Alameda City Council
November 7, 2023

From: Danny Sterling
To: CityCouncil-List
Cc: Danny Sterling; Mike Yakura
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Alameda Parklets
Date: Tuesday, November 7, 2023 5:20:24 PM
City of Alameda Council:

My name is Danny Sterling and I am the co-owner of Spinning Bones on Park Street along with my partner, Mike Yakura. We never approached the city and asked for a parklet, the city approached us and told us of this new program we could take advantage of, at our cost of course. We built the parklet and a member of the city informed us that we could build it bigger, which we did, to code and at a great expense. We lost money for 3 years of the pandemic and at the last parklet meeting, the council members failed to mention the enormous expense businesses had to build the parklets.

For us, the entire structure cost $35,000 which we had to put even more debt on the business to afford. The annual fee is fair however the council should acknowledge the tremendous expense businesses put into constructing these which was ironically never mentioned at the previous meeting. In addition, there is at least another $5,000 in furniture for the outdoors that has to be locked up at night and cleaned constantly from vandalism. We’re investing in the livelihood and growth of the district. we’re already putting our own money into these spaces for the public. This is not cheap or free, and if you want to mandate upgrades for these spaces, that is going to add to the total bill which is substantial.

During the pandemic, our restaurant alone generated over $250,000 in sales taxes that were paid on time while we consistently lost money due to mandated closures. During the pandemic we never asked Alameda for anything because we take responsibility for ourselves and our business. We never marched on the steps with home made fluorescent signs, we never bombarded the council with unreasonable requests, we simply opened our doors every day and went to work. We are not the establishment, we are not Walmart, we are not Amazon, we are small business owners trying to make a living and contribute to the community. The council members mentioned that they would like to read a book on the parklets and these should be open to everyone because of that. Once again, Alameda businesses are punished. What happens when a non-customer falls in our parklet and sues, do they sue us or do they sue the city? What happens when a non-customer gets sick from the food they brought with them, do they sue us or do they sue the city. When they bring their own alcohol and violate ABC laws, who’s at fault here. The city mandated that we increase our insurance limits to have these parklets, which we did to be compliant. However if these become public spaces does that means the city is now liable? Will the city start cleaning up the parklets when people use them as bathrooms at night?

This new parklet plan has too many holes in it and has not been well thought out. Please take into account that you are threatening business’s livelihoods by your callous and shotgun approaches to policy. Take the time to actually meet with some businesses, learn of their concerns, try to see both sides rather than focusing solely on the loudest it would benefit you to also focus on those that are contributing to Alameda’s livelihood as well as financial future. Please support the growth of small businesses rather than the feeling of a loud public minority. Alameda has a reputation of vilifying businesses which is unfair as these businesses are generating much needed tax dollars and also creating an amenity for the residents of the city. Both Mike and I are very proud to bring the first Michelin Bib Gourmand award to Alameda (2022 and 2023) yet we still have struggled since opening to be viable. There is a reason why so many stores are boarded up or quietly trying to relocate and it is because the city of Alameda simply does not support us.

I thank you for your time and truly hope you listen to your businesses at this meeting and in the future.

Thank You

--
Danny Sterling
Owner

Spinning Bones
Shrute Farms Group
M: 303.653.3779
O: 720.612.4322
E: [email protected]
W: www.spinningbones.com

2022 and 2023 Michelin Bib Gourmand – Click Here
From: Sabrina Cazarez
To: CityCouncil-List
Subject: [EXTERNAL] In support of Alameda Parklets
Date: Tuesday, November 7, 2023 2:25:48 PM
Dear City Council,
I am in support of keeping the parklet program. I believe that they add vibrance to our downtown and a variety of opportunities for the community to come together through the activation of them. The creation of these wonderful outdoor environments not only extend the businesses use but they sprinkle the downtown with public spaces for all to enjoy. Our downtown becomes even more of a destination to surrounding cities by offering them.

We've seen them activated by the businesses as well as the downtown association through strolls, bands and special events. If they were to become more of a permanent feature, I am certain that the businesses would put even more effort into beautifying them and activating them.

I am in favor of keeping the parklets, activating them and making our downtown one of the best in eastbay.

Warmly,
Sabrina Cazarez
Executive Director, Founder

1424 Park Street
Alameda, CA 94501
Studio: 510.473.0812
Cell: 415.810.9057
From: Mary Jacak
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; City Clerk; [email protected]; Tracy Jensen; Tony Daysog; Trish Spencer Subject: [EXTERNAL] Item 7B parklets
Date: Tuesday, November 7, 2023 1:29:00 PM
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
Please discontinue the street dining "parklets". They had their purpose during the pandemic for Alameda businesses and restaurants. At that time, street traffic was a fraction of what it is now and many other businesses on Park St. and Webster St. were not open at all or operating on reduced schedules. Thus, the negative impact on traffic and parking were not what they are today.

Now, outdoor dining space is largely unused and not crucial as the majority of people seem unconcerned with wearing masks indoors even when they are not eating. Restaurant tables indoors are well occupied. Traffic and parking are negatively impacted. Safety for bicyclists and passing emergency vehicles is, by my estimation, reduced. And finally, in my opinion, the structures themselves and associated traffic control measures are unsightly.

The time for parklets has come and gone. Please restore traffic lanes, parking and sidewalks to prepandemic condition.

Thank you,
Mary Jacak
From: Reyla Graber
To: Lara Weisiger
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Vote No on retaining parklets and No on concrete parklets Date: Tuesday, November 7, 2023 1:19:04 PM
Dear Honorable Mayor and Council Members,
I urge you to vote to remove the parklets from our 2 main street arteries.

They served their purpose during covid but they are no longer needed and they are unsightly,
aggravating and potentially dangerous obstacles. Our restaurants are doing well now and it's been almost 2 years since covid. Park St in particular, is really too narrow for parklets and I'm sure if a CEQUA were done it would indicate that the narrowness is a defining, unalterable issue plus other problems with the parklets.

In general , other cities have dispensed with their temporary parklets and their streets are back to normal. Why shouldn't Alameda follow suit at this time? And replacing the temporary parklets with concrete barriers is not only not a solution, but it is a very expensive idea:
$350,000 for concrete that will be taken down in the future and will then be an even bigger cost to remove (inflation) Please City Council, let's use common sense and either remove the parklets now and return our streets to normal and or, if you must-- just keep the temp. parklets for another short term basis and then dispense with them.

But please do not vote for the concrete barriers. I believe and many other people agree that concrete would be a big mistake.

Thank you,
Sincerely,
Reyla Graber
From: Marie Kane
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Tony Daysog; Trish Spencer; Malia Vella; Tracy Jensen; City Clerk; Jenny Clerk Subject: [EXTERNAL] Discontinue the Parklets
Date: Tuesday, November 7, 2023 10:54:05 AM
Dear Mayor and City Council,
Please discontinue the parklets on Park Street. Parking is impossible to find to patronize the other businesses. The traffic congestion and inability for emergency vehicles to traverse the street is dangerous. The plastic bollards are dented and unsightly. Concrete bollards will damage cars opening the city up for lawsuits about their positioning. There could be lawsuits about your decision regarding the safety of those seated in the parklets. You also are favoring some businesses over others.

Another litigious issue.

Please vote against continuation of the parklets. They make Park Street a disaster to navigate.

Thank you,
Marie Kane
From: Cathy Leong
To: City Clerk
Cc: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Tony Daysog; Malia Vella; Trish Spencer Subject: [EXTERNAL] Alameda City Council Agenda, Item 7B, November 7, 2023 re: Park St. and Webster St. post pandemic configurations
Date: Tuesday, November 7, 2023 10:30:31 AM
Honorable Mayor, City Council & City Staff;
Please change the configuration of our streets by removing the "parklets", period.

You must know that our city streets have become difficult to maneuver, for example, the section of Park St. between Santa Clara Ave. and San Jose Ave. is particularly congested, most times coming to an utter crawl. When entering and exiting the City, it becomes a total traffic jam. To the point that our family and many friends no longer shop/dine in these areas as it is too difficult and dangerous to drive & to park in this area, thus many are no longer supporting our Alameda businesses. Side note, this cluttering of ill-parked vehicles further diminishes the historic character of this area to say the least.

Not only are many parklets ugly; but also, the placement is crazy. Parking is a zoo and most people have thrown any reasonable driving/parking skills out the window. I've gone the route "if I can't find parking for the first or second time around the block...I go home, sorry to the business I was planning to purchase from but it is not worth the time, gas, hassle.

Unfortunately, I also rarely go back to any businesses in these areas anymore because of this.

The parklet for Rise gym is just plain dangerous. Does anybody actually use it?! Sure, this started during the early days of the pandemic, but we know better how to properly mitigate this & parklets are not the answer. At the very least, moving forward, please comply with the safety regulations such as CEQA, the California Environmental Quality Act, for the purpose of protecting the public and the environment from the potentially harmful effects of projects such as this.

One can only assume that you, the members of the City Council, and senior City Staff could not help but be aware that your Commercial Streets project would create a more hazardous environment along both Park Street and Webster Street, and for the City as a whole. Now you have the opportunity to correct this and bring our City back to where it should be to once again thrive.

The majority of residents prefer that Park Street and Webster Street be returned to their pre- pandemic configurations. Please end this current configuration for the betterment of our community - your constituents, the residents of Alameda.

Thank you for your time & consideration, Cathy Leong 38 year Alameda resident 48 Kara Road
From: Cyndy Johnsen
To: CityCouncil-List
Cc: [email protected]; City Clerk; Jennifer Ott Subject: [EXTERNAL] Comments on Item 7-B: Commercial Corridors Date: Tuesday, November 7, 2023 9:01:40 AM
Attachments: 11_7_23 CC Comments Webster and Park.pdf
Dear Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft, Vice Mayor Daysog, and Members of the City Council, Please see our comments, attached, regarding item 7-B on tonight's agenda.

Thank you in advance for your consideration,
Bike Walk Alameda
(510) 516-0497
P.O. BOX 2732
ALAMEDA, CA 94501
www.bikewalkalameda.org
Board of
Directors
Denyse Trepanier
President
Brian Fowler
Treasurer
Tim Beloney
Secretary
Cyndy Johnsen
Board Member
Maria Piper
Board Member
Lucy Gigli
Founder,
non-voting
November 7, 2023
RE: Agenda Item 7B: Park Street and Webster Street Commercial Corridors Dear Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft, Vice Mayor Daysog, and Members of the City Council, As we said the last time Commercial Corridors came before you, we believe that our business districts and community overall will be much better served by the street configuration proposed here rather than reverting to the old configuration. While we would much rather see protected bike lanes (versus unprotected) in these districts, we acknowledge the planned phasing for bike facilities as described in the Active Transportation Plan, and support staff’s recommendations to move ahead with these plans.

We also have a few suggestions regarding details for the bike facilities that we hope you will consider:
● Please include the green paint (thermoplastic) treatment along the lengths of the bike lanes for both corridors, as originally planned. We understand staff’s concern that the paint will get worn away because these are busy zones, but since that’s probably true for the other painted elements in these zones, we imagine there will likely need to be more frequent maintenance here in general. Let’s plan for that, rather than remove treatments that will provide additional emphasis and priority to these bike lanes.
● We understand that staff hasn’t yet identified bike parking/corral locations, so those details won’t likely return to you for review. Given that, it might be good to at least discuss high-level expectations tonight. For example, set a minimum provision of in-street bike corrals of one for each side of the street for every intersection. The daylit curb space seems like a great opportunity — it’s space that’s already available, and when filled with something like bike parking, it’s more effective in deterring car parking.

This way, even without exact bike parking locations identified yet, there’s sufficient guidance to ensure that placement will be as convenient and abundant as anticipated, and that implementation can happen quickly.

Hopefully these suggestions can be incorporated without slowing this overall project down — we’re eager to see it rolled out!
Thank you for your consideration.

Bike Walk Alameda

From: Jon Randell
To: CityCouncil-List
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] item 7B on tonight"s agenda
Date: Tuesday, November 7, 2023 7:57:31 AM
Ms Clerk, can you please forward this to City Council and add to the agenda packet? Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
I'm an Alameda resident who tries to do as many of my errands as possible by bicycle. I'm happy to see that we are finally getting a tiny modicum of bike infrastructure in our core business districts. But it's really disappointing to see that we're only doing the bare minimum to accommodate active transportation with this redesign. Aren't we supposed to be encouraging biking and walking? While this plan will be an overall improvement, why do we keep centering our planning work around cars and drivers? I thought all our plans and policies said we're not going to be doing that anymore. It seems like ALL of the planning around this re-design is to discourage bad driver behavior. But how about we make plans that actually encourage the behaviors we want (biking, rolling, and walking). Where is the green paint? Where's the bike parking? Where are the bollards keeping cars out of the bike lanes? Where are the bike boxes? Are we going to have to wait another year to get bike parking like we did with the last redesign? Bikers and walkers were an afterthought in this plan, and that's really disappointing. We can do so much better.

I'm asking you to approve this plan, because we have to move our business corridors into the 90's at least, but that we've waited this long for this little thought around biking and walking is really disappointing.

Someone who just wants to ride, park my bike, and shop safely in our business districts.

Jon Randell
From: [email protected]
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Agenda Item 7A (Post Pandemic Configuration) Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 9:59:37 PM
Please advise the Alameda City Council members that as a 40 year resident of Alameda that I find the street configuration for Park and Webster streets no longer appropriate (post pandemic).

Thank you,
Kevin Leong
48 Kara Road
Alameda, 94502

November 6, 2023
To: Alameda City Council, Senior Staff and concerned Alamedans.

The following is a copy of the staff report for Item 7B of the November 7, 2023, City Council meeting agenda which I have edited for the purpose of clarifying potentially misleading statements and correcting omissions which I found in the original. To the best of my knowledge my comments, questions, and additions are correct and valid. Note that I have highlighted and parenthesized my comments in green for readers who receive a color version of this document. I have highlighted in yellow, bolded, underlined, and or used a red font to add emphasis to staff’s original language.

Jay Garfinkle

Edited for Clarity and Accuracy:
2023-3473
Type: Regular Agenda Item 7B Restriping &
Barriers

Body: City Council
On agenda: 11/7/2023

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. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this action is categorically exempt from further environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). (Public Works 310)

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 A uthorize the City Manager to Extend the Parklet Program and Issue Updated Parklet License Agreements.

In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this action is categorically exempt from further environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). (Public Works 310)

JG: This claimed categorical exemption is based on the presumption that the significant existing modifications from the original pre-pandemic conditions had been qualified through a satisfactory CEQA review. In fact, no previous review had ever been done. The urgency -exempted CEQA review does not qualify as a CEQA Review. Staff’s plan to throttle traffic on Park Street and Webster Street by installing parklets has created a hazardous condition that has never undergone a CEQA review which would, in all likelihood, have prohibited the project. It has never been vetted for safety. )

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The City of Alameda’s (City) Commercial Streets Program was established as part of the City’s multi-pronged response to the Covid-19 pandemic’s dramatic and immediate negative impacts on the local business community. Portions of Park Street and Webster Str eets were re -purposed to allow local merchants to use sidewalk and roadway space for parklets. (JG: On the urging of staff, ) The Program was extended by City Council in November 2021 for two years, including issuing encroachment agreements and maintaining the Alameda Avenue one -block street closure off of Park Street.

On July 5, 2023, City Council directed staff to develop a striping and barrier plan for the Park and Webster Commercial Streets, along with various other points of direction for the program. Staff is providing a status report on actions following City Council direction and seeking further authorization on two items: to enter into a service provider agreement to install concrete barriers and extend the Commercial Streets Program by entering into updated parklet license agreements. (JG: It appears that the Council never took a specific vote to continue staff’s parklet project . So, why are they continuing to request st atus reports on the elements of a project that was not authorized by a specific vote of the Council ? Primary point here:NO SPECIFIC VOTE TO

CONTINUE TO MAKE THE COMMERCIAL STREETS PROJECT PERMANENT))

BACKGROUND

At the beginning of the COVID -19 pandemic, the City restriped portions of Park Street and Webster Street to re -purpose some sidewalk and roadway space for parklets and outdoor spaces for use by local merchants. Called the “Commercial Streets Program,” it was an important part of the City’s multi-pronged response to the pandemic’s dramatic and immediate negative impacts on the local business community.

The Commercial Streets Program was established as a temporary program in 2020. In late 2021, staff evaluated the Program and then brought recommendations to the City Council on November 2, 2021, to continue the Program for two additional years, to November 3, 2023 . The recommendations included improving the Park Street and Webster Street striping plans and approving the concrete traffic control barricade standards, to be placed around the parklets. It also included updating the parklet permit program and extending the termination date for parklet encroachment agreements to November 3, 2023; maintaining the Alameda Avenue one -block street closure off of (sic) Park Street; and resuming pre -COVID parking management, fee collection, and enforcement activities, all of which happened . Finally, City Council allocated $630,350 in American Rescue Plan Act funds for these efforts. (JG asks: What does it mean by “all of which happened? There has been no agreement on a policy regarding fees. Will parklet owners be required to make up to the city the lost revenue from the parking meters, the use of which is being granted to them for their business operations?)

On July 5, 2023, City Council approved conceptual street restriping plans for Park Street and Webster Street. The plans relocate parking to be along the curb, create defined spaces for parklets within the parking lane (with space for barriers), add striped bicycle lanes, and maintain one lane in each direction with turn pockets at intersections. City Council also provided direction to staff and requested that staff return to Council with an update in November 2023. (JG: The November meeting is supposed to be for the purpose of UPDATING --- NOT --- for voting to proceed or not proceed with the project. Such vote never having been taken.)

DISCUSSION

The following table summarizes City Council direction to staff in July 2023 and the current status of each item. In addition to providing this status report, staff seeks two approvals to support the Commercial Streets Program, including authorization for t he City Manager to 1) enter into an agreement to have the concrete barriers installed, and 2) extend the program by entering into updated license agreements that reflect feedback from City Council.

Council Direction Status
Purchase concrete barriers as soon as
possible
• Staff requesting approval of agreement for
procurement and installation • Installation
expected in early 2024 • See Exhibit 2 for
barrier details
Execute restriping plan • Transportation engineering consultant developed plan sets for bidding • See
Exhibit 3 for Webster Street details • See
Exhibit 4 for Park Street details • Will
return to City Council if the construction
contract is above City Manager signing
authority • Implementation in early 2024
Implement loading zones/green curbs • Identified spaces for loading zones in coordination with business districts • City
sending notifications to nearby
businesses/residences prior to installation •
Zones included in striping plans in Exhibits
3 and 4
Make recommendations for additional
public spaces and bike parking
• Bike corrals included in striping plans •
Potential reuse of space on existing mid-
block bulbouts for public seating • Space
identified on striping plans that are too
small for parking or full-side parklets -
these have potential to be repurposed for
other public uses • Spaces identified in
Exhibits 3 and 4
Update parklet license agreements, and
limit agreements to only one parklet
location per business.
• Staff sent letters to current parklet
licensees notifying extension of the current
agreements (for parklets that will continue)
until new agreements go into effect in 2024
• City Attorney’s Office developed an
updated agreement template that includes
acknowledgement that parklets are public
spaces • Staff will provide each parklet
licensee a map showing the dimensions of
the area included in the agreement,
typically 1 to 4 parking spaces. Only one
parklet area will be allowed per business,
but each parklet can serve multiple
businesses. • Licensees required to provide
site plans to ensure compliance with
standards and guidelines prior to entering
new agreements
Update parklet design guidelines to include
more details on expectations for quality,
aesthetics, access, activation and safety.
• Staff will update to conform with new
agreement template and include photos and
diagrams by the end of 2023 • Guidelines
will detail requirements and expectations
for quality, aesthetics, access, activation
and safety
Provide recommendation for retail parklets
and underutilized spaces, and potentially
limit parklet licenses to restaurants and bars
only.
• Currently there are three non-
restaurant/bar locations on Park Street.

Staff recommends maintaining these
parklets, the owners of which have
submitted plans for activation. • All
parklets will be required to complete new
agreements. The agreements require
workmanlike installation and upkeep of
parklet spaces. If the a parklet owner does
not meet the terms and conditions of the
agreement, they will be required to remove
the parklet at their cost. • Guidelines will
include expectations for
activation/utilization
Improve the aesthetics of Alameda Avenue,
including street repairs, upgrading materials
and organizing the space.
• Striping and barricade plans will improve
the intersection of Park St. and Alameda
Ave. • Staff will continue to work with
DABA on plans for improvement,
beautification and activation by the end of
January 2024 • Plan must maintain
emergency vehicle access • Plan must
maintain bike access and bike parking,
including large bikes • City will plan to
resurface street after sewer repairs are
completed (anticipated in 2024 with paving
in 2025)
Provide recommendation for parklet license
fees
• Annual fees for parklet license will be
recommended in the upcoming Master Fee
Schedule. The proposed fee will be set to
recover staff time to administer the
program. Currently, the estimate is $2,400
annually. For the current 19 parklet
licenses, the annual revenue would be
$45,600. • Staff analyzed the potential
parking revenue per space, which is $2,160
per space per year on Park Street and
$1,440 per space per year on Webster
Street. Parklets are currently utilizing
approximately 38 spaces in the Park Street
Corridor and 13 spaces in the Webster
Street corridor. If the parklet licensees are
charged additional fees based on the
estimated LOST? parking revenue, the
total LOST? annual revenue would be up
to $100,800. Staff does not recommend this
approach at this time. WHY NOT?

Street Restriping and Concrete Barrier Installation

The striping and concrete barrier installation will be coordinated, but executed by two different contractors. City staff issued a Request for Proposals on August 24, 2023 to solicit services to purchase and install the concrete barriers. After a submittal period of twenty -one days, two proposals were submitted. Staff reviewed the proposals and determined one incomplete. Staff interviewed the qualified firm and selected the service provider that best meets the City’s needs.

Staff recommends awarding a contract to Ray’s Electric for a total amount of $343,747.68, which includes a five percent (5%) contingency in the amount of $16,368.94. The contractor is not guaranteed any of the contingency amount and use of the contingency will be at the sole discretion of the City for work not originally anticipated in the plans and specification. The contract is attached as Exhibit 1. The concrete barriers will replace the water filled plastic barriers. See Exhibit 2 for details on the barrier material.

The striping plans are nearly complete and include protecting on- street parklets from traffic with concrete barriers, per the standard detail previously approved by City Council. See Exhibit 3 for details for Webster Street and Exhibit 4 for details for Park Street. The work will be bid in the coming months and installed in early 2024 to avoid disrupting the holiday shopping season. Staff will only return to City Council if the construction contract is above City Manager signing authority. (JG: The current water-filled barriers are quite adequate. It appears that staff may believe that current barriers can too easily be removed at a later date. Using concrete barriers bolted to the street will be much more expensive to remove in the future should an enlightened Council consider terminating staff’s parklet project.)

Updated Parklet License Agreements

Staff developed a revised Parklet License Agreement template to permit encroachment on the City right-of way. Staff requests City Council authorize the City Manager to extend existing agreements to November 7, 2024 for parklets that will be continuing, and enter new agreements consistent with Council direction as described above, at which point existing agreements will be terminated.

The agreements will renew annually unless the City or Licensee terminates the agreement. An annual fee will be set though the City’s Master Fee Schedule.

In accordance with City Council direction, the Parklet License Agreement includes a public use acknowledgement that states that the parklet areas and improvements “constitute a public space that shall remain accessible at all times and throughout the Term of this Agreement to all members of the public”. The agreements also require licensees to “install all Improvements in a workmanlike fashion, maintain them in a good and sound condition, and keep the License Area in a neat, clean, and litter and debris-free condition.” The agreements include a recital about the parklet guidelines:
including a brief description of what they do and where they may be found, and that the guidelines will be updated by the City from time to time.

Parklet Removal

Parklet Licensees that are not continuing will be issued notice to remove their parklets at their own cost and will not receive new agreements. Staff does not recommend setting an end date for the overall parklet program.

ALTERNATIVES

• Award a contract to Ray’s Electric for a total amount of $343,747.68, continue the parklet program and enter new parklet agreements.
• (JG: Direct staff to end the parklet program and do not install concrete barriers or enter new parklet agreements.)
• Provide alternate direction to staff.

FINANCIAL IMPACT

Budget for this project is included in the Capital Improvement Project C12100 Commercial/Slow Streets funded with monies from American Rescue Plan Act and Measure BB Bike/Ped funds. The CIP has sufficient appropriations to cover the costs of the contract proposed for approval. Ongoing fees for parklets will be recommended in the Master Fee Schedule update to provide funding for staff time, including periodic inspections. (JG: So, for the unspecified time being, there apparently will not be any fee s charged, even to recoup the lost parking meter revenue ? Up to 4 spaces per parklet. Another gift?)

MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE

This action is consistent with the Alameda Municipal Code.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

In accordance with CEQA, this action is categorically exempt from further environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). (JG: Note that the now “existing facilities” are comprised of significant modifications of the long standing previously existing configuration and that those significant modifications were never subjected to a CEQA review as they were authorized under an Urgency Ordinance early into the pandemic. Now that the Urgency no longer exists , and time is no longer a factor, the initial 2020 exemption should now be interpreted as having been temporary and the review that would ordinarily have been required in 2020 should now be carried out as delayed review which would not be eligible for the speciously claimed 2023 exemption.)

CLIMATE IMPACT

Transportation generates over 70% of the greenhouse emissions in Alameda. The Commercial Streets parklet program encourages active uses of the City’s commercial streets. Creating streets focused on people, rather than cars, encourages use of non -carbon emitting modes of transportation, can reduce emissions from people driving to their destinations, and help the community develop lifelong habits of walking, bicycling, and taking transit. (JG: The project’s throttling of traffic flow cause s otherwise avoidable idling of cars and trucks which increases the production of greenhouse gases.)

RECOMMENDATION

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.

Respectfully submitted,
Erin Smith, Public Works Director

By,
Robert Vance, Deputy Public Works Director

Financial Impact section reviewed,
Margaret O’Brien, Finance Director

Exhibits:

1. Ray’s Electric Agreement

2. Alameda Parklet Barriers

3. Webster Street Restriping

4. Park Street Restriping

From: rock harmon
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Park Street parklets
Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 5:11:45 PM
Madame Mayor, City Council members:

I won’t go to Park Street- ever! For any reason. It is very easy to blame the parklets- but they are only a part of the problem. It was easy to understand the thinking when the parklets were approved- keep businesses afloat, eat outside, make pickups easy.

None of those reasons really exist any more, In some places they constitute a danger to pedestrians- the parklet by Rise Bodyworks is an example. Pedestrians are blocked from view by the parklet.

But the factor that makes parklets unacceptable is the chaotic parking system that was built around the parklets. It’s not really a system, it’s a free for all. If your car fits, then it’s a legal spot! That’s it isn’t it? I also missed the rule change that allows u-turns in the middle of the busy section of Park Street. I have read that APD enforces traffic rules on Park Street but I see no evidence of that. Parking enforcement? Obviously a thing of the past.

Regards,
Rock Harmon

Let's regain some of that common sense we sued to have by deciding to remove the parklets and restoring order to Park Street once again.

I won’t go to Park Street- ever!
From: Donna Fletcher
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Trish Spencer; Tracy Jensen; Tony Daysog; Malia Vella; Lara Weisiger; Jennifer Ott; Rochelle Wheeler
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Comment on Item 7-B Agenda Item: Status Report on Commercial Streets Program Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 4:27:05 PM
Dear Mayor, Members of the Council, and City Staff,
There was a time when the Park and Webster parklets served us well in responding to the restrictions of Covid. They were also an excellent example of how our City leaders adapted quickly to meet the needs of Alameda's struggling businesses during an extraordinary time.

That time of unusual circumstances and radical response has past, but the parklets remain and have brought with them unintended consequences for the viability of Park Street as a shopping, dining, and social destination.

Life on the current Park Street--for both pedestrians and drivers of vehicles--is chaotic, frustrating, and dangerous. The combination of reduced lanes, reduced parking, double-parked delivery drivers, and confusing cross-hatch striping, has sucked all of the charm out of our unique main street and turned it into what feels like a train-wreck. Trying to park on Park Street is probably one of the more dangerous things you can attempt, since adjacent cars refuse to stop and there is very little room to maneuver. And have you taken a good look at the parklets lately? They are not well-kept-up, have no unifying design theme, and diminish an important streetscape that is one of the main "front doors" to our City.

I am concerned that the Council is considering entering an agreement for concrete parklet barriers at the cost of $343K before hearing in more depth from the public. I would also like to hear a technical response from the Alameda Fire Department which is greatly impacted by the current street conditions. I have seen drivers make a U-turn directly in front of the Fire Department's access gate and other vehicles blocking the access gate while in a line of traffic-- in-spite of heavy signage requiring otherwise.

All-in-all, doing anything on Park Street has turned into an unpleasant experience and one that I try to avoid, in spite of my dedication to main street shopping. I urge the Council to remove the parklets from Park Street and Webster Street and return our main streets as streets that we can walk and drive and park safely on.

Thank you for your consideration!
Best regards,
Donna Fletcher

From: Diana Tweddale
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] City council agenda Item 7B
Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 2:14:50 PM
As a long time resident of Alameda I would like to voice my opposition to the proposal that the parklets now in place on Park and Webster streets should become permanent.

These were erected under emergency conditions and without any public input during the pandemic. Those conditions no longer apply. Traffic along both streets has now returned to pre-pandemic levels and conditions are a nightmare. During commute hours or whenever a bridge is raised it becomes gridlock.

The present situation is dangerous, impeding emergency vehicles and forcing delivery vehicles to double park. So many parking spaces have been lost other vehicles also resort to double parking.

Not only are the parklets extremely ugly and dangerous they also impact on the feeder streets which were not designed to withstand such heavy traffic.

I respectfully urge the council to refrain from making the current street configuration permanent.

Many thanks
Diana Tweddale
Sent from my iPhone
From: Mike Lindstedt
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] City Council Agenda, Item 7B
Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 1:39:39 PM
I am writing this letter in regards to Parklets on Park St and Webster St.

These parklets were constructed during the early days of the pandemic as a result of the City Council quite appropriately declaring a state of emergency. The business community was then experiencing a significant decrease in profitability as a result of the pandemic and burdensome government-imposed regulations, and owners turned to the City for help. In addition to the City gifting money to business owners, they also allowed business to avoid complying with certain safety regulations such as the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which includes a set of regulations to protect the public from harmful and dangerous effects of projects sanctioned by state and local governments.

Most Alameda residents appreciated this action by the City as these were not normal times and we needed these urgent actions to by-pass time consuming approval requirements, something small-businesses cannot cope with. However, most Alamedans considered this only as a temporary measure to insure the vibrancy of our business community. Now it is our understanding that with the passing of this emergency, somehow the Parklets are exempt from CEQA as this 'Emergency' modification constituted only minimal changes from the then existing environment.

Although not a fan of burdensome government regulation, in this case CEQA evaluation is essential to insure that this project is subjected to a critical evaluation regarding its potential harm to Alameda and its residents, as would any project of this type.

Obviously this has resulted in the two main thoroughfares in Alameda being so congested that it is no longer acceptable and quite dangerous to everyone who uses them. We have seen potential disasters in the making -- Fire trucks, ambulances and police cars and other emergency vehicles at a standstill, unable to navigate through this maze of congested traffic. Most residents in Alameda preferred that Park Street and Webster Street be returned to their pre-pandemic configurations. We can no longer tolerate the avoidance of having a critical evaluation of this project.

Mike Lindstedt

From: donscroggins
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] City Council agenda Item 7B
Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 11:29:47 AM
The purpose of this letter is to point out reasons Webster St. and Park St. should be returned ronrheir regular configurations. Since I live in the West End, I will focus on Webster St.

1. Access and egress: The Tube is the only access point for one-half of the island. It should remain a four lane thoroughfare for traffic flow off and on the island.

2. Emergency and commercial vehicles: Webster is the only wide street between Grand Ave. and Main Street. Emergency vehicles use it regularly for that reason. Parallel streets are not wide enough for emergency and commercial vehicles. Throughout the day there will be sudden episodes of congestion where the lanes on Webster have been reduced, usually taking one or two light changes for the congestion to clear. Twice I have observed ambulances forced to a complete stop, w no room for maneuverability. Such delays could cost lives. There is no alternative route.

3. Businesses and parking: When they reconfigured Webster they took out 42 parking spaces and replaced them w 16 fifteen.minute zones. There is little off street parking and no garage.

In addition, the parklets, which restaurants and bars may like, reduce visibility of other businesses from the street. I know two business owners who closed because of these two issues - lack of visibility and lack of parking.

4. Ambiance: it looks like shit. Meandering white lines, dirty plastic poles, parklets without many standards. I do not see the attraction.

5. Process: I do not trust your process. This configuration, and other transportation policies, have been favored by the City Council majority for a long time. You used the pandemic as an excuse to exercise dictatorial powers to implement these policies without voter approval, or the usual processes. Now you have set it up as if your configuration is the 'status quo' and we should have to prove why it should be returned to the original configuration, even though the 'emergency' is over.

Please.get over your own personal ideology and look at how many people are negatively affected vs the relatively small number of people who benefit.

Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S10e, an AT&T 5G Evolution capable smartphone From: GianLuca Jacoli
To: Lara Weisiger
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: RE: Congestion Solutions
Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 9:11:22 AM
In theory one could argue that the toll would lessen the number of patrons to the small businesses.

That being said I think it is important to first do an analysis on traffic counts. Figure out where the traffic is going. For example, on Park Street a lot of that traffic is headed to the Beach. It would be interesting to know how many people are going to the beach vs how many people are going to eat and dine on park street. You’d also want to analyze the price of the toll and its impact on traffic depending on the amount of said toll.

The bottom line is we can’t have it all. We can’t continue to build more housing on a land constrained island + have nonresidents pour in without destroying Alameda’s historical residential layout. Alameda is a suburban paradise. People move here to raise a family in a quiet and safe town.

Most young families moved here from SF so they could raise a family in peace. We are know3n for our safety, our plethora of parks, our charming historical architecture. It is a family town. Alameda should not be treated as a commercial and development playground. Alameda is not going to solve California’s housing problems; we’re an island we don’t have the capacity to do so. It’s a two-fold problem, incoming traffic from outside and also continual adding of density inside our borders. It’s unsustainable unless we want to live in a town where we are all stacked on top of one another.

Rather than taking it out on mom-and-pop businesses, and taking away a handful of outdoor dining areas, focus on the core issues at hand. The taking away of outdoor dining ill not solve your problems.

Let small businesses continue to thrive. Don’t penalize them for congestion. Fix congestion at its core while also increasing City revenue by issuing a toll on all bridges and tunnels, including the Bay Farm Bridge for nonresidents. This should increase revenue immensely and give Alameda the ability to take on more needed projects.

Thank you,

Gianluca Jacoli
From: GianLuca Jacoli
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Congestion Solutions
Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 8:53:14 AM
Rather than take away small business’ ability to have out-door dinning, I think instead protecting Alameda business and residents is a priority. I would instead implement a toll to come across the bridge. Residents have a discounted or free pass and non-residents have to pay a toll. This would both lower congestion and would increase City revenue for other projects while also protecting small businesses.

We live on an island where we continue to build more and more. Congestion is unescapable. Don’t target small businesses. Instead reduce overall traffic of nonresidents coming in with a toll. Use the revenue to take non new necessary projects.

Best,

Gianluca Jacoli
From: [email protected]
To: CityCouncil-List
Subject: [EXTERNAL] parklets
Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 8:19:02 AM
Dear Mayor & City Council members;
I now rarely drive/park/shop on Park Street or Webster Street, due to the hodge- podge of parklets. These structures appear to be rarely used and are an eyesore.

I'm glad they helped businesses stay afloat during peak covid times, but that time is over.

Please remove them and clean up this mess!
Thank you,
Lynn Wilton
From: Ken Langford
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Park Street Parklets and Traffic Congestion Date: Sunday, November 5, 2023 7:56:30 PM
I would like to register my opposition to continuing to have parklets and the revised traffic lanes on Park Street. I understand that a temporary solution was needed during the pandemic, but the continued reduction in street parking and traffic flow are horrible.

In addition to traffic flow and parking concerns, the visual appeal of Park Street has deteriorated and the charm of seeing storefront businesses is gone.

Please vote to return Park Street to its pre-pandemic configuration! Sincerely,
Ken Langford
Sent from my iPhone
From: C Charette
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Parklets on Park and Webster
Date: Sunday, November 5, 2023 9:51:47 AM
I vote to remove the parklets and agree with Mr Finkle’s book, err….letter. It’s time to get our streets back so traffic can flow better. The parklets look like homeless shelters. Who would want to shop here? And while you are at it, look at the backups created on Otis going West because of the right turn only lane onto Park. I won’t write a book. I just want to say, this is not working well.

Claudia Charette
1 Bordwell Ct
Alameda
From: Ellen Chesnut
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Park and Webster Streets
Date: Sunday, November 5, 2023 5:32:14 AM
Dear City Council Members of Alameda,
Good Sunday morning. I am in favor of getting rid of any and all obstructions on our historic streets of Park and Webster. Aside from our own residents, we are getting so many visitors to our wonderful city and we do not need any obstructions as people enter and exit Alameda and go
about their business.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,
Ellen Chesnut
From: Kris Motola
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] City Council Item 7B
Date: Saturday, November 4, 2023 7:52:13 PM
Council Members,
In the 10+ years we have lived on the island, traffic was generally predictable until the last few years when so many new units were built and, inexplicably, cross town major thoroughfares were reduced from 4 lanes to 2 (Otis and now Encinal) along with extreme bulbouts on major corners restricting right turns, resulting in a further backing up of traffic. The combination of the city council adding 1,000s of housing units and restricting traffic has resulted in a terrible increase in cross town congestion. For a council set on reducing carbon footprint this is an odd way of acting. Much more emissions result from cars stuck in traffic which also results in much much more aggressive driving, which we have all witnessed. I strongly recommend the council avoid any further lane, traffic, or turning restrictions. The results are in from your previous acts, and they are increased congestion, angrier drivers and decreased quality of life (including pedestrians which have to deal with the increased aggression of drivers).

Thanks,
Kris
From: James Johnston (mail)
To: CityCouncil-List; City Clerk
Cc: Transportation
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public comment & proposal regarding Park Street restriping Date: Saturday, November 4, 2023 2:00:11 PM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
Hi,

My public comment is about the Park Street restriping agenda item on Nov 7.  At minimum, this plan has too much parking and not enough parklets.  The general design might be fantastic for many other Alameda streets, and is typical of the great job the city has done in recent years to improve the safety and accessibility of active transportation within our city.  However, Park Street is a very special place, and we need to think much bigger than this for the long term, and use our imaginations here.  Please transform Park Street into a pedestrianized mecca for outdoor dining and shopping. The small number of parking spaces that can ever exist on Park St will always be a tiny fraction of the total available nearby parking, and thus they are superfluous & should largely be removed, not preserved.

Most areas of Park Street should look something like this:

Link: https://streetmix.net/mail-5652/1/park-street-promenade-primary-layout

If AC Transit bus lanes could be done in a way such that there is only one lane most of the time, with periodic two lane passing zones / sidings (similar to how single-track train routes have sidings to allow for trains to pass each other), then this would be even more compelling:

Link: https://streetmix.net/mail-5652/3/park-street-promenade-one-lane-bus

In summary, notice that:

Through traffic has been eliminated, with only AC Transit or other special vehicles passing through.

The vast majority of parking has been eliminated (with exception of a limited number of accessible spaces, as noted below)
Bike lanes are at sidewalk level.

The parklets have been promoted to permanent outdoor dining areas at sidewalk level and are wider and more spacious than the previously proposed parklets.

Obviously, this entails significant changes to the existing curbs & sidewalks, so this is a long-term vision & will surely require additional funding.

This will entail a number of controversial yet transformative steps that would be necessary to reform Park St:

First and foremost: no ordinary through traffic on Park Street! We don’t need to sacrifice the full potential of one of our core restaurant and shopping districts to the automobile.

They present constant safety hazards and stress that detract from the pedestrian experience.  Tasks as simple as crossing the street to check out an interesting-looking business on the other side becomes an ordeal.

It’s loud.  Automobiles are one of the largest contributors of noise in the urban environment (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTV-wwszGw8).  Constant noise has been shown to be bad for our health.  And in the status quo, diners sit only inches away from traffic moving at speeds fast enough to seriously injure and kill: while diners may be significantly protected by moveable barriers, the experience is disconcerting and unpleasant and creates constant low-level stress for customers because our bodies instinctively sense danger.  Parklets would instead be far more pleasant to dine in if the cars were gone! The exhaust gas emissions smell bad and are unhealthy, further contributing to a negative experience for pedestrians.

There are other areas on the island to travel by private motor vehicle.  We live near Southshore, and we have always explicitly avoid Park Street when driving our own vehicle off the island, instead preferring to use the western tunnels, Broadway/Tilden/Fruitvale Ave, or Doolittle Drive as appropriate based on the destination.  These roads are more adapted for that purpose.  Allowing through traffic on Park Street is not necessary to get on & off the island.

The ONLY traffic allowed on Park Street would be:

AC Transit.  While the ideal would be a European-style grassy train bed for a tram, realities would dictate that we need to continue to work with the bus system that we have, AC Transit.

Non-through traffic with disabled placards (strictly enforced!), as further described below.

Business loading/unloading, but this must be kept at an absolute minimum.

Emergency vehicles
Some creative thinking would be needed in order to gate traffic to Park Street.  More permanent slow street style barriers present one option: block the right lane going into the slow area, forcing traffic through a single lane to enter/exit the space.  Permanent bollards that retract into the pavement could be another option, although it might only work for specific authorized vehicles, like AC Transit or permitted business vehicles (i.e. tourists with disabled placards wouldn’t have an easy way to lower these).

Loading zones for businesses must be in the rear of the building or on side streets as much as possible.  This is for their own good, because such activities are inherently disruptive to a pedestrianized outdoor dining and shopping experience.  Fewer people will want to shop at their businesses if there is excessive loading/unloading activity.  If there is space behind a business to load the day’s food supplies, ordinary merchandise, etc. then that is what needs to preferred.  If there is a special circumstance, like loading/unloading large/bulky equipment, construction, etc. that cannot be done any other way, then of course it could be permitted: vehicles could park in a travel lane if necessary for this purpose.

The only street parking must be a limited number of disabled parking spots. OTHERWISE, ABSOLUTELY NO STREET PARKING FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC.

AC Transit would continue to provide service on Park St, and the pedestrian/bicycle network as proposed by the Active Transportation Plan would provide many excellent routes for arriving.

Additional BikeLink lockers should be installed, but perhaps not on Park St itself beyond some smaller installations.  Most bike parking should go on side streets so that space for businesses and landscaping is not sacrificed.  The current locker location in the dungeon of the parking garage is not the best place.

For those who choose to drive to Park St, Alameda provides a large parking garage adjacent to Park St, numerous nearby surface parking lots, and nearby street parking on side streets.

Studies would undoubtedly show that most customers to Park St businesses are already utilizing the above methods, because common sense says there just aren’t enough street parking spaces on Park St to accommodate the many customers I see patronizing Park St businesses Friday evening.

Disabled users with disability placards/license plates who are stopping at destinations on Park Street could be permitted to use a limited number of accessible-only parking spaces.  This would be an improvement over the status quo, where they must compete with ordinary non-disabled drivers for parking.  On the other hand, a pedestrianized space would also be a significant improvement for disabled users who cannot drive at all.  The end result will be more accessible to all than the status quo, where accessible users who arrive via any method find themselves competing for space with non-disabled motor vehicle drivers.

Here is what the street could look like for an accessible parking space:
https://streetmix.net/mail-5652/2/park-street-promenade-accessible-parking

Prior to COVID, the existing road frequently had 6 lanes for motor vehicles: 2 parking lanes and 4 travel lanes.

These lanes could be utilized instead as follows. The key differentiator here is that today’s outermost parking/parklet lanes permanently transition to 100% dedicated to sidewalks and businesses – unlike the proposed restriping plan.

1.  The old outermost parking lane is raised to sidewalk elevation and permanently becomes part of the sidewalk.

A new curb would be built further inwards in the street.  Effectively, we are widening the sidewalk.

2.  The next lane is also largely raised to sidewalk level.  However, there could also be a limited number of disabled parking spaces (perhaps 3 to 4 per block?).  The idea is that the vast majority of this lane truly becomes dedicated to sidewalk pedestrians, but can still accommodate disabled drivers.  Chicanes could be used to include parking spaces on both sides of the street, similar to the recently-discarded Grand St proposal.

3.  Narrow travel lane for AC Transit & other permitted vehicles.  Although jay walking in California was recently legalized, there should still be multiple raised crosswalks with automated yellow warning signal lights as needed so that pedestrians feel comfortable crossing these lanes at nearly any location mid-block. a.  The travel lane can also be used as parking for a loading zone for unusual circumstances, as noted above.

The low traffic volume means that the parked trucks can be safely passed by other permitted vehicles. b.  There would be no turn lanes.

4.  Narrow travel lane for AC Transit & other permitted vehicles (opposite direction)…. if we really have to. a.  An interesting exploration would be if a single lane could be used for AC Transit in both directions, with periodic “sidings” that allow vehicles to pull over & pass each other, similar to how trains pass each other on single track.  With more advanced traffic signals and/or vehicle tracking this could be a safe reality.  It would maximize the space we can dedicate to pedestrians!

5.  Bidirectional bicycle track that is (a) at the level of the sidewalk , not the motor vehicle lanes, (b) significant
physical barriers protecting them from the travel lane, (c) lesser barriers to caution pedestrians from blindly entering the cycle track.
a.  Alternative: single direction protected bicycle lanes, at sidewalk level, if space permits. b.  Alternative: more dedicated sidewalk/pedestrian space!  Bicycles would instead utilize the main vehicle travel lanes & share with busses.  However, a nearby example provides a cautionary tale: San Francisco’s Market St is still a higher stress space for cyclists sharing the lane with a bus, even though they closed the street to ordinary through traffic.  The ideal we should strive for is that a family with young children should feel comfortable riding to/on Park Street.

6.  Again, the old outermost parking lane is similarly raised to sidewalk elevation.

This proposal would see the street elevated to sidewalk level at widths of up to 25 to 30 feet or more on each side of the bus travel lanes!  For comparison, San Francisco’s Market Street has similar measurements for their sidewalks.

However, unlike San Francisco’s Market St, let’s make the most out of these greatly widened sidewalks by filling them in. Here are some ideas of how to use the space:

Permanent outdoor dining areas for use by Alameda’s many excellent restaurants.  These spaces could be dedicated to individual restaurants (e.g. for table service), and/or common dining areas shared by multiple restaurants (e.g. for fast casual service).

Standalone pop-up vendors
Stores could show off some of their wares on the street.

Attractive landscaping/hardscaping to fill in the gaps, like planters, trees, grassy areas, and so on.

Minimum of actual sidewalk space to connect these areas: the space should feel constricted enough that the space feels “exciting” and “busy” for expected pedestrian traffic, but not so constricted that people can’t get anywhere or that it is unsafe.

At the end of the day, if the sidewalk is too wide and open and underutilized, it will just look sad.

This redesigned street would be deserving of a new name. Perhaps we could call it: “Park Street Promenade ”, or
“Alameda Park Promenade”, or perhaps a marketing firm can come up with a much better name than I can.  Give it a good name, even a new logo, because an attraction like this would become more popular to visit within the region!  Alameda would likely receive national attention for taking bold steps like this.  Consider that Santa Barbara is successfully doing something similar with their State Street Promenade.  Santa Barbara promotes this on their website at https://santabarbaraca.com/explore-and-discover-santa-barbara/neighborhoods-towns/santa- barbara/downtown-santa-barbara/state-street-promenade/, and this year, my understanding is that they are working on more permanent plans for making over the street.  They have received national attention for taking these bold steps.

Some Park St business owners may be fearful of this change.  This is understandable: many small businesses operator on a razor’s edge of profitability, with little margin for error, and generally must be conservative in their approach.  However, I’d encourage them to be open to this proposal, and look at the numbers:

Business owners will have additional, permanent outdoor space that they can utilize. Effectively, they can grow their business without purchasing additional real estate, such as by adding additional tables to their restaurant to accommodate an even larger peak dining crowd.

The improved, quiet, low stress, outdoor environment will encourage visitors to come more often and spend more time.

These factors would more than compensate for the loss of one or two parking spaces in front of their business.

Most visitors who drive are undoubtedly already using parking elsewhere, unless the business only serves at most one or two customers at any given time.

Don’t just take my word for it: there are also studies that show the same thing: pedestrian and bicycle traffic is good for business!

The Netherlands Board of Tourism & Conventions recently released an AI-powered tool at https://dutchcyclinglifestyle.com/
where one can enter any address, and it will use the Google Street View image for that address along with AI to remake the street to “give it a touch of Dutch”.  On a whim, I tried putting in Park Street, and it produced an image with large, vegetated areas and sidewalks, as shown below.  Obviously it’s an imperfect AI- generated image (there is no space for AC Transit, for example), but the concept is intriguing!

I thought I’d stir the pot a bit, and post it to the well-known Alameda Peeps Facebook group.  The response was overwhelming positive, suggesting that a proposal like this would be welcomed by the community.  There were 53 likes, 29 hearts, 8 “wow”, and 1 “cares” emoji reactions to the images.  Clearly, I’m not the only one who would love to see a more bold long term vision!

Best regards,

James Johnston
From: robert mcbride
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] City council item 7B
Date: Saturday, November 4, 2023 9:16:49 AM
I’d like to give my view on item 7B
council.

You should return Park St to the pre-pandemic configuration 2 lanes.

The configuration now is so bad I won’t even
drive on Park St it’s terrible
I’m a resident of the City of Alameda since 1978
Thanks for your consideration
Robert McBride
From: Jeanne Allen
To: City Clerk; Malia Vella; Tracy Jensen; Trish Spencer; Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Tony Daysog Subject: [EXTERNAL] Regarding 7B parklets on public space Date: Saturday, November 4, 2023 7:34:58 AM
Mayor and city council,
There currently are approximately 12 parklets along Park St. and 2 along Santa Clara. 1 on Central. a whole section along Alameda Ave. They are taking up valuable parking spaces for the people that want to support the business on Park St. Are the adjacent businesses paying the approximately $15 per space per day for their personal use. Each parklet uses 2 to 3 parking spaces. Many of the parklets are hardly used. Safety is another concern. Wouldn't the city be liable for allowing these parklets to continue, should a car crash into anyone using a parklet?
Perhaps this is the time to make a change and open up Park St. and Webster so all of the citizens of Alameda can benefit.

Sincerely,
Jeanne Allen
From: James Hudkins
To: City Clerk; James Hudkins
Subject: [EXTERNAL] City Council Agenda, Item 7B
Date: Friday, November 3, 2023 10:46:27 PM
So much of the recent manipulations of Publicly owned and maintained City Streets is not of benefit to the majority of the residents. I feel very strongly that this is against the wellbeing of the public. The current parklets in Alameda and in other cities are being abandoned. Most restaurants are no longer using them. They should be removed.

The purpose of the city streets is for the traffic of cars. Secondary use is pedestrians. The lane reductions and Road Diets are an anti-social throttling of normal traffic. Look around anywhere and anytime. There is little bike traffic. There are some people on foot. There are many people driving cars. That is what people actually do. Even emergency vehicles drive.

We rarely see Police and not Firefighters on bikes. They are not practical.

Please return the configuration to the way it was before. It worked better than. Please have a vote or a survey open to everyone. I'd like to see some full expression of how the people feel and what we want. It would be a reflection of what we do, which is to drive.

Jim Hudkins
From: JOYCE SAAD
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Park and Webster St Configurations
Date: Friday, November 3, 2023 10:33:53 PM
I believe during the pandemic the current configurations worked well. They were a necessity THEN.

I find it impossible and dangerous to drive or park on Park St so I stopped doing it 3 years ago.

This week I met a disabled friend for lunch on Park St. It became apparent how dangerous it was for her to reach her private taxi
after lunch. There was no safe place for him to pull over and stop. She had to walk a long distance as the only place he could pull over was on Alameda Avenue. Two blocks for her was like walking 20 miles. It was slow and grueling and pained me to watch her.

We chose to eat inside because car exhaust on the street tables was not appealing.

I would consider MAYBE ONE parklet on Park Street between Central Ave and Alameda Avenue on the right side of the street (if your back was to the bridge) could be charming. More than that looks like clutter. The danger factor driving, parking, or getting in or out of a car and the challenges for the disabled far outweigh any advantages.

I think a good compromise would be to keep the tables out on Alameda Ave so that anyone who wishes can eat their take out there.

It's a wide street and it's not interfering with anything. Moreover, the city can allow restaurants to put one or two small tables on the sidewalk in front of the restaurants for diners who for health or other reasons choose to eat outside.

Please, please consider the residents' wishes. I don't know anyone who feels safe driving down Park St.

I have had to park several blocks away and walk with a swollen foot with painful tendonitis more times than I'd like to recall.

By the way, the parklets in Alameda have none of the charm of outdoor cafes in Paris where I lived earlier in my life.

It is one thing to be eating on a spacious sidewalk by a street with little traffic. It's another thing to be eating IN the street
with constant traffic, exhaust fumes and the noise of the vehicles. NOT CHARMING.

I don't go to Webster St as often, but I also avoid parking there.

Thank you,
Joyce R. Saad, Ph.D.

From: Janet Castro
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Item 7B
Date: Friday, November 3, 2023 8:11:18 PM
Mayor and City Council,
I would love to see all the parklets gone.

I think our Local Businesses on Park and Webster would get more business if parking was easier.

There is too much congestion on both Streets.

Thank you,
Janet Castro
Sent from my iPhone
From: Transportation
To: Hank Lindemann
Cc: City Clerk; Robert Vance; Lisa Foster
Subject: Parklets Correspondence: 11/07 Council Mtg, Item 7B Date: Friday, November 3, 2023 11:21:31 AM
Hello Hank Lindemann,
Thank you for taking the time to write up your comments. We will share them with the City Council, as part of the correspondence for the parklets/restriping agenda item on 11/07.

The restriping plans for Park St and Webster St are following the Council direction at their July 2023 meeting to keep the two lane configuration, with left turn pockets at intersections, on Park and Webster Streets.

Thank you, as well, for your additional comments on Clement/Sherman and the congestion on the island in general.

We will take these into consideration.

Thanks,
Rochelle
Rochelle Wheeler, Senior Transportation Coordinator, City of Alameda (she/her) 510-747-7442 | [email protected]
-----Original Message-----
From: Hank Lindemann <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, November 3, 2023 6:39 AM
To: Transportation <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Parklets, reduced and restricted travel on major thoroughfares, bump out crossings Hopefully you are dumping the pallet parking, restoring 4 lanes and relieving the congestion created by choking down lanes at Lincoln through Park street and recreating flow and sustainable traffic for safety and carbon reduction.

If so we all thank you!!
PS
THE BUMPOUTS ARE ONLY PUT TRAFFIC and rear view mirrors AN INCH AWAY FROM ONES FACE, AND THE FIRST STEP KILLS! Be smart!
Sherman and Clement eastbound… cut the island in half so there is a turn lane for Sherman sand all the central bound cars backed up to the park can make a right!
Please fix flow and no bike bridge unless we are adding four traffic lanes!!! Get Fed Money and build a bridge like Coranado Island over the Port to 880, 80 and 24.

No more stack and packs!!
Hank
From: Transportation
To: Pat Cronin
Cc: Robert Vance; City Clerk
Subject: Parklets Correspondence: 11/07 Council Mtg, Item 7B Date: Friday, November 3, 2023 11:15:26 AM
Hello Pat Cronin,
Thank you for taking the time to write up your comments. We will share them with the City Council, as part of the correspondence for this agenda item.

Thanks,
Rochelle
Rochelle Wheeler, Senior Transportation Coordinator, City of Alameda (she/her) 510-747-7442 | [email protected]
-----Original Message-----
From: Pat Cronin <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, November 2, 2023 6:33 PM
To: Transportation <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL]
Why would you put concrete barriers when cars are bumping into the plastic ones, making them all scraped and dirty. Think about how many cars will be scraped trying to navigate around them! Doesn’t make much sense. And the plastic pillars that are also all scraped and ugly cause cars to go into oncoming traffic lanes to get by them.

Those two things, plus the dirty sandbags holding the barriers for the slow streets are making this look like a filthy, poor city. Not cute, not quaint!
Slow streets have really outlived their usefulness. I see bicyclists on car streets, with a bike street one block over.

Parks are open, so should the streets be open.

Sent from my iPhone

October 27, 2023
RE: Item 7B – City Council Agenda – November 7, 2023
To the City Council and Staff of the City of Alameda:

As you prepare to put the final nails in your wildly unpopular plan to make permanent the ill-conceived modifications of Park Street and Webster Street it would be appropriate for the public to review its history, especially as it was developed without allowing for, let alone accepting, even a modicum of input from the city’s residents.

As I recall, it all started during the early days of the pandemic when you, the City Council, quite appropriately declared a state of emergency which allowed you to take not only appropriate actions to mitigate the anticipated potential harm that might result from the pandemic, but also to engage in questionably appropriate activities in support of special interests by enacting Urgency Ordinances, one of which allowed you to avoid having to comply with certain safety regulations such as CEQA, the California Environmental Quality Act, an act which had generated a set of regulations for the purpose of protecting the public and the environment from the potentially harmful effects of projects sanctioned by state and local government staff and elected officials.

The business community was then experiencing a significant decrease in profitability as the impact of the pandemic and the effects of the various government-imposed restrictions were becoming increasingly burdensome, and some owners turned to the City for help. The City Council, in response to their pleas, initiated a program which gifted a total of more than $600,000 divided among a selected group of business owners. The funds were taken from the city treasury and were treated not as low- interest, deferred-repayment, or even no-interest loans, but as gifts without any obligation for repayment. Unfortunately for the residents of Alameda, your largesse didn’t end there.

Senior City Staff were championing the concept of allowing businesses to expand their operations onto our streets as was being done in a few other communities. This was being done primarily to benefit restaurant operations that were being hurt by the new regulations that prohibited patrons from gathering and being served inside restaurants. It is our understanding that such projects in most other communities were employing streets much wider than Alameda’s which, therefore, would have caused only a minor, if any, impact on traffic flow. What was different here in Alameda was that such encroachment of business operations into our streets meant creating a significant throttling effect on traffic flow on two of our major thoroughfares, Park Street and Webster Street.

As a result of the closure of schools, the increased practice of working from home, and various other pandemic-related policies and recommendations, traffic on our streets had become negligible, and initially the throttling effect on Park Street and Webster Street wasn’t noticeable. As the pandemic abated, however, and the restrictive regulations were being rescinded, traffic flow increased to such a degree that the project’s throttling effect on these two major streets could no longer be ignored. In fact, the congestion has grown to such a degree that it is now not uncommon to witness fire trucks and ambulances idling, especially on Park Street, while they wait for frantic drivers to do their best to clear the way for them. This hazardous impediment to traffic flow resulting from the barrier effect of the parklets, cars parked in what was previously the curb-side traffic lane, vehicles temporarily stopped to drop off and pick up passengers and double parked delivery trucks cannot be overstated.

One can only assume that you, the members of the City Council, and senior City Staff could not help but be aware that your Commercial Streets project would create a more hazardous environment along both Park Street and Webster Street, and for the City as a whole. Had you not put an Urgency Ordinance in place, a CEQA evaluation would have been required, and the City and its residents would have been protected from the project’s dangerous consequences. The review, without a doubt, would have found that your proposed modifications would have created a more hazardous environment, and you would have had to abandon your proposed project.

But these weren’t normal times. By enacting your project as an Urgency Ordinance you, with the approval, or at least acquiescence, of the City Attorney, were able to claim that your project was exempt from the requirement for a CEQA review which you certainly had to understand would not only delay implementation of your plans, but in all likelihood the expected findings of the evaluation would have prohibited you from ever proceeding with them. Following this manipulation which allowed you to avoid undergoing a CEQA evaluation for the initial phase of the project, when the “emergency” had passed and the several restrictions had expired or been rescinded, it would not have been even remotely reasonable for you to enact your proposed expansion as an Urgency Ordinance in order to again claim exemption from CEQA. For this round, the ever cleaver powers that be claimed exemption from CEQA employing the argument that the extended project’s additional modifications constituted only minimal changes from the then existing environment. This specious argument was accepted by the City Attorney, notwithstanding the fact that the initial modifications had never been subjected to, let alone been approved, through the process of a CEQA review. Once again you were allowed to proceed with a project without its ever being subjected to a critical evaluation regarding its potential for causing harm.

Bottom line here is that you, our city’s leaders, have been able to proceed to create a more hazardous environment for the residents of Alameda by simply taking advantage of loop holes in the regulations thus skirting the requirement for a CEQA review, the very same regulations that were put in place to protect us from what I, and many other residents of this city, would consider to be reckless malfeasance on the part of individuals who had been elected to ensure the safety of their constituency .

Adding to this insult is the fact that when polled unofficially, the majority of responding residents were not in favor of continuing your Commercial Streets project. In fact, the majority of residents preferred that Park Street and Webster Street be returned to their pre-pandemic configurations. In this regard, over the past two years you have repeatedly been asked to take a statistically significant survey of the public’s opinion and preferences regarding your Commercial Streets project. All this time, you have undoubtedly known from your personal questioning of friends and acquaintances that the public does not support your Commercial Streets plans, and because of your certainty of the unfavorable outcome, you have steadfastly refused to initiate a formal survey of the public as this would have resulted in a statement of the public’s displeasure with your behavior being immortalized in the public record.

There can be no mistaking. Yours is not a minor undertaking such as planting a few additional trees along our streets. You are endeavoring to modify Alameda in a major fashion that I believe will, in all likelihood, sooner or later result in our experiencing serious unfortunate consequences.

To be certain, I don’t expect this message to have any noticeable effect on your plan to proceed with expanding and making permanent your Commercial Streets project, its attendant hazards notwithstanding. I am simply seeking to put on the record this sorry history of your project including the history of the manipulation on the part of government officials that made proceeding with the project possible despite there being regulations which, had their spirit been honored, would have protected the residents of Alameda from what I can see only as malfeasance on the part of the City’s officials.

The Commercial Streets project makes Alameda’s environment more hazardous. It is being put into effect without allowing for or seeking any meaningful input from the residents of the City. What is even more egregious is that the only beneficiaries of the project will be a few members of the business community who now will have permanent access to the use of the public streets for the sole purpose of expanding their operations and, of course, the contractors and their employees who are, and will be, doing the work.

Who won’t be benefiting are the residents of Alameda.

Jay Garfinkle