No Bond, No La Grande Event Center

A proposed event center is causing a debate in Oakley as residents are mixed on whether or not to support the request for a Conditional Use Permit to operate for an “Assembly Use” for Weddings and Special Events located on Carpenter Road.

Some neighbors welcome the center with open arms due to the revenue it will generate for the city and other businesses while others do not want the noise, traffic, or problems that come from an event center in their own backyard.

Either way, residents now want a decision one way or the other.

With the delay, some residents have resorted to pointing fingers at the City claiming they are not treating the petitioners, Bob and Phyllis Long, nicely while accusing the City of being difficult to work with—City staff didn’t help their cause by lacking in quality control on it’s Public Notice Alert by stating the correct address, but the construction site was at another location, thus confusing people and causing the delay. But the tactics being used to attack the city are rather disgusting.

Common sense says the Longs and their supporters are using the bully strategy as a way to get a favorable decision. The best way to discredit those standards required by the City is to discredit those recommending them which is city staff.

The reality is an event center is a fabulous idea for Oakley. I am all for bringing people to Oakley, raising revenue by people staying in hotels, buying gas, and purchasing food—no one is disputing this is a bad idea. No one is saying it is not a benefit.

But with all the good it brings, the concerns need to be hashed out and the noise is a tricky issue. There is also a bond being required for the frontage road improvements.

Before I get to the bond, let’s look at the accusations of people blaming the City for this process taking so long.

The reality is the Longs own most of the blame because they did not technically follow the rules from the start. They didn’t do their homework and instead forged ahead without regard for authority. They show up one day at a council meeting last fall, state what they are doing and all of a sudden the City essentially says “hold up, you can’t do that”. Thus, now the Longs are being required to follow city code and the city process for a facility they want to build and business they want to run.

It’s the same process anyone else would be required to do and have done—but the city is being made a scape goat because some supporters of the Longs feel they shouldn’t follow the rules. That, or they are part of the anti-Oakley city staff crowd.

Now we have petitions for and against the event center. We have councilman Randy Pope grandstanding on this issue like he is an expert because he has nothing else going for him politically. In fact, one could argue he has turned this into a bigger mess than it needed to be by going down to the site with Mayor Kevin Romick thus blocking the other Councilmembers from any action outside of the council chambers including responding to phone calls or emails—sorry, but it’s the truth.

Had Mr. Frazier, Ms. Anderson, or Ms. Rios spoken to the Longs or gone on site, it would have immediately become a Brown Act Violation which would delay this process even further and probably cost the Longs any shot of an event center.

With three council members out of the picture, Mr. Pope is free to grandstand. He gets to urge the City to break its own rules, make exceptions, and ram this thing through without concern of its long term effects. What Mr. Pope needs to learn that if you want to help a homeowner/business owner, even if your intentions may be good, you don’t go handicap the rest of the council by trying to play hero. You do not pander to supporters of this permit by encouraging passage of the permit at all costs.

Yes, I agree with Pope that it would be a benefit, but only if certain conditions are met.

Mr. Pope, when you rush, that is when something like this will come back and bite Oakley later—such as the project Ms. Anderson described where we still do not have the sidewalk in place because the council made an exception and did not require a bond. It should be noted that the lawyer who got that waiver is now representing the Longs.

Ms. Anderson and Ms. Rios have been burned in the past, of course they should ensure the City is protected, that is called doing their job! Mr. Frazier made it clear that once the zone and status of this location is changed, it will be a difficult process to turn back into a residential parcel—City Manager Bryan Montgomery verified it’s not a fast process should the business fail and they want to rent out the property again.

You see, this is a much more difficult decision than people realize.

All of it could have been resolved if the Longs had followed the appropriate process from the start. Mr. Long complains during his comments that he received a list, did it, and then received more lists and requirements.  Apparently, a $35k bond over 7 years is now the hold up even after he invested $160k on his facility. Just pay the bond Sir!

A smart business person would have gotten the full “punch list” in the beginning, plan it out, verify in writing, and realize it takes more than 3-months to complete. Clearly, Mr. Long did not fully look into the process and decided he was above the rules while he was learning as he goes.  Sorry to say, it’s an expensive mistake.

Now it’s a situation blown out of proportion thanks to many reasons as stated above.

The Longs, with their lawyer, and I wouldn’t be surprised if Councilman Pope was involved stacked the deck against the other councilmembers to have supporters of the Longs speak—essentially, you had 30 out of 36,000 people say they support this event center. The lesson is simple, follow the appropriate process and things go much smoother. If staff would have better quality control, a decision would have occurred last Tuesday—not in another week.

I actually feel somewhat bad for Mr. Long who has his livelihood at stake here. I do have sympathy for him. His wife however, she rubbed me the wrong way which I am sure she acted out of frustration, but she belittle the council with her comments and arrogance. She complained about the requirement for a large garbage can—essentially stating she takes garbage from one county to another to dump it for free because she pays taxes.

She threw her neighbor’s junk yard under the bus—as did Councilman Pope. She came off as a complainer that she did not want to follow the process, as if she was better than it.  She stated she will control sound. A minute later she states her son had a rave. So how can she control sound if she can’t even control her son throwing a party on her property?

Ms. Long owes the council an apology for being arrogant and lecturing them about saving money. This is the same council that ensures a 30% reserve so the council does not need a lecture.  And yes Ms. Long, you do need a large garbage can and the rules do apply to you.

Using more common sense, if she can’t control her own renters from being loud with a few dozen people having a party (most likely scenario); what makes her think she can keep a business which is a giant party from not disturbing the neighbors when they live in the mountains 3-4 days a week? The business is a giant party between noon and 10pm!

This isn’t rocket science to realize while it’s easy to point fingers at the City; the Longs failed to follow the process and are paying for it now with a delay and a requirement of a bond.

Don’t blame the city and the staff; it’s the City’s job to enforce the rules no matter how much revenue a venue may bring in. Once staff has done their job, it’s up to the Council to look out for the best interest of Oakley which includes its surrounding neighborhood.  It’s their job as elected officials to look into the effects of noise, traffic, crime, bathrooms, improvements and so forth. They owe it to Oakley to make the best decision possible and not ram it through without ensuring the City gets the best deal.

Remember, just because something seems great, doesn’t mean it won’t cause problems later.

I feel for the woman who spoke about how loud the property can be based on its previous renters—a party would be magnified. I could not imagine having neighbors next door that throw a party every weekend and feeling like I could not go in my backyard for peace and quiet with music blaring and people shouting all the time. No resident should have to put up with that. Heck, even on Live Oak we hear blaring music from a mile or two away—it’s not right!

We have to be sensitive to the neighbors who essentially will be forced to listen to a party every Friday, Saturday and Sunday night—I wouldn’t want it in my backyard regardless of how “cool” Mr. Pope thinks it would be.  By the way, what a stupid comment by him—if he likes noise that much, he should request the event center be located closer to him so he can enjoy the racket. I don’t believe it’s very cool and most people wouldn’t want it either.

In this case, the council is out of their minds if they do not require a bond—it’s the only leverage in the future that could be used to ensure the improvements are made.  It’s the right thing to do on behalf of Oakley.

Without a bond agreement or other city protections for the road improvements, who is to say the Longs (who live in the mountains 3-4 days a week) will keep the property long term? Before the road improvements are completed, they could hypothetically sell the property and live off the profits leaving the city 0-2 with improvement projects with this same lawyer. That is why the City must be protected.

Again, will an event center benefit Oakley and generate revenue? Of course it will. It’s a great business idea. But the location is the problem so it makes it a difficult decision because the neighbors were their first (before an event center).

I am not one to tell someone what they can or cannot do on their property, but if they do not agree to the bond for the frontage road improvements, this is this is one of those times where you unfortunately are forced to say no even if I do support what they are trying to accomplish.

If you bend the rules for one business, you have to do it for others and Oakley should not start playing that game.

Either way, those throwing stones should look in the mirror and stop making the city out to be the bad guy. They are simply enforcing the rules so Oakley does not run a muck!

Council Recap of Item 4.2

McMurray La Granda and event center which is required by City Code.

  • Northwest quadrant of the site
  •  90 parking spaces on site (4-ADA spots)
  • Temporary tent located
  • Condition – requires tent to be up for more than 180 days within calendar year.
  • Still need fire district approval
  • Existing single family residents – not allowed use from commercial. Meaning once the single family resident. Only the applicant or caretaker can live there.  To turn it back into a single family home, it would have to be re-zoned.
  • Condition in Resolution to require frontage requirements. Applicant has requested City

Alternative 1

  •  “Construct the frontage of Carpenter Road to City public road standards for a 40-foot half-width right of way with 20-feet of pavement from the centerline and including curb, 5-feet of landscaping between the back of curb and north side of the concrete trail, a 1 0-foot detached concrete trail parallel to the curb face, and 5-feet of landscaping between the south side of the concrete trail and the right of way line. The applicant shall provide the necessary longitudinal and transverse drainage and conforms to existing improvements. The face of curb shall be located 20 feet from the centerline and any conforms to existing improvements must take place outside of the limits of the project. In lieu of constructing the frontage improvements, the applicant shall be allowed to enter into a Deferred Improvement Agreement to be approved by the City Council prior to issuance of a building permit.”


The second alternative is to construct the frontage improvements for the first two-hundred feet, starting at the east property line. The applicant has stated that the frontage improvements would be constructed on or before December 31 , 2017, dependent on how successful the business is. Staff has drafted a condition, which partially addresses the request. The following condition would require the frontage improvements to be constructed from the east property line to a point across from the east side of Joshua Street, which accounts for approximately 270 feet. Staff feels the more desirable location to stop the improvements would be at this location so that a future driveway opening could be lined up with Joshua Street to the north. The condition would also allow the applicant to enter into a Deferred Improvement Agreement for the remainder of the frontage improvements.

 Alternative 2

  • “Construct the frontage of Carpenter Road to City public road standards for a 40-foot half-width right of way with 20-feet of pavement from the centerline and including curb, 5-feet of landscaping between the back of curb and north side of the concrete trail, a 1 0-foot detached concrete trail parallel to the curb face, and 5-feet of landscaping between the south side of the concrete trail and the right of way line. The applicant shall provide the necessary longitudinal and transverse drainage and conforms to existing improvements. The face of curb shall be located 20 feet from the centerline and any conforms to existing improvements must take place outside of the limits of the project. In lieu of constructing the improvements along the entire frontage length, the applicant shall be allowed to construct the improvements from the east property line to a point across from the east side of Joshua Street and to enter into a Deferred Improvement Agreement for the construction of the remainder of the improvements. The Deferred Improvement Agreement will need to be approved by the City Council prior to issuance of a building permit.”

The two alternatives along with the standard condition within the attached resolution have been drafted to best address the requests of the applicant. The conditions may be modified at the discretion of the City Council.

Pat Anderson “I have a tough time with the sound stuff. I hear the trains now more than I ever have before once all the houses were built… I worry about the sound study and what the reality is. We have had some pretty tough experiences where it sounded like it would work.”

According to Josh McMurry, the same noise consultant company that did the sound study for Brownstone Garden. The tent or structures were not taken into consideration. It used baseline measurements because this facility was not up and running.  They didn’t set up a system to do a sound study. They took baseline measurement averages (meaning it could be okay, or may not, we don’t know yet) and put it on a map which means they took noise contours where the sound would be and put them on a map. As sound gets further away from center, it is reduced.

Frazier, “We talked about Legal nonconforming on the house. Would they be in jeopardy if they decided not to continue with the events center after it’s completed?  What would happen to the residents? What would be the legal definition after because its caretaker now.

McMurray: Essentially it would be a commercial business that failed. It wouldn’t be allowed to regain its non-conforming status. You can’t have both. The code says if you are going to use conforming use, the non-conforming use goes away. The property owner can continue to keep the property as it is now or try to move into a use that is conforming to the zone. The coding is pretty clear if you discount that use for six months, then the code says it’s the other disappears.

Montgomery: A general plan amendment or re-zone process could occur. It’s not unreasonable based on location and history as a backup.

Pope: Is there any progress plans on property to the West?
McMurray: Two properties currently have no development potential at this time. To the very west, its just a bunch of stuff being stored on the property.

Public Comments:

Bob Long (applicant):  Thank you for listening to me and seeing my emails. We have been working really hard on getting this thing going. I’ve lived here for 44 years. I am running out of time and running out of money and want to get the business going and want to make the mortgages and not lose it to the bank. I just want to keep businesses going in Oakley. I moved away and I come back, I’ve been here for 10 months trying to get this whole thing straighten out. I came to the council in August and I got a list of things to do, I did them. I handed them to him, and got another list and did them. Three times. And what I am scared about is a lot of hidden agendas are in this reports. I can’t understand them so I hired a lawyer. I found things in the first report I was going to give them 17ft of the property; later on I have to give them another 40 for future use…. I am worried about all this paperwork that I get. I make a handshake and that’s the way it is, that’s how I am. I would like to defer everything til the rest of the road goes through. I don’t want to get out of it, but if I still own it when the rest of the road gets done and its my turn, I’ll pay for it or I’ll shut it down. I’ll make one or the other decisions that quick. That is the only thing I am worried about. Every time I go to the city, I get a project, I do it and then I go back and there is another hurdle and another hurdle.

I talked to the mayor out there, he has seen it, I show him. I got another letter today.  I was supposed to get last week but I got it today. There are hidden agendas in there and I can’t do it. I physically can’t do it. My attorney will tell you about it because I don’t know the language for it. But I looked for them, and their they are right there. I hope you make a decision. I have a lot of people that are here for that center. My niece is even here and she is going to get married there so I am fighting my tail off.  She has been planning this wedding for over a year and a half. I am panicking that if I don’t get to do it then I have to rent the house out again because I have to make income on this. I’ve sat here and worked on this for almost a full year without any income coming in from that property and putting everything we can into it.

Phyllis Long:  Bob thought this would take 3 months, boy were we surprised.  We have worked very hard. We will put curbs and sidewalks in and everything you want when its time, but I don’t think it’s time. I love the grapes, you guys drive by them and they are beautiful and you want to take out two row’s maybe four, that’s terrible. People ride their horses, I saw people riding their horses and it’s beautiful. I don’t have that many people walking on my side of the road. Maybe someone walks their dog and letting it use it to use the bathroom and they don’t pick it up. That’s okay, we don’t have concrete.

And if you go on down to the school. You guys don’t water it. The city doesn’t pay to water it. You guys don’t have the water on, it’s dead. So why go on our site and let it die and let it be dirt and I keep the dirt straight and clean. I think I keep it pretty clean. The fence is white and its beautiful and its still country. And I thought its what you want Oakley to look like, country! That is why people moved to Oakley. That’s why I thought you guys moved here, to live in the country. It’s beautiful out here, so I thought that’s why people moved here.

And for noise, I will try to keep the noise down. I will hire people that will shut down at 10 o’clock no matter how good of party they are having.  I’ll hire people that will shut that place down. The people I rented to I heard were noisy, all hours of the night, I heard they scream and yelled and had big parties there.  I hope my parties are not as big as that.

And you guys want us to put in a garbage, a big unit.  I hope I have enough parties to use it big garbage can. You want lids on the top so it won’t blow away in big containers. I take my garbage home with me. I live 4 days a week or 3 up in the mountains, I have free garbage, I pay it, in taxes. So I just put it in my truck and take it home with me to the dump. I Have an a business… I have 11 employees, I take my garbage to the dump, I have to save money, that’s how I make money, you don’t throw it away… we have to be thrifty. To make money, you have to save money and you want us to put in big old dumpsters.  I won’t even fill it in a month I don’t think until I make money.

I don’t have any summer wedding because I don’t know if Oakley will approve it or not. I can’t advertise I don’t want to tell someone you won’t have a wedding because Oakley hasn’t made up their mind yet if I can open yet. I don’t want to ruin someone’s big day. I have a niece, who has worked very hard, and is a good girl. And I want her to have a wedding at my ranch. She has lived here quite a long time and came from a bad background and very proud of her and works for Oakland airport and done really good and is a great person and I am proud of her and that’s one of the reasons I opened this place.

Chris Long: I want to say something to my neighbors, if anyone complains about the noise, call me. Call us, I will make it quieter. I will do it. If they complain, just let me know. Any of my neighbors are welcome down their anytime.

Phyllis Long: You can call us, call me. I’ll be there. People know me, I am pretty mean I can shut it down pretty fast. I don’t put up with nothing, I’ll shut it down, and I’ll unplug it personally.  My son had a rave their once and I just unplugged everybody and they all went home.  They even had people pay for parking, people paid to park I couldn’t believe it.

I hope you do approve of us and we will put the road in. And if you do anything, why aren’t you doing anything with my neighbor the junkyard.  I mean, this lady in the first road has complained to me personally, they don’t come to you, they come to me. No one has done anything.

Scott Jennings (Lawyer): I am representing the Longs…. I am here to work something out that everyone can live with. I called my boys because they consider him a national celebrity in the paint ball industry—Wikipedia proves it to be true…  Despite the diving economy that Councilmember Frazier talked about they are here to try beef and up the City of Oakley and put in a successful business. They have invested $160k and another $60k to go. It doesn’t look like that anymore.

If you go out there and drive by, it doesn’t look like that anymore. It’s beautiful!  I was out there this afternoon and it’s an oasis out there. It’s really pretty it’s no longer a residential use it’s a park like setting.  He has the ADA bathrooms, they are beautiful looking. The tent is going to be for seating and tables, not for a band…. He thinks the business will be successful he thinks it will draw in people from other cities and counties. When you have a big event, people stay in hotels, buy gas, have breakfast at a restaurant. That’s how these things work…. That is the kind of thing he is trying to do there, invest in the City of Oakley. The center will realistically only operate Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays, people don’t rent these types of places during the week.  A lot of people have come here to support him (asked crowd to stand), a lot of them presented blue cards, but not all are going to speak (for various reasons). The main contention here, all of them can be worked out, the kicker is the roadway improvements. You have seen my letter and the Longs do not want to fight it, they want to defer it. The City wants to have the trail extend all the way through, but it doesn’t need to happen for this center to operate. Want it deferred for 7 years out and not until properties in west drag improvements out—Longs are willing to agree to that….   They financially can’t do it. They would like that deferments and the other thing that is a little bit touchy, there is a bond requirement. They are paying on a bond $5,000 a year for 7 years–$35,000. The bond provision poses a problem. If he fails to comply, then you can pull his use permit. It doesn’t make sense to have a bond to have a permit from now until the earliest you could drop the hammer and give him a 90-day notice.

Arleen Espinante: I am opposing this. The Longs are great people, but I don’t want an event center in my backyard. I don’t want the noise. They rented it before. My husband gets up at 6:00 am on Saturday; we would have to shut the window in the summer because the noise was so loud from parties over there. After the party they would congregate in the front so we would hear that. I am worried about the traffic; I am worried about the noise and I just don’t want this in my backyard.

When I first moved there, I met Phyllis and Bob and I thought they were great. I told Phyllis I bet you hate us living here because we invaded their living area. They had all this open space around them. I never said anything about the renters because I liked them.  But now I am bringing it up because I don’t want an event center in my backyard. The depreciation is already down. It’s almost worth half of what we bought it for. If we go to sell it and say we have an event center right behind us, nobody is going to buy the house. I think having an event center would be great, but not around all these homes, not around the schools, there is four schools in the area. There is functions going on in the evening, there is traffic coming and going, we get enough noise form the bypass, from empire, from lone tree, its open space and noise travels. We can’t have the windows open in the evening to air the house in the summer time. I just don’t want it. They say it’s going to benefit the community, but it’s going to depreciate all the homes up their and nobody wants that.

Also, when we got the letter, the notice of public hearing, it says project location is 1799 Brownstone Road, at the top it says located at 1799 Carpenter Road, I thought great its Brownstone because they have an event center already. Then I sent an email to Josh McMurray, and he said that’s a mistake—I talked to my neighbors, everyone I talked to thought it was at brownstone, no one wanted to think it was on Carpenter. If you want me to get a petition going for people who oppose this, I can do it. We don’t want it, we don’t want to be mean to the Longs, but we want it to stay residential.
Mayor Romick:  Said the applicant was given extra time to talk, everyone else who speaks will get 3-minutes for remarks.

Josh McMurray: he addressed the notice that went out. He said it said the Address was 1799 Carpenter in the title.  It says 1799 Brownstone under the location, the correct address was listened once.

James Arliano: I am in favor of the project. I’ve known Bob for quite a few years. I’ve been to the property and seen what they done to it. The city has zoned the property commercial with the intent to bring people to that area for commercial purposes. If some people don’t like it, that’s part of the zoning. The project is for the community and its certainly an improvement to that area.

Michael Zamora:  I support this wedding center, I think it’s a great thing for the city and it should be passed.

Danny Elliot: I am Bob and Phyllis niece and the wedding that is coming up this Oct. 13; I’ve been planning for a year and a half. It leaves me with a little less than 5 months to change my plans if needed which I don’t want it obviously. I have about 150 guests that I have invited, 50 from out of town. Those guests would stay in Oakley, use restaurants, and purchase gas. I feel it would help the economy. I am not here for me and my family; I feel it will benefit the City of Oakley. I live in Concord right now.

Victor Olives: The building is not good for the community.

Jason Roy: I get just as much noise from the residential area as I do from anywhere else. It’s nice and country most of the time; I get all the noise from the residential area. I don’t feel that the noise you are going to get from one event center is going to overpower the residential who live in that area. I feel like the event center is a good fit for city Oakley. There is not a lot of other draws for Oakley. This is something that can bring people in and bring the revenue. Revenue for the city is a good thing. I think it’s a good idea.

Norm Roy: I am very much in favor of this event center. I think it will provide a lot of good access to the city. I like it.  (Sound cut out)
Randy Nelson: I believe this would bring business and a classy elegance to the city.

Ken Wells: I support this project. I think it would be good for the city to have something going on out there. I like that area and ride my bicycle around their. It will help clean up some of the area.

Kevin Romick: I have about 30 remaining cards of people who are in favor the project. Is their anyone else out there with a burning desire to speak to the council. If not, we will include these comments for the record.

Public Hearing Closed for Council Discussion:

Anderson: Mr. McMurray is there a capacity limit on this business at all.
McMurray: The application states 150 guests. On or about that, 90 parking spots available.  They are well below the requirements for a traffic study.

Anderson: This is zoned commercial so the anticipation is there would be some sort of commercial development here and what has become before us is a commercial development. Along with development is requirements from the city and that’s the improvements. I understand the beautiful grape vines I understand what it ads. I also understand our trail plan was their before the grape vines were there. As much as I like that there is some requirements that need to happen and that’s the trail system needs to be completed. I do believe in my opinion that their needs to be part of that improvement completed. I can’t support a full deferral at this time. Umm… no one is walking on that side of the road; it’s not the best place to walk right now. Adding trail system will help that when it happens.

The mention of the bonds, I have to say this, we had a project on Neroly, and we had a building of a home and another home in front of that. They came to us and asked us for a deferral, didn’t want to do it at first, didn’t think it was the right thing to do. Talked it few and did a deferral until the construction was completed because it wasn’t going to be done all at once. Thought about wanting to require the bond and a particular attorney… convinced us not to ask for the bond (Note: this is the same Attorney the Longs are using). Imagine the construction was completed and they said they were not going to do the improvements and we had no bond. The improvements are still not done so I have a really hard time saying a bond is not an important thing. To me a bond is a promise that if something happens along the line at least we have the ability to move forward with what was to be.  So that part is difficult to me.


I understand the impact on the neighbors but I understand what it would bring. How we work that out what you promise to do and how you will deal with them that is something that I may ask for some additional words.  I think it would be a fabulous business; I just have some concerns of where it’s happens to be located. If I could pick it up and move it to another spot that would be my desire.  But it is what it is, it’s where it is and this is where your heart is and where your plan is. That is what makes it difficult.

My decision has to be based on a bunch of laws and rules and other things. As we talk our way through this not everyone will be happy in the end and that’s always hard.

The Brownstone reference, a little bit of a concern about that. So you said the APN twice was correct and the title in the letter had the correct address.

McMurrey: Yes, the title where its bolded Notice of Public Hearing has the pretty much the same wording under the project description on the staff report with the APN… below that is where it references 1799 Brownstone.

Anderson:  My inclination says we postpone this for another meeting to provide a corrected public notice to be sure we have done everything right.

Pope:  I live close to hear to, I live just North. Sometimes I can hear the band playing at Freedom High, and football games and it’s kind of cool. I work nights and sleep during the day and fully understand shift work and the problems trying to sleep and on a hot summer day trying to keep the windows open. But fully understand under the general plan he could sell this to some commercial business and they could operate and be something much worse.

I’ve been out here; I’ve put my boots on the ground and seen what he has done. It’s beautiful.  I daughter is only 1 year old, but I can reserve the date. Can somebody clarify the grape vines because I’ve walked my kids and my dog down there going to watch them build the school… I can swear those grape vines have been there and you have almost doubled the amount of grape vines.
I was out there and saw the new grapes on the South East corner is all grapes and those will grow. I am very impressed. I would love to see this as a flourishing businesses, it optimizes what I envision Oakley’s image to be in the future that we are embracing the grape vines, the wine culture, bringing people to the city putting Oakley’s best face forward.

I would love to see you guys move forward immediately… other than some sort of legal lawful issue I want to move forward tonight. I am very pleased you were able to reach a compromised agreement. Your 8 issues show you are willing if we just defer the road. I am in favor of that I don’t believe there is any reason to move the trail 200 ft. to move it to another dead end when it would be much cheaper, much easier less intrusive on me as a neighbor, my kids riding their bikes to do it all at once. Bring the work crew in at once and just do it. My hope is your neighbor will see what you have done and fix up his place.

Paul Abelson (City Legal): It’s kind of a tough call as Josh has said, the correct address is referenced in the heading but the project location is given as Brownstone Road. I suppose lawyers could argue about as to whether or not this is a valid notice. Certainly if council feels uncomfortable with knowing whether or not knowing if everybody received proper notice you can continue this and maybe there would be a benefit to a continuance because maybe at the next meeting we can draft the deferred improvement agreement with the bond and see what it looks like as part of your deliberations. It would probably be the safest course of action you wouldn’t want someone who didn’t get notice to then bring a legal challenge against the action you might take tonight and then put the whole project in delay of months. It’s probably the most expeditious thing to do quite frankly.

Anderson: Motions item continued for 2 weeks with notice to effected areas.

Motion carried 5-0.


About burkforoakley

I call it like I see it . I love my city, I love my community and I want what is best for the people around me. Do the right thing, I will support you. Do the wrong thing, I will oppose you!
This entry was posted in Around Oakley, City Council. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s