Public Meetings - Alameda, California

An ad hoc commission convened on June 5, 2025, at 5:30 PM to hear an appeal of a red tag and code violations issued by City Building Official Oscar Downs against Building 43 Winery, a Latina-owned business operating on Alameda Point. The appellant, Todd Hickman, argued the violations were procedurally defective, based on retaliation, and did not warrant red tagging. The city defended the enforcement, citing numerous safety and code compliance issues. After over two hours of testimony and deliberation, the commission denied the appeal on 12 of 13 code violations, granting only one on grounds of inconclusive applicability. The red tag remains in place. Public Comments & Testimony - Marco Cerda (son of owner Isela Piotra) spoke in support of the business, expressing frustration with the city's treatment and urging the commission to reconsider the approach toward Building 43. - A neighborhood resident (unidentified) spoke in support of the business, noting its positive community impact and expressing hope for recovery. Discussion Items - Appointment of Chair: The commission first appointed Hank as chair by unanimous consent after Todd Hickman raised conflict-of-interest concerns about staff member Buckley (involved in a lawsuit with Hickman). The commission proceeded despite the objection. - Opening Statements: City staff laid out the framework: an ad hoc commission from the Historical Advisory Board, limited to reviewing whether code provisions apply and were correctly interpreted. The appellant raised procedural grievances, including lack of responses to emailed questions and alleged retaliation. - Appellant's Presentation (10 min): Todd Hickman presented documents, arguing that the inspection report was junk (lacked code citations per violation), that the red tag was reserved for immediate dangers (not present), that the city engaged in unequal treatment (other businesses not red-tagged for worse issues), and that the process was unjust and retaliatory due to pending lawsuits against the city. - City's Presentation (10 min): Oscar Downs detailed his credentials, the inspection history (triggered by a urination complaint), and summarized 13 code violations including unpermitted plumbing/electrical/mechanical alterations, non-compliant exits, mezzanine and guardrail issues, improper portable toilets, lead-based paint, and unpermitted structures. He provided exhibits and argued the business had never obtained proper permits for change of occupancy or tenant improvements. - Deliberation and Voting on Each Violation: The commission went through each of the 13 code violations individually, taking motions and votes. The appellant repeatedly asserted that violations were not properly cited or corrected, and that the city's actions were illegal. Commissioners expressed sympathy but emphasized that the code applications were correctly interpreted. Key Outcomes - Decision on Appeal: The commission denied the appeal on 12 of 13 code violations (violations 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14). They granted the appeal on violation 5 (exit pathway/obstruction) citing inconclusive applicability. The motion to deny the appeal on each violation was carried unanimously (3-0). - Red Tag Status: The red tag remains in effect until all outstanding code violations are resolved. - Next Steps: The commission directed the business to work with city building officials to submit plans for a change-of-occupancy permit and address all non-compliant items. A written decision will be issued within five business days. No further internal appeal is available; the only recourse is litigation. - Appellant's Response: Todd Hickman expressed disappointment, stating the process was biased and that the business cannot afford the tens of thousands of dollars needed for structural engineering, especially after losing three weeks of revenue (including a wedding). The owners pleaded for financial help and rent deferments, but the commission stated that was outside its authority.

The Historical Advisory Board meeting scheduled for Thursday, June 5, 2025 at 7:00 PM was cancelled. No agenda items were discussed and no actions were taken.

Meeting Date: June 4, 2025 The Housing and Building Code Hearing and Appeals Commission of the City of Alameda convened on June 4, 2025, at 5:30 PM to hear an appeal filed by Steeltown Winery LLC, doing business as Building 43 Winery, regarding a determination of violations issued by the Building Official. The meeting focused solely on this public hearing. Public Comments & Testimony - No public comments were recorded in the agenda or transcript. Discussion Items - Appeal of Building Official's Determination (Case X24-0467): The Commission considered an appeal from Tod Hickman, on behalf of Steeltown Winery LLC (tenant at 2440 Monarch Street, Suite 100), challenging the Building Official’s April 24, 2025 determination that the property violated the California Building Code, Fire Code, and Health and Safety Code. The violations were detailed in an Investigation Inspection Report for Code Enforcement Case X24-0467. The appellant submitted a Formal Request for Appeal Hearing. Attachments included the Appeal Report, exhibit photos, and public images from Yelp and Google. - The appellant argued that the cited violations were either inaccurate or had been addressed, though specific arguments were not detailed in available materials. Key Outcomes - The Commission heard oral arguments and reviewed submitted exhibits and photographs. After deliberation, the Commission voted unanimously (5-0) to uphold the Building Official’s determination, affirming that violations existed at the property as described in the April 24, 2025 report. The appeal was denied. No additional details on specific violations or corrective actions were provided in the agenda or available transcript.

The Alameda City Council met on Tuesday, June 3, 2025, in a hybrid format (Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft joined remotely from Washington, D.C.). The meeting included a closed session, proclamations, a consent calendar, three public hearings, and city manager and council communications. Key actions included introducing an ordinance to revise sewer service charges, amending universal design requirements for townhouses, and adopting the Fiscal Year 2025-26 Master Fee Schedule. Proclamations & Special Orders - LGBTQ+ Pride Month: Vice Mayor Michelle Pryor read a proclamation declaring June 2025 as LGBTQ+ Pride Month in Alameda. Public commenter Gabriel Duncan (two-spirit and queer resident) criticized the proclamation as performative allyship, urging the council to protect trans youth and the LGBTQ+ community. - John Lip Day: Councilmember Tracy Jensen read a proclamation declaring June 3, 2025, as John Lip Day in recognition of John Lip's service as Executive Director of Friends of the Alameda Animal Shelter (FAAS) since 2017, highlighting his role in expanding shelter services, opening new facilities, and fostering community partnerships. John Lip expressed gratitude, attributing achievements to the community. Consent Calendar - The council approved the consent calendar (5-0), which included: - Minutes of May 6 and May 13, 2025 meetings. - Bills for ratification. - Police policy manual updates to align with best practices. - Replacement of three ambulance gurneys and equipment from Stryker Corp. ($324,213). - Amendment with ELS Architects for Aquatic Center design ($1,761,715). - Agreement with General Roofing Co. for on-call roofing at Alameda Point ($800,000). - Agreement with Simpson Gumpertz & Heger for structural engineering at Alameda Point piers ($768,000). - Amendment to agreement with Friends of the Alameda Animal Shelter ($267,692 increase, total 10-year not-to-exceed $12,028,331). - 2025-2026 Annual Update to the Strategic Plan (Councilmember Jensen asked clarifying questions about the process; staff noted the plan guides resource allocation and is referenced in staff reports). - Agreement to replace vehicle lift at Fleet Services ($436,500). - Resolution for Pavement Management Project funding through State Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account. - Resolution to nominate Priority Conservation Areas to Association of Bay Area Governments. - Resolution authorizing submission for $180,447 in Transportation Development Act Article 3 funds for Neighborhood Greenway Intersection Improvements. Public Comments & Testimony - Oral Communications (Non-Agenda): - Andrew Lao Sign (resident of Fillmore Street) reported frustration with the Cyclic Sewer Repair Project Phase 21, citing insufficient 48-hour notification and poor street cleanup. He noted that after he contacted the city, street sweepers came twice on the day of the meeting, but he urged better notification and cleanup practices. - Rachel Campos de Ivanov (Radium Presents) provided an update on the “In Plain Sight” outdoor photography exhibit at Radium Runway, highlighting community engagement, partnerships with Photoville and Harvey Milk Photo Center, and the upcoming Cultural Works Rising Seas series. She thanked Mayor Ashcraft for the Bloomberg Philanthropies grant. - Gabriel Duncan (founder of Alameda Native History Project, recognized descendant of the Benton Bayou tribe) asked the city to remove references to the Sogorete Land Trust and the Shumi Land Tax from the city website, calling them a scam that enriches an individual (Karina Gould) who is not enrolled in any tribe. He provided a statement from the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe condemning the organization as identity fraud. He noted he had emailed the council without response. - Public Hearing Comments: No public speakers appeared for any of the three public hearings (sewer rates, universal design, master fee schedule). Discussion Items - 7A – Sewer Service Charges (Public Hearing): - Public Works Director Aaron Smith presented the proposed 3% annual revenue increase over five years, driven by the federal consent decree requiring pipeline replacement and reduction of wet weather flows. The city has replaced 34 miles of sewer pipe (25% of the system) since 2014. The Prop 218 process required mailing notices to 19,243 properties. Only seven protests were received, well below the majority threshold. The proposed rate for single-family homes increases by $8.76 per year, keeping Alameda on the lower end compared to other East Bay agencies. - Councilmember Daysog asked about the protest tabulation (one vote per property). The council voted 5-0 to introduce the ordinance. - 7B – Universal Design Ordinance Amendment (Public Hearing): - Planning Director Alan Ty and Planner Tristan Swear presented amendments to Article 30-18 (Universal Residential Design) to adjust requirements for townhouse developments. The original 2017 ordinance required 100% visitable units and 30% universally designed units, but townhouses faced practical difficulties due to sea level rise grading and multi-story layouts, leading to frequent waivers. The amendment creates narrow exemptions for features that are practically infeasible while maintaining requirements for blocking in walls, etc. The changes were reviewed by the Planning Board and Commission on Persons with Disabilities, both recommending approval. The city was invited to present at an MTC/HCD accessibility panel on June 16. - Councilmember Pryor expressed support for universal design. The council voted 5-0 to introduce the ordinance. - 7C – Master Fee Schedule (Public Hearing): - Finance Director Ross McCarthy and Revenue Manager Carlos Figueroa presented the FY 2025-26 fee updates. Key changes included: - Library: eliminated lost card and processing fees, added replacement fees for equipment. - Police: new fees for concealed carry weapons permits (increased processing due to out-of-state applicants). - Planning/Building: fees adjusted to align with actual costs; technology fee increased from 5% to 6%; code enforcement shifted from a 4x multiplier to hourly billing; new vacant building monitoring fee ($2,906/year) for properties vacant 90 days; new tobacco retailer license fee ($981). - Fire: non-emergency medical service fees raised 9% to reach 37% cost recovery; business/residential inspection fees increased; ambulance transport fee proposed at $4,530 (24% increase from $3,665). Fire Chief Nick Luby explained the rate is set by the county to align with private providers, but the city can charge less; financial hardship policies exist; Medicare/Medicaid caps limit reimbursement. Councilmember Daysog expressed concern about the steep increase but supported the item. - Public Works: new parking citation fees – $75 for parking in a bike lane (using Alameda Municipal Code 8-81A for class I bike lanes, and state vehicle code 21211 for class I), $40 for parking within 20 feet of a crosswalk (daylighting). Public Works Director Smith clarified that the $75 for bike lane parking would apply uniformly via either code reference. - Councilmember Jensen asked about the vacant building fee and enforcement. Staff noted the ordinance has been in place since 2018 and allows fee waivers for active rehabilitation, marketing, or financial hardship. The fee covers 12 monthly inspections. - The council voted 5-0 to adopt the resolution, including the amendment to use the Alameda Municipal Code reference for bike lane parking at $75. Key Outcomes - Closed Session Decisions: - Item 3A (Real Property Negotiation with Pacific Fusion and Hines): Council provided direction; vote 5-1 (Councilmember Daysog dissenting). - Item 3B (Potential Litigation against Port of Oakland): Council provided direction; vote 5-0. - Sewer Service Charges Ordinance: Introduced (5-0). A second reading will occur at a future meeting. - Universal Design Ordinance Amendment: Introduced (5-0). Second reading required. - Master Fee Schedule Resolution: Adopted (5-0) with an amendment to adjust the bike lane parking citation to use Alameda Municipal Code 8-81A at $75. - Consent Calendar: Approved (5-0). - City Manager Communications: Announced 30-day notice of negotiations with IAFF Local 689 and Alameda Fire Chiefs Association (contracts expiring Dec 31, 2025). Also noted upcoming events and openings on the Public Art Commission and Social Service Human Relations Board. - Council Communications: Councilmembers reported attending Memorial Day events, the Board and Commission Appreciation Reception, a ribbon cutting for Diggity Dog thrift store, and other community events. Mayor Ashcraft reported on lobbying efforts in Washington, D.C., for transportation funding. Next Steps: The next regular City Council meeting is scheduled for June 17, 2025, which will include the budget presentation.

The Transportation Commission met on Wednesday, May 28, 2025, starting at 6:30 PM at City Hall. The meeting included staff updates, approval of prior meeting minutes, and a detailed discussion on Caltrans’ State Route 61 pavement preservation project and future plans for Otis Drive. Public comments emphasized safety concerns, and commissioners called for more collaborative planning between the city and Caltrans. Staff Communications - Transportation Planning Manager Lisa Foster reported on City Council budget workshops (no major changes to the capital improvement plan), the replacement of a bus lanes project with three transit-focused multimodal projects (pending AC Transit board approval), and upcoming public events (urban cycling workshop, senior transportation workshop). She also noted expansions for the Oakland-Alameda Water Shuttle, funding for neighborhood greenway crossings, progress on Central Avenue and Grand Street construction, and signal refinements along Ralph Appezzato Memorial Parkway including new bicycle detection indicators. Consent Calendar - Approval of Draft Minutes of April 30, 2025: The minutes were approved. Commissioner Gloyne abstained because he was absent from that meeting. The motion carried with the remaining commissioners voting aye. Public Comments & Testimony - Maria Piper (in person) criticized the project’s stated goals, asserting that ride quality was prioritized over traffic safety. She argued that congestion can improve safety by slowing cars and urged the commission to focus on pedestrian and bicycle safety, noting that many users avoid Otis Drive. - Christy Cannon (in person) expressed frustration with Caltrans’ past record of not listening to the city, but acknowledged the recent improvements. She urged continued prioritization of pedestrian and bicycle safety. - Cindy Johnson (on Zoom, representing Bike Walk Alameda) expressed relief and appreciation for the late-breaking safety upgrades. She requested trail crossing improvements at Doolittle/Island, bicycle markings at Harbor Bay Parkway, and full class-four bikeways along the entire Doolittle corridor, and asked whether narrower lanes or reduced speed limits were considered where gaps exist. - Jim Strelo (on Zoom) asked for the new presentation diagrams to be posted online and inquired about jurisdictional responsibility for the wooden pedestrian/bike bridge over Doolittle Drive, noting its poor condition. - Alice Sunshine (on Zoom, President of Ravens Cove Homeowners Association) thanked staff and the mayor for securing bulb-outs at Otis and Bayview, but stressed that the main issue is crowding between pedestrians and cyclists. She requested that the bulb-out design provide adequate space for both modes and referenced near-crashes at that corner. Discussion Items - Update on Caltrans State Route 61 Project (Discussion) - Ron Kia Aina (Caltrans Regional Project Manager) presented the Capital Preventive Maintenance (CAPM) project covering five miles from Route 112 along Doolittle Drive through San Leandro, Oakland, and Alameda to Otis Drive and Broadway. He emphasized that the project is primarily a pavement preservation project (grind and overlay, 10-year design life) and does not change lane configurations. - In response to feedback, Caltrans incorporated safety improvements: rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFBs) with lighting at Mound and Versailles, median refuge islands at four locations on Otis, curb bulb-outs at Bayview, and a class-four protected bike lane on Doolittle Drive from Harbor Bay Parkway to Island Drive (class-two bike lanes where shoulder width is insufficient). - The project is funded at $23 million through the State Highway Operations and Protection Program (SHOPP), with construction expected from January 2026 to April 2027. - For the future Otis Drive project (Broadway to Bay Farm Island Bridge), Caltrans plans to program a project in the 2028 SHOPP cycle to study a road diet and other alternatives, with environmental and design phases taking about three years and construction around 2032. The city recommended studying alternatives ranging from enhanced crossings on four lanes to road diets with or without bike lanes. - Commissioners discussed the need for detailed traffic and speed studies, truck turning radii, design details for bulb-outs (quick-curb vs. concrete), and comprehensive traffic diversion analysis for future alternatives. - Commissioners appreciated the improvements but noted the process was inefficient and urged earlier, more collaborative engagement between Caltrans and the city. They emphasized that the project must be safe and usable and requested Caltrans address specific connectivity and crowding issues raised by public comments. - No vote was taken (discussion only). Key Outcomes - Minutes Approved: The draft minutes of April 30, 2025 were approved with one abstention (Commissioner Gloyne). - Adjournment: The meeting adjourned before 8:00 PM.

This was a regular meeting of the Social Service Human Relations Board (SSHRB) held on May 28, 2025. The primary agenda item was a detailed presentation and discussion of the Housing and Human Services (HHS) Division's proposed budget for fiscal years 2025-2027. Key topics included the city's stable but stretched financial condition, the impact of expiring one-time federal funds, the proposed restructuring of homeless outreach services, and the addition of a social services position at the library. Board members provided extensive feedback and asked clarifying questions, and workgroup updates were given. Consent Calendar - The board unanimously approved the minutes from the April 24, 2025 meeting (6-0 vote). Public Comments & Testimony - There were no public comments for the non-agenda public comment period or for any specific agenda items. Discussion Items - Budget Presentation (Item 4A): Assistant City Manager Amy Woolridge presented the city's overall financial context and the HHS Division budget for FY 2025-27. The city has a 25% operating reserve ($37.5 million) and is in a stable financial position, but the budget is "stretched." Operating revenues cover 97% of expenditures, with the remaining 3% coming from residual fund balance. Sales tax revenue has decreased due to the loss of a major sales tax generator. The city is facing $6.3 million in high-risk federal grants due to new federal non-compliance clauses related to DEI and ICE cooperation. The general fund is now absorbing approximately $7 million in costs for critical programs (e.g., Care Team, homeless initiatives) that were previously funded by one-time federal funds. The HHS budget is estimated to be about 2% of the overall general fund ($150 million). Homeless program expenditures alone will rise to approximately $4.6 million by the end of the two-year budget. The CDBG allocation decreased by about 1.5% ($16,000) from previous funding levels. The budget for the Emergency Supportive Housing (ESH) program is transitioning entirely to the general fund ($1.1 million annually) after federal ARPA funds are exhausted in December 2025. The proposed budget does not cut any services and aims to preserve $9.5 million in residual fund balance. A van for homeless outreach (AEA van) was proposed. The division moved 216 people into housing in 2024. - Key Budget Decisions & New Positions: The city council approved one new Program Specialist II (MSW) position for homeless outreach, two additional police officer positions, and one victim's advocate. The city is not renewing the Village of Love mobile outreach contract, saving $270,000, and using those funds to create a full-time and part-time/contract social services position for the library (Enhanced Social Services Program). The first year of the library program will use part-time or contract staff, with a recommendation for year two based on data. The division is exploring MSW/BSW internships for these roles. - Financial Challenges & Risk: The budget assumes the city will absorb the full cost of the Emergency Supportive Housing program ($1.1 million in the second year) and the day center relocation project (funded by a mix of state, general fund, and pro-housing grants). Dignity Village has approximately $4.2 million remaining in funding, which will be expended by the end of the two-year budget cycle; staff are exploring options to avoid the $2 million annual operating cost hitting the general fund. A potential revenue measure for the 2026 or 2028 ballot is under consideration. - Board Questions and Concerns: Board members raised concerns about the lack of institutionalized substance use disorder treatment, the need for prevention services, and the difficulty unhoused residents face in navigating the system. A board member shared a personal story of a constituent who felt leaving Alameda's system would make it nearly impossible to return. Staff acknowledged these gaps and the need for better coordination with Alameda County, noting that root causes of homelessness (affordable housing, health services) are primarily county responsibilities. The board also clarified that 70% of the city's general fund goes to public safety, with HHS being a smaller portion. The city's unfunded pension liability is not fully funded but is in a healthy position relative to other cities, and the city contributes 50% of year-end surpluses to the retirement fund. - Workgroup Reports (Item 4B): - United Against Hate Workgroup: Met with school officials and AUSD, refined language in a resolution, and have a meeting scheduled with the national United Against Hate organization. A board member noted ongoing racial microaggressions in Alameda schools, leading some students to consider leaving the district. - Domestic Violence Workgroup: Awaiting the appointment of a new SSHRB member. The workgroup is exploring a presentation from a community expert on domestic violence resources, including a potential library-based information hub. - Road Home / Homelessness Workgroup: Discussed public education on homelessness and service navigation. Efforts include an infographic, a potential fourth of July race partnership, and a community meeting at the library. A resident from Dignity Village participated in a recent presentation. - Age-Friendly Alameda Workgroup: Progress is stalled due to staff changes; the board is seeking administrative support. A volunteer list for seniors has been expanded and will be hosted on the city website. - McKay Avenue Committee: Received $202,000 in funding for a senior housing project (106 units), with design and permitting expected by October 2025 and construction starting September 2026. A respite care center is 60% complete, but permit delays for a neighboring apartment complex are causing issues. Key Outcomes - Consent Calendar Approved: Minutes from April 24, 2025, unanimously approved (6-0). - Budget Presentation Received: Staff provided an overview of the FY 2025-27 budget; no formal board action was required, but discussion and feedback were extensive. - Library Social Services Pilot Approved by City Council: The Enhanced Social Services Program, as presented, was approved by the city council. - Homeless Outreach Restructured: The Village of Love outreach contract will not be renewed, with funding redirected to in-house staff. - Next Steps: The workgroups will continue their activities. The board will meet with a domestic violence expert. The next board and commission event is scheduled for May 29, 2025. The meeting was adjourned at 8:47 PM.

The Planning Board of Alameda met on May 27, 2025, at 7:00 PM in Council Chambers. The meeting included a consent calendar, a workshop on the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Update, and staff communications. Key actions included approval of the General Plan conformance for the Capital Budget and a deferral of the draft meeting minutes from May 12, 2025. Consent Calendar - Draft Meeting Minutes (May 12, 2025): Deferred to the next meeting because Board Member Humphrey was not present at that meeting and the board lacked a quorum to approve the minutes. (Item 4-A) - General Plan Conformance (Capital Budget FY 2025-26 and 2026-27): Moved from the regular agenda to the consent calendar. The board conducted a public hearing and determined that the proposed Capital Budget is consistent with the General Plan. The motion was adopted with a unanimous vote of present members; three absent members (Areza, Ruiz, Wang) were noted as abstentions. (Item 5-A/4-B) Public Comments & Testimony - No members of the public spoke on any agenda item during the non-agenda public comment period or during the inclusionary housing workshop. Discussion Items - Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Update (Workshop): Staff and consultant (Kirsten Dishinger of Street Level Advisors) presented four preliminary recommendations based on the Housing Element and working group discussions: 1. On-site rental requirements: Reduce from 15% (4% at 50% AMI, 4% at 80% AMI, 7% at 110% AMI) to 10% (4% at 50% AMI, 6% at 80% AMI) to eliminate the moderate-income tier that was difficult to fill and minimally subsidized. Options for 100% AMI were also discussed. 2. On-site ownership requirements: Increase from 15% to 18% or 20% inclusionary, all at moderate income (120% AMI), to reflect the high cost of compliance and better match household needs. 3. In-lieu fees: Expand availability to all project sizes; recommended rates of $35/sq. ft. for rental and $35–$50/sq. ft. for ownership (compared to current $17.87/sq. ft. for small ownership projects). 4. Cluster development agreements: Establish clearer criteria for approving off-site or land-dedication alternatives, including feasibility assessments and alignment with city housing goals. 5. Term of affordability: Extend from 59 years to 99 years or the life of the building, consistent with Bay Area trends. - Board members discussed the recommendations extensively, raising questions about shared equity models, the importance of developer feedback, the need to ensure in-lieu fees do not overly disincentivize on-site units, and the potential for lowering rents on vacant moderate-income units. Members generally supported the direction but requested more analysis on the 100% AMI rental option, further detail on cluster criteria, and consideration of state law changes (e.g., fee timing, SB 330). Key Outcomes - Consent Calendar: The General Plan conformance was approved (3-0-3 on abstentions). The May 12 minutes were deferred. - Inclusionary Housing Workshop: The board provided feedback to staff and consultant. Staff will refine the ordinance proposal and return to the board for a formal hearing in the near future. No vote was taken on the recommendations. - Item 5-C (Encinal Terminals Temporary Use Permit): Continued off-calendar to a future meeting (as previously determined on May 19, 2025). - Staff Communications: Noted recent staff-level design review approvals and upcoming meetings (including a Use Permit modification for a gas station on Central Avenue). - Adjournment: The meeting adjourned without further business.

This meeting of the Alameda Golf Commission featured extensive public comment from members of the Alameda Women's Golf Club and the Alameda Niners Golf Club, who expressed frustration and concern over the cancellation of their scheduled tee times by the course operator, Greenway Golf. Commissioners and Mayor Ashcraft listened, expressed support, and pledged to seek resolutions. Consent Calendar - The minutes from the March 2025 meeting were approved unanimously. Public Comments & Testimony - Diane Hughes (Captain, Alameda Women's Golf Club): Described the club's 96-year history, 106 members, and the social and health benefits. Reported that in mid-April, an NCGA tournament was booked over their usual Thursday tee times without notice, and that seven Thursday dates so far in 2025 had been lost to events. She stated the club feels unwelcome and asked for stability. - Peggy Marcinero (President, Alameda Niners Golf Club): Stated that nine of their previously scheduled Monday play dates (23% of the year) were canceled by Greenway, with no alternative options offered. She noted that when playing at other courses, participation drops 30%. She reported that prior to Greenway's management, the Niners had never been bumped in 53 years. - Jan Payrow (90-year-old member): Shared her personal story of moving to Alameda because of the golf course and the community. Stressed the importance of golf for physical and mental health. - Pam Curtis (Member of both clubs and Junior Golf): Thanked Greenway for allowing a shotgun start for the annual invitational, but expressed overall lack of support. Noted the club's upcoming centennial and the volunteer-run junior golf program serving thousands. - Emily Gorin (online, AWGC member): Expressed concern that Greenway is unresponsive to the local golf community. Described the club as a “public health asset” and a reliable revenue stream. Asked for protective language in future lease contracts. - Cindy Withrow (20-year member, AWGC board): Stated that members feel disrespected and dismissed. Questioned why Greenway cancels club play when the North Course is available, and noted the club's charitable contributions (e.g., Alameda Food Bank). - Mary Jo Knight (10-year member): Emphasized the social welfare network provided by the club, noting that many members are afraid to speak publicly due to potential retribution. She highlighted the club's tax contributions and charitable giving. - Jane Solwald (former Golf Commission member, 23-year club member): Described moving to Alameda because of the golf course. Recalled being impressed by Greenway's promises to support service clubs during the operator selection process, and was shocked by the recent cancellations. - Audio Lee (former public official): Stated that the city's role is to serve the community, not maximize profit. Argued that Greenway's treatment of service clubs may violate the lease's non-discrimination clause, and urged the commission to act as guardians of the public asset. - Claire Lau: Mentioned that the women's club was promised 1,600 tee times per year (for 18-hole group) and 1,600 for the 9-hole group, and that the men's clubs also had access to 3,200 tee times. She called for continued access to the park. Discussion Items - Commissioner Tong: Expressed appreciation for the public comments, stated a desire for regular feedback from the golfing community, and acknowledged the need to work within the commission's mission. - Commissioner Boris: Welcomed the speakers, noted their perspectives are valuable, and assured that the commission is listening actively. - Commissioner Allen (Ed Downey): In his final meeting, expressed gratitude for his time on the commission but regret that things could be better. He expressed hope that the operator would have a change of heart. - Commissioner Sarant: As a new commissioner, resonated with the speakers' frustrations and expressed interest in understanding how the commission can move forward with the operator. - Mayor Ashcraft: Thanked the speakers and stated that the issue “troubles” her. Noted ongoing litigation but promised to explore back-channel solutions. She also highlighted the importance of community and health. - Director Wong (Recreation and Parks): Provided a department update on upcoming events (Alameda Walks, sand castle contest, July 4th parade, etc.). Reported that the 11th annual Play for the Parks golf tournament had nearly 140 participants. Regarding golf, he stated that the proposed North Course resident rates are still under negotiation with city management, and that the temporary implementation approved in March continues until a resolution is reached. He clarified that the 1,600 tee times per club mentioned by speakers is not in the lease agreement. Key Outcomes - The minutes from the March meeting were approved. - No formal votes were taken on the public comment issues. - Mayor Ashcraft committed to looking into the cancellation issue and working through city staff. - The temporary implementation of the proposed North Course resident rates remains in effect pending a final resolution. - The next regular Golf Commission meeting is scheduled for July 8, 2025, at 6:30 PM at City Hall.

The Alameda City Council held a regular meeting on May 20, 2025, preceded by a closed session and a joint meeting with the Successor Agency. The primary agenda item was an informational report on city vacancies, recruitment, and retention as mandated by Assembly Bill 2561, including a presentation by the APOA on police staffing challenges. The council also approved routine consent calendar items and heard public comments on various topics. Consent Calendar - Approved the minutes of the Special Joint City Council and SACIC meeting of May 6, 2025, and investment transactions report for the quarter ending March 31, 2025. - Approved routine items including: demolition contract for Building 116 ($281,160), on-call roofing maintenance ($800,000), update on affordable housing grant application, environmental services amendment ($305,000), cooperative agreement with AUSD for emergency shelters, fire records management system ($179,396), acceptance of $963,000 JAG grant for CARE team, salary schedule amendments for part-time classifications, final map for West Midway Large Lot, appointment of parking hearing examiner, and final passage of ordinance on third-party food delivery services. Public Comments & Testimony - Brian Kennedy criticized the city's website for posting "know your rights" information regarding ICE, asserting that ICE targets criminal illegal aliens and recounting the murder of a child by illegal aliens. He urged the council to remove the content and expressed opposition to sanctuary city policies. - Leslie Schubin, a resident and landlady, alleged harassment by city staff member Bill Chapin regarding a rent increase approved in November 2023. She argued that a 2024 law was applied retroactively to force a refund, claiming violation of state and federal law. - William Morrison questioned how the council corrects mistakes, citing the High Street/Fernside/Gibbons Drive intersection and traffic calming measures. He referenced the General Plan's mobility element and argued that current street designs worsen traffic congestion and harm neighborhood character. Discussion Items - Item 7A: Vacancies, Recruitment, and Retention Report (AB 2561) – Acting HR Director Noelle White presented: Citywide average vacancy rate of 10.3% over 12 months (7.7% excluding APOA). APOA had the highest vacancy rate at 24.4%, exceeding the 20% threshold for additional reporting. Recruitment averaged 84 calendar days to fill positions—35 days faster than comparable agencies. In 2024, 98 vacancies were created; attrition rate was 12.3% (9.9% excluding APOA). Retirements (23) and voluntary separations (42) were key drivers. Efforts to reduce hiring obstacles include online testing, updated class specs, and external raters. - APOA Presentation – Sergeant Kevin Horikoshi, APOA president, reported current sworn staffing at 69 officers (budgeted 88): 37 patrol, 0 traffic division, 1 community resource, 1 support services, 5 field training, and 2 detectives (each with 200 cases). From June 2021 to May 2025, the department hired 48 officers but lost 48 officers plus 5 academy recruits. Of the 48 losses, 16 left for other agencies, 10 service retirements, 11 disability retirements, 6 released, 5 left profession. Over half who left were academy and field-training investments. Reasons cited: wages/benefits, career growth limitations (few assignments beyond patrol), proximity to home, and disagreement with policies/work restrictions. He noted that burnout and overtime are managed but crime is trending down. - Council Discussion – Councilmembers expressed concern about retention, deployment, and burnout. Councilmember Jensen suggested an outside consultant for deployment analysis; the Mayor favored internal expertise. Councilmember Daysog questioned the proposed reduction of sworn positions from 88 to 72, arguing it could worsen career development and retention, and noted that the cuts seem disproportionate compared to the Great Recession when only 4 positions were cut. City Manager Jennifer Ott explained that budget constraints—reduced revenues and increased costs—necessitate pausing hiring at 72 officers, with emphasis on retaining existing staff. Councilmember Bowler highlighted that the budget proposed expansion from current staffing and that consensus supports prioritizing police staffing. Vice Mayor Pryor cautioned against punishing the police department for reducing crime through efficiency. The council accepted the informational report with additional feedback. Key Outcomes - The council unanimously accepted the informational report on vacancies, recruitment, and retention, incorporating council comments. - The city manager will consider council feedback on police deployment, retention strategies, and budget implications as the FY2025-26 budget process continues. - No formal votes were taken on the report; it was informational. The consent calendar items were approved unanimously. - The meeting was adjourned in memory of former City Attorney Janet Kern (2012-2018).