City of Oakland Racial Equity Impact Assessment

City of Oakland

Racial Equity Impact Assessment (REIA) Prepared for:

Logan Woodruff

Prepared by:

University of California Berkeley College of Environmental Design IN[CITY] 2019 Anna Lazenby, Tina Lee, Alexander Moore, Juan Nunez, Veronica Spanos, Rongbo Xu

Introduction The City of Oakland is proposing zoning code amendments to the existing Residential Detached and Residential Mixed Housing codes. These amendments will increase the number of units permitted to be built on a lot, with the purpose of increasing the supply of middle density housing in the City of Oakland. This Racial Equity Impact Assessment will examine how the potential outcomes of these zoning code amendments will impact racial equity in the City of Oakland. The aim of this report is to provide policy recommendations on how to ensure that these zoning amendments increase equitable outcomes.

City of Oakland Racial Equity Impact Assessment (REIA) Logan Woodruff Anna Lazenby, Tina Lee, Alexander Moore, Juan Nunez, Veronica Spanos, Rongbo Xu

Table of Contents Content I. II. III. IV. V. VI. VII.

Introduction Summary of Existing Conditions Methodology Planning Area Analysis Summary of Key Findings Policy Recommendations Concluding Remarks

Page Number 6 11 16 20 41 46 55

Appendix Appendix I. Community Engagement Appendix II. Data Calculations Appendix III. Oakland Home Prices & Values Appendix IV: Index Scores

55 62 63 64

Introduction Defining the Problem The City of Oakland is proposing zoning code amendments to the existing Residential Detached and Residential Mixed Housing codes. These amendments will increase the number of units permitted to be built on a lot, with the purpose of increasing the supply of middle density housing in the City of Oakland. This Racial Equity Impact Assessment will examine how the potential outcomes of these zoning code amendments will impact racial equity in the City of Oakland. The aim of this report is to provide policy recommendations on how to ensure that these zoning amendments increase equitable outcomes.

Zoning Code Amendment Goals of the Zoning Code Amendment The proposed zoning text amendments for the RD Detached Housing and RM Mixed Housing intends to increase density in RD and RM zones by allowing the construction of more housing units per lot and reducing the minimum lot size required for additional unit construction. The text amendments add on to the already established design standards for each of the zones.

Residential Detached Housing (RD): The RD zone amendments permit and intend for the construction of a mix of single-unit and small multi-unit buildings. In addition to this, the zoning allows certain permitted and conditionally permitted commercial usages in the units. The preliminary recommendation also removes the category of SingleFamily Dwelling with secondary unit and replacing it with the (missing) Middle-Density Dwelling that has the allowance of 2 or more units per parcel.

RD-1: • • •

RD-2: • •

6

Permits only 1 primary dwelling unit on a lot size that is less than 5,000 square feet, an amendment that sets a restriction on the construction of only single-unit building on any lot.

Permits the construction of 2 - 3 dwelling units if the lot size is greater than 5,000 square feet. One dwelling unit per 2,500 square feet of the lot.

Conditionally permits 4 dwelling units on the lot given that the lot size is 10,000 square feet or greater.

Permits 1 primary dwelling unit on lots less than 5,000 square feet.

Permits 2 - 4 dwelling units on a lot given that the lot size is 5,000 square feet or greater.

One dwelling unit per 2,000 square feet of the lot area • 1 unit on lots less than 5,000 square feet • 2 units on lots 5,000 square feet or larger • 3 units on lots 6,000 square feet or larger • 4 units on lots 8,000 square feet or larger

City of Oakland Racial Equity Impact Assessment

Residential Mixed Housing (RM): RM zoning permits and intends for the construction of a mix of single-family homes, townhouses, and small multi-unit buildings. It has a broader allowance for commercial activities than RD zoning. The text amendments also increase permitted density by allowing 2-4 units per lot. Additionally, conditionally permitted density has been increased by allowing 5 or more dwelling units per lot.

RM-1: • •

Permits only 1 primary dwelling unit on a lot size less than 4,000 square feet.

Permits 2 - 4 dwelling units on a lot size of 4,000 square feet or greater. One dwelling unit per 2,000 square feet.

RM-2: • • •

Permits only 1 primary dwelling unit on a lot size less than 4,000 square feet.

Permits 2 - 4 dwelling units on a lot size of 4,000 square feet or greater. One dwelling unit per 2,000 square feet.

Conditionally permits 5 or more dwelling units on lot sizes 4,000 square feet or greater given 1 dwelling unit per 2,000 square feet.

RM-3: • • •

Permits only 1 primary dwelling unit on a lot size less than 4,000 square feet.

Permits 2 - 4 dwelling units on a lot size of 4,000 square feet or greater. One dwelling unit per 1,500 square feet.

Conditionally permits 5 or more dwelling units on lot sizes 4,000 square feet or greater given 1 dwelling unit per 1,500 square feet.

RM-4: • • •

Permits only 1 primary dwelling unit on a lot size less than 4,000 square feet.

Permits 2 - 4 dwelling units on a lot size of 4,000 square feet or greater. One dwelling unit per 1,000 square feet.

Conditionally permits 5 or more dwelling units on lot sizes 4,000 square feet or greater given 1 dwelling unit per 1,000 square feet.

Why RD and RM? The proposed zoning amendments target existing RM and RD zones because they offer a great deal of potential densification. Both zones contain single family homes, as well as 2-4 unit multiplexes, and many of the existing lots are large enough to accommodate additional units (Figure 1). Additionally, the majority of land zoned RM or RD is located away from environmental hazards, whether sea level rise, liquefaction, or wildfires (Figure 2).

I. Introduction

7

Figure 1: Eligible Single Family Residential Lots in RM and RD Zones

Figure 2: Environmental Hazards in Oakland 8

City of Oakland Racial Equity Impact Assessment

Possible Outcomes of Zoning Code Amendment The Zoning Code Amendment will be analyzed across ten planning areas (Figure 3). While the Zoning Code Amendment generally aims to increase the amount of middle income housing stock in the City of Oakland, the outcomes of the amendments vary. Figure 4 explores possible outcomes based on the proposed amendments through a decision tree.

North Oakland

North Hills

West Oakland Lower Hills

South Hills Chinatown Central San Antonio Fruitvale Central East Oakland Elmhurst

Figure 3: Planning areas in the City of Oakland and Corresponding Census Tracts

Figure 4: Decision Tree of Possible Outcomes of Upzoning I. Introduction

9

This report will assess the impact of the proposed zoning code amendments on existing spatio-racial inequities in the city of Oakland. In order to do so, the existing conditions of racial inequities will first be identified and analyzed, informing the creation of a quantitative index of housing vulnerability. This index can be used as a framework to assess whether racial inequities would increase or decrease through the implementation of the proposed amendments; ideally, all index scores would approach zero.

Equity across racial lines for a planning area would show that each racial group has a similar index value regardless of positivity or negativity. An index score of 0 shows that this racial group or planning area is close to the city of Oakland averages. This analysis will inform a summary of key findings which will in turn inform policy recommendations based on the identified possible outcomes of the Zoning Code Amendment. The aim of these policy recommendations is to increase the potential for equitable outcomes.

10

City of Oakland Racial Equity Impact Assessment

Summary of Existing Conditions: Racial Inequities Historical Context: Redlining The Home Owners Loan Corporation, founded in 1933, is often cited as the originator of mortgage redlining. Regions of the city were assessed credit-worthiness, ranked from A - D, where A was “best,” B “still desirable,” C “Definitely Declining,” and D “Hazardous.” These rankings were calculated based on the racial makeup of a certain neighborhood, as well as the condition of the existing housing stock, neighborhood income levels and housing costs. Predominantly European American neighborhoods were ranked highest whereas predominantly African American and Mexican American neighborhoods were marked as “red,” designated high risk neighborhoods for mortgage lending.

Redlining perpetuated cycles of disinvestment in communities primarily of low-income and persons of color. The lingering effects of redlining are still felt in the City of Oakland today. Presently, redlined neighborhoods remain largely low-income and have a higher proportion of Black and Hispanic populations than non-redlined communities.

As mortgage loans were largely unavailable to inhabitants of redlined areas, these neighborhoods retained more of their multi-family housing stock. This is reflected in current zoning codes: residential parcels in formerly redlined areas are predominantly zoned for residential mixed housing (RM-1 to RM4) and these areas contain very little single family detached housing. Single family detached housing is instead found in formerly Grade A, B, and C areas that are today zoned for residential detached (RD-1 and RD-2) or residential hillside (RH).

Figure 5: HOLC Land Valuation Grades II. Summary of Existing Conditions

11

1%

13%

6%

21%

13%

1%

13%

13% Grade A

12%

31%

RM

28% 28%

RD 45% 45%

Grade B Grade A Grade C Grade B Grade D Grade C Ungraded Grade D Ungraded

30%

Figure 6: Historic Grades of RM and RD Zones

Summary of Inequity The following summary outlines Oakland’s performance on key disparity indicators, as identified by the City of Oakland’s Equity Indicators Report. The four broader themes identified are Economics, Education, Environmental Justice/Public Health and Housing Affordability. The indicators that fall under these broader themes reflect the disparities between the least and most advantaged racial/ethnic

Economics: Unemployment: •

•

Relevance: Employment provides the means to participate in the economy. Disparities across racial/ethnic groups point to higher barriers of economic entry. High levels of inequity means that some racial groups disproportionately lack access to income, which means a household is less likely to be able to afford rent, accrue money to purchase a home, or pay for health related costs.

Disparity: Black workers are the most likely to be unemployed (8.9%) and are 2.12 times more likely than White workers to be unemployed (least likely at 4.2%).

Median Household Income: •

•

12

Relevance: Sufficient household income is necessary for households to be able to meet the cost of living within a certain area. High levels of inequity means that some racial groups bear and greater rent burdened, have less access to capital, and have a decreased capacity to accrue money to purchase a home or pay for health related costs.

Disparity: Black households have the lowest median income ($37,500) compared to White households, which earn on average 2.93 times more ($110,000).

City of Oakland Racial Equity Impact Assessment

Poverty: •

•

Relevance: Poverty is measured based on whether a certain household is living at or below the federal poverty threshold. Households living in poverty are forced to make tradeoffs to meet their basic needs. Disparities across racial/ethnic groups suggest systemic barriers of access to capital, resulting in limited access to opportunity, economic mobility and social mobility.

Disparity: Black households are most likely to be living at or below the federal poverty line

Education: High School On-Time Completion •

•

Relevance: Educational attainment is integral to opportunity and success later in life.

Students who either do not meet requirements on time, or choose to drop out of high school have the possibility of negatively impacting their future. Specifically looking at which groups tend to complete on time versus not points to students who may not be set up for success in the education system.

Disparity: White students were most likely to complete their high school education within four years (77.0%), 1.26 times more likely than Latinx students (the least likely at 60.9%).

Environmental Justice/Public Health: Childhood Asthma Emergency Department Visits •

•

Relevance: Childhood asthma reflects poor housing quality and poor neighborhood air quality. There are strong correlations between higher childhood asthma emergency department visits, and decreased performance in school and work and more household income spent on hospital expenses. Looking at which groups have higher asthma rates points to systemic environmental and public health injustice.

Disparity: Black children had much higher rates of emergency department visits (4,093.3 per 100,000) compared to White children (407.4 per 100,000). Black children are 10.05 times more likely than White children to be admitted to the emergency room for asthmarelated conditions.

Housing: Homeownership •

•

Relevance: Homeownership is one of the major mechanisms for wealth accumulation and intergenerational support. Having lower rates of home ownership implies that group will likely be renting, putting them at the force of the free market and more vulnerable to the process of displacement.

Disparity: Black householders were least likely to own their homes (74.1%), 1.70 times less likely than compared to White householders (43.6%).

II. Summary of Existing Conditions

13

Rent Burden: •

•

Relevance: A household is considered rent burden if the household is spending more than 30% of its annual household income on rent. Having a higher percentage of annual income spent on rent means there are tradeoffs in spending on other necessities, such as food, utilities and saving for emergencies.

Disparity: Black households were most likely to be rent burdened (58.4% of households), 1.67 times more likely compared to White households (34.9%).

Homelessness: • •

Relevance: Housing instability exacerbates stress on individuals and families and greatly hinder their ability to plan for their future. Chronic homelessness points to a lack of stable employment and access to services that may be essential to ensure stable housing.

Disparity: Black people were most likely to be homeless (1,797 per 100,00), 41.76 times more likely than compared to Asians (43.0 per 100,000).

Of the indicators compared, Black households are overrepresented in almost all of these measures of inequity. This results in economic disadvantage, poorer access to education and job opportunities, greater exposure to environmental hazards, and a higher housing burden than other racial/ethnic In this report, two of the indicators outlined above, Household Income and Rent Burden were chosen to measure inequity in the ten planning areas. An additional indicator, Percent Renters, was chosen based off reports from the Urban Displacement Project, which aimed to measure the vulnerability of certain populations. These three indicators were chosen to capture racial inequity as related to housing as the best proxies to measure complex racial disparity. The following criteria was used to determine which indicators to chose: 1) Is there a strong causal relationship to support why this indicator matters for housing access?

2) Is the data available, high quality, and from a reliable source?

3) Will we be able to calculate the change in the indicator over time?

4) Does the data accurately represent the impact of inequity on people’s lives?

14

City of Oakland Racial Equity Impact Assessment

Endnotes 1. Oakland Equity Indicators Report, 2018 https://www.oaklandca.gov/documents/2018-oakland-equity-indicators-report

II. Summary of Existing Conditions

15

Methodology Racial Breakdown This report breaks down race and ethnicity into five categories: White Non-Hispanic, Black, Asian, Hispanic and Other. This introduces some error into the calculations, which will be discussed in the Limitations section.

27%

16%

24%

27%

6%

HISPANIC

ASIAN

BLACK

WHITE

OTHER

Figure 5. Racial Breakdown Chart for the City of Oakland

Data Collection All the data used was retrieved from the American Community Survey 2013-2017 Five-Year Estimates.

Collected by the US Census Bureau, the ACS Five-Year Estimates supplied information on the racial and ethnic composition of Oakland’s population, as well as housing tenure, household income, and rent statistics at the census tract level. These were used to calculate summary statistics for the 10

Indicators The three indicators chosen to measure inequity in this report are Household Income, Rent Burden and Percent Renters. Calculations will be provided for each indicator for the City of Oakland, ten Planning Areas, and each racial group within each Planning Area.

A housing vulnerability index was created to show which populations are more or less vulnerable to changes in their housing conditions. The index was created by 1) calculating the standard deviation of each indicator across the City of Oakland 2) calculating how many standard deviations away each racial/ethnic group is away from the City of Oakland average for each indicator, a “z-score” 3) averaging a particular racial/ethnic group’s z-scores for each indicator to create a normalized index.

This final index reflects how many standard deviations on average a particular racial group is away from the City of Oakland average across the three indicators. The standard deviation method was used to create a normalized index score to compare racial/ethnic groups to each other within a planning

Limitations The Census Bureau defines race and ethnicity differently, and self reported race and ethnicity data inherently contains the double counting of a certain number of people, especially Hispanic/Latinos who may report as any race. While the US Census separates out the Hispanic/Latino-identifying population from the different racial categories (ie. White and White Not Hispanic or Latino, Black and Black Not Hispanic or Latino, etc.) for its total population count, it only makes this distinction for White and White Not Hispanic or Latino for householder data.

16

City of Oakland Racial Equity Impact Assessment

Secondly, the ‘Other’ racial category includes people who identify as American Indian and Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, Other Race Alone, and Two or More Races. These groups may experience significantly different inequities; for the purpose of this report they were combined into one other group as the population of each individual groups was determined to be too small to be significantly compared to the other racial/ethnic groups.

Some points of data from the Census did not make sense (ex. 0 household income even though there were 80 households in that particular racial group) and were excluded from the final data calculations for this report.

III. Methodology

17

Planning Area Analysis City of Oakland Demographics 6%

Asian

27%

Black

27%

Hispanic 16%

White

24%

Other

The City of Oakland averages are referenced throughout this section of the report. Here they are included for the readers reference.

Planning Area Analysis The proceeding section will analyze each Planning Area across thre three indicators discussed. The ten Planning Areas are:

North Oakland

North Hills

West Oakland Lower Hills

South Hills Chinatown Central San Antonio Fruitvale Central East Oakland Elmhurst

18

City of Oakland Racial Equity Impact Assessment

1. West Oakland 2. Chinatown Central 3. North Oakland 4. Lower Hills 5. South Hills 6. North Hills 7. San Antonio 8. Fruitvale 9. Elmhurst 10. Central East Oakland

West Oakland Demographic Breakdown

Final Score -2.54 Asian Black Hispanic White Other

-3.12 -2.16 -0.27 2.63 -1.39

Asian Black Hispanic White Other

Household Income Household Income by Race

Household Income by Race Z-Score

West Oakland has a significantly higher Black population than the City of Oakland average, and lower overall Asian, Hispanic and White populations compared to that average.

Percent Renters Rate of Renters: Rate of Homeowners:

78.51% 21.49% IV. Planning Area Analysis

19

Rent Burden Rent Burden by Race

Rent Burden by Race Z-Score

The White population is significantly less rent burdened than other racial/ethnic groups, spending on average only 12.22% of their annual household rent, compared to both Black and Asian households in West Oakland that are considered rent burdened (i.e. they are spending more than 30% of their annual household income on rent).

Given that 78.51% of households are renters, most of the already disadvantaged low-income and households of color are facing the forces of the rental market.

Summary Given that White populations make on average 3 times that of any other racial/ethnic group, it may be suggested that West Oakland is undergoing the processes of gentrification and displacement, as increasingly wealthy, predominantly White households make up the neighborhood. A comparison of scores over time as well as qualitative research would be required to make this determination for certain.

10% of parcels will be affected by the Zoning Code Amendment, predominantly in RM-4 Mixed Housing Type Residential Zone which is made up by residential areas typically located near the City’s major arterials and characterized by a mix of single family homes, townhouses, small multi-unit buildings at somewhat higher density than RM-3 Mixed Housing Type Residential. These new units may be in key locations near major arterials, providing households access to public transit, which is key for lowincome and households of people of color.

20

City of Oakland Racial Equity Impact Assessment

Chinatown Central Demographic Breakdown

Final Score -1.06 Asian Black Hispanic White Other

-0.94 -1.36 0.56 1.67 0.36

Asian Black Hispanic White Other

Household Income Household Income by Race

Household Income by Race Z-Score

White households make the most compared to any other racial/ethnic group in Chinatown Central, making about 2 times more than Black households, which have the lowest average annual income and about 25% more than Other households, which have the second highest annual average income after White households.

Percent Renters Rate of Renters: Rate of Homeowners:

83% 17% IV. Planning Area Analysis

21

Rent Burden Rent Burden by Race

Rent Burden by Race Z-Score

White households spend the least amount of their annual household income on rent (15%) versus Black households and Asian households who spend 27% and 25% of their annual household income on rent respectively.

Given that 83% of households in Chinatown Central are renters, it may be suggested that many lower income families are disproportionately spend more of their annual household income on rent. Given that White households make more than any other racial/ ethnic group, it is clear to see the racial disparity in economic standing of households.

Summary 24% parcels will be affected by the Zoning Code Amendment, predominantly in RM-1 and RM-4 . While no racial/ethnic group is considered rent burdened, Black and Asian households spend the most on rent. The zoning code amendment may have a slight impact on racial equity if the units built are affordable for below average income families.

22

City of Oakland Racial Equity Impact Assessment

North Oakland Demographic Breakdown

Final Score -0.22 Asian Black Hispanic White Other

0.78 -1.46 -0.02 2.09 0.84

Asian Black Hispanic White Other

Household Income Household Income by Race

Household Income by Race Z-Score

White population median household income is almost exactly twice as much black population median household income. The white population median household income is also higher than the Oakland average.

The majority of non-white, nonblack median household incomes are right around the average median household income for the area.

Percent Renters Rate of Renters: Rate of Homeowners:

65% 35% IV. Planning Area Analysis

23

Rent Burden Rent Burden by Race

Rent Burden by Race Z-Score

Each racial group is below the 30% Rent Burden level that indicates significant burden.

There are still, however, discrepancies between racial groups and rent burden levels.

The Black population in this area is estimated to be twice as rent burdened as the white populations in North Oakland.

Additionally, the White Population appears to be significantly less burdened compared to other racial groups in their planning areas. This would be linked to a significantly higher median household income.

Summary 10% parcels will be affected by the Zoning Code Amendment, predominantly in RD-1 and RM-2. While no racial/ethnic group is considered rent burdened, Black households spend close to the threshold that would make them be considered rent burdened (29%). The zoning code amendment may have a very slight impact on racial equity if the units built are affordable for below average income families; however, given that such a small percentage of parcels will be affected, and that not all newly permitted parcels will be built, there will likely be a negligible impact on racial equity.

24

City of Oakland Racial Equity Impact Assessment

Lower Hills Demographic Breakdown

Final Score 2.24 Asian Black Hispanic White Other

0.41 -2.54 0.37 2.03 2.51

Asian Black Hispanic White Other

Household Income Household Income by Race

Household Income by Race Z-Score

Lower Hills is a predominantly white planning area with a close to 50/50 split between renters and home owners. The household incomes across all racial categories has a mild distribution with every racial group earning above the Oakland city average. Despite this, there is still a nearly $60,000 dollar difference between white median household income and black median household income

Percent Renters Rate of Renters: Rate of Homeowners:

42.43% 57.57% IV. Planning Area Analysis

25

Rent Burden Rent Burden by Race

Rent Burden by Race Z-Score

The black population in this area is extremely rent burdened, despite earning higher than the Oakland city average in household income. Despite this, the black population is earning similar levels to the other racial groups in this planning area.

The Other race demographic is extremely non-rent burdened.

Summary Despite the black demographic earning a similar household income level to the other four racial categories, this demographic experiences significant rental burden. There are two possible explanations as to why this could happen. The first scenario is that the black population specifically chooses expensive census tracts, neighborhoods, or buildings to live in. The second scenario (and more probable) is the idea that the rent prices have changed faster than the population can adapt. This is a concerning sign, which suggests that massive displacement is bound to occur, unless something changes.

32% of parcels and 31% of the land area will be affected by the Zoning Code Amendment, predominantly in the RD-1 Single Family Residential Zone. If there is the proper incentive structure in place to provide affordable housing options on up-zoned single family housing lots, then there is the potential to help alleviate the increased rent burden on the black population by providing housing options nearby to their current options within the planning zone.

26

City of Oakland Racial Equity Impact Assessment

South Hills Demographic Breakdown

Final Score 1.58 Asian Black Hispanic White Other

1.92 0.42 -3.57 2.46 1.60

Asian Black Hispanic White Other

Household Income Household Income by Race

Household Income by Race Z-Score

The South Hills planning area is a well mixed demographic area with a higher than city average percentage of the black demographic. Each racial group is earning at or above the median average income for the city of Oakland.

Percent Renters Rate of Renters: Rate of Homeowners:

28.43% 71.57% IV. Planning Area Analysis

27

Rent Burden Rent Burden by Race

Rent Burden by Race Z-Score

The Hispanic population is one of the most rent burdened populations across all planning areas, and all racial groups. The median household income for this demographic is not particularly low, so this suggests that the rent prices in the census tracts with the highest percentages of the Hispanic population are in tracts with high rents.

Summary Given that only the Hispanic population is extremely burdened, and that the majority of people living in this census tract does not rent, (nearly 75/25 Homeowners to renters) there appears to be a region of this planning area where the Hispanic community is experiencing a higher than average level of rent burden. The good thing is that the numbers may be less pervasive than a systemic rent burden problem we see with other demographics, the problem may be that because the burden affects so few, it may go overlooked. It will be important to remember that according to our data, the Hispanic population in this planning area needs attention to help address this problem with rent burden.

56% of the parcels and 59% of the land area will be impacted by these policy changes. Similarly to other hill planning areas, the majority of the policy impacts will be in RD-1 Single Family Housing lots.

It is imperative that affordable ADU or intensified housing options are provided for rent burdened demographics. If Rent burden is addressed, this planning area has the potential to be one of the most equitable planning areas in the city.

28

City of Oakland Racial Equity Impact Assessment

North Hills Demographic Breakdown

Final Score 5.45 Asian Black Hispanic White Other

2.65 2.89 3.71 4.21 3.35

6%

7%

14% 5%

68%

Asian Black Hispanic White Other

Household Income Household Income by Race

Household Income by Race Z-Score

North Hills is a significantly wealthier compared to the City of Oakland across all racial/ ethnic groups. On average, residents of North Hills are 2 standard deviations higher than the City of Oakland average across racial/ethnic groups, meaning they are in the top 95% of earners. Even within this much more significantly wealthy neighborhood, White earners make approximately 1.2 times more than other racial/ethnic groups.

Percent Renters Rate of Renters: Rate of Homeowners:

13.45% 86.55% IV. Planning Area Analysis

29

Rent Burden Rental Burden by Race

Rental Burden by Race Z-Score

North Hills has a much smaller percentage of renters compared to the City of Oakland average, 13% versus 50%. Of the small percentage of renters, each household spends at most 17.69% of their rent which means no group is considered to be rent burdened.

Summary North Hills has the highest percentage of White population of all the planning areas, 41% higher than the City of Oakland average. The Asian population is the second highest, which is only 2% less than the City of Oakland average. The Hispanic and Black populations are significantly less than the City of Oakland average, 21% and 22% less respectively. Based off the three indicators, it is evident that North Hills as a whole is not vulnerable to having any forms of displacement through the implementation of the zoning text amendments. However, it does appear that In this particular planning area, 73% of parcels will be affected by the Zoning Code Amendment, almost entirely in RD-1 Residential Detached Unit Residential. Given that income levels are so high in North Hills, and all zoning code amendments are made in RD-1 Zone, Zoning Code Amendments will likely not improve racial equity outcomes in North Hills without any interventions to faciliate affordable housing construction on site.

30

City of Oakland Racial Equity Impact Assessment

San Antonio Demographic Breakdown

Final Score 0.77 Asian Black Hispanic White Other

6%

-1.06 -1.06 -1.18 1.26 -0.7

18%

24% 18% 34%

Asian Black Hispanic White Other

Household Income Household Income by Race

6%

18%

24% 18% 34%

Household Income by Race Z-Score

San Antonio has lower than average annual household income for all racial/ethic groups, averaging around 0.5 standard deviations below the mean. Only White households made slightly more than the CIty of Oakland average.

Percent Renters Rate of Renters: Rate of Homeowners:

21.51% 78.49% IV. Planning Area Analysis

31

Rent Burden Rental Buderden by Race

Household Income by Race Z-Score

San Antonio has a higher rate of homeowners than renters.

Of the 22% of renters none are rent burdened. Black and Asian households spend the most on monthly rent, at 26%, versus White households that spend around 16%.

Summary Reviewing the household income statistics for San Antonio, it is illustrated that the planning area has a lower than average annual household income for almost all of the racial/ethic groups, averaging around 0.5 standard deviations below the mean. The only demographic that is not under the averarge annual household income are White households which earn an income slightly above than that of the CIty of Oakland.

Furthermore, 13% of parcels will be affected by the Zoning Code Amendment, spread across RM-1, RM-2 and RD-1. This in mind, considering the relatively low percentage of renters, of which none of the 5 racial/ethnic groups currently being rent burden, it can be argued that the zoning code amendments will not have an inequitable impact on the planning area. The amendments may foster for a range of policies that can promote homeownership for the 22% of the renters or the creation of more affordable housing.

32

City of Oakland Racial Equity Impact Assessment

Elmhurst Demographic Breakdown

Final Score -1.93 Asian Black Hispanic White Other

-0.10 -2.52 -0.95 -4.08 -1.01

Asian Black Hispanic White Other

Household Income Household Income by Race Elmhurst has a significantly higher than average Hispanic and Black population compared to the City of Oakland, 29% and 8% higher respectively. There is much lower percentage compared to the Oakland average of White Households and Asian households.

Household Income by Race Z-Score

All racial/ethic groups in Elmhurst make below the CIty of Oakland average in annual household income, at approximately 0.5 standard deviations below the mean. Of the racial/ethnic groups, the White households makes the most, followed by Asian households, Other, Hispanic and then Black households.

Percent Renters Rate of Renters: Rate of Homeowners:

60% 40% IV. Planning Area Analysis

33

Rent Burden Rent Burden by Race

Rent Burden by Race Z-Score

On average Elmhurst is rent burdened, spending 30% of annual household income on rent. While White households made the most annual household income, they were the most rent burdened, spending approximately 46% of their annual household income on rent following by Black households who spent 34%. This suggests that of the 60% of renters, there may be a higher proportion of White households.

Summary 20% of parcels will be affected in Elmhurst, predominantly in RD-1 zoned areas. Given that all households earn below the City of Oakland average, and that Black and White households are both rent burdened, the Zoning Code Amendment may have an impact on racial equity in Elmhurst.

As it stands, the lowest possible market rate price for a single-unit home (being in the RM-4 Zone) will approximately be $517,000, with a downpayment of $113, 740, value significantly higher than that of all the racial groups living in Elmhurst. That said, for planning areas like this one in particular a policy recommendation that can be implemented is a ‘Rent to Own” option for households that make a certain amount of income in which if they happen to fall within specific a tier system that compares their income by the Average Median Income of the planning area. This can transform into a tool that allows residents to continue living in their respective communities and assist them establish intergenerational wealth through homeownership.

34

City of Oakland Racial Equity Impact Assessment

Central East Oakland Demographic Breakdown

Final Score -1.77 Asian Black Hispanic White Other

-0.30 -2.97 0.46 0.32 -0.44

Asian Black Hispanic White Other

Household Income Household Income by Race

Central East Oakland has a much higher than average Black and Hispanic population, 20% and 10% higher respectively. The Asian and White population are significantly less than the City of Oakland average.

Household Income by Race Z-Score

In this planning area, all racial groups except the Hispanic population are making below the Oakland Average, with the black population having the lowest median household income.

The Hispanic population has the highest median household income.

Percent Renters Rate of Renters: Rate of Homeowners:

37.40% 62.60% IV. Planning Area Analysis

35

Rent Burden Rent Burden by Race

Rent Burden by Race Z-Score

Only Black households are considered rent burdened, spending approximately 36% of their annual household income on rent. This is consistent with household income, given that Black households earn the lowest annual household income of all the racial/ethnic groups.

The Asian, Hispanic, and Other households hover around spending 23% of their annual household income on rent. While White households earn less than both Asian, Hispanic and Other households, they spend less than all other racial/ethnic groups on annual rent. This suggests that White households may have higher rates of home ownership.

Summary 16% of parcels will be affected in Central East Oakland, predominantly in RD-1 and RD-2 zones. Given that Black households are by far the lowest scoring group (-2.97), policy should look to mitigate potential displacement of Balck households as land value and housing costs increase by preserving existing affordable housing options in the neighborhood. Despite having a significantly larger annual household income than any other group, Hispanic households do not have a significantly higher final score than White Households (0.46 vs 0.32). This is due to the greater housing burden that Hispanic households face (22.6% vs 19.4% for White households). Attention may also be paid to the Hispanic population.

36

City of Oakland Racial Equity Impact Assessment

Fruitvale Demographic Breakdown

Final Score -2.93 Asian Black Hispanic White Other

-0.60 -2.48 -1.22 1.45 -1.52

Asian Black Hispanic White Other

Household Income Household Income by Race

Household Income by Race Z-Score

All racial/ethnic groups besides the White population earn around 0.7 standard deviations below the City of Oakland average.

Only White households have an average income around the CIty of Oakland average. Black households earn the least.

Percent Renters Rate of Renters: Rate of Homeowners:

67.66% 32.34% IV. Planning Area Analysis

37

Rent Burden Rent Burden by Race

Rent Burden by Race Z-Score

Black households are rent burdened, spending around 32% of their annual household income on rent. White households spend the least on rent, around 16% of their annual household income.

All other racial/ethnic groups are not officially rent burdened, but spend a significant amount on rent, on average about 27% of their annual household income.

Summary 13% of parcels will be affected in Fruitvale, mostly in the RD-2, RM-2 and RM-4 Zones. Given that 68% of households are renters, and Black households are rent burdened, it is possible that the Zoning Code Amendment will have a slight impact on racial equity in Fruitvale.

To ensure that the outcomes are as equitable as possible, affordable housing incentives may be necessary to ensure that of the additional units built based on the Zoning Amendments, lower-income households in Fruitvale can afford to live in the new developments.

38

City of Oakland Racial Equity Impact Assessment

Summary of Key Findings General Takeaways Based on the planning area index values, disparity exists between planning areas. North Hills is the least vulnerbale area, while Fruitvale and West Oakland are the most vulnerable. The planning area with the most equity between racial groups (the difference between the lowest and highest value groups) was North Hills. It is particuarly noteworthy that North Hills has the highest percentages of median household income level across all demographics and the lowest percentage of non-white households across all planning areas. Planning areas with low overall index scores, were characterized by higher then average non-white households, lower median household income levels, and higher percentages of reners.

Planning Areas Fruitvale West Oakland Elmhurst Central East Oakland Chinatown Central

Index Score -2.97 -2.53 -1.96 -1.73 -1.15

North Oakland San Antonio South Hills Lower Hills North Hills

V. Summary of Key Findings

0.68 0.86 1.58 2.24 5.57

39

40

City of Oakland Racial Equity Impact Assessment

-4

4

Housing Vulnerability Index by Planning Area Compared to Largest Demographic

Housing Vulnerability Index

by Planning Area

0

KEY

ASIAN

BLACK

Housing Vulnerability Index by Race by Planning Area

HISPANIC

WHITE

OTHER

Outcomes Among Racial/Ethnic Groups With respect to household incomes: • • •

White Households were found earning the highest income in almost all planning areas, except in the case of Elmhurst Black households, overall, earn the lowest income compared to the rest of the other racial/ ethnic groups Household incomes of Black and Other demographics are usually lower than the average household income in each planning area

With respect to rental burden: • •

White populations rarely experience rental burden throughout all the planning areas Black households are most frequently rent burdened (West Oakland, North Oakland, Lower Hills, Fruitvale, Central East Oakland and Elmhurst)

Outcomes Along Planning Area Lines • • •

• •

Chinatown Central and West Oakland have the highest percentage of renters compared to the rest of the City. These areas are located within close proximity to Oakland’s Downtown area and along the eastern portion of the City.

Asian and Black households in West Oakland experience rental burden. Compared to the rest of their counterparts, the two households spend over 30% of their income on rent.

The three planning areas consisting of the lowest percentage of renters where all located on the hills, North Hills, South Hills, and Lower Hills. These planning areas also had the highest household income out of the other 7 planning areas and higher percentage of White households (N Hills 68%, L Hills 50% and S Hills 28%) Hispanic households are rent burdened in one neighborhood, South Hills, as well as simultaneously having the lowest household income in the planning area.

All racial groups in Elmhurst, Fruitvale, San Antonio, and, to some extent, Central East Oakland have household incomes lower than the average for the entire City of Oakland.

A Note on Purchasing a Home Under the preliminary recommendations, the lowest price for a single unit will be $517,000 calculated by the average $517 per square foot, with a 22% downpayment of $113,740 (determined by the average down payment for the City of Oakland).1 2This is for a single-unit building of a maximum of 1,000 square feet which is in an RM-4 zone. That noted, considering the stark disparities amongst the household incomes across the 5 racial/ethnic groups, the likelihood of low-income groups that may be able to afford the lowest estimated priced home from the amendment is relatively small. The mean household income in Oakland is estimated at $92,706. Breaking down the mean household incomes by race/ ethnicity, the only population that can potentially afford the market rate values for these homes would be white households in Oakland, earning $121,570.

V. Summary of Key Findings

41

Limitations with the Index Scores A note to comment on with regards to the index values highlighted by planning area and along racial lines. The Planning Area Value takes into account three different indexes. The Race Index Values only takes into account two indexes. This was due to the problem of not being able to discern the demographic breakdown of the renting population versus the homeowner population. Because of this, we did not want to weigh the Race Index Value equally along racial lines, or boost/deflate index values by a planning area wide score. Both of these index value adjustments would potentially mask disparities along racial lines between planning areas. To maintain clarity of the data, we did not do this.

This means you cannot compare Planning Area Values, to Racial Equity Values. The only way to do this would be to make the correction of subtracting the Percent Renter Index Value from the Planning Area Index Value, or finding the demographic make up of both homeowners and renters, then adding in a weighted index value to each demographic.

42

City of Oakland Racial Equity Impact Assessment

Endnotes 1 Home prices calculated from data collected from Zillow https://www.zillow.com/oakland-ca/home-values/ 2 Down payment minimums calcualted from Redfin https://www.redfin.com/city/13654/CA/Oakland/housing-market

V. Summary of Key Findings

43

Policy Recommendations Based on the analysis conducted of existing conditions, the following section will recommend housing policies to improve racial equity in the City of Oakland.

Part I. Assumptions Based on Our Research I. Assumptions from our Key Findings Some major trends identified throughout this report are that planning areas that are predominantly renters are also predominantly persons of color and in almost all planning areas have at least one nonwhite racial/ethnic group that is rent burdened. Black households are most frequently rent burdened and fall below the median household income level within a particular planning area. One main focus of these policy recommendations will be to ensure that new housing is produced for middle and low income households, that existing affordable units are preserved for low and middle income households and finally that those that are extremely rent burdened (those who spend greater than 50% of their household income on rent) are protected.

Given that homeownership is one of the largest sources of wealth accumulation and intergenerational support, another priority of this report’s policy recommendations will be to encourage homeownership for predominantly lower income households and households of color.

II. Priority Planning Areas The priority level classification is based on the housing vulnerability index and aims to prioritize the neighborhoods and groups of people most at risk of displacement.

High priority areas have higher housing vulnerability scores, larger percentages of renters and people of color. These areas will benefit most from renter-oriented policies, aiming to prevent displacement and encourage existing renters to become homeowners. Lower priority areas have smaller proportions of people of color at risk of displacement. These areas are an opportunity for the City of Oakland to create homeowner-oriented policies that incentivize existing single-family homeowners to build additional units, affordable or otherwise.

A. High Planning Area

44

Final Index Score

% non-white

Fruitvale

-2.97

88.34%

West Oakland

-2.53

78.28%

Elmhurst

-1.98

95.85%

Central East Oakland

-1.73

94.30%

Chinatown Central

-1.15

67.07%

City of Oakland Racial Equity Impact Assessment

B. Low Planning Area

Final Index Score

% non-white

North Oakland

0.68

49.64%

San Antonio

0.86

77.91%

South HIlls

1.58

72.39%

Lower Hills

2.24

48.54%

North Hills

5.57

32.061%

Part II. Policy Recommendations by Priority Level High Priority: Fruitvale, West Oakland, Elmhurst, Central East Oakland & Chinatown Central Fruitvale, West Oakland, Elmhurst and Central East Oakland share several key characteristics based off the three indicators analyzed throughout this report. First, these high priority planning areas all have a high percentage of non-white population, ranging from 78% non-white to 96% non-white. Second, that they have household income levels that frequently fall below the City of Oakland median annual household income. Third, they have a higher than average percentage of renters, ranging from 60% 83%. Finally, that in all four planning areas, Black households are considered rent burdened, followed

by Asian, White, Hispanic and Other households which are considered rent burdened in only one other planning area each.

These facts point to a large racial equity gap in terms of access to affordable housing for Black households in the High Priority Planning Areas. Below are policy recommendations to help improve equity conditions within housing.

A. Policy: Short Term Implementation I. Tenant and Community Opportunity to Purchase Tenant Opportunity to Purchase laws allow tenants either the right to match the purchase offer made by a third party or the option to purchase directly from the landlord without the involvement of a third party. Community Opportunity to Purchase policies work similarly, offering not-for-profit organizations the right to purchase. San Francisco is considering the introduction of a Community Right to Purchase Act that would allow pre-selected housing nonprofits to purchase vacant lots or residential rental buildings with three or more units1.

This and a variety of other tenant or community right to purchase acts are inspired by Washington D.C’s TOPA, which went into effect in 2018 (double check). Under Washington D.C.’s policy, tenants in single family dwellings are only eligible for TOPA rights if they are elderly or disabled2; in 2-4 unit residences, all tenants are eligible for TOPA rights3.

TOPA rights grant the tenants a window of time in which to submit a Statement of Interest, negotiate with the landlord, and secure financing or financial assistance in order to purchase their rental housing. During this time, the landlord cannot enter into a sales contract with any other party.

VI. Policy Recommendations

45

A similar policy in Oakland could enhance equity by providing tenants with a path to homeownership and a way to prevent themselves from being evicted when their building is sold to a new owner. As tenants are often unable to secure sufficient funding on their own, the ability to assign the right to purchase to nonprofits (or even for-profit developers) puts bargaining power in the hands of tenants. With this power tenants can secure benefits from developers that they would otherwise not have been able to secure.

II. Homeownership Programs The following homeownership program has been utilized successfully in Sante Fe, New Mexico. The Homewise Model Homewise reduces how much investment a potential homeowner puts in as well as it lowers the monthly prices they must pay. More in depth, the Homewise program breaks down what a potential client will pay into three major parts to ensure that there is affordable access to owning a home. The first component of the program allows clients to put a down payment of 2% of the home value, instead of the Federal and Local scale average which are higher, in an effort to eliminate one of the most frequent barriers to purchasing a home. The next two payment components of the Homewise Model homeownership program are the issuance of two mortgages where the first mortgage is 80% of the home value and the second is 18% of the value.

These two components are responsible for homeowners’ ability to invest a down payment of 2%. The Homewise Model initially sets the first mortgage to 80% of the home value thereby giving clients the opportunity to not have to “purchase private mortgage insurance or pay FHA mortgage insurance cost” which is what would occur and potentially restrict low to moderate income clients from attempting to enter the market. Through the Homewise Model, this first mortgage is then sold on the secondary market in order to be able to accrue funds for other potential clients. In the Homewise Model, the non-profit then takes on what would be considered a riskier mortgage of 18% of the home value and therefore reduces the monthly expenses of the client.

The City of Oakland can utilize this approach with local nonprofits aimed at assisting longterm residents with attempting to become homeowners in the area. With this approach, specifically implemented in the high priority planning areas, both the initial and continuous financial barriers that disenfranchise low-income residents from the opportunity to become homeowners are lowered through the alternative methods of providing them with mortgages. The City of Oakland can follow in the steps of this precedent through the partnership of nonprofits in being able to assist them to provide opportunities to low-income residents for homeownership.

B. Policy: Long-Term Implementation I. Tenant-Based Rental Assistance Tenant-based rental assistance (TBRA) is a rental subsidy provided to eligible individual households to help them afford housing costs and security deposits; existing programs are based on the Federal level, with funding from HUD that is distributed to participating jurisdictions (PJs). The most common type provides payments to make up the difference between the amount a household can afford to pay for housing and local rent standards.

Other types help tenants pay for costs associated with their housing, such as security and 46

City of Oakland Racial Equity Impact Assessment

utility deposits. Oakland has some housing voucher programs for tenants who are eligible, such as the MTW Housing Choice Voucher Program​(Section 8). In order to help people who are lower-income and of color more, the level of rental assistance subsidy can vary, based on the income of the household and the race/ethinc group.

The City of Oakland could establish its own TRBA program, though doing so would likely require securing a funding source. If in the long term land value capture policy is implemented (as discussed below, specify), the revenues generated by these additional taxes could support such a local program.

Low Priority: North Oakland, San Antonio, South Hills, Lower Hills & North Hills The planning areas of North Oakland, San Antonio, South Hills, Lower Hills, and North Hills are considered low priority. Like Oakland as a whole, these planning areas have large non-white populations, ranging from 50% to 88% non-white. However, the populations of these areas are almost all considerably wealthier than the Oakland average, making up to $135,000 more annual average household income (White households in North Hills). With the exception of San Antonio, the poorest groups are Black and Hispanic households in South Hills, and Black households in Lower Hills, who’s income matches the Oakland average of $90,000. San Antonio is included in the low priority group as households maintain high homeownership rates and low amounts of rental burden despite earning up to $30,000 less than the Oakland average. The majority of households in these planning areas are homeowners, with homeownership rates ranging from 57% to 87%. Finally, households tend not to be rent burdened in these neighborhoods, with only Hispanic households in South Hills and Black households in Lower Hills spending more than 30% of their household income on rent.

A. Policy: Short Term Implementation I. Programs to Incentivize Renting to Long-Term Residents A precedent that is the City of Chicago has implemented is the Low Income Housing Trust Fund Rental Subsidy Program. Through this program, rental subsidies are given to property owners and potential landlords whose income does not “exceed 30% of area median income”. This provides assistance and, to some extent, incentives to property owners in various areas of Chicago to be able to manage rental units. The funding the City provides for the subsidies derive from corporate revenues, funds generated by developers when they are unable to meet the affordability requirements, and even through the State of Illinois through a property recordation surcharge.

Examining the precedent established by Chicago, the City of Oakland can follow a similar approach by establishing subsidies for property owners in the low priority planning areas so that they are more inclined to utilize the zoning text amendments and construct additional units on their property and then rent them out to long term residents. Using funds raised when developers choose to opt out of constructing affordable housing, along with other funding (grants, corporate revenues, etc.), the cost of construction or maintenance can be lowered or eliminated to the property owner in these areas, thereby creating an incentive for the construction of the additional units allowed under the new RD-1 and RD-2 zoning that can be renter occupied.

VI. Policy Recommendations

47

B. Policy: Long-Term Implementation I. Land-Value Recapture Public investment (in transportation or other public services) can result in an increase in land values, then leaving people priced out. Changes to zoning that allow the replacement of single-family housing with an increase in housing options, such as apartments and townhomes, will increase the value as well4. Land value recapture ensures that the city/ public is able to capture some of that generated value increase instead of it all going to private landowners. It usually does this by charging more taxes/fees than normal level from speculating on real estate, then spending the money on community/public benefits, such as building affordable housing, open space and parks, child-care facilities, which are included in San Francisco’s neighborhood plan5.

LVC also works to dampen speculation and keep housing prices down, making homeownership more accessible to a wider range of people. With LVC implemented, mortgage lenders can generate less annual revenue, because the revenue is decreased by the higher tax. As a result, they may collect less in interest on loans. The rampant speculation which can increase the housing price may be curbed and controlled.

Consequently, for such a possible situation that the housing price will increase after the zoning amendments are carried out, LVC may make contributions on stabilizing the price of homes for middle-income and lower-income people. Importantly, the Land Value Tax would not add to the cost of businesses or residents, but would draw down from the profit made by those speculating on real estate. Finally, LVC generates ongoing revenues, unlike onetime charges such as community benefit agreements or development cost levies which can be used to pay for public investments or to cover their operating costs. Revenues could even be used to support expanded Tenant-based rental assistance programs at the city level as discussed in Section A Part I of Low Priority Policy Recommendations.

Due to the unpopularity of tax increases of any kind, LVC is likely a policy that requires a long time frame for implementation. Additionally, LVC may disincentive current homeowners from building further units as their profit margins will be reduced. The disadvantage of possibly decreased densification must be balanced with the equity benefits of limiting the expansion of the wealth gap between already wealthy homeowners and middle and lower-income households that are unable to access homeownership and develop intergenerational wealth themselves.

48

City of Oakland Racial Equity Impact Assessment

Part III. Summary of Recommended Policies In addition to the proposed zoning code amendments, a variety of further policies has been recommended to increase the likelihood of more equitable outcomes of the amendments. These range from renter-oriented policies, such as tenant or community opportunity to purchase rights and tenant based rental assistance to homeowner oriented policies, such as ____ and land value (re)capture.

These policies help shape the outcomes of the proposed zoning code amendments which on their own do not necessarily address racial inequities in housing.

The upzoning of RD 1, RD 2, and RM 1-4 zones will likely result in an increase in the overall amount of housing available to residents of Oakland, relieving housing pressure and ideally making housing more affordable for lower and middle income households. However, without further policies any increase in racial equity is more incedental than intentional, and depends almost wholly on the decisions made by homeowners. Within a market economy, profit and financial equity building remain the greatest drivers for additional construction on RD and RM lots; the proposed policies seek to incentivize and enforce less profitable and more equitable decisions and outcomes in order that all residents of Oakland can benefit from the proposed zoning code amendments and not only those who are already privileged.

VI. Policy Recommendations

49

Endnote 1. Armstrong, Amy, Vicki Been, Josiah Madar, and Simon McDonnell. “How Have Recent Rezonings Affected the City’s Ability to Grow?” NYU Furman Center. Accessed August 13, 2019. https://furmancenter.org/files/publications/Rezonings_Furman_Center_Policy_Brief_March_2010.pdf.

2. Eden, Elana. “Advocates Push to Study Racial Impacts of NYC Rezoning”. Planetizen. April, 2019. Accessed August 12, 2019. https://www.planetizen.com/news/2019/04/103859-advocates-push-studyracial-impacts-nyc-rezoning 3. Reynolds, Aline. “So You Want to Change Zoning to Allow for More Housing”. Next City. September, 2018. Accessed August 12, 2019. https://nextcity.org/daily/entry/so-you-want-to-change-zoning-toallow-for-more-housing 4. Tobener, Joseph. “What does the Community Opportunity to Purchase Act (COPA) Mean for San Francisco Tenants”. Tobener Ravenscroft. March, 2019. Accessed August 12, 2019. https://www. tobenerlaw.com/what-does-the-community-opportunity-to-purchase-act-copa-mean-for-san-francisco-tenants 5. Office of the Tenant Advocate. “TOPA Rights for Single Unit Properties”. Accessed August 12, 2019. https://ota.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ota/publication/attachments/TOPA%20NEW%20Single%20Unit.OTA%20pictogram.pdf 6. 3.

4.

5. Calavita, Nico 7. Office of the Tenant Advocate. “Steps to Assert TOPA Rights (2-4 Units)”. Accessed August 12, 2019. https://ota.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ota/publication/attachments/TOPA%20-%202-4%20 Units%20%28FINAL%29.pdf 8. HUD. “HOME Tenant-Based Rental Assistance”. Accessed august 12, 2019. https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/home/topics/tbra/#policy-guidance-and-faqs 9. Oakland Housing Authority. “Housing Programs”. Accessed August 12, 2019. http://www.oakha.org/ AffordableHousing/pages/default.aspx 10. Urban Displacement Project. “Policy Tools Maps - SF Bay Area”. Accessed August 12. 2019. https:// www.urbandisplacement.org/policy-tools/bay-area 11. City of Berkeley. “Action Calendar June 26, 2018”. Accessed August 12, 2019. https://webcache. googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:BD-2tCqjdusJ:https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_ Council/2018/06_June/Documents/2018-06-26_Item_45_Density_Bonus_Ordinance_Revisions. aspx+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us 12. OneCity. “Land Value Capture Tax”. Accessed August 12, 2019. https://www.onecityvancouver.ca/ land_value_capture “Getting Our Fair Share”. American Planning Association. Accessed August 13, 2019. http://planning.lacity.org/PolicyInitiatives/CPCEquityOpportunity/NC_GettingOurFairShare.pdf 13. Finch, Paul. “In Defence of Vancouver’s Proposed Land Value Tax.” The Tyee. January 04, 2019.

Accessed August 14, 2019. https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2019/01/04/Defence-Vancouver-Land-Value-Tax/.

14. Finch, Paul. “In Defence of Vancouver’s Proposed Land Value Tax.” The Tyee. January 04, 2019.

Accessed August 14, 2019. https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2019/01/04/Defence-Vancouver-Land-Value-Tax/.

15. “24 CFR § 42.375 - One-for-one Replacement of Lower-income Dwelling Units.” Legal Information Institute. Accessed August 13, 2019. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/24/42.375.

16. California Department of Housing and Community Development. “Appendix D Antidisplacement and Relocation Assistance Plan”. Accessed August 13, 2019. http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/ plans-reports/docs/Appendix_D-Relocation_and_Anti-Displacement_Plan.docx

50

City of Oakland Racial Equity Impact Assessment

Concluding Remarks Limitations There are a variety of limitations that the scope of this project work encountered. It is important to consider where these limitations exist to guide future research. For the data we collected, the sources of this data were in both US Census data, and surveys from the years 2013-2017. Although the surveys and estimates are relatively recent, the actual reality of the situation in Oakland may not be the same as the numbers may suggest.

Additionally, as we created values for Rent Burden and Racial Demographics, these numbers do not come from direct data collected, but rather from estimations from the data we compiled. This means that for these statistics, we are making assumptions connecting household income directly to rent burden, as opposed to surveying people’s finances directly. Since it is unlikely that people are going to be willing to release their financial information to collect data, this may the best we can do.

As we compiled our data, we collected information on a census tract scale. For the majority of our final numbers, we present them along Planning Area lines. This masks or obscures some specificity of the data that we had access to. Some of the results we compiled by the end seem to be a bit misleading because of this. An example of this is looking at the rent burden broken down by race for the Lower Hills Planning Area, where the values do not seem to directly correlate to the household income values. This is due to the distribution of people along census tract lines, where the rents and income vary. Since we had to compile by planning area versus the census tracts themselves, data granularity is obscured.

Missing Metrics There were some metrics that were not within the scope of this report. Some examples of indicators not accounted for in this report include information on job or job quality, which would help measure vulnerability to change. An important indicator that would have been useful would be to track home value or rental value change over time. Without information collected on rates of afforadble housing and rent controlled houses, this report did not capture the extreme variability within each racial/ethnic group.

No data was collected on rates of poverty or homelessness for two reasons: first, that poverty and homelessness are hard to track, espeically by a geographic area and second, that for the purposes of middle-income targeted middle-density housing, those living in poverty or who are homeless do not fall under the target umbrella.

Furthermore, no data was collected on landlords of rental properties, crime rates, quality of land, proximity to transport, proximity to services or other valuation of property factors to determine if some areas are primed for change in value, or are already saturated with improvements, and the value of that land would not change immensely over time.

This list is not exhaustive, but serves to highlight how difficult it is to quality housing vulnerability.

VII. Concluding Remarks

51

Questions for Further Research Given the results gathered from the research used to inform this report, further analysis may be conducted. Some guiding questions include: Is household income directly correlated to vulnerability?

How significant are any factors in determining outcomes for this type of policy? Determining the link between a quantifiable factor, and the associated outcomes would be useful for the scope of this project. Further reserach into the robustness of this report’s Housing Vulnerability Index may be beneficial. Furthermore, creating a weighted index may help tease out factors that are more or less strongly correlated with outcomes that influence housing vulnerability. FInally, further reserach into policy impact is necessary to build a predictive model of the imapct of zoning amendments.

52

City of Oakland Racial Equity Impact Assessment

Appendix I. Community Engagement Key Findings In the context of the Racial Equity Impact Assessment (REIA) for the City of Oakland, the community engagement takeaways are: • Prioritize planning areas with lower housing vulnerability indicator scores • Prioritize stakeholders in the engagement process that represent, value, and build up people of color through housing and social justice efforts.

List of Stakeholders Picking the appropriate stakeholders at the appropriate time in the process of adopting a zoning change is crucial to gaining meaningful feedback from the community, and earning the trust of the residents in the process of change. Stakeholders range from Bay Area organizations to a local church in a planning area. The following categories can be guidelines for the City of Oakland as a whole as well as disaggregated planning areas. We recommend engaging stakeholders involved in the disaggregated planning areas with lower index scores to host more equitable community engagement.

• • • • • • • • •

Bay Area Organizations Neighborhood-based Organizations Places of Worship Business associations Arts associations Public facilities Recreation centers Non-profits Libraries

As advised by the City of Oakland’s community engagement guidelines, focus on partnering with community-based organizations already involved in housing, ideally representing people of color. The following are Oakland-based housing organizations, many with social justice missions: • • • • •

East Bay Housing Organization East Bay Housing Organizations is a resource that compiles organizations involved in housing.

East Bay Asian Local Development Corporation Satellite Affordable Housing Associates Beyond Emancipation

Appendix 1. Community Engagement

53

Outreach Strategies The City of Oakland lists several suggestions for activities or outreach strategies. The following activities would be beneficial to engage the community in the proposed RD and RM zone changes: • • • • •

Design Charette Workshop “Pop-up” workshop Living room or focus group chats Endorsement Programs

In order to facilitate conversation that is appropriate for the community, the engagement process might first begin with stakeholder partnership. Stakeholders that represent and hold the trust of the planning areas of Oakland, particularly the planning areas with lower index scores, can help begin the process of engaging the community in density growth.

Before engaging in outreach strategies to discuss zoning changes, the city might consider hosting welcome events with stakeholder partnerships to become acquainted with the community. Partnering with these groups will ensure that the engagement process is appropriate, as outlined by the city of Oakland below: •

“Special effort should be made to reach stakeholders traditionally marginalized or under-represented in the planning process, such as low-income residents, people of color, and non-English speakers. Considerations for maximizing under-represented groups in the engagement approach should include things such as the location and time of day for scheduled meetings, childcare, and translation/interpretation needs.”

Sample Meeting Agenda Outline • Welcome. The meeting should begin with a brief, formal introduction. This is often a good role for any elected official(s) or neighborhood association leader(s) who may be associated with the Project.

• Overview of the Agenda. The moderator or “emcee” of the meeting (City staff or a consultant hired for the public participation component of the project) should review the agenda with meeting attendees. If you are using a PowerPoint presentation, it is a good idea to have the agenda as one of the opening slides of the presentation, in addition to having printed handouts of the agenda.

• Presentation. There may be a brief presentation(s) consisting of background information about the topic(s) to be discussed, instructions about the other portions of the agenda, such as the small group exercise or open house.

• Other workshop components that may have equal or varying levels of importance (e.g. large group and/or small group exercises, reports back of small groups, additional time for question and answer).

• Next Steps. It is important to convey how the input gathered at the community meeting will be used and what further opportunities there are (if any) to provide additional input (e.g. future meetings or mail/email comments).

54

City of Oakland Racial Equity Impact Assessment

Sample Workshop Agenda West Oakland Zoning Amendment Community Workshop West Oakland Public Library Saturday, October 28, 2019 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.

[SAMPLE AGENDA] Registration Welcome 1:00 p.m.

• [Insert name and title of person(s); this could be an opportunity for the area’s elected official to workshop participants] Overview of Agenda 1:10 p.m.

• [Insert name of main presenter(s)] Presentation 1:20 p.m.

• [Include topic headings that correspond to presentation, if you feel it would help the audience follow along] • [Topic 2] • [Topic 3] Small Group Discussion 1:50 p.m.

• Workshop participants will break into small groups to discuss [insert appropriate text here] BREAK (10 min) 2:50 p.m.

Reports Back 3:00 p.m.

• Each small group will have chosen a spokesperson who will briefly summarize the main points of his/her group’s discussion for all the workshop participants.

Next Steps 3:45 p.m.

Adjourn

Appendix 1. Community Engagement

55

Discussion Facilitation Guide West Oakland West Oakland Public Library - Room x Saturday, October 1, 2019 1:00 pm to 3:00 pm **Please arrive 10 minutes early to the workshop** [SAMPLE FACILITATION GUIDE] The facilitator’s role is to manage the small group discussion and to ensure that everyone has a chance to speak and share ideas. This process welcomes any and all comments. Specific facilitation tips related to the small group discussion as well as general guidelines for being a better facilitator are provided below.

SMALL GROUP DISCUSSION (45 minutes) Main Goal of Small Group Discussion To have participants come to a consensus of their group’s vision of how the RD/RM zoning amendments should be changed to mitigate racial inequity.

The small group discussion portion of the agenda occurs immediately after the PowerPoint presentation about how the City is currently zoned, some common vocabulary about building scale, height and bulk, and examples of regulatory tools that other cities have chosen to employ to control development in West Oakland.. At the end of the presentation, the workshop moderator will instruct participants to go to the table number that corresponds to the number on their name tag (which was assigned during registration). Facilitators find their own assigned table before the audience breaks into small groups.

Suggested Small Group Discussion Approach • Each table will have a large Post-It pad and a set of markers for taking notes; a large aerial map of the area (for participants to draw on/make notes); a set of reference handouts.

• You have an important role as timekeeper to ensure that your group has the best opportunity to map all they want to, and to keep the discussion focused on the topics at hand.

• Go around the table and start with brief introductions, including yourself and each group member (e.g. name and one additional piece of information e.g. where you live, why you came today etc.). We really don’t have a lot of time for the meeting so we do want to keep this as brief as possible.

• Review some ground rules for the small group exercise (5 minutes or less for introductions and ground rules). This may be: not to interrupt each other, to listen to all ideas presented, to try to work towards a consensus, etc. This should not be a long discussion but a structure that you put in place at the beginning of the meeting that people to agree to.

56

City of Oakland Racial Equity Impact Assessment

Discussion and Map Work (approximately 40 minutes): • Quickly orient people to the materials: the table map (aerial map of planning area of West Oakland RM/RD zone changes, and map of Oakland as a whole), markers, any handouts etc.

• Encourage people to use the markers provided and draw/write comments on the aerial map. All comments and ideas should be noted on the map or on the Post-It paper. Try to get consensus.

• Start with some open-ended questions like the ones listed below, which each have a number of possible follow-up questions. Additional tips are listed in the next section that might be helpful to get the conversation going. ◊ What is your vision of adding new units to West Oakland? ◊ Where is height appropriate/inappropriate? Why? How tall? ◊ What did you think about the regulatory tools that were presented? ◊ What would equitable growth look like for West Oakland?

As needed, you can remind the group about some key issues raised in the slide show.

Reports Back: • Before the end of the small group discussion (e.g. 10 minutes before the end), have the group choose a spokesperson or “reporter” for the reports back to the large group.

• Remind the spokesperson to report any differences of opinion and the associated level of disagreement so that what the group reached consensus on and what they did not is clearly communicated. Emphasize that it is the spokesperson’s responsibility to summarize the group’s agreements and lack thereof, not his/her personal/individual view. Thus, it is also important that you take note of the degree of consensus or disagreement on the post-it pad paper during the small group discussion so that the spokesperson can speak from these notes.

• Write your Group/Table # on each sheet of notes, maps and other materials. This is very important so that we can keep track of each group’s feedback after the meeting.

Appendix 1. Community Engagement

57

Community Feedback • Community feedback can be documented at public engagement sessions throughout the zoning amendment process, and published on the City of Oakland website, which can be shared on all event flyers, so that stakeholders understand how their feedback is being documented.

• The documentation could be categorized, summarized, and assisted with visuals to understand what residents said most frequently and what aspects of policy change they want most.

• Tracking and visualizing meeting demographics (race, age, career) are another way to keep the process accountable for engaging traditionally marginalized communities.

• Tools such as interactive dot maps or post-it Q&A can be tools to easily categorize and understand the locations and needs to be prioritized.

• Upon reviewing the City of Oakland’s “Summary of Preliminary Draft Plan Community Feedback,” the account of feedback only listed key takeaways from community meetings in bullet points and listed talking points from specific individuals, listed with little context.

• Community engagement feedback could be improved by adding more context to the documented feedback and sharing feedback with the community. The documentation could provide names, photos, and bios of individuals who gave feedback as well as more visual content and context on bullet points for key takeaways.

Case Study: West Oakland Community Engagement Bay Area Organizations • Chinatown Community Development Center • Asian population is most rent burdened in West Oakland • Just Cause • Just Cause is an organization working in Oakland to fight commercial efforts causing gentrification and displacement. This partnership, instead, could help promote efforts for single-family homeowners to add housing and rent to local as opposed to commercial developers renting out to transplants.

• Poder!

• Poder! Advocates for environmental social justice, relevant to West Oakland’s industrial uses and adjacency to large highways.

West Oakland-based Organizations • Black Organizing Project • Black Organizing Project is an ideal organization to involve early in the process. They advocate for policy education and policy change to benefit the black community in Oakland.

• Mandela Partners • Mandela Partners works with local residents and businesses to create food enterprises, create wealth, and build assets.

58

City of Oakland Racial Equity Impact Assessment

Neighborhood Assets • • • •

Oak Center Cultural Center DeFremery Park Lowell Park West Oakland BART

Workshop Locations • West Oakland Public Library • Montclair Village Farmers Market (weekly) • CitySlicker Farms

Flyer Template

Appendix 1. Community Engagement

59

Appendix II. Data Calculations Rental Burden by Planning Area for race r :

Where: x = median monthly gross rent y = median annual household income P = number of rental households n = census tract

Average Annual Household Income by Planning Area for race r :

Where:

y = median annual household income

P = number of rental households

n = census tract

Percent Renter Households :

Where: UR = renter occupied units UT = total occupied units

Percent of Renters by race r :

Where: UR = renter occupied units UT = total occupied units 60

City of Oakland Racial Equity Impact Assessment

Appendix III. Oakland Home Prices & Values Average Price per Square Footage for single-unit from Zillow

Source: Zillow. “Oakland Home Prices & Values”. Accessed August 12, 2019. https://www.zillow.com/oakland-ca/home-values/

Appendix III: Oakland Home Prices & Value

61

Appendix IV. Index Scores Overall Data and Scores in 10 Planning Areas

Source: American Community Survey 2013-2017 Five-Year Estimates

62

City of Oakland Racial Equity Impact Assessment