City Council - Regular Meeting

All right. Are we ready in the balcony? All right. I don't care if staff is ready. The balcony is ready. And we've got a quorum, right? OK. So we've got lots to cover. Well, at least some really, I mean, everything's important, right? But we just don't want to waste any time. So I am going to call this meeting to order. Good evening, everyone, and welcome. to the city council meeting tonight is june 2nd 2026 and we are about to go into closed session i just want to take a minute before we go into closed session to say june 2nd is also election day If you have not delivered your ballot to either a polling place or that ballot drop box outside City Hall on Oak Street or the College of Alameda or the Bay Farm Branch Library, drop everything, grab that ballot, go do it now. You have until 8 o'clock. It is your solemn duty as an American citizen to vote. So please, your voice is your vote. Make it heard. Vote. So with that, Madam Clerk, could we please have a roll call? I'll step down off my soapbox.

Council Member Spoler. Briefly. Here. Pryor. Here. Mayor Ezzy Ashcroft.

Here.

Three present, and hopefully Council Members Dasog and Jensen will be here shortly.

Have you heard from either of them? No. Okay.

I can reach out.

That would be great. Okay. Madam Clerk, do we have any speakers on the consent calendar? We have none. OK, we will then move on to item 2A on the consent calendar. Could you please introduce that item?

So 2A is designating the negotiators for 1701 Monarch Street, which is building 29. And it's with Longshot Space Technologies Corporation.

OK, and so what I'm looking for is a motion and a second, like instantaneously, to approve Adam Paltz, your interim city manager, Abigail Soren Lyman, base for use in economic development, Director Alicia Strauch, base for use manager, Ada Wong, executive vice president. Everyone listed on this agenda item to be the negotiators. Do I have a motion?

So moved.

Move by Vice Mayor Pryor, seconded by Council Member Bowler. All those in favor signify by stating aye. Aye. Aye. That motion carries. And so we did do a little flip of the items. We are actually going to take item 4B first, then we'll do 4A, and then we'll do 4C. So Madam Clerk, could you please introduce the closed session items and in the order that we're going to take them?

Yes.

Thank you.

4B is conference with legal counsel existing litigation pursuant to government code section 949569A. The case name is City of Alameda versus Greenway Golf Associates Inc. The court is Alameda County Superior Court. Case number is 22CV011964. 4A is comments with real property negotiators pursuant to government code section 549568. Property is 1701 Mark Street, building 29 at Alameda Point. The city negotiators are the interim city manager, base reuse and economic development director, base reuse manager, assistant city attorney, and Jones. Sorry. Ada Wong from Jones Lang LaSalle. And the negotiating parties are the City of Alameda and Longshot Space Technologies. Under negotiation are price in terms of lease. And foresee public employee performance evaluation pursuant to government code section 54957. Positions evaluated are city attorney and city clerk.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. So at this time, I'd like all staff and non-staff who are involved in item 4B related to Greenway Golf and Associates or the City of Alameda versus Greenway Golf and Associates to join us in the room behind council chambers. And we'll call the next item as it comes up. And to the public, we intend to be back before you at 7 o'clock this same evening. Thank you so much. Go vote. Hello, everyone. We have just come out of closed session. Give us five minutes, and we'll be back before you. Don't go away unless you haven't voted yet, and then get yourself immediately to the voter drop box or a voting location.

OK. We'll be back.

are we ready in the balcony as if they're always ready in the balcony okay as promised it is 7 0 5 and we are back before you good evening everyone and welcome to the city council meeting for the city of alameda tonight is tuesday june 2nd 2026 and um Before I even get into that, I just want to state that it's 7.06, and it's also election day. So if you are a registered voter in California, and for some reason have not yet voted, You need to get to, if you've got your ballot with you, just take it right outside to the drop box on Oak Street at Santa Clara. There's a couple of voting locations actually on Central Avenue, not far from here. But you must vote. So please, please honor your civic duty to do so. In the meantime, the council has just returned from a closed session. And I would like to ask the council the city clerk to please report on any actions taken in closed session. City Clerk Lara Weisiger.

Thank you. So for item 4A, which was real property negotiations for building 29, staff provided information and council provided direction by five I's. And for item 4B, which was litigation of the Greenway case. The city council authorized the city attorney to execute a settlement agreement with Greenway where the parties would bear their own costs, work to revise the lease between the parties to clarify certain provisions such as audit and green fees, and the pending litigation was dismissed. This item also carried by Five Eyes. And then my understanding is council will return into closed session for the last item, 4C, which was evaluations.

That is correct. Thank you for that, Madam Clerk. And so with that, I will adjourn the special city council meeting, the closed session. And I will call to order the special joint meeting of the city council and successor agency to the community improvement commission, which was once known as the redevelopment agency. And we start with the Pledge of Allegiance, and I'd like to ask my council colleague, Greg Bowler, to please lead us in the pledge. Please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you, Council Member Bowler. Madam Clerk, would you call the roll, please?

Council Members Bowler? Here. Dasog? Here. Jensen? Here. Pryor? Here. Mayor Eziashcraft?

Here.

Five present.

Thank you. And we move on to the consent calendar. And again, this is the consent calendar just for this special meeting of the successor agency. And the consent calendar routine items that are approved by one motion unless council members or commissioners remove the items for discussion. Do we have any ‑‑ do we take public comment on this? Yes, we do. Where exactly is that on the agenda?

Oh, the public comment? Yeah. Yeah, it's just like any consent calendar, public comments allowed. Yeah, but we usually never have any on this section. Do we have any? No, we don't.

OK, we'll close public comment. And any questions or comments, counsel, on, again, the successor agency consent calendar?

Oh, and Madam Mayor, if I might, just to note, there is a public hearing that's establishing the Prop 4 appropriations limit for fiscal year 26-27 and adoption of a related resolution for the Proposition 4 limit. So this item, it is a hearing. And if there were speakers, now would have been the time for them to comment. So thank you.

Perfect. Thank you for that. OK.

I just have one comment.

Yes, Council Member Jensen.

Thank you. Just to point out and appreciate that the city of Alameda is well under the GAN limit, which is the limit for expenditures established by Proposition 4, and this isn't the case for all cities in California. So thank you.

Thank you for that. Okay. So what I'm looking for is a motion and a second to approve the consent calendar for the successor agency item. It's moved by Vice Mayor, okay, by Council Member Jensen. I think I saw Vice Mayor Pryor's hand up to second. All right. All those in favor, please signify by stating aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. All right. And then also on this special joint meeting is agenda item 3A. And Madam Clerk, would you introduce that item while whoever the staff that are presenting make their way up to the podium, please?

Thank you adoption of resolutions approving and adopting the mid-cycle changes to the city of Alameda budget for fiscal years 2627 excluding the operating budget amendment for the rent program And adoption version approving workforce changes and amending the management and confidential Employee Association salary schedule and amending this Alameda City Employee Association salary schedule in fiscal year 2627 effective July 1st 2026

Thank you and welcome.

Good evening, Madam Mayor and City Council. My name is Ekaterina Burton, and I am the budget manager. And I will be giving you a brief presentation for this particular item. So I want to start off, as always, with the City Council's strategic priorities here, which guided the budget process. And now, just want to remind everyone about what was given as council direction at the May 5th budget workshop. In regards to the fiscal year 26-27 mid-cycle budget, council directed to add a parking technician who is offset by revenue. Council directed to add four police officers. And the other major change council added was to convert the following full-time positions to part-time equivalents. And we do want to note that all new positions are to be reviewed by the new city manager before any actions are taken. This table right here shows those full-time positions being converted to their part-time equivalents. So you all have a sense of what that totals to in terms of savings. And then in terms of the overview of where the mid-cycle budget is after council direction, we do want to continue to iterate that the city is in a stable but tight financial position. In terms of the general fund budget, $159 million is for expenditures. That is both ongoing and one time. And the revenue budget is $158 million. And again, that is ongoing and one time. As was mentioned in the May workshop, the aquatic center construction bid has increased costs by $5 million and will be coming to your consideration at the next council meeting in June. And so we wanted to show you where we anticipate the ending residual fund balance to be, basically at $9.7 million with the aquatic center increase included. These next two tables are just going over at a high level what is in our general fund budget. First, we're going over revenues. So you can see the types of revenues broken down here. And again, this is both ongoing and one time. This table right here goes over the expenditure costs and how they are divvied up by department. And as you can see, fire and police have the lion's share of the general fund budget. And we shared this slide at the May 5th budget workshop, but just again want to reiterate to council and the public that the city is beginning to see the beginning of a difference between our revenues and our expenditures, where our revenues are being outpaced by our expenditures. We do want to... Remind you all that there are upcoming budget costs that we are expecting that will be factoring into the biennial budget. So we are still in a process of continuing to try to make the best financial decisions for the city that ensure the city's long term So in terms of next steps, before you all, we are wanting to, you know, per the staff report, bring back the decision of whether to convert part-time positions to full-time positions after completing the five-year forecast. And for tonight, your next step is to approve and adopt the budget and workforce changes as proposed in the staff report. So if there are any questions, please give them to us now, and I'll answer them, or Finance Director McCarthy will answer them.

I have a couple of questions. Thank you, and whomever can answer them. So I think there was some passing reference to this, but I think it needs more attention. We are all waiting with bated breath to see if this measure that has gotten enough signatures to be placed on the November ballot, and I'm not talking about the transit measure, I'm talking about the measure that would impact charter cities like ours and force a change in our ability to collect transfer tax. And the League of California Cities did a survey of charter cities in our region, the East Bay region, which are the... Well, I think they did it statewide, but we have more than a few charter cities, Alameda included. In the Bay Area, we stand to lose from our general fund anywhere between $10 and $18 million. And so... I am aware that there are negotiations going on in Sacramento as we speak to keep that measure off the ballot. But it will require some sort of a compromise. I'm not sure because I'm not in the room where it's happening. But I don't think that we can realistically and responsibly budget for money that might be taken out of our general fund. So that's more, you know, I didn't see Too much. I guess my question is, how are you all addressing that? Because it wasn't really highlighted. Just to say that transfer tax is volatile. It changes. But it could go away altogether.

Good evening. You want to introduce yourself? My name is Ross McCarthy, finance director. Thanks, Mayor. Yes, that is a great question. Ultimately, though, we do not deal in hypotheticals. I mean, we try to do our best. If that were to pass as a ballot measure in November, there would be significant changes that we'd have to make. So we'd have to come back to council no matter what. We're not presenting two budgets to you, one if it passes and one if it doesn't. We're just saying, hey, this is a hypothetical situation. We will deal with it if it comes.

OK, you might define hypothetical a little differently than I do. All right. I think that might be my only. And by the way, you're projecting transient occupancy tax to remain flat. And that's even with the Australian national team coming to Alameda.

Correct. I mean, it's a short-term, and half of it is this fiscal year, and half of it is next.

All right. That's all for me. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Other questions? Vice Mayor Pryor. Okay.

Yeah, I have questions. I'm going to – I think they're related. So – So on page six, it says the anticipated residual fund balance is expected to be 9.7, including the increase in the aquatic center. And so without the aquatic center, it would be $14 million. Last year, I thought it was a year ago, our ending residual balance was about $9 million. So now it looks like it's going to be $14 million. So it looks like it went up. But wait, don't hold that thought. However, on page 10, it says there is the, anticipated cost increases, and those add up to be $6 million. So could we, including the pool costs, say that our Like, if all of those things are true and the budgets, which has consistently been pretty close to target, that our actual ending balance could be about $3 million? Wait, 9.7 is about $10. So I'm just going to round up. $10 minus... Six, four million.

Anyway, did I do all that right? Yes. Thanks, Vice Mayor. So the $6 million is for the next biennial budget. So we were projecting out. So that's not to this mid-cycle budget that we're doing right now. We're doing the second half of last year's biennial budget. And so the $6 million is in anticipated cost. We know these costs are going to come. And so that is not projected in the ending fiscal balance or the estimated ending fiscal balance as of June 30, 2027. That's before the next biennial starts. So that's for the $6 million. As far as your first question was concerned, we had roughly 9 and 1 half or so in the last biennial budget. What we're asking now also is, to tap into our OPEB trust fund. I think it was on the slide that ECAT had presented, which is basically asking, we have one of those slides that ECAT was showing was basically showing our revenues growing at a slower pace than our expenditures. And as that gap widens, we need something to fill it. So either A, we need fund balance to fill it, or B, we have other pots of money that we can use in the short term. to fill that gap, and so we've asked for this biennial to dip into our pension trust fund, and we're asking for this mid-cycle budget coming up to dip into our OPEB trust fund, which has about 30 or 31 million dollars in it.

But just to be clear, if I could jump in, but only for uses authorized under the trust fund. Correct.

So the OPEB trust fund pays for the OPEB costs of the city, as does the pension trust fund. It goes towards our CalPERS unfunded actuarial liability, or UAL.

So in a year when we might have trouble making those payments out of our general fund, we can turn to the trust fund, correct?

Exactly.

OK. And you should keep that thought in mind when we talk about what hiring we want to approve now going forward, because we are dipping into our trust fund.

Yeah. And we see that gap widening between our expenses growing up at a steeper rate than our revenues. OK. Thank you.

Did you finish, Vice Mayor?

I did. Thank you.

Okay. Any other clarifying questions before we go for public comment? Council Member Daszak.

So on the OPEB and the other CalPERS funds, so the UAL you mentioned, so are you saying for the UAL, you know what the acronym is, that we're dipping into a trust fund that we created to pay for the normal costs that we should be paying. So typically, we should be setting aside roughly $7 million or so just to cover the annual bill that CalPERS gives us, right? Isn't that the case?

So the PSRP, or the pension rate stabilization policy, outlines what we can pull from our pension and OPEB trust funds, and we are doing that. So for our pension trust fund, we think our Actuarial UAL plus our normal costs will be around $30 million. And so we're going to be pulling $3.2 million. Sorry, the PSRP says we can pull up to 10% of our costs. of our required payments to CalPERS for our pension. And so we estimate to be around $30 million. So we're going to be pulling around $3 million from our pension trust. As far as the OPEB trust is concerned, we can pull what we need to cover OPEB costs, so the entire 100%. And so therefore, staff has recommended that we pull Roughly around $3.6 million. I think it might be $3.8 million from the OPEB trust. And then the safety officers do contribute to the OPEB trust during the year. And those contributions go roughly around $600,000. So the $600,000 from the ongoing contributions from our safety officers plus the $3.7 or $3.8 million will get us to our $4.4 million for the OPEB costs, which we're asking city council to approve tonight.

Okay, so let me just try to clarify. So several years ago, the city council had created a fund using a formula dealing with excess reserves. So some of that excess reserves went into a pot of money for CalPERS unfunded liabilities in the future, and another I think went to deal with OPEB. Now, those pots of monies are separate from what typically city council pays to CalPERS. I forgot if that's the normal or if that's the UAL. But it's usually $7 million. Are you saying that, let's just assume that the two trusts don't exist, that that $7 million that we normally pay when each year CalPERS says this is your bill, just focusing on CalPERS, are you saying that we can't make the typical $7 million so that instead we can only make $4 million? And in order to make up the difference, we are going to now grab from that separate retirement fund.

That trust fund? Yeah. If I'm understanding, let me take a step back here. Yes, about eight or nine years ago or so, we created the pension trust funds. We'll just talk pension and just talk helpers. Yeah, so the $7 million is roughly the normal cost, which is the cost that we match with the employees based off of whatever CalPERS needs us to pay that pay period or that year. And so those are the normal costs we're talking about. So the PSRP, or the Pension Rate Stabilization Policy, says, hey, if you have any extra money at the end of the day or at the end of the year, what we're going to do is before you put it all in the bank, we're going to take half of it and then put it in our trust fund, or pay down the UAL plus put it in our trust fund. Close. 75% UAL. But anyway, so yes, right now we are pulling from that 25% that we set aside. We're pulling $3.4 million from that trust fund.

OK. So what that tells me is because somehow we don't have enough revenues from our typical sources of revenues to pay for the $7 million. And in order to make up the difference, we have to pull from that separate nest egg.

Correct. You can see it like that. Yeah, I mean, we'd find a way, obviously, to pay it. But yes, we're using that to supplement our payments to CalPERS, yes. OK.

If I could follow up on council member Dakesluck's question, I do understand that expenses are growing faster than revenues and so I think you're trying to be proactive and prudent. What if we're in the same situation or worse next year? We keep drawing down.

Yeah, we'll keep drawing. I mean, there's got to be, like, that's the idea. I mean, ultimately, though, that's the idea of having this kind of trust fund to use. But yes, it would be the same thing. We would ask to be pulled from.

Yeah, I understand it quite well. I was the council member who brought the idea forward. And fortunately, the majority of my colleagues agreed, but it isn't as though it has a magic well underneath that keeps replenishing it. We replenish the trust fund. If we're having trouble meeting our basic expenses, it's probably safe to assume that we're also not adding to the trust fund.

Correct?

Yeah. OK. So then at some point, the balance is drawing down. It's drawing down. And at some point, it's gone. But have you stopped to think long range how you would approach that? Go ahead. Assistant City Manager Wooldridge.

Thank you, Mayor. Yeah, every year we are looking at that. And one thing we are planning on doing this summer and fall is a five-year budget forecast. And that also is another tool in our tool belt to really look forward at exactly the things you're talking about. Because no, we wouldn't be... And we are very responsible in what we bring to you and really thoughtful in that. And so we wouldn't just draw down until there's nothing left. We'd really be thoughtful about it. And if we were getting that dire of a situation, we would be looking and coming to you with recommendations of much more severe cuts in various areas of the organization before we empty our trust fund, for example.

Thank you for that. And I'll also note that our new city manager will be on board by this summer and certainly will have input. Did you have something where you wanted to add? OK. But again, everything that we just heard are things that the council should take into consideration when we decide what to approve or not approve tonight. But thank you for that information.

Council Member Bullard, did you have your hand up?

No. OK. Are there any public comments on this item, Madam Clerk?

First Mitch Ball and then Denise Trepanier.

OK. And is it just the two? Yes. OK. So you'll tell them their time and all those good things? Yeah. They get three minutes. All right.

Thank you.

Go ahead. Welcome, Speaker Ball.

Thank you. Within this mid-cycle update, there is one workforce change that clearly stands out amongst the rest. The increase from two to three parking technicians is expected to be fully self-funded because additional enforcement brings more money through ticket fines and increased meter compliance than it costs to hire. This is very unique to this role, and it's important that the city make financially sound hiring decisions such as this when asking the public to consider new taxes through a ballot bond measure. We should recognize why hiring more parking technicians is such a lucrative decision. Meter compliance is low, and illegal parking is frequent and uncommon. When I bike on Webster or Park, I typically get stuck behind an average of two illegally double parked cars in the bike lane that I have never once before seen ticketed. Those are each $79 with the new proposed master fee schedule. An enforcement technician could probably rack up $500 an hour for the city easily during peak times. But that money is simply left on the table if unenforced. Regardless of positive budget implications, the primary purpose of parking enforcement is to have properly functioning roads, which is why parking enforcement is as universally popular as it is. While sometimes there is pushback for motorists regarding street design for active transportation, everybody hates illegal parking. If you frequent the popular community forum the Alameda Peeps Facebook group, you will know that it has become a tradition to post pictures of driveways blocked by illegally parked cars. And each of those posting residents stuck in the driveway is a car owner. Many car owners often frequently complain about being unable to find street parking, and street parking is often taken up by parked cars that far surpass the 72-hour rule. Every day on my way to work, I pass by two old rusty project cars that sit in the same street parking spots on 8th Street south of Jeanne Sweeney Park for months. While I have to admit it's cool that some of these cars are still around, they should be parked in a private driveway or a storage facility, not on the public street at the expense of others. Lastly, while I do want to applaud the city for hiring a new parking technician, it needs to be clearly stated that three is nowhere near enough to fix illegal parking. The nearby city of Berkeley has not three, but 24 parking staff positions, and that city isn't much larger than ours. Next full cycle budget update. The city of Alameda should make a commitment to hire at least nine parking enforcement technicians so that parking budget becomes revenue positive and illegal parking ends in Alameda. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker.

Denise Trepignan.

Welcome, speaker.

Thank you, Mayor and Council Members. I'm here speaking on behalf of Bike Walk Alameda to, as our previous speaker spoke to, approve the new parking technician position being requested by Public Works. As we mentioned in our letter, and as Mitch just stated very eloquently, this position is revenue positive, meaning that the revenue they'll generate more than offsets their fully loaded salary expense. when bike lanes were painted on park and webster a few years ago we were assured that the city would keep cars out of the paint only bike lanes through enforcement however that's been a broken promise for years now parking enforcement is body at best the bike lanes have become de facto spots for double parkers and door dash drivers while cyclists are forced to dangerously merge in with car traffic Currently, enforcement is mostly aligned with either their parking metered hours or street cleaning hours. There's no enforcement after 7 PM, the busiest dining hours, and none on Sundays and holidays. It's been years that we've been leaving revenue on the table and creating a dangerous situation through inaction. Further, we should not be asking residents to support a bond measure this fall while we continue to leave this revenue on the table due to lack of enforcement. We urge you to support staff's request for an additional parking technician so that we can create a safe place for people to bike through our commercial corridors. with extended enforcement hours that we'll get with an additional parking tech. And again, as Mitch said, we need more than the one they're asking for, but we'll take whatever we can get at this point. Thank you very much for your consideration.

Thank you. Our next speaker.

That was the last speaker.

All right. With that, we will close public comment on item 3A. I wonder if I could ask Public Works Director Aaron Smith to come up and just give us a little overview, if you will, about this requested parking technician position. Is it going to magically transform all the parking violations into

tickets tell us sure what you envision and welcome thank you yeah i'm aaron smith i'm the city's public works director so yes public works manages a majority of our parking program in alameda i do just want to acknowledge that our police department also plays a role um particularly as it relates to abandoned vehicles and anything that requires towing so we collaborate on parking enforcement but we public works do the majority of parking enforcement related to you know time restricted we focus on safety parking in 88 curb ramps bike lanes etc we have have currently two full-time technicians and three part-time technicians and then we have a program manager so we are asking for a third full-time technician which allows us to align we have three street sweeping zones it allows us to ensure we have equitable coverage across the city and it does allow extended hours and coverage for our parking enforcement our public speakers correct we don't have currently have enforcement on sundays that would take a programmatic change of extending when we have paid parking etc but yes there's absolutely an opportunity to continue to expand our coverage both geographically and time-wise Right now the request is for one parking technician. Our next request very likely will be a supervisor. We do not have a supervisor for our parking program. We have a manager and then we have all of our bodies that are in the field. So before we can really continue to expand the number of actual technicians we have, we really need a supervisor position. Right now, our manager is doing, and there's a whole adjudication process that happens for parking enforcement, and a lot of those require internal review, and we don't have the resources if we just continue to hire technicians. We'll need to be asking for a supervisor, and then, yes, there is potential capacity for more technicians in the future.

And help us understand what a supervisor would do.

Yeah, so supervisor, its primary purpose – well, there's probably three primary purposes. One would be oversight and coordination of schedule with the technicians and the part-time. The primary objective or role for the parking supervisor would be those – what they're called first-level reviews. So if you contest a parking ticket, a first-level review is a review that needs to be done by somebody other than the technician – But somebody that has knowledge of the program, that's typically done by a supervisor. So our program manager right now's time is taking doing that. And then so the supervisor's adjudication, number one, would be their priority. And then we have a lot, surprisingly, like a lot of phone calls, a lot of interacting with the public. lot of triaging requests that come in from a variety of different locations so really needing that higher level position to help us assess that incoming data determine hot spots so that our program manager can focus more on resource allocation and we have some additional ordinances that might be coming forward to allow us to cite other safety measures like parking in all types of bike lanes which we don't have right now

All right, thank you. Any questions for, okay, and I saw Council Member Jensen's hand up first, then I'll go to you, Vice Mayor. Go ahead, Council Member Jensen.

Oh, thank you. I actually, it's a question or a comment, actually, more just an explanation I'd ask for. Recently, I've been... It's always out and about in Alameda. And I noticed on Webster Street recently that Alameda Police, APD, was doing bike lane enforcement. And I'd like to understand a little bit better. I see that Chief Joshi is also here, but understand a little bit better how Public Works and APD collaborate on those sorts of activities and whether this has been effective.

Yeah, I'm happy to share from my perspective, and then Chief Joshi can. But yes, the police department has every right to cite those same citations. Some citations that we cite can overlap, and they have resources, and we have resources, and it just means more resources. So that's my perspective from Public Works. There are a few things that the police department does that we do not do. As one, we're not sworn officers, and there's other restrictions. But I'll let Chief Joshi respond from the police perspective.

Thank you, Director Smith. Have a seat. Good evening, Chief Joshi.

Good evening, Madam Mayor, members of council. So to answer your question, Council Member Jensen, so APD and Public Works, we work very closely together. We collaborate. It's a joint effort. APD does not have dedicated parking enforcement personnel. We do have one person who is assigned to the abandoned vehicle. detail and what she does is she goes out and addresses parking enforcement and also tows vehicles that are blocking driveways or vehicles that have been parked beyond the 72 hour limit. But we certainly do have a good working relationship with Public Works and we communicate and collaborate to address parking issues as best as we can.

Thank you. I mentioned to you when I noticed this, it was not exactly parking enforcement to the extent that tickets were being given. It was more just notification. And the officer was advising people who were parked in the bike lane to move their vehicles. And it was working quite well. So I want to appreciate that. And I know that all of your officers have big jobs. But this was something that on a weekend day with a lot of people on the streets and a lot of double parking in the bike lane, I think it was very effective.

So thank you. Yeah, credit to our staff. Captain Kubiama is also here. He's been hearing from the community that there are some concerns about parking in the bike lane. very creative on deploying resources and identifying where the issues are. So we're definitely working to address those. So thank you for you noticing the work that's being done out there.

Absolutely.

Thank you. And Vice Mayor Pryor. Yeah, I do have a follow-up question for Director Smith. For Director Smith.

Yeah. While Chief Joshi is still there, let me end on the subject of parking violations. So sometimes you get a call from the grouchy mayor. And I was coming down Central, which is we've done a beautiful job on the roundabouts. And now we've got one lane in each direction and a center left turn lane. bicycle lane, but more than once I've seen it's usually a UPS truck just parked there. And so not too long ago I had enough time to find a pullover, find a parking space, go over with my phone camera, photograph the truck in the lane, the license plate, text it to the chief and probably to you too, Director Smith, and say, what is going on here? And so how are we dealing with that?

So anytime we get information like a license plate or identifiers from commercial vehicles, we'll reach out to the business and notify them of the concern. I've written letters myself to both businesses and residents in the neighborhood to let them know that some of the concerns that are coming up. Sometimes a letter and a communication and education is a good way to start. If the problem persists and continues, then we have to sometimes step up and take an enforcement posture.

OK, I appreciate that. And I think Director Smith is up, so you can probably be at ease. Come on back, Director Smith. And it's yours, Vice Mayor Pryor. Yeah, thank you.

I have a follow-up question, because you were talking about the supervisor for parking enforcement officers. What would be a good ratio of a supervisor to parking enforcement officers?

Yeah, ideally, which is why our next position would be a supervisor, so it would be five people beneath that supervisor, which is if this position is approved this evening with the part-time positions makes five bodies that this person, this potential supervisor, which we're not asking for this evening, but looking forward at some point will, would oversee it at a minimum five people.

And then just so that, as we're talking about the future, what is the typical salary, do you know, of that position? So like when we are doing...

I just want to, excuse my interruption, I just want to make sure that we're staying within Brown Act. Are we okay? Oh, okay.

I think it's OK, because I'm assuming the vice mayor is exploring budget impacts for her overall consideration of the budget and for that purpose.

Yeah, because it does say on page four that adding a parking technician is offset by revenue, but then than if there's a financial impact because we're adding a supervisor, which it does sound necessary. I mean, when you explain the phone calls and the oversight, and then also reviewing parking violations, I feel like that person would be very busy. Yeah.

So just wanted to clarify on the revenue generating aspect that's come up a couple times this evening. While yes, that position generates revenue, we are very thoughtful about our overall fund balance. We need to make sure that all of the parking costs are funded by the revenue. And at this point, we are not. yet, because for those with a little bit of history, Public Works took over parking about a little less than five years ago. And at that time, we established a separate dedicated parking fund. We do still have debt service on our parking garage that hits that fund. We have overhead of a lot of equipment, handheld devices, license plate reader technology, vehicles, offices. So it's more than just the person and even their fully burdened rate. It's a lot more than that to run the program. So yes, they are revenue generating. It makes it great to support that salary. But when I make a recommendation for additional ask, I'm really looking at the entire fund and to ensure. And at this point in time, I would not recommend the supervisor until we can really get our arms around what our revenue coming in is. We have some new facilities that have come online, like the ferry terminals, and we're also cognizant of the fact that revenue like enforcement should go up high when we really start enforcing but the idea behind it is that people comply like we don't want to just cite people right so we are just we're five years in we're learning we're bringing new facilities online we're waiting to see if that yes our revenue has done this in the last five years we're waiting to see if that is arcing, which is why a little bit more time for us to recommend that supervisors. We're really looking at the fund health as a whole. Oh, great. Thank you.

I'm not sure if that answered your question. Well, it does. It was very informative. Thank you.

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that eventually people will just be smarter and not do what they're not supposed to do, but then not get tickets either. Yeah, I mean, if we approve this position, it's not because it's a moneymaker for us. It's because of the important role. Yeah, I wanted to be clear. Thank you for that. And if we charge that much in fines to cover all the costs, we'd really be hearing from the public. OK. Does anyone have any questions for Director Smith? Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you. So I know that we have this list of workforce amendments. I am really hesitant about approving all of them tonight because I think there are some that can wait. And I'm saying this for a couple of reasons. Again, the uncertainty with the budget. And as far as all the negotiations that are going on about whether this transfer tax measure is going to go to the November ballot, Madam Clerk, do you recall, isn't it August by which time ballot measures have to be designated? So it's not that far off. It is now June. We will know in August whether that's a threat to our transfer tax. I don't consider it a hypothetical. I think I'd give it some Las Vegas odds, because there's a lot going on there. And so just knowing a significant hit could be coming to our general fund, I would caution the council to just wait a little longer. Again, at the end of this month, we will have a new city manager in. He I'm sure is watching as we speak. Hi, Jerry. And he should definitely have a say and weigh in. And also by August, we will know whether that bill to get rid of Charter City's ability to collect transfer tax And I think there might be some retroactivity to it. It's pretty grim, whether that's a going concern or if it's not what it was negotiated out with. But just looking through these, I could definitely make the case for the parking technician, because I do think that it's public safety. We encourage people to get out of their cars, take bikes, but we have to keep our bike lanes clear. And the IT item, I mean, IT does so many things to protect us from cybersecurity risks, which would cost a whole lot more money if we get hit with something. But for some of these, I would just ask that, for instance, there's a number of asks for the planning, building, and transportation department, the one thing I would say is we do have a sustainability manager. She's doing amazing work, and we should make sure that her salary range in working with our HR director is where it should be. But for some of these other positions, and I'm happy to hear from department heads, I would say we are going to be hiring, after the new city manager comes on board, we're going to be recruiting for a public planning building and transportation director. So certainly that person should have some say in how their department is structured. So for some of these things, I would just ask that we not move forward now, but wait until probably after we come back after our August our August recess. We have already talked about the police positions, and that, I think, is a matter of public safety and important. But I think we do need to tread carefully here, because what we don't want to do is authorize positions and then have to lay people off. And again, for some of these, we shouldn't even be recruiting before a new public works director. Not public works director. planning, building, and transportation. I get my P's mixed up. Before that new director is on board to have a say over how they want their department structured. Anyway, enough from me. What else? What are my colleagues saying? Councilmember Bullard, got any thoughts?

Sure. Thank you. I definitely think that the council was pushing back somewhat at the budget workshop. And there were five full-time positions that were vetted. There was actually more that departments recommended, quite a bit more, I think, And I believe the interim city manager worked with the department heads and came to a shorter list. But even that list, we pushed it back with the exception of the parking technician. And that included such things as division manager for public works, which had a lot of appeal to it and that something we should strongly consider later. Given that, We also put a big preference on the public safety side with the police officers, trying to get ourselves up closer to the full staffing of 88, but certainly trying to deal with some of the needs and some of the recruitment efforts that have gone pretty well in recent years. And we had a whole big conversation about that. But we didn't have our budget workshop push back on the workforce amendments, which I think is interesting because we didn't really dive into it in detail during that workshop. But I think it's at one point, if I'm reading this right, it's $1.8 million in terms of enhancements. These are enhancements to... existing positions where positions are upgraded or reclassified. And I don't know that a lot has changed since the last workshop. I know that staff is recommending these workforce amendments and upgrades. I'm still comfortable going forward with them. That's just kind of where my head's at at the moment. But I'm open to hearing more from colleagues or staff.

Two things. We didn't delve into the possibility of losing transfer tax revenue from the general fund. That did not come up. So that's another $10 to $18 million we need to consider. It might not be here. And secondly, I need to do a motion, because I'm about to run out of time. What I would like is to have, I don't know, we've got to get through a motion, five minutes added to speaking time, and that would be across the board.

All right. I make a motion to add five minutes.

Thank you. Second. OK. All those in favor, please signify by stating aye. Aye. Is that unanimous? OK. So the city clerk knows how to do that. And are you saying you want to hear from your colleagues? Did you finish your remarks? OK. Add Council Member Desai, your thoughts?

No, I think I've stated my concerns at the previous workshops, so there's nothing new to add.

Okay Yeah, I'm definitely aligned with what councilmember bowler said I When I look on page five and on the presentation because it talks about the full-time Positions and that we had asked for those to be part-time I There are two positions I can see waiting to see, like you had said, Mayor, for input from the new city manager in these positions, like for the finance fire and, well, that one's at zero, so I'm just going to leave that there. But for the part-time safety officer and the part-time park maintenance worker, I feel like, Those are, this is work that I think is important and needs to get done. And I don't think, I think it's just a better investment in the long term debt to fill those positions. I think the other ones are also important, but I don't think waiting. I don't have a problem with waiting to fill those, if that makes sense.

Do you want to go down? And I do see that there are some that don't involve a cost because it's just a reclassification. So I don't think that's controversial. And I guess there's different ways we could also purchase and one is to say that positions won't even be advertised until the new city manager we could approve it but just say but we'll wait to advertise the positions when the new city manager is on board because he may well want some input into how the position is worded and also again especially when we we don't even have a planning director right now I think I want to give deference and respect to whoever does come on board so so that's a possibility if we could defer that Yep, I think that makes sense.

Because he's going to be here soon, so it's not like we're waiting six months. I'm sorry, I don't know if you guys can hear me.

Yeah, he's going to be here at the end of this month. And also, OK, so I could get on board if we agree that we will wait to even advertise until the new city manager is on board. When it comes to the aquatic cost increases, and I've asked questions and I've gotten some answers, when this comes back to us at another meeting, I definitely need some questions answered about how literally from one day I was told we needed four more million, and the very next day we needed five million more. And so... We need, this is a significant jump and we need a better explanation. So just putting folks on notice to be prepared for that. Council Member Jensen.

So just to be clear, Madam Mayor, you're suggesting that these be deferred, that the part-time position be deferred or deferred?

So I don't know what's less complicated. I don't disagree with the vice mayor that the recreation and parks positions are important to do now. I think the parking technician is time critical. There's ones that don't even, it's just changes in classifications. But if... But some of these that I've talked about, especially in the planning department, with the exception of bringing the sustainability manager to where they should be salary-wise with their peers, if we could be somewhat selective. But I do think we need to put a pause on positions that would be new to the planning department until the new person comes in. I just think that's respectful.

The only one that I would suggest, or well, My first suggestion might be that we pass the other recommendations, which are the parking technician for police officers and 4.4 OPEB for the trust fund. And the recommendation does say that all new positions to be reviewed, but perhaps this could come back for the other positions before the end of the year like after the city manager is here in July or late July before we recess and if that's not if you don't you want to I understand that you want to know the likelihood of the transfer tax imagine we all want to know because that's it I mean if it gets on the ballot that's significant we'd have to wait till November to know if it passes and

If it doesn't get on the ballot, that's, well, and depending on what tickets placed.

As I understand it, it'll be June 27 that it has to qualify for the ballot, whether. It already has. Or whether. That's the last time that the legislature can make enough changes to have it pulled, I guess, according to Ballotpedia and CalMatters. But regardless of that, I understand the concern there. So my other suggestion is that at least one of the positions be approved. And that's the risk management position, because that is a money-saving position, as I understand it. The division manager, or excuse me, the safety officer in HR, as the presentation showed, at least even part time, would save contract money, according to what the

I think the city attorney is shaking his head in disagreement. That one I would like to hold on. But City Attorney Shen, do you want to explain what you know?

I'm sure the HR director can partner with me on this, but there were no contract funds planned for the coming fiscal year. So while there was a one-time allocation of contract funds for the current fiscal year, we did not plan for continuation of that contract. And so there are no offsets for the upcoming fiscal year.

So you're saying we could safely defer on that one?

What?

Oh, do you want to come up? Good evening. Go ahead and introduce yourself.

Yes. Hi. Good evening, everyone. Noelle White, Human Resources Director for the city. Yes, these are not going to be offset by bringing on a part-time staff member. However, what it will do is create a gap for the city in its safety program, going from having some sort of resource in order to address safety issues to now having No resources, hence the request. Ideally, the full-time position would be ideal. But at least with part-time funding, we can at least have someone available to address that gap to make sure that the safety program is moving forward.

And waiting two months, would that create a hardship?

Not necessarily, no. I think my concern would be is just, again, lack of resources, staff. If something major were to happen within those two months, whether it's a situation that occurs, my concern would be from a liability perspective, making sure that we have the appropriate subject matter expertise and individuals to be able to respond to some of those needs.

And I know the city attorney is concerned with the city's liability. Does your office provide any assistance in risk management?

Well, so we don't have safety resources. which is what this ask is. One of the things, as the HR director was speaking, one possibility, if the council's desire is to delay for two months, is that the current contract was executed under staff authority, was executed under my authority. And to the extent that there are leftover monies, staff authority is up to $75,000. And so to the extent that there are leftover monies, we can continue the contract for two months, assuming there's money left over, because we can't exceed the $75,000. But we can extend the term under my authority, assuming that there are still funds left over.

OK. Back to you, Council Member. That answers my question. Thank you. OK. Do you think that might be a compromise?

Yes. Yes, that sounds like it would provide sufficient resources for the program.

If we were to delay two months, and again, to City Attorney Shen, if there are funding available to help us at least bridge that gap in the event that there's an incident, I think from a liability perspective, just keeping us proactive, that would be amenable. Yes.

Thank you. Thank you. And I would also, with the two-month delay, just to be clear, that would be acceptable as well. But I think we should be really clear that we'll be in recess in August. So this would be more like... Six weeks now. Yeah, six weeks or so from now.

Yeah. Yeah. Thanks. OK. Mayor? Yes, please. Who? Oh, Assistant City Manager. Thank you.

If I may, a couple of things. One is I want to point out, well, let me continue on this thread first. An example that Director White was talking about is if something occurs with an employee and there's an OSHA complaint filed or there's various factors that could factor into account, The directors of different departments aren't necessarily qualified to manage an OSHA complaint and OSHA concern. That's where this kind of position or contract would come into place. I'm a little concerned because we don't know if there's funds available unless we have confirmation of that. So it certainly is a possibility. We just don't know sitting here if there are funds available. That said, I wanted to lead to two other points. One is that we wouldn't do any hiring for any of these positions until July 1 anyway. And so our new city manager will be in place by then before we would do any hiring and certainly has it within his authority to make decisions of whether he wants to approve the recruitment or not. So that's already a procedure that's in place. So I just wanted to lift that up as well.

So hiring and recruitment are two different things, because you have to do recruitment first. And I'm thinking that the new city manager might like to even see what those materials look like.

You're correct, Mayor, and my point is we don't start the recruitment until July 1, and we have a process where it's called a requisition where the city manager has to approve to even open the recruitment and start the recruitment. So I'm not talking about that before we could do the actual hire, the city manager has to approve the recruitment of positions. So I just wanted to make sure council knew that was the process.

And I appreciate that. If it were determined, and how do we determine if there's funds available? Is that in finance? Is that, yeah.

We can do that. We just don't have it necessarily right in front of us. We could do it.

Okay. So maybe when we get around to crafting the motion, there's an, you know, if this, then that, and if not, then that. Okay. Because I think I would like to just use your authority to extend the contract in place now and get us through the interim and then go to what you're saying. And I understand. No, that's a great idea. We all want coverage.

Thank you. The last point I wanted to make is there are several positions, PBT, planning, building, transportation has been mentioned. Those are not general funds. So I just wanted to make sure all of council's aware that that's fund 209, which is funded by the planning fees and revenue sources. So that's a separate revenue fund. So just wanted to let... Make sure all the council is aware.

And I appreciate that. And it's also a conversation I've been having with folks about needing to revisit some of the fees that are being charged by folks doing work. And it would be good to just doing work on their properties because we are hearing that some of our fee amounts are getting to be burdensome. And we've always been a... system where you're the permit fees cover the work but in today's economy that might need to be revisited council member bowler thank you I'm just want to follow up with what assistant city manager world which said about these different funds because

It looks like in those workforce changes, there are a significant investment on the general fund, such as the police officers. But a lot of these are upgrades. There's a lot of different departments involved here. And there's a lot of different funds involved. The funding source lists include the AMP, the general fund, of course, the IT fund, the library fund, the PBT, the planning building transportation fund that we just mentioned, and then also I think there might be gas tax fund. And in my estimation, the council already pulled back, I don't know, a large majority of things that were up for consideration after the interim city manager already did some vetting. So I continue to feel comfortable with the staff recommendation, which is to approve these. I do think it's built in. It sounds like it's built in, that the new city manager will have discretion as to whether or not, when it comes to hiring any one particular person, that isn't going to happen unless the city manager approves it, which is, I think, pretty standard. I would only feel comfortable, we should have dived into these things last time if we had concerns because these are all there before and I would be more comfortable making changes if we heard from each of these departments to see how it affects things. We've only focused on one so far.

I think we've focused on several. Back to you, Vice Mayor Pryor.

I do. I agree with Councilmember Bullard said. I do want to jump back to the safety. Sorry, I was going to say safety officer. Was that the name of the position? Okay. I was confused. I heard $75,000. Is that what we pay a year or is that what we budgeted to pay contractors?

Vice Mayor, the existing contract is with Envirotech Safety, and it's for a one-year period with a maximum not to exceed of $75,000. Oh, got it.

And we have them at this moment? We have them at this moment. That's right. I mean, I think it would make sense to have them until that position was filled. I think that actually makes sense. The, okay. Yeah, I still, I mean, just based on the last conversation we had about that position, it just sounds like it would be more efficient. It covers all the departments. So, I mean, I don't think, I mean, we haven't had one this whole time. I don't think it's like that we need to fill it today, but I still think it's important. I still think of, you know, full-time. I thought going to half-time was the compromise, so to not do it is a... I strongly support having that position. That's it.

I think it's just a matter of how it's funded. And so we're going to learn more about what's in the fund.

Well, and where you pay $75,000, the position we budgeted for was $90,000. So to have somebody who's here all the time, who's doing preventative work with all the departments, I feel like the $90,000, $75,000, $15,000, I think that it's a big benefit for $15,000 difference.

Okay. Okay. Do you feel comfortable coming up to share? Come on back.

Thanks, Mayor. There's plenty of money on the contract. We have about $75,000 contract and about $30,000 in current costs.

Okay. So we can keep it going with what's left in the budget. Awesome. Thank you, Director McCarthy. Okay. Does that help? Mm-hmm. Yeah. Council Member Jensen.

Just to be clear to the finance manager, to be clear with this presentation, the recommendation is to convert full-time positions to part-time positions. And that's what we've been discussing. But we also have in the recommended workforce changes, we have a number of expenditures that are part of, as was pointed out, not part of the general fund. And those are going to be, if the workforce changes are adopted, those will be approved as well. For example, there's four planning, building, and transportation positions that are PBT fund 209.

Yeah, I would say to your question, Councilmember Jensen, that I think we're discussing two things. We're discussing both position upgrades, which are for existing FTE, having their classification change to a higher upgrade. That is one part of this workforce changes. And then we do have the part-time positions that you all have designated. That is also for consideration, so I think depending on the motion you all choose, we would go forward with your direction. The safety officer is a part of the second camp, the part-time positions, so that would be a new FTE. The position upgrades are existing personnel and will be changing their classifications.

Thank you.

Any other comments, motion? I think we've got some compromise. I'll make a motion. OK.

I'll make a motion and certainly accept your motion amendment if you have one, Madam Mayor, but to adopt the recommendations for the resolutions approving and adopting mid-cycle changes, including the workforce amendment.

OK, but are we going to go with using the city attorney's budget for the safety officer for now?

And then when will that? That's the question, I guess, I'm struggling a little bit with when would that. come back and which positions are being deferred and when would they return. So my motion would be to approve except for the part-time conversion positions, I guess, which are the four positions. And those would be deferred until, although, I'll withdraw my motion because I'm still a little confused. Sorry.

City attorney, can you help us out with the funding on the explain how that would work?

Sure. I think we can work out the funding later. The important thing is that there are still dollars left in the contract. And so I could continue to exercise my authority to extend the contract for two or three months while the city undergoes its recruitment in the fall.

May I ask a question on that? Are we just talking now just about the safety officer position?

That's my understanding, council member.

OK. And then I just have a question for my colleagues. What is it in particular about the safety officer position that, I mean, because there's a lot of other things that are a lot more expensive here. And I think, I mean, I've had conversations Adam Poltar, interim city manager. I know that he was concerned about this, but definitely wanted to get the ball rolling on getting more safety emphasis. I guess we could ask our city attorney, too, from a risk compliance standpoint, if this is, or risk assessment standpoint, Do you have an opinion on this? Because the staff recommendation seems to be, look, after council direction that already pulled back from suggesting, or maybe it's for, sorry, Director White. But the original recommendation was for full-time positions, including this one. And we've pulled it back to part-time. So does it change our risk profile at all if we make this change?

I think it really depends. I think with the compromise, if we're able to extend the contract by two months with the remaining funds there, we can mitigate that gap. I think my concern would be beyond that gap and where that leads us. If we exhaust the monies that are there for the two months, the decisions, OK, we're not moving forward with the part time, it exposes us to quite a bit of risk and liability. And the evolution of this position has been it started as part-time. We did the contract for the year. We've asked for the full-time position. Now with the compromise of the part-time on the table, in order just to keep the program going and to really coordinate with our departments and particularly focus on the departments that may not have as deep knowledge within safety. To answer your question, I think it does expose us to great risk, particularly if we don't bring on any sort of resources beyond that two-month gap. Because then, again, we won't have anything to rely on with that subject matter expertise. If we do have an OSHA complaint, we are looking at it from a compliance perspective and needing those resources to really push that program forward and to keep it effective.

But if I understand correctly, the annual cost of the contract was $75,000. And there's $30,000 left. And we're talking about doing this for two months. So does that increase your confidence level?

I mean, it increases my confidence level that we could efficiently get through the two-month gap. More of my concern would be, we get through the two-month gap. Let's assume we exhaust all funds. What's next, right? And what would be the next steps in order to make sure that we continue compliance and mitigate that risk?

Yeah, and I believe you've met with our new city manager. And again, he'll be here in less than a month. So thank you for sharing that. OK. City Clerk, did you want to share any information?

Oh, following up on the discussion of that statewide initiative, there is a June 25 deadline that the Secretary of State will certify the initiative as qualified to the November ballot unless withdrawn by the proponent prior to certification. So that's the certification.

Yeah So it's got the signatures and from now until the end of the month to

Well, those two deadlines, if I might, those two deadlines, the deadline that the assistant city manager pointed out with July 1 being the date that any new positions would be posted. And at that point, there will be information about whether this initiative is on the ballot or whether it's been pulled, at least, by the Secretary of State. So I would be comfortable moving forward and having a budget amendment come back to us if that is the case, if the mayor feels that enough uncertainty after the 25th of June.

I think it's prudent to wait till the 25th of June, however we could get there, Vice Mayor.

I do tend to agree. And I mean, because if I wanted to put a pause on anything, I think I would delay the pool, to be quite honest. I feel like these positions, and I don't want to delay the pool. I'm just saying if we're being that speculative, I mean, the pool went up by a million dollars. But I just think the cost right now is $280,000 for the added positions. So when I weigh that against what we're going to throw at the pool, I just And that's for all of these. I don't think it's that big of a deal to wait for the new city manager, but I also don't want to I did feel like this is really important to us. And the only reason we're kind of backtracking is because we might lose some money, which is a big deal. I don't want to be irresponsible. But I do think that these are positions that are helpful to the city. I think that a lot of thought went into them. I think a lot of compromise in reducing even these four positions. And there's four positions that would be the police officers, and then the one position for the parking technician, and then the four part-time positions. Those are the only new positions, just based on the salaries and the benefits, et cetera. But I don't think that we would be I think that if that came to fruition, God forbid, we lost all that money. I don't think those four part-time positions are going to be the reason why we go into default, or worst case scenario, we're going into our reserves. Yeah, so I still think it's fiscally responsible to do this. But I don't think it's irresponsible to wait at the same time. I don't know if that makes sense.

We don't have a motion on the table. Do you want to try to fashion something councillor bowler?

Yeah, I just a comment and then the motion if I may just I just feel that You know, we definitely are very excited with the coming of our new city manager I feel like if he has concerns and want to pull some of this back more Or it's beyond his normal discretion. We're all going to be amenable to that I think I would just move to approve and adopt the budget and workforce changes as proposed in the staff report. I

And could we just add that to be clear that they wouldn't go into effect until, is it July 1st or the first city council meeting of next month?

It's July 1st. It's with the start of the budget cycle.

OK, and OK, and I move to extend the time by five minutes.

Sorry.

OK, I appreciate that. That's a motion. Do we have a second? OK, all in favor signify by stating aye. Aye. Aye. OK, that was at least four. So putting it off a little bit, and this might be saying the same thing just different ways, is we will know. And by the way, it's not a matter of the Secretary of State pulling the ballot measure. It would be the proponents that they've worked out some compromise with the many folks who are opposing it. But we'll know more at the end of this month, even before the end of this month.

I just think our, if I may respond. Yeah, go ahead. Thanks. I just think that if that happens, we've got a bigger problem than just these upgrades. And I think the vice mayor made some good points about what the scope of the monies are involved here, and it involves different funds. So I think we'll have a bigger problem. I think the city manager is going to want to have conversations with all of us if that happens, and then decide on a

point of attack that includes looking at everything not just this so I I'm still comfortable with going forward on the stuff okay and then if we could just add the caveat to the motion if I guess this is a friendly amendment that the everything that we are approving tonight would be subject to the new city managers final approval because by the time he gets here we will definitely know what the risk to the general fund could be, or none. And that could give us more flexibility. So I mean, if we say that he has that discretion to make those decisions, I know he's looking at stuff now. So even though he starts on the 30th, he could probably weigh in by the first.

I guess I just have a question about that. Because my concern, as you remember before, was that we hadn't talked to all these different departments. But putting that aside for a second, Isn't it already built in? And maybe this is a question for Assistant City Manager Woolridge, who has experience on this. Isn't that already built in? If we approve the staff report, does that mean all of this has to come into effect? Or does the city manager still have discretion? And if the city manager wants to delay it for some reason and bring it back, is that built in or no?

I think that might be a city attorney question as well. Either one of you. Could you start, Mr. Shen?

I'm happy to start and partner with the assistant city manager. I think that's right. The city manager just certainly has discretion to delay any time.

OK. So we don't have to add that to a motion. And assistant city manager, would you concur with that?

I completely concur with that. As I was mentioning before, it's actually built into the system. The system that we use, the city manager has to approve the opening of the positions of

And and I appreciate that but we're here before the public and the public might not know quite the intricacies that we operate with Before and I'm just reiterating so to answering councilmember bowler that yes It's it's built into the system that the the city manager would approve the recruitment of any position before it opens Okay, and and then we'll know no recruitments will open before he arrives. I

Correct, because it's not funded until July 1. So we wouldn't open recruitments until July 1. And he starts on June 30.

OK. So did we have a motion? Did you make a motion?

Yeah, I thought the first and second. Yes.

Who moved and who seconded?

Bowler moved and Jensen seconded.

Okay. All right. Okay. And with the understanding that none of this will go into effect until the new city manager gives his blessing, I will also support this. Any further discussion, council? Council Member Daszak.

Thank you. I'll be voting no for the following reason. When we adopted the two-year budget last year, we agreed to set the police general fund spending budget at a total of $39.8 million for fiscal year 25-26. That $39.8 million was meant to accommodate 88 sworn police officers' positions. Y88, that's the annual number of sworn officer positions that we have used as the number needed by a city of our size every year since 2011. But when we adopted the police spending budget totaling $39.8 million for fiscal year 25-26, on that night last year, we froze police hiring at 72 positions, even though the $39.8 million budget could accommodate 88 sworn officer positions. In effect, when we adopted the 25-26 budget last year, we effectively cut the budgeted sworn police officer positions from the traditional budgeted 88 to then budgeted 72 positions. Now, before us tonight, before us is an effort to set the police spending budget at a total of roughly $42.9 million for the next fiscal year, 26-27. Now, again, bear in mind that $42.9 million is spending total that is associated with budgeting for 88 sworn police officer positions. But once again, by city council direction, the police chief would now be limited to a total of 76 hiring 76 budgeted sworn officer positions. So let me repeat, it's not a revenue or a money problem. We have projected receiving enough revenue such that in the published budget, we are designating a total spending amount of roughly $42.9 million for police. which is an amount that can accommodate budgeting for 88 sworn officers. But once again, we are purposely limiting the sworn officer positions that the chief can hire now to 76 positions instead of 72 last year. So even though the presentation tonight says we are adding four police positions, in reality, we are not adding four police positions. We are instead freezing the chief's ability to hire no more than 76 officers versus last year's hiring freeze at 72 positions. But either freeze still keeps us from 88. Some say that the police hiring freeze at 76 budgeted positions instead of 88 is OK. It's OK because logistically, given the time it takes to hire police officers, the chief couldn't hire 88 this coming year anyways. I counter by saying, by imposing the freeze at no more than 76, We are not giving the chief a fighting chance, a fighting chance to start working towards 88 this year by hiring a 77th officer, a 78th officer, maybe even a 79th officer on his road towards 88, whether it's this year or sometime in the near future. And I certainly don't support this hiring freeze that we have in place, whether it was 72 last year or 76 this year. I think 88 is the right number.

Thank you. Thank you for your comments, Council Member Daszak. Chief Joshi, you're here in chambers. Is there anything you'd like to say? Because I often put people on the spot with little notice. But we're always happy to hear from you. Welcome.

Good evening, Madam Mayor, members of city council. Yeah, so this is a tough conversation. Absolutely, we would like to have as many police officers as possible. To get to that number, 88, it definitely requires, well, as I look at what I have on the horizon, I'm on track to be at around 76, likely 76 police officers in December. But at the same time, I have 71. candidates that are in the background process and so if we were to let's say eliminate 90% of those candidates and you know we could we could potentially end up with seven qualified what I plan on doing is making timely notifications to counsel to advise of what our situation is in the event you know there we we need to go beyond 76? Or what do we do with those officers when we reach that point? So it's difficult to say, to predict and project exactly how many officers are going to come in. But what I do know is at this time in the field training program, we have a certain number of field training officers we're trying to recruit more. So as those numbers go up, we can accommodate training more police officers. So I say all that to say that as a police chief, I will make

timely notifications as a situation evolves but of course what I like to have 88 police officers on the police department absolutely but do I recall correctly chief that in the past possibly at the last budget hearing you told us that you do need to have enough field training officers to bring on new officers because they have to spend is it up to six months with a FTO

So they spend 19 weeks with a field training officer as long as there are no issues. So most recently, members of the Police Officers Association, their president or their leadership approached me and suggested that we look at maybe bringing, if we don't have enough field training officers, that could those officers be placed into other ancillary assignments before they go into field training? And theoretically, yes, we could do something like that. It's a little bit different than what we've done in the past. But at this time, we have six available field training officers. That could accommodate six trainees at a time.

All right. Thank you for that.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, we've had a motion. It's been seconded all those in favor. Please signify by stating aye aye Opposed the motion carries five Four to one we have not added a councilmember. Okay, and we go I think Council member bowler you're gonna recuse yourself from 3b I Have a

investment in residential rental property not made by someone who recused myself.

Thank you. And we will take this item next. Who's presenting?

I don't think there's a presentation associated with this. This was just carved out just for Councilmember Buller to recuse himself, so there was nothing additional to add for that one.

This is just, it was part of the budget, but because Councilmember Buller needed to recuse himself. Okay, so what I'm looking for is just a motion and a second to approve, adopt this mid-cycle operating budget amendment for the rent program. to the city budget for fiscal year 26-27.

I move that we adopt the resolution approving and adopting the mid-cycle operating budget.

There and specifically the rent program Okay, and was that you councilmember Jensen seconding no, so sorry you sound so alike especially without looking Okay, it's been moved by vice mayor prior seconded by councilmember days odd any further discussions seeing that all those in favor Please signify by stating aye aye aye Okay that passes with a vote of four with one abstention absent Okay And now we do roll into the regular city council meeting for it is still Tuesday, June 2nd, 2026. Madam Clerk, may we have the roll call, please?

Roll call has been noted. Five present.

Thank you. And are there agenda changes?

There are two, Madam Mayor. The agenda was revised to note that item 5I has been withdrawn by staff. And then under the special orders of the day, the 3A. Yeah, I can get that one.

It's the 3A. We're hoping to have that at our next council meeting on, I think it's June 16th. Yep. It's a presentation of a domestic violence prevention video that the Youth Advisory Board, and they advise the Alameda Family Services, has put together. They're high school students. They have schedules that involve finals and end of the year projects and lots of things. And they just weren't ready to present this evening. But two weeks should give them enough time. So thank you for that. And those were our two agenda changes, right? Correct. OK. But we do have a proclamation this evening, because the month of June is LGBTQ plus Pride Month. And I am happy to present this proclamation. Every June, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer, or LGBTQ+, Pride Month is celebrated to commemorate the anniversary of the June 1969 Stonewall Uprising, in which LGBTQ plus patrons of Stonewall Inn, a gay nightclub in New York City, sparked six days of resistance against police brutality and state violence. On June 28, 1970, the first gay pride marches were held in New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago and sparked the modern gay liberation movement, bringing LGBTQ plus communities together to demonstrate for equal rights and fight against discrimination. issues that continue to shape conversations today. UC Berkeley's Equity and Inclusion website notes that at a time when LGBTQ plus people are experiencing a challenging national climate, Shaped by ongoing public debate, legislative and legal battles, and concerns about discrimination and safety, Pride Month remains both a celebration of community and a reaffirmation of dignity, visibility, and equal treatment for all people. Pride was, and still is, resistance through visibility, joy, and celebration. Governor Gavin Newsom recently observed that this month is a celebration of progress and joy for the LGBTQ plus community. It's a moment to stand together in defiance against hatred and bigotry, and California proudly fights for everyone's right to love and live freely. In his 2025 Pride Month proclamation, Governor Newsom stated that the LGBTQ community has fought tirelessly for their very right to exist and to be treated with the respect and equality that everyone deserves. But their fight is far from over. Members of the LGBTQ community around the world face continuous hate-filled discrimination and violence. Across this country, deplorable efforts targeting our LGBTQ community are undoing decades of progress, attacking our foundational rights and freedoms as Americans. This kind of hate and intolerance is not new. However, there has also been enormous progress due to the unrelenting work of the community itself. LGBTQ plus people come from all walks of life, race, ethnicity, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, and economic status. LGBTQ plus people have made important and lasting contributions to our great state and nation in every field of endeavor, including but not limited to business, government, medicine, law, humanities, science, literature, politics, education, music, philanthropy, sports and athletics, arts and culture, and serve as role models for all. The city of Alameda is a vibrant community that champions the values of diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging, and proudly recognizes LGBTQ plus individuals among our dedicated city staff and board and commission members. On October 11, 2024, we celebrated the opening of QTAC, the Queer Teen Alameda Center, a drop-in center and safe space for LGBTQ plus middle school and high school students to socialize with and find support from each other and adult role models. The City of Alameda is committed to fostering an inclusive community where every individual feels safe, respected, and empowered to live authentically, free from fear or marginalization. Now, therefore, I, Marilyn Ezzie Ashcroft, Mayor of the City of Alameda, hereby proclaim June 2026 is Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer, or LGBTQ+, Pride Month in the City of Alameda, and urge all residents to celebrate the culture, accomplishments, and contributions of our LGBTQ+, people, work to advance the cause of equality for LGBTQ people and their families, and learn more about the diverse culture of the LGBTQ plus community by participating in activities presented by the Alameda Free Library, including Pride Rainbow Sewing Workshop for Kids on Wednesday, June 17, 2.30 PM at the Main Library. A Pride Festival on Saturday, June 20th at 10.30 a.m. at the Bay Farm Island Branch Library. And Pride Banner Craft, which is happening June 1 through June 6. All they drop in to do this craft at the West End Branch Library. There's also Pride Keychain Craft, June 8th to the 13th. And this, again, is all they drop in at the West End Branch Library. On June 14th, there's Pride Dancing Ribbon Ring Craft. From June 14th to the 20th, all they drop in at the West End Library. And from June 8th to the 13th, Pride Planter Pot Painting Craft. Say that fast. Again, all they drop in at the West End Branch Library. there are also pride book displays at the main library and west end and bay farm island branch libraries and an online book list at the alameda free library website which is alamedafree.org so thank you everyone and we are about to go to oral communication but before we do so i just want to recite the ground rules for conducting and participating in a city council meeting And that is to say that this is a business meeting. We are here to do the business of the city of Alameda. It is not theater. It's not a sporting event. Therefore, we don't clap, boo, cheer, jeer, do the wave. We sit and listen respectfully to our other speakers. When it's our time to speak, we get up and speak. And when our time's up, we sit down, or even before our time's up. And I say this almost every time because public speaking can be very stressful. It's one of the most stressful things some people do. And I never want someone to not speak in a council meeting because they felt intimidated, because the previous speaker was booed. And they certainly don't want that to happen to them. Sometimes we have young people in the audience, and we want to set a good civic example. I mean, a number of you are younger than me, but not young people like kids. However, they may be watching remotely. And we want to set that good civic example of what public engagement should look like. And we want to create a safe space to speak and to be listened to and to hear others who might not agree with your viewpoints. We treat people the way we'd like to be treated. If you have signs to hold, that's fine. That's your First Amendment right. I just ask that if you're sitting in the audience, unless you're in that last back row with the police chief, please don't hold them up over your head where they would block the views of the people behind you, because everybody wants to be able to see the speakers. And then I have to read this magic language from the California Penal Code for tonight's city council meeting, which states, California Penal Code section 403 states it is a criminal offense for any person to, without authority of law, willfully disturb or break up any assembly or meeting that is not unlawful in its character. other than an assembly or meeting referred to in Penal Code Section 302 or Elections Code Section 18340. First violations will receive a warning, and continued violations will require additional action, which could involve police intervention. And so with that, Madam Clerk, we will move on to oral communication on non-agenda items over which the council has jurisdiction. We'll take 15 minutes now. And when I finish talking, you can speak. But man, not before that, Councilmember Dazod. And so with regard to any item not on the agenda over which the Council has jurisdiction, we'll take 15 minutes now at the top of the agenda. And there'll be another opportunity for speakers to comment under section 9 at the end of the agenda. Yes, Councilmember Dazod.

I just wanted to slip in a quick comment on item 3B. It will be real quick. And the comment is this.

You know what please save that for your council communication, but it's on the proclamation I know and that is when we take council communications Thank you so much for your courtesy and understanding. I do appreciate it. Madam clerk. Do we have oral communication?

We do we have two speakers so they get three minutes each first is James Golden and then it's current Kirschbaum Welcome speaker golden

And everybody, bring that microphone right to where you need it so we can hear you. Hi.

Good evening, Madam Mayor and council people. I had a car accident on Saturday at Walnut and Clement at the extra space storage. And while we were waiting for the police, the lady who lived in the house there came out and said, they really need to stop sign there. And the policeman said, there's a council meeting on Tuesday, so I'm here. I don't know if this is the place to talk about it or not, but since they put in the two bike lanes on Clement, when you come out of this extra space storage, you cannot see traffic to the left, and that's what happened. A car apparently had You have to look half a block down, and when a car enters there, then wait until it comes out so you can be sure there's nobody in there, which I did, but apparently somebody had turned from Elm Street, and so I pulled out right in front of him. It's my fault, but I've had three or four close calls there. I go there like once a week. I should have a stop sign or reduce the parking on that side. Neither of which are going to be popular, but I'd like that considered.

Thank you so much for your comments. And does the clerk, did you have contact information for Mr. Golden, correct?

Yes.

Okay. Excellent. Thank you. We've heard you. Thank you so much.

And your dress Sunday was beautiful.

Thank you. You were at the luncheon. Next speaker.

Corinne Kirschbaum.

Welcome, Speaker Kirschbaum.

First I want to remind you of something that you forgot to include in your budget It seems that you have forgotten that all that money What ten million dollars Marilyn? That money unaccounted for that all of you are trying to cover up has to be paid back And how much is in your reserve? So what does that make this city bankrupt? And if you haven't heard the news we've had another death That did not have to happen Elijah He passed away. Where's your outreach? All the millions of dollars that we have paid for outreach, where is it? Who's overseeing it? Look at all those eyes. You were told not to look at me. Congratulations. So where is your fabulous new outreach that taxpayers have paid millions for because nobody has seen anything of the sort? Not even one police officers know what I'm talking about. At every meeting, Marilyn, you tell the public, treat others the way you would want to be treated. You also say we should communicate respectfully and civilly. So I am asking you directly, Marilyn, does that standard apply to you? Because what you and Joshi, this council, and even the Social Services Human Relations Board have done to me has not at all been at all respectful. It has not at all been civil. It has been disgustingly cruel. I came forward about serious concerns which have all been proven to be facts. involving homeless services, missing records, missing reports, unaccounted for public, state, and federal money, all missing financial reports, and the absolute horrible treatment of unhoused people in this city. Instead of answering me and having one of those civil, respectful conversations that you speak of, Marilyn, instead of investigating, instead of doing your jobs, I was ignored, dismissed, publicly humiliated, labeled as mentally ill, defamed and dragged down your never-ending rabbit hole of hell. Marilyn, your comments, or rather what you think is your litigation strategy about my mental health, were irresponsible, damaging, and public. They are all on video, on YouTube. They did not answer the evidence. They defamed me. They told the public not to hear me, not to believe me, and not to treat me like a person with rights.

do you see her not giving me any eye contact at all?

Because she knows she's wrong. And so thankful. Your city has services to help. Oh, and you were so thankful that your city has services to help, as you stated. Just shows how little you know. But that's what happens when there has been no oversight or accountability. Then it only gets worse. You and Josie had me falsely arrested after speaking out.

And your time is up. Thank you. OK, so I am going to read the warning, and then you will be escorted out. Your warning is to leave, and please stop disrupting the meeting. Thank you so much. All right. And do we have another public comment? OK. Well, with that, we will close oral communication non-agenda items. And we will move on to the consent calendar. And these are routine items approved by one motion unless council members remove items. for discussion. Removed items will be called after the regular agenda item. And council members may speak for up to three minutes. You can ask questions about an item without pulling it. Then you have to wait for it to come at the end of the regular agenda. And we do have a couple hearings that the clerk will help us with. But first off, any items the council wants to pull from the consent calendar? Being none.

I just have a recusal state.

Um, yes, please do.

Oh, thank you on 5f Frank. Yes, I recuse myself to do financial interest in commercial property in the Park Street business district and then on 5m Amazon Mary recuse on the through investments have interests in Alameda rental properties and

And that's the master fee resolution, so there's fees involved in the rent program. Okay.

Yeah.

Got it. Okay. So, but Council Member can stay in the dais. He's just, or, yeah.

Assuming there are no discussions of the Council. We'll see. We'll see. Okay.

Stay tuned. Okay. So, okay, any questions Council has about any closed session consent calendar items? Okay, Madam Clerk, would you like to make your hearings announcements?

Yes, so now is the time for public comment on the two public hearings that are on the consent calendar. One is adoption of resolution amending the master fee resolution number 12191 to add and revise fees. This is excluding the city attorney and rent program. And the next one is the hearing to revise the master fee resolution to revise city attorney and rent fees.

Okay. And do we need to do more than that?

No, because there is no public comment.

There's no public comment on the consent calendar. With that, we will close public comment on the consent calendar. Thank you. Council, any further comments? Are we ready for a vote? And the motion will be to approve the consent calendar and then noting Council Member Bowler's recusal on five, F as in Frank and M as in Mary, or FM radio. Anyway, do I have a motion and a second? I move that we approve the consent calendar. Okay with those Yes So we have a motion by vice mayor prior seconded by Councilmember days like all those in favor, please signify by stating aye aye aye. Okay that passes unanimously and so then I am looking I OK, we are coming up on two hours of meeting. And I always give us a break at two hours, because it's a lot of work for staff to be doing what they're doing all this time. And we need to get them to move around. So even we're a little shy of two hours into the meeting, we're going to take a break now and come back at 9.05. It's 8.54. Please come back at 9.05. Thank you. Places, everyone. I'm calling the meeting back to order. It's 9.06. Oh, my gosh. Are we ready in the balcony? They're always ready in the balcony. Thank you. OK, so Madam Clerk, where are we?

We're at 7A.

We're at 7A. Look at that. OK, so would you please introduce this item? And whoever with the walking wounded, please come over here.

Got it. Recommendation to approve the city aquatic center parking action plan with a 50 space on-site parking lot, no paid parking, and prioritizing shared parking agreements, off-site employee parking, time loaded parking, and incentives for alternate transportation.

Sorry, I just put a cookie in my mouth. Welcome.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Please take it from here.

And council members, my name is Justin Long. I'm the recreation and parks director. And I'm here tonight to present the aquatic center parking plan. We were last here almost a year ago in July, where we approved the aquatic center design, which you all then gave some extra direction to explore different parking strategies that we could look at. And we're here to do that tonight So we'll get started so the overall project was started with the approach of putting it in a location that was central in the island to minimize People miles traveled as much as we could just even by locating it where we did We also wanted to think about operational needs, sizing the parking lot correctly, thinking about spillover. We also wanted to look at what potentially are some of the different strategies we can implement along the way to reduce how people get to the aquatic center. And then as the aquatic center comes online, it's putting together a system where we can actually observe how people are coming there, what the overall usage is, and then potentially even shift our strategies as we move forward. And so we're here to talk about that. So after the last meeting, we contracted with Dixon Resources Unlimited, which you guys may be familiar with. They've done the studies on our ferry terminal parking and our paid parking. So they were hired to evaluate the difference between a 67 space parking lot and a 50 space parking lot. and to look at what some of those impacts might be and come up with some strategies for how we would address those. Their overall recommendation or assessment was that either the 67 space or the 50 space will be under parked at some point which means our demand will exceed what we have available to us which goes along with a lot of the recommendations council gave us last time which was let's look at off-site strategies for accommodating additional parking So this is to give you sort of an overlay of the parking lot. As part of the direction we were given is to produce a bid alternate that would reduce the parking space by the 17 spaces to 50. The spaces you see in red are those spaces in the bid alternate, 50 space stop. So the overall layout of the parking lot is relatively similar, and a lot of that was done because of the parking that is being retained that we will get full-time access to in the college lot to the north, as well as a safe connection into that adjacent parking lot. We couldn't just shorten the parking lot because it would get too close to the existing entrance to their parking lot. And so there was some traffic design work that had to happen around that, which is why you see the red spaces that you do there. so part of the strategies and and Dixon came up with a slew of them and so these are the ones that we're recommending for adoption the first one it was to secure off-site parking for our employees so we were able to secure with the College of Alameda an additional ten daytime spaces that we could dedicate to employee parking that would relieve any type of parking needs out of that 50 space lot for employees so we were able to secure that we're also looking at you know trying to figure out what can we offer in the transportation demand plan and we'll get to that a little bit later but through discounts and education about different events that we could have to attract people by cycle, but also what would be the reduction that we could provide anyone who was taking alternate transit, like buses, bikes, walking, et cetera. And then, again, was spending a lot of time with the adjacent property owners and into looking at what we could potentially do. So as I've said, we've secured the 10 daytime spaces. We have 126 evening and weekend spaces with the college that we've secured. We'll go over where those are on the map in a second. And then we are still in talks with Blue Rise to identify 25 to 35 unrestricted spaces on their property that would make sense for overflow parking during our busiest times. And I just want to repeat, some of those busiest times that we have really are our heavily-programmed summer, that June through mid-August. So that eight-week period, we're going to be really hit pretty hard. And so in conversations with them, we're still just working out to identify those. But I think we will be able to do that pretty shortly. And then we also looked at time limits. Most of the folks coming to our aquatic center are coming for specific programs. They're coming for lessons. So they're coming for a very specific period of time. So we're looking at limiting the parking up to two hours, 90 minutes to two hours, as part of that recommendation, just so we can keep the flow and turnover in the lot moving. We also looked at how are we going to promote, again, people walking and biking on top of the 110 spaces we have, the bike lockers we already have on site, but also being able to provide a 5% discount to those who can show that they either have a bus pass or came by a bike or some other method of travel so that we can provide something to as an incentive to get people to, even financially, to take an alternative mode. And then looking at one of the recommendations was when and if the parking lot we determine after it is in use that we make it flexible for other uses. So if they want to have community events or open it up to a food truck at lunch, is there another way to market the parking lot if it isn't fully utilized during our non-peak times? So we're open to accepting that one as well. So here it gives you an overview of kind of the shared parking that is currently what we've secured with COA. So the white outline identifies 126 spaces. There's a yellow marker at the bottom part. That is the trail connector that now is open and connecting Challenger Drive directly to the Cross Alameda Bike Trail and then across to Wood Street further down. And then the bluish color to our left, that green-green color line, so just go with that color, are the 10 daytime spaces that we have that are dedicated for our employee parking. And so this just kind of gives you an overview. And then a little bit further to our right in that Y-shaped lot is where we're looking at some of those other unrestricted spaces that we would be able to offer from Blue Rise themselves for overflow. So again, getting back to some of the transportation demand management things that we have offered before, but we're actually adding a few things now. So by providing the 5% discount for the public transportation, we are going to host a series of bike events. We already partner with several of the bike events that we already have. like the one that took place at Ruby Bridges earlier this year. We'll continue to do so and to attract folks to the aquatic center that way. And then also, as part of the registration, people will be given information, be available how to get there through transportation, everything else like that. um but also as you know we already implemented the bike improvements for uh the trial cross connectors um and then we've also put in a very large drop-off area in front of the aquatic center so that people can either drop off their kids but also the community gardeners can actually drop off supplies there as well and then go park after they've dropped those off and unloaded them so there will be times when that's available to them for that and then when it comes dixon also was hired to look at what would it take to implement paid parking So they did a complete study about what it would take and the ability to do so. And that we're going to reserve to a future option to see how the aquatic center is performing before we were to implement that. There's also some complexity around that with having shared parking agreements with our neighbors that don't have paid parking. We didn't want to force. individuals to park there who were trying to avoid our paid parking. So until we had a better grasp of what was actually happening with the operations and usage, we've held back on that recommendation so far. As well as the one to the south, whether we needed a residential permit or would need a residential permit. Because I think if we have this overflow parking and our parking lot, We'll probably meet the majority of the needs and we'll evaluate that and hear if we're seeing any impacts to those neighborhoods before we work to design any type of program there. But we'll be very conscious of it and tracking it and working very diligently to try to ensure that those are minimized to the neighborhood. So tonight, what we're here is we're asking you to approve the smaller 50-space parking space. There are seven EVs in that location as well. It's the 126 shared spaces, the 10 unrestricted, and we're working to secure the additional 25 to 35 unrestricted as well, as well as the small changes to the TDM plan. Now, I just want to put – because we have one second, so maybe I can answer a question. So a lot of these off-site negotiations are – able to be done through discounts that we're offering to College of Alameda students and their teachers, as well as providing either memberships or passes to Blue Rise so that their employees can access our facility. And I think it's a good benefit win for everybody involved, especially College of Alameda students. I think it would be really nice to have this in their backyard, to have this as a facility that's readily available to them. So with that, I thank you all for your time. And I'll open it up for any clarifying questions.

Thank you so much, Director Long. Vice Mayor Prior, did you have a question?

I did. So we spoke.

We're going to take clarifying questions, then we'll go to public comment. OK, back to you.

OK, so Director Long and I spoke, but I wanted to ask this publicly. Can you elaborate on other accommodations for the community garden?

So as I mentioned about your, Michelle had asked a council member. Vice Mayor. Vice Mayor Pryor had asked a question about community gardeners and being able to drop off. Part of the equipment that will be supplied to the community garden will be those sort of landscape wagons so that they'll be kept at the community garden that they can borrow and go get their materials. So if they unload their car, they're not having to hoof it or haul heavy bags, that there will be equipment on site that they're allowed to use for that method.

Thank you. I have a couple of questions, and thank you for this. How many bike parking spaces or lockers or whatever, how many bikes can we accommodate at the Aquatic Center?

So we have parking for 110 bicycles. We have two cargo bike lockers, and we're going to have six just bike lockers themselves. So there's two that will be larger for the cargo bikes, and then the others will be the standard size that each locker holds two.

And when you say two cargo bike lockers, does that mean it holds two cargo bikes or more than two?

The cargo bikes themselves, because of the size, each one can only hold one. So there will be two cargo bikes that can be locked in the lockers. Each one can only hold one.

OK. Is that enough?

Again, I think as we develop into more cargo bike parking, we also have cargo bike parking that they can lock to that isn't in a locker. So we created larger, more spaced out bicycle because they need larger equipment to lock to to secure their wheels. So we have several of those as well. So I think there's four of those as well.

So four of those that can be locked, two and two, so six?

Six cargo bikes.

OK. One of the things, I mean, we're talking about we want to get people out of their cars to not use so much automobile parking. So they're going to come on other means of transit and or travel. And for parents with kids, I mean, those cargo bikes are pretty brilliant because you can carry the kids and all the gear and stuff that goes with them. And I would be worried that that might not be quite enough. But if you found there was more demand, would there be, could we add more cargo bike parking?

So the good thing is the plaza in front of the aquatic center is relatively large. And we would have the ability to put them on the north side of the plaza if we had to put more in. So there is capacity to expand if we need it. Okay.

That sounds great. And I have a question, and I guess it'll segue into discussion, too. I'm concerned about the concept of the timed parking between 90 and 90 minutes and two hours, I guess it is. I certainly understand, like, some of my friends are these serious lap swimmers, and they are out there when it's still dark, and they get their laps in, and then they get ready, and they head to work. But summer is coming up. And next summer, hopefully, we'll have an aquatic center. We'll be almost. And it's certainly something I did growing up in Alameda, just hanging out at the swim center. And I do realize that we're just talking about the amount of time you can park. So maybe some of the kids who just want to hang out will be getting there on their bikes or something. But for parents with little kids who didn't come in a cargo bike, it's hard to rush little kids. I once had small twins, and it was just, you know, they're having a good time. So let's, I mean, did you, what's the calculus that went into that time range?

Sure. Thank you for the question, Madam Mayor. So what we looked at was the average duration of time slots that we have factored into our proposed programming. And so for, again, a lot of our lap swim are offered in one-hour chunks. They're offered in, you know, depending on when you show up, you know, they're generally in one-hour chunks. We looked at our swim lessons. Our swim lessons are offered in 30-minute windows. The bigger times where I think you're talking about when you're going to have more lounging are our family swim times, and those are scattered throughout the early afternoons as well as on Sundays and Saturdays when we're going to have a lot of overflow parking. And so the times when we're going to have those components where you're going to really want to have sort of the time to play in a lounge for more than an hour or two, that's going to be on the days when we have access to the overflow parking. So the time limits that we were really focusing on were the weekday targeted times where we know that between 3 and 6 and 6 to 10 we're going to be pretty busy. And so we're trying to guarantee a turnover in that. So that's what we were looking at. We were trying to look at the average times of programs that we're offering to pick that time frame.

So are you saying that there will be, well, so if we have a limit, 90 minutes, two hours, whatever it is, what happens if you exceed it? Do you get a ticket?

So again, it comes down to enforcement. And again, we'll be working with the new parking staff from the budget. But a two-hour limit would require parking enforcement to come periodically through the lot to check. I think with the license plate readers, that's how they measure other two-hour time limits and things like that when you're parked along Santa Clara, for example, in a non-metered space. I know that's just because of outside my office building I see the traffic cops coming by periodically and writing tickets for even the 30-minute window one so again I think I don't think it'll be a heavily enforced activity but that would be the only way you would enforce it but then would you have a different enforcement or none at all on the weekends Well, I think what I'm trying to get at is the time limit would happen, but there's enough parking where there won't be time limits, because I can't dictate a parking time limit on the private property. So at least in the conversations I've had with them, they don't want me to do that.

So there'll be signage that makes it clear that there's parking limits and you could get a ticket if you exceed your time in the lot at the aquatic center, but no limits except when you're allowed to park there, I guess, on the other. OK. And then, yes. I'm sorry. May I add to that a little bit? Yeah, please.

The time limit's also kind of like all the other, the TDM and other paid parking. There's going to be a period of time where Director Long and his staff will be assessing. And so that's certainly something that he can be reviewing. They could even look at the, we'll call it, two hour time limitation only during certain time periods, right? So maybe it's not on weekends or maybe it's not during, you know, so that's something that they can be assessing and they can always change and maybe it gets pushed to three hours if it becomes an issue, if they're hearing a lot of complaints. So it's something they can certainly be evaluating.

I will note for the record that Assistant City Manager Wildrich and Vice Mayor Pryor are going to attend next week's Alameda County Mayor's Conference. I'll be in Washington, D.C., but Vice Mayor's going to Stand in for me and and the assistant city manager is going to go to and it's going to be held at the Aquatic Center in Piedmont So I'm asked lots of questions, but of course people they have no parking so they must have some Parking policy uber or something. I don't know and then There is a passage in the staff report that talks about During non peak hours So people who are there for park use or events or something could park. But how would you know during the week which car has a swim team person versus someone just using the park?

So it would be very difficult to determine if there's someone there just for the aquatic center, which is why the whole parking lot would have the two hour limit, not just people who are swimming or people who are coming to the park. So it would have to be the whole parking lot.

OK. OK. That's all my questions. Other council questions? Council Member Jensen.

With regard to, I have a couple questions about the use of the parking at the College of Alameda. That you showed in one slide, there's a spot where the cross Alameda Trail where there's access right now, existing access to that parking lot. And will that be retained? And is that going to be the main access for clients and people who attend the aquatic center?

Councilman, Member Jensen. So that connection will remain. It was just installed. There is parking on either side of that. There's a protected crosswalk that is there. So that will maintain. That is not the primary entrance to the Aquatic Center. That is a secondary entrance to the park. The primary entrance will be along Atlantic to the west of the parking lot. And if I can... Pull up the slide. I can maybe talk through it here. So the main entrance is to your left off of Atlantic. This area with this large tree to our left right there is the entrance plaza. To the south of that's the entrance plaza. But that is your main driveway into the parking lot. For the shared parking, the road connection on our top on the top there is to the right by the 67 up there, that's the entrance into the College of Alameda parking. So there will be access along that way in through our parking lot as a shared space.

And then to the right of the last point is where the community garden is anticipated to be?

The community garden is actually to the south on the other side of where the city of Alameda's name is at the bottom of the slide. It'll be on that side down there on the southern side of the cross trail.

Thank you. And thank you. So with regard to the parking with the College of Alameda, do you anticipate a lease agreement or a memorandum of understanding? Or how will that be facilitated? And how will we be confident that the it won't be, it'll remain available.

So we're looking at entering a license agreement with them for the spaces, as well as with Blue Rise Ventures. There's a third layer. They've all formed an HOA. So we've got to do an agreement with the HOA on top of the two property owners. So we're trying to work it all together and make the agreements work. But it'll be through a license agreement with the two of them.

Is there going to be a cost for that?

The cost is right now being shared as the discount that's being offered. We're still working out the details around long-term maintenance and striping and would we contribute to any of that. And so we're working out those details currently.

Thank you. Are there clarifying questions? Council Member Bowler?

Thank you. Thank you, Director Long, for your hard work on this and your report. Just thinking about the Dixon's report that's basically their recommendation was for 67 spaces. But it sounds like the delta between the 50 and 67 has actually decreased. Is that true in your opinion? Because you've got now 10 unrestricted spaces, right?

That is correct. So the delta has narrowed to that from what we were going to have dedicated in our own lot to only seven spaces. And I think with the overflow with Blue Rise, I think we can accommodate that. So it would be the equivalent of what we had proposed on our own property.

And who do you anticipate using the 10 spaces?

So the 10 spaces we are anticipating to be our employees, whether they are full-time or part-time, because those individuals would traditionally probably park in the easiest possible location, which would be our own parking lot. And so what that does is it frees up spaces for the public to activate those spaces by pulling the employees out of there.

Okay. And it sounds, too, like in your presentation, it sounds like you had some pretty high-level confidence on getting the 25 to 35 additional spaces that the Marina Village at the office park, right? And you said there's a timeline maybe within a month or so?

So I would say probably within the next 60 days we can work out all the little details between all the three parties. What we were doing was trying to identify what is reasonable considering how far away someone would have to walk and trying to identify those spaces and how we would sign them and everything else. So we'll work out those details probably in the next 60 days.

So what does that look like? What are you... Is it going to be a pretty reasonable distance to walk? Is it going to be manageable? How would you decide who goes there, that type of thing?

Well, during our peak times, if we're having to activate those other anytime spaces, at any given point in the summertime, we might have upwards of 20 to 25 employees at a time. And we would require that all of our employees park furthest away first, and then leaving as many closer spaces available to the public. So as we can start monitoring the daily usage and be more predictive about what we're going to see, we'll be able to assign employees those further spaces so that we can minimize impact to the general public.

Yeah, because it seems like with the Dixon plan or recommendation that the peak periods were definitely going to cause issues, and so that recommendation was leaning towards 67, but if that's But if you get to these significant additional unrestricted spaces that are basically guaranteed for use, it really changes the equation that the consultant looked at, right?

It does. And that's why one of their main recommendations was to try to secure off-site parking as much as we could through agreements or license agreements, which is what we're actively pursuing.

So if we, for example, were to say, hey, let's say the city council approved the staff recommendation, but with the additional requirement that we get at least 25 additional unrestricted spaces, would you be comfortable that you think there's a good chance of success?

I think there's a good chance of success. And I was also talking to our attorneys earlier. Your base bid includes the 67 spaces. So moving forward, even if at a later date we told the contractor we only want to go with a 50, you've already paid for the 67, so there's no additional charge. They actually, in the bidding process, only issued a $1 credit for the reduction of the 17 spaces. So at that point, you're protected in any direction once we award the contract. But I am confident we'll get the spaces from the business partners.

Yeah, and I'm kind of reading between the lines. If the council, for example, said, look, if it doesn't look like we're going to get the 25 to 35 spaces, we want it to come back. That's kind of what you're saying. It sounds like we would be able to come back and re-examine this.

Well, what I'm saying is that staff would have the ability, with the 67 that you've already approved, that are in the contract for the pool, you have the ability to be flexible is what I'm saying.

Yeah. And there's other ways to be flexible going forward too, right? For example, paid parking is something that your presentation indicated could be considered in the future. What is your assessment of the pros and cons of that? Because I think it could supplement the city's climate goals and TDM goals if parking is not all just always free.

So we evaluated that, and we looked very closely at the recommendation. And yes, paid parking is something that they believe the facility, if it were implemented, would cover its own costs, if not generate slight bits of income after the cost of additional staffing, as we've just heard as part of the budget. But I do think that as we have explored these off-site parking, the cons to it are is potentially having pushing non-paying customers onto private property because we have paid parking on hours. We have joint lots, joint access, and people parking in their lot in times when they're not supposed to. So we wanted to take the time to evaluate that operation before we implement that to see how the overflow is working, how people are utilizing it prior to us implementing paid parking in the future. But it is a valid point that we could potentially do that in the future. But I think we want to evaluate once the aquatic center is open and functioning.

And I know there was also conversation last time, and it was referenced in the report, about other technology that could potentially be used to, essentially create an adaptive parking program where certain spaces are shifting based on requirements and time and needs. There's going to be a wide range of users that we want to accommodate. So is that also something in the future, if we needed more flexibility, we could examine?

Yes, Council Member Buller. I think all of that will come with that same type of technology that you put in that's actually monitoring how many people are in the spaces at a time. From what my review of the software allows you to do is to do dynamic pricing at times. Once you start collecting the data, those systems allow you to start doing that. So during peak times, you can charge more versus charging less to try to – to control people's actions of how they operate and how they get to the facility. So all that comes as part of that tech package.

And what are the department's vision in terms of the user experience? Coming in, checking in for the center, is there a possibility of having that process kind of pull people, see how they got there, encourage them, give them handouts, here's another way to come, that type of thing, create carpool opportunities? Do you know?

Yes, so as part of the user experience, we're looking at our reservation software about, so when you either reserve online, whether you buy a 10-pack for swimming or if you just want to pay per use as you go in, we're going to have a short survey as part of that that allows them to check how did you get to the pool, how long do you plan on staying, just so we start collecting that information from folks at the time of entrance to try to get a better idea. And then what we're going to implement is staff will periodically go out at peak times during the day during what we think are our peak times to evaluate how full is the parking lot, you know, just so we can get a better idea of what is actually happening and so that we can actually start building up a regular information base that we can actually make educated decisions on about, you know, what times are we the busiest, when do we need to alter strategy on the parking, and where we go from there.

And just to kind of sum up, it sounds like At first, when you look at this, it seems like there's a conflict between the parking consultant's plan and recommendation and what the staff report recommendation was. And yet, there are certain assumptions that went into the plan that can change over time. And you've already identified additional things off-site, potentially unrestricted spots that could be numbered in the range of 25 to 35 on top of 10 that you've already secured. So is it fair to say that you believe that you're setting yourself up for potentially more flexibility than even what the Dixon plan was recommending?

I believe we're setting ourselves up for a good amount of flexibility because the Dixon plan did not account for those additional spaces or having secured just as much as we have. And so I think, you know, for us to try to second guess their choices, what they were, when I spoke with them, set up their study, it was about trying to figure out, you know, what are the maximums, where are we looking at, and how do we create the best flexible space that we can. And in their professional opinion, the 67 space was the most flexible because it was the largest. So then looking at the 50 and trying to look at these other secured spaces, they weren't anticipating even getting additional on top of that. And so this is additive and gives us a lot more flexibility, I believe.

OK, thank you so much.

Other clarifying questions?

Oh, yeah.

Council Member Daszak.

OK, thank you. So on page 9 of 9, there's bullet points on different supplemental parking scenarios. So just a quick questions. The 126 shared parking spaces in Marina Village with College of Alameda, A, are you negotiating with Marina Village, whosoever owns that whole property? Or are you negotiating with College of Alameda?

So 860 Atlantic is owned by the Peralta College District. So the 126 and 10 are solely owned by the Peralta College District.

OK. On that, are they envisioning charging some kind of lease? I mean, rent? How does that work?

They're not looking at charging us any rent. In my conversations with the chancellor as well as the college president, we are going to be offering discounts to the students and faculty of the Peralta College District to come utilize our facility since they're such close neighbors.

OK. And so far, is there any preliminary Indication as to how long the license or the lease will be?

Our initial proposal is for five years and with terms to extend.

So they could change their mind at the end of five years?

Potentially, but hopefully, as a good neighbor, we'll try to make sure that that doesn't happen.

OK. Now, is the 10 unrestricted off-site spaces, is that within the 126 or is that separate?

Right now it is identified within the 126. All right.

And the 25 to 35 unrestricted off-site, is that separate from the 126?

That is separate from the 126.

And is that also subject to some kind of lease arrangement? Are we going to pay rent on that?

It will be a license agreement with Blue Rise Ventures. And, again, what we're going to be offering is a we're working it out, the details with them on whether we give them 30 membership passes and they hand them out to their tenants to come to the facility. We're trying to figure out what's the simplest for them to implement because they have a lot of tenants. So they want to try to distribute it evenly.

And again, is there any indication as to the time in which you're discussing at least the initial terms of the lease?

Again, I'm aiming for them to be five years so they'll operate on the same timeframe as we go to renew. I see.

Now, even if we did 67, would it be correct to say that we'd still have to make some kind of arrangement with regard to any of those three bullet points, 126, shared parking, 10, unrestricted, 25 to 35, unrestricted off-site? Would that...

So according to the Dixon study, even the 67 space parking lot without overflow parking will be subject to not – we won't meet the demand of what's necessary during certain times. So we will still want to have a shared parking agreement. I see.

Okay. Great. Well, thank you. Appreciate that.

OK, seeing no other clarifying questions from council, Madam Clerk, do we have public comment?

We do. We have two in person. They'll get three minutes each. The first is Mitch Ball, and the second is Denise Trepigny.

And do we have any that are online? OK. No, no. OK. Welcome, Speaker Ball.

Hello. I'm happy that we've been able to reduce the number of parking spaces to 50, but I'm disappointed that staff are not considering paid parking or residential parking permits at this time. Additionally, as someone who does chemical transport and techno-economic modeling for a living, I believe I'm qualified to criticize the parking model produced by Farron Piers and criticize Dixon Resource Unlimited for choosing to treat it as legitimate in further analysis. The most consequential flaw of the parking demand model is the assumption that 90% of visitors would drive for main activities and that carpooling is nearly negligible at 1.1 people per vehicle. It's pretty questionable to expect 90% of visitors to drive when this aquatic center is proposed to be built along the cross Alameda Trail and an intersection away from Alameda's bus rapid transit stop. But even more shocking is the expectation of 1.1 people per vehicle. This could only be possible if no more than one out of 11 main activity visitors is a child, as children can't drive. That's a lower child to adult ratio than what you typically see at Almanac Brewery. Dixon also performed an additional paid parking financial model to show that paid parking would return profit. And while I agree with that prediction, I have some serious concerns that they drastically underestimated that profit. They proposed parking at $0.50 an hour, which they admittedly claimed was conservative. But even $1 an hour would be conservative, as that's the cost of parking on Webster, which was proven to be too low by the city in 2014. They also assumed 60% compliance and a cost of enforcement, but not a single dollar of revenue from ticketing. If enforcement isn't ticketing, then what would we be paying them for? I also want to read this quote from Dixon's plan. Limited or uncertain parking availability can reinforce car-dependent travel patterns, increasing overall reliance on driving. If this doesn't make sense to you, it doesn't make sense to me either. Uncertain parking availability discourages people from driving. It doesn't encourage them to drive more. I've read this section over many times, and I'm honestly questioning whether they just didn't proofread that section. Regardless, even despite these concerns, Dixon still recommended paid parking, which would certainly be financially responsible, considering that the city is asking voters for a bond measure, and this project has already gone $5 million over budget. I understand the concerns about spillover into nearby neighborhoods, but as I mentioned in an earlier item, there are already illegally parked cars sitting there every day, and a residential parking program like Dixon recommended would be good not only for this neighborhood, but also the many others that are already constrained by non-resident parking. Lastly, there has to be a better arrangement of the 50 parking spots. The proposed 17 to remove from 67 don't give us the benefit of useful parkland, but instead create a weird patch of grass near a fence cornered in by a wide asphalt path. Perhaps the southeast corner can be removed and the eastern side of the driving loop brought westwards. In summary, it is unlikely that parking demand will exceed on-site capacity, but we can ensure it doesn't if the recommendations for paid parking and residential parking permits are taken. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker. Denise Trepanier. Welcome. Speaker Trepanier.

Thank you, Mayor and council members, again, for hearing. On behalf of Bike Walk Alameda, we're really grateful that staff took the time to work with the neighboring business park and College of Alameda to secure existing dedicated parking. We're also really pleased that with the additional work they've done, they've basically cut the size of the lot in half from what was initially proposed. We would still like to see this smaller, of course, and we believe we should be further unbundling the cost of parking from the cost of using the pool. People who don't arrive by car should not have to pay for those who drive, which is what will happen if we continue to give away free parking. As I mentioned in our earlier comments on the budget item, we need to stop subsidizing parking, encouraging additional VMT, and leaving revenue on the table. While we're excited that staff will continue to explore paid parking for this facility, we do want to thank staff, the College of Alameda, and Blue Rise for the creative solution to preserve our very precious open space and encourage you to approve staff's recommendation. I would like to personally make one comment not on behalf of Bike Walk Alameda. I want to speak as a homeowner on Eagle Avenue, immediately south of Jean Sweeney Park near the Parrot Village. I just want to be really clear that when it comes to the concern about overflow parking in our neighborhood, We would much rather have an open space than a parking lot in our backyard. So please don't weigh the concern of overflow parking and consider paving over more of Jean Sweeney Park to mitigate that concern. That park is a gem, and we should be doing everything in our power to preserve it, not pave it. Thank you.

Thank you. And was that our last speaker? OK, with that, we will close public comment. I just want to say thank you to staff for bringing this to us. I love the shared parking. I've been advocating for it for years because the business park and the College of Alameda that took over one of the buildings in the business park has been several years now. They're busy and they're booked during school hours and work hours. Dan, oh, Blue Rise Ventures general manager, whose name I just went blank on. But they hosted us for a council retreat a couple of months ago. And they're great community partners. They provide great amenities to their tenants. think you're gonna you know cement that deal and I agree with the last speaker that we should not be adding more paved parking space we need to we don't need more pavement we need permeable surfaces and it's part of keeping our our island cooler and so I think these are great solutions. And I think time will tell about the parking, whether it should be paid. But that's what we can do our observations on. And I would also agree emphatically with staff that let's keep the parking program simple to begin with. Because we're opening a new aquatic center. People are going to be getting there in different ways. We are going to see different usage and so we'll learn more as time goes on but I think that it's just easier to administer a simple program rather than one that is more involved. And the only other thing I wanted to say, if my iPad wouldn't freeze up so I could get to my notes, but I pretty much remember them, is that I do appreciate the outreach that staff did. There was a note that staff spoke to one member of the Transportation Commission I would gently and respectfully note that one member of the Transportation Commission is simply a community member, one of 79,000, and does not speak for the whole Transportation Commission. But I do also want to encourage staff to make good use of our appointed boards and commissions. They are smart, diligent, hardworking. And we recently had a little hiccup with the use of Little John Park for expanded Little League games that is being worked out. And it's coming to the Transportation Commission, or maybe Recreation Parks Commission, I want to say. But it should have started there. And so on this one, this has to do with transportation issues. I do wonder why it didn't come to the Transportation Commission. Because again, it's been almost a year since this item came before the City Council last time. That was plenty of time. to schedule a meeting before one of our public bodies. So I would just ask, implore, going forward, staff, please make use of our very talented, hardworking, diligent boards and commissions. Because you get great public participation when it's a public hearing, we maximize transparency, and you get great feedback. So with that, I'm ready to support the staff's recommendation, but let's hear from others. Want to start, Vice Mayor? Sure. Yeah.

So I'm glad that we got the parking riddle down to 50, as the mayor had stated and referred tonight. It's great to just use the concrete that is already there and not create more. But with that, I'm glad that there is the parking for the community garden. Because I know that was a concern for them, like having big, giant things of fertilizer or pot. I don't know. Equipment's heavy. Shovels are heavy. So I'm glad that the loading zone is there for our community gardeners. And I think that's all. I was just looking at my, I wrote my comments. So I think that's it. Thank you.

Okay. Council Member Jensen. Okay.

Council Member Bowler.

I support the staff recommendation. I'm just wondering if we could add the requirement of staff obtaining 25 to 35 unrestricted spaces as forecast in the report that is highly likely to happen. So that's off-site spaces. It doesn't change the 50. I support the staff recommendation otherwise.

I'd like to keep it simple and just support the staff recommendation Of the 50 spaces and 10 bike parking 110 bike parking spaces Etc, etc But that's just my view council or a day song. We did you finish?

Yes Just a quick clarifying question the Pavement surface area that we contemplate covering, is it correct to say it's wide enough to accommodate 67 spaces? But per staff's recommendation, only 50 spaces will be painted. Is that correct?

That's incorrect. The spaces that were highlighted in red just will not be paved at all. Will not be paved at all. So it will all be vegetated instead of paved.

OK. I see. All right. Well, I appreciate that correction. Yeah, it's a really interesting situation. I think what concerns me is we're banking a lot on these agreements that are very limited in time. Five years, I think, was expressed for both of them. And you just never know. Maybe at some point in time, the College of Alameda might find that it has to sell its real estate or even the Blue Rise Ventures. Perhaps they also, if they own their site, might have to sell their space. So things change. But by the same token, it's important to note that whether we're at 50 or 67, we still need these supplemental spaces. So let's not pretend that 67 is the ultimate answer. But what the analysis presented by Dixon, it's hard to avoid, especially the one, I think we've all seen it on page eight, where they write, the 50 space configuration is particularly vulnerable with regular overflow expected throughout the year except during non-summer weekday mornings, evenings, and weekends, dot, dot, dot. And then by contrast, the 67 space configuration experiences overflow less frequently. So it will experience overflow. But it experiences overflow less frequently with greater availability during non-summer weekday, midday periods, and summer weekday morning periods. First and foremost, let me make sure to say, love the idea of the poll, so definitely supportive of it. But I think we're banking a little too much on these license agreements with these two entities. It is interesting, though, how the emphasis is on license. Because within ourselves, when we talk about license, we oftentimes refer to license giving us as the owner of the property at Alameda Point, we talk about licenses as opposed to leases in a way that because licenses seem to give us greater flexibility. But in this case, though, we would be the licensee. And it worries me that things can change. But like I said, whether it's 50 configuration or 67 configuration, we still need, whether it's licenses or some other kind of instrument for supplemental spaces. I love the poll. Can't wait to see it happen. But I'm going to go with 67. I think, as written in the analysis, the 67 space configuration experiences overflow less frequently with greater availability during non-summer weekday, midday periods, et cetera. And I do want to make sure to add You know, hopefully a lot of people will ride their bikes and perhaps even walk to the swimming pool. But the comparison to Piedmont really doesn't work because, as we all know, Piedmont is all of 1.7 square miles. So people probably live at most three-quarters of a mile away. I mean, I'm not quite sure exactly where on Magnolia Avenue the Aquatics Center is, but that's 1.7 square miles. Piedmont is 1.7 square miles, whereas Alameda is what, 12 square miles of actual land? So I think given the distances that people require, we do need space for people who are going to drive, particularly from the east end of town. So anyways, I guess I set my places. Thank you.

And to be clear, Council Member Daszak, that was kind of tongue-in-cheek. Of course, we're not Piedmont. But it is also an all-electric pool, as we are doing. And it's got a really nice layout. So I'm just saying that Assistant City Manager Woldrich and Vice Mayor Pryor will get to see it now that it's finished.

I just want to make sure to say once more, whatever decision I make tonight, it's just about the parking. Love the pool. Great asset for the West End of Alameda.

And to your concern that a business might sell or whatever, there are a number of businesses in the business park, and I think any number of them would be happy to do a shared parking agreement. I think some things you can take on faith. Dan Peritsky is the manager of the Blue Rise Ventures, and I just think it's a really inspired idea and keeps us from paving more surface.

do we have a motion in a second um i move that we um accept the um recommendation for uh i'm sorry but i'm trying to figure out how to wear this do you want to just read from the first paragraph yes um I move that we approve staff's recommendation for 50 space on-site parking with shared use. Okay. The city with the College of Alameda.

Well, the rest of the paragraph. Just because that's the staff recommendation. And that's at 50.

OK, I'm just going to read this at the top. Sorry, I was reading the highlights. I'm sorry. I'm so sorry. I move that we approve the recommendation to approve the City Aquatic Center parking action plan with a 50-space on-site parking lot, no paid parking, and prioritizing shared parking agreements, off-site employee parking, time-limited parking, and incentives for alternative transportation.

Is there a second?

A question about the motion?

Council Member Bowler.

Thanks. Did you say no paid parking? I wasn't. No paid. Paid parking. Is the motion intended to basically create that as the permanent plan? Because I don't read the staff report as recommending that there never be paid parking. It just doesn't have it as the current plan. So is that necessary part of the motion?

Oh, I see what you're saying.

Well, they're going to revisit it during overtime.

How about no paid parking at this? Well, there's no recommendation to do paid parking at this time. But it was evident that they might revisit it after some.

Yeah, I guess there's that.

Do you have a motion that would word it better, maybe?

You know, let's bring Director Long back just to make sure we're clear on what staff is recommending. Because you've said a number of things.

Yeah, so thank you, Mayor. We're recommending that no paid parking at this time, so we're not accepting the recommendation at this time to implement paid parking, but we will revisit it in the future as we collect more data on the operation for that. So we'll keep it in our toolkit for upcoming strategies if we need to put them in place.

Can I add a caveat that the paid parking will be revisited in the future?

That's a great point.

Yeah.

And then the other question about it was, there was a reference in the motion to something about the offsite parking. And I'm just trying to understand if that's making that a mandatory part of this, or what was the intent of the motion that way? Because that is not necessarily part of staff's recommendation either.

I was reading from the top of the staff report it is prioritizing shared parking agreements, off-site employee parking, time-limited parking and incentives for alternative transportation. So prioritizing those and with the understanding that as the Migration Parks Director, Said it would be revisited and I think the assistant city manager would like to add something and I see you council member days Like you will be next after assistant city manager. I

Just had a suggestion of helpful for the motion. It could be that the the parking plan will continue to be assessed or it continue to be evaluated Well, well and and because it the parking Because it includes potential for paid parking and we talked about the time limits and and that various components will continue to be assessed and Changed as needed

You're nodding. Is that an issue?

Yeah, I guess I would request that the Vice Mayor consider that maybe as a friendly amendment. Because if it's continued to be assessed, I think that addresses some of these concerns, including my concern that it sounds highly likely that we're going to get 25 to 35 additional unrestricted off-site spaces. If at least it's being assessed as part of it, I think that's sufficient to cover that concern too.

Ongoing assessment. Yeah, the caveat to assess, sorry, the caveat to consider that paying for parking might come back, but also, sorry, exactly what Greg just said. Because I think my caveat was very limited. So I do want to expand it for... I don't know what adjustments is needed.

Assistant city manager, do you want to restate what you said? I think that might be.

Sure. My suggestion was instead of, to your point, being specific about the paid parking, to simply say to have the motion include that staff continue to assess the parking plan and update as needed to address. Yes.

But at this time, we would move forward on the no pay part with staff continuing to assess. Correct.

I was just adding it to the end. Yes.

Yes, absolutely. Madam Clerk, are you getting that? Yes. Okay. Council Member Desak?

Oh, since Director Long is up and I raised the issue, can you explain to us why the matter that for, why you're seeking, discussing instead of leases, you're either, you've been having discussions regarding licenses. What's, why the difference?

So in my conversations with both property owners, Council Member Dasog, it is their recommendation that we enter into a license. It's their preference that we enter into a license agreement. We can propose the other, but I've been trying to keep fees low and trying to keep costs to the city low. And so I've been working with them on these license agreements as a method of doing that. There's some conversation about differences. We can look at that. But license agreements seem to have been what I've entered in with Blue Rise before, as well as COA.

A question for legal staff. Is there any substantive difference that sticks out between a license versus a lease?

Councilmember there could be many but in this case because we are trying to obtain parking space and not for example build buildings or erect permanent structures I think director alongs recommendation of a license seems appropriate Well, thank you. I appreciate both of you

Okay, so I think we have a motion that's been amended. Do we have a second? Council Member Bowler seconds. Any further question or discussion? Seeing none, it's been moved by Vice Mayor Pryor, seconded by Council Member Bowler. All those in favor, please signify by stating aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions?

Opposed? On the parking plan.

Well, it's on the whole thing, my friend. All right. That motion passes on a vote of 4 to 1 with council member Dasog voting no. All right. Thank you. Thank you, staff, for all your good work. And then city manager communications. Anything from you, assistant city manager? OK, none from you. Any further oral communications, non-agenda items, Madam Clerk? Okay, then we'll go on. No council referrals. Council communications. Council members may speak for up to nine minutes, although we're going back into closed session. Keep that in mind. Council member Dase, why don't we start on my right?

Anything to report? Three items. One is, like everyone else, I certainly enjoyed the Memorial Day. Enjoyed is probably not the best word, but enjoyed the Memorial Day event at Harbor Bay Park. Item number two also enjoyed the luncheon at the Alameda Point Collaborative garden area. And item number three, what I wanted to mention earlier this evening, on the matter of celebrating, commemorating June as LGBT Pride Month. I encourage the residents of Alameda to come out to City Hall to view the nice grand flag that is draped over the steps of City Hall. It's beautiful.

Thank you for that. Council Member Bowler.

Thank you. I joined the rest of my colleagues here at also at the Alameda Point Collaborative's farm-to-table benefit luncheon and that was on Sunday and that's all I have to report.

Right. I, on Saturday, I kicked off the Walk for Hearing, which is a benefit walk for the HLAA's Hearing Loss Association of America that does activities to promote protection from hearing loss and then to help people who have experienced hearing loss, and I placed on the desk outside the clerk's office these very handy, they're like bookmark size information sheets about how many decibels a particular activity are, what you should avoid, how to protect your hearing. But it was very nice. And even the Alameda cheer team came out to kick everyone off before the walk. But people came from all around the Bay Area. And yes, I also attended and spoke at our Memorial Day ceremony at Veterans Park by the Bay from Island Bridge. And I think we had a full council attendance attended the ceremony. Alameda Point Collaborative's urban farm to market luncheon out on the farm. It was very pleasant. Vice Mayor?

Yes. So my two events are the same. It was wonderful to be at the Memorial Day celebration. And it was great to be at the Alameda Point Collaborative brunch. Those events were amazing.

And Council Member Jensen.

Thank you, Madam Mayor, and thank you for advocating for people with hearing loss. I appreciate that. As a deaf person, any opportunity to bring more attention to hearing loss is really, really valuable, especially in our community. I also want to thank you for your proclamation earlier this evening. With your proclamation, we celebrate the beautiful diversity, resilience, and joy of our LGBTQ plus community. Pride is the time of year. when we share our history, our ongoing responsibilities, and the deeply rooted values that define Alameda. When we raise the pride flag, we aren't just putting up a symbol. We are reaffirming. that Alameda is a place where everyone can live authentically, love openly, and feel safe, seen, and valued. For me, this commitment isn't new. It's a foundational part of my public service to this island. One of my biggest struggles and greatest successes happened during my tenure on the Alameda Board of Education when I led the community to adopt one of the nation's first elementary school curricula specifically designed to teach students about all types of families. By integrating those lessons into our schools, we address bullying against LGBTQ plus students, families, and teachers. We prove that when you teach kindness, inclusion, and basic human respect at an early age, you build a safer, healthier community for everyone. And the work that started in our classrooms years ago is the exact same work that we carry forward on the city council and across the city today. And again, thank you for the proclamation. Inclusivity isn't a milestone we reach and then check off of a list. It's a continuous practice. And I think it is continuous in Alameda. It's about ensuring our policies, our public systems, and our neighborhoods reflect this community's diverse needs. So as we celebrate Pride Month, let's honor the trailblazers who fought to get us to this point. Let's protect the progress that we've made and we fought so hard to get to. And let's keep working together to make Alameda a beacon of love and equality. Thank you.

Thank you for that.

Happy Pride, and let's have a wonderful month of celebration.

Thank you. And now to end on a little bit of a somber note, but I want to recognize and remember a well-known figure in this community, Mr. Christopher Buckley. I'm so sorry.

Do you want to do 11A?

Oh, my goodness. All of our boards and commissions. Yes, ma'am. Okay. Okay. Sorry, sorry. No worries. No worries.

I just don't want you to adjourn.

Yes. Let's see here. Wait. You gave me that. I have it. I have it. I don't say this often enough, but we would be, I would be lost without staff and all they do for me. So... This evening, I want to announce reappointments to various boards and commissions, and these are of incumbents who are eligible to serve another term, and I'm delighted that they're willing to, and by the way, I am going through, we've had many applications for boards and commissions, but these are the ones from three different boards and commissions that I'm reappointing and the clerk's office reaches out, they're ready to serve another term. So from the Commission on Persons with Disabilities, and these are for two full terms, the incumbents John Lipp and also Jane Schmitz. From the Golf Commission, and for one full term, is Yatin Shastri. And then from the Public Utilities Board, Elise Hunter is our incumbent, who is now eligible to serve a full term. So that means council at our next council meeting, because the mayor gets to appoint with the full council, must ratify. We will be voting on those four individuals. And I will be introducing some more nominees because, man, staff has scheduled lots of interviews. And I always interview with the applicant and then whoever staffs a particular board or commission. And we're going to get it done. We've got some great applicants. OK. And now we move to adjournment. Thank you so much. Is there anything else? OK. So a longtime community resident and well-known fixture, Mr. Christopher Buckley, passed away on May 12, 2026, just a couple of weeks ago. He was 77 years old. I mean, I haven't known him since I served on the planning board, which goes back to 2006. Chris was a planner by profession. He worked for 30 years with the City of Oakland Planning and Building Department. But his home was in Alameda. And he cared so much about historic preservation. He was a frequent speaker at planning board meetings and city council meetings. He helped found what is now the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society and also the preservation awards that they do annually. Chris served on the city of Alameda's historic advisory board, attended countless city council meetings. He did. He was part of 100,000 Trees for Humanity and also served on the committee of CASA, Community Action for a Sustainable Alameda. And I will say that Chris and I did not always see eye to eye. We didn't always agree on the best approach moving forward on things. But he was always a complete gentleman, so civil, and also just so knowledgeable and willing to share his knowledge with others, including me. We lived in the same neighborhood, and I would enjoy seeing him out and about walking. And I could ask him about just about any historical house in the neighborhood, and he could tell me its history. I don't think he was just making it up. He was very knowledgeable. And so there will be a funeral mass for Chris Buckley Saturday, June the 13th at 11 AM at St. Peter's Anglican Parish. 6013 Lawton Avenue in Oakland. And Chris left our community a better place than he founded, and he will be missed. So thank you for remembering Chris Buckley as we adjourn this meeting. And with that, it's not quite adjourned, is it, Madam Clerk? It's adjourned and you're going back to the session. Yes, so if we could have the City Council back in room 391. And also, Madam Clerk, please join us. City Attorney, don't go far.

Oh, I left my plate.

Safe way, I guess. No Kentucky Fried Chicken tonight. No Kentucky Fried Chicken tonight? Packaged chicken.

Sarah Barrera. But I do like Al Mallory. That's who I voted for. I like him.

All right, everyone we are back from finishing our closed session item which was item For C which was the For C was a public employee performance evaluation for two positions. And the positions evaluated were City Attorney Ibn Shen and City Clerk Laura Weisinger. So I would like to announce that on the first vote, and this actually had to pertain to City Clerk Laura Weisinger, Council gave direction and ratified that by a vote of five to nothing, so all council members voting in favor. And then we took a second vote, and that pertained to City Attorney Ibn Shen. And in that case, Council gave direction, which was ratified, again, by a unanimous vote of five to nothing. And that's all there is to it. And so at this time, I think it's about 11, 10 AM, this meeting is adjourned. Thank you, everyone, and good work.