City Council
October 6, 2026
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Elizabeth Lake FROM: William Gilchrist
Acting City Administrator Director, Planning and
Building
SUBJECT: SUPPLEMENTAL – S-8 (SB 79)
Amendments
DATE: October 1, 2026
City Administrator Approval Date:
RECOMMENDATION
Staff Recommends That The City Council Conduct A Public Hearing And, Upon Conclusion, Adopt An Ordinance As Recommended By The Planning Commission:
1. Amending Oakland Municipal Code Title 17 (The Planning Code) Chapter 17.86 S-8 Abundant and Affordable Homes Near Transit (Senate Bill 79) Combining Zone Regulations To Address Comments Received from California Department of Housing and Community Development;
2. Amending The Planning Code Chapter 17.86 To Exclude Additional Industrial Zoned Parcels Previously Designated as Ineligible for SB 79 Within The Areas That Were Not Previously Excluded;
3. Making Related Oakland Zoning Map Amendments to Update Parcels Designated Within The S-8 Combining Zone And To Update Identification Of Whether Such Designated Parcels Are Excluded From The Senate Bill 79 Property Development Standards; And
4. Making Appropriate California Environmental Quality Act Findings.
REASON FOR SUPPLEMENTAL
As per CED recommendation, the following letters from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and California Department of Housing and Community Development (State HCD) are attached to this supplemental agenda report:
Correspondence with MTC. Staff have engaged and corresponded with MTC since their preliminary SB 79 regional map was published in April 2026. The minor discrepancies between the City’s previously adopted SB 79/S-8 Eligibility Map and the SB 79 Regional Map published by MTC will be resolved upon adoption of the attached ordinance; and the four additional stops identified by MTC will be added to the City’s map. Attachment A includes the following correspondence with MTC regarding the Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Stops Map:
o Response letter from MTC re: Oakland’s comments, dated June 10, 2026 o Memorandum from Oakland re: Preliminary SB 79 regional map, dated May 1, 2026 Elizabeth Lake (Sep 30, 2026 18:53:31 PDT)
Sep 30, 2026
Elizabeth Lake, Acting City Administrator
Subject: SUPPLEMENTAL – S-8 (SB 79) Amendments
Date: October 1, 2026
City Council
October 6, 2026
Correspondence with State HCD. Staff have engaged with State HCD to clarify points raised in the initial Findings letter from June 2026. Staff have provided additional information responding to their Findings letter and received a conditional substantial compliance letter in September 2026, pending this ordinance update. Attachment B includes the following correspondence with State HCD regarding SB 79 implementation:
o Letter of Technical Assistance from the State HCD, dated September 3, 2026 o Response letter from Oakland to the State HCD on their June 2026 Findings Letter, dated July 3, 2026
o Findings Letter from the State HCD after reviewing the adopted SB 79 Ordinance to Temporarily Exclude sites, dated June 12, 2026
ACTION REQUESTED OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Staff Recommends that the city council conduct a public hearing and, upon Conclusion, adopt an ordinance as recommended by the planning commission:
1. Amending Oakland Municipal Code Title 17 (the Planning Code) Chapter 17.86 S-8 Abundant and Affordable Homes near Transit (Senate Bill 79) Combining Zone Regulations to address comments received from California Department of Housing and Community Development;
2. Amending the Planning Code Chapter 17.86 to exclude additional Industrial zoned parcels previously designated as ineligible for SB 79 within the areas that were not previously excluded;
3. Making related Oakland Zoning Map Amendments to update parcels designated within the S-8 Combining Zone and to update identification of whether such designated parcels are excluded from the Senate Bill 79 property development Standards; and
4. Making appropriate California Environmental Quality Act findings.
Elizabeth Lake, Acting City Administrator
Subject: SUPPLEMENTAL – S-8 (SB 79) Amendments
Date: October 1, 2026
City Council
October 6, 2026
For questions regarding this report, please contact KELLY CHA, PLANNER IV, at (510) 238- 2166.
Respectfully submitted,
__________________________________ William Gilchrist
Director, Planning and Building
Reviewed by:
Ed Manasse, Deputy Director, Planning Bureau
Laura Kaminski, Strategic Planning Manager
Prepared by:
Kelly Cha, Planner IV
Planning Bureau
Attachments (2):
A: Correspondence with MTC re: SB 79 TOD Stops Map
B: Correspondence with State HCD re: SB 79 Implementation Attachment A:
Correspondence with MTC re: SB 79 TOD Stops
Map
June 10, 2026
Laura B. Kaminski, Strategic Planning Manager
City of Oakland Planning and Building Department
250 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza
Oakland, CA 94612
RE: Comment on Preliminary Draft SB 79 Regional Map
Dear Ms. Kaminski:
Thank you for your letter commenting on MTC’s Preliminary Draft Map of Transit Oriented Development Stops (Preliminary Draft Map). As you are likely aware, MTC’s role in implementing Senate Bill (SB) 79 is established in subdivision (f) of the California Government Code Section 65912.160: “Each metropolitan planning organization shall create a map of transit-oriented development stops and zones within its region by tier, as designated under this chapter, in accordance with the department’s guidance pursuant to subdivision (b).”
Pursuant to subdivision (b) of this section, on March 20, 2026, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) published guidance for MPOs required to create SB 79 maps. This guidance, the SB 79 Advisory Clarifications on Definitions for Metropolitan Planning Organizations (Advisory), was used by MTC staff to develop the Preliminary Draft Map. Similarly, it was used to evaluate comments on the Preliminary Draft Map posted for public review on the MTC website on April 8, 2026.
Staff have reviewed the comments in your letter and have developed the following responses to each issue area raised:
• Administrative burden: We recognize the significant effort Oakland undertook to advance SB 79 implementation ahead of regional mapping and state guidance.
At the same time, MTC is required to apply a consistent regional methodology.
Using a different dataset for a single jurisdiction would create inconsistencies, particularly given that multiple jurisdictions are in a similar position to Oakland.
MTC is available to support data coordination to help minimize downstream impacts.
• BART access points: MTC agrees that the differences between the City’s and MTC’s mapped access points are relatively minor. MTC’s map is based on BART General Transit Feed Specification (GTFS) and agency GIS data, supplemented by staff review. We asked BART to review the City’s dataset and examine additional sources; this review did not support replacing the regional Docusign Envelope ID: F1A399FE-F1F3-87ED-818C-D6D7FF607BB1 dataset. One missing entrance at 12th Street BART has been added in response to your comment.
• BRT / Tempo stops: While the City’s mapped stops and zones are generally similar to those in the Preliminary Draft Map, review by AC Transit and MTC did not identify a basis for replacing the regional dataset. In particular, concerns were raised about inclusion of unofficial access points. As a result, these locations have not been revised.
In addition to the City’s comments above, coordination with AC Transit during the review process resulted in a limited number of updates in Berkeley, Oakland, and Alameda. In Oakland, this includes additional stops at the Uptown Transit Center and stops served by frequent service along 11th and 12th streets in Downtown Oakland with stops proximate to, but unique from, the Tempo/1T. All added stops are consistent with the criteria on page 6 of the Advisory: “A qualifying bus service TOD stop is a location where the bus stop is adjacent to a full-time dedicated transit lane and the average bus service intervals across the combined morning and afternoon peak periods is 15 minutes or less.”
Based on the entirety of this review process, the updated map will incorporate a corrected access point at 12th Street BART, as well as Tier II bus stops at the qualifying locations identified above. Outside of Oakland, a limited number of additional changes will be incorporated based upon new documentation verified by transit providers. Other than these revisions, the updated map will maintain the current methodology and datasets, consistent with the HCD Advisory. The updated draft is available here:
https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/934f95609d6b45c5be0f8f0030c01436?draft=true.
Pending any further revisions to correct factual errors, the map will become formally available as a final deliverable on or before the law goes into effect on July 1, 2026.
We thank you again for your collaboration and engagement in this process. MTC staff remain available to work with City staff and HCD as SB 79 implementation moves forward.
Sincerely,
Dave Vautin
Director, Regional Planning
DV:MS
Docusign Envelope ID: F1A399FE-F1F3-87ED-818C-D6D7FF607BB1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mark Shorett, Principal Planner
Bay Area Metro
FROM: Rebecca Lind and Laura
Kaminski, City of Oakland
Planning and Building
Department
SUBJECT: Transit Accessible Area Mapping
Under SB 79
DATE: 5/1/2026
Thank you for your collaboration on Transit Accessible Area mapping under SB 79 and for sharing MTC analysis.
City Planning staff have completed extensive, Council-adopted mapping (C.M.S. #13875) based on detailed, site-specific analysis of actual transit access conditions. In the absence of formal guidance, we evaluated real-world entry points across both BART and BRT systems to produce maps that are both accurate and inclusive, resulting in overall the same or more inclusive parcel coverage as compared to the MTCs analysis. For example, for Tier 2 TOD Bus Rapid Transit stops, staff used the full platform footprint, including ramps and multiple access points, rather than a single point location. This was done because people commonly access the on-street BRT platforms from various access points instead of just one. We appreciate that MTC recognized this approach and agreed to accept the City’s BRT (Tier II) stop determinations.
We request similar consideration for BART (Tier I). As with BRT, the City’s BART analysis reflects on-the-ground conditions, including all entrances and elevators, elements that were not fully captured in MTC’s version. This results in a more complete, more inclusive, and representative mapping of access.
After comparing our maps with MTCs data, we were extremely happy to see that our efforts are almost exactly matching. As demonstrated, the differences between the City and MTC maps are negligible and stem primarily from assumptions about the exact locations of the access points. These differences typically result in minor shifts that impact only a small number of parcels at the margins of buffers; parcels included on one side of a buffer would be offset by parcels excluded on another across multiple stops. As such, they do not materially affect the overall SB 79 analysis or outcomes.
The analysis provided by MTC on April 30, 2026, identifies only parcels that would be added through the proposed buffer shift, and does not account for parcels that would need to also be removed on the other side of the buffer shift. Because eligibility is defined by the buffer’s geographic limits, the City cannot add parcels on one side without removing those that would fall outside the revised boundary. Based on a preliminary assessment, it appears possible that applying MTC’s methodology could result in equivalent or even fewer parcels qualifying under SB 79 overall than compared to Oakland’s maps. We also noticed that many of the additional parcels from MTC’s analysis would be ineligible from SB-79 because some of those parcels are zoned industrial (such as near the Coliseum BART and West Oakland BART) or as open space.
For example , at the MacArthur BART TOD, 41 parcels would be added by the MTC’s maps on one side of the buffer (as shown as parcels in green on the top portion of the buffer circle in Figure 1 below), but 51 parcels would also be removed on the other side of the buffer compared to Oakland’s maps (as shown as parcels in white with dark black outline in the bottom and left of the buffer circle in Figure 1 below). Reconciling these minor differences between the maps generated by MTC and Oakland would be highly timeconsuming and administratively burdensome, particularly given that any revisions would require returning to the Planning Commission and City Council for formal hearings. Given the minimal impact of these minor differences we request that MTC accept and recommend the City’s BART mapping methodology, consistent with its acceptance of the City’s BRT analysis, for HCD review. Furthermore, MTC analysis states that, “the inclusion of these parcels would not necessitate a new capacity calculation on the part of the City, and would not delay the ability of the City to receive HCD approval prior to the law's effective date of July 1, 2026.”
Figure 1: MacArthur TOD showing parcel changes with the revised boundary Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
______________________
Laura Kaminski, Strategic Planning Manager, Planning & Building Department, City of Oakland
Attachment B:
Correspondence with State HCD re: SB 79
Implementation
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - CALIFORNIA HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
651 Bannon Street, 10th Floor, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95811
(916) 263-2911
www.hcd.ca.gov
September 3, 2026
Michael Branson, Senior Deputy City Attorney
City of Oakland
One Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Sixth Floor
Oakland, CA 94612
Dear Michael Branson:
RE: City of Oakland – Enacted Ordinance to Implement SB 79 (Gov. Code, §§ 65912.155 - 65912.162) – Letter of Technical Assistance Thank you for submitting a letter on July 3, 2026, along with revised supporting documents on June 29, 2026, July 20, 2026, and July 23, 2026, in response to the California Department of Housing and Community Development’s (HCD) Senate Bill (SB) 79 ordinance review letter dated June 12, 2026.
1 The City of Oakland (City) has not yet amended its adopted and enacted Ordinance No. 13875 (Ordinance) to address HCD’s findings; therefore, the Ordinance remains out of substantial compliance with SB 79. However, based on the revised supporting documents, HCD provides the following technical assistance.
Technical Assistance
According to the City’s response letter and revised supporting documents (detailed in Attachment A, Table 1 below), the Ordinance’s temporary exclusions satisfy the following statutory requirements:
1. Sites that permit a density and residential floor area ratio at no less than 50 percent of the standards specified under Government Code section 65912.157, subdivision (a), pursuant to Government Code section 65912.161, subdivision (b)(1)(A);
2. Sites in a TOD zone primarily comprised of a low resource area and densities that cumulatively allow for at least 40 percent of the aggregate density for the TOD zone specified under Section 65912.157, subdivision (a), pursuant to Government Code section 65912.161, subdivision (b)(1)(B)(ii); and
3. Sites with historic resources designated as of January 1, 2025 on the local register, pursuant to Government Code section 65912.161, subdivision (b)(1)(F). 1 Available at: https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-andcommunity/HAU/oakland-sb-79-out-hau-3152-061226.pdf Michael Branson, Senior Deputy City Attorney
In addition, the City’s zoning map,2 adopted in accordance with Government Code section 65912.161, subdivision (b)(2), correctly identifies the sites subject to the provisions of SB 79.
HCD understands that the City will amend Section 17.86.050 (Eligibility) of its Ordinance in October 2026 pursuant to Government Code section 65912.160, subdivision (d)(5)(A), to be consistent with the City’s map and to ensure substantial compliance with SB 79.
3,4 Furthermore, the City has clarified on its SB 79 website that the Ordinance amendments will be made.5
Conclusion
Based on the information provided, HCD looks forward to receiving the City’s amended Ordinance pursuant to Government Code section 65912.160, subdivision (d) to bring its Ordinance into substantial compliance with SB 79. HCD reserves the right to request additional information to ensure substantial compliance with SB 79 and may update its findings if new information comes to light. HCD appreciates the cooperation of the City of Oakland’s staff and hopes this letter has been helpful. If you have questions or need additional information, please contact me at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Grace Wu
Section Chief, Transit-Oriented Development
Housing Accountability Unit
Enclosure
Attachment A – Table 1 City of Oakland Submittal Documents 2 Oakland S-8 Combining Zone (SB 79) Map, available at:
https://oakgis.maps.arcgis.com/apps/mapviewer/index.html?webmap=53d0a204f8ad451f9d9b 748a1ebbf563.
3 The City will remove the following zones to clarify that the zones are eligible for SB 79: OS Open Space Zone; M-40, CIX-, IG, IO Industrial Zones; D-CE-5 and D-CE-6 Central Estuary District Industrial Zone; D-GI Gateway District Industrial Zone; and D-CO-5, D-CO6. 4 The City will also correct a clerical error in Section 17.86.060(B) (Exclusions) which identifies AC Transit TEMPO 20th Avenue Stop as excluded although the City Council had removed this exclusion.
5 City of Oakland SB 79 website, available at: https://www.oaklandca.gov/PlanningBuilding/Your-Commercial-Projects-Permits/SB-79-Transit-Oriented-Housing-in-Oakland.
Attachment A
Table 1 City of Oakland Submittal Documents
Filename Document Description Received Date
1 HAU 3112 HCD Doc
Requests (folder)
Revised 40% Capacity Calculations
(including Industrial and OS Zoned parcels) 06/29/2026
2 Final Response
Letter_HCD
07.03.2026_wg.pdf
City’s response letter to HCD 07/03/2026
3 Oakland_HistoricResource
_only.dbf
Address and APN of the historic parcels
temporarily excluded based solely on local
register designation.
07/20/2026
4 S-8 Combining Zone (SB
79) Map Revised ArcGIS webmap 07/23/2026
1 CITY OF OAKLAND
D A L Z I E L B U I L D I N G , 2 5 0 F R A N K H . O G A W A P L A Z A , S U I T E 3 3 1 5 , O A K L A N D , C A P l a n n i n g a n d B u i l d i n g D e p a r t m e n t Office of the Director (510) 238-3254
July 1, 2026
Via E-mail (Return Receipt Requested)
Melinda Coy
Housing Accountability Unit Chief
Department of Housing and Community Development
ATTN: Grace Wu
651 Bannon Street, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95811
Email: [email protected]; [email protected] Re: City Response Letter Following HCD’s Review of Oakland’s Senate Bill 79 Ordinance and Written Findings Letter Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65912.160, subdivision (d)(3)(A).
Dear Melinda Coy and Grace Wu:
We are in receipt of your June 12, 2026, written findings letter to the City of Oakland following the City’s submittal of its Senate Bill 79 Ordinance to the California Department of Housing and Community Development. The City adopted its ordinance on March 16, 2026.
This response letter addresses each of the findings provided in HCD’s written findings letter. We would also request that HCD and the City of Oakland Planning Bureau meet and confer to review these responses with you and address any outstanding concerns.
I. BACKGROUND ON CITY COUNCIL AUTHORITY AND LEGISLATIVE
PROCESS
This letter represents the opinion and position of the Bureau of Planning of the City of Oakland, a division of the City of Oakland. Through this letter, the Bureau of Planning commits to bringing forward legislation for City Council consideration to address the issues raised by HCD. While this response letter cannot pre-commit the Council to a certain course of legislative action, we can commit to keeping HCD apprised of subsequent actions by the Oakland City Council.
Prior to Council approval of any amendments to the City of Oakland Senate Bill 79 Ordinance, as codified in Oakland Planning Code Chapter 17.86, the legislative process requires that City Staff bring those amendments to the Planning Commission and to the Community and Economic Development Committee of the City Council. Subsequently, the legislation must be brought before Council for two separate Council hearings for final adoption. We anticipate being able to complete the legislative process by Fall 2026.
II. HCD FINDINGS
HCD Finding 1: Section 17.86.050 – Eligibility.
HCD disagrees with the City of Oakland’s determination of which Oakland zoning designations are appropriately categorized as “zoned for residential, mixed, or commercial development.” HCD has concluded that if a jurisdiction’s zoning principally or conditionally permits residential, residential mixed use, or commercial land use on a parcel not underwater within a transit-oriented development zone over which the jurisdiction has zoning authority, then SB 79 shall apply. As a result of this conclusion, HCD has advised that the following zones must be listed as eligible for SB 79 unless specific exceptions apply: OS Open Space Zone, M-40 Industrial Zone, CIX-, IG, IO Industrial Zones, D-CE-5 and D-CE-6 Central Estuary District Industrial Zones, D-GI Gateway District Industrial Zone, and D-CO-5 and D-CO-6 Coliseum Area Industrial Zones.
City Response to HCD Finding 1:
Thank you for your comments on this finding. While City staff believe it was not the legislature’s intent to allow for residential development within industrial zones, we appreciate HCD’s role in interpreting the law as the legislature has written it. We also appreciate HCD’s clarification that land over which the jurisdiction does not have zoning authority, including Port land, is not eligible under SB 79. The City commits to bring forward to City Council Planning Code Amendments that revise the list of eligible zones under Section 17.86.050 to reflect all zones that permit or conditionally permit residential, residential mixed use, or commercial development. The City requests to meet and confer with HCD on which Oakland zoning districts meet HCD’s interpretation of the criteria.
In particular, the City disagrees that the City of Oakland Open Space Zone (Chapter
17.11) qualifies as a zone that permits permanent residential activities and commercial activities.
This zone is intended to create, preserve, and enhance land for permanent open space to meet the active and passive recreational needs of Oakland residents. It does not permit any uses other than park uses. Chapter 17.11 does have further regulations regarding what may occur within the park. Section 17.11.050 states that certain activities as further restricted to certain park and open space categories and specific uses as set forth in 17.11.060 may be permitted upon the granting of a conditional use permit. While Permanent Residential is listed as a conditionally permitted activity in Section 17.11.050, Section 17.11.060 provides further context to state that this provision is limited only to Caretaker’s Quarters, which is defined under Section 17.11.015 as “a single living unit occupied on a monthly or longer basis on public parkland where the primary occupant of the residence is employed to maintain the grounds and facilities of the associated park.” In other words, the Open Space zone allows for a caretaker of a park to live in a facility within the park.
Similarly, the only commercial activities provided for under Section 17.11.060 are for horse stables (as a subset of animal care) and for restaurants and cafes that serve the patrons of the park. The zone does not allow a park to be converted to commercial activity. Any application for a use permit must additionally show that the proposal will not result in a net loss of any parkland. See Oakland Planning Code Section 17.11.110 and Section 17.135.060. Chapter
17.135 generally provides strict criteria intended to limit the loss of any parkland within the City of Oakland. We ask that HCD reconsider its determination that Oakland’s open space park designation meets the criteria for sites zoned for residential, mixed use, or commercial development. Many parks throughout California and the country, including state and national parks, have concession stands or food kiosks. They nonetheless remain a park use that would not permit a commercial activity absent the open space use.
As an example, Lake Merritt was established March 18, 1870, as the Lake Merritt Wild Duck Refuge and is widely acclaimed as the United States’ first official wildlife refuge. The wildlife sanctuary officially encompasses the entire acreage of Lake Merritt and provides sanctuary for migratory birds. The entire property is zoned Open Space. We do not believe it is an appropriate interpretation of the statutory language to conclude that the parcel is zoned for residential, mixed, or commercial activity when such activities would not be allowed to displace existing park uses.
HCD Finding 2: Section 17.86.060(B) – Exclusions: Sites in a Transit-Oriented Development Zone around a Transit-Oriented Development Stop that is primarily comprised of a Low-Resource Area which includes sites with densities that cumulatively allow for at least 40 percent of the aggregate density for the Transit-Oriented Development Zone specified in Senate Bill 79.
HCD has concluded they cannot determine the compliant status of the City of Oakland’s (b)(1)(B)(ii) temporary exclusion. This directly stems from HCD Finding 1: Since the City of Oakland did not assess the densities for sites in the industrial and open space zones identified by HCD as eligible, HCD is unable to determine whether the collective sites within each TOD zone would still meet forty percent of the aggregate density for the TOD zone if these additional sites were included.
City Response to HCD Finding 2:
Thank you for your comments on this finding. As pertaining to this temporary exclusion, City staff intend to adopt findings explaining why the City has determined its ordinance complies with SB 79 despite HCD’s findings to the contrary. We would like to meet and confer with HCD to discuss the City’s revised calculations, which show that even with inclusion of all additionally identified zoning designations, the TOD zones originally identified as eligible for this exclusion continue to have zoning capacity exceeding forty percent of SB 79 standards. To provide clarity to the public, we ask that HCD consider confirming in writing that the calculations substantially comply with SB 79 temporary exclusion requirements.
As part of the ordinance review process, the City provided HCD with all Excel spreadsheet aggregate data related to the analysis of this temporary exclusion. The data include information including parcel size and zoning designation for all parcels within 200 feet, ¼ mile, and ½ mile of each TOD zone. Upon receipt of your letter, the City revised these spreadsheets by inputting allowed SB 79 densities for all of the identified parcels on sites with a zoning designation that HCD has determined were incorrectly excluded. These revised calculations show that all of the previously identified TOD zones eligible for this temporary exclusion still exceed the 40% aggregate density requirement and, therefore, still meet the criteria to be excluded even when the industrial and open space parcels are included. Please note that the City included revised Open Space zone calculations in these revisions despite our stated disagreement as outlined in our response to HCD Finding 1 above. The City has transmitted the Excel spreadsheets and summary tables ahead of delivery of this letter.
HCD Finding 3: Section 17.86.060(C) – Exclusions: Sites with a historic resource designated as of January 1, 2025, on a local register.
HCD has concluded that the City’s temporary exclusion of PDHPs with an “A” or “B” rating is not permissible under SB 79 on the basis of concluding that PDHPs are not designated historic resources. HCD asserts that PDHPs fall outside the definition of Gov. Code Section 65912.161 subd. (b)(1)(F) based on language on the City of Oakland website.
City Response to HCD Finding 3: The City wishes to meet and confer with State HCD regarding this finding. The City seeks to clarify that the temporary exclusion of certain properties is not based on these properties being identified as Potentially Designated Historic Properties (PDHPs), a much larger category. Instead, it is based on these properties either receiving an A or B rating on the Oakland Cultural Heritage Survey or being located within an Area of Primary Importance (API) and, therefore, being designated, in fact, as on the Local Register via the City’s Historic Preservation Element.
The City first adopted its Historic Preservation Element in 1994. The element was subsequently amended in 1998 via Resolution No. 74403 C.M.S. The amended Historic Preservation Element created the City’s Local Register. It designated those PDHPs with an A or B rating as being on the Local Register and designated those PDHPs with lower ratings to be worthy of some preservation effort but not being on the Local Register. It additionally identified qualifying properties within APIs as being on the Local Register.
By definition, all buildings with an A or B rating on the Oakland Cultural Heritage Survey are or appear eligible for listing on the National Register. This is equivalent to a National Register Status Code designation of 1, 2, or 3. Appendix A (Definitions) of the Historic Preservation Element explains that the Oakland Cultural Heritage Survey is a comprehensive historical and architectural survey conducted by the City Planning Department from 1979 to 1998. The Survey identified and evaluated properties and areas dating from 1945 and earlier, plus selected post-1945 properties having obvious historic or architectural value. Each property was evaluated using evaluation sheets with a five-level (A-B-C-D-E) rating scale and assessed for National Register of Historic Places and local Landmark eligibility. Areas, neighborhoods, or property groups which appear eligible for the National Register as districts or as historically related complexes were identified as APIs.
The City would like to emphasize that the A and B ratings and API designations for these properties were assigned decades prior to the SB 79 framework. The resolution amending Policy
3.8 of the Historic Preservation Element formally designated these properties as being the City of Oakland Local Register, a term modeled after the then-new California Register. The City has, since 1998, applied review under the California Environmental Quality Act to those properties as designated CEQA historic resources.
As explained in Appendix C (Oakland Cultural Heritage Survey Evaluation System), the A rating applies to the most outstanding properties considered clearly eligible for individual National Register and City landmark designation. Similarly, B-rated buildings are properties of major historical value most of which are considered individually eligible for the National Register and all considered eligible for City Landmark designation.
The City’s GIS file of Local Register properties similarly existed well prior to the passage of SB 79. The A- and B-rated PDHPs and APIs are more than 50 years old and represent less than two percent of the structures within the City of Oakland. City staff affirm that these properties were designated, through adoption of Historic Preservation Element amendments, as on the Local Register prior to January 1, 2025.
Additional HCD Comment 1: HCD requests the City clarify whether the City intends to temporarily exclude sites in the AC Transit TEMPO 20th Avenue TOD Zone. Section
17.86.060(B)(11) specifies that the AC Transit TEMPO 20th Avenue Stop is excluded from the standards provided in SB 79; however, Exhibit B, Map 28 (AC Transit TEMPO 20th Avenue Stop) includes the label “Exclusion Removed by Council Amendment 3/3/2026.
City Response to Additional HCD Comment 1: The City agrees that the text of Section
17.86.060(B)(11) includes a clerical error. This subsection identified Maps 16 through 27 as no longer listed in the temporary exclusion, but continues to show Map 28, AC Transit TEMPO 20th Avenue Stop, as temporarily excluded. This is inconsistent with the amendment provided by the City Council, which additionally included the removal of Map 28. The City commits to bring forward to City Council Planning Code Amendments to correct the clerical error. The City’s interactive map is consistent with the amendments adopted by the City Council.
Additional HCD Comment 2: The City of Oakland’s Ordinance and zoning map shall be at least as inclusive as MTC’s map.
City Response to Additional HCD Comment 2: Thank you for the comment. The City acknowledges that the City map and the MTC map are substantially similar, with only minor deviations. City staff have appended the City GIS map to include the MTC parcels. City staff further commits to bring forward to City Council Planning Code Amendments to conform the City ordinance to the MTC map.
III. CONCLUSION
We look forward to further discussion with State HCD on the matters described above.
City staff will reach out shortly to Grace Wu for scheduling. If we cannot reach mutual agreement on any of the above findings, City staff will either recommend the City Council amend the existing SB 79 ordinance to comply with HCD’s reading of state law or adopt written findings as to why the City believes the ordinance complies with state law.
Sincerely,
William A. Gilchrist
Director, Planning and Building Department
City of Oakland
cc: Michael Branson, Senior Deputy City Attorney
Ed Manasse, Deputy Director, City of Oakland Planning Bureau Laura Kaminski, Strategic Planning Manager
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
651 Bannon Street, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95811
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
June 12, 2026
Michael Branson, Senior Deputy City Attorney
City of Oakland
One Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Sixth Floor
Oakland, CA 94612
Dear Michael Branson:
RE: City of Oakland – Review of Enacted Senate Bill 79 Ordinance to Temporarily Exclude Sites under State SB 79 Law (Gov. Code, §§ 65912.155 - 65912.162) Thank you for submitting the City of Oakland’s (City) adopted and enacted Ordinance No. 13875 (Ordinance) to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). The Ordinance amends Title 17 of the Oakland Municipal Code (the Planning Code) to add Chapter 17.86 S-8 Abundant and Affordable Homes Near Transit (Senate Bill 79) Combining Zone to identify sites eligible and ineligible or excluded from Senate Bill (SB) 79 property development standards.
Pursuant to Government Code section 65912.160, subdivision (d)(3)(A), this letter consists of HCD’s findings that the Ordinance is not in compliance with State SB 79 law and details the revisions necessary to substantially comply with SB 79.
Analysis
HCD received the City’s adopted and enacted ordinance on March 17, 2026 and supplemental documents on April 3, 2026, and April 30, 2026 (see Attachment A, Table 1 City of Oakland Submittal Documents), after receiving the draft ordinance on February 13, 2026.
HCD finds the Ordinance does not comply with State SB 79 law as follows:
1. Section 17.86.050 – Eligibility – The ordinance states: “The following zones are not residential, mixed, or commercial zones and therefore a site with any such designation is an Ineligible Site and may not utilize the development standards provided in the Abundant and Affordable Homes Near Transit Act:
− OS Open Space Zoning Designations
− M-40 Industrial Zone Designations
− S-16 Interstate Corridor Commercial Zone Designations − D-CE-5, D-CE-6 Central Estuary District Industrial Zone Designations − D-GI Gateway District Industrial Zone Designations
− D-CO-5, D-CO-6 Coliseum Area Industrial Zone Designations Michael Branson, Senior Deputy City Attorney
− Undesignated areas serving as road, highway, train track, bicycle lane, and other right of way.
− Parcels lying underwater.
In addition, Section 17.86.020 (Definitions) provides definitions for terms that do not appear in Government Code section 65912.156. The City defines “ineligible site” to mean “a site within the S-8 zone (within one-half mile of a TOD Stop) that is not zoned for residential, mixed, or commercial development, as further identified in Section
17.86.050.”
However, Government Code section 65912.157, subdivision (a) states (emphasis added): “A housing development project shall be an allowed use as a transit-oriented housing development on any site zoned for residential, mixed, or commercial development within one-half or one-quarter mile of a transit-oriented development stop….” Furthermore, Government Code section 65912.155 “finds and declares [that] California faces a housing shortage both acute and chronic, particularly in areas with access to robust public transit infrastructure”1 and “building more homes near transit access reduces housing and transportation costs….”2
While the statute does not explicitly define “mixed” or “commercial” uses, if the jurisdiction’s zoning principally or conditionally permits residential, residential mixed use, or commercial land use on a parcel not underwater within a transit-oriented development (TOD) zone over which the jurisdiction has zoning authority, then SB 79 shall apply. This is consistent with prior HCD technical assistance explaining that “zoned for” means principally or conditionally permitted land use within a zone.3 For example, if a site is zoned industrial or open space but the zone allows for commercial development, then SB 79 may apply.
According to the City’s Planning Code, the following zones principally or conditionally permit residential, mixed, or commercial development and therefore are eligible for SB 79 unless specific exceptions apply. In addition, the parcel land areas must be included in the City’s SB 79 capacity calculations:
• 17.11.050 OS Open Space Zone conditionally permits permanent residential activities and commercial activities.
• Table 17.72.01 M-40 Industrial Zone principally and conditionally permits commercial activities.
• Table 17.73.020 CIX-, IG, IO Industrial Zones principally and conditionally permit commercial activities.
1 Gov. Code, § 65912.155, subd. (a).
2 Gov. Code, § 65912.155, subd. (c).
3 HCD TA Letter to the City of Hayward, dated January 28, 2025. Available at:
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/haywardhau-1167-sb-684-1123-ta-01282025.pdf Michael Branson, Senior Deputy City Attorney
• Table 17.101E.01 D-CE-5 and D-CE-6 Central Estuary District Industrial Zone principally and conditionally permit commercial activities. • Table 17.101F.01 D-GI Gateway District Industrial Zone principally and conditionally permit commercial activities.
• Table 17.101H.01 D-CO-5, D-CO-6 Coliseum Area Industrial Zone principally and conditionally permit commercial activities.
2. Section 17.86.060(B) – Exclusions: Sites in a Transit-Oriented Development Zone around a Transit-Oriented Development Stop that is primarily comprised of a Low-Resource Area which includes sites with densities that cumulatively allow for at least 40 percent of the aggregate density for the Transit-Oriented Development Zone specified in the Abundant and Affordable Homes Near Transit (Senate Bill 79). (Gov. Code Sec. 65912.161(b)(1)(B)(ii)) – The Ordinance states: “The following TOD stops, and therefore all parcels located within one-half mile of those TOD stops, are primarily comprised of a low-resource area and include sites with densities cumulatively exceeding forty (40) percent of those specified in Section 65912.157(a). The TOD zones surrounding the following TOD stops are excluded from the standards provided in Senate Bill 79:” A local government may enact an ordinance to temporarily exclude sites from the provisions of Government Code section 65912.157 until one year after the adoption of the jurisdiction’s seventh cycle Housing Element by demonstrating that the sites meet at least one of the criteria under Section 65912.161, subdivision (b)(1)(A)-(F).4 One of the criteria includes Section 65912.161, subdivision (b)(1)(B)(ii), which states: “A site in a transit-oriented development zone around a transit-oriented development stop that is primarily comprised of a low-resource area which includes sites with densities that cumulatively allow for at least 40 percent of the aggregate density for the transit-oriented development zone specified under subdivision (a) of Section 65912.157.”
Based on the City’s submitted documents, and related to Finding 1 above, HCD understands that the City did not assess the densities as specified in Section 65912.157, subdivision (a) for several zones that principally or conditionally permit residential or commercial development. For example, the City did not assess the densities for sites in the CIX, IG, and OS zones within the West Oakland BART TOD zone. Therefore, HCD is unable to determine whether the sites would meet 40 percent of the aggregate density for the TOD zone as specified in Section 65912.157, subdivision (a) because the City did not include all the land area eligible for SB 79 in its analysis.
In addition, please clarify whether the City intends to temporarily exclude sites in the AC Transit TEMPO 20th Avenue TOD Zone. Section 17.86.060(B)(11) specifies that the AC Transit TEMPO 20th Avenue Stop is excluded from the standards provided in 4 Gov. Code, 65912.161, subd. (b)(1).
Michael Branson, Senior Deputy City Attorney
SB 79; however, Exhibit B, Map 28 (AC Transit TEMPO 20th Avenue Stop) includes the label “Exclusion Removed by Council Amendment 3/3/2026.”
3. Section 17.86.060(C) – Exclusions: Sites with a historic resource designated as of January 1, 2025, on a local register. (Gov. Code Sec. 65912.161(b)(1)(F)) – The Ordinance states: “All sites on the Local Register as mapped on City of Oakland Geospatial Information System Zoning Map as of January 1, 2025, are excluded.
Policy 3.8 of the City of Oakland Historic Preservation Element, an element of the Oakland General Plan, defines the Local Register of Historic Resources. The Local Register is defined to include all Oakland Landmarks, S-7 and S-20 Preservation District combining zone properties, ‘Potentially Designated Historic Properties’ that have an existing survey rating of ‘A’ or ‘B’ or are located within Areas of Primary Importance (APIs), Heritage Properties, and Preservation Study List Properties.” A local government may enact an ordinance to temporarily exclude “sites with a historic resource designated as of January 1, 2025, on a local register” from the provisions of Government Code section 65912.157 until one year after the adoption of the jurisdiction’s seventh cycle Housing Element.
5 According to the City’s SB79
historic resources parcels document, the City excluded 1,820 sites under this temporary exemption provision.
However, HCD understands that excluded sites include “Potential Designated Historic Properties” (PDHPs) and the City’s website specifically states that “PDHP is not a designation.”6 PDHPs are not designated historic resources and therefore do not qualify for temporary exclusion under Section 65912.161, subdivision (b)(1)(F).
Conclusion
Please note, pursuant to Government Code section 65912.161, subdivision (b)(2), the City’s public zoning map must be updated to reflect any amendments to the sites or transit-oriented development zones that are and are not covered by Section 65912.157.
In addition, pursuant to Government Code section 65912.160, subdivision (f), the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) SB 79 map shall have rebuttable presumption of validity for use by project applicants and local governments and therefore the City’s Ordinance and zoning map shall be at least as inclusive as MTC’s map when it is made available. HCD reserves the right to request additional information to monitor ongoing substantial compliance with SB 79 and may update its findings if new information comes to light. HCD may revoke compliance if the local government’s actions do not comply with state law.
5 Gov. Code, 65912.161, subd. (b)(1)(F).
6 City of Oakland, Historical and Architectural Rating Systems website: “PDHP is not a designation. It is a category based on Survey ratings, and the ratings simply report what the Survey has found throughout Oakland.” Available at:
https://www.oaklandca.gov/Planning-Building/Historic-Preservation/Historical-andArchitectural-Rating-Systems Michael Branson, Senior Deputy City Attorney
HCD is committed to assisting the City in addressing all statutory requirements of SB
79. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Grace Wu at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Melinda Coy
Housing Accountability Unit Chief
Enclosure
Attachment A – Table 1 City of Oakland Submittal Documents Attachment A
Table 1 City of Oakland Submittal Documents
Filename Document Description Submittal Date
1 View Supplemental
Legislation and
Exhibits A B C And D –
352026.pdf
• Ordinance 13875 (p. 1-6);
• Exhibit A: S-8 Abundant and Affordable
Homes Near Transit (Senate Bill 79)
Combining Zone (p. 7-15);
• Exhibit B: SB 79 Low Resource and
40% Density Eligibility & Exclusion
Analysis Map (p. 16-63);
• Exhibit C: SB 79 Site Exclusion
Analysis – Sites Excluded Based on
Zoning Under Gov. Code
65912.161(b)(1)(A) (50 percent density
and residential FAR) (p. 64-82)
• Exhibit D: SB 79 Exclusion Analysis of
Historic Resources – Sites Excluded
Under Gov. Code
65912.161(b)(1)(F)(local register of
historic resources) (p. 83-101)
03/17/2026
2 Att A_50% capacity
calculation.pdf Zoning Analysis for 50 Percent Exclusion 03/17/2026 3 Att B_Tier 1-40%
density calculation.pdf
Summary of Density of Tier 1 TOD Zones
by Geographical Area 03/17/2026
4 Att C_Tier 1-parcel
calculation.pdf
Housing Capacity Analysis of Oakland
Zoning Compared with SB 79 Standards in
Tier 1 TOD Zones for Six BART Stations
03/17/2026
5 Att D_Tier 2-40%
density calculation.pdf
Summary of the Density of Tier 2 TOD
Zones by Geographic Area 03/17/2026
6 Att E_Tier 2-parcel
calculation.pdf
Housing Capacity Analysis of Oakland
Zoning Compared with SB 79 Standards in
Tier 2 TOD Zones for 39 AC Transit Tempo
Stops
03/17/2026
7 Analysis of Zones
Within Each TOD
Zone.xlsx
Zoning Districts Within Each TOD Zone
(excel) 04/03/2026
8 Attachment A Zoning
Analysis for 50 percent
exclusion.xlsx
Zoning Analysis for 50 Percent Exclusion
(excel) 04/03/2026
9 SB79 historic
resources parcels.dbf
List of historic resources parcels: Address,
APN, Tier, Distance, TOD Zone (excel) 04/20/2026
10 S-8 Combining Zone
(SB 79) Map DRAFT
Public zoning map indicating sites or TOD
zones covered and not covered by SB 79
(ArcGIS webmap)
04/30/2026