by Natalie Orenstein : oaklandside – excerpt

Like most Bay Area cities, Oakland’s newly approved Housing Element doesn’t comply with state requirements, which could impact the city’s funding and ability to control development.

Just two days after Oakland officials adopted the city’s eight-year housing plan, the state determined it didn’t meet the requirements, state records show.

In a Feb. 2 letter, the California Housing and Community Development Department told Oakland it must make revisions to its Housing Element to be found in compliance. Without that certification, Oakland immediately loses the ability to place certain restrictions on development, and could lose out on significant state funding for housing.

The Housing Element is a significant piece of the city’s General Plan, which is undergoing an update. The section spells out how Oakland will plan to build enough housing to meet state targets over the coming eight years, and what policies and programs the city will pursue to achieve affordability and equal access to housing.

The Oakland City Council unanimously approved its Housing Element on Jan. 31, the state-imposed deadline. City planners told the council at that meeting that they’ve been in close contact with state housing authorities, and expected the element to be approved. They said that the council would still be able to make tweaks to the document in the coming days…

Where Oakland’s housing element is still out of compliance

A central piece of Oakland’s plan is the identification of specific locations where housing could be developed, so that Oakland meets targets for both affordable and market-rate construction in the coming years. The city is required to plan for 26,000 new units.

The city’s submission is missing details on why these sites are primed for redevelopment, such as whether the property owner is amenable, if the site is vacant, and analysis of recent development trends, the state said.

State planners also said Oakland’s document should include more details about how it will ensure housing access for historically excluded groups, though they noted the element “includes many meaningful policies and actions.” They also told the city that a section on neighborhood improvement shouldn’t be limited to housing plans, but also include goals around infrastructure, transportation, and parks…(more)

This is a new low for the state and or HCD, AFter demanding the cities allow development on the open space they now demand more open space? And since when did they need to see details on infrastructure, transportation and parks to meet housing goals?