And uh 7 p.m.

We'll commence tonight's uh planning board meeting.

Uh we'll start with a pledge of allegiance.

Board member Sue, can you lead us, please?

Yes, please.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America or which is one nation under God Liberty and Justice Peral.

Thank you.

And we'll go ahead and start with roll call.

Good evening.

Uh board member Sue.

Here.

Board Member Ruiz.

Here.

Board Member Wang.

Here.

Board Member Sahaba.

Present.

And President Cisneros.

Here.

Okay, we have a quorum.

Great.

And before I go further into the agenda of a quick uh statement that I like to share with the public, um, which is our rules and meeting conduct.

Um we are doing uh tonight um the business of City of Alameda, so please know disruptions uh for those here present um in the room and also those online.

Uh we listen respectfully when others are speaking.

Public speaking can be stressful, and sometimes folks are speaking for the first time.

We want to create safe space for others and be mindful that those online could be uh younger folks um watching from home.

Um and if you want to hold signs, that's your first amendment right.

Please do so from the back so you're not blocking someone's view.

Um we have code that states it's a criminal offense for any person to willfully that willfully disturbs or breaks an assembly or meeting um that is not unlawful in this character other than an assembly or meeting referred to in the penal code section 302.

Um first violations will receive a warning and continued violations will require additional action, um, which could include a police intervention.

So uh just wanted to get that out of the way.

Um, and with that, we'll move on to any agenda changes from staff or the board.

Seeing none, um great.

And the next item is non-agenda public comment.

Anyone can speak on an item that's not on tonight's agenda for three minutes.

Do we have any speakers?

Um Mark Mobile and 13972 project president um mind modeling.

Um Trump v.

Corral.

Um what's the 5-6 rule?

Um uh the House 640 rule in the Senate, Vice President Mr.

Roberts, and nine members of um congressional member of freedom.

Three of the members of the Supreme Court can go back to work and ask it as a question in Merkel v.

The articles of impeachment.

Sweet McCone, uh Goro v.

Dart, Florida Bar v.

Raskin.

Isn't a uh question in view of H Wong, my health and human service administrator, uh Hackbar.

I do have a right um in view of Nuremberg as the compliant agent.

Um I uh would like to validate uh uh 158 for review um as an individual.

Um I have a specific um request um in view of the state.

Um still am seeking asylum.

Um irrational rationality.

This is variance in what's called the claim act of 1689.

Right.

You have to abstain from the release, and we have absence from Raham.

I move to approve.

Okay, and a second.

A second.

Okay, all those in favor?

Aye.

Okay, and abstention.

Thank you, and two abstentions.

Okay, and that passes.

Um, and do we have any comments on the consent calendar?

Seeing none, no.

Okay, great.

Um, we will close agenda item four and move on to agenda item five A, which is um to review the proposed ordinance for updating the inclusionary housing policy, and we'll start with uh presentation.

Good evening.

Um I'm Steve Buckley, Planning Services Manager, and I will be making the presentation tonight on the inclusionary housing.

Um we've been discussing this over the past couple of years, as you know, um, working with our consultant and our uh subcommittee working group um with members of the board and city staff and consultants and other interested parties.

I do want to note that several public comment letters came in today, and I believe one last week.

So those are added to your packet and the website.

They should have been emailed to you earlier today.

And so we'll get to that at the end.

But first, I just want to run through the kind of staff report recommendations and see if you have any questions or comments.

Um that are kind of in context of inclusionary housing in the Bay Area and California.

And so, first off, our housing element did a lot of analysis and covered a lot of issues, and uh some of that was about around inclusionary housing as one of our main strategies for addressing our regional housing needs assessment.

And so along with a lot of uh rezonings and permit streamlining and objective design standards and other things that we've been working on, um, the housing element also identified uh the inclusionary um ratios as a key component to uh try to adjust uh what we're requiring of market rate developers to include in their projects as affordable housing components.

We also had the Palmer fix back in I believe 2017 or 2019 refers to rentals and it reauthorized uh local jurisdictions to require rental inclusionary.

Um there had been a five to ten year period where that was disallowed based on case law, um, the Palmer case, and this was the Palmer fix uh to uh sort of re-legislate uh the ability to include uh affordable housing in market rate development.

But it also says in good practice, you should have alternatives to not just units, but you could also include fees or land dedication or off-site projects or acquisition and rehab.

And that's a pretty typical laundry list of approaches to developing or preserving affordable housing.

And so that's also in our housing element.

We we have committed to doing all of these things as a sort of all of the above approach to um meeting our housing needs.

Um but if you um uh get too ambitious, uh you might have to do a feasibility study to show that what you're doing is not going to be an impediment to housing.

Um our consultant um earlier uh did a version of that and looked at sort of what development feasibility is these days, and very few projects are really penciling, so it's it's a little bit of a bad time to be looking at feasibility.

Um there are probably some things we could do, like just not require anything that might help.

Um if we're going to do something, it's probably one of the many factors that's making development less feasible right now, but hopefully in the future it will only have a marginal effect on those projects.

Um and then finally the A-bag MTC policy, which um is around the transit-oriented communities.

Um the City of Alameda is uh designated as a pro-housing community now.

We've we've uh demonstrated that um to HCD and uh the region that we have many programs and policies already in place that are pro-housing.

Um but the transit-oriented communities is taking it one step further orienting specifically around our ferry stops as um key development opportunity areas, um, as well as uh bus rapid transit, um, where we do have two stops on Webster Street that are characterized as a version of BRT.

And so uh those areas are specifically um supposed to have provisions for 15% of rental housing as low income and 15% of ownership housing as moderate income.

And then again, some variations on those themes are allowed with equivalent uh in lieu fees or other things.

So that's why we're here.

Um so after all of that study, uh staff has come back and we say actually those 15% numbers sound really good.

So we started with actually that number three.

And option three doesn't get them an automatic bonus.

They might have to do a little extra, like get to 10%.

And so they might not choose that one.

But maybe they don't need a bonus.

So some developers might feel like that's the best thing for them.

And they don't need the bonus.

And then there's the other things that we have on that list of alternatives, which is clustered development, which could be on-site, like the Del Monte project did where they had some land and there's the Little John Commons now senior housing that's there on that same site, just across an imaginary property line that's sort of or a real property line, but you can't really see it on the ground.

And then also off-site projects that might be further away.

But if there it's going to be further away, we want criteria, and those criteria would be it needs to be in a high resource area.

It needs to be adequate to develop enough units.

It needs to be competitive for other kinds of funding and those sorts of things.

And that would be only if uh the planning board approved it.

And then land dedication in general needs to be improved, needs to have funding that again brings it to equivalence.

So we would kind of understand the subsidy that a developer would need to provide on-site, and if they don't want to do it on-site, we would want them to do it off-site.

And then for in lieu fees, we haven't completed uh the nexus study that's required for um impact fees.

And um so at this point, the sort of most conservative approach is to hold off on setting that fee, but the ordinance would include a provision that authorizes a fee in the future that would be set by resolution.

Um so that wouldn't have to come back through the legislative process, it would just be adopted when we have the backup documentation.

Um we've talked about this before, the 99-year um term instead of the current 59, and then um in anticipation of further legislation at the state level, um, extremely low and acutely low are new income income categories, relatively new.

Um so we're recommending that we at least define those and recognize those in the ordinance in this next draft.

Um, but um we don't have any requirements around those yet.

Um as I said, the existing agreements would still be in place.

We're not going to uh claw back any sort of new provisions on entitled projects.

And so that covers pretty much everything.

I'm here for questions.

Okay, great.

Um with that um I'll bring into the board for any clarifying questions and then open up for a public comment.

Um does anyone want to start board member to week?

Yeah, sorry, my computer just died.

So I'm looking at blank screen right now, but would you mind going back to page five of your presentation?

At least that's where I remember it was.

No, I got a blank screen.

Um existing I I I question how um this is this in compliance with the state density bonus.

Because my understanding is that even if you look at the existing option one, if somebody provides 15% inclusionary, by law, we are allowed, we are required to give them density bonus.

But why does this charge us no?

Well, um yes and no.

So if they provided 15% of very low income, then they would.

But the way it works now is you have four percent very low, four percent low, and seven percent moderate.

None of those get you to a density bonus.

You would have and so what developers do is they say, well, okay, you require four, I'll do five.

Okay.

That'll get me a bonus, and then I'll still have to do the four and seven.

And so it's just a little extra, just one percent extra.

Okay, got it.

Thank you.

And um, I need to open up my other.

Okay, my other questions is um, let's see, this works.

Under in the the proposed new ordinance under section 30-16.6 alternatives, you list um there's a list of alternatives there.

You list um there's a list of alternatives there.

My question is to meet that requirement, is it one of this list or all of it?

Uh all of them would be available to everyone.

Um I understand, but in order to get the um incentives.

Hang on, let me see, page.

The incentives would be available as well.

Um expedited processing, technical assistance permit, concierge.

Right.

So it was it was it says I'm reading it um I'm we looking at the redact redactive section.

Inclusion um under alternatives B, right?

There's inLU fee, et cetera, and cluster development, there's the inclusion a housing that may be constructed offside.

You know, the state has mandate on how soon that we need to process their application.

And are we saying that we're following that or are we moving faster?

Right.

It would certainly be uh moving faster than this state um uh deadlines.

Um but this particular provision was in the old ordinance and we hadn't heard comments on it.

If you want to um adjust that provision, that's that's fine.

Yeah, I'm just looking again, looking for certainty, sure.

Okay, so um those are my comments.

Okay.

Oh, question, sorry, that we're in the question period.

Yeah, clarifying question.

That's right.

Yeah, thank you.

Great.

Any other clarifying questions?

Um yeah, board member Sue?

Um I just had one um at the moment.

I think it was um just go back to the draft.

There was the language about, you know, if there was a uh fractional amount.

So this is um 30-16.4B.

Um decimal fraction less than 0.5 shall be rounded down to this nearest whole number, and the remainder shall be accounted for a fee payment.

Uh I assume the opposite, so if you're uh at you know 0.6 or higher, that would mean then that you are you going to round up to an additional like you have yeah, that's gonna be assumed to be one unit that you have to build to.

Um and if it is, I think we should probably specify that in here.

Sorry, what section was that?

Uh yeah, 30 uh-16.4 uh B.

Yeah, calculation.

Okay.

And maybe I'm missing something in this section, but oh, I see.

Um maybe it says that somewhere else.

Calculation.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Well, I guess um yeah, it's sort of consistent with what density bonus does as everything rounds up.

And we were trying to distinguish a little bit.

But as in like in the state law, it already kind of I think says somewhere if you're above 0.5, then it just uh automatically rounds up.

That's what I figured.

Yeah.

Um probably okay not to include that language, but maybe we want to just clarify.

Yeah, clarify it.

Um that's all I have for now.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Any questions here on this side?

Yes, board member Wang.

Um well, first thanks for the presentation and all the work on this.

Um heard a comment from a couple people who are excited to see this come through.

So it's just good to be here tonight.

Um first question is on um this point uh actually that we have on the screen here, that the developer can choose among options two, three, and four for new projects.

And you're saying option one is for existing approved projects only.

Um I'm kind of wondering how that works in practice, because if you look at the draft of the ordinance, it puts all of those options on equal footing, I think.

So in the text of the ordinance, it reads as if option one should be available for any new projects, same as two, three, and four.

Yeah, I noticed that too.

Oh I guess I mean I guess that's for discussion as well.

If you feel like that's still a valid option, okay.

Right.

So yes, we could clarify that.

Okay.

So we have an opportunity maybe to tweak that in our discussion then.

Yeah.

Um that the NLO fee, you've got a little line, I think, in the ordinance that says the NLU fee can be set by resolution.

Um I just wanted to clarify that what you mean is that the status quo of the ordinance would remain uh I guess in terms for the NLU fee, but that the dollar amount of the NLU fee could be set at a later date by City Council.

Right.

Okay.

Okay.

So in other words, that if this were to just be adjusted with a quick resolution by City Council at a later date, that would not be addressing some of what we've talked about, which was an expansion of the NLU fee to larger projects.

Right, right.

The framework is in the ordinance, which would also allow fractional units or larger projects or other combinations of fees and land, yeah.

That would all but still be in the ordinance, and then what that fee is would be set later.

It does allow larger projects?

Yeah.

The ordinance to apply the fee to a project of more than 10, you we would have to go back in and amend the ordinance.

And that's not in the draft amended ordinance as it's written now.

That's correct.

But if fee amount would uh be set by that resolution, and so the fee would apply to um whether a project is under or over ten units, unless the council decided to have different tiers of fees.

I think as I read the ordinance now, any fee to be set in the future would apply only to projects of five to nine units.

Right?

It's only available to projects of five to nine units.

That's correct.

That's correct.

I'm kind I'm looking at Steve because you're right.

Okay.

I I yeah.

It was that the intent it sounded like maybe you were surprised by that.

I guess it's it's been through so many edits, uh, I can't keep track.

Um I think yeah, I guess this was the safer route because we only have the one fee right now, 28,000 per unit for those five to nine unit projects.

Um that's probably not the fee that we would charge for other projects.

Okay.

Because we want to do it per square foot.

Okay.

So I guess my my thinking was I guess we we could put a placeholder in here and say if and when a per square foot fee is adopted, it would be apply to larger projects.

But I mean we're not even close to that.

Yeah, we can come come to that in discussion, maybe.

Yeah.

Um I have a few more questions.

One question that's I I guess maybe a little bit thematically related to this option one that's kind of on its way out.

Um we went through a couple cycles of study sessions.

Uh we did talk about wanting to address uh the moderate units that are in existing developments that as we I mean, I'm assuming they're still vacant.

I don't know if they are or not.

Um I know this came up at City Council too.

Um so I'm just wondering if there's been any progress considering a kind of fixed package for existing developments.

There's one project and the developer wrote a letter to you saying that they would opt for the 8% on this table for their final phase.

Uh-huh.

And that's one way to that it could help.

Um we have entitled projects.

Um at well, at Alameda Point, they have different requirements.

So this doesn't apply at Alameda Point.

But we have the Alameda Marina still has a final phase.

And I there are still buildings at the Penzoil um TrueMark site that are still pending development uh building permits.

I I suppose they could they could opt into this instead for their final phases.

I guess my point though is for the um I forget the name of the prior development.

Um I think that was the one that had vacant moderate units that are currently making.

Yeah.

Um I think it's the first launch.

Yes.

Oh, the first phase of uh meter.

Yeah.

That's a good point of discussion.

They already have an executed housing agreement and they have occupied units, so it gets complicated for those existing tenants.

May I amend to that question?

Is what happens if we have vacancy in the inclusion housing units at that income level that is not being occupied?

What happened to those units?

Do they sit empty and vacant in perpetuity, hoping that someday we'll get a tenant that meets that income bracket?

Or do we have the ability to move that to a different income certification?

Right now the the ordinance is silent, and I think we need to need to address that, especially at the existing moderate income units.

And that is not unique to Alameda.

That is also an issue in other jurisdictions as well.

It's a good question.

Um I I think I guess they could opt into this program.

Um if they wanted to do, say, five and five, and they still had units that were empty, or they and that would free up some market rate units and reduce their overall requirement.

I guess we were thinking they could opt into this program, but they have an executed agreement.

So they'd have to also come back through the development agreement or the housing department and you know a bunch of other approvals to get there.

Because this ordinance doesn't change those recorded agreements.

I exactly.

I wouldn't see an ordinance that we passed now as applicable to a project that's already occupied.

And also I don't see how a certain number of vacant units that are pegged to 7% now would be able to change to five and five, those add up to different numbers.

They would need to change the seven to some other AMI level in order for that product to actually work, which means you're not hitting any of these.

But the point that I would be making is at least you're pulling rent in and you have tenants at a low income bracket occupying vacant uh units that have been built rather than having them be vacant.

So I think it's something that needs to be studied.

We certainly don't want to pass this and then leave those units vacant in possibly for per perpetuity at that would not be a good policy outcome.

Uh through the chair, I'll just add a couple of of points.

Um the the issue that we were seeing at the earlier project where the market rate units weren't being leased has recently been addressed.

Um and I think you did receive a letter from the developer stating that um a lot of those vacant units have since been um released uh and they have found um moderate uh uh tenants.

But it is a good point.

It it could um occur in the future.

And I think what I would suggest and what other cities have done to um address the issue of kind of just a short-term bit of a gap and not being able to find tenants is to deal with those types of things in the housing guidelines.

That that makes sense.

Um and I I I think I missed the part about the moderate units being absorbed, so apologies for that.

Um I do think you know, to the extent that we have more of those in the community that are sitting vacant, it is something to be very proactive on.

Um I don't think anybody wants that condition to persist.

Um as board member Ruiz said, it is a it's a known problem throughout the Bay Area.

Um an interesting uh point raised by one of the letters that we received uh about consistency between the inclusionary ordinance as drafted uh with existing state density bonus law.

Is this is this slide addressing that issue?

Yeah.

And I'll just state while we're talking about it that it the point was a piece of language that says uh in state law that affordable rent for lower income is defined as 30 percent of 60 percent of median income, where as ours is 30 percent of 80 percent.

Um so I just wanted to raise, you know, if we're setting up a conflict for developers who are trying to meet both sets um whether we need to think about synchronizing that language.

Yeah, I I spent some time this afternoon looking into that in more depth.

I I remembered seeing that 60% number somewhere a while back.

And so I dug it up.

And in density bonus, there are actually two systems for rental and for ownership.

So they they even have different uh targets within the density bonus law for those two types.

So I don't think I mean we could try to match them uh one for one, but the problem is that's only one program.

There's a whole bunch of other programs that use the 50 percent, 80 percent, and 120 that we're using.

And so you're kind of picking one over the other, and I think at this point we've been using the 5080-120 for so long, and it is very common, widespread.

It's part of the TOC, it's part of uh the RENA, it's you know, it's the number that we've been using because it's used all over the place.

Um the density bonus for whatever reason got amended to change it to these other numbers, but they're the only ones that changed it.

So I mean the legislature changed it for them for that for that program.

And so now we all have a little disconnect.

Um I think if somebody really wanted the bonus, they would just have to subsidize it a little bit more down to 60 percent um to get the bonus.

So that's true.

This table is not entirely accurate because they would have to do a little more if they were using uh the low income category.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

That's helpful.

I think I'm hearing that that we've got we've got a patchwork of definitions out there.

Yeah.

All right.

Um last question or set of questions.

Um I'd like to just dive into the this point about the nexus study or feasibility study a little bit uh and understand.

I guess we don't we're not saying that we need a nexus study or feasibility study in order to change or tweak our on-site inclusionary requirements, right?

But we are saying we need a nexus study feasibility study in order to set an in LU fee.

Um I'm wondering if you could just you or um our city attorney here can speak to can speak to that.

I'll let our city attorney speak.

Yeah.

So there um was a recent US Supreme Court case that said that um any exaction or um uh fee payment um had to be justified by essentially a nexus study.

Um that only applies to um payments of fees or exactions.

It does not that particular case did not apply to uh an inclusionary housing ordinance.

So that's just the state of the law with respect to um when a nexus study is required.

I will say that that there is a little bit of of legal disagreement on that issue.

Um not everybody reads the U.S.

Supreme Court case that way.

The case is is sheets versus I can't remember the name of the city right now.

Um but um our office has done some analysis of that case, and that's our interpretation is that it would be most justifiable if we did have a nexus study.

And in this reading, an inclusion uh an inloof fee would be considered an exaction, but building affordable housing in a building which also costs money would not be considered an exaction.

That's correct.

Okay, and did this case get decided like midstream while we were doing this work I I think it was after we initiated the work.

Yeah, the I guess what I'm getting to is um as I was reading through the staff report, um, I guess I was a little bit confused because the at the very beginning of this work, we were you know, part of the goal was to bring this ordinance into full compliance with state law, and one of that one of the points was we're going to implement an in LU fee, and we're gonna have the consultant give us three or four options, and the consultant took a look and they said, Hey, well, we're not gonna do a feasibility study because frankly it's not a great use of our uh effort.

However, we can through this analysis provide a recommendation for an in-luve fee.

So then we kind of fast forward today where we say, well, we're not doing an inLUV fee because it requires a Nexus study.

So there's a little bit of a gap there where I sort of didn't understand what happened.

Yeah.

But I it's quite helpful to hear about sheets versus that city.

El Dorado County.

El Dorado County.

Okay.

So the lot the case law has changed a little bit underneath our feet as we were working on this.

Yes, it was in 2024.

Yeah.

Okay.

And I I will say I did prepare a scope of work for the Nexus study.

Of course, it also means we have to come up with a hundred thousand dollars and you know, six months to a year.

So we've sort of put that on the back burner during these budget times.

I mean.

Okay.

We can talk about that in uh more in in discussion.

Um I think that's I think that's all I had for questions.

Thanks.

Uh board member Sahibah.

Yeah, thank you for the presentation.

And the discussion so far.

Uh I just had uh few questions under the exemptions portion.

And the uh on reconstruction, the first item that was uh I guess adjusted was this um addition of substant substantially damaged uh versus dis or destroyed, which was already in the um ordinance.

And I guess my question uh uh are we defining substantially damaged somewhere um in order to make that clear.

I think destroyed is pretty clear.

Um but I'm I'm assuming any of these acts are um a calamity that's described, you know, may not destroy something, may substantially damage it, but I don't know if that is um is necessarily triggered.

The only reason I ask is because at the end of this um specific statement, it talks about you know three years of the date the structures were destroyed, which I'm assuming or substantially damaged.

Um unless the substantially damaged is less than three years, I'm not sure.

Um but um I'm assuming that's all wrapped up in there.

And I I and I am curious the you know, when I think of construction time, and I don't know, you know, it's all theoretical what the scale of this potential issue may be.

Is the reconstruction the initiation of the reconstruction within the three-year period, or is it the completion of the reconstruction within the three-year period?

Those are all good clarifications.

Um and or destroyed, or and initiated sounds good.

Um, you know, like a building permit issued or something to that effect.

And I just think, you know, timing of lining up a contractor, construction cost, you know, just getting everything in l in a line.

Yeah.

I think the clock ticking at three years may make it a little challenging for completion.

Right.

Let's say.

Depending on the scale, of course, yeah.

Just theoretical.

Yeah.

Um the substantially damaged was added.

It's a term of art that I found in another code section that I felt like if it's in the building code and it's in something else, I should put it here.

Okay.

So I can I can see that can work.

I mean, I'm not I don't I yeah, I don't think it's that uh controversial of a term.

Just wanted to make sure it was followed through.

And then I guess on item B where residential developments of four units or less are excluded, but what's been added is total number of units shall exclude accessory dwelling units.

So essentially we're saying eight units if you have four ADUs on top of the four units.

I mean uh could be could be.

Um I I understand why that's added because then it doesn't um I I guess it clean it cleans up the math issue.

So I just I I think I get why that was added.

Um then I guess the last thing here is uh for me at least letter C where it goes into crossing out units beyond um residential building additions, repairs remodels, provide that such work does not increase the number of existing dwelling units.

I think I guess I'm not sure why it was constrained before to four, you know, beyond four units, but it seems number of existing dwelling units beyond four units.

Right.

So now I guess everything's exempt, I guess is what it's basically saying, right?

Whether you have less than four units or more than four units, it doesn't really matter.

You're going to be exempt.

As long as you don't increase the number of I guess this was saying if you had like 10 units and you and you wanted to add four more units, that's okay.

But this doesn't address ADUs, right?

Is 80 are ADUs excluded in this letter C.

That's that's where I was unclear.

How do we sort of amortize that or you know whatever monetize that for the other project and figure out the equivalence?

Yeah.

So it would it would take some thinking.

Yeah.

The intent here is to kind of bake in a level of kind of staff level discretion before it comes, I guess, to before it gets to approval that hey, we think the dollar amount or the equivalency is this, and here's why.

Everyone thinks it's a good idea, you know, in the end.

And it is it it is an alternative they can opt for.

It requires your approval, but I think it's like any other thing that requires your approval.

You know, you have to be sort of reasonable and rational.

Yeah.

So I don't think it's an option that would be taken off the table, you know, unreasonably.

Right.

And this is this option is available to projects that are 10 units or larger.

It's not restricted to five to nine units.

The cluster.

I hope so.

Right.

I think so.

It would only work for a large project.

I think so.

But yeah, yeah, that makes sense.

Yes.

But the reason I asked that is in effect by saying, hey, there's this option where you might be donating land and then also putting a kind of funding package on top of that.

It's almost a kind of backdoor in loofee.

It's like land plus a little in loofy.

It's yeah, yeah.

And they can, you know, they consider it seed money, which you know, we got the letter from uh EBHO and Eden.

And you know, they both say, yeah, we need more seed money.

Right.

But this funding equivalence wouldn't be considered an exaction under Supreme Court case law.

Which is we just call it as seed money.

Yeah.

Um it's it's not because it um it's an alternative.

So they can either provide these units on site or they can um but isn't the inlusia also an alternative.

Yes, that's true.

That's true.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Um yeah, we should probably take a look at that.

So I can I I can't answer um that question right now.

Okay.

Okay.

Um But we'll have we'll have an answer by the time it goes to the city council.

I was just thinking through that line.

Yes.

How do we recommend this with that?

Yes.

Um, that's it.

Thank you.

Um thank you.

Um for answering all those questions.

Um I feel like I just have like a bunch of leading questions.

Um fee, um, we need a nexus study in order to apply it as part of our inclusion or closure and resort zoning mandate.

Um the feasibility analysis done by the consultant wouldn't qualify for something like that where they have a very spelled out recommendations on the dollar per square foot.

It would not count.

Okay.

That that's correct.

We can certainly take some of the data that we used in the feasibility study and apply it to the Nexus study, but it's not it would not be considered a Nexus study.

Yeah, I I would clarify they they didn't use the traditional methodology of the Nexus study looking at sort of the induced demand for affordable housing based on new residents moving to town with disposable income and they need a housekeeper and they want to go to the restaurant and that generates jobs, which generates a housing demand.

And that's a really sort of completely different methodology than our consultant used.

But it is the typical approach.

Okay.

And um just to clarify, on the table though, is passing an update to an inclusionary zoning policy, but hopefully like in a year or less update it to include um an inluffe component.

Is that like potentially part of what's on the table?

Well, the the future in LUFE, yes.

We're we're we're leaving that open.

Okay.

Um great, thank you.

Um and I think the reason why we're hesitating on that issue is that when the council heard um the discussion of the in LU fee, there certainly was not a consensus um that an LU fee would be um a good policy um approach.

Um unlike the the planning board, where I think there was a consensus consensus around the in LU fee.

And so um that's just that's the uncertainty at this point, I think that we're expressing.

That's helpful as helpful context, and maybe we could talk a little bit about that during the commentary recommendations.

Um then um you started getting that um this um Mr.

Buckley, where we have I don't know if you could put um up the chart, the rental inclusionary options, the four options.

Um page five.

Um where we don't necessarily have to stay with the proposed numbers, and the reason why I yeah, right here.

Um want to look at this is because um particularly for option three, the ten percent.

Um I'm looking at the notes from the consultant, uh, and they said how this five and five split is 37% higher than in terms of compliance costs than the current requirements being the four, four, and seven because of the cost of providing the VLI is so great versus what they propose and recommended, which is the four and six, which would have a compliance cost that's only five percent higher than our current existing.

So I asked that question and we could get into a discussion, but I just I do wonder why do we come how do we come to five and a five versus the four and six with the ten percent like why like is there a reasoning behind that?

Right.

Um well uh one answer is there's just easy math that way.

Um you know what you're supposed to do in both categories.

Um yeah, there's just a marginal price difference.

Um I think the 30, like the cost of compliance 30, almost 40 percent more for the if I understood the report correctly.

Um it seems like um it does carry weight, but I don't know.

Right, it's eighteen dollars a square foot versus almost twenty.

Yeah.

In the in their estimation, yeah.

Yeah.

Um I I I just it's just a choice.

If you wanted to recommend four and six, you know, that would work too.

Okay.

But those are always available for the developer to propose as well as roughly equivalent.

And you know, there's only it's four and six, it wouldn't be four and a half and three and a half or something like that.

I mean, I think we're looking for round numbers.

Mm-hmm.

Yeah.

Yeah, and I just again point it out because the consultant looked at exactly these percentages.

They said five and five, not great.

Four and six, please do this.

So yeah, and we're not, and we're discounting that recommendation um for the reasons you explained.

Um then um with the 15% at 80.

Um, I was wondering because I do remember from the um conversations, the ad hoc conversations that the housing authority did like having a percentage at the 50 percent at the very low 50 percent.

I'm just wondering if you've received any uh feedback um or comments from them, or uh and I think part of why I'm asking this question is um are are there any concerns of developers going for more of option two versus the other versus option three or option four?

Um if I could go back to your prior question as well.

Sorry, so then the other number that I do have is actually the 15% low is also about 20 dollars.

So when I was looking at the mix and match, it was kind of like, well, if that's almost 20 dollars and the five and five is about twenty dollars, and then the eight ends up being about twenty dollars, then those were equivalent internally as opposed to trying to compare them to what we require currently.

So that was the other part of my thought process now that I look at the numbers again.

Um but to your question, the um housing staff is supportive of of this proposal, um, and because in particular we have one developer who's already said that they will do the eight percent very low.

Um that assuage their concern that no one will do eight percent low or very low.

Okay, yeah.

Uh and the housing authority staff, right?

Yeah, got it.

Okay.

Okay.

That's uh great to hear.

Um thank you.

Um and then a similar question, if if you don't mind going to the ownership um slide.

Um revisiting the consultant's report, uh, they recommended 20% at 120% AMI and just that.

They also looked at 18% at 120% MI.

Um, why do we how do we come to these percentages and breakdown?

It sounds like to align with the TOC policy, but I was just curious um why not consider the the 20%?

Um my reading of the report is they had they had a recommendation of 5% at 80% and 10% and 110%.

Are we looking at different so I guess what we were thinking is the um we're talking about street level advisors report, right?

Okay, that's I don't know.

Page 27 of their report.

Um I think uh yeah, 10 and 5 and 10.

Page 24 require 20 percent illusionary for ownership.

There's ownership on site.

Oh maybe we're looking at two different versions.

Maybe two different versions.

I'm looking at the August report.

Oh, that's why.

Okay, thank you.

I'm looking at May.

Oh.

Okay.

Well, thank you.

Yeah.

So I think again, this this was kind of tuned to um I think what they were doing originally was trying to match our current requirement, which is a very heavy requirement.

And so if we wanted to match it, we could go to 20%.

Um that would be no worse than what we're currently requiring, but but we were actually ratcheting it back a little bit.

Um because um it felt uneven between rental and ownership.

Um the ownership was getting dinged heavier, and because the TLC policy um says you only need 15% moderate, that seemed like a good compromise.

Like it's a little less, so we might get more ownership housing built.

Um and it still meets the policy objectives.

Okay.

Um and then sorry, can you repeat again what the consultant said?

You said 15%.

They have 15%.

They had 5% at low and 10% at moderate.

Okay, thank you.

Um that helps.

And then with my next question, um with the clustered off-site projects, um, bringing that the back to the planning board.

Um, or sorry, can you just like walk me through what that process would look like?

Like, and the reason I'm asking is like uh couldn't staff make that determination, right?

Like, or would that happen as part of the application, or would it have to come back to the planning board?

I just wasn't uh 100% clear on what that looked like.

Well, most of these larger projects would probably be coming to the planning board anyway, and so it could be just or would be expected to be part of their application.

Um and so it would naturally come forward as part of the package.

Um because as we were discussing, there's seven factors, but you might want to wait one more than the other, or they might fail on one, but that's okay because we get the others.

Um the housing staff might have some different opinions, and you'd want to hear all of that before you make a decision.

Um we felt like it was reasonable to come back to you.

I think we also got feedback from the city council that they didn't want that option to be um at staff level.

Okay.

Okay.

Um I think those are all my questions.

I don't think this two.

Um on the same vein of the um uh I think the uh you know types of inclusionary units um that having to go to planning board.

Was that also uh feedback too from the city council that that should be something that at least the planning board considers.

I I was thinking maybe maybe that could be like a zoning administrator requirement just to avoid having you know, I think obviously that's still a I think a I think I think our ZAs are public meetings, right?

Yeah.

Um that was just a thought I had, um, but maybe city council also gave the same input on that one.

Types of inclusionary units.

Um they can they can uh propose uh economically equivalent ratio.

Oh yeah.

Oh, yeah.

Um yeah, again, we felt like it could be the zoning administrator, which is appealable.

Um that's a that's a good thought.

Yeah, I mean I I know you know it sometimes developers like, oh my gosh, I've gotta go to the planning board again.

And so, but I mean in the either way, even if you made it a ZA, it's still another meeting.

So I I think maybe it's just kind of de minimis.

Um but we're thinking about it.

Right, right.

I guess if they were already coming to the planning board, the zoning administrator would just elevate it to the planning board without holding a hearing.

Yeah.

Um and then the other question I had just going back to incentives.

I was looking at the red line and um this the language about you know, if a developer elects to satisfy the housing requirements by doing the housing uh units on site, then the city can offer incentives.

Uh was it intentional to cut that out and say kind of more broadly that incentives are available to developers who are having to meet affordable housing requirements at all.

Yeah, I think um This is along the lines of let's do everything we can to get housing built.

Yeah, yeah.

Okay.

That's okay.

All right.

Any other clarifying questions?

If not, I think that's it.

Thank you.

We'll open it up for public comment.

Uh we'll start with our uh speakers in person um in the order that they were received.

Uh so Mr.

Thayer, if you'd like to speak on the item.

Yeah.

Um the housing uh difference.

Um I really do have a little bit uh it's called JW Hampton.

Uh the United States.

Um I would be the New York River Basin.

Um view of how that was modeled under Title 19.

Um executive order 142071 shows a question.

Um what you guys just uh my own comments on Mr.

And lightly communicating.5 administrative mandamus permission to consolidate contempt Towphon.

Celia Sisters Henke Tolling Agreement, a 1803 C 209A.

Chicago title v to SEC.

This was made as available as a Supreme Court case, Arkansas v.

Arizona, or Arkansas v.

Oregon.

I have a little bit of a question in TWK Incorporated via the United States based on Hansley via NRDC and Michigan v the EPA.

And what you know as the Carzan Accords and Trump v.

Uh Hawaii.

The US, uh James Hansman via the United States, and Lopez v.

Smith.

And was uh uh done with um Officer Jeffrey White.

Um view of the state, I have a question and Trump via um the water resource board.

Um that um is Tijuana v um Canada a question to the IJC board based on procedures of redactment and view of asylum.

Thank you.

Thank you, biological terrorism.

Uh and our next speaker um Thushman, I terribly sorry if I got that wrong.

My my kit chicken scratchers are probably not readable.

Hi there.

Um I'm T John Amaraz Eradena.

Um, and I just want to thank you for looking deeply on this issue of inclusion in housing and and the multi-variable calculus that has to be applied to make things work.

And I I sent a letter earlier today, and I just want to reiterate a number of points um specifically that we're in a situation where we're seeing the numbers that we're trying to achieve not coming to fruition.

Uh, I think you all know that last year we only permitted 65 units um out of the 53, 53 that we wanted.

And and I think that gap should alarm all of us.

And in this kind of economy where we have private capital driving most of our housing, we need to figure out ways that can enable that.

And um as we all know, the the cost of construction is just dramatically increasing every year.

And so if we don't make these numbers work, we don't get housing, period, and and that's what I'm really concerned about here.

Um it's it's a positive signal that we see that I was reading some of the letters from the November meeting where some of the developers were pretty clearly saying they couldn't pencil it to now in one of them.

They they are that they can move forward with the project.

And so I think that's just a signal that we're this new policy is heading in the right direction that we're we're enabling a shovel ready project.

Um the Alameda Marina project is is actually in my neighborhood.

Uh and we go down there all the time with me and my daughters.

The the bike's uh infrastructure is great, the waterfront infrastructure is great.

My only my only complaint is where's the brewery on that?

And ultimately enabling something like the foundry is is just gonna be such a benefit in more specifically.

I say it enriches our community because I've I've already seen what happens when we add neighbors.

A number of them are families at love where my kids go to and and you can just viscerally feel the what what the impact of building those houses has done to our community.

So just to rewind a bit, the notion of doing these revisiting is is so critical.

And I thank you for the time you're doing uh staff as well as as this board.

But I also love to push you more on how can we look at fees in general.

Um it's very interesting to see what San Jose has done.

They've reduced their fees and they saw a burst of housing uh actually get built, and uh I I urge you to look at that on on our side of the table.

Likewise, when we charge those fees, if if we're doing it on the front end, what if we moved it to the back end when there's actual dollars in the door once we're actually selling these?

Um so please uh use your your your uh C as a moment of of direction of like how we can really light a fire on getting housing bill.

Thank you.

Thank you.

If any speakers would like to make a comment online, please raise your hand and speaker Murphy, if you'd like to talk.

Good evening, Planning Board Member Sean Murphy, Pacific Development, Alamina Marina speaking tonight in support of the proposed inclusion housing ordinance.

Alamina is currently facing a critical housing shortage, and it's imperative that we implement proactive measures to facilitate the continued development of diverse housing types all across the island.

The proposed revisions provide developers for both for sale and rental projects with essential pathways to ensure financial viability of various sites.

Given that every development site is presents unique challenges ranging from unit density, typology, specific infrastructure requirements.

This flexibility offered by the staff's outline options is vital so that we can create new housing.

So Alameda Marina, originally approved in 2019, amended at the city's request in 2023.

This master planning club is encompasses 801 units.

And yes, those moderate units sat vacant for a protracted period of time.

At 120% AMI, they are significantly above market rent.

We were able to finally work with RISE housing uh after house keys uh was kind of done with our contract on the island of Alameda.

Uh and we were able to then reduce the moderate rent essentially about 35 percent.

That was a rent reduction below the county requirements together with free rent to attract residents.

We did this so that we don't let these important BMR units sit vacant.

This does have clearly a negative impact on the financials uh for that project, but it's in our our opinion better than having those units sit vacant.

So we would be advocates for allowing existing projects with moderate units to amend their existing housing agreements so that the new ordinance could be utilized when moderate so that moderate units don't sit vague in the future.

So we appreciate the continued partnership with the city and sorry.

Three minutes is up, thank you.

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

Seeing none.

Okay, great.

And we'll go ahead and close the public comment and bring it back to the board for uh deliberations and uh starting to formulate our recommendations to the city council, it sounds like yes, please.

I think we're still thinking.

I think board member Wayne.

Um thank you.

Uh well um uh again I I do want to uh thank staff for for the very long road on this.

Um clearly the ordinance has been drafted and redrafted many times.

Um it's taken a lot of input, including from a couple of our own uh board members and in task force.

Um and so it is it is nice to be here tonight.

Um it is particularly nice to um to hear from a developer uh who um is going to be able to move forward with their project uh under this ordinance.

Um I guess um I I would like to go back to some earlier comments that I made um uh encouraged a little bit by our community here.

Um feasibility is still super important.

Um we as hard as um staff has worked on uh on the housing element and and on the very various development plans that come before us here and on our ordinance, uh and as much as our board here deliberates and city council deliberates on a lot of these policies.

Um it is it is um in my perspective, it's not okay to then let all of it go to waste and throw up our hands and say, well, we can't control construction costs, so if projects aren't penciling, they're just not penciling.

Um and we have other cities to look to for uh for an example on this.

There are other cities in the Bay Area who are uh uh sharpening their pencils and they are they are working, they are at the table, they're looking to see how many other developments they can get back moving.

Um I think I think it is it is um you know when we talk about building housing for hundreds, thousands uh of units uh within a given period.

It might you know it it kind of helps to imagine where would those families be living if those units don't get built.

Um there are a lot of cities that are facing this problem, and we can only really tackle them if we are trying to do everything we can within our sphere of influence uh to move to move those units.

Um if every city in the Bay Area were to say, well, we just can't, then we're gonna be stuck in this and we're gonna be exacerbating the housing crisis that we already have and just making it more acute with every year that goes by.

Um so we do I it is my opinion that we we need to be doing more.

Um so that's that's feasibility.

We've talked about feasibility a lot.

Um I think for the purposes of pushing this ordinance forward.

Um I sort of have an understanding that we kind of put feasibility to the side uh for a little bit.

Um but I did want to just preamble with those remarks because we have not forget forgotten feasibility.

Um I haven't forgotten feasibility.

Um to go to the question that board member Ruiz had on the findings for cluster development.

Um I I looked at those as kind of making up a package of um, you know, within the context of a discretionary approval that we would we should be looking at those kind of uh in their totality.

Um and so it's not about quant to me, it's not about quantifying you need to meet um three out of the five or four out of five.

Um to me it's about you know uh on the whole it is this clustered option kind of meeting the policy goals of what we want to see in a in a clustered option.

And I I think you know, probably one of them can maybe you know, in any given circumstance be not applicable.

Um, or we might have a project that says, hey, this is this project is almost ready to go, and it's a really important one.

Um the city's worked on it a super long time, and uh this market rate project happened to come in to cap finance this affordable housing.

So, you know, everyone's for it and and we should be for it too.

Um I think we should have the the kind of space and the discretion to make that finding.

Um so I would just say, you know, I think I think that there's a lot of art, uh as much art as there is science.

And I, you know, I thought that I might have feedback on the way that those findings were written, but having read them again, I felt that on the whole, you know, I thought they were well rounded.

Um and I I kind of like the the set of them.

Um and I would just say, you know, to to answer, I think board member Ruiz's question, um, we might want to add a little bit, you know, if we agree as a board, we might want to add a little bit uh to kind of qualify how do we think about this, this um this set of seven.

Is it is it about how they fit together as a whole uh or or do we want to set a very uh uh defined threshold.

And my my vote for that would be the the kind of uh comprehensive view in totality.

Um I would be in favor uh changing topics here to um to our options one and four.

I would be in favor of explicitly uh writing in language to sunset uh those those two option ones as to the mechanism of how that would work.

I'm not totally sure.

Um, but I will let you figure that out.

Um I do think an explicit uh it sounds like that the launch developer was able to figure out the the moderate income fix administratively uh as the city attorney was suggesting.

Um I do want to advocate that that uh it's not clear to me, I guess, that those fixes are easily achievable or that they are available under the current program explicitly.

So I would like to ask that we recommend a a uh that that be fixed either at the at the ordinance level or at the at the program level.

Um I would like that I would like to see that advanced in the next six months if that's possible.

Um so that that's something that I would propose that um and and support.

Um, um I have a I had a lot of questions about INLU and in large part um you know I think I think having put feasibility aside as kind of a principal uh policy that we could pursue in the near term, I I did understand that we were uh updating the inclusionary housing ordinance for a number of reasons that didn't have to do with feasibility, right?

That they had to do with state housing law and uh regional grant opportunities.

And so it it was a you know, on on the whole, it it is a good ordinance.

Um and I'm excited to support it.

Um I was disappointed to see the NLU fee dropped from from the plan here.

Um and I'll say that I guess the second layer of my disappointment was sort of um you know I spent a little bit of time puzzling over well, why did it get dropped?

Didn't quite understand that.

Um and some of that just the discussion I think tonight helped illuminate that.

Um, but I think I think understanding yes, one one was um case law, and two was perhaps that city council was um less supportive of INLU.

Um I I think having that in the staff report would have helped um a bit.

I I did spend a lot of time puzzling over this, so uh I probably should have just waited to ask, uh, but I think it would have helped.

Um I will say I you know, I I listened to this the city council discussion on this, and it was a it was a bit lukewarm on in LU fee, but I didn't quite hear the same, I I think I didn't quite hear a solid policy direction not to go in LU.

Um, but notwithstanding all of that, um I have a lot of of my own professional experience that kind of informs my desire to see a more expansive in LU fee option, some of which I've talked about.

Um, you know, to name one, uh market rate development and 100% affordable housing developments tend to, you know, particularly when we're when you're in a down market, the cranes that you see in the sky are the are the affordable housing developments.

And so the notion that affordable housing should only uh occur in uh an on-site inclusionary.

Basically, you know, you'd have to look at kind of the worst moments in the market and understand that well, if this if we were being strict about in LU, we probably would have a lot less affordable housing right now, in addition to having a lot in addition to having no market rate housing.

And so I do think uh the the two letters that came in uh one from EPO and one from in housing articulated a real a lot of really good policy reasons to support a more expansive inLU fee option, uh some of which is is not you know within the realm of my own professional experience, but I thought was uh super super helpful.

Um, and I'll just name some of them here.

One was that they that an inloof fee supports lower income households uh than on-site inclusionary typically does.

Uh another was that in the ecosystem of affordable housing um uh inLU fee is a little more compatible with the provision of on-site services for populations that need that.

Um as you can imagine um market rate developments um and their management teams uh are not equipped to provide to provide those kinds of services, say for um seniors or for uh people who need um special dedicated services in LU fee can be leveraged and multiplied by orders of magnitude uh when when developments go out and seek um state or federal funding.

Um one point that I thought was particularly interesting uh and which I agree with is that they that the inlu fee can work particularly well in Alameda since um the state considers nearly all of the city to be high resource.

Um so we can be a little bit less concerned about putting affordable housing unfairly um in undesirable or unsafe areas, uh meaning uh environmentally unsafe.

Um so I I thought these were enormously helpful points and and I'm stating them here just uh because uh I think they are important.

Um the last one I want to read aloud in full uh because I think it was particularly compelling.

Um this was about the city's competitiveness and being eligible for a large potential part of state funding.

Um this is this um note was from uh Andrea Oddsgood at Eden Housing, and she wrote Umalizing Alameda's policy framework promptly will help ensure the city has shovel ready pathways and locally supported projects that can move quickly when these state resources become available rather than losing valuable cycles assembling local tools after state funding opportunities open.

If the bond passes in November, we estimate that the city state will be ready to issue funding cycles in the following six to eight months, which would mean a policy that is in place in the next 12 months or less would be in a place to start accruing funds to then leverage these state dollars.

Um this is super important to me and super specific.

Um so I would say um, you know, before passing uh the baton to my fellow board members uh for their for their comments, uh I would summarize by saying that I would uh generally support um the work that we're looking at today.

Uh again, I would support also uh uh a parallel package or or a package that trails uh in the next six months or so to address moderate income housing, and then on top of uh moderate income housing fixes for existing developments.

Uh and then I would also support uh a motion to adopt an in LU fee for projects 10 units or larger in the next 12 months or less.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh any other uh comments yes, board member Sahiva.

Yeah, I just like to say I appreciate all the work that uh staff and the subcommittees and everyone has put into this consultants as well.

And I appreciate the public comments uh on this.

I think it's really critical to tie this into how to really jumpstart production of housing.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Um board member Route?

Yeah, again, um thank you for taking up this Herculean effort to update an ordinance and still comply with the state density bonus law that seems to be ever changing and all the housing laws that's just keep coming down every other day.

Um a few comments.

Um that's start with the simple ones first, um a suggestion.

I think one of the references under definition where it says this is just for clarity.

Again, whenever I look at this ordinance, any kind of ordinance I'm looking for clarity.

And one of the references uh under definition, when one twelfth of 30% was used in the definition several times, that's a one-twelfth of 30%.

And yet only 30% was numerated in parentheses.

So if somebody's reading really fast, all they read is 30% rather than one twelfth of 30%.

So if we're going to add numbers in there, I would recommend adding the 12th of 30% numerated in parentheses as well.

So that when somebody's reading fast, they can see that rather than just see the 30% and call it a day.

So that is one recommendation in under definitions I think it's a repeated a few times.

So you can catch that.

Secondly um addressing board member Wang's comment about cluster development development as an alternative.

Yes you're right it is up to the discretion of the board.

At the same time they're still fairly recent history of you know Alameda being perceived as not a housing friendly currently you know the board understands that we have a need and the direction is going becoming a how housing first municipality.

However it does leave room for being interpreted the other way.

The conditions all these conditions that listed can be leveraged as a way to deny an alternative rather than to seven alternative.

That's why I'm looking for certainties saying I'm not saying that we need to numerate saying okay meet one or two or any but just be clarified that what criteria do they have to meet every measure in this list in order for the alternative to be considered for the board to act you know approval because we have when we approve a project now there are certain criteria criteria that we need to meet and the moment this ordinance is written is not clear to me.

That's why I'm asking for clarity on that.

I mean I think you know the staff can work on the language but that's my recommendation going to the board to clarify that language and establish what that basis is.

And the same thing goes for exoedited what does that mean?

How many days?

So those are my comments but in general I do support this ordinance board member Sue?

Yes just want to echo the rest of the board members and thanking staff for um all the work to date and all the public comment we received.

Yeah I mean I think mostly I'd like to just uh echo board member Wang's uh comments overall um obviously a very um tough and kind of challenging a space to to work in and develop and um you know oftentimes it feels like you're not able to move the needle in terms of encouraging more development but I do think we're we're making good progress here.

I definitely support um having there be an inLUFI option would so would love to see you know a proposal come in the next 12 months I I do think that provides you know a lot of flexibility for um for developers.

Just going back to the alternatives um you know I definitely see both sides and I I think maybe you know something along the lines of I think we just can just defer to staff but I mean I would support even if if a developer came and met just one of these um because I think all of them would be either any of them you know would be great I think just in the context of getting more development built and just building off board member Wang's comment of just the island itself in total being you know full of good opportunities for for housing.

Also just want to kind of reiterate too that I I think we should address somehow um the the the issue with with moderate housing uh staying on on the market um and figuring out how to address that um that's just a trailing uh trailing item um but yeah thank you yeah um and huge um thanks to my fellow board members to staff for members of the public for your uh thoughtful comments um I also really appreciated um yeah I guess just starting with in Luffy's um I really appreciated um EBHO's and Eden Housing's written comment um I feel a little bit of like a broken record but I do think flexibility is key when it comes to having an inclusionary policy um it's something that um being on the ad hoc committee I pushed um for with um fellow board member um Han from the housing affordable housing community um over the years where um having the flexibility of um options actually help with affordable housing getting delivered so um I can appreciate maybe the counterargument where it's like oh it's a way for the project sponsor to you know get out of their obligation or um leading to um

And it's something I've heard from the housing affordable housing community over the years where having the flexibility of options actually help with affordable housing getting delivered.

So I can appreciate maybe the counterargument where it's like, oh, it's a way for the project sponsor to you know get out of their obligation or leading to not having mixed income housing developments.

And I I think it was um in the EPPO's letter where they said that what's especially um valuable and helpful is having those being in the same neighborhood and having access to those amenities and resources.

So just um I do uh hope that is a consideration that we could it sounds like uh we're collectively saying that's something that the council could consider um an in-loof fee option.

Um and then you know we did uh thank you for pointing out I was looking at the wrong consultant report, but uh I did pull up, I think even more recent one than yours, because you said August, and now I'm looking at this one in November, so I think it's the latest and greatest.

And you know, we did put a lot of time, we put money towards this consultant.

So um, you know, going back to um, you know, I don't I'm not really sure what the path forward is exactly, but they did mention the planning board or the city manager could help weigh in on the cluster recommendations, so um, I appreciate all that's listed out.

Um I um I feel like it's like both and where we uh oh want to meet the spirit of these various recommendations, and I also agree that clarity is helpful for the project sponsor.

Um so that's just my quick comment on that piece.

Um going back to the specifics from the consultant.

Um you're right in this most recent iteration, they did highlight the five and five, which is different from the previous report, the four and six.

But the cost of compliance is five point seven million and almost twenty dollars a square foot versus the four and six is five point three million and closer to eighteen a square foot.

So that does I think it's just worth considering, and I'm not saying is not enough for me to push the recommendation away from the five and five, but if it's I think it could be helpful for the city council's consideration to see that cost of compliance breakdown if they want to look at the four and six versus a five and five.

Um and then for the ownership um I do think it's helpful to elevate the consultants comment where they said anecdotally we heard that VLI and Light ownership units were potentially difficult to find qualified buyers for who could provide the necessary down payment and found it difficult to meet ongoing costs of ownership.

So I think that is just a helpful consideration when looking at the various options.

Um let's see what else that I wanted to add here.

Uh agree on um finding ways to um do something about the vacancy of moderate uh units and not leave them vacant.

So finding a solution for that.

Um just seeing if there's anything else I want to add.

Oh um.

I also would like to encourage or recommend that we consider exempting uh 11 units or less versus the current five units or less, and that would be aligning with a TOC policy where they have exemptions for fewer than 11 units.

Um I mentioned this in a previous um workshop where um I uh hope to see more of these smaller scale um housing developments, and I think uh this could be a way to catalyze those type of smaller scale projects, missing middle um projects.

I think that's it for my recommendations, and I again echo um my fellow board members with everything being said.

And I again echo uh my fellow board members with everything being said.

Um that's it.

Uh did you want to repeat anything back to us or you think you captured it all?

I think we've got some good notes.

And yeah, I just wanted to say thank you for for your diligence and reading all of this material and giving it such thoughtful consideration.

And thank you for the city attorney's work with us and the consultants and um it's been a real team effort.

Um yeah, I feel like we've ended up in a good place.

Uh you have uh four pages of notes and edits and the documents.

I think we can pull it together in the next week or so.

Um I don't know if we need it run it by the chair or um should we just uh or is it okay if we just kind of take it to the council, they'll have their own spin on things.

Uh what do my fellow board members think?

Like did you you're are you suggesting you bring it back to the board for one more review?

Just offline.

Maybe we could see if you think we captured it.

Sure.

Okay.

That works.

We don't have to make a motion.

But do we have a motion?

Yes, we will need a recommendation to the council.

Oh, as an ordinance.

So you could make a recommendation of some form as as you see fit.

Good question.

Yeah, of course.

Oh, just because um the the uh you uh you just brought up um this idea of exempting projects that are 11 units or fewer from the inclusionary housing ordinance.

Um staff as to whether I think from a I guess from a policy perspective, does that mechanically cause any problems?

Uh no, that would be part of your recommendation to council.

Okay.

Uh that they consider such an amendment.

Okay.

Yeah, I'm sorry.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I can be I'm in support of that as well, and as well as the additional um including in the fee, expanding all in LU fee as part of the ordinance update.

So just as a clarification, the um proposal is 11 or fewer units are exempt entirely from both the inclusionary and an in-LU fee if that were to be added.

Yeah, I think the way the current the existing ordinance is written, is it five units or less?

Yeah.

So I'm suggesting bumping it up so it aligns with the TOC policy.

That way we're still eligible for regional funding and I I think at least conceptually it would encourage that type of development.

Right.

I'm ready to make a motion.

Okay.

And all of the above motion.

Um I motion to recommend approval of the ordinance uh with the following augmentations.

Uh number one is exempting the ordinance uh from projects of 11 units or fewer.

Number two is clarifying the cluster development findings such that uh a cluster development option should satisfy at least one of the findings.

Um I'd like to see a uh a an administrative fix for existing developments that have moderate income rental housing in the next six months.

I'd like to uh adopt an in LU fee for projects 12 units or larger in the next 12 months or less.

And then we should enumerate figures where they are currently spelled out.

And then we should provide more specific guidance on what expedited timelines means.

I second all right.

We have a motion and a second.

All those in favor?

Uh-oh.

Aye.

Oppose and a couple absences slash abstentions.

All right, the motion passes.

Thank you.

That was very well summarized.

All right.

And uh any other typos and minor things will just make sure it's consistent internally.

All right.

Moving on.

Um, closing agenda five five A and staff communications.

Um the usual update for six A.

Um, there's a list of four projects in your packet that were recently acted on and at the staff level that are in their appeal period.

Um they're posted on our website as well.

And um your next meeting will be canceled for lack of agenda items.

So you get a week a couple of weeks off.

Thank you.

Um, any public comment on this agenda item, item six.

Okay.

Closing the item.

Board communications.

Looking around.

Um, board member and I both serve um on a committee for ULI, the Urban Land Institute, the San Francisco chapter, and we're having a big housing debate conference.

It's a big half day summit, um, where we bring in members of ULI to inspire them about various housing solutions.

So there is probably still some on-site registration if folks are interested, deciding make that plug.

All right.

Um, no public comments on that.

All right.

No speakers.

Okay, great.

It's eight fifty six and we are adjourned.

Thank you,