body,date,page,text,path
CityCouncil,2015-10-20,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY-OCTOBER 20, 2015-7:00 P.M.
Mayor Spencer convened the meeting at 7:02 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese,
Oddie and Mayor Spencer - 5.
Absent:
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
(15-607) Vice Mayor Matarrese inquired whether Council would consider hearing the
Enterprise District [paragraph no. 15-629 before the leases [paragraph nos. 15-624, 15-
625, and 15-626 to provide an overall vision of Alameda Point development, which
would add some sense to the lease discussion.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft agreed context would be provided.
Councilmember Daysog requested that the budget allocation [paragraph no. 15-615 be
removed from the Consent Calendar.
The Interim City Manager suggested the Alameda Point leasing item [paragraph no. 15-
630] also be moved above the leases.
In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry whether anyone plans on addressing the
leases, a member of the audience indicated that he would be speaking on two leases;
stated that she would not support the motion.
Vice Mayor Matarrese withdrew his motion.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(15-608) Proclamation Declaring November 1, 2015 as Extra Mile Day in the City of
Alameda.
Mayor Spencer read and presented the proclamation to Jennifer Williams, Social
Service Human Relations Board, Community Service Awards recipients, and
representatives from the College of Alameda and Bay Ship and Yacht.
Ms. Williams, College of Alameda representatives and Kari Thompson made brief
comments.
(15-609) Proclamation Declaring October as Domestic Violence Awareness Month.
Liz Barela, Building Futures with Women and Children, made brief comments and
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
October 20, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-10-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-10-20,2,"provided information.
Mayor Spencer read and presented the proclamation to Ms. Barela.
(15-610) Presentation by the United States Green Building Council (USGBC) to the City
of Alameda for the Alameda Main Library.
The Library Director, Barry Giles, BuildingWise, and Kevin Hydes, representing the
Green Buildings Council, made brief comments.
Councilmember Oddie recognized Vice Mayor Matarrese and Councilmember Ezzy
Ashcraft who served as Library Project Co-Chairs.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft briefly commented on the project.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
Vice Mayor Matarrese thanked Alameda residents for voting to support the project.
(15-611) David Howard, Action Alameda News, discussed a story he wrote about cable
public access funding; offered to answer Council questions.
Mayor Spencer stated Council cannot ask questions since the item is not on the
agenda; noted the matter would be discussed at a City Council/School Board
subcommittee meeting.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Spencer announced that the budget amendments [paragraph no. 15-615 was
removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Vice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph
number.]
(*15-612) Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting Held on September 15, 2015.
Approved.
(*15-613) Ratified bills in the amount of $2,261,333.10
(*15-614) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Amend the Professional
Services Agreement Between the City and Vavrinek, Trine, Day and Co., LLP (VTD)
Adopted on January 20, 2015 by Adding $4,000 Annually, Plus 3% CPI for Fiscal Years
2015-16 and 2016-17, for Additional Independent Auditing Services. Accepted.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
October 20, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-10-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-10-20,3,"(15-615) Recommendation to Amend the General Fund and Other City Funds for the
Fiscal Year 2015-16 Budget by Allocating the $14,500,500 in Excess of 20% Reserve
Requirement from the General Fund Reserve.
Councilmember Oddie stated the $6 million, which includes $2 million for PERS
smoothing, $2 million for existing retirees and $2 million for current employees, would
return to Council for discussion.
Councilmember Daysog expressed concerns regarding money set aside for the
emergency water supply and study; stated the analysis has not been done; that he
questions spending $800,000; suggested everything but emergency water supply.
Mayor Spencer suggested a motion be done; stated multiple items which were not
unanimous are being presented as one item.
Vice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of allocating the funds; stated difference
between the recommendation and Measure O is Measure O indebted the City; money
has already been collected, the City is not asking to indebt $14 million.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion; stated Measure O has a
$10,600,000 million dollar bond; property owners voted to tax themselves.
Under discussion, Councilmember Oddie stated everything would be voted as a
package; stated originally, he voted for the water supply, in hindsight there should be
more public discussion.
Mayor Spencer stated in regards to $800,000 for the emergency water supply, there will
be a more comprehensive discussion; that she plans to support the motion; Council
operates by majority giving direction to staff; she would have liked to see the September
15th vote included in the presentation to see the breakdown; many items benefit the
public; the public will see a noticeable change and improvement in the community;
moving forward with Alameda Point buildings is critical; multiple items are important to
move forward for the benefit of the community.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he will support the motion; the community will
benefit.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with the Mayor; stated one time expenditures
are one time; with the fire season, need to look into the emergency water supply.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
October 20, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-10-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-10-20,4,"Interim City Manager to Execute an Agreement with Chicago Title Company for Title
and Escrow Services in Connection with the Proposed Transfer of the Oakland Inner
Harbor Tidal Canal for a 10-Month Term in an Amount not to Exceed $60,000 Paid Prior
to Close of Escrow, Plus Title Premiums and Escrow Fees Paid at Close of Escrow.
Accepted.
(*15-618) Resolution No. 15091, ""Appointing Wendi Poulson as Trustee to the Alameda
County Mosquito Abatement District Board.' Adopted.
(*15-619) Ordinance No. 3135, ""Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City Manager to
Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a 3-Year Lease with CSI
Mini-Storage, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, for Buildings 338, 608, and
608A-C Collectively Located at 50 and 51 West Hornet Avenue at Alameda Point.
Finally passed.
(*15-620) Ordinance No. 3136, ""Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City Manager to
Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a 10-Year Lease with Power
Engineering Construction Company for Building 166 located at 1501 Viking Street, Suite
200 at Alameda Point."" Finally passed.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(15-621) Resolution No. 15092, ""Appointing Kenji Tamaoki as a Member of the Housing
Authority Board of Commissioners."" Adopted.
Vice Mayor Matarrese moved adoption of the Resolution.
Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
5.
The City Clerk administered the Oath of Office and presented a certificate to Mr.
Tamaoki.
(15-622) Adoption of Resolution Appointing Jerome Harrison and Karin Lucas as
Members of the Rent Review Advisory Committee (RRAC), to Four Year Terms
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
October 20, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-10-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-10-20,5,"Beginning October 20, 2015 and Appointing Thuy Nguyen and David Perry as Members
of the RRAC to Two Year Terms Beginning October 20, 2015. Not adopted.
The City Clerk gave a brief presentation.
Expressed concern with the RRAC members approving 10% rent increases; stated
members being reappointed consistently voted 10% as an acceptable mediated
settlement, which is not a reasonable amount; urged the Council to protect renters;
outlined neighboring cities' protection for renters; stated over half the island are renters;
not just low and very low income are being displaced, but moderate: Catherine Pauling,
Alameda Renters Coalition (ARC).
Concurred with Ms. Pauling; stated that he provided a letter on RRAC votes; suggested
the RRAC vote for lower rent increases; discussed the RRAC membership and
expressed concern; stated the composition of the RRAC is not diverse; urged
appointment of activists and single mothers to increase diversity; urged the City
Attorney attend RRAC meetings: John Klein, ARC.
Expressed his frustration over rents being raised 10% and the Council dragging its feet;
urged a moratorium; provided an example of seniors being evicted: Jason Buckley,
Alameda.
Councilmember Oddie moved approval of tabling the matter until November 4, 2015;
suggested an elected rent board be reviewed; stated given the gravity of RRAC, makes
sense to put off reappointment until after November 4th
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion; stated that he concurs with putting off
the matter until November 4th because of the magnitude of the housing situation; stated
the RRAC should understand the needs of the community; responsibility lies with the
Council, not the RRAC.
Under discussion, Mayor Spencer stated that she would continue to proceed with the
nomination to fill the vacant tenant seat; the RRAC is a 5 member board with one
resignation; she has attended every RRAC meeting since becoming Mayor, and she
feels they try to meet the needs of the community; she is comfortable reappointing other
four members of the RRAC.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with Councilmembers Oddie and Daysog;
requested staff compile data requested by Council; stated different cities are coming up
with ways to address the situation; Council may decide to give the RRAC a different
function at the November 4th meeting; that she wants to ask questions of Ms. Lucas
regarding some statements she made; she agrees with putting the matter off until after
November 4th meeting.
Mayor Spencer urged Councilmembers to attend RRAC meetings; in response to Mr.
Klein's comments regarding questions of diversity on RRAC, inquired whether there are
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
October 20, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-10-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-10-20,6,"some legal restrictions with the applications.
The City Attorney responded there are some privacy issues and certain questions one
cannot ask.
In response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry regarding seats two tenant positions
available or two landlord positions available, Mayor Spencer stated Council voted on the
compositions at September 15th meeting.
The City Attorney stated that the Council did not want the RRAC to stop and have
appointed as quickly as possible.
Mayor Spencer stated the appointment was to fill vacant position.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated only two of the five members are actually renters,
which should be discussed.
Mayor Spencer stated the seats are two landlords, two renters and one homeowner.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated whether elected or appointed, the RRAC still needs to
function without interruption; concurred with waiting until after the November 4th
meeting.
The City Attorney stated the ordinance is actually silent on the transition; members
would remain there until successors are appointed.
Mayor Spencer stated the fifth appointee is a renter, which is the position she would like
to continue with appointing.
The City Clerk stated, to clarify for City Council, Mayor Spencer can make her
nomination on November 3 and the vote would not occur until the following meeting.
Mayor Spencer stated that she would like to proceed with current process and make a
nomination to get one more renter on the committee.
Vice Mayor Matarrese concurred with the Mayor on the urgency of appointing fifth
member of RRAC, which has to meet.
Mayor Spencer, noted meetings are canceled when a tenant files a postponement
request.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft has stated that she asked staff to capture data about
what happens when someone files an application and withdraws it; discussion should
be as data driven as possible for the November 4th meeting.
Mayor Spencer asked for public comment quickly.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
October 20, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-10-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-10-20,7,"Mr. Klein noted cancellations are because negotiations are occurring; the RRAC should
retain jurisdiction after an agreement is reached; the tenant should be required to
appear.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(15-623) Recommendation to Consider Ballot Measure Options and Advise Staff on
Next Steps.
The Finance Director gave a brief presentation and responded to questions.
Mayor Spencer stated that she would prefer a presentation with visuals to educate
everyone in a more visual way.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated taxation does not matter how you collect the money, it is
how the City spends the money.
The Finance Director stated a special tax measure which restricts the revenue collected
requires two-thirds voter approval.
Regarding the Utility Users Tax (UUT), Mayor Spencer stated it is important to note that
the 11% is outside Alameda County; Alameda County's highest rate is 7.5%.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the 7.5% would not be increased but another tax
for cellular telephones would be added to provide more opportunity to capture revenue.
The Finance Director noted within California, 85% of cities with UUT did modernize UUT
ordinances.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether capturing cellular telephone
technologies would increase revenue.
The Finance Director responded the goal is not to increase the UUT but to maintain it
and not lose revenue.
Mayor Spencer stated the chart from the staff report indicated the City collects
telecomm.
The Interim City Manager responded the City would only be modernizing the language
of the ordinance; not levying any other category.
Mayor Spencer requested another category be added to the chart to show a
subcategory under telecom to show how many cities in the County have modernized
ordinances.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
October 20, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-10-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-10-20,8,"The Finance Director stated Alameda cannot ask for an increase in sales tax because
the City is already at the cap.
Councilmember Oddie inquired why San Leandro was allowed to increase its sales tax
to 10%.
The Finance Director responded four cities within the County have a 10% rate; the cities
either had the sales tax in place or Measure BB caused the percentage to go above.
Councilmember Oddie stated if Alameda would have to ask the State for legislation to
go above the cap.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated impacts on our residents should be considered.
The Finance Director continued the presentation.
Councilmember Daysog stated regarding altering the Transparent Occupancy Tax
(TOT), the possibility of doing a Tourism Business Improvement District (TBID) working
with property owners satisfies him, the language should include Air B and B.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is intrigued by the TBID; can quickly and
easily cause voter fatigue placing too many measures on the ballot; questioned who
would manage the TBID and if the Chamber of Commerce could perform said function;
the TBID would provide a stable funding source for tourism promotion; the TBID would
be governed by those who pay the assessment and could not be diverted for
government programs; even if the economy fluctuates the funding source would be
there; the steps identified in Exhibit 3 of staff report, for formation process, owner
outreach and education district plan, would be a good model for the Business
Improvement Associations (BIAs).
Mayor Spencer requested clarification on who could be a part of the TBID; is it limited to
hotels, motels and other lodging, or could it include different business groups; stated the
City has many businesses that sell things and generate a sales tax that goes into a pot
to benefit the community in different ways; the TBID sounds as though they themselves
would generate the tax and they themselves would decide how it is spent, which is very
different from other taxes, requested clarification.
The Community Development Director discussed how assessment Districts work; stated
the entities that are assessed have to be the entities that make the decision on how the
funds are expended; it would be possible for the Chamber to be the entity but they
would have to form a committee or subgroup to decide how to expend of funds; money
would range from $167,000 to $350,000 annually based on current TOT projections; of
this year; the West Alameda Business Association (WABA) and Park Street Business
Association (PSBA) have boards made up of the business representatives from their
assessment district which decide how funds are expended.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
October 20, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-10-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-10-20,9,"Mayor Spencer stated on Park Street businesses pay a tax on the revenue and do not
tax products they are selling; the difference is authority would be given to hotels in
Alameda to allow them to tax and decide how the money is spent.
The Community Development Director stated the assessment for PSBA and WABA is
supplemental to business licenses.
Mayor Spencer stated businesses write a check and are not increasing sales tax to
cover the cost because they do not have that power.
Councilmember Daysog stated the directly affected stakeholder are the hoteliers; the
theory is TOT would increase from 10% to 12% and revenue generated by the 2%
increment would be used to bring more visitors to Alameda whether they are coming
here for business or tourism related reasons; the hoteliers have a self-interest to work
with entities such as the Chamber of Commerce or PSBA; within the business districts
there are a set of services which these hotel visitors might want to access, such as
dining and movies; in raising the TOT, the City would be arming the hoteliers to work in
conjunction with local service providers.
The CDD Director stated the incremental increase in the TOT is not a tax, it is an
assessment that members of the district would vote to assess themselves.
Mayor Spencer inquired when someone comes to rent a hotel room do they pay an
extra tax.
The CDD Director responded in the negative; stated they pay an assessment.
Mayor Spencer stated it is similar to a sales tax because it is passed on to the visitor.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the proposal for the possible increase should be in
the range of surrounding cities so that people do not stay elsewhere because Alameda
is too expensive; a 1 or 2% increase would be used to form a TBID, the rest would go to
the General Fund.
The CDD Director concurred; stated the existing tax would go to the General Fund; the
assessment amount would flow to the District for expenditure on visitor related activities.
Councilmember Daysog inquired if the TBID would not be subject to the Balanced
Revenue Index (BRI)?
The CDD Director responded in the negative; stated the City is simply a pass through
entity collecting the assessment and then rebating it back to the District.
Mayor Spencer requested someone clarify Councilmember Daysog's comment for the
public.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
October 20, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-10-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-10-20,10,"The Interim City Manager clarified the revenue would not affect the raises the Council
is
contemplating for their employees, which is based on the BRI composed of five of the
major revenue sources.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the hoteliers have to assess themselves, but
once a district is created on a 50% plus one vote all businesses would be assessed.
They CDD responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Spencer requested City Staff to explain Council action is needed.
The Interim City Manager stated once the Finance Director finishes the presentation,
staff wants direction on plans to move forward, including the TBID.
Mayor Spencer stated the recommendation is that Council make a motion to consider
all ballot measure options and advise staff on next steps including working with the hotel
industry to assess interest in forming a TBID; inquired if a timeline requires Council
action tonight.
The Interim City Manager responded action is not being taken; staff is requesting that
Council approve the strategy and express interest in staff pursuing the items; staff is
working with polling consultants and would come back early next year based on the
polling the CDD will have preliminary discussions with the hotels and staff will come
back to Council with a potential TBID.
Mayor Spencer inquired if staff is requesting Council to give direction and would come
back with regards to the UUT options more, specifically.
The Interim City Manager responded staff is hoping to work with a polling consultant to
identify the appetite for the measures; the School District is doing a parcel tax measure;
maybe community will not be interested; staff does not want to spend time, energy and
resources without polling information.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether updating the UUT would be the same as other cities
regarding landline versus cell phone, to which the Interim City Manager responded
in
the affirmative.
Mayor Spencer inquired if staff would be looking at sales tax, to which the Interim City
Manager responded in the negative.
Mayor Spencer inquired if staff will be checking with hotel owners regarding TOT.
The Interim City Manager responded staff would like to know if Council would be okay
with staff starting conversations with hoteliers.
Mayor Spencer stated staff will address the parcel tax and assessment district next.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
October 20, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-10-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-10-20,11,"The Finance Director continued her presentation.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if the City does not fix storm drains it would cost
even more.
The Finance Director responded in the affirmative; stated staff is trying to find potential
funding sources for projects, otherwise the General Fund will be used.
Mayor Spencer read an example from staff: total revenue from a $25 parcel tax would
be approximately $520,000 annually; stated $25 is significantly lower than the School
District parcel tax.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she does not want Council to decide between
the two options of parcel tax versus assessment district without an analysis of revenue
generated; inquired when will Council receive said information.
The Finance Director responded it would depend on the direction.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council needs the information to make an
informed decision.
In response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the Interim Public Works
Director stated an assessment district is where property owners pay an assessment and
receive enhanced maintenance or some special benefit through the paid assessment;
the question of how much the property owner will pay and how much revenue would be
generated depends on how far the City goes; if the City tries to recover the $45 million
shortfall and upgrade the storm drain system in the next 20 years, that cost would be
$200 per parcel.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated staff wanting to go the poll; she would not move
forward without any polling data.
Expressed support for the TBID which puts money in the hands of the people that are
trying to bring in tourism; urged Council to direct staff to continue with said project: Kari
Thompson, Chamber of Commerce.
Urged the tourism funds come from business other than just hotels; her vision is a
hybrid plan where not only the hotels, but all businesses included in tourism to make
more money; marketing people would know how to brand and focus on tourism;
discussed the City of Oakland's model, which should be followed and is managed by a
Board of Directors: Karen Bey, Alameda.
Councilmember Oddie stated it would be good to see the expansion to different services
for the UUT; a sales tax increase should not be pursued; he agrees with the TBID idea;
as with other districts, staff would have a presence on the board that runs the TBID and
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
October 20, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-10-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-10-20,12,"the City would have a say with requiring a 50% vote of the hotel owners; parcel tax
polling should be done for June versus November cognizant of the fact that the School
District will have a measure; he would like to see a park parcel tax combined in same
measure as the School parcel tax; parks are popular.
Councilmember Daysog urged staff to modernize the UUT; requested staff be clear on
what would be funded; stated TBID has to involve lodging providers on whom the extra
assessment is placed, working in conjunction with business associations, businesses
providing services, and recreational destination venues; he spoke with four hoteliers
intrigued by an increase; TOT rate is lower than neighbors; a 2% would put Alameda at
a competitive disadvantage; he appreciates staff coming up with different options; he
does not support increasing the sales tax; he supports a $25 parcel tax, as long as it is
targeted.
Mayor Spencer stated that she agrees with staff about doing polling on the UUT;
requested a chart that has what other cities in the County are doing; she is comfortable
with polling.
Mayor Spencer stated if staff is not interested in polling on certain issues, she is fine
with that; inquired is there a possibility that any funds would go to funding healthcare
and pension costs.
The Interim City Manager responded in the negative; stated the UUT goes into the
General Fund, which pays that type of thing.
Mayor Spencer stated that her preference on any of the taxes would be to have funds
go to other things, such as the parks; the community would be more on board if the tax
were for something specific; regarding TOT she agrees with Karen Bey and would like
other types of businesses to weigh in on how to spend the money; she would support a
parcel tax for something specific.
Vice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of directing staff: 1) to eliminate the sales tax as
a possible option, 2) to do a poll by a reputable firm to test the questions brought up in
meeting, and 3) to research, including polling and other options, the TBID.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft questioned how Walnut Creek funds park maintenance
on their parks; stated Ms. Bey's suggestions to tax local business because tourists
frequent them gives her pause; she favors a TBID approach that starts small and ramps
up; the polling could include sales tax.
Mayor Spencer stated the majority is not interested in sales tax.
Vice Mayor Matarrese clarified the motion, as approval of directing staff to eliminate the
sales tax as a possible option, to research and conduct polling on other option listed in
staff report, including taking a polling approach to the TBID that does consider a
broader scope than just the hotels and to bring the results of the plan back to Council in
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
October 20, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-10-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-10-20,13,"a timely fashion so that the polling conducted allows the data to be applicable to the
election that is being targeted.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which includes an expanded view of the
TBID fee and trying to find out how others could participate; other cities have a visitor's
fee, which is worth reviewing.
Under discussion, Councilmember Oddie stated the June election should be compared
to the November election and staff should research if it is legal to combine the parcel
tax for both schools and parks on one measure.
Vice Mayor Matarrese concurred; stated the matter should be addressed in the poll; he
wants objective polling questions, not a direction.
The Interim City Manager inquired about the polling for the TBID; stated the TBID is
voluntary.
Vice Mayor Matarrese responded that he is addressing using a polling approach; City
has seven to eleven hotels; he wants to make sure hoteliers are interested in TBID;
stated the City should ensure it can get 50% of the vote.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
***
Mayor Spencer called a recess at 9:26 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:32 p.m.
and Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft returned at 9:34 p.m.
(15-624) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City
Manager to Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a 10-Year Lease
with 707 West Tower Avenue, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, for Building
9 Located at 707 West Tower Avenue at Alameda Point. Introduced.
The Economic Development Division Manager, gave a brief presentation on the
Building 9 lease and the Building 91 lease [paragraph no. 15-624].
Mayor Spencer inquired if the leases have an option to purpose.
The Economic Development Division Manager responded in the affirmative; continued
the presentation.
Mayor Spencer inquired how the option to purchase would be exercised, to which the
Economic Development Division Manager responded City staff is going through the
internal process to create legal parcels to offer to the tenant for purchase.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
13
October 20, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-10-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-10-20,14,"Mayor Spencer inquired that if the purchase option is part of the lease, to which the
Economic Development Division Manager responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Spencer stated the option to purchase is not in the title; not every lease has an
option to purchase; requested that the option to purchase be in the title and made very
clear.
Outlined the project and plans for Buildings 9 and 91; stated there is tremendous growth
in locally grown food products; two challenges are production and capital; capital and
retail opportunities will be offered; companies can plug in equipment, develop product
and grow; nearly 25 companies toured the space, and he is in negotiations with 80% of
the companies; the plan is to have 30 to 45 companies in the project; approximately $40
million would be invested in the project: Joe Ernst, SRM Ernst.
Mayor Spencer requested a breakdown on how money would be spent for each
building.
Mr. Ernst responded Building 91 will be approximately $9 million and the balance would
be in Building 9.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether $31 million would be invested in Building 9.
Mr. Ernst responded in the affirmative; stated SRM Ernst brings knowledge of Alameda
Point, development capability, food experience and market knowledge.
Discussed having adequate facilities to help businesses scale to the next level; stated
Buildings 9 and 91 will provide entrepreneurs a space to collaborate and a sense of
community: Harv Singh, SRM Ernst.
Stated that she would like to produce wine in Alameda; urged moving forward:
Alexandra Cohn, Jeff Cohn Cellars.
Urged approval of the leases with the option to buy; stated that he owns Thirsty Bear
Brewery in San Francisco; that he will be leasing 20,000 square feet in Building 91;
outlined what he would be doing and other aspects of the project: Ron Silberstein,
California Craft Maltings.
Urged approval; discussed the investment and developer: Michael McDonough,
Chamber of Commerce.
Mayor Spencer stated, the option to purchase was not noticed; having a visual for 707
West Tower Avenue would have been nice; a $14.5 million investment for 81,000
square feet on 4.2 acres is questionable; for 651 West Tower Avenue, 41,000 square
feet on 2.2 acres with $31 million investment is $1 million per square foot, which is
significantly higher.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
14
October 20, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-10-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-10-20,15,"Mr. Ernst stated the cost for Building 91 is $220 per square foot, which exceeds costs
for comparables; the investment is very significant.
Mayor Spencer questioned $9 million for 41,000 square feet; stated in Alameda homes
are selling for $1 million for 2,000 to 3,000 square feet.
Mr. Ernst stated the two are very different; price is a function of the rents.
In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry regarding Building 9, Mr. Ernst stated a second
floor would be added to the building, which is a significant capital improvement.
Mayor Spencer requested staff to provide two different tables on the cost per square
footage to purchase.
Councilmember Oddie stated that Council gave direction to staff on negotiating the
option to purchase.
The Chief Operations Officer - Alameda Point stated staff believes given the condition of
the properties, the buildings are in market range; the Building 9 purchase price of $5.5
million equates to $65 per square foot; brokers advise the amount is the high end range
for a class C warehouse building in that condition; Building 91 equates to $75 per
square foot; given the condition of the buildings, the infrastructure burden and the
amount of investment required to bring up code, staff believes the amount is market
value.
Vice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of authorizing the City Manager to execute the
documents; stated investors are ready to make these buildings usable, inhabitants are
ready to lease them; buildings will be removed from the City's ownership and on to the
tax poll and will grow a commercial sector which has had problems growing in last 30
years; moving on the properties is critical.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft second the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Oddie stated two separate motions are needed.
Vice Mayor Matarrese clarified the motion is approval of the first item [introduction of the
ordinance approving a Lease and authorizing the City Manager to execute documents
necessary to implement the terms of a 10-year lease with 707 West Tower Avenue,
LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, for Building 9 located at 707 West Tower
Avenue at Alameda Point].
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated Building 9 was last occupied in 2003; there is a
cost to the City to have buildings vacant; she would like to see more of a retail
component; concurs with the Vice Mayor it is a great opportunity and urged movement
on the project.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
15
October 20, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-10-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-10-20,16,"Councilmember Daysog stated the two Caruso projects and the West Hollywood
projects fell by the wayside; stated it is difficult to get developers and the type of
business the City wants; bringing the buildings to market will require an extensive
investment; SRM Ernst is a strong team that has demonstrated success; Wrightspeed
and JC Cellars have track records that engender confidence; SRM Ernst will bring along
local businesses, which will bring Alameda Point forward; he is satisfied with proposals
put forward by staff and is ready to move forward.
Mayor Spencer stated that she will support the motion; in the future when a lease is
presented to Council that includes an option to purchase, it should be clear and include
financial analysis investments by the developers and cost per square foot; sharing the
information with the community is important to show where the numbers make sense,
more food options are needed for the benefit of the community; she looks forward to the
green part of the business and healthy food options for the community.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(15-625) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City
Manager to Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a 10-Year Lease
with 651 West Tower Avenue, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, for Building
91 Located at 651 West Tower Avenue at Alameda Point. Introduced.
The matter was discussed under the Building 9 lease [paragraph no. 15-624].
Councilmember Oddie moved introduction of the ordinance.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
5.
(15-626) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City
Manager to Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a 10-Year Lease
with Matson Navigation Company, Inc., a Hawaii Corporation, for Building 167 Located
at 1500 Ferry Point at Alameda Point. Introduced.
The Economic Development Division Manager gave a brief presentation.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated the lease is consistent with the City's policies and with the
Base Reuse Plan to bolster the maritime industry; moved approval [of introducing the
ordinance] with the condition that there are no containers stacked, no containers stored
outside the fenced area or adjacent to the fenced area.
Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Mayor Spencer inquired if Matson would agree to have no more than
12 containers.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
16
October 20, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-10-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-10-20,17,"The Economic Development Division Manager responded in the negative; stated
Matson will only have a couple dozen at a time, but they have ample yard space.
Mayor Spencer inquired if any of the containers will be visible to the public.
The Economic Development Division Manager responded the containers will be in the
screened, fenced area; stated she does not know if the tops of the containers will be
visible over the screen.
Vice Mayor Matarrese inquired if the space will not be used for logistics.
The Economic Development Division Manager responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Spencer inquired if the containers are brought over to Alameda by the Park
Street Bridge.
The Economic Development Division Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the
truck route is Park Street Bridge.
Mayor Spencer stated the day after Thanksgiving 2014, there were many trucks going
across Alameda; inquired if a provision could be added to the lease agreement to
prevent said occurrence from happening.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft responded the event last year occurred when there were
port stoppages up and down the coast, which is not a regular occurrence.
Mayor Spencer stated that she has concerns with regards to the lease to not have that
happen.
The Economic Development Division Manager responded; Matson is not a large truck
transit business; stated Matson will be using Pier 3, 3 days a month for items that
cannot be transported via container.
Mayor Spencer inquired if Matson has trucks going back and forth, will the City be able
to limit truck traffic.
The Economic Development Division Manager responded an extreme change in the
use of the facility would have to occur to generate the number of truck trips; the City
could bring the lease back for review if the use significantly changed; consistency and
use change would be felt immediately and the lease could definitely be reviewed.
Councilmember Daysog expressed concern with stacked cargo containers in the
Enterprise District; stated that he does not want cargo containers anywhere in the
harbor area; he cannot support the measure.
Mayor Spencer urged staff or representatives from Matson to address the issue; stated
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
17
October 20, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-10-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-10-20,18,"staff does not know if the height of the containers exceeds the fencing; she would like
someone to clarify the issue.
Robert Hawke, Matson, responded there will be no stacking of cargo or parts outside
the building; the lease could be amended to specifically say cargo will not be stacked
and the building will not be used as a logistics facility; the facility is used strictly for
warehousing ship repair parts.
Vice Mayor Matarrese inquired if Matson would be willing to restrict the number of
containers; stated the lease could be revisited if the need arises.
In response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, Vice Mayor Matarrese stated
that he would like a way to quantify the number of containers.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if Vice Mayor Matarrese was concerned with the
percentage or the actual number of containers.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated that he is concerned with truck traffic.
Mayor Spencer stated that she would like to hear from Mr. Hawke.
Mr. Hawke stated most of the containers used are approximately 40 feet in length, 8
feet wide.
Mayor Spencer inquired on the height of the containers.
Mr. Hawke responded the containers are 8 to 10 feet in height; a single container would
cover approximately 240 square feet of space outside the building; width 30 in total, a
small fraction of the outside area would be covered; does not see having more than 25
to 30 containers outside at a time.
Mayor Spencer inquired what is the height of the screening.
The Economic Development Division Manager responded she believes the fencing is 6
feet in height.
Mayor Spencer inquired how many containers are currently at the site.
Mr. Hawke responded they are at a rarely high number at 30 containers currently.
Mayor Spencer inquired what the average number of containers would be for the site, to
which Mr. Hawke responded 30 containers is the average.
Mayor Spencer inquired even though it was stated there is currently an unusual amount
of containers because of the move, 30 is also anticipated to be the average at the new
site.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
18
October 20, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-10-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-10-20,19,"Vice Mayor Matarrese stated he is satisfied that the use is compatible with the zone;
tidelands allow maritime public use or recreation; the City will not get recreation in the
location; he would like to see the lease amended prohibiting stacking of any containers;
would like the lease to state the site is not a logistics area and that the 30 containers
may enter and sit; he would like the matter to come back for review after a year of
operation, including tracking truck trips and the containers.
Mayor Spencer stated that she would like to see a cap of 30 containers.
Councilmember Oddie stated the screening should also be included in the motion.
Mr. Hawke stated fencing has already been agreed upon and is in the plan.
The Economic Development Division Manager inquired, for clarification, if in one year
staff would come back with information on truck trips, screen the facility would be
screened and the lease would be amended to say no stacking of the cargo containers.
Mayor Spencer responded that the facility would not be used for logistics should also be
included.
Councilmember Oddie inquired since different amounts were mentioned, if Mr. Hawke
would agree to 30 containers.
Mayor Spencer inquired if Matson could limit the containers to 30.
Mr. Hawke responded the number of containers could be limited to 30.
(15-627) Mayor Spencer stated a motion is needed to consider the remaining items: the
Enterprise District [paragraph no. 15-629 and the Alameda Point leasing [paragraph no.
15-630].
Vice Mayor Matarrese moved approval [of considering the remaining items].
Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote:
Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese and Oddie - 4. Noes: Mayor
Spencer - 1.
***
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if Mr. Hawke would be satisfied with the limit of
30 containers.
Councilmember Oddie inquired would 36 containers work better; inquired what number
would make Matson comfortable.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
19
October 20, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-10-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-10-20,20,"Mr. Hawke responded 36 is comfortable for him if Council would agree.
Mayor Spencer stated the motion requires four votes to pass; she appreciates three
Councilmembers are enthusiastic and one Councilmember is not; she is in between and
is concerned the containers will be seen driving around.
Councilmember Oddie inquired if the screening could be increased in size.
Mayor Spencer responded that she prefers the view and would not want to increase the
screening; the space is large; the original amount stated was 30 containers.
Councilmember Oddie stated 36 containers are being requested.
Mayor Spencer stated Mr. Hawke originally requested 30 containers.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the use is maritime the City should not tie the
hands of tenants; inquired if the water is behind the building.
Mayor Spencer inquired if Matson work with 30 containers.
The Economic Development Division Manager responded 36 containers will take up
86,000 square feet of the outside area, which is approximately 15%.
Mayor Spencer inquired if the containers will be together or scattered.
Robert Hawke responded the containers would be set very neatly, side by side, with
doors facing in a single direction for access; they could be lined up perpendicular to the
building.
Mayor Spencer inquired where the containers would be located.
The Chief Operations Officer-Alameda Point, clarified Matson stated the containers
would be on 6% of the outdoor land area.
Mayor Spencer requested details on the containers location; inquired whether the
containers would be adjacent to the building.
Mr. Hawke responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Spencer inquired would the containers be in the back of the building as opposed
to the front.
Mr. Hawk showed an exhibit and explained the containers would be stored west to east
perpendicular to the building.
Urged Council not to go forward; stated the view of the ships brings her a sense of
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
20
October 20, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-10-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-10-20,21,"peace; expressed concern over the use not being the highest and best use; stated it is a
great piece of property and Council should do something wonderful with it: Karen Bey,
Alameda.
Mayor Spencer inquired that Matson previously stated they had 30 containers for
moving, now they are requesting 36 containers.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the lease is for 10 years; the process to build out
the Base is a 20 to 30 year process; Google is looking to expand their operation in the
building Matson is looking to vacate; the lease would bring in decent revenue while
Alameda Point development moves forward.
Mayor Spencer inquired how many jobs would be created by this move.
The Economic Development Division Manager responded there will be no jobs created,
there are currently 6 employees who are Alameda residents; Matson tries to limit the
number of people coming in and out of their facility.
Councilmember Oddie stated Google wants to expand into Matson's current space at
Building 23 after Matson moves to the new site; inquired whether Google expansion
would increase jobs.
The Economic Development Division Manager responded the company moving into
Building 23 anticipates creating over 100 new jobs.
Councilmember Oddie stated if Matson remains in the current site then the possibility of
100 new jobs would be lost; asked the Mayor if she is satisfied with the limit of 36
containers stored in the space identified.
Mayor Spencer responded that she does not understand why 30 containers being are
used because of the move and now Matson is requesting 36 to do business; stated
there is a disconnect in the number of containers.
The Chief Operations Officer-Alameda Point responded businesses like to have
flexibility for special circumstances that might exceed normal and Matson would like the
lease to reflect that.
In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry regarding the average number of containers in
the last 5 years, the Economic Development Division Manager stated Matson
representative stated 30.
Mayor Spencer stated there has not been an increase because of the move; 30 is the
average.
Vice Mayor Matarrese amended his motion to include: the lease will explicitly state the
location not a logistics center; no stacking of containers; a maximum of 36 containers on
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
21
October 20, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-10-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-10-20,22,"the site location indicated; screening; 1 year revisit, including number of truck trips.
Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated the use is fitted for zoning, keeps jobs in Alameda and
provides potential for additional jobs.
Councilmember Oddie stated it is good to get the industrial use out of Spirits Alley and
place it where the ships and tidelands industrial use is more appropriate.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he does not see the containers as fitting the vision
along the waterfront.
The Chief Operations Officer-Alameda Point stated staff feels the use is good; it is in a
tidelands area that does not have a lot of use potential; Matson is willing to pay market
value; the use is restricted and there is less potential for demand; the building has been
vacant for 21/2 years and needs a $500,000 roof; Matson is putting $4,000,000 into the
building; removing a previous tenant cost the City over $1,000,000; Matson would put
significant dollars of investment into a building that is falling apart.
Mayor Spencer inquired about the current lease term.
The Economic Development Division Manager responded Matson is a subtenant to
West Coast Novelty, who terminated their lease, the sublease will terminate at the end
of the year.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether Matson is looking for a new lease.
The Economic Development Division Manager responded in the affirmative; stated
Matson is a maritime use and the new site is a maritime building; other interest in the
building passed when they found out how much they would have to invest; the City has
tried to lease building for 21/2 years; Matson needed a new building.
Mayor Spencer inquired if a 5 year lease is possible.
The Economic Development Division Manager responded in the negative; stating the
entire agreement would have to be renegotiated; Matson has to finance the
improvements.
Mayor Spencer inquired how much the improvements would be.
The Economic Development Division Manager responded the roof is $500,000 and
Matson plans to put $4,000,000 more into the building.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated it is an investment into a building the City owns that no
one wants to invest in; the tenancy will attract other marquee names; getting cruise
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
22
October 20, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-10-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-10-20,23,"ships out of the Port of San Francisco is a daunting task and not realistic in the next 10
years; the site is not in the Enterprise Zone, which provides the proper buffer between
the neighborhood and the working waterfront; he would hate to lose the tenant for
something doable for the next 10 years.
Councilmember Daysog requested clarification on the sublease with Matson; inquired
whether any tenant can go into Building 23 after Matson vacates it, to which the
Economic Development Division Manager responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Oddie stated Matson might want to stay in Building 23; that he has a
hard time denying a lease to someone that has been operating without any problems.
Mayor Spencer stated there have been problems; complaints about the containers.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he has not heard complaints; he thought steps were
taken to alleviate concerns.
Mayor Spencer inquired if the containers could be stored between the two buildings to
be less visible.
The Economic Development Division Manager responded in the negative; stated
Matson indicated the items inside need to be accessible.
***
(15-628) Mayor Spencer stated a motion is needed to consider the meeting past 11:00
p.m.
Vice Mayor Matarrese moved approval [of continuing the meeting past 11:00 p.m.]
Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
5.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated the fence will help mitigate; if there is a problem, he would
like to be able to come back and adjust provisions; the most important thing is no using
the site for logistics, not stacking containers, counting truck trips and limiting to 36.
Mayor Spencer stated the containers need to be as invisible as possible.
Councilmember Oddie confirmed that he would second the amended motion.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:
Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie and Mayor Spencer - 4. Noes:
Councilmember Daysog - 1.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
23
October 20, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-10-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-10-20,24,"(15-629) Recommendation to Proceed with a New Development Strategy for the
Enterprise District (Formerly Site B) at Alameda Point.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point gave a Power Point presentation.
Mayor Spencer left the dais at 11:03 p.m. and returned at 11:05 p.m.
Councilmember Daysog stated end users should pay their share of infrastructure costs;
the overall infrastructure cost for Alameda Point is $566 million; Phase One which, at
the time, included Site A and Site B, was estimated to cost $183 million predicated on
land use and intensity of uses; now the City is not sure of the land use; inquired how the
City is ensuring the end user will pay their fair share of infrastructure costs for Site B.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded the infrastructure burden is
approximately $1 million an acre; stated it is codified in ordinances that any
development which occurs in the district would have to pay a development impact fee
equivalent to $1 million per acre; the City hopes to get land value in addition; the benefit
of being a public owner is that the value of the land can be lowered to the value of the
infrastructure; policy decisions can be made on a case by case basis.
Councilmember Daysog stated infrastructure costs are important because one of the
selling features for Alameda Point is that there will be a sports complex and a regional
water ferry; sacrifices on the land sale would be worth it because would have amenities;
inquired how cherry picking can be avoided at Site B; people will pick the sites closest
to the water.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated the City is not marketing waterfront
land; the City wants to benefit from land being developed; staff anticipates starting
closer to Main Street; ultimately the Council decides whether or not a deal is good.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated that he likes the approach but would like a development
agreement with a formalized description of the responsibilities of the City and the
contractor Cushman and Wakefield; goals stated the costs should include: jobs, catalyst
occupant and end user occupant; he would like 6 month reporting to measure progress
against the goals; would like to see what lease revenues are available for installing the
water main; having the costs codified is helpful, but he would still like it mentioned in the
plan and formalized in a development agreement.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated staff could include the costs in the
documents.
Vice Mayor Matarrese responded that he would like the Plan to be approved by Council,
which allows Council to measure, adjust, terminate or expand it.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
24
October 20, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-10-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-10-20,25,"Councilmember Oddie stated it is a smart move to be the land banker as the value goes
up.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated her questions have been answered and she is
convinced of the approach, which should be turned into a document for Council to
approve.
Mayor Spencer stated how much Cushman and Wakefield has been paid or the
contract was not provided, which is critical information; the presentation indicated
Cushman and Wakefield was involved in the VF Outdoor campus, which she thought it
was Joe Ernst.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded Cushman and Wakefield were
the broker for Joe Ernst; the City did a Request for Proposals (RFP) and the City
Council selected Cushman and Wakefield and PM Realty; the current contractor
includes a 5% commission on land sales.
Mayor Spencer stated the report needs to include the contract, projects and how much
has been paid; a statement cannot be made that it is cost efficient without numbers;
how much Cushman and Wakefield has been paid in the past two years.
John McManus, Cushman and Wakefield, corrected one comment; stated they
represented VF Outdoor; the contract ends in 2018 and includes provisions if City is not
happy with performance; the lease schedule is 5% the value of the lease for years 1 to
5 and 21/2% of years 6 to 10; tonight, Matson was represented by Transwestern Group;
half of the fees would be paid to Transwestern and half to Cushman and Wakefield; in
every case there are outside brokers; fees would be reduced if there are not outside
brokers.
Mayor Spencer stated that she was looking for the contract to be included; Matson is an
existing customer; Cushman and Wakefield did not find them; inquired the percentage is
the same whether or not Cushman and Wakefield finds tenant.
Mr. McManus responded the schedule is 50% for a renewal if the tenant stays in the
building; the fee is half for relocation.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated for the new lease Cushman and
Wakefield will be receiving full commission, which is standard industry practice; stated
Cushman and Wakefield does all the front line work, not the City.
Mayor Spencer inquired what incentives Cushman and Wakefield have to bring new
clients to the City; stated that she understands Joe Ernst is bringing tenants to the City,
not Cushman and Wakefield.
Mr. McManus provided examples of new tenants: Wrightspeed, Winery 43, Fred
Grandy, Universal Studios, and Restoration Hardware.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
25
October 20, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-10-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-10-20,26,"In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry regarding Universal Studios, Mr. McManus
stated space was rented for the Steve Jobs movie.
Mayor Spencer stated that the City should broadcast and advertise wider than existing
customers and Joe Ernst.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded Council selected Cushman and
Wakefield and felt they were highly qualified.
Mayor Spencer inquired if an RFP was done when they were selected, to which the
Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Spencer stated that she was not a part of Council at that time; she would like
background information on how Cushman and Wakefield were selected, casting a wider
net and how much money Cushman and Wakefield have been paid.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated that she could have provided a
better back story.
Mayor Spencer stated there is not sufficient due diligence in committing to use
Cushman and Wakefield for Site B.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of proceeding with the new development
strategy for the Enterprise District at Alameda Point following the specifications set forth
by Vice Mayor Matarrese.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion; stated bringing Wrightspeed to Alameda
was a homerun; that he is confident with moving forward with Cushman and Wakefield.
Under discussion, Vice Mayor Matarrese stated that he would like a measurement of
the progress of the goals, which will answer some of the Mayor's questions; the number
of new inquiries and commitments can be measured and will allow Council to judge
performance.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:
Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, and Oddie - 4. Noes: Mayor
Spencer - 1.
(15-630) Report on Leasing at Alameda Point.
The Economic Development Division Manager gave a brief presentation; outlined
properties on a map.
Ted Anderson, Cushman and Wakefield, gave a Power Point presentation.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
26
October 20, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-10-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-10-20,27,"Councilmember Daysog stated there is great progress at Alameda Point.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated Alameda is becoming a great place to attract new
business.
Councilmember Oddie stated Council needs to not lose sight of the big picture; adaptive
reuse buildings need a lot of work; Council needs to not micromanage or businesses
will not want to come to Alameda.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated periodic reports are a good idea and should continue on a
regular basis; the raw data should be provided, including details about square footage,
option to purchase and investment in the building in the future; requested reports be
provided on a quarterly or semi-annual basis.
Mayor Spencer noted Google purchased Makani, which has been an Alameda company
since 2006; there is a higher level of due diligence when an action requires four votes.
Councilmember Daysog stated it seems that a lot of businesses that come to Alameda
are related to existing businesses; inquired if there is a business organization at
Alameda Point.
The Economic Development Division Manager responded the tenants are working on a
business association.
Councilmember Daysog requested Council be provided an update on the Main Street
District.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
(15-631) The Interim City Manager made an announcement about a job fair recently
hosted by the City.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
None.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(15-632) Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft made brief comments about the recent job fair.
(15-633) Consideration of Mayor's Nominations to the Commission on Disability Issues
(CDI).
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
27
October 20, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-10-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-10-20,28,"Mayor Spencer nominated Jennifer Linton and Anto Aghapekian for appointment to the
CDI.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 12:28 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
28
October 20, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-10-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2015-10-20,29,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- -OCTOBER 20, 2015- -6:00 P.M.
Mayor Spencer convened the meeting at 6:00 p.m.
Roll Call - Present:
Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie
and Mayor Spencer - 5.
Absent:
None.
Public Comment
Former Councilmember Doug deHaan, Alameda, discussed the Council's recent Harbor
Bay decision, which he believes will be the subject of litigation; urged the City Council
not to buckle under pressure of litigation.
The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(15-605) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (54956.8); Property: Tidelands at
Encinal Terminal, 1521 Buena Vista, Alameda, CA; City Negotiator: Andrew Thomas;
Organizations Represented: State of California; Issue Under Negotiation: Real Property
Negotiations Price and Terms of Payment
(15-606) Conference with Labor Negotiators (54957.6); City Negotiator: Elizabeth D.
Warmerdam; Employee Organizations: International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
Local1245 (IBEW), Electric Utility Professional Association of Alameda (EUPA),
Alameda City Employees Association (ACEA), Alameda Police Officers Association,
Non-Sworn (PANS), Management and Confidential Employees Association (MCEA);
Under Negotiation: Salaries and terms of employment
Following the Closed Session the meeting was reconvened and the City Attorney
announced that regarding Real Property, before the discussion, Vice Mayor Matarrese
objected to hearing the matter in closed session; the matter was heard and direction
was given to staff; and regarding Labor, direction was given to staff.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 6:42 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 20, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-10-20.pdf