Appendix I: Public Outreach Materials
Table Of Contents
Housing Sites Discussion Summary: Meeting 1 (2/02/2022) ........................................................... 1 Housing Sites Discussion Summary: Meeting 2 (03/10/2022) ...........................................................6 Housing Sites Discussion Summary: Meeting 3 (06/08/2022)1.......................................................11 Oakland Housing Element Workshop 1 Summary (02/15/2022)..................................................17 Oakland Housing Element Workshop 2 Summary (02/17/2022)...................................................61 Oakland Housing Element Workshop 3 Summary (03/12/2022).................................................123 Oakland Housing Element Workshop 4 Summary (06/09/2022).................................................159 EXHIBIT A-10
1 Oakland Housing Element
Housing Sites: Stakeholders Discussion Summary
February 2, 2022 9:00 AM – 10:30 PM
Held via Zoom
Participating Organizations:
• YIMBY Law
• Housing Action Coalition
• Bay Area Rapid Transit
• Nonprofit Housing Association of Northern California
• East Bay Housing Organization
• California Housing Partnership
• MidPen Housing
• Ellis Partners
• LISC Bay Area
• Public Interest Law Project
• Bay Area Community Services
Meeting facilitated by Alison Moore and Rajeev Bhatia of Dyett & Bhatia
POTENTIAL VIABLE SITES
Stakeholders provided examples of sites that may be viable for inclusion in the housing sites inventory, including:
• 40th Street and Martin Luther King Jr. Near the MacArthur BART station. Temporary homeless/navigation center
• Potential along Lakeshore Avenue just south of the I-580 • Closed Oakland Unified School District sites
• Sites owned by faith-based organizations interested in upzoning and development. There are three faith-based organizations actively looking to add housing • Sites in the Rockridge area that can be upzoned (especially near BART) • Sites identified along International Boulevard as part of the Oakland Sustainable Neighborhoods Initiative process
2 • Peralta Village in West Oakland – drastically underutilized; upgrade and add more housing
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT ON SITES
• Stakeholders provided ideas for community engagement on viable sites, and shared work they have done to solicit feedback on potential sites. Ideas included sending a flyer or survey to all property owners in Oakland to solicit development interest and reaching out to other public agencies for surplus land
• One stakeholder works with faith-based organizations through Alameda County and sees this as an avenue for community empowerment, as well as an opportunity to locate development in high resource areas
• Another stakeholder has sent a form to members of their organization to get feedback on specific sites with development potential
SITE SELECTION CONSIDERATIONS
• Locating sites within a quarter mile of transit, including bus lines, was identified as a priority by one stakeholder
• Stakeholders also mentioned identifying sites for lower-income housing in gentrifying or at-risk of gentrifying neighborhoods, as well as determining if lower-income sites will be competitive for State funding or tax credit scoring
• The City should use HCD’s site inventory form (available via ABAG-MTC’s HESS Tool) when publishing drafts of the sites inventory
• The City should maintain a reserve list of sites or capacity buffer to meet State no net loss requirements
• When computing site capacity, the City should emphasize minimum or likely capacity of sites to remain in compliance with those requirements
FAIR HOUSING CONSIDERATIONS
• Stakeholders indicated that site selection should be guided by the City’s mandate to affirmatively further fair housing
• The draft assessment of fair housing prepared for the Housing Element should be made available for public and stakeholder input as soon as possible
GENERAL BARRIERS TO DEVELOPMENT
• Stakeholders discussed why sites identified for the 5th cycle RHNA have not developed with housing. Barriers to approval, neighborhood opposition, and the availability of financing were described
• Affordable developers also get outcompeted by private developers for sites due to lack of funding for site acquisition
3 • One stakeholder suggested the City should consider a set-aside fund for site acquisition that affordable developers can use. This could be a revolving fund • One stakeholder noted that housing development around the Lake Merritt BART Station requires the development of other amenities in order to make housing development feasible
• Stakeholders also noted that traditional sources of funding are largely depleted
CITY CONSTRAINTS ON DEVELOPMENT
• Stakeholders noted that the City needs to increase opportunities for affordable housing.
Some stakeholders noted that City departments often have conflicting priorities or do not agree, especially regarding transportation. It is also difficult to get early feedback on proposals from staff
• While the planning application process was identified as generally smooth, other steps in approval can make it difficult, especially for smaller projects • One stakeholder suggested the City appoint a “housing czar” or process coordinator to facilitate the approval process
• Appeals process is politicized. Things that are settled— e.g., plans in areas that already have EIRs— still get appealed. Stakeholder suggested that EIR appeals should go to a non- elected body instead of the City Council
• Other stakeholders emphasized the need for by-right approvals, permit streamlining, and entitlement reform to reduce costs, increase competitiveness for State funding, and unlock development potential on smaller sites
• City requires payment of most permit fees upfront rather than at issuance of permit or project completion. This can make development infeasible for non-profits or smaller developers – they can’t have $1 million just tied up while the project goes through approval process
Zoning and Development Standards
• Stakeholders remarked that upzoning in various Oakland neighborhoods could increase residential capacity and flexibility, particularly on smaller sites • Single-family neighborhoods in North and East Oakland were identified as areas that could particularly benefit from such actions
• Stakeholders emphasized flexibility in zoning, including allowing increased density and removing ground floor retail requirements
• One stakeholder remarked that BART sites should maintain sufficient parking requirements for commuters
• Stakeholders suggested the use of various zoning overlays to incentivize development, including both a mixed-use overlay and an affordable housing overlay. - Density bonuses for affordable housing were also identified as an important tool
4 OPPORTUNITIES FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT • Stakeholders discussed the ideal density range for affordable development - one stakeholder noted it was between 40 to 50 dwelling units per acre, while another indicated that it was between 60 to 80 dwelling units per acre • While one stakeholder suggested a maximum building height of less than 85 feet on smaller sites to incentive private developers to use density bonuses and add affordable units and work their way to 85 feet, another remarked this approach would result in neighborhood meddling and could potentially trigger additional EIR review, and would not count towards the RHNA • One stakeholder remarked that their organization prefers sites that offer economies of scale, while another indicated that smaller sites my be useful in providing ownership opportunities for moderate-income households • One stakeholder encouraged the City to incentivize “affordability by design” 1 Oakland Housing Element Discussion Group
Meeting #2: Production, Preservation, and
Protections
March 10, 2022 1:30 PM – 3:00 PM
Held via Zoom
Participating Organizations:
• East Bay Housing Organization
• East Bay Permanent Real Estate Cooperative
• Greenbelt Alliance
• Housing Action Coalition
• A Diamond in the Ruff
• California YIMBY
• East Bay for Everyone
• Sustainable Economies Law Center
• Community Housing Development Corporation
• Jobs and Housing Coalition
• East Bay Asian Local Development Corporation
• United Seniors of Oakland and Alameda County
• City of Refuge/United Church of Christ
• Bay Area Housing Advocacy Coalition
Meeting facilitated by Alison Moore and Rajeev Bhatia of Dyett & Bhatia
DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS AND ECONOMIC PRESSURES
• High development costs—particularly labor, land, and construction costs —were noted as significant barriers. One participant noted that some local labor practices, which are in the City’s control, limit competition and drive up costs.
• Participants remarked that new housing does not cause displacement, since displacement is already happening. Displacement pressure emanate from the greater economic landscape, and the availability of new housing becomes a self-reinforcing cycle . They pointed to the Broadway Valdez area as an example of this. • Participants discussed the opportunities of developing on large and small lots. High density development is more feasible on large lots like in the Broadway Valdez area, or on lar ger
b
rownfield sites and industrial land . However, these sites tend to be in or near lower- income neighborhoods. The City should encourage development patterns with smaller lot s
izing or lot consolidation to take development pressures off low -income neighborhoods.
The City should make lot mergers easier and ease building code impacts (especially in neighborhoods like Rockridge and Temescal).
2 • One participant remarked the due to large economic pressures, the City’s existing tools (including tenant protections) cannot match affordability needs – which can only be met by generally increasing housing supply. They also advocated for increased supply in higher- income neighborhoods to reduce the pressure on lower-income neighborhoods. • One participant noted the affordability crisis is not just supply and demand issue, as the presence of vacant units—especially market rate units—demonstrates. They also remarked that the baseline market is friendly to luxury apartments that are treated as investments, and advocated a vacant unit tax and not just a vacant land tax.
STAFF CAPACITY
• The lack of staff capacity is a major cost driver for all housing developments, including affordable and market rate projects.
• Participants noted there is a lack of clarity at the staff level on permit streamlining processes as well as how affordable housing is prioritized. Navigating State streamlining law is a long process, and participants appreciated the City’s standard procedures and hoped the City will continue to refine and expedite the process. Participants noted that moving t oward s
m
inisterial approval would help increase staff capacity. • Participants explained that all housing projects (including market rate and affordable) are c
hallenged by costs and permit timing, and get stuck at every level of the process. On e p
articipant noted they had trouble working with the City to increase density on their affordable supportive housing project.
FUNDING FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING
• Some participants noted that local funding and budget priorities do not reflect Oakland’s commitment to housing, even though the city bears a disproportionate impact of the ho
using crisis in the Bay Area. One participant noted that while the City is a good partner i
n securing State funding, there is a lack o f political appetite to spend local money on affordable housing,
• One participant suggested fees be assessed entirely upfront. One participant also suggested deferring building permit fees for affordable projects to permit issuance. • One affordable housing developer noted that their units skew towards the lower end of the
i
ncome spectrum, but it is difficult to operate without subsidies and a constrained housing voucher supply (which is slow-moving on the federal level).
UNMET HOUSING NEEDS
• Oakland has diverse housing needs, including large family and very - and extremely-low- income housing. Larger units tend to be more expensive and move slowly, as large families will often prefer to “double up” in smaller and cheaper units instead. Participants also noted an unmet need for very - and extremely -low-income housing (below 50 percent area 3 median income) compared to low-income housing (60 percent to 80 percent area median income).
• The City needs to encourage more moderate- income or “missing middle” housing. One participant encouraged the City to focus on policy tools that do not require additional funding, which should be focused on deeply affordable housing. There is a particular need for missing middle housing for elderly and disabled residents, who are unable to downsize d
ue to a lack of supply. Condo conversions further impact the available supply. Additional supply of this housing type could lead to decreased displacement pressures. • Participants generally agreed that the City should encourage more two - to four -unit d
evelopment (i.e., missing middle), and were in support of the City Council’s directive to revisit single-family zoning.
• There is a need for supportive services and transitional housing, which is currently overlooked. Workforce develop ment and other training should be included to ensure people can stay in affordable housing.
• Residential development on church developments runs into major zoning issues – the City should increase flexibility for this type of development. • The City has a history of segregating affordable housing projects, and misses opportunities to provide lower-income housing in high resource neighborhoods (e.g., Oak Knoll). Going forward the City needs to be proactive about not missing these opportunities. • One participant noted that an earlier draft Downton Oakland Specific Plan had affordable housing goals that did not match the reality of Oakland’s Black population’s housing needs.
The City should be realistic when setting goals and policies.
ZONING AND REGULATORY STRATEGIES
• The City gives too many concessions to market rate projects, and the cumulative effect is decreased regulatory incentives and tools to encourage affordable housing. • The City should increase densities without totally changing a neighborhood’s character. • Participants supported City Council’s directive to revisit single- family zoning and allow two- to four-unit developments.
• Several participants advocated for an “affordable housing overlay”, which will help the City be competitive for TCAC, LIHTC, and other funding sources. The City should also develop right sized zoning in high resource areas to also remain competitive. Matching TCA C
s
coring helps developers hit deeper affordability levels while reducing the strain on the City. One participant also proposed a small lot overlay on transit corridors for workforce housing.
• Overlay for small lots so they can be zoning compliant and/or be able to develop additiona l
ho
using was mentioned.
• One participant remarked that the City should be more flexible in its definitions of a household, including co -living situations. The current definition can obscure the actual
4 economic status of a u nit’s residents (e.g., a unit with multiple lower -income families is considered one higher-income “household”).
CREATING AFFORDABILITY STRATEGIES
• The City should encourage the conversion of hotels and motels to long term affordable housing.
• The City needs to move forward with its public lands policy, and include a process for developers to acquire vacant parcels (which was done previously). One participant also suggested increased flexibility in a public lands NOFA, including higher cap and reduced need for City Council votes. This will remove administrative burden and can help expedite a restock of the public lands portfolio.
• The City should encourage affordability by design for different levels of affordability. • Larger market rate and non -profit developers can move through the market easier than smaller ones can due to their increased resources. Participants want to see a way for smaller affordable developers to move through the landscape without adding costs. One participant noted this will be especially important for single- family owners who want to upgrade to two to four unit projects, but will get caught up in the permitting process. The City needs to streamline the process now for when these projects come online.
MAINTAINING AFFORDABILITY STRATEGIES
• One participant noted that restricted affordable housing and non -restricted affordable housing (or “naturally-occurring affordable housing”) call for different programs. • There is a trend of conversion from non-restricted affordable housing to market rate (e.g., condo conversions in northwest and central east Oakland). Rent controlled units are also not permanently affordable and can be demolished. Participants expressed interest in strategies like social housing, TOPA/COPA, communi ty land trusts, and housing co - operatives to reduce conversions and maintain permanent affordability. • One participant urged the City to advocate for the repeal of Costa -Hawkins vacancy decontrol provisions and keep owners from taking advantage of artificia l scarcity to drive up housing costs.
ANTI-DISPLACEMENT AND TENANT PROTECTIONS
• One participant indicated the desire to slow gentrification and displacement. They want the City to help to drive housing costs down so the working poor can afford permanent housing without being forced into dense projects. Reduced housing costs will help decrease displacement pressures and increase housing choice.
• City has good laws compared to other cities (e.g., rent control, just cause, tenant protections, etc.), but effectiveness depends on legal counsel. The City should provide 5 funding to legal assistance and provide a legal right to council (see Measure F in San Francisco).
• The City should better incorporate SB330 protections against demolitions, especially because of the State legislation’s sunset provision. Participants noted there is generally a lack of developer awareness about replacement provisions and indicated a need for education in the development community. Participants also suggested the City adopt a stronger d emolition ordinance and add replacement provisions to the permit approval checklist. Participants also encouraged Planning and Building to coordinate with Oakland HCD about replacement units and right to return on development projects. 1 Oakland Housing Element Discussion Group
Meeting #3: Draft Review
Wednesday, June 8 10:00 – 11:30am
Held via Zoom
Participating Organizations:
• Oakland Housing and Community Development (HCD)
• Parent Voices Oakland
• East Oakland Collective
• Alameda County Public Health Department, Health Equity Policy, and Planning • Homeless Action Center (HAC)
• California YIMBY (Yes In My Backyard)
• Ellis Partners
• YIMBY (Yes In My Backyard) Law
• West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project (WOEIP) • Oakland Starting Smart and Strong
• UC Berkeley Goldman School
• East Bay YIMBY (Yes In My Backyard)
• SPUR San Francisco Planning and Urban Research)
• Transport Oakland
• California Renters and Legal Advocacy Fund (CaRLA)
• Eden Housing
• Housing Action Coalition
• East Bay Housing Organizations
• Emerald New Deal
• A Diamond in the Ruff Incorporated
Meeting facilitated by Alison Moore and Rajeev Bhatia of Dyett & Bhatia 2 DISCUSSION SUMMARY
Many participants were generally supportive of the Housing Action Plan, but key issues emerged around zoning and affordability, accountability and compliance, environmental justice and air quality, distribution of housing sites by area and income level , resource allocation, and public availability of housing element information.
Affordability was top of mind: One childcare focused participant requested low and very low- income housing include housing geared towards retaining specific groups such as early childhood educators and childcare givers. After housing childcare is the biggest expense for families, so childcare and housing should be considered in tandem, and it was suggested that co-locating childcare facilities with new development could lessen this burden. Several participants echoed a desire to see the affordable housing overlay expanded from 4 to 6 units, which would allow state density bonus to come into effect, and that a baseline affordability standard be implemented for all new development.
Several participants mentioned a need for stronger compliance measures to hold developers accountable. Participants mentioned that fees are often too low to provide meaningful incentives for developers to follow through with affordable housing agreements and remarked that developers have consistently violated current zoning rules and not being held to their proposals once approved. Participants suggested fees be raised to encourage developers to take affordability requirements more seriously.
Another key theme emerged around environmental justice and housing quality. A participant from the UC Berkeley Goldman school encouraged planners to consider collaboration with County inspection offices to regulate indoor air quality for Oakland households, particularly those with children and those in low-income areas. Many participants echoed the need for greater consideration of air quality issues when determining affordable housing sites and urged planners to consider locating affordable housing away from freeways. One participant urged the city to include existing housing near freeways, Oakland Ports and other heavy duty trucking concentrations under its definition of contaminated sites and help building owners retrofit air filtration to reduce exposure of residents to transport related emissions Participants desired more clarity and summary analysis of the table to demonstrate the relationship more clearly between the geographic distribution of affordable housing and resources available in proposed neighborhoods. Participant commented that affordable housing is often located in the lowest-resource neighborhood, suggesting that planners consider upzoning all transit corridors, with additional emphasis on Rockridge BART. Another participant raised the concern that the AFFH analysis be made a part of the site selection and action plan, and not just analysis.
Some logistical concerns were also raised regarding the public availability of items such as up zoning & overlay maps, which ideally would be provided in advance, indicate areas that are being considered for rezoning, and coded according to income and racial discrimination considerations. Additionally, participants requested tools to allow the public to monitor impact fees collection and use, as well as an executive summary and clear table containing new policies.
Many participants commented on the need for better prioritization to ensure most needed HE action items were addressed in a timely manner, reiterating the need to translate analysis into action.
3 DETAILED DISCUSSION NOTES:
Affordable Housing Overlay
• Participant remarked that “Oakland's RHNA increase is actually a lower percentage than the region as a whole.”
• Childcare-focused participant suggested that low and very low-income housing include housing that is geared towards retaining specific groups such as early childhood educators and childcare giver, also co-locating childcare facilities with new develop.
Additionally, participant urged planners to consider providing childcare support for unhoused people.
C
hildren and their families should be key stakehol ders in HE; after housing childcare is the biggest expense for families, so childcare and housing should be thought of in conjunction.
• Several participants urged that planners please consider ALL of AC Transit’s Rapid corridors, not just the BRT line, when considering up zoning opportunities. • A participant commented that the City of Oakland has been too accommodating t o
d
evelopers and has been building too much above-moderate housing. Low-income housing is determined based on property values of the surrounding neighborhood, and there
needs to be a clear standard how affordable housing is determined. • O
ne participant remarked, “from attending some housing projects, I would say homeowners do block housing projects that have between 15-40% BMR (below-market- rate) housing w/MR (market-rate). It's hard to get that diversification, and thus we get m
ostly >95% BMR or MR buildings we see today.”
• Participants supported development in Rockridge, given that it’s the only BART station in Oakland that doesn’t have TOD, it’s the whitest census tract in Oakland. Suggested flatiron site that Oakland hasn’t wanted to rezone is a worthwhile site to up zone fo r
a
ffordable housing despite its small size.
Other participants echoed support for up zoning the flatiron parcel and up zoning in Rockridge in general.
• Several participants support a move towards ministerial approval • Historic resources deserve fair housing analysis because historic housing is often located in wealthier neighborhoods. These comments were echoed by several participants. • One participant mentioned that they “would love to see housing overlay expanded from 4 to 6 units, which would allow state density bonus to come into effect.” These comments were echoed by several participants.
• Participant is concerned with city requiring compliance for AFFH requires fair housing analysis and that the analysis be made a part of the site selection and action plan, and not just analysis. There needs to be a better connection between analysis and action plan ,
en
courages staff to read memo by ABAG about how SoCal cities got rejected by HCD. 4 Thinks its problematic that sites were determined in advance to fit where sites were already zoned properly.
Thinks zoning should be identified as a constraint, and that exclusionary areas should have been identified in advance and then re-zoned.
• One participant remarked about the “H overlay” - allowing approval by-right for a
ffordable housing should be citywide anywhere that the project is consistent with z
oning, including density bonus
Accountability, Compliance, and Enforcement
• Participant commented that identifying affordable housing sites is only a first step, and s
uggested that without meaningful accountability measures and quantifiable financial repercussions for non-compliance, the site inventory would not be effective. • One participant questioned “Who do we target, and how do we penalize them when lower income needs are not met?” with regards to non-compliant developers. • P
articipant urged increased penalties associated with non-compliance on housing developers, stating that “developers are not building housing for people who live in Oakland but for people who are moving to Oakland”.
o Participant requests planners establish a baseline affordability requirement for all new development.
o Participant commented that “with all the new buildings being built that impact f
ee account should at least be 300 million by now.”
• Several participants remarked that current developers have already been violating existing zoning rules and not being held to their proposals once approved. • Participant commented that developers are looking to waive fees, but affordable housing advocates would like to raise fees on developers to fund affordable housing.
Environmental Justice and Air Quality
• Participant from UC Berkeley Goldman School suggested adding provision in the HE to co
ordinate with county inspection offices for households (particularly with children) to regulate indoor air quality. Participant also expressed support for provision in HE (G2) getting gas out buildings.
This participant also suggested financing green bonds and social bonds, and mentioned a sustainable finance program at the university. These bonds have the potential to lower permitting costs for the issuer and can lower costs for developer. • Participant from UC Berkeley Goldman School also commented, “I am pleased to s ee
pa
rts of the Element devoted to remediation of environmental contaminated sites.
5 Participant u rged the city to consider that housing located near freeways, Oakland Ports and other heavy duty trucking concentrations to be included in d efinition of a contaminated sites.
Participant also urged planners to help building owners in those locations retrofit air filtration to reduce exposure of residents to transport related emissions. • Participant strongly seconds the previous comments, and addition to commenting, “We should not be putting housing next to freeways and we need to have a fund to in the GP to retrofit existing near road housing exposures.”
• One participant mentioned, “I'd be careful about exclusively putting housing next to freeways, as noise & car pollution on minority communities is a concern. I do love the alternative mentioned— up zoning opportunities near **all** transit corridors.” • Participant suggested that health of housing is not identified, nor is equity. Census tract name of neighborhood is not identified in Housing Element Appendix C, Table C-21. Affordable housing above Upper Broadway or MacArthur freeway is not being discussed. EJ and housing health is not being adequately discussed. There should be policy and chang es and language in HE regarding environmental justice
• Participant echoed the need for plans for investments for opportunity in low-income neighborhoods. Need to improve the air in West Oakland, because air pollution is one of the most challenging parts of living in West Oakland.
Other participants agree that the poor air and no green space is a disadvantage to improvements.
Planning Timeline and Resource Allocation
• Participant commented, “I’d love to see city take a stance on what strategies are going to come first given how busy city staff are. Actions in HE are fantastic, but there are too many of them to deal with immediately so city should identify which actions come first and which come last.”
• The participant remarked that “study, evaluate, consider” are not viable action-oriented terms according to the HCD. The participant mentioned that the study has proposed inclusionary housing, but the city council has never actually considered it. • City Council was promised by staff that a 5 year study would be done by the end of 2021, but the annual impact fee report still has not been presented to city council and has not involved public input.
The nexus study and feasibility fee study are being done w ith no public participation.
There should be a specific plan that planning and building codes are updated to comply with SB9 and SB 330 especially the demolition protection. • Participant echoed need for established timelines for implementing affordable housing and remarked that it shouldn’t take that long given how easy the policy is to pass.
6 Public Availability of Housing Element Information
• There is a push and pull between locating housing where communities need to be supported versus the level of resources located in the community. Most affordable housing is in lowest resource neighborhoods.
Many p articipants requested table detailing affor dable housing locations versus resource allocation and distribution.
• Participant suggested the city have a published methodology for when to count new market housing as Moderate Income, like San Jose does.
• Participant expressed support for up zoning around transit corridors, and suggested circulating maps illustrating these plans ahead of time to allow for public comment by affordable housing developers. Participant requested platform for public to monitor impact fee account.
• Oakland online housing portal was not user friendly for affordable housing developer • The way that zoning code is written in the city breaks everything down into small pieces, which makes it difficult for affordable developers to utilize density bonus. Other cities don’t have standards broken down into so many small parts and encouraged Oakland to consolidate zoning code into more straightforward and broader groupings. • Maps should be coded according to income and racial discrimination consideration.
Investing in lower income areas need to go beyond housing, there needs to be broader neighborhood improvements strategies.
The participant suggested that planning staff put out a map about what is being considered for rezoning.
• Participant questioned if there is a way for the public to track who paid impact fees and see what is being collected as well as where and how are those funds are being used. Participants echo the need for improved transparency in this process. • Please ensure that the next draft includes an Executive Summary and a clear table on NEW policies.
1 Oakland 2045 Housing Element
Workshop #1 Report
Oakland’s Housing Element and Housing
Locations
FEBRUARY 10, 2022
Pr
epared for
The City of Oakland
Pr
epared by
2 Table of Contents
Project Background and Meeting Objectives ............................................................................................... 3 Workshop Location and Format ..................................................................................................................... 3 Breakout Group Discussions ........................................................................................................................... 3 Key Takeaways ................................................................................................................................................... 4 Breakout Group Summaries............................................................................................................................ 5 Appendix A: Mentimeter Poll Results ............................................................................................................ 8 Appendix B: Breakout Group Facilitator Notes ....................................................................................... 12 Appendix C: Main Room Chat Transcript ................................................................................................. 33
3 Project Background and Meeting Objectives
The City of Oakland is preparing a comprehensive update of its Housing Element , which is part of Oakland’s General Plan that will serve as a blueprint for housing the City’s residents at all economic levels, including low income and households with special needs, from 2023 through 2031. The Housing Element, one of seven State-required general plan elements, was last updated in 2015 and is now being updated to reflect more recent housing opportunities, challenges, and approaches that have emerged in the community.
This first Housing Element workshop is part of Phase 1 of the General Plan update. The purpose of this workshop is to provide an overview of the General Plan and Housing Element update process and gather community input on potential housing locations. This short report summarizes the key themes and ideas that emerged during the workshop. Detailed notes are located in the appendices.
Workshop Location and Format
The workshop took place on Thursday, February 10, 2022 from 6:00 to 8:00 pm online via a Zoom meeting. The workshop was held in an online format due to public health concerns from the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic; this gave community members flexibility to attend the meeting from any location and drop in and out at any time. Approximately 90 community members attended the workshop.
The planning team gave a short presentation during the workshop that gave an overview of the format of the workshop , the General Plan and Housing Element update process, and included a Q&A portion for participant questions . During the presentation, participants had the opportunity to answer the following survey questions about themselves:
• What brings you to this workshop?
• What neighborhood do you live, work, or have a business in? • What do you love about the neighborhood?
See Appendix A for participant responses to the survey questions.
After the presentation, p articipants then proceeded to one of 11 Zoom breakout rooms for small group discussion. Attendees were not required to participate i n breakout room discussion and were allowed to spend as much or as little time in their small group discussion breakout room as they wished.
Breakout Group Discussions
The bulk of the meeting was spent in 11 small group discussions where community members had the opportunity to brainstorm together on potential housing sites. For the discussions, three to five participants were sent into Zoom breakout room s with a facilitator from the 4 planning team to brainstorm on potential housing sites and considering the following questions:
1. What are the housing issues you care about in Oakland?
2. W
hat do you see as some of the opportunities for planning new housing in Oakland? (examples: specific areas in Oakland, on large parking lots, around BART stops, upzoning neighborhoods, in shopping centers?)
3. What do you think some of the issues or challenges will be in these areas?
4. What type of housing does Oakland need more of? Where do you think it should go? Why?
Unique discussions from each group, key takeaways, and common themes are described below. For more detailed notes from each group facilitator, see Appendix B.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
During the workshop, the planning team heard a wide variety of opinions on all topics. • There was unanimous or near unanimous support for more housing in the community. Housing affordability was a key priority for all groups as well as the consideration of equity in all decisions related to hous ing. Most groups were pro - housing and particularly advocated for housing unhoused individuals and focusing on developing housing for extremely- low income and very low -income groups, with additional support for workforce housing.
• Most groups shared a desire for transit -oriented development near BART stops and housing development that considers proximity to amenities such as bus lines, grocery stores, green spaces, and neighborhood organizations.
• All groups discussed potential locations for housing sites. The most common general locations mentioned include underutilized parking lots, vacant lots, blighted commercial sites, major commercial corridors, in old office buildings, and greater densities in Temescal, Rockridge, Trestle Glen, Montclair, and West Oakland .
• O
ther specific locations identified as potential housing sites include along San Pablo Avenue, in the Coliseum area, at Howard Terminal, Eastmont Mall, the intersection of Broadway and Pleasant Valley Avenue, 51st and Broadway Avenue, and the DaVita Dialysis site.
• Several groups advocated for consideration to ensure that historical patterns of segregation are not perpetuated but rather resolved when choosing housing sites.
Affordable housing should be distributed throughout the entire city. Environmental justice, safety, and gentrification concerns should also be considered when deciding where housing should be located.
• Many participants shared potential housing policies and programs to better help the city become a more affordable and equitable place to live. The most common tools cited include upzoning low density areas, banning land speculation, eliminating impact fees, inclusionary housing requirements, rezoning areas to permit residential development, streamlining the permitting and funding process for housing development and ADUs , establishing incentives for developers, and develop ing 5 supportive programs for marginalized groups to find, purchase, and remain in their homes.
• Groups had mixed opinions on whether to develop greater housing densities in the Oakland Hills. While some advocated for higher densities and the elimination of single-family zoning due to equity concerns, others believed that greater densities should not be permitted due to high fire hazard zones. Other housing constraints included proximity to polluting areas.
• Several groups stressed the importance of “going to where people are” to receive input and requested more visible information about upcoming opportunities to engage in the process.
BREAKOUT GROUP SUMMARIES
Group 1
• Group 1 primarily advocated for housing equity and providing affordable housing for systemically marginalized groups. The group was concerned about perpetuating the zoning system’s racist and exclusionary history. Participants mentioned how affordable housing developments are likely to be in high crime and high pollution areas with limited access to neighborhood amenities.
• Participants brainstormed a number of policy changes to address the housing issues they identified in Oakland. Such proposals include developing additional extremely low-income housing units, developing affordable housing throughout the city in safe areas and near amenities, banning land speculation, upzoning the Oakland hills, and eliminating impact fees.
• Potential housing sites identified by Group 1 include underutilized parking lots in the city, Howard Terminal, and greater densities in the Oakland hills.
Group 2
• Group 2 was in favor of further expanding community engagement and education on the Housing Element and affordable housing topics to increase accessibility to those interested in getting involved. Policies participants brainstormed include requiring on-site inclusionary housing, considering barriers to affordable housing, and identifying equity patterns throughout the city’s districts to better address systemic issues.
• Potential sites identified by Group 2 for affordable housing include City-owned properties and properties owned by the Oakland Community Land Trust.
Group 3
• Group 3 advocated for affordable and middle -income housing, historic preservation, and housing equity. Participants mentioned several potential housing policy solutions that include rezoning areas for residential development, converting nonresidential and office buildings to housing , promoting live -work units, streamlining the permitting and funding process, and developing initiatives for marginalized groups to buy homes.
6 • Potential housing sites discussed among Group 3 include in vacant lots, dilapidated commercial sites, along major commercial corridors, ADUs in single -family homes, and in old office buildings.
Group 4
• Group 4 was pro -housing, advocating for affordable and transit -accessible housing, overcoming patterns of segregation, higher density hou sing, and ending gentrification. Potential housing policies mentioned include upzoning areas of the city, building transit-oriented development, and limiting how long developers can sit on empty properties.
• Potential housing sites mentioned include Eastmont Mall, mid -rise buildings in neighborhoods like Temescal, and the vacant lot at Broadway and Pleasant Valley Avenue.
Group 5
• Group 5 prioritized affordable housing for very low-income households, effective programs to shelter and support homeless residents, dense housing to support transit, and supporting Black homeowners. Housing policies discussed include transit-oriented development, upzoning near transit, increasing height limits, removing parking minimums, implementing parking maximums, and passing anti - speculation laws.
• Potential housing sites mentioned include along transit corridors and vacant lots owned by the City, County, and land trust.
Group 6
• Group 6 supported more affordable housing development , particularly in less affordable areas and in proximity to transit and amenities. Potential housing policies mentioned include progressive vacant land taxes, affordable housing overlay zones, incentivizing affordable housing development, reducing parking requirements, and implementing eminent domain for unused property.
• Potential housing sites mentioned include vacant homes on San Pablo Avenue and the lot on the corner of Broadway and Pleasant Valley Avenue. Areas to avoid include high fire hazard zones and near the shoreline.
Group 7
• Group 7 emphasized promoting housing choice, including locat ion and type for both renters and owners. Policy ideas and solutions include inclusionary zoning, streamlining modular housing, promoting workforce housing, and converting vacant ground floor commercial to residential.
• Group 7 also supported developing ar ound transit stops, adding more ADUs and lot splits, and adding higher densities in Trestle Glen and Montclair while also being cognizant of climate considerations.
7 Group 8
• Group 8 advocated for housing where people actually live and need housing, preserving housing at risk of conversion, and on- site including housing building requirements.
• Potential housing sites identified by the group include along San Pablo Avenue, in the Coliseum area, anywhere near transit, and on smaller lots. • There was a difference of opinion on housing in the hills – some believing that should absolutely not be allowed due to fire concerns – while some others believing that single-family zoning needs to be eliminated from entire the city because of equity considerations
.
Group 9
• Group 9 supported added more affordable housing near transit throughout the city as well as more supportive senior housing, multigenerational housing, workforce housing, and ADA compliant housing. They highlighted the importance of environmental justice considerations, housing the unhoused before developing for other income groups, ensuring vacant lots do not sit vacant, and affordable housing continues for future generations to remain in the city. • Potential housing sites identified include near transit, higher densities in Rockridge, near parks and green spaces, and in old or unused building and parking lots near city hall.
Group 10
• Group 10 advocated for prioritizing equity in all housing decisions, adding higher densities in commercial areas, incen tivizing low and very low income housing development, pausing market rate development until Oaklanders have homes, and taking advantage of vacancies to house the unhoused.
• Potential housing locations identified include higher densities downtown and in west Oakland, more housing in Montclair and Rockridge, and higher densities along San Pablo Avenue.
Group 1 1
• Group 11 expressed interest in incorporation climate resilience into housing development, prioritizing housing equity, transit -oriented development, having housing typologies that fit with community character, and housing the unhoused.
Potential solutions discussed include incentivizing developers, expediting and streamlining the ADU processes, and developing near amenities. • Possible housing sites identified include a vacant parcel on 51 st and Broadway
Avenue, the DaVita Dialysis site in Rockridge, near Rockridge Bart, along Bart and bus transit lines, on blighted sites, and higher densities in west Oakland. 8 Appendix A: Mentimeter Poll Results
Question 1: What brings you to this workshop?
• To learn more
• To learn
• housing
• Curious what people are interested in talking about with the housing element • I want to support more dense housing in Oakland, especially near transit. • I'm an Oakland resident and urban planner looking to make Oakland accessible to all! • The fate of Oakland, housing, development, and particularly for those not wealthy. • Interested in future of housing - we need more affordable housing options across all neighborhoods of Oakland!
• Interesting in helping contribute to the housing plan for Oakland. • We're oakland residents and appreciate the chance to learn about the housing element!
• Member of the Deeply Rooted Collaborative
• I am a Political and Community Organizer with Save The Bay! We're interested in ensuring that climate resilience is incorporated in the General Plan Update and the Housing Element.
• I am part of the Deeply Rooted group
• I want to ensure that Oakland dedicate adequate resources to support very low and extremely low income residence in accessing housing
• New Oakland resident, work in architecture / urbanism, committed to supporting more affordable housing in the Bay Area
• learn more about the housing element
• Hear about solutions to get more housing and make it more available and affordable for people
• oakland resident who cares about their community and wants to make sure this process and it’s outcomes are equitable
• Looking to get involved , have voices heard, & provide input in planning • To better understand the housing element and provide input based on what I experience as a resident of Oakland
• Board Member of Rockridge Community Planning Council
• Curiosity, and to learn
• Oakland's housing situation is a CRISIS. I hope this Housing Element can take that seriously and make transformative changes.
• I'm hoping to see more housing built in Oakland! Particularly in my North Oakland neighborhood (San Pablo Ave) where there is lots of vacant land. • learn about community concerns regarding housing in Oakland • Strong interest in Oakland providing adequate housing across all economic bands.
Affordable for people in each band
• Want to make sure Oakland uses this housing element update opportunity to end exclusionary zoning, allow for more housing density citywide (especially in wealth y
ne
ighborhoods and near transit), and expand demolition and displacement protections
9 • I’m concerned that people especially African Americans are priced out of the housing market.
• Equity concerns. Also wondering if your community outreach team consists of any people born and raised in Oakland. Outsiders are always "representing" Oaklanders. • I have lived in Oakland for 40 years. It breaks my heart that it is becoming a place that only the wealthy can live. I am saddened that the Black population has decreased.
Let's support social housing!
• I’m here to point out the impossibility of true community engagement and the predictable cookie cutter housing element that will result. • urban planner from the Bay Area. Interesting in learning what Oakland is working on for the General Plan and Housing.
• Create more housing
• My primary concerns are equity— woefully inadequate affordable h ousing and continued displacement—and the need for dense housing near jobs and well served by goodnfrequent public transportation, bike lanes, and walkability to daily needs. • We need responsible and effective affordable housing programs. • Interest in developing a housing element that affirmatively furthers fair housing, breaks down past patterns of segregation and disparate housing opportunities, and improves on the City's past performance in producing affordable housing • I care about housing!
• I want more homes to be built in Oakland so that the cost for housing goes down. • I'm concerned that the timeline does not allow for quality engagement with our community.
• I am concerned about the housing crisis in Oakland.
• Interest in housing
• I work for the Oakland Fire Department and want to stay engaged in our communit y
a
nd hear outstanding Public Safety concerns.
• An interest in providing housing for Oakland residents at all income levels. I care about creating change while not forcing radical change on any Oakland neighborhoods.
• As a representative of the Rockridge Community Planning Council, a neighborhood organization focused on community development. Here to listen and learn. • Making sure that Oakland does it’s part to create the new homes we need to help solve our housing shortage that is driving our displacement and affordability crises • Ensuring that fair housing and equity are an integral foundation of the ENTIRE housing element process. For the city to address that for the past 5 years, the City has built 9.5 market rate homes for every 1 unit of affordable. • The #1 thing Oakland residents want is affordable housing and yet this City has not prioritized affordable housing and nor met our statewide goals for years. • Express importance of mixed income housing in areas that are densely populated areas that are predominantly low income.
• I am a 3rd -generation Oaklander and my whole family lives here. It's become too expensive to live here and we need to make sure there's housing for everyone. • This is important
• I'm with East Bay for Everyone: https://eastbayforeveryone.org/wp - content/uploads/2022/02/2022-02-09-oakland-housing-element-priniciples.pdf 10 • I want to speak in favor of building, building up, and building densely (to encourage future walkability and transit). I believe all neighborhoods are worth investment, to support new housing of all types in income and physical types.
Question 2: What neighborhood do you live, work, or have a business in? • mosswood
• Old_Oakland Grand_lake Downtown
• Downtown
• Bushrod
• Rockridge
• Mosswood Temescal
• Concord Contra_Costa_County
• Prescott Work_from_home Work_for_a_company
• Harrioak
• Downtown
• Downtown
• Dogtown West_Oakland
• D2
• Maxwell_Park
• temescal work_in_fruitvale
• san_antonio_neighborhood
• Rockridge
• Oakland
• Piedmont_Ave Downtown
• West_Oakland SF
• Grand_Lake
• Uptown
• Rockridge
• Walnut_Creek
• East_oakland
• Grand_lake
• Old_Oakland Citywide
• Santa_Fe Jingletown
• Longfellow
• North_Oakland Fairview_Park
• Adams_Point
• west_oakland
• Bayview_Hunterspoint
• Rockridge
• Rockridge
• Clinton Downtown
• Dimond Laurel Lake_Merritt
• Rockridge
• Fruitvale Fruitvale Fruitvale
• bushrod
• I_live_in_Oaklands_Distri I_work_in_Oakland No_business 11 • north_oakland
• Old_Oakland
• Skyline
• Chinatown
• Golden_Gate
• Waverly
• Fruitvale East_Oakland
• East_Oakland D6
• Alameda
• Rockridge
Question 3: What do you love about the neighborhood?
• lots of things
• The people! I just want more of them.
• Walkable, friendly neighbors.
• I have been here for 42 years. Not enough space.
• Weather and history
• Family oriented
• my neighbors!!
• I love how central everything is, as well as the proximity to transit options • Culture
• Accessibility to restaurants, goods, services, transit and walkability • i love that downtown is close to chinatown, has lots of stores and restaurants, close to lake merrit
• Friendly
• I love the diversity of businesses around here.
• I love our street trees and our park! We have lots of wonderful urban green spaces. • Proximity to important spots
• I love my neighbors but so many are at risk are displacement. • Mixture of housing and neighborhood business district. • Takes more than 250 characters. I have lived here 42 years. • "Walkability!
• Lots of great social resources within walking distance." • Walkability, quick easy access to transportation, close retail • People and the lake
• Great sense of community
• I love the colors and flavors of fruitvale, it makes me really sad that there is not more investment and effort from the city of oakland in bettering the area • Walkable, location
• Everyone seems to have the best interests of oakland at heart • Children playing in Frank H. Ogawa Plaza
• I used to love my neighborhood until unfriendly gentrifiers moved in. • Walkability to schools and shops
• The people.
• Rockridge also has a high degree of activism and also recognizes need for greater population diversity.
12 • its one of the last places in SF that still has it's diversity. I hope Oakland can keep from gen
trification.
• It's accessibility, shopping, and community spirit.
• There is a fair amount of housing for renters.
• Walkability & retail corridor
• The community! I want more neighbors!!
• It's a livable community, for people like me...
• Beautiful neighborhood—Street trees, gardens. I can walk to food stores, etc. I love my neighbors, from lots of backgrounds.
• It is walkable and has ground floor retail that is alive and well • Location location
• I love the shops that are within walking distance
• The peole
• Vibrant BIPOC communities
• Diverse cultures and food options available.
• Approachable neighbors.
• It's diversity, it's right in the middle of everything, it feels like Oakland. • Friends and neighbors.
• Many resources. Minimal need for car. Diverse. Close to nature • The melting pot of cultures and food and good weather. • Diversity
• walkable, good transit, great restaurants
• Short answers are the problem. Elicit granular, detailed stories for better results. • good grocery stores
• Neighbors know each other.
• Walkability and vibrancy
• My neighbors
• I love Alameda's proximity to Oakland. We are ONE city as far as I'm concerned. • Walkability, access to transit, parks, mixed use.
Appendix B: Breakout Group Facilitator Notes
Group 1 Facilitator – Laura Kaminski
Participant 1- Main concern is equity and climate.
Participant 2 – main concern is Housing Equity in neighborhoods.
Participant 3 - worked with the City on the Housing Element in 1998, should start with discussing how our existing system on zoning is based on racism. Worked on the last General Plan as City staff and worried we will repeat what was done in the past.
Participant 4– I live in affordable housing, I know what it is like living in affordable housing.
Important to where you are putting affordable housing, I live near pollution, noise in China town, near pollution from the Port. A lot of affordable housing is built in areas near freeways and pollution. Once you are living in affordable housing no one wants to listen to you and 13 your concerns. This area has become extremely violent, there was a shooting on I -880 right across from my balcony. We don’t need more market rate housing , we need extremely low housing. Most of the people who are homeless need extremely low housing.
Participant 5- We have existing systemic policies, we need serious policy change. We need serious discussions. 174% of housing was built for market for market rate, it is a policy decision of what housing is being built.
Participant 4– Should put of lot of thought into where you move people 55 and older and people with mental disabilities. Where I live, we don’t have grocery stores, have predatory people that rob people. We had tough sheds moved in next to us, had increase in crime overall, not just from homeless people, but unfortunately some homeless people have problems with drugs and this can create crime. We need to care about who is living in affordable hou sing and what there needs are and provide safe housing.
Participant 1- Affordable housing, it should be more dispersed throughout the city. Should look at parking lots. The A’s are not going to have affordable housing. Need more resources for family housing when growing up.
Participant 3, we need some radical policy changes. We need to ban land speculation. As long as we are beholden to developers. They are scooping up housing and flipping for huge cost.
We should replace Planning & Building with other Departments. We are so looking at the minutia of housing, we cannot get through the permit process because we don’t know how to play the game. Let’s make a system based on safety. We don’t need to know how far the kitchen is from the basement. Zoning was created to separate certain people, redlining. We repeat redlining. Oakland hills is the most segregated. Every house over 6,000 square feet needs to take in 6 more families. Our politicians are taking money from developers.
Participant 5, Howard Terminal, greater percentage of affordable housing and it needs to be on site. Howar d Terminal is going to go through with nothing of value. Have to change policies. No more building market rate housing without a certain percentage of affordable.
Zoning needs to upzone in all of the hills areas.
Iris - should eliminate Impact Fees only do onsite. The process is so onerous for the average person or small developer trying to build affordable housing. The City should have staff to assist with all of the rules. Should have staff to assist the public with ADUs. Concerned that this Housing Ele ment will be a cookie cutter process and that the consultant D&B will not have the creative ideas.
Participant 1– how can we continue to build market rate when we have not met the numbers for affordable?
Participant 2– we have to generate tax dollars as well.
Participant 3– we should spend less money on police and more on paying for the City. 14 Participant 1– The City is proposing business tax changes and increasing money from the Port.
Participant 4– Why are we supporting corporations that are not paying living wages? Participant 1 – Companies are buying up single -family homes and then letting them get dilapidated and then flip them. Can the city enforce the codes to not allow for this? What makes housing more expensive in the first place.
Participant 2– I have a family member that is making 6 figures and can’t afford to buy a home.
It is extremely difficult to get into any area of the City, housing is going for at least $500,000.
Participant 1– At least they used to look at comparables for how housing is pri ced in real estate, how does housing get to be priced at this high of a price? We should be addressing what has gotten us to this place.
Participant 2– there are a lot of people who work in Silicon Valley that are moving here and driving the price up. They are taking these properties over. They can’t afford the housing in Silicon Valley so they are coming to Oakland.
Chat:
19:12:25 From Participant to Everyone:
that is the argument they are currently making
19:13:46 From Participant to Everyone:
yes
19:24:48 From Participant to Everyone:
how about a policy that says single family homes can only be purchased by people who will reside in them?
19:25:26 From Participant to Everyone:
@ Participant + 1
19:26:21 From Participant 3 to Everyone:
Get rid of any restrictions on the number of people who can be in a unit 19:26:24 From Participant 2 to Everyone:
15 Sounds good, but if they can't afford to do so, it leads us back to those who can or these large corporations
19:26:47 From Participant 3 to Everyone:
Eliminate parking requirements
19:30:07 From Participant 3 to Everyone:
Allow people to create cooperative living arrangements without city requirements - allow people to create their own agreements, trust collectives to be responsible adults 19:32:22 From Participant to Everyone:
Same for “affordable housing”, allow housing to flourish without 20 pages of requirements. Ask for a confirmation that the housing is remaining that every year. Have the land be deed restricted.
Group 2 Facilitator – Lakshmi Rajagopalan
Introductions
#1 - oakland resident, D2, urban planner, need more engagement/education around housing #2- piedmont ave, searching for new housing in Oakland - which is proving to be very difficult #3 -unity council (deeply rooted) - timescale/fruitvale area, lack of investment #4 - issues with housing development esp. Affordable housing #5 – did not engage at all
Engagement and Education
Education on what affordable housing means (critically low/low income) Engagement - education is a key
Translating into easy-to understand language, in multiple languages Being transparent as possible - with these timelines, how are we listening to the community? Accessibility - meeting in the box situation - printable - cultural centers/community centers Capacity building/educational piece of housing - housing element - enable the community Time/capacity building/educational exercises
Sites:
consider City owned properties and properties owned by Land trust properties - developers.
Buy back properties owned by these developers using eminent domain Policies
Require on-site inclusionary housing (or if they are paying into the impact fee fund, there needs to be accountability on what those monies are used for - how that money is used) Consider barriers to developing affordable housing - there are several (example:
https://oaklandside.org/2021/10/20/nonprofit-run-by-homeless-people-says-it-was- unfairly-taxed-for-trying-to-build-housing/)
16 Equity
Look at Redistricting mapping to identify equity patterns How will the policies be evaluated to fix more systemic issues? Policies should also address unhoused.
Group 3 Facilitator – Audrey Lieberworth
Introductions:
• Participant 1 – North Oakland, Rockridge, cares about affordable housing • Participant 2 – architectural urban designer, lives in Mosswood neighborhood, interested in affordable housing/extremely affordable housing, infill/redevelopment, finding perfect sites to do those sites on
• Participant 3 – West Oakland, lived in Oakland for 7 years, interested in social, economic, environmental, and racial justice. Also interested in affordable and missing middle housing. We’re putting too much pressure on affordable housing and missing middle housing could help with this.
• Participant 4 – lives in clinton neighborhood, city planner, advocate for historic preservation (works with Oakland Heritage Alliance). Housing Element is a n o
pportunity to use historic buildings as housing resources/naturally affordable housing. Harder to build new than rely upon historic building stock.
Question 2: What do you see as some of the opportunities for planning new housing in Oakland? (Examples: specific areas in Oakland, on large parking lots, around BART stops, upzoning neighborhoods, in shopping centers)
Pa
rticipant 1
• Sites that are not currently used for housing. Some rezoning may have to be done, particularly if there are reluctant land owners
• The Ridge site – property owner does not seem interested in developing for housing; some encouragement through rezoning may be needed
• Vacant sites – look at zoning on those sites. Be aggressive where it makes sense to build housing
• Build affordable, with an emphasis on a higher percentage of lower income housing Participant 4
• Look at existing buildings as potential housing resources, esp historic buildings.
Existing nonresidential and older office buildings that might become obsolescent should be converted to housing. Including live/work, esp in industrial areas. CA Historic Building Code can help facilitate this process 17 • Existing single family homes – there may be provisions for ADUs, but these may also present opportunities beyond ADUs to add more units (I.e. missing middle) with an emphasis on affordable units
Participant 2
• Look at vacant sites and office buildings that could be redeveloped. Look at commercial corridors like Broadway and Telegraph – are there vacant sites, dilapidated commercial sites? There are commercial spaces with large parking lots along these corridors. We should densify these sites along the corridors.
Participant 3
• Hard to pencil out projects given that labor and material costs are high. • There is a need for more workforce development programs / incubator programs for small contractors. Historically there have been barriers for Black and Brown communities to obtain apprenticeships to make their way into the constructi on
t
rades – remove those barriers
• Time is money – streamlining the permitting process is ideal because delays mean projects cannot pencil out. State legislation allows some projects to be fast -tracked.
Also a need for streamlining design approval process to minimize NIMBYism • Need to define a clear permitting process for developers • Provide opportunities to encourage Black and Brown property ownership in Oakland.
Look at tenant cooperative in Brooklyn Basin. Develop initiatives to buy homes in Oakland – provide opportunities for Black and Brown communities that stay in their neighborhood to merge lots and create a larger multifamily complex, or build smaller, missing middle housing on a single family lot
Question 3: What do you think some of the issues or challenges will be in these areas? Participant 1
• Major challenges for affordable housing are obtaining subsidies. More money coming through the State now, but Oakland needs to build up its funds/subsidies. Should be part of the Housing Element – think about how to rais e funds from different sources for really substantial affordable housing. Raise local funds. Use conditions on other kinds of new developments (I.e., higher impact fees) to raise local funds Participant 3
• Affordable housing developers talk about the gymnastics they have to perform t o
co
mbine the tax credits and funding sources, which is particularly challenging for smaller developers with fewer staff and resources. Can we streamline the funding and administrative process to make development of affordable ho using (esp for smaller affordable developers) more feasible?
Participant 4
18 • CA Historical Building Code – can address code issues that can inhibit rehabilitation of older buildings. Oakland should try to be more proactive around using that Code and should expand the number of eligible buildings (model – City of Alameda) • Shortages of staff at City inhibits ability to process applications. Could bring in consultant planners to accelerate projects, offer overtime to existing staff Participant 2
• Identifying funding sources
Question 4: What type of housing does Oakland need more of? Where do you think it should go? Why?
Participant 4
• According to the existing RHNA performance, City has been good at building market rate, but falling short on affordable. This is the area that needs most attention Participant 2
• Need more affordable housing – esp VLI and ELI.
• Should be equitably spread out across different neighborhoods Participant 1
• Integrate housing all across Oakland at all income levels, but financial feasibilit y of these projects is difficult
• For new housing, there should be higher percentage requirements to build low income housing on site, even though it makes it more difficult for projects to pencil out. Would like to see 30 or 40% required on site, but may not be feasible • Real difficulty is identifying funds to subsidize projects Participant 4
• Most developers pay in-lieu fee instead of providing on site affordable units. Oakland should take a closer look at actually requiring the units on site as part of these projects Participant 3
• Oakland’s inclusionary housing requirement is too low Participant 2
• Is there oversight and transparency for distribution of affordable housing funds? Participant 4
19 • City or land trusts with assistance from City could bid on foreclosed properties t o a
cquire that land
• Relocate/move older, existing buildings in the way of new developments. There are existing policies in the housing element to facilitate this, but the challenge is to find locations to move those buildings to. Can they be moved to vacant City-owned land? If the building is in good condition, moving a building is a good way to preserve existing housing. If you move a historic building it does not need to be brought up to Code, which saves money. With house moving, the main expenses are moving it off the existing foundation and the utility wiring
Participant 3
• Current Code is really geared toward sustainability to address the climate crisis.
Moving non upgraded housing would contribute to greenhouse gas emissions. Maybe there could be some middle ground
• At meetings to discuss housing projects (ex. Howard terminal), they hear a lot about parking. Not willing to move downtown because there isn’t any parking available t o
t
hem. Should be larger discussions about what it means to live without a car. Building housing close to transit (like BART) is not sufficient to meet needs • Potential to create a new building typology for a community garage, not like a surface parking lot. Perhaps a tower of parking located within a five minute wal k of a group of housing site
Participant 4
• Some streets are very wide. Could introduce angled parking on wider streets instead of parallel parking to accommodate more parking, esp in San Antonio neighborhood • House moving is a great way to implement resource conservation because all of the materials are already in the house, don’t need to dispose Group 4 Facilitator – Daniel Findley
Participants
Participant 1 EBHO. Cares about low -income affordable housing, transit -accessible, designated bike lanes, and walking areas. Clean streets and sidewalks.
Participant 2: EBHO. Production of housing, meeting AFFH requirements such that we overcome patterns of segregation. More emphasis on affordable housing programs.
Participant 3: lives in Bushrod, very pro housing and more of all housing types. Housing needs to be easier to build. Favors higher density housing.
Participant 4: Represents Upper Broadway Advocates which focuses on the vacant l ot at Broadway/Pleasant Valley. Favors changing zoning in commercial districts to allow for 20 higher density housing such that housing is a “preferred use.” Supports the idea of affordable housing in high-rise buildings.
Participant 5: Co-chair, on tenant’s union. Lives downtown. Not sure if more housing is the solution. Lots of empty lots, empty units. Root of the problem is that developers sit on empty properties. Important to her is ending gentrification and reducing the construction of luxury housing. Would like to see Henry J. Kaiser building transformed into housing and sites near Mosswood Park if new housing is to be built.
• What are the housing issues you care about in Oakland? These are discussed in the participant profiles above.
• What do you see as some of the opportunities for planning new housing in Oakland? (examples: specific areas in Oakland, on large parking lots, around BART stops, upzoning neighborhoods, in shopping centers?)
BART is doing a good job except @ Rockridge. Eastmont Mall could be one site where underutilized parking areas could be identified for housing.
Participant 3 : in favor of by- right zoning and setting the rules to enable this. “Requesting a zoning change takes forever.”
Christina: would be in favor of changing zoning to accommodate housing (affordable).
Thinks downtown Oakland is turning into SF with gentrification.
Participant 3: wants enough housing even for tech professionals.
Participant 4: lives in an ADU -few people care about ADUs because people are more concerned about large buildings and their impacts.
Participant 2: Oakland has exceeded housing goals but only at the top income level.
Would like Oakland to consider mid -rise buildings in neighborhoods like Temescal.
By-right approval for 100% affordable. Mixed-income buildings don’t pose a huge challenge (okay for financing) but is more in favor of mixed -income neighborhoods.
Need more government support for rental subsidy.
Participant 5Beach: even subsidized housing is too expensive for someone earning $1,300/month and on SS.
Participant 2: to get state subsidies, there needs to be local match • What do you think some of the issues or challenges will be in these areas? We moved into the final question but some of the challenges were teased out in th e
p
articipants’ responses to the first two questions such as affordability, impact of large buildings, ensuring rental subsidies so people can stay in their units. • What type of housing does Oakland need more of? Where do you think it should go? W
hy?
21 Participant 1: Senior housing, TAY housing are interesting ideas.
Participant 3: advocates for homeless housing. City should be planning for homeless housing.
Participant 2: Larger units for larger families. City needs a housing needs assessment that assess pay burden (families that overpay for their unit) Participant 5: social housing with assurance that families can remain in their unit.
Summary Points:
• Revise the zoning to accommodate housing, upzoning is a smart approach and legislate by-right approvals for 100% affordable. Build housing near transit, set the rules to accommodate more housing production.
• Not sure if housing is the solution. Lots of empty lots and empty units. Root of the problem is that developers sit on empty properties.
• Publish the needs and fair housing assessment on the website so the public can see it.
G
roup 5 Facilitator – Khalilha Haynes
A. What are the housing issues you care about in Oakland?
1. Prioritizing affordable housing (AH) for very low - and low -income households. there is no strategy for AH, so Oakland is losing people of color.
2. Investment priority for areas of the RHNA that have not been met.
3. Creating an effective and responsible AH strategy, with rental assistance for renters and down payment assistance for people to purchase homes.
4. Effective programs to shelter & support homeless residents.
5. City of Oakland becoming a nicer place to live, with less focus on cars, dense housing to support transit an address the homelessness crisis.
6. The homelessness crisis is exploding, and City needs to “go big” make a large investment in AH. How can we explain allowing people to live in tents under the freeway, on sidewalks, and in RVs?
7. Creating a program to support first -time Black homeowners and keep Black properties in Black hands.
B. What do you see as some of the opportunities for planning new housing in Oakland?
1. Building housing near transit, e.g. BART stations, transit corridors (esp. rapid bus lines).
2. Placing market rate housing in communities that were historically exclusionary and areas “post-gentrification.”
3. Upzoning, esp. near transit
i. Upzoning needs to be done equitably, especially in areas like Fruitvale and deep East Oakland, where upzoning would increase land values, 22 lead to speculation, gentrification, and displacement of cu rrent Black and Brown working-class communities.
ii. Consider Emeryville as a model for maintaining Black population by building apartments everywhere.
4. Converting single family lots to multi-family lots.
i. Consider San Francisco as an example.
5. Increasing height limits, removing parking minimums, implementing parking maximums.
6. Moms for Housing site has sat vacant for the last two years, despite being bought by a land trust a few years ago. There are homeless encampments just a few blocks away. Why has this not been opened to house people?
7. Public land for public good. Using public land would dramatically cut the cost of housing.
8. Establishing accountability measures and performance metrics for City’s AH policies.
C. What do you think some of the issues or challenges will be in these areas?
1. Decreasing cost of housing to make it more reasonable and affordable to build housing.
2. Creating strategies so that AH does not compete with market rate housing.
3. Passing anti-speculation laws.
i. E.g. Homes in North Oakland Flats are being bought up by for -prof it
c
ompanies, not nonprofits or Oaklanders.
4. Entitlement process is extremely onerous, for companies and individuals.
5. Using vacant land owned by the City and County. Taxing vacant public land – the County has so much public land that they aren’t being taxed for, but private landowners are being taxed.
i. City needs to publish a full list of all its available public parcels.
6. Need effective ways to build both market rate and affordable housing – using market rate to pay for AH won’t get us enough AH.
7. Impact fee paid by developers that do not build AH is way too low. They need to pay more. Oakland devalues its land in order to entice developers, like a “low-budget prostitute.”
i. The implementation of impact fees originally was staggered (West, then Central, then East), giving developers time to buy up land in Central and East Oakland.
8. Lack of city, state, and federal funds, especially after the closure of redevelopment agencies.
G
roup 6 Facilitator – Alison Moore
Participants:
• Resident of Rockridge
• Resident of San Pablo Ave/Broadway
• Two members of East Bay Housing Organization
23 Key points:
• Surveying/ pressuring church groups and landowners how sitting on land- eminent domain? Vacant land tax- progressive.
Potential ideas: Affordable housing overlay, urban land trusts, adjusting parking requirements
• Challenges: Funding, costs of land.
• No gos: Fire hazard zones, Sea level rise and industrial land use- cancer clusters. • Gos: Proximity to transit
• Housing types: Finding places for people that are homeless to afford to live.
R
aw notes:
• More affordable housing in general is needed, with an equity lens. • Some of the less affordable areas like Rockridge have some of highest land costs in Oakland.
o Even if upzoning happened in these areas, it would only be a few parcels that would be viable.
o Landowners in college and rockridge, not much incentive. One of major buildings there- dryers building, got redone 20, 30 years ago, was just bought by east bay jewish community center. May provide some housing there. • Concentration of transit and grocery stores could support so much more housing than there is. Either side of Rockridge north or south or BART. They do well as it is, no incentive to go higher. Could there be an incentive? Trader joes is 1 story, but lan d
o
ffice business.
• Affordable zoning overlay- market rate one zoning, affordable another. College avenue- 3 stories max, if you’re building affordable you can get six. • There is a need for deeply affordable housing. In the past 6 years, for every 9 market rate units, one unit of affordable housing is produced. • Desire to see this housing element approached with an eye toward more stringent state laws- Cities must be held accountable. There are tools to implement equity and fair housing from the start, even beyond AFFH.
• Essential missing element is money- there is not a lot of money to fund affordable housing, especially since redevelopment agencies went away. The importance of finding those streams can’t be understated.
o When you’re identifying sites, try and evaluate how competitive those would be for funding.
• When conversion occurs, landowners could make partial donation of property value to a land trust. way to get a benefit, land trust gets land at reduce costs. • Lots of vacant lots that are paved or grassy, or unuse d parking lots, and a handful of homes that are vacant on San Pablo Ave. All owned by one somewhat active religious institution. Feels totally unfair to have wonderful neighborhood and land that isn’t being used because someone isn’t paying property tax on it. Complex when someone owns it, especially when they are exempt form property tax. But participant would like to see something happening on land
o Stamford and san pablo. Yoga ashram owns 20- 30 parcels, massive vacant lots. Headquarters in upstate new Yo rk. No control over those decisions. 24 Person with power is not really thinking about it. Eminent domain not as expensive.
• U
nhoused individuals are being forced into the streets because of rent increases. • Holding land for investment is wrong. What can we do about that? Vacant property tax, is pretty minimal. One option could be a progressive vacancy tax - the longer a parcel is vacant the larger the tax is. This will be on the San Francisco ballot this year. o Corner of Broadway and pleasant valley- A shoppin g center is no longer a viable option because of online retail. Problem was that property owner (corporation) doesn’t want housing. The master lease that governs site prohibits housing - right now the zoning is general commercial. Why not rezone as residential? Could build mixed use with major housing component. o Emi
nent domain recommended as strategy for unused property. • Synergy with transit and housing. AC transit and BART. Don’t need to build as much parking downtown. In case of BART, where they have the land. Investing in transit with ridership and housing.
• Stagnancy has a cyclical effect - not a lot of businesses, not a lot of places to build housing, business don’t want to open.
• Survey churches to determine extent of ownership
• Reducing parking requireme nts- Perception that parking requirements were down to half a space already.
o Participants noted that some lenders wont provide money if you don’t provide parking.
o Support for parking maximums, and lowering minimums. Let market decide. • Shared parking- some examples of this in El Cerrito del Norte • Do not want to add housing in the following areas:
o High fire zones
o Near the shoreline. Also consider how housing can help reduce greenhouse gases, such as higher density and energy efficiency. Adaptive reuse is the most efficient.
G
roup 7 Facilitator – Matt Alvarez-Nissen
KEY TAKEAWAYS
• Identified need to improve the general outreach process – including making sure the community has enough context to understand the Housing Element process and is able to select appropriate sites.
• Housing locations – the City should locate affordable housing in higher -resource neighborhoods and near transit. Participants identified capacity for additional residential development in Trestle Glen, Montclair, North Oakland and the Hills.
While we should keep fire risk in mind, additional development is possible through strategic planning. The City should also spread density around the city, and not exacerbate patterns of segregation. The City should not include grocery stores a s sites, especially in food deserts.
25 • Housing choice – The City should promote housing choice, including both the location of available housing and the type of housing. This includes both rental and ownership units, ADUs, modular housing, etc.
• The City should work to increase the proportion of affordable housing to market rate housing in new development (including in any new Coliseum area development), and make sure not to redevelop on existing subsidized or rent-controlled housing. • Policy ideas and solutions – Increase strength of the housing preservation program, inclusionary zoning, value capture of resale, transparent community benefits process, streamlining for modular housing (especially on small sites), promoting workforce housing, and allowing the conversion of vacant ground floor commercial t o
r
esidential.
D
etailed NOTES by Question
Participants were asked Question #1 as part of the initial round robin, and Question #2 to prompt group discussion. Questions #3 and #4 were also presented, but the discussion turned towards a more general conversation about housing priorities. The answers to Question #1 are provided and the answers to Questions #2, #3, and #4 are grouped together below.
Question #1 – What are the housing issues you care about in Oakland? • Deeply affordable housing in Oakland and the region
• Quality design
• More equitable access to transit, especially in higher resource areas (e.g., Rockridge) • Development of housing in diverse areas (e.g., Adams Point) • Do not center density in one place (like it is in East Oakland) • Climate smart housing (i.e., do not develop in areas prone to wildfire, flooding, etc.) • Do not locate affordable housing in existing low-income neighborhoods Question #2 – What do you see as some of the opportunities for planning new housing in Oakland?
Question #3 – What do you think some of the issues or challenges will be in these areas? Question #4 – What type of housing does Oakland need more of? Where do you think it should go? Why?
• Conversion of vacant ground floor commercial to residential use. • Permit higher mid -range densities to target missing middle housing, and prioritize the flatland (although might not be relevant with SB9 provisions). • Develop around transit, including AC Transit stops.
• Spread density throughout the city.
• Do not exacerbate patterns of segregation.
• Do not include existing rent-controlled or subsidized housing in the inventory, don’t want to encourage redevelopment of those buildings.
• Staff should provide more context on what makes a good site for housing. • The proportion of affordable housing to market rate housing in new developments is not balanced – minute amounts of affordable housing with large amounts of market rate, especially on large projects. One participant expressed a desire to see this balance in any new Coliseum area development.
26 • Compare Coliseum area development to Brooklyn Basin development, interested in affordable housing balance and aesthetics of the development. • Strategies to promote more affordable housing include community- based agreements, but this process is often not transparent and does not involve the community. Hard to negotiate for the community given limited time. Participants expressed a desire for a more transparent process and to hold developers accountable to proposals that actually benefit the community, especially on public land.
• Issues with the impact fee process – hard for the public to determine the total amount of impact fees collected and where the money goes.
• More workforce housing.
• Modular housing on smaller lots, allow for more flexibility in this process – including permit streamlining. Historically difficult for cities to build modular housing, but this can be a more financially viable way to build quality housing. It’s also more cost effective and produces lower rents – affordable by design. • The City should consider value capture from home resales as a potential program.
This could be a good source to provide more subsidies for lower-income units in new developments.
• The City should increase funding to and strengthen the housing preservation program, which is similar to San Francisco’s small sites program, to retain rent- controlled units. It is cheaper to maintain existing affordable housing than to develop new low-income housing with significant State and federal subsidy. • Trestle Glen and Montclair, and areas northeast of the I -580 could be higher density (although there are slope and fire hazards to consider). These are higher resource neighborhoods and would be good for affordable housing. • Participants emphasized locating affordable housing in higher resource areas outside of high fire hazard zones, where possible. However, some participants argued that it is possible to develop more in some of these areas given thoughtful strategic planning efforts – there are ways to mitigate the risk, including ensuring adequate fire fighting resources. One participant cautioned against located too much housing in areas with small and windy streets, since this poses an evacuation risk and may put vulnerable populations at even greater risk. One participant referenced recent State law (AB2911) and State building codes that would help facilitate development with good site management, design, and planning. One participant noted that there are also environmentalist concerns about development in the hills, but there is still lots of land up there where people could live.
• Housing choice is a priority – the City should create options for people to live in the hills if they want. People should also be able to choose single-family units, affordable rental units, affordable condominiums, etc. One participant noted that more condos should be built, and that a lot of rental apartments have been built but not ownership units. Another participant agreed – lots of new development is rent only, and buying options are typically restricted to single-family.
• One participant was in favor of the City promoting more ADUs and SB9 lot splits, but wanted to make sure that these are long-term rentals and not available on AirBNB. • One participant highlighted the prevalence of food deserts in Oakland, and noted that when considering redevelopment of commercial sites the City should confirm that the site is not the only grocery store in a neighborhood.
27 • One participant was frustrated that the City releas ed the RFP so late, and that the outreach process was doing things out of order. They noted it is preemptive to discuss sites without fair housing analysis, or other context building. Other participants agreed that the General Plan website is light on information, and should include things like a map of City-owned parcels and AFFH maps.
Group 8 Facilitator – Rajeev Bhatia
Housing Sites
San Pablo Avenue could be a great place for more (deeply) affordable or mixed -income housing. Broadway and Telegraph hav e gotten attention in the past, and San Pablo Avenue has not had the same attention.
Look at smaller sites, don’t ignore them. A’s stadium area, anywhere where transit is or is planned for.
Fire Captain. Has worked for Oakland Fire for over two decades, and can’t afford to be in Oakland. Many police and fire personnel are eager to live in Oakland but are unable to afford to do so. Living too far from the City is not great in case of emergency need. Need to think about providing workforce housing, not just income-restricted. Castro Valley had Emergency Living Response Zone that prioritized police and fire personnel in case of need.
Difference of opinion on housing in the hills – some believing that should absolutely not be allowed – even one fallen tree on a one-way-out only area can cause devastating loss of life - - while some others believing that single -family zoning needs to be eliminated from entire city because of equity considerations (while case-by-case exemptions based on actual studies may be ok).
City also needs to promote NOAH (Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing). E.g.. City had program for small developments (five units or less), that could be resurrected.
Housing in Resource Rich vs. Non-Resource Rich Areas
While appreciate desire for adding housing in areas of opportunity, several members of the group wanted to see housing in areas where people actually live and need housing, even if these are lower-income/resourced areas, for cultural identity, because they have ties in the neighborhoods.
Preservation
Preservation of housing at risk of conversion was key for many people in our group. Need to extend affordability covenants. Developers of these, non- profits need funds. City should tap into infrastructure and other funds available from federal and State governments.
Inclusionary Housing
28 On-site inclusionary housing building requirement, rather than just paying fee, because that can take many years to develop when we need housing now. Money collected by City al so loses value over time. Decisions on how to spend money collected also become political. BMR requirement also needs to be increased.
Group 9 Facilitator – Lauren Pepe
KEY THEMES
• Affordable housing should be built all over Oakland and not just in lower -income neighborhoods
• Affordable housing near transit is key- being next to BART station opens up far more opportunities than being two miles away - but ensure anti-displacement protections are in place for those who already live there
• We need more se nior supportive housing, multigenerational housing, workforce housing, ADA compliant housing
• Homegrown solutions such as community land trusts should be seen as real solutions and we should remove barriers to these solutions; some homegrown solutions (such as Homefulness) have run into a lot of issues with the city • Issue: Affordable housing is built but people who can pay market rate get it • We must ensure:
o Affordable housing is not built near pollution sites
o Housing for the unhoused before anything else
o Vacant units or land do not sit vacant
o That affordable housing exists not only now but also in the future so that future generations can remain in Oakland
• We must recognize housing is a human right and not commodity
29 FULL CONVERSATION ORGANIZED INTO QUESTIONS/TOPICS (WITH CHAT TRANSCIPT
INTEGRATED)
Introduction and Housing Issues of Concern
Participant 1, worked in affordable housing, lives in District 7: Create affordable housing all over Oakland and not just areas where the lowest income residents reside. TOD is important (clients take 3 or 4 buses to get downtown) and equitable transit should exist.
Other issues of concern: homelessness – everyone should be housed, deeply affordable housing, workforce housing.
Participant 2, works with Unity Council, grew up in deep east Oakland and now works/lives in Fruitvale: Going from two miles away from transit to next to BART is like night and day in terms of access to amenities. Concerned about: homelessness, affordable housing for her staff, ensuring her children will be able to grow up in Oakland (she doesn’t want to move to suburbs like her relatives).
Participant 3, third-generation Oaklander: Wants to see Oakland remain diverse, vibrant city and not turn into mini SF. Alarmed by how expensive it’s become but believes there is enough room and we need more housing for all income levels. Oakland needs better transit; BART is great if you are next to it but if not, it’s like it doesn't exist. Was able to buy housing after thinking she would have to leave; wants to see this opportunity to own in Oakland for her nephew. Was renter whole life and knows how difficult that can be; protections for renters can be improved. Wants to see more investments across the city like the Waverly development program in her neighborhood.
Participant 4, lives near Coliseum and works in Chinatown organizing for low -income immigrants: We need deeply affordable housing and more of it. Affordable housing waitlist practices might be unfair. The growing unhoused community is of great concern. We need more workforce housing (educators, grocery store workers, etc). Lumping all these types of housing together as moderate housing doesn’t work because people who can afford to pay more get these units. How do we keep housing currently affordable as affordable and ensure maintenance over time (habitability is big issue in low -income communities)? Concerned about housing sites being near industrial pollution sites or near freeways/off-ramps. Believes that as long as housing is treated as commodity it wont actually be protected. Need to treat it as a human right. Most of flatlands in flood zone is a concern; we aren’t doing enough for mitigation. What are we doing about ensuring safe places to shelter in? Resilience hubs must be built near homes especially for unhoused folks. Concerned that a lot of the announcements going out about the Housing Work shops were not multilingual; hopes language interpretation of meeting is being recorded.
Participant 5, lives in Grand Lake. Concerned about affordable housing being equitably distributed (and not just in East Oakland) and located near transportation hubs, grocery stores and offices. She works in accessibility for seniors in East Oakland. It takes so long for them to get anywhere - ensure senior housing is near transit. Also believes we need more middle-income housing.
30 Participant 6is a mother of four and has done crazy things to maintain housing. She seconds the issues already mentioned. Housing is human right and no one should have to do what she’s done. Unhoused neighbors are all around and it’s shameful that luxury units are going up while so many units sit vacant. Churches are closing because their parishioners have been displaced. She’s showing up to this meeting reluctantly and doesn’t think [the Housing Element outreach process] has hope with the quick timeline that has been established.
Where to locate housing?
• Near transit. Areas dense with transit must be dense with housing. Rockridge has blocked density but it’s a place where we need higher density housing. • Create affordable and middle- class housing throughout the city instead of allowing the current segregation to persist.
• Old/unused buildings and parking lots near city hall and maybe OUSD buildings/lots. • Near parks and green spaces
Issues/Challenges
• Critical to have housing by transit but that causes gentrification. The only folks who are able to remain are in protected housing. Other folks are harassed by landlords until they leave and they lose good housing near transit. Need strong anti - displacement protections and outreach processes.
• In District 6, many large lots were zoned for affordable housing and supposed to be developed but didn’t and property owner is absent. Multiple lots like that are creating blight in community. Developers bought them and didn’t do anything. • Support businesses during construction to ensure they remain open. • Cost of housing (especially with materials prices increasing). Casa Arabella (affordable development) cost $60 million for 92 units. • Make sure design of new housing matches existing aesthetic of community. • When places are upzoned the cost of land increases g reatly so building new units is hard to afford
.
• U
nhoused communities have needed to be resourceful; how can those areas where they live allow them to stay and be improved upon? Many of those areas don’t seem very safe and near polluting sources, but how can we not continue to displace the displaced?
• The state has to work with other financing options to house the unhoused besides tax credits.
31 • New development also takes a long time. We’ve had a lot of community members fight for affordable housing in an otherwise market rate site, and by the time the buildings are open for occupancy those community members have been pushed out and don’t get to enjoy the benefits of what they won.
Solutions/Places to Improve
• Take community land trusts seriously. Need more accountability in city departments that are supposed to be supporting residents, such as having enough inspectors who follow through and make reports.
• Need consequences for leaving properties vacant so that there’s not unused housing stock.
• We need to embrace community- driven and homegrown solutions, de- commodify housing, and recognize the value of a family having dignity. Homefulness (non-profit) built on vacant sites that they purchased and have run into multiple fines from the City.
• We need a solid inclusionary housing policy.
• Update the impact fee policy.
What types of housing to build?
• Multi-generational or family sized housing
• ADA-compliant housing
• Supportive senior housing
G
roup 10 Facilitator – Helen Pierson
Introductions
• Participant 1 – part of YIMBY groups, wants to address the general unaffordability of housing in Oakland
• Participant 2 – The city is experiencing a homelessness crisis and should pause development of market rate housing until the crisis is addressed, the city needs housing for teachers, more housing in the hills, and housing for the unhoused is a major priority
• Participant 3 – promoting affordable housing is very important, rockridge resident, house homeless individuals, re -introduce SROs in areas like downtown, ‘gentle density’
• Participant 4– pause on market rate housing, housing in Jack london area • Question on Racial equity impact analysis – will such an analysis be conducted before the sites are chosen?
32 Housing Location
• Most new higher density housing so far is in the downtown and west Oakland areas, we need more housing in other neighborhoods like north Oakland • We should have more housing in the Montclair area, and housing above the markets in rockridge
• Higher density housing could work in rockridge near bart but it should be well designed and compatible with the neighborhood
• The hills are not a good candidate for higher density housing because of the fire risk – remember the ’91 fire
• Could be more high density housing along san pablo – access to transit (bus service) and shops etc
• Incorporate existing analysis on equity and justice to decide where housing should go – anti-displacement project, which areas are vulnerable to displacement Challenges
• Fire danger – density limits in fire prone areas
• Nimbys will pose a challenge but smart design guidelines could help win people over to housing in their area
• Walkability and charm are important for new high density housing Housing Types
• Focus higher density housing along commercial avenues • End exclusionary zoning to allow four-plexes in single family neighborhoods • Multifamily housing needed
• Family-friendly housing and housing accessible to working families • Can the city put policies in place to ensure that existing units don’t stay vacant Report Back
• Incorporating data analysis on equity issues
• Focusing higher density in commercial areas
• Incentivizing low and very low housing
• Pause market rate development until unhoused oaklanders have homes • Housing for more unhoused individuals and take advantage of vacancies
Group 11 Facilitator – Clare Kucera
- What are the housing issues you care about in Oakland? o Incorporating climate resilience, affirmatively furthering fair housing, housing equity
o Concerns about why the City exceeded its RHNA allocation for hou sing for above moderate income units, but not for lower income groups o How can we better incentivize developers create affordable units? o Unhoused population
o Expedited and streamlined system for ADUs, how to reduce costs for property owners who maybe want to add on an ADU
33 - What do you see as some of the opportunities for planning new housing in Oakland? (examples: specific areas in Oakland, on large parking lot s, around BART stops, upzoning neighborhoods, in shopping centers?) o 51st and Broadway vacant parcel – housing affordability o DaVita Dialysis Site in Rockridge
o Rockridge Bart
o Along transit lines – bus too or just bart?
o Blighted sites that could be redeveloped or utilized in some way o We
st Oakland can be a much denser area of the city, Mandela Parkway o What is built needs to serve lower income levels
- What do you think some of the issues or challenges will be in these areas? o NIMBY views, no housing no change sentiments
o Preventing displacement/gentrification
- W
hat type of housing does Oakland need more of? Where do you think it should go?
Why?
o Having housing typologies that coi ncide well community character – for example lofts in the industrial areas of west oakland
o Dense transit-oriented development, having folks closer to amenities that are accessible by transit
Appendix C: Main Room Chat Transcript
118:04:24 From Iris Starr to Everyone:
What is the agenda for this meeting? When do we get to talk? 18:04:46 From Cathy Leonard to Everyone:
Will the recording be shared with the participants?
18:05:12 From Liana Molina to Everyone:
And the mtg notes? ^^
18:06:28 From *Laura Kaminski to Everyone:
We will post a recording of the meeting on the website
18:06:39 From Cathy Leonard to Everyone:
Thanks Laura.
18:06:56 From *Laura Kaminski to Everyone:
34 Notes will also be posted on the website
18:07:05 From Liana Molina to Everyone:
Great, thanks!
18:07:05 From Iris Starr to Everyone:
What is the schedule for the update, I.e, what are the milestones and when? Where is this posted and can it be posted here?
18:07:35 From Iris Starr to Everyone:
When do you expect this to go to Planning Commission for approval, and then to Council?
18:08:03 From Naomi Schiff to Everyone:
Sorry I have to leave at 6 pm but please keep me in the mix. How can I provide written comments?
18:08:32 From Liana Molina to Everyone:
Probably good for those translators to share w community members who can’t be here?
18:08:46 From Liana Molina to Everyone:
*to take notes
18:09:13 From Iris Starr to Everyone:
Lots of echos
18:09:17 From Hazel O'Neil, D&B to Everyone:
Si necesita traducción en español, envíe un mensaje a Hazel 18:09:31 From Hazel O'Neil, D&B to Everyone:
如需翻译，请留言 Hazel
18:09:48 From Iris Starr to Everyone:
We need interpretation, we don’t know who is coming
18:10:41 From *Laura Kaminski to Everyone:
35 W e will go over the high level schedule and update the website with more details as the schedule progresses and as more meeting dates get added. 18:10:53 From Liana Molina to Everyone:
I tried to voice my comment in the comments - about talking tri -lingual notes in English, Spanish, and Cantonese.
18:10:55 From Kelsey Hubbard to Everyone:
interpretation streams can be recorded if the consultant team logs onto them and records on the back end
18:11:09 From *Diana Perez, City of Oakland to Everyone:
The schedule for the General Plan Update will be covered during the presentation. It is also posted on the City's website: https://www.oaklandca.gov/topics/general-plan-update 18:11:12 From Rabi'a Keeble to Everyone:
the power point is not entirely visible and partially cut off, can some fix that? Thanks 18:11:16 From *William Gilchrist to Everyone:
Might be good for anyone not speaking to mute their microphone so we have minimum echo and noise. But remember to restore your microphone when you speak! 18:11:33 From Liana Molina to Everyone:
(Notes in all 3 languages for community members who can’t be present.) 18:11:47 From Hazel O'Neil, D&B to Everyone:
One note to all attendants - there is closed captioning available for those who desire it. You can turn on closed captioning by clicking on the “CC” live transcript button at the bottom of your screen and selecting “show subtitles” (or “hide subtitles”) 18:13:42 From *Laura Kaminski to Everyone:
We can translate the notes in all 3 languages
18:13:48 From *Laura Kaminski to Everyone:
After the meeting
18:14:26 From Rabi'a Keeble to Everyone:
Please fix the powerpoint, reduce the size so it all fits on the screen 36 18:14:27 From Kelsey Hubbard to Everyone:
great to hear notes will be translated, the meeting should also be recorded in the various languages as well. this is possible with zoom.
18:14:33 From Iris Starr to Everyone:
The schedule does not provide adequate public involvement! “a draft must be submitted to the California Department of Housing and Community Development by June 2022” The public has no additional time to opine, except at the Planning Commission and City Council where the decisions are already made.
18:15:03 From Naomi Schiff to Everyone:
Will all be on Thursdays? Need to schedule in advance. . . 18:16:26 From Iris Starr to Everyone:
Naomi: Ha ha “all”
18:16:42 From Hazel O'Neil, D&B to Everyone:
Https://bit.ly/oaksites
18:17:30 From Randy O'Connor to Everyone:
A need to act on housing, to provide more, and overcome the various hurdles that always prevent it from happening.
18:17:51 From Iris Starr to Everyone:
I’m here to point out the impossibility of true community engagement and the predictable cookie cutter housing element that will result. 18:17:53 From Robin Walker to Everyone:
I retired from affordable housing. Over 25 years of experience. 18:18:06 From Tiffany Rose Lacsado to Everyone:
Member of the Deeply Rooted Collaborative - The Unity Council 18:18:10 From Phoenix Armenta to Everyone:
I want to see Oakland develop a housing first model, where housing the unhoused in the #1 priority and everything else is deprioritized until we have everyone housed. 18:18:29 From Naomi Schiff to Everyone:
37 P retty awkward managing to listen to y’all and try to type into a survey simultaneously.
18:18:31 From Liana Molina to Everyone:
I’m here to advocate for more low and extremely low income housing in oakland as one part of the solution to the housing and homelessness crisis in our city. 18:18:51 From Janelle Orsi to Everyone:
Curious if the city departments are able to engage with community members that are outside of their general sphere.
18:19:19 From Stuart Flashman to Everyone:
I am concerned about equitable housing and other elements. (I am a land use attorney)
18:19:23 From *Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Everyone:
We need more ELI housing in Oakland. We also need to have reasonable placement of occupants
18:19:30 From Phyllis Horneman to Everyone:
I am here as a small housing provider -a grand name for people who have an ADU. I am here because what we have been doing for affordable housing just isn't working. 18:19:44 From Karla Guerra to Everyone:
Karla Guerra, Policy & Advocacy Manager at The Unity Council. Advocate for affordable housing & housing access.
18:19:57 From Stuart Flashman to Everyone:
BTW, Menti doesn’t appear to be working.
18:20:00 From Phyllis Horneman to Everyone:
Longfellow
18:20:01 From Allison Bakke to Everyone:
Waverly
18:20:01 From Stuart Flashman to Everyone:
Rockridge
38 18:20:05 From Karla Guerra to Everyone:
Work in Fruitvale
18:20:07 From Paula Martin to Everyone:
D7
18:20:12 From Christopher Buckley to Everyone:
Clinton
18:20:12 From Phoenix Armenta to Everyone:
Clinton
18:20:12 From Joshua Hawn to Everyone:
I live in Alameda (should be Oakland)
18:20:14 From Rabi'a Keeble to Everyone:
I am in the Chinatown zip code or JL
18:20:17 From Cathy Leonard to Everyone:
Santa Fe
18:20:18 From madlynn johnson to Everyone:
member East Bay Housing Organizarion
18:20:18 From Iris Starr to Everyone:
I work in east oakland
18:20:19 From Irma Bodden to Everyone:
Concord
18:20:21 From Chia Hamilton to Everyone:
north oakland
18:20:24 From Stuart Flashman to Everyone:
Diversity
39 18:20:26 From Allison Bakke to Everyone:
People, culture.
18:20:26 From Liana Molina to Everyone:
I’m in D7/ deep east
18:20:29 From Jamaica Sowell to Everyone:
EO
18:20:29 From Karla Guerra to Everyone:
Love the community
18:20:30 From Janelle Orsi to Everyone:
diversity
18:20:33 From Chia Hamilton to Everyone:
diversity
18:20:36 From Rabi'a Keeble to Everyone:
A reduction of noise, response from the police be reasonable 18:20:37 From Karla Guerra to Everyone:
Sanctuary city
18:20:42 From Iris Starr to Everyone:
Are you going to ask we do not like, regarding housing??? 18:20:43 From Phoenix Armenta to Everyone:
Definitely the people, the culture
18:20:57 From madlynn johnson to Everyone:
Live in Bancroft Senior Housing
18:20:57 From Naomi Schiff to Everyone:
Pretty hard to do creative writing and listen to you at the same time. 40 18:21:14 From Chia Hamilton to Everyone:
walkability
18:21:29 From Liana Molina to Everyone:
I love our natural landscape- the redwoods!
18:21:33 From Jeffrey Levin to Everyone:
Jeff Levin with East Bay Housing Organizations. Want to see a housing element that affirmatively furthers fair housing and improves on the City's past ratio of only 1 affordable unit for every 9 market rate units.
18:21:36 From Cathy Leonard to Everyone:
I used to love my neighborhood until it became crowded with traffic and unfriendly neighbors.
18:21:50 From Reisa Jaffe to Everyone:
Please put a link to the website where we sign up to get on the mailing list for notifications of future meetings in the chat.
18:22:09 From Stuart Flashman to Everyone:
My browser says menti’s server has stopped responding
18:22:13 From madlynn johnson to Everyone:
Have family here
18:22:17 From *Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Everyone:
Sign up link - https://www.oaklandca.gov/topics/general-plan-update 18:22:17 From Naomi Schiff to Everyone:
Please provide a way to send in comments.
18:22:19 From *Khalilha Haynes, City of Oakland to Everyone:
Here is a link to the website, where you may sign up for updates:
https://www.oaklandca.gov/topics/general-plan-update
18:22:29 From Liana Molina to Everyone:
Love Oakland’s legacy of resistance to injustice
41 18:22:36 From *Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Everyone:
Please send in your comments to [email protected] 18:22:53 From Naomi Schiff to Everyone:
Thank you! Will that go to the housing people?
18:23:36 From *Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Everyone:
The comments will come to staff working on the General Plan Update 18:23:43 From Stuart Flashman to Everyone:
It’s shameful how low moderate income housing was!
18:23:58 From Ann Harvey to Everyone:
Does Oakland’s extremely low and low income and moderate income allocation increase to add what we were short during the last period? 18:24:00 From Chris Norman to Everyone:
Why did we not meet the low, very low, and extremely low goals? 18:24:04 From Chris Norman to Everyone:
Would love an explanation
18:24:14 From Brandon Harami to Everyone:
Not enough funding
18:24:19 From Christopher Buckley to Everyone:
I'm here to advocate adaptive reuse of older buildings, especially historic buildings for affordable housing, including use of the California Historical Building Code, which can significantly reduce rehabilitation costs. and therefore help promote affordability. 18:24:36 From Phoenix Armenta to Everyone:
Given that we have an abundance of Above Moderate Income Units, Does it make sense that we create a policy to limit Market Rate Development until the other buckets can catch up?
18:24:37 From Cathy Leonard to Everyone:
Unbelievable that most of the housing was for the well to do. 42 18:24:39 From Naomi Schiff to Everyone:
Photo shows market rate housing at Broadway/Grand.
18:24:55 From Cathy Leonard to Everyone:
Remember, Oakland was traditionally a blue collar town and affordable. 18:25:14 From Naomi Schiff to Everyone:
Let’s not destroy naturally affordable housing as we build expensive housing. 18:25:30 From Stuart Flashman to Everyone:
Market rate is the only kind thast doesn’t need a subsidy. There’s not the public money to provide subsidies.
18:25:31 From Iris Starr to Everyone:
The City creates barriers to affordable housing, especially housing developed by the people who know what they need.
18:25:45 From Reisa Jaffe to Everyone:
We need social housing! We need Oakland to be a place that’s affordable for people making minimum wage.
18:25:53 From Chia Hamilton to Everyone:
cathy, thinking that was following jerry brown's plan. don't recall him talking about housing all groups. I could be rong, though
18:26:07 From Joshua Hawn to Everyone:
We shouldn’t rely on property owners, in my opinion.
18:26:28 From Tuan Ngo to Everyone:
We need responsible and accountable housing with performance metrics. 18:26:30 From Iris Starr to Everyone:
NO HOUSING SPECULATION
18:26:45 From Reisa Jaffe to Everyone:
Iris agree with tha.
43 18:26:53 From Cathy Leonard to Everyone:
@Chia, Jerry Brown was only concerned about market rate housing. That's one reason I did not vote for him.
18:27:09 From Stuart Flashman to Everyone:
Need to bump up the vacant property tax
18:27:12 From *Alison Moore, D&B to Waiting Room Participants:
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/building-blocks/site-inventory- analysis/inventory-of-land-suitable.shtml
18:27:24 From Joshua Hawn to Everyone:
Re: speculation. Land value tax fixes this.
18:27:25 From Hazel O'Neil, D&B to Everyone:
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/building-blocks/site-inventory- analysis/inventory-of-land-suitable.shtml
18:28:00 From Rabi'a Keeble to Everyone:
I think that affordable housing is being built without regard to pollution and other hazards. Ask me.
18:28:25 From Iris Starr to Everyone:
Proximity to pollution…. So where is the environmental justice element?? Why is it separate?
18:28:46 From Jeffrey Levin to Everyone:
How about a map that shows the percentage White by census tract. That would be far more revealing
18:29:05 From Tuan Ngo to Everyone:
The state rent cap legislation (AB1482) has a definition of outside, speculative real estate investors. Protect local residents and target speculators using the legal definition of outside speculators in AB1482.
18:29:06 From Iris Starr to Everyone:
Yes @jefflevin
44 18:29:31 From Chris Norman to Everyone:
I agree with @jeff Levin. Would love to see that at your next session. 18:29:42 From PATRICIA TOSCANO to Everyone:
City of Oakland employees and Oakland school teachers can not afford a home where they work. Instead we are pushed out and not given the opportunity to be a vital part of the community where we work.
18:29:48 From Iris Starr to Everyone:
Housing concentration type…well, look at the hills
18:29:49 From Joshua Hawn to Everyone:
Close I-880 between Adeline and San Lorenzo.
18:30:20 From Iris Starr to Everyone:
BAN LAND SPECULATION
18:30:36 From Joshua Hawn to Everyone:
Tax Land (speculation)
18:30:36 From Cathy Leonard to Everyone:
Public Land for Oaklanders, not developers.
18:30:36 From Naomi Schiff to Everyone:
Too bad not much affordable going on at Oak Knoll.
18:30:37 From Reisa Jaffe to Everyone:
The definition of affordable has been stretched such that the result is still inequity.
That’s why we need social housing.
18:30:39 From Kelsey Hubbard to Everyone:
anti-eviction mapping project recently released this.
https://www.pmpress.org/index.php?l=product_detail&p=1140 18:30:42 From Kelsey Hubbard to Everyone:
worth checking out
45 18:30:53 From Joshua Hawn to Everyone:
+1 to social housing
18:30:56 From Bobbi Lopez to Everyone:
@ Iris, yes!! Speculation is the issue.
18:30:59 From Cathy Leonard to Everyone:
Yes Reisa.
18:31:07 From Naomi Schiff to Everyone:
Note historic house at lower right.
18:31:17 From Bobbi Lopez to Everyone:
And +1 Reisa
18:31:19 From Cathy Leonard to Everyone:
Affordable housing is unaffordable.
18:31:22 From Renata Robles to Everyone:
LOL "historic"
18:31:46 From Tuan Ngo to Everyone:
Equity Study to make to ensure just and responsible housing. 18:31:49 From Joshua Hawn to Everyone:
Historic means “typical craftsman bungalow” apparently
18:32:12 From Phoenix Armenta to Everyone:
I would like to know what this process can actually do. Are we setting new policy? Is this Housing Element a must do or a suggestion to elected as to how to proceed? Where does this fall in the City power structure?
18:32:18 From Cathy Leonard to Everyone:
Oakland needs DEEPLY affordable housing. Let's be real. 18:32:22 From Jeffrey Levin to Everyone:
46 No reuse of existing residential without 1 for 1 replacement of all affordable housing units that are removed
18:32:43 From Iris Starr to Everyone:
Abolish planning and building regulations that are not strictly about Safety as we eliminate land grabs
18:32:45 From Renata Robles to Everyone:
@Tuan - check out AFFH guidelines, which are intended to address equity and segregation issues through the Housing Element
18:32:57 From Joshua Hawn to Everyone:
@ Phoenix, this is a process required by State Law
18:33:11 From Jeffrey Levin to Everyone:
The State considers the Housing Element to be a contract with the City about what it WILL do.
18:33:17 From Renata Robles to Everyone:
@Jeffrey - State law (SB330) requires "no net loss provisions" to replace any units demolished
18:33:22 From Naomi Schiff to Everyone:
What will the link be to reach the location map?
18:33:26 From Tuan Ngo to Everyone:
Thanks Renata.
18:33:32 From Bobbi Lopez to Everyone:
Yes @Cathy, this Mayor has only prioritized market rate housing which is why Oakland met it’s goal by 174% for market rate, but only 26% of what it was supposed to build for low income. It has not been a policy priority for her. 18:33:34 From *Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Everyone:
We will publish the map online tomorrow
18:33:46 From Jeffrey Levin to Everyone:
+1 Renata Robles
47 18:33:51 From *Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Everyone:
it will be available on the General Plan Update website tomorrow 18:33:59 From *Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Everyone:
https://www.oaklandca.gov/topics/general-plan-update
18:34:04 From Joshua Hawn to Everyone:
When can we annex Alameda?
18:34:09 From Randy O'Connor to Everyone:
This looks great, excited to engage with it.
18:34:23 From Cathy Leonard to Everyone:
Joshua, and Piedmont, ha.
18:34:36 From *Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Everyone:
We are also noting down the questions and will respond in an FAQ 18:34:36 From Joshua Hawn to Everyone:
Yep Can’t forget about annexing Piedmont.
18:34:39 From Chia Hamilton to Everyone:
please enlrge the slides
18:34:42 From Zac Bowling to Everyone:
I agree with @josh hawn. Please annex alameda and Piedmont 18:34:53 From Naomi Schiff to Everyone:
DOSP is not released/approved?
18:34:57 From Iris Starr to Everyone:
We should be tracking the “small” project list and doing all we can to get those developed. Eliminate City permit blocks
18:35:16 From Joshua Hawn to Everyone:
48 I hope staff will be taking a serious look at likelihood of redevelopment in the next 8 years
18:35:31 From Renata Robles to Everyone:
@Bobbi - the Housing Element is an opportunity to create new standards/requirements for development to promote more affordable housing. This is usually done through the "programs" included, which are the implementation measures that align with the document's goals.
18:35:31 From Randy O'Connor to Everyone:
Can we see locations other users tag or only locations you tag? 18:35:35 From Kelsey Hubbard to Everyone:
10 days does not seem like enough to authentically gather this input 18:35:39 From Kelsey Hubbard to Everyone:
seems performative
18:35:41 From Tiffany Rose Lacsado to Everyone:
Why only 10 days?
18:35:46 From Zac Bowling to Everyone:
Should Howard terminal be a given on this tool?
18:35:52 From Iris Starr to Everyone:
Who knows where libby lives? Let’s drop a pin for a high rise there 18:35:53 From Cathy Leonard to Everyone:
Will public lands be considered for deeply affordable housing? 18:35:58 From Jeffrey Levin to Everyone:
1 very low or low income unit produced for every 9 above moderate income unit .
Makes no sense in a City where half the population (and much more than half of all renters) are very low or low income.
18:36:12 From Alex Schafran to Everyone:
I will echo the fact that ten days is not even close to enough 49 18:36:13 From Renata Robles to Everyone:
@Joshua - the state has been very seriously analyzing other jurisdiction's submissions to make sure the proposed opportunity sites are not fillers that won't be redeveloped in the planning period
18:36:17 From Iris Starr to Everyone:
Yes, @jeffreylevin
18:36:24 From Zac Bowling to Everyone:
Can we fill the estuary and add housing there?
18:36:41 From Joshua Hawn to Everyone:
Excelent idea, Zac. Make Alameda a peninsula again.
18:36:48 From Preeti S to Everyone:
Yes, 10 days seems VERY short. This is a lot for anyone to comb through. 18:36:56 From Stuart Flashman to Everyone:
Will everyone who signed up for this get an email with a link to the map? 18:37:16 From Cathy Leonard to Everyone:
If you really want community input, the 10 day deadline should be extended. 18:37:19 From Kelsey Hubbard to Everyone:
what about vacant building sites?
18:37:26 From Kelsey Hubbard to Everyone:
can we add a layer on the map of city owned sites?
18:37:37 From Joanna Winter, City of Oakland to Everyone:
@Naomi The DOSP (Downtown Oakland Specific Plan)'s implementing zoning amendments have been underway for the past year+, and will be released soon for public review. An update will be out about it next week.
18:37:38 From Zac Bowling to Everyone:
Does the city have a list of opportunities sites they are considering yet? 50 18:37:47 From Chia Hamilton to Everyone:
What about sites with buildings that have been empty for years & years & years? 18:37:59 From Iris Starr to Everyone:
Can we use the 1 billion in infrastructure money and the ballpark site for housing? Why or why not, if we are serious about housing
18:38:00 From Joshua Hawn to Everyone:
Reisa, look out for a new bill coming soon from Asm. Alex Lee 18:38:00 From Renata Robles to Everyone:
The Housing Element is an unfunded mandate form the state for the city to plan for housing without any funding or support for implementation or subsidy to develop meaningfully affordable housing
18:38:04 From Stuart Flashman to Everyone:
could someone define social housing?
18:38:20 From Bobbi Lopez to Everyone:
@Renata, of course. One thing the City administration could do is actually implement the public lands policy passed by the city council back in 2018. Making public lands available for affordable housing development/social housing would have made a difference the last four years…
18:38:26 From gina bugiada to Everyone:
Will you define “social housing” so we can all be on the same page? 18:38:28 From Iris Starr to Everyone:
@renata, right!
18:38:40 From Naomi Schiff to Everyone:
We should review the requirements for density bonuses and raise the number of units required for expanding buildings greatly.
18:38:41 From Reisa Jaffe to Everyone:
Policy - no more market rate housing to be built while we have people sleeping on the streets
51 18:38:42 From Ronnie Spitzer to Everyone:
10 days is too short for community input
18:38:52 From Tuan Ngo to Everyone:
Yes, please define socia l housing. Public Housing Projects haven’t been responsible our effective.
18:38:55 From Liana Molina to Everyone:
My question wasn’t really clarified: are you seeking sites for the construction of new development?
18:39:17 From Jamaica Sowell to Everyone:
@Reisa +1
18:39:22 From Iris Starr to Everyone:
Yes, @reisa! No more market until we house our people
18:39:23 From Leonora Sea to Everyone:
It won’t be possible to reach everyone who would want to provide input in only 10 days.
18:39:26 From Naomi Schiff to Everyone:
Are you including adaptive reuse projects for older buildings that could be converted for housing?
18:39:54 From Renata Robles to Everyone:
@Liana - opportunity sites are locations likely to be redeveloped for housing in the next 8 years. These do not need to be vacant sites, but it's easier to justify to the state if they are vacant. Identifying a property as an opportunity site is not a mandate to be redeveloped. 18:39:58 From Naomi Schiff to Everyone:
Include the City Hall parking lot that was closed, on Clay Street, as a site for aff. housing.
18:40:06 From Bobbi Lopez to Everyone:
Doesn’t the city have a list of surplus sites?
18:40:07 From Jeffrey Levin to Everyone:
52 I t feels like you are asking us to advance solutions before we have had a discussion about the structural and systemic roots of the problem
18:40:12 From Iris Starr to Everyone:
Maybe Loren’s house in addition to Libby’s
18:40:36 From Jamaica Sowell to Everyone:
@Jeffrey +1 yes!
18:40:46 From Tuan Ngo to Everyone:
More housing around public transportation.
18:40:49 From Iris Starr to Everyone:
@Jeffrey +1
18:40:52 From Jack Nagle to Everyone:
For RHNA, can City count long -term extension of affordability covenants on units whose affordability is expiring soon? Maintaining such long -term affordability might be an effective strategy.
18:40:52 From Bobbi Lopez to Everyone:
@Jeffrey +2!!
����
18:40:54 From Renata Robles to Everyone:
Context is also important as likelihood for redevelopment is dependent on project feasibility for a developer to propose housing
18:41:12 From Phoenix Armenta to Everyone:
Where can we access the previous Housing Element should we want to read it? 18:41:23 From Iris Starr to Everyone:
We are in the weeds, we are all taking the bait
18:41:23 From Naomi Schiff to Everyone:
Are you going to include in the map sites with historic status, including adaptive reuse possibilities?
18:41:33 From Renata Robles to Everyone:
53 Previous housing element: https://www.oaklandca.gov/resources/read- the-2015- 2023-housing-element
18:41:40 From Rabi'a Keeble to Everyone:
When looking at sites the city should include church properties where churches are willing to use their property to build affordable housing 18:41:42 From Preeti S to Everyone:
Shouldn't the city already have a list of surplus sites? 18:41:43 From Jeffrey Levin to Everyone:
@Jack Nagle - while the housing element has to address preservation of existi ng affordable housing, that does not count toward the RHNA, which needs to be a net increase in housing
18:41:50 From Stuart Flashman to Everyone:
Land cost is a major constraint on where affordable housing can go. 18:42:02 From Renata Robles to Everyone:
Land cost as well as parcel size!
18:42:05 From Randy O'Connor to Everyone:
+1 to Zac!
18:42:06 From Tiffany Rose Lacsado to Everyone:
Who do we talk to if we need tech support with the maps 18:42:46 From *Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Everyone:
You can email [email protected] and we can help you with it 18:43:08 From *Diana Perez, City of Oakland to Everyone:
The 2015-2023 Housing Element (the most recently adopted Housing Element) is available online: https://www. oaklandca.gov/resources/read-the-2015-2023-housing- element
18:43:13 From Janelle Orsi to Everyone:
I’m disappointed the City scheduled the next workshop for Feb 17, but it appears the City hasn’t yet emailed people on the update list? That’s short noti ce. It makes it hard for 54 people to show up and give input. It sounds like a lot of people here will have good input on the Housing Programs. I hope folks show up: https://www.oaklandca.gov/events/general - plan-update-housing-workshop-2
18:43:14 From Kelsey Hubbard to Everyone:
shouldn't the initial assessment be done by the consultant team? the starting place should have been capacity building so that the community can understand what a housing element is
18:43:20 From Naomi Schiff to Everyone:
Can you provide a list of attendees at this meeting?
18:43:33 From *Audrey Lieberworth, City of Oakland to Everyone:
@Preeti - yes, we have a list of surplus sites owned by the City of Oakland, the State, Alameda County, Oakland Unified School District, and other local agencies 18:43:35 From Stuart Flashman to Everyone:
Look at urban land trusts as an option for affordability. 18:43:39 From Jeffrey Levin to Everyone:
Is the City seriously considering rezoning single family and low density areas in high opportunity neighborhoods?
18:43:46 From Sid Kapur to Everyone:
+1 to Jeffrey’s question
18:43:54 From Preeti S to Everyone:
Thanks for clarifying @Audrey
18:43:55 From Chris Norman to Everyone:
I didn't realize the purpose of today's meeting was to discuss potential sites - it would be great to post a list of meeting objectives for all future meetings so we can decide when to attend.
18:43:56 From Iris Starr to Everyone:
This is so frustrating! Asking us to review a done deal of the sites. How have they been chosen? Environmental Justice criteria? Safety?
18:44:10 From Naomi Schiff to Everyone:
55 Who is picking these sites?
18:44:13 From Preeti S to Everyone:
+1 to Chris for meeting agenda
18:44:17 From christina Beach to Everyone:
How is " affordable" housing defined? What is the maximum income level to be considered affordable?
18:44:19 From Phyllis Horneman to Everyone:
I am sorry but I am going to have to leave the planning session for 45 minutes or so. 18:44:22 From PATRICIA TOSCANO to Everyone:
What exactly is considered affordable housing? To live comfortably afford a one bedroom in Oakland you need to have least an annual income of $77,360 at least $37.19 per hour according to NLIHC. Where does that leave families, teachers and low earning city of Oakland workers
18:44:31 From Renata Robles to Everyone:
Can staff please update the HEU website to have more meaningful information? The "events" page doesn't show any of these workshops, including the one we are in currently.
The timeline is vague.
18:44:33 From *Laura Kaminski to Everyone:
These are just initial sites, we are seeking feedback for additional sites. 18:44:42 From Iris Starr to Everyone:
@chris + 1, no agents are posted, just meeting dates
18:44:51 From Kelsey Hubbard to Everyone:
exactly!!!! this question speaks to the need for capacity building. the consultant team is moving way too fast and doing performative engagement 18:45:05 From Tiffany Rose Lacsado to Everyone:
So basically if there are vacant blighted sites in our neighborhoods with absent property owners we can add those to the list for your consideration? 18:45:08 From Kelsey Hubbard to Everyone:
56 t his is a check the box meeting
18:45:18 From Renata Robles to Everyone:
Cities must review every project for conformance with the Housing Element and General Plan. The GP is the constitution for the City and can actually enact change!! Stay involved.
18:45:25 From Naomi Schiff to Everyone:
The question is, how will you incorporate the feedback? 18:45:44 From Rabi'a Keeble to Everyone:
@Naomi....good point
18:45:44 From Tiffany Rose Lacsado to Everyone:
Can we also add OUSD vacant (and blighted) public lands? 18:45:46 From Iris Starr to Everyone:
@kelsey Hubbard + 1,000,000 check the box.
18:46:13 From Renata Robles to Everyone:
@Tiffany - if you or anyone wants to get into the weeds on what makes a good opportunity site, the state has specific guidelines https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community - development/housing-element/docs/sites_inventory_memo_final06102020.pdf 18:46:13 From Reisa Jaffe to Everyone:
+1 to Naomi’s question
18:46:16 From Tuan Ngo to Everyone:
How does Oakland plan to protect minority owned properties and keep black homes in black hands?
18:46:45 From Robin Walker to Everyone:
Howard Terminal’s affordable housing proposal is not in compliance. No deeply affordable. 50%,80% and 120% only.
18:47:03 From Kelsey Hubbard to Everyone:
57 I propose allowing more time for public comment rather than 40 minutes of break out group discussions..... there is nothing to talk about at this point. we need to understand more about the HE and what it does
18:47:21 From Naomi Schiff to Everyone:
That’s a good suggestion Kelsey.
18:47:31 From Joshua Hawn to Everyone:
By “deeply affordable” do you mean “extremely low income”? (Less than 30% of Area median income?)
18:47:31 From Phoenix Armenta to Everyone:
Can we include in this Housing Element a plan for returning displaced Oakland residents back to Oakland?
18:47:31 From Jeffrey Levin to Everyone:
How is the City planning to meet the "no net loss" requirement? If you build market rate housing on sites listed as available for affordable housing, you will have to identify additional affordable housing sites. Are you planning to identify more than the bare minimum to meet RHNA?
18:47:33 From christina Beach to Everyone:
How did Oakland meet the standards determined in the last General Plan? How do we hold policy makers responsible for implementing the plan? where is the accountability? 18:47:47 From Leonora Sea to Everyone:
+1 to Kelsey Hubbard’s most recent comment.
18:47:48 From Preeti S to Everyone:
+1 @Kelsey
We need more in-depth background information. This feels a little thin... 18:47:55 From Renata Robles to Everyone:
The City needs to submit their HE to the state for review. Bay Area jurisdictions need to have their HE's certified by the state by Jan 31 2023. Sounds far away but the state has given guidance that they need 180 days for review.
18:48:01 From Iris Starr to Everyone:
58 We are doing this because we must, so we are just going to rehash what we have.
Couldn’t provide the housing last time, policy was insufficient and discriminated against poor people, the politicians just look the other way.
18:48:10 From Christine Hernandez to Everyone:
+1 @Kelsey
18:48:36 From Naomi Schiff to Everyone:
I have to leave. Please advocate for affordable housing. 18:48:43 From Reisa Jaffe to Everyone:
+2 to Kelsey’s suggestion
18:48:45 From Iris Starr to Everyone:
What will happen with the “notes”?
18:48:53 From Hazel O'Neil, D&B to Everyone:
1. What are the housing issues you care about in Oakland?
2. What do you see as some of the opportunities for planning new housing in Oakland? (examples: specific areas in Oakland, on large parking lots, around BART stops, upzoning neighborhoods, in shopping centers?)
3. Wh
at do you think some of the issues or challenges will be in these areas?
4. What type of housing does Oakland need more of? Where do you think it should go? Why?
18:48:55 From Kelsey Hubbard to Everyone:
can we not move to breakout rooms and add more time to public comment????? 18:49:08 From Cathy Leonard to Everyone:
Can you post the Chat on the website?
18:49:14 From Kelsey Hubbard to Everyone:
40 minutes of breakout rooms is wasting time, we don't know what we need to talk about. we need more information on the HE
18:49:18 From Jamaica Sowell to Everyone:
59 ^^yes
18:49:18 From Tiffany Rose Lacsado to Everyone:
@renata Thank you! I need the Cliff Notes version
�����
18:49:29 From Phyllis Horneman to Everyone:
Be back somewhat later.
18:49:35 From Jamaica Sowell to Everyone:
@Kelsey +1
18:50:10 From Renata Robles to Everyone:
I got you Tiffany - here's the Cliff Notes:
https://lafayette.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=&clip_id=5918&meta_id=146586 18:56:24 From Caleb M to Everyone:
No mic
18:56:42 From Caleb M to Everyone:
But I will write. Skip me for now
18:57:34 From Caleb M to Everyone:
Ensure we go large with our efforts and actions in addressing the housing crisis 19:00:25 From Liana Molina to Everyone:
To elaborate on your questions re: the hills, to meet our RHNA go als, Market Rate housing should be zoned into areas that are affluent and high resource areas as to not further gentrify the flatlands
19:01:15 From Sid Kapur to Everyone:
College Ave in Rockridge would be a great place for midrise housing 19:01:25 From Sid Kapur to Everyone:
and upper Broadway and Piedmont Ave
19:03:07 From Phoenix Armenta to Everyone:
The Dimond and Laurel District??\
60 19:03:19 From Phoenix Armenta to Everyone:
NIMBY’s
19:10:16 From Sid Kapur to Everyone:
Neighborhoods identified as high opportunity and undergoing exclusion in the TCAC/gentrification maps could be a great place to focus on. As well as neighborhoods close to BART or high-frequency bus lines
19:18:52 From Liana Molina to Everyone:
My name is liana Molina, you can reach me at [email protected] or 510 -593- 3633
19:19:11 From Liana Molina to Everyone:
I had questions about the relationship between the housing element and the general plan update
19:23:57 From *Helen Pierson, D&B to Everyone:
FYI a summary of the topics addressed at the next three workshops:
• Workshop 2 on the 17th will cover needs/housing trends in Oakland, and people’s ideas
• Workshop 3 will focus on anti-displacement and tenant protections. • Workshop 4 will be when we ask the public to weigh in on the full draft Housing Element
19:28:20 From *Helen Pierson, D&B to Everyone:
And a bit more information on community outreach: stakeholder meetings, and then theres lots of pop up outreach conducted by community partners, an equity working group, community hub events, visioning workshops, town halls, survey - these events and opportunities will cover both the housing element and the GP update. 19:29:25 From Liana Molina to Everyone:
Another question I have is whet her we are relying entirely upon private and non profit entities for the production and preservation of affordable / below market rate housing? What resources is the city able to leverage with regard to maximizing production, preservation and protection of BMR units?
Oakland Housing Element Workshop #2 Report
1 Oa
kland 2045: Housing Element
Workshop #2 Report
Oakland’s Housing Element and Housing
Programs
F
EBRUARY 17, 2022
Prepared for
The City of Oakland
Prepared by
Oakland 2045 General Plan Update
2 Table of Contents
Table of Contents ................................................................................................................... 2 Project Background and Meeting Objectives ........................................................................... 3 Workshop Location and Format .............................................................................................. 3 Breakout Group Discussions ................................................................................................... 3 Appendix A: Breakout Group Facilitator Notes ........................................................................ 8 Appendix B: Zoom Chat ........................................................................................................ 22 Oakland Housing Element Workshop #2 Report
3 Project Background and Meeting Objectives
The City of Oakland is preparing a comprehensive update of its Housing Element, which is a component o f Oakland’s General Plan that will serve as a blueprint for housing the City’s residents at all economic levels —including low -income residents and households with special needs—from 2023 through 2031. The Housing Element, one of seven State-required general plan elements, was last updated in 2015 and is now being updated to reflect more recent housing opportunities, challenges, and approaches that have emerged in the community, as well as comply with new State laws.
The second Housing Element workshop was part of Phase 1 of the General Plan update. The purpose of this workshop wa s to provide information about the General Plan and Housing Element update process and gather communi ty input on potential housing programs. This short report summarizes the key themes and ideas that emerged during the workshop.
Detailed discussion notes are located in the appendices.
Workshop Location and Format
The workshop took place on Thursday, Feb ruary 17, 2022 from 6:00 to 8:00 pm online via Zoom meeting. The workshop was held in an online format due to public health concerns from the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic; this gave community members flexibility to attend the meeting from any location and dro p in and out at any time. Approximately 80 community members attended the workshop. The workshop was simultaneously translated into Cantonese and Spanish.
The planning team gave a short presentation during the workshop that included an overview of the workshop format, as well as the General Plan and Housing Element update proce ss; a recap of the first Housing Element workshop held on February 10, 2022; and a summary of how the Housing Element can be used to incentivize affordable housing and create more inclusive neighborhoods. The presentation concluded with a Q&A session for participant questions and comments.
After the presentation, participants then proceeded to one of six Zoom breakout rooms for small group discussion. Attendees were not required to participate in breakout room discussion and were allowed to spend as much or as little time in their small group discussion breakout room as they wished.
Breakout Group Discussions
The second half of the meeting was spent in six small group discussions where community members had the opportunity to brainstorm together on potential programs to be included in the Housing Element. For the discussions, six to eight participants were sent into Zoom breakout rooms with one to two facilitators from the planning team. The group conversations were structured around the following questions:
Oakland 2045 General Plan Update
4 1. What housing issues are important to you?
2. What are your thoughts on programs and actions to build more h ousing, including impacts (pros and cons) of:
a. Raising heights and densities to allow for more housing b. Restrictions on amount of parking to reduce housing costs c. Allowing different housing options in single family neighborhoods d. Ways to pay for affordable housing
Unique discussions from each group, key takeaways, and common themes are described below. For more detailed notes from each group facilitator, see Appendix A.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
During the workshop, the planning team heard a wide range of opinions on all topics. • Homelessness. Homelessness was a key housing issue among nearly all participants.
Groups discussed a wide variety of strategies to house the unhoused community, including more flexible building types, temporary units, RVs/safe parking zones, tiny hom
es, manufactured housing , and working with the unhoused community t o u
nderstand their needs and priorities. Participants discussed methods for addressing the homelessness crisis, including balancing the speed at which housing is built with the need to ensure that new housing is high- quality and habitable, partnering with community groups that work with unhoused communities, and creating housing options that include wrap-around services
.
• Typ
es of Housing. Participants generally were supportive of new housing at every income level, though there were differing opinions on whether market rate housing was an appropriate funding mechanism for affordable housing. Many participants’ expressed that funding and constructing “deeply affordable housing” for vul nerable populations such as the unhoused and low -income residents should be the Housing Element’s top priority. Many participants also wanted to ensure that new housing does not exacerbate ongoing displacement of low-income residents and residents of color. Participants were generally supportive of allowing more types of housing in currently single-family areas, and some were already active in organizations that help homeowners add additional units to their properties. Many participants wer e
in
terested in a ffordable housing solutions that allow residents/owners to build equity, such as community land trusts and sweat equity approaches (i.e., Habitat for Humanity).
• Simplifying the Development Process. Participants in every group expressed desire to see the cu rrent development/permitting process streamlined, particularly for low -income and non- profit builders. Zoning, environmental review/ CEQA, existing City and State policies (i.e., rent control) , parking requirements, and land Oakland Housing Element Workshop #2 Report
5 costs were all listed as constraints to housing development. Some participants suggested financial incentives for homeowners as a strategy to increase infill development in existing neighborhoods; it should be noted that th e City has already streamlined the additional dwelling unit (ADU) permit process pursuant to State law, but the process could be further simplified , or additional incentives could be developed. Other participants suggested that the City create a designated office within the Planning Department that handles affordable housing permits or works with low-income builders.
• Affordable Housing Impact Fee. Many participants wanted the planning team to look at the City’s existing affordable housing impact fee to assess whether it has been an effective strategy to provide affordable housing, or if changes should be made to ensure that the policy is working as intended. Many participants wanted to see higher inclusionary requirements, and several participants wanted to see the policy modified to get rid of the impact fee all together, replacing the fee with more stringent on-site affordable housing requirements.
• Transportation. Many participants were interested in planning for transportation improvements along with new housing. Group d iscussions about transportation ranged from desire to see new transit -oriented development ; desire to see new mixed-use development that allow people to walk to daily needs; incorporating active transportation improvements such as bike lanes; and transit improvements such as a shuttle system to enable more frequent connections within Oakland to key destinations and BART from neighborhoods; and the pros and cons of reducing parking requirements in new residential developments.
• I
nclusive Community Engagement. Participants across groups stressed the importance of including all Oaklanders, including members of vulnerable communities, in the planning process. Participants noted the need for the City to b e s
ensitive to trauma that so me residents face due to housing affordability and accessibility, as well as take the time to build in accountability and trust in the planning process.
BREAKOUT GROUP SUMMARIES
Group 1
• Group 1’s discussion focused on incentivizing homeowners to add ADUs to their property. Suggested strategies included rezoning and enforcing density changes; ensuring that new affordable housing is habitable; and pursuing funding sources, including State and federal programs, that will not only finance new housing construction but also invest in local workers/communities. • Group members expressed desire to see climate resilient housing that is co -located with transit and allows residents to walk to daily needs. • Group 1 also discussed the City’s existing inclusionary housing impact fees and vacant land taxes; some members wanted to update these policies so that private builders Oakland 2045 General Plan Update
6 are required to build affordable units in their projects (rather than pay a fee), and tax vacant rental units so that apartments do not sit empty.
Group 2
• Group 2 was in consensus that housing the unhoused is a top priority. The discussion focused on financing strategies for affordable housing – the group expressed that st
rategies such as community land trusts and Measure KK are great, but the financing process for both these sources should be more straightforward and have a shorter timeline. Suggestions included creating a separate affordable housing department within the Planning Department, and continuing to allow high-rate homes to generate transfer tax funds.
• Group 2 also discussed the intended and unintended consequences of upzoning built- out neighborhoo ds like Rockridge – how can the Housing Element create more housing opportunities without displacing existing tenants ? Group member s
e
xpressed that improving access to legal counseling for tenants and strengthening enforcement of negligent or abusive landlords is critical.
Group 3
• Group 3 participants were interested in promoting both affordable housing rental and ownership opportunities, given that ownership models allow residents to have a st
ake in the community and help to reduce displacement pressures. The grou p d
iscussed innovative methods of supporting and financing affordable housing , including community land trusts a nd sweat equity approaches (like Habitat for Humanity). Participants noted the importance of allowing homeowners to build equity through these approaches, as well as the need to create tools (such as affordable housing overlays and density bonuses, both of which would incentivize affordable development and disincentivize market -rate) that let non -profi t
d
evelopers compete for sites against for-profit developers. • Housing options for unhoused people was a priority. Participants noted the importance of wrap -around services and allowing more flexible building types and solutions like temporary units, RVs, tiny homes, manufactured housing, and safe parking zones.
Group 4
• Group 4 discussed how the Housing Element could help address growing wealth inequality by creating mixed-income neighborhoods, adding housing in exclusionary high-income neighborhoods, meeting low - and moderate -income RHNA targets so that Oakland does not lose its middle class, and preventing speculation /subsequent gentrification.
• Gr
oup 4 was very supportive of transit-oriented development but wanted to ensure that this type of housing would be affordable and not spur gentrification (particularly in areas where there is BART access, such as Fruitvale), perhaps by requiring higher Oakland Housing Element Workshop #2 Report
7 amounts of affordable units in areas that are susceptible to displacement than in areas that have undergone advanced gentrification or are exclusive. • Some participants in Group 4 wanted to see inclusionary and impact fees increased, and for the planning team to look at opportunities for converting underutilized commercial areas and empty lots into housing. Group members also suggested a separate City department for nonprofit-led building projects.
Group 5
• Group 5’s discussion primarily centered around strategies to make the housing production process as easy as possible , “cutting red tape ” or reducing bureaucratic obstacles where feasible. Suggestions included streamlining the development and permitting process through zoning changes (i.e., form-based codes, simplified CEQA compliance, more staffing at the Planning Department to reduce permit approval times, gleaning lessons from Singapore and Switzerland’s social housing models, and allowing more creative housing solutions such as shared housing. • G
roup 5 also discussed the need for more housing for special needs groups such as older adults/seniors, unhoused people, and families.
Group 6
• Group 6 had a range of priorities, including planning for housing at all affordability levels; building in accountability measures to ensure that RHNA targets are met for all income levels, given that the City did not meet its low- or moderate-income targets in the last Housing Element cycle; supporting low -income/grassroots builders, such as POOR ma gazine (an association of currently and formerly unhoused individuals and allies); focusing new housing on infill sites; and providing more/better- funded services for people experiencing homelessness.
• Other discussion topics included balancing the product ion of new housing with tenant protections ; rethinking how the City taxes vacant land and properties ; ensuring that planning efforts for housing, transportation, and environmental justice are cohesive and synergistic; and incorporating more opportunities for community- led planning throughout the Housing Element update process.
Oakland 2045 General Plan Update
8 Appendix A: Breakout Group Facilitator Notes
GROUP 1 FACILITATORS – ALISON MOORE AND LAKSHMI RAJAGOPALAN Key Takeaways
• Important strategies include ADU incentives for homeowners (will look into and email the group)
• Other strategies will include study of rezoning citywide, adding in the hills, and enforcement of density changes.
• Private sector paying for development, vacancy tax for rental units. • Supportive senate bills like SB35 and SB330
• Look at project laborer agreements as and local hire way to keep money in the City. • Future is vertical- land is limited.
• Housing habitability and dense, affordable, climate resilient housing is a concern .
• W
ays to be transparent and inclusive of groups that may be interested in attending stakeholder meetings, as everyone is a stakeholder
Participant 1- 20 year employee of the city, planning public works and transportation. Know a lot about zoning and policy, and how we’ve mistreated people. We need radical changes and won’t let it go.
Participant 2 - works for city attorney’s office, advises code enforcement, tenant attorney before. Listening in to hear the community. Concern: people are trying to build housing for unhoused community quickly, sometimes without permits, concerns about reducing habitability standards that tenant orgs have worked to put in place. All landlords have tendency to fall to lowest floor for habitability.
Participant 3 - community organizer at save the day - interested in advocating for dense, affordable, and climate resilient housing throughout this process. From climate resiliency standpoint.
Participant 4- new to this conversation- Oakland resident, born and raised. Curious to learn more about incentives to homeowners that have space on their lots that would be open to building an additional unit and ADU.
Participant 5 - wanted to clarify - unions don’t provide modular c onstruction- many are, a cheaper form of construction. Is getting better. Being constructed within san Francisco- high demand for it, that they are expanding.
What are some of the programs or actions the city can take to build more housing? Participant 4 - curious about the presentation where they mentioned lower than average density levels in east Oakland. Are any incentives made available to property owners who live in that area, who might be willing to have additional units go into their homes, or even ADUs?
Oakland Housing Element Workshop #2 Report
9 Staff- the city adopted ADU regulations, and has streamlined process at the counter, so it should not take as long as a multifamily building.
Participant 4: Older people with larger lots may not necessarily have money to do that on their own. Are there ADU incentives?
Participant 1: people need to be forced to build, especially those in the Hills. Also have to look at rezoning entire areas of the city- as part of phase 2 process, including rezoning or upzoning to allow for missing middle housing. Anywhere from 2-10 units. Looking at this throughout the City. Should look at residential hillside zones as part of this.
Participant 2: new construction is not rent controlled under state law, many people are advocating for getting state to rescind C osta Hawkins law that prohibits new construction from being rent controlled. ADUs are only part of the answer, if they aren’t newly constructed, they wont be under rent control.
Participant 5: The future is vertical- they are not making any more land. Look at how major cities have developed, like in Europe or Asia. The City has already increased density bonus initiatives using new state laws- allowing more height, reducing or eliminating parking.
New requirement where BART properties have new height/density requirements. Also increased heights or densities in specific plan areas.
Any pros and cons to increased height?
Participant 5: As you get more dense, more traffic and congestion - need to improve transportation and infrastructure around it. Also needs to be more local retail, so people can walk to the grocery store, without having to use a vehicle, more bike lanes. Blocking sun, park spaces.
Staff- Council has directed staff to look at fourplexes or middle housing in single family neighborhoods and more flexi ble ADU requirements. Is there anything else that should be included?
Participant 1: One of the main policies that need to be included in the element- enforcement of these density changes. If we’re going to say missing middle needs to go in, do study of every parcel that can accommodate. Say here’s your opportunity. Enforcement of policy. Means staff. Need staff to adopt radical ideas. Push an uphill battle against market forces.
Participant 3 :Save the Bay- climate resilience, as it relates to housing. Organization advocates for transit oriented housing, and urban green infrastructure.
How will these projects be financed? Implementing affordable housing impact fee, home funds to cover permitting cost, make city owned land available for affordable housing, huge gap. What are some other ways that you may know of.
Participant 5: Senate bills that talk about that, SB35 and SB330. Limits how much city council can push affordable housing forward. SNOFA, programs through HUD, just have to be utilized.
Oakland 2045 General Plan Update
10 SB35 requires skills and training. Helps with funding. Also looking at local hire policies, with PLA (project laborer agreement), money back into city itself. Keeping local money within the city itself.
Participant 1: So much leakage going outside of Oakland. A lot of public based support- paying for whatever the state decides to give us , making our case. Housing people cobbling 9 different loan sources. Things to be done about that. One is we need to demand private sector kick in- they benefit from growth. Impact fee that they can pay and get off without having to build is ridiculous- need to double or triple, build many more units. Need to have inclusionary zoning so they are buying units.
Way to ban land grabs- Moms for housing, took a house that has been vacant for years in west Oakland and made it habitable. Company that had done speculative investment fought that.
Get more money for it.
Existing vacant land tax that is regressive. Applies to single family homes and condos, but doesn’t apply to rental units. Building that as multiple units- doesn’t apply to, something that SF is looking at, but haven’t seen it proposed for Oakland, and thought it was an interesting idea. Pushing people to put units back on the market. If we have vacancy tax, also need cap on sales price. Force people into selling, and then that will be selling just a bit earlier than they would otherwise.
Other groups to consider and reach out to?
Participant 1: Can’t know who we need to reach out to. Don’t’ know how they’re being noticed.
Want to know more about groups. Community organizations that are missing, have the option to add those.
Group 2 Facilitator – Lauren Pepe
Key Themes
• Better financing for affordable housing: Need more options and the financing needs to be more straightforward with shorter timeline
• Community Land Trust process and Measure KK funding mechanism are great but can be streamlined and improved
• If we up-zone built-out neighborhoods like Rockridge, how do we protect existing tenants from their existing dwellings being converted into higher-density buildings? Ideas to explore in next workshop
• Vacancy tax- but does Oakland have property registry? • Landlords who violate laws or leave property in disrepair should be held accountable
• Get rid of evictors, agents of landlords, who benefit from eviction mill Oakland Housing Element Workshop #2 Report
11 • Make sure residents have legal tools to defend themselves • Yearly rental increase cap of 2% might prevent landlords who push residents out to get better rate
Other things to consider
• City makes a lot of money from transfer tax when properties are sold so higher-rate h
omes are in its best interest
• Create separate dept for affordable housing with different rules/regulations/resources to truly service for people trying to create solutions for themselves
Mo
re details/Rest of the notes
Participants and Their Top Issues:
Participant 1: Housing the unhoused, displaced, and low-income first Participant 2: Homelessness
Participant 3: Equity in housing
Participant 4 : Ensuring more types of housing at different income levels in high -resource neighborhoods (like Rockridge)
Stacking different tax credits for affordable housing can be a cumbersome process; for market rate in contrast, you just get a loan. Perhaps bank financing or investment funds for affordable housing?
Participant lives in land trust and received measure KK funding. C hallenges: difficult to navigate requirements that come with funding; secured property by making former owner accountable- reported issues- slow process; $40,000 in fees related to landlord neglect will come out funding; program needs to be streamlined and reevaluated; residen ts eligible for tax abatement only if all residents meet certain income requirement.
Rockridge seems like an ideal place to build more housing, but issues:
• High cost of land so likely means market rate
• Few opportunity sites
• Business district needs to be supported
• Protect existing tenants- can’t use existing buildings to rebuild • Splitting lots is not something all property owners have time/money/knowledge to do
• Not many duplexes even though it is zoned for that
Oakland 2045 General Plan Update
12 Ensure affordable housing not built near freewa ys and other environments that are unhealthy; types of businesses contribute negatively to environment as well ( such as smog check businesses)
GROUP 3 FACILITATORS – MATT ALVAREZ-NISSEN AND RAJEEV BHATIA Key Takeaways
• Participants were interested in promoting affordable housing, including both rental as
well as ownership. Ownership models allow residents to have a stake in the co
mmunity and helps to reduce displacement pressures.
• Housing options for unhoused people was a priority. Participants noted the importance of wrap-around services, and allowing more flexible building types and solutions like temporary units, RVs, tiny homes, manufactured housing, and safe parking zones.
• Innovative methods of supporting and financing affordable housing were discussed, including community land trusts and sweat equity approaches (like Habitat for Humanity). Participants noted the importance of allowing homeowners to build equity through these approaches.
• Participants emphasized the need to create tools that let non-profit developers compete for sites against for-profit developers – tools including affordable housing overlays and density bonuses, both of which would incentivize affordable development and disincentivize market-rate.
• A need for affordable housing near transit was also discussed, however it was noted that transit is not sufficient enough in the city (especially to support reduced parking requirements). One suggestion was to implement a shuttle system similar to Emeryville’s.
Detailed Notes by Question
Participants were asked Question #1 as part of the initial round robin, and then prompted on some of the key issues discussed. The rest of the conversation focused on Question #2. Questions #3 through #5 are provided for context.
Question #1 – What housing issues are important to you? • More affordability
• Affordable homeownership is possible (community land trusts, Habitat for Humanity, etc.), City focuses too much on affordable rental. Ownership will help reduce displacement pressures.
• Pay attention to the unhoused population
• RHNA process is important to get more housing built, wants to see more housing at every income level
Oakland Housing Element Workshop #2 Report
13 Affordable Housing?
• Trying to promote affordable housing in Rockridge, but land costs make it very difficult
• Land trusts are a good approach, since they keep land costs down. They have worked in East and West Oakland. Participants support land trusts is there is true equity for those involved – without equity that carries on after a resident has left this is deceptive.
Completed homes can be purchased and placed into the trust, or vacant land can be converted. The trust is owned by a non- profit organization with a board of directors to represent the community. Land is taken out of the equation, and future changes in cost are based only on improvements (not the cost of land). Discussion returned towards land trusts at the end of the group – one participant noted that the return on investment in land trusts way outpaces what a resident would have been able to acquire as a renter.
One participant pointed to TOPA in Berkeley, which provides no equity for tenants. They would hate to see the same thing in Oakland, which would create two classes of people considered homeowners.
One participant noted that if there is a TOPA or land trust in Oakland it needs to be more than rental, and needs to have some equity (although it may have to be limited equity).
Unhoused Population?
• Participants are here looking for solutions
• Need for wrap-around solutions for homeless housing. Some people are fine with just housing, but other people need longer-term help.
• City is in the process of allowing more types of temporary units, like RVs, tiny homes, etc. on property that was previously excluded.
• City should look at manufactured housing to se e if there are any barriers in City regulation.
• Some concerns about union opposition to this building type. • Need to increase the number of units that can be developed quickly, even if temporary. There are immediate housing needs to be met. The city still needs to build more permanent buildings, but it takes a long time to get this done. Need to facilitate temporary housing in the short run, and treat people like human beings until the permanent housing gets built.
• Safe parking zones for those living in their cars.
Question #2 – What are your thoughts on programs and actions to build more housing, including impacts (pros and cons) of: Raising heights and densities to allow for more housing Oakland 2045 General Plan Update
14 , Restrictions on amount of parking to reduce housing costs, Allowing different housing options in single family neighborhoods, Ways to pay for affordable housing • Even with higher densities and taller buildings, land costs in Oakland are so high that it often does not help make developments more affordable. • If the non-profit sector is competing with the for-profit sector for land, the for-profit developers can always put up more money. Need to think of ways to keep the non - profit sector in the game and disincentivize for -profit developers. This applies to all parcels on the market, not just surplus public land.
An affordable housing overlay provides one approach. It is legal, and will make development less attractive for for-profit developers.
• The City should try to disincentivize people who buy units are investmen ts and do not occupy them.
San Francisco is considering this, and Vancouver has a vacancy tax. Oakland has a vacancy tax currently, but it only applies to vacant land. The City should consider taxing vacant housing as well. In San Francisco’s proposal the tax would increase year by year (although single- family residences and condos would be exempt).
• Increased density bonus incentives, even beyond what the State allows, should be considered. More bonus and more incentives for affordable housing are needed. This is similar to the affordable housing overlay, but it does not increase the basic value of the property. With a density bonus it only makes it more cost effective to build affordable housing units, not a market-rate development. • Participants discussed the school district properties to be closed or consolidated, and that these should be considered for housing. It is unfortunate that they are closing, but the City needs to think about how to capitalize on that opportunity. A discussion of the State Surplus Land Act and its requirements also took place. • Density and parking reductions – Oakland would need much better and more frequent transit to successfully reduce parking.
• One participant brought up Emeryville as an example of a city zoned entirely for medium density with a higher required minimum affordable percentage. Upzoning everything with higher affordable requirements is one potential approach. The group discussed the history of Emeryville’s development, including the need to reuse previously industrial land. Their experience with parking requirements has been very positive.
One participant discussed the Emeryville Go -Round, which goes everywhere in the city and takes residents directly to BART. If Oakland has something similar it would be great – although the city would need several shuttles going to most of the BART stations throughout Oakland.
Oakland Housing Element Workshop #2 Report
15 • Plans for a road diet on Martin Luther King Way, potential for a bus only lane.
However, infrequent service is also a major issue. Transit was disrupte d by COVID, but it was bad before that too.
• One participant remarked that Oakland is not building enough housing at all income levels. Another participant disagreed and said there is enough higher -income housing.
• One participant said SB9 and SB10 were good steps in the right direction, and was disappointed that SB50 did not pass.
Zoom Chat
19:10:48 From Hope Williams to Everyone:
Hi all! I can only stay for a few minutes. Thank you!
19:18:19 From Hope Williams to Everyone:
A typical community land t rust is a nonprofit run by a board, staff, and community members. The community land trust balances the interest of its residents, the broader community, and the public interest to promote wealth building, retention of public resources, and solutions for community needs.
19:19:31 From Hope Williams to Everyone:
[email protected]
19:20:04 From Stuart Flashman to Everyone:
Thanks, Hope.
19:20:51 From Hope Williams to Everyone:
The thing with CLTs is that they are wildly underfunded 19:21:08 From Hope Williams to Everyone:
Small Sites Program in SF is a tale of caution and also hope GROUP 4 FACILITATOR – LAURA KAMINSKI
• Participant 1-I lived near the lake, very concerned about the unhoused people and definitely interested in housing different levels. Taxing businesses. Parallel financing plan.
• Participant 2, work at Sustainable Economies Law Center. Realize how planning laws and building codes get in th way of the process. Concerned will have a Housing element on a tight timeline.
Oakland 2045 General Plan Update
16 • Participant 3, had no fault eviction in san Francisco. Want to look at racial impacts.
Want to also meet low and moderate income housing so have middle class. Strategies of how to keep our black community here and stop gentrification. • Participant 4 lives in Rockridge, lived in Chicago. I am here in the YIMBY movement.
Grew up in Cal ifornia as a NIMBY to save land, but now realize can build up. Mixed income is very important. I work in educational video games, we are building all of this technology, pushing on all of this front and we are losing all this part of people who don’t have access to technology. How are we supporting the low income. We are separating the bottom and the top and Oakland’s segregation is increasing, this is scary to me.
• Participant 5 , live in Oakland for 3 years and a volunteer for YIMBY, want more housing in areas that have been exclusionary in the past and are by BART Stations. • Participant 6 for assembly member Bonta, want to hear what the community is saying.
P
articipant 3 – upzone Rockridge and Montclair. We want transit-oriented development, we should have affordable housing near transit so they can get around. If at Fruitvale adding more density, how do you not have a speculative market, had that in the Mission in San Francisco.
Participant 4 – prevention of development made it harder to be there.
Participant 5 – focusing development along the wealthier neighborhoods.
Participant 3 – increasing inclusionary and impact fees, using underutilized commercial for housing. Big problem is church and empty lot properties that are not being used.
Participant 2 – heard we don’t have control over this and that, market forces. One of biggest problems is people buying up land and houses. City should look at its ability to manage absentee ownership. Oakland has more power to control the market and access to funds.
Transfer taxes for expensive housing. Last year there was a bill that increasing the penalties for a City not meeting the deadlines for the Housing Element. When we think of what can we do ourselves, Homefulness, we should be rolling out the red carpet for them. City creates these barriers.
Participant 3 – very creative use of development services fund in San Francisco. Jamie Samabatu in San Francisco to check on how they are doing that. Waiving of permit fees.
Landlord’s gets charged a fee for an annual inspection, can be more flexible many for use of that money
Participant 1 - Can developers be required to pay into an anti -displacement fund to pay for legal services for tenants. Also look at increasing impact fees.
Oakland Housing Element Workshop #2 Report
17 Zoom Chat
19:20:11 From *Laura Kaminski to Everyone:
What housing issues are important to you?
19:20:37 From *Laura Kaminski to Everyone:
What are your thoughts on programs and actions to build more housing, including impacts (pros and cons)
19:21:11 From *Laura Kaminski to Everyone:
Raising heights and densities to allow for more housing 19:21:34 From *Laura Kaminski to Everyone:
Restrictions on amount of parking to reduce housing costs 19:21:53 From *Laura Kaminski to Everyone:
Allowing different housing options in single-family neighborhoods 19:22:23 From Bobbi Barbara Lopez to Everyone:
But if you give a developer a break, there needs to be a value capture -more density, more affordability. The problem is up zoning without affordability in low income neighborhoods leads to displacement of Black and Brown folks. 19:22:31 From *Laura Kaminski to Everyone:
What other things do you think will make a difference in Oakland’s ability to encourage more housing, especially affordable housing?
19:25:57 From Bobbi Barbara Lopez to Everyone:
You develop, but with more affordability requirements
19:26:05 From Bobbi Barbara Lopez to Everyone:
Treat different areas differently.
19:26:14 From Bobbi Barbara Lopez to Everyone:
https://www.urbandisplacement.org/maps/sf-bay-area-gentrification-and- displacement/
19:26:50 From Bobbi Barbara Lopez to Everyone:
Oakland 2045 General Plan Update
18 I think looking at the Urban Displacement Project mapping and thinking of zoning that way.
19:27:27 From Bobbi Barbara Lopez to Everyone:
Higher affordability in areas “susceptible to displacement,” while lower requirements in areas that are in advanced gentrification or exclusive… 19:30:29 From Bobbi Barbara Lopez to Everyone:
Also allowing church/religious property to become housing 19:30:41 From Bobbi Barbara Lopez to Everyone:
We have a massive empty lot near my house.
19:33:06 From Bobbi Barbara Lopez to Everyone:
TOPA!!!
19:34:13 From Bobbi Barbara Lopez to Everyone:
Or even an EIFD would be legislative.
19:34:21 From Bobbi Barbara Lopez to Everyone:
Not even a need to do a Go Bond.
19:46:24 From Janelle Orsi to Everyone:
Can we create a totally separate Planning & Building department just for grassroots and nonprofit-led building projects? It could have totally different funding, different staff with training about the particular needs of such projects, and trauma -informed training to be sensitive to the needs of people with housing insecurity. 19:46:54 From Bobbi Barbara Lopez to Everyone:
Jamie Sanbonmatsu
19:47:19 From Sid Kapur to Everyone:
I have to leave a bit early. Thanks Laura fo r moderating, this was a really interesting conversation!
19:49:31 From Bobbi Barbara Lopez to Everyone:
Could you do a two tier fee system? One for projects of at least 50% affordable, one for less than 50% market?
Oakland Housing Element Workshop #2 Report
19 GROUP 5 FACILITATORS – DIANA PEREZ AND ALICIA PARKER • Participant 1 – Lives in assisted living, skilled nursing facility. I would love for all seniors in Oakland to have the support she has, regardless of income. Affordable housing development issues. Wealth of knowledge in the community to help advise the City. Commission on aging. Financing is very complex – someone • Participant 2 – salvation army. Housing homeless families. Developer + finding contractor for putting up housing; raise money. The very important need to put housing as inexpensively as possible. We take care of people on the streets. Without regular builders who are incorporating low-income housing in their buildings + CEQA is an issue.
• Participant 3 – Oakland Heritage Alliance. Advocate for reusing existing buildings.
Converting existing buildings that are underutilized. More cost effective to use existing building – Historical building code can.
• Participant 4 – Dimond District. Raising two boys. People living on the streets – why do we allow them. People are being pushed into homelessness. I want the city to build more homes. Diamond is commercial corridor, well-served by transit – allow zoning changes for.
• Participant 5 – Oakland needs to build housing at all income levels. I don’t agree with some of the comments on restrictin g market rate. I think this puts pressure on displacement. Concerned about supply of family housing, concerned for people starting families and careers being able to stay in Oakland. • Participant 6 – D1 resident. As a city we build abundant, dense, inclus ive housing.
Getting to interact with people from different backgrounds, our planning and regulations makes it hard to interact with people – Oakland had one of the lowest rent increases. City has been making some good changes. A lot of underutilized land. Most of Longfellow is single -family homes. To the extent that we can get the city to encourage
What are your thoughts on programs and actions to build more housing, including impacts (pros and cons) of:
Issue: Development process is too long. Streamline p ermitting and entitlement for new housing production. Time cost money for developers. Where can you cut the bureaucracy? Does the state require streamlining? Where is Oakland in that process? CEQA: The rounds of community input where lawsuits can be brough t against projects // CEQA.
Broadway Valdez – this seems like a successful strategy --- new housing is going up, some preservation. Up zoning brought new production. Are there other specific areas in the city to increase density.
When Prop 13 went up taxes dried up – CEQA used to be a big source of lawsuits.
Oakland 2045 General Plan Update
20 Participant 4 – very frustrated with CEQA. Supports SB 9—lot splits for single-family homes.
Areas near transit need higher density. Apply parking limits/max. near transit areas.
Housing impact fee needs to be looked at closely. It’s unclear where the money went.
Zoning: Limiting number of units based on lot size – in some areas some of these limits should be eliminated. Form-based standards (whatever fits in envelope). ADUS: we are not keeping up with t he state. Making a broader use – going beyond state’s min. requirements. City’s mobile home rules are too restrictive – allow them in private property (cost effective/short- term housing strategy). House boats- is the housing looking at possibility of looking at some of these strategies? Be cautious about upzoning, because it’s difficult to downzone. Be targeted with upzoning (form based code)
A lot of decions are made at the city – move to hyper local approval – zoning change could be made by block – incensitve people to paritciapte in these meetings. The burden of proving no harm is on person
Participant 4 – Social housing is not going to be the solution; Singapore and Switserland -- lease on house. People can save money. Mixed income social housing; following Singapore and switserland. Planning department needs more money; they don’t have the time to look through all applications. Over one-month over due for pre-approval.
Current zoning rule that limits the number of kitchens – one way the city defines a regular housing unit – get rid of this to encourage shared housing or other innovative housing types.
Participant 3 – Some cities will contract out permit processing to consultants, to process applications very quickly. Another possibility to allow overtime plan checking. • Some strategies included x, y, and z.
Form-Based codes and standards to increase the number of housing units that can be built on a lot.
Making sure that we’re building the type of housing needed for families. Building more housing around transit corridors.
Making it as inexpensive as possible to build housing – cutting red tape wherever possible.
Getting rid of the one-kitchen rule to allow for more creative housing solutions – such as shared housing.
Preserving existing affordable units, and also converting vacant buildings. • Issues and concerns included x, y, and z.
Making sure that seniors at all income levels have access to safe, affordable and supportive housing options.
Housing the unhoused.
Oakland Housing Element Workshop #2 Report
21 The cost of building affordable housing and how long it takes to entitle and permit housing.
• Other ideas for promoting affordable housing included x, y, z Affordable Housing Zoning Overlay – areas of the city where streamlining affordable housing would be possible.
• Strategies to prevent displacement included x, y, z.
Looking at Singapore and Switzerland to see how they are implementing a social housing model; and bringing lessons learn for a social housing approach in Oakland.
Being very careful with up-zoning to prevent displacement due to increased land values.
Going beyond the state’s incentives for ADUs – making sur e,
• O
ther topics of importance include x, y, z.
Taking a close look at the impact fee – re- thinking whether this is an effective strategy to provide affordable housing.
GROUP 6 FACILITATOR – DANIEL FINDLEY
Participant 1:
• Policies to this point have been a failure- is wary of these discussions • “ludicrous policies” set by the City e.g., city required Poor Magazine to build parking spaces for which there is no use which delayed move in for tenants. • C
onversations that she’s had with the city acknowledged that some policies don’t make sense. Takeaway message: “nice to talk to the community but the bottom line is these meetings and processes are inaccessible. Not much faith until I see that the city has approved policies that support low-income builders (like Poor Magazine) • All conversations seem to be limited to market rate builders. City should impose fees on developers who can afford it, not on organizations like POOR. • Oakland Homeless Advisory Committee seems useless.
• A solution is prioritizing construction of housing for low -income builders and building a supportive infrastructure for this. Improve the communication between Planning & Building departments
Participant 2 (city employee and Challenge Grant Fellow) • City has never been able to create space for the unhoused and black and brown communities.
• What is the usefulness of the Housing Element?
Oakland 2045 General Plan Update
22 • Staff should consider having a housing professional share the actions needed to build housing such that the unhoused are housed and people can remain in their housing.
As we’re building new housing, ensure that we’re maintaining tenant protections • Increase the advocacy efforts on behalf of the city
• Re-think how city taxes vacant land and properties
Participant 3
• The General Plan Update process is fragmented. Housing and transportation are intertwined. Environmental justice is intertwined with Housing and transportation.
Participant 4
• Generally, aligns with group feedback. Need to focus on infill and is surprised to see vacant and underutilized areas.
• Appreciates advocacy done for housing
• Housing at all affordability levels
Participant 5
• Resident of Eastlake. Why did Oakland miss the mark of housing goals? Do we have a sense of why Oakland missed the mark and what are the accountability measures to not miss the mark moving forward.
Participant 6
• Have there been any considerations of adding community partners that support groups that work for the unhoused? City should consider a resource fair for residents who need education on their options for offload their properties
Participant 7 (East Bay Housing Organizations)
• Housing goals are simply goals; Alameda County can dictate use of its own funds. • Sees discrepancies of homelessness between SL and Oakland. • Need a census of how much housing is needed and the services that people need. • Need for triage of homeless individuals so that we understand the reasons for homelessness. Homeless aren’t living, but simply existing • Would rather see public sites such as OPD and County Jail become potential sites for housing
Appendix B: Zoom Chat
18:09:04 From WILLIE E STEVENS to Everyone:
Oakland Housing Element Workshop #2 Report
23 I d on't have that icode
18:10:17 From POOR Magazine to Everyone:
I don’t see public comment ?
18:12:20 From Ms. Omowale Fowles to Everyone:
I do not see the language
���
18:12:21 From Bridget Cervelli to Everyone:
I think public comment is the q&a section in the middle of the agenda - don’t know, just guessing
18:12:50 From *Rajeev Bhatia, Dyett & Bhatia to Everyone:
If you’re joining late, please select language from globe icon on your screen (on the bottom right). You have to select English as well.
18:12:53 From Casey Farmer to Everyone:
Can these slides (and the ones from the last workshop) please be posted or sent to attendees?
18:12:54 From Hazel O'Neil, Dyett & Bhatia to Everyone:
There is a globe icon labelled “interpretation” next to the reactions icon at the bottom of zoom screens
18:13:17 From Khalilha Haynes to Everyone:
Please check the bottom of the screen next to live transcript for interepretation. 18:14:11 From Khalilha Haynes to Hazel O'Neil, Dyett & Bhatia(Direct Message):
hi, could you make me a co-host please
18:14:15 From Gary Barg to Everyone:
What exactly is ‘environmental justice”?
18:14:35 From Iris Starr to Everyone:
How can Environmental Justice be “optionally” integrated??? It s/b a baseline contribution to the Plan, also with the infrastructure study going on 18:15:19 From *Laura Kaminski to Everyone:
Oakland 2045 General Plan Update
24 I t can ether be a stand alone element or integrated into all of the elements 18:15:36 From *Laura Kaminski to Everyone:
That is what State Law states
18:15:41 From *Diana Perez, City of Oakland to Everyone:
@Gary Low-income communities and communities of color often bear a disproportionate burden of pollution and associated health risks. Environmental justice seeks to correct this inequity by reducing the pollution experienced by these communities and ensuring their input is considered in decisions that affect them. "Environmental justice" is defined in California law as the fair treatment of people of all races, cultures, and incomes with respect to the development, adoption, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.
18:16:05 From Iris Starr to Everyone:
Yes, so why isn’t it definitely integrated?
18:16:16 From Gary Barg to Everyone:
Thanks for the definition!
18:16:17 From Iris Starr to Everyone:
It must be
18:16:35 From Sangeeta Sarkar to Everyone:
What is the timeline for the Equity Working Group?
18:16:45 From *Khalilha Haynes, City of Oakland to Everyone:
The EJ Element is a part of the General Plan.
18:16:58 From Iris Starr to Everyone:
It’s hard to take this slide seriously. Is this a Housing Element Party? 18:17:24 From Mattie Scott to Everyone:
Mattie Scott, Vice -Chair of the Commission on Aging: Why is youth engagement included but no senior engagement?
18:17:58 From Hope Williams to Everyone:
Just curious. How many pop-ups events?
Oakland Housing Element Workshop #2 Report
25 18:18:49 From *Khalilha Haynes, City of Oakland to Everyone:
Seniors are a part of our targeted outreach.
18:18:59 From *Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Everyone:
The Equity Working Group (EWG) recruitment just closed last week. The EWG meetings will be structured around key general plan milestones 18:19:07 From Iris Starr to Everyone:
Clearly staff intends to separate the Housing and Environmental Justice Elements even though it is imperative that they be developed together. 18:19:37 From Sangeeta Sarkar to Everyone:
Thank you Lakshmi!
18:19:43 From *Rajeev Bhatia, Dyett & Bhatia to Everyone:
Thank you for your questions and comments here. Please also note that will be opportunity for live questions and answers right after the presentation. 18:20:03 From Mattie Scott to Everyone:
We’d b interested in hearing more about how you are targeting seniors, and we are happy to help. Have you used the Senior Centers for reaching seniors? 18:20:42 From Liana Molina to Everyone:
May someone on the team pls drop the link where we can access these meeting notes, slide decks and materials? Thanks!
18:21:07 From Hope Williams to Everyone:
Sorry to do a throwback. 44% declined to comment. That’s a lot! 18:21:09 From *Khalilha Haynes, City of Oakland to Everyone:
https://www.oaklandca.gov/topics/meetings-and-events#past-events-and-meeting 18:21:09 From *Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Everyone:
https://www.oaklandca.gov/topics/general-plan-update#community-events-and- public-meetings
18:21:10 From Iris Starr to Everyone:
Oakland 2045 General Plan Update
26 R ajeev, call on POOR Magazine
18:22:02 From *Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Everyone:
We will be reaching out to senior centers. Thank you for your input. 18:22:11 From Iris Starr to Everyone:
No where am I seeing mention of talking to unhoused people, or asking them what they need and know.
18:24:11 From *Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Everyone:
The Deeply Rooted Collaborative engagement also includes reaching out to unhoused people
18:25:13 From Janelle Orsi to Everyone:
That’s a lot of housing for rich people.
18:25:14 From Christopher Norman to Everyone:
It is unacceptable that we did not meet any targets for moderate, low, and very -low income housing. That *needs* to be the focus for this housing element update. 18:25:29 From Christine Hernandez to Everyone:
^^^^^^^
18:25:41 From Iris Starr to Everyone:
Who is the DRC reaching to, exactly?
18:25:43 From Hazel O'Neil, Dyett & Bhatia to *Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland(Direct Message):
Ok
18:26:06 From Christine Hernandez to Everyone:
It is unacceptable that we did not meet any targets for moderate, low, and very -low income housing. That *needs* to be the focus for this housing element update. 18:26:09 From Iris Starr to Everyone:
^^^ Chris Norman and Janelle Orsi
18:26:25 From Raul Maldonado to Everyone:
Oakland Housing Element Workshop #2 Report
27 Can you go back to the last slide, on the graph for RHNA 18:26:45 From *Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Everyone:
working class communities, communities of color, unhoused folks, formerly incarcerated folks, youth, undocumented folks, and folks who are experiencing environmental injustices.
18:26:58 From Iris Starr to Everyone:
CN - and we have a 66% increase in Unhoused!!!
18:27:15 From Bradley Cleveland to Everyone:
You identify housing sites in this element. Shouldn’t the mitigate the problem:
“Competition over limited sites,” because sites aren’t limited? 18:27:54 From Liana Molina to Everyone:
Please email registrants the slide decks from these mtgs when you have a chance. 18:27:57 From Megan Nguyen to Everyone:
The prioritization of affordable housing is particularly important in light of the CIty consistently exceeding its RHNA targets for market rate housing while falling far short of its affordable housing goals, as evidenced by a ratio of 9.5 market -rate units for every 1 affordable unit
18:28:17 From Christopher Norman to Everyone:
Not only did we not meet the RHNA goals, but we desperately failed to meet the needs of residents who need housing most. I understand that there are financing challenges, but this is where we need to advocate at the state and federal levels for more funds. 18:28:22 From *Laura Kaminski to Everyone:
We can post the slides on the website
18:28:22 From Janelle Orsi to Everyone:
In our experience, obstructive city policy and bureaucracy has been a big barrier to community groups building housing for themselves, which is why some of are here and waiting to know if the City is ready to look at adopting radical ly different approaches to supporting housing needs. (I work for Sustainable Economies Law Center which provides legal support to local land and housing projects)
18:28:44 From POOR Magazine to Everyone:
Oakland 2045 General Plan Update
28 All the things the City said it did for outreach is what we do EVERY week in 18:28:48 From Christine Hernandez to Everyone:
The homeless population has jumped by 63% since 2017 in Oakland, where the median house sales price is about $750,000. There are about 4,000 homeless people — many of them living in at least 140 encampments of tents and RVs. 18:28:48 From POOR Magazine to Everyone:
Sliding
18:28:50 From Iris Starr to Everyone:
Stop supporting market rate housing in any way until our unhoused people are living in adequate homes.
18:28:54 From Bobbi Barbara Lopez to Everyone:
Fell short of meeting its affordable housing by a tremendous amount. Oakland met 174% of its market rate, but only 22% met for affordable housing-only 1,506 units of the state goal of 5,443 it was supposed to create for working people according to your own reports. I don’t see the political will to do so from this administration. It won’t even implement it’s 2018 public lands policy.
18:29:09 From Christopher Norman to Everyone:
*** As mentioned at the last community meeting, we need a study to determine whether impact fees or inclusionary zoning will result in more affordable and deeply affordable units actually being built.
18:29:21 From POOR Magazine to Everyone:
SLIDING SALE CAFE in deep east Huchuin - oakland
18:29:26 From Bridget Cervelli to Everyone:
Housing unhoused people whose lives are in danger every day should be priority #1 period.
18:30:01 From Iris Starr to Everyone:
And 4000 vacant units available in the City. Most owned by speculators. 18:30:49 From POOR Magazine to Everyone:
Homefulness is DEEPLY Rooted Outreach and homeless peoples solution to homelessness- 82nd and MacArthur
Oakland Housing Element Workshop #2 Report
29 18:30:54 From Iris Starr to Everyone:
4000 unhoused, 4000 units available if we make policy changes to help Oaklanders 18:31:00 From Janelle Orsi to Everyone:
In the last Housing Element, the City said it would take 131 Actions to meet housing needs. We’re making a slideshow to learn about them here: https://bit.ly/3uY1ReJ 18:31:40 From Christopher Norman to Everyone:
While we need to increase density to meet the need, any upzoning or development *MUST* come with additional tenant protections to ensure current residents are not displaced.
18:31:55 From Preeti S to Everyone:
Does the Housing element provide guidance on how m uch affordable housing is needed in the city? And will this then translate into some kind of affordability requirement policy update by the city?
18:32:01 From Phyllis Horneman to Everyone:
Where can I get information on the 4000 vacant units?
18:32:09 From Christine Hernandez to Everyone:
The City of Oakland didn’t fail to plan… so why did the City of Oakland plan to fail… our Black, Brown, Native and low income communities and why should we trust you now.
THIS PROCESS DOESN”T ALLOW FOR REAL COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT!! 18:32:34 From Christine Hernandez to Everyone:
Yes! I want the list of vacant units!!!!!!!!!
18:32:49 From Sean Golden to Everyone:
Has Oakland opted into SB10?
18:33:10 From Hope Williams to Everyone:
I was already worried about SB 9 and 10. It feels like it puts the onus on the tenants to organize to secure affordable housing.
18:33:31 From Iris Starr to Everyone:
The policies in the existing element have largely not been implemented! The past 5 years’ “accomplishments” have done little to change people’s circumstances.
Oakland 2045 General Plan Update
30 There was a noted 47% increase in homelessness in a two -year period during this “time of change”, totaling over 4,000 people. The dramatic increase, per the report, “demanded a refocus on strategies, resource allocation, and timing.” 18:34:34 From Phyllis Horneman to Everyone:
Reducing parking means transit has to be good enough to make this work 18:34:47 From POOR Magazine to Everyone:
We were blocked from opening at Homefulness - even tho its right down the str eet from a “transit” center - and we have heard that other places are being approved without Parking
18:35:11 From Iris Starr to Everyone:
The Planners and Housing Department people have failed Oakland. We see what has resulted from existing work:
Dramatically increased homelessness and encampments
131 “actions” with virtually no results (not meeting the numbers for affordable housing and instead prioritizing market rate/corporations) Failure to engage the community and listen.
Not asking the people who are suffering.
Dismissive and sabotaging of local community participation Not listening, representing profiteers
Obstructing solutions brought by people who know what they need 18:35:11 From Bridget Cervelli to Everyone:
Here is a blueprint of how City policies functioned to sabotage the construction of FREE housing (Homefulness) by POOR Magazine, an organization of poor and unhoused community members in East Oakland:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/196wyCPc6A63n-Rj2v44NiWmAwzDcjY- tbTK8f9irlTI/edit?usp=sharing
18:35:13 From Janelle Orsi to Everyone:
We’ve learned that so many of these incentives and opportunities are practically impossible for grassroots groups to take advantage of in building housing. 18:35:44 From Bridget Cervelli to Everyone:
Oakland Housing Element Workshop #2 Report
31 ^^And the city does nothing to let low income builders know they are even available 18:36:15 From Janelle Orsi to Everyone:
Homefulness was obstructed from letting unhoused people move into their units because of parking requirements: “Maybe you shouldn’t be building this project…” Is the City of Oakland Really Doing All They Can To Create Affordable Housing? https://www.poormagazine.org/node/6164
18:36:20 From Sid Kapur to Everyone:
Can you go back to the parking slide? It went back kind of fast 18:36:25 From Sid Kapur to Everyone:
went by*
18:36:27 From Preeti S to Everyone:
Oakland needs to increase its minimum affordability requirements for housing projects and not allow market-rate developers to get away with paying in-lieu fees instead. 18:36:38 From *Khalilha Haynes, City of Oakland to Everyone:
Hi all, we're monitoring all the questions in the chat and are responding to all questions for clarification. Some questions require a deeper answer and will be answered in a follow-up FAQ.
18:36:39 From *Diana Perez, City of Oakland to Everyone:
Thank you for all your excellent questions! Any question we're not able to answer today, we will answering through a Q&A after the meeting. 18:36:46 From Christine Hernandez to Everyone:
The City can g et out of the way when we create our solutions. They can support instead of sabotage.
18:37:06 From Raul Maldonado to Everyone:
Love that <3
18:37:20 From Bridget Cervelli to Everyone:
Here is a blueprint of how City policies functioned to sabotage the construction of FREE housing (Homefulness) by POOR Magazine, an organization of poor and unhoused community members in East Oakland:
Oakland 2045 General Plan Update
32 https://docs.google.com/document/d/196wyCPc6A63n-Rj2v44NiWmAwzDcjY- tbTK8f9irlTI/edit?usp=sharing
18:39:18 From Christine Hernandez to Everyone:
All the while the City paves the way for developers who are pricing us all out!! 18:40:15 From Janelle Orsi to Everyone:
When we take a closer look at the 131 Actions the City said it would take, they are such weak and ineffective actions. Things that sound good have not turned out to be helpful in practice: https://bit.ly/3uY1ReJ
18:40:25 From Iris Starr to Everyone:
Let people talk, answer/justify later
18:41:01 From Iris Starr to Everyone:
When we take a closer look at the 131 Act ions the City said it would take, they are such weak and ineffective actions. Things that sound good have not turned out to be helpful in practice: https://bit.ly/3uY1ReJ
18:41:56 From Christine Hernandez to Everyone:
We need a department specifically for these projects. The developers run the building and planning department. It was designed by them for them. 18:42:08 From Iris Starr to Everyone:
Bill, regulations do not need to be “reviewed” they need to be changed! 18:42:32 From POOR Magazine to Everyone:
we have
18:43:17 From POOR Magazine to Everyone:
We have Homefulness #2 and no-one is making this easier for us poor houseless and indigenous peoples build ur own solutions
18:43:22 From Christine Hernandez to Everyone:
131 Flavors of Failure!
18:43:29 From Hope Williams to Everyone:
Oakland Housing Element Workshop #2 Report
33 S uper educational! Thank you, Janelle. Slides laying out the Housing Element https://bit.ly/3uY1ReJ
18:43:47 From Hope Williams to Everyone:
So unfortunate that none of these have come to fruition. ���
18:43:55 From Janelle Orsi to Everyone:
The City really needs to use its power to SHAPE those market realities. 18:44:10 From Iris Starr to Everyone:
Yes, Christine, for developers, by developers, with the collusion of the City. They get special treatment, common folks get blocked and dismissed 18:45:55 From POOR Magazine to Everyone:
WE r exhausted = from getting ready fpr permits gangsters visit tomorrow - we may not be able to stay in for breakout rooms
18:45:58 From Bobbi Barbara Lopez to Everyone:
It’s unfortunately to hear what is still happening to Homefulness. I wish we could use some of Fund 2415 to waive permits for groups like these. I don’t think lands trusts and groups like hopefulness should pay for permits, frankly. Other cities like SF are more expansive in their use of Development Services Fund.
18:46:35 From Christine Hernandez to Everyone:
++++++
18:46:52 From Christine Hernandez to Everyone:
++++++
18:47:04 From POOR Magazine to Everyone:
thankUUUU @christine and Bobbi and Bridget!!!!
18:47:47 From Janelle Orsi to Everyone:
Thank you, Bobbi. On that note, Homefulness worked with Rebecca Kaplan to write legislation to exempt such projects from building permit fees, but the City said it wasn’t possible. It stalled out.
18:47:51 From Stuart Flashman to Everyone:
Oakland 2045 General Plan Update
34 W e need to DISincentivize market rate projects!
18:48:05 From Janelle Orsi to Everyone:
Bridget, thank you so much for saying all this.
18:48:29 From Iris Starr to Everyone:
Wow, bring it Bridget!
18:48:49 From Hope Williams to Everyone:
Bridget, powerful!
18:48:57 From POOR Magazine to Everyone:
City of oakland has made this building opening possible and instead is putting down concrete barricades to make people not be able to park or sleep 18:50:13 From Hope Williams to Everyone:
Thank you, Dustin!!!
18:52:15 From Iris Starr to Everyone:
YES!!! Chris Norman, spot on, where is Housing Dept???
18:52:46 From Hope Williams to Everyone:
I can’t unmute
18:52:53 From Christopher Norman to Everyone:
Not meaning to call out the housing department, moreso to ask how these departments are working together
18:53:03 From Christopher Norman to Everyone:
and would love a response, if possible
18:53:56 From Hope Williams to Everyone:
+1 Christine
18:53:57 From *Laura Kaminski to Everyone:
We are working regularly with the Housing Department on the Housing Element Oakland Housing Element Workshop #2 Report
35 18:54:09 From Christopher Norman to Everyone:
Would love to hear how!
18:55:06 From POOR Magazine to Everyone:
thank u christine
18:55:12 From Hope Williams to Everyone:
Thank you Christine!
18:55:43 From Christopher Norman to Everyone:
They are the ones administering affordable housing funds and policies in the City, so it seems like they should ha ve a much bigger presence in this process. I'd love to hear from them.
18:55:53 From Janelle Orsi to Everyone:
I think this is HCD Strategic Action Plan, and it made me very sad:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DoQF6HRNAo5cose8OB0UOzOZdVs9oyGf/view?usp=sha ring
18:56:02 From Bridget Cervelli to Everyone:
And just because these meetings are largely inaccessible to our prolific community of unhoused organizers does not mean that their needs for life -saving shelter shouldn’t be priority #1
18:56:08 From Iris Starr to Everyone:
Submit the same old element to the State now and start over with an inclusive real community process.
18:56:35 From Raul Maldonado to Everyone:
I may have to jump off the call soon. If I cannot attend, is there an email I can provide feedback for this workshop #2.
18:56:43 From *Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Everyone:
[email protected]
18:56:44 From Raul Maldonado to Everyone:
Also, enjoyed the raised hands & questions
Oakland 2045 General Plan Update
36 18:56:45 From Janelle Orsi to Everyone:
The slideshow about HCD’s Strategic Action Plan feels less like a plan and more like the City throwing up its hands. Look at the last two slides:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1G2Tb9LMsINDVtU2Da18scG_Fxtfo3blU/view?usp=sharin g
18:57:17 From Bridget Cervelli to Everyone:
We need access janelle^^
18:57:21 From Iris Starr to Everyone:
The had director has been there over a year now…
18:58:16 From Janelle Orsi to Everyone:
The HCD slideshow again:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1G2Tb9LMsINDVtU2Da18scG_Fxtfo3blU/view?usp=sharin g
18:58:21 From Iris Starr to Everyone:
The HCD Director I mean
18:58:30 From Christine Hernandez to Everyone:
++++++
18:58:30 From Bradley Cleveland to Everyone:
Thank you Bobbi.
18:59:04 From Christine Hernandez to Everyone:
Thank you Bobbi.
18:59:42 From Janelle Orsi to Everyone:
Here’s the HCD Strategic Action Plan again. Don’t have the public link handy at the moment:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DoQF6HRNAo5cose8OB0UOzOZdVs9oyGf/view?usp=sha ring
18:59:43 From Christopher Norman to Everyone:
Oakland Housing Element Workshop #2 Report
37 @Janelle - what you highlighted in the HCD strategic action plan (2nd to last page) shows what the issue is - it says we need over $450 million to meet our current housing goals.
This question about financing is what we need to be discussing. 18:59:50 From *Audrey Lieberworth to Everyone:
EIFD = Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts
18:59:52 From Caleb Smith to Everyone:
Good evening, this is Caleb Smith with the City of Oakland Housing Department - as mentioned, I am observing tonight. We look forward to continuing to partner with Planning and to attending future meetings to hear all this valuable community input. 18:59:55 From Bobbi Barbara Lopez to Everyone:
100% Affordable housing or even a mixed income prioritizing affordable housing EIFD would be a great start.
18:59:59 From Stuart Flashman to Everyone:
Impact fees are a joke!!
19:00:25 From POOR Magazine to Everyone:
Impact fees are
19:00:30 From POOR Magazine to Everyone:
Wrong
19:00:35 From Iris Starr to Everyone:
Yes they are, Stuart, so developers need to build housing not pay to escape it 19:00:36 From Janelle Orsi to Everyone:
^Christopher, exactly. It says we need $450M to meet the last Housing Element’s goals, and the “punchline” slide just says: we need more money. 19:00:39 From Hope Williams to Everyone:
Special request going forward : Please don’t use diffusive language by repeating the same sound bites. It’s demoralizing.
19:00:43 From Bridget Cervelli to Everyone:
Oakland 2045 General Plan Update
38 W here are you implem enting community input? Where are you allowing the unhoused community to create policy? Enough of pretending that the people creating housing policy in oakland have any idea of what is needed and how to implement it effectively. Lives are lost in the City’s translation of community input. 19:01:05 From Janelle Orsi to Everyone:
Meanwhile, the City is looking to build this $500M police administration building:
https://skarc.com/projects/oakland-police-administration-building/ 19:01:24 From POOR Magazine to Everyone:
what we need is requirement of every luxury or moderate rate housing to go to offset poor people housing
19:01:51 From Stuart Flashman to Everyone:
We need to require a MINIMUM of 20% affordable in any project. 19:01:53 From Alexis Oviedo to Everyone:
I believe they are looking to develop the existing OPD admin building into housing units
19:02:27 From Iris Starr to Everyone:
There is money and property held by corporations. That is what we need. 19:02:52 From POOR Magazine to Everyone:
But Bill the City has money for Concrete barricades and sweeps 19:03:18 From Bridget Cervelli to Everyone:
POOR Magazine organizers have policies ready to go that should be implemented and have support of City Council
19:03:34 From Stuart Flashman to Everyone:
Repurposing for market rate is waste.
19:03:43 From Bradley Cleveland to Everyone:
Unions aren’t the problem
19:04:01 From Raul Maldonado to Everyone:
Oakland Housing Element Workshop #2 Report
39 I have to jump off, but I am for diverse dense housing development in all regions in Oakland, but especially in affluent areas that had hard time for development. Moreover, mixed housing projects with >=20% affordable housing would be great. ��� Sending more
details via email. Thanks!
19:04:05 From POOR Magazine to Everyone:
SPEND the millions of dollars spent on poLicing of houseless people and creating barriers to sleep spent on creation of housing
19:04:07 From Iris Starr to Everyone:
And plenty of money being spent for the A’s stadium (1Billion for infrastructure 19:04:15 From Bobbi Barbara Lopez to Everyone:
City should take a “support” position on SB 6, which allows for underutilized commercial and parking lots for housing!
19:04:17 From Raul Maldonado to Everyone:
Love the comments & views being expressed
19:05:07 From POOR Magazine to Everyone:
We charge NO RENT - at Homefulness - this is a poor and houseless people solution and we know why we become houseless
19:05:26 From Iris Starr to Everyone:
Unions and corporations support many of our politicians 19:05:35 From Dustin Parciasepe to Everyone:
factoryOs is a local union modular shop manufacturer. Many projects in SF are being constructed with union modular.
19:06:26 From Bradley Cleveland to Everyone:
Thanks, Dustin
19:06:35 From POOR Magazine to Everyone:
Most of the houseless people in oakland are disabled elders 19:07:51 From POOR Magazine to Everyone:
Oakland 2045 General Plan Update
40 We have input from seniors /elders in Homefuness and we have to go cuz we have to keep building we hope this wants a waste of time
19:08:41 From Christine Hernandez to Everyone:
Where do I get that list of vacant properties?
19:08:51 From Bradley Cleveland to Everyone:
I need to sign off. Thanks so much for dialogue
19:09:30 From Bridget Cervelli to Everyone:
Please don’t make us share our experiences for nothing, this is exhausting 19:09:30 From Iris Starr to Everyone:
And is there a list of tenants and landlords?
19:52:38 From Daphine Lamb-Perrilliat to Everyone:
Great meeting.. Thank you very informative.
19:52:42 From *Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Everyone:
All community event information including meeting presentations and summaries are posted here:https://www.oaklandca.gov/topics/meetings-and-events 19:53:18 From *Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Everyone:
Translated notes in Spanish and Chinese will be post as soon as the english notes are translated and the video as well.
19:53:31 From *Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Everyone:
*video recordings will be posted as well
19:54:27 From *Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Everyone:
Please register for the general plan update mailing list:
https://www.oaklandca.gov/topics/general-plan-update#general-plan-e-mail-updates 19:54:58 From *Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Everyone:
Information around community events:
https://www.oaklandca.gov/topics/meetings-and-events
19:55:33 From Janelle Orsi to Everyone:
Oakland Housing Element Workshop #2 Report
41 Am I recalling right that the City or D&B was going to create a more interactive website for the general plan website? Like a forum where people can submit comments and be in conversation with each other?
19:56:04 From *Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Everyone:
Yes, City Staff are working on options to do that
19:56:43 From *Rajeev Bhatia, Dyett & Bhatia to Everyone:
Our group also discussed taxes on vacant units and prevent housing speculation 19:57:12 From Janelle Orsi to Everyone:
Specifically, could a City pause the Housing Element process for a year and do a Truth & Reconciliation focused on the harms of the Oakland Housing situation? 19:57:32 From Janelle Orsi to Everyone:
^The Truth & Reconciliation process was Tiny Gray-Garcia’s idea 19:58:16 From Iris Starr to Everyone:
I just heard that there are “Stakeholder meetings” that do not include most of us that are not professional. They are targeted to Large developers and non- profits like EBHO. As a result of this meeting they plan to invite POOR Magazine. This is very, very bad. The system is set up to hear from influential insiders who are doing what they’ve always done. This must change, @Bill. Everyone needs to be included in these meetings. I have not seen one developer here. We should not be treated differently as “community” (many of which are not included in DRC’s outreach)
19:59:27 From Bridget Cervelli to Everyone:
Community are the actual stakeholders, ridiculous to let the profiteers set the rules 19:59:48 From *Rajeev Bhatia, Dyett & Bhatia to Everyone:
In response to the question: The state -mandated deadline for Housing Element is critical, otherwise the City can lose funding and land use contro l. The deadline can only be extended by the State. Even the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) does not have the power to extend deadlines.
20:00:38 From Bridget Cervelli to Everyone:
Not just ridiculous to consider insiders as pr ioritized stakeholders, incredibly harmful and dangerous for actual stakeholders-community 20:01:17 From Christine Hernandez to Everyone:
Oakland 2045 General Plan Update
42 +r ental property registry
20:01:21 From Sean Golden to Everyone:
Regarding the vacancy tax, I think Oakland has had one in effect since 2020? https://www.oaklandca.gov/topics/vacantpropertytax
20:01:24 From Iris Starr to Everyone:
@Rajeev and @Bill - submit a minimal eport as a placeholder that keeps money flowing. Commit to a real housing element process
20:01:41 From Janelle Orsi to Everyone:
+ owner registry so we can find out who is behind the corporations and real estate investment trust that are grabbing up the land
20:02:17 From Stuart Flashman to Everyone:
Oakland’s vacancy tax is pretty minimal - not much of a threat to speculators. 20:02:18 From Iris Starr to Everyone:
@Sean, I think that is a vacant PROPERTY tax, not vacant units 20:02:37 From Stuart Flashman to Everyone:
It also goes to vacant units.
20:02:52 From *Rajeev Bhatia, Dyett & Bhatia to Everyone:
We not only need to adopt the Housing Element, but have that be robust enough to be certified by the State.
20:03:09 From Stuart Flashman to Everyone:
I know - a neighbor got dinged for an apartment her son was occupying. 20:03:15 From Alex Campbell to Everyone:
The tax does apply to vacant units but iirc is very difficult to enforce + a flat fee vs. progressive taxation
20:03:29 From Iris Starr to Everyone:
@Rajeev: Resubmit what you have with an update for 26,000 units 20:03:39 From Christine Hernandez to Everyone:
Oakland Housing Element Workshop #2 Report
43 + ++++
20:03:57 From Christine Hernandez to Everyone:
Ban Land Grabs!!!!
20:04:52 From Iris Starr to Everyone:
@rajeev, I know this may hurt your contract, but it is the RIGHT thing to do for Oakland
20:04:52 From Janelle Orsi to Everyone:
+1 to Ban Land Grabs
20:05:46 From Alex Campbell to Everyone:
AB2053 for social housing!
20:06:36 From Hazel O'Neil, Dyett & Bhatia to Everyone:
Oakland Housing Element Post -Workshop Questionnaire:
https://forms.gle/DsvFfXiS4zxcHFkD8
20:06:44 From Hazel O'Neil, Dyett & Bhatia to Everyone:
屋崙 (奧
克蘭) 市住房因素研習會會後問卷 :
https://forms.gle/rWqCGUcHDEnhzAw78
20:06:49 From Hazel O'Neil, Dyett & Bhatia to Everyone:
Cuestionario posterior al taller sobre elementos de vivienda en Oakland:
https://forms.gle/urECGoQRjBafif6r8
20:07:09 From Janelle Orsi to Everyone:
Inviting collaboration in learning more about the 131 Actions here:
https://bit.ly/3uY1ReJ
20:07:18 From Hazel O'Neil, Dyett & Bhatia to Everyone:
[email protected]
20:07:48 From Janelle Orsi to Everyone:
Can you tell us the date the 2nd week of March? THat’s coming up 20:08:14 From Hazel O'Neil, Dyett & Bhatia to Everyone:
Oakland 2045 General Plan Update
44 w ww.oaklandca.gov/topics/general- plan-update
20:08:33 From *Rajeev Bhatia, Dyett & Bhatia to Everyone:
Interactive housing sites map is still up for input
https://new.maptionnaire.com/q/7iu2obr8j6yi
20:09:11 From Bridget Cervelli to Everyone:
Can we have an invite to the secret stakeholder meetings? Oakland Housing Element Workshop #3 Report
1 Oa
kland 2045: Housing Element
Workshop #3 Report
Oakland’s Housing Element and Housing
Programs
MA
RCH 12, 2022
Prepared for
The City of Oakland
Prepared by
Oakland 2045 General Plan Update
2 Table of Contents
Project Background and Meeting Objectives ........................................................................... 3 Workshop Location and Format .............................................................................................. 3 Breakout Group Discussions ................................................................................................... 4 Appendix A: Breakout Group Facilitator Notes ........................................................................ 9 Appendix B: Zoom Polls ........................................................................................................ 22 Appendix C: Zoom Chat ........................................................................................................ 23 Oakland Housing Element Workshop #3 Report
3 Project Background and Meeting Objectives
The City of Oakland is preparing a comprehensive update of its Housing Element, which is a component o f Oakland’s General Plan that will serve as a blueprint for housing the City’s residents at all economic levels —including low -income residents and households with special needs—from 2023 through 2031. The Housing Element, one of seven State-required general plan elements, was last updated in 2015 and is now being updated to reflect more recent housing opportunities, challenges, and appro aches that have emerged in the community, as well as comply with new State laws.
The third Housing Element workshop was part of Phase 1 of the General Plan update. The purpose of this workshop wa s to provide information about the General Plan and Housing Element update process and gather community input on strategies to preserve existing affordable housing, protect tenants, and prevent displacement. This short report summarizes the key themes and ideas that emerged during the workshop. Detailed discussion notes are located in the appendices.
Workshop Location and Format
The workshop took place on Saturday, March 12, 2022 from 10:00am to 12:00 pm online via Zoom meeting. The workshop was held in an online format due to public health concerns from the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic; this gave community members flexibility to attend the meeting from any location and drop in and out at any time. Approximately 40 community members attended the workshop. The workshop was simultaneously translated into Cantonese and Spanish.
The planning team gave a short presentation during the workshop that included an overview of the General Plan and Housing Element update process; an update on community outreach to date; definitions of gentrification, displacement, and affordable housing preservation; and staff from the City’s Housing & Community Development (HCD) department shared a summary of current programs that focus on housing preservation, tenant protection, and neighborhood stabilization. The presentation concluded with a Q& A session for participant questions and comments.
During the presentation, attendees were asked to participate in three Zoom polls. The first poll asked whether participants had attended a prior Housing Element workshop; about half, or fifty percent, respo nded that they had attended one of the prior two workshops. The second poll asked participants if they had heard of any current City programs that were covered in the presentation, including Project Homekey, the First-Time Homebuyer Program, Funding for Housing Preservation, the Rent Adjustment Program (RAP), and Housing Counseling. More than half of the responding participants indicated that they were familiar with Project Homekey, the First -time Homebuyer Program, and the Rental Adjustment Program (RAP). Fifteen percent of respondents had not heard of any of the programs listed.
The third poll asked which of those programs participants were most interested in learning more about. In this order, respondents were most interested in learning about the First-Time Oakland 2045 General Plan Update
4 Homebuyer Program, Funding for Housing Preservation, RAP, Project Homekey, and then Housing Counseling. Again, 15 percent of respondents were not interested in learning more about any of those programs. Zoom poll results are presented in Appendix B.
After the presentation, participants then proceeded to one of six Zoom breakout rooms for small group discussion. Attendees were not required to participate in breakout room discussion and were allowed to spend as much or as little time in their small group discussion breakout room as they wished.
Breakout Group Discussions
The second half of the meeting was spent in six small group discussions where community members had the opportunity to brainstorm together on potential programs to be included in the Housing Element. For the discussions, six to eight participants w ere sent into Zoom breakout rooms with one to two facilitators from the planning team. The group conversations were structured around the following questions:
1. What are the housing issues you care about in Oakland?
2. How can Oakland add more housing while pr otecting tenants from displacement?
3. Have you heard of these City programs? What programs do you think are working well? Where are the gaps?
4. With limited resources available, how should the City target and prioritize these resources for new or expanded pr ograms that meet the greatest community needs?
5. What other strategies and programs should be adopted as part of the Housing Element to protect tenants and keep people in their homes?
6. What did we not ask that you'd like to talk about? What else should we b e
a
sking?
Unique discussions from each group, key takeaways, and common themes are described below. For more detailed notes from each group facilitator, see Appendix A.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
During the workshop, the planning team heard a wide range of opinions on all topics. • Affordable Housing Production. Participants in every group felt that building new affordable and deeply affordable housing options is a key strategy to prevent displacement. Many group conversations focused on potential sites, funding, and policies to add new affordable, deeply affordable, and mixed/middle-income housing Oakland Housing Element Workshop #3 Report
5 throughout the City. There were varying opinions about new market rate housing; some participants expressed that the City is currently facing a housing supply shortage, and must add new units of all types, while other participants felt that the City most sorely needs affordable housing and as such should focus explicitly on this type of construction. Groups discussed a wide range of strategies to add more affordable housing units in Oakland, including: legalizing existing nonconforming housing units, changing the zoning to increase density in primarily single-family areas like Rockridge, supporting homeowners in the construction of additional dwelling units (ADUs), City land acquisitions to build new permanently affordable housing and create community land trusts, and reducing the amount of discretionary review required for new housing projects.
• Homelessness. Homelessness was a key housing issue among nearly all participants.
Many groups stressed that the City needs to prioritize housing the unhoused immediately and treat the situation as a state of emergency. The most common suggestion for addressing the situation was for the City to build or fund the construction of deeply affordable housing intended for people currently experiencing homelessness. Many participants were interested in including wraparound services such as healthcare, counseling, and case management within new deeply affordable housing. Other suggestions included engaging with the City’s unhoused populations to identify their concerns, and providing unhoused people with housing vouchers and incentivizing landlords to accept those vouchers.
• Public Education. Participants generally were supportive of Oakland’s ex isting housing programs, such as the Rental Adjustment Program (RAP), first time homebuyer program, and housing counseling. However, many participants stressed the need for the City to better publicize the availability of these programs , perhaps through in creased community outreach. Many participants were not aware, for example, of HCD’s housing counseling or the details of the City’s Covid-related tenant protections. Some participants mentioned that many of the housing programs are advertised primarily on the internet, which makes them difficult to access for tenants who do not have internet access.
• Measuring Impacts and Success. In response to the question, “how should the City prioritize its limited resources to forward housing affordability,” participants acro ss
g
roups stressed the importance of setting transparent and data -driven metrics to measure the success of various housing programs, and building in accountability measures to ensure that the City can meet its goals in the most cost-efficient manner possible.
• Tenant Preference and Right to Return. Participants in all groups shared personal perspectives on displacement that has already occurred due to rising housing costs over the last two decades. Housing in Oakland is increasingly out of reach for moderate- and low-income levels. Many participants expressed interest in programs such as a right to return policy or preference programs that give Oakland residents who have been impacted by displacement priority for City housing funding, or allow users of housing vouchers to choose to stay in their neighborhoods as prices increase.
Oakland 2045 General Plan Update
6 BREAKOUT GROUP SUMMARIES
Group 1
• Group 1 expressed interest in increasing affordable home ownership opportunities and strengthening the ability of communities to get involved and carry out the implementation of neighborhood level planning projects. • Group members had differing opinions about zoning as a tool to preserve housing affordability. Some felt that the C ity should prioritize allowing increased density in areas that are currently zoned as single family residential and approving more projects by right. Other group members felt that zoning could only do so much, and the greatest constraints to preserving housing affordability are the high cost of land and labor to build new housing units.
• Group 1 also discussed examples of neighborhood preference programs that could be a good model for Oakland to stabilize residents at risk of eviction and displacement.
Group 2
• Group 2 discussed how gentrification and displacement has changed the character of the City by making it difficult for blue collar workers to find affordable housing choices in what was formerly a working class city . The group agreed that providing housing for the unhoused should be the City’s top priority. • Participants provided a number of potential policy approaches, including building affordable housing on public land, a right to return, a workforce housing overlay, and a market rate moratorium. Participants had mixed opinions on a moratorium of new market rate residential development. Some saw it as a means to refocus resources and energy on affordable housing, while others saw development at all income levels as a means to increase affordability overall. Participants emphasized that a right o f return policy would need to be enforced and provide actually affordable housing.
Group 3
• Group 3 participants discussed the City’s existing programs. Many group members felt that HCD’s housing counseling is an effective tool to protect residents from eviction. Participants were also in support of the first-time homebuyer program and RAP. The group discussed the importance of closing the digital divide so that vulnerable tenants who do not have internet access can still access City resources.
The group was also interested in strengthening the enforcement of existing tenant protections. Group members expressed desire to develop tangible metrics to monitor and target existing resources for various housing programs. New program suggestions included property maintenance support, rental assistance, TOPA tenant ownership programs, and increasing the City’s inclusionary housing requirements. • Other discussion topics included disincentivizing speculation, adding zoning flexibility for schools and other institutions to build housing more easily on their land, exploring an inclusionary housing policy, and building new affordable housing on City-owned/surplus land. The group also discussed development, redevelopment, Oakland Housing Element Workshop #3 Report
7 and speculation. Many group members felt that building new affordable housing was the best way to stabilize low- and moderate-income renters.
Group 4
• Group 4 discussed homelessness, including one person sharing from personal experience about homelessness as the culmination of other systemic problems such as the 2008 economic/foreclosure crisis, a lack of new affordable units to keep pace with rising housing cost in previous decades, and a lack of options for people experiencing homelessness in the interim period b efore they are able to re- enter housing.
• Group 4 suggested expanding and exploring new options for outreach to make tenants aware of existing housing programs. Group members expressed desire for mortgage assistance, down payment, and rental assistance pr ograms that are available for very -low, low - and moderate -income levels. The group was also interested in exploring community land trusts, pursuing data -informed solutions to make the best use of limited resources, and increasing collaboration among City agencies and departments.
Group 5
• Group 5’s discussion primarily centered around homelessness. Group members were very interested in pairing supportive housing and services such as access to transit, quality food, and mental health care. The group felt that it was important to engage unhoused populations in discussions about services and housing. Some group members expressed desire for the City to move away from investing in shelter systems, stating that shelter systems are a band -aid approach to a deeper problem, and instead invest in long- term resources such as deeply affordable housing. Group members were generally distrustful of tiny homes as a solution for homelessness, with some expressing concern about the quality and safety of tiny homes. • Group members discussed the need for housing policies to address segregation, as displacement, housing affordability, and segregation are related issues. • Group 5 discussed potential sites for new affordable housing. Some group members suggested partnering with the O akland Unified School District and other public agencies to identify public sites for affordable housin g. Other group member s
su
ggested investing in new housing along transit corridors.
Group 6
• Group 6 agreed that the City should prioritize housing the unhoused, and also was in consensus that more housing options are needed that are affordable to middle income earners. Group members expressed that providing more mixed- income housing and affordable housing within high opportunity neighborhoods would help to decrease segregation and allow struggling working class and middle income families to stay in their communities. Some group members had heard of Oakland’s rent adjustment Oakland 2045 General Plan Update
8 program and had good experiences with it, though the group expressed desire for the City to better publicize and fund its existing programs. • Other discussion topics included ensur ing that ADU tenants/landlords are aware of tenant protection policy in place, supporting local property owners (rather than large outside companies), and ensuring that the City is measuring success and impact of its current programs.
Oakland Housing Element Workshop #3 Report
9 Appendix A: Breakout Group Facilitator Notes
GROUP 1 FACILITATOR – DIANA PEREZ
• Participant 1: Career in planning and design. Placemaking – people feel at home, not just housed.
• Participant 2 : Rockridge and Temescal. Concerned about loss of affordable and historic buildings. Large developments are higher rent not affordable. Finding ways to use properties that don’t change character. • Participant 3: Trained as an architect and planner – interest in housing is broad, has been involved in many affordable housing projects. There could be more of an emphasis on neighborhood planning, creative solutions. Homeownership solutions of all kinds get underserved. Help low-income people stabilize and build equity. • Participant 4 – worked in affordable housing development with EBHO, works with D&B but here as a participant. Strong believer in non -profit housing development.
Best way to preserve housing over the long-term.
• Participant 5 – D3 Uptown neighborhood. Experienced eviction and pressures of gentrification. Lift up affordable housing, and preserve communities – preference to existing tenants to keep cultui
• Participant 6 – exploring land trust model to create permanent affor dability. Our policies are counterproductive. Our policy making has become political --- and it’s not a good way to solve problems. It’s good to say --- continue in-depth work to create policy work.
• We need affordable rental and affordable homeownership, 9 0% of the affordable housing development resources are being targeted to rental housing production in the pipeline. Do more to include renters and involve them in the process, this is one of the benefits of neighborhood-level planning. Economics have changed so radically. • Participant 1 : Community planning -neighborhood planning. Birmingham – has a neighborhood participation program. Every square inch of the city belongs to an association. Neighborhood association allows you to always be ready --- the community is always ready to engage for anything—specific plan, project. It’s a well- oiled machine for engagement. The more we can get communities to stay connected over implementation --- ownership – then leads to political push for elected officials who will im plement. Public -private partnerships can – More ongoing, congealed community framework for us to implement the policies and keep up with the plan --- no matter what it is, things will change – association can be the champion. • Participant 6 – our zoning will need revisiting. How can we increase housing in the way that still preserves the character of our neighborhood? Condo conversion – could Oakland 2045 General Plan Update
10 there be an opening here; with preference for existing tenants. Keep community conversations going – these are so healthy, and so needed. Large for profit entities have their place.
• Participant 5 – zoning changes are something we really need to pay attention to. Large amount zoned for single family —get rid of it to determine if some areas can have greater density, since we have this huge need to build more housing. In previous --- up-zoning the hills does have fire hazard – okay. For future sessions, I am seeing a lot of comments on how people can be heard. A lot of the problems can be solved at the state-level. There is a piece of education at this meeting, to help – where buttons can get pressed. About politics – The political is personal, I understand the need to look at data to inform our decisions – we met market rate allocations, but not ELI or VLI - -- it is a political choice to make sure that we’re actually preserving and creating deeply affordable housing.
• Zoning – There has been many changes to zoning in Oakland, but changes in zoning will not create housing. Price of land and cost of labor. Shortage of staff and aging infrastructure are a problem in Oakland. The site is still vacant – the site was properly zone and had support from neighborhood and nothing happen. Another example:
abandoned gas station – numerous proposals for developing senior housing – neighbors opposed it --- everything stalled, until SB35 – the project is moving forward. The City has got to change regulations to allow City to approve projects by- right.
• Amnesty program for illegal/unwarranted units – to prevent the Ghostship tragedy.
Increase housing in a way that is – great way to build relationships for housing “In it together” – grassroots. Not up to code, non-conforming. • Participant 1 : Design review requirement for all residential properties; in New Orleans we have districts were we have to come to associations --- the extent to which we do design review here --- we need to take a hard look at regulations to reduce – get housing into the market place – have integrity of the process.
CHAT NOTES
11:18:52 From Christopher Norman to Everyone:
Feel free to review these slides on a Berkeley preference policy:
https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Planning_and_Development/Level_3_- _Commissions/Commission_for_Planning/Item%2010_Community%20Preference%20Polic ies030619.pdf
11:22:24 From Christopher Norman to Everyone:
An example of San Francisc o's preference policy: https://sfmohcd.org/certificate- preference
Oakland Housing Element Workshop #3 Report
11 11:36:59 From Jim Bergdoll to Everyone:
Regarding zoning for housing, rather than up zoning everywhere which raises the price of the land and therefore prices for housing, a new trend is to establish Affordable Housing Overlay zoning which allows Affordable projects higher density and therefore can compete better in acquiring the land.
GROUP 2 FACILITATORS – MATT ALVAREZ-NISSEN, CALEB SMITH, DANIEL FINDLEY Key Takeaways
• Gentrification and displacement has changed the city. It is difficult to find affordable housing, which restricts housing choice – especially for blue collar workers. • The City needs to prioritize housing the unhou sed and provide deeply affordable housing. Some participants emphasized building housing at all income levels, while others disagreed and emphasized the need for affordable housing. • Some participants believed that there is a lack of political will to addre ss affordable housing needs.
• Participants provided a number of potential policy approaches, including building affordable housing on public land, a right to return, a workforce housing overlay, and a market rate moratorium. Participants had mixed opinions on a moratorium of new market rate residential development. Some saw it as a means to refocus resources and energy on affordable housing, while others saw development at all income levels as a means to increase affordability overall. Participants emphasized that a right of return policy would need to be enforced and provide actually affordable housing. • Generally, there is a desire to know more about the Housing Element process, and what can and cannot be accomplished through it. This includes any limitations imposed by State law.
Detailed Notes by Question
Participants were asked Question #1 as part of the initial round robin. Questions #2 and #3 were asked during group discussion. The group did not have time to react to Questions #4 through #6, although there is considerable overlap between the answers given in Questions #1 through #3 and the subject matter of Questions #4 through #6.
Question #1 – What are the housing issues you care about in Oakland? • Neighborhood has changed due to gentrification , but not for the better. Oakland is/was a blue collar town, but can no longer afford to live there. • Priority is to house the unhoused. Homelessness is a state of emergency that needs to be addressed immediately – the City needs to get people off the streets and into secure housing.
• Focus on where the housing will be located.
Oakland 2045 General Plan Update
12 Question #2 – How can Oakland add more housing while protecting tenants from displacement?
• Build housing on public land. There is a lot of City-owned land that is not being used. • Populations at risk that could benefit from additional affordable housing include the thousands of people who live on the streets, including those who are disabled or elderly.
• Another need group is people who work in nonprofits, are self-employed, are blu e collar workers, etc. They are being pushed out of the city, and new housing is geared towards people who do not even live in Oakland yet – this is not fair. Some people move here for work or temporarily and vote on policies that harm Black and brown Oaklanders – but not all new residents. • Is Oakland going beyond what’s required in terms of displacement analysis and outreach?
• The City should streamline, upzone, etc. to develop more housing at all income levels – more construction overall will decrease costs.
• If residential units are demolished or displaced during development, the developer can offer replacement units to residents to return (policy is already in place). • Problem with right of return is that the units offered are often way above what the original resident was paying prior to demolition – especially if that resident had lived there for a while with low rent. They cannot afford to come back. Seen on their block – it’s not feasible.
If a rent controlled unit is demolished, the developer needs to offer a replacement unit back at an affordable rate.
Need to update policy at the City level – density bonus provisions also require offering a unit back at lower prices.
It is important that tenants have a real right to return • Can no longer afford to rent in the city.
• Unpermitted construction nearby, and the City does not act. • Lives in a rent controlled unit, but wants to move to other neighborhoods. Restricted in their housing options because down payments are expensive, and one -bedroom apartments are just too expensive.
• The City should think more radically about how to change things. Lots of policies are focused on homeowners and the rights of capital.
• Moratorium on market rate housing until affordable housing development reaches needed levels.
Encourage ways to build more housing at all income levels. Discourages a moratorium on market rate housing – new supply of any time of housing will help alleviate things.
Oakland Housing Element Workshop #3 Report
13 The City is way over the mark on market rate housing per the Mayor’s projections on housing development, and way under the percentage of affordable housing.
Need to stop building market rate altogether. Building market rate to decrease prices reminds them of “trickle down” economics, which is a theory that does not work. Need to up the ante on building deeply affordable housing. How would a moratorium help keep people in Oakland?
Would increase emphasis on affordable housing.
Put resources currently going towards building market rate housing to affordable housing.
City should think of crea tive ways to build housing to bring rents back down. If wages do not rise, Oakland needs places with rents that are $600. The City needs people who work lower-wage jobs (e.g., service jobs).
• Yearning for an educational component on how the Housing Element works, something like a video.
• City should consider a workforce housing overlay.
• Previously able to move to different neighborhoods in Oakland and treasures the opportunity to live in different segments of the city. Each part of the city has so much to offer, and it’s great to be able to live around the city.
Question #3 – Have you heard of these City programs? What programs do you think are working well? Where are the gaps?
• Project Homekey, same as the statewide program?
• The City has said it has no money f or affordable housing, but just committed to the Howard Terminal project. There is a lack of political will. • The City does not subsidize market rate housing, market rate housing helps develop affordable.
The City does subsidize market rate. Impact fees are too low – the developer would rather pay the fees than provide housing. The City needs to put more resources towards affordable housing
• Want to know about State law, and what can and cannot be done in the Housing Element. Lack of understanding about what is allowed, how do we get to a common understanding of what can happen? What happens when the City reaches its RHNA goal for market rate?
GROUP 3 FACILITATORS – ALISON MOORE
Summary of Issues:
Programs/Needs:
• Rental assistance
Oakland 2045 General Plan Update
14 • Housing counseling: keeping people from getting evicted. Proving cost effective. • Building resilience and digital divide- huge issue in housing • Redevelopment- cant build our way out of this crisis. Need for Housing with supportive services.
• Accountability for various housing programs - desire for tangible metrics to better target resources.
• How do we disincentivize speculation- driving up a lot of the costs in Oakland.
Housing production of affordable and deeply affordable as a key part of reducing pressures. • Surplus land- city must build affordable housing on land, how do we allow flexibility for institutions like schools to add housing on their land? • Zoning as a hindrance to additional housing, and challenges to funding more housing. • Exploration of an inclusionary housing policy.
Detailed notes:
• Participant 1- Still a chain link fence that says no trespassing on the Moms for Housing site. Land trust b ought that home 2 years ago. Encampments still there- someone moved into land downstairs. Fife said if there is one vacant home, there shouldn’t be a
nyone living on the streets. Home was sold to Oakland land trust and remodeling costs. Half of it is still vacant. ToPA model - sell homes to land trust. Desire for more metrics and accountability - a program that’s helped 20 people a year shouldn’t b e c
onsidered effective.
• Participant 2- active in upper Broadway/Rockridge area- interested in how Oakland will respond to multiple challenges, including access to money, legal challenges. While there is great intention in this group, coordination and making people awar e of p
rograms is going to be incredibly important.
• Participant 3 - Oakland resident D3, incredible in crease in price and reduction in affordability in past 16 years. Not hearing any serious discussion of how we reverse that. If we’re going to keep tripling the prices of housing, that’s going to get worse.
Don’t hear acknowledgement that where we are is intentional. Cities throughout the bay area have intentionally caused this, and policies continue to cause this, it takes radical change to change that
.
• P
articipant 4- Concerned about issues and challenges in terms of trying to prevent displacement. Living here for 30 years, and have seen prices rise. More and more people getting forced out of area. Some people are being bought out, people ar e
w
illing to pay higher prices. Same things happen with rental units - new owners can set the new rents. Prices go up and up for rental units. Enforcement- a lot of good programs, but how do we enforce them?
• Participant 5- wrap around with services. A lot of need in terms of building resilience.
That people have access to resources. Sad that infrastructure bill that Biden put Oakland Housing Element Workshop #3 Report
15 forward with digital broadband infrastructure didn’t pass. Leveling playing field for services is increasingly difficult when not everybody has access to the internet. Even physically [within neighborhoods], there need to be places where people could access services online.
• People need support for how to maintain a property. Lack of maintenance where property deteriorates where its uninhabitable.
• Rental Assistance: Most people are not able to purchase their homes. TOPA and OPA promise that tenant opp ortunities can buy, but many are are not in position to buy.
First time homeowner approaches are helpful, tax breaks, revolving loans, credit counseling.
• Inclusionary policy. Building housing - all we’re seeing is building large market rate apartment complexes. Rents around these areas go up; this is happening in north Oakland.
• What’s needed is an inclusionary requirement- a certain amount of affordable units, not just in-lieu fees, because they don’t affect damage caused by gentrification. Need to build affordable.
• Places that are gentrifying are where housing crisis is escalating. The way to get new affordable units built them is to require them in areas with higher land costs. Equity of where we’re building affordable housing. public land for public good. • City owned land: city owned land that goes to auction - too many restrictions on production, there’s no production to quantity we need. What if we have more flexibility- allow impact fee, but target city owned land in higher well- to-do neighborhoods?
• D1- Have recently built homes to house homeless residents. When we have city - owned property, surplus land act applies, prioritize land to impact affordable housing. • City doesn’t own any land around Rockridge. School districts own parcels that are underutilized, but separate from the city- would be great if there were analogous law passed by legislature for what’s been done for BART, but for schools. • The City is coordinating with school district as much as possible, because they do have a lot of land adjacent to some of the City’s, and in impactful locations. Exploring how we zone to allow that flexibility. Surplus land act doesn’t apply to schools in the same way.
• Zoning- if city wanted to do as much as possible to increase housing supply, easiest way to do that is repeal zoning code in its entirety. City is constraining supply. Rather simple- get rid of entirety of zoning code. Acknowledge that this would upset a lot of housing secure residents if their values were not doubling/tripling. • Counterpoint: If you get rid of zoning and allow people to build whatever they want, you will get more housing built, but other things too, like industrial near residential.
North Oakland- demand for housing is so high, even if you dropped all the zoning requirements, still wouldn’t get any affordable.
Oakland 2045 General Plan Update
16 • We need to be talking about how we pay for more affordable housing. Increasing income tax, etc.
• What we’re offering to address homelessness- offer a range of housing types so its not full permanent supportive housing-lighter touch. Agree on digital divide. Use some of relief funds to support infrastructure. What happens with what the city is offering • Housing condition issue- tenants should reach out to housing counselors.
GROUP 4 FACILITATORS – CLARE KUCERA AND KHALILHA HAYNES What are the housing issues you care about in Oakland?
• Homeless resident, saw how homelessness was escalating, no attainable housing solutions being put forth. What are people supposed to do in the interim period before they get housed? Why hasn’t a lot more been done when these solutions? • Concerns that there isn’t enough will to resolve homelessness issues; homelessness is result of other systemic marginalization problems; e.g. 2008 economic crisis, misguided decision making, not insisting that affordable housing is built How can Oakland add more housing while protecting tenants from displacement? • Interested in mortgage assistance programs – lack of funding; money has routinely been directed to other programs ; even though there is some state funding for 80% ami or below
• Hope to fund 120% ami, helping folks in the extremely -low-income and middle - income housing
• Down payment assistance
• Build or buy some of these flex small sites, not waste money on bureaucratic processes
• Land trust to buy up properties that can be rent controlled • Nonpayment of rent is the majority of evictions; rental assistance programs With limited resources available, how should the City target and prioritize these resources for new or expanded programs that meet the greatest community needs? • How data is used – what does your data tell you; make data-informed decisions • Data collection – one of the top reasons for eviction is nonpayment rate, city can take a look at rental assistance for the problems that people are facing in the midst of the pandemic and continue programs post pandemic
• How readily available and accessible is that information that you shared just now? • Increasing outreach activities to make sure tenants are aware of programs that can assist them.
Oakland Housing Element Workshop #3 Report
17 • Engage the Oakland housing authority a little more, have more collaboration between agencies, more info about what section 8 h ousing vouchers can do – something that can be used to help folks purchase homes
Chat:
11:07:13 From Kimberly King to Everyone:
https://www.outthinkthebox.net/projects/docs/092921_CityOfOakland_RFQ_EcoS an+.pdf
11:10:23 From Nic Ming to Everyone:
@Kiran, who is it that redirects the funding for that program to other programs? is it the mayor, the council, the dept?
11:11:14 From Kimberly King to Everyone:
I also put forth this offering to BACS (Bay Area Community Services) who received the lion’s share of the $1.6bil from the state. Jaimie Almanza, Exec. Dir. paid me for 8 hours to locate the tax delinquent/defaulted structures/vacant lots, with the aims of housing AT least 500 persons, to start; permanently and temporarily. She ONLY housed ~26 persons last year and awarded woman of the Year by CA State Senator Nancy Skinner. What’s wrong with this picture?!
11:18:14 From Kimberly King to Everyone:
There was a recent report addressing housing challenges programs and (lack of) effectiveness o f some directives. https://belonging.berkeley.edu/unpacking -housing-crisis “He also charts the path toward not only solving these crises, but addressing our nation's widening economic inequality and the perennial problem of structural racism.” 11:23:01 From Kimberly King to Everyone:
But if you’re homeless, one is essentially on one’s own. The city is failing abysmally in getting folks off the street, because stakeholder engagement with ALL parties has a great deal to be desired and stakeholders on the streets are RARELY heard. 11:24:21 From *Khalilha Haynes, City of Oakland to Everyone:
in many cases, direct cash assistance is usually the best way to keep people in their homes (i'm saying this from my experience as a planning consultant, not as a City worker) 11:26:02 From Kimberly King to Everyone:
But if people aren’t kept housed, it’s too late. If one is too abled bodied, there is very little help; $192/mo in food stamps and Medical. The vouchers is a problem too. I encourage ya’ll to listen to the video of from the belonging Berkeley report Oakland 2045 General Plan Update
18 11:29:20 From *Khalilha Haynes, City of Oakland to Everyone:
@Nic - do you have suggestions about outreach strategies? unfortunately, the city does not have a tik tok
11:31:34 From Nic Ming to Everyone:
https://www.newamerica.org/future-land-housing/events/introducing-the- foreclosure-and-eviction-analysis-tool-
feat/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=FLH%20Follow%20Up%20for%2032%20FEAT %20Release%20Event&utm_content=FLH%20Follow%20Up%20for%2032%20FEAT%20 Release%20Event+CID_116ab3658718bab1207adf8778196b3d&utm_source=Campaign% 20Monitor%20Newsletters&utm_term=Introducing%20FEAT%20the%20Foreclosure%20 and%20Eviction%20Analysis%20Tool
11:33:53 From Kimberly King to Everyone:
This conversation sounds like curbside communities aren’t important as part of the conversation and up to their own creative resources. Nic has it right. 11:35:01 From Kimberly King to Everyone:
If one has a voucher, it’s RARE one can even locate a landlord who will accept a voucher, whereby they often expire.
11:36:10 From Kimberly King to Everyone:
Thank you.
11:36:27 From *Clare Kucera, Dyett & Bhatia to Everyone:
[email protected]
11:39:51 From Nic Ming to Everyone:
Outreach Strategies suggestions:
1)
hav
e housing protection awareness/reminders/tips at the start or every council related session
2) B
road sharing across other City housing and homelessness services involved departments and division
3) D
igitize training -
GROUP 5 FACILITATORS – LAKSHMI RAJAGOPALAN AND RAJEEV BHATIA • #1 D1 area - from central valley - Section 8 to be in high resource area. Part of East Bay YIMBY. Dense and diverse housing in high resource areas for moderate income and affordable income
Oakland Housing Element Workshop #3 Report
19 • #2 D4 - 30 yrs - aware of housing and homeless issues. Where new housing is going to go. Learn about process. Impact on existing neighborhoods - displacement - renter, more than owner occupied housing. Look at investing along transit corridor, effectiveness and cost of these programs and how can we improve them for the GPU • #3 - 6 years, live in market rate housing - concerned about unhoused folks, potential criminalization of people living of the streets, center needs of disabled residents/people with disabilities, how can we make sure the good programs can reach. HUD inspector general - does not have reasonable accommodation policies.
How can the city look into improving the needs of black and brown people with disabilities?
• #4 - Bay area native, 6 yrs, homelessness and level of unhoused in D2, listening and learning
• #5 - D1 resident. Rockridge area - 1990. Like to support actionable items to bring affordable housing to rockridge. Lack of diversity now - unaffordable. Outreach should include NCPCs, neighborhood groups
• #6 - 50 years - Board of Oakland Heritage Alliance. Increase in homelessness - severe impacts - unhoused people move into structurally unsound structures and are subject to dangers to life due to fires. - experience with Eden Housing - wraparound services for unhoused in addition to housing.
• #7 - D3 resident - housing unhoused people. Difference between LA and Oakland - safety concerns in encampments and untenable conditions - need to address. Need more outreach for housing programs that the city provides and accountability for the programs.
Comments:
• Housing unhoused people, services for unhoused, improved safety • In-lieu fee vs. requiring housing on site - in-lieu fees are low and not economically feasible for developers in affordable housing.
• Funding - how is funding being used? Measure effectiveness. • Support affordable housing with support resources such as access to transit accessibility quality food access, mental health services. • Work with OUSD, other public agency partners to identify public sites for affordable housing
• Engage unhoused populations in the discussions
• Need additional investment in deeply affordable housing - what constitutes deeply affordable with respect to income levels - between 30 - 50% AMI • Move away from investing in shelter systems - band aid approac h esp. with the pandemic to provide housing with support services. - invest in long term resources. Voucher program to unhoused, incentivizing landlords to accept vouchers.
Oakland 2045 General Plan Update
20 Diverse dense Housing production, *along* with a voucher system • Policies should address increased segregation - interrelated issues Chat
11:26:54 From *Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Everyone:
https://www.oaklandca.gov/news/2022/city-of-oakland-awarded-more-than-200- million-to-build-500-deeply-affordable-housing-units
11:27:12 From *Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Everyone:
Over 200 million to build 500 deeply affordable housing units 11:28:02 From Raul Maldonado to Everyone:
IMO: Tiny homes are a short term fix to permanent housing. See LA tiny homes density and their deterioration due to rainy weather conditions 11:28:24 From Raul Maldonado to Everyone:
*density being 1 story small units :(
11:30:21 From Erica Dunkle to Everyone:
+1 Allie, I agree
11:31:05 From Erica Dunkle to Everyone:
agree with that as well, Allie
11:32:12 From George Naylor to Everyone:
Agree tiny homes are a short term solution - we need short and long term solutions to make housing work for all.
11:33:31 From Erica Dunkle to Everyone:
I love all your points, Allie!!
11:34:01 From Raul Maldonado to Everyone:
My family is on section 8 back home(Modesto). Costs is going up for that, and exposure to being defunded by govt.
Oakland Housing Element Workshop #3 Report
21 That’s why I believe in diverse dense Housing production, *along* with a voucher system
11:34:33 From Erica Dunkle to Everyone:
+1 Raul
11:34:35 From Raul Maldonado to Everyone:
A sole voucher system isn’t effective. I wish though:(
11:35:36 From Raul Maldonado to Everyone:
Nice
����
11:37:34 From Raul Maldonado to Everyone:
Great point Ronnie, on transit and accessibility
11:39:00 From *Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Everyone:
@erica, our engagement includes reaching out to unhoused 11:40:32 From Erica Dunkle to Everyone:
Would love to see leadership by unhoused as well
GROUP 6 FACILITATOR – SHANNON BOWMAN
1. Housing Issues:
a. Housing homeless population and addressing poor living conditions b. Rental assistance programs
c. Housing for lower-income residents
d. The "Missing Middle" - housing for middle-income folks e. Creating more housing
f. Addressing consequences of redli ning, gentrification and how a resident's future is linked to their zip code
g. More mixed -income housing and affordable housing that is located in neighborhoods of opportunity
Oakland 2045 General Plan Update
22 h. Ensuring we are examining measures of success, and measuring outcomes/effectiveness of programs
2. Tenant Protections:
a. Ensure homeowners are aware of tenant protections in their ADUs b. Need for small local landlords, provide resources to smaller property owners and incentivize them instead of larger, outside property owners/managers c. Addressing the "Missing Middle," struggling working class and middle income families who should be able to stay in their communities d. Rent control
3. Programs:
a. (Heard of a few programs, need more from all of them). b. Good experience with RAP
4. Prioritize:
a. Housing for middle income/working class
b. Financial programs/housing for the unhoused, and more than just short - term/temporary housing for the homeless
c. Rental assistance programs. Issue with First Time Homebuyer Program is that homes are so expensive these days, it's difficult for the average person to have a down payment/reasonable housing costs.
d. Instead of just prioritizing resources, how about introducing a parcel tax for existing homeowners, so they contribute funds to affordable housing programs?
e. How are we monitoring the effectiveness of our programs? Appendix B: Zoom Polls
1. Have you attended a previous Housing Element workshop? (Single Choice) 100% answered
Yes 47%
No 53%
Oakland Housing Element Workshop #3 Report
23 2. Which of these programs have you heard of? (Multiple Choice) 100% answered
Project Homekey 59%
First-Time Homebuyer Program 56%
Funding for Housing Preservation 37%
Rent Adjustment Program (RAP) 52%
Housing Counseling 19%
None of these 15%
3. Which of these programs are you most interested in? (Multiple Choice) 100% answered
Project Homekey 37%
First-Time Homebuyer Program 52%
Funding for Housing Preservation 48%
Rent Adjustment Program (RAP) 44%
Housing Counseling 30%
Something Else 11%
None of these 15%
Appendix C: Zoom Chat
10:06:16 From Christopher Norman to Everyone:
Morning!
10:06:27 From Mattie Scott to Everyone:
The language globe icon has disappeared from my screen. 10:06:33 From Phyllis Horneman to Everyone:
Oakland 2045 General Plan Update
24 Good morning
10:07:03 From *Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Everyone:
We will turn it on once the interpretations are done in Spanish 10:07:13 From *Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Everyone:
on how to use the tool
10:07:15 From Mattie Scott to Everyone:
Got it. Thanks.
10:09:24 From *Hazel O'Neil, Dyett & Bhatia to Everyone:
In your meeting/webinar controls, click Interpretation.
Select the language that you would like to hear.
10:09:26 From *Hazel O'Neil, Dyett & Bhatia to Everyone:
En los controles de la reunión o el seminario web, haga clic en Interpretación.
Haga clic en el idioma que desee escuchar.
10:09:30 From Cantonese Interpreter - Weikuen Tang to Everyone:
需要廣東話傳譯的請選 Chinese 中文。
10:09:56 From *Alison Moore, Dyett & Bhatia to Everyone:
https://cao-94612.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/Oakland-Housing- Resources_v1-1.pdf resource document
10:17:16 From Cathy Leonard to Everyone:
There are still many impacted folks in North Oakland. Why is no community engagement showing in North Oakland on your map? Impacted communities are still being forced and gentrified out of North Oakland.
10:17:59 From *Laura Kaminski, City of Oakland to Everyone:
We are still in the community engagement process, this is ongoing.
Oakland Housing Element Workshop #3 Report
25 10:18:19 From Cathy Leonard to Everyone:
Thank you Laura.
10:18:53 From George Naylor to Everyone:
Also in Deep East Oakland near the Coliseum and 98th Avenue- please include those communities as the process moves forward.
10:19:58 From *Hazel O'Neil, Dyett & Bhatia to Everyone:
For new participants -
10:20:00 From *Hazel O'Neil, Dyett & Bhatia to Everyone:
In your meeting/webinar controls, click Interpretation.
S
elect the language that you would like to hear: English. 10:20:05 From *Hazel O'Neil, Dyett & Bhatia to Everyone:
En los controles de la reunión o el seminario web, haga clic en Interpretación.
Hag
a clic en el idioma que desee escuchar: español (Spanish). 10:20:11 From *Hazel O'Neil, Dyett & Bhatia to Everyone:
在會議
/網路研討會控制項中,按一下口譯。
按一下您
想要聽的語言:中文 (Chinese)。
10:20:15 From *Laura Kaminski, City of Oakland to Everyone:
If there are neighborhood meetings that you would like us to speak at, please let us know as well.
10:20:44 From *Hazel O'Neil, Dyett & Bhatia to *Alison Moore, Dyett & Bhatia(Direct Message):
Screenshot polls!
10:20:59 From Cathy Leonard to Everyone:
Oakland 2045 General Plan Update
26 North Oakland h omes on my Santa Fe block are now being sold for over $1.5m. A house in the Golden Gate sold two weeks ago for $2.5m!! Flippers are destroying the character of our neighborhoods.
10:22:30 From Ronnie Spitzer to Everyone:
Have you contacted neighborhood groups and NCPCs for their input? 10:23:29 From *Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Everyone:
@Ronnie, we are in the process of reaching out to neighborhood groups and NCPCs - We are still in the community engagement process, this is ongoing. 10:24:29 From Cathy Leonard to Everyone:
Gentrification also brings people to our neighborhoods who call the police on Black people for walking down streets 3-4 generations of their family have lived on. 10:27:11 From Cathy Leonard to Everyone:
I find in North Oa kland the housing stock does not appeal to flippers and new neighbors who completely remodel these homes.
10:28:04 From Cathy Leonard to Everyone:
Isolation from friends, family, their family churches, etc. 10:28:10 From Ronnie Spitzer to Everyone:
Cathy, I wish that was true.
10:28:24 From Kiran Shenoy to Everyone:
Is there outreach planned to minority homeowners and housing providers that have owned property in Oakland for multiple generations?
10:28:36 From Cathy Leonard to Everyone:
Ronnie, you wish what was true?
10:29:01 From Ronnie Spitzer to Everyone:
I wish there were no flippers buying property in North Oakland. 10:29:02 From *Diana Perez, City of Oakland to Everyone:
** Looking for legal services for low -income tenants or homeowners, covid/medical assistance, tax preparation assistance, or other services? Please see this list of resources Oakland Housing Element Workshop #3 Report
27 collected by the General Plan Update team & share with your friends, neighbors, and family:
https://cao-94612.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/Oakland-Housing-Resources_v1-1.pdf Are we missing a helpful community resource? Please let us know:
[email protected]
10:29:29 From Kimberly King to Everyone:
RE: Healthy food access. Is Oakland and Alameda County so adverse to urban agriculture? Repurposing tax defaulted/delinquent lots that can also provide fair & affordable housing opportunities in rent to own (in 3 -5 years) tiny dwellings for the farm stewards? https://www.outthinkthebox.net/projects/homesteady.html 10:30:41 From *Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Everyone:
@Kiran, We are conducting outreach to affordable housing providers and organizations. Please let us know if there are organizations/providers we should reach out to
10:32:16 From Cantonese Interpreter - Weikuen Tang to *Hazel O'Neil, Dyett & Bhatia(Direct Message):
Can presenter slow down somewhat？
10:32:58 From Kimberly King to Everyone:
But do land trusts include opportunities to grow food, too? I have yet to see this offering embraced in Oakland and Alameda County. Why?
10:33:16 From Kiran Shenoy to Everyone:
@lakshmi I will be in touch. Thank you.
10:33:45 From *Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Everyone:
Please send your feedback/suggestions to [email protected] 10:34:24 From *Shannon Bowman, City of Oakland to *Hazel O'Neil, Dyett & Bhatia(Direct Message):
Hi Hazel, I lost my connection for a moment. Want to make sure I’m set up for hosting a breakout room later (you may need to add me as a co-host again) thanks! 10:35:39 From *Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Everyone:
Community Events and Public Meetings - All information about upcoming and past events - meeting summaries, video etc. are here:
https://www.oaklandca.gov/topics/meetings-and-events
Oakland 2045 General Plan Update
28 10:36:29 From Kiran Shenoy to Everyone:
There needs to be far more funding directed at the First -Time Homebuyer Program or Oakland MAP. The program has not had funding for some time now and revolving funds have routinely been directed to other programs https://www.oaklandca.gov/topics/first- time-homebuyer-mortgage-assistance-program-map
10:36:47 From Kimberly King to Everyone:
I have sent my urban agriculture and tiny dwelling suggestions as far back as the first general plan brainstorming events years ago, and to city council since 2014, only t o historically, and habitually fall on deaf ears. I am under the distinct impression the will never be any political will for this opportunity —especially because fortifying food security via urban farms is embraced, in cities like Baltimore, MD. https://farmalliancebaltimore.org/ 10:37:57 From Cathy Leonard to Everyone:
Why no just cause protection against evictions for most apartments built later? I still see folks in new housing being forced out.
10:38:37 From *Diana Perez, City of Oakland to Everyone:
@Kimberly. We want to explore innovative solutions to build healthy communities.
The ideas and questions you raise around healthy food access are relevant to both the Housing Element and the Environmental Justice element. These are the type of ideas and questions we're looking to explore with you during the small-group discussions. 10:38:54 From Kimberly King to Everyone:
Unless land trusts are earmarked to support urban agriculture, zoning is changed, etc. and not just for small garden plots, it’s futile and probably best I leave until there is political wil.
10:40:21 From Colin Piethe to Everyone:
Does the City have the ability to zone land exclusively for affordable housing or CLTs? How do we protect our housing development from the whims of the free market? 10:41:46 From *Diana Perez, City of Oakland to Everyone:
@Kimberly The General Plan Update will include the adoption of an Environmental Justice element, which will address healthy food access. We'd love to continue hearing your ideas about increasing access to healthy food and affordable housing. 10:42:21 From Jim Bergdoll to Everyone:
Oakland Housing Element Workshop #3 Report
29 N ewer apartments cannot have rent control because of State Costa Hawkins Act. The Legislature needs to be pressured to amend these limitations. Get involved via East Bay Housing Organizations (EBHO.org) or other housing advocacy groups. 10:42:49 From *Laura Kaminski, City of Oakland to Everyone:
We cannot mandate 100% affordable housing on private land. The City does have requirement for either paying affordable housing impact fees or providing a certain percentage of affordable housing on site. There also is the option of having Inclusionary Zoning that also mandates a certain percentage of affordable units per develvelopment. 10:42:58 From Cathy Leonard to Everyone:
Thanks @Jim Bergdoll. Yes, now I remember the Costa Hawkins Act. 10:43:58 From Colin Piethe to Everyone:
Thanks Laura. Why not start a program to buy back that land and preserve for affordable housing?
10:44:33 From Cathy Leonard to Everyone:
@Laura Kaminski, can the City mandate affordable housing on some City owned public lands?
10:44:35 From Jim Bergdoll to Everyone:
Also call the Governor’s office and complain.
10:45:17 From Kimberly King to Everyone:
Yes Tuan on the unhoused. As a matter of fact my RFQ for tiny dwellings on wheels supported by urban agriculture was provisionally accepted by the City of Oakland Housing Department, altho the funds run out in July 2022!! What’s troubling is I have engaged them on this front only to be dismissed, habitually and historically. 10:45:57 From Cathy Leonard to Everyone:
Thanks Tuan.
10:45:57 From *Diana Perez, City of Oakland to Everyone:
@Colin Those are great policy ideas to explore further. Thank you for raising them.
These and other ideas can be discussed further during the small-group discussions. 10:46:39 From *Diana Perez, City of Oakland to Everyone:
Thank you for being here Donna!
Oakland 2045 General Plan Update
30 10:46:46 From Christina Borowski to Everyone:
Thanks, Tuan & Mattie.
10:47:51 From Kimberly King to Everyone:
I also understand from a direct conversation with Joe DeVries years ago when he was Asst. City Manager spent $650K/annum on encampment evictions from the millions provided by the state, instead of embracing offerings like mine or investing in land trusts. 10:47:55 From *Laura Kaminski, City of Oakland to Everyone:
On City owned land property is listed first for groups to purchase for affordable housing first before the land can be offered for other purposes. The City can make any policy that it chooses with its’ publicly owned land
10:48:42 From *Diana Perez, City of Oakland to Everyone:
A reminder to all: Chat comments will be part of the meeting notes & posted online.
Please continue to share your ideas to keep Oaklanders housed and prevent displacement. 10:49:05 From *Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Everyone:
[email protected] - for housing questions
10:49:26 From Allie Cannington to Everyone:
Yes I support adoption of right to counsel
10:49:41 From Christopher Norman to Everyone:
Right to Counsel support would be extraordinary for tenants in the coming months 10:49:53 From Cathy Leonard to Everyone:
Thanks @Laura Kaminski, as you are probably aware we need "deeply" affordable housing as well as "affordable" housing.
10:50:15 From *Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Everyone:
Rent Adjustment Program - https://www.oaklandca.gov/topics/rent-adjustment- program
10:50:30 From Christopher Norman to Everyone:
It would be great to have community education around the fact that tenant s cannot be evicted due to covid-related challenges once the moratorium ends Oakland Housing Element Workshop #3 Report
31 10:50:33 From *Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Everyone:
Housing Counseling - https://www.oaklandca.gov/services/contact-housing- counselor
10:50:35 From Christopher Norman to Everyone:
greater education*
10:50:47 From *Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Everyone:
510-238-3721, [email protected]
10:51:06 From *Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Everyone:
Thank you Chanee
10:52:15 From Kimberly King to Everyone:
How about affordable and fair housing? https://belonging.berkeley.edu/unpacking - housing-crisis
10:52:48 From DONNA GRIGGSMURPHY to Everyone:
Housing with supportive services
10:52:56 From Nic Ming to Everyone:
it's important to note that people may not even know that tenants are protected... how readily available/accessible in this information? major education and awareness campaigns seem desperately needed
10:52:58 From DONNA GRIGGSMURPHY to Everyone:
Yes indeed
10:53:16 From George Naylor to Everyone:
In terms of the variety of programs discussed, putting the narrative in a table might be helpful for lay people to understand. For any program, need to establish a measure of effectiveness, long-term v. short-term benefit, units preserved/built versus $ invested and if the funding streams and sources are sustainable.
10:55:50 From Cathy Leonard to Everyone:
Just advertised in my neighborhood: "Sunny North Oakland Craftsman available for 1-year lease beginning August 1Open concept, fully remodeled, light -filled single -famil y
h
ouse2 bedrooms/1 bath with a garden, 800 sq ftFurnished preferred, including upright Oakland 2045 General Plan Update
32 piano tuned annuallyIdeal for a couple or a family with 1-2 children$3500 per month. Water, garbage, and high-speed Internet included."
10:56:50 From *Alison Moore, Dyett & Bhatia to Everyone:
https://www.oaklandca.gov/topics/meetings-and-events#past-events-and- meetings
10:56:52 From *Shannon Bowman, City of Oakland to *Hazel O'Neil, Dyett & Bhatia(Direct Message):
Hi Hazel, I lost my connection for a moment. Want to make sure I’m set up for hosting a breakout room later (you may need to add me as a co-host again) thanks! 10:57:00 From *Diana Perez, City of Oakland to Everyone:
@Nic and @Christopher When you envision a successful educational campaign to share information about tenant rights & services. What does that campaign look like? How can we be sure the information is reaching families and households most at need? 10:57:02 From Raul Maldonado to Everyone:
Thanks!
10:57:13 From Christopher Norman to Everyone:
Would be happy to discuss in a breakout room!
10:57:17 From *Shannon Bowman, City of Oakland to Shannon Bowman(Direct Message):
Thanks!
10:57:27 From *Laura Kaminski, City of Oakland to Everyone:
And we can still accept your input on those sites as well 10:57:52 From *Diana Perez, City of Oakland to Everyone:
@Christopher, thanks!
10:59:16 From Christopher Norman to Everyone:
In order for more people to benefit from programs like the first -time homebuyer program, we need to support the City (and City Council) in identifying additional funding that could allow these opportunities to become more accessible. 11:00:36 From *Diana Perez, City of Oakland to Everyone:
Oakland Housing Element Workshop #3 Report
33 Looking for legal services for low -income tenants or homeowners, cov id/medical assistance, tax preparation assistance, or other services? Please see this list of resources collected by the General Plan Update team & share with your friends, neighbors, and family:
https://cao-94612.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/Oakland-Housing-Resources_v1-1.pdf 11:00:54 From *Hazel O'Neil, Dyett & Bhatia to Everyone:
1. What are the housing issues you care about in Oakland?
2. How can Oakland add more housing while protecting tenants from displacement?
3. Have you heard of these City programs? What programs do you think are working well? Where are the gaps?
4. With limited resources available, how should the City target and prioritize these resources for new or expanded programs that meet the greatest community needs?
5. What other strategies and programs should be adopted as part of the Housing Element to protect tenants and keep people in their homes?
6. What did we not ask that you'd like to talk about? What else should we be asking?
11:01:21 From Christopher Norman to Everyone:
I also wanted to highlight this report from SPUR that speaks specifically to the negative effects of CA's Prop 13 on Oakland. Per their analysis, Prop 13 costs the City over $400 million that could be used for its departments, such as over $33 million for the housing department. See page 16 for more
11:01:21 From Christopher Norman to Everyone:
https://www.spur.org/sites/default/files/2022-
02/SPUR_Burdens_and_Benefits.pdf
11:02:10 From Cantonese Interpreter - Weikuen Tang to Everyone:
Oakland 2045 General Plan Update
34 現在開始 分組房間討論，請需要廣東話傳譯服務的參加者利用舉手功能讓我們知道
你需要幫忙
1 1:10:23 From Nic Ming to Everyone:
@Kiran, who is it that redirects the funding for that program to other programs? is it the mayor, the council, the dept?
11:41:05 From Chris White to Everyone:
Thanks Cathy and Phoenix, great comments.
11:41:40 From Cathy Leonard to Everyone:
Chris, perhaps I can let you know what District you live in? Wh is your councilperson? 11:41:44 From Phyllis Horneman to Everyone:
Speaking of speculators, assembly bill proposing 25% tax on flipping. 11:42:15 From Raymon Sutedjo-The to Everyone:
Prop 13 is incredibly unfair. One household can quite literally pay 10x the amount of property tax that their neighbor does.
https://twitter.com/nextdoorsv/status/1502361966374916097 11:42:26 From Cathy Leonard to Everyone:
Thanks @Phylis, do you know the bill number?
11:45:20 From Phyllis Horneman to Everyone:
didn't write it down before the call, sorry.
11:45:39 From *Matt Alvarez-Nissen, Dyett & Bhatia to Everyone:
We also touched on a workforce housing overlay, forgot the mention! 11:46:16 From *Matt Alvarez-Nissen, Dyett & Bhatia to Everyone:
And the need to provide comprehensive education about what a Housing Element can and cannot do.
11:46:18 From Raul Maldonado to Everyone:
Moratorium on new MR housing may be a bad idea, and worsens displacement.
Example of that could have been Mission District, SF
Oakland Housing Element Workshop #3 Report
35 11:46:20 From Raul Maldonado to Everyone:
https://sfist.com/2016/08/08/campos_revives_controversial_missio/ 11:47:09 From Cathy Leonard to Everyone:
MR housing is already displacing people. I can see it worsening with more MR housing. 11:47:09 From Raul Maldonado to Everyone:
Campos is currently an AD 17 (SF) candidate. He still doesn’t believe in “supply side housing “
11:47:50 From Raul Maldonado to Everyone:
That’s why we need dense and diverse housing, particularly prioritizing affordable goals, compared to the last Housing Cycle (HE #2 mentioned) 11:48:26 From Raul Maldonado to Everyone:
I missed HE #1 unfortunately:/
11:49:50 From Stuart Flashman to Everyone:
Ironically, providing affordable housing and housing for currently unhoused doesn’t come cheap.
11:50:12 From Raymon Sutedjo-The to Everyone:
New housing today will become old housing down the line and increase supply.
Blocking new housing makes the existing housing stock more expensive and even more so in the future.
11:50:54 From Brian Stanke to Everyone:
Hundreds of thousands of new Market rate housing is the only solution. But building enough to reduce prices… would reduce prices. So there will be a lot of talk but prices will keep going up, because that is want most people really want. 11:50:54 From Raul Maldonado to Everyone:
+1 to the above. That’s “filtering” in housing, as time goes on 11:51:13 From *Diana Perez, City of Oakland to Everyone:
Our group also raised an Affordable Housing Overlay, which allows Affordable projects higher density and therefore can compete better in acquiring the land.
Oakland 2045 General Plan Update
36 11:51:19 From Stuart Flashman to Everyone:
Need an excess profit tax to deter speculation and keep housing prices from continuing to escalate.
11:51:30 From Raul Maldonado to Everyone:
I wouldn’t say it’s the only solution. A combination of diverse housing, including missing middle housing, is needed
11:51:38 From Raul Maldonado to Everyone:
*it being MR only
11:51:49 From Cathy Leonard to Everyone:
@Stuart Flashman, so what is the answer? The number of unhoused are increasing.
We need the County, State, and Feds to step up more. Look at all the money this country is spending on other countries, that money should be spent to take care of our own first. 11:52:08 From *Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Everyone:
Also look at investing in long term resources - provide housing with support services - mental health, access to transit, quality food and move away from band -aid solutions - shelters/congregate setting esp. in a pandemic
11:52:35 From *Alison Moore, Dyett & Bhatia to Everyone:
English https://bit.ly/oakfeedback3
Español https://bit.ly/oakfeedback3esp
广东话 https://bit.ly/oakfeedback3canton
11:52:42 From Cathy Leonard to Everyone:
The trickle down theory is just that a theory, it never worked. 11:52:50 From Stuart Flashman to Everyone:
We need to be willing to tax ourselves to keep from becoming a 3rd world country. 11:52:53 From Raul Maldonado to Everyone:
Trickle down is for money
11:52:59 From Raul Maldonado to Everyone:
Oakland Housing Element Workshop #3 Report
37 F iltering is for housing
11:53:16 From Raul Maldonado to Everyone:
People confuse the terms and properties of it.
11:53:19 From *Diana Perez, City of Oakland to Everyone:
We also had a great suggestion to incorporate more community education during these workshops -- to help us all learn more about how to implement some solutions. 11:53:37 From DONNA GRIGGSMURPHY to Everyone:
Thank you
11:53:43 From Raul Maldonado to Everyone:
Thanks y’all
���
���
11:53:50 From *Christina Mun, Oakland HCD to Everyone:
Thanks everyone for a really great discussion
11:53:51 From Raul Maldonado to Everyone:
Have a good weekend
11:53:53 From *Shannon Bowman, City of Oakland to Everyone:
I meant to also add a comment from our group to consider a parcel tax to increase revenue
11:53:56 From Christopher Norman to Everyone:
I think it's particularly important to educate the public on *how* to engage and advocate - via City Council, the Planning Commission, State agencies, etc. That could help us determine where to put our attention and efforts to get more resources for Oakland 11:54:06 From Erica Dunkle to Everyone:
Thank you!
11:54:07 From DONNA GRIGGSMURPHY to Everyone:
Donna.Griggsmurphy HumanGood
11:54:15 From Christina Borowski to Everyone:
Oakland 2045 General Plan Update
38 T hank you!
Oakland 2045: Housing Element
Workshop #4 Report
Oakland’s Housing Element and Housing Programs
JUN
E 13, 2022
Prepared for
The City of Oakland
Prepared by
Table of Contents
Project Background and Meeting Objectives ....................................................................................... 3 Workshop Location and Format ............................................................................................................. 3 Group Q&A Session ................................................................................................................................... 4 Appendix A: Detailed Q&A Notes ......................................................................................................... 6 Appendix B: Zoom Poll Results ............................................................................................................... 9 Appendix C: Zoom Chat ........................................................................................................................... 9
Project Background and Meeting Objectives
The City of Oakland is preparing a comprehensive update of its Housing Element, which is a component of Oakland’s General Plan that will serve as a blueprint for housing the City’s residents at all economic levels—including low-income residents and households with special needs—from 2023 through 2031. The Housing Element, one of seven State- required general plan elements, was last updated in 2015 and is now being updated to reflect more recent housing opportunities, challenges, and approaches that have emerged in the community, as well as comply with new State laws.
The fourth Housing Element workshop was part of Phase 1 of the General Plan update. The purpose of this workshop was to provide information about the General Plan and Housing Element update process and gather community input on strategies to preserve existing affordable housing, protect tenants, and prevent displacement. This short report summarizes the key themes and ideas that emerged during the workshop.
Detailed discussion notes can be found in the appendices.
Workshop Location and Format
The workshop took place on Thursday, June 9, 2022 from 6:00 pm to 8 pm online via Zoom meeting. The workshop was held in an online format due to public health concerns from the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic; this gave community members flexibility to attend the meeting from any location and drop in and out at any time. Approx imately 20 community members attended the workshop. The workshop was simultaneously translated into Cantonese and Spanish.
The planning team gave a short presentation during the workshop that included an overview of the General Plan and Housing Element upd ate proce ss; an update on community outreach to date; definitions of gentrification, displacement, and affordable housing preservation; and staff from the City’s Housing & Community Development (HCD) department shared a summary of current programs that foc us on housing preservation, tenant protection, and neighborhood stabilization. The presentation concluded with a Q&A session for participant questions and comments.
During the presentation, attendees were asked to participate in one Zoom poll. The poll ask ed which Housing Action Plan Goal participants were most interested in discussing. 80% of chose Goal 3: Expand Affordable Housing Opportunities, 65% of participants chose Goal 1: Protect Oakland Residents from Displacement and Prevent Homelessness, and 50% chose Goal 2: Preserve and Improve Existing Affordable Housing Stock in addition to Goal 5: Promote Neighborhood Stability and Health. 20 out of 26 community members participated in this poll (76%). The complete results of the zoom poll results are presen ted in Appendix B.
After the presentation, a group discussion and Q&A with planning staff was initiated. Attendees were not required to participate in discussion, and some participated in a listening capacity exclusively.
Group Q&A Discussion
The second half of the meeting was spent in group discussion . Community members had the opportunity to share general input on the draft Housing Element or ask clarifying questions. Community members were also encouraged to give specific input on the sites inventory methodology, and thoughts on actions where interest has been raised. For the discussions, participants were able to ask questions to facilitating members of the planning team. Much of the discussion was oriented around the group Q&A, and group conversations were structured around the following questions:
1. Overall:
Generally, do you see anything that’s missing in the draft Housing Element? Is there anything in the draft Housing Element that needs to be changed or refined? What actions would make the biggest difference? What should the City prioritize?
2. Specific:
Sites:
How do you feel about this approach to identifying sites? Do you have any concerns about how sites were identified? Do you have any other ideas on how the City can find more sites in higher resource areas, given State-mandated site requirements?
Actions:
What challenges or opportunities do you see with actions described? Are there any concerns? How could they be strengthened? What did we not ask that you'd like to talk about? What else should we be asking? A summary of the Q&A discussion and common themes are described below. For more detailed notes, see Appendix A.
Q&A SUMMARY AND KEY THEMES
Due to the Q&A based format of the discussion, much of the conversation took shape around clarifying questions participants had regarding specific details of the Housing Element. Participants focused on several key topics including: the affordable housing overlay and site inventory, the relationship between zoning and racial justice and equity . Participants were also interested in specific sections of the housing element regarding vacancy taxes, and TOPA (Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act) policy, and offe red suggestions related to the site inventory interactive mapping tools available on the City of Oakland Website.
The affordable housing overlay and site inventory were key topics of discussion. Participants echoed the need for affordable housing sites around transit areas , but there were additional concerns about housing located near transit zones and associated environmental and equity concerns (freeway and other transit related pollution). Participants were also concerned about how the affordable housing overlay might affect the timeline of rezoning. Concerns were expressed about the potential obstruction of affordable housing projects due regulatory hurdles. Participants were concerned that improperly zoned projects would require a lengthy HE amendment if not included in the overlay. Participants proposed a more expansive overlay to cover broader swathes of the city. Participants questioned if the overlay would take the form of one uniform district or if it would differ by area, suggesting it could be more effective if policies differed according to regional context. Additionally, participants expressed concern that ADUs will not be affordable to very low and low-income residents in high land-cost areas.
Participants were particularly concerned about the Housing Element’s relationship to racial justice and equity. Much of the discussion focused on how construction of new affordable units in sites would serve low-income people and address patterns of racial segregation . Participants commented that rezoning should have been necessary prior to the establishment a site inventory (not after) to address historic racial and income disparities. Participants also suggested that if low-income housing was going to be established in low-income and racially concentrated areas , there should also be placed -based strategies to create opportunity in those areas . Several participants echoed the need to ensure that rezoning could open exclusionary areas to affordable housing. Participants identified the Rockridge area as a region of Oakland that has historically excluded low- income and minority residents and suggested that the affordability overlay have a more targeted approach to increase affordability and encourage desegregation in Rockridge and other similarly exclusive areas of Oakland.
In terms of specific policies and features of the Housing Element, participants discussed TOPA (Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act) and expressed support for its inclusion in the housing element. It was suggested that “adjusting the first-time homebuyer income limits to include higher income ranges can also contribute to greater homeownership vs renting .” Additionally, several participants had questions an d comments regarding vacancy taxes in Oakland. Many participants commented on high vacancy rates visible in new luxury developments in Oaklan d, and several participants inquired about the process of incorporating new vacancy taxes into law and the role of the housing element in establishing new vacancy taxes.
Several had comments and suggestions regarding the interactive site inventory map on the City of Oakland website: Participants requested more detailed maps at the neighborhood and site-specific scale to determine the feasibility of each site more clearly for affordable housing development. One participant commented that she did not see activity in the site inventory i n neighborhoods where her non -profit was interested in developing affordable housing. Several participants echoed the need for interactive map layers relating to racial and income disparities, which were described as necessary for an effectively identifying strategies for reducing racial segregation in Oakland through the site inventory.
Appendix A: Detailed Q&A Notes
Affordability Overlay and Rezoning
• Participant wanted to clarify what planning staff meant with regards to expanding affordable housing opportunities. The participant suggested that planners seemed focused on expanding for ELI (extremely low-income), and wanted to know if planning staff were also focused on the other two below market categories.
• Participant wanted to better understan d the current state of the affordable housing overlay . The participant questioned “Is there one, or is the question about whether you start one at all?” • Participant questioned, “ Would it be crazy to apply the housing overlay to the whole city? Why exclude certain areas?”
Another participant commented in response that it might not make sense in the very high fire risk areas.
Participant commented in response, “I get the worry about risks in the hills, but that might create an unintentional modern redline if we’re still letting rich people build new housing there…”
• One p articipant mentioned that they didn't see much activity in the maps in areas where the participant had interest in developing affordable housing in deep East Oakland. Participant commented that they had observed areas zoned commercial are good for housing development. This person’s non -profit organization wants to develop affordable senior housing (not 100%)
Zoning around coliseum is mostly commercial but participants organization would like to develop housing in this area due to its suitability. Some of the areas don’t have ideal environmental conditions but there are people living on the street in those areas right now. Participant wants to have conversations about how the overlay can help their non -profit organization develop affordable property along this corridor because they haven’t been able to get it rezoned.
• Participant commented, “Commenting on overlay district, is it one uniform district or is it tailored to each district where it is applied? For example would it be different for Rockridge?” • Participant expressed their concern that the housing element seems to inform where the housing overlay is placed. The participant remarked that if the overlay is placed based on data/spreadsheets and set for the next 8 years, there will be some projects that won’t make it into the housing element. Participant expressed concern that the previously mentioned timeline and standards make it difficult to change and rezone down the road. The participan t suggested in response to this problem that it would be better to make the overlay broader so that it applies all over Oakland.
Site Inventory
• Participant commented, “There was an informal poll done within Rockridge of what should go on the vacant Broadway/Pleasant Valley site. High density affordable housing was by far the most popular option. The big problem of building affordable housing in Rockridge isn't communit y opposition, it’s very high land costs. I think community land trust may be a way to provide some permanently affordable units for existing housing.”
• Participant questioned, “For sites listed in the inventory that needs to be rezoned, does the city have a sense of timeline on when it would pursue a zoning change of those sites?” • Participant expressed skepticism about affordability of multiple units or ADUs in areas with high land costs.
Participant commented that the City's site inventory identifies 90% o f anticipated ADUs will be affordable to very low and low income. Participants wanted to know what evidence there is that ADUs will serve these income levels.
• Participant identified that they were disabled wanted to clarify what low, moderate- income housing, and how to find good housing for people with disabilities • Participant commented, “Questions about choosing the opportunity sites; one is about the DaVita Dialysis site, and much of it an empty space parking lot, DaVita is for-profit unlike normal medical center. We had done a study about feasibility and affordability and the two sites mentioned were identified as some of the most feasible for affordable housing.” Participant remarked, “If there's a history of housing being built on parking lots, that c an be used to demonstrate that the "existing use" is not a constraint” • Participant commented, “At the beginning of the presentation y’all asked for input about the site inventory. I don’t really understand what the inventory impacts, is that linked to the housing element?”
• Participant commented that fire zones shouldn't be the only climate threat factored in to the site inventory. The participant also proposed considering that Oakland's flat lands may be much more impacted by extreme heat, high urban pollution, as well as trapped smoke from wildfires. The participant commented that “One of the housing + EJ considerations for where and how to build.” Racial Segregation and Equity
• Participant questioned, “What zoning density does the City anticipate for sites rezoned for "missing middle"? The participant also wanted to know if the expansion of this housing type would serve low income and address patterns of racial segregation.
• Participant commented, “The fair housing assessment in appendix D did not consider the existing zoning pattern and did not account for historic discrimination pre- existing in this zoning pattern.
The city should have re-zoned first.”
If the city is only going to locate affordable housing in low- income neighborhoods, there also must be place based strategy to improve neighborhoods.
• Participant suggested, “You need to have a program to open up exclusionary areas to affordable housing.”
• Participant commented, “There is no analysis of how zoning in places like Rockridge have contributed to racial discrimination, and that’s a glaring problem.” Vacancy Taxes
• Participant commented “I'm not sure where this falls with the Housing Action Plan goals or the site identification on the previous slide,” and suggested that “we need to talk about all of the new luxury apartment towers sitting 50%+ empty, because of ridiculous rent.” • Participant questioned, “What is the status of the occupancy tax for luxury apartment towers, which have had high vacancy rates for several months/years? It is infuriating to walk around downtown Oakland and see half-empty buildings with rent starting at $3k for studio apartments.” • Participant commented, “State law does not allow vacant existing units to be counted toward meeting future needs for purposes of the site inventory, though a program to put those units into use could certainly be included.”
• Participant commented that she didn’t see an analysis of existing vacancies and apartments as potential sites for affordable housing. The participant remarked that in downtown Oakland there are many vacant apartments even though people are houseless in direct proximity to empty buildings.
Tenant Option to Purchase (TOPA)
• Participant commented, “Adjusting the first- time homebuyer income limits to include higher income ranges can also contribute to greater homeownership vs renting, and as a result contribute to more stable and healthier communities/neighborhoods in Oakland.” • Participant wanted to discuss more the vacancy program. Participant questioned “is a house used as an air bnb a vacant home?”
• Participant remarked, “If TOPA is in the housing element, a better vacancy tax should be too!” • Participant questioned, “TOPA is a policy that has to be passed by city council, so why can’t vacant property tax also get passed?”
• Participant remarked, “Setting a target date to 2026 seems very far out there and urges the city to put TOPA consideration in general election in 2024. City council doesn’t have draft in front of it yet.”
Interactive Maps and Specific Clarifications
• Participant requested, “Please give us some maps that are at the neighborhood scale, and would also like the maps to have racial and income overlays. How is the site inventory going to result in reduce racial segregation? “
Participant commented, “The state has a wealth of resources about AFFH and different map layers containing information about racial discrimination which should be added.” • Participant commented, “Left -field question - Would the city consider allowing single stair apartments? Is that at all within the space of the housing element?” • Participant wanted to know why housing is planned in a toxic & polluted area. The participant questioned “How can the city, county stop planning this way?” • Participant mentioned that apartments in US require two exits, which results in either very large or very small housing. Could city modify this requirement?
Appendix B: Zoom Poll Results
Appendix C: Zoom Chat
10:02:53 From Alison Moore (Dyett & Bhatia) to Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland(Direct Message):
I think we can start, just let people trickle in
10:04:16 From Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Alison Moore (Dyett & Bhatia)(Direct Message):
Sorry, too many people stopping by my cube today
10:04:25 From Matt Weber to Everyone:
Matt Weber - Ellis Partners
10:04:29 From Keith Diggs to Everyone:
Keith Diggs (Yes In My Back Yard / YIMBY Law)
10:04:30 From Nicole Merino Tsui to Everyone:
Morning all! Nicole Merino Tsui, WOEIP
10:04:30 From Darbi Howard, East Oakland Collective to Everyone:
Darbi Howard, East Oakland Collective
10:04:33 From Trisha Barua, she/they to Everyone:
Good morning! Trisha Barua, Policy Analyst, Oakland Starting Smart and Strong 10:04:36 From David Wooley, UC Berkeley Goldman School to Everyone:
David Wooley, UC Berkeley Goldman School
10:04:36 From Rajeev Bhatia, Dyett & Bhatia to Everyone:
Rajeev Bhatia, Dyett & Bhatia
10:04:37 From Raul Maldonado to Everyone:
Raul Maldonado - East Bay YIMBY Colead
10:04:38 From Nora (she/her/ella) to Everyone:
Nora Martinez (she/her/ella)- Parent Voices Oakland (PVO) 10:04:40 From Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Everyone:
Please add your name in the chatbox with your organization 10:04:43 From Aaron Eckhouse (California YIMBY) to Everyone:
hello! I'm Aaron Eckhouse (he/him), with California YIMBY & also East Bay for Everyone 10:04:46 From Sarah Karlinsky, SPUR (she/her) to Everyone:
HI Everyone, this is Sarah Karlinsky, SPUR
10:04:49 From Warren Logan to Everyone:
Warren Logan, Transport Oakland
10:04:50 From Courtney Welch to Everyone:
Courtney Welch, CaRLA
10:04:54 From Susie Criscimagna to Everyone:
Susie Criscimagna, with Eden Housing
10:04:59 From Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Everyone:
https://www.oaklandca.gov/topics/oakland-general-plan-2045-housing-element 10:05:09 From Nico Nagle (he/him) - HAC to Everyone:
Nico Nagle, Housing Action Coalition
10:05:26 From Jeff Levin, EBHO to Everyone:
Good morning - Jeff Levin, Policy Director with East Bay Housing Organizations 10:06:20 From Charles Reed to Everyone:
Charles Reed WOEIP/Emerald New Deal
10:06:23 From MarÃa DomÃnguez ACPHD Health Equity (she/ella) to Everyone:
Good morning, buenos dÃas. MarÃa D. DomÃnguez, local policy coordinator with the Alameda County Public Health Department- Health Equity, Policy and Planning (HEPP) team. 10:06:31 From Tracey Nails-Bell to Everyone:
Tracey Nails-Bell, Housing service provider for A Diamond in the Ruff Incorporated 10:07:05 From Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Everyone:
Please mute yourself if you are not speaking
10:07:06 From Laura Kaminski, City of Oakland to Everyone:
Laura Kaminski, Strategic Planning Manager, City of Oakland 10:07:29 From Beth Altshuler Munoz to Everyone:
Beth Altshuler Munoz, Consultant to the West Oakland Community Action Plan AB 617 Process (BAAQMD & WOEIP)
10:08:41 From Beth Altshuler Munoz to Everyone:
Will you be sharing the slides?
10:08:54 From Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Everyone:
Beth, we can share the slides after this meeting
10:09:02 From Beth Altshuler Munoz to Everyone:
thanks Lakshmi!
10:11:27 From Jeff Levin, EBHO to Everyone:
Oakland's RHNA increase is actually a lower percentage than the region as a whole. 10:11:35 From Charles Reed to Everyone:
Despite the increase how do we assure that the disenfranchised needs are met. 10:12:28 From Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Everyone:
If you just joined, please add your name in the chat with your organization 10:12:49 From Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Everyone:
The draft housing element is available here: https://www.oaklandca.gov/topics/oakland-general- plan-2045-housing-element
10:13:09 From Charles Reed to Everyone:
Who do we target, and how do we penalize them when lower income needs are not met? 10:13:48 From Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Alison Moore (Dyett & Bhatia)(Direct Message):
try to wrap the presentation by 10.25
10:15:11 From Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Everyone:
An overview presentation summarizing the draft Housing Element is also available on the City Website - https://www.oaklandca.gov/topics/oakland-general-plan-2045-housing-element#draft-housing- element-resources
10:17:47 From Sarah Karlinsky, SPUR (she/her) to Everyone:
Are the state- mandates on site size for low income housing, or for all housing that can count towards RHNA requirements?
10:18:28 From Aaron Eckhouse (California YIMBY) to Everyone:
Sarah, I believe they are specific to Lower Income sites, but cities can also use small sites for their Lower Income Inventory if they can point to a track record of development on similar sites 10:18:55 From Sarah Karlinsky, SPUR (she/her) to Everyone:
Thnx
10:19:27 From Charles Reed to Everyone:
Identifying sites is a first step, but it means nothing without meaningful accountability measures with quantifiable financial repercussions for non compliance. 10:19:46 From Audrey Lieberworth, City of Oakland to Everyone:
Here is a link to an interactive map of the draft sites inventory (from Table C -25, Appendix C):
https://oakgis.maps.arcgis.com/apps/mapviewer/index.html?webmap=6e5a81ace7ce4a9b906da42f75b4dd d4
10:22:13 From Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Everyone:
@sarah the guidance is for affordable housing for sites between 0.5 and 10 acres. For sites less than 0.5 ac and larger than 10 ac, we have to demonstrate a track record like Aaron mentions 10:22:35 From Sarah Karlinsky, SPUR (she/her) to Everyone:
Thank you.
10:23:16 From Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Everyone:
The guidance from the State is here: https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing- element/docs/sites_inventory_memo_final06102020.pdf
10:26:43 From Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Everyone:
RD, RM zones
10:27:22 From Alison Moore (Dyett & Bhatia) to Everyone:
Matt- you can check out Action 3.2.1, which addresses missing middle housing through zoning standards
10:27:53 From Alison Moore (Dyett & Bhatia) to Everyone:
https://oakland.konveio.com/draft-2023-2031-general-plan-housing-element 10:28:37 From Aaron Eckhouse (California YIMBY) to Everyone:
does the city have a published methodology for when to count new market housing as Moderate Income? I know San Jose does
10:31:45 From Jeff Levin, EBHO to Everyone:
TOPA/COPA combines a right of first offer with a right of first refusal, but does not require a discounted price
10:33:40 From Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Alison Moore (Dyett & Bhatia)(Direct Message):
we can just thank him for his comment. no need to respond 10:35:13 From Audrey Lieberworth, City of Oakland to Everyone:
@Aaron - I'll follow up and check to see if the City has a published methodology 10:35:49 From Aaron Eckhouse (California YIMBY) to Everyone:
thanks! I think it will be important for Oakland to find a way to produce Moderate Income housing without subsidies/deed restriction
10:41:36 From Jeff Levin, EBHO to Everyone:
Aaron - I believe that historically the City has only counted moderate income housing if its deed restricted as it has not tracked rental rates or sales prices on newly produced housing. 10:41:48 From Sarah Karlinsky, SPUR (she/her) to Everyone:
Thank you so much for the responses to my questions. On the upzoning contemplated, is that discussed explicitly anywhere in the document beyond Policy 3.4? If you could let me know, I would appreciate it.
10:41:58 From Trisha Barua, she/they to Everyone:
First 5 Alameda County letter on Oakland Housing Element:
http://www.first5alameda.org/files/Comment%20Draft%202023%20to%202031%20General%20Plan%20 Housing%20Element.pdf
10:42:07 From David Wooley, UC Berkeley Goldman School to Everyone:
One other point: I am pleased to see parts of the Element devoted to remediation of environmental contaminated sites. Urge the city to consider that housing located near freeways, Oakland Ports and other heavy duty trucking concentrations to be included in definition of a contaminated sites and to help building owners in those locations to retrofit air filtration to reduce exposure of residents to transport related emissions. David Wooley, UC Berkeley, Goldman School [email protected] 10:43:28 From Keith Diggs to Everyone:
that's what I want to know too
10:44:42 From Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Alison Moore (Dyett & Bhatia)(Direct Message):
can you respond to the maps?
10:45:00 From Aaron Eckhouse (California YIMBY) to Everyone:
I agree that table would be a great resource!
10:45:32 From Audrey Lieberworth, City of Oakland to Alison Moore (Dyett & Bhatia)(Direct Message):
Could you answer the last of Warren's questions? Let them know we are working on this 10:47:28 From Alison Moore (Dyett & Bhatia) to Audrey Lieberworth, City of Oakland(Direct Message):
There's a table by tract, I will share that
10:47:59 From Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Everyone:
Table C-21
10:49:18 From Jeff Levin, EBHO to Everyone:
Yes, a summary analysis of what C-21 actually tells us would be useful 10:49:45 From Sarah Karlinsky, SPUR (she/her) to Everyone:
+1 on summary of C-21. Thank you!
10:50:19 From Aaron Eckhouse (California YIMBY) to Everyone:
yes, very hard to parse C-21 on a parcel by parcel basis 10:51:03 From Brent Bucknum to Everyone:
I want to strongly second David Wooley's comments. We should not be putting housing next to freeways and we need to have a fund to in the GP to retrofit existing near road housing exposures. 10:53:21 From Warren Logan to Everyone:
One more comment: please consider ALL of AC Transit†™s Rapid corridors, not just the BRT line, when considering upzoning opportunities.
10:54:06 From Aaron Eckhouse (California YIMBY) to Everyone:
+1
10:55:08 From Alison Moore (Dyett & Bhatia) to Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland(Direct Message):
Is this format ok? We did have other targeted discussion questions but I think we're getting good input
10:55:13 From Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Alison Moore (Dyett & Bhatia)(Direct Message):
yes
10:55:16 From Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Alison Moore (Dyett & Bhatia)(Direct Message):
this is great
10:55:38 From Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Alison Moore (Dyett & Bhatia)(Direct Message):
these Qs are only if we go off topic
10:55:50 From Alison Moore (Dyett & Bhatia) to Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland(Direct Message):
sounds good
10:56:06 From Raul Maldonado to Everyone:
+1 to @Brent. I'd be careful about exclusively putting housing next to freeways, as noise & car pollution on minority communities is a concern. I do love the alternative mentioned, @Warren's comment, which is above ^^^ — upzoning opportunities near **all** transit corridors. 10:57:11 From Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Alison Moore (Dyett & Bhatia)(Direct Message):
will you save the chat or do you want me to?
10:57:29 From Alison Moore (Dyett & Bhatia) to Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland(Direct Message):
I can save chat but please do too just in case
10:57:51 From Darbi Howard, East Oakland Collective to Everyone:
Agreed and current developers have already been violating current zoning rules and not being held to their proposals approved.
10:58:13 From Darbi Howard, East Oakland Collective to Everyone:
For decades…
11:01:13 From Charles Reed to Everyone:
with all the new buildings being built that impact fee account should at least be 300 million by now
11:01:32 From Raul Maldonado to Everyone:
+1 to Charles feelings. From attending some housing projects, I would say homeowners do block housing projects that have between 15- 40% BMR housing w/MR. It's hard to get that diversification, and thus we get mostly >95% BMR or MR buildings we see today :/ 11:03:30 From Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Everyone:
We do not have a map yet
11:03:41 From Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Everyone:
we are working on identifying the areas
11:03:51 From Beth Altshuler Munoz to Everyone:
What can the city do to improve the funding tools and flexibility of local lenders / CDFI's for affordable housing?
11:04:36 From Sarah Karlinsky, SPUR (she/her) to Everyone:
+1 on upzoning the flatiron parcel and upzoning in Rockridge in general. 11:06:29 From Ms.Margaret Gordon to Everyone:
need to leave for my other meeting
11:07:20 From Warren Logan to Everyone:
+1 everything Aaron said
11:08:34 From Raul Maldonado to Everyone:
+1 To Aaron’s notes, as well.
11:09:05 From Nico Nagle (he/him) - HAC to Everyone:
+1 to Aaron
11:10:05 From Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Alison Moore (Dyett & Bhatia)(Direct Message):
pending project = permit has been filed right?
11:10:55 From Charles Reed to Everyone:
Is there a way for the public to monitor the impact fee account? 11:12:21 From Alison Moore (Dyett & Bhatia) to Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland(Direct Message):
Yes, I believe so
11:13:58 From Beth Altshuler Munoz to Everyone:
I'm not a super housing expert tracking all the Oakland policies....BUT I remember hearing that in 2008 Oakland removed the requirement to break ground after 18 months of approval bc of the recession. has that rule been put back into place?
11:15:08 From Tracey Nails-Bell to Everyone:
So A Diamond in the Ruff is working with The Oakland Community Land Trust on a project for more affordable housing overlay with ADU'S. Is there a certain number of units that can be placed on the current acquisition of land? Which may include the Zoning in t hat part of Oakland? Which is right off Seminary
11:16:37 From Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Everyone:
Comment from Charles: Is there a way for the public to track who paid impact fee's, for what, and where and how are those funds being used?
11:16:54 From Sonja Trauss to Everyone:
+1 AFFH is not just an analysis
11:17:19 From Charles Reed to Everyone:
Transparency is paramount
11:19:18 From Aaron Eckhouse (California YIMBY) to Everyone:
+1 to this comment from Jeff
11:20:24 From Trisha Barua, she/they to Everyone:
+1 for Jeff's comment
11:21:00 From Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Alison Moore (Dyett & Bhatia)(Direct Message):
we will just thank him and consider his comments
11:21:09 From Christina Mun, Oakland HCD to Everyone:
Impact fees are reported on annually as informational reports to CED and Council. It will go to 6/28 CED for this year, here is last year's:
https://oakland.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4769988&GUID=9F0A7046-EED8-4631-A4D1- BF5FFC1CA301&Options=&Search=
11:23:31 From Audrey Lieberworth, City of Oakland to Everyone:
email comments to [email protected]
11:25:35 From Darbi Howard, East Oakland Collective to Everyone:
I agree Sonja- The poor air and no green space is a disadvantage to improvements 11:27:13 From Darbi Howard, East Oakland Collective to Everyone:
Nico- this speaks to many issues with the City in terms of getting things actually done or more of the same!
11:27:29 From Raul Maldonado to Everyone:
+1 to Nico on kudos to AH overlay, and providing Berkeley as an example. 11:27:40 From Audrey Lieberworth, City of Oakland to Everyone:
@Tracey - can you send us an email about the project so that we can better understand the project and the zoning for the site? [email protected]
11:28:41 From Jeff Levin, EBHO to Everyone:
AH overlay - allowing approval by-right for affordable housing should be citywide anywhere that the project is consistent with zoning, including density bonus 11:29:21 From Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Everyone:
https://www.oaklandca.gov/events/general-plan-update-housing-element-workshop-4 11:29:29 From Jeff Levin, EBHO to Everyone:
Please ensure that the next draft includes an Executive Summary and a clear table on NEW policies
11:29:34 From Aaron Eckhouse (California YIMBY) to Everyone:
agree with Jeff, and I think the city should move to ministerial approval generally 11:29:47 From Aaron Eckhouse (California YIMBY) to Everyone:
thank you for convening this meeting!
11:29:54 From Laura Kaminski, City of Oakland to Everyone:
https://www.oaklandca.gov/documents/city-of-oakland-annual-impact-fee-reports 11:30:22 From Laura Kaminski, City of Oakland to Everyone:
I included a link to impact fee reports, included are reports on the collection of the fees 11:30:25 From Nico Nagle (he/him) - HAC to Everyone:
Thank you for convening as well! And +1 to ministerial approval 11:31:01 From Sarah Karlinsky, SPUR (she/her) to Everyone:
I need to leave now. Thank you so much for holding this meeting it was very helpful and I learned alot.
11:31:14 From Raul Maldonado to Everyone:
Need to leave now; Thank you!
11:31:17 From Tracey Nails-Bell to Everyone:
Thank you for today's information!