Alameda Recreation and Park Commission Meeting – July 10, 2025

The Alameda Recreation and Park Commission met on Thursday, July 10, 2025, at 7:00 PM in the City Hall Council Chambers. The meeting featured a presentation on the progress of The Road Home 5-Year Plan to prevent and respond to homelessness, and a workshop to review and comment on a concept for a surf pool at Enterprise Park. Commissioners heard public comments, discussed agenda items, and took action on minutes.

Consent Calendar

• 5-A – Approved the minutes of the June 12, 2025 regular meeting by a unanimous roll-call vote (4-0).

Public Comments & Testimony

Non-Agenda Public Comment: None.

6-A – The Road Home Homelessness Plan: No public comment.

6-B – Surf Pool at Enterprise Park: Twelve speakers offered comments:

• Catherine Chang (owner of Live Simply Surf Shop) – In support, sharing a personal story of how surfing helped her heal after her husband’s death; emphasized the surf pool’s potential as an inclusive community space.
• Cami Richards (Alameda Community Sailing Center) – Supportive but raised concerns about protecting existing businesses on the site, and praised potential infrastructure benefits (water, electricity).
• Richard Bangart – Opposed to leasing city land; argued the developer should purchase property elsewhere and that a master plan for Enterprise Park should come first.
• Irene Dieter – Opposed to locating a private commercial facility in a public park; called the site the “wrong spot” and urged selling land to the developer rather than leasing.
• Peter Decock – In support, citing surfing’s benefits for health, disability inclusion, and environmental education.
• Rick Lewis – Opposed, preferring a natural habitat and pedestrian-oriented space over a commercial venue.
• Marjorie Powell (member of Friends of the Alameda Wildlife Refuge) – Opposed to privatizing park land; urged the city to explore other locations at Alameda Point.
• David Mick (President of Power Engineering Construction) – In support, noting the project would activate an underutilized area and align with the city’s vision.
• Ken Robles – In support but emphasized the need for a master plan; also suggested adding sand volleyball courts.
• Amelia McDonald (resident, swim coach) – In support, highlighting surfing’s accessibility and the demand for a safe learning environment.
• Ruth Abbey – Opposed to private use of public land; suggested the surf park be located across the street and that a master plan be funded separately.

Discussion Items

6-A – The Road Home 5-Year Plan Presentation Scott Means (President, Social Service Human Relations Board), Michelle Buckholz, and Mark Sinclair (Dignity Village resident) presented updates. Key points:

• Since 2021, 226 affordable housing units have been completed, with 1,300 more in development.
• 81 temporary/emergency shelter beds added; a guaranteed basic income pilot (Rise Up) serves 150 low-income individuals.
• Alameda Care Team now permanent, operating 24/7 for mental health crises.
• Point-in-time count (Jan 2024) found two-thirds of unhoused are unsheltered; African Americans disproportionately affected (31% of homeless vs. 7% of general population).
• Mark Sinclair shared personal experience and advocated for more life-skills programs (NA/AA) and job training.
• Commissioners asked about employment programs, point-of-contact for residents, and support after housing placement. Staff noted limited after-care funding and a recent federal program elimination.
• No action was taken; the presentation was informational.

6-B – Surf Pool Workshop William Duncanson (Neptune Beach Surf Club) presented a concept to lease ~5.5 acres at Enterprise Park to build a surf pool with ancillary amenities (restaurant, renovated building, improved parking and bike/ped access). The developer proposes to fund a park master plan and improve park infrastructure. Key points from discussion:

• 72% of 1,200+ survey respondents supported the concept; 64% expressed interest in learning to surf.
• Projected opening: early 2029, contingent on approvals.
• Construction cost estimated “north of $50 million”; no city capital contribution required.
• Commissioners questioned local demand, traffic impacts, and risks if the business fails. The developer stated detailed studies would occur if an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) is pursued.
• Staff noted that without this project, Enterprise Park improvements would not be possible for 4–6 years due to resource constraints.

Key Outcomes

• Minutes approved unanimously (4-0).
• Road Home presentation: No action; commissioners thanked presenters and requested follow-up on volunteer opportunities.
• Surf Pool workshop: No decision was made. Commissioners expressed general interest in further exploration, with emphasis on robust community engagement, a master-planning process, and a strong community benefits agreement. Chair Radis summarized that the discussion would inform potential next steps (e.g., ENA) but no formal motion was taken.
• Next meeting: Scheduled for September 11, 2025.