Commission Votes to Scrap Moderate-Income Loophole After Six Years of Market-Rate Rents

Oakland's Planning Commission challenged the city's affordable housing framework, voting to recommend the Council eliminate a developer option that data shows has provided no real affordability benefit since 2020 — while Rockridge neighbors mobilized against a senior housing project they say vastly exceeds zoning limits.

• Commission votes 4-1 to recommend eliminating moderate-income-only impact fee option after staff analysis shows market rents have fallen below moderate-income limits for six years
• Measure U funding cliff looms: $248 million of the $350 million housing bond already spent, with only ~$50 million left for new construction before funds run out by 2030
• Rockridge residents turn out in force against proposed 6230 Claremont Ave. senior housing, alleging 71% density overcalculation, shadow impacts, and traffic safety risks
• Hazard Mitigation Plan advances unanimously to protect Oakland's FEMA disaster reimbursement eligibility before July expiration
• Eight Planning Code amendments move forward, including a new 60-day cessation rule closing a loophole for truck-intensive uses in residential neighborhoods

---

The Affordability Loophole That Isn't

Oakland's moderate-income housing compliance option — intended to give developers a way to satisfy affordable housing obligations by building units at moderate-income rent limits — has been producing units that rent at or above market rate for six years running. On May 20, the Planning Commission voted to recommend the City Council shut it down.

The basics: Under Oakland's affordable housing impact fee, developers can either pay a fee, build on-site affordable units, or build units restricted to moderate-income renters (households earning 80–120% of area median income). The moderate-income-only on-site option waives the impact fee entirely. But a supplemental staff analysis — requested 11 months ago by Commissioner Josie Ahrens — found that since mid-2020, the moderate-income rent ceiling has exceeded median market rents at 12 newly built market-rate buildings in Oakland. In other words, developers can claim affordability credit for units that rent at prices the open market already charges.

Why it matters: The loophole means Oakland is waiving impact fees — revenue that funds genuinely affordable housing — in exchange for units that provide no additional affordability benefit to renters. Only 28 units have used this compliance option so far, but the policy signal is significant: as rents have softened in Oakland while HUD-set income limits continue to climb, the gap between moderate-income limits and actual market rents has widened each year.

Where things stand: Commissioner Ahrens drove the debate, arguing the commission should act on the data rather than wait. "Looking at the data over the last six years, what we can say is that moderate income units aren't really serving people right now," she said. "I really want us to be focusing our policies on home health aides and barbers and folks who need housing now."

She also pushed the commission to recommend that Oakland count non-deed-restricted units toward its Regional Housing Needs Allocation, as San Jose does, arguing the city is leaving credit on the table. "You're counting the non-deed-restricted units that are ADUs even though 55% of the ADUs aren't charging rent based on your survey," Commissioner Ahrens said. "But you don't want to pursue a methodology to count non-deed-restricted units in market-rate buildings like San Jose is doing. There's kind of a little bit of an inconsistency here."

Commissioner Owen Li agreed the data was decisive. "This data around median income rent limits versus market-rate rent is pretty glaring," he said, noting that "average rent has been below the moderate income limit for over a decade now" and "would need to increase by something like 70% in a single year for the moderate income limit to be meaningful."

Commissioner Li also floated an alternative: rather than eliminating the category outright, the city could require that moderate-income units rent below market by a set percentage to qualify for concessions.

The other side: Chair Jennifer Renk, the lone dissenter, questioned whether the problem would persist under current rules. She noted that most of the 12 buildings in the staff analysis were entitled before Oakland's current impact fees existed. "I don't know now that we have since enacted either the impact fees or more robust affordable housing rules, if we would see a building come through now that would be all market rate," Chair Renk said.

Housing and Community Development staff also urged caution. Housing Director Emily Weinstein noted that the moderate-income option is one of several compliance paths developers say they need to make projects pencil. Caleb Smith, also from Housing and Community Development, confirmed only 28 units have been restricted under this category, contextualizing the relatively small scale of the issue to date.

Commissioner Ahrens raised a separate concern about geographic equity: "66% of the deed-restricted units were in District 7 and 22% were in District 3. So 88% of our deed-restricted units were in West Oakland or deep East Oakland. I have a lot of concerns about how we're going to be able to affirmatively further fair housing."

Decisions: The commission voted 4-1 (For: Ahrens, Li, Randolph, Sandoval; Against: Renk; Absent: Robb) to recommend the City Council remove the moderate-income-only on-site impact fee category and direct staff to explore counting non-deed-restricted units for RHNA.

Measure U Funding Cliff

Woven through the housing discussion was a stark fiscal warning. Housing Director Emily Weinstein disclosed that "we have spent $248 million of the $350 million of Measure U" and that based on the department's strategic action plan, "we probably only have about maybe $50 million max that would go towards new construction." All Measure U funds are projected to be exhausted by 2030 — absent a new bond measure, Oakland's nationally recognized affordable housing pipeline faces a potential funding cliff.

Production Stalling

Staff planner Bibi Lagarde reported Oakland has met 14% of its total RHNA through building permits — roughly average among peer cities. On very low- and low-income units, Oakland is a regional leader, accounting for 42% of all low-income permits in Alameda County. But moderate-income and market-rate production has hit only 9% of targets.

Commissioner Alex Randolph flagged the broader slowdown: "Completion in 2025 dropped to 1,391 units, the lowest since at least 2018 — 38% below 2024, with an actual 66% decline from the 2021 peak, showing that overall delivery has almost lost momentum."

Director Weinstein cautioned that some pullback is cyclical. "Part of the success that we've seen in Oakland over the last eight years was the huge delivery of market-rate units. And so no matter what, there's going to be a time for absorption."

ADU permits fell below 200 for the first time this RHNA cycle, likely due to high construction costs and interest rates.

On homelessness, Caleb Smith shared a bright spot: "Just earlier this week we got the data from Alameda County that there's been a 20% drop in the census of homelessness in Oakland based on the point-in-time count," attributing the decline to the city's interim and permanent housing investments.

What's next: The commission's recommendation now goes to the City Council, which would need to amend the impact fee ordinance to remove the moderate-income-only on-site category.

---

Rockridge Neighbors Draw Line on Claremont Avenue Senior Housing

Eleven speakers — nearly all longtime Rockridge residents — turned the open forum into an organized show of opposition against a proposed senior housing development at 6230 Claremont Ave. They came armed with a petition bearing 1,580 signatures, a 150-person email network, and detailed technical arguments.

Why it matters: The project is now a complete application under city review for zoning and CEQA compliance, meaning the clock is ticking on a formal commission hearing. Neighbors are building their case early, contesting not just the project's size and design but the legal basis for its density calculations.

Where things stand: The central allegation is that the developer has overcounted allowable units. Jack Gerson, a public commenter, argued the density calculation is 71% above code-compliant levels because it falsely claims neighborhood center mixed-use status — a classification that requires ground-floor retail and pedestrian orientation the site allegedly lacks. Under the correct classification, he said, the project would qualify for roughly 175 units, not the proposed 203.

Jerome Buttrick, a practicing architect and 35-year Rockridge resident, said the building's vertical street wall is 150% taller than the 55-foot CN-1 zoning maximum and urged setbacks to protect light, air, and neighborhood scale.

Traffic safety drew sharp concern. Robin Mays, a 50-year Rockridge resident, cited 52 crashes and two fatalities in the area and questioned whether emergency vehicles could safely maneuver. Lynn Harlan and Alison Tieman both asked that garbage and commercial truck access be rerouted from narrow Florio Street to the Claremont Avenue frontage.

Shadow impacts rounded out the opposition. Leslie Ostwyle and Rabbi Judy Shanks warned the building would cast winter shadows over the Safeway Plaza — described as Rockridge's only direct-sunlight public gathering space — and urged the commission to require a solar access study.

Decisions: No formal action was taken. Commission Secretary Catherine Payne confirmed the application is complete and under zoning and CEQA review, estimated at three to four months. Commissioner Randolph confirmed the commission has no role until an item is formally scheduled. Chair Renk requested a CEQA process update at the next meeting.

---

Hazard Plan Clears Commission to Protect FEMA Eligibility

The commission unanimously recommended the City Council adopt Oakland's 2026–2031 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, a required document that keeps the city eligible for federal disaster reimbursement.

Why it matters: Without an active plan, Oakland would bear 25% of post-disaster costs instead of potentially 0% under FEMA cost-share arrangements. The current plan expires in July.

Where things stand: Veronika Cole from the Fire Department presented the draft, which profiles natural and human-caused hazards and includes 75 mitigation actions. The plan ranks earthquake, severe weather, and fire as high risk; drought, flood, landslide, and sea level rise as medium risk; and dam failure and tsunami/seiche as low risk.

The update features a stronger equity focus, using the same equity priority community definitions as the General Plan's environmental justice element. Community outreach reached about 300 individuals through multilingual meetings in West Oakland, Chinatown, Fruitvale, and East Oakland.

Commissioner Ahrens praised the equity mapping approach, noting it originated from the Geographic Equity Toolbox she helped create at OakDOT. "I appreciate the city's continual commitment to equity and to using that word boldly and to centering it in our plans," she said.

Assistant Emergency Manager Olga Crow confirmed Oakland has received FEMA reimbursement for the 2022–2023 winter storms and other past disasters. The plan was submitted to Cal OES, which forwarded it to FEMA on May 1, with approval expected within 45 days.

Decisions: Passed 5-0 (Robb absent).

---

Planning Code Overhaul Closes Truck-Use Loophole

Eight Planning Code amendments advanced unanimously, headlined by a reform that Commissioner Randolph called the item he was most excited about: closing a loophole that allowed dormant truck-intensive operations to restart in residential neighborhoods.

The basics: Under the previous standard, a nonconforming use could argue it had not been "purposefully abandoned" even after extended periods of inactivity. The new rule establishes a hard 60-day cessation timeline — after which the nonconforming use cannot be reinstated, even through a conditional use permit.

Why it matters: The reform directly responds to a prior appeal case that consumed a two-hour commission hearing and benefits environmental justice communities where truck-intensive operations have historically concentrated alongside homes.

Staff planner Ruslan Filipau also presented three ADU-related amendments required by a December 2025 finding from the state Department of Housing and Community Development: updating statute numbering, removing subjective visibility criteria, and replacing subjective terminology with more objective standards. Staff recommended no changes on two HCD findings regarding ADU restrictions in fire hazard zones, arguing Oakland already adopted compliant findings. Vice Chair Natalie Sandoval asked about these restrictions; staff confirmed HCD acknowledged the city's approach and Oakland retained its pro-housing designation.

Other amendments included allowing recreational assembly in the Wood Street zone, standardizing setbacks in the Coliseum area along Hagenberger Road, removing a review deadline from development agreement procedures, and clarifying utility screening standards.

Staff member Laura Kaminsky noted that amortization of hazardous nonconforming uses in residential areas is also being studied as a potential future action.

Decisions: Passed 5-0 (Robb absent).

---

Minor Items

• Residential Appeals Committee denied an appeal for a project at 1901 Asilomar St.; Zoning Update Committee reviewed the annual housing progress report.
• April 1, 2026 minutes approved unanimously (5-0, Robb absent).
• Public commenter Alexis questioned why developers are building market-rate senior housing in Rockridge when moderate- and lower-income housing is what the city needs.
• Public commenter Jennifer McElrath noted Oakland has 3,500 empty market-rate units and argued mid-rise buildings would yield more affordable housing sooner.
• Meeting adjourned at 5:36 p.m.