It's Monday, March 9th, 7 PM, and we're going to go ahead and commence tonight's planning board meeting.

And before we formally begin, uh board member Hom, can you read us in Pledge of Allegiance?

Thank you.

All right.

Let's go ahead and start with roll call.

Okay.

Board member Ruiz.

Here.

Board Member Sahaba.

Present and President Cisneros.

Here.

Okay, we have a quorum with three absences.

Okay, great.

Um, moving on, do we have any agenda changes either from uh staff?

Oh, and we just have a an adjustment to the roll call.

I don't know if we can update that.

We're just getting started.

So board member Wang is joining us.

Okay, great.

Hi.

I'm here.

Present, yes.

Great.

All right.

Moving on now to agenda changes.

Anything from staff or board?

Seeing nothing.

Moving on to non-agenda public comments.

Um virtually, I guess, uh, since no one's here uh physically can comment on something that's not on the agenda for three minutes.

We have anyone.

Okay, great.

And moving on to the consent calendar.

Um we have the draft meeting minutes for February twenty-third, and we also have various development agreements for B C B C D.

Okay, so maybe we should do them one by one.

We have um I think board member Hom, you were absent or the last board.

Oh, we don't have a quorum then, right?

For for Oh, we did.

We do now.

Okay, okay.

Um, all right.

Um, so do we have any comments or a motion for agenda item consent calendar for A I move to uh approved consent calendar for A.

Okay.

And do we have a second?

I'll second.

Okay, all those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Abstain.

And one abstention.

Okay, great.

Um, next we have um, I guess we do these one by one.

Um 4B, the Del Monte Development Agreement.

Um, you have to ask for public comment.

Oh, for each one?

4A.

Oh, okay.

Any public comment on 4A?

Seeing none.

Okay.

And then um we'll close that and go on.

Thank you to 4B, the Del Monte agreement.

Any comments or questions?

If not, do we have a motion?

Well, you want to take any public comments?

Any public comments for 4B?

Yeah, um, through the chair, you can ask for public comments on all three of them at once since it's a concern.

The 4B, 4C, and 4D.

Correct.

Okay, we'll do that.

That sounds good.

Um, if no comments, we have a motion for 4B.

I move approval of these annual reports for all three items.

All three, four B and C and D.

Okay, agree.

Can we do that?

Or should we?

Unless anyone has comments, right?

That's fine.

And are there any recusals on any of these?

Okay.

Oh, yes.

Oh, that's the the Del Monte.

Yeah, that's right.

Then we'd probably just take them one by one.

We went one by one.

Okay.

Going back to just item 4B then.

Okay.

Then I'll move approval for B.

Okay.

We have a motion.

Do we have a second?

I'll second.

Oh, those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

One abstention.

Okay.

Great.

That passes.

Item 4C, the Almida point site A.

Well, I'll move again.

Move.

And do we have a second?

Um president's next.

Yes.

I have questions.

Oh, you have a question on item 4C?

That's okay.

Yeah, you can still move it.

I just have questions.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Let's go ahead.

Question for the staff.

Concerning, thank you for the um site A development agreement update.

In review, what's gonna happen with the block 11?

I notice it's been vacant for a while.

My understanding is there's an extension on the DDA, but can you elaborate?

I don't recall seeing much detail on the report.

Maybe I've missed it.

Yes.

Um each of these projects is in force majeure, economic force major, meaning their um requirements are told.

Um and so um there is sort of no progress uh pending um obtaining more financing and better economic conditions.

But was it part of the report?

I don't recall seeing it.

Um it basically applies to all of the rest of site A.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, yeah, thank you for the question.

Any other questions or comments?

Okay.

So we have a motion.

Do we have a second?

I second.

Okay, all those in favor?

I oppose any abstentions?

See none.

And we have two absences.

Um moving on to four D, which is the boat works development agreement.

Go ahead and move that one.

You'll move that one.

Okay, any questions or comments?

If not, do we have a second?

I second.

Okay.

All those in favor, aye.

Aye, opposed, and two absences.

Okay, and with that, um, I'll open it up for public comment.

Anyone virtually that would like to make any comments?

Uh through the chair.

You you had already asked for public comments on the consent calendar, so you don't need to ask for it again.

Oh, okay.

Great.

Of course, if if you'd like, you can always more comment.

Okay, great.

So with that, we're uh gonna go ahead and close agenda item four, which is the consent calendar.

Um great.

Moving on to the regular agenda item, which is to review the Almeda 2040 general plan and housing element.

And just quick clarification.

I see there's other reports listed here, but we already approved those at the last planning board meeting.

So this is just for the housing element general plan.

So do we have a presentation?

We do.

Uh Tristan Swear will be making the presentation tonight.

Okay, thank you.

Nice.

Okay.

Good evening, uh, Steam Chair, board members.

Thank you very much for your time this evening.

Uh the item before you is as previously noted, a returning item.

Um, specifically, it's the review of the general plan and housing element annual uh progress reports.

Um so this is uh an item that had come before the board at your previous meeting and uh is an update to the city's progress on its housing goals and general plan programs uh during the calendar year 2025.

Um the I think I'm gonna offer just a kind of brief overview before we dive into some of the information here.

Um so the uh housing element is uh on an eight-year cycle that the city is required to report on annually.

Um it identifies uh a number of uh opportunity sites for which uh the city is obligated to zone sufficient density for its arena, that's our regional housing needs allocation.

Um, essentially the number of total housing units needed to be produced over that eight year period to address the state's housing crisis.

Um that being said, uh there is no penalty for failing to achieve that number.

Um, and uh, because of sort of larger macroeconomic conditions, um we have seen a downturn in the overall number of housing units developed in the past calendar year.

Um each year out of that eight year cycle, um we produce this uh annual progress report.

Um, and every year the state uh finds uh more granular data to ask about, and uh so we provide not just uh units, total number of housing units issued in that calendar year, but also um uh planning entitlements applied for, um building permits applied for, uh building uh permits finaled, um, and it creates a really clear picture of sort of the direction that the city is taking with its housing production and gives us a good idea of um sort of what programs and policies are affecting the most change.

Uh so continuing here, um, just a little bit of an update on specific uh projects.

Um so there are uh a number of sort of larger housing developments ongoing right now in the city.

Um I'm just gonna run through them very quickly, but if uh you know any board members are interested in hearing a little bit more about them, certainly we can dig in.

Um so, of course, there's the North Housing Project, um, very exciting development.

Um, a number of the uh units there receive certificates of occupancy.

Um so that means the units are constructed, they've been inspected and are now final, ready to occupy.

Um so that's sort of the the last step in the process.

Um so those are um specifically units for um 30% AMI and 40% AMI.

Um, and so having a number of of those lower income units is is a pretty uh good step in the right direction.

Um reshape uh refers to um uh large multi-phase project that involves um removal of some existing housing and creation of some new large uh supportive housing.

Um so the entitlements for that project were approved in 2025.

Um, pretty significant progress towards that.

Um's midway sort of in conjunction with the reshape proje uh project um also submitted applications for planning entitlements.

Um, so we are working through those.

Um Alameda Marina Townhomes, this is phase two of the Alameda Marina site on the North Shore.

Um the townhomes um saw significant progress in 2025 with uh a number of residential buildings finaled.

Um we're anticipating continued project um progress on that project uh in the coming year, so we'll see see more of those townhomes constructed in 2026.

Uh Grant and Clement is uh you may have heard of it referred to by a couple of different names.

Uh Skyline uh is sort of the name the developers given it.

Um it's uh a project that has had a few buildings.

I think three buildings are now constructed.

Um, a number of those units have been filed, uh meaning they're ready to occupy.

Um, and likewise their progress um in 2026 is looking to sort of continue.

Um the Mariner Square Loop Housing Development, as I'm sure you're aware, received its planning entitlements last year and is moving forward.

Um, and of course, we also have a few um various uh updates to our zoning ordinance that we pursued in the last year that were sort of targeted at furthering housing goals, um, including uh updates for inclusionary housing, which we're still working on with uh council.

Um that'll also be coming back to you folks.

Uh we did update our universal design ordinance to address some townhomes uh issues, um, you may recall.

Uh, and we're we're working on our short-term rental ordinance.

Um, so looking forward to bringing that before this board.

Um, so that's just some update on specific projects that had meaningful progress in 2025.

Um in addition to reporting on specific housing projects.

Um in addition to reporting on specific housing projects, we also report on uh programs that are identified in our housing element.

Um there are 22 of them.

Um some are really quite specific and involve, for example, uh rebates from our municipal power or uh assistance given to uh first-time home buyers for uh down payment assistance.

Um are more broad and involve things like um annually reviewing our ADU production um or bringing these reports to the board, right?

Um so uh there's various levels of progress.

Um I try to give a kind of broad overview of the progress, not just in the past year, but also of sort of more broadly in the planning cycle, um, which started in 2023.

Uh so hopefully that was sufficient for everybody to understand kind of the direction that these programs are going in, but again, happy to um drill down on any particular number of these if there are questions on them.

Um I'm not gonna take the time to go through every one of these programs um here tonight, but uh certainly if there are questions, happy to happy to uh help elucidate anything that may be unclear.

Um and then you know, one of the things I wanted to kind of drill down on as far as the actual RENA numbers and um why they may look the way they do.

Uh I think it was probably, at least for me, it was somewhat alarming to see that the number of issued permits in 2025 had so precipitously declined from the previous year.

Um so if you look at the bottommost row of the table that I have up here, um, it shows the total building permits rather than broken up by um income category, which is what you see in the rows above that.

And you'll see that in 2024, we issued uh almost 250 building permits, uh or rather permits for 243 units to be more specific.

Um that number has decreased significantly to 65 this year, and as uh I think it was pointed out, uh a much greater proportion of those this year were ADUs rather than maybe a uh more significant multifamily attached structure.

Um it's worth noting that without seeing the larger context of the planning cycle, these numbers might seem a little bit misleading.

Um to clarify, those 243 units that were issued permits in 2024 resulted in 234 units that were finaled in 2025.

So there's a bit of a lag time between the reporting year and the actual units that are reported if we're only looking at issued building permits.

Um so you know, a large number of units issued in a given year will generally result in a large number of units finaled in the following year.

Likewise, um the same is true for units applied.

Um so if we look at the total number of units applied for in 2023, we see that there was 187, and there was a relatively low proportion of those that were issued in 2023.

So 2023 had a large buildup of applied units, which is what resulted in a large number of units issued in 2024, subsequently a large number of units finaled in this past year, 2025.

But because of that, it makes it seem like the number of units issued last year, only 65, is a reflection of markedly slower, and to be fair, there are slower market conditions, but um a really meaningful drop in those units.

Um and so it's worth noting that um it's really a reflection of the fact that in 2024 we only had 80 units applied for.

So you see, because we had so many fewer units applied during 2024, of course, during 2025, we wouldn't have uh a large volume of units to issue.

Um I hope that's clear enough.

I just thought it was worth pointing out that this doesn't necessarily represent um a major slowdown, although it does represent a continued slowdown that we were already seeing in total units uh sort of being applied for, issued and subsequently finaled.

Um and for what it's worth, um, you know, if we look at the total number of units applied for in 2025, um that's 143, which is a significant uptick almost double from the prior year.

So the hope is that uh you know, next year that will be reflected in the units issued.

Um I know I've thrown out a lot of little data points there, and it can be a little bit confusing.

Is there any questions about that in particular or about any of the other maybe programs that I covered or general RENA questions?

Um did you have uh more for your presentation?

Um then uh or we could jump into questions now if folks have clarificated.

No, I think now's a good time to stop if you want to take an opportunity to ask any questions.

Yeah, sounds good.

Um thank you so much uh for that.

Um yeah, any clarifying questions from the board to staff?

Uh board member Louise.

Thank you for the presentation and thank you for the detailed explanation of the issued versus apply at the same time.

If we're keeping the same measuring principles, the same thing would happen the next year and the next year and the next year because it's a running cycle.

So whatever is applied, you will come forth next year.

Exactly.

Right.

So then we'll just have to wait and see what happens next year to see.

A few questions.

Um on page four on the housing authority.

Um the first line item where it says project received um C certificate of occupancy but two buildings totaling 109 units.

Well, it says 82 units were 30 percent AMI and 25 units of 40, and 82 plus 25 is not 109.

So uh not all of the units would have been deed restricted to those levels of affordability, but what we did.

But these are so how no, these are north housing.

I agree that they're all deed restricted, but these were the specific levels that were reported to us.

So when we asked them, hey, what were the specific levels, the ones that they wanted to say, yes, we should take credit for these because they are especially low affordability restrictions?

That's what we were that that's what we received from from them.

There were two managers' units.

Okay, so I think you would be good to clarify that because this report is going to the council, right?

So that's just to add that plus two managers units.

So there's no confusion in here.

And the same um nomenclature is also repeated in page nine as well.

So that just clarify that so people say, wait a second, what happened?

It doesn't add up.

Okay.

Okay.

Second thing on the same page, um with midway project.

Uh the progress is the developers submitted new applications for planning entitlements to the etc.

I thought we approved this.

Uh it's related to the tentative map and construction, so it's likely that there are multiple entitlements related to the project.

So we may have entitled, you know.

So there's more entitlements coming.

Okay, thank you.

Um and then moving to down Marin and Mariner Square.

Did they give us a timeline on when they're gonna submit for um for building permit?

Uh not that I've seen.

Not that you've seen.

Okay.

Uh I've spoken with the developer a few times and um they're unable to find a uh financing partner.

Okay.

That's what I was afraid of.

Then there are a few projects that I have written down, and you know, I was wondering if it applies to this last cycle or not.

One is a South Shore.

I know that the planners have left with met with the developers a few times.

Um was that this year?

Was there movement last year?

How do we measure that?

So uh the measurements as far as we're concerned with the tables are only for formal you uh formal projects applied for, so unless we get a formal application from them, it won't go into this report.

Okay, so South Shore is out, and then um how about foundry?

I know that we approved that a few years ago, and the developer was trying to pull building permit.

That's correct.

We're currently working through a number of outstanding issues um on that, but they do have a pending building permit application for the actual apartment building.

Um they also recently worked through some of the uh public works permit uh issues that they had.

So they I believe their horizontal improvements associated with that should be either getting issued or or close to it.

So do you think that should be included in this report?

Uh it's been included in a previous year's report because it's included on the year that the application was received.

So the building permits, once that's issued, that'll be included in the next uh report.

Oh, okay.

Um and subsequently when it's final, again, it'll go into the report under that.

But in uh 2025, there was no action um on the application that that allowed us to put any information into the report.

Okay, so this report only shows the items that have action, but not the holistic view of what's going on in the city.

It is primarily focused on things that had updates in 2025.

So you know, the 2025 report, which looked at the 2024 calendar year, would have included, for example, the application for a building permit for RAP B, which is the foundry.

Um progress was made on it in all of 2025.

So until they move forward from the last time we reported on it, it's but you said there's a pending building permit.

From 2024.

Oh, from 2024, not 20.

Got it.

Okay, thank you.

And then block 11 got a block 11 on Alameda Point, site A got in um economic force majority extension as that big umbrella, right?

That's part of site A, yeah.

That's part of site A's extension.

So when was that um extended?

Oh, it's it's been over a year.

So it was not 2025.

No.

Okay.

And then there's how about Harbor Bay?

The Harbor Bay business park or the shopping center.

The shopping center.

The the shopping center um was not a formal application.

We received a preliminary application, yeah.

Well, doesn't preliminary application count or is that under SB 330?

So they didn't formalize their application submission.

Um they withdrew before formalizing a submission.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um thank you for the clarifying information.

Do we monitor how on the rental stock do we monitor the the progress, the occupancy progress?

Because I've heard that um some developers are struggling to fill the moderate income units.

Uh I think that is something we've heard as well expressed by some of our develop developers and and um folks who are trying to lease out those units.

Um I we get information from housing and human services on um you know the rental program, um, but I don't know that it includes specifically whether or not they've been having difficulty with, for example, moderate income units.

I don't think it has that level of detail.

Okay, I think it would be worthwhile to start tracking that.

Just see how our program is working.

Um and then the other question is at the table that was um added at the end.

Um because the under the different permit type, I mean ADU is obviously ADU.

What does um C B stand for?

Can I'm sorry, can you just which um let's say for example, page 16?

Page 16.

Thank you.

Sorry, I just wanted to make sure I'm looking at the right thing.

Oh, is this are you maybe referring to the pace page 16 of exhibit one?

Okay, and and and what is your question about it?

Um under different category, you know.

Hang on a second.

Local jurisdiction tracking ID.

There's an ADU and then there's numbers attached to it.

So I know that okay, that's an ADU.

I'm just looking at different type of permit.

Um what does C B stand for?

Combined building.

Thank you.

Um it would be helpful to have legends.

Sure.

Yeah, those are um the tracking ID is just the permit number, and that's perfect.

No, I I I get it, that's what I'm asking.

Yeah, yeah.

And it'll be because again, this report is going to the council.

We want to make sure there's enough information for council to react to it.

Sounds like a good idea.

Thank you.

Um that's all my questions.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Um other clarifying questions, uh, board member Hum.

Yeah, um, thank you for the report.

Thank you for the report out.

Um I actually appreciate that your table expanded, showing planning permits, building permits, occupancy level, because I know HCD only requires you to report, you know, building permits issued, which I think you had a nice explanation on that.

So it's good to see the whole kind of life of the projects that are going through.

And I also realize that Alamina is not the only city that's not able to meet their numbers if you look at the housing reports from other cities, is similar.

The economy is really impacting construction of residential units.

Um having having said that, I'll I'll start with my last question first as it relates in program 22 and uh the program is similar to what I see in other cities, but it's basically something that HCD required, but it basically says that if you're not able to achieve your numbers or your program goals, the city is is required to take a look at other possible solutions or or or adjustments to try to further meet those numbers.

And I know the economy hopefully HCD is sensitive to the fact that the economy is driving a lot of this, but um have staff taken a look at maybe perhaps what are some program adjustments that could be made to try to facilitate production of housing units, including the affordable units.

Yeah, thank you.

And I appreciate your question and to your earlier point.

We are far from alone as far as um our arena goals.

Yes, so program 22 does require that we compare the quantitative housing production goals, which is for each given program, we've sort of assigned a quantitative either number of units we expect to result from this program or number of households we expect to help, or whatever it is, right?

And so the idea is that if we're not meeting those quantified goals that we reconsider uh whatever policies are affecting those and try to make it so that it's easier to build housing.

Um generally speaking, staff is very interested in looking at changes to the ordinance to be able to facilitate that or to staff level sort of decision making.

Um I think you'll find we have a number of uh potential ordinance uh amendments that may come before you as soon as this year to address some of those things, ranging from uh potentially allowing ADU condo conversion, short-term rental ordinances, uh changes to our inclusionary housing requirements, um, all of these things are intended to facilitate the production of housing and specifically lower income housing.

Um I think in addition to those, there's also sort of a a real dedicated staff level push to say, hey, on housing projects, we're gonna do what we can to get to yes and to leverage state law to leverage streamlining, um, to find a way to make this work in a way that's gonna also work for the community.

Um so I I think there's a combined sort of day-to-day ad hoc, the way we receive projects um, you know, the intent is to try to facilitate that, and then in addition, we have a number of uh ordinance updates that we're hoping to bring before the board in the coming year to sort of improve that.

I think your report does mention some of those.

I'm wondering for for the benefit of the council and primarily HCD, whether you might want to summarize a little bit more of that in your discussion or program 22, otherwise they may think you know city is just status quo, you know.

Yeah, yeah.

So maybe just calling out some of those particular reference as mentioned previously, such and such, that might be helpful for HCD, because I think um, you know, as you know, HDD is getting a little bit more aggressive in reviewing these annual reports, or a little bit more particular, I put it that way.

Um let's see.

Uh I have a question regarding program 17, which has to do with uh providing funds for um residential rehab, which I think is wonderful solution for promoting affordable housing and long-term affordability.

Um I was wondering how large is this program, or how much funding is been allocated to uh to assist for residential rehab.

Uh if I'm not mistaken, that is from housing and human services.

I would need to uh get some more information from them to answer that properly.

Um, but presumably if their only source of funding is the C D BG funds.

And we don't we don't know the C D BG allocation yet, right?

I just kind of still pending next weeks or so.

So there's some uncertainty there, I think.

That might go down continued implementation.

Yeah, that that uh could theoretically be in jeopardy.

Yeah, it'd be interesting to know.

I mean, I think that that's a really important program.

So I agree.

I'm just curious how much funds we have available and C to BG or other funds for to help support housing rehab.

I I'll I'll also add that the city did apply for um a soft story structural assessment grant that was a federal grant.

Um it, or I think it it plans to um apply for that grant, and there's some litigation over that because it had some of the um restrictive conditions like in order to receive this grant, you have to cooperate with ICE, and you have to um um eliminate all DEI programs and that type of thing.

And so the city is actually in litigation over that issue.

That's first of all, great that you're applying for the grant.

Very unfortunate, those strings are attached to the grant, in my opinion.

Um, no, no, that's good to hear.

And then um again going backwards on pace page seven, um, there's a discussion of 80 ADU units and indicating that 52 has have been produced, uh, which is a good number.

I think it's less than previous year, but then again, as a reflection of the economy.

But there's a discussion that there was a study done and additional 15 units or 15.

I'm not quite understanding what that study was and what these 15 units mean.

Is that on top of the 52?

That it would just wasn't clear to me, so I appreciate Yeah, that's a confusing section.

I I I when I was writing this, I knew it was gonna get a question because it's it's almost impossible to explain it clearly, so bear with me here.

Um our association of Bay Area Governments produces um every few years they have produced a study that supports the idea that um a certain percentage of ADUs constructed will sort of uh inherently be affordable to certain to a certain extent.

Um their logic is derived a lot from the fact that um based on surveys they've done and things that uh ADUs are often rented to family members or close friends, um, and often um go for lower prices than other comparable units on the rental market.

Um and so basically they they have all that information collected in such a way that it supports the idea that for all of the units issued for ADUs in a given year in a given jurisdiction, that those units are broken down by affordability into 30 percent uh very low, uh 30 percent low, 30 percent moderate, and then 10% above moderate incomes.

So the the 15 units that you're identifying there are the 15 units of those 52 that are not considered affordable, they're considered above moderate income.

So it's not 15 in addition.

It's it's of those percent is the um the total.

Okay.

So you've got okay, you got 52, yeah.

10 percent are considered above mod.

So this 10 percent that's just five units.

So sorry, it's yeah, I misread this here.

It's 15% for the low, uh, very low and moderate, and then uh I believe it's I guess.

But it is 30 percent.

Seven for the 30 percent, 30, 30.

Yeah, I think that each 15 represents a third 30 percent.

So I just oh I see.

Okay, so 15 is 30 percent of the two.

Okay.

Or not quite, but yeah, more or less.

Like 17 or something.

Yeah.

Yeah, or something.

Yeah.

Okay, all right.

Yeah, I wasn't I wasn't clear to me what the explanation was in that paragraph.

You might yeah, those are not additional units, those are a breakdown of the 52, yeah.

You might want to clarify that paragraph just in case there's some confusion by others other than myself.

Oh, I think there will be.

Thank you.

Um, and then my final question is I know the inclusionary housing ordinance have gone uh through our commission, and I saw read that it went through the city council.

I just kind of asking what's the status of of that ordinance currently.

Uh as I understand it, that's that the status of that ordinance is that it's still working its way through council.

Um, I don't believe we've had a uh first reading to you know move forward on that.

Um, so I think we're still sort of in the study sessionslash work out the details of that, the inclusionary.

The inclusionary, right?

So um the inclusionary is actually coming back to the board as well.

Um yeah, before it goes to council.

Oh, okay, okay.

Yeah, I was just wondering where it stood.

Yeah, I think we're aiming for April.

April, okay.

All right.

Thank you.

Those are all my questions.

Thank you.

Thank you, board.

Thank you.

Um, any other questions?

Uh board member Wayne.

Um speaking of timing of ordinances, um, could you uh just because it's been a while, could you speak about um anticipated timing for the short-term rental ordinance?

Um yeah, I I think uh as I understand it, that will be coming before this board this year for a study session.

Um presumably if that study session results in direction from the board to continue our work on that.

Um we would revise based on your direction and bring it back with a uh for a recommendation from you folks.

Um as I understand it, there's been quite a bit of community interest in this issue.

Um, and so I think we're uh trying to tread very carefully as far as um sort of broad sweeping either prohibitions or uh allowances, and so I think there's just nuances that need to be worked out.

Um but as far as our intent, I believe our intent is to in this year bring it at the very least before the board and hopefully also to council.

Nothing more specific than that, because I think we last heard it in April, and the intent then was to come back in the fall of last year.

So we're a little we're a bit beyond that.

Yeah, I think we've we've gotten a lot of community input since then um in our reckoning with um just how precarious the issue can be.

Um I think there's very strong opinions on both sides about it.

Um, and so whenever that happens, it does tend to uh slower work as we consider the very valid concerns of of both parties.

Okay, understood.

That's helpful, thank you.

Um to your report on page four.

Um the very top of page four.

Uh you have a bullet that's that's continued on from the prior page.

Um says streamlining housing production has been part of the work.

Um one of the strategic projects of last year.

I was hoping you might be able to expand on that a bit more.

I think I must have the wrong page numbers to hear.

I'm so sorry.

Is this under the programs?

Just above the programs, two bullet points that are hanging at the very top of page four.

No.

Yeah.

It's under like house all aluminians and homelessness.

Yeah.

Yeah, I can clarify.

These are uh council priorities adopted in their strategic plan.

So the the this is how they um prioritized sub-elements of what are already in the housing element and general plan.

So yes, streamlined housing production.

Um it can mean lots of things.

Um about that.

Yeah, yeah.

Well, um, I I think the main thing is um implementing state law, which has many more ministerial approval pathways.

Um, and um sort of taking our say, for instance, our density bonus process that's in our ordinance and kind of um reconciling that with state density bonus processes and making that more straightforward.

Um just in how we approach talking to people about it, that um or um objective design review standards and sort of helping people uh find the pathway as as Tristan said to yes, where we say, okay, well, if you can show that you have 30% glazing, for instance, um, we can get you through this process, you know, quicker.

Um so just kind of in our day-to-day talking with people and and looking at projects, we're trying to find ways to um streamline.

Yeah, that's that's helpful.

Um last question, and then the rest I'm I'll say for comments later.

Um, your table of permits from last year, I noticed you had a column tracking tenure.

Um interestingly, a lot of a lot of rentals in the ADUs that we saw permitted.

Um how do you how do you track that?

Can you talk a bit about that?

Uh so uh HCD provides uh a guidance document when filling out these tables um because as I mentioned, every year they seem to add new rows and columns and ask for more granular information.

Um and the instruction document specifically with regards to that column actually directs us to report rental for all ADUs.

Um, in part because the city has not adopted uh anything under um the ADU condo conversion laws that the state passed.

So um because the state allows ADUs to be ownership units, I suspect that'll change going forward.

Um, but uh their their current guidance is to report those as rental units.

Okay, so it's possibly a bit misleading then.

Uh it's not like you went out and you asked them, hey, is this ADU being rented?

It's not so much misleading because to own just the ADU is not currently possible, right?

So you might be owner occupying the ADU, right?

Um because you own the other unit.

Um, but if you if that housing unit is not being used by the owner of the primary dwelling unit, it's being rented or it's vacant.

Well, this I think this data jumped out at me because of our discussion around the short-term rental ordinance, not to digress too much, but there was a lot of discussion around how are these ADUs being used or how do they want to be used by their owners, right?

And a lot of the feedback that we got was well, you know, I might want to rent it, but I might not.

And so this this data point jumped out at me because it it says, hey, they're all being rented.

So when I say maybe it's a little bit misleading, um, I'm saying, well, actually, we don't know if they're all being rented, right?

Definitively.

Yeah.

It's not so much saying that they will be rented, so much as what type of unit are they being offered as.

Because they can't really be offered as separate ownership units.

They default to rental units.

But I get your point that that's misleading.

Yeah, but it it's it's helpful to understand what that R means, I guess.

Um, thank you.

Thank you.

Um board member Sahibba, you have a question?

Yeah, uh thanks again for the report.

I just had two quick questions.

One is is there any sense of why uh the city didn't receive any SB 330 applications?

Um that's a great question.

I think there's probably a lot of things that go into that.

Um SB330 has um a pretty broad range of eligibility requirements, so I'm sure there's a pretty limited range of parcels in the city that are even eligible for that.

And of those that are eligible for it, um they are primarily sites that you would only really develop as a large housing developer.

And a large housing developer in the current macroeconomic conditions is unlikely to have a pro forma that works out for that kind of a development, and so would probably not initiate the process with us at this time.

Um that's just my sort of personal reasoning.

Um I'm sure there's there's a multitude of reasons that kind of go into that.

Sure.

Okay, and then I know it's just been two months into 2026, but any insight you can give us on what's happened in the last just couple months.

Um we are continuing to work with our larger housing developers to kind of gauge what their expectations are for 2026.

Um so I think I mentioned for a couple of the projects we've got pretty favorable responses saying, yeah, we're gonna continue at this clip.

Um Alameda Marina Townhomes is a good example of that.

Um, and I think there are other projects for which um many of which have kind of already sort of slowed down a little bit, um, where we can kind of continue to expect that that inertia will keep it slow.

Um I'm I'm not expecting a big housing boom next year, I guess is what I'll say.

Um, hopefully better than this year.

Okay, thank you.

All right, thank you.

Um I guess uh sort of building off of that question.

Um I was wondering um, because they the staff report mentioned something to the fact of uh they expect they I guess the city expects um the same trends or pace uh development to continue for the current period um based off of last year's eight-year cycle.

Um I guess I went ahead and answered my own question.

I I uh looked at HCD's website, and it looks like it's about I don't know, 2500 housing units were permitted in the last cycle.

Um is it safe to say um the number in the reports is 22%?

Would it be like 22% of 2500?

Like maybe is a I would expect that if we continued at our current pace that we would come in probably just under that 2500 for this cycle.

Um, mind you, that's still far off the 5300 that we have you know allocated to us in this eight-year cycle.

Yeah, um, but I uh we would need to increase the pace of production in order just to meet the amount that we had met in the previous cycle.

Um not by much, but we would need to increase our our rate of production to meet that.

Okay, yeah.

Okay, that that sounds um aligned with what it says in the report.

Um Sora tied to what board member Hom was asking.

Are we technically in the mid-cycle?

Is this year four of the way our housing element talks about it is a little bit inconsistent actually?

Um my hope is that we will do we'll treat this sort of like year four as in the mid-year that we will be collecting the reporting on to assess the next year, right?

So if you know 2023 is your first year, stands to reason that 2026, right?

But you don't want to take the information for 2026 because that's actually looking at 2025.

Um so that's why I think as far as we when we talk about like the mid uh cycle um review uh specific to ADUs, uh, I think we're looking at this year's um numbers.

Uh I think it's worth noting though that um we're kind of already beginning that process of mid-cycle review that kind of goes to um board member Hom's earlier question about well, what is the city doing to address the fact that um maybe it's not um meeting some of these quantified objectives?

Um and so we are sort of looking at these numbers and figuring out where the policies that we have work uh and where maybe they're causing developers to reduce their total unit counts or do other things that aren't uh meeting the goal of housing production.

So um, yeah, for sure we are considering those things.

We'll probably treat this sort of as the we may have some sort of beginning mid-year things coming your way, but I think until we have the numbers from 2026, we won't be able to get a good mid-cycle uh assessment.

Okay, that's helpful.

Um, and then I had a couple clarifying questions.

Um I guess um the transit corridor housing uh mentioned in program three.

Um I know it like you just share the answer with like why not have why don't we have more SB330 projects?

But um these seem like particularly unique projects because they are smaller um lots or a smaller density.

Like would we do like advertising or something?

Like I wonder like what um how would we share that opportunity with people if that makes sense.

Yeah, it's a great question.

I think a lot of that happens sort of uh at a staff level on an ad hoc basis.

Um we have a lot of conversations with prospective developers who come to us and say, Hey, I'm looking at XYZ parcels.

Uh I think for this one I might be able to use uh some transit corridor streamlining provisions uh from state law.

Um and uh for this one we don't think we can do that.

And we say, well, actually for that one we think you can, and here's why.

And so um a lot of it's staff level saying, actually, we think this site's really great for what you're trying to do, or we think you might be able to better leverage that state law under these circumstances.

Um so that's really the first point of contact we have with developers a lot of time.

Um in fact, I I have a you know, a question that was got I got today specifically about transit corridor, a redevelopment under SB 79.

Um, and so you know, uh, we scheduled a meeting with them, and so tomorrow we'll follow up with them, say here's our understanding of the requirements.

Um, you know, the site that you've identified seems to be eligible.

We'd like to move forward with you, help us understand how we can help you meet the minimum required 30 units per acre density.

How we can help you meet the, you know, you want to get five stories out of that for the because that's the benefit you get out of using that state law.

Um so there's you it's really kind of a staff level conversation a lot of the time where we say to folks, we have some really great ideas for how you could leverage that.

Let's work together and find a way that you know this site works for you, or this model is gonna have a good home at you know whatever location.

Yeah, okay, got it.

Um that's helpful because I yeah, it seems like there hasn't really been any um activation there.

So um I was wondering about that.

Um great.

And then um there was like this theme in the report saying how you all were awaiting additional input from housing and human services, and I think another department.

Um I'm just curious, like uh what does what's the barrier with?

So we did get uh reporting on those.

Um so uh I believe we uploaded an updated exhibit.

Um if not I can go over a couple of the quick uh changes.

Um for example, we got some information on our fair housing programs.

Um tenant protections, that was a big one that we got from housing and human services.

So for example, the city assisted 132 tenants through the uh fair housing counseling program, um, gives a total number of inquiries, investigations, audits, and so on.

Um and so I think the reason that took a little bit more time, uh, one of our staff members in housing human services was out for a week when we were asking about the reporting, which I think probably contributed to the the delay.

Um, but also uh the information they provide is really granular, and I don't think that they report on it sort of periodically throughout the year like we do.

Like when I'm preparing to get this report together um quarterly, I sit down and I run those numbers reports in our building permit um system so that I can sort of get a quarter to or year to date sort of and then do that multiple times throughout the year, and then I compile the numbers much more quickly as a result.

Um whereas the folks uh in those other departments are being asked, hey, can you provide an entire year's worth of data?

Um and so I think it just takes longer for them to come through.

Um it it I'll take uh some responsibility for that as well.

I definitely should have reached out a little bit earlier.

Um in previous years, we had some admin staff who assisted planning um with the annual progress reports, um, and they are they've retired, which is great for them.

Uh, but it means that uh some of the timing uh was off on my part for uh requesting that information.

We'll be requesting it uh early January from now on.

Okay, so that information will be available to the city council then.

Yeah, okay.

Um that's helpful.

And my last question, um what was it?

Oh, um the report mentions this down payment assistance program.

I'm just curious like what happened to that.

Yeah, so that changed a little bit.

This was news to me as well.

Um evidently we are no longer uh assisting all first-time home buyers with down payment assistance, um, but rather only those who qualify for um affordable homes.

So basically refocusing to uh subsidized affordable homeownership program.

Exactly, exactly.

Um and so it's not so much that there's no more program, it's just that the program is now more narrowly targeted um to help the folks who are most vulnerable.

Um that's sort of the change there.

Yeah, yeah.

And um, when it comes to updating our housing element in the mid-review, it makes sense to yeah, have that reflected.

Uh okay.

Those are all my questions.

Uh, sorry, that was a lot of questions.

Um, and with that, um, I think that's it.

And we can go ahead and open it up for public comment.

Oh, yes, yeah, board member Hong Kong.

If I may.

And yeah, you you raised a question that kind of prompted uh a question my mind regarding program three, the commercial transit corridor.

Um I I was just wondering, I don't believe Alameda falls under it, but you know, the new state bill, the Wiener bill, well, I think it's SB95 that has raised the height limits around transit priority areas.

Does any of Alameda areas fall under that legislation?

I can't remember.

Yeah, so um, this was and I think it's SB 79, although 79, yeah.

Yeah, right.

Um as I understand it, uh, yes, there are some transit stops on Webster, um, specifically because they have the dedicated uh bus lane um that do qualify for that.

Um, so uh anything within a half mile radius of those transit stops would presumably be able to benefit um from that new state law.

So that's kind of higher densities and more streamlined review.

Yes, assuming you you you're actually required to meet the maximum residential density.

So it'll be 30 units per acre in those for anything within that proxy.

Okay, yeah, I'm just wondering.

Great.

Thank you.

No other clarifying questions, then we could go ahead and open to public comment.

Thank you so much to staff.

And we have a speaker.

Yeah, that would be great.

Can you hear me?

Yes, yeah.

Fantastic.

Uh Chair Woman Cisneros and um uh planning board members.

Good evening.

Um, my name is Reverend Sophia DeWitt.

I serve as uh Chief Program Officer at East Bay Housing Organizations.

I'm also uh resident here in the City of Alameda at 1580 Buena Vista Avenue, apartment A.

And um I'm here tonight to uh just say that uh EBHO uh looks forward to continuing to work uh with the City of Alameda and you all as planning board members um as you seek to um meet arena goals in the housing element.

Um we can see on the on the table that's on the screen that the city's made some good efforts, uh obviously.

Um the numbers um that have been permitted so far um are not reaching the levels in the arena, um are actually far below that.

Um and that's not you know unique to the city of Alameda, but it is a reminder to all of us that we need to continue to do everything that we can uh to and just redouble our efforts to meet the housing uh needs of everyone in our community, particularly the lowest income folks.

I do note that uh the very low income um slice uh has the most permits uh so far, which you know, which is good.

It's encouraging, but uh more work to be done, and we look forward to continuing to work with the planning board, the city council, and uh staff on meeting these uh needed goals.

Thanks so much.

Excellent.

Thank you so much for your comment.

Any other public comments?

Uh we do have a public comment here.

Um I'm going to unmute you now.

Uh Sean Murphy, if you'd like to speak.

Good evening, playing board but on Murphy Pacific Development.

And also Alameda Marina.

I'm here tonight to emphasize the importance of building new housing in Alameda.

Alameda Master Plan, which was approved in 2019, consists of 801 housing units, which include both for sale town homes and rental apartments.

The last phase of this master plan was spoken about briefly during the annual report, which is the 260-unit apartment project called Foundry.

It's truly the only shovel ready project on the island today.

We've been working really diligently with the entire team, city staff.

And 2025 was very busy.

Well, this project doesn't show up on the annual report, but 2025 was spent working with all of the agencies, including BCDC, all the departments of the city planning, building public works, and also the county environmental county department of environmental health.

The foundry project is truly shovel ready.

We want to start construction this summer.

Construction costs are exceedingly high.

The continued tariffs and all other issues, including oil prices, make it very volatile.

However, this team, which has built launch, is ready to build the foundry project, and we need to get started this summer.

Any delay of this project would not be good for Alamutans.

We clearly need to embrace every single mechanism that we can as an island so that more housing production can be built.

This project will generate almost 10 million dollars in total impact fees.

So it is significant in every way, and we look forward to continuing to partner with the city so that not only this but other projects, other housing projects can come forward in the coming years.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you so much for your comment.

Do we have any other public speakers?

If you there are any other public speakers, please raise your hand.

No further public comment.

Okay, great.

Uh thank you.

And with that, I'll bring it back to the board for deliberation and comment.

Board member Wayne.

Yeah, thank you.

Um, thanks for the great work, the great discussion and the great questions.

Um first comments.

Um, I want to appreciate board member Ruiz's call out of the question on uh moderate income units.

Um, I do think we've made movement toward addressing this in the update to the inclusionary housing ordinance.

Uh, but for existing moderate income units, my vote would be to uh, well, uh I I guess I I would want the city to advance a package to address the vacancy in existing units.

Um, I think the time um, you know, I think board member Ruiz, I think you called out a question around tracking vacancy.

Um, I think we've heard a lot of um evidence and testimony to the fact that those units just don't move.

Um so rather than tracking, I think it's time to move toward a solution to addressing to addressing the vacancy in the existing moderate income units.

Um I want to talk about um what the last um speaker just spoke of, uh, and a lot of a lot of the discussion is focused on.

Um we have a uh a paragraph on page six of the report, which I will I will read just as a as a sort of launching point for for my comments here.

Um the city is undergoing an extended recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic, and the housing market is similarly finding its footing in the new marketplace of higher interest rates, continuing cost escalation, and uncertain rental and sales demand in light of immigration and employment realignment due to these conditions.

The city is taking a long-term view of the eight-year housing goals.

Um, so I think it's really important that this paragraph isn't the last word on what we're doing here.

Um, it kind of reads to me as you know, there's a lot of stuff that's just outside of our control, and and to be fair, there is.

Um, and we're in a long cycle.

Um, and hopefully we'll get there.

We're what three years in now, and it doesn't feel to me like we're getting there.

And so on one hand, even if we viewed the current situation as temporary, meaning we've been in a housing lull where multifamily projects in particular don't pencil.

Um, this you know, temporary situation, if we want to call it that, is still sitting on top of a year's long or decades-long shortfall in annual housing production.

So, even if we were to return to the status quo, we would be returning to a status quo, which we already were calling a housing crisis, right?

So, I think we need to be doing more.

Um, so I I've said in a couple recent hearings, we shouldn't be sitting here expecting construction costs to fall.

Construction costs don't fall.

Um and that's you know, it's not a critique of the hard work that's already gone into the housing element and general plan.

We're we're at a place where we can recognize the tireless work of members of this board and staff on the housing element.

And I want to push a little bit harder.

I want to volunteer us if if my colleagues on the board agree for more tireless work.

Um and the question there is how do we get the projects that have been zoned and approved actually built.

Um so what I'm strongly advocating for from this department is pushing harder in partnership with the city manager and partnership with other departments to find creative solutions to getting there.

Um but we do, I think the planning board does need staff to be the laboring or on this.

Um, I appreciate the staff level blocking and tackling.

I think that's really important.

Um, I think it's really uh reflective of sort of how can we get there together attitude.

Um, but I do think we need something happening at policy level too, um, not just in day-to-day conversations.

Um, board member Hong pointed out that Alameda isn't the only city not hitting its RENA goals.

I think that's a really important, that's really important context.

But it's not to say that that's where we leave it, right?

And I think board member Hum was also uh a right to to ask, you know, the follow-up of well, what what what have we been doing uh and working on to kind of move the needle on projects uh to be clear on projects that have been approved at planning level already?

Um so I want to point out some things that other cities in the Bay Area are doing, and that I'm sure staff is well aware of.

Um if we were to do something um similar to these things, I would expect them to come to planning board and to city council for discussion.

So policy level going above um beyond kind of everyday staff level conversation.

So San Jose has reduced taxes and fees for qualifying projects, including cutting their construction tax.

In addition to that, in the special category of downtown office to residential conversion, those projects can forego 100% of their construction tax and 50% of their park impact fees.

Oakland last year reduced their affordable housing impact fee to zero dollars a foot over a wide section of the city, explicitly to incentivize market rate development through fiscal year 27 to 28.

Redwood City last year temporarily reduced affordable housing requirements by 25% through June of 27 in order to encourage the construction of residential pipeline projects.

These last two examples are exactly the sort of temporary fee reduction that I advocated for in our discussion of the inclusionary housing ordinance.

San Francisco has passed waivers of the transfer tax, inclusionary housing requirements, and impact fees in order to facilitate office to residential conversions downtown.

They also just created a new financing district in order to support those types of projects.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Appreciate your comments.

Um any uh follow-up comments?

Uh board member Han.

Yeah, thank you.

I echo uh much of what uh board member Wang is saying, you know.

Um I know all cities are struggling with this.

Um, trying to look at different solutions to how to promote housing.

I mean, it's really a challenge, and I don't think in my opinion, cities are to blame for this issue, but there are things we can do.

Um, I know financing is such a key element, and um there are some examples that were brought up or good examples.

Um I know in talking with developers with high impact fees, which are necessary to fund infrastructure discussions of how those fees can possibly be um phased, so they're not required to be paid up front, some phasing or or temporary reductions of what some cities have done also uh in the interim period.

Sometimes those help, but but I also know that there are studies showing that even with zero impact fees, DFELM is not proceeding forward, you know, so it's not just impact fees.

But every little bit helps.

So pursuing those temporary remedies might be a solution.

The other um item is there's limited, but there is financing available for for housing, and the more perhaps city working with developers can collaborate to apply for some of the state funds, tax credit financing, you know, proactively uh pursue those projects.

I know they're very competitive, but you know, are there strategies where the city can get ahead of the curve a little bit and work with developers to apply for the housing?

There's special financing districts that are being um talked about.

I don't know whether feasible here, but but there's a lot of discussion of uh possible solutions.

This all comes down to financing, in my opinion.

You know, to me, doing the ordinance amendments will help, you know, streamlining development is all critical, but bottom line is financing to the degree the city can adopt some temporary measures or pursuit some partnerships um with for-profit, nonprofits, you know.

Um I think that could be helpful.

But otherwise, um, I think the report is good.

You know, I think it in my opinion meets what HCD is looking for.

Just a little picky thing.

Take take a look at the page numbers.

I think after page nine, it I think the page numbers either get cut off or or something, but that's just a I know you may have already caught that.

But otherwise, thank you for this report.

Thank you, board member Hom.

Um, any other comments or yes, uh board member Deweys.

Um, thank you, board member Hom and Board Member Wang for the thoughtful comments, and I just kind of want to express my summary, you know.

Um, I would recommend that we do a nexus study on our impact fees and compared to our neighboring jurisdictions.

If I'm seeing it right, I think we average about 45,000 a unit.

And Oakland's probably in the 30s.

I don't know what San Leandro is.

Unfortunately, in the capital side, capital market for those who need to finance the project, Alameda gets lumped with Oakland.

That's just the way things are.

Um, we can say all the special things we want, but Oakland right now is not seeing it much development activity for safety and other reasons.

So we we need to be able to evaluate that and see what that means.

So I'll recommend that we do a study internally and see what we can do.

Um I do recommend, I believe the action at the table is to recommend this going to the council.

I would like to see the edits being added, such as a clarification on um on the um how housing authority building, so that numbers adds up.

Um I would like to see the um clarification, you know, legend on what these means so that when the council is reading it, they um they can understand that.

Um I I understand some projects, you know, this is just a snapshot um what's happening in in um in 2025, but it doesn't, and that's probably how he has been done historically because it's an annual report.

But it doesn't give a council an overview of all the pipelines and what what if the project has been stalled in two years, it falls out of the radar.

I recommend we evaluating that, maybe provide a summary of these are these are our pipe, these are our pipelines, but last year there's only activity of this much, and that's what we're highlighting.

So we know there maybe we need to look into some stale projects, try to unjam what if we truly believe as a city that we need to provide housing for our residents, which I think we do.

Otherwise, we'll just be paying lip service.

Any other follow-up guidance or comments?

No.

Can I ask?

Oh, yes, board member Wayne.

Um, just a quick one, um, because we we talked about um I think the last time we heard the inclusionary housing ordinance, we talked about a nexus study too, which I think you know, by and large appreciate.

Um maybe maybe this is a question because I'm not super clear myself.

Um, but I sort of understand a nexus study to be about what can we as a city legally impose uh from a dollar perspective on a project.

What nexus do we find and how high can we get that number to be?

What what legal coverage do we have to get that number as as high as as we can go?

Um to me, that's what a Nexus study is.

And then the thing that sometimes goes with the Nexus study is the economic feasibility study, which will come spit out a different number.

Here's our nexus, we can charge this number, but here's a number at which projects are feasible, and that number may or may not be the same as the Nexus study number.

I think it's important that when we say we'd like to see a Nexus study, that we're also clear that we want an economic feasibility study because that's the thing that's very much on our mind right now.

Can I quickly react to it?

And I'd love for you to jump in too, because we both served on the inclusionary zoning task force, and uh something that was made clear to us from staff and the consultant was that nothing is penciling right now, and a nexus study wouldn't make sense um if we were to do more comprehensive one.

However, I do think something that maybe um board member Dewey's is suggesting is having a more narrow analysis of the impact fee component.

And I wonder um board member Hom, if you heard the same thing, if that's something that could be helpful for us.

Um I think yeah, I uh your your point sort of similar to what I was gonna say.

I think it's beneficial to and I and I'm sure the consultant actually did this already, a comparison of what other impact fees are in other cities.

That can provide maybe some policy direction that if the city's fees are relatively higher than say some of the adjacent jurisdiction, maybe we look at a way of temporarily reducing them or finding some way to phase in the payment for the fees.

But it's true.

I I'll say this, having done Nexus studies in the past couple of years, is probably would be um not beneficial for the city to spend the money to do a Nexus study based on the results of the Nexus studies and the Jesus cities like Berkeley, um San Landro, I think Fremont and I did one for a San Mateo uh city.

Um underwater as far as financial feasibility, the conclusion would basically be the same conclusion that Berkeley and other cities found.

So we want to we've spend 30 to 50,000 for the same conclusion.

So I'm not sure a nexus study at this point will be beneficial.

I think it would be beneficial when the economy improves that you do a Nexus study, because Nexus studies only also only good for like three to five years because you have to reflect the current economic conditions.

So they have a lot a shelf life of no you know more than five years.

So I think a nexus study is important to do.

I think at this point, there's enough cities that have done Nexus studies and shown that we're so underwater that I don't think it come with any different conclusions that's unique to Alameda versus other cities.

But I do agree comparing uh the impact fees, what other cities are doing is definitely something worth doing, and then using that for policy discussion.

Yeah, because I I do remember that being a big sticking point from our discussion.

So that's where there are many sticking points.

But yeah.

Um did staff want to react to that um any further, or did we capture it?

Yeah, yeah.

I I would just say I think we've we agree with that conclusion that the Nexus study um would get us a number, but it isn't a realistic number for what we could realistically expect uh housing developers to be able to afford, or that what it would be productive, it can be counterproductive.

So um in that sense, we're really looking at the feasibility study, and even there we kind of know what the answer is.

Um more or less not feasible at almost any level.

So um, but we are instead thinking about how to keep things more or less equivalent.

And I think we've we've shown you some tables where we're trying to say, well, currently it's 15% at certain ratios.

What could we do that might be a little less onerous for the developer but still get us some affordable housing in each project?

And I think that's the the policy direction of our partners in um housing and human services and the housing authority as well.

Is it makes a lot of sense to still do the mixed income kind of um inclusionary projects as much as possible?

So that's kind of the policy direction that we've gotten.

Yeah, yeah.

And I do think we're kind of um leading into the you know, the the workshop that we'll have uh hopefully soon, because I feel like we're getting like really um eager to um solve for the for that.

Um but uh I'll just save this one thing and then um maybe save it for a more robust discussion for a future hearing.

But I do think the theme that I'm hearing is that um we want to be as ambitious as possible as a city and do what we can to unstuck projects that are shovel ready, and so maybe that looks like I remember both web um board members, all my fellow board members actually have like echoed where it's like can we do something um for um like a I don't want to call it like a carve out, but like a parallel process for some of these um opportunities so we don't lose these potential homes.

And so maybe that looks like I remember both web uh board member, all my fellow board members actually have like echoed where it's like can we do something um for um like a I don't want to call it like a carve out, but like a parallel process for some of these um opportunities so we don't lose these potential homes.

So um I I'll just lift it up as something for us to maybe dig into further when we have that inclusionary zoning um ordinance discussion.

Um thank you.

Okay, great.

And then um going back to uh board member Deweys' um comments about wanting to see this report.

I know that it sounds like y'all are on a pretty strict deadline um in order to get this to HCD for the annual progress report review.

Can you just say more a little bit about that?

Um and next steps.

Sure.

So uh our intent is to um revise this um as noted, um noting the manager units in the north, um getting a legend in there for some of the sort of more confusing shorthand, um, correcting the page numbers, all that good stuff.

Uh we'll bring that corrected report to council next Tuesday.

Um assuming council doesn't take issue with the information therein.

We will submit it to HCD probably prior to the April 1st deadline um in the interest of getting it in there.

And occasionally they have um there's a submission portal, and so you can have technical issues with getting the tables into that portal, and so I'd like to go a little bit before the deadline to be able to troubleshoot that.

Um so probably the last week of March will be the sort of submission um to HCD and LCI for what it's worth, it actually goes to both.

Um then it's it's done.

I mean, we very rarely get comprehensive feedback from them about it.

Uh we might get something like uh your submission has been received.

Okay.

Uh thank you.

Um for Madoese, I just want to make sure that process works for you.

Um given your fine.

Okay.

Great.

Um, if no other com comments, um yeah, I I echo this is a really great report, very helpful to see um all the efforts we're putting into each other identified programs and all the projects.

Um the number is quite low for this year for a lot of reasons outside of Rahans externally, but as we just talked about as a board, um, I think uh we're excited to see what we could do with these ordinance opportunities, whether that's the short-term rental one or the inclusion Arizoni.

What are some ways that we could get creative um and see some movement?

Um, but again, just I want to echo um thanks for the staff um for all that you do, and um hopefully we'll see some shifts.

Do we need uh a motion to for accept and recommend acceptance of the report?

I think so.

So with that, does anyone want to make a motion?

I'll go ahead and make the motion to accept the report with the revisions that was mentioned by board member Louise.

Uh I always would like to see uh staff take a look at uh again clarifying.

I think it's program 17 regarding the how you explain.

I understand what you're saying.

And then uh based on our group discussion here, it would be nice to without a commitment to expand the discussion of uh program 22 to discuss measures that the city might consider to further facilitate construction of housing during this cycle, whatever that might be.

You know, I you know could be considered this, or I I know you know you we're not talking about having the council commit to any direction, but at least having that discussion in the annual report.

Thank you.

And do we have a second?

Okay.

Okay, all those in favor say aye.

Aye, aye oppose, and we have two addresses, and a motion passes.

Thank you.

All right.

With that, we'll go ahead and close agenda item 5A.

Again, thank you to members of the public for participating.

Have a good night.

Uh staff communications.

Yes, uh, under 6A, uh, you have a report of recent decisions uh made by staff on your behalf for uh three projects, uh design review.

Um they're currently in the appeal period, and you could call them for review if you have uh concerns.

Um, um future public meetings.

We will have a meeting in two weeks on the 23rd.

We have three agenda items for you, so it'll be a meeting meeting.

Uh we'll have uh discussion of the radium theater, uh the Hornet Um Museum, and the NCNL terminals uh temporary use permit.

Great.

Yes, board member doesn't I will be out of town then one day.

Thank you for the no.

I will not be in town either.

Oh my goodness.

Okay.

We may not have a quorum.

We'll do a survey.

Okay, sounds good.

Um thank you for the heads up.

And the you two will be in town.

Okay.

We'll follow up.

Okay, thank you.

Uh great.

Uh moving on to agenda item.

Oh, any public comment?

See none.

Okay.

Board communications.

Okay.

Moving on.

Any public comment?

Okay.

Uh, non-agenda public comments.

Anyone could speak for three minutes for something that wasn't on the agenda tonight.

Seeing none.

All right, we are adjourned.

It's 824.

Thank you.