12, 2023 Regular City Council Meeting Summary This is a continued public hearing on an application by ACD-TI Oakley, LLC (“Applicant”) requesting approval of a Development Agreements Master Amendment (DA 01-23) that would apply to five separate Development Agreements to extend their terms from December 13, 2025 to December 13, 2045 (“Project”). The five existing Development Agreements apply to previously approved development projects made up of Planning Areas 1, 3, 4, and 6-H of the East Cypress Corridor Specific Plan. The development projects, commonly known as KT-KB Oakley LLC and Lesher Trust (Planning Area 1) Dal Porto South (Planning Area 3), Bethel Island LLC (Planning Area 4), and Pacific West Communities (Planning Area 6-H), are all part of a larger project known as “Grand Cypress Preserve”. All sites covered under the existing Development Agreements and applicable to the proposed Master Amendment are zoned SP-1 (East Cypress Corridor Specific Plan) District. The applicable sites are located in Planning Areas 1, 3, 4, and 6-H of the East Cypress Corridor Specific Plan generally located at the eastern end of Oakley north and south of East Cypress Road, Oakley, CA 94561. APNs: 020-140-048; 020- 150-003; 032-050-003; 032-082-001; 032-082-005; 032-082-010; 032-082-011; and 032- 082-013. Background GENERAL PLAN Specific Plan (SP) – The project sites are designated Specific Plan (SP) in the Oakley General Plan (Figure 2-2: Land Use Diagram). The General Plan was amended to add the SP land use designation and apply it to the East Cypress Corridor Specific Plan (“ECCSP”) through adoption of City Council Resolution 47-09 adopted on March 10, 2009. ZONING SP-1 (East Cypress Corridor Specific Plan) District – The ECCSP was adopted by Ordinance 10-09, resulting in the SP-1 District zoning classification for the entire Specific Plan area, on March 24, 2009. Approved and Forwarded to the Planning Commission 7
STAFF REPORT 2CITY HALL | 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561 O (925) 625-7000 | F (925) 625-9859 | www.CI.Oakley.CA.US Project Description ENTITLEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT HISTORY The Applicant has ownership of five separately entitled developments within the ECCSP that are all under their own respective development agreements with terms set to expire on December 13, 2025. These projects are identified by the owner as the “Grand Cypress Preserve” project, sometimes also referred to as the “Cypress Preserve” project. A summary of the projects with their tentative map entitlements and development agreements is listed below: KT KB Oakley LLC Subdivision 9311 (Planning Area 1) o 5/8/2012: Vesting Tentative Map approved (City Council Resolution 45- 12) o 9/12/2005: Development Agreement approved (Ordinance 25-05) o 5/22//2012: Development Agreement Amendment (Ordinance 03-12) Lesher Trust Subdivision 9404 (Planning Area 1) o 7/14/2015: Vesting Tentative Map approved (City Council Resolution 98-15) o 11/10/2020: Amendment to Vesting Tentative Map approved (City Council Resolution 150-20) o 9/26/2005: Development Agreement approved (Ordinance 25-05) o 1/10/2012: Development Agreement Amendment (Ordinance 25-11) Dal Porto South Subdivision 9401 (Planning Area 3) o 7/14/2015: Vesting Tentative Map approved (City Council Resolution 96-15) o 8/11/2015: Development Agreement approved (Ordinance 10-15) Bethel Island LLC Subdivision 9156 (Planning Area 4) o 11/8/2011: Vesting Tentative Map approved (City Council Resolution 122-11) o 11/10/2020: Amendment to Vesting Tentative Map approved (City Council Resolution 149-20) o 1/10/2012: Development Agreement approved (Ordinance 26-11) Pacific West Communities Minor Subdivision 11-976 (Planning Area 6-H) o 1/24/2012: Tentative Parcel Map approved (City Council Resolution 11- 12) o 1/10/2012: Development Agreement approved (Ordinance 27-11) 8
STAFF REPORT 3CITY HALL | 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561 O (925) 625-7000 | F (925) 625-9859 | www.CI.Oakley.CA.US MASTER AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS The proposed amendment document is officially titled, “Amendment to Certain Development Agreements By and Between City of Oakley and ACD-TI Oakley, LLC Relating to the Projects Comprising the ‘Cypress Preserve Project’ and Located in the East Cypress Corridor Specific Plan Area.” For the purposes of this request and simplifying its name, that document is referred to as the “Grand Cypress Preserve Development Agreements Master Amendment” or “Master Amendment.” The Master Amendment includes recitals that provide background and references to the original Development Agreements for all of the projects and two Development Agreement Amendments for KT KB Oakley LLC and Lesher Trust which received term extensions to match the December 13, 2025 expiration date created for the other three projects. The applicant originally requested an extension of the term to December 13, 2035 (10-year extension) for all of the Development Agreements. Since the September 12, 2023 City Council continuation of the item, the proposed terms have been modified and the applicant is now requesting an extension of the term to December 13, 2045 (20-year extension). As described in Part C of the Recitals in the proposed Development Agreement, the request is due to the “…current state of the economy and its negative effect on market orientation, interest rates, and housing demand, and in order to reduce the risk of development in light of such adverse economic conditions….” The language providing the extension is found under Part 2.1 “Amendments to Term” of the Agreement section of the proposed Development Agreement. The specific language is proposed as follows: The date “December 13, 2025,” as set forth in Section 1.4 of each of the Lesher Agreement, the KT-KB Agreement, the PacWest Agreement, the Dal Porto Agreement, and the Bethel Agreement, is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the date “December 13, 2045” and thereby extend the Term of each such agreement an additional twenty (20) years beyond December 13, 2025. This Development Agreement Master Amendment also proposes a Part 2.3 titled, “Additional Clarification of East Cypress Corridor Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) Mitigation Measures.” This section calls attention to three Mitigation Measures (“MM”) from the ECCSP EIR adopted on March 10, 2009 by City Council Resolution 46-09 (MMs 3.8-12, 3.13-4, and 3.13-16). These MMs all refer to the requirement for the Rock Slough Bridge to be constructed and installed before 20% (800 units) of the ECCSP is constructed. The proposed amendment language will serve to clarify to the developers of the Grand Cypress Preserve project that residential units in the existing Summer Lake South project and undeveloped Summer Lake North project are not counted toward the units that will prompt 9
STAFF REPORT 4CITY HALL | 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561 O (925) 625-7000 | F (925) 625-9859 | www.CI.Oakley.CA.US implementation of these MMs. This clarification has been determined by the City Attorney through analysis of the ECCSP EIR and the “Agreement Between Contra Costa County and City of Oakley Relating to Transition of Municipal Services, Collection of Fees and Maintenance of Infrastructure Upon Annexation of the East Cypress Corridor Specific Plan Area” referred to as the City-County Transition Agreement. This clarification does not result in amending the referenced EIR MMs. Previous Public Hearings PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING On July 18, 2023, the City of Oakley Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed project in order to make a recommendation to the City Council. During the hearing, Staff provided a presentation summarizing the request, analysis, and findings. Upon conclusion of the presentation, Staff provided a recommendation that the Planning Commission approve the proposed resolution recommending the City Council approve the request. The applicant spoke and reiterated their reasoning behind the request. Prior to the meeting, Staff received one written comment from Contra Costa Water District (“CCWD”). That letter was also forwarded to the Planning Commission. In summary, the letter brought attention to agreements between CCWD and the applicant as well as the importance of the levee for the canal undergrounding project. Staff responded to CCWD that the term extension would not have any negative effect on their standing agreements, and it may increase the likelihood the project, including the levee, remains feasible and is eventually developed. No members of the public provided oral comments. Upon conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted unanimously in favor of recommending the City Council approve the proposed Development Agreements Master Amendment (4- 0 with one absence) and adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 11-23. CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARINGS After the Planning Commission’s July 18, 2023 recommendation of approval through adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 11-23, the item was scheduled for public hearing and consideration by the City Council on August 8, 2023. Due to circumstances related to the underlying project, the item was continued to a date certain, September 12, 2023. Prior to the motion and vote to continue, the Mayor announced that the City Council received two separate public comments on the item prior to the meeting, and allowed for any additional public comments of which there were none. At the September 12, 2023 continued public hearing, the item was continued to a date uncertain. 10
STAFF REPORT 5CITY HALL | 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561 O (925) 625-7000 | F (925) 625-9859 | www.CI.Oakley.CA.US Since the September 12, 2023 continuation of the item, the Master Amendment has been revised thereby modifying the proposed project. The modification being the additional extension of the proposed term of the Development Agreement from ten (10) years to twenty (20) years beyond December 13, 2025, or from December 13, 2035 to December 13, 2045. Since the proposed project was modified, the item has been re-noticed and brought back to the Planning Commission for re-consideration under the revised term. Analysis The Development Agreements Master Amendment is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specific to the ECCSP. It is also compatible with the uses authorized in, and the regulations prescribed for, the ECCSP, and is designed in compliance with the approved development plans in that it does not result in any physical changes to any of the approved entitlements for any of the applicable Tentative Maps. The Master Amendment is in conformity with public convenience, general welfare and good land use practice and will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare in that the development in the ECCSP is responsible for much of the infrastructure improvements or cost-sharing for those improvements in and around the area that will benefit future residents and existing residents of Summer Lake South and areas in unincorporated Contra Costa County, such as along Dutch Slough Road and Sandmound Boulevard and on Bethel Island, and the term extension will increase the likelihood these projects are developed, and as a result, that infrastructure completed. The Master Amendment will not adversely affect the development of the properties in that the term extension will increase the chances they are able to be developed in the future. Findings Draft findings can be found in the proposed resolution. Consistency with the Oakley Strategic Plan 27+ Approval of this application would be consistent with the Oakley Strategic Plan 27+ Community and Economic Development Goal by serving to preserve existing entitlements of the ECCSP which will help to implement the objective to “Plan and develop Cypress Corridor holistically with improvements and commerce to service new development to ease downtown traffic.” It will also serve to implement the Community Health and Safety Goal. Future development of these properties and the cooperation by the developer to be involved in project-related fair share agreements ensure crucial infrastructure such as improvements to East Cypress Road can be 11
STAFF REPORT 6CITY HALL | 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561 O (925) 625-7000 | F (925) 625-9859 | www.CI.Oakley.CA.US completed in a desirable timeframe. This type of improvement will result in a full right of way width with multi-modal travel design and enhanced pedestrian safety. Fiscal Impact The approval of these entitlements will not impact the General Fund. This is a developer funded account. All Staff time and City of Oakley generated materials are charged to the developer account funded by the developer. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the proposed resolution recommending the City Council approve the project titled, Grand Cypress Preserve Development Agreements Master Amendment (DA 01-23). Attachments 1. Vicinity Map 2. Notice of Public Hearing 3. Grand Cypress Preserve Development Agreements Master Amendment 4. Proposed Resolution 12
Vicinity Map Grand Cypress Preserve Development Agreements Master Amendment (DA 01-23) APNs: 020-140-048; 020-150-003; 032-050-003; 032-082-001; 032-082-005; 032-082-010; 032-082-011; and 032-082-013 Bethel Island Rd. E. Cypress Rd. 13
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that on October 17, 2023 at 6:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, the Planning Commission of the City of Oakley will hold a Public Hearing at the Council Chambers located at 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561 for the purposes of considering an application as described below: Project Name: Grand Cypress Preserve Development Agreements Master Amendment (DA 01- 23). Project Location: Planning Areas 1, 3, 4, and 6-H of the East Cypress Corridor Specific Plan generally located at the eastern end of Oakley north and south of East Cypress Road, Oakley, CA 94561. APNs: 020-140-048; 020-150-003; 032-050-003; 032-082-001; 032-082-005; 032-082-010; 032-082-011; and 032-082-013. Applicant: ACD-TI Oakley, LLC, 11611 San Vicente Blvd. Ste. #610, Los Angeles, CA 90049. Attn: Andrew Han; andrew.han@greatlawnanalytics.com Request: This is a continued public hearing on a request for approval of a Development Agreements Master Amendment (DA 01-23) that would apply to five separate Development Agreements to extend their terms from December 13, 2025 to December 13, 2045. The five existing Development Agreements apply to previously approved development projects made up of Planning Areas 1, 3, 4, and 6-H of the East Cypress Corridor Specific Plan. The development projects, commonly known as KT-KB Oakley LLC and Lesher Trust (Planning Area 1) Dal Porto South (Planning Area 3), Bethel Island LLC (Planning Area 4), and Pacific West Communities (Planning Area 6-H), are all part of a larger project known as “Grand Cypress Preserve”. All sites covered under the existing Development Agreements and applicable to the proposed Master Amendment are zoned SP-1 (East Cypress Corridor Specific Plan) District. How to Review: The Staff Report and its attachments will be available for public review, on or before October 12, 2023 at City Hall, 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561 or online at www.ci.
Recording and media
Records considered
Not claimed by this page
No source correction or revision history is recorded for this meeting. A corrected artifact will appear here as a new version rather than replacing what is shown above.
Canonical record: a551b1dd4fa35f95f5befa7663eeebf3. This page changes as stronger artifacts are published; it never overwrites an agenda with minutes.
Publisher tools
