From: Tod Hickman
To: City Clerk
Cc: Estela Villagrana; Shelby S
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 4/21/26 Public comment ITEM 7C
Date: Tuesday, April 21, 2026 11:50:05 AM
Hello City Clerk,
Please include this email, along with Ms. Sheehan's email below, as my public comment for Item 7C tonight.
All of the issues raised by Ms. Sheehan here appear to be factual and true.
I am particularly concerned about the relationship between Ms. Ashcraft and Mr.
Ernst.
It appears that the basis and foundations exist for numerous violations of Law within Item 7C as it currently exists.
Just the fact that it is on the Agenda in its current form is of utmost concern and appears to show blatant disregard for the good and people of Alameda.
See 4-20-26 attached email below.
Respectfully,
Tod Hickman
Alameda NAS Historic Preservation Coalition
From: Shelby S <[email protected]
>
Date: Mon, Apr 20, 2026 at 11:10 AM
Subject: 4/21/26 Public comment ITEM 7C: no environmental review and a heavily discounted price? It's a Joe Ernst special!
To: City Clerk <[email protected]
>
1. CEQA: City’s claim this is not a project under CEQA claim is legally indefensible
Under CEQA (CEQA Guidelines §§ 15378 and 15004(b)(2)), a “project” is defined as any approval that commits an agency City to a “definite course of action” that may cause a direct or “reasonably foreseeable” physical change in the environment.
This item is the sale of a City-owned building with multi-tenant office space, HVAC, restrooms, etc.,for “advanced manufacturing, research and development, and light industrial uses.”
Those uses, by their nature, carry clear, foreseeable environmental impacts that arise from regular operational intensity or “advanced manufacturing, research and development, and light industrial uses.” -- including air quality, noise and vibration, lighting, and hazardous materials use that require defined limits.
Here, where the Project is located within the Historic District and adjacent to the walkable mixed-use residential neighborhoods, these impacts
also create compatibility issues that
require site-specific limits.
Under CEQA, this constitutes a project and requires environmental review and the imposition of enforceable, site-specific limitations sufficient to control the resulting impacts, prior to approval.
As it stands, the record provides no meaningful standards for decision-makers, the buyer, or the public to understand what is actually permitted at this location. Instead, it leaves critical determinations—what level of intensity, activity, and impact is acceptable—undetermined, which is not permitted under CEQA.
Accordingly, the City’s assertion that this is not a “project” under CEQA Guidelines § 15378 is erroneous. The City must conduct environmental review prior to approval and impose binding, site-specific limits that constrain the project.
2. Deal of the Century!
The property includes a large, existing building with infrastructure already in place—value created through substantial public investment. The City proposes to sell this publicly-owned, improved property consisting of an approximately 100,000-square-foot building on roughly 3 acres for a heavily-discounted price of $7.825 million, or about $2.2 million per acre and approximately $78 per square foot of building area.
The sale is unsupported by any disclosed valuation and relies on public benefits that are not defined or incorporated into the approval record. These deficiencies warrant independent review by the City Auditor or a qualified third-party appraiser prior to approval to ensure the transaction reflects a valid, evidence-based public process.
One-sided Benefits to Developer. The Purchase and Sale Agreement expressly establishes a fixed purchase price and and one sided protections without tying that price to any performance obligations, job creation targets, or measurable public benefits and no clawback provisions or mechanisms to recover the discount if anticipated benefits do not materialize.
The Summary Report references anticipated public benefits, such as job creation, as a basis for the discounted price, yet those benefits are not defined, not quantified, and not incorporated into the agreement or approval record. The City provides no appraisal, no comparable sales, and no explanation or analysis supporting the purchase price, nor is there an amount or an enforceable scheduled for the future PSA agreement referred to in the summary report yet does not clearly disclose the financial terms of that agreement, that I could find.
Using the City’s current infrastructure benchmark of approximately $2.55 million per acre, the value of the land alone meets or exceeds the purchase price, without accounting for the value of the building and its location.
Lack of Required Public Transparency (Gov. Code § 37350). Public land transactions require a clear, evidence-based valuation, consistency with adopted financial frameworks, and enforceable public benefits where a reduced price is provided. None of those elements are demonstrated in the record. The City provides no valuation methodology and no analysis supporting the purchase price, and therefore does not comply with Gov. Code § 37350.
Reasonable Value Range: ~$15 million. A valuation on the order of $15 million (~$150/SF) is reasonable given the City’s infrastructure framework and the presence of a serviced structure. By comparison, the Food Bank project paid about $3 million for less than 2-acres of land where significant build out of a 20,000-square-foot facility still had to be constructed at $150/SF (land basis only)--And that’s before substantial construction costs.
Here, the $7.8 million reflects a heavily-discounted price for a 100,000-square-foot building ($78/SF) on 3 acres that is already built and served with new infrastructure, without any valuation, performance criteria or clawback provisions to protect the public investment.
Under this scheme, at full buildout, the buyer will control a large, income-producing asset acquired at a heavily discounted price, while the City assumes the risk without any quantified return or enforcement mechanism if the anticipated public benefits do not materialize.
Sweetheart Deal Requires Mayor Recusal (Gov. Code §§ 87100 and 1090). Joe Ernst, the selected buyer, serves on the Mayor’s Economic Development Advisory Panel and has ongoing involvement in Alameda Point projects. This relationship, combined with the Mayor’s role in approving the transaction, raises a conflict-of-interest concern that warrants recusal or, at minimum, independent validation.
Independent Review Required. The sale is unsupported by any disclosed valuation and relies on public benefits that are not defined or incorporated into the approval record. These deficiencies warrant independent review by the City Auditor or a qualified third-party appraiser prior to approval to ensure the transaction reflects a valid, evidenced based public process.
From: Shelby S
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 4/21/26 Public comment ITEM 7C: no environmental review and a heavily discounted price? It"s a Joe Ernst special!
Date: Monday, April 20, 2026 11:11:30 AM
1. CEQA: City’s claim this is not a project under CEQA claim is legally indefensible Under CEQA (CEQA Guidelines §§ 15378 and 15004(b)(2)), a “project” is defined as any approval that commits an agency City to a “definite course of action” that may cause a direct or “reasonably foreseeable” physical change in the environment.
This item is the sale of a City-owned building with multi-tenant office space, HVAC, restrooms, etc.,for “advanced manufacturing, research and development, and light industrial uses.”
Those uses, by their nature, carry clear, foreseeable environmental impacts that arise from regular operational intensity
or “advanced manufacturing, research and development, and light industrial uses.” -- including air quality, noise and vibration, lighting, and hazardous materials use
that require defined limits.
Here, where the Project is located within the Historic District and adjacent to the walkable mixed-use residential neighborhoods, these impacts
also create compatibility issues that
require site-specific limits.
Under CEQA, this constitutes a project and requires environmental review and the imposition of enforceable, site-specific limitations sufficient to control the resulting impacts, prior to approval.
As it stands, the record provides no meaningful standards for decision-makers, the buyer, or the public to understand what is actually permitted at this location. Instead, it leaves critical determinations—what level of intensity, activity, and impact is acceptable—undetermined, which is not permitted under CEQA.
Accordingly, the City’s assertion that this is not a “project” under CEQA Guidelines § 15378 is erroneous. The City must conduct environmental review prior to approval and impose binding, site-specific limits that constrain the project.
2. Deal of the Century!
The property includes a large, existing building with infrastructure already in place—value created through substantial public investment. The City proposes to sell this publicly-owned, improved property consisting of an approximately 100,000-square-foot building on roughly 3 acres for a heavily-discounted price of $7.825 million, or about $2.2 million per acre and approximately $78 per square foot of building area.
The sale is unsupported by any disclosed valuation and relies on public benefits that are not defined or incorporated into the approval record. These deficiencies warrant independent review by the City Auditor or a qualified third-party appraiser prior to approval to ensure the transaction reflects a valid, evidence-based public process.
One-sided Benefits to Developer. The Purchase and Sale Agreement expressly establishes a fixed purchase price and and one sided protections without tying that price to any performance obligations, job creation targets, or measurable public benefits and no clawback provisions or mechanisms to recover the discount if anticipated benefits do not materialize.
The Summary Report references anticipated public benefits, such as job creation, as a basis for the discounted price, yet those benefits are not defined, not quantified, and not incorporated into the agreement or approval record. The City provides no appraisal, no comparable sales, and no explanation or analysis supporting the purchase price, nor is there an amount or an enforceable scheduled for the future PSA agreement referred to in the summary report yet does not clearly disclose the financial terms of that agreement, that I could find.
Using the City’s current infrastructure benchmark of approximately $2.55 million per acre, the value of the land alone meets or exceeds the purchase price, without accounting for the value of the building and its location.
Lack of Required Public Transparency (Gov. Code § 37350). Public land transactions require a clear, evidence-based valuation, consistency with adopted financial frameworks, and enforceable public benefits where a reduced price is provided. None of those elements are demonstrated in the record. The City provides no valuation methodology and no analysis supporting the purchase price, and therefore does not comply with Gov. Code § 37350.
Reasonable Value Range: ~$15 million. A valuation on the order of $15 million (~$150/SF) is reasonable given the City’s infrastructure framework and the presence of a serviced structure. By comparison, the Food Bank project paid about $3 million for less than 2-acres of land where significant build out of a 20,000-square-foot facility still had to be constructed at $150/SF (land basis only)--And that’s before substantial construction costs.
Here, the $7.8 million reflects a heavily-discounted price for a 100,000-square-foot building ($78/SF) on 3 acres that is already built and served with new infrastructure, without any valuation, performance criteria or clawback provisions to protect the public investment.
Under this scheme, at full buildout, the buyer will control a large, income-producing asset acquired at a heavily discounted price, while the City assumes the risk without any quantified return or enforcement mechanism if the anticipated public benefits do not materialize.
Sweetheart Deal Requires Mayor Recusal (Gov. Code §§ 87100 and 1090). Joe Ernst, the selected buyer, serves on the Mayor’s Economic Development Advisory Panel and has ongoing involvement in Alameda Point projects. This relationship, combined with the Mayor’s role in approving the transaction, raises a conflict-of-interest concern that warrants recusal or, at minimum, independent validation.
Independent Review Required. The sale is unsupported by any disclosed valuation and relies on public benefits that are not defined or incorporated into the approval record. These deficiencies warrant independent review by the City Auditor or a qualified third-party appraiser prior to approval to ensure the transaction reflects a valid, evidence-based public process.
--
Shelby
510-435-9263
"The righteousness of the oppressed will not go unheard."