From: Reyla Graber
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; Greg Boller; Tracy Jensen; Tony Daysog; Lara Weisiger
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Regarding the new Aquatic Center:Request that you approve the amount of parking your consultant recommends
Date: Monday, June 1, 2026 8:48:07 PM
Dear Honorable Mayor and Council Members.
I ask that you do not reduce the parking spaces per recent Staff request. This Swim Center will cost
us megamillions and so it ought to become a City Jewel. However, if you short change the Center on parking spaces, it will make the City of Alameda look like a po dunk place that doesn't know how to produce an important project with the right amenities. And sufficient parking is definitely an important amenity.
You've paid a large sum for the professional outside consultant on this and he /she recommends more parking spaces than some city staff recommends.. Please do the wise thing and heed the advice of your consultant. This is a very important project.
Let's do it right.
Sincerely,
Reyla Graber
From: Andy Wang
To: CITYCOUNCIL-List
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Item 7A] Support for the 50-Space Aquatics Center Parking Plan Date: Tuesday, June 2, 2026 11:01:13 AM
Attachments: image.png
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,
I'm writing to express my strong support for the Aquatics Center Parking Action Plan, specifically staff's recommendation to approve a 50-space onsite parking lot leveraged by operational solutions, shared parking agreements, and alternative transportation incentives.
As a resident who has closely followed this project's journey through the public review process – including in my capacity on the Planning Board -- I believe the current proposal strikes the right balance between community access and land use / environmental responsibility.
1. Designing for the Typical, Not the Peak
From a design and development perspective, we should always look for opportunities to design for the typical rather than for the peak. I would like to remind the City Council that former city manager Jennifer Ott articulated the very same thing at a transportation open house last year, drawing the analogy that retail parking lots aren't and shouldn't be sized for Black Friday parking demand – it would be a terrible use of land the other 364 days of the year.
When we design for the peak, we put extra capital, extra land, and extra resources into a scenario that most of the time does not apply. In this instance, the peak is likely twice as big as the typical demand. When the parking provision was originally proposed at 71 last year at Planning Board, this is what that looked like compared to the demand curve, on a typical non-summer weekday:
When we instead design for the typical, we can successfully accommodate the peak through nimbler strategies employed only during peak periods. The City has that exact strategy already on paper with this project: 126 overflow spaces at the adjacent College of Alameda Science Annex, with access into that lot already seamlessly integrated into the site plan. Under staff's current recommendation, this overflow would be further augmented with similar sharing agreements involving at least one other lot that we should expect to be largely unutilized or underutilized during high-demand periods at the Aquatics Center. This is a well-considered use of existing, underutilized resources.
2. The Real Cost and Trade-Offs of Parking
There is a profound cost to providing more parking onsite than is needed for most hours of the day, most days of the year. Beyond the incremental cost of site work, we live in a world of strict land constraints. Every square foot we dedicate to parking that sits mostly unused is a square foot lost for open space with either ecological or recreational value—or something else of greater community and social value, such as the adjacent Jean Sweeney Open Space.
Furthermore, premising a parking plan on the assumption of 90% to 100% car trips works at direct cross-purposes against our own goals. The City should be highly sensitive to the cost of providing and subsidizing excessive parking for visitors, especially when doing so actively limits the success of our active transportation and climate-resiliency goals.
3. A Holistic View of Building Sustainability
This Aquatics Center is an incredible project for our community, and its onsite sustainability features are highly commendable. However, we should look at the whole picture: true sustainability is as much about the way people get to and from a building as it is about the technology used to power it or the materials used to build it.
The recommended 50-space plan, paired with 110 bicycle spaces and direct adjacency to the Cross Alameda Trail, finally addresses the broader transportation picture. It moves us away from an arbitrary over-provision of pavement and toward a proactive Transportation Demand Management (TDM) framework—using time limits and alternative transit incentives to actively shape a healthier, more sustainable mode split.
Staff's recommendation is a data-driven, operations-focused solution that respects Alameda's climate commitments, protects precious open space, and leverages existing neighborhood infrastructure. I strongly urge the City Council to approve the staff recommendation.
Thank you for your time and your continued dedication to a sustainable Alameda.
Sincerely,
Andy Wang
Resident and Planning Board member
From: Edward Sing
To: Lara Weisiger
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Alameda City Council Meeting of 6/2/2026 - Item 7A - Alameda Aquatic Center Date: Monday, June 1, 2026 7:46:54 PM
TO: Alameda City Council
I concur with the comments on this issue provided to you by the Alameda Citizens Task Force by letter dated 5/27/26.
Specifically, I strongly encourage the City Council to reject the 50 space parking lot for the Aquatic Center proposed by City staff and adopt the larger (150+space) lot as recommended by its own consultant for this project. This center will serve the entire City, NOT just the immediate neighborhood. It is also nonsensical that many parents will just drop off their children at the Center, as most younger children need to be supervised.
Ed Sing
Alameda Resident 30 years
May 27, 2026
Honorable Mayor and Members of the Alameda City Council City of Alameda
2263 Santa Clara Avenue
Alameda, CA 94501
Re: June 2, 2026, Agenda Item 7-A— Alameda Aquatics Center Parking Action Plan Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
We are writing to respectfully urge the City Council to reconsider the staff recommendation for only a 50-space parking lot at the new Alameda Aquatics Center and instead support a parking configuration that aligns more closely with the professional parking analysis and long-term community needs. At minimum, the City should adopt the larger parking configuration recommended by the independent Parking Action Plan analysis and, ideally, expand the parking supply to accommodate approximately 165 spaces through a combination of onsite and secured adjacent parking capacity.
The proposed Aquatics Center is envisioned as a citywide resource — not merely a neighborhood amenity. It will serve families, seniors, youth athletes, people with disabilities, swim teams, recreational users, and residents from every part of Alameda, including Alameda Point, Bay Farm Island, the East End, Central Alameda, and the West End. A facility of this importance must be planned for long-term accessibility and equitable use.
The staff recommendation of only 50 onsite parking spaces falls substantially short of what the City’s own professional consultants identified as necessary to avoid overflow conditions, neighborhood impacts, and operational challenges. The DIXON Parking Action Plan clearly concluded that the 50-space configuration is “considerably more vulnerable to congestion and overflow conditions throughout the year” and that at a minimum the 67-space configuration provides “a more resilient long-term parking solution.” Importantly, the consultant’s analysis also acknowledged that the parking demand assumptions may actually underestimate real-world usage. The report states that the modeling assumptions regarding parents dropping children off instead of parking “may not adequately reflect the actual parking demand,” and that “the actual rate of parking may be higher than in the modeling.” This point is critical. Aquatics facilities are fundamentally different from many other recreational uses. Families often travel with children, swim gear, coolers, mobility devices, strollers, or multiple participants. Seniors and individuals with disabilities may not be physically capable of biking or walking significant distances. Competitive swim meets and aquatic programming attract participants from across the island and surrounding areas. Many residents will simply have no practical alternative to driving.
While promoting biking, transit, and walking is worthwhile, those strategies cannot realistically replace adequate parking for a citywide aquatic center. The Transportation Demand Management Plan itself acknowledges that the facility could host approximately 620 visitors during summer weekdays and up to 500 visitors during special events. Yet the City is proposing only 50 on-site spaces for a major regional-style recreation facility that will operate seven days- a-week while not offering any reasonable rationale for ignoring the consultants’ recommendation to provide more adequate on-site parking.
Furthermore, Alameda is currently experiencing significant residential growth, with thousands of new housing units either recently completed, under construction, or planned across the island.
Demand for public recreational infrastructure will continue increasing dramatically over the next several decades. The Aquatics Center should therefore be planned not only for current conditions but for Alameda’s future population.
Building insufficient parking today risks creating long-term operational problems tomorrow:
• Overflow parking into nearby residential neighborhoods • Increased traffic circulation as drivers search for spaces • Reduced accessibility for seniors and people with disabilities • Difficulties accommodating swim meets and youth programming • Conflicts with surrounding businesses and residents
• Barriers for working families traveling from farther parts of Alameda The City’s own parking analysis already identified these risks. The report specifically warns that the 50-space configuration is expected to experience “regular overflow throughout the year” and that nearby residential streets such as 8th Avenue, Thau Way, Stewart Court, and Eagle Avenue are particularly vulnerable to spillover parking impacts.
True inclusivity means designing public infrastructure that works for all residents — including families with small children, residents with mobility limitations, seniors, shift workers, low-income families traveling longer distances, and those who cannot safely or practically bike to the facility.
Accessibility is not achieved simply by encouraging alternative transportation; it is achieved by ensuring multiple realistic modes of access are available.
The DIXON report itself identifies “Inclusivity” and “Accessibility” as core guiding principles for the parking program. A parking strategy that knowingly underbuilds capacity for a major citywide recreational facility undermines those principles.
We respectfully urge the Council to take a long-term and citywide view of this project. Alameda has waited decades for a modern aquatics center. This facility should be designed to successfully serve the community for generations, not immediately constrained by inadequate parking capacity from the day it opens.
For these reasons, we strongly encourage the City Council to reject the proposed 50-space configuration and instead approve a substantially larger parking solution consistent with the independent professional analysis and future community demand.
Thank you for your consideration and for your commitment to creating a truly accessible and inclusive Aquatics Center for all Alameda residents.
Respectfully submitted,
Board of Directors
Alameda Citizens Taskforce
Advisory Board
Denyse Trepanier
Board Chair
Brian Fowler
Treasurer
Tim Beloney
Secretary
Maria Piper
Board Member
Cyndy Johnsen
Board Member
Mitch Ball
Board Member
Lucy Gigli
Founder, non-voting
Bike Walk Alameda is
fiscally sponsored by
Bike East Bay, a
501(c)(3) nonprofit
organization.
bikewalkalameda.org
June 2, 2026
RE: Item 7-A / Aquatics Center Parking in Jean Sweeney Open Space Dear Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft, Council Members, and ARPD Director Long, We support staff’s recommendation for the smaller 50-stall parking lot, along with the other TDM program elements described in the staff report. We also want to take this opportunity to thank Director Long for his hard work here.
While we would prefer to avoid paving precious open space for parking altogether, we recognize this lot is substantially smaller than the one proposed originally. We also greatly appreciate the creative collaboration between ARPD, the College of Alameda, and Bluerise Ventures to utilize the large amount of underused pavement nearby.
Compared to the original proposal, this plan will preserve more open space and habitat, reduce heat-island effects, and generate less runoff. This kind of thoughtful planning is not easy, but it’s especially important for an island city with limited open space and ambitious sustainability and resilience goals.
At the same time, the relatively abundant and free parking still available between this new lot and adjacent properties will incentivize driving, and increase vehicle miles traveled (VMT), despite the City’s goals to reduce VMT.
We hope parking management strategies, including paid parking, remain part of future discussions around this and across City properties, as they can help address parking availability, funding needs, and trip reduction goals simultaneously.
We also hope future projects anticipated to generate significant travel demand receive early and thorough review of parking, transportation impacts, and mitigation strategies, including review by the Transportation Commission. Too often, this level of analysis doesn’t occur, and assumptions we should be checking are not even questioned. But if the City is serious about reducing VMT, it should become standard practice.
Thank you for your consideration and dedication.
Bike Walk Alameda Board
P.S. Exhibit 3 (TDM Plan) appears to be dated — it references a larger parking lot and does not include elements like the 5% discount for patrons using sustainable transportation referenced in the staff report.