The Term Sheet serves as the basis for Amendment NO. 2 to the EDC MOA. The proposed Approval of Amendment NO. 2 of the EDC MOA is the action before the ARRA this evening. (See Exhibit 4.) It is anticipated that an initial conveyance of significant portions of the EDC Property will occur next year.
DISCUSSION
A summary of the provIsions contained in Amendment NO. 2 of the EDC MOA is provided below:
1. Conveyance Schedule. The Navy agrees to use its best efforts to convey the EDC Property according to a conveyance schedule provided as Attachment 2 to Amendment NO. 2 of the EDC MOA. The following explains how the conveyance process will work pursuant to the EDC MOA, which Amendment NO. 2 to the EDC MOA does not contemplate modifying:
Conveyance via FOST
The EDC MOA currently requires that the ARRA accept transfer from the Navy of any parcel of the EDC Property at the former NAS Alameda, for which the Navy has executed a Finding of Suitability of Transfer (FOST).
A FOST documents the environmental suitability of real property to transferred by the Navy. The Navy performs its environmental remediation under the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). CERCLA is the primary law that governs the environmental clean-up of properties subject to the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process.
Conveyance via FOSET
The EDC MOA also allows for the transfer of property pursuant to a Finding of Suitability of Early Transfer (FOSET), which is the transfer of real property that has not yet achieved its clean-up goals. Any transfer pursuant to a FOSET wil require the approval of the Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the concurrence of the Governor, who in practice is advised by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control on such matters. For FOSETed property, the Navy would retain all clean-up obliqations associated with the CERCLA remediation process after conveyance. ARRA staff does not contemplate any transfers via FOSET at this time.
Unforeseen Environmental Liability
Under both the FOST or FOSET scenarios all liability related to unforeseen environmental conditions or issues pursuant to CERCLA Honorable Chair and
Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority January 4 2012
would remain with the Navy in perpetuity per CERCLA and Section 330 of the 1993 National Defense Authorization Act. The transfer of all of the EDC Property, including the potential transfer via a FOSET, would not place any additional environmental liability on the ARRA.
2. Enforcement Mechanism. The ARRA and Navy agree to create an enforcement mechanism in the event that the ARRA develops the EDC Property in a manner inconsistent with the Reuse Plan. Specifically, the Navy would be paid $50 000 per market rate unit (inflated over time pursuant to the S&P/Case Shiller Home Price Index for the San Francisco Metropolitan Statistical Area) at the time certificate of occupancy is issued for any market rate housing unit developed on the EDC Property in excess of 2 011 units. While the Reuse Plan contemplated a total of 2 737 residential units, 2 011 were expected to be constructed on EDC Property. The 2 011 units available for the EDC Property include the 586 housing units already constructed at Bayport and would allow 1,425 units of housing at Alameda Point.
3. Use of Proceeds. The ARRA and Navy agree to update Article 6 of the EDC MOA relating to the reinvestment of the use of proceeds from sale or lease of the property, excluding tax revenues. The reinvestment of these proceeds will be extended for an additional 25-year period.
4. Submerged Lands. The ARRA and Navy had previously negotiated an amendment to the EDC MOA for parcels of submerged land south and west of the runways (Additional Submerged Land Parcels), in addition toihe Seaplane Lagoon , that was never executed because the Navy and ARRAwere sidetracked by for-cost conveyance negotiations related to land value with the ARRA' previous master developers. The Additional Submerged Land Parcels are shown on Attachment 1 of the Amendment NO. 2 of the EDC MOA.
Once the Additional Submerged Land Parcels are transferred out of federal ownership to the ARRA, they will be subject to the State of California s Public Trust Doctrine, and the ARRA will act as a trustee for these parcels on behalf of the State. As Trustee of this property, the ARRA maintains greater control over access in the channel leading to and from the Seaplane Lagoon. There will likely be restrictions placed on a portion of this property by the United State Fish and Wildlife Service and other agencies related to the foraging of Least Terns and migrating endangered fish, which are currently being discussed with the relevant parties. Any restrictions and their implications on the property would be discussed with the ARRA at a later date.
5. Miscellaneous Updates. Since the EDC MOA was executed in 2000, the ARRA and Navy agree to update the document to reflect current federal requirements including Department of Defense changes to the form of quitclaim deed and requirements of the FOST process.
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority January 4 , 2012
FINANCIAL IMPACT
Amendment NO. 2 to the EDC MOA implements the no-cost conveyance of the EDC Property pursuant to the 2000 EDC MOA, resulting in no financial impacts to the ARRA or General Fund.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The approval of Amendment NO. 2 to the EDC MOA between the ARRA and the Navy does not constitute a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because Amendment No. 2 to the EDC MOA does not develop any legal commitment to any feature of the project , except what has already been approved and subject to environmental review pursuant to the Reuse Plan Environmental Impact Report , and does not preclude any alternatives or mitigation measures, if the future land use changes from the Reuse Plan.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve Amendment NO. 2 to the Memorandum of Agreement between the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority and the United States Navy for the economic development conveyance of portions of the former Naval Air Station Alameda. ectfully submitted
Jen ife. Ott
Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point
Exhibits:
1. Naval Air Station Alameda Community Reuse Plan, dated January 1996 - on file in City Clerk' s Office
2. Memorandum of Agreement between the United States of America Acting by and through the Secretary of the Navy United States Department of the Navy and the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority for the Conveyance of Portions of the Naval Air Station Alameda from the United States of America to the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, dated June 6 , 2000 and First Amendment, dated July 31 2001 - on file in City Clerk's Office Honorable Chair and
Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority January 4 , 2012
3. Term Sheet for Amendment to the Memorandum of Agreement for the Conveyance of Portions of the Naval Air Station Alameda from the United States of America to the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
4. Amendment NO. 2 to the Memorandum of Agreement between the United States of America Acting by and through the Secretary of the Navy United States Department of the Navy and the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority for Conveyance of Portions of the Naval Air Station Alameda from the United States of America to the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Purpose:
Background:
4837-9264-2058.
EXHIBIT 3
Execution Version 9/21/2011
Term Sheet for Amendment (No. 2) to the
Memorandum of Agreement for the Conveyance
of Portions of the Naval Air Station Alameda
from the United States of America
to the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
This term sheet ("Term Sheet") dated October , 2011 , by and between the United States of America, acting by and through the Depmiment of the Navy ("Navy ) and the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority ARR" (hereinafter referred to individually as a "Party" and collectively as the "Parties ), is entered into for the purpose of summarizing the agreed upon terms and conditions that wil form the basis for Amendment (No.2) to the Memorandum of Agreement for the Conveyance of Portions of the Naval Air Station Alamedafrom the United States of America to the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, executed June 6, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the "EDC Agreement" In 1993, the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission recommended the closure of the former Naval Air Station Alameda ("NAS Alameda
).
In accordance with the Defense Base Closure and
Realignment Act of 1990 , as amended, NAS Alameda was closed and a portion of the property that comprised the former NAS Alameda was declared surplus and made available for disposal.
As the Federally recognized local redevelopment authority for NAS Alameda, the ARR prepared and adopted in Januar 1996, and subsequently amended in September 1997 the "NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan" (the "Reuse Plan
By application dated October 1997 and amendment to that application dated December 1998, the AR applied for a No-Cost Economic Development Conveyance to acquire portions of NAS Alameda ("EDC Application ), to be developed in accordance with the Reuse Plan.
The Navy approved the No-Cost EDC Application, and in accordance with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended ("NEP A"), the Navy prepared an Environmental Impact Statement ("EIS") for disposal of the surplus NAS Alameda property. A Record of Decision (hereinafter referred to as the "NEP A ROD" Term Sheet Between ARR and the Navy
regarding the disposal, and which endorsed the Reuse Plan, was issued by the Navy on February 29 2000.
The Navy and the ARR subsequently negotiated and executed the EDC Agreement. Those portions of NAS Alameda subject to the EDC Agreement shall be described hereinafer as the "EDC Property.
Terms: Therefore, based on the Paries' respective confrmation and commitment to the goals, objectives, and requirements contained in the EDC Agreement, the Parties agree to amend the EDC Agreement as follows:
1. The Parties hereby re-confirm their commitment to the transfer and conveyance of the EDC Propert as set forth in Article 3 of the EDC Agreement. In furtherance of this commitment, the Parties agree to develop a comprehensive conveyance strategy for the remainder of the EDC Property.
2. While the liabilities and responsibilities of the Parties for environmental remediation of the EDC Propert remain as required under Federal law and the EDC Agreement, the Paries agree to collaborate to resolve any environmental remediation issues and concerns in an expeditious and cooperative manner and to seek cooperatively to address environmental regulator requirements, issues and concerns relating to the EDC Property.
3. The Reuse Plan addresses a planing area greater than the EDC Property boundaries. Nevertheless, the Reuse Plan and the EDC Agreement contemplate that two thousand and eleven (2 0 11) residential units wil be constructed on the EDC Property (hereinafter referred to as the "Residential Base-Line Amount"). To ensure that the ARR develops the EDC Propert in a maner that is consistent with the Reuse Plan and the NEP A ROD, the AR shall prepare and submit to the Navy an anual comprehensive and cumulative report that identifies the number of housing units for which a certificate of occupancy has been issued on the EDC Property during the reporting period ("Unit Report"). The Unit Report shall be provided to the Navy anually within ninety (90) days following the completion of the AR' s fiscal year and shall continue until such time as the EDC Property is fully developed. In the event that the ARR develops the EDC Propeliy in a maner that is inconsistent with the Reuse Plan and the NEP A ROD, for every market-rate residential unit granted a certificate of occupancy in excess of the Residential Base- Line Amount ("Excess Residential Unit"), as reflected in the alIDual Unit 4837 -9264-2058.
Term Sheet Between AR and the Navy
Report, the ARR shall pay the Navy the fixed sum of fifty thousand dollars ($50 000.00), adjusted for infation based on the Consumer Price Index for the San Francisco Bay area, or other index to be agreed upon by the Parties, for each such market-rate residential unt within thee (3) months following the submission of such Unit Report.
4. To expedite the conveyance and redevelopment of the EDC Property in accordance with the Reuse Plan and the NEPA ROD, the Navy commits its best effort to convey all of its right, title and interest in all EDC Property to the ARR in multiple phases in accordance with the conveyance schedule set forth in Exhibit "A" ("Conveyance Schedule attached and made a part of this Term Sheet. The Conveyance Schedule shall reflect (i) the EDC Property that wil be conveyed following the execution of a Finding of Suitabilty to Transfer ("FOST") and the anticipated conveyance date, and (ii) the EDC Property that will be conveyed following the execution of a Finding of Suitabilty for Early Transfer ("FOSET") and the anticipated date a Covenant Deferral Request ("CDR") wil be submitted to the Governor for such FOSET, if applicable. For any portion of the EDC Property that is not scheduled to be conveyed to the ARR on or before December 2012, the ARR and the Navy shall meet and consider, during drafting of the EDC Amendment, whether to proceed with a Covenant Deferral Request and Early Transfer of such portions of the EDC Propert, which the Paries acknowledge and agree may lead to corresponding changes to Exhibit A.
5. The Navy shall prepare and submit to the ARR an anual comprehensive and cumulative report that identifies . any changes in the Conveyance Schedule and the new conveyance date for each EDC Property parcel that remains to be conveyed to the ARR pursuant.tothe EDC Agreement ("Conveyance Report"). The Conveyance Report shall be provided to the ARR anually until such time as all of the EDC Propert is conveyed in fee to the ARR.
6. Since the EDC Agreement was executed in 2000, the Parties agree that certin provisions of the EDC AgreementTequire revision and update in order to reflect current Federal, Department of Defense and Navy requirements. The amendment to the EDC Agreement wil reflect those revisions. Among other revisions, the Parties understand and agree that Article 6 of the EDC Agreement relating to the Use of Proceeds from Sale or Lease shall be extended for an additional twenty-five (25) year period to reflect the Conveyance Schedule and the need for inftastructure improvements.
4837-9264-2058.1
Term Sheet Between ARR and the Navy
7. The Parties shall negotiate and execute an amendment to the EDC Agreement to implement the tenns and conditions set forth above. The validity of ths Term Sheet is expressly and wholly contingent upon the execution of an amendment to the EDC Agreement.
APPROVED: APPROVED:
ALAMEDA REUSE AND
REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
REAESATE CONTRACTING OFFICER
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYExec", -f; 1) c4r
Name:
Title:
Date: Date: I! -
APPROVED TO FORM: WITNESS:
By:
4837-9264-2058J
SAN
FRA1iC'
BAY
DOl PSC (PSC.
VA Fed Transfl'r
L--
201o.or ....rOl'1\o'7 ."T r'f""-3 rrl..rp8"8II.n," "T An.c.- Sf'APtANE tAGOO'"
F ST by June 2012
--------
EXHIBIT A
Approximate Conveyance Dates
..
Dec. 2012 Dec. 2015
Dec. 2014 Dec. 2019
750 750 1,500
F..t
Alameda Point, Alameda, CalifrnIa
Dtrt.nt aftt HaVY, lIC PMO We Dreg, CI.
ALAMEDA POINT
APPROXIMATE CONVEYANCE DATES
EXHIBIT 4
Execution Version 12- 2011
AMENDMENT NO.
TO THE
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
ACTING BY AND THROUGH
THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
AND
THE ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY
FOR CONVEYANCE OF
PORTIONS OF THE NAVAL AIR STATION ALAMEDA
FROM
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
THE ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY
4819-5347- 1758.1
ARRA
Exhibit 4 to
Agenda Item #4-
01-04-
AMENDMENT NO.
TO THE
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
ACTING BYAND THROUGH
THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
AND
THE ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
FOR CONVEYANCE OF
PORTIONS OF THE NAVAL AIR STATION ALAMEDA
FROM
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
THE ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
THIS AMENDMENT NO. TWO (2) to the Memorandum of Agreement between the United States of America acting by and through the Secretary of the Navy, United States Department of the Navy, and the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority for Conveyance of Portions of the Naval Air Station Alameda from the United States of America to the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority dated June 6 2000 ("Agreement") is entered into on this day of Januay, 2012 by and between THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, acting by and through the Department of the Navy ("Governent"), and THE ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ("Authority
),
recognized as the local
redevelopment authority by the Offce of Economic Adjustment on behalf of the Secretary of Defense. Government and Authority are sometimes referred to herein collectively as the Parties.
RECIT ALS
WHEREAS, the Parties entered into the Agreement for the "No Cost" Economic Development Conveyance ("EDC") to the Authority of a portion of the former Naval Air Station Alameda ("Property ), as amended, pursuantto Section 2905(b)(4) oft e Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, as amended, and the implementing regulations of the Department of Defense (32 CFR Part 174);
WHEREAS, the Paries entered into that certain Term Sheet for Amendment (No. 2) to the Memorandum of Agreement for the Conveyance of Portions of the Naval Air Station Alameda from the United States of America to the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority dated October 5 2011 ("Term Sheet"
WHEREAS, through the Term Sheet, the Paries each reconfirmed their commitment to the goals, objectives, and requirements contained in the Agreement. Nevertheless, to ensure the Property is developed in accordance with the 1996 NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan 4819-5347-1758.1
Reuse Plan ), the Parties agree to include in the Agreement an enforcement mechanism to deter development different from that contemplated by the Reuse Plan; WHEREAS, the Paries wish to enter into this Amendment in order to implement those agreements contained in the Term Sheet; and
WHEREAS, subsequent to the execution and delivery of the Agreement, the Parties determined that in accordance with the Reuse Plan, it wil be desirable and necessary to include within the scope of the Agreement certain additional submerged land and improvements (the Submerged Land"), described in Exhibit "K" attached hereto.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises and the respective representations, agreements, covenants and conditions herein contained, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and suffciency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows.
AGREEMENTS
Article 1. Conveyance Schedule.
a. Article 3(b) of the Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:
(b) The Property shall be conveyed in fee simple by one or more good and suffcient Quitclaim Deeds. The Government shall use best efforts to convey all of its right, title and interest in the Property in accordance with the conveyance schedule attached hereto as Exhibit L Conveyance Schedule ). The Governent shall prepare and submit to the Authority an anual comprehensive and cumulative report that provides an update on the status of all parcels not yet transferred in accordance with the Conveyance Schedule ("Conveyance Schedule Report"). The Conveyance Schedule Report shall identify any amended dates for conveyance of the Property, if necessary. The first Conveyance Schedule Report shall be provided to the Authority on or before the one year anniversary of Amendment No. 2 to Agreement, and shall be provided anually thereafter until such time as all of the Property is conveyed in fee to the Authority.
Article 2. Enforcement Mechanism to Ensure Compliance with the Reuse Plan.
Agreement:
The following section (g) is hereby added at the end of Article 3 of the (g)
The Parties recognize that the Reuse Plan contemplated a total of two thousand seven hundred and thirty seven (2 737) residential units, with two thousand and eleven 011) residential units being constructed on the Property subject to the Agreement (the Residential Base-Line Amount"
4819-5347- 1758.
1. The Authority shall prepare and submit to the Government an annual comprehensive and cumulative report that identifies the number of residential units for which a certificate of occupancy has been issued on the Property during the reporting period Unit Report"
2. The first Unit Report shall contain a cumulative count of the existing residential units constructed on the Property and shall be provided to the Governent on September 30, 2012. Subsequent Unit Reports shall be provided to the Governent annually within ninety (90) days following the completion of the Authority s fiscal year and shall continue until such time as the Property is fully developed.
3. In the event that a Unit Report identifies that the Residential Base- Line Amount is exceeded on the Property, for every market-rate residential unit granted a certificate of occupancy ("Excess Residential Unit"), the Authority shall pay the Government the fixed sum of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50 000.00). Such sum shall be adjusted for inflation . based on the difference between the Case-Shiller Home Price Index for the San Francisco Bay area (i) as of the date of the first conveyance of a portion of the Property in fee subsequent to the execution of Amendment No. 2 to the Agreement, and (ii) as of the date that land for such market-rate residential unit is conveyed to a third pary by the Authority. Any such payments due to the Governent shall be paid by the Authority within three (3) months following the submission of such Unit Report.
Article 3. Use of Proceeds from Sale or Lease.
Aricle 6 of the Agreement is hereby amended as follows:
1. In subparagraph (a): delete "during the first seven years after the recordation of the first Deed for a par of the Property" and replace with "during the twenty-five (25) year period following the execution of Amendment No. 2 to the Agreement" Delete subparagraph (d) in its entirety and replace with the following:
(d) Authority shall submit to the Governent an annual financial statement certified by an independent certified public accountant. The statement shall cover the Authority s use of proceeds it receives from the sale, lease, or equivalent use of the Property.
The first statement shall cover the period beginning July 1 , 2012, the first day of the Authority fiscal year, and ending on June 30, 2013 , the last day of the Authority s fiscal year, and each subsequent statement shall cover the Authority s previous fiscal year. The statement shall be delivered to the Governent anually within sixty (60) days of the end of Authority s fiscal year.
Article 4. Addition of Submerged Land.
The definition of "Property" as defined in Article 2 of the Agreement is amended to include the property described as "Submerged Land" and depicted on Exhibit "K" attached to this Amendment No. 2 and made par of the Agreement.
4819-5347- 1758.1
Article 5. Miscellaneous Updates to Agreement
a. Form ofOuitclaim Deeds. Aricle 3(c) of the Agreement is amended to add at the end thereof, the following new sentences:
The Quitclaim Deed attached as Exhibit " 2" to the Agreement, form of quitclaim deed for a conveyance of any portion of the Property to be conveyed following the due execution of a FOSET, and the Quitclaim Deed attached as Exhibit " 3" to the Agreement, form of quitclaim deed for a conveyance of any portions of the Property other than EDC- , the East Housing Portion, to be conveyed following the due execution of a FOST, shall be updated at the time of conveyance of such Property to incorporate the changes prescribed in Paragraphs 5. , 5. , 5. , 5. 10 and 5. 11 of DoD Instruction 4165.72 issued December 21 , 2007. Any and all such references in the Agreement to Exhibits " 2" and " 3" as the forms of quitclaim deeds to be used for the conveyance of the Property shall now mean those forms of quitclaim deeds updated to incorporate the changes prescribed by DoD Instruction 4165.72 issued December 21 2007. b. FOST Process. Recital 4 of the Agreement is amended to add at the end thereof the following new sentence:
Such FOSTs or FOSETs prepared after March 1 , 2006, were, or shall be, prepared, in accordance with the Base Redevelopment and Realignment Manual dated March 1 , 2006 (the BRR"
c. Notices. The Parties listed in Article 15 of the Agreement are hereby deleted and replaced with the following:
If to Authority: Executive Director
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Alameda City Hall
2263 Santa Clara Avenue
Room 380
Alameda, CA 94501
Facsimile: 510-865-4048
With a copy to: General Counsel
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Alameda City Hall
2263 Santa Clara Avenue
Room 280
Alameda, CA 94501
Facsimile: 510-748-4691
And to: George Schlossberg, Esq.
Kutak Rock LLP
1101 Connecticut Avenue, NW
4819-5347- 1758.1
Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20036
Facsimile: 202-828-2488
If to Governent: Director, Base Realignment and Closure Program Management Offce
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
1455 Frazee Road, Suite 900
San Diego, CA 92108
Facsimile: (619) 532-0780"
e. Dispute esolution Managers. The second sentence of Article 26(b) of the Agreement shall be amended to read as follows:
The Director, Base Realignment and Closure Program Management Office, Naval Facilities Engineering Command and the Executive Director of the Authority shall serve as Dispute Resolution Managers for their respective organizations.
Article 6. Survival and Benefit
a. Unless defined separately, the terms used in this Amendment No. 2 shall be the same as used and defined in the Agreement.
b. Except as set forth herein, and unless modified specifically by this Amendment No. , the terms and conditions contained in the Agreement shall remain binding upon the Parties and their respective successors and assigns as set forth in the Agreement. (Signatures on the Following Page)
4819-5347- 1758.1
In Witness Whereof, the Paries, intending to be legally bound, have caused their duly authorized representatives to execute and deliver this Amendment No. 2 as of the date first above written.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Acting by and through the Department of the Navy
Name: William R. Carsillo
Real Estate Contracting Officer
Department of the Navy
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Name:
Title:
4819-5347- 1758.1
ATTACHMENT 1
Exhibit K to the Agreement
Submerged Land Addition
4819-5347-1758.
SAN
FRANCISCO
BAY
41(L41V
/'-F
D IIVIV
E" R L. '74
---
r1
"C"C
~~~~ ~~~
BAYS/DE "
7=-:111 " '
' ' , "
'/tJl
ii ,
- ,
;f
", \ \
\o-- d Transfer11,11;
- \ ,
i:, Y
l ..
:Jh::-
\:, /,
Ii'."
.(' " '
lE2
!,;" d
'/'i 1;//
,/ , ;.
/ /I
/ //... ///"// / // "/" ///.. /////./' , "/. /"/'//' // ,'/, '/,. '/ o //
//" . '/' //'/" /. /" //;.::'/: '/:' ;///// // ' /
//;F ,'l/// /
%.. /, '%/ //. /; .'/// /:;// /:/ /
,'// /;/;0-
//" /"/./, / /" / // ,,' :/. / ' / -; ' /..
///1/,
//" , '/! "-;///' ///.. /. ///,:;' , /:/./, / ////p ;'/ /, /:://'-;;'//:/ / /./,// ///, .,'/. '/ '! " ' /%:;, /. // ,// '/'1'
//' /'/,
/ :::0 /
:/ %/.
j;';i
;///;/';/;;-' // / //////
01/'/'i0'
;;,/j;?1
:/
':;0i
:;'; :/ /
2011-12-05 v:\alameda\pcojects\057 _arrs moa\additonsL sub'1rged.mxd TtEMI.Al sjmon. d;nale LA1- LA
(:--===-=-
- f"-
'-
S," Po ,"'B,y L
'- "
"I'
' , ; ''\\,,,'-
, C " ::HO
'i
D "
PE - 11(:
f:;n
EDC Propert
EDC Additional Submerged Land
Notes:
Dol Departme'lt of the I"terior
EDC Economic Development Conveyance
Fed Federal
PSC Public Benefit Conveyance
VA Veterans Administration
900 900 800
,-
Feet
TE1' TECH EM. 'NC.
Alameda Point, Alameda, California
arten ofthe N BRAC PMO West San Die, C:';ifmia
EXHIBIT K
SUBMERGED LAND ADDITON
A TT ACHMENT 2
Exhibit L to the Agreement
Conveyance Schedule
4819-5347- 1758.1
- --
SAN
FRANCISCO
BAY
0-4lQo INN"" """"010
VA Fed Transfer
2U09-10-07 vlalamod.\prcjects\037 _ngures\1- ous - f' tt.s.'P.rcels,mxd TIEMI-AL .imOi cardi ale - ,
DOl PSC (
iBC-
II -
j J,
.. .'
J '
;-- - '"=-'-
'I\"=;' -
'::"
'mil \ III\iU'
.. ...~~~
.:f/ d.
FOST by June 20121
EXHIBIT L
f-t
\)!'--
,l--
's'
-- -- %:
J --
Approximate Conveyance Dates
Dec. 2012
..
Dec- 2015
Dec. 2014 .. Dec_ 2019
750 500
"'ee\
Alameda Point, Alameda, Caljfornia
Depar1ent (If the Navy, BRAC PMO Wost, San Diego, CaUfor
ALAMEDA POINT
APPROXIMATE CONVEYANCE DATES
EXHIBIT 3
AP EIR Replacement
Supportive Housing Campus
3. Project Description
Alameda Point Project 3-28 ESA / 130025
Draft Environmental Impact Report September 2013
The existing Supportive Housing Units may be relocated into a new well-designed neighborhood center with multifamily housing, community spaces, supportive facilities and public gathering spaces (see Figure 3-9). A Collaborative Supportive Housing plan was collaboratively developed with all three Supportive Housing Providers from 2009-2012. The replacement supportive housing may provide 200 new operationally efficient housing units specially designed with support services and job training facilities for populations at-risk of homelessness, distributed as follows:
Alameda Point Collaborative 120 units
Building Futures with Women and Children 52 units
Operation Dignity 28 units
Total 200 units
The proposed facilities would improve service delivery to support job-readiness training for formerly homeless veterans, women and children and other at-risk populations:
APC employment training, social enterprise, administrative space and Ploughshares APC permanent and transitional housing and social services OD housing, veterans services and community facilities
BFWC housing and social services, shelter for women and children with shelter services, and wellness center
Shared community center, multi-purpose hall & daycare
The plan is designed to achieve a high score on site location criteria to be eligible for and competitive to receive federal tax credits per the Federal Low Income Housing Tax Credit program and successfully integrate supportive housing into the surrounding planned residential neighborhood and Alameda Point.
The plan features an attractive, walkable, neighborhood with tree-lined streets, designed with social services and enterprises located at a central, highly visible and accessible village center.
Clustered around the village center are essential social services and community facilities to equal access for residents from all three service providers. Services include: community economic development, job training, social enterprises, mental health and wellness, substance abuse, micro enterprise and small business, community center, daycare and public plaza uses.
To create a safe and secure community environment for families, housing is clustered into residential blocks for each service provider. Individual unit entrances and porches would face the street with shared private open space within each block and shared community open space and gardens at the center of the neighborhood. All units are designed to be American with Disabilities Act accessible. Units are a mix of two, three and four bedrooms in a mix of flats, townhouses and apartments.
In the southern areas with the Sub-area adjacent to the Town Center and Waterfront Sub-area, retail services, and transit, residential densities may increase. Building types may include two-, three-, and four-story townhomes and multifamily buildings. 3-29
1 To: Honorable Mayor Ashcraft, Vice Mayor Pryor and City Councilmembers
From: Vanessa Cooper. Executive Director
Date: August 30, 2026
Re: Alameda Housing Authority comments on September 1, 2026 City Council agenda item 7A to commit operating subsidy for Stardust Gardens
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Housing Authority of the City of Alameda (Housing Authority) supports the development of deeply affordable housing at Alameda Point. The City of Alameda’s proposal to provide operating support for Stardust Gardens is consistent with that goal.
On August 19, the Housing Authority’s Board considered a request to commit 30 Project-Based Vouchers (PBVs) to Stardust Gardens by August 21. The Board could not approve the request for two reasons:
• Federal requirements: Federal regulations require PBVs to be awarded through a qualifying competitive process or another HUD-authorized process. No qualifying PBV competition has been conducted. The State funding competition that MidPen asked the Housing Authority to rely upon did not meet HUD’s requirements for awarding PBVs.
• Available funding: The Housing Authority could not confirm that sufficient funding would be available for the new vouchers, and it must protect assistance for the approximately 1,800 Alameda low-income households it currently serves. Current projections show a potential shortfall by the end of 2027 even without the requested vouchers. The 30 PBVs could cost up to an additional $1.3 million annually and $26 million over 20 years.
The Board directed staff to return in September with updated financial projections and information about opening a competitive PBV process. Housing Authority staff will be presenting this updated information to the Board on September 16, 2026.1
The Board’s decision does not reflect a difference in priorities between the Housing Authority and the City.
It reflects the Housing Authority’s obligation to comply with federal regulations and protect funding for current voucher holders. The Housing Authority remains committed to working with the City and RESHAP to identify a lawful and financially responsible path forward for Stardust Gardens.
REQUIREMENTS FOR PBV AWARDS
All housing authorities must follow U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
1 Given this upcoming meeting, the City Council may wish to consider continuing this item to a future meeting after September 16, 2026, to allow the Board of Commissioners an opportunity to consider the new financial projections and the capability to conduct a competition for PBVs.
2 requirements when awarding PBVs. These requirements include:
• Financial requirements: The Housing Authority must demonstrate that sufficient funding is available to support the PBVs.
• Selection requirements: PBVs must be awarded through a fair competitive process unless another federally authorized process applies, such as a HUD-approved waiver.
PRE-2026 BACKGROUND
The Housing Authority was established in 1940 and provides affordable housing assistance to approximately 1800 households in the City of Alameda.
After the Alameda Naval Air Station closed in 1997, portions of the former base were transferred through the federal base closure process to the City and organizations for affordable housing development including the Housing Authority, Habitat for Humanity, and Rebuilding the Existing Supportive Housing at Alameda Point (RESHAP).
Local, state and federal funding and regulatory constraints have made developing this land challenging.
After more than a decade of coordinated work with the City, Building Futures, Alameda Point Collaborative (APC), lenders and government officials, the Housing Authority completed two supportive housing projects in 2025: Estuary I and Linnet Corner. At the same time, the City and RESHAP partners, including MidPen Housing Corporation (MidPen), Building Futures, APC, and Operation Dignity have been working to develop their portion of the former naval base.
Since 2015 the Housing Authority has worked with the RESHAP partners to explain the process for securing PBVs. PBVs provide significant federal subsidy for 20 years or longer. Projects receiving PBVs can use this additional income to:
• Strengthen funding applications;
• Serve lower-income households, generally earning 50 percent or less of Area Median Income (AMI);
• Receive higher rents for deeply affordable units than would otherwise be available; • Support project operations and additional resident services; and • Provide a stable source of income that can support construction financing.
Since 2015 the Housing Authority has held five PBV competitions and awarded PBVs in 2015, 2017 (for Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (VASH) PBV only), 2019, 2021, and 2022. RESHAP applied twice - in 2019 and 2022 – and their applications were not competitive.
Several non-profit sponsored supportive housing projects have received PBV awards including Corsair Flats, The Starling, Estuary I, Linnet Corner, and Estuary II. These projects serve deeply vulnerable households, address the need for supportive housing in Alameda and throughout the county, and help the City meet its Regional Housing Needs Allocation requirements.
CITY AND RESHAP’s REQUEST FOR PBV (2026)
During the first half of 2026, the City and RESHAP asked to explore options for securing either a commitment of PBVs for Stardust Gardens or for transferring 25 existing PBVs currently under contract at APC to Stardust Gardens. The Housing Authority stated, and HUD confirmed, that federal regulations do not allow for PBV to be transferred from one project to another. The City and RESHAP recently acknowledged that a transfer was no longer being proposed.
In its May 2025 application to the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC) Program, RESHAP included that Stardust Gardens would receive income from 40 PBVs. However, the Housing
3 Authority had not awarded those vouchers and was not informed of the inclusion of vouchers in RESHAP/City’s application. In December 2025, RESHAP received an AHSC award of approximately $29.5 million.
According to RESHAP, the assumed PBVs did not increase the application’s score. However, the application relied on the voucher income to demonstrate 15 years of positive cash flow, a threshold requirement under the state’s underwriting regulations and to support a $6.59 million permanent loan.
Without the voucher income, the project has a funding gap.
In June 2026, RESHAP applied to the Multifamily Housing Program (MHP), relying on its earlier AHSC award but including no vouchers. On August 17, RESHAP received a $15 million MHP award.
On August 11, the Housing Authority received a formal request from the City, MidPen and APC for a conditional commitment of at least 30 PBVs for the September 8 tax credit and bond application. This request also asked the Housing Authority to rely on the MHP competition as the basis for awarding the vouchers. Alternatively, RESHAP asked the Housing Authority to open a competitive PBV process for which Stardust Gardens could apply.
During several meetings in August, the City and RESHAP told the Housing Authority that MidPen could not accept the MHP award without a conditional commitment letter from the Housing Authority for 30 PBVs by August 21.2
HOUSING AUTHORITY AUGUST 19 BOARD MEETING
At the August 19 board meeting, the Board considered whether it could issue the requested conditional commitment letter by August 21 or take another action to support Stardust Gardens. Its decision required consideration of the regulatory and financial requirements for awarding PBVs.
Non-Financial Regulatory Requirements
The Board considered whether the Housing Authority could rely on the MHP competition to award PBVs under HUD regulations. Those regulations state that a public housing authority cannot rely on a prior competition if it “involved any consideration that the project would receive PBV assistance.” Staff reviewed the 20+ year history of this regulation and found that HUD has repeatedly declined requests to eliminate the requirement or limit it to competitions in which PBVs resulted in additional points, citing the importance of maintaining the integrity of the competitive selection process. HUD representatives have also confirmed that “any consideration” means any consideration of PBVs, regardless of whether vouchers affected the project’s score. The Board discussed possible alternatives, including seeking a HUD waiver, exploring options available through the Housing Authority’s Moving to Work (MTW) status or opening a new PBV competition.
Financial Requirements
As to financial considerations, the Board considered whether the Housing Authority will be in or at risk of a HUD funding shortfall in 2026 and 2027, whether awarding the requested PBVs would create or increase that risk, and whether sufficient funding would be available when the Housing Authority would need to enter into an Agreement to Enter Into Housing Assistance Payments (AHAP).
2 It is important to note that, in December 2025, the City informed the Housing Authority that the City had a legal opinion that supported the City’s position that PBVs could, somehow, be provided by the Housing Authority to RESHAP. The City did not provide the legal opinion until July 3, 2026. The Housing Authority timely responded on July 30, 2026, raising the same concerns discussed in this memorandum. This timing, unfortunately, delayed substantive discussions by six months until August 2026.
4 Under new HUD guidance in 2026, housing authorities experiencing shortfall are placed into one of three groups based on how many times they have received shortfall funding since 2016. (HUD PIH Notice 2026- 12 page 50 – 52). The Housing Authority is currently in Group 1, but if the Housing Authority commits to a PBV award that puts the Housing Authority into shortfall again, the Housing Authority will be in Group 2.
With each subsequent group, the requirements and actions to take to receive shortfall funding become more extensive and restrictive. Additionally, the likelihood of receiving the shortfall funds decreases with each subsequent group. If shortfall funds are not provided by HUD, then the Housing Authority must terminate existing tenants.
On July 29, 2025, HUD notified the Housing Authority that it had entered shortfall and was required to immediately suspend the issuance of vouchers. On May 26, 2026, HUD notified the Housing Authority that it was out of shortfall but was still required to monitor for shortfall and to “plan prudently to stay within your budget authority”. AHA has consistently messaged over the past few years to the City and RESHAP that AHA expects to be at or close to shortall for some time.
Moreover, if the Housing Authority requires additional shortfall funding from HUD to cover Housing Assistance Payment (HAP) expenses that exceed its initial HUD funding, the Housing Authority “may not issue new requests for proposals (RFPs) or select new PBV proposals or projects after the shortfall confirmation [and …] must cancel RFPs or other selection processes that are underway as of the date of the shortfall confirmation but have not yet resulted in a proposal or project selection” (HUD PIH Notice 2026-12). In addition, for the first time, HUD has eliminated a specific funding category for housing authorities experiencing a shortfall because of PBV awards.
Proponents of issuing 30 PBVs for Stardust Gardens have argued that the additional cost would be minimal because the current 25-unit PBV contract with APC would be terminated and most of the affected residents would move to Stardust Gardens and accept the new PBVs. However, HUD regulations require residents affected by termination of a PBV contract to receive tenant-based vouchers, which they may use wherever they choose. Six of the 25 residents currently live in units larger than those included in the proposed bedroom mix for Stardust Gardens. HUD has also made clear that housing authorities may not steer or pressure tenant-based voucher holders to move to a specific property or relinquish their tenant- based voucher in exchange for PBVs. Therefore, while some or many of the 25 residents may choose to move to Stardust Gardens and accept a PBV, there is no guarantee they will do so.
Because there is no guarantee that any of the 25 residents will move to Stardust Gardens and relinquish their voucher, the Housing Authority cannot just assume that all of them will do so. For planning purposes, the Housing Authority must responsibly plan for the possibility that none will do so as the most conservative approach. The Housing Authority estimates that this scenario will cost at least $785,000 annually. (This cost could be reduced significantly if APC agrees to stop leasing current and future vacant PBV units.) In addition, the Housing Authority conservatively estimates that the 30 PBVs requested by RESHAP could cost up to $1.3 million annually and up to $26 million over a 20-year contract. This estimate assumes that the individuals and families experiencing homelessness who would rent these units would initially have little to no income.
The current analysis notwithstanding, the Housing Authority must repeat its analysis and budget calculation at certain key milestones:
• Before opening a competition or otherwise tentatively awarding PBVs; • Before an AHAP can be signed, which is when the PBV commitment is recognized by HUD’s forecasting tool.
As required by HUD, the Housing Authority must forecast its use of federal funding two years in advance to ensure that it can meet its obligations to current landlords and tenants and plan for future expenses, including annual cost-of-living increases and new voucher contracts. The Housing Authority has been working with a contractor through HUD’s technical assistance service to project HAP expenses through the
5 end of calendar years 2026 and 2027. Based on information available through August 17, the Housing Authority expects to end 2026 with approximately $1.8 million in HUD-held reserves. However, the forecasting tool currently projects a $369,889 shortfall by the end of 2027. These projections assume that no new vouchers will be issued in 2027 and do not include the additional estimated cost of up to $1.3 million per year associated with RESHAP’s PBV request.
The Housing Authority’s projections also do not account for potential increases to the 2027 Fair Market Rents (FMR) which affect the Housing Authority’s payment standards and overall HAP expenses. HUD is expected to publish the 2027 FMRs in September. The current budget projections are therefore preliminary, and the Housing Authority should have a clearer estimate of the 2027 funding and expenses after the new FMRs are released.
Board Direction on August 19, 2026
The Board understands the value of the RESHAP project to the City of Alameda and reiterated the Housing Authority’s goal of increasing affordable housing in the City of Alameda. Ultimately, considering the regulatory and financial responsibilities of the Housing Authority, the Board did not direct the Housing Authority staff to issue the requested PBV commitment letter, but instead to return to the Board meeting on September 16, 2026, with additional information regarding agency’s financial projections and the capability to conduct a competition for project-based vouchers.
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
The City’s proposed annual operating subsidy for Stardust Gardens is consistent with the Housing Authority’s mission to support deeply affordable housing in Alameda and at Alameda Point. If the City Council approves the subsidy, the Housing Authority could explore whether the commitment could be structured in a flexible manner to facilitate federal funding, if consistent with regulatory requirements and the Board’s directive to explore a PBV competitive process.
POTENTIAL FUTURE ACTIONS
The Housing Authority also consulted with the State of California Housing and Community Development (HCD). HCD stated that if the project’s September 2026 tax credit and bond applications are unsuccessful, the project developer can work with HCD to apply for tax credit and bonds again in 2027. This would slightly push out the project’s development schedule but would not place the project’s previous HCD funding awards at risk.
OTHER OPTIONS
The Housing Authority recognizes the urgent need to support current residents as redevelopment of the former base approaches. Staff have identified several options that could help residents during the transition. The Housing Authority could work with APC and Operation Dignity to explore the following options:
• Stop leasing vacant units to focus available resources on current residents and reduce relocation costs;
• Relocate residents between the existing buildings to allow demolition to proceed in phases, reducing delays and relocation costs;
• Encourage interested residents to take their tenant-based voucher now to further reduce relocation costs and delays. Housing Authority social workers could provide additional support to households requiring four-bedroom units, which cannot be accommodated at Stardust Gardens; • Strengthen and maintain the social services provided by APC and Operation Dignity. These services could help residents build their credit, income and rental histories.
6 These actions could be implemented through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between APC, the Housing Authority, Operation Dignity and the City of Alameda. The MOU could establish a firm date for terminating APC’s existing PBV contract and include a “no steering” provision to protect residents’ rights to choose where they live. This MOU could serve as a model for RESHAP’s work with other housing authorities and the County of Alameda who currently subsidize other residents at the site.
Stardust Gardens could compete in future Housing Authority PBV RFPs, if available. However, a housing authority’s PBV award is not the project’s only potential source of support. Given the current state and federal funding constraints, many affordable housing developments rely on a combination of operating and rental subsidies. Potential sources include Veteran’s Affairs Supportive Housing vouchers (VASH) for eligible households, and Proposition W funding from the County of Alameda for capitalized operating support reserves (COSR), which can help support lower rents and stable operations. Because the project is not expected to be completed for approximately three years, there is time to pursue these and other funding opportunities, including the City’s proposed operating subsidy. A combination of funding sources may ultimately provide the support needed to move the project forward.
CONCLUSION
Thank you for your time in reading this memo. I have attached our July 30 letter to City staff and the presentation from the August 19 board meeting as additional background. Housing Authority staff are available to respond to any questions from the City Council, either before or at the meeting.
July 30, 2026
Amy Wooldridge
Assistant City Manager
City of Alameda
2263 Santa Clara Ave., Rm. 320
Alameda, CA 94501
Sent via Email: [email protected]
Dear Amy:
Thank you for your email and memo from Goldfarb and Lipman LLP (Goldfarb), dated July 3, 2026, regarding Project-Based Vouchers for the RESHAP Stardust Gardens LP, and for the data we requested subsequently on the project.
Below are our comments. Please feel free to call if you’d like to discuss any of this information.
Transfer of Units
With respect to the possible transfer of an existing PBV contract, discussed on page 2 of the memo, the memo references HUD Notice H-2015-03. That Notice relates to project- based rental assistance (PBRA) and not Project-Based Vouchers (PBV). Section 3.F . on page 4 of the Notice states:
“3.F . This Notice does not apply when:
1. There is a Section 8 project-based HAP contract administered by the Office of Public and Indian Housing (i.e., a Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation contract or a Section 8 Project-Based Voucher HAP contract) or by the Office of Community Planning and Development (i.e., a Section 8 Single-Room Occupancy Moderate Rehabilitation HAP contract). ”
For this reason, HUD Notice H-2015-03 is not applicable to this project for the assisted units being administered by AHA.
The Goldfarb memo states that HUD regulations do not “explicitly allow” for transfer of PBV HAPs. That is correct and, in fact, HUD appears to rule out transfer. See regulation 24 CFR Docusign Envelope ID: 4776F77C-FC7B-84BA-823A-CC18F5703909
2 §983.206 more explicitly. In the Preamble to the 2024 project-based voucher Final Rule (the Preamble), HUD considers and rejects partly on statutory grounds the possibility of HUD authorizing PBV transfers by regulation. The Proposed Rule dated October 8, 2020, solicited comments regarding this question:
“Question 42. Under HUD's Rental Assistance Demonstration, PBV assistance may be transferred from one site to another. Should HUD establish a new regulatory provision in part 983 governing transfers of assistance from one project to another? If so, what factors should HUD take into consideration in developing such a provision?”
HUD received various comments in response to this question and responded as follows:
“HUD Response: HUD has considered the comments and agrees that it is unnecessary to create a new regulatory process by which PBV assistance may be transferred from one property to another (though HUD has expanded options for termination of PBV contracts at § 983.206). Under this final rule, a PBV contract may terminate, as provided in § 983.206, with no corresponding reduction in the PHA’s ACC units or HAP allocation. A PHA may, in conjunction with such termination, engage in the selection process in § 983.51 to select and place under contract a different PBV project, subject to all requirements of part 983. A PHA may give preference to families living in the former PBV project who wish to move (voluntarily) to the new PBV project, so long as such preference is consistent with the requirements of § 982.207, and subject to the provisions regarding in-place families at § 983.251(b), accessible units at § 983.251(c)(9), and excepted units at § 983.262(b)(2). This final rule therefore gives sufficient flexibility to PHAs to end PBV assistance at one project and begin PBV assistance at another.
HUD has reviewed the suggestions that transfer of assistance be modeled on Project-Based Rental Assistance (PBRA) transfers and determined that parallel conditions, namely with respect to HUD oversight and funding authority, do not exist in the PBV program that would enable use of the same process. Additionally, HUD does not have the statutory authority to alter several provisions of part 983 to facilitate a transfer of PBV assistance as other commenters suggested. These provisions include environmental review, inspection, and the one-year notice of contract termination. HUD notes that, aside from this statutory limitation, these aspects of the PBV program are critical elements to the purpose and functionality of the PBV program and to ensuring PBV tenants reside in decent, safe, and sanitary housing. ” Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations, P . 38224, 38287:
Docusign Envelope ID: 4776F77C-FC7B-84BA-823A-CC18F5703909
3 HUD appears to have ruled out the possibility of approving a regulatory waiver to allow a transfer. While it may be a possibility to request a waiver from HUD, through the San Francisco field office, this could take some time and will likely not succeed given HUD’s stated position above. Even if the waiver is granted, this would not overcome any budgetary issues relating to PBV.
In addition, any proposal submitted to the Moving to Work (MTW) office to allow for a non- competitive selection of an owner other than the PHA would not fall within a Safe Harbor under the MTW Operations Notice applicable to AHA.
If you wish to proceed on the waiver route, we suggest the City or MidPen’s counsel create a first draft and AHA will then review with AHA’s Counsel.
Relying on a Prior Competition
select the new PBV development, acknowledges the regulatory requirement that the prior selection cannot be used “if the competition involved any consideration that the project would receive PBV assistance” (24 CFR 983.51(b)(2)), and puts forward the possibility of relying on the MHP competition. However, if the MHP competition relies on a prior competition that involved consideration that the project would receive PBV assistance, as MidPen has indicated the AHSC competition did, that would seem to rule out such a possibility.
Please note, in response to a commenter’s suggestion to drop this requirement in the final rule, HUD responded in the Preamble: “HUD understands the limitations presented by the commentor because of the provision that prohibits a PHA from selecting a housing assistance proposal that included any consideration that the project would receive PBV assistance; however, this provision maintains the integrity of a competitive selection method and will not be revised in this final rule. ” Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations, P. 38224, 38265.
Issuance of a New PBV Contract for Stardust Gardens
We agree with the Goldfarb memo that, regardless of shortfall status, AHA's Housing Choice Voucher Program budget may constrain its ability to issue commitments for PBVs.
AHA is currently reviewing its funding status for 2026. AHA will not have a final answer on this at the August meeting.
It is important to clarify that, if APC gives notice to terminate the current contract, the 25 PBV households would get a tenant-based voucher. So, any new award could impact the HAP budget two-fold: (1) for the 25 tenant-based vouchers (TBV), and (2) for any new PBV Docusign Envelope ID: 4776F77C-FC7B-84BA-823A-CC18F5703909
4 vouchers, if MidPen were successful in a future competition. The 25 TBV only would be a net addition to the extent the households do not locate at the new PBV development.
However, 6 of the 25 PBV families likely cannot be housed at Stardust Gardens as they have a 4-bedroom PBV and there are only 3-bedroom units available at this new property.
Budgetary concerns
Several regulations address the issuance of a request for proposals for PBV . This includes:
24 CFR 983.6(c): PHA determination. The PHA is responsible for determining the amount of budget authority that is available for project-based vouchers and for ensuring that the amount of assistance that is attached to units is within the amounts available under the ACC.
§ 983.58 PHA determination prior to selection. (a) Analysis of units and budget. A PHA must calculate the number of authorized voucher units that it is permitted to project-base in accordance with § 983.6 and determine the amount of budget authority that it has available for project-basing in accordance with § 983.5(b), before it issues a request for proposals in accordance with § 983.51(b)(1), makes a selection based on a previous competition in accordance with § 983.51(b)(2), amends an existing HAP contract to add units in accordance with § 983.207(b), or noncompetitively selects a project in accordance with § 983.51(c).
In addition, AHA may need to notify HUD before issuing a request for proposals and any intent to open an RFP would go to the Board first for approval. Please note that AHA does not meet with individual proposers once an RFP is underway and there are other previously approved commitments for PBV that are still unfunded
Need for vouchers
The Goldfarb memo indicates that MidPen needs PBV to compete for Stardust Gardens LP financing. However, AHA staff understood from the June 5, 2026, discussion with MidPen’s President & CEO that the MHP application does not envision and does not need PBV vouchers to be funded. Rather, MidPen’s President & CEO indicated that PBV vouchers would allow MidPen to serve a lower-income population. Please advise if AHA’s understanding is incorrect. The 25 current residents under PBV could be accommodated by MidPen accepting their tenant-based vouchers, which AHA intends to issue once it receives the 12-month notice of the end of the PBV contract from APC. MidPen could encourage those families to voluntarily move to Stardust Gardens offering financial and preference-point incentives during the leasing process.
Docusign Envelope ID: 4776F77C-FC7B-84BA-823A-CC18F5703909
5 Shelter Plus Care contract
The Goldfarb memo did not discuss the other 18 project-based vouchers managed by AHA at the RESHAP site under the Shelter Plus Care Program (a HUD/Alameda County Continuum of Care program). It would seem important to resolve the relocation situation for these families before the tenant meetings on August 13, 2026, as AHA cannot issue vouchers to these tenants, but the County could. Other PHAs (including possibly Oakland, Berkeley and HACA) with subsidies at the site could be included.
While AHA has worked hard to provide as much information as possible in this letter, we strongly encourage the City to continue to seek independent legal advice on the PBV and other subsidy contracts at the site.
Please let me know if you have questions or if you’d like to schedule a call before the August meeting.
Regards,
Vanessa Cooper
Executive Director
Attachment: Opinion from Goldfarb and Lipman LLP (Goldfarb), dated July 3, 2026 Cc:
Nicole Franklin [email protected]
Abby Thorne-Lyman [email protected]
Gerry Beaudin [email protected]
Sylvia Martinez [email protected]
Tonya Schuler Cummins [email protected]
Docusign Envelope ID: 4776F77C-FC7B-84BA-823A-CC18F5703909
676\05\5039396.1
July 3, 2026
memorandum
To
Amy Wooldridge, Assistant City Manager. City of Alameda Abby Thorne-Lyman, Base Reuse and Economic Development Director, City of Alameda
From
Karen M. Tiedemann
RE
Stardust Gardens Project Based Vouchers
The City of Alameda has entered into a Disposition and Development Agreement with MidPen Housing ("MidPen"), Alameda Point Collaborative, Operation Dignity and Building Futures for Women and Children (collectively, the "Collaborating Partners") for the development of what is referred to as the RESHAP project which will replace 201 existing affordable housing units with newly constructed affordable housing units. The existing Collaborating Partner units were leased to the Collaborating Partners pursuant to Legally Binding Agreements entered into in furtherance of the Alameda NAS Base Reuse Plan and approved by the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") to address the needs of the homeless as required by the Base Closure, Community Redevelopment and Homeless Assistance Act ("Base Reuse Act") applicable to the closure of the Base. The existing residents of the Collaborating Partners units will be given first priority to occupy the new development.
Currently, Alameda Point Collaborative, one of the Collaborating Partners, has Housing Assistance Payment Contracts ("HAP") with the Housing Authority of the City of Alameda ("AHA") for 25 Project Based Vouchers ("PBV") which provide necessary rent subsidies for the targeted population of persons and families at risk of homelessness or who are homeless.
Pursuant to the RESHAP DDA, MidPen and the Collaborating Partners are the process of developing the first phase of the new replacement units which will consist of 80 units in a development to be called Stardust Gardens. MidPen has secured an allocation of Affordable Housing Sustainable Communities ("AHSC") funds from the California Department of Housing and Community Development ("HCD") for Stardust Gardens.
MidPen has also submitted an application to HCD for MHP funds. In order to complete the financing of Stardust Gardens and submit a competitive application for Low Income Docusign Envelope ID: 4776F77C-FC7B-84BA-823A-CC18F5703909
Amy Wooldridge, Assistant City Manager, City of Alameda Abby Thorne-Lyman, Base Reuse and Economic Development Director, City of Alameda
July 3, 2026
676\05\5039396.1
Housing Tax Credits for the project, MidPen needs to secure rental subsidies for some of the households expected to occupy the development in order to continue to serve the population targeted in the legally binding agreements and the Base Reuse Plan.
The City would like to explore the options for securing either a commitment of PBVs for Stardust Gardens or for transferring the existing PBVs to Stardust Gardens. This memo discusses options for obtaining a PBV commitment for Stardust Gardens. The path forward to obtaining the necessary PBV commitment faces some challenges but there are also some viable options that the City should collaboratively explore with AHA. It should be noted that the ability to obtain a new commitment of PBVs for Stardust Gardens depends on a variety of factors that will require additional information and consultation with AHA, including AHA's current and projected future shortfall status and importantly, AHA's budget and ability to fund PBVs. This memo is intended to initiate a process of consultation with AHA to explore and define clear options to obtaining a PBV commitment for Stardust Gardens.
Transfer of PBV Contract
There are no provisions within the HUD regulations governing PBVs that would explicitly allow the transfer of the existing PBV contract to the new development. There is authority to transfer budget authority for a PBV contract from one project to another project for Section 8 HAP contracts administered by HUD (See HUD Notice H-2015-03).
That notice does not address whether there is an option to transfer the budget authority for an existing PBV HAP administered by a housing authority to a replacement project.
The issuance of the PBV HAPs for the existing Collaborating Partners furthered the goals of the Base Reuse plan and met requirements of the Base Closure Act. The Base continues to be subject to the terms of the Base Closure Act and the Base Reuse Plan, which includes the obligations to address impacts on the homeless. Transfer of the PBV HAPs would allow continued compliance with the Base Reuse Plan. Although HUD regulations do not explicitly allow for the transfer of the existing HAPs, because of the Base Reuse overlay which governs these units and their replacement, HUD may be willing to explore options for a direct transfer of the HAPs as part of continued compliance with the Base Reuse Act.
Issuance of a New PBV Contract for Stardust Gardens
AHA could issue a new PBV contract for Stardust Gardens, assuming it has sufficient budget to do so. Given that the 25 existing PBVs will be terminated by the Collaborating Partners, that termination should free up some budget capacity, but AHA's budget may have assumed other uses for that budget authority. Additionally, if AHA has to issue tenant-based vouchers to the existing PBV tenants and those tenants do not elect to move into the new PBV units, AHA's budget will be impacted by the new tenant-based vouchers. It is our understanding that the San Francisco Housing Authority is issuing Docusign Envelope ID: 4776F77C-FC7B-84BA-823A-CC18F5703909
Amy Wooldridge, Assistant City Manager, City of Alameda Abby Thorne-Lyman, Base Reuse and Economic Development Director, City of Alameda
July 3, 2026
676\05\5039396.1
commitments for new PBVs for replacement projects at Treasure Island on the assumption that the existing PBV HAPs in place will be terminated, freeing up budget allocation for the new PBVs. Depending upon the budget impact of issuing a new PBV contract for Stardust Gardens, the City and MidPen could consider partial subsidy to address the impacts, either with AHA or Alameda Point Collaborative.
Assuming that the AHA budget could accommodate the issuance of a PBV contract for Stardust Gardens, the next question is whether AHA has authority to issue any new PBV contracts.
HUD prohibits public housing authorities that are in shortfall status and seeking shortfall assistance from HUD from issuing new PBV contracts. Since AHA is not currently in shortfall, it would not be prohibited from issuing new PBV contracts, but AHA has indicated that it might be in shortfall at some point during the current fiscal year, in which case it may not be able to issue new PBV contracts. Regardless of shortfall status, AHA's budget may constrain its ability to issue commitments for PBVs.
Process for Issuance of PBV Contract.
The PBV rules require that a public housing authority's administrative plan describe the procedures for submission and selection of PBV proposals under a competitive selection process or an exception to a competitive selection process consistent with the regulations (24 C.F.R. §983.51). PBV proposals must be selected in accordance with a process set forth in the administrative plan. The options for a compliant competitive process for selection of a PBV proposal are either:
• Issuance of a request for proposal, which cannot be limited to a single site or impose restrictions that practically preclude submissions for other sites; or • A public housing authority may select a PBV proposal without issuing an RFP, for housing that is assisted under a Federal, State, or local government assistance program that required competitive selection of proposals, provided the program's competitive selection process was within three years of the PBV proposal selection date and provided further the competition relied upon did not involve any consideration that the project would receive PBV assistance.
Section 16.II.B of AHA's Administrative Plan incorporates the above provisions into its selection process for PBV proposals. The Administrative Plan specifies that AHA will evaluate all proposals that are selected based on a competitive selection process for other funding sources on the following factors:
• Extent to which the project furthers AHA's goals of deconcentrating poverty and expanding housing and economic opportunity; and
Docusign Envelope ID: 4776F77C-FC7B-84BA-823A-CC18F5703909
Amy Wooldridge, Assistant City Manager, City of Alameda Abby Thorne-Lyman, Base Reuse and Economic Development Director, City of Alameda
July 3, 2026
676\05\5039396.1
• Extent to which the proposal complements other local activities such as the HOME program, CDBG, other development activities in a HUD-designated Enterprise Zone, Economic Community, or Renewal Community; and • The rating factors that apply to responses to RFPs, which include project feasibility, owner experience and capability, design adequacy, site location adequacy, and social services provided onsite.
Additionally, because AHA is a Move-To-Work Housing Authority it can award PBVs to a property in which it has an ownership interest without a competitive selection process.
In order to award vouchers to projects in which AHA has an ownership interest, it must conduct a subsidy layering review and have a third party conduct the housing quality standard inspections. AHA, in its MTW Supplement for fiscal year 2026-27, has included a program that would allow AHA to award PBVs to a property owned by a single-asset entity of AHA without engaging in a selection process.
MidPen applied to HCD for MHP funds in a competitive process and has represented that the application for MHP funds does not rely upon the issuance of PBVs for the project so the MHP funding process could constitute a state competitive funding process that would eliminate the need for AHA to issue a request for proposal for issuance of a new PBV HAP. While the MHP application did not show PBVs, it assumed maximum TCAC rents rather than existing tenant rents and lowered ongoing operating and services costs.
This is not in line with the City's goal to rehouse existing Alameda Point residents at Stardust Gardens.
Conclusion
Direct transfer of the existing HAP contracts to the new replacement project would be the simplest path to obtaining the necessary rental subsidies for Stardust Gardens but in order to achieve that, guidance from HUD will be required.
There are also options for AHA to issue a commitment for new PBVs for Stardust Gardens, including the potential to avoid a competitive request for proposal selection process but more information on the impact of doing so on AHA's budget is necessary.
Additional Information Needed
In order to determine the best path forward, additional information is needed including:
1. Copies of the existing HAPs
2. Clarity on options to either conduct a competitive RFP process or issue PBVs utilizing the MHP competitive process, if Stardust Gardens is awarded MHP funding.
Docusign Envelope ID: 4776F77C-FC7B-84BA-823A-CC18F5703909
Amy Wooldridge, Assistant City Manager, City of Alameda Abby Thorne-Lyman, Base Reuse and Economic Development Director, City of Alameda
July 3, 2026
676\05\5039396.1
3. Additional budget information from AHA on the impact of issuance of a new PBV contract for Stardust Gardens taking into account the potential that AHA may need to issue tenant-based vouchers to some of the existing PBV tenants.
4. Options for addressing any budget impact on AHA of issuing a new PBV contract.
5. A contact at HUD to discuss the Base Closure Act impacts on the transfer of the PBV HAPs.
KMT:kmt
Docusign Envelope ID: 4776F77C-FC7B-84BA-823A-CC18F5703909 8/19/2026
1 www.alamedahsg.org
August 19, 2026
SPECIAL BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS MEETING
Agenda Item 5.A.
www.alamedahsg.org
Agenda
1. Overview of the Housing Authority of the City of Alameda (AHA) and the PBV Program
2. Overview of AHA’s PBV Selection Policies - Allocation Policy, MTW Activity, and Administrative Plan Policies
3. PBV Selection Considerations
4. PBV Selection Methods
5. Overview of RESHAP and City’s Request
6. Compliance Review
7. Risk Analysis
8. Review of Potential Next Steps
9. Questions
1 2
8/19/2026
2 www.alamedahsg.org
Overview of
AHA and PBV
Program
www.alamedahsg.org
Overview of the AHA
Established in 1940 in Alameda, California.
About 2,000 vouchers across all programs which includes:
• Housing Choice Vouchers (HCV)
• Project Based Vouchers (PBV)
• Veteran’s Affairs Supportive Housing Vouchers (VASH)
• Family Unification Program Vouchers (FUP)
• Shelter Plus Care Vouchers
• Moderate Rehabilitation SRO Vouchers
• Emergency Housing Choice Vouchers (EHV)
• Stability Vouchers (SV)
Current portfolio of over 880 affordable units with 700+ units in the development/acquisition pipeline.
Designated an MTW Expansion agency on March 23,
2022, under the Landlord Incentive Cohort.
3 4
8/19/2026
3 www.alamedahsg.org
What are Project Based
Vouchers (PBV)?
• Part of the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program Annual Contributions Contract (ACC)
• Ties an HCV to a specific unit under a long-term contract • Under HOTMA initial contract can be up to 20 years
• One extension up to an additional 20 years
• HUD put strict limits on PBV as too many PBV can limit housing choice
• MTW allows AHA to go to a higher percentage of PBV but there is still a limit
www.alamedahsg.org
Why are PBV important?
• Brings significant federal subsidy to the project for 20 to 40 years • PBV developers can use this additional income in several ways including, but not limited to:
• To make funding applications more competitive
• To obtain higher rents for low-income units, thus housing lower-income tenants
• LIHTC rent restrictions do not apply to PBV units
• To serve lower income tenants (50% AMIs or below)
• To supplement the operating budget, for example to pay for additional services.
• To borrow against in the development/construction stage 5 6
8/19/2026
4 www.alamedahsg.org
AHA’s Typical PBV Award Process
Determine
PBV Cap
and
Adequate
Budget
Headroom
1 Determine
PBV Cap
and
Adequate
Budget
Headroom
Open PBV
Competition
2 Open PBV
Competition
Select PBV
Proposal
3 Select PBV
Proposal
Send
Contingent
Award
Letter
4 Send
Contingent
Award
Letter
Confirm
Adequate
Budget for
PBV Award
5 Confirm
Adequate
Budget for
PBV Award
Execute
Agreement
to Enter
into
Housing
Assistance
Payments
6 Execute
Agreement
to Enter
into
Housing
Assistance
Payments
Execute
Housing
Assistance
Payments
Contract
7 Execute
Housing
Assistance
Payments
Contract
8 Fund PBV
Vouchers
www.alamedahsg.org
Overview of
AHA’s PBV
Policies
7 8
8/19/2026
5 www.alamedahsg.org
AHA’s PBV Allocation Policy
On May 21, 2025, the Housing Authority Board of Commissioners approved the Project-Based Voucher Allocation Policy.
In this Allocation Policy, the Housing Authority stated that in order to allow more complexes to benefit from PBV and reduce the federal subsidy at a complex, the AHA limits the number of PBV units on a contract to 40.
Board stated a preference for new build projects
• prioritize new construction
www.alamedahsg.org
AHA’s Approved MTW Activities
Approved MTW Activity 2022-10 Elimination of PBV Selection Process for PHA owned Projects without Improvement, Development, or Replacement
• AHA can award project-based voucher units to a property owned by a single-asset entity (S.A.E.) of the AHA without engaging in a PBV selection process.
Approved MTW Activity 2022-08 Increase PBV Cap
• AHA can increase the number of authorized PBV units to the lower of 50 percent of its total authorized units or annual budget authority. 9 10
8/19/2026
6 www.alamedahsg.org
PBV Selection
Considerations
www.alamedahsg.org
PBV Selection Considerations
Governed both by the Title 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 983 and the Housing Authority's Administrative Plan, the Housing Authority must consider:
• If this award fits within the Housing Authority’s overall PBV Cap? • If the Housing Authority is in or at risk of shortfall? • Will there be available funding for the date at which an AHAP is required. Will this award put the Housing Authority into shortall?
• Does the award adhere to HUD’s PBV selection regulations? • Does the project meet other criteria including environmental review, subsidy layering reviews, and fair housing?
11 12
8/19/2026
7 www.alamedahsg.org
Consideration: PBV Cap
With the approved MTW activity, AHA can project-base 50 percent of the lower of its total authorized units (ACC) or annual budget authority. • Total ACC is 2064 of which 50% is 1032 units
• Annual budget authority is $46,467,099 of which 50% is $23,233,549 • Average per unit per month HAP cost is $2,195
• Average per unit per year HAP cost is $26,340
• 50% of annual budget authority would fund approximately 882 PBV units • Note: does not include special vouchers recently moved to MTW– pending clarification from HUD.
Lifetime cap for AHA – Any significant upward increase would rely on new vouchers from HUD or a substantial increase in budget authority
www.alamedahsg.org
Additional PBV Capacity
Note: does not include special vouchers recently moved to MTW– pending clarification from HUD.
882 unitsCurrent PBV cap
583 unitsCurrently under PBV HAP contract
40 unitsAwarded but not funded (Estuary II)
259 unitsPBV Capacity for Additional Units
Under PBV Cap
13 14
8/19/2026
8 www.alamedahsg.org
Demand Exceeds Supply
In 2024 AHA issued a Letter of Interest process to ascertain demand. The process showed that there were pending requests for at least 480 additional PBVs, including:
• 40 for Poplar
• 280 for North Housing
• RESHAP 160
Other verbal requests since then have indicated a need for additional operating subsidy to build the next phase at the base and for Operation Dignity (requested 200 vouchers).
www.alamedahsg.org
Consideration: Budget
24 CFR 983.6(c): PHA determination. The PHA is responsible for determining the amount of budget authority that is available for project-based vouchers and for ensuring that the amount of assistance that is attached to the units is within the amounts available under the ACC.
24 CFR 983.58(a): Analysis of units and budget. A PHA must calculate the number of authorized voucher units that it is permitted to project-base in accordance with § 983.6 and determine the amount of budget authority that it has available for project-basing in accordance with § 983.5(b), before it issues a request for proposals in accordance with § 983.51(b)(1), makes a selection based on a previous competition in accordance with § 983.51(b)(2), amends an existing HAP contract to add units in accordance with § 983.207(b), or noncompetitively selects a project in accordance with § 983.51(c). selects a project in accordance with § 983.51(c).
15 16
8/19/2026
9 www.alamedahsg.org
AHA’s Shortfall History
• On July 29, 2025, HUD notified the Housing Authority that it had entered shortfall (Housing Authority’s Total Funding exceeds projected HAP expenses through calendar year end).
• As of the date of the letter, the Housing Authority was required to immediately suspend the issuance of vouchers. (See May 2025 Board memo for entire list of activities that AHA had to implement.) • On May 26 2026, HUD notified the Housing Authority that it was out of shortfall but was still required to ensure any new voucher issuance, including PBV awards, does not put the Housing Authority back in shortfall.
• Any actions taken by AHA that cause shortfall may make AHA ineligible for shortfall funding resulting in termination of assistance to families.
• Throughout 2025 and 2026, AHA has engaged in repeated communications with City staff regarding its inability to issue vouchers particularly due to the stalled development of AHA’s own Estuary II project due to a lack of funds. www.alamedahsg.org
HUD’s Recent Funding Changes
For the first time, HUD has created separate groups when considering funding for Housing Authorities in shortfall. (HUD PIH Notice 2026-12 page 50 – 52) • Housing Authorities that will be in shortfall for the first or second time since 2016 • Housing Authorities that will be in shortfall for the third, fourth, or fifth time since 2016
• Housing Authorities that will be in shortfall for the sixth or more time since 2016 • With each subsequent group, the requirements and actions to take to receive shortfall funding become more extensive and restrictive. The likelihood of receiving the shortfall funds also decreases with each subsequent group.
Based on the funding and HAP set aside trends for 2025 and 2026 and what is expected in 2027, any expenses that HUD does not fund would have to be paid out of non-federal funds, AHA would not get renewed for this funding in the next year and would be on the hook every year thereafter.
17 18
8/19/2026
10 www.alamedahsg.org
Budget Projections
Based on HUD’s two-year-tool, the most recent calculations, assuming a conservative but realistic approach, show the following:
• December 31, 2026 – Expect to utilize all of HUD’s 2026 funding and about $1.3M in reserves. Expect to have about $1.8M remaining in reserves. • December 31, 2027 - Expect to utilize all of HUD’s 2027 funding, the remaining $1.8M in reserves, and would still have to cover $369,889.
Assumptions:
• All HUD shortfall cost saving measures done in early 2025 remain in place. • No AHAP is issued for RESHAP or Estuary II in 2027.
• No one is pulled from the HCV waitlist until 2028. AHA last pulled from the list in 2023. • AHA foregoes reimbursement from HUD for program expenses from HAP (budgeted $1M per year) and covers these from non-federal funds.
• AHA waives any use of the MTW local nontraditional funds of $1M for housing development in 2026 and 2027 and covers these from non-federal funds.
• For 2027, the Housing Authority does not issue any more vouchers and the inflation factor www.alamedahsg.org
PBV Selection
Methods
19 20
8/19/2026
11 www.alamedahsg.org
Consideration: PBV Selection Methods
The Housing Authority is responsible for awarding PBV units to a project. The policies related to this must be stated in the Housing Authority’s Administrative Plan and be pursuant to Title 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 983.
As stated in Chapter 16 of the AHA’s Administrative Plan, there are 3 PBV selection methods:
1. For a property owned by a single-asset entity of the AHA, the AHA can award PBV units without engaging in a PBV selection process. (MTW Activity 2022-10);
2. AHA may solicit proposals by using a Request For Proposals (RFP) to select proposals on a competitive basis in response to the AHA request; or
3. AHA may select proposals based on the project’s previous submission and award under a federal, state, or local government housing assistance competition subject to other requirements discussed later in this presentation www.alamedahsg.org
Method #1 – Self-Award
• AHA awards a PBV contract to a property owned by a single-asset entity of the AHA without engaging in a PBV selection process (approved MTW activity)
• AHA has not used this process to date to award vouchers. • Overview of Recent contracts:
• IP RAD - approved separately under under RAD and Restore Rebuild regulations • Estuary I – selected with RFP competition in 2021
• Linnet Corner – selected with RFP competition in 2022 21 22
8/19/2026
12 www.alamedahsg.org
Method #2 - RFP
Open a Request for Proposals (RFP)
• Must meet HUD requirements and the requirements of the Administrative Plan • Housing Authority must make its own determination regarding available funding and adhering to applicable HUD requirements regarding such a competition
• The RFP may not limit proposals to a single site or impose restrictions that explicitly or practically preclude owner submission of proposals for PBV housing on different sites (Title 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 983 Subpart B Section 51 (b) (1))
• The minimum time for the competition to be open is 3 weeks. Board approvals, issuing of the RFP and outreach including publishing in the newspaper, as well as submission and the view of applications also add to the timeline.
www.alamedahsg.org
Method #3 – Rely on Prior Competition
Pursuant to Title 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 983 Subpart B Section 51 (b) (2):
“The PHA may select, without issuing an RFP , a proposal for housing assisted under a Federal, State, or local government housing assistance, community development, or supportive services program that required competitive selection of proposals, where the proposal has been selected in accordance with such program's competitive selection requirements within three years of the PBV proposal selection date. The PHA may not select a housing assistance proposal using this method if the competition involved any consideration that the project would receive PBV assistance.” 23 24
8/19/2026
13 www.alamedahsg.org
Request from
the City and
RESHAP
www.alamedahsg.org
RESHAP
MidPen Alameda Point
Collaborative
Building
Futures
Operation
Dignity
Developer & Managing General Partner
Stardust Gardens LP
80 units of new
development
25 26
8/19/2026
14 www.alamedahsg.org
Request from the City/RESHAP (1)
On August 11, 2026, the Housing Authority received a formal request for no less than 30 PBV units (16 two-bedroom units and 14 three- bedroom units) for Stardust Gardens, which is the first phase of the City’s Rebuilding the Existing Supportive Housing at Alameda Point (RESHAP).
RESHAP estimates an annual cost of more than $1.1M.
The commitment would go under AHAP in May or June of 2027. www.alamedahsg.org
Request from the City/RESHAP (2)
This request was made so that MidPen can apply for tax credits no later than September 8, 2026 and so by Friday August 21, 2026, RESHAP and the City are asking AHA to do one of the following:
• Issue a commitment letter without a competition, relying on their 2026 MHP award as an alternative competition for the purposes of awarding these vouchers, subject to compliance with federal requirements and other conditions. (PBV Selection Method #3) • As an alternative, open a new competition. The requesters claim that the application will not be competitive in the tax credit competition without receipt of such a commitment letter by August 21, 2026. (PBV Selection Method #2)
27 28
8/19/2026
15 www.alamedahsg.org
Review of PBV Selection
Method #1
Stardust Gardens is not owned by a single-asset entity of the AHA.
The AHA only has approval from HUD to award a PBV contract to a property owned by a single-asset entity of the AHA without engaging in a PBV selection process (approved MTW activity).
The AHA would have to request and be approved for an additional waiver from HUD to be able to issue a commitment letter without a competition to Stardust Gardens.
www.alamedahsg.org
Timeline of Relevant Stardust
Gardens Funding Applications
Affordable Housing and
Sustainable Communities
(AHSC) Program
• May 2025 - Applied
for Award
• December 2025 –
Received Award
• Application included
the award of PBV
units for a term of 20
years
• The AHA never
committed to these
PBV units
Multifamily Housing
Program (MHP)
• June 2026 – Applied
for Award
• August 2026 – Expect
to Receive Award
• Application included
award of AHSC but
did not explicitly state
the award of PBV
units
Low-Income Housing Tax
Credits (LIHTC) Program
• September 2026 –
Applying for Award
• Requesting PBV
commitment for this
application
29 30
8/19/2026
16 www.alamedahsg.org
RESHAP’s 2025 AHSC Application
1. he extent of such assistance would have to be fleshed out. HUD rules most likely would not count any such City contribution in the AHA’s voucher funding renewal formula, per Notice PIH 2013-28. Thus, the City contribution likely would have to be on a continuing basis over the 20 years. If MidPen is requesting a 20 year HAP contract with a renewal option, it would need to be for 40 years. We encourageyou to look to adding the funds directly to project or support the operations and the TCAC tie breaker. AHA is still reviewing its budget position.
The screenshot below is from RESHAP’s 2025 AHSC application which includes PBV units from the Housing Authority for a contract term of 20 years under the which “Income from Subsidies” section. AHA has not committed an award of PBVs to MidPen or to RESHAP .
www.alamedahsg.org
AHSC Consideration of Vouchers
1. The application shows voucher income necessary to meet the State Uniform Multifamily Regulation underwriting requirements for 15 years of positive cash flow. This is a threshold requirement.
2. The application shows voucher income necessary to support a permanent loan of $6,590,000. Without vouchers, this loan is not available and there is a funding gap.
3. The application shows vouchers as ‘YES’ in section 33. The number of vouchers listed is 20 and the term is 20 years.
4. The market study requires 40 vouchers for feasibility, in particular 20 vouchers for the homeless units.
5. The $1,170,000 funding commitment from the Federal Home Loan Bank Affordable Housing Program requires 39 homeless units. Homeless units typically require vouchers or other operating subsidies, as is indicated in the market study. 31 32
8/19/2026
17 www.alamedahsg.org
AHA’s History Regarding
RESHAP’s AHSC Application
• AHA was never informed by the City, MidPen, or APC of the application or the insertion of AHA’s vouchers therein
• AHA staff met regularly with the Mayor and City staff during this period and it was not mentioned
• APC is required to disclose such applications under the North Housing MOU with AHA but failed to do so
• AHA found out about the award in the press
• AHA wrote to the City and RESHAP in January 2026 to inform them of the lack of vouchers and their concerns about the AHSC application.
In
www.alamedahsg.org
Stardust Gardens
Potential MHP Timeline
December 10, 2025 AHSC award made to Stardust Gardens
August 21, 2026 Accept MHP GAP funding of $15 million
September 8, 2026 Apply for bonds/tax credits to CDLAC/CTCAC, as required by MHP December 9, 2026 CDLAC/CTCAC anticipated award
May 9, 2027 180 days from CDLAC award –bond issuance, construction start.
December 10, 2027 AHSC last date to close (secure all perm financing 24 mo. from award) May 2029 Two years (est.) construction timeline to completion If 9/8/26 CDLAC application is unsuccessful, the project can work with State HCD to allow for future 4% or 9% applications, likely February 2027, which push the timeline out by five months+. 33 34
8/19/2026
18 In the Housing Authority's experience, this could take anywhere from half a year to two years to complete, assuming HUD would return with additional question and requests for documentation.
www.alamedahsg.org
MHP Application Includes
AHSC Award
www.alamedahsg.org
MHP GAP Application
• Requires AHSC award for eligibility
• Reduced total development costs by $1.2 million
• Reduced operating costs by 30%.
• Reduced perm loan by 90%
• Affordability remains at average of 36% AMI (extremely low income on average) and target population says ‘formerly homeless.’
35 36
8/19/2026
19 www.alamedahsg.org
RESHAP Request Pt. 1 – Rely on MHP
Application
Pursuant to Title 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 983 Subpart B Section 51 (b) (2):
“The PHA may not select a housing assistance proposal using this method if the competition involved any consideration that the project would receive PBV assistance.”
RESHAP’s MHP Application relies on AHSC Award whose loan and cash flow relies in part on the inclusion of uncommitted PBV units. www.alamedahsg.org
HUD’s Response to PBV Policy
Revisions (1)
Commenters asked HUD to remove or narrow the requirement that a prior competitive selection not involve any consideration that the project would receive PBV assistance. One commenter specifically proposed limiting the restriction to situations where points were awarded for PBVs.
HUD rejected that approach, explaining that allowing anticipated PBV assistance to influence the earlier competition could give a project an advantage and undermine the integrity of both the PBV selection process and the other federal, state, or local funding competition.
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 122 / Wednesday, July 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations, P . 36155, 36156.
37 38
8/19/2026
20 www.alamedahsg.org
HUD’s Response to PBV Policy
Revisions (2)
Please note, in response to a commenter’s suggestion to drop the requirement that “if the competition involved any consideration that the project would receive PBV assistance” (24 CFR 983.51(b)(2)), in the final rule, HUD responded in the Preamble: “HUD understands the limitations presented by the commentor because of the provision that prohibits a PHA from selecting a housing assistance proposal that included any consideration that the project would receive PBV assistance; however, this provision maintains the integrity of a competitive selection method and will not be revised in this final rule.”
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations, P . 38224, 38265.
www.alamedahsg.org
Estimated Budget for RESHAP PBV
RESHAP Request for 30 PBV units:
• AHA estimates these 30 vouchers could cost up to $1.3M per year (assuming homeless families come in with little or no income) and up to $26M over a 20-year contract • When APC cancels its current PBV contract for 25 PBV units, the AHA has to issue an HCV for each household according to regulations. AHA expects to pay $784k per year for this HCV assistance. This amount could be mitigated to the extent households voluntarily trade in their HCV for PBV at Stardust Gardens. • Total expected costs are about $2M per year
• All parties agrees that per HUD regulation the current APC contract cannot transfer to Stardust Gardens LP without a waiver. AHA has offered to submit a HUD or MTW waiver already anticipated the end of the contract in the future. 39 40
8/19/2026
21 www.alamedahsg.org
Budget Considerations
December 31, 2027 - Expect to utilize all of HUD’s 2027 funding, the remaining $1.8M in reserves, and would still have to cover $369,889.
Total new expected costs for RESHAP’s request are about $1.3M per year • We don’t expect to have any reserves by the end of 2027 and may be notified by HUD that we are in shortfall.
• Per HUD PIH Notice 2026-12 “PHAs in confirmed shortfall may not issue new requests for proposals (RFPs) or select new PBV proposals or projects after the shortfall confirmation.” The only exceptions to this are RAD PBV HAP contracts and RFPs, PBV proposals or projects pursuant to a CY 2025 or CY 2026 allocation of Tenant Protection Vouchers. Neither of these exceptions apply to this case. • Estuary II which was already selected in the 2021 PBV competition and is expected to cost about $1.1M per year for 40 homeless units will have to be delayed again. www.alamedahsg.org
Potential Next
Steps
41 42
8/19/2026
22 www.alamedahsg.org
AHA’s Review of RESHAP’s Request
AHA staff have reviewed the requests extensively including:
• Review of all applicable HUD regulations and AHA policies • Discussions with HUD in July 2026 and August 2026
• Discussions with Legal Counsel
• Discussions with HCD (the prior awarding agency)
• Requests for documentation from MidPen
• Review of the AHSC and MHP application
At this time, AHA staff are proposing, as possibilities, the following next steps. www.alamedahsg.org
Option #1
Authorize the Executive Director to Issue a Letter of Commitment to Award 30 Project-Based Vouchers for the Stardust Gardens Development, located at 2408 Pan Am Way, Alameda, Subject to Conditions and With an Estimated Cost of $1.1-$1.3 Million per year for 20 Years 43 44
8/19/2026
23 www.alamedahsg.org
Option #1 Considerations
1. HUD’s two-year tool shows a shortfall position in 2027.
2. AHA cannot award PBV to an outside party without a competition. This would bypass both federal regulation and the AHA’s Administrative Plan.
3. AHA cannot rely on MHP as per HUD regulations that “The PHA may not select a housing assistance proposal using this method if the competition involved any consideration that the project would receive PBV assistance.”
4. A PBV application, site selection, and proforma was not completed and submitted for AHA’s review. The AHA would have to rely on the commitment letter’s conditions to be protected if the project does not comply with federal requirements.
www.alamedahsg.org
Option #1 Risks and Consequences
1. The Housing Authority’s Insurance may not defend the Housing Authority in a lawsuit if the Housing Authority knowingly ignored HUD’s regulation or direction.
2. HUD could challenge AHA’s grounds for providing such a letter, given HUD’s regulations and that the MHP application relied on the AHSC award for which the application contains income from Project-Based Vouchers.
3. HUD has broad authority to penalize a housing authority that does not adhere to its contractual obligation to administer its programs in compliance with HUD requirements and likely would consider whether individuals knowingly took these actions. That broad authority could include rescission of a contract award, reimbursement with non-federal funds or in a particularly egregious case, receivership for the Section 8 program and/or debarment for officials who authorized such actions
4. There is also a risk of legal action from other parties who were not given the same opportunity.
45 46
8/19/2026
24 www.alamedahsg.org
Option #2
Authorize the Executive Director to Request a Regulatory Waiver or a Request a Moving to Work Demonstration Program Waiver from the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to Waive Compliance from Regulations Otherwise Applicable to Competitive Awards of Project-Based Vouchers
www.alamedahsg.org
Option #2 Details
If the Housing Authority were to request that HUD waive the regulations listed above it could do so in two ways:
• Submitting a waiver directly to the HUD Field Office; and/or • Requesting the regulations be waived as part of an activity in the Moving to Work Supplement
For example, AHA could submit a waiver request to HUD to rely on the MHP completion
A waiver provides the clearest feedback from HUD and best assurance for any issues where clarity is needed.
47 48
8/19/2026
25 www.alamedahsg.org
Option #2 Details (2)
• RESHAP also proposes a local preference limited to the RESHAP area of the former base.
• HUD regulations at 24 CFR 982.207(b)(ii) state that an area smaller than a county or municipality may not be used as a residency preference area.
Any change would require HUD or MTW waiver and would be a Significant Amendment to the Administrative Plan which would generally be done post award of the vouchers.
• AHA cannot provide a site-specific preference at this time but could work with RESHAP , subject to Board approval, to submit a waiver if RESHAP is awarded vouchers.
www.alamedahsg.org
Option #2 Considerations
Issues:
• Can be a lengthy, staff-intensive, and uncertain process to draft and obtain waivers.
Benefits:
• Would receive an approval from HUD which could protect the Housing Authority from liabilities resulting from the exceptions being requested to HUD and Housing Authority policy.
49 50
8/19/2026
26 www.alamedahsg.org
Option #3
Authorize the Executive Director to Open a Competition for Project-Based Vouchers, subject to a Review of Housing Authority Financial Capability to Award Project-Based Vouchers and to Compliance with All Applicable Regulations
www.alamedahsg.org
Option #3 Considerations
1. Does not meet RESHAP’s timeline.
2. HUD’s Two-year tool currently still shows a shortfall for 2027 which is when the AHAP would be signed and is considered an obligation by HUD.
3. Budget information should be much clearer after September 1 when the new FMRs should be published, and assuming HUD uses the same methodology for 2027, the Replacement Funding Inflation Factor can be properly calculated.
4. A new competition is the cleanest way to provide vouchers and limits liability to the agency and allows a proper due diligence period to occur. It also allows for fair access to funds from other parties who may be seeking PBV. It would also be consistent with AHA’s prior practice. 51 52
8/19/2026
27 www.alamedahsg.org
Option #4
Authorize the Executive Director to take any Action or Direction as the Board of Commissioners May Provide in Response to the Request for Project-Based Vouchers for Stardust Gardens
www.alamedahsg.org
Thank you!
Questions?
53 54
August 28, 2026
Dear Mayor and Members of the Alameda City Counci,:
Re: September 1, 2026 Meeting, Agenda Item 7-A
I respectfully urge the City Council to vote NO on Agenda Item 7-A and not authorize a commitment of up to $1 million per year, increasing 2.5% annually for as many as 20 years, an approximate $25.5 million, to subsidize operations at Stardust Gardens at this time.
Let me be clear: This is not opposition to supportive housing. Alameda needs supportive housing, and the people who currently live in Alameda Point’s supportive-housing communities deserve stability, dignity, and a permanent home.
The question before you is whether Alameda taxpayers should become the long-term financial backstop for a project when its anticipated operating subsidy has not yet been secured.
The City should exhaust every alternative first.
There is still an opportunity to negotiate, advocate, and find a sustainable funding solution.
Before committing potentially $25.5 million of Alameda's money, the City should:
1. Return to the negotiating table with the Alameda Housing Authority.
2. Make a formal good-faith appeal to HUD and pursue every available federal, state, regional, and local funding mechanism.
3. Explore alternative operating and housing models that reduce the long-term burden on Alameda taxpayers, including a cooperative housing model.
4. Determine whether the project can be appropriately reduced in size to fit within the budget while prioritizing the residents currently living in the approximately 200 existing supportive-housing units.
5. Hold Brookfield accountable for building 25% affordable units within their housing development.
Sincerely,
Carmen Reid
From: Ammonitee
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Sept 1, Agenda Item 7-A
Date: Thursday, August 27, 2026 5:13:58 PM
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
Re: 9/1/2026 Agenda Item 7-A, Subsidy of up to $1 Million Annually I urge the City Council to:
1. VOTE NO on Agenda Item 7-A.
2. Return to the negotiating table with the Alameda Housing Authority and pursue a sustainable source of operating support.
3. Fully disclose how RESHAP/Stardust Gardens is being counted toward the 25% affordable-housing requirement for West Midway.
4. Clearly explain who owns the land and housing, who receives the benefit of the public investment, and what obligations each development is actually responsible for.
5. Explore a cooperative housing model or another resident-centered structure that could provide greater long-term stability and create a permanent affordable- housing community aligned with Alameda’s values.
Thank you, for attention to these matters, Fey Adelstein From: Marion Borst
To: CITYCOUNCIL-List
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Concern
Date: Thursday, August 27, 2026 11:58:00 AM
I recently read that the council was considering supporting a major supportive housing project at Alameda Point with $25.5 million. I do not support this expenditure. If they can not even get off the ground running the plan will continue to fail meeting deadlines and cost our city many more millions of dollars! Find another developer.
We don't have to be in a hurry. Its prime bay area
land!
I went to school here, live here in a family owned house for 25 years, and have children in our schools. Lets think long term for us!
Marion Borst
Alameda
--
Sincerely;
Marion Borst
Art Teacher Livermore
High School
From: Michael Patterson
To: CITYCOUNCIL-List
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Agenda Item 7-A Subsidy of up to $1 Million Annually - vote NO Date: Thursday, August 27, 2026 10:23:14 AM
Dear mayor and city council members,
While I am broadly supportive of affordable housing, I urge a vote NO on the $25.5 million subsidy commitment as drafted. I would instead direct staff toward an Alameda Point strategy that isn't dependent on stacking fragile funding sources, so no single project can hold up others.
This project's history is riddled with delays: first in 2024, then passed over by AHA at least twice in nine years, and now dependent on AHSC, MHP, and LIHTC landing in sequence.
Losing any link will produce another emergency vote.
The commitment itself is hard to walk back. It locks in twenty years of escalating payments while its stated "off-ramp," AHA eventually stepping in with vouchers, isn't credible: AHA has declined to do that for over a decade. Council should assume it's committing to the full $25.5 million.
It also removes any incentive for future partners to solve their own funding gaps. Once the City reliably backstops shortfalls, partners have less reason to secure durable funding before asking Alameda Point Fund to cover the difference.
I'd ask Council to send staff back to create a broader strategy for rebuilding Alameda Point without being blocked by a single development that has consistently missed deadlines.
Thank you for your consideration.
Michael Patterson
From: HeavyFuel
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Agenda Item 7-A
Date: Wednesday, August 26, 2026 1:02:37 PM
Dear Mayor and City Council members,
Re: 9/1/2026 Agenda Item 7-A, Subsidy of up to $1 Million Annually I urge the City Council to:
1. VOTE NO on Agenda Item 7-A.
2. Return to the negotiating table with the Alameda Housing Authority and pursue a sustainable source of operating support.
3. Fully disclose how RESHAP/Stardust Gardens is being counted toward the 25% affordable-housing requirement for West Midway.
4. Clearly explain who owns the land and housing, who receives the benefit of the public investment, and what obligations each development is actually responsible for.
5. Explore a cooperative housing model or another resident-centered structure that could provide greater long-term stability and create a permanent affordable-housing community aligned with Alameda’s values.
From: Scott Hamilton
To: City Clerk; Abby Thorne-Lyman; Gerry Beaudin
Cc: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Tony Daysog
Subject: [EXTERNAL] : OPPOSE DEVELOPER SUBSIDY – Sept 1 Agenda Item 7A.
Date: Tuesday, August 25, 2026 4:24:09 PM
Dear Mayor and Members of the Alameda City Council,
I am writing to strongly urge you to vote NO on Agenda Item 7-A and reject the proposed long-term operating subsidy for Stardust Gardens in its current form.
I support affordable and supportive housing. But supporting vulnerable residents does not mean taxpayers should accept a potential $25.5 million, 20-year financial commitment without greater transparency, accountability, and a sustainable funding plan.
Alameda families are already dealing with rising taxes, utilities, insurance, groceries, housing costs, and inflation. Before committing up to $1 million annually—escalating 2.5% each year—the City should demonstrate that every reasonable alternative has been exhausted.
This is especially concerning because the City and MidPen have already secured approximately $44.5 million in state funding for Stardust Gardens and related improvements. Residents deserve to know why a project receiving substantial public investment now requires Alameda taxpayers to serve as its long-term financial backstop.
There are also serious questions about the relationship between RESHAP/Stardust Gardens and the neighboring market-rate development.
City documents indicate that affordable units associated with RESHAP may be counted toward affordable-housing obligations connected to market-rate development.
If publicly supported affordable housing is helping satisfy a private development’s affordable-housing requirements, why are Alameda taxpayers now being asked to assume another potentially $25.5 million obligation? Who is receiving the financial and development benefits, and who is ultimately responsible for the costs?
The pending litigation involving these projects raises additional allegations concerning the land, financing, affordable-housing credits, and benefits to private developers. Those allegations have not been proven, but they provide even more reason for the Council to demand transparency and independent scrutiny before committing millions more in public funds.
Before approving this subsidy, the Council should require a complete accounting of the project’s public funding, ownership and financial obligations; fully disclose how RESHAP units are being credited toward market-rate development requirements; and exhaust Housing Authority, state, federal, developer, and other funding sources.
This is not a choice between affordable housing and fiscal responsibility. We should demand both.
A funding shortfall should trigger renewed negotiations and financial scrutiny—not an automatic, decades-long taxpayer bailout.
Please vote NO on Agenda Item 7-A and require a transparent, sustainable funding solution before committing Alameda residents to another potential $25.5 million obligation.
Alameda taxpayers deserve accountability!!!
Sincerely,
Scott Hamilton
Alameda Resident
From: Susan Aschwanden
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Vote NO on Sept 1 agenda item 7a
Date: Tuesday, August 25, 2026 7:24:31 AM
Re: September 1, 2026 Agenda Item 7-A — Proposed Subsidy of Up to $1 Million Annually
The City should pursue a better solution that is financially sustainable, transparent to Alameda taxpayers, and focused on creating lasting affordable housing for the community—not simply committing the City to an open-ended annual subsidy on Sept.1, 2026
I respectfully urge the City Council to:
1. Vote NO on Agenda Item 7-A and reject the proposed annual subsidy of up to $1 million.
2. Return to the negotiating table with the Alameda Housing Authority to identify a sustainable, long-term source of operating support rather than relying on an ongoing annual subsidy from the City.
3. Provide full transparency regarding RESHAP/Stardust Gardens and clearly explain how, and to what extent, this development is being counted toward the 25% affordable-housing requirement for West Midway.
4. Clearly identify ownership and financial responsibilities, including who owns the land and housing, who will ultimately benefit from the proposed public investment, and what financial and operational obligations each development is responsible for.
5. Explore a cooperative housing model or another resident-centered structure
that could provide greater long-term stability, resident participation, and accountability while creating a truly permanent affordable-housing community consistent with Alameda’s values.
Vote No on 7a on Sept 1.
Thank you,
Susan Aschwanden
Sent from my iPhone
From: Christine Kanbergs
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Agenda Item 7-A Subsidy of up to $1 Million Annually Date: Monday, August 24, 2026 3:04:43 PM
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
Re: 9/1/2026 Agenda Item 7-A, Subsidy of up to $1 Million Annually I agree with ALAMEDA COMMUNITY CARES. THEREFORE VOTE NO ON AGENDA ITEM 7-A
I urge the City Council to:
1. VOTE NO on Agenda Item 7-A.
2. Return to the negotiating table with the Alameda Housing Authority and pursue a sustainable source of operating support.
3. Fully disclose how RESHAP/Stardust Gardens is being counted toward the 25% affordable-housing requirement for West Midway.
4. Clearly explain who owns the land and housing, who receives the benefit of the public investment, and what obligations each development is actually responsible for.
5. Explore a cooperative housing model or another resident-centered structure that could provide greater long-term stability and create a permanent affordable-housing community aligned with Alameda’s values.
I am a Life Long Alameda Resident, my family has been here in Alameda for 7 generations.
We care about people but the people who live here should not have their lives and economic financial positions sacrificed for the long-term financial backing for a project that has not secured the anticipated operating subsidy. The community deserves clear answers as to what is actually going on. Entities such as Renewed Hope, RESHAP, Stardust Gardens need to be explained. Where do they count in the affordable-housing requirement.
Are they really affordable units or being created to meet Alameda Point’s requirements for affordable-housing. Are they being doubled up and being credited toward the requirement/obligation of a private market-rate development? Let’s get this straightened out for the taxpayers of Alameda. If Taxes go up, housing costs will go up. Alameda property owners are very good at deciding when enough is enough.
Do the work you have been elected to do. Protect the citizens of Alameda from government failure that can turn into very bad future community issues.
Thank You
Christine Kanbergs
Alameda Property Owner, Business Owner, 76 year resident From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
dan westerlin
City Clerk
[EXTERNAL] September 1st Agenda - Item 7-A - a Strong "NO!" Monday, August 24, 2026 11:17:35 AM
On September 1 you will consider item 7-A.
Matthew Franklin, CEO of MidPen Housing, has an annual salary of $644,000.
Adreas Urton, President and CEO of the Alameda Point Collaborative has an annual salary of $131,000
Fourteen Alameda City employees have annual salaries of over $200,000, with the Police Chief over $300,000 and the Fire Chief approaching $300,000.
EXME Salary Schedule | City of Alameda
Alameda City spending is out of control, but that does not prevent the City Council from asking for more and spending more.
This is the classic California Scam: Pick a sympathetic cause and pump millions of dollars to political cronies and supporters, while the politicians howl about "affordability" and the average Alamedan grinds along trying to pay our bills.
The original State grant for Stardust Gardens was over $556,000 per unit. The City's annual contribution is over $1,000 per month per unit.
The City Council should focus of saving money, not spending it.
I have little hope of that happening.
Dan Westerlin
From: Arnie Quan
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Agenda Item 7-A
Date: Monday, August 24, 2026 8:55:00 AM
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
Re: 9/1/2026 Agenda Item 7-A, Subsidy of up to $1 Million Annually I urge the City Council to:
1. VOTE NO on Agenda Item 7-A
Arnold Quan
Alameda, CA 94502