Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Alameda planning board accepts housing-element progress report, urges steps to unblock shovel-ready projects
Loading...
Summary
The City of Alameda Planning Board accepted the 2024 General Plan and housing element annual progress report with clarifying edits and asked staff to expand Program 22 discussion on actions the city could take to accelerate housing production. Board members pressed staff on falling permit counts, Alameda Point'Site A force-majeure status and the timeline for key projects including the Foundry.
The City of Alameda Planning Board on Monday voted to accept the 2024 General Plan and housing element annual progress report, asking staff to correct several table legends and clarify counts before the report goes to the City Council and is submitted to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).
Staff presenter Christian Swear said the report documents project- and program-level progress in the city's eight-year housing cycle and showed a marked drop in building permits: the report lists 243 permits in 2024 but just 65 permits in the most recent reporting year, a fall Swear attributed to broader market conditions and the lag between permits issued and units finaled. "Because of the timing between application, permits and finaling, a one-year comparison can be misleading," Swear said, adding that 243 permits issued in 2024 led to 234 units finaled in 2025.
Why it matters: The housing element and its annual progress report track Alameda's compliance with its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) obligations and guide state reporting to HCD. Board members said the decline in issued permits underscores an urgent need to consider policy and financing tools to convert approved projects into built housing.
Key questions and staff responses
Board member Ruiz pressed staff to clarify unit counts for the North housing project (identified in the report as 82 units at 30% AMI and 25 at 40% AMI), noting manager's units and how those figures will appear when the report goes to council. Swear agreed to add clarifying notes and a legend for shorthand categories in the tables so readers at council and HCD would not be confused.
On Alameda Point Site A, Ruiz asked about Block 11 and why the site remains vacant. A staff member said the Site A projects are operating under an economic force-majeure extension and are awaiting additional financing before construction resumes.
ADUs and reporting guidance
Board members also questioned how accessory dwelling units (ADUs) are represented in the report. Swear said ABAG-derived assumptions are used to estimate ADU affordability breakdowns and that HCD's current guidance directs jurisdictions to report ADUs as rental units for the table fields used in the annual submission. "The guidance asks us to report ADUs as rental," Swear said; board members recommended clearer explanatory text so the tables are not misread as implying all ADUs are leased to outside renters.
Program-level follow-up and funding uncertainty
Board members asked staff to expand Program 22's narrative so the report more clearly lists possible policy adjustments if the city misses production targets. On Program 17 (residential rehab funding), staff said precise funding figures come from Housing & Human Services and Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) allocations, which remained pending at the time of the presentation.
Federal grant litigation noted
A staff participant flagged that the city had applied for a federal "soft-story" structural assessment grant but that the grant included contested conditions; the staffer said the city is in litigation over those conditions (alleged cooperation requirements and restrictions on DEI programs) and that the legal situation remains unresolved.
Public comment and developer remarks
Reverend Sophia DeWitt of East Bay Housing Organizations and an Alameda resident praised the city's progress on very-low-income units and urged continued effort to meet RHNA goals. Developer Sean Murphy of Pacific Development, who identified himself as representing Alameda Marina and the Foundry project, described the Foundry as "shovel-ready" and urged the city to let construction begin this summer; Murphy said the project would generate almost $10 million in impact fees.
Board direction and next steps
Several board members pushed for more aggressive, policy-level steps to get approved projects to construction. Board member Wayne recommended exploring temporary fee reductions, fee phasing and other incentives his colleagues have used in the Bay Area to move projects forward; board member Ham emphasized the central role of financing and suggested the city pursue partnerships and competitive state funds.
The board voted to accept the report with requested edits (clarify manager-unit counts for North housing, add a legend for permit-type shorthand, fix pagination) and asked staff to expand Program 22's discussion of potential measures the city might consider to facilitate housing construction. Staff said the corrected report will go to the City Council next Tuesday and that staff expects to submit to HCD before the April 1 deadline.
Votes at a glance
- Consent calendar and development agreements (items 4a'4d): motions for the consent calendar and individual development agreements (Del Monte; Alameda Point Site A; Boatworks) were moved, seconded and announced as approved by the chair during the consent portion of the meeting. - Acceptance of annual progress report (agenda item 5a): Motion to accept the report with edits was made by Board member Ham and seconded by Board member Wang; chair announced the motion passed.
What's next
Staff will revise the report to add the requested clarifications and legends, present the corrected report to City Council next Tuesday, and submit the final tables to HCD prior to the April 1 deadline. The planning board also noted upcoming meetings where the inclusionary housing ordinance and short-term rental ordinance will be discussed further.
Quotes (selected)
"Because of the timing between application, permits and finaling, a one-year comparison can be misleading," Christian Swear, staff presenter, said of the drop in permits.
"We need to be doing more," Board member Wayne said, urging the city to consider temporary fee reductions and other levers to get projects built.
"The Foundry project is truly shovel ready. We want to start construction this summer," Sean Murphy, Pacific Development, said during public comment.
Ending
The board closed the item after passing the motion to accept the report with edits and received staff's confirmation that the corrected version will be sent to council and submitted to HCD. Staff also announced upcoming meetings and reminded members of the April submission timeline.
