Final Passage of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Deleting Section 30-4.17C “G Special Government Combining District,” and Amending the Zoning Map to Ensure Consistency Between the City of Alameda Municipal Code, Zoning Map and the Naval Air Station (NAS) Alameda Community Reuse Plan for the North Housing Property Located on Singleton Avenue on the Former Naval Air Station in Alameda in Order to Convey the Property to CP VI Admirals Cove, LLC, Habitat for Humanity, and the Alameda Housing Authority. [The Proposed Zoning Amendments, which Remove the 435-Unit Housing Limit, Would Not Result in Any New Environmental Impacts or More Severe Environmental Impacts Than Those Previously Identified with the Adoption of the Community Reuse Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) 2009 Addendum, and the Housing Element 2012 EIR Addendum].  (Community Development 209)
in order to convey the property to c, p b i Admiral's Cove, LLC, Habitat for Humanity and the Alameda Housing Authority. We do have space. Thank you. So, Kelso, I'm going to go ahead and call the speakers. Austin Tam, Dorothy Freeman and then Joseph Witter. Oh. Good evening, members of City Council. You know who I am? My name is Austin. Tim. I voted for some of you in in in the past. I am speaking on behalf of the p. The for seniors and disabilities committee. And as as a registered voter and as someone who lives with a disability, I am a I stand and I stand in full support of north housing, especially because seniors and disabilities, among many other people, need a roof over their head and affordable housing. And this is one way you can this is one way you can advocate if you support seniors and people with disabilities as well as everyone belongs. As as as as two of you were present yesterday for the MLK event. I think we should just not walk the talk. Walk the walk, the talk, the talk. And. Thank you for your time. And I again, I stand in support of north housing. And I am. I hope that you do the right thing. Thank you. Thank you. Dorothy Freeman. And then Joseph Whitaker. Good evening. I'm Dorothy Freeman. The planning board and staff recommended against removing the. 435 unit cap on north housing. Those who say it was illegal to do so are incorrect. A group of units can be removed from the housing element as long as the unit numbers and acreage can be assigned to another parcel of land. That was not. Part of the 2012 housing element. Side promoted provided such units and acreage. There was nothing illegal about imposing the cap. Some of the council members. Stated the cap needed to be removed because of the housing crisis. Removing the cap actually makes the housing problem worse and not better. Presently, the offer to rehab 146 units into a much needed three and four bedroom units that would be available within approximately one year will do more to help the housing crisis than waiting 3 to 7 years. On another. Construction project. Not a very. Smart choice, a council member. Said, and I quote, I don't want by voting. For the cap to put roadblocks in front of someone that's. Coming in who's willing to rehab and have housing in a year. End quote. How can retaining the cap put a roadblock in front of Carmel's plans to retain the 146 units? It doesn't, but removing the cap can. Carmel Properties bought the federal property, assuming the combined. Developments would be 435 units. And that property is not and that company is not interested. In removing the cap. Carmel has. Agreed to install infrastructure for only 435. Units. Carmel has already. Stated that the city mandated. Infrastructure. Cost has placed a financial burden on them. But not to the point of making. Them pull out of the deal. Why would they reconsider then sense you have increased the value of their acreage well well. Beyond what. They paid the feds for it. Removing the cap can. Definitely put a roadblock. In Carmel's plans by offering them a windfall that will be hard for the board to ignore. The land will be more. Profitable to sell than to rehab the existing units for. Rental. The Housing Authority. Has nine acres for development at 15 acres per unit per acre. Their land has their plan has been to build 90 low income houses without the cap and allowing market rate. Homes at 30 units per acre and. 20% low and moderate. Unit density bonus. The number of low income. Units would actually be. Lower than the nine plan. Today, plus several years of delay. Staff recommended retaining the cap and holding the unit numbers above 435. To use when. The next. Housing element is issued in 2022. A smart. Plan for banking. For the future. By removing the. Cap now, you have removed the possibility. For negotiating a better plan in the future. When you have, what you have now is uncertainty. For all involved. The desire for possible high density market rate housing will take years to bring to fruition and has possibly put roadblocks in front of Carmel's willingness to rehab the 146 houses, housing units and all the. 90 low income units. Thank you. Thank you. Joseph Woodard. And then Katie. Derek. And Tony Grim. Good evening. Paul Foreman, a member of the Alameda Citizens Task Force, has written you a letter, and he has also written a summary of that letter, which I'm going to read. At the City Council meeting of January 2nd, 2018, the three city council, three city council members who voted against retaining the cap on north housing and all of the community speakers who supported the same raised the point that we have a critical need for affordable housing. A.C.T. fully supports the need for this housing, but submits that the retention of the CAP would actually increase the chances of developing additional affordable housing. Our reasoning for this conclusion follows our inclusionary housing ordinance, when combined with the density bonus law, gives the city only 12 and a half percent of affordable housing, leaving 87 and a half percent to be eaten up by market rate housing. Thus, we would need to construct nearly 8000 new living units to meet our current housing element goal of 975 affordable units. This is a goal we will never come close to meeting in our current housing element. The new anti NIMBY laws preclude any negotiation for a higher percentage of affordable housing than required by our inclusionary housing ordinance . The suggested north housing cap of 15 units per acre by setting a very restrictive objective density standard, creates negotiating room for the planning department to push developers to offer a much higher inclusionary rate in order to achieve a waiver of the cap, perhaps as high as the 25% rate applicable to the adjacent Alameda point parcels. While North Housing is only 130 acre plot, it would have the potential to significantly increase the affordable housing potential of the same. In summary, notwithstanding all of the Council's stated concern about the critical need for affordable housing, the current path will leave us consistently far short of our affordable housing goals while crowding out affordable housing. With market rate housing, there are no easy solutions, but the North Housing cap presents a strategy that may at least make a dent in the problem. Okay. Next speaker, Katie Derek and then Tony Graham. And then there's Varella. Good evening. My name is Katie Derek. I'm the. Development manager at Operation. Dignity. I'm here to thank the Council for its support of affordable housing development at the North Housing site under item five. Kay. This housing stock is urgently. Needed in Alameda. For more than a. Year now, Operation Dignity has partnered. With the city to provide. Street outreach to people who are homeless. In this outreach program, we currently work with more than 60 individuals in Alameda who are without shelter. Many of them are long term Alameda residents. Who can no longer afford. Housing here in their community. As the housing crisis in the Bay Area continues, it is. More important than ever for local jurisdictions to build affordable. Housing now so that Alameda and all its residents can continue. To thrive in the years to come. So thank. You for your attention and your leadership in making affordable housing. A reality for all. Alamitos. Thank you, Tony Graham. And then this really. And then Irene Deeter and then Doug that I am. I'm speaking on behalf of the Alameda Renters Coalition Steering Committee. We endorse the position taken by renewed hope at the last meeting. Namely that the 435 unit cap. On this proposal is against the city's housing element. We urge you to. Support this proposal as an important step toward alleviating the housing crisis. A vote against the cap is a vote. Against affordable housing. Liz Rella and then Irene Dieter. For the. Yeah. Mm hmm. Hi, I'm Lazaro. I'm executive director of Building a Future for Women and Children. And I'm here to thank you for removing the CAP last meeting and supporting affordable housing. We are one of the partners with the Housing. Authority and this. Project will not only alleviate. Much of the house of a do our part in alleviating the homeless crisis. We can only do what we can do. We can't fix the state of California and the affordable housing crisis, but we can we can go one parcel at a time and make a difference. And this is our chance to make a difference. Thank you. Thank you, Irene. And then Doug Biggs and then Gabby. And if you want to speak on slide and please submit your set. Hello, Mayor and council members. I'm Irene Dieter, and I'm a member of the Open Government Commission. I'm here tonight to talk about the public notice that was in our newspapers. It was incorrect, and I think it should be corrected. I realize that the purpose of the notice was letting people. Know about the final passage tonight. And that the. Zoning ordinance change removes the cap. However, the notice went on further to say that Carmel Partners requested that the cap be removed. That is not true. Carmel Partners. Did not. They made that clear at the last meeting and so did city staff. So I'm not sure why that was in the public notice. I'm not sure how to remedy the situation. The only thing I can think. Of is, is to republish it. But I don't. Think that any of you would want a historical record that is incorrect. So I decided to bring this up tonight. Thank you. Thank you. Doug Briggs and then Gabby Dolphin. Good evening, Madam Mayor. Members of the City Council. My name is Doug Briggs and the executive director of the Alameda Point Collaborative and one of the partners along with the Alameda Housing Authority, to create 90 critically needed units of housing, or at least 90 critically needed units of housing for homeless here in Alameda. I want to thank you for the initial passage of the ordinance to remove the government overlay for the North housing property. I also want to make clear, I know there's been a lot of interpretations of this particular from speakers earlier. In the evening. You were not and you are not tonight talking about retaining a cap. There is no cap in existence once the true overlay went off. Some of you on the council I know have indicated an interest in imposing a new cap on affordable housing. I'd ask that you not do that. Not having a cap on, you know, releases the shackles on us that would prevent us from designing both a financially effective project and a strong community project. I had the opportunity to spend the afternoon here in the council chambers with a number of members from a variety of congregations, the faith community here in Alameda to talk about ways to help end homelessness in our city. Overall among every single congregation representative here. I know some of them are representing churches that some of you go to talk about the moral obligation that they have to treat the homeless like their brethren and provide housing for them. And so I would ask you tonight to do the morally right thing. And when you vote to approve the second reading of this ordinance, you make it a unanimous vote in favor. Thank you very much. Thank you. And our last speaker on this item, Gabby Dolphin. Hi, Madam Mayor. City Council. Good to see you guys again. Hope you're all well. Happy New Year. I too. I want to thank you so much. I know how much work this whole housing issue is for you guys. And you really you really pulled it a long, long ways. And to me, it's just a sense of sometimes you just have that jump and last meeting. It's like you made that commitment. I do hope you stick to it. I attended that same meeting that Doug Biggs just referred to, and it's nice to know that Alameda is discussing having what amounts to like a oh, just like a little drop off point to catch the human beings who are being pushed out of our system. It's called a warming station. I don't know if you've heard about this, but there's talk about creating one here in Alameda on the coldest, wettest nights. Alameda does. And I learned, too, that most of the homeless come from Alameda. They are our community can go there when it's really, really tough and get warm, get dry, possibly get a change of clothes and then they will be out and and they've got a great organization that way. So I, I really hope that we don't need to make they don't want to make that a permanent feature of Alameda . I really hope we don't have to be a catch bay basin for the the situation we have rent wise and affordable housing wise. The last thing I wanted to say was I'll just kind of cut through all the details and the facts because I don't know all the details and I don't know all the facts. But I heard and I spoke this past Martin Luther King weekend about something I had seen on Facebook. And it said, and I do believe we are in a serious housing crisis. And the seriousness of it is when you see human beings under our freeways and sleeping on the streets that I know, I ask myself, Gee, what would I do during, say, slavery or the Holocaust or the civil rights movement? What would I do? What I would do is what I'm doing now. It's in our action. It's not our words. And I think the project is well enough defined and nicely managed and ready to go. And we'll be able to provide some housing for some people and start to really start to relieve the pressure. But the momentum will have started. That's an important thing too. Thank you all for the work you do. Thank you. She's our last speaker. If you'd like to go first, remember. Mayor. Mayor. Thank you. Thank you to all the speakers. Everyone coming out a second time. I was reflecting as I was listening to the speakers that. There are a lot of ways to oppose a project or a decision. And in this particular case, I think we do need to consider very carefully, because it is true that among the Mercury units we would be providing, we're also providing through the Housing Authority and Habitat for Humanity, very well needed units for formerly homeless individuals, for people in low income categories. And I am certainly heartened to know that AC key supports increasing the number of affordable housing units in our city because they have not always supported increasing the number of housing units. But if I had to decide whose remarks I would adopt and in follow, it would be the women from Operation Dignity, the development manager, Katie Derrick. We will hear more about Operation Dignity when we get to our regular agenda item six A where we are going to, I hope, approve the needs statement for housing and community development for the CDBG grant every year. And you will see when we get to that item that at the top of the list is providing housing for the homeless, for people who are on the edge of homelessness because they fall into such a low income category. So we've heard the argument that removing the cap, which came off automatically when we removed the government overlay as we had to do by law, is somehow going to reduce the number of affordable housing units that will ultimately be provided. I, I don't agree with that reasoning. And again, I'm, I am more attuned to the people who are, if you will, working in the trenches, Operation Dignity, Building Futures. And we need more, not less, of the kinds of housing we're hoping to provide. So I am ready to move forward on this. We we can't you know, you can personalize. It's like this every time with my microphone. You can't even personalize an issue by talking about statistics and numbers in this category, in that category. But when it comes down to it, it is, as I think most often said, the person sleeping under the freeway or not even under the freeway when the city manager and I it's been about a year ago now, partnered to help with the countywide homeless count. But in Alameda we learned to recognize where people were sleeping in cars. And there the homeless are hiding in plain view if you know where to look and what to look for. So I think that whatever we do is in some ways a drop in the bucket, but it's something. And as Ms.. Varella said, we can't solve the whole state of California's housing problems. But the five of us are responsible for making policy in Alameda, and I'm fully prepared to do what I believe is the right thing and approve the second reading final passage of this ordinance. Thank you. Number matter SB. I think it's unfortunate that that. When the G overlay was taken off that automatically the council voted to have 30 units per acre replace 15 units per acre. I think it was completely strategically and urgently needed that that 15 unit per acre restriction on the part that's going to be developed by the Housing Authority. And up and the Habitat for Humanity, those are the actual affordable units in this in this equation as it stands now. That that needs to come off and needs to be at 30 units per acre. It's unfortunate because when people talk about when a private property owner gets this property, we just took away the one thing that we had to bargain with and think about it for a minute. That site, a 800 units. 25% affordable. Was the trade off for this? It wouldn't have been. 25% of those units weren't traded to from north housing because there's going to be something less here. And developers provide more affordable units when they want something that when the city has something that they want, we can trade with. And we gave it away without a commitment for affordable units. So when someone says that we have to take care of people, people who are have disabilities, who are aged, who are low income, we need leverage to do that. And I submit that we need that leverage. When the plan comes, it is going to require something more than 15 units per acre and we say, okay, you want 30 units, staff is going to work with them and say, this is what you need to do to get the council to get us to give a recommendation to the Council on the Planning Board to change 15 to 30. So I would say I would like to see the resolution and the ordinance replaced. Remove the g over the g overlays remove replace it with 15 units in the parcel that is going to be privately owned and g and make it 30 units or they want the parcel that we know from the housing authority and from Habitat from humanity is going to deliver us affordable units. Then we can start negotiating on how to get affordable units out of the other half of the parcel. Staff couldn't even speak to these comments. We've had the suggestion that using, you know, from the council member matters in regards to what staff does to try to get a higher percentage of affordable housing. Could could one of you speak to that? Well, I think what that council member, Matarese, was talking about was. Using, not taking off the cap on the private property. And when a project comes in with the new development. So right now, it's a remodel. But if a if the castle is sold in the future, a new developer comes in and it's still at 15 dwelling units per acre, that new developer would come to the council first the planning board, and say, I would like additional units up to 30 dwelling units per acre at that time. Staff with the planning board and the planning staff would say, if you do that, then that is an increased value. And out of that increased value, we need additional community benefits. And depending on what the Council's direction is right now, it's affordable. Housing is the number one value that the council has been asked for, has been asking for. And so staff would say we want an additional higher percentage of affordable housing. It might also be additional transportation benefits for the community and might be better public access. It could be a whole bunch of different items that the community benefits from. Imagine a member. Addressing. Just one thing. Just. And we all know how much it costs to build affordable units. And if anybody doesn't know, look at Sherman and Buena Vista. 31 units, right? $18 million. That's almost $600,000 a unit. And this is being built by the housing authority. So we know it's expensive. But when you add 15 units to 15 units and get 30 units, the value of that land just increased without giving one thing. Vice mayor. It's interesting because I kind of raised that point the first time we heard this and we heard from Andrew and Enrico, and they said that it was possible but very difficult to do because they would have to figure out the subdivision. I did specifically ask about that the first time around. So I appreciate Councilmember MODERATOR bringing that up tonight, but I also spoke with staff about it and it seems like a lot of hoops that we would have to jump through and a lot of time delays. And, you know, you also mentioned the costs of building affordable housing. So much of that cost is time. Time is a resource coming before council, coming before planning board, negotiating with staff as we see that time progress. We don't see things get built. City's a prime example of that. Yeah, we got a number of affordable housing units and tonight we voted to match the funds in case we get to the point where we can actually break ground. But we don't have those units. At the last meeting when we spoke about this issue. I said I wanted to remove administrative roadblocks to getting affordable housing. And I mean it. And I think we do it parcel by parcel. I think we have an opportunity here to do it. I, I understand the ability to negotiate. We've negotiated the max out on a number of projects and we don't really have anything to show for it. The Domani project we got the affordable housing. Thankfully, it's been a number of years since we've heard that project. We don't have the other units online. You know, I think when it comes down to it. I want to listen to our affordable housing providers. And they've spoken and they've spoken in unison on this and made a point collaborative Operation Dignity, the Housing Authority. And I want to respect that. I also think that there is a huge delay in terms of what happens and the amount of acrobatics that would have to be done in order to accomplish that verification, in order to negotiate just a few, you know, a few more things which may in the end, completely stall the project. We could love the project to death. I think we've seen that time and again. I don't want to do it. I'm in support of moving forward in terms of where we we were at the last council meeting and what we voted on. And I also think it's disingenuous, frankly, to say that Carmel Partners was bidding on the property, knowing that it was going to be capped. They knew that the government overlay was going to be removed. They didn't know whether or not council was going to then reinstitute a new cap on the property. Anybody bidding on it knew it was going to become private property and the government overlay was going to disappear. So I think in that regards, it's a little bit again, it's a little bit different from site, it's a little bit different from some of these other projects. I think we need to learn from the mistakes that we've seen. So I'm ready to move forward on this. We're already thinking as well as the city manager, so the clarification of the hypothetical was that Carmel could do this renovation and then in some undetermined years out in the future, they could decide to sell it to somebody else who would want to tear all that down and then build something else. I mean, is that the hype on that? Yes. I mean, that's how I understood it. On the private property, not on the housing authority. Castle. I mean. That's. Okay. I'm not quite sure how. I'm not sure how realistic that is. But I always appreciate my colleague, Mr. Matt Orestes thoughtfulness in his comments and his approach to these issues. I'm going to respectfully disagree on this. The one thing I was surprised since we voted on this, that how many people came up to me and said, thank you for that vote and. That kind of blew me away because I maybe I do the wrong thing and never hear that enough. But, I mean, people were just genuinely appreciative that we took that step to take a stand and and support more housing in Alameda. So, I mean, that that's something that that stuck with me over the past couple of weeks. So I plan on supporting as well. And I've actually like to motion or make a motion that we approve the item. Second, before. I'd like to, because I haven't been able to speak. To, I just was grabbing the chair. A follow up on something, the city manager member Ashcraft. I'd appreciate if I could do that if you could do that after I have the opportunity to speak. Thank you. Because okay. So I wanted to follow up in regards to these questions. Is it possible that Carmel Partners could decide to sell the property and not rehab the units at this time? Is there anything that actually requires them to build a rehab? I don't believe there's a restriction. It's private property. Once it's conveyed from the Navy to Carmel. And as a private property owner, they could sell it or remodel it or both. Okay. So. So they could in fact, not be given that the cap appears to be removed, will be removed, then they can reassess where they get the value of this property and decide then of if in fact they want to proceed with rehabbing units that would be online sooner rather than later. Or because the value the number of units is would go up from the 15 units per acre to 30 units per acre and greatly increase the value. If that were if the item, if the property were to be sold and that is within their purview, then to make that decision to. So because it's 30 units per acre, they have a right to build 30 units per acre instead of the restriction of 15. So, yes. Okay. So rather than rehab the units, they could actually decide a different business plan moving forward because they would and they would end up owning the property as opposed to the Navy. Yes. But it would start with a new it would be a new project. So I'd go through the normal process of going to the planning board, having community input and review, and potentially coming back to council for a call for a review or appeal. Right. But there's nothing that would legally bind them to have the units as opposed to selling the property or they themselves deciding to go forward with a different business plan. Right. Nothing. All right. And if, in fact, they ended up with a business plan that maximized the number of units without in fact, they have more significantly more retail value to them as a private developer. You mean is there more value in higher density? Correct. Generally that's the expectation from developers. Okay. And can you explain I know when we had them up the last council meeting, there were multiple community benefits that staff worked with on this project to obtain for the benefit of our community. And could you outline what those community benefits were? There. The two primary benefits are connection Singleton and Moseley that connects an area. No one basically adds access to Estuary Park, which was just completed. It also upgrades or cleans out the storm. Water puts in a lot, so high tide doesn't back into the system and upgrades the storm drain. There's a lift station for sewer that it would have to look at. We are also talking even today about having mostly be a straight street that goes through rather than trying to have it go around the existing sewer lift station. And so that is another component in the terms that we're still talking to them about. But from a planning point of view, I think it's critical to have a a straight street and also has street lights that they're putting in there, undergrounding the utilities and others. Providing infrastructure for the housing authority. And providing, yeah. The streets that go through and and utilities for the housing authority as well. Okay. So if they decided not to go forward with the rehab of the units, would the community receive all those benefits? Yes, they would. If you're assuming that they would build new that would. Receive at some point the property gets sold to a different developer to go forward or to them to come forward with a different project with the community receive. The community would probably receive more benefits than if it was a remodel. Right now what we're looking at is what the invitation for bid and what was required for the obligations. And that's what we've been looking at. If a new project came in and we had a higher density, we would look at it just like we look at any other North Waterfront housing project where we ask for additional transportation and asked for additional affordable housing. We could ask for a number of different community benefits if there was a bigger profit margin with the developer, and you get that from having the higher density. But would they have to agree to it since they already have? It's a. Negotiation. Yes. So it's a negotiation back and forth with the ultimate approval being either the planning board or the city council. Okay. And we're on Jane Sweeney Park. My recollection is there was money provided from Tim Lewis developers. And Lewis developers as part of dole money donated, I think, $2 million into Jane Sweeney Park. And there has been other contributions. Okay, thank you. Member Ashcraft. I wanted to go back and thank you, Mayor, and came back when you were talking about what would happen if the. You. Know, it's okay and. Every new developer brought back the Carmel Partners property. So. I mean, the city council still would have some say over what happens and what we would want to ask for, even if it did go to another another buyer. Isn't that correct? Well. It depends if. With the 30 dwelling units per acre. And the developer came in and did everything along the lines of what the zoning allowed and was permitted. Then it would just go to the planning board and design review. Of course, the council could call it up for a review or it could be appealed, and that's when the council would see it, unless there was a zoning change, general plan amendment or something else that would trigger having to come to council. So it could still come back to us, I think. But then the advantage of advantages of new construction is that when we do have requirements, when you're building new to go in and we do all the infrastructure and. Right. But the advantage to the remodel and the current project is that we get housing units that are not ultra luxury units and we get them at. Very soon there's a proposal and we get them sooner. And I think we can get a little hung up about who's making what profit off of land sales. But using the city example, I mean, I think it's something that should concern all of us because we're now midway into January, we have an April deadline for the developers to come back. And they've been pretty quiet. And I, I think we do need to keep an eye on the situation at hand and what we have within our within our grasp now. So and also the 25% affordable housing requirement at site, and I'm fully supportive of that. But wasn't that like this was before your time? But I think that was a requirement of the Navy. As I recall, last year. And that is the settlement. Right. Settlement, yes. Okay. All right. Thank you. Vice Mayor. I have one question and then I would like to call the question, since there's a motion in a second, has criminal partners indicated to you that they plan on building on completely redoing their plan and building 30 units? No, their plan is to remodel. Okay. Thank you. I'd like to call the question. We have a motion. I made a second. Okay. So all those in favor of calling the question I, I, I'm going to oppose because I didn't get to speak to it. So all those in favor. I, I. In favor of the motion. Correct? Correct. Yes. Yes, I. Pose. To pose. I propose. Thank you. So it passes 3 to 2, correct? Correct. Motion carries 3 to 2. Bathroom. And I will now call for a recess. You finished the confession? I see all council members here. I don't know. I'm only vice minister. Far as I know, everyone is here. All right, so let's go ahead and resume the meeting. They need a bathroom break. No, she's just going to raise it. So what are the rest of the. If everyone could take your seat. You wouldn't admit it. So we just had a couple of council members walk out. So we have to wait at this time for them to come back in, have some staff with one of you all could make sure they're aware that I have asked to resume the meeting. And they were here a moment ago. Oh. The unintended consequence. Well, I've always. Really? It was. Some things we can't control. But when something lose, thank. We're learning that every. All right. So just so you all know, we're going to go back to five H. I have had a request from counsel, our city attorney, to go back to five h. Yeah, our city attorney. To return to item five h, which is the adoption of the resolution approving parcel map number 10275. And I'm going to ask the clerk at this time what, you know, where either council members are. They were in the room when I called for the meeting to resume. They said that they're coming right back. They're using the restroom in the hall and coming right back as soon as they're done. They said, So can we continue this part of us? Madam Chair, I'd like to wait till they get back. Any three at the dias. Does anyone know what happened to member Odie? That where we've. As far as I know, they're in the in the hallway. Thank you. Thank you very much. So we just had a member of the community go out into the hallway to ask them to return to the chambers. Work.