Alameda Food Bank Supporters Rally to Oppose CEQA Lawsuit

City Attorney declares lawsuit “entirely without merit”

More than 100 supporters of the Alameda Food Bank (AFB) turned out for a protest at the City Council meeting on the evening of Tuesday, September 17, in response to the news that two citizens had filed a lawsuit that could delay or derail previously approved construction plans.

Residents, students, business owners, and other supporters began gathering outside the front steps of City Hall around 6:30 p.m., wearing Alameda Food Bank T-shirts and holding signs that declared, “People need food” and “Save the Food Bank.” They promoted the fact that the Food Bank serves 1,200 families each week and recovered 536,396 pounds of food from local grocery stores in 2023. Drivers honked in support as they passed the group on Santa Clara Avenue.

Among the crowd gathered in front of City Hall were current AFB Executive Director Teale Harden speaking to the media, as well as former director Cindy Houts and members of the community theater troupe, The Foodbank Players , which donates all their proceeds to combat local hunger.

Tod Hickman, owner of Building 43 Winery and one of the lawsuit’s plaintiffs, was observed in the crowd having animated discussions with other attendees before the Council meeting. Other than co-plaintiff Shelby Sheehan, there were no other supporters of the lawsuit visible in the crowd.

When Harden spoke with the Alameda Post , she said she hoped the turnout would give the plaintiffs a change of heart. “When we go into the chambers, we’re going to hopefully fill up the chambers, show City Council that we have a lot of public support, and also show the plaintiffs that we have a lot of community support.”

She also expressed her frustration over having to contend with the lawsuit. “We’ve already had approval from the Planning Board twice. Any delay at this point is dollars that are not spent on our program, dollars that are not spent feeding people. And we would much prefer to feed people.”

Hickman and Sheehan are suing the City to challenge the approval of a conditional use permit for proposed construction under the California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA ). It is unclear what their standing is in the case; neither Hickman nor Sheehan serve on any legislative bodies, nor do they have any role in deciding Alameda Point policy. However, Hickman leases his business location on Monarch Street—located several blocks from the Food Bank property—from the City, and Sheehan is a former City tenant who was evicted in 2022 for nonpayment of rent . In an email to the Alameda Post , Hickman mentioned being a part of a group, but it was not clear which group he meant or what its goals are. The plaintiffs allege that the City improperly exempted the Food Bank project from full CEQA review by claiming a Section 15183 Exemption .

However, in a statement issued by the City, Alameda City Attorney Yibin Shen declared, “The lawsuit targeting the Alameda Food Bank is entirely without merit. The Food Bank project is supported by substantial environmental review and is situated in a location zoned for its purpose. The Food Bank serves up to 9% of Alameda’s most needy population. This lawsuit, and the potential delay it could impose on this very important project, is extremely regrettable. The City Attorney’s Office will vigorously defend the City’s proper approvals for the project. We look forward to swiftly dismissing this lawsuit so that this important project can move forward.”

In public statements, Hickman has repeatedly referred to the proposed site as “a historic parking lot,” but when the Alameda Post asked Alameda Planning Department Director Allen Tai if that was the case, he did not agree. “There are no historic parking lots in Alameda. It’s uncommon for parking lots to be considered historic, as they typically don’t meet the criteria for historic significance,” he responded. “The Alameda Food Bank lot in question was determined to be ‘non-contributing’ to the NAS Alameda Historic District, so it has no association with the historical significance of Alameda Point.”

Tai shared a link to the NAS Alameda Historic District Map which clearly shows the property is not considered significant. When we asked the same question of Dennis Evanosky, historian for the Alameda Post and the Alameda Museum , he laughed before stating, “No.”

About 10 minutes before the City Council meeting was to begin, the crowd began to move into the building and up the stairs. Alameda Fire Chief Nick Luby was at the door of Council Chambers, directing the flow of people into the room and keeping the occupancy below the limit. Every available seat in the room was taken, and more chose to stand at the back of the room and line the walls. Supporters brought their signs inside and displayed them for the Councilmembers and closed-circuit TV to capture.

Because so many people wished to speak during the public comment section, City Clerk Lara Weiseger instated a lottery, choosing several people to speak early in the meeting and asking the others to wait until after Council dealt with the main issues on their docket. Those issues, including the proposed aquatic center and the Slow Streets program are detailed in Karin K. Jensen’s report . Debating those issues took several hours, and by the time the second public comment period was opened around 11:30 p.m., only two commenters were still in attendance.

All those who made public comment about the lawsuit were decidedly against the litigation, with Tod Hickman the sole supporter. Restaurant owner and Alameda Chamber President Joann Guitarte became choked up when she explained her own experience with food insecurity as a child in a family of six and urged the plaintiffs to drop their lawsuit.

Vickie, a retiree from AUSD , lauded the Food Bank for their service during the pandemic. “When COVID happened, if we didn’t have the food bank in Alameda, I don’t know what we would have done, because the line stretched outside of the base.”

Natel Energy COO Gregory Cadman also spoke at the meeting, with a different perspective. Cadman was unequivocal in lamenting how his company’s construction project at Alameda Point was also being derailed by a CEQA lawsuit filed by the same plaintiffs. “These lawsuits both allege that the city has improperly followed California environmental law by granting exemptions to CEQA, despite it being plain from public record that, at least in the Natel case, the lawsuit is motivated by financial interests rather than the environment,” Cadman said.

“Petitioners seem to believe that they can derail publicly approved, much needed projects without fear of repercussions,” he added. “They are setting a disturbing pattern by first going after Natel and now the Food Bank. If left unchecked, this trend will erode the civic and economic health of the city.”

Siobhan asked if the City is acting improperly, why the plaintiffs choose to spend money on litigation when they could spend that money directly helping the Food Bank relocate successfully and continue helping the community.

Katherine went further and questioned the plaintiff’s motives, asking, “Are you scared to lose money due to the proximity of the Alameda Food Bank? … I’m just confused, but I’m trying to listen to you to understand, what is the purpose of the lawsuit? The environment? The parking lot?”

When it was Hickman’s turn to speak, he started by stating, “We fully support the Food Bank. We always have. We’ve been telling the Food Bank and the City for over a year that this was the wrong location.”

He then launched into a list of reasons to justify the lawsuit. He alleged the City was denying the Food Bank a “choice location” that it “wants to give its favored developers.” During his remarks, Hickman did not back down, and instead suggested alternate locations for the Food Bank that he approved of, including staying in their current location and moving to a burned-out building.

That is not an option, according to Harden. The Food Bank ED said, “We own the property… and we’ve already begun the work.”

Hickman pivoted to statements about why he filed a CEQA lawsuit. “Our lawsuit is against the City for environmenting (sic), for violating CEQA, the California Environmental Quality act. The environment has no voice, and if citizens do not speak up and file suit, there is no regulatory agency that enforces CEQA. Only the citizens can do this. And what the City has done has deceived the Food Bank into choosing a very poor location.” Hickman then again stated, “It is a historic parking lot.”

Public comments posted online have not favored the plaintiffs, and the phrase “historic parking lot” may have just become a part of Alameda’s lexicon . Opponents of the lawsuit have also been demonstrating their displeasure by leaving critical reviews on the Yelp page for Building 43 Winery. But Alameda Mayor Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft had the last word, ending Tuesday’s Council meeting with the following remarks:

“Contrary to what you heard from Mr. Tod Hickman—he is not a fan of the Food Bank. And this litigation that is being brought threatens to curtail their plans to move into their expanded building.

“I am responding to the many, many emails I’m getting from residents asking them to reach out to Mr. Hickman and to Ms. Sheehan and ask them to just dismiss the lawsuit. If you’re such a fan of the Food Bank and you want it to continue, the key is in your hand. So, just dismiss the lawsuit.

“People have the right to make their public comment, but I have the right to set the record straight.”

The Alameda Post will continue to cover this litigation until it is resolved.

Adam Gillitt is the Publisher of the Alameda Post . Reach him at publisher@alamedapost.com . His writing is collected at AlamedaPost.com/Adam-Gillitt .

The post Alameda Food Bank Supporters Rally to Oppose CEQA Lawsuit appeared first on Alameda Post .