Agenda packet, joint meeting, first session — Oakley City Council, October 13, 2026 (part 1 of 4)

AGENDA

REGULAR JOINT MEETING OF THE OAKLEY CITY COUNCIL/OAKLEY CITY COUNCIL

ACTING AS THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE OAKLEY REDEVELOPMENT

AGENCY/OAKLEY PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY
Tuesday, October 13, 2026
6:30 PM
Oakley City Council Chambers located at 3231 Main Street, Oakley, California 94561.

Unless stated otherwise on the agenda, every item on the agenda is exempt from CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060(c), 15061(b)(3), 15273, 15378, 15301, 15323 and/or Public Resources Code Section 21065.

Mission Statement: The City of Oakley will create a resilient future that fosters and attracts a vibrant and evolving community that welcomes and values all people.

Vision Statement: The City of Oakley celebrates our unique Delta lifestyle and small-town feel where we Live in a safe, dynamic community, Work together to build the future, and Play in our own backyard.

Agendas are posted in Oakley at Oakley City Hall, outside the gym at Delta Vista Middle School and outside the Library at Freedom High School. Agendas are also posted on the City’s website at oakleyca.gov.

You can view reports on the City’s website at oakleyca.gov. You can also view reports in person at City Hall, 3231 Main Street, during normal business hours. Any other documents distributed to members of the City Council regarding an item on this agenda are also made available in the lobby on the evening of the City Council meeting.

Pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the City will make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. If you need special assistance, please contact the City at least 48 hours prior to the meeting at 925-625-7000 or [email protected].

Meeting online Link: https://zoom.us/j/93455380825
Meeting call in telephone number: 669-900-6833 | Meeting ID: 934 5538 0825 (*9 to request to speak | *6 to unmute/mute)
Online Participation:

Members of the public may attend the City Council meeting online via Zoom using the link above or watch the City Council meeting at oakleyca.gov or YouTube. Technical difficulties may occur from time to time. The City will follow the adopted Technology Disruption Policy outlined in City Council Resolution 36-26.
1 1. OPENING MATTERS

1.1 Call to Order and Roll Call

1.2 Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag (Paige Benzler, Laurel Elementary)

1.3 Presentation of Proclamations

1. Community Planning Month (Ken Strelo, Community Development Director)
Public Comments:

Members of the public may address the Council on items of interest that are within the City's jurisdiction. In compliance with the Brown Act, the Council may not take action or have discussion on any item that is not listed on the agenda. Public comment on items not listed on the agenda will be heard under the Public Comments section of the agenda. Public comments on items listed on the agenda will be heard as the Mayor calls the item. Please note that public comments are limited to three (3) minutes. The timer on the dais in front of the Mayor will change from green to yellow at one (1) minute and will turn red and beep at three (3) minutes.

In person public comment:

To provide an in-person public comment, please fill out a speaker card located in the lobby and give it to the City Clerk. Please indicate on the card if the topic is for general public comment or for a specific agenda item. The Mayor will call speakers to the podium by name when the item is opened for public comment.

Online Public Comment:

To provide public comment via Zoom, connect to the meeting online at the link above. Use the Raise Hand feature to request to speak (*9 on a telephone) when the Mayor opens public comment. The City Clerk will announce the names of online participants with their hands raised and invite each participant requesting to speak into the meeting as a panelist when it is their turn to speak. Once in the meeting as a panelist, unmute your microphone, turn on your camera if desired, and begin speaking. Once you are done speaking, the City Clerk will move you back to being an attendee.

Written public comment:

If you wish to enter comments into the public record, please complete the online public comment form by 4 pm the day of the meeting.

Please keep cell phones/electronic devices turned off during the meeting. Please be advised that City Council meetings are video recorded and attendees may appear on video.

Oakley City Council/Oakley City Council Acting as the Successor Agency to the Oakley Redevelopment Agency/Oakley Public Financing Authority
2 2. Code Enforcement Officer Appreciation Week (Conrad Fromme, Chief Building Official)

3. World Polio Day (Mike Hale, President of the Rotary Club of Oakley)

4. Red Ribbon Week (Danielle Aubin, Coalition Coordinator)

1.4 Police Department Awards (Paul Beard, Chief of Police) a. Chief's Certificate of Commendation: Nathan Wingate and Murrell Johnson
b. Lifesaving Award: Officer Gabriel Ganz

1.5 Contra Costa Water District Update (Connstance Holdaway, Director)

1.6 Update on the Delta (Roger Mammon)

2. PUBLIC COMMENTS

3. COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS

4. CONSENT CALENDAR

4.1 Approve Minutes from the Special Joint City Council and Planning Commission Meeting held September 15, 2026 (Kim Snodgrass, City Clerk)

4.2 Approve Minutes from the Special Meeting held September 22, 2026 (Kim Snodgrass, City Clerk)

4.3 Approve Minutes from the Regular Meeting held September 22, 2026 (Kim Snodgrass, City Clerk)

1. Community Planning Month

2. Code Enforcement Officer Appreciation Week

3. World Polio Day

4. Red Ribbon Week
The public is welcome at this time to address the City Council on items on the Consent Calendar or other items not listed on the agenda but within the Council's jurisdiction.

There is an opportunity for the public to comment on other agenda items at the time they are discussed.

Consent Calendar items are typically non-controversial in nature and are considered for approval by the Oakley City Council/ Oakley City Council Acting as the Successor Agency to the Oakley Redevelopment Agency/Oakley Public Financing Authority with one single action. Staff or the Oakley City Council/ Oakley City Council Acting as the Successor Agency to the Oakley Redevelopment Agency/Oakley Public Financing Authority who would like an item removed from the Consent Calendar may request the Mayor remove the item.

Minutes
Minutes
3 4.4 Approve Minutes from the Special Meeting held October 1, 2026 (Kim Snodgrass, City Clerk)

4.5 Closed Session Report-Out Memo from the Special Meeting held September 22, 2026 (Derek Cole, City Attorney)

4.6 Closed Session Report-Out Memo from the Special Meeting held October 1, 2026 (Derek Cole, City Attorney)

4.7 Waive the Second Reading and Adopt Ordinance No.12-26 Approving the Project Titled Bridgehead Business Park Properties Rezone (RZ 2026-002) (Evan Gorman, Associate Planner)

4.8 Adopt a Resolution for the Award of a Construction Contract to K&K JL Services, Inc. for the Construction of the Police Department Remodeling Project – Capital Improvement Project (CIP) Number 343 (Billilee Saengchalern, Public Works Director/City Engineer)

4.9 Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Construction Agreement with Lignum Mellis for the Construction of the FY 2026-27 Curb, Gutter, and Sidewalk Repair & Reconstruction Project CIP 337 (Billilee Saengchalern, Public Works Director/City Engineer)

4.10 Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Consulting Services Agreement with Nichols Consulting Engineers (NCE) to Provide Professional Engineering Design Services for Capital Improvement Project (CIP) Number 342 – Fiscal Year (FY) 2026/27 Street Repair and Resurfacing Project (Billilee Saengchalern, Public Works Director/City Engineer)

4.11 Adopt a Resolution Requiring a Closed Caption Transcript to be Included with the Action Minutes and Retained Permanently and Rescinding City Council Resolution No. 48-22, Successor Agency Resolution No. 02-22, and Public Financing Authority Resolution No. 01-22 (Kim Snodgrass, City Clerk)

5. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Minutes
Minutes
Memo
Memo
Ordinance
Staff Report

1. Resolution

2. Bid Summary
Staff Report

1. Resolution

2. Bid Tabulation
Staff Report

1. Resolution
Staff Report

1. Proposed Resolution
4 5.1 Zoning Text Amendments (PLN-2026-1000) - Housing Element Implementation - Adopt an Ordinance Amending Section 9.1.406 Titled “Multiple Family Residential Districts (M-9; M-12; M-17; M-30 (Jose Cortez, Senior Planner)

5.2 Hacienda Estates (TM 2025-002) - Adopt a Resolution Approving the Tentative Map at 5321 Sellers Avenue (Jose Cortez, Senior Planner) California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Determination: Find that the Project does not require further CEQA review under 14 Cal. Code Regs./CEQA Guideline 15183 because it confirms to mitigations and policies identified in Environmental Impact Report the City General Plan.

6. REGULAR CALENDAR

6.1 Adopt a Resolution Approving the Amended Salary Schedule for Fiscal Year 2026/27 and Adding One New Classification (Jeri Tejeda, Administrative Services Director)

7. REPORTS

7.1 City Manager
(a) City Manager
(b) Business License Update

7.2 Oakley City Council / Oakley City Council Acting as the Successor Agency to the Oakley Redevelopment Agency
(a) Reports from Council Liaisons to Regional Committees, Commissions Staff Recommendation: 1) Receive the Staff Report, 2) Receive Questions from the City Council, 3) Open the Public Hearing, 4) Receive Public Testimony, 5) Close the Public Hearing, 6) Deliberate, 7) Summarize the Deliberation 8) Introduce the Ordinance
Staff Report

1. Notice of Public Hearing

2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 15-26

3. Proposed Ordinance - Policy Action 3.7
Staff Recommendation: 1) Receive the Staff Report, 2) Receive Questions from the City Council, 3) Open the Public Hearing, 4) Receive Comments from the Applicant, 5) Receive Public Testimony, 6) Close the Public Hearing, 7) Deliberate, 8) Summarize the Deliberation, 9) Adopt the Resolution
Staff Report

1. Vicinity Map

2. Notice of Public Hearing

3. Tentative Map

4. Modified Initial Study 15183 Checklist

5. Proposed Resolution
Staff Report

1. Resolution

2. Amended Salary Schedule FY 2026-2027

3. Senior Public Works Inspector-Job Description
September 2026 New Business Licenses
5 and Boards AND Oakley City Council/Oakley City Council Acting as the Successor Agency to the Oakley Redevelopment Agency
(b) Requests for Future Agendas

8. WORK SESSIONS

8.1 3920 Empire Avenue Preliminary General Plan Amendment (PA 2026-002) (Evan Gorman, Associate Planner)

8.2 Electrical Bicycle Work Session (Paul Beard, Chief of Police)

9. ADJOURN
Staff Report

1. Vicinity Map

2. Notice of Work Session

3. Uses Permitted in R-10 (Single-Family Residential) District

4. Uses Permitted in C (General Commercial) District

5. Existing and Proposed Land Use Designations
Staff Report
6 Proclamation
Community Planning Month
WHEREAS change is constant and affects all cities, towns, suburbs, counties, boroughs, townships, rural areas, and other places; and
WHEREAS planners can help navigate this change with data-driven insights and expertise that provide better choices for how people work and live; and
WHEREAS community planning provides an opportunity for all residents to be meaningfully involved in making choices that determine the future of their community; and WHEREAS the full benefits of planning require public elected and appointed officials who understand, support, and demand excellence in planning and plan implementation; and WHEREAS the month of October is designated as National Community Planning Month throughout the United States of America and its territories, and
WHEREAS the American Planning Association endorses National Community Planning Month as an opportunity to highlight how planning is essential to every community, and how planners are uniquely positioned to identify solutions to communities’ most difficult housing, transportation, and land use questions, and WHEREAS the celebration of National Community Planning Month gives us the opportunity to publicly recognize the participation and dedication of appointed planning commission members who have contributed their time and expertise to the improvement of the City of Oakley; and WHEREAS we recognize the many valuable contributions made by the professional planners of the City of Oakley and extend our heartfelt thanks for the continued commitment to public service by these professionals.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that I, Hugh Henderson, Mayor of the City of Oakley along with the members of the Oakley City Council do hereby proclaim the month of October 2026 as Community Planning Month in conjunction with the celebration of National Community Planning Month.

Dated: October 13, 2026
_____________________
Hugh Henderson, Mayor
7 Proclamation
Code Enforcement Officer Appreciation Week
October 11-17, 2026
WHEREAS, the state of California has proclaimed the 2nd week of October as Code Enforcement Appreciation week; and
WHEREAS, Code Enforcement Officers play a vital role in protecting the health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the City of Oakley through the fair and consistent enforcement of building, zoning, housing, animal control, fire safety, environmental, and other local codes and ordinances; and WHEREAS, Code Enforcement Officers are committed to maintaining and improving the quality of life within our community by helping to preserve property values, promote safe neighborhoods, and ensure compliance with the laws and regulations that protect the public; and
WHEREAS, through education, communication, and enforcement, Code Enforcement Officers work collaboratively with residents, businesses, and property owners to resolve issues and encourage voluntary compliance for the betterment of our community; and
WHEREAS, Code Enforcement Officers strive daily to provide professional, courteous, and responsive customer service to the public while carrying out their responsibilities with fairness and integrity; and WHEREAS, the efforts of Code Enforcement Officers often go unnoticed once compliance has been achieved, yet their dedication and expertise contribute significantly to maintaining safe, clean, and thriving neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, Code Enforcement Officers are dedicated, highly trained public servants who take great pride in their work and in serving the local governments and communities they represent.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that I, Hugh Henderson, Mayor of the City of Oakley along with the members of the Oakley City Council do hereby proclaim October 11-17, 2026, as Code Enforcement Officer Appreciation Week.

October 13, 2026
___________________
Hugh Henderson, Mayor
8 Proclamation
World Polio Day
WHEREAS, Rotary is a global network of 1.2 million neighbors, friends, leaders, and problem-solvers who unite and take action to create lasting change in communities across the globe; and WHEREAS, the Rotary motto, Service Above Self, inspires members to provide humanitarian service, follow high ethical standards, and promote goodwill and peace in the world; and
WHEREAS, In 1985, Rotary launched PolioPlus and in 1988 helped establish the Global Polio Eradication Initiative, which today includes the World Health Organization, U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, UNICEF, the Gates Foundation, and Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, to immunize children worldwide against polio; and WHEREAS, polio cases have dropped by 99.9 percent since 1988, and the world stands on the threshold of eradicating the disease; and
WHEREAS, to date, Rotary has contributed more than US $2.9 billion and countless volunteer hours to protect more than 3 billion children in 122 countries against polio; and
WHEREAS, Rotary is working to raise an additional $50 million per year, which would be leveraged for maximum impact by an additional $100 million annually from the Gates Foundation; and WHEREAS, these efforts are providing much-needed operational support, medical staff, laboratory equipment, and educational materials for health workers and parents; and
WHEREAS, Rotary has also played a major role in decisions by donor governments to contribute more than $11 billion to the effort; and
WHEREAS, continued political and financial commitment is essential to overcome the final hurdles, strengthen health systems, and ensure that no child anywhere suffers from polio ever again; and WHEREAS, World Polio Day, observed on October 24, serves as a moment to honor the progress made, recognize the dedication of health workers and volunteers, and renew our collective resolve to finish the job; and WHEREAS, there are more than 24,034 Rotary members in over 549 clubs throughout California that sponsor service projects addressing critical issues such as poverty, disease, hunger, illiteracy, and the environment in their local communities and abroad.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that I, Hugh Henderson, Mayor of the City of Oakley together with the members of the Oakley City Council do hereby proclaim October 24, 2026, as World Polio Day in Oakley and encourage all citizens to join Rotary International in the fight for a polio-free world.

Dated: October 13, 2026
_____________________
Hugh Henderson, Mayor
9 Proclamation
Red Ribbon Week
WHEREAS, two million adolescents in the United States have a substance use disorder, according to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration; and
WHEREAS, in California, 23.2% of 11th grade students reported using alcohol and/or drugs in the past month according to California Healthy Kids Survey (CHKS) Data; and
WHEREAS, in 2025 17% of 11th grade students in the Liberty Union High School District reported that they’ve used alcohol or drugs in the past 30 days (CHKS); and
WHEREAS, since 1988 Red Ribbon Week is observed each year nationally from October 23 through October 31 as an annual substance use prevention and awareness campaign and encourages communities to wear red ribbons as a pledge to promote healthy, drug-free lifestyles; and
WHEREAS, the City of Oakley recognizes that community-wide drug prevention efforts are essential to reducing substance use among youth and adults; and
WHEREAS, the Oakley Police Department will participate in National Prescription Drug Take Back Day on Saturday, October 24, 2026, providing residents a safe, convenient, and responsible means of disposing of unwanted, unused, or expired prescription medications at the Oakley Police Department, 3231 Main Street from 10 AM to 2 PM in partnership with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration; and
WHEREAS, the proper disposal of unused and expired medication helps prevent misuse, accidental poisoning, and diversion, and protects the health and safety of Oakley residents and the environment.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that I, Hugh Henderson, Mayor of the City of Oakley, together with the members of the Oakley City Council, do hereby proclaim October 23 through October 31, 2026, as "RED RIBBON WEEK" in the City of Oakley, and I encourage all residents to wear red ribbons in support of a drug-free community, to participate in local prevention activities, and to take advantage of National Prescription Drug Take Back Day on October 24, 2026, by safely dropping off unwanted or expired medication with the Oakley Police Department.

Dated: October 13, 2026
_____________________
Hugh Henderson, Mayor
10 Special Meeting of the Oakley City Council and Planning Commission held September 15, 2026
1) CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Mayor Henderson called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.

Roll Call: Councilmember Fuller, Councilmember Shaw, Councilmember Williams, Vice Mayor Meadows, Mayor Henderson, Commissioner Goudie, Commissioner Ireland, Commissioner Sterud and Chair Price were present. Vice Chair Harvey was absent.

Mayor Henderson called for a short break at 6:39 p.m. to fix a technical issue.

The meeting was called back to order at 7:07 p.m.

City Attorney Derek Cole announced that Councilmember Shaw and Councilmember Fuller were attending remotely and asked each of them to state for the record if anyone over the age of 18 was present at their location.

Councilmember Shaw stated there was no one over 18 present at her location.

Councilmember Fuller stated no one over the age of 18 was present at his location, though he noted his caregiver was elsewhere at his location and may briefly enter the room.
2) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
Mayor Henderson led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 3) PUBLIC COMMENTS
A Public Comment was received by Bud Chaddock.
4) WORK SESSION

4.1 Data Centers - Focused Second Joint City Council and Planning Commission Work Session (Ken Strelo, Community Development Director and Derek Cole, City Attorney)
11 Community Development Director Ken Strelo presented the staff report.

Councilmember Williams, Commissioner Ireland, Vice Mayor Meadows, and Commissioner Sterud asked questions; Mr. Strelo and City Attorney, Derek Cole responded.

Public comments were provided by Bud Chaddock and an unnamed remote speaker.

Written public comments were received from Tim Sbranti and Jasper Willowbrook and were entered into the record.

Councilmember Fuller provided comments.

Councilmember Williams, Councilmember Shaw and Commissioner Ireland, each provided comments and expressed support for option two with proposed revisions to the ordinance language.

Commissioner Sterud provided a comment; Mr. Strelo responded.

Councilmember Shaw provided additional comments.

Mayor Henderson inquired whether staff had received sufficient direction; Mr. Strelo noted that consensus had not yet been reached on option two.

Mayor Henderson expressed support for option two and the ordinance as written.

Mr. Strelo confirmed that staff had received sufficient direction to proceed. 5) ADJOURN
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:57 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted,
Kim Snodgrass
City Clerk
12 Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting Held
September 22, 2026
1) CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Mayor Henderson called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.

Roll Call: Councilmember Shaw, Councilmember Williams, Vice Mayor Meadows and Mayor Henderson were present. Councilmember Fuller was absent. 2) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
Mayor Henderson led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 3) PUBLIC COMMENTS
None
4) CLOSED SESSION

4.1 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Initiation of litigation pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9: (One potential case)
Mayor Henderson announced the Closed Session item and mentioned the Regular meeting will begin at 6:30 p.m.
5) ADJOURN
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:45 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted,
Kim Snodgrass
City Clerk
13 Minutes of Oakley City Council/Oakley City Council Acting as the Successor Agency to the Oakley Redevelopment Agency and Special Meeting of the Oakley Public Financing Authority held
September 22, 2026
1) OPENING MATTERS

1.1 Call to Order and Roll Call
Mayor Henderson called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.

Roll Call: Councilmember Fuller, Councilmember Shaw, Councilmember Williams, Vice Mayor Meadows, and Mayor Henderson were present.

1.2 Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag
Mayor Henderson led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.

1.3 HR Professionals Day Proclamation (Jeri Tejeda, Administrative Services Director)
The proclamation was read by the City Clerk and presented to Ms. Tejeda by Mayor Henderson.

1.4 Contra Costa Mosquito Abatement & Vector Control Update (Michael Krieg & Nola Woods, Public Affairs Director)
Michael Krieg and Nola Woods presented an update on Contra Costa Mosquito Abatement & Vector Control.

Councilmember Williams and Vice Mayor Meadows asked questions and provided comments; Mr. Krieg and Ms. Woods responded.

1.5 Tech in Action 2027 Presentation (Anthony Anderson) Anthony Anderson provided a presentation on Tech in Action 2027.

Councilmember Williams and Vice Mayor Meadows asked questions; Mr. Anderson responded.
14 2) PUBLIC COMMENTS
A Public Comment was received by Michaele Nobriga.
3) COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS
Councilmember Williams provided a comment.
4) CONSENT CALENDAR

4.1 Approve Minutes from the Regular Meeting held September 8, 2026 (Kim Snodgrass, City Clerk)

4.2 Closed Session Report-Out Memo from the Special Meeting held September 8, 2026 (Derek Cole, City Attorney)

4.3 Fiscal Year (FY) 2026/27 First Quarter Report on the Capital Improvement Program (Billilee Saengchalern, Public Works Director/City Engineer)

4.4 Adopt a Resolution for the Approval of the Cooperative Agreement with East Contra Costa Regional Fee and Financing Authority (ECCRFFA) CIP 273 Laurel Road Extension Between Teton Road to Sellers Avenue Project (Billilee Saengchalern, Public Works Director/City Engineer)

4.5 Adopt a Resolution Amending the City's Proclamation Policy to Add World Polio Day to the Approved Proclamation List (Kim Snodgrass, Deputy City Clerk) Councilmember Fuller pulled item 4.1.

Councilmember Williams pulled item 4.3.

It was moved by Vice Mayor Meadows and seconded by Councilmember Williams to approve the remainder of the consent calendar. AYES: Fuller, Henderson, Meadows, Shaw, Williams NOES: None ABSENT: None RESULT: Motion carried 5-0 Item 4.1
Councilmember Fuller noted he will vote no.

It was moved by Councilmember Williams and seconded by Councilmember Shaw to approve the minutes as written. AYES: Fuller, Henderson, Meadows, Shaw, Williams NOES: None ABSENT: None RESULT: Motion carried 5-0
Item 4.3
Councilmember Williams mentioned she pulled this item to acknowledge staff for the well written report and highlight some of the projects. 15 It was moved by Councilmember Williams and seconded by Vice Mayor Meadows to accept the report. AYES: Fuller, Henderson, Meadows, Shaw, Williams NOES: None ABSENT: None RESULT: Motion carried 5-0
5) PUBLIC HEARINGS

5.1 Bridgehead Business Park Properties (GPA 2026-01, RZ 2026-002) - Adoption of a General Plan Amendment Resolution and Introduction of a Rezone Ordinance (Evan Gorman, Associate Planner)
Associate Planner Evan Gorman presented the staff report.

Councilmember Williams, Councilmember Shaw, and Councilmember Fuller asked questions; Mr. Gorman responded.

Mayor Henderson opened the Public Hearing. There being no public comments, he closed the Public Hearing.

Vice Mayor Meadows, Councilmember Williams, Councilmember Shaw, and Mayor Henderson provided feedback and stated that they are in support of the change.

Councilmember Fuller provided feedback and stated he opposes the change.

Councilmember Williams, Councilmember Shaw, and Vice Mayor Meadows provided comments.

Councilmember Fuller provided comments.

During Council discussion, Councilmember Williams called a point of order. City Attorney Derek Cole advised Councilmember Fuller to focus on the topic.

Mayor Henderson provided comments.

It was moved by Vice Mayor Meadows and seconded by Councilmember Shaw to adopt the resolution adopting the project’s Initial Study/Negative Declaration and approving a General Plan Amendment (GPA 2026-01) and waive the first reading and introduce an ordinance approving the rezone (RZ 2026-002). AYES: Henderson, Meadows, Shaw, Williams NOES: Fuller ABSENT: None RESULT: Motion carried 4-1 6) REGULAR CALENDAR
None
16 7) REPORTS

7.1 City Manager
(a) City Manager
City Manager Joshua McMurray thanked staff for their hard work on the Heart of Oakley Festival. He announced the last concert and Friday Night Bites is scheduled for Friday, October 2, noting that it will be the final Friday Night Bites event at the location for approximately a year due to construction on the library and community center project.

He also announced that the second season of Oakley on Ice begins November 20.

7.2 Oakley City Council / Oakley City Council Acting as the Successor Agency to the Oakley Redevelopment Agency
(a) Reports from Council Liaisons to Regional Committees, Commissions and Boards AND Oakley City Council/Oakley City Council Acting as the Successor Agency to the Oakley Redevelopment Agency
Councilmember Shaw reported attending the Contra Costa County Senior Legal Services 50th Anniversary celebration, the City and School Subcommittee meeting, the Labor-to-Labor dinner, the Standup on the Delta Veteran event, the Joint City Council and Planning Commission meeting, the Rotary Poker Tournament and the Heart of Oakley Festival.

Vice Mayor Meadows reported attending two Contra Costa Transportation Authority meetings, an MCE meeting, the Rotary Poker Tournament, and the Heart of Oakley Festival.

Councilmember Williams reported attending Coffee with the Principal, the Labor-toLabor dinner, the Chamber of Commerce Social and Board meeting, the Joint City Council and Planning Commission meeting, the Green Empowerment Zone meeting, and the Heart of Oakley Festival. She also participated in an interview with the Boy Scouts and had a call with East County Women Leaders.

Mayor Henderson reported attending the City and School Subcommittee meeting, the Standup on the Delta Veteran event, the Joint City Council and Planning Commission meeting, and the Heart of Oakley Festival. He also noted he met with the auditors. (b) Requests for Future Agendas
Councilmember Williams requested a work session to discuss council stipends should any councilmembers not be in a position to represent districts or attend meetings.

Councilmember Shaw supported the request.

City Attorney Derek Cole asked for clarification on the request; Councilmember Williams responded.
17 8) WORK SESSIONS

8.1 Technical Zoning Code Update Work Session - Work Session to Discuss the Technical Zoning Code Update (Jose Cortez, Senior Planner) Senior Planner Jose Cortez introduced Michael Gibbons, Senior Project Manager, and Nikki Zanchetta, Senior Planner, with consulting firm Mintier Harnish.

Mr. Gibbons presented an overview of the Zoning Code Update project and requested feedback on four specific project questions.

Councilmember Williams, Councilmember Shaw, and Vice Mayor Meadows, provided comments and questions; Mr. Gibbons responded.

Vice Mayor Meadows suggested that Mr. Gibbons give Council an idea of what he is looking for in response to the questions.

Mr. Gibbons read through the four questions individually for Council discussion.

City Manager Joshua McMurray noted that the Downtown Specific Plan regulates downtown zoning, and it will not be impacted by this update. He also mentioned that the discussion questions could be distributed to Council for further review.

Following additional comments from Councilmember Fuller, Mayor Henderson requested that the discussion questions be sent to Council so individual feedback could be submitted to the City Manager for forwarding to Mr. Gibbons.

8.2 Work Session to Discuss Meeting Minutes Format (Kim Snodgrass, City Clerk)
City Clerk Kim Snodgrass presented the staff report.

Vice Mayor Meadows stated he is in favor of continuing with action minutes and adding the Granicus transcript.

Councilmember Williams, Councilmember Fuller and Councilmember Shaw provided comments and questions.

Councilmembers expressed support for incorporating the Granicus transcript, with Councilmember Fuller requesting to add a statement of acceptance and Councilmember Shaw suggesting a notation regarding the accuracy of the transcript.

City Clerk Kim Snodgrass, City Attorney Derek Cole, and City Manager Joshua McMurray responded.

Mayor Henderson expressed support for action minutes with the transcript attached, and continuing with lengthy summary minutes if technology fails.

Assistant City Manager Danielle Navarro advised that under SB 707 if we lose connection to the meeting, it requires the Council to take a recess to attempt to resolve the issue.
18 Mayor Henderson added that should Council vote to continue the meeting without audio/visual following the required waiting period, lengthy summary minutes would then be prepared. Ms. Navarro confirmed.
9) CLOSED SESSIONS
None
10) ADJOURN
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:49 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted,
Kim Snodgrass
City Clerk
19 Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting Held
October 1, 2026
1) CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Mayor Henderson called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m.

4.1 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Initiation of litigation pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9: (One potential case)
Mayor Henderson announced the Closed Session item and mentioned the meeting will adjourn after Closed Session.
5) ADJOURN
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:45 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted,
Kim Snodgrass
City Clerk
20 MEMORANDUM
City of Oakley | 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561 1
O (925) 625-7000 | F (925) 625-9859 | www.oakleyca.gov
Date: September 23, 2026
To: Mayor and City Councilmembers
From: Derek P. Cole, City Attorney
Subject: Closed Session Report-Out Memo
For Consideration at the City Council Meeting of October 13, 2026 Background and Analysis
The City Council considered the following closed session item during its Special meeting held September 22, 2026:

CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Initiation of litigation pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9: (One potential case)
Direction was provided to staff. There was no reportable action.

Fiscal Impact
None.

Recommendation
Receive and file this report.

Attachments
None
21 MEMORANDUM
City of Oakley | 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561 1
O (925) 625-7000 | F (925) 625-9859 | www.oakleyca.gov
Date: October 2, 2026
To: Mayor and City Councilmembers
From: Derek P. Cole, City Attorney
Subject: Closed Session Report-Out Memo
For Consideration at the City Council Meeting of October 13, 2026 Background and Analysis
The City Council considered the following closed session item during its Special meeting held October 1, 2026:

Fiscal Impact
None.

Recommendation
Receive and file this report.

Attachments
None
22 Ordinance No. 12-26 Page 1 of 4

ORDINANCE NO. 12-26

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OAKLEY APPROVING A REZONE (RZ 2026-002) RECLASSIFYING APPROXIMATELY 1.36 ACRES AT 6001, 6113, AND 6115 BRIDGEHEAD ROAD FROM BPL (BUSINESS PARK LOW) DISTRICT TO LI (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL) DISTRICT (APNS 051-040-041, 051-040-063, AND 051-040-064)

FINDINGS
WHEREAS, on March 6, 2026, Brian Markiel, Rene Torres, and Praveen Chand (collectively, “Applicants”), the owners of 6001, 6113, and 6115 Bridgehead Road, respectively, jointly filed an application for: (1) General Plan Amendment GPA 2026-01 to redesignate three parcels totaling approximately 1.36 acres from Business Park (“BP”) to Light Industrial (“LI”); and (2) Rezone RZ 2026-002 to rezone the same parcels from BPL (Business Park Low) District to LI (Light Industrial) District (“Project”); and WHEREAS, on March 19, 2026 the Project applications were deemed complete pursuant to Government Code section 65920 et seq.; and
WHEREAS, the project site is designated Business Park in the Oakley General Plan and zoned BPL (Business Park Low) District; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), the City prepared an Initial Study/Negative Declaration (“IS/ND”), dated June 2026, which concluded that the Project would not have a significant effect on the environment and that no mitigation measures are required; and
WHEREAS, the Notice of Intent to Adopt the IS/ND was circulated for public review from June 10, 2026 to July 9, 2026, filed with the Contra Costa County Clerk and State Clearinghouse, distributed to public agencies and interested parties, and posted in accordance with applicable requirements and no comment letters were received; and WHEREAS, on August 18, 2026, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing, received the staff report and presentation, deliberated, and adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 13-26 by a 3-0 vote, with one Commissioner absent and one seat vacant, recommending that the City Council adopt the IS/ND, approve GPA 2026- 01, and enact an ordinance approving RZ 2026-002; and
WHEREAS, OMC section 9.1.102(g) requires the Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map to be consistent with the General Plan, and RZ 2026-002 may therefore take effect only if GPA 2026-01 is approved; and
WHEREAS, on September 22, 2026, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing, received the staff report and presentation, considered any oral and written testimony presented, deliberated on the Project, and waived the first reading of and introduced this Ordinance; and
23 Ordinance No. 12-26 Page 2 of 4

WHEREAS, on September 22, 2026, the City Council adopted a Resolution adopting the Initial Study/Negative Declaration prepared for the Project and approving General Plan Amendment GPA 2026-01, together with the Conditions of Approval applicable to the Project; and
WHEREAS, these findings are based on the Oakley General Plan, the Oakley Zoning Ordinance, the IS/ND, the staff reports and presentations to the Planning Commission and the City Council, testimony received at the public hearings, and the documents contained in the Project file (collectively, the “Record”).

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT, based on the foregoing recitals, findings, and the entire Record, the City Council makes the following findings in support of approval of the project approval for the Rezone (RZ 2026-002).

SECTION 1. Findings
A. Regarding the application requesting approval of a Rezone (RZ 2026-002) to reclassify the subject properties from BPL (Business Park Low) District to LI (Light Industrial) District, the City Council finds that:

1. The proposed change from BPL to LI is consistent with the General Plan as amended by GPA 2026-01 and implements the LI designation shown on the amended General Plan Land Use Diagram.

2. The Rezone is required to achieve the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance identified in OMC section 9.1.102(a). The LI District would foster a workable and compatible relationship among land uses, promote stability and productive use of the existing developed properties, and support industrial and employmentgenerating activity in an established industrial corridor.

3. The site’s location and existing improvements are suitable for the LI District. The site has access from Bridgehead Road, nearby freeway access, existing paved parking and storage areas, and buildings capable of accommodating lightindustrial activity. Surrounding industrial, logistics, utility, transportation, and storage uses are compatible with the proposed district.

4. The Rezone would support the City’s economic-development objectives by allowing compatible light-industrial businesses to lawfully occupy and reoccupy existing building space, strengthening the tax base and supporting productive use of the properties.

5. Consistent with OMC section 9.1.1610(e)(2), the Rezone is not conditioned. Upon reclassification, the properties will be subject to the regulations of the LI District and all other applicable laws. More intensive uses and future development remain subject to any review and approval otherwise required by the Oakley Municipal Code.
24 Ordinance No. 12-26 Page 3 of 4

B. The Rezone (RZ 2026-002) application was analyzed under the Bridgehead Business Park Properties Initial Study / Negative Declaration, adopted by the Oakley City Council on September 22, 2026.

C. The Project complies with Measure J Growth Management requirements.

SECTION 2. Property Defined and Rezoned
A. Approximately 1.36 acres of real property located at 6001, 6113, and 6115 Bridgehead Road, Oakley, CA 94561 (APNs 051-040-041, 051-040-063, and 051-040-064).

B. The Zoning Map of the City of Oakley is hereby amended to reclassify the real property described in subsection A from BPL (Business Park Low) District to LI (Light Industrial) District, as depicted in Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The Community Development Director, or designee, is directed to update the Zoning Map accordingly.

SECTION 5. Effective Date and Posting
This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after the date of its passage. The City Clerk shall cause the ordinance to be published within fifteen (15) days after its passage in a newspaper of general circulation, or by publishing a summary of the proposed ordinance, posting a certified copy of the proposed ordinance in the City Clerk’s Office at least five (5) days prior to the City Council meeting at which the ordinance is to be adopted, and within fifteen (15) days after its adoption, publishing a summary of the ordinance with the names of the Council Members voting for and against the ordinance.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Oakley this 13th day of October 2026 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTENTION:

ABSENT:

APPROVED:
_______________________
Hugh Henderson, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________ _______________________
Kim Snodgrass, City Clerk Date
25 Ordinance No. 12-26 Page 4 of 4

I HEREBY CERTIFY that in accordance with Government Code Section 40806, this ordinance is a true and correct copy of a city ordinance. It has been published or posted pursuant to law.
_______________________
Kim Snodgrass, City Clerk
Exhibit A: Rezone Diagram
26 STAFF REPORT
1 City of Oakley | 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561
O (925) 625-7000 | F (925) 625-9859 | www.oakleyca.gov
DATE: October 13, 2026
TO: Joshua McMurray, City Manager
FROM: Billilee Saengchalern, Public Works Director/City Engineer SUBJECT: Adopt a Resolution for the Award of a Construction Contract to K&K JL Services, Inc. for the construction of the Police Department Remodeling Project – Capital Improvement Project (CIP) Number 343
Background and Analysis
The City’s adopted FY 2026/27 Capital Improvement Program Budget designates funding for various infrastructure improvement projects. This is consistent with the City’s goals to improve the quality of the City’s public infrastructure and to enhance the quality of life for our residents.

The City of Oakley strives to provide exemplary service to all residents and visitors.

One key part of the City operations is the Police Department that keeps Oakley a safe community. The City of Oakley is a growing community with desirable residential neighborhoods and beautiful parks that have attracted thousands of new residents over the past several years. To continue to keep up with the community growth and providing exemplary law enforcement services, the Police Department has also expanded and grown. In the past decade several small improvements and remodeling has been performed at the Police building to address space and operational needs of the police personnel.

This project will address many spacing needs of the Police Department and perform major remodeling of the Police Department offices that include: conversion of the open courtyard between the Police Department and City offices to secure office space and meeting rooms; creating dedicated office space for the traffic officers and other police personnel for report writing, expanding the evidence room and adding new storage racks for the evidence storage, dedicated office space will be created for the police sergeants, the front reception area will be remodeled to create an ergonomic and functional work space for police administrative personnel, reconfiguration of the work space for the detectives to create a functional work space, and creating of an exchange room next to the police lobby on matters that police officers need to meet with people that do not need to go inside the Police Department while in operations.

The architectural firm of Perkins, Williams & Cotterill, Inc. were hired in August 2025 to perform the design of this project. This design work and preparation of the bid documents were completed in June 2026 and the project went through a formal bid process.

Approved and
Forwarded to the
City Council
27 STAFF REPORT
City of Oakley | 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561 2
O (925) 625-7000 | F (925) 625-9859 | www.oakleyca.gov
On August 27, 2026, nine (9) qualified bids were received for this project. Staff reviewed the bids and determined that K&K JL Services, Inc was the lowest responsible company and most responsive to the City’s bid process in the amount of $1,138,601.18 for the base bid and added alternative bid in amount of $140,000 for Fire and Sprinkler System design and construction for total bid of $1,278,601.18.

This was a very competitive bidding process, and the City received a very favorable bid for this project especially in times that inflation and tariffs have negatively impacted construction costs for projects. The construction of this project will start in November, and the work is anticipated to be completed by summer 2027.

Consistency with the Oakley Strategic Plan 27+
This item is consistent with the Strategic Plan 27+ Community Health and Safety goals.

Fiscal Impact
This item was included in the FY 2026/27 budget with a total budget of $2,185,000.

This project is funded by the General Capital Project Fund 201. To date $55,258.28 has been spent and encumbered. No additional funding is needed at this time to fund this contract.

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommend that the City Council adopt the resolution approving the construction agreement with K&K JL Services, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $1,278,601.18 and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement.

Additionally, due to variables associated with construction projects, and to address unforeseen circumstances during construction, staff further recommend that the City Council approve $200,000 in contingency and authorize staff to execute future change orders to the construction contract as necessary in an amount not to exceed $200,000 for work beyond what is defined in the base project bid.

Attachments
1) Resolution
2) Bid Summary
28 Resolution No. XX-26 Page 1 of 1
RESOLUTION NO. XX-26

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OAKLEY APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH K&K JL SERVICES, INC. FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (CIP) NUMBER 343 – POLICE DEPARTMENT

REMODELING PROJECT
WHEREAS, Perkins, Williams & Cotterill, Inc. prepared the plans, specifications, and estimates for CIP No. 343 – Police Department Remodeling project; and WHEREAS, the plans, specifications and special provisions were publicly advertised for bidding, with the bid period closing at 2:00 P.M. on Thursday, August 27, 2026; and WHEREAS, nine (9) qualified bids were received prior to the close of the bidding process; and
WHEREAS, K&K JL Services, Inc. submitted the lowest responsible bid in the amount of $1,138,601.18 for the base bid and added the alternative bid in the amount of $140,000 for Fire and Sprinkler System design and construction for a total bid of $1,278,601.18, the bid summary is attached as Exhibit A; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Oakley that the Agreement with K&K JL Services, Inc. for the Police Department Remodeling project – CIP 343, for an amount not to exceed $1,278,601.18 is approved, and the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute the agreement and change orders in an amount not to exceed $200,000 as necessary, is hereby approved.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Oakley at a meeting held on the 13th day of October 2026 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTENTION:

ABSENT:

APPROVED:

Hugh Henderson, Mayor
ATTEST:
________
Kim Snodgrass, City Clerk Date
29 1 POLICE DEPARTMENT REMODELING PROJECT LS 1 $ 1,400,000.00 $ 1,400,000.00 1,138,601.18 $ $ 1,138,601.18 1,486,600.00 $ $ 1,486,600.00 1,497,700.00 $ $ 1,497,700.00 1,510,000.00 $ $ 1,510,000.00 1,541,610.00 $ $ 1,541,610.00 1,729,135.00 $ $ 1,729,135.00 2,085,000.00 $ $ 2,085,000.00 2,470,000.00 $ $ 2,470,000.00 2,560,000.00 $ $ 2,560,000.00 $ - $ - - $ $ - - $ $ - - $ $ - - $ $ - - $ $ - - $ $ - - $ $ - - $ $ - - $ $ - Total $ 1,400,000 1,138,601.18 $ 1,486,600.00 $ 1,497,700.00 $ 1,510,000.00 $ 1,541,610.00 $ 1,729,135.00 $ 2,085,000.00 $ 2,470,000.00 $ 2,560,000.00 $ City of Oakley
Public Works Department
CIP 343 - Police Department Remodeling Project
Certified Bid Tabulation Bid Opening: August 27, 2026 at 2:00pm at the Civic Center 2850 Cordelia Rd, Ste 200, Fairfield,
CA 94534 900 EI Pintado Rd, Danville, CA 94526
MARC BUILDERS LLC dba MARC
ENGINEERING BRANCO CONSTRUCTION, INC. CWS CONSTRUCTION GROUP,INC. GCCI, INC. MVP CONSTRUCTION LLC 7901 Oakport Street Suite 2700,
Oakland, CA 94621 4524 Salida Blvd, Salida, CA 95368 531 N Mills Ave, Lodi, CA 95242

ITEM TOTAL COST UNIT PRICE ITEM TOTAL COST
148 Ruby Lane, Vallejo, CA 94529 1301 Grant Ave Ste B, Novato, CA 94945 4701 Old Redwood Hwy, Suite 1A, Santa Rosa, CA 95403 428 N. Buchanan Circle #15, Pacheco, CA 94553

ITEM ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE ITEM TOTAL COST UNIT PRICE ITEM TOTAL COST UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE ITEM TOTAL COST UNIT PRICE ITEM TOTAL COST UNIT PRICE ITEM TOTAL COST UNIT PRICE UNI T QUANT ITY UNIT PRICE K+K JL Services LLC S&H CONSTRUCTION, INC. JUV INC. WOODLAND CONSTRUCTION BUILDERS, INC.

ITEM TOTAL
COST
Engineer's Estimate

ITEM TOTAL COST UNIT PRICE ITEM TOTAL COST
30 STAFF REPORT
1 City of Oakley | 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561
O (925) 625-7000 | F (925) 625-9859 | www.oakleyca.gov
DATE: October 13, 2026
TO: Joshua McMurray, City Manager
FROM: Billilee Saengchalern, Public Works Director/City Engineer SUBJECT: Adopt a Resolution Awarding a Construction Contract to Lignum Mellis for the construction of Fiscal Year (FY) 2026/27 Curb, Gutter, & Sidewalk Repair and Reconstruction Project – Capital Improvement Project (CIP) Number 337
Background and Analysis
The City’s adopted FY 2026/27 Capital Improvement Program Budget designates funding for various infrastructure repair and replacement projects. This is consistent with the City’s goals to improve the quality of the City’s public infrastructure and to enhance the quality of life for our residents.

Capital Improvement Project No. 337 includes the repair and replacement of damaged and uplifted sidewalks or curb and gutter throughout the City of Oakley. The project is done annually to eliminate trip and fall hazards, and to provide safe streets and sidewalks for pedestrians in the community. Tree roots are a major cause of sidewalk uplifts, and this project is targeting some of the worst areas in the City where tree roots have damaged the concrete beyond any temporary repair.

Additionally, this project will work in coordination with the adopted 50-50 Concrete Repair Cost Share Program that helps the property owners in dealing with concrete curb, gutter, and sidewalk related problems, such as uplifts from tree root overgrowth. The 50-50 Concrete Repair Cost Share Program provides the City with assistance in managing the repair and replacement contract, as well as sharing the cost with the property owners. This project will help in providing safe pedestrian facilities and reduce liability and claims for trip and fall accidents.

After the completion of the project design and public bidding, on September 24, 2026, a total of nine (9) bids were received and Lignum Mellis submitted the lowest responsible bid for the project at a total cost of $85,250. This was a very competitive bidding process and the City received a very favorable bid for this project.

The construction of CIP 337 is anticipated to take place during the fall months, weather permitting.

Consistency with the Oakley Strategic Plan 27+
The approval of this agreement is consistent with the Oakley Strategic Plan under the Community Health and Safety Goal to provide safe streets in Oakley.

Approved and
Forwarded to the
City Council
31 STAFF REPORT
City of Oakley | 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561 2
O (925) 625-7000 | F (925) 625-9859 | www.oakleyca.gov
Fiscal Impact
This item was included in the FY 2026/27 budget with a total budget of $150,000, with $127.13 spent to print plans and specifications for the bidding process. This project is funded by Gas Tax RMRA funds (141). No additional funding is needed at this time to fund this contract.

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommend that the City Council adopt the resolution approving the construction agreement with Lignum Mellis for an amount not to exceed $85,250 and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement.

Additionally, due to variables associated with construction projects, and to address unforeseen circumstances during construction; staff further recommends that the City Council authorize staff to execute future change orders to the construction contract as necessary in an amount not to exceed $20,000 for work beyond what is defined in the base project bid.

Attachments
Attachment 1 - Resolution
Attachment 2 - Bid Summary
32 Resolution No. XX-26 Page 1 of 1
RESOLUTION NO. XX-26

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OAKLEY APPROVING

THE CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT WITH LIGNUM MELLIS FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (CIP) NUMBER 337 – FISCAL YEAR (FY) 2026/27 CURB, GUTTER, & SIDEWALK REPAIR AND

RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT
WHEREAS, the annual curb, gutter, & sidewalk performs a critical step in keeping the City’s sidewalks clear of locations that may create trip and fall incidents; and WHEREAS, the plans, specifications and special provisions were publicly advertised for bidding with the bidding period closing at 2:00 P.M. on September 24, 2026, and; WHEREAS, nine (9) total bids were received prior to the closing of the bidding process and;
WHEREAS, Lignum Mellis submitted the lowest responsible bid for a total cost of $85,250 for the work, and the bid summary is attached as Exhibit A.

BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Oakley that the Agreement with Lignum Mellis for the FY 2026/27 Curb, Gutter, & Sidewalk Repair and Reconstruction Project – CIP 337, for an amount not to exceed $85,250, the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute the Agreement, and any change orders in an amount not to exceed $20,000 as necessary is hereby approved.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Oakley this 13th day of October 2026 by the following vote.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTENTION:

ABSENT:

APPROVED:

Hugh Henderson, Mayor
ATTEST:
________
Kim Snodgrass, City Clerk Date
33 1 R&R Sidewalk SF 3,000 $ 20.00 $ 60,000.00 $ 22.00 $ 66,000.00 $ 23.00 $ 69,000.00 $ 22.50 $ 67,500.00 2 R&R Curb & Gutter LF 250 $ 75.00 $ 18,800.00 $ 74.50 $ 18,625.00 $ 65.00 $ 16,250.00 $ 80.00 $ 20,000.00 Total $ 82,000 $ 85,250.00 84,625.00 $ 87,500.00 $
$ 25.00 $ 75,000.00 $ 24.00 $ 72,000.00 $ 33.28 $ 99,840.00 $ 40.00 $ 120,000.00 $ 39.00 $ 117,000.00 $ 40.00 $ 120,000.00 $ 50.00 $ 12,500.00 $ 70.00 $ 17,500.00 $ 119.40 $ 29,850.00 $ 50.00 $ 12,500.00 $ 130.00 $ 32,500.00 $ 120.00 $ 30,000.00 $ 89,500.00 87,500.00 $ 129,690.00 $ 132,500.00 $ 149,500.00 $ 150,000.00 $ Bid did not include Addendum No. 1
Bid not valid for consideration

UNIT PRICE ITEM TOTAL COST UNIT PRICE ITEM TOTAL COST UNIT PRICE ITEM TOTAL COST UNIT PRICE ITEM TOTAL COST UNIT PRICE ITEM TOTAL COST UNIT PRICE ITEM TOTAL COST FBD Vanguard
6536 Telegraph Ave, Suite 205B
Oakland, CA 94609
1981 21st St
San Pablo, CA 94806
2905 Alcala St
Antioch, CA 94565
900 El Pintado Rd
Danville, CA 94526
4941 Pacheco Blvd
Martinez, CA 94553
550 Greenville Road
Livermore, CA 94550
Bid did not include Addendum No. 1
Bid not valid for consideration
D's General Engineering FJ&I Engineering Inc. DHR General Construction S&H Construction, Inc Kerex Engineering, Inc

ITEM ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT UNIT PRICE ITEM TOTAL COST UNIT PRICE ITEM TOTAL COST UNIT PRICE ITEM TOTAL COST QUANTIT Y UNIT PRICE ITEM TOTAL COST 214 Silver Bell Way
Oakley, CA 94561
2095 Jerrold Ave, Suite 316
San Francisco, CA 94124
163 Meadow Brook Ct
Oakley, CA 94561
Engineer's Estimate LUMA Engineering Contractors Inc. Lignum Mellis Modernscapes Innovations CIP 337 - FY 2026/27 Curb, Gutter, & Sidewalk Repair & Reconstruction Project Certified Bid Tabulation
Bid Opening: September 24, 2026 at 2:00pm at the City Council Chambers 34 STAFF REPORT
1 City of Oakley | 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561
O (925) 625-7000 | F (925) 625-9859 | www.oakleyca.gov
DATE: October 13, 2026
TO: Joshua McMurray, City Manager
FROM: Billilee Saengchalern, Public Works Director/City Engineer SUBJECT: Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Consulting Services Agreement with Nichols Consulting Engineers (NCE) to Provide Professional Engineering Design Services for Capital Improvement Project (CIP) Number 342 – Fiscal Year (FY) 2026/27 Street Repair and Resurfacing Project
Background and Analysis
The City’s adopted FY 2026/27 CIP designates funding for various infrastructure repair and replacement projects. This is consistent with the City’s Strategic Goals to improve the quality of the City’s public infrastructure and to enhance the quality of life for our residents.

Each year the street pavement conditions change due to wear and environmental impacts; and the streets must routinely undergo preventative maintenance to ensure their functionality. The City of Oakley uses this annual project to perform rehabilitative and preventative maintenance on the public street network through a series of base dig-outs, crack sealing, slurry and cape sealing, pavement overlays and removal and replacement of the asphalt surface on streets where it has failed. The project will be completed with the placement of new striping and pavement markings on newly resurfaced streets.

The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) has created a Pavement Management System (PMS) program that is used by all municipalities and transportation agencies in the Bay Area to evaluate the condition of their respective agency streets. MTC uses the data collected by all agencies to create reports annually that show the overall condition of Bay Area streets and funding needed to maintain the streets.

The City of Oakley uses this PMS program to evaluate the condition of streets and to prioritize projects to repair and resurface the streets. Each annual street repair and resurfacing project is performed to ensure the funds allocated are utilized to not only repair and resurface the streets that are in poor condition, but also to rehabilitate streets that are in fair to good condition to prolong their life and performance.

CIP 342 is focused on the repair and resurfacing of three major arterial corridors that interconnect the City: Empire Avenue from Laurel Road to Main Street (approximately

1.1 miles), Laurel Road from the Oakley/Antioch City Limits to Empire Avenue (approximately 0.5 miles), and Main Street from East Cypress Road to Laurel Road Approved and
Forwarded to the
City Council
35 STAFF REPORT
City of Oakley | 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561 2
O (925) 625-7000 | F (925) 625-9859 | www.oakleyca.gov
(approximately 0.5 miles), totaling approximately two centerline miles. Based on a preliminary field review and the City’s StreetSaver pavement management database, Empire Avenue is in fair to good condition and is a candidate for a double slurry seal, while Main Street and Laurel Road are in poor to fair condition and are candidates for mill and overlay or cold in-place recycling (CIR) with localized base repairs. The preliminary construction budget for the project is approximately $3 million.

The design services include project management, utility coordination, pavement condition surveys, pavement deflection testing and coring, a pavement design technical memorandum, curb & gutter assessments, plans, specifications and estimate (PS&E), bidding and construction support.

Staff solicited proposals from consulting firms for the design of this project and received four proposals. The proposal from Nichols Consulting Engineers was selected as the best suited firm to design this street resurfacing project. This firm has successfully designed other street resurfacing projects for municipalities in the Bay Area, including the City’s FY 2025/26 Street Repair and Resurfacing Project (CIP 333 B), and their cost proposal for $222,000.00 was very competitive pricing for a project of this magnitude.

The design of this project will be performed during FY 2026/27, with bidding anticipated next year FY 2027/28 once construction funding is budgeted. After the completion of the project design and bidding, staff will present the construction contract award report to the City Council.

Consistency with the Oakley Strategic Plan 27+
This item is consistent with the Strategic Plan 27+ Community Health and Safety section goal to provide safe streets.

Fiscal Impact
This item was included in the FY 2026/27 budget with a total budget of $1,350,000.

This project is funded by the Street Maintenance & Rehabilitation Fund (235) ($1,100,000) and the Gas Tax RMRA Fund (141) ($250,000). To date no funds have been expended. No additional funding is needed at this time to fund this contract.

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommend that the City Council adopt the resolution approving the proposal with (NCE) Nichols Consulting Engineers associated with CIP No. 342 – FY 2026/27 Street Repair and Resurfacing Project to authorize the City Manager to enter into an agreement for a not to exceed amount of $222,000.00.
36 STAFF REPORT
City of Oakley | 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561 3
O (925) 625-7000 | F (925) 625-9859 | www.oakleyca.gov
Attachments
Attachment 1 – Resolution
37 Resolution No. XX-26 Page 1 of 2
RESOLUTION NO. XX-26

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OAKLEY APPROVING

AN AGREEMENT WITH NICHOLS CONSULTING ENGINEERS FOR ENGINEERING

DESIGN SERVICES ASSOCIATED WITH CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NUMBER 342 – FISCAL YEAR 2026/27 STREET REPAIR AND RESURFACING

PROJECT AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN

AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, as part of the Fiscal Year 2026/27 Budget the City of Oakley approved a 5-Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP); and
WHEREAS, Project Number 342 is to design and construct improvements for the repair and resurfacing of Main Street East Cypress Road to Laurel Road, Empire Avenue from Laurel Road to Main Street, and Laurel Road Oakley/Antioch City Limits to Empire Avenue; and WHEREAS, staff solicited proposals from four consulting firms for the design of this project; and
WHEREAS, NCE submitted the most comprehensive and cost competitive proposal to prepare engineering design services for CIP Project Number 342 for an amount not to exceed $222,000; and
WHEREAS, this item was included in the FY 2026/27 budget with a total budget of $1,350,000, funded by the Street Maintenance & Rehabilitation Fund (235) ($1,100,000) and the Gas Tax RMRA Fund (141) ($250,000). No additional funding is needed at this time to fund this contract.

BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Oakley that the proposal from NCE for engineering design services for CIP Project Number 342, for an amount not to exceed $222,000, is hereby approved, and the City Manager is authorized to execute an Agreement.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Oakley this 13th day of October 2026 by the following vote.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTENTION:

ABSENT:

APPROVED:
38 Resolution No. XX-26 Page 2 of 2
Hugh Henderson, Mayor
ATTEST:
________
Kim Snodgrass, City Clerk Date
39 STAFF REPORT
CITY HALL | 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561
O (925) 625-7000 | F (925) 625-9859 | www.oakleyca.gov
DATE: October 13, 2026
TO: Joshua McMurray, City Manager
FROM: Kim Snodgrass, City Clerk
SUBJECT: Adopt a Resolution Requiring a Closed Caption Transcript to be Included with the Action Minutes and Retained Permanently and Rescinding City Council Resolution No. 48-22, Successor Agency Resolution No. 02-22, and Public Financing Authority Resolution No. 01-22
Background and Analysis
On May 10, 2022, the City Council, the Successor Agency to the Oakley Redevelopment Agency, and the Oakley Public Financing Authority adopted Resolutions No. 48-22, 02-22, and 01-22, respectively, establishing the use of action minutes for meetings.

On March 24, 2026, Councilmember Shaw requested that staff evaluate implementing a hybrid format of action and summary minutes, including technology that could assist in producing the minutes.

On September 22, 2026, the City Council held a Work Session. Staff presented the following two options for Council consideration.
1) Continue producing action minutes and attach and permanently retain the closed captioning transcript with the minutes.
a) Should the Council choose Option 1, staff requests direction on which of the transcripts (Granicus, YouTube or Zoom) to retain.
2) Transition to brief summary minutes that include whether a person making public comment supports or opposes an item, key Council discussion points, and final votes and actions.

Following discussion at the Work Session, City Council directed staff to maintain the action minutes format and attach and permanently retain the closed captioning transcript from the City’s agenda management software (currently Granicus).

The City Council also directed staff to include a statement on the minutes regarding the transcript being an automated transcript provided by the City’s agenda management software and therefore errors may be present.

Consistency with the Oakley Strategic Plan 27+
This item is consistent with the City's Community and Collaborative Partnership Goal.

Approved and
Forwarded to the
City Council
40 STAFF REPORT
CITY HALL | 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561
O (925) 625-7000 | F (925) 625-9859 | www.oakleyca.gov
Fiscal Impact
None
Staff Recommendation
Adopt a Resolution requiring transcripts be attached and permanently retained with all official action minutes and rescinding City Council Resolution No. 48-22, Successor Agency Resolution No. 02-22, and Public Financing Authority Resolution No. 01-22.

Attachments

1. Proposed Resolution
41 Resolution No. XX-26 Page 1 of 1
RESOLUTION NO. XX-26

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OAKLEY ACTING AS

THE CITY COUNCIL, THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE OAKLEY

REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, AND THE OAKLEY PUBLIC FINANCING

AUTHORITY, REQUIRING TRANSCRIPTS BE INCLUDED AND PERMANENTLY

RETAINED WITH ALL OFFICIAL ACTION MINUTES AND RESCINDING CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 48-22, SUCCESSOR AGENCY RESOLUTION NO. 02-22 AND PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY RESOLUTION NO. 01-22 WHEREAS, the City Council, the Successor Agency to the Oakley Redevelopment Agency, and the Oakley Public Financing Authority previously adopted Resolutions No. 48-22, 02-22, and 01-22 respectively, establishing the use of action minutes for meetings; and WHEREAS, the legislative bodies desire to update these standards to include full closed captioning transcripts alongside action minutes for permanent recordkeeping and include a statement regarding the transcript being an automated transcript provided by the City’s agenda management software and, therefore, that errors may be present.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Oakley acting as the City Council, the Successor Agency to the Oakley Redevelopment Agency, and the Public Financing Authority that a closed captioning transcript shall be included with the action minutes and retained permanently and shall include a statement regarding the transcript being an automated transcript provided by the City’s agenda management software and, therefore, that errors may be present; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby rescinds City Council Resolution No. 48-22, Successor Agency Resolution No. 02-22, and Public Financing Authority Resolution No. 01-22.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Oakley this 13th day of October 2026 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTENTION:

ABSENT:

APPROVED:
___________________
Hugh Henderson, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________ ___________________
Kim Snodgrass, City Clerk Date
42 STAFF REPORT
1 CITY HALL | 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561
O (925) 625-7000 | F (925) 625-9859 | www.oakleyca.gov
DATE: October 13, 2026
TO: Joshua McMurray, City Manager
FROM: Jose Cortez, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: Zoning Text Amendments (PLN-2026-1000) - Housing Element Implementation - Adopt an Ordinance amending Section 9.1.406 titled “Multiple Family Residential Districts (M-9; M-12; M-17; M-30) Summary
The City of Oakley is initiating a Rezoning application (PLN2026-1000) proposing modifications to the Oakley Municipal Code (OMC) as follows:

1. Amendments to § 9.1.406 Multiple Family Residential Districts (M-9; M-12; M-17; M-30) of the OMC to implement Housing Element programs, but not limited to Policy Action 3.7 which requires the City identify an additional zoning district where emergency shelters will be allowed as a by-right, permitted use. The zoning district shall be a residential zoning district and shall have adequate available sites (e.g., vacant site or building that can be converted to a shelter) with capacity to accommodate at least 50 beds of emergency shelter. Emergency shelters shall be permitted consistent with the requirements of Government Code Section 65583.

These zoning text amendments collectively are intended to further the City’s compliance with its adopted Housing Element and applicable fair housing regulations (“Project”).

The City Council is considering a proposed Ordinance to adopt the proposed Rezone (PLN-2026-1000) consisting of the zoning text amendments that will allow emergency shelters consistent with the requirements of Government Code Section 65583 as permitted by-right.

Background
The Housing Element is one of the seven mandatory elements of each city’s General Plan. It functions as a locally adopted blueprint of goals, policies, and programs to address existing and projected housing needs. State law requires jurisdictions to update their Housing Element every eight years and obtain certification from the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). The City of Oakley 6th Cycle Housing Element 2023-2031 was adopted by the City Council on May 9, 2023 and was subsequently certified by HCD on May 24, 2023. Since adoption of the Housing Element the City has worked towards implementation of the Goals and Policy Actions of the Housing Element identified in Chapter 8 titled, “Housing Plan”. The Housing Plan identifies specific goals and actions to address housing needs and meet statutory requirements. In developing this Housing Plan, the City assessed its existing Approved and
Forwarded to the City
Council
43 STAFF REPORT
CITY HALL | 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561 2
O (925) 625-7000 | F (925) 625-9859 | www.oakleyca.gov
and future housing needs and evaluated the performance of existing programs. The Housing Element identifies three (3) overarching goal topics:

1. Production of New Housing

2. Preservation and Conservation of the Existing Housing Stock

3. Increase Access to Housing Opportunities
For each goal, the City developed a set of policy actions to carry out the goal. The policy actions specify objectives, primary responsibility, and an estimated timeframe for accomplishment. Compliance with Policy Actions 3.7 requires Zoning Text Amendments (ZTA) to the OMC. The ZTAs will bring the applicable sections of the OMC into compliance with state law and in conformance with the Housing Element Actions.

Zoning Text Amendments
POLICY ACTION 3.7: ADEQUATE EMERGENCY SHELTER SITES
Policy Action 3.7 is written as follows:
“The City currently (2023) allows emergency shelters as a by-right permitted use on the Civic Center site within the Downtown Specific Plan. The City shall identify an additional zoning district where emergency shelters will be allowed as a by-right, permitted use.

The zoning district shall be a residential zoning district and shall have adequate available sites (e.g., vacant site or building that can be converted to a shelter) with capacity to accommodate at least 50 beds of emergency shelter. Emergency shelters shall be permitted consistent with the requirements of Government Code Section 65583.”
Emergency Shelter Zoning
Policy Action 3.7 of the Housing Element requires that the OMC identify a zoning district where emergency shelters are permitted by-right. The program aims to solely identify a zoning district and a development project is not proposed as part of this rezoning.

Previously the Downtown Specific Plan identified the Civic Center property as the sole area where an emergency shelter could be proposed; however, the recently approved Oakley Library will be constructed on the same location that an emergency shelter could have been located on the Civic Center site. Accordingly, the City of Oakley has identified the Multiple Family Residential Districts (M-9; M-12; M-17; M-30) as the potential districts for emergency shelters. The OMC § 9.1.406 Multiple Family Residential Districts has been amended to include Emergency Shelter consistent with Government Code Section 65583 as permitted by-right.
44 STAFF REPORT
CITY HALL | 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561 3
O (925) 625-7000 | F (925) 625-9859 | www.oakleyca.gov
The addition of Emergency Shelter as a permitted by-right use would still require Design Review approval prior to any submittal of a building permit for any potential emergency shelter should one ever be proposed.

Proposed language for these amendments is included as Attachment 3.

PLANNING COMMISSION
On August 18, 2026 staff presented the Zoning Text Amendments (PLN-2026-1000) for Housing Element Implementation to the Planning Commission at a regularly scheduled hearing. During the meeting staff presented the report where the Commission was generally supportive of the ZTAs, and thereafter approved Resolution No. 15-26 recommending the City Council adopt the Ordinance for the ZTAs.

California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”)
The proposed ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) – Common Sense Exemption in that the proposed ordinance would only establish and clarify administrative processes and would not facilitate new construction or other groundbreaking activities. There is no potential to result in either a direct physical change to the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change to the environment. None of the circumstances described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 applies.

Consistency with the Oakley Strategic Plan 27+
Approval of this application would be consistent with the Oakley Strategic Plan 27+ Community and Economic Development Goal to inspire and encourage Community and Economic Development through Strategic and thoughtful growth, a business friendly environment, and local employment opportunities.

Fiscal Impact
No fiscal impact is associated with the preparation of this staff report and accompanying attachments. Costs associated with amending the Zoning Code on City-initiated projects, including staff time associated with this zoning text amendment, are funded through the City’s General Fund.

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends the City Council introduce the proposed Ordinance amending Oakley Municipal Code Section 9.1.406 titled “Multiple Family Residential Districts (M-9; M-12; 45 STAFF REPORT
CITY HALL | 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561 4
O (925) 625-7000 | F (925) 625-9859 | www.oakleyca.gov
M-17; M-30) pursuant to Policy Actions 3.7 (Adequate Emergency Shelter Sites), and finding the action exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3).

Attachments

1. Notice of Public Hearing

2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 15-26

3. Proposed Ordinance – Policy Action 3.7
46 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given that on October 13, 2026, 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 considering an application as described below:

Project Name: Zoning Text Amendments (PLN-2026-1000) - Housing Element Implementation Location: City of Oakley, CA 94561 (no specific location) Applicant: City of Oakley, 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561 Request: The City of Oakley is initiating a Rezoning application (PLN-2026-1000) proposing modifications to the Oakley Municipal Code (OMC) as follows:

Emergency shelters shall be permitted consistent with the requirements of Government Code Section 65583.

These zoning text amendments collectively are intended to further the City’s compliance with its adopted Housing Element and applicable fair housing regulations (“Project”).

How to Review: The Staff Report and its attachments will be available for public review, on or before October 8, 2026, at City Hall, 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561 or online at https://www.oakleyca.gov/129/Agendas-Minutes by navigating to the October 13, 2026, City Council Meeting agenda and clicking the project title link. Interested persons are invited to submit written comments prior to and may provide public comment at the City Council Meeting. Please refer to the meeting agenda, when available, for more information on how to participate remotely.

Written comments may be submitted online at: https://www.oakleyca.gov/publiccomment.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OAKLEY APPROVING REZONING (PLN-2026-1000), RESULTING IN COMPLETING IMPLEMENTATION OF POLICY ACTION 3.7 (ADEQUATE EMERGENCY SHELTER SITES) OF THE

HOUSING ELEMENT, THROUGH THE AMENDMENT OF OAKLEY MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 9.1.406 (MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS), AND

FINDING THE ACTION EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL

QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
WHEREAS, The City of Oakley is initiating a Rezoning application (PLN-2026-1000) proposing modifications to the Oakley Municipal Code (OMC) as follows:
 Amendments to § 9.1.406 Multiple Family Residential Districts (M-9; M-12; M17; M-30) of the OMC to implement Housing Element programs, but not limited to Policy Action 3.7 which requires the City identify an additional zoning district where emergency shelters will be allowed as a by-right, permitted use. The zoning district shall be a residential zoning district and shall have adequate available sites (e.g., vacant site or building that can be converted to a shelter) with capacity to accommodate at least 50 beds of emergency shelter. Emergency shelters shall be permitted consistent with the requirements of Government Code Section 65583.

These zoning text amendments collectively are intended to further the City’s compliance with its adopted Housing Element and applicable fair housing regulations (“Project”); and WHEREAS, on August 18, 2026, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the proposed Rezone (PLN- 2026-1000), received the staff report and staff presentation, received comments from the public and interested parties, and deliberated on the project. At the conclusion of its deliberations, the Planning Commission held a vote and adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. XX-26 recommending the City Council approve the project; and
WHEREAS, on or before September 23, 2026, the Notice of Public Hearing for the Project was duly noticed in the East Bay Times, a newspaper of general distribution; was posted at Oakley City Hall located at 3231 Main Street, outside the gym at Delta Vista 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 outside agencies, to parties requesting such notice, and to all owners of property within 500 feet of the boundaries of all of the parcels subject to the requested actions; and WHEREAS, on October 13, 2026, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the proposed Rezone (PLN-2026-1000), received the staff report and staff presentation, received comments from the public and interested parties, and discussed the matter; and
54 Ordinance No. XX-26 2 of 4
WHEREAS, if any term, provision, or portion of these Findings or the application of these Findings to a particular situation is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remaining provisions of these Findings, or their application to other actions related to the Project, shall continue in full force and effect unless amended or modified by the City; and
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of the Ordinance have occurred.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OAKLEY, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The recitals above are true and correct and are hereby adopted as findings as if fully set forth herein.

SECTION 2. Additional Findings.

A. On May 9, 2023 the City Council adopted the 6th Cycle Housing Element of the General Plan for the period of 2023-2031 in compliance with State Housing Element law.

B. On May 24, 2023 HCD certified the City of Oakley’s 6th Cycle Housing Element for the period of 2023-2031 in compliance with State Housing Element law.

C. The Objective of Policy Action 3.7 of the Housing Element aims to identify and provide an additional zoning district that would allow for emergency shelters consistent with Government Code Section 65583 as by-right.

Adopting the proposed Zoning text Amendments related to the emergency shelter sites would implement Policy Action 3.7 of the City of Oakley Housing Element.

D. The City Council finds the proposed ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to SB 131 SEC. 6. Section 21080.085 does not apply to actions that implement the schedule of actions contained in an approved housing element pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 65583 of the Government Code. That section provides that CEQA does not apply to an action that implements the schedule of actions in an approved Housing Element pursuant to Government Code §65583(c). The proposed Rezone would implement Housing Element Policy Action 3.7 of the City’s 2023 – 2031 Housing Element, and none of the statutory exclusions apply (the actions do not allow distribution centers or oil and gas infrastructure, and any natural and protected lands as defined in PRC §21067.5 are excluded from the actions). Accordingly, no further environmental review is required for the actions, and subsequent development under the affected parcels will undergo CEQA review, as applicable.

SECTION 3. Addition to the OMC related to Policy Action 3.7 (Adequate Emergency Shelters Sites) of the City of Oakley Housing element
55 Ordinance No. XX-26 3 of 4
Part (b) of Section 9.1.406 of the Oakley Municipal Code titled, “Multiple Family Residential Districts (M-9; M-12; M-17; M-30)” is hereby amended through the addition of part “11”, as follows:

9.1.406 Multiple Family Residential Districts (M-9; M-12; M-17; M-30) b. Permitted Uses. Uses permitted in the M-9, M-12, M-17, and M-30 districts shall be as follows:
“11. Emergency Shelters consistent with the requirements of Government Code Section 65583.”
SECTION 4. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

The proposed ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to SB 131 SEC. 6. Section 21080.085 does not apply to actions that implement the schedule of actions contained in an approved housing element pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 65583 of the Government Code. That section provides that CEQA does not apply to an action that implements the schedule of actions in an approved Housing Element pursuant to Government Code §65583(c). The proposed Rezone would implement Housing Element Policy Action 3.7 of the City’s 2023 – 2031 Housing Element, and none of the statutory exclusions apply (the actions do not allow distribution centers or oil and gas infrastructure, and any natural and protected lands as defined in PRC §21067.5 are excluded from the actions). Accordingly, no further environmental review is required for the actions, and subsequent development under the affected parcels will undergo CEQA review, as applicable.

SECTION 5. Effective Date and Posting.

This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after the date of its passage. The City Clerk shall cause the ordinance to be published within fifteen (15) days after its passage in a newspaper of general circulation, or by publishing a summary of the proposed ordinance, posting a certified copy of the proposed ordinance in the City Clerk’s Office at least five (5) days prior to the City Council meeting at which the ordinance is to be adopted, and within fifteen (15) days after its adoption, publishing a summary of the ordinance with the names of the Council Members voting for and against the ordinance.
56 Ordinance No. XX-26 4 of 4
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Oakley this 13th day of October 2026 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTENTIONS:

ABSENT:

APPROVED:

Hugh Henderson, Mayor
ATTEST:

Kim Snodgrass, City Clerk Date
I HEREBY CERTIFY that in accordance with Government Code Section 40806, this ordinance is a true and correct copy of a city ordinance. It has been published or posted pursuant to law.
_______________________________
Kim Snodgrass, CMC
City Clerk
57 STAFF REPORT
1 City of Oakley | 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561
O (925) 625-7000 | F (925) 625-9859 | www.ci.oakley.ca.us DATE: October 13, 2026
TO: Joshua McMurray, City Manager
FROM: Jose Cortez, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: Hacienda Estates (TM 2025-002) – Resolution approving the Tentative Map at 5321 Sellers Avenue (APN 033-130-055)
Summary
This is an application by Mark A. De La O (“Applicant”) requesting approval of a Tentative Map (TM 2025-002) to subdivide the 5.4-acre property into five (5) separate parcels that will remain undeveloped (“Project”). The parcels would all be similar in size at about 0.95 acres. Lot sizes are as follows: Lot one: 41,489 square feet, Lot two: 41,491 square feet, Lot three 41,485 square feet, Lot four 41,486 square feet, and lot five 41,484 square feet.

The project site is located at 5321 Sellers Avenue and is zoned R-40 (Single-Family Residential) District. (APN 033-130-055)

PLANNING COMMISSION
At the September 1, 2026 Planning Commission meeting, Staff presented the Hacienda Estates subdivision. The Planning Commission was supportive of the subdivision and asked clarifying questions related to detention basins. Staff clarified that the subdivision does not propose development at this time and that this project would not trigger the requirements to include a detention basin as part of the project.

GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
General Plan
The General Plan Land Use Designation for the project site is Rural Residential (“RR”) as depicted in the Oakley General Plan (Figure 2-2 Land Use Diagram). This designation provides for large-lot residential development, which maintains the rural character.

These lots typify an estate lot, but are not associated with commercial agriculture or animal husbandry, with the exception of limited numbers of horses or livestock.

Primary land uses include detached single-family homes and accessory structures, which are consistent with the rural or estate lifestyle. Public and semi-public uses and similar and compatible uses are also allowed. Unlike the AL designation, commercial agricultural practices are generally not allowed within this designation. The RR land use designation allows for a density range of 0.2 – 1 dwelling unit per acre (du/ac).

The RR designation provides for a traditional, estate type residential development, which maintains the low density typical of a large-lot suburban development.

Therefore, the project would be consistent with the RR land use designation.

Approved and
Forwarded to the City
Council
58 STAFF REPORT
City of Oakley | 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561
O (925) 625-7000 | F (925) 625-9859 | www.oakleyca.gov
Zoning
The site is zoned R-40 (SingleFamily Residential) District as depicted on the City of Oakley
Zoning Map. The purpose of the
single-family residential district
regulations is to allow a
designated area for singlefamily residential district
development designed to
provide as much compatibility
as possible with nearby zoning.

Intense agricultural uses which
create strong or obnoxious
odors, or which might disturb
adjacent or nearby residential
areas with noise or vibration, are not appropriate for the single-family residential zoning districts. The project proposes to comply with the minimum lot size established by the R-40 district.

PROJECT SITE
The project site is an approximately 5.4-acre lot, located between Sellers Avenue to the east, which is also the City limit line at the project location (east side of the right of way), and Crismore Drive to the west.

The majority of the site consists of a vacant lot with relatively flat topography and scattered trees throughout. An existing structure used for storage of land maintenance equipment is located in the northwestern corner of the project site. An approximately 12-foot-wide gated driveway from Sellers Avenue is located along the southeastern 59 STAFF REPORT
City of Oakley | 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561
O (925) 625-7000 | F (925) 625-9859 | www.oakleyca.gov
boundary of the project site. The site is generally surrounded by scattered rural residences and associated undeveloped/agricultural land. The site is also bounded by County lands across Sellers Avenue to the east. Crismore Drive and Marsh Creek lie further to the west, separated from the site by other large residential parcels.

Project Description
The Hacienda Estates Project (TM 2025-002) would include the subdivision of the project site into five lots of approximately equal areas at about 0.95 acres. While development is not proposed at this time, a total of five single-family residences are anticipated to be constructed in the future, as well as associated utilities and an access roadway. The proposed project would require approval of a Tentative Map. In addition, future construction of any on-site residences would require Design Review approval.

Figure 1 - Proposed Subdivision
Analysis
Tentative Maps are reviewed for consistency with the required findings found in the City’s subdivision ordinance (which is the County subdivision ordinance adopted by reference), which generally states, “the [Planning Commission] shall not approve the map unless it shall find that the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the applicable general and specific plans required by law. Furthermore, all subdivisions in California must comply with the State’s Subdivision Map Act, the 1972 law passed to ensure an organized process of subdividing lands within the State.
60 STAFF REPORT
City of Oakley | 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561
O (925) 625-7000 | F (925) 625-9859 | www.oakleyca.gov
The Tentative Map for 5321 Sellers Avenue adheres to all of the R-40 District standards as shown in Table 1. Additionally, the proposed project conforms to the Subdivision Map Act. Development is not proposed with this application but would require Design Review in the future for any development on the new lots. While no final design plans are proposed, site access would be located off of Sellers Avenue via a shared driveway easement.

Table 1 : Development Standards
Required Proposed
Lot 1
Proposed
Lot 2
Proposed
Lot 3
Proposed
Lot 4
Proposed
Lot 5
Lot Area: 40,000
(sq ft)
41,489 41,491 41,485 41,486 41,484
Lot Width: 140
(ft)
144 144 185 196 193
Lot Depth: 140
(ft)
287 287 233 233 234
Environmental Review
The proposed project is subject to compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). In December 2002, the City of Oakley adopted the 2020 Oakley General Plan and certified an associated Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the General Plan. The General Plan EIR is a program EIR, prepared pursuant to Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, California Code of Regulations [CCR], Sections 15000 et seq.). The General Plan EIR analyzed full implementation of the General Plan and identified measures to mitigate the significant adverse impacts associated with the General Plan.

In January 2022, the City of Oakley adopted the Focused General Plan Update and the Focused General Plan Update Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND). The Focused General Plan Update IS/ND analyzed implementation of the Focused General Plan Update. The IS/ND noted that the analysis of environmental impacts within the General Plan EIR is still anticipated to be sufficient for buildout of the Focused General Plan Update. As such, the analysis for each issue area within this Modified Initial Study is largely based on the General Plan EIR.

The City of Oakley General Plan designates the project site as Rural Residential, which allows for large-lot residential development that maintains the rural character of the area, with a density of 0.2 to 1.0 dwelling unit per acre (du/ac). Primary land uses include detached single-family homes and accessory structures that are consistent with the rural or estate lifestyle. Public and semi-public uses and similar and compatible uses are also allowed, while commercial agricultural practices are generally not permitted within the Rural Residential land use designation. The 61 STAFF REPORT
City of Oakley | 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561
O (925) 625-7000 | F (925) 625-9859 | www.oakleyca.gov
proposed project would consist of the subdivision of the project site into five lots to allow for future development of the project site with five single-family residences. Such future residential uses would be consistent with the project site’s Rural Residential land use designation, and would include a density of approximately 1.0 du/ac, which is within the allowed range for the Rural Residential land use designation.

As set forth by Sections 15168 and 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines, the program EIR, in this case the City’s General Plan EIR and the Focused General Plan Update IS/ND, serve as a basis for the Modified Initial Study to determine if project-specific impacts would occur that are not adequately covered in the previously certified EIR and IS/ND.

The Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist indicates whether the proposed project would result in a significant impact that: (1) is peculiar to the project or the project site; (2) was not identified as a significant effect in the General Plan EIR; or (3) are previously identified significant effects, which as a result of substantial new information that was not known at the time that the General Plan EIR was certified, are determined to have a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the General Plan EIR.

The Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist identifies that the Oakley General Plan policies and/or actions that apply to the development of the project, and have been determined in the General Plan EIR to substantially mitigate environmental effects. To the extent that the General Plan policies and/or actions substantially mitigate a particular project impact, the impact shall not be considered peculiar, pursuant to 15183(f), thus, eliminating the requirement for further environmental review.

Additionally, the proposed project would not: 1) degrade the quality of the environment; 2) substantially reduce or impact the habitat of fish or wildlife species; 3) cause fish or wildlife populations to drop below self-sustaining levels; 4) threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; 5) reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal; or 6) eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Impacts associated with such resources have been adequately addressed and would not change from what was identified in the General Plan EIR, and the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met. The proposed project would comply with all applicable General Plan policies, Municipal Code standards, and other applicable local, County and State regulations. In addition, the proposed project would not cause substantial adverse effects to human beings, including effects related to exposure to air pollutants, geologic hazards, hazardous materials, and excessive noise, beyond the effects previously analyzed as part of the General Plan EIR.

Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan This project is subject to the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan (“HCP/NCCP” or “HCP Plan”). Projects that are subject to the HCP Plan are required to submit a Planning Survey Report 62 STAFF REPORT
City of Oakley | 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561
O (925) 625-7000 | F (925) 625-9859 | www.oakleyca.gov
(“PSR”) as part of the project application. The contents of the PSR help guide the project through compliance with both the California and Federal Endangered Species Act by assuming presence of certain plant and animal species and requiring additional surveys to be done prior to any ground disturbance. In addition, whether species are found or not, the project must pay development impact fees for each acre, or fraction thereof, of the project area. Those development impact fees are used to help create, install, and maintain habitat outside of the Urban Limit Line, as well as administer the HCP Plan. The project would contribute $113,890.86 to the HCP/NCCP program under the impact fees current as of the date of this staff report.

Findings
Draft findings for the Tentative Map application can be found in the proposed resolution (Attachment 5).

Consistency with the Oakley Strategic Plan 27+
Approval of this application would be consistent with the goals in the section of the Oakley Strategic Plan 27+ entitled, “Community and Economic Development Goal”.

Compliance with Oakley’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance helps ensure that the project is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.

Fiscal Impact
The approval of these entitlements will not impact the General Fund. This is a developer funded account. All Staff time and City of Oakley generated materials are charged to the developer account funded by the developer.

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council approve a resolution approving a Tentative Map for the project titled “Hacienda Estates (TM 2025-002)”, and find that the Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist identifies that the Oakley General Plan policies and/or actions that apply to the development of the project, and have been determined in the General Plan EIR to substantially mitigate environmental effects, as conditioned.

Attachments

1. Vicinity Map

2. Notice of Public Hearing

3. Tentative Map

4. Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

5. Proposed Resolution
63 Vicinity Map
Hacienda Estates (TM 2025-002)
APN: 033-130-055
64 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given that on October 13, 2026, 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 considering an application as described below:

Project Name: Hacienda Estates (TM 2025-002)
Location: 5321 Sellers Avenue, Oakley CA 94561. APN 033-130-055 Applicant: Mark A. De La O, 296 Heron Drive, Pittsburg, CA 94565 Request: Application by Mark A. De La O (“Applicant”) requesting to subdivide the 5.4-acre property into five (5) separate parcels that will remain undeveloped (“project”). The parcels would all be similar in size at about 0.95 acres. Lot sizes are as follows: Lot one:41,489 square feet, Lot two:
41,491 square feet, Lot 3 41,485 square feet, Lot 4 41,486 square feet, and lot 5 41,484 square feet. The project includes a 30-foot area dedicated to Contra Costa County for roadway purposes, that runs along the northern property line, a 10-foot strip dedicated to Contra Costa County for drainage along the eastern property line, and a 20-foot access and utility easement. The project site is located at 5321 Sellers Avenue and is zoned R-40 (Single-Family Residential) District. (APN 033-130-055).

Written comments may be submitted online at: https://www.oakleyca.gov/publiccomment.

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 City Council Meeting described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Oakley City Clerk at, or prior to, the City Council Meeting. 65 30' - AREA DEDICATED TO CCC N89°23'37"W 575.61' FOR ROADWAY PURPOSES (8636 OR 153) 10' STRIP DEDICATED TO CCC FOR DRAINAGE PURPOSES (7356 OR 460) 2020-0215958-PARCEL 2 (TEMPORARY ACCESS EASEMENT-10083 OR 319) REVISIONS No. Description By Date PROJECT NO. DRAWING STATUS DRAWING DATE 1"= CHECKED DRAWN
SCALE

File Path E:\New Project 51\Drawing51_7.dwg Plot Date:11/29/2023 7:48:15 AM DES MAD AMMAD60' 11/11/2023 PRELIMINARY BASIS OF BEARINGS BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED ON SUBDIVISION 5801(246 M 20) TAKEN AS N00°53'45"W BETWEEN FOUND RAILROAD SPIKE AT INTERSECTION OF SELLERS AND SUNSET AND FOUND 1-1/4" IRON PIPE AT THE EAST 14 CORNER, SEC. 31 AS SHOWN ON SUBDIVISION 5801 (246 M20). VERTICAL DATUM / BENCHMARK NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988 (NAVD88) PID DB3879, A ALUM. DISK SET IN CONCRETE BASE THE STATION IS 24.9 FT WEST OF THE CENTERLINE OF A DIRT ROAD WHICH IS THE NORTHERN EXTENSION OF EDEN PLAINS ROAD, 23.3 FT NORTHEAST OF THE CENTERLINE OF KNIGHTSEN AVENUE, 10.8 FT SOUTH OF A POWER LINE POLE AND SET IN THE TOP OF A CONCRETE MONUMENT WHICH IS FLUSH WITH THE SURFACE. ELEVATION= 23.6 FT. NAVD88 CONTOUR INTERVAL= 0.5' 23-001 FOUND RR SPIKE FOUND 11/4" IRON PIPE FOUND AS NOTED TM-1 SHEET NO. SHEET 1 X OF OAKLEY CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CALIFORNIA TITLE SHEET - VICINITY MAP, NOTES & LEGEND _______ 5321 SELLERS AVENUE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP OWNER/DEVELOPER: Gilbert Ruiz ET AL 4305 El Dorado Street Oakley, CA 94561 CIVIL ENGINEER : MARK DE LA O XXX-XXX-XXXX SURVEYOR : A. MARTINEZ 1019 KENSTON DRIVE CLAYTON, CA 94517 CONTACT: ALEX MARTINEZ SOILS ENGINEER: XX 1. ASSESOR'S PARCEL NUMBER : 033-130-055 2. SITE ADDRESS: 5321 SELLARS AVENUE OAKLEY, CA 3. EXISITING LAND USE : VACANT 4. PROPOSED LAND USE : 5 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS 5. SITE AREA : GROSS: 5.4 ACRES± 6. NUMBER OF LOTS : 4 PROPOSED LOTS 7. GENERAL PLAN : RURAL RESIDENTIAL 8. EXISTING ZONING : R-40 9. DENSITY (ALLOWED) : DENSITY PROPOSDED : 10. WATER : DIABLO WATER DISTRICT 11. GAS & ELECTRIC : PACIFIC, GAS & ELECTRIC 12. TELEPHONE : AT&T 13. CABLE : COMCAST CABLE 14. SEWER : IRON HOUSE SANITARY 15. TOPOGRAPY : EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY AS SHOWN IS PER FIELD SURVEY 16. BOUNDARY : BOUNDARY AS SHOWN IS BASED ON FIELD SURVEY 17. STREETS : ALL PROPOSED STREETS ARE PRIVATE AND SHALL BE MAINTAINED BY THE HOMEOWNERS. 18. FLOOD ZONE : THE SITE IS DESIGNATED AS ZONE X (AREA OF MINIMAL FLOOD HAZARD) PER FEMA FIRM MAP (060013C33606-3/21/2017) 19. GRADING : GRADES SHOWN HEREON ARE PRELIMNARY AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE DURING FINAL DESIGN. 20. DIMENSIONS : LOT DIMENSIONS AND AREAS(S) SHOWN HEREON ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJEC TO CHANGE DURING FINAL DESIGN. SHEET TM-1: TITLE SHEET - VICINITY MAP, PROJECT DATA & LEGEND SHEET TM-2: EXISTING CONDITIONS EXHIBIT & PROPOSED PARCELS 66 ALEJANDRO MARTINEZ, PLS 9086 - MS 2025-02
67 City of Oakley
Planning Division
Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist
July 2026
Prepared by
1501 Sports Drive, Suite A,  Sacramento  CA  95834
Office 916.372.6100  Fax 916.419.6108
68 Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist
i
July 2026

TABLE OF CONTENTS
A. PROJECT SUMMARY....................................................................................................1 B. SOURCES ......................................................................................................................2 C. BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION .........................................................................3 D. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..............................................................................................5 E. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED........................................10 F. DETERMINATION.........................................................................................................11 G. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST..................................................................................12 I. AESTHETICS. ...................................................................................................13 II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES. .................................................19 III. AIR QUALITY. ...................................................................................................22 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES..............................................................................32 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. ...............................................................................41 VI. ENERGY. ..........................................................................................................44 VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS.....................................................................................49 VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. ...................................................................55 IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. ....................................................60 X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY..............................................................66 XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING. ............................................................................73 XII. MINERAL RESOURCES. ..................................................................................75 XIII. NOISE. ..............................................................................................................76 XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING..........................................................................84 XV. PUBLIC SERVICES...........................................................................................86 XVI. RECREATION. ..................................................................................................91 XVII. TRANSPORTATION..........................................................................................93 XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. ..................................................................98 XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. ............................................................101 XX. WILDFIRE........................................................................................................106 XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. ...............................................108 APPENDICES:

Appendix A: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Modeling Results Appendix B: Application Form and Planning Survey Report Appendix C: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
69 Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

Page 1 ends

July 2026
A. PROJECT SUMMARY

1. Project Title: Hacienda Estates Project

2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Oakley
Planning Division
3231 Main Street
Oakley, CA 94561

3. Lead Agency Contact and Phone Number: Jose Cortez
Senior Planner
(925) 625-7008

4. Project Location: 5321 Sellers Avenue
Oakley, CA 94561
Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 033-130-055

5. Project Applicant: Mark De La O
296 Heron Drive
Pittsburg, CA 94561

6. Existing General Plan Designation: Rural Residential

7. Existing Zoning Designation: Residential – 40,000 square foot (sf) minimum lot area (R-40)

8. Required Approvals from Other Public Agencies: None

9. Project Location and Setting:

The approximately 5.4-acre project site is located at 5321 Sellers Avenue in the City of Oakley, California and is identified by APN 033-130-055. The majority of the site consists of a vacant lot with relatively flat topography and scattered trees throughout. An existing structure used for storage of land maintenance equipment is located in the northwestern corner of the project site. An approximately 12-foot-wide gated driveway from Sellers Avenue is located along the southeastern boundary of the project site. The site is generally surrounded by scattered rural residences and associated undeveloped/agricultural land.

The City of Oakley General Plan designates the site as Rural Residential and the site is zoned R-40.

10. Project Description Summary:

The Hacienda Estates Project (proposed project) would include the subdivision of the project site into five lots of approximately equal areas, ranging from 1.0 acre to 1.15 acres.

While development is not proposed at this time, a total of five single-family residences are anticipated to be constructed in the future, as well as associated utilities and an access MODIFIED INITIAL STUDY/15183 CHECKLIST
JULY 2026
70 Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

Page 2 ends

July 2026
roadway. The proposed project would require approval of a Vesting Tentative Map. In addition, future construction of any on-site residences would require Design Review approval.

11. Status of Native American Consultation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1:

Assembly Bill (AB) 52 (Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21080.3.1) notification to tribes is not required for the proposed project given that this checklist determines additional environmental review is not warranted for the project, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.

B. SOURCES
The following documents are referenced information sources utilized by this analysis:

1. Association of Bay Area Governments. Hazard Viewer. Available at:
https://abag.ca.gov/our-work/resilience/data-research/hazard-viewer/. Accessed June 2026.

2. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2022 California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. April 2023.

3. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Air Quality Summary Reports. Available at:
https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/communications-and-outreach/annual-bay-areaair-quality-summaries/pollsum2019-pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed May 2026.

4. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. CEQA Thresholds for Evaluating the Significance of Climate Impacts From Land Use Projects and Plans. April 2022.

5. California Department of Conservation. California Important Farmland Finder. Available at: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/. Accessed April 2026.

6. California Department of Conservation. Williamson Act Enrollment Finder. Available at:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/WilliamsonAct/App/. Accessed April 2026.

7. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer.

Available at: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/what-we-do/community-wildfire-preparedness-andmitigation/fire-hazard-severity-zones. Accessed April 2026.

8. California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details. Potrero Hills Landfill (48-AA-0075). Available at:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/1194?siteID=3591.

Accessed April 2026.

9. California Department of Transportation. California State Scenic Highway System Map.

Available at:
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8 e8057116f1aacaa. Accessed April 2026.

10. California Environmental Protection Agency. Cortese List Data Resources. Available at:
https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/. Accessed June 2026.

11. California Geologic Survey. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation. Available at:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/eqzapp/. Accessed April 2026.

12. City of Oakley. City of Oakley 2020 General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report.

September 2002.

13. City of Oakley. City of Oakley 2020 General Plan. Adopted December 16, 2002; Amended February 2, 2016.

14. City of Oakley. Climate Action Plan 2025. Adopted June 10, 2025. 71 Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

Page 3 ends

July 2026

15. City of Oakley. Initial Study/Negative Declaration City of Oakley Focused General Plan Update. August 2021.

16. City of Oakley. Oakley General Plan, Focused General Plan Update. Adopted January 11, 2022.

17. City of Oakley. Strategic Energy Plan. Fall 2015.

18. Contra Costa County. Fire Protection Districts. Available at:
https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/1550/Fire-Protection-Districts. Accessed May 2026.

19. Diablo Water District. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2021.

20. Dudek, Inc. Application Form and Planning Survey Report. 2025.

21. East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan Association. Final East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan. October 10, 2007.

22. Eileen Barrow & Associates. Cultural Resources Study for the Hacienda Estates Project.

April 24, 2026.

23. Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map 06013C0360G.

Effective March 21, 2017.

24. Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. December 2018.

25. H.T. Harvey & Associates. Appendix B. November 2020 CEQA Species Assessment Update. November 2020.

26. H.T. Harvey & Associates. East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan – Assessment of Plan Effects on CEQA Species. February 17, 2015.

27. Ironhouse Sanitary District. Sewer System Management Plan. August 2025.

28. Natural Resource Conservation Service. Web Soil Survey. Available at:
https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/. Accessed April 2026.

29. Oakley Union School District. 2024/25 Demographics and Enrollment Projections.

November 2024.

30. U.S. Census Bureau. Quick Facts, City of Oakley, California. Available at:
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/oakleycitycalifornia/PST045224. Accessed April 2026.

31. U.S. Census Bureau. Urban and Rural Population in the U.S. (2020 Census). Available at: https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=458e2c20ebb2479086bc32b7d09ffe27.

Accessed May 2026.

C. BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION
This Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist identifies and analyzes the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project. The information and analysis presented in this document is organized in accordance with the order of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) checklist in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines.

The following provides a description of the relevant City of Oakley General Plan and Focused General Plan Update, as well as this Modified Initial Study’s approach to evaluating the proposed project’s consistency with the policies and environmental analysis included therein, as set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 and Government Code Sections 65915 through 65918.

City of Oakley General Plan and Focused General Plan Update In December 2002, the City of Oakley adopted the 2020 Oakley General Plan1 and certified an associated Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the General Plan.2 The General Plan EIR is a 1 City of Oakley. City of Oakley 2020 General Plan. Adopted December 16, 2002; Amended February 2, 2016. 2 City of Oakley. Oakley 2020 General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report. Adopted September 2002. 72 Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

Page 4 ends

July 2026
program EIR, prepared pursuant to Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, California Code of Regulations [CCR], Sections 15000 et seq.). The General Plan EIR analyzed full implementation of the General Plan and identified measures to mitigate the significant adverse impacts associated with the General Plan.

In January 2022, the City of Oakley adopted the Focused General Plan Update3 and the Focused General Plan Update Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND).4 The Focused General Plan Update IS/ND analyzed implementation of the Focused General Plan Update. The Focused General Plan Update amended the City’s existing General Plan to bring the General Plan into compliance with State requirements related to environmental justice, mobility, and climate change and adaptation. The Focused General Plan Update also updated the setting information, and provided minor revisions to the goals, policies, and programs in the following elements: Land Use, Growth Management, Open Space and Conservation, Parks and Recreation, Noise, and Economic Development. All updates were applied to be consistent with current conditions, to remove policies and programs that have already been implemented or are no longer applicable, to update policies and programs to reflect current City practices, and to clarify the City’s approach to achieving the vision and goals of the General Plan.

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15150(a), the City of Oakley General Plan, Focused General Plan Update, General Plan EIR, and Focused General Plan Update IS/ND are incorporated by reference.

As discussed above, the Focused General Plan Update includes updated policies and goals for the City of Oakley. Therefore, the relevant General Plan policies for each impact area listed below are referenced from the Focused General Plan Update. However, the General Plan Update IS/ND notes that the Focused General Plan Update does not change the area planned for urbanization and does not include any new areas designated for residential or employment-generating use compared to the 2002 General Plan. Therefore, the IS/ND noted that the analysis of environmental impacts within the General Plan EIR is still anticipated to be sufficient for buildout of the Focused General Plan Update. As such, the analysis for each issue area within this Modified Initial Study is largely based on the General Plan EIR.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183
The City of Oakley General Plan designates the project site as Rural Residential, which allows for large-lot residential development that maintains the rural character of the area, with a density of 0.2 to 1.0 dwelling unit per acre (du/ac). Primary land uses include detached single-family homes and accessory structures that are consistent with the rural or estate lifestyle. Public and semi-public uses and similar and compatible uses are also allowed, while commercial agricultural practices are generally not permitted within the Rural Residential land use designation. The proposed project would consist of the subdivision of the project site into five lots to allow for future development of the project site with five single-family residences. Such future residential uses would be consistent with the project site’s Rural Residential land use designation, and would include a density of approximately 1.0 du/ac, which is within the allowed range for the Rural Residential land use designation. Pursuant to Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines, where a project is consistent with the use and density established for a property under an existing general plan or zoning ordinance for which the City has already certified an EIR, additional environmental review is not required “except as might be necessary to examine whether there are projectspecific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site.” If such requirements are 3 City of Oakley. Oakley General Plan, Focused General Plan Update. Adopted January 11, 2022. 4 City of Oakley. Initial Study/Negative Declaration City of Oakley Focused General Plan Update. August 2021. 73 Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

Page 5 ends

July 2026
met, the examination of environmental effects is limited to those which the agency determines, in an Initial Study or other analysis:

1. Are peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project would be located;

2. Were not analyzed as significant effects in a prior EIR on the zoning action, general plan or community plan with which the project is consistent;

3. Are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts which were not discussed in the prior EIR prepared for the general plan, community plan or zoning action; or

4. Are previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information which was not known at the time the EIR was certified, are determined to have a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the prior EIR.

This Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist indicates whether the proposed project would result in a significant impact that: (1) is peculiar to the project or the project site; (2) was not identified as a significant effect in the General Plan EIR; or (3) are previously identified significant effects, which as a result of substantial new information that was not known at the time that the General Plan EIR was certified, are determined to have a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the General Plan EIR.

Regarding “peculiar” impacts, CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(f) states the following:

An effect of a project on the environment shall not be considered peculiar to the project or the parcel for the purposes of this section if uniformly applied development policies or standards have been previously adopted by the city or county with a finding that the development policies or standards will substantially mitigate that environmental effect when applied to future projects, unless substantial new information shows that the policies or standards will not substantially mitigate the environmental effect. The finding shall be based on substantial evidence which need not include an EIR.

Based upon Section 15183(f), this Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist will identify the Oakley General Plan policies and/or actions that apply to the development of the project, and have been determined in the General Plan EIR to substantially mitigate environmental effects. To the extent that the General Plan policies and/or actions substantially mitigate a particular project impact, the impact shall not be considered peculiar, pursuant to 15183(f), thus, eliminating the requirement for further environmental review.

D. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The following provides a description of the project site’s current location and setting, as well as the proposed project components and the discretionary actions required for the project.

Project Location and Setting
The 5.4-acre project site is located at 5321 Sellers Avenue in the City of Oakley, California, and is identified by APN 033-130-055 (see Figure 1 and Figure 2). The majority of the site consists of a vacant lot with relatively flat topography with elevations ranging from 30 to 32 feet above mean sea level (amsl). Trees of varying size are scattered throughout the project site. An existing structure used for storage of land maintenance equipment is located in the northwestern corner of the project site.
74 Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

Page 6 ends

July 2026
Figure 1
Regional Vicinity Map
Project Site
75 Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

Page 7 ends

July 2026
Figure 2
Project Site Boundaries
Project Site
Rural
Residences
Undeveloped/
Agricultural Land
Rural
Residences
Rural
Residences
Rural
Residences
Rural
Residences
Undeveloped/
Agricultural Land
Undeveloped/
Agricultural Land
Undeveloped/
Agricultural Land
76 Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

Page 8 ends

July 2026
An approximately 12-foot-wide gated driveway from Sellers Avenue is located along the southeastern boundary of the project site.

The site is generally surrounded by scattered rural residences and associated undeveloped/agricultural land, and Sellers Avenue bounds the site to the east. The City of Oakley General Plan designates the site as Rural Residential and the site is zoned R-40.

Project Components
The proposed project would include the subdivision of the project site into five lots of approximately equal areas ranging from 1.0 acre to 1.15 acres, as shown in Figure 3. While development is not proposed at this time, CEQA requires that the project description for an environmental document include later phases or activities of a project that will foreseeably result from project approval (Section 15126). In Laurel Heights Improvement Ass’n v Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1988) 47 C3d 376, the court determined that CEQA review must include analysis of the environmental effects of future actions if 1) it is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the initial project, and 2) the future action will be significant in that it will likely change the scope or nature of the initial project or its environmental effects.

On-site residential development and utility installation is anticipated to occur if the Vesting Tentative Map is approved by the City, and the construction of homes would require additional earthwork that would change the scope of environmental effects. Thus, this environmental document will evaluate both the proposed subdivision of the 5.4-acre project site into five lots, as well as subsequent potential construction of five single-family residential units and associated utilities and access roadway. Table 1 provides the sizes of the proposed lots.

Table 1
Proposed Lot Sizes
Lot Number
Acreage
(Gross) Acreage (Net)
Square
Footage
(Gross)
Square
Footage (Net)
One 1.15 0.95 50,121 41,489
Two 1.15 0.95 50,149 41,491
Three 1.0 0.95 43,379 41,485
Four 1.06 0.95 46,151 41,486
Five 1.04 0.95 45,362 41,484
A 20-foot-wide access and utility easement would be located centrally on the project site. In addition, a 30-foot-wide area to be dedicated to Contra Costa County for roadway purposes would be located along the northern portion of the project site.

Water service for the proposed project would be provided by the Diablo Water District (DWD), and sanitary sewer service for the proposed project would be provided by the Ironhouse Sanitary District (ISD). Water and sanitary sewer service would be provided through new connections to existing utility lines within Sellers Avenue. The project site would include a 20-foot-wide utility easement located centrally within the project site, in which new utility lines would connect the future residential development to the existing utility lines within Sellers Avenue. 77 Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

Page 9 ends

July 2026
Figure 3
Proposed Parcel Map
78 Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

Page 10 ends

July 2026
In addition, the proposed project would include the development of a stormwater drainage system in order to capture and discharge flows from the project site. The on-site stormwater drainage system would be designed accordingly to avoid on- or off-site flooding pursuant to General Plan Policy 8.2.3, Title 6, Chapter 11 of the City’s Municipal Code, and Contra Costa Clean Water Program standards.

As part of future development of the proposed parcels, electrical service would be provided to each new residence by Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) through new connections to existing aboveground utility lines within the project vicinity.

Subsequent development of the project site would include landscaping and fencing throughout the project site to provide a buffer between the residential lots. All on-site fencing and landscaping would be required to comply with the requirements described in Section 9.1.1110 of the City’s Municipal Code, including height and material restrictions. Pursuant to Section 4.31.102 of the City’s Municipal Code, all landscaping would be required to comply with the State’s Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO).

Discretionary Actions
The proposed project would require the City’s approval of a Vesting Tentative Map.

In addition, while not required for the proposed subdivision of the project site, pursuant to Section

9.1.1604 of the City’s Municipal Code, future residences developed on the project site would be subject to Design Review by the City. Such future discretionary action would require future CEQA review. Specifically, the future residences would be analyzed based on elements of design, development location, arrangement of all structures, and design in harmony with surrounding facilities. The purpose of the regulations is to allow design review of all developments, signs, buildings, structures, and other facilities in order to further enhance the City’s appearance, and the livability and usefulness of properties.

E. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
On the basis of the following initial evaluation, the City has determined that the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan EIR. All project impacts have been determined to be less than significant, or can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level given required compliance with General Plan policies or mitigation measures included in the General Plan EIR.  Aesthetics  Agriculture and Forest
Resources
 Air Quality
 Biological Resources  Cultural Resources  Energy
 Geology and Soils  Greenhouse Gas Emissions  Hazards and Hazardous Materials  Hydrology and Water
Quality
 Land Use and Planning  Mineral Resources
 Noise  Population and Housing  Public Services
 Recreation  Transportation  Tribal Cultural Resources  Utilities and Service
Systems
 Wildfire  Mandatory Findings of
Significance
79 Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

Page 11 ends

July 2026
F. DETERMINATION
On the basis of this Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist:
 I find that the Proposed Project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
 I find that although the Proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
 I find that the Proposed Project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
 I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

Signature Date
Jose Cortez, Senior Planner City of Oakley
Printed Name For
80 Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

Page 12 ends

July 2026
G. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
The following modified checklist is based on the environmental checklist form presented in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. The modified checklist form is used to describe the impacts of the proposed project. A discussion follows each environmental issue identified in the checklist.

For this checklist, the following designations are used:

Significant Impact Peculiar to the Project or Project Site: An impact that could be significant due to something peculiar to the proposed project or the project site that was not previously identified in the General Plan EIR. If any potentially significant peculiar impacts are identified, an additional CEQA document must be prepared to analyze such impacts.

Significant Impact due to New Information: Any impact that would be considered significant based on new information which was not known at the time the prior EIR was prepared. If any significant impacts are identified, an additional CEQA document must be prepared to analyze such impacts.

Impact Adequately Addressed in General Plan EIR: Impacts previously evaluated in the City’s General Plan EIR that would not change from what was evaluated previously. This designation applies in cases where implementation of the proposed project would not result in a new significant impact, a substantially increased significant impact, or a peculiar impact that was not analyzed in the General Plan EIR.
81 Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

Page 13 ends

July 2026
I. AESTHETICS.

Would the project:

Significant
Impact Peculiar
to the Project or
the Project Site
Significant
Impact due to
New Information
Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
the General
Plan EIR
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?    b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a State scenic highway?
  
c. 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
point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?
  
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
  
Environmental Setting
The majority of the site consists of a vacant lot with relatively flat topography and scattered trees throughout. An existing structure used for storage of land maintenance equipment is located in the northwestern corner of the project site. An approximately 12-foot-wide gated driveway from Sellers Avenue is located along the southeastern boundary of the project site. The site is generally surrounded by scattered rural residences and undeveloped/agricultural land. Sellers Avenue bounds the site to the east. Due to the undeveloped nature of the project site, existing sources of light and glare do not currently exist on site. However, existing sources of light in the project vicinity include exterior lighting from the surrounding existing residential development, as well as headlights associated with vehicles travelling along Sellers Avenue.

Examples of typical scenic vistas include mountain ranges, ridgelines, or bodies of water as viewed from a highway, public space, or other area designated for the express purpose of viewing and sightseeing. In general, a project’s impact to a scenic vista would occur if development of the project would substantially change or remove a scenic vista. The City of Oakley General Plan does not officially designate scenic view corridors or vistas. However, according to the General Plan, waterways of the Delta, Dutch Slough, Marsh Creek, and Contra Costa Canal, habitat areas, open space land, and views of Mount Diablo west of the City are considered scenic. The General Plan includes relevant goals and policies, listed below, that would preserve scenic views within the City, including policies requiring protection of the City’s natural environment and preserving scenic features and view corridors to nearby hills and other natural areas. According to the California Scenic Highway Mapping System, a portion of State Route (SR) 4, which is located approximately 3.22 miles to the west of the project site, is listed as eligible for State Scenic Highway designation, but is not officially designated as a State Scenic Highway. 5 General Plan Policies
Listed below are policies from the City of Oakley General Plan Update related to aesthetics that are relevant to the proposed project:
5 California Department of Transportation. California State Scenic Highway System Map. Available at:
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa.

Accessed April 2026.
82 Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

Page 14 ends

July 2026
Policy 2.1.2. Require new development to be consistent with and generally support Oakley’s smalltown character. Key elements include scale of buildings, landscaped open areas within projects, and safe and accessible multi-use trails.

Policy 2.2.8. Require the establishment of lighting and landscaping districts and/or community facility districts, as appropriate, for new residential developments.

Policy 2.2.10. Locate residences away from areas of excessive noise, smoke, dust, odor, and lighting, and ensure that adequate provisions, including buffers or transitional uses, are made to ensure the health and well-being of existing and future residents.

Policy 2.8.1. Require development to reflect Oakley’s small town-feel and agrarian heritage.

Policy 2.8.2. Require development projects to preserve desirable characteristics and unique features of the site and consider the scale and character of adjacent uses.

Policy 2.8.7. New development should continue the existing adjacent neighborhood concepts, including street pattern, street trees, setbacks, and scale, as appropriate. Gradual transition of uses and development patterns shall be strongly encouraged.

Policy 2.8.10. Emphasize landscaping as a fundamental design component that enhances the character and quality of the project and its immediate vicinity, retaining mature landscaping when appropriate, to reinforce a sense of the natural environment and to maintain an established appearance.

Policy 2.8.12. Require property owners to maintain structures and landscaping to high standards of design, health, and safety.

Policy 2.9.1. Use design review to encourage creative, high-quality, innovative, and distinctive architectural and site designs that helps create unique, vibrant places and reinforce Oakley’s’ small town-feel and agrarian heritage.

Policy 2.9.2. Continue to develop and implement design guidelines for residential, nonresidential and infrastructure development, both in the private and public realms, that provide design and site planning approaches, landscaping, site grading and similar architectural and site planning criteria that will add design excellence, visual quality, and interest to the community.

Policy 2.9.5. Promote crime prevention through site and building designs that facilitate surveillance of communities by putting “eyes on the street.” Design sites and buildings to promote visual and physical access to parks and open space areas. Support safe, accessible, and well-used public open spaces by orienting active use areas and building facades towards them. 83 Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

Page 15 ends

July 2026
Policy 2.9.8. Encourage architectural elements that contribute to a building’s character, aid in climate control, and enhance pedestrian scale. The elements include, but are not limited to canopies, roof overhangs, projections or recessions of stories, balconies, reveals, and awnings.

Policy 2.9.9. Encourage the expansion of the City’s urban forest canopy, comprising street trees and trees located on private property and in open spaces.

Emphasize the importance of placing trees in locations with significant hardscaping, such as parking areas.

Policy 2.10.3. Consider the street type in the development review process to ensure that the design of the site, buildings, and public way respond to the transportation mode priorities for the area.

Policy 2.10.5. Promote consistent development patterns along streets, particularly in how buildings relate to the street, to promote a sense of visual order, and to provide attractive streetscapes.

Policy 6.6.1. Conserve open space, including natural and sensitive habitats, waterways, shorelines, wetlands, sloughs, agricultural lands, scenic areas, and cultural, tribal, and historic resources, for long-term preservation, where appropriate and feasible, as well as for active and passive conservation activities, including agricultural and appropriate recreational uses.

Conversion of open space to developed residential, commercial, industrial, or other similar types of uses, shall be strongly discouraged.

Policy 6.6.9. Require development projects to maximize the potential for open space, visual experiences, and passive and active recreation.

Policy 6.7.1. Encourage preservation and enhancement of views of the Delta and Mount Diablo to the extent possible.

Policy 6.7.2. New development and redevelopment along the Delta, adjacent to Marsh Creek and throughout the City should take advantage of view opportunities and visual impacts to the waterway and Mount Diablo, respectively.

Discussion
a,b. The General Plan EIR found that buildout of the General Plan would not result in an impact to aesthetic resources, including scenic vistas and resources or visual character. As concluded therein, compliance with applicable goals, policies, and programs set forth by the General Plan and regulations set forth in the City of Oakley Municipal Code would reduce impacts related to scenic vistas to a less-than-significant level.

As noted in the City’s General Plan, scenic resources include predominant landscape features such as the waterways of the Delta, Dutch Slough, Marsh Creek, and Contra Costa Canal, habitat areas, open space land, and Mount Diablo west of the City. Views of the Delta can only be seen from waterfront marinas, and Mount Diablo can mostly be seen from streets running east and west. However, with the exception of Mount Diablo, the aforementioned scenic resources are not visible from the project site. Limited distant views of Mount Diablo can be seen looking southwest from Sellers Avenue. However, public views of Mount Diablo would not be obstructed by future development of the project site. 84 Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

Page 16 ends

July 2026
Pursuant to Section 9.1.404(g) of the City of Oakley Municipal Code, building height in the R-40 zone is limited to 30 feet. Design Review of the future development would ensure that on-site structures comply with the applicable height requirements. Given that the future development associated with the proposed project would be consistent with the land use and zoning designations of the project site, development of the site with residential uses and associated impacts to scenic vistas have been anticipated by the City. As such, future development of the project site would not result in any peculiar effects related to scenic resources.

According to the California Scenic Highway Mapping System, a portion of SR 4, located approximately 3.22 miles to the west of the project site, is listed as eligible for State Scenic Highway designation, but is not officially designated as State Scenic Highway.6 In addition, views of the project site from SR 4 are not currently available due to the distance from the project site to SR 4 and the intervening urban development. Therefore, the project site is not subject to any peculiar circumstances that would result in new impacts related to scenic vistas and State Scenic Highways relative to what has been analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Future development of the project site would also be required to comply with all General Plan policies listed above.

Based on the above, the project would not result in more severe impacts related to resulting in a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista and substantially damaging scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State Scenic Highway, beyond what was anticipated in the General Plan EIR, and effects peculiar to the project or parcels on which it would be located would not occur. Thus, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met and the impact was adequately addressed in the General Plan EIR.
c. The City’s General Plan EIR concluded that buildout of the General Plan would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the City and its surroundings. As concluded therein, compliance with applicable goals, policies, and programs set forth by the General Plan and regulations set forth in the City of Oakley Municipal Code would reduce impacts related to visual character or quality to a less-thansignificant level.

The project site is undeveloped with the exception of an existing structure used for storage of land maintenance equipment, and is generally surrounded by scattered rural residences and undeveloped/agricultural land. However, lands located just outside of the immediate site vicinity to the north and east consist of largely developed single-family neighborhoods.

In addition, the project area is designated as an urban area by the latest U.S. Census map (see Figure 4). Thus, the site meets the definition for an urbanized area, 7 and the
applicable CEQA consideration is whether future development of the project site would conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations related to scenic quality. 6 California Department of Transportation. California Scenic Highway Mapping System. Available at:
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa.

Accessed April 2026. 7 U.S. Census Bureau. Urban and Rural Population in the U.S. (2020 Census). Available at:
https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=458e2c20ebb2479086bc32b7d09ffe27. Accessed May 2026. 85 Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

Page 17 ends

July 2026
Figure 4
Urban and Rural Population in the U.S. (Census 2020)
Approximate Site
Boundaries
86 Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

Page 18 ends

July 2026
Future development associated with the proposed project would be consistent with the site’s current General Plan land use and zoning designations, and would comply with all applicable development standards required by the City, including standards related to lot area, yard requirements, building height, site planning, building design, and landscaping, pursuant to future Design Review approval. General Plan Policy 2.8.2 requires that development projects consider the scale and character of adjacent uses. The project site is surrounded on all sides by scattered single-family residential development and, therefore, the future development of five single-family residences on the project site would be consistent with the scale and character of existing development in the area. In addition, future development of the project site would be required to include landscaping features throughout the project site pursuant to Section 9.1.1110 of the Municipal Code, and proposed development would be designed in keeping with the surrounding residential land uses. Therefore, future development of the project site would not result in any new or peculiar impacts related to conflicting with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality.

Based on the above, impacts related to conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic have been adequately addressed in the General Plan EIR and effects are not peculiar to the project or parcels on which it would be located. Thus, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met. d. The project site is currently undeveloped with the exception of an existing structure used for storage of land maintenance equipment and is generally surrounded by scattered rural residences and undeveloped/agricultural land. Due to the undeveloped nature of the project site, existing sources of light and glare do not currently exist on-site. However, existing sources of light in the project vicinity include exterior lighting from the surrounding existing residential development, as well as headlights associated with vehicles travelling along Sellers Avenue.

While the City’s General Plan EIR did not specifically evaluate impacts associated with light and glare, pursuant to Section 9.1.1604 of the City’s Municipal Code, Design Review is required in any residential, commercial, industrial, or public and semi-public zoning district for any new above ground buildings or structures. Landscaping, including lighting, is an area of design considered for review as part of the City’s Design Review process.

Development within the City is also required to be consistent with the California Building Code standards for outdoor lighting, which are intended to reduce light pollution and glare by regulating light power and brightness, shielding, and sensor controls. Compliance with the aforementioned provisions would ensure that the light and glare created by future development of the proposed project would be consistent with the levels of light and glare currently emitted by the existing residential uses in the surrounding environment.

Based on the above, the proposed project would not result in any peculiar effects related to creating a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Thus, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met and the impact was adequately addressed in the General Plan EIR. 87 Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

Page 19 ends

July 2026
II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST
RESOURCES.

Would the project:

Significant
Impact Peculiar
to the Project or
the Project Site
Significant
Impact due to
New Information
Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
the General
Plan EIR
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 non-agricultural use?
  
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?   
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))?
  
d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?   
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?
  
Environmental Setting
The project site is primarily undeveloped, with the exception of an existing structure used for storage of land maintenance equipment. The site is generally surrounded by scattered rural residences and undeveloped/agricultural land. The project site is not under a Williamson Act contract and is not zoned for agricultural use. According to the Department of Conservation’s California Important Farmland Finder, the project site is currently designated as “Farmland of Local Importance.”8 Farmland of Local Importance is defined by the Department of Conservation as land of importance to the local agricultural economy as determined by each county’s Board of Supervisors and local advisory committee.

General Plan Policies
Listed below are policies from the City of Oakley General Plan Update related to agricultural resources that are relevant to the proposed project:

Policy 6.1.2. Support the continuation of agricultural uses on lands designated for urban use, until urban development is imminent.

Policy 6.1.3. Provide an orderly and phased development pattern, encouraging the development of vacant lands within City boundaries prior to conversion of agricultural lands, so that farmland is not subjected to premature development pressure.

Policy 6.1.6. Reduce the negative impacts resulting from urban uses and neighboring agricultural uses in close proximity.
8 California Department of Conservation. California Important Farmland Finder. Available at:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/. Accessed April 2026. 88 Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

Page 20 ends

July 2026
Discussion
a,b,e. Pursuant to the General Plan EIR, Oakley has historically been an agricultural community, with a wide variety of agricultural crops. However, much of the land used for agriculture has been developed into urban uses. Therefore, while the City recognizes the historic role of agriculture within the Oakley community and supports continued agriculture, the transition from agriculture to urban uses limits the potential for large-scale commercial agriculture within Oakley. As noted in the General Plan EIR, in order to address the increasing concern over the loss of prime agricultural lands, the Contra Costa County General Plan incorporates an Urban Limit Line (ULL) and has established a minimum 40- acre lot size for prime agricultural lands outside the Urban Limit Line. However, the entire Oakley Planning Area is located inside the County ULL and was, therefore, determined generally appropriate for urban development. Specifically, while 65 percent of the County is protected as undeveloped, the Oakley Planning Area falls in the 35 percent that is designated for development.

Therefore, according to the General Plan EIR, while applicable policies and programs included in the General Plan are intended to preserve a buffer between urban development and agricultural land within the City, the Oakley General Plan would primarily complete the urbanization of the City, as originally intended by the County. In addition, current agricultural resources within the City are fragmented, and commercial agriculture is substantially compromised. As such, with implementation of applicable General Plan policies and programs, the General Plan EIR concluded that the buildout of the General Plan would result in a less-than-significant impact related to the conversion of Farmland, including Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Statewide Importance to a level or conflicting with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract within the Planning Area.

As discussed above, according to the Department of Conservation’s California Important Farmland Finder, the project site is currently designated as Farmland of Local Importance.9 The project site does not contain, and is not located adjacent to, Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland). The project site is not currently used for agricultural purposes or production. Given the designation of the site as Farmland of Local Importance, future development of the project site would not convert Farmland, as defined by CEQA, to a non-agricultural use, or otherwise result in the loss of Farmland to non-agricultural use. In addition, future development of the project site would be consistent with the General Plan land use and zoning designations for the project site. As a result, development of the project site with residential uses was previously anticipated by the City, and impacts related to the conversion of on-site Farmland to a non-agricultural use has been anticipated by the City.

Furthermore, the project site is not under a Williamson Act contract and is not zoned for agricultural use.10 Therefore, future buildout of the proposed project would not conflict with an existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract.

Based on the above, effects peculiar to the proposed project or the project site do not exist. Thus, per CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met, and impacts were adequately addressed in the General Plan EIR. 9 California Department of Conservation. California Important Farmland Finder. Available at:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/. Accessed April 2026. 10 California Department of Conservation. Williamson Act Enrollment Finder. Available at:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/WilliamsonAct/App/. Accessed April 2026. 89 Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

Page 21 ends

July 2026
c,d. The City of Oakley General Plan does not designate any land as forest or for timberland use and, therefore, the General Plan EIR did not analyze impacts related to forest land.

The project site is not considered forest land (as defined in PRC Section 12220[g]), timberland (as defined by PRC Section 4526), and is not zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104[g]). Therefore, future development of the project site would not have an impact with regard to conversion of forest land or any potential conflict with forest land, timberland, or Timberland Production zoning. As such, the proposed project would not result in any peculiar effects, and the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met. Impacts related to forest lands or timber lands were adequately addressed in the General Plan EIR.
90 Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

Page 22 ends

July 2026
III. AIR QUALITY.

Would the project:

Significant
Impact Peculiar
to the Project or
the Project Site
Significant
Impact due to
New Information
Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
the General
Plan EIR
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?   
b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
  
c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?   
d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to
odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of
people?
  
Environmental Setting
The City of Oakley is located in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB), which is under the jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAD). The SFBAAB area is currently designated as a nonattainment area for State and federal ozone, State and federal fine particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5), and State respirable particulate matter 10 microns in diameter (PM10) ambient air quality standards (AAQS). The SFBAAB is designated attainment or unclassified for all other AAQS. It should be noted that on January 9, 2013, the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) issued a final rule to determine that the Bay Area has attained the 24-hour PM2.5 federal AAQS. Nonetheless, the Bay Area must continue to be designated as nonattainment for the federal PM2.5 AAQS until such time as the BAAD submits a redesignation request and a maintenance plan to the USEPA, and the USEPA approves the proposed redesignation. The USEPA has not yet approved a request for redesignation of the SFBAAB; therefore, the SFBAAB remains in nonattainment for 24-hour PM2.5.

In compliance with regulations, due to the nonattainment designations of the area, the BAAD periodically prepares and updates air quality plans that provide emission reduction strategies to achieve attainment of the AAQS, including control strategies to reduce air pollutant emissions through regulations, incentive programs, public education, and partnerships with other agencies.

The current air quality plans are prepared in cooperation with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG).

The most recent federal ozone plan is the 2001 Ozone Attainment Plan, which was adopted on October 24, 2001 and approved by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) on November 1, 2001. The plan was submitted to the USEPA on November 30, 2001 for review and approval. The most recent State ozone plan is the 2017 Clean Air Plan, adopted on April 19, 2017. The 2017 Clean Air Plan was developed as a multi-pollutant plan that provides an integrated control strategy to reduce ozone, PM, toxic air contaminants (TACs), and greenhouse gases (GHGs). Although a plan for achieving the State PM10 standard is not required, the BAAD has prioritized measures to reduce PM in developing the control strategy for the 2017 Clean Air Plan. The control strategy serves as the backbone of the BAAD’s current PM control program.

The aforementioned air quality plans contain mobile source controls, stationary source controls, and transportation control measures to be implemented in the region to attain the State and federal AAQS within the SFBAAB. Adopted BAAD rules and regulations, as well as the thresholds of significance, have been developed with the intent to ensure continued attainment of AAQS, or to work towards attainment of AAQS for which the area is currently designated nonattainment, consistent with applicable air quality plans. For development projects, BAAD establishes significance thresholds for emissions of the ozone precursors reactive organic gases (ROG) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX), as well as for PM10, and PM2.5, expressed in pounds per day (lbs/day) 91 Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

Page 23 ends

July 2026
and tons per year (tons/yr). The thresholds are listed in Table 2. Thus, by exceeding the BAAD’s mass emission thresholds for operational emissions of ROG, NOX, or PM10, a project would be considered to conflict with or obstruct implementation of the BAAD’s air quality planning efforts.

Table 2
BAAD Thresholds of Significance
Pollutant
Construction Operational
Average Daily
Emissions
(lbs/day)
Average Daily
Emissions
(lbs/day)
Maximum Annual
Emissions
(tons/yr)
ROG 54 54 10
NOX 54 54 10
PM10 (exhaust) 82 82 15
PM2.5 (exhaust) 54 54 10
Source: BAAD, Air Quality Guidelines, April 2023.

Emissions of PM can be split into two categories: fugitive emissions and exhaust emissions. As presented in Table 2, BAAD does not maintain quantitative thresholds for fugitive emissions of PM10 or PM2.5; rather, BAAD requires all projects within the district’s jurisdiction to implement Basic Construction Mitigation Measures (BCMMs) related to dust suppression.

General Plan Policies
Listed below are policies from the City of Oakley General Plan Update related to air quality that are relevant to the future development facilitated by the proposed project:

Policy 6.2.1. Support the principles of reducing air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions through comprehensive and sustainable land use, transportation, and energy planning and addressing opportunities to decrease emissions associated with local government operations.

Policy 6.2.2. Coordinate with the BAAQMD, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), and the California Air Resources Board (State Air Board), and other agencies to develop and implement regional and county plans, programs, and mitigation measures that address cross-jurisdictional and regional air quality impacts, including land use, transportation, and climate change impacts, and incorporate the relevant provisions of those plans into City planning and project review procedures. Also cooperate with BAAD, ABAG, and State Air Resources Board in:
a) Enforcing the provisions of the California and Federal Clean Air Acts, state and regional policies, and established standards for air quality.
b) Identifying baseline air pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions, including within the City and Sphere of Influence and in the vicinity of intensive industrial and energy producing uses, to the extent data is available.
c) Requiring energy-efficiency measures in City operations and facilities and use of low carbon or clean fuels for City vehicle fleets, when feasible. 6-27
d) Locating an air quality monitoring station in Oakley. 92 Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

Page 24 ends

July 2026
Policy 6.2.3. Interpret and implement the General Plan to be consistent with the regional Bay Area Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), as periodically updated.

Policy 6.2.6. Encourage transportation modes that minimize contaminant and greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicle use.

Policy 6.2.7. Ensure location and design of development, infrastructure, and long-range planning projects to support State and local air quality and climate goals so as to conserve air quality and minimize direct and indirect emissions of air contaminants and greenhouse gases.

Discussion
a,b. The General Plan EIR concluded that because future projects allowed under the General Plan would be required to comply with General Plan policies and programs, implementation of the General Plan would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan, and a less-than-significant impact would occur. In addition, because implementation of the General Plan was determined to not have a significant air quality impact, the General Plan EIR concluded that buildout of the General Plan would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant.

It should be noted that since the preparation of the General Plan EIR, regulations pertaining to air quality emissions have become much more stringent. Therefore, the operational emissions associated with future development of the project site (especially related to energy) are anticipated to be less than what was included in the General Plan EIR.

The construction and operational emissions associated with future development of the project site were quantified using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) web-based Version 2022.1.1.43 – a statewide model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify air quality emissions, including GHG emissions, from land use projects. The model applies inherent default values for various land uses, including construction data, trip generation rates, vehicle mix, trip length, average speed, compliance with the current California Building Standards Code (CBSC), etc. Where project-specific information is available, such information should be applied in the model. Accordingly, the modeling of the future development facilitated by the proposed project assumes the following inherent site design features and project-specific information:
• Construction would commence in January of 2027 and occur over an approximately one-year period;
• Approximately 2,568 sf of building materials would be removed from the site during demolition;
• The proposed project would not use natural gas during operations; • The proposed project would generate 100 percent of the total project electricity using photovoltaic systems; and
• Each of the five units on-site would include an electric fireplace.

The estimated emissions associated with construction and operation of the future on-site residences are provided below. All CalEEMod results are included as Appendix A to this Modified Initial Study.
93 Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

Page 25 ends

July 2026
Construction Emissions
According to the CalEEMod results, buildout of the future development of the project site would result in maximum unmitigated construction criteria air pollutant emissions as shown in Table 3.

Table 3
Maximum Unmitigated Construction Emissions (lbs/day)
Pollutant
Future
Development
Emissions
Threshold of
Significance
Exceeds
Threshold?
ROG 3.10 54 NO
NOX 28.02 54 NO
PM10* 1.17 82 NO
PM2.5* 1.08 54 NO
Note:
* Denotes emissions from exhaust only. BAAD does not have adopted PM thresholds for fugitive emissions.

Source: CalEEMod, May 2026 (see Appendix A).

As shown in the table, construction of future residential development facilitated by the proposed project would generate criteria pollutant emissions below all applicable thresholds of significance.

All projects within the jurisdiction of the BAAD are required to implement all of the BAAD’s BCMMs, which would be included in the project approval as Conditions of Approval:

1. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.

2. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.

3. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.

4. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.

5. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.

6. All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average wind speeds exceed 20 mph.

7. All trucks and equipment, including their tires, shall be washed off prior to leaving the site.

8. Unpaved roads providing access to sites located 100 feet or further from a paved road shall be treated with a six- to 12-inch layer of compacted layer of wood chips, mulch, or gravel.

9. Publicly visible signs shall be posted with the telephone number and name of the person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s General Air Pollution Complaints number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
94 Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

Page 26 ends

July 2026
Future development facilitated by the proposed project would require implementation of the BAAD’s BCMMs listed above, which would help to further minimize constructionrelated emissions. Even without consideration of BAAD’s BCMMs, as shown in Table 2, construction of the on-site development would result in emissions of criteria air pollutants below BAAD’s thresholds of significance. Consequently, the development of the project site would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plans during project construction.

Operational Emissions
According to the CalEEMod results, future on-site development facilitated by the proposed project would result in maximum unmitigated operational criteria air pollutant emissions as shown in Table 4.

Table 4
Unmitigated Maximum Operational Emissions
Pollutant
Future Development
Emissions
Threshold of
Significance Exceeds
lbs/day tons/yr lbs/day tons/yr Threshold?
ROG 0.44 0.08 54 10 NO
NOX 0.15 0.03 54 10 NO
PM10* 0.002 0.0004 82 15 NO
PM2.5 * 0.002 0.0004 54 10 NO
Note:
* Denotes emissions from exhaust only. BAAD has not yet adopted PM thresholds for fugitive emissions.

Source: CalEEMod, May 2026 (see Appendix A).

As shown in the table, operational emissions associated with the future development facilitated by the proposed project would be below the applicable thresholds of significance. Because operational emissions would be below the applicable thresholds of significance, the future on-site development would not be considered to conflict with air quality plans during project operation.

Cumulative Emissions
Past, present and future development projects contribute to the region’s adverse air quality impacts on a cumulative basis. By nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. A single project is not sufficient in size to, by itself, result in nonattainment of AAQS. Instead, a project’s individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. If a project’s contribution to the cumulative impact is considerable, then the project’s impact on air quality would be considered significant. In developing thresholds of significance for air pollutants, BAAD considered the emission levels for which a project’s individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable. The thresholds of significance presented in Table 2 represent the levels at which a project’s individual emissions of criteria air pollutants or precursors would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the SFBAAB’s existing air quality conditions. If a project exceeds the significance thresholds presented in Table 2, the emissions associated with the future development facilitated by the proposed project would be cumulatively considerable, resulting in significant adverse cumulative air quality impacts to the region’s existing air quality conditions. Because the future development of the project site would result in emissions below the applicable thresholds of significance, the proposed project would not be expected to result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the region’s existing air quality conditions.
95 Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

Page 27 ends

July 2026
Conclusion
As discussed above, the General Plan EIR concluded that with implementation of applicable General Plan policies, criteria air pollutant emissions associated with buildout of the General Plan would not cause a substantial net increase in emissions that exceeds the BAAD regional significance thresholds, and impacts would be less than significant.

Given that the proposed project is consistent with the City’s General Plan land use designation for the project site, criteria pollutant emissions associated with buildout of the site have been anticipated by the City and analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

Because the future development of the project site would result in emissions below the applicable thresholds of significance during both construction and operations, the proposed project would not be considered to conflict with or obstruct implementation of regional air quality plans. In addition, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in any criteria air pollutant. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in any peculiar effects related to the generation of criteria pollutants and impacts have been adequately addressed in the General Plan EIR. Thus, requirements for additional CEQA review are not met.
c. Some land uses are considered more sensitive to air pollution than others, due to the types of population groups or activities involved. Heightened sensitivity may be caused by health problems, proximity to the emissions source, and/or duration of exposure to air pollutants. Children, pregnant women, the elderly, and those with existing health problems are especially vulnerable to the effects of air pollution. Sensitive receptors are typically defined as facilities where sensitive receptor population groups (i.e., children, the elderly, the acutely ill, and the chronically ill) are likely to be located. Accordingly, land uses that are typically considered to be sensitive receptors include residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, retirement homes, convalescent homes, hospitals, and medical clinics. The nearest sensitive receptor to the project site is the single-family residence located approximately 150 feet from the western boundary of the project site.

The major pollutant concentrations of concern are localized carbon monoxide (CO) emissions, TAC, and criteria pollutants, which are addressed in further detail below.

Localized CO Emissions
Localized concentrations of CO are related to the levels of traffic and congestion along streets and at intersections. High levels of localized CO concentrations are only expected where background levels are high, and traffic volumes and congestion levels are high.

Emissions of CO are of potential concern, as the pollutant is a toxic gas that results from the incomplete combustion of carbon-containing fuels such as gasoline or wood.

The General Plan EIR concluded that buildout of the General Plan may cause increased localized carbon monoxide concentrations at congested intersections. However, because study intersections in Oakley would operate at Level of Service (LOS) D or better through buildout of the General Plan, localized violations of ambient air quality standards for CO would not occur, and, therefore, the General Plan EIR concluded impacts would be less than significant.

To provide a conservative indication of whether a project would result in localized CO emissions that would exceed the applicable threshold of significance, BAAD has established screening criteria for localized CO emissions. According to BAAD, a proposed 96 Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

Page 28 ends

July 2026
project would result in a less than significant impact related to localized CO emission concentrations if all of the following conditions are true for the project:
• The project is consistent with an applicable congestion management program established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways, regional transportation plan, and local congestion management agency plans;
• The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour; and
• The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited (e.g., tunnel, parking garage, underpass, etc.).

While BAAD has established the foregoing screening criteria for potential impacts, it should be noted that the SFBAAB has been in attainment of California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) and National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for CO for more than 20 years.11 Due to the continued attainment of CAAQS and NAAQS, and advances in vehicle emissions technologies, the likelihood that any single project would create a CO hotspot is minimal. According to the CalEEMod modeling prepared for the proposed project, future development facilitated by the proposed project would result in a maximum of 48 trips per day. As a result, the increase in traffic volumes related to future on-site development would be minimal at any nearby intersections. Thus, future development facilitated by the proposed project is not anticipated to increase traffic volumes at any nearby intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour or increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited. Therefore, based on the BAAD’s screening criteria for localized CO emissions, the future development of the project site would not be expected to result in substantial levels of localized CO at surrounding intersections or generate localized concentrations of CO that would exceed standards or cause health hazards.

TAC Emissions
Another category of environmental concern is TACs. The CARB’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (Handbook) provides recommended setback distances for sensitive land uses from major sources of TACs, including, but not limited to, freeways and high traffic roads, distribution centers, and rail yards. The CARB has identified diesel particulate matter (DPM) from diesel-fueled engines as a TAC; thus, high volume freeways, stationary diesel engines, and facilities attracting heavy and constant diesel vehicle traffic are identified as having the highest associated health risks from DPM. Health risks associated with TACs are a function of both the concentration of emissions and the duration of exposure, where the higher the concentration and/or the longer the period of time that a sensitive receptor is exposed to pollutant concentrations would correlate to a higher health risk.

The General Plan EIR found that trace quantities of TACs would be expected to occur with natural gas combustion related to build-out pursuant to the proposed General Plan Land Use Map. Additionally, DPM could be emitted during operation of motor vehicles. 11 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Air Quality Summary Reports. Available at:
https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/communications-and-outreach/annual-bay-area-air-qualitysummaries/pollsum2019-pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed May 2026. 97 Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

Page 29 ends

July 2026
However, CARB programs and regulations, as well as General Plan policies and programs, would ensure that impacts are less than significant.

The proposed project would not result in the development of land uses that would be considered a substantial source of TACs during operations. Accordingly, operations of the future residential development on-site would not expose sensitive receptors to excess concentrations of TACs.

Short-term, construction-related activities could result in the generation of TACs, specifically DPM, from on-road haul trucks and off-road equipment exhaust emissions.

However, as discussed above, construction is temporary and occurs over a relatively short duration in comparison to the operational lifetime of the future on-site residences. Health risks are typically associated with exposure to high concentrations of TACs over extended periods of time (e.g., 30 years or greater), whereas the construction period associated with five on-site residential units would likely be limited to approximately one year. All construction equipment and operation thereof would be regulated per the In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation, which is intended to help reduce emissions associated with offroad diesel vehicles and equipment, including DPM. Project construction would also be required to comply with all applicable BAAD rules and regulations, particularly associated with permitting of air pollutant sources.

During construction activities, only portions of the project site would be disturbed at a time.

Operation of construction equipment would occur on such portions of the site intermittently throughout the course of a day over the overall construction period. Because construction equipment on-site would not operate for any long periods of time and would be used at varying locations within the site, associated emissions of DPM would not occur at the same location (or be evenly spread throughout the entire project site) for long periods of time. Due to the temporary nature of construction and the relatively short duration of potential exposure to associated emissions, sensitive receptors in the area would not be exposed to pollutants for a permanent or substantially extended period of time.

Furthermore, any one nearby sensitive receptor would be exposed to varying concentrations of DPM emissions throughout the construction period. According to BAAD, research conducted by CARB indicates that DPM is highly dispersive in the atmosphere.

Thus, emissions at the project site would be substantially dispersed at the nearest sensitive receptors, and the concentration of DPM at the nearest sensitive receptors would be lower than the concentration of DPM at the source of emissions.

Considering the limited nature of construction activities, the regulated and intermittent nature of the operation of construction equipment, the highly dispersive nature of DPM, and the distance of the nearest sensitive receptor from the project site, the likelihood that any one sensitive receptor would be exposed to high concentrations of DPM for any extended period of time, during future development the project site, would be low. For the aforementioned reasons, the proposed project would not be expected to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

Criteria Pollutants
The BAAD thresholds of significance were established with consideration given to the health-based air quality standards established by the NAAQS and CAAQS, and are designed to aid the district in achieving attainment of the NAAQS and CAAQS.12Although the BAAD’s thresholds of significance are intended to aid achievement of the NAAQS and 12 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2022 California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. April 2023. 98 Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

Page 30 ends

July 2026
CAAQS for which the SFBAAB is in nonattainment, the thresholds of significance do not represent a level above which individual project-level emissions would directly result in public health impacts. Nevertheless, a project’s compliance with BAAD’s thresholds of significance provides an indication that criteria pollutants released as a result of project implementation would not inhibit attainment of the health-based regional NAAQS and CAAQS. The General Plan EIR concluded that with implementation of General Plan policies and programs, impacts related to exposing sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations would be less than significant. Similarly, because project-related emissions would not exceed the BAAD’s thresholds, and, thus, would not inhibit attainment of regional NAAQS and CAAQS, the criteria pollutants emitted during project implementation would not be anticipated to result in measurable health impacts to sensitive receptors. Accordingly, the proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors to excess concentrations of criteria pollutants.

Conclusion
Based on the above, future development of the project site would not expose any sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of pollutants during construction or operation, either on a project-level or cumulative level. Additionally, the General Plan EIR found that implementation of relevant General Plan policies would reduce impacts to a less-thansignificant level. Therefore, the proposed project has been adequately addressed in the General Plan EIR and would not result in any peculiar effects, and further CEQA review would not be required for this topic.
d. Emissions such as those leading to odors have the potential to adversely affect sensitive receptors within the project area. Pollutants of principal concern include emissions leading to odors, emission of dust, or emissions considered to constitute air pollutants. Air pollutants have been discussed in sections ‘a’ through ‘c’ above. Therefore, the following discussion focuses on emissions of odors and dust.

Pursuant to the BAAD CEQA Guidelines, odors are generally regarded as an annoyance rather than a health hazard.13 Manifestations of a person’s reaction to odors can range from psychological (e.g., irritation, anger, or anxiety) to physiological (e.g., circulatory and respiratory effects, nausea, vomiting, and headache). The presence of an odor impact is dependent on several variables including: the nature of the odor source; the frequency of odor generation; the intensity of odor; the distance of odor source to sensitive receptors; wind direction; and sensitivity of the receptor. The General Plan EIR found that implementation of applicable General Plan policies would reduce impacts related to odor to a less-than-significant level.

Due to the subjective nature of odor impacts, the number of variables that can influence the potential for an odor impact, and the variety of odor sources, quantification of significant odor impacts is relatively difficult. Typical odor-generating land uses include, but are not limited to, wastewater treatment plants, landfills, and composting facilities. The proposed project would not introduce any such land uses on-site.

Construction activities often include diesel-fueled equipment and heavy-duty diesel trucks, which can create odors associated with diesel fumes, which could be found to be objectionable. However, as discussed above, construction activities would be temporary, 13 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2022 California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines [pg. 5-16]. April 2023.
99 Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

Page 31 ends

July 2026
and operation of construction equipment would be regulated and intermittent. Project construction would also be required to comply with all applicable BAAD rules and regulations, particularly associated with permitting of air pollutant sources. The aforementioned regulations would help to minimize air pollutant emissions, as well as any associated odors. Accordingly, substantial objectionable odors would not occur during construction activities or affect a substantial number of people.

In addition, the BAAD rules and regulations would act to reduce construction related dust, which would ensure that construction of the future on-site development does not result in substantial emissions of dust. Following construction, the project site would not include any exposed topsoil. Thus, future project operations would not include any substantial sources of dust.

For the aforementioned reasons, future construction and operation of the project site would not result in emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in any peculiar effects and impacts have been adequately addressed in the General Plan EIR.

Thus, further CEQA review would not be required for this topic. 100
Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

Page 32 ends

July 2026
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.

Would the project:

Significant
Impact Peculiar
to the Project or
the Project Site
Significant
Impact due to
New Information
Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
the General
Plan EIR
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 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
  
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US
Fish and Wildlife Service?
  
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?
  
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites?
  
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
  
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
  
Environmental Setting
The project site is located within the boundaries of the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan (ECCC HCP/NCCP). 14 The project site
is primarily vacant land with scattered trees, with the exception of an existing structure used for storage of land maintenance equipment. The site is generally surrounded by scattered rural residences and undeveloped/agricultural land. According to a Planning Survey Report (PSR) prepared for the proposed project (see Appendix B),15 the project site consists of 5.4 acres of Cropland land cover, as defined by the ECCC HCP/NCCP. According to the ECCC HCP/NCCP, Cropland land cover is described as areas tilled and cultivated for agricultural crops. Cropland is the most common of the agriculture land cover types in the low-lying areas of the ECCC HCP/NCCP area, occupying 12 percent of the ECCC HCP/NCCP area. The PSR determined that the project site has been subject to routine agricultural activities, such as disking and mowing, for at least the last 20 years. Vegetation within the project site consists of mostly non-native and disturbance-adapted species, including black mustard (Brassica nigra), mouse barley (Hordeum murinum), blessed milkthistle (Silybum marianum), redstem stork’s bill (Erodium cicutarium), and miner’s lettuce (Claytonia perfoliate). Cultivated black walnut (Juglans hindsii) trees are located along the southern boundary of the project site. In addition, several clusters of California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi) and Botta’s pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae) burrows are located throughout the project site.
14 East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan Association. Final East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan. October 10, 2007. 15 Dudek, Inc. Application Form and Planning Survey Report – 5321 Sellers Avenue Subdivision Project. 2025. 101
Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

Page 33 ends

July 2026
General Plan Policies
Listed below are policies from the City of Oakley General Plan Update related to biological resources that are relevant to the proposed project:

Policy 2.6.3. Preserve, enhance, and/or restore significant open space and/or existing natural habitat areas for ecological, educational, scenic, and recreational values.

Policy 2.8.8. Recognize, enhance, and preserve, where possible, natural features and ecosystems, open space, and agricultural areas, and protect cultural and historic resources.

Policy 6.3.1. Encourage biodiversity through preservation of important ecological resources and biological communities as open space and natural areas.

Policy 6.3.2. Develop open space uses in an ecologically sensitive manner, incorporating opportunities for carbon sequestration and use of native plants.

Policy 6.3.3. Use land use planning to reduce the impact of urban development on important ecological and biological resources identified during application review and analysis.

Policy 6.3.5. Encourage preservation and enhancement of Delta wetlands, significant trees, native vegetation, and wildlife populations, including special-status species.

Policy 6.3.6. Encourage preservation of portions of important wildlife habitats that would be disturbed by major development, particularly adjacent to the Delta.

Policy 6.3.7. Preserve and expand natural features, such as stream corridors, wetlands, sensitive habitats, and open space, in Oakley, restoring natural features and native vegetation where feasible.

Policy 6.3.8. Continue to support and implement the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan (County Habitat Plan).

Conversion of open space to developed residential, commercial, industrial, or other similar types of uses, shall be strongly discouraged.

Discussion
a,f. The General Plan EIR concluded that applicable policies and programs included in the General Plan would reduce potential impacts to special-status species that could result from buildout of the General Plan to a less-than-significant level. In addition, projects within the City of Oakley are required to comply with all applicable federal State, regional, and 102
Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

Page 34 ends

July 2026
local regulations including, but not limited to, the Clean Water Act (CWA), Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA), Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), California Endangered Species Act (CESA), California Fish and Game Code (CFGC), Oak Woodlands Conservation Act, California Native Plant Protection Act, ECCC HCP/NCCP, City of Oakley General Plan, and the Oakley Municipal Code.

Special-status species include those species that are:
• Listed as endangered or threatened under the FESA (or formally proposed for, or candidates for,listing);
• Listed as endangered or threatened under the CESA (or proposed forlisting); • Designated as endangered or rare, pursuant to CFGC (Section 1901); • Designated as fully-protected, pursuant to CFGC (Section 3511, Section 4700, or Section 5050);
• Designated as species of special concern by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW); or
• Defined as rare or endangered under CEQA [California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) 1, 2, and3].

Although CDFW Species of Special Concern generally do not have special legal status, they are given special consideration under CEQA. In addition to regulations for specialstatus species, most birds in the U.S., including non-status species, are protected by the MBTA of 1918. Under the MBTA, destroying active nests, eggs, and young is illegal.

The ECCC HCP/NCCP provides take authorization for 28 listed and non-listed species (i.e., covered species). In addition, the ECCC HCP/NCCP includes conservation measures to protect the 28 covered species, as well as a conservation strategy designed to mitigate impacts on covered species and contribute to the recovery of the species in the study area.

The PSR prepared for the proposed project included a planning-level survey conducted on March 19, 2025 to determine land cover types and evaluate the site for evidence of special-status species and potential habitat for special-status species. In addition, the PSR included a search for special-status species previously recorded within the general vicinity of the project site through use of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB).

The project site is located within the boundaries of the ECCC HCP/NCCP, which is intended to provide an effective framework to protect natural resources in the County, including special-status species. In February 2015, the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy prepared an ECCC HCP/NCCP Assessment of Plan Effects on CEQA Species.16 The purpose of the assessment was to provide a programmatic, cumulative CEQA effects analysis for CEQA species not covered by the HCP/NCCP. The 2015 ECCC HCP/NCCP Assessment of Plan Effects on CEQA Species concluded that mitigation measures required in the ECCC HCP/NCCP also provide mitigation for non-covered species; therefore, projects consistent with the ECCC HCP/NCCP would have a less-thansignificant impact on other potential special-status species. Subsequent to the 2015 ECCC HCP/NCCP Assessment of Plan Effects on CEQA Species, a CEQA Species Assessment 16 H.T. Harvey & Associates. East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan – Assessment of Plan Effects on CEQA Species. February 17, 2015.
103
Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

Page 35 ends

July 2026
Update was prepared in November 2020 in order to update the 2015 assessment to include eight newly proposed or designated special-status plant and animal species.17 The 2020 CEQA Species Assessment Update determined that impacts to all eight of the newly proposed or designated special-status species would be less than significant under CEQA.

According to the 2015 ECCC HCP/NCCP Assessment of Plan Effects on CEQA Species, for all but two of the potential special-status species addressed (Lime Ridge navarretia [Navarretia gowenii] and the Lime Ridge eriastrum [Eriastrum ertterae]), impacts would be less than significant under CEQA. Due to uncertainty regarding the distribution of the Lime Ridge navarretia and the Lime Ridge eriastrum, the 2015 ECCC HCP/NCCP Assessment of Plan Effects on CEQA Species concluded that a potentially significant impact may occur related to the two aforementioned species. The PSR did not identify any known occurrences of Lime Ridge navarretia or Lime Ridge eriastrum within the project site or immediate vicinity. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not impact the species. Based on the conclusions of the 2015 ECCC HCP/NCCP Assessment of Plan Effects on CEQA Species, the 2020 CEQA Species Assessment Update, and the absence of the Lime Ridge navarretia and Lime Ridge eriastrum in the vicinity of the project site, the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact on any potential specialstatus wildlife species and potential special-status plant species not covered by the ECCC HCP/NCCP that could occur within the vicinity of the project site because the proposed project would be required to comply with the ECCC HCP/NCCP.

The potential for species covered by the ECCC HCP/NCCP and other special-status species to occur on the project site is discussed in further detail below.

Special-Status Plants
Special-status plants generally occur in relatively undisturbed areas within vegetation communities such as vernal pools, marshes and swamps, chenopod scrub, seasonal wetlands, riparian scrub, chaparral, alkali playa, dunes, and areas with unusual soil characteristics.

As discussed above, the project site has been subject to routine agricultural activities, such as disking and mowing, for at least the last 20 years and supports almost exclusively non-native and disturbance-adapted species. Only two native species were observed on the project site, including miner’s lettuce (Claytonia perfoliate) and a few cultivated black walnut (Juglans hindsii) trees along the southern boundary of the project site.

Given the previous disturbance of the project site, special-status plant species are not anticipated on-site. According to the PSR prepared for the project, the planning-level survey did not observe any special-status plant species or potentially suitable habitat for special-status plants on-site. In addition, the PSR determined that none of the specialstatus plant species covered by the ECCC HCP/NCCP are associated with the cropland land cover on the project site. Therefore, the PSR concluded that future development of the project site would not result in impacts to special-status plant species. 17 H.T. Harvey & Associates. Appendix B. November 2020 CEQA Species Assessment Update. November 2020. 104
Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

Page 36 ends

July 2026
Special-Status Wildlife
Based on the PSR prepared for the project site, a total of three ECCC HCP/NCCP covered species have the potential to occur on-site. The three species that may occur on-site include the western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsonii), and golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), as well as other nesting birds and raptors protected by the MBTA. Each species is discussed in further detail below.

Western Burrowing Owl
The western burrowing owl is a California Species of Special Concern. Burrowing owl habitat is usually found in annual and perennial grasslands, characterized by low- growing vegetation. The primary habitat requirement for western burrowing owls is small mammal burrows that the species uses for nesting. Typically, the species uses abandoned ground squirrel burrows, but western burrowing owls have been known to dig burrows in softer soils. In urban areas, western burrowing owls may use pipes, culverts, and piles of material as artificial burrows. Western burrowing owls breed semi-colonially from March through August.

Cropland land cover within the project site is considered suitable habitat for western burrowing owl, and numerous California ground squirrel burrows are present on the western and northern portions of the project site. Several burrows of suitable diameter to support western burrowing owl were observed; however, western burrowing owls were not observed during the planning-level survey conducted on the project site. Several CNDDB occurrences of western burrowing owl are located near the project site, with the closest located 0.3-mile southeast of the site. However, the record 0.3-mile from the project site is from 1993. An additional seven CNDDB occurrences of the species have been documented within one mile of the project site, many of which are now densely developed.

As such, western burrowing owl is likely extirpated or were reportedly passively relocated from the additional CNDDB occurrence sites. Additional occurrences within the proximity of the project site have not been recorded since 2006. Nonetheless, because suitable habitat for western burrowing owl exists on the project site, pre-construction surveys for burrowing owls would be required by the ECCC HCP/NCCP to confirm presence or absence of the species. Compliance with the General Plan policies and actions, and applicable Avoidance and Minimization Measures (AMMs) included in the ECCC HCP/NCCP would ensure that peculiar impacts to western burrowing owl would not occur from future development of the project site.

Swainson’s Hawk
Swainson’s hawk is a State-listed threatened species under the CESA. The Swainson’s hawk inhabits open to semi-open areas at low to middle elevations in valleys, dry meadows, foothills, and level uplands. The species nests almost exclusively in trees and will nest in almost any tree species that is at least 10 feet tall. Swainson’s hawks also occasionally nest in shrubs, on telephone poles, and on the ground. Foraging habitats include alfalfa fields, fallow fields, beet, tomato, and other low-growing row or field crops, dry-land and irrigated pasture, and rice land when not flooded. In addition, agricultural practices allow for access to prey, and very likely increases foraging success of Swainson’s hawks when farm equipment flushes prey during harvesting.

Patches of suitable nesting trees were documented adjacent to, and within 1,000 feet of, the project site, primarily to the north and south. While active nests or nest starts were not documented, Swainson’s hawk nests are often inconspicuously constructed in trees and 105
Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

Page 37 ends

July 2026
may not be visible from the project site or public roads. Nests are often best located by tracking Swainson’s hawk individuals flying to and from nesting locations during protocollevel surveys. Trees located within densely developed subdivisions or commercial areas are not considered suitable for the species, as Swainson’s hawk typically prefer to nest away from human disturbance. The project site and surrounding agricultural lands provide suitable foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawk, and suitable prey species such as California ground squirrel and gophers are present. Documented CNDDB occurrences of Swainson’s hawk exist near the project site, with the closest being an occurrence from 2006 located approximately 1.05 miles west of the project site. Several other occurrences have been documented within two miles of the project site; however, several of the occurrences are from 2006 or earlier. Nonetheless, pre-construction surveys for Swainson’s hawk are required by the ECCC HCP/NCCP to confirm the presence or absence of the species. Compliance with the General Plan policies and actions, and the AMMs included in the ECCC HCP/NCCP would ensure peculiar impacts to Swainson’s hawk would not occur from future development of the project site.

Golden Eagle
The golden eagle is a federally protected species under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA). The golden eagle forages over a wide variety of open habitats, and numerous land cover types provide suitable foraging habitat for the golden eagle, including oak savannah and rock outcrop. Potential nesting habitat for the golden eagle includes large, mature trees that are not completely surrounded by urban areas. The species prefers the nesting habitat of cliffs, rock outcrops, oak savannah, and large isolated trees.

The planning-level survey did not observe golden eagle or nests at the project site. Stick nests in trees large enough to support the species were not observed within 0.5-mile of the project site, and rock outcrops or oak savannah land cover types were not present in the vicinity of the project site. However, while development surrounding the project site may preclude the species from nesting within the vicinity, large mature trees within 0.5- mile of the project site were documented as having the potential to support golden eagle nesting. The CNDDB search did not include any occurrences of golden eagle within a fivemile radius of the project site. Nonetheless, pre-construction surveys for golden eagle are required by the ECCC HCP/NCCP to confirm the presence or absence of the species.

Compliance with the General Plan policies and actions, and the AMMs included in the ECCC HCP/NCCP would ensure peculiar impacts to golden eagle would not occur from future development of the project site.

Other Nesting Migratory Birds and Raptors
The scattered on-site trees, as well as trees in the vicinity of project site, could provide potential nesting habitat for nesting migratory birds and raptors protected by the MBTA.

Therefore, future project construction activities, including initial site grading, soil excavation, associated improvements, and/or tree and vegetation removal occurring during the nesting period for migratory birds (typically between February 1 to August 31) could have the potential to result in nest abandonment or death of any live eggs or young, should migratory birds or their nests be present within or near the project site. However, given the disturbed nature of the project site and surrounding area, and the fact that habitat for nesting birds and raptors is not uncommon within the project area, the site does not include any peculiar conditions from a biological perspective. Furthermore, as discussed above, compliance with the General Plan policies and actions, and the AMMs included in 106
Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

Page 38 ends

July 2026
the ECCC HCP/NCCP, would ensure peculiar impacts to nesting migratory birds and raptors would not occur from future development of the project site.

ECCC HCP/NCCP Requirements
Procedures for pre-construction surveys, best management practices (BMPs), and construction monitoring, as well as applicable AMMs for species covered by the ECCC HCP/NCCP are outlined in Section 6.3.3 Surveys for Construction Monitoring and Section

6.4.3 Species-Level Measures of the ECCC HCP/NCCP.18 Future construction on the project site would be required to comply with all ECCC HCP/NCCP requirements, including conducting pre-construction surveys prior to ground disturbance activities to establish whether nests or burrows of western burrowing owl, Swainson’s hawk, and golden eagle are occupied. If nests or burrows are occupied, future construction on the project site would be required to comply with the minimization requirements and construction monitoring in the ECCC HCP/NCCP. In compliance with the ECCC HCP/NCCP, future construction on the project site would also be required to follow applicable AMMs if nests are located within 1,000 feet of the project site.

All birds covered by the ECCC HCP/NCCP are also considered migratory birds and subject to the prohibitions of the MBTA. Therefore, actions conducted under the ECCC HCP/NCCP comply with the provisions of the MBTA. Because future development of the project site would comply with all ECCC HCP/NCCP requirements, future development would also comply with the provisions of the MBTA.

Furthermore, future development of the project site would be subject to pay all applicable fees according to the Fee Zone Map of the ECCC HCP/NCCP prior to construction. The project is located within Zone I and does not support any special habitats. The project site supports a total of 5.4 acres of cropland. Development fees per acre are adjusted annually, and, therefore, the applicant would be required to pay the appropriate fees based on the applicable fee calculator at the time of development.

Conclusion
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(f), “An effect of a project on the environment shall not be considered peculiar to the project or the parcel for the purposes of this section if uniformly applied development policies or standards have been previously adopted by the city or county with a finding that the development policies or standards will substantially mitigate that environmental effect when applied to future projects, unless substantial new information shows that the policies or standards will not substantially mitigate the environmental effect. […]” The General Plan EIR concluded that applicable Federal, State, regional, and local regulations, together with General Plan goals, policies, and actions would reduce potential impacts to special-status species that could result from buildout of the General Plan.

Based on the above, future development of the project site would not result in any peculiar effects to species identified as special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or the USFWS given required compliance with applicable federal, state, regional, and local regulations, together with the goals, policies, and actions included in the General Plan, which the General Plan EIR found would substantially mitigate potential environmental effects. Additionally, future development of the project 18 East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan Association. Final East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan. October 10, 2007. 107
Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

Page 39 ends

July 2026
site would comply with all applicable ECCC HCP/NCCP requirements. Thus, impacts related to having a substantial adverse effect on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species or conflicting with the provisions of an adopted HCP/NCCP were adequately addressed in the General Plan EIR, and the proposed project would not result in any peculiar effects that would require further CEQA review related to such.
b,c. The General Plan EIR concluded that applicable policies and programs included in the General Plan would reduce potential impacts to riparian habitat, wetlands, and other sensitive natural communities that could result from buildout of the General Plan to a lessthan-significant level.

Riparian habitats are described as the land and vegetation that is situated along the bank of a stream or river. Wetlands are areas where water covers the soil, or is present either at or near the surface of the soil all year or for varying periods of time during the year.

Vernal pools are seasonal depressional wetlands that are covered by shallow water for variable periods from winter to spring, but may be completely dry for most of the summer and fall. Vernal pools range in size from small puddles to shallow lakes, and are usually found in gently sloping plains of grasslands.

The PSR included an assessment of potential presence of jurisdictional waters of the U.S. or wetlands on the site during the planning-level survey conducted on March 19, 2025.

Based on the results of the PSR, aquatic or wetland features were not identified on-site.

The topography of the site is relatively flat without any depressions or channels. Finally, standing water, wetland, or aquatic vegetation was not documented during the site survey.

Therefore, the site does not include any sensitive natural communities, and impacts related to having a substantial adverse effect on riparian habitat, sensitive natural communities, or federally protected wetlands were adequately addressed in the General Plan EIR. The proposed project would not result in any peculiar effects that would require further CEQA review related to effects on any riparian habitat, protected wetlands, or other sensitive natural communities.
d. According to the General Plan EIR, the sloughs and canals within the Oakley Plan Area likely support special-status species and may function as wildlife corridors, which are important for the movement of migratory wildlife populations. Corridors provide foraging opportunities and shelter during migration. Nonetheless, the General Plan EIR concluded that with adherence to the policies and programs included in the General Plan, which serve to minimize potential impacts related to the interference with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites would not occur.

The project site is bound by Sellers Avenue to the east. The site is generally surrounded by scattered rural residences and undeveloped/agricultural land. The existing urban development and agricultural uses within the project area prevents the use of the project site as a migratory corridor. Therefore, the project site and surrounding existing uses do not support any substantial wildlife movement corridors or wildlife nursery sites.

Based on the above, impacts related to interfering substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites were adequately addressed 108
Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

Page 40 ends

July 2026
in the General Plan EIR, and the proposed project would not result in any peculiar effects that would require further CEQA review related to such. e. The General Plan EIR concluded that with compliance with existing regulations included in the City’s Heritage Tree Preservation Ordinance, and adherence to the policies and programs included in the General Plan, which serve to minimize potential impacts related to the protection of biological resources, impacts related to conflicting with local policies or ordinance protecting biological resources would not occur.

Section 9.1.1112 of the City of Oakley Municipal Code defines a protected tree as any tree adjacent to or part of a riparian habitat, foothill woodland, or oak savannah that measures 20 inches or larger, indigenous tree that measures 40 inches or larger, or California native oak at least 50 inches in circumference (15.6 inches in diameter). As discussed above, the site contains scattered trees. Given that development of the project site is not proposed at this time and site plans are not available, the potential exists for future development of the proposed project to remove protected trees. However, if the project site contains any trees that meet the City’s definition of protected trees, future development of the project site would be required to comply with Section 9.1.1112(g)(11) of the Municipal Code, which outlines tree replacement requirements. Therefore, impacts related to conflicting with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance, were adequately addressed in the General Plan EIR, and the proposed project would not result in any peculiar effects that would require further CEQA review related to such.
109
Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

Page 41 ends

July 2026
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES.

Would the project:

Significant
Impact Peculiar
to the Project or
the Project Site
Significant
Impact due to
New Information
Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
the General
Plan EIR
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?    b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological resource pursuant to
Section 15064.5?
  
c. Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of dedicated cemeteries.   
Environmental Setting
The project site is generally surrounded by scattered rural residences and undeveloped/agricultural land, and consists of a vacant lot with relatively flat topography and scattered trees throughout, with an existing structure used for storage of land maintenance equipment in the northwestern corner and a 12-foot-wide gated driveway from Sellers Avenue along the southwestern boundary. The project site has been subject to routine agricultural activities, such as disking and mowing, for at least the last 20 years.

Historical resources are features that are associated with the lives of historically-important persons and/or historically-significant events, that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction, or that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important to the pre-history or history of the local area, California, or the nation. Examples of typical historical resources include, but are not limited to, buildings, farmsteads, rail lines, bridges, and trash scatters containing objects such as colored glass and ceramics. As noted in the General Plan, most of the City’s historic resources date from the period of Oakley’s growth and development, roughly from 1901 to 1955. While officially designated historic structures do not exist within the City of Oakley, numerous buildings, primarily in the old town area, may be eligible for such designation or listing.

A Cultural Resources Study was prepared for the project site by Eileen Barrow & Associates. 19 The Cultural Resources Study included archival research to identify any previously recorded cultural resources and a field survey of the project site, conducted on April 16, 2026. As part of the Cultural Resources Study, a search of the California Historic Resources Information System (CHRIS) was performed for the project site. Based on the results of the project-specific CHRIS search, the project site was previously included in one cultural resource survey, and nine cultural resource studies have been previously conducted within 0.25-mile of the project site. The archival research determined that the project site does not contain any recorded historical or archaeological resources. A search of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF) was also conducted for the site and produced negative results, indicating a lack of known tribal cultural resources within the site.

General Plan Policies
Listed below are policies from the City of Oakley General Plan Update related to cultural resources that are relevant to the proposed project:

Policy 6.4.1. Preserve areas that have identifiable and important archaeological or paleontological significance.
19 Eileen Barrow & Associates. Cultural Resources Study for the Hacienda Estates Project. April 24, 2026. 110
Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

Page 42 ends

July 2026
Policy 6.4.2. Review new development projects to conduct location-specific searches through the California Historical Resources Information System to determine whether project areas contain known archaeological resources, either prehistoric and/or historic-era, or have significant potential for such resources.

Policy 6.4.3. Ensure that human remains are treated with sensitivity and dignity, and ensure compliance with the provisions of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and California Public Resources Code Section 5097.

Policy 6.5.1. Protect important historic resources and use these resources to promote a sense of place and history in Oakley.

Policy 6.5.3. Promote the compatibility of new development located adjacent to existing structures of historic significance with the architecture and site development of the historic structure.

Conversion of open space to developed residential, commercial, industrial, or other similar types of uses, shall be strongly discouraged.

Discussion
a-c. The General Plan EIR determined that future development allowed under the General Plan could affect known historical and archaeological resources or unknown historical and archaeological resources which have not yet been identified. However, the General Plan EIR concluded that compliance with existing regulations, including all applicable General Plan policies and programs, would ensure that potential impacts to historical and archaeological resources would be less than significant.

A records search of the CHRIS was performed by the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) for cultural resource site records and survey reports within the project area on April 2, 2026. The records search indicated that cultural resources have not been documented within the project site or within a 0.25-mile radius of the project site. On April 1, 2026, the NAHC conducted a records search of the SLF which indicated that archaeological and other cultural resources are not known to be present in the project vicinity.

According to the Cultural Resource Study, a moderate potential exists for buried prehistoric archaeological sites to occur on-site due to the site’s distance to a source of fresh water. The project site is located approximately 960 feet to the east of Marsh Creek.

However, archaeological specimens were not located during the field survey conducted as a part of the Cultural Resources Study. The field survey identified a modern shed and trash on-site, which do not warrant additional study.

Nonetheless, in the event that historical or archaeological resources are discovered during future construction or grading activities, future development of the project site would be required to comply with all applicable General Plan policies, as listed above, as well as 111
Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

Page 43 ends

July 2026
General Plan Program 6.4.C. General Plan Program 6.4.C would require all new development, infrastructure, and other ground-disturbing projects to cease all work within 100 feet of the discovery, notification of the Community Development Director, and examination of the resources by a qualified archaeologist, paleontologist, or historian for appropriate protection and preservation measures. Work may only resume when appropriate protections are in place and have been approved by the Community Development Director. If human remains are discovered during any ground disturbing activity, work shall stop until the Community Development Director and the Contra Costa County Coroner have been contacted; if the human remains are determined to be of Native American origin, the Native American Heritage Commission and the most likely descendants have been consulted; and work may only resume when appropriate measures have been taken and approved by the Community Development Director.

As previously discussed, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(f), “An effect of a project on the environment shall not be considered peculiar to the project or the parcel for the purposes of this section if uniformly applied development policies or standards have been previously adopted by the city or county with a finding that the development policies or standards will substantially mitigate that environmental effect when applied to future projects, unless substantial new information shows that the policies or standards will not substantially mitigate the environmental effect. […]” In the case of future development of the project site, compliance with the City’s General Plan policies and programs would substantially mitigate potential project impacts to cultural resources.

Based on the above, impacts related to causing a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic or archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 and/or disturbing human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries, were adequately addressed in the General Plan EIR, and the proposed project would not result in any peculiar effects that would require further CEQA review related to such.
112
Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

Page 44 ends

July 2026
VI. ENERGY.

Would the project:

Significant
Impact Peculiar
to the Project or
the Project Site
Significant
Impact due to
New Information
Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
the General
Plan EIR
a. Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
  
b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency?   
Environmental Setting
The main forms of available energy supply are electricity, natural gas, and oil. A description of the 2025 California Green Building Standards Code and the Building Energy Efficiency Standards, as well as the City’s Strategic Energy plan (SEP), with which future development of the project site would be required to comply are provided below.

California Green Building Standards Code
The California Green Building Standards Code, otherwise known as the CALGreen Code (CCR Title 24, Part 11), is a portion of the CBSC. The purpose of the CALGreen Code is to improve public health, safety, and general welfare by enhancing the design and construction of buildings through the use of building concepts having a reduced negative impact or positive environmental impact and encouraging sustainable construction practices. The provisions of the code apply to the planning, design, operation, construction, use, and occupancy of every newly constructed building or structure throughout California. Requirements of the CALGreen Code include, but are not limited to, the following measures:
• Compliance with relevant regulations related to future installation of electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure in residential and non-residential structures; • Indoor water use consumption is reduced through the establishment of maximum fixture water use rates;
• Outdoor landscaping must comply with the California Department of Water Resources’ MWELO, or a local ordinance, whichever is more stringent, to reduce outdoor water use; • Diversion of 65 percent of construction and demolition waste from landfills; • Incentives for installation of electric heat pumps, which use less energy than traditional heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems and water heaters; • Required solar photovoltaic (PV) system and battery storage standards for certain buildings; and
• Mandatory use of low-pollutant emitting interior finish materials such as paints, carpet, vinyl flooring, and particle board.

Building Energy Efficiency Standards
The 2025 Building Energy Efficiency Standards is a portion of the CBSC, which expands upon energy-efficiency measures from the 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, went into effect starting January 1, 2026. The 2025 standards provide for additional efficiency improvements beyond the 2022 standards. Future development of the project site would be subject to all relevant provisions of the most recent update of the CBSC, including the Building Energy Efficiency Standards. Adherence to the most recent CALGreen Code and Building Energy Efficiency Standards would ensure that the proposed structures would consume energy efficiently. 113
Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

Page 45 ends

July 2026
Strategic Energy Plan
The City of Oakley adopted a SEP in 2015 to meet State mandates for required energy use and GHG emission reductions.20 The SEP included six energy planning goals and priorities, including, but not limited to, improving energy performance to exceed Title 24 requirements for new construction and major renovations of the City facilities; exploring opportunities for energy efficiency, demand reduction, and/or clean self-generation measures; and exploring existing economic and fiscal criteria commonly used for the evaluation and implementation of energy use reduction and energy generation strategies.

Climate Action Plan
The City of Oakley Climate Action Plan (CAP) 2025 was adopted by the City on June 10, 2025, as a part of the City’s efforts to meet the goals outlined in the 2015 SEP.21 The Buildings and Energy chapter of the CAP provides targets and actions that address energy demand and natural gas use. The CAP aims to reduce building energy demand, as well as promote the use of renewable energy.

General Plan Policies
Listed below are policies from the City of Oakley General Plan Update related to energy that are relevant to the proposed project:

Policy 2.9.7. Encourage projects to incorporate sustainable design and energy-efficient concepts, including but not limited to natural heating and/or cooling, sun and wind exposure and orientation, and other solar energy opportunities.

Policy 6.2.4. Implement the Strategic Energy Plan to reduce GHG emissions, including identifying ways to reduce energy use for existing City facilities, improving energy performance for new construction and major renovations, developing fiscal and economic criteria for implementation of energy reduction plans, reducing greenhouse gas emissions through adopting a Climate Action Plan, and engaging the community to increase awareness and reduce energy use.

Policy 6.2.9. Participate, when appropriate, in local and regional efforts to identify costeffective programs and approaches that may assist the Oakley community in reducing and offsetting greenhouse gas emissions through energyefficiency, alternative fuels, carbon sequestration, and other mitigation approaches. Such programs may include East Bay Energy Watch Strategic Energy Planning, Bay Area Regional Energy Network (BayREN) and Energy Upgrade California.
20 City of Oakley. Strategic Energy Plan. Fall 2015. 21 City of Oakley. Climate Action Plan 2025. Adopted June 10, 2025. 114
Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

Page 46 ends

July 2026
Discussion
a,b. Because Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines did not previously include a specific section on energy, the General Plan EIR did not include a specific analysis of the potential energyrelated impacts associated with implementation of the General Plan; however, as efficient use of energy was included in Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines, the issue was still considered in the evaluation of General Plan implementation. Specifically, increased energy demand associated with the project was evaluated within Chapter 3.11, Utilities and Service Systems of the General Plan EIR. As noted therein, the General Plan EIR concluded that with implementation of applicable policies and programs, impacts related to new development exceeding energy use capabilities would be mitigated to a less-thansignificant level. In addition, the Focused General Plan Update IS/ND noted that the Focused General Plan 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 wasteful, inefficient use of energy or obstruct applicable State or City plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Furthermore, the Focused General Plan Update does not remove environmental protections or mitigation related to energy and does not identify any changes to programs or policies that would adversely affect energy. As such, the IS/ND concluded that impacts related to energy would be less than significant. Discussions regarding the future development of the project site’s potential effects related to energy demand during future construction and operations are provided below.

Construction Energy Use
Construction associated with future development of the project site would involve on-site energy demand and consumption related to use of oil in the form of gasoline and diesel fuel for construction worker vehicle trips, hauling and materials delivery truck trips, and operation of off-road construction equipment. In addition, diesel-fueled portable generators may be necessary to provide additional electricity demands for temporary onsite lighting, welding, and for supplying energy to areas of the site where energy supply cannot be met via a hookup to the existing electricity grid. Future project construction would not involve the use of natural gas appliances or equipment.

Even during the most intense period of construction, due to the different types of construction activities (e.g., site preparation, grading, building construction), only portions of the project site would be disturbed at a time, with operation of construction equipment occurring at different locations on the project site, rather than a single location. In addition, all construction equipment and operation thereof would be regulated pursuant to the CARB In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation, which is intended to reduce emissions from in-use, off-road, heavy-duty diesel vehicles in California by imposing limits on idling, requiring all vehicles to be reported to CARB, restricting the addition of older vehicles into fleets, and requiring fleets to reduce emissions by retiring, replacing, or repowering older engines, or installing exhaust retrofits. The In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation would subsequently help to improve fuel efficiency and reduce GHG emissions.

Technological innovations and more stringent standards are being researched, such as multi-function equipment, hybrid equipment, or other design changes, which could help to reduce demand on oil and emissions associated with construction.

Based on the above, the temporary increase in energy use during future construction of the proposed project would not result in a significant increase in peak or base demands or require additional capacity from local or regional energy supplies. Future development 115
Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

Page 47 ends

July 2026
of the project site would be required to comply with all applicable regulations related to energy conservation and fuel efficiency, which would help to reduce the temporary increase in demand.

Operational Energy Use
Energy use associated with operation of the future on-site residences would be typical of residential uses, requiring electricity for interior and exterior building lighting, HVAC, electronic equipment, machinery, refrigeration, appliances, security systems, and more.

Maintenance activities during operations, such as landscape maintenance, would involve the use of electric or gas-powered equipment. In addition to on-site energy use, operation of the future on-site residences would result in transportation energy use associated with vehicle trips generated by future residents.

All future residences on-site would be subject to all relevant provisions of the most recent CBSC, including the CALGreen Code and the Building Energy Efficiency Standards.

Adherence to the most recent CALGreen Code, and the Building Energy Efficiency Standards would ensure that future residences consume energy efficiently through the incorporation of such features as efficient water heating systems, high-performance attics and walls, and high-efficacy lighting. The CALGreen Code requires that new residential buildings use a combination of energy efficiency and distributed renewable energy generation to meet all annual energy needs. Required compliance with the standards and regulations noted above would ensure that the building energy use associated with future development of the project site would not be wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary.

Additionally, future development of the project site would be consistent with the goals of the SEP and CAP, as future development would comply with the latest CBSC standards regarding energy conservation, renewable energy resources, and green building standards.

In regards to transportation energy use, future development of the project site would comply with all applicable regulations associated with vehicle efficiency and fuel economy.

Further discussion of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) associated with future development of the project site is provided in Section XVII, Transportation, of this Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist.

Based on the above, compliance with the State’s latest Energy Efficiency Standards would ensure that future development of the project site would implement all necessary energy efficiency regulations, and compliance with local regulations which prohibit the use of natural gas would contribute to the efficient use of energy resources.

Conclusion
Based on the above, future development of the project site would involve energy use associated with construction activities and operations; however, given that future development of the project site would be consistent with the site’s General Plan land use designation, future buildout of the project site and associated energy demands have been anticipated by the City and analyzed in the General Plan EIR. In addition, future development of the project site would be required to comply with applicable General Plan policies, as well as other State energy standards, which would ensure that future construction and operation of the proposed project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources or conflict with or obstruct a State or 116
Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

Page 48 ends

July 2026
local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Based on the above, impacts related to energy use were adequately addressed in the General Plan EIR, and future development of the project site would not result in any effects that would require further CEQA review for this topic.
117
Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

Page 49 ends

July 2026
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS.

Would the project:

Significant
Impact Peculiar
to the Project or
the Project Site
Significant
Impact due to
New Information
Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
the General
Plan EIR
a. Directly or indirectly cause 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 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?   
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?    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?
  
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18- 1B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating
substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?   
e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
  
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?   
Environmental Setting
According to the General Plan EIR, the City of Oakley, like most of California, is vulnerable to seismic activity due to the presence of several active earthquake faults in the region. According to the United States Geological Survey (USGS), faults that have moved in Holocene time (the last 11,500 years) are considered the most active and dangerous faults. One potentially active fault, the Brentwood Fault, is known to be located within the Planning Area. Other active faults located in the regional vicinity of Oakley include the Davis and Antioch faults. The California Geological Survey (CGS) does not include Oakley on its list of cities that are affected by Alquist-Priolo Fault Zones.22 In addition, development within the City is required to comply with the CBSC. The CBSC provides minimum standards to ensure that the proposed structure would be designed using sound engineering practices and appropriate engineering standards for the seismic area in which the project site is located. Projects designed in accordance with the CBSC should be able to: 1) resist minor earthquakes without damage; 2) resist moderate earthquakes without structural damage, but with some non-structural damage; and 3) resist major earthquakes without collapse, but with some structural, as well as non-structural, damage. Although conformance with the CBSC does not guarantee that substantial structural damage would not occur in the event of a maximum magnitude earthquake, conformance with the CBSC can reasonably be assumed to ensure that the proposed structure would be survivable, allowing occupants to safely evacuate in the event of a major earthquake.
22 California Geologic Survey. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation. Available at:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/eqzapp/. Accessed April 2026. 118
Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

Page 50 ends

July 2026
According to the City’s General Plan EIR, the City of Oakley contains lowland soil association soils, with some tidal flat-delta-marsh lowlands soils in the northeast corner of the City. The Sellers Avenue area consists entirely of lowland soil association soils, which are slowly to very slowly permeable, highly expansive, and corrosive with slight erosion hazards. The majority of the City is composed of Class II Delhi sand, which are excessively drained soils in which runoff is slow or very slow. The project site is currently a vacant lot with relatively flat topography. Pursuant to the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey, the project site is almost completely composed of Brentwood clay loam, with a small section of the northern portion of the project site composed of Delhi sand.23
General Plan Policies
Listed below are policies from the City of Oakley General Plan Update related to geology and soils that are relevant to the proposed project:

Policy 8.1.1 Recognize that a severe earthquake hazard exists in the region and address earthquake-related hazards through the City’s development review and other programs.

Policy 8.1.2. Require new development projects, planning projects, and infrastructure projects to assess geologic and seismic hazards, including groundshaking, liquefaction, landslides, erosion, expansive soils, and subsidence, and, when appropriate, to include measures to reduce risks to life and property. Approval of public and private development projects shall be contingent on geologic and engineering studies which: 1) define and delineate potentially hazardous geologic, seismic, and/or soils conditions, 2) recommend means of mitigating these adverse conditions; and 3) provide implementation of the mitigation measures.

Policy 8.1.3. Enforce State seismic design guidelines and all relevant building codes to reduce the risk of damage associated with seismic activity.

Policy 8.1.5. Require an erosion and sediment control plan prepared by a civil engineer, or other qualified professional, as part of any grading permit application for new development. The erosion and sediment control plan shall delineate measures to appropriately and effectively minimize soil erosion and sedimentation.

Policy 8.1.6. Require new construction to mitigate the potential for geologic and seismic subsidence, through the development review process. Require structures intended for human occupancy to be adequately setback from active and potentially active faults in compliance with all applicable regulations, including the Alquist/Priolo Act.

Discussion
ai-aii. According to the City’s General Plan EIR, the City of Oakley is subject to seismic risk because the City is within the San Francisco Bay Area, an area of high seismicity.24 However, the General Plan EIR concluded that compliance with applicable General Plan policies and the CBSC would ensure impacts related to fault rupture hazards and seismic 23 Natural Resource Conservation Service. Web Soil Survey. Available at: https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/.

Accessed April 2026. 24 City of Oakley. City of Oakley 2020 General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report [pg. 3-161]. September 2002. 119
Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

Page 51 ends

July 2026
ground shaking would be less than significant. Given that future development of the project site would be consistent with the site’s General Plan land use designation, potential fault rupture and seismic ground shaking hazards associated with future buildout of the project site have been anticipated by the City and analyzed in the General Plan EIR. According to the CGS Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation, the project site does not contain any active or potentially active faults, nor is the site located within a State-designated Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone.25 Furthermore, future development of the project site would be constructed in accordance with the seismic design parameters established by the most recent requirements of the CBSC. Therefore, impacts related to seismic rupture of a known earthquake fault or strong seismic ground shaking were adequately addressed in the General Plan EIR, and the proposed project would not result in any effects that would require further CEQA review for this topic.
aiii, The potential effects related to liquefaction, landslides, lateral spreading, and subsidence/settlement are discussed in detail below.

Liquefaction and Subsidence/Settlement
Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which granular material is transformed from a solid state to a liquefied state as a consequence of increased pore-water pressure and reduced effective stress. Increased pore-water pressure is induced by the tendency of granular materials to densify when subjected to cyclic shear stresses associated with earthquakes.

According to the General Plan EIR, the City’s Planning Area is mostly in an area of generally high liquefaction potential, with a small portion in an area of generally moderate to low liquefaction potential. The General Plan EIR concluded that compliance with all applicable policies and programs would mitigate impacts related to liquefaction or seismic ground failure to a less-than-significant level.

Subsidence is the settlement of soils of very low density generally from either oxidation of organic material, or desiccation and shrinkage, or both, following drainage. Subsidence takes place gradually, usually over a period of several years and is a common consequence of liquefaction. The General Plan EIR concluded that impacts related to subsidence/settlement would be reduced with compliance with the CBSC and the General Plan, and impacts would be less than significant.

According to the CGS Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation, the project site is located in a liquefaction zone.26 In addition, according to the MTC/ABAG Hazard Viewer Map, project site is located within a “Moderate” Earthquake Liquefaction Susceptibility zone.
27 Thus, the project site could be susceptible to liquefaction and subsidence/settlement.

Oakley Municipal Code Section 6.9.328 requires that as part of obtaining a Grading Permit, an application must be accompanied, among other documents, with three copies of a geotechnical or engineering geology report to excavate and grade the project site.

The Improvement Plans for future development of the project site would be required to be signed by a State-certified civil engineer who prepared the geotechnical report and reviewed to ensure that the plans conform to all recommendations contained in the report. 25 California Geologic Survey. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation. Available at:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/eqzapp/. Accessed April 2026. 26 Ibid. 27 Association of Bay Area Governments. Hazard Viewer. Available at: https://abag.ca.gov/our-work/resilience/dataresearch/hazard-viewer/. Accessed June 2026. aiv, c.
120
Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

Page 52 ends

July 2026
Furthermore, Oakley Municipal Code Section 6.9.702 provides that upon completion of rough grading work, but before the issuance of building permits, the City Engineer may require that a soil engineering report be prepared certifying the adequacy of the site for the intended use, as affected by soil engineering reports. Compliance with the requirements set forth in Oakley Municipal Code Sections 6.9.328 and 6.9.702 would ensure that all potentially hazardous on-site subsurface soil conditions are identified and addressed in conformance with industry standard recommendations, including potential conditions related to liquefaction and subsidence/settlement.

In addition, the Community Health & Safety Element of the General Plan acknowledges the hazards associated with seismically induced liquefaction in the planning area and includes policies, such as Policy 8.1.2, which would require new development projects to assess geologic and seismic hazards to ensure potential hazards related to liquefaction and subsidence/settlement would be reduced. Furthermore, the CBSC provides standards to protect property and public safety by regulating the design and construction of excavations, foundations, building frames, retaining walls, and other building elements, which would further reduce the potential for seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction. Compliance with the aforementioned uniformly applicable development regulations and the requirements set forth in Oakley Municipal Code Sections 6.9.328 and

6.9.702 would ensure that future development of the project site would not be subject to liquefaction o subsidence/settlement risks.

Landslides
Seismically-induced landslides are triggered by earthquake ground shaking. The risk of landslide hazard is greatest in areas with steep, unstable slopes. Given the City is located on flat land without hillsides or ridges, the General Plan EIR determined that landslides are not anticipated to occur within the City. The project site is currently a vacant lot with relatively flat topography. As such, the project site does not contain steep, unstable slopes that would increase the risk of on-site landslide hazards. In addition, according to the CGS Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation, the project site is not located in a landslide zone. Therefore, future development of the project site would not be subject to landslide risks.

Lateral Spreading
Lateral spreading is horizontal/lateral ground movement of relatively flat-lying soil deposits towards a free face such as an excavation, channel, or open body of water; typically, lateral spreading is associated with liquefaction of one or more subsurface layers near the bottom of the exposed slope. According to the General Plan EIR, impacts related to lateral spreading would be reduced to a less than significant level with compliance with the CBSC and General Plan. Given that the project site does not contain, and is not adjacent to, any free faces including excavations, channels, or open body of water, lateral spreading would not present a likely hazard at the site.

Conclusion
Based on the above, future development of the project site could be subject to risks related to liquefaction and subsidence/settlement. However, the General Plan EIR and the CBSC provide standards to protect property and public safety by regulating the design and construction of excavations, foundations, building frames, and other building elements.

Compliance with standard construction regulations included in the CBSC would ensure that future development of the project site would not directly or indirectly cause potential 121
Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

Page 53 ends

July 2026
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving liquefaction or subsidence/settlement. Furthermore, final building design and construction at the project site would be completed in conformance with the recommendations of the designlevel geotechnical investigation required pursuant to General Plan Policy 8.1.2. The City Oakley Planning Department would review all improvement plans to ensure that all recommendations from the Geotechnical Exploration are incorporated. Therefore, impacts related to substantial risks related to liquefaction, landslides, lateral spreading, and subsidence/settlement were adequately addressed in the General Plan EIR, and the proposed project would not result in any peculiar effects that would require further CEQA review for this topic.
b. Issues related to erosion are discussed in Section X, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist. As noted therein, future development of the project site would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in any effects that would require further CEQA review for this topic, and the impact was adequately addressed in the General Plan EIR. d. Expansive soils increase in volume when they absorb water and have the potential to crack or otherwise compromise the integrity of building foundations. According to the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the majority of the project site is composed of Brentwood clay loam with two to nine percent slopes, which has a shrink-swell potential and is considered very limited. 28 A high shrink-swell potential indicates the presence of expansive soils, and the very limited rating indicates that the soil is unfavorable for development with structures.

However, General Plan Policy 8.1.2 would require a site-specific design-level geotechnical investigation to be prepared and submitted to the City for approval. As development on the project site is not proposed at this time, a site-specific design-level geotechnical investigation would be required for the future development of the project site. The General Plan EIR determined that compliance with General Plan policies and programs, as well as design criteria and specifications set forth in the design level geotechnical investigations, would ensure impacts from expansive soils are less than significant.

In addition, future development of the project site would be required to comply with all applicable CBSC standards to ensure the structural integrity of the future proposed structures. Given required compliance with the CBSC, future development of the project site would not be subject to substantial risks related to expansive soils. The City of Oakley Planning Commission would review all future improvement plans to ensure that all recommendations from the site-specific design-level geotechnical investigation are incorporated.

Based on the above, impacts related to substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property related to being located on expansive soil were adequately addressed in the General Plan EIR, and the proposed project would not result in any effects that would require further CEQA review for this topic.
e. As noted in the General Plan EIR, new development will not use septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. All new wastewater generated from General Plan land uses would be collected and transmitted to the City’s wastewater treatment plant for treatment.

Therefore, the General Plan EIR concluded no impact would occur. 28 Natural Resource Conservation Service. Web Soil Survey. Available at: https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/.

Accessed April 2026.
122
Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

Page 54 ends

July 2026
Future development of the project site would connect to existing City sewer services.

Thus, the construction or operation of septic tanks or other alternative wastewater disposal systems is not included as part of the project. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in any effects that would require further CEQA review for this topic and the impact was adequately addressed in the General Plan EIR.
f. Paleontological resources or fossils are the remains of prehistoric plant and animal life.

As noted in the General Plan EIR, few archeological or paleontological finds have been discovered in the City of Oakley. The General Plan states that given the rich history of the City’s Plan Area and region, the City will continue to require site evaluation prior to development of undeveloped areas, as well as required procedures if artifacts are unearthed during construction. Future development of the project site would be consistent with the project site’s General Plan land use designation and, thus, impacts associated with build out of the site have been considered in the General Plan EIR. Furthermore, future development of the project site would be subject to General Plan policies and programs, such as Policy 6.4.1, as presented in Section V, Cultural Resources, of this Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist, which, as noted in the General Plan EIR, would ensure that impacts to paleontological resources are less than significant.

Based on the above, the project site does not contain any peculiar conditions that would result in increased potential for subsurface paleontological resources. Future development of the project site would be required to comply with the aforementioned measures to avoid potential adverse effects to paleontological resources if such resources are discovered during ground-disturbing activities on the site. Therefore, impacts related to resulting in the direct or indirect destruction of a unique paleontological resource were adequately addressed in the General Plan EIR, and the proposed project would not result in any effects that would require further CEQA review for this topic. 123
Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

Page 55 ends

July 2026
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.

Would the project:

Significant
Impact Peculiar
to the Project or
the Project Site
Significant
Impact due to
New Information
Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
the General
Plan EIR
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly
or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
  
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gasses?
  
Environmental Setting
Emissions of GHGs contributing to global climate change are attributable in large part to human activities associated with the industrial/manufacturing, utility, transportation, residential, and agricultural sectors. Therefore, the cumulative global emissions of GHGs contributing to global climate change can be attributed to every nation, region, and city, and virtually every individual on Earth. An individual project’s GHG emissions are at a micro-scale level relative to global emissions and effects to global climate change; however, an individual project could result in a cumulatively considerable incremental contribution to a significant cumulative macro-scale impact. As such, impacts related to emissions of GHG are inherently considered cumulative impacts.

Implementation of the future development facilitated by the proposed project would cumulatively contribute to increases of GHG emissions. Estimated GHG emissions attributable to future development would be primarily associated with increases of carbon dioxide (CO2) and, to a lesser extent, other GHG pollutants, such as methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) associated with area sources, mobile sources or vehicles, utilities (electricity and natural gas), water usage, wastewater generation, and the generation of solid waste. The primary source of GHG emissions for the project would be mobile source emissions. The common unit of measurement for GHG is expressed in terms of annual metric tons of CO2 equivalents (MTCO2e/yr).

The proposed project is located within the jurisdictional boundaries of BAAD. The most recent BAAD Air Quality Guidelines were released in April 2023. 29 The updated GHG thresholds address
more recent climate change legislation, including Senate Bill (SB) 32, and provide qualitative thresholds related to Buildings and Transportation.

General Plan Policies
Listed below are policies from the City of Oakley General Plan Update related to GHG emissions that are applicable to the future development facilitated by the proposed project:

Policy 6.2.1 Support the principles of reducing air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions through comprehensive and sustainable land use, transportation, and energy planning and addressing opportunities to decrease emissions associated with local government operations.

Policy 6.2.2 Coordinate with the BAAD, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), and the California Air Resources Board (State Air Board), and other agencies to develop and implement regional and county plans, programs, and mitigation measures that address cross-jurisdictional and regional air quality impacts, including land use, transportation, and climate 29 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2022 California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. April 2023. 124
Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

Page 56 ends

July 2026
change impacts, and incorporate the relevant provisions of those plans into City planning and project review procedures. Also cooperate with BAAD, ABAG, and State Air Resources Board in:
a) Enforcing the provisions of the California and Federal Clean Air Acts, state and regional policies, and established standards for air quality.
b) Identifying baseline air pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions, including within the City and Sphere of Influence and in the vicinity of intensive industrial and energy producing uses, to the extent data is available.
c) Requiring energy-efficiency measures in City operations and facilities and use of low carbon or clean fuels for City vehicle fleets, when feasible.
d) Locating an air quality monitoring station in Oakley.

Policy 6.2.4 Implement the Strategic Energy Plan to reduce GHG emissions, including identifying ways to reduce energy use for existing City facilities, improving energy performance for new construction and major renovations, developing fiscal and economic criteria for implementation of energy reduction plans, reducing greenhouse gas emissions through adopting a Climate Action Plan, and engaging the community to increase awareness and reduce energy use.

Policy 6.2.5 Promote a sustainable economy that encourages businesses to operate in an environmentally sound and community-friendly manner and that attracts and retains business sectors that support clean and sustainable technologies, including fuels, vehicles, equipment, goods, and services.

Policy 6.2.6 Encourage transportation modes that minimize contaminant and greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicle use.

Policy 6.2.7 Ensure location and design of development, infrastructure, and long-range planning projects to support State and local air quality and climate goals so as to conserve air quality and minimize direct and indirect emissions of air contaminants and greenhouse gases.

Policy 6.2.8 Encourage and support for infill, mixed use, and higher density development, where appropriate, in order to reduce GHG emissions associated with vehicle travel.

Policy 6.2.9 Participate, when appropriate, in local and regional efforts to identify costeffective programs and approaches that may assist the Oakley community in reducing and offsetting greenhouse gas emissions through energyefficiency, alternative fuels, carbon sequestration, and other mitigation approaches. Such programs may include East Bay Energy Watch Strategic Energy Planning, Bay Area Regional Energy Network (BayREN) and Energy Upgrade California.
125
Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

Page 57 ends

July 2026
Discussion
a,b. An evaluation of GHG emissions was not required pursuant to CEQA at the time of preparation of the General Plan EIR, and, as a result, impacts related to GHG emissions were not addressed in the General Plan EIR. However, as discussed previously, the Focused General Plan Update amended the General Plan to ensure compliance with State requirements related to environmental justice, mobility, and climate change and adaption, and included new and revised policies, as presented above, to address and reduce energy and GHG emissions. The Focused General Plan Update IS/ND concluded that buildout of the General Plan would lead to less-than-significant impacts related to GHG emissions. Additionally, the IS found that implementation of the Focused General Plan Update and compliance with the policies, listed above, would strengthen the City’s approach to addressing climate change and GHG emissions.

Construction GHG emissions are a one-time release and are, therefore, not typically expected to generate a significant contribution to global climate change. Neither the City nor BAAD has an adopted threshold of significance for construction-related GHG emissions. Accordingly, construction GHG emissions are presented for disclosure and informational purposes only. Based on the modeling conducted for this analysis, as discussed in Section III, Air Quality, of this Modified Initial Study, future development of the project site is anticipated to result in 333.31 MTCO2e/yr during construction activities.

In addition, the unmitigated operational GHG emissions are presented in Table 5.

Table 5
Unmitigated Operational GHG Emissions
Source GHG Emissions (MTCO2e/yr)
Area 0.19
Energy 0.000005
Mobile 58.72
Waste 1.05
Water 0.75
Refrigerants 0.01
Total Operational GHG Emissions 60.71
Source: CalEEMod, May, 2026 (see Appendix A).

However, as noted previously, the BAAD’s applicable threshold of significance for GHG emissions are qualitative, and the foregoing information is provided for disclosure purposes only. Potential impacts related to GHG emissions resulting from future development of the project site are considered in comparison with BAAD’s adopted thresholds of significance below.

BAAD Thresholds of Significance
As discussed above, in April 2023, the BAAD released updated Air Quality Guidelines. The updated GHG thresholds address more recent climate change legislation, including SB 32, and provide qualitative thresholds related to Buildings and Transportation. According to the new thresholds of significance, a project must either include specific project design elements (e.g., exclude use of natural gas, achieve a specific reduction in project-generated VMT below the regional average) or be consistent with a local GHG reduction strategy that meets the criteria under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b).30 30 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. CEQA Thresholds for Evaluating the Significance of Climate Impacts From Land Use Projects and Plans. April 2022.
126
Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

Page 58 ends

July 2026
On June 10, 2025, the City of Oakley adopted the City of Oakley CAP; however, the City of Oakley CAP is not a qualified GHG reduction strategy under CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b). Therefore, the following analysis focuses on the new BAAD GHG thresholds related to specific project design elements. According to the BAAD’s thresholds of significance, in order to find a less-than-significant GHG impact, projects must include, at a minimum, the following project design elements:
• The project will not include natural gas appliances or natural gas plumbing (in both residential and nonresidential development);
• The project will not result in any wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy usage as determined by the analysis required under CEQA Section 21100(b)(3) and Section 15126.2(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines;
• The project will achieve a reduction in project-generated VMT below the regional average consistent with the current version of the California Climate Change Scoping Plan (currently 15 percent) or meet a locally adopted SB 743 VMT target, reflecting the recommendations provided in the Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation (LCI) (formerly known as the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research [OPR]) Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA; and
• The project will achieve compliance with off-street electric vehicle requirements in the most recently adopted version of CALGreen Tier 2.

In order to be consistent with the first criterion, the future development of the project site would be required to include all electric appliances and plumbing. As discussed in Section VI, Energy, of this document, the future development facilitated by the proposed project would not use natural gas during construction or operations. Thus, the proposed project would be consistent with the first criterion.

Regarding the second criterion, as discussed in Section VI, Energy, of this Modified Initial Study, future development of the project site would comply with all applicable federal, State, and local regulations regarding energy use during both project construction and project operations. Required compliance with applicable standards and regulations ensure that the building energy use associated with future development facilitated by the proposed project would not be wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the second criterion.

With respect to the third criterion, as discussed in Section XVII, Transportation, of this Modified Initial Study, according to LCI guidance, projects that generate or attract fewer than 110 trips per day generally may be assumed to cause a less-than-significant impact related to VMT. According to the CalEEMod modeling prepared for the proposed project, future development facilitated by the proposed project would result in a maximum of 48 trips per day. Therefore, the proposed project would meet the LCI screening criteria for VMT and would be consistent with the third criterion.

With regard to the fourth criterion, the future development of the project site would be required to achieve compliance with most recently adopted CALGreen Tier 2 off-street EV requirements in place at the time of development. For example, the 2025 CALGreen Code requires all single-unit residences, townhomes, and duplexes be EV capable (i.e., each dwelling unit must have a listed raceway to accommodate a dedicated 208/240-volt branch circuit), and the Tier 2 standards included in Appendix A4 of the 2025 CALGreen Code 127
Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

Page 59 ends

July 2026
require all single-unit residences, townhomes, and duplexes be EV ready (i.e., a dedicated 208/240-volt branch circuit shall be installed in the raceway required by Chapter 4 of the 2025 CALGreen Code). All future on-site residences would be constructed to provide an EV ready space within each residential unit’s garage which would be confirmed by the City through a Condition of Approval. Thus, the proposed project would comply with the fourth criterion.

Conclusion
Based on the above, because the future development of the project site would not be considered to conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs, the proposed project would not result in any peculiar effects related to the generation of GHG emissions, and requirements for additional CEQA review are not met. As such, the impact has been adequately addressed in the General Plan EIR, and further analysis of issues related to GHG emissions is not required in this Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist.
128
Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

Page 60 ends

July 2026
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS.

Would the project:

Significant
Impact Peculiar
to the Project or
the Project Site
Significant
Impact due to
New Information
Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
the General
Plan EIR
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
  
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment?
  
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
  
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?
  
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?
  
f. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
  
g. Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to the risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
  
Environmental Setting
According to the General Plan, hazardous materials within the City of Oakley can include petroleum, natural gas, crude oil, and other toxic chemicals. Hazardous materials and hazardous wastes are regulated by federal, State, and local agencies including the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) and the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC).

Approximately 100 sites in the City are known to contain inactive oil and gas wells. In addition, the City contains one contaminated site, as well as the former DuPont Chemical Plant (see Figure 8-5 of the Focused General Plan Update).

General Plan Policies
Listed below are actions and policies from the City of Oakley General Plan Update related to hazards and hazardous materials that are relevant to the proposed project:

Policy 4.7.10. The handling and storage of hazardous materials shall be identified and monitored by the local fire agencies.

Policy 8.3.2. Strictly regulate the production, use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials to protect the health and safety of Oakley residents.

Policy 8.3.3. As part of the development review process, consider the potential for the production, use, storage, transport, and/or disposal of hazardous materials and provide for appropriate controls on such hazardous materials consistent with federal, state, and local standards.
129
Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

Page 61 ends

July 2026
Policy 8.3.4. Use the environmental review process to comment on Hazardous Waste Transportation, Storage and Disposal Facilities proposed in the Planning Area and throughout the County to request a risk assessment and ensure that potentially significant, widespread, and long-term impacts on public health and safety of these facilities are identified and mitigated, as such impacts do not respect jurisdictional boundaries.

Policy 8.3.6. Coordinate with the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District to ensure that businesses in Oakley that handle hazardous materials prepare and file a Hazardous Materials Management Plan (HMMP), and Hazardous Materials Inventory Statement (HMIS). The HMMP and HMIS shall consist of general business information, basic information on the location, type, quantity, and health risks of hazardous materials, and emergency response and training plans.

Policy 8.3.7. Require compliance with the Contra Costa County Hazardous Waste Management Program.

Discussion
a. As noted in the General Plan EIR, if household waste generation rates remain constant, the amount of household hazardous waste would be expected to increase under General Plan buildout as the result of increased housing units and population. The increased amount of hazardous waste suggests an increased potential risk for exposure.

Nonetheless, the General Plan EIR concluded that compliance with applicable General Plan policies, as well as local, State, and federal regulations related to hazardous waste, would ensure impacts would be less than significant.

Future operations on the project site would likely include use of common household cleaning products, fertilizers, and herbicides, any of which could contain potentially hazardous chemicals; however, such products would be expected to be used in accordance with label instructions. Due to the regulations governing use of such products and the amount used on the site, occasional use of such products would not represent a substantial risk to public health or the environment during future project operation.

Therefore, impacts related to creating a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials were adequately addressed in the General Plan EIR, and future development of the project site would not result in any effects that would require further CEQA review for this topic. b. According to the General Plan EIR, heavy industrial uses centered on the northwest portion of the City of Oakley have the potential to present significant risk to public safety due to the hazardous nature of some petroleum and chemical materials. Pipelines for the transportation of natural gas, crude oil, and refined petroleum exist within the City, including residential and commercial areas, as well as several gas and oil wells. However, according to Figure 8-5 of the Focused General Plan Update, active wells do not exist within the City of Oakley. Additionally, the Burlington Northern/Santa Fe (BNSF) Railroad line regularly ships hazardous materials and has the potential to spill cargo upon accidental derailment. However, the General Plan EIR concluded that given compliance with applicable General Plan policies, as well as local, State, and federal regulations related to hazardous waste, impacts would be less than significant. 130
Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

Page 62 ends

July 2026
Construction activities associated with the future development of the project site would involve the use of heavy-duty equipment, which would contain fuels, oils, and hydraulic fluid. In addition, various other products commonly associated with construction such as concrete, paints, and adhesives would be used on-site. Small quantities of potentially toxic substances (e.g., petroleum and other chemicals used to operate and maintain construction equipment) would be used and transported during construction activities at the project site. However, the project contractors would be required to comply with all California Health and Safety Codes and local City ordinances regulating the handling, storage, and transportation of hazardous and toxic materials. Significant risks to the public or workers are not expected with the assumption that such products would be used, transported, and disposed of properly in accordance with the handling instructions on their labels and in accordance with all applicable regulations. Pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 25510(a), except as provided in subdivision (b),31 the handler or an employee, authorized representative, agent, or designee of a handler, shall, upon discovery, immediately report any release or threatened release of a hazardous material to the unified program agency (in the case of the proposed project, the Contra Costa County Health Services Department – Hazardous Material Division [CCC HazMat]) in accordance with the regulations. The handler or an employee, authorized representative, agent, or designee of the handler shall provide all State, City, or County fire or public health or safety personnel and emergency response personnel with access to the handler's facilities. In the case of the proposed project, the contractor is required to notify the CCC HazMat in the event of an accidental release of a hazardous material, who would then monitor the conditions and recommend appropriate remediation measures.

A development project could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment should a site contain potential Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs) that are not properly addressed prior to project implementation. A REC indicates the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances in, on, or at a property due to any release into the environment, under conditions indicative of a release to the environment, or under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment.

A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was prepared to identify the presence of RECs and other hazardous materials associated with the project site (see Appendix C).
32 In order to identify the presence of RECs on the project site, the Phase I ESA conducted a search of local and regulatory agency records; a review of available aerial photographs, topographic maps, Sanborn fire insurance maps, city directory listings, and building department records; conducted interviews; evaluated the site for vapor intrusion risk; and conducted a reconnaissance of the project site. According to the Phase I ESA, the project site is not listed on any environmental databases providing information on hazardous materials and petroleum products. In addition, none of the sites identified within one mile of the project site would have the potential to impact the project site due to the regulatory status and distance to the site. In addition, because sites with groundwater or soil vapor contamination that could impact the project site were not identified, the Phase I ESA determined that a Vapor Encroachment Condition (VEC) on the project site does not exist. During the site reconnaissance conducted on April 27, 2026, solid debris storage, multiple drums, an empty water tote, chemical containers, an above ground storage tank 31 Subdivision (a) does not apply to a person engaged in the transportation of a hazardous material on a highway that is subject to, and in compliance with, the requirements of Sections 2453 and 23112.5 of the Vehicle Code. 32 Dudek. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment – 5321 Sellers Avenue, Oakley, California 94561. May 2026. 131
Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

Page 63 ends

July 2026
(AST) with unidentified contents, a car battery, and a portable generator were identified on-site. In addition, ASTs were observed on the properties adjacent to the project site to the east and west, and multiple drums were observed on the property adjacent to the project site to the south. Wooden transmission line poles were observed along the southern border of the project site, and a well and well pumping house was located in the southeastern portion of the site. However, the site reconnaissance did not observe evidence of spills, leaks of hazardous materials, or stained surface soils on the project site. Thus, the Phase I ESA determined that the potential hazardous materials identified during the site reconnaissance are not considered RECs.

According to the Phase I ESA, the project site is currently used for livestock grazing, and a review of historical records indicated that the project site was used for agricultural purposes from at least 1939 to 1984. While evidence of pesticide storage or mixing, cattle operations or dairies, or other potential sources of elevated concentrations of contaminants of concern typically associated with farming operations was not identified, as with all agricultural properties, pesticides and herbicides were likely used on-site.

Considering the long-term agricultural use and lack of redevelopment of the project site, the potential exists for the site to contain elevated concentrations of pesticide- and herbicide-related compounds in surface soils. Thus, according to the Phase I ESA, the past agricultural use on the project site is considered a REC. However, the City of Oakley General Plan includes Program 8.3.C, which requires that, as part of the development review process, projects address hazardous materials impacts, including but not limited to, storage of and contamination by petroleum and chemical materials; gas, crude oil, and refined pipe leaks; and chemicals associated with agricultural uses.

In order to ensure that impacts related to RECs would not occur, consistent with Program

8.3.C described above, the City of Oakley would require the following standard condition of approval for future development of the project site:

Prior to approval of any grading permits associated with future development of the project site, a Phase II ESA, including a subsurface soil assessment, shall be conducted in accordance with the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Interim Guidance for Sampling Agricultural Properties dated August 7, 2008 to confirm the presence and concentrations of pesticides and associated metals in soil on the project site from historic agricultural activity. All soil samples shall be tested in accordance with the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Test Methods. Results of the Phase II ESA shall be submitted to the City of Oakley Community Development Department. If pesticide and associated metal concentrations higher than the allowable DTSC screening levels (DTSC-SLs) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA’s) Regional Screening Levels (RSL) are detected, the Phase II ESA shall include the appropriate mitigation including, but not limited to, soil remediation to an acceptable total threshold limit concentration (TTLC) level per applicable State and federal regulations. All recommended mitigation measures shall be implemented by the project applicant, subject to review and approval by the City of Oakley Community Development Department.

Based on the above, future development of the project site would not result in any peculiar effects that would require further CEQA review related to creating a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment, and impacts were adequately addressed in the General Plan EIR. 132
Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

Page 64 ends

Oakley City CouncilOctober 13, 2026

Oakley City Council
October 13, 2026