Alameda Planning Board Meeting - April 13, 2026

The Alameda Planning Board met on April 13, 2026, at 7:00 p.m. to review and recommend updates to the City's Inclusionary Housing Policy. After a presentation, public comment, and deliberation, the board voted to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance with several key modifications and directions for future action.

Consent Calendar

• The board approved the consent calendar unanimously (with two abstentions) without public comment. The consent calendar included routine approvals and actions not specified in the transcript.

Public Comments & Testimony

• T. John Amaraz Eradena (member of the public) expressed support for the inclusionary housing policy update, emphasizing the need to enable housing production given that only 65 units were permitted last year. He urged the board to consider fee reductions and back-end fee collection to spur development, citing San Jose as an example.
• Sean Murphy (Principal, Pacific Development, representing Alameda Marina) spoke in support of the proposed ordinance. He noted that a previous phase of the Alameda Marina project had difficulty leasing moderate-income (120% AMI) units, which were eventually filled only after significant rent reductions and free rent incentives. He advocated for allowing existing projects with moderate-income units to amend their housing agreements to use the new ordinance's options to avoid future vacancies.
• A third speaker (name unclear) gave rambling testimony referencing various legal theories and did not address the inclusionary housing item directly.

Discussion Items

• Presentation by Steve Buckley (Planning Services Manager) outlined the proposed ordinance, which updates inclusionary housing requirements for rental and ownership projects. He covered state law context (Palmer fix, density bonus, TOC policy), the need for a nexus study for in-lieu fees, and staff's recommended options:
  • Option 1 (existing approved projects only): 4% very low, 4% low, 7% moderate.
  • Option 2: 15% at 80% AMI.
  • Option 3: 10% total split as 5% very low and 5% low.
  • Option 4: 8% very low.
• Board clarifying questions covered:
  • Compliance with state density bonus law and discrepancies in income definitions (60% vs 80% AMI).
  • Application of options to existing developments and the problem of vacant moderate-income units.
  • The need for a nexus study before setting in-lieu fees, which was delayed due to budget constraints and recent case law (Sheetz v. El Dorado County).
  • Details on cluster development, off-site alternatives, and definitions (e.g., "substantially damaged", rounding fractions).
  • Consultant recommendations: the board noted that the consultant recommended a 4% very low / 6% low split for the 10% option instead of 5/5, as the latter had a 37% higher compliance cost.
• Board deliberation: Members broadly supported the ordinance but advocated for several enhancements to increase housing production and address existing issues. Key points included the need for an in-lieu fee option, flexibility in cluster development findings, and administrative fixes for vacant moderate-income units.

Key Outcomes

• The board passed a motion (with at least one abstention and possibly one opposed) recommending approval of the inclusionary housing ordinance with the following augmentations to be forwarded to the City Council:
  1. Exempt projects of 11 units or fewer from the inclusionary requirements (current threshold is 5 units) to align with TOC policy and encourage small-scale "missing middle" housing.
  2. Clarify cluster development findings to require that at least one of the listed criteria be satisfied (rather than a totality test).
  3. Administrative fix within 6 months for existing developments with vacant moderate-income (120% AMI) rental units, allowing them to adjust income tiers or opt into the new ordinance to avoid prolonged vacancies.
  4. Adopt an in-lieu fee for projects of 12 units or larger within the next 12 months, contingent on completing a nexus study.
  5. Enumerate all percentages and figures explicitly in the ordinance text for clarity (e.g., include "1/12 of 30%" numerically).
  6. Provide specific guidance on "expedited" processing timelines to avoid ambiguity.
• The board also encouraged staff to bring back a more detailed proposal for an in-lieu fee option for all project sizes, noting that such fees can be leveraged for state funding and support lower-income households through dedicated affordable housing development.
• The next regular meeting (April 27, 2026) was canceled due to lack of agenda items.