The Live Oak City Council was scheduled to consider final approval of a two-lot residential parcel map at 2962 Elm Street, along with an agreement to defer required frontage improvements. The item appeared on the council’s Oct. 7 agenda, according to staff reports and the agenda itself, which recommended approval of the plan.
The proposed Medina Parcel Map TPM 25-01 involves a 0.33-acre property, identified by assessor’s parcel number 006-202-003. The map outlines the division of this site into two distinct parcels, intended for future residential development within the city. This subdivision planning follows a March 3 approval by the Planning Commission, which found the project eligible for a Class 15 categorical exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act, as documented in the council packet.
In conjunction with the parcel map, the council was asked to authorize City Manager Benjamin Moody to enter into a Deferred Improvement Agreement with Jose Guadalupe Medina, the property owner. This authorization would be subject to the City Attorney's approval. The draft agreement details a requirement for Medina to deposit $6,080 to cover the estimated costs of specific frontage improvements.
These estimated improvements include $2,080 allocated for curb and gutter work, $1,600 for sidewalk installation, and $2,400 for a new driveway. The Deferred Improvement Agreement stipulates that these works must be completed within 30 days after the city issues a notification to the property owner, or within five years of the agreement’s official filing, whichever of these two deadlines occurs first. Should the required improvements not be completed according to these terms, the city reserves the right to utilize the deposited funds to perform the work. Additionally, the draft agreement states that the city could pursue any additional costs incurred beyond the deposit as a lien against the property.
The proposed council resolution accompanying the parcel map item would also formally accept dedicated right-of-way and easements associated with the development. Furthermore, it would authorize the City Clerk to sign the finalized map, marking the official recording of the two-lot subdivision.
However, the provided agenda and packet materials do not record the specific outcome of the council’s consideration on Oct. 7. The city’s meeting materials presented the action as a recommendation and included blank vote fields within the proposed resolution, leaving the final decision unrecorded in the supplied public documents.
