View Exhibit A-13 Appen L-L1-Pub Com Letters; L2 - Resp to Pub Comments — Oakland City Council, January 31, 2023 (part 4 of 6)

28 SET 2: THREE STORY SINGLE-FAMILY/ATTACHED TOWNHOME PROJECTS WITH FOUR UNITS For both townhome-style prototypes, developers benefit from lower construction costs, and high-end sales prices. As shown in Figure 18, The Small Lot Single-Family prototype is more feasible than the Attached Townhomes prototype because the construction process for detached units is more straightforward, which translates to lower construction costs. Still, both prototypes are expected to be feasible in Tier 1, and the Small Lot Single-Family prototype is also expected to be feasible in Tier 2.

FIGURE 18. SET 2 FEASIBILITY: RESIDUAL LAND VALUE LESS EXPECTED ACQUISITION COST Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3
Small Lot Single Family Feasible Feasible Not Feasible
Attached Townhomes Feasible Not Feasible Not Feasible
Source: Strategic Economics, 2021.

SET 3: STACKED MULTIPLEXES WITH MORE THAN FOUR UNITS
Within Set 3, the two condo prototypes, as well as the Three-Story Eightplex Rental are feasible, but only in Tier 1. (Figure 19). These prototypes generally have the highest construction costs. The condos perform better because the expected sale revenues generate higher profits than the rent revenues, which incorporate operating and vacancy costs.

FIGURE 19. SET 3 FEASIBILITY: RESIDUAL LAND VALUE LESS EXPECTED ACQUISITION COST Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3
Three-Story Sixplex Condo Feasible Not Feasible Not Feasible Three Story Eightplex Condo Feasible Not Feasible Not Feasible Three Story Eightplex Rental Feasible Not Feasible Not Feasible Three-Story Sixplex Rental Not Feasible Not Feasible Not Feasible Two Story Eightplex Rental Not Feasible Not Feasible Not Feasible Source: Strategic Economics, 2021.

Results by Market Tier
The following charts (Figures 20-22) demonstrate the feasibility results by market tier. As shown, a variety of Opportunity Housing prototypes are feasible in Tier 1, including 2-4 unit for-sale projects (small lot single-family, duplex condos, attached townhomes). None of the fourplex prototypes are feasible, but the sixplex and eightplex condos, as well as the Three-Story Eightplex Rental are financially feasible.

In Tier 2, only the Small Lot Single-Family and the Side-by-Side Large Duplex Condo prototypes are feasible. In Tier 3, none of the prototypes tested are feasible because the revenues generated are insufficient to cover the cost of development and site acquisition. 29 FIGURE 20. TIER 1: RESIDUAL VALUE AND EXPECTED ACQUISITION COST Source: Strategic Economics, 2021.

FIGURE 21. TIER 2 RESIDUAL VALUE AND EXPECTED ACQUISITION COST Source: Strategic Economics, 2021.
$0
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
$0
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
Expected
Acquisition Cost
Residual Value
Expected
Acquisition Cost
Residual Value
30 FIGURE 22. TIER 3 RESIDUAL VALUE AND EXPECTED ACQUISITION COST Source: Strategic Economics, 2021.

Results of Cash-Flow Analysis
A supplemental cash flow analysis was also conducted to illustrate the perspective of an existing property owner adding units to their lot. The Side-by-Side Duplex Rental in Rear Yard prototype was evaluated with this lens, because it would be the least disruptive to an existing resident, since it does not involve demolition. It would also be legal by-right if the property owner resides in the existing home under SB 9. This analysis assumes the property owner owns their property outright, either by paying off the entirety of their previous mortgage or by having purchased their home with cash.

Figure 23 below provides a summary of the cash flow analysis findings. As shown in this table, property owners in Tier 1 and Tier 2 are most likely to pursue this strategy because they would not have to pay substantial upfront costs. Tier 1 property owners are best-positioned, due to the relatively higher rent revenues.

With a cash-out refinance mortgage, the loan value is tied to the existing property value. Property owners with higher home values are expected to be better positioned to use this financing product, because the loan values will more likely cover the development cost. 14 14 There are other financing products that property owners in this position could theoretically use, such as a construction loan, or a HELOC, but the cash-out refinance mortgage is expected to be the most common, because it typically offers lower interest rates than these other products.
$0
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
Expected
Acquisition Cost
Residual Value
31 The cash flow analysis calculates the profit from Year 1 (the year that the mortgage begins, during which the duplex is built) through Year 30 (the year the mortgage would be paid off). Property owners start to earn rental income in Year 2, when the duplex is completed. Property owners in Tier 1, who likely have higher home values, would break even and start to see a profit on their investment earliest in Year 6, while Tier 2 homeowners would see a profit in Year 7. Because of the lower rent revenues, Tier 3 owners would not break even until Year 14. Property owners with lower existing property values pursuing a cash-out refinance mortgage, as shown in Tier 3, would have to pay significant upfront costs. This is major barrier for property owners pursuing this strategy.

FIGURE 23. CASH FLOW SUMMARY: EXISTING PROPERTY OWNER BUILDS DUPLEX RENTAL IN REAR YARD Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3
Net Annual Operating Income (a) $62,868 $59,124 $53,352 Total Development Cost (b) $887,186 $863,610 $864,616
Cash-Out Refinance Mortgage Financing Summary

Expected Property Value $1,296,000 $1,200,000 $996,000
Maximum Loan Amount Possible (c) $1,036,800 $960,000 $796,800 Loan Amount $887,186 $863,610 $796,800
Closing Costs (d) $35,487 $34,544 $31,872
Development Costs Paid Up Front $0 $0 $67,816
Total Cost Required Up Front $35,487 $34,544 $99,688
Annual Mortgage Payment (e) $46,333 $45,102 $41,613
Year that Property Owner Breaks Even Year 6 Year 7 Year 14 Notes:
(a) Rent from two duplex units, less 5% vacancy and 30% operating costs. (b) Equivalent to total development cost for Duplex Rental in Rear Yard prototype, less the $100,000 renovation cost of existing home, and less developer profit and financing cost assumptions. (c) 80% of expected property value, which reflects the total loan amount available to homeowners who own their property outright.
(d) 4% of loan amount.
(e) Assumes 30-year fixed rate mortgage with 3.25% interest rate.

Furthermore, ff an owner only owns a share of equity on their home, the maximum possible value of the loan would be significantly reduced, and the owner would have to pay a much larger sum of money up front. This would be a major barrier for typical property owners interested in this type of project.15 The City of San José could explore collaborating with local credit unions or CDFIs to develop specialized financing products that could allow homeowners more options to pursue these projects. For example, innovative loan products could allow homeowners to rely on the expected future value of their property with the duplex constructed, or on the future rental income, as a basis for their loan. 15 To illustrate this, an additional analysis was conducted for a property owner in Tier 1 with 50 percent equity in their home. With a hypothetical purchase price of $1,100,000, they would have $550,000 equity in their home and $550,000 of principal still outstanding.

With a current value of $1,296,000, they would qualify for a cash-out refinance mortgage of just $486,800 (80 percent of current value, less outstanding principal). In this scenario, they would have to pay $400,386 in development costs up front plus $19,472 in closing costs. 32 AFFORDABILITY OF OPPORTUNITY HOUSING
The affordability of the prototypes in both tiers 1 and 2 was calculated, to provide context around the households that these types of units would serve. The methodology for calculating the affordability of the prototypes’ units is described below.

Methodology for Estimating Unit Affordability
The methodology for identifying the affordability of the prototypes’ units is described below:
1) The affordability levels were identified by calculating the incomes needed to afford the housing costs associated with the prototypes’ units. For rental housing, it was assumed that housing would be considered affordable if the household pays no more than 30 percent of their income on housing costs. For ownership housing, housing is considered affordable if housing costs account for no more than 35 percent of their household income.16 2) Other housing costs in addition to either rent or mortgage payments were estimated based on standard industry assumptions and available research on the various cost categories. For rental prototypes, the monthly housing cost simply includes rent and a utility cost estimate.

For condo prototypes, the monthly housing cost includes a variety of other items besides the mortgage payment, including utilities, property taxes, HOA fees, mortgage insurance, and homeowner’s insurance.
3) The incomes required to afford the unit were then translated into AMI levels, calculated from the Santa Clara County median income levels for the relevant household sizes, published annually by CA HCD. The household sizes were identified by multiplying the unit’s bedroom amount by 1.5 people, which is a standard method used by TCAC.

Figure 24 below shows AMI ranges associated with income levels that are tied to affordable housing programs and plans, ranging from “Extremely Low Income” up to “Above Middle Income.” Most affordable housing programs focus on producing housing that is affordable for households considered “low-income” or below, which is 80 percent of AMI or less. In high-cost cities like San José, there have also been efforts to increase the supply of moderate-income housing, which is between 80 and 120 percent of AMI.

FIGURE 24. INCOME LEVELS AND ASSOCIATED “% OF AMI” RANGES Income Level AMI Range Annual Income (3-Person Household) Extremely Low Income <30% AMI <$41,000
Very Low Income 30-50% AMI $41,000 - $75,000
Low Income 50-80% AMI $75,000 - $106,000
Moderate Income 80-120% AMI $106,000 - $163,000
Middle Income 120-150% AMI $163,000 - $204,000
Above Middle Income >150% AMI >$204,000
Source: City of San José, 2020; Strategic Economics, 2021. 16 The assumption that no more than 30% of a household’s income should be used for housing costs for the housing to be considered affordable is a standard industry assumption. In cases where the affordability of luxury, market-rate, for-sale housing is being evaluated, the percentage is increased to 35% to reflect the fact that higher-income households are able to spend a higher share of their income on housing. 33 Affordability of Opportunity Housing
A summary of the affordability of the Opportunity Housing prototypes in Tiers 1 and 2 is displayed below in Figures 25 and 26. The tables, which are organized by set, show the affordability for the units in every prototype, and those that were found financially feasible are color-coded in green. The affordability for Tier 3 is not shown because every prototype in Tier 3 was found to be infeasible. As shown in Section IV, feasibility is significantly more attainable in Tier 1 than in Tier 2, but it is plausible that there could be instances where prototypes that were found infeasible in Tier 2 could be feasible in certain circumstances.

Most prototypes in Tier 1 fall in the “middle-income” range, which is between 120 and 150 percent of AMI, while there are some prototypes with units that are considered “moderate-income.” Middleincome households are generally well-served by the existing stock of market-rate housing. A threeperson, middle-income household in Santa Clara County would earn between $165,000 and $205,000 annually in 2021.

The stacked multiplex prototypes in Tier 1 achieve deeper affordability than the duplex and townhomestyle prototypes, which have larger units. Some multiplex units are affordable to households in the moderate-income range. These smaller units are more affordable by design.

Rental prototypes, all of which are in stacked multiplexes, are more affordable than condo prototypes largely because of the added expenses associated with condo ownership. For example, the Stacked Fourplex Rental is affordable to a household at 125 percent of AMI, while the Stacked Fourplex Condo is affordable to a household at 135 percent of AMI. The 2-Story Eightplex Rental has the lowest rent, and is affordable to households between 80 and 90 percent of AMI, depending on household size.

More prototypes are considered feasible in Tier 1 because the revenues associated with the prototypes are highest. Therefore, households would be required to pay more in housing costs for prototypes in Tier 1 than in other tiers, making housing in Tier 1 less affordable overall.

34 FIGURE 25. TIER 1 AFFORDABILITY SUMMARY
Prototype
Income Needed to
Afford Unit
Affordable to
Household at:

Set 1

Stacked Fourplex Rental (2-BR) $153,320 125% AMI
Stacked Fourplex Condo (2-BR) $183,198 135% AMI
Side-by-Side Large Duplex Condo (4-BR) $339,550 195% AMI Side-by-Side Duplex Rental in Rear Yard (3-BR) $172,000 105-115% AMI Side-by-Side Duplex Condo in Rear Yard (3-BR) $210,224 130-140% AMI Set 2

Small Lot Single Family (3-BR) $237,702 145-155% AMI
Attached Townhome (3-BR) $237,291 145-155% AMI
Set 3

Three-Story Sixplex Rental (2-BR) $153,320 125% AMI
Three-Story Sixplex Condo (2-BR) $183,198 135% AMI
Two-Story Eightplex Rental (1-BR) $94,840 80-90% AMI
Three-Story Eightplex Rental
1-BR $115,840 95-110% AMI
2-BR $146,120 105% AMI
Three-Story Eightplex Condo
1-BR $128,809 105-120% AMI
2-BR $173,869 130% AMI
Notes:
(a) Condo prototypes: Housing is considered affordable if monthly housing costs do not exceed 35% of monthly household income.

It is assumed the buyer uses a 30-year fixed rate mortgage, and contributes a 5% down payment. An interest rate of 3.8% was used, based on average interest rates over the last five years. Other monthly housing costs include: utility costs, which are between $200 and $300 per month depending on unit type; homeowners’ association dues, which are on average $258 per month, according to a previous housing affordability analysis for San José by Strategic Economics and Street Level Advisors; Monthly property taxes based on an annual cost equivalent to 0.75% of the sales price; Annual homeowner’s insurance estimated to be 0.28% of the sales value, based on the average rates for California homebuyers (Quotewizard.com); and annual mortgage insurance estimated to be 0.7% of the mortgage amount, based on median PMI rates for California homebuyers (bpfund.com). (b) Rental prototypes: Housing is considered affordable if monthly housing costs do not exceed 30% of monthly household income.

It is assumed that households pay monthly utility costs of between $180 and $230 per month, depending on unit type.

Household sizes: The affordability levels are based on Santa Clara County 2021 income limits, published by CA HCD. They are tied to specific household sizes, which are based on federal TCAC guidelines of 1.5 people per bedroom. (Ex. The AMI for 2-bedroom units is based on 3-person households). When the associated household size calculation is between integers, the affordability for both household sizes are shown (i.e., For 3-bedroom units, the affordability for both 4-person and 5-person households is shown).

Source: CA HCD, 2021; ValuePenguin.com, 2021; Street Level Advisors; 2019; Santa Clara County Utility Allowance Schedule, 2021; Strategic Economics, 2021.

The affordability summary for Tier 2 is shown below in Figure 26. These units would be more affordable than Tier 1 prototypes, but the Small Lot Single-Family prototype and the Side-by-Side Large Duplex Condo are the only prototypes expected to be feasible in Tier 2 based on this analysis. They would be affordable to households in the 130 to 140 percent and 170 percent of AMI ranges, respectively. If other prototypes were feasible, they could reach deeper levels of affordability. For example, the TwoStory Eightplex Rental would be affordable to low-income households. However, the development of these prototypes is much less likely in Tier 2.
35 FIGURE 26. TIER 2 AFFORDABILITY SUMMARY
Prototype
Income Needed to
Afford Unit
Affordable to
Household at:

Set 1

Stacked Fourplex Rental (2-BR) $144,536 105% AMI
Stacked Fourplex Condo (2-BR) $162,778 120% AMI
Side-by-Side Large Duplex Condo (4-BR) $301,513 170% AMI Side-by-Side Duplex Rental in Rear Yard (3-BR) $162,000 100-105% AMI Side-by-Side Duplex Condo in Rear Yard (3-BR) $186,601 115-125% AMI Set 2

Small Lot Single Family (3-BR) $210,735 130-140% AMI
Attached Townhome (3-BR) $210,324 130-140% AMI
Set 3

Three-Story Sixplex Rental (2-BR) $144,536 105% AMI
Three-Story Sixplex Condo (2-BR) $162,778 120% AMI
Two-Story Eightplex Rental (1-BR) $82,040 70-75% AMI
Three-Story Eightplex Rental
1-BR $100,040 85-95% AMI
2-BR $137,720 100% AMI
Three-Story Eightplex Condo
1-BR $114,975 95-110% AMI
2-BR $154,670 115% AMI
Notes:
(a) Condo prototypes: Housing is considered affordable if monthly housing costs do not exceed 35% of monthly household income.

It is assumed that households pay monthly utility costs of between $180 and $230 per month, depending on unit type.

Source: CA HCD, 2021; ValuePenguin.com, 2021; Street Level Advisors; 2019; Santa Clara County Utility Allowance Schedule, 2021; Strategic Economics, 2021.
36 ROLE OF MUNICIPAL FEES
In addition to standard municipal fees, such as building permit fees, school district fees, and construction taxes described on Page 20, Parkland In-Lieu fees and Site Development Permit fees would also be charged on the prototypes if they were to be developed today. Strategic Economics evaluated the feasibility impacts of these two fee categories. While exempting either of these fees does not make any infeasible prototypes feasible, they both constitute sizeable shares of total development cost, and the feasibility outlook of the prototypes would improve if there are circumstances where these fees could be reduced for Opportunity Housing projects.

Parkland In-Lieu Fee
The Parkland In-Lieu Fee is an impact fee paid to the Department of Parks, Recreation, and Neighborhood Services (PRNS), that addresses the increased need for public recreational facilities from new residents associated with the creation of new housing units.

This section shows the feasibility impact of the current Parkland In-Lieu fees under the existing methodology. PRNS is in the process of reviewing the Parkland In-Lieu Fee and has hired a consultant to carry out that analysis.17
The current fee, which is charged on a per-unit basis, varies depending on the building type.18 The fees also vary based on the Multiple Listing Service (MLS) district in which the project falls. The MLS districts are similar to the 12 sub-areas used in this analysis. There are higher fees in MLS districts that have higher land values because the expected cost of acquiring land for new facilities would be higher in those districts. The MLS districts with higher fees correlate to the sub-areas that fall into Tier 1, because those sub-areas have the highest land costs. Therefore, the Parkland In-Lieu fee has the greatest impact on feasibility for Tier 1, specifically. Note that residential development projects can apply for credits towards this fee obligation which can effectively lower the cost. In addition, credits are also applied when a project incorporates the demolition of an existing housing unit, since the fee is based on needs associated with new households.

Figure 27 and 28 below show the per-unit fees by building type and sub-area, organized by tier. The average fee for the sub-areas in each tier was used to assess the feasibility impacts of the fee.

Note that the Tier 1 fee for rental prototypes is higher than for condo prototypes because Central San José, which is in Tier 1 for rental and Tier 2 for condo prototypes, has a higher fee compared to other 17 The Department of Parks Recreation and Neighborhood Services has hired a consultant to review and recommend updates to the Parkland Dedication and Park Impact ordinances (SJMC: 19.38 and 14.25). The park fee schedule has not been modified since December 2017 (effective date March 2018) and the underlying assumptions that support the fee schedule have not been re-evaluated since the early 2000’s, making this current study critically important. The selected consultant will assist staff in a comprehensive analysis of the ordinances which may include: 1) Recommending a methodology for the City to annually assess fair market land values for the purposes of assessing impact fees in-lieu of land dedication; 2) Assessing various methods of how fees are calculated in other jurisdictions and recommending a methodology for San José; 3) Evaluating the geographic boundaries where fees can be spent and evaluate mechanisms for equitable and fair distributions; 4) Modernizing how credits toward the PDO/PIO are qualified and applied; and 5) Demonstrating the legal nexus for any recommended changes.
18 The per-unit fees are highest for single-family buildings, and lowest for buildings with five or more units. This is because the average household size in San José for households in single-family units is larger than the average household size for households in units that are part of multifamily buildings.
37 sub-areas. This also translates to a higher fee assumption for condo prototypes than rental prototypes in Tier 2.

The fee is highest for sub-areas where land costs are higher, which largely fall into Tier 1. The fees in Central San José, West Valley, and Willow Glen range between $24,400 and $28,600 per unit for 2-4 unit projects and between $19,300 and $22,600 per unit for buildings with five or more units. The fee is lower in sub-areas that generally fall into tiers 2 and 3, such as South San José and Alum Rock ($11,600 per unit for 2-4 unit projects and $9,200 per unit for buildings with five or more units).

FIGURE 27. RENTAL PROTOTYPES: PARKLAND IN-LIEU FEE ASSUMPTIONS BY TIER AND BUILDING TYPE 2-4 Unit Building 5+ Unit Building
Tier 1 (a)

Willow Glen $26,300 $20,800
West Valley $24,400 $19,300
Central $28,600 $22,600
Tier 1 Average $26,433 $20,900

Tier 2

Alviso $10,100 $8,000
Cambrian/Pioneer $13,500 $10,700
Almaden $15,500 $12,200
Berryessa $17,400 $13,800
South $11,600 $9,200
Edenvale $13,200 $10,400
Tier 2 Average $13,550 $10,717

Tier 3

Evergreen $16,600 $13,100
Alum Rock $11,600 $9,200
Tier 3 Average $14,100 $11,150
Notes:
(a) While North San José is in Tier 1, the North fee was excluded from the average because it is a very high outlier ($52,000 per unit for 2-4 unit projects and $41,600 for five or more units).

Source: City of San José, 2021; Strategic Economics, 2021.

38 FIGURE 28. CONDO PROTOTYPES: PARKLAND IN-LIEU FEE ASSUMPTIONS BY TIER AND BUILDING TYPE Single-Family (Detached
and Attached) 2-4 Unit Building 5+ Unit Building
Tier 1 (a)

Willow Glen $29,400 $26,300 $20,800
West Valley $27,300 $24,400 $19,300
Cambrian/Pioneer $15,100 $13,500 $10,700
Tier 1 Average $23,933 $21,400 $16,933

Tier 2

Central $32,000 $28,600 $22,600
Alviso $11,200 $10,100 $8,000
Almaden $17,300 $15,500 $12,200
Berryessa $19,500 $17,400 $13,800
Tier 2 Average $20,000 $17,900 $14,150

Tier 3

South $13,000 $11,600 $9,200
Edenvale $14,700 $13,200 $10,400
Evergreen $18,600 $16,600 $13,100
Alum Rock $13,000 $11,600 $9,200
Tier 3 Average $14,825 $13,250 $10,475
Notes:
(a) While North San José is in Tier 1, the North fee was excluded from the average because it is a very high outlier ($58,800 per unit for single-family project, $52,000 per unit for 2-4 unit projects and $41,600 for five or more units).

Source: City of San José, 2021; Strategic Economics, 2021.

39 The Parkland In-Lieu Fee has the greatest impact on development feasibility in Tier 1. Figure 29 shows the share of total development cost that the Parkland In-Lieu fee comprises, with the prototypes organized by density, (as shown in Figures 20-22). The fee constitutes between one and eight percent of total development cost in Tier 1, and approximately between one and three percent of total development cost in Tiers 2 and 3.

FIGURE 29. PARKLAND IN-LIEU FEE AS SHARE OF TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COST Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3
Small Lot Single Family 4.4% 3.7% 2.7%
Side-by-Side Large Duplex Condo 1.6% 1.3% 1.0%
Side-by-Side Duplex Rental in Rear Yard 5.0% 2.6% 2.7%
Side-by-Side Duplex Condo in Rear Yard 3.7% 3.1% 2.3%
Attached Townhomes 3.2% 2.7% 2.0%
Stacked Fourplex Rental 4.4% 2.2% 2.3%
Stacked Fourplex Condo 3.3% 2.7% 2.0%
Three-Story Sixplex Rental 3.8% 1.9% 2.0%
Three-Story Sixplex Condo 2.8% 2.4% 1.7%
Two-Story Eightplex Rental 7.8% 2.2% 2.3%
Three-Story Eightplex Rental 5.4% 2.8% 2.9%
Three-Story Eightplex Condo 4.1% 3.4% 2.5%
Notes:

The total development cost does not include the Parkland In-Lieu or Site Development Permit fees. The shares vary by tier because the parkland fee is higher in certain areas of the City.

Source: City of San José, 2021; Strategic Economics, 2021.

Site Development Permit Fees
A site development permit would be required for projects that are not permitted by right in the City’s zoning code. This process would trigger various fees associated with processing the permit. Within the City, the Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Department (PBCE) as well as the Public Works Department both charge site development permit fees.

PCBE currently charges a site development permit fee of $12,952 per residential project. 19, as well as
$565 for every unit beyond two units.

Public Works charges a fee of $927 per project for projects with one or two units. For projects with three or more units, it charges a flat fee of $3,202 per project, plus $76 per unit.

These fees would be applicable for the prototypes if they were built under existing development regulations in the City of San José. Once SB 9 is implemented, these fees would likely not apply to some of the prototypes that have between two and four units. As part of the implementation process of the Opportunity Housing policy, the City will consider to what extent Opportunity Housing in general could be allowed by right, particularly for buildings that will not be allowed by right as a part of SB 9.

The site development permit fees account for between 0.7 percent and 1.3 percent of the total development cost for the prototypes. Since both the PBCE and Public Works fees are based on a 19 This amount incorporates the Department of Transportation’s flat site development permit fee of $447 per project. 40 project’s number of units, prototypes with the same number of units have equivalent fees. These fees are applied universally across the City, so there is no variation across tiers. While these fees do not have a large impact on the overall feasibility of the prototypes, allowing projects to be permitted by right would still help developers save money both directly and by reducing the amount of time for project approvals.

FIGURE 30. SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FEES AS SHARE OF TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COST Total Site Development
Permit Fees
Site Development Permit Fees as
Share of Total Development Cost
Small Lot Single Family $17,588 1.1%
Side-by-Side Large Duplex Condo $13,879 1.2%
Side-by-Side Duplex Rental in Rear Yard $13,879 1.3%
Side-by-Side Duplex Condo in Rear Yard $13,879 1.2%
Attached Townhomes $17,588 0.8%
Stacked Fourplex Rental $17,588 1.0%
Stacked Fourplex Condo $17,588 0.9%
Three-Story Sixplex Rental $18,870 0.7%
Three-Story Sixplex Condo $18,870 0.7%
Two-Story Eightplex Rental $20,152 1.1%
Three-Story Eightplex Rental $20,152 0.8%
Three-Story Eightplex Condo $20,152 0.7%
Notes:

The total development cost does not include the Parkland In-Lieu or Site Development Permit fees. The shares vary by tier because the parkland fee is higher in certain areas of the City.

Source: City of San José, 2021; Strategic Economics, 2021.

The Site Development Permit fees are base fees, and other permitting fees might also be applicable depending on the project and its location. This could include fees associated with tentative map requirements, lot line adjustments, tree removal, Riparian Corridor Policy Conformance requirements, historic analysis, environmental review, and others.

41 APPENDIX A: DETAILED PRO FORMA RESULTS
The full pro formas for each prototype are included below. Scenarios that are considered feasible are highlighted in green.

Set 1 Results
FIGURE 31. PRO FORMA RESULTS: STACKED FOURPLEX RENTAL
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3
Revenues
Annual Gross Scheduled Income $172,800 $162,259 $146,880 Less Vacancy -$8,640 -$8,113 -$7,344
Less Expenses -$51,840 -$48,678 -$44,064
Net Operating Income $112,320 $105,468 $95,472
Capitalized Value $2,642,824 $2,481,611 $2,246,400
Development Costs
Site Prep $75,000 $75,000 $75,000
Vertical Hard Costs $1,320,000 $1,320,000 $1,320,000
Contingency $69,750 $69,750 $69,750
Soft Costs $161,600 $161,600 $161,600
Municipal Fees (excl. Parkland, Site
Development) $63,327 $63,327 $63,327
Parkland In-Lieu Fee $76,167 $38,425 $40,600
Site Development Permit Fees $17,588 $17,588 $17,588
Financing Costs $57,371 $57,371 $57,371
Total Development Cost $1,840,803 $1,803,061 $1,805,236 Minimum Return $156,468 $153,260 $153,445
Residual Land Value $645,552 $525,290 $287,719
Typical Site Acquisition Cost $1,275,000 $1,162,500 $975,000 Residual Land Value Less Typical Acquisition
Cost -$629,448 -$637,210 -$687,281
Source: Strategic Economics, 2021.
42 FIGURE 32. PRO FORMA RESULTS: STACKED FOURPLEX CONDO Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3
Revenues

Gross Sales Revenue $3,324,000 $2,916,000 $2,644,000
Less Marketing Costs -$132,960 -$116,640 -$105,760
Net Sales Revenue $3,191,040 $2,799,360 $2,538,240
Development Costs

Site Prep $75,000 $75,000 $75,000
Vertical Hard Costs $1,440,000 $1,440,000 $1,440,000
Contingency $75,750 $75,750 $75,750
Soft Costs $171,200 $171,200 $171,200
Municipal Fees (excl. Parkland and Site
Development) $63,327 $63,327 $63,327
Parkland In-Lieu Fee $61,667 $51,600 $38,175
Site Development Permit Fees $17,588 $17,588 $17,588
Financing Costs $61,612 $61,612 $61,612
Total Development Costs $1,966,143 $1,956,077 $1,942,652 Feasibility Summary

Net Revenue Less Development Costs $1,224,897 $843,283 $595,588 Minimum Return $353,906 $352,094 $349,677
Residual Land Value $870,991 $491,190 $245,911
Typical Site Acquisition Cost $1,275,000 $1,162,500 $975,000 Residual Land Value Less Typical Acquisition Cost -$404,009 -$671,310 -$729,089 Source: Strategic Economics, 2021.

43 FIGURE 33. PRO FORMA RESULTS: SIDE-BY-SIDE LARGE DUPLEX CONDO Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3
Revenues

Gross Sales Revenue $3,200,000 $2,820,000 $2,040,000
Less Marketing Costs -$128,000 -$112,800 -$81,600
Net Sales Revenue $3,072,000 $2,707,200 $1,958,400
Development Costs

Site Prep $75,000 $75,000 $75,000
Vertical Hard Costs $840,000 $840,000 $840,000
Contingency $45,750 $45,750 $45,750
Soft Costs $123,200 $123,200 $123,200
Municipal Fees (excl. Parkland and Site Development) $58,048 $58,048 $58,048 Parkland In-Lieu Fee $18,867 $15,800 $11,675
Site Development Permit Fees $13,879 $13,879 $13,879
Financing Costs $38,270 $38,270 $38,270
Total Development Costs $1,213,014 $1,209,947 $1,205,822 Feasibility Summary

Net Revenue Less Development Costs $1,858,986 $1,497,253 $752,578 Minimum Return $218,342 $217,790 $217,048
Residual Land Value $1,640,644 $1,279,463 $535,530
Typical Site Acquisition Cost $1,275,000 $1,162,500 $975,000 Residual Land Value Less Typical Acquisition Cost $365,644 $116,963 -$439,470 Source: Strategic Economics, 2021.

44 FIGURE 34. PRO FORMA RESULTS: SIDE-BY-SIDE DUPLEX RENTAL IN REAR YARD Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3
Revenues

Annual Gross Scheduled Income $151,080 $142,080 $128,280 Less Vacancy $7,554 $7,104 $6,414
Less Expenses $45,324 $42,624 $38,484
Net Operating Income $98,202 $92,352 $83,382
Capitalized Value $2,310,635 $2,172,988 $1,961,929
Development Costs

Site Prep $45,000 $45,000 $45,000
Vertical Hard Costs $767,520 $767,520 $767,520
Contingency $38,376 $38,376 $38,376
Soft Costs $111,402 $111,402 $111,402
Municipal Fees (excl. Parkland, Site Development) $53,068 $53,068 $53,068 Parkland In-Lieu Fee $52,867 $27,100 $28,200
Site Development Permit Fees $13,879 $13,879 $13,879
Financing Costs $34,648 $34,648 $34,648
Total Development Cost $1,116,759 $1,090,992 $1,092,092 Feasibility Summary

Minimum Return $94,924 $92,734 $92,828
Residual Land Value $1,098,952 $989,262 $777,010
Typical Site Acquisition Cost $1,275,000 $1,162,500 $975,000 Residual Land Value Less Typical Acquisition Cost -$176,048 -$173,238 -$197,990 Source: Strategic Economics, 2021.
45 FIGURE 35. PRO FORMA RESULTS: SIDE-BY-SIDE DUPLEX CONDO IN REAR YARD Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3
Revenues

Gross Sales Revenue $2,977,000 $2,611,000 $2,273,000
Less Marketing Costs -$119,080 -$104,440 -$90,920
Net Sales Revenue $2,857,920 $2,506,560 $2,182,080
Development Costs

Site Prep $45,000 $45,000 $45,000
Vertical Hard Costs $830,100 $830,100 $830,100
Contingency $43,755 $43,755 $43,755
Soft Costs $120,008 $120,008 $120,008
Municipal Fees (excl. Parkland and Site Development) $53,068 $53,068 $53,068 Parkland In-Lieu Fee $42,800 $35,800 $26,500
Site Development Permit Fees $13,879 $13,879 $13,879
Financing Costs $53,632 $53,632 $53,632
Total Development Costs $1,202,242 $1,195,242 $1,185,942 Feasibility Summary

Net Revenue Less Development Costs $1,655,678 $1,311,318 $996,138 Minimum Return $216,404 $215,144 $213,470
Residual Land Value $1,439,274 $1,096,174 $782,668
Typical Site Acquisition Cost $1,275,000 $1,162,500 $975,000 Residual Land Value Less Typical Acquisition Cost $164,274 -$66,326 -$192,332 Source: Strategic Economics, 2021.

46 Set 2 Results
FIGURE 36. PRO FORMA RESULTS: SMALL LOT SINGLE -FAMILY
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3
Revenues

Gross Sales Revenue $4,380,800 $3,842,000 $3,013,200
Less Marketing Costs -$175,232 -$153,680 -$120,528
Net Sales Revenue $4,205,568 $3,688,320 $2,892,672
Development Costs

Site Prep $75,000 $75,000 $75,000
Vertical Hard Costs $1,197,000 $1,197,000 $1,197,000
Contingency $63,600 $63,600 $63,600
Soft Costs $151,760 $151,760 $151,760
Municipal Fees (excl. Parkland and Site Development) $91,326 $91,326 $91,326 Parkland In-Lieu Fee $71,800 $60,000 $44,475
Site Development Permit Fees $17,588 $17,588 $17,588
Financing Costs $53,632 $53,632 $53,632
Total Development Costs $1,721,706 $1,709,906 $1,694,381 Feasibility Summary

Net Revenue Less Development Costs $2,483,862 $1,978,414 $1,198,291 Minimum Return $309,907 $307,783 $304,989
Residual Land Value $2,173,955 $1,670,631 $893,302
Typical Site Acquisition Cost $1,275,000 $1,162,500 $975,000 Residual Land Value Less Typical Acquisition Cost $898,955 $508,131 -$81,698 Source: Strategic Economics, 2021.

47 FIGURE 37. PRO FORMA RESULTS: ATTACHED TOWNHOMES
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3
Revenues

Gross Sales Revenue $4,380,800 $3,842,000 $3,013,200
Less Marketing Costs -$175,232 -$153,680 -$120,528
Net Sales Revenue $4,205,568 $3,688,320 $2,892,672
Development Costs

Site Prep $75,000 $75,000 $75,000
Vertical Hard Costs $1,710,000 $1,710,000 $1,710,000
Contingency $89,250 $89,250 $89,250
Soft Costs $192,800 $192,800 $192,800
Municipal Fees (excl. Parkland and Site Development) $78,403 $78,403 $78,403 Parkland In-Lieu Fee $71,800 $60,000 $44,475
Site Development Permit Fees $17,588 $17,588 $17,588
Financing Costs $72,357 $72,357 $72,357
Total Development Costs $2,307,198 $2,295,398 $2,279,873 Feasibility Summary

Net Revenue Less Development Costs $1,898,370 $1,392,922 $612,799 Minimum Return $415,296 $413,172 $410,377
Residual Land Value $1,483,075 $979,751 $202,422
Typical Site Acquisition Cost $1,275,000 $1,162,500 $975,000 Residual Land Value Less Typical Acquisition Cost $208,075 -$182,749 -$772,578 Source: Strategic Economics, 2021.

48 Set 3 Results
FIGURE 38. PRO FORMA RESULTS: THREE-STORY SIXPLEX RENTAL Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3
Revenues

Annual Gross Scheduled Income $259,200 $243,389 $220,320 Less Vacancy -$12,960 -$12,169 -$11,016
Less Expenses -$77,760 -$73,017 -$66,096
Net Operating Income $168,480 $158,203 $143,208
Capitalized Value $3,964,235 $3,722,417 $3,369,600
Development Costs

Site Prep $72,000 $72,000 $72,000
Vertical Hard Costs $1,980,000 $1,980,000 $1,980,000
Contingency $102,600 $102,600 $102,600
Soft Costs $214,160 $214,160 $214,160
Municipal Fees (excl. Parkland, Site Development) $81,720 $81,720 $81,720 Parkland In-Lieu Fee $95,833 $48,525 $51,100
Site Development Permit Fees $18,870 $18,870 $18,870
Financing Costs $82,852 $82,852 $82,852
Total Development Cost $2,648,036 $2,600,727 $2,603,302 Feasibility Summary

Minimum Return $225,083 $221,062 $221,281
Residual Land Value $1,091,117 $900,628 $545,017
Typical Site Acquisition Cost $1,275,000 $1,162,500 $975,000 Residual Land Value Less Typical Acquisition Cost -$183,883 -$261,872 -$429,983 Source: Strategic Economics, 2021.

49 FIGURE 39. PRO FORMA RESULTS: THREE-STORY SIXPLEX CONDO Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3
Revenues

Gross Sales Revenue $4,986,000 $4,374,000 $3,966,000
Less Marketing Costs -$199,440 -$174,960 -$158,640
Net Sales Revenue $4,786,560 $4,199,040 $3,807,360
Development Costs

Site Prep $75,000 $75,000 $75,000
Vertical Hard Costs $2,160,000 $2,160,000 $2,160,000
Contingency $111,750 $111,750 $111,750
Soft Costs $228,800 $228,800 $228,800
Municipal Fees (excl. Parkland and Site Development) $81,720 $81,720 $81,720 Parkland In-Lieu Fee $77,667 $64,900 $48,025
Site Development Permit Fees $18,870 $18,870 $18,870
Financing Costs $89,384 $89,384 $89,384
Total Development Costs $2,843,191 $2,830,424 $2,813,549 Feasibility Summary

Net Revenue Less Development Costs $4,786,560 $4,199,040 $3,807,360 Minimum Return $511,774 $509,476 $506,439
Residual Land Value $1,431,595 $859,140 $487,372
Typical Site Acquisition Cost $1,275,000 $1,162,500 $975,000 Residual Land Value Less Typical Acquisition Cost $156,595 -$303,360 -$487,628 Source: Strategic Economics, 2021.

50 FIGURE 40. PRO FORMA RESULTS: TWO-STORY EIGHTPLEX RENTAL Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3
Revenues

Annual Gross Scheduled Income $208,320 $177,600 $160,320 Less Vacancy -$10,416 -$8,880 -$8,016
Less Expenses -$62,496 -$53,280 -$48,096
Net Operating Income $135,408 $115,440 $104,208
Capitalized Value $3,186,071 $2,716,235 $2,451,953
Development Costs

Site Prep $75,000 $75,000 $75,000
Vertical Hard Costs $1,320,000 $1,320,000 $1,320,000
Contingency $69,750 $69,750 $69,750
Soft Costs $161,600 $161,600 $161,600
Municipal Fees (excl. Parkland, Site Development) $63,048 $63,048 $63,048 Parkland In-Lieu Fee $137,633 $69,958 $73,400
Site Development Permit Fees $20,152 $20,152 $20,152
Financing Costs $82,852 $82,852 $82,852
Total Development Cost $1,930,035 $1,862,360 $1,865,802 Feasibility Summary

Minimum Return $164,053 $158,301 $158,593
Residual Land Value $1,091,982 $695,574 $427,558
Typical Site Acquisition Cost $1,275,000 $1,162,500 $975,000 Residual Land Value Less Typical Acquisition Cost -$183,018 -$466,926 -$547,442 Source: Strategic Economics, 2021.
51 FIGURE 41. PRO FORMA RESULTS: THREE-STORY EIGHTPLEX RENTAL Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3
Revenues

Annual Gross Scheduled Income $276,120 $242,640 $219,600 Less Vacancy -$13,806 -$12,132 -$10,980
Less Expenses -$82,836 -$72,792 -$65,880
Net Operating Income $179,478 $157,716 $142,740
Capitalized Value $4,223,012 $3,710,965 $3,358,588
Development Costs

Site Prep $75,000 $75,000 $75,000
Vertical Hard Costs $1,980,000 $1,980,000 $1,980,000
Contingency $102,750 $102,750 $102,750
Soft Costs $214,400 $214,400 $214,400
Municipal Fees (excl. Parkland, Site Development) $80,829 $80,829 $80,829 Parkland In-Lieu Fee $137,633 $69,958 $73,400
Site Development Permit Fees $20,152 $20,152 $20,152
Financing Costs $82,852 $82,852 $82,852
Total Development Cost $2,693,617 $2,625,942 $2,629,383 Feasibility Summary

Minimum Return $228,957 $223,205 $223,498
Residual Land Value $1,300,438 $861,818 $505,707
Typical Site Acquisition Cost $1,275,000 $1,162,500 $975,000 Residual Land Value Less Typical Acquisition Cost $25,438 -$300,682 -$469,293 Source: Strategic Economics, 2021.

52 FIGURE 42. PRO FORMA RESULTS: THREE-STORY EIGHTPLEX CONDO Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3
Revenues

Gross Sales Revenue $4,957,600 $4,351,200 $3,946,000
Less Marketing Costs -$198,304 -$174,048 -$157,840
Net Sales Revenue $4,759,296 $4,177,152 $3,788,160
Development Costs

Site Prep $75,000 $75,000 $75,000
Vertical Hard Costs $2,160,000 $2,160,000 $2,160,000
Contingency $111,750 $111,750 $111,750
Soft Costs $228,800 $228,800 $228,800
Municipal Fees (excl. Parkland and Site Development) $80,829 $80,829 $80,829 Parkland In-Lieu Fee $111,533 $93,200 $68,975
Site Development Permit Fees $20,152 $20,152 $20,152
Financing Costs $53,632 $53,632 $53,632
Total Development Costs $2,841,697 $2,823,363 $2,799,138 Feasibility Summary

Net Revenue Less Development Costs $4,759,296 $4,177,152 $3,788,160 Minimum Return $511,505 $508,205 $503,845
Residual Land Value $1,406,094 $845,583 $485,177
Typical Site Acquisition Cost $1,275,000 $1,162,500 $975,000 Residual Land Value Less Typical Acquisition Cost $131,094 -$316,917 -$489,823 Source: Strategic Economics, 2021.
53 APPENDIX B: CASH FLOW PRO FORMA RESULTS
The full cash-flow pro formas for property owners building the Side-by-Side Duplex Rental in Rear Yard are shown below for each market tier. The year during which the property owner breaks even is highlighted in green.

FIGURE 43. TIER 1: SIDE-BY-SIDE DUPLEX RENTAL IN REAR YARD CASH FLOW FOR PROPERTY OWNER Mortgage Year Net Operating Income
Annual Mortgage
Payment Annual Net Revenue Overall Profit
Year 1 (a) $0 -$81,821 -$81,821 -$81,821
Year 2 $62,868 -$46,333 $16,535 -$65,286
Year 3 $62,868 -$46,333 $16,535 -$48,751
Year 4 $62,868 -$46,333 $16,535 -$32,216
Year 5 $62,868 -$46,333 $16,535 -$15,681
Year 6 $62,868 -$46,333 $16,535 $854
Year 7 $62,868 -$46,333 $16,535 $17,389
Year 8 $62,868 -$46,333 $16,535 $33,924
Year 9 $62,868 -$46,333 $16,535 $50,459
Year 10 $62,868 -$46,333 $16,535 $66,994
Year 11 $62,868 -$46,333 $16,535 $83,528
Year 12 $62,868 -$46,333 $16,535 $100,063
Year 13 $62,868 -$46,333 $16,535 $116,598
Year 14 $62,868 -$46,333 $16,535 $133,133
Year 15 $62,868 -$46,333 $16,535 $149,668
Year 16 $62,868 -$46,333 $16,535 $166,203
Year 17 $62,868 -$46,333 $16,535 $182,738
Year 18 $62,868 -$46,333 $16,535 $199,273
Year 19 $62,868 -$46,333 $16,535 $215,808
Year 20 $62,868 -$46,333 $16,535 $232,343
Year 21 $62,868 -$46,333 $16,535 $248,878
Year 22 $62,868 -$46,333 $16,535 $265,412
Year 23 $62,868 -$46,333 $16,535 $281,947
Year 24 $62,868 -$46,333 $16,535 $298,482
Year 25 $62,868 -$46,333 $16,535 $315,017
Year 26 $62,868 -$46,333 $16,535 $331,552
Year 27 $62,868 -$46,333 $16,535 $348,087
Year 28 $62,868 -$46,333 $16,535 $364,622
Year 29 $62,868 -$46,333 $16,535 $381,157
Year 30 $62,868 -$46,333 $16,535 $397,692
Notes:
(a) In Year 1, there is no Net Operating Income because it is expected that the duplex construction would take one year to complete after financing is acquired. The annual mortgage payment for Year 1 also includes $35,487 in closing costs.

Source: Strategic Economics, 2021.
54 FIGURE 44. TIER 2: SIDE-BY-SIDE DUPLEX RENTAL IN REAR YARD CASH FLOW FOR PROPERTY OWNER Mortgage Year Net Operating Income
Annual Mortgage
Payment Annual Net Revenue Overall Profit
Year 1 (a) $0 -$79,646 -$79,646 -$79,646
Year 2 $59,124 -$45,102 $14,022 -$65,624
Year 3 $59,124 -$45,102 $14,022 -$51,602
Year 4 $59,124 -$45,102 $14,022 -$37,580
Year 5 $59,124 -$45,102 $14,022 -$23,557
Year 6 $59,124 -$45,102 $14,022 -$9,535
Year 7 $59,124 -$45,102 $14,022 $4,487
Year 8 $59,124 -$45,102 $14,022 $18,509
Year 9 $59,124 -$45,102 $14,022 $32,531
Year 10 $59,124 -$45,102 $14,022 $46,553
Year 11 $59,124 -$45,102 $14,022 $60,576
Year 12 $59,124 -$45,102 $14,022 $74,598
Year 13 $59,124 -$45,102 $14,022 $88,620
Year 14 $59,124 -$45,102 $14,022 $102,642
Year 15 $59,124 -$45,102 $14,022 $116,664
Year 16 $59,124 -$45,102 $14,022 $130,686
Year 17 $59,124 -$45,102 $14,022 $144,709
Year 18 $59,124 -$45,102 $14,022 $158,731
Year 19 $59,124 -$45,102 $14,022 $172,753
Year 20 $59,124 -$45,102 $14,022 $186,775
Year 21 $59,124 -$45,102 $14,022 $200,797
Year 22 $59,124 -$45,102 $14,022 $214,820
Year 23 $59,124 -$45,102 $14,022 $228,842
Year 24 $59,124 -$45,102 $14,022 $242,864
Year 25 $59,124 -$45,102 $14,022 $256,886
Year 26 $59,124 -$45,102 $14,022 $270,908
Year 27 $59,124 -$45,102 $14,022 $284,930
Year 28 $59,124 -$45,102 $14,022 $298,953
Year 29 $59,124 -$45,102 $14,022 $312,975
Year 30 $59,124 -$45,102 $14,022 $326,997
Notes:
(a) In Year 1, there is no Net Operating Income because it is expected that the duplex construction would take one year to complete after financing is acquired. The annual mortgage payment for Year 1 also includes $34,544 in closing costs.

Source: Strategic Economics, 2021.
55 FIGURE 45. TIER 3: SIDE-BY-SIDE DUPLEX RENTAL IN REAR YARD CASH FLOW FOR PROPERTY OWNER Mortgage Year Net Operating Income
Annual Mortgage
Payment Annual Net Revenue Overall Profit
Year 1 (a) $0 -$141,301 -$141,301 -$141,301
Year 2 $53,352 -$41,613 $11,739 -$129,562
Year 3 $53,352 -$41,613 $11,739 -$117,822
Year 4 $53,352 -$41,613 $11,739 -$106,083
Year 5 $53,352 -$41,613 $11,739 -$94,344
Year 6 $53,352 -$41,613 $11,739 -$82,605
Year 7 $53,352 -$41,613 $11,739 -$70,865
Year 8 $53,352 -$41,613 $11,739 -$59,126
Year 9 $53,352 -$41,613 $11,739 -$47,387
Year 10 $53,352 -$41,613 $11,739 -$35,647
Year 11 $53,352 -$41,613 $11,739 -$23,908
Year 12 $53,352 -$41,613 $11,739 -$12,169
Year 13 $53,352 -$41,613 $11,739 -$429
Year 14 $53,352 -$41,613 $11,739 $11,310
Year 15 $53,352 -$41,613 $11,739 $23,049
Year 16 $53,352 -$41,613 $11,739 $34,789
Year 17 $53,352 -$41,613 $11,739 $46,528
Year 18 $53,352 -$41,613 $11,739 $58,267
Year 19 $53,352 -$41,613 $11,739 $70,007
Year 20 $53,352 -$41,613 $11,739 $81,746
Year 21 $53,352 -$41,613 $11,739 $93,485
Year 22 $53,352 -$41,613 $11,739 $105,224
Year 23 $53,352 -$41,613 $11,739 $116,964
Year 24 $53,352 -$41,613 $11,739 $128,703
Year 25 $53,352 -$41,613 $11,739 $140,442
Year 26 $53,352 -$41,613 $11,739 $152,182
Year 27 $53,352 -$41,613 $11,739 $163,921
Year 28 $53,352 -$41,613 $11,739 $175,660
Year 29 $53,352 -$41,613 $11,739 $187,400
Year 30 $53,352 -$41,613 $11,739 $199,139
Notes:
(a) In Year 1, there is no Net Operating Income because it is expected that the duplex construction would take one year to complete after financing is acquired. The annual mortgage payment for Year 1 also includes $31,872 in closing costs and $67,816 in development costs not covered by the loan.

Source: Strategic Economics, 2021.
56 APPENDIX C: OPTICOS DESIGN: OPPORTUNITY

HOUSING CITYWIDE ANALYSIS
57 Opportunity Housing
Citywide Analysis
San Jose, CA
Summary Report
October 2021
The City of San Jose is
studying Opportunity
Housing as a response
to the housing crisis.
2 Opportunity Housing Citywide Analysis Summary Report — October 2021 Purpose Of
This Study
The City of San Jose, like the rest of the Bay Area, is experiencing a severe housing shortage. One potential
strategy proposed by the City Council to address this
housing shortage is to change regulatory standards that currently limit the number of dwelling units on a parcel, raising the standards from allowing only a single-family house to allowing four housing units per lot in select areas of the city. This study analyzes existing conditions that contribute to the feasibility of allowing units such
as stacked fourplexes both in the half-mile radius
around transit-oriented Urban Villages and on parcels
citywide as a potential policy solution to alleviate the housing crisis.

Regulatory barriers have not been the only barriers to
constructing adequate housing in San Jose. Regional
real estate and economic trends are formidable hurdles.

Astronomical land prices and high construction costs
impact the feasibility of small-scale development projects and a developer will typically not receive the rent or sale price of a duplex that justifies the investment of land and construction costs. This study includes "lot testing"
of stacked fourplexes and similar housing types on a
range of lot conditions as part of a financial feasibility analysis carried out by Strategic Economics to
produce an accurate cost analysis for Opportunity
Housing. Understanding the conditions required for
successful development of Opportunity Housing types
can help guide housing policy and stimulate housing
production in San Jose.

This study supports and references the feasibility report titled "San Jose Opportunity Housing: Feasibility Results" (October 2021) prepared by Strategic Economics for the
City of San Jose.

Summary Report — October 2021 Opportunity Housing Citywide Analysis 3 4 Opportunity Housing Citywide Analysis Summary Report — October 2021 Contents
Methodology + Objectives 6
Missing Middle Housing Types 8
What Is A Stacked Fourplex? 9
Transit-Oriented Urban Villages + Opportunity Housing 10 Urban Form 12
Regulatory Context 14
Connectivity Context Types 16
Fourplex-Supportive Lots 18
Missing Middle-Supportive Lots 20
Considerations for Enabling Stacked Fourplexes 22
Lot Testing + Feasibility Analysis 24
Summary Report — October 2021 Opportunity Housing Citywide Analysis 5 Starting Point
This study builds upon the City's prior
work identifying Urban Villages as part
of the San Jose 2040 General Plan and
designating blocks within one-half mile
of transit-oriented Urban Villages as
Opportunity Housing Areas.

Purview and Objectives
This study gives particular focus to
the potential for Opportunity Housing
(typically two to four housing units per
lot) within the Opportunity Housing Areas
discussed above. However, the city's
Opportunity Housing Task Force has also
directed staff to evaluate the potential
for Opportunity Housing citywide due to
equity concerns. As a result, this study is
citywide in extent.

This study aims to analyze Opportunity
Housing Areas using a variety of metrics
to identify optimal locations where
Opportunity Housing may be viable. In
doing so, the analysis considers existing
street patterns, built context, urban form,
and regulatory standards.

Since the threshold established by the
Opportunity Housing Task Force and City
Council is of two to four housing units
on a lot, this study uses a typical stacked
fourplex as a building type for analysis.

Additional Missing Middle building
types that are eligible for Opportunity
Housing (such as duplexes, townhomes,
multiplexes, etc.) were also considered in
assessing the development potential of
Opportunity Housing Areas.

Qualitative Analysis
Qualitative analysis is an essential
component of a complete approach
to crafting housing policy, which is
intertwined with placemaking, a complex
phenomenon that is not comprehensively
captured by quantitative methods
alone. Qualitative analysis, such as the
development and categorization of
context types, involves trained observation
and judgment to organize patterns into a
meaningful framework, and yields greater
insight than quantitative analysis alone.

Quantitative Analysis
Quantitative analysis is a second essential
component of this study, used to
generate critical information about the
comparative performance of housing
types in different real estate submarkets
of the city; the percentage of parcels
that could physically fit a typical fourplex
if regulations were changed; and the
potential net gain of units that could result
from changes in housing policy, among
other insights.

Multiple Scales of Analysis
This study included analysis at two scales:
the citywide scale and the district scale.

The citywide scale was a jumping-off
point; it illustrated macroscopic patterns
that invited further study. The district
scale analysis zoomed into specific
characteristics of blocks, lots, and building
footprints to understand the microscale
conditions responsible for citywide
patterns, as well as meaningful distinctions
between different areas of the city.

Methodology + Objectives
This study relies on both qualitative and quantitative analysis in order to inform policy recommendations that would enable Opportunity Housing. 6 Opportunity Housing Citywide Analysis Summary Report — October 2021 Chapter —
Study Methodology
The study employs the following steps for the citywide analysis.

Identify Urban Villages and Opportunity Housing
Areas citywide
Analyze urban form patterns, including building
footprints and open space
Study the regulatory context, including current
zoning and land uses
Analyze context types including street connectivity
and built form
Identify the range of lots that can physically
accommodate stacked fourplexes
Carry out lot testing using typical stacked fourplexes
and other housing types to support financial feasibility analysis
Summary Report — October 2021 Opportunity Housing Citywide Analysis 7 Chapter —
Missing Middle Housing Types
Missing Middle Housing types offer a palette of house-form multi-unit housing options that are compatible with the range of two to four units per lot being considered for Opportunity Housing in San Jose.

Why Definition Matters
Building form will be an important
consideration when establishing policies
to deliver multi-unit housing into San
Jose's existing primarily single-family
neighborhoods in a way that expands
housing options and also has a positive
impact on the surrounding neighborhood.

Building form is an essential component of
the concept of Missing Middle Housing,
which is why several Missing Middle
housing types have been considered
for this study. Defined as "a range of
multi-unit or clustered housing types
(ranging from two to 19 units per lot) that
are compatible in scale with single-family
homes, Missing Middle Housing types help
meet the growing demand for walkable
urban living, respond to shifting household
demographics, and meet the need for
more housing choices at different price
points."1
Beginning with a specific building type
in mind such as a stacked duplex or a
stacked fourplex enables sharp economic
analysis and a clear and communicable
vision for the built results of any proposed
policy change for Opportunity Housing.

Since the upper threshold established by
the San Jose Opportunity Housing Task
Force is of four housing units per lot, a
stacked fourplex is an important prototype
to consider for both its unit count and also
its form characteristics.
8 Opportunity Housing Citywide Analysis Summary Report — October 2021 Chapter —
What Is A Stacked Fourplex?
A Missing Middle Housing type with four units in one house-form building, a stacked fourplex is an optimal building type to study the implications of allowing four units per lot in Opportunity Housing Areas. • Two units are located
on the ground floor
and two other units are
stacked above them
• A common stoop and
entrance is used to
access all four units
• Has the form and scale
of one house
• Units are located sideby-side, not stacked
• Each unit has distinct
massing and a
separate entrance
• Much wider than one
house
A Building Type, Not Just Unit
Count
In this study, the term fourplex and stacked
fourplex have been used interchangeably.

Both refer to the Missing Middle housing
type, and not (as the term is sometimes
used) to just any configuration of four
housing units on a lot. A stacked fourplex
is defined as "a small to medium-sized
structure that consists of two units on
the ground floor and two units stacked
directly above them."2
Delivering four
units as a stacked fourplex has many
benefits: it can be built on smaller lots, it
lives much like a single-family home, and
its small-to-medium footprint and twostory height is compatible in scale with existing single-family neighborhoods.

What Is Not a Stacked Fourplex
Other ways to deliver four units on
a lot may include four side-by-side
townhouses, oriented to face the street, or
perpendicular to the street with a driveway
on one side (sometimes called a "slot
home"); or even as four detached units.

These alternatives do deliver housing but
typically have larger unit sizes than the
stacked fourplex, and are thus likely not
available at attainable price points. Also,
not all configurations of four units on a lot
may contribute to good urban form and an
active public realm.
1, 2 Parolek, Dan. Missing Middle Housing: Thinking
Big and Building Small to Respond to Today's
Housing Crisis
Stacked Fourplex
Not a Stacked Fourplex
Typical Lot Dimensions
Lot Width 50' - 100'
Lot Depth 100' - 150'
Resultant Density (du/acre)
Without ADU 12 - 36
With ADU 18 - 55
Summary Report — October 2021 Opportunity Housing Citywide Analysis 9 Chapter —
Transit-Oriented Urban Villages
+ Opportunity Housing
These frameworks identify strategic locations for Opportunity Housing.

Summary
The City of San Jose has designated multiple "Urban Villages" to accommodate growth in both employment and housing. The locations of the Urban Villages were determined during the Envision San Jose 2040 General Plan process. Urban Villages are typically walkable, bikeable, mixed-use, and transit-rich. A subset of Urban Villages are planned around existing or planned regional and local transit stops such as BART, VTA light rail, BRT, and Caltrain, and are designated as transit-oriented Urban Villages.

The City has designated the parcels within one-half mile of these transit-oriented Urban Villages as Opportunity Housing Areas, which are priority areas for consideration in the construction of multifamily housing. In the City's words:

Opportunity Housing refers to enabling multi-unit housing on properties with a Residential Neighborhood General Plan land use designation. In San José, these are typically properties in single-family neighborhoods.

Staff and the General Plan Review Task Force explored allowing up to four units per parcel that could include a mix of a single-family home, duplex, triplex, or fourplex for a total of four dwelling units on the parcel while generally maintaining zoning setbacks and heights. This type of development was allowed in San José prior to World War II and still exists in many older neighborhoods.

Although the present analysis is citywide, it pays special attention to the locations of transit-oriented Urban Villages and their surrounding Opportunity Housing Areas as strategic locations for new multifamily housing.

Key Components of Analysis
Transit Routes
Transit routes and stops are concentrated
within the transit-oriented Urban Villages,
making these areas prime candidates for
walkable, transit-oriented development
that can support Missing Middle Housing.

San Jose has rich transit providing both
local and regional service, including ACE,
Caltrain, Amtrak Capital Corridor, and VTA
light rail and buses.
10 Opportunity Housing Citywide Analysis Summary Report — October 2021 Chapter —
Transit-Oriented Urban Villages and Opportunity Housing Areas Transit-oriented Urban Villages and their surrounding Opportunity Housing Areas are distributed throughout the city, with many clustered around downtown. Located near transit stops, these designations were created and mapped by the City prior to the present study.

Key
Transit-oriented Urban
Village
Potential Opportunity
Housing Area
Light rail stop
Bus stop
City limit
Summary Report — October 2021 Opportunity Housing Citywide Analysis 11 Chapter —
Urban Form
Analyzing the form of the built environment reveals different kinds of places within the city.

Existing Building Heights
Buildings in San Jose are predominantly
one to two stories in height.

Key Components of Analysis
Number of Units Per Lot
Most residential units in San Jose are in
single-unit buildings (e.g. single-family
homes).

Summary
Buildings, streets, and blocks play a key role in shaping the public realm, which in turn impacts walkability. The sizes and shapes of buildings and the uses that occur within them can indicate an area's walkability or lack thereof.

San Jose contains diverse patterns of urban form including a finely gridded downtown with buildings at the edge of the sidewalk, neighborhoods with gridded streets and one- to two-story buildings with small or medium setbacks, neighborhoods with curvilinear streets and one- to two-story buildings with deep setbacks; as well as corridors with large-footprint one-story retail buildings set behind surface parking lots. 1-2
stories
typical building
height
1 unit
predominant
among
residential
buildings
12 Opportunity Housing Citywide Analysis Summary Report — October 2021 Chapter —
Urban Form
San Jose and its transit-oriented Urban
Villages (red fill) and Opportunity Housing
Areas (yellow fill) include a diverse range
of urban patterns.

Widely-spaced mediumfootprint buildings in a
curvilinear street pattern
Closely-spaced smallfootprint buildings
arranged in a modified
street grid
Widely-spaced largefootprint buildings
organized as a district
Summary Report — October 2021 Opportunity Housing Citywide Analysis 13 Chapter —
Regulatory Context
Current zoning standards regulate housing in different parts of the city.

The General Plan allocates land uses and provides policy direction for how those neighborhoods should evolve in the future.

General Plan Land Use
In the 2040 General Plan land use map,
the predominant land use is Residential
Neighborhood (shown here in purple). The
General Plan describes this land use as
encompassing "most of the established,
single-family residential neighborhoods,
including both the suburban and traditional
residential neighborhood areas which
comprise the majority of its developed land."
Key Components of Analysis
Zoning and Building Footprints
The building footprints show the pattern
of building forms and built up area across
the city. Overlaid on zoning districts,
these footprints provide a snapshot
of development resulting from zoning
standards.

Summary
The zoning standards applying to a large portion of the city do not yet support the type of housing envisioned by the Opportunity Housing Areas study. 8 du/ac
is the maximum
allowed density
in Single-Family
Residential zones
At this density, a
lot would need
to be
150'x150'
in order to
accommodate
a fourplex
(much larger
than physically
needed)
14 Opportunity Housing Citywide Analysis Summary Report — October 2021 Chapter —
Zoning
The zone covering the largest land area in the city is
Single-Family Residential (shown in green) allowing up to 8 dwelling units per acre. Fourplexes are not allowed in this zone under the current standards. Opportunity Housing
Areas (represented with the blue dashed line designating a half-mile buffer from transit-oriented Urban Villages) contain many parcels that currently have this zoning
designation.

City limit
Legend
Cluster (R-M)
Cluster (R-1-5)
R-2(PD)
R-1-2(PD)
R-1-8(PD)
R-1-RR
R-1-8
R-1-5
R-1-1
R-1-2
Cluster (R-1-8)
R-M
PD

R-M(PD)
R-1-1(PD)
TEC
R-2
RM-H
NonResidential
Summary Report — October 2021 Opportunity Housing Citywide Analysis 15 Chapter —
Connectivity Context Types
A key ingredient for walkability is street connectivity. Analyzing existing connectivity revealed context types, one indicator of where Opportunity Housing and other Missing Middle Housing types are appropriate and/or likely to occur under existing conditions.

Connectivity and Street Types
The level of connectivity can be read from
intersection frequency and number of
connections within a neighborhood and to
the surrounding street network.

Key Components of Analysis
Building Footprints
Building footprints provide information
about how building form interfaces with the
public realm. Walkable places tend to have
buildings near the sidewalk where they are
easily visible and accessible to pedestrians.

Background
Missing Middle building types, including stacked fourplexes, are generally viable only when they have no more than one parking space per unit. This parking ratio is suitable for a walkable or bikeable context. This analysis looks at connectivity to establish context types that are walkable and bikeable. Note that this is a snapshot of existing conditions, and context types within San Jose may change over time, particularly in the areas surrounding transit-oriented Urban Villages. Urban Village boundaries may also change.

Methodology
Analyze street and lot patterns to classify groups of blocks as walkable urban, transitional urban-suburban, or suburban context types. These designations account for street connectivity and building placement only. Additional factors such as the mix of uses, quality of the public realm, and multimodal infrastructure also impact walkability.

Key Findings
Extensive walkable urban context in Central; extensive transitional context in West Valley and in Berryessa; transitional or suburban context in and adjacent to most other transitoriented Urban Villages. 16 Opportunity Housing Citywide Analysis Summary Report — October 2021 Chapter —
Existing Connectivity Context Types
Walkable Urban Transitional Urban-Suburban Drivable Suburban Streets are well-connected with
frequent intersections. Lots are long
and narrow and some include alley
access.

Streets are well-connected within the
neighborhood but may have limited
connection to external streets. Lots
are wide and deep.

Streets have low intersection
frequency and many dead-ends. Lots
are large and irregular.

City limit
Legend
Summary Report — October 2021 Opportunity Housing Citywide Analysis 17 Chapter —
Fourplex-Supportive Lots
This analysis identifies lots that can physically accommodate fourplexes, specifically "stacked fourplexes". Lot size considerations can help to refine density and off-street parking requirements.

Methodology
Establish thresholds for lot dimensions that can fit a typical stacked fourplex: lot width may range from 50 ft to 100 feet, and lot depth may range from 100 ft to 150 feet.

Key Findings
The stacked fourplex building type can fit on a known range of lot depths and lot widths. San Jose has an abundance of lots that fit these dimensional requirements. 113,400 lots, which accounts for approximately 76 percent of all Residential Neighborhood General Plan land use lots within San Jose, are fourplex-supportive based upon these typical dimensional requirements (lot width and lot depth).

If one considers only the more typical lot dimensions for fourplexes - 50 to 65 feet in width by 100 to 150 feet in depth, approximately 57 percent of the over 149,700 Residential Neighborhood General Plan land use lots could physically fit a stacked fourplex. An additional 1 percent of the lots could physically fit a fourplex with minimum setbacks and no parking requirement.

Lot Width
The most prevalent dimensional range is
greater than 50 feet wide and less than or
equal to 75 feet wide. 119,412 lots fall into
this range.

Key Components of Analysis
Lot Depth
Similar to the lot width analysis, parcels
were classified as belonging to one of
several ranges of lot depths. The most
prevalent dimensional range is greater than
100 feet and less than or equal to 150 feet.
123,009 lots fall into this range.
113,400
lots
dimensionally
suitable for
fourplex
development
=76%
of all Residential
Neighborhood
General Plan
land use lots
18 Opportunity Housing Citywide Analysis Summary Report — October 2021 Chapter —
Fourplex-Supportive Lots
This map displays the lots that meet both the lot width and the lot depth dimensional requirements for fourplexes, along with the half-mile walk shed (dark blue dashed line) and two-mile bike shed (light blue dashed line) from transit-oriented Urban Villages. Parking requirements further refine the lot size required for a fourplex project. As the map shows, significant parts of the city that are outside Opportunity Housing Areas can support fourplexes. This analysis provided the starting point for the lot testing analysis, that also examined additional economic and regulatory factors.

Fourplex-supportive
lots
1/2 mile walk shed
2 mile bike shed
City limit
Legend
Summary Report — October 2021 Opportunity Housing Citywide Analysis 19 Chapter —
Missing Middle-Supportive Lots
In analyzing the potential for Opportunity Housing, additional Missing Middle Housing types were also considered that can further the City's Opportunity Housing goals.

Methodology
The parcel data of all parcels designated as Residential Neighborhood General Plan land use were charted in a matrix that shows the number of lots that fall within specific width and depth ranges. These were then classified to indicate what parcels a typical stacked fourplex would physically fit on, with setbacks and parking. The range of lots that can fit fourplexes varies from the smallest at 50 foot wide by 75 foot deep lot up to 65 foot wide by 175 foot wide lot. The matrix also provides a snapshot of other Missing Middle Housing types that can physically fit within the lot width and depth ranges.

Key Findings
79 percent of the over 149,700 Residential Neighborhood General Plan land use lots are larger than the minimum lot size needed to accommodate a stacked fourplex. These lots could develop as multiple fourplexes or might accommodate a different building type such as a courtyard building or a cottage court.

This analysis can be further refined based on parcels that:
• City staff has recommended as Opportunity Housing sites (16,855 lots), based upon a half-mile walkshed from transit stops within each transit-oriented Urban Village; • Are within a half-mile mile of city designated transit-oriented Urban Villages but not part of the city staff identified Opportunity Housing sites (20,452 lots); or • Are within the city of San Jose and outside the half-mile radius of the city designated transit-oriented Urban Villages (93,484 lots).

Next Steps
While this analysis explored the range of lots that could accommodate a stacked fourplex building type, additional consideration for financial feasibility will need to be taken into consideration to understand where true redevelopment potential exists.

Lot Size Categories
145,241
lots
dimensionally
supportive of
duplexes
30,171
lots
dimensionally
supportive
of courtyard
apartments,
cottage courts,
townhouses,
and multiplexes
Extra Small
Small
Medium
Large
Outliers
Right: A matrix used to analyze
the distribution of lot widths and
depths across all General Plan
Residential Neighborhood land
use lots in San Jose
20 Opportunity Housing Citywide Analysis Summary Report — October 2021 Chapter —
Lots Supportive of Missing Middle Housing Types
This map displays a range of lot size categories based on lot width and depth. Displayed are lots that physically accommodate various Missing Middle housing types, corresponding to the matrix at left.

Opportunity Housing
Lot Size
CategoriesSingle-FamilyDuplexTriplexFourplexCourtyard AptCottage CourtTownhouseMultiplexLive/WorkMid-Rise Extra Small
Small
Medium
Large
Outliers
City limit
Legend
Summary Report — October 2021 Opportunity Housing Citywide Analysis 21 Chapter —
Considerations for Enabling
Stacked Fourplexes
Particular site conditions and parking requirements further refine dimensional requirements for stacked fourplexes.

The diagram at left illustrates how the dimensional
requirements for a stacked fourplex are further
refined beyond the two extremes of the lot width
range. The 50 by 75 feet lot would accommodate
a compact fourplex with 5 foot setbacks and one
parking space per unit provided from a rear lane or
alley, while a 65 x 175 feet lot would accommodate
a larger fourplex with more substantial setbacks
and up to two parking spaces per unit. Lots wider
than 75 feet and/or deeper than 175 feet can
accommodate fourplexes but would not likely
develop as a single fourplex building. Larger lots
might develop as multiple fourplexes or might
accommodate a different building type such as a
courtyard building.

Refining Dimensions for Particular Conditions
Variations in Unit Size and Parking Configuration
The diagram below illustrates how unit size, parking requirements, and whether parking is accessed from the street or from the alley all impact the minimum lot size that can physically accommodate a fourplex.

Image Copyright 2020 Opticos Design
Image Copyright 2020 Opticos Design
22 Opportunity Housing Citywide Analysis Summary Report — October 2021 Chapter —
Priority Areas
for Potential
Stacked Fourplexes
The map above illustrates
potential fourplex-priority areas in
dark purple, which represent:
• Walkable Urban and Transitional UrbanSuburban connectivity context types • Opportunity Housing Areas (within half-mile of transitoriented Urban Villages) Additionally, the City should consider the bike shed (two-mile radius, shown in lavender) in addition to the walk shed (half-mile) from transit-oriented Urban Villages as stacked fourplex-priority areas.

The form of the housing provided also impacts which areas have the potential to prioritize fourplexes. Missing Middle housing types, such as stacked fourplexes, typically provide smaller units than are offered by, for example, four attached townhomes. Smaller units expand housing access, and typically can rent or sell with just one parking space per unit, even if not located within a walkable urban context type or within a walk shed of a transitoriented Urban Village.

Stacked fourplexsupportive lots
Stacked fourplex
priority areas
2 mile bike shed
City limit
Legend
Summary Report — October 2021 Opportunity Housing Citywide Analysis 23 Chapter —
Lot Testing + Feasibility Analysis
To assess the viability of building types on specific lot configurations, lot testing is an essential step to inform the cost feasibility analysis of Opportunity Housing.

The Purpose of Lot Testing
Lot testing involves the design testing of
typical building prototypes on select lot
configurations. Since specific building
types have inherent minimum dimensions,
lot testing reveals the impacts and
limitations of lot width and lot depth
toward building size and off-street parking.

The process seeks to optimize the unit
count and parking count for a given lot
size, with respect to desired building form
within the allowed density and/or FAR.

Since this involves using actual building
types and site and parking layout, the
results are more precise than numeric
calculations based only on density or FAR.

Determining the Inputs
The first criteria for lot selection were
allowed land use and lot size. Lots selected
for this purpose were in the Residential
Neighborhood General Plan land use with
lot widths ranging from 50 to 60 feet.

More information on the selection criteria
is described on the facing page.

For the selected lot widths (50 feet and
60 feet), a stacked fourplex was a logical
baseline building type for comparative
feasibility analysis, since the upper
threshold set by the Opportunity Housing
Task Force and City Council for this
analysis was four units per lot.

A stacked fourplex was selected because
it provides four units, but within an overall
footprint that is generally comparable
to the footprints of single-family homes.

The remaining lot area not dedicated to
the building footprint could be utilized
for a more intense parking approach
when appropriate. The lot testing also
considered variations in fourplex unit and
building footprint sizes, and this in turn
affected the parking approach as well.

Iterative Learning
The lot testing consisted of three
rounds, and the process involved close
collaboration with Strategic Economics.

For each round, the development
program achieved from the lot test
was analyzed for financial feasibility for
both rental and for-sale products in the
three tiered submarkets identified for
San Jose by Strategic Economics. For
additional information on the submarkets,
please refer to the report titled "San Jose
Opportunity Housing: Feasibility Results",
by Strategic Economics, October 2021.

A Note About ADUs
Accessory dwelling units were considered
for 150-feet deep lots in the first round
of testing and for select 125-feet deep
lots in the second round. However, for
consistency in comparing the different
lot tests, ADUs are excluded from the FAR
calculated and the feasibility results.

Attainability and Livability
Considerations
In assessing financial feasibility, an
important consideration to keep in mind is
whether the "financially feasible" outcomes
are also attainable at area median
incomes. Unless the additional housing
units delivered as part of Opportunity
24 Opportunity Housing Citywide Analysis Summary Report — October 2021 Chapter —
Lot sizes were determined through citywide analysis
of lot widths and depths of lots with the Residential
Neighborhood General Plan land use designation. Lot
widths and depths were arranged in a matrix to show
the number of lots with each dimension, grouped in
five-foot increments, revealing the most prevalent
lot dimensions throughout the city. For example, the
matrix showed that 60 feet is the most commonly
occurring lot width with 90,364 lots having this
dimension, more than double the number of lots with
any other lot width. As a result, 60 feet was the lot
width selected for study in most prototypes.

A lot depth of 125 feet allows most traditional
fourplexes to have 4 off-street surface parking spaces, accessed by a front-loaded driveway that leads to the
parking area in the middle and rear of the lot. The lot testing showed that 100-feet deep lots are not able to
support off-street parking at a ratio of 1 space per unit, and 150-feet deep lots are able to support off-street
parking at a ratio of 1:1 or slightly greater.

After an initial round of analysis, the lot size of 60 feet x 125 feet was determined to be most suitable for further testing. About five thousand (5,030) lots fall in the
range of 60-65 feet width and 125-150 feet depth.

Selecting Lot Sizes for Feasibility Testing

CLOSER LOOK
Four variations of the stacked fourplex building type were tested on lots 50 feet and 60 feet wide, and varying lot depths commonly found in San Jose. The graphic above shows the lot testing for 60 feet-wide lots.

Summary Report — October 2021 Opportunity Housing Citywide Analysis 25 Chapter —
Housing are attainable to a majority of
the San Jose population, the policy will be
limited in its equity goals.

Another key consideration in drafting
policy is that of livability. The manner
in which the new housing will respond
to privacy concerns from existing
homeowners, and how the new housing
types will engage with the street and
sidewalk will be important. For instance,
when building entrances face the street,
it contributes to a safer, more walkable
environment and helps build a sense of
community. When building facades "back
on" or "side on" to a street, this aspect is
not addressed. Similarly, if a new building
has all its units with windows overlooking
a neighbor's yard, it may cause friction.

These and other form criteria should
form part of policy decisions regarding
Opportunity Housing.

Summary of Lot Testing Results
The three rounds of lot testing included
testing a variety of units on the same
lot size (7,500 sq ft; 60 x 125 feet) for
consistency. Strategic Economics tested
the types described below for financial
feasibility, in addition to other variations.

The following steps were followed:

Round 1. Test an "idealized" housing
type and additions
The first round tested a stacked fourplex,
considered an ideal type to deliver
attainability (due to its smaller unit sizes)
and livability (due to its massing and
orientation that work well in single-family
neighborhoods). The stacked fourplex
was found to be financially unfeasible
(both rental and for-sale) across all three
submarket tiers.

A stacked duplex prototype with larger,
for-sale units had better feasibility in two
of the three submarket tiers. This round
also tested the scenario of maintaining the
primary single family home while adding
a duplex at the rear yard of the lot. This
option was feasible in one submarket as a
for-sale product but not as rental.

With these initial findings, the team sought
to explore options that would be more
feasible.

Round 2. Test housing types most likely
to be market-feasible
In the second round, the team selected
housing types more likely to achieve
feasibility. These included a set of four
side-by-side townhouse units oriented
perpendicular to the street, a common lot
configuration seen in San Jose and parts
of the Bay Area. A set of four detached
single-family homes were also studied.

Modifications to improve financial
feasibility included increasing unit sizes
and building footprints, and adding a
third story. These types were found to
be financially viable in some submarkets
under current market conditions.

The results from this round showed that
increasing FAR improved the potential
for market feasibility. As building size
increased, so did the unit size, up to the
market threshold beyond which it became
more appropriate to increase unit count as
opposed to unit size. Given that the lot size
stayed the same, FAR could increase with
additional height or larger footprints with
reductions to the open space on the lot,
but generally the parking count could not
be increased without drastic reductions to
existing setbacks.

While prototypes tested in this round are
financially feasible, they typically may not
provide housing that is attainable to most
median-income residents. In terms of
building form and orientation, these do not
make much contribution to neighborhood
character or an active public realm.
26 Opportunity Housing Citywide Analysis Summary Report — October 2021 Chapter —
Round 3. Find the sweet spot for
feasibility, attainability and livability
In the third round of testing, the team
sought to make modifications to the
housing types to achieve financial
feasibility while also aiming for good
urban form and addressing attainability
concerns.

To do this, the team had to push the
defined parameters for Opportunity
Housing, and add units beyond the
established threshold of four per lot. In
this round, the prototypes tested include
two- and three-story stacked eightplexes
and three-story stacked sixplexes. For this
exercise, unit sizes and building footprints
were kept similar to those used in the first
round, and parking was reduced. Overall
FAR was increased to improve financial
feasibility by adding on a third floor.

Some of these prototypes were found to
be feasible in some submarkets under
current market conditions. These also
would likely be more attainable, since unit
sizes are smaller. These typically have
reduced on-site parking, which may limit
their appeal to some.

In the following pages, the three rounds
of testing are described, with supporting
graphics and program summaries.

For additional information about the
feasibility analysis across the tiered
submarkets, refer to the report prepared
by Strategic Economics titled "San Jose
Opportunity Housing: Feasibility Results",
October 2021. This report by Strategic
Economics also includes discussion on
related topics such as potential impacts
of recent state-wide legislation on
Opportunity Housing (SB9, SB10) and
other relevant information.

Summary Report — October 2021 Opportunity Housing Citywide Analysis 27 Chapter —
Round 1 Test an "idealized"
housing type and additions
This lot test used a typical stacked fourplex
building type, known to promote livability and
attainability. A typical fourplex has smaller
individual units, with an overall building footprint
that closely matches that of a medium-to-large
single-family house. For achieving the equity
goals of Opportunity Housing, it was important
to test this type.

However, the financial model showed this
prototype to be financially infeasible, for both
rental and for-sale products. As a result, this
type is unlikely to contribute to additional
housing in San Jose. A variation tested was
a larger side-by-side duplex. This type was
found to be feasible as a for-sale product in
two of the three submarket tiers. However,
the larger unit sizes indicate that attainability
may be an issue with this prototype.

Stacked Fourplex
Lot + Building Specifications
Lot size 7,500 sf
Lot dimensions 60 ft x 125 ft
# of units 4
# of parking spaces 5 (1.25 per unit)
Unit types 2 bd / 2 ba
Unit sizes 1,080 sf
Density 23 du/ac
FAR 0.64
Variation Tested (not shown here)
Two-Story Side-by-Side Large Duplex.

This was tested as a for-sale product
and was feasible in Tiers 1 and 2.

Attainability Feasibility Livability
Feasibility by Submarket
Note: Calculated based on residual value to
acquisition cost ratio
For-Sale Rental
Tier 1 Not feasible Not feasible
Tier 2 Not feasible Not feasible
Tier 3 Not feasible Not feasible
28 Opportunity Housing Citywide Analysis Summary Report — October 2021 Chapter —
Round 1 (Continued)
Side-by-Side Duplex Addition
This prototype adds a side-by-side duplex
to the rear yard of an existing single-family
home. Approaches to off-street parking for this
scenario can vary. The single-family home may
have a front-loaded garage with a driveway
that can support one or two tandem parking
spaces. In lieu of that, a separate drive aisle for
mid-lot parking could provide up to two parking
spaces, with the portential for additional
tandem parking within the drive aisle.

This prototype was found to be feasible in
one submarket tier, as a for-sale product.

Lot + Building Specifications
Lot size 7,500 sf
Lot dimensions 60 ft x 125 ft
# of units 2
# of parking spaces 2 (1 per unit)
Unit types 3 bd / 3 ba
Unit sizes 1,290 sf
Density 12 du/ac
FAR 0.36
Feasibility by Submarket
Note: Calculated based on residual value to
acquisition cost ratio
For-Sale Rental
Tier 1 Feasible Not feasible
Tier 2 Not feasible Not feasible
Tier 3 Not feasible Not feasible
Attainability Feasibility Livability
Summary Report — October 2021 Opportunity Housing Citywide Analysis 29 Chapter —
Round 2 Test housing types
most likely to be market-feasible
This round evaluated building types proven
to be market-feasible based upon their recent
production in San Jose. Understanding the
financial performance of these types provided
a helpful benchmark against which to compare
the performance of other tested types. The
prototype tested consists of four attached
three-story townhouse units with tuck-under
parking; oriented perpendicular to the street, all
fronting onto a common driveway (colloquially
called "slot houses"). This type is financially
feasible, but with larger units, the typical
sale price or rent of this type of housing will
be too high to provide additional attainable
housing at area median incomes.

Side-by-Side Townhouses
Lot + Building Specifications
Lot size 7,500 sf
Lot dimensions 60 ft x 125 ft
# of units 4
# of parking spaces 6 (1.5 per unit)
Unit types 3 bd / 2.5 ba
Unit sizes 1,480 sf
Density 23 du/ac
FAR 0.91
Attainability Feasibility Livability
Feasibility by Submarket
Note: Calculated based on residual value to
acquisition cost ratio
For-Sale Rental
Tier 1 Feasible Not tested
Tier 2 Not feasible Not tested
Tier 3 Not feasible Not tested
30 Opportunity Housing Citywide Analysis Summary Report — October 2021 Chapter —
Also as part of Round 2, a prototype tested
included four detached three-story singlefamily units, oriented perpendicular to the street and fronting onto a common driveway. A
variety of parking approaches can be used for
this type, including garages, tuck-under and/or
tandem parking in the driveway. Similar to the
attached side-by-side townhouse prototype,
this type is financially feasible, but with
larger units, the typical sale price or rent
of this type of housing will be too high to
provide additional attainable housing at area
median incomes.

Multiple Single-Family Houses
Round 2 (Continued)
Lot + Building Specifications
Lot size 7,500 sf
Lot dimensions 60 ft x 125 ft
# of units 4
# of parking spaces 4 (1 per unit)
Unit types 3 bd / 2.5 ba
Unit sizes 1,480 sf
Density 23 du/ac
FAR 0.91
Attainability Feasibility Livability
Feasibility by Submarket
Note: Calculated based on residual value to
acquisition cost ratio
For-Sale Rental
Tier 1 Feasible Not tested
Tier 2 Feasible Not tested
Tier 3 Not feasible Not tested
Summary Report — October 2021 Opportunity Housing Citywide Analysis 31 Chapter —
Three-Story Stacked Sixplex
In Round 3, the team expanded on the unit
count thresholds established for Opportunity
Housing in order to explore housing options
that could deliver livability and attainability while
also being financially feasible. In this round,
sixplexes and eightplexes were tested. Unit
sizes were kept the same as the fourplex tested
in Round 1, but FAR was increased by adding
on a third story. Since the building footprint
remained the same, a reasonable amount
of parking could be provided. Alternatively,
the building envelope could be increased,
providing slightly larger units, when used in
areas where parking is not a high priority (such
as Opportunty Housing Areas adjacent to
transit stops). This type is financially more
feasible, and with additional smaller units,
potentially more attainable. While reduced
parking may limit its appeal, it is likely to
yield additional housing, in at least some of
San Jose's submarkets.

Round 3 Find the sweet spot
for feasibility, attainability, and
livability
Lot + Building Specifications
Lot size 7,500 sf
Lot dimensions 60 ft x 125 ft
# of units 6
# of parking spaces 3 (0.5 per unit)
Unit types 2 bd / 2 ba
Unit sizes 1,080 sf
Density 35 du/ac
FAR 0.96
Variations Tested (not shown here)
Three-Story Stacked Eightplex. This
prototype was derived by adding a
2-story, 2-unit wing to the rear of a
3-story fourplex. The increased FAR
made this type feasible as both a forsale and as a rental product but only in Tier 1, not Tiers 2 and 3.

Feasibility by Submarket
Note: Calculated based on residual value to
acquisition cost ratio
For-Sale Rental
Tier 1 Feasible Not feasible
Tier 2 Not feasible Not feasible
Tier 3 Not feasible Not feasible
Attainability Feasibility Livability
32 Opportunity Housing Citywide Analysis Summary Report — October 2021 Chapter —
Lot + Building Specifications
Lot size 7,500 sf
Lot dimensions 60 ft x 125 ft
# of units 8
# of parking spaces 5 (0.6 per unit)
Unit types 2 bd / 2 ba
Unit sizes 1,048 sf
Density 47 du/ac
FAR 1.24
Also as part of Round 3, a two-story stacked
eightplex was tested as a rental product. This
prototype had similar unit sizes to the fourplex
tested in Round 1. While this configuration is
likely to blend in well with adjacent singlefamily homes, and also has reasonably small unit sizes to address attainability, it does have
higher construction costs per square foot. This
housing type was found to be infeasible,
and is not is likely to contribute to additional
housing in San Jose.

Two-Story Stacked Eightplex
Round 3 (Continued)
Attainability Feasibility Livability
Feasibility by Submarket
Note: Calculated based on residual value to
acquisition cost ratio
For-Sale Rental
Tier 1 Not tested Not feasible
Tier 2 Not tested Not feasible
Tier 3 Not tested Not feasible
Summary Report — October 2021 Opportunity Housing Citywide Analysis 33 Chapter —
34 Opportunity Housing Citywide Analysis Summary Report — October 2021

Zoning Update Committee STAFF REPORT
Blake Huntsman - Chair July 14, 2010
Michael Colbruno
Doug Boxer
Location: Citywide
Proposal: Zoning Text amendments and Zoning Map revisions to update the City’s commercial and residential zoning districts. This project also includes establishing height maps along the City’s corridors and revising the “Guidelines for Determining Project Conformity with the General Plan and Zoning Regulations” to reflect the new zoning designations.

Applicant: Planning Commission
Case File Numbers: ZT10-111, RZ10-112
General Plan: Hillside Residential, Mixed Housing Type Residential, Urban Residential, Mixed Housing Type Residential, Neighborhood Center Mixed Use, Community Commercial, Regional Commercial
Zoning: Various
Service Delivery District: All Districts
City Council District: All Districts
Action to be Taken: Public Hearing and Discussion
For Further Information: Contact case planner Neil Gray at (510) 238-3878 or by email:
[email protected]

SUMMARY/BACKGROUND
At the May 26, 2010 Zoning Update Committee (ZUC) meeting, staff presented an overview of the proposed commercial and residential zoning regulations. At that meeting, staff also recommended, and ZUC agreed to, a general timetable for the discussion and presentation of the proposed zoning maps. Review of the proposed zoning maps will first focus on North Oakland, West Oakland and North Hills (Area 1); followed by Central Oakland, including San Antonio, Fruitvale, Adams Point/Grand Lake and the Lower Hills (Area 2); and finally East Oakland, including areas such as Elmhurst, the South Hills and Central East Oakland (Area 3). This staff report describes the methodology used to produce the proposed zoning maps, it describes the highlights of the proposed zoning map for Area 1, and includes, as Attachment A, a response to comments received at the May 26, 2010 ZUC meeting.

The presentation of this staff report was originally scheduled for the June 26, 2010 ZUC meeting. That meeting was cancelled due to a lack of quorum. Changes to the zoning maps made after the publication of the June 26 staff report are summarized in the Proposed Mapping section, below.

APPROACH
The following is a review of staff’s approach to mapping zoning districts and height areas in the City’s residential and commercial neighborhoods.

Approach to Mapping the Zoning Districts
The mapping of the proposed zones is based on a consistent citywide methodology taking into consideration the criteria described in this section.

Zoning Update Committee July 14, 2010

Page 2 ends

General Plan Designation. The foremost criterion for how a property is zoned is its designation on the General Plan Land Use Diagram. The overarching goal of the zoning update is to achieve a zoning map that is fully consistent with the Land Use Diagram. Strategy Diagram Designation. As noted earlier, the LUTE Strategy Diagram designates some areas of Oakland as “Maintain and Enhance” and others as “Grow and Change.” For areas with the former designation, an effort was made to assign a zoning district which reflected existing densities. This was particularly important in areas designated “Mixed Housing Type” on the Land Use Diagram since there are four possible zoning districts consistent with this designation.
Existing Zoning. Within a given General Plan category, existing zoning was a major factor in determining future zoning, particularly in areas that were rezoned during the 1990s and 2000s, and in commercial areas (such as C-31). Existing Land Uses. Extensive field work and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) analysis of parcel data was conducted as part of the mapping process. In residential areas, existing densities were used to assign the correct zoning designations. In commercial areas, the mix of uses was used to determine the “best fit” zone for a given General Plan category. The result is a much finer-grained zoning map than the current map. Parcelization. Geographic Information Systems (GIS) analysis was conducted to study patterns, such as median lot sizes, in order to determine the appropriate zone in many areas, particularly in residential areas.
General Plan policies. The maps reflect the interpretation of General Plan policies as well as the Land Use Diagram. For instance, height limits on any given commercial parcel reflect Historic Preservation policies to promote context-sensitive design; hillside densities reflect OSCAR Element policies to conserve steep slopes; and densities near the BART stations reflect LUTE policies to promote transit-oriented development; and so on. Community Input. More than 50 neighborhood meetings have been held to date. The maps have been edited to reflect input from these meetings, as well as written correspondence from residents, and will continue to be amended during the coming months as the public process continues.

Approach to Mapping the Height Areas
In the commercial and corridor zones (CN, CC, CR, RU-4 and RU-5 zones), height, bulk and intensity are proposed to be regulated separately from the base zoning district. Two areas may have the same base zoning district that encourages pedestrian-oriented commercial activities, but one location may be in a height area that allows greater intensity that the other, due to factors that will be described below.

Staff proposes seven height areas with corresponding maximum height limits, residential densities, nonresidential floor area ratios and number of floors. These regulations are summarized in Attachment C. The height maximums (35, 45, 60, 75, 90, 120, and 160 feet) were chosen to be just below where “life safety” requirements would necessitate a more Zoning Update Committee July 14, 2010

Page 3 ends

expensive building type. A minimum height of 25 feet is also proposed for new construction on major corridors that are at least 100 feet wide, such as Telegraph Avenue, San Pablo Avenue, International Boulevard and Broadway. This regulation is further discussed in the “Key Issues and Impacts” section of this report.

Height areas were mapped using the following basic principles:
More intensity (and higher height limits) would be allowed on wider corridors, so new development could frame and enclose a wide expanse of street space; More intensity would be allowed near transit (BART stations and AC Transit hubs) to encourage new development to locate in areas with good transit accessibility; Less intensity would be allowed in intact historic districts, generally Areas of Secondary Importance (ASIs)1, to reduce development pressure and preserve the integrity of those districts;
More intensity would be allowed on portions of a corridor that are adjacent to high intensity residential neighborhoods or industrial areas that would have fewer solar and privacy impacts from new development.
Less intensity (and lower height limits) would be allowed for areas adjacent to a bluff to reduce view impacts.

The following table summarizes the rules of thumb for mapping height areas:

Condition Height Area Examples
Wide Streets (right of way > 100 feet), such as San Pablo Ave, Telegraph Ave and International Blvd
Near a BART Station 75 to 120 feet Fruitvale, West Oakland BART station areas
At an AC Transit hub (trunk lines) or intersection of two major and wide streets
75 feet 40th and Broadway
Not adjacent to a lower density residential neighborhood 75 feet Telegraph Ave adjacent to Pill Hill Adjacent to a lower density residential neighborhood 60 feet Most of San Pablo Ave In a historic neighborhood 45 feet Grand Ave at Adams Point Directly adjacent to a bluff 45 feet Broadway 41st to 45th Hegenberger Corridor 120 to 160 feet Hegenberger Road, 98th Ave Narrow Streets (right of way < 100 feet), such as
College Ave, Macarthur Blvd and Foothill Blvd
At an AC transit hub (trunk lines) or intersection of two major streets
60 feet 35th Ave and Macarthur Blvd
Not adjacent to a lower density residential neighborhood 60 feet International near 4th Ave Adjacent to a lower density residential neighborhood 45 feet Dimond District In a historic district 35 feet Rockridge

1 ASIs are historically or visually cohesive areas or property groups identified by City surveys that contain a high proportion of historic buildings. ASIs do not appear eligible and not considered CEQA Historic Resources. There are several ASIs on the corridors and tend to be located at commercial districts where major streets intersect, such as the Fruitvale, Rockridge, and Fairview Commercial Districts. ASIs are distinguished from APIs because APIs appear eligible for the National Register of Historic Places and thus are considered CEQA Historic Resources. The 7th Street commercial district is the only API on a commercial corridor outside of Downtown.

Zoning Update Committee July 14, 2010

Page 4 ends

The above table does not include all contexts and situations. For example, the height limits for Telegraph and Shattuck Avenues in Temescal, were formulated as part of a previous process.

That process and the proposed height limits for Temescal are described in the Key Issues and Impacts section of this report.

Staff also proposes to strengthen the regulations that create a transition from new, higherintensity construction on the corridors to the middle- and lower-density residential neighborhoods behind the corridors. These regulations are especially important in Oakland because of its pattern of long corridors adjacent to residential neighborhoods and the General Plan’s policies that focus development on the corridors. Current regulations require a ten-foot setback adjacent to residential neighborhoods and a 30-foot height maximum at this setback line.

This 30-foot height limit is consistent with the height limit for low density residential neighborhoods. This height limit increases one foot for every foot from the setback line. Staff proposes to modify this regulation by requiring a fifteen-foot setback for lots that are deeper than 100 feet.

On June 14, 2010, the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board reviewed the proposed heights for the City and proposed no changes to the Area 1 proposal, described in more detail below.

PROPOSED MAPPING
The following is an overview of the proposed zoning maps for Area 1. The maps themselves are contained in Attachment B, the height/intensity regulations are contained in Attachment C, descriptions of the zones are contained in Attachment D, and the text of the zones is contained in Attachment E. Due to the number and extent of the changes, the narrative below is not intended to be comprehensive and only provides highlights. A more detailed narrative summarizing the changes is provided in Attachment F—but even that narrative does not annotate each individual change. Because the maps implement a new zoning framework for the entire city, virtually every residential and commercial property in the city will have a new zoning designation. This staff report focuses on large contiguous areas where substantive changes will occur.

For ease of presentation, Area 1 has been subdivided into three geographic subareas: North Hills, North Oakland, and West Oakland (which includes the area north of Downtown). These same subareas were used to present the maps to the community during the April 26, 2010 community workshop, and have been used in prior planning studies by the City (including the General Plan).

The maps themselves indicate the existing zoning and proposed zoning for all parcels. Shading has been used to distinguish those areas where substantive changes will occur. Light gray shading indicates an increase or decrease in the allowable intensity/ density. Dark gray shading indicates a change in the basic use category (i.e., from industrial to residential, from residential to commercial, etc.). Areas that are unshaded are proposed for no substantive change, and will essentially be rezoned with the zone that most closely matches the existing zone.

Zoning Update Committee July 14, 2010

Page 5 ends

North Hills
The North Hills area is generally located above Highway 13 between Berkeley on the north and and Redwood Road on the south. It includes Claremont Hills, Hiller Highlands, parts of Upper Rockridge, Piedmont Pines, Montclair, and the Joaquin Miller/ Butters Canyon area. The prevailing General Plan designations are Hillside Residential and Resource Conservation Area, with a few “nodes” of Neighborhood Center Mixed Use. Existing residential zoning is generally R-30, with some areas of R-10 and R-20 and a few small areas of medium density (R-40 and R50) zoning. Existing commercial zones include the C-27 district (Montclair) and pockets of C10 and C-20 zoning corresponding to small shopping centers. The entire area is designated as “Maintain and Enhance” on the General Plan Strategy Diagram.

General Plan policies for the North Hills support low to very low density infill development, consistent with prevailing land use patterns. Policies generally do not support increases in the currently allowed density, and in some cases imply that decreases are desired. For instance, the Open Space, Conservation and Recreation (OSCAR) Element discourages subdivision of steeply sloping lots and the Safety Element calls for continued low densities in fire-prone and landslide prone hillside neighborhoods. The Land Use and Transportation Element (LUTE) itself calls for a minimum lot size of 8,000 square feet, which is substantially less dense than what is permitted by the existing R-30 zone.

The “default” designation for areas with a General Plan designation of “Hillside Residential” and an existing zoning designation of R-30 is RH-4. Most of the North Hills have been zoned this way. Consistent with the LUTE, an 8,000 square foot minimum lot size applies in these areas, with 6,500 square foot lots permitted under some circumstances (see attached materials). A number of R-30 areas have been further reduced to RH-1, RH-2, or RH-3, based on prevailing lot sizes that exceed 12,000 square feet. The reduction is justified by the General Plan directive to “maintain and enhance” these areas, as well as OSCAR and Safety Element policies to limit future subdivision. Examples include the Castle Canyon area in Piedmont Pines, the top of Fairlane Drive/ Gwin Canyon, and the Elverton Drive area. There are very few lots in these areas less than 12,000 square feet; an RH-3 designation would reduce subdivision potential relative to existing zoning, while maintaining the buildability of previously subdivided lots.

Commercial zoning in the North Hills is limited. Proposed zoning for Montclair Village is CN1, which is not a substantive change relative to the existing C-27 zoning. The other “pockets” of commercial land use in the area (Village Market, Thornhill Shopping Center, Woodminster, etc.) are generally designated CN-3 or CN-4 depending on their General Plan designation. Areas shown on the General Plan as Neighborhood Center Mixed Use are generally CN-3, while the smaller “pockets” that correspond to gas stations or other single-parcel commercial districts are CN-4. The Claremont Hotel (designated Community Commercial on the General Plan) has been zoned RU-3 (equivalent to R-70, which is the current zoning of the site). Staff believes this zone is more consistent with General Plan policies than a Community Commercial zoning designation, given the location of the property and its current (and likely future) use.

Zoning Update Committee July 14, 2010

Page 6 ends

Parts of the North Hills are currently included in special zoning overlay districts. Specifically, the S-10 (scenic route overlay) zone includes supplemental standards for driveway access, height on downslope lots, and design review. The S-11 zone is linked to the the North Oakland Hills Specific Plan Area (NOHASP) and includes special provisions for site planning and density along Skyline and in Shepherd Canyon. Both of these overlays have been retained and no changes to their boundaries have been proposed.

North Oakland
North Oakland includes the Golden Gate, Temescal, Rockridge, and Piedmont Avenue neighborhoods, as well as other areas roughly located “above” Highway 580, and “below” Highway 13 in the area between Piedmont, Emeryville, and Berkeley. The area includes a variety of General Plan designations, corresponding to a diverse land use pattern and mixed densities. Most of the area is designated “Maintain and Enhance” on the General Plan Strategy Diagram, but key areas such as the San Pablo corridor, the Telegraph Avenue corridor (in Temescal), the MacArthur corridor, the MLK Jr Corridor (below Children’s Hospital), and the Broadway corridor (below 51st) are designated “Grow and Change.” The Grow and Change designation suggests that greater development intensities than currently exist are appropriate in these areas.

West of Broadway, the prevailing residential zones in North Oakland are R-35 and R-40. There are a few pockets of medium to high density zoning corresponding to existing multi-family development, especially along corridor streets and near Mosswood Park. East of Broadway (e.g., in the Piedmont Avenue neighborhood), the current zoning allows for medium to high density residential uses, with large areas zoned R-50 or R-70. Some of these areas are developed with apartments but others have historically been “overzoned” and primarily contain single family homes or 2-4 unit buildings.

The new zoning maps propose downzoning in the Piedmont Avenue neighborhood to implement General Plan “maintain and enhance” policies as well as the “Mixed Housing Type” Residential designation. In areas designated “Mixed Housing Type” currently developed with mostly 1-3 unit buildings, RM-2 has typically been used. In areas with a mix of single family homes and 2- 8 unit buildings, the designation is typically RM-3. “Mixed Housing Type” areas with existing concentrations of large apartment buildings have typically been designated RM-4. An effort was made to apply designations that would limit the number of structures that would become nonconforming, while still respecting General Plan directives. Areas in the Piedmont Avenue neighborhood designated “Urban Residential” are proposed to be zoned with a combination of RU-1, RU-2, and RU-3, with the locations of highest allowed densities corresponding to the locations of existing concentrations of higher density apartments.

Similar reductions in allowable density are proposed in the Mosswood area west of Broadway near 40th Street. Existing R-70 zoning will be replaced by a combination of RM-3 and RM-4 zoning, reflecting the General Plan designation of Mixed Housing Type Residential as well as existing land use patterns.

Zoning Update Committee July 14, 2010

Page 7 ends

In the Rockridge and Temescal districts, proposed residential zoning generally mirrors existing designations. Most R-35 areas (currently the “default” zone for Rockridge) have been zoned RM-1. Most R-40 areas (currently the “default” zone for Temescal, the Santa Fe/ Longfellow, and Golden Gate neighborhoods) have been zoned RM-2. In the western part of North Oakland (near San Pablo Avenue), several blocks have been designated RM-3 to recognize existing concentrations of medium density housing.

Zoning changes along the commercial corridors in North Oakland are guided by General Plan designations. For instance, the Telegraph corridor includes sections designated on the Land Use Diagram as Urban Residential, Neighborhood Center Mixed Use, and Community Commercial.

The existing C-28 zoning on this corridor will be replaced with a more fine-grained mix of RU-4 and RU-5 (in the Urban Residential areas), CN-2 (in the Neighborhood Center areas), and CC-2 (in the Community Commercial areas). Height limits on the corridor reflect prior community input during the Temescal planning process as well as the factors listed earlier in this staff report.

A few of the commercial corridors in North Oakland are proposed for rezoning as Urban Residential. For example, the Martin Luther King Junior corridor (below 51st Street) will be rezoned from C-30 to a combination of RU-4 and RU-5. The RU-4 designation has been proposed in areas where the existing land use is predominantly residential. The RU-5 designation has been proposed in areas where the existing land use is predominantly commercial.

Land around the MacArthur BART station is generally proposed for S-15 (Transit Oriented Development) zoning. This is the same district that applies in West Oakland and Fruitvale, and it is intended to accommodate high density mixed use development, consistent with the General Plan. Height limits in this area reflect prior planning studies for the BART station, as well as the factors listed earlier in this staff report. The adjacent stretch of MacArthur Boulevard between the BART Station and Emeryville will be rezoned from commercial (C-25 and C-30) to a mix of RU-4 and RU-5, responding both to the General Plan and existing land use patterns.

New zoning on the Market Street corridor in North Oakland reflects the General Plan designation of this area as Mixed Housing Type Residential. Historically this corridor has included a mix of housing and neighborhood-serving retail/ office uses, but the General Plan designation indicates it should trend residential. Thus, the existing commercial zoning on the corridor will be replaced with residential zoning. A proposed “RC” (Residential-Commercial) overlay district will be used in a few locations (such as 45th/Market) to reflect concentrations of existing businesses.

Proposed zoning on most of the other corridors in North Oakland is comparable to existing zoning and is already consistent with the General Plan. This includes Broadway (to be zoned CC-2, which is similar to the existing C-40 zone but with height limits and more emphasis on pedestrian-oriented design) and San Pablo Avenue (to be zoned CC-2, with CN-3 near the Powell Street intersection). The proposed zoning on both of these corridors would establish context-sensitive height limits where no height limits at all exist today. In addition, the Piedmont Avenue and College Avenue shopping districts are proposed for CN-1 zoning. This is similar to the existing C-31 zoning, including the 35-foot height limit.

Zoning Update Committee July 14, 2010

Page 8 ends

West Oakland/ Pill Hill
For the purposes of this staff report, the West Oakland/ Pill Hill area includes those areas bounded by I-580 on the north, I-880 on the west and south, and Harrison Street or Downtown Oakland on the east. The most substantial zoning changes are on San Pablo Avenue, in the Oak Center area (roughly between 12th and Grand, between I-980 and Mandela Parkway), and along Market Street and Martin Luther King Junior Way.

San Pablo Avenue presently includes a mix of C-30 and C-40 zoning. Consistent with the General Plan, the corridor has been divided into segments of Community Commercial (CC-2 and CC-3) and Urban Residential (RU-4 and RU-5) zoning. Height limits ranging from 35 to 75 feet have been assigned to the corridor (there are no height limits today). The mapping has been structured to minimize the creation of new non-conforming uses, with RU-4 applied in those areas where the prevailing use is residential (including SROs) and CC-3 applied in areas with concentrations of quasi-industrial and automotive service uses.

Most of the Oak Center neighborhood has been downzoned from R-60 and R-70 to RM-2 and RM-4. This is consistent with the General Plan designation of this area as “Mixed Housing Type Residential” and its Strategy Diagram designation of “Maintain and Enhance.” The proposed zones on any given block reflect existing land use patterns and housing types as well as the historic character of the area. The S-20 (Historic Preservation) overlay district that presently applies in this area will be retained. RM-4 zoning is applied on the higher-volume streets (14th 18th, Adeline Streets, etc.). The local streets in this area are generally proposed for RM-2, and the new single family subdivisions on the former Housing Authority sites are proposed as RM-1.

Significant changes are also proposed along Market Street (between 18th and 26th Streets).

Although the predominant existing zoning is commercial (C-10, etc.), the General Plan designates the area as Mixed Housing Type Residential and does not acknowledge the existing business district. Accordingly, the extent of commercial zoning has been reduced, with a commercial (R/C) overlay used in areas where active small businesses in this area are presently clustered. The balance of the corridor in this area is proposed for RM-4, which will encourage residential infill development.

Similarly, the segment of Martin Luther King Junior Way from Grand Avenue to 29th Street will be rezoned from commercial (C-30) use to RU-4 and RU-5, implementing the General Plan designation of Urban Residential. Some of the existing “heavier” commercial uses on both the Market Street and MLK corridors would become non-conforming as a result of these changes.

Another change in West Oakland is on the south side of 7th Street between Union and Market, where the existing zoning is M-20. The General Plan designation in this area is Community Commercial. Accordingly, a zone change to CC-3 has been proposed. Most of the existing businesses in this area conform to the CC-3 regulations. At the other end of West Oakland, the East Baybridge Center (e.g., Home Depot, et. al) is proposed for rezoning from M-40 to RC-1, reflecting its designation on the General Plan as Regional Commercial.

Zoning Update Committee July 14, 2010

Page 9 ends

Several remnant “pockets” of industrial zoning in residential areas will be eliminated in West Oakland. This is the case in the Clawson (Dogtown) neighborhood, where about a half-dozen scattered “islands” had retained M-30 (or C-10) zoning despite the previous rezoning of all properties around them as HBX-2. Such pockets would be rezoned HBX-2. Similarly, a number of M-20 parcels near McClymonds High School and along Adeline Street will be rezoned for residential uses (RM-2 or RM-4) to reflect their General Plan designations for housing. In some cases, these parcels have already been converted from industrial to residential use. In other cases, new non-conforming uses may result.

Elsewhere in West Oakland, the predominant existing residential zoning is R-36 and R-50. The “default” proposed zone for areas now zoned R-36 is RM-2, while the “default” proposed zone for areas now zoned R-50 is RM-3. In a few cases (for instance, the area around McClymonds High School and along Athens Avenue), a reduction from R-50 to RM-2 is proposed to reflect existing single family land uses. Other changes include the rezoning of the 14th/ Peralta commercial district from C-10 to RM-4/C, and a slight expansion of the S-15 (Transit-Oriented Development) zone around the West Oakland BART station.

East of I-980 and north of Grand Avenue, zoning in the Pill Hill, Northgate, and Harrison/ Oakland neighborhoods will be changed to match General Plan designations and better reflect General Plan policy directives. This will mean a reduction in allowable densities in areas between Telegraph and I-980 now zoned R-70 and R-80 (proposed for RU-1 and RU-2), and some conversion of C-45 zoning to RU-3 zoning (between Grand and 27th Street). The Broadway and Telegraph corridors in this area are proposed for CC-2 zoning, with height limits that reflect street widths, close proximity to Downtown, and transit access. CC-3 zoning has been applied to the existing cluster of automotive businesses along 24th and 25th Streets north of Downtown. Zoning designations in this area will be further refined and supplemented following the completion of the Upper Broadway Specific Plan.

Mapping Changes since the June 23, 2010 ZUC staff report Since the publication of the June 23, 2010 ZUC staff report, staff has proposed additional minor changes to the new zoning maps. These changes respond to: (a) a detailed analysis of areas where the General Plan and proposed zoning were still inconsistent; and (b) staff-level discussions of the proposed maps and their consistency with evolving plans and economic development initiatives. The following designations appear on the maps that accompany this staff report, but were not on the previous maps:
Single family parcels along Chadbourne Way and Stantonville Drive (near Skyline/Redwood) are proposed as RD-1 and not RH-4, as previously indicated (General Plan designation is Detached Residential, not Hillside Residential) Single family parcels along Dublin, Kearney, Pierpoint, Woodside Cir, Woodcrest Glen (Woodminster area) are proposed as RD-1 and not RH-4 as previously indicated (General Plan designation is Detached Residential, not Hillside Residential) Parcels on San Pablo Avenue between 32nd and 36th and between Grand Avenue and 27th are now proposed as RU-5 instead of a mix of RU-4 and RU-5 Zoning Update Committee July 14, 2010

Page 10 ends

A ½ block area on Martin Luther King Jr Way between 37th Street and MacArthur Blvd is proposed as CN-3 rather than RU-5.
A single commercially used parcel on Pleasant Valley Road just west of Piedmont Av is now proposed as CN-3 rather than RM-2.
Parcels on the north side of 27th Street between Northgate and Telegraph re now proposed as RU-4 rather than RU-2. A 45’ height limit would apply. The boundary between the S-1 zone and the CC-2 zone on the east side of Pill Hill has been moved to the centerline of Webster Street to better match the Specific Plan boundary.
The heights at the Macarthur BART Station have been adjusted to reflect those already approved for the master plan of the site.

KEY ISSUES AND IMPACTS
Height Limits on Telegraph Avenue in Temescal
In the mid-2000s, the Temescal neighborhood experienced a substantial amount of new development. That new development was to be built at an intensity greater than allowed by the existing zoning, but within the maximum density allowed by the General Plan. While that new development was seen positively by some, it was seen as inappropriate by others. A public dialogue ensued and a process began to formulate new zoning regulations (including rules about intensity of development) that would appropriately implement the policies of the General Plan in this particular neighborhood. In 2006 and 2007, a series of five, well-attended, community workshops were held regarding the rezoning of the Temescal corridor. Although the meetings produced consensus on several items, significant differences remained regarding the height limits along Telegraph Avenue from 41st Street (just north of the Macarthur BART station) to the Berkeley border. Some people were concerned about new development’s impact on access to sunlight, views, privacy, and the appearance of Telegraph Avenue. Others stated that greater density and height is required to create a transit-oriented corridor, promote active retail nodes, mitigate regional sprawl, create an attractive streetscape, and contribute to the Bay Area’s housing needs. Community opinions regarding height in the Temescal corridor ranged from instituting a height limit of three stories to an unrestricted height limit. There was a sizable number of people expressing a preference for a 40-45 foot height limit and a sizable number expressing a preference for a 65-75 foot height limit.

After this public process, staff developed recommendations that were presented to the Zoning Update Committee on May 16, 2007. Staff recommended a 45-foot height limit with a conditionally permitted maximum of 55 feet in all areas outside Shattuck Avenue and the core historic commercial ASI on Telegraph Avenue between 48th and 51st Streets. Staff recommended a 35-foot height limit for Shattuck Avenue and the Telegraph historic commercial district, with a conditionally permitted height of 45 feet (see Attachment G for maps). Staff recommended lower heights on Shattuck Avenue because it is narrower than Telegraph Avenue; the lower height at the core historic commercial area was proposed to respect the historic Zoning Update Committee July 14, 2010

Page 11 ends

context. Construction to the conditionally permitted heights in either of these areas required a top story step back and a package of community benefits.

The current proposal (see Attachment H for a close-up view of the proposed height limits for this particular area) is largely a continuation of the previous proposal. Staff proposes a height limit of 35 feet on Shattuck Avenue and at the core historical district of Telegraph Avenue and 45 feet for the rest of the Telegraph Corridor from 41st Street to the Berkeley border. Staff proposes that a trading of development rights (TDR) program be studied in the next phase of the zoning update process to allow greater heights along this corridor.

The rules of thumb for determining height areas, summarized in a table in the Approach section, above, indicate that Telegraph Avenue from 41st Street to the Berkeley Border should be assigned a 60-foot height limit except in the following areas:
A 45-foot height maximum at the historic commercial ASI to respect the historic context; A height limit of 45 feet on Shattuck Avenue due to its relatively narrow 65 foot right of way; and
A 75-foot height limit at the corner of 51st Street and Telegraph Avenue due to the intersection of these major streets.

Staff requests input from the ZUC regarding whether current proposal (continuation of the past recommendation and process) is appropriate or whether the height limits proposed for similar areas of the rest of the City should be applied to the Temescal corridors.

Height Limits on Broadway near 51st Street
Residents of Desmond Street behind Broadway near 51st Street (see Attachment I for close-up view of this particular area) have commented to staff that the proposed height limits of 60 feet on Broadway between 49th Street and Coronado Avenue are too high. These residents prefer a 60- foot height limit on the parcels at the intersection of 51st Street and Broadway and a 45-foot height limit on all other parcels between 49th and Coronado Avenue. These residents have made the following points:
New development built to the proposed height limit would create solar impacts on the properties on Desmond Street;
The elevations of the lots facing Broadway are higher than the lots on Desmond Street, which increases their height relative to the Desmond Street neighborhood. Staff analysis of the topography of Broadway and Desmond Street indicates that the parcels on Desmond Street between 49th and 51st Streets have approximately the same elevation as those on Broadway. Broadway and Desmond Street slope approximately five percent upward from 49th to 51st Streets. Two interior lots between 51st Street and Coronado Avenue are approximately 10 feet below the elevation of adjacent parcels on Broadway; Staff believes that the proposed height limits are appropriate for the following reasons:

Zoning Update Committee July 14, 2010

Page 12 ends

Staff has lowered the originally proposed height maximum of 75 feet to 60 feet for the lots at the intersection of 51st Street and Broadway due to neighborhood concerns; and The proposal is consistent with the principal stating that parcels on major corridors that are adjacent to low- and middle-density residential neighborhoods are assigned a 60-foot height maximum (see Approach section, above);
The proposed height limits fulfill the General Plan Land Use and Transportation Element’s objectives to focus development toward major corridors to revitalize retail, increase access to transit, and maintain lower-density residential neighborhoods; Line 51, an AC Transit trunk line, stops at the intersection of 51st and Broadway; The proposal does not represent an increase in allowed intensity, because there is currently no height limit on Broadway;
Broadway runs approximately north-south, which minimizes the solar impacts of new development on adjacent residential neighborhoods;
As described earlier, staff is proposing increased setback requirements to ease the transition from construction on the corridors to lower density zones behind the corridors.

Staff requests input from the ZUC regarding the maximum height proposal for Broadway between 49th Street and Coronado Avenue. Staff has identified two alternatives for the ZUC to consider:

1. A 60-foot height limit from 49th Street to Coronado Avenue (staff recommendation);

2. A 45-foot height limit from 49th Street to Coronado Avenue except for a height limit of 60 feet at the intersection of 51st Street and Broadway (recommendation from residents of Desmond Street).

Height Minimum on Wide Corridors
Staff currently recommends a height minimum of 25 feet for the new construction of buildings on corridors 100 feet or wider. Structures used to accommodate certain activities, such as gas stations and electrical substations, would be exempt from the minimum. Staff originally proposed a 35-foot minimum, but lowered the recommendation to 25 feet after the Technical Advisory Group expressed concern that a 35-foot height minimum could discourage construction on underutilized or blighted properties. Staff has also received input that the previously recommended 35-foot minimum should be restored because it assures substantial construction on the major, wide corridors such as International Boulevard, San Pablo Avenue, Telegraph Avenue, and Broadway. Substantial development on these transit corridors is consistent with the policies of the General Plan.

Staff requests guidance from the ZUC regarding whether a 35- or 25-foot height minimum is appropriate for the major, wide corridors.

Zoning Update Committee July 14, 2010

Page 13 ends

RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends that the Committee review and discuss the staff report and provide guidance to staff regarding the proposed zoning and height map for Area 1. Staff requests that in particular, the Committee provide guidance on the appropriate height proposals for the areas discussed in the Key Issues and Impacts section of this report.

Prepared by:

Neil Gray, Planner III
Approved for forwarding to the Zoning Update Committee:

ERIC ANGSTADT
Deputy Director of CEDA
Attachments:

A. Response to Comments from the May 26, 2010 ZUC Meeting B. Proposed Zoning and Height Maps
C. Summary of Height and Intensity regulations
D. Description of Proposed Zones
E. Text of Proposed Zones
F. Annotation of Proposed Changes to the Zoning Map
G. Temescal Corridor Height Maximums Proposed in 2007
H. Temescal Corridor Height Maximums Current Proposal
I. Broadway and 51st Street Current Proposal

2. COMMENT LETTERS RECEIVED ON

THE REVISED PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT
2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
NOVEMBER 29, 2022-DECEMBER 29, 2022
December 4, 2022
Director Wiliam Gilchrist
Department of Planning and Building
City of Oakland
350 Frank Ogawa Plaza
Oakland, CA 94610
RE: Revised Draft Housing Element 6th Cycle (2023-2031) dated 11/29/22 Dear Director Gilchrist,
We write to provide comments on Oakland’s Revised Draft Housing Element for the 6th Planning Cycle (2023 - 2031) released on November 29, 2022 (“Revised Draft”).

Overall we are pleased with the direction of the Revised Draft and appreciate the incorporation of many of the comments from the East Bay for Everyone, YIMBY Law, HAC, Greenbelt Alliance and East Bay YIMBY letter dated October 14, 2022.

The Missing Middle Program is significantly improved by reductions in setbacks, reductions in parking requirements, and increase in allowable density for high-resource areas like Rockridge and Adams Point. We are also happy to see an increase in commercial corridor heights along Claremont and College as well as the inclusion of additional, more viable opportunity sites in Rockridge.

We are also encouraged to see the City of Oakland commit to studying single exit aka “single stair” reform. We disagree, however, that the City of Oakland is unable to implement changes at the local level. The City of Seattle, for example, has adopted local building code changes for a single exit up to five stories that meet NFPA 101 mitigation requirements, including a maximum of four units per floor, automatic sprinklers, one hour-rated walls around the core and half hour-rated walls between units. Oakland could similarly adopt amendments to its local code or establish an alternative means and methods process for four story single stair structures.

We offer the following comments on the Revised Draft:

1. For Missing Middle Housing, we appreciate the reduction of off-street parking requirements to 0.5 in residential areas and zero in the ½ mile radius of major transit stops, but we believe it would be more productive if zero-parking missing middle were allowed across significant transit corridors, rather than merely near BART stations, BRT stops, and 1 ATTACHMENT B-1
EB4E - Oakland Revised Draft HE 11/29
the (rare) intersection of two bus corridors each with up to 15-minute peak headways. We propose instead zero parking requirements within ½ mile radius of bus stops of lines running with at least 30-minute peak headways, which would allow not only Telegraph, Broadway, San Pablo, and MacArthur, but also Grand.

We also suggest a planned check-in midway through the planning period to examine whether missing middle standards are in fact being used at scale, and to amend further if not.

2. Table C-17 “Lower- Income Projects on Small Sites 2018 - 2021” describes projects less than ½ acre developed as low-income housing. Three of the five projects identified in this table are acquisition projects, including Project Homekey sites. Acquisition of sites for low-income housing less than ½ acre is an important goal for preserving and creating affordability but it does not address the underlying need for deeper analysis of building low-income housing on small sites as required under HCD guidance.

The purpose of additional analysis for low-income housing development for small sites less than ½ acre is to identify that the jurisdiction has a track record of developing new construction of low-income housing on such sites. This is important because smaller sites are difficult to finance through the Tax Credit Allocation Committee and other funding sources. Small sites are also more difficult to construct due to parking, circulation, second egress and other requirements. Please remove the acquisition sites and provide additional analysis of Oakland might pursue additional policy changes, including single stair reform, to increase the viability of low-income housing development on small sites.

3. We appreciate the broad reduction to parking standards in a range of zones, not just residential-only, reflecting Oakland's Transit First policy and climate goals. In light of recent counterproductive proposals of parking garages or overparked apartment complexes in transit-oriented areas of Oakland, this direction could be enhanced by:
a. Applying revised CBD parking maximums to apply equally to a ½-mile radius of all major transit stops;
b. Making new paid parking, structured or surface (as opposed to off-street parking serving another use) require conditional use permits; and c. Require all structured parking be built to be convertible to non-parking uses in the future; currently their standard angled floors make it impossible to do anything else without demolishing.

4. We appreciate and are excited at the proposal to remove CUP requirements for small commercial establishments in residential zones (Accessory Commercial Units) and, in food deserts, for grocery stores. However, we suggest careful objective definition of"food desert," and to err on the side of an expansive definition, such as the USDA half-mile standard (as opposed to a 1-mile standard).

Thank you for considering these comments. We appreciate the City of Oakland’s ongoing efforts to refine and deliver a compliant and equitable Housing Element. 2 EB4E - Oakland Revised Draft HE 11/29
Sincerely,
John Minot
Jonathan Singh
EB4E Co-Executives
cc:

CA Department of Housing and Community Development
-
3 LPC College, LLC
1475 Powell Street, Suite 201
Emeryville, CA 94608
Edward Manasse
Deputy Director
City of Oakland Planning Bureau
250 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza Suite 2114
Oakland, CA 94612
Dear Ed,
November 29, 2022
I purchased the Dreyer's site in Rockridge in February 2020, just before the Covid shutdown, with the intent of turning it into a non-profit Jewish Community Campus serving the entire East Bay community. The property consists often parcels, anchored by the Dreyer's building at 5901 College Avenue. The property includes assessor's parcel numbers 014-126800901, 014-126801101, 014-126801200, 014- 126801300, 014-126803900, 014-126803800, 014-126803600, 014-126803501, 014-126803201, and 014-126803000. In October 2020, the Jewish Community Center of the East Bay and several non-profit Jewish organizations began actively using the site as community space.

We had contacted the City with questions regarding the development of the Jewish Community Center in January 2022 but did not receive a response. We formally submitted a development application online for a Conditional Use Permit on November 2, 2022, for day care, after school, and community assembly for religious services that will operate in the existing Dreyer's and old Yoshi's buildings. The existing retail spaces on College Avenue will remain astenants and no changes are proposed on the College Avenue frontage. We have met several times with RCPC and the Chabot neighbors and are building strong relationships there.

The draft Housing Element has now earmarked the site as a site for affordable housing and was added as a supplemental site to achieve Affirmatively Further Fair Housing. However, the Housing Element says that in identifying the Affirmatively Further Fair Housing sites that staff excluded sites with uses that serve the community. Assuch, we ask that the staff remove our properties from the city's affordable housing opportunity sites because itis currently, and will continue to be, a site that serves the community. It is understandable that staff was unaware ofthis, but we ask that it be corrected immediately.

Thank you and I look forward to providing a wonderful non-profit community center to Oakland and the East Bay.

Sincerely,
Moses Libitzky
Principal
cc: Suzanne Brown, Equity Community Builders
Amanda Monchamp, Monchamp Meldrum LLP
Darin Ranelletti, City ofOakland Mayor's Office
December 6, 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: November 2022 Revised Draft Housing Element
Dear General Plan Team:

Oakland Heritage Alliance is still studying the revised November, 2022 draft Housing Element, including the appendices, so the following comments are preliminary and subject to future modification and expansion.

A. Housing Element main document.

1. The 11/22 draft now commits the City to specific zoning revisions in specific areas, such as Action 3.2.1’s provision for reducing minimum lot sizes in Detached Unit and Mixed Housing Type Residential Zones to 2000 ft.². These kinds of provisions are appropriate to state in general terms as part of a General Plan element and/or as proposals for consideration, but when presented with the draft’s level of specificity causes the draft to read more as a zoning ordinance rather than a general plan element. Such levels of specificity should be normally reserved for the zoning amendments. Related to this, the preliminary draft zoning amendments in Appendix J should be understood as just that – a preliminary draft that the City has not yet committed to. Action 3.4.1, Bullet 8 regarding Appendix J should reflect this by adding “preliminary draft” before “proposal”.

2. It is our understanding that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will be prepared for the zoning amendments implementing the Housing Element, rather than for the Housing Element itself. Therefore, what will be the environmental review determination for the Housing Element? If the Housing Element includes specific upzoning provisions, such as discussed above, an EIR or at a least negative declaration would appear necessary.

3. Action 3.4.3 states that, among other things, Action 3.4.8 will “create objective design review standards and… allow for streamlined ministerial approval”. However, Action

3.4.8 actually provides only for objective design standards and says nothing about ministerial approval. The term “ministerial approval” needs to be explained. It often 2 means over the counter approval, with no public notification, review or appeal. But there still needs to be public notification and review to help ensure that staff application of objective standards is performed correctly. OHA reviews numerous design review applications and has found many cases where existing zoning standards and/or design review criteria were not applied correctly or fell through the cracks.

In addition, “ministerial approval” indicates that such projects are exempt from environmental review. Such projects if located in historic areas could adversely impact the architectural integrity of these areas, which would normally constitute a “significant effect” under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Therefore, if no project level environmental review will be conducted for ministerial projects, the environmental impacts of such projects must be considered as part of the Housing Element which enables the projects, or at least in conjunction with the zoning amendments to implement the Housing Element. If no EIR or negative declaration will be prepared for the Housing Element, Housing Element provisions such as requiring ministerial approval of projects must be presented with sufficient generality and caveats to clearly communicate that these provisions are subject to the zoning amendments or other follow up regulatory action that receives environmental review.

4. Use alpha-numeric designations to facilitate reference, rather than bullets, especially for provisions that are part of the Goal/Policy/Action statements such as Actions 3.4.1,

4.1.4 and 5.2.9.

B. Specific problematic provisions in Appendix J.

1. Retain the existing two-tiered height limit system of wall height plus greater roof height in all zones. For some zones, Appendix J proposes to replace the two-tiered system with a single overall height limit. Retaining the two-tiered system in residential zones is important in order to minimize the visual bulk of larger buildings, especially if there is no discretionary design review.

2. In many residential zones, reductions in front setbacks are proposed. Front setback reductions should not be applied if the reduced setbacks are less than the prevailing front setback of the block face. Otherwise new development will literally “stick out” and architecturally disrupt the streetscape. Existing provisions that allow reduced setbacks for new construction or front additions where adjacent buildings already have reduced setbacks should continue to be relied on.

3. Retain the conditional use permit requirements for projects with five or more regular units, since projects with five or more regular units allowed by right are eligible for a density bonus under the State Density Bonus Law that can trigger waivers and concessions for height limits, setbacks and other standards, potentially resulting in architectural disruptions to existing neighborhoods. If more density is desired, provide it in the form of more accessory dwelling units (ADUs) (which don’t count toward the five 3 unit bonus trigger), especially ADUs within existing buildings. Some or all of the ADUs could be designated as deed-restricted affordable, accomplishing the State Density Bonus Law objective.

4. Table 2 – Commercial Zone Height Limits. Retain existing height limits in Areas of Primary and Secondary Importance (APIs and ASIs). In most cases, the existing limits were structured to avoid out-of-scale new buildings.

5. Figure 3 – Downtown Oakland Specific Plan (DOSP) proposed height changes. This map essentially preempts the height limit discussion that has been ongoing for five years as part of the DOSP and is intimately tied into other important DOSP initiatives, such as the transferable development rights and zoning incentive programs. The Housing Element zoning amendments should defer to the DOSP regarding height limits within the DOSP area.

6. Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) zone. It is good that the AHO zone would not apply to City, state and federal historic landmarks and the height additions would not apply to APIs. However, in addition, the AHO should not apply to APIs and ASIs, since the unlimited residential density provision will make all parcels eligible for the State Density Bonus Law. As discussed in Item B.3 above, this would enable greater heights than otherwise allowed, incentivizing disruption of APIs and ASIs architecturally, and potentially incentivizing demolition.

If unlimited density is desired in APIs and ASIs as part of the AHO program, it should be limited within APIs and ASIs to units within existing buildings, at least in lower density zones, and to no more than four regular units per parcel, plus perhaps unlimited ADUs.

The AHO height changes for the DOSP area should be considered as part of the DOSP process, rather than as part of the Housing Element. The Housing Element can include a provision stating this.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please contact Christopher Buckley at (510) 523– 0411 or [email protected] or Naomi Schiff at (510) 835–1819 or [email protected] if you would like to discuss these comments.

Sincerely,
Mary Harper
President
CC: William Gilchrist, Ed Manasse, Catherine Payne, Karen August, Betty Marvin, City Planning Commission, City Council, Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board 1 Rajagopalan, Lakshmi
From: Ryan Lester
Sent: Tuesday, December 6, 2022 8:08 PM
To: General Plan
Subject: Re: Oakland General Plan Update: Revised Draft of Housing Element Now Available for Public Review!
[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.

Oakland Planning Department,
While the changes to the Oakland 2045 General Plan are commendable, I am disappointed that some of the most resource and transit rich neighborhoods in Oakland are not being upzoned significantly.

While Rockridge and North Oakland are being targeted (rightly) for additional housing density, the MacArthur Blvd Corridor in East Oakland (near Laurel and Dimond) neighborhoods are not being targeted for almost any additional density. This corridor is well served by numerous local and transbay bus lines, has abundant high‐quality employment, food/grocery, park and school options but is currently almost exclusively single family only zoned. Housing built close to 580 is far away from the WUI and fire danger and would be a prime candidate to increase density in, so that all parts of Oakland affirmatively further fair housing.

I respectfully ask that the City of Oakland provide more access for residents who are not millionaires to live above 580 by providing housing options in these neighborhoods that are more than just single family only residences.

Respectfully,
Ryan Lester
On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 2:41 PM Lakshmi Rajagopalan <[email protected]> wrote:

To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Planning&Building_logo_horizontal

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Housing Element Public Hearing Draft Released!
To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. efbccd88-0fed-4868-bd5b-c648d759e880
Housing Element Public Hearing Draft Available for Public Review! 2 The City of Oakland has released the 2023-2031 Housing Element Public Hearing Draft. This revised draft of the Housing Element addresses community feedback received from June 2022 to mid-October 2022 and fulfills requirements for compliance with state law.

The Public Hearing Draft includes several new components:

1. An executive summary

2. A substantially updated Chapter 4: Housing Action Plan

3. Appendix J: Proposed Rezoning Changes

4. Appendix K: City of Oakland Response to the Findings Letter from State HCD, dated 9/28/22

5. Appendix L: Response to Public Comments.

The Housing Element Public Hearing Draft is also being shared with State Housing and Community Development (State HCD) department today. Pursuant to AB 215, the Housing Element Public Hearing Draft will be formally submitted to State HCD on December 7, 2022, after the seven-day public review period (Nov. 30 to Dec. 6). Comment letters received prior to the formal submittal will be included in the formal submittal package. Comment letters received after the formal submittal will be forwarded to State HCD at the time the comments are received.

After the seven-day public review period, the public can continue to provide feedback on the Housing Element Public Hearing Draft until December 29, 2022. Comment letters received after December 6, 2022 will be forwarded to State HCD at the time the comments are received and will be included as a supplemental document to the agenda reports for the Planning Commission and City Council public hearings beginning in January 2023.

Please see the project milestone dates below for an overview of the process moving forward:
3  November 29, 2022 – Publication of Public Hearing Draft Housing Element  November 30, 2022 - December 6, 2022 – Seven-day public review period, pursuant to AB 215
 December 7, 2022 – Submittal to State HCD
 December 29, 2022 – End of the comment period for the Housing Element Public Hearing Draft
 January 2023 – Public Hearings for Housing Element Adoption (Dates TBD) How to Comment on the Housing Element
There are several ways to comment on the 2023-2031 Housing Element before it is adopted by City Council in early 2023:

1. Email feedback to: [email protected]

2. Participate in community events posted on our website

3. Attend upcoming public hearings at the Planning Commission and City Council on the Housing Element, beginning in January 2023. An email will be sent out when the public hearing dates are scheduled.

Questions?
For more information and to find out how to get involved, visit the General Plan Update website or please contact Lakshmi Rajagopalan at [email protected].

The Planning & Building Department oversees the regulations for the City's growth and development. Through reviewing project plans, enforcing local ordinances, developing neighborhood plans, and responding to public concerns, we work to create a built environment that supports the health and welfare of all Oaklanders.

IMPORTANT NOTE: You are receiving this message because you have expressed interest in receiving updates on the General Plan Update with the Planning & Building Department. This is a courtesy notice to inform you of 4 important updates in relation to your business with the city. If you do not wish to receive future messages, please click on the "Unsubscribe" link below.

To help protect your privacy,
Micro so ft Office prevented
auto matic downlo ad o f this
picture from the Internet.

Facebook
To help protect your privacy,
Micro so ft Office prevented
auto matic downlo ad o f this
picture from the Internet.

LinkedIn
To help protect your privacy,
Micro so ft Office prevented
auto matic downlo ad o f this
picture from the Internet.

Twitter
To help protect your privacy,
Micro so ft Office prevented
auto matic downlo ad o f this
picture from the Internet.

Instagram
City of Oakland, Planning & Building Department
250 Frank Ogawa Plaza, 2nd Floor, Oakland, CA 94612
City of Oakland, 1 Frank H Ogawa Plaza, Oakland, CA 94612 Unsubscribe | Manage Preferences
‐‐
Ryan Lester
1 Rajagopalan, Lakshmi
From: taptango
Sent: Tuesday, December 6, 2022 11:06 PM
To: General Plan
Subject: Housing Element Feedback -- Fact Checking TOPA program in Washington DC [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 Housing and Community Department,
I am writing to provide feedback for the Housing Element draft and express concerns about the Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act, often referred to as TOPA. When TOPA was brought up to residents in neighborhood meetings, Washington DC was frequently referenced as having had TOPA for over 40 years where it was claimed to be “wildly successful”. The below fact check of the Washington DC TOPA program suggests otherwise.

TOPA has been in Washington DC since 1980 and has not widely spread across the country during this time because there are serious problems with it. In fact, Washington DC started to unwind TOPA. The DC council voted to defund TOPA and removed properties from TOPA restrictions, including single‐family homes, condos and single‐unit townhomes. The DC council took these actions after it deliberated and reviewed TOPA’s underperformance over 40 years. Many DC residents showed up at the council to provide hours of public testimony in opposition to TOPA. 2 The so‐called “Tenant Opportunity” to Purchase Act (TOPA) is a False Promise. The bureaucratic and ineffective TOPA program strips affordable housing funds from efficient approaches that directly help tenants and homeless residents. DC prioritizes 3 effective housing programs over TOPA as is reflected in the funding budget each year:

1. Rental assistance to directly help low‐income tenants.

2. Down Payment Assistance to directly help tenants purchase homes (first time homebuyer program).

3. Shelter programs with supportive services like drug treatment for homeless residents.

Serving as our nation’s capital, Washington DC (DC) had special access to vast funding and became a perfect Petri dish for testing many housing ideas. The city collected performance metric on different housing approaches over many years and allocates funds based on tangible outcomes. The DC Local Affordable Housing budget is an astounding $291 Million for last year, Fiscal Year 2020. In 2020, DC devoted about 50% of its total affordable housing budget toward rental assistance while TOPA only received approximately 5%. Downpayment assistance and homeless shelter programs received more priority and funding than the ineffective TOPA program.

During the 40+ years that TOPA has been in Washington DC (DC), it was so inefficient that the people administering the program avoided collecting data and could not produce the performance numbers required in formal city reports. The TOPA program in DC can not produce data before 2002, lacks data stretching decades and also recently failed to be forthcoming with data in official fiscal audit and budget oversight reports.
3 TOPA data is spotty or highly selective, unlike effective affordable programs which submit concrete numbers annually. What little TOPA data available is often not in formal financial review and disclosure reports, is selectively presented out of context. The people administering TOPA in DC still choose not to collect TOPA outcome data — they do not track completed sale to tenants because the rate is so poor and instead choose only to report TOPA notices. TOPA gets very little funding in DC due to its poor performance over decades.

The below graphs show DC spent over $150 million on rental assistance in FY 2021 and over $30 million in the prior year for downpayment assistance to promote home ownership. By contrast, TOPA received only a small fraction of the Housing Production Trust Fund (HPTF). The approved budget for TOPA in FY2021 is a mere $10 million out of the $100 million in the Housing Production Trust Fund. The local total affordable housing budget is around $300 million annually in DC for the last few years. 4 DC HOMELESS PROGRAMS: DC pours tens of millions to provide temporary and long term affordable housing to individuals, families and youths. It also emphasizes mental health services, addiction counseling and improving outreach and public restroom access for homeless citizens. Our local cities have a historic budget deficit. It does not make sense for Berkeley or Oakland to waste $10‐15 million taxpayer dollars each and every year on TOPA at the cost of supporting more effective homeless programs. Our homeless residents do not even have a roof over their heads and should be prioritized. 5 The proposed local TOPA legislation is much more problematic and restrictive than TOPA in DC, and thus much more worrisome for Bay Area residents. TOPA has forced deed restrictions that is being sold using the benign sounding “permanently affordable” euphemism. Unlike unencumbered properties, these forced deed restrictions would drop property values by hundreds and thousands of dollars, wiping out life long savings for many seniors and leaving them bereft of the means to pay for medical expenses and care for themselves in retirement. In practice, these restrictions would also make it difficult to maintain homes in habitable conditions which is especially detrimental to resident renters.

As is historically consistent, housing programs with heavy government regulation and management such as the TOPA program or Public Housing Projects has resulted in poor outcomes for residents. In DC, poorly managed Public Housing Projects led to dilapidated buildings with leaky plumbing, hazardous lead, rodent infestations and toxic mold which have sickened families and sent many children to hospitals. An estimated 7000+ of DCs’ 8000+ housing units are severely deteriorated, requiring HUD to take over management. Many social or public housing projects across the country experienced similar deteriorated living conditions. The local TOPA program would be the most convoluted and heavily regulated government run social housing program, which does not bode well for our Bay Area cities or residents.

Another Affordable Housing lesson in DC worth mentioning is the potential for misuse of public fund by trusted officials in the name of affordable housing and helping homeless residents. An auditor in DC had to issue a subpoena seeking documents during an investigation. The auditor was repeatedly stonewalled by bureaucrats and only eventually obtained the needed data from a concerned whistle blower. The subsequent DC audit report found “…the (government housing) agency appeared to have a hands‐off approach to projects once they had been selected for funding.” There was a lack of accountability in measurable outcomes and insufficient transparency in the use of public money for housing. As a result, DC Council member Elissa Silverman introduced a bill, the Housing Production Trust Fund Transparency Amendment Act of 2019 that would require DC’s Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) to make information more public for increased transparency.

TOPA utterly failed in Washington DC. The Richmond city council unanimously rejected it unanimously in 2019 due to numerous concerns. We do NOT want TOPA and COPA either.

Sincerely,
Tuan Ngo
December 5, 2022
TO: Housing & Community Department
250 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Suite 6301
Oakland, CA 94612
RE: PUBLIC COMMENT FOR SUBMITTAL RE: Housing Element draft on Dec 7th 2022

1. We need an equity study BEFORE proposing TOPA/COPA legislation

2. Negative impacts of TOPA/COPA on the minority community

3. TOPA/COPA is the new/next form of property theft of Black Property Owners

4. SB-1079 has already been creating problems similar to TOPA/COPA, even through Nancy Skinner had the ‘best of intentions’ as a legislator in our own community Dear Housing Policy Staff,
The “Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act (TOPA) AND ‘Community Opportunity” to Purchase Act (COPA) is being sold as a way to prevent gentrification and minority displacement. Contrary to these claims, after DECADES of TOPA in Washington DC, a study found DC has had the most gentrifying neighborhoods across the country with 20,000 black residents displaced. https://dcist.com/story/19/03/19/d-c-has-had-the-most-gentrifying-neighborhoods-in-the-country -study-finds/ (also attached below).

My family and neighbors are extremely concerned that TOPA/COPA would PREVENT West Oakland, East and Deep East Oakland (flatland) minorities and particularly black owners from keeping black properties in historically black communities in blac hands. Why should a black owner be PREVENTED from bequeathing her OWN home to a family member or neighbor? Passing properties directly to those who similarly endure discrimination is a strong tradition that arose as a result of redlining and housing discrimination and segregation and deed restrictions, when banks refused to offer mortgage loans to minorities. TOPA/COPA would undermine long-standing community tools that evolved into tradition, designed to instead steal generational wealth by acquiring their property as well as the equity built into it. To us, this is another clear example of “dispossession through legislation”, a known tactic frequently levied against minority communities. From the Urban Renewal housing policy that displaced people to Berkeley’s inception of racist single-family exclusionary zoning that segregated people across the country, there is a long line of supposedly “helpful” housing policies that hurt and rob black families of generational wealth. Word is spreading amongst our informed community members.

We are most ALARMED that TOPA/COPA is the next scheme similarly impacting our community to what redlining did. We are seeing more legislation being slickly crafted. It is reminding us of the fairy tale where the juicy apple and the unsuspecting sleeping beauty is seduced by a solution to the housing stock and affordability problem, designed as a fix but is really a harm.

An Equity Study on the impacts of TOPA/COPA is absolutely necessary BEFORE this legislation is proposed and it should be properly discussed in communities with public comment and awareness devoted to it, not just the marketing scheme language used by political operatives and promoters of this legislation to push it through in their usual fashion to acquire support for measures by the loudest who are usually first to seek most benefits from these oppressive legislative acts and housing pyramid schemes.

Please consider the historical wrongs in Black communities related to government and housing, especially the building of wealth and Black property ownership . The diabolical ways society targeted Black wealth, from the 1980s crack epidemic, using property equity to secure high-cost bails and over-incarcerated family owners, as well as the more recent 2009 housing bubble where mortgage and finance professionals targeted Blacks with loans they knew they couldn’t pay). For context to the equity issues at hand, please refer to books such as Richard Rothstein’s Color of Law, Mehrsa Baradaran’s The Color of Money: Black Banks and the Racial Wealth Gap and Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor’s Race for Profit: How Banks and the Real Estate Industry Undermined Black Homeownership.

We DEMAND data before legislating harmful housing policies that would repeat the historical theft of wealth and community.

Our community has these specific concerns regarding TOPA/COPA:

1. TOPA/COPA would dismantle a common pathway to Black homeownership:

TOPA/COPA would give ‘first dibs' to special interest housing developers and prevent minority residents from directly selling to someone of our choosing. TOPA/COPA does nothing to increase investment in historically black communities. nor does it outline ways to build black wealth. In fact, homes in the hands of historical Black families typically have some equity value and this absorbs and extracts those values. The legal practices of segregation and redlining were supported by lending institutions failing to offer mortgage loans to minorities, denying wealth-building opportunities whites enjoy and support. Black residents who were able to obtain and sustain real estate passed it on to family and community members, often bequeathing homes below market price and providing seller carry-back loans with favorable terms, especially when banks refused to lend to us. When elders pass on their homes, they support their family legacies for the next generation in doing so. It is not uncommon to wait years for our family ready to buy to come up with downpayments and locate a bank that would loan to them. Homes in the Black community don’t just have monetary value -- they represent our independence and ability to thrive and be free. They’re where we celebrate family birthdays, take care of our loved ones, and are passed on to maintain the equity values within our community, that help them raise Black families, educate their children, create memories and thrive in old age. TOPA/COPA undermines these traditional pathways to homeownership for people of color by giving ‘right of first refusal’ to special interest developers over family members and long-time minority residents. This is more than just within Black communities; Hispanic/Latino, AAPI, LGBTQ+ communities and those divided and comforted by ethnicity, religious persuasion and culturally aligned safe spaces exist all around us for these very reasons. Families purchase and hold their properties so that they can sustain and avoid racial discriminatory practices and treatment. From swastikas. cross burnings, telling unwelcome races to ‘go home’ using other symbols of hate and intolerance, our communities are considered safe spaces for these reasons.

2. TOPA/COPA targets properties in historically segregated areas and robs Black historical wealth. TOPA/COPA targets "Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing (NOAH)” that are in historically segregated areas, often poor areas around Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) stations, where highways and other destructive developments were instituted to divide cities. The creation of BART stations occurred during well-documented abusive eminent domain actions committed by the cities against minority residents considerations. Minority residents were never adequately compensated for loss of property via eminent domain where BART stations and railways were constructed. This was another silent criminal of wealth and equity theft by eminent domain, e.g. legislative actions with ‘the greater good’s intentions’. A largely disproportionate number of properties around BART that are now being targeted by TOPA/COPA for acquisitions and currently owned by multicultural and predominantly Black residents, in the Oakland flatlands and areas within zip codes predominantly occupied by ethnic minorities. According to the Greenlining Institute, Americans of Color have 61% of their wealth in home equity. Home equity is often used to fund college educations and take care of medical bills and our old age/elderly. TOPA/COPA would do irreparable and irreversible damage to the fabric of these minority communities by legislatively providing a false promise to give frequently non-family blood relative member tenants opportunity to purchase, when essentially all that tenant is doing is being the front for the land trust which is about to use this very legislation to steal the equity out of the home property owners spent a lifetime building. These historical environmental designs end up stolen under the guise of creating affordable housing. This is something that reparations is being discussed RIGHT NOW in the study developed by the California Task Force to Study and Develop Reparation Proposals for African Americans. Before that discussion is barely being approached, TOPA/COPA legislation is being determined by these very same communities that have already seen more than a CENTURY of harmful equity extraction. Further, while many communities were left out of the economic booms of industry, including tech and dotcom, we see former Black communities like East Palo Alto, decimated by legislative actions that liquidated Black homeownership and property wealth equity.

Ms. Beradaran’s comments are clear in the discussions I’m speaking about. raising the difference between good and bad credit, segregation patterns, financial risk tools and discriminatory lending practices where the disparate impact exists between minorities and white credit markets and restricted credit markets/Bank InEquities and Exclusion from Mainstream Credit Systems:
https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674237476

3. When you displace Black homeowners, you displace Black tenants and Black Families.

Due to segregation, minority residents were not welcomed in many neighborhoods. There are Black neighborhoods and white neighborhoods. Black owners rent out to Black family and community members, taking care of our own. When you target Black property owners, you target Black tenants. When you remove Black homeowners, you remove Black tenants. TOPA/COPA causes me as a Black female to ask "who's actually selling/buying these properties? ‘What are their demographics in race, income, etc. Tich, white, wealthy, many of them out of area LLCs and Corporations have been documented as the primary buyers of single family home properties in the SF Bay Area. These are NOT the targets of the properties being targeted/promoting TOPA/COPA in our communities.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/projects/2022/bay-area-housing-power-players/

4. SB1079 has already created unintended consequences similar to TOPA/COPA, even as our representative, California 9th District State Senator Nancy Skinner had the ‘best of intentions’. A story published on August 25, 2022 by Erin Baldassari in KQED’s online edition speaks about how non-profits used a legal loophole to flip homes for a profit.

I’ll include the link in the footnotes that references this story. Ironically, the story features an image of Oakland D3 Councilmember Carroll Fife in the article in front of the house on Magnolia Street featured in the community activist effort “Moms4Housing” that gave CM Fife rise to the very seat she represents in our West Oakland community. What these housing-promoting legislators don’t seem to take into account is that many black families are victimized by their well-intentioned legislation. They simply don’t help us. When asked, many families candidly share if they simply provided the knowledge, information, tools and supportive guidance on how to responsibly purchase, finance and build equity in their lives property, they can and do sustain. These individuals and families acquired property using tools via the federal government under programs such as FHA/CalFHA, VA and the myriad of programs supported by federal and state supported programs. These supportive groups should be able to do work without targeting poor minority property owners.

Opportunists, in the form of mortgage investors, nonprofit organizations and do-gooders, see black community property owners as low-hanging fruit and a means to an end for their objectives to purchase their properties. And in the process, while the devaluing of their neighborhoods. As Andre Perry’s Know Your Price articulates and the recent media highlighting the actions of the national appraisal system process shows across the country the practices of minorities having to ‘whitewash’ their interiors in appraisal preparations,to disguise that their homes are owned by minorities to avoid creating disparities in home valuations. When provided guidance, financial education without the strings attached for third-parties, minority community members can sustain their homes. I’m living proof of that. Legislation that find it necessary to provide more than simple education and financial support that many property owners, especially seniors, can not more easily find themselves, is a trap and a danger. Right now, we live in a support-less system that is used as a bait-and-switch on how they can use their homes for THEIR FUTURE, and sadly, reverse mortgages and other practices have become the usual result, frequently too late to undo the damage. Legislation, and not just the shifty intentions of nonprofits that are turning communities into demographic wastelands where reverse migration has consistently shown in the census year after year, leaves us with communities with histories that have historical context that are stolen and erased, similar to 1921 Tulsa, OK Greenwood District (Black Wall Street). West Oakland was once a prosperous black community known for the Seventh Street District and the Black Panther Party. It has lost its history and every day that history is further diluted by outward migration, divestment and failure to reparate these communities that continue to be targeted, year after year.

As a responsible, care-filled human, I am astute enough to review this with my own eyes, heart and mind. I’ve seen how government with good intentions do not see TOPA/COPA as a solution to the problems of housing in communities of color, especially without carve-outs and segments of the already harmed, historically protected communities that need to be identified, preserved and landmarked as preserved CULTURALLY. These communities are more than people’s homes and it would be a mistake to just use them as opportunities to purchase using legislation that has been shown to be historically HARMFUL to communities of color, not HELPFUL in repatriating minorities into their communities that have been stolen from them by actions that are everything from building freeways to environmental poisoning to promotions by real estate hucksters marketing them as the new great place to raise a family and a cat or dog.

Please work with our community and our Race and Equity Department to conduct an INDEPENDENT Equity Study BEFORE proposing any TOPA/COPA legislation.

Sincerely,
Carol Wyatt
Attachment
After DECADES of TOPA in Washington DC, a study found DC has had the most gentrifying neighborhoods across the country with 20,000 black residents displaced. --
D.C. Has Had the Most Gentrifying Neighborhoods In The
Country, Study Finds
MAR 19, 2019, 4:21 PM
Cordilia James
D.C. is one of the most gentrified cities in the country, study says.

When it comes to the intensity of gentrification across the country—at least over the first 13 years of the 21st century—the District tops the list.

D.C. had the highest percentage of gentrifying neighborhoods in the country between 2000 and 2013, according to a study from the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, a group that works to “increase the flow of private capital into traditionally underserved communities.” It estimates that around 20,000 black residents were displaced over that period.

The study, which was first reported on by the Washington Post, identified more than 1,000 neighborhoods in 935 cities and towns across the country where gentrification occurred during that time frame. Rapidly rising rents, property values, and taxes forced more than 135,000 residents to move away in 230 of those neighborhoods.

These neighborhoods for each city were considered eligible for gentrification if they were in the lower 40 percent of home values and family incomes in the area (the study used a type of census data that characterizes urban areas beyond just their physical borders). When the study began, half of the neighborhoods in D.C. were considered eligible for gentrification, which the study defines as a force that happens when “lower-income neighborhoods receive massive levels of new investment, adding amenities, raising home values and bringing in new upper-income residents [which] can lead to cultural displacement.”
By 2013, 41 percent of those neighborhoods were gentrified.

Black residents, in particular, have struggled to stay in D.C. Once known as Chocolate City, the D.C. population used to be 71.1 percent black in 1970. By 2015, that number had dropped to 48.3 percent. The study showed that D.C. was one of four cities that had the highest percentage of black displacement when adjusted for the number of gentrified neighborhoods it has, along with Richmond, Charlottesville, and New Orleans.

While D.C. was the most gentrified city by percentage of eligible neighborhoods that experienced gentrification, New York City was the most gentrified by sheer volume. Both cities were among the seven cities in the country that accounted for nearly half the amount of gentrification nationally, including Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Baltimore, San Diego, and Chicago.

The period that the study examined coincided with significant population growth in D.C. for the first time in decades, particularly amid the region’s comparatively stable economy during the Great Recession. While that growth has slowed somewhat in recent years, housing costs have continued to rise and make affordable housing increasingly scarce.
“The tens of thousands who have migrated to the Washington, D.C., over the last five years live in a city that rolled out the proverbial red carpet for their arrival. Infrastructure has been altered, public property has been privatized, the will of voters has been rescinded, minority-owned businesses have been shuttered and the bodies of people of color have been stopped and frisked to accommodate and enhance the respective presence and comfort of newcomers,” Sabiyha Prince, an activist with the group Empower DC, wrote in an essay accompanying the report.

Last year, one group of residents sued the city over its housing and renewal policies References:
https://dcist.com/story/19/03/19/d-c-has-had-the-most-gentrifying-neighborhoods-in-the-country-study-finds/ Urban renewal…means negro removal, 1 minute video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8Abhj17kYU The tragedy of urban renewal, 6 minute video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWGwsA1V2r4 “Berkeley denounces racist history of single-family zoning, begins 2-year process to change general plan” https://www.berkeleyside.org/2021/02/24/berkeley-denounces-racist-history-of-single-family-zoning-begins-2-year-process-t o-change-general-plan?gclid=CjwKCAiAp7GcBhA0EiwA9U0mtpjMqO3BJIAK1bgIkvOml6ZUR6te7AaVu_U4unZvmPRw MfpTT2q8SBoCoKIQAvD_BwE
Single Family Zoning in Berkeley Forces Us to Reflect Our Past https://www.sierraclub.org/san-francisco-bay/blog/2021/06/end-single-family-zoning-berkeley-forces-us-reflect-our-past The appraisers across America is apparently 96% Caucasian workforce according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11.htm
Equity theft and Appraisal devaluation of Back property owners is SO PERVASIVE, the Biden Administration put together a task force called PAVE: Property Appraisal and Valuation Equity (PAVE) West Oakland Toxics Reduction Collaborative: https://archive.epa.gov/care/web/pdf/west_oakland.pdf How Nonprofits Use a Legal Loophole to Flip California Homes — for a Profit https://www.kqed.org/news/11923467/how-nonprofits-use-a-legal-loophole-to-flip-california-homes-for-a-profit Understanding why some homeowners of color ‘whitewash’ their homes before appraisals https://www.bankrate.com/mortgages/understanding-whitewashing-in-home-appraisals/ Black Couple Files Lawsuit Over Low Home Appraisal Surging Nearly $300,000 After Trying ‘Whitewashing Experiment’
https://www.complex.com/life/black-couple-files-lawsuit-home-appraisal-surging-whitewashing-experiment California Panel Sizes Up Reparation for Black Citizens https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/01/business/economy/california-black-reparations.html Reparations could include tuition, housing grants, California task force say https://calmatters.org/california-divide/2022/06/reparations-california-task-force/ California TaskForce to Study and Develop Reparations Proposals for African-Americans - Interim Report 2022 https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/ab3121-reparations-interim-report-2022.pdf In East Palo Alto, residents say tech companies have created ‘a semi-feudal society’ https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/a-semi-feudal-society-in-east-palo-alto-the-influx-of-tech-companies-pushes -residents-to-a-breaking-point-over-gentrification/2018/11/02/03e1004c-d17c-11e8-b2d2-f397227b43f0_story.html These 12 Secret Power Players and Shaping Bay Area Housing https://www.sfchronicle.com/projects/2022/bay-area-housing-power-players/ Robert O. Self ,American Babylon: Race and the Struggle for Postwar Oakland https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691124865/american-babylon Richard Rothstein, The Color of Law
https://www.shortform.com/summary/the-color-of-law-summary-richard-rothstein?gclid=Cj0KCQiAkMGcBhC SARIsAIW6d0Ds7bXiEPsTlNCbaSaIpdGZSYMkAmgQ08hYi3HdITawG1rDmG0WG7caAj8DEALw_wcB Mehrsa Baradaran’s The Color of Money: Black Banks and the Racial Wealth Gap https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674237476 Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor’s Race for Profit: How Banks and the Real Estate Industry Undermined Black Homeownership
https://uncpress.org/book/9781469663883/race-for-profit/ Andre Perry, Know Your Price
https://www.brookings.edu/book/know-your-price/
1 Rajagopalan, Lakshmi
From: nha vu
Sent: Wednesday, December 7, 2022 9:23 AM
To: General Plan
Subject: Please remove TOPA/COPA from Oakland’s Housing Element Draft (on p. 66) [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.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 12/5/2022
Please remove TOPA/COPA from Oakland’s Housing Element Draft (on p. 66) I am strongly opposed to TOPA and COPA. Under TOPA/COPA, people would be prevented from taking care of their families during financial hardships.

As an example, my husband and I recently purchased a home from a local couple who needed to sell a property IMMEDIATELY due to a financial emergency. The couple had to sell quickly because they own a local restaurant that suffered during COVID‐19 shelter‐in‐place closures. We were able to accommodate their 3‐week quick sale requirement because, fortunately, there are no TOPA/COPA restrictions in place. TOPA/COPA’s extended time delays and onerous red tape would have made such quick sales impossible. Under TOPA/COPA, this couple would have lost their family business, been forced into bankruptcy, and they and their young children would have been displaced onto the streets.

How can the city even consider such a harmful policy as TOPA/COPA when it invasively interferes with the personal and financial lives of residents?!
These residents had done nothing wrong, yet TOPA/COPA restrictions would have made them HOMELESS! TOPA/COPA would also disadvantage local residents looking to purchase. It would have denied us fair and equal access to housing in favor of TOPA/COPA developers. I can’t imagine being in a contract and having to wait a year or longer while who knows how many TOPA/COPA developers take turns interfering with the purchase, which is stressful enough as it is. We are not outside speculators. TOPA/COPA holds both local buyers and sellers hostage to red tape and protracted time delays.

We strongly oppose TOPA/COPA. TOPA/COPA doesn’t take into account the normal up and downs and frequent financial hardships that families endure. This is a horrible idea that harms local residents and families like ours.

Sincerely,
Nha Vu
1 Rajagopalan, Lakshmi
From: taptango
Sent: Wednesday, December 7, 2022 11:28 AM
To: General Plan
Subject: Public comment for the Housing Element - Please SAVE 18% of Oakland's existing residential housing
[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.

December 6, 2022
SUBJECT: ‐ Unintended consequence ‐
‐ Please SAVE 18% of Oakland’s residential rental housing! ‐ Approximately 18,835 rental units are being jeopardized by a housing policy which was recently passed in Oakland (2022) Dear Housing and Community Department,
On behalf of the working‐class residents and immigrants, I am writing to request that you SAVE approximately existing 18,835 residential rental housing units in Oakland, which represents approximately 18% of Oakland's total residential housing.

These unpermitted units can NOT be registered and are being threatened by Oakland’s new Rental Registry which was passed without sufficient public input. Oakland’s existing unpermitted units serve as a source of desperately needed lower‐cost housing, but are often older and do not meet current code requirements. Removing 18% of rental housing from Oakland would create scarcity and drastically raise the rent, hurting and displacing low‐income, minority and immigrant residents.

According to the 2020 “Existing Conditions and Barriers Report” on ADUs in Oakland, there are approximately 7,500 to 13,600 unpermitted ADUs in Oakland on Single Family Parcels (p. 10‐ 11). Multi‐family properties, including duplexes and triplexes, also have unpermitted units. 2 We know there are approximately 18,835 unregistered or unpermitted housing units in Oakland from the below 2 pieces of information:

1. The Business Tax Department shows 88,215 residential rental units that are registered with the city and paying Business License Tax. Source: June 28, 2022 CED meeting report (attached). 30,829 units below a certain tax threshold + 57,386 units above a certain tax threshold = 88,215 registered units).

2. The most recent 2021 American Community Survey (ACS) data shows Oakland has 186,660 residential housing units total, with 57.4% renters and 42.6% homeowners. There are approximately 107,050 total rental housing units (97,705 occupied rental units + approximately 9,345 vacant rental units). Source: https://data.census.gov/cedsci/tableq=Oakland,%20ca&t=Homeownership%20Rate&t id=ACSDP1Y2021.DP04
The 18,835 long, standing unpermitted units will be impacted by the implementation of the Rent Registry. There is concern over the significant loss of affordable housing stock and displacement, especially hurting working‐class residents, minorities and immigrants. Many immigrants live in these unpermitted units and provide the essential maintenance labor to keep Oakland’s older housing stock habitable.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
The Rental Registry Oakland recently passed (2022) causes removal of long standing, unpermitted rentals from Oakland’s housing for several reasons:

1. The Rent Registry collects addresses that will trigger building inspections via the Proactive Rental Inspection (PRI) Program, requiring building code enforcement actions. Oakland’s Housing Element refers to the implementation of Proactive Rental Inspection.

2. It is NOT possible to legalize these existing unpermitted units due to current code requirements.

Please pass building code amendments BEFORE implementation of the Rental Registry!

3. Most residents do not have the financial means to legalize an unpermitted housing unit without additional city assistance. Please sufficiently fund Oakland’s existing CalHome ADU legalization program before implementation of the Rent Registry! The current CalHome ADU legalization program only has funds for 30 units – we need to SAVE 18,835 existing units!

4. Residents do not want to lose their homes through city liens from the Business Tax Department.

Please implement a business tax amnesty program (for decades ADUs were discouraged so these unpermitted units could not be registered to pay business taxes and now there are huge penalties and late fees with compounding interest, forcing residents to remove rental units rather than registering).
3 5. The Rent Registry removed ‘Just Cause’ Protections. Please restore each and every ‘Just Cause’ protection. EACH ‘Just Cause’ protection exists as a bare minimal safeguard – removing each protection results in CLEAR ethical violations with dire, long‐term consequences that harm both people and housing.

6. There are many other reasons existing lower‐cost rental units are being removed from Oakland. Please conduct genuine public outreach before passing housing legislation to avoid SIGNIFICANT unintended consequences and displacement of Oakland residents. ‐‐

1. The Rent Registry collects addresses which will trigger building inspections via the Proactive Rental Inspection (PRI) Program. Proactive Rental Inspection is in planning discussion and part of Oakland's Housing Element. People are reluctant to register unpermitted units for fear that the city will inspect and force removal of unpermitted units, causing displacement of current residents.

Some homeowners had negative experiences with building code enforcement and feel it is easier to stop renting out an unpermitted unit rather than face inspections and unit removal. Reverting a livable space back to its original uninhabitable state results in loss of very useful space.

2. It is NOT possible to legalize units due to current code requirements, eg. ceiling height too low, setbacks and other conditions, lack of fire egress, the city's amnesty guidelines do not have enough flexibility to accommodate legalization. For example, it would be helpful to grandfather in existing structures and allow up to a 100 square feet addition to accommodate entrance or stairs safety requirements, etc. Please update city building codes to allow for more flexibility and accommodate higher density (eg. 1 unit per 1,500 sf within 1/2 mile of BART or regulate building envelope and not restrict number of units based on lot size).

3. Most residents do not have the financial means to legalize an unpermitted housing unit without additional city assistance. Legalizing an ADU can easily cost $100,000 – $150,000 per unit. Oakland’s CalHome ADU legalization program only has $3 million. This funding amount only allows for $90,000 loans to legalize 30 unpermitted units. Oakland has approximately 18,835 unpermitted units, far more than the 30 units that are funded. Entire families would be displaced if unpermitted units are registered, inspected, and forcibly removed through code enforcement action. Rent Registry implementation should be coordinated with adequate funding to save low‐income housing units.

4. Residents do not want to lose their homes through city liens from the Business Tax Department. For many decades, the city discouraged ADUs due to concerns that they would change the neighborhood characteristics, cause traffic congestion, and take up parking space. However, people desperately needed low‐cost housing and converted garages, basements, and attics. These units are unpermitted and could not be registered but were rented and technically should have been 4 paying business license tax. People will be removing these rental units to avoid penalties and late fees with years of accumulated interest. The city has gone back decades to the 1980s to assess back fees in the thousands of dollars and put liens on homes. A business tax amnesty is crucial to preserving these affordable rental housing units.

5. The Rent Registry removed Just Cause. All basic common sense protections have been removed with the Rent Registry resulting in significant negative consequences. For example, many residents don’t want to be victimized by violence, especially since we’ve removed criminal history from rental considerations. Sometimes there’s domestic violence coming from an unpermitted ADU which people can’t escape from because of the Rent Registry. Parents understandably do not want their children hearing arguments through a shared common wall and see bruises the following day. Many parents would rather not rent out than risk not being able to remove violence from their home due to forced Rent Registry restrictions. The Rental Registry should be amended to restore Just Cause. Some cities have a simple fee for failure to register so innocent residents at not put in harm’s way.

Please SAVE these existing 18,835 affordable housing units and prevent displacement! As an immigrant who appreciates the need for low‐cost housing, I am happy to help in any way toward this goal. Any units we save will count toward Oakland’s state mandated RHNA requirements, especially at the lower affordability levels. Legalizing unpermitted units will also prepare us for Earthquakes and Keep Oakland Housed! It is much cheaper to work with Oakland residents to legalize existing affordable units than building new ones from scratch.

Sincerely,
Tuan Ngo
Attachments

1. Oakland has approximately 18,835 unregistered / unpermitted units. 5 2. Oakland has approximately 88,215 registered rental units.

3. Oakland’s state‐mandated RHNA goal ‐ 26,251 housing units. 12/8/22, 10:25 AM
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/…%2FqtcXWGMRiAAAAAAEMAAApFTKySZwnTo%2FqtcXWGMRiAAGq7QoTAAA%3D Page 1 of 1 Remove TOPA and COPA from Oakland’s Housing Element
Benjamin Scott
Wed 12/7/2022 7:16 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.

To Housing Element drafters,
TOPA and COPA would discriminate against the LGBTQ+ community. I am writing to request that you remove the TOPA and COPA references from Oakland’s Housing Element draft. This misguided housing policy was proposed in neighboring Berkeley and would have prohibited LGBTQ+ residents from transferring our own homes to our nieces and nephews, who are essentially our children. TOPA/COPA proponents said family transfers are allowable, but that’s not true because when we read the actual TOPA/COPA ordinance language as introduced in Richmond, Berkeley, and East Palo Alto -- transfers to nieces and nephews are NOT exempted from TOPA/COPA restrictions. Multiple people have raised concerns regarding negative, consequences of TOPA/COPA to LGBTQ+ residents but it COMPLETELY fell on deaf ears, and NOTHING was ever done to change this horrible, discriminatory legislation in various cities! We should have equal rights and not be discriminated against under TOPA/COPA restrictions. I should be able to leave my home to my niece who is very much a daughter to me by blood.

Berkeley staff spent years analyzing the TOPA/COPA legislation, saw how harmful it is and removed it from their Housing Element after listening to overwhelming community opposition. I respectfully request that the Oakland Housing Element takes into account our own strong community opposition to TOPA and COPA as well.

Please remove TOPA and COPA from Oakland’s Housing Element – It’s still there on p. 66 of the Housing Element draft.

Thank you kindly,
Benjamin Scott
12/8/22, 10:26 AM
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]…%2FqtcXWGMRiAAAAAAEMAAApFTKySZwnTo%2FqtcXWGMRiAAGq7QoUAAA%3D Page 1 of 2 TOPA and COPA LGBTQIA+ discrimination
Darryl Glass
Wed 12/7/2022 7:28 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.

Please remove TOPA and COPA from Oakland’s Housing Element – It’s still there on p. 66 of the Housing Element draft.

Thank you kindly,
Darryl--
Darryl Glass, Broker-Associate, Realtor®, CCRM
12/8/22, 10:26 AM
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]…2FqtcXWGMRiAAAAAAEMAAApFTKySZwnTo%2FqtcXWGMRiAAGq7QoUAAA%3D Page 2 of 2 CONFIDENTIAL: This e-mail including any attachments is intended only for the party or parties to whom it is addressed and may contain information which is privileged and/or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, disclosure, dissemination, distribution, copying, or printing of any information contained in or attached to this e-mail is STRICTLY PROHIBITED and may constitute a breach of confidentiality and/or privilege. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify immediately the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this e-mail and any attachments in their entirety from your system. Thank you. This e-mail message including any attachments is believed to be free of any viruses; however, it is the sole responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is virus free, and Advent Properties, Inc. does not accept any responsibility for any loss, disruption or damage to your data or computer system which may occur in connection with this e-mail including any attachments.
12/14/22, 8:28 AM
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/…o%2FqtcXWGMRiAAAAAAEMAAApFTKySZwnTo%2FqtcXWGMRiAAGuLjjVAAA%3D Page 1 of 1 Feedback on housing plan
Davide Russo
Tue 12/13/2022 12:08 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hello,
I want to file a formal complaint that I strongly oppose the construction of new homes on Skyline Blvd. Your plan currently has 198 potential units plus an unknown number.

Those hills are very unstable and prone to landslides. The current natural habitat is what keeps the hills intact. Our neighborhood needs more green, not more construction. This is a small quaint residential neighborhood where everyone knows each other.

Such a project would change the neighborhood completely and we’d suffer irreparable monetary damages as a result.

We are planning to move forward with legal action if these plans are confirmed.

Best
Davide Russo
Sent on the move
12/14/22, 8:28 AM
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/…o%2FqtcXWGMRiAAAAAAEMAAApFTKySZwnTo%2FqtcXWGMRiAAGuLjjWAAA%3D Page 1 of 1 Formal complaint against new homes on Skyline Blvd
Nat Gardenswartz
Tue 12/13/2022 3:40 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:

I am writing to file a formal complaint against the construction project under consideration on Skyline Blvd. The current plan to build 198 new homes would dramatically change the character of this quiet, intimate neighborhood. It would cause massive monetary damages to us and other homeowners here, as these neighborhoods are valued in part due to the quiet and intimate environment, and could also pose a seismic risk given the landslide conditions in the area where the homes are being built.

If the city moves forward with these plans, we will organize with nearby residents to campaign in opposition.

Nat Gardenswartz
Sent from my iPhone
12/19/22, 8:08 AM
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/…%2FqtcXWGMRiAAAAAAEMAAApFTKySZwnTo%2FqtcXWGMRiAAGySDmiAAA%3D Page 1 of 2 Oakland Housing TOPA/COPA Element Public Input
gabrielmichael55@
Fri 12/16/2022 4:40 PM
To: General Plan <[email protected]>;Gilchrist, William <[email protected]>;[email protected] <[email protected]>;Branson, Michael <[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.

Oakland City Staff,
Per the City website, I am providing feedback on the Housing Element Public Hearing Draft.

Please include my feedback in the public record and forward to State HCD (at the time the comments are received) and include as a supplemental document to the agenda reports for the Planning Commission and City Council public hearings beginning in January 2023.

TOPA/COPA should NOT be included in the City of Oakland Housing Element Action 2.2.8: Investigate a Tenant/ Community Opportunity to Purchase Act Background
I retired from the national housing nonprofit NeighborWorks America based in Washington D.C. after 29 years as a Management Consultant. Prior to that I worked for the cities of Piedmont and Oakland Planning Departments. I continue to advocate for housing as a volunteer, consultant, and housing provider. My family has owned a 4-plex in Oakland since 1976. As an affordable housing professional and provider, I have a unique perspective on housing policies.

I was introduced to TOPA/COPA in 1985 and have followed its volatile path since its inception.

While the acronym TOPA is compelling, it represents a false promise to tenants and does not assist them in meeting the challenges that prevent home purchases (i.e., insufficient income, lack of down payment, credit issues, lack of emergency reserves, employment instability). In COPA, the promise of “equity building” is subject to the nonprofit owner’s governing board’s policies and financial capacity. It too can be a false promise to tenants. From the perspective of tenants, in the COPA model the nonprofit buyer is simply the new landlord. It is worth noting that buildings owned by non-profit housing organizations (NPO) may not be subject to rent control.

Proven Equity-building Models
Before consideration of TOPA/COPA, there are numerous equity-building housing models with proven success metrics such as: limited-equity condominiums, co-housing, limited-equity cooperatives, mutual housing, employer assisted housing, condo conversions, tenant-in-common (TIC), extended household purchases and equity sharing programs. These models have proven legal structures that provide consumer protection and are familiar to lenders. The Housing Element should either refer broadly to these types of models or include them specifically. The Element should NOT refer solely to TOPA/COPA as it could be construed as advocacy.

By all measures, TOPA/COPA has been unsuccessful since it was introduced in Washington D.C.

TOPA/COPA is a capital-intensive model requiring deep up-front inefficient per-tenant subsidies, capitalization of building rehab, operating reserves, and maintenance reserves. Fledging tenant organizations require intensive, costly technical assistance, startup funding and sufficient free time to work as a group. TOPA buyers must agree to income restrictions for all future sales or transfers 12/19/22, 8:08 AM
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]…%2FqtcXWGMRiAAAAAAEMAAApFTKySZwnTo%2FqtcXWGMRiAAGySDmiAAA%3D Page 2 of 2 and are individually and collectively responsible for mortgage, taxes, insurance, and all other building costs. They cannot individually encumber the property or access building equity. These characteristics are particularly unappealing to minority and working class households who hoped for full ownership rights. After reading the fine print or not qualifying for a TOPA purchase, frustrated tenants can assign their rights to COPA only to find no guarantee of “equity building”.

NPOs are best suited to implement rehab, manage tenant relocation with sensitivity, identify government and private sector subsidies, ensure building maintenance, reach lower income households, and track long-term affordability. After acquisition, NPO organizations can develop and implement tenant equity-building programs as appropriate without COPA restrictions.

The Housing Element is a guiding document and should NOT be used to advocate for TOPA/COPA over other models.
12/19/22, 8:11 AM
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]…%2FqtcXWGMRiAAAAAAEMAAApFTKySZwnTo%2FqtcXWGMRiAAGzBVKXAAA%3D Page 1 of 1 Skyline Blvd development
Gregg Penn
Sat 12/17/2022 11:01 AM
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,
I live in the Merriewood region of Oakland, and I recently received a flier opposing the development of affordable housing on Skyline Blvd as part of the Housing Element update. I strongly believe in the importance of creating additional housing, especially affordable housing, to sustain and improve the livability of our city. I wanted to voice my support of this project and I hope that it succeeds.

Sincerely,
Gregory Penn
12/19/22, 8:12 AM
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]…%2FqtcXWGMRiAAAAAAEMAAApFTKySZwnTo%2FqtcXWGMRiAAGzBVKYAAA%3D Page 1 of 4 Input for the Housing Element
Heather Kuiper
Sat 12/17/2022 1:34 PM
To: General Plan <[email protected]>
1 attachments (16 KB)
General Plan Housing Element Suggested Language December 2022.docx; [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.

Hi Lakshmi,
I hope the end of year is finishing well for you. Thank you for your leadership in the Housing Element process - a big undertaking!
Attached and copied at the bottom of this email are comments pertaining to the latest draft in the form of suggested text in case that is of use. The hope is to increase alignment between the Housing, LUTE, and OSCAR Elements (and the ECAP) because housing, transportation, and parks are mutually reinforcing. Right now there are no substantive mentions of parks or green space in the housing element, which are key aspects of making housing liveable and neighborhoods complete. The suggested edits can also help meet the housing element's stated goals related to greenhouse gases, public health, environmental justice, and stable, healthy, integrated and vibrant neighborhoods.

I am also attaching Oakland Parks and Recreation Foundation's last two survey reports, as per referenced in the EJ Baseline report. Is it possible to post these in the General Plan's Project Documents page and to share with the Equity Working Group? These reports would be great to make available to the process because:
- They are citywide reports and as such help create the authentic inclusivity so important to general plan development. The 2020 report in particular gives voice to historically underrepresented residents and is the first time in a generation - since the last OSCAR update - that Oaklanders (about 1300!) were surveyed about their parks;
- They make a very strong equity and racial / environmental justice case; - They convey how different aspects of a city - e..g, housing, transportation, and park infrastructure - work together for equity, justice, health, safety, and climate resilience. In fact, there are several modules in the 2020 report that could be useful pull-outs for different elements of the GP update. It would be inspiring to see this largely community-based research put to work in service to Oakland! Here are the links:
12/19/22, 8:12 AM
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]…%2FqtcXWGMRiAAAAAAEMAAApFTKySZwnTo%2FqtcXWGMRiAAGzBVKYAAA%3D Page 2 of 4 Parks & Equity: The Promise of Oakland's Parks
https://www.oaklandparks.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/OPRF-Parks-And-Equity-2021-01-

12.pdf
Exec Summ
https://www.oaklandparks.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/OPRF-Parks-And-Equity-ExecutiveSummary-2021-01-12.pdf Continuing Crisis: The 2018 Report on the State of Maintenance in Oakland Parks https://www.oaklandparks.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/2018-Parks-Maintenance-Survey.pdf I am available for any questions/clarifications if of use and would love to hear back.

All the best to you,
Heather Kuiper DrPH, MPH
(she/her)
I live and work in Huchiun Territory, on the unceded land of one of many vital Ohlone nations, The Confederated Villages of Lisjan. Despite genocide and colonization, the Lisjan community is revitalizing cultural practices and upholding responsibility to protect and care for their homeland. I commit to their work by giving Shuumi to support rematriating the land through the Sogorea Te' Land Trust.

This is the same as the attached document, in case more convenient to access here:

General Plan Housing Element Suggested Language December, 2022 Chapter 1 Page 8
The City is also undertaking an update to its Land Use and Transportation Element of the General Plan, in tandem with this Housing Element, to promote a land use pattern and policies that will help accelerate and target housing production. Update of its Open Space, Conservation and Recreation Element will similarly align to ensure equitable access to complete neighborhoods and the conditions Oaklanders need to thrive.

Chapter 1 Page 19
Some initial amendments to the Land Use and Transportation Element and Planning Code and initial zoning map changes will be made during Phase I; this 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. Anticipated development on these sites is expected to be in compliance with updated policy standards for noise, safety, open space, recreation, and conservation contained in the other General Plan elements, and, as population density increases, the health, environmental justice, climate resilience, safety and equity imperatives for open, green, and recreational space will be maintained or enhanced. 12/19/22, 8:12 AM
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]…%2FqtcXWGMRiAAAAAAEMAAApFTKySZwnTo%2FqtcXWGMRiAAGzBVKYAAA%3D Page 3 of 4 Chapter 4 page 74
the City will continue to release land designated as surplus for development of affordable housing and other uses, ensuring in the process that a balance between the need for development and the need for green and recreational spaces is maintained.

Chapter 4 page 83
Action 3.4.1: Revise development standards, including allowable building heights, densities, open space and setback requirements
The City will allow additional building heights and densities in certain corridors and districts, while ensuring that surrounding community infrastructure such as access to healthy food and park space is adequate for a larger population. These changes include:

Chapter 4 page 86
Action 3.4.5: Revise open space requirements
Objective: Significantly reduce Alter existing private open space requirements (for decks, balconies, etc.) to reduce constraints on development and increase production of housing to match housing need.

Even with these changes, as population density increases, the health, environmental justice, climate resilience, equity and safety imperatives for open, green, and recreational space will be maintained or enhanced. Policy tools will be used to mitigate the impacts increased density will have on the need for open space, for example allowing the payment of park fees in lieu of providing private open space on-site.

Chapter 4 Page 108
Goals, policies, and actions in the Housing Action Plan can address environmental justice by protecting residential areas from harmful pollution impacts and promoting environmental benefits such as access to parks.

Chapter 4 Page 109
Encourage higher-density, infill, and mixed- use development near transit and parks to reduce reliance on automobiles.

Chapter 4 Page 110
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 as well as disproportionate barriers to environmental benefits such as parks and recreational spaces which promote health, safety, and climate and social resilience.

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 parks, 12/19/22, 8:12 AM
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]…%2FqtcXWGMRiAAAAAAEMAAApFTKySZwnTo%2FqtcXWGMRiAAGzBVKYAAA%3D Page 4 of 4 healthy food, high opportunity neighborhoods and good jobs Chapter 4 Page 112
and increase opportunities to add multi-family housing in commercial areas that are well-served by transit, while also ensuring that these areas can provide new residents with the adequate park and natural space needed for a healthy neighborhood.

Chapter 4 Page 114
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), while also relying upon green infrastructure to protect these resources. 12/19/22, 8:14 AM
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]…%2FqtcXWGMRiAAAAAAEMAAApFTKySZwnTo%2FqtcXWGMRiAAGzBVKZAAA%3D Page 1 of 2 Re: Oakland Housing TOPA/COPA Element Public Input
Jeannie Llewellyn
Sat 12/17/2022 11:07 PM
To: General Plan <[email protected]>;Gilchrist, William <[email protected]>;[email protected] <[email protected]>;Branson, Michael <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[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.

In addition to what Mr. Michael Gabriel wrote, TOPA / COPA / OPA is easily misunderstood by the very people it allegedly is trying to help. The complexity of even a basic property purchase would flumox those new to the real estate world. Add to that the fact embedded deeply in the ordinance that ownership is indeed a "false promise" when a tenant / tenant group discovers how limited their powers and assets truly are when any assistance has been used toward the purchase through TOPA / COPA / OPA.

There is already in place assistance for first-time buyers, so why make this more complicated than it needs to be?
With the amount spent to support TOPA / COPA / OPA it would be more efficiently and better spent on other needs the city has, whether for housing or for the city infrastructure.

I agree that TOPA / COPA does not need to be advocated for in the Housing Element document.

Jeannie Llewellyn
On Fri, Dec 16, 2022 at 4:40 PM t> wrote:

Oakland City Staff,
Per the City website, I am providing feedback on the Housing Element Public Hearing Draft.

TOPA/COPA should NOT be included in the City of Oakland Housing Element Action 2.2.8: Investigate a Tenant/ Community Opportunity to Purchase Act Background
I retired from the national housing nonprofit NeighborWorks America based in Washington D.C. after 29 years as a Management Consultant. Prior to that I worked for the cities of Piedmont and Oakland Planning Departments. I continue to advocate for housing as a 12/19/22, 8:14 AM
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]…%2FqtcXWGMRiAAAAAAEMAAApFTKySZwnTo%2FqtcXWGMRiAAGzBVKZAAA%3D Page 2 of 2 volunteer, consultant, and housing provider. My family has owned a 4-plex in Oakland since 1976. As an affordable housing professional and provider, I have a unique perspective on housing policies.

I was introduced to TOPA/COPA in 1985 and have followed its volatile path since its inception.

Proven Equity-building Models
Before consideration of TOPA/COPA, there are numerous equity-building housing models with proven success metrics such as: limited-equity condominiums, co-housing, limited-equity cooperatives, mutual housing, employer assisted housing, condo conversions, tenant-incommon (TIC), extended household purchases and equity sharing programs. These models have proven legal structures that provide consumer protection and are familiar to lenders.

The Housing Element should either refer broadly to these types of models or include them specifically. The Element should NOT refer solely to TOPA/COPA as it could be construed as advocacy.

By all measures, TOPA/COPA has been unsuccessful since it was introduced in Washington D.C. TOPA/COPA is a capital-intensive model requiring deep up-front inefficient per-tenant subsidies, capitalization of building rehab, operating reserves, and maintenance reserves.

Fledging tenant organizations require intensive, costly technical assistance, startup funding and sufficient free time to work as a group. TOPA buyers must agree to income restrictions for all future sales or transfers and are individually and collectively responsible for mortgage, taxes, insurance, and all other building costs. They cannot individually encumber the property or access building equity. These characteristics are particularly unappealing to minority and working class households who hoped for full ownership rights. After reading the fine print or not qualifying for a TOPA purchase, frustrated tenants can assign their rights to COPA only to find no guarantee of “equity building”.

Without COPA non-profit housing organizations have successfully developed, acquired, and manage thousands of affordable units. With increased purchase and rehab capital subsidies, they can compete in the market with a strategy of buying and rehabbing buildings with existing low rent. NPOs are best suited to implement rehab, manage tenant relocation with sensitivity, identify government and private sector subsidies, ensure building maintenance, reach lower income households, and track long-term affordability. After acquisition, NPO organizations can develop and implement tenant equity-building programs as appropriate without COPA restrictions.

The Housing Element is a guiding document and should NOT be used to advocate for TOPA/COPA over other models.
12/19/22, 8:14 AM
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/…%2FqtcXWGMRiAAAAAAEMAAApFTKySZwnTo%2FqtcXWGMRiAAGzBVKaAAA%3D Page 1 of 1 Re; 2023-2031 development plan
Rich S
Sun 12/18/2022 4:53 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.

Your development plan shows potential 185 housing units at 5885 Skyline Blvd in Oakland.

We live off Broadway Terrace somewhat lower down the hill from Skyline.

This area is all the the 1991 Hills Fire burn zone.

The roads are narrow and treacherous, a very high risk in case of fire, earthquake, or other disaster.

There is no way the narrow winding roads can safely take much additional traffic from large scale development.

The plan for 5885 Skyline is dangerous and faulty.

Richard Sigel
12/19/22, 8:19 AM
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/…%2FqtcXWGMRiAAAAAAEMAAApFTKySZwnTo%2FqtcXWGMRiAAGzBVKbAAA%3D Page 1 of 1 Public Input: 5885 Skyline
Susan Goodman
Sun 12/18/2022 7:00 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.

Hello.

As a neighbor, I would like to state that I am against rezoning 5885 Skyline Boulevard from Residential Hillside RH-3, with single family homes on lot sizes not less than 12,000 SF to allow for high-density housing. This area does not have the infrastructure (roads, parking, etc.), and would contribute to the dangerous conditions that are already in this area, especially under emergency evacuation circumstances, including those related to fire and earthquakes. It is also not transitfriendly and would have a low-walking score, making it impractical for especially elderly people and those with fewer resources to access needed services (e.g., food, medical, banking, work, etc.).

Finally, this proposal would eliminate green space in this already very urban and concrete neighborhood, further reducing outdoor opportunities and eliminating the other benefits that natural areas provide to all of us.

Thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts.

Susan Goodman
FW: Public Input: 5885 Skyline
Mon 12/19/2022 10:39 AM
[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,
As a neighbor, I would like to state that I am against rezoning 5885 Skyline Boulevard from Residential Hillside RH-3, with single family homes on lot sizes not less than 12,000 SF to allow for high-density housing. It appears that this area has an open space component but the zoning is not clear as it is also described as RH-9 which I don’t see in your map descriptions. I agree that we need additional housing in Oakland and I am strongly in favor of building housing for low income families and elderly individuals. This site however does not make sense for that use.

Locating housing at the top of Skyline would be difficult to access with no ability for a resident to walk or bike to critical services. These folks need to be able to easily obtain groceries, go to the bank, go to the doctor, etc..

Additionally the hillside area is already over impacted for fire response, police response and other emergency services. By locating these folks in this area you would be placing them and others at risk. I don’t know what the additional load would be on the water and sewer systems but I would have to believe that the number of homes you are proposing for this area would be detrimental to the existing neighboring residences as well.

Finally I would be concerned that if we had another large fire or when the Hayward fault decides to move that we would be stranding a lot of at risk individuals. I would suspect that there will be no emergency services able to support the number of folks already living in this area and adding to that with individuals that might not be able to leave their homes would simply be an irresponsible act of the Planning Department. Simply building wherever there is open space is not an appropriate solution.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide input in this Planning/Zoning review process, Kenny Goodman

KG Kenny Goodman     
To: General Plan
 Reply  Forward
  Delete  Archive  Report   Reply  Reply all  Forward       Skyline Development Plan 2023-31
Wed 12/21/2022 3:16 PM
[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.

I live in the City of Oakland.

I am informed that there is discussion of building "affordable" housing on Skyline Blvd.

If true, this is a poorly conceived plan that is not consistent with the recreational facilities that are available to all Oakland residents in the area. Skyline is already overused, the road is in poor condition, traffic is too fast and inconsistent with the park usage and the substantial bicycle usage in the area.

Please register my opposition to this project.

Thank you.

Oakland resident & voter.

Louis Goodman

LJ Louis J.Goodman     
To: General Plan
 Reply  Forward
  Delete  Archive  Report   Reply  Reply all  Forward       December 25, 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: November 2022 Revised Draft Housing Element
Dear General Plan Team:

As an Oakland resident I have included here my comments on the Housing Element. I have also shared my comments with the Piedmont Avenue Neighborhood Improvement Leage (PANIL), which I participate in. Overall I applaud the city’s efforts to address decades of racial and economic inequities in our housing policy. Given that, I have a few comments and suggestions:

Housing Element Chapter 4:

2.1.3 -Proactive Rental Inspections:

We would suggest that multi-family buildings, dependent on size and age be inspected every 2-4 years similar to the program in the City of Los Angeles.

2.2.1 -Implementing Resale Controls on Assisted Housing:

As the City deploys Measure U funds, it should require that when the provided funds for a 100% affordable project are greater than the cost of the land (if not already a City owned parcel), that the developer transfer the land to the City and then the City will ground lease the property back to the project. This significantly strengthens the City’s ability to ensure the land remains used for a public purpose. The City and County of San Francisco already use a similar practice. This is also relevant to 3.3.1.

2.2.8 -TOPA/COPA:

We support the implementation of a TOPA/COPA policy and look forward to seeing the legislation brought forward by Council since the City has already spent ample time analyzing this policy option.

3.2.1 -Missing Middle Housing:

We would suggest that the City not include owner-occupier requirements or similar onerous and financially infeasible rules for the development of missing middle housing, since this has proven to be a major challenge in other similar legislation.

3.3.2 -Expansion of Section 8 Vouchers:

We would suggest that the City in partnership with the Oakland Housing Authority (OHA) leverage OHA’s status as a Moving to Work (MTW) housing authority in combination with unused Faircloth Authority to expand project based vouchers through the Faircloth to RAD program. This would allow Oakland to expand voucher access beyond the current limit.

3.3.5 -Affordable Housing Overlay:

This is a valuable policy to help expand access to affordable housing in Oakland. As details are put into this regulation, the City should keep in mind that affordable housing projects are generally not financially viable with fewer than 80 units. The regulations should be adapted accordingly so that these changes can have the most substantive impact.

3.3.6 -Access to Low-Cost Financing for Development:

For 100% affordable projects the City should consider providing a larger bridge loan during construction, that can then be taken out with tax credit equity or other private or public permanent financing. This would reduce construction loan interest costs and provide savings for affordable housing projects.

3.3.7 & 3.3.15 -Inclusionary Housing and Density Bonus:

We support the use of a reasonable inclusionary housing percentage. It should incentivize deep affordability by requiring a smaller percentage of units affordable to tenants at 30% or 50% of Area Median Income. Ideally this could be combined with a density bonus for providing a larger percentage of affordable units - similar to the Los Angeles Transit Oriented Communities (TOC) program.

3.3.10 - Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District
We support the creation of an Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District for affordable housing funding. This is a valuable way to commit revenues to affordable housing and provide a permanent source for affordable housing funding.

3.3.14 - Creation of Debt and Equity Fund for Acquisition of Affordable Housing We would suggest that the city also explore working with the Bay Area Housing Finance Agency (BAHFA) to create subsidized debt and equity products for the acquisition of unsubsidized housing.

3.3.16 - Transfer Tax on Affordable Housing
Transfer taxes should be waived for 100% affordable housing projects if units are restricted to households with incomes of 80% of Area Median Income or below.

Charging these fees costs the City additional subsidy funds by making the projects more expensive.

3.4.1 - Upzoning
The upzoning and increased density should focus on upzoning high income areas so that development is not just pushed to historically Black neighborhoods as has long been the case. Upzoning should not just increase density to allow for duplexes and fourplexes but instead should be viable for large multifamily, which is more economically feasible and generates more affordable units. The updated zoning should result in at least 100 bedrooms per net acre, so as to be competitive for Low Income Housing Tax Credits.

3.6.1 - Streamline Permitting
The City should also focus on filling staff vacancies in the Planning Department so that there is adequate capacity to process applications.

3.6.3 Expanding By-Right Approvals
This is a valuable tool for moving projects along more quickly to lower costs and produce more housing. The City should also look at how this can be provided for projects where a portion of the units are affordable.

4.1.1: Expand, improve and maintain crisis response beds In order to effectively do this, the City must commit other funds. The City has historically relied on federal and state funding for shelter funding - but this has proved inadequate to meet demand.

4.2.1: Encampment Management Policy
To avoid wasting City funds, per the City Auditor’s report, the Encampment Management Policy should be altered to ensure that shelter offers are for long-term housing that allows pets, partners and possessions. The current implementation is ineffective and a waste of city funds.

5.2.8 - Encourage New Affordable Housing in Higher Resource Neighborhoods We support building more affordable housing in high resource neighborhoods so that Oaklanders of all incomes have opportunities to live in all parts of the City. This will also make Oakland’s affordable housing projects more competitive for state and federal funds.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment and for your hard work on these valuable policy improvements.

Sincerely,
William Wilcox
Homesites to add to General plan
You replied on Tue 12/27/2022 10:13 AM
Mon 12/26/2022 3:01 PM
[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.

Please be advised that there are two parcels at 7033 and 7039 Buckingham Blvd that could be added to the proposed 2023-2031 Housing Plan.

As a general comment, it would be great if Oakland HCDD could provide expedited and/or accelerated review of permits for sites that are included in your list of earmarked sites.

Thanks for your consideration.

Ben Bowen & Renee Kosslak
s

BB Ben Bowen     
To: General Plan
 Reply  Forward
  Delete  Archive  Report   Reply  Reply all  Forward       Housing Element Comment
Submitted By #OaklandUndivided
I. The Ask
The most recent release of the 2023-2031 Housing Element Public Hearing Draft was submitted by the City of Oakland on December 15, 2022. This draft is a plan that promotes “integrated, vibrant communities” through “protecting Oakland residents from displacement, improving Oakland’s existing housing stock, expanding affordable housing opportunities, expanding resources for the unhoused, and promoting neighborhood stability and health.” Ask: An essential component missing from the Housing Element, which will prove essential to achieving the goals stated above, is broadband access and digital equity. #OaklandUndivided, a diverse coalition of elected officials, civic leaders, and community stakeholders, proposes that the Housing Element include that all residents should have access to high-speed internet at home. This internet service should be robust enough to perform essential functions, such as enrolling in government programs, seeking employment, and attending school. Internet speed and performance standards should increase over time to track the exponential growth in data usage. In addition, the Housing Element should define broadband as a necessary utility and inextricably linked to plans for improving existing housing stock and new builds.

II. Background
The implementation of technology that can sustain high-speed internet throughout our city is inextricably linked to the housing market. For decades, internet service providers, or ISPs, have made broadband deployment decisions that replicate and perpetuate disinvestment in historically redlined communities and overinvestment in wealthy communities. 1 Even if the ISPs'
business decisions are made for legitimate business purposes, the fact remains that those decisions create disparate impacts for communities of color and individuals with disabilities. 2 The digital divide and pervasiveness of digital redlining perpetuate systemic barriers to opportunity. While most people have access to the internet either through a phone or home broadband connection, there are significant racial and income gaps. 3 This is also true for Oakland as historically unserved and underserved residents in our city suffer greatly from digital inequity. Findings from the American Communities Survey indicate that 37,000 residents in Oakland are unconnected, concentrated in three historically redlined areas of our city. A 2022 technology survey completed by approximately 33,000 students enrolling in Oakland Unified School District this year indicated that students in our historically redlined communities are most likely to indicate need of a laptop or home internet, as seen in the map below.
3The Greenlining Institute. Leveraging Technology to Build Generational Wealth (2022), https://greenlining.org/work/economic-equity/bridging-the-digital-divide/ 2Paul Goodman, Ernesto Falcon, Chao Jun Liu, Implementing the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act: Prevention and Elimination of Digital Discrimination (May 16, 2022), https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22083399-20220516-joint-advocates-digital-discrimination-comment-1 1California Public Utilities Commission. Network Exam of AT&T and Frontier/Verizon (2019), https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/industries-and-topics/internet-and-phone/service-quality-and-etc/network-exam-of-att-and-frontier-verizon In addition, research indicates that these low-income areas pay more for less while relying on legacy infrastructure that has been poorly maintained for decades. Inequitable investment and inadequate maintenance greatly impacts user experience, and, therefore, residents’ ability to get and stay connected. A public option is needed where monopolistic/duopolistic markets lack the short-term return on investment to convince
shareholders to dismantle digital redlining.

The housing department in the City of Oakland is
uniquely positioned to create opportunities for
wealth, health, and wellness, particularly in
communities of color, by championing broadband
accessibility in new and existing housing
developments.

III. The Why
Broadband is a 21st-century necessity. As
COVID-19 remains a pervasive threat in our
society, the importance of broadband only
increases. People require an internet connection
to learn, work, communicate with others, receive medical care, online bank, and so much more.

Many studies have showcased this. For example, the Greenlining Institute found that internet connection is critical to economic opportunity. Andrew Peterson, former Oakland CIO, and Alexa Jeffress, former Oakland Director of Workforce Development, agree that increasing digital inclusion positively impacts economic development as well as the education, healthcare, and workforce of underserved communities.
4 As such, adding broadband to the Housing Element would support the existing goals in the Housing Element. In particular, “Goal 2: Preserve and Improve Existing Housing Stock” as well as “Goal 5: Promote Neighborhood Stability and Health.” Housing, particularly multifamily housing projects, presents an opportunity to close this digital divide and improve the socioeconomic outcomes of many of the city’s most vulnerable populations. The neighborhoods with the lowest rates of internet adoption are most likely the focus of the City’s affordable housing developments. Therefore, it is imperative that broadband implementation is considered in relation to existing housing projects as well as new builds, particularly in the case of public housing.
● Existing housing projects: Digitally retrofitting existing housing projects will support “Goal 2: Preserve and Improve Existing Housing Stock.” With 80% of Oakland’s housing stock built before 1980,
5 it is essential to ensure that residents in the existing housing projects are able to access high-speed internet. That requires installing fiber, a futureproof technology, that is much more resistant to corrosion and deterioration than 5Housing Needs Assessment. https://cao-94612.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/Appendix-B-Housing-Needs-Assessment_clean.pdf 4Andrew Peterson and Alexa Jeffress. A Case For Digital Inclusion. https://cao-94612.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/A-Case-For-Digital-Inclusion.pdf the legacy technology that many of these buildings are relying on. Whenever possible, fiber should be installed at free or low-cost to residents. ● New Builds: The current requirements listed in the Housing & Community Development NOFA have not been updated in the last 15 years. In discussing the future of housing in our city, it is imperative that city policy both encourage and require developers to integrate broadband technology in their initial planning. Projects should specifically plan the services available to their residents in order to ensure accessibility and connection.

IV. Vision for the Future
As data shows a significant gap between the internet speeds that providers are advertising and speeds that users are actually experiencing, it is vital the City includes a vision for the future which includes actual broadband speeds that will allow residents to engage in all aforementioned activities essential to their daily life, including education, work, and care.

Recommendations: #OaklandUndivded recommends the following for improving existing housing stock as well as planning for new builds.

1. Installation
a. Installation Method Requirements
i. Supply is how internet access gets to the premises of the building. ● Preferred Supply Installation: Fiber is in a conduit that is trenched from the basement to the nearest telecommunications vault in the street and connected to a network switch in the basement.

Additionally, fiber run from the network switch in the basement to the rooftop for use by a wireless internet service provider. ● Less Preferred Supply Installation: Fiber is in a conduit that is trenched from the basement to the nearest telecommunications vault in the street and connected to a network switch in the basement. ● Least Preferred Supply Installation: Fiber is vertically run from the network switch in the basement to the rooftop for use by a wireless internet service provider.
ii. Distribution is how internet access gets from the basement or rooftop to the dwelling units and other parts of the building.
● Preferred Distribution Installation: Fiber or cable terminates in the living room of each dwelling unit at a wall jack, where it can be plugged into a router.
● Less Preferred Distribution Installation: Fiber or cable terminates at a ceiling-mounted access point (hotspot) in each dwelling unit vestibule.
● Least Preferred Distribution Installation: Fiber or cable terminates at a hallway access point (hotspot) outside groups of multiple dwelling units
iii. Cabling Pathways Accessibility: All vertical and horizontal cabling pathways should be easily accessible and have room for the addition of more cabling in the future.
iv. Basement & Rooftop Accessibility: The building’s network equipment should be accessible both in the basement and from the rooftop of the building.
b. Technology
i. Fiber Preference: New projects are strongly encouraged to install fiber optic wiring for broadband services rather than DSL or cable wiring. ii. Underground Wiring: Franchisee must place its facilities underground except as otherwise expressly provided herein. All other facilities, including without limitation facilities required to operate or maintain such Optical Fiber and Optical Fiber housing, and splicing connections must be Underground Facilities if they are located in a Right of Way, unless otherwise expressly authorized by the City.
iii. Abandoned fiber and conduit policy: When not in use, wiring once used for video or broadband services within multiple dwelling units (MDUs) should be made available to competitors to connect residents.

Any abandoned fiber/conduit that is left vacant, and is not claimed by the owner within a designated time period, would revert to the local government agency.
c. Safety & Labor Standards
i. Legal Compliance: Applicants for new builds as well as retrofitting existing housing stock should comply with all funding source requirements, including but not limited to: California prevailing wage requirements and federal Davis Bacon federal labor standards; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Act; Section 3 of the U.S.

Housing Act of 1968, Equal Opportunity and related requirements in 24 CFR Section 982.53, as amended; Architectural Barriers Act of 1968; federal and state requirements related to Minority Business and Women Business Enterprises (M/WBE), Duplication of Benefits, the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act, prohibition against Eminent Domain, Building Standards (CalGREEN, WUI, Broadband Infrastructure), Article XXXIV, and the National Objective of Demonstrating Benefit to LMI Persons; federal labor standards regulations under 29 CFR Part 5 and other regulations; and state and federal regulations pertaining to remediation of lead, asbestos and other hazards.
d. Partnership with Internet Service Providers (ISPs)
i. No Exclusive Contracts: Projects should not negotiate exclusive contracts that block other Internet Service Providers from entering multi-tenant buildings. Building owners should not grant exclusive contracts to broadband providers.
ii. Building Retains Ownership of Infrastructure: Building owners should retain ownership of the network infrastructure within the building. As a result, maintenance should be part of the contract with the ISP. Projects can also employ a third-party ISP to provide end-users with customer service, network diagnostics, billing, and other services.

2. Service Available to the Residents
a. No Fee For Residents: The Franchisee shall offer and provide Services to all residential Subscribers under non-discriminatory rates, terms, and conditions.

The Franchisee shall not require residential contracts for service. The Franchisee shall not charge a fee for the installation of services. Projects provide free high-speed in-unit internet access as an element of their lease contract and at no additional cost to the tenant. If the internet service provider decides to offer additional service plans in the building with faster speeds, households should be given the option to enhance their individual level of service at their own cost. b. Tenant Protections: Tenants should be protected from increases in rent on a month-to-month basis from changes in pricing for an internet service plan. c. Unique Profile: Each household must have secured access to high-speed internet through a unique profile.
d. Federal benefit communication: Projects are strongly encouraged to notify all tenants of relevant state and federal benefits, such as the Affordable Connectivity Program and provide information for applying to subsidies within ninety (90) days of the tenant's move-in.
e. Wireless availability: Wireless internet service should be available in common areas, including: lobbies, lounges and common rooms, laundry rooms, outdoor areas, and other shared spaces.
f. Computer Lab Space: Projects should provide and maintain computers in a common area. Projects are strongly encouraged to provide access to the latest technology for resident use. Computers should be upgraded or replaced every five (5) years. For every ten (10) residents, there should be at least one (1) accessible computer for resident use or for every three (3) units in a multi-unit building, there should be at least one (1) accessible computer for resident use. g. Digital Literacy Programs: Projects should provide access to a digital literacy program or help line that is available in all residents’ primary languages. h. Language Accessibility: Information distributed to tenants regarding internet service, computers, or digital literacy should be provided in English, Spanish, Vietnamese, Chinese, and any other language that the tenant may request.

3. Records
a. Post-installation inspection: A post-installation inspection by [the city] must be conducted to confirm that standards have been met and all units in a multi-tenant building are wired.
b. Initial wiring report post-installation: Franchisees must report the condition of the wiring in project buildings and report the status of the broadband, including current upload and download speeds, the number of devices that can be simultaneously connected, and the number of computers accessible in the multi-tenant building).
c. Regular reporting of broadband conditions: This information aforementioned should be reported every 5 years in order to determine the possible impact of corrosion and deterioration.

4. Community Organization Outreach: Franchisee shall confer with the City to identify eligible Community Organizations and perform outreach. Following the initial ten (10) year service term, the Community Organization may continue to subscribe to some or all of the Services that Franchisee offers to similar Subscribers at then-current rates for such Services. The City understands and acknowledges that Franchisee’s System design and construction plans will be based on the optimal deployment of the System for residential services.

December 28, 2022
City of Oakland Planning Department
250 Frank H Ogawa Plaza
Oakland, CA 94612
RE: Comments on Public Hearing Draft Housing Element for 2023-2031 Dear General Plan Update Team:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Public Hearing 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 non-profit organization that mobilizes the power and wisdom of our members to produce, preserve, and protect affordable housing opportunities for low-income communities in the East Bay.

Our comments here follow up on our written comments on June 13, 2022, as well as the many verbal comments we have offered over the course of the housing element process, including:
• Community & Economic Development Committee, May 24, 2022 • Stakeholder group meeting, June 8, 2022
• Community meeting, June 9, 2022
• City Council, July 26, 2022
• City Council, October 28, 2022
• Planning Commission, October 29, 2022
The City’s latest draft makes a number of important changes, and we want to express our appreciation that the City has responded to our comments on process by making available its detailed responses to individual comments and publishing redlined copies of all revised documents. Nonetheless, we believe that the current draft still does not fully address all the issues raised in our previous comments. Many of these issues are noted again below.

EBHO Comments on Public Hearing Draft Housing Element
December 28, 2022

Page 2 of 15 ends

Assessment of past performance
• As we previously commented, while the assessment contains a listing of programs from the previous housing element and data on outputs, far less attention has been paid to outcomes and the extent to which programs contributed significantly to achieving the City’s housing goals. The assessment should provide a real analysis of whether the programs worked. Why are they being continued? Were they worth the effort? Are any changes required? Are they adequate to the task of meeting the 6th Cycle needs? Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
• In several places, we believe the City still has not met the requirements and intent of AB 686 and other requirements to affirmatively further fair housing. • We are dismayed that Appendix D (Fair Housing Assessment) has almost no changes from the previous draft. While the assessment provides a wealth of data to demonstrate patterns of segregation and racial and economic disparities in housing opportunity, conditions, and outcomes, it still lacks a serious analysis of the underlying factors that created and continue to maintain these patterns. We would expect to find a history of how these patterns came into being and a consideration of the legal and institutional factors that support these patterns on an ongoing basis. • It is all the more surprising that this historic analysis is lacking, since the City has previously produced such analyses. A notable example is the report prepared by the Department of Race & Equity, entitled “Report on Redlined Neighborhoods in City Council District 3,” which was presented at the June 28, 2022, meeting of the Community & Economic Development. This report includes an extensive history of factors giving rise to ongoing housing disparities, including redlining, exclusionary/single-family zoning, urban renewal, freeway construction, disparities in employment and income, and more. None of this is discussed in the Housing Element’s Fair Housing Assessment.
• Despite our comments in our June 13 letter, the fair housing assessment still contains no analysis of the role that exclusionary zoning plays in maintaining patterns of racial and economic segregation. In fact, the word “zoning” scarcely appears in this analysis, and there is no mapping of racial concentration overlayed with areas that are zoned exclusively or mainly for single-family and low-density housing. • Section D.7 and Table D-9 is completely inadequate. The table lists a number of fair housing issues and what are purported to be the underlying factors giving rise to these issues, but the “factors” are simply more detailed statements of the issues. For example, the factor underlying racial segregation is listed as “Affordable housing is limited by location and housing type.” This is more of a tautology than an explanation – it states that racial segregation exists because affordable housing is not distributed in a geographically equitable manner. But it fails to address why this unequal distribution exists and how a concentration of single-family zoning effectively excludes low-income households (which disproportionately impacts BIPOC households), from those areas.

The corresponding goals and actions include this statement: “Eliminate single-family zoning to ensure there are no restrictions on housing type.” However, the City’s EBHO Comments on Public Hearing Draft Housing Element
December 28, 2022

Page 3 of 15 ends

proposed elimination of single-family zoning does not remove all restrictions on housing type – for the most part it will permit 2-4 unit structures to be built on single family lots but does not provide zoning adequate to support multifamily housing at densities typically needed to make lower income housing feasible. • While the City is proposing a number of actions to “eliminate single family zoning” and encourage “missing middle” housing, these actions stand outside the actual site inventory. Moreover, while permitting 2-4 unit development on single-family lots is a worthy change, at best this will yield an increase in housing for moderate income households. Given the extreme racial disparities in wealth and income (which are themselves the result of many decades of discrimination in education, employment, and public policy), an increase in missing middle housing may not have a significant impact on patterns of racial segregation. At a minimum, the City must produce evidence that such changes will have an impact and cannot merely assert this to be the case. • The Fair Housing Assessment also lacks information on income disparities by race/ethnicity. It is well known that there is a substantial racial income gap (not unique to Oakland), with a particularly large disparity between White and Black household income. This is critical to understanding the impact of exclusionary, single-family zoning and the concentration of multifamily zoning in low resource and low-income areas. Restricting areas of the city only to housing types that are more expensive while prohibiting more affordable multifamily housing was explicitly designed to exclude Black and other people of color precisely because of racial disparities in income. Among other factors, these income disparities are themselves the result of decades of institutionalized discrimination in employment and education. Failure to identify these factors leaves the city with an incomplete analysis of the underlying causes of segregation and housing disparities, and thus an incomplete strategy for eliminating these structural barriers.

Site Inventory
• We appreciate that the City’s new zoning proposals seek to provide more higher density housing in high resources and historically exclusionary areas. The site inventory itself would have benefitted from actions to include such sites in the inventory and a program committing to such rezoning. Ideally the City would have amended the inventory to include more high resource neighborhood sites that can support multi-family housing at densities of at least 30 units to the acre (if not higher). This should include a look at planning for and incentivizing higher-density residential development along commercial corridors and on vacant and underutilized parcels in high opportunity areas beyond Rockridge.
• The wholesale exclusion of areas within the severe fire hazard zones, which are also the must exclusionary and segregated portions of the City, will result in a continuation of existing geographic disparities. The City should take a more fine-grained approach to analyzing sites in the fire zones as there may be areas that are suitable for multi-family development that have been excluded by such a broad-brush determination.

EBHO Comments on Public Hearing Draft Housing Element
December 28, 2022

Page 4 of 15 ends

• The City’s interactive online map of inventory sites includes a lot of information on zoning and height limits. However, the City has not responded to our comment that there should be layers for areas of opportunity and areas at risk, including both Racially and Economically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAP) and Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAA). This would permit an overly of the site inventory by affordability level with these areas and provide a better way to visualize the extent to which the City’s site inventory does or does not significantly alter existing patterns of segregation.
• We continue to question the City’s assumptions about the potential affordability of newly created ADU units. While the City has revised its projections somewhat, it still estimates that 70% of ADU units will be affordable to lower income households. The City bases this assumption on ABAG data for the region as a whole. However, this is based on rents for existing ADU units and not newly constructed units, which already underestimates the likely rents for new ADU units.

More importantly, the City’s own ADU report from 2020 contradicts this assumption (see https://cao-94612.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/Oakland-ADU-Research-Report-Jan2020-Rev-June-2020.pdf, particularly page 41). The City ADU study determined that new construction of all types of ADUs (attached, detached, etc.) was feasible in all parts of the City. However, the City’s feasibility assessment was based on presumed rents of $2,100 to $3,000, which require incomes of $80,000 to $120,000 to be considered affordable (rent less than 30% of gross income). These incomes are well above the lower income limits for one and two person households. The City’s own study demonstrates that new ADUs are feasible only to the extent that they are not affordable to lower income households. Accordingly, the City should not count future development of ADUs as meeting its lower income RHNA.
• It would be more helpful if Table C-26 were coded to indicate if a site is a potential development project – perhaps this could be done in the Site Status field.

Action Plan
We want to acknowledge and express our appreciation that the City has amended and expanded the Housing Element’s Goals to specifically include affirmatively furthering fair housing and closing the gap between production of market-rate housing and production of affordable housing.

We also note that in many instances, vague language including terms such as “study,” “consider”, “evaluate”, etc. has been updated with more specific objectives and timelines.

In other places, the actions still lack specificity on timing and intended outcomes, or have timelines that are too long, and we have referenced those in the comments below.

EBHO Comments on Public Hearing Draft Housing Element
December 28, 2022

Page 5 of 15 ends

Action 1.1.2. The language should be updated to reflect the passage of Measure V to amend the Just Cause for Eviction Ordination. More importantly, the City should describe concrete steps that will be taken to ensure that tenants and landlords alike are aware of the new provisions, and actions the City will take to enforce these requirements. While these actions may have an ongoing time frame, there should be specific actions identified for 2023 to make all parties aware of the new changes to the Ordinance. This should include a description of outreach and media efforts including provision of informational materials in multiple languages, and a commitment to work with tenant and community organizations to reach particularly vulnerable populations.

Action 1.1.4. Describe specific actions to be taken to enforce the Uniform Relocation Ordinance, including monitoring of actions that trigger these requirements and penalties for noncompliance.

Action 1.1.5. We commend the City for explicitly committing to provide legal representation for tenants in Rent Adjustment Program hearings.

Action 1.1.6. We commend the City for adding a clear commitment to seek out funding and provide eviction defense services and legal counseling for tenants facing eviction. Such legal assistance is proven to be a highly effective protection against displacement.

Action 1.1.8. The City should commit to provide all rental registry data (other than personally identifiable information or proprietary business information) to the public through its web site and other means in a format that permits the public to search, filter, sort and otherwise analyze the data.

Action 2.2.1. The City should describe mechanisms it will use to extend affordability restrictions beyond the usual 45- and 55-year timeframes to keep units affordable permanently. We encourage the City to consider extending affordability terms to 99 years or for the useful life of the building.

Action 2.2.5. As stated in our June 13 comments, codification of the requirements contained in SB 330 should happen within the first year of the Housing Element; the State requirements have been in place for three years already. Extension of these requirements beyond SB 330’s sunset date should be permanent. The City should ensure that no permit for demolition or construction is issued without documentation of compliance with these provisions and recording of the required affordability covenants; similarly, no certificate of occupancy should be issued without an updated tenant assistance plan including how former tenants will be contacted. Returning tenants should be provided units at rents comparable to their pre-demolition rents, as simply replacing units at rents affordable to low-income households will not make units affordable to very low and extremely low-income tenants who previously occupied the property.

Action 2.2.6. We strongly support efforts to limit short-term speculation and “flipping” of housing, including implementation of an anti-speculation tax or an increase to the Real Estate Transfer Tax for properties held for only a short time. The Public Hearing Draft sets a target EBHO Comments on Public Hearing Draft Housing Element
December 28, 2022

Page 6 of 15 ends

date of 2026 for completion of a study; implementation of a tax presumably would not occur until 2027 at the earliest. This is too long a time frame and delays implementation of this Action until more than halfway through the Housing Element planning period. If this Action is to be effective at curbing speculation and displacement, the study should be completed by the end of 2023 and the stated objectives should include a commitment to bring specific policy recommendations to City Council for approval not later than mid-2024. Any fees or taxes generated should be required to be deposited into the City’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund.

Action 2.2.8. We support establishment of a TOPA/COPA ordinance, but delaying implementation to 2027 (particularly since the public review draft had a 2025 date) greatly reduces the impact such a measure would have in the current housing element cycle. The draft identifies several jurisdictions where TOPA/COPA policies are under development, and efforts are being made to enact legislation at the State level as well. The City can learn from these efforts as well as already established TOPA/COPA programs elsewhere. The objectives for this Action should be revised to specify completion of a study, including a summary and assessment of these other ordinances, no later than the end of 2023 with presentation of an ordinance to City Council by the end of 2024.

Action 3.1.1. EBHO strongly supports efforts to fund and to secure additional funding for project based rental or operating subsidies to expand assistance to extremely low income people, including formerly unhoused people and people with special needs. The City should seek out new funding sources for this to ensure that this assistance is a supplement to existing capital subsidies.

Action 3.1.2. The City should commit to continuing to partner with the Oakland Housing Authority (OHA) to coordinate its project-based voucher program with the City’s housing development program, as has happened in the past. Coordinating the application and funding process creates efficiencies for the public agencies and the affordable housing developers who make use of these funds.

Action 3.2.6. We support monitoring of newly created ADUs for affordability and occupancy characteristics. In our comments on the site inventory we have already indicated that the City’s ambitious expectation that it can meet a portion of its lower income housing need with ADUs may not be warranted. The City’s own ADU study, “Oakland ADU Initiative, Existing Conditions and Barriers Report,” (https://cao-94612.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/OaklandADU-Research-Report-Jan-2020-Rev-June-2020.pdf) included a detailed feasibility study for multiple types of ADUs in different areas of the City. The study concluded that ADU development was generally feasible, but with rents in excess of $2,000/month, which is out of reach for lower income households. It is incumbent on the City to demonstrate the feasibility of development of ADUs at rents affordable to lower income households

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. That resolution directed staff to return within six months with legislation to EBHO Comments on Public Hearing Draft Housing Element
December 28, 2022

Page 7 of 15 ends

implement the policy direction contained in the resolution. Four year later no legislation has yet been put forward for adoption. In this Action, the City is now proposing to abandon that framework and take a different approach. We instead call on the City to implement the 2018 policy without further delay.
• Notices of availability pursuant to the Surplus Land Act should be sent also to all affordable housing developers that have expressed interest in surplus land and are listed on the California Dept of Housing and Community Development’s Surplus Land web page, not just those that are certified by CalHFA.
• This Action’s statement that “The City will consider depositing up to 100 percent of net proceeds from such sales or leases to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund” is inconsistent with the adopted policy in City Council Resolution 87483 that “100 percent of all property net sale and lease proceeds shall go to Affordable Housing Trust Fund,” We strongly object to efforts to modify or reverse this policy in Action 3.3.1. • Recordation of conditional covenants requiring 15% percent affordable housing should be required regardless of the specific use anticipated by the purchaser. The Surplus Land Act requires affordable units if public land is ever subsequently developed with at least 10 residential units. This is not restricted to situations where there is a disposition agreement that specifies residential development.

Action 3.3.2. This Action includes efforts to educate owners about housing choice vouchers.

This should include specific steps to publicize to both property owners and tenants the existing provisions in both State and local law that prohibit discrimination in housing based on sources of income, including rental assistance such as Section 8. This Action should also describe how the City will enforce these requirements. For example, the City could contract with fair housing organizations to do testing to determine if landlords are discriminating against Section 8 voucher holders even if they have not stated “No Section 8” in their marketing Action 3.3.5. We strongly support an Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) that provides byright approval of 100% affordable housing projects. The by-right portion of the overlay zone proposal should not be limited to specific areas of the City. Any 100% affordable housing development that conforms to existing zoning, including any density bonuses, should be subject to ministerial approval. This portion of the overlay zone proposal should be implemented immediately and does not require waiting for the more complex incentives to be finalized and adopted.

We will continue to discuss and comment on specific development incentives and relaxation of development standards to be provided as part of the AHO program. We appreciate the City’s efforts to work directly with housing producers to determine the optimum development standards to make affordable housing development more feasible, particularly in historically exclusionary and high resources neighborhoods. We do not support a blanket exclusion of many hill areas from this program – these are the whitest, most affluent, and most exclusionary area in the City, and failure to include these areas does not meet the requirement to affirmatively further fair housing.

EBHO Comments on Public Hearing Draft Housing Element
December 28, 2022

Page 8 of 15 ends

Action 3.3.7. The timing for this Action should be accelerated, with completion of the study no later than June 2023. The five-year impact fee study was originally scheduled to be completed by the end of 2021 and presented to the City Council as part of the annual impact fee be report in early 2022. This has not happened, and consideration of both revisions to the impact fee program and introduction of an inclusionary housing requirement have been delayed because this study is still not complete. There has been no new information or work products available to the public in over a year.

Staff previously provided assurances that there would be a robust public engagement and participation process while conducting the study, and not just after the study was completed. No such process has yet been initiated. This Action should include a specific commitment to establish a process for including community and stakeholder voices in the design and conduct of the study to ensure that the right questions, assumptions, and policy alternatives are incorporated from the outset.

Action 3.3.8. This Action is inadequate.
• It fails to acknowledge that the original five-year comprehensive analysis was supposed to have been completed by the end of 2021 with presentation to the City Council in early 2022. This has not happened. Action 3.3.8 should include a commitment to complete this study by mid-2023.
• This Action should also describe how the City will engage community and stakeholder participation in the design and implementation of the five-year study itself and include that group in defining and evaluating policy proposals for consideration by the City Council.
• This Action only calls for “initiating” the next five-year study in 2026. Adhering to a five-year update schedule for fees initiated in 2016 would require that the second-year assessment be completed by the end of 2026.

Action 3.3.9. As revised, this Action – to reduce or waive fees on affordable housing - is somewhat confusing. The new reference to the timing of the Affordable Housing Impact Fee seems out of place since this fee is not assessed on affordable housing.

We support deferral or reduction of both planning and building fees to increase the feasibility and reduce the cost of producing affordable housing. We support deferring or reducing building permit fees. We understand that an ordinance to defer payment of building permit fees for 100% affordable housing developments is under development. This should be called out here in the Housing Element with a specific date for consideration.

Action 3.3.10. We continue to support the creation of a Citywide Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD) with a primary goal of providing additional funding resources for affordable housing. The timeline for this Action only addresses the completion of a study but should include a target date for bringing this issue before the City Council for enactment.

EBHO Comments on Public Hearing Draft Housing Element
December 28, 2022

Page 9 of 15 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.

Action 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. This evaluation should also distinguish between use of density bonus for 100% affordable projects vs predominately market-rate projects.
• This Action should be expanded to include consultation with stakeholders as well as the Planning Commission and City Council to identify any possible additional incentives that could be provided.

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 also support measures that would waive or reduce transfer taxes on transactions where property is being sold to provide long-term or permanently affordable low-income affordable housing.
• To the extent that such changes require voter approval, we urge the City to accelerate the timeline for this Action to enable a putting a measure the November 2024 general election ballot, as this general election provides the best opportunity to maximize the likelihood of passage.

Action 3.3.18. The introductory paragraph for this Action should be revised to make clear that Measure U funds will be used to support production of new affordable housing as well as preservation of existing housing for long-term or permanent affordability. The discussion in the “Objectives” section is much clearer about this.

Action 3.3.19. We strongly support implementation of a system to track the disposition of sites identified in the site inventory.
• The tracking system should compare actual development to development anticipated in the inventory and ensure that the City remains in compliance with “no net loss” provisions.
• The tracking should also assess whether affordable housing is being sited in ways that affirmatively further fair housing.
• A unified database of all sites in the inventory (pipeline projects, potential development projects, and both 5th Cycle and new opportunity sties) should be maintained on the City’s website to allow for transparency and public oversight. • The status of development of inventory sites should be included in the City’s Annual Progress Reports.

EBHO Comments on Public Hearing Draft Housing Element
December 28, 2022

Page 10 of 15 ends

Action 3.4.1. EBHO supports revision to development standards to increase the feasibility of development of affordable housing and expects to be actively involved in implementation of the zoning proposals contained in Appendix J.
• We support proposals to “end single-family zoning” and permit duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes in low density neighborhoods. We do not anticipate that this will provide many units affordable to lower income households, but it may help the City to better meet its need for housing for moderate income households. To the extent possible, the City should monitor the initial sales prices and rents on such units to determine which income level are being served. However, unless these reforms yield significant amounts of housing affordable to lower income households (who are predominantly Black and other people of color), this policy will not substantially affirmatively further fair housing. • We support elimination of conditional use permits for affordable multi-unit buildings but believe the City should carefully assess whether such incentives are needed for purely market-rate developments (keeping in mind that the City will have met more than 200% of its above-moderate income need in the current 5
th Cycle). For market-rate
developments, the City should waive conditional use permits only to the extent that significant amounts of affordable housing are being provided in excess of what’s projected for such sites in the housing inventory.
• We support rezoning to increase allowable height and density along corridors, in transitproximate areas, and in resource areas, specifically to allow for densities needed to provide housing affordable to lower income households. Such incentives should be explicitly tied to affordability requirements; given the City’s historic over-production of above-moderate income housing we see no need to additional zoning incentives where the market is already working. We are pleased to see a specific focus on the Rockridge neighborhood, including both the Rockridge BART station and the College and Claremont Avenue corridors. Similar efforts should focus of these efforts to consider other high resource neighborhoods such as Piedmont Avenue, Grand Avenue, Lakeshore Avenue and other higher resources and more racially segregated areas to affirmatively further fair housing.

Action 3.4.2. We are strongly supportive of the City’s commitment here to study the relationship between zoning and racial segregation in the next phase of the General Plan Update.

As we have urged from the outset, this analysis should have been a central part of the Housing Element’s Fair Housing Assessment and the failure to include it falls short of the requirements to affirmatively further fair housing. We look forward to this analysis as the prelude to the elimination of zoning barriers that maintain racial segregation.

Action 3.4.3. Reductions in parking requirements can reduce the overall cost of developing housing, but there is no guarantee that such cost reductions will automatically result in affordability to lower and moderate-income households. Given the City’s stated preference for bonuses and incentives rather than affordable housing mandates, we have generally opposed such relaxations without a corresponding requirement for affordability. Otherwise, the City is simply giving away the few tools it has to incentivize affordable housing.

EBHO Comments on Public Hearing Draft Housing Element
December 28, 2022

Page 11 of 15 ends

Action 3.4.10. EBHO urges caution in pursuing a Housing Sites Overlay Zone so as not to undermine the availability of sufficient sites to meet its lower income RHNA. • As noted, State law requires the City to permit by-right development of sites previously included in prior Housing Element site inventories if at least 20% of the units are affordable to lower income households. The City should explicitly amend its zoning ordinance to implement this requirement.
• Regarding sites newly identified in this Housing Element, we support requiring that they be developed as majority residential use.
• We cannot support a proposal to provide by-right approval for development on all newly identified opportunity sites if they provide as little as 20% of the units affordable to lower income households. Much of the capacity in newly designated opportunity sites (60 percent) has been designated as suitable for the development of 100% affordable housing for lower income households, and the City cannot meet its lower income RHNA without reliance on these opportunity sites. On the other hand, the City can meet its moderate and above-moderate need without relying on any of the new opportunity sites; for both moderate and above-moderate income, the capacity on sites already entitled (“pipeline projects”) or where entitlements are being pursued (“potential development projects”) is already more than sufficient to meet the RHNA.
• If sites designated for lower income are developed with fewer affordable housing units than claimed in the site inventory, the City could trigger “no net loss” requirements if the remaining lower income site inventory is insufficient to meet the unmet RHNA need for lower income units. If this were to happen, the City could not approve mixed-income projects on these sites without simultaneously identifying replacement sites that are appropriately zoned for densities of at least 30 units per acre. • Providing by-right development for market-rate projects with a 20% affordability component could increase competition for opportunity sites, putting affordable housing developers at a further disadvantage.
• It is not necessary to provide additional incentives for market rate housing and doing so could make it more difficult to meet the City’s more pressing need for housing for lower income households and would be contrary to the requirement to affirmatively further fair housing.

Actions 3.5.1 and 3.5.2. EBHO supports efforts to encourage and fund alternative models such as community land trusts, housing limited equity cooperatives, and other forms of social housing.

We note that adoption of a Tenant or Community Opportunity to Purchase Act (TOPA/COPA) would enhance the ability to pursue such models to preserve existing affordable housing otherwise at risk of loss to the affordable housing supply.

Action 3.5.3. EBHO generally supports efforts to expand social housing models, but we note that there are multiple definitions and understandings of what constitutes social housing, some of which are far more aimed at lower income households than others.

EBHO Comments on Public Hearing Draft Housing Element
December 28, 2022

Page 12 of 15 ends

• Support for state legislation should consider the extent to which it encourages housing for those with the greatest needs.
• EBHO strongly supports efforts to repeal Article 34 of the State Constitution, which is not only a barrier to meeting lower income housing needs, but also has a well-know racist legacy designed to exclude Black and other people of color from predominantly white neighborhoods and cities.

Action 3.5.4. Shallow subsidy models must be approached with caution. Depending on how such projects are structured, particularly acquisition of existing buildings, there is a risk of displacement of low-income households. We are particularly concerned that such models are not used to eliminate rent control on existing buildings in return for rent and income restrictions that are too expensive for the lowest income tenants.

Action 3.6.1. We support streamlining permitting processes (both planning and building) for affordable housing. The City has long stated its goal of streamlining and prioritizing such housing, but with little details as to what that might entail or how it might be measured. • Policies to streamline or prioritize processing of affordable housing should be coupled with specific goals to reduce processing time, with regular measurement and reporting of the extent to which this desired outcome is being achieved.

Action 3.6.3. As with Action 3.6.1 above, these efforts should have quantifiable and measurable performance goals (e.g., reduction in average time from application to approval) so we can access whether these actions are having their intended effect.

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 strongly support efforts to place more affordable housing in higher resource and historically exclusionary neighborhoods, and also support continued investment in affordable housing in lower resource areas with high concentrations of low-income households to prevent displacement of at-risk communities from gentrifying neighborhoods. • 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 taking place.
• Continued concentration of affordable housing in these neighborhoods must be coupled with place-based investments in infrastructure, transportation and economic development designed to improve opportunities and conditions for the existing low-income residents rather than simply accelerating gentrification.

EBHO Comments on Public Hearing Draft Housing Element
December 28, 2022

Page 13 of 15 ends

Action 5.2.9. We are pleased to see the addition of a new Action to promote comprehensive place-based investment. Development of guidelines for spending Measure U bond funds should seek to establish comprehensive neighborhood investment strategies that combine housing and non-housing funding in historically under-invested and disinvested neighborhoods.

Action 5.2.10. “Mixed income” can mean many different things. The City’s use of the term implies a mix of market-rate units serving higher income households and a small percentage (generally not more than 20% and often less) of units serving lower income households at the high end of the lower income scale. This is a mix that excludes the vast majority of Oakland renters in need of housing. Typical 100% affordable projects are also “mixed income,” with rents affordable to a wide range of households – from no income up to $75,000, which is where most Oakland’s renter households fall.
• Favoring Density Bonus over payment of impact fees should not take place without a full discussion of the implication of such a policy. Units produced using the State Density Bonus are generally affordable only at the top of the Low Income and Very Low-Income ranges and are rarely affordable to households with incomes less than 50% of AMI, which excludes half of all of Oakland’s renters. Units produced with impact fees tend to serve a range of incomes from 20% of AMI to 80% AMI. Reliance on density bonus will not enable the City to meet its goals for serving worst-case needs households including the large numbers of extremely low-income households who are currently rent burdened, overcrowded or living in substandard housing, the majority of whom are Black and other people of color. Supportive services are rarely provided in density bonus projects, and therefore don’t well serve people with special needs or who are previously unhoused.

Reliance on Density Bonus without consideration of these factors may be a violation of the requirement to affirmatively further fair housing.

Action 5.2.11. We support closer monitoring of housing element implementation and look forward to establishment of a Planning Commission subcommittee. We would encourage formation of such a committee in early 2023 – this will permit the subcommittee to start its work with a review of the last annual progress report for the 5th Housing Element Cycle (2015-2022) and thus provide a baseline for comparison when monitoring the new Housing Element.

The Objectives should be expanded to include review of whether Oakland’s housing programs are affirmatively furthering fair housing by reducing segregation and racial disparities in housing opportunity and outcomes.

Thank you for the opportunity to again comment on Oakland’s draft Housing Element. We hope that our comments will be considered and incorporated into the final document prior to adoption.

We want to express our appreciation to City staff for the tremendous work that they have put into the development of this Housing Element – far more than we have seen in past housing elements including significantly more public outreach and engagement. And we appreciate staff’s willingness to meet with EBHO staff and members at various stages of the process, to respond to our information requests, and to answer our questions.

EBHO Comments on Public Hearing Draft Housing Element
December 28, 2022

Page 14 of 15 ends

Oakland City CouncilJanuary 31, 2023

Oakland City Council
January 31, 2023