Title
Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting Held on October 25, 2023; and the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on November 7, 2023. (City Clerk)
Body
UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
WEDNESDAY- -OCTOBER 25, 2023- -6:00 P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:04 p.m. Councilmember Jensen led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Jensen, Vella, and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: Councilmember Herrera Spencer was present via Zoom and arrived at 6:05 p.m. and Councilmember Vella arrived at 6:06 p.m.]
Absent: None.
AGENDA ITEM
(23- ) Introduction of Ordinance Amending Article XV of the Alameda Municipal Code, Amending and Enhancing the Rent Control Program’s Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Program and Terminating the Current Moratorium on CIP Applications for Properties that Have 25 or More Rental Units (“Option A”) and Making Other Necessary Updates. Introduced; or
Introduction of an Alternative Ordinance Amending Article XV of the Alameda Municipal Code, Terminating the CIP Program and Terminating the Current Moratorium on CIP Applications for Properties that Have 25 or More Rental Units (“Option B”) and Making Other Necessary Updates. Not introduced;
(23- A) Resolution No. 16107, “Repealing Resolution 15138 that Established the Existing Capital Improvement Plan Policy for Rental Units in the City of Alameda.” Adopted;
(23- B) Recommendation to Authorize the Creation of a Temporary Relocation Tenant Assistance Program to Provide Emergency Temporary Assistance for Tenants Facing Displacement and Authorize the Program Administrator to Adopt Regulations to Implement the Program; and
(23- C) Resolution No. 16108, “Amending the Fiscal Year 2023-24 General Fund Budget to Appropriate $100,000 from General Fund Residual Fund Balance for the Temporary Relocation Tenant Assistance Program”. Adopted.
The Rent Program Director gave a Power Point presentation.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether there is a reason the tenant hardship provision does not include assets.
The Rent Program Director responded dependent on Council’s vote, the tenant hardship provision would be implemented by an administrative regulation and adopted at a later time; stated the City does not need to adopt the specifics of how the tenant hardship program will work at the current meeting, but staff can take direction from Council on changes to how staff is preliminarily proposing to run the program; staff has looked closely at San Francisco’s policy and whether tenants qualify based on means or income.
Councilmember Jensen stated Alameda is the only jurisdiction that does not cap the dollar amount eligible to be passed through; inquired whether Option A includes a cap.
The Rent Program Director responded in the affirmative; stated staff is proposing two caps; there is a 5% cap considered at the time staff is processing the application to set a maximum allowable CIP pass-through; once the pass-through is implemented alongside the annual rent increases, landlords will need to look at the combination of the Annual General Adjustment (AGA), banking, and CIP, and will need to reduce the CIP pass-through or banking, if the total amount adds up to more than an 8% increase over the current rent.
Councilmember Jensen inquired whether the 8% cap was in place prior to the moratorium.
The Rent Program Director responded in the negative; stated as staff processed CIP applications, the total documented, qualifying cost of qualifying would be reviewed, as well as the useful life of the improvements and what occurs when the amount is amortized over the useful life of the improvements; there was no limit to the percentage of the rent increase.
In response to Councilmember Jensen’s further inquiry related to limit testing, the Rent Program Director stated Assembly Bill (AB) 1482 is a rent control provision for tenants in California that generally refers to more stringent local protections; most of Alameda’s rent control protections are robust; AB 1482 usually does not come into play; AB 1482 could be considered when adding together AGA, banking, and the CIP pass-through; staff believes the limit is currently 9.2%; CIP pass-through should be considered when considering the limits of AB 1482; the approach has not been tested in court.
In response to Councilmember Jensen’s inquiry related to the 8% cap, the Rent Program Director stated the 8% cap would be a local protection which is more robust than the AB 1482 10% cap.
Councilmember Jensen inquired whether the fair return provision is covered.
The Rent Program Director responded there is no cap on upward adjustments based on fair return; stated fair return is a constitutionally protected right.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated South Shore has been working through the process; inquired whether the process can be made retroactive to include South Shore.
The Rent Program Director responded if Council accepts either option, the moratorium on CIPs for properties with 25 or more units would remain in effect up until the new policy takes place; stated Option A or Option B would maintain the prohibition; Option B goes beyond the prohibition and would eliminate CIP for all units.
The City Attorney stated the South Shore application would continue to be stayed; if Council adopts the permanent policy, the application would be denied.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired what happens to the application; questioned whether the City can indicate no CIP is enacted and only fair return is approved.
The Rent Program Director responded in the affirmative; stated staff has not received feedback on the matter from the owners of South Shore.
The City Attorney stated the City would deny the pending application.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the staff recommendation is to deny the application after months of involvement and a change in policy.
The City Attorney responded the South Shore application was brought to Council as part of the moratorium; Council imposed the moratorium which remains in place; staff’s position is that the moratorium is lawful; if Council approves the moratorium as permanent, it will remain lawful.
Stated CIP lends itself to abuse, especially by corporate landlords, such as South Shore; urged implementation of the fair return process be discussed; expressed concern about the process being confusing; suggested the moratorium be extended: Darcy Morrison, Alameda.
Stated private equity firms moving into commercial real estate created a crisis; outlined concerns about corporate owners: Garfield Kincross, Alameda Renters Coalition (ARC)/Tenants Together.
Urged Council to protect renters; quoted from an affordable housing proclamation; urged Council to vote against the CIP: Stacey Rodrigues, South Shore.
Discussed the State population and housing stock; discussed CIP and fair return petitions; urged the moratorium be extended to allow time to review fair return: Efrem Williams, South Shore Tenants Association (SSTA).
Stated ARC opposes the CIP; discussed South Shore; expressed concerns over the housing crisis and costs; stated corporations benefit from housing bubbles: Doyle Saylor, ARC.
Outlined concerns with the CIP policy; discussed habitability and limited code enforcement; urged Council to end the CIP or continue the moratorium: Laura Woodard, Alameda.
Urged Council to eliminate the CIP; outlined how the CIP impacts all renters; discussed rentals not being affordable for Alameda residents; stated the cost of living has increased faster than incomes: Kimberly Tyda, Alameda.
Urged Council to watch the film Push; stated regular maintenance is being labeled as capital improvements; urged Council not to allow Blackstone to further squeeze tenants: Roberta Schwarz, SSTA.
Stated SSTA is in favor of Option B; outlined fair return policy petitions: Nancy Lewis, SSTA.
Concurred with previous speakers; stated that he is afraid of corporate property owners abusing the CIP: Ivan Rudenko, Alameda.
Urged Council to eliminate the CIP; stated the CIP policy seems unfair; expressed support for transparency in understanding a landlord’s financial situation by documentation being provided to the City and tenants: Amy Little, Alameda.
Stated the CIP is unfair, undermines rent control laws, and places an heavy burden on tenants; homeowners do not receive a subsidy for home improvements; urged the City to develop a comprehensive CIP to cover all residential properties: Toni Grimm, Alameda.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification whether both options being presented include CIP and one suggests the fair return policy would require landlords to come to City Council.
The City Attorney stated Option B eliminates the CIP policy completely; if Council adopts Option B, there will no longer be a CIP policy in the City; the only process to obtain upward rent adjustments would be through a fair return petition, which has existed throughout the history of Alameda rent control and all rent control since it required by the federal Constitution; CIP applications have never come before Council for individual review; staff is not recommending the review take place; CIP or fair return petitions are highly individualized; complicated financial and legal analyses are being handled by well-trained City Hearing Officers who take in evidence and renders decisions, similar to a court process.
Councilmember Jensen stated that she has heard Option B would encourage or establish that fair return could be used for CIP recovery, which is not the case.
The City Attorney stated fair return petitions have always been available to landlords and tenants in all controlled jurisdictions, including the City of Alameda, as federally required; a landlord has the choice to submit a fair return or CIP petition; the approval standard is high for a fair return petition; the CIP process is an easier path to recover capital improvements.
Councilmember Jensen stated there is confusion regarding Option B; Option B would eliminate the CIP, with an additional provision for staff to develop an amortization schedule listing the amortization period for different types of common capital improvements; questioned whether there is confusion surrounding Option B.
The City Attorney stated the City currently does not have amortization schedules built into fair return; staff would look at the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) amortization schedule if a fair return petition is filed; the proposal does not mean CIPs cannot be included in a fair return petition; if Council eliminates the CIP, staff wants to ensure the tools and guidance are clear; staff is not proposing the fair return process be expanded.
Councilmember Jensen inquired whether the development of an amortization schedule would clarify and add fairness in the event of CIPs being used for fair return, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Jensen stated some have suggested that neither proposed option would be acceptable; only the two proposed options are available; inquired whether a third option is possible.
The City Attorney responded the third option would be to retain the existing CIP provisions, which provides little tenant protection and is not recommended by staff.
Vice Mayor Daysog expressed support for the staff report and community outreach; questioned why a CIP program is available when fair return is an option; read staff’s explanation of fair return; stated that he understands tenants request to eliminate CIP and have landlords rely on the fair return program; expressed concern over putting tenants at graver risk than the program currently in-place; stated the matter has come to Council due to the dire situation for South Shore tenants; staff’s plan has succeeded in trying to implement protections for renters from the situation South Shore tenants face; staff has also introduced a wide range of protections for all renters, especially in the form of two pass-through caps, as well as hardship eligibility; the protections in Option A, compared to having no CIP, makes Option A the wiser course; Council could modify Option A in the future if there is a desire to do so; expressed support for Option A; stated eliminating CIPs completely while moving toward the fair return mechanism will likely expose many people to consequences that have not been contemplated.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification; inquired whether there is no limit to future rent increases.
Special Counsel responded the concern with solely having a fair return process is for a landlord’s ability to demonstrate a rent increase is warranted;, stated the rent increase becomes part of the base rent, which then is based off any AGA or adjustment; a pass-through has a cap to both the pass-through percentage and the 8% cap; the pass-through amount is outside of base rent and stands separately; there could be better advantage for particular tenants to have a pass-through versus having a rent increase under a fair return process.
The City Attorney stated the fair return petition is tough; while there are no limits, data shows the process is not one with much success in other jurisdictions; the lack of success is a factor Council must consider; regardless of which option is approved by Council, fair return will always remain as an option to landlords.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired why it is so difficult for landlords to achieve a fair return petition.
The City Attorney responded staff establishes a base-year for fair return petitions as the start of rent control; stated a landlord will need to show a future year will not be able to make the same return; rental units turnover often; landlords typically reset the rent to market rate, which results in an extraordinary rent increase; the circumstances of turnover typically yield the landlord being able to recover all of the added costs; successful fair return petitions include long controlled units which never turnover, especially in jurisdictions with a long history of rent control, such as the original five to six jurisdictions that have had over 30 years of rent control; Alameda is in a different situation; control was imposed in 2019; Alameda is seeing turnover in larger units, so fair return applications will likely not be easy to file.
Councilmember Vella inquired what occurs when a tenant voluntarily leaves a unit causing turnover.
The City Attorney responded whenever there is turnover, a landlord has a right to reset the rent to market rate or whatever the market will bear; stated there is typically extraordinary rent increases when there is turnover.
Councilmember Vella inquired the number of owner move-ins and Ellis Act actions being seen in the City; questioned what trends are being seen in recent years; stated there has been a pandemic and moratorium since the ordinance was originally enacted.
The City Attorney responded the City’s ordinance was paused due to the pandemic; stated the paused has only recently been lifted, which results in less than one year’s worth of data.
Councilmember Vella stated it is difficult not to look at broader trends across the City; discussed affordable units and work arounds the City cannot enforce due to State law; stated affordable units are being lost due to turnover, which is a trend worth looking into; requested clarification about the differences between the proposed policies; stated Option A is for buildings with more than 25-units having no CIP pass-through; there are questions and concerns related to South Shore Apartments; inquired whether both proposed policies have no CIP pass-through.
The City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated any property with 25-units or more, under either scenario, will be precluded from submitting a CIP application.
Councilmember Vella inquired why 25-units was selected as the cut-off; a table in the exhibits breaks down units and cost recovery; discussed tiered cost recovery in Exhibit 1; inquired the reason for different categories.
The Rent Program Director responded staff started by looking closely at Mountain View’s policy to determine tiers; stated stakeholder sessions with landlords identified differences in the ways properties are managed based on the number of units; five or more units often require commercial loans; the break between 15- and 16-units comes from State law requiring an on-site property manager for buildings with 16 or more units, which changes business functions; 25-units or more harkens back to the meeting adopting the moratorium; staff considered the number of properties affected by the moratorium at varying levels and found 25-units or more has fewer affected properties, but consists of 35% of the rental units in Alameda; staff reviewed data related to how rents in the properties compare to fair market rents and discovered a higher likelihood of average rents in excess of the fair market as opposed to smaller properties with average rents more in line with fair market rents; data shows having 25-units or more can better absorb capital improvement costs; staff used the existing moratorium as a starting point.
Councilmember Vella inquired the percentage of rental stock for the properties with 16- to 24-units, to which the Rent Program Director responded that he would need to find the information.
Councilmember Vella stated that she understands the financing changes once above a certain number of units, inquired how many units are being accounted for in the first two ranges; stated 66 properties equating to 35% of the rental stock is accounted for in the 25-units or more category; inquired the percentage for the 5- to 24-unit properties; expressed concern over the City creating a more complex system for middle range rental unit properties; inquired whether there is a way to simplify the process.
The Rent Program Director responded 16- to 24-unit properties account for 6% of overall rental units, but only 1% of rental properties; stated 5- to 15-unit properties equates to 20% of the total properties and 25% of total units; 2- to 4-unit properties equates to 76% of the total rental properties and 35% of rental units; 25 units or more are excluded from the CIP proposal and are less than 3% of the total rental properties, but 34% of overall rental units.
Councilmember Vella stated the breakdown indicates how many people are being impacted within different tiers; the information is important for Council to consider when creating a tiered system; questioned the need for separate tiers between the tier with 1% of properties and 6% of the rental units; stated that she appreciates staff presenting different options as well as presenting financing; Council’s previous discussions around CIP focused around health and safety; expressed support for focusing on lead abatement; stated proper abatement and repairs are necessary; Alameda has a large stock of pre-1978 buildings and a number of complaints have come to the County Lead Abatement Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) related to remediation issues; it is worth adding details into the policy.
Councilmember Jensen stated only four CIP applications have been approved since 2016; three of the four were from landlords who sought to terminate tenancies due to improvements not being able to be completed and did not seek a CIP passthrough; inquired whether the information suggests only one CIP passthrough has been approved since 2016 and what was the size.
The Rent Program Director responded in the affirmative; stated the property is 4-units, with 3 tenant-occupied units; one of the tenants is newer and began after the capital improvements were made; the passthrough was only imposed onto 2 of the 4-units.
Councilmember Jensen inquired whether the three that sought to terminate tenancies were also smaller.
The Rent Program Director responded in the affirmative; stated fourteen applications were received; one was for South Shore with 452-units; the other thirteen all have less than ten units, including applications which were denied, withdrawn, or suspended; instances of relocation were often for a single tenant whose tenancy was terminated.
Councilmember Jensen stated Option A draws distinctions between the number of units.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she spends much of her time working on housing issues; discussed the three Ps: protect, preserve, and produce; Council needs to protect Alameda’s tenants, as well as the housing stock; the housing stock needs to be maintained and habitable; expressed concern over the financial burden of repairs being placed on tenants; stated owning rental property is a value and can be borrowed against; lines of credit or equity can be taken out for repairs, modifications, or renovations; renovations add value to property and increase its value; Alameda’s property values are rising and those fortunate enough to own property in Alameda are paying increased property taxes; expressed support for landlord’s performing; stated landlords must understand property related expenses; property owners have different means of achieving repairs which should not need to be added to the burden for tenants; adding water saving devices is helpful; discussed grant and rebate opportunities from East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD); stated the City is working on converting from gas to electric and has been looking at the cost of providing equitable building electrification; the process applies to property owners, not just landlords; many people working in Alameda are unable to afford to live in Alameda, which causes impacts; there is an opportunity to have another funding source; expressed support for enacting ordinances and finding solutions that are straightforward and use common sense; questioned unit breakdowns and why some tenants should be saddled with a higher cost; expressed concern over the keeping residents of all income levels in Alameda; stated many tenants have been struggling and have left Alameda; expressed concern over the process continuing; stated the City can accomplish goals with common sense in adopting Option B.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer requested clarification about Councilmember Vella’s comments related to tiers; questioned whether there is support to combine or eliminate tiers.
Councilmember Vella stated that she understands the financing portion; the tiers with 16- to 24-units and 5- to 15-units do not make sense; expressed support for not having four different tiers and for approving only 4-units or less with no CIP for properties over 4-units; stated the number of rental units impacted makes sense and properties have different financing structures.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed concern over equity firms; stated Council might be driving the concerns; she is a renter and is concerned over telling businesses or landlords how to operate; Council must choose whether to support smaller landlords with a passthrough percentage in order for repairs to be made; Alameda’s CIP is not working; units need repairs; expressed support for finding balance and for a program that does not favor equity firms expressed support for the staff recommendation of Option A; stated Alameda has smaller landlords who own apartment buildings with 5- or 6-units; she would prefer smaller landlords own buildings versus equity firms; smaller landlords are likely to keep rents lower and perform on a personal level.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of Option A [including introduction of ordinance and adoption of the resolutions] and to fund the authorization of creating a Temporary Relocation Tenant Assistance Program (TRTAP) to provide emergency temporary assistance for tenants facing displacement and authorize the Program Administrator to implement the program.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated another way to look at opening the door for equity firms to come in is for Council to approve a structure that makes rents out of reach for struggling tenants; vacancies will occur and open the City up to gentrification or buildings being purchased by equity firms; she is unsure how much interest there is for equity firms to purchase property with fewer units.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed concern over equity firms pushing the envelope related to rents, not smaller landlords; stated smaller landlords do not want to have vacant units and are trying to work within the City’s rent control apparatus.
Vice Mayor Daysog seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Vice Mayor Daysog stated that he believes staff has presented Council with protections against passthrough challenges; the most important protection is the hardship exemption for lower-income renters; expressed concern over Council not adopting Option A; stated the City will likely find itself in the same situation with South Shore tenants returning to Council; the fair return process can be onerous, but is always available; having the mechanism offered in Option A is a roadblock to go through before attempting fair return; if the City does not put up the necessary roadblock, landlords will have to use fair return; a trillion dollar entity will be challenged by South Shore tenants in fair return discussions; Option A provides protections.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is unable to support Option A; expressed support for modifications; stated landlords able to take out a commercial loan should do so; Council can fashion new language with a lower unit cutoff.
Councilmember Vella stated there is a difference in buying a multi-unit property with a commercial loan; the financing is different; the transaction goal relates to the profit margin.
Councilmember Vella proposed a friendly amendment to approve streamlined tiers with the cutoff of 4 or fewer units versus having the two larger unit tiers; stated the larger tiers amount to less than 21% of total properties.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed concern over small landlords owning multiple, small unit properties within Alameda with different names; inquired how Council or the City would determine the proper protections for smaller landlords.
The Rent Program Director responded the staff report includes some suggestions; stated tenants proposed that landlords owning multiple properties with less units and a total amount adding up to 25 should trigger the protection.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated data limitations and the use of corporate holdings would create difficulty in accurately determining the total number of units owned.
The Rent Program Director stated Limited Liability Companies (LLCs) sometimes have a single owner for multiple properties; each property having its own LLC makes it difficult to ascertain the owners of multiple properties.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether commercial loans are based on the property instead of congregate holdings.
The Rent Program Director responded in the affirmative; stated the process occurs for each property; investing in a 5-unit property requires a commercial loan regardless of any other properties owned.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed concern over someone owning 25 units in Alameda.
Councilmember Jensen stated the tiers were put into place with supporting data; looking at the data prior to the request from South Shore, staff approved four CIP applications all for a complex with less than 15 units.
The Rent Program Director stated the history CIP applications is generally as stated by Councilmember Jensen; the City has not received many applications.
Councilmember Jensen stated CIP is a tool that is not overly used by property owners in Alameda; expressed support for the discussion related to Option A as well as the proposed amendments.
Councilmember Jensen proposed a friendly amendment to the motion to approve eliminating the opportunity for CIP to be used to displace tenants.
The City Attorney stated staff’s proposal eliminates permanent displacement.
The Rent Program Director stated the current CIP policy allows landlords to submit documentation showing work on a property is expected to take longer than six months; landlords submitting documentation showing the delay and related timelines are able to permanently terminate tenancy; the tenant receives a permanent relocation payment, but must move and find other housing; of the three approved applications, two were approved for permanent relocation and the third application included temporary relocation; the landlord expected the tenant to move back into the unit once the work was completed; staff has proposed that permanent relocation no longer be allowed under Option A; temporary relocation options would still be allowed so that improvements that cannot be completed while a unit is tenant-occupied can be conducted.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft questioned why Council is creating a policy with so few CIP applications being made, and why the fair return policy is not enough; stated a number of speakers have mentioned personal hardships and no landlord indicated the proposed policy would not work; she expects landlords would indicate which repair financing option is desired; the City can vote not to allow landlords to displace tenants; questioned whether a CIP can be enough to push a tenant out; expressed concern over the State’s housing crisis and housing affordability; stated that she is unsure of the problem being solved; expressed concern over a problem possibly being created; stated that she is proud of Alameda being the first city to have its Housing Element certified; CIP applications are little-used; she will not support a motion that does not have a carefully carved-out exception.
Councilmember Jensen concurred with Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft; stated ideally, there will be more low- and moderate-income housing in the future; the City will also have more market rate housing; market rate units will not be under rent control and landlords will be able to apply for CIP to increase rents; eventually, the City will have many units that will not fall under rent control where landlords can make money to pay loans by raising rents or through eviction; there will be challenges, however, Council is under the constraints of the Costa Hawkins State law which does not allow the City to address the housing problem with all landlords in the City; changes can be made to Option A in order to create fairness for tenants; some landlords may sell property to a corporation that will be able to find out ways to file successful fair return petitions; Option A helps keep the cost under 8% and has strong requirements and policies addressing what projects can be approved; Option A establishes that there is not an increase in the base; expressed support for Option A and questioned whether there is support from Councilmember Vella for an amendment to change the tiers.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated new units being built are helping increase the number of affordable units; brand new units typically do not need CIP funding for repairs due to being new construction; landlords cannot charge any amount for rent and can charge what the market will bear; the housing being built increases the supply to meet the demand, which helps keep landlords in check; new housing will motivate landlords to improve properties and perform necessary repairs.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed concern over changing the tiers; stated four tiers are currently proposed; reducing the tiers down to one is concerning; expressed support for consolidating the higher tiers into one while keeping the remaining two tiers; stated Alameda has a lot of older housing stock that needs repairs; the current formula has not been working; the City has not been receiving applications and repairs are not being made; expressed support for trying something new and concern over eliminating all tiers; stated fair return has always been an option and the City is trying to find a way to help smaller landlords perform repairs; there is benefit to tenants in homes where repairs are being made; questioned whether eliminating the higher tier and having no option for CIP would be sufficient; stated the approach appears to be a good compromise; she is happy to make a friendly amendment to the motion.
Vice Mayor Daysog expressed support for the compromise.
Councilmember Vella stated that she would prefer to have the 2- to 4-unit tier as the compromise rather than including the 5- to 15-unit and 16- to 24-unit tiers.
Councilmember Vella proposed a substitute motion to approve Option A with CIP allowed for only 2- to 4-unit properties [including introduction of the ordinance and adoption of the resolution repealing the existing CIP policy].
Councilmember Jensen seconded the substitute motion.
Under discussion, Vice Mayor Daysog inquired whether the substitute motion takes precedence even with the original motion being seconded, to which the Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft responded in the affirmative.
The City Attorney stated staff’s recommendation to include remediation for lead should also be considered.
Councilmember Vella amended her substitute motion to include approval for lead remediation as a qualified improvement.
Councilmember Jensen inquired whether the motion needs to include the fund for relocation.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft responded the relocation fund can be voted on separately.
Vice Mayor Daysog expressed concern over the motion process.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she will not be supportive of the motion as it is extreme and does not achieve the purpose of the goal.
On the call for the question, the motion by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No; Jensen: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.
In response to Councilmember Vella, the Rent Program Director stated Council approved Option A amended such that properties with 2- to 4-units would be eligible for 100% passthrough of qualifying improvements and properties with 5 or more units would not be eligible for CIP.
Councilmember Vella inquired whether the 100% passthrough is still subject to a cap, to which the Rent Program Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Jensen moved approval of adoption of the resolution amending the general fund budget.
Councilmember Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No; Jensen: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 8:24 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
****************************************************************************************************
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- -NOVEMBER 7, 2023- -5:00 P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 5:02 p.m.
Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Jensen, Vella and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: Councilmember Herrera Spencer arrived at 5:04 p.m. and Councilmember Vella arrived at 5:12 p.m.]
Absent: None.
Consent Calendar
Councilmember Jensen moved approval of the Consent Calendar.
Vice Mayor Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, Jensen, and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 3. [Absent: Councilmembers Herrera Spencer and Vella - 2.]
(23- ) Recommendation to Approve Jennifer Ott, City Manager, Abigail Thorne-Lyman, Base Reuse and Economic Development Director, Andrew Thomas, Strategic Advisor, Ted Anderson, Managing Director, Cushman & Wakefield, and Len Aslanian, Assistant City Attorney, as Real Property Negotiators for Roughly 32,500 Square Feet of Space within 2505 Monarch Street, Building 22 at Alameda Point (Gold Bar Spirits Company, Inc.). Accepted.
(23- ) Recommendation to Approve Jennifer Ott, City Manager, Abigail Thorne-Lyman, Base Reuse and Economic Development Director, Andrew Thomas, Strategic Advisor, Ted Anderson, Managing Director, Cushman & Wakefield, and Len Aslanian, Assistant City Attorney, as Real Property Negotiators for 1605 Ferry Point, Alameda, CA (US Ecology, formerly known as NRC Environmental Services). Accepted.
The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(23- ) Conference with Real Property Negotiators Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8; Property: Approximately 32,500 square feet of space within 2505 Monarch Street (Building 22) Alameda Point, Alameda, CA; City Negotiators: City Manager Jennifer Ott, Base Reuse and Economic Development Director Abigail Thorne-Lyman, Strategic Advisor Andrew Thomas, Ted Anderson, Managing Director, Cushman & Wakefield, and Assistant City Attorney Len Aslanian; Negotiating Parties: City of Alameda and Gold Bar Spirits Company, Inc.; Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Lease
(23- ) Conference with Real Property Negotiators Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8; Property: 1605 Ferry Point (Building 15) Alameda Point, Alameda, CA; City Negotiators: City Manager Jennifer Ott, Base Reuse and Economic Development Director Abigail Thorne-Lyman, Strategic Advisor Andrew Thomas, Ted Anderson, Managing Director, Cushman & Wakefield, and Assistant City Attorney Len Aslanian; Negotiating Parties: City of Alameda and US Ecology, formerly known as NRC Environmental Services; Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Lease
(23- ) Conference with Labor Negotiators (Government Code Section 54957.6) City Negotiators: Jennifer Ott, City Manager, Jessica Romeo, Human Resources Director, Edward Kreisberg, Outside Counsel, and Doug McManaway, Deputy City Attorney; Employee Organizations: International Association of Firefighters Local 689 (IAFF) Under Negotiation: Salaries, Employee Benefits and Terms of Employment
(23- ) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a); Case Name: City of Alameda v. Sheehan; Court: Superior Court of the County of Alameda; Case Numbers: 22CV009959, 23CV037442, 23CV038384; Court: In the Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, Division Two; Case Number: A168300
Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk announced that regarding Building 22, staff provided information and Council provided direction with no vote taken; regarding Building 15, staff provided information and Council provided direction with no vote taken; regarding Labor, staff provided an update and no vote was taken; and regarding Existing Litigation, staff provided information and Council provided direction by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, Jensen, Vella and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 4; Noes: Councilmember Herrera Spencer - 1.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 7:18 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
****************************************************************************************************
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - NOVEMBER 7, 2023- -7:00 P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:25 p.m. Vice Mayor Daysog led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Jensen, Vella, and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5.
Absent: None.
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(23- ) Proclamation Declaring November 2023 as California’s Sikh Awareness and Appreciation Month in Alameda.
(23- ) Proclamation Declaring November 2023 as Lung Cancer Awareness Month.
(23- ) Proclamation Declaring November 12 through 18 as United Against Hate Week.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(23- ) Paul Beusterien, Alameda, commented on what Alameda can do to improve democracy.
(23- ) Joe LaParo, Alameda, thanked Council and staff for including veterans in meetings to upgrade historical Veterans’ Memorial Building; invited everyone to attend the upcoming Veterans’ Day event.
(23- ) Doug Biggs, Alameda Point Collaborative, stated construction began on the McKay Avenue respite center; stated there is a construction hotline where residents can call with questions, complaints, or concerns.
(23- ) Moses Levy did not comment on anything under the purview of the City.
(23- ) Tod Hickman, stated that he does not support having animal testing at Alameda Point; he does not agree with how voting took place during the last Council meeting.
(23- ) Zeke Isle did not comment on anything under the purview of the City.
(23- ) Safar Jackson did not comment on anything under the purview of the City.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Jensen removed the Rent CIP ordinance [paragraph no. 23- ] for discussion.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer removed the Strategic Plan [paragraph no. 23- ] and MTC grant [paragraph no. 23- ] for discussion and recorded a no vote on the CalRecycle grants [paragraph no. 23- ].
***
(23- ) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired about the MTC grant.
The City Clerk stated grant is timely and there is a full agenda; Council could consider moving it to another place in the agenda, which would require four affirmative votes.
The City Manager stated to receive the grant the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) strongly recommends staff submit the resolution by November 15.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if $750,000 is the amount, to which the City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated if the item could be heard first or earlier in the agenda, staff would request doing so.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the City Clerk suggested if Council could agree to hear it before the regular agenda to ensure the City does not miss the grant funding deadline.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired when the grant was due, to which the City Manager responded the resolution must be submitted prior to November 15.
Councilmember Vella moved approval of hearing the item after Continued Items.
Councilmember Jensen seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Vice Mayor Daysog stated the changes should be made under agenda changes.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
***
Councilmember Vella moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.
The City Clerk announced the terms of the City Attorney employment agreement [paragraph no. 23- ].
Councilmember Jensen seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]
(*23- ) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on October 3, 2023. Approved.
(*23- ) Ratified bills in the amount of $6,751,522.71.
(*23- ) Recommendation to Authorize the City Attorney to Execute a Five-Year Agreement with George Hills Company for Third-Party Claims Administration in an Amount Not-to-Exceed $555,009 for Five Years. Accepted.
(*23- ) Recommendation to Approve First Amendment to the City’s Attorney Employment Agreement Granting Three Additional Administrative Leave Days Consistent with the Same Being Previously Granted to Other Executive Management Employees. Accepted.
(*23- ) Recommendation to Authorize the Purchase of One Compact Track Loader Consistent with Vehicle Replacement Policy in Amount Not-to-Exceed $152,562 from Peterson CAT. Accepted.
(*23- ) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with Ray’s Electric for Streetlight Conduit Replacement on Fernside Boulevard Project, P.W. No. 06-23-18, in an Amount, Not-to-Exceed $824,369, including Contingency. Accepted.
(*23- ) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with Ray’s Electric for Streetlight Conduit Replacement on Fernside Boulevard Project, P.W. No. 06-23-18, in an Amount, Not-to-Exceed $824,369, including Contingency. Accepted.
(*23- ) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Construction Agreement with Branco Construction, Inc. for the Fire Station No. 4 Dormitory Conversion and Renovation Project for an Amount Not-to-Exceed $263,000. Accepted.
(*23- ) Recommendation to Authorize the Purchase of Two (2) Pierce Manufacturing, Inc. Enforcer 1500 GPM Pumpers/Engines from Golden State Fire Apparatus in an Amount Not-to-Exceed $2,452,522; and
(23- A) Resolution No. 16109, “Amending the Fleet Replacement Fund (601) Budget to Reduce Expenditure Budget for Fiscal Year 2024-25 by $1,522,500 and Increase Expenditure Budget for Fiscal Year 2023-24 by $1,002,000 to Purchase Two Fire Apparatus Engines.” Adopted.
(*23- ) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with Bay Cities Paving and Grading, Inc. for Clement Avenue Safety Improvements, Project No. P.W.08-23-19, for a Not-to-Exceed Amount of $4,791,344, including Contingency; and
(23- A) Resolution No. 16110, “Amending the Fiscal Year 2023-24 Capital Budget by Defunding Revenue and Appropriations in Capital Improvement Program C11000 by $175,000, Defunding Revenue and Appropriations in Capital Improvement Program C61000 by $325,000, and Increasing Revenue and Appropriations for Capital Improvement Program C65200 by $500,000.” Adopted.
(23- ) Resolution No. 16111, “Authorizing Submittal of Application for All CalRecycle Grants for which the City is Eligible.” Adopted.
Since Councilmember Herrera Spencer recorded a no vote, the item carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, Jensen, Vella and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 4. Noes: Councilmember Herrera Spencer - 1.
(*23- ) Resolution No. 16112, “Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Grant Agreement between the State of California Department of Parks and Recreation, Division of Boating and Waterways, and the City of Alameda by and through the Alameda Police Department”; and
(23- A) Resolution No. 16113, “Amending the Fiscal Year 2023-24 Police Grants Fund (Fund 221) Estimated Revenue and Expenditures Budget by $200,000 for the Surrendered and Abandoned Vessel Exchange Grant.” Adopted.
(*23- ) Ordinance No. 3357, “Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Second Amendment to the Lease with Park Street Wine Cellars, Inc. for Approximately 700 Square Feet of Retail Space in the Historic Alameda Theatre Located at 2315 Central Avenue, Suite 122, to Modify Lease Term and Accelerated Rent Deferral Repayment Schedule.” Finally passed.
(*23- ) Ordinance No. 3358, “Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a First Amendment to the Lease with Play House, LLC, Doing Business as Director’s Cut (Project Burger), for Approximately 1,850 Square Feet of Retail Space in the Historic Alameda Theatre Complex, Located at 2319 Central Avenue, to Modify Monthly Rent and Lease Term, Establish Operating Provisions, and Relieve Outstanding Rent.” Finally passed.
CONTINUED AGENDA ITEMS
(23- ) Recommendation to Clarify that the Previously Approved Animal Shelter Operator Agreement with Friends of the Alameda Animal Shelter Includes an Annual Increase Based on the Percentage Change in the Consumer Price Index for a Total 10-Year Compensation Estimate of $11,574,639.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she previously pulled the item seeking additional information on salary numbers; she does not need a staff presentation.
Councilmember Vella moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Jensen seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Herrera Spencer recognized Friends of the Alameda Animal Shelter (FAAS) and its volunteers for their work.
On the call for the question the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
The City Clerk stated public comment was skipped.
Stated that he was unhappy with how voting for this item took place; expressed support for the passage of the recommendation: Tod Hickman.
Councilmember Vella moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(23- ) Resolution No. 16114, “Supporting Local, State, and Federal Efforts to Exonerate the Port Chicago 50.” Adopted.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she previously pulled the item because it was on the Consent Calendar, which she disagrees with; she thinks it is appropriate to have the item be public.
The Communication and Legislative Affairs Officer gave a brief presentation.
Stated having the item on the regular agenda would have served the public better; asked Council to support exoneration of the Port Chicago 50: Carmen Reid, Alameda.
Stated that he is in support of the resolution: Tod Hickman.
Stated that he is in support of the resolution; the item did not belong on the Consent Calendar: Jay Garfinkle, Alameda.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she attended the Mayor’s Conference with the City Manager; a guest speaker at the conference asked for support for the resolution; it is an aspect of history many are not taught in school; it is never too late to right the wrongs of the past; the City of Berkeley is also voting on a resolution tonight, which she expects to pass unanimously; read the resolution.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated when the Mayor goes to a meeting and decides there is something she would like Council to entertain, it should be a referral for Council to vote on whether or not they would like staff to spend time on the matter; most people would be interested in hearing more about the matter, which is worthy of a presentation; encouraged everyone to visit the Port Chicago 50 website for more information.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Vella seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM REMOVED FOR DISCUSSION
(23- ) Resolution No. 16115, “Authorizing the City Manager to Execute All Necessary Documents with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission to Accept $742,000 in Grant Funding and Provide the Necessary Local Match for the Demand-Based Parking Pricing and Curb Management Strategies in the Business Districts and Ferry Terminals Project.” Adopted.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like staff to present what demand-based parking is; inquired how will it change how people pay when going to the business districts; stated there is currently no charge for parking at the ferry terminals.
The Acting Transportation and Planning Manager stated the item is to accept a grant from MTC that would support the development of programs to have responsive pricing in the business districts and cover two ferry terminals; the grant itself does not tell staff how to do so; staff will return to Council to talk about what the program should look like; the goal is ensuring open parking spaces and reducing congestion; the common and Council adopted goal is 85% parking occupancy, which means there will be a couple of parking spaces available on any given block so a driver looking for a space gets off of the street quickly and is less likely to double park; rate shifts are periodic and incremental.
In response to the City Manager’s request to address future community outreach the Acting Transportation and Planning Manager stated the grant would cover community outreach costs; there has not been a rate change in Alameda for many years; before making changes, staff would engage the community using different strategies.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated when she drives down the business districts, it is hard to find a parking space; the addition of the parklets have been part of the issue; inquired how the program would work; it seems like the City will continue to take away parking spaces and then charge more for the few spaces left.
The Acting Transportation and Planning Manager stated the City has approved a $1 million investment into the Civic Center Parking Garage in the Park Street area, which has parking spaces available; the City is investing money to make the garage a more appealing place; the grant also covers replacing system in garage for counting how many spaces are available and way-finding signage to off-street opportunities.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired what type of security the funding could go to, such as a security guard.
The Public Works Director responded a $1 million investment would be made to design and improve to the Civic Center Parking Garage; one of the primary objectives is the ability to close the garage overnight, installing a gate to block off the fifth and sixth floors, which would dedicated to employee parking only, and brighter paint; once the infrastructure is set, whether ongoing security is needed can be discussed; $1 million does not include a security guard.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired about cameras, to which the Public Works Director responded there are already cameras in the structure; stated the project does not provide additional cameras.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired about ferry parking lots; stated that she has seen people on social media mention their car windows were broken when parking at the Seaplane Lagoon Ferry Terminal; inquired if security could be improved.
The Acting Transportation and Planning Manager stated staff are working with the Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA) on a funding strategy to provide security at all the terminals for two years while paid parking gets up and running; the grant does not cover security costs, but it helps set up paid parking that could fund an on-site security guard in the future.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired if people who park at the Bay Farm ferry would be required to pay, to which the Acting Transportation and Planning Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the draft strategy has an hourly and daily rate.
Stated that he takes the ferry; the parking lot is becoming crowded; requested staff to think about adjusting things based on demand: Paul Beusterien, Alameda.
Expressed concern over trying to get people on public transportation, yet making it more expensive to do so: Karen Miller, Alameda.
Stated that she is supportive of exploring the possibilities and opportunities the grant presents, particularly directional parking, enhancements and upgrades to the parking garage, as well as curb painting and other initiatives: Kathy Weber, Downtown Alameda Business Association (DABA).
Stated that he would like to see a complete package presented before Council approves the matter; expressed concern over outreach strategies: Jay Garfinkle, Alameda.
Councilmember Vella moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Vella stated the City is working with transit connectors to make streets safer for multimodal transportation; the first and last mile can be done by foot or bike; the changes will not be implemented without having robust conversations with the public first.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether staff could speak about the local match and describe how the match works.
The City Manager stated the local match is about $100,000 from the parking fund and another $90,000 in existing and in-kind staff salaries.
In response to Councilmember Herrera Spencer’s further inquiry, the City Manager stated the total expense is about $927,000, which includes the $742,000 grant, about $100,000 is from the parking fund and $86,000 is in kind staff time.
Councilmember Jensen seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, Jensen, Vella and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 4. Noes: Councilmember Herrera Spencer - 1.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(23- ) Workshop to Provide Direction on De-Pave Park Design Options, including the Proposed Removal of Building 29 and Whether to Keep or Remove Building 25.
The Recreation and Parks Director gave a Power Point presentation.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired where people will be able to park, how many spaces will be available, and if the long ramp is ADA accessible.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded the ramp will be accessible; stated staff is currently looking at building a parking lot; in Option 1, parking will be adjacent to Building 25.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated parking for Building 25 often has overflow; inquired where their parking will be if the building is kept.
The Recreation and Parks Director stated the parking lot will be shared; he hopes having two parking areas will assist with overflow.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired if someone has counted the parking spaces, to which the Recreation and Parks Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated there appears to be significantly less parking; during events, people end up having to park far from the wineries.
The Recreation and Parks Director stated the majority of the current overflow parking area is part of the picnic area in the design; additional parking will be provided towards the southern edge.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired if there will be a separation between pedestrians and bicycles on the long ramp and where ADA assisted vehicles will park.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded the center pathway is about 25 feet long and will be a combination path; stated staff will look at how pedestrians, bicycles, and handicapped accessible motorized vehicles can have good directional flow.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated her understanding is motorized bicycles can also ride on the bike trail; inquired if staff will be accommodating this type of vehicle.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded staff must review how motorized bicycles will be integrated; stated personal bicycles can travel relatively quickly, similar to an electric bike; staff give the path careful attention; a separate adjacent path might be needed.
Councilmember Jensen inquired whether staff would ensure there is bicycle parking, to which the Recreation and Parks Director responded in the affirmative.
Stated that she is in support of Option 3 and removing Building 25: Irene Dieter, Alameda.
Stated that he is in support of Option 3 and removing Building 25: Richard Bangert, Alameda.
Stated that he is in support of Option 3 and removing Building 25: Rick Lewis, Alameda.
Stated that she is in support of the park and removing Building 25: Sharol Nelson-Embry, Alameda.
Stated that he is in support of Option 3 and removing Buildings 25 and 29: Robert Bezek, Alameda.
Stated that he is in support of any park design; questioned if the area falls under the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) and if staff has BCDC approval; stated removing buildings costs twice as much as renovations: Jay Garfinkle, Alameda.
Expressed support of Option 3 and removing Building 25: Julia Dowell, San Francisco Bay Keeper.
Stated uncertainty of has caused businesses some harm; he would like to see the Urban Legend facility continue through its lease and extension option until 2031, but understands the desire to move forward; there is value that will be destroyed by taking the buildings down; if buildings are taken down, he urges staff to immediately begin negotiating what will happen with the businesses: Steve Shaffer, Urban Legend.
Stated that she is in support of the park; encouraged the City to find space in Spirit Alley and Alameda Point for the tenants of Buildings 25 and 29: Ruth Abbe, Community Action for a Sustainable Alameda.
Expressed concern about initial surveys conducted as students and younger people were not taken into consideration; stated that he is happy the last survey had 20% of the submissions from 7th and 8th grade science students at Wood Middle School; the majority, 65%, support of Option 3: Eric Robbins, Recreation and Park Commission.
Stated that she is in support of Option 3: Linda Carloni, Alameda.
Stated that he is in support of Option 3 and removing Building 25: Jeff Manker, Alameda.
Inquired if staff could give the businesses 12 months’ notice and funding since the lease is not supposed to end for a couple of years: Peter Dreyfuss, Building 29.
Stated there are a few oversights in the plan; Building 29 tenants hope the City can give them as much time as possible: Diana Markessinis, Building 29.
Expressed support for Option 3; stated some design modifications could be made to keep Building 29 as is; invited everyone to visit the building; stated that he would like a year’s notice: Tim Leistico, Building 29.
Stated that she is in support of the Park and would like to keep Building 25 with improvements to make it fit with the new design: Karen Bey, Alameda.
Councilmember Jensen inquired how much of Buildings 25 and 29 are in use; inquired if there is excess capacity or full use.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded the buildings are fully occupied.
Councilmember Jensen inquired if there are any other structural conditions at either building would need to be addressed before the end of the leases.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded Building 29 requires the most work; stated staff is anticipating basic upgrades would cost about $150,000 if the building is kept.
The Assistant City Manager stated staff does not have a number for Building 29; Building 25 requires $450,000 and Building 29 needs significantly more repair.
Councilmember Jensen inquired what the options are for relocating the tenants of both buildings.
The Assistant City Manager responded that she has met with the tenants of both buildings; stated staff has internally discussed the need for a maker space at Alameda Point; the type of machinery used at Building 29 has specific needs; Spirits Alley has potential space for Building 25 tenants.
The Base Reuse and Economic Development Director stated staff would like to make an effort to look at relocation options; an obvious choice would be Building 24 since it is in close proximity to Building 25; Building 24 needs a new roof, which has been budgeted.
Councilmember Jensen inquired whether the rent and lease terms would be substantially different.
The Base Reuse and Economic Development Director responded the determination would be made by Council; stated current rent ranges, but roughly falls within 60 cents per square foot; fair market value is closer to a dollar or a bit over; tenants have made substantial improvements to Building 25, which should be taken into consideration.
Councilmember Jensen inquired when both leases terminate.
The Base Reuse and Economic Development Director responded there are three leases in Building 25; one of the last leases terminates in 2031 if the five-year extension option is exercised; the others terminate in 2024 and 2025; she does not have the Building 29 lease termination date.
The Assistant City Manager stated the lease termination date for Building 29 is 2027; she would be happy to keep tenants for as long as possible and until the City is ready to break ground, which easily gives tenants 12-months’ notice prior to construction; staff anticipates the project will take 5 years.
Councilmember Jensen inquired how many people voted on the park design options.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded approximately 280 people voted in person; stated a survey was also conducted.
Councilmember Jensen inquired if there have been any concerns or input during the sessions about having a commercial site; inquired if there are any negative impacts on wildlife if the building is retained.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded a good amount of community members expressed concern about the businesses during the on-site meetings; stated from an environmental perspective and talking to wildlife experts, the height of the structure creates a perch for larger predatory birds.
Councilmember Jensen stated that she is in support of the De-Pave Park project and looks forward to seeing what it will look like; it would be short sighted not to develop the project in a complete manner and retain the structure; she is in support of Option 3.
In response to Vice Mayor Daysog’s inquiry regarding the promenade being set at a 4-foot elevation, Kevin Conger, CMG Landscape Architecture, stated it is about 4-feet above the current highest high tide; it will be high and dry for about 4-feet of sea level rise, after which it will start to be inundated at the mean high high-water.
Vice Mayor Daysog stated by 2050 the mean high watermark is supposed to rise by 2 feet; the City must start planning for sea level rise now; removal of Building 25 would be consistent with De-pave Park planning; he is in support of Option 3.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is leaning towards eventual removal of both buildings; it would be a mistake to evict the Building 25 tenants, which pay half a million dollars per year and have hosted many events throughout the City; if she supports Option 3, it would be with clear direction to look at options for renewal of the Building 25 lease in another location; noted there are enclosures for smaller birds to go into and protect themselves from predators.
Councilmember Vella stated her understanding is there is an estimate of $20 million based off current costs, which are continuing to rise; inquired if that factors in the additional costs relative to Option 3.
The Assistant City Manager stated staff has not at all done a cost estimate because direction is being sought tonight; $20 million would include the cost of demolishing Building 29.
Councilmember Vella stated the project is being funded by many different grants; although she appreciates the grants from the federal government, a large portion of Alameda County was recently declared as super sites and not funded; there are many current deferred infrastructure needs; she is supportive of the park, but also wants to be a realist about funds, who is footing the bill, and when money will be received; she thinks saying the City will evict people in five years is not realistic, relative to what the funding is probably going to look like; she would appreciate figuring out what phasing would look like; she will support the removal of the buildings, but wants to make sure revenues are raised since funds go to Alameda Point; the City needs to get as much revenue for as long as possible before the buildings are demolished; she thinks it will realistically be eight years before demolition because of funding timelines and giving adequate notice.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated there may be a distinction between the two buildings; Building 29 needs a lot of work and brings in much less revenue to the City; she would like to find someplace else for the makers; she does not see the same economic benefit.
Councilmember Vella stated staff should come up with a phased approach considering factors outlined and working with existing tenants, to the extent possible, as well as looking at alternatives; Building 25 is bringing in considerable revenue; the City should collect the revenue, keep tenants, and use the funds to help fund the park.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether preserving Building 29 would cost approximately $6 million, removal would be $1 million and annual revenues are about $60,000 per year, to which the Assistant City Manager responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether preserving Building 25would be about $1 million and the rent revenue is $500,000 per year, to which the Assistant City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated 2023 revenue will be $429,000.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the number increases on the chart and goes above $500,000.
The Assistant City Manager stated rent increases 3% annually.
Councilmember Vella inquired if the preservation is not an annual cost, but rather the cost of building the levy, to which Councilmember Herrera Spencer responded in the affirmative; stated it is a one-time cost.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the building would pay for itself within approximately two years if preserved, to which the Recreation and Parks Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired what is the life expectancy of the building.
The Assistant City Manager stated the building was built in the 1980s, but she does not know the lifespan.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated a revenue measure is on the agenda to ask taxpayers to approve revenue for infrastructure costs and other costs to run the City; she supports De-Pave Park; she also supports paying the City’s bills and trying to keep Building 25; the building obstructs the view, but so do other buildings; she would like more parking to support more of the businesses and to visit the park; inquired whether the City has made a long-term decision in regards to Building 25 and if it could be like other buildings in Spirit Alley and be there indefinitely; the City is not getting rid of other buildings.
The City Manager responded the intent is to for Alameda Point to eventually become a neighborhood; staff is moving existing infrastructure; eventually all buildings, other than Tidelands Buildings, will be sold; there are no plans to sell the buildings along the western corridor at this point.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired if buildings are not being sold because the City would receive ongoing rents, to which the City Manager responded in the affirmative
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the plan is to keep the buildings and collect annual rent from Building 25 indefinitely.
The City Manager stated the direction coming from Council tonight is whether or not that would be the case; she is hearing the direction is to work towards removing Building 25 in a way that tries to preserve the businesses in other locations and trying to preserve the rent stream for as long as possible; staff will try to figure out a phased approach.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like to keep Building 25 indefinitely to keep the rent and support local businesses; keeping the building as long as possible makes sense for the City’s benefit.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she does not want to cause harm to businesses and would like to give tenants some certainty.
The City Manager stated the roof must be fixed; there is currently a vacant building along Spirit Alley; discussions about relocating some tenants might need to occur now; shorter-term leases in Building 25 could be done to attempt to preserve some of the lease revenue; she would not want to miss the opportunity to consider relocating tenants to Building 24.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated businesses cannot be told they have a certain number of years because what would happen if the year came and all spaces are taken; some consideration should be given for the sacrifice of tenants giving up a lease they are entitled to that was negotiated with the City at one point.
Councilmember Vella stated that she does not want Buildings 25 or 29 to sit vacant for no reason; she would like to give certainty to businesses in terms of what she thinks the estimated costs are, relative to the building removals, and come up with a realistic timeline.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what staff is seeking from Council.
The City Manager stated staff is seeking direction; on Building 25, there has been support for removal with some caveats related to preserving buildings for businesses as long as possible, trying to relocate the businesses, and trying to maintain the income stream from the buildings for as long as possible.
The Assistant City Manager stated staff would like the certainty of a vote specifically on Building 25.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated staff should find the makers and LavaMae another place; LavaMae goes to homeless encampments in the community and provides shower and laundry services.
Vice Mayor Daysog stated that he is confident staff will work closely and carefully with tenants; he appreciates that there might be opportunities for someone to move into a hangar space; there will still be economic activity.
Councilmember Jensen moved approval for directing staff to move forward with Option 3, while establishing options and providing information and working closely with Building 25 and 29 to identify potential for relocation and to ensure lease terms are supported.
Councilmember Vella inquired if it is possible to give clear direction; expressed concern over Building 25 specifically since the lease is coming up in a year.
The City Manager stated one tenant has until 2031, if a five-year option is exercised.
In response to Councilmember Vella’s inquiry about the other tenant leases, the City Manager responded other leases are coming up and the City would have to make decisions about whether or not to let tenants stay.
In response to Councilmember Vella’s inquiry, the Base Reuse and Economic Development Director stated one strategy is to make all the leases co-terminus, so as not to have three different timelines for three different tenants.
Councilmember Vella inquired if it would be until 2031.
The City Manager stated that she is hesitant to do so as there is a possibility construction could start in five years.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if staff mean 2028; stated 2024 is around the corner.
The City Manager responded staff could do a five-year lease, but no more than that; one lease extends beyond 2031, but staff may talk to tenants about potential relocation to Building 24.
Councilmember Vella inquired if staff needs more direction or if the motion given is sufficient.
The City Manager stated staff needs flexibility and has heard Council clearly; when staff comes back with the design in Spring, conversations can start to be had with tenants to get more information; a closed session might be held for price and terms of Building 24.
Councilmember Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, Jensen, Vella and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 4. Noes: Councilmember Herrera Spencer - 1.
***
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess at 10:07 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 10:23 p.m.
***
(23- ) Recommendation to Receive a Status Report on the Commercial Streets Program; Authorize the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with Ray’s Electric to Furnish and Install Commercial Streets Concrete Barriers for a Not-to-Exceed Amount of $343,747.68; and Authorize the City Manager to Extend the Parklet Program and Issue Updated Parklet License Agreements.
The Deputy Public Works Director and Strategic Advisor gave a Power Point presentation.
***
(23- ) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft suggested 5 more minutes be given for the presentation.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval adding 5 minutes.
Councilmember Vella seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
***
The Strategic Advisor completed the presentation.
Councilmember Jensen inquired what are the current parklet fees, to which the Deputy Public Works Director responded $2,400 over two years.
Councilmember Jensen inquired if the fees are doubling, to which the Deputy Public Works Director responded in the affirmative; stated the fee is covering staff time for inspections and other things.
Councilmember Jensen inquired whether the insurance is going to be paid by the City.
The Deputy Public Works Director responded there was a subsidy program in place for the first two years, which will not continue.
Councilmember Jensen inquired if each business with a parklet will have to pay and if the City requires a specific amount of insurance for each site, to which the Deputy Public Works Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Jensen inquired which parklets have been removed.
The Deputy Public Works Director responded the parklets removed were West-Wind Karate School and Jonathan’s; stated Rise Bodyworks plans on removing its parklet as well, but it is currently still in place.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated concrete barriers being proposed are 4-feet long; inquired the length of the k-rails at the Basem to which the Deputy Public Works Director responded 20-feet long.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if all parklets are a uniform size and displace the same number of parking spaces, to which the Deputy Public Works Director responded the parklets are different sizes, ranging from 1 to 4 parking spaces.
In response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft’s inquiry, the Deputy Public Works Director stated staff will be providing a footprint for each parklet, but the idea is to keep each one as it is currently.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated when she drove down Park Street, most parklets were empty; inquired when staff uses the term activate, if it means the parklets must be in use a certain number of hours per day.
The Strategic Advisor responded staff has asked businesses to submit activation plans; use would not be 24 hours a day, but is going to bring activity to Park or Webster Streets on a regular basis; hours vary per business; staff has asked businesses to commit to how the parklet will be used to give staff a mechanism to ensure businesses are following commitments; if necessary, the permit can be taken away at a later date.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired if someone is going to keep track of parklet use.
The Strategic Advisor responded in the case of a restaurant, someone being is served by a waiter means the business has meet its responsibility; stated if nobody comes to the restaurant and sits in the parklet, staff will talk to the business about the space not being activated, ask why the parklet is not be used, and it may be time to pull the permit; if parklets are bringing more customers to Park Street, it is a good thing, but if they are not, they are a liability and should be removed.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if the parklet for Twirl, a children’s activity center on Park Street, is on Park Street or in the back parking lot.
The Strategic Advisor responded it is on Park Street; the parklet in back has been removed; the front parklet will be shares with some of neighboring businesses; it will be an art space, as well as a clothing display space; the vision is for the block to be for children.
Councilmember Vella inquired if staff could consider how many parklets are being proposed; stated everyone might not get one.
The Strategic Advisor responded staff has a list of 20 businesses that want to keep parklets; stated staff went to businesses not using parklets and suggested parklets be eliminated; staff does not see many new businesses requesting to have a parklet; businesses who want parklets already have one; the number has been stable for the past few years.
Councilmember Vella inquired if Council could give direction to place a cap on the number of parklets; stated if somebody decide to give up a parklet, someone else could come in and apply, to which the Strategic Advisor responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Vella inquired what the cost would be if a new business requested a parklet.
The Strategic Advisor responded this is a one-time investment by the City; stated the idea is if a business wants a parklet, the business will be responsible for purchasing the barricades and meeting City guidelines.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if there is one disabled parking space on both sides of every block of Park and Webster Streets, to which the Deputy Public Works Director responded in the negative; stated there are not spots on both sides of the street; the total number on Webster Street is three.
The Acting Transportation and Planning Manager stated there have been no on-street blue zones in the commercial districts until now; staff is adding 5 on Park Street; there will be at least one on both sides of the block; some are on adjacent streets; the spots may be on the side street, but will be right at the corner.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if there will not be a disabled parking spot on every block on both sides of the street, to which the Acting Transportation and Planning Manager responded in the affirmative; stated Council could give direction to staff; a MTC grant will fund more curb zones, including ADA zones; an option would be to wait until the City has said funding to install more.
***
(23- ) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated a motion is needed to consider new items after 11:00 p.m.; she would like to get through the full regular agenda, meaning finish the current item, and get through the revenue measure [paragraph no. 23- ] and ordinance authorizing transfer and easements with AUDS for Wood School [paragraph no. 23- ]; she is okay if Council referrals do not come up today.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired about the two pulled Consent items: the strategic plan [paragraph no. 23- ] and rent CIP ordinance [paragraph no. 23- ].
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council could try to get to the items before midnight, or they could be placed under Continued Items on the next Council meeting.
Councilmember Jensen inquired if there is any urgency for either of the two items, to which the City Manager and City Attorney responded in the negative.
Councilmember Jensen moved approval [of hearing the Regular Items and two pulled Consent items up until midnight and the two pulled Consent items would be continued to the November 21, 2023 agenda Continued Items if not heard].
Councilmember Vella proposed a friendly amendment to the motion to hear the Rent CIP ordinance before the Strategic Plan.
Councilmember Jensen accepted the friendly amendment to the motion.
Councilmember Vella seconded the motion.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
***
Vice Mayor Daysog inquired how much more room there would be for bike lanes on Part and Webster Streets if the City did not do the parklet programs.
The Strategic Advisor responded most businesses have parking space in front; the restriping plan has been restructured so that businesses can either have parking or a parklet, but not both; if Council does not want to proceed with the parklet program, a striping plan could move forward.
In response to Councilmember Jensen’s inquiry about Park Street restriping exhibit, the Deputy Public Works Director stated the exhibits are based on the striping plans and are technical drawings with details of the type of striping and bike parking locations.
Stated that he is in support of the parklet program; having a parklet is a luxury; most customers want to sit outside; expressed concern about businesses taking on the financial responsibility to maintain the space and being liable: Michael Yakura, Spinning Bones Restaurant.
Stated that she is not supportive of the current plan; parklets were created as an emergency reaction to the pandemic and were never meant to be permanent; over 500 people voted in a poll she created; 60% of people have consistently said parklets should be removed; concrete barriers take up the street; emergency vehicles are unable to get by since there is no space for cars to pull over: Karen Miller, Alameda.
Stated DABA is in support of continuing the current two-lane configuration and the parklet program: Kathy Weber, DABA.
Stated that he supports the parklet program, street re-configuration, and bike lane; he would like the bike lane to be as visible as possible and for the speed limit be 20 miles per hour; parklet owners should restrict use to customers during business hours; after hours, parklet should be public: Ron Mooney, Alameda.
Stated that he supports the staff recommendations; he has had good experiences with the parklets, which are very successful: Zac Bowling, Alameda.
Stated the West Alameda Business Association (WABA) supports the staff recommendations; WABA worked closely with the Acting Transportation and Planning Manager on the striping for handicapped parking, which is going well; the Healing Garden is privately owned and should not be considered open space for the public: Linda Asbury, WABA.
Stated that he is in support of the restriping plan and allowing larger parklets; he does not support favoring parking over parklets: James Johnston, Alameda.
Stated that she is in support of the continuance of the parklets; parklets benefit restaurants, nearby businesses, and the economy: Joann Guitarte, Café Jolie.
Stated that he is not in support of the parklet program as it interrupts the flow of traffic and becomes a hazard: Jay Garfinkle, Alameda.
Expressed support for the parklet program: Alex Spehr, Alameda.
Stated that she is in support of the parklet program; safety on Park Street has improved since having one lane on each way: Barbara Mooney, Alameda.
Stated BikeWalk Alameda supports the staff recommendations: Cyndy Johnsen, BikeWalk Alameda.
Councilmember Vella stated that she is in support of the staff recommendations with a couple caveats; she believes there should be a cap on the number of parklets; parklets should not be used for gyms and should be for other non-food retail and restaurants; she would encourage future City Councils to consider upgrades, such as a wider sidewalk and gutter repairs, if the program becomes permanent.
Councilmember Jensen inquired whether staff ever considered having wider sidewalks rather than having parklets.
The Strategic Advisor responded staff did not due to the high cost; stated gutters would have to be rebuilt, amongst other things; it could be considered in the future; the program has always been designed to be done quickly and inexpensively.
Councilmember Jensen stated the addition of turn lanes is great; the establishment of bike lanes will improve access on Park and Webster Streets; she is in support of the continuance of the parklet program.
Vice Mayor Daysog inquired whether the zoning of a building ends at the building and if Council could limit the type of commercial activities in parklets, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Daysog inquired whether the use is consistent with the zoning; and if the business is zones for athletic activities could Council decide the parklet preclude that the use, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether there would be one lane each way with no center lane, to which the Strategic Advisor responded in the affirmative; stated that is what is there today.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated when she travels on Park Street, it is often backed up; inquired where emergency vehicles can go; expressed concern about emergency vehicles being able to travel down the street.
The Strategic Advisor responded there are two 11-foot lanes with 2-foot buffers between the lane and the bike lane, as well as the bike lane and parking lane; stated it will function like any other two-lane road, but will have additional space.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated there are two lanes on Broadway, but not any barriers; drivers are able to get out of the way.
The Strategic Advisor stated Broadway is a three-lane road.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated there is not a consistent center lane down Broadway.
The Deputy Public Works Director stated parts of Broadway have a center turn lane and parts have bike lanes; cars can pull off to the side to allow more space for emergency vehicles.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the proposal was to have some sort of barrier between the bike lane and the cars.
The Deputy Public Works Director responded there are opportunities to have separation in areas where there is no parking.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated bollards prevent people from being able to get out of the way; when someone is double-parked, people can go around because there is more flexibility with fewer of the barriers; she does not understand how the configuration works in regards to emergency vehicles; inquired if there is a way to add more flexibility and if bollards are necessary.
The Strategic Advisor stated the safety of the bike lane would be sacrificed in the locations where bollards are removed; there is a tradeoff.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated there is currently a problem with flexibility since cars double parked everywhere.
The Strategic Advisor stated the idea is not to have bollards continuously down the street, but rather in certain locations where they are trying to make clear to cars that you should not park in the space or in the bike lane; staff has recommended plastic bollards so an emergency vehicle can drive over them if needed.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she is talking about cars moving out of the way for the emergency vehicles to pass.
The Strategic Advisor stated Council could direct the plastic bollards be removed.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would propose painted bike lanes so drivers can move over; emergency vehicles must be able to get through Park and Webster Streets; she is not supportive of the plastic bollards; further stated that she is in support of extending the sidewalk; expressed concern about decorative cement barriers; stated other cities require 20 foot long k-rails; the barriers being proposed are 4-feet long; she does not believe the barriers will provide the same protection as a 20-foot k-rail will; inquired if Twirl’s parklet is in the street.
The Deputy Public Works Director responded the parklet is in the parking lane.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated Twirl has kids in a parking lane on the street; expressed concern over the safety; stated that she thinks kids should be on the sidewalk; inquired if Twirl would have the 4-foot barriers and if they would be connected somehow in order to provide the same protection as a 20-foot k-rail.
The Deputy Public Works Director responded the barriers can be connected with a wire.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the protection is not the same as a 20-foot single piece.
The Deputy Public Works Director stated the 4-foot barriers are not as heavy and are not highway-rated like a k-rail, however, they are protective for this application.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired if staff believes a car or an emergency vehicle can hit a 4-foot long decorative cement barriers and a child playing in the street at Twirl would be safe.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification about what the barricades not being highway-rated means.
The Deputy Public Works Director stated a k-rail is specifically designed to CalTrans standards to be used on a freeway; the 4-foot barriers are not designed to the same standard.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what standard they are designed to, to which the Deputy Public Works Director responded they are reinforced concrete and are for low-speed applications.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired the range of speeds, to which the Deputy Public Works Director responded that he does not have the information.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated Alameda has had a very serious high-speed collision on Park Street; parklets on side streets, such as Café Jolie or La Penca Azul, are safer; inquired why staff does is not recommending k-rails.
The Deputy Public Works Director responded k-rails are not as configurable because of the size; the 4-foot barriers are and can surround the entire parklet, which is the standard Council approved.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired if 20-foot parklets could have a k-rail with decorative barriers on the side, to which the Deputy Public Works Director responded in the affirmative.
The Strategic Advisor stated staff is trying to create a more attractive look; the idea is to improve the appearance on Park Street; the barriers provide a lot more protection than an 8-inch curb; in regards to the level of safety, a highway-rated k-rail is the safest, however, it is also the least attractive option; the option Council approved is being used in other cities.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the traditional set-up is the street, the curb, the parked cars, and then the moving cars and so the moving cars would hit the parked cars before they get to the sidewalk.
The Strategic Advisor responded assuming there is a parked car.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she is in support of having staff come back with some changes, since the City must put safety first.
Councilmember Vella stated the design was unanimously voted on recently by a number of Bay Area cities similarly sized to Alameda; there will be opportunities to look at more permanent solutions.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is interested in the speed ratings; accidents occurring would be less likely because of the reduced lane configuration; she would love to know what the ratings in order to make an informed decision; inquired if staff worked with the Fire Department.
The Strategic Advisor responded staff worked with the Fire Department; stated pinch points are not changing and are not getting narrower; emergency vehicles are currently operating on the street.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the bollards discussed might make it more difficult.
The Strategic Advisor stated a car moving into the bike lane is a tradeoff.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if staff could obtain the barricade ratings and appropriateness for the use, to which the Strategic Advisor responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated it is nice for businesses to be able to expand seating areas; expressed concern about the lack of disabled parking; inquired how needs could be addressed.
The Acting Transportation and Planning Manager responded it would be a good idea for the City to emphasize blue zones moving forward with parking planning; stated staff has proposed new blue zone spaces with striping for early next year; add spaces when staff is able to use the grant funds would be great, however, if Council would like to direct staff to add more now, it could be possible.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like to see more wherever possible, especially if the block is long.
The City Manager stated Council could give staff general direction to look at adding more spaces on longer blocks as part of the striping plan.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is not worried about regular parking spaces on the curb, but rather would like to ensure there is at least one disabled spot on every block on each side of the street wherever possible and as much as possible; she is in support of the project with the guidelines and direction to staff.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether Council supports removing the bollards in order to add flexibility for emergency vehicles.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the reason for staff proposing the bollards was for the safety of cyclists; there are currently no bollards or bike lanes on Park and Webster Streets; inquired what it would look like if Council does not proceed.
The Deputy Public Works Director responded the bollards prevent people from parking in bike lanes and create separation between traffic and people biking.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated although not a physical barrier, she is in support of painting the bike lanes green to make them visible.
The Deputy Public Works Director stated the bike lanes will be visible with the buffer and will be marked as obvious bike lanes with symbols; green paint does not do much to prevent people from double parking.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how the lanes would be obvious.
The Deputy Public Works Director responded there would be two bike symbols per block and a buffer that drivers are not supposed to cross.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether or not the buffer would be the bollard.
The Deputy Public Works Director responded there would be a striped buffer and bollards would be placed in the middle; stated green paint is costly, which is why it was not suggested; paint does not necessarily prevent people from double parking in the bike lane.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated drivers need visual cues; she would vote for putting money towards green paint if it would help make things safer.
The City Manager stated green paint is expensive to maintain, especially in a high-traffic area, such as Park Street; Council could give direction to add green pain instead of the bollards.
Councilmember Vella stated that she is in support of moving forward with the bollards now; her concern is the safety of cyclists; emergency vehicles are able to maneuver through and are driven by professionals with special licenses; if bollards become an issue, they can be removed.
Councilmember Jensen stated the Fire Chief has stated the street is wide enough and he does not see any problems or concerns with navigation; she is in support of the staff recommendation.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether staff is looking for a motion.
The City Manager stated staff would like clear, final direction in order to be able to move forward with striping early next year; she heard consensus about capping the number of parklets; Webster Street has 4 parklets in comparison to Park Street, which has 16 parklets; inquired whether Council would be willing to give staff room to add parklets on Webster Street and if Council would like to cap the number at 10; stated that she heard the suggestion about parklets being for retail spaces and restaurants, but not gyms and grocery stores; staff can confirm the speed rating is appropriate before entering into the contract for barricades; staff can look at adding additional disabled parking; the long-term direction is for staff to keep in mind the potential expansion of sidewalks when streets are rehabilitated at some point.
Councilmember Vella stated Twirl is not retail or a restaurant and would receive an exception; she understands Twirl is intending to do retail in most of the space.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired or not Twirl had children playing in the street, to which Kathy Weber, Downtown Alameda Business Association, responded in the negative; stated it is an area designed for occasional art projects; activation will not be for children sitting and playing in the space.
Vice Mayor Daysog stated the parklet program came at a time where businesses needed it; its benefit was activation of areas; the pandemic is over and the City needs to begin to phase out the parklet program over an 18 month period and return businesses to the four walls in which they typically operate.
***
(23- ) The City Manager stated the revenue measure [paragraph no. 23- ] is time sensitive since staff must conduct polling before the end of the year.
Councilmember Vella moved approval of hearing the matter.
Councilmember Jensen seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
***
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed concern about businesses in Alameda being disadvantaged because other cities have the program; stated parklets provide an opportunity for immunocompromised people to be able to enjoy eating out.
Councilmember Jensen moved approval of the contract with Ray’s Electric for a total amount of $343,747.68 to continue the parklet program and enter into new parklet agreements with the determination of whether additional disabled parking spaces can be included in the plan and to explore the limits on the types of businesses that can use the parklets.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Councilmember Jensen’s motion is to add the suggestions mentioned by the City Manager, to which Councilmember Jensen responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Jensen, Vella and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 3. Noes: Councilmembers Daysog and Herrera Spencer - 2.
(23- ) Recommendation to Provide Direction to Staff to Explore the Feasibility of Placing a Revenue Measure on a Future Ballot for Potential Infrastructure Funding or Other Possible Revenue Measures, including the City Manager Entering into Agreements with: (1) Clifford Moss for an Initial Feasibility Assessment in an Amount Not-To-Exceed $30,000; and (2) Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates (FM3) for Survey Development, Implementation, and Associated Analysis in an Amount Not-to-Exceed $40,750.
The Communications and Legislative Affairs Officer gave a Power Point presentation.
Councilmember Jensen inquired about scheduling; stated the School Board is going to put a revenue measure on the March 2024 ballot, which polling and doing outreach during February and March may cause confusion.
The Communications and Legislative Affairs Officer responded staff would be polling as soon as possible and it would be completed before the end of the year; stated not much work would be done near the primary election; community outreach could be conducted after the primary election.
The City Manager stated staff does not want to interfere with the School District measure, which is why the matter is time sensitive and polling would be done now; staff would come back to Council as soon as possible; once the primary election is over, staff can come back to Council to have further conversations or start outreach.
In response to Councilmember Jensen’s inquiry about the dates in the presentation, the Communications and Legislative Affairs Officer stated the date is incorrect and should be March and April.
The City Manager stated staff may amend the agreements and get things ready behind the scenes, but public things would not start before the election.
Vice Mayor Daysog stated that he does not know if the School District measure will be difficult, but the possibility of a follow-up measure in November 2024 is something to think about.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification, to which Vice Mayor Daysog responded if the measure fails in March 2024, there may be a follow-up measure in November 2024.
The City Manager stated if it occured, Council would make the ultimate decision about whether or not to proceed.
Councilmember Vella stated it is worth exploring; expressed concern about the short amount of time and support for polling; sated that she the number of other measures anticipated for that ballot should be kept in mind; she would like to build in different contingencies if the School measure passes; other Statewide measures would prevent this type of taxation.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she does not plan to support this, nor will she be supporting a tax measure; there are plenty of other taxes that Council is going to be asked to support; she raised concern about the City not supporting a business which brings in over $500,000 a year in revenue earlier tonight.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council is not asking for support in additional taxes, but rather is greenlighting seeing what the public wants; a lot of infrastructure needs must be addressed; expressed support for the staff recommendation; stated that she would hope there is a motion to provide direction to staff to explore the feasibility of placing a revenue measure on a future ballot for potential infrastructure funding or other possible revenue measures.
In response to Councilmember Herrera Spencer’s inquiry, the City Manager stated both contracts are within her authority, but she does not want to proceed if Council does not want staff to do the work; the total is $30,000 for Clifford Moss and $40,750 for FM3; there is a second phase, but she is not asking Council for directionfor the later stage in January.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the City Manager has $75,000 of authority and could have gone forward with this, however, she decided to bring it to Council.
Councilmember Jensen moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Councilmembers Daysog, Jensen, Vella and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 4. Noes: Councilmember Herrera Spencer - 1.
(23- ) Introduction of Ordinance Authorizing (1) the Transfer of 0.65 Acres to the Alameda Unified School District AUSD), (2) the Conveyance of an Easement to AUSD for Parking and Access Purposes, (3) the Acceptance of an Easement from AUSD for Parking and Access Purposes, and (4) the City Manager to Execute All Necessary Documents in Connection Therewith to Facilitate the Renovation and Rebuild of Wood Middle School. Not heard.
CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS REMOVED FOR DISCUSSION
(23- ) Recommendation to Adopt the City of Alameda 2023-2026 Strategic Plan. Continued to November 21, 2023.
(23- ) Final Passage of Ordinance Amending Article XV of the Alameda Municipal Code, Amending and Enhancing the Rent Control Program’s Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Program and Terminating the Current Moratorium on CIP Applications and Making Other Necessary Updates. Continued to November 21, 2023.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
Not heard.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
Not heard.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
(23- ) Consider Directing Staff to Draft an Ordinance Amending the Sunshine Ordinance to Move to a Hearing Officer Model to Hear Sunshine Ordinance Complaints. (Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft and Councilmember Jensen) Not heard.
(23- ) Consider Directing Staff to Draft an Ordinance Prohibiting Animal Testing and Experimentation on Property Owned or Controlled by the City of Alameda. (Councilmembers Herrera Spencer and Vella) Not heard.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Not heard.
ADJOURNMENT
(23- ) There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 12:13 a.m. in memory Ron Curtis, Hellen Sause and Janet Gibson.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.