Historical Advisory Board - Regular Meeting

7 o'clock. Let's do this. Are we on the Zoom? Everything's happening. Call to order this Thursday, June 4th meeting of the Historical Advisory Board. Take away roll call.

Yes, for roll call. Board Member Crotty.

Yes.

Board Member Brito.

Present.

Board Member Bevin.

Present.

And Chair Hernandez. Present. We have a quorum.

OK, first order of business. Before non-agenda public comments, I just want to read a little excerpt from the California Penal Code. This is section 403, which states that it is a criminal offense for any person to, without authority of law, willfully disturb or break up any assembly or meeting that is not unlawful in character other than assembly or meeting referred to in the penal code section 302 or elections code 18340. First violations will receive a warning and continued violations will require additional action which could include police intervention. And with that being said, non-agenda public comments. This is the time for anyone to speak for up to three minutes regarding any matter that is not on the agenda. So that is for you folks here in the audience or anyone who's joining us online.

There do not appear to be any non-agendized public comments.

OK, swell. Let's move right along to item three, our minutes. We'll be looking at the draft meeting minutes from the March 5, 2026 meeting. Any comments from board members? Motions from board members?

I'll move to approve the minutes, March.

Second?

I'll second.

All in favor? Aye. Aye. Ayes have it. Motion carries. A regular agenda item.

We're just trucking right along.

4A, which is a study session on the future development of the Main Street neighborhood. I believe we have a presentation. Welcome.

Thank you. Good evening.

Good evening.

Good evening. My name is Nicole Franklin. I'm one of the base reuse managers for Alameda Point. And I am here this evening to kind of give you an update on the planning of the Main Street neighborhood north redevelopment and to also give you an overview of the preliminary feasibility results and get your input on historical preservation priorities for the area. First, again, I want to start off while we're here today. We're here to evaluate the next steps for new residential development north of West Midway at Alameda Point, and then also to get your feedback on historical preservation priorities. I'm going to start off with where we are in the process. We are currently in the priority setting and public discussion phase. And then we will move on to phase three, which would be where staff and the city council evaluate that information and determine if it's feasible to move forward with issuing a request for qualifications for a developer for the area. In that time frame, we're currently anticipating that step end of this year, beginning of 2027. And then if it's feasible and the council endorses that idea, we would issue a developer RFQ in 2027. Now I just want to give a high level recap of the December 6, 2025 Main Street Neighborhood North study session and tour that occurred at Alameda Point. First, I want to start off with the planning vision. We have the Main Street Neighborhood North specific plan and other planning documents that set forth the vision for advancing development in the area. Here's a slide that kind of gives an update on the residential development at Alameda Point. And we've already either built or entitled a little bit over 2,000 units. And our next area that we're looking to advance, again, is Main Street neighborhood north. Here is a map of the study area. We have the north portion of Main Street neighborhood, north in red. And within that, in the white dotted line, you will see where we call it the collaborating partners, lease property in that area. tenants will be relocating into the reshape project, which I showed you earlier. Also in this slide is area to the west of Pan Am Avenue, highlighted in blue. And that's additional area that we are studying to advance with the Main Street Neighborhood North development. And in that, you'll see in orange the Naval Air Station Historic District. And then within the blue, you also see property owned by the Alameda Unified School District. So in total, this study area we're looking at is about 70 acres. Here are unique challenges to the area. have a list of the property characteristics that are very specific to this area that we need to address, as well as development and financial considerations. We've also found in our due diligence there are slightly different challenges for developing the area east of Pan Am and specific challenges west of Pan Am. And the key takeaways that we took note of at the end of that session in December at Alameda Point was that there was general support for the concept of adding housing in the area just west of Pan Am Way, including the area near the Officers Club. if it's deemed feasible, that there is a clear understanding that there are some pretty significant sea level rise adaptation and shoreline stabilization requirements and major infrastructure improvements that will be costly and we will need to seek external funding beyond what a developer would bear. There was openness, we heard, for including the school district properties in the developer RFQ, if feasible, and if we can come to an agreement with the school district. And then a really key one is that we have a lot of goals and priorities for this area, but in order to make the project feasible, there will have to be some trade-offs that we'll all have to make together to make this project move forward. Now I want to give a high level overview of the feasibility analysis that we conducted, specifically around the historic resources or pertaining to the historic resources. Here are what I call the three buckets of questions that we asked. I'll just read them. What are the site's infrastructure needs, and how can they be delivered or financed? The other one was, what infrastructure funding could the sale of the historic homes generate, given the extraordinary rehabilitation needs for the properties? And then also, what a new development yield favorable returns today? And that's kind of what we looked at in our analysis. Here is one of the build-out scenarios that we had our consultants investigate. And we think we can build between 600 and about 1,000 units in this study area. Here, one of the findings we have is the major off-site improvements are needed to develop the area west of Pan Am, and that goes back to the shoreline stabilization and those things. And again, we would need external fundings for these improvements to make this project feasible. Also, Reshape is the project that the people currently live in Main Street neighborhood north. They would be relocating into their new home once it's built. We're still seeking funding for that project, and so we can't move forward with Main Street neighborhood north until they relocate into their new home. Here is kind of like more feasibility around the big whites and the bungalow areas. As you can see on the right, the graphic, our consultant did some analysis of the developable areas and also what infrastructure will be required, including in the Beehive. And what we have determined is the rehabilitation and sale of the big whites does not generate enough income to cover the infrastructure costs. And the bigger, the broader deal would have to kind of carry some of the costs of the big white infrastructure. And so one thing that we may want to consider is infill development in the big white area. Now I want to talk about building 17, the former bachelor's officer's quarters that's owned by the school district. This property has been vacant and deteriorating for a long time. It has some security challenges. One of the key reasons for that is because the historic status, the sheer size of the building, the layout, and the infrastructure needs. So it makes it kind of complicated to redevelop it. And then the cost that would have to go into that building exceeds the value and so maybe including it in the mainstream neighborhood north will allow for economy of scale on some of this infrastructure by including it into the area owned by the city another opportunity of Taking advantage of economy of scales is to extend the development area to include the chapel and theater on Saratoga and near West Red Line. Those properties are also vacant and have started to deteriorate or have been deteriorating. And to restore them would also be a significant investment and require funding. And so potential redevelopment included in this development package. as an adapter for use for some type of limited commercial use could be the solution to getting those properties restored and activated. I want to go over the key issues that we would have to address for an RFQ issuance. And this is a really important question of why start this process now. The East Bay has a long history of planning projects at the height of the market and then missing the market cycle. And so it makes sense to start when the market is a little bit depressed so that we can kind of figure out our priorities and start positioning ourselves for the market, and then get a good, qualified resource developer on board to really help us figure this out. Because we have great consultants who are helping us, but a developer can really help us figure out this complex development area. additional considerations, working to better understand the protections for existing residents, clarifying the goal for the Offices Club, which is a city facility, as you know, and then figuring out maybe leveraging, including in the development, to get ADA improvements and other improvements to the Offices Club. Again, we are working to identify the development priorities, including the historic resources priorities for this area. And starting with you tonight, get your feedback, meeting with the planning board next week, and then the council. And then at that point when we get that feedback, reevaluating development feasibility based upon the trade-off conversation we'll have and then the resulting priorities. And then also during this process, we need to confirm with the school district their interest in partnering and being included in this developer solicitation. Next steps. Again, we're in the process of priority setting and public discussion. And then late 2026, early 2027, if it's deemed feasible, making the decision to issue an RFQ and then running that RFQ process in 2027. Before I turn it over to you and listen to you, I want to talk about the historic preservation priorities. We want to talk to you and get your feedback on it. If the project feasibility for this area is affected by historic preservation objectives, what information would the HAB need from the city? and or a future developer when evaluating potential trade-offs. For example, trade-offs of allowing limited infill development within the big white neighborhood, the possible demolition of some or all of the bungalows, Maybe possible demolition and alteration of building 17, if it is included in the RFQ. And there are some historic landscape features and possible alterations to those. And then again, the future preservation and adaptive use strategies, what those could be for the chapel, the theater, the officers club, and the admiral's house. OK, and that concludes my presentation. And I'll send it over to the chair.

Thank you. Thank you so much. Really appreciate that. I'm wondering, are there any folks online who might want to make a comment?

There are none at this time.

OK. And are there any other public comments here in the room?

Don't believe so.

OK, great. having dispensed with that discussion. So first, are there any questions you want to ask about the presentation or clarifying information you'd like from what you saw?

I have a couple of questions about the big whites. And I remember we talked about this a little bit at the walking tour, but I'm trying to remember. I wasn't taking notes. I think it was too cold that morning or that afternoon. Eric mentions limited infill development around the big whites. Can you talk a little bit about that, what exactly that would entail?

Sure. And then I might have my director come help me, too. So essentially, when we were on the walking tour, we showed you how the curvilinear roads and yards are big for some of the big whites. And so it could be potentially subdividing those into smaller and having ADUs or other homes built. It could include erecting fences so they could be individual. you know, plots, that's pretty much some of the options.

And that would be, that would still require the The flooding concerns being taken care of elsewhere, not right there.

Yes, that area definitely, we need to address the flooding in that area, even if we did the infill. We would also need new infrastructure, the streets and the utilities, in addition to the other flooding considerations.

And you mentioned that the sale of the historic homes was that, as far as the feasibility study, was the intention to just have someone else purchase it and then they're the ones who are in charge of doing the rehab and possibly lifting the buildings or whatever? That would be correct. Okay. All right.

Sure, absolutely. Okay.

Yeah, thank you. Abby Thorne-Lyman, Director of Base Reuse and Economic Development and Interim Planning, Building, and Transportation Director. Yeah, just to remind folks, because I know it has been six months since you went out on your walking tour. Maybe you've had the privilege of walking there since more recently. But just a reminder that one of the unusual things about the big whites is they face they don't back up to each other on a single block, right? They face one of the streets, and then the backyard faces the other side of the street. So we feel that could give some infill potential. I think, as Nicole said, it could be carriage houses or something maybe that is compatible, but, you know, perhaps smaller, honoring the big whites, but it is, and I think Secretary Buckley could speak to this as well, one of the contributing features of the Beehive neighborhood is the layout of the homes, right? And so that would be compromising one of the contributing features. So that's kind of just an example of where you all would need to weigh in and approve that and make a recommendation on that. So I don't know if you wanted to say anything else about the contributing features piece or think that we've probably answered your question, but just wanted to add that clarification.

Thank you.

Other questions?

So it seems like a project like this is going to be really financially troubling. And you've selected some really nice buildings from that era. Kind of a multi-part question. So one, how did you select the particular structures for potential rehabilitation or reuse as opposed to having them be demolished? And then two, do we have a sense of the financial strain that this is going to have on an already strained project?

You want to answer the question about the historic?

So there's two questions. One, how did you choose the structures?

Our intent was always to keep the historic big whites. And so I think that there are historic structures. Even in the specific plane, we talk about maintaining the historic character. And that's kind of one of the character-defining features. And so that was one of the reasons.

They're kind of the coolest houses in the area. So you're like, yeah, let's look at these.

Yeah, and they're contributing structures to the historic district.

and that's determined by documents that were created 30 years ago?

Correct.

Right.

Yeah. Yeah, so... Yeah, it's hard to remember who was here when we last talked about all the Alameda Point documentation, but... If you go to the base reuse web page, there's 30 to 50 documents on file. But there's three or four key ones. And one of them is the guide to preserving the character of NAS Alameda. And so it goes through the list of all of the buildings, determines which ones are contributing, primarily based on their age, their period of significance, which is wartime, and then goes through their characteristics that really communicate that period. For instance, on the Big Whites, it's perhaps oddly enough the copper gutters and downspouts, which we discussed here at some length a couple of years ago. window patterns and other decorative features or awnings and things like that that are all of a piece because of the way the base was designed and developed. And so when we talk about even, say, the theater, it's a different kind of building. But then you look at it and you go, oh, I see. It has a rhythm to it that's kind of fits in with everything else. And so that's what the documentation talks about is those things that really sing. And then there's also the landscape. And so landscape and views and the relationships of the buildings and the roads and things like that.

OK, that all makes sense. So then the second part was it does seem like this project, and I don't know about the finances, but I'm guessing to me it reads like a very financially difficult project to actually implement. And it sounds like we've had some good studies occur. Sounds like there's probably been an economic analysis. There's been a feasibility study. There's been a best use study for what the area should be used for. And it looks like housing came up on top, which intuitively makes sense to me. But has there been any sort of look at the financial strain on the project for these potential reuses of these buildings?

Yeah, we've had our consultant, Kaiser Marsden, do some of that. We've looked at the cost of the infrastructure, not just the roads and the streets and utilities, but also the shoreline and the levee. We've also worked with consultants to do a density study, look at density scenarios based upon what's allowed in the zoning and the specific plan. what density, what type of product could potentially pencil. And so we have done some of that.

Interesting. Did they have to stick with the current zoning, or did you allow them to go beyond and say, hey, if we need to, we can rewrite zoning?

In part, like for example, the area just west of the Oak Club, that's not zoned for housing. We had them look at that for housing. But again, that will require rezoning. So we did have them do a little bit of that, kind of looking at what's possible. And it mainly was around housing.

Could I elaborate a little bit? Yeah. Thank you. Yeah, this is a really meaty one. And we obviously didn't give you a lot of detail on our feasibility analysis, in part because the more detail we give and the more assumptions we put out there, the more it seems like this might be a real project. And it was all conceptual, right? And the developer will come forward possibly with something entirely different. You can see we did pretty much stick to townhomes in our feasibility analysis. Townhomes at the base, we've had our economic consultant do some analysis in the past. Townhomes actually almost pencil at the base. Multifamily has a massive gap, like a 40% gap. As somebody who likes density, it's very disheartening to look at the feasibility gap for multifamily and apartments. So we did stick to townhomes. We think that's what's most likely that the developer would deliver. The more that we can get a large swath of land for a critical mass of a first phase of development, the better. And that's a real challenge when you're talking about an area that has a lot of existing homes that need to be demolished or tenants relocated, and the reshape project needs to be delivered and phased. So probably the most complicated phase of development we will do at Alameda Point, and that is saying a lot. And then just to speak to some of the adaptive reuse of the non-residential buildings, I will remind you all may not actually know this. I think we did talk about it in December. Building 17, the bachelor officer's quarters does allow for residential. And Nicole and I have toured a number of developers through that building. And just everybody continues to come forward and say, this is just too much to take on. All the copper's gone. All the plumbing's gone. It has to be completely gutted and redone. But it is zoned to allow residential. So maybe that would be a great assisted living or institutional use, right? The theater and the chapel, we have been in negotiations for the theater building to have that adaptively reused, as well as the bowling alley, which is not a contributing structure, which is why we didn't mention it, which is right behind the theater. The thing we keep running into is that the folks who would be most interested in adaptive reuse of these historic structures cannot really get the financing they need to make that scale of capital investment because we can't sell them the land. We can't sell them the land because it's not on new infrastructure. So until we have new water lines, we're not actually allowed to sell that land. So they can't use the land as security to get the loans they need to adaptively reuse. And doing a long-term lease is insufficient for them. So we have these structural financial problems with these buildings that we feel selling could work, also including them in the developer proposal where we have an extremely well-capitalized developer, somebody who has done a 70-acre master plan. That's a different thing, right? You're bringing somebody in with deep pockets who could maybe work with a tenant who really wants to do something cool with those buildings but doesn't have the capital themselves, so you're bringing the big capital in. And then in return, they get all this other land to do the large swaths of... you know, economically feasible townhomes. So that's a lot I'm throwing at you, but just some of the thoughts that have come up through that feasibility study.

Right, right.

It just seems like a project like this is, there's a lot of, you know, thought and planning and studies that go into it. And I've seen these before, and then nothing happens. And then 10 years go by, and they do a different study, and nothing happens. So from where I sit, it really is about providing flexibility in what you're doing and not let ourselves get in our own way, not let our own zoning laws get in our way. We have the ability to revise them. I'm not sure where the requirement of the sale of land that the utilities need to be in place. I don't know where that comes from. But if that's self-imposed, it's not No, that's OK. I mean, it's the concept I'm trying to get across. I appreciate you providing all this detail. I'm probably asking questions outside of my purview. But I like to see things like this move forward, and I don't like to see us trip over ourselves along the way. So I'm looking for providing flexibility in the RFQ. Sometimes you can make it a menu of options, like we'd really like to have the big whites be renovated and reused, but make that as a menu item. This costs this much money. And so what is the trade-off behind doing that? Does this mean by doing that, does it end up being a deal killer for us?

Would you mind if I respond, Chair?

I appreciate it.

Thank you.

Yes. Yes and yes and yes, we agree. I think in particular, that's why we came to you asking, what we're hoping to put together before the RFQ is a menu in the RFQ and a statement of the city's, because we don't necessarily believe the city's current policies and zoning regulations that are on the books are precisely what the city wants to see. It has been almost 10 years since the plan was adopted. And so that's why we're kind of looking to put a statement from the city that is a statement from this body, a statement from the planning board, a statement from council that really articulates, if a developer, if you were to come in and pick from this menu, and you wanted to do some alterations to the historic district, here's what we would expect to see from you to justify that. So that's kind of the feedback we're looking for from this body. And this can be the first of a couple of conversations, if that's appropriate. But how would we go about articulating it to a developer that we might be willing to open the door to alterations if they are needed, but you have to tell us x and y and z kind of things. We would want information so we could take that seriously. So we really appreciate your comment because I think that's where our heads are at, too.

Other questions? I guess more of a discussion, but some questions.

Can you just elaborate on the how the consultants you're working with, what types of consultants you have on the team, and how they're helping you triage all this information and organize it and establish priorities and work through them.

So we have a number of consultants. We have a land use economics consultant, Kaiser Margin, who we worked with for years at Alameda Point and throughout the city to kind of help us look at the feasibility of deals and projects. We also have our civil engineering firm. They do civil engineering and surveying and utility work. And so they help us come up with cost estimates options for how to do utilities based upon our master infrastructure plan for Alameda Point. And they also have been doing a lot of work at Alameda Point, so they know the base. And they know what's possible. We also brought on an architect. and a contractor joint venture who kind of specializes in doing kind of property needs assessments and looking at just kind of like fit, test, and density. But then we also brought in a historic preservation consultant separately to kind of make sure that we were asking these consultants the right questions as it relates to the historical framework. and kind of informing that process. And so that's kind of the team that we use to kind of come up with these scenarios. And these people, these different companies, they do this kind of work all over the Bay Area, so they have expertise. They also have access to current and historical data around this type of work. And so they were really good to work with.

Great, thanks.

Let's see. I think most of my stuff is discussion.

OK. I do have some questions about the presentation. And this is a small one, but I think towards the beginning, I saw something that there's a $34,000 payment to the Navy. What is that?

Yeah, I'll let my boss tell you that one.

Is that per unit?

Yeah. So as part of the conveyance agreement with the Navy, originally back when the base closed, the intent was that the Navy was going maybe, let's skip forward a few years. You all know we had a couple of misguided adventures at the beginning of the process. But when we finally reached conveyance agreement with the Navy in the early 2000s, the goal was that the Navy would provide the city with the land for free such that the city could then recoup the economic loss from the 12,000 to 18,000 jobs that disappeared from the city. So it was really the focus for the first decade or so was on economic development with the thought that job creation is how we best do economic development. Now I think we all know we're in a housing crisis and that actually housing is maybe the best thing we can do for economic development. But at the time, that wasn't the thinking. And so the conveyance agreement actually states that for every market rate housing unit built above 2011 units, which was the anticipated build out of housing at the base, and we've actually built We've entitled almost that number of market rate units already in the first two phases. But for every unit exceeding that amount, which at the time the city didn't really think it was going to do, we would have to pay a fee. And the fee was set at $50,000 per unit. And with an escalation that at the time was based on the housing price index, and last year we renegotiated that that escalation would not be housing price index, but would be the CPI, which thankfully greatly reduced the number. We also built into the amendment with the Navy that if the developer agreed to pay it earlier, they could pay less, because the Navy hasn't seen a dime yet, right, and is well aware, and is under a lot of pressure to recoup the costs of its remediation expenses that it continues to bear at Alameda Point. So that's why it exists. It was not intended to be punitive. It was intended to, hey, initially the city was thinking it was going to subdivide and raise and build thousands of units out here. And so if you do do that, we want to make some money off of it. And so that was the original thinking. So we did renegotiate it. And I think Nicole and I are thinking that if a developer came in, and this is why we kind of want to bring a developer in earlier rather than later in this process, the developer themselves, if they have a concept they think can work, we are willing to facilitate a conversation with the Navy to re-renegotiate and maybe just give them a flat payment up front. I think the Navy is very open to discussing with us. And I think they are well aware that even at $34,000, that's probably already exceeding the value of the land. It's pretty close. Like when I worked at BART, we talked about land being worth between $20,000 and $50,000 a unit. Of course, you all know it depends on a lot of factors. $34,000 is probably pretty close to the value of the land. So we think it will probably have to be renegotiated. That's going to be part of the process.

And the target number, again, it was on one of the slides, I don't remember it, for this phase was in the hundreds, right? Of units? Yeah, how many units times $34,000 are we talking about? 600 units? Maybe 1,000 units?

Did you say a number, Nicole?

$30 million, you know?

Oh, 34,000 times 1,000. Yeah, whatever that is. Yes, so maybe if we could... That's a lot of dollars, right? But maybe the Navy would accept a lump sum payment because, you know, $34,000 times zero units is $0.

And these are dollars that the developer would pay, not the city per se.

Yeah, under the requirement, it's the city, but we would just pass that requirement through. Yeah.

Got it. Okay. I just wanted to make sure I had this math right, because that's obviously a big...

Yes.

...feed bump. So... I didn't see anything, and I'm sure it's baked into all this discussion, about the utility strain, especially East Bay mud and the water. I think you talked about utilities, but my recollection is water has been a big problem on the base, generally speaking. The availability of the volume of water needed just for what's there, let alone what might become there especially when thinking about fire sprinkler requirements in new development so i just asked that question generally like are you talking east bay mud i know the fire departments had problems with this you know just like how do we get the fire sprinklers to actually work out there

Well, it's really interesting that you talk about water capacity, because we do meet with East Bay Mud quarterly. We have not broached this particular development, but they're familiar with our plans. It hasn't come up in any of the conversations I've been in, but Nicole and I have only been here for two, two and a half years. Capacity has never been a topic.

A question mark.

So I think we will raise that with them through this process. It's a great question. The bigger challenge, and to Board Member Crotty's question about the selling, the requirement that we can't sell land comes from East Bay Mud. It is that East Bay Mud has a regulation that, because most of the base is still on, including this area, is on the Navy's water system. And East Bay Mud provides the water, but the city, The city actually maintains the Navy's water system. East Bay Bud will not take responsibility for the Navy era water system. So we actually have quite a robust budget for Chair Hernandez knows this, breaking water pipes, which happen all the time out at the base. We have a lot of risk that we are absorbing. So that's why the East Bay Mud's been very clear. You cannot sell any property until you have new water lines connecting that property. So that is much more of the conversation we have with East Bay Mud on a daily basis is about

The waterline capacity of the Navy system because of its age so we will ask the question about yeah public works, you know for sure, but So I was also curious. I didn't see anything Obviously, it's a it's in a different spot, but we're bumping up to radium theater area and I'm wondering if there's any conversations that you guys are having about this plan with that development project in general and I was also curious about what other public meetings you know I mean obviously this is a forum but there'll be many ways in which you're gonna be approaching the public around this so I was curious you know to know what those are you have to tell me now but you know sure that's you know in the works and that phase two that we're in now like I If the idea is in 2027, it's like, hey, developers, here's the menu. What do you want to do? How long is this phase? How long do we have to really tease all this out before you're going to start going to the dog and pony show?

Yeah, so the Radium Theater project is down next to the Side A development, so it's a fair distance from this one. We haven't really had any conversations with them about this. Not related.

Yeah. Because I know there was some road traffic stuff that they were talking about, like, well, is the road going to be this way or that way?

Yeah, that is sort of been a separate issue. That said, the Radium folks are... engaged in Alameda Point in general. So we talk to them in general, but we've not said, hey, specifically for this, what are your worries? They will come, I'm sure, undoubtedly, to any community engagement we do. To your second question, which is we're still trying to work it out, what appropriate levels of community engagement are at this point.

we will wholeheartedly expect the developer to lead a community in any ena we enter into will include a robust community engagement scope we can once we're in that yeah when we're in that stage but for phase two like can we target like oh in the next six months we'd love to be done enough that we can go shopping for developers or the next nine months or whatever it is

Yeah, I think this summer we definitely intend to do some level of community engagement. And in particular, we know that the folks who actually live in the neighborhood are feeling quite vulnerable right now, as they should. So we definitely, they are a specific audience of ours. We will be talking to them separately. But Nicole and I are still working out our engagement. We welcome your recommendations. The goal, and I think the other challenge is since we're not planning a project, but we're planning to plan a project, kind of establishing expectations, that what we are creating is a statement, again, that is in the RFQ that sort of says, these are the wiggle room points where we think our policy documents really aren't aligned with us. And so we're hoping to bring that document. We're envisioning like a two-page statement, like something really tight, that um we would draft and we would vet with the community in some kind of public forum before going to city council right we may also after we have that draft come back to this board yeah right that's executive summary statement of intent kind of kind of thing well that sounds great and

Again, to Member Crotty's point, it's like we don't want to trip over ourselves, and we don't want to overcomplicate it, have it shrivel up by paper cuts. Keeping it simple, I think, is a good way to approach it. I was also curious with the sea level rise issues. Obviously, that's a big problem. thing to engage with the city has its its own department essentially you know resiliency and tackling that I don't know if we're talking to them co-join to this effort you know kind of like what's on the big picture plan for Alameda

I'll start off and then I'll turn it over to my director. So this process that we've gone through as a project manager, I make sure I have interdepartmental conversations. If it's PARC, if it's, you know, the resiliency team, just to make sure that we're getting the proper feedback. And so they're definitely involved. They have been involved with this process. Okay, great.

Yeah, that was just a...

Okay.

Yeah, our sustainability and resilience manager is very attuned to this. And when ex-city manager Ott was here, we elevated this to her before we did the walking tour. And moving forward with design and then capital funding for, in particular, the seawall just on the estuary and the soil stabilization, which is an equally critical and scary issue, um was is a high priority for the city as a whole not just bread and we are seeking we're really hoping we can get some federal funding and we are actively pursuing grants to get funding for 100 design of the seawall in this area um so we can so that then we can pursue the grants for capital funding for it so yeah it's definitely taking a front burner and maybe this isn't your department but i'm curious are we generally speaking talking with port of oakland and you know like

the ferry traffic that goes through, the Port of Oakland traffic, all that's impactful, and they're in the same boat that we are, and it seems like there's some larger economies of scale like, oh, we built our seawall, now you guys are gonna build yours, right? You know what I mean? It's a shared problem, so maybe there's some collaborative opportunity there.

I think there is some of that collaboration. For example, director Thorne Lyman, I apologize, talked about getting grants. And there is a grant that we got from the Army Corps where the city of Alameda is getting a portion of it, and then the city of Oakland slash port of Oakland is getting the other half. And so there are opportunities for us to kind of collaborate on joint solutions that impact both cities.

OK, cool. Thank you. I guess more a question on the big way specifically. If the idea might be to, whether it's subdivide or densify those lots, it seems like one of the things that we would probably hear a lot about from the preservation community and probably amongst ourselves would be, that uniformity, the consistency of that as a place, part of it is like, well, not all the houses are the same, but there's a consistency to it. If we were going to do something to add additional stock there, wouldn't we want to echo or pay reference to that kind of uniformity or because it's not uniformity, but like consistency of, yeah, so that we're still maintaining that kind of feeling to the neighborhood without like, oh, we've added, you know, four different kinds of buildings in here and now it's all chock-a-block, you know, quilted versus like, oh no, there's a thing going on.

Absolutely, I think that's our plan. Again, I'll defer to Secretary Buckley. But as he mentioned about there are certain elements, not only in the Beehive, but like with the chapel. He educated me recently about when we had the food bank, we do their building, that there were certain elements that we ask them to repeat. And so that definitely would be something we would want to do.

Part of the conversation, yeah. Yeah. I know there was a slide that talked about the landscaping elements.

Could you elaborate more on what? That probably, the slide you were actually on was probably...

This one? Yeah. Oh. All right, we're looking for the... I think you were just... Oh, yeah, it must be that one. I don't know.

Yeah, that one, okay. And I might have to have Secretary Buckley kind of help me. Oh, and there is a pointer on here, right? A pointer? Okay, sorry. Okay.

Oh, nope, it's not working.

Secretary Buckley, is there a way that you can kind of show us? So the green area between where the beehive is, like, that would be one of the areas that has, like, the historic landscaping there. Thank you.

Right. Yeah. green way that leads to the admiral's house. So it's kind of like an oversized yard with some trees and yeah.

Got it. Got it. Yeah, I can't picture it in my mind.

There's also a map that shows which trees contribute to the historic district. So in fact, it goes all the way down to there's literal trees. Yes, there are trees.

Great. Good to know. One last question, and sorry I'm peppering you with all these things. Building 17, you mentioned obviously it's AUSDs, but there have been challenges both in securing the building and obviously in maintaining the building. Should or can there be pressure put on AUSD to give up the building if they are not capable of stewarding it correctly?

Yes, building 17 has been an adventure for my department for the last year. This building, as you can see in the photo, this is the board up process that cost the city over $200,000. The city negotiated an agreement with AUSD to front the money, and AUSD is paying us back over a period of several years. as that is not money that the school district had. In addition, in the land exchange that resulted in AOSD owning the property, the city had agreed to conduct exterior property management work for a period of 10 years. That period expired last year. And beginning this year, AOSD now pays the city a monthly fee, or excuse me, Yes. The school district pays the city a monthly fee to do that property management. This building, I will tell you, when we boarded it up, it was a concerted effort with police and Housing and Human Services. We removed 17 individuals from the building. They were so comfortable in the building that they were ordering DoorDash to the building. It was a really rough and difficult process. And then we had to quickly board up the entire building. And it's a maze in there. It's room after room, little compartments. So making sure we didn't leave anybody in the building and board it up. was a challenge. And people are still climbing up to the second floor and breaking in from the second floor. It's a constant vigilance. Yes, I think we have made our position known to AUSD that we're not willing to endure this for much longer and that we want them to do something about it. We are still an early, Nicole, the city, the city manager's office have broached the subject of the exchange or whatever form it's going to take. We have broached that subject with the school district. They understand we're having this conversation tonight. And so far, they're open-minded about it. I think they understand, they feel as much as we do, the maintenance challenges that these two properties pose. So I think we all are in agreement that something must be done. So we hope that this development proposal, it's to the school board's decision, but we hope they will strongly consider throwing in with us.

Yeah, and I bring this up because we've had the unpleasant task of granting approvals for demolitions of buildings that should not have come to that. So we would not collectively, I can say as a group, you know, hear about building 17 needing to be demolished, you know, because of a fire that got started because it wasn't, you know, how the story goes. So if there is anything this body can do to help emphasize the point that if AUSD cannot maintain this building, they should no longer have this building as a liability as a taxpayer in Alameda with kids at AUSD, I don't need to hear they're wasting money trying to maintain a building that's outside of their capacity to do so when we could reclaim that building, simplify the process in any interaction with the developer. It's like, oh, there's a third party that's going to sit down with us and separately negotiate that just creates a lot of undesirable aspects. I think there are things we may want to consider that I believe are part of our charge in regards to being able to say, hey, we're charged with stewarding historical resources in this city and in this district, and if that's not happening, You know, what can we do to press the point to planning or press the point to the council so that something gets done. So please call on us if that could happen.

think those are my those are my questions thank you very much any other questions I do have one sort of comment question is it have you reached out to the marketplace at all you know to developers to sort of get their initial feedback and okay so that is happening

I have. Part of the due diligence process was kind of informal conversations and tours with experienced developers to have them look at the study area. And let me back up. Director Thorn Lyman mentioned how people have expressed interest in building 17, like independent of this study. And then they go in there. And these are experienced people. And they look around. And they're like, whew. And in part because of the massive size and the layout and the historic aspect of the building. I just wanted to really quickly.

Can you just circle the building 17?

The picture we showed you was just one side of building 17. But that, I call it the barbell building. That's the entire property. And the layout is huge. is a challenge for certain developers. But back to your question, yes, part of the feasibility analysis for Main Street Neighborhood North, we did walk some developers through and got their high-level informal feedback.

I appreciate that, and I think that's really important to get feedback from the market before you put out an RFQ. I've seen sometimes where they'll put out a request for interest, and then that way you could start getting more feedback from folks and get a general feel for how the market's going. so thank you for that answer I have just one final thought and then I'll be done but I see some urgency to this you know the longer we wait for these facilities all they do they're not going to get better it's only going to get more expensive so if there is the ability for us to move with urgency on fate on these things if there is a way for us to understand trade-offs and priorities I encourage us to move expeditiously because it's just going to get harder

Thank you. I just wanted to, before we conclude, just going back to the closing question, just wanted to know if any of the board members have any other questions or specific comments about this statement as it relates to the individual resources.

I just have one kind of a general question that I think applies to the base in general. On the slide about building 17, it mentioned historic status being challenging to developers. rehabilitation costs, not penciling out. Can you provide us with any feedback from then, what aspects of that status, whether it's having to follow certain rules or not having certain expertise for the cost of gaining that? Can you elaborate on that?

I'll share what I've heard developers say, the two developers I spoke to, and I'll defer to Director Thorne-Lyman. Just the sure historic status of the building and being big swaths of, let's see. Let me see if I can find the picture. just like the inefficient layout and just the inability to demo or modify the structure to provide more density because of the layout is one of the concerns. And then just really finding a use that would not require them to break up the building, because it's big, right? And so for example, Director Thorn-Lyman mentioned, could it be assisted living, or could it be student housing, or something like that? Could it, but would it work with the layout of the building? you would be requiring to put a lot of money into the property and just being able to develop the H, right? And so that's kind of the two things I've heard two developers mention.

Thanks.

Discussion? Thank you.

Thank you so much for your time.

Thank you.

So yeah, if you could leave up the list of, there it is. That's the one, the discussion list. Gentlemen, discussion? Thoughts on any of these bullet points or other encompassing dilemmas?

I can start. I think that the big challenge with Alameda Point is that it's a former base, but essentially it is, it's almost like having a small town in a city. And when you're looking at the significance that you're trying to protect, there's all sorts of building types, there's infrastructure, of course, and getting all that to feasibly work out is, it's a huge challenge. Goes without saying, I think. Personally, I think that adaptive reuse doesn't have to mean pristine preservation. And rehabilitation as an approach is also one that allows for somewhat creative solutions to keeping a building active or reactivating a building. With each of these buildings at the base, there's no building that is individually significant or listed on the National Register. They each contribute. So typically with contributors, you have a little bit more flexibility in what you can do in altering them to achieve a successful project. So I would encourage... developers and their consultants that they're working with to not only think outside the box, but just be creative. Kind of shoot for the stars, if you will. A lot of these buildings are, they seem fairly robust, but they're also fairly restrained in their detail. They were built during wartime, so they're kind of, you know, They're not ornate, so to speak. There's not many of them that are. But I think there is room for flexibility there. And then I think that it really is important to consider how do developers become owners of these buildings? And does that open up potential for things like federal and state tax credits to help projects Pencil. Building 8 is a great example of a tax credit project. And that was also a project where a huge warehouse was two cores were kind of carved out of the center of that to make courts from what was otherwise just a warehouse. Now it's living and it's mixed use. So I would continue to push for those kind of really creative approaches, even if they seem like they might break the rules a little bit. I think that's essential out there. When it comes to the Big Whites neighborhood, We did mention that there's the Beehive Street Plan, that's character defining, and then each of those buildings kind of relates to the other. There might be a couple different models, so to speak, almost like a suburban subdivision. I would think that some sort of uniform approach or program out there to rehabilitation might help streamline that process. On the other hand, I was thinking on the walk over here, what's the turnover rate there for those rentals? And is it a case where, I forget how many there are out there, just call it 15. Is it one year one of the rentals gets rehabilitated? I've seen that happen a lot with fourplexes, and it happens all the time. So I think it could take different approaches to dealing with different building types. And then when it comes to the theater and the officers club, I would try to really think about which of those buildings is kind of the highest priority to have be adapted When I was at the Officers Club last year, I mean, it was still functioning. I think it's fairly active. Whereas the chapel, the theater, those are all types of buildings that really define what a total base is. And I think play a pretty important, or they have a relatively important contribution to the overall makeup of the historic district. And personally, I would rather see more density on the periphery of the big whites, rather than trying to fit in something there that might compete with that character. Plus, the ferry terminal is literally across the street, so why not have that density concentrated towards transit? I think that makes sense. Yeah.

Thanks, Josh.

Other discussion? The property that's owned by AUSD, I'm not sure I understand the history, or I don't know the history, how they came to own it. Is there any historical significance there, or is it just they are the property owners and they...

I don't know all the history either. It was part of a complicated multi-property land exchange involving property outside of the base as well. And the intent and interest of the school district at the time was it was thought they might need another school. They might need additional facilities. I think subsequently, currently, the thinking is that is not the case. But I think that was kind of at the time. So there's no historic significance to those properties other than thinking about the growth potential of Alameda Point.

Okay. That makes sense. Well, yeah, and I'm sorry, to your point of that it is kind of a city within a city and having the – so it would kind of make sense that they would want to carve out a little footprint for, hey, we might need a school here if this really does get fully developed into kind of an almost Alameda – 2.0 sort of little area there. I liked your idea of saying, hey, you guys own this, but you are on the hook for maintaining these historic buildings, and we are charged with maintaining them. I know that the Officers Club, I've been to an event there the past couple of years, and it's still decent. It's been a few years since I've been to the theater. The kids did theater there. So if those, rehabilitating those, but maybe keeping those as they are use-wise, I think is important. But certainly, yeah, with building 17, that's a behemoth that could have, like you're saying, could have a couple different things going on with so much space there. Yeah, and I'll say...

Sometimes adaptive reuse does involve demolition. So just for example, that building has a dumbbell-shaped footprint with a couple of different appendages. Sometimes you can't keep the whole thing, but you can keep the parts that really communicate what it was. That will depend on certain buildings. Again, as contributors, there's flexibility.

You're saying maybe you still keep Building 17, but maybe cut some of its legs off and make it a more manageable size?

Or I think when I was looking at that footprint, there was kind of a dog tail wing on the back of it. Just thinking of sometimes buildings, they have these odd appendages that maybe they have. I don't know if it was added or whatever. But careful study and adaption.

OK. Yeah.

Looking over what you've presented, this is just a huge, audacious plan we have here. I mean, it's huge. And it's really important, I think, to Alameda as a whole. And we're getting into a little detail side of things, which is, of course, really important as well. The devil is in the details. But I would, because this is such an audacious plan, I wouldn't let little details stand in the way of the big vision that we're talking about here. Because again, I think just getting this vision to happen, if you can get it to happen, oh my god, that's insane, right? So that's sort of my take, is I want to look at it from being a member, a community member in Alameda. And I think it would be to Alameda's benefit if we could get this thing and actually have it happen. And so with that, when I was talking about flexibility, that's what I'm talking about. Because frankly, I think this is going to be extraordinarily hard to get it to happen. So we have to put our priorities in place and make sure that we don't let the tail wag the dog.

Can I add something? I do want to add something to that. I mean, we all know with developers, what they really want is clarity and certainty. And we do have a lot of great plans and guidelines and documents over 10 plus years. And that's why this priority setting process is critically important to kind of get developers to know what, of all the things that we said we wanted to do in this property over the years, what are our priorities. And then also selfishly, if I can speak on behalf of Director Thorne-Lyman and me, setting these priorities allows us to make sure we put it in the RFQ document and then we will require the right qualifications of a developer based upon what our priorities are so that we can know what we're trying to do to maintain or fulfill that vision and how to even evaluate and then hold the developer to it by providing those priorities and that clarity.

Yeah, exactly. And a lot of these things, cities, counties, agencies come with the best intentions, and they have their big eyes, and then no one in the marketplace goes for it, and it dies. So I don't want to see that happen.

Thank you.

Can we go back to the bulleted list?

Yes, I'll turn right now. There it is.

I mean, I'll jump in with a little discussion as well. Like, I definitely, it resonates the idea that this area is a small town within another town. And the idea that it is self-referential, you know, consistent to itself. whether it's trying to preserve all the elements that are there or through adaptive reuse, add new facets to it or new layers to it, remove some of it, as long as what we're seeing is a package and it is maintaining its self-referentialness. That's kind of the point I was making about don't chock-a-block the development of the great whites. So it's just, I don't want to see that. I want to see consistency and uniformity. And I'm somewhere. Yeah, I'm in Alameda, but I'm not really in Alameda. I'm on the Navy base, and this is for sure its own thing. So I think that would be an attractive message for any developer to hear. It's like, we're looking for the whole thing. We're looking for a package. We want uniformity and consistency. and elements like the officer's club, or the chapel, or the theater, or do something crazy with the admiral's house. And if we, and I think we're all kind of saying it, we're all hearing it, is like if we need to be creative and stretch as a city or as a decision-making body, we are all behind you, because we want to see it done. And our overwhelming message is like, get it done. Don't bleed us out by paper cuts. And there'll be a ton of details, but at least as far as this body, what I'm hearing amongst us is like, Get us something quick so we can look at it and give you some opinions. But I'm seeing us all as reasonable people and understanding the complexity of the development far outweighs any pocketbook I know about. So if you could find somebody, good job. Get them in here and let's see how we can all help get it done I'm I'm not gonna be dying on any hill of like you can't touch the great whites or know the bungalows must go or stay or you know we're we all recognize it's dying as it is and so whatever whatever resources we can bring in that will help us keep at least elements of it by all means. That's kind of my take on it.

I think that I like seeing that there was analysis done regarding the bungalows among the housing types, saying the overall returns were better with pretension versus removal. I think one of the things that we all deal with as development happens is change, which can be really jarring. The idea of limiting displacement as much as possible and navigating that challenge is really critical. And coming from a renter. But I also think that whatever changes are proposed, think of how that proposal could impact the overall integrity of the of the district and my understanding is that if enough change happens to the district then eligibility starts to come into question which I don't think that's imminent but in the long run that you have to think about that. And that eligibility ties into things like tax credits that help these projects. So thinking about those different areas that contribute to overall character is important. And I think as much as possible, we should prioritize working with what we have and adding what makes sense to the best extent possible.

Yeah. And, you know, whether it's Mills Act, tax credit, you know, easy fact that you're going to put together for the developer to say, like, hey, you're going to get access to these things if you play, you know, ball with, you know, preserving these resources because... or there's other kinds of incentives the city wants to create as part of that. I think all that's super important.

And I actually think this is a good example of a kind of scenario that something like a subcommittee that meets biannually or something like that could be helpful for. The Urban Land Institute has programs called TAP, the Technical Assistance Panel. And every time I go out there, I think, man, San Francisco's right there. There's always a conference there. Wouldn't that conference love to come see Alameda Point? or potentially stay there, if there is a hotel there someday. So I think it's good to have these different entities in conversation. I'll be the first person to volunteer to give a free architectural tour, if anybody wants one out there. That kind of spirit of inviting people, welcoming people there, and saying, hey, there's a lot of potential here. We need your help getting there is really important.

The bullet point about demolition of selected bungalow structures, was that in the interest of that's where more of the infill would happen, or?

As we mentioned, our analysis says that keeping the bungalows in place is kind of financially feasible. However, we may bring a developer on who has more information, has a different concept, and potentially have some other idea that would require either the demolition of the bungalows. And so going back to the keeping flexibility, that's why we kind of still want to have your thoughts around that. that would have come about.

To add to what Ms. Franklin said, we face this dilemma with this project because of our strong commitment to affordable housing and because of our commitment to pay the Navy a fee, in that the more units we add, the more requirements we're adding. And it actually works against adding density. Because if you're paying $34,000 a unit and you're building 40 units per acre instead of 25, you're paying that much more. And so when we mentioned that bullet about the bungalows, we are contemplating that any future townhomes would be more dense than the bungalows currently are. And therefore, feasibility is actually lessened by removing them because you're adding more density and thus more per unit fee. But I will mention the reason that we started contemplating that some of the bungalows might need to be demolished is because our biggest kind of critical mass of townhomes we think we could get would be along the Orion Street spine, which is just to the east of that area. And if we could, the bigger we can get the first critical mass of town homes to be, the better, the more likely it is we can build the infrastructure that we need to in order to deliver those. So that's why we've been kind of looking at the math of like, let's get to the minimum number of town homes we need to give a new street, right? And removing some of the bungalows, if you can set the, let's just set the Navy unit fee aside, If you remove some of the bungalows, you get more townhomes. And then maybe that works a little bit better. So that's sort of very complicated. I've been calling it the density conundrum. The density conundrum, it rolls off the tongue out here. We think a developer could renegotiate that fee, and it would fix it. But that's kind of why we put the concept of demolishing some of the bungalows on the table.

Can the bungalows be moved? Have you considered moving them?

We have not.

House moving is a thing. It happens all the time. It used to happen more often, but they could be rearranged.

Interesting. What's interesting about historic integrity is that a property can still retain eligibility. It's one of the criteria considerations for the National Register. When you relocate a property, it has to be relocated to a site that is generally in the same setting that it was in. So having that kind of double loaded street with the bungalows, that's important. But yeah, that's a good, hey, big ideas, right?

And I agree. I think it's great to have ideas and center it around the flexibility and the menu. So Director Thorn Lyman rightly said, we have this fee. And then right now, the townhome pencil. But I'm just encouraging us to kind of look at the questions and say, we know what the constraints are today. But if something were to change, creating or maintaining that flexibility and our priority setting, I just think, it's probably going to suit us to meet the goals that you mentioned about kind of moving this project along.

And I meant to ask this early on, and I don't need an actual number answer, but I'm curious how impactful this project could be to our RHNA numbers, you know, writ large as a percentage. I'm also curious to know, since RHNA is forced on us, if there might be some recompense that we can seek from the state in regards to well you're forcing us to build these things where we are going to incur these fees therefore how can we play a game with the state on this i mean rob bontel is here you can knock on his door and maybe ask him some questions i have no idea what kind of legal feasibility it is but obviously we're forced into developing in a very constrained environment and that has implications for us and something that maybe we can use as part of a negotiation with the state.

I can answer just a portion of that and now defer to my director. I do know, so the Main Street neighborhood north area is not counted in our current RENA numbers for this current cycle. And so whatever we build in this area would go towards the next in terms of policy implications.

Seven years from now or whenever the next.

I'm just going to add an opinion that, yes, nobody helps closed bases the way they should help closed bases anymore. And I think we have a lot of policy leg to stand on to kind of try to make a plea to the state and to the federal government that this is really challenging. I mean, this is the most challenging thing that we have ever discussed doing. So yes, please help us. So we are definitely, we will be following that legislative priority.

Yeah, and on the ADU front, Does an ADU count as a unit that the Navy would charge the $34,000 for? And if not, shouldn't we be building a lot of ADUs? Because in just state law, we can have dozens of ADUs per big white, kind of, depending on how you slice and dice it all.

That's new territory. Yeah. We've not thought about that, nor does the agreement contemplate anything.

So why not? Any other discussion? I don't know. This has been really interesting. Bravo for taking this one by the horns.

Would you mind, Chair, if I try to just recap some of the thoughts as we are trying to boil this down into some kind of two-page statement with planning board and council feedback, too? Strong support for development, openness to creative ideas, and flexibility with what comes forward. But if there are proposed alterations to the historic district, we want to see a holistic vision for what those alterations are and how they reinforce the contributing elements of the historic district and work with those elements rather than against them. The integrity of the district as a whole is key. And I think Board Member Bevin, in particular, I think hearing about when have we compromised the district and sort of thinking about that a little bit, because that's something I don't really understand super well. Explore improvements that will leverage historic tax credit potential. Mills Act, which is something I will have to ask the new city manager about, given our fiscal situation. Explore the relocation of homes. And consider inviting people in. There was some process feedback around inviting folks in to see the potential, putting things out into the market a little bit, and possibly a HAB subcommittee coming out of this in some way. Anything that I missed? I know you said a lot of other things about East Bay Med and other thoughts.

We're just trying to be helpful.

I think that just the general sentiment of support for development coming from this body is a huge endorsement that I think any developer should look at as reassurance.

We eagerly await a proposal. Thank you.

All right. Next on your agenda, you have board communications.

Oh, yes. Board communications, I think there are some. Josh, you wanted to... Sure.

Where was I? Sorry, I'm having a... Where was I? Oh, a few weeks ago, I attended the Alameda Naval Air Museum's open house. Bravo to them. They managed to get the building permitted for occupancy for a really nice gathering of former veterans, former Alameda mayor. And it was great to see everybody to gather there, have lunch, talk about the history of how that museum was founded. And it really resonated to me, again, as a place that's important at Alameda Point. I've called it the heart and soul. But to me, that's the epicenter of that the last generation of people who work there, who serve the country from that base. So I'm looking forward to staying in touch with them. And I'd love to see them gain more momentum for support. I think they have a GoFundMe set up, if you're interested in that. And then the other thing I wanted to mention was I wanted to acknowledge the recent passing of Christopher Buckley, who was a former HAB member and a planner in Oakland for three decades before he retired and still contributed immensely to preservation and planning in Alameda and Oakland. I know a lot of us met him through this board. And of course, AAPS knows him very well. So I wanted to acknowledge all of his contributions to preservation in Alameda and also its natural environments and just say thank you, Mr. Buckley.

Thank you, Mr. Buckley. Thank you. Any other board communications? Staff communications. Staff communications.

I don't think I really have anything for you tonight.

Then by all means, let's adjourn. Excellent.