Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. The regular meeting of the Oakland Planning Commission is called to order at 6.30 p.m. Clerk, would you please call roll?

Commissioner Gowdy?

Present.

Commissioner Ireland?

Present.

Vice Chair Harvey? Absent. Chair Price?

Present. Would you please stand and pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. This time, we'll take public comments on items not on the agenda. Clerk, do we have any?

We have no hands raised on Zoom, Chair.

Moving on, then I'll ask for a move to do the consent calendar.

I'll make a motion to approve the consent calendar.

I'll second.

Please take a vote.

Commissioner Gowdy?

Aye.

Commissioner Ireland?

Aye.

Chair Price?

Aye.

Motion passes 3-0.

Now I'll move to public hearings. Item 4.1, Bridgehead. Mr. Gorman, please. All right. Thank you.

All right, how is it now? Perfect.

Thank you, commissioners. It'll just take us a moment to get the presentation up. I want to thank Rob for manning that spot, because I get a first time presenting up at this podium with you gentlemen, and I appreciate it. I won't take too much advantage of all the space up here. All right, thank you. Tonight's item, this first item is 5540 Bridgehead Road, AMPM. It's a conditional use permit for the sales of distilled spirits. Project location is up in the northwest side of town. If we get closer in, we have Main Street and Bridgehead Road, and then Highway 160 there to give you a reference point. And we have the fuel station outlined in yellow. 5540 Bridgehead Road. It's an AMPM convenience mart and ARCO fuel canopy. Its general plan designation is commercial. Its zoning is also commercial. It's 1.31 acres, operates 24-7, and it currently sells beer and wine. It has a license to do so. For the project description, the applicant is seeking approval of a conditional use permit to sell distilled spirits alongside their existing offerings. In their application, the applicant states that the alcoholic beverage industry has shifted towards the sale of pre-mixed drinks from nationally recognized brands. According to the applicant, these products typically have an alcohol content similar to beer, sometimes higher, and generally lower than wine. We don't just like to pass that straight on to you. We like to review it. And we found that with some research that that was consistent. We agreed with that description. Here is, on the right, the applicant provided a diagram so you can get an idea of what some of the nationally recognized brands are and what their alcohol percentages come in at in relation to typical offerings that are already at the AMPM there. All right. Why is it here? Convenience stores that sell distilled spirits for off-site consumption have generally been interpreted as liquor stores under the OMC, the Oakley Municipal Code, and they have required a conditional use permit to establish their use in Oakley. Here's a floor plan. If we zoom in, the right side is zoomed in. You'll see the premixed drinks from nationally recognized brands, those will be out in the floor, the typically accessible sales area next to the existing offerings. Any bottles of distilled spirits, those will be in a locked case behind the register. And so that's in red. And it is over on the right-hand side. And as you can see, it's there behind the clerks. All right. For our assessment of this application, sorry, our analysis, the proposed project conforms to the required findings for approval in the Oakley Municipal Code, partly due to its limited scope and due to the convenience store already being established. The required findings for conditional use permits, they're mostly related to new development of a parcel, you know, a vacant parcel, and ensuring quality site development and that adjacent infrastructure is able to accommodate it. The limited scale of the proposed distilled spirit sales supports the required findings. Bottled distilled spirits would be displayed within a 58 square foot area behind the point of sale counter. The premixed drinks would be displayed with other products integrated into the existing store displays. All purchases would occur at the same point of sale counter used for other merchandise. This integration into the existing convenience store supports finding three because the proposal would not change the essential character of the area. For environmental review, CEQA doesn't typically touch applications like this. This is seen as existing facilities. It's not a significant expansion of the use of this building as a convenience store. Staff found this consistent with our municipal code, similar to the last few gas station-based applications like this. We recommend the Planning Commission adopt the resolution approving 5540 Bridgehead Road AMPM Sales of Distilled Spirits Conditional Use Permit as conditioned. I can answer any questions you have. The applicant apologizes. They couldn't make it tonight. They are here via Zoom. And I said I would save them, because it's our second time doing Zoom, I said I would save them any embarrassment if we have any technical issues. I'll just repeat what they told me they wanted to say. that they agree with the conditions of approval, they appreciate you hearing this application, they feel the staff report covers it, but they're happy to answer any questions you have. And they should be on the line on Zoom. Thank you, commissioners.

Thank you. Any questions from the commissioners?

I just have one question. I assume from the staff report I saw that the police department did support the PCN finding here, but I didn't see anything just categorically police had no issues with site-specific alcohol or nuisance issues with that site.

Yeah, I was walking from dinner, and I was like, oh, I've left that out of the PowerPoint. And so thank you for that question. Yeah, so I think our first application like this, we didn't route it to the police department. It shouldn't have slipped our mind. But ever since then, the commission has asked that we do that. So each application, the last four, including this one, have been routed to the police chief. He says they don't have any concerns. And the other thing is we checked the overconcentration. Like you mentioned, census tracts can get overconcentrated with licenses. This one has had too many licenses for decades. If you think about it, Main Street has a lot of places you can buy alcohol. This one's not a concern when working with the police department because it's going to replace its existing license. That's a good question. Thank you.

Thank you. I would make a motion to approve.

Second.

Commissioner Gowdy?

Aye.

Commissioner Ireland?

Aye.

Chair Price?

Aye.

Motion passes.

Moving to item 4.2, Bridgehead Business Park Properties. Mr. Gorman?

All right, you have me again here, Chair. Thank you, Commissioners. This is Bridgehead Business Park Properties. I'm just going to, sorry, I'm going to turn around and see if I have my applicants here.

Let me see. OK, perfect.

Thank you. Perfect. So tonight is Bridgehead Business Park Properties It is a general plan amendment and rezone. We're in the same area, coincidentally. If we zoom in, we have Wilbur Avenue and Bridgehead Road. Off screen, well, sort of, is Petco warehouse, so the Oakley Logistics Center. And then these are three parcels. They total about 1.3 acres as well. Whoops. Hmm. Do you mind if I do next slide Rob? I'm having trouble. Oh, thank you You got it, that's perfect. Thank you Here's their current general plan land use designation. Those three parcels are that small darker blue that's business park and as you can see they sit within a sea of light industrial that lighter baby blue and All right, the parcel closest to the corner is 6001 Bridgehead Road. It's the largest building. My understanding is that it has two tenant spaces. G&M Marble is a marble countertop supplier that has been there for a while. And then they are looking to have auto repair in the other tenant space there. And that building has existed. All of these buildings we're going to talk about tonight have been around since before the city incorporated. All right, the middle parcel is 6113 Bridgehead Road. This is what it used to look like. Right now it has a contractor on it, Luma Builders. They're in a code enforcement process because the business park zoning does not allow them. And and so right now if you were to go out there you'd see contractors yard and then they have Appropriately they should they be allowed they have screened This whole you can't see through the fence anymore. It's probably the equipment is properly screened. I'm sorry. I don't have an updated picture Then the last parcel is six one one five bridgehead Road and again stereotypical industrial look just roll up doors on this building in that trailer there and And so all three of these property owners have applied together. And what have they applied for? The applicant's request approval of a general plan amendment for the three subject parcels. The general plan amendment would redesignate the properties from business park, their current designation, to light industrial. And the rezone would change their zoning from business park low to light industrial as well. And there you'd see how the colors would change. It would match the Oakley Logistics Center across the street. The general plan's light industrial designation, if approved, it provides for limited fabrication, manufacturing, processing, packaging and assembly, wholesale, distribution, warehousing, storage, vehicle and machinery repair and similar compatible activities. The designation does not allow heavy industrial uses that emit significant amounts of smoke, noise, light or pollutants. It also directs that uses incompatible with residential development because of noise, vibration, or similar characteristics not be located where they may affect existing or future residences. The nearest residences are down the road at Sandy Point, which is closer to Main Street. It's pretty distant. The applicant's reasoning, market demand exists for small light industrial rental spaces. Light industrial uses could support nearby businesses. This is the applicant talking, including the Oakley Logistics Center. One of the property owners recently bought the property thinking they could open a light industrial business that could support the logistics center, like repair of vehicles, things like that. Prospective tenants have been unable to locate on the property because their operations are not permitted in the business park district. This I can confirm. You know, I feel that I have denied a lot of business licenses for these properties because they just don't fit the list of allowed uses under the business park. Applicants report limited market interest in some business park uses and believe the LI designation better reflects current demand. Some of the business park uses are like copying facilities, things meant for a business park and they're having trouble finding folks with those businesses. The scope of the request, no changes are proposed, no physical changes are proposed to the site at this time. The application does not include a site plan or building plans, it's just a change in the zoning and the general plan. Approval would change those, but they would not authorize construction or approval of any physical modifications. Future development or exterior changes would still be subject to applicable city review and permitting requirements, including design review where required. The contractor's yard at 6113 Bridgehead Road could be established should this get approved. They could move forward and the code enforcement case would be dropped. All right. For our analysis, we find the light industrial designation fits both the existing development on the site and the character of the surrounding bridgehead road corridor. The site is surrounded by light industrial uses with the nearest residential use approximately one-third, sorry, a third of a mile away. The light industrial designation places employment generating uses near major arterials and freeway access consistent with the general plan. The designation prohibits heavy industrial uses and requires compatibility with surrounding properties. The amendment would support reuse of existing employment sites for compatible light industrial businesses. In terms of the rezone findings, the existing buildings were developed under county entitlements and are suited to the industrial occupancy. The three separately owned parcels total 1.36 acres and are not well configured for the coordinated business park campus envisioned by the current designation. Light industrial businesses can occupy the existing buildings with substantially less redevelopment. Approval would allow the existing buildings to be occupied by compatible light industrial businesses while continuing the established pattern of logistics, utility, transportation, and storage uses in the Bridgehead Road area. The change would not preclude future consideration of a coordinated business park project if the properties are assembled and market conditions support redevelopment. If someone wanted to build a business park, they could bring in a similar application to this one here to change it back. Environmental review. We brought this to the Commission in the past because, you know, it's interesting. A general plan amendment, it looks like you just changed the colors on a map, but you have to analyze the environmental effects of that. And so it's expensive and it takes a while. And so part of that is developing an initial study and negative declaration. The initial study evaluated 21 environmental topic areas in Appendix G of the CEQA guidelines. It concluded that the project would not have a significant effect on the environment and that a negative declaration is the appropriate environmental document. No mitigation measures are required, and no mitigation monitoring and reporting program is necessary. It's rare that you see that, and here it's because they're not proposing new development. A notice of intent to adopt a negative declaration was circulated for public review. Comments were gathered. We were open for comments from June 10th through July 9th. We didn't receive any, and we filed the NOI with the county clerk and the state clearinghouse. Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the proposed resolution recommending that the City Council adopt the negative declaration and approve the project titled Bridgehead Business Park Properties. And if you were to do so, it would go on to the City Council for review.

And I can answer any follow-up questions you have.

My applicant feels the presentation speaks for itself. But if you have questions for them, I believe they're happy to answer them. Thank you.

Any questions from commissioners?

Since staff is recommending, I assume the answer is yes. But I just want to confirm staff's comfortable with. We talked about contractor use current. There's potential auto repair, general contractor. So I assume the full range of light industrial use, there's no concern about any other potential uses in the future under that.

Yeah, I think this recommendation comes with one of the attachments is the list of allowed uses in light industrial. And so we're recommending approval of the rezone. And so I would say we're comfortable with that list that's accommodated by the zoning code. Yes.

Thank you.

Good. We'll now open the public hearing for this item. Seeing no speaker cards have come forward, any online comment?

There are no online comments.

We'll now close the public hearing. Would any commissioner like a motion to adopt this resolution?

I'll put in a motion. I'll second the motion.

Clear, please.

Commissioner Gowdy?

Aye.

Commissioner Ireland?

Aye.

Chair Price?

Aye.

Motion passes.

Moving to item 4.3, 5279, New Roley Road appeal. Mr. Gorman, you're on the stage again.

Thank you. This is the last one, but it is serious. We don't take this one lightly. This is 5279 Neroli Road appeal. All right. We'll start with a lay of the land. We have Neroli Road there cutting through the middle of the image. We have Main Street up at the top, and then the subject property is there outlined in yellow. We'll get you a closer look. All right, here's a closer look. This is an image from before 2025, but I wanted to get some dimension to it. The home from before 2025 is highlighted, outlined in yellow. The nearby uses are mixed. You have some, while these are all Let's see, while the parcels between Elm Lane and Neroli, those are the two roads in this image, while they're all zoned light industrial, you'll see a mix of actual uses. You have legal nonconforming homes, and then you'll see the roll-up doors and the larger buildings, which are industrial uses like mechanics. This property is designated light industrial in the general plan, and it's zoned LI, light industrial. This light industrial zone does not permit new residences. Because the subject residence predates the city's incorporation, the city recognizes it as a legal non-conforming residential use within a non-residential district. This means that residents may continue to be used even though single family homes are not permitted in this light industrial zone. I hear at the permit counter, even though we don't use this term, you'll hear it grandfathered is the term. And that has some regulations tied to it. Cities have sections of code that handle these situations where you have a use that existed before a zone was changed. So it was housing, and then it gets rezoned to light industrial. And so in order to regulate that, they add a section of code for legal nonconforming uses or just generally nonconforming uses. A part of this code that we'll cover tonight applies R6 residential zoning standards to the legal nonconforming residents so that otherwise permitted residential activities and improvements, such as sheds and household pets, remain regulated, while expansion or intensification of the nonconforming residential use remains prohibited. So the code will say, use R6 for building a shed Limiting the number of cats or dogs on a property, but but it'll say please don't expand the use What does expansion or intensification mean The city's non-conforming use regulations allow the residential use to continue while limiting its expansion or intensification so that the inconsistency with the current zoning is not increased and the property may ultimately transition to a use permitted within the light industrial district. Expansion or intensification is defined in the code section as an enlargement, addition, relocation, repair, remodeling, increase in the number of dwelling units or rooming units, any increase in occupancy or tenants, change in use, or any other change in an activity or facility. The purpose of this section says the intent of this ordinance is to prevent the expansion of nonconforming structures and uses and to amortize them over time. All right. This became a code enforcement case when it was found that an unpermitted addition was built at 5729 Neroli Road. Here's a February 2025 image from Google Earth of the original home, and then the November 2025 image. You see there's a large addition built to the south of it. This became, like I mentioned, this became a code enforcement case and here is another image from the code enforcement case. You'll see the exposed, you'll see the red is the existing home and then the exposed plywood there is the addition under construction. This culminated in a zoning administrator determination. What are the next steps with this unpermitted addition, which we could not find a record in county permitting or city permitting? The zoning administrator issued a determination on June 8, 2026. The existing residents may continue as a legal nonconforming use. Just because something gets rezoned does not mean you get evicted. You get to live in your property as it is. The municipal code prohibits expansion or intensification of that nonconforming residential use, unfortunately. The unpermitted attached addition constitutes an expansion of the residence and cannot be permitted, unfortunately. The owners were directed to coordinate with code enforcement on the code enforcement process, which is usually abatement. Sometimes it'll end up being recorded onto the title of the property until it is abated, like the title will be clouded until abatement. and returning the home back to how it was in the previous images. Additionally, the homeowner and the representative mentioned a future ADU, and so it was included in the determination that that would increase the number of dwelling units and likewise constituted a prohibited expansion or intensification. An appeal was filed on June 11, and a supplemental memo was submitted on July 6 from the homeowner and their representative. The Planning Commission, the way this works is the Planning Commission conducts a de novo review, a fresh review, they're not bound, you're not bound, by the zoning administrator's analysis or conclusions. The Commission may independently review the record, interpret the Municipal Code, and reach its own conclusions. By majority vote, the Commission may affirm, reverse, or modify the June 8th determination based on findings of fact. The Planning Commission's decision may be appealed to the City Council within 15 calendar days. The appellant and their representative are going to have a chance to speak to you. And so just to quickly summarize as neutrally as possible, the appellant's memo mentions OMC 9.1.1502 . It states that it should allow the residents to use R6 development standards for setbacks, height, lot coverage, and related improvements. It should accommodate the addition Here's that section. I'm going to take some water before I read this. Thank you. A non-conforming residential use in a non-conforming residential structure in a non-residential zoning district may continue to be used as a residence subject to the requirements of the R6 zoning district. There's a mention of multifamily, but that doesn't apply here. Until such time as the building is amortized, condemned, removed, or converted to a conforming use. This next part's about fire damage, which doesn't apply here. And then finally, expansion or intensification of the non-conforming use is prohibited. Additionally, the memo states that compliance with R6 standards provides a basis in the appellant's view to permit residential construction despite the allied zoning and legal nonconforming status. A future ADU should be allowed under R6 standards and state ADU law. And you may review attachment four. Anyone in the audience or at home can review attachment four for the appellant's complete supplemental memorandum. All right, for staff's analysis on this appeal application, what the OMC section does and does not do The section allows the existing residents to continue. The 1944 home is not being amortized. The original home can stay as a home. The R6 reference supplies development standards for work that is allowed, such as a shed, but not an addition. It also regulates things like household pets. It does not rezone the LI parcel or override the prohibition on expanding the non-conforming residential use. The same subsection states expansion or intensification of the nonconforming use is prohibited. The attached construction qualifies as both an enlargement and an addition. This reading is consistent with the ordinance's stated intent to prevent expansion of nonconforming structures and uses. This ordinance doubles down on that. Line 7 restates the same prohibition independently. Line 7 by itself states expansion or intensification of non-conforming uses is prohibited. We covered the definition. It includes additions or enlargements. And then again, the purpose of the whole ordinance is the intent is to prevent the expansion of nonconforming structures and uses and to amortize them over time. That's not taking place here. It's just the purpose over time. The code does permit expansion where it intends to in a separate case from this. Notably, there's a section that expressly allows certain underutilized single-family residential uses to expand in residential districts. So this is a different situation, but when the code does want expansion, it says it. The code permits expansion where it intends to. It does not do so for a non-conforming residential use in a non-residential district, which is the case here. To summarize, the commission reviews the June 8th determination de novo. The question is whether the municipal code allows the addition and the proposed ADU under the current LI zoning and non-conforming status. Building permit processing, amortization, future rezoning, and CUPs are not the decision tonight. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the appeal and affirm the zoning administrator's June 8, 2026 determination concerning 5279 Neroli Road as modified by the resolution. Like I mentioned, we don't take this lightly due to it being someone's residence. We have met with the homeowner and their representative to try to explain a lot of this legalese here so that no one's left in the dark. We're happy to answer any questions the Commission has, both right now and after the appellant speaks. We have received communication from the appellant's representative over the last several days, and those communications characterize our position in a way that does not align with our understanding of it. I want to affirm that our staff report and the presentation here represent our position, and if it gets murky, please feel free to ask me any questions, and I'll likely go back to this presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions. And then if it pleases the commission, you can invite the appellant or their representative up. I believe they're provided up to 10 minutes to present. Thank you, commissioners.

Any questions of the commissioners?

I do have a few questions. I'd actually like to ask Mr. Cole if it's appropriate. I have a few questions. I just want to make sure that I understand a few of these ordinances correctly. Thank you. That's a presentation. I really appreciate you breaking it down. I just want to make sure my understanding of a few of these is correct. So I apologize. I'm probably repeating some information, but I want to make sure that I understand it. So my reading and from the materials, my understanding of 9.1.1502 is that it allows the existing legal nonconforming residents to continue but it does expressly prohibit expansion or intensification of that non-conforming residential use. Is that the correct way to understand that provision?

Yes, you're accurate.

Okay. So just as a follow-up to that is that the code defines expansion or intensification and includes an enlargement, an addition, or an increase in the number of dwellings or rooming units. So therefore, I just want to make sure that I understand the attached addition is an expansion of the code. and that a separate ADU would increase the number of dwellings and therefore constitute an expansion or intensification of the existing residential units.

100% correct.

OK. Thank you. So one last question. Sorry for being a little detailed here. I just want to make sure I understand correctly. R6 tells us that the developmental standards apply to residential work that is otherwise legally permissible, but they don't override the prohibition against expanding the nonconforming residential use.

Correct. That's not a reasonable reading of the R6 language.

OK. Those are the three questions I had. Thank you.

Correct. I am in full support of staff's position. Legally, we cannot allow this expansion. That would expressly violate our code.

OK, thank you. Appreciate it.

Pierre, any other questions from the commission?

Just one, I guess. I'm looking at their paper that they had. They mentioned that we do not address 1502 , does that have any relevance to what we're discussing? I have it here, and I can pass it to you guys for reference. Mr. Cole.

OK. I will now open the public hearing. Would the applicant like to provide any comment?

I had a quick question for Mr. Cole. Go ahead.

Did you get the paper on? Yes.

So I'm sorry. I just want to make sure I have the full ordinance in front of me.

I think I can answer. I may be able to answer that question. And I may ask Evan if you can come back up to the podium. Because I don't have the entire code in front of me. But there was a response in the zoning administrator's findings that inadvertently referenced a section in the code that I believe it was for kind of the opposite situation. And it was just a misreference of the code section. The other sections were also referenced in that area, the ones that Evan covered tonight. And if I'm not mistaken, that part four may refer to non-residential uses in residential zones, kind of a different situation, which also includes prohibition to expansion or intensification. And I believe that was called out. We've since cleared that up in our communications with the appellant. That may be what you're referring to, but I'd ask Evan to confirm since he has all of that open. And I think there was a part in the staff report that... Did you say C-4 or D-4? Oh, C-4. I'm talking about D4, so I apologize.

Yeah, I'd be happy to take a look at that. I believe it was addressed in the staff report, and I'll review that. And maybe after the appellant speaks on the issue, I can answer the question for you. Thank you, Commissioner.

Would the applicant like to come forward and provide comments, please?

Yes, please. Thank you, everybody, for your time. And this is merely, it's not an application for anything. That's absolutely correct. We were just looking to merely acknowledge municipal code to then take onto our design to see if there was a cure for the unpermitted structure, which is what we're looking to do, get it to conforming. And there is, you know, and I appreciate the time of staff because they've been generous with their time and that I've been very grateful for. But with that said, there is on this same Article 15, if you enact it and it's entirely, it all speaks within to this subject. It's non-conforming uses and it separates them, non-conforming structures and non-conforming uses. as we would not be expansing or intensifying our use, it's stay R6, which is our governing use that we just as of not so long ago have gained that acknowledgement from city staff. And are you kidding me? No, we are not looking to intensify the use. We're eager to abide by it. And that same Article 15, Section C1 says conformity with applicable laws, meaning that there is conformity and non-conforming use. And this conformity allows for all work performed on a non-conforming structure shall be pursuant to a building permit. Meet all requirements of this ordinance and all city codes. That's our six governing standards that we've identified. And so this property is the particular case that could actually meet conformity with its use. If the land wasn't adequate to meet the setbacks or the building standards of our six governing standards, yes, we cannot intensify or expand our use. Because then that would be us trying to do something that the code itself does not support. There is conformity in legal nonconforming. And that's what I'm looking for this staff to acknowledge it and to define its meaning. Because otherwise, that comment that was said that otherwise permitted work per building standards, it's a very sophisticated comment encompassing the whole article, even the conformity part of it, even for those parcels and structures that can meet conformity. We're merely trying to get our structure to meet conformity with its use, not beyond it. And we've just gotten that acknowledgment that our six governing standards is our use.

That's it. And I'll take questions.

We're not looking to expand our use. Let that be clear. We're not whatsoever. We're just merely looking to abide by it. And the municipal code does not describe any other instance of restricted R6. There isn't. There's no definition to restricted R6, which is what somehow is being prescribed to us. And then secondly, the order of abatement that was issued on the property, there is a due process for abating nonconforming properties. as it starts the amortization process on them. So this could have some very heavy consequences and implications, possibly jeopardize Mr. Barajas' nonconforming status on his property in general just by following the prescription of city staff of abating the unpermitted structure without considering there is a cure. And the same ordinance that you guys have just acknowledged where it talks about our governing standards allows for us to either, it says, allows for us to convert it to our conforming use. And what is that allowed use if not conforming? That's our conformity that this same article is talking about on section C1. And establishes it on the beginning article, it says, its purpose to establish regulation relating to nonconforming structures and uses. It's two distinct things. and uses, and to establish conditions under which nonconforming structures and uses may be maintained, restored, replaced, repaired, altered, changed, expanded, or amortized. We're not looking to expand beyond our use. We're eager to abide by it. We just found out our governing standards are R6 governing standards. We initially engaged city staff to try to find a remedy to this and how could we get to compliant. And like I said, we're eager to abide by it, get every single building in that parcel to abide both by those governing standards. We just need acknowledgment of it. And we haven't had that acknowledgment nor clarity. It's been very cryptic. Otherwise permitted work. What is the otherwise permitted work, if not that the article defines as conformity? I'll take any questions. That's all I have to say.

Any questions for the commissioner?

I could hand these out. These are the Article 15 of the Municipal Court. I bought three copies. And please, I plead for your consideration of the full enactment of the code verbatim. That's all I'm pleading for. Thank you.

Thank you. I will now close the public hearing and bring the matter back to the commission for deliberation.

Through the chair, I can answer Commissioner Gowdy's question now, if that's all right. Thanks for your patience. So I took a look at the code section again, and it covers repair and alterations of non-conforming residences in residential zones. So unfortunately, it doesn't cover residences in non-residential zones like light industrial. Thank you.

Would any commissioner like to make a motion to adopt the resolution?

Yeah, I'll make a motion beforehand. But I'd just like to make a statement that clearly the code allows for the existing non-performing residents to continue. The question is whether it creates a right to expand the residential development. And based on the answers from Mr. Cole, it doesn't seem like the code is very clear about what an expansion is. And in this case, it doesn't allow for it. So I'll make a motion to deny the appeal.

Second.

Yeah, second it.

Commissioner Goudy?

Aye.

Commissioner Ireland?

Aye.

Chair Price?

Aye.

Motion passes.

Moving to agenda item 4.4 zoning text mr. Cortese All right

Good evening, commissioners. The next item on tonight's agenda is zoning text amendments for housing element implementation of policy actions 3.7. So the city of Oakley is initiating a rezoning application, proposing modifications to the Oakley Municipal Code sections 9.1, .406, the multi-family residential districts. to implement housing element programs, policy action 3.7, which requires the city identify an additional zoning district where emergency shelters may be allowed as by right or permitted use. A little background. The housing element is a required part of the general plan. The six-cycle housing element was adopted on May 9, 2023, and certified by HCD on May 24, 2023. Since adoption of the housing element, the city has worked towards implementation of the goals and policy actions of the housing element identified in Chapter 8, titled Housing Plan. The housing plan identifies specific goals and actions to address housing needs and to meet statutory requirements. It identifies three core goals, production of new housing, preservation of existing housing stock, and increased access to housing opportunities. To implement these goals, we've developed policy actions, several of which require amendments to the Oakley Municipal Code. Compliance with Policy Actions 3.7 requires zoning text amendments, which we are reviewing today. The zoning text amendments will bring the applicable sections of the Oakley Municipal Code into compliance with state law and in conformance with the housing element. What is policy action 3.7? It's adequate emergency shelter sites. So policy 3.7 of the housing element requires the city identify an additional zoning district where emergency shelters will be allowed as by right. Currently, the only site that was identified was the Civic Center site. That site is now the library site. So we are looking for additional sites. The zoning district that we identified was the multifamily residential districts. And the zoning text amendments tonight have amended that code section to include emergency shelters consistent with government code section 65583 to be permitted as by right. The action tonight is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15061. The common sense exemption, as we are not doing any land use changes. We're not proposing any projects. We're just adding a use. Staff's recommendation is staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the proposed resolution recommending the City Council adopt an ordinance amending the Oakley Municipal Code section, the Oakley Municipal Code sections, and that the action is exempt from CEQA. Thank you.

Any questions of commissioners or staff? Okay, I will now open a public hearing for this item.

Any hands raised on the line?

There are no hands raised on line.

Thank you. I will now close the public hearing and bring the matter back to the commission for deliberation. Would any commissioner like to make a resolution to adopt this?

Y'all make a motion to adopt it. And I'll second.

Clerk, would you please call roll?

Commissioner Gowdy?

Aye.

Commissioner Ireland?

Aye.

Chair Price?

Aye.

The motion passes.

We'll now move to the regular calendar, reports from staff members. Any reports from staff?

Yes, Chair, and good evening, Chair and members of the Planning Commission. I have three quick updates for you tonight. First one is just an update on the planning commissioner vacancy. And applications will be closing this Thursday at 5 PM. The interviews are set up to be held with the city council at the September 8 regular council meeting. And that term will run through February 28 of 2027. The second update is just an announcement. For this Friday, coming up right here at Civic Center Plaza is Movies on Main Street. The movie to be played is The Wild Robot. And the movie will begin at sunset with activities beginning about an hour prior to that. And the recreation division will be selling popcorn, candy, and soda out of the snack shack that's located in the bathroom. I shouldn't say in the bathrooms, but in the same building as the bathrooms. And some of the activities will include giant Jenga, cornhole, and free glitter tattoos, music, and more. And the final update is just a reminder that the next regularly scheduled planning commissioners meeting will be held on Tuesday, September 1st at 6.30 p.m. Thank you.

Thank you. Do the commissioners have requests for future agenda items? Any reports from the commissioners? We'll now move to item 7.1. Commissioner Cortese?

All right. Me again. Thank you. Here's the fun part. Tonight, the next item on tonight's agenda is a work session for the Oakley Technical Zoning Code update. So the goals for tonight, we are very early on in the process. We're still in that fact-finding, information-gathering stage. So it is still early on. Tonight, we are not finalizing any details. No codes will be written tonight. No policy changes will be made tonight. Additionally, the commission is not making any decisions or recommendations of approval to the city council tonight. We are here to gather information and feedback from you. This shows just a quick little time frame where we're at. We are in the community engagement portion of the code update. That involves talking to you all and getting information from you. Additionally, our consultant is holding stakeholder interviews where they are interviewing a set number of stakeholders and getting information from them, feedback from them, and getting their opinion. Some background. You guys are planning commissioners, but still, what is zoning? So the zoning code establishes rules for how land can be used and developed within the community. It guides the location, size, and intensity of a development to support community goals and protect public health, safety, and welfare. Here's a pretty picture of the city. WHAT ZONING CAN AND CANNOT DO. ZONING IS A TOOL TO IMPLEMENT THE VISION AND GOALS FOR A COMMUNITY. ZONING CAN CONTROL THE FOLLOWING. WHAT TYPES OF USES ARE ALLOWED OR NOT ALLOWED AND WHERE. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS INCLUDING BUILDING HEIGHT, SETBACKS, LOT COVERAGE AND DENSITY. CITYWIDE TOPICS AS WELL LIKE PARKING AND SIGNS AND PERMIT REQUIREMENTS AND REVIEW PROCESSES. Zoning cannot alter other municipal code provisions or building codes. And we cannot control the free market or dictate specific businesses. Some background, the city council updated the general plan through a focused general plan update in January of 2022. After that, city council adopted the Oakley strategic plan in April of 22. And most recently, the housing element in May 2023. Our zoning code is a little old. It was originally adopted in July 1999 when we became a city. A lot has changed since then. We are looking to update it. Since 1999, we have done amendments and additions, but not a major overhaul. The strategic plan, SP27+, has goals, sub-goals, and objectives. One of the objectives is to complete a comprehensive update of the city zoning code, and that's to ensure consistency with the current and future vision for the city of Oakley and the recently updated Oakley general plan. I say recent because it's still four years old. Some project objectives. We are hoping to implement the city's focused general plan update, the SB 27 plus, and the six cycle housing element. Zoning code update, we are taking a targeted approach as this update is not a complete overhaul. We are looking to modernize land uses, definitions, provide clarity, provide some flexibility, and reorganize our code and make it more user friendly. We are also looking to ensure that our code is consistent with state laws. As part of the process we have identified because it's not a complete overhaul. We have identified seven priorities Which are in detail in your staff report Priority one includes cleaning up the zoning code. We have a lot of outdated references or Sections of the code where they contradict one another so we are looking to clean up those sections and We are a little behind the times. We do not have a land use table. So we're looking to create a land use table so when any resident, they can look up their proposed land use, what the zoning is, and find that quickly. We're looking to update definitions. Times have changed. We are looking to modernize those definitions and make sure they cover any new trends or anything like that, but also look forward to the future and make sure that they cover that. Along with the updated definitions, we're looking to have new and enhanced land uses. We do have some outdated land uses. Like Evan previously mentioned, in our business park, we have newspaper stands and magazine stands, things like that, where I'm not sure when the last time you saw one of those was. But we still have those in our code. So we're looking to update land uses. Another priority we have is updates for compliance with state law. We have previously brought many amendments to you all with the hopes of keeping our code in compliance with regulations because they're ever-changing, evolving here in the state of California. Another priority we have is inclusion of past interpretations. As planners, we sometimes do have to make those interpretations because we're not in the brains of the past planners who may have implemented this code originally and sometimes don't know what they meant. So we do have to make those interpretations, and we're looking to bring those into the code. And seven, just targeted updates for modernization. 1999, not sure if you guys remember where you were in 1999, but I was still in elementary school. That was a while back. Next steps. Just to bring back the time frame, we are in that phase three. There's still a lot of time. We're estimating about 12 to 18 months for this entire process to conclude. As you see here, we will have a draft zoning code that we will present to the public. We will present to you. You also have the opportunity to comment. send it out to the public, and you will be able to provide your feedback. Let us know what you see, what you feel should change, things like that. But we still do have a ways to go. We're looking at July, August for adoption next year. But you will see it. We do have a website as well where we will be posting updates, all the visuals, the graphics to help the public understand what we're doing. in what we're not doing. And like I mentioned tonight, we're here to receive Planning Commission feedback and overall direction and priorities that you see fit. In the future, we will return to the Planning Commission bringing a draft zoning ordinance for your detailed review and recommendation of approval to the City Council. and then seek city council approval and move forward towards formal adoption of the zoning code. In September, we will be having a work session with the city council as well. As I previously mentioned, we're currently in our stakeholder interviews. Our consultant will come to the city council meeting and present what they found and provide a presentation like this to them as well. But any feedback you guys may have, I welcome it. I will be taking notes providing that to the consultant as well. I believe they may be watching. But any questions?

I have two questions. One. hyper-specific, because I think it's been on everybody's mind. Obviously, we're going through this issue with essentially what we're dealing with with data centers. And I'm curious if the new code update is going to incorporate whatever code that the city comes up with when we work through this as a separate matter, or Is the zoning code going to look at any unidentified classification gaps? I know two totally separate processes, but is one watching the other so we don't miss out?

I think I can take this question because he was speaking to it earlier.

That's a great question, Commissioner Ireland. We actually talked about this with our consultants today and let them know about the recent Joint Planning Commission City Council work session that took place on data centers. And we let them know of the guidance that was provided by the city council at that. And our plan would be that we have not just data centers, but we do have other uses. As Jose had mentioned, there have been some interpretations throughout the years. There's also been something called unclassified uses, where there may be a use someone proposes that's not listed in the code, but it's kind of really close to something in the code. So there's a procedure that's actually in our zoning code that allows us to make an official determination in writing to allow that use. And then that kind of becomes part of the code, but it's not an actual zoning code text amendment. So we don't put it into the code per se. This update will incorporate all of those. And along with that, Whatever happens with the the data centers moving forward. We do want to specifically put that in the code and If for instance a a ban is approved we would include that in that land use table that Jose had mentioned Specifically calling that out and including any definition that any future ordinance includes for that use in the zoning code as well So it'll be kind of twofold There would be a standalone ordinance adopted by the city council, and the new zoning ordinance would also cover that detail as well. Thank you. You're welcome.

Kind of a second more general question. I'm not even sure how to frame this. But one of the things I've noticed in my short time on the Planning Commission is Oakley, being a relatively young city, has a lot of legacy issues with land use. I think we saw a couple of them tonight, two of our agenda items. So I don't know if there's anything we can do to address that. But is that something that I guess I would just say as a comment the consultants are taking into account that, again, we have a lot of legacy issues with land use here. At least I've noticed in my short time here.

Yeah, as I mentioned earlier in the presentation, we're not doing a comprehensive update. We're not rezoning. We're not changing land uses. We're really just modernizing what uses we do have to encompass any future trends or past trends. But yeah, we're not going to change any of the existing uses we have currently. Yeah, that's tough.

Okay. I'm sorry. I said I only have two questions, but this is a follow-up. What is the typical cycle for this type of checkup or review of updating zoning to be done by cities? How often is this usually pretty typical for a city of our size?

That ranges. Typically, when a city does a comprehensive general plan update, some of the goals of the general plan will require your zoning code update as well. Other times, you know, if it's not part of the general plan, you know, if a city just looks to modernize with, you know, certain strategic plans like we did, they'll look to update the code. But it really kind of varies. Okay. Thank you.

I would add to that really quickly. Zoning codes are much different than general plans in that regard because we do tend to see more zoning text amendments throughout time. So the zoning code goes through this iteration-type process of constantly being updated. The reason for this is, one, it was something that the council asked for specifically in SP27+. And from a staff point of view, we've known this needed to be done for quite some time. We use the code every day. The planners use the code every day. It's something that we've known needed to be done. And we're really happy to have the council approve this in the budget so that we can move forward with it currently. But I wouldn't say it's like a 20-year or 15-year thing. It's normally ongoing. In this case, it's something we needed to do.

Thank you. I appreciate the background. Thank you. I'm done. Sorry.

Going back off the data center and stuff like that, If you put in a ban completely, just say later on data centers come back and they're making centers without using water now. Computers and stuff like that. Would that bring back an issue?

Not at all, because the zoning code or the ordinances, they're changeable. So any future council may have a change of heart, or the technology may improve, and that topic or issue can always be revisited in the future. An ordinance is set in stone until it's changed. So no, it wouldn't be for eternity. And if things change in the future, the council and the planning commission at that time could look at that change and make consider it.

Thank you. So the next joint meeting we have will be with the council discussing what, Mr. Sturlow?

Can you ask that one more time? I'm sorry.

The next joint meeting that we have scheduled with the council?

Is there another one coming up or is that... Are we talking about the zoning code thing?

No, I'm talking about the planning commission joint meeting with the city council.

Oh, yeah. The council did request a focused second joint workshop, so we'll be updating both bodies on when that will be soon.

But it's not scheduled yet, right?

We haven't officially scheduled it yet, no.

Great. Any other discussion to send forward? We don't vote on this, so with that, meeting adjourned.

Thank you.