What we are tracking in Alameda

A crosswalk on Park Street at Clinton Avenue that residents say drivers do not stop for

Alameda · Park Street at Clinton Avenue · raised since May 2025

On 21 May 2025, a resident's SeeClickFix report described the crosswalk at Park Street and Clinton Avenue in Alameda. SeeClickFix is the app and web form the City of Alameda uses to take problem reports from residents. The resident wrote:

"The crosswalk at Park St. and Clinton Ave. is very dangerous. Drivers frequently fail to stop, even when pedestrians are clearly visible. It's especially bad at night"

A resident's SeeClickFix report, crosswalk at Park Street and Clinton Avenue, Alameda, 21 May 2025

Other residents wrote in over the following months. On 7 September 2025, a resident's SeeClickFix report said "Very few drivers stop for pedestrians until they actually enter the crosswalk (visibility is poor, speeds are high)." On 15 September 2025, another resident's report said "Park street is the most crowded street Alameda and there is High School near this cross walk." The same day, a third report said "Cars speed up and down Park street. I have almost been hit a few times." On 29 September 2025, a fourth resident, who wrote of having lived at the corner for years, asked for crosswalk lights, saying they "will help increase pedestrian safety".

This one crossing is among the most reported places in the SeeClickFix data for Alameda. From 21 May 2025 to 30 April 2026, residents filed 88 reports at Clinton Avenue and Park Street, and 85 of them were filed under the category Street Safety Concern. That is about 8% of the 1,014 street safety reports filed citywide between October 2024 and September 2026. Of the 88 reports at this corner, 86 are still open. In SeeClickFix, open is the status label the city uses for reports that are not yet acknowledged or that were acknowledged, meaning the city marked the report as received. Either label does not say whether anyone visited the crosswalk. The descriptions are written by residents.

Alameda answers many kinds of reports quickly. Parking enforcement reports (1,397 filed over the same two years) close in a median of 2 days, and illegal dumping reports (3,979 filed) close in a median of 14 days. Reports about traffic signals and crossing lights have 9% still open. A crosswalk on a busy street with a school nearby is a different kind of request, because lights, signs or lane changes are traffic engineering choices rather than repairs. We have not seen the city's own assessment of this crossing.

Where things stand: we looked through the city's 2025 transportation annual report and 2026 work plan and did not find a project for this crossing. The Park Street work it lists is a design for transit signal priority, which is technology that helps buses keep green lights, with construction planned for 2026. That is a project for buses, not for people on foot. It is possible that crossing work is planned somewhere we have not seen, and we would like to hear if so.

Worth tracking

What would show movement is a named crossing improvement at Clinton Avenue and Park Street appearing in the city's work plan or a council agenda, and the 86 open reports being closed with a note about what was decided. A drop in new reports after a change would be one sign that drivers are stopping more often.

Crossing improvements on a single street corner are usually modest in cost, though we do not know the cost here. The federal government has several ways to help. Safe Streets and Roads for All is a federal grant program for projects that reduce traffic deaths and serious injuries, and a congressional office can help a city prepare an application and write a letter of support. A direct appropriation request, which is how a member of Congress asks Congress to fund a named local project, could cover part or all of a crossing upgrade depending on its cost. The office could also ask the Federal Highway Administration, the federal agency for roads, about technical help with crossing designs.

Which crossings come first is Alameda's call, made with its residents. The office would work with the city rather than arrive with a list. If you cross Park Street at Clinton Avenue, or at another crossing that worries you, tell us what you would put first.

Sources: SeeClickFix report, 21 May 2025, SeeClickFix report, 7 September 2025, SeeClickFix report, 15 September 2025, SeeClickFix report, 15 September 2025 (second), SeeClickFix report, 29 September 2025, SeeClickFix public data, City of Alameda requests, City of Alameda, Transportation 2025 Annual Report and 2026 Work Plan

Neighborhood corners where residents have asked for stop signs or signals, some for years

Alameda · Broadway at Lincoln, 6th Street at Haight, Mosley at Willie Stargell, Willow at San Antonio, Oak at San Antonio, Island Drive at Mecartney · raised since October 2024

On 12 October 2024, a resident's SeeClickFix report described a crash at Broadway and Lincoln Avenue in Alameda. SeeClickFix is the app and web form the City of Alameda uses to take problem reports from residents. The resident asked for four-way stop signs or traffic lights and wrote:

"I don't feel safe crossing at that corner any more and have been walking an extra 1-2 blocks to the next traffic light."

A resident's SeeClickFix report, Broadway and Lincoln Avenue, Alameda, 12 October 2024

On 3 February 2025, another resident's report at the same corner said "There are lots of families and children crossing this street to access park street or go to Edison elementary."

The same kind of request comes from other corners. On 15 October 2024, a resident who lives at 6th Street and Haight Avenue wrote that drivers on Haight "cannot see oncoming traffic on 6th until they are already in the intersection." On 18 November 2024, a report from Mosley Avenue and Willie Stargell Avenue said "We have asked the City for years for this and still nothing has been done." On 21 November 2024, a report from Willow Street and San Antonio Avenue said "every weekday morning 10-20 Love Elementary school kids cross". On 22 March 2025, a report from Oak Street and San Antonio Avenue asked for a four-way stop and said "This has been an issue for years." On 22 October 2024, a report from Island Drive and Mecartney Road asked whether a planned roundabout there had been "tossed under the rug" and said nothing on the city website had been updated since 2022.

In the SeeClickFix data for Alameda, 1,014 reports in the category Street Safety Concern were filed between October 2024 and September 2026. Of these, 872 (86%) are still open, and the open ones have a median age of 359 days. In SeeClickFix, open is the status label the city uses for reports that are not yet acknowledged or that were acknowledged, meaning the city marked the report as received. It does not say whether anyone visited. The descriptions are written by residents.

The city has acted on some corners. In March 2026 the council approved a $30,000 raised-island diverter at Lincoln Avenue and Walnut Street, a raised area in the road that steers drivers in a set direction, on a 4-0 vote. That is a different intersection from Broadway and Lincoln. The council also endorsed the design of the Willie Stargell Avenue rebuild, whose first phase is priced at $11.4M. We have not confirmed whether it includes the Mosley Avenue corner. A stop sign or signal is a change to the street rather than a repair, and we have not seen the city's review of these corners. The city's 2025 transportation annual report, as we read it, does not mention a roundabout at Island Drive and Mecartney Road. For most of these corners we have not found a decision.

Worth tracking

What would show movement is any of these corners getting a named decision, such as a sign installed, a traffic count scheduled, or a written reason the city is waiting, along with the share of open street safety reports falling below 86%.

Signals and roundabouts cost far more than signs, and we do not know the cost at these corners. Safe Streets and Roads for All is a federal grant program for projects that reduce traffic deaths and serious injuries, and a congressional office can help a city apply. A direct appropriation request, which is how a member of Congress asks Congress to fund a named local project, could cover part or all of a signal or roundabout depending on cost, and Rep. Simon's Community Project Funding page describes how that process works for named projects.

Which corners come first is Alameda's call, made with its residents. The office would work with the city rather than arrive with a list. If you live near one of these corners, or near another that has worried you, tell us what you would put first.

Sources: SeeClickFix report, 12 October 2024, SeeClickFix report, 3 February 2025, SeeClickFix report, 15 October 2024, SeeClickFix report, 18 November 2024, SeeClickFix report, 21 November 2024, SeeClickFix report, 22 March 2025, SeeClickFix report, 22 October 2024, SeeClickFix public data, City of Alameda requests, Alameda Post, Council approves Lincoln and Walnut changes, Alameda Post, Council approves design for Willie Stargell Avenue improvement project, City of Alameda, Transportation 2025 Annual Report and 2026 Work Plan, Rep. Simon, FY26 Community Project Funding

Drivers turning right across crosswalks where right turns on red are not allowed

Alameda · Atlantic Avenue at Wilma Chan Way, Ralph Appezzato Memorial Parkway at Webster Street and Poggi Street · raised since October 2024

On 6 December 2024, a resident's SeeClickFix report described what happened at Atlantic Avenue and Wilma Chan Way in Alameda. SeeClickFix is the app and web form the City of Alameda uses to take problem reports from residents. The resident wrote:

"6 cars in a row turned right despite pedestrian crossing signal (1st 3 of which turned right whilst on red, despite no turn on red) Children and cyclists all being ignored."

A resident's SeeClickFix report, Atlantic Avenue at Wilma Chan Way, Alameda, 6 December 2024

Two months earlier, on 2 October 2024, a resident's report from the Ralph Appezzato Memorial Parkway at Webster Street said "Driver ignored no turn on red, despite pedestrians waving them to stop." A no turn on red rule means drivers must wait for a green light before turning right. On 9 October 2025, another resident wrote "There needs to be clearer signage to not turn on the red on this corner. I know a red light turn signal was added but it's not enough."

The signal that resident mentions was part of work by the city. In January 2024 the city announced traffic signal improvements along the Parkway at Main Street, Third Street, Poggi Street, Webster Street and Wilma Chan Way, with new bike signals, left and right turn arrows, and no right turns on red where needed. The city said the aim was to reduce conflicts between drivers and people walking and biking on the Cross Alameda Trail, a path that runs beside the Parkway. Atlantic Avenue at Wilma Chan Way is not on that list, so we do not know whether work there is planned.

In the SeeClickFix data for Alameda, residents filed 34 reports at Atlantic Avenue and Wilma Chan Way between October 2024 and September 2026, and 15 are still open. They filed 33 at the Parkway and Webster Street, and 12 are still open. In SeeClickFix, open is the status label the city uses for reports that are not yet acknowledged or that were acknowledged, meaning the city marked the report as received. It does not say whether anyone visited. The descriptions are written by residents. Across the city, 9% of reports about traffic signals and crossing lights are still open.

Some problems at these signals are about equipment. On 18 June 2025, a resident reported "Bike detection signal heading west on RAMP @ Poggi not working", although the city's project description said bicyclists on the Cross Alameda Trail would in most cases be detected automatically.

Poggi Street is also where a pedestrian died. The city's transportation report says that on 15 January 2025 at 6:24 p.m., a driver in an SUV turning left from Poggi Street onto the Parkway struck a person walking across in the western crosswalk. That was a left turn, not a right turn on red, but it involves the same meeting of turning drivers and people in crosswalks. Two days later, Drew Dara-Abrams, who writes the Alameda blog The Morning Bun, wrote that "a person on foot was just killed in practically the same spot as another pedestrian 5 years ago." He argued that paint and plastic posts protect people less than concrete does. That is one resident's account. In its 2025 report, the city says it has run a Fatal Crash Response program since 2023 that adds quick changes at the sites of fatal crashes where possible, and that after the 2024 signal and crossing improvements at Poggi, the team found no further quick changes to make.

Worth tracking

What would show movement is clearer no turn on red signs or other changes at Atlantic Avenue and Wilma Chan Way and at the Parkway and Webster Street, a fix for the bike detection at Poggi Street, and fewer open reports at these corners.

Signal changes can be costly, and we do not know the cost here. Safe Streets and Roads for All is a federal grant program for projects that reduce traffic deaths and serious injuries, and a congressional office can help the city apply. A direct appropriation request, which is how a member of Congress asks Congress to fund a named local project, could cover part or all of a signal upgrade depending on cost. The office could also ask the Federal Highway Administration about technical help.

Which intersections come first is Alameda's call, made with its residents. The office would work with the city rather than arrive with a list. If you walk or bike through these crossings, tell us what you would put first.

Sources: SeeClickFix report, 6 December 2024, SeeClickFix report, 2 October 2024, SeeClickFix report, 9 October 2025, SeeClickFix report, 18 June 2025, SeeClickFix public data, City of Alameda requests, City of Alameda, Ralph Appezzato Memorial Parkway safety improvements, City of Alameda, Transportation 2025 Annual Report and 2026 Work Plan, The Morning Bun, 17 January 2025

Speeding and close calls near Gibbons Drive and Fernside Boulevard, crashes at Lincoln and Walnut, and a disagreement over a turn ban

Alameda · Gibbons Drive, Cambridge Drive, Southwood Drive, High Street, Fernside Boulevard, Lincoln Avenue at Walnut Street · raised since March 2025

Diana Gibson Pace, a resident of the Gibbons Drive area, sent the city a written comment on 24 September 2025 asking for traffic calming (changes that slow drivers down) after a crash outside her home.

"I had my car totaled in front of my house in June 26th, 2023 by a car going at least 80 miles per hour down Cambridge Drive."

Diana Gibson Pace, Gibbons-area resident, written comment to the City of Alameda, 24 September 2025

In the same summary, David Harris wrote on 24 September 2025 that "Every day, kids walking to and from Edison Elementary have to navigate cars that speed up to stop signs," and Elina Rubuliak wrote on 30 September that two cars "ran the yellow and then the red light." The city followed with a September 2025 Parametrix traffic study, two workshops and a survey with 373 responses.

Residents do not agree on the fix. On 18 November 2025 a resident of the side streets spoke against a proposed ban on left turns from Gibbons Drive onto the High Street Bridge, as the Alameda Post reported:

"I can't drive my car in one direction if even a midsize sedan is coming the other way."

A resident of the side streets near Gibbons Drive (Cornell, Northwood and Southwood), public comment at the Alameda city council, as reported by Alameda Post, 18 November 2025

In March 2025, 22 speakers waited past midnight to warn that a turn ban would divert traffic. School families want safer school routes and permanent changes sooner.

The council has acted. On 18 March 2025 it unanimously endorsed a 1.3-mile Fernside Boulevard redesign with bike lanes and curb extensions (corners that reach into the street), removing about 25% of the parking. It required a traffic study before any Gibbons change. Opponents cited the city's study as estimating 300-400% more side-street traffic if the left turn were restricted. On 18 November 2025 the council voted 4-1 for quick-build (fast, low-cost) changes: a bulb-out (a curb extension), two temporary roundabout pilots, speed cushions (speed bumps with gaps for emergency vehicles) and crosswalks. It delayed the left-turn ban until data comes in. The city's project page schedules the bulb-out and four speed humps for 2026 or early 2027 and the roundabouts for 2027, funded by Alameda County Measure BB, a transportation sales tax.

Lincoln Avenue at Walnut Street has had 38 collisions since 2009, 30 of them broadsides (one car hitting another's side), continuing after a 2020 lane reduction and 2025 warning beacons and posts. On 28 January 2026 the Transportation Commission unanimously endorsed a quick-build diverter (a raised island that steers drivers) and asked for data six months after installation, citizenportal.ai reported. On 17 March 2026 the council approved a $30,000 diverter 4-0; it could be installed as soon as summer 2026. We have not confirmed installation.

A draft citywide speed hump policy is under commission review and, as far as we have tracked, not adopted. Jay Garfinkle suggested in a letter on 5 December 2025 speed humps and a four-way stop at Cornell Drive.

Worth tracking

Movement would look like construction of the bulb-out and humps, the diverter and its six-month report, the city's later data, and a speed hump policy. Counts on Cornell, Yale and Bay Vista would show whether the projected spillover happens.

These are city engineering decisions, and the city lists Measure BB as funding for the quick-build work. The federal contribution is money. Safe Streets and Roads for All grants (a federal road safety program) and Transportation Alternatives funding (federal money for walking and biking) have eligibility rules, could pay for traffic counts, and the office can help the city apply. A direct appropriation request (a request that Congress set aside money for a local project) does not have to follow those rules, and it could cover this work in whole or in part, depending on cost. The one cost we have seen is $30,000 for the diverter. Which streets and fixes come first is for Alameda to decide with the people who live on them. We would work with the city on the request, and we would rather hear from residents about what they would put first than guess. Money does not settle the disagreement between the 22 speakers and the residents living with 38 crashes. That choice is the council's and its neighbors'.

Sources: City public input summary, City project page, Alameda Post, Fernside, Alameda Post, Gibbons, Alameda Post, Lincoln and Walnut, citizenportal.ai, City Council in Brief, Alameda Post, Letters

Cars in bike lanes, red curbs and red-light cameras: how Alameda enforces the rules of the road

Alameda · Park Street at Otis Drive, Webster Street at Atlantic Avenue, Central and Mitchell avenues, nine high-injury corridors · raised since October 2024

On 10 October 2024, a resident's SeeClickFix report described the 2200 block of Central Avenue at Alameda High School. SeeClickFix is the online service the city uses for resident reports.

"I have posted this before but obviously nothing has been done about this. Another near miss today with all of the cars double and triple parked in front of the high school at dismissal time. Cars are blocking the bicycle lane"

a resident's SeeClickFix report, 10 October 2024, 2200 block of Central Avenue

Between October 2024 and September 2026, residents filed 1,014 street safety reports, and 872 are still open, with a median age of 359 days. In 2025 alone they filed 411 traffic-safety complaints.

Of 1,397 parking enforcement reports in those two years, 14 (1%) are open, and the closed ones took a median of 2 days. Of 89 reports about Mitchell Avenue near the Bay Farm Island bridge, 83 were about cars parked into the bike lane, and 1 is open. "Open" is the city's own status label, meaning not yet seen or marked received, and it does not say whether anyone visited. The descriptions are written by residents.

On 4 March 2025, the Alameda City Council took up a red-light camera pilot, a trial in which cameras photograph drivers who run red lights. The council approved the pilot 5-0 for Park Street at Otis Drive and Webster Street at Atlantic Avenue. About 35 violations a day are expected across the two, roughly 12,000 a year, at near $490 a ticket. No camera company had been chosen when the council voted.

The city also carried out crosswalk daylighting under Assembly Bill 413, a state law that keeps the approach to a crosswalk clear of parked cars so drivers and people crossing can see each other. It painted red curbs on nine high-injury corridors, where many people have been hurt, while 129 of 156 requests for new red curbs are still open, with a median age of 378 days. Tickets waited for a $40 fine set in the summer 2025 fee schedule, the city's list of fees, which a Morning Bun blog post says council adopted on 3 June 2025. The city banned parking in Class II, III and IV bike lanes (the painted, shared and protected types), with a $79 fine that takes effect on 1 October 2026. E-bike and e-scooter safety became a Vision Zero education focus in 2026, and a councilmember pushed a 15 mph limit for bikes on shared paths. (Vision Zero is the city's goal of ending traffic deaths and serious injuries.)

Some drivers see a $490 automatic ticket as a way to raise money, and Vice Mayor Pryor raised concerns at the vote about the burden on some residents, which we have not seen answered in public. Privacy advocates object to more cameras and license plate readers (cameras that record plates), and the council's required annual public report on plate reader data is a partial answer. Frank Tiesma wrote to the Alameda Post on 17 July 2026 about speeding: "Given the number of speeders flying by me on our remaining four-lane roads, we need more traffic throttling."

Sources: SeeClickFix, Central Avenue, Alameda Post, red-light pilot, Alameda Post, daylighting, Alameda Post, fees, Morning Bun, Alameda Post, bike lanes, Alameda Post, e-bikes, Alameda Post, traffic

Storm drains that flood the same blocks every winter, and sump pumps that empty into the gutter

Alameda · Morton Street, 9th Street, Wood Street, Pacific Avenue, Linden Street, Johnson Avenue · raised since November 2024

On 22 November 2024, a resident of the 1500 block of Morton Street used SeeClickFix, the app and web form the City of Alameda uses to take resident reports, to write a resident's SeeClickFix report about the drain at the corner of Morton Street and Santa Clara Avenue:

"Every year this drain is clogged! Corner of Morton- Santa Clara The whole 1500 block of Morton floods! Please, please fix this sewer drain !"

a resident's SeeClickFix report, Morton Street and Santa Clara Avenue, 22 November 2024

The same day, a resident's SeeClickFix report said "Storm drain directly in front of 1198 9th St has been plugged for years." The reporter added a claim about the cause that we have not been able to check. On 11 November 2024, a resident's SeeClickFix report about the 1700 block of Wood Street described "several homes with (city approved) sump pumps pumping into the street", with gutters that stayed flooded "because the gutter cannot drain to the cross street where the storm drain is". A sump pump is a pump that moves water out from under a home. On 21 January 2025, a resident's SeeClickFix report about 2994 Johnson Avenue said "Due to the amount of water being pumped to the curb from basements in the area, our gutter never dries out. We now have standing water in the gutter year round."

In the city's SeeClickFix data for 1 October 2024 to 30 September 2026, 170 storm drain maintenance reports were filed and 42 (25%) are open, with a median age of 212 days. Those that were closed took a median of 122 days. Of 151 storm drainage flooding reports, 46 (30%) are open, with a median age of 322 days, and the closed ones took a median of 154 days. "Open" is the city's own status label, covering reports marked open or acknowledged (the city marked it received). It does not say whether anyone has visited, and the descriptions are written by residents.

The city is maintaining drains on a schedule. In July 2025 the council renewed a five-year contract worth $1,586,362, about $1.59 million, to maintain devices that catch trash and other debris at low-lying storm drain locations. Crews inspect them through each storm season, not only after a flood. The contract does not cover pipe capacity, meaning how much water the underground storm pipes can carry, and the city documents on it include no capacity assessment of the neighborhoods that flood.

The city has also named the larger problem. The Alameda Post reported on 28 September 2026 that City Manager Gerry Beaudin described the older storm drains as "too small for today's conditions" and linked them to more frequent street flooding. We have not found a date for any upgrade of pipe capacity. The separate flooding from king tides, meaning unusually high tides, along the shoreline is covered in the entry on shoreline adaptation, and the January 2026 tides are described by the Alameda Post.

Worth tracking

What would show movement: a capacity assessment of the pipes in the neighborhoods that flood, a dated upgrade plan, and fewer of the 151 flooding reports staying open.

The contract itself answers a federal obligation. Alameda installs trash-capture devices to meet its municipal stormwater permit, issued under section 402 of the Clean Water Act, a federal law that regulates pollution of waterways. The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Board, a state agency, runs that program for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and a congressional office could ask EPA Region 9, its California office, how maintenance is checked.

Larger pipes are mainly a question of construction money, and no cost figure exists. The Clean Water State Revolving Fund, a loan fund for water projects run by the State Water Board with federal money, has its own eligibility rules. A direct appropriation, called Community Project Funding when a member of Congress requests it for a named local project, could cover part or all of the pipes depending on the cost. A congressional office could help the city apply to either.

Which neighborhoods come first is Alameda's call with the people who live there. The office would work with the city rather than arrive with a list. If water collects on your street, tell us where.

Sources: SeeClickFix public data, SeeClickFix, Morton Street and Santa Clara Avenue, SeeClickFix, 1198 9th Street, SeeClickFix, 1700 block of Wood Street, SeeClickFix, 2994 Johnson Avenue, City of Alameda city council agenda, 1 July 2025, Alameda Post, 28 September 2026, Alameda Post, January 2026 flooding

Shoreline adaptation on an island: $290M needed, $26.45M secured

Alameda · Bay Farm Island, Estuary and Northern Waterfront, South Shore and Crab Cove, Alameda Point

On 3 and 4 January 2026, king tides, which are unusually high tides, flooded Crab Cove, paths on Bay Farm Island, Alameda Point and the marinas. "This is a preview of the future," Zoe Siegel, an advocate with Greenbelt Alliance, told the Alameda Post in an interview on 4 January 2026. She urged nature-based solutions, meaning protection that works with features such as beaches and marshes.

The tide gauge that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) runs at station 9414750 recorded 9.192 feet during that event, against 7.906 feet in January 2024. The tides were reported as 2.5 feet above normal and the highest since 1998. Bay Farm, East End and marina residents watched that flooding and have been asking where the protection is. Residents facing repeat flooding have watched the city add $3.4M, through a contract amendment, to its work with a landscape-architecture firm while the plan is still being studied, and they want to see construction.

The city has been working on an answer, and what it has funded so far is design rather than construction. Council accepted $2.64M in State Coastal Conservancy money (the Conservancy is a California state agency that funds coastal projects) to take Bay Farm Island from 30% to 60% design, meaning to move the engineering plans from 30% complete to 60% complete, with construction targeted for 2030. It also applied for a $1.6M Bay Restoration Authority grant (the Authority is a regional agency that funds Bay shoreline projects) for South Shore concept design, meaning early design work that lays out the basic idea of a project. The design would cover Elsie Roemer Bird Sanctuary, eelgrass expansion (restoring underwater grass beds in the bay) and beach nourishment (adding sand to a beach). Requests for about $1.78M in federal money for the Alameda Point stormwater and slope-stabilization project (work to manage rain runoff and to keep the shoreline ground from sliding) came from Rep. Simon, Sen. Padilla and Sen. Schiff. They were still pending as of August 2026.

The scale is what makes this hard. Alameda has identified $290 million of near-term shoreline adaptation need, meaning work to protect the shoreline from rising water, and holds $26.45 million against it, about 9% of the total. Along the way, roughly $54 million in federal support that had been awarded to the city was rescinded, meaning it was taken back. The city's sustainability manager, Danielle Mieler, confirmed the loss of the federal money and that the city has shifted to seeking state and regional money instead. A December 2025 workshop set out four projects, with these costs: the Estuary at $120M, Bay Farm Island at $75M, South Shore at $75M and Alameda Point at $20M. The citywide adaptation plan, which is meant to set out how the city will protect its whole shoreline from rising water, is due in fall 2027.

The objection residents raise is not that the risk is invented. It is that money is going to consulting firms for design work while the plan is still being studied and construction has not begun. So far the money has paid for design rather than building, and construction on Bay Farm Island is a 2030 target. Both positions can be held in good faith.

Sources: Alameda Post, Sea level rise planning fair presents draft strategies, Alameda Post, Weekend flooding offers a glimpse of the future, Alameda Post, City applies for adaptation grant to design the southern shoreline, Alameda Post, Fiscal crossroads: budget challenges and future growth, Alameda Post, 2 December city council preview, simon.house.gov, simon.house.gov, alamedapost.com, alamedaca.gov, alamedapost.com, padilla.senate.gov, padilla.senate.gov, Sen. Adam Schiff, FY27 CDS (Schiff): Alameda Point Stormwater Project (USACE), Sen. Adam Schiff, FY27 CDS (Schiff): Alameda Point Stormwater Project (USACE)

The Kaisei: a ship that sank at its Estuary dock in May 2025, with masts still showing a year later

Alameda · Alameda Estuary, at a dock near Nob Hill Foods · raised since May 2025

On 25 May 2025, the Kaisei, a 100-foot sailing ship, sank at its dock near Nob Hill Foods in Alameda. A year later, on 22 May 2026, Alex Burnson, an Alameda resident, wrote to the editor of the Alameda Post. He wrote that the Kaisei "was allowed to sit and deteriorate for years, not moving from the dock since at least 2018," and described what he still saw:

"The reminder came from the two masts still sticking out of the estuary waters, in the exact same place as they were a year ago."

Alex Burnson, Alameda resident, letter to the editor, Alameda Post, 22 May 2026

Burnson also asked how many more years it would take before the wreck is cleaned up. His letter is the only resident account we have tracked. The Kaisei is a clipper (a type of tall sailing ship) owned by Ocean Voyages Institute, a group known for its work on the Pacific Garbage Patch, a large area of floating plastic waste.

The response was quick. Motor oil left a film on the water, and the Alameda Post reported up to 400 gallons of diesel in three fuel tanks that divers could not reach, while two reachable tanks were empty. The Alameda Fire Department, the Coast Guard, Oakland Fire, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and Alameda Police responded. Floating barriers called booms contained the oil, and a crane tried to right the vessel. The Kaisei is part of a long-running estuary problem of derelict (abandoned) vessels.

There is news from the estuary this fall. In late September 2026, the Oakland Police Department's Marine Unit began removing 16 sunken vessels from the Oakland Estuary over about two weeks, as Local News Matters reported on 27 September 2026. The City of Oakland's announcement cites more than $3 million in state and federal grants and lists the U.S. Coast Guard among the agencies involved. Neither names the Kaisei, so we do not know whether it is among the 16. In September 2024, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (the federal agency that studies oceans and coasts) announced $3,164,649 for the City of Oakland to clean up the estuary, including abandoned vessels.

As far as we have tracked, no removal timeline has been published for the Kaisei and no agency has been named responsible. Whether any oil or fuel remains in the hull has not been answered publicly. Nobody we have tracked has argued the vessel should stay. Removing a sunken ship is hard, because who pays depends on who owns it and who is legally responsible for salvage costs.

Worth tracking

Movement would look like the Kaisei being named in the estuary removal work, a named lead agency (the one agency in charge), a written timeline, and a public statement of what, if anything, remains in the hull. Another year of silence would mean it is stuck.

Several federal agencies have a role when an abandoned vessel sits in navigable waters (waters ships can travel). The Coast Guard has authority over pollution threats under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. The Army Corps of Engineers, which builds and maintains waterway projects, has authority under the Rivers and Harbors Act where a wreck blocks ships. NOAA's Marine Debris Program funds removal of abandoned and derelict vessels. A congressional office could ask Burnson's question by writing to Coast Guard Sector San Francisco and the Corps' San Francisco District: which agency is in charge of the Kaisei, on what timeline, whether it could join the estuary removal work, and what the pollution status is, in writing.

Removal is also a question of money, and a direct federal appropriation (money Congress sets aside for a named project) could pay for it in whole or in part, depending on cost, which we have not seen estimated. The Coast Guard's authority is limited unless oil or fuel is actively leaking, so none of this replaces naming a lead agency. Where the Kaisei ranks among the estuary issues we are tracking is for Alameda and its residents to say, and the office would work with the city rather than arrive with a list. If you have a view on what should come first, we would like to hear it.

Sources: Alameda Post, Letters to the editor, 22 May 2026, Alameda Post, Historic 100-ft ship Kaisei sinks at Alameda dock, Local News Matters, 16 sunken vessels set for removal, 27 September 2026, City of Oakland, OPD Marine Unit leads Oakland Estuary cleanup, Alameda Post, Oakland to receive $3.16M for estuary cleanup

City shoreline parcels at Bayview Drive and Gibbons Drive, maintained by neighbors for 14 years

Alameda · Bayview Drive shoreline; Gibbons Drive shoreline, 64 homes

Alana Dill has lived in Alameda for 14 years. On 18 September 2026 she wrote a letter to the editor of the Alameda Post. Dill was writing about the Bayview Drive shoreline, the city-owned land between the homes and an informal path in the Bayview Drive area. She wrote that "The City has made few efforts in the 14 years we've been here to maintain its property", and that neighbors have pulled out the invasive plants there themselves.

Dill describes volunteers removing "about a half-ton of invasive iceplant, wild radish, and foxtails" from that strip, work that residents have taken on themselves. The city has published no improvement or maintenance plan for the strip. Dill's letter is the only account of it that we have tracked so far, so what we can say rests on one resident's description.

A second dispute involves city-owned shoreline nearby. Along the adjoining Gibbons Drive shoreline, 64 homeowners are contesting the city's finding that their landscaping is harmful encroachment onto public land, meaning planting that has spread onto land the city owns. Reviewing what grows on public land is a normal part of a city's work. Still, the two situations sit side by side: on one stretch of city-owned shoreline, some residents are being told their planting goes too far, and others say they are weeding it without help from the city.

Gibbons Drive also has two separate local debates. One is over traffic calming (changes meant to slow cars) and pilot roundabouts, which are trial roundabouts. The other is over the Liquidambar street trees (a tree species also called sweetgum) on five blocks. Neither has anything to do with the shoreline.

Sources: Alameda Post, Letters to the editor, 18 September 2026

Park and trail repairs, from the Bay Farm Island bridge handrail to Lincoln Park

Alameda · Bay Farm Island bridge steps and path, Lincoln Park, Ferry Point, Sentinel Drive, Jean Sweeney Open Space Park · raised since October 2024

On 6 October 2024, a resident used SeeClickFix, the app and web form Alameda residents use to send problems to the city, to report the steps at the Bay Farm Island bridge area. In a resident's SeeClickFix report, 6 October 2024, the writer said:

"On the steps a rusty iron hand rail is broken and moving around with a sharp metal edge. My kid almost got hurt by it"

A resident's SeeClickFix report about the Bay Farm Island bridge steps, 6 October 2024

A few days later, a resident's SeeClickFix report, 10 October 2024, said of the Bay Trail, "Damage to asphalt path; hazardous for pedestrians/cyclists." Then a resident's SeeClickFix report, 16 October 2024, described a bicycle crash: "I was in a bicycle crash on the wooden bridge that goes under the Bay Farm Bridge at 8:20am Friday 10/11. I was commuting to the Harbor Bay Ferry Terminal against the bike traffic of Lincoln Middle School students heading to school."

The city closes most park reports quickly. Between October 2024 and September 2026, residents filed 830 reports in the category "Recreation & Parks - Parks Maintenance" in SeeClickFix's public data. Reports that closed took a median of 3 days, meaning half closed in fewer days than that. About 31% of the 830 (256 reports) are still open, and the median age of the open ones is 310 days. In a second category, "Pedestrian or Bicycle Access Issues," residents filed 127 reports. Of those, 25 (20%) are still open, with a median age of 331 days, and the oldest open one is the 16 October 2024 report about the Bay Farm Island bridge path. In this data, "open" means unacknowledged or acknowledged, where acknowledged means the city marked the report as received. Open is the city's own label and does not say whether anyone visited, and the descriptions are written by residents.

Some places come up repeatedly, listed here in no order of priority. Lincoln Park has 40 reports, 29 of them for parks maintenance, and 6 are open. Ferry Point has 33 reports, 12 for parks maintenance, and 8 are open. The 657 to 687 block of Sentinel Drive has 30 reports, 17 for parks maintenance, and 10 are open. Jean Sweeney Open Space Park has 18 reports, 16 for parks maintenance, and 9 are open.

Fixing a rail or a path is a different job from the large projects the city counts. In November 2025 the city's parks director told the City Council about about $216.5 million of park capital need, meaning money for building and major repair rather than day-to-day upkeep. That figure does not describe a handrail, but it shows how much park work the city is already weighing. The two oldest bridge reports carry state route labels in the data, so part of this area may belong to the state rather than the city. We have not confirmed who maintains the steps, handrail and path.

Where things stand: for the bridge steps and path, the oldest reports are still open, and we have not tracked a repair.

Worth tracking

What would show movement: the October 2024 bridge reports closing, the open share of parks reports falling below 31%, and a clear answer on who maintains the bridge steps and path.

If the bridge area is a state route, the office could ask the state transportation agency, Caltrans, and the city who is responsible, and take casework from residents who have waited. For larger work, the federal Outdoor Recreation Legacy Partnership, a grant program within the Land and Water Conservation Fund that pays for building and improving parks in urban areas, is one route. Another is Community Project Funding, the process by which a member of Congress asks for money for one named project. A direct appropriation request could cover part or all of a repair like this, depending on its cost, which is not public yet.

Which repairs come first is up to Alameda and the people who use its parks and paths. The office would work with the city rather than arrive with a list. If there is a rail, path or park you would put first, tell us.

Sources: SeeClickFix report, 6 October 2024, SeeClickFix report, 10 October 2024, SeeClickFix report, 16 October 2024, SeeClickFix public data, City of Alameda requests, October 2024 to September 2026, Alameda Post, Council puts spotlight on urgent library and parks infrastructure needs

A door button at the Mastick Senior Center that seniors reported broken for months

Alameda · Mastick Senior Center, 1155 Santa Clara Avenue · raised since April 2025

The City of Alameda takes resident reports through SeeClickFix, an app and web form where anyone can describe a problem and the city can respond. On 6 June 2025, a resident used it to write about the lobby door at the Mastick Senior Center. In a resident's SeeClickFix report on 6 June 2025, the resident wrote:

"This ADA button has been broken for months at Mastick Senior Center! We have had numerous seniors walk into the door with walkers and wheelchairs thinking that it's opened!"

A resident's SeeClickFix report, Mastick Senior Center, 6 June 2025

The button in question is the push button that opens a door automatically. For a person who uses a wheelchair or a walker, it is how they get through a door that is hard to pull open. The resident calls it an "ADA button," a reference to the Americans with Disabilities Act, the federal civil rights law that sets accessibility rules for public buildings.

It was not the first report. In a resident's SeeClickFix report on 18 April 2025, the resident wrote, "The ADA button for the lobby door is still not fixed. And seniors continue to complain Several tickets have been submitted for this issue." A ticket here means an earlier report to the city.

Between October 2024 and September 2026, residents filed 70 reports in the Senior Services category for the Mastick Senior Center, according to the city's public SeeClickFix data, which holds 15,986 city requests over those two years. Of the 70, 49 (70%) are listed as open, with a median age of 534 days, which is about 18 months. The reports that have been closed took a median of 77 days. SeeClickFix counts a report as open if it is open or acknowledged, and acknowledged means the city marked it as received. Open is the city's own label and does not say whether anyone visited, and the descriptions are written by residents.

One quirk affects the count by address. In what we have tracked, 51 reports were recorded at a point in San Francisco Bay instead of at the building, 47 of them in Senior Services, and 41 of those 51 are open. The door button reports are among them. A count by street address therefore understates how many reports concern Mastick.

The city has made reporting easy to do, and for many kinds of problems it responds quickly. Illegal dumping reports, 3,979 in the same two years, close in a median of 14 days, and parking enforcement reports close in a median of 2 days. We have not seen what the repair involves or whether one is scheduled. The most recent resident report we have quoted is from June 2025, and we have not found a source saying the button was repaired.

Where things stand: residents described a broken accessibility feature over at least two months, and most reports for this center are still listed as open.

Worth tracking

What would show movement: the Senior Services requests for Mastick moving to closed with a date for the repair, and the reports recorded at the Bay point being matched to the building's address so the count is accurate.

Accessible entrances fall under the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Department of Justice publishes the rules and offers technical assistance through ADA.gov. A congressional office can ask the city for an answer on a case like this, which is called casework, and can ask the Department of Justice to give the city technical help on accessible entrances. The cost of the repair is not public. A direct appropriation request, which is how a member of Congress asks Congress to fund a named local project, could cover part or all of accessibility work at city buildings, depending on the cost. The federal Community Development Block Grant is a formula program, meaning eligibility rules and a formula set the amount each city receives, and cities can use it to remove barriers to people with disabilities in public buildings.

Which repairs come first at city buildings is the city's call, made with the people who use them. The office would work with the city rather than arrive with a list. If you use the Mastick Senior Center, or care for someone who does, tell us what you would put first.

Sources: SeeClickFix report, 6 June 2025, SeeClickFix report, 18 April 2025, SeeClickFix public API, City of Alameda requests, October 2024 to September 2026, ADA.gov, Department of Justice, HUD, Community Development Block Grant program

The park infrastructure cliff: $216.5M of unbuilt parks and unreplaced buildings

Alameda · Alameda Point and Seaplane Lagoon, Krusi Park, Jean Sweeney Park, Crown Memorial State Beach, citywide

On 4 November 2025, the city's parks director, Justin Long, told the Alameda City Council that the city has counted about $216.5 million of park capital need, meaning money for building and major repair rather than day-to-day upkeep. Adrienne Alexander, an Alameda resident, spoke about one building on that list, the one at Krusi Park, which has waited a decade to be replaced. She called that wait "a disgrace to the city".

That building is one item on a very long list. The $216.5 million covers 35 parks and 26 playgrounds, and almost none of it is funded. The list includes De-Pave Park, phases of Seaplane Lagoon Park, completion of Jean Sweeney Open Space Park, Enterprise Park, a $65M phased regional sports complex, the Veterans Building, the Officers' Club and the Alameda Point Gym. Several of these are at Alameda Point, the former naval air station at the western end of the island. The list also includes irrigation, accessibility and building repairs across the park system.

Two items on the list stand apart from the rest. De-Pave Park is a project to turn a stretch of paved shoreline at Alameda Point into parkland. It has a $2.4M Bay Restoration Authority grant request pending, on top of an earlier $800,000 planning grant. The Bay Restoration Authority is a regional agency that funds shoreline projects around San Francisco Bay. The city is aiming to have the design 90% complete by the end of 2026. That is a project with real momentum. Crown Memorial State Beach is managed by the East Bay Regional Park District, a separate public agency, rather than by the city. It has recurring concerns about maintenance, water quality and rising sea levels, and those concerns have not been resolved.

The tree canopy, meaning the share of the city shaded by trees, is part of the same set of costs and is held up for a different reason. The draft Urban Forest Plan would raise the share of Alameda covered by tree canopy from 11.2% to 20% by 2055, by adding 350 trees a year. It remains stalled over how tall trees may grow near power lines. The city argues for more canopy, and Alameda Municipal Power, the city-owned electric utility, argues for keeping tree branches away from the lines. Separately, the city has a $15.19M, five-year contract with West Coast Arborists, a tree-care company. Under it, trees are pruned and dangerous trees are removed on a continuing schedule, rather than only after a problem is reported.

The contract's cost also has to be weighed against other needs. The $15.19M over five years for tree care is money that could otherwise go to paving, sewers and storm drains. The contract has also needed amendments to keep up, which may mean the original scope understated the work. A resident waiting on one particular overdue tree may still have to wait until the contractor's regular schedule reaches it.

Sources: Alameda Post, Council puts spotlight on urgent library and parks infrastructure needs, Alameda Post, City applies for a $2.4 million De-Pave Park grant, Alameda Post, Council reviews the Urban Forest Plan, Alameda Post, Council approves 2025 planning annual reports, ebparks.org, ebparks.org, ebparks.org

Littlejohn Park and whether a neighbor agreement can limit general park use

Alameda · Littlejohn Park; Krusi Park; the Franklin swim facility; Otis Park

Danitt Smiler Mooningham lives on High Street near Krusi Park. In Mooningham's letter to the editor of the Alameda Post on 1 May 2026, Mooningham took a side in a dispute over Littlejohn Park. Residents who live near that park have been seeking special protections from park noise and parking congestion through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), a written agreement with the city. The letter reads:

Our parks were never intended to function as quiet buffers for the few who live closest to them. They exist for the whole community.

Danitt Smiler Mooningham, Alameda resident who lives on High Street near Krusi Park, in a letter to the editor of the Alameda Post, 1 May 2026

The letter is the one documented account of this dispute, and it argues for open access. It takes a side on a question Alameda has not settled: can residents who live next to a park hold an agreement that limits how the rest of the city uses it?

Residents near Littlejohn Park were pursuing that agreement with the city. It was meant to protect them from noise and from park visitors' cars filling the nearby streets. No terms have been published and no council decision has been reported. The same tension between neighbors and park users is named at three other places: Krusi Park, the Franklin swim facility and Otis Park.

The neighbors' side has not been recorded in their own words. What is known is what they asked for: relief from noise and from cars filling the streets around the park. Living beside a park means living with that, and wanting some relief is an understandable thing to ask.

What is missing is a policy. The city has not said whether agreements with the neighbors of a park are allowed in Alameda at all. If they are, it has not said what limits apply, or whether they would be applied the same way at Littlejohn as at Krusi, Franklin and Otis. It is a hard question for any city, because a park belongs to everyone and the people next door are the ones who live with the results.

Sources: Alameda Post, Letters to the editor, 1 May 2026

Sidewalks that residents say stay broken, and a repair contract raised by $1.2M mid-term

Alameda · Lincoln Avenue, Harbor Bay Parkway, Shoreline Drive at Kitty Hawk Road and citywide · raised since October 2024

On 25 February 2025, a resident's SeeClickFix report, 25 February 2025, described the sidewalk at 2849 Lincoln Avenue in Alameda. SeeClickFix is the online service the city uses for resident reports.

"Uneven pavement- very unsafe for pedestrians, strollers, wheelchairs, walkers. My children have tripped here multiple times."

a resident's SeeClickFix report, 25 February 2025, 2849 Lincoln Avenue

Others describe the same problem. A resident's SeeClickFix report, 10 February 2025, says "The street tree's roots have buckled the concrete at the front of our house" at 611 Lincoln Avenue. A resident's SeeClickFix report, 27 January 2025, describes "Multiple raised sections of sidewalk on Harbor Bay Parkway, near 1600 Harbor Bay." A resident's SeeClickFix report, 5 October 2024, says a utility cover in a marked crosswalk at Shoreline Drive and Kitty Hawk Road is "an old issue taken up before. Never fixed."

Between October 2024 and September 2026, residents filed 925 sidewalk requests. Of those, 213 (23%) are still open, with a median age of 71 days, and the closed ones took a median of 27 days. "Open" is the city's own status label, meaning not yet seen or marked received, and it does not say whether anyone visited. The descriptions are written by residents. The oldest open report, a resident's SeeClickFix report, 21 January 2025 at 2994 Johnson Avenue, describes basement water pumped to the curb.

Its program began as a pilot in January 2025, offering property owners repairs done by the city, and the city's sidewalk page reports nearly 12,000 tripping hazards removed. At the council meeting of 3 March 2026, Public Works Director Erin Smith reported that more than 70% of notified property owners choose to have the city do the work. That meeting also introduced a revised ordinance that drops the lien option (a legal claim on a property) for unpaid bills, with a staff report anticipated in February 2027.

In April 2026 council raised the SpenCon sidewalk, curb and gutter repair contract by about $1.2 million, to roughly $5.76 million ($5,755,650). SpenCon is the company the city hired to do the repairs. The increase came five weeks after council took up a rewrite of repair procedures that had gone unchanged for decades. The city's page says repairs now follow its ADA Transition Plan priorities and shows maps of finished work. We did not find a block-by-block schedule residents could check.

The wider $1B repair backlog and the Measure L bond (a way for a city to borrow for construction and repairs) are covered in the issue on the $1B infrastructure backlog and the Measure L bond.

Sources: Council agenda, 17 March 2026, Council agenda, 21 April 2026, Alameda Post, March 2026, CitizenPortal, revised ordinance, City sidewalk page, SeeClickFix, 2849 Lincoln, 611 Lincoln, Harbor Bay Parkway, Kitty Hawk Road, 2994 Johnson

Street trees: dead and removed trees that residents are still waiting to see replaced

Alameda · 1417 Everett Street, 754 Santa Clara Avenue, Bay Street, Centennial Avenue · raised since October 2024

On 23 May 2025, a resident of 1417 Everett Street wrote a resident's SeeClickFix report on SeeClickFix, the app and web form the City of Alameda uses to take resident reports. It asked about the street trees outside:

"Two large street trees were removed earlier this year. When will they be replaced?"

a resident's SeeClickFix report, 1417 Everett Street, 23 May 2025

The same day, a resident's SeeClickFix report about 754 Santa Clara Avenue said "Tree in front of 754 Santa Clara has a disease. We reported last year and were told to wait until the new growth came, and it's worse than ever." Two older reports are archived on SeeClickFix, meaning closed and aged out, so they were filed and are not still waiting. The first, filed 17 October 2024 for 1330 Bay Street, asked for a replacement for a tree that had died and been removed, and says "She made the request in 2019". The second, filed 7 October 2024, reported a tree on Centennial Avenue that "drops a very sticky black substance" every year for months starting in the summer, and describes it as infested with sooty mold, a dark fungus.

Most tree reports are handled. Between 1 October 2024 and 30 September 2026, residents filed 1,077 street tree reports in the city's SeeClickFix data. Reports that were closed took a median of 12 days, and 264 (25%) are open, which leaves about three in four not open. The open ones have a median age of 253 days. The oldest, filed 15 January 2025, is for a location at 413 Grand Street. "Open" is the city's own status label, covering reports marked open or acknowledged (the city marked it received). It does not say whether anyone has visited, and the descriptions are written by residents.

We do not know how many of the 264 open reports are about replacing a tree rather than treating or removing one, because the data does not separate them. A report may also be closed once a tree is inspected or removed, without a replacement being planted. The data does not show which has happened for a given address. Trees are also contested. A letter to the Alameda Post on 18 September 2026 from a resident of Gibbons Drive objects to a proposal to remove mature trees on five blocks, and that dispute is covered in its own entry.

Worth tracking

What would show movement: a count from the city of removed trees awaiting replacement and a planting schedule, the open share of tree reports falling below 25%, and the oldest open reports being answered.

Planting is a city decision, and Alameda has the authority to make it. Federal help is available for what follows. Urban and Community Forestry money from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Forest Service, which CAL FIRE (the state forestry and fire protection agency) administers, funds planting, counts of a city's trees and management plans. A congressional office can help the city apply. The program has its own eligibility rules. A direct appropriation, which a member of Congress can request for a named local project, could cover part or all of a replanting effort depending on the cost, and no cost figure for replacing the removed trees has turned up.

Which streets are replanted first is Alameda's call, made with the people who live on them. The office would work with the city rather than arrive with a list. If a tree on your street was removed and has not been replaced, tell us the address and what you would put first.

Sources: SeeClickFix public data, SeeClickFix, 1417 Everett Street, SeeClickFix, 754 Santa Clara Avenue, SeeClickFix, 1330 Bay Street, SeeClickFix, 901-999 Centennial Avenue, Alameda Post letters to the editor, 18 September 2026

Removal of mature Liquidambar street trees on five blocks of Gibbons Drive

Alameda · Five blocks of Gibbons Drive

Stephen De Luchi has lived on Gibbons Drive for 60 years. In a letter to the Alameda Post on 18 September 2026 he objected to the proposal to remove the mature Liquidambar (sweetgum) street trees on five blocks of the street and replace them with saplings. "It would take another hundred years to replace these trees", he wrote. De Luchi describes opposition among his neighbors across the five blocks as almost unanimous.

Alameda proposes to remove the mature Liquidambar street trees on those five blocks of Gibbons Drive and replant. No assessment of the condition of each tree, no specification of what would replace them (the size and species of the new trees), and no decision date has been published.

No signature count or formal neighborhood vote has been reported, so the almost unanimous description is one resident's characterization of his neighbors rather than a measured result. The removal and replanting remain proposed, not scheduled.

The city has not given its reasons. Liquidambar is a species known for sidewalk heave, meaning roots lifting the pavement, and for fruit that becomes a hazard underfoot. If the trees on these blocks are all the same age, replacing them in stages could be cheaper and safer than removing each tree only after it fails or becomes dangerous. None of that has been said about Gibbons Drive. What is in dispute is whether removal is driven by the condition of individual trees or by the species and the block, and the assessment that would tell the two apart has not been published.

Gibbons Drive also appears in two other issues. One is about a strip of shoreline land the city holds at Bayview and Gibbons. The other is about trial traffic-calming measures, including roundabouts, meant to slow traffic and keep drivers from cutting through neighborhood streets at Fernside and Gibbons.

Sources: Alameda Post, Letters to the editor, 18 September 2026, Alameda Post, Letters to the editor, 5 December 2025

Slow Streets barricades that residents say block street sweeping, and neighbors who disagree about keeping them

Alameda · St. Charles Street at Pacific Avenue, Versailles Avenue, Pearl Street · raised since August 2024

Lenore Walker is 71 and lives at the corner of St. Charles Street and Pacific Avenue. In a letter to the Alameda Post on 17 July 2026, she wrote: "Because of these barricades, I have not had my corner swept by the City in six years". The barricades come from the city's Slow Streets program, which used barricades to limit through traffic on some residential streets during the pandemic. She also wrote:

"I've called the City so many times that they know my name. They also sent me a letter stating that they have lodged my complaint so please do not call again."

Lenore Walker, resident of St. Charles Street at Pacific Avenue, letter to the editor, Alameda Post, 17 July 2026

An email to Councilmember Tony Daysog brought "No response." She says the city later wrote about turning these streets into greenways, lasting versions of the closures for walking and biking, and asks what that has to do with the barricades. Hers is the only account we have of this corner, and the claims are hers.

Other residents have raised these streets, and they disagree. In anonymous city survey answers from August 2024 a Pacific Avenue resident wrote, "I live on pacific which should be a slow street but every other block the cross streets don't have a stop sign". A Pearl Street resident, living parallel to Versailles Avenue, wrote of "a marked increase of high-speed traffic". Others wrote: "Please do not remove slow streets!!" We cannot say how common each view is.

The city's street sweeping page asks residents to report a missed sweep on SeeClickFix, the online service the city uses for resident reports. In that data, residents filed 276 street sweeping requests between October 2024 and September 2026, and 13 (5%) are still open. "Open" is the city's own status label, meaning not yet seen or marked received, and it does not say whether anyone visited. The descriptions are written by residents. One, a resident's SeeClickFix report, 7 November 2024, describes "a gap in street cleaning on the south side of buena vista" on another street. The city's street sweeping page does not mention barricades, and we have not seen a list of blocks excluded from the route.

As of Walker's July 2026 letter, the barricades stood and the corner was unswept.

Sources: Alameda Post letters, City survey responses, City sweeping page, SeeClickFix data, SeeClickFix

Street redesigns on McCartney Road and Pacific Avenue, installed without before-and-after counts

Alameda · McCartney Road near Island Drive on Bay Farm Island; Pacific Avenue from Lafayette to Oak with a traffic circle at Chestnut

On 21 January 2026, William Pye went to the Alameda City Council to speak about restriping (repainting the lane markings) on a four-block stretch of McCartney Road near Island Drive, on Bay Farm Island. Pye represents the Harbor Bay Isle homeowners associations (HOAs), and he cited a formal resolution they had passed opposing the change. He put his request to the council this way:

We need an open debate here and that's why the city council needs to have its open discussion to allow final input.

William Pye, Alameda resident and Harbor Bay Isle homeowners association representative, Alameda city council meeting, 21 January 2026

The council did not pause the striping. It rejected a motion to do that, and it directed staff to return with an improved engagement protocol (a set of steps for how the city asks neighbors for input before changing a street) and with clearer rules for when a street change needs council approval. That is a meaningful response to what Pye was asking for, which was a say before changes go in, and it is worth crediting.

About a month earlier, on Pacific Avenue, resident Catherine Hunt told the Transportation Commission on 18 December 2025 that a petition among her neighbors on the Chestnut traffic circle showed "85% of them were strongly opposed". She was asking for speed bumps or a four-way stop instead. That figure comes from a neighborhood petition, as she described it, not from a survey. The commission agreed to run the Pacific Avenue pilot for a year with data collection after staff confirmed that post-installation traffic and speed counts had not yet been taken.

Neighbors on both streets had asked for four-way stops and speed humps and got something else. Alameda installed traffic circles and restriping instead. On Pacific Avenue, that work runs from Lafayette to Oak, with a circle at Chestnut. On McCartney Road, it is near Island Drive. These are quick-build projects, meant to go in fast so a city can see how a design works before committing to it. The city then confirmed at a public hearing that it had not taken the speed and volume counts that would show whether they are working. The engagement protocol and approval thresholds the council directed staff to produce have not been delivered, and neither have the counts.

Both sides of this are describing something real. Bike Walk Alameda (a local group that advocates for biking and walking), Vision Zero advocates (people working toward ending traffic deaths and serious injuries), parents and students point out that four-way stops and speed humps are what neighborhoods ask for everywhere, and that they do less to slow drivers passing through than the traffic circles and restriping that were installed. They say that if neighbors on every block can stop a change by petition, the city will not be able to build a connected network of street improvements. At the same January 2026 council meeting, a ninth-grade student said she wanted "stronger measures to ensure cars slow down in school zones". Slower traffic near a school is something the neighbors and the advocates both want. The disagreement is about how to get there and who decides.

Sources: Citizen Portal, Alameda council hears sharp divide over McCartney Road restriping, Citizen Portal, Alameda discusses Pacific Avenue greenway pilot

Bike parking requests: 24 of 31 still open

Alameda · 1234 Park Street, 2241 Central Avenue, and other addresses · raised since October 2024

On 27 October 2024, a resident reported a missing bike rack at 1234 Park Street through SeeClickFix, the app and web form the City of Alameda uses to take resident reports. In a resident's SeeClickFix report on 27 October 2024, the resident wrote:

"There used to be a bike rack here, but its gone. Desperately needs more bike parking for HighWire cafe. The Rise body works rack only fits two bikes and its always full."

A resident's SeeClickFix report, 1234 Park Street, 27 October 2024

That report is still listed as open, and it is the oldest open bike parking request in the data. Almost a year later, a resident's SeeClickFix report on 3 September 2025 asked for a rack at 2241 Central Avenue. It said, "Please add a bike rack at this office building. There is a huge parking lot in back but no place to lock a bike."

These are small requests, and the count is small too. Residents filed 31 bike parking requests over two years, from October 2024 to September 2026, out of 15,986 requests of every kind in the city's public SeeClickFix data. Of the 31, 24 (77%) are listed as open, with a median age of 196 days, a little over six months. The ones that were closed took a median of 18 days. SeeClickFix counts a report as open if it is open or acknowledged, and acknowledged means the city marked it as received. Open is the city's own label and does not say whether anyone visited. The descriptions are written by residents.

The requests name single addresses, not one corridor, which makes it hard to say whether a pattern exists beyond residents asking for a place to lock a bike near where they are going. We have not seen the city's reasons for the open requests, or whether a rack was added at either address.

The city is putting money into bike routes. The $12M Central Avenue Safety Project began construction in January 2025 and includes a two-way bike path, three roundabouts, and a road diet, which means fewer lanes for cars. Bike Walk Alameda, a local group that advocates for safer walking and biking, describes it on its Central Avenue complete street page. The city also banned parking in bike lanes, with a $79 fine that takes effect on 1 October 2026. Both are covered in other issues on this list, complete-street rebuilds on Central Avenue, Grand Street, Lincoln Avenue and Willie Stargell Avenue and enforcing the rules of the road. Where a person can lock a bike when they arrive is a separate question from where they can ride, and the reports we have tracked are about the second half of the trip.

Where things stand: residents have filed 31 requests for racks over two years, and most are still listed as open.

Worth tracking

What would show movement: the Park Street request, the oldest, being closed with a rack in place, a rack going in at 2241 Central Avenue, and fewer than 77% of bike parking requests listed as open.

Federal transportation programs are one lever, though the amounts involved for racks are probably small. The Safe Streets and Roads for All program is a Department of Transportation grant program for local projects that reduce traffic deaths and serious injuries. The Transportation Alternatives Program passes federal money through the regional Metropolitan Transportation Commission for walking and biking projects, and its eligible uses can include bike parking. A congressional office can help a city apply for either. Costs for these racks are not public. If the city priced a larger package of bike parking, a direct appropriation request, which is how a member of Congress asks Congress to fund a named local project, could cover part or all of it, depending on the cost.

Where racks go is Alameda's call, made with the people who ride. The office would work with the city rather than arrive with a list. If you have asked for a rack and not heard back, or know a place where one is missing, tell us what you would put first.

Sources: SeeClickFix report, 27 October 2024, SeeClickFix report, 3 September 2025, SeeClickFix public API, City of Alameda requests, October 2024 to September 2026, City of Alameda, Central Avenue Safety Project, Bike Walk Alameda, Central Avenue complete street, Alameda Post, parking in bike lanes, Department of Transportation, Safe Streets and Roads for All, Federal Highway Administration, Transportation Alternatives Program

Graffiti on private buildings that stays up for months

Alameda · 1321 Park Street, the 2300 block of Hancock Street, 452 McDonnel Road · raised since October 2024

Alameda residents report problems to the city through SeeClickFix, an app and web form, and the reports are public. On 4 December 2024, the writer of a resident's SeeClickFix report, 4 December 2024, described a business at 1321 Park Street this way:

"Front windows of this active business is disgusting, dirty, covered with old graffiti and other debris. It has been like this since they opened, at least for a year."

A resident's SeeClickFix report about a business at 1321 Park Street, 4 December 2024

Six months later, a resident's SeeClickFix report, 15 June 2025, about the 2300 block of Hancock Street was shorter: "Still graffiti here for months. Hello!?"

The city handles graffiti on its own property quickly. In the SeeClickFix data, 530 reports of graffiti on public property were filed between October 2024 and September 2026, and 52 of them, about 10%, are still open. Reports that closed took a median of 11 days, meaning half closed faster than that and half took longer.

Graffiti on a privately owned building looks different in the same data. Residents filed 98 reports in the category "Graffiti - Private Property" over the same two years. Of those, 83 (85%) are still open, and the median age of the open ones is 449 days. The oldest open report was filed on 10 October 2024 for a location at 452 McDonnel Road. The 15 reports that did close took a median of 26 days. These counts come from SeeClickFix's public data. In that data, "open" means the report is either unacknowledged or acknowledged, where acknowledged means the city marked it as received. Open is the city's own status label and does not say whether anyone visited, and the descriptions are written by residents.

Part of the difference may be about who owns the wall. Graffiti on a private building is generally on something the owner controls, so a city usually works through the owner rather than painting over it directly. We have not located a published description of the steps Alameda takes after a report about a private building, so we do not know what happens between a report and a closure. Nothing in these reports says why a given building has stayed marked, and owners are not necessarily at fault.

Where things stand: for these buildings, as far as we have tracked, the reports have not been resolved, and the pattern is the length of the wait.

Worth tracking

What would show movement: the share of private-property graffiti reports still open falling below 85%, the oldest report at 452 McDonnel Road closing, and the city publishing the steps it takes with a private owner.

This is mostly not a federal matter, because it is neither about federal money nor within federal authority. The office could still ask the city to explain its process in plain words, take casework from a resident or business owner whose report has gone unanswered, and help neighbors learn where to take a report. Some cities use federal community development block grants, a formula program that sends money to cities for neighborhood improvement, for cleanup in eligible areas. Whether that applies in Alameda is a question we have not answered.

How graffiti on private buildings should be handled is Alameda's decision, made with the people who live and work near it. The office would work with the city rather than arrive with a list. If you have reported graffiti and heard nothing back, tell us what happened and what you would put first.

Sources: SeeClickFix report, 4 December 2024, SeeClickFix report, 15 June 2025, SeeClickFix public data, City of Alameda requests, October 2024 to September 2026

Encampments and trash on the 2500 block of Eagle Avenue and West Atlantic Avenue

Alameda · 2500 block of Eagle Avenue, West Atlantic Avenue · raised since September 2025

Residents of the 2500 block of Eagle Avenue have used SeeClickFix, the City of Alameda's app and web form for resident reports, to describe what is happening outside. On 10 September 2025, a resident's SeeClickFix report on 10 September 2025 said:

"We hear screaming at night and an abundance of trash lingers. Please help our community address this issue."

A resident's SeeClickFix report, 2534 to 2592 Eagle Avenue, 10 September 2025

On 14 October 2025, a resident's SeeClickFix report on 14 October 2025 for 2529 Eagle Avenue said, "Homeless encampment been there for months bunch of trash left everywhere." Residents raised the trash and what they heard at night, and they asked the city for help.

The people who live outdoors on these blocks are residents of Alameda too. The reports do not say where a person camping here could go instead, and we have not found a public statement of a designated place in the city for them to stay. We have not seen whether anyone was moved, housed or connected to services.

The city's public SeeClickFix data shows the pattern. Since September 2025, residents have filed 44 reports in the Homeless Engagement category, which is separate from dumping and which we understand is handled by outreach staff, the people who visit and offer services. Of the 44, 31 (70%) are listed as open, with a median age of 356 days, and the closed ones took a median of 33 days. At 2529 Eagle Avenue there were 25 reports from October 2024 to September 2026, 13 about dumping and 4 still open, with the encampment reported in September and October 2025. West Atlantic Avenue had 58 reports, 9 open. SeeClickFix counts a report as open if it is open or acknowledged, and acknowledged means the city marked it as received. Open is the city's own label and does not say whether anyone visited, and residents write the descriptions.

The city responds quickly to trash. Citywide, 3,979 illegal dumping reports were filed in those two years, and 2% are open, with a median of 14 days to close. The city also funds services for people without housing. The January 2026 Point-in-Time count, a count of people experiencing homelessness on a single night, recorded a 46.8% drop since 2024. The Fire Department's CARE Team, the city's non-police crisis response, works under a contract with Alameda Family Services. The city also pays for a day center, safe parking and a 24/7 shelter program that began in February 2026, covered in the issue on sustaining what cut homelessness 46.8%. Whether a bed was open to a person on Eagle Avenue is not something the reports show.

Where things stand: 21 of the 25 reports at 2529 Eagle Avenue are closed, and most Homeless Engagement reports citywide are still listed as open.

Worth tracking

What would show movement: fewer than 70% of Homeless Engagement reports listed as open, and the city saying where a person camping on a block like this could go.

Federal money reaches Alameda for this through the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The Continuum of Care funds local homelessness services, and Emergency Solutions Grants pay for emergency shelter and outreach. Both are formula programs, meaning a formula and eligibility rules set the amount each area gets. A direct appropriation request, which is how a member of Congress asks Congress to fund a named local project, could cover part or all of the cost of something specific, such as outreach staffing or a designated place to stay, depending on the cost, which is not public. A congressional office can also press HUD for answers on a local case, which is called casework. One example is the voucher question at Stardust Gardens, covered in the issue on housing supply against shelter programs.

What comes first on these blocks is Alameda's call, made with its residents, including people who live outdoors. The office would work with the city rather than arrive with a list. If you live near Eagle Avenue or West Atlantic Avenue, or have lived outdoors in Alameda, tell us what you would put first.

Sources: SeeClickFix report, 10 September 2025, SeeClickFix report, 14 October 2025, SeeClickFix public API, City of Alameda requests, October 2024 to September 2026, Alameda Post, City announces 46.8% reduction in homelessness, Alameda Post, Council continues the Alameda Family Services CARE Team contract, Alameda Post, Council reviews new homeless shelter contracts, HUD, Continuum of Care Program

Illegal dumping that returns to the same addresses, and the vandalism and theft at the Civic Center garage and Jean Sweeney Park

Alameda · Lincoln Avenue, Schiller Street, Maitland Drive, Franciscan Way, Haight Avenue, Buena Vista Avenue, the Civic Center garage, Jean Sweeney Open Space Park · raised since October 2024

Between October 2024 and September 2026, residents filed 3,979 reports of illegal dumping, the practice of leaving trash and large items where they do not belong, through SeeClickFix, the app the city uses to take reports. The city closes these quickly: 69 (2%) are still open, and the median time to close one is 14 days. A second category labeled "Illegal Dump - MSC" has 608 reports, 14 still open.

What residents keep reporting is the same places. One location at 1801 Lincoln Avenue accounts for 24 dumping reports in two years, none still open. Others are 520 Buena Vista Avenue with 25, 89 Maitland Drive with 22, 1538 Schiller Street with 21, 1900 Franciscan Way, 477 Haight Avenue and 1519 Lincoln Avenue with 18 each, and 2220 Lincoln Avenue with 17. For every service-request figure here, "open" is the city's own status label, combining SeeClickFix's Open and Acknowledged (the city marked it received), and it does not say whether anyone visited. Residents write the descriptions.

The city's plan goes beyond cleanup. On 20 January 2026 the council unanimously approved the 2025 Zero Waste Implementation Plan update, the city's plan for keeping waste out of landfill. The share kept out, called diversion, was about 81% as of 2024, against a goal of 89%. The plan prioritizes multifamily bulky-item collection (pickup of large items such as furniture), added illegal dumping enforcement, services for low-income and unhoused residents, and a Cash for Trash pilot, modeled on San Jose's, that pays unhoused residents to collect litter. We have not seen a dollar figure for the added enforcement, so agreement and funding are not yet the same thing.

In May 2026, dozens of bronze memorial plaques were taken from benches at Jean Sweeney Open Space Park, according to the Alameda Post, which counted 26 in one account. Kevin McKenna, an Alameda resident, spoke to KRON, and the Alameda Post quoted him on 4 May 2026:

"I can't believe somebody would stoop to that level. It is a degradation to those that have died. Families put their time and effort and money into these plaques."

Kevin McKenna, Alameda resident, interview with KRON quoted in the Alameda Post, 4 May 2026

The Jean Sweeney Open Space Park Fund told ABC it is working to replace all of them free of charge. We have not seen a date. On 19 May 2026 the council unanimously approved closing the Civic Center Parking Garage from midnight to 6 a.m. because of repeated overnight vandalism, especially around the elevators. The city's reports show 26 requests at 1416 Oak Street, the garage's address, 21 of them in the parking garage category and 1 still open. The plaque theft and garage vandalism are separate from the dumping and the zero waste plan, and nothing more links them.

Worth tracking

Movement would look like added dumping enforcement getting staff and a dollar figure in a city budget, the Cash for Trash pilot starting, diversion moving from 81% toward 89%, repeat addresses dropping off the list, and dates for replacing the plaques and reopening the garage overnight.

Federal help is real but partial. The federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) runs grant programs for solid waste and for brownfields, properties hard to reuse because of contamination. Depending on program rules, those grants can pay for some dumping cleanup. A congressional office could help the city apply to pay for bulky-item collection and the Cash for Trash pilot, which could help move diversion toward 89%. Paying for added enforcement is a separate question with no dollar figure yet. A direct appropriation request, a named-project request that a member of Congress can submit, does not carry a grant program's eligibility rules, and it could be shaped around whichever pieces of the plan the city funds first. Those priorities belong to Alameda and its residents, and the office would work with the city rather than bring a list. If you have seen dumping in your neighborhood, tell us where you would want the city to start.

Prosecuting dumpers, replacing plaques and reopening the garage are decisions for the city and its partners. The office can still raise questions and help affected residents.

Sources: SeeClickFix public data, City of Alameda, October 2024 to September 2026, Alameda Post, Council tackles waste reduction, Alameda Post, Memorial plaques stolen at Jean Sweeney Park, Alameda Post, Council approves inclusionary housing updates (includes the garage item)

Red curb requests that wait a year: driveways and bike lanes blocked by parked cars

Alameda · Weber Street, Lincoln Avenue, Taylor Avenue, Mitchell Avenue, Webster Street · raised since October 2024

Residents of Alameda have been asking the city to paint curbs red, and some of those requests are now more than a year old. SeeClickFix is the app and web form the City of Alameda uses to take resident reports. On 21 October 2024, a resident's SeeClickFix report asked for red curbs, which mark a space where parking is not allowed, beside a driveway at 1351 Weber Street. The report said:

"Resident requests red curbs on either side of driveway to prevent cars blocking driveway (previous citations have been issued for this at this location)."

a resident's SeeClickFix report, 1351 Weber Street, 21 October 2024

Others describe it. In a resident's SeeClickFix report of 25 November 2024 about 2151 Lincoln Avenue, a resident asked for the rounded driveway entry areas to be painted red because "Cars parked on the street often encroach into the driveway entryway area, making it extremely difficult and at times unsafe to exit or enter," the resident wrote. On 22 January 2025, a resident's SeeClickFix report asked the city, for 916 and 920 Taylor Avenue, to "Repaint faded red zone on curb ... Cars are parking in red zone prohibiting cars in driveway from safely leaving." On 6 November 2024, a resident's SeeClickFix report asked whether the curb at 430-440 Mitchell Avenue could be painted red "so drivers know not to park and have their vehicles protrude and partially block the bike lane".

The city is quick on a closely related complaint. Parking enforcement, meaning a report that a car is parked where it should not be, drew 1,397 reports between 1 October 2024 and 30 September 2026 in the city's SeeClickFix data. Only 14 are open, and the reports that were closed took a median of 2 days. A stretch of Mitchell Avenue near the Bay Farm Island bridge shows it: 89 reports came from 427-459 Mitchell Avenue, 83 of them about cars parked into the bike lane, and 1 of the 89 is open.

Requests to paint something new move differently. Of 156 requests for new curb paint in that period, 129 (83%) are open, with a median age of 378 days. The ones that were closed took a median of 58 days. For repainting faded curbs, 75 of 155 requests (48%) are open. On 13 January 2025, a resident's SeeClickFix report said "The white lane markings on the curved section of the road are now completely gone, creating a hazardous situation." On 24 February 2025, a resident's SeeClickFix report said "The paint dividing the lanes has worn away and I get run off the road weekly as people don't realize that their lane is curving." In this data, "open" is the city's own status label, covering reports marked open or acknowledged (the city marked it received). It does not say whether anyone has visited, and the descriptions are written by residents.

The city has also been working on curbs more broadly. Under Assembly Bill 413, a state law that keeps the approach to a crosswalk clear of parked cars, it painted red curbs on nine high-injury corridors and set a $40 fine in the summer 2025 fee schedule. It also banned parking in painted, shared and protected bike lanes, with a $79 fine that takes effect on 1 October 2026, as the entry on enforcing the rules of the road describes. We have not seen the city's criteria for approving a new red curb, so we cannot say why a request waits.

Worth tracking

What would show movement: fewer than 83% of new red curb requests still open, the oldest one (filed 16 October 2024 for 788 Santa Clara Avenue) being answered, and the $79 bike lane fine changing the pattern on streets like Mitchell Avenue.

Painting a curb is inexpensive local work, so the federal role is narrow. A congressional office can still help the city apply for Safe Streets and Roads for All, a U.S. Department of Transportation grant program for local road safety projects, and can write a letter of support.

Which requests come first is Alameda's call, made with the people who live on these blocks. The office would work with the city rather than arrive with a list. If a driveway or bike lane near you is blocked, tell us what you would put first.

Sources: SeeClickFix public data, SeeClickFix, 1351 Weber Street, SeeClickFix, 2151 Lincoln Avenue, SeeClickFix, 916 and 920 Taylor Avenue, SeeClickFix, 430-440 Mitchell Avenue, SeeClickFix, Webster Street (1), SeeClickFix, Webster Street (2), Alameda Post, daylighting, Alameda Post, fee schedule, Alameda Post, bike lane parking ban

Accessible-parking enforcement as a standing item at Alameda's disability commission

Alameda · Citywide

Residents who rely on accessible parking spaces have raised complaints about those spaces being misused. Alameda's Commission on Persons with Disabilities gave accessible-parking enforcement a standalone agenda item in September 2025, and took it up again in May 2026. Twice in eight months, the commission set aside time for one plain question that matters a great deal to residents who rely on those spaces: what happens when someone parks in one who should not.

Giving enforcement its own item, rather than leaving it inside a complaint queue, was a real step. It puts a problem that keeps coming up on a public agenda where residents can see it discussed. That the commission returned to it suggests the question was not settled the first time.

The city already tracks part of this. It keeps a running tally of complaints submitted through SeeClickFix, a complaint-reporting platform. What the commission has asked for and not yet received is something different: citation and resolution figures (how many tickets were written, and how many complaints were actually resolved), and a response standard, meaning an agreed expectation for how quickly the city acts on a blocked accessible space or a misused placard.

Those missing numbers matter. A complaint count with no resolution count cannot show whether violations are being cleared or are recurring faster than they are cleared. The commission's repeated agenda items are consistent with recurrence, but that is an inference, not a measured finding, because the numbers that would settle it have not been produced. For a disabled resident, a space taken by a car without a placard is the same barrier whether or not anyone logged it. The item has not yet produced a standard.

Sources: City of Alameda Commission on Persons with Disabilities agenda, 13 May 2026, City of Alameda Commission on Persons with Disabilities agenda, 10 September 2025

Housing supply against shelter programs in Alameda's homelessness debate

Alameda · Citywide

On 6 January 2026, the Alameda City Council took up the city's homelessness report, and members of the public came to speak. Mitch Ball, an Alameda resident, made his point in one sentence during public comment: "The number one counter to homelessness is homes." He was one of the residents who spoke at that hearing.

Ball and the others argued that homelessness in Alameda persists mainly because there is not enough housing, and not because shelter programs are underfunded. That places responsibility on zoning reform, meaning changes to the rules for what can be built where, and on construction, and away from funding shelter beds and outreach one contract at a time. Alameda is working on both sides of the question, with shelter and outreach contracts on one hand and a state housing requirement on the other. The city has not said how its spending on shelter and services relates to its targets for how many new homes get built, and residents have been arguing about it in public comment.

Alameda's own record on building homes gives the argument for more housing its force. The city completed 65 homes in 2025 and issued 663 building permits since 2023, while the state requires it to plan for 5,353 homes by 2031. That is covered in the issue on housing production against the 5,353-unit target. The shelter and outreach programs on the other side of this debate are covered in the issue on sustaining the programs behind the 46.8% decline.

Nobody has been quoted making the opposite case, so what follows is a reply that seems likely, not something a resident or official said. Someone who needs a bed tonight is not helped by a building that will not open for years, and outreach, safe parking (places where people who live in their vehicles can park overnight) and a day center (a place where people without housing can go during the day) are the tools that reach that person now. Both propositions can be true. The city has not reconciled them in a stated position, so every contract renewal and every zoning decision gets argued as though it were the whole question.

Sources: Alameda Post, City council approves homelessness report and new collections policy

65 homes built in 2025 against a 5,353-unit state housing target

Alameda · Citywide, Alameda Marina on Clement Avenue, Encinal Terminals

On 23 February 2026, Alameda's Planning Board sat down with the city's annual housing report. It showed that the city had completed 65 homes in 2025. Board member Andy Wang called the numbers "freshly disturbing" and urged the city to identify its bottlenecks and set production targets. Here, bottlenecks are the things holding up housing the city has already approved, and production targets are goals for how many homes get built.

Sixty-five homes is what Alameda completed in 2025, and most of them were accessory dwelling units (ADUs), the small extra homes people build on a lot that already has a house. Since 2023 the city has issued 663 building permits, which are the city's approvals to start building a home. That means a good deal of approved housing has not yet been built. The state has handed Alameda a much bigger number. Under California's Regional Housing Needs Allocation, the number of homes the state says a city must plan for, Alameda's share is 5,353 by 2031. That is a hard number for any city to meet. If the 2025 pace of 65 homes a year continued, Alameda would finish far short of it by 2031. The annual report did not come with a list of what is holding up the housing already approved, which is the gap Wang was pointing to.

The city has not stood still. It has been changing what it asks of developers. Council replaced the 4/4/7% inclusionary requirement. That was the old rule, written as three percentages, for how many of a project's new homes must be set aside as affordable. In its place, the developer now chooses from a list of options. For rentals, those options include setting aside 15% low-income units or 8% very-low-income units, meaning that share of a project's rental homes would be reserved for households with lower incomes. Council also extended to 99 years how long rental homes must stay affordable, so those homes stay affordable for generations. It also exempted projects of eleven units or fewer from the requirement. The developer of the Foundry phase, a 260-unit part of the Alameda Marina housing project on Clement Avenue, said the change to the requirement makes it possible for the project to go forward. Council separately reduced the number of affordable homes required in that phase from 43 to 21. The 43 were set aside for a mix of income levels, and the 21 are reserved for very-low-income households. Council also approved a timeline extension for the stalled Encinal Terminals waterfront project, which gives it more time to move forward. As a temporary measure, it also allowed a lease for electric-vehicle storage, worth $4,500 a month.

Mayor Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft defended the Alameda Marina amendment, the council's change to the housing project on Clement Avenue, at the council meeting of 16 June 2026. Of the site she said: "It is indeed a housing project, but it is much more than that."

Residents and advocates read these choices differently. Supporters of the lower requirements argue that having 663 permits out of a target of 5,353 is evidence that the old requirements made projects too expensive to build. They also argue that an approval that never becomes a building houses nobody. Advocates on the other side say that affordable homes are the only thing the city gets in exchange for allowing more homes to be built on a site. They say the city answered too little building by asking developers for less, including at a site where the number of affordable homes fell by half. Resident Edward Hirshberg wrote to the Alameda Post on 4 September 2026 that the real constraint is federal tax policy, not local rules: "If the capital gains tax were lifted, probably in less than a year 10 million homes would hit the market." That is one resident's view rather than an established finding.

Sources: Alameda Post, Planning Board flags housing shortfall, Alameda Post, Council approves 2025 planning annual reports, Alameda Post, Council updates inclusionary housing ordinance, Alameda Post, Council takes on inclusionary housing reform and the $1B infrastructure challenge, Alameda Post, Council amends the Alameda Marina development, Alameda Post, Letters to the editor, 4 September 2026, alamedaca.gov, alamedapost.com

Evacuation capacity on an island with five access points

Alameda · Park Street, Grand Street, Fernside Boulevard, Gibbons Drive, the island bridges, the Poplar site at Eagle, Clement and Tilden

Karen Blom-Boswell, an Alameda resident, wrote to the editor in November 2025 about the Poplar affordable housing development proposed near Eagle Avenue, Clement Avenue and Tilden Way. In her letter to the Alameda Post, dated 7 November 2025, she opposed the scale of the proposal, and among her concerns was traffic on the bridges:

Traffic on all bridges is already a serious issue

Karen Blom-Boswell, Alameda resident, letter to the editor of the Alameda Post, 7 November 2025

Blom-Boswell was one of two residents who wrote to the Alameda Post that month with the same underlying question: could the island's five access points, meaning the five ways on and off Alameda, handle an evacuation? She wrote that Edison School "is already experiencing significant overcrowding". She also raised the seismic safety of a proposed 70-foot building.

The other letter came from Jay Garfinkle, dated 28 November 2025. He wrote of:

narrowing the traffic lanes on Fernside, closing Gibbons, or just throttling traffic on it, impeding the flow of traffic by constructing concrete barriers and "bulb-outs"

Jay Garfinkle, Alameda resident, letter to the editor, 28 November 2025

Both letters describe changes piling up rather than one project. Street-narrowing and greenway projects went ahead. The Poplar housing proposal, at the site at Eagle, Clement and Tilden, advanced without the comprehensive traffic impact study, a study of how much additional traffic a project would cause, that the writers asked for. Neither letter has had a public answer. Alameda has not published an evacuation-capacity analysis of the five access points, so nobody has published a number for what those access points can carry, or for how much the changes have reduced it. Planning for an island with five ways on and off is hard, and two letters are two residents' views, not a neighborhood position.

The Civil Grand Jury, a group of residents appointed to review how local government is run, made a separate finding on the city's disaster readiness. It is covered in the issue on the grand jury report and the unfunded siren system, and it is the nearest thing to an independent assessment. It did not model road capacity.

Supporters of Slow Streets, a program that limits car traffic on some streets so more people can walk and bike, and of active transportation (walking and biking), along with the Poplar affordable housing developer, answer that street design changes and housing approvals are being delayed until a study is done. They add that the people asking for the study have already announced what they expect it to conclude. Frank Tiesma, a resident, wrote to the editor on 17 July 2026 rejecting the evacuation-capacity objection. He noted that population has been roughly stable for decades, and called the argument NIMBYism (opposition to new development near one's own home) from homeowner and landlord groups.

Sources: Alameda Post, Letters to the editor, 7 November 2025, Alameda Post, Letters to the editor, 28 November 2025

Police vacancies, a 224-day hiring process and the unfunded real-time crime center

Alameda · Citywide, Park Street and Webster Street business districts

On 19 May 2026, Alameda's city council received the city's workforce vacancy report, the count of city jobs that are open. Alameda Post reported that 10.44% of city positions were vacant citywide. In the police department, 27.05% of positions were vacant, the average hire took 224 days, and positions were frozen, meaning they were not being filled. The mayor, Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft, told the council:

the staffing troubles me. We do need to get those numbers up to where they're authorized.

Mayor Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft, Alameda city council meeting, 19 May 2026

Alameda's police department has had a good stretch to point to. It reported that crime in 2024 was down 12% and that patrol was fully staffed. It also reported using automated license plate readers (cameras that scan plates), SPIDR Tech (a notification system for people who contact the department), and Truleo (a system for reviewing body-camera recordings). It also added a bike-mounted Business Patrol on Park Street and Webster Street, and merchants are asking for it to be extended to Alameda Landing, another business area in the city.

The strain is in staffing. By May 2026 the city had roughly 69 to 72 officers against 88 authorized positions, meaning the number of officer jobs the city has approved. Hiring took an average of 224 days, and positions were frozen. News coverage put the sworn vacancy rate (the share of positions for sworn officers, the officers with police powers, that are unfilled) at 27.05%. That figure comes from news reporting, not from a city document, and it is higher than the officer counts imply, so the counts are the firmer number. The city is also implementing a new "Vetted" platform for background checks.

Residents pay close attention to what the department buys, too. When staff recommended two Teslas for the city fleet along with 17 hybrid Ford Interceptors for the police department, the public response was large enough that the mayor described it at the 10 February 2026 council meeting:

My email box just blew up

Mayor Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft, Alameda city council meeting, 10 February 2026

The council postponed the Tesla purchase to research alternatives, such as the Rivian patrol cars used in Palo Alto.

The police department data reviewed in February 2026 can be read in two different ways. Internal affairs cases (investigations of complaints about officers) rose about 70%, to 59 cases. Nine of those cases were sustained, meaning the complaint was upheld. Traffic stops rose 89%, and arrests for felonies (the most serious crimes) rose 56%. There were twelve police pursuits, meaning chases of drivers who did not stop. Community satisfaction with the department sat around 4.5 out of 5. Weapon displays, the times an officer drew a weapon, fell 15% in 2024.

The Police Auditor, an oversight official who reviews police department data, says the rise in internal affairs cases comes from supervisors documenting complaints proactively, not from worse conduct, and the fall in weapon displays fits that reading. Accountability advocates, and residents who are skeptical of oversight data the department reports about itself, want that data checked independently. They ask whether documentation habits alone explain a 70% jump, and they want someone independent to verify the auditor's explanation. Both readings fit the numbers. Publishing the underlying case categories, and not only the totals, is what would let a reader tell them apart.

Advocates for alternative response, which means sending trained responders other than police to some crisis calls, argue that a persistent staffing gap is a reason to invest in non-police crisis response, not only in recruitment. Alameda already runs one: the Fire Department's CARE Team, described in a separate issue on the programs behind the 46.8% drop in homelessness.

Sources: Alameda Post, Council receives update on the police department, Alameda Post, Council reviews public safety trends, Alameda Post, City council postpones decision on purchasing Teslas for APD, Alameda Post, Council approves inclusionary housing updates, Office of Sen. Adam Schiff, congressionally directed spending archive, Office of Sen. Adam Schiff, Commerce-Justice-Science congressionally directed spending disclosure, padilla.senate.gov, padilla.senate.gov, alamedapost.com, simon.house.gov, simon.house.gov, schiff.senate.gov, schiff.senate.gov

What replaces the cancelled VA clinic and cemetery at Alameda Point

Alameda · Alameda Point, the former VA clinic and cemetery site

After the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) cancelled its planned outpatient clinic and cemetery at Alameda Point, Nancy McKinley, an Alameda resident, left a reader comment on the Alameda Point Environmental Report on 12 January 2026. The comment included this:

As a 78 year old fifth generation Alamedan I had hoped to be buried here. I have my parent's ashes waiting for this promise to be completed.

Nancy McKinley, Alameda resident, in a reader comment on the Alameda Point Environmental Report, 12 January 2026

The comment was a response to news that the VA had cancelled its long-planned outpatient clinic and cemetery at Alameda Point. The project was reported at $1.3 billion. Another line from the same comment:

This is very disappointing. The VA clinic and the Columbarium have been a promise for years.

Nancy McKinley, Alameda resident, in a reader comment on the Alameda Point Environmental Report, 12 January 2026

A columbarium is a building that holds cremated remains. Since the cancellation, residents have been arguing about what should go on the land instead: housing, habitat restoration, or keeping the existing golf course. The difficulty is that nobody in that argument knows whether the VA plans to keep the land or give it up. The City of Alameda says it has received no formal notice from the VA about what the agency intends. The city also has not opened a process for deciding how the land would be reused.

Each position has a real case behind it. Housing advocates see land that is scarce in Alameda and that planned infrastructure already reaches. They see it as freed up because the VA cancelled its project. They also point to a city that built 65 homes last year. Habitat and open-space supporters see a site next to sensitive shoreline, where the estuary and the Bay limit how much can safely be built. They also point out that Alameda Point already faces the cost of protecting its shoreline from rising water, which is a separate issue we are tracking. Economic-development interests see a reuse that brings in revenue. All three positions assume the city can have the parcel, and nobody has told the city that it can.

The argument over what to build on the land says little about the Alameda County veterans the clinic and columbarium were meant to serve. Those veterans are now referred to other places for care. McKinley's comment is one example of what the promise meant to a family.

Sources: Alameda Post, What happens to the Alameda Point land slated for a VA clinic and cemetery, Alameda Post, Has the VA quit Alameda Point?

Navy and Chevron contamination still blocking conveyance at Alameda Point

Alameda · Alameda Point , Building 5 and the former 1880s refinery area

Since 2019, the Navy and the State of California have been unable to agree on how far a cleanup of radioactive contamination at Alameda Point, the former Navy base, must go. The Alameda Post reported in February 2026 that the cleanup goal for radium-226 (a radioactive element) has remained undetermined. That leaves Building 5, a hangar complex of 910,000 square feet, untransferable to the city.

Two agencies are stuck on one number. The Navy has been unable to obtain numerical radium-226 cleanup goals from the California Department of Public Health. The state department requires background-matching (cleaning up to the levels found naturally in the area), where the Navy works to Environmental Protection Agency risk protocols (a method that sets a cleanup level according to risk to health). Building 5 stays unremediated (not cleaned up) and cannot be conveyed to the city, meaning the city cannot become its legal owner.

A separate contamination problem on the same site is further along. Chevron planned to excavate soil to seven feet in targeted areas at Alameda Point in spring 2026, a job expected to take one to two months. The aim is to remove tar waste from a refinery it operated between 1879 and 1903 (the Alameda Post dates it to the 1880s). The work is under a 2021 order of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, the state agency that oversees cleanups that could affect water. The plan for the cleanup, called a corrective action plan, is still under review. That work has a lead agency, an order and a schedule. The radium dispute has none of the three.

The cost of the deadlock falls on a party that is not one of the two agencies in dispute. Every year Building 5 cannot be conveyed is a year the city cannot lease or redevelop it. Any financing plan for Alameda Point that counts Building 5 as property the city can eventually take over is counting on something that cannot happen yet. That bears directly on how the city will pay for Alameda Point's $900M in infrastructure work.

Neither side of the dispute is described as wanting the land left contaminated. Each is applying its own rules, and the state health department's background-matching approach is the more protective one. Some residents might read any risk-based number as a weakening of the standard, which makes this a hard problem to settle.

Sources: Alameda Post analysis, dispute over radium-226 cleanup hinders progress at closed Navy bases, Alameda Post, Chevron plans to clean tar waste at Alameda Point, Alameda Point Environmental Report

Park Street and Webster Street vacancy, permit waits and construction losses

Alameda · Park Street, Webster Street, Central Avenue, Thompson Avenue

On 30 September 2025, Yanni Placourakis, owner of 1400 Bar & Grill in the West End of Alameda, described to a reporter what construction on Central Avenue had done to his business. His was one of the West End businesses caught up in the Central Avenue Safety Improvement Project. The project was building bike lanes and roundabouts, and it took away street parking on Central Avenue. West End businesses lost customers to the No Parking zones that stayed in place for months, and Placourakis reported major revenue loss. He put one question to the city:

Why close the road for 150 days before you start doing any work?

Yanni Placourakis, merchant and owner of 1400 Bar & Grill, news interview, 30 September 2025

Spritzers Cafe, another West End business, closed. Elissa Glickman, director of the West Alameda Business Association, explained in the same interview why customers stay away:

If people can't get somewhere easily...they just don't go.

Elissa Glickman, director of the West Alameda Business Association, news interview, 30 September 2025

Beyond those two businesses, Park Street and Webster Street, two of Alameda's main commercial streets, also have empty storefronts. About 7% of the commercial space on Park Street is vacant, and about 12% on Webster Street. A use permit (the city's permission to operate a particular kind of business in a space) can add three to twelve months before a new business opens. More construction projects like this one on commercial streets are scheduled through 2029.

The city has been acting on the parts that do not involve its own construction contracts. In May 2025 it made permanent the 15% cap on third-party delivery commissions (the fees that delivery apps charge restaurants) and directed staff to investigate price gouging. In October 2025 it adopted a sidewalk vending ordinance with limits in residential zones and restrictions around Christmas Tree Lane. In July 2026 the Planning Board endorsed a Park Street and Webster Street zoning overhaul.

The overhaul would allow groceries, salons, gyms, tattoo studios and small offices by right, meaning without a separate use permit. It would permit escape rooms and billiard halls and require transparent storefronts. It would also extend standard business operating hours to 10 p.m., and to midnight on Fridays and Saturdays. Council adoption is targeted for fall 2026 and has not happened.

Businesses in the Park Street improvement district, an area where business owners pay a fee called an assessment to fund improvements along the street, are charged an amount that includes a fixed 3% inflation adjustment. That makes the funding predictable. Merchants facing empty storefronts nearby and small profits may resist any increase in the fee, whatever its size.

On the construction itself, the city's side deserves a fair hearing. It has funded safety projects on streets with documented high injury rates. It says contractors need room to stage their work (to set up equipment and materials), and that grant deadlines and contractor availability, rather than merchant convenience, decide when the work happens.

Sources: Alameda Post, West End businesses suffer from construction and lack of parking, Alameda Post, Council approves new sidewalk vending ordinance, Alameda Post, Council meeting coverage, delivery commission cap, City of Alameda, City Council in Brief, alamedapost.com

Harbor Bay Landing: neighbors worry about their shopping center while the city issues daily fines

Alameda · Harbor Bay Landing, Bay Farm Island · raised since July 2026

Stephan Dumont lives near Harbor Bay Landing, the shopping center on Bay Farm Island anchored by a Safeway. The Alameda Post reported on 4 September 2026 that he said:

"I'm worried about what this means, if the owners are just letting it all fall apart"

Stephan Dumont, who lives nearby, quoted by the Alameda Post (Ken Der and Jean Chen), 4 September 2026

The same article quoted Sandy Lance, who recently moved back to Bay Farm after leaving Alameda in 2000. She said, "All of the past food places are gone", and added that it is pitiful.

The city has been acting on the site for most of 2026. According to the Alameda Post, the city sent a Notice to Comply in January 2026, a formal letter telling a property owner to fix a violation, about sewage issues. Sewer repairs were completed in April. More notices followed in early July after concerns were raised. On 4 August 2026, city staff red-tagged three restaurants, La Val's Pizza, La Penca Azul and China Villa Restaurant, meaning the city ordered them closed, after a 48-hour Notice of Violation and continued noncompliance. The article states that "raw sewage was accumulating near and leaking into the lagoon at the rear of Building 891."

City staff met with representatives of Sequoia Commercial Group, the center's property management company, on site on 5 August 2026. They had earlier met with Safeway officials in October 2025. On 11 August 2026, the city issued a fourth Notice to Comply and began $3,000 daily fines, which the article describes as $1,000 for each of three violations of the Alameda Municipal Code, the city's rulebook. Those violations were discharge of pollutants, littering and best management practices, meaning required practices for keeping waste from escaping.

The center is privately owned by Harbor Bay Landing, LLC, a Burlingame-based company, so the city's main tool is code enforcement, the enforcement of its building, health and cleanliness rules. The city does not run the center or its businesses, which limits what notices and fines can accomplish by themselves.

Where things stand, as far as we have tracked: the enforcement is real, and the results are mixed. The Alameda Post reported that final inspections were planned for early September for La Penca Azul and China Villa, and that an employee at the Park Street La Penca Azul location hoped to reopen the following week. At the 1 September 2026 City Council meeting, Councilmember Tracy Jensen said La Val's would not reopen, and the article says it is closed for good. Safeway remains open.

Worth tracking

What would show movement: the final inspections of La Penca Azul and China Villa, whether the daily fines continue or end, whether the sewage and lagoon problem is resolved, and whether the empty restaurant spaces get new tenants.

This is mainly a local matter, and not a question of federal money. Because the article describes sewage leaking toward the lagoon, one question the office could put to the regional water authorities is whether they have been involved, since discharge into a waterway is regulated under the federal Clean Water Act through state and regional agencies. The office could also take casework from residents and point displaced restaurant workers and tenants to free business counseling through the federal Small Business Administration. We have not confirmed that either step is needed.

What should happen at Harbor Bay Landing is for the city, the owner and the neighbors to work out. The office would work with the city rather than arrive with a list. If you live near the center, tell us what you would put first.

Sources: Alameda Post, Red-tagged restaurants serve up concerns about Harbor Bay Landing's future, 4 September 2026

Alameda Hospital jobs and services against a $100M Medicaid-driven gap

Alameda · Alameda Hospital

On 21 March 2026, nurses at Alameda Hospital held a "Red Alert" rally organized by National Nurses United, the nurses' union. Courtenay Gonzalez, an intensive care unit nurse at the hospital, told KTVU what she was seeing:

"People are really sick, and they need help," said Gonzalez. "They're scared to come here, afraid of seeing ICE outside and not being able to come in."

Courtenay Gonzalez, an intensive care unit nurse at Alameda Hospital, in a KTVU news interview at the nurses' rally at Alameda Hospital, 21 March 2026. Also quoted in the Alameda Post, 25 March 2026.

Gonzalez spoke at the rally held at Alameda Hospital on 21 March 2026. Nurses turned out because they expect federal cuts to Medicaid to reduce the money available to the hospital and to Alameda Health System, the public health system that runs it. In the same interview she said, "We're seeing longer waits, we're seeing cuts to services," and that is the change they say they are already living with.

The numbers behind the rally are large. Alameda Health System projects a $100 million shortfall in 2027. Its revenue has already dropped by $30 million in 2026, and it expects federal cuts to Medicaid to cause the larger $100 million gap. Medicaid, the government health insurance program for people with lower incomes, is roughly 60% of the system's revenue, so a cut there hits hard. The cuts come from a federal budget law known as H.R. 1, and no county action can close the gap they leave.

Job cuts were then proposed. First the plan was for up to 372 job cuts, then about 300, across nursing, therapy, medical and housekeeping staff. They were spread over Alameda Hospital, Highland Hospital in Oakland, which the same health system runs, and other sites. On 3 March 2026 the Alameda County Board of Supervisors voted to delay roughly 300 of those layoffs and formed a working group. That was a real step for the workers involved. A delay is not funding, and the gap is still there.

For someone on an island with one hospital, the system-wide number matters less than a narrower question: which services survive at this site. That has not been answered in public. The working group has not published a list.

Both sides have a position on what happens next. National Nurses United would object to any published list that concedes service reductions in advance. The county would object that publishing one gives away negotiating room it still has.

Sources: Alameda Post, County officials delay Alameda Health System layoffs, Alameda Post, Nurses rally at Alameda Hospital