Oakland Community and Economic Development Committee Meeting

Date: February 24, 2026, 1:33 PM – adjourned after Open Forum Present: Councilmembers Fife, Ramachandran, Unger, and Chair Brown (4 members present)

The committee met to consider two ordinances related to housing and zoning, a speaker card process, and public comments. After discussion and votes, both ordinances were forwarded to the March 3, 2026 City Council meeting as public hearings.

Consent Calendar

• Item 1 – Approval of Draft Minutes (February 10, 2026): Approved unanimously (4-0) by motion of Councilmember Fife, seconded by Chair Brown.
• Item 2 – Determination of Scheduled Outstanding Committee Items: Approved as presented (4-0) by motion of Chair Brown, seconded by Councilmember Fife. One speaker (Sada Olabala) spoke on this item prior to the vote.

Public Comments & Testimony

• On Item 2 (Outstanding Items): Sada Olabala criticized the city’s sanctuary city status, asserting it has a negative economic impact on African Americans. She demanded a report and corrective actions, stating that the city imposes studies on African American issues while acting without studies on other matters (e.g., non-citizen small business grants, sanctuary city designation, privacy commission). She also referenced a 1994 investigative report by Barbara Jordan.
• On Item 3 (S-14 / Work-Live Amendments): Public speakers included Kevin Daly, Sada Olabala, Derek Barnes, and Jennifer Corey (via Zoom, but audio was not heard). Mr. Daly noted the city loses 70–80 businesses monthly and urged focus on retention, not just new business creation. He also listed city-owned vacant parcels suitable for housing (e.g., 1911 Telegraph, 1100 San Pablo Ave, MacArthur Blvd lots, etc.).
• On Item 4 (SB 79 / S-8 Combining Zone): Five speakers signed up.
  • Kevin Daly (Transport Oakland) praised staff effort but suggested Oakland should go beyond state requirements, e.g., consider high-density housing near any AC Transit stop with 15-minute frequency, not just the designated transit stops.
  • Naomi Schiff (Oakland Heritage Alliance) thanked staff for thorough work and supported the staff recommendation to adopt exclusions for all three high-resource areas (Rockridge, MacArthur, Ashby) to allow time for a comprehensive alternative plan. She emphasized that zoning alone does not guarantee construction; financial feasibility matters.
  • Jennifer McElrath urged adoption of staff’s recommendation (delay via exclusions until 2032) to allow community input. She noted Rockridge residents are unaware of the issue and concerned about height, not use, along corridors.
  • Sada Olabala read several state bills (AB 1870, AB 2216, AB 2498) and criticized the discussion as irrelevant to District 6 and 7 residents, suggesting it only affects “rich white folks.”
  • Steve Cook (not on original sign-up list but spoke after) opposed Councilmember Unger’s amendment, supporting staff’s request for time to plan properly. He cited prior Rockridge studies showing infeasibility of high-density development outside corridors and noted market changes (remote work, AI) may reduce demand.
• Open Forum: Sada Olabala raised concerns about a proposed HUD rule requiring citizenship verification for rental assistance and HUD withholding funds, calling for more focus on the Oakland Housing Authority’s role.

Discussion Items

Item 3 – Ordinance Amending S-14 Housing Sites Combining Zone & Work-Live/Live-Work Definitions

• Presentation: Laura Kaminsky (Strategic Planning Manager) explained amendments to Chapter 17.96. Key changes: (1) Clarify that development projects do not include improvements/renovations to existing buildings occupied by businesses before Jan 1, 2026, or temporary structures; they do include adding floor area to buildings occupied after that date if square footage increases by ≥50% or ≥30,000 sq ft (whichever less). (2) Add a conditional use permit (CUP) option for non-housing developments on S-14 sites if the project provides substantial community/economic benefit and the city’s remaining RHNA allocation is adequate (no-net-loss finding). (3) Update work-live/live-work definitions to align with California Building Code (non-residential cannot exceed 50%).
• Committee Questions: Councilmember Fife asked about SB 79 (the next item) but was redirected; no substantive questions on Item 3. Councilmember Unger made a motion to approve staff recommendations and forward to March 3 City Council as a public hearing.
• Vote: Motion by Councilmember Fife, seconded by Councilmember Unger, passed 4-0.

Item 4 – Ordinance Implementing SB 79 (Abundant Affordable Homes Near Transit Act) – S-8 Combining Zone

• Presentation: Laura Kaminsky detailed SB 79 requirements (effective July 1, 2026). Provides higher density/height within ½ mile of BART (tier 1) and AC Transit Tempo (tier 2) stops. Staff proposed adopting exclusions allowed by state law for sites that meet certain criteria, to give the city time to develop an alternative plan as part of the General Plan Update (Land Use & Transportation Element, adoption targeted late spring 2027). Exclusions: (1) Sites where existing zoning allows ≥50% of SB 79 density; (2) Whole TOD zones in low-resource areas where aggregate zoning density ≥40% of SB 79 aggregate; (3) Designated historic resources. Staff analysis found all TOD zones in low-resource areas exceed 40% (e.g., 12th St BART 307%, West Oakland 70%). For high-resource areas (Rockridge, Ashby, MacArthur BART stations), only commercial zones meet the 50% threshold; residential zones do not. Staff recommended excluding those parcels via exclusion 1 as well. Planning Commission recommended NOT taking exclusion 1 for the three high-resource stations, but staff disagreed, citing need for comprehensive planning and community engagement.
• Councilmember Unger Amendment: He proposed not taking exclusion 1 in District 1 (Rockridge, MacArthur, Ashby) to allow SB 79 densities to apply along commercial corridors, preventing development from being pushed into interior residential neighborhoods. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Ramachandran.
• Debate: Councilmember Fife asked about staff’s view on the amendment. Staff (Kaminsky, Director Gilchrist, ACA Baker) acknowledged the amendment would allow SB 79 vesting for a small number of parcels along corridors in the interim (until an alternative plan is adopted, likely 1–2 years), but could not be undone after development vests. They preferred excluding all to allow more time for community input. Deputy City Attorney Branson noted that the long-term difference is minimal because an alternative plan would eventually replace SB 79, but the short-term effect of the amendment would give developers the option to use SB 79 heights (slightly higher than local zoning) on excluded parcels.
• Vote on Unger Amendment: Failed 2-2 (Fife and Brown opposed; Ramachandran and Unger in favor).
• Subsequent Motion: Chair Brown moved to adopt staff recommendation as is and forward to March 3 City Council as a public hearing. Seconded by Councilmember Fife. Passed 4-0.

Key Outcomes

• Item 1: Approved minutes of February 10, 2026 (4-0).
• Item 2: Approved determination of outstanding committee items (4-0).
• Item 3: Recommended adoption of ordinance (as presented by staff) and forwarded to the March 3, 2026 City Council meeting as a public hearing (4-0).
• Item 4: Recommended adoption of the SB 79 implementing ordinance (S-8 combining zone) with staff’s proposed exclusions (including exclusion 1 for all three high-resource BART station areas) and forwarded to the March 3, 2026 City Council meeting as a public hearing (4-0). Councilmember Unger’s amendment to exclude Rockridge, MacArthur, and Ashby from exclusion 1 was defeated 2-2.
• Schedule: The next committee meeting (or full Council meeting) on March 3, 2026 will include these items as public hearings.