Meeting colors

OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD

Record of Proceedings

Alameda Ad Hoc Commission Hearing on Building 43 Winery Red Tag Appeal - June 5, 2025

City Council — Thursday, June 5, 2025

BodyAlameda, California

SessionCity Council

DateThursday, June 5, 2025

StatusFILED

Video Record

0:00 / 2:11:20

Transcript — VerbatimClick a timed line to jump · ⧉ to share it

0:24

It's almost intimidated.

0:26

Three of them in here.

0:29

Right on the verge of intimidation.

0:32

I'll tell you what, if it'll make you feel less intimidated, I can say it would be fabulous.

0:37

Yeah, maybe take your two frames.

0:41

That's not that.

0:42

Okay.

1:04

So JB, um you able to monitor the Zoom's attendance as well.

1:16

Just in case later we need to join us remotely.

1:22

Okay.

1:29

Call it to work with this.

1:30

Yeah, well.

1:31

Just give me a bit of please.

1:33

Thank you.

1:35

As of right now, there are no participants.

1:40

Okay.

1:40

Well, um 5 30.

1:44

Um, so as um the secretary to the commission here, I'll just um give a little introduction.

1:51

Uh and I believe I shared this information um with the parties, but um this evening uh we need to um appoint a uh chairperson of the commission.

2:01

This is an ad hoc commission um established uh from members of the historical advisory board.

2:08

Um, and so uh one item the first item of business would be to um have the members themselves appoint a chairperson.

2:16

Uh going forward, then we will um have a presentation by the appellant for 10 minutes and um by city staff for 10 minutes uh to present the uh case.

2:29

Um all the information has also been uh in the staff report that was published and the agenda packet online, um, which you've had access to for over a week.

2:41

Um and then uh there would be time uh for uh question and answer um as well as uh discussion um and if um the commission so chooses you could also offer opportunity for rebuttal or closing statements, um, and then um we uh asking you to take an action and uh we have some information about the framework for that action.

3:08

Sure.

3:08

So since this is an ad hoc commission that does not meet very regularly, I just wanted to remind everyone of the scope of this commission's review on appeal.

3:16

Uh I'm just gonna read it from a notes here under AMC sections 2 17.4A and 217.5 C and California Building Code Chapter 1 Division 2, Section 113.2.

3:27

The commission hears and decides appeals of the building officials orders determinations and other decisions as to the application and interpretation of the city's building code in reviewing the interpretation of a provision, the commission may also consider whether an alternate proposal for compliance better satisfies the true intent of the code.

3:45

The commission cannot, however, interpret the administrative provisions of the building code nor waive applicable code requirements.

3:51

That is the review is limited to the interpretation of physical and technical standards.

3:55

Well, the commission is free to deliberate any manner that sees fit.

3:58

I would recommend that each issue be approached at a minimum to answer two questions.

4:02

First, whether the provision applies to this case, and second, if it applies, whether it was interpreted correctly or incorrectly has applied to this case.

4:10

If the commission finds that an applicable provision was incorrectly interpreted, it should also consider and decide what the correct interpretation is.

4:24

I've got several questions on the process, and I did email those to Mr.

4:28

Buckley, and I did not get a response on those.

4:33

I sent him at least seven different questions, and there was no response.

4:37

He sent me very vague answers when he did send me answers, such as the commission may.

5:00

Buckley with the fact that him and his boss are parties to a lawsuit that I'm involved in, um, and that I felt it was very inappropriate that he be the chair of this committee due to the conflict of interest.

5:10

He failed to respond to that.

5:12

Um, I've also emailed Mr.

5:14

Davilos questions, and he failed to completely respond to all of those as well.

5:19

Um, they've given me no indication of how to clear violations, how to get this red tag removed, how to restore my occupancy permit, nothing.

5:29

This has been completely vague, out of the blue.

5:32

Um, and again, you know, red tags are reserved for commit uh for situations which are immediately dangerous to life, health, and safety, collapsing roofs, that type of a situation.

5:43

This does not exist in this situation, as you know.

5:47

You know, we are um party to four different sequel lawsuits, number five and six are on their way, and this is basic retaliation by the city against us.

5:57

This is not my time here.

5:58

I'm still asking clarifying questions, please.

6:01

So again, I've asked Mr.

6:03

Buckley and Mr.

6:04

Davilos several email questions, and I got no response from them.

6:09

So again, I'm in an extreme disadvantage here today to be trying and speak, and again, this is really my Latina business partner's business, but she is so intimidated by the police presence, by what the city of Alameda has done, by the threats by Mr.

6:26

Davos.

6:27

I even had to take over the communications with Mr.

6:29

Davos because Mr.

6:30

Davos was treating her like he was she was his wife or something, yelling at her.

6:36

Um, they were speaking in Spanish, she was misbehaving completely inappropriately.

6:41

I didn't want to throw that out there, but enough is enough.

6:44

So I had to relieve Mr.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting

Pending Litigation████████████████████████24%

Public Safety████████████████████20%

Code Enforcement████████████████16%

Public Comment██████████████14%

Engineering And Infrastructure███████████11%

Disability Rights██████████10%

Procedural█████5%

Summary of Proceedings

Alameda Ad Hoc Commission Hearing on Building 43 Winery Red Tag Appeal - June 5, 2025

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.

Meeting Transcript

It's almost intimidated. Three of them in here. Right on the verge of intimidation. I'll tell you what, if it'll make you feel less intimidated, I can say it would be fabulous. Yeah, maybe take your two frames. That's not that. Okay. So JB, um you able to monitor the Zoom's attendance as well. Just in case later we need to join us remotely. Okay. Call it to work with this. Yeah, well. Just give me a bit of please. Thank you. As of right now, there are no participants. Okay. Well, um 5 30. Um, so as um the secretary to the commission here, I'll just um give a little introduction. Uh and I believe I shared this information um with the parties, but um this evening uh we need to um appoint a uh chairperson of the commission. This is an ad hoc commission um established uh from members of the historical advisory board. Um, and so uh one item the first item of business would be to um have the members themselves appoint a chairperson. Uh going forward, then we will um have a presentation by the appellant for 10 minutes and um by city staff for 10 minutes uh to present the uh case. Um all the information has also been uh in the staff report that was published and the agenda packet online, um, which you've had access to for over a week. Um and then uh there would be time uh for uh question and answer um as well as uh discussion um and if um the commission so chooses you could also offer opportunity for rebuttal or closing statements, um, and then um we uh asking you to take an action and uh we have some information about the framework for that action. Sure. So since this is an ad hoc commission that does not meet very regularly, I just wanted to remind everyone of the scope of this commission's review on appeal. Uh I'm just gonna read it from a notes here under AMC sections 2 17.4A and 217.5 C and California Building Code Chapter 1 Division 2, Section 113.2. The commission hears and decides appeals of the building officials orders determinations and other decisions as to the application and interpretation of the city's building code in reviewing the interpretation of a provision, the commission may also consider whether an alternate proposal for compliance better satisfies the true intent of the code. The commission cannot, however, interpret the administrative provisions of the building code nor waive applicable code requirements. That is the review is limited to the interpretation of physical and technical standards. Well, the commission is free to deliberate any manner that sees fit. I would recommend that each issue be approached at a minimum to answer two questions. First, whether the provision applies to this case, and second, if it applies, whether it was interpreted correctly or incorrectly has applied to this case. If the commission finds that an applicable provision was incorrectly interpreted, it should also consider and decide what the correct interpretation is. I've got several questions on the process, and I did email those to Mr. Buckley, and I did not get a response on those. I sent him at least seven different questions, and there was no response. He sent me very vague answers when he did send me answers, such as the commission may. Buckley with the fact that him and his boss are parties to a lawsuit that I'm involved in, um, and that I felt it was very inappropriate that he be the chair of this committee due to the conflict of interest. He failed to respond to that. Um, I've also emailed Mr. Davilos questions, and he failed to completely respond to all of those as well. Um, they've given me no indication of how to clear violations, how to get this red tag removed, how to restore my occupancy permit, nothing. This has been completely vague, out of the blue. Um, and again, you know, red tags are reserved for commit uh for situations which are immediately dangerous to life, health, and safety, collapsing roofs, that type of a situation. This does not exist in this situation, as you know. You know, we are um party to four different sequel lawsuits, number five and six are on their way, and this is basic retaliation by the city against us. This is not my time here. I'm still asking clarifying questions, please. So again, I've asked Mr.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI

TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com