Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

The Oakley Planning Commission is called to order at 06:30PM. Clerk, would you please call roll?

Commissioner Ireland? Here. Commissioner Gaudi? Here. Commissioner Oliveros?

Vice chair Harvey.

Present.

Chair Price.

Here. Would you please stand and help me with the pledge of allegiance to the flag? At this time, the meeting is open for public comments. I have one card for public comments that are not on the agenda item. Blim Elif looked like his last name.

Brian Elliff. Oh, so Brian. I'm sorry. Just juggling a couple of things here. I happen to be meeting someone at the police station for marketplace purchase, and I noticed you guys are all in here. I got a property over here on East Cypress Road where you guys are doing all that work right now. We're super happy that you guys are getting all that all done. And sorry. Good evening, board. You guys look great up there.

I've been trying to get a petition together for the landowners over there, property owners to submit to the city. And I'll I'll work I'll try and get that to Ken, but if I could just bring it to your attention. We're all over there on wells, and we all have gas tanks and no sewage. We got over there. The properties are all really close together. And while you guys are doing all that work over there, and I think you're putting utilities to the field behind us. You guys familiar with I'm talking about? East Cyprus. It'd be really nice if you guys could put in some stubs or try and provide us with some utilities over there. Some water would be great.

All our wells are stinky. And when they lower the groundwater over there for the construction, it's gonna affect all of

our

wells. I think you guys had a problem with that on sellers where you guys just did some work. So just trying to be proactive. If you guys can get ahead of it, it might even prevent some litigation, which I think happened on sellers. Some gas lines of PG and E's running through there would be nice, but really just sewage and water. I don't know

if everyone's gonna be on board yet, but if you guys just can talk to your planners or talk to the public

works and see if you can convince them to to put a water line down the it's gonna be the frontage road now on East Cypress. Just putting in your guys' ear, see if you guys can do some referral, and see if we can get some utilities over there to those properties. We're my property is 50 feet wide, and so my well is or my septic's less than 50 feet from my neighbor's well. The the setbacks and the the feet just really aren't there. So it'd be really great to get some some water lines in there and some septic lines. So just wanna put that in your guys' ear this evening. Thank you.

Thank you. We have no further com comments that are are not addressing on Thank you. Moving to the, consent calendar. The consent calendar is approval of the minutes. And I I do not have any speaker cards at this time.

So we'll move on to the discussion. Does anyone have any concerns with on the committee for the consent calendar? Anyone like to make a motion that we approve the consent

I'll make a motion to approve the minutes.

Second.

Second. Thank you. Madam clerk?

Commissioner Gaudi?

Aye.

Commissioner Ireland?

Aye.

Vice chair Price?

Yes.

Oh, excuse me. Vice chair Harvey? Aye. Chair Price?

Yes. Thank you. So we'll now move on to the public hearings. This is a 4.1 on zoning.

Thank you, chair. Give me one second while I pull up the presentation. Alright, thank you so much. Good evening Chair Price and Commissioners. The next item on tonight's agenda is is zoning text amendments related to accessory dwelling units.

This is a city initiated application requesting approval of a rezoning to repeal certain sections of the Oakland Municipal Code section 9.11102 accessory dwelling units units which consist of Oakley's local regulations related to ADUs and replace them with adoption of the state's ADU law by reference. The planning commission is considering proposed resolution that recommends that the city council adopt an ordinance approving the proposed zoning text amendments. A little background. As California continues to enact legislation to increase housing production and streamline local land use regulations, cities are required to make corresponding updates to the general plans and zoning ordinances to remain in compliance. During the twenty twenty five California legislative session and in prior years, several bills were signed into law to address ADU size, number of ADUs, impact fees, and permitting timelines.

In response to this evolving legal landscape, the proposed amendments demonstrate the city's efforts, ongoing efforts to align with state law while ensuring clarity and consistency with local regulations. Additional background, Oakley Municipal Code section nine point one point one one zero two was originally adopted in 02/14/2017. The last update was 05/12/2020. Since May since 2020, several updates have been made to state ADU laws that have not been codified in the Oakland Municipal Code. However, the city has continually implemented state laws that have not been codified.

The zoning text amendments proposed, staff proposes to repeal sections of the Oakland municipal code which consists of Oakland's local regulations related to ADUs and replaced with adoption of the state's law ADU law by reference. The draft ordinance also acknowledges future state law amendments may occur. As as legislature continues to amend and or refine state ADU law, the Oakland Municipal Code would remain consistent with state law and zoning text amendments for ADUs would not be necessary. Additionally, while not required by legislative changes, the Oakland Municipal Code currently has regulations that will carry over into the new ordinance. Some include development standards related to ADU size, limiting the maximum size of 1,200 square square feet units on a state lots, a zone p one, r 15, r 20, r 40, or AL, and that are at least 15,000 square feet in size.

ADU is located in other zoning districts where they are permitted will comply with ADU state law. In addition to size limitations and compliance with ADU state law, standards for garage size limitations are carried over in the new ordinance. An additional standard is occupancy which will require that ADUs and junior ADUs be rented for no less than thirty days, essentially not allowing them to become short term rentals. This action would be exempt from CEQA and as such, staff recommends the planning commission adopt the proposed resolution recommending that the city council adopt the ordinance amending the Oakland Municipal Code to repeal sections of Oakley Municipal Code section 9.111 o two and replace with adoption of the state's ADU law by reference and finding that the action is exempt from CEQA. Thank you.

Oh, staff did receive a comment letter today referencing some inconsistencies, But hold on one second. Staff has taken into or staff has read the comments. Any changes we see fit will be discussed with the city attorney. But as for now, we can move forward with the staff recommendation with the the knowledge that we did receive comments and that modifications may be required. Thank you.

I'm just gonna follow-up Jose real quick. The comment letter Jose is talking about is included in your public comments. It's this one from HDF. So we we did receive this late this afternoon. We let the commenter know that that we would address this with the planning commission.

Our recommendation would be that we proceed with the ordinances as written and, with the knowledge that staff would meet with the city attorney to discuss whether any of their requests in the letter are something we would need to implement. And there there are small things like, not regulating the size in a certain zoning district. There there are things we felt that we could do. There's only two two things in the ordinance that we're keeping, that that the state law allows us to. So we just need to review that with the city attorney.

Whatever the city attorney city attorney recommends, we would take to the council because the ultimate goal of this is to be 100% in compliance with state law while maintaining whatever local control we can maintain. So our recommendation would not change, and we would just ask that the the commission, consider that, when they do take action on the on the resolution. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any questions or comments from the Planning Commission?

I I did have a question. I I guess this question may be more for the city attorney. I'm not really sure. So, obviously, the intent here is to keep our our ordinances to be somewhat evergreen with the states. And, obviously, the state has been pushing more building, more ADUs. Is I guess I'm saying, is there a situation where the opposite could happen, where the state could just completely change, go back to the way it was, and then we would revisit this because we wanted to allow it? I guess, is there any concern about it could go the other way if we're just sort of essentially taking what the state is doing and saying that's our code?

I I wouldn't say I have any immediate concerns about the state making any sudden changes to the relevant government code sections. And then just going back to Ken's previous comment, we will make sure that it's fully compliant with the updated state law with those relevant code sections as well. So whatever, if there are any changes that we have to make to that warrants, we'll make sure it's fully in compliance with updated state law.

Yeah, I apologize. I think I probably wasn't super clear on my question. Let me rephrase that. So right now, state law obviously wants us to build more ADUs, or they want And the city to permit we're just essentially copying their code to stay in compliance, which makes sense. Is there a situation that we could foresee where the opposite could happen, where the state radically changes their rules or policies with ADUs, and now the city is essentially scrambling because we're copying theirs?

Not that I can foresee at this time.

Okay, thank you. Sorry, I know it's a little out there question, I was just curious, thank you.

Yeah, appreciate it.

Questions?

At this time.

Alright. We will now open a public hearing. At this time, I do not have any comments as far as making a public comment. So we'll move on and we'll close the public hearing and move to deliberations. Look for a motion.

Yeah. I guess just on the deliberation front, I think I would support what Kennen suggests moving forward the resolution given the input that staff's going to consult with city attorney to update it if needed with you know the relevant letter that was received

second that excuse me

Well, was just making a comment that I think I would, again, we're in deliberations, that that's what I would support. And if we're done deliberating, I think

Do you want to move to accepting?

Move forward.

I'll make a motion then.

I'll second the motion. Okay.

Commissioner Gaudi? Aye. Commissioner Ireland?

Aye.

Vice chair Harvey? Aye. Chair Price?

Aye.

Item 4.1 passes four with one absent.

We'll be moving to the regular calendar item. So we're moving to 6.1. And reports from staff members, are there any?

Two very quick reports. Our next planning commission meeting is scheduled for March 3 at 06:30PM right here in the City Council Chambers. And just a reminder to the community that City Hall will be closed on February 16 in observation of President's Day. Thank you.

Or any report any requests for future agenda items for the on the planning commission?

Not at this time.

I'm not sure if this is inappropriate for an agenda item or not, but my understanding is the city is moving towards more remote participation and changing the way that's gonna function. I'm assuming because I don't know if that's gonna affect the planning commission as well, but when that gets sorted out, if it's possible, if we could get a briefing or some kind of training on what that's gonna look like.

Sure. At the last city council meeting, there was a work session on this presented by the city attorney, Derek Cole, and, staff re staff and the city attorney received direction from the city council. So the next steps would be for the city to go out and and bid for a consultant to assist us with that transition. It will impact the planning commission. So the planning commission meetings would operate in the same under the same rules as the city council meeting. So, yeah, once once we get that squared away, it'll take effect in July. So we will we will need to come back and present that to the planning commission and provide you all with training materials. We'll we'll do that.

Thank you. Thank you.

So moving to item 7.1, work session. Commissioner Gorman?

Thank

you, commissioners. Tonight, we're taking a look at 5801 Bridgehead Road preliminary general plan amendment. Do you wanna do the clicker? Behind the scenes action there. We're gonna start with where we're looking at tonight.

We're in the Northwest corner of town on Bridgehead Road where that star is. We'll get a closer view. The subject property this evening is outlined in orange there towards the top of the image. It is on Bridgehead Road, and then Main Street is there towards the bottom, and Highway 160 runs along the side of the image. To the East of this property are vineyards.

To the Northeast are is the Oakley Logistics Center. To the North are train tracks and then a PG and E corporation yard. To the West is Highway 160, and to the South is Sandy Point mobile homes. Here's an overview of the general plan land use designations in this area. On the left, we're zoomed out, and you can see this entire area is mostly for commerce.

Red is commercial designations, and light blue is light industrial. There on the right, it's more zoomed in with a star on the subject property, and you'll see right now it is designated commercial in our city's general plan. Everything to the south and east of it is commercial. To the Northeast, we have some utilities in that dark blue, and then light blue is the Oakley Logistics Center, which is designated light industrial. Here's an image, a recent image of the site.

It's 4.31 acres. It is fenced around on all sides. It's vacant right now. It has been used as a a contractor's yard in the past. That object in the center is non is a non potable well. And then there's a gate there. That's your entrance and exit onto Bridgehead Road. And then there, you can see the freeway and the railway to the north and Bridgehead Road. For tonight's request, first, what is a work session like this? Why do we do a preliminary work session?

When you change the general plan designation, it's one of our most intensive land use applications. It's very expensive, and it's all discretionary. You know, you could get to planning commission and then to council, and they can say no after you've done all your CEQUA work and extensive studies. So what we like to do instead is for a small fee just to cover the cost of getting it to a public hearing, we bring the concept to you. We haven't fully reviewed this application like we would another application.

This one's just early stages. Can we get your feedback on a change in the land use designation? And so tonight, we're just looking for feedback for the applicant. If they receive positive feedback, they may look to go forward with that application process. Your feedback tonight will be presented to the city council at a future work session in front of those nice folks.

Tonight's request this item is a request to discuss the merits of a potential project to amend the general plan land use designation of the subject property from commercial to light industrial. There you see on the map, the left hand side is what's existing, and then the right hand side is what they're proposing. Right now, it's commercial. That allows uses like personal services, you know, hair salons, barbers, nail salons, restaurants, retail when we had retail development, and it's more service based daily users. And we're providing an assessment of what impact a change would have.

Amending the general plan designation to light industrial would make a rezone application to LI district possible, which would then authorize uses permitted in the district. Uses currently permitted in c like the ones I just went over are generally no longer allowed. If they were to change, they wouldn't be able to do those uses. Just said. And the LI District that has a whole different list of uses.

Those are auto repair, a mini storage without without retail associated with it. Contractors yards, small warehouses in this case, light manufacturing, and then more intensive uses. Those need a conditional use permit, including even even though we don't think of storage facilities as being very busy. Those require a a CUP certain marine related industries and any uses that are deemed to generate dust or fumes or too much noise, those need a conditional use permit subject to the zoning administrator's determination. That's the result of what would happen here.

Tonight, we're asking for any feedback you we any feedback you have on whether you're in favor of a change like this and you're acting in an advisory role to city council. We'll take this to council, and we'll note in the staff report any thoughts you had on this application here. Finally, I have, again, just an existing and proposed view, commercial to light industrial. And then our applicant here, mister Dick Lokey, he has a presentation for you. And I do recommend if it pleases the commission that we watch that presentation. And then if you have any questions for me, you let me know or the applicant. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening, commissioners, staff. Ken, it's been a long time. I'm Dick Lokey. I'm here Lokey Planning Associates is my company, and I'm here on behalf of the property owner of 5801 Bridgehead. That's Diane Schotts and her family.

We did prepare a PowerPoint, but Evan has done a fine job of laying out the background and the facts involving current general plan, current zoning, what we proposed. What I would like to do, and I'll focus on a couple of these slides, is talk to you a little bit about the last thing that Evan went through, which is the effect of a general plan amendment, what we're trying to accomplish. And I'm gonna talk to you in the context of opportunities and constraints. The constraints of the commercial land use designation and the opportunities light industrial presents. So with that in mind, again, this property is is somewhat uniquely situated and that it it adjoins the railroad tracks on its north side.

Highway 160, which is an elevated freeway producing a lot of noise and vibration on the West. And on the East side, as I know you're all aware, is the Bridgehead Industrial project that is in process with the city that would essentially establish a light industrial land use pattern for the Klein property, what we used to call the Klein Property. And to the south, of course, is the Sandy Point Mobile Home Park. These 4.3 acres are flat. They're easily developed.

But the problem that we are dealing with and what my client has struggled with for the last couple years is finding a commercial use that's viable and sustainable. The property has been in her family for two generations, and for the better part of forty years, has been used for equipment, storage, and lay down purposes. And it's been pretty much in continuous use for that purpose. So with that in mind, constraints. In a perfect world, we'd find a retail use for this property and we'd develop buildings that could be occupied by services and retailers.

But this site is is substantially separated from Main Street. The corridor, the commercial corridor that the city has designated in its general plan. That combined with the presence of noise, the railroad tracks, and a lot of industrial traffic on Bridgehead Road has made this far less than an attractive site for a retail use. We haven't been able to find anyone interested in bringing retail this far north from Main Street. Now conversely, from an economic development standpoint, what does light industrial represent?

Well, your code to begin with allows a floor air ratio of up to point six seven or and coverage limitation of 50% in this district. Now that would result potentially in a building of up to a 125,000 square feet. Based on the market analysis we've done and we've gone through appraisals, commercial brokerage analysis, I'm a broker myself. We've all looked at the data. We've looked at the demographics.

And what we think and what we've heard from people knocking on Diane's door is the potential for a light industrial building of about a point three five FAR. That translates into something like 65,000 square feet on these 4.3 acres. The uses that we believe are viable and for which we've had inquiries include specialty equipment and light manufacturing. This could include machine parts, solar panels, optical, the kinds of of manufacturing activities that are kind of synergistic with the business community here in town and surrounding Oakley of a specialized nature, enclosed, and not likely to produce noise, dust, vibration, or other impacts off-site. Without going through the zoning ordinance list, I'm trying to focus on the things that we think are viable based on what we've heard in the market.

So this is really market focused. An indoor lumberyard is a possibility. A high probability is specialty light assembly as opposed to manufacturing. And that could include all sorts of of machine parts and and specialty equipment used in the surrounding business parks, logistics centers, and other local retail businesses that need equipment. Warehousing.

Not standalone because this is only 4.3 acres, but in combination with one of those assembly or or light manufacturing uses. And offices. There is demand for general and professional offices. And in combination with one of those other uses, again, assembly, manufacturing, we would see offices. And lastly, equipment maintenance facilities.

There are a range of specialty maintenance needs, again, tied to the local industry. So think of this as you would service commercial meeting the needs of the population. A light industrial facility with equipment maintenance would service the industrial neighborhood surrounding the site. This site I wanna note because of the discussion that's gone on here both with the commission and staff and and ultimately will be with the council. This site is too small for a data center.

It would be an inappropriate use and probably would not work to begin with given infrastructure limitations. So based on what I've described, the light industrial use that occupied a building of about 65,000 square feet would translate using an employment ratio of somewhere between one employee per two hundred and fifty and one employee per 500 square feet to between a hundred and thirty and two hundred and sixty employees. Now these would be well paid jobs, somewhere in the range of 70 to over a $130,000 annually. And that would translate to a payroll of somewhere north of 1,000,000 to over $2,000,000 annually. Those salaries and that payroll are in pretty stark contrast with what even if we could find a retail use would generate on the site.

And so let me lastly speak to assessed valuation. Right now, the property with its ongoing lay down and equipment storage has an assessed value of a little over $400,000. Annually, that generates something close to $6,000 in property taxes and special taxes. Not very much. Were this developed for a light industrial use?

Again, I'm using 65,000 because we don't have a tenant in hand yet, but that's what the market suggests is a target. We'd be looking at adding somewhere between 2 and a half and $4,000,000 of capital improvements and assessed valuation, which would translate to an additional somewhere between 30 and $40,000 annually in property taxes. So what this is really saying is there is a market potential for a light industrial use. One that is kind of synergistic with the business community that is evolving in Oakley and expanding. And this site works nicely in that niche condition.

We think this kind of use would be compatible not only with the business parks, but certainly with the entire environment in which it would be located. It's a noisy environment. It has a a sensitive residential use to the south of it. And this kind of use would be compatible because it would be less noisy than the unenclosed activities that that have been going on there for the last forty years. And let me close by just mentioning something that Evan, know is aware of, but didn't bring up.

Any new development in the Light Industrial District triggers design review. And so once a tenant is found and a building is designed, the architect and engineers have to think about making the site meet the needs of the tenant, right? But at the same time, fitting into its local environment. And that means being sensitive to everything from handling traffic, handling parking, to where doors, service doors, and so forth open. Not towards the mobile home park, but towards the noise sources.

And so the community gets engaged through design review and looking at everything from building height and materials to parking adequacy, landscaping, and frontage improvements. So my apologies for giving you a a PowerPoint that I didn't spend a lot of time on. It's there if if you wish to look at it later. But again, Evan covered most of that. I'll just close by saying that we have an opportunity here for an economically viable, sustainable use that generates jobs and and enhances tax base.

And all of the data we have is telling us that a retail use simply isn't gonna be feasible today, tomorrow, or ten years from now. And we're interested in moving forward with something that works. Thank you.

Are there any questions from the planning commissioner? That's all we have.

No?

Thank you very much. Thank you for your time.

Commissioner, if it's alright with you, I'd like to make a correction on a mistake I saw in the presentation just so you're as better informed as you can be. Jose, would you be willing to open up my PowerPoint once more? Thank you. Sorry about this. Thanks for your patience.

Thanks.

Sorry to put you on the spot, Jose. Thank you. Alright. Here we go. Alright.

I said here that use is currently permitted in general commercial. You wouldn't be allowed to do them anymore, and that wasn't, wasn't correct. I just got a good, heads up that there's a small footnote in the Light Industrial District that says that many of the uses in commercial, you can still bring over. Some permitted by right, some permitted conditionally. So pretty much my understanding is almost all the uses can can be used if someone's interested, just either permitted or with a conditional use permit. And maybe mister Strelo could

add on to that. Yeah. I have the attachment here.

Thank you.

Light Industrial does state that in the list of permitted uses, uses permitted in the R B District would also be permitted in light industrial. And under the conditionally permitted uses in the light industrial, the note states uses permitted in general commercial districts would be allowed with a conditional use permit in the light industrial. It's a little it's a little strange, but it does reference the other code, and then the commercial districts have internal references as well. But as Evan stated, there could potentially be a carryover. As mister Lokey mentioned, they may be looking at professional offices or other sorts of offices.

Those aren't listed in light industrial, but they are listed in commercial. So that would be something that could remain a feasible use for for one example.

Thank you. Thank you. Okay. The at this time, we'll be moving to public comments. We've received two written comments that the commission has that'll be entered into the record. And I have two green cards for public comments. And the first one is Alexander Diaz. And the other one is Richard Lokeshi. That's you. So that's

it.

That's it.

No other public comments? Then we'll move on and ask any questions or comments for the commissioners. And this we don't take a vote tonight. So if you have any comments to go forward to the city council, this is where it will be entered into the record.

I'm happy to go first. I feel like I'm monopolizing. Yeah. Just as far as my recommendation, generally, think I would support this if it was tied to an actual activity, not just a general change. I think my comment to counsel will be to consider this strongly that we do have limited commercial in the city, and I feel like we kind of need to or we need to protect it. So I don't think I'd recommend making this change unless we had a substantive project that it was tied to. I know this is just a general plan change, but it does indicate how the city is considering or the tides that are going. And so I recommend we leave it as commercial unless it's tied to a specific project where we can tie at least a planned economic development behind it.

For myself, I find that with the sensitivity as far as having the requirements in place for this particular location being as it is, I would be alright with the zoning change knowing that the requirements are there to be sensitive to the community and to make it conditional and to have these safeguards in place. So I'm fine with it in this form.

You know, looking through the general commercial and all the options that you have, it's pretty hard to say that there's gonna be something that that's legit that somebody would want to be able to build there at this time. But I would I'm with my coworker here. I would like to see something like what the idea would be, but I would be okay with the switch if it was online.

And looking at the building, I've seen this property for a long time with a lot of storage on it and kind of changed from different things. It's not been a nice thing to look at as you're driving down the road. And I think it would be a real plus for Oakley to have a nice building in there rather than a storage yard with you never know what kind of construction equipment you're gonna find there. So I also would say that I think this would be a great addition for the city. And moving on, since there's no further business, the meeting is adjourned.