View Exhibit A-13 Appen L-L1-Pub Com Letters; L2 - Resp to Pub Comments — Oakland City Council, January 31, 2023 (part 3 of 6)

The City will utilize statewide streamlining opportunities, such as categorical CEQA exemptions and Program EIRs, and revise the Planning Code to minimize the need for discretionary review with a ministerial option for projects that utilize objective design standards for approval. The City will also identify and eliminate roadblocks in the review of building permit applications to expedite and increase the production of modular developments and other quick-build shelter solutions on private land in Oakland. The City will also work with other public agencies, including Caltrans, to facilitate and streamline more flexible shelter solutions on public land. The City will ensure that smaller units used as permanent housing units are in compliance with the Building Code to mitigate fire and other public safety hazards.

Responsible Party: Oakland Planning & Building Department Potential Funding Source: General Plan Surcharge and permit fees, SB2 Grant for Objective Design Standards
Timeframe: Planning Code changes in 2023; ongoing, 2023-2031 Objectives: Significantly increase production of modular developments and other quick-build shelter solutions to match need for unhoused communities.

Action 4.3.3: Remove regulatory constraints to the development of transitional housing and supportive housing.

The City will amend the Planning Code to ensure that transitional housing and supportive housing projects are permitted equivalently to similar permanent residential uses in the appropriate zone.

Responsible Party: Oakland Planning & Building Department Potential Funding Source: General Plan
Timeframe: Planning Code changes in 2023
Objectives: Reduce barriers to the development of transitional and supportive housing.

Action 4.3.4: Provide development standards for Low Barrier Navigation Centers.

Low Barrier Navigation Centers, pursuant to AB 101, are required to be permitted by right and without any discretionary approval. A Low Barrier Navigation Center is a "Housing First," Chapter 4: Housing Action Plan
98 low barrier, temporary, service-enriched shelter that helps homeless individuals and families to quickly obtain permanent housing. The City will amend the Planning Code to include a definition for “low barrier navigation centers” and ensure that such centers are permitted by right, pursuant to State law.

Goal 5. Promote Neighborhood Stability and Health
All Oakland residents deserve to live, work, play, and thrive in safe, affordable, healthy, and welcoming communities. In Oakland, this geography of opportunity and health-supporting neighborhoods has been inequitable, with low-income communities and communities of color more likely to live in neighborhoods overburdened by pollution, disinvestment, and other social and environmental injustices. Goals, policies, and actions in the Housing Action Plan can address environmental justice by protecting residential areas from harmful pollution impacts. Additionally, as the City prioritizes investments, infrastructure, building upon existing community assets, and resources to achieve environmental justice in disinvested areas, the Housing Action Plan seeks to ensure that existing residents can stay in their communities and benefit from these increased resources through opportunities for homeownership (see also Goals 1 and 3).

1. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the building sector through the promotion of sustainable design principles, energy efficiency, and smart growth principles into residential developments.

2. Encourage higher-density, infill, and mixed-use development near transit to reduce reliance on automobiles.

3. Promote adaptation strategies to improve neighborhood and community resilience to climate change in collaboration with local and regional partners.

4. Leverage State and federal resources to assist with the remediation of environmental constraints on potential housing sites.

5. Limit greater intensification of neighborhoods at very high risk of wildfires.

Maintain parking and other regulations to facilitate evacuation when needed.

Chapter 4: Housing Action Plan
99 6. Promote an equitable distribution of housing, including affordable housing, throughout the community, while providing opportunities to those that want to remain in existing neighborhood to maintain local ties.

7. Ensure that programs support development of both rental and ownership opportunities for affordable and middle-income housing.

Homeownership confers a range of benefits – including greater certainty over housing costs, opportunity to stay in one’s chosen neighborhood, ability to make changes to the living environment, privacy, and ability to build financial equity. In addition to tangible economic and other individual benefits, homeownership also brings substantial social benefits such as a stronger sense of place and belonging, improved community health and safety, and civic participation.

HOW THIS GOAL AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERS FAIR HOUSING
Oakland has historically experienced patterns of significant inequities – between the hills and the flatlands, west and east, and across race and income. Rising housing costs and displacement pressures continue to disproportionately burden the city’s Black population and other people of color, even as historically Black neighborhoods continue to see disinvestment and relatively high rates of poverty – see Appendix D for further context. The City has made great strides to correct these patterns of discrimination—including through the establishment of the Department of Race and Equity to advance racial equity in 2016— but needs to expand its efforts to eliminate racial disparities and discriminatory housing practices. The City will take steps to correct historic and ongoing patterns of discrimination to create a fair and just city through the simultaneous actions of opening up exclusionary neighborhoods (see Policy 3.4) and focusing resources, funds, tenant protections, and support of existing community assets in disinvested neighborhoods and ethnic enclaves (see Goals 1, 2, and 3).

Further, Oakland has some of the lowest rates of homeownership among major Bay Area cities, rivaled only by San Francisco. About 60 percent of Oaklanders are renters, and with continuously rising housing costs, affordable homeownership remains out of reach for most Oaklanders. This is especially true for the city’s working and middle classes, as traditionally blue-collar neighborhoods have become increasingly expensive in recent years.

Homeownership is distributed unevenly by race and ethnicity – while most white households own their homes, the majority of BIPOC households are renters. American Indian or Alaska Native (70.8 percent), Hispanic or Latinx (69.4 percent), and Black or African American (67.8 percent) households are especially likely to be renters. See Appendices B and D for more information.

This goal aims to expand opportunities for homeownership, particularly for low-income communities and communities of color. Along with efforts in Goal 1 and Goal 2, increased affordable and middle-income homeownership opportunities will reduce displacement pressures, and keep Oaklanders in their homes, thereby protecting both individual families and the social fabric of Oakland’s neighborhoods. First-time homebuyer programs can also expand access to historically exclusionary neighborhoods by giving prospective homeowners Chapter 4: Housing Action Plan
100
the resources and tools they need to secure a home wherever they choose to live. Community land trusts and other models of maintaining permanently affordable housing, as outlined in Policy 3.5, also provide opportunities to increase rates of affordable homeownership.

As defined in the Oakland Municipal Code, in addition to safe, affordable, high-quality housing for all people, another determinant of equity is a healthy built and natural environment for all people that includes a mix of land uses that support jobs, housing, amenities and services, trees and forest canopy, and clean air, water, soil, and sediment. In Oakland, low-income communities and communities of color are more likely to suffer from environmental injustices such as disproportionate exposure to air pollution, toxics and hazardous facilities and substances, contaminated water, and other environmental hazards that have an impact on human health due to a history of systemic racism and social injustices that influence where these communities live. As the impacts of climate change become more severe, these communities are most likely to be impacted first and hardest. As the City adds more housing stock over the course of this Housing Element period, it is imperative that new development sustains a healthy environment by working to “reduce the unique or compounded health risks in disadvantaged communities” and is prepared for the heightened impacts of climate change, especially protecting those who are most at risk. As part of this goal, efforts to align affordable housing development with transit—such as through the State’s Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities program—and expand access to high opportunity neighborhoods and good jobs are integral to furthering environmental justice through housing.

POLICY 5.1 SUSTAIN AFFORDABLE FIRST-TIME HOMEOWNERSHIP INCENTIVES Action 5.1.1: Provide first-time homebuyer programs.

When funding is available, the City has historically provided a number of first-time homebuyer programs – including the First Time Homebuyer Mortgage Assistance Program (MAP), the CalHome Program, and Oaktown Roots Affordable Homes. As funding becomes available—either through State or program-related income—the City will resume these programs. The City also provides first-time homebuyer workshops and promotes workshops hosted by a HUD-approved counseling agency. Although City-sponsored classes are currently suspended due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the absence of funding, the City continues to provide information for other local classes. When the public health emergency subsides, the City will continue to directly offer workshops. Finally, the City maintains a list of deedrestricted below market rate (BMR) homes for sale to assist potential buyer and will continue to maintain this list throughout the planning period. The City will collect data through the first-time homebuyer programs to understand the extent of homeownership need and to identify gaps in the programs. Over time the City has increased the income limits for its firsttime homebuyer programs because of the increasing gap between housing prices and incomes. The City will assess the impacts of this approach and the extent to which it may reinforce rather than reverse racial disparities in ownership. Further, as part of Action 5.3.3, the City will engage in targeted outreach in partnership with community-based organizations and fair housing services providers to reach the most impacted communities – including Black and Latinx households.

Chapter 4: Housing Action Plan
101
Responsible Party: Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development – Housing Development Services
Potential Funding Source: State Housing Funds (CalHFA, HCD), Private Lenders, CFPB, GSFA, FHLB WISH Program, Alameda County AC Boost, and Alameda County Mortgage Credit Certificate
Timeframe: Ongoing as funding is available, 2023-2031; Annual reporting on first time homebuyer program data as available
Objectives: If the City of Oakland receives CalHome and other homeownership funding at historic rates, the City expects to support a total of 160 low- and moderateincome households with home purchases over the next Housing Element cycle.

Action 5.1.2: Expand access to low-cost financing for home purchase.

Through the first-time homebuyer programs described in Action 5.1.1, the City was able to issue 121 loans totaling approximately $6.8 million during the previous planning period.

With appropriate funding, these low-cost financing options have been very effective in promoting affordable homeownership. The City will continue to seek funding for these programs and provide access to homebuyer resources related to other county, State, or federal level funding – including through the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA), Golden State Finance Authority (GSFA), Federal Home Loan Bank’s (FHLB) WISH Program, Alameda County AC Boost, and Alameda County Mortgage Credit Certificate.

Responsible Party: Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development – Housing Development Services
Potential Funding Source: State Housing Funds (CalHFA, HCD), Private Lenders, CFPB, GSFA, FHLB WISH Program, Alameda County AC Boost, and Alameda County Mortgage Credit Certificate
Timeframe: Ongoing as funding is available, 2023-2031; Annual reporting on first time homebuyer program data as available
Objectives: If the City of Oakland receives CalHome and other homeownership funding at historic rates, the City expects to support a total of 160 low- and moderateincome households with home purchases over the next Housing Element cycle.

Action 5.1.3: Provide paths to homeownership for Section 8 voucher holders.

Oakland HCD has traditionally worked with Section 8 voucher holders as part of the first-time homebuyer programs. Further, the Oakland Housing Authority (OHA) offers the Homeownership Program to eligible residents – which permits participants to apply their housing subsidy towards a monthly mortgage payment. As funding and capacity permits, the OHA will continue to offer this program and expand eligibility criteria as feasible. Oakland Chapter 4: Housing Action Plan
102
HCD will also continue to work with voucher holders through first time homebuyer programs. OHA will collect data on residents who make use of the Homeownership Program to understand program participants and existing gaps.

Responsible Party: OHA; Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development
Potential Funding Source: HUD, State Housing Funds (CalHFA, HCD) Timeframe: Ongoing as funding is available, 2023-2031; Annual reporting on OHA’s Homeownership Program
Objectives: If funded at historic levels, the City expects to provide 30 low-income Section 8 voucher holders with down payment assistance.

POLICY 5.2. PROMOTE RESILIENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT Action 5.2.1: Protect against smoke and wildfire.

As wildfires become more frequent, it is increasingly important to ensure safe and healthy indoor air quality. The City will require new development follow requirements for indoor air filtration, including the installation of MERV filters, as specified in the California Building Code, and will support property owners in retrofitting their homes to protect inhabitants from wildfire smoke, prioritizing retrofits in communities with disproportionate exposure to air pollution and substandard housing. To reduce the impacts of secondhand smoke, the City will explore amendments to the smoking pollution control ordinance to create smoke-free environments within multifamily housing properties. Further, the City will encourage the addition of clean air centers and resilience spaces within residential areas that can provide emergency services in the event of a wildfire.

Responsible Party: Oakland Public Works Department; Oakland Planning & Building Department
Potential Funding Source: General Plan Surcharge and permit fees Timeframe: Ongoing, 2023 - 2031
Objectives: Significantly improve access to better indoor air quality to protect against smoke and wildfire through methods such as requiring installation of MERV filters in new developments and identifying additional clean air centers and resilience spaces within residential areas.

Action 5.2.2: Promote infill, transit-oriented development (TOD), and mixed-use development.

Expand and allow community-serving uses such as retail, restaurants, and personal services within areas that are primarily residential, and increase opportunities to add multi-family Chapter 4: Housing Action Plan
103
housing in commercial areas that are well-served by transit. Encourage sustainable transportation choices and improve pedestrian activity with new housing development, potentially by reducing vehicular parking requirements in new development and/or requiring transit, cyclist, and pedestrian access design features. Work with Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) to rezone and facilitate development of high-density multifamily and mixeduse housing on BART-owned sites within the City, per AB 2923. Ensure that new transitoriented development is accompanied by tenant protection policies described in Policy 1.1.

Responsible Party: Oakland Planning & Building Department Potential Funding Source: General Plan Surcharge and permit fees Timeframe: 2023 – 2025 and Ongoing
Objectives: Significantly increase infill, transit-oriented development and mixed-use development to meet housing need.

Action 5.2.3: Study options to provide financing for the remediation of environmentally contaminated sites, with priority for affordable projects.

The City will study options to provide financial assistance to property owners for the remediation of environmentally contaminated sites, such as former gas stations or auto mechanic shops, which are being developed for housing. Funding priority will go to sites with proposed affordable housing projects.

Responsible Party: Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development Potential Funding Source: State of California’s Equitable Community Revitalization Grant Program, United States Environmental Protection Agency Brownfields Grants program
Timeframe: Ongoing, 2023-2031 as funding is available
Objectives: As suitable funding is available, Oakland will study and/or remediate contaminated sites to the maximum feasible extent.

Action 5.2.4: Secure funding from the State’s Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC) Program.

The AHSC program, administered by the Strategic Growth Council and implemented by HCD, distributes Statewide Cap-and-Trade funding for affordable housing developments (new construction or renovation) and sustainable transportation infrastructure projects.

Successfully implemented, the AHSC program transforms California cities into places where residents can get everywhere they want to go without having to drive. The City of Oakland will apply directly or support partners such as nonprofit and for-profit housing developers, transportation and transit agencies, and joint powers authorities to apply for AHSC grant funding.

Chapter 4: Housing Action Plan
104
Responsible Party: Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development; DOT; Oakland Planning & Building Department
Potential Funding Source: General Plan Surcharge and permit fees Timeframe: Ongoing, 2023 - 2031
Objectives: Significantly increase affordable housing development through application for AHSC funding to meet housing need.

Action 5.2.5: Encourage climate-resilient housing.

Consistent with the City’s Equitable Climate Action Plan (ECAP) and Ordinance 13632 CMS, all newly constructed buildings in Oakland are prohibited from utilizing natural gas or connecting to natural gas infrastructure. The City will continue to support property owners in building electrification and seismic safety retrofits, prioritizing funding in frontline and disadvantaged communities. The City will work with organizations such as the U.S. Green Building Council to recognize net-zero energy projects with sustainable and resilient design, including passive design and energy- and water-efficient systems. The City will continue to require all projects that meet the Green Building Ordinance for Private Development thresholds comply with green building standards, exceeding CALGreen Standards, and will encourage and promote green features such as durable low-embodied carbon materials, green and cool roofs, electric vehicle charging stations, and others such features during the permitting and entitlements process. The City will continue to require green building certification under BuildItGreen.org’s GreenPoint Rated or LEED Certification systems and give preference to projects scoring higher in the Green Point Checklist, or which meet or exceed LEED Gold level, in the NOFA scoring process. The City can promote and expand existing programs to provide education and incentives to property owners and residents who implement water conservation, energy conservation, waste reduction, and resilient landscaping measures. The City will ensure that new housing development within areas subject to flooding associated with sea level rise encourage placement of life safety, mechanical, and electrical systems above flood elevations (i.e., second story or higher). The City will also encourage the addition of community spaces within residential areas that can provide emergency services in the event of a natural disaster or power outage.

Chapter 4: Housing Action Plan
105
Action 5.2.6: Consider adoption of a disaster reconstruction overlay zone.

Ǥ

ǡ

Ǥ

ǡ
ǡ

Ǥ
Responsible Party: Oakland Planning & Building Department Potential Funding Source: State and federal grants, as available Timeframe: 2023 - 2027
Objectives: Consider adopting a disaster reconstruction overlay zone to meet housing need in response to potential disasters.

Action 5.2.7. Encourage new affordable housing in higher resource neighborhoods. ǡ

Ǧ

ǡ

Ǥǡ

Ǧ

Ǥ ǡ

ǡ

Ǥ

ǡ

Ǥ

ͺ

ȋ
͵Ǥ͵ǤʹȌǤ
͵ǤʹǤͳ ͵ǤͶǤͳ

Ǥ

ǡ
Ǧ

ǡ

Ǥ they call home, and may not want to move to “higherǦresource” areas which tend to be Ǧ
Ǥ

Ǧ

ǡ

ǡ
ǡ

Ǥ

Ǥǡ

ǡ
ǡ Ǧ
Chapter 4: Housing Action Plan
106

ȋȀȌǤ

ͳ
ʹǤOakland HCD’s New Construction Notice

Ǧ

ȋȌ

ǡ

Ǥ
Responsible Party: Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development; Oakland Planning & Building Department
Potential Funding Source: General fund, permit fees, other local, State, and federal funding sources as available
Timeframe: Ongoing, 2023-2031
Objectives: Oakland’s residential dissimilarity index (which compares racial segregation across neighborhoods) will decrease by at least 10% by 2031.

Action 5.2.8: Promote the development of mixed-income housing to reduce income-based concentration.
ǡ Ǧ

Ǥ Ǧ

Ǧ

Ǥ
ǡǦ

ǡ

Ǧ

Ǥ
Responsible Party: Oakland Planning & Building Department Potential Funding Source: General Plan Surcharge and permit fees Timeframe: Ongoing, 2023-2031
Objectives: Significantly increase production of mixed-income housing and reduce income-based concentration to match housing need.

Action 5.2.9: Provide accountability measures for housing programs, including annual monitoring.

Ǥ
ǡ

Ǥ

ǡ

Ǥ
Chapter 4: Housing Action Plan
107
Responsible Party: Oakland Planning & Building Department; Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development; Oakland Human Services Department; Oakland Economic & Workforce Development Department; Oakland Public Works Department; DOT
Potential Funding Source: General Plan Surcharge and permit fees Timeframe: Ongoing, 2023-2031
Objectives: Monitor and enforce Housing Element implementation to understand whether individual programs significantly improve Oakland housing conditions and address housing need.

POLICY 5.3. PROTECT HOMEOWNERS AND TENANTS FROM DISCRIMINATION Action 5.3.1: Provide fair housing services and outreach.

The City will continue to partner with fair housing service providers operating within Oakland. As most housing discrimination complaints are related to a disability bias, the City will work with fair housing providers to provide additional educational resources in a variety of languages to both tenants and landlords related to disability rights in housing. The City will publicize fair housing services on its website, in City Hall, and in all housing-related programming. The City will also seek additional State and federal funding to assist fair housing providers.

Responsible Party: Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development Potential Funding Source: CDBG, general fund, other local, State, and federal funding sources as available
Timeframe: Ongoing, 2023-2031
Objectives: All stated outreach materials will be created and found online no later than the end of 2023.

Action 5.3.2: Enact predatory lending protections.

Predatory lending practices are a major contributor to racially discriminatory housing patterns and were one of the major factors in the previous decade’s foreclosure crisis. To curb these practices, the City will work with fair housing service providers to provide educational materials and workshops in a variety of languages to inform Oakland residents of best practices. The City will promote fair lending practices to ensure that low-income residents and residents of color have fair access to capital resources needed to acquire and maintain housing.

Responsible Party: Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development Chapter 4: Housing Action Plan
108
Potential Funding Source: CDBG, general fund, other local, State, and federal funding sources as available
Timeframe: Ongoing, 2023-2031
Objectives: All stated outreach materials will be created and found online no later than the end of 2023.

Action 5.3.3: Provide targeted outreach and support to disproportionately burdened groups and areas.

Oakland’s Black and Latinx populations experience disproportionately high rates of cost burden and tend to live in neighborhoods with higher rates of overcrowding and other housing issues. The City will work with fair housing service providers to target outreach and programming to Black and Latinx Oaklanders, as well as neighborhoods experiencing high levels of housing issues. The City will regularly monitor housing issues like cost burden, overcrowding, code enforcement complaints, and substandard housing to understand where the highest need for services exists.

Responsible Party: Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development; Oakland Planning & Building Department
Potential Funding Source: General Fund, permit fees, other local, State, and federal funding sources as available
Timeframe: Ongoing, 2023-2031
Objectives: Oakland’s residential dissimilarity index (which compares racial segregation across neighborhoods) will decrease by at least 10% by 2031.

4.2 Quantified Objectives
State law requires that quantified objectives be established for new construction, rehabilitation, conservation, and preservation activities that will occur during the Housing Element cycle. Table 4-1 provides Oakland’s quantified objectives by income category for the 2023-2031 planning period. New construction estimates include units in pipeline projects, projected accessory dwelling units (ADUs), and the minimum remaining RHNA capacity.

Chapter 4: Housing Action Plan
109
Table 4-1: City of Oakland 2023-2031 Quantified Objectives New Construction1
Income Category Pipeline
Project
Projected
ADUs
Remaining
RHNA
Rehabilitatio
n
2 Conservatio
n/Preservati
on
3 Very-Low-Income42,176 890 4,422 - -
Extremely-LowIncome4
1,088 445 2,211 - -
Low-Income 2,388 890 1,035 751 258
Moderate-Income 364 198 4,564 - -
Above-Moderate-Income 9,152 - 4,111 - -
Total 14,080 12,020 4,089 - -

1. New construction objectives represent the City’s RHNA for the Sixth Cycle Housing Element update. Estimates include units from pipeline projects and projected accessory dwelling units (ADUs).

2. Estimates are derived from the City’s 2020/2021 Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report.

3. Conservation/preservation estimates are based on the estimated number of assisted units that are at risk of conversion to market rate, as discussed in Appendix B.

4. The extremely-low-income housing need is assumed to be 50% of very-low-income housing need. Quantified objectives for very-low-income housing includes extremely-low-housing objectives.

Source: City of Oakland, 2022; Dyett & Bhatia, 2022

7/20/22, 4:11 PM
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/…%2FqtcXWGMRiAAAAAAEMAAApFTKySZwnTo%2FqtcXWGMRiAAE3NlM4AAA%3D Page 1 of 2 Comments on draft Housing Element
Ronnie Spitzer
Mon 6/13/2022 12:56 PM
To: General Plan <[email protected]>
[EXTERNAL] This email originated outside of the City of Oakland. Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and expect the message.

To Whom it May Concern:

Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the draft Oakland Housing Element (HE) for the 2045 Oakland General Plan. The Housing Element is updated more frequently than the General Plan, having last been updated in 2015. This document is an excellent starting point. I have several comments for improvements.

Many terms used within the document require more precise definition. The document currently contains phrases which could be construed one way within the current context but might assume an entirely different meaning in the future. One such example is “missing middle”, which is in common usage within planning circles but might be considered “jargon” to the general public even now.

Most important, the Housing Element states the upcoming 2023-2031 RHNA allocation is already covered by the identified inventory of adequate sites within the EXISTING General Plan, even adding in a 15% buffer. No further changes should be required. Therefore, the main purpose of this document might be to incorporate the Housing Action Plan goals listed on page 11, although that point is not clearly described in the document. This should be made explicit throughout the document.

Likewise, upzoning around transit stations and along transit corridors is not required to meet 2023- 2031 RHNA goals. A justification within the context of RHNA goals should be made to support statements such as, “Some initial amendments to the Land Use Element and Planning and Zoning Code along with initial zoning map changes will allow for upzoning of areas to accommodate additional density on areas near BART stations, along transit corridors, and in existing residential neighborhoods to allow for "missing middle" housing on page 14. Is this change proposed on general principles, to meet and equity goad, to encourage a more diverse mixture of housing, or some other reason?
High resource areas (“high resource” itself should be precisely defined and the locations identified within the draft Element) are discussed in several places within this document. What exactly are the goals for the high resource areas; is it the exact RHNA housing mix goal or something else? Implementation of the Housing Action Plan broadly in the City’s high resource areas requires an understanding of the barriers to development there, is not cohesively described in one location within the draft.

Based on studies, the largest barrier to housing production in an area such as Rockridge is the high land cost. Development of any housing other than market-rate housing is difficult to pencil out. This needs to be explicitly discussed in the HE and policies proposed to overcome this difficulty. One option proposed in the HE is an affordable housing overlay. It should be specific to each area within the City, and take into account local conditions.
7/20/22, 4:11 PM
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]…%2FqtcXWGMRiAAAAAAEMAAApFTKySZwnTo%2FqtcXWGMRiAAE3NlM4AAA%3D Page 2 of 2 Another point regards tenant and anti-displacement protections explicitly removing properties with existing units from further development to avoid displacement. Those policies look very different in higher resource areas than low ones, and would require the development of vacant parcels in Rockridge. As mentioned earlier in this comment, those are few and far between. For example, much of College Ave, Claremont and portions of Upper Broadway, i.e. the arterials, already include the types of housing proposed in the HE. How those housing goals can be accomplished should be explicitly described.

Regards,
Ronnie Spitzer
City of Oakland Bureau of Planning
250 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza
Oakland, CA 94612
[By email]
June 13, 2022
Dear Planning Bureau staff:

Thank you very much for the opportunity to comment on the 2023 - 2029 Oakland General Plan Housing Element Update.

As a statement of general principles, the Rockridge Community Planning Council (RCPC) wants to acknowledge that the State of California is experiencing a housing crisis of historic proportions and that Oakland as a City and Rockridge as a neighborhood within the City must do their parts to ease this crisis. Furthermore, as a “high resource” neighborhood with some of the highest housing prices in the entire region, we believe it is incumbent upon us to lead by example in advocating for more housing development within our borders. We believe that welcoming significant numbers of new residents to Rockridge would be entirely consistent with our values and the cherished historically diverse character of our neighborhood.

Please find our specific comments on a few portions of the draft Housing Element below:

Housing Sites Inventory
First and foremost, we were extremely surprised and disappointed to see that the large “Shops at the Ridge Phase II” site at Broadway and Pleasant Valley was not included in the Inventory and we cannot understand the reasoning behind this omission. This site, which is flat, not within an established low-density neighborhood and less than a 15-minute walk from Rockridge BART, is clearly one of the most important undeveloped housing opportunity sites in the City.

The current Home Depot proposal for this site would be an extremely inappropriate use. A survey of Rockridge residents from RCPC indicated that neighbors overwhelmingly prefer housing at the Ridge Phase II. The site should be included within the Inventory. As an implementation action of the Housing Element, the site should be rezoned to encourage high density residential development and prohibit stand-alone non-residential uses.

While some infill and densification is likely to occur organically in Rockridge’s lower density residential neighborhoods, we believe the most important opportunities exist on a handful of larger sites within the neighborhood. The maps and tables in the draft are a little difficult to navigate, but we believe we can see the following sites identified on Figure 3-1: Housing Sites Inventory:
• CCA Site
• Rockridge BART Site
• Triangular site at the corner of Claremont and College • A portion of the Dreyer’s Ice Cream site
• Wendy’s site at College and Broadway
We agree with the inclusion of these sites on the inventory but believe several other important potential housing development sites have been left out, including:
• Ridge site at Broadway and Pleasant Hill (already discussed above) • Carpet store site at College and Kales
• Dialysis Center site at Claremont and Clifton
• DMV Site at Claremont and Cavour
• Chevron Station Site at Telegraph near highway 24
The omission of these sites or others yet to be identified in Rockridge contradicts a key narrative discussed in the Housing Action Plan beginning on page 60 to affirmatively further fair housing goals. The section reads: “The City must work towards breaking down barriers towards accessing high-opportunity neighborhoods for those who choose to live there, while simultaneously investing in “lower resource” neighborhoods. Increasing affordability and expanding the housing types permitted in high-opportunity neighborhoods will be key to ensuring that currently exclusive neighborhoods become inclusive.” We are aware that some of the sites on the second list above may have been omitted from the Inventory by staff because of technical guidelines governing what sorts of sites are eligible for inclusion. However, we feel strongly that we should err on the side of inclusivity due to the seriousness of the housing crisis. We would welcome an opportunity to discuss these criteria further with Planning Department staff.

Housing Action Plan:

Five Overarching Goals
The first paragraph of the narrative on page 59 under Goal #3 “Expand Affordable Housing Opportunities” discusses the importance of the general production of housing and asserts that “thoughtfully adding housing at every level can reduce market competition for existing homes….” before going on to point out the overarching importance of making a concerted effort to increase production of homes that are affordable to very-low, low and moderate income households. We agree with these sentiments but feel that the headline “Expand Affordable Housing Opportunities” is not descriptive of the Element’s stated policy goals. We recommend the headline be amended to read something like “Expand Housing Opportunities at All Income Levels, With a Very Strong Emphasis on Affordable Housing.” 2&+#M%!F94I!"01)$1!)!`&01!G#L10H1!`#W!&'!8&C1H!$&!`11$!"&CC/,#$%!d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e '0#1,-+%!/,#$H9!
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
\,!N)0$#M/+)0<!:1!)01!#,$0#3/1-!X%!$K1!M&,M1N$!&'!),!Y)''&0-)X+1!K&/H#,3!&L10+)%Z!&/$+#,1- #,! )M$#&,!F9F959!![1!:&/+-!X1!#,$101H$1-!#,!1WN+&0#,3!$K#H!#-1)!)+&,3!"&++131!=L1,/1!)H!:1++!)H!&,! H&C1!&0!)++!&'!$K1!&NN&0$/,#$%!H#$1H!-#HM/HH1-!)X&L19
c)H$+%<!:1!$K#,*!$K101!#H!)!0&+1!$&!N+)%!'&0!C1)H/01H!$K)$!-&,^$!#,L&+L1!,1:!M&,H$0/M$#&,<!H/MK!)H! -#HM&/0)3#,3!K&+-#,3!&'!/,#$H!&''!$K1!01,$)+!C)0*1$!),-!M&,-&!M&,L10H#&,H9!\,!)--#$#&,<!$K1!"#$%! HK&/+-!+&&*!)$!)C1,-#,3!$K1!"dOA!;&,#,3!$&!N0&K#X#$!M&,L10H#&,H!&'!/NN10!'+&&0!01H#-1,$#)+!/,#$H! $&!,&,O01H#-1,$#)+!/H1H9!
[1!+&&*!'&0:)0-!$&!M&,$#,/#,3!$&!N)0$#M#N)$1!#,!$K1!8&/H#,3!Q+1C1,$!N0&M1HH!),-!$K),*!%&/!'&0! %&/0!M&,H#-10)X+1!:&0*!&,!M01)$#,3!)!L#H#&,!'&0!#,M+/H#L1!,1#3KX&0K&&-H!$K0&/3K&/$!()*+),-9! ]10%!$0/+%!%&/0H<
")H1%!7)0C10<!.&)0-!"K)#0<!S&M*0#-31!"&CC/,#$%!2+),,#,3!"&/,M#+ _1,!S#MK<!c),-!RH1!"&CC#$$11!"K)#0<!S&M*0#-31!"&CC/,#$%!2+),,#,3!"&/,M#+ 1 March 7, 2022
By electronic transmission
General Plan Team, Lakshmi Rajagopalan, Audrey Lieberworth City of Oakland Bureau of Planning and Zoning
250 Frank Ogawa Plaza, Suite 2114
Oakland, CA 94612
Subject: Housing Element
Dear Ms. Rajagopalan, Ms. Lieberworth, and General Plan Team, The draft Housing Element is a very impressive and complex document. We are pleased that several of our previous recommendations are reflected in the draft.

Some of the upzoning proposals could adversely affect historic properties, but they are presented very generally in the draft with the intent of being fleshed out as part of the upcoming zoning amendments and objective design review standards. We therefore are considering these implementing documents as the appropriate vehicles for evaluating the impact of housing element proposals on historic properties and look forward to opportunities for early input on these documents.

It is good that “landmarks/historic properties” are included among the constraints considered in Figure C-6 regarding Supplemental Housing Sites for AFFH. However, Figure C-6 does not include Areas of Secondary Importance (ASIs) as defined in the Historic Preservation Element and Oakland Cultural Heritage Survey. We therefore request that ASIs be reflected in Figure C-6 and that the housing element and follow up zoning amendments and objective design review standards be structured to avoid adverse impacts on ASIs as well as other historic properties.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Sincerely,
Mary Harper
President
By electronic transmission:
cc: William Gilchrist, Ed Manasse, Robert Merkamp, Catherine Payne, Betty Marvin and Karen August, Bureau of Planning/Zoning.

cc: RCPC Board members
7/20/22, 4:16 PM
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/…%2FqtcXWGMRiAAAAAAEMAAApFTKySZwnTo%2FqtcXWGMRiAAE4JyL1AAA%3D Page 1 of 2 draft housing element
Kirk Peterson
Mon 6/13/2022 9:56 PM
To: General Plan <[email protected]>
[EXTERNAL] This email originated outside of the City of Oakland. Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and expect the message.

Dear Audry,
The opportunity to comment on the Draft Housing Element is appreciated. My architectural firm has designed hundreds of dwelling units; including for sale, for rent, subsidized/affordable, ordinary market rate, and luxury market. My comments are rather general, but address gaps that I perceive in the Draft. These comments are from me as an individual. I have also contributed to discussion of the Draft with community groups, including RCPC, Upper Broadway Advocates and Oakland Heritage Alliance.

Affordable housing is housing very hard to find for low income families. The Housing Element should promote the construction of more affordable/subsidized units that will accommodate families, as well as families that can afford to occupy market rate housing.

I'd say a family is a group of more than three related individuals, possibly including multiple generations and generally including children, or we can simply say a related group that needs three bedrooms. There are legal definitions. It's easier and more lucrative to build studio, or one or two bedroom units. Many (most?) landlords would rather rent to adults only, as the wear and tear on the unit will probably be less, and these people are more likely to move out, and not stay for a longtime. In addition to that, there is likely to be a loss of family-sized dwellings, as existing single family houses are divided into apartments, or demolished to make way for multi-unit structures with small units. It would be negligent of the City to ignore the possibility of significant demographic changes related to the Housing Element. Until such potential changes are examined it cannot be determined if they are good or not, or consistent with the goals of the City. It is important that the Housing Element include language to help promote housing for families. This means numbers of people housed, not numbers of units.

When the draft talks about 'opportunity sites' it seems to only look at large parcels that could hold many units, of which there are relatively few in most neighborhoods. These are often owned by entities that have no interest in building housing. I would like the Element to look at our boulevards and arterial streets as 'opportunity sites' that could yield a large number of units. There are about fifty miles of such streets, with thousands of small parcels. The element should look at how to promote development of the smaller (up to 7/20/22, 4:16 PM
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/…%2FqtcXWGMRiAAAAAAEMAAApFTKySZwnTo%2FqtcXWGMRiAAE4JyL1AAA%3D Page 2 of 2 five story) multi-unit buildings along the street that are already zoned for it. This would be a more 'organic' sort of growth that could be more 'Oaklandish' and neighborhood-friendly than the huge boxes most developers want to build. The city should encourage 'mom and pop' local development done by local people who own small parcels. The Housing Element should look at how the City can facilitate such development, instead of devoting so much effort to helping corporations build big lucrative projects.

Home ownership has many benefits for individuals and cities. The Element should address the importance of home ownership.

People who are literally invested in Oakland are most likely to be involved in and contributing to the community over time, which is good for all. The City should promote home ownership, and facilitate projects that allow for it. This could include requiring that projects include for sale units, possibly with developer-subsidized down payments or financing assistance. Such a policy would be a contrast to historic institutional exclusionary practice.

To what extent is planning considering the effects of lots of new development on the character and quality of life for Oakland citizens. present and future. I have seen the negative effects of 'redevelopment ' in Oakland in person. The Draft does not seem to include much on possible widespread cumulative negative impacts on cultural and natural resources. In the denser more crowded Oakland will the increase in housing result in diminishing the quality of and access to other things cities need. Will there be a commensurate increase of parks and open space, or libraries. or accessibility to historic sites and districts, or their expansion. Our present citizens care about these things. To what extent shall we socialize the risk of the loss or diminishment of such things, while the economic benefit of development remains private? Meeting a state quota for housing is a bureaucratic legal goal - but it cannot be a lived reality Sincerely,
Kirk Peterson
Kirk E. Peterson & Associates
June 13, 2 02
City of Oakland B ureau of Planning
250 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Suite 315
Oakland, C A 94 612
Email: ge neralpl an@oaklandc a.gov
Re: 2023 - 2031 Housing Element Update
Dear Audrey Lieberworth and Lakshmi Rajagopa lan:

Thank you for the opo rtuni ty to review the draft 2023- 2031 Hous ing Element that was released in May 2022. BART supor ts the goa ls and pol icies included in the draft 2023- 2031 Hous ing Element, and we look forward to partnering with the City to achieve the following goa ls and policies.

Goal 3. Expand Affordable Housing Opportunities
Policy 3.1 Facilitate Production of Deeply Affordable Housing Policy 3.2 Create A More Diverse Mix of Homes to Meet Community Needs
Policy 3.3 Expand Resources for The Construction of Affordable Homes Policy 3.4. Reform Zoning and Land Use to Address Community Priorities
Goal 4. Address Homelessness and Expand Services for the Unhoused Goal 5. Promote Neighborhood Stability and Health
Policy 5.2. Promote Resilient and Sustainable Development Action 5.2.2: Promote infill, transit-oriented development (TOD), and mixed-use development.

We also appreciate the City of Oakland’s (City) interest in includi ng BART’s land in its 2023-2031 Hous ing Element, as shown in Ape ndi x C: Sites Inventory of the draft Hous ing Element. As the City is aw are, BART’s TransitOriented Development Program Work Plan currently does not categorize all of the BART prope rties that are listed in Ape ndi x C: Sites Inve ntory as ‘ Nearterm (project initiation in 2020-2025)’ .

It is our collective goa l to de liver as much hous ing near transit as pos sible, and BART woul d like to supor t local jurisdi ctions to achieve the Bay Area’s regi onal hous ing go als. However, BART has limited staffing resour ces and few fundi ng s our ces for the infrastructure - most notably pa rking r epl acement - that is often required to free-up spa ce on BART’s land for de velopm ent.

Given current resour ces, it will be challengi ng for BART to support de velopm ent of all the land that has been pl anned for inclusion in BART partner jurisdictions’ Hous ing Elements during the 2023-2031 upcoming cycle.

SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT
2150 Webster Street, P.O. Box 12688
Oakland, CA 94604-2688
(510) 464-6000
2022
Rebecca Saltzman

PRESIDENT
Janice Li

VICE PRESIDENT
Robert Powers

GENERAL MANAGER

DIRECTORS
Debora Allen
1ST DISTRICT
Mark Foley
2ND DISTRICT
Rebecca Saltzman
3RD DISTRICT
Robert Raburn, Ph.D.
4TH DISTRICT
John McPartland
5TH DISTRICT
Elizabeth Ames
6TH DISTRICT
Lateefah Simon
7TH DISTRICT
Janice Li
8TH DISTRICT
Bevan Dufty
9TH DISTRICT
www.bart.gov
June 13, 2022

Page 2 ends

In addition, several BART properties that are listed in Appendix C: Sites Inventory are not suitable for development due to proximity to BART infrastructure and associated structural issues. Please see attached for a detailed analysis of each of BART properties.

Delivering TOD projects on BART’s land is much more complex and time consuming than development projects on private land and requires strong partnerships and commitment between BART and local jurisdictions. As noted in the previous letter issued on March 7, 2022, BART’s TOD Work Plan prioritizes development in its station areas based on the following three criteria:

1. Market readiness for TOD

2. Local support for TOD

3. Infrastructure needs
If conditions have changed since the last assessment in 2019/2020, the timeframe for TOD development in station areas can be updated in BART’s TOD Work Plan. Key considerations by BART for prioritizing development projects are 1) availability of local funding and resources to support development, including staff support and funding for community outreach, affordable housing, and infrastructure, and 2) seamless coordination with local jurisdiction staff.

Jurisdictions with station areas that are currently listed in BART’s TOD Work Plan timeframes of Mid-term or Long-term need to meet the following conditions to be considered for prioritization:

1. Local Support and Funding: First and foremost, we see TOD projects on our property not as solely a BART project, but a BART/local jurisdiction-partnership. BART TOD projects are civic destinations, and transformative to the community, often including off-site improvements. The City must be committed to working closely with BART to find funds and resources to facilitate community outreach, discussions, and decisions on TOD development and area-wide parking. It takes several years of pre-development work prior to issuance of a RFP for developers, so any development of BART land within the planning period of 2023-2031 must dedicate sufficient BART and City staff time to advance a TOD project within a reasonable timeframe.

2. Prohousing Designation: BART will prioritize projects in jurisdictions that are pursuing a Prohousing Designation by California Department of Housing and Community Development. We may advance housing development on BART’s property located within a Prohousing Designation even if other conditions have not yet been met.

3. Station Access and Parking Strategies: Maintaining access to the station is important for the City and region. BART will work with City staff and developers to develop and implement a Station Access Plan that identifies potential improvement projects to enhance pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and vehicular access. The City should plan for and implement a locally led parking resource assessment and management plan for at least ¼-mile radius around the station area. It should identify parking opportunities for BART riders that would minimize the number of spaces to be included in the TOD project and address spillover concerns by neighbors. BART staff will work with the jurisdiction to provide support and guidance as needed but will not be able to lead the development and implementation of a parking management plan.

June 13, 20

Page 3 ends

4. Environmental Studies: The City shoul d ensure that envi ronmental studi es associated with the 2023-2031 Hous ing Element assume a minimum de nsity of 75 dwelling units per acre for BART’s land that is likely to be de velope d w ithin the pl anning pe riod.

5. BART Policies and Standards: Any developm ent on BART’s land is subject to BART’s review procedures and approvals and shall follow relevant guide lines, pol icies, and regulations. The jurisdi ction shoul d commit to supor t and meet BART’s policies and standa rds . Most of these policies and are summarized on our TOD Guide lines and Procedures webpag e.

We look forward to bui lding our pa rtnerships with the City of Oakland to realize our shared go al of increasing the amount of hous ing near transit. Please contact us to further our conve rsation on advancing T OD pr ojects on BART’s land.

Sincerely,
_
Val Joseph M enotti
Chief Planning & Development Officer
Attachment: Review of Ape ndi x C: S ites I nve ntory of Draft 203- 2031 Hous ing E lement _
J oseph M enotti
Review of Appendix C: Sites Inventory of Draft 2023- 2031 Housing Element Date: June 13, 2022
Station
Location APN
BART’s Support to
include in the 2023
- 2031 HE Reason
19th Street 008-0649-011-00 No Structural challenges
12th Street 001-0131-008-01 No
BART ROW with tracks. Financially
challenging. Categorized as a Long Term
site in BART's TOD Plan
19th Street 008-0660-052-03 Yes with conditions
Categorized as a Mid Term site in BART's
TOD Plan
Coliseum
041-4164-024-03
Yes with conditions
Categorized as a Mid Term site in BART's
TOD Plan
041-4164-031-02
041-4162-001-05
Fruitvale 025-0692-006-00 Yes with conditions
Categorized as a Mid Term site in BART's
TOD Plan
Fruitvale 033-2193-023-00 Yes with conditions
A small parcel with maintenance access.

Financially challenging
Fruitvale
033-2192-019-00,
033-2192-023-00,
033-2191-023-00,
033-2191-021-00 Yes with conditions
Currently serving as a multimodal &
passenger loading zone. Future
development should provide the same level
of multimodal and passenger loading
capacity
Fruitvale
033-2190-022-00,
033-2190-020-00,
033-2190-023-00,
033-2178-018-00,
033-2178-017-00 No Close proximity to tracks, narrow site Lake Merritt 001-0171-001-00 No Structural challenges
Lake Merritt 001-0169-001-00 Yes Lake Merritt TOD in the pipeline Lake Merritt 001-0167-003-00 Yes with conditions Challenging due to small parcel size Lake Merritt 001 -0171-002-00
Yes (New Parcel to
be added to the
Inventory)
100 affordable housing units planned as
part of LM TOD
Rockridge
014-1265-040-00
Yes
Categorized as a Short Term site in BART's
014-1265-038-06 TOD Plan
Review of Appendix C: Sites Inventory of Draft 2023- 2031 Housing Element Date: June 13, 2022
Station
Location APN
BART’s Support to
include in the 2023
- 2031 HE Reason
West
Oakland
004-0077-003-00
004-0071-003-00 Yes West Oakland TOD in the pipeline
West
Oakland 004-0073-009-00 Yes with conditions
Developable if environmental issues are
resolved
NOTE: Please do not include BART properties that are not listed in this table in the Sites Inventory of Draft 2023 - 2031 Housing Element.

June 13, 2022
City of Oakland Planning Department
250 Frank H Ogawa Plaza
Oakland, CA 94612
RE: Comments on Draft Housing Element for 2023-2031
Dear General Plan Update Team:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft Housing Element. We appreciate all the work that has gone into producing this document, and we offer our comments with the hope that the City will incorporate them to produce a final document that moves the City in the direction of significant progress to achieve housing justice and meet our current and future housing needs.

EBHO is a member-driven organization working to preserve, protect, and create affordable housing opportunities for low-income communities in the East Bay by educating, advocating, organizing, and building coalitions.

Our comments are organized into the following five areas:
• Public Outreach and Participation
• Evaluation of Past Performance
• Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
• Site Inventory
• Action Plan
While we are submitting these comments to meet the City’s deadline for its 30-day public comment period and allow the City time to review and respond to these comments in its submission to HCD, we intend to continue reviewing and commenting on the document during HCD’s 90-day review period.

Public Outreach and Participation
The City’s public outreach for the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update has been commendable and the City has done far more outreach than in past cycles, with a particular effort to reach out to marginalized and previously excluded communities. The City held numerous stakeholder sessions, community workshops, pop-up events and other efforts, and solicited a large number of comments. We look forward to seeing many of those comments and suggestions included in the next draft of the Housing Element.

Oakland Planning Department
June 13, 2022

Page 2 ends

We were disappointed, however, with the manner in which the Draft Housing Element was released for public review and comment and the way in which it was presented to the Planning Commission, City Council Community and Economic Development Committee, and others:
• The draft document, which runs to more than 800 pages including all its appendices, contains no executive summary or other guide. At a minimum, both the draft and final document should include a summary narrative that outlines the key findings of the evaluation of past performance, the results of the Fair Housing Assessment including identification of the most important underlying factors to be addressed, the identified governmental and non-governmental constrains to housing, a summary of the site inventory that quantifies and maps key issues such as the geographic distribution or concentration of sites – particularly those for lower income households, and key elements of the action plan including a listing that highlights new programs and policies. • The presentation of the draft Housing Element to both Planning Commission and City Council was subsumed within a much larger information report on the overall update of the City’s General Plan. As such it wasn’t clear from the lengthy title of the agenda item that this was the opportunity to provide comments on the Housing Element. At those meetings, the presentation focused on the update process but did not include any information on the actual content of the document. It wasn’t until we commented on this that a summary presentation was finally made available halfway through the public comment period. We do note that the Planning Commission scheduled a subsequent meeting to review the draft in more detail.

Evaluation of Past Performance
As noted in Appendix A, performance in meeting the RHNA goals of the 5th Cycle Housing Element has been mixed. From 2015 through 2021 (7 years out of the 8-year planning period), the City has issued permits for more units than its total RHNA. However, as the Draft notes, this has been disproportionately concentrated in the Above-Moderate Income category, where the City has already issued permits for nearly 200% of its RHNA, while falling far short for Very Low, Low and Moderate Income. The result has been a “housing balance ratio” of one unit of lower income (VLI + LI) housing for every eight units of Above Moderate-Income housing, despite a RHNA goal of one unit of lower income housing for every 1.9 units of Above Moderate-Income housing.

Oakland has long passed the point where it needs to make special efforts to attract market-rate development. Over the 3rd and 4
th housing element cycles (1999-2014), Oakland permitted an average of just under 700 units per year, rarely exceeding 1,000 in a year, and of which 73% were Above Moderate Income. In the current cycle, the average has been 2,400 permits per year, with only two years below 1,000, of which 88% were Above Moderate Income.

In light of this record, the evaluation of past performance should take a harder look at the reasons for this disproportionality. In particular, the City should assess the need for continuing to Oakland Planning Department
June 13, 2022

Page 3 ends

incentivize production of market-rate housing without conditioning such incentives on production of affordable units or payments of appropriate fees to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund, particularly since the 6th cycle RHNA requires not only a much greater number of units, but also a higher proportion of lower income units.

The evaluation needs to not just provide data on past performance, it should include analysis of what is working and what is not, the reasons for this performance, and a serious consideration of which programs need to be discontinued or seriously modified.

Affimatively Furthering Fair Housing
Despite having completed a Fair Housing Assessment in Appendix D, there still appears to be a disconnect between this assessment and the housing element itself. In the Introduction chapter, the City refers to “an affirmatively furthering fair housing analysis (AFFH), which guides the analysis of each set of requirements.” Similarly, Appendix D is labeled as the “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Draft” but is primarily a fair housing analysis. The new statutory requirement to affirmatively further fair housing requires more than an analysis of fair housing issues. The analysis must identify and prioritize the key factors contributing to segregation and disparities in housing opportunity and conditions, and then the City must develop both the site inventory and the action plan in ways that address these factors, along with clear metrics for determining whether those actions result in real improvements. It is not enough to determine after the fact whether an AFFH-neutral selection process results in non-discriminatory outcomes.

The requirement to affirmatively further fair housing must fully inform the site inventory and action plan. We encourage the City to review HCD’s April 2020 AFFH Memo (AB 686 Summary of Requirements in Housing Law) and its April 2021 AFFH Guidance, which includes detailed explanations of specific requirements for housing elements, to ensure it is fully meeting these requirements
Among the issues we have identified are the following:
• The Fair Housing analysis does not consider whether the City’s zoning contributes to enduring patterns of racial segregation. The word “zoning” barely appears in the analysis, and while the Draft Housing Element notes that most of the City’s residentially zoned land is zoned for single-family housing, this is not related back to patterns of racial segregation. Not surprisingly, in the absence of such an analysis, the City conducted its site inventory with the aim of meeting its RHNA numbers without having to rezone any sites. The Housing Element should include an analysis of the extent to which existing zoning is a barrier and a set of strategies to overcome this barrier through strategic rezoning.
• Table D-9 provides a brief summary of fair housing issues, contributing factors and proposed actions, but the proposed actions are fairly general and not tied back to the action plan. We recommend that Table D-9 be revised to explicitly cross-reference specific actions described in the action plan itself.

Oakland Planning Department
June 13, 2022

Page 4 ends

• Table D-9 notes as one issue that “Affordable housing is limited by location and housing type,” but there’s little examination of the reasons for this. The table recommends that this be addressed primarily through mobility strategies including expanded use of Housing Choice Vouchers but fails to note that in many of the higher opportunity areas, rents are far higher than what’s allowed for with the Housing Choice Voucher payment standards. While there is a vague call to “eliminate single-family zoning,” it’s unclear if this refers to allowing 2-4 units buildings in single-family zones, or if it means expanding multifamily zoning at densities of 30 du/acre or greater. Finally, while it is proposed that affordable housing be increased in high opportunity areas, there’s no specific program referenced here by which this might be achieved, particularly given the limited number of lower income sites identified in high opportunity areas.

Site Inventory
The proposed site inventory raises a number of concerns for us, with respect to how the information is provided, how the sites were selected, and whether the inventory adequately addresses the requirement to affirmatively further fair housing:
• The site map is at a scale that makes it difficult to adequately see whether these is an equitable geographic distribution of sites, particularly sites for lower income housing.

The City should provide a series of maps for each planning area or council district in addition to a single citywide map.
• The site maps should be overlaid on maps of key demographic indicators, particularly racial concentrations and concentrations of high- and low-income households. It would be especially useful to map sites against areas of concentration of white residents vs concentrations of people of color.
• The City recently provided links to an interactive GIS map. This map would also benefit from additional layers showing key demographic indicators including race and income.

Sites should be color coded for income level (lower income, moderate income, above moderate income). Rather than shading the parcels, which at best indicates the relative size of parcels, sites should be indicate with dots of different sizes representing the number of units that can be accommodated on the site.
• The Excel table for the site inventory has modified the total capacity column and eliminated the formula that is in the State’s template spreadsheet and replaced it with actual numbers. The result is that in a number of places the entry for "total capacity” does not equal the sum of the columns for lower, moderate and above-moderate income capacity. This should be corrected, since at present the sum of the total capacity column exceeds the sum of the individual columns.

Oakland Planning Department
June 13, 2022

Page 5 ends

• The inventory should provide more detail on the current use of non-vacant sites. In particular, while the inventory identifies whether non-vacant sites have office, commercial, or other uses, it does not distinguish between sites with active uses and those with vacant buildings. That information is needed to assess the likelihood that a site will become available during the planning period.
• The projection that roughly 90% of all new ADUs will be affordable to lower income households is significantly different from the regional ADU affordability distribution provided by ABAG (see Appendix C, page 25). The City has relied on a limited (and not necessarily representative) survey that was conducted as part of a City-commissioned report. Data on ADU rental rates is based on just 56 responses to this question. It indicated that the average rent for an existing ADU is $1,112. However, one third of the responses indicated that their ADUs were being occupied rent free. As these units are likely being provided to family members, without further data it cannot be assumed that these units are available to and occupied by low-income households. The calculation of average rents should remove the zero rent units from the calculation.

Further evidence that the $1,112 figure is unlikely to apply to newly created ADUs is contained in this same City-commissioned report. That study includes model pro-formas for several ADU development scenarios and uses rents that range between $2,360 and $3,029 per month. The City should re-evaluate its projections of affordability level for newly created ADUs and revise the site inventory accordingly. • There is little discussion or analysis of how the inventory does or doesn’t change patterns of segregation. Table C-19 on page C-83 shows that for the preliminary site inventory,

26.1% of lower income capacity is located in moderate to highest resource tracts, while

36.4% of above moderate-income capacity is located in these tracts. On its face this does not appear to further fair housing. While the City has provided additional AFFH sites, it has not indicated the extent to which those supplemental sites would offset the disparity described above.
• The geographic distribution of sites is not surprising in light of the City’s decision to focus only on opportunity sites that require no rezoning, and to rule out in advance any rezoning of low-density areas to accommodate some of the lower income portion of the RHNA. While the City proposes, outside of the site inventory, to consider some future rezoning, the areas that will be studied are not identified and it appears that the focus will be more on accommodating “missing middle” housing types that cannot be assumed necessarily to be affordable to lower income households. • The City explains the relatively small proportion of lower income sites in high and moderate resource areas by noting that significant portions of these areas are also very high fire hazard or seismic hazard areas, which are located primarily in the most affluent portions of the city with the greatest degree of racial segregation. At the same time, other hazards such as industrial pollution, poor air quality, or sea level rise, were not Oakland Planning Department
June 13, 2022

Page 6 ends

considered disqualifying. The result is a set of criteria that by definition rule out the majority of high opportunity areas and areas of concentration of affluence and white population.
• The City justifies concentration of affordable housing in lower opportunity areas as a strategy of investment in these areas to prevent displacement. However, State guidance is clear that this needs to be coupled with place-based community development strategies that involve investments not only in housing, but also in enhanced infrastructure, services, schools, jobs, and other community needs that serve the existing population in at-risk neighborhoods. While the Draft Housing Element makes reference to the need for such investments, it does not provide adequate detail on specific programs, strategies or non-housing investments to be pursued, the anticipated outcomes, or any metrics for determining if such programs are effective in stabilizing at-risk communities.

Action Plan
We are not able to provide detailed comment on each and every policy and action at this time.

Additional and more detailed comments on the Action Plan may be submitted during the HCD review period. We do want to call attention to the following:
• Much of the Action Plan consists of continuation of policies and programs already in place. Since it’s clear that existing policies have resulted in over-production of marketrate housing and under-production of lower income housing, the City must consider how existing programs can be recalibrated to produce better results. • Where new programs are mentioned, they are generally described with terms such as “consider,” “study”, or “evaluate”. These are not actions in themselves. HCD has been clear in its guidance and in reviews of draft housing elements in other regions that these kinds of general statements are not sufficient. In its review of Los Angeles’ Draft Housing Element, HCD clearly stated:

Programs must commit to completing an action that will have an actual impact on housing such as “amend,” “revise,” or “establish”
While we would like to see the Housing Element itself be the vehicle for new housing policies, where this is not possible then at a minimum the Housing Element should commit to bringing concrete legislation before the City Council for adoption by a specific date. Moreover, these dates should be in the first few years of the housing element.

Postponing these studies to the later years means that many of these new programs, if implemented at all, will have limited impact in the housing element cycle.

This is not a new issue. There are a number of policies and programs that the City has pledged to “consider” for multiple housing element cycles without ever having a full Oakland Planning Department
June 13, 2022

Page 7 ends

policy discussion and proposed legislation before the City Council. For this update, the City should commit to move beyond this.
• In many cases the time frames are vague. Specific milestones and deadlines for completion should be called out.
• There is no clear prioritization of the many actions contained in the Action Plan. Which actions are most important to achievement of the City’s goals and objectives? For the many new programs and policies that the City will “consider” or “study,” which are the most important and what resources will be available to ensure that they are completed in a timely fashion?
• Anticipated outcomes and metrics are insufficient. Many of the action items have no quantified objectives and it is unclear what outcomes are anticipated or how the effectiveness of these actions, particularly in addressing fair housing issues, will be assessed.
• While the Action Plan discusses how the City’s major goals address AFFH, it doesn’t clearly identify specific actions that address priority factors for AFFH. HCD’s guidance on affirmatively furthering fair housing is clear that jurisdictions must identify underlying factors that create and maintain segregations and inequitable opportunities and outcomes, and then select a number of factors that are the highest priority and ensure that the site inventory and action plan are clearly related back to these priority factors. • The City should not take actions that incentivize market-rate housing without requiring affordability in return. In the past, many policies that could be used to incentivize affordable housing have been implemented across the board without any affordability requirements, leaving the City with limited options for incentives specifically to produce affordable housing. After two decades of significant above-moderate income housing production dating back to the “10K” plan, it’s clear that such incentives are no longer needed. Rather than continuing to “expand housing for all economic levels” the housing element action plan needs to focus on the most deficient areas and therefore must prioritize actions that will improve performance in creating and preserving housing for the lowest income individuals, including persons who are currently unhoused.

We offer specific comments on the following action items:

Action 2.2.5 The City should provide a specific date for adopting SB 330 anti-demolition protections. Since this is a matter of bringing the City’s code into compliance this should be implemented by the end of 2023 at the latest, including extending it beyond SB 330’s sunset date.

Oakland Planning Department
June 13, 2022

Page 8 ends

Action 2.2.6 We strongly support efforts to reduce speculation in housing through both a speculation tax and adoption of Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act/Community Opportunity to Purchase Act (TOPA/COPA) legislation.

Action 2.2.8. In place of vague action to study a possible TOPA/COPA policy, the City should commit to bringing a TOPA/COPA ordinance before the City Council for adoption within the first year of the housing element.

Action 3.3.1 Any strategy regarding use of public land should start with adoption of a public land disposition ordinance consistent with the policy framework adopted by the City Council in December 2018. If the City is now proposing to abandon that framework and take a different approach, that should be clearly stated and presented to the City Council as a change in adopted policy.

Action 3.3.3 This action speaks primarily to provision of rental assistance but includes as part of its objective the statement that “100% of tenants facing eviction will have access to counsel by the end of the Housing Element cycle.” This statement should be included in action 1.1.5, which currently contains no actual commitment.

Action 3.3.5 We strongly support an Affordable Housing overlay that provides by-right approval of 100% affordable housing projects citywide, wherever zoning currently permits it.

We also support identifying specific incentives and bonuses that could be part of such an overlay, but that process should not delay the immediate adoption and implementation of a byright overlay.

Action 3.3.8 We support revision of the Affordable Housing and Jobs/Housing Impact Fee programs, with particular attention to the amount and timing of the fee and recalibration of the on-site alternative compliance option to provide an outcome (number and affordability of units) comparable to what would be achieved through investment of the fee in affordable housing. This analysis was supposed to have been completed by the end of 2021 for presentation to the City Council in early 2022 and was to involve community participation throughout the process and not just in response to a completed study. This has not been the case. The City should commit to a firm date for revision of these ordinances, and should ensure that all evaluations and assessments include meaningful community involvement.

Action 3.3.9 We support deferral or reduction of planning and building fees to increase the feasibility and reduce the cost of producing affordable housing. In particular, we support deferring or reducing building permit fees. For City-financed affordable housing, fee payments could be deferred until a certificate of occupancy is issued, as the City has ample leverage to ensure that those fees will be paid.

Action 3.3.10 We support the creation of a Citywide Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD) with a primary goal of providing additional funding resources for affordable housing.

Oakland Planning Department
June 13, 2022

Page 9 ends

Action 3.3.12 We support continuation of the Acquisition and Conversion to Affordable Housing (ACAH) program, including support for community land trusts and limited equity cooperatives in addition to traditional nonprofit housing.

3.3.15: We support continuation of density bonus incentives, but call on the city to evaluate any barriers to a broader use of the density bonus program, including information on what developers have shared regarding how this program might be improved or expanded. His evaluation should also distinguish between use of density bonus for 100% affordable projects vs predominately market-rate projects.

Action 3.3.16 We support increasing the Real Estate Transfer Tax on higher end transactions including dedication of that increased revenue for programs that produce, preserve and protect affordable housing opportunities. We urge the City to move forward to place such an item on the November 2024 ballot to maximize the likelihood of passage.

Action 3.3.18 We strongly support extension of the Measure KK infrastructure and affordable housing bond, with a substantial increase in the share and amount devoted to housing production and preservation, at a scale that will make a significant impact on Oakland’s pressing affordable housing needs. This is an urgent priority and should be implemented as rapidly as possible.

Action 3.4.10 For inventory sites that are carried over from previous housing element cycles, the City must commit to actually rezone those sites – perhaps through use of a zoning overlay – that provides for by-right approval on these sites if a minimum of 20 percent of the units will be affordable to lower-income households. Ideally this should be implemented as part of the Housing Element itself. If not, then the Housing Element must include a specific rezoning program for these sites.

Action 3.6.4 We support active encouragement of use of SB 35 to provide by-right approval for 100% affordable housing, including training and direction to Planning staff that this should be affirmatively pursued.

Action 5.2.8 We have substantial concerns that, given the limited targeting of high opportunity neighborhoods in the site inventory, a “mixed-income” strategy in areas of concentration may lead to more gentrification and displacement. The City must ensure that a better mix of incomes in a neighborhood is not simply capturing a point in time where a neighborhood transition is actually taking place. We note that despite acknowledging the need for place-based strategies to stabilize and improve low resource areas, these programs are not included in the Action Plan.

Oakland Planning Department
June 13, 2022

Page 10 ends

We again thank you for the opportunity to comment on this Draft Housing Element, and will continue to participate and comment throughout the update process. We look forward to your response to these comments as part of your submission of the Draft Housing Element to HCD.

Sincerely yours,
Jeffrey Levin
Policy Director
Sincerely yours,
Jeffrey Levin
Policy Director
June 13, 2022
To: City of Oakland General Plan Update Team
From: West Oakland Community Acon Plan (WOCAP) Steering Commiee Re: Dra Housing Element Comments related to Air Quality and Environmental Jusce This comment leer is submied on behalf of the West Oakland Community Acon Plan (WOCAP) Steering Commiee - a group of residents, researchers/academics, public agencies, non-profits, and community instuons involved in the implementaon of the WOCAP through the AB 617 process.

WOCAP is co-managed by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and the West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project. While our group cares deeply about ALL aspects of the housing element (preservaon, affordability, community ownership, displacement prevenon, etc.), this comment leer will primarily focus on policies related to air polluon exposure and migaon.

Because the online mapping tool did not have its full funconality unl today, we will submit comments on the sites inventory in West Oakland at a future me.

The following is a list of comments and quesons - some related to specific policies/acons and others are more general recommendaons:
● Indoor air polluon: We are glad to see references to indoor air polluon remediaon in the Housing Element, for exisng homes. From an equity, resource and health perspecve it makes sense to preserve exisng housing wherever possible. We know that indoor air polluon is a significant health burden on Oakland residents, parcularly heavy for people who suffer from other air polluon exposure burdens. We urge the City to add specifics about how it will undertake the objecve of improving air polluon exposure and how that effort will be targeted. We suggest that the city commit to work with Alameda County Health Department, local hospitals, nonprofits and others to specifically target these efforts toward families with asthmac children, for the purpose of reducing emergency room visits for treatment of asthma and other lung diseases. There was a program operang several years ago called “Pay for Success" that pioneered an approach to idenfy these families, coordinate housing improvement services and secure innovave forms of funding from health care providers. That program may have informaon or lessons that could help the City establish a larger effort.
● Unintended consequences.
○ Acons should be more explicit about steps to avoid inequitable and unintended consequences and steps to overcome access barriers (ex. many mes do not have electrical systems that will accommodate filtraon, how will people be protected from ulity/PGE imposed fees resulng from electrificaon). ● Strengthen Wording.
○ Acons related to air quality are currently worded too vaguely and use very weak language, and at some points don’t propose any new acons. This would be fine if air quality wasn't a serious issue, however we know there are serious air quality issues in many areas that lead to elevated rates of asthma and other health issues. For example 2.1.1, and 2.1.2 use the phrase “the city will connue to…” implying that they will not be doing anything new. We expect the city to step up and find addional ways to expand this important work. Addionally, 2.1.6 says the “city will explore…” explore feels like weak language - please make a more serious commitment to this important acon.
● 2.1.6 Explore funding for improved indoor air quality. ○ Ways to strengthen this language could include: "Increase funding" "Create dedicated funding" "match funding" "secure funding".
○ Some requirements are triggered when property changes hands (ex. 1031 swap). Or at the point of vacancy (new tenant).
○ Addionally why just "federal and state $", why not all sorts of sources of funds, from the City, creave philanthropic partners (e.g., the California Endowment), community benefits funds from the health care sector, etc.
● 2.1.1 Support home rehabilitaon programs.
○ Can this also include rehab for so story buildings. We want to ensure that if a big earthquake hits, we aren’t in danger of losing precious housing stock. ● 2.1.2 Promote healthy homes and lead-safe housing
AND 5.2.5 Encourage climate-resilient housing.
○ Get Gas Out of Residenal Buildings: Recent research shows that indoor gas appliances emit unhealthy levels of air polluon, somemes in concentraons much higher than outdoor air polluon. Gas use in buildings regularly causes explosions - parcularly in older buildings and from aging gas infrastructure. The City’s ECAP rightly establishes a goal to gradually remove fossil gas from exisng buildings to be replaced with heat pump technology. We understand that the City Staff is developing a Building Electrificaon Roadmap The Housing Element of the General Plan should contain specific acons to implement this ECAP objecve and fully actualize the Roadmap. This is important from a public health and safety perspecve, will help the City reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and in the long run lower the cost of residenal heang, cooling and hot water services for Oakland residents. ○ Need to protect people from addional charges from PG&E related to decommissioning or removing gas infrastructure from exisng homes ○ For 2.1.2, we’d encourage the city to meet with and partner with the Alameda County Department of Public Health’s Asthma Start Program and the Alameda County Healthy Homes Department to collaborate in future efforts.
○ We hope the city can think through what happens for exisng buildings if they switch to electric? How can we prevent an owner from switching back to gas in the future? Please beer define what it would mean to remove natural gas. Also, it might be appropriate to connect with the Fire Department and understand if they have a role? How will OFD get educated around the removal of natural gas since this will reduce the risk of explosions and fires.
○ Because these both are connected to the Electrificaon Roadmap process, it seems like the Sustainability Office should be consulted and listed as a responsible party. ○ Finally, what types of accountability (evaluaon measures and /or an oversight commiee) can the city implement to decarbonize exisng homes and buildings in Oakland?
● Remediaon of Contaminated Sites: The Housing Element rightly contains planning to remediate environmentally contaminated sites. Historically this has meant cleanup of hazardous waste dump sites. That work certainly needs to connue. But there is another form of contaminaon that the City should address in this plan. Due to decades of structural racism, many low income people and communies of color live in or near places that experience unhealthy levels of air polluon. This is evident near the Port of Oakland, near freeways and places with high concentraons of heavy duty diesel powered vehicle traffic.

We urge the City to expand the definion of contaminated sites to include neighborhoods exposed to high levels of air polluon. This will help priorize remediaon efforts such as retrofing exisng housing with indoor air filtraon. Funding could be used to support and incenvise housing upgrades in highly polluted locaons. Also consider that in West Oakland the City is working with businesses (CASS and CSW) to relocate out of the main neighborhood. This would open up some VERY large contaminated parcels for potenal housing development and neighborhood amenies.
○ These comments relate to
■ 3.2.3 Promote flexibility in adapve reuse to increase the housing stock. ■ 5.2.3 Study opons to provide financing for the remediaon of environmentally contaminated sites, with priority for affordable projects. ● This acon currently reads as if it will subsidize redevelopment regardless of who the developer is ("to property owners") and for whom the housing is being made available. This is too broad. This acon needs to be focused on equitable development and housing. ● We’d like to see addional details (and we’re open to brainstorming with you) related to HOW the city can help coordinate between developers and federal clean up funds. Strengthen langue to include “Support, find, locate and arrange for clean up funcs” or something similar.
● Should the Building Dept also be a stakeholder / leader for this? Do Public Works and Sustainability have a role as well? Also consider partnering with foundaons.
● Alameda County’s Dept of Environmental Health - Land and Water Protecon Local Oversight Program has an iniave to map
environmentally polluted sites in the whole county. They could potenally partner data and clean up funding efforts.
● 5.2.4 "Secure funding from the State’s Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communies (AHSC) Program. "
○ Are there opportunies to use this funding source for remediaon and/or electrificaon / decarbonizaon?
● Innovave Financing for New and Renovated Housing: In the past year, we have entered a period of rising interest rates and inflaon that makes it more difficult to finance housing.

One paral polluon is to use Green or Social Bonds to finance the city’s housing efforts.

Recent experience indicates rising demand from investors for these kinds of bonds. There are a wide range of benefits. Green and Social bonds tend to aract wider parcipaon from investors in bond issues, Green bonds help align city finance with other objects including:
equity and climate resilience. There is also evidence from Europe and from corporate bond market that these kinds of financing instruments can aract investors to accept a lower interest rate, partly because of lower risk and partly to sasfy growing investor interest in projects having sustainability and equity aributes. We urge the City to acvely consider using green or social bond frameworks to finance housing costs, and potenally lower finance costs for this part of the General Plan.
● Take advantage of point of sale or change of occupancy rules. Across several acon areas, the City can take a more programmac approach to require or facilitate property modificaons that promote environmental health at the point at which a property changes hands (e.g. someone vacates a lease, sells a home or residenal building). This approach should include equity measures to ensure lower-resource property owners and/or properes that are “naturally occurring” affordable housing, can implement the improvements. Funding can come from some of the resources menoned above.
● 5.2.6 Consider adopon of a disaster reconstrucon overlay zone. ○ We hope this acon can ensure that new homes have strict air quality / electrificaon / weatherizaon standards and that affordability is preserved? ○ Maybe consider creang a low-interest construcon loan program for income-qualified owners trying to recover. This type of support should priorize folks who need it the most and/or who’s housing can be preserved for low and moderate income Oaklanders.

Thank you for your me,
The West Oakland Community Acon Plan Steering Commiee
CONTACT INFORMATION:

Ms.Margaret Gordon [email protected]
Brian Beveridge [email protected]
Nicole Merino Tsui [email protected]
Joshua Abraham [email protected]
Beth Altshuler Muñoz [email protected]
The Unity Council
1900 Fruitvale Ave, Suite 2A, Oakland, CA 94601
510-535-6900 Office  510-534-7771 Fax  www.unitycouncil.org June 13, 2022
City of Oakland
1 Frank H Ogawa Plaza
Oakland, CA 94612
RE: The Unity Council’s Building Fee Deferral Comment on Oakland’s Draft 2023-2031 General Plan Housing Element
Dear City of Oakland,
On behalf of The Unity Council, a 57-year-old Social Equity Community Development Corporation in Oakland, I want to thank you for the opportunity to present a comment on the Draft 2023- 2031 General Plan Housing Element.

Our comment is on the “Housing action plan draft HE, chapter 4, action 3.6.3 (page 83): Expand by-right approvals and implement entitlement reform for affordable housing”.

Recommendation: Building Fee Deferral for City-sponsored affordable housing development is a Housing Element policy recommendation that the City of Oakland should enact.  Issue: The requirement to pay fees up front without ability to defer is a "governmental constraint on housing.
 Policy solution: The solution is to provide for a deferral of fees on 100% affordable housing developments.

As part of the entitlement reform, the city of Oakland will consider fee subsidies/or payment deferrals to better accommodate affordable housing developers, therefore the City of Oakland should consider including Building Fee deferral to fruition the shared goals of providing desperately needed affordable housing for Oakland’s most at-risk and vulnerable residents.

Reform in the process to allow building fee deferral for city-sponsored affordable housing developments would allow nonprofit organizations to build more affordable housing. This important step would allow nonprofit affordable housing developers to make it sustainable and ensure that affordable housing developers have an equal opportunity.

The building fee deferral would address the specific barriers of the fees so that we can expand affordable housing in our community which is so urgently needed. By deferring these fees, the City of Oakland will be showing itself as a true partner to affordable housing organizations like The Unity Council
1900 Fruitvale Ave, Suite 2A, Oakland, CA 94601
510-535-6900 Office  510-534-7771 Fax  www.unitycouncil.org The Unity Council, who has been a trustworthy, reliable and steadfast partners to the City of Oakland, and has worked together for years.

Thank you for your review and consideration.

Respectfully,

Chris Iglesias
Chief Executive Officer
7/20/22, 4:31 PM
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/…%2FqtcXWGMRiAAAAAAEMAAApFTKySZwnTo%2FqtcXWGMRiAAE4JyL0AAA%3D Page 1 of 4 Comments on general plan - community comment period
Crystal Lynn Keeler
Mon 6/13/2022 9:16 PM
To: General Plan <[email protected]>
[EXTERNAL] This email originated outside of the City of Oakland. Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and expect the message.

Dear City of Oakland,
I read the City of Oakland Housing Plan and appreciate the depth and breadth of work that went into the plan. There is an area that I don't see included very well and that is my particular circumstances.
"An affirmative effort was made to locate affordable housing in higher resource neighborhoods to reduce patterns of exclusion and segregation, and the City remains committed to increasing opportunity in neighborhoods that have experienced historic disinvestment. Providing opportunity for lower-income households must be a multipronged approach – the provision of affordable housing in areas that are already higher resourced must be coupled with continued investments in placebased strategies for historically marginalized neighborhoods. As outlined in Appendix D, the production of affordable housing and other strategies that enhance opportunity and housing security where lower-income residents already live—including gentrifying neighborhoods that face significant displacement pressures—must complement strategies to locate additional affordable housing in existing high-opportunity areas." - Chapter 3 We own a home in East Oakland that serves the criteria above from Chapter 3. It is an area with high displacement (displacement especially occurs on Outlook Avenue - with the View - just above us (68th Ave). We have very nice houses on our block, but areas nearby and down the hill are a bit more rugged. I believe our neighborhood region is an area with historic disinvestment, but with substantial gentrifying forces (houses on the block are now going for a million, a 2-bedroom one block over went for $750K). We're on the low hills, not the high hills, so not much risk of mudslide, or much risk of being flooded (I think we're too high). Our property is 10,000 square feet with a very large yard behind us with fruit trees and an area for an urban garden. There is another chunk of vacant lot just next to our large backyard lot that is currently housing a discarded moldy van (sometimes inhabited by homeless people) and a nonoperational boat detritus. I would love to be able to purchase the small slot just next to our large backyard and combine the properties to build the largest ADU allowed, or possibly a small house (depending how zoning might go), or two ADUs. The area cannot stand alone without an easement off our neighbors apartment complex for access in the back, or easement off our property. My goal would be to provide it as affordable housing. However, we are stretched thin with the current mortgage and lack the capital to develop this area for affordable housing currently (building and a bit of leveling out the low hill area for proper foundation). I know second-hand of the displacement that has happened in my neighborhood, even my best friend was forced to move to Antioch (someone who had called Oakland home for 20 years). Rising rent costs caused him to be displaced along with two of his roommates, all African-American. 7/20/22, 4:31 PM
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/…%2FqtcXWGMRiAAAAAAEMAAApFTKySZwnTo%2FqtcXWGMRiAAE4JyL0AAA%3D Page 2 of 4 Prior to owning this house, we previously managed a 48-unit building for several years near Lake Merritt, so we are very familiar with Fair Housing Practices and non-discriminatory methods for renting units. We employed every strategy we could to ensure absolute fairness in renting out the units available at that complex; however, we were constrained by the owner's requirements and a lack of affordable housing units in that building. We were well aware of the housing crisis when the owner asked us to rent studios for $1750 (this was four years ago), and we had two tiny efficiency units that went in a day, because their cost was only $1350 (but they were tiny rooms with a separate bathroom).

Goal 3, p. 61
"Like other Bay Area cities, one of the major challenges to developing permanent affordable housing in Oakland is the extremely high cost of development, especially the cost of land, labor, and materials. As California’s housing crisis continues into another decade, new and innovative models for the development and maintenance of permanently affordable housing are needed to overcome these obstacles and meet Oakland’s increased housing needs. Recognizing the limited resources that staff already operate with, the City will welcome models that are community-based and are eligible for external funding. For the next eight years and beyond, the City will cultivate an atmosphere that encourages new approaches to meet Oakland’s affordable housing needs. The City will also encourage models that emphasize community ownership of land and housing to promote permanent affordability. Oakland also has very little vacant land available for development and is reliant primarily on reuse of existing sites for development. The vacant parcels that do exist, however, can often provide significant opportunities for residential development. Further, vacant residential and commercial buildings and units could provide potential sources of additional housing supply that are not currently available. As part of this goal, the City will enact a variety of strategies to incentivize active residential uses on vacant land and units."
We're not a unit that falls within the category of a vacant lot. We are a unit that has a very large space that could be developed into affordable housing, but lack the capital means to do so currently.
"The City will also reduce the minimum lot size in Detached Unit Residential and Mixed Housing Type Residential generally to 3,000 square feet to remove constraints on lot splitting." p.65 This softening of requirement would allow for at least the possibility of what I'd like to do to the land available.
"Action 3.2.4: Provide financial incentives for older or lower-income homeowners who want ADUs."
We might or might not be eligible for something like this. We aren't high income, but we have one city income and one disability income, so we might fall in the middle of this action step.

Comment about rent control: increase the options for rent control, expand rent control I personally believe it should be within the city's housing plan to increase the rental control increase cap to all housing units in Oakland, not just those built before 1983. New developers, 7/20/22, 4:31 PM
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/…%2FqtcXWGMRiAAAAAAEMAAApFTKySZwnTo%2FqtcXWGMRiAAE4JyL0AAA%3D Page 3 of 4 new housing construction should also be bound by the same laws, and rent control has saved so many people in the past (including myself when fully disabled, on limited income).

Action 1.1.13
This is not an exhaustive list. Catholic Charities and other entities helped prevent homelessness through various programs, but have not been mentioned here.

Action 3.7.1:

This is an extremely important area. I know two elderly ladies (76 and 80) with ailing health concerns. If either one of them dies, the other will become homeless, with no housing options, because neither of them can afford the rent on their own (disability social security - only funding). Both are physically disabled, one in a wheelchair, one requiring a scooter, and need accessible housing.

Action 3.7.3 I think this is NOT STRONG ENOUGH! Promoting affordable units in new construction is not enough. REQUIRING IT is the only thing that will force most developers to even offer. Policy efforts should be undertaken to make this kind of policy change into law.

Simple carrots are not effective enough, as evidenced by what has happened in Los Angeles.

Action 3.8.3
This is a tough one. The actions of this will fall primarily on the shoulders of low or underpaid property managers (with the exception of large corporate property managers - who usually do receive a salary). We worked super hard as building managers of the 48-unit complex to fill the units, but it was so much work at market rate (set by owner). We received only $300/month in compensation if the building was full (in addition to our no rent in exchange for exhaustive duties of a building manager). Most work was unpaid. Any extra city requirements, like city garbage - push/pull, bulk waste pick-ups, composting were always unpaid. An action like this will invite retaliation from building owners down on underpaid building managers. A caution should be applied here, perhaps only enacting this action after 3-months vacant. Sometimes units were also rehabbed, being updated, and this construction process took longer than 3 months, and an exception should be made for units that are being improved for tenants.

POLICY 4.2 ENCAMPMENT MANAGEMENT Action 4.2.1
I believe offering mental health site access, or social work ability near these encampment sites should be part of this section. It would require funding, but should not just be funding security guards or police for safety, should offer the material and immaterial services really needed by this population group.

Goal 5
First time home buyer programs should also help to address the extra mortgage insurance that folks without quite enough of a down payment have to pay, just extra, which substantially disadvantages marginalized groups and further perpetuates inequity. We didn't have to pay that extra insurance cost because we were very fortunate, but others are not so lucky.

Action 5.2.3
The caution here is that contaminated sites truly must be deemed decontaminated and safe by EPA standards at bare minimum. Too many low income housing projects in other cities have 7/20/22, 4:31 PM
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/…%2FqtcXWGMRiAAAAAAEMAAApFTKySZwnTo%2FqtcXWGMRiAAE4JyL0AAA%3D Page 4 of 4 been built over these sites, and residents were never informed of the risks. Some sites had a small sign saying do not play on the soil/grass, but parents didn't know that their children were receiving high levels of contamination. How do you have children in these areas without safety? Children should be allowed safe places to play and safe areas outside, not to mention inside.

Extreme caution must be used not to perpetuate environmental injustice at the expense of meeting demand.

Thank you for reading/considering my comments, and thank you for the effort to be inclusionary, reduce displacement, address homeless needs, and enact fair housing standards that address systemic environmental and racism areas.

Warmly,
Crystal
--
Crystal Lynn Keeler
PHD/MD(China)/DAOM/MPH/MSTCM
Dipl.O.M., C.M.Q.
7/20/22, 4:03 PM
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/…%2FqtcXWGMRiAAAAAAEMAAApFTKySZwnTo%2FqtcXWGMRiAAE4JyL8AAA%3D Page 1 of 1 Feedback on the Oakland Plan
Scott Forman
Tue 6/14/2022 12:56 PM
To: General Plan <[email protected]>
[EXTERNAL] This email originated outside of the City of Oakland. Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and expect the message.

Greetings,
I have been following the progress towards a new General Plan for Downtown Oakland. There is a lot in the draft that I find laudable. I'm really impressed with all the work that has gone into it, and want to applaud all of the contributors to the effort.

My main point of feedback is that, especially with respect to the housing element, we should go much farther in making it possible to build lots of new homes.

I think our default stance should be much closer to "all and every type of home building is allowed, everywhere, by right." The same goes for any and all commercial activities that don't have significant negative externalities like lots of noise or noxious fumes.

In other words, while I love that we're liberalizing and loosening some constraints, I believe most of the remaining restrictions are themselves entirely unnecessary and counterproductive, and that Oakland can be much denser, and welcoming many new neighbors with dramatically lower housing costs.

I think we should be planning to increase the population of Oakland by 25-50% in the next decade, and even well-meaning constraints on growth, like to preserve the character of certain neighborhoods, or to extract concessions from real estate developers in exchange for more density...as if density is a bad thing that we begrudge! — are profoundly misguided.

In short, I'm an enthusiastic "yes" to a lot of what's in this plan, but I'd like to see it go much further in actively promoting new homes and businesses, and discouraging cars and parking.

Sincerely,
Scott J. Forman
June 15, 2022
Dear Oakland Housing Element Team,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Oakland’s Draft Housing Element. As you know the Housing Element is a critical document that lays out how the city is going to accommodate future housing growth at all income levels and the policies can help make Oakland a more affordable city. We appreciate the time and care that the Housing Element Team has put into drafting this document and conducting outreach to groups across the city.

SPUR is a public policy non-profit organization in the Bay Area with offices in Oakland, San Francisco and San Jose. We work across policy areas and political lines to solve the big problems the region faces.

Our comments on this housing element combine both a regional and local perspective. Our feedback on the Draft Housing Element is as follows:

1. The Housing Element should take stronger steps to affirmatively furthering fair housing.

We appreciate the effort that the team has taken to analyze how this Housing Element draft affirmatively furthers fair housing. However, we believe that more can be done to achieve this goal. The draft notes that most of the residential capacity for housing is located in low resource, high segregation areas due to the fact that over 60% of the land in Oakland is in these categories.

And the land that is located in high and highest resource categories is impacted by environmental constraints such as very high fire hazard severity zones.

These are challenging constraints to address. Nevertheless, we believe that there are some steps that can be taken to increase the housing capacity in high resource areas. Specifically, we believe that Oakland’s Housing Element should look at sites that can be intensively upzoned within the Rockridge and Elmwood neighborhoods, including the Rockridge BART parking lot. Potential sites could include the Trader Joe’s site directly adjacent to the BART station (inclusive of parking lot) and the triangular lot at the corner of College Avenue and Claremont. While some sites in this area may be too small to support affordable housing, they could accommodate apartments that would be more affordable than the single family homes that currently exist in the majority of the neighborhood.

Additionally, the city may wish to consider requiring that some larger lots that are currently zoned for community commercial include housing at some required minimum density. This would be particularly appropriate for the large, currently undeveloped portion of the shopping center site at the corner of Pleasant Hill and Broadway.

2. The Housing Element should identify concrete strategies to build more community infrastructure in low-income communities in order to make affordable housing in those neighborhoods more equitable.

Given that so much of the residential capacity in Oakland is located in low resource and high segregation areas, and therefore that a sizable portion of affordable housing in Oakland may be located in these areas, it is important to ensure that appropriate community infrastructure is being planned in these neighborhoods. Building affordable housing in low-income neighborhoods can help stabilize communities and is an important anti-displacement strategy. However it must be paired with investments in parks, community spaces, and programs that benefit low-income families.

3. The Housing Element should clarify where upzoning is being contemplated.

Policy 3.4 - Reforming zoning and Land Use to Address Community Priorities references allowing additional building heights and/or housing densities along certain corridors such as International, Foothill and MacArthur Boulevards, allowing a diversity of housing types in single-family neighborhoods, increasing height and density in areas approximate to BART and BRT and increasing density in resource rich neighborhoods.

We appreciate and support all these policies. However, we feel that it is important for the Housing Element to provide more specific detail about precisely which locations are being contemplated for upzoning and by how much.

Additionally, we understand that the Housing Element team is considering tools such as affordable housing overlays to help encourage more affordable housing production. We support the use of affordable housing overlays, but feel that the team should provide more information about where they should be utilized.

4. State housing agencies should prioritize numerous important goals – including funding affordable housing near transit and stabilizing neighborhoods at risk of displacement – when determining where to allocate affordable housing funds.

Appendix F of the Draft Housing Element notes that the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee’s competitive tax credit applications disadvantage Oakland because so much of the residentially zoned land is considered “low resource”. While affirmatively furthering fair housing is an absolutely critical goal that the state should be advancing, it is also important that Oakland, as a regional hub with many BART stations, be able to access tax credits and other funding to build affordable housing close to transit. Additionally, as mentioned earlier, affordable housing is an important tool for stabilizing neighborhoods at risk of displacement. It would be helpful for HCD to work with partner agencies at the state level to help balance these important values in the allocation of affordable housing resources.

Thank you for your consideration of our comments. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,
Sarah Karlinsky
Senior Advisor
Cc: SPUR Oakland Board of Directors
California Department of Housing and Community Development

9/7/22, 8:27 AM
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/id/AAQkADc0YTZiYTZhLTZlZDctNDVhNC05ZmYwLTI2Y2VjYjYwMmM4NAAQANeGxumEBdNNjCtmCyW6I48%3D Page 1 of 5 FW: CIty Council Agenda Item 3.1 (Housing Element APR) and Item 6: (Study Session on the General Plan Update - including the draft Housing Element) Gilchrist, William <[email protected]>
Wed 7/27/2022 1:33 PM
To: Rajagopalan, Lakshmi <[email protected]>;Branson, Michael <[email protected]>;Flanders, Jordan <[email protected]>;PerezDomencich, Diana <[email protected]>;Manasse, Edward <[email protected]>;Branson, Michael <[email protected]>;Skelton, Stephanie <[email protected]>;Lieberworth, Audrey <[email protected]> From: Jeffrey Levin <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2022 4:46 PM
To: Gilchrist, William <[email protected]>
Cc: Fortunato Bas, Nikki <[email protected]>; Kaplan, Rebecca <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: CIty Council Agenda Item 3.1 (Housing Element APR) and Item 6: (Study Session on the General Plan Update - including the draft Housing Element) [EXTERNAL] This email originated outside of the City of Oakland. Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and expect the message.

Forwarding to you the comments I emailed to Council earlier today.

The specific language regarding explicit goals is in the body of the email under the subheading "Additional Goals" _______________________________________________________ Jeff Levin, Policy Director
NOTE: I am generally working only on Monday afternoons and all day on Tuesday and Thursday, so I may not be able to reply to your e-mail right away.

East Bay Housing Organizations (EBHO)
538 Ninth Street, Suite 200 | Oakland, CA 94607
510-663-3830 ext. 316 | [email protected]
Browse EBHO's educational resources in The Study Room. Now updated and expanded for 2022! Thank you for supporting our efforts to protect, preserve and create affordable housing for all! Visit us at www.EBHO.org and follow us on Facebook and Twitter
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Jeffrey Levin <[email protected]>
9/7/22, 8:27 AM
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/id/AAQkADc0YTZiYTZhLTZlZDctNDVhNC05ZmYwLTI2Y2VjYjYwMmM4NAAQANeGxumEBdNNjCtmCyW6I48%3D Page 2 of 5 Date: Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 8:17 AM
Subject: CIty Council Agenda Item 3.1 (Housing Element APR) and Item 6: (Study Session on the General Plan Update - including the draft Housing Element)
To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, Kalb, Dan <[email protected]>, Nikki Fortunato Bas <[email protected]>, Carroll Fife <[email protected]>, Thao, Sheng <[email protected]>, Noel Gallo <[email protected]>, Taylor, Loren <[email protected]>, Treva Reid <[email protected]>, Rebecca Kaplan <[email protected]> Dear Councilmembers -
On behalf of East Bay Housing Organizations (EBHO), I am offering comments on two items on today's agenda that focus on past performance on the current housing element and preparation of the draft Housing Element for the next housing element cycle.

Please see also the attached items, which include our full written comments on the draft Housing Element and two important memos from ABAG that provide clarity about what the State is actually looking for in its review of local housing elements.

Item 3.1: Housing Element Annual Progress Report (APR)
This report summarizes the City’s progress in meeting its Housing Element goals after 7 of the 8 years of the current housing element cycle have been completed. Unfortunately, the City has fallen far short of meeting it’s assigned housing production targets.

The report notes that building permits peaked at slightly more than 4,000 annually in both 2017 and 2018, and have since fallen off. In 2021, there were “only” 1,667 units permitted. This needs to be taken in historical perspective. These are still record-breaking numbers.

For the previous two housing element cycles, covering the period 1999 – 2014, the average number of units permitted was 690 per year.

For the last seven years, the average is nearly 2,400, more than three times the average over the preceding 16 years.

This record level of production has been anything but equitable. As we have pointed out many times before, there is a tremendous imbalance between production of housing for above-moderate income and production for very-low, low and moderate income.

While the City has permitted nearly double its RHNA target for above-moderate income, it has permitted only 26% of the RHNA target for lower and moderate income.

Put another way, while the RHNA called for 53% of new housing to be targeted to above-moderate income, 89% of the building permits for new housing have been higher-end, above-moderate income housing that very few Oakland renters and first-time homebuyers can afford, while only 11% have been for affordable housing.

Only 1 affordable unit has been built for every 8 unaffordable market-rate units.

Given this track record, a vague call to develop “housing for all economic levels” is not enough. Oakland needs a housing strategy that explicitly prioritizes affordable housing for those with the greatest needs, and does not need to provide additional incentives for above-moderate income, market-rate housing, which has been substantially over-produced. We hope you will consider this as Oakland moves forward to update its housing element for the 2023-2031 cycle.
9/7/22, 8:27 AM
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/id/AAQkADc0YTZiYTZhLTZlZDctNDVhNC05ZmYwLTI2Y2VjYjYwMmM4NAAQANeGxumEBdNNjCtmCyW6I48%3D Page 3 of 5 Item 6: Work Session on the General Plan Update (including update of the Housing Element)
While this agenda item focuses broadly on the update of the City’s General Plan, and particularly on the Environmental Justice Element and the City’s equity indicators, our comments today focus specifically on one part of that project– the update of the City’s Housing Element. (Please see comments at the end of this email regarding the deletion of the Housing Element piece from the title of today’s agenda item).

EBHO submitted extensive written comments during the public comment period on the draft Housing Element, and a copy of those comments is attached to this email. We are also attaching two short memos from ABAG that summarize lessons learned from other regions of the State and how the State is reviewing (and often failing to approve) housing elements.

We want to call attention to a few critical issues.

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
We believe the draft Housing Element falls far short of meeting the State requirement to affirmatively further fair housing – that is, to identify concrete goals, strategies and actions to reduce racial segregation and eliminate racial disparities in access to opportunity and housing outcomes.

While the draft Housing Element contains an extensive Fair Housing Assessment with a wealth of data and maps, it falls short on at least two counts. While there is a description of current racial and economic segregation and disparities, there is little analysis of the history and underlying factors that gave rise to, and continue to perpetuate, these conditions. The most glaring issue is that the Fair Housing Assessment completely fails to analyze exclusionary zoning patterns as a key factor in racial segregation, despite passing mention that zoning was an issue. This is particularly disappointing in light of the informational report on redlining, segregation and reparations in West Oakland that you received at your meeting last week, which does a far better job of identifying historical, structural and systemic factors and policies to address these.

The draft Housing Element does not clearly identify and prioritize factors underlying racial segregation and disparities, and therefore also does not adequately link the goals, strategies and actions to the prioritized fair housing factors. This is explicitly required by the State, and failure to do so will likely result in the State rejecting the City’s draft Housing Element.

Inventory of Available Sites
Of particular concern is the inventory of availability of suitable sites to meet Oakland’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) targets for the various income levels. The draft was developed with the stated intent to create an inventory based on current zoning, without the need to identify additional parcels to be rezoned to accommodate the City’s housing needs. As a result, most of the sites suitable for affordable housing continue to be concentrated in lower opportunity areas with higher concentrations of low income households and communities of color, particularly Black residents who historically have suffered the worst segregation and discrimination. Even if all the identified housing sites were developed as projected, racial segregation would not be significantly reduced, and the high opportunity, historically exclusive areas would remain as inaccessible as before. The City cannot say that it is affirmatively furthering fair housing if its plans and goals don’t even mention reducing patterns of segregation and overcoming the historical barriers posed by exclusionary zoning. 9/7/22, 8:27 AM
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/id/AAQkADc0YTZiYTZhLTZlZDctNDVhNC05ZmYwLTI2Y2VjYjYwMmM4NAAQANeGxumEBdNNjCtmCyW6I48%3D Page 4 of 5 Proposed Strategies and Programs
Another area of concern is the identification and description of new strategies and programs. Many of the new actions described in the draft Housing Element are policies and programs that EBHO and many other organizations had long advocated, such as greater tenant protections, a Tenant and Community Opportunity to Purchase Act, finalization of the City’s public land policy, and more, and we are pleased to see these included here.

Unfortunately, the language in the draft element says only that the City will “study” or “consider” such programs, with no concrete steps, milestones, expected outcomes, or performance metrics. The State has explicitly instructed cities that such vague statements are not sufficient, and has rejected draft housing elements from other cities for just this reason. If it is not possible to fully adopt new policies and programs as part of the Housing Element, then at a minimum the document must commit to bringing concrete legislation before the City Council by a specific date in order to implement these new programs. Simply continuing the same actions that have been undertaken to date is not sufficient, since as clearly demonstrated in the City’s Annual Performance Report, the City is falling far short of meeting its RHNA goals in the current cycle.

Additional Goals
The draft Housing Element is organized around five goals. We would suggest that at least two additional goals be included:

Reduce racial segregation and racial disparities in housing opportunities and outcomes. Simply stating a goal to “expand affordable housing opportunities” is not sufficient.

Close the gap between market-rate and affordable housing production by prioritizing preservation and development of housing affordable to those with the greatest needs, including Black and Brown households that constitute the bulk of the lower income population. Instead of “promoting housing opportunities for all economic levels,” the City must explicitly prioritize actions that address these pressing needs, in both its funding priorities and its land use and other regulatory actions.

Council and Public Review of the Draft Housing Element
To date the City Council has not had an opportunity to consider the draft Housing Element. Despite an extensive community outreach process during preparation of the draft, once it was completed, consideration of the draft was subsumed within a larger report on development of the entire General Plan update. Initially there was no summary or overview of the content of the housing element and particularly new policies and actions and consideration of the obligation to affirmatively further fair housing until we explicitly called for such a summary.

Previous draft Housing Elements have at least included an Executive Summary; there was no such summary in the current draft.

We note with some dismay that the title of today’s agenda item was modified in Rules Committee to remove the reference to “Receive Public Comments And Provide Feedback To Staff On The Draft Housing Element.” While the initial formal 30-day public comment period closed on June 13, staff have repeatedly stated that they will continue to accept and consider public comment while the draft undergoes a 90-day review by the State. We are therefore puzzled and concerned that this language was omitted from the title as it suggests that the City is not prepared to consider public comments on the draft Housing Element at this meeting.

We call on the City to ensure an open and inclusive process in the next revision of the draft Housing Element.

Once staff receives comments from the State, that information should be brought before the City Council to get input on how best to address the State’s comments. After the new draft is developed, there should be a public comment period of not less than 30 days, including a public hearing before the Council to consider and comment 9/7/22, 8:27 AM
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/id/AAQkADc0YTZiYTZhLTZlZDctNDVhNC05ZmYwLTI2Y2VjYjYwMmM4NAAQANeGxumEBdNNjCtmCyW6I48%3D Page 5 of 5 on the revised draft, prior to preparing a final draft for adoption and submission.

Thank you for your consideration of these issues. Oakland has the opportunity to develop a Housing Element that contains bold new solutions to the housing crisis and a strategy to reduce segregation and racial disparities in housing. As always, we look forward to working with the City to achieve these goals. _______________________________________________________ Jeff Levin, Policy Director
NOTE: I am generally working only on Monday afternoons and all day on Tuesday and Thursday, so I may not be able to reply to your e-mail right away.

East Bay Housing Organizations (EBHO)
538 Ninth Street, Suite 200 | Oakland, CA 94607
510-663-3830 ext. 316 | [email protected]
Browse EBHO's educational resources in The Study Room. Now updated and expanded for 2022! Thank you for supporting our efforts to protect, preserve and create affordable housing for all! Visit us at www.EBHO.org and follow us on Facebook and Twitter
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Policy Tips Memo Learning from Southern California & Sacramento: Early Experiences in Complying with AB686
This memo outlines findings from a review of eleven draft or final Southern California and Sacramento region Housing Elements to better understand how jurisdictions are integrating new state Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) requirements. The goal of this review is to highlight common challenges and the feedback jurisdictions received from the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), to aid Bay Area jurisdictions in complying with these rules.

Bay Area jurisdictions are fortunate to learn from the experience of other regions that were required to submit their Housing Elements earlier in this sixth cycle of RHNA. This extra time, however, comes with more experience and oversight from HCD reviewers. It is therefore important to consider the findings and recommendations below to expedite their review processes and to meet the intended outcomes of AB686 to “overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity” for protected classes.

Methodology
Eleven Housing Elements – recommended by HCD or planning consultants – were reviewed, along with HCD’s response letters to the jurisdictions. Housing Elements were examined for their consistency with the format and content laid out according to HCD’s AFFH guidance, with acknowledgement that many of the reviewed Housing Elements were drafted before statewide guidance was released. The review was conducted not to observe how well jurisdictions followed HCD guidance, but rather to understand what worked and what needed improvement from the first several rounds of submissions in complying with State law. The following Housing Elements were reviewed:

Chula Vista Culver City Escondido Long Beach
Los Angeles (City) Los Angeles (County) Rancho Cucamonga Sacramento San Diego (City) San Juan Capistrano West Hollywood This cell intentionally left blank
Findings
Based on the review of these Housing Elements and HCD response letters, below are six observations and five recommendations for Bay Area jurisdictions to consider during Housing Element drafts. The five recommendations are:

1. Include place-based strategies, naming specific neighborhoods or geographies and articulating why certain strategies are best suited to tackle geographically-specific problems.

2. Ensure that strategies will address the disparate outcomes and segregation patterns of impacted racial and ethnic groups identified in the Assessment of Fair Housing portion of the Housing Element.

3. Include actions that are specific and time bound with commitments, metrics and milestones.

Avoid policies with vague words like “explore” that are unaccompanied by more detailed, concrete actions.

4. Use HCD’s five fair housing categories for goals, policies and actions: (i) Outreach Capacity and Enforcement; (ii) Segregation/Integration Patterns; (iii) Racially and/or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty; (iv) Disparities in Access to Opportunity; and (v) Disproportionate Housing Need for Low-income Households and Protected Classes.

5. Follow HCD’s AFFH guidance closely, making sure to include each section and subsection in the outlined order.

Observation 1: Few and Vague Place-Based Strategies are Included in the Housing Elements Statewide AFFH requirements seek to address inequitable access to opportunity for protected classes, which plays out geographically at the neighborhood level. HCD recommends, therefore, that successful AFFH policy frameworks should include place-based responses and activities oriented around specific locations. Several Southern California jurisdictions successfully outline policies intended to tackle specific neighborhood housing and resource inequities, for example:
● Los Angeles County describes community development work in specific low-income areas including the East San Gabriel Valley area and the Florence-Firestone Transit District.1 ● San Juan Capistrano describes specific community development plans including Los Rios Park Improvements and a neighborhood-specific senior mobility program.2 However, few other jurisdictions include this level of place-based specificity in their policy frameworks.

Many rely on policies and programs that are not place-based at all. Others employ strategies that are place-based in theory but fail to articulate which neighborhoods these activities target and how they will tackle geographically-specific issues.

Recommendation: To tackle place-based inequity, jurisdictions should aim to articulate place-based responses, naming specific neighborhoods or geographies and articulating why certain strategies are best suited to tackle geographically-specific problems.

Observation 2: Few Housing Elements Articulate the Connection Between Policy Goals and Racial Segregation or Disproportionate Housing Need for Protected Classes One of the central goals of statewide AFFH requirements is replacing segregated housing patterns with truly integrated living patterns. HCD requires jurisdictions to design AFFH-responsive policies and actions that are “significant and meaningful enough to overcome identified patterns” of segregation and other housing inequities, specifically those identified in the jurisdictions’ Assessment of Fair Housing.

However, the reviewed Housing Elements largely fail to connect policies and actions directly to the issues producing residential segregation and to the issues affecting racialized groups. This observation is perhaps related to the tension between AFFH goals and antidiscrimination laws, which prohibit 1 Los Angeles County Housing Element, pages 19, 25. 2 San Juan Capistrano Housing Element, page 213. jurisdictions from targeting protected classes (like racial groups) for programmatic support. Only one Housing Element reviewed successfully identifies a housing access issue which disproportionately impacts communities of color and articulates specifically how a proposed response policy – though not racially targeted – will work to address this pattern.
● Long Beach:
○ AFFH goal: “Pursue homeownership opportunities with an emphasis on providing affordable options for lower and moderate income households, with a particular focus on Black households.”3

○ Policy and program description: “Homeownership remains a city goal, as it allows lower income households to build wealth through equity and eventually move towards financial independence.

This has become an even greater priority since the City’s Framework for Reconciliation in 2020 through which Black residents and communities of color underscored the criticality of homeownership as a pathway to wealth that has been and remains less accessible to people of color. In response, new funds have been allocated for a down payment assistance program.”4

Other jurisdictions reference an intention to target policy work “in communities of color” or “in disadvantaged communities.” But the policies, strategies and actions corresponding to these goals fail to concretely address issues faced by these communities.
● One city in Los Angeles County aims to “Protect communities, especially communities of color, from predatory lending, land acquisition, speculative real estate transactions, and any other practices that undermine intergenerational wealth accumulation and housing stability.” However, the only corresponding supporting actions concern mobile home parks writ-large: “Support legislation that expands local authority over conversion of mobile home parks to ownership structures.” Still others avoid mentioning race altogether or identifying policies to address the findings of the fair housing assessments. Several jurisdictions propose policy interventions aimed at dismantling socioeconomic neighborhood segregation or expanding housing access for low-income households but fail to expressly connect these policies and actions to goals of racial desegregation and racialized housing disparity.

Recommendation: Jurisdictions should identify housing issues that disproportionately impact communities of color and racialized households (e.g., housing cost burden, lack of homeownership opportunities, etc.) and should incorporate policy responses that — while not racially targeted — address these issues. Jurisdictions should articulate the connection between these policies and AFFH goals related to racial desegregation and other racialized housing inequities. In particular, jurisdictions must connect the issues facing members of protected classes as identified in their Assessment of Fair Housing to their proposed list of policies and programs. Jurisdictions may in addition indicate an intention to practice affirmative outreach – the targeted advertising of policies and programs in impacted communities.

Observation 3: Many Policies and Actions Are Insufficiently Specific Statewide AFFH guidance requires jurisdictions to outline concrete policies and actions in response to local fair housing issues. Specifically, HCD requires time bound actions with “specific commitments [from local actors], metrics, and milestones.” Several jurisdictions outline policies that meet this requirement, for instance:
● Los Angeles County: By 2023, complete equity audit of all land use plans and zoning code. Amend land use plans and zoning code to address findings of the equity audit and to ensure consistency with racial justice initiatives. By October 2029, achieve a 10% increase in multifamily housing approvals in high or highest 3 City of Long Beach Housing Element, page 69. 4 City of Long Beach Housing Element, page 87. resource areas as determined by TCAC. 5
However, the policies and actions of many jurisdictions are not sufficiently specific – they are not time bound and they fail to include commitments from local officials or staff, metrics and milestones. Many rely heavily on vague words like “explore,” “study,” and “convene,” words HCD expressly discourages jurisdictions from using. Furthermore, there are many examples where a higher-level policy meets HCD’s specificity criteria, but corresponding actions remain non-specific and not time bound.

Recommendation: Jurisdictions should ensure that all policies and all corresponding actions are specific and time bound, and include commitments, metrics and milestones. Jurisdictions should avoid policies with vague words like “explore” that are unaccompanied by more detailed actions.

Observation 4: Many Policies have the Potential to Impact AFFH if Linked to SegregationPatterns and Informed by Geography
Many Housing Elements feature strong policy platforms with actions ranging from permit streamlining and inclusionary zoning, to first time home buyer assistance and tenant-based rental assistance.

However, as a result of the three preceding observations, many of these policies and actions are insufficiently focused on fair housing issues. Instead, the policy approach appears to rest on an unstated assumption that by tackling issues of supply and affordability more broadly, fair housing goals will also be achieved. Absent more specific language targeting place-based inequities and racial segregation, it is unclear whether or how these policies will advance AFFH goals. If jurisdictions effectively link, define, and target their otherwise strong policy platforms, however, these platforms have potential to impact AFFH.

Examples of this include:
● A city in Los Angeles County references the City's 2022 budget allocation of $3 million for economic empowerment zones, including dedicated funding for community land trusts (CLTs), stating as an AFFH goal the provision of “technical assistance to community groups in establishing CLTs for community ownership of affordable housing.” Like many others, this goal could have a significant AFFH-related impact if linked to segregation patterns and geographically targeted.

Recommendations: See Observations #1, #2, and #3
Observation 5: HCD is looking for Cities to Organize their Housing Elements according to the AFFH Guidance
HCD outlines a specific organizational system for addressing AFFH requirements in Housing Elements.

State guidance lays out a template, requiring jurisdictions to:

1. Assess five discrete components of fair housing issues: (i) Outreach Capacity and Enforcement; (ii) Segregation/Integration Patterns; (iii) Racially and/or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty; (iv) Disparities in Access to Opportunity; and (v) Disproportionate Housing Need for Low-income Households and Protected Classes.

2. Identify the primary causes of these fair housing issues (or “contributing factors”) and list these causes for each of the same five categories.

3. Identify fair housing solutions (or goals, policies and actions) that connect conceptually to the preceding assessment and organize these policy solutions again into the same five categories.

Many jurisdictions effectively identified goals/policies/actions that responded to their fair housing assessments and contributing factors. However, most jurisdictions did not use HCD’s organizational system — using the five conceptual buckets only for the fair housing assessment and forgoing them in 5 Los Angeles County Housing Element, pages 31-37.
later sections. These jurisdictions received letters from HCD in response to their draft submissions asking them to reorganize their Housing Elements.

Recommendation: Jurisdictions should use HCD’s five fair housing categories to organize multiple sections of AFFH analysis: fair housing assessment, contributing factors, and goals/policies/actions.

Observation 6: HCD is doing a Thorough Review
HCD is doing a thorough review of Housing Element drafts and connecting the dots between APRs, current goals/policies/actions, site analyses and fair housing assessments. It is clear from comment letters that HCD is reviewing Housing Element drafts in their entirety using an AFFH lens, rather than only examining AFFH sections, when providing comments on AFFH requirements. Many jurisdictions have received comments from HCD for failing to connect all of these pieces:
● HCD comments to a city in Los Angeles County: “Goals, actions and metrics must be modified based on the outcomes of more complete [fair housing and site] analyses.” ● HCD told many jurisdictions that their goals/policy actions must be “significant and meaningful enough to overcome identified patterns” and that their actions should have “specific commitments, metrics and milestones.”
● HCD comment to another city in Los Angeles County: “Programs for anti-displacement and new housing in high opportunity areas do not appear adequate to address the fair housing issues described in the element.”
HCD is reviewing Housing Elements to make sure that jurisdictions cover all the section/subsection requirements in a sensible order. Many jurisdictions received comments from HCD about missing specific elements of the AFFH guidance:
● For example, several jurisdictions missed required components of the fair housing analysis like “Local Data and Knowledge” and “Other Relevant Factors.”
● Other jurisdictions effectively listed contributing factors but failed to prioritize these factors by salience.

Recommendation: Jurisdictions should follow HCD’s guidance closely, making sure to include eachsection and subsection in the outlined order.

Summary of Housing Element Review Letters
Learning from Southern California & Sacramento
In Winter/Spring 2022, ABAG staff and consultants reviewed 33 comment letters from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to jurisdictions in regions with earlier Housing Element deadlines. This summary presents common themes and lessons for Bay Area jurisdictions as they prepare their 6th cycle Housing Elements.

Methodology Staff and consultants identified a subset of 33 representative comment letters from jurisdictions in the SCAG (Southern California), SACOG (Sacramento) and SANDAG (San Diego) regions. Letters were selected to reflect a diversity of jurisdiction types by geography, size, and socioeconomic characteristics, including racial and ethnic diversity. Staff analyzed both the frequency of comments by Housing Element section and compiled both common and unique comments by major section.

Key Findings and Recommendations
Many assumptions that jurisdictions made in previous Housing Elements will not be possible this cycle. Local jurisdictions will want to ensure that their Housing Elements are thorough, with more robust descriptions of housing needs, more inclusive outreach, a stronger focus on fair housing, more specific policies and programs, and strong justification for sites included in the inventory.

Although the types of comments received by each jurisdiction varied based on their particular demographic and economic characteristics and planning contexts, the most frequent comments can be grouped into five major categories (including the percentage of letters that contained comments on each topic):
• Affirmatively Further Fair Housing (AFFH) (94%);
• Public Participation (67%);
• Sites Inventory (94%);
• Government Constraints (58%);
• Policies and Programs (55%).
2 In addition, a cross-cutting theme is noted below in terms of special needs populations. Finally, unique and recent comments from HCD review letters are presented that may have special relevance for Bay Area jurisdictions.

1. AFFH
Observation
A common theme in the comments across ninety-four percent of the HCD review letters is that the draft Housing Elements are not sufficiently detailed and specific with respect to the required data and analyses for AFFH, and also fail to connect findings from the AFFH analysis with specific sites strategies and programs and policies.

Recommendations
1) Review the recommendations and observations contained in the ABAG memo from March 2022, which can be found here and take advantage of ABAG’s other AFFH technical assistance which can be found here.
2) Ensure that the AFFH analyses are sufficiently detailed in terms of required data and maps and include local knowledge and other relevant factors to address State guidelines.

Additionally, have a summary narrative that tells the story of the community: how it has changed over time and what the landscape is like today. 3) Connect findings from the AFFH analysis to proposed affordable housing programs and policies. It is not enough to just discuss the data, cities must show how they intend to advance fair housing.
4) Document how the jurisdiction considered AFFH when initially deciding on sites to include by describing the jurisdiction’s process and considerations.

2. Public Participation
Observation
Sixty-seven percent of the letters contained comments concerning inadequate public outreach, almost always connected with the need to demonstrate that outreach was conducted to both lower-income households and households with special needs.

Recommendations
1) Ensure robust outreach to lower-income and special needs groups and meetings should include special focus on lower-income or special needs groups. 2) Connect the community input received through outreach activities to policies and programs.

There should be clear text that summarizes the feedback from the community and how the suggestions were or were not incorporated into the Housing Element. 3 3) Take advantage of ABAG’s technical assistance on public participation including messaging guides, a Multi-lingual Community Survey Template & Social Media Toolkit and translation services which can be found here.

3. Sites Inventory
Observation
All but two jurisdictions in this analysis received one or more comments on the sites inventory section, with the most common and extensive comments falling under two major subcategories:
realistic capacity (73%) and non-vacant sites (65%). A frequent type of comment from HCD regarding these sections was that jurisdictions did not provide sufficiently detailed analysis to demonstrate that the proposed sites would develop with the proposed number of housing units during the planning period.

Recommendations
1) Follow HCD’s detailed guidance (provided in their memo of June 10, 2020, which can be found here) and provide specific, site-level analyses to demonstrate that proposed housing sites could actually accommodate the proposed number of housing units by income-level during the planning period. This includes analysis for realistic capacity calculations as well as for development on non-vacant sites that allow other uses in addition to residential uses. 2) Use ABAG’s free Housing Element Site Selection (HESS) tool to:
a. view HCD’s data points, including AFFH data points, at the parcel level; b. see estimations of realistic development capacity of each parcel given local market trends; and
c. automatically complete much of HCD’s required electronic sites inventory form. 3) For non-vacant sites, most jurisdictions will need to provide evidence that the existing use is not a barrier to redevelopment with both site specific analysis and a summary of development trends. Additionally, jurisdictions should summarize policies and programs that support residential development on proposed redevelopment sites. 4) Assumptions that sites that allow both residential and commercial will include residential need to be supported by evidence. If sites permit developers to choose office or other nonresidential uses, it is important to analyze what percentage of applicants are likely to choose non-residential (based on market trends and experience on nearby or similar sites) and reduce unit assumptions accordingly.

4. Governmental Constraints
Observation
Fifty-five percent of letters included comments related to governmental constraints on housing production, frequently including comments on constraints to housing development for lowerincome and special needs households.

Recommendations
4 1) Data alone is not sufficient. Provide an analysis of what is or is not a constraint for both market-rate and affordable projects. If there are constraints, identify policies and programs to address those constraints. Jurisdictions should explicitly document and analyze governmental constraints to housing production for lower-income and special needs households and include detailed policies and programs to address such constraints, with clear timelines, milestones, responsible parties and funding.

Policies and Programs
Observation
Many jurisdictions received comments asking for more specificity in their policies and programs section. Generally, a program to study an issue will receive a comment asking for more concrete actions. Vague language will likely be rejected, especially if a program is tied to a constraint.

Recommendations
1) Review all programs to ensure that there are clear timelines and metrics to evaluate success. Pay close attention to “ongoing” programs, which may need to be modified to include clear, accountable steps.
2) Have a narrative that summarizes key new policies and programs, and connects them to needs, community feedback or constraints.

5. Special Needs Populations
Observation
Across every section included in this analysis, HCD reviewers commented on the lack of sufficient attention to special needs populations (e.g., the elderly, persons with disabilities, large households, female-headed households, farmworkers, and persons experiencing homelessness). Both in terms of fully documenting and analyzing housing needs and in terms of developing policies, programs and affordable housing sites strategies, the draft Housing Element’s treatment of special housing needs tended to be more high-level and/or cursory than required or expected by HCD.

Recommendations
1) In addition to the general data in the housing needs section, prepare detailed assessments of special housing needs and clearly connect special housing needs findings to programs, policies and sites strategies that are concrete and actionable. 5 7. Unique and Recent Comments: Accessory Dwelling Units, SB 9 and AB 215
Observation
Numerous jurisdiction-specific comments were noted in the review letters, but three major types of comments are especially worthy of elevation to inform Bay Area Housing Elements. These concern how jurisdictions count units towards their RHNA using past Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) development trends as well as more recent guidance regarding SB 9 and AB 215.

Recommendations
1) ADUs: Average at least the past three years of production rather than one recent year to determine the anticipated development of ADUs during the eight-year planning period. 2) SB 9: The lack of clear, published guidance may have led some jurisdictions to overestimate unit production related to the state’s adoption of SB 9. As with the sites inventory generally, potential SB 9 sites require detailed site by site analysis. Carefully review the guidance recently provided by HCD on this topic, which can be found here. 3) AB 215 and Public Outreach: AB 215 adds an additional 30-day review period plus 10 business days for jurisdictions to consider comments before drafts can be submitted to HCD. Jurisdictions should plan to make drafts available for comment per AB 215 and HCD guidance to ensure that the public has adequate opportunity to comment on drafts before elements are submitted for HCD review.

June 13, 2022
City of Oakland Planning Department
250 Frank H Ogawa Plaza
Oakland, CA 94612
RE: Comments on Draft Housing Element for 2023-2031
Dear General Plan Update Team:

Oakland Planning Department
June 13, 2022

Page 2 ends

Page 3 ends

Oakland Planning Department
June 13, 2022

Page 4 ends

Oakland Planning Department
June 13, 2022

Page 5 ends

26.1% of lower income capacity is located in moderate to highest resource tracts, while

Page 6 ends

Action Plan
We are not able to provide detailed comment on each and every policy and action at this time.

Postponing these studies to the later years means that many of these new programs, if implemented at all, will have limited impact in the housing element cycle.

Page 7 ends

We offer specific comments on the following action items:

Oakland Planning Department
June 13, 2022

Page 8 ends

Action 3.3.5 We strongly support an Affordable Housing overlay that provides by-right approval of 100% affordable housing projects citywide, wherever zoning currently permits it.

We also support identifying specific incentives and bonuses that could be part of such an overlay, but that process should not delay the immediate adoption and implementation of a byright overlay.

Action 3.3.10 We support the creation of a Citywide Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD) with a primary goal of providing additional funding resources for affordable housing.

Oakland Planning Department
June 13, 2022

Page 9 ends

Oakland Planning Department
June 13, 2022

Page 10 ends

Sincerely yours,
Jeffrey Levin
Policy Director
Sincerely yours,
Jeffrey Levin
Policy Director
7/20/22, 4:01 PM
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/…%2FqtcXWGMRiAAAAAAEMAAApFTKySZwnTo%2FqtcXWGMRiAAFCJ2moAAA%3D Page 1 of 1 Comments on draft housing element
Thomas Cooke
Wed 6/29/2022 2:01 PM
To: General Plan <[email protected]>
[EXTERNAL] This email originated outside of the City of Oakland. Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and expect the message.

COMMENTS ON CITY OF OAKLAND GENERAL PLAN DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT Submitted by Tom Cooke, June 27, 2022
The draft plan identifies a multitude of housing issues and problems and sets forth many admirable goals and policies to be addressed. The draft checks off all the boxes, and makes the case there are sufficient parcels and capacity to meet the State mandated housing goal, to meet compliance with State housing element requirements.However, if Oakland is to make any meaningful process in addressing its housing needs a more proactive, implementation orientation is required.The comments below suggest several means by which to do so. 1 Expand search and identification of potential housing sites. It appears the planners relied primarily of other sources to identify potential sites and did not conduct original search and analysis. Have the many church properties for example been surveyed? Have there been any surveys done to identify underutilized commercial property with housing potential for either rezoning or mixed use. other than those suggested by the community? Provide scheduling for any planning or zoning changes required to facilitate housing construction and conditions thereof.

2. Although extensive tables documenting the characteristics of many sites are provided, any sense priority is lost. To off set this problem a more selective, high priority site category should be established to promote and expedite housing construction. Sites on this list should be given priority for local and other funding resources.

Criteria already provided in the draft should be refined (simpIified) to distinguish such sites. As necessary such sites should be designated for plan and/or zoning changes to avoid preemption by non-residential development.

A good example of such sites is the Ridge 2 site located at Broadway and Pleasant Valley Road.

3. Identify and set forth more specific models for housing/rental mechanisms such as limit equity condominium, co-housing, and cooperatives.

June 29, 2022
To: Lakshmi Rajagopalan, Planner IV
CC: California Department of Housing and Community Development Re: Feedback on Draft 2023 - 2031 Housing Element Update Ms. Rajagopalan:

Thank you for the community engagement and technical work you’ve led in the process to update our city’s Housing Element and General Plan. We are writing to submit comments on behalf of Build Affordable Faster (BAF), a state and regional advocacy program of Tenants and Owners Development Corporation (TODCO Group), an affordable housing developer.

The policy advocacy branch of our organization, Build Affordable Faster, advocates with and for vulnerable, low-income families and historically marginalized communities of color to increase affordable housing and build a strong social safety net which supports the health, safety, and well-being of California’s diverse communities.

We are at a critical moment for the City of Oakland where homelessness has grown exponentially, ballooning to 3,337 unsheltered individuals according to the February 2022 Homeless Point-In-Time Count Report. Oakland did not fulfill its 2015-2022 RHNA requirements for very low-, low-, and moderate-income households, and those 1171 very low-income units that were not constructed could have housed up 35% of the existing unhoused population.

Meeting our goals to produce affordable housing is a priority for Oakland residents. In a September 2020 David Binder survey of Oakland voters (Margin of Error: ±5.7%) by David Binder for BAF, 83% of residents believe we are not building enough for low- and middleincome residents. 71% believe market rate construction is too expensive and pushes out existing residents, and 83% believe market rate housing should include as many affordable housing units as possible.

It is not clear how the action plan outlined in the draft housing element will achieve our RHNA goals for affordable housing, especially when many of the strategies are a mere continuation of policies and programs currently in place which have not been sufficient to prevent displacement of long-term residents and have resulted in the massive under-production of moderate- and lower-income housing.

There is no reflective assessment of what program elements have been most successful, nor indication of how existing programs should be amended to produce better outcomes. The site inventory and action plan should include an explicit correlation with and metric for how these components address patterns of racial segregation that exist in Oakland, and specific action steps that will affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH) and correct exclusionary neighborhoods. While each section features a discussion of how the overarching goals address AFFH, the site inventory and action plan are not clearly related back to the priority contributing factors identified in the fair housing assessment, along with clear metrics to measure results, as directly by HCD’s guidance.

The housing element should reaffirm the principle of housing as a fundamental human right, as this has been a recurring theme in many of the community workshops and other public meetings over the past several years. In these meetings and in our poll, it is clear - Oaklanders want stronger anti-displacement measures and more affordable housing.

Below we highlight and comment on key issues and action steps we encourage the city to prioritize:

Tenant Protections, Anti-Displacement and Preservation of Existing Affordable Housing We support Action 1.1.3 to strengthen Ellis Act Ordinance protections. The city should be more actively advocating for state legislative reform to ensure the Ellis Act is not used by large conglomerates to push out tenants. We encourage more specificity regarding City Council direction to ensure that this is a legislative priority for the firm representing the city’s interests in Sacramento.

We support Action 1.1.5 to provide eviction defense and implement a right to counseling.

Post pandemic, the city needs to increase its ability and capacity to represent individuals in unfair evictions. The administration and city council should ensure adequate funding for these programs during the current and upcoming two year and mid cycle budget processes.

We support Action 1.1.7 to monitor neighborhood displacement risk factors. The city should build on the mapping work already produced for the site inventory, zoning, environmental justice analysis and other components of the housing element and general plan by conducting further analysis including an overlay of key demographic information to identify communities vulnerable to displacement. The city should allocate resources accordingly and center outreach and advocacy efforts in these areas in appropriate languages.

We strongly support Action 1.1.11 to provide a local preference in affordable housing projects, Action 2.2.6 to reduce housing speculation through an anti-speculation tax, and the adoption of Action 2.2.8: Investigate a Tenant/Community Opportunity to Purchase Act that grants the right of first offer and right of refusal for tenants, community land trusts and nonprofits.

Regarding Action 1.1.12 to negotiate for appropriate community benefits during development agreement approvals for major entitlements and use of City land: we urge the city to set strong community benefits standards including deeply affordable housing requirements and anti-displacement resources for tenants, across the board, which the approval of development agreements is conditioned upon. This would help offset the impacts of further displacement and gentrification and help provide more certainty for the city, project developers and other stakeholders, versus an unpredictable and resource intensive negotiation process.

Housing Production
We strongly support the recommendations in the overarching Policy Goal 3.1 to facilitate production of deeply affordable housing. This policy goal goes hand in hand with Action

3.3.5 to implement an affordable housing overlay to establish by right (non-discretionary) zoning for 100% affordable housing developments and development projects that offer higher affordability and Action 3.3.1 is key to make all available city-owned property for affordable housing and ensure that city-owned property goes to extremely low-income households as stated in Action 3.3.4. For any streamlining of 100% affordable, the city should explicitly mandate city staff to prioritize affordable housing projects.

In addition, Action 3.2.3, is key to opening more land, and to promote flexibility in adaptive reuse to increase the housing stock. The city should look at vacant commercial stock and make it easier for it to be residential with higher affordability. In our previously referenced 2020 David Binder poll, allowing for residential for underutilized commercial properties had 90% support among Oakland voters. We believe in unlocking the potential of thousands of square miles of urban and suburban commercial districts, transforming underutilized office parks and expansive parking lots into hundreds of thousands -- or even millions -- of new market-rate and affordable homes.

The cost of construction materials, high interest rates, and cost/competition for land are huge factors that will impact the delivery of housing projects, especially affordable housing projects.

The city should not only engage Action 3.3.11: Support innovations by design but convene stakeholders such as labor and developers to significantly increase production of housing using construction innovations, such as exploring modular, to match housing needs.

Lastly, given the city’s absolute failure to deliver adequate affordable housing, and exceeding the market rate production goals, any implementation of Action 3.3.15 (density bonus incentives) should always be coupled with increased affordability requirements.

Financing
If the City is to meet its goal of building housing for the working and middle class it must provide a comprehensive financing plan for how we will build 10,000 very low-, low-, and moderateincome units by 2031, as required by our RHNA. We support Action 3.3.16: Consider revising the Real Estate Transfer Tax to use “a portion of the revised tax rate as a dedicated funding stream for affordable housing.” We also support Action 3.3.18 to reauthorize Measure KK if it is a bond that predominantly addresses our housing affordability crisis.

We also support Action 3.3.8 to right-size development fees on market-rate developments.

In our analysis below, the city only gets a mere fraction of what a developer could afford in 2020. Factors such as the current recession conditions, interest rates, and cost of construction materials may need to be re-visited.

EIFD
In 2019, the Mayor’s Housing Cabinet published recommendations in the report Oakland at Home: Recommendations for Implementing A Roadmap Toward Equity which explored an Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD) for affordable housing. Three years later, the draft Housing Element, also recommends considering an EIFD via Action 3.3.10, Consider a citywide Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD). We’re concerned about the proposed timeline and advocate that the city act with urgency regarding an EIFD that invests in the public good- affordable housing and associated infrastructure. A study and subsequent steps to form an EIFD should be completed in the near term, not 2028. Our agency has contracted with a respected third-party agency to do this analysis and is working with the city administration and other stakeholders to identify specific boundaries and uses for the EIFD revenues. An EIFD would allow for increased bonding capacity to leverage funding that local Oakland based developers can access to support the production and preservation of affordable housing.

Homelessness and Services for the Unhoused
Regarding Goal 4. Address Homelessness and Expand Services for the Unhoused, the codification of the controversial “Encampment Management Policy” in Policy 4.2, Action 4.2.1 and 4.2.3, should be reconsidered. While addressing homelessness should be a top priority for the city, many directly impacted members of the unhoused community and advocates for the homeless have registered formal opposition to the EMP and have requested that City Council rescind the ordinance. We urge the city to continue to engage these stakeholders to identify and build more consensus on ways to meet the health and safety needs of both unhoused residents and the greater Oakland community.

In closing, we appreciate the opportunity to comment on the draft housing element, and look forward to continuing the conversation, providing further input, and understanding how our comments are addressed and incorporated into revisions of the draft housing element submitted to the State. Thanks again for your work and please reach out if you have questions.

Respectfully,
Bobbi Lopez
Director of Policy and Community Engagement
Build Affordable Faster, a regional advocacy project
Tenants and Owners Development Corporation (TODCO)
Liana Molina
East Bay Advocacy and Partnerships
Build Affordable Faster, a regional advocacy project
Tenants and Owners Development Corporation (TODCO)
510-593-3633
August 5, 2022
City of Oakland Planning Department
250 Frank H Ogawa Plaza
Oakland, CA 94612
RE: Comments on Draft Housing Element for 2023-2031
Dear Lakshmi Rajagopalan,
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the draft Housing Element. Save The Bay is appreciative of the work that went into this draft element, and we hope that our comments will help the city plan for more climate resilient housing in the years to come. We believe that climate SMART (Sustainable, Mixed-Use, Affordable, Resilient, Transit-Oriented) housing1 can build resilience to climate impacts and reduce housing inequities.

Save The Bay is an Oakland-based, Bay Area-wide organization that protects and restores San Francisco Bay for people and wildlife. We envision a clean and healthy bay, free from pollution, ringed by restored wetlands, and Bay Area communities that are resilient to and prepared for the intensifying impacts of climate change.

As the City of Oakland plans to meet its RHNA goals, selecting sites that are resilient to the impacts of climate change is critically important. New housing construction, especially for low-income communities who face the greatest risk from climate impacts, should be located away from areas prone to fires, flooding, extreme heat, and sea level rise. Dense, affordable, infill development close to transit can connect historically under-invested communities to resources and infrastructure across the city and region. Building SMART housing will also advance Oakland’s climate goals by mitigating greenhouse gas emissions from driving by supporting the use of alternative modes.

One opportunity to add more climate SMART housing in Oakland is in the Rockridge neighborhood.

Housing built here would be accessible by BART and bus lines, and would be more resilient to extreme heat2 due to an abundance of trees and parks. This neighborhood is also more resilient to other climate impacts, as it is outside of the sea level rise and fire hazard zones. Affordable housing in this high opportunity area is especially impactful toward reducing income inequality and racial segregation, which the City of Oakland is required to address under AB 686. Prioritizing dense, affordable housing development in this and other high opportunity areas through strategic rezoning is necessary to affirmatively further fair housing as required by law, and to move toward racial and environmental equity in Oakland.

The Housing Element update provides an opportunity to advance both climate and housing justice by planning for dense, climate SMART housing. Incorporating resilience into this Housing Element update will ensure that Oaklanders are protected from climate impacts for years to come.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
David Lewis
Executive Director, Save The Bay
1 https://resilienceplaybook.org/equitably-addressing-the-bay-area-housing-crisis/ 2 https://www.epa.gov/green-infrastructure/reduce-urban-heat-island-effect 9/7/22, 8:17 AM
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/id/AAQkADc0YTZiYTZhLTZlZDctNDVhNC05ZmYwLTI2Y2VjYjYwMmM4NAAQAHpEmxO3VblJkFbHnbJ8D44%3D Page 1 of 1 feedback on draft Housing Element
Louis Eisenberg
Mon 8/15/2022 3:07 PM
To: Lieberworth, Audrey <[email protected]>
[EXTERNAL] This email originated outside of the City of Oakland. Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and expect the message.

My name is Louis Eisenberg, and I am an Oakland resident and homeowner in Upper Rockridge.

I am writing to express my strong support for a comment letter submitted by the Rockridge Community Planning Council (RCPC) Board on the topic of Oakland's draft Housing Element. In particular, I want to emphasize my support for the following paragraph:

First and foremost, we were extremely surprised and disappointed to see that the large “Shops at the Ridge Phase II” site at Broadway and Pleasant Valley was not included in the Inventory and we cannot understand the reasoning behind this omission. This site, which is flat, not within an established low-density neighborhood and less than a 15-minute walk from Rockridge BART, is clearly one of the most important undeveloped housing opportunity sites in the City. The current Home Depot proposal for this site would be an extremely inappropriate use. A survey of Rockridge residents from RCPC indicated that neighbors overwhelmingly prefer housing at the Ridge Phase II. The site should be included within the Inventory. As an implementation action of the Housing Element, the site should be rezoned to encourage high density residential development and prohibit stand-alone non-residential uses.

Thank you,
Louis Eisenberg
9/7/22, 8:18 AM
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/id/AAQkADc0YTZiYTZhLTZlZDctNDVhNC05ZmYwLTI2Y2VjYjYwMmM4NAAQAO3aB0P1wLVKjjbn9xEjHlc%3D Page 1 of 1 Housing Element - Rockridge meeting
Maya Schechter
Tue 8/16/2022 1:41 PM
To: Lieberworth, Audrey <[email protected]>
[EXTERNAL] This email originated outside of the City of Oakland. Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and expect the message.

Hello,
I am writing to share a comment in advance of Thursday's Rockridge meeting on the draft Housing Element. I cannot attend the meeting but I strongly support the points made by RCPC in the letter sent to the city, including allowing and incentivizing housing, especially affordable housing, on all of sites listed in the letter:

CCA Site
Rockridge BART Site
Triangular site at the corner of Claremont and College
A portion of the Dreyer’s Ice Cream site
Wendy’s site at College and Broadway
Ridge site at Broadway and Pleasant Hill
Carpet store site at College and Kales
Dialysis Center site at Claremont and Clifton
DMV Site at Claremont and Cavour
Chevron Station Site at Telegraph near highway 24
I also support the other points made to encourage housing in Rockridge.

Thanks for your work on this.

Best,
Maya Schechter, Rockridge resident
August 24, 2022
Submitted by email to: [email protected]
With a copy to:

Lakshmi Rajagopalan, [email protected]
Audrey Lieberworth, [email protected]
RE: Oakland’s 6th Cycle Housing Element Update
Dear City of Oakland:

Thank you for the opportunity to provide input on the city of Oakland’s housing element. Your work supporting your community to meet its housing needs is critical in addressing the housing affordability crisis. We understand that at this moment in the housing element process, your jurisdiction is awaiting input from HCD on your draft housing element. As such, we are offering the attached equitable policy resources in addition to offering technical assistance from Baird + Driskell Community Planning (“B+D”) if your jurisdiction is interested in this level of support.

The Partnership for the Bay’s Future (“PBF”) is a public-private-nonprofit partnership working to create a more livable Bay Area in which diverse people of all walks of life can afford to live and thrive. To do so, we address the challenges of housing and protecting tenants through the support of equitable policy change as well as investing in the production and preservation of affordable housing.

In consultation with government leaders, housing policy experts, and communities, we have compiled a list of equitable housing priorities that we hope Oakland will consider incorporating into the new housing element. In some cases, these are policies that housing element law requires jurisdictions to address as a potential action or recommendation in their housing elements, but in other cases, these are suggested policies that we are raising up as equitable planning priorities.

We are including the following resources for your review and consideration:
● a slide deck covering each priority policy idea, with template language for your jurisdiction to consider,
● examples of places where the policy has been adopted, and ● additional links and resources.

We believe that Oakland’s current efforts already include many of the listed policies, which we applaud. These summaries can be used as resources for staff as they communicate with both decision makers and the public. If you are interested, we are happy to provide further assistance to incorporate these policies into your housing element as well as help draft talking points that can be tailored for local implementation.

We believe the following policies can play an important role in meeting the requirements of this housing element and supporting thriving communities:

1. Favorable Zoning and Land Use
○ Make multifamily infill easier to develop
○ Allow, require or encourage multifamily housing in more places ○ Allow or encourage missing middle housing in single-family neighborhoods ○ Provide incentives for affordable housing development ○ Provide incentives for affordable ADUs and "missing middle" housing

2. Accelerating Production Timeframes
○ Streamline development approvals and environmental review process for multifamily housing
○ Streamline permitting process for multifamily housing

3. Reducing Construction and Development Costs
○ Ensure local requirements are not making development more expensive without requisite benefits
○ Actively support the use of modular and factory-built construction methods

4. Providing Financial Subsidies: Generate new or dedicate existing revenue for affordable housing

5. Advocating for Rent Control and Just Cause for Eviction Policies ○ Adopt or update rent stabilization policies
○ Adopt or update just cause eviction policies

6. Advocating for Community Land Trusts (CLTs): Support the formation and operation of community land trusts

7. Advocating for Inclusionary Zoning and Impact Fees: Create or review/update inclusionary housing (including in-lieu fees) and commercial linkage fee requirements

8. Inventory of Sites: Ensure that land is equitably zoned for multifamily housing, especially in high-opportunity areas
If you have any questions, please contact me ([email protected]) and our colleagues at Baird + Driskell (Kristy Wang, [email protected], and Joshua Abrams, [email protected]).

We do hope that you consider tapping into the B+D team’s technical assistance to explore some of these policies further or receive support with policies Oakland is already considering. Please contact us and we will be happy to arrange that.

Thank you again for the opportunity to provide input into Oakland’s housing element. We appreciate all your efforts to address the housing needs of Bay Area and California residents.

Sincerely,
Khanh Russo
Vice President of Policy and Innovation
San Francisco
PBF’s Priorities for 6th Cycle
Housing Elements
August 2022
Priority Policies and Actions

1. Favorable Zoning and Land Use
• Make multifamily infill easier to develop
• Allow, require or encourage multifamily housing in
more places
• Allow or encourage missing middle housing in
single-family neighborhoods
• Provide incentives for affordable housing
development
• Provide incentives for affordable ADUs and "missing
middle" housing

2. Accelerating Production Timeframes
• Streamline development approvals and
environmental review process for multifamily
housing
• Streamline permitting process for multifamily
housing

3. Reducing Construction and Development Costs
• Ensure local requirements are not making
development more expensive without requisite
benefits
• Actively support the use of modular and factorybuilt construction methods

4. Providing Financial Subsidies: Generate new or dedicate existing revenue for affordable housing

5. Advocating for Rent Control and Just Cause for Eviction Policies
• Adopt or update rent stabilization policies
• Adopt or update just cause eviction policies

6. Advocating for Community Land Trusts (CLTs): Support the formation and operation of community land trusts (CLTs)

7. Advocating for Inclusionary Zoning and Impact Fees: Create or review/update inclusionary housing (including in-lieu fees) and commercial linkage fee requirements

8. Inventory of Sites: Ensure that land is equitably zoned for multifamily housing, especially in high-opportunity areas

EXAMPLES
San Francisco, Berkeley and San Diego
have eliminated minimum parking
requirements in new housing
development. San Francisco also has
parking maximums.

Redwood City's Downtown Precise Plan
links adherence to development
standards with a streamlined approvals
process.

Make multifamily infill easier to develop
3 ! Revise development codes: Review multifamily development standards to allow greater density, including floor area ratio, height limits, minimum lot or unit sizes, setbacks, lot coverage and/or allowable dwelling units per acre.
! Reduced parking requirements: Adopt policies that reduce parking minimums, establish parking maximums and
encourage other practices that reduce cost and the amount of space dedicated to cars.
! Eliminate design standards: Eliminate or replace subjective development and design standards with objective standards that simplify zoning clearance and improve approval
certainty and timing.
! Form-based codes: Establish form-based codes that can be paired with by-right approvals.

EXAMPLES
San Francisco, Berkeley and San Diego
Explore the following policies and programs:

EXAMPLES
Redwood City's Mixed-Use
Neighborhood District allows greater
height and FAR for residential-only and
mixed-use buildings than for
commercial-only buildings.

In 2019, San Jose revised its planning
regulations to allow for co-living
housing types.

Allow, require or encourage multifamily housing in
more places
4 In mixed-use zones where commercial uses outcompete
residential uses, cities could:
! Change zoning standards: Offer greater FAR, height and other zoning standards for residential developments in
mixed use zones.
! Encourage mixed-use: Require applicants to build housing when applying to build commercial developments in mixed use zones
Cities can also ensure their regulations don't preclude the development of microunits, single room occupancy (SRO)
buildings.

EXAMPLES
Explore the following policies and programs:

EXAMPLES
Portland has established a strong missing
middle policy, including their Better Housing by
Design work, focused on design guidelines and
related zoning code changes in multi-family
zones, and the Residential Infill Project
development standards focused on single family
neighborhoods.

Eugene, Oregon approved Middle Housing
Code Amendments to comply with state law.

The amendments include smaller minimum lot
sizes, lot size reductions for affordable units,
parking reductions for housing built near transit,
and other changes.

Allow or encourage missing middle housing in singlefamily neighborhoods 5 ! Rezoning: Rezone in single-family neighborhoods to allow additional ADUs, duplexes, triplexes and other small-scale multifamily ("missing middle") housing
! New standards and guidelines: Establish design and
development standards and guidelines that support
missing middle housing types
! SB 9 ordinances: Develop local SB 9 implementing
ordinances that encourage and support the creation of
small-scale multifamily housing rather than merely comply with state requirements.

EXAMPLES
Explore the following policies and programs:

EXAMPLES
Menlo Park's Affordable Housing Overlay
Zone
Foster City's Affordable Housing Overlay
Zone
Oakley’s Affordable Housing Overlay Zone
Sunnyvale's waiver of parking
requirements
Half Moon Bay's waiver of development
standards
Provide incentives for affordable housing development
6 ! Overlay zones: Establish an affordable housing overlay zone to encourage the production of below-market-rate
affordable housing with targeted incentives or relaxed
requirements that go beyond state density bonus law
! Incentives for developers: Offer zoning concessions and fee exemptions as incentives to developers of multifamily
housing projects which meet [JURISDICTION]’s housing
needs, in exchange for an agreement that more than [#%] of the total number of units constructed will be affordable to lower-income households

EXAMPLES
Menlo Park's Affordable Housing Overlay
Explore the following policies and programs:

EXAMPLES
San Diego allows an extra ADU on a site that
has reached the maximum ADU limit if the extra
one is deed-restricted affordable.

Piedmont has flexibility built into their ADU
ordinance where larger ADUs are permitted if
they are deed restricted affordable for lowincome households.

Pasadena incentivizes the creation of ADUs
affordable to Section 8 voucher holders with
incomes below 80% of AMI. The city offers
comprehensive assistance (with financing, designing, permitting, and constructing) and low-interest construction loans.

LA ADU Accelerator matches homeowners with
older renters, providing landlord support and
reliable rent in return for affordability.

LA Mas's Backyard Homes Project
Provide incentives for deed-restricted affordable ADUs
and "missing middle" housing
7 ! Lot splits: Allow nonprofits and community land trusts (CLTs) to sell deed restricted affordable ADUs separately from the main house.
! Increase ADUs per lot: Allow nonprofits/CLTs to build two detached, deed restricted, affordable ADUs per property. ! Community partnerships: Develop zoning standards that provide additional flexibility to nonprofits/CLTs that want to build ADUs, including 2-story ADUs.
! Upzoning partnerships: Allow nonprofits/CLTs to convert single family homes into deed restricted, affordable duplexes, triplexes or quads (more permissive than SB 9)
! Density bonuses: Develop rules that extend the density bonus to 100 percent affordable projects smaller than 5 units.

EXAMPLES
San Diego allows an
Explore the following policies and programs:

EXAMPLES
Redwood City's Downtown Precise Plan
allows for the ministerial approval of
certain multifamily infill projects.

Streamline development approvals and environmental
review process for multifamily housing
8 In locations that have not yet met their housing targets, SB 35 pairs a streamlined approval process with objective design standards for infill projects that provide a certain level of affordability and comply with existing residential and mixeduse zoning and other requirements.

Localities could take it further by:
! Establishing by-right zoning and local systems/dedicated staff for more types of housing beyond SB 35-eligible
projects
! Establishing by-right zoning in certain areas or
neighborhoods

EXAMPLES
Explore the following policies and programs:

EXAMPLES
San Diego has an expedited permitting process
for affordable, infill and sustainable buildings.

Seattle has a expedited approvals program for
new construction projects that meet certain
sustainability requirements.

San Francisco's Mayoral Executive Directives on
ADUs and setting timelines for approvals have
sped up permitting processes by providing a
rationale to create a sense of urgency and focus
city staff.

San Jose had "ADU Tuesdays" at the city's
permit counter in order to streamline ADU
permit processing.

Streamline permitting process for multifamily housing
9 ! Improve application processes: Review application review and approvals process to identify improvements (convene stakeholders, hire an outside firm).
! Pre-application checks: Establish pre-application checks to ensure that applications are complete before submission. ! One-stop-shops: Establish one-stop-shop permitting process and/or a single point of contact for coordinating permitting across city approval functions (e.g., planning, public works, building) from entitlement application to certificate of occupancy.
! Special expedited permits: Establish priority permit
processing or reduced plan check times for specific
categories of housing (ADU/JADUs, multifamily housing,
affordable housing, etc.)

EXAMPLES
Explore the following policies and programs:

Ensure local requirements do not make
development more costly without requisite benefits
10 Explore the following policies and programs:
! Flexible standards: Provide additional
flexibility on development standards,
including parking standards, for
affordable housing
! Reduce construction costs: Review
current local construction requirements
and building standards for excessive and
costly terms

EXAMPLES
Half Moon Bay’s zoning code allows for
flexibility in the application of
development standards for affordable
housing projects.

EXAMPLES
Actively support the use of modular and factorybuilt construction methods 11 Explore the following policies and programs:
• Expedited permits: Establish a clear and expedited approval and permitting process for modular and manufactured homes.
• Pre-fab trainings: Conduct or require a training for building officials and relevant staff to ensure they are aware of current state processes and requirements and how they intersect with local authority/responsibilities.

EXAMPLES
In 2016, Santa Clara County voters and
Alameda County voters approved general
obligation bonds for affordable housing through
Measure A ($950 million in Santa Clara County) and Measure A1 ($580 million in Alameda County).

In 2018, Oakland voters approved a vacant
property tax that generates revenue for homeless services.

By resolution, San Mateo County's Board of
Supervisors established funding priorities – including affordable housing uses – for 2016's Measure K half-cent sales tax extension.

In 2012, San Francisco established its Housing
Trust Fund through a set-aside in the General
Fund.

Generate new revenue and/or dedicate existing
revenue towards affordable housing
12 ! Explore new or increased taxes: Generate new dedicated revenue for affordable housing. This could include:
! Sales tax increases
! General obligation bonds
! Transient occupancy taxes
! Parcel taxes
! Head taxes
! Business license (landlord) taxes
! Real estate transfer taxes
! Vacant property and vacancy taxes
! Prioritize existing revenue: Establish priorities or set-aside existing local general funds for affordable housing.

EXAMPLES
revenue towards affordable housing
Explore the following policies and programs:

EXAMPLES
Several Bay Area jurisdictions have rent
stabilization policies that go beyond state
law (such as smaller allowed rent
increases), including:
! San Francisco
! San Jose
! Oakland
! Berkeley
! East Palo Alto
! Mountain View
! Richmond
Adopt or update rent stabilization policies
13 Under California’s Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (AB 1482):
! Rent cannot be increased more than 5% + your local CPI (Consumer Price Index) OR 10% annually – whichever of
these is lower.

Localities could take it further by:
! Adopting a local ordinance with a smaller allowable annual rent increase
! Adopting a local ordinance that does not sunset in 2030 Localities could also dedicate funding and resources toward education and enforcement.

EXAMPLES
Several Bay Area jurisdictions have
Explore the following policies and programs:

EXAMPLES
Berkeley, East Palo Alto and
Oakland are some Bay Area
jurisdictions that have existing
permanent Just Cause evictions
ordinances.

Most rental units in Oakland and
Richmond are subject to their just
cause eviction ordinances.

Adopt or update just cause eviction policies
14 California’s Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (AB 1482) limits the reasons for which tenants can be evicted. This law does not cover all buildings or all tenants. It expires on Jan. 1, 2030.

Localities could take it further by:
! Applying protections on day 1 of a tenancy (instead of day 365) ! Requiring landlords to have a permit in hand before evicting tenants using the "substantial remodel" provision
! Passing a local ordinance that is permanent
! Expanding just cause eviction policies to cover new construction, single-family homes and condominiums
Localities could also dedicate funding and resources toward education and enforcement.

EXAMPLES
Explore the following policies and programs:

EXAMPLES
In 2018, New York City funded a
citywide CLT initiative to support the
incubation/expansion of 10 CLTs
Cities like Irvine and Chicago have city
sponsored/chartered CLTs that manage
the affordable ownership stock.

Support the formation and operation of community land
trusts (CLTs)
15 ! Eligibility: Ensure CLTs are eligible for local housing funding. ! Opportunity to Purchase: Establish a right of first offer/refusal that gives nonprofits/CLTs enhanced ability to buy property ! CLT Incubation: Establish an initiative to support the incubation or creation of a new community land trust. Provide financial support to CLTs in the early stages of organizational development.
! CLT Pipeline Development: Study the feasibility of requiring new inclusionary ownership units to be stewarded by a CLT. ! Extra Flexibility: Give CLTs extra flexibility to develop/steward ADUs, allowing CLTs to sell ADUs to low-income buyers and giving CLTs more flexibility with development standards (multiple ADUs, 2-story ADUs, etc.). See affordable ADU slide

EXAMPLES
Explore the following policies and programs:

EXAMPLES
Inclusionary housing requirements have
been widely, but not universally,
adopted by jurisdictions across the Bay
Area.

San Mateo (city) and Boulder, CO are
two examples of small to midsized cities
that have set up strong inclusionary
programs that deliver affordable units
and maintain affordability over time.

Create or review/update inclusionary housing and
commercial linkage fee requirements
16 ! Establish New Inclusionary Requirements: Require the provision of affordable housing by the private sector through an inclusionary requirement for market-rate housing
(including in-lieu fee options) and a commercial linkage fee paid by new commercial development.
! Regularly Update Inclusionary Requirements: Conduct an inclusionary housing feasibility study in [20XX] and develop policy recommendations on inclusionary zoning in [20XX].

EXAMPLES
Inclusionary housing requirements
Explore the following policies and programs:

EXAMPLES
Los Angeles's 6th Cycle housing element
includes an objective to "Increase the utilization
of public land for affordable housing with particular emphasis in high resource and gentrifying areas."
Seattle has a development siting policy that
seeks to provide housing opportunities for the
lowest-income and the most vulnerable
populations across the city, including amenity- rich neighborhoods.

San Jose has begun a process to develop an
affordable housing siting process to ensure the
city meets its fair housing and affordable
housing goals, including providing affordable
housing in higher-opportunity neighborhoods.

Ensure that land is equitably zoned for multifamily
housing, especially in high-opportunity areas
17 ! Zoning: Rezone sites for multi-unit housing in high resource areas.
! Public Land: Set-aside publicly owned land in high
opportunity areas for housing development.
! Affordable Housing Siting Policy: Develop an affordable housing siting policy to provide affordable housing equitably across a jurisdiction.
! Tax Credit Competitiveness: Conduct an analysis of a
jurisdiction's geography for tax credit amenity scoring. ! Zone more land for multi-family in amenity-rich areas, and do land assembly/acquisition in places that score highly for tax credits ! Address gaps in communities that do not score highly for tax credit amenities, especially if they are high resource areas

EXAMPLES
Explore the following policies and programs:

Other equitable housing policies for further exploration 18 • Anti-tenant harassment policies (Oakland and Concord) • Preservation policies including acquisition/rehab models • Transit Oriented Communities (TOC) policies
Explore the following policies and programs:
baysfuture.org
Credit: Favianna Rodriguez
Created for Oakland General Plan Outreach Process by Deeply Rooted Collaborative Deeply Rooted in Oakland Partnership
Oakland General Plan Update
Draft Housing Element 2023-31
Missing Housing Justice Priority Policy Recommendations from
Deeply Rooted Collaborative Community Engagement
Date : 09/29/2022
“The rampant displacement seen today in the SF Bay Area is built upon a history of exclusion and dispossession, centered on race, and driven by the logic of capitalism. This history established massive inequities in who owned land, who had access to financing, and who held political power, all of which determined–and still remain at the root of deciding–who can call the Bay Area home.” Othering & Belonging Institute, Roots, Race, Place: A History of Racially Exclusionary Housing in the SF Bay Area The following list of priority housing policies are currently missing from the City’s draft Housing Element. These proposals that begin to address the priority needs of Oakland residents most impacted by housing discrimination and injustice came from 1 OGP Draft Housing Element - Policy Recommendations by Deeply Rooted 10/1/2022
Deeply Rooted’s ongoing engagement with community residents (via interviews and surveys), Equity Working Group, and Deeply Rooted partner organizations.
*A few policies are listed under multiple departments.
#
Goals (Protect
Impacted
People, Land
for People,
Financing
Equity)
Topic Community Proposed Strategy City Department City’s Comments Homelessness/City Administrator
1 Protect
Impacted
People
Encampment
Management
Policy
Treat unhoused people with dignity and respect the
communities they have built rather than allowing for
City evictions under the current Homeless
Encampment Management Policy.

Homelessness/City
Administrator
2 Protect
Impacted
People
Encampment
Management
Policy
Prioritize Compassionate Care and Facilities:

Support humane and positive spaces with services such
as showers, coffee, and groups that encourage
individual expression; hire counselors and
formerly/currently unhoused people to conduct
outreach in communities they are familiar with;
improve benefits and higher pay for social service
workers and homeless shelter staff.

Homelessness/City
Administrator
2 OGP Draft Housing Element - Policy Recommendations by Deeply Rooted 10/1/2022
#
Goals (Protect
Impacted
People, Land
for People,
Financing
Equity)
Topic Community Proposed Strategy City Department City’s Comments 3 Protect
Impacted
People
Encampment
Management
Policy
Ensure Clean Environments: Support trash removal
and address illegal dumping around homeless
encampments in active partnership with unhoused
residents.

Homelessness/City
Administrator
Housing & Community Development
4*
Protect
Impacted
People Fair Housing,
Eviction
prevention
Fair Housing/Human Health/Socioeconomic
Impacts Analysis: require public analysis & prevention
of harm of fair housing/displacement/ homelessness
impacts of market rate projects before development
approved.

Planning, Housing
& Community
Development
5*
Protect
Impacted
People
Fair Housing &
Affordable
Housing Access
Utilize neighborhood Area Median Income for
affordable housing projects (many “affordable” housing
units are not affordable to local residents.”
Housing &
Community
Development,
Planning
6*
Land for
People &
Protect
Impacted
People
Land Use for
Anti-Displacement
; Fair Housing
[New City policy states ] Update zoning of single
family (one home per parcel) to allow for duplex,
fourplex, townhomes, and accessory dwelling units.

Upzoning to allow for more live/work housing (live in
and run a business) and artist housing in cultural
Housing &
Community
Development,Plann
ing
3 OGP Draft Housing Element - Policy Recommendations by Deeply Rooted 10/1/2022
#
Goals (Protect
Impacted
People, Land
for People,
Financing
Equity)
Topic Community Proposed Strategy City Department City’s Comments districts).

Create Cultural Preservation Districts to protect
existing residents from displacement, i.e. require
on-site affordable units from market rate projects
(instead of in-lieu fee), use neighborhood area median
income for defining affordability, require fair housing impact assessment of market rate projects, have a
Community Planning Council to vote on new
development projects, etc.
7* Land for
People
Community
power in land use
decisions &
accountability
with Housing
Element
Housing Commission for residents to monitor City
performance with Housing Element and other housing
policy implementation.

Neighborhood Planning Councils for resident
leadership on what projects are developed where.

Housing &
Community
Development,
Planning
8*
Protect
Impacted
People
Housing
Habitability &
Anti-Displacement
[New policy included in draft Housing Element]
Proactive rental inspections*
The City’s proposal doesn’t appear to recognize the
need for a Proactive Rental Inspection Ordinance that
the City Council must enact. The new Ordinance
Planning, Housing
& Community
Development, City
Council
4 OGP Draft Housing Element - Policy Recommendations by Deeply Rooted 10/1/2022
#
Goals (Protect
Impacted
People, Land
for People,
Financing
Equity)
Topic Community Proposed Strategy City Department City’s Comments should also require anti-displacement strategies
from increased code enforcement.
9 Protect
Impacted
People Fair Housing Prioritize implementation of City’s Fair Chance Housing Ordinance.

Housing &
Community
Development
10 Protect
Impacted
People
Financing
[Existing City language prioritizes] Seniors, people
with HIV/AIDS, people with disabilities and unhoused
people.

City should also prioritize housing for formerly
incarcerated people, single parents, long-term
residents, Black people, immigrants, and youth
aging out of foster care.

Housing &
Community
Development
11 Protect
Impacted
People
Affordable
housing access
Support streamlined communication with affordable
housing applicants for quicker response times and
accurate updates on housing application status [Action
items in the current Housing Element include housing
Housing &
Community
Development
5 OGP Draft Housing Element - Policy Recommendations by Deeply Rooted 10/1/2022
#
Goals (Protect
Impacted
People, Land
for People,
Financing
Equity)
Topic Community Proposed Strategy City Department City’s Comments preference policies for displaced residents and current Oakland residents and workers].
12* Financing
Equity
Affordable
Housing funding
Increase Housing Impact Fees to fund affordable
housing that’s affordable to current lower income
residents.

Housing &
Community
Development,
Planning
13 Financing
Equity
Affordable Housing
access
Provide Financial Assistance: Consider publicly
subsidized housing stipends for Oakland natives.

Housing &
Community
Development
14 Financing
Equity
Homeownership
Opportunities
Grow Shared Ownership/Homeownership
Opportunities: Support pathway to homeownership
and shared ownership programs for Black and other
residents of color; create shared housing options for
formerly incarcerated people.

Housing &
Community
Development
15* Financing
Equity
Homelessness
Programs
Fund Supportive Housing: Fund permanent
supportive housing with intensive wraparound services,
Human Services,
Housing &
6 OGP Draft Housing Element - Policy Recommendations by Deeply Rooted 10/1/2022
#
Goals (Protect
Impacted
People, Land
for People,
Financing
Equity)
Topic Community Proposed Strategy City Department City’s Comments including mental health and case management
services; dedicate housing for unhoused veterans and
people with disabilities.*
Community
Development
16*
Land For
People &
Protect
Impacted
People
Fair Housing,
Eviction
Prevention
[New policy included in draft Housing Element]
Consider an anti-speculation tax if a property is sold
quickly again.

The City’s proposal does not prevent housing
speculation. The City should instead enact fair
housing policies that prevent speculators from buying
homes in order to evict current lower income residents.

Housing &
Community
Development,Plann
ing
Human Services
15* Financing
Equity
Homelessness
Programs
Fund Supportive Housing: Fund permanent
supportive housing with intensive wraparound services,
including mental health and case management
services; dedicate housing for unhoused veterans and
people with disabilities.

Human Services,
Housing &
Community
Development
Planning
7 OGP Draft Housing Element - Policy Recommendations by Deeply Rooted 10/1/2022
#
Goals (Protect
Impacted
People, Land
for People,
Financing
Equity)
Topic Community Proposed Strategy City Department City’s Comments 17 Structural
Solutions
Acknowledge
history of housing
exclusion &
racism
The State Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing new
rules requires the City to acknowledge the history of
and current fair housing violations, and to affirmatively solve for these problems. The City’s consultants should work closely with DR groups to include the history of
Oakland’s different communities that have experienced
housing and racial exclusion and fair housing
discrimination in Housing Element sections.

Planning
18 Land for
People
Public land
All public land for 100% affordable housing (also 10+
acres should be considered for affordable housing, not
market rate units), especially for unhoused residents.

Planning
19 Protect
Impacted
People
Fair Housing,
Eviction
prevention,
Environmental
Justice
Implement all of the Healthy Development
Guidelines in assessing whether a development
project or policy should be approved.

Planning
20 Protect
Impacted
People
Zoning and land
use equity
Change zoning so tiny homes or RVs are allowed
across the City. Planning
8 OGP Draft Housing Element - Policy Recommendations by Deeply Rooted 10/1/2022
#
Goals (Protect
Impacted
People, Land
for People,
Financing
Equity)
Topic Community Proposed Strategy City Department City’s Comments 12* Financing
Equity
Affordable
Housing funding
Increase Housing Impact Fees to fund affordable
housing that’s affordable to current lower income
residents.

Housing &
Community
Development,
Planning
21 Financing
Equity
Low income
homeowners
[Existing City policy states] Release Measure KK funds
Assess whether low income homeowners knew about
and accessed the City Council’s grant for low income
homeowners to pay the new Measure KK parcel
taxes. Before enacting regressive tax measures that
directly impact low income homeowners, ensure that
they can be exempted from new payments.

Planning
22 Land for
People
Fair Housing Create a real Inclusionary Zoning law that requires on-site affordable housing.

Planning
23 Land for
People
Zoning
Link zoning changes to affordability requirements.

A developer who wants to build more units (say, 200
units instead of 100 units) should also increase the
Planning
9 OGP Draft Housing Element - Policy Recommendations by Deeply Rooted 10/1/2022
#
Goals (Protect
Impacted
People, Land
for People,
Financing
Equity)
Topic Community Proposed Strategy City Department City’s Comments number of affordable housing units on site.
24 Land for
People Green spaces
Value Community Assets: Prioritize community assets
such as recreation centers and parks; increase trees
and green spaces in underserved residential areas.

Planning
7* Land for
People
Community
power in land use
decisions &
accountability
with Housing
Element
Housing Commission for residents to monitor City
performance with Housing Element and other housing
policy implementation.

Neighborhood Planning Councils for resident
leadership on what projects are developed where.

Housing &
Community
Development,
Planning
25 Protect
Impacted
People Healthy Housing
Require/Provide an air purifier per unit in
neighborhoods with high levels of pollution. This will
also help address wildfire smoke.

Planning
8*
Protect
Impacted
People
Housing
Habitability &
Anti-Displacement
[New policy included in draft Housing Element]
Proactive rental inspections
The CIty’s proposal doesn’t appear to recognize the
Planning, Housing
& Community
Development, City
10 OGP Draft Housing Element - Policy Recommendations by Deeply Rooted 10/1/2022
#
Goals (Protect
Impacted
People, Land
for People,
Financing
Equity)
Topic Community Proposed Strategy City Department City’s Comments need for a Proactive Rental Inspection Ordinance that
the City Council must enact. The new Ordinance
should also require anti-displacement strategies
from increased code enforcement.

Council
5*
Protect
Impacted
People
Fair Housing &
Affordable
Housing Access
Utilize neighborhood Area Median Income for
affordable housing projects (many “affordable” housing
units are not affordable to local residents.”
Housing &
Community
Development,
Planning
4*
Protect
Impacted
People
Fair Housing,
Eviction
prevention
Fair Housing/Human Health/Socioeconomic
Impacts Analysis: require public analysis & prevention
of harm of fair housing/displacement/ homelessness
impacts of market rate projects before development
approved.

Planning, Housing
& Community
Development
16*
Land For
People &
Protect
Impacted
People
Fair Housing,
Eviction
Prevention
[New policy included in draft Housing Element]
Consider an anti-speculation tax if a property is sold
quickly again.

The City’s proposal does not prevent housing
speculation. The City should instead enact fair
Housing &
Community
Development,Plann
ing
11 OGP Draft Housing Element - Policy Recommendations by Deeply Rooted 10/1/2022
#
Goals (Protect
Impacted
People, Land
for People,
Financing
Equity)
Topic Community Proposed Strategy City Department City’s Comments housing policies that prevent speculators from buying
homes in order to evict current lower income residents. 6*
Land For
People &
Protect
Impacted
People
Land Use for
Anti-Displacement
; Fair Housing
[New City policy states ] Update zoning of single
family (one home per parcel) to allow for duplex,
fourplex, townhomes, and accessory dwelling units.

Upzoning to allow for more live/work housing (live in
and run a business) and artist housing in cultural
districts).

Housing &
Community
Development,Plann
ing
City Council
12 OGP Draft Housing Element - Policy Recommendations by Deeply Rooted 10/1/2022
#
Goals (Protect
Impacted
People, Land
for People,
Financing
Equity)
Topic Community Proposed Strategy City Department City’s Comments 26 Protect
Impacted
People &
Neighborhoods
Market force
displacement
Commission a market force displacement study
(building on the City’s 2005 West Oakland Wood Street
Project Impact study conducted by Mundie &
Associates) and utilizing data from the City’s
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing, develop a
moratorium on market rate housing in
displacement vulnerable areas.

City Council
13 October 14, 2022
Director Wiliam Gilchrist
Department of Planning and Building
City of Oakland
350 Frank Ogawa Plaza
Oakland, CA 94610
RE: Preliminary Zoning Proposals - Draft Housing Element 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Dear Director Gilchrist,
We write to provide comments on Oakland’s Preliminary Zoning Proposals (Proposals) as part of the Draft Housing Element for the 6th Planning Cycle (2023 - 2031). We welcome the power and extent of the proposed Affordable Housing Overlay. However, we have identified significant issues with the missing middle program, the sites identified to affirmatively further fair housing in Rockridge and elsewhere, commercial corridor rezonings, and the continued non-inclusion of promising, underutilized sites in low-VMT and high-resource tracts.

In terms of process, we notice Oakland identifies key feedback from community outreach for the general plan and housing element updates at the start of the proposals, but it is unclear how or where this feedback is reflected in the respective rezoning parts of the Proposals, or even whether they all represent suggestions the city has opted to take up. Please consider revising the Proposals to clearly identify how the key feedback is connected to and accomplished in the rezonings.

We summarize our comments as follows:

1. Revise the Missing Middle Program to ensure high-resource neighborhoods allow four units on most lots in practice, including providing setback relief and reducing/eliminating off-street parking minimums.
1 Preliminary Zoning Proposals

2. The proposed Rockridge rezoning sites have significant issues related to feasibility, equity and displacement risk; zoning a wider swath of land rather than picking a handful of sites would be more effective.

3. Choosing to leave in place current heights in Rockridge along College Avenue and Claremont Avenue, while miles of MacArthur Boulevard and International Boulevard in East Oakland are rezoned to allow significantly more height and development, is reinforcing patterns of spatial segregation. Oakland needs to be more ambitious with North Oakland standards to affirmatively further fair housing as required by state law.

4. Oakland should undo the 2011 downzoning along the high and moderate-resource Shattuck Avenue commercial corridor and increase heights to 45’.

5. We make various suggestions to improve the proposed Affordable Housing Overlay, including removing the exemption for height bonuses for prospective Areas of Primary Importance that are formed after the effective date of the rezoning.

Missing Middle Program
The proposed Missing Middle Program, while making some noteworthy changes, overall does not go far enough to meet the goals of the Missing Middle referral from CM Rebecca Kaplan and the Oakland City Council. In certain instances, Oakland’s draft Missing Middle Program represents a downzoning from the SB9 development capacity.

Currently 2-4 units is the baseline set by state housing law. Oakland should be pursuing a framework that allows more than that baseline on a majority of single-family lots. Staff’s proposal provides greater certainty by removing conditional use permits for residential zones, but does not provide sufficient density and development-standard relief for these opportunities to be reliable and straightforward - a necessity for any significant use of the opportunities. Few projects will be able to take advantage of a by-right process because density limits for standard lot sizes of 4,000-6,000 square feet are still too low. Furthermore, unchanged setbacks, especially the 15’ front and rear setbacks in most zones, severely constrains the feasibility of 3- and 4-unit developments.

We believe this program can be revised to facilitate the production of attainable and affordable middle housing. We recommend Oakland consider the following:
● Sixplexes: Sixplexes are more likely to be both feasible in the context of high land values and produce middle income housing (see study from San Jose; attached as Exhibit A).

Consider allowing up to six units by right in certain high-opportunity residential zones, as well as on corner lots and lots over 5,000 square feet. ● Minimum Lot Sizes and Lot Splits:
○ Please confirm explicitly that lot splits in residential zones will be approved ministerially.
2 Preliminary Zoning Proposals
○ The minimum lot size in residential zones should be reduced from 2,500 to 2,000 square feet. Under SB9 the minimum lot size post-split is 1,200 square feet. While we appreciate Oakland reducing minimum lot sizes across residential zones, the 2,500 square foot minimum is twice that of the SB9 baseline. Moreover, 4,000 square feet is a common Oakland lot size, perhaps the most common. A 2,000 square foot minimum lot size would facilitate lot splits in most cases, whereas a 2,500 square foot minimum would largely exclude them. As it stands, the proposed minimum lot sizes constitute a downzoning of development capacity in residential zones from SB9 and should be revised.
● Lower Rockridge and Temescal:
○ To ensure Lower Rockridge and Temescal allow fourplexes in practice, consider rezoning them to RM-4. Lower Rockridge and Temescal typical lots are roughly 4,000 square feet. The proposed rezoning of these high-resource and low-VMT areas requires 1,500 square feet of land per unit. In practice this means only 2 units are allowed, which is the bare minimum under SB9. Moreover, 2 units does not meet the goals of Oakland City Council to allow at least 4 units in residential zones, and reduces owner incentives to add those units (these projects will often be complex and expensive). Rezoning these areas to RM-4 would require 1,000 square feet of land per unit, which would allow 4 units per lot by right in most or all cases. ● Adams Point: The zoning map shows a rezoning of the center of Adams Point from RM-1 to RM-2. This neighborhood is already full of medium-sized apartment buildings (see Figure 1 below, taken from the Oakland Map Atlas) These zoned capacity should match the existing built environment to allow for 4-8 story apartments. Alternatively, consider rezoning this area to RM-4.
● High Resource Areas: Bushrod, Santa Fe, Trestle Glen, Crocker Highlands are all high-resource or moderate-resource areas that are untouched by the proposed Missing Middle Program rezonings. These are also low-VMT neighborhoods with easy non-car access to jobs, parks and schools. They should be rezoned to at least RM-2. (Also in Figure 1 below).
● Heights: RM-1 should allow 3 stories by right.
● Parking: The current requirement of 1 unit of off-street parking requirement in most Oakland greater than ½ mile from transit makes most missing middle projects infeasible.

The off-street parking requirements should be fully eliminated. Alternatively, the city could match the California ADU standard by eliminating off-street parking requirements within one (1) mile of any bus stop, but if so should require no more than 0.5 spaces per unit elsewhere.
● Setbacks:
○ As written, the Missing Middle Program offers no reduction in setbacks. As we have seen in Minneapolis and other places the failure to reduce lot coverage and setback rules in tandem with upzoning for 2-4 units will result in few to any construction. The existing RM front setback of 15-20’ is a nonstarter for middle housing development.
3 Preliminary Zoning Proposals
○ Consider reducing RM setbacks to 10’ for front setbacks (or average of immediately adjacent neighboring buildings, whichever is less), 4’ on all sides, and 0’ for inner side or street side on lots less than 50’ wide. ○ Increase lot coverage to allow 50% lot coverage in all residential zones for projects seeking 3 or more units.
○ Some zones have not only minimum lot area but minimum average width and minimum frontage. Those should be reduced in tandem with minimum lot areas. ● High-resource/Low-VMT gradation:
○ In order to reduce patterns of spatial segregation, Oakland should make special effort to ensure that 2-4 unit development is feasible in high-resource residential neighborhoods. The high land values of these neighborhoods also makes it harder for 2-4 residential uses to outbid luxury single-family homes. Therefore, we have previously written to Oakland suggesting that additional density beyond 4 units and additional setback relief be offered in high-resource areas. The proposed Missing Middle Program makes no effort in that regard. We recommend Oakland revise the program to confer additional density (baseline 5 units) and additional setback relief in high-resource residential zones.
○ In order to reduce VMT, Oakland should allow additional density and setback relief in residential zones near BART stations.
● Mills College:
○ Please clarify the reasoning behind rezoning Mills College at Northeastern University from RM-3 to RM-4. Plans for student housing on the actual Mills site should be tailored to student housing; RM-4 is a residential neighborhood standard. Without additional context, this appears to be a paper upzoning that will result in no new housing.
● Accessory Commercial Units:
○ The Proposals’ key points from community engagement cites the need to attract retailers in food deserts. In many Oakland neighborhoods, especially East Oakland, the distance between commercial corridors where retail uses are permitted exceeds easy walking distance. Moreover commercial floor plates are often too big or expensive for many start-up or would-be retailers.
○ All RM zones in the current intent section include "and neighborhood businesses where appropriate", but in practice all subzones except RM-5 make food sales, restaurants, cafes, and retail sales require conditional use approval, and alcohol sales are only allowed if grandfathered. Consider allowing a wider range of commercial businesses as permitted in any space less than 600 square feet in all RM and RU zones ("Accessory Commercial Units") to facilitate greater food access, increased walkability and low impact diversity of uses. ///
4 Preliminary Zoning Proposals
Rockridge Rezonings
We appreciate that Oakland’s Proposals include specific rezoning for Rockridge in response to our comments and those of HCD. Unfortunately, as discussed below, the rezonings as written have significant issues in terms of spatial equity, horizontal equity, feasibility and displacement. We are also concerned that staff continue to avoid rezoning soft sites near Rockridge BART that could easily be rezoned to further fair housing and reduce VMT. ● Commercial Corridor:
○ As noted below, commercial corridors throughout West and East Oakland are having their heights increased. These include commercial corridors close to BART and high-frequency bus (Fruitvale, West Oakland, Coliseum, and Telegraph Avenue near MacArthur BART) as well as on BRT lines (International Boulevard in San Antonio and between 73rd Avenue and Durant Avenue) and also some corridors miles from BART (Dimond District and Laurel District). All the while, heights for the commercial corridor of College Avenue near Rockridge BART remain untouched at 35’ in CN-1 zones.
○ While Oakland proposes to rezone eight sites along College Avenue and Claremont Avenue, there are significant issues with many of these sites (see below). Moreover, it is concerning that Oakland seems perfectly willing to increase heights along miles of MacArthur and International boulevards but cannot countenance allowing more than two parcels to go up to 65’ on College Avenue. ○ While we support height increases in commercial corridors generally, we are concerned about the horizontal inequity of excluding College Avenue and Claremont Avenue. Why should a strong commercial corridor in the Laurel District, over 2 miles from Fruitvale BART, be rezoned from 35’ to 65’, while College Avenue, within ½ mile of Rockridge BART, remains at 35’? Why should commercial land in Deep East Oakland in Elmhurst along International Boulevard go from 75’ to 95’ while Claremont Avenue near Rockridge is stuck at 35’? Are the existing commercial uses in Rockridge simply more valuable to Oakland than the existing commercial uses in East Oakland?
○ This concentration of multifamily development potential in lower income and non-white neighborhoods, especially in East Oakland, while preserving the height limits of commercial land in high-income and mostly white Rockridge is reinforcing, not reversing, existing patterns of spatial segregation.
○ Oakland, in order to affirmatively further fair housing, should increase heights along College Avenue and Claremont Avenue to 55’.
● RM Zoning: As noted above, Lower Rockridge needs to go from RM-2 to RM-4 in order to allow for 3- or 4-unit development to occur - or the entire RM zone needs to allow 3- or 4-unit development both by right and in practice.
● DMV: Does Oakland have written confirmation that DMV plans to redevelop its property on Claremont? The use of state-owned land for redevelopment must be accompanied by a 5 Preliminary Zoning Proposals
firm commitment by the Department of General Services to redevelop the site within the eight year planning period.
● 5248 Claremont Avenue: Site 5 on Figure 4 is a 3-story, 42-unit apartment building constructed in 1959 called Claremont Park Apartments. It is highly likely that this property is subject to Oakland’s rent control ordinance. In any case, this property should not be rezoned. If it remains as a rezoning site either: 1) no redevelopment will occur due to the costs associated with SB330/SB8 replacement, relocation and right to return requirements; or 2) redevelopment will occur and 42 units of rent-controlled housing will be destroyed when vacant, commercial and owner-occupied sites abound nearby. Oakland should not be in the business of designating rent-controlled housing in high-resource areas for upzoning and redevelopment. Please remove this site.
● Trader Joe's parking lot: This is a high-volume grocery store with two surface parking lots.

It is highly unlikely either the store itself or the parking lot fronting College Avenue will be redeveloped. The Miles Avenue fronted surface parking lot may be feasible for redevelopment, but it will be difficult given that the CN-1 standards only permit approximately 40 units.
● 5264 Claremont and 5256 Claremont: These sites include approximately four residential units. Under the CN-1 density standards and unchanged 35’ height limit these sites could yield 9 units at most each. If there are existing low-income tenants on-site then 1 or 2 of 9 units will be required to be replaced with deed-restricted units. Does Oakland have a track record of producing developments with less than 10 units and on-site affordable housing in this manner? If not, they should be considered for higher density or removed. ● 6209 College: This site has an existing banking use and surface parking lot. Under the CN-1 standards it can yield at best 20 units. It is unlikely that 42 dwelling units per acre will outbid the existing banking use.
● 5220 Claremont: This site has an existing pediatric use that is part of UCSF Benioff Hospital. Has Oakland obtained written evidence that the property owner intends to discontinue this use within the eight year planning period? ● Unpicked Sites: As seen above, there are significant issues with Oakland’s Rockridge rezoning sites. There are many sites that Oakland could identify for rezoning that would be more feasible for housing while minimizing displacement. ○ The vacant site at Pleasant Valley/51st Street and Broadway - This is a large vacant site near BART and Lines 51A and 18. It is in a high-resource tract and has easy access to health services, grocery stores and open space. ○ Claremont flatiron - This vacant parcel at Claremont and College is currently zoned to only allow 18 units. It was also a very popular site in the city's survey data.

Consider rezoning to allow 75 dwelling units per acre.
○ Gas Stations - There are several gas stations that could be rezoned within Rockridge.
○ 51st Street - This is a 75’ wide residential street with bus service and is within a ½ mile of Rockridge BART. It is proposed to be rezoned to RM-2. It should be rezoned to allow for multifamily housing with heights of 45’ and up to 55 dwelling units per 6 Preliminary Zoning Proposals
acre. The existing uses of mostly owner-occupied single family homes and a few duplexes would reduce the impacts of potential displacement and relocation costs. ○ In practice, most development usually occurs in places outside those designated in housing elements, because for- and non-profit developers evaluate prospects in different ways from planning professionals and often come to different conclusions. In addition to trying to pick winners among sites, the city should consider a broader upzoning to 6+ stories and 75+ units per acre in a one-mile radius of Rockridge BART.

Commercial Corridors
We understand that many of Oakland’s proposed commercial corridor rezonings are meant to reconcile planning code with building typologies. In addition, the Proposals increase heights in commercial corridors in several key areas near transit (excluding College Avenue and Claremont Avenue in Rockridge). While these heights increases are certainly helpful for increasing housing feasibility and lowering VMT we are concerned about the lack of height increases in key areas. ● Park Boulevard: Heights along the commercial sections of Park Boulevard in Eastlake and Glenview should be increased.
● Shattuck Avenue:
○ This section was downzoned in 2011 to 35’ in response to housing development in the mid-2000s. Homeowners in these high-resource areas pushed to downzone the corridor due to concerns about development exceeding existing zoning (through use of State Density Bonus Law) but within the general plan designations; the groups supporting the downzoning cited impacts to “sunlight, privacy and appearance.” [Oakland Planning Commission staff report, July 14, 2010; attached as Exhibit B]. This was a poor justification for downzoning a high-resource, low-VMT transit corridor and should be undone.
○ In February 2021 a 45’ multifamily development project at 6501 Shattuck Avenue (½ mile from Ashby BART) that had submitted an application prior to the 2011 35’ downzoning was appealed and delayed for months by nearby homeowners and landlords. The appeal was ultimately rejected but such appeals add risk and cost to housing development.
○ Recently, a proposal was submitted for an apartment building at 6341 Shattuck Avenue. Consistent with the zoning, it is limited to 3 stories; allowing 4 stories would likely enable a 30-40% increase in new homes built. ○ Consider increasing heights along Shattuck Avenue back to 45’ or more to facilitate housing development in this high-resource and low-VMT neighborhood. ///
7 Preliminary Zoning Proposals
Affordable Housing Overlay
Overall we are highly encouraged by the Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) proposal. We believe it has the potential to open up more residential land for affordable housing development, including in high-resource areas. The by-right provisions of this rezoning program can provide needed greater certainty to affordable housing developers. The AHO, if implemented with care, can deliver more low and moderate income housing and help reverse patterns of spatial segregation.

We offer the following suggestions:
● Co-ops and CLTs: Make sure the ordinance explicitly allows co-ops and land trusts to use the AHO.
● Relax open space requirements: convert open space per unit into open space per residential living space, so that more density does not penalize them in terms of open space requirements. For further context, the CN zone already has lower requirements for efficiency units but residential zones do not.
● Cohousing: Allow cohousing with shared bathrooms and shared kitchens. ● Historic Districts: Not allowing +20ft height in historic areas, aka Areas of Primary Importance (APIs), is inequitable. Some of the high-resource areas affected include most of the rectangle between Alcatraz, Woolsey, College, & Telegraph; as well as the entire CCA site at 5200 Broadway. A historical building is not demeaned or diminished by having a taller building next to it.
○ We strongly request that Oakland does not allow newly formed, prospective APIs at the effective date of the rezoning to be exempted from AHO height bonuses. ● Roof Heights: Many zones like RM currently allow 5 feet more roof height than wall height to allow for pitched roofs. But when this proposal adds 20 feet that +5 feet often vanishes.

What is the rationale for this? Pitched roofs can work in taller buildings too. Consider allowing +5 feet for pitched roof in every AHO zoning category. ● DBL Consistency: Clarify the meaning of 100% affordable in terms of income levels that the units must be restricted to. At a minimum, 100% affordable projects under the definition of State Density Bonus Law (AB1763), which are defined as 20% moderate-income, 80% extremely, very low or low-income, and one manager's unit, should qualify under the city AHO. Additionally, the city could consider allowing more than 20% of units to be moderate-income-restricted to open more options. ● Parking: Off-street parking requirements represent significant hard costs and opportunity costs for low-income housing. Parking requirements are a binding constraint on development of multifamily housing that reduces site viability. AB2097 and other state bills have reduced parking requirements within ½ mile of transit and in low-VMT areas.

Oakland should go further and require no off-street parking for AHO projects anywhere. ● Fire Zones: The Very High Fire Severity Zones (VHFSZs) are exempted from the AHO.

While there are valid safety concerns related to fire risk and escape we would be remiss not to point out the inequity of exempting high-resource and historically exclusionary 8 Preliminary Zoning Proposals
VHFSZs. Oakland should explore allowing AHO projects in VHFSZs with hardening and other mitigations.

Thank you for considering these comments. We are available to discuss them via phone or video conference, if necessary.

Sincerely,
John Minot
Jonathan Singh
EB4E Co-Executives
Victor Flores
Resilience Manager, East Bay
Greenbelt Alliance
Nico Nagle
East Bay Organizer
Housing Action Coalition
Sarah Bell
Lead
East Bay YIMBY
Keith Diggs
Housing Elements Advocacy Manager
YIMBY Law
cc:

CA Department of Housing and Community Development
9 Preliminary Zoning Proposals
Figure 1: Existing Residential Density, Central and North Oakland Inset (from Oakland Map Atlas, Figure 2-6)
The goal of this figure is to show that:
- the triangle of Adams Point in the lower right of the figure is already densely full of medium- and some large apartment buildings - the densest census tracts in Oakland outside downtown - yet is mostly zoned RM out of keeping with its current environment, and the proposed rezonings only move a small chunk of it up one level within RM. It should be a high-density zoning designation that allows the same buildings that exists now - not RM or even RU.
- Rockridge, Temescal, and other parts of North Oakland are nearly a single-family monoculture, while the proposed rezonings only increase the density in that large, high-opportunity by a small degree.
10 SAN JOSÉ OPPORTUNITY HOUSING

FEASIBILITY OF MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS

Prepared for:

The City of San José
October 4, 2021

2 Table of Contents
Table of Contents.........................................................................................................................................2 Table of Figures ...........................................................................................................................................3 INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................................5 APPROACH.............................................................................................................................................6 Sub-Areas and Market Tiers........................................................................................................................6 Interview Findings..................................................................................................................................... 10 Prototypes ................................................................................................................................................. 11 Potential Impacts of SB 9 and SB 10...................................................................................................... 15 FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS...................................................................................................17 Land Acquisition Cost............................................................................................................................... 17 Development Costs .................................................................................................................................. 18 Revenues .................................................................................................................................................. 22 Cash-Flow Analysis: Property Owner Perspective ................................................................................... 25 SUMMARY OF RESULTS...................................................................................................................27 Results by Prototype................................................................................................................................. 27 Results by Market Tier.............................................................................................................................. 28 Results of Cash-Flow Analysis.................................................................................................................. 30 AFFORDABILITY OF OPPORTUNITY HOUSING ......................................................................................32 Methodology for Estimating Unit Affordability......................................................................................... 32 Affordability of Opportunity Housing........................................................................................................ 33 ROLE OF MUNICIPAL FEES ..............................................................................................................36 Parkland In-Lieu Fee................................................................................................................................. 36 Site Development Permit Fees ................................................................................................................ 39 APPENDIX A: DETAILED PRO FORMA RESULTS ...............................................................................41 Set 1 Results............................................................................................................................................. 41 Set 2 Results............................................................................................................................................. 46 Set 3 Results............................................................................................................................................. 48 APPENDIX B: CASH FLOW PRO FORMA RESULTS............................................................................53 APPENDIX C: OPTICOS DESIGN: OPPORTUNITY HOUSING CITYWIDE ANALYSIS .............................56 3 Table of Figures
Figure 1. Market Tiers for Rental Prototypes .............................................................................................7 Figure 2. Market Tiers for Condo Prototypes .............................................................................................7 Figure 3. San José Rental Subareas by Tier...............................................................................................8 Figure 4. San José Condo Subareas by Tier...............................................................................................9 Figure 5. Prototypes Summary................................................................................................................. 12 Figure 6. Set 1 Prototypes: Two-Story Buildings with 2-4 Units ............................................................. 13 Figure 7. Set 2 Prototypes: Three-Story Single-Family/Attached Townhome Projects with Four Units14 Figure 8. Prototypes: Stacked Multiplexes with More than Four Units.................................................. 15 Figure 9. Land Acquisition Cost Assumptions by Tier............................................................................. 18 Figure 10. Vertical Costs by Prototype..................................................................................................... 19 Figure 11. Overview of Typical Municipal Fees ....................................................................................... 21 Figure 12. Financing Cost Assumptions .................................................................................................. 21 Figure 13. Developer Profit Expectation.................................................................................................. 22 Figure 14. Expected Rents for Rental Prototypes by Tier....................................................................... 23 Figure 15. Expected Sales Prices for Condo Prototypes by Tier ............................................................ 24 Figure 16. Expected Value for Existing Property By Tiers in 2021......................................................... 26 Figure 17. Set 1 Feasibility: Residual Land Value Less Expected Acquisition Cost ............................. 27 Figure 18. Set 2 Feasibility: Residual Land value Less Expected Acquisition Cost.............................. 28 Figure 19. Set 3 Feasibility: Residual Land Value Less Expected Acquisition Cost ............................. 28 Figure 20. Tier 1: Residual Value and Expected Acquisition Cost ......................................................... 29 Figure 21. Tier 2 Residual Value and Expected Acquisition Cost .......................................................... 29 Figure 22. Tier 3 Residual Value and Expected Acquisition Cost .......................................................... 30 Figure 23. Cash Flow Summary: Existing Property Owner Builds Duplex Rental in Rear Yard ............ 31 Figure 24. Income Levels and Associated “% of AMI” Ranges .............................................................. 32 Figure 25. Tier 1 Affordability Summary.................................................................................................. 34 Figure 26. Tier 2 Affordability Summary.................................................................................................. 35 Figure 27. Rental Prototypes: Parkland In-Lieu Fee Assumptions by Tier and Building Type.............. 37 Figure 28. Condo Prototypes: Parkland In-Lieu Fee Assumptions by Tier and Building Type.............. 38 4 Figure 29. Parkland In-Lieu Fee as Share of Total Development Cost.................................................. 39 Figure 30. Site Development Permit Fees as Share of Total Development Cost ................................. 40 Figure 31. Pro Forma Results: Stacked Fourplex Rental........................................................................ 41 Figure 32. Pro Forma Results: Stacked Fourplex Condo........................................................................ 42 Figure 33. Pro Forma Results: Side-by-Side Large Duplex Condo ......................................................... 43 Figure 34. Pro Forma Results: Side-by-Side Duplex Rental in Rear Yard.............................................. 44 Figure 35. Pro Forma Results: Side-by-Side Duplex Condo in Rear Yard.............................................. 45 Figure 36. Pro Forma Results: Small Lot Single -Family......................................................................... 46 Figure 37. Pro Forma Results: Attached Townhomes ............................................................................ 47 Figure 38. Pro Forma Results: Three-Story Sixplex Rental..................................................................... 48 Figure 39. Pro Forma Results: Three-Story Sixplex Condo..................................................................... 49 Figure 40. Pro Forma Results: Two-Story Eightplex Rental .................................................................... 50 Figure 41. Pro Forma Results: Three-Story Eightplex Rental ................................................................. 51 Figure 42. Pro Forma Results: Three-Story Eightplex Condo ................................................................. 52 Figure 43. Tier 1: Side-by-Side Duplex Rental in Rear Yard Cash Flow for Property Owner................. 53 Figure 44. Tier 2: Side-by-Side Duplex Rental in Rear Yard Cash Flow for Property Owner................. 54 Figure 45. Tier 3: Side-by-Side Duplex Rental in Rear Yard Cash Flow for Property Owner................. 55 5 INTRODUCTION
The City of San José is exploring the potential of allowing 2-4 unit housing development projects (Opportunity Housing) on parcels within one-half mile of transit-oriented Urban Villages. These locations have been identified in the Envision San José General Plan. Opportunity Housing areas are envisioned as walkable, bikeable, and transit-rich neighborhoods that could eventually include a mix of a single-family home, duplex, triplex, or fourplex units on parcels, while generally maintaining zoning setbacks and heights. Opportunity Housing could potentially take a variety of forms, including newly built stacked apartments, condos, duplexes, townhomes, and small lot single family homes. To help assess the viability of Opportunity Housing, the City of San José Planning Department retained Strategic Economics and Opticos Design (the Consultant Team) to evaluate the financial feasibility of new development projects.

This report, prepared by Strategic Economics, presents the analyses conducted to test the financial feasibility of various housing types that could be included in the Opportunity Housing policy. Opticos Design prepared a second companion report completed in September 2021, which evaluates with a site design lens the extent to which certain Missing Middle housing types, such as stacked fourplexes, could be built in residential neighborhoods. Opticos Design’s report can be found in Appendix C, on

Page 56 ends

feasibility prototypes presented in this report. The feasibility prototypes are distinct from housing types because they incorporate assumptions about tenure (ownership versus rental) and market values (sales prices or rents) necessary to test financial performance.

Opticos Design’s report addresses the following:
• Locations where Opportunity Housing would likely be eligible in San José, if the City implements a policy that allows Opportunity Housing in areas adjacent to Urban Villages. • The existing urban form, regulatory context, and street network connectivity for those areas as well as for the City.
• Lots that could accommodate a stacked fourplex, the initial housing type that Opticos Design evaluated, which informed the first two prototypes that Strategic Economics tested. 1 • Lots that could accommodate other Missing Middle housing types, such as duplexes, townhomes, multiplexes, and other types.
• Lot testing. This analysis illustrated the options for building dimensions and parking for the development of the stacked fourplex, duplex addition, attached townhomes, small lot singlefamily, and stacked eightplex housing types on commonly occurring single-family lots in San José. Certain “test fits” directly informed the feasibility prototypes shown in this report. 1 The Stacked Fourplex Rental and Stacked Fourplex Condo, described on Page 12. 6 APPROACH
To evaluate financial feasibility of Opportunity Housing across the City, Strategic Economics performed following steps:

Step 1: Sub-areas and Market Tiers
Strategic Economics analyzed and mapped the market for ownership condominiums and rental housing in 12 San José sub-areas, which correspond to the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Market Areas/Development Fee Framework Areas established by the City of San José. 2 Then, each sub-area was categorized into a market tier. This analysis helped describe the potential for Opportunity Housing by location within the city.

Step 2: Development of Prototypes
Strategic Economics worked with Opticos Design iteratively to develop housing prototypes that represented potential Opportunity Housing types. They ranged from small-lot single-family units to stacked rental apartments or condominiums. The process to refine these prototypes is described in more detail on Page 11.

Step 3: Feasibility Analysis
Strategic Economics evaluated feasibility using a pro forma model. The pro forma model tallied the project values (rental revenues or unit sales), subtracted development costs (construction costs, soft costs, and profit) and calculated the residual value. To be considered financially feasible, the project’s residual value would need to be equal or greater than the value of acquiring a typical lot.

The feasibility results reflect a snapshot in time, and they do not account for potential future changes in San José’s real estate market. With this in mind, it is important to note that market shifts could change the feasibility outlook for the prototypes evaluated in this analysis.

Strategic Economics also conducted a cash-flow pro forma analysis from the perspective of an existing owner.

The methodology for each step of the feasibility analysis is described in more detail in Section III on

Page 17 ends

Sub-Areas and Market Tiers
Strategic Economics analyzed the housing market for each of the 12 sub- areas , and categorized each sub-area into a “market tier.” This step allowed for the study to reflect that different areas of the City have different land values, sales prices, and rents, affecting the likelihood of Opportunity Housing being built. The analysis considered the following data points:
2The Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Market Areas can be found at this link:
https://csj.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=8518bc095ae54f4ea025d7743c650881 7 • The price of townhomes and condominium units built from 2000 to 2021, and sold from 2019 to 2021, according to Redfin. This characterizes the strength of the townhome and condo ownership market.
• The rental rates for multifamily rental properties built since 1980 (not subject to the Apartment Rent Ordinance), based on Costar data, which shows the strength of the multifamily rental market.
• The price of single-family homes built from 2000 to 2021, and sold from 2019 to 2021, according to Redfin. This characterizes the current value of single-family properties, which provided supplemental data on the dynamics of the home ownership market. While traditional single-family homes were not studied as a prototype, this is a more robust dataset than Redfin’s townhome and condo data, and it can serve to clarify home value assumptions in places with limited townhome and condo data. • The price of single-family homes that are smaller than 1,250 square feet, that were built before 1970, and that sold for less than $1,275,000. This Redfin dataset included home sales between December 2020 to June 2021. This indicated expected acquisition costs for properties that would be priced most competitively to be acquired for Opportunity Housing development.
3 After reviewing and mapping this data, each sub-area was assigned a market tier based on the strength of the housing prices and rents. Tier 1 represents the highest value market tier, while Tier 3 is the lowest value. When sub-areas lacked data for certain product types, they were categorized based on available housing market data within the sub-area and in neighboring sub-areas.

The classification of each sub-area’s market tier is summarized in Figure 1 for rental housing and Figure 2 for condo housing. The maps of the rental and condo market tiers are shown below in figures 3 and 4.

FIGURE 1. MARKET TIERS FOR RENTAL PROTOTYPES
Sub-areas
Tier 1: High
West Valley, Willow Glen, Central,
North
Tier 2: Moderate
Alviso, Cambrian/Pioneer, Almaden,
Berryessa, South, Edenvale
Tier 3: Low Evergreen, Alum Rock
Source: Strategic Economics, 2021.

FIGURE 2. MARKET TIERS FOR CONDO PROTOTYPES
Sub-areas
Tier 1: High
West Valley, Willow Glen,
Cambrian/Pioneer, North
Tier 2: Moderate Alviso, Almaden, Central, Berryessa
Tier 3: Low
South, Evergreen, Edenvale, Alum
Rock
Source: Strategic Economics, 2021.
3 The timeframe of this dataset is narrower than the other Redfin datasets that were analyzed because of limitations with Redfin’s data export process.
8 FIGURE 3. SAN JOSÉ RENTAL SUBAREAS BY TIER
9 FIGURE 4. SAN JOSÉ CONDO SUBAREAS BY TIER
10 As shown, some sub-areas have stronger, more established markets for rental housing than for condo housing. For example, Central San José is classified as a Tier 1 rental market because it has attracted significant new luxury rental housing projects. However, recently built condos in Central San José command lower sale values than West San José, placing it in the Tier 2 category for condos.

The tiers are a general characterization of the City’s condo and rental markets by sub-area. There might be certain neighborhoods within sub-areas that command higher or lower values than the designated market tier.

Interview Findings
Before conducting the financial feasibility analysis, the Consultant Team interviewed eight individuals with real estate development experience who are active in San José and Silicon Valley. The Consultant Team spoke with the following people during spring of 2021. - Adam Mayberry, Mayberry Workshop
- Jerry Strangis, Strangis Properties
- Kurt Anderson, Anderson Architects
- Mark Robson, Robson Homes
- Paul Ring, Urban Catalyst
- Reyad Katwan, Hawkstone Development
- Andrew and Ryan Quinley, Twinley Homes
The interviewees had a variety of perspectives and specializations. They range from overseeing largescale firms to running their own independent operations. The interviewees also had different niches, with some developing larger, townhome-style units in more suburban contexts, while others focused on multiplex buildings with smaller units in central locations.

Because there is limited potential for Opportunity Housing under current land use policies, there are few developers with direct experience building these housing types. Most prototypes tested in this analysis are not currently permitted in San José. The larger-scale developers that were interviewed did not have on-the-ground experience in developing housing on small lots; developers with experience building 2-4 unit projects had only completed a small number of projects in San José.

There are many different approaches that developers and property owners might pursue to add units to existing single-family lots. Property owners may choose to subdivide their existing home into multiple units or subdivide their lot to build infill units. Experienced housing developers are more likely to maximize the density on their lots with townhome-style or multiplex projects to enhance the financial feasibility of projects. Both rental and for-sale projects are possible, depending on the preferences of the developer or property owner. These varied approaches suggest that San José’s Opportunity Housing policy should be flexible enough to accommodate the many interests and specializations of those in the development community.

Central San José and West San José, which command higher rents and home values and offer highquality transit, would be the most attractive locations for the development of Opportunity Housing, from a market perspective. According to interviewees, areas in the Central sub-area, which includes downtown San José, as well as areas in West San José (including West Valley and Willow Glen) have the strongest markets for Opportunity Housing. The Central sub-area in particular, which has a very 11 strong rental market, would be best-suited for smaller units and developments with reduced parking, especially in areas near high-quality transit.

Allowing three-story buildings and parking reductions may be appropriate in certain contexts to create incentives for Opportunity Housing. Developers believed that three-story buildings could be appropriate in some transition areas between Urban Villages and single-family neighborhoods.

Buildings with reduced parking, which generally can provide deeper affordability, could be suitable for areas near high-quality transit.

Pioneering developers may run into construction financing hurdles. Developers seeking to build Opportunity Housing projects may find it difficult to get construction financing approval, especially if the product they are seeking to build does not yet have a proven market in San José. Independent, smaller-scale builders are more likely to consider building these housing types that are less common in San José, such as stacked multiplexes, or buildings with reduced parking. They may find it more cumbersome to obtain financing than larger developers who tend to have access to institutional capital.

Condos are more expensive to build than rentals in San José. Because of the construction liability issues of attached condominium buildings, there are fewer sub-contractors available to bid on condominium projects, which drives up construction bids. Establishing a homeowner’s association, and other administrative requirements associated with condominiums can also create more burdens on condominium development compared to rental housing.

The high cost of utility hookups might discourage developers from incorporating more units. According to a developer that specialized in multiplex housing, utility hookup fees can be as high as $100,000 per unit, because individual meters are often required. Allowing multiplexes to share one meter would alleviate this issue. Encouraging developers to provide more units on-site would translate to deeper affordability, generally.

Prototypes
Strategic Economics tested the feasibility of 12 Opportunity Housing prototypes, which were based on extensive lot analysis and test fits provided by Opticos Design. The prototypes include small singlefamily units (four units on a lot), townhomes, duplexes, and fourplexes. In a supplementary analysis, the Consultant Team also examined the feasibility of sixplex and eightplex units to provide additional context.

The prototypes are organized into three sets, described below in Figure 5. All prototypes incorporate a new construction component, and two (the Side-by-Side Duplex Condo in Rear Yard and the Side-bySide Duplex Rental in Rear Yard prototypes), incorporate the preservation of an existing home.4 The lot size, which is consistent across the prototypes, was chosen as a baseline for the analysis because it is a typical-sized lot in many residential neighborhoods in San José, and is sufficiently large to accommodate small multifamily buildings with on-site parking. 4 It is also possible that a property owner would subdivide their existing home into multiple units. However, this method tends to be less costeffective than the new-construction methods that were tested. There are also many more factors involved (e.g. age, size, and condition of the existing home) that make it difficult to test the feasibility of this approach in a generalized manner. 12 FIGURE 5. PROTOTYPES SUMMARY
Lot Size 7,500 Sq. Ft.

Lot Dimensions 60 x 125 Ft.

Set 1: Two-Story Buildings with 2-4 Units
Stacked Fourplex Rental
Stacked Fourplex Condo
Side-by-Side Large Duplex Condo
Side-by Side Duplex Rental in Rear Yard
Side-by-Side Duplex Condo in Rear Yard
Set 2: Three-Story Single-Family/Attached
Townhome Projects with Four Units
Attached Townhomes
Small Lot Single-Family
Set 3: Stacked Multiplexes with More than Four
Units
Three-Story Sixplex Rental
Three-Story Sixplex Condo
Two-Story Eightplex Rental
Three-Story Eightplex Rental
Three-Story Eightplex Condo
Source: Strategic Economics, 2021.

SET 1: TWO-STORY BUILDINGS WITH 2-4 UNITS
The first set of prototypes (Figure 6) are in line with the initial guidance from City staff regarding building height, on-site parking expectations, and other parameters for the Opportunity Housing program. All Set 1 prototypes provide between two and four units on one residential lot. They are two stories in height, with a minimum parking ratio of one space per unit (a “1:1 ratio”). The prototypes have a floor-area-ratio (FAR) of about 0.60. Set 1 prototypes are incorporate the following housing types:
• Stacked Fourplex: A traditional stacked fourplex (with one common entrance, and two units on each floor), which was tested as both a condo and a rental project. • Side-by-Side Large Duplex: A side-by-side duplex condo with the same gross building square feet as the stacked fourplex.
• Side-by-Side Duplex in Rear Yard: A new construction side-by-side duplex built in the rear yard of an existing single-family home, resulting in three total units on one lot. This was tested as both a condo and a rental project.
13 FIGURE 6. SET 1 PROTOTYPES: TWO-STORY BUILDINGS WITH 2-4 UNITS

Stacked
Fourplex
Rental
Stacked
Fourplex
Condo
Side-by-Side
Large Duplex
Condo
Side-by-Side
Duplex Rental in
Rear Yard
Side-by-Side
Duplex Condo in
Rear Yard
Parcel Size (Sq. Ft.) 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500
Gross Building Sq. Ft. 4,800 4,800 4,800 4172 (b) 4172 (b) Net Building Sq. Ft. 4,320 4,320 4,800 4,172 4172
Building Efficiency (a) 90% 90% 100% 1 100%
Number of Units 4 4 2
2 new construction
and 1 existing
2 new construction
and 1 existing
Units Per Acre 23 23 12 17 17
Stories 2 2 2 2 2
Unit Type 2-BR 2-BR 4-BR 3-BR 3-BR
Unit Size 1,080 1,080 2,400 1,286 (c) 1,286 (c)
Parking Type Surface Surface Surface Surface Surface
Parking Spaces 5 5 5 3 3
Parking Ratio 1.25 1.25 2.5 1 1
Notes:
(a) Net square feet (square feet associated with the livable space in units) divided by gross square feet (which includes common areas and garages).
(b) Includes both the new construction duplex and the existing home. (c) Refers to the units in the new construction duplex. The existing single-family home has 1,250 square feet and three bedrooms.

Source: Strategic Economics, 2021.

SET 2: THREE-STORY SINGLE-FAMILY/ATTACHED TOWNHOME PROJECTS WITH FOUR UNITS The second set of prototypes (Figure 7) are townhome-style buildings that include tuck-under garages, and are three stories. These prototypes also maintain a parking ratio of at least “1:1”, and they have higher floor-area ratios than Set 1, due to the third story. Both prototypes are for-sale condos, and the unit sizes are the same. They are described below:
• Attached Townhomes: Four attached townhomes on one lot. • Small Lot Single Family: Four detached “small lot single family” units on one lot.

14 FIGURE 7. SET 2 PROTOTYPES: THREE-STORY SINGLE-FAMILY/ATTACHED TOWNHOME PROJECTS WITH FOUR UNITS Attached Townhomes Small Lot Single Family
Parcel Size (Sq. Ft.) 7,500 7,500
Gross Building Sq. Ft. (includes garages) 6,840 6,840
Net Building Sq. Ft. (excludes garages) 5,920 5,920
Building Efficiency (a) 87% 87%
Floor Area Ratio 0.91 0.91
Number of Units 4 4
Units Per Acre 23 23
Stories 3 3
Unit Type 3-BR 3-BR
Unit Size 1,480 1,480
Parking Type Tuck under garage Tuck under garage
Parking Spaces 6 4
Parking Ratio 1.5 1
Notes:
(a) Net square feet (square feet associated with the livable space in units) divided by gross square feet (which includes common areas and garages).

Source: Strategic Economics, 2021.

SET 3: STACKED MULTIPLEXES WITH MORE THAN FOUR UNITS
Opportunity Housing is currently defined as projects with two to four units. However, it is possible to develop more than four units on a single-family lot, while staying within similar building envelopes as the prototypes in Set 1 and Set 2. Adding more units allows the cost per unit to be reduced significantly, potentially making it more financially feasible.

The third set of prototypes (Figure 8) has parking ratios less than “1:1”, because the prototypes fit more units on the lot than in the previous sets. They are all iterations of the Stacked Fourplex in Set 1 shown earlier in Figure 6. The prototypes incorporate the following housing types:
• Three-Story Sixplex: The Sixplex, tested as both a rental and condo, adds a third story to the fourplex, and has two more units that are the same as the fourplex on the third story. • Two-Story Eightplex: The Two-Story Eightplex, tested as a rental, has the same gross building square footage as the Stacked Fourplex, but with four units on each floor. These units are the smallest tested.
• Three-Story Eightplex, tested as rental and condo, has the same building square footage as the Three-Story Sixplex, but with three units that are smaller on the first two floors.

These prototypes achieve the highest unit densities of the three sets, and their floor-area ratios (FARs) are similar to the townhome-style prototypes.
15 FIGURE 8. PROTOTYPES: STACKED MULTIPLEXES WITH MORE THAN FOUR UNITS Three- Story
Sixplex Rental
Three-Story
Sixplex Condo
Two-Story
Eightplex Rental
Three-Story
Eightplex Rental
Three-Story
Eightplex Condo
Parcel Size (Sq. Ft.) 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500
Gross Building Sq. Ft. 7,200 7,200 4,800 7,200 7,200
Net Building Sq. Ft. 6,480 6,480 4,080 6,120 6,120
Building Efficiency (a) 90% 90% 85% 85% 85%
Floor Area Ratio 0.96 0.96 0.64 0.96 0.96
Number of Units 6 6 8 8 8
Units Per Acre 35 35 46 46 46
Stories 3 3 2 3 3
Unit Type 1 2-BR 2-BR 1-BR 1-BR (6 units) 1-BR (6 units) Unit Size 1,080 1,080 510 680 680
Unit Type 2 n/a n/a n/a 2-BR (2 units) 2-BR (2 units)
Unit Size n/a n/a n/a 1,020 1,020
Parking Type Surface Surface Surface Surface Surface
Parking Spaces 5 5 5 5 5
Parking Ratio 0.83 0.83 0.63 0.63 0.63
Notes:
(a) Net square feet (square feet associated with the livable space in units) divided by gross square feet (which includes common areas and garages).

Source: Strategic Economics, 2021.

Potential Impacts of SB 9 and SB 10
In September 2021, Governor Gavin Newsom signed SB 9 and SB 10 into state law, and both go into effect January 2022. Both pieces of legislation, which are described below, could have implications for Missing Middle housing in California cities.

SB 9: BY-RIGHT DUPLEXES AND LOT SPLITS IN SINGLE-FAMILY ZONES SB 9 allows by-right duplexes and lot splits on most single-family lots. SB 9 will require that cities allow duplexes and lot splits on single-family lots. This in practice legalizes four units on single-family lots, because duplexes would be permissible on lot splits. Typically, this type of proposal might have required zoning changes or conditional use permits, with entitlement process timelines comparable to those for multifamily development. Under SB 9 however, cities will be required to grant ministerial approval (or “by-right” approval) to duplex and lot split applications that meet objective design standards. SB 9 will also limit the amount of off-street parking that cities can require. The legislation establishes that cities can only require up to one off-street parking space per unit, and that cities cannot require off-street parking in locations near high-quality transit.

There are specific criteria that will determine whether lots are eligible for lot splits and duplexes under SB 9. They include the following:
16 • Only owner occupants5 and non-profit owners (e.g. community land trusts and neighborhood development corporations) are eligible to initiate lot splits. • Properties in fire zones are not eligible.
• Historically significant properties are not eligible. • There are demolition restrictions for properties with affordable housing units and units that have been recently used as rentals..
6 • Cities can determine whether they want to allow demolition of existing single-family homes that have not been recently rented. 7
SB 9 will make the development of new market-feasible units possible within San José’s residential areas. A Terner Center analysis found that under SB 9, 319,000 parcels would be eligible for lot splits in Santa Clara County, and 40,000 financially feasible units that before SB 9’s passage would not have been allowed would now be legal. 8
Some prototypes evaluated in this report may be considered legal by-right once SB 9 takes effect. Two prototypes involve the construction of a duplex in the rear yard of an existing single-family home (Sideby-Side Duplex Condo in Rear Yard and Side-by-Side Duplex Rental in Rear Yard). These prototypes reflect a scenario that would be possible under SB 9. In this circumstance, a homeowner could split their lot and build a new duplex in the rear of their lot under the legislation. The other prototypes that incorporate four units or less could also be permissible, depending on the objective design standards that the City of San José adopts. Note that for any circumstance that involves a lot split, the property owner would be required to live in one of the units for three years.

SB 10: CITY PROCESS TO UPZONE UP TO 10 UNITS PER PARCEL IS SIMPLIFIED SB 10 streamlines the residential upzoning process for cities. It allows them to zone lots for up to 10 dwelling units in urban infill locations and transit-rich areas. This legislation does not impose new requirements on cities. Rather, it allows cities to upzone certain parcels up to ten units per parcel without having to undergo requirements associated with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) that previously would have been triggered by such an upzoning. It also allows cities to override land use regulations established through voter initiatives if the regulation requires a more restrictive density than the state law. 9
SB 10 will likely have a narrower impact on Missing Middle development than SB 9. In the areas where the City chooses to upzone, projects with up to ten units (or with up to the number of units specified by the City) will undergo a more simplified approval process. A developer seeking to build a sixplex, or an eightplex, such as the prototypes in Set 3, may find that there are more well-located areas within the City of San José that are zoned for such projects. The City will have deference in determining if any eligible areas should be upzoned.
5 Owner occupants are required to reside in one of the units for three years following the lot split. 6 The project cannot involve the demolition or alteration of designated affordable or rent-stabilized housing, housing that has been withdrawn from the rental market in the last 15 years, or housing that has been renter-occupied in the last three years. 7 JDSupra.com, https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/sb-9-it-s-not-a-duplex-bill-it-s-a-2431534/ 8 Metcalf, Ben, David Garcia, Ian Carlton, and Kate MacFarlane, “Will Allowing Duplexes and Lot Splits on Parcels Zoned for Single-Family Create New Homes?” The Terner Center, 2021.
9 California Legislative Information, https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SB10. ; JDSpura.com, https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/sb-10-to-facilitate-upzonings-but-does-7275826/ 17 FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS
Financial feasibility was calculated for all 12 prototypes using a static pro forma model that measures the residual land value (RLV) of a development project. This “point in time” model reflects the process a developer would undertake in determining whether to pursue a project, and it assumes that most developers would have to acquire land to build Opportunity Housing.

Residual land value is the net value available for land acquisition after accounting for all revenues and development costs, including profit. If the residual value is higher than the expected acquisition cost of the lot, then the development project is considered feasible for a developer who has to purchase land. However, if the residual value is less than the acquisition cost, then the development is considered infeasible.

This model is effective at evaluating feasibility for traditional developers who have access to substantial capital. It is possible that existing property owners would also develop Opportunity Housing.

There could be instances where investor-owners build Opportunity Housing on their properties. The static pro forma model illustrates the feasibility outlook for investors who also have strong access to capital. With the property already owned, the prototypes would be considered feasible as long as the residual value is positive.

Owner-occupants, who have significantly less access to capital, might also pursue Opportunity Housing development. An owner-occupant who builds Opportunity Housing would be making a major personal financial decision that would require them to navigate complex challenges. Strategic Economics conducted a supplemental cash flow analysis, which was applied to one prototype, from the perspective of an owner-occupant. This analysis may also be more appropriate for understanding the decision-making process of a small-scale investor with less capital.

The development cost and revenue inputs, which generally inform both the static and cash flow pro forma analyses, are described in detail in this section. Instances are noted where assumptions only inform one of the two models.

Land Acquisition Cost
The land acquisition cost varies depending on the lot’s location within the City. Strategic Economics analyzed Redfin point sales data for lots with older, smaller single-family homes that would be the most likely targets for a redevelopment project.10 Because there are so few vacant parcels within the fabric of residential neighborhoods, it was assumed that any developer interested in pursuing an Opportunity Housing project would have to acquire a lot with an existing home. The acquisition data was collected and summarized by sub-area and by quartile. The acquisition price per square foot of land is based on the lower end of the range for home sales (first quartile) in the sub-areas of each market tier. The acquisition cost assumptions are summarized by market tier in Figure 9. As shown, areas with the strongest housing market (Tier 1) have the highest acquisition price. Note that existing 10 Redfin provides easily available sales data for recent sales for custom geographies. The Redfin data included all sales in San José between 12/7/2020 and 6/7/2021, for homes that were less than 1,250 square feet, that were built before 1970, and sold for less than $1.25 million, which is just under the median home sale price in San José, which is currently $1.3 million. This dataset includes 378 home sales. 18 property owners do not need to account for property acquisition costs in their decision-making processes.

FIGURE 9. LAND ACQUISITION COST ASSUMPTIONS BY TIER
Tier Land Cost per Sq. Ft. Total Land Cost
Tier 1 $170 $1,275,000
Tier 2 $155 $1,162,500
Tier 3 $130 $975,000
Source: Redfin, 2021; Strategic Economics, 2021.

Development Costs

HARD COSTS
Hard costs also sometimes called “direct costs,” are costs associated with construction. This includes “horizontal” costs, which include demolition, site preparation, grading, and utility connections, as well as “vertical” costs, which refer to costs associated with the building itself.

The hard cost assumptions are based on input from residential developers with experience in San José 11 and the Bay Area, Strategic Economics’ recent work on feasibility analysis for other development projects in Santa Clara County, and recent studies on the cost of development in San José.

The COVID-19 pandemic has greatly impacted global supply chains, significantly increasing the cost of lumber, appliances and fixtures, and other construction materials. Therefore, the vertical building hard costs are based on cost expectations before the pandemic, under the assumption that the price of materials will eventually stabilize.

For the prototypes, the horizonal site development cost was assumed to be $10 per land square foot, which includes demolition cost, as well as utility connections and other costs associated with preparing the lot for development. Because of the scarcity of vacant single-family parcels in San José, it is assumed that a developer would be more likely to purchase a lot with an existing home that would be demolished. For the Side-by-Side Duplex Condo in Rear Yard and Side-by-Side Duplex Rental in Rear Yard prototypes, the horizontal site cost is just $6 per land square foot, reflecting that just a portion of the lot is being prepared for construction, and there is no demolition cost.

The vertical construction cost assumptions depend on the complexity of the various product types as well as on housing tenure. Detached products, such as the Small Lot Single-Family prototype, are the most straightforward to build. The side-by-side duplexes are also relatively straightforward. Attached townhomes are more expensive because they are slightly more complex, with more party walls, and possible design constraints. Stacked multiplexes, including fourplexes, sixplexes, and eightplexes, are 11 The developers that were interviewed included: 1) developers with experience working on townhome and duplex projects, but at larger scales than the single lot; and 2) developer-builders with small-scale operations that have niche expertise based on their projects. There are few examples of recently built Opportunity Housing projects in San José because it is currently not permitted in most areas of the City, and there is a lack of developers interested in projects of this scale. 19 the most complicated to construct. Among the prototypes tested, they have the most party walls, the most complex building systems, and the greatest chance of design constraints, which all add to costs.

Condos are also more expensive to build than rentals because there are fewer subcontractors for attached or stacked ownership housing, which drives up the bids. Furthermore, condo buildings typically have higher-end finishings than rental apartments.

The per-square-foot assumptions for each prototype are displayed below in Figure 10.

FIGURE 10. VERTICAL COSTS BY PROTOTYPE
Prototype Hard Costs per Gross Building Sq. Ft.

Small Lot Single Family (a) $175
Side-by-Side Large Duplex Condo $175
Side-by-Side Duplex Rental in Rear Yard (b) $160
Side-by-Side Duplex Condo in Rear Yard (b) $175
Attached Townhomes (a) $250
Rental Stacked Flats (fourplex, sixplex, eightplex) $275 Condo Stacked Flats (fourplex, sixplex, eightplex) $300 Notes
(a) Includes garage cost.
(b) Renovation cost of $100,000 for existing home is also applied to total vertical cost .

Source: Interviews with developers, 2021; Strategic Economics, 2021.

Lastly, a contingency cost of five percent of the total vertical cost, is also applied universally for each prototype, which is a standard assumption.

SOFT COSTS
Soft costs, sometimes referred to as “indirect” costs, are development costs associated with other items besides construction, such as design, overhead, and other costs of doing business, like legal costs, and taxes. There are certain soft costs, primarily those associated with consulting fees for project design, as well as developer overhead, that are expected to be consistent across prototypes, since all the prototypes are at the single-lot scale. It is assumed that these costs would together total $50,000 per project. Therefore, this is a smaller share of total development cost for the stacked multiplex prototypes, which cost the most overall to build, and translate to the highest unit densities.

Other soft cost items, include taxes, legal costs, accounting costs, and insurance costs, as well as holding costs. These are assumed to be equivalent to eight percent of total hard costs, which is a standard assumption that is commonly used by real estate developers across specializations.

MUNICIPAL FEES
Various municipal fees and taxes would be charged for all the prototypes. These fees help fund City services, as well as the administrative tasks and requirements associated with processing permit applications at the City.

FEES EVALUATED FOR FEASIBILITY IMPACTS
Strategic Economics evaluated the feasibility impacts of two types of municipal fees:
20 • Site Development Permit fees, which would only be charged if Opportunity Housing is not permitted by-right; and,
• The Parkland In-Lieu Fee, a park use impact fee, which is in the process of being revised.

This report will assist the City in determining how these fees should apply to Opportunity Housing projects. Further discussion on the feasibility impacts of these fees is found in Section VI on Page 36.

Both the site development and park fees were incorporated into the total development cost used in the pro formas for the prototypes, because the pro forma analyses reflect what would currently be charged on the prototypes if they were developed today.12

OTHER STANDARD FEES AND TAXES
There are other standard fees and taxes that would apply to all the prototypes. These fees are shown below in Figure 11 and include:
• City fees associated with processing project building permits, which include permit issuance, plan review, and inspection fees. Based on the City’s fee schedule, the fees are estimated at approximately $9,700 per unit for single-family and duplex projects, or $26,000 per project for projects with three or more units.
• School district impact fees. For areas that fall in the San José Unified School District, the fee amount is $3.48 per net residential square feet.
• The Building and Structure Construction Tax (Municipal Code, Chapter 4.46), which is between approximately $7,000 and $12,000 per project, depending on the building valuation, which is tied to the gross building square feet.
• The Commercial, Residential, Mobile Home Park Construction Tax (Municipal Code, Chapter

4.47), which is between approximately $11,000 and $19,000 per project, which also depends on the building valuation.
• Other city and state construction taxes that charge nominal fees, including the City’s Residential Construction Tax (Municipal Code, Chapter 4.64), the Construction Tax (Municipal Code 4.54), and the State’s SMIPA and BSARSF taxes.

Note that the City of San José’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (IHO), which was revised in 2021, only applies to projects with ten or more units. Therefore, the IHO fees were not incorporated into the fee calculation for any of the prototypes, which are all under 10 units. 13

12 Note that the feasibility analysis in Section VI uses a different approach. It shows the percentage increase on total development cost that each fee adds for the prototypes, if total development cost hypothetically did not include these fees. This approach was used because the total development cost calculated in the pro forma analyses vary across tiers because the Parkland In-Lieu fee varies by sub-area. The hypothetical total development cost used in this detailed municipal fee analysis standardizes the denominator across the three tiers, which more accurately shows the impact of these fees by tier. 13 City of San José, 2021. https://www.sanJoséca.gov/your-government/departments/housing/developers/inclusionary-ordinance-housingimpact-fee 21 FIGURE 11. OVERVIEW OF TYPICAL MUNICIPAL FEES
Fee Fee Amount Basis
San José Unified Developer Fee (a) $3.48 Per Net Sq. Ft.

Building Permit Fees (b)
Single Family, Duplex $9,740 Per Unit
3+ Units (per project) $26,037 Per Project
City Construction Taxes
Building and Structure Construction Tax 1.54% Of building valuation (c) Residential Construction Tax 2.42% Of building valuation (c) Construction Tax $113 Per unit
Residential Construction Tax $135 Per unit
State Construction Taxes (d) $65-$113
Per project, depending
on gross sq. ft.

Notes
(a) Some areas of San José fall into other school districts that charge their own fees. These districts tend to charge varying fees for elementary, middle, and high schools. The San José Unified fee was used for all scenarios because San José Unified charges just one, universal fee for projects in its jurisdiction, and the district covers most of the areas of the City analyzed in this study.
(b) Includes permit issuance, plan review, and inspection fees. For single family and duplexes, new units between 1,000 and 3,000 gross square feet are charged the same flat fee, per unit. For 3+ unit building types, new projects that are less than 10,000 gross square feet are charged the same flat fee, per project. (c) For residential uses: $112 per gross square feet.
(d) Includes SMIPA and BSARSF
Sources: City of San José, 2021; Strategic Economics, 2021.

FINANCING COSTS FOR TRADITIONAL DEVELOPERS
The total financing cost for traditional developers includes the cost of interest payments associated with the construction loan, and the construction loan fee. Total financing cost ranges from $30,000 to $90,000 per project depending on the overall development cost of the prototype, and this cost is equivalent to approximately three percent of total development cost (excluding land). The assumptions used to calculate financing costs are below in Figure 12. These financing assumptions are only applicable in the static pro forma model.

FIGURE 12. FINANCING COST ASSUMPTIONS
Financing Costs
Amount financed (loan-to-cost) 60% of hard and soft costs Average Outstanding Balance 55% of amount financed
Construction Loan Fee 2% of amount financed
Construction Interest Rate (annual) 4.25%
Term 18 months
Source: Strategic Economics, 2021.

PROFIT EXPECTATION FOR TRADITIONAL DEVELOPERS
Figure 13 below shows the assumptions used to estimate the developer’s profit. These profit expectation assumptions are only applicable in the static pro forma model.

For the rental prototypes, the profit expectation is based on the yield on cost (YOC), which is calculated as annual net operating income (NOI) divided by total development cost. For the purposes of this 22 analysis, the target YOC is between 5.0 and 6.0 percent, which is at least one percentage point higher than the current capitalization rates for multifamily housing in San José.

The minimum developer return for the condo prototypes is based on the Return on Cost (ROC) measure, which is calculated as the net value divided by total development cost. The return on cost target is 18 percent of development costs, excluding land.

FIGURE 13. DEVELOPER PROFIT EXPECTATION
Rental Prototypes Target Return
Minimum Yield on Cost 5% (NOI/TDC)
Condo Prototypes

Minimum Return on Cost 18% of development costs, excluding land Source: Strategic Economics, 2021.

Revenues
A detailed revenue analysis was conducted to identify monthly rent and sale price assumptions for new rental and condo development. Strategic Economics collected multifamily rental data from Costar and townhome/condo sales data from Redfin for recently built product, organized by tier.

RENTS
Rents were estimated based on Costar data for recently built multifamily projects in San José. Because of the short-term impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on rental rates, the rents used in this analysis are based on pre-pandemic conditions in San José, with the expectation that the market will become more stable over the next several years.

The rent assumptions for each of the units associated with rental prototypes are shown below in Figure 14, organized roughly by set. The table includes the unit size, the rent per square foot, and the overall unit rent for each of the unit types associated with the rental prototypes by tier. As shown in the table, there is an inverse relationship between unit size and rent per square foot, with the smaller units yielding higher rents per square foot than the larger units.

23 FIGURE 14. EXPECTED RENTS FOR RENTAL PROTOTYPES BY TIER Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3
Side-by-Side Duplex Rental in Rear Yard (a)

3-Bedroom
Unit Size (Sq. Ft.) 1,286 1,286 1,286
Rent per Sq. Ft. $3.13 $2.95 $2.66
Unit Rent $4,030 $3,790 $3,420
Fourplex, Sixplex Rentals (b)

2-Bedroom
Unit Size (Sq. Ft.) 1,080 1,080 1,080
Rent per Sq. Ft. $3.33 $3.13 $2.83
Unit Rent $3,600 $3,380 $3,060
Two-Story Eightplex Rental

1-Bedroom
Unit Size (Sq. Ft.) 510 510 510
Rent per Sq. Ft. $4.25 $3.63 $3.27
Unit Rent $2,170 $1,850 $1,670
Three-Story Eightplex Rental

1-Bedroom
Unit Size (Sq. Ft.) 680 680 680
Rent per Sq. Ft. $3.96 $3.38 $3.06
Unit Rent $2,695 $2,300 $2,080
2-Bedroom (c)
Unit Size (Sq. Ft.) 1,020 1,020 1,020
Rent per Sq. Ft. $3.35 $3.15 $2.85
Unit Rent $3,420 $3,210 $2,910
Notes:
(a) Refers to the new construction duplex. The existing single-family home, which is 1,250 square feet, would garner $4,530 in Tier 1, $4,260 in Tier 2, and $3,850 in Tier 3.
(b) Refers to both the Stacked Fourplex Rental, and the Three-Story Sixplex Rental, which have equivalent units. (c) The two-bedroom units in the Three-Story Eightplex Condo are slightly smaller due to the building’s lower efficiency ratio.

Source: Costar, 2021; Strategic Economics, 2021.

The vacancy loss is expected to be five percent of gross rent revenue, and the operating expenses are expected to be 30 percent of gross rent revenue. Both assumptions are standard industry assumptions. The net annual revenue of the prototypes is identified after subtracting vacancy loss and operating expenses.

CONDOS
The expected sales prices for the condo prototypes are shown below in Figure 15. The net revenues include a marketing cost of four percent of the gross sales price, which is a standard industry assumption. The table includes the unit size, the price per square foot, and the overall unit price for each of the unit types associated with the condo prototypes. It is organized roughly by set. The stacked condo units have the lowest overall sales prices, since they are the smallest units, and the Side-bySide Large Duplex Condo units have the highest sales prices. As shown in the table, there is an inverse 24 relationship between unit size and price per square foot, with the smaller units yielding higher sales prices per square foot than the larger units.

FIGURE 15. EXPECTED SALES PRICES FOR CONDO PROTOTYPES BY TIER Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3
Side-by-Side Large Duplex Condo

4-Bedroom
Unit Size (Sq. Ft.) 2,400 2,400 2,400
Rent per Sq. Ft. $667 $588 $425
Unit Rent $1,600,000 $1,410,000 $1,020,000
Side-by-Side Duplex Condo in Rear Yard (a)

3-Bedroom
Unit Size (Sq. Ft.) 1,286 1,286 1,286
Rent per Sq. Ft. 747 655 570
Unit Rent 960,000 842,000 733,000
Small Lot Single-Family, Attached
Townhomes (b)

3-Bedroom
Unit Size (Sq. Ft.) 1480 1480 1480
Rent per Sq. Ft. $740 $649 $509
Unit Rent $1,095,200 $960,500 $753,300
Fourplex, Sixplex Condos (c)

2-Bedroom
Unit Size (Sq. Ft.) 1080 1080 1080
Rent per Sq. Ft. $769 $675 $612
Unit Rent $831,000 $729,000 $661,000
Three-Story Eightplex Condo

1-Bedroom
Unit Size (Sq. Ft.) 680 680 680
Rent per Sq. Ft. $831 $729 $661
Unit Rent $564,800 $495,700 $449,600
2-Bedroom (d)
Unit Size (Sq. Ft.) 1020 1020 1020
Rent per Sq. Ft. $769 $675 $612
Unit Rent $784,400 $688,500 $624,200
Notes:
(a) The existing single-family home, which is 1,250 square feet, would sell for $1,075,000 in Tier 1, $927,000 in Tier 2, and $807,000 in Tier 3.
(b) The units in Small Lot Single-Family and the Attached Townhomes prototypes are the same size, with the same sale prices. (c) Refers to both the Stacked Fourplex Condo, and the Three-Story Sixplex Condo, which have equivalent units. (d) The two-bedroom units in the Three-Story Eightplex Condo are slightly smaller due to the building’s lower efficiency ratio.

Source: Redfin, 2021; Strategic Economics, 2021.
25 Cash-Flow Analysis: Property Owner Perspective
Strategic Economics conducted a supplemental cash flow feasibility analysis for the Side-by-Side Duplex Rental in Rear Yard prototype, to illustrate the likelihood that existing homeowners would develop Opportunity Housing on their property. The development cost assumptions and rent revenue assumptions are consistent with the “point in time” pro forma analysis for this prototype, with some variation based on the expectations that: 1) the property owner already resides in the existing home; 2) they are pursuing a different financing product; and 3) they are evaluating their decision based on the time that they break even.
• In the static pro forma analysis, $100,000 was added to the construction cost to reflect the fact that a developer is purchasing a property with a lower-end home that they would renovate to earn competitive rents for the home. In this analysis, there is no renovation cost for the existing home.
• In the static pro forma analysis, the total revenue is associated with the rental income from the two duplex units and the existing home. In this scenario, the revenue is only from the two duplex units.
• In the static pro forma analysis, the financing costs and profit expectation are incorporated into total development cost. These costs have been removed, because: 1) the financing costs associated with the cash-out refinance mortgage, discussed below, are already accounted for in the cash flow model; and 2) The cash flow model identifies the year the homeowner breaks even, so a separate profit metric is unnecessary. Additionally, it is very unlikely a homeowner would incorporate a profit expectation in their total development cost estimate because doing so would raise their debt amount.

In this scenario, it is assumed that an existing property owner would apply for a cash-out refinance mortgage, provided that they have paid off most of their existing mortgage or own their property outright. With cash-out refinance mortgages, property owners can access the equity in their property to pay for construction of the duplex. There are few restrictions on what the loan can be used for, but lenders require that the total mortgage amount may not exceed 80 percent of the property value, less their principal balance. The assumptions regarding the cash-out refinance mortgage are discussed below:
• The mortgage is a conventional, 30-year, fixed rate loan, which is typical for cash-out refinance mortgages. For the purposes of the cash flow analysis, it is assumed that the owner has paid off the entirety of their mortgage for purchasing the property. • An interest rate of 3.25 percent was used, which is a conservative estimate, approximately

0.75 percent higher than existing rates as of September 2021. This is a similar approach that was used to identify the interest rate for the construction loan, because it is likely that interest rates, which are currently very low for most real estate loan products, may rise in the near future.
• Closing costs are expected to be four percent of the loan amount, which reflects the mid-point of the typical range for cash-out refinance mortgages.
• The existing property value informs the maximum value of the loan. If the loan amount is less than the total development cost, the property owner would need to pay for the difference up front. Because the development cost is generally the same across tiers, (except for variation in park fees), property owners in Tier 3 would need to provide significant funds up front. There are of course variations in property value across the tiers, but generally these assumptions 26 indicate that homeowners with higher property values will be better positioned to use this financing tool. The median value of homes in San José in May 2021 was approximately $1.2 million, according to Zillow. It is assumed that this would correlate to the estimated value for a property owner in Tier 2. According to Redfin’s single-family home data analyzed in this report, the median sale price for Tier 1 is approximately eight percent higher than in Tier 2, while the median sale value for Tier 3 is approximately 17 percent lower than in Tier 2. This relationship informs the following land value assumptions shown below in Figure 16.

FIGURE 16. EXPECTED VALUE FOR EXISTING PROPERTY BY TIERS IN 2021 Expected Property Value
Tier 1 $1,296,000
Tier 2 $1,200,000
Tier 3 $996,000
Source: Zillow, 2021; Redfin, 2021; Strategic Economics, 2021. 27 SUMMARY OF RESULTS
The feasibility of Opportunity Housing is determined by the residual land value generated from development. If the residual land value is lower than the expected acquisition cost for a lot in the market tier, the project is infeasible. If the residual land value is greater or equal to the cost of acquisition, the prototype is feasible. However, it is important to note that a project could be feasible but still not generate developer interest if there are other development alternatives that might be more lucrative. For example, a luxury single-family home may still generate a higher residual land value than any of the Opportunity Housing prototypes tested.

Generally, the prototypes that benefit from lower construction costs and high-end sales prices for larger units, such as the duplex condos and townhome-style prototypes are the most feasible to develop.

Existing property owners benefit from not needing to acquire land, which substantially reduces their total development cost. In this circumstance, any prototype where the residual land value is positive would be feasible. A supplemental cash flow analysis, which better illustrates the dynamics associated with typical homeowners, is also included for the Side-by-Side Duplex Rental in Rear Yard.

The detailed pro forma results are included in Appendix A on Page 41, and the detailed results of the cash flow analysis are included in Appendix B, on Page 53.

Results by Prototype
SET 1: TWO-STORY BUILDINGS WITH 2-4 UNITS
The feasibility by tier for prototypes in Set 1 is shown below in Figure 17, with the feasible scenarios shaded in green, and infeasible scenarios shaded in red. Within Set 1, the duplex prototypes tend to be more feasible than the fourplex prototypes. The duplexes are more straightforward to build, and the sale revenues associated with the two duplex condos are strong enough to make the projects feasible. The Side-by-Side Large Duplex Condo is feasible in both Tier 1 and Tier 2 while the Side-bySide Duplex Condo in Rear Yard is just feasible in Tier 1.

FIGURE 17. SET 1 FEASIBILITY: RESIDUAL LAND VALUE LESS EXPECTED ACQUISITION COST Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3
Side-by-Side Large Duplex Condo Feasible Feasible Not Feasible Side-by-Side Duplex Condo in Rear Yard Feasible Not Feasible Not Feasible Side-by-Side Duplex Rental in Rear Yard Not Feasible Not Feasible Not Feasible Stacked Fourplex Rental Not Feasible Not Feasible Not Feasible Stacked Fourplex Condo Not Feasible Not Feasible Not Feasible Source: Strategic Economics, 2021.

The Side-by-Side Duplex Rental in Rear Yard is not feasible in this analysis. However, the supplemental cash flow analysis evaluated this prototype from a homeowner’s perspective. These results are on

Page 30 ends

Oakland City CouncilJanuary 31, 2023

Oakland City Council
January 31, 2023