Oakland City Council
January 31, 2023

We look forward to working with the City to implement this Housing Element in a way that meets Oakland’s most pressing housing needs while advancing racial and economic justice.

Sincerely,
Jeffrey Levin
Senior Director of Policy
cc: Oakland Planning Commissioners
Oakland City Councilmembers
EBHO Comments on Public Hearing Draft Housing Element
December 28, 2022

DocuSign Envelope ID: D87DC639-14DA-4F32-B752-4498D215A90E DocuSign Envelope ID: D87DC639-14DA-4F32-B752-4498D215A90E Mills Rezoning
Wed 12/28/2022 3:32 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’m disgusted that this hostile takeover was allowed by Oakland, destroying my college and leaving me with nothing.

Don’t compound your error by allowing rezoning. Mills could have done that and remained otherwise intact rather than the hive of scum and villainy it has become under McEastern. I curse the house of everyone involved in approving this acquisition. Double that upon the houses of anyone that allows rezoning.

Prof. SuzyJane Edwards, MFA
Sent from my iPhone
SE SuzyJane Edwards     
To: General Plan
 Reply  Forward
  Delete  Archive  Report   Reply  Reply all  Forward       Public Comment for Proposed Rezoning for Mills College Campus at Northeastern University
Wed 12/28/2022 3:53 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.

To Whom It May Concern:

I am a graduate of Mills College class of 2012 and a former Oakland resident. The Mills College Campus is full of history, including multiple buildings designed by renowned architect Julia Morgan. Rezoning and adding new buildings that are not part of a college campus is totally inappropriate for the space and goes against how the space has been used continuously for over a century. I cannot imagine that a similar proposal would be made for a campus such as UC Berkeley, which also houses many historic buildings.

I would like to voice my strong objection to rezoning the Mills College campus as I do not see any comparable precedents for this kind of proposal. The campus is still being used as a university campus and has been used for this sole purpose continuously for over 100  years. Changing the zoning of the Mills College campus would be a disservice to the current students, neighborhood, and set a new precedent in the city of Oakland for rezoning that is not common on other educational campuses or in most communities.

Respectfully,
Kate Ruprecht
KR Kate Ruprecht     
To: General Plan
Cc: City Clerk
 Reply  Reply all  Forward
  Delete  Archive  Report   Reply  Reply all  Forward       1 Rajagopalan, Lakshmi
From: Kaerla Fellows
Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2022 10:59 PM
To: General Plan
Subject: Re-zoning Of Mills
[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.

Good evening,
The re‐zoning of Mills College is puzzling to me.  With all of the space currently available that can be turned into low cost housing (abandoned business spaces in the Fairfax district, for instance off the top of my head), why does Oakland suddenly feel that the best thing to do is sub‐divide the oldest women's college west of the Rockies?  What other institutions of education are facing this same decision?  Or is it just the women's college with its historic buildings, valuable art collections, and even more valuable land?  Why is it only the women's liberal arts school that's being treated this way?  If Mills were a person, I'd say it's misogyny, plain and simple.

It's an appalling idea, and there's no good reason for it as far as I can see, beyond simple greed.

Here's an alternative idea:  Take the dorms up the hill ‐ Mary Morse and Ethel Moore ‐ and retrofit and convert them into a retirement community/extended care facility.  Then re‐start Mills' historic nursing program and add a geriatric specialty.  Open the retirement community to the public, and offer a special rate for Mills alums and retired faculty and staff, and allow the Geriatric Nursing students to work at the retirement/extended care facility as part of their clinicals.  It would be a teaching facility, like Stanford Hospital.  This solution helps the community, the school, and the city.  Re‐zoning for retail and housing only puts money into certain pockets, and does nothing for the community at large.

There is literally no reason to re‐zone Mills under this plan other than greed.  Indeed, the very idea of re‐zoning feels as if it's part and parcel of the fraud surrounding the takeover of Mills by Northeastern University in the first place.  Why does it seem as if so many people are so intent upon erasing Mills from the public discourse?  Mills as an independent entity no longer exists due to the NEU takeover; NEU is considered "the surviving entity".  Now the very land itself is targeted to be covered over by single family dwellings and retail shops.  Why?  And don't tell us "the city needs more single family dwellings and retail spaces", because we know that for the lie it is.  Who, ultimately, will profit from this deal?  Not the people of Oakland, that's for certain.

Who is our champion?  Is it Loren Taylor, who not only supports this resolution, but deprived the entire City of Oakland of one of its best school‐to‐teacher pipelines when he supported the takeover of Mills by NEU?  Is it Barbara Lee who, after an initial lukewarm protest at the takeover remained silent for the next year?  Is it Thao and Kaplan who passed a resolution to investigate the almost preternaturally fast sale of Mills ‐ after the sale was complete ‐ this past summer then did nothing about it in the run up to the election?  Is it Rob Bonta, who worked at Mills but then turned his back on his students when he supported the sale, and is personal friends with Beth Hillman, the person responsible for the sale in the first place?  Maybe Katie Sanborn, the Mills Board member who now sits on the NEU Board because surely that isn't a conflict of interest at all, surely she must support the people who lived and worked and learned at Mills all these years, musn't she? What do we apparently invisible and voiceless people have to do to make ourselves seen and heard by our local government?  What door do we need to unlock with what key held by which person? Because the world of politics ‐ local, state, national and international ‐ is absolutely a locked door to people like me unless I know someone who knows someone who knows someone, and that's why the spirit of Mills was lost in July and that's why Mills' land is going to be lost when this completely unnecessary resolution to re‐zone is passed.  Because it will pass, because the right peoples' palms have been greased and will therefore be rewarded.   Because in your eyes, only you count.  Mills doesn't count.  The people who attended Mills ‐ women, indigenous and Black and Latino and Hispanic and Asian and Pacific Island women, older women, LGBTQ+ people, first generation and Dreamers ‐ don't count.  We are being shown time and time again that our need for safe space to better ourselves just doesn't matter to our city leaders.

I'm so tired of not being seen or heard or counted by our government.  I'm so tired of being walked all over and treated simply as a vote generator.  I'm so tired of the city's lack of ethics and actual belief in what it's supposed to be doing.  But i"m not so tired that I can't raise my voice one more time to shout to the skies "this is wrong!", because it is wrong and if the city managers would just listen for a moment, they'd know it's wrong, too.

Sincerely,
2 Kaerla Fellows
Mills College
BA 2020/MFA 2022
Proposed rezoning of Mills College property
Wed 12/28/2022 5:57 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.

Dear Planning Commission: I write in opposition to the proposed rezoning of Mills College. Not only am I an alumna, but I  lived across from the College on Seminary Avenue (so named in honor of the school). I know that area well.

Condos and retail are NOT what the city needs in this area. Here is why:

1. The Mills campus is full of mature trees that make Oakland more livable, give homes to animals, reduce pollution, and tamp down on noise, ESPECIALLY in this part of town that has hardly any green space or parks on the bay side of highway 13.

2. The college's location is disconnected from Mass transit. This is a terrible place to put more housing, because that housing will all need cars to get to it,. More cars will be needed just to get to the housing, not to mention any retail installed. This area is NOT suitable for urban infill like we have built at Fruitvale and MacArthur bart stations.

3. More retail is unnecessary for that part of Oakland. Not only are large swaths of Eastmont Mall available to be repurposed, but just off the road is the existing retail at Redwood Road and highway 13, or existing retail on Seminary Ave. City dollars and subsidies (which I pay for as a taxpayer) would be better spent shoring up existing retail areas at Eastmont, on Seminary Ave, and in other locations in East Oakland.

4. The land in fact has a graveyard on it, where Susan and Cyrus Mills are buried.

5. Would build new construction out of character with the many historic and architecturally meaningful buildings already on the Mills campus, for example those designed by Julia Morgan.

WE don't really know where this proposal came from and why, or if it was an outgoing favor by Mayor Schaff to allies.

We do know that changing zoning at Mills will change the campus essential character at a time that is suspiciously coincident with the hostile takeover of Mills by Northeastern--yes, the College trustees voted for it, but in the process they allegedly defrauded the Mills College students. Don't reward this bad behavior with a zoning change that is not necessary to meet Oakland's housing needs and is bad environmentally for East Oakland.

I have lived in Oakland since  1980 and would agree that parts of Oakland's general plan need updating, but not one of the few remaining open spaces with trees and a sense of wildness in a part of town sorely lacking in open greenspace.

Please do not rezone Mills.
--
Lucia Savage
Oakland resident
[email protected]
415-505-2880 (mobile)
LS Lucia Savage <[email protected]>     
To: General Plan
Cc: Fortunato Bas, Nikki
 Reply  Reply all  Forward
  Delete  Archive  Report   Reply  Reply all  Forward       Recent Oakland legislation is removing 18,835 residential rental units / Housing Element comment
taptango
Wed 12/28/2022 9:05 PM
To: Gilchrist, William <[email protected]>;Mun, Christina <[email protected]>;Lieberworth, Audrey <[email protected]>;Rajagopalan, Lakshmi <[email protected]>;Branson, Michael <[email protected]>
Cc: Office of the Mayor <[email protected]>;DL - City Council <[email protected]>;[email protected]
<[email protected]>;[email protected]
<[email protected]>;[email protected]
<[email protected]>;[email protected]
<[email protected]>;[email protected] <[email protected]>;[email protected] <[email protected]>;Danino, Shawn@HCD <[email protected]>;[email protected] <[email protected]>;[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.

December 28, 2022
SUBJECT: Recent Oakland legislation is removing 18,835 residential rental units Dear Housing staff,
The City of Oakland recently passed housing legislation that is removing approximately 18,835 rental housing units.

Oakland’s Rental Registry law requires all rental housing units be registered, but the city has approximately 18,835 rental units that CANNOT be registered because they are not permitted. These long-standing unpermitted units are known to offer below-market rent and serve as a source of desperately needed lower-cost housing but are older and do not meet current code requirements. Removing 18% of rental housing from Oakland would create scarcity and drastically raise the rent on tenants. Such a drastic 1/5 reduction in rental housing would hurt and displace low-income residents, minorities, and immigrants.

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, attached). Multi-family properties, including duplexes and triplexes, also have unpermitted units.

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 (data attached).

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 (data attached).
107,050 total rental units – 88,215 registered units = 18,835 unregistered rental units Currently, MANY if not most of these unpermitted units can NOT be legalized in practice due to prohibitive permitting and remodeling costs. Substantial upgrades will require the units to be vacant and tenants temporarily housed. Legalizing a unit can easily cost more than $100,000. The rent registry’s unintended consequences will force most of these 18,835 lower-cost housing units to be removed from Oakland unless the city adopts appropriate amendments and funding support. Each of these low-cost housing units is very expensive to replace and build new from scratch.

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.

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

3. Most residents do not have the financial means to legalize an unpermitted housing unit without additional city assistance. Oakland’s CalHome ADU legalization and loan program is a strong solution. However, it currently only supports the legalization of 30 units but the city has 18,835 unpermitted units.

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

5. The Rent Registry removed ‘Just Cause’ Protections.

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.
--

THE BELOW EXPLAIN DISCUSS THESE POINTS IN MORE DETAILAND OFFER RECOMMENDATIONS (underlined).

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 and housing units. The Proactive Rental Inspection program should be accompanied by rehab funding.

2. It is NOT possible to legalize units due to current code requirements, eg. ceiling height limits for converted basements, 1-hour fire wall requirement between the primary unit and an ADU, setbacks requirements, etc. [Both state and local laws need to decrease the ceiling height limit by 2” for converted basement units. Please consider reducing the 1-hour firewall requirement to 1/2-hour, which shaves off tens of thousands of dollars and allows residents to remain in place during unit legalization. Other helpful code changes include allowing the vapor barrier to be under the laminate floor instead of under the concrete slab and allowing for 100 square feet of addition to existing structures so entrance and stairs can meet ingress/egress safety requirements, etc.] Additionally, there are existing buildings with higher density than what is permissible or being proposed in Oakland.

These buildings demonstrate that efficient floor plans allow for more density than what Oakland currently proposes to adopt. We need to allow 1 unit per 1,000 sf within 1/4 mile of BART or regulate building envelope to encourage more efficient floor plans and not restrict the number of units based on lot size.

Please pass building code amendments to legalize long-standing ADUs BEFORE implementing the Rent Registry.

3. Most residents do not have the financial means to legalize an unpermitted housing unit without additional city assistance. In fact, residents are renting out these unpermitted units because they need supplemental income to survive and do not have funding to cover permits and rehab costs. 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. However, Oakland needs to SAVE 18,835 unpermitted units. Entire families would be displaced if unpermitted units are registered, inspected, and forcibly removed through code enforcement action.

It is much cheaper to provide a $90,000 revolving loan now to save an existing unit than to build a new one from scratch. With the increase in material and labor costs and the high-interest rate, a new affordable unit can cost $600,000 - $1,000,000 and would only be available years from now.

Any unpermitted unit that is legalized will count toward Oakland’s state-mandated 26,251 housing unit requirement. ADU legalization is an efficient way to both preserve existing affordable housing and meet the city’s RHNA target.

Rent Registry should be implemented with adequate funding and in a way that would legalize Oakland’s unpermitted 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 cannot be registered so people were not able to pay business tax on these units. The back taxes and huge penalties from late fees with years of accumulated interest are forcing residents to remove rental units rather than register. The city has gone back decades to the 1980s to assess back fees in the thousands of dollars and put liens on homes. As Oakland pivots away from “NIMBY” policies, it needs to adopt a tax amnesty to incentivize compliance with the Rent Registry so that the registry can be useful. A business tax amnesty is also crucial to preserving these affordable rental units.

5. The Rent Registry removed Just Cause protections.

The unpermitted units often house 3-4 immigrants per unit, and house approximately 50,000-70,000 residents. We cannot put these innocent residents living in unpermitted units in harm’s way with the rental registry. Oakland adopted the Fair Chance Ordinance which removed criminal history, including felonies, from rental consideration. When threats of bodily harm and violence arise, we need to protect tenant victims under Just Cause. The rental registration currently removes ALL Just Cause protections. Time is of the essence when violence arises. We cannot endanger people’s lives, regardless if the unit is registered or not. The punishment should fit the crime. Failure to register needs to be a straightforward fine e.g. $200 or the inability to increase rent but not compromise public safety.

Please amend the Rent Registry to restore each and every ‘Just Cause’ protection. EACH ‘Just Cause’ protection exists as a bare minimal safeguard – removing any protection results in scenarios with CLEAR ethical violations. Innocent residents will get hurt. We will lose low-cost housing and harm the most vulnerable residents. --
In summary, please adopt the provided recommendations to preserve Oakland’s18,835 long-standing unpermitted units.

These desperately needed affordable units house 50,000 - 70,000 Oaklanders, especially our working-class residents and immigrants who help maintain Oakland’s older housing stock and contribute billions annually in taxes. If these Oakland residents are displaced, our city would suffer job loss that would greatly harm our local businesses and economy, not to mention the personal cost to individual lives and families. Any unpermitted units the city legalizes will count toward Oakland’s state-mandated RHNA requirements, especially at the lower affordability levels. Legalizing and getting unpermitted units up to code will also prepare us for Earthquakes and keep Oaklanders housed! It is much more costeffective to legalize existing affordable units than to build new ones from scratch.

Sincerely,
Tuan Ngo
Attachments
---

1. Number of unpermitted units in Oakland = 18,835.

2. Oakland has 88,215 registered units as of June 2022. 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).

3. Total number of rental housing in Oakland (ACS 2021 data) Source:
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?
q=Oakland,%20ca&t=Homeownership%20Rate&tid=ACSDP1Y2021.DP04

4. Number of unpermitted ADUs on Single Family Parcels in Oakland.

Source: Oakland ADU Initiative: Existing Conditions and Barriers Report (p. 10-11, 2020)

5. Oakland RHNA target – 26,251 housing units.

Is it wrong to say 'homeless'? (Public comment for the Housing Element draft)
Thu 12/29/2022 1:27 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. ‘Unhoused' or ‘homeless'?
We used to say ‘homeless' but now it’s more politically correct to say ‘unhoused’.  Unhoused' fits the housing narrative better.  We say people are living on the streets because they can’t afford housing.

But people aren't being pushed out onto the street the last few years because of the eviction moratorium. Yet homeless encampments sprung up everywhere during the moratorium.

We can’t address the homeless crisis unless we have a sobering conversation about fentanyl.  Fentanyl overdose deaths far outpaced COVID-19 deaths, even at the height of the pandemic.  Fentanyl is 100 times stronger than morphine.  Fentanyl addiction drives property crimes, shooting violence, and is the reason why people won’t accept permanent shelter with supportive services (because they have to be close to their drug source). Pimps are getting young girls hooked on fentanyl and prostituting them out.

Oakland needs attention and resources for fentanyl addiction if the city is serious about tackling homelessness.  Housing and shelter is not enough if  we do not provide wraparound supportive services to address the underlying causes of homelessness.

T
taptango     
To: General Plan; [email protected]; [email protected]; dav Cc: DL - City Council; [email protected]; [email protected]  Reply  Reply all  Forward
  Delete  Archive  Report   Reply  Reply all  Forward       No such thing as NOAH (Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing) Thu 12/29/2022 12:00 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.

People keep saying NOAH.  NOAH stands for “Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing” but there’s NO SUCH thing.

Housing most definitely does NOT  “occur naturally”.  Housing doesn’t naturally grow out of the ground.  In fact, it takes a lot of work.  Housing is expensive and difficult to do.  And Affordable Housing is even harder to make happen.

So what do people refer to when they say “Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing”?  These are low-rent housing units offered by local residents who trade in countless weekends to provide housing.  Local mom and pops are able to deliver on lower cost housing because they pull “double duty” on maintenance.  They answer repair calls themselves and often do their own repair work, notoriously underpaying themselves for their time and labor.  They are much more efficient and willing to work hard to build home equity to send their children to college and to save for retirement.

The TOPA/COPA social housing model won’t pencil because right off the bat it has bloated staffing, with someone in the office taking tenant repair requests and then sending out expensive plumbers, roofers and painters for maintenance .

T
taptango     
To: General Plan
 Reply  Forward
  Delete  Archive  Report   Reply  Reply all  Forward       No to TOPA- bad policy
Wed 12/28/2022 11:12 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.

The Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act is a false promise to tenants- as they do not ever own. That’s a fact. Deed restriction is not ownership.

It’s also a distinct private property grab for unsuspecting small owners who have no desire to participate in this obscene shakedown.

It is bad for all parties besides perhaps the lawyer groups and select non profits who are pushing it.

Tenants already have the opportunity to put offers in for a property they live in. Any owner would gladly help a good tenant get the place. I certainly would.

No one needs TOPA nor would I ever get involved in such a scheme as a buyer.

Furthermore I'm infuriated by the suggestion that I be forced to do so as a small owner. It’s absurd and I want no part of it.

I am a small owner in Oakland. I am all about true home ownership with all its rights and responsibilities. TOPA is not that.

There are so many responsible and proven ways to help people buy properties. Down payment assistance, subsidized loans come to mind.

There is already too much of an assault on small owners. TOPA is the icing on the cake. I've honestly lost all faith in local government.

TOPA is a distinctly bad policy choice. Please get educated on what this thing really is.

Say NO TO TOPA.

Dennis OLeary
13 year Oakland owner occupied
DO Dennis OLeary     
To: General Plan
Cc: DL - City Council; Danino, Shawn@HCD; [email protected]  Reply  Reply all  Forward
  Delete  Archive  Report   Reply  Reply all  Forward   Read / Unread 1 Rajagopalan, Lakshmi
From: Claire Mays
Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2022 3:50 AM
To: General Plan
Subject: Comment on zoning plan with reference to Mills College campus [EXTERNAL] This email originated outside of the City of Oakland. Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and expect the message.

Dear City Administrators,
I wish to write in support of the City resolution* that calls for investigation of the recent takeover of Mills College, which to my view requires that rezoning of the Mills campus in Oakland be suspended until the facts of the takeover ("merger") are known and can be appropriately acted upon.

I have perused the Housing Element documents available to the public online and I recognize the intensive effort and the high expertise present in these documents, whether by city admin and elected people or by citizens who have commented. I respect this and acknowledge that my own experience is not similar.

However, I wish to communicate that my heart aches when reading about the high-handed, anti-transparent way the Mills takeover by North Eastern University was conducted, and about the real and potential impacts today and tomorrow produced by this extraordinary play.

As Class Secretary of the first college class to be accepted simultaneously to Radcliffe and Harvard Colleges (thus, a style of merger between a historic women's college and another institution), I am familiar with a 45-year history of Radcliffe seeking to maintain its identity as a resource center for women and for progress in integrating women's myriad contributions to intellectual and social life.

My heart aches to see that just as the latest derivative of Radcliffe was last year entirely swallowed into the Harvard "Brand" (sic), Mills has been thrown to the wolves.

The historic haven at the heart of Oakland for women intent on developing their full potential despite a restrictive environment, a place that has continued to lead on inclusiveness, quality and diversity in all its dimensions (disciplines in Social Sciences, Humanities and the Arts, gender, socio-economics) has to all appearances been sold off for shortterm gain.

This gain appears to benefit only a few (the president who pushed through a manipulative vote then resigned when the deed was done; a reduced and already much-empowered demographic of white upper-class male students; future developers who can get their hands on a rezoned natural oasis within a major metropolitan area; future upper-class buyers of luxury homes installed in this oasis).

Mills students have lost their diploma majors (pointed fields now assembled in a general certificate). With Oakland, they have lost the historic and ever-developing haven for inclusiveness, tolerance, and social progress. Oakland and the region have lost, too, a supply of impassioned trained teachers, young people who chose Education as their undergraduate major (one that has now been cancelled).

It may be that appearances are wrong. However we cannot know that until the investigation called for by the City in the resolution* has been conducted and released its conclusions. Awaiting that, the rezoning effort should not introduce further destabilizing change to the Mills historic campus nor open the door to further abuses.

Thank you for your time and attention in reading this and in stewarding the rezoning process, whose objectives aim at social justice.

Sincerely
Claire Mays Poumadère, Radcliffe '81, former President, Harvard Club of France Daughter of Californian family (residing since the 1930s in LA County, San Francisco, Berkeley and also Oakland for 20+ years)
2 *“Celebrating the contributions of Mills College to the City of Oakland and beyond, and calling on the California Bureau of Private and Post‐Secondary Education and the U.S. Department of Education to conduct an independent investigation into the circumstances of the merger between Mills College and Northeastern University." Investigate the NE takeover of Mills College/no rezoning Thu 12/29/2022 6:16 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.

Good morning, as an alum of Mills College (BA in English, 1996), I believe the corporate takeover of Mills by NE is a corrupt endeavor (why would we give up our extremely valuable and our endowment to an organization with literally nothing in overlapping values, if not for personal gain?), and I am requesting and am in support of all investigations into that takeover and the people involved in selling out Mills for personal gain. I would like to see prosecution and the reversal of the takeover of Mills College, and I am also strongly against rezoning of the Mills College campus, which has clearly been part of the intention all along.

Please protect the educational space for women/nonbinary people, especially BIPOC people, that Mills College has been to so many of us. Please investigate. Please don't let these people profit off their corruption.

Thank you,
Angela
--
Angela Watrous
(she/her, they/them)
Director and Producer, In the Wake of Our Ancestors (in production) www.IntheWakeofOurAncestors.com
Empathic counselor
www.RestorativeEmpathy.com
Somatic empathy, NVC, relational neuroscience, ancestral healing, and attachment repair through deep relational resonance
AW Angela Watrous     
To: General Plan
 Reply  Forward
  Delete  Archive  Report   Reply  Reply all  Forward       Jobs not housing
Thu 12/29/2022 6:36 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.

This is in response to the Mills College call to action by alumna that we make our voices heard.

As a resident of Oakland since the 1970s and an embarrassed Mills alumn, I urge the new mayor (who I did not vote for) to please focus on job creation and addressing crime (FUND the police).    The city doesn’t need more apathetic people with zero accountability, zero sense of responsibility, zero motivation living on my dime in an already over crowded dump of a city.

How about focusing on job creation, building parks not homes, addressing the crime (being committed by people of color at disproportionate rates).

Stop focusing on Mills sale to NE ( as a Mills alum the new mayor has a conflict of interest being involved).   Focus on cleaning up this city.   The homeless are not native to Oakland.  They come from all over knowing you’ll support them on my dime.   Enough!!!!! Why would I buy property here if you’re going to allow squatters and make eviction impossible.

So, my request:  make oakland clean, safe and livable for the people who have jobs.   Create jobs. There’s plenty of housing (in fact there is a surplus).

Thanks.

An unproductive and embarrassed Mills Alumn
T     
To: General Plan
 Reply  Forward
  Delete  Archive  Report   Reply  Reply all  Forward       1 Rajagopalan, Lakshmi
From: Christa Lewis
Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2022 3:38 AM
To: General Plan
Subject: Rezoning the Mills Campus for private development [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 General Plan Update Team,
In July Oakland’s City Council voted to support an investigation of the closure and sale of Mills College. Northeastern University, which took over Mills, has not fulfilled its obligations to students, faculty, and staff, and disregarded Mills’ commitment to the community, women, students of color, trans and non‐binary students, and under‐represented populations. There’s no question that more affordable housing will benefit the Oakland community; however, it is unnecessary to butcher the Mills campus and permanently end access to education and opportunities to accomplish this, especially while the community supports an investigation of transfer of Mills’ assets. When there is the unresolved question of the legitimacy of the sale of Mills College, it is malfeasant to plan to rezone and divvy up the campus for private development.

Oakland’s City Council voted to support an investigation of the closure and sale of Mills for a number of reasons, including financial questions, irregularities in process, loss of student‐centered resources, loss of local revenue, and defiance of founder and donor intent.

Finances
The financial picture was misrepresented to force a closure. Mills brought in a profit of $2 million in the 2020 fiscal year when the closure was announced and administration described a $6 million loss. An economist’s research has found Mills’ fiscal health is better than 94% of private U.S. colleges of similar size. Mills’ $220 million endowment continued to grow and is now in the hands of Northeastern University.

Process
Mills Board and Administration did not follow procedures put forth in the board of a trustees’ bylaws, the California Attorney General’s Guide for Charities, and Mills’ accrediting body, Western Association of Schools and Colleges Senior College and University Commission. The decision to close Mills was concealed in a Board consent agenda and voted on without the examination or discussion such a decision deserves. Defying a court order, administration did not provide financial documentation as evidence of the closure to alumnae trustees. These alumnae trustees were then removed from the board. The Board of Trustees ceded oversight of merger negotiations to the President of Mills. By negotiating the merger deal and securing future employment for herself, the President of Mills has been self‐dealing.

Student‐Centered Resources
Current Mills students and future local students are losing affordable and inclusive educational opportunities. Over 70 percent of Mills’ majors were discontinued, and tuition more than doubled. With the merger, Mills College did not provide teach out plans (required by accreditation) for students to complete degrees for which they initially enrolled.

Many are finding their coursework is not transferable, their majors were replaced with unsuitable alternatives, and their new pathways require additional semesters of study. Northeastern University is not included in Eligible Cal Grant Schools for 2022‐23 through the California Student Aid Commission. California students are not able to qualify for CalGrants studying at the new entity. Among women’s colleges, Mills College was the only Hispanic Serving Institution, but lost this designation when merged with Northeastern. 2 Transfer of Resources
Mills’ sizable assets should not be transferred to an out‐of‐state entity without thorough examination. The cited amount of sale of Mills to Northeastern is $30 million, less than a quarter of Mills’ endowment alone. With the deal the Massachusetts‐based Northeastern acquired the 135‐acre campus, buildings, artworks, rare book collection, and music archives, were the value was not assessed in the sale.

Founder and Donor Intent
Mills College was founded as an independent degree granting institution for women. Over the years, this mission has expanded to include non‐binary and transgender students at the undergraduate level and all genders in graduate programs. The founders and donors to the college supported Mills’ long standing commitment to provide education to under‐represented groups. By merging with Northeastern, the endowment and resources of Mills is no longer dedicated to this mission, but is used to support other objectives outside of founder and donor intent.

Dismantling educational opportunities at Mills to rezone the campus enriches Northeastern University, and perhaps facilitators, of the deal while sacrificing opportunities for women, people of color, and LGBQT students of Oakland and California.

Regards,
Christa Lewis
Mills College Alumna
Comments on 2023-2031 Housing Element — specifically rezoning the Mills College campus for land development.

Kristen Caven
Thu 12/29/2022 10:22 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.

Dear fellow Citizens,
As our poet laureate Ayodele Nzinga urges in her poem, "Deep Roots," <to root here/in remembrance of/places/we intersected/& rose higher/than/“small talk” about us>, it is urgent that special consideration be given to protect the Mills College property, now owned by the global corporation Northeastern University. Mills, the oldest historical women's college on the west coast, was one of only two HWCs in the US that are also designated Hispanic Serving Institutions. It served women, non-binary and trans students at the undergraduate level, and graduate students of all genders including men. Latinx, Black, Indigenous, and Asian students; as well as the LGBTQ+, disabled, first-generation, and non-traditional students—such as resumers and mothers—collectively made up the majority of the student body. The student body of NU, globally, is predominantly male and white, and no financial aid is currently available to continuing Mills students.

I respectfully request that the zoning adjustments to the Mills Campus NOT be generally changed to allow for expanded residential and commercial development, and this is why:
· The 135-acre Mills campus acts as a public park and green space, with paths, trails, soccer fields and a pool that historically provided community access, functioning as a public good for the wider community of Oakland as both recreation and as a botanical preserve providing habitat for diverse species at a time of global extinction.
· The Mills campus has long been admired for its safety and lush beauty, two things we should be legitimately concerned being destroyed, given the reputation of Northeastern’s Boston Campus towards its own green spaces and neighboring communities of color in Boston. · Their track record shows a pattern of disruption and disregard for their neighbors. A 10-story student housing building now dominates and divides the predominantly African American community of Roxbury, Boston. The coastal community of Nahant, MA is losing their fight with NU, which aims to build a 60,000 sq. foot science building that will ironically damage the sensitive environment.
· A look at NU's community takeovers around the world show a trend for benefitting their predominantly white, male, upwardly mobile student populations, while gentrifying surrounding communities and pricing long-time residents out.
· Given the opportunity to develop and sell choice sections of the campus to private investors, NU could permanently destroy the integrity of this land parcel. Once soil is paved over, it is never returned to nature, which benefits us all in increasingly apparent ways.

Another reason for extreme caution in allowing increased development over the next decade at Mills is the suspicious nature under which the campus was acquired by its new owner. · Mills had one of the highest endowments per capita for a College of its size. Mills’ endowment, now owned by NU, was significantly higher than average among its peer colleges and was growing. The endowment grew substantially during the Covid era, reaching $228 million by June 30, 2021, and showing no need for closure on publicly available audit records, or concern by accrediting bodies. Before announcing the closure, no feasibility studies were done, no experts were consulted and no studies or independent reviews were commissioned by either the College or the Board of Trustees. There was no community process or opportunity for the vastly resourced alumnae body to support any sort of plan to help Mills thrive. The transition timeline was capriciously moved up two years, betraying and displacing the existing student body, which has filed a class-action lawsuit against the College for the agreements it broke and the damage it wrought on young lives.
· The Mills College Board of Trustees demonstrated repeatedly over the past two years that decisions were largely made based on the word of then-President Elizabeth Hillman, with very little corroborating evidence. The Board initially voted by a show of hands on a consent agenda to close the school. This fact bears repeating - they did not even bother with a roll call vote.

Immediately after, Hillman announced the closure without consulting Faculty or staff, and prompting at least four trustees to sue, alleging they had no information, and didn’t realize what they had voted on. Soon after, the board, at whose pleasure she served, made Hillman the CEO, consolidating her power. Hillman and her closest staff have all now moved up to higher profile careers.

Please use extreme caution in your decision to rezone Mills, only designating specific areas of the campus edges for commercial building. There may be some benefit to establishing outward-facing services for the MacArthur community but, given the opportunity to develop the entire land, NU is not to be trusted. The needs of our community absolutely include increased affordable housing, but this must be balanced with Oakland’s needs for open space, protection from gentrification, and community partners that are integrated with the fabric of our city.

Thank you,
Kristen Caven
Upper Patten District
Resolution re:Mills College
Kristin Coan < >
Thu 12/29/2022 11:02 AM
To: General Plan <[email protected]>
Cc:
[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 Sir or Madam,
I am writing to support the preservation of Mills College, its' campus, and what it represents for past, present and future students and faculty, as well as the many ways Mills College benefits Oakland and the surrounding communities.

Thank you for investing this matter.

Sincerely,
Kristin Coan, daughter of a Mills alumna
Please remove TOPA/COPA from the Oakland Housing Element - & NOAH??? Chris Moore < >
Thu 12/29/2022 11:06 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.

I am a mom and pop housing provider (Landlord) for Oakland.  I provide low cost subsidized housing to the community via rent control.

TOPA/COPA:

TOPA/COPA is an example of a failed policy.  Look at Washington DC - they are shutting the program down after 40 years....yet Oakland is considering starting the program.   Has there been an independent equity study to show the negative impacts of TOPA/COPA...no there hasn't.  If Oakland makes the bad decision to include TOPA/COPA in the Housing Element, then it should be clearly stated that an independent equity study will be performed.  The approval for the preparer of the equity study should be selected with input from housing provider organizations including:

EBRHA, CalRHA, CAA, In-It-Together.

NOAH:

NOAH stands for “Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing”.  This makes no sense. Private individuals provide housing.  Mom and pop housing providers provide affordable housing via rent control and the eviction moratorium.  Additional rental regulations (TPO, Eviction Moratorium, Rent Control, Just Cause, TOPA/COPA) result in elimination of affordable housing by significantly increasing the cost to provide affordable housing.

Housing does NOT  “occur naturally”.  Providing Housing does take a lot of work. Housing is expensive and difficult to do.  There's a reason that the recent outgoing Oakland Housing Director, Shola Olatoye said in her exit interview that "the City of Oakland absolutely should not own or operate housing, by contract, City employees can only work from 9am to 5pm. Monday through Friday."
Mom and Pop housing providers provide  low-rent housing units by trading in countless nights and weekends to provide housing.  Local mom and pops are able to deliver on lower cost housing because they pull “double duty” on maintenance.  They answer repair calls themselves and often do their own repair work, notoriously underpaying themselves for their time and labor.  They are much more efficient and willing to work hard to build home equity to send their children to college and to save for retirement.

The TOPA/COPA social housing model won’t pencil because it has bloated staffing, with someone in the office taking tenant repair requests and then sending out expensive plumbers, roofers and painters for maintenance.  It only provides Not For Profits special benefits (discounts on property taxes and exemptions from rent control) to help make it more profitable.  If they offered those benefits to privat housing providers the City of Oakland would have an explosion in new housing.

The single best solution to providing more housing in the City of Oakland would be to have a means test for Rent Control, Just Cause and TPO.  If someone earns 100% of the BAy Area AMI - they don't get the Rent Control subsidy.  Start there and you will see a significant increase in the supply of housing and a corresponding decrease in rents.  At 100% AMI, those individuals will not go homeless in the streets, they have the means to find new housing. er oo Msir hC

SS
W
U
U
FC

RIGHT OF WAY
MIN 20’

APPLICANT PIPELINE

DESIGN CRITERIA

RIGHT OF WAY EXTENDS
5’ BEYOND APPURTENCES
FC

SUBGRADE

FINISH GRADE

NO PERVIOUS PAVEMENT

NO HYDRANTS ON CURVES,

STREET CORNERS, OR
WITHIN 5' OF DRIVEWAY
24"
36"
5'min
10'min
7'min
5'min
12"min
12"min 12"min 12"min
SD 4'min

JOINT TRENCHES

SHALL NOT

CONFLICT WITH

THE CRITERIA IN

THE DIAGRAM
4203 • 5/21
W = WATER
24" cover to subgrade
36" cover to final grade
7' inset from face of curb
U = UTILITY
min 12" vertical clearance
min 5' horizontal clearance
SD = STORM DRAIN
min 12" below water
min 4' horizontal clearance
SS = SANITARY SEWER
min 12" below water
min 10' horizontal clearance
FC= FACE OF CURB
March2021
Applicant Pipeline Design Criteria
EBMUD values applicant pipeline projects and is committed to providing a thorough and efficient design.

To ensure an efficient design process and to avoid significant delays the design criteria below should be adhered to when submitting improvement plans.

Design Criteria
 Water mains shall be seven (7) feet from face of curb.  Water mains shall maintain a minimum one (1) foot vertical and five (5) foot horizontal clearance from other utilities.
 Gas mains shall meet the one (1) foot vertical separation requirement by installing the gas main below the water main only.
 Water mains shall maintain a minimum ten (10) foot horizontal clearance (O.D. to O.D.) and be located a minimum one (1) foot above any sewer main. Title 22 CCR  Water mains shall maintain a minimum four (4) feet horizontal clearance (O.D. to O.D.) and be located a minimum one (1) foot above any storm drain. Title 22 CCR  Water mains shall have a 36-inch cover to final grade and 24-inch cover to pavement subgrade.  Joint trenches that are in conflict with the criteria above may delay the project. Submit to EBMUD final joint trench plans (no intent plans) which include the size of the joint trench and the utilities located inside.
 Water mains shall not be installed under pervious pavement.  Water mains installed under decorative pavement, pavers, or stamped concrete will require an additional paving agreement.
 Hydrants shall not be located on curved sections of street, street corners, or within five feet of a driveway.
 Right of ways for 6-inch and 8-inch water mains shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide and extend five (5) feet past the water main centerline.
 Right of ways for 12-inch to 24-inch water mains shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide and extend eight (8) feet past the water main centerline.

Please contact the New Business Office representative assigned to your project if there are any questions regarding the requirements listed above. Meeting this criteria will enable the most efficient design possible.

TOPA, housing element
Ilona Clark
Thu 12/29/2022 11:47 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.

TOPA is worse than a false promise Supporters say it will prevent displacement of renters by giving them the right and the ability (through 3rd party assistance) to buy the properties they live in, if put up for sale. These are good ideas. Everyone wants to encourage homeownership and the benefits that it confers. No one wants to be displaced.

Unfortunately, TOPA does not do any of these things.

In reality, if passed, it would make displacement more likely for many. At the same time, it will take away rent control and eviction protections from many of Oakland’s renters, and hobble the city’s ability to function by exempting many properties from property taxes.

TOPA controls the sale of any rental property in the city. Under TOPA, The renter has the first right of refusal andmay express interest to purchase in writing.

Most of the time, a renter can’t afford to buy the property on their own and they may assign their right to purchase to a 3rd party, non-profit. In this case, the house or unit, once purchased, will be considered affordable housing. Affordable, by definition, may not serve people who do not qualify. So, if a renter-purchaser does not meet income qualifications for affordable housing, they will be displaced in favor of another household that earns less. That’s right, if they earn too much, they would be evicted from their homes.

Oakland has eviction protection for renters and income level is not a reason to evict. That is why TOPA takes away these protections so that renters may be legally evicted if they do not meet the affordable housing requirement.

Oakland also has rent control. But TOPA takes that away from its residents too. Monthly payments for residents (affordable housing recipients) may rise faster than rent control. But the residents must take responsibility for maintaining the buildings and surroundings. They must do all the work the previous owner did before them.This might be worth it, if they could expect to enjoy the benefits of ownership, but any home that becomes “affordable housing” under TOPA must be maintained as “affordable” for many decades. They may not be re-sold at market rate. All rights, freedoms, and financial incentives of ownership would be lost. People who live in properties purchased under TOPA get all the sweat and none of the equity.

To add insult to injury, no property taxes may be collected on affordable housing. This would hobble Oakland’s ability to provide services and maintain infrastructure.

In fact, there is nothing to prevent a tenant from buying a home, or negotiating to buy the building they live in.

Who could possibly benefit from this?
TOPA was written by lawyers for lawyers and bureaucrats will clean up. politicians who will do anything just so they say say they did “something” will get votes. But the community will suffer and the housing crisis will deepen
TOPA is not a progressive way to promote ownership opportunities for existing tenants, it's a blatant attempt to seize private property through a coercive set of regulations that drive small property owners into financial distress and then gifts these properties to organizations that have monies interests at heart but their own. It is an attack on middle-class property owners and middle-class renters, alike.

Ilona clark, RN, SEIU
Oakland
--
Healing is figuring out how to coexist with the pain that will always live inside of you, without pretending it isn’t there or allowing it to hijack your day. It is learning to confront ghosts and carry what lingers.
- Suleika Jaouad
Mills Investigation
Al Nehl
Thu 12/29/2022 12:03 PM
To: General Plan <[email protected]>
Cc: Martha <[email protected]>;Kristin Coan <[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.

On behalf of my mother, Rita Nehl, a Mills alumnus, I am writing to support the preservation of Mills College, its campus, and what it represents for past, present and future students and faculty, as well as the many ways Mills College benefits Oakland and the surrounding communities.

Please investigate!
Thank you,
Al Nehl
Oakland Housing Element Comment
Trey Hunter
Thu 12/29/2022 1:06 PM
To: General Plan <[email protected]>
Cc: Kalb, Dan <[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.

Good afternoon,
I am a newer resident of Oakland and have recently had the opportunity to review the public draft of Oakland's Housing Element. I've listed a few comments/questions below:

1. It is clear that Oakland is taking this process seriously. Given that we are in a large metropolitan area, has Oakland considered what more it can do to triage other Bay Area communities who will continue to not take the development of housing (affordable housing especially) seriously? As noted in the draft, the issue of housing policy goes beyond the boundaries of the city of Oakland, the issue is regional in the context of the Bay Area. While I appreciate the fifteen percent buffer, given the market needs of the entire Bay Area, wouldn’t something like a 100% buffer seem more appropriate?
Oakland has shown that it can meet housing goals as referenced by the City's ability to meet the last iteration of the Housing Element. I am concerned that this Housing Element doesn't challenge the city to do more given that other localities will continue to refuse to develop housing. Not only would a higher buffer allow for Oakland to grow where other communities refuse to build housing. This bolsters Oakland’s position as a "YIMBY: city and increases future tax revenue further ameliorating some of the City’s existing budgetary challenges. A larger housing buffer will result in systemically positive outcomes.

2. Has the City considered abolishing single-family zoning like other cities throughout the nation have done? Action 3.2.1. Might this be a consideration for the next iteration of Oakland’s Housing Element?

3. Action 3.2.4: What is meant by “legalize ADUs’ for low-income homeowners. Given the enactment of AB 68, AB 881, SB 13, AB 587, and other state law, ADUs are already legal throughout the State and subject to less local control, correct? Should this be geared toward assisting low and middle income homeowners in finding funding streams to support the development of ADUs where feasible?

4. Introduction – Paragraph 3: The housing backlog of 2,000,000 units is a debatable and somewhat arbitrary figure. In some cases, this number has been as high as $3,500,000. It may be best to note that this figure is not a specifically defined metric as the introduction seems to indicate.

5. I am especially impressed by the Housing Element Survey (page 37) which allowed residents to provide feedback on interactive mapping questions. Also, impressed by the City’s willingness and ability to follow State guidelines which have recently given RHNA more authority.

Happy to respond to any follow-up questions. Thank you for your consideration and for your very important work in keeping Oakland a pro-housing city.

Trey Hunter

PUBLIC COMMENTS Submission Housing Element Public Hearing Draft /Oakland 2045 General Plan | Preliminary Zoning ProposalSubmitted by Mary Rose Kaczorowski 12/29/2022 Please accept my public comments submission regarding the Housing Element Public Hearing Draft /Oakland 2045 General Plan | Preliminary Zoning ProposalI am a graduate of Mills College, (B.A. Public Policy & Natural Resources Systems), and I also attended the Lorry I. Lokey Graduate School of Business at Mills College. I also served as President of Mills College Botanical Ecology Society, 2003-04. I am also an AmeriCorps National Service alumni having served with the AmeriCorps CCC Collaboration in East Oakland CA . We were a team serving East Oakland Schools in building gardens, teaching gardening and nutrition and local watershed awareness. I am also a member of the Sierra Club, Women’s Intercultural, Network and Soroptimist International.

I respectfully request that the zoning adjustments to the property that encompasses Mills College at Northeastern University (the former Mills College campus property) NOT be rezoned to allow for expanded residential and/or commercial development. I have outlined this property’s role in Climate Change, Heat Island and Flood control mitigations as well as its history and role as public green space, a farm hub, and biodiversity and watershed integrity protection.

Zoning Changes?
I concur with several other organization’s public comments questioning why a proposed rezoning of the property area around and including Mills College at Northeastern University be changed from RM-3 to RM-4? (See October 14, 2022, comments by EB For Everyone, Greenbelt Alliance etc.) Please clarify the reasoning behind this since RM-4 is a residential neighborhood standard, and this is a private educational institution operating a college and providing associated student housing and basic services. This up-zoning is unsuitable and is incongruous with the established site use.

Rezoning for conversion of residential or commercial use of this parcel is inappropriate.

Negative Impact of proposed Zoning Change
Mills College at Northeastern University, if ever given the opportunity to develop and sell choice sections of the campus to private investors, the integrity of this land parcel will be further diminished.

This zoning change will permanently and further damage the ecological services that this parcel provides. Once vegetation is removed, once soil is leveled, compacted and paved over, it is never returned to supporting nature or serves the public good as access to nature-based recreation.

Public Green Space
This 135-acre Mills College at Northeastern University property has been used as a public oasis in a highly developed urban area. This campus has historically provided public access to its green space, with paths, creeks, trails, and a community farm, and access to soccer fields and a recreation swimming pool. This Mills College campus functions as a public good for the local residents and wider community of Oakland.

Watershed Protection & Flood Control
Mills College is in the 3.5-square-mile Lion Creek Watershed that lies in the city of Oakland.

The watershed begins on the west side of the Oakland hills and runs west to San Francisco Bay, narrowing as it passes through flatter land. The eastern boundary of the watershed roughly follows Skyline Boulevard where it borders the San Leandro Creek Watershed. The watershed includes three creeks: Chimes, Horseshoe, and Lion. The former Leona tributary, now part of Lion Creek, drains an abandoned sulfur mine. Horseshoe and Chimes creeks both discharge into Lion Creek, which empties into Lake Aliso on the Mills College campus. The creek is open through the Mills College campus before entering a culvert; it then daylights briefly between Avenal and Bancroft avenues before following channels and culverts to the bay.

Lake Aliso is a flood control pond located on the Mills College campus that, when full, creates a habitat for water birds. Horseshoe Creek discharges into Lion Creek, which empties into the lake.

Historically (pre-1990) lake levels were maintained year-round. Currently the lake alternates between full and empty. Completed in 2010, the Lion Creek Restoration Project created 1.5 acres of creek and

wetland habitat for fish, birds, and other wildlife. The project is less than a mile from the Martin Luther King Regional Shoreline and Arrowhead Marsh, important stopping points for migrating birds. Located in the redeveloped Lion Creek Crossings Park, between 66th and 69th avenues at San Leandro Street, it is surrounded by new, mixed-use housing units developed by the Oakland Housing Authority. This watershed provides ecosystem services that cannot be mitigated or replaced once it is further degraded or removed.

Mills Campus property role in Climate Change Mitigation & Adaptation Harnessing the innovative spirit of California, Governor Gavin Newsom advanced an executive order enlisting California’s vast network of natural and working lands – forests, rangelands, farms, wetlands, coast, deserts and urban greenspaces – in the fight against climate change. A core pillar of Governor Newsom’s climate agenda, these novel approaches will help clean the air and water for communities throughout the state and support California’s unique biodiversity.

Mills College at Northeastern University is a property that is particularly well situated to help California implement Governor Newsom’s (Oct 07, 2020) EXECUTIVE ORDER N-82-20.

This Executive Order points to using nature-based solutions to combat the biodiversity loss and climate change crises in California.

Agricultural Use
The Mills Community Farm at Mills College was founded as a 2.5-acre working farm that practices sustainable farming and provides urban agriculture education in collaboration with students, faculty, staff, local organizations, and Oakland schools. The farm provided produce to campus dining services and sold produce on campus at a weekly farm stand as well as to local restaurants. "The Mills Community Farm became a widely known and valuable campus and community meeting place, a place that demonstrated the values of Mills College—leadership, social justice, and equity—in practical and replicable ways. It is/was a welcoming community hub, one that invited all neighbors to join in the creation and operation of the farm and to celebrate growing and eating nutritious food -- an active farm hub, employing progressive, financially viable, and sustainable approaches to farm planning, operations, harvesting, and distribution. This area can be further zoned for a ‘living lab’ for growing healthy food, deepening knowledge, and building community solidarity." Mills College at Northeastern University serves as a heat island mitigation Elevated temperatures in urban "heat islands" increase cooling energy use and accelerate the formation of urban smog. Urban shade trees and light-colored surfaces can offset or reverse the heat island and conserve energy. Implementation of heat island mitigation measures see https://www.epa.gov/heatislands & https://www.epa.gov/heatislands/using-trees-and-vegetation-reduceheat-islands Existing traffic is STILL an issue
Mills College at Northeastern University needs to continue to reduce its carbon footprint by encouraging sustainable practices on the campus property. While efforts have been made to reduce the footprint caused by utility usage, transportation practices have contributed to a considerable portion of the College’s environmental impact but have yet to be addressed.

A comment on the proposal for rezoning Mills College
Sakura Vesely
Thu 12/29/2022 1:50 PM
To: General Plan <[email protected]>
[EXTERNAL] This email originated outside of the City of Oakland. Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and expect the message.

Dear Council of Oakland;
I am a Mills College alumna, class of 2006. I was horrified to hear that my beloved alma mater that gave so much to me (and pass it along in the world through my work) was first going to close, then "merge" with Northeastern University, and now is being assessed for further dismantling by proposing to build private-sector housing on the campus. I understand that Oakland and California in particular needs to build more housing and solve the issue of food deserts yet all of this dismantling that has come over the past two years really feels like pure colonization and a purposeful erasure of what Mills College stood for. I am still traumatized by how Mills presented itself as doing quite well only to have its administration quickly and suspiciously hand over the school to an expensive, massive colonizer school that stands for nothing Mills represents. Mills was a safe haven for women, gender minorities, LGBTQ+ people, racial minorities, and generally anyone who was traditionally marginalized by WASP culture. Oakland in the late twentieth and twenty-first centuries has prided itself on its diverse culture and sense of being a place for underprivileged communities, artists, and the like. The takeover and development by Northeastern University is one more step forward to gentrifying Oakland into being a place where only wealthy white people can reside. I urge all of you to support the investigation into the merger of Mills College/Northeastern University and put a stop to unnecessary development on the Mills campus. Please don't send us into the ash heap of history.

Thank you,
I adamantly oppose the proposed zoning change at Mills College! Alecto Caldwell
Thu 12/29/2022 2:11 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.

Having been a part of the Maxwell Park community, just a block from Mills College for nearly 40 years, I have watched in horror and disbelief at the entire process of Mills being transformed into Mills at Northeastern University.

I fully support:

The Resolution Passed, July 19, 2022 “Celebrating the contributions of Mills College to the City of Oakland and beyond, and calling on the California Bureau of Private and Post-Secondary Education and the U.S. Department of Education to conduct an independent investigation into the circumstances of the merger between Mills College and Northeastern University."
I am appalled by the fact that:

The City of Oakland has released the 2023-2031 Housing Element Public Hearing Draft. This includes rezoning the Mills College campus for land development. This proposed rezoning to RM-4 is to “create, maintain, and enhance residential areas typically located on or near the City’s major arterials and characterized by a mix of single-family homes, townhouses, small multi-unit buildings at somewhat higher densities than RM-3, and neighborhood businesses where appropriate.” The RM-4 Zone allows for the development of the site with condominiums, townhouses and retail businesses. For 20 years, the Mills Campus was zoned as RM-3. We are seeing this proposed change just as Northeastern takes over.

It seems obvious that such changes will seriously, significantly, and permanently change the character of our community primarily for the benefit of Northeastern University and not for the existing residents of the neighborhood.

At the very least, existing zoning should be maintained until the investigations regarding this transfer are completed.

Additionally, the impacts of such changes should be widely and deeply investigated with much more involvement from and communication with the wider community.

Lynda Caldwell
No on TOPA/COPA
chriscohn
Thu 12/29/2022 3:24 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.

City of Oakland policy has gone too far and TOPA/COPA would be the end of my housing provider journey.  You have heard all the arguments against these policies and read about their failed histories in other communities.  I waste my time writing you, but if you bother to read this, NO on TOPA/COPA.  I prefer the Ellus Act.

Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
Oppose proposed zoning changes Mills College +MacArthur Blvd.

Beatriz Perez-Stable
Thu 12/29/2022 4:24 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 am writing to oppose the proposed zoning changes at Mills College and land on MacArthur Blvd directly across Mills College.

I believe it would be prudent to know what the owners will propose, incorporating these zoning changes, and that surrounding neighbors should be notified of such and be allowed to comment.

Respectfully,
Beatriz Perez-Stable
Housing Element Comments
Gabriel Guerriero
Thu 12/29/2022 4:47 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 Oakland General Plan -- Housing Element Team:

I am writing to submit comments to the Housing Element General Plan:

1. I support the development of Action 3.5.2: Support housing cooperatives, co-living, and cohousing models. I want to ask for more specificity and clarity on how the city will support these projects. Please provide exceptions to zoning provisions for direct support of cooperatives, co-living and cohousing models. Accelerate the study of how the Planning Code and building occupancy standards affect the viability of these models.

2. I support new affordable ownership housing opportunities for middle and low income families.

3. I support an increase in density for all Hillside Residential zones for properties located outside the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFSV), or provide opportunities for an increase of density on a case-by-case basis.

4. Provide an application process for spot zoning on eligible properties. Rezone some of the hillside areas with pocket communities in specific areas.

Thank you for your time!
Gabriel Guerriero
Oakland Resident
Mills College
Martha DeWeese
Thu 12/29/2022 5:01 PM
To: General Plan <[email protected]>;Martha DeWeese [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.

Martha de Weese
December 29, 2022
To: the Oakland City Council Housing Element committee
concerns: rezoning vital Oakland Educational opportunity areas.

Dear Sir and Madam,
Please investigate this gross malfeasance. Mills College has been stolen through nefarious means. Mills students are being robbed of the Education they came to acquire.

Mills dates to 1854 at its' present location. The Academic opportunities and the legacy of this institution have always been an asset to Oakland.

Please look carefully at the past Mayor of Oakland and the past Mills President and the roles they played in this “land grab”.

Thank you for this opportunity to speak up.
sincerely,
Martha de Weese
Comments on the Housing Element of the General Plan
Jay Gregory
Thu 12/29/2022 5:18 PM
To: General Plan <[email protected]>
Cc: jean gregory Joewoen Gregory
[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 there!
I'm so excited about the new General Plan for the City of Oakland and the Housing Element in particular. As an Oakland native it is incredibly inspiring to see my city acknowledging the systemic income inequality and affordable housing access issues that are so rampant and tearing at the fabric of our society.

There is so much in here to laud and I want to keep this focused, so let me just start by saying that I fully support the five goals of the housing element. I think they are spot on and worth relaying behind.

My specific comments come around co-housing and pushing for the easing of zoning restrictions in the non-fire zone hillside residential zones (RH) that seem to be untouched by this version of the plan. If the goals of the plan are to increase close the gap in housing affordability and to get lower income housing opportunities into traditionally exclusive hillside housing nozes I think a bit more work can be done in the plan in this regard.

In particular:

1. We support the development of Action 3.5.2: Support housing cooperatives, co-living, and cohousing models and ask for more specificity and clarity on how the city will support these projects. Specifically:

1. Please provide exceptions (or specific pathways to request variances) to zoning provisions for direct support of cooperatives, co-living, and cohousing models.

2. Accelerate the study of how the Planning Code and building occupancy standards affect the viability of these models.

2. We support new affordable ownership housing opportunities for middle and low income families, especially in traditionally exclusive Hillsite Residential areas.

3. We support an increase in density for all Hillside Residential zones for properties located outside the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFSV), or provide opportunities for an increase of density on a case-by-case basis.

1. Provide an application process for spot zoning on eligible properties. Rezone some of the hillside areas with pocket communities in specific areas.

Thank you and everyone who has been working on ambitious, exciting, and ever so desperately needed plan,
Jay Gregory
Joewoen Greagory
Oakland zoning
Hannah Bluhm
Thu 12/29/2022 5:50 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.

PUBLIC COMMENTS Submission Housing Element Public Hearing Draft /Oakland 2045 General Plan | Preliminary Zoning Proposal:

As an alumna of Mills and an active member within the larger Mills College Community I ask that you preserve the current zoning of the Mills College campus (recently bought by Northeastern University). 1). Oakland deserves to keep and pass on its current green spaces for future generations. Not only for the physical environmental benefits that such spaces provide and support in the larger ecosystem but for the psychological health and well being that such green spaces foster in human communities. I believe that placing the development desires of a global, private, institution, of potential short term financial gain for NEU, above the intergenerational health and wealth of the larger Oakland community is shortsighted, unwise and amounts to a form of environmental racism.
2). Northeastern University is a massive, global, institution that behaves in a predatory for profit manner. The purchase of Mills occurred in a questionable and non-transparent way. If it is allowed an increased ability to develop the 135 acres of the Mills Campus in its first year of ownership, there will be no guarantee or leverage on the part of the city of Oakland to ensure that such development will be in any way, not only NOT harmful but beneficial to the neighboring residents and surrounding community. 3). Mills College is beautiful. With a beautiful and rich history in visual arts, music, dance and architecture. The legacy of the on campus Julia Morgan's buildings should be honored and protected. NEU has no cultural ties to the arts and should not be given carte blanche when it comes to deciding the use, purpose, and aesthetics of these buildings and creative spaces in the future. 4). Northeastern University already has strained relationships with its community neighbors in Boston and other sites. They have a reputation for using militarized campus police, racial profiling on their campuses, covering up incidents around fraternity rape culture, and aggressive gentrification of community spaces. Again, the new owners of Mills College should have to prove themselves worthy before being allowed to build skyscraper frat dorms, or luxury condos and retail spaces that cater exclusively to the wealthy. 5). The new owners of the Mills College campus should be the city of Oakland itself, not Northeastern University. At the very least by keeping limits on the scale and impact of development on the campus the city will ensure some accountability, respect, and health for the current citizens of Oakland and generations to come.

Sincerely,
Hannah Bluhm
Rezoning of Mills College Campus
Melanie Vega
Thu 12/29/2022 7:23 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.

Good evening,
It has come to my attention that the city of Oakland has released a housing public hearing draft which includes a plan to rezone Mills College campus to allow for building of housing and businesses on campus. As a Bay Area native and a Mills College alum, I am AGAINST this plan. Mills College was just recently acquired by Northeastern University in a highly contested and suspicious manner, and it would be a further blow to the Mills legacy to tear up the phyiscal campus by allowing rezoning and building of housing/businesses. The campus is an oasis in Oakland that should be protected, not sold to greedy developers.

Thank you for reading my concerns,
Melanie Vega

3. COMMENT LETTERS RECEIVED ON

THE REVISED PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT
2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
AFTER DECEMBER 29, 2022
Re: Oakland Housing TOPA/COPA Element Public Input
Jeannie Llewellyn
Fri 12/30/2022 3:26 PM
Cc: 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.

These are comments regarding COPA/TOPA/OPA specifically.

These bullet points assume:

1. In COPA an NPO would be the owner. In TOPA, qualifying tenants would buy with "cobuyers".

2. The COPA nonprofit is exempt from rent control.

3. A NPO is your new landlord under COPA.

4. In COPA, the NPO makes all the building and financial decisions.

5. NPO approvals are required for changes to your COPA apartment.

6. There is no guarantee of buyer equity in a COPA/TOPA deal.

7. NPOs can go bankrupt.

8. The NPO can sell your COPA building to a for-profit, corporate buyer.

9. COPA/TOPA does not provide consumer protection.

10. Do you really want to buy property with your tenant neighbors?

11. TOPA/COPA are organizing tools, not housing programs. Sample city ordinances show fine print.

12. TOPA/COPA are not grant programs.

13. TOPA does not help a tenant's apartment be more affordable.

14. Most tenants won't qualify for a TOPA purchase.

15. TOPA/COPA needs you to remain poor (to qualify).

16. Only low and moderate income people qualify for COPA but they don't earn enough for TOPA.

17. If you get a raise, you may not qualify for a COPA property.

18. Union jobs make too much money for COPA/TOPA.

19. COPA/TOPA is for college grads who like committees, meetings and group decisions.

20. COPA/TOPA takes all your free time for meetings.

21. COPA/TOPA doesn’t provide family sized housing.

22. If your TOPA co-buyer loses his job, you can lose your house.

23. Your TOPA co-buyers' late payments can ruin your good credit Overall, there already are good programs available for tenants to purchase a property if they qualify, and we don't need to reinvent the wheel.

Be a Hero, and utilize the tools already here for helping tenants get their own housing instead of wasting tax dollars.

As for the Homeless Issues, that's NOT part of TOPA/COPA/OPA.  That's a separate problem that cannot be solved with TOPA/COPA/OPA.

It's another conversation.

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

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-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.

Public Comment –– Submission Housing Element Public Hearing Draft /Oakland 2045 General Plan | Preliminary Zoning ProposalGeorge
Fri 12/30/2022 4:32 PM
To: General Plan <[email protected]>
1 attachments (333 KB)
MRK Oak Housing Element PC .pdf;
[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 have only just learned of this possibly alarming development. I hope you will add my voice to the many I am hearing that are concerned. I am attaching some very cogent comments from a friend. I support these comments.

George Reinhardt
E tivist,

PUBLIC COMMENTS Submission Housing Element Public Hearing Draft /Oakland 2045 General Plan | Preliminary Zoning ProposalSubmitted by Mary Rose Kaczorowski 12/29/2022 Please accept my public comments submission regarding the Housing Element Public Hearing Draft /Oakland 2045 General Plan | Preliminary Zoning ProposalI am a graduate of Mills College, (B.A. Public Policy & Natural Resources Systems), and I also attended the Lorry I. Lokey Graduate School of Business at Mills College. I also served as President of Mills College Botanical Ecology Society, 2003-04. I am also an AmeriCorps National Service alumni having served with the AmeriCorps CCC Collaboration in East Oakland CA . We were a team serving East Oakland Schools in building gardens, teaching gardening and nutrition and local watershed awareness. I am also a member of the Sierra Club, Women’s Intercultural, Network and Soroptimist International.

I respectfully request that the zoning adjustments to the property that encompasses Mills College at Northeastern University (the former Mills College campus property) NOT be rezoned to allow for expanded residential and/or commercial development. I have outlined this property’s role in Climate Change, Heat Island and Flood control mitigations as well as its history and role as public green space, a farm hub, and biodiversity and watershed integrity protection.

Zoning Changes?
I concur with several other organization’s public comments questioning why a proposed rezoning of the property area around and including Mills College at Northeastern University be changed from RM-3 to RM-4? (See October 14, 2022, comments by EB For Everyone, Greenbelt Alliance etc.) Please clarify the reasoning behind this since RM-4 is a residential neighborhood standard, and this is a private educational institution operating a college and providing associated student housing and basic services. This up-zoning is unsuitable and is incongruous with the established site use.

Rezoning for conversion of residential or commercial use of this parcel is inappropriate.

Negative Impact of proposed Zoning Change
Mills College at Northeastern University, if ever given the opportunity to develop and sell choice sections of the campus to private investors, the integrity of this land parcel will be further diminished.

This zoning change will permanently and further damage the ecological services that this parcel provides. Once vegetation is removed, once soil is leveled, compacted and paved over, it is never returned to supporting nature or serves the public good as access to nature-based recreation.

Public Green Space
This 135-acre Mills College at Northeastern University property has been used as a public oasis in a highly developed urban area. This campus has historically provided public access to its green space, with paths, creeks, trails, and a community farm, and access to soccer fields and a recreation swimming pool. This Mills College campus functions as a public good for the local residents and wider community of Oakland.

Watershed Protection & Flood Control
Mills College is in the 3.5-square-mile Lion Creek Watershed that lies in the city of Oakland.

The watershed begins on the west side of the Oakland hills and runs west to San Francisco Bay, narrowing as it passes through flatter land. The eastern boundary of the watershed roughly follows Skyline Boulevard where it borders the San Leandro Creek Watershed. The watershed includes three creeks: Chimes, Horseshoe, and Lion. The former Leona tributary, now part of Lion Creek, drains an abandoned sulfur mine. Horseshoe and Chimes creeks both discharge into Lion Creek, which empties into Lake Aliso on the Mills College campus. The creek is open through the Mills College campus before entering a culvert; it then daylights briefly between Avenal and Bancroft avenues before following channels and culverts to the bay.

Lake Aliso is a flood control pond located on the Mills College campus that, when full, creates a habitat for water birds. Horseshoe Creek discharges into Lion Creek, which empties into the lake.

Historically (pre-1990) lake levels were maintained year-round. Currently the lake alternates between full and empty. Completed in 2010, the Lion Creek Restoration Project created 1.5 acres of creek and

wetland habitat for fish, birds, and other wildlife. The project is less than a mile from the Martin Luther King Regional Shoreline and Arrowhead Marsh, important stopping points for migrating birds. Located in the redeveloped Lion Creek Crossings Park, between 66th and 69th avenues at San Leandro Street, it is surrounded by new, mixed-use housing units developed by the Oakland Housing Authority. This watershed provides ecosystem services that cannot be mitigated or replaced once it is further degraded or removed.

Mills Campus property role in Climate Change Mitigation & Adaptation Harnessing the innovative spirit of California, Governor Gavin Newsom advanced an executive order enlisting California’s vast network of natural and working lands – forests, rangelands, farms, wetlands, coast, deserts and urban greenspaces – in the fight against climate change. A core pillar of Governor Newsom’s climate agenda, these novel approaches will help clean the air and water for communities throughout the state and support California’s unique biodiversity.

Mills College at Northeastern University is a property that is particularly well situated to help California implement Governor Newsom’s (Oct 07, 2020) EXECUTIVE ORDER N-82-20.

This Executive Order points to using nature-based solutions to combat the biodiversity loss and climate change crises in California.

Agricultural Use
The Mills Community Farm at Mills College was founded as a 2.5-acre working farm that practices sustainable farming and provides urban agriculture education in collaboration with students, faculty, staff, local organizations, and Oakland schools. The farm provided produce to campus dining services and sold produce on campus at a weekly farm stand as well as to local restaurants. "The Mills Community Farm became a widely known and valuable campus and community meeting place, a place that demonstrated the values of Mills College—leadership, social justice, and equity—in practical and replicable ways. It is/was a welcoming community hub, one that invited all neighbors to join in the creation and operation of the farm and to celebrate growing and eating nutritious food -- an active farm hub, employing progressive, financially viable, and sustainable approaches to farm planning, operations, harvesting, and distribution. This area can be further zoned for a ‘living lab’ for growing healthy food, deepening knowledge, and building community solidarity." Mills College at Northeastern University serves as a heat island mitigation Elevated temperatures in urban "heat islands" increase cooling energy use and accelerate the formation of urban smog. Urban shade trees and light-colored surfaces can offset or reverse the heat island and conserve energy. Implementation of heat island mitigation measures see https://www.epa.gov/heatislands & https://www.epa.gov/heatislands/using-trees-and-vegetation-reduceheat-islands Existing traffic is STILL an issue
Mills College at Northeastern University needs to continue to reduce its carbon footprint by encouraging sustainable practices on the campus property. While efforts have been made to reduce the footprint caused by utility usage, transportation practices have contributed to a considerable portion of the College’s environmental impact but have yet to be addressed.

RE: Housing element labor language approval
Harvey McKeon
Tue 1/10/2023 9:27 AM
To: Lieberworth, Audrey <[email protected]>
Cc: Rajagopalan, Lakshmi <[email protected]>;General Plan <[email protected]> Good morning,
Following up on the below. I’d also like to point out that beyond the language I’ve proposed below, other cities are going further with the labor language they are including in their housing element.

Redwood City has included the following labor language in their latest Housing Element draft:

POLICY H-5.7: Encourage developers and contractors to evaluate hiring local labor, hiring from or contributing to apprenticeship programs, increasing resources for labor compliance, and providing living wages.
(Page 49: 00_RWC_HE-1-6-23.pdf (welcomehomerwc.org))
From my conversations with the HCD, I believe that remaining silent on labor supply could even prove to be an eventual impediment to housing production.

I look forward to hearing how Oakland is addressing the labor question in its housing element.

Harvey
From: Harvey McKeon
Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2023 10:17 AM
To: 'Lieberworth, Audrey' <[email protected]>
Cc: Rajagopalan, Lakshmi <[email protected]>; General Plan <[email protected]> Subject: Housing element labor language approval
Importance: High
Happy new year Audrey,
Following up on our previous discussions regarding the potential inclusion of some labor language in the Oakland housing element.

To recap, we foresaw language that addressed the labor shortage issue in residential construction, and which makes no qualitative judgement on labor standards, but simply acknowledges policymaking will be needed in this area in the future in order to ensure the labor supply necessary to meet RHNA goals. That language would look something like the below:

The issue of availability of an adequate construction workforce has been found in a ABAG survey of member jurisdictions to be a top-tier constraint for building additional housing. As such, the City supports labor standards conducive to ensuring the reliable supply of quality construction labor necessary to complete the growing number of residential projects foreseen by this Cycle’s RHNA in a timely manner, without labor disputes or costly delays, thereby supporting the City’s housing goals and objectives.

We have spoken to HCD staff, including reviewers for individual cities, and they have no legal issue with this language. In fact, to the contrary, this language actually seeks to meaningfully engage with a key impediment to housing production (labor shortages). HCD staff can reaffirm this to you directly.

Please let me know if the City of Oakland can still include this language in their housing element constraints analysis. Please of course reach out if you would like to discuss this further over the phone.

Thank you,
Harvey
From: Lieberworth, Audrey <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 6, 2022 2:23 PM
To: Harvey McKeon
Cc: Rajagopalan, Lakshmi <[email protected]>; General Plan <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Comments regarding Updated Oakland Housing Element Hi Harvey,
Are you available to check in anytime between 9-11am next Wednesday, October 12th? I can send you a Zoom or Teams invite - let me know which one you would prefer. Thanks. - Audrey
From: Harvey McKeon
Sent: Thursday, October 6, 2022 2:15 PM
To: Lieberworth, Audrey <[email protected]>
Cc: Rajagopalan, Lakshmi <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Comments regarding Updated Oakland Housing Element Hi Audrey,
I just wanted to briefly discuss the housing element’s analysis of labor constraints, and let you know how we have been working with other cities and the HCD in regards to this portion of the housing element update.

I don’t think it is appropriate for me to write that all down in an email. So, if you can make some time for an approx. ten minute conversation in the next week or so that would be great.

Thanks,
Harvey
From: Lieberworth, Audrey <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 6, 2022 2:13 PM
To: Harvey McKeon
Cc: Rajagopalan, Lakshmi <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Comments regarding Updated Oakland Housing Element Hi Harvey,
Thank you for your message! I am in back to back meetings today (10/6) and tomorrow (10/7). Could you please send me your questions via email? I will try to respond between meetings. - Audrey
From: Harvey McKeon
October 6, 2022 1:04 PM
To: Lieberworth, Audrey <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Comments regarding Updated Oakland Housing Element [EXTERNAL] This email originated outside of the City of Oakland. Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and expect the message.

Dear Ms. Audrey Lieberworth,
My name is Harvey McKeon – I work in research and policy at the Nor Cal Carpenters Union.

Could you please give me a quick call at your convenience on I have been trying to reach you by phone. I have a few quick questions if you wouldn’t mind speaking to me regarding Oakland’s housing element process.

Many thanks,
Harvey McKeon
From: Harvey McKeon
Sent: Friday, June 10, 2022 3:34 PM
To: '[email protected]' <[email protected]> Cc: '[email protected]' <[email protected]> Subject: Comments regarding Updated Oakland Housing Element Importance: High
To Whom It May Concern,
Please find attached a letter with comments regarding the updated Oakland Housing Element. This is sent on behalf of Carpenters Local Union 713.

Thank you in advance for considering this submission. Please reach out if there are any questions whatsoever.

Yours sincerely,
Harvey McKeon
Harvey McKeon
Field Representative
Nor Cal Carpenters Union
Oakland Planning Commission
[By Email]
Re: Adoption of Final City of Oakland Housing Element
January 10, 2023
Dear Planning Commissioners:

The Rockridge Community Planning Council (RCPC) is supportive of the latest draft of the City of Oakland Housing Element and urges the Planning Commission to recommend adoption of the Element to the City Council, with one recommended change and one noted concern as outlined below.

RCPC is appreciative of the addition of the Ridge site to the Element’s inventory of housing sites. We are supportive of the upzoning of the College Avenue Transit Corridor to facilitate potential development of upper story housing there in the future. We are also supportive of higher heights proposed for the Rockridge BART station site, as BART, the City and neighborhood stakeholders begin the process of discussing a potential housing development project there.

We note and are supportive of the proposal to increase the permitted density in most of Rockridge’s residential areas to an RM-4 zone. However, we note that some areas of Rockridge are only proposed for RM-3 or less. We don’t understand the reason for this discrepancy and would like the whole area to be moved to RM-4.

In addition, with respect to the Ridge site we call the Commission’s attention to Action 3.4.10 on page 88 of the draft. This zoning implementation action would require sites included on the Housing Sites Inventory to be developed as majority-residential use. We very much appreciate this, as it would alleviate our worry that this critical site could be developed with an inappropriate non-residential use. However, the concern here is that it may take a number of months or even years for the Council to adopt this zoning change and in the meantime a currently code-compliant non-residential use could be proposed for the site. We urge the Commission to recommend to the Council some means of protecting the Ridge site as a housing site in the short term.

We extend our thanks to the Planning Department staff for a difficult job well done! Sincerely,
Casey Farmer Ken Rich
Chair, RCPC Board of Directors Chair, RCPC Land Use Committee RCPC Specific Comments and Questions on CCA Proposal 8-1-22 Development and Amenities Program:

1. Please specify the unit types, count and distribution of unit types by percentage. Also, it is unclear as to where the townhouses are located.

2. What are the anticipated commercial uses along Broadway within the building and in the courtyard entered via the Carriage Gate and/or the Clifton side of Building A?

3. What are the uses intended for Macky Hall and Carriage House? Will any of this space be made available to the community for scheduled activities?

4. What is envisioned for programmed activities within the meadow area and open space?

5. Will the program in the amenity wing of the upper building be accessible to the community?

6. Does this amenity program interact with the public space in ways other than visually? Urban Form and Architectural Character:

The CCA site sits at College Avenue’s southern terminus, linking Rockridge to UC Berkeley, where each educational institution has contributed significantly to the American Arts and Craft Movement and the Northern California/Bay Regional Style with its multiple reinterpretations. As the guidelines indicate, these traditions are at the heart of Rockridge’s character and quality as a place. In addition to the site’s dramatic topography, it is located at the termination point of the Broadway commercial corridor, which then splits into two residential boulevards, where height limits drop significantly, as they do on College Avenue.

Thus, the project must negotiate these architectural and urban form transitions with grace and respect, feeling new, yet fitting gracefully into the context.

This is not a generic housing site. As such, it calls for an urban form and architectural character that respects and responds to its presence and position in the urban fabric, the City’s history, the architectural traditions of the region, and the sustainable environmental aspirations of the State. Hopefully, this project’s response to context will serve as a model for other sites in and adjacent to our neighborhood.

We would like to continue working with you on the following aspects of the project’s overall urban form:
1) Relationship of the project to adjacent existing buildings and potential future development sites such as the Ridge
2) Height and setback relationships between Building B and the adjacent apartment buildings
3) Relationship between the project and the existing developed portion of the Ridge Shopping Center and how they might be connected in the future, as the present design concept makes no connection.
4) Heights, setbacks and massing of the building along the Broadway frontage Architectural Character
We also have continuing concern and interest in the following issues of the project’s architectural design. In general, the modulation of the buildings’ facades has improved the overall aesthetics of the building to create a base-middle-top composition as articulated in the guidelines. This is further enhanced by changes in materials, though the precise nature and character of these materials is to be determined. Further development is needed to make these buildings worthy of their unique setting and consistent in character and quality with the architectural traditions of the region. We would like to continue a dialog with the project sponsor focusing on:
1) Ensuring that the building facades do not appear too industrial or “boxy” 2) Enriching the facades with some sort of three-dimensional window treatment and/or balconies
3) Adequately screening rooftop mechanical structures
Landscape and Streetscape:
1) Can tall growing trees be planted between Macky Hall and the 90’ tall façade that looms behind it to enhance its context as the focal point of the meadow? 2) Could benches be inset along the historic wall and the sidewalk be widened to accommodate the heavy pedestrian flows?
3) Could the wall be illuminated to enhance its landmark role and improve neighborhood safety?
4) How will streetscape and site lighting be handled?
a) This is important, as this section of Broadway can feel dark and unsafe in the evenings, particularly along the long concrete wall, where the few streetlights are buried in the trees.
b) Will the pathway and meadow area be publicly accessible and illuminated in the evenings?
c) Will Macky Hall and the Carriage House receive enhanced illumination? 5) How does this project truly connect to the history of the site? Other than preservation of a few artifacts from the CCA site, what other actions could be taken to tie this development back to the site’s historic relevance to the Bay Area artworld? a) Could there be sites for commissioned sculptures, or exhibits incorporated into the landscape?
b) Could some of the blank ground floor walls along Clifton become commissioned murals?
c) Could the courtyards and walkways within the site also be opportunities to tell the story of the site or the arts community that arose here? Sustainability and Resilience
These characteristics of the project are not mentioned in either the site guidelines or the conceptual design presentation, yet we note that California energy codes are among the most advanced in the world, and we are amid a historic drought.

What are the sustainability and resiliency goals of this project and how will they be achieved? 1) Could and will this be a Zero Net Energy (ZNE) - Zero Carbon Building? 2) Will there be on-site grey water harvesting or storm water collection? 3) Will the project seek LEED or other environmental performance third-party certifications?
4) Could the Meadow and surrounding tree groves serve as stormwater retention areas? Emergency Access:
1) A full review by the Fire Marshal and Fire Department is warranted 2) How is fire access being managed to ensure that multiple emergency vehicles and fleeing residents can be accommodated via a single entrance and exit along the Paseo and Clifton?
3) Will fire-fighters be willing to enter the narrow passage between two buildings or scale up the slope from Broadway to reach the interior of the site? Transit and Ride-Share Access:
1) How do service and ride-share vehicles access, park and leave the site? 2) What are the intended intersection improvements at the intersection of Clifton and Broadway, as this area is already severely congested due to multiple signaled intersections?
How will the bus stops be improved to provide seating and shelter at the base of the wall along an exceedingly narrow sidewalk for the current and anticipated pedestrian traffic load?
Errata:

We would appreciate your correction of Rockridge’s boundaries in the context diagram on

January 11, 2023
By electronic transmission
Oakland City Planning Commission
250 Frank Ogawa Plaza, Suite 2114
Oakland, CA 94612
Subject: November 2022 Revised Draft Housing Element
Dear Chair Fearn and City Planning Commissioners:

The following comments modify and expand upon our December 6, 2022 comments to the general plan team that were also previously provided to you. The changes are limited to Items A.1 and A.2.

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.

The statements committing the City to specific zoning revisions should therefore be revised so they don’t read as commitments but rather as proposals subject to review and refinement as part of the ordinances implementing the zoning amendments, using words such as “consider” and/or “may” rather than “will”, thereby reserving the final determination of whether to proceed with these changes to the ordinances implementing 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”.

See attached marked-up pages from the Housing Element and Appendix J for specific wording reflecting the above.
2 2. The environmental determination that adoption of the Housing Element is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is inappropriate. The 11/22 draft’s commitment to specific zoning revisions as discussed in Item A .1 above allowing denser development will result in a variety of substantial adverse impacts as defined by CEQA, including but not limited to, conversion of pervious to impervious surfaces (increasing stormwater runoff and straining the capacity of the City’s already overtaxed storm sewer system), the architectural integrity of CEQA–defined historical resources (including historic districts and neighborhoods), and reductions in the urban tree canopy, impairing air quality and wildlife habitat.

However, 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, if the 11/22 draft language committing the City to specific zoning amendments is revised as recommended in Item A.1, the zoning amendment EIR can be relied on for CEQA purposes and the Housing Element’s environmental determination should therefore refer to the zoning amendment’s EIR as part of the Housing Element’s exemption determination.

See also the environmental review discussion regarding ministerial approval in Item A.3 below.

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 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 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.
3 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 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 4 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
Attachment: Marked-up pages from the 11-22 Draft Housing Element and Appendix J.

CC: William Gilchrist, Ed Manasse, General Plan Team, Lakshmi Rajagopalan, Audrey Lieberworth, Catherine Payne, Karen August, Betty Marvin, City Council, Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board

1 1. Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element –Response to
Public Comments
The public comment period for the first Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element began on May 12, 2022. As required by AB 215, the first Draft Housing Element was available for a 30-day public review period, before incorporating public comments and sending the revised first draft to HCD. Based on community feedback and to ensure that the Oakland community had enough time to review and comment, the City kept the first public review draft of the Housing Element available for public comment through the 90-day State HCD review period (June 30 - September 30, 2022). Thank you to all those who submitted public comments and attended public meetings.

Based on community feedback and direction from Councilmembers, staff have prepared a response to comments to illustrate how the revised draft reflects public input received during the 142-day comment period.

A total of 54 comments, comment letters, and emails were received during the comment period.

Comments and responses to comments are organized by the date they were received. Each letter or summary is identified by a designator (e.g., “1”). Specific comments within each letter or summary are identified by a designator in the page margin that reflects the sequence of the specific comment within the correspondence (e.g. “1-A” for the first comment in Letter 1).

Click the TOC below to jump to a response.

Table 1. Sid Kapur, YIMBY Law, Greenbelt of Contents Alliance .................................................................................. 4

2. Dimond Improvement Association................................................................................................. 5

3. Jesse Boudart ....................................................................................................................................... 7

4. Derek Sagehorn................................................................................................................................... 8

5. Bret Peterson....................................................................................................................................... 8

6. Roy Chan, Cultural Affairs Commission........................................................................................ 9

7. Kristin Spanos, First 5 Alameda County..................................................................................... 11

8. Comments Received on City Staff Presentation to EBHO Oakland Committee ............. 15

9. Jeff Levin, Planning Commission Hearing.................................................................................... 15

10. Daniel Gregg, Planning Commission Hearing ............................................................................ 16

11. Michael Gabriel, Planning Commission Hearing........................................................................ 16

12. Tuan Ngo, Planning Commission Hearing.................................................................................. 16 APPENDIX L-2
2 13. Lucky Thomas, Planning Commission Hearing.......................................................................... 17

14. Daniel Gonzalez, Planning Commission Hearing ...................................................................... 17

15. Planning Commissioner Fearn, Planning Commission Hearing.............................................. 17

16. Planning Commissioner Sugrue, Planning Commission Hearing ........................................... 18

17. Planning Commissioner Renk, Planning Commission Hearing .............................................. 18

18. Planning Commissioner Jones, Planning Commission Hearing .............................................. 18

19. Planning Commissioner Shirazi, Planning Commission Hearing............................................ 18

20. East Bay for Everyone ..................................................................................................................... 19

21. Stuart Flashman ................................................................................................................................ 32

22. Kevin Morsony.................................................................................................................................. 33

23. Annette Floystrup ............................................................................................................................ 34

24. Housing Element Discussion Session #3 .................................................................................... 39

25. Equity Work Group Meeting #2 .................................................................................................. 40

26. EBMUD............................................................................................................................................... 41

27. Deeply Rooted.................................................................................................................................. 44

28. Harvey McKeon, Carpenters Local 713 ..................................................................................... 49

29. Jon Gabel............................................................................................................................................ 51

30. Colin Piethe....................................................................................................................................... 58

31. Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment, Asian Pacific Environmental .... 59

32. Elizabeth Wampler, Bay Area LISC.............................................................................................. 67

33. TransForm......................................................................................................................................... 67

34. Stuart Flashman ................................................................................................................................ 69

35. Ronnie Spitzer................................................................................................................................... 69

36. Rockridge Community Planning Council .................................................................................... 71

37. Oakland Heritage Alliance ............................................................................................................. 75

38. Kirk Peterson.................................................................................................................................... 76

39. BART................................................................................................................................................... 78

40. EBHO .................................................................................................................................................. 81

41. WOCAP Steering Committee...................................................................................................... 94

42. The Unity Council.......................................................................................................................... 100

43. Crystal Lynn Keeler....................................................................................................................... 101

44. Scott Forman................................................................................................................................... 107 3 45. Sarah Karlinsky, SPUR................................................................................................................... 108

46. Thomas Cooke............................................................................................................................... 111

47. Liana Molina, Build Affordable Faster........................................................................................ 112

48. Jeff Levin, EBHO............................................................................................................................. 118

49. Sangeeta Sarkar, Save the Bay ..................................................................................................... 123

50. Louis Eisenberg............................................................................................................................... 124

51. Maya Schechter............................................................................................................................... 125

52. Khanh Russo, Partnership for the Bay's Future ...................................................................... 126

53. Deeply Rooted................................................................................................................................ 127

54. EB4E .................................................................................................................................................. 130 4 Letter
#
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
1 Sid Kapur, YIMBY
Law, Greenbelt
Alliance
4/21/20
22 To meet the 6th cycle RHNA target, the rate of
new housing permits in Oakland would need to
increase from 2,386 units per year in 2018-2021
to 3,281 units per year in the next 8 years. This
is a 38% increase from recent years. If the
current pace were to continue, Oakland would
meet only 73% of its new housing target.

Based on these trends, it is unlikely that
Oakland’s existing realistic zoning capacity is
sufficient to meet its 6th cycle RHNA target.

According to HCD’s Housing Element Site
Inventory Guidebook, housing elements must
analyze the realistic capacity of their sites,
which may include considerations of “[l]ocal or
regional track re‐cords”, “past production
trends”, and “the rate at which similar parcels
were developed during the previous planning
period”. A housing element that does not
include a significant rezoning component is
therefore un‐likely to be compliant with state
law.

We urge Oakland to include a major rezoning
component in its Housing Element—a rezoning
large enough to close the gap between recent
housing production trends and the RHNA
target. The rezoning should be within existing
communities and should comply with the city’s
obligation to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing.

We also urge Oakland to ease any other
constraints, such as discretionary approval
processes or impact fees, that may impede the
rate of development on your city's housing
sites.

Goals 3 and 5 in Chapter 4 - Housing Action Plan in the 2023-2031 Housing Element seek to close the gap between affordable and market- rate housing production by expanding affordable housing opportunities and promote neighborhood stability and health. Actions under Goals 3 and 5 will increase housing production capacity, unlock additional opportunities for affordable and missing middle housing, and affirmatively further fair housing by opening up high-resource and exclusionary neighborhoods, reducing exposure to air pollution, toxic and other environmental hazards in environmental justice communities, and prioritize improvements to meet the needs of low-resourced and disproportionately burdened communities.

These actions will allow zoning for diverse housing types, elimination of Conditional Use Permits (CUPS), implementation of Objective Design Standards, increased heights and densities along corridors such as MacArthur, International, Foothill, College, Claremont, Dimond, increased heights and densities in transit proximate areas such as Rockridge BART, and resource-rich areas such as Rockridge, Trestle Glen, and Crocker Highlands.

See Appendix J for the City’s proposed rezoning changes.

In addition, the Housing Action Plan also includes actions to address constraints such as discretionary approval processes and impact fees.

Specific actions include:- Action 3.2.1: Develop zoning standards to encourage missing middle and multi-unit housing types in currently singlefamily-dominated neighborhoods, including flats, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, townhomes/rowhouses, and ADUs.
- Action 3.3.5: Implement an Affordable Housing Overlay - Action 3.3.9: Adjusting or waiving city fees and payment timing for affordable housing developments
- Action 3.4.1: Revise development standards, including allowable building heights, densities, open space and setbacks requirements. - Action 3.4.3: Revise Conditional Use Permit (CUP) requirements - Action 3.4.4: Revise citywide parking standards
- Action 3.4.5: Revise open space requirements
- Action 3.4.8: Implement objective design standards
- Action 3.4.10: Implement a Housing Sites Overlay Zone to permit sites included in the Housing Sites Inventory to develop affordable housing by right
5 Letter
#
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
- Action 5.2.8: Encourage new affordable housing in higher resource neighborhoods
- Action 5.2.10: Promote the development of mixed-income housing to reduce income-based concentration
2 Dimond Improvement
Association
5/17/20
22 High Level Goals

1. Develop without displacement
a. Focus upzonings on commercial properties
and single-family homes. Do not upzone
multifamily buildings that are subject to rent
control (i.e. multifamily buildings built before
1983).
b. Continue to enforce the Housing Crisis Act of
2019 (SB 330) to ensure that any loss of rent
controlled units is met with the addition of a
corresponding number of new affordable units.

2. Encourage redevelopment in locations on
and near transit lines in and around the Dimond
to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT).
a. In general, increase the number of people in
the Dimond, but decrease the number of cars

3. Focus on mixed use developments in the
Dimond Business District (DBD) and other
commercial properties in and around the
Dimond
The City actively enforces SB 330. Please see Action 1.1.11: Enforce the Tenant Right to Return and Action 2.2.5: Extend Local Replacement Unit Provisions.

See Response to Letter #1 for actions included in the Housing Action Plan to expand affordable housing opportunities and promoting neighborhood stability and health.

Focused Goals - Parking

1. Eliminate parking minimums for new housing
construction in the DBD and all areas in the
Dimond within 1 mile of transit stops.

2. Establish parking maximums for new housing
developments in the DBD of less than 0.1
parking space per dwelling unit.

3. Establish bicycle parking minimums of 3
spaces per dwelling unit.

As part of Action 3.4.4: Revise citywide parking standards, the City will eliminate parking minimums within ½ mile of a major transit stop and reduce parking minimums in downtown. The City also establish new parking minimums near BART stations. See Appendix J for the City’s proposed rezoning changes.

Comment noted. Staff will coordinate a study of parking maximums in areas beyond downtown and areas near BART as well as increases to bicycle parking minimums citywide as part of the Land Use and Transportation Element (LUTE) update in Phase 2 of the General Plan Update process Focused Goals - Zoning

4. Establish a base height limit of 55 ft in the
DBD
a. Upzone Opportunity Sites to a max height of
See Response to Letter #1 for actions included in the Housing Action Plan to expand affordable housing opportunities and promoting neighborhood stability and health.
6 Letter
#
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
65 ft.
b. Make exceptions for rent controlled (built
prior to 1983) multifamily housing.
c. Structure zoning changes such that newly
constructed housing does not interfere with
current and future business license permitting
requirements (eg., liquor,cannabis dispensary,
restaurant licenses, etc).
d. Developments seeking additional height and
density may do so through the State Density
Bonus Law.

5. Upzone all transit corridors in and around the
Dimond to 55 ft (MacArthur Blvd, ParkBlvd,
Fruitvale Ave, Lincoln Ave, etc).
a. Make exceptions for rent controlled (built
prior to 1983) multifamily housing.
b. Modify zoning changes to within allowable
density limits in high severity fire zones.

Small Lots

1. Draft clear rules for increasing density on
smaller lots with different housing types
(eg,apartments, bungalow courts, townhouses,
etc), that allow for ministerial approvals.

Small Lots

2. Allow for six (6) units by-right for any lot that
allows ADUs. Allow for ten (10) if two (2) are
deed-restricted for affordable housing (subject
to fire and building codes).
a. Limit public hearings to only one (1) if, and
only if, the appearance of the lot is changed
from the street view.

Small Lots

3. Legalize Accessory Commercial Units (ACUs)
wherever ADUs are permitted to lower the
barrier to entry for small-scale commercial
businesses and encourage walkability within
neighborhoods.
a. Draft rules guiding the permitting process of
ACUs that allow for ministerial approvals.

Comment noted. Staff will study this as part of the Land Use and Transportation Element (LUTE) update in Phase 2 of the General Plan Update process
7 Letter
#
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
b. Limit public hearings to only one (1) if, and
only if, the appearance of the lot is changed
from the street view.

Potential Opportunity Sites for Redevelopment
with a focus on Mixed Use

1. Empty lot at MacArthur Blvd and Dimond
Ave, 2114 MacArthur Blvd

2. Bank of America,2154 MacArthur Blvd

3. Wells Fargo and Chase Bank, 3450-3438
MacArthur Blvd

4. Giant Burger, 2055 MacArthur Blvd

5. Safeway, 3500 Fruitvale Ave

6. 7-11, 2411 MacArthur Blvd

7. CVS, 3320 Fruitvale Ave

8. Old “Hopkinstown” intersection and strip
mall, at MacArthur Blvd and Coolidge Ave(2809-
2833 MacArthur Blvd, including 2828
MacArthur, 2846 Georgia St.)

9. Diamond Market building, 2979-2973
MacArthur Blvd

10. Solar Car Wash, 3092 MacArthur Blvd

11. Oakland Imported Cars, 3200 MacArthur
Blvd
Suggested Project Homekey Sites

1.Highlander Motel, 3255 MacArthur Blvd

2.The Oaks Motel, 3250 MacArthur Blvd
The revised 2023-2031 Housing Element includes these sites as part of Appendix M: Recommended Sites for Future Housing (Upzoning/General Plan Update Opportunity Sites)
Oakland Housing and Community Development (Oakland HCD) department will encourage owners to work with sponsors to apply to the City's Homekey RFP due 11/18/22
3 Jesse Boudart
5/19/20
22 My general comment for the plan is the
following:

Remove restrictions / increase incentives for
developers and people to construct housing
such as large buildings and/or ADUs
See Response to Letter #1 for actions included in the Housing Action Plan to expand affordable housing opportunities and promoting neighborhood stability and health.

In addition, the Housing Action Plan also includes actions to address constraints to ADU development through actions in Chapter 4: Housing Action Plan.

Specific actions include:

Action 3.2.1: Develop zoning standards to encourage missing middle and multi-unit housing types in currently single-family-dominated 8 Letter
#
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
neighborhoods, including flats, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, townhomes/rowhouses, and ADUs.

Action 3.4.9: Implement new ADU standards that streamline approvals and address unpermitted units.

Action 3.4.8. Implement objective design standards.

Action 3.4.10: Implement a Housing Sites Overlay Zone to permit sites included in the Housing Sites Inventory to develop with affordable housing by right
Action 3.7.1: Incentivize the development of senior housing and provide financial assistance to developers of housing for seniors and persons with special needs.
4 Derek Sagehorn
5/21/20
22 The draft housing element lists 288 9th Avenue
(APN 018 046500204) as a low-income site
zoned for 254 units. This is park space that
contains Township Park and Rocky's Market.

Both were built in the past 5 years. Please
remove this site from the site inventory. I would
encourage you to re-allocate the 254 lowincome units to high-resource sites such as the Claremont/College flatiron or new sites like
5354 Claremont Ave.

This site has been removed from the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element. 5 Bret Peterson
5/22/20
22 The draft HE fails to list 3 sites that are mapped
on the pg 7 “Housing Sites Inventory” map.

These sites are 2441 MacArthur Blvd, 2055
MacArthur Blvd, and 2120 Montana St. 2441
and 2055 MacArthur should be listed as official
sites, as they are underutilized lots. Since 2120
is a current gas station, it is unclear if it could be
developed in the next 8 years.

It is also strange that 2833 MacArthur has been
left off the DHE. It is a dying strip mall with
vacant storefronts and should be redeveloped
for housing to reinvigorate the neighborhood. It
is also on the MacArthur transit corridor and
across the street from a public school.

Comment noted, see revised Housing Sites Inventory. 2055 MacArthur Blvd and 2120 Montanta sites are included in Table C-17. 2441 MacArthur Blvd is an existing single-family residence and is not included in the sites inventory.

The revised 2023-2031 Housing Element Housing Inventory includes the 2833 MacArthur site.
9 Letter
#
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
6 Roy Chan, Cultural
Affairs Commission
5/23/20
22 Theme 1: Live/Work and Work/Live
Recommendation 1A: Incentivize the
development of affordable live/work and
work/live units
Benchmark: Increase number of affordable
units available
Guiding Principle: Have spaces that facilitate
cultural production and allow for exchange and
innovation
Recommendation 1B: Provide guiding language
in the general plan and policies in the Zoning
regulations for live/work and work/live units to
reduce absorption into residential-only uses
Benchmark 1: Guiding language added to
general plan
Benchmark 2: Policies added to Zoning
regulations
Guiding Principles: Stay in their homes, Have
spaces that facilitate cultural production and
allow for exchange and innovation
Recommendation 1C: Track live/work and
work/live units as a category within the
planning department
Benchmark: Planning department begins
tracking live/work and work/live as a category
Guiding Principle: Have spaces that facilitate
cultural production and allow for exchange and
innovation
Recommendation 1D: Codify policies in the
general plan that ease the process and reduce
expenses to get non-conforming spaces into
code
Benchmark: Adoption of approaches that
increase code compliance and reduce harm
Guiding Principle: Stay in their homes, Have
spaces that facilitate cultural production and
allow for exchange and innovation
Recommendation 1E: Adopt policies in the
general plan to protect cultural workers and
Recommendations 1A, 1B, 1C - Staff will address this as part of the Land Use and Transportation Element (LUTE) update in Phase 2 of the General Plan Update process.

Recommendations 1D and 1E: See updated language included in Action

3.2.2: Promote and protect live/work and housing for artists to reflect these comments.

Recommendations 2A, 2B, 3A, 4A: Comments noted. These comments are outside the scope of the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update 10 Letter #
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
workspaces at risk of displacement or affected
by cannabis manufacturing, cultivation and
other cannabis businesses
Benchmark: Policies that protect cultural
workers and spaces in industrial areas
Guiding Principles: Stay in their homes, Have
spaces that facilitate cultural production and
allow for exchange and innovation, Maintain
and create thriving, culturally-rooted local
businesses and organizations (particular of
historically marginalized communities)
Theme 2: Cultural Infrastructure
Recommendation 2A: Expand the use of zoning
regulations being piloted in the Downtown
Oakland Specific Plan to increase first-floor
cultural spaces to Districts 6 & 7
Benchmark: Zoning regulations added to more
districts
Guiding Principle: Maintain and create thriving,
culturally-rooted local businesses and
organizations (particularly of historically
marginalized communities), Return from being displaced from Oakland, Create and activate public and private spaces in which to negotiate
and build community that are culturally-
equitable, safe and healthy
Recommendation 2B: Establish a working group
to make recommendations to the City Council
for the timely development and
implementation of a Cultural Facilities Policy
Benchmark 1: Working group established
Benchmark 2: Cultural Facilities Policy added to
general plan
Guiding Principle: Have spaces that facilitate
cultural production and allow for exchange and
innovation, Create and activiate public and
private spaces in which to negotiate and build
community that are culturally-equitable, safe
and healthy
11 Letter
#
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
Theme 3: Cultural Equity Impact Assessment
Recommendation 3A: Establish the use of a
Cultural Equity Impact Assessment as a
condition of California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) review
Benchmark: Addition of Cultural Equity Impact
Assessment to CEQA review process
Guiding Principle: Stay in their homes, Maintain
and create thriving, culturally-rooted local
businesses and organizations (particularly of
historically marginalized communities), Create
and activiate public and private spaces in which
to negotiate and build community that are
culturally-equitable, safe and healthy
Theme 4: Right of Return
Recommendation 4A: Codify guiding
preference policy in the general plan to allow
displaced Oaklanders the right of return
Benchmark: Preference policy added to General
Plan
Guiding Principle: Return from residential and
business displacement
7 Kristin Spanos, First 5
Alameda County
6/1/202
2 A. Increase the supply of affordable housing
options for families with young children to
support child health and well-being and
prevent displacement of Black families and
families disproportionately impacted by
inequitable policies with racist and classist
underpinnings. Housing costs result in little
or no disposable income for many
families—putting pressure on families to
decide between other basic needs like child
care, food, and diapers.
•50% of renters in Alameda County pay
more than one-third of their income for
rent. For families of young children, the
cost of child care creates an additional
financial burden and contribute to financial
A. Comment noted.

B. Comment noted. The City can also help to advance First 5’s interest in affordable housing for young families by continuing to bring to market the City’s surplus properties for affordable housing development consistent with the State Surplus Lands Act. It’s up to market actors (e.g., affordable housing developers) to propose projects that might specifically address the needs of this cohort.

C. and D. See Action 5.2.8: Encourage new affordable housing in higher resource areas, which seeks to increase access to exclusive neighborhoods coupled with NEW Action 5.2.9: Prioritize improvements to meet the needs of low-resourced and disproportionately burdened communities. 12 Letter #
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
instability. See more in our Data for Action
guide.

B. Adopt housing policies that support and
advance the workforce of professionals
who support our families including the ECE
workforce, navigators, case workers, and
family resource providers. The high-cost of
living in Alameda County also impacts our
local community workforce. For example,
the ECE workforce has historically earned
lower wages than other educators in the
public system. Affordable housing is a
particularly pressing need for the
population of mostly women small business
owners who operate local family child cares
homes; without affordable and stable
housing, family child care providers who
provide home-based care face this risk of
losing their business, and our community
faces the risk of losing the critical service
they provide. In Alameda County:
•Fifty-nine (59%) of family child care
providers reported earning less than $15
per hour and struggle to meet their basic
needs including covering the cost of rent or
mortgage. In Oakland, approximately 40%
of center directors and family child care
providers rent their facility/home (192 of
481 child care programs).
•Eighty-seven (87%) of ECE professionals,
79% of whom identify as Black, Indigenous,
or other women of color, are considered
very low-income for the county
•In our recent ECE facilities needs
assessment survey we found:o87% of
Oakland center directors and family child
care providers expressed interest in
expanding their program to serve more
children but have not been able to due to
13 Letter #
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
lack of resources and support. o69% of
Oakland center directors and family child
care providers reported at least one
component of their center or home as
“inadequate or substandard”
A. Expand and prioritize supports for
unhoused pregnant people and
families with young children. The high
costs of housing and population
growth have made Alameda County a
hot spot for housing instability and
homelessness in the state of California.

According to the Department of
Housing and Urban Development, the
first year of life is when people are
most likely to enter shelter and
transitional housing programs,
followed by ages one to five. Pregnant
women and families with young
children are particularly at risk when
they face housing instability. Currently
in our county, families with newborns
cannot leave the hospital without a car
seat, but they can leave without a
home.
•One in five pregnant women who are
homeless give birth prematurely,
according to research findings cited in
the California Health Report. •In 2018,
the homeless management
information system showed 969
families with 2,917 members as
homeless in Alameda County, including
433 children ages 0-5. We know these
numbers do not reflect the true extent
of the issue as many families do not
come forward to ask for assistance out
of fear and live in their vehicles or with
friends instead.
14 Letter #
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
B. Support place-based investments to
promote family friendly
neighborhoods. As part of the
Neighborhoods Ready for School
(NRFS) strategy, First 5 Alameda funds
trusted community organizations and
family resource centers to build an
ecosystem of support for families in
the community. Three of our four NRFS
grantees are in Oakland - Lincoln, San
Antonio Family Resource Center, and
Roots Community Health Center are
working with partners to promote
neighborhood conditions where
families can thrive. These grantees
quickly pivoted at the start of the
pandemic to provide basic needs,
health and safety supplies, and other
family resources via trusted
messengers in community. The city
could build upon such place-based
investments in a coordinated effort to
support family friendly neighborhoods
- including access to basic needs,
affordable housing, child care,
transportation, neighborhood libraries,
and safe, green and accessible schools,
parks, playgrounds. In our latest KRA
we found that:
•Connection to resources (i.e. family
navigation to economic supports and
basic needs, including housing) was
significantly correlated to higher
kindergarten readiness
•Families who resided in a higher-
income neighborhoods reported
higher readiness, and neighborhood
assets (i.e. safety, parks/playgrounds,
libraries) were correlated with
15 Letter
#
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
readiness, regardless of family income
•Families want policies that invest in
the local economic development to
support job creation and advance living
wages particularly for Black and Brown
communities
8 Comments Received
on City Staff
Presentation to EBHO
Oakland Committee
6/1/202
2 A. Constraints – noted that staff mentioned
high impact fees as a constraint, but from
what Liana hears, fees aren’t high enough
B. Please include an executive summary of the
HE – organization and content
C. Site inventory – need map of sites across
the city with council districts, distinguish
sites for lower income housing/market
rate. Map sites against areas of
concentration race/income - higher income
and largely white neighborhoods; to what
extent is the City putting multifamily and
affordable housing into those areas. What
share of lower income housing sites are
going into high opportunity/high
segregation areas?
D. Housing Action Plan - is the list of new
programs in the HE anywhere?
E. Plan/study/consider - show that proposed
HAP policies will be presented to the
Council for consideration by a specific date
so that we are not endlessly studying. Show
that policies will in fact reduce the racial
disparities in housing
opportunity/outcomes/conditions
identified in the fair housing assessment
A. Comment received. Impact fee constraints are discussed in Appendix F:

Housing Constraints
B. The revised 2023-2031 Housing Element includes an Executive Summary.

C. The interactive Sites Inventory Map includes sites, Council Districts, and affordability level and is available at:
https://oakgis.maps.arcgis.com/apps/instant/interactivelegend/index.html? appid=2cb71a0c3b5e45df9dabe3e0239c245d
D. Chapter 4: Housing Action Plan in the revised 2023-2031 Housing Element highlights new actions with blue text. E. Actions in Chapter 4: Housing Action Plan includes discrete implementation timelines and milestones within the eight-year Housing Element planning period.
9 Jeff Levin, Planning
Commission Hearing
6/1/202
2 A. What actions is the city taking to encourage
affordable housing development as a result of
SB9
B. Five year impact fee study – when will this
occur?
C. AFFH - sites need to show how we are
breaking down patterns of segregation. Are we
A. The City has published a Planning Application For Ministerial Approval of Two-Unit Residential Development or Parcel Subdivision Resulting in Two Lots With Residential Units On Each Lot (SB-9) and provided clear step-bystep instructions for potential applications. More information can be found at: https://www.oaklandca.gov/services/apply-for-two-unit-residentialdevelopment-and-parcel-subdivision-resulting-in-two-lots-under-senate-bill9-sb-9 16 Letter
#
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
also providing opportunities in racially
segregated areas, specifically white affluent
parts of town? Policies need to show that we
will reduce racial disparities in housing and
metrics
D. Place-based strategies in investing in nonhousing like infrastructure and facilities must be coupled with investing in lower income
neighborhoods
B. The Five-Year impact fee study is currently underway. More information can be found at: https://www.oaklandca.gov/projects/5-year-impact-feereview-and-update-reports C. The Housing Element presents an inventory under existing zoning of housing sites suitable for new homes in Oakland at all income levels. The purpose of the inventory is to evaluate whether the City currently has a sufficient number of sites available to meet its RHNA over the next eight years, and to determine whether the distribution of these sites will either further entrench or help to ameliorate existing patterns of segregation.

While the Housing Sites Inventory documents that Oakland does have sufficient zoning capacity to meet Oakland’s RHNA requirements, the City has identified in its Housing Action Plan several zoning reforms that would further increase production capacity and unlock opportunity for affordable and missing middle housing in high resource areas. These are in addition to the continued enforcement and strengthening of identified tenant protection and anti-displacement measures. Sites for upzoning are included in Table B of Table C-26, and an analysis of how sites affirmatively further fair housing is available in Appendix D.

D. See Response to Letter #6 C. and D.
10 Daniel Gregg,
Planning Commission
Hearing
6/1/202
2 Encourage development of local construction
labor, apprenticeship programs, workable local
hire, workforce necessary to build housing we
desperately need
Comment noted.
11 Michael Gabriel,
Planning Commission
Hearing
6/1/202
2 Lean toward objectivity. Action 2.2.8
"Investigate" TOPA/COPA, Action 1.1.3 -
Strengthen Ellis Act – "strengthen" is an
advocacy word. Implement, evaluate, monitor
might be better words. Lacking information and
education about how to follow rules on the
landlord’s side. Action 1.1.8 - rental registry –
"evaluate the value of" instead of advocacy.

Limit condo conversions – "evaluate" or
"impact" instead
Comments Noted.
12 Tuan Ngo, Planning
Commission Hearing
6/1/202
2 TOPA/COPA
- Change on p. 57 to reference this as an
approach
- Moving private properties into social housing
will negatively impact small mom and pop
owners
Comments noted. Enactment of a Tenant/Community Opportunity to Purchase Act (TOPA/COPA) policy would require City Council review and approval. See updates to Action 2.2.8: Investigate a Tenant/Community Opportunity to Purchase Act.
17 Letter
#
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
- Richmond City Council unanimously voted to
halt this program
- Instead, put affordable housing directly into
the hands of low income tenants, provide
downpayment assistance to homebuyers
13 Lucky Thomas,
Planning Commission
Hearing
6/1/202
2 TOPA/COPA
- Housing can be provided in many different
ways/forms than just TOPA/COPA
- Housing plan needs to be objective, shouldn't
be advocacy for a political view or position
- We should look at how do we best preserve
our city, support mom and pop businesses,
small property owners
- Remove TOPA/COPA. Explore condo
conversions, cooperatives, etc
14 Daniel Gonzalez,
Planning Commission
Hearing
6/1/202
2 TOPA/COPA - in the current version, it allows
for a 50% rent increase on tenants in a 5-year
period. Policy isn't well thought out yet,
shouldn't be a part of the housing element
15 Planning
Commissioner Fearn,
Planning Commission
Hearing
6/1/202
2 A. Why didn’t we build on opportunity sites
from the previous cycle(s)?
B, Is there a cliff notes version of what the State
wants to see related to AFFH thresholds in the
HE? Are we leaning on our policies to ensure we
meet RHNA because w're not locating housing
in opportunity sites?
A. Majority of new housing development occurred in neighborhoods targeted for new development such as the Broadway Valdez area, Downtown, and West Oakland, in addition to along major transit corridors.

B. The Housing Element presents an inventory under existing zoning of housing sites suitable for new homes in Oakland at all income levels. The purpose of the inventory is to evaluate whether the City currently has a sufficient number of sites available to meet its RHNA over the next eight years, and to determine whether the distribution of these sites will either further entrench or help to ameliorate existing patterns of segregation.

While the Housing Sites Inventory documents that Oakland does have sufficient zoning capacity to meet Oakland’s RHNA requirements, the City has identified in its Housing Action Plan several zoning reforms that would further increase production capacity and unlock opportunity for affordable and missing middle housing in high resource areas. These are in addition to the continued enforcement and strengthening of identified tenant protection and anti-displacement measures.
18 Letter
#
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
16 Planning
Commissioner Sugrue,
Planning Commission
Hearing
6/1/202
2 Are Staff having conversations with market rate
and affordable housing developers about the
types of housing they want to build within a 5-
10 year range? Townhomes are the most
lucrative products now. How can we be as
predictable as possible?
Between March - May 2022, Staff held a series of Housing Element focused discussion groups with affordable and market rate developers, housing justice and tenant rights advocates and received feedback on housing types.

Staff will hold a series of discussion groups starting in December 2022 to discuss and gather feedback on the zoning reforms proposed in conjunction with the Housing Element Update
17 Planning
Commissioner Renk,
Planning Commission
Hearing
6/1/202
2 We already know we need to expand City
resources, so how do we think about taking all
of these goals, policies, and actions and turn
them into reality? How do we do this when staff
are already low capacity? Is there a step where
some of this is winnowed down?
Comment noted.
18 Planning
Commissioner Jones,
Planning Commission
Hearing
6/1/202
2 How does City see growing trend of integrating
ADUs in townhomes? How does this contribute
to the housing element as a whole?
On January 18, 2022, the City updated its zoning standards related to ADUs to be consistent with State law. The adopted local ordinance clarified and simplified existing requirements and offered additional allowances to encourage creation of ADUs. The City has seen continued interest in ADU development and has continued to approve building permits for ADU development.

The revised 2023-2031 Housing Element includes 2 NEW actions related to ADU development and affordability projections:
- Action 3.2.5: Reduce constraints to the development of ADUs - Action 3.2.6: Monitor affordability of permitted ADUs 19 Planning
Commissioner Shirazi,
Planning Commission
Hearing
6/1/202
2 A. Are Staff working with EWD and HCD to
ensure that displacement pressures are
mitigated / working with other existing plans
and policies to align?
B. Overarchingly, all of these policies are either
proven to be positive or good to study in
Oakland since we are not quite sure yet about
some policies. Implementation is the next step
(iterative) - we should think about an
assessment at the midway point in the housing
element cycle, which would ultimately save us
time and resources.

A. Oakland Planning Staff are working in collaboration with Economic and Workforce Development Department, Oakland Housing and Community Development Department, and all City departments, as appropriate, to ensure that displacement pressures are mitigated and are in alignment with other existing plans and policies.

B. Progress toward addressing each Housing Element program and policy is evaluated in the Annual Progress Reports submitted to State HCD. In addition, the revised 2023-2031 Housing Element includes a NEW Action

3.3.19: Sites Inventory and Fair Housing Accomplishments Tracking Program, which will require mid-cycle assessment of the effectiveness of AFFH programs.

C. Comment received.

D. Comment received.
19 Letter
#
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
C. Action 2.2.3 residential demolition - current
ordinance may not be living up to what the
goals were. We should look broader
D. Limit condo conversions - has good
intentions, but may unintentionally limit
housing purchase opportunities
20 East Bay for Everyone
6/7/202
2 Site inventory

1. 288 9th Avenue (APN 018 046500204) - This
site is on top of Township Park and Rocky's
Market. It is unlikely this site will discontinue
use within the eight year planning period.

Please re-allocate these 274 units of lowincome to another site or sites This site has been removed from the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element Site inventory

2. 514 Shattuck Avenue (APN 013 115400905) -
This site is a low vacancy strip mall in Temescal
and tagged as an supplementary AFFH site. The
prescribed 182 units are unlikely to outbid the
existing profitable uses.
a. Does the City of Oakland have
documentation from the landowner
demonstrating interest in developing this site
within the next eight years?
b. There are nearly a dozen businesses renting
on this site. Will those leases run beyond the
planning period?
c. The City of Oakland should consider
increasing the allowable density above 182
units and increasing allowable heights to ensure
this site is actually developed within the
planning period This site has been added to the Sites Inventory, Table C-26.

Site inventory

3. 6039 and 6029 College Avenue (APNs 014
126800100; 014 126800100) - These are two
adjacent vacant parcels in a high-resource tract
very close to Rockridge BART. Collectively these
sites of .4 acres will yield 26 units under existing
zoning and development standards. Despite
being ¼ mile from Rockridge BART, the City of These sites have been added to the Sites Inventory, Table C-26. 20 Letter #
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
Oakland imposes a 35’ height limit on this site.
a. In the notes for these parcels, the City of
Oakland says it will not designate these parcels
as Low-Income RHNA sites and re-zone them
because they are below a .5 acre adequacy
threshold for Low-Income sites per HCD
Guidance.
b. These sites received some of the highest
Maptionairre Site Selections within the city’s
survey tool designed to solicit community
feedback for siting housing as part of the
Housing Element. Collectively these parcels
received 23 recommendations for additional
housing.
c. The NIMBY group Rockridge Community
Planning Council has tried to get the City of
Oakland to buy these parcels and create a park
for years in order to prevent mixed-income or
affordable housing development at the site.
d. The City of Oakland’s reasoning for not
designating this site as Low-Income and re-
zoning is inconsistent with its other actions
within the Draft Housing Element. For example,
4225 Broadway is a .15 acre site that is
designated as a Low-Income site. 4225
Broadway is far below the .5 acre adequacy
threshold for Low-Income sites provided by
HCD guidance. By contrast, 6039 and 6029
College Avenue are only a 1/10th of an acre
below this same threshold. In addition, 4225
Broadaway has existing uses that would need to
be demolished whereas 6039 and 6029 College
Avenue are currently vacant. 6039 and 6029
College Avenue are also
closer to Rockridge BART and are in higher-
resource tracts compared to 4225 Broadway
and are more likely to be feasible for
construction provided additional height and
density.
21 Letter
#
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
e. The City of Oakland should designate 6039
and 6029 College Avenue Low-Income sites. In
addition, the City of Oakland should rezone and
relax development standards to allow for at
least 75 DUAs and 55’ of height. This density
and height is typical for sites in close proximity
to BART stations. Given the wide range of small
lot infill in Oakland over the past ten years as
well as the prime location for TCAC scoring, the
City of Oakland should be able to provide
additional analysis to meet HCD’s scrutiny of
Low-Income sites below the .5 acre threshold.
f. In the alternative, the City of Oakland should
retain 6039 and 6029 College Avenue as
Moderate-Income sites and rezone and relax
development standards to allow for at least 75
DUAs and 55’. This density and height is typical
for sites in close proximity to BART stations.
g. As discussed below, every BART station in
Oakland apart from Rockridge has been host to
specific plans to facilitate transit-oriented
development. The City of Oakland’s failure to
identify 6039 and 6029 College Avenue as sites
for Low-Income or otherwise increase the
allowable height and density perpetuates a
pattern or practice ofthe City of Oakland
excluding low-income and multi-family housing
from this high-resource and heavily segregated
neighborhood.

Site Inventory

4. 4400 Telegraph (APN 013 109902600) - This
site is proposed for 24 units of Low - Income
RHNA housing at a site owned by Critical
Resistance, an abolitionist non-profit.
a. An August 12, 2019 article from KQED
describes how the prior owner of this parcel
sold it to Critical Resistance after rejecting
offers from “condo developers.”
b. Does the City of Oakland have
This site is included in the Sites Inventory. It is part of a larger group of sites; most of these sites are within an above 30 du/ac zone. While redevelopment would be at the discretion of the property owner, the HAP provides access to low-cost financing for developers, density bonus incentives, and support of grassroots developers. This parcel may also change the land use designation of this parcel as part of the LUTE phase 2. 22 Letter
#
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
documentation of interest from the property
owner in developing this parcel within the eight
year planning period?
Site Inventory

5. 525 21st Street (APN 008 064503301) - This
site is owned by the Department of Veterans
Affairs and is proposed for 137 Low-Income
units per RHNA. This site is coded as an AFFH
supplementary site in a “moderate-resource”
census tract.
a. Does the City of Oakland have
documentation of interest from the property
owner in developing this parcel within the eight
year planning period?
b. The Draft Housing Element claims this site is
in a moderate-resource tract. The 2022 TCAC
Opportunity Map, however, shows this site as a
low-resource tract. Given the concentration of
low-income housing, supportive services,
particulate matter from 980 and 580, lack of
access to grocery stores and other resources,
few Oaklanders would consider siting lowincome housing at 525 21st Street as affirmatively furthering fair housing.
c. Provided the Department of Veterans Affairs
has expressed written interest in developing the
site within the eight year planning period, this
site should remain in the site inventory but
should not be counted as a supplemental AFFH
site. We have provided several sites in
moderate and high-resource tracts below
where these Low-Income RHNA units could be
accommodated.

A-c: This site is included in the Sites Inventory. It is part of a larger group of sites; most of these sites are within an above 30 du/ac zone, and located in a moderate resource tract based on TCAC 2021 maps. The site is within walking distance to 19th Street BART and within a 0.6 and 0.7 miles of two full service grocery stores. The site is also close to Downtown, a major jobs center. See response above regarding HAP actions that incentivize housing development on sites identified in the Inventory.

Site Inventory

6. 4225 Broadway (APN 012 100200900) - This
.15 acre site projected at 8 units of Low-Income
RHNA housing is coded as a supplementary
AFFH site.
a. This site falls below the .5 acre adequacy
A-c: As indicated in the Sites Inventory, this is an underutilized commercial site (low AV ratio and low FAR) with previous development interest and adjacent to a potential residential project. See response above regarding HAP actions that incentivize housing development on sites identified in the Inventory and provide support to affordable housing developers. 23 Letter
#
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
threshold per HCD guidance. The City of
Oakland provides zero analysis or justification
as to why this small site would be developed or
the city’s track record of developing low-income
housing on these sites.
b. TCAC will not finance 8 unit low-income
projects with tax credits. How does the City of
Oakland expect a low-income housing
developer to finance new construction at this
site?
c. There are several vacant and underutilized
parcels surrounding 4225 Broadway that could
be consolidated to create a more feasible lowincome development opportunity site. Why weren’t these sites included?
Site Inventory

7. 4200-4224 Broadway (various APNs) - This
supplementary AFFH site is in a good location
and would replace underutilized commercial
uses and parking lots. The 60 DUAs, however,
are unlikely to outbid existing commercial uses.

Consider increasing allowable density to 75
DUAs.

This site is part of group III. Realistic capacity does not reflect allowable density; this site’s current permitted density is 96.8 du/ac. The site may be considered for upzoning or land use designation change as part of Phase 2.

Site Inventory

8. 6028 Claremont Avenue (APN 014
126803501) - This site is proposed for 23 LowIncome RHNA units in Rockridge on top of an existing office building. It is less than a ¼ mile
from Rockridge BART. The site does not include
adjacent parking lots that appear to serve the
subject office building. The site is subject to a
35’ height limit.
a. The decision to include the office building,
but not the parking lots that serve it is bizarre.

The former Dreyer’s headquarters, of which the
subject site is part of, are owned by a single
owner. Why would the owner demolish an
existing office building to be rebuilt into 23
units of low-income housing but retain the
These sites have been revised to indicate grouping (ZZZ) which includes adjacent parking lots.
24 Letter
#
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
surrounding parking lots that serve that office?
b. 23 units of low-income housing will not
outbid an office use so close to BART, especially
with a 35’ height limit
Site Inventory

9. 3875 Telegraph Avenue (APN 012
096800301) - This supplementary AFFH site is
proposed for 35 Low-Income RHNA units. The
existing use is a surgery center that is close to
MacArthur BART, on a commercial corridor and
is underutilized relative to its land value.
a. The owners of this site previously refused
rezoning between 2006 and 2008 as part of the
MacArthur BART Transit Village PUD.
b. The owners previously expressed interest in
expanding the surgery use as recently as 2017.
c. Given the owners' prior resistance to
rezoning the site for housing, the City of
Oakland must provide written proof of interest
from the landowner in development of the site
within the eight year planning period.
d. This site, ⅛ of a mile from MacArthur BART,
can accommodate much more density than 75
DUAs. If the owner provides written proof of
interest in development, please consider
increasing allowable density to 125 DUAs.
a-d: This site is upzoned in Table B of C-26; it is given a height increase to 95 ft, increasing allowable density to 158.4 du/ac. HAP Action 3.4.10 states that any site included in the inventory, should the property owner choose to redevelop, develop as a majority residential use.

In order to effectively meet the demand for
additional sites, especially in moderate to highresource areas with low-VMT, we have provided a list of additional sites we ask you to
consider.

Suggested Site Inventory

1. 501 MacArthur - underutilized commercial
use at the corner of two commercial corridors.

2. 5352 Claremont Avenue - 1.5 acre
underutilized commercial use surrounded by a
large parking lot.

3. 3901 Broadway - underutilized fraternal
The revised 2023-2031 Housing Element includes these sites as part of Appendix M: Recommended Sites for Future Housing (Upzoning/General Plan Update Opportunity Sites)
25 Letter
#
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
lodge and parking lot.

4. 5216 Broadway - one of two Shell Gas
stations within ½ mile of each in a highresource neighborhood.

5. 6046 Claremont - .6 acre surface parking lot
near Rockridge BART.

6. APN 14-1268-9-1 - .5 acre surface parking lot
near Rockridge BART
Programs and Policies Program
A. Action 3.2.1 - Plex upzoning in single-family
neighborhoods
○ Consider using five units as the base
permitted density to allow for projects opt-in to
the State Density Bonus Law and provide deedrestricted units on-site. ○ Consider allowing up to six units for larger lots
and corner lots.
○ Provide a ministerial approval process so that
small developers and property owners with
lower risk tolerances can participate in the
program.

B. Action 3.3.5 - Affordable Housing Overlay
○ Please do not exempt historic districts from
this policy. Historic districts and potential
designated historic properties (PDHPs) tend to
exist in high-resource areas that have
historically excluded low-income housing. For
reference, Oakland PDHPs are most highly
concentrated in Rockridge, Trestle Glen and
other high-resource neighborhoods that
historically excluded low-income housing. By
contrast there are relatively few PDHPs in lowresource places like East and Deep East Oakland where many low-income housing units have
been developed historically.
[- See image on page 6 of EB4E's comments -
use link to the right of this column]
- In case the City of Oakland decides to allow
A. See updated language included in Action 3.2.1: Develop zoning standards to encourage missing middle and multi-unit housing types in currently single-family-dominated neighborhoods, including flats, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, townhomes/rowhouses, and ADUs. Also see Response to Letter #1 for actions included in the Housing Action Plan to expand affordable housing opportunities and promoting neighborhood stability and health.

B. See updated language included in Action 3.3.5: Implement an Affordable Housing Overlay.

C. See Response to Letter #1 for actions included in the Housing Action Plan to expand affordable housing opportunities and promoting neighborhood stability and health
D. Comment noted.

E. Comment noted. The City has been approached about and has thus far declined to join bond-financed JPAs for exactly the reasons described in this public comment. The City welcomes additional information about successful examples of arms-length corporations that engaged in the development of limited equity cooperatives.

F. See NEW Action 3.5.5: Study feasibility of single-stair residential buildings is included in the Housing Element to address this comment.

G. The City Administrator's contract authority limit is a matter of Council policy and would require amendment by the City Council.

H. As part of implementing Action 1.1.9: Implement a rental housing registry, the City will seek to use the rental registry to support SB 330 demolition protections.

I. See updated language included in Action 2.2.5: Extend local replacement unit provisions to require that developers notify existing and prospective tenants of their tenant rights as provided both under SB 330 as well as Oakland’s Just Cause for Eviction Notice.
26 Letter #
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
historic districts to be exempted from an
Affordable Housing Overlay that exemption
should only apply to historic districts that
existed as of January 1, 2022. This will prevent
the sort of defensive, dubious landmarking that
we have seen from high-resource areas such as
St. Francis Wood and Pasadena in direct
response to the passage of SB9
C. Action 3.4.1 - Revise development standards,
including allowable building heights, densities,
open space and setbacks requirements
○ Transit-proximite zoning areas
■ The following BART station areas within
Oakland have been subject to a specific plan to
allow for transit-oriented development on
public and/or private land nearby: Coliseum,
Fruitvale, Lake Merritt, West Oakland, 12th
Street, 19th Street, MacArthur. Tens of
thousands of units have been constructed or in
the process of being developed within these
specific plan areas.

The only BART station area in Oakland that has
not had a specific plan developed and
implemented is Rockridge. This station area
contains some of the highest-resource tracts in
Oakland and is one of the most “whites-only”
census tracts in Alameda County, according to
the Haas Institute for a Fair and Inclusive
Society.

The last low-income housing development
constructed in Rockridge was the Otterbein
Manor (SAHA Homes) in 1973. This
development was completed one year prior to
the 1974 Rockridge Downzoning. The 1974
Downzoning was an explicitly racist downzoning
movement reacting to state and federal fair
housing laws, the perceived encroachment of
27 Letter
#
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
Black families into the neighborhood and plans
for transit-oriented development near the
newly constructed BART station.

Any transit-proximate rezoning and revision of
development standards must include the
Rockridge station area. If the City Oakland fails
to include the Rockridge station area with
transit-proximate revision of zoning and
development standards, it would perpetuate an
existing pattern or practice ofthe City of
Oakland of excluding low-income and multifamily housing from this high-resource and heavily segregated neighborhood.
■ Additional height and density should be
allowed at least a ½ mile of heavy rail stations
and within ¼ mile of high frequency bus stops.

This represents the walkshed for most transit
users. Where areas have access to both rail and
high-frequency bus transit access overlap, such
as in North Oakland, greater additional height
and density should be allowed.
■ For these rezonings priority should be given
to vacant or underutilized commercial land and
owner-occupied residential land. Consider
limiting rezonings on top of filtered or rentcontrolled rental housing.

Action 3.4.1 - Revise development standards,
including allowable building heights, densities,
open space and setbacks requirements
○ Resource-rich areas
■ Consider providing setback and other
development standard relief in addition to
permitting 30 DUAs by-right in resource rich
areas.

Action 3.4.1 - Revise development standards,
including allowable building heights, densities,
28 Letter
#
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
open space and setbacks requirements
○ Corridors
■ Foothill Boulevard, MacArthur Boulevard and
International Boulevard are all commercial
corridors in East Oakland that are specifically
called out by name as requiring additional
height and density for development to work.

While we support additional height and density
along these corridors, it is frustrating that
similar corridors with low height limits remain
unmentioned despite having similar issues with
height and density.

For example, Shattuck Avenue in North Oakland
was downzoned to a 40’ height from 50’ in
2011. In 2021 a development application at
6300 Shattuck for housing at 50’ (grandfathered
in from a deemed complete application from
2010) was appealed by nearby property
owners. This stretch of Shattuck Avenue is
within easy walking/cycling distance to Ashby
BART and near several bus routes and is in a
high-resource tract. The appeal was dismissed
by the Planning Commission, but it exemplifies
how badly-needed multi-family housing near
transit and low-VMT in higher-resource
neighborhoods is often opposed and delayed by
homeowners and property owners. The
homeowners and property owners in higherresource tracts have also historically been able to downzone heights and densities on their
corridors while allowable heights and densities
on corridors in lower-resource areas of Oakland
are increased.

The City of Oakland should commit to
increasing heights and densities on commercial
corridors in moderate and high-resource
neighborhoods by name. Exemplar commercial
29 Letter #
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
corridors: Shattuck Avenue, Piedmont Avenue,
upper Broadway, upper Telegraph Avenue, 51st
Street, College Avenue, Grand Avenue,
Lakeshore Avenue and Claremont Avenue
C. Action 3.4.2 - Revise Conditional Use Permit
(CUP) requirements
○ While we support the removal of CUPs for
multifamily housing development in RD-2 and
RM zones, we request the City of Oakland
please extend this action to include RD-1 zones
as well.

C. Action 3.4.3 - Revise citywide parking
standards
○ Consider removing all parking minimums for
housing development. At the very least, expand
the ability to zero out parking minimums to all
low-VMT areas.
○ Consider instituting parking maximums for
residential development to reduce VMT and
prevent overparking in downtown high-rise
development.

D. Action 3.5.3 - Advocate for statewide
legislation on social housing
○ We are happy to see support for our
sponsored legislation AB2053. Please consider
sending a letter of support on behalf of the City
of Oakland ahead of AB2053’s June 21, 2022
Senate Housing Committee hearing
E. Action - 3.5.4: Evaluate acquisition and
development opportunities for moderate- and
middle-income households
○ While we support efforts to acquire and
develop moderate-income housing we must
caution against the use of bond-financed JPAs
such as CalCHA for this task. These entities
command high fees and underwrite risky debt.
○ The City of Oakland should consider creating
and capitalizing an arms-length corporation to
develop limited-equity cooperatives for
30 Letter #
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
moderate-income households, including public
sector and essential workers.

F. Action 3.7.5 - Encourage different sizes of
housing for larger families – including
affordable housing with courtyards,
multigenerational housing
○ The City of Oakland should commit to
studying the impact of second egress
requirements for the feasibility of small and
medium lot development of multifamily
housing with 3 and 4 bedroom units. ■ The requirement of a second stairwell for purposes of egress reduces the usable floor
plate for living space. The additional circulation
forces many designers to arrange units along
double-loaded corridors with internal hallways.

This layout reduces the ability to provide
natural light for more than 1 or 2 bedrooms
(access to light or a light well is required for a
habitable bedroom). The requirement for a
second stair is a key driver in the relative
overproduction of studios and 1 bedroom units
compared to family-sized units.
■ The US is one of two developed countries in
the world that doesn’t allow single stair
multifamily construction for at least four to five
story buildings. Other developed countries
provide a second means of egress via a fire
ladder or other means. ■ Single stair multifamily buildings can also provide better access to light as well cross-
ventilation. This makes it easier for new housing
to meet passivehouse standards and reduce
operational energy demands. In addition,
because less circulation space allows for more
floor space to be dedicated to group open
space like courtyards or private open space like
balconies or decks.
○ The City of Seattle passed and implemented
31 Letter #
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
local building code amendments in 1975 to
allow a single stair as means of egress for
buildings up to six stories. The current code
caps such single stair structures to four units
per floor, requiresautomatic fire sprinklers and
imposes other fire-rated and corridor
requirements. The City of New York also allows
single stair buildings with similar mitigations.
https://secondegress.ca/
○ The City of Oakland should study local
building code amendments to allow up to six
stories with single stairs with mitigations for
fire, life and safety.
○ The City of Oakland should commit to
supporting state legislation to direct the
California Building Standards Commission to
study allowing single stair multifamily housing
up to six stories with proper fire, life and safety
mitigations.

G. Action 3.3.14 - Evaluate the creation of a
leveraged acquisition fund or debt/equity funds
for small sites to support site acquisitions for
affordable housing
○ Under Section 2.41.020 of the OMC, the City
Administrator must seek City Council approval
for purchases of any land valued at over
$100,000. There is no parcel in Oakland with
development or anti-displacement utility valued
at $100,000 in 2022. This authority should be
increased to, at least, $1,000,000 (pegged at
CPI) to allow Oakland HCD staff to move quickly
when the opportunity and funding present
themselves for land acquisition
H. Action 1.1.8 - Create and maintain a rental
housing registry
○ This policy is critical for the enforcement of
SB330/SB8 tenant demolition and right to
return policies. Oakland HCD needs this tool to
be able to coordinate with Oakland Planning on
32 Letter
#
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
evaluating development applications that
propose to demolish protected housing and
ensuring compliance with relocation and right
of first refusal policies post-entitlement
I. Action 2.2.5 - Extend local replacement unit
provisions
○ We appreciate Oakland’s commitment to
codifying these provisions locally beyond the
current 2031 sunset. That codification must be
paired with more proactive enforcement of
SB330/SB8 demolition protections. In
November 2021, EB4E notified Oakland
Planning that an application for development at
469 40th Street did not include sufficient
replacement units under SB330. The application
was eventually re-submitted and approved with
the necessary replacement units. Projects
should not be put out to public notice unless
they have clearly demonstrated they have
complied with SB330/SB8 demolition
protections and provision of replacement units.
○ We request that Oakland Planning work
proactively with Oakland HCD to create internal
processes to help ensure displaced tenants are
not lost in the post-entitlement and demolition
process.
21 Stuart Flashman
6/8/202
2 Has the city considered the alternative of an
affordable housing overlay district for high
resource areas, rather than a blanket upzoning?
A blanket up-zoning will act as an invitation for
market-rate housing projects, while an
affordable housing overlay will encourage
projects that meet the overlay district's
affordability requirement (which should be
higher than what is required for the state's
density bonus).

See Action 3.3.5: Implement an Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO). Proposed features of this overlay include ministerial approval of 100 percent affordable housing projects, increased height and density allowances, waiver of parking requirements, and reduction of zoning barriers. The City will broadly apply this overlay, except for contaminated sites, protected historical sites/districts, and areas in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone.
33 Letter
#
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
The affordability overlay could also allow for
multiple levels of affordability to meet its
threshold - i.e., 3% extremely low income, 5%
very low income, 10% low income, 20%
moderate income, with multipliers based on
level of affordability - i.e., 4x for extremely low,
3x for very low, and 2x for low. Thus the
suggested project would get 3x4 = 12 points +
5x3 = 15 points + 10x2 = 20 points + 20x1 = 20
points, for a total of 67 points. The threshold for
triggering the overlay district's density and
height levels might be 55 points. a standard
15% very low income density bonus project
would only get 45 points - not enough. The
overlay could allow more height and density
than the state density bonus, encouraging
developers to "go the extra mile" to qualify. A
mixed-income project would also provide a
healthier mix of different income levels than
the standard 15% very low income, 85% market
rate project.

Please think about this idea.
22 Kevin Morsony
6/8/202
2 I am writing to express concern that 4035 Park
Blvd in Glenview was not included in the site
inventory in the Oakland Housing Element. This
.2 acre site is an empty lot (remediated former
gas station) in a high resource area served by
both local and transbay bus lines that both stop
in front of this location. It is adjacent to a 7 unit
apartment building (on a lot half the size). At
minimum, this lot should support at least 14
units even if only zoned for current capacity.

This lot has been vacant for 30 years as owners
have failed to develop it due to personal issues.

It is exactly the type of location that the city
should use their power of eminent domain to
acquire and turn over to low income housing
developers to ensure that high resource
The revised 2023-2031 Housing Element includes this site as part of Appendix M: Recommended Sites for Future Housing (Upzoning/General Plan Update Opportunity Sites)
34 Letter
#
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
neighborhoods have low income housing. This
is a ready to build location that should be
included in the site inventory and the housing
element.
23 Annette Floystrup
6/8/202
2 The “othering” of the Rockridge neighborhood
of north Oakland is on full display in this
document. The Summary of Community
Outreach Activities, Page 19, shows that
Rockridge has been omitted from the list of
neighborhoods contacted for input on the
Housing Element Draft – even though Rockridge
will be deeply affected by the final version.

Housing Element Draft, Page 63:
“POLICY 3.2 CREATE A MORE DIVERSE MIX OF

HOMES TO MEET COMMUNITY NEEDS
“Action 3.2.1: Develop zoning standards to
encourage missing middle and multi-unit
housing types in currently single-familydominated neighborhoods, including flats, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes,
townhomes/rowhouses, and ADUs.

Oakland has a huge need for affordable
housing, but nothing in this policy element
addresses the building of affordable housing as
defined by HUD, but rather will exclusively
encourage the building of market-rate, luxuryclass housing dominated by studio and 1- bedroom apartments/condos.

According to the National Low Income Housing
Coalition, housing is affordable if it costs no
more than 30 percent of one’s income. Renters
who pay more than this are considered “costburdened;” those who pay more than 50 percent are “severely cost-burdened.” In
Oakland, 59 percent of residents are renters,
Comments noted. Oakland Planning Staff presented the first Public Review Draft Housing Element to the Rockridge Community Planning Council on August 18, 2022. This presentation took place during the extended public review period (June 30 - September 30, 2022).
35 Letter #
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
with the median income of these households
around $40,000, more than half of them qualify
as very low income.

However, due to the high cost of Bay Area
housing, even households that bring in as much
as six figures can be designated as “low
income,” as set by the Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD). Its threshold is
set for those earning incomes at or below 80
percent of area median income (AMI). In
Oakland, 80 percent of AMI is very high —
$73,100 for a single person; and for a 4-person
household, $104,400.

Housing Cost Burdens Have Stark Racial Impacts
In Oakland, African American households face
the highest housing cost burden, with 63
percent devoting more than 30 percent of their
income to housing (according to the PolicyLink
National Equity Atlas). Overall, 59 percent of
households of color are housing-cost-burdened,
compared to 42 percent of white households.

Between 2000-2010, the City of Oakland lost
34,000 African American residents (a 24 percent
decline). This included 10,000 OUSD students.

Lack of affordable housing fuels the fire of
Oakland’s ongoing and dramatic exodus of
African American and other POC households.

Is it really Affordable?
The need for genuinely affordable housing in
Oakland is very high, but are proposed
developments in Rockridge going to meet these
affordability standards? The cost of land in
Rockridge means that the answer is generally,
no. For example, the multistory tower proposed
for the CCA property would consist of ~467
residential units, 10 percent of which would be
36 Letter #
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
“affordable”. That sounds good until you realize
that here affordable is defined to mean
“moderate-income” households, with eligibility
defined as 120 percent of area median income
(AMI).

For 2020, that was $109,600 (1-person
household) and $156,600 (4-person household).

In other words, there would not be one single
unit of affordable housing, as defined by HUD,
created by the project and available to low-
income renters.

Affordable housing is desperately needed in
Oakland if we are to retain housing stock for
low-income workers, seniors, and the disabled.

About 93 percent of new construction in
Oakland is market-rate developments geared to
luxury class apartments like the 40 story Atlas
Tower downtown. While rents dropped
significantly during the initial COVID lock down,
rents have rebounded and none fall into the
affordable range. The number of available and
genuinely affordable units is almost non-
existent. The demand far outstrips the supply.

Current building costs have risen steeply in the
past years in response to Trump Administration
tariffs on Canadian lumber and COVID slowed
production of building materials
Much of the newly proposed and /or built
housing is also singularly family unfriendly. Few
apartments are 2-bedrooms or more, and the
vast majority are studio and 1-bedroom. It is
assumed that people will not have private cars,
but if you have two or three children who each
require a different size car seat, Uber and Lyft
cannot accommodate you. If you have a
mobility impaired family member, someone in a
wheelchair or one who uses adaptive tools to
37 Letter
#
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
enter and exit a car from a walker, you also
cannot be accommodated by ride-share or gigvehicles within minutes of a phone call. These are wider issues of societal sustainability that
are going utterly unaddressed by this housing
element. But they eventually impact the lives of
most of us.

For low to moderate income residents, housing
is difficult at best, but as currently conceived,
the new housing is also inadequately meeting
the needs of child families, multigenerational
families, and the disabled of higher income
levels as well.

In summary, land and building costs are very
high and rising, making public-private
partnerships and government-subsidized
construction perhaps the surest ways to add
more truly affordable housing in Oakland — and
particularly here in Rockridge.

Lack of inclusion in the process
The Summary of Community Outreach
Activities, Page 19, shows that Rockridge has
been omitted from the list of neighborhoods
contacted for input on the Housing Element
Draft – even though Rockridge will be deeply
affected by the final version.

There is an organization that represents
Rockridge, a registered 501(c)3, the Rockridge
Community Planning Council (RCPC). It is usual
for RCPC to schedule local town hall meetings
on topics of importance, which the Housing
Element Draft certainly is. The City could have
easily arranged with RCPC for a meeting and
notified residents through RCPC’s monthly
newsletter, The Rockridge News. Instead, a
small number of poorly publicized Zoom
38 Letter #
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
meetings were held. The exclusion of the RCPC,
the most significant citizen institution in
Rockridge, which has been reshaping the
neighborhood since the early 1970s, when a
resurrected RCPC led the way to obtaining
funding from the Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) for planning studies
which resulted in the City of Oakland adopting a
new zoning designation C-31, currently CN-1,
for College Avenue in 1973, consisting of
pedestrian oriented retail with mixed use upper
stories is remarkable and inexcusable. It argues
for a total lack of knowledge about the
neighborhood by City staff.

It cannot have gone unnoticed that in the past
30 years, RCPC has directly brought in excess of
$7 million into the City and the neighborhood,
can it? A new branch library funded by a citizen
originated Mello-Roos taxation district, FROG
Park, Hardy Dog Park, hundreds of thousands in
traffic mitigation funds negotiated from
CalTrans (4th Bore), Dreyer’s and Safeway
projects, and $3 million in environmental
mitigation funds obtained by through litigation
by the 4th Bore Coalition, a coalition of Oakland
and Berkeley neighborhood groups organized
and led by RCPC. Those $3 million dollars were
used to add enhanced HVAC and filtration
systems, sound dampening windows and
environmental plantings to the two schools in
the RCPC catchment, Chabot Elementary and
Claremont Middle School severely impacted by
the particulate, fume and noise pollution
resulting from their locations within less than
100 feet of Hwy 24. A registered non-profit
creating that much benefit to the City of
Oakland should have been contacted, in
particular when planning and zoning have been
39 Letter
#
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
the primary focus of the organization for more
than 50 years.

The “Introduction of the Housing Element
Draft” on Page 5 has a heading:
“CHARTING AN EQUITABLE, INCLUSIVE FUTURE”
It is not equitable to exclude some
neighborhoods from the process of producing
the Housing Element Draft. It is not equitable to
promote the building of market-rate housing
which does not produce truly affordable
housing but does produce profits for private
real-estate developers. And it is not equitable
to unduly burden a neighborhood that already
brought itself back from an earlier round of
governmental policy originated destruction.
24 Housing Element
Discussion Session #3
6/8/202
2 A. General Comments
- Despite the increase [in Oakland's 6th cycle
RHNA] how do we assure that the
disenfranchised needs are met.
- Who do we target, and how do we penalize
them when lower income needs are not met?
- Is there a way for the public to track who paid
impact fee's, for what, and where and how are
those funds being used?
- Are the state-mandates on site size for low
income housing, or for all housing that can
count towards RHNA requirements?
- Does the city have a published methodology
for when to count new market housing as
Moderate Income? I know San Jose does
- One other point: I am pleased to see parts of
the Element devoted to remediation of
environmental contaminated sites. Urge the
city to consider that housing located near
freeways, Oakland Ports and other heavy duty
trucking concentrations to be included in
definition of a contaminated sites and to help
A: Comments noted. See notes from Housing Element Discussion Session #3 - https://cao-94612.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/Housing-ElementDiscussion-Session-3_06.08.2022.pdf B. See Response to Letter #1 for upzoning actions included in the Housing Action Plan.

C. The revised 2023-2031 Housing Element includes an Executive Summary.

Chapter 4: Housing Action Plan in the revised 2023-2031 Housing Element highlights new actions with blue text.

D. The City through Action 3.3.6: Access to low-cost financing for development will continue to work with affordable developers to set loan terms in a way that will help maximize their ability to leverage funding from banks and other lending agencies. Further, the City will also continue to coordinate with developers to help ensure that they qualify for additional funding from county, State, and federal sources.
40 Letter
#
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
building owners in those locations to retrofit air
filtration to reduce exposure of residents to
transport related emissions. David Wooley, UC
Berkeley, Goldman School
[email protected]
- Yes, a summary analysis of what C-21 actually
tells us would be useful
- We should not be putting housing next to
freeways and we need to have a fund to in the
GP to retrofit existing near road housing
exposures.
- One more comment: please consider ALL of AC
Transit’s Rapid corridors, not just the BRT line,
when considering upzoning opportunities.
- So A Diamond in the Ruff is working with The
Oakland Community Land Trust on a project for
more affordable housing overlay with ADU'S. Is
there a certain number of units that can be
placed on the current acquisition of land?
Which may include the Zoning in that part of
Oakland? Which is right off Seminary
B. On the upzoning contemplated, is that
discussed explicitly anywhere in the document
beyond Policy 3.4? If you could let me know, I
would appreciate it.

C. Please ensure that the next draft includes an
Executive Summary and a clear table on NEW
policies
D. What can the city do to improve the funding
tools and flexibility of local lenders / CDFI's for
affordable housing?
25 Equity Work Group
Meeting #2
6/8/202
2 A. General Comments
- The city has a vacancy tax right? they should
be tracking vacancy somehow
A. Comment noted.

B. Appendix L in the revised 2023-2031 Housing Element includes Responses to Public Comments
C. The State Housing & Community Development Department (HCD) requires that all California jurisdictions prepare an annual progress report 41 Letter
#
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
- it’s hard to rank, but would like to include lowincome non english speakers as having a barrier to accessing housing
B. where are the input not included going to be
noted, if at all, in the housing element? which
chapter or appendix?
C. APR
- so the number of permits does NOT reflect on
actual built units? the 1k under very low income
might in actuality be less?
- is there a way to find actual units built?
- so basically some developments are stalled
and that isn't captured... is there another table
that reflects actually built #s?
- my concern is folks looking at the "approved
permits" data might misunderstand that as the
actual # of available housing. if a lot of projects
get stalled it would not be an accurate
indication
(APR) on the jurisdiction's status and progress in implementing its housing element. For the 5th cycle Housing Element period (2015-2023), State HCD required that jurisdictions report completed units in the APR form beginning in 2019. Oakland Planning Staff have data on permitted units for the 2015- 2023 period and completed units for 2019 and onward. See Table A2 of Oakland's APR form to view completed units beginning in 2019:
https://www.oaklandca.gov/documents/housing-element-annual-progressreports. 26 EBMUD
6/9/202
2 General
EBMUD appreciates the City's efforts to achieve
its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
through identifying opportunity sites where
additional development could occur. As noted
in the Housing Element Update, these
opportunity sites include both vacant and nonvacant sites. It is important that the City consider existing surrounding uses so that those
uses may continue after new housing is
developed. In particular, EBMUD has its main
offices in Downtown Oakland and additional
administrative offices and service yards in West
Oakland near GRand Avenue and Adeline
Street. In addition, EBMUD is developing a
service yard at Willow Street and 24th Street,
and its wastewater treatment plant is located at
West Grand Avenue and Wake Avenue. Finally,
EBMUD has a facility along Oakport Street in
Comments noted.
42 Letter #
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
East Oakland as well as numerous water and
wastewater facilities that support the
community and provide essential services to
residents and business owners throughout the
City.

Wastewater Service
The projected number of housing units within
the City of Oakland as described in the Housing
Element Update are higher than the quantities
used by EBMUD in recent long-term planning
efforts, and result in population growth rates
higher than EBMUD assumed. The differences
in EBMUD's assumptions and the Housing
Element Update will not necessarily result in a
capacity deficiency, however, EBMUD will
monitor the increase in flows over time and
requests that the City continue to closely
coordinate with EBMUD to ensure that
implementation of the Housing Element Update
proceeds as projected.

Wastewater Service
In addition, wet weather flows are a concern.

The East Bay regional wastewater collection
system experiences exceptionally high peak
flows during storms due to excessive infiltration
and inflow (I/I) that enters the system through
cracks and misconnections in both public and
private sewer lines. EBMUD has historically
operated three Wet Weather Facilities (WWFs)
to provide primary treatment and disinfection
for peak wet weather flows that exceed the
treatment capacity of the MWWTP. Due to
reinterpretation of applicable law, EBMUD's
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit now prohibits discharges from
EMBUD's WWFs. Additionally, the seven
wastewater collection system agencies that
43 Letter #
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
discharge the EBMUD wastewater interceptor
system ("Satellite Agencies") hold NPDES
permits that prohibit them from causing or
contributing to WWF discharges. These NPDES
permits have removed the regulatory coverage
the East Bay wastewater agencies once relied
upon to manage peak wet weather flows.

Wastewater Service
A federal consent decree, negotiated among
EBMUD, the Satellite Agencies, the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB),
and the Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB), requires EBMUD and the Satellite
Agencies to eliminate WWF discharges by 2036.

To meet this requirement, actions will need to
be taken over time to reduce I/I in the system.

The consent decree requires EBMUD to
continue implementation of its Regional Private
Sewer Lateral Ordinance
(www.eastbaypsl.com), construct various
improvements to its interceptor system, and
identify key areas of inflow and rapid infiltration
over a 22-year period. Over the same time
period, the consent decree requires the
Satellite Agencies to perform I/I reduction work
including sewer main rehabilitation and
elimination of inflow sources. EBMUD and the
Satellite Agencies must jointly demonstrate at
specified intervals that this work has resulted in
a sufficient, pre-determined level of reduction
in WWF discharges. If sufficient I/I reductions
are not achieved, additional investment into the
region's wastewater infrastructure would be
required, which may result in significant
financial implications for East Bay residents
Wastewater Service
44 Letter
#
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
To ensure that the proposed project
contributes to these legally required I/I
reductions, the lead agency should require the
project applicant to comply with EBMUD's
Regional Private Sewer Lateral Ordinance.

Additionally, it would be prudent for the lead
agency to require the following mitigation
measures for the proposed projects: (1) replace
or rehabilitate any existing sanitary sewer
collection systems, including sewer lateral lines
to ensure that such systems and lines are free
from defects or, alternatively, disconnect from
the sanitary sewer system, and (2) ensure any
new wastewater collection systems, including
sewer lateral lines, for the project are
constructed to prevent I/I to the maximum
extent feasible while meeting all requirements
contained in the Regional Private Sewer Lateral
Ordinance and applicable municipal codes or
Satellite Agency ordinances.
27 Deeply Rooted
6/10/20
22 A. Provided track changes to the Engagement
section that includes removing the DR Partners
map and adding more detail to the Partners
table. Oakland HE_compiled with
TOC_DR_2022_0610: Section: 7.1
B. Acknowledgement of Community Policy
ideas: As we have discussed, the City needs to
explain why some of the community policy
ideas in the Public Participation section didn’t
make it to the HAP. We recommend the
following columns in the appendix for each
community policy idea: policy idea,
decisionmaker, issue/ disagreement, consensus,
and next steps.

C. Create and staff Neighborhood Planning
Councils for residents to weigh in on what gets
built in their neighborhoods during planning
and implementation (i.e. RCPC or Mission
A. Oakland Planning Staff included this information in the updated Draft Housing Element submitted to State HCD on June 30, 2022.

B. Appendix L in the revised 2023-2031 Housing Element includes Responses to Public Comments
C. Oakland already has a Neighborhood Council structure that City staff engage with on a variety of issues of interest, including public safety, improvements, and more. Staff will look at options of improving this structure and broadening its scope for purposes of engagement as well as look at options of creating neighborhood groups for the specific purpose of gathering feedback on planning initiative and projects. Action 5.2.9 addresses the need to reduce barriers with inclusive engagement with actions in the Environmental Justice (EJ) Element. A policy in the EJ Element will be written to address this.

D. Creation of new commissions requires action by City Council. The City should utilize existing boards and commissions instead of establishing a new body. However, Planning Staff will bring an item to the Planning Commission to set up a new subcommittee that monitors City performance with Housing Element and other housing policy implementation, see Action 5.2.11:
45 Letter
#
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
group), particularly in areas where rapid
displacement is happening. (Policy 5.2)
D. Citywide Housing Commission to review
City’s progress on Housing Element actions.
(Policy 5.2)
E. Integrate Healthy Development Guidelines
into GP (note under actions where it’s come
from HDG) (Policy 5.2) Examples include
disclosure and reporting on rental unit loss,
eviction, and relocation compensation; and
displacement impact mitigation.

F.Human Health/Socioeconomic Impacts
Analysis: require public analysis of
displacement/homelessness impacts of market
rate projects prior to City providing permits or
any zoning changes (Policy 1.1)
G. Acknowledge that proactive rental
inspections can only be implemented with a
new law. (Policy 2.1)
H. A law requiring anti-displacement strategies
for the proactive rental inspection program.
(Policy 2.1)
I. Moratorium on market rate development for
neighborhoods experiencing rapid
gentrification. (Policy 1.1)
J. Community outreach & enforcement of City’s
Fair Chance Housing Ordinance (banning
housing discrimination of people with criminal
records). (Policy 1.1, 5.3)
K. Cultural Districts will protect existing
residents from displacement. (Policy 3.2)
L. Address needs of undocumented residents,
i.e. new local ordinance for removing Social
Security Number from housing applications.
(Policy 5.3)
M.Measure KK assessment (low-income
homeowners applied and used funds). Update
so low-income homeowners will not have to
pay the new taxes. (Policy 3.3)
Provide accountabililty measures for housing programs, including annual monitoring.

E. It is not within the City's authority to implement all of the Healthy Development Guidelines as they are written. Staff conducted an assessment of the HDGs and will incorporate those goals and policies that are within the City's purview as part of the General Plan Update for the various related Elements. For the Housing Element the following Actions are included to address the Healthy Development Guidelines (HDG). See Action 5.2.1:

Protect against smoke and wildfire to address HDG EH 1.7 Project Wide no smoking policy. See Action 5.2.9 and zoning in Appendix J to remove CUP for grocery stores in food deserts for HDG goal F1 Increase Access to Healthy Foods. For HDG H1.3 see Action 3.3.7: Study the targeted implementation of an inclusionary housing requirement and Action 3.5.1: Support community land trusts and other shared equity models. For HDG H1.4: Prioritization of housing units for vulnerable populations see Action 3.3.4: Development of permanent housing affordable to extremely-low-income (ELI) households on public land. For HDG goal H2: Preserve existing affordable housing and protect residents from involuntary displacement see Action 1.1.14: Protect Oakland residents from displacement and becoming homeless and Action

2.2.2: Enforce, monitor, and preserve affordable housing covenants with an emphasis on “at-risk” units. For HDG CC2.2 and OS1.1 see Action 5.2.9:

Prioritize improvements to meet the needs of low-resourced and disproportionately burdened communities.

F. Due to a series of new State laws that streamline and regulate the timeline for project approvals, the required review structure and timing would not allow Staff to conduct a study of this nature on a project-byproject basis. Instead, this analysis could be performed prior to adoption of new zoning regulations (ex. General Plan zoning amendments).

G. Building Bureau staff updated the language of the Housing Element Action 2.1.3: Conduct proactive rental inspections to reflect this comment.

The City is also staffing up to respond more rapidly to code complaints.

H. The City will look at ways to consider anti-displacement strategies as part of this program. With regard to displacement as a result of code enforcement, in coordination with the Planning & Building Department, Oakland HCD administers the Code Compliance Relocation Program. In addition, the upcoming Rent Registry will allow for a form of proactive protection for Oakland residents.

I. The State will not approve a Housing Element that places a moratorium on market rate housing or any type of housing at any affordability level. 46 Letter
#
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
KN. City kept as is because it aligns with HCD
Site Guidelines. We are concerned that size
assumptions are in violation of fair housing
laws. (Appendix C pages 50, 80-81; and Oakland
HE page 39)
O. Use of City-owned land as 100% affordable
housing (includes 10+ acre sites as well): Action

3.3.1 discusses prioritizing ELI households on
public land, but Table C-16 (Appendix C) in
Housing Sites Inventory shows that housing at
all income levels is being planning for on public
land.

All public land for 100% affordable housing
(includes 10+ acres). (Policy 3.3).

P. Utilize neighborhood Area Median Income
for housing projects. (Policy 3.2)
Q. Increase Housing Impact Fees.(Policy 3.3)
R. Create a real Inclusionary Zoning law. (Policy

3.3)
S. Link zoning changes for market rate projects
to affordability requirements so more
affordable housing is built. (Policy 3.4) A
developer who wants to build more units (say,
200 units instead of 100 units) should also
increase the number of affordable housing units
on site.

T. Prioritize re-entry housing in City funding
applications. (Policy 3.7)
U. Ensure that TOD projects provide housing
that neighborhood residents can afford (Policy

5.2)
V. A tax on speculators AFTER they purchase
the property does not reduce housing
speculation and the City already has a
registration fee & inspection requirement for
speculators. The City should instead evaluate
how the current program is working. (Policy 2.2)
J. Staff need more information about what Deeply Rooted is proposing in order to prepare a response.

K. See response to Letter #53
L. Comment noted. This comment speaks to issues outside the scope of the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update.

M. When Measure KK was approved by voters, the measure did not include an exemption for low-income property owners.

N. See Action 3.4.10 and Appendix J for revisions for the new 6th cycle RHNA sites to look at ways to incentivize affordable housing. This will be further discussed and various options analyzed during the Zoning implementation.

O. The City disposes of public land according to State and local law, specifically the State Surplus Land Act (SLA) and the Oakland Municipal Code (OMC), specifically Chapter 2.42 that governs the disposition of real property. Decisions about the disposition of a particular parcel are made by City Council action, consistent with the requirements of the OMC

P. This would greatly impact and complicate funding, closing, and asset monitoring processes for the City with impacts on the pace of AH creation/admin capacity. Neighborhood AMIs don't align with State or Federal funding mechanisms. The City will however continue to seek opportunities to target deeper AMI groups. The City welcomes examples of this being successfuly implemented in other communities Q. An economic feasibility study is underway as part of the five-year impact fee update to determine the potential for increasing impact fees. In addition, the affordable housing impact fees automatically increase at the beginning of each fiscal year with the rate of construction inflation. Most recently, in July 2022, the affordable housing impact fees went up by 15% because of the high construction inflation rate. Action 3.3.8: Right size development fees on market rate housing addresses the City to look at its Impact Fees on a regular basis.

R. An economic feasibility study is underway as part of the five-year impact fee update to assess the benefits of impact fees versus inclusionary requirements. This analysis will be presented to City Council for further discussion and direction. Legislative authority to enact an Inclusionary Zoning law must come from City Council action. This comment is addressed in Action 3.3.7: Study the targeted implementation of an inclusionary housing requirement.
47 Letter
#
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
W. Goals, policies, and actions should treat
unhoused people with dignity and respect the
communities they have built rather than
allowing for City evictions under the current
Homeless Encampment Management Policy.

The current policies focused on unhoused
people describes just enhancing operations of
the EMP.

X. Stopping Encampment Management Policy.
(Policy 4.2)
Y. Changing zoning so tiny homes or RV’s can be
allowed across the City. (Policy 4.3)
Z. No mention of permanent housing and how
that aligns with AFFH. (Goal 4. How this Goal
AFFH section)
Z1. Missing Special Needs Groups (prioritize
housing for them):

Formerly incarcerated individuals (Policy 1.1,

3.7),
Single parents (not just mother’s) (Policy 1.1,

3.7)
young adults (Policy 1.1, 3.7)
low-income non-english speakers (Policy 1.1,

3.7)
youth aging out of foster care (Policy 1.1, 3.7)
Black Americans (this population particularly in
relation to landlord housing discrimination).
(Policy 1.1, 3.7)
Teachers (Policy 1.1, 3.7)
Z2. Need to integrate the following community
input into Intro, Housing Needs (Appendix B)
and AFFH sections (Appendix D and relevant
Oakland HE sections):

Historic and Current Racism are intentional
public policy choices
Including intentional decrease of public housing
in neighborhoods like Lower Bottoms. It was
another policy choice that exacerbated
racialized displacement.

S. As part of the impact fee study from Action 3.3.8, the City is studying the potential increase of onsite affordable housing instead of paying the affordable housing impact fees. Onsite requirements are already based on a percentage of the overall units, so the more units that are built the higher the number of affordable units that are required in order not to pay Affordable Housing Impact Fees. In addition, Action 3.3.7: Study the targeted implementation of an inclusionary housing requirement will be looking at how much affordable units would be required with market rate development.

T. See response to 27-Z1
U. This comment is addressed in Action 5.2.2: Promote infill, transit-oriented development (TOD), and mixed use development.

V. The City does not regulate homeownership sales or transfers. Policies would need to go through City Council and/or the County Assessor's Office for consideration. An anti-speculation tax is already a study item in the Housing Element (Action 2.2.6: Reduce short-term home purchases/sales (i.e., “house flipping”) to ensure affordability and prevent displacement.). A direct ban on investors buying and flipping homes would likely require a change to state law.

W. Each year, it is estimated that 15,786 people in 13,135 households experience homelessness in Alameda County, and approximately 60% of them reside in Oakland. The conditions at many encampments are inhumane, dangerous, often fatal. The Encampment Management policy is rooted to a shelter offer policy that places a requirement on the City to provide shelter options when closing an encampment. While improvements are still being developed in the homelessness system, when a encampment is closed, individuals at the camp are offered a shelter bed and an alternative to sleeping in a place not fit for human habitation as defined by US Department of Housing and Urban Development.

X. Comment noted. This comment speaks to issues outside the scope of the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update.

Y. The Oakland Construction Innovation and Expanded Housing Options Ordinance was approved by City Council on November 16, 2021, and went into effect on January 15, 2022. This Ordinance updated the City's zoning regulations to allow RVs, mobile homes, manufactured homes and tiny houses on private properties in any zone that allows residential. See more 48 Letter
#
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
Facts about ethnic enclaves created in part by
racial housing covenants (Chinatown, West and
East Oakland).

The negative impacts of California legislature’s
Costa Hawkins law
The negative impacts in the 1990s of the tech
boom and Mayor Brown’s 10k market rate
housing plan to make Oakland attractive for SF
tech workers.

Generational economic and housing
discrimination impacts Oakland residents.

Market force displacement from lack of
sufficient tenant protections
Blighted Housing Conditions: Lower income
residents in West and East Oakland are facing
unhealthy housing conditions ie. no heat,
electrical issues, and faulty plumbing).

Mention Housing Equity Roadmap in Appendix
A. Lots of community orgs were involved in the
development of that document and may not
have been involved with HCD’s Strategic Plan so
may not see themselves reflected in the
Strategic Plan.

More information/data on assessment of
previous housing cycle production. A summary
of the previous HE assessment should be
included in the Oakland HE (main chapters of
document) for transparency and framing for the
new RHNA goals. Draft HE (Appendix A) has
only one sentence on total housing built in the
previous cycle. Also include 1) the number of
built units by affordability level in the 2015-
2023 RHNA table alongside permitted, 2) Table
by planning area and income level for built
units, and a map of where those sites are by
income level. Just Cities ended up doing this
analysis with sample data.
information here: https://www.oaklandca.gov/news/2022/new-policiesexpand-housing-options-on-single-family-parcels-allow-rv-residences.

Z. See response to Letter #53
Z1. Existing language aligns with federal and State funding sources, allowing projects to qualify for unique "special needs" funding that would not otherwise be available.

Some of the suggested prioritizations conflict with CA Prop 209 (e.g. explicitly targeting Black residents). We have focused on deepening affordability and addressing homelessness (following US Department of Housing and Urban Development target populations under homelessness) as top priorities with the limited resources we have. Within that, we have sought to encourage projects that serve a range of household needs, and with a focus on deepening affordability.

We do have several layers of local preference for our affordable projects:
displaced residents (code enforcement), residents within one mile of development/same council district, and then Citywide.

Z2. The revised 2023-2031 Housing Element incorporates this feedback.

Additional information on historic context of discriminatory housing actions and the legacy of exclusionary zoning as a significant housing constraints and barrier to affirmatively furthering fair housing. This context is incorporated in the Introduction (1-1 through1-4); Appendix D (section D.2, pp. D-14 and 15, and new section D.5D.6 [Housing Sites Inventory Analysis]); Appendix F (F-10 through F-11).

Z3. The text describing the intent of Housing Action Plan Goal 5 was updated to make it more explicit that policies and actions are focused on homeownership strategies.
49 Letter #
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
Z3. HAP: Goal 5 should make it more explicit
that policies and actions are focused on
homeownership strategies
28 Harvey McKeon, Carpenters Local 713
6/10/20
22 The City of Oakland Housing Element notes in
its housing constraints analysis that a shortage
of construction labor can significantly increase
"the time necessary to complete the
development of a project." Indeed, the Housing
Element Update also outlines that construction
workers make up a lower proportion of overall
employment in Alameda County than even that
of the wider Bay Area, where an acute shortage
of housing production and labor is also a
pressing, widespread issue.

To be clear, neither Alameda county nor the
City of Oakland have enough skilled, highly
productive residential construction workers to
build the 26,000+ units that the city of Oakland
is supposed to produce over an 8 year time
period. This is itself an almost 80 percent
increase from the prior Housing Element cycle's
RHNA goals. However, as the housing crisis in
our communities has continued to deteriorate
in recent years, the number of workers
employed in residential building construction in
Alameda County has actually decreased by 18%
since 2004. A continuously shrinking residential
construction workforce cannot build 26,000
units of housing in 8 years.

The City Should Bar Issuance of Building
Permits Unless Each Future Residential
Development of 10 units or Above has a Viable
Apprenticeship Program and Local Hiring
Requirements
The Carpenters propose the following additions
to the Municipal Code of the City of Oakland.
for any residential project larger than 10 units
Comments noted.
50 Letter
#
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
Permitting requirements in the Municipal Code
of the City of Oakland
A person, firm, corporation, or other entity
applying for a building permit under the
relevant section of the Municipal Code of the
City of Oakland, California shall be required to
comply with the apprenticeship, healthcare,
and local hire requirements of the Housing
Element and General Plan. Failure to comply
with the requirements set forth in this section
shall be deemed a violation of this article.

Apprenticeship:

For every apprenticeable craft, each general
contractor and each subcontractor (at every tier
for the project) will sign a certified statement
under penalty of perjury that it participates in a
Joint Apprenticeship Program Approved by the
State of California, Division of Apprenticeship
Standards OR in an apprenticeship program
approved by the State of California Division of
Apprenticeship Standards that has a graduation
rate of 50% or higher and has graduated at least
thirty (30) apprentices each consecutive year
for the five (5) years immediately preceding
subsmission of the pre qualification documents.

The contractor or subcontractor will also
maintain at least the ratio of apprentices
required by California Labor Code section
1777.5.

Local Hire Policy:

Contractor will be required to provide
documentation that the contractor will hire a
minimum of twenty-five percent (25%) of staff
for any job classification with more than four (4)
employees employed whose primary residence,
51 Letter
#
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
which is not a post office box, is, and has been,
within Alameda county within 180 days of the
expected date of issuance of the Notice to
Proceed for the project.
29 Jon Gabel
6/10/20
22 1. Some of the stated goals in the Housing
Element Draft are at odds with City policy,
particularly with respect to Rockridge
As noted in the Housing Element Draft, Chapter
1: Introduction, Page 4:
“In the 1950s and 1960s, urban renewal cut
through these disinvested areas to build new
high-rises and transportation infrastructure that
displaced many low-income residents and
residents of color.
“The direct and indirect displacement of
residents in these areas, driven by the heated
and inequitable housing market, threatens not
only households but the cultural identity and
viability of these communities.”
As long as 100 years ago, Rockridge was a
vibrant residential and business district.

Construction of the Grove-Shafter freeway
(Highway 24) and BART in the 1960's
devastated the existing businesses. Half of them
closed and crime was rampant. In 1973, the
Rockridge Community Planning Council (RCPC)
worked with the City of Oakland to rezone
College Avenue and Rockridge, which led to its
recovery and current prosperity. (For details,
see
www.PreserveRockridge.com/UpDownAndUp)
The people of Rockridge responded and
brought our neighborhood back. With no
funding and little help from the City of Oakland,
Comments noted.

Oakland Planning Staff presented the first Public Review Draft Housing Element to the Rockridge Community Planning Council on August 18, 2022.

This presentation took place during the extended public review period (June 30 - September 30, 2022).
52 Letter
#
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
Rockridge was resurrected after the BART and
Highway 24 construction was completed. Old
homes, including many Craftsman houses, were
preserved and restored. Rockridge funded and
built its own branch library. Parental support
has helped make local public schools desirable.

Strong local activism has resulted in many
public benefit projects.

We should be lauded for this (For details, see
www.PreserveRockridge.com/Accomplishments
). But instead, the City of Oakland has adopted
and supported policies – like SB9 - which
threaten the viability of the community which
rebuilt Rockridge. Quoting from the home page
of www.PreserveRockridge.com:
“The creation of financial incentives to tear
down existing single family houses and replace
them with larger market rate buildings would:
“- Eventually destroy the beautiful and
architecturally historic Craftsman houses that
we presently have;
- Push out the community that individually and
collectively rebuilt itself after the construction
of BART and Highway 24 right through the heart
of it;
- Actually be a vehicle for real estate interests
to make big profits.”

1. Some of the stated goals in the Housing
Element Draft are at odds with City policy,
particularly with respect to Rockridge
Again, from the Housing Element Draft, Pages
11-12:
53 Letter
#
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
“This Housing Element identifies a foundational
framework of five overarching goals in Chapter
4: Housing Action Plan to comprehensively
address the housing crisis and needs of
Oaklanders… The goals include:
“1. Protect Oakland Residents from
Displacement and Prevent Homelessness:

Protect Oakland tenants from displacement and
create conditions that enable them to remain in
their homes and communities.
“2. Preserve and Improve Existing Housing
Stock: Conserve and improve the affordability
of existing housing stock in Oakland and
address substandard conditions.
“5. Promote Neighborhood Stability and Health:

Promote resilient development in safe, healthy,
and just communities. Increase resources in
disinvested communities and create long-time
stability through homeownership
opportunities.”
These stated goals are at odds with the actual
performance of the City of Oakland. The
passage of SB9 by the State of California has
enabled this threat to Rockridge and to other
neighborhoods throughout the State. Oakland’s
support of SB9 has put it in a tiny minority of
California cities.

The following cities supported the passage of
SB9:

Alameda, Oakland, and San Diego.

The following cities opposed the passage of
SB9:

Arcata, Azusa, Bellflower, Belmont, Beverly
54 Letter #
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
Hills, Brea, Brentwood, Burbank, Calabasas,
Camarilla, Carpinteria, Carson, Cerritos, Chino,
China Hills, Clayton, Clearlake, Clovis, Colton,
Corona, Costa Mesa, Cupertino, Cypress, Del
Mar, Diamond Bar, Dorris, Downey, Dublin,
Eastvale, El Segundo, Escalon, Fillmore, Fortuna,
Foster City, Fountain Valley, Garden Grove,
Glendora, Grand Terrace, Half Moon Bay,
Hesperia, Hidden Hills, Huntington Beach,
Indian Wells, Inglewood, Irvine, Irwindale,
Kerman, King, La Canada Flintridge, La Habra, La Habra
Heights, La Mirada, La Palma, La Quinta, La
Verne, Lafayette, Laguna Beach, Laguna Niguel,
Lakeport, Lakewood, Lancaster, Lawndale,
Lomita, Los Alamitos, Los Altos, Malibu,
Martinez, Maywood, Menifee, Merced, Mission
Viejo, Montclair, Monterey, Moorpark,
Murrieta, Newman, Newport Beach, Norwalk,
Novato, Oakdale, Ontario, Orinda, Pacifica,
Palm Desert, Palo Alto, Palos Verdes Estates,
Paramount, Pasadena, Pinole, Pismo Beach,
Placentia, Pleasanton, Poway,
Rancho Cucamonga, Rancho Palos Verdes,
Rancho Santa Margarita, Redding, Redondo
Beach, Ripon, Rocklin, Rohnert Park, Rolling
Hills, Rolling Hills Estates, Rosemead, San
Buenaventura, San Carlos, San Clemente, San
Dimas, San Fernanda, San Gabriel, San Jacinto,
San Marcos, San Marino, Santa Clara, Santa
Clarita, Santa Monica, Santa Paula, Saratoga,
Signal Hill, Simi Valley, South Gate, South
Pasadena, Stanton, Sunnyvale, Temecula,
Thousand Oaks, Torrance, Tracy, Upland,
Vacaville, Ventura, Visalia, Vista, West Covina,
Westlake Village, Whittier, Yorba Linda, Yuba
City
55 Letter
#
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
(For a more detailed discussion of SB9’s impact
on Rockridge, see
www.PreserveRockridge.com/ZoningBusting)

2. The Housing Element Draft appears to
subscribe to “Trickle-down” housing theory,
which is false and similar to “Trickle-down”
economics
Again from the Housing Element Draft, Page 63:
“POLICY 3.2 CREATE A MORE DIVERSE MIX OF

HOMES TO MEET COMMUNITY NEEDS
“Action 3.2.1: Develop zoning standards to
encourage missing middle and multi-unit
housing types in currently single-familydominated neighborhoods, including flats, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes,
townhomes/rowhouses, and ADUs.
“The City will review and amend the Planning
Code and implement objective design standards
to encourage missing middle-density housing
typologies, including flats, duplexes, multiplexes
(triplexes, and fourplexes), bungalow courts,
rowhouses/townhomes, and ADUs. The City will
work to reduce pre-development costs and
expedite the planning approval process for
missing middle housing types resulting from
both new construction and the conversion of
existing structures.
“The City will develop zoning standards that
allow for two, three, and four units on parcels
in Detached Unit Residential (RD) and Mixed
Housing Type Residential (RM) zones. The City
will also reduce the minimum lot size in
Detached Unit Residential and Mixed Housing
56 Letter
#
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
Type Residential generally to 3,000 square feet
to remove constraints on lot splitting.”
I believe that there is support locally for
allowing single family homes to be converted
into duplexes; and ADU conversions are popular
under existing statutes. But SB9-style changes
which would incentivize tear-downs of existing
homes in favor of market rate multiple unit
dwellings – with no affordable housing required
– is opposed locally by a margin of around 2 to

1. Adoption of Policy 3.2 would be counter to
public sentiment here, and would be in
contradiction of three of the Chapter 4: Housing
Action Plan goals.

The concept that building more market rate
housing will result in more affordable housing is
called “Trickle-down” housing theory. It is false
and is equivalent to “Trickle-down” economics.
“Trickle-down” economics theory, also referred
to as “supply side” economics, “Reaganomics”,
and (by President George H.W. Bush) “voodoo”
economics, is believed by most Americans to be
false. However, it is still being promoted by
some Republicans. “Trickle-down” housing
theory, also referred to as “filtering” or
“housing as opportunity”, is based on the same
concept as “trickle-down” economics: that
increases in the supply of market rate housing
will “trickle-down” to provide more affordable
housing. Unlike “trickle-down” economics,
“trickle-down” housing theory is being
promoted by supposedly progressive
Democrats.

The basic fallacy of “trickle-down” housing
theory is that there is not a single unified
57 Letter
#
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
housing market. To the contrary, supply and
demand are different in different price ranges
of housing. The "housing market" actually
consists of multiple, non-intersecting submarkets delineated by price. “Trickle-down” housing theory is not supported by econometric
modeling, as shown in “The Maze of Urban
Housing Markets: Theory, Evidence, and Policy”
by Jerome Rothenberg et al.

Unless upzoning is tied to a requirement for
truly affordable housing, it serves developers at
the expense of the current residents. (For a
detailed discussion of this topic, see
www.PreserveRockridge.com/trickledown)

3. Lack of inclusion in the process

2.1 Summary of Community Outreach Activities,

omitted from the list of neighborhoods
contacted for input on the Housing Element
Draft – even though Rockridge will be deeply
affected by the final version.

There is an organization that represents
Rockridge: the Rockridge Community Planning
Council (RCPC). It is usual for RCPC to schedule
local town hall meetings on topics of
importance, which the Housing Element Draft
certainly is. The City could have easily arranged
with RCPC for a meeting and notified residents
through RCPC’s monthly newsletter, The
Rockridge News. Instead, a small number of
poorly publicized Zoom meetings were held.

Chapter 1: Introduction of the Housing Element
Draft, Page 5 has a heading:
“CHARTING AN EQUITABLE, INCLUSIVE FUTURE”
58 Letter
#
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
Both the process of producing the “City of
Oakland 2023-2031 Housing Element Draft -
Public Review May, 2022” and its contents are
not equitable. Some neighborhoods were
excluded from the process. The draft promotes
“Trickle-down” housing theory, which does not
produce truly affordable housing but does
produce profits for real-estate developers. And
enabling the destruction of a neighborhood,
Rockridge, that brought itself back from an
earlier round of destruction is the antithesis of
what a City Plan should do.
30 Colin Piethe
6/10/20
22 A. POLICY 3.5. EXPLORE INNOVATIVE AND

ALTERNATIVE HOUSING MODELS
- The City should take a much more proactive
approach to expanding the role of land trusts
and other collective ownership strategies that
take housing either into the City's, or the
community's hands. The words "explore" and
"support" are passive words, and don't commit
the City to changing how it does business.

Merely studying and considering these
strategies continues to let primarily private
developers make decisions about how the City's
housing stock is built, and their decisions are
not in the best interests of our residents. We
need to move the City away from relying on the
whims of the market and let Oakland residents
take collective ownership of their land and
housing.

Reduce the police budget and put it into other
City priorities so that we have money in a
dedicated housing fund to help subsidize rent
for our most underserved residents living
paycheck to paycheck. 32% of americans cannot
afford a $400 emergency, and providing our
A. See Action 3.5.1: Support community land trusts and other shared equity models and Action 3.5.2: Support housing cooperatives, co-living, and cohousing models . Actions in Chapter 4: Housing Action Plan includes discrete implementation timelines and milestones within the eight-year Housing Element planning period.

B. See the revised Action 3.4.4: Revise citywide parking standards in the Housing Element.
59 Letter
#
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
residents with stable housing can help them
stay on their feet.

B. Action 3.4.3: Revise citywide parking
standards
- Please implement parking maximums citywide, or with neighborhood-specific approaches. Developers still think there's a
"market demand" for providing more parking
than necessary, even in Downtown where we're
trying to limit parking. While there's no
minimum Downtown, developers are not
reducing parking supply, such as at 1919
Webster, where the developer is currently
proposing an extra wide driveway which will
create conflicts with the future bike lane that's
planned for Webster.
31 Alliance of
Californians for
Community
Empowerment, Asian
Pacific Environmental
Network, Causa Justa
:: Just Cause, the East
Bay Permanent Real
Estate Cooperative,
the
Oakland Community
Land Trust, Oakland
Tenants Union,
PolicyLink, Public
Advocates, and
Urban Habitat
6/10/20
22 We urge the City of Oakland to take meaningful
action in the 6th Cycle Housing Element update
to address the unmet housing needs of lowincome households and commit to policies and programs that affirmatively further fair housing.

Specifically, we are calling on the City to commit
to (1) passing a strong Tenant Opportunity to
Purchase Act by 2023 and (2) reauthorizing
Measure KK with significantly increased funding
(at least $350 million) for anti-displacement and
affordable housing preservation. These actions
are essential to prevent displacement, stabilize
current residents and existing communities, and
preserve affordable housing for the long term
Renters at risk of displacement in Oakland
urgently need TOPA so that they can stay in
their communities and have a voice in their
housing options. Tenant Opportunity to
Purchase Act (TOPA) policies give tenants and
qualified organizations, like community land
trusts and nonprofit affordable housing
developers, the right to make the first offer and
the right to match competitors’ offers so that

1. COPA/TOPA policies are relatively new to the Bay Area and are complex undertakings that require careful financial, regulatory, and legal alignment.

Before proceeding with a COPA/TOPA policy, staff would require direction from Council on the scope and goals of such a potential policy. Such direction has not yet been received, and as such, COPA/TOPA policy must remain a study item.

2. See Action 3.3.18: Implement affordable housing investments contained in Measure U. . This action has been updated to include information about Measure U, the November 2022 Infrastructure Bond that was approved andincludes $350 million for affordable housing.
60 Letter #
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
they can purchase their homes when offered
for sale. As a key intervention against
speculation, TOPA preserves housing as
permanently affordable for future generations.

TOPA expands stability and wealth-building
opportunities for tenants by creating pathways
to homeownership. TOPA does not require
landlords to sell their properties or sell for less
than market rate.

Both the implementation of a strong TOPA
policy and dedicated funding for preservation
are essential to actually preserving units as
permanently affordable. Funding to support the
acquisition and rehabilitation of properties is
critical to ensure that TOPA leads to meaningful
outcomes. As a package, this policy coupled
with much-needed preservation resources will
create new permanently affordable housing in
Oakland and allow Oakland residents to stay in
their current homes, avoiding the disruption
and trauma of displacement.

Concrete commitments to pass TOPA on an
urgent timeline and increase funding for
affordable housing preservation will advance
multiple Housing Element requirements. Among
these, Oakland is required to address the
housing needs of low-income households,
identify specific strategies to conserve and
improve affordable housing stock, and
Affirmatively Further Fair Housing (AFFH). The
acquisition and preservation of currently
market-rate rental housing stock as
permanently affordable housing is a crucial
strategy that would help Oakland meet these
obligations
Action 2.2.8 Should Commit to More Specific
Action on TOPA on a More Urgent Timeline
“Action 2.2.8: Investigate a Tenant/Community
Opportunity to Purchase Act,” as currently
61 Letter #
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
drafted, is both insufficient to meet the needs
of low-income community members and people
of color at risk of displacement and inadequate
to meet state statutory requirements. Action

2.2.8 states, “Oakland will study, and if
appropriate implement, a TOPA/COPA policy by
2025.”

Action 2.2.8 Should Commit to More Specific
Action on TOPA on a More Urgent Timeline
“Studying” TOPA is unlikely to yield any benefit,
and is also unnecessary as City Staff have
already been exploring this policy for years,
including drafting several different
Tenant/Community Opportunity to Purchase
ordinances since 2019, at the direction of two
different City Council Members.

Action 2.2.8 Should Commit to More Specific
Action on TOPA on a More Urgent Timeline
Moreover, state law requires all Housing
Element programs to have beneficial impact
within the planning period, including
identification of specific actions, which agency
or official is responsible for those actions, and a
timeline. Programs to affirmatively further fair
housing must identify “metrics and milestones
for determining what fair housing results will be
achieved.” A recent survey of HCD reviews of
draft housing actions from Southern California
jurisdictions emphasizes that time bound
actions with “specific commitments [from local
actors], metrics, and milestones” are required
and that jurisdictions are expressly discouraged
from relying on vague words like “study” or
“explore” as such non-specific actions are
unlikely to have any real-world impact within
the planning period
Action 2.2.8 Should Commit to More Specific
Action on TOPA on a More Urgent Timeline
62 Letter #
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
Action 2.2.8 should instead commit to passing
TOPA by 2023. A TOPA policy should include
several key components – a right of first offer
and right of first refusal for tenants (and for
qualified organizations if tenants assign or
waive their rights); sufficient timelines for
tenants and qualified organizations to organize,
negotiate a contract, secure financing, and
close; technical assistance for tenants to
understand the process, financing, and different
ownership options; permanent affordability
restrictions on all TOPA purchases; and clear
enforcement mechanisms if owners of covered
properties fail to comply with the law.

Action 3.3.18 Should Commit to a More
Specific Action on Funding for Anti-
Displacement and Affordable Housing
Preservation
“Action 3.3.18: Reauthorize Measure KK”
should commit to significantly increased
funding for anti-displacement and affordable
housing preservation. As currently drafted, the
objective simply states, “The size of the new
infrastructure bond and the amount set-aside
for Affordable Housing is still being
determined.” It goes on to provide details about
the number of units of housing preserved under
Measure KK.

Action 3.3.18 Should Commit to a More
Specific Action on Funding for Anti-
Displacement and Affordable Housing
Preservation
Action 3.3.18 should provide additional details
and clear commitments about the
reauthorization of the infrastructure bond
measure, such as the size of the bond, the
amount set-aside for affordable housing, and
the number of housing units that will be
preserved. As discussed above, state law
63 Letter #
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
requires all Housing Element programs to
include identification of specific actions, and
programs to affirmatively further fair housing
must identify “metrics and milestones for
determining what fair housing results will be
achieved.”
Action 3.3.18 Should Commit to a More
Specific Action on Funding for Anti-
Displacement and Affordable Housing
Preservation
Action 3.3.18 should commit to set aside at
least $350 million of the general obligation
bond for anti-displacement and affordable
housing preservation projects. The 2016
measure only set aside about 16 percent ($100
million) of the $600 million general obligation bond for affordable housing. Given the scope of the housing crisis in Oakland, we need more
funding for resident-led and community land
trust-supported preservation projects. And
because low-income tenants lack the financing
to purchase their own homes, this consistent
funding source dedicated to preservation will
be essential to make a TOPA policy effective.

TOPA and Affordable Housing Preservation
Funding Address Unmet Needs of Low-Income
Households
Housing Element law requires jurisdictions to
develop an assessment of housing needs for all
income levels and a plan to address these
needs.9 A TOPA policy and enhanced affordable
housing preservation funding will clearly
address the identified housing needs in
Oakland’s draft Housing Element. According to
the draft Oakland Housing Needs Assessment,
“housing affordability is particularly out of
reach for lower-income households.” Nearly
half (46.5 percent) of all renters experience
some level of cost burden. 11.5 percent of
64 Letter #
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
renter occupied households experience
overcrowding. Nearly half of all households in
Oakland live in tracts at risk of or experiencing
gentrification, while almost a quarter live in
tracts susceptible to or experiencing
displacement.

TOPA and Affordable Housing Preservation
Funding Address Unmet Needs of Low-Income
Households
TOPA is a proven strategy to address these
unmet needs of low-income renter households
– the high rates of cost burdens, overcrowding,
and displacement risk. For households facing
unaffordable rent increases, doubling up with
friends and family, and paying more than 30
percent of their income on rent, the time to
“study” proven anti-displacement strategies like
tenant opportunity to purchase policies is long
overdue. TOPA policies can only effectively
address the unmet needs of low-income
households when coupled with a dedicated
funding source to assist in financing tenant
purchases.

TOPA and Affordable Housing Preservation
Funding Affirmatively Further Fair Housing
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
means taking meaningful actions to address
disparities in housing needs and access to
opportunity, and that overcome patterns of
segregation and foster inclusive communities
free from barriers that restrict access to
opportunity based on protected characteristics.

Protected characteristics under California law
include race, sex, national origin, and disability
status. In this Housing Element Cycle, cities and
counties are now required to analyze the fair
housing issues, including “disproportionate
housing needs” and “displacement risk” of
members of protected groups, and identify and
65 Letter #
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
prioritize concrete actions to remedy these
injustices.

TOPA and Affordable Housing Preservation
Funding Affirmatively Further Fair Housing
The draft Oakland Housing Element correctly
identifies that “[m]ost of Oakland is considered
vulnerable to displacement pressures.”17 The
City identified “disproportionate housing needs
and displacement risk” as a fair housing issue
with one of the contributing factors as “high
rates of cost burden for renters and BIPOC
individuals.” One of the goals and actions the
City identified to address this fair housing issue
is “implement[ing] affordable housing
preservation … strategies.” This should be a
high instead of medium priority.

TOPA and Affordable Housing Preservation
Funding Affirmatively Further Fair Housing
As communities of color continue to be the
primary demographic affected by displacement
and lack of affordable housing in Oakland based
on local data, Oakland should put forward
concrete commitments to pass TOPA by next
year and significantly expand preservation
funding to address these fair housing issues.

TOPA policies effectively prevent displacement,
preserve existing housing as affordable for the
long term, and convert market rate housing into
permanently affordable housing stock.

TOPA and Affordable Housing Preservation
Funding Affirmatively Further Fair Housing
As stated in Oakland’s draft Housing Element,
“actions that preserve the affordability of
existing homes also play a key role in
preventing displacement and allowing lower-
income and BIPOC tenants to remain in place
despite the gentrification of their
neighborhoods… A Community Opportunity to
Purchase/Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act,
66 Letter #
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
if adopted, would allow for tenants to access
the wealth building and stability of benefits of
homeownership.”
Oakland Must Incorporate Input from Renters
and Low-Income People in the Housing
Element Process
Jurisdictions must make a “diligent effort [...] to
achieve public participation of all economic
segments of the community in the development
of the housing element.” During the public
engagement process, low-income residents and
community-based organizations representing
low-income people and members of protected
classes identified housing preservation as a top
priority. The City highlighted that a key public
participation theme that emerged to mitigate
the pressures of displacement and
gentrification was preserving the city’s existing
affordable housing stock, “including through
implementation of a Community/Tenant
Opportunity to Purchase Act” and “innovative
solutions to maintain permanent affordability
like community land trusts.” As we have
detailed above, “investigating” a
Tenant/Community Opportunity to Purchase
Act is an insufficient action to respond to this
community-identified priority.

Oakland Must Incorporate Input from Renters
and Low-Income People in the Housing
Element Process
Our local TOPA campaign is deeply rooted in
the needs of the community, as this policy aims
to support tenants at risk of displacement,
facilitate tenant organizing and power-building,
stabilize gentrifying neighborhoods, and take
property off the speculative market and place it
under community control. Oakland residents
need the City of Oakland to take concrete steps
in the 6th Cycle Housing Element to not only
67 Letter
#
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
meet its legal obligations, but to ensure that
every resident can continue to thrive and
prosper here without fear of losing their homes
32 Elizabeth Wampler,
Bay Area LISC
6/13/20
22 Do you think the City would be open to
considering an overlay for all faith-owned land
as part of the housing element? We can include
the folks we're working with now, but I'm
guessing this will up again for faith
organizations in future cohorts.

Re: zoning/densities for the site at 8400
Enterprise Way (City of Refuge), it looks like 5-6
stories,up to 100 units/acre, mixed-use multifamily housing and ground floor services/retail would be ideal. Between now and the fall, COR
will be doing more work to further refine a
more specific project vision, and I’d love to
share where they land with you.

The revised 2023-2031 Housing Element includes these sites as part of Appendix M: Recommended Sites for Future Housing (Upzoning/General Plan Update Opportunity Sites). In addition, the preliminary zoning reforms proposed include changing the zoning of some of these faith-owned sites to the new Regional Commercial CR-2 zone, where residential activities will be permitted. Furthermore, the new proposed Affordable Housing Overlay Zone will apply to all of these faith-owned sites. Also, see Action 4.3.6:

Expand opportunities for permitting of Emergency Shelters, where the City will revise the Oakland Planning Code to permit by right, without discretionary review, emergency shelters citywide when located on properties owned by churches, temples, synagogues, and other similar institutions approved for Community Assembly Civic Activities. 33 TransForm
6/13/20
22 A. Oakland has been a leader in the Bay Area
when it comes to smart parking policy. In 2015,
the City eliminated parking minimums in the
downtown zone and set parking minimums for
residential and commercial development. These
changes greatly reduced the financial and
physical constraint posed by excessive parking
mandates. Also by requiring unbundling for all
developments of 10 or more units in the
downtown development zone, it is clear
Oakland understands the power of
implementing many smart parking policies in
tandem, a nuance missed by other
municipalities.

B. Oakland’s draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
includes Action 3.4.3 which will fund a
continued review of parking policies after the
Housing Element is enacted. We commend this
proposed action but are concerned with the
lack of specificity in the proposed review. The
action speaks to a “review of existing residential
A. Comment noted.

B. See the revised Action 3.4.4: Revise citywide parking standards in the Housing Element and Appendix J for a summary of zoning amendments related to parking.
68 Letter
#
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
parking standards and the identifications of
appropriate new standards to match long-term
development and environmental goals” and,
beyond a reference to exploring flexibility in
parking requirements, the action lacks a
concrete policy goal.

With the importance of implementing smarter
parking policies, especially given our climate
and housing affordability crises, we at
TransForm want to ensure this funded review
has clear goals so it is not ignored or pushed to
the next Housing Element cycle. Specifically, we
encourage implementing unbundling beyond
the downtown development zone, and
strengthening TDM by requiring provision of
transit passes and bike share memberships to
each resident.

To show the tremendous benefits these policies
can have, we have used our GreenTRIPConnect
tool to create scenarios for a potential future
development site at 7000 Bancroft Ave.

GreenTRIP Connect is recommended by the
California Office of Planning and Research as a
tool to use while developing General Plans and
is especially useful during development of
Housing Elements. The tool is free to use
whether planning at the site or city-wide level.

By implementing unbundling, and providing
bikeshare and transit passes at this site, we saw
a 26% decrease in parking and resident
transportation savings of $988 per year. When
combined with 100% affordable housing these
strategies resulted in an incredible 50%
reduction in driving and greenhouse gas
emissions for the site, compared to the city
average. If an affordable development with
69 Letter
#
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
smart parking strategies were built on this site
each household would drive 5,066 less miles
per year creating a greener and safer
community.

With a RHNA allocation of 26,251, it is essential
that Oakland makes eliminating constraints to
housing development such as parking a top
priority for this Housing Element. Policies and
investments that also maximize the amount of
affordable housing will also be critical. These
two crucial issues—smart parking strategies and
affordable housing—go hand-in-hand and we
hope the City defines concrete goals for parking
reduction.
34 Stuart Flashman
6/13/20
22 Stuart's annotations on Appendix A - see link in
column to the right
Stuart's annotations on Ch 1-4 - see link in
column to the right
Comments noted.
35 Ronnie Spitzer
6/13/20
22 A. Many terms used within the document
require more precise definition. The document
currently contains phrases which could be
construed one way within the current context
but might assume an entirely different meaning
in the future. One such example is “missing
middle”, which is in common usage within
planning circles but might be considered
“jargon” to the general public even now.

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

A. See Appendix H: Glossary for key terms used in the Housing Element.

B. Comment noted and the role of the Housing Action Plan to affirmatively further fair housing has been made explicit throughout the document C. The 2023-2031 is Housing Element identifies a foundational framework of five overarching goals to comprehensively address the housing crisis and needs of Oaklanders and to affirmatively further fair housing. The goals seek to
- Reduce racial segregation and disparities in housing opportunities and outcomes
- Significantly address disparities in housing needs and access to opportunity, - Replace segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns
- Transform racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity, foster and maintain compliance with civil rights, and affirmatively further fair housing.

In addition, the City seeks to combat entrenched patterns of segregation by ensuring its laws, programs, and activities affirmatively further fair housing.

This means taking specific actions targeted at overcoming patterns of segregation and fostering inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity and housing, and closing the gap between 70 Letter
#
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
C. Likewise, upzoning around transit stations
and along transit corridors is not required to
meet 2023-2031 RHNA goals. A justification
within the context of RHNA goals should be
made to support statements such as, “Some
initial amendments to the Land Use Element
and Planning and Zoning Code along with initial
zoning map changes will allow for upzoning of
areas to accommodate additional density on
areas near BART stations, along transit
corridors, and in existing residential
neighborhoods to allow for "missing middle"
housing on page 14. Is this change proposed on
general principles, to meet and equity goad, to
encourage a more diverse mixture of housing,
or some other reason?
High resource areas (“high resource” itself
should be precisely defined and the locations
identified within the draft Element) are
discussed in several places within this
document. What exactly are the goals for the
high resource areas; is it the exact RHNA
housing mix goal or something else?
Implementation of the Housing Action Plan
broadly in the City’s high resource areas
requires an understanding of the barriers to
development there, is not cohesively described
in one location within the draft.

Based on studies, the largest barrier to housing
production in an area such as Rockridge is the
high land cost. Development of any housing
other than market-rate housing is difficult to
pencil out. This needs to be explicitly discussed
in the HE and policies proposed to overcome
this difficulty. One option proposed in the HE is
an affordable housing overlay. It should be
specific to each area within the City, and take
into account local conditions.
market- rate & affordable housing by prioritizing preservation and development of housing for those of the greatest need, including Black & Brown households. Each goal includes a statement of how the programs and actions supporting that goal will help affirmatively further fair housing including but not limited to the promotion of equal access to housing for low -income households. An assessment of patterns of segregation in Oakland can be found in Appendix D Assessment of Fair Housing
71 Letter
#
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
Another point regards tenant and antidisplacement protections explicitly removing properties with existing units from further
development to avoid displacement. Those
policies look very different in higher resource
areas than low ones, and would require the
development of vacant parcels in Rockridge. As
mentioned earlier in this comment, those are
few and far between. For example, much of
College Ave, Claremont and portions of Upper
Broadway, i.e. the arterials, already include the
types of housing proposed in the HE. How those
housing goals can be accomplished should be
explicitly described.
36 Rockridge Community
Planning Council
6/13/20
22 A. As a statement of general principles, the
Rockridge Community Planning Council (RCPC)
wants to acknowledge that the State of
California is experiencing a housing crisis of
historic proportions and that Oakland as a City
and Rockridge as a neighborhood within the
City must do their parts to ease this crisis.

Furthermore, as a “high resource”
neighborhood with some of the highest housing
prices in the entire region, we believe it is
incumbent upon us to lead by example in
advocating for more housing development
within our borders. We believe that welcoming
significant numbers of new residents to
Rockridge would be entirely consistent with our
values and the cherished historically diverse
character of our neighborhood.

B. Housing Sites Inventory
First and foremost, we were extremely
surprised and disappointed to see that the large
“Shops at the Ridge Phase II” site at Broadway
and Pleasant Valley was not included in the
Inventory and we cannot understand the
reasoning behind this omission. This site, which
is flat, not within an established low-density
A. Comment noted.

B. Oakland Planning Staff included the "Shops at the Ridge Phase II" site at Broadway and Pleasant Valley in the revised Housing Element Sites Inventory.

C. Comment noted. The Draft Housing Inventory Sites Interactive Map has been updated here:
https://oakgis.maps.arcgis.com/apps/instant/interactivelegend/index.html? appid=2cb71a0c3b5e45df9dabe3e0239c245d
D. The revised 2023-2031 Housing Element includes these sites as part of Appendix M: Recommended Sites for Future Housing (Upzoning/General Plan Update Opportunity Sites)
E. Comment noted. Goal #3 has been revised to read "Close the Gap Between Affordable and Market Rate Housing Production by Expanding Affordable Housing Opportunities."
F. See Response to Letter #1 for actions included in the Housing Action Plan to expand affordable housing opportunities and promoting neighborhood stability and health.

G. The City will broadly apply the Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) citywide, except for contaminated sites, protected historical sites/districts, and selected areas in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, per Action

3.4.10 Implement a Housing Sites Overlay Zone to permit sites included in the Housing Sites Inventory to develop with affordable housing by right , the City will create a Housing Opportunity Sites Overlay Zone to permit sites included in the Housing Element’s Housing Sites Inventory (identified in Table C-26 in Appendix C) to develop owner-occupied and rental multifamily 72 Letter
#
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
neighborhood and less than a 15-minute walk
from Rockridge BART, is clearly one of the most
important undeveloped housing opportunity
sites in the City. The current Home Depot
proposal for this site would be an extremely
inappropriate use. A survey of Rockridge
residents from RCPC indicated that neighbors
overwhelmingly prefer housing at the Ridge
Phase II. The site should be included within the
Inventory. As an implementation action of the
Housing Element, the site should be rezoned to
encourage high density residential development
and prohibit stand-alone non-residential uses.

While some infill and densification is likely to
occur organically in Rockridge’s lower density
residential neighborhoods, we believe the most
important opportunities exist on a handful of
larger sites within the neighborhood.

C. The maps and tables in the draft are a little
difficult to navigate, but we believe we can see
the following sites identified on Figure 3-1:

Housing Sites Inventory:
• CCA Site
• Rockridge BART Site
• Triangular site at the corner of Claremont and
College
• A portion of the Dreyer’s Ice Cream site
• Wendy’s site at College and Broadway
D. We agree with the inclusion of these sites on
the inventory but believe several other
important potential housing development sites
have been left out, including:
• Ridge site at Broadway and Pleasant Hill
(already discussed above)
• Carpet store site at College and Kales
• Dialysis Center site at Claremont and Clifton
• DMV Site at Claremont and Cavour
uses by right for developments in which 20 percent or more of the units are affordable to lower-income households.

H. Comment noted. Staff will undertake a comprehensive update of the Land Use and Transportation Element (LUTE) and the Planning Code in Phase 2 of the General Plan Update process
73 Letter #
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
• Chevron Station Site at Telegraph near
highway 24
The omission of these sites or others yet to be
identified in Rockridge contradicts a key
narrative discussed in the Housing Action Plan
beginning on page 60 to affirmatively further
fair housing goals. The section reads: “The City
must work towards breaking down barriers
towards accessing high-opportunity
neighborhoods for those who choose to live
there, while
simultaneously investing in “lower resource”
neighborhoods. Increasing affordability and
expanding the housing types permitted in high-
opportunity neighborhoods will be key to
ensuring that currently exclusive neighborhoods
become inclusive.”
We are aware that some of the sites on the
second list above may have been omitted from
the Inventory by staff because of technical
guidelines governing what sorts of sites are
eligible for inclusion. However, we feel strongly
that we should err on the side of inclusivity due
to the seriousness of the housing crisis. We
would welcome an opportunity to discuss these
criteria further with Planning Department staff.

E. Housing Action Plan:

Five Overarching Goals
The first paragraph of the narrative on page 59
under Goal #3 “Expand Affordable Housing
Opportunities” discusses the importance of the
general production of housing and asserts that
“thoughtfully adding housing at every level can
reduce market competition for existing
homes….” before going on to point out the
overarching importance of making a concerted
effort to increase production of homes that are
74 Letter #
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
affordable to very-low, low and moderate
income households. We agree with these
sentiments but feel that the headline “Expand
Affordable Housing Opportunities” is not
descriptive of the Element’s stated policy goals.

We recommend the headline be amended to
read something like “Expand Housing
Opportunities at All Income Levels, With a Very
Strong Emphasis on Affordable Housing."
F. Policy 3.2: Create a More Diverse Mix of
Homes to Meet Community Needs
This policy would be implemented in part by
zoning amendments to permit more “missing
middle” type small scale multi-unit housing in
low density zoning districts like those found in
most of Rockridge. Our own economic studies
have shown that similar to SB 9 which is already
in effect, these regulatory changes will result in
only a small amount of change in Rockridge,
where very high land values mean that
demolition of most existing houses is unlikely.

However, we are supportive of these policy
changes for both our own neighborhood and
the City as a whole. If feasible, we would like to
see these zoning amendments incentivize
family, senior and disabled – friendly units.

This policy would also be implemented by
actions taken by the City to reduce regulatory
constraints to the development of ADUs and
also to help older or lower-income homeowners
develop ADUs. We are very supportive of these
efforts and feel that they could help bring a
modest number of moderately affordable units
to Rockridge
G. Policy 3.3: Expand Resources for the
Construction of Affordable Homes
We are broadly supportive of the intent and
implementation ideas contained in this section,
75 Letter
#
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
recognizing that while it is important to add
housing at all affordability levels, by far the
greatest need is for affordable units. We also
recognize that construction of affordable
housing is unfortunately very expensive and
there is a need to find more resources and
innovative ways to pay for this.

In particular, we are intrigued by the concept of
an “affordable housing overlay” outlined in
action 3.3.5. We would be interested in
exploring this idea along College Avenue as well
as on some or all of the opportunity sites
discussed above
H. Lastly, we think there is a role to play for
measures that don’t involve new construction,
such as discouraging holding of units off the
rental market and condo conversions. In
addition, the City should look at amending the
CN-1 zoning to prohibit conversions of upper
floor residential units to non-residential uses.
37 Oakland Heritage
Alliance
6/13/20
22 A. Some of the upzoning proposals could
adversely affect historic properties, but they are
presented very generally in the draft with the
intent of being fleshed out as part of the
upcoming zoning amendments and objective
design review standards. We therefore are
considering these implementing documents as
the appropriate vehicles for evaluating the
impact of housing element proposals on historic
properties and look forward to opportunities
for early input on these documents
B. It is good that “landmarks/historic
properties” are included among the constraints
considered in Figure C-6 regarding
Supplemental Housing Sites for AFFH. However,
Figure C-6 does not include Areas of Secondary
Importance (ASIs) as defined in the Historic
Preservation Element and Oakland Cultural
A. Comment noted.

B. Areas of Secondary Importance (ASIs) are not included in Figure C-6, but the City is considering how ASIs will be impacted with regard to the Housing Element and development of the proposed zoning reforms and objective design standards.
76 Letter
#
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
Heritage Survey. We therefore request that ASIs
be reflected in Figure C-6 and that the housing
element and follow up zoning amendments and
objective design review standards be structured
to avoid adverse impacts on ASIs as well as
other historic properties.
38 Kirk Peterson
6/13/20
22 A. Affordable housing is housing very hard to
find for low income families. The Housing
Element should promote the construction of
more affordable/subsidized units that will
accommodate families, as well as families that
can afford to occupy market rate housing. I'd
say a family is a group of more than three
related individuals, possibly including multiple
generations and generally including children, or
we can simply say a related group that needs
three bedrooms. There are legal definitions. It's
easier and more lucrative to build studio, or one
or two bedroom units. Many (most?) landlords
would rather rent to adults only, as the wear
and tear on the unit will probably be less, and
these people are more likely to move out, and
not stay for a longtime. In addition to that,
there is likely to be a loss of family-sized
dwellings, as existing single family houses are
divided into apartments, or demolished to
make way for multi-unit structures with small
units. It would be negligent of the City to ignore
the possibility of significant demographic
changes related to the Housing Element. Until
such potential changes are examined it cannot
be determined if they are good or not, or
consistent with the goals of the City. It is
important that the Housing Element include
language to help promote housing for families.

This means numbers of people housed, not
numbers of units.

B. When the draft talks about 'opportunity sites'
it seems to only look at large parcels that could
A. Comment noted. This comment is addressed in revised Action 3.7.5:

Encourage a range of unit sizes for affordable housing that matches local household needs and family sizes.

B. See Response to Letter #1 for actions included in the Housing Action Plan to expand affordable housing opportunities and promoting neighborhood stability and health.

C. Comment noted. Actions in Goal 5 Policy 5.1 Sustain Affordable First-Time Homeownership Incentives address this comment, as well as actions in Goals 1 and 2, which are designed to protect homeowners from displacement pressures and provide investments to help homeowners preserve and improve their homes.

D. Comment noted. Staff will study these issues as part of the Land Use and Transportation Element (LUTE) and Open Space, Conservation and Recreation Element updates, as well as through the new Infrastructure / Facilities Element in Phase 2 of the General Plan Update process. 77 Letter #
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
hold many units, of which there are relatively
few in most neighborhoods. These are often
owned by entities that have no interest in
building housing. I would like the Element to
look at our boulevards and arterial streets as
'opportunity sites' that could yield a large
number of units. There are about fifty miles of
such streets, with thousands of small parcels.

The element should look at how to promote
development of the smaller (up to five story)
multi-unit buildings along the street that are
already zoned for it. This would be a more
'organic' sort of growth that could be more
'Oaklandish' and neighborhood-friendly than
the huge boxes most developers want to build.

The city should encourage 'mom and pop' local
development done by local people who own
small parcels. The Housing Element should look
at how the City can facilitate such development,
instead of devoting so much effort to helping
corporations build big lucrative projects.

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

People who are literally invested in Oakland are most likely to be involved in and contributing to the community over time, which is good for all.

The City should promote home ownership, and
facilitate projects that allow for it. This could
include requiring that projects include for sale
units, possibly with developer-subsidized down
payments or financing assistance. Such a policy
would be a contrast to historic institutional
exclusionary practice.

D. To what extent is planning considering the
effects of lots of new development on the
character and quality of life for Oakland
citizens. present and future. I have seen the
negative effects of 'redevelopment ' in Oakland
78 Letter
#
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
in person. The Draft does not seem to include
much on possible widespread cumulative
negative impacts on cultural and natural
resources. In the denser more crowded
Oakland will the increase in housing result in
diminishing the quality of and access to other
things cities need. Will there be a
commensurate increase of parks and open
space, or libraries. or accessibility to historic
sites and districts, or their expansion. Our
present citizens care about these things. To
what extent shall we socialize the risk of the
loss or diminishment of such things, while the
economic benefit of development remains
private? Meeting a state quota for housing is a
bureaucratic legal goal - but it cannot be a lived
reality
39 BART
6/13/20
22 A. We also appreciate the City of Oakland’s
(City) interest in including BART’s land in its
2023-2031 Housing Element, as shown in
Appendix C: Sites Inventory of the draft
Housing Element. As the City is aware, BART’s
Transit-Oriented Development Program Work
Plan currently does not categorize all of the
BART properties that are listed in Appendix C:

Sites Inventory as ‘Near-term (project initiation
in 2020-2025)’.

It is our collective goal to deliver as much
housing near transit as possible, and BART
would like to support local jurisdictions to
achieve the Bay Area’s regional housing
goals. However, BART has limited staffing
resources and few funding sources for the
infrastructure - most notably parking
replacement - that is often required to freeup space on BART’s land for development.

Given current resources, it will be
challenging for BART to support
A. Comment noted.

B. These sites have been removed from the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element.

C. Comment noted. The City has been working closely with BART during the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update. In addition, Action 5.2.2 also promotes infill, transit-oriented development (TOD), and mixed-use development and directs staff to work with Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) to rezone and facilitate development of high-density multifamily and mixed-use housing on BART-owned sites within the City, per AB 2923.

The City has applied for the State Prohousing Designation and is awaiting final decision.
79 Letter #
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
development of all the land that has been
planned for inclusion in BART partner
jurisdictions’ Housing Elements during the
2023-2031 upcoming cycle.

B. In addition, several BART properties that
are listed in Appendix C: Sites Inventory are
not suitable for development due to
proximity to BART infrastructure and
associated structural issues. Please see
attached for a detailed analysis of each of BART
properties. [see link to comment letter p.4-5 in
column to the right]
C. If conditions have changed since the last
assessment in 2019/2020, the timeframe for
TOD development in station areas can be
updated in BART’s TOD Work Plan. Key
considerations by BART for prioritizing
development projects are 1) availability of local
funding and resources to support development,
including staff support and funding for
community outreach, affordable housing, and
infrastructure, and 2) seamless coordination
with local jurisdiction staff.

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

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

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

3.Station Access and Parking Strategies:

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

4.Environmental Studies: The City should
ensure that environmental studies associated
with the 2023-2031 Housing Element assume a
minimum density of 75 dwelling units per acre
for BART’s land that is likely to be developed
81 Letter
#
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
within the planning period.

5. BART Policies and Standards: Any
development on BART’s land is subject to
BART’s review procedures and approvals and
shall follow relevant guidelines, policies, and
regulations. The jurisdiction should commit to
support and meet BART’s policies
andstandards. Most of these policies and are
summarized on our TOD Guidelines and
Procedures webpage.
40 EBHO
6/13/20
22 A. The draft document, which runs to more
than 800 pages including all its appendices,
contains no executive summary or other guide.

At a minimum, both the draft and final
document should include a summary narrative
that outlines the key findings of the evaluation
of past performance, the results of the Fair
Housing Assessment including identification of
the most important underlying factors to be
addressed, the identified governmental and
non-governmental constrains to housing, a
summary of the site inventory that quantifies
and maps key issues such as the geographic
distribution or concentration of sites –
particularly those for lower incomehouseholds,
and key elements of the action plan including a
listing that highlights new programs and
policies.

B. The presentation of the draft Housing
Element to both Planning Commission and City
Council was subsumed within a much larger
information report on the overall update of the
City’s General Plan. As such it wasn’t clear from
the lengthy title of the agenda item that this
was the opportunity to provide comments on
the Housing Element. At those meetings, the
presentation focused on the update process but
did not include any information on the actual
content of the document. It wasn’t until we
A. The revised 2023-2031 Housing Element includes an Executive Summary.

Chapter 4: Housing Action Plan in the revised 2023-2031 Housing Element highlights new actions in blue text.

B. Comment noted. The Draft Housing Element was presented to the Planning Commission on June 1, 2022. Staff also presented to City Council on October 18, 2022, and Planning Commission on October 19, 2022, to review the findings letter from State HCD.

C. Appendix A: Evaluation of the 2015-2023 Housing Element includes a discussion on shortfalls in producing affordable housing D. An assessment of patterns of segregation in Oakland can be found in Appendix D Assessment of Fair Housing. In addition, the 2023-2031 Housing Element identifies a foundational framework of five overarching goals to comprehensively address the housing crisis and needs of Oaklanders and to affirmatively further fair housing. The goals seek to:
- Reduce racial segregation and disparities in housing opportunities and outcomes
- Significantly address disparities in housing needs and access to opportunity, - Replace segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns
- Transform racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity, foster and maintain compliance with civil rights, and affirmatively further fair housing.

The City seeks to combat entrenched patterns of segregation by ensuring its laws, programs, and activities affirmatively further fair housing. This means taking specific actions targeted at overcoming patterns of segregation and fostering inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity and housing, and closing the gap between market- rate & affordable housing by prioritizing preservation and development of housing for those of the greatest need, including Black & Brown households. Each 82 Letter
#
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
commented on this that a summary
presentation was finally made available halfway
through the public comment period. We do
note that the Planning Commission scheduled a
subsequent meeting to review the draft in more
detail.

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

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

In light of this record, the evaluation of past
goal includes a statement of how the programs and actions supporting that goal will help affirmatively further fair housing including but not limited to the promotion of equal access to housing for low -income households.

E. The interactive Sites Inventory Map includes sites, Council Districts, and affordability level and is available at:
https://oakgis.maps.arcgis.com/apps/instant/interactivelegend /index.html?appid=2cb71a0c3b5e45df9dabe3e0239c245d
F. The Excel table was updated on the City's Housing Element website on August 9, 2022. Please see the revised table here:
https://www.oaklandca.gov/topics/oakland-general-plan-2045-housingelement.

G. The revised 2023-2031 Housing Element incorporates this feedback and includes an updated analysis of nonvacant sites
H. Based on a recent online survey conducted by the City as well as data provided by the Association of Bay Area Governments, the Appendix C Sites Inventory estimates that ADUs produced from 2023 to 2031 will have the following projected affordability levels (See Table C-8): 35% affordable to very-low-income households, 35% affordable to low-income households, and 30% affordable to moderate-income households. Based on a total projected ADU production of 1,978 units through 2031, the City has estimated that ADU construction will result in the creation of 692 very-lowincome units, 692 low-income units, and 593 moderate-income units.

To ensure that Oakland's ADU production aligns with these projections, the City has added a NEW Action 3.2.6: Monitor Affordability of Permitted ADUs to identify any additional actions in the event of a shortfall.

I. The revised 2023-2031 Housing Element incorporates this feedback. The revised 2023-2031 Housing Element includes additional sites as part of Appendix M: Recommended Sites for Future Housing (Upzoning/General Plan Update Opportunity Sites)
J. See Response to Letter #1 for actions included in the Housing Action Plan to expand affordable housing opportunities and promoting neighborhood stability and health.

K. See Response to Letter #1 for actions included in the Housing Action Plan to expand affordable housing opportunities and promoting neighborhood stability and health. The revised 2023-2031 Housing Element includes additional sites as part of Appendix M: Recommended Sites for Future Housing (Upzoning/General Plan Update Opportunity Sites) 83 Letter
#
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
performance should take a harder look at the
reasons for this disproportionality. In
particular, the City should assess the need for
continuing to incentivize production of marketrate housing without conditioning such incentives on production of affordable units or
payments of appropriate fees to the Affordable
Housing Trust Fund, particularly since the 6th
cycle RHNA requires not only a much greater
numberof units, but also a higher proportion of
lower income units.

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

D. Affimatively Furthering Fair Housing
Despite having completed a Fair Housing
Assessment in Appendix D, there still appears to
be a disconnect between this assessment and
the housing element itself. In the Introduction
chapter, the City refers to “an affirmatively
furthering fair housing analysis (AFFH), which
guides the analysis of each set of
requirements.” Similarly, Appendix D is labeled
as the “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Draft” but is primarily a fair housing analysis.

The new statutory requirement to affirmatively
further fair housing requires more than an
analysis of fair housing issues. The analysis
must identify and prioritize the key factors
contributing to segregation and disparities in
housing opportunity and conditions, and then
the City must develop both the site inventory
and the action plan in ways that address these
factors, along with clear metrics for
determining whether those actions result in real
L. See Action 5.2.8: Encourage new affordable housing in higher resource areas, which seeks to increase access to exclusive neighborhoods coupled with NEW Action 5.2.9: Prioritize investments and improvements to meet the needs of low-resourced and disproportionately burdened communities.

M. Comment received.

N. Chapter 4: Housing Action Plan in the revised 2023-2031 Housing Element includes discrete implementation timelines and milestones within the 8-year planning period.

O. Chapter 4: Housing Action Plan in the revised 2023-2031 Housing Element includes updated milestones and objectives for programs and policies, especially actions that address fair housing issues, within the 8-year planning period.

P. In the revised 2023-2031 Housing Element, Goal 3 of the Housing Action Plan is reframed to state "Close the Gap Between Affordable and MarketRate Housing Production by Expanding Affordable Housing Opportunities." In addition, "Reduce racial segregation and racial disparities in housing opportunities and outcomes" is explicitly called out as a priority in the introduction to the Housing Action Plan.

Q-1. See the revised Action 2.2.5: Extend local replacement unit provisions.

Q-2: Comment noted.

Q-3: COPA/TOPA policies are relatively new to the Bay Area and are complex undertakings that require careful financial, regulatory, and legal alignment.

Before proceeding with a COPA/TOPA policy, staff would require direction from Council on the scope and goals of such a potential policy. Such direction has not yet been received, and as such, COPA/TOPA policy must remain a study item.

Q-4: City staff dispose of public land according to Council direction and State and local law, specifically the State Surplus Land Act (SLA) and the Oakland Municipal Code (OMC) (see Chapter 2.42 which governs the disposition of real property). Decisions about the disposition of a particular parcel are made by City Council action, consistent with the requirements of the OMC Q-5: See revised Action 3.3.3
Q-6 See revised Action 3.3.5: Implement an Affordable Housing Overlay.

Q-7: See updated timeline to Action 3.3.8: Right-sized development fees on market-rate developments.

Q-8: See revised Action 3.3.9: Adjusting or waiving City fees and payment timing for affordable housing developments.
84 Letter
#
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
improvements. It is not enough to determine
after the fact whether an AFFH-neutral
selection process results in non-discriminatory
outcomes. The requirement to affirmatively
further fair housing must fully inform the site
inventory and action plan. We encourage the
City to review HCD’s April 2020 AFFH Memo (AB
686 Summary of Requirements in Housing
Law)and its April 2021 AFFH Guidance, which
includes detailed explanations of specific
requirements for housing elements, to ensure it
is fully meeting these requirements
The Fair Housing analysis does not consider
whether the City’s zoning contributes to
enduring patterns of racial segregation. The
word “zoning” barely appears in the analysis,
and while the Draft Housing Element notes that
most of the City’s residentially zoned land is
zoned for single-family housing, this is not
related back to patterns of racial segregation.

Not surprisingly, in the absence of such an
analysis, the City conducted its site inventory
with the aim of meeting its RHNA numbers
without having to rezone any sites. The Housing
Element should include an analysis of the
extent to which existing zoning is a barrier and a
set of strategies to overcome this barrier
through strategic rezoning.

Table D-9 provides a brief summary of fair
housing issues, contributing factors and
proposed actions, but the proposed actions are
fairly general and not tied back to the action
plan. We recommend that Table D-9 be revised
to explicitly cross-reference specific actions
described in the action plan itself.

Table D-9 notes as one issue that “Affordable
housing is limited by location and housing
type,” but there’s little examination of the
reasons for this. The table recommends that
Q-9: On May 17, 2022, Oakland City Council directed the City Administration to study the creation and implementation of a citywide enhanced infrastructure financing district (EIFD) funding affordable housing and infrastructure improvements. Staff will be conducting a feasibility study of various EIFD scenarios and anticipate that a final recommendation will be provided by Fiscal Year 2024. See Action 3.3.10: Citywide Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD).

Q-11: Comment noted.

Q-12: Please see the revised Action 3.3.15: Continue and expand density bonus incentives. The City will solicit additional ideas for incentives and expansion of the density bonus program and gather feedback from Planning Commission and City Council, as well, during a mid-cycle Housing Element assessment.

Q-13: Planning Staff are exploring this with the Department of Finance.

Q-14: Action 3.3.18: Implement affordable housing investments contained in Measure U
has been updated to include information about Measure U, the November 2022 Infrastructure Bond that, if approved, will include $350 million for affordable housing.

Q-15: See revised Action 3.4.10: Implement a Housing Sites Overlay Zone to permit sites included in the Housing Sites Inventory to develop with affordable housing by right. The City will create a Housing Opportunity Sites Overlay Zone to permit all sites included in the Housing Element’s Housing Sites Inventory (identified in Table C-26 in Appendix C) to develop owneroccupied and rental multifamily uses by right for developments in which 20 percent or more of the units are affordable to lower-income households.

Q-16: Comment noted
Q-17: See Action 5.2.8: Encourage new affordable housing in higher resource areas, which seeks to increase access to exclusive neighborhoods coupled with NEW Action 5.2.9: Prioritize investments and improvements to meet the needs of low-resourced and disproportionately burdened communities. 85 Letter #
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
this be addressed primarily throughmobility
strategies including expanded use of Housing
Choice Vouchers but fails to note that in many
of the higher opportunity areas,rents are far
higher than what’s allowed for with the Housing
Choice Voucher payment standards. While
there is a vague call to “eliminatesingle-family
zoning,” it’s unclear if this refers to allowing 2-4
units buildings in single-family zones, or if it
means expanding multifamily zoning at
densities of 30 du/acre or greater. Finally, while
it is proposed that affordable housing be
increased in high opportunity areas, there’s no
specific program referenced here by which this
might be achieved, particularly given the limited
number of lower income sites identified in high
opportunity areas.

E. Site Inventory
The site map is at a scale that makes it difficult
to adequately see whether these is an equitable
geographic distribution of sites, particularly
sites for lower income housing. The City should
provide a series of maps for each planning area
or council districtin addition to a single citywide
map.

The site maps should be overlaid on maps of
key demographic indicators, particularly racial
concentrations and concentrations of high-and
low-incomehouseholds. It would be especially
useful to map sites against areas of
concentration of white residents vs
concentrations of people of color.

The City recently provided links to an
interactive GIS map. This map would also
benefit from additional layers showing key
demographic indicators including race and
income. Sites should be color coded for income
level (lower income, moderate income, above
moderate income). Rather than shading the
86 Letter #
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
parcels, which at best indicates the relative size
of parcels, sites should be indicate with dots of
different sizes representing the number of units
that can be accommodated on the site.

F. The Excel table for the site inventory has
modified the total capacity column and
eliminated the formula that is in the State’s
template spreadsheet and replaced it with
actual numbers. The result is that in a number
of places the entry for "total capacity”does not
equal the sum of the columns for lower,
moderate and above-moderate income
capacity. This should be corrected, since at
present the sum of the total capacity column
exceeds the sum of the individual columns.

G. The inventory should provide more detail on
the current use of non-vacant sites. In
particular, while the inventory identifies
whether non-vacant sites have office,
commercial, or other uses, it does not
distinguish between sites with active uses and
those with vacant buildings. That information is
needed to assess the likelihood that a site will
become available during the planning period.

H. The projection that roughly 90% of all new ADUs will be affordable to lower incomehouseholds is significantly different from
the regional ADU affordability distribution
provided by ABAG (see Appendix C, page 25).

The City has relied on a limited (and not
necessarily representative) survey that was conducted as part of a City-commissioned report. Data on ADU rental rates is based on
just 56 responses to this question. It indicated
that the average rent for anexisting ADUis
$1,112. However, one third of the responses
indicated that their ADUs were being occupied
rent free. As these units are likely being
provided to family members, without further
87 Letter #
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
data it cannot be assumed that these units are
available to and occupied by low-income
households. The calculation of average rents
should remove the zero rent units from the
calculation.

Further evidence that the $1,112 figure is
unlikely to apply to newly created ADUs is
contained in this same City-commissioned
report. That study includes model pro-formas
for several ADU development scenarios and
uses rents that range between $2,360 and
$3,029 per month. The City should re-evaluate
its projections of affordability level for newly
created ADUs and revise the site inventory
accordingly.

I. There is little discussion or analysis of how the
inventory does or doesn’t change patterns of
segregation. Table C-19 on page C-83 shows
that for the preliminary site inventory, 26.1%of
lowerincome capacity is located in moderate to
highest resource tracts, while 36.4% of above
moderate-income capacity is located in these
tracts. On its face this does not appear to
further fair housing. While the City has
provided additional AFFH sites, it has not
indicated the extent to which those
supplemental sites would offset the disparity
described above.

J. The geographic distribution of sites is not
surprising in light of the City’s decision to focus
only on opportunity sites that require no
rezoning, and to rule out in advance any
rezoning of low-density areas to accommodate
some of the lower income portion of the RHNA.

While the City proposes, outside of the site
inventory, to consider some future rezoning,
the areas that will be studied are not identified
and it appears that the focus will be more on
88 Letter #
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
accommodating “missing middle” housing types
that cannot be assumed necessarily to be
affordable to lower income households.

K. The City explains the relatively small
proportion of lower income sites in high and
moderate resource areas by noting that
significant portions of these areas are also very
high fire hazard or seismic hazard areas, which
are located primarily in the most affluent
portions of the city with the greatest degree of
racial segregation. At the same time, other
hazards such as industrial pollution, poor air
quality, or sea level rise, were not considered
disqualifying. The result is a set of criteria that
by definition rule out the majority of high
opportunity areas and areas of concentration of
affluence and white population.

L. The City justifies concentration of affordable
housing in lower opportunity areas as a strategy
of investment in these areas to prevent
displacement. However, State guidance is clear
that this needs to be coupled with place-based
community development strategies that involve
investments not only in housing, but alsoin
enhanced infrastructure, services, schools, jobs,
and other community needs that serve the
existing population in at-risk neighborhoods.

While the Draft Housing Element makes
reference to the need for such investments, it
does not provide adequate detail on specific
programs, strategies or non-housing
investments to be pursued, the anticipated
outcomes, or any metrics for determining if
such programs are effective in stabilizing at-risk
communities.

M. Action Plan
Much of the Action Plan consists of
continuation of policies and programs already in
place. Since it’s clear that existing policies have
89 Letter
#
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
resulted in over-production of market-rate
housing and under-production of lower income
housing, the City must consider how existing
programs can be recalibrated to produce better
results.

N. Where new programs are mentioned, they
are generally described with terms such as
“consider,” “study”, or “evaluate”. These are
not actions in themselves. HCD has been clear
in its guidance and in reviews of draft housing
elements in other regions that these kinds of
general statementsare not sufficient. In its
reviewo f Los Angeles’ Draft Housing Element,
HCD clearly stated:

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

This is not a new issue. There are a number of
policies and programs that the City has pledged
to “consider” for multiple housing element
cycles without ever having a full policy
discussion and proposed legislation before the
City Council. For this update, the City should
commit to move beyond this
90 Letter #
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
In many cases the time frames are vague.

Specific milestones and deadlines for
completion should be called out.

O. There is no clear prioritization of the many
actions contained in the Action Plan. Which
actions are most important to achievement of
the City’s goals and objectives? For the many
new programs and policies that the City will
“consider” or “study,” which are the most
important and what resources will be available
to ensure that they are completed in a timely
fashion?
Anticipated outcomes and metrics are
insufficient. Many of the action items have no
quantified objectives and it is unclear what
outcomes are anticipated or how the
effectiveness of these actions, particularly in
addressing fair housing issues, will be assessed.

While the Action Plan discusses how the City’s
major goals address AFFH, it doesn’t clearly
identify specific actions that address priority
factors for AFFH. HCD’s guidance on
affirmatively furthering fair housing is clear that
jurisdictions must identify underlying factors
that create and maintain segregations and
inequitable opportunities and outcomes, and
then select a number of factors that are the
highest priority and ensure that the site
inventory and action plan are clearly related
back to these priority factors.

P. The City should not take actions that
incentivize market-rate housing without
requiring affordability in return. In the past,
many policies that could be used to incentivize
affordable housing have been implemented
across the board without any affordability
requirements, leaving the City with limited
options for incentives specifically to produce
affordable housing. After two decades of
91 Letter #
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
significant above-moderate income housing
productiondating back to the “10K” plan, it’s
clear that such incentives are no longer needed.

Rather than continuing to “expand housing for
all economic levels” the housing element action
plan needs to focus on the most deficient areas
and therefore must prioritize actions that will
improve performance in creating and
preserving housing for the lowest income
individuals, including persons who are currently
unhoused.

Q-1 Action 2.2.5 The City should provide a
specific date for adopting SB 330 anti-
demolition protections. Since this is a matter of
bringing the City’s code into compliance this
should be implemented by the end of 2023 at
the latest, including extending it beyond SB
330’s sunset date.

Q-2: Action 2.2.6 We strongly support efforts to
reduce speculation in housing through both a
speculation tax and adoption of Tenant
Opportunity to Purchase Act/Community
Opportunity to Purchase Act (TOPA/COPA)
legislation.

Q-3: Action 2.2.8.In place of vague action to
study a possible TOPA/COPA policy, the City
should commit to bringing a TOPA/COPA
ordinance before the City Council for adoption
within the first year of the housing element.

Q-4 Action 3.3.1 Any strategy regarding use of
public land should start with adoption of a
public land disposition ordinance consistent
with the policy framework adopted by the City
Council in December 2018. If the City is now
proposing to abandon that framework and take
a different approach, that should be clearly
stated and presented to the City Council as a
change in adopted policy.
92 Letter #
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
Q-5: Action 3.3.3 This action speaks primarily to
provision of rental assistance but includes as
part of its objective thestatement that “100% of
tenants facing eviction will have access to
counsel by the end of the Housing Element
cycle.” This statement should be included in
action 1.1.5, which currently contains no actual
commitment.

Q-6: Action 3.3.5 We strongly support an
Affordable Housing overlay that provides by-
right approval of 100% affordable housing
projects citywide, wherever zoning currently
permits it. We also support identifying specific
incentives and bonuses that could be part of
such an overlay, but that process should not
delay the immediate adoption and
implementation of a by-right overlay.

Q-7: Action 3.3.8 We support revision of the
Affordable Housing and Jobs/Housing Impact
Fee programs, with particular attention to the
amount and timing of the fee and recalibration
of the on-site alternative compliance option to
provide an outcome (number and
affordabilityof units) comparable to what would
be achieved through investment of the fee in
affordable housing. This analysis was supposed
to have been completed by the end of 2021 for
presentation to the City Council in early 2022
and was to involve community participation
throughout theprocess and not just in response
to a completed study. This has not been the
case. The City should commit to a firm date for
revision of these ordinances, and should ensure
that all evaluations and assessments include
meaningful community involvement.

Q-8: Action 3.3.9 We support deferral or
reduction of planning and building fees to
increase the feasibility and reduce the cost of
producing affordable housing. In particular, we
93 Letter #
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
support deferring or reducing building permit
fees. For City-financed affordable housing, fee
payments could be deferred until a certificate
of occupancy is issued, as the City has ample
leverage to ensure that those fees will be paid.

Q-9: Action 3.3.10 We support the creation of a
Citywide Enhanced Infrastructure Financing
District (EIFD) with a primary goal of providing
additional funding resources for affordable
housing.

Q-11: Action 3.3.12 We support continuation of
the Acquisitionand Conversion to Affordable
Housing (ACAH) program, including support for
community land trusts and limited equity
cooperatives in addition to traditional nonprofit
housing.

Q-12: 3.3.15: We support continuation of
density bonus incentives, but call on the city to
evaluate any barriers to a broader use of the
density bonus program, including information
on what developers have shared regarding how
this program might be improved or expanded.

His evaluation should also distinguish between
use of density bonus for 100% affordable
projects vs predominately market-rate projects.

Q-13: Action 3.3.16 We support increasing the
Real Estate Transfer Tax on higher end
transactions including dedication of that
increased revenue for programs that produce,
preserve and protect affordable housing
opportunities. We urge the City to move
forward to place such an item on the November
2024 ballot to maximize the likelihood of
passage.

Q-14: Action 3.3.18 We strongly support
extension of the Measure KK infrastructure and
affordable housing bond, with asubstantial
increase in the share and amount devoted to
housing production and preservation, at a scale
94 Letter
#
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
that will make a significant impact on Oakland’s
pressing affordable housing needs.This is an
urgent priority and should be implemented as
rapidly as possible.

Q-15: Action 3.4.10 For inventory sites that are
carried over from previous housing element
cycles, the City must commit to actually rezone
those sites –perhaps through use of a zoning
overlay – that provides for by-right approval on
these sites if a minimumof 20 percent of the
units will be affordable to lower-income
households. Ideally this should be
implemented as part of the Housing Element
itself. If not, then the Housing Element must
include a specific rezoning program for these
sites.

Q16: Action 3.6.4 We support active
encouragement of use of SB 35 to provide byright approval for 100% affordable housing, including training and direction to Planning staff
that this should be affirmatively pursued.

Q-17: Action 5.2.8 We have substantial
concerns that, given the limited targeting of
high opportunity neighborhoods in the site
inventory, a “mixed-income” strategy in areas
of concentration may lead to more
gentrification and displacement. The City must
ensure that a better mix of incomes in a
neighborhood is not simply capturing a point in
time where a neighborhood transition is
actually taking place. We note that despite
acknowledging the need for place-based
strategies to stabilize and improve low resource
areas, these programs are not included in the
Action Plan.
41 WOCAP Steering
Committee
6/14/20
22 A. Indoor air pollution: We are glad to see
references to indoor air pollution remediation
in the Housing Element, for existing homes.

A. See updates to Action 2.1.6: Increased Funding for Improved Indoor Air Quality
B. See Action 5.2.5: Encourage earthquake-resilient housing 95 Letter
#
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
From an equity, resource and health
perspective it makes sense to preserve existing
housing wherever possible. We know that
indoor air pollution is a significant health
burden on Oakland residents, particularly heavy
for people who suffer from other air pollution
exposure burdens. We urge the City to add
specifics about how it will undertake the
objective of improving air pollution exposure
and how that effort will be targeted. We
suggest that the city commit to work with
Alameda County Health Department, local
hospitals, nonprofits and others to specifically
target these efforts toward families with
asthmatic children, for the purpose of reducing
emergency room visits for treatment of asthma
and other lung diseases. There was a program
operating several years ago called "Pay for
Success" that pioneered an approach to identify
these families, coordinate housing
improvement services and secure innovative
forms of funding from health care providers.

That program may have information or lessons
that could help the City establish a larger effort.

Unintended consequences: Actions should be
more explicit about steps to avoid inequitable
and unintended consequences and steps to
overcome access barriers (ex. Many times do
not have electrical systems that will
accommodate filtration, how will people be
protected from utility/PGE imposed fees
resulting from electrification)
Strengthen Wording: Actions related to air
quality are currently worded too vaguely and
use very weak language, and at some points
don't propose any new actions. This would be
fine if air quality wasn't a serious issue,
however we know there are serious air quality
issues in many areas that lead to elevated rates
C. Comment noted. See updates to Action 2.1.2: Promote Healthy Homes Lead-Safe Housing and Action 5.2.6: Encourage Climate Resilient Housing.

D. The City recommends that the definition of a contaminated site is not expanded to include air pollution. Air pollution is too transitory to assign a "site" to it. More broadly, the definition of contaminated sites can be addressed through the Citywide Vulnerability Assessment & Comprehensive Adaptation Plan (ECAP A-3).

Several long-term solutions to address unhealthy levels of air pollution in low income communities of color are provided through the Zero Emissions Vehicle Plan (i.e., reducing truck pollution through the transition to 100% zero-emission vehicles), and to a latter extent will be included in the Building Electrification Roadmap. Improving building envelopes and indoor air filtration (addressed in the Building Electrification Roadmap) are critical interim steps to protect most-impacted communities - as are vegetated buffers. However, the City currently does not have funding nor organizational placement for vegetated buffer work.

Action 5.2.3: Study options to provide financing for the remediation of environmentally contaminated sites, with priority for affordable projects would only pursue grant and loan programs and other technical assistance programs to support the contamination characterization and remediation costs. Pursuing funding for this program would rely upon leadership from the Sustainability and Resilience Division of the City Administrator's Office, as well as the Planning & Building Department and Economic and Workforce Development Department. Historically, the Environmental Services Division of Oakland Public Works has only worked on obtaining grants for City-owned properties or public/private partnerships where the City was listed as a property owner.

F. AHSC funding is not used for existing buildings.

G. Comment noted
H. Comment noted.

I. Comment noted.
96 Letter #
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
of asthma and other health issues. For example

2.1.1, and 2.1.2 use the phrase "the city will
continue to..." implying that they will not be
doing anything new. We expect the city to step
up and find additional ways to expand this
important work. Additionally, 2.1.6 says the
"city will explore..." explore feels like weak
language - please make a more serious
commitment to this important action

2.1.6 Explore funding for improved indoor air
quality:
- Ways to strengthen this language could
include: "Increase funding" "Create dedicated
funding" "match funding" "secure funding".
- Some requirements are triggered when
property changes hands (ex. 1031 swap). Or at
the point of vacancy (new tenant).
- Additionally why just "federal and state $",
why not all sorts of sources of funds, from the
City, creative philanthropic partners (e.g. the
California Endowment), community benefits
funds from the health care sector, etc.

B. 2.1.1 Support home rehabilitation
programs:
- Can this also include rehab for soft story
buildings. We want to ensure that if a big
earthquake hits, we aren't in danger of losing
precious housing stock.

C. 2.1.2 Promote healthy homes and lead-safe
housing AND 5.2.5 Encourage climate-resilient
housing.
- Get Gas Out of Residential Buildings: Recent
research shows that indoor gas appliances emit
unhealthy levels of air pollution, sometimes in
concentrations much higher than outdoor air
pollution. Gas use in buildings regularly causes
explosions - particularly in older buildings and
from aging gas infrastructure. The City's ECAP
rightly establishes a goal to gradually remove
97 Letter #
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
fossil gas from existing buildings to be replaced
with heath pump technology. We understand
that the City Staff is developing a Building
Electrification Roadmap The Housing Element
of the General Plan should contain specific
actions to implement this ECAP objective and fully actualize the Roadmap. This is important from a public health and safety perspective, will
help the City reduce greenhouse gas emissions,
and in the long run lower the cost of residential
heating, cooling and hot water services for
Oakland residents.
- Need to protect people from additional
charges from PG&E related to decommissioning
or removing gas infrastructure from existing
homes
- For 2.1.2, we'd encourage the city to meet
with and partner with Alameda County
Department of Public Health's Asthma Start
Program and the Alameda County Healthy
Homes Department to collaborate in future
efforts.
- We hope the city can think through what
happens for existing buildings if they switch to
electric? How can we prevent an owner from
switching back to gas in the future? Please
better define what it would mean to remove
natural gas. Also, it might be appropriate to
connect with the Fire Department and
understand if they have a role? How will OFD
get educated around the removal of natural gas
since this will reduce the risk of explosions and
fires.

D. Remediation of Contaminated Sites: The
Housing Element rightly contains planning to
remediate environmentally contaminated sites.

Historically this has meant cleanup of hazardous
waste dump sites. That work certainly needs to
continue. But there is another form of
98 Letter #
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
contamination that the City should address in
this plan. Due to deacdes of structural racism,
many low income people and communities of
color live in or near places that experience
unhealthy levels of air pollution. This is evident
near the Port of Oakland, near freeways and
places with high concentrations of heavy duty
diesel powered vehicle traffic. We urge the City
to expand the definition of contaminated sites
to include neighborhoods exposed to high
levels of air pollution. This will help prioritize
remediation efforts such as retrofitting existing
housing with indoor air filtration. Funding could
be used to support and incentivise housing
upgrades in highly polluted locations. Also
consider that in West Oakland the City is
working with businesses (CASS and CSW) to
relocate out of the main neighborhood. This
would open up some VERY large contaminated
parcels for potential housing development and
neighborhood amenities.

These comments relate to
- 3.2.3 Promote flexibility in adaptive reuse to
increase the housing stock
- 5.2.3 Study options to provide financing for
the remediation of environmentally
contaminated sites, with priority for affordable
projects
- This action currently reads as if it will
subsidize redevelopment regardless of who the
developer is ("to property owners") and for
whom the housing is being made available. This
is too broad. This actions needs to be focus on
equitable development and housing.
- We'd like to see additional details (and
we're open to brainstorming with you) related
to HOW the city can help coordinate between
developers and federal clean up funds.

Strengthen langue to include "Support, find,
99 Letter #
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
locate and arrange for clean up funcs" or
something similar.
- Should the Building Dept also be a
stakeholder / leader for this? Do Public Works
and Sustinability have a role as well? Also
consider partnering with foundations.
- Alameda County's Dept of Environmental
Health - Land and Water Protection Local
Oversight Program has an initiative to map
environmentally polluted sites in the whole
county. They could potentially partner data and
clean up funding efforts.

F. 5.2.4 "Secure funding from the State's
Affordable Housing and Sustainable
Communities AHSC) Program"
- Are there opportunities to use this funidng
source for remediation and/or electrification /
decarbonization?
G. Innovative Financing for New and
Renovated Housing: In the past year, we have
entered a period of rising interest rates and
inflation that makes it more difficult to finance
housing. One partial pollution is to use Green or
Social Bonds to finance the city's housing
efforts. Recent experience indicates rising
demand from investors for these kinds of
bonds. There are a wide range of benefits.

Green and Social bonds tend to attract wider
participation from investors in bond issues,
Green bonds help align city finance with other
objects including: equity and climate resilience.

There is also evidence from Europe and from
corporate bond market that these kinds of
financing instruments can attract investors to
accept a lower interest rate, partly because of
lower risk and partly to satisfy growing investor
interest in projects having sustainability and
equity attributes. We urge the City to actively
consider using green or social bond frameworks
100
Letter
#
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
to finance housing costs, and potentially lower
finance costs for this part of the General Plan
H. Take advantage of point of sale or change of
occupancy rules. Across several action areas,
the City can take a more programmatic
approach to require or facilitate property
modifications that promote environmental
health at the point at which a property changes
hands (e.g. someone vacates a lease, sells a
home or residential building). This approach
should include equity measures to ensure
lower-resource property owners and/or
properties that are "naturally occurring"
affordable housing, can implement the
improvements. Funding can come from some of
the resources mentioned above.

I. 5.2.6 Consider adoption of a disaster
reconstruction overlay zone.
- We hope this action can ensure that new
homes have strict air quality / electrification /
weatherization standards and that affordability
is preserved?
- Maybe consider creating a low-interest
construction loan program for income-qualified
owners trying to recover. This type of support
should prioritize folks who need it the most
and/or who's housing can be preserved for low
and moderate income Oaklanders.
42 The Unity Council
6/14/20
22 “Housing action plan draft HE, chapter 4, action

3.6.3 (page 83): Expand by-right approvals and
implement entitlement reform for affordable
housing”.

Recommendation: Building Fee Deferral for
City-sponsored affordable housing
development is a Housing Element policy
recommendation that the City of Oakland
should enact.
- Issue: The requirement to pay fees up front
without ability to defer is a "governmental
Comment noted. Please see revised Action 3.3.9: Adjusting or waiving City fees and payment timing for affordable housing developments. The City currently requires only one-half of the amount of impact fees to be paid before permit issuance and the remaining half to be paid before the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. The City also defers other fees such as public art and school tax. The City will explore additional ways to increase flexibility in payment timing and potential fee reductions and/or waivers to reduce the burden imposed by the collection of City fees and requirements. 101
Letter
#
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
constraint on housing.
- Policy solution: The solution is to provide for a
deferral of fees on 100% affordable housing
developments.

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

Reform in the process to allow building fee
deferral for city-sponsored affordable housing
developments would allow nonprofit
organizations to build more affordable housing.

This important step would allow nonprofit
affordable housing developers to make it
sustainable and ensure that affordable housing
developers have an equal opportunity.

The building fee deferral would address the
specific barriers of the fees so that we can
expand affordable housing in our community
which is so urgently needed. By deferring these
fees, the City of Oakland will be showing itself
as a true partner to affordable housing
organizations like The Unity Council, who has
been a trustworthy, reliable and steadfast
partners to the City of Oakland, and has worked
together for years.
43 Crystal Lynn Keeler
6/14/20
22 A. "An affirmative effort was made to locate
affordable housing in higher resource
neighborhoods to reduce patterns of exclusion
and segregation, and the City remains
committed to increasing opportunity in
neighborhoods that have experienced historic
A. Comment noted. See Response to Letter #1 for actions included in the Housing Action Plan to expand affordable housing opportunities and promoting neighborhood stability and health.

B. See updates to Action 3.2.4: Provide financial incentives for lower-income homeowners to legalize ADUs.
102
Letter
#
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
disinvestment. Providing opportunity for lowerincome households must be a multipronged approach – the provision of affordable housing
in areas that are already higher resourced must
be coupled with continued investments in
placebased strategies for historically
marginalized neighborhoods. As outlined in
Appendix D, the production of affordable
housing and other strategies that enhance
opportunity and housing security where lowerincome residents already live—including gentrifying neighborhoods that face significant
displacement pressures—must complement
strategies to locate additional affordable
housing in existing high-opportunity areas." -
Chapter 3
We own a home in East Oakland that serves the
criteria above from Chapter 3. It is an area with
high displacement (displacement especially
occurs on Outlook Avenue - with the View - just
above us (68th Ave). We have very nice houses
on our block, but areas nearby and down the
hill are a bit more rugged. I believe our
neighborhood region is an area with historic
disinvestment, but with substantial gentrifying
forces (houses on the block are now going for a
million, a 2-bedroom one block over went for
$750K). We're on the low hills, not the high
hills, so not much risk of mudslide, or much risk
of being flooded (I think we're too high). Our
property is 10,000 square feet with a very large
yard behind us with fruit trees and an area for
an urban garden. There is another chunk of
vacant lot just next to our large backyard lot
that is currently housing a discarded moldy van
(sometimes inhabited by homeless people) and
a non-operational boat detritus. I would love to
be able to purchase the small slot just next to
C. Although the state-level Costa-Hawkins Act constrains Oakland’s ability to further extend rent control tenant protections, there are several provisions in the Housing Element that will better protect tenants. Action 2.2.5 would extend replacement unit protections beyond the expiration of SB 330.

Action 1.1.9 implements a housing registry, which will be a valuable tool in enforcing existing tenant protection laws. Action 2.2.6 studies a possible “flip tax” that might reduce speculation.

D. Comment noted. Please see revised Action 1.1.14 Protect Oakland residents from displacement and becoming homeless.

E. Comment noted. Please refer to the City of Oakland's Housing Resource Center- https://www.oaklandca.gov/topics/housing-resource-center.

F. An economic feasibility study is underway as part of the five-year impact fee update to assess the benefits of impact fees versus inclusionary requirements. This analysis will be presented to City Council for further discussion and direction. Legislative authority to enact an Inclusionary Zoning law must come from City Council action.

G. Comment noted. If someone believes they are compensated below the minimum wage, they should file a claim:
https://www.oaklandca.gov/topics/measure-ff-and-measure-z.

H. Comment noted. Revisions to the Encampment Management Policy itself will be addressed outside of the Housing Element.

I. Comment noted.

J. There are multiple safeguards placed for redevelopment of contaminated sites. Alameda County Environmental Health is the local agency responsible for review and oversight of redevelopment of contaminated sites. Known contaminated sites would be required to be remediated prior to redevelopment activities with human health risk exposure screening processes that would be in compliance with local, state, and federal requirements. The proposed policy would pursue grant and loan programs and other technical assistance programs to support the contamination characterization and remediation costs.
103
Letter #
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
our large backyard and combine the properties
to build the largest ADU allowed, or possibly a
small house (depending how zoning might go),
or two ADUs. The area cannot stand alone
without an easement off our neighbors
apartment complex for access in the back, or
easement off our property. My goal would be
to provide it as affordable housing. However,
we are stretched thin with the current
mortgage and lack the capital to develop this
area for affordable housing currently (building
and a bit of leveling out the low hill area for
proper foundation). I know second-hand of the
displacement that has happened in my
neighborhood, even my best friend was forced
to move to Antioch (someone who had called
Oakland home for 20 years). Rising rent costs
caused him to be displaced along with two of
his roommates, all African-American. Prior to
owning this house, we previously managed a
48-unit building for several years near Lake
Merritt, so we are very familiar with Fair
Housing Practices and non-discriminatory
methods for renting units. We employed every
strategy we could to ensure absolute fairness in
renting out the units available at that complex;
however, we were constrained by the owner's
requirements and a lack of affordable housing
units in that building. We were well aware of
the housing crisis when the owner asked us to
rent studios for $1750 (this was four years ago),
and we had two tiny efficiency units that went
in a day, because their cost was only $1350 (but
they were tiny rooms with a separate
bathroom).

Goal 3, p. 61
"Like other Bay Area cities, one of the major
challenges to developing permanent affordable
housing in Oakland is the extremely high cost of
104
Letter #
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
development, especially the cost of land, labor,
and materials. As California’s housing crisis
continues into another decade, new and
innovative models for the development and
maintenance of permanently affordable
housing are needed to overcome these
obstacles and meet Oakland’s increased
housing needs. Recognizing the limited
resources that staff already operate with, the
City will welcome models that are community-
based and are eligible for external funding. For
the next eight years and beyond, the City will
cultivate an atmosphere that encourages new
approaches to meet Oakland’s affordable
housing needs. The City will also encourage
models that emphasize community ownership
of land and housing to promote permanent
affordability. Oakland also has very little vacant
land available for development and is reliant
primarily on reuse of existing sites for
development. The vacant parcels that do exist,
however, can often provide significant
opportunities for residential development.

Further, vacant residential and commercial
buildings and units could provide potential
sources of additional housing supply that are
not currently available. As part of this goal, the
City will enact a variety of strategies to
incentivize active residential uses on vacant
land and units."
We're not a unit that falls within the category of
a vacant lot. We are a unit that has a very large
space that could be developed into affordable
housing, but lack the capital means to do so
currently.
"The City will also reduce the minimum lot size
in Detached Unit Residential and Mixed Housing
Type Residential generally to 3,000 square feet
105
Letter
#
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
to remove constraints on lot splitting." p.65
This softening of requirement would allow for
at least the possibility of what I'd like to do to
the land available.

B. "Action 3.2.4: Provide financial incentives for
older or lower-income homeowners who want
ADUs."
We might or might not be eligible for something
like this. We aren't high income, but we have
one city income and one disability income, so
we might fall in the middle of this action step.

C. Comment about rent control: increase the
options for rent control, expand rent control
I personally believe it should be within the city's
housing plan to increase the rental control
increase cap to all housing units in Oakland, not
just those built before 1983. New developers,
new housing construction should also be bound
by the same laws, and rent control has saved so
many people in the past (including myself when
fully disabled, on limited income).

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

E. Action 3.7.1:

This is an extremely important area. I know two
elderly ladies (76 and 80) with ailing health
concerns. If either one of them dies, the other
will become homeless, with no housing options,
because neither of them can afford the rent on
their own (disability social security - only
funding). Both are physically disabled, one in a
wheelchair, one requiring a scooter, and need
accessible housing.
106
Letter #
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
F. Action 3.7.3 I think this is NOT STRONG
ENOUGH! Promoting affordable units in new
construction is not enough. REQUIRING IT is
the only thing that will force most developers to
even offer. Policy efforts should be undertaken
to make this kind of policy change into law.

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

Action 3.8.3
This is a tough one. The actions of this will fall
primarily on the shoulders of low or underpaid
property managers (with the exception of large
corporate property managers - who usually do
receive a salary). We worked super hard as
building managers of the 48-unit complex to fill
the units, but it was so much work at market
rate (set by owner). We received only
$300/month in compensation if the building
was full (in addition to our no rent in exchange
for exhaustive duties of a building manager).

Most work was unpaid. Any extra city
requirements, like city garbage - push/pull, bulk
waste pick-ups, composting were always
unpaid. An action like this will invite retaliation
from building owners down on underpaid
building managers. A caution should be applied
here, perhaps only enacting this action after 3-
months vacant. Sometimes units were also
rehabbed, being updated, and this construction
process took longer than 3 months, and an
exception should be made for units that are
being improved for tenants.

H. POLICY 4.2 ENCAMPMENT MANAGEMENT
Action 4.2.1
I believe offering mental health site access, or
social work ability near these encampment sites
should be part of this section. It would require
funding, but should not just be funding security
107
Letter
#
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
guards or police for safety, should offer the
material and immaterial services really needed
by this population group.

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

J. Action 5.2.3
The caution here is that contaminated sites
truly must be deemed decontaminated and safe
by EPA standards at bare minimum. Too many
low income housing projects in other cities have
been built over these sites, and residents were
never informed of the risks. Some sites had a
small sign saying do not play on the soil/grass,
but parents didn't know that their children
were receiving high levels of contamination.

How do you have children in these areas
without safety? Children should be allowed
safe places to play and safe areas outside, not
to mention inside. Extreme caution must be
used not to perpetuate environmental injustice
at the expense of meeting demand.
44 Scott Forman
6/14/20
22 My main point of feedback is that, especially
with respect to the housing element, we should
go much farther in making it possible to build
lots of new homes.

I think our default stance should be much closer
to "all and every type of home building allowed,
everywhere, by right." The same goes for any
and all commercial activities that don't have
significant negative externalities like lots of
Comments noted. See Response to Letter #1 for actions included in the Housing Action Plan to expand affordable housing opportunities and promoting neighborhood stability and health.
108
Letter
#
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
noise or noxious fumes.

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

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

In short, I'm an enthusiastic "yes" to a lot of
what's in this plan, but I'd like to see it go much
further in actively promoting new homes and
businesses, and discouraging cars and parking.
45 Sarah Karlinsky, SPUR
6/15/20
22 A. The Housing Element should take stronger
steps to affirmatively further fair housing. We
appreciate the effort that the team has taken to
analyze how this Housing Element draft
affirmatively furthers fair housing. However, we
believe that more can be done to achieve this
goal. The draft notes that most of the
residential capacity for housing is located in low
resource, high segregation areas due to the fact
that over 60% of the land in Oakland is in these
categories. And the land that is located in high
and highest resource categories is impacted by
environmental constraints such as very high fire
hazard severity zones.

These are challenging constraints to address.

Nevertheless, we believe that there are some
A. See Response to Letter #1 for actions included in the Housing Action Plan to expand affordable housing opportunities, particularly in high resource areas, and promoting neighborhood stability and health. Also, see Appendix J for a summary of zoning amendments, including a summary of a Housing Sites Overlay zone that requires a majority of a site listed as a housing opportunity site be developed as residential.

B. Comment noted. As part of the Phase 1 GPU Environmental Justice Element, as well as Phase 2 of the GPU with the Open Space, Conservation and Recreation Element update and creation of the new Infrastructure and Facilities Element, staff will be assessing the current state of community assets to identify improvements, increase assets, and identify locations in underserved residential areas.

C. See Response to Letter #1 for actions included in the Housing Action Plan to expand affordable housing opportunities and promoting neighborhood stability and health, with more detail about locations impacted by these measures.
109
Letter #
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
steps that can be taken to increase the housing
capacity in high resource areas. Specifically, we
believe that Oakland's Housing Element should
look at sites that can be intensively upzoned
within the Rockridge and Elmwood
neighborhoods, including the Rockridge BART
parking lot. Potential sites could include the
Trader Joe's site directly adjacent to the BART
station (inclusive of parking lot) and the
triangular lot at the corner of College Avenue
and Claremont. While some sites in this area
may be too small to support affordable housing,
they could accommodate apartments that
would be more affordable than the single family
homes that currently exist in this majority of
the neighborhood.

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

B. The Housing Element should identify
concrete strategies to build more community
infrastructure in low-income communities in
order to make affordable housing in those
neighborhoods more equitable. Given that so
much of the residential capacity in Oakland is
located in low resource and high segregation
areas, and therefore that a sizable portion of
affordable housing in Oakland may be located
in these areas, it is important to ensure that
appropriate community infrastructure is being
planned in these neighborhoods. Building
affordable housing in low-income
neighborhoods can help stabilize communities
D. Comment noted.
110
Letter #
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
and is an important anti-displacement strategy.

However it must be paired with investments in
parks, community spaces, and programs that
benefit low-income families.

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

We appreciate and support all these policies.

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

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

D. State housing agencies should prioritize
numerous important goals - including funding
affordable housing near transit and stabilizing
neighborhoods at risk of displacement - when
determining where to allocate affordable
housing funds. Appendix F of the Draft Housing
Element notes that the California Tax Credit
Allocation Committee's competitive tax credit
111
Letter
#
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
applications disadvantage Oakland because so
much of the residentially zoned land is
considered "low resource". While affirmatively
furthering fair housing is an absolutely critical
goal that the state should be advancing, it is
also important that Oakland, as a regional hub
with many BART stations, be able to access tax
credits and other funding to build affordable
housing close to transit. Additionally, as
mentioned earlier, affordable housing is an
important tool for stabilizing neighborhoods at
risk of displacement. It would be helpful for
HCD to work with partner agencies at the state
level to help balance these important values in
the allocation of affordable housing resources.
46 Thomas Cooke
6/29/20
22 A. The draft plan identifies a multitude of
housing issues and problems and sets forth
many admirable goals and policies to be
addressed. The draft checks off all the boxes,
and makes the case there are sufficient parcels
and capacity to meet the State mandated
housing goal, to meet compliance with State
housing element requirements. However, if
Oakland is to make any meaningful process in
addressing its housing needs a more proactive,
implementation orientation is required. The
comments below suggest several means by
which to do so.

B. Expand search and identification of potential
housing sites. It appears the planners relied
primarily of other sources to identify potential
sites and did not conduct original search and
analysis. Have the many church properties for
example been surveyed? Have there been any
surveys done to identify underutilized
commercial property with housing potential for
either rezoning or mixed use. other than those
suggested by the community? Provide
scheduling for any planning or zoning changes
A. Comment noted.

B. The revised 2023-2031 Housing Element includes these sites as part of Appendix M: Recommended Sites for Future Housing (Upzoning/General Plan Update Opportunity Sites).

Please also see NEW Action 3.4.10: Implement a Housing Sites Overlay Zone to permit sites included in the Housing Sites Inventory to develop with affordable housing by right.

C. See updates to Action 3.5.1: Support community land trusts and other shared equity models.
112
Letter
#
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
required to facilitate housing construction and
conditions thereof.

Although extensive tables documenting the
characteristics of many sites are provided, any
sense priority is lost. To off set this problem a
more selective, high priority site category
should be established to promote and expedite
housing construction. Sites on this list should be
given priority for local and other funding
resources. Criteria already provided in the draft
should be refined (simplified) to distinguish
such sites. As necessary such sites should be
designated for plan and/or zoning changes to
avoid preemption by non-residential
development.

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

C. Identify and set forth more specific models
for housing/rental mechanisms such as limit
equity condominium, co-housing, and
cooperatives.
47 Liana Molina, Build
Affordable Faster
6/30/20
22 A. Meeting our goals to produce affordable
housing is a priority for Oakland residents. In a
September 2020 David Binder survey of
Oakland voters (Margin of Error: ±5.7%) by
David Binder for BAF, 83% of residents believe
we are not building enough for low- and
middle-income residents. 71% believe market
rate construction is too expensive and pushes
out existing residents, and 83% believe market
rate housing should include as many affordable
housing units as possible. [See chart on page 2
of comment letter.]
B. It is not clear how the action plan outlined in
the draft housing element will achieve our
RHNA goals for affordable housing, especially
when many of the strategies are a mere
continuation of policies and programs currently
A. Comment noted.

B. Chapter 4: Housing Action Plan in the revised 2023-2031 Housing Element highlights new actions with blue text.

C. Appendix A: Evaluation of the 2015-2023 Housing Element includes a discussion on shortfalls in producing affordable housing.

See response to Letter #1 for more actions included in the Housing Action Plan to expand affordable housing opportunities and promote neighborhood stability and health. In addition, NEW Action 3.3.19: Sites Inventory and Fair Housing Accomplishments Tracking Program was included in the Housing Action Plan to conduct a mid-cycle assessment of progress toward meeting the City's RHNA housing production goals and to ensure there is adequate capacity to develop units at each income level.

D. Goals 1 and 3 of the Housing Action Plan address anti-displacement measures and affordable housing production. The description of Goal 4 in the Housing Action Plan explicitly reaffirms the principle of housing as a human right.
113
Letter
#
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
in place which have not been sufficient to
prevent displacement of long-term residents
and have resulted in the massive underproduction of moderate- and lower-income housing.

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

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

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

Tenant Protections, Anti-Displacement and
Preservation of Existing Affordable Housing
E. We support Action 1.1.3 to strengthen Ellis
Act Ordinance protections. The city should be
more actively advocating for state legislative
reform to ensure the Ellis Act is not used by
E. Although the state-level Costa-Hawkins Act constrains Oakland’s ability to further extend tenant protections, there are several provisions in the Housing Element that will better protect tenants. Action 2.2.5 would extend replacement unit protections beyond the expiration of SB 330. Action 1.1.9 implements a housing registry, which will be a valuable tool in enforcing existing tenant protection laws. Action 2.2.6 studies a possible “flip tax” that might reduce speculation.

F. Comment noted.

G. Comment noted. Staff will address this as part of the Land Use and Transportation Element (LUTE) update in Phase 2 of the General Plan Update process.

H. Comment noted.

I. The City will work on establishing a standardized approach to the community benefits provided within a development agreement. Language updated in Action 1.1.13: Negotiate for appropriate community benefits during development agreement approvals for major entitlements and use of City land" to reflect this.

J. City staff currently prioritize review of affordable housing projects. Please see updated Actions 3.3.1, 3.3.4, and 3.3.5 in the revised 2023-2031 Housing Element.

K. Almost all of Oakland's zoning allow both residential and commercial, except industrial zones and the CR-1 and CC-3 zones. The Affordable Housing Overlay and Housing Sites Overlay Zones will apply in areas that could help facilitate commercial-residential conversions.

L. The City will meet with stakeholders periodically to discuss emerging innovations and gather more information to understand and accommodate barriers. See updated language for Action 3.3.11: Support innovations by design.

M. Please see the revised Action 3.3.15: Continue and expand density bonus incentives. The City will solicit additional ideas for incentives and expansion of the density bonus program and gather feedback from Planning Commission and City Council, as well, during a mid-cycle Housing Element assessment.

N. The Affordable Housing and Infrastructure Bond Measure (Measure U) allocates $350 million to affordable housing preservation projects.

O. An economic feasibility study is underway as part of the five-year impact fee update to determine the potential for increasing impact fees. In addition, the affordable housing impact fees automatically increase at the beginning of each fiscal year with the rate of construction inflation. Most recently, in 114
Letter
#
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
large conglomerates to push out tenants. We
encourage more specificity regarding City
Council direction to ensure that this is a
legislative priority for the firm representing the
city's interests in Sacramento.

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

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

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

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

I. Regarding Action 1.1.12 to negotiate for
appropriate community benefits during
development agreement approvals for major
July 2022, the affordable housing impact fees went up by 15% because of the high construction inflation rate.

P. On May 17, 2022, Oakland City Council directed the City Administration to study the creation and implementation of a citywide enhanced infrastructure financing district (EIFD) funding affordable housing and infrastructure improvements. Staff will be conducting a feasibility study of various EIFD scenarios and anticipates that a final recommendation will be provided by Fiscal Year 2024. Please see Action 3.3.10: Citywide Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD).

Q. Comment noted. Revisions to the Encampment Management Policy itself will be addressed outside of the Housing Element.
115
Letter #
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
entitlements and use of City land: we urge the
city to set strong community benefits standards
including deeply affordable housing
requirements and anti-displacement resources
for tenants, across the board, which the
approval of development agreements is
conditioned upon. This would help offset the
impacts of further displacement and
gentrification and help provide more certainty
for the city, project developers and other
stakeholders, versus an unpredictable and
resource intensive negotiation process.

J. Housing Production
We strongly support the recommendations in
the overarching Policy Goal 3.1 to facilitate
production of deeply affordable housing. This
policy goal goes hand in hand with Action 3.3.5
to implement an affordable housing overlay to
establish by right (non-discretionary) zoning for
100% affordable housing developments and
development projects that offer higher
affordability and Action 3.3.1 is key to make all
available city-owned property for affordable
housing and ensure that city-owned property
goes to extremely low-income households as
stated in Action 3.3.4. For any streamlining of
100% affordable, the city should explicitly
mandate city staff to prioritize affordable
housing projects.

K. In addition, Action 3.2.3, is key to opening
more land, and to promote flexibility in
adaptive reuse to increase the housing stock.

The city should look at vacant commercial stock
and make it easier for it to be residential with
higher affordability. In our previously
referenced 2020 David Binder poll, allowing for
residential for underutilized commercial
properties had 90% support among Oakland
voters. We believe in unlocking the potential of
116
Letter #
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
thousands of square miles of urban and
suburban commercial districts, transforming
underutilized office parks and expansive parking
lots into hundreds of thousands -- or even
millions -- of new market-rate and affordable
homes
L. The cost of construction materials, high
interest rates, and cost/competition for land
are huge factors that will impact the delivery of
housing projects, especially affordable housing
projects. The city should not only engage Action

3.3.11: Support innovations by design but
convene stakeholders such as labor and
developers to significantly increase production
of housing using construction innovations, such
as exploring modular, to match housing needs.

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

N. Financing
If the City is to meet its goal of building housing
for the working and middle class it must provide
a comprehensive financing plan for how we will
build 10,000 very low-, low-, and moderate-
income units by 2031, as required by our RHNA.

We support Action 3.3.16: Consider revising the
Real Estate Transfer Tax to use "a portion of the
revised tax rate as a dedicated funding stream
for affordable housing." We also support Action

3.3.18 to reauthorize Measure KK if it is a bond
that predominantly addresses our housing
affordability crisis.

O. We also support Action 3.3.8 to right-size
development fees on market-rate
developments. In our analysis below, the city
only gets a mere fraction of what a developer
117
Letter #
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
could afford in 2020. Factors such as the
current recession conditions, interest rates, and
cost of construction materials may need to be
re-visited. [See Table on page 4 of comment
letter.]
P. EIFD
In 2019, the Mayor's Housing Cabinet published
recommendations in the report Oakland at
Home: Recommendations for Implementing A
Roadmap Toward Equity which explored an
Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District
(EIFD) for affordable housing. Three years later, the draft Housing Element, also recommends considering an EIFD via Action 3.3.10, Consider
a citywide Enhanced Infrastructure Financing
District (EIFD). We're concerned about the
proposed timeline and advocate that the city
act with urgency regarding an EIFD that invests
in the public good- affordable housing and
associated infrastructure. A study and
subsequent steps to form an EIFD should be
completed in the near term, not 2028. Our
agency has contracted with a respected third-
party agency to do this analysis and is working
with the city administration and other
stakeholders to identify specific boundaries and
uses for the EIFD revenues. An EIFD would allow
for increased bonding capacity to leverage
funding that local Oakland based developers
can access to support the production and
preservation of affordable housing.

Q. Homelessness and Services for the
Unhoused
Regarding Goal 4. Address Homelessness and
Expand Services for the Unhoused, the
codification of the controversial "Encampment
Management Policy" in Policy 4.2, Action 4.2.1
and 4.2.3, should be reconsidered. While
addressing homelessness should be a top
118
Letter
#
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
priority for the city, many directly impacted
members of the unhoused community and
advocates for the homeless have registered
formal opposition to the EMP and have
requested that City Council rescind the
ordinance. We urge the city to continue to
engage these stakeholders to identify and build
more consensus on ways to meet the health
and safety needs of both unhoused residents
and the greater Oakland community.
48 Jeff Levin, EBHO
7/26/20
22 A. Item 3.1: Housing Element Annual Progress
Report (APR)
This report summarizes the City’s progress in
meeting its Housing Element goals after 7 of the
8 years of the current housing element cycle
have been completed. Unfortunately, the City
has fallen far short of meeting it’s assigned
housing production targets.

The report notes that building permits peaked
at slightly more than 4,000 annually in both
2017 and 2018, and have since fallen off. In
2021, there were “only” 1,667 units permitted.

This needs to be taken in historical perspective.

These are still record-breaking numbers.
- For the previous two housing element cycles,
covering the period 1999 – 2014, the average
number of units permitted was 690 per year.
- For the last seven years, the average is nearly
2,400, more than three times the average over
the preceding 16 years.

This record level of production has been
anything but equitable. As we have pointed
out many times before, there is a tremendous
imbalance between production of housing for
above-moderate income and production for
very-low, low and moderate income.
- While the City has permitted nearly double its
A. Comment noted.

See also response to Letter #1 for more actions included in the Housing Action Plan to expand affordable housing opportunities and promote neighborhood stability and health. In addition, NEW Action 3.3.19: Sites Inventory and Fair Housing Accomplishments Tracking Program was included in the Housing Action Plan to conduct a mid-cycle assessment of progress toward meeting the City's RHNA housing production goals and to ensure there is adequate capacity to develop units at each income level.

B. The revised 2023-2031 Housing Element includes additional sites in Rockridge to meet the State's requirement to AFFH. In addition, Chapter 4:

Housing Action Plan (HAP) describes in more detail the goals, strategies, and actions the City will implement in the 2023-2031 planning period to reduce racial segregation and eliminate racial disparities in access to opportunity and housing. NEW Action 3.3.19: Sites Inventory and Fair Housing Accomplishments Tracking Program was added to the Housing Element to conduct a mid-cycle assessment of the effectiveness of AFFH programs, including sites that develop in high resource areas.

See response to Letter #1 for more actions included in the HAP to expand affordable housing opportunities, particularly in high resource areas, and promote neighborhood stability and health.

C. The revised 2023-2031 Housing Element incorporates this feedback. This context is incorporated in the Introduction (1-1 through1-4); Appendix D (section D.2, pp. D-14 and 15, and new section D.5D.6 [Housing Sites Inventory Analysis]); Appendix F (F-10 through F-11).

D. Chapter 4: Housing Action Plan in the revised 2023-2031 Housing Element includes discrete implementation timelines and milestones within the 8-year planning period
119
Letter
#
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
RHNA target for above-moderate income, it has
permitted only 26% of the RHNA target for
lower and moderate income.
- Put another way, while the RHNA called for
53% of new housing to be targeted to abovemoderate income, 89% of the building permits for new housing have been higher-end, abovemoderate income housing that very few Oakland renters and first-time homebuyers can
afford, while only 11% have been for affordable
housing.
- Only 1 affordable unit has been built for every
8 unaffordable market-rate units.

Given this track record, a vague call to develop
“housing for all economic levels” is not enough.

Oakland needs a housing strategy that explicitly
prioritizes affordable housing for those with the
greatest needs, and does not need to provide
additional incentives for above-moderate
income, market-rate housing, which has been
substantially over-produced. We hope you will
consider this as Oakland moves forward to
update its housing element for the 2023-2031
cycle.

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

C. While the draft Housing Element contains an
extensive Fair Housing Assessment with a
wealth of data and maps, it falls short on at
F. In the revised 2023-2031 Housing Element, Goal 3 of the Housing Action Plan is reframed to state "Close the Gap Between Affordable and MarketRate Housing Production by Expanding Affordable Housing Opportunities." In addition, "Reduce racial segregation and racial disparities in housing opportunities and outcomes" is explicitly called out as a priority in the introduction to the Housing Action Plan.

G. The Housing Element was taken to City Council on October 18, 2022, and Planning Commission on October 19, 2022 to review the findings letter from State HCD, and will be presented to Planning Commission and Council for adoption in January 2023.
120
Letter #
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
least two counts. While there is a description of
current racial and economic segregation and
disparities, there is little analysis of the history
and underlying factors that gave rise to, and
continue to perpetuate, these conditions. The
most glaring issue is that the Fair Housing
Assessment completely fails to analyze
exclusionary zoning patterns as a key factor in
racial segregation, despite passing mention that
zoning was an issue. This is particularly
disappointing in light of the informational
report on redlining, segregation and reparations
in West Oakland that you received at your
meeting last week, which does a far better job
of identifying historical, structural and systemic
factors and policies to address these.

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

Inventory of Available Sites

Of particular concern is the inventory of
availability of suitable sites to meet Oakland’s
Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
targets for the various income levels. The draft
was developed with the stated intent to create
an inventory based on current zoning, without
the need to identify additional parcels to be
rezoned to accommodate the City’s housing
needs. As a result, most of the sites suitable for
affordable housing continue to be concentrated
in lower opportunity areas with higher
concentrations of low income households and
121
Letter #
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
communities of color, particularly Black
residents who historically have suffered the
worst segregation and discrimination. Even if all
the identified housing sites were developed as
projected, racial segregation would not be
significantly reduced, and the high opportunity,
historically exclusive areas would remain as
inaccessible as before. The City cannot say that
it is affirmatively furthering fair housing if its
plans and goals don’t even mention reducing
patterns of segregation and overcoming the
historical barriers posed by exclusionary zoning.

Proposed Strategies and Programs
D. Another area of concern is the identification
and description of new strategies and
programs. Many of the new actions described
in the draft Housing Element are policies and
programs that EBHO and many other
organizations had long advocated, such as
greater tenant protections, a Tenant and
Community Opportunity to Purchase Act,
finalization of the City’s public land policy, and
more, and we are pleased to see these included
here.

Unfortunately, the language in the draft
element says only that the City will “study” or
“consider” such programs, with no concrete
steps, milestones, expected outcomes, or
performance metrics. The State has explicitly
instructed cities that such vague statements are
not sufficient, and has rejected draft housing
elements from other cities for just this reason.

If it is not possible to fully adopt new policies
and programs as part of the Housing Element,
then at a minimum the document must commit
to bringing concrete legislation before the City
Council by a specific date in order to implement
these new programs. Simply continuing the
122
Letter
#
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
same actions that have been undertaken to
date is not sufficient, since as clearly
demonstrated in the City’s Annual Performance
Report, the City is falling far short of meeting its
RHNA goals in the current cycle.

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

Reduce racial segregation and racial disparities
in housing opportunities and outcomes. Simply
stating a goal to “expand affordable housing
opportunities” is not sufficient.
- Close the gap between market-rate and
affordable housing production by prioritizing
preservation and development of housing
affordable to those with the greatest needs,
including Black and Brown households that
constitute the bulk of the lower income
population. Instead of “promoting housing
opportunities for all economic levels,” the City
must explicitly prioritize actions that address
these pressing needs, in both its funding
priorities and its land use and other regulatory
actions.

G. Council and Public Review of the Draft
Housing Element
To date the City Council has not had an
opportunity to consider the draft Housing
Element. Despite an extensive community
outreach process during preparation of the
draft, once it was completed, consideration of
the draft was subsumed within a larger report
on development of the entire General Plan
update. Initially there was no summary or
overview of the content of the housing element
and particularly new policies and actions and
123
Letter
#
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
consideration of the obligation to affirmatively
further fair housing until we explicitly called for
such a summary. Previous draft Housing
Elements have at least included an Executive
Summary; there was no such summary in the
current draft.

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

We call on the City to ensure an open and
inclusive process in the next revision of the
draft Housing Element. Once staff receives
comments from the State, that information
should be brought before the City Council to get
input on how best to address the State’s
comments. After the new draft is developed,
there should be a public comment period of not
less than 30 days, including a public hearing
before the Council to consider and comment on
the revised draft, prior to preparing a final draft
for adoption and submission.
49 Sangeeta Sarkar, Save
the Bay
8/5/202
2 As the City of Oakland plans to meet its RHNA
goals, selecting sites that are resilient to the
impacts of climate change is critically
Comment noted.
124
Letter
#
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
important. New housing construction,
especially for low-income communities who
face the greatest risk from climate impacts,
should be located away from areas prone to
fires, flooding, extreme heat, and sea level rise.

Dense, affordable, infill development close to
transit can connect historically under-invested
communities to resources and infrastructure
across the city and region. Building SMART
housing will also advance Oakland’s climate
goals by mitigating greenhouse gas emissions
from driving by supporting the use of
alternative modes.

One opportunity to add more climate SMART
housing in Oakland is in the Rockridge
neighborhood. Housing built here would be
accessible by BART and bus lines, and would be
more resilient to extreme heat due to an
abundance of trees and parks. This
neighborhood is also more resilient to other
climate impacts, as it is outside of the sea level
rise and fire hazard zones. Affordable housing in
this high opportunity area is especially
impactful toward reducing income inequality
and racial segregation, which the City of
Oakland is required to address under AB 686.

Prioritizing dense, affordable housing
development in this and other high opportunity
areas through strategic rezoning is necessary to
affirmatively further fair housing as required by
law, and to move toward racial and
environmental equity in Oakland.

See Response to Letter #1 for actions included in the Housing Action Plan to expand affordable housing opportunities and promoting neighborhood stability and health.
50 Louis Eisenberg
8/15/20
22 I am writing to express my strong support for a
comment letter submitted by the Rockridge
Community Planning Council (RCPC) Board on
the topic of Oakland's draft Housing Element. In
particular, I want to emphasize my support for
the following paragraph:

Oakland Planning Staff included the "Shops at the Ridge Phase II" site at Broadway and Pleasant Valley in the revised Housing Element Sites Inventory.
125
Letter
#
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
First and foremost, we were extremely
surprised and disappointed to see that the large
“Shops at the Ridge Phase II” site at Broadway
and Pleasant Valley was not included in the
Inventory and we cannot understand the
reasoning behind this omission. This site, which
is flat, not within an established low-density
neighborhood and less than a 15-minute walk
from Rockridge BART, is clearly one of the most
important undeveloped housing opportunity
sites in the City. The current Home Depot
proposal for this site would be an extremely
inappropriate use. A survey of Rockridge
residents from RCPC indicated that neighbors
overwhelmingly prefer housing at the Ridge
Phase II. The site should be included within the
Inventory. As an implementation action of the
Housing Element, the site should be rezoned to
encourage high density residential development
and prohibit stand-alone non-residential uses.
51 Maya Schechter
8/16/20
22 I am writing to share a comment in advance of
Thursday's Rockridge meeting on the draft
Housing Element. I cannot attend the meeting
but I strongly support the points made by RCPC
in the letter sent to the city, including allowing
and incentivizing housing, especially affordable
housing, on all of sites listed in the letter:
- CCA Site
- Rockridge BART Site
- Triangular site at the corner of Claremont and
College
- A portion of the Dreyer’s Ice Cream site
- Wendy’s site at College and Broadway
- Ridge site at Broadway and Pleasant Hill
- Carpet store site at College and Kales
- Dialysis Center site at Claremont and Clifton
- DMV Site at Claremont and Cavour
- Chevron Station Site at Telegraph near
highway 24
Comment noted. See Response to Letter #36
126
Letter
#
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
I also support the other points made to
encourage housing in Rockridge.
52 Khanh Russo,
Partnership for the
Bay's Future
8/26/20
22 We believe the following policies can play an
important role in meeting the requirements of
this housing element and supporting thriving
communities:

A. Favorable Zoning and Land Use
+ Make multifamily infill easier to develop
+ Allow, require or encourage multifamily
housing in more places
+ Allow or encourage missing middle housing
in single-family neighborhoods
+ Provide incentives for affordable housing
development
+ Provide incentives for affordable ADUs and
"missing middle" housing
B. Accelerating Production Timeframes
+ Streamline development approvals and
environmental review process for multifamily
housing
+ Streamline permitting process for
multifamily housing
C. Reducing Construction and Development
Costs
+ Ensure local requirements are not making
development more expensive without requisite
benefits
+ Actively support the use of modular and
factory-built construction methods
D. Providing Financial Subsidies: Generate new
or dedicate existing revenue for affordable
housing
F. Advocating for Rent Control and Just Cause
for Eviction Policies
+ Adopt or update rent stabilization policies
+ Adopt or update just cause eviction policies
G. Advocating for Community Land Trusts
(CLTs): Support the formation and operation of
community land trusts
Comments noted.

A. See Response to Letter #1 for actions included in the Housing Action Plan to expand affordable housing opportunities and promoting neighborhood stability and health.

B. Please see the following actions, which address this issue:
- NEW Action 3.3.5: Implement an Affordable Housing Overlay - Action 3.3.15 Continue and expand density bonus incentives - NEW Action 3.4.3: Revise Conditional Use Permit (CUP) requirements - NEW Action 3.4.8: Implement Objective Design Standards - NEW Action 3.4.10 Implement a Housing Sites Overlay Zone to permit sites included in the Housing Sites Inventory to develop with affordable housing by right
- NEW Action 3.6.1: Streamline the City permitting process, especially for low-income and nonprofit builders
- Action 3.6.4: Continue SB 35 streamlining and encourage projects to use it C. See Response to Letter #1 for actions included in the Housing Action Plan to expand affordable housing opportunities and promoting neighborhood stability and health, in particular Action 3.3.5: Implement an Affordable Housing Overlay and NEW Action 3.4.10: Implement a Housing Sites Overlay Zone. In addition, please see Action 3.3.11: Support innovations by design, which addresses support for modular and factory-built construction methods.

D. Measure U was placed on the ballot for November 2022. If passed by voters, Measure U will issue bonds to raise $850 million, including $350 million dedicated to funding affordable housing.

F. This comment is addressed in the Housing Element by Action 1.1.1:

Continue to implement the rent adjustment ordinance.

G. HCD's Acquisition and Conversion to Affordable Housing (ACAH) Notices of Funding Availability (NOFA) for the 2019-20 and 2020-21 funding rounds contained funding set-asides for Coop/CLT projects and will continue with this approach in upcoming NOFA rounds. HCD staff is also preparing revised loan documents to address potential tenant ownership in properties.

H. An economic feasibility study is underway as part of the five-year impact fee update to assess the benefits of impact fees versus inclusionary requirements. This analysis will be presented to City Council for further 127
Letter
#
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
H. Advocating for Inclusionary Zoning and
Impact Fees: Create or review/update
inclusionary housing (including in-lieu fees) and
commercial linkage fee requirements
I. Inventory of Sites: Ensure that land is
equitably zoned for multifamily housing,
especially in high-opportunity areas
discussion and direction. Legislative authority to enact an Inclusionary Zoning law must come from City Council action.

I. See Response to Letter #1 for actions included in the Housing Action Plan to expand affordable housing opportunities and promoting neighborhood stability and health.
53 Deeply Rooted
10/1/20
22 Community Proposed Strategy
A. Treat unhoused people with dignity and
respect the communities they have built rather
than allowing for City evictions under the
current Homeless Encampment Management
Policy.

B. Prioritize Compassionate Care and Facilities:

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

C. Ensure Clean Environments: Support trash
removal and address illegal dumping around
homeless encampments in active partnership
with unhoused residents.

D. [New City policy states ] Update zoning of
single family (one home per parcel) to allow for
duplex, fourplex, townhomes, and accessory
dwelling units. Upzoning to allow for more
live/work housing (live in and run a business)
and artist housing in cultural districts).

Create Cultural Preservation Districts to
protect existing residents from displacement,
i.e. require on-site affordable units from market
rate projects (instead of in-lieu fee), use
neighborhood area median income for defining
affordability, require fair housing impact
A. Each year, it is estiated that 15,786 people in 13,135 households experience homelessness in Alameda County, and approximately 60% of them reside in Oakland. The conditions at many encampments are inhumane, dangerous, often fatal. The Encampment Management policy is rooted to a shelter offer policy that places a requirement on the City to provide shelter options when closing an encampment. While improvements are still being developed in the homelessness system, when an encampment is closed, individuals at the camp are offered a shelter bed and an alternative to sleeping in a place not fit for human habitation as defined by US Department of Housing and Urban Development.

B. Many of the Emergency Shelter interventions operated by the Human Services Department offer showers, groups, services and housing navigation as part of a managed program. Futhermore, the local Continuum of Care (CoC) provides training and opportunities for individuals with lived expertise to contribute to the development of the Homeless Services System in Alameda County and the City of Oakland. Lastly the Commission on Homelessness regularly recruits individuals with lived experience to participate in meetings and inform the city on issues faced by people experiencing homelessness.

C. It is the goal of the City to provide regular and adequate trash collection from encampments, to ensure that porta-potties and hand-washing stations are serviced regularly as needed, and that encampments receive regular deep cleanings to ensure that our unhoused residents are not living in conditions that threaten health and/or safety.

D. Typically, affordable housing needs to be built at fairly sizable densities for it to be feasible to develop on-site affordable units. It would be challenging to finance affordable units for small increases in density, such as any upzoning projects to allow for duplexes, fourplexes, townhomes, and accessory dwelling units. Requiring affordable units to be developed for small-scale upzoning projects could limit development of single family neighborhoods altogether and therefore keep them single-family. In addition, this would create an equity problem where it would be more 128
Letter
#
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
assessment of market rate projects, have a
Community Planning Council to vote on new
development projects, etc.

F. Support streamlined communication with
affordable housing applicants for quicker
response times and accurate updates on
housing application status [Action items in
the current Housing Element include
housing preference policies for displaced
residents and current Oakland residents
and workers].

G. Provide Financial Assistance: Consider
publicly subsidized housing stipends for
Oakland natives.

H. Grow Shared Ownership/Homeownership
Opportunities: Support pathway to
homeownership and shared ownership
programs for Black and other residents of color;
create shared housing options for formerly
incarcerated people.

I. Fund Supportive Housing: Fund permanent
supportive housing with intensive wraparound
services, including mental health and case
management services; dedicate housing for
unhoused veterans and people with
disabilities.*
J. The State Affirmatively Furthering Fair
Housing new rules requires the City to
acknowledge the history of and current fair
housing violations, and to affirmatively solve for
these problems. The City’s consultants should
work closely with DR groups to include the
history of Oakland’s different communities that
have experienced housing and racial exclusion
and fair housing discrimination in Housing
Element sections.

K. Value Community Assets: Prioritize
community assets such as recreation centers
expensive to build additional units in these proposed cultural preservation districts than those areas that would not have this requirement of building affordable units on site. And, it is a more complicated process that the average mom and pop home owner would have difficulty managing (often duplexes, fourplexes, and ADUs are a home owner or smaller developer).

Anti-displacement protections are outlined in detail in Chapter 4, Goal 1 of the Housing Element. These existing and proposed anti-displacement programs and policies will be implemented during the 2023-2031 Housing Element planning period.

F. This is a major challenge for most jurisdictions. Oakland HCD has been working with the County to develop an online affordable housing access portal for residents to apply to new construction lease ups; several Oakland projects and other projects in the county have gone through the portal. We are currently in conversations on how to improve the portal's functionality.

Please also note that Bay Area Housing Finance Authority is working on developing a region-wide portal: http://housing.acgov.org/.

G. Oakland HCD focuses on producing new affordable housing units and rehabilitating existing units. We rely on our partnership with the Oakland Housing Authority to subsidize unit affordability via vouchers or other operating subsidy.

The City is monitoring pilots that offer "shallow subsidy" programs which offer a middle path between one-time emergency rental assistance and long-term Section 8 vouchers. Such a program would most effectively be run through Oakland Housing Authority, but could be piloted together with HCD.

A challenge overall has been the difficulty of finding rental units in the City, as demonstrated by the Emergency Housing Vouchers absorption rates.

H. City of Oakland has continuously applied for State funding to support homeownership opportunities for Oaklanders, but we have consistently been denied (three years in a row now) because we are a "high-cost city." Oakland HCD staff are advocating with State officers and lobbyists to shift scoring criteria and priorities for future application rounds. We encourage Deeply Rooted to work with us and Council on these and other State advocacy efforts - many of the State's programs are in conflict with each other (e.g. Multifamily Housing Program deeper affordability that is higher cost, or Affordable Housing Sustainable Communities in transit rich areas, 129
Letter
#
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
and parks; increase trees and green spaces in
underserved residential areas.

L. Require/Provide an air purifier per unit in
neighborhoods with high levels of pollution.

This will also help address wildfire smoke.

M. Commission a market force displacement
study (building on the City’s 2005 West Oakland
Wood Street Project Impact study conducted by
Mundie & Associates) and utilizing data from
the City’s Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing,
develop a moratorium on market rate housing
in displacement vulnerable areas.
but Oakland is too high cost or too low opportunity to be competitive for CDLAC/TCAC or CalHOME).

With the limited funds Oakland HCD has available, we continue to operate a First Time Homebuyer program. Though not large in scale, it exists and can be scaled up again once additional funding sources are identified. (https://www.oaklandca.gov/topics/first-time-homebuyer-mortgageassistance-program-map) Other opportunities include the Acquisition and Conversion to Affordable Housing (ACAH) program, which has provided funds for Community Land Trusts and Coops.

I. The City will continue funding permanent supportive, homeless, and extremely-low income units, and have focused more intensely on expanding homeless units. Specifically, the New Construction Notice of Funding Availability requires a minimum of 20% homeless set aside, but the points encourage 30% or more set-aside for homeless units. The challenge continues to be funding: we are pursuing every funding opportunity we come across, like aggressively competing for HomeKey or LHTF, or creating local operating subsidy from new State sources like PLHA and working with the Oakland Housing Authority to stretch their operating dollars. We have learned from working with City Human Services Department and Alameda County Continuum of Care that while full PSH and wrap-around services are desired, deeply affordable units with a range of services are just as critical.

J. The Oakland General Plan Update includes Deeply Rooted Collaborative and Dyett and Bhatia as the City's consultant team. Deeply Rooted Collaborative serves as the Community Consultant and Dyett and Bhatia serve as the Technical Consultant. How would DR like City Staff to acknowledge/include this history beyond what was provided as part of the DR (and DR partner) feedback that was provided to City staff on the Draft Housing Element? Staff have shared DR's feedback with D&B for incorporation.

K. As part of the Phase 1 GPU Environmental Justice Element, as well as Phase 2 of the GPU with the Open Space, Conservation and Recreation Element, and the Infrastructure/Facilities Element, staff will be assessing the current state of community assets to identify improvements, increase assets, and identify locations in underserved residential areas.

L. Installation of air filter devices rated MERV-13 is required for new construction in Oakland.
130
Letter
#
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
If funding became available, the City would pursue funding sources such as grants to provide property owners with standalone air purifiers for existing residential buildings. The City is actively working to support and expand neighborhood resilience hubs and respite centers so that residents in heavily-impacted areas who lack sufficient air purification systems can have a central, convenient place to go to escape smoke. See also Housing Element Action 2.1.6: Increase funding for improved indoor air quality.

M. The State will not approve a Housing Element that places a moratorium on market rate housing or any type of housing at any affordability level. 54 EB4E
10/14/2
022
A. Revise the Missing Middle Program to ensure
high-resource neighborhoods allow four units
on most lots in practice, including providing
setback relief and reducing/eliminating offstreet parking minimums.

Missing Middle Program:
● Sixplexes: Sixplexes are more likely to be both
feasible in the context of high land values and
produce middle income housing (see study
from San Jose; attached as Exhibit A). Consider
allowing up to six units by right in certain highopportunity residential zones, as well as on corner lots and lots over 5,000 square feet.
● Minimum Lot Sizes and Lot Splits:
○ Please confirm explicitly that lot splits in
residential zones will be approved ministerially.

○ The minimum lot size in residential zones
should be reduced from 2,500 to 2,000 square
feet. Under SB9 the minimum lot size post-split
is 1,200 square feet. While we appreciate
Oakland reducing minimum lot sizes across
residential zones, the 2,500 square foot
minimum is twice that of the SB9 baseline.

Moreover, 4,000 square feet is a common
Oakland lot size, perhaps the most common. A
2,000 square foot minimum lot size would
facilitate lot splits in most cases, whereas a
A. Comments noted, see Appendix J for a summary of zoning amendments the City will implement. The following changes below also summarize some of the Missing Middle Planning Code Amendments that will be implemented in June-July 2023 to include the following changes:
- Reduce minimum lot size and setback standards where appropriate throughout the Planning Code to facilitate small lot development. - Minimum lot size will be reduced to 2,000 sf. in RD and RM Residential Zones
- Residential side setbacks will be reduced to 3’ for lots less than 3,000 sf. and 4’ for lots 4,000 sf. or greater in RD and RM Zones - Revise density, maximum building heights, and minimum lot size standards to permit more housing units per lot where appropriate throughout the city in Hillside Residential RH-4, all Detached Residential (RD) Zones, all Residential Mixed Housing Type (RM) Zones, and Urban Residential RU-1 and RU-2 Zones.
- Create new RD zone to replace RD-1 and RD-2
- All RD, RM and RU Residential Zones will now allow 4 or more units - Maximum floor area ratio (FAR) and lot coverage will be increased in RD and RM Zones
- Minimum lot frontage for RD and RM Zones will reduced from 25 ft. to 20 ft. in RD and RM Zones
- Open space requirements reduced in RD, RM, and RU Zones - Rezone Lower Rockridge and Temescal to RM-4.
- Rezone Adams Point to RM-4
- Reduce minimum lot frontage to 20 feet
- Increase lot coverage to 55% in all residential zones for projects seeking 3 or more units.
- Create a new RD zone to replace RD-1 and RD-2 to ensure that 2-4 unit development is feasible in high-resource residential neighborhoods 131
Letter
#
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
2,500 square foot minimum would largely
exclude them. As it stands, the proposed
minimum lot sizes constitute a downzoning of
development capacity in residential zones from
SB9 and should be revised.
● Lower Rockridge and Temescal:
○ To ensure Lower Rockridge and Temescal
allow fourplexes in practice, consider rezoning
them to RM-4. Lower Rockridge and Temescal
typical lots are roughly 4,000 square feet. The
proposed rezoning of these high-resource and
low-VMT areas requires 1,500 square feet of
land per unit. In practice this means only 2 units
are allowed, which is the bare minimum under
SB9. Moreover, 2 units does not meet the goals
of Oakland City Council to allow at least 4 units
in residential zones and reduces owner
incentives to add those units (these projects will
often be complex and expensive). Rezoning
these areas to RM-4 would require 1,000
square feet of land per unit, which would allow
4 units per lot by right in most or all cases.
● Adams Point: The zoning map shows a
rezoning of the center of Adams Point from RM1 to RM-2. This neighborhood is already full of medium-sized apartment buildings (see Figure 1
below, taken from the Oakland Map Atlas)
These zoned capacity should match the existing
built environment to allow for 4-8 story
apartments. Alternatively, consider rezoning
this area to RM-4.
● High Resource Areas: Bushrod, Santa Fe,
Trestle Glen, Crocker Highlands (currently RD-1
– mostly not on VHFHSZ. Only a small portion is
in VHFHSZ) are all
high-resource or moderate-resource areas that
are untouched by the proposed Missing Middle
Program rezonings. These are also low-VMT
- Create a new residential facility type called “Two- to Four-Family Residential Facility” that would replace the current “Two-Family Residential Facility” Type throughout the Planning Code; and change the definition of a “Multifamily Residential Facility” from the current 3 or more units to 5 or more units.
- Eliminate all conditionally permitted densities throughout Planning Code (densities will all be by right); and the current requirement for a Major Conditional Use Permit for 3 or more dwelling units in the RM-2 Zone; 7 or more dwelling units in the RM-3 or RM-4 Zone; and for any project that exceeds the basic or permitted density resulting in 7 or more dwelling units in the RU or CBD-R Zones.

See also Response to Letter #1 for actions included in the Housing Action Plan to expand affordable housing opportunities and promoting neighborhood stability and health and • Appendix J for the City’s proposed rezoning changes to increase housing production capacity and unlock additional opportunities for affordable and “missing middle” housing in highresource neighborhoods and affirmatively further fair housing by opening up exclusionary neighborhoods such as Rockridge, Trestle Glen, and Crocker Highlands
As part of the city's rezoning proposal to implement the rezoning actions in the Housing Action Plan, the undeveloped western edge of the Mills College campus adjacent to MacArthur Blvd. was identified as a potential location for the addition of infill housing. Any rezoning of that portion of the campus would only occur if the community and decisionmakers support such a change and only for the purpose of facilitating the addition of housing along this undeveloped campus edge. The City has not received any proposals for the redevelopment of the Mills College campus, nor does it any seek to encourage such a proposal. The rezoning, if adopted, would only apply to the MacArthur Blvd.-fronting campus edge to facilitate the addition of housing on a currently undeveloped portion of the campus.

RM-3 is the Mixed Housing Type Residential-3 Zone and RM-4 is the Mixed Housing Type Residential-4 Zone. Both these RM zones allow a variety of residential, commercial, and civic activities. The primary difference between RM-3 and RM-4 is the amount of allowed residential density: RM-3 allows 1 unit per 1,500 sf. of lot area, whereas RM-4 allows slightly more density (1 unit per 1,100 sf. of lot area).
132
Letter
#
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
neighborhoods with easy non-car access to
jobs, parks and schools. They should be rezoned
to at least RM-2. (Also in Figure 1 below).
● Heights: RM-1 should allow 3 stories by right.
● Parking: The current requirement of 1 unit of
off-street parking requirement in most Oakland
greater than ½ mile from transit makes most
missing middle projects infeasible. The offstreet parking requirements should be fully eliminated. Alternatively, the city could match
the California ADU standard by eliminating offstreet parking requirements within one (1) mile of any bus stop, but if so should require no
more than 0.5 spaces per unit elsewhere.
● Setbacks:
○ As written, the Missing Middle Program offers
no reduction in setbacks. As we have seen in
Minneapolis and other places the failure to
reduce lot coverage and setback rules in
tandem with upzoning for 2-4 units will result in
few to any construction. The existing RM front
setback of 15-20’ is a nonstarter for middle
housing development.

○ Consider reducing RM setbacks to 10’ for
front setbacks (or average of immediately
adjacent neighboring buildings, whichever is
less), 4’ on all sides, and 0’ for inner side or
street side on lots less than 50’ wide.
○ Increase lot coverage to allow 50% lot
coverage in all residential zones for projects
seeking 3 or more units. - increased to 55%
○ Some zones have not only minimum lot area
but minimum average width and minimum
frontage. Those should be reduced in tandem
with minimum lot areas.
● High-resource/Low-VMT gradation:
○ In order to reduce patterns of spatial
segregation, Oakland should make special effort
Comment noted. Staff will undertake a comprehensive update of the Land Use and Transportation Element (LUTE) and the Planning Code in Phase 2 of the General Plan Update process
B. Guidance from State HCD requires sites to be between 0.5 to 10 ac to accommodate lower income RHNA. Using that guidance and feedback from State HCD, staff identified additional sites in Rockridge (that are not included in the Draft Sites Inventory) that conform to State HCD requirements (0.5 - 10 ac) to accommodate lower income RHNA. THe 3 sites that were identified include: 5354 Claremont Ave, 5257 College Ave, and 6209 College Ave.

The 51st and Broadway site has also been added to the updated Sites Inventory for the Revised Housing Element. This site was previously excluded as the City had received a pre-app for development on the site, but Staff recently provided a decision that the proposed activity was not an allowed use.

In order to avoid split zoning/zoning inconsistencies along Claremont Ave, other sites such as the DMV site at 5300 Claremont Ave were included.

Claremont flatiron parcels are included in the sites inventory The revised 2023-2031 Housing Element includes additional sites as part of Appendix #: Recommended Sites for Future Housing (Upzoning/General Plan Update Opportunity Sites) (list Table #)
See also Response to Letter #1 for actions included in the Housing Action Plan to expand affordable housing opportunities and promoting neighborhood stability and health and • Appendix J for the City’s proposed rezoning changes to increase housing production capacity and unlock additional opportunities for affordable and “missing middle” housing in highresource neighborhoods and affirmatively further fair housing by opening up exclusionary neighborhoods such as Rockridge, Trestle Glen, and Crocker Highlands
C. Comments noted and the City will create a 55 feet height area and increase heights along College Avenue and Claremont Avenue to 55’. These changes will be implemented via the Missing Middle Planning Code Amendments in June-July 2023.

See also Response to Letter #1 for actions included in the Housing Action 133
Letter
#
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
to ensure that 2-4 unit development is feasible
in high-resource residential neighborhoods. The
high land values of these neighborhoods also
makes it harder for 2-4 residential uses to
outbid luxury single-family homes. Therefore,
we have previously written to Oakland
suggesting that additional density beyond 4
units and additional setback relief be offered in
high-resource areas. The proposed Missing
Middle Program makes no effort in that regard.

We recommend Oakland revise the program to
confer additional density (baseline 5 units) and
additional setback relief in high-resource
residential zones.
○ In order to reduce VMT, Oakland should allow
additional density and setback relief in
residential zones near BART stations.
● Mills College:
○ Please clarify the reasoning behind rezoning
Mills College at Northeastern
University from RM-3 to RM-4. Plans for
student housing on the actual Mills site should
be tailored to student housing; RM-4 is a
residential neighborhood standard. Without
additional context, this appears to be a paper
upzoning that will result in no new housing.
● Accessory Commercial Units:
○ The Proposals’ key points from community
engagement cites the need to attract retailers
in food deserts. In many Oakland
neighborhoods, especially East Oakland, the
distance between commercial corridors where
retail uses are permitted exceeds easy walking
distance. Moreover commercial floor plates are
often too big or expensive for many start-up or
would-be retailers.
○ All RM zones in the current intent section
Plan to expand affordable housing opportunities and promoting neighborhood stability and health and • Appendix J for the City’s proposed rezoning changes to increase housing production capacity and unlock additional opportunities for affordable and “missing middle” housing in highresource neighborhoods and affirmatively further fair housing by opening up exclusionary neighborhoods such as Rockridge, Trestle Glen, and Crocker Highlands
D. Comment noted and the City will upzone Lower Rockridge from RM-2 to RM-4 via the Missing Middle Planning Code Amendments that will be implemented in June-July 2023.

See also Response to Letter #1 for actions included in the Housing Action Plan to expand affordable housing opportunities and promoting neighborhood stability and health and • Appendix J for the City’s proposed rezoning changes to increase housing production capacity and unlock additional opportunities for affordable and “missing middle” housing in highresource neighborhoods and affirmatively further fair housing by opening up exclusionary neighborhoods such as Rockridge, Trestle Glen, and Crocker Highlands
E. Comments noted and the City will increase heights along Shattuck Avenue back to 45’ or more to facilitate housing development in this high-resource and low-VMT neighborhood via the Missing Middle Planning Code Amendments that will be implemented in June-July 2023.

See also Response to Letter #1 for actions included in the Housing Action Plan to expand affordable housing opportunities and promoting neighborhood stability and health and • Appendix J for the City’s proposed rezoning changes to increase housing production capacity and unlock additional opportunities for affordable and “missing middle” housing in highresource neighborhoods and affirmatively further fair housing by opening up exclusionary neighborhoods such as Rockridge, Trestle Glen, and Crocker Highlands
F. As part of the Safety Element Update, the City is studying the potential for areas that might be appropriate to be included in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) based on analysis regarding evacuation scenarios.

The City will implement the Affordable Housing Overlay between June - July 2023
Action 3.3.5: Implement an Affordable Housing Overlay includes the 134
Letter
#
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
include "and neighborhood businesses where
appropriate", but in practice all subzones
except RM-5 make food sales, restaurants,
cafes, and retail sales require conditional use
approval, and alcohol sales are only allowed if
grandfathered. Consider allowing a wider range
of commercial businesses as permitted in any
space less than 600 square feet in all RM and
RU zones ("Accessory Commercial Units") to
facilitate greater food access, increased
walkability and low impact diversity of uses.

B. The proposed Rockridge rezoning sites have sig
related to feasibility, equity and displacement risk
swath of land rather than picking a handful of site
effective.
"● DMV: Does Oakland have written
confirmation that DMV plans to redevelop its
property on Claremont? The use of state-owned
land for redevelopment must be accompanied
by a firm commitment by the Department of
General Services to redevelop the site within
the eight year planning period.
● 5248 Claremont Avenue: Site 5 on Figure 4 is
a 3-story, 42-unit apartment building
constructed in 1959 called Claremont Park
Apartments. It is highly likely that this property
is subject to Oakland’s rent control ordinance.

In any case, this property should not be
rezoned. If it remains as a rezoning site either:
1) no redevelopment will occur due to the costs
associated with SB330/SB8 replacement,
relocation and right to return requirements; or
2) redevelopment will occur and 42 units of
rent-controlled housing will be destroyed when
vacant, commercial and owner-occupied sites
abound nearby. Oakland should not be in the
business of designating rent-controlled housing
in high-resource areas for upzoning and
redevelopment. Please remove this site.
following revisions:

The City will create an Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) to streamline the approval of affordable housing by right. Proposed otential features of this overlay could include ministerial approval of 100 percent affordable housing projects, increased height and density allowances, waiver of parking requirements, and reduction of zoning barriers. The City will study the feasibility of broadly applying this overlay, except for , limitations on designated historic resources as well as selected areas in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zzone (VHFHSZ). contaminated sites, and protected historical sites/districts. The City will also study the possibility of extending the streamlined approval provisions of the affordable housing overlay to mixed income projects that qualify for the super density bonus and/or other strategies to augment the City’s density bonus program, as well as the potential for select areas within the VHFHSZ for the overlay to apply. The City will also study allowingallow SROs and Rooming Houses by right in areas subject to the prospective affordable housing overlay.
100 percent affordable projects within the AHO zone would be subject to a ministerial approval process. A proposed project would be exempt from CEQA and not be appealable. This would provide greater certainty to affordable housing developers that if the project is within the AHO zone and meets the objective design standards and zoning criteria listed in the Planning Code, the project will be approved and not held up through an appeal process.
135
Letter #
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
● Trader Joe's parking lot: This is a high-volume
grocery store with two surface parking lots. It is
highly unlikely either the store itself or the
parking lot fronting College Avenue will be
redeveloped. The Miles Avenue fronted surface
parking lot may be feasible for redevelopment,
but it will be difficult given that the CN-1
standards only permit approximately 40 units.
● 5264 Claremont and 5256 Claremont: These
sites include approximately four residential
units. Under the CN-1 density standards and
unchanged 35’ height limit these sites could
yield 9 units at most each. If there are existing
low-income tenants on-site then 1 or 2 of 9
units will be required to be replaced with deed-
restricted units. Does Oakland have a track
record of producing developments with less
than 10 units and on-site affordable housing in
this manner? If not, they should be considered
for higher density or removed.
● 6209 College: This site has an existing banking
use and surface parking lot. Under the CN-1
standards it can yield at best 20 units. It is
unlikely that 42 dwelling units per acre will
outbid the existing banking use.
● 5220 Claremont: This site has an existing
pediatric use that is part of UCSF Benioff
Hospital. Has Oakland obtained written
evidence that the property owner intends to
discontinue this use within the eight year
planning period?
● Unpicked Sites: As seen above, there are
significant issues with Oakland’s Rockridge
rezoning sites. There are many sites that
Oakland could identify for rezoning that would
be more feasible for housing while minimizing
displacement.
○ The vacant site at Pleasant Valley/51st Street
and Broadway - This is a large vacant site near
136
Letter #
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
BART and Lines 51A and 18. It is in a high-
resource tract and has easy access to health
services, grocery stores and open space. - Home
Depot
○ Claremont flatiron - This vacant parcel at
Claremont and College is currently zoned to
only allow 18 units. It was also a very popular
site in the city's survey data. Consider rezoning
to allow 75 dwelling units per acre.
○ Gas Stations - There are several gas stations
that could be rezoned within Rockridge. - can
be considered for rezone/upzoning but not for
sites inventory due to non-vacant sites issues
and contaminants-cleanup
○ 51st Street - This is a 75’ wide residential
street with bus service and is within a ½ mile of
Rockridge BART. It is proposed to be rezoned to
RM-2. It should be rezoned to allow for
multifamily housing with heights of 45’ and up
to 55 dwelling units per acre. The existing uses
of mostly owner-occupied single family homes
and a few duplexes would reduce the impacts
of potential displacement and relocation costs.
○ In practice, most development usually occurs
in places outside those designated in housing
elements, because for- and non-profit
developers evaluate prospects in different ways
from planning professionals and often come to
different conclusions. In addition to trying to
pick winners among sites, the city should
consider a broader upzoning to 6+ stories and
75+ units per acre in a one-mile radius of
Rockridge BART." C. Choosing to leave in place current heights in Rockridge along College Avenue and Claremont
Avenue, while miles of MacArthur Boulevard
and International Boulevard in East Oakland are
rezoned to allow significantly more height and
137
Letter #
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
development, is reinforcing patterns of spatial
segregation. Oakland needs to be more
ambitious with North Oakland standards to
affirmatively further fair housing as required by
state law.
● Commercial Corridor: ○ As noted below, commercial corridors throughout West and East Oakland are having
their heights increased. These include
commercial corridors close to BART and high-
frequency bus (Fruitvale, West Oakland,
Coliseum, and Telegraph Avenue near
MacArthur BART) as well as on BRT lines
(International Boulevard in San Antonio and
between 73rd Avenue and Durant Avenue) and
also some corridors miles from BART (Dimond
District and Laurel District). All the while,
heights for the commercial corridor of College
Avenue near Rockridge BART remain untouched
at 35’ in CN-1 zones.
○ While Oakland proposes to rezone eight sites
along College Avenue and Claremont Avenue,
there are significant issues with many of these
sites (see below). Moreover, it is concerning
that Oakland seems perfectly willing to increase
heights along miles of MacArthur and
International boulevards but cannot
countenance allowing more than two parcels to
go up to 65’ on College Avenue.
○ While we support height increases in
commercial corridors generally, we are
concerned about the horizontal inequity of
excluding College Avenue and Claremont
Avenue. Why should a strong commercial
corridor in the Laurel District, over 2 miles from
Fruitvale BART, be rezoned from 35’ to 65’,
while College Avenue, within 1⁄2 mile of
Rockridge BART, remains at 35’? Why should
138
Letter
#
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
commercial land in Deep East Oakland in
Elmhurst along International Boulevard go from
75’ to 95’ while Claremont Avenue near
Rockridge is stuck at 35’? Are the existing
commercial uses in Rockridge simply more
valuable to Oakland than the existing
commercial uses in East Oakland?
○ This concentration of multifamily
development potential in lower income and
non-white neighborhoods, especially in East
Oakland, while preserving the height limits of
commercial land in high-income and mostly
white Rockridge is reinforcing, not reversing,
existing patterns of spatial segregation.
○ Oakland, in order to affirmatively further fair
housing, should increase heights along College
Avenue and Claremont Avenue to 55’.

D. RM Zoning: As noted above, Lower Rockridge
needs to go from RM-2 to RM-4 in order to
allow for 3- or 4-unit development to occur - or
the entire RM zone needs to allow 3- or 4-unit
development both by right and in practice.

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

Commercial Corridors
We understand that many of Oakland’s
proposed commercial corridor rezonings are
meant to reconcile planning code with building
typologies. In addition, the Proposals increase
heights in commercial corridors in several key
areas near transit (excluding College Avenue
and Claremont Avenue in Rockridge). While
these heights increases are certainly helpful for
increasing housing feasibility and lowering VMT
we are concerned about the lack of height
139
Letter
#
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
increases in key areas.

Park Boulevard: Heights along the commercial
sections of Park Boulevard in Eastlake and
Glenview should be increased.

Shattuck Avenue:

This section was downzoned in 2011 to 35’ in
response to housing development in the mid2000s. Homeowners in these high-resource areas pushed to downzone the corridor due to
concerns about development exceeding existing
zoning (through use of State Density Bonus
Law) but within the general plan designations;
the groups supporting the downzoning cited
impacts to “sunlight, privacy and appearance.”
[Oakland Planning Commission staff report, July
14, 2010; attached as Exhibit B]. This was a poor
justification for downzoning a high-resource,
low-VMT transit corridor and should be
undone.

In February 2021 a 45’ multifamily development
project at 6501 Shattuck Avenue (½ mile from
Ashby BART) that had submitted an application
prior to the 2011 35’ downzoning was appealed
and delayed for months by nearby homeowners
and landlords. The appeal was ultimately
rejected but such appeals add risk and cost to
housing development.

Recently, a proposal was submitted for an
apartment building at 6341 Shattuck Avenue.

Consistent with the zoning, it is limited to 3
stories; allowing 4 stories would likely enable a
30-40% increase in new homes built.

Consider increasing heights along Shattuck
140
Letter
#
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
Avenue back to 45’ or more to facilitate housing
development in this high-resource and low-VMT
neighborhood.

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

Overall we are highly encouraged by the
Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) proposal. We
believe it has the potential to open up more
residential land for affordable housing
development, including in high-resource areas.

The by-right provisions of this rezoning program
can provide needed greater certainty to
affordable housing developers. The AHO, if
implemented with care, can deliver more low
and moderate income housing and help reverse
patterns of spatial segregation.

We offer the following suggestions:

Co-ops and CLTs: Make sure the ordinance
explicitly allows co-ops and land trusts to use
the AHO.

Relax open space requirements: convert open
space per unit into open space per residential
living space, so that more density does not
penalize them in terms of open space
requirements. For further context, the CN zone
already has lower requirements for efficiency
units but residential zones do not.

Cohousing: Allow cohousing with shared
bathrooms and shared kitchens.
141
Letter
#
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
Historic Districts: Not allowing +20ft height in
historic areas, aka Areas of Primary Importance
(APIs), is inequitable. Some of the high-resource
areas affected include most of the rectangle
between Alcatraz, Woolsey, College, &
Telegraph; as well as the entire CCA site at 5200
Broadway. A historical building is not demeaned
or diminished by having a taller building next to
it.

We strongly request that Oakland does not
allow newly formed, prospective APIs at the
effective date of the rezoning to be exempted
from AHO height bonuses.

Roof Heights: Many zones like RM currently
allow 5 feet more roof height than wall height
to allow for pitched roofs. But when this
proposal adds 20 feet that +5 feet often
vanishes. What is the rationale for this? Pitched
roofs can work in taller buildings too. Consider
allowing +5 feet for pitched roof in every AHO
zoning category.

DBL Consistency: Clarify the meaning of 100%
affordable in terms of income levels that the
units must be restricted to. At a minimum,
100% affordable projects under the definition
of State Density Bonus Law (AB1763), which are
defined as 20%
moderate-income, 80% extremely, very low or
low-income, and one manager's unit, should
qualify under the city AHO. Additionally, the city
could consider allowing more than 20% of units
to be moderate-income-restricted to open
more options.

Parking: Off-street parking requirements
142
Letter
#
Name
Organization/Agency/
Meeting Date
Comment
Staff Response to Comment
represent significant hard costs and opportunity
costs for low-income housing. Parking
requirements are a binding constraint on
development of multifamily housing that
reduces site viability. AB2097 and other state
bills have reduced parking requirements within
½ mile of transit and in low-VMT areas. Oakland
should go further and require no off-street
parking for AHO projects anywhere.

Fire Zones: The Very High Fire Severity Zones
(VHFSZs) are exempted from the AHO. While
there are valid safety concerns related to fire
risk and escape we would be remiss not to point
out the inequity of exempting high-resource
and historically exclusionary VHFSZs. Oakland
should explore allowing AHO projects in VHFSZs
with hardening and other mitigations.
1 2. Public Hearing Draft 2023-2031 Housing
Element – Response to Public Comments
The Public Hearing Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element was published on November 29, 2022 and is available on the City’s webpage at
https://oaklandca.gov/housingelement. Pursuant to AB 215, the Housing Element Public Hearing Draft was available for a seven-day public review period between November 30, 2022, to December 6, 2022, and staff received seven comment letters. The Public Hearing Draft was formally submitted to State HCD on December 7, 2022, along with the seven comment letters, for their subsequent 60-day review. After the seven-day public review period, the Public Hearing Draft was available for public input until December 29, 2022.

Between December 7, 2022, to December 29, 2022, staff received 47 comment letters. In total staff received 54 comment letters, and emails between November 29, 2022, to December 29, 2022.

Comments and responses to comments are organized by the date they were received.

Relevant portions of the comment letter are captured in the table below. Each letter or summary is identified by a designator (e.g., “1”). Specific comments within each letter or summary are identified by a designator in the page margin that reflects the sequence of the specific comment within the correspondence (e.g. “1-A” for the first comment in Letter 1). Click the TOC below to jump to a response.

1. EB4E...........................................................................................................................4

2. Moses Libitzky LPC College, LLC..................................................................................5

3. Oakland Heritage Alliance ..........................................................................................5

4. Ryan Lester.................................................................................................................8

5. Tuan Ngo ...................................................................................................................8

6. Carol Wyatt................................................................................................................9

7. Nha Vu .....................................................................................................................10

8. Tuan Ngo .................................................................................................................11

9. Benjamin Scott .........................................................................................................13

10. Darryl Glass..............................................................................................................14

11. Davide Russo............................................................................................................14

12. Nat Gardenswartz....................................................................................................14

13. Gabriel Michael........................................................................................................15

14. Gregg Penn ..............................................................................................................16 2 15. Heather Kuiper.........................................................................................................16

16. Jeannie Llewellyn......................................................................................................17

17. Rich Sigel..................................................................................................................17

18. Susan Goodman .......................................................................................................17

19. Kenny Goodman.......................................................................................................17

20. Louis Goodman.........................................................................................................18

21. William Wilcox .........................................................................................................18

22. Ben Bowen and Renee Kosslak..................................................................................21

23. Oakland Undivided...................................................................................................21

24. EBHO........................................................................................................................23

25. AC Transit.................................................................................................................36

26. Prof. SuzyJane Edwards ............................................................................................37

27. Kate Ruprecht...........................................................................................................37

28. Kaerla Fellows..........................................................................................................37

29. Lucia Savage ............................................................................................................37

30. Tuan Ngo .................................................................................................................38

31. Tuan Ngo .................................................................................................................38

32. Tuan Ngo .................................................................................................................38

33. Dennis OLeary ..........................................................................................................39

34. Claire Mays..............................................................................................................39

35. Angela Watrous .......................................................................................................39

36. Tilly Maui .................................................................................................................40

37. Christa Lewis............................................................................................................40

38. Kristen Caven ...........................................................................................................40

39. Kristin Coan..............................................................................................................41

40. Chris Moore..............................................................................................................41

41. EBMUD ....................................................................................................................42

42. Ilona Clark................................................................................................................42

43. Al Nehl .....................................................................................................................43

44. Trey Hunter..............................................................................................................44

45. Mary Rose Kaczorowski ............................................................................................45 3 46. Sakura Vesely ...........................................................................................................46

47. Alecto Caldwell/Lynda Caldwell................................................................................46

48. Chris Cohn ................................................................................................................47

49. Beatriz Perez-Stable..................................................................................................47

50. Gabriel Guerriero......................................................................................................47

51. Martha de Weese.....................................................................................................48

52. Jay Gregory ..............................................................................................................48

53. Hannah Bluhm..........................................................................................................48

54. Melanie Vega...........................................................................................................49 4 Letter # Name/Organization Date Comment Staff Response 1 EB4E 12/4/22 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. 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 1⁄2 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 the (rare) intersection of two bus corridors each with up to 15-minute peak headways. We propose instead zero parking requirements within 1⁄2 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 1⁄2 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 1⁄2 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 lowincome housing development for small sites less than 1⁄2 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 Comment Noted

1. Comment Noted. Staff will be conducting community outreach between Winter - Spring 2023 to discuss and get further feedback on the implementation actions of proposed Housing Element-related rezonings and overlays. The proposed code amendments will be brought forward to Council for adoption in Summer 2023.

2. Table C-17 includes a list of six lower-income projects recently developed on sites less than 0.5 acres. Three of the six sites – 3720 Telegraph, 5276 Broadway, and 514-524 41st Street – are examples of acquisition and rehabilitation projects.

Nonetheless, the City has additional examples of new construction lower-income projects that have been proposed on sites less than 0.5 acres, including 7664 MacArthur Boulevard (PLN22172), 3135 San Pablo Avenue (PLN22046), and 3419 San Pablo Avenue (PLN22165). Each of these projects were approved in 2022 and propose 100% affordable development. Table C-17 will be revised to include these projects. As noted in Appendix C, with the exception of parcels that are parts of larger sites and sites with active permit applications, the City has identified eight parcels smaller than 0.5 acres as appropriate for lower-income housing based on their location within high resource areas and proximity to transit. Each of these sites are permitted to develop with at least 30 du/ac and upon zoning code changes will be subject to by right approval if the proposal includes at least 20% lower income units.” Finally, staff have also been seeking feedback from affordable housing developers on optimal lot sizes. Developers mentioned lot sizes above 12,000 square feet (0.27 ac) as being viable to develop and secure financing.

Developers agreed that lot sizes smaller than 12,000 square feet becomes challenging to finance.

3. Comment Noted. Staff will be conducting community outreach between Winter - Spring 2023 to discuss and get further feedback on the implementation actions of proposed Housing Element-related rezonings and overlays. The proposed code amendments will be brought forward to Council for adoption in Summer 2023.

4. Comment Noted. Staff will include an objective definition of "food desert" 5 Letter # Name/Organization Date Comment Staff Response enhanced by:
a. Applying revised CBD parking maximums to apply equally to a 1⁄2-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). 2 Moses Libitzky LPC
College, LLC
11/29/22 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 of ten 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.

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. As such, we ask that the staff remove our properties from the city's affordable housing opportunity sites because it is currently, and will continue to be, a site that serves the community. It is understandable that staff was unaware of this, but we ask that it be corrected immediately.

Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) 014-126800901, 014-126801101, 014- 126801200,014-126801300, 014-126803900, 014-126803800, 014-126803600, 014-126803501, 014-126803201, and 014-126803000 were removed from the Sites Inventory and the revised documents were published on 12/15/22 3 Oakland Heritage
Alliance
12/6/22 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 A. Housing Element main document

1. Comment Noted. Action 3.4.1 Bullet 8 references Appendix J which is titled “Summary of Preliminary Draft Missing Middle, Other Planning Code Amendments, and Zoning Map Amendments to Facilitate More Housing Proposal”

2. The adoption Of The 2023-2031 Housing Element Is Exempt From The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Pursuant To Each As An Independent Basis (A) CEQA Guidelines Sections 15061(b)(3), (B) CEQA Guidelines Section 15283 and California Government Code Section 65584(g), (C) CEQA Guidelines Section 15262 And California Public Resources Code Sections 21102 and 21150, And (D) CEQA 6 Letter # Name/Organization Date Comment Staff Response 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 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 twotiered system with a single overall height limit. Retaining the two-tiered system in Guidelines Section 15308. The Environmental Impact Report for Phase 1 of the General Plan Update will address the City’s updates to its Safety Element and its adoption of a new Environmental Justice Element. In addition, it addresses the impacts of zoning code and general plan amendments implementing several actions contained in the City’s 2023-2031 Housing Element.

3. See response to comment A.2

4. Comment Noted
B. Appendix J
1-4 Staff will be conducting community outreach between Winter - Spring 2023 to discuss and get further feedback on the implementation actions of proposed Housing Element-related rezonings and overlays. The proposed code amendments will be brought forward to Council for adoption in Summer 2023.

5. Comment Noted. Figure 3 depicts the height limits that are proposed within the DOSP Area.

6. Staff will be conducting community outreach between Winter - Spring 2023 to discuss and get further feedback on the implementation actions of proposed Housing Element-related rezonings and overlays. The proposed code amendments will be brought forward to Council for adoption in Summer 2023. 7 Letter # Name/Organization Date Comment Staff Response 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-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 8 Letter # Name/Organization Date Comment Staff Response 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.
4 Ryan Lester 12/6/22 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.

Staff will be conducting community outreach between Winter - Spring 2023 to discuss and get further feedback on the implementation actions of proposed Housing Element-related rezonings and overlays. The proposed code amendments will be brought forward to Council for adoption in Summer 2023. 5 Tuan Ngo 12/6/22 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. 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.

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 lifelong 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. 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.

Action 2.2.8 in the Housing Action Plan (Page 77) directs the City to study the effectiveness of TOPA/COPA model in Oakland and bring forward the findings to City Council for discussion by FY 2025. The City will study the effectiveness of a TOPA/COPA model suited to local conditions, which may include equity-building mechanisms, funding needs and sources, racial equity impact considerations, or other approaches that may be appropriate to Oakland. Enactment of a TOPA/ COPA policy would require City Council review and approval. 9 Letter # Name/Organization Date Comment Staff Response 6 Carol Wyatt 12/5/22 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.

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 black 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 See response to Letter #5
10 Letter # Name/Organization Date Comment Staff Response 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).

Our community has these specific concerns regarding TOPA/COPA:

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

2. TOPA/COPA targets properties in historically segregated areas and robs Black historical wealth.

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

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’.

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. 7 Nha Vu 12/7/22 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 See response to Letter #5
11 Letter # Name/Organization Date Comment Staff Response 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. 8 Tuan Ngo 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).

5. The Rent Registry removed ‘Just Cause’ Protections. Please restore each and every ‘Just Cause’ protection. EACH ‘Just Cause’ protection exists as a bare Comment noted. In June 2022, the Oakland City Council adopted Ordinance No. 13695 CMS to establish a rental registry in Oakland. The City will use data collected in the rental housing registry to monitor and understand neighborhood change at a more granular level, to better target anti-displacement policies and ensure that rent increases are compliant under the Rent Adjustment Ordinance. By 2023, the City will design and implement a rental housing registry. This registry will cover housing units subject to rent stabilization and/or just cause protections under City law.

Also see City Resolution No. 88571 C.M.S. in support of Assembly Bill 854 (Lee) that would have prohibited a rental housing owner from removing a building from the market pursuant to the Ellis Act unless all owners of the property have held their ownership interest for at least five years. Furthermore, the City’s requirements when removing a property through the Ellis Act Ordinance are bolstered by protections under the City’s Just Cause for Eviction Ordinance (see Action 1.1.2) and Relocation Ordinance (Action 1.1.4 ). The City’s newly implemented rental registry will also help the City monitor Ellis Act-related eviction cases.

The City will continue to enforce the Ellis Act Ordinance and based on any changes allowed by statewide reform, explore ways to strengthen renter protections— including proactive enforcement of eviction protections—in case of an Ellis Act eviction where feasible.

The adopted rental registry ordinance does not prevent someone from registering a unit that is unpermitted and does not remove Just Cause protections. The rental 12 Letter # Name/Organization Date Comment Staff Response 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, e.g. 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 (e.g. 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 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 registry ordinance adds a just cause defense such that a landlord cannot recover possession of a rental unit if the landlord failed to substantially comply with the registry requirements.

The rental registry’s goal is to identify and collect rental data for units that are subject to the Rent Adjustment and/or Just Cause ordinances. It will also allow RAP to more effectively administer these two ordinances and to advise owners and tenants of their rights and obligations accordingly. Therefore, when owners register their units for the first time, they will be asked for the information necessary to allow RAP to determine whether their units are subject to the Rent Adjustment or Just Cause ordinances and the registration requirement. This will include information on when and how units were created and as needed, information on whether/when a Certificate of Occupancy was issued. Permit information is not necessarily needed to determine whether a unit is subject to either ordinance and therefore requires registration and would not forestall an owner’s ability to register a unit.
13 Letter # Name/Organization Date Comment Staff Response 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. 9 Benjamin Scott 12/7/22 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 See response to Letter #5
14 Letter # Name/Organization Date Comment Staff Response 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.
10 Darryl Glass 12/7/22 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.

See response to Letter #5
11 Davide Russo 12/13/22 I want to file a formal complaint that I strongly oppose the construction of new homes on Skyline Blvd. Your plane has 198 potential units plus an unknown number. Those hills are very unstable and prone to landslides. The current natural bait at is what keeps the hills intact. Our neighborhood needs more green, no 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.

There are a number of other potential projects at various stages in the planning process. This includes projects ranging from the pre-application stage to those with filed and under review planning permits. As these projects have not yet received entitlement, they cannot be credited towards the RHNA. However, a preapplication or an application for a planning permit indicates developer interest and that a site is likely to redevelop with housing.

This site on 5885 Skyline Blvd was included on the Sites Inventory as the City had a preapplication on file. The Preapplication number is - ZP210085/ZP190056 Preapplications are subject only to review and analysis, and no entitlement. 12 Nat Gardenswartz 12/12/22 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 neighborhoods are valued in part due to the quiet and intimate environment, and could also pose a See response to Letter #11
15 Letter # Name/Organization Date Comment Staff Response 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 resident to campaign in opposition.
13 Gabriel Michael 12/16/22 TOPA/COPA should NOT be included in the City of Oakland Housing Element; Action 2.2.8: Investiage 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 Management Consultant. Prior to that I worked for the cities of Piedmont and Oaklan 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 assiste them in meeting the challenges that prevent home purchases (i.e., insufficient income, lack of emergency reserves, employment instability). In COPA, the promise of "equity building" is sbject 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 condominums, co- housing, 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, capitalizaiton of building rehab, operating reserves, and maintenance reserves. Fledging tenant organizations require intensive, costly technicail 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 individual encumber See response to Letter #5
16 Letter # Name/Organization Date Comment Staff Response 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 purcahse, frustrated tenants can assign their rights to COPA only to find no guarantee of "equity building".

Without COPA non-profit housing oranizations 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 households, and track long-term affordability. After acquisition, NPO organizations can develop and implement tenant equity-building programs as appropriate without COPA restrictions.
14 Gregg Penn 12/17/22 I live in 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.

Comment Noted.
15 Heather Kuiper 12/17/22 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 greehouse gases, public health, environmental justice, and stable, healthy, integrated, and vibrant neighborhoods
I am also attaching Oakland Parks and Recreations 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 greate 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 generationsince the last OSCAR update- that Oaklanders (about 1300!) were surveyed about their parks;

1. They make a very strong equity and racial/environmental justice case;

2. 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 The City is updating the 2023-2031 Housing Element as part of a comprehensive update to the General Plan. The General Plan Update (GPU) is undertaken in two phases in order to meet deadlines mandated by State law. Phase 1 focuses on updates to the Housing and Safety Elements, as well as preparation of a Racial Equity Impact Analysis, Zoning Code and Map update, and creation of a new Environmental Justice (EJ) Element. Subsequently, Phase 2 will include the update of the Land Use and Transportation (LUTE) Element; Open Space, Conservation and Recreation (OSCAR) Element; Noise Element, and the creation of a new Infrastructure and Facilities Element which are slated to be completed by the end of 2025.

See Action 5.2.8: Encourage new affordable housing in higher resource areas, which seeks to increase access to exclusive neighborhoods coupled with NEW Action 5.2.9: Prioritize improvements to meet the needs of low-resourced and disproportionately burdened communities.

As part of Phase 2 of the GPU, the City will promote complete neighborhoods where residents have safe and convenient access to goods and services on a daily or regular basis—that address unique neighborhood needs, and support physical activity, including walking, bicycling, active transportation, recreation, and active play. The LUTE, OSCAR and the Infrastructure and Capital Facilities elements will include targeted policies and actions for communities designated through the EJ screening process (i.e., low-resourced, traditionally underserved, and 17 Letter # Name/Organization Date Comment Staff Response useful pull-outs for different elements of the GP update. It would be inspiring to see this largely community-based research to put to work in service in Oakland. disproportionately burdened communities) that focus on:
• Equitable distribution of new beneficial public, civic, and cultural facilities and maintenance of existing facilities
• Expand access to high-quality open space, pedestrian and bicycling amenities, and increase opportunities for physical activity and recreation spaces 16 Jeannie Llewellyn 12/17/22 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 purcahse would flumox those new to the real estate world.

Add to the fact embedded deeply in the ordinance is indeed a "false promise" when a tenant/tenat group discovers how limited their powers and assets truly are when any assistance has been used toward a purchase through TOPA/ COPA/ OPA.

There is alread 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 woud 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.

See response to Letter #5
17 Rich Sigel 12/18/22 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 are is all 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.

See response to Letter #11
18 Susan Goodman 12/18/22 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 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 transit-friendly 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.

See response to Letter #11
19 Kenny Goodman 12/19/22 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 RH9 which I don't see in your map descriptions. I agree that we need additional See response to Letter #11
18 Letter # Name/Organization Date Comment Staff Response 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 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 noe 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.
20 Louis Goodman 12/21/22 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 inconsistent with the park usage and the substantial bicycle usage in the area. Please register my opposition to this project.

See response to Letter #11
21 William Wilcox Housing Element Chapter 4
A. 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.

A. Action 2.1.3 – Comment noted. As part of the Proactive Rental Inspection Program, the City will identify the timeline at which multi-family buildings, dependent on age and size be inspected
B. 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 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
B. Action 2.2.1 - Staff appreciate this comment and will consider options to implement resale controls, including but not necessarily limited to ground leases and remainder interests.

C. 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.

C. Action 2.2.8 - Comment noted.
19 Letter # Name/Organization Date Comment Staff Response D. 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.

D. Action 3.2.1 - Comment noted. Staff will be conducting community outreach between Winter - Spring 2023 to discuss and get further feedback on the implementation actions of proposed Housing Element-related rezonings and overlays. The proposed code amendments will be brought forward to Council for adoption in Summer 2023.

E. 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.

E. Action 3.3.2 - The City appreciates this comment and has previously considered opportunities to use the Faircloth to RAD program to increase the number of available vouchers. The City will continue to consider suitable opportunities to pursue this matter further, if such opportunities present themselves.

F. 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.

F. Action 3.3.5 – Comment noted. Staff will consider this suggestion further.

G. 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.

G. Action 3.3.6 - The City will consider a variety of options to address interim financing needs. Opportunities to address interim financing needs may include the use of Measure U bond funds, regional financing from the Bay Area Housing Finance Agency, or a future product offered by Public Bank East Bay.

H. 3.3.7 & 3.3.12- 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.

H. Action 3.3.7 and Action 3.3.12 – Comment noted. Staff will consider this suggestion as it studies the inclusionary housing options further.

I. 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.

I. Action 3.3.10 – Comment noted.

J. 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.

J. Action 3.3.14 - This comment is noted. The City is engaging with BAHFA on opportunities to fill a variety of affordable housing needs, and an acquisition and conversion program with BAHFA support would be an excellent complement to Oakland’s existing Acquistion and Conversion to Affordable housing program.

K. 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.

K. Action 3.3.16 - Comment noted
20 Letter # Name/Organization Date Comment Staff Response Charging these fees costs the City additional subsidy funds by making the projects more expensive.

L. 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.

L. Action 3.4.1 - - Comment noted. Staff will be conducting community outreach between Winter - Spring 2023 to discuss and get further feedback on the implementation actions of proposed Housing Element-related rezonings and overlays. The proposed code amendments will be brought forward to Council for adoption in Summer 2023.

M. 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.

M. Action 3.6.1 – Comment noted. The City is currently recruiting planners at all levels.

N. 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.

N. Action 3.6.3 – Comment noted. The City will work with community partners and affordable housing developers to identify and implement appropriate entitlement reform actions.

O. 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.

O. Action 4.1.1 - Comment noted. Pursuant to the recent audit, the City has engaged HUD TA to develop a strategic plan along with recommendations on the scaling of department resources to support the progressive expansion from four emergency shelter programs to the current 23 emergency shelter programs that occurred without an equitable expansion of staffing for sufficient oversight. It is important to note that crises beds alone do not deliver individuals to housing without and inventory of available affordable and deeply affordable housing which is the actual goal. Expansion of crisis beds has been supported and maintained by competitive State and other funding streams since elimination of Redevelopment agency funding in 2012 which provided 25% for affordable housing development with remaining for community/economic development support. The City is advocating for ongoing dedicated State funding/support while developing a grant horizon report to ensure crisis beds can be maintained, and specifically to continue to support programming for acquired permanent supportive and transitional housing.

P. 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 longterm housing that allows pets, partners, and possessions. The current implementation is ineffective and a waste of city funds.

P. Action 4.2.1 – Comment noted. The encampment management policy serves to address encampment impacts to City ROW and infrastructure per Federal, State, and local health and safety laws. Each operation minimizes and/or cures violations of environmental, ADA, and other access laws reducing associated legal expenses to the City. Thus the EMP is implemented subject to the 9th Circuit Court decision, Martin v. Boise, that mandates the offer of shelter and/or housing to those impacted by closures and is calibrated to serve as a pathway to shift individuals into shelter, services, and available housing. Failures to responded to federal, state, and local health and safety violations do not advance housing development objectives 21 Letter # Name/Organization Date Comment Staff Response to increase the inventory of deeply affordable and affordable permanent, supportive, and transitional housing. The Homelessness Division with the Housing, Human Services, other relevant departments are continuing work to enhance programming to support the needs of crisis beds programs; pursue funding that supports programming for acquired transitional and supportive housing programs, and to expand the needed housing inventory for low income and ELI housing units.

Q. 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.

Q. Action 5.2.8 – Comment noted.
22 Ben Bowen and
Renee Kosslak
12/26/22 A. 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 permits for sites that are included in your list of earmarked sites.

Comment noted. These parcels are located in RH-4/S-9 Overlay Zone. Staff have reviewed the feasibility of adding these sites to the sites inventory. While the sites are zoned for residential use, the sites do not meet the criteria used throughout the housing element process for identifying sites because the realistic capacity of potential units is very low. There is nothing restricting housing from still being built on the site even though they are not listed in the Housing Element. 23 Oakland Undivided 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. Oakland Undivided, 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 o 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.

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.

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 This comment is noted and will be brought to the attention of the team involved in crafting Oakland’s New Construction NOFA. While the NOFA has been updated within the past 15 years, the City is grateful for this suggestion on how digital access requirements could be better clarified.
22 Letter # Name/Organization Date Comment Staff Response considered in relaxation 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, 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 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 and 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.

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

1. Installation: Installation Method Requirements.
ii. Distribution is how internet access gets from the basement or rooftop to the dwelling units and other parts of the building.
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
C. Safety and Labor Standards
d. Partnership with Internet Service Providers (ISPs)

2. Service Available to the Residents
a. No Fee for Residents
b. Tenant protections
c. Unique Profile
d. Federal benefit communication
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
g. Digital Literacy Programs
23 Letter # Name/Organization Date Comment Staff Response 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 thte tenant may request.

3. Records
a. post-installation inspection
b. Initial wiring report post-installation
c. Regular reporting of broadband conditions4. Community Organization Outreach
24 EBHO
12/28/22
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 there any changes required? Are they adequate to the task of meeting the 6th Cycle needs?
Assessment of past performance
Appendix A includes an evaluation of the City’s 2015-2023 Housing Element and how the City fared in meeting its housing needs over the eight-year period. It provides an evaluation of Oakland’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation Progress, describes accomplishments of each of the Goals and Policies, and additionally assesses the effectiveness and appropriateness of each of the 131 actions, and whether adjustments and new programs may be needed. It also includes an evaluation of the Housing Element’s cumulative impacts on special needs.

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing

1. 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 o 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 and 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 int he 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 maintain 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.

2. Section D.7 and Table D-9 is completely inadequate. The table lists a number of Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing

1. Information on historic context of discriminatory housing actions and the legacy of exclusionary zoning as a significant housing constraint and barrier to affirmatively furthering fair housing. This context is incorporated throughout the Housing Element - in the Introduction (1-1 through1-4); Appendix D (section D.2, pp. D-14 and 15, and new section D.5D.6 [Housing Sites Inventory Analysis]); and Appendix F (F-10 through F-11). In addition, Chapter 4: Housing Action Plan includes a NEW Action 3.4.2 to Study the Relationship Between Zoning and Racial Segregation as Part of the Phase 2 General Plan Update.

The City is updating the 2023-2031 Housing Element as part of a comprehensive update to the General Plan. The General Plan Update (GPU) is undertaken in two phases in order to meet deadlines mandated by State law. Phase 1 focuses on updates to the Housing and Safety Elements, as well as preparation of a Racial Equity Impact Analysis, Zoning Code and Map update, and creation of a new Environmental Justice (EJ) Element. Subsequently, Phase 2 will include the update of the Land Use and Transportation (LUTE) Element; Open Space, Conservation and Recreation (OSCAR) Element; Noise Element, and the creation of a new Infrastructure and Facilities Element which are slated to be completed by the end of 2025.

As part of the LUTE update, the City will study the impact of historic and contemporary zoning restrictions, especially single-family zoning, on ongoing patterns of racial segregation. Existing data on historic zoning patterns highlights 24 Letter # Name/Organization Date Comment Staff Response 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 adorable 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 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 singlefamily 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.

3. 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 9not 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. Restrictions 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.
the racial disparities in homeownership and rental patterns. The City will utilize this study to direct zoning changes in the LUTE as part of Phase 2 of the GPU.

2. Comment noted. Table D-9 on page D-74 identifies additional actions to address issues of segregation and, disproportionate housing needs, and access to opportunity.

3. See response to AFFH 1 above.
25 Letter # Name/Organization Date Comment Staff Response Sites Inventory

1. 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 benefited 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 an incentivizing higher-density residential development along commercial corridors and on vacant and underutilized parcels in high opportunity areas beyond Rockridge.

2. 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 finegrained 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.

3. 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 overlay 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.

4. 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. This 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. The City ADU study determined that new construction of all types of ADUs 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. These income 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 Sites Inventory

1.The Sites Inventory identifies sufficiently zoned land to accommodate RHNA at all income levels. Based on the City’s current General Plan and zoning regulations, there is sufficient capacity to accommodate its RHNA allocation with a buffer. Table B in Table C-26 of the Sites inventory includes additional sites in high opportunity areas that will be rezoned. In addition to the sites, the City is also upzoning to incentivize development along commercial corridors and other areas that include vacant and underutilized parcels in high opportunity areas beyond Rockridge.

2. As part of the Safety Element Update, the City is studying the potential for areas that might be appropriate to be included in the Affordable Housing Overlay and for increased densities to be included in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) based on analysis regarding evacuation scenarios.

3. Comment noted. Staff will add these layers to the interactive map.

4. Through actions of expanding pre-approved ADUs and with recent changes to State and local code requirements that make it easier to construct ADUs, especially in existing buildings that previously did not meet setback requirements, within multi-family buildings, and JADUs there are more ways to produce ADUs quicker and at a lower cost than when the study was conducted in 2020. In addition, the study only looked at rents at a certain level, it did not conclude that rents at a lower level would not be feasible. The feasibility is somewhat determined by the expectations of how long a homeowner wants to pay off their investment and/or if an owner is building an ADU in anticipation of a higher value and sales price when they go to sell their property. The analysis of actual rents is more important because rents can only be charged as to what people will actually pay. In addition, the study did not look at JADUs that are often taking existing finished space and converting them to a JADU, nor did it look at ADUs within existing multi-family buildings. As Action 3.2.6 states, the City will be monitoring the affordability level to determine if additional programs or changes to regulations are needed in order to meet the affordability levels for lower-income households. 26 Letter # Name/Organization Date Comment Staff Response 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

1. 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 references those in the comments below.

Action Plan

1. Comment noted

2. 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.

2. Action 1.1.2:

Comment noted. Rental Adjustment Program (RAP) plans a postcard mailing in 2023 to notify potentially affected owners of new Measure V requirements. In Spring 2023, RAP will include owners of units potentially subject to Measure V when conducting mass outreach to Oakland property owners for RAP’s inaugural rent registry effort. Owners will be directed to RAP website, workshops, and housing counselors for additional information and compliance.

3. 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 non-compliance.

3. Action 1.1.4
Comment noted. Rental Adjustment Program (RAP) staff engage in proactive landlord education to promote awareness of these requirements. Willful violation of these rules may lead to civil and/or criminal penalties.

4. Action 1.1.5:

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

4. Action 1.1.5: Comment noted

5. 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.

5. Action 1.1.6: Comment noted

6. 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

6. Action 1.1.8:

Comment noted. Rental Adjustment Program (RAP) will offer high-level rent registry data through its public-facing portal, filtered by zip code or other 27 Letter # Name/Organization Date Comment Staff Response through its web site and other means in a format that permits the public to search, filter. sort and otherwise analyze the data.
parameters. Detailed information on individual rents and rental units will be available through the standard PRA process.

7. Action 2.2.1:

The City should describe mechanisms it will use to extend affordability restrictions beyond the usual 45- and 55- year time frames 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.

7. Action 2.2.1: The comment is noted. The City will carefully consider how to pursue permanent affordability for projects while at the same time positioning Oakland projects to be competitive for essential rehabilitation funding (which has historically been linked to projects with expiring deed restrictions).

8. 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 330s sunset date should be permanent. The City should ensure that no permits 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 lowincome tenants who previously occupied the property.

8. Action 2.2.5: Comment noted. The Housing Action Plan proposes codification of requirements building on SB 330 within the short-term, by 2024. All applicants are required to comply with the requirements contained in SB 330 at Government Code Section 66300(d), including the replacement of existing or demolished protected units, requirement to allow existing occupants to continue to occupy the units until six months before the start of construction activities, and compliance with relocation benefits for protected units that are occupied by lower income households. The state legislature extended the sunset date of these provisions to 2034. The Planning Bureau has incorporated a replacement unit determination into its basic development application and will continue to strengthen enforcement of state requirements prior to adoption of a local ordinance building on protections under state law.

9. 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 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.

9. Action 2.2.6: Comment noted. As this tax requires a ballot measure, adequate time is needed in order to complete the analysis needed to present to voters.

10. Action 2.2.8:

We support establishment of a TOPA/COPA ordinance but delaying implementation of 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

10. Action 2.2.8: As noted above, staff will require direction from the City Council before preparing a TOPA/COPA ordinance. While several other jurisdictions have pursued such an ordinance, many of these efforts have ultimately failed or stalled out. While Council could direct staff to pursue a COPA/TOPA ordinance on a more aggressive timeframe, the proposed timeframe includes lengthy periods of time for robust community engagement and feedback on a potential draft ordinance. 28 Letter # Name/Organization Date Comment Staff Response of these other ordinances, no later than the end of 2023 with presentation of an ordinance to City Council by the end of 2024.

11. Action 3.3.1:

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 supplemental to existing capital subsidies.

11. Action 3.3.1: Comment noted. The City is constantly seeking out new sources of operating subsidy beyond OHA’s resources, including most recently using the Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) program as a local operating subsidy source.

12. 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.

12. Action 3.1.2: Comment noted. The City continues to partner closely with the OHA on project funding and advocacy for more resources.

13. 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" included 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.

13. Action 3.2.6: See the response to the Site Inventory question number 4 above.

14. 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 implement the policy direction contained in the resolution. Four years later no legislation has yet been put forward for adoption.

In this Action, the City is not proposing to abandon 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 also be sent 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 new 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

14. Action 3.3.1:

As stated in the August 15, 2019 informational memorandum to the City Council, an equity impact analysis establishing racial equity measures needs to be completed. Once this analysis is complete, staff will formulate recommendations for Council consideration as part of the Public Lands policy. See informational report.
29 Letter # Name/Organization Date Comment Staff Response 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% 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.

15. 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.

15. Action 3.3.2:

The Oakland Housing Authority is responsible for identifying landlords for Housing Choice Voucher holders. The commenter is encouraged to contact that agency regarding the possibility of fair housing testing, and we can share this comment with them.

16. Action 3.3.5:

We strongly support an Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) that provides by-right 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 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 resource neighborhoods. We do not support a blanket exclusion of many hill areas from this program- these are the whitest, most affluent, and most exclusionary areas in the City, and failure to include these areas does not meet the requirement to affirmatively further fair housing.

16. Action 3.3.5: Comment noted. Staff will be conducting community outreach between Winter - Spring 2023 to discuss and get further feedback on the implementation actions of proposed Housing Element-related rezonings and overlays. The proposed code amendments will be brought forward to Council for adoption in Summer 2023. As part of the Safety Element Update, the City is studying the potential for areas that might be appropriate to be included in the Affordable Housing Overlay and for increased densities to be included in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) based on analysis regarding evacuation scenarios.

17. 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 need of 2021 and presented to the City Council as part of the annual impact fee be report in 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.

17. Action 3.3.7:

There has been delay of the study because of several staff that have left the City in the past year and not enough staff resources. New staff have been hired and are starting in January and February 2023. There will be a public process with a working group similar to the original process of creating the Impact Fees. The timeline cannot be moved up because of consultant and staff availability, with most of staff resources currently working on the Housing Element (including zoning changes to 30 Letter # Name/Organization Date Comment Staff Response There has been no new information of 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.
implement the Housing Element), Safety Element, and Environmental Justice Element as well as Objective Design Standards. The Impact Fees automatically increase every year with construction inflation rate and this past July the Impact Fees increased by 15%. The 5-Year Impact Fee update of the Nexus analysis, which is required by the State Mitigation Fee Act, was competed in December 2021.

18. 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.

18. Action 3.3.8.

Action 3.3.8 is intended to initiate and finish the requirements of the State Mitigation Fee Act in 2026 (the study to meet the State Mitigation Fee Act requirements was finished in 2021). See also response to 17.

19. 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.

19. Action 3.3.9. Comment noted. The timeline for Action 3.3.9 is mid-2024.

20. 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.

20. Action 3.3.10. The comment is noted, but it would not be appropriate to commit to adopting an EIFD in the Housing Element before a full analysis of the costs and benefits of the proposal has been made. Establishing and operating an EIFD is one option to expand funding for affordable housing, but it may also feature a high overhead cost relative to the amount borrowed. This raises questions about the efficiency of EIFDs that should be addressed before a final decision is reached. 31 Letter # Name/Organization Date Comment Staff Response

21. 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.

21. Action 3.3.12. Comment noted

22. 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.

22. Action 3.3.15. Comment noted and as part of implementation efforts, staff will consult with stakeholders, Planning Commission and City Council to identify additional incentives.

23. 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.

23. Action 3.3.16. Comment noted. As this tax requires a ballot measure, adequate time is needed in order to complete the analysis needed to present to voters.

24. 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.

24. Action 3.3.18. Comment noted. Staff will add clarifying language.

25. 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

25. Action 3.3.19. Comment noted
32 Letter # Name/Organization Date Comment Staff Response 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.

26. 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 5th 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 transit proximate 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.

26. Action 3.4.1. Comment noted.

27. 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

27. Action 3.4.2. Comment noted.
33 Letter # Name/Organization Date Comment Staff Response housing. We look forward to this analysis as the prelude to the elimination of zoning barriers that maintain racial segregation.

28. 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.

28. Action 3.4.3. Comment noted. State Law now requires elimination of parking minimums within ½ mile of major transit stop.

29. 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

29. Action 3.4.10 Staff will be conducting community outreach between Winter - Spring 2023 to discuss and get further feedback on the implementation actions of proposed Housing Element-related rezonings and overlays. 34 Letter # Name/Organization Date Comment Staff Response housing for lower income households and would be contrary to the requirement to affirmatively further fair housing.

30. 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.

30. Actions 3.5.1 and 3.5.2. Comment noted

31. 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.
• 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

31. Action 3.5.3. Comment noted. The City has supported and will continue to support social housing legislation on the State level as well as Article 34 repeal.

32. 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.

32. Action 3.5.4. This comment is noted with appreciation- the City has been approached with and rejected multiple proposals that would seek to provide a shallow subsidy for workforce housing that did not show adequate public benefit.

The City will continue to evaluate shallow subsidy proposals and monitor the performance of such programs in other jurisdictions.

33. 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.

33. Action 3.6.1. Comment noted. Through Action 3.3.5, the City will implement an Affordable Housing Overlay to streamline the approval of affordable housing by right.

34. 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.

34. Action 3.6.3. Comment noted. See response to 33.

35. Action 3.6.4.

We support active encouragement of use of SB 35 to provide by-right approval

35. Action 3.6.4. Comment noted
35 Letter # Name/Organization Date Comment Staff Response for 100% affordable housing, including training and direction to Planning staff that this should be affirmatively pursued.

36. 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.

36. Action 5.2.8.

Comment noted

37. 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 underinvested and disinvested neighborhoods.

37. Action 5.2.9.

Comment noted. Oakland Housing and Community Development (Oakland HCD) is currently working on the community engagement process for Measure U.

38. 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

38. Action 5.2.10.

Comment noted. Action 3.3.7 includes studying the targeted implementation of an inclusionary housing requirement. The study will consider the number of units likely to be produced through impact fees versus inclusionary affordable housing requirements and their likely affordability levels; and whether targeted inclusionary housing requirements may increase the provision of affordable housing units in higher-resource neighborhoods.
36 Letter # Name/Organization Date Comment Staff Response 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.

39. 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.

39. Action 5.2.11.

Comment noted.
25 AC Transit 12/29/22 AC Transit has long been a strong supporter of transit-oriented housing and commercial development in Oakland and throughout our district. Transit-oriented development along AC Transit's frequent service corridors contributes to the goal of improving non-automotive access throughout Oakland. It also contributes to increasing AC Transit ridership. We wish to raise one concern about the current draft of the Element.

As you know, Oakland is required under state law to assure that it has zoned capacity allow an additional 26,000 housing units by 2031. This is an ambitious goal that must include adding zoned capacity along major AC Transit routes. We are pleased to see that the Element, as detailed in Appendix J, plans to add zoned capacity in segments along a number of these
corridors. Portions of College Avenue., Broadway, International Blvd., Foothill Blvd., and Telegraph Avenue south of 55th Street are proposed for up zonings to higher density zones, or for increases in permitted heights in their existing zones.

Two segments of key bus transit corridors appear to have been overlooked:
'Upper" Telegraph Avenue north of SR 24 to the Berkeley border. Another is Martin Luther King Junior Way between 40th St. and 47th St. These areas are not proposed for up zoning or height limit increases in the current draft Housing Element.

There are several reasons why the Telegraph segment is appropriate for allowing increased density. AC Transit, in conjunction with the City of Oakland, is planning to make capital improvements along this (line 6) corridor. This segment has a number of single-story commercial sites which could be reused for housing. In addition, this segment has travel demand going south into central Oakland, and Comment Noted. Staff will be conducting community outreach between Winter - Spring 2023 to discuss and get further feedback on the implementation actions of proposed Housing Element-related rezonings and overlays. 37 Letter # Name/Organization Date Comment Staff Response north to Alta Bates Hospital, the University of California, and Downtown Berkeley.

The shorter segment on Martin Luther King Junior Way also has frequent bus service. It also has low intensity commercial uses which could be reused for housing. It is well-located between Children's' Hospital and Macarthur BART.

We understand that the Element's proposals must be codified in changes to Oakland's zoning code. We urge that Upper Telegraph Avenue be considered for intensified housing development through appropriate changes to the zoning code. 26 Prof. SuzyJane
Edwards
12/29/22 Don’t compound your error by allowing rezoning. Mills could have done that and remained otherwise intact rather than the hive of scum and villainy it has become under McEastern. I curse the house of everyone involved in approving this acquisition. Double that upon the houses of anyone that allows rezoning.

As part of the city's current effort to update its Housing Element, the undeveloped western edge of the Mills College campus adjacent to MacArthur Blvd. was identified as a potential location for the addition of infill housing. Any rezoning of that portion of the campus would only occur if the community and decisionmakers support such a change and only for the purpose of facilitating the addition of housing along this undeveloped campus edge. Staff will be conducting community outreach between Winter - Spring 2023 to discuss and get further feedback on the implementation actions of proposed Housing Element-related rezonings and overlays. The proposed zoning amendments to implement the Housing Element will come before City Council in Summer 2023
27 Kate Ruprecht 12/29/22 I would like to voice my strong objection to rezoning the Mills College campus as I do not see any comparable precedents for this kind of proposal. The campus is still being used as a university campus and has been used for this sole purpose continuously for over 100 years. Changing the zoning of the Mills College campus would be a disservice to the current students, neighborhood, and set a new precedent in the city of Oakland for rezoning that is not common on other educational campuses or in most communities.

See response to Letter #26
28 Kaerla Fellows 12/29/22 The re‐zoning of Mills College is puzzling to me. With all of the space currently available that can be turned into low cost housing(abandoned business spaces in the Fairfax district, for instance off the top of my head), why does Oakland suddenly feel that the best thing to do is sub‐divide the oldest women's college west of the Rockies?
See response to Letter #26
29 Lucia Savage 12/29/22 I write in opposition to the proposed rezoning of Mills College.

1. The Mills campus is full of mature trees that make Oakland more livable, give homes to animals, reduce pollution, and tamp down on noise, ESPECIALLY in this part of town that has hardly any green space or parks on the bay side of highway

13. 2. The college's location is disconnected from Mass transit. This is a terrible place to put more housing, because that housing will all need cars to get to it,. More cars will be needed just to get to the housing, not to mention any retail installed.

This area is NOT suitable for urban infill like we have built at Fruitvale and MacArthur bart stations.

See response to Letter #26
38 Letter # Name/Organization Date Comment Staff Response

3. More retail is unnecessary for that part of Oakland. Not only are large swaths of Eastmont Mall available to be repurposed, but just off the road is the existing retail at Redwood Road and highway 13, or existing retail on Seminary Ave. City dollars and subsidies (which I pay for as a taxpayer) would be better spent shoring up existing retail areas at Eastmont, on Seminary Ave, and in other locations in East Oakland.

4. The land in fact has a graveyard on it, where Susan and Cyrus Mills are buried.

5. Would build new construction out of character with the many historic and architecturally meaningful buildings already on the Mills campus, for example those designed by Julia Morgan.

Please do not rezone Mills.
30 Tuan Ngo 12/29/22 Duplicate of Letter #8
31 Tuan Ngo 12/29/22 We used to say ‘homeless' but now it’s more politically correct to say ‘unhoused’.

Unhoused' fits the housing narrative better. We say people are living on the streets because they can’t afford housing. But people aren't being pushed out onto the street the last few years because of the eviction moratorium. Yet homeless encampments sprung up everywhere during the moratorium.

We can’t address the homeless crisis unless we have a sobering conversation about fentanyl. Fentanyl overdose deaths far outpaced COVID-19 deaths, even at the height of the pandemic. Fentanyl is 100 times stronger than morphine.

Fentanyl addiction drives property crimes, shooting violence, and is the reason why people won’t accept permanent shelter with supportive services (because they have to be close to their drug source). Pimps are getting young girls hooked on fentanyl and prostituting them out. Oakland needs attention and resources for fentanyl addiction if the city is serious about tackling homelessness.