Recommendation to Proceed with a New Development Strategy for the Enterprise District (Formerly Site B) at Alameda Point. (Base Reuse 819099)
Okay. Next item. And now 60. Recommendations three Yes. Recommendation to proceed with the new development strategy for the Enterprise District, formerly site B at Alameda Point. Good evening, Mayor. Councilmembers My name is Jennifer Short, Chief Operating Officer for Alameda Point. I'm here to talk about jobs and how we attract them to alameda point. We know this came up a lot as part of our discussion of the city project. A mixed use project was how do we balance the housing units at Alameda Point being built with jobs and really developing starting to develop a strategy for attracting those jobs? That's what this presentation is about. And we believe this is just this is honestly just one way that we're doing that. And I'll talk a little bit at the end of this presentation about other ideas and thoughts we have about attracting jobs. So the first thing I think before we go into too much detail about what we're proposing in from a strategic standpoint, I think we had some comments and questions that I think we're really good to kind of take a step back and really frame what is the policy framework for for why we're doing this and and what we're going to be trying to attract. And although I'm focusing on the 2014 zoning amendment, the reality is when this the reuse plan was approved in 1996, the focus was on attracting jobs because we lost 18,000 jobs on the base closed. That was what was the focus of the reuse plan. I'm five and half million square feet of commercial that is ultimately got approved as part of the recent project. And then the 2014 zoning amendment was very strategic about creating a vision for attracting jobs. And I mean, first and foremost, we zoned a lot of land for industrial uses that prohibited residential use, which is obviously the first way to to, you know, to to try to put yourself in the best position for attracting jobs. And then the second is we kind of created two areas. And so tonight we're really talking about the area here. There's the enterprise zone, which is the zoning. And that really focuses on new development of commercial jobs or, you know, new construction of commercial development that will attract jobs. The other area, which we're obviously we're talking about tonight and is the adaptive reuse area and creating jobs in some of our existing buildings, there are very few existing buildings we just talked about one which is really right here in that enterprise, the maritime area. But mostly the buildings here are not usable or not necessarily long term buildings. So the idea here really has been to focus on trying to attract new development, new construction to the enterprise zone. So what the zoning does and there was a lot of discussion and I think it's important to understand that this wasn't we just didn't say slap a zoning and say, oh, you just have commercial development in enterprise zone. There was a lot of discussion with the planning board, the city council, the community about this area and creating even subdistricts within the enterprise zone to address some key issues. But I can tell you overall, the uses here focus on catalytic commercial uses with spinoff potential, really focusing office R&D, light industrial uses with that create jobs, really de-emphasizing storage uses, things like that. But also this working waterfront, which we're not going to get into, we just talked about, but that really creating this district for here intended to be a working waterfront area because it is tidelands, it's actually highly restricted, as we already mentioned. So we started to break this area up into different areas where you've got these four districts, the really the district one being that primary area of being able to attract a larger major campus user, possibly for a light industrial office R&D campus. Then you've got this second district, which is still that type of use, but kind of recognizing that, hey, you're next to this town center area where you might have some residential, you might have some mixed use. You need to kind of tone down maybe some of these other industrial uses a little bit, be a little more sensitive to this transition with the town center, the district three, which is really the buffer area between what's going on in the enterprise district, in the residential area, really a recognition that we need to really kind of limit the kinds of uses have to be much less intense uses next to the residential area and then the District four, which is the focus on the working waterfront. So there was a lot of thought and this will frame essentially our approach to the next step in terms of trying to market the enterprise area to attract jobs , is using this policy framework that was approved in 2014 that builds off the reuse plan from 1996. That said, I do want to say that that zoning is really your regulatory hat, that the city council, the planning board where in terms of regulating uses. But I will say that we're you know, as we've talked about before, we said it is a unique situation where you also in this particular case where the property owner had. So even though these are kind of the policy framework that gives some flexibility as to types of uses you can attract here, ultimately the city council can be as particular as it wants about the type of use. And I will tell you, you know, my direction to Cushman Wakefield is that we are for especially the first deal, the first transaction. We want to be a catalytic use that attracts jobs. It brings a big name that does something to really start to put this area on a map that we think is going to have that potential to either attract a lot of jobs, great business to business sales tax, or to really start to create momentum for something more so that we can really capture the other jobs that we want. So I just want to mention that that you kind of this is the regulatory framework, but the property owner that you also get to be a little more picky and particular about what you want. And we will keep that in mind as we move forward with our effort here. Do you have any speakers on the side of the speakers? Right. Council members. Okay. So the recommended approach, I'm going to give you a quick summary on this. We can come back to this slide, but just want to summarize it first. You can be thinking about it as I go through a little bit more of why we're recommending this. But the idea is to essentially use an existing contract with Cushman Wakefield. They have an existing listing agreement which includes that the sale of land, which is what this would be in. So just to and I want to and I should have done this a little earlier, I want to kind of emphasize this is different. What when you're trying to attract a commercial user, they're going to be looking for improved land. And what the difference between kind of undeveloped land versus improve lamb is really infrastructure for a user to come in and be able to develop their campus. They are typically out in the market looking for a land that's improved so that they don't have to put infrastructure in, but they can come in, build their vertical improvements, create their buildings, and then operate their business. And that timeline is much more predictable when you are have undeveloped land, which is essentially what we have here because of infrastructure, that's a lot less certain. You have this idea how you are going to fund infrastructure than the construction of infrastructure and then getting into the development of the vertical. And that is that is atypical in terms of users come in and they typically are when they're looking at land, they're looking at improve land. So I want to just have you understand this. You understand kind of where we are and we've kind of created our strategy around the idea of reducing that certainty related to the undeveloped land that's out there as part of this area B area. So the recommended approach is to use existing contract with Cushman Wakefield, have them essentially act as our listing agent, which we already have a contract for them to do to try to attract users primarily to Area B, which is what they do all over the Bay Area, all over the world. But to link the marketing phases to the site, a progress because we see it as so important to be able to create confidence around our ability to deliver improved land to a user is to show the progress was site because site is what ultimately brings in the trunk infrastructure that we can kind of tee off of and use to build the infrastructure for site B. So we really think we need to link our marketing phases and our approach to the site progress. And based on comments we received, we understand them in there. You know, we we think that this and we'll talk about why we chose this approach, but there probably is a need for us to come back every six months, staff comes back, evaluates the progress that's been made, or honestly, the progress that hasn't been made maybe, and make an assessment and come to you with our recommendation as to whether or not to continue this approach or do we need a pivot, we need to change, do something a little different based on the signals we're getting from the market or whatever it is. But to come back with a six month update to make sure that we still think that this is the right approach. So why are we recommending this? I think the it's a different approach. We went out with a request for qualifications from developers. At the same time, we did the site process. In the case of site B, we did not get we got much less response. And when we negotiated them, they were willing to commit to a lot less and not because there was anything wrong with these developers. They were just responding to the fact there was a lot of uncertainty about the commercial market not wanting to commit to build infrastructure, pay for land when they didn't know what types of users were going to ultimately be there. And we decided to put that on hold until we got further along with site A, that's why we're here today. Back to you with that same strategy. So we did evaluate or that with a different, you know, with an approach and we did look at whether or not we should RFQ again from developers, what we're actually recommending today is not to do that. We think that going out again with an RFQ from developers is not the right approach. We think we think there would be kind of perceived in the market as, oh, you didn't get anything before, now you're out again, and that there might be a stigma associated with a second attempt at doing it with that same approach, which doesn't mean we can't do that later. We just think right now let's try a different approach. We actually think we should focus on end users instead of developers developer. We think with using a leasing agent and broker like Cushman Wakefield, we can focus more on end users, which doesn't mean we're going to ignore developers of a great developer comes in with a concept and they've got an idea and they're willing to commit to some things. We're absolute going to consider those proposals as well. But to focus less on just developers, we want to cast a wider net. Second, we think by using this approach it's more cost efficient. We're using a commission structure, which essentially means that until the city council votes and approves this transaction, Cushman Wakefield does not get paid. So they only get paid if they deliver a transaction of this city council approves. So there's a push for essentially a performance based structure that's built into this. There's no upfront cost to the city we may elect to enhance some of the marketing materials with our own dollars to do, but we're not committing to that and it's not required as part of this. So we think that this is cost efficient. And then lastly, we think it's flexible and that. You know, you're not running in. You're not if you did an RFQ and worked to directly the developer, you're most likely going to be looking at an exclusive negotiation agreement that's looking at a developed disposition or development agreement where you're committing to a single developer. And we think this approach creates more flexibility upfront, which doesn't mean if you find the perfect developer or the perfect user that you can't enter into those agreements. But it doesn't put us on that path immediately and potentially prematurely. So the proposed development strategy, as I said, is really linking. We're created three different phases which really tie to the site infrastructure and have assigned a, you know, started to put a schedule together based on the performance milestones in the site, a disposition development agreement. But the idea is the awareness phase. We honestly believe over the next 9 to 14 months, while the developer site developers closing on the property, getting all of their final design review and other improvement plans and other entitlements in place before they actually close on their Phase one property. We don't think that we're going to get a big transaction. It doesn't mean if there one comes our way, we're not going to take advantage. But we think of this more as an awareness phase where it's really going to be focused more on broker to broker. We're going to be do it kind of create an identity, stop calling it site B, which doesn't mean anything to anyone except for here in Alameda. Start branding and create an identity around an enterprise district. Start creating marketing materials, new collateral. Getting the word out and really starting to kind of create an awareness and a buzz within the community, but not overly. I mean, we will take advantage, but we don't think that it's realistic that we're going to get any big users at this during this period. The next phase is really tied to phase one infrastructure commencing using that groundbreaking as an opportunity to get the press out to Alameda, start to create additional buzz and excitement in the community about ground, actually be, you know, having some of these starting to get built and using that again to kind of expand, not just talking to brokers, but starting to really talk to end users, talking to larger developers, expanding, creating a newsletter, starting to do more marketing collateral. And then ultimately once you have at least a major phase of the phase one infrastructure for site A completed which you're looking at 18 to 48 months, then that's when you would really start to expect there. We'd be able to give a major user a lot of certainty about delivering land to them, and then they can start planning their vertical, the building of the buildings and their timeline, and we'd be able to provide them with much more certainty around those timelines. A lot of and we have our Cushman Wakefield folks here that can talk to you about this. But when we've had conversations, I have sat in on conversations with potential users out here that have asked us to look at land. And I've sat in on those conversations. And when you start telling them, Well, we've got to wait for the site infrastructure, which we think is going to be around this time frame, and then that will be this many months. And, you know, but it hasn't happened yet. I mean, you can see, you know, even when we're trying to kind of sell it, that they're from their standpoint, they're having to build a campus, possibly foreclose a lease or their leases up somewhere else and then promise to their operations folks, they're going have a place for those folks to land and commit to that and have an operate, you know, a building that's allowing them to move people in and operate their business seamlessly. And when you start talking to them about some of the uncertainty on these timelines and not being able to guarantee or to kind of really put us in a position to provide that certainty to them or more certainty they just weren't interested. You know what we're interested in? We're look we'll look at your buildings. But right now we're monitoring the land. And until we know that there's a there's more of a timeline on that. And I've seen that happen in a couple of situations. It doesn't mean we're not going to stop trying. I mean, we are going to continue to try it with that. But we think that we're going to have to be patient. We're going to have to be able to provide them with more certainty to really be able to attract a catalytic user out here. Lastly, I just wanted to kind of make sure that you, the council and the community understands the city of Alameda staff. We are not going anywhere. We're going to stay involved in all of this. We, Cushman Wakefield are taking direction from us. We'll be providing, as it says here, ongoing oversight of the effort will be participating in these key user and developer meetings, will be leading the transactional negotiations and then evaluating. I think very importantly, the progress. Is it working? Is it not working? Do we think we should change based on the market indications that we're getting and then coming to you and recommending any changes to that approach? Cushman Wakefield on their hand will be executing the marketing, the outreach strategy. They'll be the front line point of contact filtering, folks talking to people on the front lines, participating in the transactional negotiations, and then prior any input and recommendations to us. But ultimately we'll be the ones making those decisions and coming to you with our recommendation. Lastly, I just wanted to say that this is just one jobs. You know, this is to try to look at attracting job, new development and jobs in the new development area. We are not going to stop leasing and you'll hear if we get to it, the leasing update from that point. But we are we are going to continue to be leasing our buildings. And I think ultimately we'll be looking at some of our buildings that have been vacant for a long time. We've kind of exhausted a lot of the low hanging fruit, to be honest, in terms of those buildings are going to have to really start to be creative about trying to attract jobs. I was recently at a conference in San Francisco and got some we all kind of talked and got some ideas about how we might be able to looking at bachelor and listed quarters for jobs, some of those other buildings thinking about, you know, maybe bringing an architect in to look at the BQ to kind of could it be adapted for a tech user? Could there be some ideas that come out of that? So. Works we think we need. We can't just be doing this. We also have to be looking at some of those big vacant buildings in the adaptive reuse area and thinking about how we might change them and alter them to attract jobs. You've got Spirit's Alley there. You've got the existing ferry terminals. We think there's potential in both places, and we're going to do both at the same time. But we think it's important to move this along and start to implement a marketing strategy in this enterprise district area. So that's that's it. And I'm happy to answer any questions. Or remember Daisuke. Thank you. First off, let me make sure to say is that, you know, we appreciate all the work that you have done. It's important to say that because the last agenda item was a tough agenda item, but we nonetheless appreciate all the work that you Mesma Cano, the executive staff have done over the years. So let's make sure to. These are tough issues. Yes, these are tough issues. So the question that I have, I have two sets of questions. First of all, it has to do making sure that. People who we go through the quote unquote, end user strategy, pay their fair share of infrastructure related costs as well as and I think it's part of it. Their fair share of the sports complex and ferry terminal and I think this is important to raise, especially in light of the commitments that that we are looking at with regard to infrastructure and and sports complex, the commitments that site is making because the overall infrastructure cost for elevated point is $566 million or phase one, which included at the time site A and site B for phase one, the infrastructure cost was $183 million. So those infrastructure costs are predicated on some kind of land use and intensity of uses. So as we go forward with this kind of the virtual going forward with a developer was that they were committing to a land use and an intensity of land use. Now, we're not too sure. We're looking for people and they're going to kind of come on a haphazard basis and hopefully we get the best. So the question is, in this context, how are we going to make sure that whatever land use end user that we obtain is going to pay their fair share of infrastructure costs that are program for site B? Mm hmm. Great. Now, that's that's good as a question that's near and dear to my heart and one that I've had with staff. I mean, it's absolutely I think what we are, you know, and I'll tell you a different thing. There's our policy approach, which is what we're we'll plan on. Tell telling anyone who comes in is that there is a essentially kind of a flaw, and that is the the infrastructure burden. So it's about $1,000,000 an acre of land. And we expect to you know, I think I'm not going to say never because you never know if there's some amazing proposal. But I can't imagine I'm coming to you and recommending that you move forward with a project that's less than that unless we have a way of paying for the difference, you know, that we're clear on how that's going to get made up. But our intent is that that is essentially the burden that any develop, any development occurs in this enterprise district would have to pay. Now, that said, and just to make sure this isn't just me, you know, making sure this gets done, we've actually codified that in our ordinances and our development impact fee ordinance, which requires any development out here to pay a development impact fee that's essentially equivalent to that $1 million an acre. So if you know I'm not around and, you know, whatever this is happening, I mean, there's there is a kind of a failsafe kind of trigger that's in our code to ensure that that occurs . Now, I will say, and I don't want to put this I don't think too many people are listening and in terms of our negotiation. But what you know, our hope is that we would get land value in addition to that. But if there's a user, we don't think the market or the financial, you know, it doesn't look like there is value beyond that $1 million for infrastructure. The benefit of being a public owner is that you can write down essentially the value of the land to the value of the infrastructure. Mm hmm. I'm not suggesting that that's where we would start from a negotiating position, but you have that flexibility in the event that a really great user that we think is awesome, that can pay $1,000,000 an acre for land, but maybe not $1,000,000 an acre for land and $1,000,000 an acre for infrastructure. There's that flexibility and there are some policy considerations that the council could make. But those we would you know, we'd have to look on that at a case by case basis. And let me make sure to underscore why I think the question of making sure that people pay their fair share of infrastructure costs is important because one of the end of the day selling features of the whole program that we started in the past two years for Alameda point the end of the. End of the road benefit was that there will be a sports complex and that there will be a regional water ferry that we were going to, you know, make some sacrifices with a site, a developer and even city developer. But the sacrifices that we made on the land sale, you know, decisions that we come up with, we're going to be worth it because at the end of the day, we will have these these amenities. So that's why it's important that as we change our approach to site, be away from that developer driven thing it with which , you know, all our expectations were kind of, you know, calculated with regard to at least site B's pro rata share of the regional complex and water as we change our approach to site B that we not lose and mind that that that that the big benefit that we are all looking for. Okay. The second question, so I appreciate the fact that you said it's codified. That was a keyword. Yep. Second question is site B is a pretty large area. So we are there ways that we can guard against cherry picking? That is, people want to develop the site that's close to the water. But I mean, or is it just, you know, when we cast our net through the the this process that we're talking about? Well, that's just the nature of the beast. Yeah. No, I think it's a really good. And so I want to talk a second about cherry picking. And so I do there's a couple of thoughts I want to talk about with regard to cherry picking. Here's the site B or the enterprise area that we're calling. We intentionally, as you can see, we left off the land here. I mean, this you know, arguably, this is waterfront land we could have thrown into the enterprise district. And it doesn't mean that if some great user came along and the council made a discretion, they couldn't include it. But I will tell you, from a marketing standpoint, we are not marketing this land in part for the very reason that you're saying, which is we don't want someone to come in, especially earlier on when we're creating catalist and cherry pick our waterfront land. We would like to benefit from the value that this development which you know, when it gets started, we hope soon that we then benefit from this and deci and then try to really capture value and infrastructure dollars through the sale of this land at a future point once you've gotten things developed here. So I think that's an important point, is that we could have thrown the entire enterprise district in there, but we were selective about that for the very reason to kind of protect against the cherry picking some of that waterfront land. That said, we did include some because we think that is one of the attractions of the site is to try to be near the water, near the ferry. So to have that as an option also is to create, you know, have some land that's in the waterfront area. We did want to include some of that. So I wanted you to kind of think about I do also think that the logical place is when we sit down with the civil engineers and and with Cushman Wakefield is to actually start from an arc closer to Main Street, because that's where the existing infrastructure is. And you're going to be able to facilitate development upfront a little more efficiently by starting there and moving over. And the development requirements in the town center plan are a little more intense because of the type of environment we want to create near the ferry terminal things. So I think you're actually going to see and I mean, you can't predict. I mean, someone could come in, but I think we're we're anticipating we're actually going to start closer to Main Street and then move over because of the infrastructure. And then I'm looking at my notes here and out of my phone. I had some notes on that, I promise. And then I think the last thing is, is that ultimately the council decides. I mean, the ultimate you know, the city council decides whether or not this is a good deal or not. And we're and we're not going to you know, we're not going to create a development that essentially renders another part of a block unusable. I mean, we're going to have our engineers and our planners ever look at it and say, you know, this is a usable area, that that leaves the remainder that we can still use. We're not going to start to strand pieces inside that we can't then use. So we'll be very careful about that. And ultimately, the city council is the final arbiter as to whether or not we did a good job doing that. Thank you. But we're going to go around the and vice mayor. And. I find the slides actually quite succinct in describing what the approach is going to be. And I think that's really important to make sure that. We have a document and I, I would like to adopt this approach, but I'd like to have a term just like we have a develop a terminal development agreement. I'd like to have it have formalized description of what the responsibilities are of of our city department as well as our contractor, Cushman Wakefield. I'd like it to have the goals stated even though their stated elsewhere. I think you mentioned jobs. You mentioned the preference for a catalyst occupant and the end user occupant and that everybody who buys into this area is going to pay their fair share of infrastructure burden. That that's our goal out of here. And you mentioned the six months of reporting. I'd like that to be memorialized in a in in in this in this plan that you've just described. And we can go back and measure progress against those goals. We can also see that if we need to make an adjustment. And where that adjustment might be, especially if we're taking it to the site. And I, I think we should also tie it to the wider. A project because that's really going to be the first one out the gate and they're going to provide infrastructure that runs right across site B, they're going to open the ground up to put a water main and. I'd like to see a little more meat on how these efforts, whether they're short term leases or whether there's other action that occurs in this zone on taking advantage of the ground being open and that engineering being done to put that water main in that could raise the value of this land. I'd like to see what kind of latitude we have and in our lease revenues to do that as part of this the strategy and. Finally, I think it helps when we have things codified or otherwise described in zoning that we still mention in this plan and point to those documents. Because sometimes it's difficult if you don't have the institutional knowledge to remember, yes, it was part of this ordinance or yes, it was part of this decision on zoning. So I'd like to have those pretty much, which is spelled out in here, formalized in our own development agreement, because the city is going to be acting as the developer. Mm hmm. And on this, if I if I understand. It, always a little nervous about calling us a developer, but. Not. Intentionally. Functionally, that's what's. Creating a document. And I think. I think that's really important for the public to have. It's really important for us to have something other than a PowerPoint slides is as well-organized as it was. It doesn't carry the same weight to me is a milestone document. Right. I think that would I think if this is what you're asking, I think taking the essentially the concepts that are in the PowerPoint that you just mentioned and putting it in a written document official, I mean, it may only be, you know, 3 to 5 pages or something, but that kind of walks through these points and codifies, you know, puts them in a plan that we can upload to the website that people can see. This is our approach, this is what we're doing. And this is I think that we can absolutely do that. And I'd like it to be approved by the council so that future councils can measure and adjust. And also it's a conscious decision to do to adjust. To terminate or to expand. Is that the end of your column? Oh, that's. Yes, that's. It. All right. I remember. I don't have too much more to add that my colleagues haven't already stated. You know, the concern about the share of fair share of the infrastructure costs. I have that, too. You know, you look at it and if we if we went with one of our finalist from last time or we went out to do an RFP again, you know, then they would effectively take the land, land, make it themselves. And, you know, it could be eight or ten years and they get it for the price it is now. And now if we do it ourselves and we landbank it, you know, that we can take advantage of, you know, as the value goes up , when site air goes in and the we determine what goes in and some of that infrastructure is put in. And, you know, I think that's a smart move for us to be the land bank or as opposed to, you know, somebody else. So, you know, I'm prepared to support it and echo the comments that have already been said. Member Ashcroft. Here. I met Councilmember Desai. I spoke again. Those are. My questions. Right from the beginning. So I want to thank Mr. because this was actually on the agenda last time, and I sent her a long email before that meeting with lots of questions. And you did a masterful job, as always, of incorporating the answers. So I don't have to ask them. And I would just say that, yes, you convinced me that this is the approach because, you know, I had some some questions and I great presentation. I think the vice mayor makes a good suggestion that if you could turn it all into a document, that the council could say, you know , yes, we approve of this. And then it, as was also noted, it has the advantage of being that roadmap for the future. So we can because, you know, we're doing that now. We're referencing back to plans that were made. And it will it will help whoever is out there in the future doing this. So and good good work. Staff, all of you who worked on this. Thank you. Thank you. All right, so my questions go to Cushman Wakefield. Mm hmm. This there's a conclusion that this is cost efficient, but I didn't see the numbers of how much Cushman Wakefield has been paid on any project or overall or anything about the contract we have with them that's not attached here. And I think that that's critical information if they're going to be a key part of the strategy. I think that we should actually put it out and see if my understanding well, before I go there, in your paragraph, you have said that they were involved in the VF outdoor campus. I thought Joe Ernst was part of that. Mm hmm. So they, in that particular case, before they were working for us, had we're working worked for Joe as their broker and helping Joe attract the outdoor so they have clients all over. And then we did an RFP, we did a request for proposals for leasing agents and property managers two years ago. Mm hmm. And that and we, the city council at that time selected Cushman Wakefield and PPM Realty to be our exclusive essentially broker at Alameda Point, which includes. So that is a contract that we have executed with the city already. That includes land sales at 5% commission. Okay. So I think a report like this needs to include how much money? Cushman And like what the contract, first of all, what projects they've been involved in and how much they've been paid. Because I don't think the statement can be made that it's cost efficient without numbers. I don't know how much the city is paying Cushman Wakefield or what they've paid for two years. Do you know how much the city has paid Cushman Wakefield The last two years? We can ask them to provide that, but the next report actually does document all the leases that they have been involved in since they came on and since that RFP. And the costs that they've been paid. So you can. As that. In may be able to estimate. John McManus of Cushman Wakefield. And first, this is John McManus with Cushman Wakefield. First, can I correct just one comment? We represented B.F. Outdoor on a contract. We did not have the listing on the land that at the time Lehman Brothers and Mr. Ernst controlled through a partnership. We we represented B after that transaction. Just for clarity, I know that's important to make clear to everyone. We have a contract that was negotiated with the city attorney's office after we were engaged by the council. It goes back almost two years ago now. I believe it runs through 2018. I can't tell you what month of 2018, but it runs out. The city does have some provisions if they're not happy with our performance, to come back to us and we can look at those. But it calls for there's a lease schedule that is 5% of the value of the lease for years, 1 to 5 and two and a half percent of years, 6 to 10 tonight. Mattson, for example, was represented by Sorry It's Getting Late by Transwestern group based in Walnut Creek. And so half of those fees would be paid to them and half would be paid to Cushman Wakefield. So what we would need to do is take your totals and then break out what we've paid to other firms. That will be the case in virtually every transaction we do. There's going to be an outside broker. There's not an outside broker. Those fees are reduced per contract with the city. On sales, the number is 5% of the value of the transaction. Again, those numbers, those those fees are split if it's an option to purchase. And let's say that the the the commission on the sale is $10 and you've paid us $6, then we would only be able to charge you the $4 remaining, the net amount that was left and all that spelled out in the contract. And certainly it's in the files. And so so I appreciate that it doesn't really so so what I'm looking for, I think the contract needed to be included I think the dollars so for and I appreciate you just brought up Mattson because I didn't know that you were getting paid for mats and mats and has been an existing customer here. So you didn't. Go find them. They re actually, I think staff help move them. And yet Cushman Wakefield is getting paid. Do they get paid the same amount, the same percentage, whether or not they find the tenant? Yes, they do. So. The. The schedule that I quoted to you, is it 50% if it's a renewal? So if it's a tenant that stays in the same building, then the fee is half of what it would be if the tenant comes in and relocates or comes. Back as a new. Lease. But Madson has a new lease. So they will be they'll be getting their full commission. They'll share it with the other broker. And that's the standard industrial industry practice for for this type of thing. And so there was a lot of time that they spend actually touring mats and working with mats and they actually assist in the lease negotiations. They actually do quite a bit of work with the tenants. We don't do that work. They do all the frontline work in terms of touring them, talking to them, looking at the buildings, going through the numbers, making making recommendations to staff about, you know, the term and whether or not they think the amount of investment is consistent with the term. All of those things they look at. Okay. So what incentive do they have to find us new tenants? Because when I look at the stuff that comes to us, it's an existing or it's Joe Ernst bringing companies to us. And I think we need. I think we need. So can you tell me what tenants Cushman Wakefield has brought us separate from George and separate from existing tenants? Right. Speed would be an example. I don't know what I can say about things that are in process that aren't on the agenda. Probably nothing in the last two years, right? Speed in the last two years. Right, speed, help me out here. Building 40. Yeah, yeah. Winery 43. Fred Grandy. Now, Brooks was was PM before we got here. You're right. Universal Studios. Restoration Hardware. Can you tell me about Universal Studios? What is that? That was the Steve Jobs movie that got filmed out in Building 530. Okay. So that's of. That was I guess we can say it now. It's released. When they were in there, we were. Actually in our next item on the agenda, the staff report list that. Yeah. But it doesn't specify which ones they bring and which ones are just leases. And that's so in regards to that, working with Cushman Wakefield, I think their needs for me, I would like to have seen more information and I am not comfortable agreeing to continue using them because I think we do need to be attracting. I love that Joe Ernst seems to be a lead developer for our community right now. However, I think it'd be nice to reach beyond him and I would like us to. I'd either like more information in regards to this, or I would actually think that I'm comfortable proceeding thinking this is a big project. It's a lot of money that goes to this company and we need to make sure we're being broadcast and advertise wider than existing customers. And Joe and George and I appreciate that there's apparently maybe three or four in the last two years that are from outside. Right. And I guess just to say, I mean, we did we agreed with you that when we were trying to decide what to do with the base, there was a decision to kind of we were working with PPM Realty to open it up, take a look. We didn't do that. We'd cast a wide net. We had some finalists. Ultimately we decide and the council decided that Cushman Wakefield in their expertize and I'd be happy to have Jon talk to you a little bit about some of the other deals and things that they've done in the Bay Area. But when we evaluated them at that time, we felt like they were highly qualified. You know, Jon, it's not just about attracting tenants, but it's about working with them, getting the leases done, you know, selling, you know, when you're trying to work through some of these deal issues and trying to help them understand the issues that I'm going to point presents, I will tell you that, you know, all the people I work with, John McMann, is one of the people who is raising issues that we've we've now sorted out so that we can market the land and understand the complexities out there, very smart and intelligent and comes, you know, rolls up their sleeves and problem solvers. And honestly and I'll make the point that, you know, that goes a long way in having someone do that. But I'm happy to maybe he could talk a little bit about what other deals and things he's done in the Bay Area. So let me was there an RFP? Yeah. Choosing them back then, two years ago. Okay. So then I was not part of the council. I appreciate that. Some of you were. I was not. And I would appreciate having the background information of how they were selected and and ideal and also what tenants they have brought. Because I really do think we need to be casting a wider net than what's happening right now and and how much money they're being paid. And I think it's a fair comment that I kind of made some assumptions about the relationship we have with Cushman Wakefield, that people kind of understood that. And I could've done a better job at explaining the background on why we why we've been using them for, you know, and the back story on that. So, so my concern with this plan is that I don't feel like this from my position that there's been sufficient due diligence in committing to using Cushman Wakefield for this big part of site B. So given that it's going on midnight and we still have one more agenda item I hope we'll get to, I am prepared to make a motion to proceed with the new development strategy for the Enterprise District, formerly known as Site B at Alameda Point, and following the the specifications that were set forth by the vice mayor, because I think he articulated them very well. Oh. You can go. I'll second that with a comment. You know, I appreciate the, you know, bringing rights for Alameda as a home run. I mean, it's nice to hear about, you know, Steve Jobs and all that kind of stuff. I mean, whatever. But that's a home run. And, you know, that's a company that's going to be a leading edge company that hopefully will grow. And it's along that alley where Joe Ernst is doing so. So I'm confident tonight for the same reason I was confident two years ago. You know, when you know, when I heard about the things that you had done at Alameda Point and for Alameda. So I'm comfortable with moving forward. Oh, Vice Mayor. And I think one of the things that I alluded to was a measurement measurement of progress toward the goals. And I think that's where some of the questions that the mayor asks can be answered. And if we start with the responsibilities with the staff and with Cushman Wakefield and then the measurements, what are the key metrics that go with those responsibilities versus the goals? Whether it's the a number of of new ten new inquiries that are brought in, the number of new commitments, whatever those might be, those can be measured and reported. And I think. When you what I'd like to see in this plan that's it's formalized and we get another shot at some of those details that allow us to basically judge performance of ourselves and judge performance of our contractor. All right. And you seconded, right? Okay. And without more information from about Cushman Wakefield, I can't support moving forward with them at this time. All those in favor. I am opposed for the reasons stated. Thank you. So. Four in favor, one opposed. And six h. Report on leasing an Alameda point. Oops. One again. Yes. Hello again. To. That. Good evening, mayor and city council members. I'm Annette McCollum. This leasing report actually the that the impetus for it was just to kind of do a check in with you guys about where we've been, where we how where we've been and where we are now.