Agenda packet — Oakley City Council, March 28, 2023 (part 4 of 6)

5. Description of any transfers made pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision ( C) in the previous fiscal year and, if still unencumbered, in earlier fiscal years and a description of and status update on any project for which transferred funds have been or will be expended if that project has not yet been placed in service. $0 (No transfers made under this section, in the current or any prior year).

6. Description of Projects for which the Oakley Housing Fund receives or is holding property tax revenue pursuant to the ROPS and the status of that project.

N/A -The Oakley Housing Fund neither receives nor holds property tax revenue pursuant to a ROPS.

7. For interests in real property acquired by the former redevelopment agency prior to February 1, 2012, a status update on compliance with section 33334.16. For interest in real property acquired on or after February 1, 2012, a status update on the project.

N/A – The Oakley Housing Fund owns no real property.

8. a. A description of outstanding obligations pursuant to Section 33413 that remain to transfer to the Housing Successor on February 1, 2012.

The Oakley Housing Fund is obligated to pay the remaining deferred impact fee obligation related to the Oakley Cypress Associates project.

The balance on June 30, 2022, including interest, was $1,174,408. b. A description of the Housing Successor's progress in meeting obligations described in 8a.

Very little progress has been made since dissolution of the Oakley Redevelopment Agency, as these fees were only recently confirmed as solely a Housing Successor obligation, and the Department of Finance continually denied any Successor Agency payment.
c. A description of the housing successor's plan to meet unmet obligations described in 8a.

The Housing Successor receives loan repayments each year, and after paying for the services described in item 3 above, it will continue to use remaining balances to pay down this obligation. Given the state of the projects and length of the loan repayment terms, payment of the impact fees may take decades.
1009
Oakley Housing Fund - SB 341 Annual Report - For Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2022

Page 3 of 3 ends

9. Information required by subparagraph (B) or paragraph (3) of subdivision (a).

N/A.

10.Percentage of units of deed‐restricted rental housing restricted to seniors and assisted individually or jointly by the Housing Successor, its former RDA and its host jurisdiction within the last 10 years in relation to the aggregate number of units of deed‐restricted rental housing assisted individually or jointly by the housing successor, its former RDA and its host jurisdiction within the same time period.
a. 41%

11.a. The amount of excess surplus. N/A – None.
b. The amount of time that the successor agency has had the excess surplus.

N/A
c. The housing successor's plan for eliminating the excess surplus. N/A 1010
Resolution No. XX-23 Page 1 of 2
RESOLUTION NO. XX-23

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OAKLEY MAKING

FINDINGS AND APPROVING THE ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT ON

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT FOR THE CITY OF OAKLEY WHEREAS, in November 1998, the voters approved the incorporation of the City of Oakley, to be effective July 1, 1999; and
WHEREAS, on July 1, 1999, the City of Oakley was incorporated; and WHEREAS, after incorporation, the City adopted the Contra Costa County General Plan for the Oakley Area as its General Plan, the County’s subdivision ordinance as its subdivision Ordinance, and the County’s zoning ordinance as its zoning ordinance (Ordinance Nos. 1-99, 17-99, 22-99). Since that time, the City has prepared its own General Plan, as required by Government Code Section 65360; and WHEREAS, in December 2002, the Oakley City Council adopted the Oakley 2020 General Plan; and as part of the General Plan the City developed a 2001-2007 Housing Element, which was certified by The State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) in 2005; and
WHEREAS, in August 2009, the Oakley City Council adopted the 2007-2014 Housing Element; and
WHEREAS, in January 2015, the Oakley City Council adopted the 2015-2023 Housing Element; and
WHEREAS, the City is required to provide housing opportunities for all income groups.

HCD reviews the Housing Element portion of the General Plan and requires an Annual Element Progress Report on the implementation of the Housing Element; WHEREAS, the Housing Element Annual Report includes the SB 341 Report as an attachment for the purposes of this resolution;
WHEREAS, the SB 341 Report, which requires annual reporting for housing successors to redevelopment agencies, will be separately submitted to HCD, as well as posted on the City’s website.

NOW, THEREFORE, on the basis of the above findings of fact and the entire Record, the City Council makes the following additional findings in support of the approvals:

1. The City has completed the Housing Element Annual Progress Report for reporting year 2022, which outlines the progress the City has made on the goals and policies outlined in the Housing Element:
1011
Resolution No. XX-23 Page 2 of 2
a. The City shall meet the State Department of Housing and Community Development Department (HCD) requirements to ensure the City is providing adequate housing types for all income groups.
b. Compliance with HCD requirements will provide for orderly and well-balanced growth within the City.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Oakley at a meeting held on the 28th day of March 2023, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTENTIONS:

APPROVED:
___ Aaron Meadows, Mayor
ATTEST:

Libby Vreonis, City Clerk Date
1012

STAFF REPORT
Approved and Forwarded to the City Council
DATE: March 28, 2023
TO: Joshua McMurray, City Manager
FROM: Tim Przybyla, Finance Director
SUBJECT: Consideration of a Resolution Approving the City’s Investment Policy for Fiscal Year 2022/2023
Background and Analysis
California Government Code Section 53646 and good financial practice recommends that local agencies prepare a written investment policy and that the governing body review and approve the policy on an annual basis.

The attached proposed investment policy for Fiscal Year 2022/2023 includes revisions that will increase the safety of the City’s funds, increase investment opportunities for the City, and allow for increased active management of the City’s funds. The primary revisions include additions to the City’s listing of authorized and acceptable investments with their respective maximum limits as well as the California Government Code that permits them. With these changes, the City’s policy is the same as or more restrictive with its investments as the State Code.

The Policy being presented incorporates all sections and information as recommendation by the Association of Public Treasurers of the United States and Canada and the California Municipal Treasurers Association, for Fiscal Year 2022/2023. It identifies Safety, Liquidity and Return on Investment, in that order, as the City’s Investment objectives; incorporates the “prudent investor” standard; and limits investments to those specifically approved by Government Code. Attached to this staff report is a red-lined copy of the proposed policy, showing the revisions that staff is recommending.
1013
Consistency with the Oakley Strategic Plan 27+
This agenda item is consistent with the Strategic Plan 27+ goal for the City of Oakley to leverage its financial resources for the long-term benefit of our residents and businesses while maintaining sufficient reserves to provide stability and ensure a successful future.

Fiscal Impact
There is no direct fiscal impact of adopting this resolution approving the City’s Investment Policy for Fiscal Year 2022/2023.

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends the Council adopt the attached Resolution Approving the City’s Investment Policy for Fiscal Year 2022/2023.

Attachments

1. Statement of Investment Policy - Redlined

2. Statement of Investment Policy – Clean Copy

3. Resolution
1014

CITY OF OAKLEY

STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT POLICY

1. Purpose:

This statement provides guidelines for the prudent investment of the temporary idle cash of the City of Oakley (hereafter referred to as City), and outlines the policies for maximizing the efficiency of the City's cash management system. The goal is to enhance the economic status of the City while protecting its pooled cash.

2. Scope:

This Investment Policy (Policy) applies to all financial assets of the City. For purposes of this Policy, the City of Oakley includes the City, as Successor Agency to the Oakley Redevelopment Agency, and the Oakley Financing Authority, which are component units of the City of Oakley, controlled by the City Council, share the same administrative services of the City, and are "related entities" of the City. These funds are accounted for in the City's Comprehensive Annual Comprehensive Financial Report and include:

General Fund
Special Revenue Funds
Debt Service Funds
Capital Project Funds
Internal Service Funds
Trust and Agency Funds
The investment of bond proceeds held with trustees is directed by the City, but is governed by the restrictions on permitted investments in the applicable bond indenture or similar agreements.

The City retirement plans are with the California Public Employees Retirement System, and the City has no authority or oversight over the investments in any of the plans. Further, the City administers a deferred compensation plan through the ICMARetirement Corporation (ICMA-RC). Assets held in the ICMA plan are held in trust for the participants, and are not assets managed by the City. The City does not have any authority over the investments held in these trusts.

3. Policy:

The City's cash management system should accurately monitor and forecast expenditures and revenues and allow the City to invest funds to the fullest extent possible, subject to the City's investment objectives, as described below. 20221-232 Investment Policy
Commented [WLE1]: GASB Statement no. 98 establishes
“Annual Comprehensive Financial Report” as the preferred term.
1015
20221-232 Investment 2
Policy

4. Objectives:

The primary objectives, in priority order, of the City's investment activities shall be:

4.1. Safety: Safety of principal is the foremost objective of the investment program. Investments of the City shall be undertaken in a manner that seeks to ensure the preservation of capital in the overall portfolio. To attain this objective, diversification is required (as described in more detail in Sections 9 and 12 of this Policy)..

4.2. Liquidity: The City's investment portfolio will remain sufficiently liquid to enable the City to meet all operating requirements which might be reasonably anticipated.

4.3. Return on investment: The City's investment portfolio shall be designed with the objective of attaining a market rate of return throughout budgetary and economic cycles, taking into account the City's investment risk constraints and the cash flow characteristics of the portfolio.

5. Prudence
In accordance with California Government Code ("CGC") §53600.3, the Finance Director and/or his designee, who are authorized to make investment decisions on the City's behalf, are trustees and therefore fiduciaries subject to the "prudent investor standard":
"When investing, reinvesting, purchasing, acquiring, exchanging, selling, or managing public funds, a trustee shall act with the care, skill, prudence, and diligence underthe circumstances then prevailing, including, but not limited to, the general economic conditions and the anticipated needs of the agency, that a prudent person acting in a like capacity and familiarity with those matters would use in the conduct of funds of a like character and with like aims, to safeguard the principal and maintain the liquidity needs of the agency."

6. Delegation of Authority:

Authority to manage the City's investment program is derived from the California Government Code Sections 53600 through 53609. Management responsibility for the investment program is hereby delegated to the Finance Director (Director), who shall establish written procedures for the operation of the investment program consistent 1016
20221-232 Investment 3
Policy
with this investment policy. Procedures should include reference to: safekeeping, repurchase agreements, wire transfer agreements, collateral/depository agreements and banking service contracts. Such procedures shall include explicit delegation of authority to persons responsible for investment transactions. No person may engage in an investment transaction except as provided under the terms of this policy and the established procedures. The Director shall be responsible for all transactions undertaken and shall establish a system of controls to regulate the activities of subordinate officials. The Director may also delegate investment decision making and execution authority to an investment advisor. The advisor shall follow the Investment Policy and such other written instructions as are provided. Independently of the City’s relationship with its investment advisor, the Director maintains the authority to purchase securities on behalf of the City, provided that they comply with the Investment Policy.

7. Ethics and Conflicts of Interest:

The investment responsibility carries with it the added duties of ensuring that investments placed are done so without the appearance of improper influence. Finance personnel involved in the investment function shall adhere to the state's Code of Economic Interest and to the following:

7.1. All persons authorized to place or approve investments shall annualannually submit a Statement of Economic Interest, also known as the Form 700. The Form 700 provides necessary information to the public about an official’s personal financial interests to ensure that officials are making decisions in the best interest of the public and not enhancing their personal finances. Additional guidance on disclosing potential conflicts of interest is available on the California Fair Political Practices Commission website.

7.2. Maintaining the Public Trust: All participants in the investment process shall seek to act responsibly as custodians of the public trust. Investment officials shall avoid any transaction that might impair public confidence in the City of Oakley's ability to govern effectively.

8. Authorized Financial Dealers and Institutions:

Should the City engage in investments outside of the use of savings, money market funds, and policy compliant investment pools (LAIF and CalTrust, etc.), the Director will establish and maintain a list of financial institutions authorized to provide investment services, and a list of approved security broker/dealers selected by credit worthiness, who maintain an office in the State of California. These may include "primary" dealers or regional dealers that qualify under Securities & Exchange Commented [WLE2]: Sentence added to ensure Director’s
authority to purchase non-PFMAM securities.
1017
20221-232 Investment 4
Policy
Commission Rule 15C3-1 (uniform net capital rule). No public deposit shall be made except in a qualified public depository as established by State laws.

All financial institutions and broker/dealers who desire to become qualified bidders for investment transactions on the Director's list, must supply the Director with the following: Proof of National Security Dealers certification, trading resolution, proof of State of California registration, personal resume, certification of having read the City's investment policy, and depository contracts. In addition, a current audited financial statement is required to be on file for each financial institution and broker/dealer through which the City invests.

At a minimum, the task of maintaining a list of financial institutions and approved security broker/dealers shall include the Director's annual review of the financial condition and registrations of qualified bidders.

Before engaging in investment transactions with a broker/dealer, the Director shall have received from said firm a signed letter, attesting that the individual responsible for the City's account with that firm has reviewed the City of Oakley's Investment Policy and that the firm understands the policy and intends to present investment recommendations and transactions to the City that are appropriate under the terms and conditions of the Investment Policy.

If the City has an investment advisor, the investment advisor may use its own list of authorized broker-dealers to conduct transactions on behalf of the City.

Purchase and sale of securities will be made on the basis of competitive bids and offers with a minimum of three quotes being obtained, when practicable.

9. Authorized & Suitable Investments:

Formatted: Justified, Indent: Left: 0.1", First line: 0", Right: 0.7", Space Before: 0.05 pt, Line spacing:

Multiple 1.18 li
1018
20221-232 Investment 5
Policy
Credit criteria listed in this section refers to the credit quality of the issuing organization at the time the security is purchased. In the event of a downgrade below the minimum credit rating requirements listed below, the investment advisor, if so designated, must notify the Finance Director of such downgrade within 15 days of the downgrade and will use their best professional judgment to determine the appropriate course of action.

Within the context of such limitations, the following investments are authorized, subject to the restrictions and limitations below:

Medium-Term Notes 5 years 30% "A" or
equivalent
by an
NRSRO"A" or
equivalent
byanNRSRO
53601(k)
Mutual Funds
NIA 20%
(10%
per
fund)
"AAA" or
equivalent by
two NRSROs
or investment
advisor
requirements
53601(1)(1)
Money Market Mutual
Funds
NIA 20%
"AAA" or
equivalent by
tow NRSROs
or investment
advisor
requirements
53601(1)(2)
Asset-backed securities
5 years 20%
"AAAAA" or
equivalent by
an NRSRO
53601(0)
Local Agency
Investment Fund
(LAIF)
NIA None None 16429.1
Shares of beneficial
interest in a Joint Powers
Authority (e.g.

Investment Trust of
California (CalTRUST)
or California Asset
Management Program
(CAMP))
NIA None None 53601(p)
Commented [WLE3]: Formatting improvements
throughout section
Commented [WLE4]: CA Code requirement is AA
1019
20221-232 Investment 6
Policy
Supranational
Obligations
5 years 30% "AA" or
equivalent
bBy an
NRSRO
53601(q)
Local Agency Bonds 5 years None None 53601(a)
U.S. Treasury
Obligations
5 years None None 53601(b)
State ObligationsCA and Others5 years None "A" or equivalent by an NRSRO11A
11 or equivalent
byanNRSRO
53601(d)
CA Local Agency
Obligations
5 years None "A" or equivalent
by an NRSRO11A"
or equivalent
byanNRSRO
53601(e)
u.s 5 years None None 53601(f)
U.S. Agency/Government
Sponsored Enterprise
Obligations
Bankers' Acceptances 180 days 40% None 53601(g)
Commercial Paper- 270 days or
Non-Pooled Funds less
25% "A-1" or equivalent
by an NRSRO11A1" or equivalent
byanNRSRO
53601(h)
Commercial Paper- 270 days or
Pooled Funds less
40% "A-1" or equivalent
by an NRSRO11A1" or equivalent
byanNRSRO
53635(a)(l)
Negotiable
Certificates of Deposit
5 years 30% "A" or equivalent
by an NRSRO11A"
or equivalent
byanNRSRO
5360l(i)
Placement Service
Certificates of Deposit
5 years 50%
FDIC or NCUA
coverage
53601.8 and
53635.8
Non-negotiable
Certificates of Deposit
5 years None None 53630 et seq.

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"
1020
20221-232 Investment 7
Policy
Medium-Term Notes 5 years 30%
"A" or equivalent
by an NRSRO"A"
or equivalent
byanNRSRO
53601(k)
Mutual Funds
NIA
20% (10% per
fund)
"AAA" or
equivalent by two
NRSROs or
investment advisor
requirements
53601(1)(1)
Money Market
Mutual Funds
NIA 20%
"AAA" or
equivalent by tow
two NRSROs or
investment advisor
requirements
53601(1)(2)
Asset-backed
securities 5 years 20%
"AAAAA" or
equivalent by an
NRSRO
53601(0)
Local Agency
Investment Fund
(LAIF)
NIA None None 16429.1
Shares of beneficial
interest in a Joint
Powers Authority
(e.g. Investment Trust
of California
(CalTRUST) or
California Asset
Management Program
(CAMP))
NIA None None 53601(p)
Supranational
Obligations
5 years 30%
"AA" or equivalent
bBy an NRSRO
53601(q)
NRSRO = Nationally Recognized Statistical Ratings Organization Prohibited Investments: Under the provisions of Government Code Sections 53601.6 and 53631.5, the City shall not invest any funds covered by this Investment Policy in inverse floaters, range notes, interest only strips derived from mortgage pools or any investment that may result in a zero- interest accrual if held to maturity.

Commented [WLE5]: CA Code requirement is AA
1021
20221-232 Investment 8
Policy
Notwithstanding the prohibitions in the above paragraph, the City may invest in securities issued by, or backed by, the United States government that could result in zero- or negative-interest accrual if held to maturity, in the event of, and for the duration of, a period of negative market interest rates. The City may hold these instruments until their maturity dates.

10. Collateralization:

Collateralization will be required on investments in certificates of deposit (excluding negotiable certificates of deposit) over $250,000. Repurchase agreements are authorized and suitable investments, per California Code. However, the City does not choose to include them in its list of authorized and suitable investments, at this time.

If repurchase agreements were included in the list, they would also require collateralization. In order to anticipate market changes and provide a level of security for all funds, the collateralization level will be one hundred two percent (102%) of market value of principal and accrued interest.

Collateral must be held by an independent third party with whom the City has a current custodial agreement. A clearly marked evidence of ownership (safekeeping receipt) must be supplied to the City and retained.

The right of collateral substitution is granted.

11. Safekeeping and Custody:

All security transactions entered into by the City shall be conducted on a deliveryversus-payment (DVP) basis. Securities will be held by a third-party custodian designated by the Director and evidenced by safekeeping receipts. For the investments that are managed by PFM, the Finance Director has designated US Bank, who is tied to CAMP investments, as the third-party custodian. All CAMP-tied IPs have US Bank as their custodian and all securities are held there with CAMP being the sweep vehicle and keeper of cash. US Bank is the Third Party custodian for the City’s assets, and the City of Oakley believes that this arrangement with the City’s third-party investment manager (PFM) satisfies the safekeeping and custody requirements of this policy

12. Diversification:

The City will diversify its investments by security type and institution. Except as provided below, no more than five percent (5%) of the City's portfolio may be invested in any one institution, regardless of sector. The types of investments which are excluded from this limitation are:
• United States Treasury and federal agency/government-sponsored enterprise obligations,
1022
20221-232 Investment 9
Policy
• Supranational obligations,
• Bank certificates of deposit,
• Other certificates of deposit, and
• Money market funds and other pooled investment vehicles, including LAIF and shares of a JPA. Formatted: Font: 12 pt
1023
20221-232 Investment 10
Policy

13. Maximum Maturities:

To the extent possible, the City will attempt to match its investments with anticipated cash flow requirements. Unless approved by the City Council at least three months prior to investment, the City will not directly invest in securities maturing more than 5 years from the date of purchase.

14. Reporting:

The Director is charged with the responsibility of including investment activities in the City's Comprehensive Annual Comprehensive Financial Report. Additionally, the Director shall provide a monthly listing of investment transactions and a quarterly investment report to the City Council.

The quarterly investment report shall include the following information for each individual investment: description of investment instrument, issuer name, maturity date, credit rating, coupon rate, yield, purchase price, par value, book value, current market value and the source of the valuation. The quarterly investment report shall also state compliance of the portfolio to the statement of investment policy, or manner in which the portfolio is not in compliance, and include a statement denoting the City's ability to meet its expenditure requirements for the next six months, or provide an explanation as to why sufficient money may or may not be available.

15. Investment Policy Review:

The City's investment policy shall be reviewed by the Finance Director and adopted by resolution annually by the City Council.

16. Other Constraints:

The City shall operate its investment portfolio within the many State and self- imposed constraints. It shall buy no stocks, shall not speculate, nor shall it deal in futures or options, or buy on margin. The City will not purchase inverse floaters, range notes, interest only strips or any security having an interest rate derived from an index, commodity price or other variable i.e. securities commonly known as derivatives.

17. Investment Pools/Mutual Funds
A thorough investigation of any pooled investment program and/or mutual fund is required prior to investing and on a continual basis. There shall be a questionnaire developed which will request the following information:
1024
20221-232 Investment 11
Policy
• A description of eligible investment securities, and a written statement of investment policy and objectives.
• A description of how interest is calculated and distributed, and how gains and losses are treated.
• A description of how the securities are safeguarded (including the settlement processes), and how often the securities are priced and the program audited. • A description of who may invest in the program, how often, and what size of deposits and withdrawals are allowed.
• A schedule for receiving statements and portfolio listings. • Are reserves or retained earnings utilized?
• A fee schedule, and method for assessing fee.
• Does the pool accept bond proceeds?

18. Internal Controls
The Finance Director is responsible for establishing and maintaining a system of internal controls to ensure that City assets are protected from loss arising from fraud, employee error, imprudent actions, theft or misuse, and to ensure compliance with this Policy, City-mandated procedures and federal and state laws. An internal control structure should include written procedures that encompass the following principles:
• Segregation of duties,
• Explicit delegation of authority and responsibility,
• Timely reconciliation and balancing,
• Documentation, recording, and record keeping,
• • Management control and oversight,
• Dual or secondary authorization.

The control structure should cover timely projections of cash flow and funding needs, cash collection and disbursements, wire transfers, anti-theft and antifraud practices, depository and custody services, collateral management, broker/dealer services, trading and confirmation, and master repurchase agreements (if appropriate).

It should be designed to provide reasonable assurance that these objectives are met. The concept of reasonable assurance recognizes that (1) the cost of a control should not exceed the benefits likely to be derived, and (2) the 1025
valuation of costs and benefits requires estimates and judgments by management.

The Finance Director shall establish an annual process for independent review of these controls, including cash and investment testing, by an external auditor.

This review will help to ensure compliance with the City's investment policies and procedures.

19. Performance Standards
The investment portfolio shall be designed with the objective of principal preservation, liquidity and obtaining a market rate of return throughout budgetary and economic cycles, commensurate with the investment risk constraints and the cash flow needs.

In evaluating the performance of the City's portfolio in complying compliance with this Policy, it is expected that the City shall establish an appropriate performance benchmark and compare the total return of its portfolio to the total return of the benchmark.

The policy recognizes that reporting on a market basis will periodically cause market gains or losses to be reported. In most instances, such gains or losses will not be realized since individual securities may be held to maturity. However, it is also recognized that in the course of managing the City's investment portfolio, realized losses may be incurred from time to time as part of an actively managed portfolio strategy, if deemed appropriate and if such losses are incurred with the greater goal of purchasing new securities which are expected to produce higher earnings (net of realized losses) over time, or of improving the portfolio's overall credit quality or positioning.
20221-232 Investment Policy
Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt
Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt
Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt
1026
20221-232 Investment 11
Policy
Glossary of Investment Policy Terms
Amortization of Costs: Reconciliation of the purchase price of a security and par value resulting in net interest.

Bank Deposit: Deposits in banks or other depository institutions that may be in the form of demand accounts (checking) or investments in accounts that have a fixed term and negotiated rate of interest
Bankers' Acceptance: A draft or bill or exchange accepted by a bank or trust company. The accepting institution, as well as the issuer, guarantees payment of the bill.

Benchmark: A passive index used to compare the performance, relative to risk and return, of an investor's portfolio.

Book Value: The value at which an asset is carried on a balance sheet.

Broker: A person or firm that acts as an intermediary by purchasing and selling securities for others rather than for its own account.

California Asset Management Program (CAMP): A pooled asset management program (joint powers authority) for California public agencies with professional investment services provided by PFM Asset Management LLC.

Cash Flow: A comparison of cash receipts (revenues) to required payments (debt service, operating expenses, etc.).

Certificate of Deposit (CD): A short-term, secured deposit in a financial institution that usually returns principal and interest to the lender at the end of the loan period.

CD Placement Service: A service that allows local agencies to purchase more than $250,000 in CDs from a single financial institution while still maintaining FDIC insurance coverage.
1027
20221-232 Investment 12
Policy
Collateral: Securities, evidence of deposit or other property, which borrower pledges to secure repayment of a loan. Also refers to securities pledged by a bank to secure deposits of public monies.

Collateralization of Deposit: Process by which a bank or financial institution pledges securities, or other deposits for the purpose of securing the repayment of deposited funds.

Commercial Paper (CP): An unsecured short-term promissory note issued by corporations or municipalities, with maturities ranging from 2 to 270 days.

Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR): The official annual report for the City. It includes combined statements for each individual fund and account group prepared in conformity with GAAP. It also includes supporting schedules necessary to demonstrate compliance with financerelated legal and contractual provisions, extensive introductory material, and a detailed Statistical Section.

County Pooled Investment Funds: The aggregate of all funds from public agencies placed in the custody of the county treasurer or chief finance officer for investment and reinvestment.

Coupon: The annual rate of interest that a bond's issuer promises to pay the bondholder on the bond's face value.

Credit Rating: Various alphabetical and numerical designations used by credit rating or nationally recognized statistical rating organizations (NRSROs), institutional investors, Wall Street underwriters, and commercial rating companies to give relative indications of bond and note creditworthiness.

Long-term Ratings
The three most commonly used NRSROs are Standard & Poor's, Fitch Ratings, and Moody's. Standard & Poor's and Fitch Ratings use the same system, starting with their highest rating, of AAA, AA, A, BBB, BB, B, CCC, CC, C, and D for default. Moody's Investors Service uses Aaa, Aa, A, Baa, Ba, B, Caa, and Ca.

The top four letter categories are considered investment grade ratings. 1028
20221-232 Investment 13
Policy
Each of the services use pluses (+), minuses (-), or numerical modifiers to indicate steps within each category. The S&P ratings from AA to CCC may be modified by the addition of a plus(+) or minus(-) sign to show relative standing within the major rating categories. Moody's appends numerical modifiers 1, 2, and 3 to each generic rating classification from Aa through Caa. The modifier 1 indicates that the obligation ranks in the higher end of its generic rating category; the modifier 2 indicates a mid-range ranking; and the modifier 3 indicates a ranking in the lower end of that generic rating category.

Short-term Ratings
Standard & Poor's short-term ratings system is A-1+, A-3, B, C, and/ for default. Fitch Ratings use Fl+, F3, B, C, and/ for default. Finally, Moody's uses Pl and P3, anything below P3 is considered not prime.

Credit Risk: The chance that an issuer will be unable to make scheduled payments of interest and principal on an outstanding obligation. Another concern for investors is that the market's perception of an issuer/borrower's credit will cause the market value of a security to fall, even if default is not expected.

Custodian: A bank or other financial institution that keeps custody of stock certificates and other assets.

Dealer: Someone who acts as a principal in all transactions, including underwriting, buying, and selling securities, including from his/her own account.

Default Risk: The risk that issuers/borrowers will be unable to make the required payments on their debt obligations.

Delivery vs. Payment: The payment of cash for securities as they are delivered and accepted for settlement.

Diversification: The allocation of different types of assets in a portfolio to mitigate risks and improve overall portfolio performance. 1029
20221-232 Investment 14
Policy
Duration: Indicator of the effect of an interest rate change on a bond price.

The longer the duration, the greater the expected change in a portfolio's value when interest rates change.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC): A federal agency that insures bank deposits, currently up to $250,000 per entity.

Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA): FINRA is the successor to the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD) and the member regulation, enforcement and arbitration operations of the New York Stock Exchange. It is a non-governmental organization that regulates member brokerage firms and exchange markets. The government agency which acts as the ultimate regulator of the securities industry, including FINRA, is the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSE): Privately held corporations with public purposes created by the U.S. Congress to reduce the cost of capital for certain borrowing sectors of the economy. Securities issued by GSEs carry the implicit backing of the U.S. Government, but they are not direct obligations of the U.S. Government. For this reason, these securities will offer a yield premium over Treasuries. Examples of GSEs currently include: Federal Home Loan Bank System (FHLB), Federal Farm Credit Banks Funding Corporation (FFCB), Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC), and the Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA).

Interest: The amount a borrower pays to a lender for the use of his or her money.

Interest Rate Risk: Interest rate risk is the risk that an investment's value will change due to a change in the absolute level of interest rates, spread between two rates, shape of the yield curve, or any other interest rate relationship.

Liquidity: The measure of the ability to convert an instrument to cash on a given date at full face or par value.

Liquidity Risk: The risk that a security, sold prior to maturity, will be sold at a loss of value. For a local agency, the liquidity risk of an individual 1030
20221-232 Investment 15
Policy
investment may not be as critical as how the overall liquidity of the portfolio allows the agency to meet its cash needs.

Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF): A voluntary investment fund open to government entities and certain non-profit organizations in California that is managed by the State Treasurer's Office.

Market Risk: The chance that the value of a security will decline as interest rates rise. In general, as interest rates fall, prices of fixed income securities rise. Similarly, as interest rates rise, prices fall. Market risk also is referred to as systematic risk or risk that affects all securities within an asset class similarly.

Market Value: The price at which a security is trading and presumably could be purchased or sold at a particular point in time.

Master Repurchase Agreement: A written contract covering all future transactions between the parties to repurchase/reverse repurchase agreements that establishes each party's rights in the transactions. A master agreement will often specify, among other things, the right of the buyer/lender to liquidate the underlying securities in the event of default by the seller/borrower.

Maturity: The date on which the principal or stated value of an investment becomes due and payable.

Medium Term Note: Corporate or depository institution debt securities meeting certain minimum quality standards (as specified in the California Government Code) with a remaining maturity of five years or less.

Money Market Mutual Funds: A sub-type of mutual funds that invest exclusively in short-term money market instruments. Seek the preservation of capital as a primary goal while maintaining a high degree of liquidity and providing income representative of the market for short- term investments.

Mutual Fund: An investment company that pools money and can invest in a variety of securities, including fixed-income securities and money market instruments.
1031
20221-232 Investment 16
Policy
National Credit Union Administration (NCUA): an independent federal agency that insures deposits at federally insured credit unions, currently up to $250,000.

Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organization (NRSRO): A rating organization designated by the SEC as being nationally recognized.

Negotiable Certificates of Deposit: Generally, short-term debt instrument that usually pays interest and is issued by a bank, savings or federal association, state or federal credit union, orstate-licensed branch of a foreign bank. The majority of negotiable CDs mature within six months while the average maturity is two weeks. Negotiable CDs are traded in a secondary market and are payable upon order to the bearer or initial depositor (investor). Negotiable CDs are insured by FDIC up to $250,000, but they are not collateralized beyond that amount.

Non-Negotiable Certificates of Deposit: CDs that carry a penalty if redeemed prior to maturity. A secondary market does exist for nonnegotiable CDs, but redemption includes a transaction cost that reduces returns to the investor. Non-negotiable CDs issued by banks and savings and loans are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation up to the amount of $250,000, including principal and interest. Amounts deposited above this amount may be secured with other forms of collateral through an agreement between the investor and the issuer. Collateral may include other securities including Treasuries or agency securities such as those issued by the Federal National Mortgage Association.

Par Amount or Par Value: The principal amount of a note or bond which must be paid at maturity. Par, also referred to as the "face amount" of a security, is the principal value stated on the face of the security. A par bond is one sold at a price of 100 percent of its principal amount.

Portfolio: Combined holding of more than one stock, bond, commodity, real estate investment, cash equivalent, or other asset. The purpose of a portfolio is to reduce risk by diversification.

Premium: Premium means the difference between the par value of a security and the cost of the security, when the cost is above par. Investors pay a 1032
20221-232 Investment 17
Policy
premium to purchase a security when the return to the investor (yield) is lower than the stated coupon (interest rate) on the investment.

Price: Price is the amount of monetary consideration required by a willing seller and a willing buyer to sell an investment on a particular date.

Principal: The face value or par value of a debt instrument, or the amount of capital invested in a given security.

PrudentInvestor Standard: A standard of conduct where a person acts with care, skill, prudence, and diligence when investing, reinvesting, purchasing, acquiring, exchanging, selling, and managing funds. The test of whether the standard is being met is if a prudent person acting in such a situation would engage in similar conduct to ensure that investments safeguard principal and maintain liquidity.

Public Bank: A corporation, organized as either a nonprofit mutual benefit corporation or a nonprofit public benefit corporation for the purpose of engaging in the commercial banking business or industrial banking business that is wholly owned by a local agency, as specified, local agencies, or a joint powers authority.

Qualified Public Depository: A financial institution which does not claim exemption from the payment of any sales or compensating use or ad valorem taxes under the laws of this state, which has segregated for the benefit of the commission eligible collateral having a value of not less than its maximum liability and which has been approved by the Public Deposit Protection Commission to hold public deposits.

Rate of Return: The yield obtainable on a security based on its purchase price or its current market price.

Repurchase Agreement: An agreement of one party (for example, a financial institution) to sell securities to a second party (such as a local agency) and simultaneous agreement by the first party to repurchase the securities at a specified price from the second party on demand or at a specified date.

Safekeeping: Offersstorage and protection of assets provided by an institution serving as an agent.
1033
20221-232 Investment 18
Policy
Safety: In the context of investing public funds, safety relates to preserving the principal of an investment in an investment portfolio; local agencies address the concerns of safety by controlling exposure to risks.

Secondary Market: A market made for the purchase and sale of outstanding issues following the initial distribution.

Supranational Institutions: International institutions formed by two or more governments that transcend boundaries to pursue mutually beneficial economic or social goals. There are three supranational institutions that issue obligations that are eligible investments by California local agencies: the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), International Finance Corporation (IFC), and Inter-American Development Bank (IADB).

Total Return: Total return includes interest, realized gains and losses, and unrealized gains and losses over a given period of time.

U.S. Agency Obligations: Bonds issued by agencies of the Federal government set up to supply credit to various classes of institutions.

Examples include the Small Business Administration (SBA) and the Government National Mortgage Association (Ginnie Mae). The timely payment of principal and interest on federal agency bonds are explicitly backed by the "full credit and faith and credit of the U.S. government," whereas government-sponsored enterprise (CSE) obligations receive the de facto backing of the federal government. Nevertheless, both U.S. agency obligations and government-sponsored enterprise obligations trade similarly and are often generally referred to collectively as "federal agency" obligations.

U.S. Treasury Obligations: Debt obligations of the U.S. Government sold by the Treasury Department in the forms of bills, notes, and bonds. Bills are short-term obligations that mature in one year or less and are sold at a discount. Notes are obligations that mature between one year and ten years.

Bonds are long-term obligations that generally mature in ten years or more.

Weighted Average Maturity: The average maturity of all the securities that comprise a portfolio, typically expressed in days or years. 1034
20221-232 Investment 19
Policy
Yield: The current rate of return on an investment security generally expressed as a percentage of the securities current price. 1035

CITY OF OAKLEY

STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT POLICY

1. Purpose:

This statement provides guidelines for the prudent investment of the temporary idle cash of the City of Oakley (hereafter referred to as City) and outlines the policies for maximizing the efficiency of the City's cash management system. The goal is to enhance the economic status of the City while protecting its pooled cash.

2. Scope:

The City retirement plans are with the California Public Employees Retirement System, and the City has no authority or oversight over the investments in any of the plans. Further, the City administers a deferred compensation plan through the ICMARetirement Corporation (ICMA-RC). Assets held in the ICMA plan are held in trust for the participants and are not assets managed by the City. The City does not have any authority over the investments held in these trusts.

3. Policy:

The City's cash management system should accurately monitor and forecast expenditures and revenues and allow the City to invest funds to the fullest extent possible, subject to the City's investment objectives, as described below. 2022-23 Investment Policy
1036
2022-23 Investment Policy 2

4. Objectives:

The primary objectives, in priority order, of the City's investment activities shall be:

4.2. Liquidity: The City's investment portfolio will remain sufficiently liquid to enable the City to meet all operating requirements which might be reasonably anticipated.

5. Prudence
In accordance with California Government Code ("CGC") §53600.3, the Finance Director and/or his designee, who are authorized to make investment decisions on the City's behalf, are trustees and therefore fiduciaries subject to the "prudent investor standard":
"When investing, reinvesting, purchasing, acquiring, exchanging, selling, or managing public funds, a trustee shall act with the care, skill, prudence, and diligence under the circumstances then prevailing, including, but not limited to, the general economic conditions and the anticipated needs of the agency, that a prudent person acting in a like capacity and familiarity with those matters would use in the conduct of funds of a like character and with like aims, to safeguard the principal and maintain the liquidity needs of the agency."

6. Delegation of Authority:

Authority to manage the City's investment program is derived from the California Government Code Sections 53600 through 53609. Management responsibility for the investment program is hereby delegated to the Finance Director (Director), who shall establish written procedures for the operation of the investment program consistent 1037
2022-23 Investment Policy 3
with this investment policy. Procedures should include reference to: safekeeping, repurchase agreements, wire transfer agreements, collateral/depository agreements and banking service contracts. Such procedures shall include explicit delegation of authority to persons responsible for investment transactions. No person may engage in an investment transaction except as provided under the terms of this policy and the established procedures. The Director shall be responsible for all transactions undertaken and shall establish a system of controls to regulate the activities of subordinate officials. The Director may also delegate investment decision making and execution authority to an investment advisor. The advisor shall follow the Investment Policy and such other written instructions as are provided. Independently of the City’s relationship with its investment advisor, the Director maintains the authority to purchase securities on behalf of the City, provided that they comply with the Investment Policy.

7. Ethics and Conflicts of Interest:

7.1. All persons authorized to place or approve investments shall annually submit a Statement of Economic Interest, also known as the Form 700. The Form 700 provides necessary information to the public about an official’s personal financial interests to ensure that officials are making decisions in the best interest of the public and not enhancing their personal finances. Additional guidance on disclosing potential conflicts of interest is available on the California Fair Political Practices Commission website.

8. Authorized Financial Dealers and Institutions:

Should the City engage in investments outside of the use of savings, money market funds, and policy compliant investment pools (LAIF and CalTrust, etc.), the Director will establish and maintain a list of financial institutions authorized to provide investment services, and a list of approved security broker/dealers selected by credit worthiness, who maintain an office in the State of California. These may include "primary" dealers or regional dealers that qualify under Securities & Exchange 1038
2022-23 Investment Policy 4
Commission Rule 15C3-1 (uniform net capital rule). No public deposit shall be made except in a qualified public depository as established by State laws.

If the City has an investment advisor, the investment advisor may use its own list of authorized broker-dealers to conduct transactions on behalf of the City.

Purchase and sale of securities will be made on the basis of competitive bids and offers with a minimum of three quotes being obtained, when practicable.

9. Authorized & Suitable Investments:

Investment of City funds is governed by the California Government Code Sections 53600 et seq. Within the investments permitted by the Government Code, the City seeks to further restrict eligible investment to the investments listed below. In the event an apparent discrepancy is found between this Policy and the Government Code, the more restrictive parameters will take precedence. The maximum allowable percentage limits and minimum credit quality requirements listed below apply at the time the security is purchased.
1039
2022-23 Investment Policy 5
Credit criteria listed in this section refers to the credit quality of the issuing organization at the time the security is purchased. In the event of a downgrade below the minimum credit rating requirements listed below, the investment advisor, if so designated, must notify the Finance Director of such downgrade within 15 days of the downgrade and will use their best professional judgment to determine the appropriate course of action.

Within the context of such limitations, the following investments are authorized, subject to the restrictions and limitations below:

Medium-Term Notes 5 years 30% "A" or
equivalent
by an NRSRO
53601(k)
Mutual Funds
NIA 20%
(10%
per
fund)
"AAA" or
equivalent by
two NRSROs
or investment
advisor
requirements
53601(1)(1)
Money Market Mutual
Funds
NIA 20%
"AAA" or
equivalent by
tow NRSROs
or investment
advisor
requirements
53601(1)(2)
Asset-backed securities
5 years 20%
"AA" or
equivalent by
an NRSRO
53601(0)
Local Agency
Investment Fund
(LAIF)
NIA None None 16429.1
Shares of beneficial
interest in a Joint Powers
Authority (e.g.

Investment Trust of
California (CalTRUST)
or California Asset
Management Program
(CAMP))
NIA None None 53601(p)
Supranational
Obligations
5 years 30% "AA" or
equivalent
by an NRSRO
53601(q)
1040
2022-23 Investment Policy 6
Local Agency Bonds 5 years None None 53601(a)
U.S. Treasury
Obligations
5 years None None 53601(b)
State ObligationsCA and Others5 years None "A" or equivalent by an NRSRO
53601(d)
CA Local Agency
Obligations
5 years None "A" or equivalent
by an NRSRO
53601(e)
5 years None None 53601(f)
U.S. Agency/Government
Sponsored Enterprise
Obligations
Bankers' Acceptances 180 days 40% None 53601(g)
Commercial Paper- 270 days or
Non-Pooled Funds less
25% "A-1" or equivalent
by an NRSRO 53601(h)
Commercial Paper- 270 days or
Pooled Funds less
40% "A-1" or equivalent
by an NRSRO 53635(a)(l)
Negotiable
Certificates of Deposit
5 years 30% "A" or equivalent
by an NRSRO
5360l(i)
Placement Service
Certificates of Deposit
5 years 50%
FDIC or NCUA
coverage
53601.8 and
53635.8
Non-negotiable
Certificates of Deposit
5 years None None 53630 et seq.
1041
2022-23 Investment Policy 7
Medium-Term Notes 5 years 30%
"A" or equivalent
by an NRSRO 53601(k)
Mutual Funds
NIA 20% (10% per
fund)
"AAA" or
equivalent by two
NRSROs or
investment advisor
requirements
53601(1)(1)
Money Market
Mutual Funds
NIA 20%
"AAA" or
equivalent by two
NRSROs or
investment advisor
requirements
53601(1)(2)
Asset-backed
securities 5 years 20%
"AA" or
equivalent by an
NRSRO
53601(0)
Local Agency
Investment Fund
(LAIF)
NIA None None 16429.1
Shares of beneficial
interest in a Joint
Powers Authority
(e.g. Investment Trust
of California
(CalTRUST) or
California Asset
Management Program
(CAMP))
NIA None None 53601(p)
Supranational
Obligations
5 years 30%
"AA" or equivalent
by an NRSRO 53601(q)
NRSRO = Nationally Recognized Statistical Ratings Organization Prohibited Investments: Under the provisions of Government Code Sections 53601.6 and 53631.5, the City shall not invest any funds covered by this Investment Policy in inverse floaters, range notes, interest only strips derived from mortgage pools or any investment that may result in a zero-interest accrual if held to maturity. 1042
2022-23 Investment Policy 8
Notwithstanding the prohibitions in the above paragraph, the City may invest in securities issued by, or backed by, the United States government that could result in zero- or negative-interest accrual if held to maturity, in the event of, and for the duration of, a period of negative market interest rates. The City may hold these instruments until their maturity dates.

10. Collateralization:

The right of collateral substitution is granted.

11. Safekeeping and Custody:

12. Diversification:

The City will diversify its investments by security type and institution. Except as provided below, no more than five percent (5%) of the City's portfolio may be invested in any one institution, regardless of sector. The types of investments which are excluded from this limitation are:
• United States Treasury and federal agency/government-sponsored enterprise obligations,
1043
2022-23 Investment Policy 9
• Supranational obligations,
• Bank certificates of deposit,
• Other certificates of deposit, and
• Money market funds and other pooled investment vehicles, including LAIF and shares of a JPA.
1044
1 0
2022-23 Investment Policy

13. Maximum Maturities:

14. Reporting:

The Director is charged with the responsibility of including investment activities in the City's Annual Comprehensive Financial Report. Additionally, the Director shall provide a monthly listing of investment transactions and a quarterly investment report to the City Council.

The quarterly investment report shall include the following information for each individual investment: description of investment instrument, issuer name, maturity date, credit rating, coupon rate, yield, purchase price, par value, book value, current market value and the source of the valuation. The quarterly investment report shall also state compliance of the portfolio to the statement of investment policy, or manner in which the portfolio is not in compliance and include a statement denoting the City's ability to meet its expenditure requirements for the next six months or provide an explanation as to why sufficient money may or may not be available.

15. Investment Policy Review:

The City's investment policy shall be reviewed by the Finance Director and adopted by resolution annually by the City Council.

16. Other Constraints:

The City shall operate its investment portfolio within the many State and self-imposed constraints. It shall buy no stocks, shall not speculate, nor shall it deal in futures or options, or buy on margin. The City will not purchase inverse floaters, range notes, interest only strips or any security having an interest rate derived from an index, commodity price or other variable i.e. securities commonly known as derivatives.

17. Investment Pools/Mutual Funds
A thorough investigation of any pooled investment program and/or mutual fund is required prior to investing and on a continual basis. There shall be a questionnaire developed which will request the following information:
1045
1 1
2022-23 Investment Policy
• A description of eligible investment securities, and a written statement of investment policy and objectives.
• A description of how interest is calculated and distributed, and how gains and losses are treated.
• A description of how the securities are safeguarded (including the settlement processes), and how often the securities are priced and the program audited. • A description of who may invest in the program, how often, and what size of deposits and withdrawals are allowed.
• A schedule for receiving statements and portfolio listings. • Are reserves or retained earnings utilized?
• A fee schedule and method for assessing fee.
• Does the pool accept bond proceeds?

18. Internal Controls
The Finance Director is responsible for establishing and maintaining a system of internal controls to ensure that City assets are protected from loss arising from fraud, employee error, imprudent actions, theft or misuse, and to ensure compliance with this Policy, City-mandated procedures and federal and state laws. An internal control structure should include written procedures that encompass the following principles:
• Segregation of duties,
• Explicit delegation of authority and responsibility,
• Timely reconciliation and balancing,
• Documentation, recording, and record keeping,
• Management control and oversight,
• Dual or secondary authorization.

It should be designed to provide reasonable assurance that these objectives are met. The concept of reasonable assurance recognizes that (1) the cost of a control should not exceed the benefits likely to be derived, and (2) the 1046
valuation of costs and benefits requires estimates and judgments by management.

The Finance Director shall establish an annual process for independent review of these controls, including cash and investment testing, by an external auditor.

This review will help to ensure compliance with the City's investment policies and procedures.

In evaluating the performance of the City's portfolio in compliance with this Policy, it is expected that the City shall establish an appropriate performance benchmark and compare the total return of its portfolio to the total return of the benchmark.

The policy recognizes that reporting on a market basis will periodically cause market gains or losses to be reported. In most instances, such gains or losses will not be realized since individual securities may be held to maturity. However, it is also recognized that in the course of managing the City's investment portfolio, realized losses may be incurred from time to time as part of an actively managed portfolio strategy, if deemed appropriate and if such losses are incurred with the greater goal of purchasing new securities which are expected to produce higher earnings (net of realized losses) over time, or of improving the portfolio's overall credit quality or positioning.
2022-23 Investment Policy
1047
2022-23 Investment Policy 11
Glossary of Investment Policy Terms
Amortization of Costs: Reconciliation of the purchase price of a security and par value resulting in net interest.

Benchmark: A passive index used to compare the performance, relative to risk and return, of an investor's portfolio.

Book Value: The value at which an asset is carried on a balance sheet.

Broker: A person or firm that acts as an intermediary by purchasing and selling securities for others rather than for its own account.

Cash Flow: A comparison of cash receipts (revenues) to required payments (debt service, operating expenses, etc.).

Certificate of Deposit (CD): A short-term, secured deposit in a financial institution that usually returns principal and interest to the lender at the end of the loan period.

CD Placement Service: A service that allows local agencies to purchase more than $250,000 in CDs from a single financial institution while still maintaining FDIC insurance coverage.
1048
2022-23 Investment Policy 12
Collateral: Securities, evidence of deposit or other property, which borrower pledges to secure repayment of a loan. Also refers to securities pledged by a bank to secure deposits of public monies.

Collateralization of Deposit: Process by which a bank or financial institution pledges securities, or other deposits for the purpose of securing the repayment of deposited funds.

Commercial Paper (CP): An unsecured short-term promissory note issued by corporations or municipalities, with maturities ranging from 2 to 270 days.

County Pooled Investment Funds: The aggregate of all funds from public agencies placed in the custody of the county treasurer or chief finance officer for investment and reinvestment.

Coupon: The annual rate of interest that a bond's issuer promises to pay the bondholder on the bond's face value.

The top four letter categories are considered investment grade ratings. 1049
2022-23 Investment Policy 13
Each of the services use pluses (+), minuses (-), or numerical modifiers to indicate steps within each category. The S&P ratings from AA to CCC may be modified by the addition of a plus (+) or minus (-) sign to show relative standing within the major rating categories. Moody's appends numerical modifiers 1, 2, and 3 to each generic rating classification from Aa through Caa. The modifier 1 indicates that the obligation ranks in the higher end of its generic rating category; the modifier 2 indicates a mid-range ranking; and the modifier 3 indicates a ranking in the lower end of that generic rating category.

Custodian: A bank or other financial institution that keeps custody of stock certificates and other assets.

Dealer: Someone who acts as a principal in all transactions, including underwriting, buying, and selling securities, including from his/her own account.

Default Risk: The risk that issuers/borrowers will be unable to make the required payments on their debt obligations.

Delivery vs. Payment: The payment of cash for securities as they are delivered and accepted for settlement.

Diversification: The allocation of different types of assets in a portfolio to mitigate risks and improve overall portfolio performance. 1050
2022-23 Investment Policy 14
Duration: Indicator of the effect of an interest rate change on a bond price.

The longer the duration, the greater the expected change in a portfolio's value when interest rates change.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC): A federal agency that insures bank deposits, currently up to $250,000 per entity.

Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSE): Privately held corporations with public purposes created by the U.S. Congress to reduce the cost of capital for certain borrowing sectors of the economy. Securities issued by GSEs carry the implicit backing of the U.S. Government, but they are not direct obligations of the U.S. Government. For thisreason, these securities will offer a yield premium over Treasuries. Examples of GSEs currently include: Federal Home Loan Bank System (FHLB), Federal Farm Credit Banks Funding Corporation (FFCB), Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC), and the Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA).

Interest: The amount a borrower pays to a lender for the use of his or her money.

Liquidity: The measure of the ability to convert an instrument to cash on a given date at full face or par value.

Liquidity Risk: The risk that a security, sold prior to maturity, will be sold at a loss of value. For a local agency, the liquidity risk of an individual 1051
2022-23 Investment Policy 15
investment may not be as critical as how the overall liquidity of the portfolio allows the agency to meet its cash needs.

Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF): A voluntary investment fund open to government entities and certain non-profit organizations in California that is managed by the State Treasurer's Office.

Market Risk: The chance that the value of a security will decline as interest rates rise. In general, as interest rates fall, prices of fixed income securities rise. Similarly, as interest rates rise, prices fall. Market risk also isreferred to as systematic risk or risk that affects all securities within an asset class similarly.

Market Value: The price at which a security is trading and presumably could be purchased or sold at a particular point in time.

Maturity: The date on which the principal or stated value of an investment becomes due and payable.

Mutual Fund: An investment company that pools money and can invest in a variety of securities, including fixed-income securities and money market instruments.
1052
2022-23 Investment Policy 16
National Credit Union Administration (NCUA): an independent federal agency that insures deposits at federally insured credit unions, currently up to $250,000.

Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organization (NRSRO): A rating organization designated by the SEC as being nationally recognized.

Negotiable Certificates of Deposit: Generally, short-term debt instrument that usually pays interest and is issued by a bank, savings or federal association, state or federal credit union, or state-licensed branch of a foreign bank. The majority of negotiable CDs mature within six months while the average maturity is two weeks. Negotiable CDs are traded in a secondary market and are payable upon order to the bearer or initial depositor (investor). Negotiable CDs are insured by FDIC up to $250,000, but they are not collateralized beyond that amount.

Portfolio: Combined holding of more than one stock, bond, commodity, real estate investment, cash equivalent, or other asset. The purpose of a portfolio is to reduce risk by diversification.

Premium: Premium means the difference between the par value of a security and the cost of the security, when the cost is above par. Investors pay a 1053
2022-23 Investment Policy 17
premium to purchase a security when the return to the investor (yield) is lower than the stated coupon (interest rate) on the investment.

Price: Price is the amount of monetary consideration required by a willing seller and a willing buyer to sell an investment on a particular date.

Principal: The face value or par value of a debt instrument, or the amount of capital invested in a given security.

Prudent Investor Standard: A standard of conduct where a person acts with care, skill, prudence, and diligence when investing, reinvesting, purchasing, acquiring, exchanging, selling, and managing funds. The test of whether the standard is being met is if a prudent person acting in such a situation would engage in similar conduct to ensure that investments safeguard principal and maintain liquidity.

Rate of Return: The yield obtainable on a security based on its purchase price or its current market price.

Safekeeping: Offers storage and protection of assets provided by an institution serving as an agent.
1054
2022-23 Investment Policy 18
Safety: In the context of investing public funds, safety relates to preserving the principal of an investment in an investment portfolio; local agencies address the concerns of safety by controlling exposure to risks.

Secondary Market: A market made for the purchase and sale of outstanding issues following the initial distribution.

Total Return: Total return includesinterest, realized gains and losses, and unrealized gains and losses over a given period of time.

U.S. Agency Obligations: Bonds issued by agencies of the Federal government set up to supply credit to various classes of institutions.

Bonds are long-term obligations that generally mature in ten years or more.

Weighted Average Maturity: The average maturity of all the securities that comprise a portfolio, typically expressed in days or years. 1055
2022-23 Investment Policy 19
Yield: The current rate of return on an investment security generally expressed as a percentage of the securities current price. 1056
Resolution No. XX-23 Page 1 of 1
RESOLUTION NO. XX-23

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OAKLEY APPROVING THE INVESTMENT POLICY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022-2023
WHEREAS, the City Council has established, and each year approves an Investment Policy regarding the investment of the City’s temporary idle cash; and WHERAS, the Policy delegates authority for investing the City’s funds to the Finance Director; and
WHEREAS, the Policy specifies the City’s investment objectives in accordance with California Law and provides a framework for managing and investing the City’s funds in accordance with these objectives; and
WHEREAS, the Investment Policy itself requires the City’s Investment Policy be reviewed and approved by the City Council each year; and WHEREAS, the Finance Director has reviewed the existing policy and recommends the City Council approve the attached policy for FY 2022-2023.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Oakley hereby approves the Investment Policy for FY 2022-2023 attached hereto as Exhibit A.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Oakley at a meeting held on the 28th of March, 2023 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTENTIONS:

APPROVED:
___________________
Aaron Meadows, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________ ___________________
Libby Vreonis, City Clerk Date
1057

STAFF REPORT
Approved and Forwarded to the City Council
DATE: March 28, 2023
TO: Joshua McMurray, City Manager
FROM: Kenneth W. Strelo, Planning Manager
SUBJECT: City of Oakley 2023-2031 Housing Element – Approval of a General Plan Amendment Adopting the City of Oakley 2023-2031 Housing Element
Summary
The City of Oakley (“City”) has initiated a State Mandated Housing Element update required by Government Code Section 65580. The Housing Element is one of seven mandatory elements of the General Plan and is updated every eight years. It is ultimately submitted to the California Department of
Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) for
certification. The City must adopt a Housing Element for the eight-year period 2023-2031 (6th Cycle) to
accommodate the City’s regional housing need
allocation (RHNA) of 1,058 housing units, comprised of
279 very-low income units, 161 low-income units, 172
moderate-income units, and 446 above moderateincome units (“Project”). The City of Oakley has prepared the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update
(“Housing Element”) in compliance with State Housing
Element Law and has identified sites that can
accommodate housing units meeting the City’s RHNA.

Adoption of the Housing Element Update constitutes a
General Plan Amendment. On March 7, 2023, the
Planning Commission held a public hearing to review the proposed Housing Element Update and make a
recommendation to the City Council on its adoption
through approval of a General Plan Amendment. Now,
the City Council is tasked to hold a public hearing to
review the proposed Housing Element Update and
consider its adoption through approval of a General Plan Amendment.
1058
Subject: City of Oakley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Date: March 28, 2023

Page 2 of 8 ends

Staff recommends the City Council approve the proposed General Plan Amendment adopting the City of Oakley 2023-2031 Housing Element, as amended.

Background
This section includes narrative summaries of previous actions by the City Council and Planning Commission, and any public workshops or work sessions. Additional background materials and information for items that were on City Council or Planning Commission Agendas can be found online by visiting:
https://www.ci.oakley.ca.us/agendas-minutes-videos-archive/. Action items will include the meeting date and agenda item number for easier reference.

Once on that page, viewers may navigate to “Archived Meetings”, select the year of the item (date will be referenced in the summary), then the appropriate hearing body tab.

Meeting dates are listed in chronological order, and each includes a link to the Agenda, which includes individual links to items and their attachments, the Minutes from that meeting if already adopted, a Video of the meeting, MP4 Audio of the meeting, and the Agenda Packet, which is a single PDF document containing all meeting items and their attachments. A snippet of this part of the webpage is shown in Figure 1.

Other materials related to public workshops not held on a City Council or Planning Commission Agenda, or any other documents referenced, but not attached to Figure 1: Snippet of Archived Meetings Selection Options (figure does not contain active links) 1059
Subject: City of Oakley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Date: March 28, 2023

Page 3 of 8 ends

background items may be found on the City’s Housing Element webpage available here: https://www.ci.oakley.ca.us/2023-2031-housing-element-update/.

Previous Meetings, Public Workshops, and Actions
June 8, 2021 (Item 3.9) – City Council approved a Request for Proposals to be solicited to housing element consultants.

December 14, 2021 (Item 3.10) – In November of 2021 the City received a proposal from Ascent Environmental, which was approved by the City Council on December 14, 2021.

March 22, 2022 (Item 7.1) – City Council conducted a public work session on the 2023- 2031 Housing Element Update.

April 20, 2022 – City Staff and Consultants
held a Community Workshop at the Oakley
Recreation Center. This workshop included
flyers in English and Spanish, a real-time
Spanish-speaking interpreter, and substantial
public outreach for the workshop and an
online survey (English and Spanish). The
Housing Element webpage includes links to
the Community Workshop Flyers (See Figure
2) and the Power Point Presentation given at
the Workshop.

June 7, 2022 (Item 6.1) – Planning
Commission received a Housing Element
Presentation.

July 12, 2022 (Item 4.1) – City Council
received a presentation and held a public
hearing on the Public Review Draft Housing
Element.

August 31, 2022 – the City of Oakley
submitted the 2023-2031 Housing Element
Revised Public Review Draft to HCD for their official review and comments. This document with appendices is available on the Housing Element webpage with and without tracked changes.

November 29, 2022 – HCD submitted a Finding letter to the City of Oakley that included comments and required revisions to the City of Oakley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update. This comment letter is included on the Housing Element webpage and included as an Exhibit to the proposed resolution.

Figure 2. Community Workshop Flyer
1060
Subject: City of Oakley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Date: March 28, 2023

Page 4 of 8 ends

January 27, 2023 – In response to the HCD comment letter, the City amended the Housing Element and created two documents made up of the Revised Housing Element and the Response to HCD Comments, both included as Exhibits to the proposed resolution. These documents were posted to the City website on January 19, 2023 for a minimum seven days before resubmittal to HCD on January 27, 2023 for the second round of comments.

March 7, 2023 (Item 4.2) – Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 6-23 recommending the City Council approve a General Plan Amendment adopting the Housing Element, as revised by Staff in order to satisfy HCD comments. The Housing Element presented to the Planning Commission included an errata to the version submitted to HCD based on correspondence with the HCD staff conducting Oakley’s Housing Element review.

More Information
More information is available on the City’s Housing Element webpage (linked above), including the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ).

A direct link to the FAQ is available here: https://www.ci.oakley.ca.us/wpcontent/uploads/2022/04/Oakley-HE_FAQ-Handout_FINAL_04.07.22.pdf. The FAQ includes several areas of information, such as answering what is the Housing Element and summarizing the information it contains, what is Oakley’s RHNA (Figure 3) and how is it determined, when housing may be built, an explanation of “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing” (AFFH)
and how it relates to the
Housing Element, what
constitutes “affordable
housing,” and finally,
the consequences a
jurisdiction faces if it
does not adopt a
Housing Element and
comply with State law.

Changes Between Housing Element Versions
The changes made to the Housing Element submitted to HCD on August 31, 2022 are shown as tracked changes in the version submitted to HCD on January 27, 2023 (Exhibit A to Attachment 3). In addition to those tracked changes, Ascent put together an attachment to the Housing Element titled, “Response to HCD Comments on City of Oakley Draft Housing Element” (available online as linked at end of document), which includes HCD’s comments and the City’s response that summarizes the change and navigates the reviewer to the location of the change. The City has been able to address all of the comments received from HCD and has even received additional comments during a phone call on the revised version of the document. Based on those verbal comments, an errata was prepared and presented to the Planning Commission.

Figure 3. Oakley’s RHNA
1061
Subject: City of Oakley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Date: March 28, 2023

Page 5 of 8 ends

The errata sheet that was presented to the Planning Commission included the changes shown highlighted in yellow. The following list includes a summary of the changes to Chapter 4 (Fair Housing Assessment) and Chapter 8 (Housing Plan) :
 Added discussion to page 4-47 on the current efforts to develop a plan to bring the Oakley Library to the downtown.
 HCD recognized the above effort as positive and noted the downtown was recognized as a low resource area. As a result, Action 2.3 was renamed from “Infrastructure Investment Program” to “Downtown-Specific Investment Program,” and the language was modified to reference the library and efforts to improve safety and expand transit access to increase access and opportunity for low resource neighborhoods.
 HCD found the City’s zoning regulations applying to emergency shelters could use some bolstering. Action 3.6 (as renumbered) sets December 2024 as a timeframe to conduct a zoning text amendment to allow the use with capacity for at least 50 beds by right in another zone other than what is currently only permitted at the Civic Center yard.
 HCD also commented for an increased capacity for civic engagement with an emphasis on reaching out to historically underrepresented populations. Action

3.7 establishes new objectives to build capacity for civic engagement among historically underrepresented populations. Some steps the City will take include, conducting outreach to affordable housing building leaders on a quarterly basis, working with Oakley Youth Advisory Council (OYAC) to identify ways to reach underserved and underrepresented populations, and consider re-initiating the Leadership Academy. The City will also work with affordable housing apartment managers to assist in disseminating information such as posting City notices and other regular correspondence in common areas.

Since the yellow highlighted changes in the errata were presented to the Planning Commission, the City received additional verbal and emailed comments from HCD.

Changes brought on by the recent HCD comments are included in the March 14, 2023 Errata as green highlighted text. The errata includes changes to Chapter 3 (Sites Inventory), Chapter 6 (Potential Housing Constraints) and Chapter 8 (Housing Plan) as summarized below:
 Chapter 3: HCD requested examples that showed the existence of existing residential structures on a larger site was not too much of an obstacle for the site to be fully developed. For Chapter 3, the errata provides four separate recent examples of sites with one or more existing residences being fully redeveloped including removal of the existing residences.
1062
Subject: City of Oakley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Date: March 28, 2023

Page 6 of 8 ends

 Chapter 6: HCD asked us to clarify why the existing emergency shelter allowance may not be satisfactory. The Housing Element explains that it is unclear if the site identified at the Civic Center would meet the by-right requirements of state law. Instead, the City will seek out a different zoning district where an emergency shelter for at least 50 beds is permitted by-right.  Chapter 8: The City had an Action 1.7 that spoke to monitoring required development fees, both implemented by the City and other agencies, with the aim of reducing constraints on the development of affordable housing. That Action was removed due to the City’s lack of authority over other agency fees, but HCD asked it be added back in in order to have consistency with other nearby jurisdictions where HCD asked they add the Action to be similar with Oakley. Adding this Action 1.7 back in required the renumbering of the Action that followed.
 Chapter 8: Per a request from HCD, the City added Action 3.4 back in rather than combining it with Action 1.3. Action 3.4 is titled Housing for Extremely-Low Income Households and Special Needs Groups. It focused on the City encouraging the development of up to 50 units for extremely low-income households or special needs groups. A timeline is set to conduct outreach to developers in 2024 and bi-annually thereafter. The re-addition of this comment resulted in renumbering Actions that followed.
 Chapter 8: Action 3.9 titled Tenants’ Rights Information states the City will partner with fair housing organizations to ensure that residents have information about the California Tenant Protection Act of 2019. This will be done through the dissemination of information to community and fair housing organizations by January 2025.

Remaining Steps to Housing Element Certification
Based on HCD’s review of the Housing Element being presented to the City Council, the errata presented to the Planning Commission, and the updated errata presented to the City Council, the Housing Element is nearly complete. The City is expecting to receive a letter of conditional approval from HCD by the end of March 2023. A letter of conditional approval would mean only a few small edits would be needed, which when made would result in the Housing Element being resubmitted to HCD for certification. It is expected that HCD’s official response letter to the Housing Element submitted to them on January 27, 2023 will be received after the posting of this Staff Report and attachments. Staff will present any comments not already addressed in the errata presented to the City Council and will include the recommended modifications to the Housing Element in response to those comments. Staff is requesting the City Council approve the General Plan Amendment adopting the Housing element with direction to Staff to incorporate those modifications that will be discussed during the public hearing 1063
Subject: City of Oakley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Date: March 28, 2023

Page 7 of 8 ends

into the final version of the Housing Element to be submitted to HCD for certification on March 29, 2023.

Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) Sites
One part of the Housing Element is ensuring the City can meet its RHNA. The method used by the City of Oakley is placing an Affordable Housing Overly District (“AHO”) onto a number of acres throughout the City. By placing the AHO on a required number of acres, those acres would then be allowed, but not required, to develop at minimum densities consistent with State law. The previous Housing Element cycles also included placing the AHO on acreage throughout the City as a means to satisfy RHNA. The current Housing Element does not finalize or approve any new AHO sites, rather it identifies sites that currently have the AHO on them and other potential sites that have been discussed throughout the Housing Element Update process.

The City’s plan is to handle selection of additional AHO sites following adoption of the Housing Element as permitted by State law. The AHO site selection will be processed as its own project and require additional environmental review. The process will also include public engagement, additional workshops, and public hearings with the Planning Commission and City Council prior to the addition of any new AHO sites. Assuming the Housing Element is certified in a timely manner (no later than May 31, 2023) the City will have three years from January 31, 2023 to complete the AHO overlay.

California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”)
Pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines Section
15164, the City prepared an Addendum to the
City of Oakley Focused General Plan Initial
Study/Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) for
adoption of the 2023-2031 Housing Element
Update (“CEQA Addendum”). The CEQA
Addendum found that the proposed Housing
element Update would not result in any new
environmental effects, or an increased
severity of environmental effects documented
in the Focused General Plan Update IS/MND
because no new direct or indirect physical
changes to the environment would occur with its adoption. The Addendum is attached to this Staff Report and the Focused General Plan Update IS/MND is linked electronically.

Consistency with the City of Oakley Strategic Plan 2022-2027+ Adoption of the City of Oakley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update is consistent with the City of Oakley Strategic Plan 2022-2027+ (SP27+) under more than one goal.

Under the Community and Economic Development Goal, it is consistent with the

AS DOCUMENTED IN THIS

ADDENDUM, THE PROPOSED

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE

WOULD NOT RESULT IN ANY

NEW ENVIRONMENTAL

EFFECTS OR AN INCREASED

SEVERITY OF

ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

DOCUMENTED IN THE

FOCUSED GENERAL PLAN
1064
Subject: City of Oakley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Date: March 28, 2023

Page 8 of 8 ends

Strategic and Thoughtful Growth Objective which states, “Provide affordable housing sites that meet our legislative Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA).” It is also consistent with one of the Community Outreach and Engagement Objectives under the Community and Collaborative Partnership Goal which states, “Consider creating new partnerships that will involve community participation.” This will be achieved through implementation of proposed Actions found in the Housing Element.

Fiscal Impact
There is no fiscal impact to the General Fund associated with this recommendation of adoption of the Housing Element Update. This item is a part of the overall scope of work under the contract between the City of Oakley and Ascent Environmental. The costs covering Ascent’s contract were previously appropriated for this project and budgeted in the General Fund. Housing Element Update costs budgeted in the General Fund are approved to be reimbursed through a combination of SB 2 Planning Grant, Local Early Action Planning (“LEAP”) Grant, and Regional Early Action Planning (“REAP”) Grant monies, all administered by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”).

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends the City Council adopt the proposed General Plan Amendment to repeal the 2015-2023 Housing Element and adopt the Housing Element of the General Plan for the period of 2023-2031, as amended.

Attachment

1. Notice of Public Hearing

2. Addendum to the City of Oakley Focused General Plan Update Initial Study/Negative Declaration

3. Proposed Resolution
a. Exhibit A. 2023-2031 City of Oakley Housing Element Update b. Exhibit B. 2023-2031 City of Oakley Housing Element Errata c. Exhibit C. HCD Finding Letter, dated November 29, 2022 Available Online or through City Clerk

1. City of Oakley Response to HCD Comments on City of Oakley Draft Housing Element (https://www.ci.oakley.ca.us/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/OakleyRevised-HE_Response-to-HCD-Comments_2023-01-19.pdf)

2. City of Oakley Focused General Plan Initial Study/Negative Declaration (https://www.ci.oakley.ca.us/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/InitialStudy_OakleyFocusedGPU.pdf)

3. City of Oakley Housing Element Update Webpage (only online) (https://www.ci.oakley.ca.us/2023-2031-housing-element-update/) 1065
City of Oakley
3231 Main Street
Oakley, CA 94561
www.oakleyinfo.com

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given that on March 28, 2023 at 6:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, the City Council of the City of Oakley will hold a Public Hearing at the Council Chambers located at 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561 for the purposes of receiving public comments on the project as described below:

Project Name: City of Oakley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update.

Project Location: Citywide.

Applicant: City of Oakley, 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561.

Request: City Council receive a presentation on the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update for the purposes of receiving public comments and considering adoption of a General Plan Amendment to repeal the 2015-2023 City of Oakley Housing Element and adopt the Housing Element of the General Plan for the period of 2023-2031 in compliance with State Housing Element Law. More information on the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update can be found at:
https://www.ci.oakley.ca.us/2023-2031-housing-element-update/.

How to Review: The Staff Report and its attachments will be available for public review, on or before March 23, 2023 at City Hall, 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561 or online at www.ci.oakley.ca.us/agendas-minutes-videos-archive/ by navigating to the March 28, 2023 agenda and clicking the project title link. (Note: City Hall is closed on the 1st and 3rd Fridays of each month). Interested persons are invited to submit written comments prior to and may testify at the public hearing. Written comments may be submitted to Ken Strelo, Planning Manager at the City of Oakley, 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561 or by email to [email protected].

NOTICE IS ALSO GIVEN pursuant to Government Code Section 65009(b) that, if this matter is subsequently challenged in Court by you or others, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else has raised at a Public Hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Oakley City Clerk at, or prior to, the Public Hearing. 1066
City of Oakley
Housing Element Update Addendum i
February 2023

CITY OF OAKLEY
Housing Element Update
Addendum to the
City of Oakley Focused General Plan
Initial Study/Negative Declaration
Prepared for:

City of Oakley
3231 Main Street
1067
20210195.01
City of Oakley Housing Element Update
Addendum to the
City of Oakley Focused General Plan
Initial Study/Negative Declaration
Prepared for:

City of Oakley
3231 Main Street
Oakley, CA 94561
Contact: Kenneth Strelo, Planning Manager
Prepared By:

Ascent Environmental, Inc.
455 Capitol Mall, Suite 300
Sacramento, California 95814
916/444-7301
February 2023
1068
City of Oakley
Housing Element Update Addendum i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................................................................................... II 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................................ 1-1

1.1 Introduction and Regulatory Guidance ......................................................................................................................1-1

1.2 Why this Document?.........................................................................................................................................................1-1

1.3 Summary of Findings .......................................................................................................................................................1-2

1.4 Document Organization .................................................................................................................................................1-2 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...........................................................................................................................................................2-1

2.1 Project Background ..........................................................................................................................................................2-1

2.2 Project Location ................................................................................................................................................................2-2

2.3 Project Description...........................................................................................................................................................2-2

2.4 Required Actions ..............................................................................................................................................................2-5 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST...............................................................................................................................................3-1

3.1 Aesthetics ............................................................................................................................................................................3-3

3.2 Agriculture and Forest Resources...............................................................................................................................3-4

3.3 Air Quality ...........................................................................................................................................................................3-6

3.4 Biological Resources........................................................................................................................................................ 3-7

3.5 Cultural Resources ...........................................................................................................................................................3-9

3.6 Energy................................................................................................................................................................................. 3-10

3.7 Geology and Soils .......................................................................................................................................................... 3-12

3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ......................................................................................................................................... 3-14

3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ........................................................................................................................... 3-15

3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality.....................................................................................................................................3-17

3.11 Land Use and Planning................................................................................................................................................. 3-19

3.12 Mineral Resources..........................................................................................................................................................3-20

3.13 Noise................................................................................................................................................................................... 3-21

3.14 Population and Housing..............................................................................................................................................3-23

3.15 Public Services .................................................................................................................................................................3-25

3.16 Recreation.........................................................................................................................................................................3-27

3.17 Transportation.................................................................................................................................................................3-28

3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources .............................................................................................................................................3-30

3.19 Utilities and Service Systems ...................................................................................................................................... 3-31

3.20 Wildfire...............................................................................................................................................................................3-33 4 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................................................................. 4-1 5 REPORT PREPARERS .................................................................................................................................................................5-1 Figures
Figure 1 Oakley City Limits .............................................................................................................................................................2-3 Tables
Table 2-1 Regional Housing Needs Allocation, City of Oakley 2023-2031.......................................................................2-1 1069
City of Oakley
Housing Element Update Addendum ii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments
AHO Affordable Housing Overlay
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
City City of Oakley
General Plan City of Oakley General Plan
HCD State Department of Housing and Community Development Housing Element Update City of Oakley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update IS/ND initial study/negative declaration
ND negative declaration
Project City of Oakley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update RHNA Regional Housing Needs Allocation
VMT vehicle miles traveled
1070
City of Oakley
Housing Element Update Addendum 1-1
1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 INTRODUCTION AND REGULATORY GUIDANCE
This addendum to the City of Oakley (City) Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND) for the City of Oakley Focused General Plan Update (as adopted on January 11, 2022) has been prepared to address the proposed update to the City’s 2023-2031 Housing Element Update (Housing Element) pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15164. The proposed update to the Housing Element includes:
 updated demographic information,
 housing needs data,
 analysis of the availability of housing sites to meet the City’s regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) for the 2023–2031 planning period, and
 new and modified housing goals, policies, and programs.

Section 2, “Project Description,” below provides a detailed description of the updates to the Housing Element.

1.2 WHY THIS DOCUMENT?
Consistent with the requirements of State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, the City must determine whether the update to the Housing Element would trigger the need for subsequent environmental review. When a negative declaration (ND) has been adopted for a project, no subsequent review shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in light of the whole record, one of more of the following:
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous negative declaration; or (B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous negative declaration (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)).

If any of the triggers set forth above occur, the City would be required to prepare subsequent environmental analysis unless “only minor additions or changes would be necessary to make the previous negative declaration adequately apply to the project in the changed situation,” in which case a “supplement to negative declaration” would suffice (see State CEQA Guidelines Section 15163). If there are no grounds for either a subsequent negative declaration or a supplement to a negative declaration, then the City can prepare an addendum pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, explaining why “some changes or additions” to the negative declaration “are necessary, but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a Subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred.”
This addendum is intended to evaluate the potential for environmental effects from the proposed update to the Housing Element, which would be a change relative to what is described and evaluated in the adopted Focused 1071
Introduction Ascent Environmental
City of Oakley
1-2 Housing Element Update Addendum
General Plan Update IS/ND. This addendum evaluates all environmental topic areas for any changes in circumstances or changes to the project description, as compared to the adopted Focused General Plan Update IS/ND, and determines whether there are potential environmental effects resulting from these changes that warrant supplemental review.

As explained in Section B, “Evaluation of Environmental Impacts,” the purpose of this analysis is to evaluate environmental topic areas in terms of any “changed condition” (i.e., changed circumstances, project changes, or new information of substantial importance) that may result in a different environmental impact significance conclusion from the adopted Focused General Plan Update IS/ND pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 and 15164.

1.3 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
As documented in this addendum, the proposed Housing Element Update would not result in any new environmental effects or an increased severity of environmental effects documented in the Focused General Plan Update IS/ND because no new direct or indirect physical changes to the environment would occur with its adoption.

Because only policy level changes are proposed that do not result in any of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration is not warranted and an addendum to the previously adopted Focused General Plan Update IS/ND adequately addresses the proposed changes to the Housing Element (City of Oakley Housing Element Update 2023–2031).

1.4 DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION
This addendum is organized as follows:
 Chapter 1: Introduction. This chapter provides an introduction to the environmental review process. It describes the purpose and organization of this document as well as presents a summary of findings.  Chapter 2: Project Description and Background. This chapter describes the purpose of and need for the proposed project, identifies project objectives, and provides a detailed description of the project.  Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist. This chapter presents an analysis of a range of environmental issues identified in the CEQA Environmental Checklist and determines if the Housing Element Update would result in new or substantially more adverse significant impact compared to the analysis presented in the adopted IS/ND for the City’s Focused General Plan Update. If any new or substantially more adverse significant impacts may occur, a supplemental or subsequent EIR would be required. For this project, however, the proposed Housing Element Update would not change the significance of any previously identified impacts.  Chapter 4: References. This chapter lists the references used in preparation of this IS/ND.  Chapter 5: List of Preparers. This chapter identifies report preparers. 1072
City of Oakley
Housing Element Update Addendum 2-1
2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND
State law requires each city and county to adopt a general plan containing at least eight elements including a housing element. The housing element is the only element that is required by law to be updated every eight years and must be reviewed by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). This Housing Element Update is an update of the City’s previous housing element, which was adopted by the Oakley City Council on January 28, 2015. This update will cover the 2023-2031 planning period, from January 31, 2023, to January 31, 2031.

Housing element law requires local governments to adequately plan to meet the existing and projected housing needs of all economic segments of the community, including their share of the regional housing need. Housing element law is the State’s primary market-based strategy to increase housing supply, choice, and affordability. The law recognizes that in order for the private for-profit and non-profit sectors to adequately address housing needs and demand, local governments must adopt land use plans and regulatory requirements that provide opportunities for, and do not unduly constrain, housing development.

An important part of State housing element law is the determination of the City’s ability to accommodate forecasted housing demand for all income levels, known as the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). The RHNA quantifies the need for housing in each region statewide and is determined by HCD. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) is responsible for allocating the RHNA to each city and county in its region, which includes the City of Oakley. On December 16, 2021, ABAG adopted the 2023-2031 RHNA Plan. Through the RHNA Plan, ABAG allocates a “fair share” by income category based on projected housing needs for each jurisdiction. Each jurisdiction is required to report to HCD on how the fair share allocation can be accommodated within the planning period. It should be noted that the RHNA projection period is June 30, 2022 – December 31, 2030, which differs slightly from the Housing Element planning period of January 31, 2023 – January 31, 2031. The allocations are intended to be used by jurisdictions when updating their housing elements as the basis for assuring that adequate sites and zoning are available to accommodate at least the number of units allocated.

Table 2-1 shows the RHNA assigned to Oakley for the 2023-2031 Housing Element. As shown in the table, ABAG allocated 1,058 new housing units to the City of Oakley, which includes 279 very low-, 161 low-, 172 moderate-, and 446 above moderate-income units. State law also requires the City to identify the projected need for extremely lowincome housing. The City assumes that 50 percent of the very low-income housing need is equal to the extremely low-income housing need. As such, there is a projected need for 140 extremely low-income housing units.

Table 2-1 Regional Housing Needs Allocation, City of Oakley 2023-2031 Very-Low-Income
Units Low-Income Units Moderate-Income Units Above-ModerateIncome Units Total 2023-2031 RHNA 279 161 172 446 1,058
Percent of Total 26% 15% 16% 42% 100%
Source: Association of Bay Area Governments. 2021. Final Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Plan: San Francisco Bay Area, 2023-2031 (Adopted December 2021).

As part of the Housing Element update, the City is obligated under State law to develop an inventory of vacant and underutilized land suitable for residential development that can accommodate the 1,058 housing units allocated through the RHNA which, includes 440 total lower-income units (includes very low- and low-income units). Based on the City’s residential sites inventory, the City has a shortfall of 434 lower-income units, and a surplus of 68 moderateincome and 2,505 above moderate-income units. The City must identify at least 21.7 additional acres of developable land to accommodate the shortfall of 434 lower-income units. The City’s plan to address the rezone obligation is described in Policy Action 1.1.
1073
Project Description Ascent Environmental
City of Oakley
2-2 Housing Element Update Addendum
The City of Oakley also developed a Housing Plan for the 2023-2031 Housing Element planning period. The Housing Plan identifies specific goals and actions to address housing needs and meet statutory requirements. In developing this Housing Plan, the City assessed its existing and future housing needs, evaluated the performance of existing programs, and collaborated with residents and stakeholders to identify sites for future affordable housing.

The City identified the following three goal topics:
 Goal 1: Production of New Housing. Provide adequate sites to accommodate the City’s share of regional housing needs, including housing for special needs groups, through appropriate zoning and development standards; and where appropriate, removal of identified governmental constraints to the development of housing.  Goal 2: Preservation and Conservation of the Existing Housing Stock. Preserve, conserve, and improve the condition of existing housing stock for all income levels to maintain community character.  Goal 3: Increase Access to Housing Opportunities. Affirmatively further fair housing by promoting housing opportunities for all persons, regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status or disability and ensuring policies and development regulations follow the principle of equal access to housing opportunities.

For each goal, the City developed a set of actions to carry out the goal. The actions specify objectives, primary responsibility, and an estimated timeframe for accomplishment.

2.2 PROJECT LOCATION
As shown in Figure 1, the City of Oakley is located in the eastern region of Contra Costa County and is within the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area. Oakley's west border is situated at the intersection of Highway 4 and Highway 160, which provide access to San Francisco, San Jose, Sacramento, and the Central Valley. Oakley is a Delta community along with the cities of Pittsburg, Antioch, Brentwood, and the unincorporated areas of Bay Point, Bethel Island, Byron, Discovery Bay, and Knightsen. The San Joaquin River side of the Delta borders Oakley to the north, with unincorporated County territory to the east and partially to the west and south, and the City of Brentwood to the south and the City of Antioch to the west.

2.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed City of Oakley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update (hereafter referred to as the Housing Element Update or Project) would amend the City of Oakley General Plan (General Plan) to update the Housing Element.

2.3.1 Project Objectives
The purpose of the Housing Element Update is to address the housing needs of the City and to meet the requirements of State law. Based on the goals of the project, the following objectives have been established for the purposes of this document:
 Provide adequate supply of land for housing;
 Reduce constraints to housing production, including through the promotion of accessory dwelling units;  Conserve and rehabilitate existing housing and neighborhoods;  Improve housing opportunities for special needs groups;  Preserve existing affordable housing stock and provision of affordable housing;  Promote the efficient use of energy in residences and improve the air quality of the City; and  Promote and affirmatively further fair housing opportunities for City residents. 1074
Ascent Environmental Project Description
City of Oakley
Housing Element Update Addendum 2-3
Source: Data received from City of Oakley in 2022 and downloaded from Contra Cost a County in 2022.

Figure 1 Oakley City Limits

2.3.2 Project Description
The Housing Element Update addresses any changes that have occurred since adoption of the current (2015-2023) Housing Element. These changes include updated demographic information, housing needs data, and analysis of the availability of housing sites. The currently adopted Housing Element map of available housing sites identifies sites that could accommodate additional residential units, based on the City’s RHNA for the 2023–2031 planning period.

The Housing Element includes the following components, consistent with the requirement of California Government Code Section 65583:
 A review of the previous element’s goals, policies, programs, and objectives to ascertain the effectiveness of each of these components, as well as the overall effectiveness of the Housing Element.  An assessment of housing needs and an inventory of resources and constraints related to the meeting of these needs.
 An analysis and program for preserving assisted housing developments.  A statement of community goals, quantified objectives, and policies relative to the preservation, improvement, and development of housing.
1075
Project Description Ascent Environmental
City of Oakley
2-4 Housing Element Update Addendum
 A program that sets forth a schedule of actions that the City is taking or intends to take, in implementing the policies set forth in the Housing Element to identify adequate sites to accommodate the housing needs of all economic segments of the community. The program must do all of the following:
 Identify actions that will be taken to make adequate sites available to accommodate the City’s share of the regional housing need, if the need could not be accommodated by the existing inventory of residential sites.  Assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of extremely low-, very low-, low-, and moderate-income households.
 Address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental and nongovernmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing, including housing for all income levels and housing for persons with disabilities.
 Conserve and improve the condition of the existing affordable housing stock, which may include addressing ways to mitigate the loss of dwelling units demolished by public or private action.  Promote and affirmatively further fair housing opportunities and promote housing throughout the City for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability, and other characteristics protected any State and federal fair housing and planning law.  Preserve assisted housing developments for lower-income households.  Develop a plan that incentivizes and promotes the creation of accessory dwelling units that can be offered at affordable rent for very low-, low-, or moderate-income households.  Include an identification of the agencies and officials responsible for the implementation of the various actions and the means by which consistency will be achieved with other general plan elements and community goals.
 Include a diligent effort by the City to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the housing element, and the program shall describe this effort.  Include an assessment of fair housing in the City.

California Government Code Sections 65583 and 65583.2 require a parcel-specific inventory of appropriately zoned, available and suitable sites to provide opportunities for the provision of housing to all income segments within the community. The sites inventory addresses how the City can meet projected housing needs. While the inventory analyzes sites available for the construction of new housing at all income levels, particular focus and analysis is done to identify sites available at the lower-income categories. The City’s evaluation of adequate sites began with a listing of individual sites by General Plan designation and zoning. The suitability analysis demonstrated these sites are currently available and unconstrained to provide development opportunities prior to 2031. To demonstrate the development viability of the sites, the analysis addressed the following:
 Sites have appropriate zoning.
 Development standards do not place an undue impact on projected development capacity and affordability.  Existing constraints, including any known environmental issues, have been taken into consideration.  Public services will be available to allow development within the planning period.

The City has sufficient residential capacity to accommodate its RHNA for moderate‐ and above‐moderate income units but has a current shortfall of 434 units to accommodate its lower‐income RHNA. The City would accommodate an adequate inventory with the following mechanisms and programs:
 The inventory of vacant residentially and commercially zoned sites available for by right construction of new units by income category including some small and large parcels as documented with additional analysis;  Inventory of non-vacant but underutilized sites available for by right construction of new units by income category;
1076
Ascent Environmental Project Description
City of Oakley
Housing Element Update Addendum 2-5
 Estimating the construction of Accessory Dwelling Units; and  Modification of the City’s current Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) Zone. In 2016, the City adopted Ordinance 16-16 that adopted an overlay for nine properties within an AHO Zone with capacity for 542 units. To date, one project was approved, is currently under construction, and will provide 16 affordable units. As part of the project, the City would modify the existing program to allow for rezoning of additional sites to accommodate the remaining RHNA of lower-income units.

As directed by the mechanisms and program choices outlined in the Housing Element, the City will be amending its zoning code to include additional residential capacity. However, the degree to which and locations of these amendments has yet to be determined and will be evaluated as a separate effort and discretionary action under the CEQA once the program has been selected, funded, and drafted. The City will be required to rezone a minimum of

21.7 acres to meets its RHNA obligation for 434 lower-income units. In addition, the Zoning Code would be amended to ensure that developments in which 20 percent or more of the units are affordable to lower-income households are allowed by-right on vacant sites. When identifying rezone sites, preference would be given to properties in moderate and high resource areas, pursuant to AB 686. Preference would also be given to sites that are: between 0.85 and 10 acres; along transit routes or major roadway corridors and in proximity to commercial and employment centers; and currently served by both public water and sewer service or ability to hook up to services. Some of the sites that would likely be rezoned to accommodate the lower-income RHNA are currently counted in the sites inventory as moderateincome sites. As the rezone program is implemented and sites are reclassified as lower-income, the City would also ensure there remains adequate capacity to accommodate the moderate-income RHNA. However, at present the locations of the potential parcels to be rezoned are unknown and cannot be evaluated but would be appropriately addressed at the time the City considers adoption of amendments to its zoning code.

The Housing Element Update does not propose new development that would result in physical changes to the environment. No new housing sites are proposed as a part of this Housing Element Update beyond those already designated in the City General Plan and evaluated for potential environmental impacts in the City General Plan Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND), as adopted in January 2022. No changes to existing zoning are proposed, and the location of development will continue to be guided by the City General Plan land use map and zoning code.

2.4 REQUIRED ACTIONS
Implementation of the Housing Element Update would require the following discretionary actions by the Oakley City Council:
 Adoption of the addendum to the Initial Study/Negative Declaration for the Focused General Plan Update; and  Adoption of the Housing Element for the City of Oakley through the General Plan Amendment process.

In addition to adoption by the Oakley City Council, the Housing Element Update will be submitted for review and certification by the California Department of Housing and Community Development. 1077
Project Description Ascent Environmental
City of Oakley
2-6 Housing Element Update Addendum
This page intentionally left blank.
1078
City of Oakley
Housing Element Update Addendum 3-1
3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

EXPLANATION OF CHECKLIST EVALUATION CATEGORIES
The purpose of this checklist is to evaluate the categories in terms of any “changed condition” (i.e., changed circumstances, project changes, or new information of substantial importance) that may result in environmental impact significance conclusions different from those found in the City of Oakley’s Focused General Plan Update IS/ND; in particular, this analysis focuses on whether the proposed Housing Element Update, as a component of the General Plan, would result in new significant impacts or more severe significant impacts than those identified in the adopted IS/ND. The row titles of the checklist include the full range of environmental topics, as presented in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. The column titles of the checklist have been modified from the Appendix G presentation to help answer the questions to be addressed pursuant to CEQA Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. A “no” answer does not necessarily mean that there are no potential impacts relative to the environmental category, rather, a “no” answer means that there is no change in the significance of the impact— including with previously adopted mitigation measures-- compared to the conclusions in the Focused General Plan Update IS/ND. The purpose of each column of the checklist is described below.

Where Impact was Analyzed
This column provides a cross-reference to the pages of the Focused General Plan Update IS/ND where information and analysis may be found relative to the environmental issue listed under each topic.

Any new Circumstances Involving New or Substantially More Severe Significant Impacts? Pursuant to Section 15162(a)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, this column indicates whether there have been changes to the project site or the vicinity (circumstances under which the project is undertaken) that have occurred subsequent to the prior environmental documents, which would result in the current project having new significant environmental impacts that were not considered in the prior environmental documents or having substantial increases in the severity of previously identified significant impacts.

Any New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Pursuant to Section 15162(a)(3)(A-D) of the CEQA Guidelines, this column indicates whether new information of substantial importance which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous environmental documents were certified as complete is available, requiring an update to the analysis of the previous environmental documents to verify that the environmental conclusions and mitigation measures remain valid. If the new information shows that: (A) the project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the prior environmental documents; or (B) that significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the prior environmental documents; or (C) that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects or the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the Mitigation Measure or alternative; or (D) that mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the prior environmental documents would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the Mitigation Measure or alternative, the question would be answered “yes” requiring the preparation of a subsequent EIR or supplement to the EIR. However, if the additional analysis completed as part of this Environmental Checklist Review finds that the conclusions of the prior environmental documents remain the same and no new significant impacts are identified, or identified significant environmental impacts are not found to be substantially more severe, the question would be answered “no” and no additional EIR documentation (supplement to the EIR or subsequent EIR) would be required.

Addendum Impact Conclusions
This column restates the conclusions of the adopted Focused General Plan Update IS/ND and the conclusion for the proposed Housing Element Update.
1079
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Oakley
3-2 Housing Element Update Addendum

CONCLUSION
As evidenced in the following discussions included in the Environmental Checklist, none of the changes or revisions to the project or changes in circumstances (including environmental setting and regulatory setting) would result in new or substantially more severe environmental impacts. In addition, no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous IS/ND was adopted, shows any of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous environmental analysis; (B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous environmental analysis;
(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives; or
(D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous environmental analysis would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

An Addendum to the adopted IS/ND for the Focused General Plan Update is the appropriate CEQA document for the Housing Element Update, consistent with CEQA Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162, 15163, and 15164. 1080
Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of Oakley
Housing Element Update Addendum 3-3

3.1 AESTHETICS
Environmental Issue Area
Where Impact
Was Analyzed in
the Focused
General Plan
Update IS/ND
Do Any New
Circumstances Involve
New or Substantially
More Severe Significant
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Housing Element
Update Addendum
Impact Conclusions

1. Aesthetics. Would the project:

Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista?
Pages 21-24 No No Less than significant
(same)
Substantially damage scenic resources,
including but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway?
Pages 21-24 No No Less than significant
(same)
In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade
the existing visual character or quality of public
views of the site and its surroundings? (Public
views are those that are experienced from
publicly accessible vantage points.) If the
project is in an urbanized area, would the
project conflict with applicable zoning and
other regulations governing scenic quality?
Pages 21-24 No No Less than significant
(same)
Create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
Pages 21-24 No No Less than significant
(same)

3.1.1 Discussion
The Housing Element Update is closely linked to and affected by policies contained in the City’s General Plan and supports goals, policies, and programs to address the requirements of State law, including environmental justice, circulation and mobility, and safety, including climate adaptation. The project includes revisions to housing policy and programs but does not propose new development that would result in physical changes affecting scenic vistas, visual character, and light and glare. State and County routes would not be affected by adoption and implementation of the proposed Housing Element Update.

No new housing sites are proposed as a part of this Housing Element Update beyond those already designated in the City’s General Plan and evaluated for potential environmental impacts in the City Focused General Plan Update IS/ND. No changes to existing zoning are proposed, and the location of development would continue to be guided by the City General Plan land use map and zoning code. Future housing projects would continue to be reviewed through the City’s entitlement process and CEQA to ensure consistency with all relevant federal and State policies and consistency with all relevant City General Plan goals and policies related to aesthetic resources. Future development of housing within the City would also be evaluated to consider the potential for degradation of existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings. As a result, less-than-significant aesthetic impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed Housing Element Update.

3.1.2 Conclusion
No new circumstances or project changes have occurred nor has any new information been found requiring new analysis or verification. Therefore, the conclusions of the Focused General Plan Update IS/ND remain relevant and valid, and approval of the project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts to aesthetics.
1081
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Oakley
3-4 Housing Element Update Addendum

3.2 AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES
Environmental Issue Area
Where Impact
Was Analyzed in
the Focused
General Plan
Update IS/ND
Do Any New
Circumstances
Involve New or
Substantially More
Severe Significant
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Housing Element
Update Addendum
Impact Conclusions

2. Agriculture and Forestry Resources. Would the project:
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use?
Pages 25-27 No No Less than significant
(same)
b. Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
Pages 25-27 No No Less than significant
(same)
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in
Public Resources Code section 12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Code section 4526), or
timberland zoned Timberland Production
(as defined by Government Code section
51104(g))?
Pages 25-27 No No No Impact
(same)
d. Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-forest
land?
Pages 25-27 No No No Impact
(same)
e. Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location
or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest
use?
Pages 25-27 No No Less than significant
(same)

3.2.1 Discussion
The Housing Element Update does not contain goals, policies or programs or other changes that encourage the intensification of development that would affect agricultural resources. Additionally, the Housing Element Update does not remove environmental protections or mitigation related to agricultural resources and does not identify any changes to programs or policies that adversely affect agricultural resources. Further, the Housing Element Update does not provide entitlements to any specific land use or development projects. Future actions consistent with the Housing Element Update, including consideration of new development, revisions to the Zoning Ordinance, and future development proposals and infrastructure plans would be addressed pursuant to CEQA when project-specific details are available to evaluate the potential impacts to agricultural resources.

Such development would be reviewed by the City to ensure compliance with the City’s General Plan, including the Land Use Element and the Open Space and Conservation Element, applicable Municipal Code sections, including Title 9 (Land Use Regulations), and relevant design and performance standards. As a result, adoption and implementation of the Housing Element Update would not result in an impact to Important Farmland (Prime, Unique, Statewide or 1082
Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of Oakley
Housing Element Update Addendum 3-5
Local Important Farmlands); conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract; and would not result in conversion of farmland to other uses. Further, no designated forest land is located within the City, which could be affected by implementation of the proposed Housing Element Update. While implementation of the Housing Element Update would not change the potential for the urbanization of Oakley and the Planning Area as envisioned by the adopted General Plan, it would also not interfere with the region’s ability to encourage the preservation and protection of agricultural resources. Therefore, the Housing Element Update would have a lessthan-significant impact on agriculture resources, and no impact on forestry resources.

3.2.2 Conclusion
No new circumstances or project changes have occurred nor has any new information been found requiring new analysis or verification. Therefore, the conclusions of the Focused General Plan Update IS/ND remain relevant and valid, and approval of the project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts to agriculture and forestry resources.
1083
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Oakley
3-6 Housing Element Update Addendum

3.3 AIR QUALITY
Environmental Issue Area
Where Impact
Was Analyzed in
the Focused
General Plan
Update IS/ND
Do Any New
Circumstances Involve
New or Substantially
More Severe
Significant Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Housing Element
Update Addendum
Impact Conclusions

3. Air Quality. Would the project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation
of the applicable air quality plan?
Pages 28-34 No No Less than significant
(same)
b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which
the project region is non-attainment
under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard?
Pages 28-34 No No Less than significant
(same)
c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
Pages 28-34 No No Less than significant
(same)
d. Result in other emissions (such as those
leading to odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of people?
Pages 28-34 No No Less than significant
(same)

3.3.1 Discussion
The Housing Element Update does not provide entitlements to any specific land use or development projects and does not include any specific infrastructure improvements or other capital improvement projects. The project includes revisions to housing policies and programs and does not propose new development that would result in physical changes that could conflict with an applicable air quality plan, increase criteria air pollutants, expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, or result in other emissions adversely affecting a substantial number of people.

No new housing sites are proposed as a part of this Housing Element Update beyond those already designated in the City General Plan and evaluated for potential air quality impacts in the City’s Focused General Plan Update IS/ND. No changes to existing zoning are proposed, and the location of development would continue to be guided by the City General Plan land use map and zoning code. Future housing projects would continue to be reviewed through the City entitlement process and CEQA to ensure consistency with local, State, and federal air quality standards and that future housing projects are consistent with all relevant City General Plan goals and policies, including those that would avoid locating housing near sources of substantial pollutant concentrations. The project would not result in any new significant impacts not analyzed within the Focused General Plan Update IS/ND, nor does it worsen any impacts; impacts due to the project are less than significant pertaining to air quality.

3.3.2 Conclusion
No new circumstances or project changes have occurred nor has any new information been found requiring new analysis or verification. Therefore, the conclusions of the Focused General Plan Update IS/ND remain relevant and valid, and approval of the project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts to air quality. 1084
Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of Oakley
Housing Element Update Addendum 3-7

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Environmental Issue Area
Where Impact Was
Analyzed in the Focused
General Plan Update
IS/ND
Do Any New
Circumstances
Involve New or
Substantially More
Severe Significant
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Housing Element
Update
Addendum
Impact
Conclusions

4. Biological Resources. Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special-status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by
the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Pages 35-38 No No Less than
significant
(same)
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Pages 35-38 No No Less than
significant
(same)
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on state or
federally protected wetlands (including, but
not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal,
etc.) through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means?
Pages 35-38 No No Less than
significant
(same)
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use
of native wildlife nursery sites?
Pages 35-38 No No Less than
significant
(same)
e. Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance?
Pages 35-38 No No Less than
significant
(same)
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
Pages 35-38 No No Less than
significant
(same)

3.4.1 Discussion
The Housing Element Update includes revisions to housing policies and programs, and does not propose new development that would result in physical changes affecting biological resources. Additionally, the Housing Element Update does not remove environmental protections or mitigation related to biological resources and does not identify any changes to programs or policies that would adversely affect biological resources.

Additionally, those developments and projects would be reviewed to ensure that they are in compliance with the General Plan, including the Land Use Element and the Open Space and Conservation Element, applicable Municipal Code sections, including Title 9 (Land Use Regulations), relevant design and performance standards, and applicable State and Federal requirements. The adoption of the Housing Element Update would not have a substantial adverse effect on candidate, sensitive, or special status species, riparian habitat, sensitive natural communities, state or federally protected wetlands, or interfere substantially with the movement of fish or wildlife species, wildlife corridors, or native wildlife nursery sites. The Housing Element Update does not include any provisions that would conflict with or remove local policies or ordinances that protect biological resources or conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. While the Housing Element Update would not change the potential for the urbanization of Oakley and the Planning Area as envisioned by the adopted General Plan, it will provide for the additional measures described above to ensure that development and growth addresses potential impacts to open space and natural resources and that development projects continue to be reviewed for potential impacts to biological resources.

Therefore, the proposed Housing Element Update would have a less than significant impact on biological resources.

3.4.2 Conclusion
No new circumstances or project changes have occurred nor has any new information been found requiring new analysis or verification. Therefore, the conclusions of the Focused General Plan Update IS/ND remain relevant and valid, and approval of the project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts to biological resources.
1086
Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of Oakley
Housing Element Update Addendum 3-9

3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Environmental Issue Area
Where Impact
Was Analyzed in
the Focused
General Plan
Update IS/ND
Do Any New
Circumstances Involve
New or Substantially
More Severe
Significant Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Housing Element
Update Addendum
Impact Conclusions

5. Cultural Resources. Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Pages 39-41 No No Less than significant
(same)
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
Pages 39-41 No No Less than significant
(same)
d. Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside the formal
cemeteries?
Pages 39-41 No No Less than significant
(same)

3.5.1 Discussion
The Housing Element Update does not contain goals, policies or programs or other changes that encourage the intensification of development or changes to planned development patterns that would result in cultural resources impacts. Additionally, the Housing Element Update does not remove environmental protections or mitigation related to cultural resources and does not identify any changes to programs or policies that would adversely affect cultural resources.

The Housing Element Update does not provide entitlements to any specific land use or development projects and does not include any specific infrastructure improvements or other capital improvement projects. Future development would continue to be consistent with the urbanization patterns, development types, and intensities envisioned by the adopted General Plan and no new areas are identified for development or urbanization. Therefore, the Housing Element Update would not result in growth beyond that currently allowed and would not result in new or increased cultural resource impacts. Future actions under the Housing Element Update, including consideration of new development, revisions to the Zoning Ordinance, and future development proposals and infrastructure plans would be addressed pursuant to State law, including the CEQA, when project-specific details are available to ensure that significant impacts to cultural resources do not occur. Additionally, those developments and projects will be reviewed to ensure that they are in compliance with the General Plan, including the Open Space and Conservation Element. In addition, the City will consult with traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American tribes pursuant to Assembly Bill 52 and Senate Bill 18. The intent is to provide California Native American tribes an opportunity to participate in local land use decisions at an early planning state, for the purpose of protecting, or mitigating impacts to, cultural places. The purpose of involving local tribes at these early planning stages is to allow consideration of cultural places in the context of broad local land use policy, before individual site-specific, projectlevel, land use decisions are made by a local government. Overall, the Housing Element Update would have a less than significant impact on cultural resources.

3.5.2 Conclusion
No new circumstances or project changes have occurred nor has any new information been found requiring new analysis or verification. Therefore, the conclusions of the Focused General Plan Update IS/ND remain relevant and valid, and approval of the project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts to cultural resources.
1087
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Oakley
3-10 Housing Element Update Addendum

3.6 ENERGY
Environmental Issue Area
Where Impact
Was Analyzed in
the Focused
General Plan
Update IS/ND
Do Any New
Circumstances Involve
New or Substantially
More Severe
Significant Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Housing Element
Update Addendum
Impact Conclusions

6. Energy. Would the project:
a. Result in potentially significant
environmental impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of
energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
Pages 42-49 No No Less than significant
(same)
b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local
plan for renewable energy or energy
efficiency?
Pages 42-49 No No Less than significant
(same)

3.6.1 Discussion
The proposed Housing Element Update includes revisions to housing policies and programs, and does not propose new development that would result in physical changes that could affect energy resources or plans. No new housing sites are proposed as a part of this Housing Element Update beyond those already designated in the City General Plan and evaluated for potential environmental impacts in the City’s Focused General Plan Update IS/ND. No changes to existing zoning are proposed, and the location of development will continue to be guided by the City General Plan land use map and zoning code.

Future actions under the Housing Element Update, including consideration of new development, revisions to the Zoning Ordinance, and future development proposals and infrastructure plans would be addressed pursuant to CEQA when project-specific details are available to ensure that significant energy impacts do not occur. Additionally, future developments and projects would be reviewed to ensure that they are in compliance with the General Plan, including the Land Use Element, Circulation Element, and Open Space and Conservation Element, applicable Municipal Code sections, relevant design and performance standards, and other applicable requirements. All future development projects would be required to be in compliance with all applicable Federal, State, and local regulations regulating energy usage. For example, PG&E is responsible for the mix of energy resources used to provide electricity for its customers, and it is in the process of implementing the Statewide Renewable Portfolio Standard to increase the proportion of renewable energy (e.g., solar and wind) within its energy portfolio. PG&E is expected to achieve at least a 50 percent mix of renewable energy resources by 2030. Additionally, energy-saving regulations, including the latest State Title 24 building energy efficiency standards (“part 6”), would be applicable to future residential development projects. Other Statewide measures, including those intended to improve the energy efficiency of the statewide passenger and heavy-duty truck vehicle fleet (e.g., the Pavley Bill and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard), would improve vehicle fuel economies, thereby conserving gasoline and diesel fuel. These energy savings would continue to accrue over time. The adoption of the Housing Element Update will not result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources and would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of applicable plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency. While the Housing Element Update will not change the potential for the urbanization of Oakley and the Planning Area as envisioned by the adopted General Plan, it will provide for the additional measures described above to reduce energy impacts associated with development and growth. Therefore, the Housing Element Update would have a less than significant impact on energy.
1088
Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of Oakley
Housing Element Update Addendum 3-11

3.6.2 Conclusion
No new circumstances or project changes have occurred nor has any new information been found requiring new analysis or verification. Therefore, the conclusions of the Focused General Plan Update IS/ND remain relevant and valid, and approval of the project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts to energy. 1089
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Oakley
3-12 Housing Element Update Addendum

3.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Environmental Issue Area
Where Impact Was
Analyzed in the
Focused General
Plan Update IS/ND
Do Any New
Circumstances Involve
New or Substantially
More Severe
Significant Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Housing Element
Update Addendum
Impact Conclusions

7. Geology and Soils. Would the project:
a. Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake
fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based
on other substantial evidence of a
known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
iv. Landslides?
Pages 50-52 No No Less than significant
(same)
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the
loss of topsoil?
Pages 50-52 No No Less than significant
(same)
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that
is unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in: on-or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction, or collapse?
Pages 50-52 No No Less than significant
(same)
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18- 1-B of the Uniform Building
Code (1994), creating substantial risks to
life or property?
Pages 50-52 No No Less than significant
(same)
e. Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water?
Pages 50-52 No No Less than significant
(same)
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
Pages 50-52 Less than significant
(same)

3.7.1 Discussion
The proposed Housing Element Update includes revisions to housing policy and programs and does not propose new development that would result in physical changes that directly or indirectly expose persons or structures to hazards associated with strong seismic ground shaking that results in landslides or liquefaction, unstable soils, or expansive soils. The project does not propose new development that could cause soil erosion or destroy any unique 1090
Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of Oakley
Housing Element Update Addendum 3-13
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. There are no active faults zoned under the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Act or other known active faults in the City. No known mineral resources would be affected.

No new housing sites are proposed as a part of this Housing Element Update beyond those already designated in the City General Plan and evaluated for potential environmental impacts in the City’s Focused General Plan Update IS/ND. No changes to existing zoning are proposed, and the location of development will continue to be guided by the City General Plan land use map and zoning code. Future housing projects would be subject to site-specific geotechnical studies as determined by the City and required by City General Plan policies. Future housing projects would continue to be reviewed through the City’s entitlement process and CEQA to ensure compliance with State and local building codes and seismic safety design standards, such as California Building Code, and to ensure consistency with all relevant City General Plan goals and policies related to seismic, soils, and geologic hazards. The project would not result in any new significant impacts not analyzed within the City’s Focused General Plan Update IS/ND, nor would it worsen any impacts; impacts due to the project are less than significant related to geology and soils.

3.7.2 Conclusion
No new circumstances or project changes have occurred nor has any new information been found requiring new analysis or verification. Therefore, the conclusions of the Focused General Plan Update IS/ND remain relevant and valid, and approval of the project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts to geology and soils.
1091
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Oakley
3-14 Housing Element Update Addendum

3.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Environmental Issue Area
Where Impact
Was Analyzed in
the Focused
General Plan
Update IS/ND
Do Any New
Circumstances Involve
New or Substantially
More Severe
Significant Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Housing Element
Update Addendum
Impact Conclusions

8. Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Would the project:
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may have
a significant impact on the environment?
Pages 53-62 No No Less than significant
(same)
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse
gases?
Pages 53-62 No No Less than significant
(same)

3.8.1 Discussion
The proposed Housing Element Update includes revisions to housing policies and programs and does not propose new development that would result in physical changes that directly or indirectly generate GHGs. No new housing sites are proposed as a part of this Housing Element Update beyond those already designated in the City General Plan and evaluated for potential environmental impacts in the City’s Focused General Plan Update IS/ND. No changes to existing zoning are proposed, and the location of development would continue to be guided by the City General Plan land use map and zoning code. In addition, the Housing Element Update would not conflict with the implementation of regional transportation-related GHG targets outlined in the Association of Bay Area Governments Plan Bay Area 2040 because the modifications contained in the Housing Element Update would not result in higher vehicle miles traveled (VMT) or emissions than those forecasted in the Plan Bay Area 2040.

Future housing projects would continue to be reviewed through the City’s entitlement process and CEQA to ensure that future housing projects comply with relevant State and local regulations related to GHG emissions and are consistent with all relevant City General Plan goals and policies. The proposed Housing Element Update would not result in any new significant impacts not analyzed within the Focused General Plan Update IS/ND, nor does it worsen any impacts; impacts due to the project are less than significant related to GHG emissions.

3.8.2 Conclusion
No new circumstances or project changes have occurred nor has any new information been found requiring new analysis or verification. Therefore, the conclusions of the Focused General Plan Update IS/ND remain relevant and valid, and approval of the project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts to greenhouse gas emissions.
1092
Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of Oakley
Housing Element Update Addendum 3-15

3.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Environmental Issue Area
Where Impact Was
Analyzed in the
Focused General
Plan Update IS/ND
Do Any New
Circumstances Involve
New or Substantially
More Severe
Significant Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Housing Element
Update Addendum
Impact Conclusions

9. Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Would the project:
a. Create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
Pages 63-67 No No Less than significant
(same)
b. Create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and/or accident
conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the
environment?
Pages 63-67 No No Less than significant
(same)
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
Pages 63-67 No No Less than significant
(same)
d. Be located on a site which is included on
a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment?
Pages 63-67 No No Less than significant
(same)
e. For a project located within an airport
land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would
the project result in a safety hazard or
excessive noise for people residing or
working in the project area?
Pages 63-67 No No Less than significant
(same)
f. Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
Pages 63-67 No No Less than significant
(same)
g. Expose people or structures, either
directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of
loss, injury, or death involving wildland
fires?
Pages 63-67 No No Less than significant
(same)

3.9.1 Discussion
The Housing Element Update includes revisions to housing policies and programs and does not propose new development that would result in physical changes that could create a hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials; result in the accidental release of hazardous materials; interfere with an emergency response plan; or cause wildland fires. Additionally, the Housing Element Update does not remove environmental protections or mitigation related to hazards and hazardous materials and does not identify any changes to programs or policies that would result in increased or new hazards. 1093
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Oakley
3-16 Housing Element Update Addendum
The Housing Element Update does not provide entitlements to any specific land use or development projects and does not include any specific infrastructure improvements or other capital improvement projects. No new housing sites are proposed as a part of this Housing Element Update beyond those already designated in the City General Plan and evaluated for potential environmental impacts in the City’s Focused General Plan Update IS/ND. Future development would continue to be consistent with the urbanization patterns, development types, and intensities envisioned by the adopted Housing Element and no new areas are identified for development or urbanization.

Construction of new development is required by law to implement and comply with existing federal, State, and local hazardous material regulations to ensure public safety. Future actions under the Housing Element Update, including consideration of new development, revisions to the Zoning Ordinance, and future development proposals and infrastructure plans would be addressed pursuant to CEQA when project-specific details are available to ensure that significant hazards and hazardous materials impacts do not occur. Additionally, those developments and projects will be reviewed to ensure that they are in compliance with the General Plan, including the Land Use Element and the Open Space and Conservation Element, applicable Municipal Code sections, including Title 9 (Land Use Regulations), relevant design and performance standards, and applicable requirements. While the Housing Element Update will not change the potential for the urbanization of Oakley and the Planning Area as envisioned by the adopted General Plan, it will provide for the additional measures described above to ensure that development and growth addresses potentially significant impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials. Future development of projects will be subject to both local and regional hazard and hazardous materials regulation and will also be required to meet all adopted local and State Fire Safety Standards. All potential hazards associated with a site-specific development project will be analyzed and addressed at the time when an application with specific project details is submitted.

Therefore, the Housing Element Update would have a less than significant impact on hazards or hazardous materials.

3.9.2 Conclusion
No new circumstances or project changes have occurred nor has any new information been found requiring new analysis or verification. Therefore, the conclusions of the Focused General Plan Update IS/ND remain relevant and valid, and approval of the project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts to hazards and hazardous materials.
1094
Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of Oakley
Housing Element Update Addendum 3-17

3.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Environmental Issue Area
Where Impact Was
Analyzed in the
Focused General
Plan Update IS/ND
Do Any New
Circumstances Involve
New or Substantially
More Severe
Significant Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Housing Element
Update Addendum
Impact Conclusions

10. Hydrology and Water Quality. Would the project:
a. Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially degrade surface or
groundwater quality?
Pages 68-72 No No Less than Significant
(same)
b. Substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
Pages 68-72 No No Less than Significant
(same)
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or
river or through the addition of impervious
surfaces, in a manner which would:
i) Result in substantial on- or offsite
erosion or siltation;
ii) Substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in
flooding on- or offsite;
iii) Create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
Pages 68-72 No No Less than Significant
(same)
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones,
risk release of pollutants due to project
inundation?
Pages 68-72 No No Less than significant
(same)
e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation
of a water quality control plan or
sustainable groundwater management
plan?
Pages 68-72 No No Less than significant
(same)

3.10.1 Discussion
The proposed Housing Element Update includes revisions to housing policy and programs, and does not propose new development that would result in physical changes that could affect flooding, water quality, or stormwater drainage.

No new housing sites are proposed as a part of this Housing Element Update beyond those already designated in the City General Plan and evaluated for potential environmental impacts in the City’s Focused General Plan Update IS/ND. No changes to existing zoning are proposed, and the location of development will continue to be guided by the City General Plan land use map and zoning code. Future housing projects will continue to be reviewed through the City’s entitlement process and CEQA to ensure consistency with federal and State policies and consistency with all 1095
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Oakley
3-18 Housing Element Update Addendum
relevant City General Plan goals and policies related to flooding, water quality, or stormwater drainage. The project does not result in any new significant impacts not analyzed within the City’s Focused General Plan Update IS/ND, nor does it worsen any impacts; impacts due to the project are less than significant related to hydrological resources.

3.10.2 Conclusion
No new circumstances or project changes have occurred nor has any new information been found requiring new analysis or verification. Therefore, the conclusions of the Focused General Plan Update IS/ND remain relevant and valid, and approval of the project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts to hydrology and water quality.
1096
Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of Oakley
Housing Element Update Addendum 3-19

3.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Environmental Issue Area
Where Impact Was
Analyzed in the
Focused General
Plan Update IS/ND
Do Any New
Circumstances Involve
New or Substantially
More Severe
Significant Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Housing Element
Update Addendum
Impact Conclusions

11. Land Use and Planning. Would the project:
a. Physically divide an established
community?
Pages 73-74 No No No Impact
(same)
b. Cause a significant environmental impact
due to a conflict with any land use plan,
policy, or regulation adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
Pages 73-74 No No Less than significant
(same)

3.11.1 Discussion
The Housing Element Update would maintain planned development patterns, includes features to improve connectivity, and does not include any components that would physically divide an established community.

Therefore, the Housing Element Update would have no impact associated with physically dividing an established community.

Including such policies is often a key component of “smart growth” principles, because developing at increased densities is a means of reducing the ultimate regional growth footprint.

No changes to existing zoning are proposed, and the location of development would continue to be guided by the City General Plan land use map and zoning code. The Housing Element Update would be consistent with the existing General Plan as required by State law. Future housing projects would continue to be reviewed through the City’s entitlement process and CEQA to ensure consistency with local, State, and federal regulations and all General Plan goals and policies intended to avoid dividing established communities, ensure new development remains interconnected with established communities, and ensure new development does not conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. As a result, the project would not result in any new significant impacts not analyzed within the City’s Focused General Plan Update IS/ND, nor would it worsen any impacts; impacts due to the project are less than significant related to land use and planning.

3.11.2 Conclusion
No new circumstances or project changes have occurred nor has any new information been found requiring new analysis or verification. Therefore, the conclusions of the Focused General Plan Update IS/ND remain relevant and valid, and approval of the project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts to hydrology and water quality.
1097
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Oakley
3-20 Housing Element Update Addendum

3.12 MINERAL RESOURCES
Environmental Issue Area
Where Impact Was
Analyzed in the
Focused General
Plan Update IS/ND
Do Any New
Circumstances Involve
New or Substantially
More Severe
Significant Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Housing Element
Update Addendum
Impact Conclusions
12 Mineral Resources. Would the Project:
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value
to the region and the residents of the
state?

Page 75 ends

b. Result in the loss of availability of a
locally-important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local general
plan, specific plan or other land use plan?

Page 75 ends

3.12.1 Discussion
Adoption of the Housing Element Update would not result in a significant impact to mineral resources. The Housing Element Update does not identify new areas for urbanization or nonresidential development and would not change the potential to affect any mineral resources. Similar to the Focused General Plan Update, the Housing Element Update does not include nor modify any goals, policies, or actions related to mineral resources. Therefore, the Housing Element Update would have no impact on mineral resources.

3.12.2 Conclusion
No new circumstances or project changes have occurred nor has any new information been found requiring new analysis or verification. Therefore, the conclusions of the Focused General Plan Update IS/ND remain relevant and valid, and approval of the project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts to mineral resources.
1098
Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of Oakley
Housing Element Update Addendum 3-21

3.13 NOISE
Environmental Issue Area
Where Impact Was
Analyzed in the
Focused General
Plan Update IS/ND
Do Any New
Circumstances
Involve New or
Substantially More
Severe Significant
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Housing Element
Update Addendum
Impact Conclusions

13. Noise. Would the project result in:
a. Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the vicinity of the project in
excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies, or
a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in noise levels above existing
ambient levels that could result in an
adverse effect on humans?
Pages 76-78 No No Less than significant
(same)
b. Generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Pages 76-78 No No Less than significant
(same)
c. For a project located within the vicinity of
a private airstrip or an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
Pages 76-78 No No Less than significant
(same)

3.13.1 Discussion
The Housing Element Update does not provide entitlements to any specific land use or development projects and does not include any specific infrastructure improvements or other capital improvement projects. The Housing Element Update also does not remove environmental protections or mitigation related to noise and would not modify existing programs or policies that would result in potentially significant noise and vibration effects. Future development would continue to be consistent with the urbanization patterns, development types, and intensities envisioned by the adopted General Plan and no new areas are identified for development or urbanization. The project includes revisions to housing policies and programs, but would not result in new development that would result in physical changes that generate temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels or excessive groundborne vibrations.

No new housing sites are proposed as a part of this Housing Element Update beyond those already designated in the City General Plan and evaluated for potential noise impacts in the City’s Focused General Plan Update IS/ND. No changes to existing zoning are proposed, and the location of development would continue to be guided by the City General Plan land use map and zoning code. Future housing projects would continue to be reviewed through the City’s entitlement process and CEQA to ensure that residents are not exposed to unacceptable noise and vibration levels, and that the projects are consistent with all General Plan goals and policies. More specifically, future developments would be reviewed to ensure that they are in compliance with the General Plan, including the Land Use Element and the Community Health and Safety Element, applicable Municipal Code sections, including Title 9 (Land Use Regulations), relevant design and performance standards, and applicable standards related to noise and 1099
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Oakley
3-22 Housing Element Update Addendum
vibration. The project would not result in any new significant impacts not analyzed within the Focused General Plan Update IS/ND, nor does it worsen any impacts; impacts due to the project are less than significant related to noise.

3.13.2 Conclusion
No new circumstances or project changes have occurred nor has any new information been found requiring new analysis or verification. Therefore, the conclusions of the Focused General Plan Update IS/ND remain relevant and valid, and approval of the project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts to noise. 1100
Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of Oakley
Housing Element Update Addendum 3-23

3.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Environmental Issue Area
Where Impact Was
Analyzed in the
Focused General
Plan Update IS/ND
Do Any New
Circumstances Involve
New or Substantially
More Severe
Significant Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Housing Element
Update Addendum
Impact Conclusions

14. Population and Housing. Would the project:
a. Induce substantial unplanned population
growth in an area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
Pages 79-80 No No Less than significant
(same)
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing
people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
Pages 79-80 No No Less than significant
(same)

3.14.1 Discussion
The Project includes revisions to housing policies and programs, and does not propose new development that could induce substantial unplanned population growth or displace existing people or housing units. As described in Section 2, “Project Description,” the 2023-2031 RHNA for the City is 1,058 new units, which is a decrease of 110 units (a 9% decrease) compared to the previous 2015-2023 planning period of 1,168 units. Total growth assumed within the adopted Focused General Plan Update was 13,367 units, which would not increase due to RHNA requirements associated with this Housing Element Update. However, as discussed in Section 2, “Project Description,” the City has a projected shortfall of 434 units. However, the City would, through implementation of the mechanisms and programs outlined in the Housing Element Update, implement specific actions to guide the City and achieve the RHNA housing need within the City. This would allow for future accommodation of the projected affordable housing demand within the City, thereby avoiding the potential for induced population growth elsewhere in the region.

As directed by the mechanisms and program choices outlined in the Housing Element Update, the City would, as a later action, amend its zoning code and rezone potential parcels within the City to allow for additional residential capacity. However, the increase in residential capacity and specific locations of these amendments has yet to be determined and will be evaluated as a separate effort and discretionary action under CEQA once the program has been selected, funded, and drafted. Because the potential impacts associated with these amendments are too speculative for meaningful evaluation, specific details cannot be discussed or evaluated further, consistent with CEQA requirements (refer to CEQA Guidelines Section 15145).

As discussed above, no new housing sites are proposed as a part of this Housing Element Update beyond those already designated in the City General Plan and evaluated for potential environmental impacts in the City’s Focused General Plan Update IS/ND. Potential new housing sites would be evaluated in their respective environmental documents and are not evaluated in this document. No changes to existing zoning are proposed, and the location of development will continue to be guided by the City General Plan land use map and zoning code. The City Focused General Plan Update IS/ND considered population and housing projections consistent with the Housing Element Update in its analysis of physical impacts associated with future development in the City. Therefore, the Housing Element Update would not induce unplanned population and housing growth that is not already contemplated in the City General Plan. The project would not result in any new significant impacts not analyzed within the Focused General Plan Update IS/ND, nor does it worsen any impacts; impacts due to the project are less than significant related to population and housing.
1101
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Oakley
3-24 Housing Element Update Addendum

3.14.2 Conclusion
No new circumstances or project changes have occurred nor has any new information been found requiring new analysis or verification. Therefore, the conclusions of the Focused General Plan Update IS/ND remain relevant and valid, and approval of the project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts to population and housing.
1102
Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of Oakley
Housing Element Update Addendum 3-25

3.15 PUBLIC SERVICES
Environmental Issue Area
Where Impact Was
Analyzed in the
Focused General
Plan Update IS/ND
Do Any New
Circumstances Involve
New or Substantially
More Severe
Significant Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Housing Element
Update Addendum
Impact Conclusions

15. Public Services.
a. Result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental
facilities, or the need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order
to maintain acceptable service ratios,
response times, or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
i. Fire protection? Pages 81-83 No No Less than significant (same)
ii. Police protection? Pages 81-83 No No Less than significant (same)
iii. Schools? Pages 81-83 No No Less than significant
(same)
iv. Parks? Pages 81-83 No No Less than significant
(same)
v. Other public facilities? Pages 81-83 Less than significant (same)

3.15.1 Discussion
The Housing Element Update includes revisions to housing policy and programs, and does not propose new development that could result in new or physically altered public services facilities or provision of utilities and service systems. No new housing sites are proposed as a part of this Housing Element Update beyond those already designated in the City’s General Plan and evaluated for potential public services impacts in the Focused General Plan Update IS/ND. No changes to existing zoning are proposed, and the location of development would continue to be guided by the City General Plan land use map and zoning code. The City Focused General Plan Update IS/ND considered the increased demand public services required to serve the population projected in the 2015-2023 Housing Element, and the RHNA for the proposed Housing Element Update would not increase. The location of new housing units or changes to density associated with implementation of the Housing Element Update and would be considered consistent with City General Plan policies, which preclude development within the City where adequate public services are not available. Future housing projects would continue to be reviewed through the City’s entitlement process and CEQA to ensure that public services are provided consistent with all City General Plan goals and policies and to ensure acceptable service ratios, response times, and facilities for public services. The project does not result in any new significant impacts not analyzed within the Focused General Plan Update IS/ND, nor does it worsen any impacts; impacts due to the Project are less than significant related to public services. 1103
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Oakley
3-26 Housing Element Update Addendum

3.15.2 Conclusion
No new circumstances or project changes have occurred nor has any new information been found requiring new analysis or verification. Therefore, the conclusions of the Focused General Plan Update IS/ND remain relevant and valid, and approval of the project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts to public services.
1104
Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of Oakley
Housing Element Update Addendum 3-27

3.16 RECREATION
Environmental Issue Area
Where Impact Was
Analyzed in the
Focused General
Plan Update IS/ND
Do Any New
Circumstances Involve
New or Substantially
More Severe
Significant Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Housing Element
Update Addendum
Impact Conclusions

16. Recreation.
a. Increase the use of existing neighborhood
and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or
be accelerated?
Pages 84-85 No No Less than significant
(same)
b. Include recreational facilities or require
the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities that might have an
adverse physical effect on the
environment?
Pages 84-85 No No Less than significant
(same)

3.16.1 Discussion
The Housing Element Update does not contain goals, policies or programs or other changes that encourage the intensification of development or changes to planned development patterns that would result in increased demand for existing parks and recreational facilities that would result in substantial deterioration of the facility. While the Housing Element Update includes policies and actions to address the provision of parks and recreation facilities, it does not include nor require the construction or expansion of parks and recreational facilities. Additionally, the Housing Element Update does not remove environmental protections or mitigation related to development or provision of parks and recreation facilities. Rather, the Housing Element strengthens the City’s approach to addressing environmental impact, which would be applied to new, expanded, and rehabilitated parks and recreation facilities and improvements. The Housing Element Update does not provide entitlements to any specific land use or development projects and does not include any specific projects, including parks and recreation facilities and improvements. Future development, including parks and recreation facilities and improvements, would continue to be consistent with the urbanization patterns, development types, and intensities envisioned by the adopted General Plan and no new areas are identified for development or urbanization. Therefore, the Housing Element Update would not result in growth beyond that currently allowed and would not result in increased demand for parks and recreation and associated facilities and improvements. The potential impacts of parks and recreation projects would continue to be addressed pursuant to CEQA when project-specific details are available. Therefore, the Housing Element Update would have a less than significant impact on parks and recreation.

3.16.2 Conclusion
No new circumstances or project changes have occurred nor has any new information been found requiring new analysis or verification. Therefore, the conclusions of the Focused General Plan Update IS/ND remain relevant and valid, and approval of the project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts to recreation.
1105
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Oakley
3-28 Housing Element Update Addendum

3.17 TRANSPORTATION
Environmental Issue Area
Where Impact Was
Analyzed in the Focused
General Plan Update IS/ND
Do Any New
Circumstances Involve
New or Substantially
More Severe
Significant Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Housing Element
Update Addendum
Impact Conclusions

17. Transportation. Would the project:
a. Conflict with a program, plan,
ordinance or policy addressing
the circulation system, including
transit, roadway, bicycle, and
pedestrian facilities?
Pages 86-97 No No Less than significant
(same)
b. Conflict or be inconsistent with
CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3,
subdivision (b)?
Pages 86-97 No No Less than significant
(same)
c. Substantially increase hazards due
to a geometric design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Pages 86-97 No No Less than significant
(same)
d. Result in inadequate emergency
access?
Pages 86-97 No No Less than significant
(same)

3.17.1 Discussion
The Focused General Plan Update IS/ND evaluated transportation impacts associated with updates to the General Plan, including policy changes and actions that address sustainable development in addition to land use designations intended to improve the jobs-housing balance within the City while allowing for continued population growth of the City. Based on the analysis provided therein, the City (as a whole) would be consistent with established VMT reduction targets and would not conflict with existing plans or result in transportation hazards or inadequate emergency access. More specifically, the Focused General Plan Update would result in a per capita reduction in residential VMT from 26.76 VMT per capita to 22.49 VMT per capita under cumulative conditions. As a result, impacts associated with implementation of the Focused General Plan Update were determined to be less than significant.

The proposed Housing Element Update includes revisions to housing policies and programs, and does not propose new development that would result in conflicts with policies related to transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities; hazardous design features; or inadequate emergency access. The Project would not conflict with existing policies or ordinances. Further, no new housing sites are proposed as a part of this Housing Element Update beyond those already designated in the City General Plan and evaluated for potential transportation impacts in the City Focused General Plan Update IS/ND. No changes to existing zoning are proposed, and the location of development will continue to be guided by the City General Plan land use map and zoning code. Future housing projects would continue to be reviewed through the City’s entitlement process and CEQA to ensure that future housing projects are consistent with all relevant transportation-related City General Plan goals and policies, including the City’s policies related to managing vehicular travel demand. In addition, while no new housing sites have been identified, preference would be given to parcels that are located along transit routes or major roadway corridors and in proximity to commercial and employment centers. Because the City is generally urbanized, implementation of zoning programs that would increase density in areas along transit routes are anticipated to reduce overall per capita VMT by making the use of public transit more readily accessible. This is considered to be consistent with guidance from the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), which states that adding affordable housing to infill locations generally improves jobs-housing match, in turn shortening commutes and reducing VMT. Furthermore, a project 1106
Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of Oakley
Housing Element Update Addendum 3-29
would reduce VMT through developing in areas near transit and increasing density and mix of uses (OPR 2019). Thus, implementation of the potential zoning programs that would increase density and meet the RHNA requirements is anticipated to reduce overall VMT. The project does not result in any new significant impacts not analyzed within the Focused General Plan Update IS/ND, nor does it worsen any impacts; impacts due to the project are less than significant related to transportation.

3.17.2 Conclusion
No new circumstances or project changes have occurred nor has any new information been found requiring new analysis or verification. Therefore, the conclusions of the Focused General Plan Update IS/ND remain relevant and valid, and approval of the project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts to transportation.
1107
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Oakley
3-30 Housing Element Update Addendum

3.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Environmental Issue Area
Where Impact Was
Analyzed in the Focused
General Plan Update IS/ND
Do Any New
Circumstances Involve
New or Substantially
More Severe
Significant Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Housing Element
Update Addendum
Impact Conclusions

18. Tribal Cultural Resources. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is
a. Listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code section
5020.1(k)?
Pages 98-101 No No Less than significant
(same)
b. A resource determined by the
lead agency, in its discretion and
supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant
pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources
Code Section 5024.1. In applying
the criteria set forth in subdivision
(c) of Public Resource Code
Section 5024.1, the lead agency
shall consider the significance of
the resource to a California Native
American tribe?
Pages 98-101 No No Less than significant
(same)

3.18.1 Discussion
The Housing Element Update includes revisions to housing policy and programs, and does not propose new development that would result in physical changes that could affect tribal cultural resources.

No new housing sites are proposed as a part of this Housing Element Update beyond those already designated in the City General Plan and evaluated for potential environmental impacts in the City’s Focused General Plan Update IS/ND. No changes to existing zoning are proposed, and the location of development will continue to be guided by the City General Plan land use map and zoning code. Future housing projects will continue to be reviewed through the City’s entitlement process and CEQA (including site-specific AB 52 consultation) to ensure consistency with federal and State policies and regulations, as well as consistency with all relevant City General Plan goals and policies, related to tribal cultural resources. The proposed Housing Element Update would not result in any new significant impacts not analyzed within the City’s Focused General Plan Update IS/ND, nor does it worsen any impacts; impacts due to the project would be less than significant related to tribal cultural resources.

3.18.2 Conclusion
No new circumstances or project changes have occurred nor has any new information been found requiring new analysis or verification. Therefore, the conclusions of the Focused General Plan Update IS/ND remain relevant and valid, and approval of the project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts to tribal cultural resources.
1108
Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of Oakley
Housing Element Update Addendum 3-31

3.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Environmental Issue Area
Where Impact Was
Analyzed in the
Focused General
Plan Update IS/ND
Do Any New
Circumstances Involve
New or Substantially
More Severe
Significant Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Housing Element
Update Addendum
Impact Conclusions

19. Utilities and Service Systems. Would the project:
a. Require or result in the relocation or
construction of construction of new or
expanded water, wastewater treatment or
stormwater drainage, electric power,
natural gas, or telecommunication
facilities, the construction or relocation of
which could cause significant
environmental effects?
Pages 102-105 No No Less than significant
(same)
b. Have insufficient water supplies available
to serve the project and reasonably
foreseeable future development during
normal, dry and multiple dry years?
Pages 102-105 No No Less than significant
(same)
c. Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider that serves
or may serve the project that it has
inadequate capacity to serve the project’s
projected demand, in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
Pages 102-105 No No Less than significant
(same)
d. Generate solid waste in excess of State or
local standards, or in excess of the
capacity of local infrastructure, or
otherwise impair the attainment of solid
waste reduction goals?
Pages 102-105 No No Less than significant
(same)
e. Fail to comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
Pages 102-105 No No Less than significant
(same)

3.19.1 Discussion
The Housing Element Update includes revisions to housing policy and programs, and does not propose new development that could result in new or physically altered public services facilities or provision of utilities and service systems. No new housing sites are proposed as a part of this Housing Element Update beyond those already designated in the City’s General Plan and evaluated for potential utilities and service systems impacts in the Focused General Plan Update IS/ND. No changes to existing zoning are proposed, and the location of development would continue to be guided by the City General Plan land use map and zoning code. The City Focused General Plan Update IS/ND considered the increased demand utilities and service systems required to serve the population projected in the 2015-2023 Housing Element, and the RHNA for the proposed Housing Element Update would not increase population projections within the City. The location of new housing units or changes to density associated with implementation of the Housing Element Update would be considered consistent with City General Plan policies, which preclude development within the City where adequate services are not available. Future housing projects would continue to be reviewed through the City’s entitlement process and CEQA to ensure that utility service is provided consistent with all City General Plan goals and policies and to ensure acceptable service and capacity. 1109
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Oakley
3-32 Housing Element Update Addendum
Therefore, the project would not result in any new significant impacts not analyzed within the Focused General Plan Update IS/ND, nor would it worsen any impacts; impacts due to the project would be less than significant related to utilities.

3.19.2 Conclusion
No new circumstances or project changes have occurred nor has any new information been found requiring new analysis or verification. Therefore, the conclusions of the Focused General Plan Update IS/ND remain relevant and valid, and approval of the project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts to utilities and service systems.
1110
Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of Oakley
Housing Element Update Addendum 3-33

3.20 WILDFIRE
Environmental Issue Area
Where Impact Was
Analyzed in the
Focused General
Plan Update IS/ND
Do Any New
Circumstances Involve
New or Substantially
More Severe
Significant Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Housing Element
Update Addendum
Impact Conclusions

20. Wildfire. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a. Substantially impair an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?

Page 106 ends

(same)
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and
thereby expose project occupants to
pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or
the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?

Page 106 ends

(same)
c. Require the installation of associated
infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks,
emergency water sources, power lines or
other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk
or that may result in temporary or
ongoing impacts to the environment?

Page 106 ends

(same)
d. Expose people or structures to significant
risks, including downslope or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a result of
runoff, post-fire slope instability, or
drainage changes?

Page 106 ends

(same)

3.20.1 Discussion
The City is not located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones (Oakley 2021). Recent (2022) and pending updates to fire hazard mapping by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection since the Focused General Plan Update IS/ND was adopted in 2021 did not modify or change designations within the City such that the project area is located within a state responsibility area or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones (CAL FIRE 2009, 2022). Therefore, the Housing Element Update would have no impact on wildfire.

3.20.2 Conclusion
No new circumstances or project changes have occurred nor has any new information been found requiring new analysis or verification. Therefore, the conclusions of the Focused General Plan Update IS/ND remain relevant and valid, and approval of the project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts to utilities and service systems.
1111
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Oakley
3-34 Housing Element Update Addendum
This page intentionally left blank.
1112
City of Oakley
Housing Element Update Addendum 4-1
4 REFERENCES
Association of Bay Area Governments. 2021. Final Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Plan: San Francisco Bay Area, 2023-2031 (Adopted December 2021). Available: https://abag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2021- 12/Final_RHNA_Allocation_Report_2023-2031-approved_0.pdf. Accessed February 1, 2023.

CAL FIRE. See California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2009. Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA. ———. 2022. State Responsibility Fire Hazard Severity Zones.

Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. 2019 (April). Technical Advisory. On Evaluating Transportation Impact in CEQA. Available: https://opr.ca.gov/docs/20180416-743_Technical_Advisory_4.16.18.pdf. Accessed: March 2021.

Oakley, City of. 2021. Initial Study/Negative Declaration – City of Oakley Focused General Plan Update.

OPR. See Governor’s Office of Planning and Research.
1113
References Ascent Environmental
City of Oakley
4-2 Housing Element Update Addendum
This page intentionally left blank.
1114
City of Oakley
Housing Element Update Addendum 5-1
5 REPORT PREPARERS
City of Oakley
Kenneth Strelo .......................................................................................................................................................................Planning Manager Brent Smith ............................................................................................................................................Director, Community Development Ascent Environmental, Inc. (EIR Preparation)
Chris Mundhenk................................................................................................................................................................. Principal-in-Charge Chelsey Payne, AICP ........................................................................................................................Urban Design and Planning Director Heidi Gen Kuong, AICP..........................................................................................................................................................Project Manager Cole Hackett...............................................................................................................................................................Environmental Specialist Gayiety Lane .......................................................................................................................................................................Publishing Specialist Riley Smith...........................................................................................................................................................................Publishing Specialist 1115
Report Preparers Ascent Environmental
City of Oakley
5-2 Housing Element Update Addendum
This page intentionally left blank.
1116
Resolution No. XX-23 Page 1 of 4
RESOLUTION NO. XX-23

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OAKLEY ADOPTING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO REPEAL THE 2015-2023 CITY OF OAKLEY

HOUSING ELEMENT AND ADOPT THE CITY OF OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN FOR THE PERIOD OF 2023-2031 IN COMPLIANCE WITH

STATE HOUSING ELEMENT LAW
WHEREAS, the California Legislature has found that “California has a housing supply and affordability crisis of historic proportions. The consequences of failing to effectively and aggressively confront this crisis are hurting millions of Californians, robbing future generations of the chance to call California home, stifling economic opportunities for workers and businesses, worsening poverty and homelessness, and undermining the state’s environmental and climate objectives” (Government Code Section 65589.5.); and WHEREAS, the Legislature has further found that “Among the consequences of those actions are discrimination against low-income and minority households, lack of housing to support employment growth, imbalance in jobs and housing, reduced mobility, urban sprawl, excessive commuting, and air quality deterioration” (Government Code Section 65589.5.); and
WHEREAS, the Legislature recently adopted the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330) which states that “In 2018, California ranked 49th out of the 50 states in housing units per capita… California needs an estimated 180,000 additional homes annually to keep up with population growth, and the Governor has called for 3.5 million new homes to be built over 7 years;” and
WHEREAS, State Housing Element Law (Government Code Sections 65580 et seq.) requires that the City of Oakley City Council adopt a Housing Element for the eight-year period 2023-2031 to accommodate the City of Oakley’s regional housing need allocation (RHNA) of 1,058 housing units, comprised of 279 very-low income units, 161 low-income units, 172 moderate-income units, and 446 above moderate-income units; and WHEREAS, to comply with State Housing Element Law, the City of Oakley has prepared the Housing Element 2023-2031 (the Housing Element) in compliance with State Housing Element Law and has identified sites that can accommodate housing units meeting the City of Oakley’s RHNA; and
WHEREAS, as provided in Government Code Section 65350 et. seq., adoption of the Housing Element constitutes a General Plan Amendment; and WHEREAS, as provided in Government Code sections 65352 – 65352.5 the City of Oakley mailed a public notice to all California Native American tribes provided by the Native American Heritage Commission and to other entities listed; and WHEREAS, no California Native American tribe requested consultation; and 1117
Resolution No. XX-23 Page 2 of 4
WHEREAS, the City of Oakley conducted extensive community outreach over the last 11 plus months including distribution of bilingual flyers, a bilingual online survey, in-person workshop with Staff and Consultants (noticed directly to over 3,500 residents, included on the front page of the City newsletter and webpage, advertised on electronic reader boards throughout the City, and shared on the City’s social media accounts), and a public presentation and workshops with the Planning Commission and City Council; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code Section 65585 (b), on June 29, 2022, the City of Oakley posted the draft Housing Element and requested public comment for a 30-day review period, and on August 31, 2022, after responding to public comments, the City of Oakley submitted the draft Housing Element to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for its review; and
WHEREAS, on November 29, 2022, the City of Oakley received a letter from HCD providing its findings regarding the draft Housing Element (Exhibit C); and WHEREAS, on January 19, 2023, the City of Oakley published a revised draft Housing Element responding to HCD’s findings and requested public comment on the draft; and WHEREAS, on January 27, 2023, the City of Oakley submitted the revised draft Housing Element Update to HCD for its review; and
WHEREAS, on March 24, 2023, the City of Oakley received a letter from HCD stating that the draft Housing Element is in substantial compliance with State Housing Element Law, and will comply with State Housing Element Law when it is adopted; and WHEREAS, on March 29, 2023, the City of Oakley published the final draft Housing Element (determined to be in substantial compliance by HCD) on the City of Oakley website and requested public comment on the final draft; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines Section 15164, the City prepared an Addendum to the City of Oakley Focused General Plan Initial Study/Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) for adoption of the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update (“CEQA Addendum”). The CEQA Addendum found that the proposed Housing element Update would not result in any new environmental effects, or an increased severity of environmental effects documented in the Focused General Plan Update IS/MND because no new direct or indirect physical changes to the environment would occur with its adoption; and
WHEREAS, on March 7, 2023, the Planning Commission held a duly and properly noticed public hearing and recommended that the City Council adopt the Housing Element; and WHEREAS, on or before March 17, 2023, the Notice of Public Hearing for the Project was duly noticed in the Contra Costa Times, a newspaper of general distribution, was posted at Oakley City Hall located at 3231 Main Street, outside the gym at Delta Vista 1118
Resolution No. XX-23 Page 3 of 4
Middle School located at 4901 Frank Hengel Way, and outside the library at Freedom High School located at 1050 Neroly Road, and was mailed out to all to parties requesting such notice, and to outside agencies; and
WHEREAS, on March 28, 2023, the City Council conducted a duly and properly noticed public hearing to take public testimony and consider this Resolution regarding the proposed Housing Element, reviewed the Housing Element and all pertinent maps, documents and exhibits, including HCD’s findings, the City of Oakley’s response to HCD’s findings, the staff report, and all attachments, and oral and written public comments; and WHEREAS, these Findings are based on the City’s General Plan, and the information submitted to the Planning Commission at its March 28, 2023 meeting, both written and oral, as reflected in the minutes of such meetings, together with the documents contained in the file for the Project (hereafter the “Record”).

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that on the basis of the above findings of fact and the entire record, the City Council hereby finds that:

1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated by reference into this action.

2. The proposed project conforms to the provisions and standards of the General Plan;

3. The proposed project is consistent with the balance of the General Plan;

4. The proposed project is necessary to implement the goals and objectives of the General Plan;

5. The public necessity, convenience, and general welfare require the proposed General Plan Amendment;

6. The proposed project will not cause any environment damage;

7. The Housing Element substantially complies with Housing Element Law, as provided in Government Code 65580 et seq., and contains all provisions required by State Housing Element Law, as shown in Exhibit C to this resolution, incorporated herein.

8. As required by Government Code Section 65585(e), the City Council has considered the findings made by the Department of Housing and Community Development included in the Department’s letter to the City of Oakley dated March 24, 2023, consistent with Government Code Section 65585(f), and as described in Attachment B to this resolution, incorporated herein, the City Council has changed the Housing Element in response to the findings of the Department to substantially comply with the requirements of State Housing Element Law as interpreted by HCD.

9. The 2015-2023 City of Oakley Housing Element is hereby repealed in its entirety, and the 2023-2031 City of Oakley Housing Element, as shown in Exhibit A to this Resolution, incorporated herein, is adopted.

10.This Resolution shall become effective upon adoption by the City Council.

11.The Community Development Director or designee is hereby directed to file all necessary material with the Department of Housing and Community Development for the Department to find that the Housing Element is in conformance with State Housing Element Law and is further directed and 1119
Resolution No. XX-23 Page 4 of 4
authorized to make all non-substantive changes to the Housing Element to make it internally consistent or to address any non-substantive changes or amendments requested by the Department to achieve certification.

12.The Community Development Director or designee is hereby directed to distribute copies of the Housing Element in the manner provided in Government Code Sections 65357 and 65589.7.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Oakley this 28th day of March 2023, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTENTIONS:

ABSENT:

APPROVED:
___________________
Aaron Meadows, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________ ___________________
Libby Vreonis, City Clerk Date
Exhibits:

A. 2023-2031 City of Oakley Housing Element
B. 2023-2031 City of Oakley Housing Element Errata
C. HCD Finding Letter, dated November 29, 2022
1120
TABLE OF CONTENTS 1
2023–2031
Housing Element Update
REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023
1121
1122
OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 TABLE OF CONTENTS i
Table of Contents
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1-1 Consistency with State Law............................................................................ 1-1 Housing Element Organization....................................................................... 1-3 Public Participation......................................................................................... 1-4 Summary of Engagement Activities................................................................ 1-4 Summary of Community Feedback .............................................................. 1-11 CHAPTER 2: EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT ................................................................... 2-1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 2-1 Demographic Profile....................................................................................... 2-1 Employment Trends..................................................................................... 2-11 Household Characteristics............................................................................ 2-16 Special Needs Populations ........................................................................... 2-25 Housing Stock Profile.................................................................................... 2-40 Housing Costs and Affordability ................................................................... 2-44 Assisted Housing at Risk of Conversion........................................................ 2-53 CHAPTER 3: SITES INVENTORY ...................................................................................... 3-1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 3-1 Regional Housing Needs Allocation................................................................ 3-1 Residential Sites Inventory ............................................................................. 3-2 Projection of Accessory Dwelling Units........................................................ 3-31 RHNA Summary............................................................................................ 3-23 Infrastructure Availability............................................................................. 3-33 Environmental Constraints........................................................................... 3-34 CHAPTER 4 : FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT ..................................................................... 4-1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 4-1 Fair Housing Assessment................................................................................ 4-2 Fair Housing Enforcement, Education, and Outreach.................................... 4-3 Integration and Segregation......................................................................... 4-13 Concentrated Areas of Race/Ethnicity and Income...................................... 4-34 Access to Opportunities............................................................................... 4-40 Disproportionate Housing Needs................................................................. 4-60 Other Relevant Factors................................................................................. 4-76 Assessment of Sites Inventory and Fair Housing.......................................... 4-79 Fair Housing Issues, Contributing Factors, and Actions................................ 4-93 CHAPTER 5: HOUSING PROGRAMS AND FINANCIAL RESOURCES ................................... 5-1 County Programs............................................................................................ 5-1 Federal and State Programs........................................................................... 5-2 Energy Conservation ...................................................................................... 5-8 1123
REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 6: POTENTIAL HOUSING CONSTRAINTS .......................................................... 6-1 Governmental Constraints............................................................................. 6-1 Non-Governmental Constraints................................................................... 6-30 CHAPTER 7: EVALUATION OF THE PREVIOUS (2015-2023) HOUSING ELEMENT ............. 7-1 Construction Achievements........................................................................... 7-1 Program Evaluation........................................................................................ 7-2 CHAPTER 8: HOUSING PLAN .......................................................................................... 8-1 Goals and Policy Actions................................................................................. 8-1 Goal 1: Production of New Housing ............................................................... 8-2 Action 1.1: Rezone Adequate Sites to Meet Remaining RHNA Need .. 8-2 Action 1.2: Maintain an Inventory of Available Land Resources.......... 8-3 Action 1.3: Encourage Development of New Affordable Rental Housing .......................................................................................... 8-3 Action 1.4: Promote Accessory Dwelling Units.................................... 8-4 Action 1.5: Objective Standards........................................................... 8-4 Action 1.6: Density Bonus Ordinance .................................................. 8-5 Action 1.7: Amendments to the Downtown Specific Plan ................... 8-5 Goal 2: Preservation and Conservation of Existing Housing Stock ................. 8-6 Action 2.1: Rehabilitation of Existing Housing Units............................ 8-6 Action 2.2: Code Enforcement............................................................. 8-6 Action 2.3: Infrastructure Investment Program................................... 8-7 Action 2.4: Monitor Assisted Housing Units ........................................ 8-7 Goal 3: Increase Access to Housing Opportunities......................................... 8-8 Action 3.1: Increase Access to Homeownership.................................. 8-8 Action 3.2: Promote Fair Housing........................................................ 8-8 Action 3.3: Housing Choice Voucher Program..................................... 8-9 Action 3.4: Reasonable Accommodation Procedures.......................... 8-9 Action 3.5: Zoning Amendments for Special Needs Housing............... 8-9 Action 3.6: Adequate Emergency Shelter Sites.................................. 8-10 Quantified Objectives................................................................................... 8-11 Appendices
A Public Engagement Materials
B All Other Sites
Figures
Figure 1-1: Responses to “Have you or are you experiencing any of the following housing issues?”............................................................................................. 1-5 Figure 1-2: Summary of Responses to “What do you feel is the most significant housing problem facing Oakley residents? (Choose up to three)”................. 1-5 Figure 1-3: Summary of Responses to AHO Site Selection............................................... 1-6 Figure 1-4: Flyers to Advertise Engagement Opportunities............................................. 1-8 1124
OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 TABLE OF CONTENTS iii
Figure 1-5: Workshop Activity Board................................................................................ 1-9 Figure 2-1: Regional Population Trends, Oakley, Contra Costa County, and Bay Area, 2000-2020 ...................................................................................................... 2-2 Figure 2-2: Population by Age, Oakley, 2019 ................................................................... 2-5 Figure 2-3: Population by Race and Ethnicity, Oakley, 2000-2019................................... 2-8 Figure 2-4: Senior and Youth Population by Race, Oakley, 2019* ................................. 2-10 Figure 2-5: Workers by Earnings, by Jurisdiction as Place of Work and Place of Residence, Oakley, 2019 .............................................................................. 2-13 Figure 2-6: Jobs-Household Ratio, Oakley, Contra Costa County, and Bay Area 2002- 2018 ............................................................................................................. 2-14 Figure 2-7: Average Unemployment Rates, Oakley, Contra Costa County, and Bay Area, 2010-2021........................................................................................... 2-15 Figure 2-8: Households by Type, Oakley, 2019 .............................................................. 2-17 Figure 2-9: Housing Tenure, Oakley, Contra Costa County, and the Bay Area, 2019..... 2-18 Figure 2-10: Housing Tenure by Race*, Oakley, 2019.................................................... 2-19 Figure 2-11: Housing Tenure by Age, Oakley, 2019 ....................................................... 2-20 Figure 2-12: Housing Tenure by Housing Type, Oakley, 2019........................................ 2-21 Figure 2-13: Household Income Level by Tenure, Oakley, 2017 .................................... 2-23 Figure 2-14: Overcrowding by Tenure, Oakley, 2017..................................................... 2-24 Figure 2-15: Overcrowding by Income Level, Oakley, 2017 ........................................... 2-25 Figure 2-16: Senior Households by Income and Tenure, Oakley, 2017.......................... 2-27 Figure 2-17: Household Size by Tenure, Oakley, 2019 ................................................... 2-29 Figure 2-18: Housing Units by Number of Bedrooms, Oakley, 2019.............................. 2-30 Figure 2-19: Female-Headed Households by Poverty Status, Oakley, 2019................... 2-31 Figure 2-20: Disability by Type, Oakley, 2019................................................................. 2-32 Figure 2-21: Homelessness and Shelter Status, Contra Costa County, 2019 ................. 2-35 Figure 2-22: Characteristics of the Population Experiencing Homelessness, Contra Costa County, 2019 ...................................................................................... 2-35 Figure 2-23: Racial Demographics of the Homeless Population, Contra Costa County, 2019 ................................................................................................ 2-36 Figure 2-24: Farm Operations and Farm Labor, Contra Costa County, 2002-2017........ 2-39 Figure 2-25: Vacancy Rates, Oakley, Contra Costa County, Bay Area, 2019................... 2-42 Figure 2-26: Vacant Units by Type, Oakley, Contra Costa County and Bay Area, 2019.. 2-42 Figure 2-27: Home Values of Owner-Occupied Units, 2019........................................... 2-45 Figure 2-28: Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI), 2021....................................................... 2-46 Figure 2-29: Contract Rents for Renter-Occupied Units, 2019....................................... 2-47 Figure 2-30: Median Contract Rent, Oakley, Contra Costa County and Bay Area, 2019 ............................................................................................................. 2-48 Figure 2-31: Cost Burden by Income Group, Oakley, 2017 ............................................ 2-50 Figure 2-32: Cost Burden by Tenure, Oakley.................................................................. 2-51 Figure 2-33: Cost Burden of Renter Households by Income Level, Oakley .................... 2-52 Figure 2-34: Cost Burden of Owner Households by Income Level, Oakley .................... 2-52 1125
REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 iv TABLE OF CONTENTS
Figure 3-1: Sites Inventory Map, City of Oakley, 2022 (REVISED MAP).......................... 3-17 Figure 3-2: Downtown Sites, City of Oakley, 2022 (UPDATED MAP).............................. 3-31 Figure 3-3: Environmental Constraints (NEW MAP)....................................................... 3-37 Figure 4-1 Racial Dot Map of Oakley and Surrounding Areas, 2020 .............................. 4-15 Figure 4-2: Racial Demographics in Contra Costa County .............................................. 4-16 Figure 4-3: Racial Demographics in Oakley .................................................................... 4-19 Figure 4-4: Comparison of Racial Isolation Index Values, Oakley and all Bay Area Jurisdictions, 2019........................................................................................ 4-21 Figure 4-5: Comparison of Racial Dissimilarity Index Values, Oakley vs All Other Bay Area Jurisdictions, 2019 ............................................................................... 4-22 Figure 4-6: Distribution of Population with a Disability in Contra Costa County............ 4-24 Figure 4-7a: Distribution of Population with a Disability in Oakley, 2015-2019............. 4-25 Figure 4-7b: Distribution of Population with a Disability in Oakley, 2010-2014............. 4-25 Figure 4-8: Distribution of Percentage of Children in Married-Couple Households in Contra Costa County .................................................................................... 4-27 Figure 4-9: Distribution of Percentage of Children in Female-Headed, No-Spouse or No-Partner Households in Contra Costa County.......................................... 4-28 Figure 4-10: Percent of Children in Married-Couple Households by Tract in Oakley..... 4-29 Figure 4-11: Percent of Children in Female-Headed Households by Tract in Oakley..... 4-29 Figure 4-12: Distribution of Percentage of Population with Low to Moderate Income Levels in Contra Costa County......................................................... 4-31 Figure 4-13: Distribution of Percentage of Population with Low to Moderate Income Levels in Oakley ............................................................................... 4-33 Figure 4-14: R/ECAPs in Contra Costa County................................................................ 4-35 Figure 4-15: Expanded R/ECAPs in Contra Costa County ............................................... 4-36 Figure 4-16: R/ECAPs in Oakley ...................................................................................... 4-36 Figure 4-17: Median Household Income in Contra Costa County .................................. 4-37 Figure 4-18a: Median Household Income in Oakley, 2015-2019 ................................... 4-39 Figure 4-18b: Median Household Income in Oakley, 2010-2014................................... 4-39 Figure 4-19: Composite Score of TCAC Opportunity Areas in Contra Costa County ...... 4-43 Figure 4-20: TCAC Composite Scores in Oakley.............................................................. 4-44 Figure 4-21: TCAC Opportunity Areas’ Education Score in Contra Costa County........... 4-45 Figure 4-22: TCAC Opportunity Areas’ Education Score in Oakley................................. 4-47 Figure 4-23: Public Transit Routes in Contra Costa County............................................ 4-49 Figure 4-24: Public Transit Routes in Oakley .................................................................. 4-50 Figure 4-25: Transit Metric Map in Oakley..................................................................... 4-51 Figure 4-26: Job Proximity Index in Contra Costa County .............................................. 4-52 Figure 4-27: TCAC Opportunity Areas’ Economic Score in Contra Costa County ........... 4-53 Figure 4-28: Job Proximity Index in Oakley .................................................................... 4-54 Figure 4-29: TCAC Opportunity Areas’ Economic Score in Oakley ................................. 4-55 Figure 4-30: TCAC Opportunity Areas’ Environmental Score in Contra Costa County ... 4-56 1126
OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 TABLE OF CONTENTS v
Figure 4-31: CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Results in Contra Costa County ................................. 4-57 Figure 4-32: TCAC Opportunity Areas’ Environmental Score in Oakley ......................... 4-58 Figure 4-33: CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Results in Oakley ....................................................... 4-58 Figure 4-34: Healthy Places Index in Contra Costa County ............................................ 4-59 Figure 4-35: Healthy Places Index in Oakley................................................................... 4-60 Figure 4-36: Distribution of Percentage of Overpayment by Renters in Contra Costa County .......................................................................................................... 4-63 Figure 4-37a: Distribution of Percentage of Overpayment by Renters in Oakley, 2015-2019 .................................................................................................... 4-64 Figure 4-37b: Distribution of Percentage of Overpayment by Renters in Oakley, 2010-2014 .................................................................................................... 4-65 Figure 4-38: Distribution of Percentage of Overcrowded Households in Contra Costa County ................................................................................................ 4-66 Figure 4-39: Distribution of Percentage of Overcrowded Households in Oakley........... 4-67 Figure 4-40: Sensitive Communities as Defined by the Urban Displacement Project in Contra Costa County................................................................................. 4-69 Figure 4-41: Sensitive Communities as Defined by the Urban Displacement Project in Oakley....................................................................................................... 4-70 Figure 4-42: Distribution of Percentage of Renter Units with HCVs in Contra Costa County .......................................................................................................... 4-72 Figure 4-43: Location Affordability Index in Contra Costa County ................................. 4-73 Figure 4-44: Distribution of Percentage of Renter Units with Housing Choice Vouchers in Oakley....................................................................................... 4-74 Figure 4-45: Location Affordability Index in Oakley........................................................ 4-75 Figure 4-46: Distribution of Sites Inventory and Percent of Total Non-White Population by Census Tract.......................................................................... 4-81 Figure 4-47: Sites Inventory and Racial/Ethnic Distribution by Census Tract, Oakley .... 4-82 Figure 4-48: Distribution of Sites Inventory and Median Household Income by Census Tract................................................................................................. 4-83 Figure 4-49: Sites Inventory Income Distribution by Median Income of Census Tract, Oakley........................................................................................................... 4-84 Figure 4-50: Sites Inventory and Percent of Population with a Disability by Census Tract ............................................................................................................. 4-85 Figure 4-51: Sites Inventory and Percent of Population with a Disability ...................... 4-85 Figure 4-52 Sites Inventory and Distribution of Female-Headed Households with Children........................................................................................................ 4-86 Figure 4-53: Sites Inventory and Distribution of Female-Headed Households with Children........................................................................................................ 4-87 Figure 4-54: Sites Inventory and TCAC/HCD Opportunity Areas.................................... 4-88 Figure 4-55: Sites Inventory and TCAC/HCD Opportunity Areas, Oakley ....................... 4-88 Figure 4-56: Sites Inventory and Distribution of Overpayment by Renters.................... 4-89 Figure 4-57: Sites Inventory and Distribution of Overpayment by Renters.................... 4-90 Figure 4-58: Sites Inventory and Areas at Risk of Displacement .................................... 4-91 1127
REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 vi TABLE OF CONTENTS
Figure 4-59: Sites Inventory and Areas at Risk of Displacement, Oakley ....................... 4-91 Figure 4-60: Sites Inventory and Distribution of Current Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Households......................................................................................... 4-92 Figure 4-61: Sites Inventory and Distribution of Current Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Households......................................................................................... 4-93 Figure 6-1: Comparison of Estimated Single-family Residential Fees in Contra Costa County Jurisdictions ..................................................................................... 6-23 Figure 6-2: Comparison of Estimated Residential Fees in Contra Costa County Jurisdictions (10-Unit Multifamily Development)......................................... 6-24 Figure 6-3: Comparison of Estimated Residential Fees in Contra Costa County Jurisdictions (100-Unit Multifamily Development)....................................... 6-24 1128
OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 TABLE OF CONTENTS vii
Tables
Table 1-1: Summary of Community Workshop Feedback AHO Site Selection ............... 1-10 Table 2-1: Regional Population Trends 2010-2020 .......................................................... 2-2 Table 2-2: Population Growth, Oakley, 2010-2020 .......................................................... 2-3 Table 2-3: Projected Population Growth, Santa Clara County Jurisdictions, 2020- 2040 ............................................................................................................... 2-3 Table 2-4: Population by Age, Oakley, Contra Costa County, and California, 2010 and 2019 ........................................................................................................ 2-6 Table 2-5: Racial and Ethnic Composition, Oakley, 2019 ................................................. 2-9 Table 2-6: Employment by Industry, Oakley, 2019......................................................... 2-11 Table 2-7: Total Projected Job Growth, Contra Costa County 2020-2040 ..................... 2-16 Table 2-8: Income Level Definitions............................................................................... 2-21 Table 2-9: HUD/HCD Income Limits based on Persons per Household, Contra Costa County, 2022 ................................................................................................ 2-22 Table 2-10: Housing Needs for Extremely Low-Income Households, Oakley, 2018....... 2-26 Table 2-11: Population with Developmental Disabilities by Type of Residence, Oakley, 2020................................................................................................. 2-33 Table 2-12: Emergency Shelters and Transitional Housing Included in the 2020 Point in Time County, Contra Costa County ................................................. 2-38 Table 2-13: Number of Housing Units Oakley and Contra Costa County – 2000-2013.. 2-40 Table 2-14: Housing Inventory By Unit Type .................................................................. 2-40 Table 2-15: Unit Size by Tenure, Oakley, 2019............................................................... 2-41 Table 2-16: Housing Stock by Year Built, Oakley, 2019 .................................................. 2-43 Table 2-17: Ability to Pay for Housing Based on HCD Income Limits, 2022 ................... 2-49 Table 2-18: Inventory of Publicly-Assisted Rental Housing, Oakley, 2022...................... 2-53 Table 2-19: Qualified Entities, Contra Costa County ...................................................... 2-56 Table 3-1: Regional Housing Needs Allocation, City of Oakley, 2023-2031...................... 3-2 Table 3-2: Final Maps Approved and Under Construction ............................................... 3-6 Table 3-3: Vacant Land with Tentative Subdivision Maps................................................ 3-8 Table 3-4: Capacity On Existing AHO Sites...................................................................... 3-19 Table 3-5: Capacity On Candidate AHO Sites ................................................................. 3-20 Table 3-6: Potential AHO Sites ....................................................................................... 3-21 Table 3-7: Downtown Specific Plan Sites........................................................................ 3-32 Table 3-8: Inventory of Available Residential Land for Development ............................ 3-33 Table 3-9: ADU Building Permits, City of Oakley (2018-2022)........................................ 3-33 Table 3-10: Sites Inventory Capacity Summary, City of Oakley (2023-2031) ................. 3-34 Table 4-1: Number of DFEH Housing Complaints in Contra Costa County (2015- 2020) .............................................................................................................. 4-4 Table 4-2: Number of FHEO Filed Cases by Protected Class in Contra Costa County (2015–2020)................................................................................................... 4-4 1129
REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 viii TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table 4-3: Action(s) Taken/Services Provided by Protected Class.................................... 4-5 Table 4-4: Outcomes........................................................................................................ 4-6 Table 4-5: Fair Housing Advocacy Organizations, Contra Costa County........................... 4-7 Table 4-6: Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Trends (1990–2020) in Contra Costa County ...... 4-17 Table 4-7: Racial Composition for Contra Costa County and Oakley.............................. 4-18 Table 4-8: Neighborhood Racial Segregation Measures Oakley, 2000-2020 ................. 4-20 Table 4-9: Regional Racial Segregation Measures.......................................................... 4-20 Table 4-10: Percentage of Populations by Disability Types in Contra Costa County and Oakley.................................................................................................... 4-23 Table 4-11: Percentage of Population with Disabilities by Age in Contra Costa County and Oakley ....................................................................................... 4-23 Table 4-12: Households by Income Category and Tenure in Contra Costa County........ 4-30 Table 4-13: Population by Income Group, Oakley and the Region................................. 4-31 Table 4-14: Households by Income Category and Tenure in Oakley, 2015.................... 4-32 Table 4-15: Neighborhood Income Segregation Levels in Oakley .................................. 4-33 Table 4-16: Regional Income Segregation Measures..................................................... 4-34 Table 4-17: White Population and Median Household Income of RCAAs in Contra Costa County ................................................................................................ 4-38 Table 4-18: Opportunity Indices in Contra Costa County............................................... 4-41 Table 4-19: Domains and List of Indicators for Opportunity Maps................................ 4-42 Table 4-20: Freedom High School Enrollment by Race/Ethnicity................................... 4-47 Table 4-21: Demographics of Households with Housing Problems in Contra Costa County .......................................................................................................... 4-61 Table 4-22: Number of Households with Housing Problems by Household Type in Contra Costa County .................................................................................... 4-61 Table 4-23: Households that Experience Cost Burden by Tenure in Contra Costa County .......................................................................................................... 4-62 Table 4-24: Households that Experience Cost Burden by Tenure in Oakley .................. 4-63 Table 4-25: Substandard Housing Conditions by Tenure in Contra Costa County ......... 4-67 Table 4-26: Substandard Housing Conditions by Tenure in Oakley................................ 4-68 Table 4-27: Mortgage Applications by Race, 2018-2019................................................ 4-77 Table 4-28: Housing Authority of Contra Costa County Publicly Supported Housing and Census Tract Demographics.................................................................. 4-78 Table 4-29: Census Tracts with the Largest Number of LIHTC Properties, Contra Costa County ................................................................................................ 4-79 Table 4-30: Fair Housing Issues, Contributing Factors, and Actions............................... 4-94 Table 5-1: Federal and State Funding Programs .............................................................. 5-4 Table 6-1: Oakley General Plan Land Use Designations Allowing Residential Uses......... 6-2 Table 6-2: Permitted Residential Uses by zoning District................................................. 6-5 Table 6-3: Summary of Residential Zoning Requirements ............................................... 6-6 Table 6-4: Residential Parking Requirements................................................................... 6-7 1130
OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 TABLE OF CONTENTS ix
Table 6-5: Downtown Specific Plan Permitted Uses by Subarea...................................... 6-8 Table 6-6: Development Standards for Multi-Family Construction in the Affordable Housing Overlay ........................................................................................... 6-11 Table 6-7: City of Oakley Residential Fees...................................................................... 6-21 Table 6-8: Development Plan Review Process................................................................ 6-27 Table 6-9: Residential Land Listed for Sale, Oakley, CA (April 2022).............................. 6-31 Table 7-1: RHNA Progress - Permitted Units Issued by Affordability ............................... 7-1 Table 7-2: Evaluation of 2015-2023 City of Oakley Housing Element Programs.............. 7-4 Table 8-1: Quantified Objective Summary 2023-2031 Planning Period......................... 8-13 1131
OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 CHAPTER 1 | INTRODUCTION 1-1
Chapter 1: Introduction
The Housing Element is the principal guide for housing strategies in the City of Oakley (City). It is one of eight mandatory elements of the City’s General Plan and sets forth actions to address the housing needs of all households in Oakley. The Housing Element will offer a way to ensure there are enough sites for safe, accessible, and diverse housing throughout the City and address existing and future housing needs for present and future Oakley residents.

Consistency with
State Law
All cities and counties in California are
required to have a compliant housing
element as one of the eight mandated
elements of a general plan. Each city
and county in the State must submit
their housing element to the California
Department of Housing and
Community Development (HCD) for
review to ensure that it meets the
minimum requirements under State
housing element law and are also
required to prepare an annual progress
report (APR) on the status and progress
of implementing its housing element.

Most cities and counties, including
Oakley, are required to update their
housing element every eight years.

Oakley’s prior housing element
covered the 2015-2023 planning
period, while this update will cover the
2023-2031 planning period, from
January 31, 2023, to January 31, 2031.

State law (Government Code Section
65583) requires the City to adopt a
Housing Element that addresses the
needs of everyone in the community,
at all income levels.

Housing Element Requirements
⚫ An analysis of existing and projected
housing needs
⚫ An inventory of land suitable for housing
and emergency shelters with a projected
capacity for each site
⚫ A summary of housing-related programs
and funding
⚫ An analysis of potential constraints to the
production and maintenance of housing
⚫ An assessment of fair housing and an
analysis of how the City can affirmatively
further fair housing (AFFH)
⚫ An analysis of any special housing needs
groups, as identified under State law
⚫ An evaluation of the previous Housing
Element
⚫ A summary of opportunities for
residential energy conservation
⚫ An analysis of assisted housing
developments that are at-risk of
converting to market rate
⚫ Specific actions to achieve housing goals
and objectives
1132
REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 1-2 CHAPTER 1 | INTRODUCTION
General Plan Consistency
The Housing Element is one component of the City’s overall long-range planning strategy outlined in the General Plan. The City recently completed an update to the General Plan in January 2022 focused on Environmental Justice, Mobility, and Climate Change and Adaptation. The Housing Element is closely linked and affected by policies contained in other elements of the General Plan. For example, the Land Use Element designates land for residential development and indicates the type, location and density of the residential development permitted in the City. Working within this framework, the Housing Element identifies goals and actions for the planning period that directly addresses the housing needs of Oakley’s existing and future residents. The policies contained within other elements of the General Plan affect many aspects of life that residents enjoy – the amount and variety of open space, the preservation of natural, historic and cultural resources, the permitted noise levels in residential areas and the safety of the residents in the event of a natural or man-made disaster.

The Housing Element has been reviewed for consistency with the City’s other General Plan elements and the actions reflect the policy direction contained in other parts of the General Plan. As portions of the General Plan are amended in the future, this Housing Element will be reviewed to ensure that internal consistency is maintained.

Relationship to Other Plans and Programs
There are a number of City plans and programs which work to implement the goals and actions of the Housing Element including the City’s Municipal Code and Specific Plans.

Oakley Municipal Code
The Oakley Municipal Code contains the regulatory and penal ordinances and certain administrative ordinances of the City, codified pursuant to Sections 50022.1 through 50022.8 and 50022.10 of the Government Code. The Oakley Municipal Code includes the City’s Zoning regulations.

The Zoning Chapter of the Municipal Code (Chapter 9.1) is the primary tool for implementing the General Plan while the Subdivision Title (Title 8) of the Municipal Code regulates the design, development and implementation of land division. It applies when a parcel is divided into two or more parcels; a parcel is consolidated with one or more other parcels; or the boundaries of two or more parcels are adjusted to change the size and/or configuration of the parcels. The Zoning Chapter designates various districts and outlines the permitted and conditionally permitted uses for each zone district. The Zoning Chapter also provides property development standards for each zone district and overall administrative and legislative procedures.

Specific Plans
Specific Plans are customized regulatory documents that provide focused guidance and regulations for a particular area to address the specific characteristics or needs for that area. They generally include a land use plan, circulation plan, infrastructure plan, zoning classifications, development standards, design guidelines, and implementation plan. The 1133
OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 CHAPTER 1 | INTRODUCTION 1-3
City has three Specific Plans: the Downtown Specific Plan, the River Oaks Crossing Specific Plan, and the East Cypress Corridor Specific Plan.

Housing Element Organization
This Housing Element satisfies the requirements of State law (Government Code Section 65583(a)) and is organized as follows:
⚫ Chapter 1 - Introduction. This chapter includes an introduction to the Housing Element, description of State housing element law, general plan consistency, and a summary of public participation.
⚫ Chapter 2 - Existing Needs Assessment. This chapter analyzes demographic and socioeconomic conditions; existing housing stock characteristics; housing affordability, overpayment, and overcrowding; and special needs for persons experiencing homelessness, persons with disabilities, seniors, large families, and female-headed households.
⚫ Chapter 3 - Sites Inventory. This chapter identifies opportunities for housing production to meet the City’s fair share of regional housing needs, as determined by the regional housing needs allocation (RHNA). It includes a description of the City’s RHNA and the results of the inventory of sites within the City that are suitable for residential development during the eight-year planning period. ⚫ Chapter 4 - Fair Housing Assessment. This chapter provides an analysis of fair housing issues and practices in Oakley, including patterns of integration and segregation, disparities in access to opportunity, and disproportionate housing needs. It also examines the relationship between the sites inventory and its potential impact on fair housing issues in the City. The chapter also includes a summary of strategies to affirmatively further fair housing.
⚫ Chapter 5 – Housing Programs and Financial Resources. This chapter summarizes staff resources and funding available to support City housing programs and residential energy conservation.
⚫ Chapter 6 - Potential Housing Constraints. This chapter analyzes potential constraints on the production, maintenance, or improvement of housing, including governmental constraints like land use controls, permits and processing procedures, fees, and zoning for a variety of housing types as well as non-governmental constraints such as land and development costs and the availability of financing. ⚫ Chapter 7 - Evaluation of the Previous (2015-2023) Housing Element. This chapter summarizes the City’s accomplishments during the previous (2015-2023) Housing Element planning period and evaluates each of the previous programs. ⚫ Chapter 8 – Housing Plan. This chapter establishes goals and actions that will provide direction to help the City meet its housing goals.
1134
REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 1-4 CHAPTER 1 | INTRODUCTION
Public Participation
Housing Element law requires that local governments make diligent efforts to achieve representative public participation in the development of the Housing Element. As part of the Housing Element Update process, the project team (including City staff and Consultants) facilitated public participation early in the process to inform the development of the Housing Element. The outreach process continued through plan adoption. Public engagement materials can be found in Appendix A.

Summary of Engagement Activities
The City conducted the following engagement activities throughout the Housing Element update process to engage and inform the community.

Project Webpage
The City hosted a project webpage about the housing element update at www.ci.oakley.ca.us/2023-2031-housing-element-update/. The webpage included an overview of the project and schedule, contact information for the project team, and a sign-up link for the project mailing list. The webpage was maintained throughout the housing element update process and routinely updated to include announcements of future engagement events, frequently asked questions (FAQs), community engagement materials and draft documents.

Online Community Survey
From April 20, 2022, through May 27, 2022, the City distributed a web-based survey to gather information from the community. The survey included questions related to household demographics, housing challenges/needs, and potential sites to be added to the Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) district for future affordable housing development.

The survey was provided in English and Spanish.

The City made an effort to reach all members of the community by distributing the survey through multiple channels. The survey was distributed through an online link and QR via email to the mailing list from the project website. It was also advertised through City Council meetings, a press release, in newsletters to the public that were sent out to nearly 3,500 residents, and broadcast on the City’s social media outlets. The City’s Public Outreach Staff also made efforts to draw attention to the Housing Element Update page, which also included links to the survey, by featuring the project on the City’s homepage.

Summary of Feedback
A total of 227 participants took the survey. There were 226 responses to the English survey and 1 response to the Spanish survey. Of all respondents, 98 percent were residents of Oakley. Most respondents are homeowners (91 percent) and live in a single family home (95 percent). About 3 percent of respondents reported living in a duplex/triplex/fourplex (4 respondents) or an apartment (4 respondents). Summaries of key survey responses are shown in Figures 1-1 through 1-3. 1135
OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 CHAPTER 1 | INTRODUCTION 1-5
See Appendix A for the complete survey and participant responses.

Figure 1-1: Responses to “Have you or are you experiencing any of the following housing issues?” Source: Housing Element Online Community Survey Responses, May 2022.

Figure 1-2: Summary of Responses to “What do you feel is the most significant housing problem facing Oakley residents? (Choose up to three)”
Source: Housing Element Online Community Survey Responses, May 2022. 114
45 42
36 31
11 8
4 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
None of the above
Lack funding to make necessary home repairs
Adult child living at home due to inability to afford housing Want to move but can’t find or afford a home that meets my and my family’s needs
Struggle to pay rent or mortgage (e.g., sometimes paying late, not paying other bills to pay rent, not buying food or medicine) Significant rent increase
Too many people living in one home (overcrowding)
Other Issue Not Listed
Number of Responses Received
118
87 51
49 43
39 21
14 12
4 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Buying a house is too expensive
Rents are too high
Not enough shelters or services for people experiencing homelessness
Other
Not enough housing for seniors or people with disabilities Too expensive to maintain my home as a property owner
Not enough places to rent
Not enough homes for sale
Housing sizes don’t meet family needs
Housing conditions are poor
Number of Responses Received
1136
REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 1-6 CHAPTER 1 | INTRODUCTION
Figure 1-3: Summary of Responses to AHO Site Selection
Source: Housing Element Online Community Survey Responses, May 2022. 97 95
95 87
83 50
34 38
53 50
50 53
63 47
29 29
29 33
34 38
26 32
27 33
35 41
37 30
59 60
61 65
68 91
124
113
104
100
98 87
84 102
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Site A - Bridgehead Rd. Parcel #1
Site B – Bridgehead Rd. Parcel #2
Site C – Bridgehead Rd. Parcel #3
Site D - Main Street near Bridgehead Rd.

Site E - Oakley Rd. and SR-160
Site F - 3300 Neroly Rd.

Site G - S/W corner of Laurel Rd. and O’Hara Ave.

Site H - 440 W. Cypress Rd.

Site I - 4671 Rose Ave.

Site J - S/E corner of Main St. and Rose Ave.

Site K - S/W corner of Main St. and Brownstone Rd.

Site L - Between Main St., Arminio Ln., and Monte Linda St.

Site M -Main St., north of Pena’s Dismantlers
Site N - 901 E. Cypress Rd.

Number of Responses Received
Oppose Neutral Support
1137
OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 CHAPTER 1 | INTRODUCTION 1-7
Contra Costa County Developer Outreach
In November 2021 the Contra Costa County Collaborative (C4) held a panel with East Bay Area developers to receive input from the development community on the challenges and constraints to develop in Contra Costa County and identify what actions are needed from local governments to streamline development. An Affordable Housing Developer Panel was hosted by C4 on April 20, 2022. This panel reinforced many of the recommendations made by the previous panel and provided additional insights. The following is a summary of the feedback heard from both panels.

Summary of Feedback
Constraints to Housing Development
⚫ Community opposition to housing/affordable housing and resulting litigation and time delays
⚫ Discretionary processes that result in ad-hoc changes (e.g., community benefits added as a requirement in the middle of the process)
⚫ Lack of funding for affordable housing
⚫ Requiring retail in mixed-use developments
Recommended Policies and Actions
⚫ Objective design review processes
⚫ Absolute clarity of the process (e.g. here are the steps, here are the discretionary items, here is a list of the community benefits to choose from) ⚫ Guarantee an SB 35 process for Housing Element sites
⚫ Have one person who is familiar with the process and can be the champion of the affordable housing projects, especially relative to keeping the process aligned with funding timelines
⚫ Achieve more of a partnership relationship between development teams and cities across California
Additional Feedback from Affordable Housing Developers
⚫ For permit streamlining, it is important for all departments to coordinate and prioritize affordable housing include planning, building and public works staff. ⚫ Mixed-use requirements are a deterrent to affordable housing developers.

Suggestions for flexibility included allowing leasing offices and other active uses to be on the ground floor rather than retail.
⚫ Code constraints that developers often seek waivers for include: restrictive height limits, mixed-use requirements, open space and balcony requirements, and parking. ⚫ Affordable housing projects are constrained by the strict sequencing of events that must be followed to secure tax credit financing.
⚫ The labor shortage for construction and building management is a constraint. ⚫ Church, institutional and commercial sites, as well as adaptive reuse projects are challenging due to increased holding costs, structural building code issues, expensive retrofits, and community/congregation opposition regarding the change in use. 1138
REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 1-8 CHAPTER 1 | INTRODUCTION
⚫ Be careful with requirements for extra public facilities and project features that add cost and do not contribute points that make the project more competitive in the tax credit application process.
⚫ Cost of sites/high land value in high opportunity areas.

Community Workshop
The project team conducted an in-person
workshop at the Oakley Recreation Center
on April 20, 2022, to educate the
community on the purpose of the Housing
Element and to collect input on community
needs, key housing issues facing residents,
and potential sites for future affordable
housing. Live Spanish interpretation was
made available at the meeting. Figure 1-4
shows the flyers used to advertise
engagement activities for the project.

The City made a diligent effort to advertise
the workshop to all members of the community The community workshop was noticed throughusing multiple channels. The City advertised the workshop on the front page of the City’s electronic newsletter, which is sent out to nearly 3,500 residents. The City posted the workshop flyers in English and Spanish including on the main page of the City website, the City Reader Board, and distributed it through the City’s social media outlets in order to reach a broad segment of the community and encourage participation in the meeting. The City also advertised the meeting on electronic reader boards at City Hall, the Library, and the Middle School on East Cypress Road.

Oakley residents discussing conclusions from the small
group activity with City and Consultant staff.
1139
OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 CHAPTER 1 | INTRODUCTION 1-9
Figure 1-4: Flyers to Advertise Engagement Opportunities Source: Ascent, 2022.

First, the project team provided a presentation of the housing element explaining the overall process, requirements, and the preliminary analysis of housing needs and opportunities. Following the presentation, the project team facilitated a small group activity to receive feedback on potential sites to add to the City’s AHO district. In collaboration with the City Council, City staff identified 14 potential sites for consideration. The project team presented these sites to workshop participants and took this feedback, along with results from the online survey, into consideration when identifying the priority sites to add to the AHO district. Live Spanish interpretation was provided for the workshop and small group activity.

Following the workshop, both the presentation and site profiles for the potential AHO sites were posted on the City website for people to view in their own time and to provide more context for those participating in the online survey. 1140
REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 1-10 CHAPTER 1 | INTRODUCTION
Figure 1-5: Workshop Activity Board
Source: City of Oakley, Ascent, 2022.

Summary of Feedback on Housing Issues facing Residents in Oakley The feedback received from workshop participants on housing issues facing residents in Oakley is summarized below:
⚫ Affordability
⚫ Congestion
⚫ Cost/Availability
⚫ Blight/Condition
⚫ Concentration of lower income housing
⚫ Traffic
⚫ Monitoring
⚫ Misuse of system for affordable housing
⚫ Lack of services not walkable
⚫ Crime
⚫ So many single-family homes
⚫ Not enough high-end single-family
homes
⚫ Property taxes too high because of special
assessments - divided between long-time
residents and newer homes
⚫ Housing prices, especially new homes
⚫ Increased cost during pandemic
⚫ Oakley should consider inclusionary
ordinance
⚫ Lack of public transport to serve
affordable housing
⚫ Lack of infrastructure (water) to support
development - special districts have
been good at planning for/expanding
sewer and water facilities
⚫ Tax base - don't have businesses to
support tax base
1141
OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 CHAPTER 1 | INTRODUCTION 1-11
Summary of Feedback on Sites for the Affordable Housing Overlay District Table 1-1 summarizes the feedback received from workshop participants on the fourteen potential AHO sites identified by the City.

TABLE 1-1: SUMMARY OF COMMUNITY WORKSHOP FEEDBACK AHO SITE SELECTION Units Group
1 Group
2 Group
3 Group
4 Site A Bridgehead Rd. Parcel 1 34 units Yes No Yes Yes Site B Bridgehead Rd. Parcel 2 34 units Yes No Yes Yes
Site C Bridgehead Rd. Parcel 3 18 units Yes Maybe Yes Yes Site D Bridgehead Rd. 59 units Yes Maybe Yes Yes
Site E Oakley Rd. and SR-160 234 units No Yes Yes No
Site F 3300 Neroly Rd. 88 units Maybe No Yes Yes
Site G S/W Corner of Laurel Rd. and O'Hara Ave. 60 units No No No No Site H 440 Cypress Rd. 44 units No Yes No Yes
Site I 4671 Rose Ave. 20 units Yes Yes Yes No
Site J S/E corner of Main St. and Rose Ave. 16 units Yes Yes Yes No Site K S/W corner of Main St. and Brownstone Rd. 53 units No Yes No No Site L Between Main St., Arminio Ln., and
Monte Linda St.
203 units Yes Yes No Yes
Site M Main St., north of Pena's Dismantlers 184 units Yes Yes No No Site N 901 E. Cypress Rd. 118 units Yes Yes No No
Source: Feedback from Oakley Housing Element Workshop, April 20,2022. City of Oakley and Ascent.

Planning Commission and City Council Study Sessions
Prior to the community workshop, the City held a study session with the City Council on March 22, 2022, to outline the Housing Element update process, requirements of State law, and overall goals and objectives of the Housing Element. The priority focus of the session was to receive input from Council on the preliminary sites being considered by staff to add to the AHO district and suggestions for new sites to consider. Additionally, meetings provided an opportunity for appointed and elected officials to identify key issues they would like addressed in the Housing Element update and for members of the public to listen and provide comments.

On June 7, 2022, the City held a study session with the Planning Commission to outline the Housing Element process including State law requirements and the capacity of sites for housing in the City.

After release of the Public Review Draft Housing Element, the City held a study session with the City Council on July 12, 2022 to review the plan and solicit feedback before submitting the Draft Housing Element to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for State-mandated review. Based on comments received during the study session that there was an over concentration of lower income housing in Electoral District 1, City Council directed staff to remove Site 10 (Oakley Rd. and SR-160) from the list 1142
REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 1-12 CHAPTER 1 | INTRODUCTION
of candidate AHO sites and to include Site G (S/W Corner of Laurel Rd. and O’Hara Ave.), a site previously considered for inclusion in the AHO. The new candidate AHO sites are now more evenly distributed across the city and across income levels.

Summary of Community Feedback
The input received from the community was used to inform and understand needs and priorities in Oakley, and to help in the selection of AHO sites. This local knowledge has helped to identify local fair housing issues and constraints and has been used to inform the development of the goals and actions included in the Housing Element. Comments received on the Public Review Draft during the public comment period can be found in Appendix A.

Housing Issues and Challenges in Oakley
⚫ Opposition to new residential development, “too many houses, not enough resources” ⚫ High housing costs
 Buying a house is too expensive
 Rent is too high
 Inability to move out of home of a parent/family member/friend because housing costs are too expensive
 Lack of funding to make necessary home repairs
 High property taxes making payments unmanageable
⚫ Suggest providing financial aid to homeowners who want to build ADUs ⚫ Suggest establishing restrictions for short term rentals AHO Site Identification
⚫ Do not identify more sites than is required by the State to meet RHNA ⚫ Prioritize sites zoned for residential uses over commercial sites ⚫ Remove Site G (S/W Corner of Laurel Rd. and O’Hara Ave.) and Site K (S/W corner of Main St. and Brownstone Rd.)
⚫ Prioritize Site I (4671 Rose Ave.) and Site J (S/E corner of Main St. and Rose Ave.) ⚫ Maintain Site L (Between Main St., Arminio Ln., and Monte Linda St.) as a potential site Other Community Concerns
⚫ Concern about availability of services including police, fire, and school capacity ⚫ Concern about crime rates
⚫ Concern about roadway capacity and traffic
⚫ Concern about water infrastructure
⚫ Concern about loss of community character
⚫ Concern about increase in property taxes
1143
OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 CHAPTER 2 | EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2-1
Chapter 2: Existing Needs
Assessment
Introduction
This chapter describes the characteristics of the population and housing stock in the City of Oakley (City) as a means of better understanding the nature and extent of unmet housing needs. This chapter includes an analysis of the demographic, economic, and housing characteristics that influence the demand for and availability of housing. The analysis forms a foundation for developing programs and policies to address identified housing needs according to income, tenure, and special needs groups.

The Housing Needs Assessment fulfills the requirements of Government Code Section 65583(a)(1), 655853(a)(2), and 65583.1(d) and is comprised of the following components: Demographic Profile; Employment Trends; Household Characteristics; Special Needs Populations; Housing Stock Characteristics; Housing Costs and Affordability; Assisted Housing at Risk of Conversion; Housing Needs; and Regional Housing Needs Determination.

The primary data source used in this analysis is the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Data Package, which has been approved for use by HCD. Other sources include the U.S. Census, the 2015-2019 American Community Survey (ACS), the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the California Department of Finance (DOF), and Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data, which are derived from ACS five-year datasets. Employment data was also obtained from the State of California Employment Development Department’s (EDD) Data Library.

Demographic Profile
Population Trends and Characteristics
Housing needs are generally influenced by population and employment trends. This section provides a summary of the changes to the population size, age, and racial composition of the City. Oakley is one of 19 cities in Contra Costa County. The DOF estimates that Contra Costa County’s population in 2020 was 1,153,561. Table 2-1 lists nearby counties and their respective populations.
1144
REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 2-2 CHAPTER 2 | EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
TABLE 2-1: REGIONAL POPULATION TRENDS 2010-2020
County 2010 2020 % Change
Contra Costa County 1,049,025 1,153,561 9.97%
Alameda County 1,510,271 1,682,353 11.39%
Marin County 252,409 262,321 3.93%
Sacramento County 1,418,788 1,585,055 11.72%
San Joaquin County 685,306 779,233 13.71%
Santa Clara County 1,781,642 1,936,259 8.68%
Solano County 413,344 453,491 9.71
Source: United States Census Bureau, 2010 Census; United States Census Bureau, 2020 Census Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171).

The Bay Area is the fifth-largest metropolitan area in the nation and has seen a steady increase in population since 1990, except for a dip during the Great Recession (see Figure 2-1). Many cities in the region, including Oakley, have experienced significant growth in population. Between 2000 and 2020, the population in Oakley increased by 65.74 percent; this rate is much higher than that of the whole region, at 14.8 percent. In the most recent decade (2010-2020), the population in Oakley increased by 19.8 percent.

Oakley had an estimated population of 42,461 people in 2020, which accounts for 3.7 percent of the population in Contra Costa County. Table 2-2 compares Oakley’s population growth trends with those of the County.

Figure 2-1: Regional Population Trends, Oakley, Contra Costa County, and Bay Area, 2000-2020 Notes:
-The data shown on the graph represents population for the jurisdiction, County, and region indexed to the population in the year 2000. The data points represent the relative population growth in each of these geographies relative to their populations in 2000.
-For some jurisdictions, a break may appear between 2009 (estimated data) and 2010 (census count data). DOF uses the decennial census to benchmark subsequent population estimates.

Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package, California Department of Finance, E-5 series. 100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
200020012002200320042005200620072008200920102011201220132014201520162017201820192020 Index (Year %s = Index 100)
Index
Oakley
Index
Contra Costa County
Index
Bay Area
1145
OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 CHAPTER 2 | EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2-3
TABLE 2-2: POPULATION GROWTH, OAKLEY, 2010-2020
Jurisdiction 2010 2020
2010-2020 Growth
Number Percent
Oakley 35,432 42,461 7,029 19.84%
Contra Costa County 1,049,025 1,153,561 104,536 9.97%
Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package, California Department of Finance, E-5 series.

Projected Population Growth
ABAG produces population estimates as part of its program for projecting future growth in the Bay Area region. The projections provide a quantitative basis for how the region will accommodate anticipated growth if local jurisdictions adopt a set of policies consistent with the vision of Plan Bay Area. Table 2-3 displays ABAG’s latest projection, which covers the period between 2020 and 2040.

TABLE 2-3: PROJECTED POPULATION GROWTH,
SANTA CLARA COUNTY JURISDICTIONS, 2020-2040
2020 2030 2040
Percent of
Countywide
Population
(2020)
Percent of
Countywide
Population
(2040)
Percent
Change
2020-2040
Antioch 103,595 112,960 130,725 9% 9% 26%
Brentwood 52,745 60,320 84,460 5% 6% 60%
Clayton 10,630 11,070 11,255 1% 1% 6%
Concord 134,605 177,740 185,850 12% 13% 38%
Danville 44,625 46,450 47,350 4% 3% 6%
El Cerrito 26,845 28,090 29,075 2% 2% 8%
Hercules 25,135 25,885 28,700 2% 2% 14%
Lafayette 24,865 25,635 26,815 2% 2% 8%
Martinez 36,660 38,480 40,035 3% 3% 9%
Moraga 16,560 17,130 18,080 1% 1% 9%
Oakley 35,360 48,450 54,435 3% 4% 54%
Orinda 17,960 18,260 18,745 2% 1% 4%
Pinole 19,615 20,830 21,390 2% 2% 9%
Pittsburg 73,055 75,600 91,615 6% 7% 25%
Pleasant Hill 33,590 35,065 35,925 3% 3% 7%
Richmond 126,385 144,950 164,220 11% 12% 30%
San Pablo 31,555 32,845 34,090 3% 2% 8%
San Ramon 76,485 79,520 84,165 7% 6% 10%
Walnut Creek 69,010 73,915 81,265 6% 6% 18%
Unincorporated 169,375 184,585 199,105 15% 14% 18%
County 1,128,660 1,257,790 1,387,295 100% 100% 23%
Source: Projections 2040 MTC/ABAG; Model estimates from Plan Bay Area 2040 data. Public Estimates from California Department of Finance E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities. 1146
REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 2-4 CHAPTER 2 | EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
According to ABAG, the population in Contra Costa County is projected to increase by 23 percent (or 258,635 people) between 2020 and 2040. Oakley is expected to add 19,075 new residents by 2040, representing the second to largest percent change in population of any City in the County (54 percent).

Age Composition
The distribution of age groups in a city can be telling of what types of housing the community needs or may need in the future. An increase in the older population may mean there is a developing need for more senior housing options, while higher numbers of children and young families can point to the need for more family housing options and related services. There has also been a move by many to age-in-place or downsize to stay within their communities, which can mean more multifamily and accessible units are needed. Figure 2-2 shows the age distribution for Oakley residents as estimated in 2019, and Table 2-4 shows the population distribution by age groups in the City in comparison to the County and the state in 2000, 2010, and 2019.
1147
OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 CHAPTER 2 | EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2-5
Figure 2-2: Population by Age, Oakley, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package, U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 SF1, Table P12; U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 SF1, Table P12; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B01001.

2.2k

5.3k

3.3k

3.6k

5.2k

3.1k

1.5k

0.8k

0.4k

0.1k

2.7k

6.1k

5.5k

4.8k

5.3k

3.2k

1.4k

0.7k

0.2k

3.1k

7.1k

6.3k

5.0k

5.9k

5.6k

4.4k

2.8k

0.8k

0.3k
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000
Age 0-4
Age 5-14
Age 15-24
Age 25-34
Age 35-44
Age 45-54
Age 55-64
Age 65-74
Age 75-84
Age 85+
Population
2019 2010 2000
1148
REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 2-6 CHAPTER 2 | EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
TABLE 2-4: POPULATION BY AGE, OAKLEY, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, AND CALIFORNIA, 2010 AND 2019
Age Group
2010 2019 Percent
Change from
2010-2019 Number Percent of
Total Number Percent of Total
Oakley
Age 0-4 2,674 7.6% 3,149 7.6% 17.76%
Age 5-14 6,131 17.3% 7,068 17.1% 15.2%
Age 15-24 5,534 15.6% 6,292 15.2% 13.7%
Age 25-34 4,816 13.6% 5,027 12.2% 4.4%
Age 35-44 5,333 15.1% 5,858 14.2% 9.8%
Age 45-54 5,343 15.1% 5,648 13.7% 5.7%
Age 55-64 3,210 9.1% 4,445 10.8% 38.5%
Age 65-74 1,447 4.1% 2,782 6.7% 92.3%
Age 75-84 711 2.0% 793 1.9% 11.5%
Age 85+ 233 0.7% 262 0.6% 12.4%
Total 35,432 100% 41,324 100% 16.6%
Median Age 31.8 -- 33.5 -- 5.3%
Contra Costa County
Age 0-4 66,859 7.0% 148,339 6.1% 121.9%
Age 5-14 144,395 15.1% 148,964 13.8% 3.2%
Age 15-24 132,393 13.8% 140,660 13.1% 6.2%
Age 25-34 125,009 13.1% 145,275 13.5% 16.2%
Age 35-44 152,101 15.9% 153,127 14.2% 0.7%
Age 45-54 160,112 16.7% 162,899 15.1% 1.7%
Age 55-64 120,428 12.6% 149,995 13.9% 24.6%
Age 65-74 64,994 6.8% 103,232 9.6% 58.8%
Age 75-84 40,963 4.3% 50,361 4.7% 22.9%
Age 85+ 17,555 1.8% 22,289 2.1% 27.0%
Total 957,950 100% 1,076,802 100% 12.4%
Median Age 38.1 -- 39.7 -- 4.2%
California
Age 0-4 2,545,065 6.9% 2,451,528 6.2% -3.8%
Age 5-14 5,092,471 13.9% 5,043,689 12.8% -1.0%
Age 15-24 5,501,809 15.0% 5,316,737 13.5% -3.4%
Age 25-34 2,698,489 7.4% 5,967,864 15.2% 121.2%
Age 35-44 5,236,909 14.3% 5,205,887 13.3% -0.6%
Age 45-54 5,288,140 14.4% 5,101,422 13.0% -3.5%
Age 55-64 3,764,850 10.3% 4,710,329 12.0% 25.1%
Age 65-74 2,135,547 5.8% 3,172,271 8.1% 48.5%
Age 75-84 1,366,990 3.7% 1,600,241 4.1% 17.1%
Age 85+ 558,059 1.5% 713,529 1.8% 27.9%
Total 36,637,290 100% 39,283,497 100% 7.2%
Median Age 34.9 -- 36.5 -- 4.6%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates (2010-2015; 2015-2019), Table DP05.ofile 1149
OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 CHAPTER 2 | EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2-7
In Oakley, the median age in 2000 was 30. By 2019, this figure had increased to 32.

Between 2000 and 2019, the age groups with the highest increase were people between the ages of 15 to 24 and 55 to 64 (i.e., change of 2,987 and 2,942, respectively).

Overall, the population has skewed older from 2010 to 2019. Persons 65 years of age and over accounted for 6.8 percent of the total population in 2010, but in 2019 they made up

9.3 percent of the total population. Persons 65 to 74 years of age were the fastest growing segment of population in Oakley between 2010 and 2019 with a 92.3 percent change. The population of older adults is projected to continue to grow during the planning period, as many of the “baby boomers” (the large group of people born between 1946 and 1964) will have reached age 65 by 2023. 1150
REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 2-8 CHAPTER 2 | EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Racial and Ethnic Composition
Figure 2-3 shows the breakdown of the population in Oakley by race and ethnicity from 2000-2019. Since 2000, the percentage of residents in Oakley identifying as White, NonHispanic has decreased from 67 percent to 41 percent, while the percentage of residents of all other races and ethnicities combined has increased from 33 percent to 59 percent of the total population. In 2019, the non-White and Hispanic populations combined (31,823 people) made up 77 percent of the overall population. Table 2-5 summarizes the racial and ethnic composition of the population in 2019. In absolute terms, the Hispanic or Latino population increased the most while the American Indian or Alaska Native, NonHispanic population decreased the most.

Figure 2-3: Population by Race and Ethnicity, Oakley, 2000-2019 Notes: Data for 2019 represents 2015-2019 ACS estimates.

The Census Bureau defines Hispanic/Latino ethnicity separate from racial categories. For the purposes of this graph, the “Hispanic or Latino” racial/ethnic group represents those who identify as having Hispanic/Latino ethnicity and may also be members of any racial group. All other racial categories on this graph represent those who identify with that racial category and do not identify with Hispanic/Latino ethnicity.

Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package, U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Table P004; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B03002. 6% 7%
7% 9%
67% 47% 41%
6%
26% 35% 36%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2000 2010 2019
Share of Population
Hispanic or Latinx
Other Race or Multiple Races, Non-Hispanic
White, Non-Hispanic
Black or African American, Non-Hispanic
Asian / API, Non-Hispanic
American Indian or Alaska Native, Non-Hispanic
1151
OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 CHAPTER 2 | EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2-9
TABLE 2-5: RACIAL AND ETHNIC COMPOSITION, OAKLEY, 2019
Racial/Ethnic Group
2019
Number Percent of Population
White, Non-Hispanic 17,021 41.19%
Black or African American, Non-Hispanic 3,716 8.99%
American Indian or Alaska Native, Non-Hispanic 184 0.45% Asian or Asian Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 3,073 7.44% Other race or Multiple Races, Non-Hispanic 2,528 6.12%
Hispanic or Latino1 14,802 35.82%
Total 41,324 100.0%
Notes:
1 May be of any race. Figures in other rows reflect the population that is not Hispanic or Latino. 2 The “Population of two or more races” category has been added in the 2000 U.S. Census. Data may not be comparable.

Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package, U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015- 2019), Table B03002.

Senior and Youth Population by Race
Looking at the senior and youth population by race can add an additional layer of understanding, as families and seniors of color are even more likely to experience challenges finding affordable housing. People of color, or all non-White racial groups, make up 22.1 percent of seniors and 54.2 percent of youth under 18 (see Figure 2-4). 1152
REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 2-10 CHAPTER 2 | EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Figure 2-4: Senior and Youth Population by Race, Oakley, 2019* Notes: In the sources for this table, the Census Bureau does not disaggregate racial groups by Hispanic/Latino ethnicity, and an overlapping category of Hispanic / non-Hispanic groups has not been shown to avoid double counting in the stacked bar chart.

Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package, U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B01001(A-G).

Non-English Speakers
California has long been an immigration gateway to the United States, which means that many languages are spoken throughout the Bay Area. Since learning a new language is universally challenging, it is not uncommon for residents who have immigrated to the United States to have limited English proficiency. This limit can lead to additional disparities if there is a disruption in housing, such as an eviction or other tenant-landlord dispute. In Oakley, 4.1 percent of residents 5 years and older identify as speaking English not well or not at all, which is below the proportion for Contra Costa County as a whole.

Throughout the Bay Area region the proportion of residents 5 years and older with limited English proficiency is 8 percent.
8% 11%
13% 9% 5%
37%
23%
46%
59%
78%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Age 0-17 Age 18-64 Age 65+
Population
White (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic)
Other Race or Multiple Races (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic) Black or African American (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic)
Asian / API (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic)
American Indian or Alaska Native (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic) 1153
OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 CHAPTER 2 | EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2-11
Employment Trends
Housing needs are influenced by employment trends. Significant employment opportunities within a city can lead to growth in demand for housing in proximity to jobs.

The quality and/or pay of available employment can influence the demand for various housing types and prices.

As shown in Table 2-6, in 2019, 32.8 percent of Oakley residents were employed in health and educational services; 15.2 percent were employed in financial and professional services; 15 percent were employed in manufacturing, wholesale, and transportation;

13.4 percent were employed in the retail trade; and 12.1 percent were employed in construction. By comparison, 31.3 percent of the overall County residents were employed in health and education services; 24.7 percent were employed in financial and professional services; 14.3 percent were employed in manufacturing, wholesale, and transportation; and 10.1 percent were employed in retail trade. Compared to the County, a larger share of Oakley residents are employed in construction and retail, which tend to be relatively lower paying jobs, and a smaller share of residents are employed in financial and professional services, which tend to be higher paying.

TABLE 2-6: EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY, OAKLEY, 2019
Industry
Oakley Contra Costa County
Employees % Employees %
Agriculture and Natural Resources 251 1.3% 3,720 0.7%
Construction 2,422 12.1% 39,996 7.2%
Manufacturing, Wholesale, and Transportation 2,988 15% 79,885 14.3% Retail 2,665 13.4% 56,651 10.1%
Information 189 1% 14,048 2.5%
Financial and Professional Services 3,029 15.2% 138,321 24.7% Health and Educational Services 6,540 32.8% 174,990 31.3% Other 1,866 9.4% 51,755 9.3%
Total 19,950 100% 559,366 100%
Notes: The data displayed shows the industries in which jurisdiction residents work, regardless of the location where those residents are employed (whether within the jurisdiction or not).

Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package, U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015- 2019), Table C24030.

Balance of Jobs and Housing
A city houses employed residents who either work in the community where they live or work elsewhere in the region. Smaller cities typically will have more employed residents than jobs and therefore “export” workers, while larger cities tend to have a surplus of jobs and “import” workers. The Bay Area region has some of the largest and fastest growing job centers in the state. To some extent the regional transportation system is set up for this flow of workers to the region’s core job centers, but balances between jobs and workers may directly influence the housing demand in a community. 1154
REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 2-12 CHAPTER 2 | EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
New jobs may draw new residents, and when there is high demand for housing relative to supply, many workers may be unable to afford to live where they work, particularly where job growth has been in relatively lower wage jobs. This dynamic not only means many workers will need to prepare for long commutes and time spent on the road, but in the aggregate, it contributes to traffic congestion and time lost for all road users.

Oakley is considered a “bedroom community” because the majority of people living in Oakley commute to other areas for work. As of 2018, there were 19,170 employed residents and 4,732 jobs in Oakley. The ratio of jobs to resident workers in Oakley was

0.25; therefore, the City can be considered a “net exporter” of workers.

Figure 2-5 shows the balance when comparing jobs to workers, broken down by different wage groups, offering additional insight into local dynamics. A community may offer employment for relatively low-income workers but have relatively few housing options for those workers, or conversely, it may house residents who are low wage workers but offer few employment opportunities for them. Such relationships may cast extra light on potentially pent-up demand for housing in particular price categories. A relative surplus of jobs relative to residents in a given wage category suggests the need to import those workers, while conversely, surpluses of workers in a wage group relative to jobs means the community will export those workers to other jurisdictions. Such flows are not inherently bad, though over time, sub-regional imbalances may appear. Oakley has more low-wage residents than low-wage jobs (where low-wage refers to jobs paying less than $25,000). At the other end of the wage spectrum, the City has more high-wage residents than high-wage jobs (where high-wage refers to jobs paying more than $75,000). 1155
OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 CHAPTER 2 | EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2-13
Figure 2-5: Workers by Earnings, by Jurisdiction as Place of Work and Place of Residence, Oakley, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package, U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data 2015-2019, B08119, B08519.

The jobs-household ratio compares the number of jobs in a jurisdiction to the number of households. A ratio of 1.0 means there are equal number of jobs and households. The jobs-household ratio in Oakley has remained at around 0.33 from 2002 to 2018 (see Figure 2-6), whereas countywide the ratio is closer to 1.0 and in the Bay Area region the jobs-household ratio is nearly 1.5. 2.3k3.0k

4.3k

3.5k

6.1k

1.1k

1.2k

0.9k

0.7k

0.9k
0 1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
Less than
$9,999
$10,000 to
$24,999
$25,000 to
$49,999
$50,000 to
$74,999
$75,000 or
more
Worker Population
Wage Group
Place of Residence Place of Work
1156
REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 2-14 CHAPTER 2 | EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Figure 2-6: Jobs-Household Ratio, Oakley, Contra Costa County, and Bay Area 2002-2018 Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package, U.S. Census Bureau, Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, Workplace Area Characteristics (WAC) files (Jobs), 2002-2018; California Department of Finance, E-5 (Households).

Unemployment
As shown in Figure 2-7, between January 2010 and January 2020 unemployment in Oakley decreased from 14 to 6 percent. Jurisdictions throughout the region experienced a sharp rise in unemployment in 2020 due to impacts related to the COVID-19 pandemic, though with a general improvement and recovery in the later months of 2020. By January 2021, the unemployment rate in Oakley was 9.5 percent.

0.20 0.40

0.60 0.80

1.00 1.20

1.40 1.60
Ratio
Oakley Contra Costa County Bay Area
1157
OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 CHAPTER 2 | EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2-15
Figure 2-7: Average Unemployment Rates, Oakley, Contra Costa County, and Bay Area, 2010-2021 Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package, California Employment Development Department, Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS), Sub-county areas monthly updates, 2010-2021. 0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
20%
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Percent of Labor Force that is Unemployed
Oakley Contra Costa County Bay Area
1158
REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 2-16 CHAPTER 2 | EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Projected Job Growth
According to the ABAG 2040 Projections, the number of jobs in Contra Costa County is projected to increase from 414,290 in 2020 to 498,115 in 2040, an increase of 20 percent. In Oakley, the total number of jobs is projected to increase by 66 percent, the highest of any jurisdiction, with most of the growth anticipated between 2030 and 2040 (see Table 2-7).

TABLE 2-7: TOTAL PROJECTED JOB GROWTH, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 2020-2040 2020 2030 2040
Percent
Change
2020-2030
Percent
Change
2030-2040
Percent
Change
2020-2040
Antioch 21,830 23,655 25,745 8% 9% 18%
Brentwood 10,870 11,525 11,990 6% 4% 10%
Clayton 2,110 2,130 2,095 1% -2% -1%
Concord 64,550 87,870 95,455 36% 9% 48%
Danville 13,065 13,115 13,120 0.4% 0.4% 0.4%
El Cerrito 5,580 5,805 5,910 4% 2% 6%
Hercules 5,280 5,500 5,420 4% -1% 3%
Lafayette 10,450 10,205 9,940 -2% -3% -5%
Martinez 24,845 25,645 26,085 3% 2% 5%
Moraga 5,630 5,695 5,725 1% 1% 2%
Oakley 3,230 3,660 5,365 13% 47% 66%
Orinda 5,495 5,505 5,500 .2% -0.1% 0.1%
Pinole 7,950 8,300 8,485 4% 2% 7%
Pittsburg 13,330 14,675 15,615 10% 6% 17%
Pleasant Hill 19,180 19,545 19,800 2% 1% 3%
Richmond 42,685 52,920 61,815 24% 17% 45%
San Pablo 8,370 8,895 9,100 6% 2% 9%
San Ramon 53,850 55,330 71,775 3% 30% 33%
Walnut Creek 57,520 58,380 58,090 1% -0.5% 1%
Unincorporated 38,460 39,895 41,085 4% 3% 7%
County 414,290 458,255 498,115 11% 9% 20%
Source: Projections 2040 MTC/ABAG; Data downloaded 2022.

Household Characteristics
This section describes Oakley’s household characteristics. The U.S. Census Bureau defines a “household” as all persons living in a single housing unit, whether or not they are related. For the purpose of the data presented in this section, families are a type of household and include people related by blood, marriage, or adoption who live together.

A single person living alone is also a household. “Other” types of households are 1159
OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 CHAPTER 2 | EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2-17
unrelated people residing in the same dwelling unit. People living in group quarters, such as dormitories or convalescent homes, are not counted as households.

Households by Type
As shown in Figure 2-8 below, the largest proportion of households in Oakley is marriedcouple family households at 67 percent of total households, which is higher than the percentage of married-couple households countywide (55 percent) and within the Bay Area (51 percent). Oakley has a lower proportion of single-person households (14 percent) in comparison to the County (22 percent) and the Bay Area (25 percent).

Female-headed family households make up about 11 percent of all households in Oakley, similar to the percentage of female-headed households countywide (12 percent) and in the Bay Area (10 percent).

Figure 2-8: Households by Type, Oakley, 2019
Notes: For data from the Census Bureau, a “family household” is a household where two or more people are related by birth, marriage, or adoption. “Non-family households” are households of one person living alone, as well as households where none of the people are related to each other.

Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package, U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B11001.
11% 12% 10%
5% 5% 5%
67%
55%
51%
6%
9%
14%
22% 25%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%
100.0%
Oakley Contra Costa County Bay Area
Percent of Households
Female-Headed Family Households Male-headed Family Households Married-couple Family Households Other Non-Family Households Single-person Households
1160
REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 2-18 CHAPTER 2 | EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Housing Tenure
In Oakley there are a total of 11,778 households and more residents own than rent their homes: 76.3 percent versus 23.7 percent (see Figure 2-9). Homeownership rates in the City have decreased since 2000 when the homeownership rate in Oakley was 85 percent.

By comparison, 66 percent of Contra Costa County and 56 percent of Bay Area households own their home.

Figure 2-9: Housing Tenure, Oakley, Contra Costa County, and the Bay Area, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package, U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25003.

Housing Tenure by Race and Ethnicity
Homeownership rates often vary considerably across race/ethnicity in the Bay Area and throughout the country. These disparities not only reflect differences in income and wealth but also stem from federal, state, and local policies that limited access to homeownership for communities of color while facilitating homebuying for white residents. While many of these policies, such as redlining, have been formally disbanded, the impacts of race-based policies are still evident across Bay Area communities. In Oakley, 62 percent of Black households and 65 percent of Latino households owned their homes in 2019, compared to 82 percent of Non-Hispanic white households (see Figure 2-10). 76%
66%
56%
24%
34%
44%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%
100.0%
Oakley Contra Costa County Bay Area
Percent of Households
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
1161
OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 CHAPTER 2 | EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2-19
Figure 2-10: Housing Tenure by Race*, Oakley, 2019
Notes: For this table, the Census Bureau does not disaggregate racial groups by Hispanic/Latino ethnicity. However, data for the white racial group is also reported for white householders who are not Hispanic/Latino. Since residents who identify as white and Hispanic/Latino may have very different experiences within the housing market and the economy from those who identify as white and non-Hispanic/Latino, data for multiple white sub-groups are reported here.

Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package, U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25003(A-I).

Housing Tenure by Age
The age of residents who rent or own their home can also signal the housing challenges a community is experiencing. Younger households tend to rent and may struggle to buy a first home in the Bay Area due to high housing costs. At the same time, senior homeowners seeking to downsize may have limited options in an expensive housing market. In Oakley, 30.4 percent of householders between the ages of 25 and 44 are renters, compared to 19.4 percent of householders over 65 who rent (see Figure 2-11). 115736 653 2,112 1,263 6,215 5,113 753941,153 6851,642 1,136 0 1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
Households
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
1162
REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 2-20 CHAPTER 2 | EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Figure 2-11: Housing Tenure by Age, Oakley, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package, U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25007.

Housing Tenure by Housing Type
In most cities, homeownership rates for single-family homes are substantially higher than the rates for multi-family housing. In Oakley, 82.6 percent of households in detached single-family houses and 100 percent in attached single-family houses are homeowners, while only 4.9 percent of households in multi-family housing are homeowners (see Figure 2-12).
43%
66% 72%
80% 86% 82% 80% 86%
64%
57%
34% 28%
20% 14% 18% 20% 14%
36%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Age
15-24
Age
25-34
Age
35-44
Age
45-54
Age
55-59
Age
60-64
Age
65-74
Age
75-84
Age
85+
Percent of Households
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
1163
OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 CHAPTER 2 | EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2-21
Figure 2-12: Housing Tenure by Housing Type, Oakley, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package, U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25032.

Household Income Characteristics
Household income is the most important factor affecting housing opportunity, as it determines a household’s ability to afford its preferred type and location of housing, and to balance housing costs with other basic needs. Income levels can vary considerably among households based on age, number of workers per household, education level, type of employment, and race and ethnicity, among other factors.

Household income levels include the categories extremely low-, very low-, low-, moderate-, and above-moderate income. The parameters of the target income categories are determined in relation to the area median income (AMI) for Contra Costa County, adjusted by household size. The standard income definition of income categories used by the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is provided in Table 2-8.

TABLE 2-8: INCOME LEVEL DEFINITIONS
Extremely Low < 30 % of the Contra Costa County AMI
Very Low 50-31 % of the Contra Costa County AMI
Low 51-80 % of the Contra Costa County AMI
Moderate 81-120 % of the Contra Costa County AMI
Above Moderate >121 % of the Contra Costa County AMI
AMI = Area Median Income
Contra Costa County 2022 Area Median Income (AMI) = $142,800 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development, 2022. 83%
100%
59%
100%
17%
95%
41%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Detached
Single-Family
Homes
Attached
Single-Family
Homes
Multi-Family
Housing
Mobile
Homes
Boat, RV,
Van, or
Other
Percent of Households
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
1164
REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 2-22 CHAPTER 2 | EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Table 2-9 shows the 2022 HCD income limits for Contra Costa County. The AMI for a fourperson household in the County was $142,800 in 2022. Income limits for larger or smaller households are higher or lower, respectively, and are calculated using a formula developed by HUD.

TABLE 2-9: HUD/HCD INCOME LIMITS BASED ON PERSONS PER HOUSEHOLD, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, 2022
Income Categories
Persons per Household
1 2 3 4 5
Extremely Low (30% AMI and lower) $30,000 $34,300 $38,600 $42,850 $46,300 Very Low Income (31-50% AMI) $50,000 $57,150 $64,300 $71,400 $77,150 Low Income (51-80% AMI) $76,750 $87,700 $98,650 $109,600 $118,400 Median Income (100% AMI) $99,950 $114,250 $128,500 $142,800 $154,200 Moderate Income (81-120% AMI) $119,950 $137,100 $154,200 $171,350 $185,050 Source: CA Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), 2022.

Household Income by Tenure
Throughout the region, there are disparities between the incomes of homeowners and renters. Typically, the number of low-income renters greatly outpaces the amount of available housing that is affordable for these households. As shown in Figure 2-13, in Oakley the largest proportion of renters falls in the 0 percent to 30 percent of AMI income group, while the largest proportion of homeowners is in the Greater than 100 percent of AMI group.
1165
OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 CHAPTER 2 | EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2-23
Figure 2-13: Household Income Level by Tenure, Oakley, 2017 Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release.

Overcrowding
Overcrowding occurs when the number of people living in a household is greater than the home was designed to hold. There are several different standards for defining overcrowding, but this report uses the Census Bureau definition, which is more than one occupant per room (not including bathrooms or kitchens). Additionally, the Census Bureau considers units with more than 1.5 occupants per room to be severely overcrowded.

Overcrowding is often related to the cost of housing and can occur when demand in a city or region is high. In many cities, overcrowding is seen more amongst those that are renting, with multiple households sharing a unit to make it possible to stay in their communities. In Oakley, 6.6 percent of renters experience moderate overcrowding and

8.3 percent are severely overcrowded. In comparison, 1.5 percent of homeowners experience moderate overcrowding and 0.9 percent are severely overcrowded (see Figure 2-14). The overall rates of overcrowding are similar between Oakley, Contra Costa County, and the Bay Area region. The percent of overcrowded households range from 3 to 4 percent, and the percent of severely overcrowded households ranges from 2 to 3 percent across the City, County, and region. 670870
985
794
5,460
870
580
420
220
800
0 1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
0%-30% of
AMI
31%-50% of
AMI
51%-80% of
AMI
81%-100% of
AMI
Greater than
100% of AMI
Households
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
1166
REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 2-24 CHAPTER 2 | EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Figure 2-14: Overcrowding by Tenure, Oakley, 2017
Notes:
-The Census Bureau defines an overcrowded unit as one occupied by 1.01 persons or more per room (excluding bathrooms and kitchens), and units with more than 1.5 persons per room are considered severely overcrowded.

Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release.

Overcrowding often disproportionately impacts lower-income households. In Oakley 3.0 percent of low-income households (51 percent and 80 percent AMI) experience severe overcrowding and 8.0 percent of very low-income households (31 to 50 percent AMI) experience severe overcrowding (see Figure 2-15). These data may indicate a shortage of rental units that are large enough to accommodate larger households, and potentially indicates that some renters are living in overcrowded conditions in order to be able to afford housing.

1.5%

6.6%

0.9%

8.3%

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

7.0%

8.0%

9.0%
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
Percent of Households

1.0 to 1.5 Occupants per Room More than 1.5 Occupants per Room 1167
OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 CHAPTER 2 | EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2-25
Figure 2-15: Overcrowding by Income Level, Oakley, 2017 Notes: The Census Bureau defines an overcrowded unit as one occupied by 1.01 persons or more per room (excluding bathrooms and kitchens), and units with more than 1.5 persons per room are considered severely overcrowded.

Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release.

Special Needs Populations
State law recognizes that certain households have more difficulty finding decent and affordable housing due to special circumstances. Special needs populations include specific demographic or occupational groups that call for specific program responses.

These groups often spend a disproportionate amount of their income on housing and can often experience discrimination based on their specific needs or circumstances.

The state requires that housing elements address several different special needs groups, including, extremely low-income households, senior households, persons with disabilities, large families of five or more, female-headed households, people experiencing homelessness, and farmworkers.

Extremely Low-Income Households
Extremely low-income (ELI) households are defined as households earning 30 percent or less of the AMI. ELI households typically consist of minimum wage workers, seniors on fixed incomes, and persons with disabilities. In Oakley, a four-person household with an income of $42,850 or less in 2022 is considered as an extremely low-income household. 5%
2% 2% 2%
1%
8%
3%
1%

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

7.0%

8.0%

9.0%
0%-30% of
AMI
31%-50% of
AMI
51%-80% of
AMI
81%-100% of
AMI
Greater than
100% of AMI
Percent of Households

1.0 to 1.5 Occupants per Room More than 1.5 Occupants per Room 1168
REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 2-26 CHAPTER 2 | EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
According to HUD’s 2014-2018 CHAS data, 1,410 households in Oakley (12 percent of total households) were ELI households. Most ELI households (61 percent) rent their homes. This income group is likely to live in overcrowded and substandard housing conditions. Regardless of tenure, 80 percent of ELI households in Oakley experience at least one housing problem, such as overpayment, overcrowding, and/or severe structural dilapidation (see Table 2-10). An estimated 79 percent of ELI households are costburdened, meaning they paid more than 30 percent of their income for housing, and 57 percent paid more than 50 percent of their income on housing, making them severely cost burdened.

TABLE 2-10: HOUSING NEEDS FOR EXTREMELY LOW-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS, OAKLEY, 2018 Renters Owners Total
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Total Number of ELI Households 855 61% 555 39% 1,410 100% ELI Households with Cost
Burden (paying more than
30% income on housing)
695 81% 420 76% 1,115 79%
ELI Households with Severe
Cost Burden (paying more than
50% of income on housing)
550 64% 255 46% 805 57%
ELI Households with at least one
Housing Problem 710 83% 420 76% 1,130 80%
Source: HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), 2014-2018.

To calculate the projected housing needs for ELI households, the City assumed that 50 percent of the very low-income housing need (see Regional Housing Needs Allocation Section for more details) is equal to the ELI housing need. As such, there is a projected need for 139 ELI housing units during the planning period.

Housing types to accommodate the needs of extremely low-income households include transitional and supportive housing, single room occupancy units (SROs), deeply subsidized affordable multi-family rental housing, and mobile homes. Housing choice vouchers are also an important source of funding for ELI households.

Senior Households
Senior households, defined as households headed by someone 65 or older, often experience a combination of factors that can make accessing or keeping affordable housing a challenge. Many seniors live on fixed incomes and are more likely to have disabilities, chronic health conditions, and/or reduced mobility.

Persons 65 years and older made up 9.3 percent of the total population in 2019.

Projections from the California DOF estimate that the population aged 65 and older in Contra Costa County will increase from approximately 196,558 in 2019 to approximately 348,017 in 2040, a 77 percent increase. Some of this growth in Contra Costa County’s older adult population is likely to impact housing demand and needs within the City. 1169
OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 CHAPTER 2 | EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2-27
Higher homeownership rates among the senior population indicates a need for programs to help seniors in Oakley age in place. It could also indicate a need for smaller homes to allow seniors to downsize.

Seniors who rent may be at even greater risk for housing challenges than those who own, due to income differences between these groups. The largest proportion of senior households who rent are extremely low income (below 30 percent of the AMI) while the largest proportion of senior households who are homeowners make more than 100 percent of the AMI (see Figure 2-16).

Figure 2-16: Senior Households by Income and Tenure, Oakley, 2017 Note: For the purposes of this graph, senior households are those with a householder who is aged 62 or older.

Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017.

Most seniors experience some changes in their housing needs as they age, though the degree to which housing needs change and the type of changes that seniors need as they age vary substantially from one individual to the next. Common needs include the following:
⚫ Accessibility Improvements. Many individuals develop a need for physical adaptations to the homes that they live in, such as entry ramps or shower grab bars, to improve accessibility and accommodate new physical limitations. ⚫ Access to Transit. For many seniors, having access to public transportation and other services becomes more important as they age due to decreased mobility or increased difficulty with driving.
41%
76% 77% 77%
90%
59%
24% 23% 23%
10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0%-30% of
AMI
31%-50% of
AMI
51%-80% of
AMI
81%-100% of
AMI
Greater than
100% of AMI
Percent of Households
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
1170
REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 2-28 CHAPTER 2 | EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
⚫ Financial Assistance. Seniors with low incomes may need financial assistance to afford rent, property taxes, mortgage payments, or home repairs. ⚫ Long-Term Care. Seniors with more serious medical needs or physical limitations may require in-home care as they age.

There are a range of potential living arrangements that seniors may seek out as their housing needs change with age, depending on their specific needs, financial resources, and other factors. These can include remaining in their own homes, potentially with adaptability features or financial assistance; independent living for seniors, which may be market-rate or affordable; and various types of assisted living and skilled nursing facilities with services on-site.

Existing Resources for Elderly Residents
Oakley’s affordable senior housing and residential care homes for the elderly, which provide varying levels of living assistance to persons 60 years of age and older, include:
⚫ Twin Oaks Senior Apartments (2605 Main Street);
⚫ Spyglass Senior Villa 2 (75 Bottlebrush Court);
⚫ Spyglass Senior Villa 1 (39 Calla Court);
⚫ Button’s Elderly Care (1448 buttons Court);
⚫ Vita (4012 Blacksmith Circle);
⚫ Teresa’s Quality Comfort Care (1786 Concannon Drive); ⚫ Cicada-Laurel (2145 Connie Lane);
⚫ Delta Residential-Magnolia Park (32 Calla Court);
⚫ Lee Family Care Home #4 (18 Brooks Court);
⚫ Silver Crest Homecare (204 Chaps Court);
⚫ Isabella Caring Hands (1684 Fernwood Drive);
⚫ two H.E.R Residential Care Homes (152 & 156 Meadow Brook Court); ⚫ Trust Painter’s Love Joy Rest Home (171 Douglas Road); ⚫ Foster Residential Care (4745 La Vista Drive); and
⚫ Golden Shepherd’s Home III (65 Drywood Court).

Additionally, the Oakley Seniors Club operates the Oakley Senior Center located at 215 Second Street.

Large Households
Large households, defined as households with five or more members, often have different housing needs than smaller households. If a city’s rental housing stock does not include larger apartments, large households who rent could end up living in overcrowded conditions. About 24 percent of all households in Oakley have 5 or more members (approximately 2,762 households). Most of these households (68.7 percent) are owner 1171
OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 CHAPTER 2 | EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2-29
occupied (see Figure 2-17), however, the rate of homeownership among large households is lower than the citywide rate of homeownership (76.3 percent). In 2017,

24.2 percent of large households were very low-income, earning less than 50 percent of the area median income (AMI).

Large families are generally served by housing units with 3 or more bedrooms, of which there are 10,328 units in Oakley (87.7 percent of the housing stock). Among these large units with 3 or more bedrooms, 82.2 percent are owner occupied and 17.8 percent are renter occupied (see Figure 2-18).

Figure 2-17: Household Size by Tenure, Oakley, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package, U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25009. 990
2,360
2,138
1,596
1,898
712
322
407
491
864
0 500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
1 Person
Household
2 Person
Household
3 Person
Household
4 Person
Household
5 Or More
Person
Household
Households
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
1172
REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 2-30 CHAPTER 2 | EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Figure 2-18: Housing Units by Number of Bedrooms, Oakley, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package, U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25042.

Female-Headed Households
Female-headed households with children in particular tend to have lower incomes than two-parent families, which limits their housing options and access to private services such as nursery schools, day care, and recreational activities for their children. The 2019 Census reported 1,321 female-headed households in Oakley, 11.3 percent of all households.

Female-headed households with children may face particular housing challenges, with pervasive gender inequality resulting in lower wages for women. In addition, femaleheaded households may encounter subtle forms of housing discrimination, including being denied opportunities to rent because of their familial status or being treated less courteously than renters without children. Moreover, the added need for childcare can make finding a home that is affordable more challenging. In Oakley, 23.1 percent of female-headed households with children fall below the 2019 Federal Poverty Line ($21,330 for a household of three), while 2.9 percent of female-headed households without children live below the Federal Poverty Line ($12,490) in poverty (see Figure 2-19).

The Contra Costa Housing Authority offers a Family Self-Sufficiency program for Housing Choice Voucher participants to help low-income, single parents achieve economic independence from governmental assistance. Through public and private agency participation, beneficiaries have access to resources such as housing subsidies, childcare, education, job training, transportation, and a variety of other benefits. The Workforce Development Board of Contra Costa County also offers free career development and job- 60102331 7,028 1,461 512 445 1,743 96 0 1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
0 Bedrooms 1 Bedrooms 2 Bedrooms 3-4
Bedrooms
5 Or More
Bedrooms
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
1173
OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 CHAPTER 2 | EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2-31
seeking assistance and training that may be accessed by lower-income women.

Additionally, the Latina Center, AAPI Coalition, Monument Impact, and LISC Partner Network Hotline provide services to assist low-income residents, including femaleheaded households in workforce development and housing assistance.

Figure 2-19: Female-Headed Households by Poverty Status, Oakley, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package, U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B17012.

Persons with Disabilities
A disability is defined as a long-lasting condition that impairs an individual’s mobility, ability to work, or ability to perform self-care. Persons with disabilities include those with physical, mental, developmental, or emotional disabilities. Severely disabled people often have special housing needs because they often have limited incomes, there is a shortage of affordable and/or accessible housing, or they may have higher health care costs due to their disability. The U.S. Census Bureau provides information on the number of persons, including the elderly, with disabilities of varying types and degrees. The types of disabilities included in the Census are:
⚫ Sensory: Blindness, deafness, or a severe vision or hearing impairment. ⚫ Physical: A condition that substantially limits one or more basic physical activities, such as walking, climbing stairs, reaching, lifting, or carrying. ⚫ Mental: A condition lasting six months or more that makes it difficult to perform certain activities including learning, remembering, or concentrating. 700
399
210
12 0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
with Children with No Children
Households
Above Poverty Level Below Poverty Level
1174
REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 2-32 CHAPTER 2 | EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
⚫ Self-care: A condition lasting six months or more that make it difficult to perform certain activities including dressing, bathing, or getting around inside the home. ⚫ Go-outside-home: Only asked for population 16 and older; a condition lasting six months or more that make it difficult to perform certain activities including going outside the home alone to shop or visit a doctor's office. ⚫ Employment: Only asked for the population aged 16 to 64; a condition lasting six months or more that make it difficult to perform certain activities including working at a job or business.

People with disabilities face additional housing challenges. Encompassing a broad group of individuals living with a variety of physical, cognitive, and sensory impairments, many people with disabilities live on fixed incomes and need specialized care, yet often rely on family members for assistance due to the high cost of care.

When it comes to housing, people with disabilities are not only in need of affordable housing but accessibly designed housing, which offers greater mobility and opportunity for independence. Unfortunately, the need typically outweighs what is available, particularly in a housing market with such high demand. People with disabilities are at a high risk for housing insecurity, homelessness, and institutionalization, particularly when they lose aging caregivers. Figure 2-20 shows the rates at which different disabilities are present among residents of Oakley. Overall, 10.7 percent of people in Oakley have a disability of any kind.

Figure 2-20: Disability by Type, Oakley, 2019
Notes: These disabilities are counted separately and are not mutually exclusive, as an individual may report more than one disability. These counts should not be summed.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B18102, Table B18103, Table B18104, Table B18105, Table B18106, Table B18107.

4.54%

4.22%

3.66%

2.93%

1.79% 1.72%

0.00%

0.50%

1.00%

1.50%

2.00%

2.50%

3.00%

3.50%

4.00%

4.50%

5.00%
With an
ambulatory
difficulty
With a
cognitive
difficulty
With an
independent
living difficulty
With a vision
difficulty
With a selfcare difficultyWith a
hearing
difficulty
Proportion of Adult Population
Reporting Disability Type
1175
OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 CHAPTER 2 | EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2-33
Persons with Developmental Disabilities
State law also requires Housing Elements to examine the housing needs of people with developmental disabilities. Developmental disabilities are defined as severe, chronic, and attributed to a mental or physical impairment that begins before a person turns 18 years old. This can include Down’s Syndrome, autism, epilepsy, cerebral palsy, and mild to severe mental retardation. Some people with developmental disabilities are unable to work, rely on Supplemental Security Income, and live with family members. In addition to their specific housing needs, they are at increased risk of housing insecurity after an aging parent or family member is no longer able to care for them.

According to data from the California Department of Developmental Services, 535 residents in Oakley had a developmental disability in 2020. Of the population with a developmental disability, children under the age of 18 make up 43.7 percent (or 301 individuals), while adults account for 56.3 percent (or 234 individuals). The most common living arrangement for individuals with developmental disabilities in Oakley is the home of parent/family/guardian (see Table 2-11).

TABLE 2-11: POPULATION WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES BY TYPE OF RESIDENCE, OAKLEY, 2020
Residence Type Number of
Individuals Percent of Total
Home of Parent /Family /Guardian 361 67.5%
Community Care Facility 100 18.7%
Independent /Supported Living 34 6.4%
Intermediate Care Facility 25 4.7%
Foster /Family Home 15 2.8%
Other 0 0.0%
Totals 535 100%
Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package, California Department of Developmental Services, Consumer Count by California ZIP Code and Residence Type (2020).

The type of housing that is suitable for persons with development disabilities varies substantially based on the nature and extent of the disability. Because households that include people with developmental disabilities are disproportionately lower income, many persons with developmental disabilities need affordable housing options. Some individuals with developmental disabilities may be best served in housing with supportive services that can help them live independently or with licensed care. Design of accessibility modifications, proximity to services and transit, availability of group living opportunities, and affordability are some common considerations that are important for serving this need group. Incorporating “barrier-free” design in all new multi-family housing (as required by California and Federal Fair Housing laws) is especially important to provide the widest range of choices for residents with disabilities.

The California Department of Developmental Services provides community-based services to individuals with developmental disabilities and their families through a statewide system of 21 regional centers, four developmental centers, and two 1176
REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 2-34 CHAPTER 2 | EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
community-based facilities. The City of Oakley, along with other jurisdictions in Contra Costa County, is serviced by the Regional Center of the East Bay, which provides a point of entry to services for people with developmental disabilities. Additionally, the Mainstream Voucher Program offers Housing Choice Voucher rental assistance to nonelderly persons with a disability through funding provided by HUD.

People Experiencing Homelessness
Homelessness remains an urgent challenge in many communities across the state, reflecting a range of social, economic, and psychological factors. Rising housing costs result in increased risks of community members experiencing homelessness. Far too many residents who have found themselves housing insecure have ended up unhoused in recent years, either temporarily or longer term.

In January 2020, Contra Costa County’s Homeless Continuum of Care, with the help of County agencies and community volunteers, conducted a Point in Time count to assess the size of the homeless population. The Point in Time Count found a total of 2,277 persons experiencing homelessness countywide in January 2020, a 4 percent decrease from 2,295 unhoused residents in 2019; however, a 12 percent increase from 2,030 unhoused residents in 2015.

Of the 2,277 individuals experiencing homelessness in Contra Costa County, 1,570 were unsheltered, staying in places that are not designed or fit for human habitation, and 707 were sheltered. The 2020 Point in Time count identified 50 unsheltered individuals in Oakley. Based on this count, the City has a need to provide shelter for up to 50 homeless persons. Housing Element Chapter 6: Constraints, describes how the City accommodates emergency shelters through appropriate zoning.

Nearly 32 percent of total Point in Time survey respondents were chronically homeless.

Financial hardship was the leading primary cause of homelessness (25 percent), followed by evictions (17 percent), and substance abuse (14 percent).

Addressing the specific housing needs for the unhoused population remains a priority throughout the region, particularly since homelessness is disproportionately experienced by people of color, people with disabilities, those struggling with addiction, and those dealing with traumatic life circumstances. In Contra Costa County, the most common type of household experiencing homelessness is those without children in their care.

Among households experiencing homelessness that do not have children, 75.9 percent are unsheltered. Of homeless households with children, most are sheltered in emergency shelter (see Figure 2-21).

Many of those experiencing homelessness are dealing with severe issues – including mental illness, substance abuse and domestic violence – that are potentially life threatening and require additional assistance. In Contra Costa County, homeless individuals are commonly challenged by severe mental illness, with 519 reporting this condition (see Figure 2-22). Of those, some 70.1 percent are unsheltered, further adding to the challenge of addressing the issue.
1177
OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 CHAPTER 2 | EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2-35
Figure 2-21: Homelessness and Shelter Status, Contra Costa County, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Continuum of Care (CoC) Homeless Populations and Subpopulations Reports (2019).

Figure 2-22: Characteristics of the Population Experiencing Homelessness, Contra Costa County, 2019
Notes: These challenges/characteristics are counted separately and are not mutually exclusive, as an individual may report more than one challenge/characteristic. These counts should not be summed.

Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Continuum of Care (CoC) Homeless Populations and Subpopulations Reports (2019).

Racial Demographics of the Unhoused Population
People of color are more likely to experience poverty and financial instability as a result of federal and local housing policies that have historically excluded them from the same opportunities extended to white residents. Consequently, people of color are often disproportionately impacted by homelessness, particularly Black residents of the Bay

49.8%

10.0%

40.1%

18.2%

6.0%

75.9%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Sheltered - Emergency
Shelter
Sheltered - Transitional
Housing
Unsheltered
People in Households with Adults and Children
People in Households without Children Under 18

17.4%

44.4%

24.7%

21.9%

24.6%

6.3%

11.1%

5.2%

12.3%

5.3%

76.3%

44.4%

70.1%

65.8%

70.2%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Chronic
Substance
Abuse
HIV/AIDS Severely
Mentally Ill
Veterans Victims of
Domestic
Violence
Percent of Homeless Population
Sheltered - Emergency Shelter Sheltered - Transitional Housing Unsheltered 1178
REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 2-36 CHAPTER 2 | EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Area. In Contra Costa County, Black residents represent the more than one-third of residents experiencing homelessness despite the fact that they only account for 9 percent of the overall population (see Figure 2-23).

Figure 2-23: Racial Demographics of the Homeless Population, Contra Costa County, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Continuum of Care (CoC) Homeless Populations and Subpopulations Reports (2019); U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B01001(A-I).

Services for Persons Experiencing Homelessness
There are three major types of facilities that provide shelter for homeless individuals and families: emergency shelters, transitional housing, and permanent supportive housing.

These types of facilities are defined below:
⚫ Emergency Shelter: is a facility that offers temporary shelter (lodging) for people experiencing homelessness in general or for specific populations of the homeless.

There are variations of shelter types, including family shelters where households may stay for 30 to 90 days on average, youth shelters serving youth 18-24 years of age, night by night shelters also known as “warming centers,” for families and individuals which may be on a nightly basis only, spaces are limited and prioritization is given to the most vulnerable first, and adult only shelters which allows for a longer stay than that of a night by night shelter for adults without children. Victim service providers serving survivors fleeing domestic violence also fall into this category. 14.5% 3.1% 33.8% 45.0%

3.7%

0.5%

17.2%

8.7%

55.8%

17.7%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
American
Indian or
Alaska Native
(Hispanic and
Non-Hispanic)
Asian / API
(Hispanic and
Non-Hispanic)
Black or
African
American
(Hispanic and
Non-Hispanic)
White
(Hispanic and
Non-Hispanic)
Other Race or
Multiple Races
(Hispanic and
Non-Hispanic)
Percent of Population
Share of Homeless Population Share of Overall Population 1179
OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 CHAPTER 2 | EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2-37
⚫ Transitional Housing: is a type of temporary housing designed to facilitate the movement of homeless individuals and families into permanent housing within a specified period of time, but typically no longer than two years. ⚫ Rapid Rehousing: emphasizes housing search and relocation services, case management and short- and medium-term rental assistance to move homeless persons and families as rapidly as possible into permanent housing. ⚫ Permanent Supportive Housing: is permanent housing with indefinite leasing or rental assistance paired with supportive services to assist homeless persons with a disability or families with an adult or child member with a disability achieve housing stability.

On the night of January 22, 2020, there were a total of 2,217 beds in Contra Costa County’s Countywide Continuum of Care. The majority of beds (1,162) were permanent supportive housing beds, followed by 630 emergency shelter beds, 231 rapid rehousing beds, and 194 transitional housing beds.

There are no emergency shelters located in Oakley. The closest shelter is the East County Shelter located in Antioch, which provides 20 year-round individual beds. Additionally, East County Transitional Housing in Antioch provides 70 year-round family beds. Contra Costa Health Services emergency shelter program for adults provides shelter and case management services to assist residents in ending their homelessness and attaining their highest level of self-sufficiency. They operate two emergency shelter sites; one in Concord the other in Richmond. Both facilities operate 24 hours a day and have the capacity to serve over 160 men and women. They also offer a specialized program for individuals 18-21 years of age. If involved in case management, residents may stay up to 120 days. Additional continuum of care shelter and service providers are identified on the Contra Costa Health Services website at https://cchealth.org/h3/coc/funders.php.

Table 2-12 provides a list of emergency shelters and transitional housing included in the 2020 Point in Time count.
1180
REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 2-38 CHAPTER 2 | EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
TABLE 2-12: EMERGENCY SHELTERS AND TRANSITIONAL HOUSING INCLUDED IN THE 2020 POINT IN TIME COUNTY, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Program Type Agency Name Program Name
Emergency Bay Area Community Services Don Brown Shelter Emergency Bay Area Rescue Mission Men's Emergency Shelter Emergency Bay Area Rescue Mission Women and Families Shelter Emergency Berkeley Food and Housing Project Central County Warming Center Emergency Contra Costa Health Services Homeless Program Brookside Adult Interim Housing
Emergency Contra Costa Health Services Homeless Program Brookside Adult Interim Housing for Veterans
Emergency Contra Costa Health Services Homeless Program Calli House Youth Shelter Emergency Contra Costa Health Services Homeless Program Concord Adult Interim Housing Emergency Contra Costa Health Services Homeless Program Philip Dorn Respite Center Emergency Contra Costa Health Services Homeless Program Philip Dorn Respite Center for Veterans
Emergency Greater Richmond Interfaith Program Emergency Shelter Emergency Greater Richmond Interfaith Program West County Warming Center Emergency Interfaith Council of Contra Costa Winter Nights Shelter Emergency SHELTER, Inc. Mountain View House
Emergency STAND for Families Against Violence Emergency Shelter Emergency Trinity Center Trinity Winter Shelter
Transitional Bay Area Rescue Mission Men's Transitional Housing Program
Transitional Bay Area Rescue Mission Women & Family Transitional Housing
Transitional Bi-Bett Corporation Uilkema House
Transitional Contra Costa Health Services Homeless Program Appian House: Youth Transitional Contra Costa Health Services Homeless Program Pomona Apartments Transitional SHELTER, Inc. Casa Verde
Transitional STAND STAND for Families Against
Violence
Transitional STAND STAND Transitional Housing
Source: Contra Costa Health Services: Health, Housing, and Homeless Services Division 2020.

Farmworkers
Farmworkers are traditionally defined as persons whose primary incomes are earned through seasonal or permanent agricultural labor. Farmworkers are generally considered a special housing needs group due to their limited income and often-unstable nature of their employment. Across the state, housing for farmworkers has been recognized as an important and unique concern.
1181
OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 CHAPTER 2 | EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2-39
Estimating the size of the agricultural labor force is problematic as farmworkers are historically undercounted by the census and other data sources. For instance, the government agencies that track farm labor do not consistently define farm labor (e.g., field laborers versus workers in processing plants), length of employment (e.g., permanent or seasonal), or place of work (e.g., the location of the business or field).

Farmworkers are typically categorized into three groups: permanent, seasonal, and migrant. Permanent farmworkers are typically employed year-round by the same employer. Seasonal farmworkers work on average less than 150 days per year and earn at least half of their earned income from farm work. Migrant farmworkers are seasonal farmworkers who have to travel to do the farm work so they are unable to return to their permanent residence within the same day.

Within Oakley, agricultural uses include various equestrian and livestock enterprises, as well as more typical practices such as row crops, vineyards and orchards. Contra Costa County’s agricultural lands and corresponding production have decreased due to urbanization since 1940. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture Census of Farmworkers, the number of permanent and seasonal farmworkers in Contra Costa County has decreased from 730 and 1,874, respectively, in 2002, to 450 and 860 in 2017 (see Figure 2-24). It is important to understand the changing landscape of the farmworker population. Today’s farmworkers are more settled and typically live in one location. Per the USDA, today’s farmworkers can commute up to 75 miles to the workplace. Based on this, the need for housing for agricultural workers is not just the responsibility of Bay Area jurisdictions with a robust agricultural economy.

Figure 2-24: Farm Operations and Farm Labor, Contra Costa County, 2002-2017 Notes: Farm workers are considered seasonal if they work on a farm less than 150 days in a year, while farm workers who work on a farm more than 150 days are considered to be permanent workers for that farm.

Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Census of Farmworkers (2002, 2007, 2012, 2017), Table 7: Hired Farm Labor.
730
1,874
578
1,295
509
1,540
450
860
0 200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
2,000
Permanent Seasonal
Farm Workers
2002 2007 2012 2017
1182
REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 2-40 CHAPTER 2 | EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Typically, the agriculture industry faces challenges in securing labor in a tight market that offers limited housing opportunities that are affordable for their employees. Due to the severe shortage of affordable homes in the County and very low wages, farmworkers experience extreme housing insecurity. While many traditional affordable housing programs and policies will assist farmworkers, there are unique needs and circumstances for agricultural workers that need to be considered and explored since finding decent and affordable housing can be challenging, particularly in the current housing market.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in 2018, there were 244 employees in the Agriculture and Natural Resources industry living in Oakley. Farmworkers living in urban and suburban areas of the County often have similar needs for affordable rental housing as other lower-wage earners.

Housing Stock Profile
This section describes the housing stock in the City of Oakley in terms of number of units, size, age, and condition.

Unit Type
Table 2-13 summarizes the number of housing units in Oakley and the County from 2010 to 2020. In 2020, Oakley had 13,146 housing units, which was 3.1 percent of the total units countywide.

TABLE 2-13: NUMBER OF HOUSING UNITS OAKLEY AND
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY – 2000-2013
Year Oakley Contra Costa County
Oakley as % of total
Contra Costa County
2010 11,484 400,263 2.9%
2020 13,146 418,415 3.1%
Source: State of California, Department of Finance, E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State — January 1, 2011-2020.

In 2020, 91 percent of the housing units in Oakley were single-family detached homes.

From 2010 to 2020, the number of single family attached units and mobile homes remained the same, while other housing types increased. The increase in single family detached homes comprised the majority of the increase in total housing units. Table 2-14 shows Oakley’s housing inventory by unit type in 2010 and 2020.

TABLE 2-14: HOUSING INVENTORY BY UNIT TYPE
Housing Type 2010 % of Total 2020 % of Total
Single family, attached 236 2.1% 236 1.8%
Single family, detached 10,454 91.0% 11,953 90.9%
Multi-family 418 3.6% 581 4.4%
Mobile homes 376 3.3% 376 2.9%
Total Housing Units 11,484 100% 13,146 100%
Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package, California Department of Finance, E-5 series. 1183
OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 CHAPTER 2 | EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2-41
Unit Size
In 2019, the most common type of renter-occupied units was four-bedroom units, making up 62.3 percent of renter-occupied units. The second largest group of renteroccupied units was two-bedroom units (18.3 percent). Of the owner-occupied units, 78.2 percent had four bedrooms and 16.3 percent had five or more bedrooms. The four and five or more bedroom units were the most common type of housing units overall, making up 74.5 percent and 13.2 percent of all housing units respectively. Table 2-15 summarizes the distribution of unit size by tenure in 2019.

TABLE 2-15: UNIT SIZE BY TENURE, OAKLEY, 2019
Owner-Occupied
Housing Units
Renter- Occupied
Housing Units
Total Occupied
Housing Units
Units Percent Units Percent Units Percent
Studio/1 bedroom 60 0.7% 0 0.0% 60 0.5%
2 bedrooms 102 1.1% 512 18.3% 614 5.2%
3 bedrooms 331 3.7% 445 15.9% 776 6.6%
4 bedrooms 7,028 78.2% 1,743 62.3% 8,771 74.5%
5 or more bedrooms 1,461 16.3% 96 3.4% 1,557 13.2%
Total 8,982 100% 2796 100% 11,778 100%
Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package, U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25042.

Vacancy Rates
A vacancy rate measures the overall housing availability in a community and is often a good indicator of how efficiently for-sale and rental housing units are meeting the current demand for housing. A vacancy rate of five percent for rental housing and two percent for ownership housing is generally considered healthy and suggests that there is a balance between the supply and demand of housing. A lower vacancy rate often leads to rising rents and sales prices and can contribute to household overcrowding.

Vacant units made up approximately 3 percent of the overall housing stock in Oakley in 2019 (Figure 2-25). The rental vacancy rate was 1.0 percent, while the ownership vacancy rate was 1.4 percent. Of the vacant units, the most common type of vacancy is Other Vacant with the second most common type being Sold, Not Occupied (see Figure 2-26).

Figure 2-26 shows the breakdown of vacant units by type in Oakley, Contra Costa County, and the Bay Area. The vacant housing stock in Oakley looks very different from the rest of the region. In Oakley, only 9 percent of vacant units are listed for rent, compared to 23 and 24 percent in the County and region, respectively. This is a reflection of the small rental housing stock in the City. On the other hand, 28 percent of vacant units in Oakley were sold but not yet occupied, compared to only 6 percent in the County and 7 percent in the region. This reflects the relatively larger stock of new single-family homes being built in new subdivisions in Oakley.
1184
REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 2-42 CHAPTER 2 | EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Figure 2-25: Vacancy Rates, Oakley, Contra Costa County, Bay Area, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package, U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25002.

Figure 2-26: Vacant Units by Type, Oakley, Contra Costa County and Bay Area, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package, U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25004.
97% 95% 94%
3% 5% 6%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%
100.0%
Oakley Contra Costa County Bay Area
Percent of Housing Units
Occupied Housing Units Vacant Housing Units
9%
11% 23% 24%
11% 6%
12% 22%
53%
45% 36%
4% 6% 28%
6% 7%

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%
100.0%
Oakley Contra Costa County Bay Area
Percent of Vacant Housing Units
Sold, Not Occupied
Rented, Not Occupied
Other Vacant
For Seasonal, Recreational, Or Occasional Use
For Sale
For Rent
1185
OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 CHAPTER 2 | EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2-43
Age of Housing Stock
The age of a housing unit is often an indicator of housing conditions. In general, housing that is 30 years or older may exhibit need for repairs based on the useful life of materials.

Housing over 50 years old is considered aged and is more likely to exhibit a need for major repairs.

The ACS provides data on age of the housing stock, shown in Table 2-16. Much of the housing in Oakley is newer construction. Only 4.9 percent of the City’s housing stock was built before 1960 and 13 percent was built from 1960 through 1979. The majority of the housing stock is less than 35 years old: 82.9 percent was built in 1980 or later.

TABLE 2-16: HOUSING STOCK BY YEAR BUILT, OAKLEY, 2019
Year Built Units Percent
Built 2010 Or Later 1,077 9%
Built 2000 To 2009 3,301 27%
Built 1980 To 1999 5,535 46%
Built 1960 To 1979 1,589 13%
Built 1940 To 1959 501 4%
Built 1939 Or Earlier 94 1%
Total 12,097 100%
Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package, U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25034.

Substandard Housing Conditions
Housing is considered substandard when conditions are found to be below the minimum standard of living conditions defined in the California Health and Safety Code.

Households living in substandard conditions are considered to be in need of housing assistance, even if they are not seeking alternative housing arrangements, due to the threat to health and safety.

In addition to structural deficiencies and standards, the lack of infrastructure and utilities often serves as an indicator for substandard conditions. According to the 2015-2019 ACSs, there are zero occupied units in Oakley lacking complete plumbing facilities or kitchen facilities. In April 2008, the City adopted Ordinance No. 06-08 (Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance) which set property maintenance standards for the City. The purpose of adopting this Ordinance was to establish standards for property maintenance and provide abatement of substandard conditions. In the case of a violation, it is the responsibility of City Enforcement Officer to enforce these standards. The Ordinance includes property maintenance standards for:
⚫ Small Residential Lots (zoned R-15, R-12, R-10, R-7, R-6 and P-1) ⚫ Landscaping Requirements
⚫ Storage of Household Items, Construction Items and Rubbish ⚫ Exterior Property Conditions
1186
REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 2-44 CHAPTER 2 | EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
⚫ Prohibited Activities
⚫ Building Maintenance Requirements
⚫ Vector Nuisances
⚫ General Nuisances Prohibited
In 2022, the City Code Enforcement Division conducted 1,316 drive-by rental inspections through the Residential Rental Inspection Program. These type of inspections are typically to check on neighborhood preservation type violations, such as overgrown weeds, broken down vehicles, broken windows, and other issues of disrepair. Interior building inspections are not conducted as a routine part of the drive-by rental inspection program. The 1,316 inspections resulted in 181 cases being opened. Of those 181 opened cases, 165 were closed and 16 remain opened. Of those 16 opened cases, two resulted in substandard housing issues, one of which was closed and one that remains opened as of the end of 2022. Although the rental inspection program does not normally result in substandard housing violations, it can act as an indicator of larger issues that may exist at a given residence. Most substandard housing cases are started via a complaint received by either a tenant or neighbor of the residence.

In 2021 and 2022, the City of Oakley opened 24 and 25 cases on substandard housing, respectively. These cases generally involved housing units that require substantial rehabilitation. Based on the age of structures in Oakley and the number of substandard housing cases handled each year by Code Enforcement, it is estimated that about 15 percent of homes require some level of repair and about 1 percent of the housing stock is in need of major repair or replacement.

Housing Costs and Affordability
This section evaluates housing cost trends in Oakley. Analyses of trends for both renterand owner-occupied units, including rental and sales prices, are provided in comparison to ability to pay.

Home Values and Market Trends
In the Bay Area, housing costs have long been among the highest in the nation, yet home values in Oakley are affordable relative to the rest of the Bay Area. According to 2015- 2019 ACS data shown in Figure 2-27, the largest proportion of homes in Oakley were valued between $250,000-$500,000 (60 percent). By comparison, 29 percent of homes countywide were valued between $250,000-$500,000 and only 6 percent of Bay Area homes fell into this range.
1187
OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 CHAPTER 2 | EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2-45
Figure 2-27: Home Values of Owner-Occupied Units, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package, U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25075.

Figure 2-28 shows the change in home values in Oakley, Contra Costa County, and the Bay Area from 2001 to 2021 according to data available from Zillow. The region’s home values have increased steadily since 2000, besides the decrease that occurred during the Great Recession. The rise in home prices has been especially steep since 2012, with the median home value in the Bay Area nearly doubling during this time. Since 2001, the typical home value has increased 155.5 percent in Oakley from $247,150 to $631,480 in December 2020. While housing costs in Oakley have increased dramatically in recent years, Oakley has remained a relatively affordable place to live relative to the rest of the Bay Area. In December 2020, the typical home value was $772,410 in Contra Costa County and $1,077,230 in the Bay Area. According to more recent data obtained from Redfin, the median sale price for single-family homes in Oakley was $755,000 in April 2022; a 16.2 percent increase from the prior year. 9%7% 6%
60%
29%
16%
29%
27%
23%
2%
15%
20%
0%
13%
18%
0%
5%
8%
0%
3%
9%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%
Oakley Contra Costa County Bay Area
Percent of Owner Occupied Units
Units Valued Less than $250k Units Valued $250k-$500k
Units Valued $500k-$750k Units Valued $750k-$1M
Units Valued $1M-$1.5M Units Valued $1M-$2M
Units Valued $2M+
1188
REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 2-46 CHAPTER 2 | EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Figure 2-28: Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI), 2021
Notes: Zillow describes the ZHVI as a smoothed, seasonally adjusted measure of the typical home value and market changes across a given region and housing type. The ZHVI reflects the typical value for homes in the 35th to 65th percentile range. The ZHVI includes all owner-occupied housing units, including both single-family homes and condominiums. More information on the ZHVI is available from Zillow.

Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package, Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI).

Rent Values and Trends
Similar to home values, rents have also increased dramatically across the Bay Area in recent years. Many renters have been priced out, evicted, or displaced, particularly communities of color. Residents finding themselves in one of these situations may have had to choose between commuting long distances to their jobs and schools or moving out of the region, and sometimes, out of the state.

According to data from the 2015-2019 ACS, in Oakley, the largest proportion of rental units was in the $1500-$2000 category, totaling 31.6 percent, followed by 28.4 percent of units renting in the $500-$1000 category (see Figure 2-29). While the largest share of rental units in the County and region is also in the $1500-$2000 category, there is generally a broader range of rents in other parts of the Bay Area compared to Oakley. $100,000
$300,000
$500,000
$700,000
$900,000
$1,100,000
$1,300,000
20012002200320042005200620072008200920102011201220132014201520162017201820192020 Bay Area Contra Costa County Oakley
1189
OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 CHAPTER 2 | EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2-47
Figure 2-29: Contract Rents for Renter-Occupied Units, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package, U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25056.

Since 2009, the median rent has increased by 17.6 percent in Oakley, from $1,280 to $1,540 per month (see Figure 2-30), yet rents remain lower than in other parts of the region. In Contra Costa County, the median rent has increased 28.8 percent, from $1,300 to $1,680, and the median rent in the Bay Area has increased significantly from $1,200 to $1,850, a 54 percent increase.
5% 5% 6%
28%
10% 10%
14%
24%
19%
32% 30%
23%
14%
17% 17%
6% 7%
12%
1%
6%
13%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%
Oakley Contra Costa County Bay Area
Percent of Rental Units
Rent less than $500 Rent $500-$1000 Rent $1000-$1500
Rent $1500-$2000 Rent $2000-$2500 Rent $2500-$3000
Rent $3000 or more
1190
REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 2-48 CHAPTER 2 | EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Figure 2-30: Median Contract Rent, Oakley, Contra Costa County and Bay Area, 2019 Notes: For unincorporated areas, median is calculated using distribution in B25056.

Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package, U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data releases, starting with 2005-2009 through 2015-2019, B25058, B25056 (for unincorporated areas). County and regional counts are weighted averages of jurisdiction median using B25003 rental unit counts from the relevant year.

Housing Affordability
The affordability of housing in Oakley can be assessed by comparing market rents and sales prices with the amount that households of different income levels can afford to pay for housing. This information can reveal who can afford what size and type of housing.

This section describes the ability of households at different income levels to pay for housing based on HCD 2022 income limits shown earlier in Table 2-9.

Housing is classified as “affordable” if households pay no more than 30 percent of income for rent (including a monthly allowance for water, gas, and electricity) or monthly homeownership costs (including mortgage payments, taxes, and insurance). Since above moderate‐income households do not generally have problems finding affordable units, affordable units are frequently defined as those reasonably priced for households that are low to moderate income.

Typically, a household can qualify to purchase a home that is two and one-half to three times their annual income, depending on the down payment, the level of other long-term obligations such as a car loan, and interest rates. In practice, the interaction of these factors allows some households to qualify for homes priced at more than three times their annual income, while other households may be limited to purchasing a home no more than two times their annual income. Homebuyer assistance programs that provide $1,100
$1,200
$1,300
$1,400
$1,500
$1,600
$1,700
$1,800
$1,900
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Dollars
Oakley Contra Costa County Bay Area
1191
OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 CHAPTER 2 | EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2-49
down payment assistance and/or below market-rate interest rates often allow homebuyers to qualify for houses which are up to four times their income.

Table 2-17 shows maximum affordable monthly rents and maximum affordable purchase prices for homes using 2022 HCD-defined household income limits for extremely low-, very low-, low-, and moderate-income households in Contra Costa County (including Oakley). For example, a three-person household with an annual income of $98,650 is classified as low income (80 percent of AMI) in 2022. A household with this income could afford to pay a monthly gross rent (including utilities) of up to $2,466 or could afford to purchase a house price at or below $403,266. The April 2022 median sale price of $755,000 in Oakley is considered affordable to a moderate-income family of 4 earning the upper end of the income limit.

TABLE 2-17: ABILITY TO PAY FOR HOUSING BASED ON HCD INCOME LIMITS, 2022 Number of Persons 1 2 3 4 5 6
Extremely Low-Income Households at 30% of Median Family Income Income Level $30,000 $34,300 $38,600 $42,850 $46,300 $49,750 Max. Monthly Gross Rent 1 $750 $858 $965 $1,071 $1,158 $1,244 Max. Purchase Price 2 $122,635 $140,213 $157,791 $175,164 $189,267 $203,370 Very Low-Income Households at 50% of Median Family Income Income Level $50,000 $57,150 $64,300 $71,400 $77,150 $82,850 Max. Monthly Gross Rent 1 $1,250 $1,429 $1,608 $1,785 $1,929 $2,071 Max. Purchase Price 2 $204,392 $233,620 $262,849 $291,872 $315,377 $338,678 Low-Income Households at 80% of Median Family Income
Income Level $76,750 $87,700 $98,650 $109,600 $118,400 $127,150 Max. Monthly Gross Rent 1 $1,919 $2,193 $2,466 $2,740 $2,960 $3,179 Max. Purchase Price 2 $313,742 $358,504 $403,266 $448,028 $484,001 $519,770 Median-Income Households at 100% of Median Family Income Income Level $99,950 $114,250 $128,500 $142,800 $154,200 $165,650 Max. Monthly Gross Rent 1 $2,499 $2,856 $3,213 $3,570 $3,855 $4,141 Max. Purchase Price 2 $408,580 $467,036 $525,288 $583,744 $630,346 $677,152 Moderate-Income Households at 120% of Median Family Income Income Level $119,950 $137,100 $154,200 $171,350 $185,050 $198,750 Max. Monthly Gross Rent 1 $3,499 $3,999 $4,498 $4,998 $5,397 $5,797 Max. Purchase Price 2 $572,060 $653,851 $735,404 $817,195 $882,532 $947,869 Notes: Incomes based on HCD State Income Limits for 2022; FY 2022 AMI: $142,800. 1 Assumes that 30 percent of income is available for either: monthly rent, including utilities; or mortgage payment, taxes, mortgage insurance, and homeowners insurance
2 Assumes 90 percent loan (i.e., 10 percent down payment) at 5 percent annual interest rate and 30-year term; assumes taxes, mortgage insurance, and homeowners’ insurance account for 21 percent of total monthly payments Source: HCD, 2022; and Ascent, 2022.
1192
REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 2-50 CHAPTER 2 | EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Overpayment
Overpayment, also known as housing cost burden, is a critical issue for many households of various income levels. Overpayment occurs when households spend more than 30 percent of gross monthly income on housing. Severe overpayment or cost burden occurs when housing costs represent more than 50 percent of gross monthly income. Lowerincome residents are consistently the most impacted by high housing costs and experience the highest rates of cost burden. Paying too much for housing puts lowerincome households at higher risk of displacement, eviction, or homelessness.

In Oakley, 11.6 percent of households spend 50 percent or more of their income on housing, while 21.7 percent spend 30 percent to 50 percent. However, these rates vary greatly across income categories (see Figure 2-31). For example, 56.0 percent of extremely low-income households in Oakley making (i.e., those making less than 30 percent of AMI) are severely cost burdened, meaning they spend more than 50 percent of their income on housing. For Oakley residents making more than 100 percent of AMI, less than 1 percent are severely cost burdened, and 89 percent are paying an affordable price for housing.

Figure 2-31: Cost Burden by Income Group, Oakley, 2017
Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release. 27%
43% 38%
30%
10%
56% 23%
8%
6%
0 200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
0%-30% of
AMI
31%-50% of
AMI
51%-80% of
AMI
81%-100% of
AMI
Greater than
100% of AMI
Number of Housing Units
50%+ of Income Used for Housing
30%-50% of Income Used for Housing
1193
OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 CHAPTER 2 | EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2-51
Renters are often more cost-burdened than owners. While the housing market has resulted in home prices increasing dramatically, homeowners often have mortgages with fixed rates, whereas renters are more likely to be impacted by market increases. When looking at the cost burden by tenure in Oakley, 22.2 percent of renters spend 30 percent to 50 percent of their income on housing, which is similar to the 21.3 percent of those that own (see Figure 2-32). However, 22.5 percent of renters spend 50 percent or more of their income on housing, while only 9.0 percent of owners are severely cost-burdened.

Figure 2-32: Cost Burden by Tenure, Oakley
Notes: Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus utilities). For owners, housing cost is "“select monthly owner costs",” which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes. HUD defines cost-burdened households as those whose monthly housing costs exceed 30% of monthly income, while severely cost-burdened households are those whose monthly housing costs exceed 50% of monthly income.

Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package, U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25070, B25091.

Figure 2-33 shows cost burden by income level for renter households and Figure 2-34 shows cost burden by income for owner households according to the 2015-2019 ACS data. Overall, the incidence of cost burden is higher among lower-income renters compared to owners, however, extremely low-income and very low-income owner households also experience high levels of cost burden and severe cost burden. 1,910 (21%)
620 (22%)
811 (9%)
630 (23%)
0 500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
Number of Housing Units
50%+ of Income Used for Housing
30%-50% of Income Used for Housing
1194
REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 2-52 CHAPTER 2 | EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Figure 2-33: Cost Burden of Renter Households by Income Level, Oakley Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) 2015-2019 release
Figure 2-34: Cost Burden of Owner Households by Income Level, Oakley Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) 2015-2019 release

11.8%

29.7%

73.7%

10.5% 0.0%

55.4%

9.4%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0-30% AMI 31-50% AMI 51-80% AMI 81-100% AMI Greater than 100% AMI
50%+ of Income Used for Housing
30-50% of Income Used for Housing

29.8% 29.9% 30.0% 31.7%

10.1%

50.9%

27.8%

10.1% 2.0%

0.5%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0-30% AMI 31-50% AMI 51-80% AMI 81-100% AMI Greater than 100% AMI
30-50% of Income Used for Housing 50%+ of Income Used for Housing 1195
OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 CHAPTER 2 | EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2-53
Assisted Housing at Risk of Conversion
State Housing Element law requires an analysis of the potential for rent-restricted lowincome housing units to convert to market-rate housing within 10 years from the start of the planning period, and to propose programs to preserve or replace any units at risk of conversion, also known as “at-risk units.” For the purpose of Housing Element Law, assisted housing developments are defined as multifamily rental housing complexes that receive government assistance under federal, State, and/or local programs. Housing assistance could include a rental subsidy, mortgage subsidy, or density bonus for an assisted housing development. Government assisted housing may convert to market-rate for a number of reasons including expiring subsidies, mortgage repayments, or expiration of affordability restrictions. This section presents an inventory of all rent-restricted housing in Oakley and identifies whether or not there are units at risk of conversion by 2033.

Assisted Housing Inventory
Table 2-18 presents the inventory of affordable rental housing in Oakley which receives some form of public assistance. As evidenced by the over 739 units identified, Oakley has actively supported affordable rental housing utilizing a variety of local, State and Federal funds, and works extensively with non-profit housing developers in the ownership and management of its projects. None of these units are at risk of conversion by 2033. The earliest potential conversion, Golden Oak Manor, is in 2036. As there are no units at-risk of converting, a discussion of the cost to preserve affordability through new construction, rehabilitation, and/or subsidies is not required.

TABLE 2-18: INVENTORY OF PUBLICLY-ASSISTED RENTAL HOUSING, OAKLEY, 2022 Project Name Address Type of
Unit
End of
Affordability
Term
Affordable
Units Financing Status
Carol Lane
Apartments
53, 65, 67, & 71
Carol Lane
Family/
Senior 2063 509 LIHTC Not at risk
Golden Oak
Manor
5000 Kelsey Family 2036 49 LIHTC Not at risk
Silver Oaks 4991 Gardenia Disabled 2039 23 HOME Funds/ HUD 202/811 Not at risk
Oakley Summer
Creek
4950 Empire
Avenue
Senior 2056 79 LIHTC/City
Funds/ RDA Not at risk
Cypress Grove 2000 Rubens
Way
Family 2061 95 LIHTC; Housing
Fund; Tax Exempt
Bond; HOME Funds
Not at risk
Habitat for
Humanity Homes
035-313-004,
035-313-009
Family 2050 9
Not at risk
Twin Oaks Senior
Residence MixedUse (St. Anton)
2605 Main Street Senior 2078 129
Not at risk
Total Assisted Rental Units 739
Total Assisted Rental Units At Risk by 2033 0
Source: City of Oakley, 2022.
1196
REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 2-54 CHAPTER 2 | EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Preservation of At-Risk Rental Units
There are a variety of federal, state, and local housing programs to assist in the provision of affordable housing through new construction, acquisition/ rehabilitation, and subsidies. The following summarizes the financial resources potentially available to developers and other entities interested in providing affordable housing and related services in the City of Oakley. More information on funding available for housing development and related activities is described in Chapter 5: Housing Programs and Financial Resources
Federal and State Programs
Community Development Block Grants (CDBG): CDBG funds are awarded to entitlement communities on a formula basis for housing activities. Funding is awarded on a competitive basis to each participating City. Activities eligible for CDBG funding include acquisition, rehabilitation, economic development and public services. The City of Oakley participates in the Urban County program, through which Contra Costa County administers CDBG funds for the unincorporated County as well as cities that participate in the program. The City may receive funds, on a competitive basis, through the Urban County program.

HOME Investment Partnership: HOME funds are granted by a formula basis from HUD to increase the supply of decent, safe, sanitary, and affordable housing to lower income households. Eligible activities include new construction, acquisition, rental assistance and rehabilitation. Oakley participates in the Contra Costa County-administered HOME Consortium, which administers HOME funds to projects in participating jurisdictions.

HOME funds are typically allocated on a competitive basis.

Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program: The Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program provides monthly rental assistance payments to private landlords on behalf of low-income families who have been determined eligible by the Housing Authority of Contra Costa County. The program's objective is to assist low-income families by providing rental assistance so that families may lease safe, decent, and sanitary housing units in the private rental market. The program is designed to allow families to move without the loss of housing assistance. Moves are permissible as long as the family notifies the Housing Authority ahead of time, terminates its existing lease within the lease provisions, and finds acceptable alternate housing.

Section 8 – Project Based Assistance: The Section 8 Project-Based program is a component of the Housing Choice Voucher program. The program's objective is to induce property owners to make standard housing available to low-income families at rents within the program limits. In return, the Housing Authority or HUD enters into a contract with the owner that guarantees a certain level of rents.

Section 811/202 Program (Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities/Elderly): Nonprofit and consumer cooperatives can receive no interest capital advances from HUD under the Section 202 program for the construction of very-low income rental housing for seniors and persons with disabilities. These funds can be used in conjunction with Section 811, which can be used to develop group homes, independent living facilities, 1197
OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 CHAPTER 2 | EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2-55
and immediate care facilities. Eligible activities include acquisition, rehabilitation, new construction, and rental assistance.

California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA) Multifamily Programs: CalHFA’s Multifamily Programs provide permanent financing for the acquisition, rehabilitation, and preservation or new construction of rental housing that includes affordable rents for Low and Moderate Income families and individuals. One of the programs is the Preservation Acquisition Finance Program that is designed to facilitate the acquisition of at- risk affordable housing developments and provide low-cost funding to preserve affordability.

California Housing Finance Agency (CHFA): CHFA offers permanent financing for acquisition and rehabilitation to for-profit, non-profit, and public agency developers seeking to preserve "at-risk" housing units. In addition, CHFA offers low interest predevelopment loans to nonprofit sponsors through its acquisition/rehabilitation program.

Federal Home Loan Bank System: The Federal Home Loan Bank System facilitates Affordable Housing Programs (AHP), which subsidize the interest rates for affordable housing. The San Francisco Federal Home Loan Bank District provides local service within California. Interest rate subsidies under the AHP can be used to finance the purchase, construction, and/or rehabilitation of rental housing. Very low income households must occupy at least 20 percent of the units for the useful life of the housing or the mortgage term.

Low Income Housing Tax Credits: The California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (CTCAC) administers the federal and state Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Programs. Both programs were created to encourage private investment in affordable rental housing for households meeting certain income requirements. Under these programs, housing tax credits are awarded to developers of qualified projects. Twenty percent of federal credits are reserved for rural areas, and ten percent for non-profit sponsors. To compete for the credit, rental housing developments have to reserve units at affordable rents to households at or below 46 percent of area median income. The assisted units must be reserved for the target population for 55 years. The federal tax credit provides a subsidy over ten years towards the cost of producing a unit. Developers sell these tax benefits to investors for their present market value to provide up-front capital to build the units.

Credits can be used to fund the hard and soft costs (excluding land costs) of the acquisition, rehabilitation, or new construction of rental housing. Projects not receiving other federal subsidy receive a federal credit of nine percent per year for ten years and a state credit of 30 percent over four years (high cost areas and qualified census tracts get increased federal credits). Projects with a federal subsidy receive a four percent federal credit each year for ten years and a 13 percent state credit over four years. The CTCAC also administers a Farmworker Housing Assistance Program and a Commercial Revitalization Deduction Program.

Multifamily Housing Program (MHP): The MHP program provides low interest loans to developers of affordable rental and transitional housing projects. Funds may be used for new construction, rehabilitation, acquisition and rehabilitation, or conversion of nonresidential structures. 1198
REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 2-56 CHAPTER 2 | EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
California Community Reinvestment Corporation (CCRC): The California Community Reinvestment Corporation is a multifamily affordable housing lender whose mission is to increase the availability of affordable housing for Low Income families, seniors and residents with special needs by facilitating private capital flow from its investors for debt and equity to developers of affordable housing. Eligible activities include new construction, rehabilitation, and acquisition of properties.

Qualified Entities to Preserve At-Risk Units
There are 24 non-profit corporations currently registered as qualified entities for Contra Costa County, and 96 entities working statewide that have the experience and capacity to assist in preserving at-risk units. These organizations, presented in Table 2-19, are tracked by HCD and up-to-date contact information for each entity can be obtained via the HCD website at: https://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/preserving-existingaffordable-housing.shtml.

TABLE 2-19: QUALIFIED ENTITIES, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Organization City
Rubicon Programs, Inc. Richmond
ACLC, Inc Stockton
East Bay NHS Richmond
Affordable Housing Associates Berkeley
Eskaton Properties Inc. Carmichael
Rural California Housing Corp West Sacramento
East Bay Asian Local Development Corporation Oakland
Pacific Community Services, Inc. Pittsburg
Community Housing Development Corp. Richmond
Anka Behavioral Health Concord
Anka Behavioral Health Concord
Satellite Housing Inc. Berkeley
Northern California Land Trust, Inc. Berkeley
Alameda County Allied Housing Program Hayward
ROEM Development Corporation Santa Clara
Neighborhood Housing Services of the East Bay Richmond
L + M Fund Management LLC Westchester
Source: CA Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), 2021. 1199
OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 CHAPTER 3 | SITES INVENTORY 3-1
Chapter 3: Sites Inventory
Introduction
Every city and county in California is mandated through State Housing Element Law to demonstrate it has adequate sites available through appropriate zoning and development standards and with the required infrastructure for a variety of housing types and income levels. The City must demonstrate it has adequate sites with capacity to accommodate the projected need for housing through the 2023-2031 planning period.

This chapter describes the City’s assigned housing target, called the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), and provides the City’s strategy for how it will accommodate the RHNA.

Regional Housing Needs Allocation
The State Department of Finance (DOF) is responsible for developing the total Statewide housing demand projection. With the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), this demand is apportioned to each of the State’s regions. The demand represents the number of additional units needed to accommodate the anticipated growth in the number of households, to replace expected demolitions and conversions of housing units to non-residential uses, and to allow for a future vacancy rate conducive to a healthy functioning housing market.

The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), the Council of Governments (COG) representing the region, in cooperation with local jurisdictions, is responsible for allocating the region’s projected new housing demand in each jurisdiction. This process is known as the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) and the goals are referred to as the RHNA goals or the “regional share” goals for new housing construction. The allocation takes into account factors such as employment opportunities, market demand for housing, availability of suitable sites and public facilities, community patterns, types and tenure of housing needs and others. The allocation is divided into four income categories:
⚫ Very-Low Income – 0 to 50 percent of the median income ⚫ Low Income – 51 to 80 percent of the median income
⚫ Moderate Income – 81 to 120 percent of the median income ⚫ Above-Moderate Income – more than 120 percent of the median income In determining a jurisdiction’s share of new housing needs by income category, the allocation is adjusted to avoid an over-concentration of lower-income households in one jurisdiction. In addition to the allocation in the four income categories, State law also 1200
REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 3-2 CHAPTER 3 | SITES INVENTORY
requires cities to consider the needs of Extremely-Low Income (ELI) households earning 30 percent or less of the median income. The City assumes that 50 percent of the very low-income housing need is equal to the extremely low-income housing need. As such, there is a projected need for 139 extremely low-income housing units.

Table 3-1 shows the RHNA assigned to Oakley for the 2023-2031 Housing Element. It should be noted that the RHNA projection period is June 30, 2022 – December 31, 2030, which differs slightly from the Housing Element planning period of January 31, 2023 – January 31, 2031. As shown in the table, ABAG allocated 1,058 new housing units to Oakley, which includes 279 very low-, 161 low-, 172 moderate-, and 446 above moderate-income units.

TABLE 3-1: REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION, CITY OF OAKLEY, 2023-2031 Very LowIncome Units1Low-Income
Units
ModerateIncome UnitsAbove ModerateIncome UnitsTotal
2023-2031 RHNA 279 161 172 446 1,058
Percent of Total 26% 15% 16% 42% 100%
Notes: 1 Extremely low-income allocation is equal to 50 percent of very low-income allocation (134 units).

Source: Source: Association of Bay Area Council of Governments (ABAG), Final Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Plan: San Francisco Bay Area, 2023-2031 (Adopted December 2021).

Residential Sites Inventory
This section describes the residentially-zoned land available to accommodate the City’s RHNA. This includes entitled single-family lots that have not yet been built, vacant and underutilized sites that have potential for housing development, and a projection of accessory dwelling units.

Entitled Single-family Lots
Table 3-2 lists final subdivision maps for fully entitled residential developments. Most of these subdivisions are under construction. Building permits that were pulled prior to the start of the sixth cycle RHNA period (June 30, 2022) are counted toward the fifth cycle RHNA. However, the sixth cycle RHNA can be reduced by the number of lots that are entitled but have not been built or for which building permits were issued after June 30, 2022. As shown in table 3-2, A total of there are eight entitled final maps with remaining capacity for 427 single-family units that can be credited toward the sixth cycle RHNA. All of these units are expected to be affordable only to above moderate-income households and are therefore credited toward the above moderate-income RHNA. After accounting for these entitled lots, the remaining above moderate-income RHNA is only 19 units.

Entitled final maps are shown on Figure 3-1. 5,247 single-family lots have been entitled but have not yet been issued a building permit as of the start of the RHNA projection period (June 30, 2022). Table 3-2 identifies entitled projects that have not yet begun development, as well as pending projects that have submitted applications but have not yet been constructed. Table 3-3 identifies entitled projects that are under construction, including the total number of units approved, number of units already issued building permits, and number of units remaining to be developed. Only those units that have not 1201
OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 CHAPTER 3 | SITES INVENTORY 3-3
yet been issued permits are counted toward the RHNA. Entitled projects are shown on Figure 3-1. The single family units in Tables 3-2 and 3-3 are anticipated to be affordable primarily to above moderate-income households. The unit count in these entitled projects far exceeds the City’s RHNA for above moderate-income households. 1202
REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 3-4 CHAPTER 3 | SITES INVENTORY
Figure 3-1: Residential Entitlements, City of Oakley, 2022 Note: Map does not reflect current list of residential entitlements and will be updated prior to submittal to HCD. Source: Data received from City of Oakley in 2022 and downloaded from Contra Costa County in 2022 1203
OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 CHAPTER 3 | SITES INVENTORY 3-5
TABLE 3-2: ENTITLED AND PENDING PROJECTS, NOT YET CONSTRUCTED Subdivision
Tract Number Development Name Project Location Resolution Number Approved Lots/Units

ENTITLED PROJECTS
8734 Seeno Homes Grapevine Ln. County Approved 28
8787 Rosewood 4073 Rose Ave. CC 40-10 61
8803 Brownstone 10 - DCM Group Brownstone Rd CC 18-07 50 8807 Villa Grove - Discovery Builders 2080 O'Hara CC 37-07 50 9015 Cosetti & Creson - Global Investments 4219 Machado Lane CC 114-06 98 9088 Cedarwood Knox Lane between Michelle Lane and Live Oak Ave. CC 09-10 34 9156 Bethel Island LLC (Biggs) South of Summer Lake South and North of Rock Slough CC 149-20 CC 122-11 1,205
9284 The Ranchettes at Neroly Oakley Rd. CC 111-18 13
9285 Estates at Vineyard Acres Knarlwood Rd. and Oakley Rd. CC 70-12 7 9307 Summer Lake North N/E corner of East Cypress Rd. and Bethel Island Rd. CC 116-11 824 9311 KT KB Oakley, LLC Between Bethel Is. Rd., Jersey Is. Rd. and south of Dutch Slough Rd. CC 45-12 276
9401 Dal Porto South 2989 East Cypress Road CC 96-15 403 9404 Lesher NE corner of Easy Cypress Rd. and Jersey Island Rd. CC 98-15 CC 150-20 1,283
9488 Castro Property East side of Machado Lane, south of East Cypress Road CC 120-18 10 9537 2480 Oakley Road Residential
Development 2480 Oakley Road 89-20 22
9557 Burroughs Subdivision Northeast corner of E. Cypress Rd and Knightsen Avenue 58-21 208 9577 Oakley Village Subdivision West of Sellers Ave., just west of the railroad tracks 135-21 42 9579 Honey/Creekside Subdivision 463 and 560 Honey Lane N/A 57 MS 04-978 Zel Debelich 140 Hill Ave PC 27-05 3
MS 04-977 Thompson 151 Hill Ave PC 16-05 3
MS 06-976 Hooper Property 2836 Stirrup Drive PC 20-06 2 MS 06-977 Dyer Property 115 Douglas Rd. PC 26-06 2
1204
REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 3-6 CHAPTER 3 | SITES INVENTORY
TABLE 3-2: ENTITLED AND PENDING PROJECTS, NOT YET CONSTRUCTED Subdivision
Tract Number Development Name Project Location Resolution Number Approved Lots/Units

ENTITLED PROJECTS
MS 08-978 4190 Brown Road 4190 Brown Rd CC 76-09 4
MS 15-976 Farr Tentative Parcel Map 2601 East Cypress Rd. CC 97-15 2 MS 16-977 Hamman Minor Subdivision 2540 Oakley Rd. CC 85-16 3 TOTAL 4,690 single family

PENDING PROJECTS
Unknown Honey Lane Subdivision 637 Honey Lane N/A 19
9580 Golden Oak Subdivision At western terminus of West Ruby Street and eastern terminus of Wildcat Way
N/A 8
Unknown Machado Lane Subdivision Machado Ln. and East Cypress Rd. N/A 76 Unknown Sellers Avenue Subdivision 5911 Sellers Ave. N/A 77 TOTAL 180 single family
Source: City of Oakley Planning Department, June December 2022. 1205
OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 CHAPTER 3 | SITES INVENTORY 3-7
TABLE 3-23: PROJECTS FINAL MAPS APPROVED AND UNDER CONSTRUCTION Subdivision
Tract
Number
Development
Name
Project Location Resolution Number Approved
Lots/Units
Building Permits
Issued prior to
June 30, 2022
Remaining
Units
Status as of
December 2022
7662 Stonewood -
Seeno Rose Lane CC 05-03 215 36 179
Under
construction. 80
permits pulled as
of December 2022.
8734 Seeno Homes Grapevine Ln. County Approved 28 0 28 Under construction 8736
Pheasant
Meadows –
Discovery
Buildings
1860 O-Hara CC-125-05 42 0 42
Under
construction. 30
permits pulled as
of December 2022.
8836 Vintner View –
Discovery Builders Grapevine Ln. CC-82-06 16 0 16 Not yet under construction. 8904 Baldocchi Estates Southeast corner of East Cypress Rd. and Sellers. Ave. CC 08-06 97 18 79
Under
construction. 38
permits pulled as
of December 2022.
9183 Stonewood 3 Southwest of Simoni Ranch Rd.
and Little Ranch Cir. CC 82-09 31 10 21 Partially constructed. 9398
Woodbury
(Emerson Ranch
Neighborhood 6)
Within Emerson Ranch
Subdivision (NW corner of Sellers
Ave. and Cypress Rd.

CC 87-16 104 69 35
All remaining lots
under construction
as of December
2022.
9498 Acacia 5360 Main Street CC 119-19 108 81 27
All remaining lots
under construction
as of December
2022.
8734 Seeno Homes Grapevine Ln. County
Approved 28 0 28
Under
constru
ction
TOTAL 613 641
single
family
236 214 single
family
377 427
single
family
Source: City of Oakley Planning Department, June 2022.
1206
REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 3-8 CHAPTER 3 | SITES INVENTORY
Vacant and Underutilized Sites
The Housing Element is required “to identify sites that can be developed for housing within the planning period and that are sufficient to provide for the jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need for all income levels” (Government Code Section 65583.2(a)).

This section identifies vacant and underutilized sites in the inventory and describes the methodology for calculating capacity on these sites by income level.

Vacant Land In Tentative Subdivision Maps
The City has a significant amount of vacant land with tentative maps, either approved or under review, with capacity for 4,736 single-family units. Table 3-3 lists these sites, which are shown on Figure 3-1. The capacity on these sites is inventoried in the Housing Element based on the number of lots identified in the tentative maps.

Several of these tentative subdivision maps are within the East Cypress Specific Plan Area, with nearly 4,000 housing units planned. Property owners are actively working to build and certify the levee system to provide flood protection to the area. Development is expected to occur in phases as levee improvements are completed. Summer Lake North, which has capacity for 824 homes, recently completed an interim levee and is working to get it certified. Grand Cypress Preserve, which makes up a majority of the entitled portions of the East Cypress Corridor Specific Plan, has 3,167 entitled homes.

The development team has submitted levee plans and is working toward starting levee construction sometime in 2023.

Exact phasing and timing for development in the East Cypress Specific Plan is unknown at this time, but based on the anticipated timing of the levee improvements and stated interest by the developers, the Housing Element inventory assumes 25 percent of the capacity within this area to develop within the timeframe of the Housing Element, which is equal to 999 homes.
1207
OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 CHAPTER 3 | SITES INVENTORY 3-9
TABLE 3-32: ENTITLED AND PENDING PROJECTS, NOT YET CONSTRUCTEDVACANT LAND WITH TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAPS Subdivision Tract
Number
APN(s) Development
Name
Project Location Size
(Acres)
General
Plan
Zoning Resolution
Number
Approved
Lots/Units
8734 Seeno Homes Grapevine Ln. County
Approved 28
8787 035-220-035 Rosewood 4073 Rose Ave. 12.06
Single
Family
High
R-6 CC 40-10 61
8803 034-210-009 Brownstone 10 -
DCM Group Brownstone Rd 10.79
Single
Family
High
R-6 CC 18-07 50
8807 034-110-007 Villa Grove -
Discovery Builders 2080 O'Hara 15.03 Single Family Low P-1 CC 37-07 50 9015 Cosetti & Creson -
Global Investments 4219 Machado Lane CC 114-06 98
9088
041-030-032,
041-030-033,
041-030-046
Cedarwood Knox Lane between Michelle
Lane and Live Oak Ave. 14.2 Single Family Low R-12 CC 09-10 34 9156 Bethel Island LLC
(Biggs)
South of Summer Lake South
and North of Rock Slough
CC 149-20
CC 122-11 1,205
9284
041-080-001,
041-080-002
The Ranchettes at
Neroly Oakley Rd. 6.81
Single
Family Very
Low
R-40 CC 111-18 13
9285 041-090-002 Estates at Vineyard
Acres Knarlwood Rd. and Oakley Rd. 7.1
Single
Family Very
Low
R-40 CC 70-12 7
9307 Summer Lake
North
N/E corner of East Cypress Rd.
and Bethel Island Rd. CC 116-11 824
9311 KT KB Oakley, LLC
Between Bethel Is. Rd., Jersey
Is. Rd. and south of Dutch
Slough Rd.

CC 45-12 276
9401 Dal Porto South 2989 East Cypress Road CC 96-15 403 9404 Lesher NE corner of Easy Cypress Rd.
and Jersey Island Rd.

CC 98-15
CC 150-20 1,283
1208
REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 3-10 CHAPTER 3 | SITES INVENTORY
TABLE 3-32: ENTITLED AND PENDING PROJECTS, NOT YET CONSTRUCTEDVACANT LAND WITH TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAPS Subdivision Tract
Number
APN(s) Development
Name
Project Location Size
(Acres)
General
Plan
Zoning Resolution
Number
Approved
Lots/Units

CITYWIDE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAPS
9488 033-170-021 Castro Property East side of Machado Lane, south of East Cypress Road 5.06 Single Family Low R-15 CC 120-18 10 9537 037-100-043
2480 Oakley Road
Residential
Development
2480 Oakley Road 4.35 Light
Industrial LI 89-20 22
9557
032-081-025,
032-081-026,
032-320-809
Burroughs
Subdivision
Northeast corner of E. Cypress
Rd and Knightsen Avenue 43.69
Single
Family
High
A-3 58-21 208
9577
033-150-011,
033-150-018
Oakley Village
Subdivision
West of Sellers Ave., just west
of the railroad tracks 14.44
Single
Family
Medium
R-10 135-21 42
9579
033-030-028,
033-030-032
Honey/Creekside
Subdivision 463 and 560 Honey Lane 10.62
Single
Family
High
R-6 CC 38-22 57
9580 035-090-082 Golden Oak
Subdivision
At western terminus of West
Ruby Street and eastern
terminus of Wildcat Way

1.9 Single
Family
High
R-6 CC 128-22 8
MS 04-977
033-090-045,
033-090-046,
033-090-047
Thompson 151 Hill Ave 1.02
Single
Family
High
R-6 PC 16-05 3
MS 04-978
033-053-065,
033-053-066,
033-053-067
Zel Debelich 140 Hill Ave 0.59
Single
Family
High
R-6 PC 27-05 3
MS 06-976
041-090-042,
041-090-043 Hooper Property 2836 Stirrup Drive 2.27
Single
Family Very
Low
R-40 PC 20-06 2
MS 06-977 033-053-070 Dyer Property 115 Douglas Rd. 0.49 Single
Family
High
R-6 PC 26-06 2
1209
OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 CHAPTER 3 | SITES INVENTORY 3-11
TABLE 3-32: ENTITLED AND PENDING PROJECTS, NOT YET CONSTRUCTEDVACANT LAND WITH TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAPS Subdivision Tract
Number
APN(s) Development
Name
Project Location Size
(Acres)
General
Plan
Zoning Resolution
Number
Approved
Lots/Units
MS 08-978 035-050-012 4190 Brown Road 4190 Brown Rd 2.18 Single
Family
High
R-10 CC 76-09 4
MS 15-976 Farr Tentative
Parcel Map 2601 East Cypress Rd. CC 97-15 2
MS 16-977 037-080-021 Hamman Minor
Subdivision 2540 Oakley Rd. 4
Light
Industrial LI CC 85-16 3
Citywide Tentative Subdivision Maps Subtotal
571 single
family
EAST CYPRES SPECIFIC PLAN1
9156
020-140-048,
020-140-049,
020-150-003
Bethel Island LLC
(Biggs)
South of Summer Lake South
and North of Rock Slough 347.32 SP-4 SP-1
CC 149-20
CC 122-11 1,205
9307
032-340-006,
032-370-006,
032-370-012,
032-370-019,
032-370-021,
032-370-033,
032-370-035,
032-370-036
Summer Lake
North
N/E corner of East Cypress Rd.
and Bethel Island Rd. 408.18 SP-4 SP-1 CC 116-11 824
9311 032-082-001,
032-270-802 KT KB Oakley, LLC
Between Bethel Is. Rd., Jersey
Is. Rd. and south of Dutch
Slough Rd.
330.46 SP-4 SP-1 CC 45-12 276
9401 032-050-003,
032-370-028 Dal Porto South 2989 East Cypress Road 182.29 SP-4 SP-1 CC 96-15 403 9404
032-082-005,
032-082-013,
032-270-803,
703-208-003
Lesher NE corner of Easy Cypress Rd.
and Jersey Island Rd. 362.27 SP-4 SP-1
CC 98-15
CC 150-20 1,283
MS 15-976 032-070-006 Farr Tentative
Parcel Map 2601 East Cypress Rd. 2.02 SP-4 SP-1 CC 97-15 2 1210
REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 3-12 CHAPTER 3 | SITES INVENTORY
TABLE 3-32: ENTITLED AND PENDING PROJECTS, NOT YET CONSTRUCTEDVACANT LAND WITH TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAPS Subdivision Tract
Number
APN(s) Development
Name
Project Location Size
(Acres)
General
Plan
Zoning Resolution
Number
Approved
Lots/Units
East Cypress Specific Plan Subtotal
3,993 single
family
Inventoried Units in East Cypress Specific Plan (i.e., 25% of total capacity) 999 single family

PENDING PROJECTS
TM 01-20
Unknown 033-030-030 Honey Lane Subdivision 637 Honey Lane 4.95 Single
Family
High
R-6 N/A 19
9580 Golden Oak
Subdivision
At western terminus of West
Ruby Street and eastern
terminus of Wildcat Way
CC 128-22 8
9614 033-150-013 Sellers Avenue
Subdivision 5911 Sellers Ave. 20.46
Single
Family
Medium
P-1 N/A 77
9615 033-190-003,
033-190-004
Machado Lane
Subdivision
Machado Ln. and East Cypress
Rd. 19.63
Single
Family
Medium
P-1 N/A 76
TOTALPending Projects Subtotal 180 172 single
family
TOTAL INVENTORIED UNITS WITHIN TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAPS 1,742 single family
Notes
1) It is assumed that 25% of the units counted in the East Cypress Specific Plan would be built during the planning period.

Source: City of Oakley Planning Department, December 2022 1211
OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 CHAPTER 3 | SITES INVENTORY 3-13
Affordable Housing Overlay District Sites
The low- and very low-income RHNA categories, collectively referred to as the “lowerincome RHNA”, are almost always the most challenging income levels for cities to accommodate. Under State law, Oakley is considered a “metropolitan” jurisdiction because it is located within a metropolitan region with a population exceeding 2 million and has a local population that exceeds 25,000. State law establishes a “default density standard” of 30 units per acre for lower-income units in metropolitan jurisdictions. This is the density that is “deemed appropriate” to accommodate Oakley’s lower-income RHNA.

As described in Chapter 6: Constraints, the Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) is the City’s primary strategy for meeting the lower-income RHNA. The AHO applies on top of the base zoning and allows housing densities that exceed the maximum units per acre otherwise allowed in a zoning district, if a development meets the State density bonus criteria.

Existing AHO Sites
The City originally created the AHO following adoption of the 2007 Housing Element to accommodate the lower-income RHNA and achieve State certification of the Housing Element. The AHO district was adopted with a density of 24 units per acre and higher densities could be achieved using a State density bonus. In previous Housing Element cycles, HCD accepted a market-based analysis demonstrating that 24 units per acre was an adequate density for building lower-income housing in Oakley. However, with changes in market conditions and more stringent review by HCD, 24 units per acre is no longer considered adequate, meaning that the City’s existing AHO sites (shown in Figure 3-12 and outlined in Table 3-4 below) cannot be counted towards the lower-income RHNA until the allowable density is increased to 30 units per acre. Because the existing AHO sites cannot count toward the lower-income RHNA at this time, the City has a shortfall of 434 lower-income units and a rezone obligation. Policy Action 1.1 in the Housing Plan outlines that as part of the City’s rezone program, the City will be increasing the maximum density of the AHO to 30 units per acre to be consistent with the default density standard. Once this action is taken, the existing AHO sites will count toward meeting the lower-income RHNA. Additionally, all of these sites were previously counted in the fifth cycle Housing Element and are therefore subject to by-right approvals, as outlined in Policy Action 1.1.

Candidate AHO Sites
The City has a shortfall of 434 lower-income units. Per state law, the City has three years from the adoption deadline of January 31, 2023, to rezone enough land to accommodate 434 lower-income units, as described in Policy Action 1.1. The City will go through a separate public process and take action to rezone an adequate number of sites to meet the lower-income RHNA. Figure 3-12 shows the initial candidate AHO sites to consider for rezoning, with more details provided in Table 3-5 on each site. These candidate AHO sites have been presented and initially vetted by the public, the Planning Commission, and City Council, but could still change as the City begins working on the rezone program and solidifying sites to include in the AHO District. The City has also identified a list of 1212
REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 3-14 CHAPTER 3 | SITES INVENTORY
potential AHO sites, outlined in Table 3-6 below. These sites, along with other sites, could potentially be considered and included in the AHO District as part of the rezone program.

Methodology for Estimating Capacity on AHO Sites
Government Code Section 65583.2(c) requires the City to demonstrate that the projected residential development capacity of the sites identified in the Housing Element can realistically be achieved. When establishing realistic unit capacity calculations, the City must consider development trends of existing or approved residential developments at a similar affordability level, as well as the cumulative impact of standards such as maximum lot coverage, height, open space, and parking requirements. Furthermore, when the site has the potential to be developed with nonresidential uses, requires redevelopment, or has an overlay zone allowing the underlying zoning to be utilized for residential units, these capacity limits must be reflected in the Housing Element.

In accordance with State law, the estimated capacity on AHO sites is not calculated at the maximum capacity of 30 units per acre, but instead at a realistic capacity or “discounted” capacity.

Realistic Density Assumptions
Sites in the inventory are generally assumed to build out at 80 percent of the maximum density. This includes AHO sites that would be included in the lower-income inventory.

Therefore, capacity on AHO sites is calculated based on a density of 24 units per acre, which is 80 percent of the proposed maximum density of 30 units per acre. Recent affordable housing developments in the City have generally been built at or above the density of 24 units per acre. Affordable housing developments above 24 units per acre have utilized a State density bonus to exceed the 24 unit per acre limit. The following is a list of recently built or approved affordable developments on AHO-zoned sites and the density at which they were built:
⚫ Twin Oaks Senior Residence Mixed Use (under construction): 22.2 units per acre (92.5 percent of base density)
⚫ Carol Lane Apartments (built in phases)
 Oak Ridge Family Apartments: 24.0 units per acre (100 percent of base density)  Oak Meadows Family Apartments: 31.6 units per acre (132 percent of base density)  Oak Forest Senior Villas: 27.3 units per acre (114 percent of base density) The average density of these recently built affordable housing developments in the AHO District is 26.3 units per acre. While two of these projects used a State density bonus to exceed the base density of 24 units per acre, under the proposed increase to 30 units per acre, future affordable housing developments are expected to be built at higher densities than past developments. The realistic density of 24 units per acre used in this analysis is conservative based on these development trends.

Non-Vacant Site Assumptions
While most of the sites in the sites inventory are vacant, some of the sites, particularly the existing AHO sites, have existing single family homes on the sites and are therefore 1213
OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 CHAPTER 3 | SITES INVENTORY 3-15
considered non-vacant. Once the City implements Policy Action 1.1 and increases the density on AHO sites to 30 units per acre, the City will be relying on non-vacant sites to meet about 40 percent of the lower-income RHNA. Most new development in Oakley involves demolition of an existing single-family structure on a large rural lot to build residential subdivisions. The sites in the AHO inventory have similar characteristics to sites that have been recently developed in the City. The nine non-vacant AHO sites included in the inventory all have older single-family homes. It is common in Oakley for existing older homes to be torn down to allow for new residential development, or the existing home sometimes remains and new residential infill is built around it. None of the non-vacant sites have existing commercial uses. However, recognizing that existing uses can might be an impediment to housing development, the capacity calculations for AHO sites that have existing uses have been discounted by 25 percent to provide a more conservative estimate for future capacity. The site profiles on the following pages describe the age and condition of existing uses single-family homes on non-vacant existing and candidate AHO sites.

Overlay vs. Base Zoning Assumptions
Because the AHO is an overlay zone, the base zoning of the AHO sites allows for uses other than multifamily housing to be built. Where the base zoning of an AHO site allows for commercial or single-family residential development, the capacity calculations have been further discounted by 25 percent to account for the possibility that the site could be developed with something other than multifamily housing. Discounts are shown in Tables 3-4 and 3-5 and noted in the site profiles for the existing and candidate AHO sites.

AHO Capacity and Site Descriptions
Figure 3-12 shows the location of the existing and candidate AHO sites as well as all other sites included in the Housing Element inventory. Table 3-4 identifies the existing AHO sites, Table 3-5 identifies the candidate AHO sites, and Table 3-6 identifies the potential AHO sites. Following the tables are individual site descriptions for both existing and candidate AHO sites. As described above, the inventoried capacity has been discounted for non-vacant sites and sites with base zoning other than multifamily. After accounting for realistic density and these additional discounts, on some sites this results in a more than 50 percent reduction of the actual capacity for housing. The resulting capacity is reflective of development trends on AHO sites during the Fifth Housing Element cycle, during which about 40 percent of the combined very low- and low-income RHNA were met on AHO sites.
1214
REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 3-16 CHAPTER 3 | SITES INVENTORY
Figure 3-12: Sites Inventory Map, City of Oakley, 2022 (REVISED MAP) Source: Data received from City of Oakley in 2022 and downloaded from Contra Costa County in 2022 1215
OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 CHAPTER 3 | SITES INVENTORY 3-17
TABLE 3-4: CAPACITY ON EXISTING AHO SITES
AHO
Site Site Name APN
Size
(Acres)
Vacant or
Underutilized1
Base
Zoning General Plan
Potential
Units
(at 24
units/acre)
25%
Reduced
Capacity for
Non-Vacant
Sites
25% Reduced
Capacity for
Underlying
Zoning
Units
Counted
Toward
LowerIncome
RHNA
1 E. Cypress Rd. &
Van Pelt Ln. Lot 1
033-012-007 2.4 Underutilized
(single family
home)
M-12 Residential
High 57 units -14 units N/A 43 units
2 E. Cypress Rd. &
Van Pelt Ln. Lot 2
033-012-008 1.12 Underutilized
(single family
home)
M-12 Residential
High 26 units -7 units N/A 20 units
3 E. Cypress Rd. &
Van Pelt Ln. Lot 3
033-012-009 1.12 Underutilized
(single family
home)
M-12 Residential
High 26 units -7 units N/A 20 units
4 E. Cypress Rd. &
Van Pelt Ln. Lot 4
033-012-012 2.39 Underutilized
(single family
home)
M-12 Residential
High 57 units -14 units N/A 43 units
5 6381 Sellers Ave. 033-180-007 1.98 Underutilized
(single family
home)
M-9 Residential
Medium 47 units -12 units N/A 35 units
6+7 W. Cypress Rd. &
Main St. Lot
035-282-058,
035-282-062

1.19 Underutilized
(single family
home)
C Commercial
28 units -7 units -7 units 14 units
Total Capacity on AHO Sites 241 units 174 units
Source: City of Oakley and Ascent, 2022
Notes: 1 See site profiles below for more detailed description of existing uses on underutilized sites. 1216
REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 3-18 CHAPTER 3 | SITES INVENTORY
TABLE 3-5: CAPACITY ON CANDIDATE AHO SITES
AHO
Site Site Name APN
Size
(Acres)
Vacant or
Underutilized1
Base
Zoning General Plan
Potential
Units
(at 24
units/acre)
25%
Reduced
Capacity for
Non-Vacant
Sites
25%
Reduced
Capacity for
Underlying
Zoning
Units Counted
Toward
LowerIncome RHNA
8 Bridgehead &
Main Lot 1
051-052-108 1.42 Vacant C Commercial 34 units N/A -9 units 26 units 9 Bridgehead &
Main Lot 2
051-052-106 1.42 Vacant C Commercial 34 units N/A -9 units 26 units 10 S/W Corner of
Laurel Rd. and
O’Hara Ave.
034-080-031 4.99 Underutilized RB Commercial 119 units -30 units -30 units 60 units 11 3300 Neroly Rd. 053-071-046 3.66 Vacant P-1 Residential High, Commercial
87 units N/A N/A 87 units
12 4671 Rose Ave. 035-182-015 0.83 Vacant SP-4 Commercial Downtown
19 units N/A -5 units 14 units
13 S/E Corner of
Main St. & Rose
Ave.
035-281-007 0.65 Vacant SP-4 Commercial
Downtown
15 units N/A -4 units 11units
14 901 E. Cypress
Rd.
033-180-015 2.8 Underutilized M-9 Residential
Medium
67 units -17 units N/A 50 units
Total Capacity on Proposed AHO Sites 375 units 273 units Source: City of Oakley and Ascent, 2022
Notes: 1 See site profiles below for more detailed description of existing uses on underutilized sites. 1217
OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 CHAPTER 3 | SITES INVENTORY 3-19
TABLE 3-6: POTENTIAL AHO SITES
APN Acres
Vacant or
Underutilized
Base
Zoning General Plan Max Capacity
Potential
Units (at 24
units/acre)
037-040-027 0.74 Vacant C Commercial 22 17
037-040-026 2.48 Vacant C Commercial 74 59
033-110-003 8.46 Vacant R-6. C Residential Low/Medium,
Commercial
253 203
033-100-004 7.65 Vacant R-6, C Residential Low/Medium,
Commercial
229 183
Total 578 462
Source: Ascent, June 2022.
1218
REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 3-20 CHAPTER 3 | SITES INVENTORY
Sites 1 through 4: E. Cypress Rd. & Van Pelt Ln. Lots (Existing AHO Sites)

SITE DESCRIPTION
APN
033-012-007 (Site 1)
033-012-008 (Site 2)
033-012-009 (Site 3)
033-012-012 (Site 4)
Address 67 Van Pelt Ln. (Site 1)
251 E. Cypress Rd. (Site 2)
43 Van Pelt Ln. (Site 3)
211 E. Cypress Rd. (Site 4)
Acres

2.40 (Site 1)

1.12 (Site 2)

1.12 (Site 3)

2.39 (Site 4)
General Plan Residential High (RH)
Zoning Multiple-Family Residential District (M-12)/Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) Realistic Capacity/
Income Level
43 Lower-Income Units (Site 1)
20 Lower-Income Units (Site 2)
20 Lower-Income Units (Site 3)
43 Lower-Income Units (Site 4)
Existing Use Non-Vacant (single-family home)
Site Description
Sites 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and
7 were all included in
the fifth cycle RHNA
and are therefore
subject to by-right
approvals per Policy
Action 1.1 in the
Housing Plan.

Existing AHO Sites 1 through 4 are a cluster of existing single-family residences on East Cypress Rd. and Van Pelt Lane. The homes are all more than 40 years old built in 1970 (Site 1), 1979 (Site 2), 1972 (Site 3), and 1930 (Site 4). They are within ½ mile of existing AHO Sites 6 and 7. The sites are currently non-vacant with a base zoning of M-12 that would allow for multifamily development. The sites are located on a completely improved and dedicated arterial and there are no major infrastructure improvements needed. The sites are also adjacent to The Courtyards at Cypress Grove Apartments, an existing affordable project, making it a prime infill site that could continue a similar housing type. Site 4 is currently (December 2022) listed for sale and advertised as a development opportunity for multifamily housing. While the sites could be purchased and consolidated to make one large development site, each site could also be developed independently or developed in phases.

Max Capacity at 30 units per acre: 72 units (Site 1), 33 units (Site 2), 33 units (Site 3), 72 units (Site 4) Assumptions (Sites 1-4):
• 80% of max density (24 du/acre realistic density)
• 25% reduction for non-vacant site
4 2
3 1
1219
OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 CHAPTER 3 | SITES INVENTORY 3-21
Site 5: 6381 Sellers Ave. (Existing AHO Site)

SITE DESCRIPTION
APN 033-180-007
Address 6381 Sellers Ave.

Acres 1.98
General Plan Residential Medium (RM)
Zoning Multiple-Family Residential District (M-9)/Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) Realistic Capacity/
Income Level 35 Lower-Income Units
Existing Use Non-Vacant (single-family)
Site Description
Site 5 was included in the
fifth cycle RHNA and is
therefore subject to by-right
approvals per Policy Action

1.1 in the Housing Plan.

Existing AHO Site 5 is located on Sellers Ave. next to proposed AHO Site 14. This parcel has existing residences and accessory structure on the front part of the lot facing Sellers Ave. and is underutilized based on several factors, including building age and condition and improvement to land value ratio of 0.16. The primary residence was built in 1921. The home is currently inspected as part of the City’s Rental Inspection Program and has had code violations in the past. The site It is mostly surrounded by undeveloped land to the south and west; however, this area has been under constant development since the City’s incorporation and continues to receive new planning entitlements for both residential and commercial projects. The site could be consolidated with proposed AHO Site 14 for a larger development project or could be developed independently. The Planning Department has received inquiries from a developer interested in developing housing on this site.

Max Capacity at 30 units per acre: 59 units
Assumptions:
• 80% of max density (24 du/acre realistic density)
• 25% reduction for non-vacant site
1220
REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 3-22 CHAPTER 3 | SITES INVENTORY
Sites 6 and 7: W. Cypress Rd. & Main St. Lot (Existing AHO Site)

SITE DESCRIPTION
APN
035-282-058 (Site 6)
035-282-062 (Site 7)
Address 120 W. Cypress Rd. (Site 6)
Acres 1.19 (Sites 6 and 7)
General Plan CO (Commercial)
Zoning C (General Commercial) District/Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) Realistic Capacity/
Income Level 14 Lower-Income Units (Sites 6 and 7)
Existing Use Non-Vacant (single-family home)
Site Description
Sites 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7 were
included in the fifth cycle
RHNA and is therefore
subject to by-right approvals
per Policy Action 1.1 in the
Housing Plan.

Existing AHO Sites 6 and 7 are located at the corner of West Cypress Rd. and Main St. There is one older single-family home on the site built in 1978 surrounded by a large open field. The home and associated improvements cover less than 22 percent of the site, making it a largely underutilized site and the improvement to land value ratio is 0.02. The underlying zoning is commercial, but the site is below grade, making commercial development a challenge. The site is served by transit, with several bus stops nearby. It is adjacent to Big Oak Mobile Home & RV Park. Iron House Elementary School, Delta Vista Middle School, and existing AHO Sites 1-4 are within a ½ mile from the site. The two parcels are counted as one site in capacity calculations.

Max Capacity at 30 units per acre: 35 units (Sites 6 and 7) Assumptions (Sites 6 and 7):
• 80% of max density (24 du/acre realistic density)
• 25% reduction for non-vacant site
• 25% reduction for non-multifamily base zoning
1221
OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 CHAPTER 3 | SITES INVENTORY 3-23
Sites 8 and 9: Bridgehead & Main Lots (Candidate AHO Sites)

SITE DESCRIPTION
APN
051-052-108 (Site 8)
051-052-106 (Site 9)
Address Bridgehead Rd.

Acres

1.42 (Site 8)

1.42 (Site 9)
General Plan CO (Commercial)
Zoning C (General Commercial) District
Realistic Capacity/
Income Level
26 Lower-Income Units (Site 8)
26 Lower-Income Units (Site 9)
Existing Use Vacant
Site Description
Sites 8 and 9 are vacant lots located near the intersection of Main St., Bridgehead Rd., and Neroly Rd. that appear to be under common ownership. They are surrounded by commercial uses including a gas station, convenience stores, fast food, and coffee storefronts. North of Site 8 is a legal, non-conforming mobile home park, and north and east of the sites is an approximately 80-acre vineyard approved as the River Oaks Crossing Specific Plan, a commercial planned development approved in 2008.

Max Capacity at 30 units per acre: 42 units (Site 8), 42 units (Site 9) Assumptions (Sites 8 and 9):
• 80% of max density (24 du/acre realistic density)
• 25% reduction for non-multifamily base zoning
1222
REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 3-24 CHAPTER 3 | SITES INVENTORY
Site 10: Oakley Rd. & SR-160 (Candidate AHO Site)

SITE DESCRIPTION
APN 034-080-031
Address 40 Mercedes Lane (S/W corner of Laurel Rd. and O’Hara Ave.) Acres 4.99
General Plan CO (Commercial)
Zoning RB (Retail Business) District
Realistic Capacity/Income
Level 60 Lower-Income Units
Existing Use Non-Vacant (single-family home)
Site Description
Most of Site 10 is undeveloped with the exception of one residence in the southwest corner of the parcel built in 1993. It has an improvement to land value ratio of 0.55. It is surrounded by residential neighborhoods to the west and south and is across the street from Laurel Elementary School to the west. A gas station and convenience store were recently developed on the corner of Laurel Rd. and O’Hara Ave. in the shopping center to the north. The existing home could remain and the undeveloped portion of the site could develop as multifamily housing.

Max Capacity at 30 units per acre: 149 units
Assumptions:
• 80% of max density (24 du/acre realistic density)
• 25% reduction for non-vacant site
• 25% reduction for non-multifamily base zoning
1223
OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 CHAPTER 3 | SITES INVENTORY 3-25
Site 11: 3300 Neroly Rd. (Candidate AHO Site)

SITE DESCRIPTION
APN 053-071-046
Address 3300 Neroly Rd.

Acres 3.66
General Plan RH (Residential High) and CO (Commercial)
Zoning P-1 (Planned Unit Development) District
Realistic Capacity/Income
Level 87 Lower-Income Units
Existing Use Vacant
Site Description
Site 11 is the site of a formerly approved residential and office mixed-use project, “Empire Station.” The project entitlements have since expired. The site is near the Slatten Ranch shopping center in Antioch, and Brentwood Junction shopping center in Brentwood. Land directly east and northeast is zoned for commercial uses and includes the Diamond Hills Sports Club and approved Thatch Plaza commercial center.

Max Capacity: 109 units
Assumptions (Sites 8 and 9):
• 80% of max density (24 du/acre realistic density)
1224
REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 3-26 CHAPTER 3 | SITES INVENTORY
Sites 12 & 13: 4671 Rose Ave. & S/E Corner of Main St. & Rose Ave. (Candidate AHO Sites)

SITE DESCRIPTION
APN
035-182-015 (Site 12)
035-281-007 (Site 13)
Address 4671 Rose Ave. and S/E corner of Main St. and Rose Ave.

Acres

0.83 (Site 12)

0.65 (Site 13)
General Plan CD (Commercial Downtown)
Zoning SP-4 (Downtown Specific Plan) District (Downtown Support Area) Realistic Capacity/Income
Level
14 Lower-Income Units (Site 12)
11 Lower-Income Units (Site 13)
Existing Use Vacant
Site Description
Sites 12 and 13 are located off Main St. and Rose Ave. adjacent to the Contra Costa Canal.

This land is surrounded by residential, small commercial uses, and is near the Post Office.

Both sites are within the Oakley Downtown Specific Plan area.

Max Capacity: 24 units (Site 12), 19 units (Site 13)
Assumptions (Sites 12 and 13):
• 80% of max density (24 du/acre realistic density)
• 25% reduction for non-multifamily base zoning
1225
OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 CHAPTER 3 | SITES INVENTORY 3-27
Site 14: 901 E. Cypress Rd. (Candidate AHO Site)

SITE DESCRIPTION
APN 033-180-015
Address 901 E. Cypress Rd.

Acres 4.9 total acres (est. 2.8 developable acres)
General Plan RM (Residential Medium)
Zoning M-9 (Multi-Family Residential) District
Realistic Capacity/Income
Level
50 Lower-Income Units
Existing Use Non-Vacant (single-family home)
Site Description
Site 14 is located along East Cypress Rd. next to existing AHO Site 5. This parcel has existing residences and accessory structures on the southern portion that could remain and the northern portion developed, or the entire site could redevelop. The estimated capacity assumes the existing residence remains and the parcel is subdivided to allow residential fronting E. Cypress Rd. It is mostly surrounded by undeveloped land to the south and west; however, this area has been under constant development since the City’s incorporation and continues to receive new planning entitlements for both residential and commercial projects.

The site could be consolidated with AHO Site #5 for a larger development project or could develop independently.

Max Capacity at 30 units per acre: 147 units (assumes development on entire site) Assumptions:
• 80% of max density (24 du/acre realistic density)
• 25% reduction for non-vacant site
1226
REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 3-28 CHAPTER 3 | SITES INVENTORY
Downtown Specific Plan Sites
The Downtown Specific Plan (DSP), adopted in 2010 and last amended in 2017, establishes development standards for Downtown Oakley. The DSP has three subareas:
the Downtown Core (DC), the Downtown Support (DS), and the Residential Commercial Conversion Opportunity (R/CCO). The three subareas allow for residential uses at different densities, as follows:
⚫ Downtown Core: Up to 45 units per acre
⚫ Downtown Support: Up 17 to 24 units per acre
⚫ Residential/Commercial Conversion Opportunity: Up to 16.7 units per acre Housing Element Chapter 6: Constraints, provides more details on the development standards and requirements for the DSP.

There are five sites within the DSP that are included in the Housing Element sites inventory. Four of the sites are in the Downtown Support Area, where residential infill is recommended, and one site is in the Downtown Core Area. Based on the City’s history of approving multifamily housing at or above 24 units per acre (see Realistic Density discussion on page 3-13), the capacity on the sites in the DSP Downtown Support Area is based on a realistic density of 2417 units per acre, which is equal to 70 percent of the maximum density, with the exception of the larger site (DSP-1), which is assumed to be developed with a broader mix of housing types at an average density of 20 units per acre, consistent with the assumptions of the DSP. The one site within the Downtown Core, where there is no minimum density but a maximum density of up to 45 units per acre, a realistic density of 24 units per acre is assumed, based on the City’s history of approving multifamily housing at this density. (Note: there are also two proposed AHO sites within the DSP boundary. These sites are described in the AHO discussion above and are not included in the summary of DSP sites.)
The densities allowed in the DSP could provide for a broad range of housing types. Based on the allowed densities, the size of the sites, and the requirements of the DSP, these sites are considered appropriate to accommodate the moderate-income RHNA.

However, there is a new requirement of State law - Assembly Bill 725 (2021) – which requires that at least 25 percent of the remaining above moderate-income RHNA be accommodated on sites that allow at least four units of housing, and that at least 25 percent of the remaining moderate-income RHNA be accommodated on sites that allow at least four units of housing but a density of no more than 100 units per acre. As described on page 3-2, Oakley has a remaining need of only 19 above moderate-income units, meaning that 5 units in the above moderate-income category must be met on sites meeting the AB 725 criteria. The City has a remaining moderate-income RHNA of 172 units, meaning that at least 43 units in the moderate-income category must be met on sites meeting the AB 725 criteria. The DSP sites are used to satisfy the requirements of AB 725.

The DSP sites shown on Figure 3-23 and in Table 3-7 have a total estimated realistic capacity of 300 226 housing units. The Housing Element allocates 111 5 of the total units toward the above moderate-income RHNA to satisfy the 25 percent requirement and allocates the remaining 189 221 units toward the moderate-income RHNA. 1227
OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 CHAPTER 3 | SITES INVENTORY 3-29
Figure 3-23: Downtown Sites, City of Oakley, 2022 (UPDATED MAP) Source: Data received from City of Oakley in 2022 and downloaded from Contra Costa County in 2022 1228
REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 3-30 CHAPTER 3 | SITES INVENTORY
TABLE 3-7: DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN SITES
Site
ID
APNs Acres
DSP
Subarea
Density
Range
Realistic
Density
Inventoried
Units
Income
Level
Site Description
DSP-1 037-150-
026, 037-
150-027,
037-150-
028, 037-
150-029,
037-150-
030, 037-
200-007

12.43 total
(10.7
developabl
e acres)
Downtown
Support/
Downtown
Core
Up to
24 u/a
(DS)
Up to
45 u/a
(DC)
20 17
u/a
214181 Mod Referred to as the
“Vintage Parkway Site” in
the DSP, this site is
envisioned as a mix of
townhomes and multiunit
residential. Nonvacant
site. Existing building
space on the site totals
about 20,000 square feet,
mostly single-family
homes and outbuildings.

DSP-2 035-424-
012, 035-
424-016

1.38 Downtown
Support
Up to
24 u/a
24 17
u/a
3323 Mod Vacant site on south side
of Main Street at
Gardenia Avenue.

DSP-3 035-113-
009

0.26 Downtown
Support
Up to
24 u/a
24 17
u/a
64 Mod Vacant site at corner of
Acme Street and O’Hara
Avenue.

DSP-4 035-171-
016

0.49 Downtown
Support
Up to
24 u/a
24 17
u/a
118 Mod Vacant site at corner of
5th Street and Star Street.

Wire fence surrounds the
property but there are no
permanent structures.

DSP-5 035-121-
005

0.42 Downtown
Core
Up to
45 u/a
24 u/a 105 mod/5
above mod
Mod/
Above
Mod
Vacant site at the corner
of Acme Street and 2nd
Street. Previous structure
has been demolished.

Total
274 226 total units
(111 5 Above Moderate, 163 221
Moderate)
Source: Ascent, June 2022.

All Other Sites
In addition to the AHO sites and DSP sites, the City has approximately 267 acres of vacant and underutilized residential land without a current project entitlement or development agreement in place. Altogether these other sites are anticipated to accommodate 16 of the moderate-income RHNA and 776 of the above moderate-income RHNA, assuming 80 percent of maximum capacity on sites. Sites included in Table 3-8 are shown on Figure 3-1. Appendix B describes each vacant and underutilized parcels, identifying the zoning designation, General Plan designation, APN, acreage, existing uses, realistic capacity, and maximum development potential.

All of the underutilized parcels are minimally developed with single family homes and/or accessory structures and do not have extensive development that would limit the future use of the parcel for the residential uses considered in the General Plan. 1229
OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 CHAPTER 3 | SITES INVENTORY 3-31
TABLE 3-8: INVENTORY OF AVAILABLE RESIDENTIAL LAND FOR DEVELOPMENT Zoning Designation1
Number
of Sites
Total
Acres
Maximum
Dwelling Units
Per Acre
Maximum
Dwelling Unit
Potential
Realistic Yield
(80% of Max)2
Inventoried
Income Level
Agricultural Living 5 41.33 1 38 31 Above Moderate
Single Family R-40 4 30.98 1 32 27 Above Moderate
Single Family R-15 10 58.30 2.3 162 134 Above Moderate
Single Family R-10 11 85.13 3.8 364 296 Above Moderate
Single Family R-6 9 43.83 5.5 361 288 Above Moderate
M-9 – Multifamily
Residential
1 2,467.6
5 9.6 21 16 Moderate
TOTAL 265.48
267.22
978 792
Notes:
1 All sites included in the table have a General Plan designation that is compatible with the zoning 2 80% of maximum capacity, except for sites with proposed/approved projects, which are calculated based on the number of units in the project
3 Includes ‘detached’ multifamily units in East Cypress Specific Plan Source: Ascent 2022; City of Oakley, 2014; Contra Costa County GIS, 2014, East Cypress Specific Plan, 2006; De Novo Planning Group, 2014.

Projection of Accessory Dwelling Units
Per State law, a projection of the number of ADUs expected to be built within the eightyear planning period can also be considered as part of the inventory. The City has seen a slight increase in the rate of ADU production since 2018 when the State passed several bills to facilitate ADUs statewide. In 2020, the City adopted an ADU ordinance consistent with the requirements under State law. Table 3-9 shows the total number of ADU building permits issued by year since 2018. ADU production has remained steady, with the City issuing permits for 2.4 ADUs per year, on average.

TABLE 3-9: ADU BUILDING PERMITS, CITY OF OAKLEY (2018-2022) Year ADU Permits Issued
2018 1
2019 3
2020 2
2021 2
2022* 4
Average 2.4
*The 2022 ADU building permits issued number is a prorated estimate, based on two building permits approved/issued by the City from January 1 to June 1, 2022. The City has approved/issued two ADU building permits.

Source: City of Oakley, 2022.

Source: City of Oakley and Ascent, 2022.
1230
REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 3-32 CHAPTER 3 | SITES INVENTORY
For the purpose of the Housing Element, the City assumes that ADU production will continue at the same pace experienced since 2018, resulting in 19 ADUs counted toward the 2023-2031 RHNA. ABAG prepared the Affordability of Accessory Dwelling Units in September 2021 to provide jurisdictions a foundation for housing element assumptions.

The report is based on a statewide survey conducted by the University of California at Berkley’s Center for Community Innovation, in collaboration with Baird + Driskell Community Planning in 2020. ABAG analyzed the raw survey data for Bay Area ADUs constructed in 2018 or 2019 to determine affordability. According to the ABAG report, 43 percent of ADUs, based on the East Bay counties surveyed, are assumed to be used as short-term rentals, home offices, or other non-residential uses. As such, of the 19 ADUs expected to be produced, only 10 ADUs are assumed to be available on the market as rental housing or housing for family and friends.

Using ABAG affordability recommendations for ADUs, the sites inventory includes a projection of 6 ADUs affordable to lower-income households, or 60 percent of the projected ADU units. Three ADUs, or 30 percent of projected units, are affordable to moderate-income households, and 1 ADU, or 10 percent of projected units are affordable to above-moderate income households.

RHNA Summary
Table 3-10 provides a summary of Oakley’s ability to meet the 2023-2031 RHNA. Based on the housing units in residential entitlements, Downtown Specific Plan sites, vacant sites with tentative maps, all other sites, and projection of ADUs, the City has a shortfall of 434 lower-income units, and a surplus of 2568 moderate-income units and 2,5055,689 above moderate-income units. The City must identify at least 21.7 additional acres to accommodate the shortfall of 434 lower-income units. The City’s plan to address the rezone obligation is described in Policy Action 1.1.

TABLE 3-10: SITES INVENTORY CAPACITY SUMMARY, CITY OF OAKLEY (2023-2031) Lower1 Moderate Above
Moderate Total
Regional Housing Needs Allocation 440 172 446 1,058
Residential Entitlements — — 5,247427 5,247427
Downtown Specific Plan Sites — 178221 1115 289226
Vacant Sites with Tentative Maps 1,742 1,742
All Other Sites — 16 776 792
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Projection 6 3 1 10
Total Capacity 6 197240 2,9516,134 3,1976,785
Surplus(+) / Shortfall(-) -434 +2568 +2,505 5,689 2,139 5,727 Potential Future Capacity
Existing AHO Sites 174 — — 174
Candidate AHO Sites 273 — — 273
Notes: 1 Lower-income includes extremely low-, very low-, and low-income.

Source: Ascent, 2022.
1231
OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 CHAPTER 3 | SITES INVENTORY 3-33
Infrastructure Availability
This section addresses the adequacy and availability of water, sewer, and dry utilities relative to the sites in the inventory. Availability of infrastructure is not expected to pose a constraint on residential development within the time frame of the Housing Element.

The following paragraphs summarize the status of each of those services essential to residential development.

Water
The Diablo Water District (DWD) provides water service to Oakley and surrounding areas within its Diablo Water District Sphere of Influence (SOI), which includes the Cypress Corridor, Hotchkiss Tract, Veale Tract, and Knightsen, as well as the City of Oakley.

Additionally, DWD is the Groundwater Sustainability Agency within its SOI and is responsible for the management and protection of groundwater resources and interconnected ecosystems. The City and its SOI expansion areas are entirely within the DWD boundary.

The DWD 2020 Facilities Plan and 2020 Urban Water Management Plan identify the sources of DWD’s water supply, existing and projected water use, and the storage, treatment, and distribution system needed to serve its customers. DWD’s 2020 Facilities Plan indicates that DWD currently serves about 42,000 residents and anticipates serving a 2040 population estimated at about 64,000 persons. In 2019, DWD’s average day demand was 4.9 mgd and the maximum day demand was 10.0 mgd. At buildout, an average day demand of 12.55 mgd and a maximum day demand of 25.1 mgd are forecast. Water storage, treatment, and distribution facilities will need to be extended under buildout conditions, which is anticipated by the DWD 2020 Facilities Plan.

Groundwater use and quality is managed through a variety of mechanisms. DWD’s groundwater is from the East Contra Costa Subbasin, which is managed under the East Contra Costa Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan (ECCS GSP). DWD is the Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) that is charged with the implementation of the ECCS GSP for the Oakley area. The ECCS GSP addresses historical and projected water supply, establishes a water budget for historical, current, and projected conditions, establishes sustainable management criteria to address water use and quality, and includes actions and implementation measures.

DWD’s water supply is adequate to meet the RHNA and all of the sites included in the sites inventory are served by adequate water infrastructure or have planned access.

Sewer
The Ironhouse Sanitary District (ISD) provides wastewater service to Oakley, Bethel Island, and unincorporated areas of eastern Contra Costa County. The City of Oakley and its SOI areas are entirely within ISD’s boundary. The wastewater services involve the transmission of wastewater from residential, commercial, and light industry to a treatment facility and the final disposal of the wastewater and residual waste solids.

ISD’s infrastructure includes gravity and pressure pipelines, pumping stations, and the Ironhouse Water Recycling Facility (IWRF). The IWRF is located on 285 acres adjacent to 1232
REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 3-34 CHAPTER 3 | SITES INVENTORY
the south side of Big Break and the San Joaquin River; ISD also owns approximately 3,500 acres on Jersey Island. The IWRF has a current treatment capacity of 4.3 mgd dry weather flow and 8.6 mgd maximum wet weather flow.

Significant development has and is expected to occur within ISD’s boundaries, consistent with the City’s General Plan. ISD will continue to be responsible for providing adequate infrastructure for collection, conveyance, treatment, and recycling. This will require that the District implement phased improvements to its infrastructure, including its treatment and recycling facilities, pump stations, force mains, and other pipelines.

The ISD has capacity to meet the projected housing needs through the Housing Element Planning Period. All of the sites in the sites inventory have adequate sewer access or planned access.

Dry Utilities
Electricity and gas is provided to Oakley by Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E). Telephone, cable and broadband services are provided by a variety of services providers, including AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon. All of the sites identified in the inventory have access to dry utilities or planned access.

Environmental Constraints
Figure 3-3 shows environmental constraints in Oakley. As described in the Constraints Chapter, the biggest environmental constraint in Oakley is flood risk. The East Cypress Specific Plan is within the 100-year flood zone. A comprehensive engineered levee system will be constructed as part of the development of the Specific Plan for flood control purposes consistent with FEMA requirements. The levee system will protect new development while enhancing protection of existing residences within the Specific Plan Area. The engineered levee will extend completely around the boundaries of the proposed new development within the Specific Plan Area but will not surround the wetlands/dune area or the existing agricultural and residential areas located north and east of the development area. The new master levee system will remove existing single family residential areas adjacent to East Cypress Road from the 100-year storm event floodplain and will provide improved emergency access to existing residents along Sandmound Boulevard, Dutch Slough Road and adjoining areas in the event of a breach of the existing non-engineered levee surrounding these areas. The engineered levee system will also serve as a primary component of the comprehensive development of multi-use trails within the Specific Plan Area. Multi-use equestrian, biking and pedestrian trails will be developed on the top of each levee connecting to multi-use trails within arterial roadways and greenways within the Specific Plan Area. 1233
OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 CHAPTER 3 | SITES INVENTORY 3-35
Figure 3-3: Environmental Constraints (NEW MAP)
Source: FEMA Flood Zones 2021, National Wetlands Inventory 2022, City of Oakley 2022, and Contra Costa County in 2022. 1234
OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 CHAPTER 4 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT 4-1
Chapter 4: Fair Housing
Assessment
Introduction
Land use policies and planning directly impact the ability of individuals and families to live in neighborhoods with opportunity, including high-performing schools, greater availability of jobs, and convenient access to transit and services. Despite the longstanding federal mandate established by the Fair Housing Act1 (FHA), which prohibits
discrimination concerning the sale, rental, and financing of housing based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, familial status, and disability status, people within protected classes continue to encounter limits in housing choice and mobility.

In 2018, the California State Legislature passed Assembly Bill (AB) 686 to expand upon the fair housing requirements and protections outlined in the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA)2 and protect the requirement to affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH) as published in the 2015 U.S. Department of Housing and Community Development (HUD) Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Rule. 3 The California
Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) defines AFFH as taking meaningful actions to explicitly address, combat, and relieve disparities resulting from past patterns of segregation to foster more inclusive communities. 4 As part of this, housing elements are required to include the following components:
⚫ Inclusive and Equitable Outreach: Housing elements must make a diligent effort to equitably include all community stakeholders in the housing element participation process.
⚫ Assessment of Fair Housing: All housing elements must include an assessment of fair housing. This assessment should include an analysis of the following four fair housing issues: integration and segregation patterns and trends, racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, disparities in access to opportunity, and disproportionate housing needs, including displacement risk. 1 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601-3631
2 California Government Code Section 12900-12951 & 12927-12928 & 12955 - 12956.1 & 12960-12976 3 The 2015 HUD rule was reversed in 2020 and partially reinstated in 2021. 4 HCD AFFH Guidance Memo, 2021.
1235
REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 4-2 CHAPTER 4 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
⚫ Analysis of Sites Inventory: Local jurisdictions must evaluate and address how particular sites available for housing development will meet the needs of households at all income levels. The housing element must analyze and conclude whether the identified sites improve or exacerbate conditions for fair housing. ⚫ Identification of Contributing Factors: Based on findings from the previous steps, housing elements must identify, evaluate, and prioritize the contributing factors related to fair housing issues.
⚫ Priorities, Goals, and Actions to AFFH: Local jurisdictions must adopt fair housing goals and actions that are significant, meaningful, and sufficient to overcome identified patterns of segregation and affirmatively further fair housing. The housing element should include metrics and milestones for evaluating progress and fair housing results.

Fair Housing Assessment
This section serves as an assessment of fair housing practices in the City of Oakley, pursuant to Government Code Section 65583 (c)(10). It examines existing conditions and demographic patterns including patterns of integration and segregation within the City, concentrated areas of low- and moderate-income housing, and areas of low and high opportunity. The analysis is based on data and research from the U.S. Census American Community Survey (ACS) from 2000-2020, the HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool, the HUD AFFH Tool, Contra Costa County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice January 2020-2025 (2020 AI), and the AFFH Segregation Report: Oakley (2022) prepared by UC Merced/STIR Labs in collaboration with the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG).

Notes on Geospatial Analysis
In this report, “neighborhoods” are approximated by census tracts. Census tracts are statistical geographic units defined by the U.S. Census Bureau for the purposes of disseminating data. In the Bay Area, census tracts contain on average 4,500 residents.

Nearly all Bay Area jurisdictions contain at least two census tracts, with larger jurisdictions containing dozens of census tracts.

Throughout this report, neighborhood level segregation measures are calculated using census tract data. However, some of the analysis uses data derived from a smaller geographic scale (i.e., census blocks and census block groups) to better show spatial differences in where different groups live. Census block groups are subdivisions of census tracts, and census blocks are subdivisions of block groups. In the Bay Area, block groups contain on average 1,500 people, while census blocks contain on average 95 people.

The region is the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area, which is comprised of Alameda County, Contra Costa County, Marin County, Napa County, San Francisco County, San Mateo County, Santa Clara County, Solano County, and Sonoma County. 1236
OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 CHAPTER 4 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT 4-3
Fair Housing Enforcement, Education, and
Outreach
Fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity refers to the ability of a locality and fair housing entities to disseminate information related to fair housing laws and rights, and provide outreach and education to community members. Enforcement and outreach capacity also includes the ability to address compliance with fair housing laws, such as investigating complaints, obtaining remedies, and engaging in fair housing testing. The Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and the Unruh Civil Rights Act are the primary California fair housing laws. California state law extends anti-discrimination protections in housing to several classes that are not covered by the federal Fair Housing Act (FHA) of 1968, including prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Fair Housing Enforcement
California’s Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) has statutory mandates to protect the people of California from discrimination pursuant to the California FEHA, Ralph Civil Rights Act, and Unruh Civil Rights Act (with regards to housing). ⚫ FEHA prohibits discrimination and harassment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions), gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, marital status, military or veteran status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, source of income, disability, and genetic information, or because another person perceives the tenant or applicant to have one or more of these characteristics.
⚫ Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civ. Code, § 51) prohibits business establishments in California from discriminating in the provision of services, accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges to clients, patrons and customers because of their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration status.
⚫ Ralph Civil Rights Act (Civ. Code, § 51.7) guarantees the right of all persons within California to be free from any violence, or intimidation by threat of violence, committed against their persons or property because of political affiliation, or on account of sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, immigration status, or position in a labor dispute, or because another person perceives them to have one or more of these characteristics.

Regional Trends
Based on DFEH Annual Reports, Table 4-1 shows the number of housing complaints filed by Contra Costa County to DFEH between 2015–2020. A slight increase in the number of complaints precedes the downward trend from 2016–2020. Note that fair housing cases alleging a violation of FEHA can also involve an alleged Unruh violation as the same unlawful activity can violate both laws. DFEH creates companion cases that are investigated separately from the housing investigation. 1237
REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 4-4 CHAPTER 4 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
TABLE 4-1: NUMBER OF DFEH HOUSING COMPLAINTS IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY (2015-2020)
Year Housing Unruh Civil Rights Act
2015 30 5
2016 32 2
2017 26 2
2018 22 2
2019 22 2
2020 20 1
Total 152 14
Source: https://www.dfeh.ca.gov/LegalRecords/?content=reports#reportsBody.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (HUD FHEO) also enforces fair housing by investigating complaints of housing discrimination.

Table 4-2 shows the number of cases filed to HUD FHEO by protected class in Contra Costa County between 2015 and 2020. A total of 148 cases were filed between 2015 and June 30, 2020, with disability being the top allegation of basis of discrimination followed by familial status, race, national origin, and sex. Cases for 2020 were significantly lower because data was not collected after June 30, 2020. These findings are consistent with national trends stated in FHEO’s FY 2020 State of Fair Housing Annual Report to Congress where disability was also the top allegation of basis of discrimination.

TABLE 4-2: NUMBER OF FHEO FILED CASES BY PROTECTED CLASS IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY (2015–2020)
Year
Number of Filed
Cases
Disability Race
National
Origin Sex
Familial
Status
2015 28 17 4 2 2 4
2016 30 14 8 7 5 6
2017 20 12 3 5 1 5
2018 31 20 6 3 4 9
2019 32 27 4 4 4 1
2020 7 4 1 0 2 1
Total 148 94 26 21 18 26
Percentage of Total Filed Cases* 63.5% 17.5% 14.2% 12.2% 17.6% * Note: These percentages may not add up to 100 due to cases containing multiple bases of discrimination.

Source: Data.Gov - Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (HUD FHEO) Filed Cases, https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/fheo-filed-cases 1238
OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 CHAPTER 4 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT 4-5
Table 4-3 indicates that the highest number of fair housing complaints in Contra Costa County are due to discrimination against those with disabilities, followed by income source, race, and national origin. Note, however, that no further breakdown of the number of DFEH complaints or FHEO cases are provided on a City level. A summary of ECHO’s Fair Housing Complaint Log for Contra Costa County on fair housing issues, actions taken, services provided, and outcomes can be found in Table 4-3 and Table 4-4.

TABLE 4-3: ACTION(S) TAKEN/SERVICES PROVIDED BY PROTECTED CLASS Testers
sent for
investigati
on
Referred
to
attorney
Conciliatio
n with
landlord
Client
provided
with
counselin
g
Client
provided
with brief
service
Grand
Total
Race 21 0 0 2 0 23
Marital Status 0 0 0 1 0 1
Sex 0 0 0 0 0 0
Religion 0 0 0 0 0 0
Familial Status 0 0 0 3 0 3
Sexual Orientation 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sexual Harassment 0 0 0 1 0 1
Income Source 15 0 1 7 1 24
Disability 7 1 14 33 5 60
National Origin 13 0 0 1 0 14
Other 0 0 1 11 5 17
Total 56 1 16 59 11 143
Source: ECHO Fair Housing, 2020 – 2021.

Local Trends
In Oakley, only one general fair housing inquiry based on reasonable accommodation discrimination was made to ECHO between 2016-2021. The client was provided counseling and reached a successful mediation.
1239
REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 4-6 CHAPTER 4 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
TABLE 4-4: OUTCOMES
Protected Class
Counseling
provided to
landlord
Counseling
provided to
tenant
Education to
Landlord
Insufficient
evidence
Preparing Site
Visit
Referred to

DFEH/HUD
Successful
mediation Grand Total
Race 0 0 2 20 0 1 0 23
National Origin 0 0 1 13 0 0 0 14
Marital Status 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
Sex 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Disability 2 25 2 12 0 4 15 60
Religion 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sexual Orientation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Familial Status 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3
Income Source 3 3 0 16 1 0 1 24
Sexual Harassment 0 8 2 2 1 4 0 17
Other 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Total 5 39 7 64 2 10 16 143
Services that were not provided include (2.) Case tested by phone; (4.) Case referred to HUD and (8.) Case accepted for full representation. The most common action(s) taken/services provided are providing clients with counseling, followed by sending testers for investigation, and conciliation with landlords. Regardless of actions taken or services provided, almost 45 percent of cases are found to have insufficient evidence. Only about 12 percent of all cases resulted in successful mediation.

Source: ECHO Fair Housing (2020 - 2021).
1240
OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 CHAPTER 4 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT 4-7
Fair Housing Testing
Fair housing testing is a randomized audit of property owners’ compliance with local, state, and federal fair housing laws. Initiated by the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division in 1991, fair housing testing involves the use of an individual or individuals who pose as prospective renters for the purpose of determining whether a landlord is complying with local, state, and federal fair housing laws.

Regional and Local Trends
ECHO conducts fair housing investigations in Contra Costa County (except Pittsburg). The 2020 Contra Costa County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing (AI) did not report any findings on fair housing testing on the County level nor at the local level for the City of Oakley; however, it does bring to attention that private discrimination is a problem in Contra Costa County that continues to perpetuate segregation.

Fair Housing Education and Outreach
Regional Trends
Fair housing outreach and education is imperative to ensure that those experiencing discrimination know when and how to seek help. In Contra Costa County, local housing, social services, and legal service organizations include the Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California (FHANC), Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity (ECHO) Fair Housing, Bay Area Legal Aid, and Pacific Community Services (see Table 4-5). Below is a more detailed description of fair housing services provided by local housing, social services, and legal service organizations.

TABLE 4-5: FAIR HOUSING ADVOCACY ORGANIZATIONS, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Organization Focus Areas
Fair Housing Advocates of Northern
California (FHANC)
Non-profit agency that provides fair housing information and literature in a number of different languages, primarily serves Marin, Sonoma, and Solano County but also has resources to residents outside of the above geographic areas.

Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity
(ECHO) Fair Housing
Housing counseling agency that provides education and
charitable assistance to the general public in matters related to obtaining and maintaining housing.

Bay Area Legal Aid Largest civil legal aid provider serving seven Bay Area counties.

Has a focus area in housing preservation and homelessness task force to provide legal services and advocacy for those in need.

Pacific Community Services Private non-profit housing agency that serves East Contra Costa County (Bay Point, Antioch, and Pittsburg) and provides fair housing counseling as well as education and outreach Source: Organization Websites, HCD Fair Housing Organizations List, Alameda County Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice, 2020.
1241
REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 4-8 CHAPTER 4 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California (FHANC)
FHANC is a non-profit agency with a mission to actively support and promote fair housing through education and advocacy. Fair housing services provided to residents outside of Marin, Sonoma, or Solano County include foreclosure prevention services and information, information on fair housing law for the housing industry, and other fair housing literature. The majority of the fair housing literature is provided in Spanish and English, with some provided in Vietnamese and Tagalog.

Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity (ECHO) Fair Housing ECHO Fair Housing is a HUD-approved housing counseling agency that aims to promote equal access in housing, provide support services to aid in the prevention of homelessness, and promote permanent housing conditions. The organization provides education and charitable assistance to the general public in matters related to obtaining and maintaining housing in addition to rental assistance, housing assistance, tenant/landlord counseling, home seeking, home sharing, and mortgage and home purchase counseling. In Contra Costa County, ECHO Fair Housing provides fair housing services, first-time home buyer counseling and education, and tenant/landlord services (rent review and eviction harassment programs are available only in Concord). Although ECHO serves most of Contra Costa County, only one fair housing counselor serves the County. Fair housing services encompasses:
⚫ Counseling, investigation, mediation, enforcement, and education. ⚫ First-time home buyer counseling provides one-on-one counseling with a Housing Counselor on the homebuying process. The Housing Counselor will review all documentation, examine, and identify barriers to homeownership, create an action plan, and prepare potential homebuyers for the responsibility of being homeowners.

The Housing Counselor will also review the credit reports, determine what steps need to be taken to clean up adverse credit, provide counseling on money-saving methods, and assist in developing a budget.
⚫ First-time home buyer education provides classroom training regarding credit information, home ownership incentives, home buying opportunities, predatory lending, home ownership responsibilities, government-assisted programs, as well as conventional financing. The class also provides education on how to apply for HUDinsured mortgages, purchase procedures, and alternatives for financing the purchase.

Education also includes information on fair housing and fair lending and how to recognize discrimination and predatory lending procedures and locating accessible housing if needed.
⚫ ECHO’s Tenant/Landlord Services provides information to tenants and landlords on rental housing issues such as evictions, rent increases, repairs and habitability, harassment, illegal entry, and other rights and responsibilities regarding the tenant/landlord relationship. Trained mediators assist in resolving housing disputes through conciliation and mediation
⚫ In cities that adopt ordinances to allow Rent Reviews, tenants can request a rent review from ECHO Housing by phone or email. This allows tenants who experience 1242
OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 CHAPTER 4 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT 4-9
rent increases exceeding 10 percent in a 12-month period to seek non-binding conciliation and mediation services.

Though the Contra Costa County Consortium Analysis of Impediments (AI) to Fair Housing states that the organization provides information in Spanish, the ECHO website is predominantly in English with options to translate the homepage into various languages.

Navigating the entire site may be difficult for the limited-English proficient (LEP) population.

Bay Area Legal Aid (BayLegal)
BayLegal is the largest civil legal aid provider serving seven Bay Area counties (Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara). With respect to affordable housing, BayLegal has a focus area in housing preservation (landlord-tenant matters, subsidized and public housing issues, unlawful evictions, foreclosures, habitability, and enforcement of fair housing laws) as well as a homelessness task force that provides legal services and advocacy for systems change to maintain housing, help people exit homelessness, and protect unhoused persons’ civil rights. The organization provides translations for their online resources to over 50 languages and uses volunteer interpreters/translators to help provide language access. Its legal advice line provides counsel and advice in different languages. Specific to Contra Costa County, tenant housing resources are provided in English and Spanish.

The Housing Preservation practice is designed to protect families from illegal evictions, substandard housing conditions, and wrongful denials and terminations of housing subsidies. The practice also works to preserve and expand affordable housing and protect families from foreclosure rescue scams. BayLegal helps low-income tenants obtain or remain in safe affordable housing by providing legal assistance in housing-law related areas such as public, subsidized (including Section 8 and other HUD subsidized projects) and private housing, fair housing and housing discrimination, housing conditions, rent control, eviction defense, lock-outs and utility shut-offs, residential hotels, and training advocates and community organizations.

BayLegal also provides free civil legal services to low-income individuals and families to prevent homelessness and increase housing stability as well as assist unhoused youth/adults address legal barriers that prevent them from exiting homelessness. This is done through a mix of direct legal services, coalition building and partnerships, policy advocacy, and litigation to advocate for systems change that will help people maintain housing, exit homelessness, and protect unhoused persons’ civil rights. BayLegal also provides free civil legal services to low-income individuals and families to prevent homelessness and increase housing stability as well as assist unhoused youth/adults address legal barriers that prevent them from exiting homelessness. This is done through a mix of direct legal services, coalition building and partnerships, policy advocacy, and litigation to advocate for systems change that will help people maintain housing, exit homelessness, and protect unhoused persons’ civil rights. The Homelessness Task Force (HTF) was developed in response to complex barriers and inequities contributing to homelessness and strives to build capacity and develop best practices across the seven aforementioned counties to enhance BayLegal’s coordinated, multi-systems response to homelessness.
1243
REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 4-10 CHAPTER 4 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
Pacific Community Services, Inc. (PCSI)
PCSI is a private non-profit housing agency that serves East Contra Costa County (Bay Point, Antioch, and Pittsburg) and provides fair housing counseling in English and Spanish.

Housing Counseling Services provided include:
⚫ Foreclosure Prevention: Consists of a personal interview and the development of a case management plan for families to keep their homes and protect any equity that may have built up. Relief measures sought include: loan modification or reduced payments, reinstatement and assistance under ‘Keep Your Home’ program, forbearance agreements, deed-in-lieu of foreclosure, refinancing or recasting the mortgage, or sale of the property
⚫ Homeownership Counseling: Prepares first-time buyers for a successful home purchase by helping them in budgeting, understanding the home purchase process, and understanding the fees that lenders may charge to better prepare new buyers when acquiring their first home.
⚫ Rental Counseling; Tenant and Landlord Rights: PCSI provides information and assistance in dealing with eviction and unlawful detainer actions, deposit returns, habitability issues, getting repairs done, mediation of tenant/landlord disputes, assisting tenant organizations, legal referrals to Bay Area Legal Aid & Bar Association resources, pre-rental counseling and budgeting
⚫ Fair Housing Services: Include counseling regarding fair housing rights, referral services and education and outreach. PCSI offers training for landlords and owners involving issues of compliance with federal and state fair housing regulations. ⚫ Fair Housing Education and Outreach: Offers informative workshops for social service organizations and persons of protected categories. These workshops are designed to inform individuals how to recognize and report housing discrimination.

Though PCSI’s list of available services is comprehensive, their website lacks contact information, resources, and accessibility.

Local Trends
The City of Oakley directs its residents to Bay Area Legal Aid, Pacific Community Services, and Housing Rights, Inc. for assistance in tenant-landlord counseling, legal advice and representation, and education and outreach. While these organizations provide valuable assistance, the capacity and funding that they have is generally insufficient.

The City does not have a singular staff member dedicated to addressing housing issues, rather the City actively addresses fair housing issues as they arise through a combination of staff from the Building Division, Code Enforcement Division and Planning Division, collectively, the Community Development Department. The City provides information to the community on fair housing, including brochures and posters at the public counter and information on the City website about the Fair Housing Act with a list of resources people can contact if they are experiencing fair housing issues (https://www.ci.oakley.ca.us/fair-housing). City staff, most often with the Community Development Department of Code Enforcement, also sometimes act as a resource to help resolve disputes between tenants and landlords.
1244
OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 CHAPTER 4 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT 4-11
Historical Development and Investment
Prior to European contact, there were an estimated 340,000 Indigenous people living in California. The first residents of Oakley were Native Americans of the Bay Miwok, Delta Yokut, and Ohlone Tribes. With an abundance of game, plants and fish, Contra Costa County was home to hundreds of small villages. Several varieties of oak trees provided the acorns that were the mainstay of their diet, along with fish and shellfish from the Suisun Bay and the San Joaquin River.
5 Doctor John Marsh was the first Anglo settler in Contra Costa County. He arrived in the region in 1836 and built a riverboat freight landing on the San Joaquin River in the 1840s near what is now Oakley. Marsh Landing was very important to the early development of Oakley and the surrounding region.6
In the mid-19th century, Oakley was essentially four separate hamlets built by immigrant communities: Live Oak, Oakley, Iron House, and El Rancho. Live Oak, located closest to Antioch, is situated at the southernmost anchorage of the Senator John A. Nejedly Bridge (i.e., Antioch Bridge). Downtown Oakley is located closest to the train depot. The Iron House district is near Knightsen, and the El Rancho district centers around the intersection of Laurel Avenue and California State Highway 4. These smaller hamlets eventually coalesced into the community of Oakley.7
Civil War veterans Randolph Marsh and Alden Norcross acquired, surveyed, plotted, and registered the township of Oakley in 1898. The streets of the 10-block township spell Marsh’s last name Main, Acme, Rose, Star, and Home as intersected by 1st, 2nd, and 3rd streets (see image below). Today, Downtown Oakley, with its older housing stock and smaller homes, tends to be lower-income, experience higher cost burden, and have higher rates of units needing rehabilitation compared to the newer residential subdivisions in other parts of the city.

The arrival of the Santa Fe railroad, which stopped in Oakley starting in 1900, spurred agricultural growth of the area and from 1900 until the 1960s Oakley’s economy was based primarily on agriculture. By the 1930s there were packing sheds along the Santa Fe spur that shipped produce across the country. During harvest time, Oakley was filed with men that had come to work in the fields and packing sheds. A national demand for fresh produce and the need for canned vegetables in WWI and WWII spurred the agricultural economy in Oakley. Seasonal employment on farms and in packing sheds was provided by farm labor camps segregated into Chinese, “Hindu” (Indian), Philippine, Dust Bowl (Oklahoma and Arkansas), and Mexican labor. These camps were set up in vacant lots downtown and open county areas from the 1910s to 1940s.7 5 https://pioneerpublishers.com/no-longer-silenced-indigenous-peoples-reclaiming-their-stories/ 6 Oakley - East Contra Costa Historical Society (eastcontracostahistory.org) 7 Oakley Through Time | Soundings Magazine
1245
REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 4-12 CHAPTER 4 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
Source: Oakley Through Time | Soundings Magazine
Starting in the 1950s, Oakley, still an unincorporated community, began to rapidly transform from an exclusively agricultural community to a bedroom community supporting industrial growth in Antioch. Post WWII tract homes were built to house workers employed at the Crown Zellerbach paper plant and DuPont Chemical Works in Antioch. This rapid new growth changed the character of Oakley as new enclaves of bluecollar workers and their families lived a life apart from traditional rural families in Oakley.
7 1246
OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 CHAPTER 4 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT 4-13
Throughout the late 1900s and into the early 2000s leading up to the housing market crash, land speculation and housing development was rampant in Oakley. As farmers sought retirement or lacked an heir to take over the farm, housing developers acquired acres of vineyards, orchards, and grasslands. The primary demand for housing in Oakley was and continues to be single-family homes as new residents working in the Bay Area, many of which do not earn a high enough salary to afford the expensive housing market of the San Francisco Bay Area, have moved to Oakley seeking affordable opportunities to own their own homes. This demand is reflected in the predominance of single-family zoning in the city and the more than 5,000 entitled single-family lots in tract maps across the city.

Oakley was the last township settlement recorded in Contra Costa County in 1898. It was also the last community to incorporate as a city in Contra Costa County in 2009. In 2010, the year following incorporation, Oakley’s population was 35,432, up from about 25,000 a decade prior. Oakley has continued to grow at a faster rate than most other Bay Area communities. In 2022, the population of Oakley is nearly 44,000. As discussed in the next section, the City’s population also grew more diverse as the population grew. As a rapidly growing community with rural, agricultural roots, Oakley has experienced growing pains as many long-time residents, many of whom moved to Oakley seeking more land and a rural lifestyle, voice opposition to continued urbanization and densification.

During the last two decades, as the City has continued to grow outward, the City has also reinvested in the Downtown. The City has transformed Main Street into a complete street, built a new amphitheater at Civic Center Park, installed a train station platform and park and ride, and many other improvements to enhance Downtown Oakley.

Integration and Segregation
Race/Ethnicity
Defining Segregation
Segregation is the separation of different demographic groups into different geographic locations or communities, meaning that groups are unevenly distributed across geographic space. The data presented in this section describing racial and income segregation in Oakley is based on the data and research presented in the AFFH Land Use Segregation Report prepared for Oakley by the UC Merced/ STIR labs team in collaboration with ABAG. The report examines two spatial forms of segregation:
neighborhood level segregation within a local jurisdiction and City level segregation between jurisdictions in the Bay Area.
⚫ Neighborhood level segregation (within a jurisdiction): Segregation of race and income groups can occur from neighborhood to neighborhood within a City. For example, if a local jurisdiction has a population that is 20 percent Latino, but some neighborhoods are 80 percent Latino while others have nearly no Latino residents, that jurisdiction would have segregated neighborhoods.
1247
REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 4-14 CHAPTER 4 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
⚫ City level segregation (between jurisdictions in a region): Race and income divides also occur between jurisdictions in a region. A region could be very diverse with equal numbers of White, Asian, Black, and Latino residents, but the region could also be highly segregated with each City comprised solely of one racial group.

Regional Trends
The AFFH Land Use Segregation Report found that across the San Francisco Bay Area, White residents and above moderate-income residents are significantly more segregated from other racial and income groups The highest levels of racial segregation occur between the Black and White populations. The analysis showed that the amount of racial segregation both within Bay Area cities and across jurisdictions in the region has decreased since the year 2000. However, compared to cities in other parts of California, Bay Area jurisdictions have more neighborhood level segregation between residents from different racial groups. Additionally, there is also more racial segregation between Bay Area cities compared to other regions in the state.

As discussed in the 2020 AI, these patterns are also true for Contra Costa County. Contra Costa County is a large, diverse jurisdiction in which people of color comprise a majority of the population. As of the 2010 Census, 47.75 percent of residents were non-Hispanic Whites, 8.92 percent of residents were non-Hispanic Blacks, 24.36 percent were Hispanics, 14.61 percent were non-Hispanic Asians or Pacific Islanders, 0.28 percent were non-Hispanic Native Americans, 3.77 percent were non-Hispanic multiracial individuals, and 0.30 percent identified as some other race. Black residents tend to be concentrated in the cities of Antioch, Hercules, Pittsburg, and Richmond and the unincorporated community of North Richmond while Hispanic residents are concentrated in the cities of Pittsburg, Richmond, and San Pablo; in specific neighborhoods within the cities of Antioch, Concord, and Oakley (see Figure 4-1). Refer to Figure 4-2 for the distribution and proportion of non-White residents at the block group level. 1248
OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 CHAPTER 4 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT 4-15
Figure 4-1 Racial Dot Map of Oakley and Surrounding Areas, 2020 Source: UC Merced AFFH Segregation Report, 2022. U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020 Census of Population and Housing, Table P002. 1249
REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 4-16 CHAPTER 4 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
Figure 4-2: Racial Demographics in Contra Costa County
Source: Map 1(a) of Contra Costa Housing Collaborative AFFH analysis.

To measure segregation the County, Table 4-6 provides racial and ethnic dissimilarity trends from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Dissimilarity indices are used to measure the evenness with which two groups (frequently defined on racial or ethnic characteristics) are distributed across the geographic units, such as block groups within a community. The index ranges from 0 to 100, with 0 meaning no segregation and 100 indicating complete segregation between the two groups. The index score can be understood as the percentage of one of the two groups that would need to move to produce an even distribution of racial/ethnic groups within the specified area. For example, if an index score is above 60, 60 percent of people in the specified area would need to move to eliminate segregation. The following can be used to interpret the index:
⚫ <40: Low Segregation
⚫ 40-54: Moderate Segregation
⚫ >55: High Segregation
All non-White residents in Contra Costa County are considered moderately segregated from White residents, with an index score of 41.86 at the census tract level and 44.93 at the block group level (Table 4-6). This means that slightly less than half of all non-White households per census tract would need to move neighborhoods in order to achieve a “balanced” neighborhood representation.
1250
OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 CHAPTER 4 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT 4-17
TABLE 4-6: RACIAL/ETHNIC DISSIMILARITY TRENDS (1990–2020) IN

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Dissimilarity Index 1990
Trend
2000
Trend
2010
Trend
Current
(2010 Census Block Group)*
Non-White/White 41.19 41.95 41.86 44.93
Black/White 67.52 62.54 58.42 61.80
Hispanic/White 36.70 45.24 48.07 49.49
Asian or Pacific Islander/White 34.89 32.73 35.67 40.55 *Note: The table presents Decennial Census values for 1990, 2000, 2010, all calculated by HUD using census tracts as the area of measurement. The “current” figure is calculated using block groups from the 2010 Decennial Census, because block groups can measure segregation at a finer grain than census tracts due to their smaller geographies. See https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/affh for more information.

Source: HUD’s Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Tool (AFFH-T), Table 3 – Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Trends, Data version: AFFHT006, released July 10th, 2020.

Since 1990, segregation has increased from low to moderate levels for Hispanic residents but remained relatively steady for all other non-White groups. This trend is commonly seen throughout the State and is likely attributed to an increase of Hispanic residents during the migration boom of the mid-to-late 1990s. A 2 percent increase in segregation also occurred for Asian or Pacific Islander residents. Block group level data reveals that segregation is more prominent amongst Asian or Pacific Islander residents than what is measured at the tract level (index score of 40.55 at the block group level versus 35.67 at the tract level). For Black residents, segregation has decreased by 13 percent since 1990.

The proportion of Black residents has remained relatively steady during this same time period, indicating segregation has been diminishing for the Black population.

The 2020 AI reported that the main “driver of desegregation at a higher level of geography – whether the County or the Region – has been the out-migration of Blacks from historically Black neighborhoods in the Cities of Richmond, Oakland, and San Francisco toward suburban cities that have historically had small Black populations. Some of the neighborhoods to which Blacks have moved in these cities, like the City of Antioch, have concentrations of Black population relative to the city-wide average but relatively low Black populations in comparison to historically Black neighborhoods in the Cities of Richmond, Oakland, and San Francisco.8”
Local Trends
Table 4-7 below presents the racial demographics in Oakley for the years 2000, 2010, and 2020. The racial and ethnic demographics of the Oakley population have changed dramatically over the past two decades with the White population decreasing from 64.3 percent of the population in 2000 to 38.5 percent in 2020, and the percentage of all other racial and ethnic groups increasing. As of 2020, Oakley has only a slightlya higher share of White residents than the Bay Area as a whole, a higher share of Latino/a residents, a higher share of Black residents, and a much lower share of Asian/Pacific Islander residents.
8 2020-2025 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice - Contra Costa County Consortium, pg. 56. 1251
REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 4-18 CHAPTER 4 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
The racial dot map of Oakley in Figure 4-3 below offers a visual representation of the spatial distribution of racial groups within the jurisdiction. Generally, when the distribution of dots does not suggest patterns or clustering, segregation measures tend to be lower. Conversely, when clusters of certain groups are apparent on a racial dot map, segregation measures may be higher.

TABLE 4-7: RACIAL COMPOSITION FOR CONTRA COSTA COUNTY AND OAKLEY Race Oakley Bay Area Average
2000 2010 2020 2020
Asian/Pacific Islander 2.8% 6.3% 9.7% 28.2%
Black/African American 3.2% 6.9% 8.0% 5.6%
Latino 25.0% 34.9% 36.7% 24.4%
Other or Multiple Races 4.7% 4.4% 7.1% 5.9%
White 64.3% 47.5% 38.5% 35.8%
Source: UC Merced AFFH Segregation Report, 2022. IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System (NHGIS).

Data for 2019 is from U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B03002. Data from 2010 is from U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010, Table P4. Data for 2000 is standardized to 2010 census tract geographies and is from U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Table P004.

White residents are evenly distributed throughout the developed residential areas of the City although there are some slight concentrations in non-White residents in certain neighborhoods on the east side of the City, east of Main Street; in the Downtown Specific Planning area; and bordering Brentwood. Hispanic and Latino residents are clustered near the City’s downtown neighborhoods. Asian and Pacific Islander households are clustered in the Cypress Grove neighborhoods and off Neroly Road bordering Brentwood. 1252
OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 CHAPTER 4 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT 4-19
Figure 4-3: Racial Demographics in Oakley
Source: Source: UC Merced AFFH Segregation Report, 2022. U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020 Census of Population and Housing, Table P002.

Segregation Indices
There are three indices described below that measure segregation and integration at a local and regional level. The isolation index measures the segregation of a single group, and the dissimilarity index, described above, measures segregation between two different groups. The Theil’s H-Index can be used to measure segregation between all racial or income groups across the City at once. Theil’s H index is provided in addition to these required measures. The indices range from 0 to 1. Higher values indicate that groups are more unevenly distributed.

Table 4-8 shows the measures of segregation for all racial groups Oakley for the years 2000, 2010, and 2020 compared to averages for all 109 Bay Area jurisdictions in 2020.

Table 4-9 shows the measures of racial segregation for the region for 2010 and 2020 for comparison.
1253
REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 4-20 CHAPTER 4 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
TABLE 4-8: NEIGHBORHOOD RACIAL SEGREGATION MEASURES OAKLEY, 2000-2020 Index Race
Oakley Bay Area
Average
2000 2010 2020 2020
Isolation Index Asian/Pacific Islander 0.038 0.063 0.116 0.245 Black/African American 0.036 0.071 0.093 0.053
Latino 0.264 0.357 0.376 0.251
White 0.653 0.494 0.394 0.491
Dissimilarity Index Asian/Pacific Islander vs. White 0.189* 0.150 0.173 0.185 Black/African American vs. White 0.137* 0.154 0.179 0.244 Latino vs. White 0.152 0.142 0.102 0.207
People of Color vs. White 0.105 0.130 0.093 0.168
Theil's H Multi-racial All 0.017 0.012 0.018 0.042
Note: If a number is marked with an asterisk (*), it indicates that the index is based on a racial group making up less than 5 percent of the jurisdiction population, leading to unreliable numbers.

Source: UC Merced AFFH Segregation Report, 2022. IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System (NHGIS).

The isolation index shows that the most isolated racial group in Oakley are White residents. The isolation index of 0.394 for White residents means that the average White resident lives in a neighborhood that is 39.4 percent White. Table 4-9 shows the White isolation index value for the region is 0.429, meaning that on average White Bay Area residents live in a jurisdiction that is 42.9 percent White in 2020. Among all racial groups in Oakley, the White population’s isolation index has changed the most over time, becoming less segregated from other racial groups between 2000 and 2020. This is likely because the non-White population in the City has increased over time, naturally diversifying neighborhoods in Oakley.

TABLE 4-9: REGIONAL RACIAL SEGREGATION MEASURES
Index Group 2010 2020
Isolation Index Asian/Pacific Islander 0.317 0.378
Black/African American 0.144 0.118
Latino 0.283 0.291
White 0.496 0.429
People of Color 0.629 0.682
Dissimilarity Index Asian/Pacific Islander vs. White 0.384 0.369 Black/African American vs. White 0.475 0.459
Latino vs. White 0.301 0.297
People of Color vs. White 0.296 0.293
Theil's H Multi-racial All 0.103 0.097
Source: UC Merced AFFH Segregation Report, 2022. IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System (NHGIS).

Data for 2019 is from U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B03002. 1254
OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 CHAPTER 4 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT 4-21
Other racial groups are less isolated in Oakley, meaning they may be more likely to encounter other racial groups in their neighborhoods. The highest segregation is between Black and White residents (see Table 4-8). Oakley’s Black/White dissimilarity index of 0.179 means that 17.9 percent of Black (or White) residents would need to move to a different neighborhood to create perfect integration between Black residents and White residents. When analyzing the dissimilarity index, it is important to note that dissimilarity index values are less reliable for a population group if that group represents approximately less than 5 percent of the jurisdiction’s total population. While Oakley has no groups making up less than 5 percent of its population, Black, Asian/Pacific Islander, and Other or Multi-Racial residents all make up less than 10 percent of the City’s population and are going to attribute to segregation patterns in the City.

Tables 4-8 and 4-9 also present the Theil’s H Index value as a measure of segregation.

This index measures how diverse each neighborhood is compared to the diversity of the whole City. Neighborhoods are weighted by their size, so that larger neighborhoods play a more significant role in determining the total measure of segregation. Between 2010 and 2020, the Theil’s H Index for racial segregation in Oakley increased, suggesting that there is now more neighborhood level racial segregation within the jurisdiction. In 2020, the Theil’s H Index for racial segregation in Oakley was lower than the average value for Bay Area jurisdictions, indicating that neighborhood level racial segregation in Oakley is less than in the average Bay Area City.

Figures 4-4 and 4-5 below provide a visual representation of how racial segregation index values in Oakley, described above, compared to values in all other Bay Area jurisdictions.

Figure 4-10 compares isolation index values and Figure 4-11 compares dissimilarity index values. In these charts, each dot represents a Bay Area jurisdiction. For each racial group, the spread of dots represents the range of index values among Bay Area jurisdictions and each dashed red line represents the Bay Area average.

Figure 4-4: Comparison of Racial Isolation Index Values, Oakley and all Bay Area Jurisdictions, 2019 Source: UC Merced AFFH Segregation Report, 2022. IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System (NHGIS).

U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B03002. 1255
REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 4-22 CHAPTER 4 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
Figure 4-5: Comparison of Racial Dissimilarity Index Values, Oakley vs All Other Bay Area Jurisdictions, 2019
Source: UC Merced AFFH Segregation Report, 2022. IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System (NHGIS).

U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B03002.

Persons with Disabilities
In 1988, Congress added protections against housing discrimination for persons with disabilities through the FHA, which protects against intentional discrimination and unjustified policies and practices with disproportionate effects. The FHA also includes the following unique provisions to persons with disabilities: (1) prohibits the denial of requests for reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities, if necessary, to afford an individual equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling; and (2) prohibits the denial of reasonable modification requests. With regards to fair housing, persons with disabilities have special housing needs because of the lack of accessible and affordable housing, and the higher health costs associated with their disability. In addition, many may be on fixed incomes that further limit their housing options.

Regional Trends
According to the 2015-2019 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimates, 118,603 residents (10.9 percent of Contra Costa County’s population) reported having one of six disability types listed in the ACS (hearing, vision, cognitive, ambulatory, selfcare, and independent living). The percentage of residents detailed by disability are listed in Table 4-10. Note that an individual may report more than one disability. 1256
OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 CHAPTER 4 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT 4-23
TABLE 4-10: PERCENTAGE OF POPULATIONS BY DISABILITY TYPES IN

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY AND OAKLEY
Disability Type Contra Costa County City of Oakley
Hearing 2.9% 2.3%
Vision 1.8% 4.3%
Cognitive 4.4% 3.3%
Ambulatory 5.9% 5.7%
Self-Care Difficulty 2.4% 1.6%
Independent Living Difficulty 5.2% 6.0%
Percentage of Total Population with Disability* 10.9% 11.5% *Note: These disabilities are counted separately and are not mutually exclusive, as an individual may report more than one disability. These counts should not be summed.

Source: 2019 ACS 5-year Estimates.

In Contra Costa County, the percentage of individuals with disabilities increases with age, with the highest percentage of individuals with disabilities being those 65 years and older. In Oakley, however, 5 percent of individuals between the ages of 18-64 have disabilities, 3.6 percent of individuals over 65 years and older have disabilities, and only

0.8 percent of individuals under the age of 18 have disabilities. Refer to Table 4-11 for the distribution of percentages by age.

TABLE 4-11: PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION WITH DISABILITIES BY AGE IN

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY AND OAKLEY
Age Contra Costa County Age City of Oakley
Under 5 years 0.8%
Under 18 0.8%
5 - 17 years 4.9%
18 - 34 years 6.2%
18 - 64 years 5.0%
35 - 64 years 9.7%
65 - 74 years 21.5%
65 years and over 3.6%
75 years and over 51.2%
Source: 2019 ACS 5-year Estimates.

In terms of geographic dispersal, there is a relatively homogenous dispersal of persons with disabilities, especially in Central Contra Costa County, where most census tracts have less than 10 percent of individuals with disabilities. Towards Eastern Contra Costa County, the Western boundary, and parts of Southern Contra Costa County, however, the percentage of population with disabilities increases to 10–20 percent. Comparing Figure 4-6 and Figure 4-42, areas with a high percentage of populations with disabilities correspond with areas with high housing choice voucher (HCV) concentration (24 percent of people who utilize HCVs in Contra Costa County have a disability). Though use of HCVs does not represent a proxy for actual accessible units, participating landlords remain subject to the FHA to provide reasonable accommodations and allow tenants to make reasonable modifications at their own expense. Areas with a high percentage of populations with disabilities also correspond to areas with high percentages of lowmoderate income communities. 1257
REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 4-24 CHAPTER 4 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
Figure 4-6: Distribution of Population with a Disability in Contra Costa County Source: Map 2(a) of Contra Costa Housing Collaborative AFFH analysis.

Local Trends
The City of Oakley has a higher percentage of population with disabilities than Contra Costa County (a difference of 0.6 percent) and different concentrations of disability types. The greatest percentage of disabilities in Oakley are those with independent living difficulties (6 percent), followed by ambulatory (5.7 percent), Vision (4.3 percent), Cognitive (3.3 percent), Hearing (2.3 percent), and self-care difficulties (1.6 percent).

Referring to Figure 4-7a, which shows 2015-2019 ACS data, populations with disabilities are concentrated in the southwest and east portions of the City, where 10-20 percent of the population has a disability in these areas. Other portions of the City have less than 10 percent of population with a disability. Figure 4-7b shows earlier data from the 2010- 2014 ACS. While this map seems to tell a slightly different story, with the northwestern area reporting 10-20 percent disability and the westernmost Census tract reporting less than 10 percent disability, the difference in percentages between 2010-2014 and 2015- 2019 is actually quite small. This is because most Census tracts report between nine and 11 percent of the population with a disability.
1258
OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 CHAPTER 4 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT 4-25
Figure 4-7a: Distribution of Population with a Disability in Oakley, 2015-2019 Source: Map 2(b) of Contra Costa Housing Collaborative AFFH analysis.

Figure 4-7b: Distribution of Population with a Disability in Oakley, 2010-2014 1259
REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 4-26 CHAPTER 4 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
Familial Status
Under the FHA, housing providers (e.g., landlords, property managers, real estate agents, or property owners) may not discriminate because of familial status. Familial status refers to the presence of at least one child under 18 years old, pregnant persons, or any person in the process of securing legal custody of a minor child (including adoptive or foster parents). Examples of familial status discrimination include refusing to rent to families with children, evicting families once a child joins the family (through birth, adoption, or custody), enforcing overly restrictive rules regarding children’s use of common areas, requiring families with children to live on specific floors, buildings, or areas, charging additional rent, security deposit, or fees because a household has children, advertising a preference for households without children, and lying about unit availability.

Families with children often have special housing needs due to lower per capita income, the need for affordable childcare, the need for affordable housing, or the need for larger units with three or more bedrooms. Single parent households are also protected by fair housing law. Of particular consideration are female-headed households, who may experience greater housing affordability challenges due to typically lower household incomes compared to two-parent households. Often, sex and familial status intersect to compound the discrimination faced by single mothers.

Regional Trends
Figure 4-8 indicates that most children living in Contra Costa County live in marriedcouple households, especially in central parts of the County where the percentage of children in such households exceed 80 percent. Census tracts adjacent to these areas also have relatively high percentages of children living in married-couple households (60 percent–80 percent). Census tracts with the lowest percentage of children in marriedcouple households (less than 20 percent) are located between Pittsburg and Antioch. 1260
OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 CHAPTER 4 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT 4-27
Figure 4-8: Distribution of Percentage of Children in Married-Couple Households in Contra Costa County Source: Map 3(a) of Contra Costa Housing Collaborative AFFH analysis.

Figure 4-9 depicts the concentration of households headed by single mothers in the County by Census Tract. Areas of concentration include Richmond, San Pablo, Rodeo, Bay Point, Pittsburg, Antioch, and to the west of Concord. Those communities are also areas of high minority populations. By contrast, most of the central County and portions of central County to the south of the City of Concord have relatively low concentrations of children living in female-headed households (less than 20 percent). These tend to be more heavily White or White and Asian and Pacific Islander communities. 1261
REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 4-28 CHAPTER 4 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
Figure 4-9: Distribution of Percentage of Children in Female-Headed, No-Spouse or No-Partner Households in Contra Costa County
Source: Map 4(a) of Contra Costa Housing Collaborative AFFH analysis.

Local Trends
Referring to Figure 4-10, all census tracts (except a sliver on the west) have at least 61-80 percent of children in married-couple households. The westernmost sliver has 41-60 percent of children in married-couple households. The southwest and most eastern portions of the City have over 80 percent of children in married-couple households.

Census tracts with a high percentage of children in married-couple households on the east have the lowest use of HCVs.

The City has an overall low percentage of female-headed households of less than 20 percent, except for tracts in the northwest neighborhoods in the City’s downtown that have 21-40 percent of female-headed households (see Figure 4-11). Census tracts with a higher percentage of children in female-headed households correspond with the highest use of HCVs in the City. These tracts also correspond with block groups with the lowest income in the City, areas with a high percentage of population with low to moderate income levels, and highest overpayment by renters. As will be discussed later, these tracts were also classified as sensitive communities vulnerable to displacement based on rising property values based on the UC Berkeley Urban Displacement Project. 1262
OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 CHAPTER 4 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT 4-29
Figure 4-10: Percent of Children in Married-Couple Households by Tract in Oakley Source: Map 3(b) of Contra Costa Housing Collaborative AFFH analysis.

Figure 4-11: Percent of Children in Female-Headed Households by Tract in Oakley Source: Map 4(b) of Contra Costa Housing Collaborative AFFH analysis. 1263
REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 4-30 CHAPTER 4 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
Income Level
Each year, HUD receives custom tabulations of American Community Survey (ACS) data from the U.S. Census Bureau. Known as the "CHAS" data (Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy), it demonstrates the number of households in need of housing assistance by estimating the number of households that have certain housing problems and have income low enough to qualify for HUD’s programs (primarily 30 percent, 50 percent, and 80 percent of median income). HUD defines a Low to Moderate Income (LMI) area as a census tract or block group where over 51 percent of the population is LMI (based on HUD income definition of up to 80 percent of the Area Median Income).

Regional Trends
Table 4-12 lists Contra Costa County households by income category and tenure. Based on the above definition, 38.71 percent of Contra Costa County households are considered LMI as they earn less than 80 percent of the HUD Area Median Family Income (HAMFI). Almost 60 percent of all renters are considered LMI compared to only 27.5 percent of owner households.

TABLE 4-12: HOUSEHOLDS BY INCOME CATEGORY AND TENURE IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Income Distribution Overview Owner Renter Total
Household Income < 30% HAMFI 7.53% 26.95% 14.40%
Household Income >30% to < 50% HAMFI 8.85% 17.09% 11.76% Household Income >50% to < 80% HAMFI 11.12% 15.16% 12.55% Household Income >80% to < 100% HAMFI 8.98% 9.92% 9.31% Household Income >100% HAMFI 63.52% 30.89% 51.98%
Total Population 248,670 135,980 384,645
Source: HUD Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R) CHAS Data; 2011–2015 ACS Figure 4-12 shows the LMI areas in Contra Costa County by block group. Most of central Contra Costa County has less than 25 percent of LMI populations. Block groups with high concentrations of LMI (between 75–100 percent of the population) can be found clustered around Antioch, Pittsburg, Richmond, and San Pablo. There are also small pockets with high percentages of LMI population in Oakley. Other areas of the County have a moderate percentage of LMI population (25 percent–75 percent). 1264
OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 CHAPTER 4 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT 4-31
Figure 4-12: Distribution of Percentage of Population with Low to Moderate Income Levels in Contra Costa County
Source: Map 5(a) of Contra Costa Housing Collaborative AFFH analysis.

Local Trends
Table 4-13 displays a breakdown of income demographics in Oakley for the years 2010 and 2015 compared to an average of the nine-county Bay Area in 2015. As of that year, Oakley had a lower share of very low-income residents than the Bay Area as a whole, a higher share of low-income residents, a higher share of moderate-income residents, and a similar share of above moderate-income residents.

TABLE 4-13: POPULATION BY INCOME GROUP, OAKLEY AND THE REGION Income Distribution Overview 2010 2015 2015
Household Income < 30% HAMFI 8.33% 30.54% 13.63%
Household Income >30% to < 50% HAMFI 9.03% 20.11% 11.67% Household Income >50% to < 80% HAMFI 13.17% 12.30% 12.96% Household Income >80% to < 100% HAMFI 10.02% 7.82% 9.50% Household Income >100% HAMFI 59.50% 29.05% 52.24%
Total Population 8,580 2,685 11,265
Source: UC Merced AFFH Segregation Report, 2022. Data for 2015 is from Housing U.S. Department of and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2011- 2015 Low- and Moderate-Income Summary Data. Data for 2010 is from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2006-2010 Low- and Moderate-Income Summary Data.
1265
REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 4-32 CHAPTER 4 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
Table 4-14 provides a list of households by income category and tenure in Oakley in 2015. Generally speaking, there are disparities between the incomes of homeowners and renters, a pattern observed on both the regional and local levels. In Oakley, only 17.36 percent of owner households are considered LMI (earns less than 80 percent of HAMFI) compared to about 50 percent of renter households. The reverse is true for those of high income households (more than 100 percent of HAMFI), where almost 60 percent of owner households are high income, and slightly less than 30 percent of renter households are high income.

TABLE 4-14: HOUSEHOLDS BY INCOME CATEGORY AND TENURE IN OAKLEY, 2015 Income Distribution Overview Owner Renter Total
Household Income < 30% HAMFI 8.33% 30.54% 13.63%
Household Income >30% to < 50% HAMFI 9.03% 20.11% 11.67% Household Income >50% to < 80% HAMFI 13.17% 12.30% 12.96% Household Income >80% to < 100% HAMFI 10.02% 7.82% 9.50% Household Income >100% HAMFI 59.50% 29.05% 52.24%
Total Population 8,580 2,685 11,265
Source: HUD Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R) CHAS Data; 2011–2015 ACS.

Figure 4-13 below shows the percent of population with low to moderate income levels by block group in the City of Oakley. A ‘slice’ of block groups located in the northwest portion of the City (known as the Carol Lane, Elm, and Sandy Lane neighborhoods) have the highest percentage of LMI populations (75–100 percent) followed by tracts with 50– 75 percent of populations with LMI income approaching the center of the City (within the Teakwood and Duarte neighborhoods). The rest of the City has 25–50 percent of population with LMI income. The block groups in the southwest area of the City have the lowest percentage of population with LMI levels. These block groups are among the most cost-burdened in the City and are especially vulnerable to displacement due to rising property values. As such, they have been classified as sensitive communities by the UC Berkeley Urban Displacement Project.

Income segregation can also be analyzed by calculating values for the segregation indices discussed previously. Similar to the racial segregation measures shown in Tables 4-8 and 4-9, Table 4-15 presents segregation index values for income segregation for Oakley and the entire nine-county Bay Area in 2010 and 2015 and Table 4-16 presents the same for the region.

The dissimilarity index and isolation index are calculated by comparing the income demographics of Oakley and local jurisdictions to the regional income group composition.

For example, Table 4-8 shows that the regional isolation index value for very low-income residents is 0.315, meaning that on average very low-income Bay Area residents live in a jurisdiction that is 31.5 percent very low-income. The regional dissimilarity index for lower-income residents (below 80 percent AMI) and other residents is 0.193, which means that across the region 19.3 percent of lower-income residents would need to move to a different jurisdiction to create perfect income group integration in the Bay Area as a whole.
1266
OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 CHAPTER 4 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT 4-33
Figure 4-13: Distribution of Percentage of Population with Low to Moderate Income Levels in Oakley Source: Map 5(a) of Contra Costa Housing Collaborative AFFH analysis.

TABLE 4-15: NEIGHBORHOOD INCOME SEGREGATION LEVELS IN OAKLEY Index Race
Oakley Bay Area Average
2000 2015 2015
Isolation Index Very Low-Income (<50% AMI) 0.249 0.311 0.269 Low-Income (50%-80% AMI) 0.142 0.186 0.145
Moderate-Income (80%-120% AMI) 0.253 0.210 0.183
Above Moderate-Income (>120% AMI) 0.410 0.406 0.507
Dissimilarity Index Below 80% AMI vs. Above 80% AMI 0.158 0.199 0.198 Below 50% AMI vs. Above 120% AMI 0.195 0.268 0.253
Theil's H MultiracialAll Income Groups 0.022 0.042 0.043 Source: UC Merced AFFH Segregation Report, 2022. Income data for 2015 is from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2011-2015 Low- and Moderate-Income Summary Data. Data for 2010 is from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2006-2010 Low- and Moderate-Income Summary Data.
1267
REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 4-34 CHAPTER 4 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
TABLE 4-16: REGIONAL INCOME SEGREGATION MEASURES
Index Group 2010 2015
Isolation Index Very Low-Income (<50% AMI) 0.277 0.315
Low-Income (50%-80% AMI) 0.157 0.154
Moderate-Income (80%-120% AMI) 0.185 0.180
Above Moderate-Income (>120% AMI) 0.467 0.435
Dissimilarity Index Below 80% AMI vs. Above 80% AMI 0.186 0.194 Below 50% AMI vs. Above 120% AMI 0.238 0.248
Theil's H Multi-racial All Income Groups 0.034 0.032
Source: UC Merced AFFH Segregation Report, 2022. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2011-2015 Low- and Moderate- Income Summary Data.

Concentrated Areas of Race/Ethnicity and Income
Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty
The Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAP) are neighborhoods in which there are both racial concentrations and high poverty rates. HUD’s definition of a R/ECAP is:
⚫ A census tract that has a non-white population of 50 percent or more (majorityminority) or, for non-urban areas, 20 percent, AND a poverty rate of 40 percent or more; OR
⚫ A census tract that has a non-white population of 50 percent or more (majorityminority) AND the poverty rate is three times the average tract poverty rate for the County, whichever is lower.

Identifying R/ECAPs can help facilitate understanding of entrenched patterns of segregation and poverty since households within R/ECAP tracts frequently represent the most disadvantaged households within a community.
9 The National Bureau of Economic
Research found that urban areas that are more residentially segregated by race and income tend to have lower levels of upward economic mobility than other areas.10 Using HUD’s methodology, R/ECAPs are meant to identify where residents may have historically faced discrimination and/or continue to be challenged by limited economic opportunity.

Regional Trends
In Contra Costa County, the only area that meets the official definition of a R/ECAP is Monument Corridor in Concord (highlighted with red stripes in Figure 4-14 below). 9 Contra Costa County 2020-2025 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice. Pg. 86 10 National Bureau of Economic Research, January 2014. Where is the Land of Opportunity? The Geography of Intergenerational Mobility in the United States,
https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w19843/w19843.pdf 1268
OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 CHAPTER 4 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT 4-35
Figure 4-14: R/ECAPs in Contra Costa County
Source: Map 8(a) of Contra Costa Housing Collaborative AFFH analysis.

Expanded R/ECAPs in Contra Costa County
According to the 2020 Contra Costa County AI, however, the HUD definition that utilizes the federal poverty rate is not suitable for analysis in the San Francisco Bay Area due to the high cost of living. The HUD definition would severely underestimate whether an individual is living in poverty. The 2020 AI proposes an alternate definition of a R/ECAP that includes majority-minority census tracts that have poverty rates of 25 percent or more. Under this definition, twelve other census tracts would qualify as R/ECAPs in the areas of Antioch (1), Bay Point (1), Concord (3), Pittsburg (2), North Richmond (1), Richmond (3) and San Pablo (1). Refer to Figure 4-15 for the locations of R/ECAPS based on the expanded definition. Note that the Contra Costa County AI does not provide a legend for the map.

According to the 2012–2016 American Community Survey, 69,326 people lived in these expanded R/ECAPs, representing 6.3 percent of the County’s population. Hispanic and Black populations make up a disproportionately large percentage of residents who reside in R/ECAPs compared to the population of the County or Region as a whole. In Contra Costa County, approximately 53 percent of individuals living in R/ECAPs are Hispanic, nearly 18 percent are Black, 19.57 percent are Mexican American, 4.65 percent are Salvadoran American, and 1.49 percent are Guatemalan Americans. Families with children under 18 still in the household comprise almost 60 percent of the population in Contra Costa County’s R/ECAPs. To those already living in poverty, the higher rate of dependent children in their households would translate to a greater strain on their resources. 1269
REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 4-36 CHAPTER 4 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
Figure 4-15: Expanded R/ECAPs in Contra Costa County
Source: 2020-2025 Contra County Consortium Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Local Trends
The City of Oakley has no R/ECAPs as defined by HUD or expanded R/ECAPs as defined by the 2020 County AI (see Figure 4-16).

Figure 4-16: R/ECAPs in Oakley
Source: Map 8(b) of Contra Costa Housing Collaborative AFFH analysis. 1270
OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 CHAPTER 4 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT 4-37
Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence
The Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAAs) are defined by the HUD as communities with a large proportion of affluent and non-Hispanic White residents.

According to a policy paper published by HUD, non-Hispanic Whites are the most racially segregated group in the United States. In the same way neighborhood disadvantage is associated with concentrated poverty and high concentrations of people of color, distinct advantages are associated with residence in affluent, White communities. RCAAs are currently not available for mapping on the HCD AFFH Data Viewer.11 As such, an alternate definition of RCAA from the University of Minnesota Humphrey School of Public Affairs is used in this analysis. RCAAs are defined as census tracts where (1) 80 percent or more of the population is White, and (2) the median household income is $125,000 or greater (slightly more than double the national median household income in 2016).

Regional Trends
By cross-referencing Figure 4-2 (Racial Demographics in Contra Costa County) above and Figure 4-17 below showing median household incomes by census block group in Contra Costa County, RCAAs can be identified in the expanse from Lafayette, in the north, to Danville, in the south. This aligns with the cities’ racial demographic and median income (summarized in Table 4-17 below). Although not all census tracts/block groups meet the criteria to qualify as RCAAs, there is a tendency for census block groups with higher White populations to have higher median incomes throughout the County.

Figure 4-17: Median Household Income in Contra Costa County Source: Map 10(a) of Contra Costa Housing Collaborative AFFH analysis. 11 RCAAs were added to the HCD AFFH Data Viewer in June 2022. There are no RCAAs in Oakley. The closest RCAAs are in Brentwood and in the unincorporated County southeast of Oakley. The Data Viewer can be accessed at the following link: https://affh-data-resources-cahcd.hub.arcgis.com 1271
REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 4-38 CHAPTER 4 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
TABLE 4-17: WHITE POPULATION AND MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME OF RCAAS IN

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
City White Population Median Household Income
(2019)
Danville 80.53% $160,808
Lafayette 81.23% $178,889
Walnut Creek 74.05% $105,948
Source: DataUSA.io (2019).

Local Trends
Figure 4-18a shows the median household income by block group from the 2015-2019 ACS in the City of Oakley. Income above $87,000 is considered above HCD’s 2020 Median Income for California. As shown in the figure, the majority of Oakley, particularly the newer residential subdivisions, has incomes higher than the State Median Income, except central and northwestern Oakley, which include the older areas of Downtown Oakley.

Radiating from the center of the City towards the south and west, median household income increases from $55,000 to $87,000, $125,000, and greater than $125,000.

Northwest Oakley has the lowest median income of less than $30,000. However, areas with high median income do not overlap with census tracts where there is 80 percent or more White residents, thus there are no RCAAs in Oakley.

Figure 4-18b shows the median household income in Oakley according to the 2010-2014 ACS. Comparing this to the 2015-2019 ACS data shows that incomes in most census tracts increased over time, with the exception of the northwesternmost census tract, which shows a decrease in the median income. This decrease is likely a result of the development of new affordable lower-income housing built in this census tract after 2010. 1272
OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 CHAPTER 4 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT 4-39
Figure 4-18a: Median Household Income in Oakley, 2015-2019 Source: Map 10(b) of Contra Costa Housing Collaborative AFFH analysis.

Figure 4-18b: Median Household Income in Oakley, 2010-2014 1273
REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 4-40 CHAPTER 4 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
Block groups with the lowest median income correspond to areas with high percentages of renter units with HCVs, children in female headed households, populations with low to moderate income levels, and cost-burdened renter households. According to the AFFH DataViewer, the northwest area of Oakley with the lowest median income contains a concentration of subsidized housing units.

Access to Opportunities
Access to opportunity is a concept to approximate the link between place-based characteristics (e.g., education, employment, safety, and the environment) and critical life outcomes (e.g. health, wealth, and life expectancy). Ensuring access to opportunity means both improving the quality of life for residents of low-income communities, as well as supporting residents’ mobility and access to ‘high resource’ neighborhoods.

HUD Opportunity Indices
This section presents the HUD-developed index scores based on nationally available data sources to assess residents’ access to key opportunity assets in comparison to the County. Table 4-18 provides index scores or values (the values range from 0 to 100) for the following opportunity indicator indices:
⚫ School Proficiency Index: The school proficiency index uses school-level data on the performance of 4th grade students on state exams to describe which neighborhoods have high-performing elementary schools nearby and which are near lower performing elementary schools. The higher the index value, the higher the school system quality is in a neighborhood.
⚫ Labor Market Engagement Index: The labor market engagement index provides a summary description of the relative intensity of labor market engagement and human capital in a neighborhood. This is based upon the level of employment, labor force participation, and educational attainment in a census tract. The higher the index value, the higher the labor force participation and human capital in a neighborhood.
⚫ Transit Trips Index: This index is based on estimates of transit trips taken by a family that meets the following description: a single parent family of three, renting, with income equal to 50 percent of the AMI. The higher the transit trips index value, the more likely residents in that neighborhood utilize public transit. ⚫ Low Transportation Cost Index: This index is based on estimates of transportation costs for a family that meets the following description: a single-parent family of three, renting, with income equal to 50 percent of the AMI. The higher the index value, the lower the cost of transportation in that neighborhood.
⚫ Jobs Proximity Index: The jobs proximity index quantifies the accessibility of a given residential neighborhood as a function of its distance to all job locations within a region or Core Based Statistical Area (CBSA), with larger employment centers weighted more heavily. The higher the index value, the better the access to employment opportunities for residents in a neighborhood. 1274
OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 CHAPTER 4 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT 4-41
⚫ Environmental Health Index: The environmental health index summarizes potential exposure to harmful toxins at a neighborhood level. The higher the index value, the less exposure to toxins harmful to human health. Therefore, the higher the index value, the better the environmental quality of a neighborhood, where a neighborhood is a census block-group.

TABLE 4-18: OPPORTUNITY INDICES IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Index School
Proficiency
Transit
Trip
Low
Transportation
Cost
Labor
Market
Jobs
Proximity
Environmental
Health
White, Non-Hispanic 69.32 79.83 71.72 68.76 49.30 54.75 Black, Non-Hispanic 34.34 81.81 75.62 42.52 48.12 43.68 Asian or Pacific Islander,
Non-Hispanic 59.43 80.81 72.22 66.87 45.27 52.22
Native American, NonHispanic 49.99 80.47 73.09 51.19 49.04 47.92 Hispanic 39.38 82.31 75.57 42.30 45.11 43.85
White, Non-Hispanic 55.60 81.05 74.17 55.46 50.67 49.39 Black, Non-Hispanic 25.84 84.03 78.23 32.63 48.69 39.84 Asian or Pacific Islander,
Non-Hispanic 46.48 84.04 77.75 52.15 50.02 41.52
Native American, NonHispanic 19.92 82.61 75.06 34.52 48.41 46.48 Hispanic 30.50 84.69 78.06 32.01 44.57 38.66
Note: American Community Survey Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability.

Source: AFFHT Data Table 12; Data Sources: Decennial Census; ACS; Great Schools; Common Core of Data; SABINS; LAI; LEHD; NATA
TCAC Opportunity Maps
TCAC Maps are opportunity maps created by the California Fair Housing Task Force (a convening of the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC)) to provide research and evidencebased policy recommendations to further HCD’s fair housing goals of (1) avoiding further segregation and concentration of poverty and (2) encouraging access to opportunity through land use policy and affordable housing, program design, and implementation.

These opportunity maps identify census tracts with highest to lowest resources, segregation, and poverty, which in turn inform the TCAC to distribute funding more equitably for affordable housing in areas with the highest opportunity through the LowIncome Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) Program.

TCAC Opportunity Maps display areas by highest to lowest resources by assigning scores between 0–1 for each domain by census tracts where higher scores indicate higher “access” to the domain or higher “outcomes.” Refer to Table 4-19 for a list of domains and indicators for opportunity maps. Composite scores are a combination score of the three domains that do not have a numerical value but rather rank census tracts by the level of resources (low, moderate, high, highest, and high poverty and segregation). The 1275
REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 4-42 CHAPTER 4 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
opportunity maps also include a measure or “filter” to identify areas with poverty and racial segregation. The criteria for these filters were:
⚫ Poverty: Tracts with at least 30 percent of population under the federal poverty line; ⚫ Racial Segregation: Tracts with location quotient higher than 1.25 for Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, or all people of color in comparison to the County TABLE 4-19: DOMAINS AND LIST OF INDICATORS FOR OPPORTUNITY MAPS Domain Indicator
Economic Poverty
Adult Education
Employment
Job Proximity
Median Home Value
Environmental CalEnviroScreen 3.0 Pollution Indicators and Values Education Math Proficiency
Reading Proficiency
High School Graduation Rates
Student Poverty Rates
Source: California Fair Housing Task Force, Methodology for the 2021 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps, December 2020.

High resource areas have high index scores for a variety of opportunity indicators such as high employment rates, low poverty rates, proximity to jobs, high educational proficiency, and limited exposure to environmental health hazards. High resource tracts are areas that offer low-income residents the best chance of a high quality of life, whether through economic advancement, high educational attainment, or clean environmental health. Moderate resource areas have access to many of the same resources as the high resource areas but may have fewer job opportunities, lower performing schools, lower median home values, or other factors that lower their indexes across the various economic, educational, and environmental indicators. Low resource areas are characterized as having fewer opportunities for employment and education, or a lower index for other economic, environmental, and educational indicators. These areas have greater quality of life needs and should be prioritized for future investment to improve opportunities for current and future residents.

Information from opportunity mapping can help highlight the need for housing element policies and programs that would help to remediate conditions in low resource areas or areas of high segregation and poverty, and to encourage better access for low and moderate income and black, indigenous, and non-White households to housing in high resource areas.

Regional Trends
Figure 4-19 shows the composite score of the 2021 TCAC Opportunity Areas in Contra Costa County, where each tract is categorized based on percentile rankings of the level of resources within the region. The only census tract in Contra Costa County considered an area of high segregation and poverty is in Martinez. Concentrations of low resource areas are in the northwestern and eastern parts of the County (Richmond to Hercules and 1276
OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 CHAPTER 4 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT 4-43
Concord to Oakley); census tracts with the highest resources are located in central and southern parts of the County (San Ramon, Danville, Moraga, and Lafayette).

Figure 4-19: Composite Score of TCAC Opportunity Areas in Contra Costa County Source: Map 11(a) of Contra Costa Housing Collaborative AFFH analysis.

Local Trends
Figure 4-20 shows a closer look at the TCAC Opportunity Areas in Oakley. The City is composed of mostly low resource areas, with the southwestern portion of the City considered to be moderate resource. Census tracts classified as moderate resource correspond with higher environmental scores, median incomes, median gross rents, and percent of children in married-couple households.
1277
REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 4-44 CHAPTER 4 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
Figure 4-20: TCAC Composite Scores in Oakley
Source: Map 11(a) of Contra Costa Housing Collaborative AFFH analysis.

Educational Opportunity
Housing and school policies are mutually reinforcing, which is why it is important to analyze access to educational opportunities when assessing fair housing. At the most general level, school districts with the greatest amount of affordable housing tend to attract larger numbers of LMI families (largely composed of minorities). In school districts with the most diversity, Black/Hispanic/Latino students routinely score lower than their White peers. In contrast, schools in less diverse neighborhoods or with less diverse demographics often have higher test scores and greater educational opportunity.

Regional Trends
There are 19 public school districts in Contra Costa County, in addition to 124 private schools and 19 charter schools. According to the Contra Costa County AI, access to proficient schools varies across the County. Schools are lower performing in the eastern and northern neighborhoods of the County, including the cities of Antioch, Concord, Pittsburg and Richmond and higher in the central and southern sections of the jurisdiction. With regards to race and ethnicity, the Hispanics and Latino residents had the highest concentrations in neighborhoods with low school proficiency scores. Asians or Pacific Islanders were spread across the jurisdiction in neighborhoods with low- and high- performing schools. The report also observed concentrations of Mexican and 1278
OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 CHAPTER 4 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT 4-45
Filipino national origin in neighborhoods of low school proficiency, especially in Antioch, Concord and Pittsburg.12
Figure 4-21 shows domain scores for the education indicator of the TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps in Contra Costa. Educational scores are determined based on elementary math and reading proficiency rates, high school graduation rates, and student poverty rates.

Figure 4-21: TCAC Opportunity Areas’ Education Score in Contra Costa County Source: Map 12(a) of Contra Costa Housing Collaborative AFFH analysis.

Figure 4-21 shows that the northwestern and eastern parts of the County have the lowest education domain scores (less than 0.25) per census tract, especially around Richmond and San Pablo, Pittsburg, Antioch, east of Clayton, and Concord and its northern unincorporated areas. Census tracts with the highest education domain scores (greater than 0.75) are located in central and southern parts of the County (bounded by San Ramon on the south; Orinda and Moraga on the west; Lafayette, Walnut Creek, Clayton, and Brentwood on the north). Comparing Figure 4-17 (Median Household Income in Contra Costa County) and Figure 4-21 reveals that areas with lower education scores correspond with areas with lower income households (largely composed of minorities) and vice versa.

Table 4-18 also indicates that index values for school proficiency are higher for White residents, indicating a greater access to high quality schools. 12 2020-2025 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice - Contra Costa County Consortium, pg. 100-101 1279
REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 4-46 CHAPTER 4 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
The 2020 Contra Costa County AI reports that the policies and practices that underlay patterns of school segregation are largely attributed to housing practices, including historical (20th century) disinvestment and segregation, local zoning and land use policies and practices, placement of subsidized housing, administration of the HCV program, housing discrimination in the private market, and personal choices made by families within the constraints of the market. But education policies also influence these patterns of segregation. These housing-related educational policies that affect housing segregation include school district lines and school assignment zones that closely mirror local demographic divisions across and within districts, school district “choice” policies that exacerbate school concentrations of poverty, test- or criteria-based admission to choice schools, lack of free student transportation for students opting for intra-district transfers, absence of free inter-district transfers for low income students attending high poverty schools (and unregulated access to inter-district transfers for higher income students), unregulated private and parental contributions to local schools, and unequal capital expenditures (school construction and renovation) across schools within a district.13 Local Trends
The City of Oakley is served by the Oakley Union Elementary School District (OUESD), Antioch Unified School District (AUSD), and Liberty Union High School District (LUHSD). It is also worth noting that the Brentwood Union School District also operates within a small portion of Oakley, although not in any areas with existing housing as of 2022.

OUESD operates six elementary schools, AUSD operates one K-8 school, and LUHSD operates one high school in Oakley.

OUESD ranks in the bottom 50 percent of public schools based on the district’s average testing ranking of 4/10 in math and English proficiency. Public schools in OUESD have a below average math proficiency score of 30 percent and reading proficiency score of 40 percent (compared to the County average of 45 percent and 55 percent for math and reading respectively). Orchard Park School in AUSD places in the bottom 50 percent of all schools in California for overall test scores in the 2018-2019 school year. Similar to OUESD, math proficiency is at 30 percent and reading proficiency is at 43 percent.

Freedom High School in LUHSD has a math proficiency of 23 percent (bottom 50 percent in the state) and reading proficiency of 62 percent (top 30 percent in the state). Overall, Freedom High School placed in the top 50 percent of all schools in California for the 2018-2019 school year.

Minority enrollment at all school districts is majority Hispanic. Table 4-20 displays student enrollment by race/ethnicity at Freedom High School.

Similar to the factors that hinder fair housing, factors such as low socioeconomic status (accounted for by the number of students receiving free lunches) and race may contribute to low math performance. As found by Gong (2019)14, limited English proficiency students who have low socioeconomic status and who are either Hispanic or bBlack tend to be the most disadvantaged group in math performance. In Freedom High 13 Ibid.
14 Gong, X. (2019, November 7). The impact of English language proficiency on Math achievement. [Paper presentation]. Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management Conference, Denver, CO. 1280
OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 CHAPTER 4 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT 4-47
School, over 50 percent of the student population are eligible for free meals and/or are Hispanic or Black.

TABLE 4-20: FREEDOM HIGH SCHOOL ENROLLMENT BY RACE/ETHNICITY Race
American
Indian/
Alaska Native
Asian Black Hispanic Native Hawaiian/
Pacific Islander White Two or MoreRaces
Students
9 207 257 1,157 14 739 110
Free lunch eligible: 770 1 Directly certified:570 2
Notes:
1 Free lunch students: those eligible to participate in the Free Lunch Program (i.e., those with family incomes below 130 percent of the poverty level or who are directly certified) 2 The number of students reported as categorically eligible to receive free meals to the USDA for the FNS 742. Students are categorically eligible to receive free meals if they belong to a household receiving the selected federal benefits noted above or are migrant, homeless, in foster care, or in Head Start.

Source: Contra Costa Housing Collaborative AFFH analysis, 2022.

Figure 4-22 displays educational index scores for the City of Oakley. The majority of the City has an educational score of 0.25–0.50. A western sliver and eastern portions of the City score less than 0.25 (indicating the least positive educational outcomes). Where Oakley meets Brentwood on the southern City border, a small area has an educational score of 0.50–0.75, the highest in Oakley.

Figure 4-22: TCAC Opportunity Areas’ Education Score in Oakley Source: Map 12(b) of Contra Costa Housing Collaborative AFFH analysis. 1281
REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 4-48 CHAPTER 4 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
Transportation
Access to public transit is of paramount importance to households affected by low incomes and rising housing prices, especially because lower income households are often transit dependent. Public transit should strive to link lower income persons, who are often transit dependent, to major employers where job opportunities exist. Access to employment via public transportation can reduce welfare usage and increase housing mobility, which enables residents to locate housing outside of traditionally low-income neighborhoods.

Transportation opportunities are depicted by two indices: (1) the transit trips index and (2) the low transportation cost index. The transit trips index measures how often lowincome families in a neighborhood use public transportation. The index ranges from 0 to 100, with higher values indicating a higher likelihood that residents in a neighborhood utilize public transit. The low transportation cost index measures cost of transportation and proximity to public transportation by neighborhood. It too varies from 0 to 100, and higher scores point to lower transportation costs in that neighborhood.

Regional Trends
There is not a significant disparity in the County in terms of access to transportation.

Neither index, regardless of poverty level, varies noticeably across racial/ethnic categories. All races and ethnicities score highly on both indices with values close in magnitude. If these indices are accurate depictions of transportation accessibility, it is possible to conclude that all racial and ethnic classes have high and relatively equal access to transportation at both the jurisdiction and regional levels. If anything, both indices appear to take slightly higher values for non-Hispanic Blacks and Hispanics, suggesting better access to transit and lower costs for these protected groups.

Contra Costa County is served by rail, bus, and ferry transit but the quality of service varies across the County (see Figure 4-23). Much of Contra Costa County is connected to other parts of the East Bay as well as to San Francisco and San Mateo County by Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) rail service. The Richmond-Warm Springs/South Fremont and Richmond-Daly City/Millbrae Lines serve El Cerrito and Richmond during peak hours while the Antioch-SFO Line extends east from Oakland to serve Orinda, Lafayette, Walnut Creek, Contra Costa Center/Pleasant Hill, Concord, and the Pittsburg/Bay Point station.

An eastward extension, also known as eBART, began service on May 26, 2018. The extension provides service beyond the Pittsburg/Bay Point station to the new Pittsburg Center and Antioch stations. The Capitol Corridor route provides rail service between San Jose and Sacramento and serves commuters in Martinez and Richmond.

In contrast to rail transportation, bus service is much more fragmented in the County and regionally. Several different bus systems including Tri-Delta Transit, AC Transit, County Connection, and WestCat provide local service in different sections of the County. The lack of an integrated network can make it harder for transit riders to understand how to make a trip that spans multiple operators and adds costs during a daily commute.

Within Contra Costa County, transit is generally not as robust in east County despite growing demand for public transportation among residents. The lack of adequate public transportation makes it more difficult for lower-income people in particular to access 1282
OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 CHAPTER 4 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT 4-49
jobs. Average transit commutes in Pittsburg and Antioch exceed 70 minutes. In Brentwood, average transit commute times exceed 100 minutes.

Figure 4-23: Public Transit Routes in Contra Costa County Source: Map 13 (a) of Contra Costa Housing Collaborative AFFH analysis.

Transit agencies that service Contra Costa County include County Connection, Tri Delta Transit, WestCAT, AC Transit, and BART. The County Connection Bus (CCCTA) is the largest bus transit system in the County that provides fixed-route and paratransit bus service for communities in Central Contra Costa. Other non-Contra Costa agencies that provide express service to the County include:
⚫ San Francisco Bay Ferry (Richmond to SF Ferry Building); ⚫ Golden Gate Transit (Line 40);
⚫ WHEELS Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (Route 70x); ⚫ SolTrans (Route 80/82 and the Yellow Line);
⚫ Capitol Corridor (Richmond/Martinez to cities between Auburn and San Jose); ⚫ Fairfield & Suisun Transit (Intercity express routes); ⚫ Altamont Corridor Express (commute-hour trains from Pleasanton); ⚫ Napa Vine Transit (Route 29)
1283
REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 4-50 CHAPTER 4 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
Local Trends
Oakley is primarily served by Tri Delta Transit and connects to the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART), Amtrak, AC Transit, CalTrain, County Connection, and WestCat (see Figure 4-24).

Figure 4-24: Public Transit Routes in Oakley
Source: Map 13 (b) of Contra Costa Housing Collaborative AFFH analysis.

On weekdays, three routes from Tri Delta Transit serve the City: 300, 383, and 391. On weekends, Route 393 serves the City. Route 300 is known as the Commuter Route and Tri Delta Transit offers a two-for-one 20-Ride Pass, which would allow commuters to purchase one 20-ride pass and get one for free. These bus routes connect to the Antioch BART Station and Brentwood Park & Ride. A new Oakley Park & Ride is currently under construction on the north side of Main Street just east of downtown.

According to AllTransit, an online source of transit connectivity, access, and frequency data, 81.5 percent of jobs in Oakley are located within half a mile of transit. However, only 3.09 percent of commuters use transit. AllTransit states that 0.54 percent of the population live near high-frequency transit, which may contribute to the low percentage of commuters who use public transit.

Figure 4-25 is a map that illustrates transit scores ranging between 1 and 9, where higher scores indicate higher connectivity, access to jobs, and frequency of service. About 32 percent of the population live in areas with scores of 4–5, about 31.5 percent of the 1284
OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 CHAPTER 4 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT 4-51
population live in areas with scores of 2–4; about 23.8 percent of the population live in areas with scores of 6–7. Transit is concentrated on the western portion of the City.

Figure 4-25: Transit Metric Map in Oakley
Source: Map 13 (c) of Contra Costa Housing Collaborative AFFH analysis.

Overall, AllTransit scores Oakley 4.4/10 for its transit performance, which means that the City has a low combination of trips per week and low number of jobs accessible enabling few people to take transit to work. AllTransit further scores Oakley 3/10 on its transit connectivity index based on the number of bus routes and train stations within walking distance for households in a given block group scaled by the frequency of service.

Economic Development
Employment opportunities are depicted by two indices: (1) the labor market engagement index and (2) the jobs proximity index. The labor market engagement index provides a summary description of the relative intensity of labor market engagement and human capital in a neighborhood, taking into account the unemployment rate, labor-force participation rate, and percent with a bachelor’s degree or higher. The index ranges from 0 to 100, with higher values indicating higher labor force participation and human capital.

The jobs proximity index quantifies the accessibility of a neighborhood to jobs in the region by measuring the physical distances between jobs and places of residence. It too varies from 0 to 100, and higher scores point to better accessibility to employment opportunities.

Regional Trends
In Contra Costa County, non-Hispanic Whites and non-Hispanic Asians/Pacific Islanders are at the top of the labor market engagement index with scores of 66.76 and 66.87 respectively. Non-Hispanic Blacks and Hispanics score the lowest in the County with 1285
REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 4-52 CHAPTER 4 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
scores around 32. (Refer to Table 4-18 for a full list of indices). Figure 4-26 shows the spatial variability of job proximity in Contra Costa County. Tracts extending north from Lafayette to Martinez and its surrounding unincorporated areas have the highest index values followed by its directly adjacent areas. Cities like Pittsburg, Antioch, Brentwood, Oakley, and Hercules have the lowest index scores (less than 20). Hispanic residents have the least access to employment opportunities with an index score of 45.11, whereas White residents have the highest index score of 49.30. Figure 4-27 shows the economic scores spatially for Oakley.

Figure 4-26: Job Proximity Index in Contra Costa County Source: Map 14(a) of Contra Costa Housing Collaborative AFFH analysis. 1286
OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 CHAPTER 4 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT 4-53
Figure 4-27: TCAC Opportunity Areas’ Economic Score in Contra Costa County Source: Map 15(a) of Contra Costa Housing Collaborative AFFH analysis.

Local Trends
The City of Oakley had an unemployment rate of 5.3 percent at the end of 2021, higher than the County unemployment rate of 4.2 percent. Figure 4-28 shows the job proximity index by block group for the City of Oakley, where the entire City has the lowest score of less than 20, which indicates furthest proximity from jobs and longest commute times.

Based on ACS 2015-2019 5-year estimates, only 38.97 percent of all residents in Oakley have a commute of less than 30 minutes. The majority ofA large percentage of residents (21.06 percent) have a 60–89 minute commute, followed by a 45–59 minute commute (12.95 percent).; 10.44 percent of residents have a commute of 90 or more minutes.

According to the Contra Costa County AI, Oakley (amongst other cities like Clayton, Brentwood, Hercules, and Pittsburg) have has some of the longest overall commutes in the Bay Area.
1287
REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 4-54 CHAPTER 4 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
Figure 4-28: Job Proximity Index in Oakley
Source: Map 14(b) of Contra Costa Housing Collaborative AFFH analysis.

Overall, Oakley has low-to-moderate economic scores ranging from less than 0.25 to

0.50. Most of the City has scores of less than 0.25; the southwestern portion of the City has slightly higher scores between 0.25–0.50 (see Figure 4-29). The easternmost part of the City has the highest economic scores, above 0.75, indicating more positive economic outcomes.

One of the primary reasons for the lower economic scores is the lack of employment opportunities in Oakley. The rapid housing growth over the past several decades has not been matched by job growth or commercial development in Oakley. The City’s Economic Development Department is actively working to attract new employment and commercial services, highlighting the more than 800 acres of land zoned for commercial, retail, and light industrial uses as well as available industrial, office, and retail spaces. The City has also invested significantly in the Downtown, including the development of a new train platform that will provide expanded transit service, connecting Oakley to job opportunities in other parts of the Bay Area.
1288
OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 CHAPTER 4 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT 4-55
Figure 4-29: TCAC Opportunity Areas’ Economic Score in Oakley Source: Map 15(b) of Contra Costa Housing Collaborative AFFH analysis.

Environment
The Environmental Health Index summarizes potential exposure to harmful toxins at a neighborhood level. Index values range from 0 to 100 and the higher the index value, the less exposure to toxins harmful to human health. Therefore, the higher the value, the better the environmental quality of a neighborhood, where a neighborhood is a census block-group. There are modest differences across racial and ethnic groups in neighborhood access to environmental quality. All racial/ethnic groups in the Consortium obtained moderate scores ranging from low 40s to mid–50s. Non-Hispanic Blacks and Hispanics have the lowest scores amongst all residents in Contra Costa County with scores of 43; whereas non-Hispanic Whites and Asians/Pacific Islanders have the highest scores (over 50) amongst all residents in Contra Costa County (Refer to Table 4-18).

CalEnviroScreen was developed by the California Environmental Protection Agency to evaluate pollution sources in a community while accounting for a community’s vulnerability to the adverse effects of pollution. Measures of pollution burden and population characteristics are combined into a single composite score that is mapped and analyzed. Higher values on the index indicate higher cumulative environmental impacts on individuals arising from these burdens and population factors.

The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) compiles these scores to help identify California communities disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of pollution. In addition to environmental factors (pollutant exposure, 1289
REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 4-56 CHAPTER 4 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
groundwater threats, toxic sites, and hazardous materials exposure) and sensitive receptors (seniors, children, persons with asthma, and low birth weight infants), CalEnviroScreen also considers socioeconomic factors such as educational attainment, linguistic isolation, poverty, and unemployment.

Regional Trends
Figure 4-30 below displays the Environmental Score for Contra Costa County based on CalEnviroScreen 3.0 Pollution Indicators and Values that identifies communities in California disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of pollution and face vulnerability due to socioeconomic factors. Census tracts receiving the highest 25 percent of overall scores in CalEnviroScreen were designated as disadvantaged communities per Senate Bill 535. In Contra Costa County, disadvantaged communities include census tracts in North Richmond, Richmond, Pittsburg, San Pablo, Antioch, Rodeo, and Oakley.

Figure 4-30: TCAC Opportunity Areas’ Environmental Score in Contra Costa County Source: Map 16(a) of Contra Costa Housing Collaborative AFFH analysis.

Figure 4-31 shows updated scores for CalEnviroscreen 4.0 released by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Generally speaking, adverse environmental impacts are concentrated around the northern border of the County (Bay Point to Pittsburg) and the western border of the County (Richmond to Pinole). Areas around Concord to Antioch have moderate scores and the rest of the County has 1290
OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 CHAPTER 4 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT 4-57
relatively low scores. From central Contra Costa County, an almost radial gradient effect can be seen from green to red (least to most pollution).

Figure 4-31: CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Results in Contra Costa County Source: Map 17(a) of Contra Costa Housing Collaborative AFFH analysis.

Local Trends
Environmental Scores for the City of Oakley, shown in Figure 4-32, are considerably lower than the rest of the County. Highest scores start from the southwest and decreases from

0.50–0.75 to 0.25–0.50 and less than 0.25 as it radiates to the east. Updated CalEnviroScreen Scores in Figure 4-33 show that the majority of the City has scores between 50–74 percent. A small sliver on the west has a score of 75 percent or higher; the lowest score of 25–49 percent (indicating less adverse environmental impacts) can be found in the southwestern tracts. In general, it is less affordable to reside in areas with higher environmental scores due to higher median gross rents and higher median income in the area.
1291
REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 4-58 CHAPTER 4 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
Figure 4-32: TCAC Opportunity Areas’ Environmental Score in Oakley Source: Map 16(b) of Contra Costa Housing Collaborative AFFH analysis.

Figure 4-33: CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Results in Oakley
Source: Map 17(b) of Contra Costa Housing Collaborative AFFH analysis. 1292
OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 CHAPTER 4 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT 4-59
Health and Recreation
The Healthy Places Index (HPI) is a new tool that allows local officials to diagnose and change community conditions that affect health outcomes and the wellbeing of residents. The HPI tool was developed by the Public Health Alliance of Southern California to assist in comparing community conditions across the state and combined 25 community characteristics such as housing, education, economic, and social factors into a single indexed HPI Percentile Score, where lower percentiles indicate lower conditions.

Regional Trends
Figure 4-34 shows the HPI percentile score distributions for Contra Costa County. The majority of the County falls in the highest quarter, indicating healthier conditions. These areas have a lower percentage of minority populations and higher median incomes. The reverse is true for cities with the lowest percentile ranking (Pittsburg, San Pablo, and Richmond), which indicates less healthy conditions. These areas have higher percentages of minority populations and lower median incomes.

Figure 4-34: Healthy Places Index in Contra Costa County Source: Map 18(a) of Contra Costa Housing Collaborative AFFH analysis.

Local Trends
Areas in central Oakley that run toward the northwestern border have an HPI index score between 50–75 (see Figure 4-35). Southwestern Oakley has the highest scores between 75–100. Remaining areas around the City have a score between 25–50. 1293
REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 4-60 CHAPTER 4 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
Figure 4-35: Healthy Places Index in Oakley
Source: Map 18(b) of Contra Costa Housing Collaborative AFFH analysis.

Tracts located in the highest percentile correspond with the highest rents (>$3,000), lowest percentage of low-moderate income populations (<25 percent), highest median income (>$125,000), and highest TCAC composite scores in the City. This could indicate that healthy neighborhoods are less accessible to those of lower socioeconomic status.

Disproportionate Housing Needs
Disproportionate housing needs generally refers to a condition in which there are significant disparities in the proportion of members of a protected class experiencing a category of housing need when compared to the proportion of members of any other relevant groups, or the total population experiencing that category of housing need in the applicable geographic area. An analysis of disproportionate housing needs identifies how access to the housing market differs for members of protected classes and whether such differences are related to or the effects of discriminatory actions. HUD’s Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) provides detailed information on housing needs by income level for different types of households in Contra Costa County.

Housing problems considered by CHAS include:
⚫ Housing cost burden, including utilities, exceeding 30 percent of gross income; ⚫ Severe housing cost burden, including utilities, exceeding 50 percent of gross income; 1294
OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 CHAPTER 4 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT 4-61
⚫ Overcrowded conditions (housing units with more than one person per room); and ⚫ Units with physical defects (lacking complete kitchen or bathroom).

Severe housing problems are defined as households with at least 1 of 4 housing problems:
overcrowding, high housing costs, lack of kitchen facilities, or lack of plumbing facilities.

According to the 2020 Contra Costa County AI, a total of 164,994 households (43.90 percent) in the County experience any one of the above housing problems; 85,009 households (22.62 percent) experience severe housing problems.15 Based on relative percentage, Hispanic households experience the highest rate of housing problems regardless of severity, followed by Black households and ‘Other’ races. Table 4-21 lists the demographics of households with housing problems in the County.

TABLE 4-21: DEMOGRAPHICS OF HOUSEHOLDS WITH HOUSING PROBLEMS IN

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Demographic Total Number
of Households
Households with Housing
Problems
Households with Severe
Housing Problems
White 213,302 80,864 37.91% 38,039 17.83%
Black 34,275 19,316 56.36% 10,465 30.53%
Asian/Pacific Islander 51,353 21,640 42.14% 10,447 20.34% Native American 1,211 482 39.80% 203 16.76%
Other 10,355 5,090 49.15% 2,782 26.87%
Hispanic 65,201 37,541 57.58% 23,002 35.28%
Total 375,853 164,994 43.90% 85,009 22.62%
Source: Contra Costa County AI, 2020.

Hispanic and Black residents face particularly severe housing problems. These housing burdens are greatest in portions of Hercules (along with other cities like Richmond, North Richmond, San Pablo, Concord, Martinez, Pittsburg, Antioch, and Oakley).

In addition, there are significant disparities between the rates of housing problems that larger families (households of five or more people) experience and the rates of housing problems that families of five or fewer people experience. Table 4-22 lists the number of households with housing problems according to household type. Larger families tend to experience housing problems more than smaller families. Non-family households in Contra Costa experience housing problems at a higher rate than smaller family households, but at a lower rate than larger family households.

TABLE 4-22: NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS WITH HOUSING PROBLEMS BY HOUSEHOLD TYPE IN

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Household Type No. of Households with Housing Problems
Family Households (< 5 people) 85,176
Family Households (> 5 people) 26,035
Non-family Households 53,733
Source: Contra Costa County AI, 2020.
15 2020-2025 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice - Contra Costa County Consortium, pg. 410. 1295
REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 4-62 CHAPTER 4 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
Cost Burden
Housing cost burden, or overpayment, is defined as households paying 30 percent or more of their gross income on housing expenses, including rent or mortgage payments and utilities. Renters are more likely to overpay for housing costs than homeowners.

Housing cost burden is considered a housing need because households that overpay for housing costs may have difficulty affording other necessary expenses, such as childcare, transportation, and medical costs.

Regional Trends
As presented in Table 4-23, almost 35.58 percent of all households experience cost burdens. Renters experience cost burdens at higher rates than owners (48.28 percent compared to 28.95 percent).

TABLE 4-23: HOUSEHOLDS THAT EXPERIENCE COST BURDEN BY TENURE IN

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Total Number of Households
Cost burden Percentage of Households
>30% to < 50% > 50% that Experience Cost Burden
Owners Only 257,530 44,535 30,010 28.95%
Renters Only 134,750 32,015 33,040 48.28%
All Households 392,275 76,550 63,050 35.59%
Source: https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/cp.html.

Figure 4-36 shows concentrations of cost burdened renter households in and around San Pablo, Pittsburg, Antioch, west Brentwood and Oakley, east San Ramon, and northern parts of Concord towards unincorporated areas. In these tracts, over 80 percent of renters experience cost burdens. The majority of east Contra Costa County has 60–80 percent of renter households that experience cost burdens; west Contra Costa County has 20–40 percent of renter households that experience cost burdens. Census tracts with a low percentage of cost-burdened households are located between San Ramon and Martinez on a north-south axis. In these tracts, less than 20 percent of renter households experience cost burdens.
1296
OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 CHAPTER 4 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT 4-63
Figure 4-36: Distribution of Percentage of Overpayment by Renters in Contra Costa County Source: Map 19(a) of Contra Costa Housing Collaborative AFFH analysis.

Local Trends
In Oakley, 33 percent of all households experience cost burden. Similar to Contra Costa County, renters experience higher rates of cost burdens than owners (44.14 percent to

30.16 percent) at a similar rate to the County. Refer to Table 4-24 for households that experience cost burden by tenure.

TABLE 4-24: HOUSEHOLDS THAT EXPERIENCE COST BURDEN BY TENURE IN OAKLEY Total Number of Households
Cost burden Percentage of Households
>30% to < 50% > 50% that Experience Cost Burden
Owners Only 9,085 1,990 750 30.16%
Renters Only 2,730 565 640 44.14%
All Households 11,810 2,555 1,390 33.40%
Source: https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/cp.html, 2014–2018.

Figure 4-37a shows high concentrations of cost burdened renter households in the eastern and central tracts of the City according to the 2015-2019 ACS. High percentages of cost-burdened households are also in tracts radiating from central Oakley towards the south and northwest, with the highest being the northwestern tracts with scores between 60–80 percent. Areas with the highest percentage of cost-burdened households correspond to the highest use of HCVs, lowest scores on the healthy places index, and highest percentage of population with low to moderate income levels. The tracts that 1297
REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 4-64 CHAPTER 4 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
extend northwest from the center of the City are also classified as sensitive communities due to the area’s vulnerability to displacement from rising property values. Figure 4-37b shows that overpayment by renters was more widespread in the City in previous years according to the 2010-2014 ACS.

Figure 4-37a: Distribution of Percentage of Overpayment by Renters in Oakley, 2015-2019 Source: Map 19(b) of Contra Costa Housing Collaborative AFFH analysis. 1298
OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 CHAPTER 4 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT 4-65
Figure 4-37b: Distribution of Percentage of Overpayment by Renters in Oakley, 2010-2014 Overcrowded Households
Overcrowding is defined as housing units with more than one person per room (including dining and living rooms but excluding bathrooms and kitchen). Overcrowding of residential units, in which there is more than one person per room, can be a potential indicator that households are experiencing economic hardship and are struggling to afford housing. Notably, it is important to be aware that data in overcrowding can also reflect cultural differences, as some cultures are more likely to live in larger, multigenerational households.

Regional Trends
Figure 4-38 indicates that Contra Costa County in general has low levels of overcrowded households. Tracts in San Pablo, Richmond, and Pittsburg with higher percentages of non-White population show higher concentrations of overcrowded households compared to the rest of the County. Monument Corridor, the only official R/ECAP in Contra Costa County, a predominantly Hispanic community in Concord, also exhibits more overcrowding than other parts of the County.
1299
REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 4-66 CHAPTER 4 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
Figure 4-38: Distribution of Percentage of Overcrowded Households in Contra Costa County Source: Map 20(a) of Contra Costa Housing Collaborative AFFH analysis.

Local Trends
The City of Oakley has a homogenous distribution of concentrations of overcrowded households (see Figure 4-39). All tracts in the City have less than 8.2 percent of overcrowded households. According to ACS 2015-2019 5-year estimates, only 0.8 percent of occupied housing units have 1 room. 31.2 percent of occupied housing units have 4–5 rooms, 43.4 percent have 6–7 rooms, and 21.3 percent have 8 or more rooms.

The high number of rooms in housing units could be a factor in the low percentage of overcrowding. However, as described in Chapter 2, Needs Assessment, 6.6 percent of renters in Oakley experience moderate overcrowding and 8.3 percent are severely overcrowded. In comparison, only 1.5 percent of homeowners experience moderate overcrowding and 0.9 percent are severely overcrowded (see Figure 2-14).

Overcrowding of renter households is highest in census tract 3020.10 (southwesternmost area) where 18 percent of renter households are overcrowded according to the 2015- 2019 ACS, census tract 3020.05 (area including Carol Lane) where 16.6 percent of renter households are severely overcrowded, and 3020.07 (Central Oakley) where 10.6 percent of renter households are severely overcrowded. (Note: Overcrowding by tenure is not included in the HCD AFFH data viewer and is therefore not provided on a map.) 1300
OAKLEY HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT | JANUARY 2023 CHAPTER 4 | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT 4-67
Figure 4-39: Distribution of Percentage of Overcrowded Households in Oakley Source: Map 20(a) of Contra Costa Housing Collaborative AFFH analysis.

Oakley City CouncilMarch 28, 2023

Oakley City Council
March 28, 2023