Post Mundane / Urban CatalystJosh Burroughs · Data gift 01 · Internal review
Opportunity Zones 2.0 / San Jose

Seven project locations.
A new map to examine.

Where the supplied Urban Catalyst locations sit against California’s published recommended tracts—and the separate income-and-poverty test that still needs to be checked.

Recommendation is not designation. This is a point-location planning screen, not tax advice or a certification of any project. Confirm parcel boundaries, site identities, official nomination status and governing data vintage before relying on it or contacting Josh.
2 / 7supplied points match recommended tracts
4distinct tract IDs across the supplied points
0 / 7independent ACS screens populated

01 / Read the map

Blue is California’s recommendation workbook—not an independently calculated eligibility color. Gray means absent from that workbook, not ineligible. Select a project to inspect its tract. Nearby pins are offset with leaders.

Census Tract 5017 · CA recommendation listCensus Tract 5008 · Not on CA recommendation list; eligibility unknownCensus Tract 5011.02 · Not on CA recommendation list; eligibility unknownCensus Tract 5031.12 · CA recommendation listCensus Tract 5019.02 · Not on CA recommendation list; eligibility unknownCensus Tract 5021.03 · Not on CA recommendation list; eligibility unknownCensus Tract 5019.01 · Not on CA recommendation list; eligibility unknownCensus Tract 5016.01 · Not on CA recommendation list; eligibility unknownCensus Tract 5016.02 · CA recommendation listCensus Tract 5009.01 · CA recommendation listCensus Tract 5002 · Not on CA recommendation list; eligibility unknownCensus Tract 5003 · Not on CA recommendation list; eligibility unknownCensus Tract 5004 · Not on CA recommendation list; eligibility unknownCensus Tract 5006 · Not on CA recommendation list; eligibility unknownCensus Tract 5014.02 · CA recommendation listCensus Tract 5024 · Not on CA recommendation list; eligibility unknownCensus Tract 5005 · Not on CA recommendation list; eligibility unknownCensus Tract 5014.01 · Not on CA recommendation list; eligibility unknownCensus Tract 5020.02 · Not on CA recommendation list; eligibility unknownCensus Tract 5018 · Not on CA recommendation list; eligibility unknownCensus Tract 5012 · CA recommendation listCensus Tract 5013 · Not on CA recommendation list; eligibility unknownCensus Tract 5031.22 · Not on CA recommendation list; eligibility unknownCensus Tract 5031.21 · CA recommendation listCensus Tract 5011.01 · CA recommendation listCensus Tract 5009.02 · Not on CA recommendation list; eligibility unknownCensus Tract 5010 · Not on CA recommendation list; eligibility unknownCensus Tract 5031.13 · Not on CA recommendation list; eligibility unknownCensus Tract 5015.02 · CA recommendation listAquino1Echo/Icon2Apollo3The Mark4Fountain Alley5Madera6Keystone7
Recommended tractNot on recommendation list

Locations: existing uc_sites_geo.json. Boundaries: existing san_jose_tracts.json (TIGERweb; local file does not record its vintage). This is a point-in-polygon join, not a parcel-boundary determination. The seven supplied points are not a verified complete portfolio; Echo/Icon remains one supplied point.

02 / The project-by-project read

Supplied projectPoint tract GEOIDCA recommendationTract MFIMFI / metroPovertyIndependent estimate screen
06085500800Not on recommendation listPending ACSPending ACSPending ACSPending ACS
06085501000Not on recommendation listPending ACSPending ACSPending ACSPending ACS
06085500300Not on recommendation listPending ACSPending ACSPending ACSPending ACS
06085500901Recommended tractPending ACSPending ACSPending ACSPending ACS
06085500901Recommended tractPending ACSPending ACSPending ACSPending ACS
06085500800Not on recommendation listPending ACSPending ACSPending ACSPending ACS
06085500800Not on recommendation listPending ACSPending ACSPending ACSPending ACS

Census returned a Missing Key page during the September 21 check. ACS income and poverty are not populated; the recommendation layer above comes from the public DOF workbook and does not require that key. No value is substituted for a missing statistic. A failed independent estimate screen is not a legal determination.

03 / Three different questions

Does the tract meet the income/poverty test?

For a metro tract, income must be at most 70% of the metro median family income; alternatively poverty must be at least 20% and income at most 125% of the metro median. These endpoints are inclusive under 26 USC 1400Z-1(c)(1). San Jose uses the metro benchmark—not whichever of state or metro is higher.

Has California recommended it?

The official DOF workbook is evidence of a recommendation, not a Treasury certification. A tract absent from the list might still satisfy the low-income test. The statewide designation cap is generally 25% of eligible low-income tracts, not 25% of this portfolio or of Santa Clara County.

Will the investment qualify?

Site location alone cannot establish fund, business, timing or property eligibility. Existing OZ 1.0 status does not automatically carry into the new cycle. Counsel needs to confirm the applicable designation and investment rules.

The actionable distinction for Josh

The Mark and Fountain Alley warrant a closer parcel-and-status check because their supplied points match the published recommendation list. The other five require a different question: missing from the recommendation, not necessarily failing the income test. This is a reason to investigate, not a claim that five projects lose their benefits.

04 / Timing—do not use a stale deadline

The current GO-Biz page gives an August 3–28, 2026 public-comment window, now closed. The May webinar projected Governor submission in September and the new map taking effect in January 2027; it explicitly said the timeline was subject to change. This report has not verified final submission or Treasury certification. Do not send a “comment before September” opener from this draft.

05 / What turns this into the opener

  1. Confirm the seven locations. Check parcels and current project names with UC; validate geometry vintage and boundary-sensitive sites.
  2. Complete the independent ACS comparison. Use the Census key and a confirmed appropriate vintage. Our optional 2024 ACS five-year screen is an estimate check, not the government’s final eligibility file.
  3. Check the official status now. Establish recommendation versus submitted nomination versus certified designation; record dates and evidence.
  4. Q reviews the report and its opening message. Josh’s SOW is separate from Erik’s. Nothing in this build sends or schedules either email.

Sources & reproducibility

  1. California Department of Finance: official recommendation publication · Recommended tracts workbook. Snapshot acquired September 21, 2026; 560 California records, 17 Santa Clara records. Not a live status feed.
  2. 26 USC 1400Z-1(c), (d): current statutory test and designation cap. Checked September 21, 2026. The statute’s “does not exceed” resolves the shorthand “below” in the webinar/SOW.
  3. GO-Biz program and public-comment timeline, checked September 21, 2026. Local reference: data/leads/oz2_webinar_s1.pdf.
  4. Owned geometry and geocodes: data/leads/san_jose_tracts.json and data/leads/uc_sites_geo.json. Derived evidence: data/leads/uc_oz2_screen.json. Generator: tools/lead-gen/bridges/urban_catalyst_oz2.py.