Resident points to 2008 development agreement requiring developer to build Shakeley Lane interim bypass; planning commission asks council to review

A City of Ione resident told the planning commission and later spoke at a special City Council session that a 2008 amendment to a development agreement requires the developer to build a two‑lane interim bypass between Castle Oaks Drive and 5 Mile Drive via Shakeley Lane and that the city should enforce that provision.

Resident Jim Scully told the planning commission he had located an amendment dated June 17, 2008, and read paragraph h aloud, saying it requires the developer to “at its sole cost, construct a 2 lane interim bypass segment between the project from Shakeley Lane from Castle Oaks Drive to 5 Mile Drive.” He said the city had let the subdivision be built without enforcing that provision and urged staff and elected officials to act rather than pay for new studies with taxpayer money.

City staff and commissioners discussed the provision and the proper route for enforcement. The city planner told the commission that the development agreement is an agreement between the developer and the city council and that, because it is a contractual matter, the planning commission should recommend the council review the agreement. The planner also noted that some funding previously shown on Amador County Transportation Commission (ACTC) materials was paid through developer impact fees and that an interim alignment effectively exists as Shakeley Lane.

Commissioners discussed options for next steps, including directing staff to ask the city council to place a review of the development agreement and its successors‑in‑interest on a future council agenda. The commission provided that direction and instructed staff to request the council examine whether contractual obligations in the 2008 amendment remain enforceable against current property owners or successors.

Speakers raised several related concerns: whether the city has authority to designate a truck route off a state highway (several speakers said that may be a Caltrans function), that the bypass alignment crosses flood‑prone areas and could require substantial state funding and approval, and that prior studies had been funded with impact fees or county funds. The planning commission agreed to include a discussion of this development agreement and potential enforcement options on its November agenda and to consider sending a formal recommendation to the city council.

The commission did not make a formal enforcement decision at the meeting; it instead directed staff to research contractual successors, gather the relevant recorded documents, and request council consideration.