COMMENT LETTERS RECEIVED ON
2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT AND
STAFF RESPONSES
APPENDIX L-1 - COMMENT LETTERS RECEIVED
1. Comment letters received on the 1st Draft Housing
Element between May 12, 2022 - September 30, 2022
2. Comment letters received on the Revised Public
Hearing Draft Housing Element between November 29
- December 29, 2022
3. Comment letters received on the Revised Public
Hearing Draft Housing Element after December 29,
2022
APPENDIX L
EXHIBIT A-13
APPENDIX L-2 - RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS
1. Response to Comment letters received on the 1st
Draft Housing Element between May 12, 2022 -
September 30, 2022
2. Response to Comment letters received on the Revised
Public Hearing Draft Housing Element between
November 29 - December 29, 2022
1. COMMENT LETTERS
RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT
2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
MAY 12, 2022- SEPTEMBER 30,
2022
APPENDIX L-1
April 21, 2022
Dear Oakland City Council:
We are writing on behalf of YIMBY Law and Greenbelt Alliance regarding Oakland’s 6th Cycle Housing Ele‐ ment Update. YIMBY Law is a legal nonprofit working to make housing in California more accessible and af‐ fordable through enforcement of state law. Greenbelt Alliance is an environmental nonprofit working to en‐ sure that the Bay Area’s lands and communities are resilient to a changing climate.
We are writing to remind you of Oakland's obligation to include sufficient sites in your upcoming Housing Element to accommodate your Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of 26,251 units.
In the Annual Progress Reports that Oakland submitted to HCD, we observe the following trend of housing units permitted in the last four years:
Year Housing units permitted
2018 4,617
2019 2,154
2020 1,107
2021 1,667
Average, 2018-2021 2,386
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 re‐ cent 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.
Thank you,
Sid Kapur, East Bay YIMBY ([email protected])
Rafa Sonnenfeld, YIMBY Law ([email protected])
Zoe Siegel, Greenbelt Alliance ([email protected])
17 May 2022
Dear Director Gilchrist and Staff of the 2045 General Plan Update, The Board of the Dimond Improvement Association is writing today to provide input on the upcoming Housing Element of the 2045 General Plan Update.
The Dimond District is a resource-rich neighborhood in Oakland that is complete with high-quality transit service, park space, schools, access to grocery stores and restaurants, a library, and a post office. More Oaklanders should have access to the resources we currently enjoy. The Dimond Improvement Association has outlined the goals we wish to achieve for the 6th Housing Element Cycle to ensure strong equitable growth of our neighborhood.
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
Focused Goals
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.
4. Establish a base height limit of 55 ft in the DBD
a. Upzone Opportunity Sites to a max height of 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, Park Blvd, 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.
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.
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.
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
We hope you will take our wishes into consideration for the Housing Element process and serve us by meeting all State requirements during this cycle.
Thank you,
Ryan Romaneski
Chair, Dimond Improvement Association
7/20/22, 4:26 PM
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]…FqtcXWGMRiAAAAAAEMAAApFTKySZwnTo%2FqtcXWGMRiAAEm%2FCN4AAA%3D Page 1 of 1 Housing Plan Comments
Jesse Boudart < >
Thu 5/19/2022 10:55 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.
Hello,
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
Cheers,
Jesse
7/20/22, 4:15 PM
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]…%2FqtcXWGMRiAAAAAAEMAAApFTKySZwnTo%2FqtcXWGMRiAAEorOGMAAA%3D Page 1 of 2 Oakland Draft HE: Brooklyn Basin
Derek Sagehorn < >
Sat 5/21/2022 9:58 AM
To: General Plan <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]> [EXTERNAL] This email originated outside of the City of Oakland. Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and expect the message.
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 low-income units to high-resource sites such as the Claremont/College flatiron or new sites like 5354 Claremont Ave.
--
Derek Sagehorn
7/20/22, 4:31 PM
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/…%2FqtcXWGMRiAAAAAAEMAAApFTKySZwnTo%2FqtcXWGMRiAAEo7zePAAA%3D Page 1 of 1 Oakland Draft HE: Dimond
Bret Peterson <[email protected]>
Sun 5/22/2022 11:29 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.
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.
Thanks,
Date: May 23, 2022
To: Lakshmi Rajagopalan, Project Manager, Oakland General Plan Update From: Oakland Cultural Affairs Commission
Topic: Cultural Affairs Commission Initial Recommendations for the General Plan Equity is the driving force.
Culture is the frame.
Belonging is the goal.
Above are the tenets of the Oakland Cultural Development Plan that guide the work of the Cultural Affairs Commission in its mission to advise the Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator on all matters pertaining to cultural development and vitality in Oakland.
With this front of mind, the Commission seeks to bring its voice and that of local culture keepers to the General Plan Update as its policies will shape the health and well-being of the soul of Oakland for decades to come. The culture of Oakland is generated by its people—their lives and livelihoods. The General Plan sets the conditions for ensuring there is sufficient and accessible shelter, thriving diverse businesses, and vibrant neighborhoods and gathering spaces that reflect and are for those very people.
For years, we have seen multi-generational Oaklanders pushed out of their homes, culture makers and keepers priced out of their spaces, and the tragic loss of life of those who are merely trying to keep a toehold in their city and a space to express and share their creativity and sense of community. This has to stop. We believe that for the cultural health of Oakland, we must have policies that support Oaklanders to exercise their right to feel they belong in their city and that their city belongs to them. To this end, we advocate for all Oaklanders’ ability to:
● Stay in their homes
● Return from residential and business displacement
● Have spaces that facilitate cultural production and allow for exchange and innovation ● Maintain and create thriving, culturally-rooted local businesses and organizations (particularly of historically marginalized communities) ● Create and activate public and private spaces in which to negotiate and build community that are culturally-equitable, safe, and healthy 1 Recommendations
The following recommendations, based on the general principles articulated above, are put forth by the Cultural Affairs Commission for consideration by the Oakland Planning and Building Department, Dyett & Bhatia, Deeply Rooted, and the City Council. The Commission provides these recommendations as its first of several during the general planning process.
Additional recommendations will be provided as forthcoming plan elements are considered. # Recommendation Pg
Theme 1: Live/Work and Work/Live
1A Incentivize the development of affordable live/work and work/live units. 3 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. 4 1C Track live/work and work/live units as a category within the planning department. 5 1D Codify policies in the general plan that ease the process and reduce expenses to get non-conforming spaces into code.
5 1E Adopt policies in the general plan to protect cultural workers and workspaces at risk of displacement or affected by cannabis manufacturing, cultivation and other cannabis businesses.
7 Theme 2: Cultural Infrastructure
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. 9 2B Establish a working group to make recommendations to the City Council for the timely development and implementation of a Cultural Facilities Policy. 10 Theme 3: Cultural Equity Impact Assessment
3A Establish the use of a Cultural Equity Impact Assessment as a condition of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review
11 Theme 4: Right of Return
4A Codify guiding preference policy in the general plan to allow displaced Oaklanders the right of return.
12 2
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 Principles: Have spaces that facilitate cultural production and allow for exchange and innovation
Rationale Resources
Cultural infrastructure and cultural characteristics of cities have a demonstrated positive impact on a city’s economy and vibrancy1. The presence of artists, cultural workers, and makers in a community is critical to that end and part of Oakland’s “secret sauce”2. Many cultural workers in Oakland are at risk of displacement as illustrated by a 2015 survey3 administered to creatives by the Mayor’s Artist Housing and Workspace Task Force. Affordable live/work units fill an important gap which benefits a wide variety of residents including artists, cultural workers, and makers (particularly from historically marginalized communities) and aims to maintain Oakland’s cultural vibrancy.
The availability of space that is affordable, physically appropriate for makers, code-compliant, and blends the needs of housing and workspace into one unit creates increased financial stability for this demographic and has a demonstrated positive cultural and economic impact on the region.4 Sub-Recommendation from the White Paper5
● 1.1A — Tying conditional permits to the provision of affordable live/work housing in Community Commercial (CC) neighborhoods, including CC-3 where residential is not currently allowed.
Belonging in
Oakland: A
Cultural
Development
Plan
White Paper:
Strategies for
Protecting and
Creating Arts &
Culture Space in
Oakland
Oakland’s Art
and Cultural
Economy:
Appendix to
Belonging in
Oakland
5 “Strategies for Protecting and Creating Arts and Culture Space in Oakland,” Spring 2016. http://www2.oaklandnet.com/oakca1/groups/ceda/documents/agenda/oak062138.pdf. 4 “Belonging in Oakland: A Cultural Development Plan,” Spring 2018. https://cao-94612.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/Cultural-Plan-9.24-online.pdf. 3 “Strategies for Protecting and Creating Arts and Culture Space in Oakland,” Spring 2016. http://www2.oaklandnet.com/oakca1/groups/ceda/documents/agenda/oak062138.pdf. 2 “Belonging in Oakland: A Cultural Development Plan,” Spring 2018. https://cao-94612.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/Cultural-Plan-9.24-online.pdf. 1 “Cultural and Creative Cities and Regional Economic Efficiency: Context Conditions as Catalyzers of Cultural Vibrancy and Creative Economy.” Sustainability 13, no. 13 (2021): 7150. http://dx.doi.org.libproxy.berkeley.edu/10.3390/su13137150. 3 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
Current code has several different working requirements for different live/work and work/live units.6
● Joint Living and Work Quarters (JLWQs): At least one resident must maintain a Business Tax Certificate and work out of the unit ● Residentially Oriented JLWQs: No requirement to have a tenant working in the unit
● HBX and D-CEs: At least one resident of a work/live unit must maintain a Business Tax Certificate and work out of the unit. No working activities are required to be performed in live/work units.
Live/work and work/live units are limited and incredibly valuable to Oakland’s cultural workers and contribute to the cultural vibrancy of the city.7 Requirements to use these spaces should be adjusted to reduce residential-only or digital economy uses that only require a home office while also preventing displacement of people in those spaces.
Consideration of a cultural worker certification process similar to the cities of Boston, MA or NYC may be a preferable alternative. It could improve enforcement of the policy which is currently weak. Intermediaries like Safer DIY Spaces and Vital Arts may be interested in piloting such a program.
Coordination of policy language with the Division of Cultural Affairs is recommended to avoid unintended exclusion of important segments of the cultural worker demographic.
Zoning Code
Bulletin on
work/live and
live/work
Housing
Belonging in
Oakland: A
Cultural
Development
Plan
Artist Housing
Certification -
Boston, MA
Artist
Certification -
NYC
Safer DIY
Spaces
Vital Arts
7 “Belonging in Oakland: A Cultural Development Plan,” Spring 2018. https://cao-94612.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/Cultural-Plan-9.24-online.pdf. 6 City of Oakland Community and Economic Development Agency. “Zoning Code Bulletin,” May 2020. https://cao-94612.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/Zoning-Bulletin-2020-2-Live-Work-May-18-2020.pdf. 4 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
The stock and production of these categories is not tracked.8It is valuable for the city to know existing quantities and uses so that it can be utilized for future planning purposes.
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
The Ghost Ship tragedy exposed the lack of affordable space available for cultural production as well as the risks and spectrum of non-confirming living spaces in Oakland. Bringing unregulated spaces up to code is a better and less expensive alternative than tennant displacement from a non-conforming space and into houselessness. Organizations like Safer DIY Spaces have saved as much as 1 million square feet for $0.50/sqft.9
The zoning regulations are fuzzy and leave a lot up to interpretation. Codifying policies in the general plan that reduce the expenses and red tape for conversion and lead to clear zoning regulations would be a great step.
The following ideas surfaced from a UCLA Masters thesis by Megan Wissing Healy (linked in resources) and a conversation with Tom Dolan of Safer DIY Spaces :
1. Reorient code enforcement to adopt a harm reduction approach Secondary Units
for Whom?
Assessing
interventions
into Informal
Housing in San
Francisco and
Oakland
Safer DIY
Spaces
9 Tom Dolan, interview by Claire Pelley, April 26, 2022 8 Werth, Alex. “Statement of Methodology: Economic Impact Analysis and Cultural Asset Map,” Spring 2018.
https://oaklandca.s3.us-west-1.amazonaws.com/oakca1/groups/ceda/documents/report/oak071452.pdf. 5 2. Strengthen the role of intermediaries
3. Expand financing opportunities for essential life safety upgrades
4. Offer property owners amnesty while legalizing units
5. Recommended Building Code Changes
a. Seismic retrofitting not required to get spaces into code b. Allow the use of less expensive sprinkler systems (plastic pipes, utilize same meter as home, etc)
c. If a space has no walk-in trade or employees, make it exempt from ADA retrofitting
d. Automatically consider all buildings more than 50 years historic to provide exemption from Title 24
e. If there are two means of egress on a floor, remove the need for a bedroom window
6 Recommendation 1E: Adopt policies in the general plan to protect cultural workers and 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 (particularly of historically marginalized communities) The implementation of legal cannabis production in the industrial zones has created unintended consequences for Oakland’s cultural workers.
Cannabis-related manufacturing, cultivation and other cannabis businesses are competing for space with artist live/work, work/live units and other industrial spaces serving artists and makers causing displacement. Cannabis uses often conflict with live/work spaces, due to industrial noise, increased pollution, and generally compromising the quality of life. While recent policy adoption has lessened these impacts by restricting approvals on properties used for work/live or residential purposes, there continue to be conflicts and displacement10 exposing a gap that needs to be filled in order to protect Oakland’s creative workforce.
One potential solution is to create a new cannabis-related land use category in the Planning Code, to allow the Planning and Building Department to have more regulatory oversight over Cannabis uses, and allow potential land use conflicts to be assessed and mitigated before a cannabis business receives permits.
Another idea would be to alter the borders of the cannabis green zone to protect existing clusters of artists and makers, including live/work space, from displacement by cannabis businesses. The process would include identifying clusters of live/work, work/live, and artist workspace in the industrial zone and Oakland’s
Cultural Assets
map
Cannabis
Facilities
Permitted Zones
Map
Cannabis
Ordinance
Changes Sept.
18, 2020
10 KQED. “A Denver-Based Firm Is Using Huge Diesel Generators to Grow Cannabis in East Oakland.
Now the City Is Trying to Shut Them Down.” Accessed May 8, 2022. https://www.kqed.org/news/11908979/a-denver-based-firm-is-using-huge-diesel-generators-to-grow-cann abis-in-east-oakland-now-the-city-is-trying-to-shut-them-down. 7 removing those areas from the cannabis green zone. The Cultural Assets map linked in resources is a starting place, but it is not complete. Live/work is not tracked as a category by the planning department.
The Cultural Affairs Commission is open to alternative options that further protect cultural workers impacted by cannabis manufacturing, cultivation and other cannabis businesses.
8 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
Rationale Resources
The Downtown Oakland Specific Plan (DOSP) will be piloting the use of a new cultural building category and requiring new developments to designate 50% of the ground floor storefront to be used as cultural space.
Districts 6 and 7 lack cultural infrastructure relative to other districts11 and would benefit from similar stimulation and incentives to increase and promote vibrancy.
If the same tools cannot be expanded to other areas, consider alternatives that can also improve cultural infrastructure like a development fee to invest in city-owned cultural assets such as libraries, recreation centers, and open space.
The Cultural Affairs Commission should be consulted on the definition of “cultural activity” to ensure it does not exclude important cultural stakeholders.
White Paper:
Strategies for
Protecting and
Creating Arts &
Culture Space in
Oakland
Belonging in Oakland:
A Cultural
Development Plan
The Downtown
Oakland Specific Plan:
Planning Code
Amendments
Oakland’s Cultural
Assets map
11 “Cultural and Creative Cities and Regional Economic Efficiency: Context Conditions as Catalyzers of Cultural Vibrancy and Creative Economy.” Sustainability 13, no. 13 (2021): 7150. http://dx.doi.org.libproxy.berkeley.edu/10.3390/su13137150. 9 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 activate public and private spaces in which to negotiate and build community that are culturally-equitable, safe, and healthy
The City of Oakland lacks a comprehensive and cohesive cultural facilities policy which could among other things:
1. Preserve cultural spaces and prevent loss
2. Provide guidance on type and geographies of needed cultural facilities development
3. Improve equitable access to cultural facilities
4. Increase stock of cultural facilities
The working group should include collaborators from the Division of Cultural Affairs, the Planning Department, the Department of Parks, Recreation and Youth Development, and Oakland Public Library.
The goal and North Star of the working group should be to create a cultural facilities policy which can be integrated into the general plan.
Special attention should be focused on city-owned properties.
Belonging in Oakland:
A Cultural
Development Plan
10 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 activate public and private spaces in which to negotiate and build community that are culturally-equitable, safe, and healthy
Rationale Resources
A Cultural Equity Impact Assessment would codify a
process within the Department of Planning and Building
to understand potential harms on culture and equity of
proposed developments. Furthermore it recognizes the
City of Oakland’s responsibility to practice “equity in city practices that eliminates all forms of discrimination in City activities” as outlined in the establishment of the Department of Race and Equity. A Cultural Equity Impact Assessment can identify:
1. Potential loss of cultural vibrancy
2. Impacts on marginalized communities
3. Impacts of additional housing units on public
facilities and open space
4. Threats of displacement
5. Ways to mitigate these potential harms
Belonging in Oakland: A Cultural
Development Plan
Department of Race and Equity
Hawaii SB 987 requiring
environmental impact statements
assess effects on cultural practices
11 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 Rationale Resources
Systemic and historic housing policy injustices, escalating rents, housing unaffordability, and gentrification are all significant contributors to the Oakland housing crisis as well as the residential and business displacement of
Oaklanders.12 The Cultural Affairs Commission urges the adoption of a preference policy to protect Oaklanders
impacted by displacement. A right of return policy will add value to the various measures aimed at protecting and
maintaining Oakland’s diversity and cultural vibrancy.13 Belonging in Oakland: A Cultural
Development Plan
Portland, OR preference policy
Austin, TX resolution for a
preference policy
13“Belonging in Oakland: A Cultural Development Plan,” Spring 2018. https://cao-94612.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/Cultural-Plan-9.24-online.pdf. 12 Deeply Rooted. “Housing and Environmental Justice Workshop.” April 2022. https://cao-94612.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/DR-April-Workshop-Housing-EJ-slides_2022_0408-1.p df.
12 1115 Atlantic Ave, Alameda California 94501
Phone: 510.227.6900 fax: 510.227.6901 www.first5alameda.org June 01, 2022
RE: City of Oakland Draft Housing Element FY 2023-31
Dear Lakshmi Rajagopalan,
Thank you for the opportunity to help inform the City of Oakland’s General Plan Housing Element. We are writing to highlight the housing needs of families with young children and early care and education professionals living in Oakland and Alameda County. The City of Oakland can invest in supports for families with young children and the early care and education (ECE) workforce through investments that promote the structural conditions associated with child wellbeing, including kindergarten readiness, a predictor of 3rd grade success which is itself a proxy for long term academic, career, and life outcomes.
Healthy, thriving communities are crucial for developing young minds and family well-being. Science tells us that there is a direct link between early childhood development, community and family conditions, and our city and county’s stability and prosperity. Our biennial Kindergarten Readiness Assessment (KRA) consistently finds that kindergarten readiness is strongly linked to family access to basic needs, with housing at the center. This year, upon surveying over 3,000 people in the county – parents, early childhood educators, TK and kindergarten teachers, and with the guidance of our community-led Research Advisory Group, housing and basic needs emerged as a top priority. The study included 475 parents with Oakland addresses, 70 K/TK Oakland Unified School District teachers, and 150 ECE professionals in Oakland. These findings build on the evidence highlighting that the cost of living in Oakland and Alameda County has far outpaced families’ abilities to make ends meet, and those structural inequities result in disparate outcomes for families of color and those with low incomes.
We support and encourage the city to prioritize policies, practices, and investments that:
1. 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 instability. See more in our Data for Action guide.
2. 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:
o 87% 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 lack of resources and support.
o 69% of Oakland center directors and family child care providers reported at least one component of their center or home as “inadequate or substandard”
3. 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.
4. 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 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 Our mission at First 5 Alameda County is to build an early childhood system of care that cultivates the community and family conditions needed to support children’s kindergarten readiness; as a funder, partner, administrator, and advocate, we prioritize policies, programs, and investments that narrow disparities and improve the lives of children from birth to age five, their families, and their caregivers.
We partner with community-based organizations to ensure that families and providers have the resources they need for children to thrive—including basic needs, connections to services and information, and peer support to promote mental health and well-being. Through our work, we seek to improve underlying structural conditions and outcomes.
For these reasons, we urge the City of Oakland to consider the needs of families with young children and the early care and education workforce in the 2023-2031 Housing Element Plan. We look forward to the opportunity to partner with the City of Oakland to advance investments that make Oakland a city where all families and children can thrive.
Sincerely,
Kristin Spanos
Chief Executive Officer
First 5 Alameda County
6/1/22
EBHO Oakland Committee Meeting
• Liana
o What are some concrete action items that have already been agreed upon? o RHNA numbers – how does the City anticipate being able to meet RHNA goals? Explanation of buffer
o Constraints – noted that staff mentioned high fees as a constraint, but from what Liana hears, fees aren’t high enough
• Jeff
o Fees – need to distinguish btwn planning and building fees, the extent to which the fees are barriers, impact vs permitting fees
o Please include an executive summary of the HE – organization and content o Sites – map of sites across the city with council districts, distinguish sites for lower income housing/market rate. Sites inventory needs to be sent to HCD can that be available to the public. Map sites against areas of concentration race/income - higher income and largely white neighborhoods; extent to which we are putting multifamily and aff housing into those areas. What share of lower income housing sites are going into high opportunity/high segregation areas?
o How is the ADU production/affordability generated?
o Maps from state maps – RECAP – not a terribly useful way of looking at segregation o HAP – is the list of new programs in the HE anywhere? Plan/study/consider - proposed policies with respect to inclusionary zoning will be presented to the Council for consideration by a specific date so that we are not endlessly studying. Policies will in fact reduce the racial disparities in housing opportunity/outcomes/conditions identified in the fair housing assessment
• Melody
o What are some of the plans for seniors?
6/1/22
Planning Commission Meeting Notes
• Comments
o Commissioner - Why didn’t we build on opportunity sites from the previous cycle(s)? o WG - What will induce a developer to build housing? Those elements may not have been in place; obstacles were not always removed to induce a developer to build housing on the site
§ Moved regulations to having zoning allow housing by-right on those sites via state law
§ Hindsight analysis about areas where opportunity sites were / were not developed
o Jeff Levin – 1999-2014, the city averaged less than 1,000 units per year. What actions is the city taking to encourage affordable housing development as a result of SB9? Five year impact fee study – when will this occur?
o Daniel Gregg - Encourage development of local construction labor, apprenticeship programs, workable local hire, workforce necessary to build housing we desperately need
o Michael Gabriel – 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 o Tuan Ngo – TOPA/COPA - consider public input, change on p57 to reference this as an approach; moving private properties into social housing; will negatively impact small mom and pop owners. This policy is not effective; richmond city council unanimously voted to halt this program. Affordable housing directly into hands of low income tenants, provide downpayment assistance to homebuyers
o Lucky Thomas – resident in west oakland. Member of In it together Oakland. Housing can be provided in many different ways/forms than just TOPA/COPA, shouldn’t just be the GPU. 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 pops, small property owners, all of the rights/abilities to operate one’s property.
Remove TOPA/COPA. Explore condo conversions, cooperatives, etc o Chair Manus – statements about objectivity vs objectivity in the Housing Element, what does WG think?
o Commissioner Shirazi – thorough and thoughtful HE. Map of sites – Rockridge area does not have any identified sites – is this because of rezoning program? o Chair Manus – convergence of building typology in the zoning. Having those who build / develop as a part of the assumptions about where upzoning is logical – make sure building code updates are reflected. Changing building type from Type 3 to Type 4 o Commissioner Fearn – is there cliff notes version of what the State wants to see related to AFFH thresholds in the HE? Housing should be located in high resource areas, increase investments in low resource areas. Are we leaning on our policies to ensure we meet RHNA bc we’re not locating housing in opportunity sites o Commissioner Sugrue - Conversations with market rate and affordable housing types affordable within a 5-10 year range? Townhomes are the most lucrative products now.
How can we be as predictable as possible?
§ Haven’t specifically heard about what types of housing developers want to build, but we’ve heard that they want zoning to allow for a mix of housing types o Commissioner Shirazi – Map in appendix C. Sites Inventory is just a tool to demonstrate we can meet our numbers. AFFH helps us determine beyond the Sites Inventory where we want to pursue development. It seems more equitable now looking at these maps together. Working with Economic Development and HCD to ensure that displacement pressures are mitigated / working with other existing plans and policies to align? o Daniel Gonzalez – TOPA/COPA HE – in the current version of that ordinance, it also 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 HE
o Jeff Levin – RHNA and regional efforts to reduce racial disparities – Oakland’s share of regional housing need has declined bc we advocated to ensure that the suburbs get more of the share of housing production. Product types – map zoning to production types; sweet spot is 4-5 stories on top of concrete podium, height limit of 70 ft. AFFH – sites need to show we are breaking down patterns of segregation – are we also providing opportunities in racially segregated areas, specifically white affluent part of town. Place-based strategies in investing in non-housing like infrastructure and facilities – must be coupled with investing in lower income neighborhoods. Policies need to show that we will reduce racial disparities in housing and metrics. o Commissioner Renk – HAP – 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 were some of this is winnowed down?
§ We are already working toward implementation
o Commissioner Jones – how does city see growing trend of integrating ADUs in townhomes – how does this contribute to HE as a whole? Innovation in the market place
o Commissioner Sugrue – receptivity of the GPU has been incredible based on emails and input he’s received thus far
o Commissioner Shirazi – 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 a midway point in the cycle, which would ultimately save us time and resources. Action 2.2.3 residential demolition – current ordinance may not be living up to what the goals were; we should look broader. Limit condo conversions – has good intentions, but may unintentionally limit housing purchase opportunities
June 7, 2022
Director Wiliam Gilchrist
Department of Planning and Building
City of Oakland
350 Frank Ogawa Plaza
Oakland, CA 94610
RE: Draft Housing Element 6th Cycle (2023-2031)
Director Gilchrist,
We write to provide comments on Oakland’s Draft Housing Element for the 6th Planning Cycle (2023 - 2031). Overall there are many strong programs proposed in the Programs and Policies within this draft. Conversely, we have identified issues with sites within the site inventory, including the Affirmatively Further Fair Housing (AFFH) supplemental sites, related to likelihood of development, location and the non-inclusion of promising, underutilized sites in low-VMT and high-resource tracts.
Our comments, summarized, mainly fall along the following lines:
1. There are significant issues with the location, feasibility, documented landowner disinterest and development standards with the Supplementary AFFH. Some of the Supplementary AFFH sites are actually located in low-resource tracts, which runs counter to the text and spirit of HCD’s AFFH guidance.
2. Several vacant and underutilized sites in high-resource tracts, especially near Rockridge BART, were not identified as Low-Income RHNA sites despite strong support from the community via the City of Oakland’s own Maptionanaire survey tool. The City of Oakland’s reasoning for not increasing the allowable height and density is questionable and inconsistent with actions taken elsewhere within the Draft Housing Element.
3. The City of Oakland has proposed many sorely needed actions within its Policies and Programs, including plex development in R-1 zones, an affordable housing overlay, and transit/high-resource rezoning. We provide comments on how to ensure these policies are crafted to meet their stated goals.
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 low-income to another site or sites.
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.
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 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.
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 of the City of Oakland excluding low-income and multi-family housing from this high-resource and heavily segregated neighborhood.
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 documentation of interest from the property owner in developing this parcel within the eight year planning period?
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 low-income 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.
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 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 low-income development opportunity site. Why weren’t these sites included?
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.
8. 6028 Claremont Avenue (APN 014 126803501) - This site is proposed for 23 Low-Income 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 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.
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.
In order to effectively meet the demand for additional sites, especially in moderate to high-resource 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 lodge and parking lot.
4. 5216 Broadway - one of two Shell Gas stations within ½ mile of each in a high-resource 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
We are excited to see many bold programs and policies. We offer the following comments:
● 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 deed-restricted 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. ● 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 low-resource places like East and Deep East Oakland where many low-income housing units have been developed historically.
○
○ In case the City of Oakland decides to allow 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. ● 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 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 of the City of Oakland of excluding low-income and multi-family 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 rent-controlled rental housing. ○ Resource-rich areas
■ Consider providing setback and other development standard relief in addition to permitting 30 DUAs by-right in resource rich areas. ○ 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 higher-resource 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 corridors: Shattuck Avenue, Piedmont Avenue, upper Broadway, upper Telegraph Avenue, 51st Street, College Avenue, Grand Avenue, Lakeshore Avenue and Claremont Avenue.
● 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.
● 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. ● 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. ● 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 moderate-income households, including public sector and essential workers. ● 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 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, requires automatic 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. ● 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.
● 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 evaluating development applications that propose to demolish protected housing and ensuring compliance with relocation and right of first refusal policies post-entitlement.
● 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.
Thank you for considering these comments. We are available to discuss them via phone or video conference, if necessary.
Sincerely,
John Minot
Jonathan Singh
EB4E Co-Executives
cc:
CA Department of Housing and Community Development
YIMBY Law
California Renters Legal Advocacy & Education Fund
These comments on the “City of Oakland 2023-2031 Housing Element Draft - Public Review May, 2022” are in response to a request from Audrey Lieberworth and are also directed to [email protected].
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.
There is a popular opinion of what Rockridge is and always has been which is historically inaccurate. Rockridge is perceived as rich, white and elitist, but Rockridge is the one neighborhood in Oakland which, as dominantly working class and diverse, recovered from the devastation of urban renewal policies. Yet somehow, it has become popular to make this neighborhood the scapegoat for current urban housing ills instead of a role model for how to recover and thrive from governmental policy driven destruction.
Some basic facts:
• This is one of the most densely populated single-family housing areas in Oakland.
About 45% of the people who live here are renters.
• This is the only neighborhood in the United States to fund and build its own branch library, running a successful volunteer political campaign to form a special taxation district
• This neighborhood built the first off-leash dog park in Oakland • This neighborhood funded, built and partially maintains a new city children’s park, the FROG Park, and the Rockridge-Temescal Greenbelt
• This neighborhood originated the all-in-one Disaster Recovery Center in response to the loss of 3,000 units of housing during the Oakland Firestorm, which is now the model for FEMA nationwide
• This neighborhood originated the C-31 special pedestrian oriented retail commercial zoning, now CN-1 in 1972. Rockridge has been a major economic engine for all of Oakland ever since. And activists from this neighborhood have helped five other neighborhoods throughout Oakland to adopt the pedestrian oriented retail shopping zoning and become economically successful.
• This neighborhood pioneered Neighborhood Watch in response to becoming the highest crime area of Oakland in the late 1960s. Neighborhood Watch is now a global phenomenon
• This neighborhood has its own Non-Profit organization, formed to fundraise for the library. If you live within the boundaries, renter or owner, you are a member with a vote and a voice.
• This neighborhood has a small, self-funding and award winning newsletter published continuously for almost 34 years. It comes out the first week of every month, and is 16 pages of community, land use and school news.
In the early 1960’s demolition began for construction of the Grove-Shafter freeway (Hwy 24) and BART. 1,400 properties were demolished, mostly single family dwellings.
College Avenue was bisected and almost brought to its commercial knees. Construction lasted for years, and the traffic disruption coupled with the loss of population, steadily eroded the commercial base. Store after store closed its doors, until finally 50% of the businesses stood empty with storefronts boarded up. Crime in the area skyrocketed and Rockridge became Oakland’s highest crime neighborhood. We have never gotten any financial help from the City of Oakland to recover; the success you see is the result of thousands of volunteer hours through almost 50 years.
A lot of people have roots here going back multiple generations. Most people who live here could never afford to buy their homes here again. The neighborhood has gentrified around us, in part due to our hard work to make it a more livable neighborhood (see above), in part due to easy freeway access and transit options. We are now being heavily pressured by tech money from SF that has doubled the asking price of small bungalows through insane overbids and severely diminished our diversity.
It is sad to see knee-jerk assumptions about an entire area based on the often expensive and trendy regional dining and shopping you see on College Avenue. Most of us are not buying the $600 jeans or eating in the pricier restaurants, but the business taxes generated do fund city services for all Oakland. I am very alarmed by the now rapid gentrification of all of Oakland, and the resultant loss of diversity this city has experienced as young, affluent, tech workers, dominantly white, have displaced both the working class people who made this neighborhood a success and the many non-white neighbors we used to have.
My classmates at Peralta Elementary were Black, Hispanic, Asian and immigrants as well as white. The same was true at Claremont Junior High, as it was then, and Oakland Tech – in the 1960s, the only fully representationally integrated high school in Oakland. If you are looking for the all-white high school at that time, it was Skyline High, built to exclude non-whites, the boundaries of which were carefully drawn around even single houses owned by nonwhites to ensure their exclusion. As an immigrant from an all white country, I know my life was immeasurably enriched by the racially and culturally diverse neighbors and classmates I had. (I am Row 3, 3rd from the right)
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-family-dominated 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, luxury-class 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, 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 reallyAffordable?
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 “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 lowincome 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 enter and exit a car from a walker, you also cannot be accommodated by ride-share or gig-vehicles 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 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 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.
Annette R. Floystrup
10:04:25 From Matt Weber to Everyone:
Matt Weber - Ellis Partners
10:04:29 From Keith Diggs to Everyone:
Keith Diggs (Yes In My Back Yard / YIMBY Law)
10:04:30 From Nicole Merino Tsui to Everyone:
Morning all! Nicole Merino Tsui, WOEIP
10:04:30 From Darbi Howard, East Oakland Collective to Everyone:
Darbi Howard, East Oakland Collective
10:04:33 From Trisha Barua, she/they to Everyone:
Good morning! Trisha Barua, Policy Analyst, Oakland Starting Smart and Strong
10:04:36 From David Wooley, UC Berkeley Goldman School to Everyone:
David Wooley, UC Berkeley Goldman School
10:04:36 From Rajeev Bhatia, Dyett & Bhatia to Everyone:
Rajeev Bhatia, Dyett & Bhatia
10:04:37 From Raul Maldonado to Everyone:
Raul Maldonado - East Bay YIMBY Colead
10:04:38 From Nora (she/her/ella) to Everyone:
Nora Martinez (she/her/ella)- Parent Voices Oakland (PVO) 10:04:40 From Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Everyone:
Please add your name in the chatbox with your organization 10:04:42 From Aaron Eckhouse (California YIMBY) to Everyone:
hello! I'm Aaron Eckhouse (he/him), with California YIMBY & also East Bay for Everyone
10:04:46 From Sarah Karlinsky, SPUR (she/her) to Everyone:
HI Everyone, this is Sarah Karlinsky, SPUR
10:04:49 From Warren Logan to Everyone:
Warren Logan, Transport Oakland
10:04:49 From Courtney Welch to Everyone:
Courtney Welch, CaRLA
10:04:54 From Susie Criscimagna to Everyone:
Susie Criscimagna, with Eden Housing
10:04:59 From Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Everyone:
https://www.oaklandca.gov/topics/oakland-general-plan-2045- housing-element
10:05:09 From Nico Nagle (he/him) - HAC to Everyone:
Nico Nagle, Housing Action Coalition
10:05:25 From Jeff Levin, EBHO to Everyone:
Good morning - Jeff Levin, Policy Director with East Bay Housing Organizations
10:06:20 From Charles Reed to Everyone:
Charles Reed WOEIP/Emerald New Deal
10:06:23 From María Domínguez ACPHD Health Equity (she/ella) to Everyone:
Good morning, buenos días. María D. Domínguez, local policy coordinator with the Alameda County Public Health Department- Health Equity, Policy and Planning (HEPP) team.
10:06:30 From Tracey Nails-Bell to Everyone:
Tracey Nails-Bell, Housing service provider for A Diamond in the Ruff Incorporated
10:07:05 From Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Everyone:
Please mute yourself if you are not speaking
10:07:05 From Laura Kaminski, City of Oakland to Everyone:
Laura Kaminski, Strategic Planning Manager, City of Oakland 10:07:28 From Beth Altshuler Munoz to Everyone:
Beth Altshuler Munoz, Consultant to the West Oakland Community Action Plan AB 617 Process (BAAQMD & WOEIP)
10:08:41 From Beth Altshuler Munoz to Everyone:
Will you be sharing the slides?
10:08:54 From Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Everyone:
Beth, we can share the slides after this meeting
10:09:02 From Beth Altshuler Munoz to Everyone:
thanks Lakshmi!
10:11:26 From Jeff Levin, EBHO to Everyone:
Oakland's RHNA increase is actually a lower percentage than the region as a whole.
10:11:34 From Charles Reed to Everyone:
Despite the increase how do we assure that the disenfranchised needs are met.
10:12:28 From Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Everyone:
If you just joined, please add your name in the chat with your organization
10:12:48 From Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Everyone:
The draft housing element is available here: https://
www.oaklandca.gov/topics/oakland-general-plan-2045-housing-element 10:13:08 From Charles Reed to Everyone:
Who do we target, and how do we penalize them when lower income needs are not met?
10:15:11 From Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Everyone:
An overview presentation summarizing the draft Housing Element is also available on the City Website - https://www.oaklandca.gov/ topics/oakland-general-plan-2045-housing-element#draft-housingelement-resources 10:16:26 From Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Audrey Lieberworth, City of Oakland(Direct Message):
Should we post the interactive map here?
10:16:39 From Audrey Lieberworth, City of Oakland to Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland(Direct Message):
idk, I think we should wait until we hear from Ed, as per your guidance earlier
10:16:44 From Audrey Lieberworth, City of Oakland to Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland(Direct Message):
I mean, I would like it
10:16:59 From Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Audrey Lieberworth, City of Oakland(Direct Message):
this is a small group
10:17:12 From Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Audrey Lieberworth, City of Oakland(Direct Message):
not citywide
10:17:25 From Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Audrey Lieberworth, City of Oakland(Direct Message):
so maybe we can share it out via email along with the
presentation
10:17:36 From Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Audrey Lieberworth, City of Oakland(Direct Message):
after the discussion group is done
10:17:40 From Audrey Lieberworth, City of Oakland to Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland(Direct Message):
I can post the link if you think it's appropriate now
10:17:47 From Sarah Karlinsky, SPUR (she/her) to Everyone:
Are the state-mandates on site size for low income housing, or for all housing that can count towards RHNA requirements? 10:17:49 From Audrey Lieberworth, City of Oakland to Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland(Direct Message):
I doubt folks will look at the map as much after this meeting ends
10:18:18 From Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Audrey Lieberworth, City of Oakland(Direct Message):
ok - you can just state that the table C-25 is visually represented in this interactive map
10:18:28 From Aaron Eckhouse (California YIMBY) to Everyone:
Sarah, I believe they are specific to Lower Income sites, but cities can also use small sites for their Lower Income Inventory if they can point to a track record of development on similar sites 10:18:54 From Sarah Karlinsky, SPUR (she/her) to Everyone:
Thnx
10:19:27 From Charles Reed to Everyone:
Identifying sites is a first step, but it means nothing without meaningful accountability measures with quantifiable financial repercussions for non compliance.
10:19:46 From Audrey Lieberworth, City of Oakland to Everyone:
Here is a link to an interactive map of the draft sites inventory (from Table C-25, Appendix C): https://
oakgis.maps.arcgis.com/apps/mapviewer/index.html?
webmap=6e5a81ace7ce4a9b906da42f75b4ddd4
10:22:12 From Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Everyone:
@sarah the guidance is for affordable housing for sites between 0.5 and 10 acres. For sites less than 0.5 ac and larger than 10 ac, we have to demonstrate a track record like Aaron mentions 10:22:35 From Sarah Karlinsky, SPUR (she/her) to Everyone:
Thank you.
10:23:16 From Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Everyone:
The guidance from the State is here: https://www.hcd.ca.gov/ community-development/housing-element/docs/
sites_inventory_memo_final06102020.pdf
10:26:43 From Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Everyone:
RD, RM zones
10:27:22 From Alison Moore (Dyett & Bhatia) to Everyone:
Matt- you can check out Action 3.2.1, which addresses missing middle housing through zoning standards
10:27:53 From Alison Moore (Dyett & Bhatia) to Everyone:
https://oakland.konveio.com/draft-2023-2031-general-planhousing-element 10:28:37 From Aaron Eckhouse (California YIMBY) to Everyone:
does the city have a published methodology for when to count new market housing as Moderate Income? I know San Jose does 10:29:00 From Audrey Lieberworth, City of Oakland to Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland(Direct Message):
we don't right? re: Aaron's comment
10:29:21 From Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Audrey Lieberworth, City of Oakland(Direct Message):
I don't think so but we can get back to him
10:29:36 From Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Audrey Lieberworth, City of Oakland(Direct Message):
I cannot confirm 100%
10:31:45 From Jeff Levin, EBHO to Everyone:
TOPA/COPA combines a right of first offer with a right of first refusal, but does not require a discounted price
10:35:12 From Audrey Lieberworth, City of Oakland to Everyone:
@Aaron - I'll follow up and check to see if the City has a published methodology
10:35:49 From Aaron Eckhouse (California YIMBY) to Everyone:
thanks! I think it will be important for Oakland to find a way to produce Moderate Income housing without subsidies/deed restriction 10:41:36 From Jeff Levin, EBHO to Everyone:
Aaron - I believe that historically the City has only counted moderate income housing if its deed restricted as it has not tracked rental rates or sales prices on newly produced housing. 10:41:48 From Sarah Karlinsky, SPUR (she/her) to Everyone:
Thank you so much for the responses to my questions. On the upzoning contemplated, is that discussed explicitly anywhere in the document beyond Policy 3.4? If you could let me know, I would appreciate it.
10:41:58 From Trisha Barua, she/they to Everyone:
First 5 Alameda County letter on Oakland Housing Element:
http://www.first5alameda.org/files/
Comment%20Draft%202023%20to%202031%20General%20Plan%20Housing%20Elemen t.pdf
10:42:07 From David Wooley, UC Berkeley Goldman School to Everyone:
One other point: I am pleased to see parts of the Element devoted to remediation of environmental contaminated sites. Urge the city to consider that housing located near freeways, Oakland Ports and other heavy duty trucking concentrations to be included in definition of a contaminated sites and to help building owners in those locations to retrofit air filtration to reduce exposure of residents to transport related emissions. David Wooley, UC Berkeley, Goldman School [email protected]
10:43:28 From Keith Diggs to Everyone:
that's what I want to know too
10:45:00 From Aaron Eckhouse (California YIMBY) to Everyone:
I agree that table would be a great resource!
10:45:32 From Audrey Lieberworth, City of Oakland to Alison Moore (Dyett & Bhatia)(Direct Message):
Could you answer the last of Warren's questions? Let them know we are working on this
10:47:28 From Alison Moore (Dyett & Bhatia) to Audrey Lieberworth, City of Oakland(Direct Message):
There's a table by tract, I will share that
10:47:59 From Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Everyone:
Table C-21
10:49:17 From Jeff Levin, EBHO to Everyone:
Yes, a summary analysis of what C-21 actually tells us would be useful
10:49:45 From Sarah Karlinsky, SPUR (she/her) to Everyone:
+1 on summary of C-21. Thank you!
10:50:18 From Aaron Eckhouse (California YIMBY) to Everyone:
yes, very hard to parse C-21 on a parcel by parcel basis 10:51:02 From Brent Bucknum to Everyone:
I want to strongly second David Wooley's comments. We should not be putting housing next to freeways and we need to have a fund to in the GP to retrofit existing near road housing exposures. 10:53:21 From Warren Logan to Everyone:
One more comment: please consider ALL of AC Transit’s Rapid corridors, not just the BRT line, when considering upzoning opportunities.
10:54:06 From Aaron Eckhouse (California YIMBY) to Everyone:
+1
10:56:06 From Raul Maldonado to Everyone:
+1 to @Brent. I'd be careful about exclusively putting housing next to freeways, as noise & car pollution on minority communities is a concern. I do love the alternative mentioned, @Warren's comment, which is above ^^^ — upzoning opportunities near **all** transit corridors.
10:57:51 From Darbi Howard, East Oakland Collective to Everyone:
Agreed and current developers have already been violating current zoning rules and not being held to their proposals approved. 10:58:13 From Darbi Howard, East Oakland Collective to Everyone:
For decades…
11:01:13 From Charles Reed to Everyone:
with all the new buildings being built that impact fee account should at least be 300 million by now
11:01:32 From Raul Maldonado to Everyone:
+1 to Charles feelings. From attending some housing projects, I would say homeowners do block housing projects that have between 15-40% BMR housing w/MR. It's hard to get that diversification, and thus we get mostly >95% BMR or MR buildings we see today :/ 11:03:30 From Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Everyone:
We do not have a map yet
11:03:41 From Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Everyone:
we are working on identifying the areas
11:03:51 From Beth Altshuler Munoz to Everyone:
What can the city do to improve the funding tools and
flexibility of local lenders / CDFI's for affordable housing? 11:04:36 From Sarah Karlinsky, SPUR (she/her) to Everyone:
+1 on upzoning the flatiron parcel and upzoning in Rockridge in general.
11:06:28 From Ms.Margaret Gordon to Everyone:
need to leave for my other meeting
11:07:20 From Warren Logan to Everyone:
+1 everything Aaron said
11:08:34 From Raul Maldonado to Everyone:
+1 To Aaron’s notes, as well.
11:09:04 From Nico Nagle (he/him) - HAC to Everyone:
+1 to Aaron
11:10:29 From Audrey Lieberworth, City of Oakland to Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland(Direct Message):
i missed susie's second question. was it about what potential projects mean?
11:10:55 From Charles Reed to Everyone:
Is there a way for the public to monitor the impact fee account?
11:11:08 From Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Audrey Lieberworth, City of Oakland(Direct Message):
am gonna ask
11:13:58 From Beth Altshuler Munoz to Everyone:
I'm not a super housing expert tracking all the Oakland policies....BUT I remember hearing that in 2008 Oakland removed the requirement to break ground after 18 months of approval bc of the recession. has that rule been put back into place?
11:15:08 From Tracey Nails-Bell to Everyone:
So A Diamond in the Ruff is working with The Oakland Community Land Trust on a project for more affordable housing overlay with ADU'S. Is there a certain number of units that can be placed on the current acquisition of land? Which may include the Zoning in that part of Oakland? Which is right off Seminary
11:16:37 From Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Everyone:
Comment from Charles: Is there a way for the public to track who paid impact fee's, for what, and where and how are those funds being used?
11:16:54 From Sonja Trauss to Everyone:
+1 AFFH is not just an analysis
11:17:19 From Charles Reed to Everyone:
Transparency is paramount
11:19:18 From Aaron Eckhouse (California YIMBY) to Everyone:
+1 to this comment from Jeff
11:20:24 From Trisha Barua, she/they to Everyone:
+1 for Jeff's comment
11:21:08 From Christina Mun, Oakland HCD to Everyone:
Impact fees are reported on annually as informational reports to CED and Council. It will go to 6/28 CED for this year, here is last year's: https://oakland.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx? ID=4769988&GUID=9F0A7046-EED8-4631-A4D1-BF5FFC1CA301&Options=&Search= 11:23:30 From Audrey Lieberworth, City of Oakland to Everyone:
email comments to [email protected]
11:25:35 From Darbi Howard, East Oakland Collective to Everyone:
I agree Sonja- The poor air and no green space is a
disadvantage to improvements
11:27:13 From Darbi Howard, East Oakland Collective to Everyone:
Nico- this speaks to many issues with the City in terms of getting things actually done or more of the same!
11:27:29 From Raul Maldonado to Everyone:
+1 to Nico on kudos to AH overlay, and providing Berkeley as an example.
11:27:40 From Audrey Lieberworth, City of Oakland to Everyone:
@Tracey - can you send us an email about the project so that we can better understand the project and the zoning for the site? [email protected]
11:28:39 From Tracey Nails-Bell to Audrey Lieberworth, City of Oakland(Direct Message):
Yes, I will definitely send you a email!
11:28:41 From Jeff Levin, EBHO to Everyone:
AH overlay - allowing approval by-right for affordable housing should be citywide anywhere that the project is consistent with zoning, including density bonus
11:29:06 From Audrey Lieberworth, City of Oakland to Tracey NailsBell(Direct Message):
Great! I think you already have my email, but you can message me at [email protected]
11:29:21 From Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Everyone:
https://www.oaklandca.gov/events/general-plan-update-housingelement-workshop-4 11:29:29 From Jeff Levin, EBHO to Everyone:
Please ensure that the next draft includes an Executive Summary and a clear table on NEW policies
11:29:33 From Aaron Eckhouse (California YIMBY) to Everyone:
agree with Jeff, and I think the city should move to
ministerial approval generally
11:29:47 From Aaron Eckhouse (California YIMBY) to Everyone:
thank you for convening this meeting!
11:29:54 From Laura Kaminski, City of Oakland to Everyone:
https://www.oaklandca.gov/documents/city-of-oakland-annualimpact-fee-reports 11:30:22 From Laura Kaminski, City of Oakland to Everyone:
I included a link to impact fee reports, included are reports on the collection of the fees
11:30:25 From Nico Nagle (he/him) - HAC to Everyone:
Thank you for convening as well! And +1 to ministerial
approval
11:31:01 From Sarah Karlinsky, SPUR (she/her) to Everyone:
I need to leave now. Thank you so much for holding this meeting it was very helpful and I learned alot.
11:31:14 From Raul Maldonado to Everyone:
Need to leave now; Thank you!
11:31:16 From Tracey Nails-Bell to Everyone:
Thank you for today's information!
17:03:26 From Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Everyone:
Can those who did not go use the "Raise Hand" feature
17:04:13 From Diana Benitez to Everyone:
Share you name and one word to describe how your feeling today.
17:05:17 From Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Everyone:
Best of luck Iris
17:05:30 From Iris Quach (she/her) to Everyone:
thank you, Lakshmi!!!
17:05:36 From Bethsaida Ruiz, Ohlone/Huchiun Territory to Everyone:
Thank you
17:09:53 From Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Everyone:
Going off video for a bit to grab something to eat
17:15:24 From Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Everyone:
https://city-of-oakland-general-plan-updateoakgis.hub.arcgis.com/ 17:15:29 From Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Everyone:
https://www.oaklandca.gov/topics/general-plan-update
17:15:52 From Audrey Lieberworth, City of Oakland to Everyone:
Also sharing a link to public review draft housing element:
https://www.oaklandca.gov/topics/oakland-general-plan-2045-housingelement 17:16:08 From Diana Perez-Domencich to Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland(Direct Message):
Thanks Lakshmi!
17:16:15 From Diana Perez-Domencich to Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland(Direct Message):
for the hub announcement
17:20:03 From Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Everyone:
All the documents are here on the website: https://
www.oaklandca.gov/topics/oakland-2045-general-plan-project-documents 17:20:09 From Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Everyone:
Equity baseline
17:20:39 From Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Agnes Cho, Just Cities(Direct Message):
Agnes, can you also copy all the links and share it out with the groups if you are taking notes
17:21:07 From Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Everyone:
The Environmental Justice Interactive Hub - https://city-ofoakland-general-plan-update-oakgis.hub.arcgis.com/ 17:21:27 From Agnes Cho, Just Cities to Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland(Direct Message):
Yup, i'm copying the links in our notes and will make sure that they're included in the follow up notes.
17:21:51 From Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Agnes Cho, Just Cities(Direct Message):
Thank you
17:22:31 From Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Agnes Cho, Just Cities(Direct Message):
To subscribe to General Plan Updates: https://
www.oaklandca.gov/topics/general-plan-update#general-plan-e-mailupdates 17:28:07 From Audrey Lieberworth, City of Oakland to Everyone:
Diana - you're muted
17:28:13 From William Gilchrist to Everyone:
Diana we cannot hear you!!!
17:28:24 From West Oakland Cultural Action Network to Everyone:
@Diana - we cant hear you
17:28:32 From William Gilchrist to Everyone:
You cannot hear us either
17:28:49 From Diana Benitez to Everyone:
Sorry about that!
17:32:05 From liz suk, she/they to Everyone:
5 17:32:14 From Esther Goolsby she.they to Everyone:
5 17:32:14 From West Oakland Cultural Action Network to Everyone:
5 17:32:19 From Shina R (she/her) to Everyone:
5 17:32:19 From Nora-they/them to Everyone:
5 17:32:28 From Sandra Ue, OACC to Everyone:
5 17:32:28 From Angela Laureano to Everyone:
5 17:32:30 From Iris Quach (she/her) to Everyone:
5 17:32:33 From Champ Green to Everyone:
5 17:32:37 From Naru Kwina to Everyone:
5 17:33:00 From Reinaldi G to Everyone:
5 17:33:09 From Arthur Shanks to Everyone:
5 17:33:26 From Cathy Eberhardt, EBHO RCOP to Everyone:
5 17:33:38 From Esther Goolsby she.they to Everyone:
sorry I'm late. meeting ended late
17:33:49 From Nora-they/them to Everyone:
Love Ayodele
17:36:24 From Diana Perez-Domencich to Everyone:
Beautiful, thank you.
17:36:39 From Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Everyone:
Thank you sharing
17:37:01 From liz suk, she/they to Everyone:
Ayodele! Oakland’s Poet Laureate
17:37:12 From liz suk, she/they to Everyone:
17:39:36 From Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Everyone:
There is a community workshop on the Housing Element tomorrow:
https://www.oaklandca.gov/events/general-plan-update-housing-elementworkshop-4 17:48:08 From Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to David Harris - Urban Strategies Council(Direct Message):
Do you want us to respond?
17:48:54 From Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to David Harris - Urban Strategies Council(Direct Message):
most of this information is included in the introduction chapter
17:48:55 From Shina R (she/her) to Everyone:
the city has a vacancy tax right? they should be tracking vacancy somehow
17:49:46 From Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Diana Benitez(Direct Message):
Do you want me to respond? most of this information is
included in the introduction chapter
17:52:35 From Liana Molina to Everyone:
Generally speaking, I agree with the community input &
analysis. I didn't get a chance to read Ch 1, only Ch 3-4. ;) 17:54:54 From Bethsaida Ruiz, Ohlone/Huchiun Territory to Everyone:
Hey everyone, sorry I have to leave early today, I have a previous engagement I could not reschedule. See you all soon.
Looking forward to more connection. thank you
17:55:19 From Alison Moore (Dyett & Bhatia) to Everyone:
Any way we can make things clearer, or things we may have missed, we are here to listen, thank you!
17:55:56 From David Harris - Urban Strategies Council to Everyone:
`I agree about capital access for BIPOC communities, but Black communities have been disproportionately impacted over all other communities of color
17:55:57 From Liana Molina to Everyone:
will we get to see the draft outreach materials?
17:56:50 From David Peters, WOCAN to Everyone:
@David - Absolutely agree
18:00:22 From David Harris - Urban Strategies Council to Everyone:
Please excuse my needing to leave early. I welcome you to visit the AARC website and sign up for information and updates about future meetings: https://africanamericanresponse.org/
18:01:16 From David Harris - Urban Strategies Council to Everyone:
COVID is still very active in our communities and adversely impacting our people the most.
18:08:47 From Liana Molina to Everyone:
those were super helpful examples, Diana.
18:09:00 From Liana Molina to Everyone:
EMP, moratorium etc
18:11:08 From Liana Molina to Everyone:
where are the input not included going to be noted, if at all, in the housing element? which chapter or appendix?
18:11:46 From Diana Benitez to Everyone:
I want to note that our initial Deep Listening survey is asking specific questions on housing and environmental health, but we have been hearing feedback on many of the element topics and have been saving them to track and analyze the other elements.
18:13:08 From Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Everyone:
The Environmental and Racial Equity Baseline also highlights the issues you mentioned David
18:13:25 From Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Everyone:
https://cao-94612.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/EquityBaseline_revised4.15.22.pdf 18:15:57 From Liana Molina to Everyone:
yes, and to be clear, I was asking the question about criteria more broadly, assuming we will continue to hear about input that wasn't included. didn't mean to take up so much time with all this. 18:16:14 From William Gilchrist to Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland(Direct Message):
I am going to have to go to another meeting. Are you ok to continue?
18:16:18 From Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to William Gilchrist(Direct Message):
yes
18:16:22 From Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to William Gilchrist(Direct Message):
thank you
18:19:15 From David Peters, WOCAN to Everyone:
moderate income is the lowest
18:19:34 From Liana Molina to Everyone:
what do you mean, david?
18:19:44 From David Peters, WOCAN to Everyone:
2.8%
18:19:48 From Liana Molina to Everyone:
oh, i see.
18:19:49 From Liana Molina to Everyone:
yes
18:19:58 From Liana Molina to Everyone:
where the city fell short?
18:20:27 From David Peters, WOCAN to Everyone:
yes
18:21:45 From Liana Molina to Everyone:
they failed to meet rhna goals across the board except market rate
18:21:51 From Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Everyone:
Annual Progress Reports - https://www.oaklandca.gov/documents/ housing-element-annual-progress-reports
18:23:04 From David Peters, WOCAN to Everyone:
yes. its a formula for driving increasing wealth and income disparity in our City - only rich and low income
18:24:41 From Sandra Ue, OACC to Everyone:
so the number of permits does NOT reflect on actual built units? the 1k under very low income might in actuality be less? 18:25:32 From Shina R (she/her) to Everyone:
it is unacceptable!
18:25:33 From Liana Molina to Everyone:
that's my understanding, Sandra. Can city staff re-confirm this? ^^
18:25:38 From Shina R (she/her) to Everyone:
is there a way to find actual units built?
18:26:11 From Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Diana PerezDomencich(Direct Message):
would you be able to respond?
18:26:30 From Diana Perez-Domencich to Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland(Direct Message):
Sorry, to what?
18:26:34 From David Peters, WOCAN to Everyone:
^^ Great question, Shina
18:26:44 From Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Diana PerezDomencich(Direct Message):
the question from Sandra
18:27:00 From Sandra Ue, OACC to Everyone:
so basically some developments are stalled and that isn't captured... is there another table that reflects actually built #s? 18:28:27 From Diana Benitez to Everyone:
Just Cities did an analysis of built units (based on a sample) and we can share that two pager with you all after this call. 18:28:31 From David Peters, WOCAN to Everyone:
That's a great point, Diana
18:29:24 From Agnes Cho, Just Cities to Everyone:
Annual Progress Reports - https://www.oaklandca.gov/documents/ housing-element-annual-progress-reports
18:29:30 From Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Everyone:
Annual Progress Report - https://www.oaklandca.gov/documents/ housing-element-annual-progress-reports
18:33:05 From Sandra Ue, OACC to Everyone:
thx... 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 18:33:46 From Diana Benitez to Everyone:
Thank you Sandra. We can make sure that the education material makes it clear.
18:33:50 From Liana Molina to Everyone:
probably equity permits re: cannabis
18:34:05 From Liana Molina to Everyone:
there are a bunch of streamlining action steps outlined in Ch 4 18:34:49 From Alison Moore (Dyett & Bhatia) to Everyone:
Here's an action that might be of interest: Action 3.6.1:
Streamline the City permitting process, especially for low-income and nonprofit builders.
The City will work with developers and housing stakeholders, particularly low-income and nonprofit builders, to review current processes and fees to identify actions to reduce costs and streamline the planning approval and building permit processes for small infill development. These actions could involve developing simplified CEQA compliance through qualified exemptions, implementing objective design standards as described in Action 3.4.7, and/or increasing staffing at the Planning and/or Building Bureau to reduce permit processing time.
The City will regularly review and update its website to improve navigation and make information such as fee schedules, application forms, zoning ordinances, and other information available on the City’s website, along with other educational information to facilitate the permit process.
18:35:44 From David Peters, WOCAN to Everyone:
Thanks, Alison!
18:36:28 From Diana Perez-Domencich to Everyone:
Sandra --- That is correct, "Approved Permits" means a
building permit has been issued, this means that construction can begin --- but a developer may not begin construction right away. To understand how many housing units have been completed and are ready for folks to move in, you'd want data on "Certificates of Occupancy" issued. That is the data Audrey showed. It is reported in the Housing Element Annual Progress Report. Diana B. mentioned that they summarized all of this information for you as well. https:// www.oaklandca.gov/documents/housing-element-annual-progress-reports 18:37:27 From David Peters, WOCAN to Everyone:
I'm also thinking about permit fees for lower-income
homeowners. I understand there is a fee schedule that imposes a minimum set permit fee even if you scrounged materials and did the work yourself
18:39:00 From Esther Goolsby she.they to Everyone:
they are vague, how? Only policy change will help here. 18:42:37 From Sandra Ue, OACC to Everyone:
Even if an easier permit approval process is developed & rolled out, it doesn't address issues that may cause the project being stalled. can we include consideration on obstacles to projects being completed
18:44:22 From Audrey Lieberworth, City of Oakland to Everyone:
@Sandra - yes, we identify and outline the constraints to the development of housing in Appendix F: Constraints here: https:// cao-94612.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/Appendix-F-HousingConstraints_Clean.pdf 18:47:08 From Esther Goolsby she.they to Everyone:
the goals name them but not how the protect would happen, how preserving willhappen and so on
18:47:33 From Audrey Lieberworth, City of Oakland to Everyone:
Some of the identified constraints include: zoning
regulations, development standards, fees, and processing and permitting times. I've captured your comment to make sure that the constraints speak to projects that are stalled, as well 18:50:32 From Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Everyone:
@david - 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.
18:50:51 From Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Everyone:
Action 3.7.4: Implement the sponsor-based Housing Assistance Program.
The City will continue to work with the Oakland Housing Authority to assist households that
otherwise might not qualify for or be successful in the traditional Public Housing and/or
Section 8 programs by partnering with agencies to provide service-enriched housing options
that increase housing choice for special needs populations.
The City will explore options to
find more landlords willing to participate in the program. 18:51:08 From Alison Moore (Dyett & Bhatia) to Everyone:
That's great framing @david, elders as culture keepers
18:51:38 From David Peters, WOCAN to Everyone:
thx.....
18:51:49 From liz suk to Everyone:
Curious if the chat will be shared or included with the notes and slides?
18:52:35 From Lakshmi Rajagopalan, City of Oakland to Everyone:
An overview of the Housing Element is here: https://
cao-94612.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/2022.06.07_HE-Summary.pdf 18:54:08 From Esther Goolsby she.they to Everyone:
was all most done
18:58:36 From Alison Moore (Dyett & Bhatia) to Everyone:
One of the challenges is lack of data, yes
19:01:02 From Alison Moore (Dyett & Bhatia) to Everyone:
regarding priority groups
19:01:13 From Shina R (she/her) to Everyone:
its hard to rank, but would like to include low-income non english speakers as having a barrier to accessing housing 19:01:37 From Liana Molina to Everyone:
i can stay 5 more min
19:01:46 From Sandra Ue, OACC to Everyone:
agree @shina
19:01:58 From Audrey Lieberworth, City of Oakland to Everyone:
@Shina - thank you, captured this in our list of comments 19:02:04 From Agnes Cho, Just Cities to Everyone:
I'll give folks another 30 seconds to finish the poll
19:02:17 From Liana Molina to Everyone:
i just wanted to note the result of the previous survey where 9 - 18% respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed re: goal 4 mtg community need
19:02:41 From Esther Goolsby she.they to Everyone:
Black Americans have all barriers to accessing housing
1 Deeply Rooted Feedback Table (6/10/22)
We only added track changes to section 7.1 of the Oakland HE and included the rest of our feedback in this table where we note which document or policy section we are referring to.
Topic Area DR Feedback
Engagement
and
accountability
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
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.
Community Policy Ideas not in HAP include:
● 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 group), particularly in areas where rapid displacement is happening. (Policy 5.2)
● Citywide Housing Commission to review City’s progress on Housing Element actions. (Policy 5.2)
Health Community Policy Ideas not in HAP include:
● 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.
● Human Health/Socioeconomic Impacts Analysis: require
public analysis of displacement/homelessness impacts
of market rate projects prior to City providing permits or 2 any zoning changes (Policy 1.1)
● Acknowledge that proactive rental inspections can only be implemented with a new law. (Policy 2.1)
Tenant
Protections
Community Policy Ideas not in HAP include:
● A law requiring anti-displacement strategies for the
proactive rental inspection program. (Policy 2.1)
● Moratorium on market rate development for
neighborhoods experiencing rapid gentrification. (Policy
1.1)
● Community outreach & enforcement of City’s Fair
Chance Housing Ordinance (banning housing
discrimination of people with criminal records). (Policy
1.1, 5.3)
● Cultural Districts will protect existing residents from displacement. (Policy 3.2)
● Address needs of undocumented residents, i.e. new
local ordinance for removing Social Security Number
from housing applications. (Policy 5.3)
● 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)
Housing
Production
Housing Affordability Densities: 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)
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.
Community Policy Ideas not in HAP include:
● All public land for 100% affordable housing (includes 10+ acres). (Policy 3.3).
● Utilize neighborhood Area Median Income for housing
3 projects. (Policy 3.2)
● Increase Housing Impact Fees.(Policy 3.3)
● Create a real Inclusionary Zoning law. (Policy 3.3)
● Link zoning changes for market rate projects to
affordability requirements so more affordable housing
is built. (Policy 3.4)
● Prioritize re-entry housing in City funding applications. (Policy 3.7)
● Ensure that TOD projects provide housing that
neighborhood residents can afford (Policy 5.2)
Affordable
Housing
Preservation
Community Policy Ideas not in HAP include:
● 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)
Homelessness 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.
Community Policy Ideas not in HAP include:
● Stopping Encampment Management Policy. (Policy 4.2)
● Changing zoning so tiny homes or RV’s can be allowed
across the City. (Policy 4.3)
● No mention of permanent housing and how that aligns
with AFFH. (Goal 4. How this Goal AFFH section)
Note: We will be conducting focus groups conversations along with our DR Partners this summer and will have more
feedback, including with unhoused communities for these specific policies.
AFFH integration
throughout the
Missing Special Needs Groups (prioritize housing for
them):
4 HE ● 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)
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.
● 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).
Previous HE
Assessment
(RHNA and
background
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.
5 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.
Table of Contents
1 Introduction 11.2
Purpose of the Housing
Element 71.3
Oakland’s Housing
Approach 101.4
Organization of the Housing
Element 121.5
Relationship to Other General Plan
Elements 131.6
Sources of
Information 142
Public
Participation 192.1
Summary of Community Outreach
Activities 192.2
Public Participation
Themes 283
Summary of the Housing Sites
Inventory 333.1
Regional Housing Needs
Allocation 333.2
Capacity to Accommodate the
RHNA 333.3
Assessing Housing Sites Through a Fair Housing
Lens 394
Housing Action
Plan 454.1 Goals, Policies, and
Actions 45Goal 1. Protect Oakland Residents from Displacement and Prevent Homelessness 45Goal 2. Preserve and Improve Existing Affordable Housing Stock 53Goal 3. Expand Affordable Housing
Opportunities 61Goal 4. Address Homelessness and Expand Services for the Unhoused 95Goal 5. Promote Neighborhood Stability and
Health 1054.2 Quantified
Objectives 116
Appendices
Chapter 2: Public Participation
2 Appendix A: Evaluation of the 2015-2023 Oakland Housing Element Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment
Appendix C: Sites Inventory
Appendix D: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing draft Appendix E: Housing Resources and Opportunities
Appendix F: Housing Constraints
Appendix G: Opportunities for Energy Conservation
Appendix H: Glossary
Appendix I: Reserved for Public outreach Materials
List of Figures
Figure 1-1: Regional Map 6Figure 2-1: Deeply Rooted Collaborative 20Figure 2-2: Interactive Map Survey Snapshot
27Figure 3-1: City of Oakland 2023-2031 Housing Sites Inventory 36Figure 3-2: Housing Sites Access to Opportunity, 2022 42 List of Charts and Tables
Charts:
Chart 2-1: Oakland 2045 Project Schedule 25Chart 2-2: Housing Element Outreach Timeline 25Chart 3-1: Housing Sites Inventory Development Process 40 Tables:
Table 1-1: Oakland Regional Housing Needs Assessment, 2023-2031 8Table 2-1: Deeply Rooted Collaborative Community Partner Roles 21Table 3-1: Oakland Regional Housing Needs Assessment, 2023-2031 33Table 3-2: Summary of Residential Capacity to Accommodate the 2023-2031 RHNA 35Table 4-1: City of Oakland 2023-2031 Quantified Objectives 116
1 Introduction
This Housing Element presents the City of Oakland’s strategy and commitment for how it will meet the housing needs of the community. In the face of a crushing regional housing crisis, the task is formidable, but essential: to make quality housing opportunities available to all Oakland residents through the Protection, Preservation, and Production of homes, and to address systemic housing inequity.
Preparation of this Housing Element comes at a time of challenge and uncertainty for many Oaklanders.
It comes amid a global pandemic, a renewed call for racial justice after the murder of George Floyd, and economic and global security uncertainty. It comes while Oakland has imposed one of the strongest eviction moratoriums in the State, and it comes at a moment where the world moves closer to the tipping point of irreversible climate change. All of these large issues collide to shape how housing does and will look like for individuals and families who call Oakland home. 2 LEARNING FROM THE PAST
What does it mean to call Oakland “home”? Oakland’s current housing landscape tells the story of struggle, of systemic forces that have shaped the neighborhood geography of opportunity. To chart an equitable path forward, Oakland’s history must be examined and addressed.
The land that is now Oakland is the ancestral home of the Ohlone indigenous group who were stewards of the oak and redwood forests, grasslands, and marshlands that make up the coastal region of central and northern California for thousands of years. The arrival of Spanish missionaries in the 1760s and subsequent periods of Spanish colonization, Mexican settlement, and American urbanization of the Ohlone region greatly shifted the cultural and physical landscape. Nevertheless, this land continues to be of great importance to the Ohlone people.1
Oakland has historically been a destination for working people and immigrants who sought out its abundant industrial jobs and relatively affordable neighborhoods. Many of these places were formed into cultural and ethnic enclaves as a result of segregationist and racially discriminatory policies and practices.2 Government-sponsored “white flight” suburbanization during the early 1930s, followed by 1 Mitchell Schwarzer, Hella Town: Oakland’s History of Development and Disruption, (Oakland: University of California Press, 2021).
2 City of Oakland, “Environmental Justice and Racial Equity Baseline.” March 2022. Access available at https://cao94612.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/Equity-Baseline_revised4.15.22.pdf Chapter 1: Introduction
2 disinvestment and takings in neighborhoods of color, created socioeconomic and geographic lines that were further delineated by redlining (a federally sanctioned practice during the 1930s of denying mortgages in communities of color) and racially restrictive covenants.3 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.
Since the late 1990s, Oakland has seen an increase in real estate investment, which has had both positive and negative effects. In the years leading up to the 2008 housing crash and Great Recession, banks engaged in a process referred to as “reverse redlining” where predatory lending practices and subprime loans were targeted in the same neighborhoods that were once marked as off-limits for borrowers in the 1950s.4 This activity resulted in waves of foreclosures in East and West Oakland. A significant number of these foreclosed properties were then acquired by investors, and once-affordable and stable homes flipped overnight into market-rate rentals. An influx of private capital and a 2016 municipal bond for development, in part due to efforts like the City’s 10K plan to revitalize the urban core, has reinvigorated downtown and uptown.5 At the same time, rising housing prices and a lack of new affordable options created waves of residential and commercial gentrification, especially in North and West Oakland and Chinatown, with growing trends in East Oakland. Massive regional job growth, particularly in the technology sector, coupled with the lack of supply of housing in other cities to keep up, sent waves of new residents to the East Bay in search of more affordable housing.6 New skyscrapers and midrise buildings sprung up largely targeted toward the upper end of the market in downtown, across North Oakland, along upper Broadway, and in West Oakland, in part driven by rising costs of land and construction. The impacts of lack of regional supply rippled through other residential areas of the city, where communities of color faced greater vulnerability to rising housing costs than white residents.7 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. From 2000 to 2019, Oakland lost nearly 30 percent of its Black population, and significant numbers of long-time Asian Americans residing in ethnic enclaves including Chinatown.8 Homelessness 3 Just Cities, East Oakland Displacement Status and Impacts from the BRT Project Summary: A Racial Equity Planning and Policy Justice Report for OakDOT’s East Oakland Mobility Action Plan, June 2021, https://drive. google.com/file/d/1sGCZt1uGPaFLroOm8BkGczV_vXOGsFTk/view, accessed March 16, 2022. 4 “East Oakland Displacement Status and Impacts from the BRT Project Summary.” n.d. Oakland: Just Cities. https://cao94612.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/EOMAP-Appendix-2.pdf. 5 Ibid.
6 Mitchell Schwarzer, Hella Town: Oakland's History of Development and Disruption (University of California Press, 2021).
7 “East Oakland Displacement Status and Impacts from the BRT Project Summary.” n.d. Oakland: Just Cities. https://cao94612.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/EOMAP-Appendix-2.pdf. 8 American Community Survey (ACS) (2014-2018); U.S. Census 2000, 2010; Urban Displacement Project, 2021.
Chapter 1: Introduction
3 increased by 90 percent from 2013 to 2019.9 The COVID-19 pandemic has brought into stark relief and exacerbated racial and economic disparities in housing security and the public health consequences of these conditions.10 The consequence of this complex history has and continues to shape the city’s built environment, including the distribution, types, affordability, and quality of housing in Oakland.
Today, Oakland has grown to be the largest city in Alameda County with the busiest port in Northern California. Neighboring cities include Berkeley and Emeryville to the north, San Leandro to the south, Alameda across the Oakland Estuary, and Piedmont surrounded by Oakland. San Francisco is located just 12 miles west across the San Francisco Bay, connected by Interstate 80 (I-80). Oakland is known for its diverse geography, including 19 miles of bay and estuary coastline to the west, the Oakland/Berkeley Hills to the east, and Lake Merritt, a tidal lagoon lake located within the city’s borders. 3 CHARTING AN EQUITABLE, INCLUSIVE FUTURE
With the legacy of inequity top of mind, the City has begun planning for a more equitable future. In 2016, the City established the Department of Race and Equity with a mission “to advance the creation of a city where diversity has been maintained, racial disparities have been eliminated, and racial equity has been achieved.” The Department of Race and Equity is particularly concerned with making a difference in the determinants of equity that lead to creation of a fair and just society, including housing.
In 2018, the department published the Equity Indicators Report, which serves as a baseline quantitative framework that can be used by City staff and community members alike to better understand the impacts of policy on racial groups and measure inequities.
The work of the Department of Race and Equity informs the City of Oakland’s Department of Housing and Community Development’s (HCD) 2021-2023 Strategic Action Plan This plan is informed by past analyses, planning, and accomplishments such as the 2016 “Oakland At Home: Recommendations for Implementing A Roadmap Toward Equity from the Oakland Housing Cabinet,” and applies a race and equity lens to the City’s housing investments and services in wake of the public health, fiscal, and social crises caused by COVID-19. In practice, this includes transparent and regular reporting on outcomes disaggregated by race; Americans with Disabilities Act-compliant, accessible information provided in multiple languages; anti-displacement and housing production programs, policies, and initiatives focused on the most impacted vulnerable populations; and access and opportunity pathways to and for Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) developers, service providers, and other contractors to the resources the City has to offer in the conduct of its housing work. The Strategic Action Plan also 9 Ibid.
10 “City of Oakland HCD 2021-2023 Strategic Action Plan City of Oakland Housing & Community Development Department 2021-2023 Strategic Action Plan.” n.d. Accessed May 9, 2022. https://cao94612.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/HCD.final.21-21Strategic-Plan.pdf.
Chapter 1: Introduction
4 details a series of specific actions and policies HCD will pursue as part of a broader strategy to protect residents from displacement, preserve existing affordable housing - both subsidized and unsubsidized, and produce new affordable housing.
Community-based organizations, many of whom have been leading housing justice efforts for decades, are also shaping housing goals rooted in racial equity. Oakland residents, community organizations, developers, and government partners created the Healthy Development Guidelines (HDG) for Oakland’s Planning and Building Department, the first health and racial equity-focused guidelines in the country. Two of the HDG’s goals include enhancing access to affordable housing, particularly for vulnerable populations; and preserving existing affordable housing and protecting residents from involuntary displacement. These guidelines were incorporated into city development review process in 2018. The East Oakland Neighborhoods Initiative, a community plan created out of partnership between the City of Oakland Planning Bureau and twelve community-based organizations focused on equity-based planning for Deep East Oakland, also highlight anti-displacement among their plan goals, noting that improvements recommended in the plan must not drive out existing residents by inadvertently increasing the cost of housing. This is achieved in part through local wealth creation, wellcrafted policies, and mainstreaming of affordability vehicles.
The global climate crisis will also have profound impacts on—among other things—housing security and availability in Oakland. To address the climate crisis, the City released the Oakland 2030 Equitable Climate Action Plan (ECAP) in July 2020. The ECAP is the City’s strategy to create a future built on justice, equal opportunity, and environmental protection. Among the list of Transportation and Land Use (TLU) actions in the ECAP is TLU-3, “Take Action to Reduce and Prevent Displacement of Residents & Businesses.” TLU-3 explicitly links anti-displacement efforts to climate equity action, as the City can only achieve its ECAP goals if Oaklanders are able to participate fully in, and benefit from, climate action without fear of displacement and homelessness.
The City is also undertaking an update to its Land Use and Transportation Element, in tandem with this Housing Element, to promote a land use pattern and policies that will help accelerate and target housing production. Like many other Bay Area cities, nearly every property in Oakland has been developed, with few “greenfield” (not yet developed) sites within its limits or at its borders, meaning that housing development will primarily rely on development and redevelopment of “infill” sites. Within the city limit, there are approximately 29,700 acres (46.4 square miles) of land, including residential, commercial, and industrial developments, as well as public facilities, including parks, schools, and an international airport. The Housing Element applies to land within city limits, depicted in Figure 1-1.
Callout: Environmental Justice and Racial Equity Baseline The Environmental Justice and Racial Equity Baseline, published in March 2022, identifies and details disparities by race and by geography that can be influenced directly or indirectly by the General Plan.
Chapter 1: Introduction
5 The findings in the Environmental Justice and Racial Equity Baseline identify environmental justice and racial equity existing conditions and inform conversations between City staff and members of the public.
In parallel with the Housing Element, this baseline will be used as a starting place for policymaking related to environmental justice, safe and sanitary housing, and other community equity issues.
Chapter 1: Introduction
6 Figure 1-1: Regional Map
Chapter 1: Introduction
7 3.1 Purpose of the Housing Element
The 2023-2031 Oakland Housing Element is one component of a larger effort: an update to the City of Oakland General Plan. The General Plan Update will create Oakland’s 2045 General Plan and is a “oncein-a-generation” opportunity for all Oaklanders to work together to create a visionary blueprint for the city’s future over the next 20 years. The Oakland 2045 General Plan will be made up of several “elements” covering a wide range of topics important to the future of Oakland, including environmental justice, land use and transportation, open space, noise, conservation, and safety.
The 2023-2031 Housing Element sets forth the City’s housing priorities and goals—as well as its vision for both short- and long-term development—to create a fair and just city. State law mandates that the Housing Element be updated every eight years to reflect changing conditions, community objectives, and goals. This Housing Element also provides an evaluation of the 2015-2023 Housing Element, including an assessment of prior programs and strategies.
HOUSING ELEMENT: COMPONENTS
In California, all cities must adopt a General Plan composed of at least seven elements, including the Housing Element. All cities must also incorporate environmental justice into the General Plan. Oakland has chosen to adopt an Environmental Justice Element while also incorporating environmental justice goals into each element, including the Housing Element. While the Housing Element is influenced by State law, it is essentially a local document. The Oakland Housing Element, in tandem with the rest of the General Plan Update, is designed to assess and shape the community’s housing progress and needs.
Nonetheless, among all General Plan elements, the State of California has the most extensive set of requirements pertaining to housing elements. In accordance with State law, the Housing Element must include:
● A description of outreach conducted in preparation of the element ● An analysis of progress in implementing the previous Housing Element and effectiveness of its programs and actions
● An assessment of existing and projected housing needs ● An analysis of special housing needs, such as those of older adults and people with disabilities ● An analysis of existing assisted housing units at risk of conversion from affordable to market rate ● An analysis and inventory of resources and constraints relevant to meeting housing needs ● An affirmatively furthering fair housing (AFFH) analysis, which guides the analysis of each set of requirements
Chapter 1: Introduction
8 ● An inventory of adequate sites suitable for construction of new housing sufficient to meet needs at all economic levels
● A program that sets forth specific actions to address housing needs, with identification of responsible agencies and timelines
4 REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT (RHNA)
Oakland’s Housing Element was last updated in 2015 and covered the years 2015-2023. The current Housing Element update reflects the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) as determined by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) for the Sixth Cycle Housing Element update, covering the years 2023-2031. The RHNA is a State-mandated process intended to ensure every city and county plans for enough housing production to accommodate future growth. The State of California Housing and Community Development Department (State HCD) assigns each region of the state an overall RHNA allocation. For the nine-county Bay Area region, ABAG then distributes a “fair share” portion of that allocation to each local jurisdiction. Each city and county must then identify adequate sites with a realistic capacity for development sufficient to meet this RHNA.
For the 2023-2031 period, Oakland must identify sites sufficient to accommodate 26,251 new housing units between 2023 and 2031, with a specific number of units designated as affordable to each income category, as shown in Table 1-1.
A total of 6,511 units must be affordable to households making less than 50 percent of area median income (AMI), 3,750 units must be affordable to households making between 50 and 80 percent of AMI, 4,457 units must be affordable to households making between 80 and 120 percent of AMI, and 11,533 units must be affordable to households making over 120 percent of AMI. The RHNA does not specifically break down the need for extremely-low-income households. As provided by State law, the housing needs of extremely-low-income households, or those making less than 30 percent of area median income (AMI), is estimated as 50 percent of the very-low-income housing need. More detail on the RHNA allocation process is described in Chapter 3 as well as in Appendix C.
Table 1-1: Oakland Regional Housing Needs Assessment, 2023-2031 Income Level1 Income Range Needed Units Percent of Needed Units Very-Low-Income (0-50% AMI) <$46,287 6,511 24.8%
Extremely-Low-Income
(<30% AM part of Very-Low-Income in
previous row)2
<$27,772 3,256 -
Low-Income (51-80% AMI) $27,773-$74,059 3,750 14.3%
Moderate-Income (81-120% AMI) $74,059-111,089 4,457 17.0% Above-Moderate-Income (>120% AMI) >$111,090 11,533 43.9% Total 26,251 100.0%
Chapter 1: Introduction
9 1. Income levels were determined by county median household income based on 2014-2018 American Community Survey data (Table B19013). The median income in Alameda County during this period was $92,574.
2. Extremely-low-income housing need is assumed to be 50 percent of very-low-income housing need.
Source: ABAG, Final RHNA Plan, December 2021
5 HOUSING ELEMENT: STATE CHANGES
Various amendments have been made to Housing Element law since adoption of the City’s current Housing Element, especially since 2017. Some of the key changes for 6th cycle RHNA and Housing Element update include:
● Assembly Bill (AB) 72 (2017) provides additional authority to State HCD to scrutinize housing elements and enforce housing element noncompliance and other violations of state housing laws.
● AB 879 (2017) and AB 1397 (2017) require additional analysis and justification of sites listed on a local government’s housing sites inventory, additional explanation of the realistic capacity of those listed sites, and further scrutiny of governmental and nongovernmental constraints that limit the production of housing.
● AB 686 (2018) requires local governments to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing (AFFH) by including in revised housing elements (1) an assessment of fair housing; (2) equitable distribution of housing to meet the needs of households at all income levels and dismantle segregated living patterns with integrated and balanced living patterns; (3) policies and programs that address fair housing barriers and promote fair housing patterns; and (4) a comprehensive, collaborative, accessible, inclusive, and equity-driven public engagement approach.
● AB 215 (2021) extends the housing element compliance review process by requiring local governments to make draft housing elements available for public review prior to submittal to State HCD rather than conducting concurrent review. The draft must be made publicly available for at least 30 days, and the local government must consider and incorporate public comment for at least 10 business days, before sending the draft to State HCD. AB 215 also increased State HCD’s review period of the first draft element submittal from 60 to 90 days and within 60 days of its receipt for a subsequent draft amendment or adoption. However, the January 31, 2023, statutory deadline remains the same, even as these new requirements have significantly added to the time a city needs to complete the overall housing element update process.
Chapter 1: Introduction
10 ● AB 1398 (2021) revises the consequences for local governments that miss the deadline for housing element adoption. Local governments must complete rezoning no later than one year from the statutory deadline for adoption of the housing element if that jurisdiction fails to adopt a housing element that State HCD has found to be in substantial compliance with state law within 120 days of the statutory deadline. The City retains the three-year rezoning period if the housing element is adopted within 120 days of the statutory deadline. ● AB 1304 (2021) clarifies that a public agency has a mandatory duty to comply with existing Housing Element Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) requirements. AB 1304 revises the items to be included in AFFH analysis and requires that analysis to be done in a specified manner. In addition, the housing inventory must analyze the relationship of the sites identified in the inventory to the city’s duty to affirmatively further fair housing.
The contents of this Housing Element comply with these amendments and all other requirements of Housing Element law.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Housing Element update is being accompanied by an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), which analyzes the potential impacts attributable to the Housing Element update, as well as the Safety and Environmental Justice Elements and related Planning Code, General Plan, and Zoning Map amendments.
5.1 Oakland’s Housing Approach
Two important components of the Housing Element include a plan to address Oaklanders’ housing needs, and an inventory of sites suitable for housing development at all income levels, based on Oakland’s 6th cycle RHNA.
6 HOUSING ACTION PLAN
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 seek to significantly address disparities in housing needs and in 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 goals were developed through a careful review of community input from each of the outreach and engagement sessions listed in Chapter 2 of the Housing Element.
The goals include:
Chapter 1: Introduction
11 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.
3. Expand Affordable Housing Opportunities: Facilitate the production of housing for extremely low, very low, low, and moderate-income households. In addition to increased production generally, provide a diversity of housing types, ownership opportunities, living arrangements, and features supportive of special needs. Locate new housing to further access to opportunity (while simultaneously investing in and protecting tenants in disinvested communities) and remove constraints to affordable housing development.
4. Address Homelessness and Expand Resources for the Unhoused: Recognize housing as a human right. Reduce homelessness through Housing First approaches and support coordination across the spectrum, from homelessness prevention to transitional housing/shelter and services to permanent housing with resources for long-term support.
5. Promote Neighborhood Stability and Health: Promote resilient development in safe, healthy, and just communities. Increase resources in disinvested communities and create longtime stability through homeownership opportunities.
The goals, policies, and actions form the Housing Action Plan for the 2023-2031 planning period and transform this framework into impactful action.
HOUSING SITES INVENTORY
The Housing Element also presents an inventory of housing sites suitable for new homes in Oakland at all income levels. To do this, the inventory includes:
● Sites where development is underway or approved (known as “pipeline projects”) or otherwise can be credited to meet the RHNA (such as Accessory Dwelling Units and other types); and ● Opportunity sites where additional development could occur. Opportunity sites were selected in a manner consistent with the City’s mandate to affirmatively further fair housing. Housing sites, especially lower-income sites, were selected so as to reduce segregation and increase affordable development in high resource neighborhoods, where possible.
Chapter 3 provides a summary of the inventory approach and Appendix C includes the detailed site inventory.
Chapter 1: Introduction
12 The Housing Action Plan and Housing Site Inventory remain a work in progress with the intent of soliciting feedback from members of the community and refining the goals, policies, and actions to reflect both local priorities and State obligations.
6.1 Organization of the Housing Element
The Housing Element is divided into four chapters: an Introduction, a Summary of Public Participation, a Summary of the Housing Sites Inventory, and the Housing Action Plan. In addition, there are several technical appendices that provide extensive detail on a range of topics, including many of the checklist items mandated by state law. This includes an evaluation of the City’s 2015-2023 housing element, an assessment of housing needs, resources, and constraints, and the comprehensive housing sites inventory.
A summary of the findings from each technical appendix is provided in the main body of the Housing Element. It is organized as follows:
● Chapter 1 – Introduction: Provides an overview of State requirements, a summary of the organization of the Housing Element, and an explanation of the Housing Element’s relationship to the General Plan.
● Chapter 2 – Public Participation: Provides a description of the public participation process and a summary of community outreach activities.
● Chapter 3 – Summary of the Housing Sites Inventory: Summarizes the City’s ability to accommodate the RHNA on available land, and the selection of sites in light of AFFH requirements.
● Chapter 4 – Housing Action Plan: Institutes the goals, policies, and actions of the 2023-2031 Housing Element, and provides quantified objectives.
● Appendix A – Evaluation of the 2015-2023 Oakland Housing Element: Summarizes the City’s achievements in implementing goals, policies, and actions under the previous Housing Element.
● Appendix B – Housing Needs Assessment: Presents community demographic information, including both population and household data, to identify Oakland’s housing needs. ● Appendix C – Sites Inventory: Outlines the selection and capacity methodology used to identify sites to accommodate the RHNA.
● Appendix D – Assessment of Fair Housing: Identifies fair housing issues and solutions to meet Oakland’s AFFH mandate.
Chapter 1: Introduction
13 ● Appendix E – Housing Resources and Opportunities: Assesses the City’s financial and administrative resources available for future housing development. ● Appendix F – Housing Constraints: Analyzes governmental and non-governmental constraints to the development of housing.
● Appendix G – Opportunities for Energy Conservation: Presents opportunities to develop housing in a sustainable manner.
● Appendix H – Glossary
● Appendix I – Reserved for Public Outreach Materials
6.2 Relationship to Other General Plan
Elements
State law requires the Housing Element to contain a statement of “the means by which consistency will be achieved with other general plan elements and community goals” (California Government Code, Section 65583(c)(8)). There are two aspects of this analysis: 1) an identification of other General Plan goals, policies, and programs that could affect implementation of the Housing Element or that could be affected by the implementation of the Housing Element, and 2) an identification of actions to ensure consistency between the Housing Element and affected parts of other General Plan elements.
As described above, the City is undergoing a comprehensive update to the General Plan. The General Plan update 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, which are due by the beginning of 2023, as well as preparation of a Racial Equity Impact Assessment, Zoning Code and Map update, and a new Environmental Justice 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 2025.
The Land Use and Transportation Element (LUTE) of the Oakland General Plan was last revised in 1998. The vision and specific policies contained in the LUTE seek to encourage and facilitate the types of infill, re-use, mixed-use, and central city/corridor-oriented residential development that are the focus of the Housing Element and the City’s ability to accommodate its regional housing allocation. Most of the housing to be provided in Oakland will result from the development or redevelopment of underutilized and infill parcels. In addition rezoning will occur in select areas to accommodate additional Chapter 1: Introduction
14 density such as parcels around BART stations, along transit corridors, and in existing residential neighborhoods to allow for “missing middle” housing.
The goals, policies, and programs contained within this Housing Element will also inform the strategies included in the updated LUTE. As the Housing Element will be adopted prior to the LUTE update, the general distribution, location and extent of land uses as well as population density and building intensity standards carried out by the current Planning Code are used to determine the City’s ability to accommodate residential development. 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. Anticipated development on these sites is expected to be in compliance with updated policy standards for noise, safety, open space, recreation, and conservation contained in the other General Plan elements.
The policies in the other updated General Plan elements will advance the ability of the City to achieve the objectives contained in the 2023-2031 Housing Element. Likewise, the Housing Element policies will advance the implementation of policies and programs in the other updated General Plan elements.
The City has therefore determined that the updated Housing Element is consistent with the General Plan.
6.3 Sources of Information
In preparing the Housing Element, various sources of information were utilized. As a starting point, the Element used ABAG-prepared local data and AFFH package pre-certified by State HCD for use in sixth cycle housing elements, which provides the basis for population and household characteristics and affirmatively furthering fair housing resources. Where necessary, several additional and more current sources are used to provide reliable updates of the ABAG data package. The sources used in the ABAG data package and many additional sources are listed below. Public input from members of the public, community-based organizations (CBOs), and community leaders, was also a key source of information for this Housing Element. More details on what information was collected from these partners can be found in Chapter 2.
1. ABAG Pre-Certified Housing Needs Data Package, 2021
a. Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council's (FFIEC) Home Mortgage Disclosure Act loan/application register (LAR) files
b. U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000; Census 2010; American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2005-2009 through 2015-2019)
Chapter 1: Introduction
15 c. U.S. Census Bureau, Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, Workplace Area Characteristics (WAC) files, 2002-2018; Residence Area Characteristics (RAC) files, 2002-2018
d. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Census of Farmworkers (2002, 2007, 2012, 2017), Table 7: Hired Farm Labor
e. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release f. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Continuum of Care (CoC) Homeless Populations and Subpopulations Reports (2019) g. California Department of Developmental Services, Consumer Count by California ZIP Code and Age Group (2020); Consumer Count by California ZIP Code and Residence Type (2020)
h. California Department of Education, California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS), Cumulative Enrollment Data (Academic Years 2016-2017, 2017-2018, 2018-2019, 2019-2020)
i. California Department of Finance, E-5 series
j. California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), 5th Cycle Annual Progress Report Permit Summary (2020)
k. California Employment Development Department, Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS), Sub-county areas monthly updates, 2010-2021 l. California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC)/California Housing and Community Development (HCD), Opportunity Maps (2020)
m. California Housing Partnership, Preservation Database (2020) n. Zillow, Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI)
2. Freddie Mac, Historical Weekly Mortgage Rates Data, 2015-2021
3. Home Mortgage Disclosure Act Data, 2012-2020
4. HUD, CHAS ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release
5. HUD, Fair Market Rent, 2019
6. HUD, AFFHT0006 Table 12, July 2020
7. U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000; Census 2010; American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2005-2009 through 2015-2019)
8. California Department of Finance, P-2 series
9. California Department of Food and Agriculture, Certified Farmers’ Markets by County, January 2022
10. California Department of Education, CAASPP, Smarter Balanced Summative Assessments, 2018-2019
11. California Department of Public Health, Licensed and Certified Healthcare Facility Listing, 2022
Chapter 1: Introduction
16 12. HCD, AFFH Data and Mapping Resources, 2021
13. HCD, State Income Limits, 2021
14. HCD, Qualified Entities, May 2021
15. TCAC, Nine Percent Application, 2022
16. TCAC, Project Staff Reports 2017-2020
17. ABAG-MTC, Existing and Planned Transit Stops, 2021
18. ABAG-MTC, Final RHNA Plan, December 2021
19. Alameda County, Assessor Parcel Data, 2021
20. Alameda County, Historic Assessor Parcel Data, 2014-2015
21. Alameda County, Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI) for FY 2020/21-2024/25
22. Alameda Housing Authority, Utility Allowance Schedule, 2021
23. EBMUD, Water and Wastewater System Schedules of Rates and Charges, Capacity Charges and Other Fees, July 2021
24. EBMUD, Water Shortage Contingency Plan, 2020
25. City of Oakland, Planning Code, 2022
26. City of Oakland, Staff Reports, 2019-2021
27. City of Oakland, Accela Building and Planning Permits, March 2022
28. City of Oakland, Building Bureau Code Enforcement Division, FY 2020-2021
29. City of Oakland, Building & Planning Department, 2022
30. City of Oakland, Equitable Climate Action Plan, 2020
31. City of Oakland, Housing & Community Development Strategic Action Plan, 2021-2023
32. City of Oakland, Master Fee Schedule and Fee Estimator with Impact Fees, July 2021;
33. City of Oakland, Oakland ADU Initiative, Existing Conditions and Barriers Report, January 2020 (Revised June 2020)
34. City of Oakland, Oakland Equity Indicators Report, 2018
35. City of Oakland, Department of Housing and Community Development, Five Year Strategic Consolidated Plan: Annual Action Plan, 2018-2019
36. City of Oakland, Impact Fee Annual Report, December 24, 2021
37. City of Oakland, Resilient Oakland Playbook, October 10, 2016
38. City of Oakland, 2016-2021 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP)
39. Oakland Housing Authority, Draft Making Transitions Work Annual Plan, FY 2023
40. Oakland Department of Transportation, Geographic Equity Toolbox Planning Areas, 2020
41. Oakland Housing Authority, August 2021
42. City of Berkeley, Building Permit Fee Estimator, 2022 and Affordable Housing Mitigation Fee Ordinance, October 2020
43. City of Emeryville, Master Fee Schedule, July 2021 and Development Impact Fees, FY 2020- 2021
Chapter 1: Introduction
17 44. City of Richmond, Master Fee Schedule, July 2020
45. City of San Francisco, Development Impact Fee Register, December 2021 and Planning Department Fee Schedule, August 2021
46. City of San Jose, Planning Application Filing Fee Schedule, August 2021, Building and Structure Permits Fee Schedule, August 2021, and Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Schedule of Fees, April 2021
47. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc., Downtown Oakland Specific Plan: Incentive Program Feasibility Study, July 10, 2020
48. Hausrath Economics Group, Oakland Affordable Housing Impact Fee Five-Year Review, December 23, 2021
49. California Housing Partnership, Preservation Database, February 2022
50. Urban Displacement Project, 2018 and 2019
51. National Association of Realtors Research Group, Downpayment Expectations & Hurdles to Homeownership, April 2020
52. Yelp, 2022
53. Zillow, Mortgage Rates, October 2021
54. Zillow, ZHVI, December 31, 2010, and December 31, 2020 Chapter 1: Introduction
18 This page intentionally left blank.
Chapter 2: Public Participation
19 7 Public Participation
Inclusive engagement and public participation have been key to the preparation of Oakland’s Housing Element. Public participation is an ongoing process that will continue to occur as the General Plan is updated. Outreach completed as part of phase 1 of the update process will continue to inform phase 2 of the General Plan update. All community outreach is conducted through a racial equity lens to identify actions to affirmatively further fair housing, increase community assets, decrease pollution exposure, and improve overall health.
The community engagement effort is composed of an extensive outreach process that seeks to engage stakeholders throughout the community, with additional resources dedicated to engaging communities historically underrepresented and excluded from traditional planning processes and often most negatively impacted by City policies. All community input shared will be used to “ground truth” data based on peoples’ lived experience, inform areas of focus for General Plan elements, and guide development of General Plan policies. Outreach that informed the development of this Housing Element is summarized in the following chapter, and materials used in the outreach process are included in Appendix I.
7.1 Summary of Community Outreach
Activities
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE OUTREACH
The City, based on feedback received from community members, implemented an innovative approach to collaborating with consultants on the General Plan Update. The City partnered with both a Community Consultant Team – Deeply Rooted Collaborative and a Technical Consultant Team – Dyett and Bhatia, to ensure a planning process that 1) meets state deadlines and requirements for the GPU and 2) dedicates significant resources to deep and meaningful community engagement. The Community and Technical Consultants coordinated closely. The team leads meet weekly, and the entire project team meets biweekly to share key findings and provide feedback. Both Community Consultant and Technical Consultant outreach and feedback is incorporated into all components of the Housing Element. This approach aligns with advancing the City's critical mission of creating a just and fair City for all (Oakland Municipal Code Section 2.29.170.1).
Chapter 2: Public Participation
20 Community engagement efforts for the General Plan Update includean extensive and inclusive outreach process, engaging stakeholders throughout the community with additional resources dedicated to engaging communities historically underrepresented and excluded from traditional planning processes and most negatively impacted by City policies.
The Deeply Rooted Collaborative focuses on engagement with the following key communities and geographic areas:
● Communities: Unhoused; formerly incarcerated; low-income Asian, Pacific Islander, Black, Latinx, multiracial communities including those experiencing environmental injustices ● Outreach Geographies: Fruitvale, West Oakland, East Oakland, Chinatown, Eastlake, San Antonio
Deeply Rooted has three organizations providing central support through the design and coordination of the overall structure for community engagement, providing technical assistance and community education in planning, and administrative support.
● EastSide Arts Alliance | Cultural Programming Partner ● Just Cities | Technical Assistance/Community Education Partner ● Urban Strategies Council | Administrative Partner
The Deeply Rooted Collaborative in partnership with community partners as shown in Figure 2-1.
Deeply Rooted’s community partner roles are listed in Table 2-1.
Figure 2-1: Deeply Rooted Collaborative Deleted:
Commented [1]: Remove because this graphic is
feeding into the narrative that our engagement is
mainly in East Oakland.
Chapter 2: Public Participation
21 Table 2-1: Deeply Rooted Collaborative Community Partner Roles Community Partner Community/ Outreach Geography
West Oakland House/Full of Black Women/ Deep
Waters Dance Theater
West Oakland residents
West Oakland Environmental
Indicators Project.
Environmental Justice | West
Oakland
Black Arts Movement Business
District, CDC (BAMBD, CDC)
West Oakland (Lower Bottoms),
Artists, flatland communities of color,
those invested in the animation of
BAMBD, CDC and its stakeholders
Fruitvale Unity Council Latinx community | Fruitvale
CURYJ Formerly incarcerated, Black and
Latinx | Fruitvale
Chinatown Oakland Asian Cultural Center
(OACC)/ API Cultural Center
Asian American community|
Chinatown
East Oakland The Black Cultural Zone
Community Development
Corporation
Black Community | East Oakland
Across Oakland Lao Family Community
Development, Inc
Southeast Asian American
community
Malonga Arts Residents
Association (MARA)
Black and Brown communities, and
partnership with members in
Chinatown
The Village in Oakland
Unhoused curbside communities in
North Oakland, West Oakland,
Downtown, and East Oakland
5 Community Engagement and Outreach Summary
A variety of outreach activities such as workshops, focused discussions, pop-ups, open houses, porch chats, and community hub events are planned throughout the entire process. All community input shared will be used to ground truth data based on peoples’ lived experience, inform areas of focus for the update of General Plan elements, and guide development of General Plan policies.
Input related to housing overlaps with many General Plan topic areas and will be incorporated into both the eight-year Housing Element Update as well as into elements with a longer planning horizon, such as the Land Use and Transportation, Environmental Justice, and Safety Elements. A summary of the General Plan update project schedule is provided in Chart 2-1. Information on all community engagement events, including engagement summaries; workshop and townhall presentations, recordings, meeting summaries; and discussion group summaries, are provided via the General Plan Formatted: Font: Bold
Deleted: ¶ ... [1]
Deleted: House/Full of Black Women/ Deep Waters Dance
Theater
Formatted: Font: Bold
Formatted Table
Deleted: Oakland Asian Cultural Center (OACC)/ API
Cultural Center ... [2]
Deleted: Asian American community| Chinatown ¶ ... [3]
Deleted: Unity Council
Deleted: Latinx community | Fruitvale
Deleted: West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project.
Deleted: Environmental Justice | West Oakland
Deleted: Black Arts Movement Business District, CDC
(BAMBD, CDC) ... [4]
Deleted: West Oakland (Lower Bottoms), Artists, flatland communities of color, those invested in the animation of BAMBD, CDC and its stakeholders
Chapter 2: Public Participation
22 Update website at https://www.oaklandca.gov/topics/meetings-and-events. A summary of these engagement activities is described below:
● Popup and Community Hub Events: Since November 2021 to March 2022, the GPU Deeply Rooted Collaborative has conducted pop-up events in Eastmont, Fruitvale, San Antonio, Chinatown, West Oakland, and Downtown. For example, in West Oakland these events have been porchside chats and a pop-up at Hoover Elementary. Engagement has also been integrated into larger community events like the Oakland Asian Cultural Center’s (OACC) Asian Pacific New Year Celebration and the Black Joy parade. At these community-embedded events, the team has engaged with over 1006 people, with a majority being individuals from communities of color. These events sought to hear community concerns, ideas and solutions through interviews and focus group conversations. Community concerns that rose to the top included affordability, displacement, disinvestment, housing quality, pollution (industry and cars), lack of parks, collisions, and illegal dumping.
● Townhalls: Two townhalls were held on March 26, 2022, and April 7, 2022. The townhall on March 26, 2022, introduced the General Plan Update process and gathered community input on a vision for the City in 2045, as well as local issues and opportunities that should be addressed in the General Plan. The townhall on April 7, 2022, focused on equity across all issues, with a special focus on EJ and safety priorities in the City.
● Community Education Workshops: Two community education workshops were hosted on April 8, 2022, and April 9, 2022, and organized by the Deeply Rooted Collaborative Community Engagement partner to review the past and present policies that led to today's conditions in housing and environmental justice. Over 100 people attended the workshops.
Speakers included Oakland unhoused leader Needa Bee (The Village in Oakland), EJ leader Ms.
Margaret Gordon (West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project), Margaretta Lin (Just Cities) and Diana Benitez (Just Cities). Attendees shared their frustration regarding ongoing displacement and disinvestment and various community-centered solutions that would bring much needed resources to communities of color in Oakland without displacement. ● Youth Engagement: Youth engagement for the GPU will take the form of a Deeply Rooted Fellowship with 15 – 20 fellows. The Fellowship will be a 2-to-3-year commitment and fellows will be provided with a monthly stipend. Planning, design, and training of the fellowship program will be done in coordination with Y-Plan. Fellows will coordinate with the Oakland Youth Advisory Commission (OYAC) and will be engaged in outreach activities such as community-based events, presentations to the community and schools, and social media outreach. Recruitment began in April 2022 with tentative commencement of the Fellowship in May 2022.
● Neighborhood Group Meetings: Staff are working with Neighborhood Service Coordinators to present at Neighborhood Crime Prevention Councils (NCPCs) on topics including housing, Chapter 2: Public Participation
23 environmental justice, industrial lands and safety and natural hazards and receive feedback. Staff have presented at several NCPCs and will continue to engage and obtain feedback. Staff are presenting to other Neighborhood – Community groups, faith-based organizations, and at other community congregation events as well.
● Equity Working Group: Convened by the Deeply Rooted Collaborative, the Equity Working Group (EWG) is comprised of 20 diverse community members who will 1) Identify the major challenges and impacts of the General Plan (housing, safety, environmental justice, land use, transportation, and parks) and 2) Advocate for solutions that advance equitable and healthy communities for Oakland residents. Each member will receive a stipend. 20 EWG members who met the following criteria were selected through an interview process from a total of 66 applicants:
− Hard to reach communities: People from communities that the City traditionally has trouble engaging with including Indigenous, unhoused, formerly incarcerated, lowincome, Asian, Black, Latinx, multiracial, people with disabilities, undocumented, and people experiencing environmental injustices.
− In target geographic areas of: West Oakland, East Oakland, Chinatown, and Fruitvale. − Age diversity: People at different stages of their lives to ensure varied knowledge and experiences.
− Diversity of gender and sexual orientation: To ensure women's and LGBTQ+ perspectives are included in this process.
− People who own small businesses in Oakland.
● Technical Advisory Committee: The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) is comprised of internal City department representatives as well as other Oakland-based, neighboring, and regional governmental agency representatives. The TAC serves to advise on key strategies to address Oakland’s big issues related to housing, environmental justice, safety, and other topics; review community input collected at key points in the process; and inform, discuss, and provide technical direction on policies and actions. The second TAC meeting was held on March 7, 2022 and TAC members provided recommendations for housing strategies/actions for housing production, preservation, and protections.
● Study Sessions with Official Decision-Making Bodies: The Planning Commission, City Council, and various boards and commissions are active participants in the GPU and will have opportunities to provide direction at each Stage in the process. The project team will continue to check in with these decision-making bodies at key milestones to ensure that the project remains on the right track in terms of process, direction, and overall vision. Engagement will take the form of study sessions and informational presentations to review products and generate feedback on drafts. The Planning Commission and Special Community & Economic Chapter 2: Public Participation
24 Development Committee met on February 2nd and February 22nd to discuss potential housing site locations and recommended housing strategies and actions.
Chapter 2: Public Participation
25 Chart 2-1: Oakland 2045 Project Schedule
HOUSING ELEMENT OUTREACH
To supplement efforts that were part of the General Plan update, a series of targeted activities related to housing were held prior to the release of the public Draft Housing Element. Additional opportunities for feedback will occur after plan release as well. These efforts are summarized in Chart 2-2 and described below:
Chart 2-2: Housing Element Outreach Timeline
Housing Workshops: The team hosted three virtual housing workshops on February 10, 2022, February 17, 2022, and March 12, 2022, with one additional workshop planned to allow for the opportunity to give feedback on the Draft Housing Element. Approximately 200 people participated in Chapter 2: Public Participation
26 these three virtual workshops. The first workshop provided background information on the General Plan, the Housing Element, and housing sites inventory requirements. Workshop 2 sought to gather input on potential housing programs. Workshop 3 focused on community input on strategies to preserve existing affordable housing, protect tenants, and prevent displacement. Workshop 4 was held on May 12, 2022, and sought Oaklanders’ input on housing sites and proposed strategies included in a public review Housing Element draft before sending it to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). Summaries of these workshops are included in Appendix I.
Discussion Groups: A series of focus group discussions were held on the housing-related topics to solicit targeted feedback from organizations and individuals with direct experience with housing provisions and housing-related services. Discussion participants included organizations that may not have traditionally participated in the past including housing justice advocates, tenant rights organizations, faith-based organizations, and other community organizations.
Summaries of these meetings, including the names of participating groups, are provided in Appendix I; see below for the themes of the discussion groups:
● Focus Group Discussion 1 (February 2, 2022): Housing Sites ● Focus Group Discussion 2 (March 10, 2022): Production, Preservation, and Protections ● Focus Group Discussion 3 (Forthcoming – placeholder)
6 Housing Element Update Survey
The Oakland Housing Element Update Survey accompanied the first housing workshop on planning where housing should go. The survey was open from February 11, 2022 through March 7, 2022, received 480 individual responses, and generated a total of 1,976 unique map responses. It included two interactive mapping questions regarding potential locations for future housing in the city of Oakland.
The interactive map in the survey displayed the initial sites under consideration for the Housing Element and focused on identifying community priorities and recommendations for additional locations. See Figure 2-2 below for a snapshot of the interactive map. As an optional component of the survey, respondents were asked to describe their zip code, and race or ethnicity. The results of this survey guided the selection of sites identified in Chapter 3 and Appendix C, and a summary of the survey’s findings is provided in Appendix I.
Chapter 2: Public Participation
27 Figure 2-2: Interactive Map Survey Snapshot
ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE
The assessment of fair housing contained in Appendix D relies in part on outreach done in preparation of Alameda County’s 2020 to 2024 Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI).11 Historically, Oakland has prepared its own AI every five years as a U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requirement. However, in 2020, the City joined various Alameda County cities and Housing Authority agencies to complete a regional AI.
A year-long community engagement process for the 2020 to 2024 AI consisted of three meetings and a seven-page survey between June 2019 – November 2019. The survey was translated into multiple languages and distributed to priority populations (those most impacted by fair housing issues) via local organizations. Priority populations include racial and ethnic minorities, people experiencing homelessness, people with limited English proficiency, people with disabilities, and people residing in Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs). The survey received 3,296 responses.
Key data from the 2020 to 2024 AI is used in the Assessment of Fair Housing in Appendix D:
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing.
11 Alameda County, “Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice.” February 2020. Accessible at https://cao94612.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/ALAMEDA-COUNTY-REGIONAL-ANALYSIS-OF-IMPEDIMENTS-TOFAIR-HOUSING-Final-AI_Combined_2-24-20.pdf Chapter 2: Public Participation
28 6.1 Public Participation Themes
Across discussion groups, workshops, and other community engagement events, several key themes emerged that informed development of this Housing Element Update’s goals, policies, and actions. This list is not comprehensive, but the key themes listed below are reflected in the overarching goals identified in Chapter 4: Housing Action Plan. The goals, policies, and actions seek to significantly address disparities in housing needs and in 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.
● Address Homelessness: “Housing is a Human Right.”A common refrain from participants was that Oakland should recognize housing as a human right and focus on addressing the homelessness crisis. As experts from the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty note, “a right to adequate housing is not a requirement that states build free housing for the entire population, rather, it devotes resources and protective measures to prevent homelessness, discrimination, and promote permanent stable housing.”12 Participants expressed distrust with the City and frustration with the current unaffordability of housing and ongoing displacement.
They suggested a wide variety of strategies to house the unhoused community, including treating unhoused populations with dignity, stopping the current encampment management policy, more flexible building types, temporary units, permanent supportive housing, RVs/safe parking zones, tiny homes, manufactured housing, and working with the unhoused community to understand their needs and priorities. Participants discussed methods for addressing the homelessness crisis, including a moratorium on market rate housing to balance the speed at which housing is built with the need to ensure that new housing is high-quality, affordable, and habitable, partnering with community groups that work with unhoused communities, and creating housing options that include wrap-around services. The Housing Element incorporates this input in the following ways:
− Goals: 1, 2, 3, 4
− Policies: 1.1, 2.2, 3.1, 3.3, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 − Actions: 1.1.1 through 1.1.13, 2.2.1 through 2.2.8, 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.3.1 through 3.3.7, 3.3.9,
3.3.11 through 3.3.15, 3.3.17, 3.3.18, 3.5.1 through 3.5.3, 3.6.1, 3.6.2, 3.6.5, 3.7.1, 3.7.2,
3.7.4, 3.7.6, 4.1.1 through 4.1.5, 4.2.1 through 4.2.5, 4.3.1 through 4.3.4 ● Protect Oakland Residents from Displacement and Preserve Existing Affordable Housing. Over the last two decades, housing costs in Oakland have risen dramatically – meaning many Oakland residents cannot afford to buy or rent a home within their own 12 https://www.kqed.org/news/11801176/what-would-housing-as-a-human-right-look-like-in-california Chapter 2: Public Participation
29 neighborhood. Participants expressed frustration with increasing displacement pressures while the stock of affordable housing throughout the city decreases, including both subsidized housing and “naturally occurring affordable housing” – or unsubsidized housing that is affordable at market prices. Participants also discussed how Oakland’s cultural institutions and history are at risk of loss due to continuing gentrification. To mitigate the pressures of displacement and gentrification, Oakland residents suggested a number of potential antidisplacement strategies, including enhanced rent stabilization measures, stronger just cause for eviction protections, increased enforcement of anti-harassment tenant protections, and historic preservation programs to preserve cultural institutions. Participants also discussed ways to preserve the city’s existing affordable housing stock, including the implementation of a Community/Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act, innovative solutions to maintain permanent affordability like community land trusts, additional acquisition and conversion to affordable housing efforts, live/work preferences for Oakland residents, and programs to physically rehabilitate homes to allow long-time residents to enjoy new community amenities.
Participants also pointed to a need for better data collection to ensure accountability and to better understand and target anti-displacement resources. The Housing Element incorporates this input as through the following goals, policies, and actions:
− Goals: 1, 2
− Policies: 1.1, 2.1, 2.2, 3.5
− Actions: 1.1.1 through 1.1.13, 2.1.1 through 2.1.6, 2.2.1 through 2.2.8, 3.3.12, 3.3.18,
3.5.1, 3.5.2, 3.5.4
● Focus on Building more Housing Affordable to Extremely Low, Very Low, Low, and Moderate Incomes. Producing new affordable and deeply affordable housing options was identified as a key strategy to prevent displacement. There were varying opinions about new market rate housing; some participants expressed that the City is currently facing a housing supply shortage, and must add new units of all types, while other participants felt that the City most sorely needs affordable housing and as such should focus explicitly on this type of construction. Groups discussed a wide range of strategies to build more inclusive neighborhoods add more affordable housing units in Oakland, including: legalizing existing nonconforming housing units, inclusionary zoning, changing the zoning to increase density in primarily singlefamily areas like Rockridge, supporting homeowners in the construction of additional dwelling units (ADUs), City land acquisitions to build new permanently affordable housing and create community land trusts, and reducing the amount of discretionary review required for new housing projects. Other recommendations included creating housing commission and neighborhood planning councils for ongoing resident leadership to decide the kind of housing development. The City of Oakland recognizes the need to increase housing supply generally, and, with priority given to increasing housing affordable to very-low-, low-, and moderateincome households in the following ways:
Chapter 2: Public Participation
30 − Goals: 3
− Policies: 3.1 through 3.8
− Actions: 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1 through 3.2.5, 3.3.1 through 3.3.18, 3.4.1 through 3.4.10, 3.5.1 through 3.5.4, 3.6.1 through 3.6.5, 3.7.4 through 3.7.6 ● Address Housing Quality Issues. Housing quality issues can have detrimental impacts on people’s physical and mental health. Through neighborhood outreach processes, many Oaklanders described housing quality issues they were living with, such as overcrowding, unsafe building conditions, and lack of maintenance, caused by landlord neglect, lack of funds for upkeep or housing burden, or fear of reporting these issues. Community-recommended strategies to address these issues included programs/grants to landlords and homeowners to make repairs; universal design to allow all Oaklanders to remain in their homes as they age, or to help mobility-impaired residents; and tax credits or programs to address other housing habitability concerns, like indoor air quality. The Housing Element addresses housing quality issues in the following ways:
− Goals: 2, 5
− Policies: 2.1, 5.2
− Actions: 2.1.1 through 2.1.6, 3.3.12, 5.2.1, 5.2.5
● Keep Oakland Communities Together. All Oakland neighborhoods are deserving of highquality amenities, more affordable housing, and other public investments, especially in areas that have suffered from disinvestment of the past. However, concerns about gentrification and displacement associated with new investment were top of mind for many Oaklanders. Scores of people expressed how difficult it was to pay the rent in light of rising costs. People who have long generational roots in Oakland have been displaced but continue to come to Oakland to be with community and work. This includes a significant loss (30 percent) of Oakland’s Black population from 2000 to 2019. As some community members noted, Oakland neighborhoods are like villages where people care for and nurture each other, and displacement means these villages are fragmented, and culture is lost. Oaklanders recommended creative ways to bring back displaced people as homeowners, such as support for co-ops, land trusts, and shared multiunit buildings. Other creative ways to prevent displacement include creation of cultural district/anti- displacement zones, a human health/socioeconomic impacts analysis to analyze displacement and homeless impacts of market rate projects before the City provides permits or zoning changes. Another way they saw keeping Oakland communities together was through investment to the most impacted communities via municipal reparation to redress Oakland’s history of eminent domain and urban renewal and for Black Americans who are descendants of chattel slavery. The Housing Element addresses displacement and cultural preservation in the following ways:
Chapter 2: Public Participation
31 − Goals: 1, 2, 5
− Policies: 1.1, 2.2, 3.5, 5.1, 5.3
− Actions: 1.1.1 through 1.1.13, 2.1.4, 2.2.1 through 2.2.8, 3.2.2, 3.3.8, 3.3.12, 3.3.18, 3.5.1 through 3.5.4, 5.1.1 through 5.1.3, 5.3.1 through 5.3.3 ● Building in Accountability and Success Metrics. Oaklanders desire more transparency around housing issues and actions in the City, and to be heard by elected officials and City departments stressing the importance of setting transparent and data-driven metrics to measure the success of various housing programs, and building in accountability measures to ensure that the City can meet its goals. The Housing Elements aims to increase transparency and accountability in the following ways:
− Goals: 1 through 5
− Policies: 1.1, 2.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.7, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 5.1, 5.2 − Actions: 1.1.7, 1.1.8, 2.1.3, 3.2.5, 3.3.17, 3.3.13, 3.7.1, 4.1.2, 4.2.4, 4.3.1, 5.1.1, 5.1.2,
5.1.3 5.2.9
Chapter 2: Public Participation
32 This page intentionally left blank.
Chapter 3: Sites Inventory Summary
33 7 Summary of the Housing Sites Inventory
The housing element of the general plan must include an inventory of land suitable and available for residential development to meet the city’s regional housing need allocation by income level. This inventory is known as the Housing Sites Inventory (“Inventory”). This chapter provides a summary of the full Sites Inventory, available in Appendix C.
7.1 Regional Housing Needs Allocation
As required by State housing law, all California cities, towns and counties must plan for the housing needs of all their residents, at various income levels. This number is called the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA).
For the planning period 2023 to 2031 (also known as the 6th housing cycle), Oakland must plan for 26,251 new units, a nearly 77.8 percent increase from the prior cycle’s allocation of 14,765 new units. Table 3-1 shows the income breakdown of the RHNA with an additional buffer, as recommended by the State, to account for any loss due to reductions in density.
Table 3-1: Oakland Regional Housing Needs Assessment, 2023-2031 Income Level1 Needed Units
Needed Units with
15% Buffer
Percent of Needed
Units
Very-Low-Income (0-50% AMI) 6,511 7,488 24.8%
Extremely-Low-Income (<30% AMI; part of Very-LowIncome in previous row)2 3,256 3,745 - Low-Income (51-80% AMI) 3,750 4,313 14.3%
Moderate-Income (81-120% AMI) 4,457 5,126 17.0%
Above-Moderate-Income (>120% AMI) 11,533 13,263 43.9%
Total 26,251 30,189 100.0%
1. Income levels were determined by county median household income based on 2014-2018 American Community Survey data (Table B19013). The median income in Alameda County during this period was $92,574.
2. Extremely-low-income housing need is assumed to be 50 percent of very-low-income housing need, pursuant to Government Code Section 65583(a). Although extremely-low-income housing need is not explicitly projected in the RHNA, this group often requires the most subsidy and assistance to generate a sufficient number of housing units.
Source: ABAG, Final RHNA Plan, December 2021
7.2 Capacity to Accommodate the RHNA
Government Code Section 65583.2(c) requires that local jurisdictions determine their realistic capacity for new housing growth by means of a parcel-level analysis of land resources with the potential to accommodate residential uses. The analysis of potential to accommodate new housing growth considered physical and regulatory Chapter 3: Sites Inventory Summary
34 constraints, including: lot area and configuration, environmental factors (e.g. slope, sensitive habitat, flood risk), allowable density, and other development standards such as parking requirements and building height limits.
Based on the City’s current General Plan and zoning regulations, there is sufficient capacity to accommodate its RHNA allocation with a buffer. In addition, rezoning will also occur in select areas to accommodate additional density such as parcels around BART stations, along transit corridors, and in existing residential neighborhoods to allow for “missing middle” housing. Sites included in the inventory reflect those that are most likely to develop during the planning period and meet the RHNA; as the development potential of sites newly made available by one of these rezoning efforts is difficult to project, these new sites are not considered as part of this inventory.
The Inventory identifies sufficiently zoned land to accommodate the RHNA at all income levels. The inventory is divided into two major groups:
● Sites where development is underway or approved (known as “pipeline projects”) or otherwise can be credited to meet the RHNA (such as Accessory Dwelling Units, or ADUs); and ● Opportunity sites where additional development could occur. This includes 1) potential development projects, where projects may be in pre-approval; sites from the previous RHNA cycle that remain available for development; and new opportunity sites, which includes both vacant and non-vacant sites and consists of City-owned sites, sites owned by Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART), sites located within a specific plan area, and other sites with expressed or potential development interest.
The analysis of nonvacant properties included only those properties with realistic potential for additional development or “recycling”, in light of 1) existing uses on the site; 2) prevailing market conditions; 3) recent development trends; 4) expressed interests in housing development from property owners or developers; and 5) regulatory and/or other incentives to encourage recycling or intensification of existing development.
A summary of capacity by housing units to meet the RHNA is provided in Table 3-2, below. The complete 2023- 2031 Inventory is provided in Table C25 of Appendix C, and can be seen in Figure 3-1 below.
Chapter 3: Sites Inventory Summary
35 Table 3-2: Summary of Residential Capacity to Accommodate the 2023-2031 RHNA Residential Units
Very-Low-Income1,2 Low-Income1 Moderate-Income Above-Moderate-Income Total Total Credits 2,183 2,388 364 9,718 14,653
Pipeline Projects 1,213 1,498 166 9,716 12,593
Projected ADUs 890 890 198 0 1,978
Adequate Sites Alternative 80 0 0 2 82
Potential Development Projects 386 1,354 211 6,525 8,476 Vacant 225 846 27 1,832 2,930
Non-Vacant 161 508 184 4,693 5,546
Available 5th Cycle RHNA 714 4,029 688 688
Vacant 23 566 3 592
Non-Vacant 691 3,463 685 4,839
New Opportunity Sites 5,425 1,134 2,120 8,679
Vacant 142 200 0 342
Non-Vacant 5,283 934 2,120 8,337
Total Capacity 12,450 5,738 19,051 37,239
6th Cycle RHNA 10,261 4,457 11,533 26,251
RHNA + 15% Buffer 11,801 5,126 13,263 30,189
Surplus Over RHNA 2,189 1,281 7,518 10,988
(121.3%) (128.7%) (165.2%) (141.9%)
1. Low- and very-low-income capacity on opportunity sites is consolidated per default density assumptions as described in Government Code Section 65583.2(c)(3).
2. Extremely-low-income housing need is assumed to be 50% of the total very-low-income housing need, or about 3,256 units.
Source: ABAG, Final RHNA Plan, December 2021; City of Oakland, 2022 Chapter 3: Sites Inventory Summary
36 Figure 3-1: City of Oakland 2023-2031 Housing Sites Inventory Source: City of Oakland, 2022; Dyett & Bhatia, 2022
Chapter 3: Sites Inventory Summary
37 CREDITS TOWARDS THE RHNA
HCD Guidance provides that the RHNA can be accommodated by looking at 1) projects that are currently in the development pipeline; and 2) by considering alternative means of meeting the RHNA, such as projected accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and a limited number of rehabilitated, converted, or preserved units affordable to lower-income households.
Pipeline Projects
Pipeline projects are projects that have been approved, permitted, or will receive a Certificate of Occupancy during the projection period (June 30, 2022, to December 15, 2030) and can be credited toward the 6th cycle RHNA. Using data from the City’s Accela permitting system, 336 pipeline projects with 12,593 units are spread across the city, with the majority in the Downtown, West Oakland, Eastlake/Fruitvale, and North Oakland/Adams Point areas. Based on the affordability levels or projected rents specified on the project proposal, approximately 21.5 percent of pipeline capacity is affordable for lower-income households, while 1.3 percent is affordable for moderate-income households. The remainder is assumed to be affordable for above-moderateincome households. All pipeline projects are shown in Table C-4, Table C-5, and Table C-6, and shown in Figure C-2 in Appendix C.
Projected ADUs
Cities may consider the development potential of ADUs or junior ADUs (JADUs) to meet the RHNA using past building permit approval patterns since 2018. From 2018 to 2021, approximately 247 permits were issued annually. Using a conservative estimate, the City anticipates approximately 1,978 ADUs, or approximately 247 average permits per year times eight years.) Annual ADU approvals are shown in Table C-7 in Appendix C. To estimate affordability during the projection period, the City used the results of its recent online survey of ADU owners.13 Projected ADU capacity by affordability level is shown in Appendix, Table C-8.
Adequate Alternative Sites
According to HCD, under “limited circumstances” a local government may credit up to 25 percent of their adequate sites requirement per income category through existing units.14 Limited circumstances refer to sites that are substantially rehabilitated; located on a foreclosed property or in a multifamily complex of three or more units converted from non-affordable to affordable rental; preserved at levels affordable to low- or very-low-income households with committed assistance; or preservation of mobile home parks through acquired spaces.
According to Oakland HCD’s 2021-2023 Strategic Action Plan, the City has acquired and converted and/or preserved 600 affordable units between 2018 and 2020. As an ongoing City strategy, there are a number of units 13 This survey was conducted in preparation of the “Oakland ADU Initiative: Existing Conditions and Barriers Report,” which was published January 2020 and revised June 2020. There were 56 responses to the question “How much does the current ADU occupant pay in rent per month? If the occupant is staying in the ADU for free, then mark $0.” 14 More specific conditions that sites included under this option must meet are provided by HCD on their website:
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/building-blocks/site-inventory-analysis/adequate-sites-alternative.shtml Chapter 3: Sites Inventory Summary
38 that the City will convert and/or preserve during the 2023-2031 planning period. The affordability of these projects reflects the actual affordability levels pursuant to the regulatory agreements that will maintain such income-restricted units. These sites and their capacity are shown in Appendix C, Table C-9. 8 OPPORTUNITY SITES
Opportunity sites included in the Inventory are those likely to redevelop with housing considering recent development patterns as well as a variety of factors that indicate incentives to redevelop. These include both vacant and underutilized land in potential development projects, available 5th Cycle RHNA sites, and new opportunity sites identified as part of this cycle.
Potential Development Projects
While pipeline projects are those that have received planning approval or are in the building permit process, there are also a number of other potential projects at various stages in the planning process, including those in the preapplication stage and those with filed and under review planning permits. Such projects are considered likely to develop. These sites are shown in Appendix C, Table C-14.
Available 5th Cycle RHNA Sites
There are a number of opportunity sites selected as part of the 5th cycle RHNA that did not develop over the 2015-2023 period and are still available for housing. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65583.2(c), sites identified to accommodate a portion of Oakland’s lower-income RHNA that were also contained in previous housing element cycles must be zoned at residential densities of at least 30 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) and must also be rezoned to allow for residential use by right for housing developments in which at least 20 percent of the units are affordable to lower income households. The proposed Inventory contains sites identified to accommodate a portion of Oakland’s housing need for lower-income households that were included during the previous housing element cycles. Specific sites carried over from prior housing cycles are described in more detail in Appendix C, Table C-15.
New Opportunity Sites
New opportunity sites not included in previous housing element cycles were identified to meet the remaining RHNA. These sites include both vacant and non-vacant sites and consist of City-owned sites, sites owned by BART, sites located within a specific plan area, and other sites with expressed or potential development interest, including interest determined as part of a community mapping exercise. These sites can be found in Appendix C, Table C-16.
9 Site Selection and Capacity
As part of site analysis, a Housing Element also must demonstrate the projected residential development capacity of sites identified that can realistically be achieved. Creation of realistic assumptions involved survey of recently constructed and approved projects by base zone, density, and height; likelihood of residential conversion and infill development rates; and development capacity modifiers such as existing use on a site, and Chapter 3: Sites Inventory Summary
39 potential development incentives like low assessed value (AV) ratio (when the value of the land is greater than the existing structure) and low floor area ratio (when a building only takes up a small part of a lot.) To identify adequate sites and determine realistic capacity, a parcel-based analysis was conducted in accordance with the State site requirements for very-low and low-income sites. Sites that were excluded include nonresidential projects already in development; sites without much incentive to redevelop; sites that were environmentally constrained by high fire risk, near fault lines, or within a 100-year flood plain; and sites with known contamination. In addition to these considerations, sites that are sought to be designated as capable of accommodating lower-income housing must meet the State-defined standard of 30 du/ac, known as the “default density”, and they must be between 0.5 and 10 acres. A robust description of the methodology and full table of realistic capacity is provided in Appendix C.
9.1 Assessing Housing Sites Through a Fair
Housing Lens
The City of Oakland is committed to ensuring that all of its actions are “fair and just” and further racial equity in Oakland. At the same time, the Environmental Justice Element of the General Plan seeks to address equity issues—including adequate provision and support of affordable, healthy homes—in environmental justice communities. As explored in the Environmental Justice and Racial Equity Baseline(March 2022), there are many factors that contribute to the livability of a healthy community, ranging from physical aspects of the natural and built environment to less tangible aspects like historic, socioeconomic, and cultural settings and conditions. By assessing the housing sites inventory against Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) criteria, the Housing Element is an important step in achieving an equitable future in Oakland.
As described in Appendix D, the site identification requirement in the context of affirmatively furthering fair housing involves not only an analysis of site capacity to accommodate the RHNA, but also whether the identified sites serve the purpose of replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns, transforming racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity.15 Furthermore, this analysis will determine whether programs must be adopted to “make sites available” with appropriate zoning, development standards, and infrastructure capacity to accommodate the new development need.
Chart 3-1 summarizes the development process of the housing sites inventory and demonstrates how the inventory meets the criteria for AFFH. Sites were selected in a manner to further and prioritize investment in historically disadvantaged communities, to decrease displacement pressures, and to increase access to existing higher resourced neighborhoods.16 More information on each of the steps to identify additional sites for lowerincome housing is available in Appendix C. 15 Gov. Code, § 8890.50. subd. (b).
16 To quantify access to opportunity at the neighborhood level, State HCD and the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) convened to form the California Fair Housing Task Force to develop Opportunity Maps that visualize accessibility of low-income adults and children to resources within a jurisdiction. High Resource areas are those that offer low-income adults and children the best access to a high-quality education, economic advancement, and good physical and mental health.
Chapter 3: Sites Inventory Summary
40 Chart 3-1: Housing Sites Inventory Development Process The Inventory was developed in a manner consistent with the City’s mandate to affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH), pursuant to State law. Given the City’s inability to meet the 5th cycle RHNA for lower-and moderateincome households (see Appendix A), an emphasis was placed on locating sites appropriate for these income groups – particularly in higher resource areas. However, increasing access to existing high resource neighborhoods represents just one strategy to increase access to opportunity for lower-income households – the City is also committed to investing in “lower resource” neighborhoods to increase opportunity for the existing residents of those neighborhoods – described further in Appendix D and the Housing Action Plan. Many Oakland residents want to remain in the neighborhoods that they call home, and may not want to move to “higher-resource” areas which tend to be predominantly white and higher-income. Many existing ethnic enclaves offer resources like culturally-specific grocery stores, churches, language services, or other key access points that could be difficult to find elsewhere. Thus, efforts to increase access to exclusive neighborhoods must also be coupled with investment, cultural preservation, and anti-displacement efforts in lower-income neighborhoods and Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs). In parallel with housing development, the City must invest in lower resource neighborhoods with a focus on improving opportunity and outcomes for existing residents—especially historically marginalized BIPOC communities—including investments in equitable access to transit, public facilities, food access, and other amenities.
The State and California Fair Housing Task Force use a series of Opportunity maps developed by the Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) and HCD to define areas of low to high opportunity using a set methodology.
These maps, described more fully in Appendix D, indicate that a significant portion of Oakland is considered low resource or high segregation and poverty. As a result, while the RHNA is met for each income category based on pre-established housing sites in the Inventory, lower-income capacity in “moderate” to “highest” resource neighborhoods remained relatively low. Many of these areas are, in fact, in close proximity to Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) and Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit) lines and are suitable to develop at the densities typically required for lower-income projects. For example, much of the Downtown area—which permits some of the highest densities in the city—is considered low to moderate resource.
Most residential capacity at all income levels is located in the low resource and high segregation and poverty areas, largely due to the fact that over 60.0 percent of land in Oakland is considered lower resource or high segregation Chapter 3: Sites Inventory Summary
41 and poverty per TCAC’s Opportunity Scores. The high and highest resource neighborhoods carry a relatively small portion of the total unit allocation – influenced by environmental constraints present in the Oakland Hills including fault zone hazards and fire risks, limited densities reflected in recent development patterns, and active pipeline projects. About 70.1 percent of Oakland’s highest resource areas are within a very high fire hazard severity zone, as are about 25.7 percent of the city’s high resource areas. Flooding also represents a risk in these areas (.6 percent in highest resource; 6.8 percent in high resource), as do earthquake fault zones (5.0 percent in highest resource; 2.2 percent in high resource) – see Appendix C for additional information. It should also be noted that ADU projections, which estimate significant numbers of units affordable to lower- and moderate-income households, are not included in these estimates. As these units are typically provided in lower-density and higher resource neighborhoods, they will further increase the proportion of lower-income housing available in these neighborhoods. The location of all sites contained in the Inventory compared to TCAC opportunity areas are provided in Figure 3-2 below.
Chapter 3: Sites Inventory Summary
42 Figure 3-2: Housing Sites Access to Opportunity, 2022 Chapter 3: Sites Inventory Summary
43 Increased provision of affordable housing in existing higher resource neighborhoods is a State priority to ensure that the City meets its requirements to affirmatively further fair housing. Therefore, the City undertook the additional effort to locate suitable supplemental sites appropriate for lower-income development in higher resource neighborhoods beyond the preliminary sites inventory – which already met the RHNA in each income category. As discussed in Appendix C, the preliminary sites inventory consisted of active pipeline projects, projects with expressed developer interest, and other City- and community-identified underutilized sites without known environmental constraints and near amenities like transit. To identify supplemental sites, the City started with the entire universe of parcels in Oakland, and filtered out sites based on objective physical constraints and opportunity metrics. More information on these constraints and metrics can be found in Appendix C.
From this list of sites filtered by physical suitability characteristics, other important decision factors were applied, including: sites within moderate to highest resource TCAC Opportunity Areas, within Priority Development Areas (PDAs), within a half-mile of a BART station, and within a “transit-rich” area as defined by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC).17 After completing this exercise, an additional 70 potential sites were identified – generally in the North Oakland/Adams Point, Eastlake/Fruitvale, Glenview/Redwood Heights, North Oakland Hills, and Downtown areas. Among these, 15 parcels sites were identified as supplemental sites that would further AFFH objectives. Feasibility of future residential development on these additional sites were “ground-truthed” by City staff based on underutilization, local knowledge of the sites, and aerial images of the current state of the property. Figure C-7 in Appendix C maps the locations of these supplemental “AFFH sites.”
An affirmative effort was made to locate affordable housing in higher resource neighborhoods to reduce patterns of exclusion and segregation, and the City remains committed to increasing opportunity in neighborhoods that have experienced historic disinvestment. Providing opportunity for lower-income households must be a multipronged approach – the provision of affordable housing in areas that are already higher resourced must be coupled with continued investments in place-based strategies for historically marginalized neighborhoods. As outlined in Appendix D, the production of affordable housing and other strategies that enhance opportunity and housing security where lower-income residents already live—including gentrifying neighborhoods that face significant displacement pressures—must complement strategies to locate additional affordable housing in existing high-opportunity areas.
These actions, as outlined in the Housing Action Plan (Chapter 4) will ensure that lower-income housing does not become concentrated in neighborhoods without active efforts to provide the needed place-based strategies to let historic Oakland neighborhoods thrive. Further, rezoning actions included in the Housing Action Plan will increase the number of sites viable for lower-income housing in high resource neighborhoods; however, since the City is able to meet the RHNA under existing zoning and due to the difficultly associated with projecting the affordability and capacity of sites newly made available for housing during the planning period, sites resulting from these actions are not considered in the sites inventory. Further, the City remains committed to enacting 17 A transit-rich area is defined by MTC as one in which 50 percent of the area is within one half-mile of the following: an existing rail station or ferry terminal (with bus or rail service); a bus stop with peak service frequency of 15 minutes or less; and a planned rail station or planned ferry terminal (with bus or rail service) in the most recently adopted fiscally-constrained Regional Transportation Plan.
Chapter 3: Sites Inventory Summary
44 strong tenant protections and anti-displacement strategies to ensure that the same market forces that promote market rate development in gentrifying neighborhoods do not lead to the displacement of residents who call that neighborhood home.
Chapter 4: Housing Action Plan
45 1 Housing Action Plan
4.1 Goals, Policies, and Actions
This chapter includes the City of Oakland’s goals, policies, and actions critical to respond to increasing housing pressures in Oakland. First, this Housing Element identifies a foundational framework of five overarching goals to comprehensively address the housing crisis and needs of Oaklanders. The goals seek to 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 five goals are:
1. Protect Oakland Residents from Displacement and Prevent Homelessness
2. Preserve and Improve Existing Housing Stock
3. Expand Affordable Housing Opportunities
4. Address Homelessness and Expand Resources for the Unhoused
5. Promote Neighborhood Stability and Health
While these five goals provide an overall framework for addressing the multifaceted housing crisis, the policies and actions specify the means for implementing those goals. Actions include both programs currently in operation as well as new actions needed to address the city’s housing needs.
Goal 1. Protect Oakland Residents from
Displacement and Prevent Homelessness
The San Francisco Bay Area is decades into an extreme housing crisis, and Oakland is at the center of that crisis. Housing production, and particularly affordable housing production, has not kept pace with the region’s economic growth. Because Oakland’s rental and housing market has traditionally been less expensive than other Bay Area cities, Oakland residents experience disproportionately high displacement pressure. As a result, many Oakland residents cannot afford to buy or rent a home within their own Chapter 4: Housing Action Plan
46 neighborhood.18 As households displaced from more expensive Bay Area communities search for more affordable housing options in Oakland and higher-income households continue to move into the city, Oakland’s existing residents continue to bear the brunt of the Bay Area’s housing crisis.19 Community investment, including building new housing, is crucial for all Oakland neighborhoods to prevent displacement.20 With demand outpacing the limited housing supply, competition for finite units and the resulting rising rents may create displacement pressure on low-income residents. Research by the Changing Cities Research Lab at Stanford University and the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco on credit score data shows that lower income residents who move from historically Black neighborhoods tend to move to neighborhoods with lower housing values and health scores, suggesting movement under constrained circumstances; over time, fewer of these low-income movers stayed within Oakland or moved into Oakland as affordable options declined.21 Rising rents are a factor in increasing rates of homelessness. According to a 2019 survey, 11 percent of unsheltered Oakland residents report that rent increases were a primary cause of homelessness, in addition to job loss (13 percent) and other money issues (10 percent).22
Oakland is committed to enabling renters and owners to stay in their homes and communities, eliminating all involuntary moves out of the city. Goals and policies that are part of a comprehensive protection strategy are designed to prevent displacement and homelessness, and to ensure that lowincome renters and homeowners have supports they need to stay in their homes and communities as increased neighborhood investment occurs.
HOW THIS GOAL AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERS FAIR
HOUSING
To meet the City’s equity goals and mandate to affirmatively further fair housing, this goal—including the policies and actions contained within—will advance the City’s commitment to reducing racial and economic disparities across Oakland. This goal seeks to protect from displacement pressures and prevent homelessness, both of which disproportionately impact Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) communities throughout Oakland. For instance, enhanced tenant protections will crack down on tenant-based racial discrimination in the housing market. This will be particularly important as the 18 Policy Link, “A Roadmap Toward Equity: Housing Solutions for Oakland, California.” 2015. 19 Urban Displacement Project, “Mapping Displacement, Gentrification, and Exclusion in the San Francisco Bay Area.” 2018. Available at https://www.urbandisplacement.org/maps/sf-bay-area-gentrification-and-displacement/. 20 Office of Policy Development and Research, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, “Displacement of Lower-Income Families in Urban Areas Report.” May 2018. Available at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/DisplacementReport.pdf. 21 Hwang, Jackelyn, and Vineet Gupta. “Residential and Neighborhood Instability in Oakland.” 2021. Available at https://ccrl.stanford.edu/publications/residential-and-neighborhood-instability-in-oakland. 22 City of Oakland, “Homelessness County & Survey: Comprehensive Report.” 2019. Available at https://everyonehome.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/2019HIRDReport_Oakland_2019-Final.pdf.
Chapter 4: Housing Action Plan
47 eviction moratorium established during the COVID-19 pandemic eventually comes to an end, and further pressure is exerted on the residential rental market.
Rent stabilization and just cause protections also ensure that as more amenities are added to a neighborhood (and it becomes higher resource), the existing diverse residents are able to stay. Residents of historically disinvested neighborhoods should be able to remain in their homes and enjoy the results of improved amenities and increased services. In the long-term, this will enhance access to opportunity for historically marginalized and disadvantaged communities. Further, by pursuing live/work preferences for Oakland residents and taking actions to assist tenants at risk of eviction, Oakland helps tenants avoid displacement or concentration in disadvantaged neighborhoods.
Through more robust data collection efforts, the City will also be able to better identify and correct barriers to opportunity. These efforts include the creation of a rental registry and other displacement measure tracking. More accurate data will also ensure that the City is able to better target its existing and future housing resources to generate the maximum impact.
POLICY 1.1. TENANT PROTECTIONS AND ANTI-DISPLACEMENT
Action 1.1.1: Continue to Implement the Rent
Adjustment Program (RAP).
The RAP limits rent increases on units covered by the Rent Adjustment Ordinance (Chapter 8.22 of the Oakland Municipal Code) based on a formula tied to increases in the Consumer Price Index. These provisions were further strengthened in 2017. The City will continue to implement the RAP and enforce the Rent Adjustment Ordinance. The City also enforces AB 1482 rent increase caps and just provisions for certain units not covered by the City’s ordinances.
Responsible Party: Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development Potential Funding Source: Annual Rent Adjustment Fee
Timeframe: Ongoing, 2023-2031
Objective:All tenant rights and protections under applicable City and State law will be enforced.
Action 1.1.2: Enforce Just Cause for Eviction
measures.
Just Cause for Evictions protections are enforced as part of the RAP, and are contained within Chapter
8.22, Article II of the Oakland Municipal Code. The City will continue to enforce just cause measures and will expand tenant protections as feasible—including clarifying and limiting the definition of nuisance or other just cause evictions.
Chapter 4: Housing Action Plan
48 Responsible Party: Oakland Planning & Building Department; Oakland Public Works Department; Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development; Oakland Department of Transportation
Potential Funding Source: Annual Rent Adjustment Fee
Timeframe: Ongoing, 2023-2031
Objective:All tenant rights and protections under applicable City and State law will be enforced.
Action 1.1.3: Strengthen Ellis Act Ordinance
protections.
The Ellis Act is statewide law that permits property owners to terminate tenancy when withdrawing residential units from the rental market. Although the City cannot prohibit Ellis Act evictions, it has adopted the Ellis Act Ordinance (Chapter 8.22, Article III of the Oakland Municipal Code) to set specific requirements that must be followed when removing a property to discourage violations of the Act and prevent the displacement of renters. The City will continue to enforce the Ordinance and strengthen renter protections—including proactive enforcement of eviction protections—in case of an Ellis Act eviction where feasible. The City will also join neighboring Bay Area cities to advocate for statewide reform to the Ellis Act to stabilize rental housing.
Responsible Party: Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development Potential Funding Source: Annual Rent Adjustment Fee
Timeframe: Ongoing, 2023-2031
Objective:All tenant rights and protections under applicable City and State law will be enforced.
Action 1.1.4: Implement and expand tenant
relocation measures.
On January 16, 2018, the City of Oakland passed the Uniform Residential Tenant Relocation Ordinance (Ord. No. 13468) to establish a uniform schedule of relocation payments which are now extended to tenants evicted when the owner or qualifying relative moves in and for other “no tenant fault” evictions. The Uniform Relocation Ordinance (Ordinance) requires owners to provide relocation payments to tenants displaced by code compliance activities, owner or relative move-ins, Ellis Act activity, and condominium conversions. The City will continue to implement and enforce the Ordinance, adjusting base payments for inflation annually on July 1st. Additional relocation payments shall be required for tenant households in rental units that include lower-income, elderly or disabled tenants, and/or minor children.
Responsible Party: Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development Chapter 4: Housing Action Plan
49 Potential Funding Source: Annual Rent Adjustment Fee Timeframe: Ongoing, 2023-2031
Objective: All tenant rights and protections under applicableCity and State law will be enforced.
Action 1.1.5: Provide eviction defense and
implement a right to counseling.
The City will explore the feasibility of implementing a tenant right to counsel, where all tenants who receive an eviction notice or have been served with an unlawful detainer lawsuit have right to free legal representation. This may include partnering with nonprofit organizations to provide those services.
Responsible Party: Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development Potential Funding Source: Private donations or other local, State or federal sources as available Timeframe: Ongoing, 2023- 2031
Objective: As funding permits, all tenants facing eviction will be provided with counsel to represent them during eviction proceedings.
Action 1.1.6: Expand rent control in a limited
manner to maintain affordability.
Rent control measures are outlined in Oakland’s Rent Adjustment Ordinance and enforced through the RAP. Units are covered by the Rent Adjustment Ordinance if they are within a building built prior to 1983 and there are two or more units in the building. The City will consider a limited expansion of the number of units subject to rent control to maintain affordability.
Responsible Party: Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development Potential Funding Source: Annual Rent Adjustment Fee
Timeframe: Ongoing, 2023-2031
Objective: To the extent permitted by State law, Oakland will expand renter protections.
Action 1.1.7: Monitor neighborhood
displacement risk factors.
As the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic continue to unfold and eviction moratoriums lift, there is an urgent need to monitor displacement pressures. The City will regularly monitor displacement risk factors—including rising housing costs, rapid demographic changes, neighborhood instability, and trends in out- and in-migration across neighborhoods in Oakland—to understand local displacement Chapter 4: Housing Action Plan
50 risk. This data will be used to better target anti-displacement programs and prioritize neighborhoods with a high risk of displacement. This data will also be used to better understand the causes of displacement and help tailor City programs to meet existing housing needs. The City will carry out the bi-annual Resident Mini Pulse Survey on the state of housing security as part of these monitoring efforts.
Responsible Party: Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development Potential Funding Source: Annual Rent Adjustment fee
Timeframe: Ongoing, 2023-2031
Objective: The City of Oakland will include displacement-related statistics in a broader housing or community dashboard available on the City website.
Action 1.1.8: Create and maintain a rental
housing registry.
A rental housing registry is a database of all rental units within Oakland and would be used to track properties subject to rent control provisions, Just Cause for Eviction measures, and other propertyspecific policies and requirements. RAP staff have been studying the effectiveness of a rental housing registry in Oakland and plan to present initial findings to City Council during the summer of 2022. The City could 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 compatible with tenant protection law.
Responsible Party: Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development Potential Funding Source: Annual Rent Adjustment Fee
Timeframe: Ongoing, 2023-2031
Objective: By 2023, the City will design and implement a rental housing registry.
Action 1.1.9: Continue and expand the Tenant
Protection Ordinance (TPO).
The TPO (Chapter 8.22, Article V of the Oakland Municipal Code) is meant to deter harassment by property owners and provide tenants legal recourse if they are harassed by the property owner. The TPO provides civil remedies for violations and implements tenant anti-harassment actions. The City will continue to enforce the TPO and expand anti-harassment protections, including tenant protections in ADUs.
Responsible Party: Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development Potential Funding Source: Annual Rent Adjustment Fee
Timeframe: Ongoing, 2023-2031
Chapter 4: Housing Action Plan
51 Objective: All tenant rights and protections under applicable City and State law will be enforced.
Action 1.1.10: Enforce the tenant right to return.
Currently, through the Tenant Move Out Agreement Ordinance, Oakland renters have the right to return to their rental unit after certain no-fault evictions, such as code compliance evictions after the repairs are completed or Ellis Act evictions if the units are re-rented. Further, State law (SB 330) requires that property developers provide the right to return for low-income renters when a property is demolished and redeveloped, and that the charged rent must be affordable. The City will increase awareness of State and local requirements and will enforce affordability requirements in new development projects. Further, pursuant to Action 2.2.5 the City will extend this right beyond the sunset date of SB 330.
Responsible Party: Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development Potential Funding Source: Annual Rent Adjustment Fee
Timeframe: Ongoing, 2023-2031
Objective: All tenant rights and protections under applicable City and State law will be enforced.
Action 1.1.11: Provide a local preference in
affordable housing projects.
The City will continue to implement a preference for Oaklanders who have been displaced, neighborhood residents, Oakland residents and Oakland workers in the selection of tenants or homebuyers for affordable housing projects and programs assisted by City housing Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) funds.
Responsible Party: Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development Potential Funding Source: Annual Rent Adjustment Fee
Timeframe: Ongoing, 2023-2031
Objective: The City will continue to provide Oakland residents and workers a preference for Cityfunded affordable housing to the extent allowed by law and the constraints of other involved funding sources.
Action 1.1.12: Negotiate for appropriate
community benefits during development
Chapter 4: Housing Action Plan
52 agreement approvals for major entitlements and
use of City land.
While negotiating development agreements with developers for large scale market-rate and nonresidential projects on City land or development agreements requiring complex, multi-phase entitlements, the City will advocate for appropriate community benefits to mitigate any displacement pressures that result from the development. This may include increased levels of required affordable housing units. The City will consult with community-based organizations and residents impacted by developments to evaluate the extent of community benefits required to properly mitigate displacement impacts.
Responsible Party: Oakland Planning & Building Department, Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development
Potential Funding Source: Permit fees
Timeframe: Ongoing, 2023-2031
Objective: Significantly reduce displacement pressures through negotiating appropriate community benefits during the development agreements process.
Action 1.1.13: Prevent Oakland residents from
becoming homeless/Fewer people become
homeless.
Keep Oakland Housed (a public-private partnership), the federally funded Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP), and Lifelong Medical Care Services that help renters from becoming homeless through rental assistance, legal advice, housing counseling, and case management.
The City will continue to support and align City, Alameda County, and private partners (such as community-based and faith-based organizations that have roots in communities whose members are disproportionately at risk of homelessness) to strengthen their capacity to prevent displacement and respond effectively when people are experiencing a housing crisis, as well as expanding these types of programs and designing new ones that identify, assist, and prioritize funding for those who are most at risk of becoming homeless. In addition, the City will continue to make information about tenant protection, anti-displacement, rental assistance, and homelessness services available on the City’s website and at City facilities and strive to improve public awareness of these programs. These efforts are especially key in the wake of the COVID-19 crisis and the eventual end of the eviction moratorium. Additional tenant protection actions are included in Actions 1.1.1-1.1.10.
Responsible Party:Oakland Human Services Department; Oakland Housing and Community Development Department
Chapter 4: Housing Action Plan
53 Potential Funding Source: Federal ERAP funds, private contributions, other local, State, and federal resources as available
Timeframe: Ongoing, 2023-2031
Objective: 100% of available rent relief and eviction prevention funds are spent according to funder guidelines.
Goal 2. Preserve and Improve Existing
Affordable Housing Stock
Oakland’s existing affordable housing stock is an important resource for the city’s lower- and moderateincome population. Housing preservation means retaining existing built affordable housing and extending its affordability for current and future tenants. Preventing the loss of valuable existing affordable units is a cost-effective way of maintaining this resource as well as keeping existing residents who may be more vulnerable to increasing cost pressures in their homes.
Preservation, improvement, and maintenance also have health and equity co-benefits—addressing housing habitability issues can help to narrow inequitable racial and ethnic gaps in substandard housing conditions and reduce the burden of maintenance challenges for lower-income homeowners. This goal includes policies and actions that conserve and improve existing housing stock.
HOW THIS GOAL AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERS FAIR
HOUSING
This goal sets forth several policies and actions that will advance fair housing in Oakland. Actions that physically rehabilitate housing units and make other safety improvements to the existing housing stock reduce displacement and ensure longtime residents are able to enjoy new community amenities. This physical rehabilitation also improves the environmental determinants of health, thereby advancing the City’s Environmental Justice goals. Further, as discussed in Appendices B and D, BIPOC residents of Oakland are disproportionately impacted by substandard housing issues. Actions contained within this goal will reduce the prevalence of these substandard housing issues citywide. Universal design strategies will also increase housing access for seniors and people with disabilities.
Further, 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. These actions include range from resale controls to demolition and conversion protections. A Community Opportunity to Purchase/Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act, if adopted, would allow for tenants to access the wealth building and stability of benefits of Chapter 4: Housing Action Plan
54 homeownership. Historic preservation actions also preserve cultural institutions and history that would otherwise be at risk of loss due to gentrification.
POLICY 2.1 EXISTING HOUSING STOCK IMPROVEMENT
Action 2.1.1: Support home rehabilitation
programs.
The City will continue to provide housing rehabilitation assistance to very low- and low-income homeowners and homeowners with special housing needs to address code violations, repair to major building systems in danger of failure, abatement of lead-based paint hazards, minor home repairs for seniors, and emergency repairs:
● Home Maintenance & Improvement Program (HMIP) Deferred Loan Program ● Emergency Home Repair Program Loan Program
● Weatherization and Energy Retrofit Loan Program
● Alameda County Minor Home Repair Grant Program
● Lead Hazard Control and Paint Program
● Neighborhood Housing Rehabilitation Program
● Access Improvement Program
The City will engage local partners and fair housing experts to help promote awareness of, and broad participation in these programs. The City will continue to implement, annually review, and revise, as needed, program guidelines for housing rehabilitation assistance. The City will target resources, as possible, to expand opportunities throughout the community, including in lower-income and lower resource areas, and will strive to build community capacity and technical know-how by connecting homeowners with local labor to carry out home rehabilitation projects. This assistance will be particularly targeted to neighborhoods experiencing or at severe risk of displacement and gentrification.
The City will also commit to explore additional funding sources for rehabilitation work beyond limited CDBG funds, which provides funding for many of Oakland HCD’s programs.
Responsible Party: Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development, Residential Lending Division
Potential Funding Source: Community Development Block Grants and potentially other funding sources as available
Timeline: Ongoing throughout the 2023-2031 period and beyond Chapter 4: Housing Action Plan
55 Objective: As funding is available, the City of Oakland will continue to fund and operate home rehabilitation programs. At current funding trends, this will allow for approximately 80 rehabilitation projects each year.
Action 2.1.2: Promote healthy homes and leadsafe housing.
The City will continue implementation of the Lead-Safe Homes Program to assist low- and moderateincome homeowners with lead paint identification and remediation, prioritizing resources for disadvantaged communities with high rates of asthma. The City will also continue to partner with the Alameda County Community Development Agency’s Healthy Homes Department to provide education, lead-safety skills training, and on-site consultations for Oakland property owners and conduct lead poisoning prevention and asthma trigger interventions for Oakland residents. In accordance with Oakland’s Equitable Climate Action Plan 2030, transition away from natural gas appliances, which has been proven to increase development of asthma in children by 24 percent.
Responsible Party: Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development, Residential Lending Division
Potential Funding Source: Community Development Block Grants and potentially other funding sources as available
Timeline: Ongoing throughout the 2023-2031 period and beyond Objective: As funding becomes available, the City of Oakland will implement programs to reduce health hazards from lead and natural gas appliances.
Action 2.1.3: Conduct proactive rental
inspections.
The City will develop a proactive, data-driven housing inspection program to track code compliance, with focus on safety, and housing quality among the City’s rental stock. The City will work with community partners to develop appropriate enforcement mechanisms, including tenant protection and anti-displacement mechanisms to ensure tenants are not displaced as a result of proactive inspections turning up housing habitability issues and/or raising rents due to the cost of fixing habitability issues.
Further, the City will prioritize inspections in areas with older housing stock and health disparities and seek funding to streamline the inspection/rehabilitation process by connecting property-owners to technical and financial assistance for safety and accessibility improvements at the time of inspection.
Responsible Party: Oakland Planning & Building Department Chapter 4: Housing Action Plan
56 Potential Funding Source: General Plan Surcharge, permit fees Timeline: 2023-2025
Objective: The City will develop a proactive rental inspections program to significantly improve housing safety and quality and address housing needs, particularly in areas with older housing stock and communities experiencing health disparities.
Action 2.1.4: Support historic preservation and
rehabilitation.
The City will support the preservation and rehabilitation of both the existing historic housing stock and adaptively reused non-residential structures through a variety of strategies, including continued implementation of Mills Act Contracts and the Oakland Community Buying Program. The City will support the preservation of historic, archaeological, and tribal cultural resources and their incorporation into project site planning where feasible. As described in Action 3.2.4, the City will also promote adaptive reuse to promote historic preservation.
Responsible Party: Oakland Planning & Building Department Potential Funding Source: General Plan Surcharge, permit fees Timeline: Ongoing, 2023-2031
Objective: The City will continue to implement the Mills Act and the Oakland Community Buying Program to support to help support historic preservation.
Action 2.1.5: Implement universal design
strategies.
The City will initiate community engagement to understand the need for universal design strategies, including with seniors, people experiencing disabilities, and community-based organizations with insight and experience with accessibility issues. The City will consider the adoption of a Universal Design Ordinance, which would help close loopholes, ensure good faith compliance of ADA provisions,ensure that accommodations are built into new developments, and allow Oaklanders to age in place.
Responsible Party: Oakland Planning & Building Department Potential Funding Source: General Plan Surcharge, permit fees Timeline: 2025-2027
Chapter 4: Housing Action Plan
57 Objective: The City will consider adopting a Universal Design Ordinance to address housing needs and improve housing conditions for seniors, people experiencing disabilities, and other communities with accessibility issues.
Action 2.1.6: Explore funding for improved
indoor air quality.
The City will explore Stateand federal funding sources to provide financial assistance to property owners and very low- and low-income homeowners to offset some of the cost of investing in better ventilation and air filtration systems (e.g., MERV filter systems) to improve indoor air quality in existing single- and multifamily residential units, with a priority for homes in high air pollution areas such as near freeways.
Responsible Party: Oakland Public Works Department, Environmental Services Division Potential Funding Source: State and Federal Environmental Health Agencies Timeline: Ongoing, 2023-2031
Objective: Significantly improve indoor air quality and address housing need in existing singleand multifamily residential buildings.
POLICY 2.2 PRESERVE THE AFFORDABILITY OF EXISTING HOMES Action 2.2.1: Continue to implement resale
controls on assisted housing.
The City will continue to use financing agreements for both City-assisted ownership and rental development projects to ensure that units remain permanently affordable through covenants running with the land.
Responsible Party: Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development Potential Funding Source: HOME, HUD, CALHFA, County, misc. State/Federal housing programs, AHP private funds
Timeframe: Ongoing, 2023-2031
Objectives: 100% of City-assisted homeownership and rental units will have their affordability covenants effectively enforced.
Chapter 4: Housing Action Plan
58 Action 2.2.2: Enforce, monitor, and preserve
affordable housing covenants with an emphasis
on “at-risk” units.
The City will proactively monitor and enforce affordable housing covenants, and will conduct outreach to the owners of assisted units that are at risk of conversion to market-rate housing. The City will prioritize the preservation of units at some level of risk of converting in the next 10 years by actively working with and encouraging the owners of those properties to extend their covenants.
Responsible Party: Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development Potential Funding Source: HOME, HUD, CALHFA, County, misc. State/Federal housing programs, AHP private funds
Timeframe: Ongoing, 2023-2031
Objectives: As funding becomes available, deed-restricted affordable housing units at risk of losing their affordability will be protected from a loss of affordability protections.
Action 2.2.3: Enforce residential demolition and
conversion restrictions for residential hotels.
Residential hotels, also referred to as single-room occupancy (SRO) units, provide an important source of deeply affordable housing in City. As such, Oakland has enacted regulations to limit the demolition, conversion, and rehabilitation to charge higher rents of existing residential hotel units. The City has recently amended these regulations (Chapter 17.153 of the Oakland Planning Code) to strengthen protections for residential hotels and will continue to enforce these protections to preserve their affordability.
Responsible Party: Oakland Planning & Building Department Potential Funding Source: General Plan Surcharge and permit fees Timeframe: Ongoing, 2023-2031
Objectives: Continue to enforce Single-Room Occupancy (SRO) regulations to preserve affordability and meet housing need.
Action 2.2.4: Limit condominium conversions.
The conversion of rental housing to condominiums provides a risk to the affordability of Oakland’s housing stock. The City recently amended its condominium conversion regulations to require replacement rental housing for the conversion of two or more housing units, to remove the provision allowing the generation of conversion rights when the units are offered as rental units for seven or more years, to acknowledge the applicability of the Oakland Just Cause for Eviction Ordinance and the Chapter 4: Housing Action Plan
59 Oakland Rent Adjustment Ordinance, and to afford greater rights and protections to existing tenants.
The City will strictly enforce these recently adopted regulations to preserve Oakland’s rental housing supply.
Responsible Party: Oakland Planning & Building Department Potential Funding Source: General Plan Surcharge and permit fees Timeframe: Ongoing, 2023-2031
Objectives: Continue to enforce condominium conversion regulations to preserve rental housing supply and prevent displacement.
Action 2.2.5: Extend local replacement unit
provisions.
State law (SB 330) mandates that “protected units” are replaced with comparably affordable units when a residential building is demolished and redeveloped. The City will codify and extend replacement provisions pursuant to State law beyond the established sunset date. Further, the City will engage in strict monitoring and enforcement of the law to ensure replacement units are provided. This will include active outreach to developers to ensure they are aware of and comply with replacement unit provisions. The City will require that any demolition proposals include sufficient relocation assistance and right to return to the new replacement units.
Responsible Party: Oakland Planning & Building Department; Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development
Potential Funding Source: General Plan Surcharge and permit fees Timeframe: Ongoing, 2023-2031
Objectives: Codify and extend local replacement unit provisions to ensure compliance and prevent displacement.
Action 2.2.6: Reduce housing speculation.
Housing speculation can cause housing costs to increase, leading to higher rates of displacement and increased exclusivity in higher resource neighborhoods. To curb the negative effects of speculation, the City will consider implementing an anti-speculation tax, which would apply a fee when a property is sold shortly after purchase. The City will conduct a market study to understand the potential impacts of such a tax and its appropriateness within Oakland. As discussed in Action 2.2.8, the City will also explore a possible Tenant Opportunity to Purchase/Community Opportunity to Purchase Act.
Responsible Party: Oakland Department of Finance
Chapter 4: Housing Action Plan
60 Potential Funding Source: General Plan Fund for the study; self-funding, if implemented Timeframe: 2026
Objectives: Study and consider implementing an anti-speculation tax to prevent displacement.
Action 2.2.7: Provide additional subsidy for
residential hotels.
The City will consider allowing owners of residential hotels that agree to restrict occupancy to lowerincome residents to transfer development rights to create an endowed source of funding for an internal subsidy for such residents, or for maintenance/facility upgrades that do not increase rents.
Responsible Party: Oakland Planning & Building Department Potential Funding Source: General Plan Surcharge and permit fees Timeframe: 2025-2027
Objectives: Preserve SROs and meet housing need.
Action 2.2.8: Investigate a Tenant/Community
Opportunity to Purchase Act.
A Tenant/Community Opportunity to Purchase Act, referred to as TOPA/COPA, gives tenants and nonprofit organizations the opportunity to purchase their home when it goes up for sale, thereby preserving that housing unit as affordable. TOPA/COPA policies are under development in multiple Bay Area cities, including Oakland and the neighboring City of Berkeley. The City will study the effectiveness of a TOPA/COPA model suited to local conditions, which may include targeted TOPA/COPA in certain neighborhoods, equity-building mechanisms, racial equity impact considerations, or other approaches that may be appropriate to Oakland.
Responsible Agency: City Council; Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development
Potential Funding Source: Impact fees, General Fund, infrastructure bond funds, HOME, CDBG, and other local, State, and federal funding as available Timeline: Investigate and, if applicable, implement a TOPA/COPA policy (if appropriate) by 2024-2025
Objective: Oakland will study, and if appropriate implement, a TOPA/COPA policy by 2025.
Chapter 4: Housing Action Plan
61 Goal 3. Expand Affordable Housing
Opportunities
General production of housing is one of the most important strategies in addressing Oakland's housing crisis. Thoughtfully adding housing at every level can help reduce market competition for existing homes, a primary driver in displacement and homelessness. What the community needs most, however, is a concerted effort to increase production of homes that are affordable to very-low-, low-, and moderateincome households. In particular, Oakland needs more deeply affordable housing, particularly housing affordable to extremely-low-income residents, and housing that remains permanently affordable. One of the key objectives in producing more housing is overcoming patterns of discrimination and opening up neighborhoods that have historically been exclusionary to communities of color and low-income residents, while simultaneously refocusing resources and protections in historically disinvested neighborhoods (see Policy 2.2).
During the previous RHNA cycle, the City permitted more above-moderate-income housing than required by the RHNA. However, it fell short of meeting its lower- and moderate-income need, which has nearly doubled during the current 6th cycle RHNA. The shortfall is largely due to market constraints such as the cost of land, building materials and construction labor, as well as a lack of funding for affordable housing development. Other constraints are discussed in Appendix C. To meet the increased need for affordable housing, the City will identify new funding sources, expand existing programs and introduce new strategies to further incentivize high quality and abundant affordable housing development.
Like other Bay Area cities, one of the major challenges to developing permanent affordable housing in Oakland is the extremely high cost of development, especially the cost of land, labor, and materials. As California’s housing crisis continues into another decade, new and innovative models for the development and maintenance of permanently affordable housing are needed to overcome these obstacles and meet Oakland’s increased housing needs. Recognizing the limited resources that staff already operate with, the City will welcome models that are community-based and are eligible for external funding. For the next eight years and beyond, the City will cultivate an atmosphere that encourages new approaches to meet Oakland’s affordable housing needs. The City will also encourage models that emphasize community ownership of land and housing to promote permanent affordability.
Oakland also has very little vacant land available for development and is reliant primarily on reuse of existing sites for development. The vacant parcels that do exist, however, can often provide significant opportunities for residential development. Further, vacant residential and commercial buildings and units could provide potential sources of additional housing supply that are not currently available. As part of this goal, the City will enact a variety of strategies to incentivize active residential uses on vacant land and units.
Chapter 4: Housing Action Plan
62 Although housing is largely provided by the private and nonprofit sectors, the City has one major tool to influence development patterns and increase housing development of affordable housing and allow for other housing types: the Planning Code. To ensure that the Planning Code is responsive to housing policies and programs, the City will need specific zoning amendments that meet Oakland’s changing needs and remove identified constraints to residential development. The suite of amendments the City will undertake range from short- to long-term solutions, some of which will be carried out alongside the update of the Housing Element and others as part of the comprehensive update to the City’s General Plan that includes the Land Use and Transportation Element and will continue through 2025 after the Housing Element adoption.
The length and cost of the permitting process—which are ultimately reflected in a unit’s selling price— are also generally within the City’s control. An onerous and lengthy review process can be one of the most significant barriers to housing construction because some developers may decide that the cost of project review and its potential delays simply overcomes the revenue of new housing, particularly in the case of projects that may be only marginally financially feasible and/or profitable. Recognizing that long permitting processes are a statewide issue, a slate of new legislation, including SB 35, SB 330, AB 2162, and SB 1483, has introduced new requirements that are intended to facilitate the production of affordable housing through a streamlined residential permitting process.
The City of Oakland currently operates both an online permit center and an in-person “one-stop” permit center with counter services staffed by the Departments of Planning and Building, Fire, and Transportation. However, there are opportunities to better steward small nonprofit and BIPOC developers, homeowners looking to add additional units, affordable housing developers, and other community partners through the residential development process.
This goal will encourage the production of affordable housing and guide development of a more diverse range of housing choices for households of all types, incomes, and special needs; and promote changes to City tools like permitting processes and the zoning code to make it easier and faster to build affordable housing.
HOW THIS GOAL AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERS FAIR
HOUSING
Though Oakland is one of California’s most diverse cities overall, there is significant racial segregation between the city’s neighborhoods. As a result of past practices such as mortgage redlining, disinvestment in neighborhoods of color, racially restrictive covenants on housing development, exclusionary zoning, destructive urban renewal, highway development and predatory lending in neighborhoods of color, many of Oakland’s BIPOC residents live in neighborhoods that lack access to quality amenities or upward mobility. As higher income people move to Oakland, low-income neighborhoods of color are also more susceptible to gentrification and continue to bear the burden of the city’s increased housing supply. In contrast, some high-resource areas remain disproportionately white in their racial composition Chapter 4: Housing Action Plan
63 because they are zoned primarily for single-family homes, and the exclusion of lower cost housing types prevents BIPOC and lower-income families from moving to these neighborhoods. See Appendices B and D for additional detail on these patterns of segregation. 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.
During the outreach process, many community members expressed desire to see Oakland be more inclusive and retain and strengthen its diversity with a wider array of housing choices, such as duplexes, fourplexes, cottage courts, and garden apartments throughout the city. These smaller, “missing middle” housing types23 tend to be more affordable by design—compared to single-family homes—and thus provide additional options for first-time homebuyers, single people, and moderate-income households.
These housing types can also increase the housing stock in previously built-out neighborhoods, and as such are an important factor for Oakland to meet its moderate-income RHNA target. Accessory dwelling units – also known as ADUs, granny flats, secondary units, in-law units, and backyard cottages – are another important strategy to increase the supply of affordable housing. ADUs offer an alternative for people who want to rent but do not want to live in larger apartment complexes, and tend to be located in lower-density and higher resource neighborhoods that often contain few other smaller affordable rental options. As described in Appendix C, the majority of ADUs in Oakland are estimated to have rents affordable to lower-income households. The community also expressed a desire to see increased housing typologies and affordable housing throughout the city, including existing working-class neighborhoods that are currently low-resource due to systemic racism and disinvestment. Efforts specifically aimed at increasing affordable housing production are included in Policy 3.3.
In March 2021, the City Council directed the Planning Bureau to explore criteria for allowing four units on all residential parcels citywide, including in areas that are zoned to only allow single-family homes— prior to the passage of SB 9.24 Zoning reform actions under this goal will expand on this direction and help to open up exclusionary neighborhoods. Further, other housing development reforms—like permit streamlining and ADU promotion—will also help expand housing options in traditionally exclusionary neighborhoods.
Further, certain segments of the population face greater challenges when finding decent, affordable housing due to special characteristics. Such characteristics may include one’s employment and income, 23 Missing Middle Housing is a range of house-scale buildings with multiple units (e.g., duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, cottage courts, and multiplexes) that are compatible in scale and form with detached single-family homes and are located in a walkable neighborhood. Moreinformation is available at missingmiddlehousing.com. 24 SB 9, in effect as of January 1, 2022, permits increased density on single-family lots through duplexes and lot splits.
Chapter 4: Housing Action Plan
64 family characteristics, disability, or other conditions. Thus, some residents face greater housing cost burden, overcrowding, or other housing problems.
State Housing Element law defines “special needs” groups to include persons with disabilities (including developmental disabilities), the elderly, large households, female-headed households, homeless people, and farmworkers. Many households within these special needs groups also fall within the extremely-lowincome category. The special needs of individuals within these groups are wide ranging; in addition to affordable and accessible housing opportunities in proximity to transportation and other services, individuals with disabilities or who are experiencing homelessness may need on-site support and services.
Meanwhile, female-headed households benefit from on-site childcare, and universal design elements such as zero-step entrances and single floor living are important considerations for senior housing.
Special needs housing is an important component of Oakland’s commitment to just and fair treatment of all individuals. It is critical that housing conditions foster an environment where everyone can participate, prosper, and reach their full potential. Actions contained within this goal will expand funding sources for affordable housing, including bonus points for serving special needs populations, will together allow for the expansion of affordable opportunities for special needs populations in highopportunity neighborhoods. Actions related to expanding affordable housing options that are accessible to extremely-low-income households are also contained under Policy 3.1.
POLICY 3.1 FACILITATE PRODUCTION OF DEEPLY AFFORDABLE
HOUSING25
Action 3.1.1. Develop a project-based rental or operating subsidy program for extremely-low-income residents.
Create either a capitalized operating subsidy or a rental housing subsidy for extremely-low-income households. This will help promote the financial viability of extremely-low-income housing.
Responsible Agency: Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development Timeline: Program will be launched by December 2023
Potential Funding Source: State of California Permanent Local Housing Allocation Objective: This program will fund project-based rental or operating subsidy for at least 16 units of extremely-low-income housing per year, for a total of at least 56 extremely-low-income units by 2031.
25 Deeply Affordable housing for persons at 30% area median income or below.
Chapter 4: Housing Action Plan
65 Action 3.1.2. Align and target Oakland Housing Authority Section 8 Vouchers for permanent supportive housing and extremely-lowincome units.
The Oakland Housing Authority will continue targeting vouchers to support the development of extremely-low-income Housing through the award of project-based vouchers.
Responsible Agency: Oakland Housing Authority
Timeline: Ongoing, 2023-2031
Potential Funding Source: Federal Section 8 and/or VASH vouchers.
Objective: As vouchers are available, at least 20% of units in assisted developments will be deed restricted as extremely-low-income.
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-family-dominated 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 Type Residential generally to 3,000 square feet to remove constraints on lot splitting. The City will permit a variety of building types (attached, detached, bungalow courts) to maximize flexibility, neighborhood scale and potential opportunities for homeownership (split lots and condominiums) in parallel with Policy 5.1. The City will develop objective design standardsat the neighborhood level to ensure that multi-unit neighborhood scale housing types designed in a manner that is compatible with the scale of existing residential housing forms in these zoning districts is permitted ministerially.
Chapter 4: Housing Action Plan
66 Responsible Party: Oakland Planning & Building Department Potential Funding Source: General Plan Surcharge and permit fees, 2415 fund of the City, SB2 Grant for Objective Design Standards
Timeframe: 2023
Objective: Significantly increase production of multi-unit housing types (including duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes) in current single-family-dominated neighborhoods to match housing need.
Action 3.2.2: Promote live/work housing and housing for artists.
The City will update development standards and land use regulations to promote artist and live/work units in areas where appropriate under the General Plan. The City will encourage employers, trade groups, and arts and cultural districts to provide housing opportunities that are affordable to artists and similar professionals. The City will continue to allow the conversion of existing commercial nonresidential buildings to joint live/work units in specific commercial/industrial locations while considering the impacts on nearby viable businesses.
Chapter 4: Housing Action Plan
67 Responsible Party: Oakland Planning & Building Department Potential Funding Source: General Plan Surcharge and permit fees, 2415 fund of the City, SB2 Grant for Objective Design Standards
Timeframe: 2025
Objective: Significantly increase production of live/work housing and housing for artists to match housing need.
Action 3.2.3: Promote flexibility in adaptive reuse to increase the housing stock.
The City will encourage the reuse and rehabilitation of Oakland’s historic building stock to provide additional housing units and housing Oakland residents, keep the neighborhood character, and to preserve the energy embodied in the building’s original construction. The City will amend land use regulations and development standards in the Planning Code to reduce constraints on adaptive reuse of commercial buildings for residential use. Reuse in environmentally sensitive areas—including in warehouses adjacent to industrial uses—will consider health and safety impacts prior to approval.
Responsible Party: Oakland Planning & Building Department Potential Funding Source: General Plan Surcharge and permit fees, 2415 fund of the City, SB2 Grant for Objective Design Standards
Timeframe: 2025
Objective: Significantly increase reuse and rehabilitation of historic commercial buildings for residential use to match housing need.
Action 3.2.4: Provide financial incentives for older or lower-income homeowners who want ADUs.
The City will identify potential funding sources and community partners to develop and implement a financial assistance program that would provide loans and/or grants to support low-income and older homeowners who want to construct an ADU. The City may prioritize funding for homeowners who agree to charge rents affordable for lower-income households or rent the ADU to Housing Choice Voucher participants.
Responsible Party: Oakland Planning & Building Department; Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development
Potential Funding Source: Potential funding for an ADU incentive program could include funding from the State of California’s CalHome program, potential future State funding for ADU development, or local sources
Chapter 4: Housing Action Plan
68 Timeframe: Ongoing as funding becomes available, 2023-2031 Objective: If funded, the City anticipates supporting at least 30 low-income and/or senior households with the cost of constructing on Accessory Dwelling Unit. This is based on the 30 loans projected for the existing CalHome grant the City has received to help low-income homeowners build ADUs.
Action 3.2.5: Reduce constraints to the development of ADUs.
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 that go went beyond the minimum requirements of State law. These additional allowances include higher maximum heights allowing for two-story ADUs, reduced setbacks in some zones, larger maximum sizes for detached ADUs, and an introduced ADU amnesty from Planning Code requirements allowing homeowners with existing un-permitted ADUs to legalize them. Also, this zoning update removed setback requirements and allowed additional envelope expansion of existing structures to create livable-size ADUs on “small lots” where ADUs would not be feasible under previous requirements.
The City will continue to host pre-approved ADU plans on its website to facilitate reduced applicant cost and expedited review for ADUs. The City will also provide increased staffing capacity to create a “one-stop shop” for information to property owners, contractors, and tenants. The City will invest in community outreach and education to teach property owners about ADU construction, financing, and landlord responsibilities. The City will also consider developing a database through which property owners can find and hire local workers to build ADUs. The City will also study how its implementation of the building code may constrain the legalization of unpermitted ADUs.
Responsible Party: Oakland Planning & Building Department Potential Funding Source: General Plan Surcharge and permit fees, SB2 Grant for Objective Design Standards
Timeframe: Ongoing, 2023-2031
Objective: Significantly increase production of ADUs to match housing need.
POLICY 3.3 EXPAND RESOURCES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF
AFFORDABLE HOMES
Action 3.3.1: Sale or ground-lease of City-owned property for affordable housing.
Chapter 4: Housing Action Plan
69 The City will solicit proposals from interested developers to construct housing on City-owned sites with first consideration given for affordable housing projects, pursuant to the California Surplus Lands Act.
If the City does not agree to price and terms with an affordable housing developer and disposes of the surplus land to an entity that develops 10 or more residential units on the property, the City will require the entity to provide at least 15 percent of the developed units at an affordable housing cost or affordable rent to specified income groups, as required by Government Code Section 54233. The City will consider depositing up to 100 percent of net proceeds from such sales or leases to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. Requests for proposals will be posted on the City’s website and distributed directly to developers, including nonprofit housing providers.
Responsible Agency: Oakland Economic & Workforce Development Department; Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development
Potential Funding Source: Donation of land value
Timeline: Ongoing, 2023-2031
Objective: City will issue Notices of Availability and/or Requests for Proposals on at least two City-owned surplus sites each year.
Action 3.3.2: Expansion of Section 8 vouchers.
The City will continue to participate in the HUD-operated Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers program, and will continue to work with the Oakland Housing Authority to obtain additional funding from the federal government for more Section 8 rental assistance for very-low-income renters by documenting the need for additional housing vouchers and contacting decision-makers at HUD as appropriate. The City will also advocate for additional funding as opportunities such as the American Recovery Act become available. Further, the City will work with nonprofit and community-based partners to educate property owners throughout the city about housing choice vouchers to encourage greater participation and to increase locational choices for voucher holders (see Action 5.2.7).
Responsible Agency: Oakland Housing Authority, Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development
Potential Funding Source: HUD Section 8 vouchers
Timeline: Ongoing, 2023-2031
Objective: The City of Oakland Housing Authority will increase the number of vouchers being used in proportion with any future federal expansion of Section 8 or similar programs.
Chapter 4: Housing Action Plan
70 Action 3.3.3: City of Oakland Rental Assistance
Program.
As funding allows, the City will build on the success of the Keep Oakland Housed program, a publicprivate partnership , and the Federal Emergency Rental Assistance program (ERAP) to offer rental assistance grants to distressed tenants, free legal consultation, eviction defense, case management, and employment and financial counseling. The City will work with community partners to expand public awareness of the rental assistance program and tenant rights to ensure access to timely access information.
Chapter 4: Housing Action Plan
71 Responsible Agency: Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development Potential Funding Source: State and federal emergency rental assistance funding, private donations, and other local funds as available
Timeline: Ongoing, 2023-2031
Objective: 100% of tenants facing eviction will have access to counsel by the end of the Housing Element cycle. At least 250 households will be provided financial assistance to stay in their housing each year, or more if additional funding becomes available.
Action 3.3.4: Develop permanent housing affordable to extremely-lowincome (ELI) households on public land.
Determine the feasibility of developing permanently affordable housing in partnerships with community land trusts mentioned in Action 3.5.1 and other community partners on publicly owned sites that may be designated as surplus property. Assist nonprofit and local developer partners to access public funding and financing to construct and increase the supply of permanently affordable rental units that are designated for extremely-low-income households. Seek public funding resources to advance the development of permanently affordable rental and ownership housing for extremely-low-income households. Ensure that permanently affordable housing for extremely-low-income households is prioritized where services and needs are accessible by transit or walking. For projects seeking City funding, continue to incorporate preference for new construction projects to set-aside at least 20 percent of housing for ELI or below with a homeless household preference.
Responsible Agency: Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development; Oakland Economic & Workforce Development Department; Oakland Human Services Department
Potential Funding Source: Donation of land value, City subsidy Timeline: Ongoing, 2023-2031
Objective: City will issue Notices of Availability and/or Requests for Proposals on at least two City-owned surplus sites each year.
Action 3.3.5: Implement an affordable housing overlay.
The City will create an affordable housing overlay to streamline the approval of affordable housing by right. Potential 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 areas in the very high fire severity zone 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 Chapter 4: Housing Action Plan
72 income projects that qualify for the super density bonus and/or other strategies to augment the City’s density bonus program.
Responsible Agency: Oakland Planning & Building Department Potential Funding Source: General Plan Surcharge and permit fees Timeline: 2023 - 2024
Objective: Study and consider adopting an affordable and/or moderate-income housing overlay to meet housing need.
Action 3.3.6: Access to low-cost financing for development.
The City currently awards local funding that affordable housing developers leverage to obtain financing for their projects. As funding allows, the City will continue to award funds to affordable housing developers on favorable terms—including simple lowinterest rate, payment of principal and interest due from excess cash flow from operations after payment of operating costs, senior debt, reserves and developer fee, and a 55-year loan term. The City will also 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.
Responsible Agency: Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development Potential Funding Source: Development impact fees, local infrastructure bond funds, HOME funds, and other local, State, and federal funds as available Timeline: Ongoing, 2023-2031
Objective: Allocate all budgeted local funding sources (approximately $12 million annually starting in 2023) to support the construction, acquisition, and/or preservation of deed restricted affordable housing units each year. With $12 million in local funding forecasted in 2023, approximately 80 units could be created or preserved; of these, approximately 16 would be extremely-low-income. This will result in a total of 640 low-income units over the Housing Element period, including 128 extremely-low-income units, which would increase if more local funds are identified or secured such as a new local bond measure dedicated to funding affordable housing.
Action 3.3.7: Study the targeted implementation of an inclusionary housing requirement.
While the City generally relies on development impact fees to provide local funding for affordable housing developers, targeted inclusionary housing requirements may increase the provision of affordable housing units in higher resource neighborhoods. A study is underway as part of the five-year update to Chapter 4: Housing Action Plan
73 assess the benefits of impact fees versus inclusionary affordable housing requirements. The study will consider the number of units likely to be produced and likely affordability levels, and implement such requirements, if appropriate.
Responsible Agency: Oakland Planning & Building Department; Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development
Potential Funding Source: General Plan Surcharge and permit fees Timeline: 2023 – 2025
Objective: Study and consider adopting targeted inclusionary housing requirements to meet housing need.
Action 3.3.8: Right-sized development fees on market-rate developments.
The City levies a number of development impact fees, including affordable housing impact fees, on market-rate projects to ensure that new development pays its fair share toward funding affordable housing, transportation improvements, and capital facilities. The City will regularly monitor its impact fees and ensure that appropriate amounts are set on an annual basis. Pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act, the City will conduct a comprehensive analysis and make findings every five years for each impact fee along with review of whether to increase fees and if the option of building affordable housing units onsite percentage is set appropriately. The City will explore allowing developments to pay an in-lieu fee equivalent to the public art requirement to build art at affordable housing developments and promote neighborhood cultural preservation/stabilization.
Responsible Agency: Oakland Planning & Building Department; Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development; Oakland Public Works Department; Department of Transportation (DOT)
Potential Funding Source: General Plan Surcharge, permit fees, and Impact Fees Timeline: Ongoing, 2023-2031; initiate next five-year update in 2027 Objective: Continue to monitor and adjust impact fees.
Action 3.3.9: Adjusting or waiving City fees and payment timing for affordable housing developments.
Affordable housing developers have pointed to the impact of City fees and the timing of fee payment, including both impact fees and building permits, as a constraint to development. The City will explore ways to increase flexibility in payment timing and expand direct financial support to reduce the burden imposed by the collection of City fees.
Responsible Agency: Oakland Planning & Building Department; City Administrator’s Office; Oakland Department of Finance
Chapter 4: Housing Action Plan
74 Potential Funding Source: General Plan Surcharge, permit fees, and General Fund for any reduction of fees
Timeline: Ongoing, 2023-2031
Objective: Explore methods to reduce cost burden of City fees and payment timing to significantly increase affordable housing development.
Action 3.3.10: Consider a citywide Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD).
On December 16, 2021, the Rules and Legislation Committee of the Oakland City Council recommended that the City Administrator study the implementation of a citywide EIFD to fund affordable housing and infrastructure improvements. Upon completion of this study, the City will consider implementing the EIFD to increase available local funding for affordable housing. An EIFD is a special taxing district that directs a portion of future property tax growth towards infrastructure expenses, including affordable housing.
Responsible Agency: City Administrator’s Office; Oakland Department of Finance Potential Funding Source: An EIFD would be a cost-recovering program for any implementation costs.
Timeline: By 2028, complete studying the possible implementation of an EIFD.
Objective: Study and consider implementing an EIFD to significantly increase affordable housing development and fund infrastructure improvements to match need.
Action 3.3.11: Support innovations by design.
The City will support and encourage innovations in construction technology to build more housing in less time, more affordably, and with fewer resources by supporting non-traditional construction methods (such as modular and other offsite construction methods).
Responsible Agency: Oakland Planning & Building Department Potential Funding Source: General Plan Surcharge and permit fees Timeline: 2023
Objective: Significantly increase production of housing using construction innovations to match housing need.
Action 3.3.12: Continue the Acquisition and Conversion to Affordable Housing (ACAH) Program.
Chapter 4: Housing Action Plan
75 The ACAH programprovides loans to eligible borrowers for acquisition- and rehabilitation-related costs associated with protecting and preserving long term affordable housing. The City will continue to issue NOFAs as funding is available and work with borrowers—including local community land trusts—to create new affordable housing units and preserve existing ones. The City will also continue to explore additional funding sources for the ACAH program.
Chapter 4: Housing Action Plan
76 Responsible Agency: Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development Potential Funding Source: Development impact fees, local infrastructure bond funds, HOME funds, and other local, State, and federal funds as available Timeline: Ongoing, 2023-2031
Objective: Allocate approximately 25% of available local funding towards continuing the ACAH program.
Action 3.3.13: Expand availability of predevelopment funding and low cost debt products for affordable housing development.
The City will continue to allocate funding to support predevelopment funding for affordable housing projects using its existing local sources, to help relieve the costs associated with the entitlement process especially for emerging and BIPOC affordable developers. The City will also identify and secure lowcost debt products for affordable housing development. To this end, the City has applied to HUD for Section 108 authority to leverage its CDBG allocation to provide low interest debt for affordable housing. Because Section 108 are hard loans that require repayment, the repayments could be revolved to support ongoing pipeline. The City will use a data-informed approach to target its resources towards historically marginalized and redlined areas as well as to support the growth of emerging and BIPOC affordable developers.
Responsible Agency: Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development Potential Funding Source: Development impact fees, local infrastructure bond funds, HOME and Section 108 funds, and other local, State, and federal funds as available Timeline: Ongoing, 2023-2031
Objective: As suitable funding and projects become available, predevelopment funding and low cost debt products will be made available for affordable housing development.
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.
Affordable housing developers indicated during outreach that competing with market rate developers for sites posed a barrier on their ability to acquire sites for development. The City typically provides gap financing commitments during predevelopment, with funds provided at construction finance closing; acquisition is an eligible cost for reimbursement by the City’s funding. While directly funding acquisition presents an earlier, riskier, and less efficient investment of the City’s limited funds, the City will consider the implementation of a leveraged acquisition fund to allow for faster and more efficient acquisition transactions. The City will also study the creation of debt and/or equity funds to support Chapter 4: Housing Action Plan
77 small site housing projects. If feasible and funding is available, this new fund may be similar in nature to the City and County of San Francisco’s Small Sites Program.
Responsible Agency: Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development Potential Funding Source: Development impact fees, local infrastructure bond funds, HOME funds, and other local, State, and federal funds as available to leverage philanthropic and other outside resources.
Timeline: Ongoing, 2023-2031
Objective: By the end of the Housing Element Cycle, the City will be able to report on the practicality of a leveraged acquisition fund, as well as the feasibility and appropriateness of a small sites fund.
Action 3.3.15: Continue and expand density bonus incentives.
Continue to implement the City’s density bonus ordinance and seek opportunities to expand the program, which offers developers density bonuses in exchange for the provision of affordable housing.
Added provisions could include mixing and matching of low-income category percentages to get an additional bonus. Consider evaluating the density bonus ordinance and deed restrictions needed for the program to make the language more accessible and identify any unnecessary barriers that make it difficult for grassroots organizations and nonprofit developers to navigate this program.
Responsible Agency: Oakland Planning & Building Department Potential Funding Source: General Plan Surcharge and permit fees Timeline: 2023-2025, Ongoing
Objective: Significantly expand the City’s density bonus program and increase production of density bonus projects to match housing need.
Action 3.3.16: Consider revising the Real Estate Transfer Tax.
The real estate transfer tax, also called a Real Property Transfer Tax (RPTT), is due when a home is sold or gifted. The City will consider the following revisions to the RPTT:
● Make the tax more progressive at higher rates; and
● Use of a portion of the revised tax rate as a dedicated funding stream for affordable housing.
This could provide annual revenues at levels significantly higher than current Impact Fee revenue.
Responsible Party: Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development; Oakland Department of Finance
Chapter 4: Housing Action Plan
78 Potential Funding Source: General Fund for any applicable studies Timeline: Conduct the analysis by 2026
Objective: Complete an analysis by 2026.
Action 3.3.17: Support low-income, grassroots, and BIPOC affordable housing developers.
The City will work with low-income, grassroots, and BIPOC affordable housing developers to identify barriers that prevent BIPOC and small nonprofit developers from accessing City funding and navigating the permitting process, and develop solutions to ensure that the process is transparent, affordable, and accessible for these Emerging Developers, defined by Oakland HCD as “a developer who has less than five (5) years ofexperience as a developer and/or less than five completed projects.” The City has secured a Breakthrough Grant from the San Francisco Foundation that will dedicate a full time fellow to facilitate this work of identifying and breaking down barriers for BIPOC and emerging developers to develop affordable housing in Oakland.
Responsible Agency: City Administration Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development; Oakland Planning & Building Department
Potential Funding Source: San Francisco Foundation, General Plan Surcharge, and permit fees
Timeline: Ongoing, 2023-2031
Objective: The proportion of City funding distributed for affordable housing development to low-income, grassroots and BIPOC affordable housing developers will significantly increase by 2031.
Action 3.3.18: Reauthorize Measure KK and
release remaining funds.
Measure KK, a bond measure passed in 2016, has provided a significant source of funding for antidisplacement and affordable housing preservation projects. The City has released remaining Measure KK bond funds for resident-led and community land trust-supported preservation projects and homeless acquisition projects and will seek to reauthorize bond authority to increase the funding available for affordable housing.
Responsible Party: Oakland City Council and Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development
Potential Funding Source: General Fund and Local Infrastructure Bond Funds post-Measure KK
Chapter 4: Housing Action Plan
79 Timeframe: Authorize local infrastructure bond by 2025, spend funds as available on an ongoing basis
Objectives: The size of the new infrastructure bond and the amount set-aside for Affordable Housing is still being determined. For reference, the Measure KK infrastructure bond of $100 million for affordable housing supported the new construction of over 700 units, the preservation of 420 units, and the acquisition and conversion of over 400 units. New construction projects will be prioritized for setting aside at least 20% of units for extremely-low-income populations.
POLICY 3.4. REFORM ZONING AND LAND USE TO ADDRESS
COMMUNITY PRIORITIES
Action 3.4.1: Revise development standards, including allowable building heights, densities, open space and setbacks requirement.
The City willallow additional building heights and/or housing densities in certain corridors and districts.
These changes include:
● Zoning Districts such as the Detached Unit and Mixed Housing Type Residential Zones. As discussed in Action 3.2.1, the City will develop zoning standards for a diversity of housing types in single-family neighborhoods, including duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes. The City will also reduce minimum lot sizes to facilitate the subdivision of existing lots. The City will permit a variety of building types (attached, detached, bungalow courts) to maximize flexibility and potential opportunities for home ownership (split lots and condominiums). The City will also develop objective design standards at the neighborhood level to ensure that such missing-middle housing is designed in a manner that is compatible with existing residential housing forms in these zoning districts.
● Corridors such as International, Foothill, and MacArthur Boulevards. The current building height map and permitted densitiesalong key corridors does not always allow residential projects to meet their full potential. Consistent with the housing sites map, the City will undertake revisions to allow increased heights and densities.
● Transit-proximate areas. Alongside efforts to increase missing-middle housing (see Action
3.2.1), the City will increase allowed height and density in areas in close proximity to highcapacity transit, including areas near BART and BRT Stations. ● Resource-rich areas. Oakland’s high resource neighborhoods are typically lower-density and have historically been exclusive – both economically and racially. Allowing higher density multiunit buildings in these areas that are rich in services will help increase the competitiveness of affordable housing projects for State funding, as well as the feasibility of developing significant numbers of housing units within these neighborhoods. Zoning changes may include permitting residential densities above 30 dwelling units per acre by right in designated areas for affordable Chapter 4: Housing Action Plan
80 housing projects. This will help further fair housing objectives by increasing the availability of housing, and particularly more affordable units by design, in high resource areas.
Responsible Agency: Oakland Planning & Building Department Potential Funding Source: General Plan Surcharge and permit fees Timeline: 2023 – 2025
Objective: Reduce constraints to development to significantly increase production of housing to match housing need.
Chapter 4: Housing Action Plan
81 Action 3.4.2: Revise Conditional Use Permit (CUP) requirements.
Conditional Use Permits are currently required for multifamily buildings in the RD-2 and RM Zones, which can act as a constraint on development – especially for affordable housing. The City will revise regulations to permit multi-unit building according to objective criteria such as building type and development size, without subjecting multi-unit residential projects to CUPs. Under Action 3.4.7, the City will create objective design standards and amend the Planning Code design review procedures to allow for streamlined review and, where appropriate, ministerial approval. The City will also actively promote and support use of SB 35 to streamline 100 percent affordable housing developments. These revised standards will be implemented alongside changes to Oakland’s RD, RM, and RU zones as described in Action 3.2.1.
Responsible Agency: Oakland Planning & Building Department Potential Funding Source: General Plan Surcharge and permit fees Timeline: 2023
Objective: Reduce constraints to development to significantly increase production of housing to match housing need.
Action 3.4.3: Revise citywide parking standards.
Parking requirements are a major cost driver in residential development, and often conflict with sustainable development goals that seek to reduce dependence on automobile use. As such, the City recently eliminated residential parking minimums in the downtown area. Continued revisions of Oakland’s parking standards will be undertaken through a comprehensive review of existing residential parking standards and the identification of appropriate new standards to match long-term development and environmental goals. Additionally, for mixed-use development projects (commercial on ground floor and residential uses above), the City will explore flexibility in parking requirements so that additional residential development on these sites is not constrained by any lack of conformance with commercial parking regulations.
Responsible Agency: Oakland Planning & Building Department Potential Funding Source: General Plan Surcharge and permit fees Timeline: 2023-2026
Objective: Reduce constraints to development to significantly increase production of housing to match housing.
Action 3.4.4: Revise open space requirements.
Chapter 4: Housing Action Plan
82 Both affordable and market-rate developers have pointed to the relatively high open space standards in Oakland as a constraint to development, especially for higher-density projects. The City will revise common and private open space standards for multi-family developments to increase the feasibility of residential projects.
Responsible Agency: Oakland Planning & Building Department Potential Funding Source: General Plan Surcharge and permit fees Timeline: 2023-2025
Objective: Reduce constraints to development to significantly increase production of housing to match housing need.
Action 3.4.5: Correct zoning district boundaries that cut through parcels.
Oakland’s Zoning Map includes many zoning district boundaries that cut through individual parcels – meaning that the same parcel is subject to multiple development standards, which can act as a development constraint. In updating the Zoning Map, the City will correct instances of this occurrence and ensure that zoning district boundaries that affect allowed height and density follow parcel boundaries to the maximum extent feasible to remove inconsistencies and ambiguities.
Responsible Agency: Oakland Planning & Building Department Potential Funding Source: General Plan Surcharge and permit fees Timeline: 2023 – 2025
Objective: Reduce constraints to development to significantly increase production of housing to match housing need.
Action 3.4.6: Capture the diversity of existing built fabric in zoning.
Oakland has a diverse historic urban fabric, some of which no longer conforms to the current Planning Code. To capture and continue this diversity and remove ambiguities, the City will reduce minimum lot sizes and setbacks to allow the creation of small-lot developments, as well as legitimize the many existing small-lot neighborhood patterns in West Oakland and other neighborhoods. The City will conduct a comprehensive review of the Planning Code to identify where current development standards have created non-conformities for older built facilities and amend development standards to reduce or eliminate them where appropriate. The City will also provide flexibility in the objective standards to retain and promote the City’s vernacular built environment.
Responsible Agency: Oakland Planning & Building Department Potential Funding Source: General Plan Surcharge and permit fees Chapter 4: Housing Action Plan
83 Timeline: 2023 – 2026
Objective: Reduce constraints to development to significantly increase production of housing to match housing need.
Chapter 4: Housing Action Plan
84 Action 3.4.7: Implement objective design standards.
The City currently requires design review for nearly all residential development, which can significantly lengthen the time required for project approval. To reduce the permitting timeline, the City has initiated a process to develop objective design standards to streamline the approval of residential, mixed-use, and commercial building types, with a particular focus on much-needed affordable housing projects in transit-rich areas. As opposed to "design guidelines,” objective design standards will not be subject to interpretation, and result in faster, more predictable approvals of high-quality development that respects Oakland's history and benefits the local community.
Responsible Agency: Oakland Planning & Building Department Potential Funding Source: General Plan Surcharge, permit fees, and SB2 Grant for Objective Design Standards
Timeline: 2023 – 2024
Objective: Reduce constraints to development to significantly increase production of housing to match housing need.
Action 3.4.8: Implement new ADU standards that streamline approvals and address unpermitted units.
In January 2022, the City updated its ADU regulations to comply with changes in State law. To address unpermitted units, the new ADU regulations go beyond minimum compliance with State law and establish an expansive legalization process for unpermitted ADUs addressing not only any existing noncompliance issues with the Building Code but the Planning Code as well. The City has also initiated a program to allow pre-approved construction documents for ADUs that creates a more streamlined approval pathway for many homeowners The City will continue to implement this legalization and streamlining of ADU permitting processes. The City will study options to alleviate the burden of the building code on the legalization of unpermitted ADUs.
Responsible Agency: Oakland Planning & Building Department Potential Funding Source: General Plan Surcharge and permit fees Timeline: 2023 and Ongoing
Objective: Reduce constraints to development to significantly increase production of housing to match housing need.
Action 3.4.10: Permit sites included in prior RHNA cycles to develop with affordable housing by right.
Chapter 4: Housing Action Plan
85 Pursuant to State law, the City will permit vacant sites included in two consecutive prior RHNA cycles and non-vacant sites included in at least one prior RHNA to develop with owner-occupied and rental multifamily uses by right for developments in which 20 percent or more of the units are affordable to lower-income households. This means that the City cannot require any form of discretionary review or approval for such projects. These sites are identified in Appendix C, Table C-25.
Responsible Agency: Oakland Planning & Building Department Potential Funding Source: General Plan Surcharge and permit fees Timeline: Ongoing, 2023-2031
Objective: Reduce constraints to development to significantly increase production of housing to match housing need.
POLICY 3.5. EXPLORE INNOVATIVE AND ALTERNATIVE HOUSING
MODELS
Action 3.5.1: Support community land trusts and other shared equity models.
The City has worked with a variety of community land trusts, including East Bay Permanent Real Estate Cooperative, Sogorea Te’, Oakland Community Land Trust, Bay Area Community Land Trust and the Northern California Land Trust to provide affordable housing (including ownership housing). Most significantly, the City created the Acquisition and Conversion to Affordable Housing Program, which provides funds through Bond Measure KK to community land trusts to acquire and preserve affordable housing units. The City will continue to offer this program and support community land trusts. The City is also working with a technical assistance provider to determine best practices for land trust ownership units and cooperative units and will implement these practices going forward. Financial or technical assistance may become available from the Bay Area Housing Finance Agency (BAHFA) or possible State programs. The City will prioritize lower-income residents and residents at risk of displacement while supporting shared equity models.
Responsible Agency: Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development Potential Funding Source: Impact fees, General Fund, infrastructure bond funds, HOME, CDBG, and other local, State, and federal funding as available Timeline: Funds will be made available to equity affordability models through the City’s annual affordable housing NOFA’s on an annual basis (2023-2031) Objective: Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development will continue to make funds available to shared equity affordability models as per current practice.
Chapter 4: Housing Action Plan
86 Action 3.5.2: Support housing cooperatives, co-living, and cohousing models.
Formal and informal housing cooperatives, co-living and cohousing models in Oakland have traditionally provided an alternative form of affordable housing, including ownership housing. To further support these initiatives, the City will conduct outreach with community-based organizations and other community partners to identify ways the City can support these models, especially for lowerincome residents. The City will prioritize lower-income residents and residents at risk of displacement when supporting these alternative housing models.
Responsible Agency: Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development Potential Funding Source: Impact fees, General Fund, infrastructure bond funds, HOME, CDBG, and other local, State, and federal funding as available Timeline: 2031; Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development will be prepared to report back on the status of its cooperative-related engagement by the end of the Housing Element cycle
Objective: Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development will be prepared to report back on the status of its cooperative-related engagement by the end of the Housing Element cycle.
Action 3.5.3: Advocate for statewide legislation on social housing.
The City of Oakland recognizes that the statewide housing crisis requires statewide solutions. As such, the City will advocate for social housing legislation under consideration in the State legislature, known as the California Social Housing Act or AB 2053. The Act would establish a California Housing Authority (CHA) to produce and preserve social housing – publicly-owned and mixed-income developments that maintain homes as permanently affordable.
Responsible Agency: Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development Potential Funding Source: City legislative advocacy will be funded through the existing general fund-supported contract for State legislative representation services.
Timeline: Ongoing, 2023-2031; the City will continue advocacy for social housing legislation until it is adopted
Objective: The State of California will successfully adopt social housing legislation.
Action: 3.5.4: Evaluate acquisition and development opportunities for moderate- and middle-income households.
Chapter 4: Housing Action Plan
87 The City will evaluate the merits of acquisition and development models to assist in the construction or preservation of middle-income housing, potentially in partnership with other regional agencies.
Responsible Agency: Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development Potential Funding Source: The model could be financed by bond financing underwritten by rental revenue, with relatively shallow subsidies in the form of property tax abatements Timeline: Evaluation will be ongoing as opportunities evolve Objective: If a suitable opportunity exists to efficiently produce or preserve middle income housing, the City will design a program or participate in a program developed by other public agencies.
POLICY 3.6. STREAMLINE THE APPROVAL OF NEW HOUSING
Action 3.6.1: Streamline the City permitting process, especially for lowincome and nonprofit builders.
The City will work with developers and housing stakeholders, particularly low-income and nonprofit builders, to review current processes and fees to identify actions to reduce costs and streamline the planning approval and building permit processes for small infill development. These actions could involve developing simplified CEQA compliance through qualified exemptions, implementing objective design standards as described in Action 3.4.7, and/or increasing staffing at the Planning and/or Building Bureau to reduce permit processing time. The City will regularly review and update its website to improve navigation and make information such as fee schedules, application forms, zoning ordinances, and other information available on the City’s website, along with other educational information to facilitate the permit process.
Responsible Agency: Oakland Planning & Building Department Potential Funding Source: General Plan Surcharge and permit fees Timeline: 2023 – 2025 and ongoing
Objective: Significantly increase production of housing projects, specifically by low-income and nonprofit builders, to match housing need.
Action 3.6.2: Provide increased flexibility in development standards.
The City will provide increased flexibility in development standards, with a focus on smaller infill residential projects, to ensure that these projects can qualify for streamlined permitting without need for variances. The City will also consider increasing staff-level authority, with clear guidelines,to grant minor Chapter 4: Housing Action Plan
88 exceptions, which can also reduce project timelines and costs. Alongside efforts described in Actions
3.2.1, this flexibility will increase the capacity of the Planning Bureau to permit a variety of units, more expediently, creating more residential units in traditionally lower-density neighborhoods.
Responsible Agency: Oakland Planning & Building Department Potential Funding Source: General Plan Surcharge and permit fees Timeline: 2023 – 2025 and ongoing
Objective: Significantly increase production of housing projects, specifically by low-income and nonprofit builders, to match housing need.
Action 3.6.3: Expand by-right approvals and implement entitlement reform for affordable housing.
Through the implementation of objective design standards as described in Action 3.4.7, the City will create a ministerial review pathway for qualifying developments based on project size, type, affordability level, and location. Discretionary design review will still be required for some types of projects and where certain adjustments are requested. As part of the entitlement reform process, the City will consider fee subsidies and/or payment deferrals to better accommodate affordable housing projects and increase the financial feasibility of affordable projects. The City will work with community partners and affordable housing developers to identify and implement appropriate entitlement reform actions.
Responsible Agency: Oakland Planning & Building Department; Oakland Department of Finance
Potential Funding Source: General Plan Surcharge and permit fees Timeline: 2023 – 2025 and ongoing
Objective: Significantly increase production of housing projects, specifically by low-income and nonprofit builders, to match housing need.
Action 3.6.4: Continue SB 35 streamlining.
SB 35 created a streamlined and ministerial approval process for housing projects that meet siting and construction criteria including being located in communities that have failed to meet their RHNA. The City of Oakland was among the 225 jurisdictions that made insufficient progress towards meeting the RHNA for low- and very-low-income housing at the time of the State’s most recent determination in 2021 and is therefore subject to the streamlining provisions for proposed development in which 50 percent or more of the units will be affordable. The City provides an SB 35 streamlining checklist to facilitate the development of affordable housing, and will actively promote use of SB 35 streamlining for 100 percent affordable projects.
Chapter 4: Housing Action Plan
89 Responsible Agency: Oakland Planning & Building Department Potential Funding Source: General Plan Surcharge and permit fees Timeline: 2023 and ongoing
Objective: Significantly increase production of housing projects, specifically by low-income and nonprofit builders, to match housing need.
Action 3.6.5: Continue one-stop and online permitting services.
Through the Online Permit Center (Accela Citizen Access), property owners are able to apply for and follow the status of their permits online. The City also operates an in-person One-Stop Permit Center, where the counter services of the Planning & Building Department, Oakland Fire Department, and Department of Transportation have been combined in one location to expedite the permitting process.
The City will continue to offer both online and in-person permitting services to reduce permitting timelines. The City will also coordinate with low-income and affordable housing developers to understand and correct the gaps in these services.
Responsible Agency: Oakland Planning & Building Department Potential Funding Source: General Plan Surcharge and permit fees Timeline: 2023 – 2031
Objective: Significantly increase production of housing projects, specifically by low-income and nonprofit builders, to match housing need.
POLICY 3.7. EXPAND OPTIONS FOR SPECIAL NEEDS HOUSING
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.
The City will continue to encourage a wide variety of senior housing opportunities, particularly for lower-income seniors with special needs, through the provision of financial assistance and regulatory incentives as specified in Planning Code. The City will continue to award points in its consideration of housing funding to projects that serve special needs populations, including seniors and homeless individuals. The City will explore options to expand the amount of financial assistance available to developers of housing for seniors and persons with special needs and will commit to transparent reporting of how special needs units are assisted.
Chapter 4: Housing Action Plan
90 Responsible Agency: Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development; Oakland Economic & Workforce Development Department; Oakland Planning & Building Department
Potential Funding Source: Development impact fees, HOME, local infrastructure bond funds, and other local, State, and federal funding as available Timeline: Ongoing, 2023-2031
Objective: The City will continue to provide bonus scoring points for special needs populations as found in current practices.
Action 3.7.2: Provide housing for persons with HIV/AIDS.
The City will continue to provide housing and associated supportive services for persons with HIV/AIDS through a combination of development of new housing, project-based assistance in existing affordable housing developments; and tenant-based assistance to allow households to find their own housing in the private market. The City will enhance outcomes via housing first model under the Alameda County EveryOne Home Plan.
Responsible Agency: Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development Potential Funding Source: Development impact fees, HOME, HOPWA, local infrastructure bond funds, and other local, State, and federal funding as available Timeline: Ongoing, 2023-2031
Objective: The City will continue to provide bonus scoring points for special needs populations as found in current practices.
Action 3.7.3: Accessible units in new housing developments.
The City of Oakland's Housing Development Services unit will promote the inclusion of accessible units for projects receiving City funding and will award extra points to projects that exceed federal minimum requirements for accessible housing for all projects receiving federal funding assistance.
Responsible Agency: Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development Potential Funding Source: Development impact fees, HOME, local infrastructure bond funds, and other local, State, and federal funding as available Timeline: Ongoing, 2023-2031
Objective: The City will continue to provide bonus scoring points for special needs populations as found in current practices.
Chapter 4: Housing Action Plan
91 Action 3.7.4: Implement the sponsor-based Housing Assistance Program.
The City will continueto work with the Oakland Housing Authority to assist households that otherwise might not qualify for or be successful in the traditional Public Housing and/or Section 8 programs by partnering with agencies to provide service-enriched housing options that increase housing choice for special needs populations. The City will explore options to find more landlords willing to participate in the program.
Responsible Agency: Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development Potential Funding Source: Development impact fees, HOME, local infrastructure bond funds, and other local, State, and federal funding as available Timeline: Ongoing, 2023-2031
Objective: The City will continue to provide bonus scoring points for special needs populations as found in current practices.
Chapter 4: Housing Action Plan
92 Action 3.7.5: Encourage different sizes of housing for larger families – including affordable housing with courtyards, multigenerational housing.
The City will continue to reward and incentivize projects that include multi-bedroom units suitable for families in its awards of City funding for housing development and will expand the program to grant points to affordable housing projects that provide different sizes of houses for multigenerational and larger families, such as housing with courtyards or cottages.
Responsible Agency: Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development Potential Funding Source: Development impact fees, HOME, local infrastructure bond funds, and other local, State, and federal funding as available Timeline: Ongoing, 2023-2031
Objective: The City will continue to provide bonus scoring points for special needs populations as found in current practices.
Action 3.7.6: Expand areas where residential hotels are permitted by right.
The City will consider expanding zoning districts where residential hotels and rooming houses are permitted by right. These housing typologies provide an important source of housing for extremely-lowincome residents.
Responsible Agency: Oakland Planning & Building Department Potential Funding Source: General Plan Surcharge and permit fees Timeline: 2023 – 2026
Objective: Significantly increase production of residential hotels to match housing need.
POLICY 3.8. CONVERT VACANT LAND AND UNITS TO HOUSING
Action 3.8.1: Continue to implement the Vacant Property Tax (VPT).
On November 6, 2018, Oakland voters approved Measure W, the Oakland VPT. The VPT Act establishes an annual tax of $3,000 to $6,000 on vacant property. A property is considered “vacant” if it is “in use less than fifty days in a calendar year,” and not subject to any of 10 exemptions. The City will continue to implement the VPT to encourage active uses on vacant land and regularly monitor the effectiveness of the program. The City will also consider expanding exemptions to the VPT to reduce the impacts of unintended hardships on nonprofit and affordable housing developers.
Responsible Agency: Oakland Department of Finance; Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development
Chapter 4: Housing Action Plan
93 Potential Funding Source: Self-funding through the vacant property tax Timeline: Ongoing, 2023-2031
Objective: Through the vacant parcel tax, seek a 10% reduction in vacant parcels by the end of the Housing Element period.
Action 3.8.2: Encourage the conversion of vacant ground floor commercial space to residential uses in appropriate locations.
Traditional brick-and-mortar commercial and retail businesses have continued to transition to an Internet-based model, which has been further accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic. As a result, a significant number of ground-floor commercial and retail spaces in Oakland remain vacant. The City will explore opportunities to promote the conversion of vacant ground floor spaces in certain areas to live-work and other residential use, as may be appropriate in the local context. The City will also explore other opportunities to promote the conversion of vacant office or commercial space to housing.
Responsible Agency: Oakland Planning & Building Department Potential Funding Source: General Plan Surcharge and permit fees Timeline: 2023 - 2026
Objective: Significantly increase conversion of vacant ground floor commercial space to residential uses, where appropriate, to match housing need.
Action 3.8.3: Consider a tax on all vacant residential rental units.
Although housing demand in Oakland remains extremely high, the City experiences a higher vacancy rate than both Alameda County and the Bay Area overall. This results from a variety of factors but may ultimately lead to higher housing costs. Oakland currently has in place vacancy tax on parcels and several types of housing units – including condos, duplexes, and townhome units under separate ownership.
The City will consider extending the current vacancy tax to all residential units to encourage active use of residential units and expand the available housing supply.
Responsible Agency: Oakland Department of Finance; Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development
Potential Funding Source: General Fund
Timeline: Consider by the end of 2026 whether the vacant parcel tax ought to be revised or expanded
Objective: By the end of 2026, consider and if appropriate adopt a revision to the vacant parcel tax.
Chapter 4: Housing Action Plan
94 Action 3.8.4: Continue the Oakland Community Buying Program and support scattered site acquisition efforts.
The City currently provides the Community Buying Program, which assists Oakland residents in purchasing vacant or abandoned properties from the Scattered-Site Single Family Acquisition and Rehabilitation Program. These properties have been made available through programs like the Oaktown Roots Affordable Homes pilot program and local community land trusts, like the Oakland Community Land Trust and the Bay Area Community Land Trust. These programs will also help promote long-term affordable homeownership, which will also promote the objectives of Policy 5.1.
Responsible Agency: Oakland Department of Finance; Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development
Potential Funding Source: Development impact fees, HOME, local infrastructure bond, and other local, State, and federal funding as available
Timeline: Ongoing, 2023-2031
Objective: As additional funding is available, continue to convert vacant parcels to affordable housing.
Action 3.8.5. Partner with Alameda County Tax Collector to redevelop tax defaulted properties.
Partner with the Alameda County Tax Collector to identify tax-defaulted property suitable for development or preservation as affordable housing. Through use of the Chapter 8 tax sale program, make this property available to affordable housing providers, community land trusts, and related organizations.
Responsible Party: Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development Funding: Contributory value of the land, impact fees, HOME, other local, State, and federal funds as available
Timeline: Ongoing, 2023-2031
Objective: By the end of the Housing Element period, at least 40 parcels will be acquired by the City of Oakland or partner organizations that were previously tax defaulted.
Chapter 4: Housing Action Plan
95 Goal 4. Address Homelessness and Expand
Services for the Unhoused
The City of Oakland is facing an unprecedented humanitarian crisis of residents who are experiencing homelessness. As the United Nations notes in its mandate on the right to adequate housing, the right to adequate housing is more than having a roof over one’s head, it is the right to live in safety and dignity in a decent home; HUD Secretary Fudge has declared that “housing is a human right.” Ultimately, permanent housing is the solution to homelessness (see Goal 3). Goals, policies, and actions in this Housing Action Plan recognize housing as a human right and support coordination across the spectrum, from homelessness prevention to transitional housing/shelter and services to permanent housing with resources for long-term support.
HOW THIS GOAL AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERS FAIR
HOUSING
Homelessness disproportionately impacts Oakland’s BIPOC residents, particularly the city’s Black residents. Further, special needs households—including extremely-low-income households—tend to be at greater risk of experiencing homelessness. Addressing homelessness and providing high quality services to the unhoused is also a racial equity issue, and must be part of the City’s efforts to affirmatively further fair housing. By expanding access to quality homelessness services across Oakland, and seeking to expand transitional housing options in a citywide manner, the City will work to avoid an overconcentration in homelessness and homelessness-related services in disadvantaged neighborhoods. Further, by expanding economic opportunities for the unhoused, Oakland will help those currently unhoused access housing opportunities in a variety of Oakland neighborhoods. This goal, and the policies and actions that implement it, will address fair housing issues as they relate to homelessness in Oakland.
POLICY 4.1 EXPANSION OF HOMELESS SERVICES
Action 4.1.1: Expand, improve, and maintain crisis
response beds.
Since 2018, the City has expanded its supply of emergency interim housing (community cabins, shelter beds, Safe RV parking) by over 1,000 beds/spaces. This increase is almost entirely funded with one-time funds. The City will use local, county, State, and federal funding to maintain these new resources and to improve the effectiveness of these beds in moving people to permanent housing (for example, by adding rapid rehousing exit resources). In addition, the City will continue to expand the interim housing sites and other forms of housing for people experiencing homelessness in the City. The City will ensure that such housing options include supportive services such as including rapid rehousing assistance, housing navigation, and access to resources via Coordinated Entry. The City will seek to partner with Alameda County to provide mental health and substance use services in interim sites and will partner with mainstream workforce programs to support on site job training programs. The City will coordinate Chapter 4: Housing Action Plan
96 efficient provision of services and resources from private, nonprofit, local, Alameda County, and State organizations
Chapter 4: Housing Action Plan
97 Responsible Party: Oakland Human Services Department Potential Funding Source: Measure Q, ESG, State Homeless Housing Assistance and Prevention Funding, various HUD funding sources, CalAIM (through County) Timeframe: FY 2022-2023 – FY 2024-2025
Objectives: 1. Increase the number of people who are experiencing homelessness in Oakland who are sheltered; and 2. Invest in and improve the quality of interim housing programs so that more people exit to permanent housing and more people exit to permanent housing more quickly.
Action 4.1.2: Expand, improve, and maintain
crisis response beds for unsheltered
communities of color.
Increasing the number of crisis response beds helps to address the disproportionate rates of unsheltered homelessness among communities of color, especially among African American households. Creating additional facilities in many parts of the city will assist households experiencing homelessness to remain in their communities will reduce the number of African American households who are displaced from Oakland. Track data to ensure that African American households are using emergency crisis response beds and exiting to permanent housing at rates that are proportional to their representation in the homeless population.
Responsible Party: Homelessness Division, Office of the City Administrator; Oakland Human Services Department
Potential Funding Source: Local, State, and federal funding, as available Timeframe: Ongoing, 2023-2031
Objectives: Increase and stabilize people while providing opportunities to improve income they need to avoid entering or returning to homelessness.
Action 4.1.3: Expand health and hygiene facilities
and services, and improve access to bathrooms
and showers.
Starting in FY 20-21, this intervention has greatly expanded to serve a minimum of 60 curbside sites with porta-potties, handwashing stations, and garbage pick-up. HSD has created two new outreach staff positions whose primary role is to support the encampments which have these interventions with maintaining the services as well as maintaining a level of cleanliness and compliance with the Encampment Management Policy. These City staff also support designated site leadership at each Chapter 4: Housing Action Plan
98 encampment site. The site leaders ensure that the porta-potties are used appropriately, and keep the units clean in between the official servicing. City staff provide the site leaders with cleaning supplies and stipends for their work. Per Council directive, the goal is to increase to 100 sites and four City outreach staff.
Responsible Party: Homeless Division, Office of the City Administrator; Oakland Human Services Department
Potential Funding Source: State Homeless Housing Assistance and Prevention Funding, City General Fund
Timeframe: FY 2022-2023 – FY 2024-2025
Objectives: More people experiencing unsheltered homelessness have access to services which promote health and dignity.
Action 4.1.4: Provide needed support and income
to people who have been homeless so they can
avoid returning to homelessness.
Recognizing that a lack of access to living wage jobs is a significant driver of homelessness in Oakland, the City will work with the Oakland Unified School District, higher educational institutions, related nonprofit agencies, businessand other partners to create low barrier work opportunities for people who are currently unsheltered. These programs will offer support for development of work-related skills, provide services to address employment barriers specifically targeted to the needs of unhoused residents and increase the co-location and collaboration between providers of homeless assistance and employment programs and services. In addition, the City will work to match small business owners who want to address homelessness with job seekers who are homeless or formerly homeless.
Strategies to include:
● Low barrier work opportunities, for people re-entering the workforce ● Add employment specialist positions in core homeless services/prevention services programs ● Flexible funding pool to support career track training and employment programs ● Benefits advocacy to obtain SSI or other income for which they are eligible Responsible Party: Oakland Human Services Department; Homelessness Division, Office of the City Administrator
Potential Funding Source: Local, State, and federal funding, as available Timeframe: Ongoing, 2023-2031
Chapter 4: Housing Action Plan
99 Objectives: Reduction in the number of households which return to homelessness in the two years after obtaining housing.
Action 4.1.5: Provide support for domestic
violence shelters.
Recognizing that domestic violence is one of the leading causes of homelessness for women and children, the City will coordinate provision of counseling, case management, healthcare, rapid rehousing assistance, and other wraparound services for survivors of domestic violence within transitional housing programs, emergency shelters, and navigation centers. The City will work with housing and service providers to seek additional grant funding to support survivors of domestic violence. The City will continue to publicize health and wellness resources on its website and will ensure that this information remains up-to-date.
Responsible Agency: Oakland Human Services Department; Homelessness Division, Office of the City Administrator, Department of Violence Prevention Potential Funding Source: To be determined
Timeline: Ongoing, 2023-2031
Objective: The City will significantly increase supportive services (and their publicization) for domestic violence survivors to match need.
POLICY 4.2 ENCAMPMENT MANAGEMENT
Action 4.2.1: Enhance operations of the City’s
2020 Encampment Management Policy.
The City of Oakland adopted the 2020 Encampment Management Policy. The purpose of this policy is to protect and serve all Oaklanders, sheltered and unsheltered, and to manage the adverse impacts of homeless encampments by balancing the interests of all residents, focusing encampments actions on mitigating negative outcomes as they pertain to public safety, public health, and equity outcomes.
Responsible Party: Homelessness Division, Office of the City Administrator Potential Funding Source: Local, State, and federal funding, as available Timeframe: 2023-2031
Objectives: The Encampment Management Policy is essential to connecting unsheltered individuals to human services, emergency shelter and long term permanent supportive housing, while executing comprehensive operations focused on managing health and safety conditions of Chapter 4: Housing Action Plan
100
public spaces. The goal is to close areas where encampments are not permitted, provide regular and adequate trash collection from encampments, to ensure that porta-potties and hand-washing stations are services regularly as needed, and that encampments receive regular deep cleanings that ensure that our unhoused residents are not living in conditions that threaten health and/or safety until fully abated.
The policy sets forth the following objectives:
1. Designate high-sensitivity areas, where unmanaged encampments are presumed to cause unreasonably high levels of health and safety impacts due to the nature of the location;
2. Designate low-sensitivity areas, where enforcement will not be prioritized;
3. Make findings that will prompt Encampment Management Team intervention; and
4. Provide guidance on addressing unreasonable health and safety risks, promoting voluntary compliance, and strategies to address non-compliance.
Action 4.2.2: Lead strategic homelessness response operations and homeless services from the Homelessness Division, Office of the City Administrator.
Homelessness intersects with multiple departments and agencies, all of which fall under the City Administrator’s purview. Leading from the Office of the City Administrator, the Homelessness Division serves as the primary liaison between the City Administrator’s Office and internal and external agencies, along with other City departments, regarding the City’s homelessness response and provides inter- and intra-agency coordination focusing on the City’s management of its unsheltered population. This division directs the program and operational decision-making in division activities; encampment management response teams and task forces; organizes, manages, and directs the review and implementation of the City’s major projects.
Responsible Party: Homelessness Division, Office of the City Administrator Potential Funding Source: Local, State, and federal funding, as available Timeframe: 2023—2031
Objectives: Lead the implementation, expansion, and strategic coordination of Homeless Response Operations and Service Delivery across City of Oakland departments, and external public and private partners, organizations, and agencies.
Chapter 4: Housing Action Plan
101
Action 4.2.3: Strengthen interdepartmental Encampment Management Team.
The Encampment Management Team (EMT) is an interdepartmental working group tasked with implementing and administering this policy, consisting of representatives from Oakland’s Public Works Department, Human Services Department, Oakland Policy Department, Oakland Fire Department, the City Administrator’s Office (CAO), and other consulted departments as necessary (e.g., the Mayor’s Office, the City Attorney’s Office, Parks and Recreation). The EMT is facilitated by the CAO via the Homelessness Administrator.
Responsible Party: Homelessness Division, Office of the City Administrator Potential Funding Source: Local, State, and federal funding, as available Timeframe: Ongoing, 2023-2031
Objectives: 1. The EMT aims to execute duties assigned to their respective departments for the completion of interventions (Health and Safety) prescribed in the 2020 Encampment Management Policy (Health and Hygiene, Deep Cleanings, Partial Closure, and Closure); 2. To channel unsheltered individuals in every encampment to human services, emergency shelter and long term permanent supportive housing; 3. To effectuate the completion of the Encampment Management Policy interventions, each department may promulgate additional specific procedures necessary to effectuate the roles described in this policy under development specific Standard Operating Procedures.
Action 4.2.4: Increase the oversight of homelessness strategies, investments, outcomes, and encampment operations with the Homelessness Advisory Commission.
The City will increase opportunities for leadership and input from people experiencing homelessness in the design, implementation, and evaluation of encampment management and services that respond to unsheltered homelessness. The City will also seek to build trust between law enforcement, social workers, and homeless individuals/families and promote mentorship opportunities for formerly homeless individuals and people recovering from addiction. Further, the City will refine encampment management policies and strategies using qualitative and quantitative data to assess the experience of encampment for BIPOC residents and will implement culturally-specific and anti-racist strategies to better meet the short-term needs of BIPOC unsheltered residents.
Responsible Party: Homelessness Division, Office of the City Administrator Potential Funding Source: Local, State, and federal funding, as available Chapter 4: Housing Action Plan
102
Timeframe: Ongoing, 2023-2031
Objectives: Review and make recommendations of existing and new proposals funding homelessness services funded by City of Oakland Measures Q and W.
Action 4.2.5: Expand co-governance and
partnerships with unsheltered residents in the
design and delivery of homelessness services.
In FY 21-22 the City opened its first co-governed program site. Co-governance is an intervention model where unsheltered residents come to an agreement about how they will live together in a community setting of an encampment. This includes, but is not limited to, selecting site leadership, determining eligibility for participation, developing community expectations for behaviors and for staffing/running the site, holding each other accountable for the agreed upon expectations, and maintaining the health and safety of the community residents. A backbone agency (nonprofit/community-based agency) works alongside residents to support the residents in the design, leadership and operations of the site. The backbone agency is the contracting entity with the City/funder and holds ultimate accountability for ensuring the safety and security of the site. The City, in partnership with unsheltered residents will continue to refine this model and to expand this model as new sites open.
Responsible Party: Oakland Human Services Department; Homelessness Division, Office of the City Administrator
Potential Funding Source: Homeless Housing Assistance and Prevention funds, City General Fund
Timeframe: FY 2022-2023 – FY 2024-2025
Objectives: Increase the number of interim housing sites which have people experiencing homelessness as partners in site design and operations.
POLICY 4.3 PROMOTE TRANSITIONAL AND PERMANENT
SUPPORTIVE, DEEPLY AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR UNHOUSED
COMMUNITIES
Action 4.3.1: Finance the construction and
maintenance of permanent supportive and deeply
affordable housing for homeless households to
expand the supply of deeply affordable and
supportive housing for Oakland’s most vulnerable
residents.
The City will secure and advocate for additional funding for building and operation of permanent supportive and deeply affordable housing for homeless households using a combination of State and Chapter 4: Housing Action Plan
103
federal sources, such as the State Homekey program, the federal HOME-ARP program, and funding from the local Oakland Housing Authority. The City will continue incorporating a preference for Cityassisted affordable housing projects that include at least 20 percent of units for vulnerable populations, including but not limited to homeless individuals and families living at or below 20 percent of AMI; as well, the City will increase this homeless set-aside in future NOFAs should operating funding resource availability support the increase. The City will work with residents, service providers, and property owners to ensure adequate and transparent long-term plans for maintenance and service provision within new and existing permanent supportive housing. The City will also pursue the strategic acquisition of hotel, motel, and dorm facilities by and with nonprofit partners to house unsheltered residents. The City will further work to coordinate Oakland Housing Authority’s award process with the City's Affordable Housing NOFA process and Homekey opportunities. The City will also work with the State and other partners to explore opportunities to expand the supply of extremely-low-income housing for residents that do not require supportive services.
Responsible Party: Oakland Human Services Department; Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development; Homelessness Division, Office of the City Administrator Potential Funding Source: State Homeless Housing Assistance and Prevention Funds Timeframe: Ongoing, 2023-2031, as funding is available
Objectives: Secure funding to significantly increase construction and maintenance of permanent supportive and deeply affordable housing to match need for unhoused communities.
Action 4.3.2: Streamline approval for modular
developments to provide quality shelter quickly
to address the scale of the crisis.
The City will utilize statewide streamlining opportunities, such as categorical CEQA exemptions and Program EIRs, and revise the Planning Code to minimize the need for discretionary review with a ministerial option for projects that utilize objective design standards for approval. The City will also identify and eliminate roadblocks in the review of building permit applications to expedite and increase the production of modular developments and other quick-build shelter solutions on private land in Oakland. The City will also work with other public agencies, including Caltrans, to facilitate and streamline more flexible shelter solutions on public land. The City will ensure that smaller units used as permanent housing units are in compliance with the Building Code to mitigate fire and other public safety hazards.
Responsible Party: Oakland Planning & Building Department Potential Funding Source: General Plan Surcharge and permit fees, SB2 Grant for Objective Design Standards
Chapter 4: Housing Action Plan
104
Timeframe: Planning Code changes in 2023; ongoing, 2023-2031 Objectives: Significantly increase production of modular developments and other quick-build shelter solutions to match need for unhoused communities.
Action 4.3.3: Remove regulatory constraints to
the development of transitional housing and
supportive housing.
The City will amend the Planning Code to ensure that transitional housing and supportive housing projects are permitted equivalently to similar permanent residential uses in the appropriate zone.
Responsible Party: Oakland Planning & Building Department Potential Funding Source: General Plan
Timeframe: Planning Code changes in 2023
Objectives: Reduce barriers to the development of transitional and supportive housing.
Action 4.3.4: Provide development standards for
Low Barrier Navigation Centers.
Low Barrier Navigation Centers, pursuant to AB 101, are required to be permitted by right and without any discretionary approval. A Low Barrier Navigation Center is a "Housing First," low barrier, temporary, service-enriched shelter that helps homeless individuals and families to quickly obtain permanent housing. The City will amend the Planning Code to include a definition for “low barrier navigation centers” and ensure that such centers are permitted by right, pursuant to State law.
Responsible Party: Oakland Planning & Building Department Potential Funding Source: General Plan
Timeframe: Planning Code changes in 2023
Objectives: Reduce barriers to the development of housing for persons experiencing homelessness.
Chapter 4: Housing Action Plan
105
Goal 5. Promote Neighborhood Stability and
Health
All Oakland residents deserve to live, work, play, and thrive in safe, affordable, healthy, and welcoming communities. In Oakland, this geography of opportunity and health-supporting neighborhoods has been inequitable, with low-income communities and communities of color more likely to live in neighborhoods overburdened by pollution, disinvestment, and other social and environmental injustices. Goals, policies, and actions in the Housing Action Plan can address environmental justice by protecting residential areas from harmful pollution impacts. Additionally, as the City prioritizes investments, infrastructure, building upon existing community assets, and resources to achieve environmental justice in disinvested areas, the Housing Action Plan seeks to ensurethat existing residents can stay in their communities and benefit from these increased resources through opportunities for homeownership (see also Goals 1 and 3).
1. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the building sector through the promotion of sustainable design principles, energy efficiency, and smart growth principles into residential developments.
2. Encourage higher-density, infill, and mixed-use development near transit to reduce reliance on automobiles.
3. Promote adaptation strategies to improve neighborhood and community resilience to climate change in collaboration with local and regional partners.
4. Leverage State and federal resources to assist with the remediation of environmental constraints on potential housing sites.
5. Limit greater intensification of neighborhoods at very high risk of wildfires. Maintain parking and other regulations to facilitate evacuation when needed.
6. Promote an equitable distribution of housing, including affordable housing, throughout the community, while providing opportunities to those that want to remain in existing neighborhood to maintain local ties.
7. Ensure that programs support development of both rental and ownership opportunities for affordable and middle-income housing.
Homeownership confers a range of benefits – including greater certainty over housing costs, opportunity to stay in one’s chosen neighborhood, ability to make changes to the living environment, privacy, and ability to build financial equity. In addition to tangible economic and other individual Chapter 4: Housing Action Plan
106
benefits, homeownership also brings substantial social benefits such as a stronger sense of place and belonging, improved community health and safety, and civic participation.
HOW THIS GOAL AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERS FAIR
HOUSING
Oakland has historically experienced patterns of significant inequities – between the hills and the flatlands, west and east, and across race and income. Rising housing costs and displacement pressures continue to disproportionately burden the city’s Black population and other people of color, even as historically Black neighborhoods continue to see disinvestment and relatively high rates of poverty – see Appendix D for further context. The City has made great strides to correct these patterns of discrimination—including through the establishment of the Department of Race and Equity to advance racial equity in 2016—but needs to expand its efforts to eliminate racial disparities and discriminatory housing practices. The City will take steps to correct historic and ongoing patterns of discrimination to create a fair and just city through the simultaneous actions of opening up exclusionary neighborhoods (see Policy 3.4) and focusing resources, funds, tenant protections, and support of existing community assets in disinvested neighborhoods and ethnic enclaves (see Goals 1, 2, and 3).
Further, Oakland has some of the lowest rates of homeownership among major Bay Area cities, rivaled only by San Francisco. About 60 percent of Oaklanders are renters, and with continuously rising housing costs, affordable homeownership remains out of reach for most Oaklanders. This is especially true for the city’s working and middle classes, as traditionally blue-collar neighborhoods have become increasingly expensive in recent years. Homeownership is distributed unevenly by race and ethnicity – while most white households own their homes, the majority of BIPOC households are renters. American Indian or Alaska Native (70.8 percent), Hispanic or Latinx (69.4 percent), and Black or African American (67.8 percent) households are especially likely to be renters. See Appendices B and D for more information.
This goal aims to expand opportunities for homeownership, particularly for low-income communities and communities of color. Along with efforts in Goal 1 and Goal 2, increased affordable and middleincome homeownership opportunities will reduce displacement pressures, and keep Oaklanders in their homes, thereby protecting both individual families and the social fabric of Oakland’s neighborhoods.
First-time homebuyer programs can also expand access to historically exclusionary neighborhoods by giving prospective homeowners the resources and tools they need to secure a home wherever they choose to live. Community land trusts and other models of maintaining permanently affordable housing, as outlined in Policy 3.5, also provide opportunities to increase rates of affordable homeownership.
As defined in the Oakland Municipal Code, in addition to safe, affordable, high-quality housing for all people, another determinant of equity is a healthy built and natural environment for all people that includes a mix of land uses that support jobs, housing, amenities and services, trees and forest canopy, and clean air, water, soil, and sediment. In Oakland, low-income communities and communities of color Chapter 4: Housing Action Plan
107
are more likely to suffer from environmental injustices such as disproportionate exposure to air pollution, toxics and hazardous facilities and substances, contaminated water, and other environmental hazards that have an impact on human health due to a history of systemic racism and social injustices that influence where these communities live. As the impacts of climate change become more severe, these communities are most likely to be impacted first and hardest. As the City adds more housing stock over the course of this Housing Element period, it is imperative that new development sustains a healthy environment by working to “reduce the unique or compounded health risks in disadvantaged communities” and is prepared for the heightened impacts of climate change, especially protecting those who are most at risk. As part of this goal, efforts to align affordable housing development with transit— such as through the State’s Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities program—and expand access to high opportunity neighborhoods and good jobs are integral to furthering environmental justice through housing.
POLICY 5.1 SUSTAIN AFFORDABLE FIRST-TIME HOMEOWNERSHIP
INCENTIVES
Action 5.1.1: Provide first-time homebuyer
programs.
When funding is available, the City has historically provided a number of first-time homebuyer programs – including the First Time Homebuyer Mortgage Assistance Program (MAP), the CalHome Program, and Oaktown Roots Affordable Homes. As funding becomes available—either through State or program-related income—the City will resume these programs. The City also provides first-time homebuyer workshops and promotes workshops hosted by a HUD-approved counseling agency.
Although City-sponsored classes are currently suspended due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the absence of funding, the City continues to provide information for other local classes. When the public health emergency subsides, the City will continue to directly offer workshops. Finally, the City maintains a list of deed-restricted below market rate (BMR) homes for sale to assist potential buyer and will continue to maintain this list throughout the planning period. The City will collect data through the first-time homebuyer programs to understand the extent of homeownership need and to identify gaps in the programs. Over time the City has increased the income limits for its first-time homebuyer programs because of the increasing gap between housing prices and incomes. The City will assess the impacts of this approach and the extent to which it may reinforce rather than reverse racial disparities in ownership.
Further, as part of Action 5.3.3, the City will engage in targeted outreach in partnership with community-based organizations and fair housing services providers to reach the most impacted communities – including Black and Latinx households.
Responsible Party: Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development – Housing Development Services
Chapter 4: Housing Action Plan
108
Potential Funding Source: State Housing Funds (CalHFA, HCD), Private Lenders, CFPB, GSFA, FHLB WISH Program, Alameda County AC Boost, and Alameda County Mortgage Credit Certificate
Timeframe: Ongoing as funding is available, 2023-2031; Annual reporting on first time homebuyer program data as available
Objectives: If the City of Oakland receives CalHome and other homeownership funding at historic rates, the City expects to support a total of 160 low- and moderate-income households with home purchases over the next Housing Element cycle.
Action 5.1.2: Expand access to low-cost financing
for home purchase.
Through the first-time homebuyer programs described in Action 5.1.1, the City was able to issue 121 loans totaling approximately $6.8 million during the previous planning period. With appropriate funding, these low-cost financing options have been very effective in promoting affordable homeownership. The City will continue to seek funding for these programs and provide access to homebuyer resources related to other county, State, or federal level funding – including through the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA), Golden State Finance Authority (GSFA), Federal Home Loan Bank’s (FHLB) WISH Program, Alameda County AC Boost, and Alameda County Mortgage Credit Certificate.
Responsible Party: Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development – Housing Development Services
Potential Funding Source: State Housing Funds (CalHFA, HCD), Private Lenders, CFPB, GSFA, FHLB WISH Program, Alameda County AC Boost, and Alameda County Mortgage Credit Certificate
Timeframe: Ongoing as funding is available, 2023-2031; Annual reporting on first time homebuyer program data as available
Objectives: If the City of Oakland receives CalHome and other homeownership funding at historic rates, the City expects to support a total of 160 low- and moderate-income households with home purchases over the next Housing Element cycle.
Action 5.1.3: Provide paths to homeownership
for Section 8 voucher holders.
Oakland HCD has traditionally worked with Section 8 voucher holders as part of the first-time homebuyer programs. Further, the Oakland Housing Authority (OHA) offers the Homeownership Program to eligible residents – which permits participants to apply their housing subsidy towards a Chapter 4: Housing Action Plan
109
monthly mortgage payment. As funding and capacity permits, the OHA will continue to offer this program and expand eligibility criteria as feasible. Oakland HCD will also continue to work with voucher holders through first time homebuyer programs. OHA will collect data on residents who make use of the Homeownership Program to understand program participants and existing gaps.
Responsible Party: OHA; Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development Potential Funding Source: HUD, State Housing Funds (CalHFA, HCD) Timeframe: Ongoing as funding is available, 2023-2031; Annual reporting on OHA’s Homeownership Program
Objectives: If funded at historic levels, the City expects to provide 30 low-income Section 8 voucher holders with down payment assistance.
POLICY 5.2. PROMOTE RESILIENT AND SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENT
Action 5.2.1: Protect against smoke and wildfire.
As wildfires become more frequent, it is increasingly important to ensure safe and healthy indoor air quality. The City will require new development follow requirements for indoor air filtration, including the installation of MERV filters, as specified in the California Building Code, and will support property owners in retrofitting their homes to protect inhabitants from wildfire smoke, prioritizing retrofits in communities with disproportionate exposure to air pollution and substandard housing. To reduce the impacts of secondhand smoke, the City will explore amendments to the smoking pollution control ordinance to create smoke-free environments within multifamily housing properties. Further, the City will encourage the addition of clean air centers and resilience spaces within residential areas that can provide emergency services in the event of a wildfire.
Responsible Party: Oakland Public Works Department; Oakland Planning & Building Department
Potential Funding Source: General Plan Surcharge and permit fees Timeframe: Ongoing, 2023 - 2031
Objectives: Significantly improve access to better indoor air quality to protect against smoke and wildfire through methods such as requiring installation of MERV filters in new developments and identifying additional clean air centers and resilience spaces within residential areas.
Chapter 4: Housing Action Plan
110
Action 5.2.2: Promote infill, transit-oriented
development (TOD), and mixed-use
development.
Expand and allow community-serving uses such as retail, restaurants, and personal services within areas that are primarily residential, and increase opportunities to add multi-family housing in commercial areas that are well-served by transit. Encourage sustainable transportation choices and improve pedestrian activity with new housing development, potentially by reducing vehicular parking requirements in new development and/or requiring transit, cyclist, and pedestrian access design features. Work with Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) to rezone and facilitate development of high-density multifamily and mixed-use housing on BART-owned sites within the City, per AB 2923. Ensure that new transit-oriented development is accompanied by tenant protection policies described in Policy 1.1.
Responsible Party: Oakland Planning & Building Department Potential Funding Source: General Plan Surcharge and permit fees Timeframe: 2023 – 2025 and Ongoing
Objectives: Significantly increase infill, transit-oriented development and mixed-use development to meet housing need.
Action 5.2.3: Study options to provide financing
for the remediation of environmentally
contaminated sites, with priority for affordable
projects.
The City will study options to provide financial assistance to property owners for the remediation of environmentally contaminated sites, such as former gas stations or auto mechanic shops, which are being developed for housing. Funding priority will go to sites with proposed affordable housing projects.
Responsible Party: Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development Potential Funding Source: State of California’s Equitable Community Revitalization Grant Program, United States Environmental Protection Agency Brownfields Grants program Timeframe: Ongoing, 2023-2031 as funding is available
Objectives: As suitable funding is available, Oakland will study and/or remediate contaminated sites to the maximum feasible extent.
Chapter 4: Housing Action Plan
111
Action 5.2.4: Secure funding from the State’s
Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities
(AHSC) Program.
The AHSC program, administered by the Strategic Growth Council and implemented by HCD, distributes Statewide Cap-and-Trade funding for affordable housing developments (new construction or renovation) and sustainable transportation infrastructure projects. Successfully implemented, the AHSC program transforms California cities into places where residents can get everywhere they want to go without having to drive. The City of Oakland will apply directly or support partners such as nonprofit and for-profit housing developers, transportation and transit agencies, and joint powers authorities to apply for AHSC grant funding.
Responsible Party: Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development; DOT; Oakland Planning & Building Department
Potential Funding Source: General Plan Surcharge and permit fees Timeframe: Ongoing, 2023 - 2031
Objectives: Significantly increase affordable housing development through application for AHSC funding to meet housing need.
Action 5.2.5: Encourage climate-resilient
housing.
Consistent with the City’s Equitable Climate Action Plan (ECAP)and Ordinance 13632 CMS,all newly constructed buildings in Oakland are prohibited from utilizing natural gas or connecting to natural gas infrastructure. The City will continue to support property owners in building electrification and seismic safety retrofits, prioritizing funding in frontline and disadvantaged communities. The City will work with organizations such as the U.S. Green Building Council to recognize net-zero energy projects with sustainable and resilient design, including passive design and energy- and water-efficient systems. The City will continue to require all projects that meet the Green Building Ordinance for Private Development thresholds comply with green building standards, exceeding CALGreen Standards, and will encourage and promote green features such as durable low-embodied carbon materials, green and cool roofs, electric vehicle charging stations, and others such features during the permitting and entitlements process. The City will continue to require green building certification under BuildItGreen.org’s GreenPoint Rated or LEED Certification systems and give preference to projects scoring higher in the Green Point Checklist, or which meet or exceed LEED Gold level, in the NOFA scoring process. The City can promote and expand existing programs to provide education and incentives to property owners and residents who implement water conservation, energy conservation, waste reduction, and resilient landscaping measures. The City will ensure that new housing development within areas subject to flooding associated with sea level rise encourage placement of life safety, Chapter 4: Housing Action Plan
112
mechanical, and electrical systems above flood elevations (i.e., second story or higher). The City will also encourage the addition of community spaces within residential areas that can provide emergency services in the event of a natural disaster or power outage.
Responsible Party: Oakland Public Works Department; Oakland Planning & Building Department
Potential Funding Source: General Plan Surcharge and permit fees Timeframe: Ongoing, 2023 - 2031
Objectives: Significantly increase construction of climate-resilient housing to meet housing need.
Action 5.2.6: Consider adoption of a disaster
reconstruction overlay zone.
The City will consider the adoption of a disaster reconstruction overlay zone to streamline reconstruction following a natural disaster. Such a zone would establish ministerial approvals and streamlined permitting for the reconstruction of homes after a natural disaster, similar to reconstruction zoning created in Santa Rosa following the Santa Rosa Wildfire. This could accelerate reconstruction, require rebuilt homes to adhere to the latest earthquake and fire safety standards, and reduce the impacts of disasters on housing affordability in Oakland.
Responsible Party: Oakland Planning & Building Department Potential Funding Source: State and federal grants, as available Timeframe: 2023 - 2027
Objectives: Consider adopting a disaster reconstruction overlay zone to meet housing need in response to potential disasters.
Action 5.2.7. Encourage new affordable housing in
higher resource neighborhoods.
Affordable housing units, including both publicly-assisted housing and housing choice vouchers, tend to be concentrated in low resource and high segregation and poverty areas., while higher resource neighborhoods have avoided providing their share of affordable units through low-density zoning that has largely prevented development at the scale necessary for affordability. To expand where affordable housing units are located, including both publicly assisted housing and housing choice vouchers, the City will encourage further affordable development in higher resource neighborhoods through allowing for higher densities and streamlined approval for affordable projects. In its annual competitions for the award of housing development funds, the City will continue to give preference to projects in areas which help advance desegregation and are located in neighborhoods with strong educational quality. Further efforts may include working with affordable developers to identify appropriate sites in high resource Chapter 4: Housing Action Plan
113
neighborhoods and providing direct outreach and resources to Section 8 voucher holders and landlords to find appropriate housing in higher resource areas (see also Action 3.3.2). Actions 3.2.1 and 3.4.1 will also help increase the availability of housing within higher resource neighborhoods.
However, while increasing affordable development in higher-resource neighborhoods is a State priority, it only represents one strategy towards increasing opportunity for historically disadvantaged residents.
Many Oakland residents want to remain in the neighborhoods that they call home, and may not want to move to “higher-resource” areas which tend to be predominantly white and higher-income. Many existing ethnic enclaves offer resources like culturally-specific grocery stores, churches, language services, or other key access points that could be difficult to find elsewhere. These neighborhoods are also often rich in transit and service resources tailored to community needs. Thus, efforts to increase access to exclusive neighborhoods must also be coupled with investment, cultural preservation, and antidisplacement efforts in Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs). These efforts are also described in Goal 1 and Goal 2. Oakland HCD’s New Construction Notice of Funding Availability has recently been modified to balance scoring to between being in higher-resource and high performing schools (for family housing) with the goal of seeking to increase investment in areas of the City that have suffered from economic and infrastructural disinvestment, as well as prioritizing affordable housing in areas where low income residents are especially vulnerable to displacement pressures.
Responsible Party: Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development; Oakland Planning & Building Department
Potential Funding Source: General fund, permit fees, other local, State, and federal funding sources as available
Timeframe: Ongoing, 2023-2031
Objectives: Oakland’s residential dissimilarity index (which compares racial segregation across neighborhoods) will decrease by at least 10% by 2031.
Action 5.2.8: Promote the development of
mixed-income housing to reduce income-based
concentration.
As noted previously, lower-income housing tends to be concentrated in lower resourced neighborhoods.
The City will work to promote mixed-income developments to further reduce the geographic isolation of lower-income units and promote increase neighborhood investment in distressed areas. The City will encourage use of the State Density Bonus program, promote mixed-income development in specific plan areas, and access CalHFA bond recycling facility for mixed-income projects.
Responsible Party: Oakland Planning & Building Department Chapter 4: Housing Action Plan
114
Potential Funding Source: General Plan Surcharge and permit fees Timeframe: Ongoing, 2023-2031
Objectives: Significantly increase production of mixed-income housing and reduce incomebased concentration to match housing need.
Action 5.2.9: Provide accountability measures for
housing programs, including annual monitoring.
The Housing Element is a living document that provides a roadmap for the next eight years. As such, the City will actively monitor activities undertaken to meet program objectives pursuant to Annual Progress Report requirements. To ensure accountability, the City will solicit annual feedback from the community to understand the effectiveness of individual programs.
Responsible Party: Oakland Planning & Building Department; Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development; Oakland Human Services Department; Oakland Economic & Workforce Development Department; Oakland Public Works Department; DOT Potential Funding Source: General Plan Surcharge and permit fees Timeframe: Ongoing, 2023-2031
Objectives: Monitor and enforce Housing Element implementation to understand whether individual programs significantly improve Oakland housing conditions and address housing need.
POLICY 5.3. PROTECT HOMEOWNERS AND TENANTS FROM
DISCRIMINATION
Action 5.3.1: Provide fair housing services and
outreach.
The City will continue to partner with fair housing service providers operating within Oakland. As most housing discrimination complaints are related to a disability bias, the City will work with fair housing providers to provide additional educational resources in a variety of languages to both tenants and landlords related to disability rights in housing. The City will publicize fair housing services on its website, in City Hall, and in all housing-related programming. The City will also seek additional State and federal funding to assist fair housing providers.
Responsible Party: Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development Potential Funding Source: CDBG, general fund, other local, State, and federal funding sources as available
Timeframe: Ongoing, 2023-2031
Chapter 4: Housing Action Plan
115
Objectives: All stated outreach materials will be created and found online no later than the end of 2023.
Action 5.3.2: Enact predatory lending
protections.
Predatory lending practices are a major contributor to racially discriminatory housing patterns and were one of the major factors in the previous decade’s foreclosure crisis. To curb these practices, the City will work with fair housing service providers to provide educational materials and workshops in a variety of languages to inform Oakland residents of best practices. The City will promote fair lending practices to ensure that low-income residents and residents of color have fair access to capital resources needed to acquire and maintain housing.
Responsible Party: Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development Potential Funding Source: CDBG, general fund, other local, State, and federal funding sources as available
Timeframe: Ongoing, 2023-2031
Objectives: All stated outreach materials will be created and found online no later than the end of 2023.
Action 5.3.3: Provide targeted outreach and
support to disproportionately burdened groups
and areas.
Oakland’s Black and Latinx populations experience disproportionately high rates of cost burden and tend to live in neighborhoods with higher rates of overcrowding and other housing issues. The City will work with fair housing service providers to target outreach and programming to Black and Latinx Oaklanders, as well as neighborhoods experiencing high levels of housing issues. The City will regularly monitor housing issues like cost burden, overcrowding, code enforcement complaints, and substandard housing to understand where the highest need for services exists.
Responsible Party: Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development; Oakland Planning & Building Department
Potential Funding Source: General Fund, permit fees, other local, State, and federal funding sources as available
Timeframe: Ongoing, 2023-2031
Chapter 4: Housing Action Plan
116
Objectives: Oakland’s residential dissimilarity index (which compares racial segregation across neighborhoods) will decrease by at least 10% by 2031.
4.2 Quantified Objectives
State law requires that quantified objectives be established for new construction, rehabilitation, conservation, and preservation activities that will occur during the Housing Element cycle. Table 4-1 provides Oakland’s quantified objectives by income category for the 2023-2031 planning period. New construction estimates include units in pipeline projects, projected accessory dwelling units (ADUs), and the minimum remaining RHNA capacity.
Table 4-1: City of Oakland 2023-2031 Quantified Objectives New Construction1
Income Category Pipeline
Project
Projected
ADUs
Remaining
RHNA
Rehabilitation2 Conservation/
Preservation3
Very-Low-Income4 2,176 890 4,422 - -
Extremely-Low-Income4 1,088 445 2,211 - -
Low-Income 2,388 890 1,035 751 258
Moderate-Income 364 198 4,564 - -
Above-Moderate-Income 9,152 - 4,111 - -
Total 14,080 12,020 4,089 - -
1. New construction objectives represent the City’s RHNA for the Sixth Cycle Housing Element update.
Estimates include units from pipeline projects and projected accessory dwelling units (ADUs).
2. Estimates are derived from the City’s 2020/2021 Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report.
3. Conservation/preservation estimates are based on the estimated number of assisted units that are at risk of conversion to market rate, as discussed in Appendix B.
4. The extremely-low-income housing need is assumed to be 50% of very-low-income housing need. Quantified objectives for very-low-income housing includes extremely-low-housing objectives.
Source: City of Oakland, 2022; Dyett & Bhatia, 2022