{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-10-20", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY-OCTOBER 20, 2015-7:00 P.M.\nMayor Spencer convened the meeting at 7:02 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese,\nOddie and Mayor Spencer - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\n(15-607) Vice Mayor Matarrese inquired whether Council would consider hearing the\nEnterprise District [paragraph no. 15-629 before the leases [paragraph nos. 15-624, 15-\n625, and 15-626 to provide an overall vision of Alameda Point development, which\nwould add some sense to the lease discussion.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft agreed context would be provided.\nCouncilmember Daysog requested that the budget allocation [paragraph no. 15-615 be\nremoved from the Consent Calendar.\nThe Interim City Manager suggested the Alameda Point leasing item [paragraph no. 15-\n630] also be moved above the leases.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry whether anyone plans on addressing the\nleases, a member of the audience indicated that he would be speaking on two leases;\nstated that she would not support the motion.\nVice Mayor Matarrese withdrew his motion.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(15-608) Proclamation Declaring November 1, 2015 as Extra Mile Day in the City of\nAlameda.\nMayor Spencer read and presented the proclamation to Jennifer Williams, Social\nService Human Relations Board, Community Service Awards recipients, and\nrepresentatives from the College of Alameda and Bay Ship and Yacht.\nMs. Williams, College of Alameda representatives and Kari Thompson made brief\ncomments.\n(15-609) Proclamation Declaring October as Domestic Violence Awareness Month.\nLiz Barela, Building Futures with Women and Children, made brief comments and\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nOctober 20, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-10-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-10-20", "page": 2, "text": "provided information.\nMayor Spencer read and presented the proclamation to Ms. Barela.\n(15-610) Presentation by the United States Green Building Council (USGBC) to the City\nof Alameda for the Alameda Main Library.\nThe Library Director, Barry Giles, BuildingWise, and Kevin Hydes, representing the\nGreen Buildings Council, made brief comments.\nCouncilmember Oddie recognized Vice Mayor Matarrese and Councilmember Ezzy\nAshcraft who served as Library Project Co-Chairs.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft briefly commented on the project.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nVice Mayor Matarrese thanked Alameda residents for voting to support the project.\n(15-611) David Howard, Action Alameda News, discussed a story he wrote about cable\npublic access funding; offered to answer Council questions.\nMayor Spencer stated Council cannot ask questions since the item is not on the\nagenda; noted the matter would be discussed at a City Council/School Board\nsubcommittee meeting.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor Spencer announced that the budget amendments [paragraph no. 15-615 was\nremoved from the Consent Calendar for discussion.\nVice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph\nnumber.]\n(*15-612) Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting Held on September 15, 2015.\nApproved.\n(*15-613) Ratified bills in the amount of $2,261,333.10\n(*15-614) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Amend the Professional\nServices Agreement Between the City and Vavrinek, Trine, Day and Co., LLP (VTD)\nAdopted on January 20, 2015 by Adding $4,000 Annually, Plus 3% CPI for Fiscal Years\n2015-16 and 2016-17, for Additional Independent Auditing Services. Accepted.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nOctober 20, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-10-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-10-20", "page": 3, "text": "(15-615) Recommendation to Amend the General Fund and Other City Funds for the\nFiscal Year 2015-16 Budget by Allocating the $14,500,500 in Excess of 20% Reserve\nRequirement from the General Fund Reserve.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the $6 million, which includes $2 million for PERS\nsmoothing, $2 million for existing retirees and $2 million for current employees, would\nreturn to Council for discussion.\nCouncilmember Daysog expressed concerns regarding money set aside for the\nemergency water supply and study; stated the analysis has not been done; that he\nquestions spending $800,000; suggested everything but emergency water supply.\nMayor Spencer suggested a motion be done; stated multiple items which were not\nunanimous are being presented as one item.\nVice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of allocating the funds; stated difference\nbetween the recommendation and Measure O is Measure O indebted the City; money\nhas already been collected, the City is not asking to indebt $14 million.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion; stated Measure O has a\n$10,600,000 million dollar bond; property owners voted to tax themselves.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Oddie stated everything would be voted as a\npackage; stated originally, he voted for the water supply, in hindsight there should be\nmore public discussion.\nMayor Spencer stated in regards to $800,000 for the emergency water supply, there will\nbe a more comprehensive discussion; that she plans to support the motion; Council\noperates by majority giving direction to staff; she would have liked to see the September\n15th vote included in the presentation to see the breakdown; many items benefit the\npublic; the public will see a noticeable change and improvement in the community;\nmoving forward with Alameda Point buildings is critical; multiple items are important to\nmove forward for the benefit of the community.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he will support the motion; the community will\nbenefit.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with the Mayor; stated one time expenditures\nare one time; with the fire season, need to look into the emergency water supply.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nOctober 20, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-10-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-10-20", "page": 4, "text": "Interim City Manager to Execute an Agreement with Chicago Title Company for Title\nand Escrow Services in Connection with the Proposed Transfer of the Oakland Inner\nHarbor Tidal Canal for a 10-Month Term in an Amount not to Exceed $60,000 Paid Prior\nto Close of Escrow, Plus Title Premiums and Escrow Fees Paid at Close of Escrow.\nAccepted.\n(*15-618) Resolution No. 15091, \"Appointing Wendi Poulson as Trustee to the Alameda\nCounty Mosquito Abatement District Board.' Adopted.\n(*15-619) Ordinance No. 3135, \"Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City Manager to\nExecute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a 3-Year Lease with CSI\nMini-Storage, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, for Buildings 338, 608, and\n608A-C Collectively Located at 50 and 51 West Hornet Avenue at Alameda Point.\nFinally passed.\n(*15-620) Ordinance No. 3136, \"Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City Manager to\nExecute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a 10-Year Lease with Power\nEngineering Construction Company for Building 166 located at 1501 Viking Street, Suite\n200 at Alameda Point.\" Finally passed.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(15-621) Resolution No. 15092, \"Appointing Kenji Tamaoki as a Member of the Housing\nAuthority Board of Commissioners.\" Adopted.\nVice Mayor Matarrese moved adoption of the Resolution.\nCouncilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5.\nThe City Clerk administered the Oath of Office and presented a certificate to Mr.\nTamaoki.\n(15-622) Adoption of Resolution Appointing Jerome Harrison and Karin Lucas as\nMembers of the Rent Review Advisory Committee (RRAC), to Four Year Terms\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nOctober 20, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-10-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-10-20", "page": 5, "text": "Beginning October 20, 2015 and Appointing Thuy Nguyen and David Perry as Members\nof the RRAC to Two Year Terms Beginning October 20, 2015. Not adopted.\nThe City Clerk gave a brief presentation.\nExpressed concern with the RRAC members approving 10% rent increases; stated\nmembers being reappointed consistently voted 10% as an acceptable mediated\nsettlement, which is not a reasonable amount; urged the Council to protect renters;\noutlined neighboring cities' protection for renters; stated over half the island are renters;\nnot just low and very low income are being displaced, but moderate: Catherine Pauling,\nAlameda Renters Coalition (ARC).\nConcurred with Ms. Pauling; stated that he provided a letter on RRAC votes; suggested\nthe RRAC vote for lower rent increases; discussed the RRAC membership and\nexpressed concern; stated the composition of the RRAC is not diverse; urged\nappointment of activists and single mothers to increase diversity; urged the City\nAttorney attend RRAC meetings: John Klein, ARC.\nExpressed his frustration over rents being raised 10% and the Council dragging its feet;\nurged a moratorium; provided an example of seniors being evicted: Jason Buckley,\nAlameda.\nCouncilmember Oddie moved approval of tabling the matter until November 4, 2015;\nsuggested an elected rent board be reviewed; stated given the gravity of RRAC, makes\nsense to put off reappointment until after November 4th\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion; stated that he concurs with putting off\nthe matter until November 4th because of the magnitude of the housing situation; stated\nthe RRAC should understand the needs of the community; responsibility lies with the\nCouncil, not the RRAC.\nUnder discussion, Mayor Spencer stated that she would continue to proceed with the\nnomination to fill the vacant tenant seat; the RRAC is a 5 member board with one\nresignation; she has attended every RRAC meeting since becoming Mayor, and she\nfeels they try to meet the needs of the community; she is comfortable reappointing other\nfour members of the RRAC.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with Councilmembers Oddie and Daysog;\nrequested staff compile data requested by Council; stated different cities are coming up\nwith ways to address the situation; Council may decide to give the RRAC a different\nfunction at the November 4th meeting; that she wants to ask questions of Ms. Lucas\nregarding some statements she made; she agrees with putting the matter off until after\nNovember 4th meeting.\nMayor Spencer urged Councilmembers to attend RRAC meetings; in response to Mr.\nKlein's comments regarding questions of diversity on RRAC, inquired whether there are\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nOctober 20, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-10-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-10-20", "page": 6, "text": "some legal restrictions with the applications.\nThe City Attorney responded there are some privacy issues and certain questions one\ncannot ask.\nIn response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry regarding seats two tenant positions\navailable or two landlord positions available, Mayor Spencer stated Council voted on the\ncompositions at September 15th meeting.\nThe City Attorney stated that the Council did not want the RRAC to stop and have\nappointed as quickly as possible.\nMayor Spencer stated the appointment was to fill vacant position.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated only two of the five members are actually renters,\nwhich should be discussed.\nMayor Spencer stated the seats are two landlords, two renters and one homeowner.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated whether elected or appointed, the RRAC still needs to\nfunction without interruption; concurred with waiting until after the November 4th\nmeeting.\nThe City Attorney stated the ordinance is actually silent on the transition; members\nwould remain there until successors are appointed.\nMayor Spencer stated the fifth appointee is a renter, which is the position she would like\nto continue with appointing.\nThe City Clerk stated, to clarify for City Council, Mayor Spencer can make her\nnomination on November 3 and the vote would not occur until the following meeting.\nMayor Spencer stated that she would like to proceed with current process and make a\nnomination to get one more renter on the committee.\nVice Mayor Matarrese concurred with the Mayor on the urgency of appointing fifth\nmember of RRAC, which has to meet.\nMayor Spencer, noted meetings are canceled when a tenant files a postponement\nrequest.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft has stated that she asked staff to capture data about\nwhat happens when someone files an application and withdraws it; discussion should\nbe as data driven as possible for the November 4th meeting.\nMayor Spencer asked for public comment quickly.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nOctober 20, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-10-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-10-20", "page": 7, "text": "Mr. Klein noted cancellations are because negotiations are occurring; the RRAC should\nretain jurisdiction after an agreement is reached; the tenant should be required to\nappear.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(15-623) Recommendation to Consider Ballot Measure Options and Advise Staff on\nNext Steps.\nThe Finance Director gave a brief presentation and responded to questions.\nMayor Spencer stated that she would prefer a presentation with visuals to educate\neveryone in a more visual way.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated taxation does not matter how you collect the money, it is\nhow the City spends the money.\nThe Finance Director stated a special tax measure which restricts the revenue collected\nrequires two-thirds voter approval.\nRegarding the Utility Users Tax (UUT), Mayor Spencer stated it is important to note that\nthe 11% is outside Alameda County; Alameda County's highest rate is 7.5%.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the 7.5% would not be increased but another tax\nfor cellular telephones would be added to provide more opportunity to capture revenue.\nThe Finance Director noted within California, 85% of cities with UUT did modernize UUT\nordinances.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether capturing cellular telephone\ntechnologies would increase revenue.\nThe Finance Director responded the goal is not to increase the UUT but to maintain it\nand not lose revenue.\nMayor Spencer stated the chart from the staff report indicated the City collects\ntelecomm.\nThe Interim City Manager responded the City would only be modernizing the language\nof the ordinance; not levying any other category.\nMayor Spencer requested another category be added to the chart to show a\nsubcategory under telecom to show how many cities in the County have modernized\nordinances.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nOctober 20, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-10-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-10-20", "page": 8, "text": "The Finance Director stated Alameda cannot ask for an increase in sales tax because\nthe City is already at the cap.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired why San Leandro was allowed to increase its sales tax\nto 10%.\nThe Finance Director responded four cities within the County have a 10% rate; the cities\neither had the sales tax in place or Measure BB caused the percentage to go above.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated if Alameda would have to ask the State for legislation to\ngo above the cap.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated impacts on our residents should be considered.\nThe Finance Director continued the presentation.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated regarding altering the Transparent Occupancy Tax\n(TOT), the possibility of doing a Tourism Business Improvement District (TBID) working\nwith property owners satisfies him, the language should include Air B and B.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is intrigued by the TBID; can quickly and\neasily cause voter fatigue placing too many measures on the ballot; questioned who\nwould manage the TBID and if the Chamber of Commerce could perform said function;\nthe TBID would provide a stable funding source for tourism promotion; the TBID would\nbe governed by those who pay the assessment and could not be diverted for\ngovernment programs; even if the economy fluctuates the funding source would be\nthere; the steps identified in Exhibit 3 of staff report, for formation process, owner\noutreach and education district plan, would be a good model for the Business\nImprovement Associations (BIAs).\nMayor Spencer requested clarification on who could be a part of the TBID; is it limited to\nhotels, motels and other lodging, or could it include different business groups; stated the\nCity has many businesses that sell things and generate a sales tax that goes into a pot\nto benefit the community in different ways; the TBID sounds as though they themselves\nwould generate the tax and they themselves would decide how it is spent, which is very\ndifferent from other taxes, requested clarification.\nThe Community Development Director discussed how assessment Districts work; stated\nthe entities that are assessed have to be the entities that make the decision on how the\nfunds are expended; it would be possible for the Chamber to be the entity but they\nwould have to form a committee or subgroup to decide how to expend of funds; money\nwould range from $167,000 to $350,000 annually based on current TOT projections; of\nthis year; the West Alameda Business Association (WABA) and Park Street Business\nAssociation (PSBA) have boards made up of the business representatives from their\nassessment district which decide how funds are expended.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nOctober 20, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-10-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-10-20", "page": 9, "text": "Mayor Spencer stated on Park Street businesses pay a tax on the revenue and do not\ntax products they are selling; the difference is authority would be given to hotels in\nAlameda to allow them to tax and decide how the money is spent.\nThe Community Development Director stated the assessment for PSBA and WABA is\nsupplemental to business licenses.\nMayor Spencer stated businesses write a check and are not increasing sales tax to\ncover the cost because they do not have that power.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the directly affected stakeholder are the hoteliers; the\ntheory is TOT would increase from 10% to 12% and revenue generated by the 2%\nincrement would be used to bring more visitors to Alameda whether they are coming\nhere for business or tourism related reasons; the hoteliers have a self-interest to work\nwith entities such as the Chamber of Commerce or PSBA; within the business districts\nthere are a set of services which these hotel visitors might want to access, such as\ndining and movies; in raising the TOT, the City would be arming the hoteliers to work in\nconjunction with local service providers.\nThe CDD Director stated the incremental increase in the TOT is not a tax, it is an\nassessment that members of the district would vote to assess themselves.\nMayor Spencer inquired when someone comes to rent a hotel room do they pay an\nextra tax.\nThe CDD Director responded in the negative; stated they pay an assessment.\nMayor Spencer stated it is similar to a sales tax because it is passed on to the visitor.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the proposal for the possible increase should be in\nthe range of surrounding cities so that people do not stay elsewhere because Alameda\nis too expensive; a 1 or 2% increase would be used to form a TBID, the rest would go to\nthe General Fund.\nThe CDD Director concurred; stated the existing tax would go to the General Fund; the\nassessment amount would flow to the District for expenditure on visitor related activities.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired if the TBID would not be subject to the Balanced\nRevenue Index (BRI)?\nThe CDD Director responded in the negative; stated the City is simply a pass through\nentity collecting the assessment and then rebating it back to the District.\nMayor Spencer requested someone clarify Councilmember Daysog's comment for the\npublic.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nOctober 20, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-10-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-10-20", "page": 10, "text": "The Interim City Manager clarified the revenue would not affect the raises the Council\nis\ncontemplating for their employees, which is based on the BRI composed of five of the\nmajor revenue sources.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the hoteliers have to assess themselves, but\nonce a district is created on a 50% plus one vote all businesses would be assessed.\nThey CDD responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Spencer requested City Staff to explain Council action is needed.\nThe Interim City Manager stated once the Finance Director finishes the presentation,\nstaff wants direction on plans to move forward, including the TBID.\nMayor Spencer stated the recommendation is that Council make a motion to consider\nall ballot measure options and advise staff on next steps including working with the hotel\nindustry to assess interest in forming a TBID; inquired if a timeline requires Council\naction tonight.\nThe Interim City Manager responded action is not being taken; staff is requesting that\nCouncil approve the strategy and express interest in staff pursuing the items; staff is\nworking with polling consultants and would come back early next year based on the\npolling the CDD will have preliminary discussions with the hotels and staff will come\nback to Council with a potential TBID.\nMayor Spencer inquired if staff is requesting Council to give direction and would come\nback with regards to the UUT options more, specifically.\nThe Interim City Manager responded staff is hoping to work with a polling consultant to\nidentify the appetite for the measures; the School District is doing a parcel tax measure;\nmaybe community will not be interested; staff does not want to spend time, energy and\nresources without polling information.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether updating the UUT would be the same as other cities\nregarding landline versus cell phone, to which the Interim City Manager responded\nin\nthe affirmative.\nMayor Spencer inquired if staff would be looking at sales tax, to which the Interim City\nManager responded in the negative.\nMayor Spencer inquired if staff will be checking with hotel owners regarding TOT.\nThe Interim City Manager responded staff would like to know if Council would be okay\nwith staff starting conversations with hoteliers.\nMayor Spencer stated staff will address the parcel tax and assessment district next.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nOctober 20, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-10-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-10-20", "page": 11, "text": "The Finance Director continued her presentation.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if the City does not fix storm drains it would cost\neven more.\nThe Finance Director responded in the affirmative; stated staff is trying to find potential\nfunding sources for projects, otherwise the General Fund will be used.\nMayor Spencer read an example from staff: total revenue from a $25 parcel tax would\nbe approximately $520,000 annually; stated $25 is significantly lower than the School\nDistrict parcel tax.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she does not want Council to decide between\nthe two options of parcel tax versus assessment district without an analysis of revenue\ngenerated; inquired when will Council receive said information.\nThe Finance Director responded it would depend on the direction.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council needs the information to make an\ninformed decision.\nIn response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the Interim Public Works\nDirector stated an assessment district is where property owners pay an assessment and\nreceive enhanced maintenance or some special benefit through the paid assessment;\nthe question of how much the property owner will pay and how much revenue would be\ngenerated depends on how far the City goes; if the City tries to recover the $45 million\nshortfall and upgrade the storm drain system in the next 20 years, that cost would be\n$200 per parcel.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated staff wanting to go the poll; she would not move\nforward without any polling data.\nExpressed support for the TBID which puts money in the hands of the people that are\ntrying to bring in tourism; urged Council to direct staff to continue with said project: Kari\nThompson, Chamber of Commerce.\nUrged the tourism funds come from business other than just hotels; her vision is a\nhybrid plan where not only the hotels, but all businesses included in tourism to make\nmore money; marketing people would know how to brand and focus on tourism;\ndiscussed the City of Oakland's model, which should be followed and is managed by a\nBoard of Directors: Karen Bey, Alameda.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated it would be good to see the expansion to different services\nfor the UUT; a sales tax increase should not be pursued; he agrees with the TBID idea;\nas with other districts, staff would have a presence on the board that runs the TBID and\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nOctober 20, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-10-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-10-20", "page": 12, "text": "the City would have a say with requiring a 50% vote of the hotel owners; parcel tax\npolling should be done for June versus November cognizant of the fact that the School\nDistrict will have a measure; he would like to see a park parcel tax combined in same\nmeasure as the School parcel tax; parks are popular.\nCouncilmember Daysog urged staff to modernize the UUT; requested staff be clear on\nwhat would be funded; stated TBID has to involve lodging providers on whom the extra\nassessment is placed, working in conjunction with business associations, businesses\nproviding services, and recreational destination venues; he spoke with four hoteliers\nintrigued by an increase; TOT rate is lower than neighbors; a 2% would put Alameda at\na competitive disadvantage; he appreciates staff coming up with different options; he\ndoes not support increasing the sales tax; he supports a $25 parcel tax, as long as it is\ntargeted.\nMayor Spencer stated that she agrees with staff about doing polling on the UUT;\nrequested a chart that has what other cities in the County are doing; she is comfortable\nwith polling.\nMayor Spencer stated if staff is not interested in polling on certain issues, she is fine\nwith that; inquired is there a possibility that any funds would go to funding healthcare\nand pension costs.\nThe Interim City Manager responded in the negative; stated the UUT goes into the\nGeneral Fund, which pays that type of thing.\nMayor Spencer stated that her preference on any of the taxes would be to have funds\ngo to other things, such as the parks; the community would be more on board if the tax\nwere for something specific; regarding TOT she agrees with Karen Bey and would like\nother types of businesses to weigh in on how to spend the money; she would support a\nparcel tax for something specific.\nVice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of directing staff: 1) to eliminate the sales tax as\na possible option, 2) to do a poll by a reputable firm to test the questions brought up in\nmeeting, and 3) to research, including polling and other options, the TBID.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft questioned how Walnut Creek funds park maintenance\non their parks; stated Ms. Bey's suggestions to tax local business because tourists\nfrequent them gives her pause; she favors a TBID approach that starts small and ramps\nup; the polling could include sales tax.\nMayor Spencer stated the majority is not interested in sales tax.\nVice Mayor Matarrese clarified the motion, as approval of directing staff to eliminate the\nsales tax as a possible option, to research and conduct polling on other option listed in\nstaff report, including taking a polling approach to the TBID that does consider a\nbroader scope than just the hotels and to bring the results of the plan back to Council in\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nOctober 20, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-10-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-10-20", "page": 13, "text": "a timely fashion so that the polling conducted allows the data to be applicable to the\nelection that is being targeted.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which includes an expanded view of the\nTBID fee and trying to find out how others could participate; other cities have a visitor's\nfee, which is worth reviewing.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Oddie stated the June election should be compared\nto the November election and staff should research if it is legal to combine the parcel\ntax for both schools and parks on one measure.\nVice Mayor Matarrese concurred; stated the matter should be addressed in the poll; he\nwants objective polling questions, not a direction.\nThe Interim City Manager inquired about the polling for the TBID; stated the TBID is\nvoluntary.\nVice Mayor Matarrese responded that he is addressing using a polling approach; City\nhas seven to eleven hotels; he wants to make sure hoteliers are interested in TBID;\nstated the City should ensure it can get 50% of the vote.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n***\nMayor Spencer called a recess at 9:26 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:32 p.m.\nand Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft returned at 9:34 p.m.\n(15-624) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City\nManager to Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a 10-Year Lease\nwith 707 West Tower Avenue, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, for Building\n9 Located at 707 West Tower Avenue at Alameda Point. Introduced.\nThe Economic Development Division Manager, gave a brief presentation on the\nBuilding 9 lease and the Building 91 lease [paragraph no. 15-624].\nMayor Spencer inquired if the leases have an option to purpose.\nThe Economic Development Division Manager responded in the affirmative; continued\nthe presentation.\nMayor Spencer inquired how the option to purchase would be exercised, to which the\nEconomic Development Division Manager responded City staff is going through the\ninternal process to create legal parcels to offer to the tenant for purchase.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nOctober 20, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-10-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-10-20", "page": 14, "text": "Mayor Spencer inquired that if the purchase option is part of the lease, to which the\nEconomic Development Division Manager responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Spencer stated the option to purchase is not in the title; not every lease has an\noption to purchase; requested that the option to purchase be in the title and made very\nclear.\nOutlined the project and plans for Buildings 9 and 91; stated there is tremendous growth\nin locally grown food products; two challenges are production and capital; capital and\nretail opportunities will be offered; companies can plug in equipment, develop product\nand grow; nearly 25 companies toured the space, and he is in negotiations with 80% of\nthe companies; the plan is to have 30 to 45 companies in the project; approximately $40\nmillion would be invested in the project: Joe Ernst, SRM Ernst.\nMayor Spencer requested a breakdown on how money would be spent for each\nbuilding.\nMr. Ernst responded Building 91 will be approximately $9 million and the balance would\nbe in Building 9.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether $31 million would be invested in Building 9.\nMr. Ernst responded in the affirmative; stated SRM Ernst brings knowledge of Alameda\nPoint, development capability, food experience and market knowledge.\nDiscussed having adequate facilities to help businesses scale to the next level; stated\nBuildings 9 and 91 will provide entrepreneurs a space to collaborate and a sense of\ncommunity: Harv Singh, SRM Ernst.\nStated that she would like to produce wine in Alameda; urged moving forward:\nAlexandra Cohn, Jeff Cohn Cellars.\nUrged approval of the leases with the option to buy; stated that he owns Thirsty Bear\nBrewery in San Francisco; that he will be leasing 20,000 square feet in Building 91;\noutlined what he would be doing and other aspects of the project: Ron Silberstein,\nCalifornia Craft Maltings.\nUrged approval; discussed the investment and developer: Michael McDonough,\nChamber of Commerce.\nMayor Spencer stated, the option to purchase was not noticed; having a visual for 707\nWest Tower Avenue would have been nice; a $14.5 million investment for 81,000\nsquare feet on 4.2 acres is questionable; for 651 West Tower Avenue, 41,000 square\nfeet on 2.2 acres with $31 million investment is $1 million per square foot, which is\nsignificantly higher.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n14\nOctober 20, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-10-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-10-20", "page": 15, "text": "Mr. Ernst stated the cost for Building 91 is $220 per square foot, which exceeds costs\nfor comparables; the investment is very significant.\nMayor Spencer questioned $9 million for 41,000 square feet; stated in Alameda homes\nare selling for $1 million for 2,000 to 3,000 square feet.\nMr. Ernst stated the two are very different; price is a function of the rents.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry regarding Building 9, Mr. Ernst stated a second\nfloor would be added to the building, which is a significant capital improvement.\nMayor Spencer requested staff to provide two different tables on the cost per square\nfootage to purchase.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that Council gave direction to staff on negotiating the\noption to purchase.\nThe Chief Operations Officer - Alameda Point stated staff believes given the condition of\nthe properties, the buildings are in market range; the Building 9 purchase price of $5.5\nmillion equates to $65 per square foot; brokers advise the amount is the high end range\nfor a class C warehouse building in that condition; Building 91 equates to $75 per\nsquare foot; given the condition of the buildings, the infrastructure burden and the\namount of investment required to bring up code, staff believes the amount is market\nvalue.\nVice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of authorizing the City Manager to execute the\ndocuments; stated investors are ready to make these buildings usable, inhabitants are\nready to lease them; buildings will be removed from the City's ownership and on to the\ntax poll and will grow a commercial sector which has had problems growing in last 30\nyears; moving on the properties is critical.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft second the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Oddie stated two separate motions are needed.\nVice Mayor Matarrese clarified the motion is approval of the first item [introduction of the\nordinance approving a Lease and authorizing the City Manager to execute documents\nnecessary to implement the terms of a 10-year lease with 707 West Tower Avenue,\nLLC, a California Limited Liability Company, for Building 9 located at 707 West Tower\nAvenue at Alameda Point].\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated Building 9 was last occupied in 2003; there is a\ncost to the City to have buildings vacant; she would like to see more of a retail\ncomponent; concurs with the Vice Mayor it is a great opportunity and urged movement\non the project.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n15\nOctober 20, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-10-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-10-20", "page": 16, "text": "Councilmember Daysog stated the two Caruso projects and the West Hollywood\nprojects fell by the wayside; stated it is difficult to get developers and the type of\nbusiness the City wants; bringing the buildings to market will require an extensive\ninvestment; SRM Ernst is a strong team that has demonstrated success; Wrightspeed\nand JC Cellars have track records that engender confidence; SRM Ernst will bring along\nlocal businesses, which will bring Alameda Point forward; he is satisfied with proposals\nput forward by staff and is ready to move forward.\nMayor Spencer stated that she will support the motion; in the future when a lease is\npresented to Council that includes an option to purchase, it should be clear and include\nfinancial analysis investments by the developers and cost per square foot; sharing the\ninformation with the community is important to show where the numbers make sense,\nmore food options are needed for the benefit of the community; she looks forward to the\ngreen part of the business and healthy food options for the community.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(15-625) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City\nManager to Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a 10-Year Lease\nwith 651 West Tower Avenue, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, for Building\n91 Located at 651 West Tower Avenue at Alameda Point. Introduced.\nThe matter was discussed under the Building 9 lease [paragraph no. 15-624].\nCouncilmember Oddie moved introduction of the ordinance.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5.\n(15-626) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City\nManager to Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a 10-Year Lease\nwith Matson Navigation Company, Inc., a Hawaii Corporation, for Building 167 Located\nat 1500 Ferry Point at Alameda Point. Introduced.\nThe Economic Development Division Manager gave a brief presentation.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated the lease is consistent with the City's policies and with the\nBase Reuse Plan to bolster the maritime industry; moved approval [of introducing the\nordinance] with the condition that there are no containers stacked, no containers stored\noutside the fenced area or adjacent to the fenced area.\nCouncilmember Oddie seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Mayor Spencer inquired if Matson would agree to have no more than\n12 containers.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n16\nOctober 20, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-10-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-10-20", "page": 17, "text": "The Economic Development Division Manager responded in the negative; stated\nMatson will only have a couple dozen at a time, but they have ample yard space.\nMayor Spencer inquired if any of the containers will be visible to the public.\nThe Economic Development Division Manager responded the containers will be in the\nscreened, fenced area; stated she does not know if the tops of the containers will be\nvisible over the screen.\nVice Mayor Matarrese inquired if the space will not be used for logistics.\nThe Economic Development Division Manager responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Spencer inquired if the containers are brought over to Alameda by the Park\nStreet Bridge.\nThe Economic Development Division Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the\ntruck route is Park Street Bridge.\nMayor Spencer stated the day after Thanksgiving 2014, there were many trucks going\nacross Alameda; inquired if a provision could be added to the lease agreement to\nprevent said occurrence from happening.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft responded the event last year occurred when there were\nport stoppages up and down the coast, which is not a regular occurrence.\nMayor Spencer stated that she has concerns with regards to the lease to not have that\nhappen.\nThe Economic Development Division Manager responded; Matson is not a large truck\ntransit business; stated Matson will be using Pier 3, 3 days a month for items that\ncannot be transported via container.\nMayor Spencer inquired if Matson has trucks going back and forth, will the City be able\nto limit truck traffic.\nThe Economic Development Division Manager responded an extreme change in the\nuse of the facility would have to occur to generate the number of truck trips; the City\ncould bring the lease back for review if the use significantly changed; consistency and\nuse change would be felt immediately and the lease could definitely be reviewed.\nCouncilmember Daysog expressed concern with stacked cargo containers in the\nEnterprise District; stated that he does not want cargo containers anywhere in the\nharbor area; he cannot support the measure.\nMayor Spencer urged staff or representatives from Matson to address the issue; stated\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n17\nOctober 20, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-10-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-10-20", "page": 18, "text": "staff does not know if the height of the containers exceeds the fencing; she would like\nsomeone to clarify the issue.\nRobert Hawke, Matson, responded there will be no stacking of cargo or parts outside\nthe building; the lease could be amended to specifically say cargo will not be stacked\nand the building will not be used as a logistics facility; the facility is used strictly for\nwarehousing ship repair parts.\nVice Mayor Matarrese inquired if Matson would be willing to restrict the number of\ncontainers; stated the lease could be revisited if the need arises.\nIn response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, Vice Mayor Matarrese stated\nthat he would like a way to quantify the number of containers.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if Vice Mayor Matarrese was concerned with the\npercentage or the actual number of containers.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated that he is concerned with truck traffic.\nMayor Spencer stated that she would like to hear from Mr. Hawke.\nMr. Hawke stated most of the containers used are approximately 40 feet in length, 8\nfeet wide.\nMayor Spencer inquired on the height of the containers.\nMr. Hawke responded the containers are 8 to 10 feet in height; a single container would\ncover approximately 240 square feet of space outside the building; width 30 in total, a\nsmall fraction of the outside area would be covered; does not see having more than 25\nto 30 containers outside at a time.\nMayor Spencer inquired what is the height of the screening.\nThe Economic Development Division Manager responded she believes the fencing is 6\nfeet in height.\nMayor Spencer inquired how many containers are currently at the site.\nMr. Hawke responded they are at a rarely high number at 30 containers currently.\nMayor Spencer inquired what the average number of containers would be for the site, to\nwhich Mr. Hawke responded 30 containers is the average.\nMayor Spencer inquired even though it was stated there is currently an unusual amount\nof containers because of the move, 30 is also anticipated to be the average at the new\nsite.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n18\nOctober 20, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-10-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-10-20", "page": 19, "text": "Vice Mayor Matarrese stated he is satisfied that the use is compatible with the zone;\ntidelands allow maritime public use or recreation; the City will not get recreation in the\nlocation; he would like to see the lease amended prohibiting stacking of any containers;\nwould like the lease to state the site is not a logistics area and that the 30 containers\nmay enter and sit; he would like the matter to come back for review after a year of\noperation, including tracking truck trips and the containers.\nMayor Spencer stated that she would like to see a cap of 30 containers.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the screening should also be included in the motion.\nMr. Hawke stated fencing has already been agreed upon and is in the plan.\nThe Economic Development Division Manager inquired, for clarification, if in one year\nstaff would come back with information on truck trips, screen the facility would be\nscreened and the lease would be amended to say no stacking of the cargo containers.\nMayor Spencer responded that the facility would not be used for logistics should also be\nincluded.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired since different amounts were mentioned, if Mr. Hawke\nwould agree to 30 containers.\nMayor Spencer inquired if Matson could limit the containers to 30.\nMr. Hawke responded the number of containers could be limited to 30.\n(15-627) Mayor Spencer stated a motion is needed to consider the remaining items: the\nEnterprise District [paragraph no. 15-629 and the Alameda Point leasing [paragraph no.\n15-630].\nVice Mayor Matarrese moved approval [of considering the remaining items].\nCouncilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote:\nAyes: Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese and Oddie - 4. Noes: Mayor\nSpencer - 1.\n***\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if Mr. Hawke would be satisfied with the limit of\n30 containers.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired would 36 containers work better; inquired what number\nwould make Matson comfortable.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n19\nOctober 20, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-10-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-10-20", "page": 20, "text": "Mr. Hawke responded 36 is comfortable for him if Council would agree.\nMayor Spencer stated the motion requires four votes to pass; she appreciates three\nCouncilmembers are enthusiastic and one Councilmember is not; she is in between and\nis concerned the containers will be seen driving around.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired if the screening could be increased in size.\nMayor Spencer responded that she prefers the view and would not want to increase the\nscreening; the space is large; the original amount stated was 30 containers.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated 36 containers are being requested.\nMayor Spencer stated Mr. Hawke originally requested 30 containers.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the use is maritime the City should not tie the\nhands of tenants; inquired if the water is behind the building.\nMayor Spencer inquired if Matson work with 30 containers.\nThe Economic Development Division Manager responded 36 containers will take up\n86,000 square feet of the outside area, which is approximately 15%.\nMayor Spencer inquired if the containers will be together or scattered.\nRobert Hawke responded the containers would be set very neatly, side by side, with\ndoors facing in a single direction for access; they could be lined up perpendicular to the\nbuilding.\nMayor Spencer inquired where the containers would be located.\nThe Chief Operations Officer-Alameda Point, clarified Matson stated the containers\nwould be on 6% of the outdoor land area.\nMayor Spencer requested details on the containers location; inquired whether the\ncontainers would be adjacent to the building.\nMr. Hawke responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Spencer inquired would the containers be in the back of the building as opposed\nto the front.\nMr. Hawk showed an exhibit and explained the containers would be stored west to east\nperpendicular to the building.\nUrged Council not to go forward; stated the view of the ships brings her a sense of\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n20\nOctober 20, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-10-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-10-20", "page": 21, "text": "peace; expressed concern over the use not being the highest and best use; stated it is a\ngreat piece of property and Council should do something wonderful with it: Karen Bey,\nAlameda.\nMayor Spencer inquired that Matson previously stated they had 30 containers for\nmoving, now they are requesting 36 containers.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the lease is for 10 years; the process to build out\nthe Base is a 20 to 30 year process; Google is looking to expand their operation in the\nbuilding Matson is looking to vacate; the lease would bring in decent revenue while\nAlameda Point development moves forward.\nMayor Spencer inquired how many jobs would be created by this move.\nThe Economic Development Division Manager responded there will be no jobs created,\nthere are currently 6 employees who are Alameda residents; Matson tries to limit the\nnumber of people coming in and out of their facility.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated Google wants to expand into Matson's current space at\nBuilding 23 after Matson moves to the new site; inquired whether Google expansion\nwould increase jobs.\nThe Economic Development Division Manager responded the company moving into\nBuilding 23 anticipates creating over 100 new jobs.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated if Matson remains in the current site then the possibility of\n100 new jobs would be lost; asked the Mayor if she is satisfied with the limit of 36\ncontainers stored in the space identified.\nMayor Spencer responded that she does not understand why 30 containers being are\nused because of the move and now Matson is requesting 36 to do business; stated\nthere is a disconnect in the number of containers.\nThe Chief Operations Officer-Alameda Point responded businesses like to have\nflexibility for special circumstances that might exceed normal and Matson would like the\nlease to reflect that.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry regarding the average number of containers in\nthe last 5 years, the Economic Development Division Manager stated Matson\nrepresentative stated 30.\nMayor Spencer stated there has not been an increase because of the move; 30 is the\naverage.\nVice Mayor Matarrese amended his motion to include: the lease will explicitly state the\nlocation not a logistics center; no stacking of containers; a maximum of 36 containers on\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n21\nOctober 20, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-10-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-10-20", "page": 22, "text": "the site location indicated; screening; 1 year revisit, including number of truck trips.\nCouncilmember Oddie seconded the motion.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated the use is fitted for zoning, keeps jobs in Alameda and\nprovides potential for additional jobs.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated it is good to get the industrial use out of Spirits Alley and\nplace it where the ships and tidelands industrial use is more appropriate.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he does not see the containers as fitting the vision\nalong the waterfront.\nThe Chief Operations Officer-Alameda Point stated staff feels the use is good; it is in a\ntidelands area that does not have a lot of use potential; Matson is willing to pay market\nvalue; the use is restricted and there is less potential for demand; the building has been\nvacant for 21/2 years and needs a $500,000 roof; Matson is putting $4,000,000 into the\nbuilding; removing a previous tenant cost the City over $1,000,000; Matson would put\nsignificant dollars of investment into a building that is falling apart.\nMayor Spencer inquired about the current lease term.\nThe Economic Development Division Manager responded Matson is a subtenant to\nWest Coast Novelty, who terminated their lease, the sublease will terminate at the end\nof the year.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether Matson is looking for a new lease.\nThe Economic Development Division Manager responded in the affirmative; stated\nMatson is a maritime use and the new site is a maritime building; other interest in the\nbuilding passed when they found out how much they would have to invest; the City has\ntried to lease building for 21/2 years; Matson needed a new building.\nMayor Spencer inquired if a 5 year lease is possible.\nThe Economic Development Division Manager responded in the negative; stating the\nentire agreement would have to be renegotiated; Matson has to finance the\nimprovements.\nMayor Spencer inquired how much the improvements would be.\nThe Economic Development Division Manager responded the roof is $500,000 and\nMatson plans to put $4,000,000 more into the building.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated it is an investment into a building the City owns that no\none wants to invest in; the tenancy will attract other marquee names; getting cruise\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n22\nOctober 20, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-10-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-10-20", "page": 23, "text": "ships out of the Port of San Francisco is a daunting task and not realistic in the next 10\nyears; the site is not in the Enterprise Zone, which provides the proper buffer between\nthe neighborhood and the working waterfront; he would hate to lose the tenant for\nsomething doable for the next 10 years.\nCouncilmember Daysog requested clarification on the sublease with Matson; inquired\nwhether any tenant can go into Building 23 after Matson vacates it, to which the\nEconomic Development Division Manager responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated Matson might want to stay in Building 23; that he has a\nhard time denying a lease to someone that has been operating without any problems.\nMayor Spencer stated there have been problems; complaints about the containers.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he has not heard complaints; he thought steps were\ntaken to alleviate concerns.\nMayor Spencer inquired if the containers could be stored between the two buildings to\nbe less visible.\nThe Economic Development Division Manager responded in the negative; stated\nMatson indicated the items inside need to be accessible.\n***\n(15-628) Mayor Spencer stated a motion is needed to consider the meeting past 11:00\np.m.\nVice Mayor Matarrese moved approval [of continuing the meeting past 11:00 p.m.]\nCouncilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated the fence will help mitigate; if there is a problem, he would\nlike to be able to come back and adjust provisions; the most important thing is no using\nthe site for logistics, not stacking containers, counting truck trips and limiting to 36.\nMayor Spencer stated the containers need to be as invisible as possible.\nCouncilmember Oddie confirmed that he would second the amended motion.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:\nCouncilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie and Mayor Spencer - 4. Noes:\nCouncilmember Daysog - 1.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n23\nOctober 20, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-10-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-10-20", "page": 24, "text": "(15-629) Recommendation to Proceed with a New Development Strategy for the\nEnterprise District (Formerly Site B) at Alameda Point.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point gave a Power Point presentation.\nMayor Spencer left the dais at 11:03 p.m. and returned at 11:05 p.m.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated end users should pay their share of infrastructure costs;\nthe overall infrastructure cost for Alameda Point is $566 million; Phase One which, at\nthe time, included Site A and Site B, was estimated to cost $183 million predicated on\nland use and intensity of uses; now the City is not sure of the land use; inquired how the\nCity is ensuring the end user will pay their fair share of infrastructure costs for Site B.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded the infrastructure burden is\napproximately $1 million an acre; stated it is codified in ordinances that any\ndevelopment which occurs in the district would have to pay a development impact fee\nequivalent to $1 million per acre; the City hopes to get land value in addition; the benefit\nof being a public owner is that the value of the land can be lowered to the value of the\ninfrastructure; policy decisions can be made on a case by case basis.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated infrastructure costs are important because one of the\nselling features for Alameda Point is that there will be a sports complex and a regional\nwater ferry; sacrifices on the land sale would be worth it because would have amenities;\ninquired how cherry picking can be avoided at Site B; people will pick the sites closest\nto the water.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated the City is not marketing waterfront\nland; the City wants to benefit from land being developed; staff anticipates starting\ncloser to Main Street; ultimately the Council decides whether or not a deal is good.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated that he likes the approach but would like a development\nagreement with a formalized description of the responsibilities of the City and the\ncontractor Cushman and Wakefield; goals stated the costs should include: jobs, catalyst\noccupant and end user occupant; he would like 6 month reporting to measure progress\nagainst the goals; would like to see what lease revenues are available for installing the\nwater main; having the costs codified is helpful, but he would still like it mentioned in the\nplan and formalized in a development agreement.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated staff could include the costs in the\ndocuments.\nVice Mayor Matarrese responded that he would like the Plan to be approved by Council,\nwhich allows Council to measure, adjust, terminate or expand it.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n24\nOctober 20, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-10-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-10-20", "page": 25, "text": "Councilmember Oddie stated it is a smart move to be the land banker as the value goes\nup.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated her questions have been answered and she is\nconvinced of the approach, which should be turned into a document for Council to\napprove.\nMayor Spencer stated how much Cushman and Wakefield has been paid or the\ncontract was not provided, which is critical information; the presentation indicated\nCushman and Wakefield was involved in the VF Outdoor campus, which she thought it\nwas Joe Ernst.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded Cushman and Wakefield were\nthe broker for Joe Ernst; the City did a Request for Proposals (RFP) and the City\nCouncil selected Cushman and Wakefield and PM Realty; the current contractor\nincludes a 5% commission on land sales.\nMayor Spencer stated the report needs to include the contract, projects and how much\nhas been paid; a statement cannot be made that it is cost efficient without numbers;\nhow much Cushman and Wakefield has been paid in the past two years.\nJohn McManus, Cushman and Wakefield, corrected one comment; stated they\nrepresented VF Outdoor; the contract ends in 2018 and includes provisions if City is not\nhappy with performance; the lease schedule is 5% the value of the lease for years 1 to\n5 and 21/2% of years 6 to 10; tonight, Matson was represented by Transwestern Group;\nhalf of the fees would be paid to Transwestern and half to Cushman and Wakefield; in\nevery case there are outside brokers; fees would be reduced if there are not outside\nbrokers.\nMayor Spencer stated that she was looking for the contract to be included; Matson is an\nexisting customer; Cushman and Wakefield did not find them; inquired the percentage is\nthe same whether or not Cushman and Wakefield finds tenant.\nMr. McManus responded the schedule is 50% for a renewal if the tenant stays in the\nbuilding; the fee is half for relocation.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated for the new lease Cushman and\nWakefield will be receiving full commission, which is standard industry practice; stated\nCushman and Wakefield does all the front line work, not the City.\nMayor Spencer inquired what incentives Cushman and Wakefield have to bring new\nclients to the City; stated that she understands Joe Ernst is bringing tenants to the City,\nnot Cushman and Wakefield.\nMr. McManus provided examples of new tenants: Wrightspeed, Winery 43, Fred\nGrandy, Universal Studios, and Restoration Hardware.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n25\nOctober 20, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-10-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-10-20", "page": 26, "text": "In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry regarding Universal Studios, Mr. McManus\nstated space was rented for the Steve Jobs movie.\nMayor Spencer stated that the City should broadcast and advertise wider than existing\ncustomers and Joe Ernst.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded Council selected Cushman and\nWakefield and felt they were highly qualified.\nMayor Spencer inquired if an RFP was done when they were selected, to which the\nChief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Spencer stated that she was not a part of Council at that time; she would like\nbackground information on how Cushman and Wakefield were selected, casting a wider\nnet and how much money Cushman and Wakefield have been paid.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated that she could have provided a\nbetter back story.\nMayor Spencer stated there is not sufficient due diligence in committing to use\nCushman and Wakefield for Site B.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of proceeding with the new development\nstrategy for the Enterprise District at Alameda Point following the specifications set forth\nby Vice Mayor Matarrese.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion; stated bringing Wrightspeed to Alameda\nwas a homerun; that he is confident with moving forward with Cushman and Wakefield.\nUnder discussion, Vice Mayor Matarrese stated that he would like a measurement of\nthe progress of the goals, which will answer some of the Mayor's questions; the number\nof new inquiries and commitments can be measured and will allow Council to judge\nperformance.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, and Oddie - 4. Noes: Mayor\nSpencer - 1.\n(15-630) Report on Leasing at Alameda Point.\nThe Economic Development Division Manager gave a brief presentation; outlined\nproperties on a map.\nTed Anderson, Cushman and Wakefield, gave a Power Point presentation.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n26\nOctober 20, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-10-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-10-20", "page": 27, "text": "Councilmember Daysog stated there is great progress at Alameda Point.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated Alameda is becoming a great place to attract new\nbusiness.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated Council needs to not lose sight of the big picture; adaptive\nreuse buildings need a lot of work; Council needs to not micromanage or businesses\nwill not want to come to Alameda.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated periodic reports are a good idea and should continue on a\nregular basis; the raw data should be provided, including details about square footage,\noption to purchase and investment in the building in the future; requested reports be\nprovided on a quarterly or semi-annual basis.\nMayor Spencer noted Google purchased Makani, which has been an Alameda company\nsince 2006; there is a higher level of due diligence when an action requires four votes.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated it seems that a lot of businesses that come to Alameda\nare related to existing businesses; inquired if there is a business organization at\nAlameda Point.\nThe Economic Development Division Manager responded the tenants are working on a\nbusiness association.\nCouncilmember Daysog requested Council be provided an update on the Main Street\nDistrict.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(15-631) The Interim City Manager made an announcement about a job fair recently\nhosted by the City.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\nNone.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(15-632) Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft made brief comments about the recent job fair.\n(15-633) Consideration of Mayor's Nominations to the Commission on Disability Issues\n(CDI).\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n27\nOctober 20, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-10-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-10-20", "page": 28, "text": "Mayor Spencer nominated Jennifer Linton and Anto Aghapekian for appointment to the\nCDI.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 12:28 a.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n28\nOctober 20, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-10-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-10-20", "page": 29, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- -OCTOBER 20, 2015- -6:00 P.M.\nMayor Spencer convened the meeting at 6:00 p.m.\nRoll Call - Present:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie\nand Mayor Spencer - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nPublic Comment\nFormer Councilmember Doug deHaan, Alameda, discussed the Council's recent Harbor\nBay decision, which he believes will be the subject of litigation; urged the City Council\nnot to buckle under pressure of litigation.\nThe meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(15-605) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (54956.8); Property: Tidelands at\nEncinal Terminal, 1521 Buena Vista, Alameda, CA; City Negotiator: Andrew Thomas;\nOrganizations Represented: State of California; Issue Under Negotiation: Real Property\nNegotiations Price and Terms of Payment\n(15-606) Conference with Labor Negotiators (54957.6); City Negotiator: Elizabeth D.\nWarmerdam; Employee Organizations: International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,\nLocal1245 (IBEW), Electric Utility Professional Association of Alameda (EUPA),\nAlameda City Employees Association (ACEA), Alameda Police Officers Association,\nNon-Sworn (PANS), Management and Confidential Employees Association (MCEA);\nUnder Negotiation: Salaries and terms of employment\nFollowing the Closed Session the meeting was reconvened and the City Attorney\nannounced that regarding Real Property, before the discussion, Vice Mayor Matarrese\nobjected to hearing the matter in closed session; the matter was heard and direction\nwas given to staff; and regarding Labor, direction was given to staff.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 6:42 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 20, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-10-20.pdf"}