2022-09-20 Regular CC MinutesRegular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 20, 2022 1
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - SEPTEMBER 20, 2022- -7:00 P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:05 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox White,
Vella, and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft – 5. [Note: Vice Mayor
Vella arrived at 7:24 p.m. The meeting was conducted via
Zoom.]
Absent: None.
AGENDA CHANGES
(22-566) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft announced that the resolutions of appointment [paragraph no.
22-589] would be heard after the Consent Calendar.
The City Clerk announced the Memorandum of Understanding [paragraph no. 22-586] would
not be heard and would return at a later date.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(22-567) Proclamation Declaring October 2 through 8, 2022 as Public Power Week.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(22-568) Tod Hickman expressed concern about Zoom meeting functions and public comment,
West Tower Avenue’s street closure and traffic diversion; expressed support for a hybrid Zoom
meeting process.
(22-569) Denyse Trepanier, BikeWalk Alameda, announced BikeWalk Alameda is teaming up
with Community Action for a Sustainable Alameda (CASA) to host upcoming virtual candidate
forums; discussed removal of pedestrian safety infrastructure.
(22-570) Brian Kennedy, Alameda, expressed concern about Sanctuary Cities.
(22-571) Josh Altieri, Alameda Housing Authority, discussed updates on affordable housing
projects throughout Alameda.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Expressed concern over the contracts listed on the Consent Calendar; urged matters be slowed
down until a permanent City Manager is hired: Tod Hickman.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer requested The Village of Love agreement [paragraph no. 22-
574], the on-call engineering agreements [paragraph no. 22-578], the agreement with Alameda
Unified School District [paragraph no. 22-580] and the agreement with Firebrand [paragraph no.
22-583] be removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion; recorded no votes for final
passage of the ordinances [paragraph nos. 22-587 and 22-588].
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 20, 2022 2
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog raised a point of order.
The City Clerk stated final passage of the ordinances require four affirmative votes.
Councilmember Knox White requested final passage of the ordinances be removed from the
Consent Calendar for discussion.
In response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft’s inquiry, Councilmembers Knox White and Herrera
Spencer agreed to amend the motion to remove the ordinances.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers
Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4.
[Absent: Vice Mayor Vella – 1.] [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk
preceding the paragraph number.]
(*22-572) Minutes of the Special Meetings Held on August 9, 2022. Approved.
(*22-573) Ratified bills in the amount of $7,714,030.65.
(22-574) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City Manager, or Designee to Execute a
Contract for $1,447,984 with The Village of Love Foundation to Provide Social Services for
Residents of Emergency Supportive Housing (Located at Alameda Point) from October 1, 2022
to September 30, 2024.
The Social Services Manager gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether three or four homes will be provided at
Alameda Point, to which the Social Services Manager responded staff was directed to open
three homes, with the possibility of opening a fourth home after returning to Council for
consideration.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed concern over The Village of Love (VOL) website
information; stated the website has since been removed; the website lacked a Board of
Directors and resumes; it is difficult to find information related to VOL; requested more
information be provided from City staff about the organization.
The Community Development Director stated the website had not been complete, so VOL took
the site down in order to provide current information and bring a higher standard; stated staff
has recently provided a Curriculum Vitae (CV) for Joey Harrison; staff’s experience with VOL
has been excellent; VOL was selected based on the positive experience as well as the ability to
provide services on behalf of the City.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she believes the assessment is subjective; she is
looking for data on the employees and the organization; the contract cost is roughly $1.5 million;
concrete background should be provided on any contract the City enters into for said amount;
expressed concerns over insufficient information and saturation of housing the unhoused at
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 20, 2022 3
Alameda Point; stated there have been concerns about residents being good neighbors to
existing residents; it is unclear that existing residents have been provided assurance about
concerns being heard; she will not be supporting the matter; it is unfortunate that there is not
more information provided on the organization; the organization is providing social services and
should have a clear indication of its Board of Directors and organization information.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how long VOL has been operating in the City of Alameda.
The Economic Development Manager responded VOL has been in Alameda since 2020
operating the day center and safe parking; the overnight center opened in 2021.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated that he previously voiced concerns over
housing formerly homeless individuals in one house; he continues to have concerns; expressed
support for a home for teen mothers; stated the concerns raised by Councilmember Herrera
Spencer are valid and important; since the City has worked with VOL and the funding for the
program comes from American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) dollars, he can support the project; the
provider will have to work closely with City staff if the contract is extended; there are deep
concerns over crime near Main Street; families in the area should work closely with VOL; the
matter employs a housing first strategy; expressed concern over participants in the housing first
strategy not being required to be enrolled in services while being housed; stated the larger issue
is to move ahead; in order for the program to work, all should work in tandem on concerns
raised by the residents of the area.
Vice Mayor Vella stated that she understands the concerns raised; the City should work to
address safety issues and concerns; concerns should not be conflated with the individuals being
housed; expressed concern about the record reflecting any conflation; stated it is important that
the City is providing housing and doing what it can to not criminalize homelessness; expressed
support for the matter.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated people cannot complain about both the problem and solution; there
is a housing crisis in the State and City; the City has worked hard to find ways to alleviate the
crisis and provide housing for people formerly unsheltered or close to slipping into
homelessness; VOL is providing transitional housing; the Wellness Center on McKay Avenue as
well as Rosefield and Dignity Villages will be additional resources; requested clarification about
the background for VOL; discussed her first meeting with Joey Harrison at a previous event in
the City of Oakland.
Joey Harrison, VOL, stated that he has a background of managing 13 transitional houses in
Oakland and Berkeley; the housing programs focus clients on how to be good neighbors; Tom
Gorham had been a mentor as well as Doctor Davita Coady; he has background as a counselor
with dual diagnoses and created the Outreach Homeless Program for the Temescal District in
North Oakland; he has created a de-escalation training program which is used in the City of
Oakland, Berkeley, San Francisco and Alameda; he has experienced homelessness and
transitioned to helping people get their life back on track.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the people in the program will have services available to
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 20, 2022 4
them.
Mr. Harrison responded in the affirmative; stated the program will have a Critical Case Manager,
a licensed Marriage and Family Therapist, a Housing Navigator and support groups in
connection to day center transportation; the program works on job placement and clients will
have a lot of support; the program is focused on ensuring that people are good neighbors; the
program has been developed with feedback.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer noted information provided by staff did not include formal
education information.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers
Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft:
Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.
(*22-575) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City Manager, or Designee, to Execute a
Second Amendment to Agreement with ECS Imaging, Inc. for Laserfiche RIO to Change
Licensing from Laserfiche RIO Public Portal for Two Laserfiche Servers LSAP to Laserfiche RIO
Public Portal for Unlimited Laserfiche Servers LSAP in an Amount Not to Exceed a Onetime
Fee of $25,000 with an Additional $5,000 per Year Annual Maintenance Support Fee for Four
Years for a Total Contract Agreement Not to Exceed $467,473. Accepted.
(*22-576) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City Manager, or Designee, to Renew the
Annual Subscription License Fee of the Enterprise DocuSign Inc. Agreement in the Amount of
$46,250, for an Aggregate Total Not to Exceed $110,772. Accepted.
(*22-577) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City Manager, or Designee, to Execute a
Five-Year Agreement with Clark Services for Battery and Lamp Collection within the City of
Alameda for an Amount Not to Exceed $82,800. Accepted.
(22-578) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City Manager, or Designee, to Execute
Four, Five-Year Agreements in a Total Amount Not to Exceed $2,500,000 Each to Kimley-Horn,
Kittelson & Associates, Inc., Nichols Consulting Engineers, Chtd., and TDG Engineering, Inc.,
for On-Call Complete Streets Engineering Services.
The City Engineer gave a brief presentation.
In response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft, the City Engineer stated the matter consists of four, five-
year contracts to support complete streets engineering; the design projects are for street
resurfacing, grant supported projects and other street safety improvements; staff has performed
a Request for Proposal (RFP) process to select the four consulting teams; the firms provide civil
engineering and transportation services and will help the City design streets.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like clarification about the total amount
of the contracts; inquired whether there are four contracts being proposed at $2.5 million each
for a total of $10 million, to which the City Engineer responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she requested information from staff ; inquired
whether the four firms provide broad, civil engineering and transportation services or whether
the firms provide anything different or additional.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 20, 2022 5
The City Engineer responded the RFP process asked each consulting team to provide
information about the services provided; each firm provides a basic level of expertise, as well as
having specific strengths; as staff selects firms for individual projects, each firm and consultant
will be evaluated to find the best fit.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she has not supported some projects; if engineers
work on certain unsupported projects, she would not continue to support the consultant or firm;
she will not support the matter in its entirety; inquired whether the firms are hired to work on
Citywide matters and not specific projects.
The City Engineer responded consultants would be utilized on a project-by-project basis; the
general scope of work consists of transportation and resurfacing projects.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor
Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.
(*22-579) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City Manager, or Designee, to Execute a
One Year Agreement with IPS Group, Inc. for Single Space Parking Meter 4G Upgrades for an
Amount Not to Exceed $182,000. Accepted.
(22-580) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City Manager, or Designee, to Enter into a
Joint Use Agreement (JUA) with Alameda Unified School District (AUSD) for the Operation and
Maintenance of the District Swimming Pools, Including an Addendum Regarding Renovation of
the Emma Hood Swim Center at Alameda High School, and Authorize the Interim City Manager,
or Designee, to Disburse Payment of $7,500,000 to AUSD;
(22-580A) Resolution No. 15965, “Amending the Recreation and Parks Department General
Fund Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 2022-23 to Increase Operating Expenditures for Pool
Maintenance.” Adopted; and
(22-580B) Resolution No. 15966, “Amending the Fiscal Year 2022-23 Budget Authorizing an
Appropriation of $7,500,000 Unassigned Residual General Fund Balance to Capital
Improvement Project C55800 (Emma Hood Pool Repairs) and Increasing Expenditures in Said
Project by $7,500,000 to Fund 50% of the Emma Hood Swim Center Improvements.” Adopted.
The Recreation and Parks Director gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she met with staff in order to determine what the
City is getting for the $7.5 million; the JUA and staff report reference the City having the ability
to use 65% of the pool schedule; the 65% does not specify hours or days of use; inquired the
actual time allotted for the 65% use.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded the 65% use looks at actual time of use allocated
in the current fall schedule; stated the hours are set for daytime use at Emma Hood; staff is
working with the AUSD to expand use for daytime weekdays at Encinal High School; the City
predominantly uses the facility in the mornings before school with limited hours held by AUSD;
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 20, 2022 6
City uses include community user groups, such as local youth swim and water polo teams; the
use mostly occurs on weekends with some AUSD practices and swim meets on Saturday
morning.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer requested clarification of the term community groups; stated
the groups are not necessarily City of Alameda groups.
The Recreation and Parks Director stated under the JUA, the City is responsible for scheduling;
the City schedules aquatics programs for Alameda Recreation and Parks Department (ARPD)
and community groups, such as adult master swim, youth swim and water polo organizations.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the City is guaranteed a number of hours
under the JUA.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded the JUA does not guarantee a specific numbers
of hours for the City, community or AUSD; stated the JUA is worded in such a way that requires
both parties, AUSD and the City, to negotiate the schedules twice per year; staff held extensive
conversations with AUSD and athletic directors and determined that providing flexibility is a
more appropriate way to move forward and is in the best interest of both parties; there are
triggers in the JUA which allow for mediation or arbitration if the City feels that it is not getting a
reasonable amount of time and AUSD does not agree.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed concern over the City ending up paying $7.5 million
with no specificity related to what the City is receiving in both the short and long term; inquired
what the $7.5 million guarantees for the City to have swimming pool access.
The City Attorney responded the point raised is difficult to pin down; stated the JUA does not
contain a high level of specificity; there could be complications if the City litigates over
specificity; the JUA is for five years and staff is unable to definitively provide the commitments
will be made by AUSD beyond the five years; the concerns being raised are valid; staff can
provide more specificity if Council so desires; historical practice has shown a high degree of
cooperation; there are provisions for both sides.
The Recreation and Parks Director stated the JUA is intended to take the agencies through
construction; staff took action for expediency, as well as to keep the project moving and meet
the County’s deadline; Alameda County Health will close the facility in December 2023; staff has
been trying to limit the amount of time that the swim center would be closed to the public; she
has spoken with AUSD staff; there is support for working towards a longer-term agreement or
lease which could occur concurrent with the design; the JUA states that the funds are not
reimbursed until the first $5 million is spent; the City will be invoiced for 50% of the cost; AUSD
staff has agreed to complete the new agreement prior to the first payment of funds.
Councilmember Knox White stated there have been a number of discussions related to the
matter; Council has provided majority support in moving forward with both the budget and
working with AUSD in order to serve the Island.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation [including adoption of
the resolutions].
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 20, 2022 7
Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated that he supports contributing $7.5 million
towards improving the Emma Hood swimming pool for many reasons; he supports the matter
due, in part, to history; stated in the 1940s, the City had a ballot measure related to funding a
municipal swimming pool; the ballot measure achieved a majority vote; however, the required
two-thirds were not met; the City then worked with AUSD to create Emma Hood; after the
creation of Emma Hood, it was recognized that the pool was not big enough; subsequently,
neighborhood pools were created; the election of June 2022 followed-up the election of the
1940s and yielded the required number of votes; Measure B has a provision that $7.5 million will
come from AUSD and the City will match the funding; the votes of June 2022 were cast with
said understanding and the measure passed; the City will have the majority use of pool hours;
the percentages provide an indication of the extent to which the City will utilize Emma Hood;
expressed support for the matter; stated the matter is an opportunity to rectify a previous use.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney outlined amended language in Section 6 of the agreement.
In response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft’s inquiry, Councilmember Knox White agreed to amend the
motion to include the revised language; inquired whether the School District has approved the
amendment.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded School District staff has approved the language
and will take it to the School Board.
Councilmember Daysog agreed to second the motion with the revised language.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer requested clarification about Section 6; stated under Section
6.1, either party has the right to terminate the agreement by written notification, 30-days prior to
the effective date of the termination, either party shall be required to provide just cause for
termination.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated the proposed alternative language replaces the
language in the current agreement in its entirety; the proposed language provides that either
party shall have the right to terminate the agreement only for cause; cause exists only under the
following circumstance: a material default, a written notification of the default and a 30 -day cure
period; then, and only then, is the other party entitled to issue a notification of termination which
would take effect 30-days after; there is also clarification that neither party may terminate the
agreement without cause.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the proposed alternative makes the circumstance
worse; there are no specific responsibilities by AUSD to provide any hours of performance; it is
unknown how the City will indicate non-performance by AUSD due to the vagueness of the JUA.
The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated the provision will come into play under the situation
where AUSD is not being a reasonable partner in negotiations; AUSD is required to sit down
with the City and negotiate a schedule; If AUSD not being a reasonable participant would give
some basis for considering issuance of a notice of default to force AUSD to perform as a good
partner in negotiating a reasonable schedule.
Vice Mayor Vella stated that she is supportive of the matter; the City has been discussing public
access with AUSD to ensure public benefit for the investment; both parties have a lot of shared
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 20, 2022 8
constituencies related to the use of the pool; the contribution is the right thing to do; expressed
support for having further discussions in the future related to other pool locations that do not
have public access.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she appreciates the effort and intent; complaints
have been received routinely related to City pool access; it is critical that the City is clear on the
terms for City pool use; the cost of the matter is $7.5 million; a sound contract is needed; the
property is is owned by AUSD, not the City; the City should be more precise in what is being
received; she strongly disagrees that the June 2022 vote spoke to the matter at -hand; noted the
ballot measure question did not reference $7.5 million being provided by the City.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers
Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft:
Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.
(*22-581) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City Manager, or Designee, to Negotiate
and Execute an Agreement with Artworks Foundry, LLC in the Amount of $156,335 for the
Fabrication and Installation of Artwork at Fire Station 3 and the Emergency Operations Center
(EOC Public Art Project PLN16-0425). Accepted; and
(22-581A) Resolution No. 15967, “Amending the Fiscal Year 2022-23 General Fund Fire
Department Operating Budget to Increase Expenditures in the Amount of $156,335.” Adopted.
(*22-582) Resolution No.15968, “Authorizing the Interim City Manager, or Designee, to Execute
and Record, By and Between the City of Alameda and East Bay Municipal Utility District, an
Amended and Restated Partial Assignment of Non-Exclusive Easement and Grant of Non-
Exclusive Easement over Department of the Navy-owned Lands; Grant of Easement over City
of Alameda-owned Lands; and Any and All Ancillary Documents for the Extension of Water
Service in Main Street and West Redline Avenue to Property Conveyed to the Department of
Veterans Affairs at the Former Naval Air Station at Alameda Point.” Adopted.
(22-583) Resolution No. 15969, “Amending the Base Reuse Fund Budget to Appropriate
$300,000 for a Business Development Loan for Firebrand Artisan Breads to Complete a Retail
Café At 707 W. Tower Road.” Adopted; and
(22-583A) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City Manager, or Designee, to Execute a
Business Development Loan Agreement of $300,000 to Provide Financial Assistance to
Firebrand Artisan Breads to Construct a Retail Café at 707 W. Tower Avenue (Project).
The Development Manager gave a presentation.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the company has already started build-out of the café;
inquired the amount of investment provided to-date in the café.
The Development Manager responded that he does not have the information on-hand; stated
the Firebrand Chief Executive Officer (CEO) is available; stated a significant amount of build-out
costs and utility work has been completed.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed concern over the proposed interest rate of 2%
being charged by the City; stated the loan term is seven years; she is unsure why the company
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 20, 2022 9
is not eligible for a small business loan with the current market; expressed concern over the City
becoming a bank; inquired the historic use for Base Reuse Funds and how funds are acquired.
The Community Development Director responded Base Reuse Funds are generated primarily
through sales of buildings at Alameda Point; the department will typically keep a portion on
reserve for unexpected projects, such as the current matter or maintenance projects; the funds
are also used for infrastructure.
The Economic Development Manager stated the funds also come from lease revenue.
In response to Councilmember Herrera Spencer’s inquiry about use of the funds, the Economic
Development Manager stated revenues are used for property management, Alameda Point
building repairs, general staff costs, supporting businesses and COVID-19 grants.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the collateral for the loan amounts to $320,000; the
collateral consists of kitchen equipment; inquired whether staff can confirm that the collateral
price is correct for used kitchen equipment.
The Community Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated the equipment with
the most significant value are ovens and large bakery equipment; staff is less reliant on smaller
equipment items; there is a secondary market for the items.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer requested clarification of who performed the appraisal of
equipment items.
The Development Manager stated that he worked with Firebrand staff on assessing the bigger
industrial kitchen equipment; the machinery pieces are huge; there is a robust secondary
market for the equipment.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer noted the value of the equipment appears to have been
appraised by the person receiving the loan.
The Development Manager clarified that he investigated the machinery himself, took down
information and researched pricing.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the collateral list only contains used equipment.
The Development Manager stated the collateral price is a combination of new and used
equipment; some of the equipment is existing and other pieces have yet to be purchased in
order to build out the café; noted an espresso machine will be purchased specifically for the
café.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she appreciates the information; noted some of the
collateral is technically non-existent and have not yet been purchased but are still being
described as collateral; collateral should not include items which do not yet exist; inquired
whether there is a promissory note of personal security in regard to a personal guarantee from
the company.
The Development Manager responded in the negative; stated there is not a personal guarantee
for the proposed loan.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 20, 2022 10
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether items not currently in possession could be used as collateral
in other instances, such as when purchasing a home, to which the Economic Development
Manager responded in the affirmative.
The Community Development Director stated collateral agreements often describe the collateral
as currently existing or future purchased; there could be more items than listed on the initial
schedule.
The Assistant City Attorney stated the agreement includes currently existing equipment; there is
room to include equipment that is purchased as part of the loan; the agreement also includes
improvements that have been made and will be made to the café.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether there are any other requests for repairs or
upgrades from Alameda Point tenants; stated there have been complaints related to repairs.
The Community Development Director responded staff is currently working with residential
tenants to analyze conditions with a focus on asbestos.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she understands collateral differs for home owners
and commercial leases.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she supports the matter due to being impressed with on-site
tours in part; the CEO hires people with high employment barriers, such as previously being
incarcerated; discussed her prior experience as a probation officer; stated the company offers
on-site classes for employees, including financial literacy and English as a second language,
and has service providers on the premises to provide a supportive working environment;
businesses at Alameda Point are excited for a café to open; the products made by Firebrand
are excellent and are sold in local stores; the business is the exact kind that should be
supported by the City.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the matter is the type of investment the City should be making and will
have a number of positive returns for both the community and City; the business is doing its part
to help the community.
Vice Mayor Vella moved approval of the staff recommendation [including adoption of the
resolution].
Councilmember Knox White seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Knox White stated staff working on the matter work on many
City projects; he appreciates the work; the project is consistent with the Economic Development
Strategic Plan.
Councilmember Daysog stated the business appears to be successful with around 100
employees; it is not clear why the business did not go to the private sector for a loan; he will not
be supporting the matter.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she appreciates the business and the work being
done; expressed concern over potential ineligibility for small business loan; stated it is not
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 20, 2022 11
appropriate for the City to be a banker; expressed concern over the value of the collateral being
severely inflated; stated the collateral appears to be insufficient; the company needs to offer a
personal guarantee to ensure the City is reimbursed; the City has been tasked with providing
money for upgrades to the residential areas of Alameda Point and the priority should be the
housing needs of current residents.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers
Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye.
Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.
(*22-584) Resolution No. 15970, “Authorizing the Interim City Manager, or Designee, to Provide
and Execute Letters of Support to the Alameda Housing Authority for Pursuing Funding for
Affordable Housing Projects Approved by the City.” Adopted.
(*22-585) Resolution No. 15971, “Appropriating $40,000 in the American Rescue Plan Act
Project (C90300) for a Parklet Insurance Reimbursement Program; and Authorizing the Interim
City Manager, or Designee, to Disburse Funds Consistent with Program Requirements.”
Adopted.
(*22-586) Adoption of Resolution Approving a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Between
the Alameda Police Officers Association, Non-Sworn (PANS) and the City of Alameda for a
Thirty-Six Month Term Commencing July 1, 2022 and Ending June 30, 2025. Not heard.
(22-587). Ordinance No. 3327, “Authorizing the Interim City Manager, or Designee, to Execute a
Sixth Amendment to the Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) and All Other
Necessary Documents between the City of Alameda and Alameda Point Partners, LLC for the
Site A Development at Alameda Point.” Finally passed.
The DDA ordinance was heard together with final passage of the ordinance approving the first
amendment to the Development Agreement [paragraph no. 22-588] below.
(22-588) Ordinance No. 3328, “Authorizing the Interim City Manager, or Designee, to Execute a
First Amendment to the Development Agreement (DA) By and Between the City of Alameda
and Alameda Point Partners, LLC for the Site A Development at Alameda Point.” Finally
passed.
Councilmember Daysog moved final passage of the ordinances [DDA and DA].
Councilmember Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor
Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1
.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEM
(22-589) Resolution No. 15972, “Reappointing Ed Downing as a Member of the Golf
Commission.” Adopted;
(22-589A) Resolution No. 15973, “Appointing Megan Borthwick as a Member of the Historic
Advisory Board.” Adopted;
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 20, 2022 12
(22-589B) Resolution No. 15974, “Appointing Hank Hernandez as a Member of the Historic
Advisory Board.” Adopted;
(22-589C) Resolution No. 15975, “Reappointing Bachir Hadid as a Member of the Housing
Authority Board of Commissioners.” Adopted;
(22-589D) Resolution No. 15976, “Appointing Eric Husby as a Member of the Housing Authority
Board of Commissioners.” Adopted;
(22-589E) Resolution No. 15977, “Appointing Michaelea Joseph-Brown as a Member of the
Housing Authority Board of Commissioners.” Adopted;
(22-589F) Resolution No. 15978, “Appointing Alexander Kaufman as a Member of the Housing
Authority Board of Commissioners.” Adopted;
(22-589G) Resolution No. 15979, “Appointing Thushan Amarasiriwardena as a Member of the
Library Board.” Adopted; and
(22-589H) Resolution No. 15980 “Appointing Elise Hunter as a Member of the Public Utilities
Board.” Adopted.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft discussed statistics from this year’s Board and Commission appointees.
Addressed different agenda items: Tod Hickman.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the appointments [including adoption of the
resolutions].
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that public comment needs to be
called for the matter.
Expressed concern over public comment procedure; stated that she supports the Board and
Commission nominees listed; discussed the Brown Act; urged allowing the public to speak:
Carmen Reid, Alameda.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification on the Brown Act and public comment.
The City Attorney stated that the City Clerk has checked the list of public commenters, which
satisfies the Brown Act requirement; a presiding officers has the ability to run the meeting
subject to review by a majority of the Council; the presiding officer of the meeting has run t he
meeting in an effort to keep the agenda moving.
The City Clerk stated after she called all speakers with raised hands during the Consent
Calendar, public comment was closed; public comment had been closed for the current matter
and a motion with a second had been produced; the courtesy of re-opening public comment
was extended after another hand was raised; she removed the previous commenter since
comments were not related to the current agenda item.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 20, 2022 13
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted public comment for Consent Calendar matters happens once at the
beginning of the entire Consent Calendar.
Vice Mayor Vella concurred with the public comment process.
Councilmember Daysog expressed support for the newly appointed Board and Commission
members.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers
Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft:
Aye. Ayes: 5.
The City Clerk administered the Oath of Office to Mr. Downing, Ms. Borthwick, Mr. Hernandez,
Mr. Husby, Mr. Kaufman and Ms. Hunter.
Mr. Hernandez, Ms. Borthwick, Mr. Husby, Mr. Kaufman, and Ms. Hunter made brief comments.
***
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess at 8:57 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:10 p.m.
***
***
(22-590) The Interim City Manager inquired whether Council would consider moving the CARE
Update [paragraph no. 22-598] to another meeting.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of continuing the item to the next meeting.
The City Clerk stated a motion is only need if the matter is being moved to Continued Agenda
Items on the next agenda; a motion is not needed if Council wants to allow staff to determine
when the matter will return.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft suggested staff be able to decide.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer withdrew the motion.
***
CONTINUED AGENDA ITEMS
(22-591) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City Manager, or Designee, to Execute a
Purchase Agreement with Flock Safety for the Acquisition, Support, and Maintenance of a Fixed
Automated License Plate Reader System Not to Exceed $518,824.38 for Five Years and to
Provide an Update on Related Technologies.
The Police Captain gave a Power Point presentation.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired the proposed additional amount for the advanced
search option.
The Police Captain responded $3,500 per year for a five-year total of $17,500.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 20, 2022 14
Councilmember Knox White stated the cameras have both video and audio capability; inquired
whether Alameda will be utilizing the capabilities.
The Police Captain responded the audio capability is part of the Raven Package, which
Alameda is not purchasing.
Councilmember Knox White inquired whether the City will be capturing video.
The Police Captain responded the system has video capabilities.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification of Councilmember Knox White’s inquiry.
Councilmember Knox White stated Council had a discussion last spring about License Plate
Readers (LPRs) which related to a system that reads license plates; some of the reading
materials for the cameras possessed are now discussing the potential for capturing video; he
would like to understand that while the City is using video cameras to capture still images, 24
hour video surveillance is not being captured.
The Police Chief stated the system is not a closed-circuit television system and produces still
photos; the cameras are designed to use motion to pick -up vehicles traveling before the
cameras; a snapshot is taken when the license plate comes into view.
Councilmember Knox White inquired whether the images are captured and stored, to which the
Police Chief responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Knox White inquired whether optional advanced search options were part of the
original RFP or whether it had been requested as an add-on.
The Police Chief responded the feature is being offered; stated staff shared the option in order
to provide all the information.
Councilmember Knox White stated a City policy indicates any technology that is adopted and
purchased must come to Council with a personal privacy impact report; inquired whether any of
the advanced search technology was part of the report that came to Council.
The Police Chief responded the personal privacy impact evaluation report does not speak
specifically to the inquiry; stated the information was included because the service is an option;
the City does not have to approve the use of the option.
Councilmember Knox White stated providing the option would have to wait until the required
report returns to Council.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether Council could vote to waive the personal
privacy impact report requirement.
The City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated any Council policy can be waived by
Council’s subsequent action.
Expressed support for fully funding automated LPRs; stated that she would like the Police to be
notified of stolen vehicles right away in order to help recover stolen property and for crime
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 20, 2022 15
prevention; the cost appears to be a bargain for real-time information and is a powerful tool for
law enforcement: Joyce Mercado, Alameda.
Stated the contract is troublesome; expressed concern over the advanced search add-on
feature; stated surveillance of the community is a reverses of guidance provided by the
community subcommittees; the matter is a slippery slope; discussed a white paper about Flock
Security company; urged Council not proceed with advanced search options: Savanna Cheer,
Alameda.
Stated members of the community have urged Council to ensure data is kept for a short amount
of time; expressed support for a 30-day or less retention period; urged Council to modify the
City policy to match the community requests; stated it is reasonable for Council to stick to the
original plan; the advanced features have not yet been evaluated and need further discussion:
Jennifer Rakowski, Alameda.
Stated the matter is against civil liberties in the City; expressed concern over having 14
locations throughout the City instead of only at Island access points; expressed support for the
30-day retention window; stated nothing should be added to the plan; questioned the need for
35 cameras in 14 locations: Marilyn Rothman, Alameda.
Stated that she has opposed the use of automated LPRs; expressed concern over the cost,
effectiveness, risk of privacy violations and potential misuse; stated the proposal from Flock
significantly expands the use of the technology; there is growing concern over the rise in crime
within the City; urged Council remain mindful that some constituents still worry about the idea of
public surveillance and to proceed cautiously: Meredith Hoskin, Alameda.
Stated many people have been against the matter; the matter feels invasive in many ways;
expressed concern over the proposed number of cameras and locations; stated that she is
against the advance search features; expressed concern over the extra cost for the program:
Melodye Montgomery, Alameda.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether staff is recommending including the advance
search feature and the reasons behind the recommendation.
The Police Chief responded staff is presenting the advanced feature; stated the program can
start without the advanced feature; staff can see how successful the program is without the
feature; if challenges are encountered, staff can return with a recommendation to use the
advanced feature.
In response to Councilmember Herrera Spencer’s requested for clarification of the locations, the
Police Chief stated the program is not a surveillance system; there will not be a closed circuit
video that an Officer or staff member can watch; accessing the system requires personal login
credentials that identify each user; further access of the system requires a justification, reason
and case number; staff cannot monitor an intersection via camera; the matter has been part of a
long process which has yielded a lot of good; the Alameda Police Department (APD) began a
CompStat approach to crime in the beginning of the year; a CompStat approach is a data-
driven, intelligence-led approach to crime; staff looks at crime trends on a daily basis, three and
four-day basis, as well as a two-week basis; staff develops trends that identify where crime is
prevalent and what times crimes occur; staff has instituted geographic command where the City
is broken into three areas; each area is overseen by a Lieutenant; the Lieutenants assess and
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 20, 2022 16
evaluate crimes; the cameras are ideally placed at all entry and exit points of the City; as staff
gathers data, there is an indication that larceny is the driver of crime in the City; roughly 68% of
Alameda crime is larceny; staff has looked for an opportunity to position the cameras in entry
and exit points, as well as creating overlap in vulnerable areas where crime is prevalent; the
camera placements are recommended throughout the City based on the data; the assumption
that crime occurring in the City comes from outside the City limits is inaccurate; the data shows
that 53% of total arrests are individuals who do not live in Alameda; 47% are individuals who do
live in Alameda; the approach is a responsible way to ensure that the City is practicing equity in
using technology responsibly while providing a cross-section across the City to efficiently and
effectively use and leverage technology to address crime in vulnerable areas.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the locations proposed are the staff
recommendation, to which the Police Chief responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated an email was sent regarding a car hijacking; inquired
whether the proposed cameras could have assisted with the recovery sooner, to which the
Police Chief responded it is possible.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she receives many emails related to stolen cars;
inquired whether the cameras can be tools to help reduce the amount of stolen cars.
The Police Chief responded the cameras are a tool that can help staff solve crimes; stated there
is an opportunity to leverage technology and help efficiently accomplish a reduction.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated equity has been mentioned; expressed support for
clarification about proposed cameras targeting people of color.
The Police Chief stated the cameras are designed to prioritize the rear of the vehicle; the
cameras do not take photos of individuals; the rear vehicle photo is to capture the license plate;
it is possible that the back of someone’s head could be captured; however, the image would not
identify personal features; the cameras take photos of every vehicle and do not target specific
drivers.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether other cities use fixed cameras around
business districts.
The Police Chief responded Piedmont and Oakland have the cameras; San Leandro has closed
circuit video; Berkeley has been exploring the matter; several agencies in Alameda County are
using the technology.
The Police Captain stated Newark uses the technology; he will defer to Flock staff for an
extensive list of users.
Hector Soliman-Valdez, Flock Safety, stated the Vallejo, Benecia, Callistoga, Atherton, San
Ramon and Danville also use the technology.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of the staff recommendation, not including
the advanced search component; inquired whether the amount included in the staff report
includes the advanced search; expressed support for approving the correct amount.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 20, 2022 17
The Police Captain stated the amount of the contract should be $499,427.13.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer clarified her motion to approve the staff recommendation,
without the advanced search component, in an amount not to exceed $499,427.13.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated there have been stories of residents being
victims of crimes, especially in business districts; the City needs tools that can assist APD in
solving crimes; staff needs to take into consideration civil liberties and racial justice concerns;
the tool is a good fit for the City; the tool will not solve everything , but will be better to have on-
hand; people committing crimes are becoming more sophisticated; the tool will help APD
apprehend people committing crimes; he is supportive of the motion and staff recommendation.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she supports the staff recommendation; the tool will help APD
keep the community safe; Council is hearing about crimes on a daily basis; she is convinced
that the technology, without the enhanced features, is reasonable and limits the invasion of
privacy; expressed support for a data-based approach to the location of the additional cameras;
APD will return to Council in one year to report and follow-up; the system is accompanied by a
use and retention policy of 30-days, which is reasonable; the product is a good balance of using
data to know where to place cameras for still images; the City should be providing additional
resources to help people and divert away from crime.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers
Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: No; Vella: No; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye.
Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(22-592) Recommendation to Authorize Updates to the Existing Alameda Police Department
Policy Manual to Conform with New Law and Best Practices and to Authorize the Chief of Police
to Make Future Policy Updates Without Prior City Council Approval.
The Police Chief gave a Power Point presentation.
Councilmember Knox White requested clarification of how the current policy addresses the
timely needed implementation.
The Police Chief stated APD has several review processes; noted when he arrived to the
department, the pursuit policy had not been very restrictive; stated APD could previously
engage in vehicle pursuits for low-level offenses; he wanted to make an immediate change, but
the current process had to be followed; in order to make a change, a staff report must be
written, which takes 30-days minimum; putting needed policy changes in place can be delayed
due to the current process; a more restrictive pursuit policy has been put in place; however, it is
difficult to hold people accountable without the ability to quickly codify policy; the intent of the
recommendation is not to keep Council from providing guidance and input or reviewing policies;
expressed support for the ability to make changes to policies right away, followed by a report to
Council.
Councilmember Knox White stated the current Council policy allows for immediate
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 20, 2022 18
implementation of policy from the Police Chief in places where there are safety concerns; he is
not following how the example provided does not meet the current policy; requested clarification
where the instance has been a problem.
The Police Chief stated there is a need for oversight; oversight starts at the Department Head
level; he needs to be able to provide clear guidance and direction to APD staff; discussed his
ability to have supervisors respond to specific incidents of risk or calls where an Officer is still
probationary; expressed support for the ability to implement best practices within APD.
Councilmember Knox White stated the current policy allows for implementation when legal
liability or safety issues arise.
In response to Councilmember Herrera Spencer’s inquiry, the Police Chief stated the
recommendation is in line with best practices and industry standards; he has looked at agencies
within Alameda County and contacted most; half of the agencies notify the policy body after-the-
fact; policy is instituted with a notification provided to the higher body; there is a need for the
Police Chief to hold people accountable by immediately implementing policy.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer requested clarification of potential liability results from the
inability to immediately implement policy.
The Police Chief stated if he is made aware of a best practice or a requirement that should be
instituted, he is unable to do so in a timely fashion; the unutilized knowledge puts the City at
risk.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like to hear from the City Attorney on
the potential for liability risks.
The City Attorney stated that he does not have any additional comments on the matter.
Councilmember Daysog inquired the name and position of the individual who hired the Police
Chief.
The Police Chief responded Eric Levitt the former City Manager.
Councilmember Daysog inquired who the Police Chief reports to, to which the Police Chief
responded Interim City Manager, Nancy Bronstein.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired what the City Charter designates as the direct report
for the Police Chief.
The City Attorney responded the City Charter states the Police Chief is supervised by the City
Manager.
Stated this is a time for APD to be under intense scrutiny, not given additional power; Council
needs to determine how to reverse course and perform innovative things around policing to
make a difference; now is the time for oversight; the current matter is the only way for Council to
have control and be accountable to the public; urged Council keep the oversight mechanism:
Savanna Cheer, Alameda.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 20, 2022 19
Stated the recommendations are not any more persuasive than previous; urged Council vote
against the change; expressed support for comments provided by Councilmember Knox White
related to existing policy; stated there is no reason to take the proposed additional step: Caller.
Stated the process is not functioning; the public has asked for more; discussed oversight of
other City departments; the Library has an oversight Library Board; however, APD does not; the
matter is intended to be one step towards further oversight; many complex policies are being
proposed; discussion should be encouraged, not further limited: Jennifer Rakowski, Alameda.
Stated Council previously unanimously passed the need for a Police Oversight Committee, yet
nothing has been done; urged Council keep on top of APD by having the department go through
Council for changes: Marilyn Rothman, Alameda.
Stated giving this type of power to any Police Chief is the opposite of what the community voted
for; the City does not need to be spending more on APD; oversight is needed; urged oversight
continue to be provided by the City Council and City Manager: Melodye Montgomery, Alameda.
Expressed support for the Police Chief finding solutions for the community; stated APD
staff are professionals doing their best to help protect: Carmen Reid, Alameda.
Councilmember Daysog discussed previous comments in relation to the George Floyd and
Mario Gonzales tragedies; stated that he had expressed enthusiasm for the Crisis Assistance
Helping Out on The Streets (CAHOOTS) program proposed by Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft; the
program has subsequently been adopted as the Community Assessment Response and
Engagement (CARE) Team for Alameda; expressed concern over Council interposing itself on
administrative matters based on the previous Grand Jury findings of 2017; stated that he does
not wish to have his support misconstrued; he did not support previous policies, but supported
the CAHOOTS proposal at the time; the Police Chief is recommending that APD policies return
to what is listed in the City Charter; the City Manager is the Chief Administrative Officer and
provides direction, discipline and administrative oversight of Department Heads, including the
Police Chief; outlined Section 7-3 of the City Charter; stated Council adopted the policies in the
aftermath of tragedies with eyes wide open; the polices adopted were not consistent with the
City Charter; if the policies continue, the City Charter needs to be changed; he believes the
correct chain of command is for Council to work through the City Manager; Councilmembers are
ordinary residents that have an opportunity to weigh in on a professionally run City; Council
provides direction to the City Manager who administers the direction provided; there is
importance in keeping an arms distance of separation between Council and Department Heads;
expressed support for returning to the model of having the City Manager administer Council
adopted policy.
Councilmember Knox White expressed support consistency in no policy oversight for any the
City Departments; discussed the 4th of July parade being led by the 55 community members
who represented the Police Oversight Committee; stated the Subcommittees discussed key
things the City could do to provide better trust, relationships, Police reform and racial equity for
the community; the number one recommendation provided by the Subcommittees was a Police
Accountability Board; Council is currently the Accountability Board; it is bizarre to think that
interference in staffing and approval of policy that impacts individual people who live, work and
play in Alameda, is the same as the Planning and Parks Departments; noted that he has met
with numerous City staff members to find nuanced changes to propose; expressed concern over
APD bringing forth a request to undo a Council policy while making minor changes to the APD
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 20, 2022 20
policy manual; stated the City strengthened use of force rules with the policy; Council has
provided input to request additional reporting on the outcomes of use of force incidents that was
not proposed by staff; best practices across the nation identify problems daily; the City should
help move policing forward for the better; he continues to believe that Police reform can happen;
accountability matters will be returning to Council; questioned the need to recommend a policy
that goes in the opposite direction of Council policy, direction and community input; the report
does not mentioned a currently existing problem with the process; the current process has
yielded incidents which are better, stronger and more legal; small nuances can be reviewed;
expressed support for better clarification of safety or personnel responsiveness issues that
would allow the Police Chief to implement additional rules quickly; stated an informational off-
agenda report to Council with no way to impact the result is not the accountability that has been
requested by Council or wanted by the community; accountability is not against the things that
are desired, accountability asks those to take time and discuss matters that have had life and
death results; an argument can be made that APD should have no policy oversight; if so, other
departments should also not have policy oversight as well; one department should not be
treated differently than another; expressed support for a delay in the matter until the future
Police accountability matter is heard; expressed concern over rushing the matter.
Councilmember Daysog stated other departments bringing forth matters is an interaction
between Council and the City Manager; City Council and the Police Chief are being diplomatic
about the matter; Council is micromanaging in the affairs that are rightfully the Department
Head’s affairs; policy and planning can work when Council works through the City Manager
relaying to Department Heads.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is not supportive of the proposed recommendation; it is not
the right time to bring the matter forth; the proposed recommendation allows the Police Chief to
bring any policy changes immediately to the City Manager; discussed Council beginning the
process of interviewing City Manager candidates; stated that she would like the next City
Manager to be able to weigh-in on the proposal and provide input; expressed concern over the
staff report not mentioning a report back to Council post policy change; stated Council will be
discussing a Crime Analyst and Police Auditor position in the future; expressed support for the
work of the Police oversight subcommittee; stated the recommendations provided are not
encompassing of all Alameda residents; however, Council has listened to the valid and valuable
recommendations provided; she would like to hear more on the matter in order to take the next
step of independent oversight; the matter can be revisited; expressed support for the Police
Chief and the way APD is growing; however, it is premature to be making the current decision.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the policy recommendations minus the future
policy updates without Council approval; stated that he would like to bifurcate the two matters.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the matter is a heated discussion;
she agrees with the Mayor’s comments related to how the subcommittees’ views were not
representative of the community; the City Manager hand-picked people to serve on the
committee that selected the subcommittees; the City Manager is not elected by the people;
meetings of subcommittees were not publically noticed; members of the public did not
participate in the meetings and weigh in with public comment; the issues being discussed were
important to the community at-large; expressed support for the recommendations made in
totality; stated each recommendation is to come back to Council for discussion; meetings of
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 20, 2022 21
subcommittees should have been publically noticed; expressed support for the Police Chief and
comments provided by Councilmember Daysog related to the City Charter and administration by
the City Manager; stated Council approves contracts and budget matters, which differ from
telling City staff how to perform tasks; it is not appropriate for Council to tell the Police Chief how
to perform his duties; expressed concern over a blurring of jobs and responsibilities; inquired
whether a determination has been made related to the death of Mario Gonzales.
The City Attorney responded the City’s internal investigation did not find that APD Officers
violated law or policy related to the death of Mario Gonzales.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the Police Chief has a serious job to conduct; she looks
forward to hearing about the matter in the future in order to continue to allow APD to perform its
duties.
***
(22-593) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft announced a vote is needed in order for Council to hear new
matters past 11:00 p.m.; noted the next matter relates to changing the upcoming October
Council meeting dates [paragraph no. 22-594] and there is a lease for Astra Space [paragraph
no. 22-597].
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of hearing both matters.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the meeting will end at a time certain, to which Mayor Ezzy
Ashcraft responded the meeting will end at the conclusion of the Astra Space matter.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft proposed Council work to the best of their ability to be
economic with comments.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she will not be supporting the motion; she is happy
to proceed with Astra Space, Inc.; the other matter does not need to be heard; the decision of
October meeting dates has already been determined.
On the call for the question, the motion failed by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers
Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye.
Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of Council hearing the Astra lease.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what will happen to the October meeting dates if the matter is not
heard.
The City Clerk responded if Council does not take action tonight, the first meeting in October will
occur on the 5th; the matter can return on October 5th to consider the second meeting date.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed concern over the October meeting dates.
The City Attorney stated the City Clerk has outlined the October meeting dates; the first meeting
date will remain October 5th if the matter is not heard tonight; Council will have another
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 20, 2022 22
opportunity to consider the second October meeting date at the October 5th meeting.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed concern over members of Council being unavailable.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Vice Mayor Vella stated that she will be unable to attend the October 5th
meeting in full.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers
Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: No; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft:
Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.
***
Vice Mayor Vella requested clarification from the City Attorney related to City Council violating
the City Charter in voting on the matter; inquired whether Council voting on the matter is a
violation of the Charter.
The City Attorney responded Council broadly approves policies across the City and would not
be violating the City Charter in continuing the current discussion.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers
Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft:
Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.
Councilmember Knox White questioned whether Council can propose language that there will
be an addition to the current policy to include: legal updates, imminent safety issues and
significant liabilities; stated the language provides the Police Chief some flexibility in order to
cover necessary issues; inquired whether the additional language is helpful to the Police Chief,
to which the Police Chief responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of amending the existing policy to add: legal
updates, imminent safety issues and significant likely liability issues for matters the Police Chief
could put into place and return to Council.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she is happy to make a motion
to provide Councilmember’s Daysog and Knox White additional speaking time.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers
Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft:
Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.
The City Clerk noted the meeting dates could be considered since it is not 11:00 p.m. yet.
(22-594) Resolution No. 15981, “Amending Resolution Nos. 15851 and 15923 Amending the
2022 Regular City Council Meeting Dates.” Adopted.
The City Clerk gave a brief presentation.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 20, 2022 23
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the matter has been raised due to scheduling issues; the original
request to change the Tuesday meeting dates had been made to avoid religious holidays; the
City Clerk polled Council via email; two Councilmembers responded with opposing answers;
expressed concern over a major change in deciding to switch Council meeting dates when the
public comes to expect meetings to occur every first and third Tuesday of each month; stated
that she is willing to accept the adopted dates if the majority of Council desire to keep.
The City Clerk stated that she did poll Council; any she would have presented any dates any
Councilmember objected to; the resolution adopting the Council meeting dates was heard and
voted on at the second Council meeting in December, 2021; the process was rushed due to
implanting a Social Services Human Relations Board (SSHRB) recommendation in a staff report
turnaround of only two days’ time; more time will allow a better process in the future.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that her other concern relates to the resolution not calling out the
October dates as Wednesdays; noted Vice Mayor Vella will not be available for the first meeting
in October.
Councilmember Daysog expressed support for the meetings being held on the first and third
Tuesdays; stated Council previously contemplated moving dates to acknowledge a religious
holiday occurring on a Tuesday; he previously asserted Council’s role is not to accommodate for
religious holidays; the clearest action to take is to keep the meetings on the first and third
Tuesdays.
Councilmember Knox White stated the next meeting has a large community-related event
occurring on Tuesday; moving the meeting to Wednesday allows the event to occur without
conflict; he will try to call into the meeting occasionally on October 4th; however, he has made
plans for the date based on Council approved meeting dates.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired when the 2022 Council meeting date calendar had
been provided and voted upon, to which the City Clerk responded the second meeting in
December 2021.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the proposed meeting date change is for the next
Council meeting; dates have been in place for almost one year; the dates have been known to
the public and Councilmembers; expressed concern over changing a meeting date at the
meeting prior; stated the change is not appropriate.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the October dates were not called out as Wednesdays in the
resolution; there had been understandable confusion regarding October’s meeting dates.
Vice Mayor Vella stated there had been intent behind moving the dates; there have been
concerns over the dates not being called out as Wednesdays in the resolution; she supports
moving the dates to the first and third Tuesdays; she could also support bifurcating the dates to
have October 4th and October 19th approved.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the meeting has been on her calendar; Council needs
to honor the approved dates; expressed support for bifurcating the meeting dates; expressed
concern over changing the next meeting date with little time.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 20, 2022 24
The City Clerk stated the resolution contains both meeting dates; she is unsure whether Council
can bifurcate the resolution vote.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired how Council can legally change the dates.
The City Attorney responded a motion can be made to amend the resolution; the motion would
be for the first meeting to be on October 5th and the second on October 18th.
Vice Mayor Vella expressed support for the October meeting dates being October 4th and
October 19th.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed concern over accusations of Brown Act violations.
Councilmember Daysog restated his support for the Council meeting dates to remain on the first
and third Tuesday of the month; stated there needs to be support for the clear separation of
local government and any religion; he suspects many of the religious organizations will
understand the necessity of a clear separation between church and State.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the dates were decided back in December 2021.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of amending the resolution to keep the
October 5th meeting date and modify the second meeting date to October 18th.
Councilmember Knox White seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Knox White stated that he cannot support a motion which
leads people within the community to understand that their large community events are less
important than government when clear dates have been established; noted City Hall is closed
on certain religious holidays; stated there should be concerned in relaying to a percentage of
the community that there is no interest in hearing from them; the discussion is about a large
group of people having an event, which just happens to be religious and should be
accommodated; multiple city attorneys have provided insight; it is important for Council to
designate that the meeting is being moved due to a large impact on a portion of the community
and who cannot participate; changes to meeting dates occur regularly.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like staff to respond to the reference to determining
religious holiday closure.
The City Clerk stated the dates are established in the Memorandums of Understanding (MOU)
and are agreed upon; if a Council meeting falls upon a holiday when City Hall is closed, the date
is changed.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the holidays are typically Nationwide, to which the City
Clerk responded in the affirmative.
On the call for the question, the motion failed by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers
Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: No; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: No.
Ayes: 2. Noes: 3.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 20, 2022 25
Vice Mayor Vella moved approval of both October Council meetings being held on the first and
third Tuesday of the month [including adoption of the resolution].
Vice Mayor Vella stated any future changes to Council meeting dates should be flagged when
not occurring on a first or third Tuesday of the month; expressed support for the day of the week
being included in the resolution.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: No; Vella: Aye; and Mayor
Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.
(22-595) Introduction of Ordinance Authorizing the Interim City Manager, or Designee, to
Execute a Consent to Assignment and Assumption of Lease in Favor of Daniel Patrick Nichols
With Respect to the Lease of Real Property Between Agnes McKinley, Successor Trustee of
Mihailo Crnjanski, and the City of Alameda for the Tidelands Parcel Adjacent to the Uplands
Parcel at 1620 Fernside Boulevard, Alameda, CA. Not heard.
(22-596) Introduction of Ordinance Authorizing the Interim City Manager, or Designee, to
Execute a Fourth Amendment to the License with Amber Kinetics, Inc., a California Corporation,
to Extend the License Term for Twelve Months for the Unimproved Lot Located at 641 West
Red Line Avenue, Alameda, CA. Not heard.
(22-597) Introduction of Ordinance Authorizing the Interim City Manager, or Designee, to
Negotiate and Execute a Lease with Astra Space, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Substantially in
the Form of Exhibit 2 attached to the Staff Report, for Fifty-Nine Months for Building 360
Comprised of Approximately 179,070 Square Feet, Located at 1900 Skyhawk Street at Alameda
Point. Introduced.
The Community Development Director gave a brief presentation.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired the status of the Project Stabilization Agreement (PSA).
The Community Development Director responded it is close; states a signed agreement is not in
place; staff has spoken with labor representatives and have received assurance that material
business terms have been agreed upon; the remaining term to be negotiated relate to Sarbanes
Oxley control; there is reasonable confidence that both parties can work out an agreement.
Vice Mayor Vella stated there is a six-month period in the lease agreement; inquired whether
there is also a labor provision.
The Community Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated staff will need to
return to Council.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired how long the negotiations have been ongoing, to which the
Community Development Director responded approximately six months.
The Assistant Community Development Director stated Astra and the Trades have been
negotiating a PSA since November of 2021.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 20, 2022 26
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether or not the lease will have any impact on
Sustainable Technologies.
The Community Development Director responded Sustainable Technologies is a separate
tenant occupying a nearby property; stated Astra will not impact Sustainable Technologies’
license; the proposed lease for Building 360 is standalone.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the testing hours would be modified from 6:00 a.m. to
7:00 a.m.; inquired whether the timing falls within the City’s noise ordinance as allowable for
nearby residents.
The Community Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated Astra is already
required to comply with the City’s noise ordinance; the voluntary measures imposed are in
addition which go above and beyond; Astra is expected to comply with both requirements.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether Astra’s will test decibels at the perimeter of
the premises.
The Community Development Director responded there is a plan to have a testing device
purchased by Astra; stated the City will have access to the testing records.
The Assistant Community Development Director noted the device is for monitoring; stated the
device is similar to those monitoring airport decibels; Astra will be installing the same monitoring
devices and reports will be sent to the City.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether vibrations will be monitored; stated that she
previously Astra be required to notify the City of any vibrational testing, in addition to sound
testing; inquired how vibrations will be measured.
The Assistant Community Development Director responded the same consultant providing the
monitoring device for noise also provides a device which measures vibrations; no vibrations
were detected during testing.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft outlined language defining community safety concerns and noise; stated
the reports have indicated that all results at monitoring locations for testing were below the
threshold of perception; Astra has committed to do all engine testing indoors.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like to know whether there will be any
vibrational measuring occurring and whether the results will fall under City regulation; she
disagrees that the vibrations will be minimal; inquired what the City requires for vibration
measurements, the mechanism for vibration measurement and locations for measurement.
The Community Development Director responded the t esting for vibrations occurred and did not
produce any areas of concern; stated staff does not have ongoing testing planned due to the
results.
The Assistant Community Development Director stated the community has raised concerns
related to vibrations; staff required Astra’s consultant to measure vibrations; staff also
conducted a survey of businesses adjacent to Astra related to noise and vibration, which yielded
nothing; staff has been unable to confirm the concerns of the residents.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 20, 2022 27
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether there is a way to include vibration testing
requirements in the proposed lease; stated that she would like the vibrations monitored over the
course of the lease.
The Assistant Community Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated
requirements for sound and vibrations can be added; the lease term is short at just under five
years; annual testing might be inconsequential.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the City has a policy related to vibrations, to
which the Community Development and Assistant Community Development Director indicated
they do not know.
Councilmember Daysog read the Assignment and Sublease portion of the sublease; inquired
whether Astra’s ability to assign its lease could be at the sole discretion of the landlord instead
of a standard of reasonableness; noted Section 13 further defines factors or standards of
reasonableness; questioned whether the language should remain with a reasonableness
standard.
The City Attorney responded Council directing staff to make a change would be legally viable;
stated Council could retain greater control over assignment; the change could have business
implications.
The Community Development Director stated it is commonplace to have the provision in the
lease as-is with the reasonableness standard; expressed concern over creating leases that
render the City unable to create business deals with companies due to rigidity in market terms;
requested clarification on typical market terms and provisions from outside counsel.
Simon Adams, Nossaman, stated extensively negotiated provisions in the lease are common
and do not need to be strengthened; the terms are sophisticated and allow the City to compete
with other landlords leasing similar assets; the City would exercise a substantial amount of
control if the City enters into the lease under the current terms; the transfer provisions are
written over several covenants and are meant to be read and understood together; the
reasonableness standard is industry practice; the City has the ability to take back the premise
space without penalty; the sublease provision is only triggered when a certain threshold is met;
the provision allows some flexibility of subleasing space without triggering due to the size.
Councilmember Daysog stated there appear to be safeguards in place that allow the City to
recapture; he would like to focus not on sublease, but rather assignment of lease; requested
clarification of the safeguards in place for the City under assignment and recapture provisions.
Mr. Adams responded assignment rights exists; stated the proposed tenant is required to come
to the City for consent if it make an assignment; the provisions in the lease require the tenants
proposed assignee to satisfy certain terms in order for consent to be obtained; if the City
determines that the proposed assignee does not meet the terms, the City has the right to refuse
consent; the current tenant is not released from the current terms of the lease if any assignment
occur; the proposed lease has a guarantor; the guarantor would also not be released from terms
due to assignment in order to retain the original protection of the tenant viability; there are
grounds to recapture the space if the City does not approve the proposed assignee.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 20, 2022 28
Councilmember Daysog stated one of the factors for the City to approve an assignee is the
ability to perform financially; outlined Section 13.2 of the lease; questioned whether or not the
City would be able to deny an assignment if an assignee has acceptable financial conditions
and is performing within the lease; inquired whether there could be a basis for not approving an
assignment if the City simply does not like the assignee.
Mr. Adams responded that he cautions any action which could be arbitrary and capricious;
stated if the City does not like an assignee and the requirements for refusing consent are
present, the City may have the right to refuse; if the City has early knowledge and wishes to
remove an assignee from the premises, there is a mechanism to recapture and release the
premises back to the market; the City is otherwise bound to the terms to act reasonably if the
lease is approved.
Councilmember Daysog stated there is a section in the lease which allows a 30-day window for
the City to evaluate information provided by the tenant for sublease; inquired whether the City
can go beyond the 30-day review period based on the technical nature of the business.
Mr. Adams responded in the affirmative; stated the 30-day window commences at the point that
the City has received information that has been requested; if the City asks for additional
information, the 30-days begin when the supplemental information is received; there is a
financial obligation of any transitory party to produce reports to the City; 30 days should be
sufficient time for review once all requested information has been received; going beyond 30
days is outside of industry standards; expressed concern over changing the provision.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the definition of landlord equates to Council
or City staff in approving lease assignment.
The Community Development Director responded the City Manager would be the approving
party; stated staff will perform an evaluation with consultants to make findings of an acceptable
tenant and present the information to the City Manager for approval and signature.
The City Attorney stated that he believes the landlord in the instance is City Council; given the
importance of the consent, the approval would have to be decided by Council; the lease should
be clarified that Council is the landlord in the matter.
Read a letter has submitted on the importance of Astra: Kaina Pereira, Governor’s Office of
Business and Economic Development.
Expressed support for keeping communities competitive after the COVID-19 pandemic; urged
Council to consider making decisions that ensure the region is competitive and encourage
employers to stay in the region; Astra produces considerable economic output and is a positive
part of the community: Alex Torres, Bay Area Council.
Expressed support for Astra; stated Astra has worked to sustain and restore old buildings at
Alameda Point; Astra is hiring technical roles and skilled vocational labor; Astra has shown itself
to be invested in the City of Alameda while also being philanthropic to local non-profits: Laura
Fies, USS Hornet.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 20, 2022 29
Expressed support for Council’s commitment to labor standards; stated staff’s assessment of
labor negotiations has been accurate; a signed agreement is close; urged Council change the
lease to eliminate the waiver option: Andreas Cluver, Alameda County Building Trades Council.
Stated it is imperative to get the lease approved and provide Astra with stability; Astra is
important to the success of Alameda Point; there is no shortage of other cities and states luring
companies with incentives; approval is critical in keeping the success of the region: Joe Ernst,
SRM Partners.
Expressed support for the Astra lease; urged Council approve the matter; stated Astra has hired
hundreds of employees, with some being Alameda residents; Astra contributes in a variety of
ways and has a partnership with National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and
SpaceX: Karen Bey, Alameda.
Expressed support for the proposed lease; stated Astra offers a lot and should stay in the
region: Madlen Saddik, Chamber of Commerce.
Stated that he lives in the area and has been directly involved in turning a building at Alameda
Point from a disused empty building to a state-of-the-art factory; the transformation of the space
has been incredible; many colleagues have relocated to Alameda: Kevin Walsh, Astra.
Expressed support for City staff; stated Astra has grown over the past five years; it is critical for
Astra to secure a long-term lease at Alameda Point; discussed negotiations with labor trades;
urged Council consider the lease language as-is: Dani Gomes, Astra.
Stated that she recently moved to Alameda largely in part due to Astra’s presence; her family’s
quality of life has greatly improved; Astra has the potential for continuing to make a positive
impact on the West End of Alameda; discussed hosted clean-up events at Alameda Point:
Amanda Durk Frye, Astra.
Councilmember Knox White expressed concern about the amount of time taken to get to the
matter; stated that he is excited for the project and looks forward to approval; he understands
negotiations are close and all parties are working to get an approved agreement; the matter is
the first lease which includes the PSA rules; expressed support for flexibility.
Vice Mayor Vella stated that she supports either delaying the vote or removing the waiver;
removing the waiver is something that the Building Trades are open to in order to move the
matter along; there was expectation that a PSA would be in place; however, it has not yet been
approved; the parties involved are meeting regularly to negotiate; expressed support for the
PSA being in place by second reading.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with Vice Mayor Vella and Councilmember Knox White; stated
nine months is a long time to be negotiating; questioned why there would be objection to
removing the waiver or requiring a lease amendment which requires four affirmative votes;
expressed concern over a too easy approach allowing Astra to stall; expressed support for
terms being in place by second reading; stated Council needs to take the PSA seriously; she
appreciates the work that has gone into addressing safety concerns; one major rocket company
is enough for Alameda; discussed fuel transport; expressed support for the work being done to
address concerns.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 20, 2022 30
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired how many votes are needed for the matter to
proceed, to which the City Attorney responded four affirmative votes.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer requested clarification of what a PSA accomplishes.
The Community Development Director stated a PSA reaches an agreement between the
Building Trades and tenant or developer doing work in Alameda to use Trades in connection
with projects in the City when a certain threshold of costs are spent on the project.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired where the waiver language came from.
The Community Development Director stated the language is included as an option in the
current City policy; the language indicates that despite good faith efforts, if parties be unable to
agree to a PLA, the tenant or developer would come back to City Council to request a policy
waiver.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the policy waiver requires three affirmative
votes, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative.
In response to Councilmember Herrera Spencer’s further inquiry, the City Attorney stated PLAs
are typically included in the lease; the two matters work in tandem.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the Council policy allows for a waiver and
whether the contract is written in accordance with City Council policy.
The Community Development Director responded the intent of the lease is to comply with the
City’s PSA policy.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated a member of the public has recommended striking the
waiver language; stated that she will defer to staff whether the language is consistent with
policy; expressed support for the contract being clarified regarding the definition of landlord
under assignment; expressed concern over the lease complying with the City’s noise and
vibration ordinances; stated it does not appear that the proposed changes to the matter will
constitute as a first reading.
The City Attorney stated the requested changes are minor and can be made as part of the first
reading if approved by Council approve.
In response to Councilmember Herrera Spencer’s inquiry, the City Attorney stated changes to
the PSA are not being requested; if the motion includes removing the sentence that authorizes
the waiver, the change will still allow a first reading to occur.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether Astra has consented to the change; stated
the waiver language change is significant.
The Community Development Director responded if Astra does not agree, the lease would not
proceed.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the language is a lease term and not the inclusion of City
policy, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 20, 2022 31
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether Council has the ability to negotiate lease terms as the
governing body, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the terms can differentiate from existing policy; the policy and
contemplation of the inclusion of the waiver term had been that a PSA would be executed; a
PSA has not been executed; expressed support for the clarification proposed by
Councilmember Herrera Spencer provided that there will be a removal of the waiver term; stated
there have been expectations and staff time spent on the matter; companies are able to walk
away; however, that does not appear to be Astra’s intent; Astra appears to intend to execute a
PSA; removal of the waiver should not be an issue.
Vice Mayor Vella moved approval of the staff recommendation [including introduction of the
ordinance] with the addition of the amendments to the terms of the lease as proposed by
Councilmember Herrera Spencer.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she imagines the Governor’s office and Bay Area Council are
concerned about the labor provisions of the lease; she takes Astra at its word that negotiations
are close.
Councilmember Daysog stated it is vital that the City keep Astra at Alameda Point; Astra
commercializing earth’s outer sphere is exciting; Council should do its best to keep Astra here;
expressed support for the responses to his concerns; stated the responses have been sufficient;
expressed support for the hazmat report; outlined the risk of fire being low for refrigerated liquid
oxygen and other materials; stated that he is ready to move forward with the staff
recommendation; he is confident that staff has indicated that a PSA is close to being finalized;
Council has done its due diligence in supporting an exciting company to stay in Alameda.
Councilmember Knox White stated there are multiple ways for the City to proceed.
Councilmember Knox White seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether Councilmember Daysog is
agreeable to striking the waiver provision; stated Astra would prefer keeping the language as -is;
she will not be supporting striking the waiver language.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he supports the staff recommendation; noted the City
Attorney has stated the staff recommendation is to approve the lease in advance of the PSA.
Vice Mayor Vella stated that she has not heard the City Attorney recommend approval of the
lease in advance of the PSA.
The Interim City Manager stated staff is comfortable performing a lease amendment with a
return to Council and four affirmative votes to change the PSA as opposed to a waiver.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether Astra will respond to the staff recommendation.
The Community Development Director responded Astra has been a good partner throughout the
negotiations; stated the negotiations have gone back and forth and seem optimistic; Astra will
likely not be disinterested in continuing a dialogue with the Trades.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 20, 2022 32
The Assistant Community Development Director stated Astra is willing to provide comment if
needed.
Ms. Gomes stated Astra has internally discussed the idea of removing the waiver; Council
Resolution No. 15740 has specific requirements that trigger the compliance with the PSA; the
two requirements include a lease term of seven years as well as qualified shell improvements
with a credit of $5 million; the lease does not currently provide for any required scope of work or
performance; Astra is also not receiving the full monetary value benefit in cons ideration; Astra is
not requesting language that allows an exemption; Astra would be seeking a monetary credit
that would be aligned with the resolution in its entirety.
Vice Mayor Vella stated a substantial amount of time has been spent and the City has put forth
a proposal; her goal is to have a proposal that allows parties to continue negotiations in good
faith while continuing with the lease; the information provided is a reversal of good faith
bargaining; she would not be in support of the lease if Astra does so; the land is public; a PSA is
consistent with the expectations of what should occur on public land; the City has spent
significant staff resources trying to get something accomplished to move forward.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated what she heard is that Astra and the Building Trades are not close
to an agreement.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired how many votes of Council are required to waive the
policy, to which the City Attorney responded three affirmative votes.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the policy requires three votes; lease approval requires
four affirmative votes; three Councilmembers are imposing a PSA requirement.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the motion is substantially the same as the staff
recommendation; noted staff is recommending to include a lease amendment to waive the PSA,
to which the Community Development Director responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Vella responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the proposed lease has language about a union
representative; a representative from Astra has stated that Astra is not supportive of striking the
language; the two approaches are not the same; expressed concern that there has not been the
ability to reach an agreement with labor; expressed support for Astra and their ability to stay in
Alameda.
Vice Mayor Vella stated both parties have agreed to all major terms; the outstanding term is one
which had recently been added regarding a review process related to bidding; the finan cials do
not need to be worked out; she has not heard her colleagues not be supportive of keeping Astra
in Alameda; Council holds a role of ensuring City policies are upheld as well as negotiating for
the benefit of the public, not representing particular companies or interests.
On the call for the question, the motion failed by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers
Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye.
Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 20, 2022 33
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of the lease in advance of the PSA [including
introduction of ordinance].
Councilmember Herrera Spencer seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Knox White stated the matter should not return for second
reading until the PSA is signed.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with Councilmember Knox White; stated if a PSA is not be
agreed upon by second reading, she will not vote in favor.
The City Attorney stated Council may provide direction to staff that the matter cannot return to
Council for final passage without a signed PSA.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the matter can be deferred until a signed PSA is in place;
expressed concern about procedures for final passage.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the matter has been heard; she is fine voting on the matter to keep
it moving forward, with the caveat that it does not return for final passage without a signed PSA
in place.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the final passage will be agendized on the regular agenda or
on the consent calendar; expressed concern over final passage being placed on consent.
The City Attorney stated the matter can be placed on consent only if it returns when a signed
PSA is in place.
Vice Mayor Vella stated that her preference would be to have the matter come back as a regular
agenda item to ensure that the PSA has been completed.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated there will be many agenda items coming before Council through the
end of the year; discussed the merits of having the matter return on consent versus regular
agenda; expressed support for either approach.
Councilmember Daysog expressed support for the final passage being placed on the regular
agenda.
Councilmember Daysog amended his motion to approve the lease in advance of the PSA,
including minor issues regarding the City constituting the landlord as the City Council, and
honoring the City’s policies regarding noise and vibrations.
Councilmember Knox White seconded the amended motion, which carried by the following roll
call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye;
and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.
Vice Mayor Vella moved approval of directing staff not to bring the matter back to Council for
final passage until the PSA is signed and placing it on the regular council agenda.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 20, 2022 34
Under discussion, Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like clarification; a
waiver of the PSA was approved, which is not being honored by the motion.
The City Attorney stated the assertion is difficult to make; the lease will not be finally approved
until the final passage; Council is taking the position that the lease will not be approved until the
PSA is signed.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she understands a waiver procedure was included;
the motion as-stated denies said opportunity.
The City Attorney reiterated Council exercises separate authority with respect to waiving PSAs
and approving leases; stated the two work together well in some ways and at other times the
two work together in ways which are different.
Councilmember Daysog discussed potential negotiations procedures; noted the resulting PSA
will be discussed and included as part of the final passage.
Councilmember Knox White stated Council could currently vote to waive the PSA; the policy has
a way to waive the language if it is desired; there is not policy that states all City leases have an
option to waive a PSA with three affirmative votes; the policy is being confused due to be ing
included with the lease; the idea that the City is not following policy is inaccurate; members can
feel free to bring forth a waiver to the PSA.
On the call for the questions, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers
Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft:
Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.
(22-598) Recommendation to Receive a Six-Month Update on the Alameda Community
Assessment Response and Engagement (CARE) Team Pilot Program. Not heard.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
(22-599) The Interim City Manager announced an upcoming Zoom meeting about work
beginning on Buena Vista Avenue; stated information is on the City’s website.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
(22-600) Consider Directing Staff to Reform the Fee Towing Companies Require Alameda
Residents to Pay to Retrieve Towed Vehicles. (Councilmember Daysog) Not heard.
(22-601) Consider Directing Staff to Address Massive Corporations Purchasing Housing.
(Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard.
(22-602) Consider Directing Staff to Create a Requirement for Upfront Payment of Candidate
Statements if a Candidate for Local Elected Office Has a Balance Due from a Prior Election.
(Councilmember Knox White and Vice Mayor Vella) Not heard.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 20, 2022 35
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 12:43 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.