Correspondence - Updated 4/21 — Alameda City Council, April 21, 2026

04-21-2026

To the members of the Alameda city council,

I would like to take this opportunity to address your upcoming agenda item 5D, the Alameda Little League MOU and use of Littlejohn Park.

As I read through the MOU, I found things that were disturbing. In exhibit 1, The entire lawn area is consumed by the baseball field, furthermore in the picture you can see a jumpy house that is positioned on flat ground for safe use, however that area is now no longer available. Little League having exclusive right to the use of amplified sound, and prohibiting and denying that right to all others. Banning all use of the picnic areas, denying permits for public access. This is not what I would call a good neighbor! Little League thus far has not abided by the proposed MOU; They have intentionally not been forth coming with information. They have in fact taken over the entire park forcing people to leave.

If this MOU was truly intended to cover a trial period, why does it extend beyond May 2026? Why is there no END DATE? This appears to be a long-term agreement that places control of a pubic resource in the hands of a private concern with absolutely no oversite, allowing them to make any changes as they see fit. This is not a good fit for Littlejohn, the neighborhood or the city. This MOU is a joke it is equivalate to a slap in the face of the city and TAX PAYER. Basically a polite “F*** off!” We will do what we want!

I have been a resident of the 1500 block of Pacific Ave. for 63 years. As such I have seen the evolution of our neighborhood park, transformed from a dirt lot used to park Matson Containers for the former Delmonte Wearhouse, to the open space we know today, from its inception, to its most resend adaptation. While growing up in the neighborhood as a child, I watched the transformation from the dirt lot, into what became Buena Vista Park, later becoming Littlejohn Park. During the inauguration ceremonies, the dignitaries and city officials touted the park as a milestone for the surrounding neighborhoods and community in general. As Buena Vista Park would provide a safe family oriented and friendly gathering area for the local area resident’s to enjoy, with Basket Ball courts, Picnic areas, and a small baseball diamond.

The location of the park provided much need open space for the area, as nearby parks such as Franklin, McKinley, & Washington were not close enough to serve our neighborhood. Children and families using those parks often had to contend with crossing busy streets and intersections, & even lack of parking. Over the years modifications and changes have been made to the park, some of which created additional concerns for adjacent residents, moreover from day one the park has always been an open, friendly and inviting space encouraging nearby residents to enjoy all that the park has to offer. That is no longer the case!

In recent weeks our QUIET friendly neighborhood park has been FORCEFULLY TAKEN OVER and transformed into a SPORTS FIELD! This is not acceptable at all! The residents of the surrounding neighborhoods were intentionally not advised that drastic changes were coming! Very few if any residents, myself included were even notified of community meetings that would address residents’ concerns. Days after the “non-advertised community meeting” a fence with a bright yellow top appeared without warning. Many of the neighbors were confused and curious as to what was happening in the park.

From the point that the fence appeared and games began, we have seen an increase in food trucks, heavy increase in vehicle traffic on Pacific Ave., Benton St. and Morton St. As parents are rushing kids to the games, they are Speeding on Pacific Ave. Running the stop sign at Pacific & Benton. Not to mention that parking within our neighborhoods has become an absolute night mare on game days. I have personally had issues with Little League families blocking my driveway for hours at a time. I have been cursed at for asking people to not block my driveway, and or directing them to their designated parking areas. I’m now encouraging all of the neighbors to have any vehicle TOWED if it blocks their driveway.

The park is no longer a friendly place; Area residents are being displaced and forced out of their own neighbor recreation area. They are being told by Little League staff and families that they are NOT WELCOME at Littlejohn and to stay out of the park. The newly installed fence is intimidating and standoffish, and only reenforces Little League’s Nazi like control over a public resource. Littlejohn Park is owned by the TAX PAYERS of Alameda and not a private entity.

The senior residents of the area that have utilized the park for years, many of them have very small frail dogs as companion animals. These seniors are being intimidated and told they are not allowed to bring animals to the park. These animals pose NO THREAT to Little League in any way, and there is absolutely no reason for this type of behavior. We no longer see the special needs kids coming to the park in groups, nor the foster care groups, the pickup rugby, soccer & football games, even the Marines from the reserve center have stopped coming to our neighborhood park.

After the fence was erected, I noticed a family was utilizing the picnic area on the Benton St. side of the park for a birthday party. They had an inflatable jumpy house that was positioned on the slope between the picnic area and the newly installed fence. This family had a permit, but were unable to place the jumpy on a flat level surface because the fence blocked access to flat ground. The park has been made unusable during the day, due to the change of the watering schedule, instead of watering at night when less water is needed and evaporation is less. Watering is now done during the day when more water is needed and the evaporation rate is higher. Signage indicating that the “field is closed keep out” intentionally and successfully denying access to the public have been posted around the field.

Little League has been operating in Littlejohn Park illegally, without official sanction or approval, therefor Little League has no official grounds to be utilizing Littlejohn Park. As there is currently NO mutual agreement between the City of Alameda and Little League, that has been approved and voted on by the city council! Little League should cease all operations at Littlejohn Park immediately! The fence should be removed! And the park should be returned to its original state prior to the takeover. An immediate stop to intimidation and alienation of the residents.

As residents we have been lied too, by city officials and told the changes are only “TEMPORARY”, “IT’S A TRIAL PERIOD”! I doubt highly that the VOTING populace of the area would believe or agree with the BS we have been fed thus far. This was an intentional back door deal forced upon the residential neighborhoods surrounding Littlejohn Park. Building infrastructure is not a sign of Temporary or Trial! It means the changes are Permanent! We do not intend to allow Little League to bully our neighborhood or bulldoze our park! If Little League wants a SPORTS FIELD, have them assist the city in designing a facility that can be built at Alameda point that will not interfere with any businesses or residents of the point, where they can have their concessions and food trucks.

On behalf of many of the residence of the 1500 block of Pacific Ave. we respectfully demand that you reject the MOU in its current form, and take this matter up as a full hearing to address each item individually and the potential effects it will have on the residents. In addition, we further ask that Council Member Jensen should without prejudice recuse herself from any vote, as her affiliation with members of Little League pose a serious CONFLICT of INTEREST, LACK of TRANSPARENCY, and extremely poor judgement of a mayoral candidate.

The message that Little League needs to understand is this, Littlejohn Park is not their property, it unequivocally belongs to the TAX PAYERS and resident of Alameda! Little League made a very large mistake when it decided to take over our beloved neighborhood park. The local residents have been diligent over the years to be good stewards of the park, keeping drugs and other illicit activities out at all costs! As we know the value of having a recreational area close by.

As residents and VOTERS of Alameda we will not hesitate to stand firm and fight to keep Littlejohn Park the small friendly community open space it was intended to be.

We want Little League out of Littlejohn Park Permanently!

Sincerely,

Ron Garlets
[email protected]

From: Laura Gamble
To: Justin Long
Cc: Adam Politzer; Amy Wooldridge; Ashley Zieba; Greg Boller; Kimberly Nydam; Lara Weisiger; Mandy Arellano; Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Melissa Kyrimis; Michele Pryor; Roselena MejiaCampos; Sarah Henry; Tony Daysog; Tracy Jensen; Yibin Shen; Matt Nowlen
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Item 5-D on the April 21 Consent Calendar Date: Tuesday, April 21, 2026 1:06:39 PM
Thank you for the thorough response, Justin - this time and in the recent weeks. I am glad to see that so many staff members have been looped in.

To keep this inquiry brief, I still believe that two points were not addressed:

1. The construction and usage occurred many weeks ago. How was this possible before an MOU was executed?

2. IF guidelines are followed, the fact remains that the park is currently not welcoming to the community - partially due to the incidents mentioned and partially due to the park being cut off by a fence, rendering much of the community space inaccessible to the public when ALL is actively using it, and when ALL is not actively using it. Not to mention that this primarily impacts the best and busiest/most popular seasons for this park. From my perspective, this is not a reasonable balance for the community. This outer fence could easily be replaced with paint for games, and it would allow the community to actually use the space when not actively being utilized by ALL.

Hoping we can find a more reasonable middle ground.

Laura GAMBLE
On Tue, Apr 21, 2026 at 12:28 PM Justin Long <[email protected] > wrote:

Dear Ms. Gambel and Council Members,
Thank you for the correspondence regarding the proposed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City of Alameda and Alameda Little League Baseball.

We appreciate the community’s engagement and the opportunity to clarify several points raised.

Process Concerns
The improvements at Littlejohn Park, including fencing, netting, and dugout out construction were for the safety of park users. The dugouts specifically were identified in the City’s adopted ADA transition plan as out of compliance. The netting was installed to protect pedestrians walking on the sidewalks as well as the playground users from foul balls. The improvements followed all City procurement policies and were within the spending authority of the City Manager.

LOSS OF COMMUNITY ACCESS
League access to the field in the MOU is limited to the M-F 4:30pm-7pm, Saturday 9am- 7pm, and Sunday 9am-5pm as needed for make-up games. The park, including the field, is available for the community to use at all other times, unrestricted. The League follows the Council approved fee schedule for field rental. The MOU does not exempt the League from payments.

ONE-SIDED TERMS
The League pays the field usage fee established in the Council adopted fee schedule. If the City determines safety improvements are required to support League usage and the League disagrees, the agreement will terminate and the League games will no longer have access to the field.

The City’s adopted Field Allocation Policy, which the League follows, required all field rentals to carry insurance and indemnification obligations.

VAGUE PERMITTED USE HOURS
The MOU provides the League with field use on Sundays from 9am-5pm. The language in the MOU establishes that ARPD will not reserve the field to another user group during those hours
Outside of these designated times, the field remains fully open and accessible to the broader community. The intent of the agreement is to balance organized youth sports with continued public use.

VIOLATIONS THAT HAVE ALREADY OCCURRED
We recognize the start of League usage at Littlejohn had several issues. The League has worked with the coaches and families to enforce the parking plan. The plan identifies Jean Sweeney Park and Windriver as the location to park. The League has informed spectators and team members to keep all sidewalks clear. The League did not invite a food truck to Littlejohn. A food truck did set up at the park and was not permitted to be there.

ARPD has worked to support the League enforcing the parking plan and clear access around the park. ARPD park monitors and staff have been onsite to mitigate issue as they arise.

We recognize the importance of Littlejohn Park as a shared community asset and remain committed to maintaining a balanced approach that supports youth programming while preserving public access. We appreciate the feedback provided and will continue working to ensure transparency and accountability in this process.

Sincerely,
Justin Long, Director of Recreation and Parks

From: Laura Gamble <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2026 8:08 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>; Tracy Jensen <[email protected]>; Tony Daysog <[email protected]>; Greg Boller <[email protected]>; Michele Pryor <[email protected]>; Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Item 5-D on the April 21 Consent Calendar

Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,
I am writing to urge you to remove the proposed Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Alameda and Alameda Little League Baseball from the consent calendar at tomorrow's meeting and schedule it for full public deliberation. I have significant concerns about both the substance of the agreement and the process by which it has been brought forward.

I want to be clear at the outset: Alameda Little League has operated at Littlejohn Park for many years without issue, and I want them to have the fields they need to thrive. Youth baseball is a genuine community asset. But the needs of the neighborhood must also be balanced against those of any single user group, and this agreement, as written, tips that balance too far in one direction. Many residents feel, simply put, that they have lost their park. That is not an outcome any of us should accept without a full public conversation.

PROCESS CONCERNS
Consent calendar items are understood by the public to be routine and uncontroversial. This MOU is neither. Physical improvements to Littlejohn Park, including fencing, netting, and dugout construction, appear to have been installed prior to any executed agreement or public vote authorizing them. If that is correct, it raises serious questions about whether proper procurement procedures were followed, whether public funds were expended without Council authorization, and whether the City pre-committed itself to this arrangement before the public had any opportunity for input. These are not housekeeping matters. They deserve a noticed public hearing.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Councilmember Tracy Jensen recently hosted a campaign event for her mayoral race at which League President Ron Matthews was prominently featured as a guest. This creates at a minimum an appearance of a conflict of interest. A screengrab of this invitation is attached.

LOSS OF COMMUNITY ACCESS
Littlejohn Park has long served as an informal and formal gathering space for neighborhood residents, including birthday parties, baby showers, and community events. Under this MOU, the League would hold exclusive control of the property from February through May and again from August through October. During those months, the City may only request use, and the League is under no obligation to accommodate it, nor does it pay any fee for this exclusivity. Residents are effectively locked out of public land for much of the year with no compensation or community benefit requirement in return. It is pretty dismissive of those impacted that this would happen through a consent calendar item.

ONE-SIDED TERMS
Several provisions in the agreement are difficult to justify on their merits:
- The League pays nothing for its exclusive seasonal use of City property. - If the City determines safety improvements are necessary and the League disagrees, the Agreement terminates, effectively giving a private nonprofit a veto over safety decisions on public land.
- If the League agrees to safety improvements, it must reimburse the City for all associated costs, an unusual arrangement that shifts public infrastructure costs onto a nonprofit using public land at no charge.
- The League is not required to carry any insurance or indemnification obligations that are visible within the four corners of this agreement.

VAGUE PERMITTED USE HOURS
Section 2(A)(iii) lists permitted hours of use but closes with the phrase "as needed for make-up games" without defining what that means or applying it clearly to a specific day. As written, it is ambiguous whether Sunday hours are restricted to make-up games only, or whether all permitted hours are available whenever the League unilaterally deems them necessary. Either way, the agreement contains no advance notice requirement, no definition of "make-up game," no cap on how many can be scheduled, and no mechanism for the City to verify or dispute a claimed make-up. The Council should require that: (1) all scheduled uses be submitted to ARPD in writing at least 72 hours in advance; (2) "make-up game" be defined with a reasonable annual cap; and (3) Sunday use be clearly delineated as either unrestricted within the listed hours or limited to verified make-up games, not left to the League's discretion.

VIOLATIONS THAT HAVE ALREADY OCCURRED
Perhaps most troubling is that the League appears to have already violated the terms of this agreement before it has even been formally approved. The MOU requires the League to adopt and comply with a City-approved parking plan, keep walkways clear and accessible, and follow City mobile vending Ordinance 3391 regarding concessions. None of these obligations appears to have been honored:
- Neighbors have experienced their driveways being blocked during League games, a direct violation of the parking plan the League agreed to uphold. - Sidewalks in the surrounding neighborhood have been blocked, creating accessibility and safety hazards for residents.
- The League invited a food truck to the park without the prior written City approval required under Ordinance 3391, the very ordinance this MOU obligates them to follow.

The MOU itself states that failure to comply with the parking plan may result in suspension of games, and continued failure is cause for termination. If the League cannot meet its basic obligations before the agreement is even ratified, the Council should seriously question whether approving it tomorrow is appropriate at all.

I respectfully ask that the Council:

1. Pull this item from the consent calendar and schedule it for a properly noticed public hearing.

2. Direct staff to provide a full accounting of any improvements already made to Littlejohn Park, including when they were authorized, by whom, and at what cost.

Explore why these improvements were made before a signed agreement.

3. Request that Councilmember Jensen disclose the nature of her relationship with League President Ron Matthews and consider recusal. Even if this doesn't meet the threshold for a conflict of interest, it certainly appears a certain way.

4. Direct the City Attorney to review the agreement's termination, reimbursement, and permitted use provisions for consistency with standard City contracting practice.

Littlejohn Park belongs to all Alameda residents. An agreement that grants a private organization exclusive seasonal control of public land, and whose terms are already being violated before the ink is dry, deserves full public scrutiny, not approval on the consent calendar. I am hopeful the Council can find a path that allows Little League to continue doing what it does well, while restoring the neighborhood's sense of ownership over a park that has always been shared by all.

Thank you for your service and your attention to this matter.

Laura Gamble
From: A G
To: Justin Long
Cc: Adam Politzer; Amy Wooldridge; Ashley Zieba; Greg Boller; Kimberly Nydam; Lara Weisiger; Mandy Arellano; Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Melissa Kyrimis; Michele Pryor; Roselena MejiaCampos; Sarah Henry; Tony Daysog; Tracy Jensen; Yibin Shen; Matt Nowlen
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: City Council Meeting April 21, 2026 Consent Calendar Item 5D 2026-5917 Date: Tuesday, April 21, 2026 12:37:33 PM
Hi Justin,
Thank you for your response; I've added some context to your information (below). While I hope to make the meeting this evening, current health challenges may prevent my attendance.

One thing I would like to share with you (and all city officials) is something that happened just two days, Sunday afternoon, which in essence sums up the problem with turning over what is essentially an entire, small community park to a private activity:

A father and son (age 8-ish) passed us on Pacific, just across Benton, walking away from Littlejohn while a LL game was in process. The dad had his arm over his son's shoulders, the child carrying a soccer ball and looking down at the sidewalk. "That's OK buddy. We'll find another place."
This breaks my heart and it should break yours. Taking a well-used, beloved community park off-line for private use, especially one so many families enjoy being within walking distance, is not a matter to be taken lightly and should be subject to an extra level of care, challenge, public discussion, scrutiny, and completely transparent process. Even if the process followed was "within the rules" it isn't enough.

Thank you,
Alison
On Mon, Apr 20, 2026 at 5:56 PM Justin Long <[email protected] > wrote:

Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council Members, City Manager, and Ms. Greene and Ms.

Arbuckle,
Thank you for your detailed correspondence regarding the proposed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City of Alameda and Alameda Little League (ALL) for use of baseball field at Littlejohn Park. We appreciate the time and care taken to share your concerns and would like to provide clarification on several of the points raised. Our goal is for this to be a positive experience for both the neighbors, youth athletes and their families. We continue to be open to feedback and making adjustments as needed and appropriate.

Community Outreach and Process
The Department made multiple efforts to notify park users and nearby residents of the community meetings. Notices were prominently advertised at all entrances to Littlejohn Park using A-frame signage, as well as at key high-use areas including the basketball courts, barbeque areas, playground, and the recreation center. The department posted the community meetings on the website and social media channels. Two community meetings were held, and feedback received during these meetings directly informed the development of the MOU, including the parking plan for ALL members to park at Jean Sweeney Park and Windriver, no amplified music without a permit, and defining elements of the fall use program during the second meeting.

Fenceline
The Department provided an image of the proposed location of a temporary fence for the outfield to support the ALL-trial usage of the field. Staff stated during the community meeting the fence would be 200 feet from home plate. The temporary fence also leaves two 30-foot spaces for access to the field when not used by ALL. AG: Showing us a drawing with a short arc, tied to stating '200 feet from home plate' is not the same as stating the fence would encompass most of the park. The drawing was disingenuous.

Trial Period and Future Adjustments
This MOU represents a one-year trial program. The intent of this trial period is to evaluate operations, community impact, and program effectiveness. The MOU will be presented to the Recreation and Parks Commission at the end of the trial to review and provide input if the MOU should be renewed. There will be additional community meetings held both this summer, in between the spring and fall season, and toward the end of this calendar year to solicit feedback.

Financial Responsibilities
Alameda Little League has reimbursed the City for all costs associated with improvements to the field. The MOU also refers to the framework for addressing any potential future costs or needs that may arise during the term of the agreement. AG: I trust the appropriate contracts/agreements, reimbursement schedules, receipts, etc. have been reviewed and are tracked by the appropriate City departments.

Irrigation Schedule
The park’s irrigation schedule has not been modified. Irrigation continues to operate during standard nighttime hours between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. AG: Please ask Park staff to check the timers; on sunny days close to the weekend, the system has also been going on midmorning.

Amplified Sound and Permitting
Approval for amplified sound is governed by the City’s Special Event Permit process and is not administered by the Alameda Recreation and Park Department (ARPD). Any use of amplified sound must comply with City regulations and permit requirements applicable to all users. AG: During the January 21 community meeting, I asked how park-goers who rent the BBQ pits, have bouncy houses, etc. for their parties would be able to use the park. The response was "there will be no permits issued on game days," and I did express my disagreement with this approach at the time. Staff assured use would be "first come/first serve." There appears to be a disconnect between that information and what you've shared here. Either way, having amplified music during an entire game day is not acceptable as a neighbor. When private parties happen, music is a short period of a couple hours. Admittedly not always my taste, but I knew I was moving next to a general use park where family events would happen

De Facto Exclusive Use Beyond the Field
The MOU with ALL provides for exclusive use of the field for specific hours of the day. ARPD discussed with ALL that they limit use in the park to the grass section of the field and the grass area behind center field fence line. They will no longer warm up in other locations in the park. AG: That is appreciated, but unofficial warm-up is still happening. The salient point here is that Littlejohn Park is comprised mostly by the field.

Between the field being used, the spectators around the perimiter, and taking over the BBQ spots there literally is no other park space than the small "pan handle". ALL use of the field is not different than ALL use of the entire park.

Liability and Insurance
The MOU does not have a requirement that ALL carry its own liability insurance or indemnify the City against claims arising from its use of the field because it is required in the Field Allocation Policy. ALL provides liability insurance indemnifying the City against claims arising from its use of the field. AG: Not sure I understand this correctly, but if insurance/indemnification is covered by the city under the FAP, as a taxpayer, I am appalled. Exclusive use/control of community property is being granted by the city and we are still liable for incidents? If I am wrong, and ALL is required to provide insurance/indemnification this should be clearly stated in the MOU, referencing the FAP.

We recognize that Littlejohn Park is a valued community asset, and we remain committed to balancing recreational programming with continued public access. The trial period of this agreement is intended to ensure that community feedback continues to play a key role in shaping future decisions.

We appreciate your engagement and will continue to monitor and evaluate the program throughout the year.

Sincerely,
Justin Long
Director, Alameda Recreation and Park Department
From: A G <[email protected]>
Date: April 16, 2026 at 10:19:02 PM PDT
To: CITYCOUNCIL-List <[email protected]>
Cc: City Attorney <[email protected]>, City Clerk <[email protected]>, Manager Manager
<[email protected]>, [email protected]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: City Council Meeting April 21, 2026 Consent Calendar Item 5D 2026-5917

Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council Members, and City Manager, As neighbors of Littlejohn Park, we are requesting the proposed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City of Alameda and Alameda Little League (ALL) be moved from the April 21 Consent Calendar to a full agenda item so the vague/missing details can be added for a an appropriately-detailed MOU, with full Staff presentation of the process & opportunity for a transparent, public Council discussion.

This MOU raises serious concerns about process, transparency, enforceability, and the loss of public access to a well-used, beloved community park. Littlejohn Park users represent the diversity Alameda has long strived to build; the impacts of turning it over to private organization control are far too significant to be approved without open discussion and careful deliberation.

Our concerns fall into 3 categories:

Process And Community Outreach Failures
The community engagement process for this MOU was wholly inadequate if not outright disingenuous. Two small notices were affixed to the playground fence, missed by most residents. Only two meetings were held, and by the time neighbors attended the second meeting at the end of January, construction on the new ball field had already been planned for the beginning of February. Either the was the required formal RFP process was bypassed or was the decision already made with no genuine intention of incorporating neighborhood input.

Given the scope of what is being granted (exclusive control of a public park to a private organization for the majority of the year) this is unacceptable. Compounding this concern, the MOU is backdated to March, which is neither transparent nor consistent with good governance.

Vague and Unenforceable Terms
The MOU contains terms that are so vague as to be unenforceable. For example, it references a "parking plan" without reasonable specifics.

Literally every side of Littlejohn Park is surrounded by multi-family housing, most relying on street parking. The amorphous parking plan only cites a very specific section of Pacific, inviting a “knock-on effect” to encourage ALL parents to park on adjacent streets and down Pacific, where half the multi-family homes do not have off-street parking. More critically, the MOU directly contradicts what neighbors were told at the neighborhood meeting and in subsequent conversations with ARPD staff:

Fence Perimeter: At the neighborhood meeting, a diagram was shown depicting a small arc of fencing that did not extend much beyond the BBQ pits at the corner of Benton and Buena Vista. When the fence was installed days later, it encompassed a vastly larger perimeter, from mid-block on Pacific Avenue all the way around to mid-block on Buena Vista, including all of Benton. When I contacted ARPD staff to ask about the discrepancy, I was told the diagram shown at the meeting "wasn't a specific plan, just representative so neighbors could get an idea." This is not an acceptable explanation for a public process.

Exclusivity Period: Neighbors were told this arrangement was a "trial period" and that the fence would come down after the final game at the end of May. We were never informed of an exclusive use period running from August 1 through October 31.

Financial Responsibility: Neighbors were told that ALL would reimburse the City of Alameda for all improvements; “it won’t cost the city, they would pay for everything.” The MOU states the opposite.

BBQ Pits: Neighbors were told the general public could still use the BBQ pits, with the caveat that no permits would be issued. The MOU states that no amplified sound may be used without a permit but does not clarify that no permits will be issued — effectively giving a loophole to ALL for sound permits while general public cannot get permits to reserve use. The MOU must explicitly state that no permits will be issued and therefore no amplified sound will be permitted.

De Facto Exclusive Use Beyond The Field
I was assured by ARPD staff that ALL's exclusive use applies only to the field itself, as noted in the exhibit. In practice, ALL has taken over the entire park on weekends. ALL sets up warm-up equipment across the full stretch of open park space along Buena Vista, behind homes on the north side of Pacific between Morton and Sherman. The basketball courts have been rendered inaccessible due to players throwing balls in that area. Neighbors have been told by ALL volunteers that they "need to leave the field" on non-game days because they have no right to be there. Signs have been posted mid-week declaring the entire field closed.

Additionally, the park's irrigation schedule has been changed from nighttime watering (the more efficient and effective approach for root penetration) to mid-morning, making the grass too wet for neighbors to use during the day and facilitating evaporation rather than healthy turf development. This is a misuse of public resources.

Liability and Insurance
The MOU contains no requirement that ALL carry its own liability insurance or indemnify the City against claims arising from its use of the park. This exposes the City of Alameda and its taxpayers to significant financial risk, including liability for errant balls that may injure pedestrians, cyclists, or neighboring property owners, or damage vehicles and surrounding homes.

Littlejohn Park is a small, well-loved community park funded by Alameda taxpayers. It has an accessible playground serving young children, BBQ pits used by families and neighbors, and open space that residents depend on during the seven best months of the year. The current version of the MOU is full of vague terms, contradictions to what neighbors were told, and no insurance or indemnification requirement. It should not be approved on the consent calendar without full review and updating, as well as reasonable public scrutiny.

We respectfully ask the Council to:

1. Remove this item from the consent calendar and schedule it for full public discussion.

2. Require a genuine public comment period with proper notice before any vote.

3. Direct ARPD to reconcile the MOU's terms with what was represented to neighbors, and to add enforceable language around the fence perimeter, exclusive use periods, financial responsibility, amplified sound prohibition, insurance, and indemnification.

This park belongs to the entire Alameda community. Its transfer of effective control to a private organization deserves the full attention of this Council; not a consent calendar rubber stamp.

Thank you for considering our feedback,
Alison Greene and Debra Arbuckle

From: Sarah Taylor
To: CITYCOUNCIL-List
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Comment re: MOU between the City and Alameda Little League Baseball for Exclusive Use Permit of Littlejohn Baseball Field
Date: Tuesday, April 21, 2026 10:49:58 AM
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,
I am writing to share my concerns about the proposed MOU between the City and Alameda Little League (ALL) Baseball for Exclusive Use Permit of Littlejohn Baseball Field. I am a parent of an athlete with a disability who has participated in the Challenger Baseball team supported by Alameda Little League for many years. My son is also a former participant in the Ala Costa program at Littlejohn and I am a current board member of Ala Costa.

Though I understand and support ALL's need for use of the field at Littlejohn, I disagree with the proposed exclusive use and fencing that limits use of the park by Ala Costa program participants and community members. I think ALL, Ala Costa, and community members can share this space in a collaborative manner that does not require fencing and does not grant ALL exclusive use.

I am also concerned about parking in the neighborhood, and particularly how limited parking presents challenges specifically for Ala Costa students and their families at drop off and pick up. The is a safety issue as parents either double park or are forced to park at some distance, which is inaccessible for some Ala Costa participants. Regardless of the outcome of the MOU, I urge the city to consider adding a white curb with a 10-minute limit between 2-6 pm Mon-Fri along Pacific Avenue with capacity for several cars to allow adequate space for both Ala Costa and Little League pickups and dropoffs.

Sarah Taylor
From: Heather Little
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Tracy Jensen; Tony Daysog; Greg Boller; Manager Manager; City Clerk; Michele Pryor Subject: [EXTERNAL] April 21st City Council Meeting-Consent Calendar Item 5D 2026-5917 Date: Tuesday, April 21, 2026 10:49:57 AM
Good morning,
I am writing to you this morning as a homeowner who has lived directly across from Littlejohn Park for 21 years. As my husband shared in his letter, our family has always welcomed, enjoyed, and encouraged the use of LJP to the fullest extent possible.

So when I first learned that ALL Majors would begin using the park, I approached it with an open and supportive mindset. ALL has used the park for practices for years without issue, and I was assured that any concerns I had would be addressed. Based on that, I welcomed the expanded use.

Unfortunately, the first few weeks were very difficult for me and my neighbors. Many of the concerns I raised became reality, and when I attempted to address them, I was at times met with dismissal or disregard. Thankfully, I was able to be in regular communication not only with my league contact, but with city representatives who were very responsive and understanding of the concerns being raised. While some issues have since improved, I remain concerned that these problems will repeat each season as new families and staff rotate in.

My primary concern now is the continued use of the perimeter fencing in the outfield. I was initially told by my league contact that it would be removed after the 8-week tournament ended, but it remains in place and is now expected to stay through the end of the season, May 31 st per the
MOU, and go back up again for four months in the fall. This effectively restricts access to what is otherwise a public space for much of the park's "usable" year.

Since the tournament ended, the fenced area has often sat unused, even during peak times, as it serves as a physical and visual barrier preventing others from entering. Without the fencing, there would have been people kicking the soccer ball, families picnicking, birthday parties with bouncy houses, people walking their dogs all last weekend. Instead it sat unused for most of both Saturday and Sunday, as it has during pretty much every weekday since the fencing went up. This is not typical of this park.

I’m also dismayed to share that there have been instances where individuals attempting to use the space have been told they are not allowed on the field, even outside of ALL "use hours" or when ALL was not actively using it. At other times the community has encountered unofficial signage saying the “entire field is closed”.

Additionally, the Ala Costa after school program that serves students with autism M-F from 3-6pm, no longer has access to any part of that field for their purposes or programming.

This is not about opposing use of the park by ALL. The community is incredibly welcoming to all park users. But this is about being good partners and creating a compromise where ALL can continue to use the space for their purposes, while making sure they do so in a way that doesn’t eliminate anyone else’s ability to co-enjoy what our tax dollars pay for. Especially when many people in the neighborhood, especially including those residing at Del Monte, don’t have access to private yards and this has been their primary open space.

While I understand this is a proposed pilot agreement, changes are often difficult once a structure like this is established. Although I have been told the league is open to feedback, I am not confident that community concerns will be consistently addressed, particularly when the current process directs concerns to the league rather than the city.

At its core, my request is about restoring reasonable access to a shared public space. We are asking for a more balanced approach that allows ALL to continue its programming while ensuring the broader community can still use and enjoy the park.

I appreciate your thoughtfulness to the issues that have been raised.

Thank you for all you do for the city.
--
Thanks,
Heather Little
Alameda Resident
From: mark little
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; [email protected]; Greg Boller; Tony Daysog; Tracy Jensen; Manager Manager; City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] ALL MOU for Littlejohn Park
Date: Tuesday, April 21, 2026 9:40:01 AM
Mayor Ashcroft, Vice Mayor Pryor, and Councilmembers Boller, Daysog and Jensen, As a long-time resident and property owner at the nexus of Morton St, Pacific Ave, and Littlejohn Park, I have always welcomed, enjoyed and encouraged the use of Littlejohn Park to the fullest extent possible. The background of laughter and celebration from the myriad of family and community activities year-round defines the spirit of this neighborhood. Bouncey- houses, school-groups, birthday parties, impromptu picnics and family outings make Littlejohn special for us all.

With the recent accommodations for the ALL, this has all changed. The park has had major infrastructure improvements which are focused exclusively on ALL’s activities, and all other activities have dropped off dramatically as a result.

When I voiced my concerns about the use of the park by ALL, community members recommended that I read the MOU between ALL and the City to shed some light on the situation, and I have concerns, and many questions. All of this is predicated on my reading of the MOU as a layman.

Per the MOU:

2. Conditions
A. Between February 1 and May 31, and between August 1 and October 31 the following conditions will apply:
i. League is responsible for maintenance, management and scheduling of the Property and retains exclusive use of Property.
>Can ARPD confirm that the individuals maintaining the field during this period are employed by the League? It appears to be teh same individuals taken with maintenance of the rest of teh park. If ALL is not maintaining the Property, is the League reimbursing the City for the cost of maintenance by ARPD employees? >Does ALL has exclusive use of the Property for the entire duration of the period outlined above, or only during their hours of permitted use? B. Between July 1 through July 31 and November 1 through February 1, the following conditions will apply:
i. City is responsible for maintenance, management and scheduling of the Property. >Between May 31 and July 1, and between Feb 1 through the end of the agreement on Feb 15, who is responsible for maintenance?
C. Ongoing Responsibilities:
i. City is responsible for mowing, irrigation, weed trimming along the fence line on Pacific Ave, trash/recycle cans along the same fence line, and tree maintenance. Only the City may make physical improvements to the Property and the City will follow all procurement policies in arranging for and completing improvements. Improvements include enclosure and widening of both dugouts for safety, 20 foot tall netting along the first and third baseline, and temporary fence extensions along the first and third baseline and perimeter outfield. If the City determines that additional safety improvements are necessary due to baseball activities and League agrees, League shall be responsible for reimbursing the City for all costs associated with such improvements. If the League does not agree, the Agreement will terminate. >Does this mean the city is paying for all the improvements that have been done to date? And any future improvements the League determines are necessary? This only states that ALL will pay for any additional
improvements that the City determines are
necessary.

Outside of my questions above, my biggest concern is that the outfield fence essentially renders the park useless for anyone other than ALL. There’s really no reason for that fence to be there, these boys and girls don’t hit the ball that far. I would suggest ALL remove the outfield fence and simply paint the outfield limit line. This would allow others to use the park when ALL isn’t using it.

Thank you for your consideration of these matters.

Mark Little
From: Jay Ingram
To: Justin Long
Cc: CITYCOUNCIL-List; Lara Weisiger
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Alameda Little League MOU 4/21/26 City Council Item Date: Tuesday, April 21, 2026 8:56:47 AM
Morning Justin,
Thank you for your responses. I added some additional context in red below. Thank you, Jay
Dear Jay and Jill Ingram, Council Members,

Thank you for your continued engagement regarding Littlejohn Park and for sharing your perspective and concerns with the City Council.

I would like to clarify several points related to outreach, planning, and the proposed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Alameda Little League (ALL):

First, regarding community notification, Alameda Recreation and Park Department (ARPD) made efforts to inform park users and neighbors by posting notices at all entrances to Littlejohn Park, as well as at key gathering points including the barbeque areas, basketball court, playground, and the adjacent recreation center. The department also shared the information through social media channels and the ARPD website. Staff also placed notices on properties within a 300' boundary of the park. While we received a taped on the mailbox ½ page notice for the December and January meetings other neighbors within 300 feet did not. I would request this notice be via US Mail for the future meetings you mention below.

With respect to site selection, both ARPD and ALL evaluated multiple alternative locations prior to identifying Littlejohn Park. These included Tillman Park, Godfrey Park, the City’s multipurpose fields, and Bayport fields. Each site presented constraints that ultimately led to the current proposal. This would have been nice to know when this question was asked at both the December and January meetings and not finding this out just now.

At the January community meetings, ARPD presented information and listened to neighborhood concerns. In response to feedback, particularly around safety. ARPD and ALL returned with a second meeting in January to present options addressing those concerns. These included proposed netting and temporary fencing designed to better protect all park users while maintaining access to shared spaces. I think you mean December meeting (two days before the holiday break (12/17/25)). There would not have been a January meeting if those at the December meeting didn’t request an additional meeting where neighbors could see proposed plans that were talked about in December.

Regarding the physical improvements at the site, the concrete work associated with the dugouts including their width and accessibility was identified as part of the City’s adopted ADA Transition Plan. These upgrades are intended to improve accessibility and bring facilities into compliance with current standards. You also raised concerns about vehicle access. ARPD agrees that better control is needed. Removable bollards are planned for installation at the Pacific Avenue entrance when paving improvements are completed at that location. Thank you.

The current agreement with ALL is structured as a one-year trial. ARPD is committed to evaluating the impacts of this use. At the conclusion of the spring season, ARPD will host an additional community meeting to gather feedback from neighbors and park users. That input will be formally presented to the Recreation and Parks Commission in July 2026 for further public discussion and consideration (could this meeting be held while school is in session?). ARPD will hold a community meeting at the end of the year and present the outcome to the Recreation and Parks Commission to determine if the MOU will be renewed for the next year.

We recognize that Littlejohn Park serves multiple communities and uses, and our goal is to balance those needs thoughtfully. I appreciate this and again suggest the changes to a full court basketball court and the ALL changes to the ball field is A LOT with in the last six months. The park already serves an active (and passive) purpose prior to these increased uses. Continued community input will be an important part of that process. Please do keep the neighborhood engaged and I would again request that you consider meeting notifications within 300 feet via US Mail. Thank you for the challenging work you do.

Thank you again for taking the time to share your concerns.

Sincerely,
Justin Long, Director of Recreation and Parks
City of Alameda
On Apr 20, 2026, at 6:25 PM, Justin Long <[email protected]> wrote:

Jay,
Below is the response to your email.

Thanks,
Justin
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Justin Long <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2026 6:02 PM
To: Amy Wooldridge <[email protected]>; Adam Politzer <[email protected]>; Yibin Shen <[email protected]>; CITYCOUNCIL- List <[email protected]>
Cc: Matt Nowlen <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Alameda Little League MOU 4/21/26 City Council Item

Dear Jay and Jill Ingram, Council Members,
Thank you for your continued engagement regarding Littlejohn Park and for sharing your perspective and concerns with the City Council.

I would like to clarify several points related to outreach, planning, and the proposed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Alameda Little League (ALL):

At the January community meetings, ARPD presented information and listened to neighborhood concerns. In response to feedback, particularly around safety.

ARPD and ALL returned with a second meeting in January to present options addressing those concerns. These included proposed netting and temporary fencing designed to better protect all park users while maintaining access to shared spaces.

You also raised concerns about vehicle access. ARPD agrees that better control is needed. Removable bollards are planned for installation at the Pacific Avenue entrance when paving improvements are completed at that location.

The current agreement with ALL is structured as a one-year trial. ARPD is committed to evaluating the impacts of this use. At the conclusion of the spring season, ARPD will host an additional community meeting to gather feedback from neighbors and park users. That input will be formally presented to the Recreation and Parks Commission in July 2026 for further public discussion and consideration. ARPD will hold a community meeting at the end of the year and present the outcome to the Recreation and Parks Commission to determine if the MOU will be renewed for the next year.

We recognize that Littlejohn Park serves multiple communities and uses, and our goal is to balance those needs thoughtfully. Continued community input will be an important part of that process.

Thank you again for taking the time to share your concerns.

Sincerely,
Justin Long, Director of Recreation and Parks
City of Alameda

From: Jay Ingram <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, April 19, 2026 11:45 AM
To: CITYCOUNCIL-List <[email protected]>
Cc: Lara Weisiger <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Alameda Little League MOU 4/21/26 City Council Item

Hello City Council,
I write you a second time now about Littlejohn Park, specifically the MOU and related challenges. I was prepared to speak to this issue on April 7, but have an evening commitment that prohibits me from attending in-person/Zoom at the April 21, 2026 City Council meeting. As a former Chair of the Recreation and Parks Commission and former board member of Alameda Girls Softball I feel that I can speak to this issue with much knowledge. This is about more than Alameda Little League taking over a neighborhood park. The City Council should understand the bigger picture. Less than six months ago the Littlejohn basketball courts was refurbished. It went through a change of use without adequate transparency/notification (two half courts to one full size court). The neighborhood history behind the two half courts was ignored by ARPD leadership. I was told that the Vipers (youth basketball) program needed more courts. Again, in less than six months Littlejohn Park will now start hosting Viper practices (maybe games ?), ALL use, continue serving an entirely new neighborhood - Del Monte. The Littejohn Park that used to serve the Alameda Little Leagues and Alameda Soccer youngest athletes, the wider community through large family picnics, birthday parties with bounce houses, or pick-up softball/basketball/games games is gone with the continued high impact uses as proposed. If I’m correct the ball field at the park is listed as general use, not baseball use.

At a minimum please postpone ANY sort of approval with the Alameda Little League (ALL) MOU as it has been fast-tracked towards approval. This ALL use and any ALL use going beyond this year need to be discussed further.

Reasons to delay:
-Recreation and Parks Director informed me the MOU never went to the Commission. While not required, this is why cities have commissions - an additional opportunity for public input through an advisory body
-Community meeting hosted by ARPD and ALL in January was only advertised with half-page flyers taped to some Pacific Avenue residence mailboxes
-A second community meeting would NOT have happened if those in attendance at the January meeting didn’t request more detailed drawings on “proposed” changes to the park
-At the January meeting it was clear that ARPD and ALL knew this change was not proposed, but was going to happen. One could tell by they way ARPD and ALL representatives were talking
-The “proposed” changes were sold as a one-year trial. In my experience ALL does NOT put money toward improvements like this for a one-year trail.
-ALL continues to NOT answer the question, “What other ball fields did you look at when considering the move from Wood School?” This question MUST be answered
-I believe the City Council knows the impact this ALL change has taken on the Littlejohn neighborhood through multiple written and verbal communications.

An additional cause for concern is Conflict of Interest with sitting Councilmembers. I respectfully request that at least Councimember Jensen recuse herself from this vote due to her close connections to ALL board members.

I’ve attached two pictures. One is taken 4/4/26 at around 6pm in the evening. It is intended to show the high cost of infrastructure improvements; new dug outs, new concrete ADA access to infield, 10 inch black steel foul ball pole, and “temporary” portable fence for foul lines. Second photo is showing a car parked in the access driveway on Sunday Morning 4/5/26. I asked ARPD multiple times to put removable bollards in that driveway so City can control who drives in and out of the park.

Sincerely,
Jay and Jill Ingram

From: Laura Gamble
To: City Clerk; Tracy Jensen; Tony Daysog; Greg Boller; Michele Pryor; Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft Subject: [EXTERNAL] Item 5-D on the April 21 Consent Calendar Date: Monday, April 20, 2026 8:09:10 PM
Attachments: Screenshot 2026-04-20 at 8.04.27 PM.png
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,
I am writing to urge you to remove the proposed Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Alameda and Alameda Little League Baseball from the consent calendar at tomorrow's meeting and schedule it for full public deliberation. I have significant concerns about both the substance of the agreement and the process by which it has been brought forward.

That is not an outcome any of us should accept without a full public conversation.

VAGUE PERMITTED USE HOURS
Section 2(A)(iii) lists permitted hours of use but closes with the phrase "as needed for make- up games" without defining what that means or applying it clearly to a specific day. As written, it is ambiguous whether Sunday hours are restricted to make-up games only, or whether all permitted hours are available whenever the League unilaterally deems them necessary. Either way, the agreement contains no advance notice requirement, no definition of "make-up game," no cap on how many can be scheduled, and no mechanism for the City to verify or dispute a claimed make-up. The Council should require that: (1) all scheduled uses be submitted to ARPD in writing at least 72 hours in advance; (2) "make-up game" be defined with a reasonable annual cap; and (3) Sunday use be clearly delineated as either unrestricted within the listed hours or limited to verified make-up games, not left to the League's discretion.

I respectfully ask that the Council:

1. Pull this item from the consent calendar and schedule it for a properly noticed public hearing.

2. Direct staff to provide a full accounting of any improvements already made to Littlejohn Park, including when they were authorized, by whom, and at what cost. Explore why these improvements were made before a signed agreement.

4. Direct the City Attorney to review the agreement's termination, reimbursement, and permitted use provisions for consistency with standard City contracting practice.

Thank you for your service and your attention to this matter.

Laura Gamble

From: Justin Long
To: Amy Wooldridge; Adam Politzer; Yibin Shen; CITYCOUNCIL-List Cc: Matt Nowlen
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Alameda Little League MOU 4/21/26 City Council Item Date: Monday, April 20, 2026 6:02:46 PM
Dear Jay and Jill Ingram, Council Members,
Thank you for your continued engagement regarding Littlejohn Park and for sharing your perspective and concerns with the City Council.

I would like to clarify several points related to outreach, planning, and the proposed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Alameda Little League (ALL):

The current agreement with ALL is structured as a one-year trial. ARPD is committed to evaluating the impacts of this use. At the conclusion of the spring season, ARPD will host an additional community meeting to gather feedback from neighbors and park users. That input will be formally presented to the Recreation and Parks Commission in July 2026 for further public discussion and consideration. ARPD will hold a community meeting at the end of the year and present the outcome to the Recreation and Parks Commission to determine if the MOU will be renewed for the next year.

We recognize that Littlejohn Park serves multiple communities and uses, and our goal is to balance those needs thoughtfully. Continued community input will be an important part of that process.

Thank you again for taking the time to share your concerns.

Sincerely,
Justin Long, Director of Recreation and Parks
City of Alameda

Reasons to delay:
-Recreation and Parks Director informed me the MOU never went to the Commission. While not required, this is why cities have commissions - an additional opportunity for public input through an advisory body -Community meeting hosted by ARPD and ALL in January was only advertised with half-page flyers taped to some Pacific Avenue residence mailboxes -A second community meeting would NOT have happened if those in attendance at the January meeting didn’t request more detailed drawings on “proposed” changes to the park
-At the January meeting it was clear that ARPD and ALL knew this change was not proposed, but was going to happen. One could tell by they way ARPD and ALL representatives were talking
-The “proposed” changes were sold as a one-year trial. In my experience ALL does NOT put money toward improvements like this for a one-year trail. -ALL continues to NOT answer the question, “What other ball fields did you look at when considering the move from Wood School?” This question MUST be answered
-I believe the City Council knows the impact this ALL change has taken on the Littlejohn neighborhood through multiple written and verbal communications.

Sincerely,
Jay and Jill Ingram

From: Justin Long
To: [email protected]; Adam Politzer; Amy Wooldridge; Ashley Zieba; Greg Boller; Kimberly Nydam; Lara Weisiger; Mandy Arellano; Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Melissa Kyrimis; Michele Pryor; Roselena MejiaCampos; Sarah Henry; Tony Daysog; Tracy Jensen; Yibin Shen
Cc: Adam Politzer; Amy Wooldridge; Matt Nowlen
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: City Council Meeting April 21, 2026 Consent Calendar Item 5D 2026-5917 Date: Monday, April 20, 2026 5:56:18 PM
Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council Members, City Manager, and Ms. Greene and Ms.

We continue to be open to feedback and making adjustments as needed and appropriate.

Irrigation Schedule
The park’s irrigation schedule has not been modified. Irrigation continues to operate during standard nighttime hours between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.

We appreciate your engagement and will continue to monitor and evaluate the program throughout the year.

Sincerely,
Justin Long
Director, Alameda Recreation and Park Department
From: A G <[email protected]>
Date: April 16, 2026 at 10:19:02 PM PDT
To: CITYCOUNCIL-List <[email protected]>
Cc: City Attorney <[email protected]>, City Clerk <[email protected]>, Manager Manager <[email protected]>, [email protected]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: City Council Meeting April 21, 2026 Consent Calendar Item 5D 2026-5917
Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council Members, and City Manager, As neighbors of Littlejohn Park, we are requesting the proposed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City of Alameda and Alameda Little League (ALL) be moved from the April 21 Consent Calendar to a full agenda item so the vague/missing details can be added for a an appropriately-detailed MOU, with full Staff presentation of the process & opportunity for a transparent, public Council discussion.

Our concerns fall into 3 categories:

Consent Calendar Placement And Backdating
Placing this MOU on the consent calendar signals that the Council does not intend to openly discuss its contents or consider any modifications as is their responsibility to the public in their roles as elected officials. Given the scope of what is being granted (exclusive control of a public park to a private organization for the majority of the year) this is unacceptable.

Compounding this concern, the MOU is backdated to March, which is neither transparent nor consistent with good governance.

Vague and Unenforceable Terms
The MOU contains terms that are so vague as to be unenforceable. For example, it references a "parking plan" without reasonable specifics.

Neighbors have been told by ALL volunteers that they "need to leave the field" on non-game days because they have no right to be there. Signs have been posted mid-week declaring the entire field closed.

We respectfully ask the Council to:

1. Remove this item from the consent calendar and schedule it for full public discussion.

2. Require a genuine public comment period with proper notice before any vote.

This park belongs to the entire Alameda community. Its transfer of effective control to a private organization deserves the full attention of this Council; not a consent calendar rubber stamp.

Thank you for considering our feedback,
Alison Greene and Debra Arbuckle

From: Jay Ingram
To: CITYCOUNCIL-List
Cc: Lara Weisiger
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Alameda Little League MOU 4/21/26 City Council Item Date: Sunday, April 19, 2026 11:46:24 AM
Hello City Council,
I write you a second time now about Littlejohn Park, specifically the MOU and related challenges. I was prepared to speak to this issue on April 7, but have an evening commitment that prohibits me from attending in-person/Zoom at the April 21, 2026 City Council meeting. As a former Chair of the Recreation and Parks Commission and former board member of Alameda Girls Softball I feel that I can speak to this issue with much knowledge. This is about more than Alameda Little League taking over a neighborhood park. The City Council should understand the bigger picture. Less than six months ago the Littlejohn basketball courts was refurbished. It went through a change of use without adequate transparency/notification (two half courts to one full size court). The neighborhood history behind the two half courts was ignored by ARPD leadership. I was told that the Vipers (youth basketball) program needed more courts. Again, in less than six months Littlejohn Park will now start hosting Viper practices (maybe games ?), ALL use, continue serving an entirely new neighborhood - Del Monte. The Littejohn Park that used to serve the Alameda Little Leagues and Alameda Soccer youngest athletes, the wider community through large family picnics, birthday parties with bounce houses, or pick-up softball/basketball/games games is gone with the continued high impact uses as proposed. If I’m correct the ball field at the park is listed as general use, not baseball use.

Reasons to delay:
-Recreation and Parks Director informed me the MOU never went to the Commission. While not required, this is why cities have commissions - an additional opportunity for public input through an advisory body -Community meeting hosted by ARPD and ALL in January was only advertised with half-page flyers taped to some Pacific Avenue residence mailboxes -A second community meeting would NOT have happened if those in attendance at the January meeting didn’t request more detailed drawings on “proposed” changes to the park
-At the January meeting it was clear that ARPD and ALL knew this change was not proposed, but was going to happen. One could tell by they way ARPD and ALL representatives were talking
-The “proposed” changes were sold as a one-year trial. In my experience ALL does NOT put money toward improvements like this for a one-year trail. -ALL continues to NOT answer the question, “What other ball fields did you look at when considering the move from Wood School?” This question MUST be answered
-I believe the City Council knows the impact this ALL change has taken on the Littlejohn neighborhood through multiple written and verbal communications.

Sincerely,
Jay and Jill Ingram

From: A G
To: CITYCOUNCIL-List
Cc: City Attorney; City Clerk; Manager Manager; [email protected] Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: City Council Meeting April 21, 2026 Consent Calendar Item 5D 2026-5917 Date: Thursday, April 16, 2026 10:19:02 PM
Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council Members, and City Manager, As neighbors of Littlejohn Park, we are requesting the proposed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City of Alameda and Alameda Little League (ALL) be moved from the April 21 Consent Calendar to a full agenda item so the vague/missing details can be added for a an appropriately-detailed MOU, with full Staff presentation of the process & opportunity for a transparent, public Council discussion.

Our concerns fall into 3 categories:

Vague and Unenforceable Terms
The MOU contains terms that are so vague as to be unenforceable. For example, it references a "parking plan" without reasonable specifics. Literally every side of Littlejohn Park is surrounded by multi-family housing, most relying on street parking.

The amorphous parking plan only cites a very specific section of Pacific, inviting a “knock-on effect” to encourage ALL parents to park on adjacent streets and down Pacific, where half the multi-family homes do not have off-street parking. More critically, the MOU directly contradicts what neighbors were told at the neighborhood meeting and in subsequent conversations with ARPD staff:

31. Financial Responsibility: Neighbors were told that ALL would reimburse the City of Alameda for all improvements; “it won’t cost the city, they would pay for everything.” The MOU states the opposite.

ALL sets up warm-up equipment across the full stretch of open park space along Buena Vista, behind homes on the north side of Pacific between Morton and Sherman. The basketball courts have been rendered inaccessible due to players throwing balls in that area. Neighbors have been told by ALL volunteers that they "need to leave the field" on non-game days because they have no right to be there.

Signs have been posted mid-week declaring the entire field closed.

We respectfully ask the Council to:

1. Remove this item from the consent calendar and schedule it for full public discussion.

2. Require a genuine public comment period with proper notice before any vote.

This park belongs to the entire Alameda community. Its transfer of effective control to a private organization deserves the full attention of this Council; not a consent calendar rubber stamp.

Thank you for considering our feedback,
Alison Greene and Debra Arbuckle

From: Jay Ingram
To: CITYCOUNCIL-List
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 4/7/26 Little League and ARPD MOU
Date: Thursday, April 2, 2026 9:11:02 PM
Hello City Council,
As neighbors of Littlejohn Park, we have concerns with the MOU as well as the process getting up to this point.

Questions/Concerns:
-Are we correct in assuming this MOU did not go to the Recreation and Parks Commission? If so, that is an unfortunate missed public outreach opportunity, one that could have addressed some of the MOU’s shortcomings. -The two community meetings were sold as “proposed changes to the park.” Those familiar with the process knew these changes were not “proposed” rather a done deal.
-ALL and ARPD said this will be a trial period for ALL and the neighbors. We don’t believe this is a trial because the costly infrastructure improvements would say otherwise. With all the ARPD parks there must be a better field for this age group.
-Three weeks into the season the weekend parking is a nightmare and causing frustration with the other neighbors.

We are aware other neighbors have voiced their concerns to you. We haven’t seen too many families walking from Sweeney Park or Wind River as the parking plan suggests. We already have an impacted and highly used neighborhood park.
- The MOU, section 2.A.i. We believe ALL should not have exclusive use. The City owns the field and does not need to request use of it. Is there precedent for this type of use, i.e. does the city request use of other ARPD owned facilities. This language is backwards.
-Please do not allow ANY amplified music at all.
-Why does the MOU go to 2/15/27 if section 2.A. Says October 31 (assuming 2026, but MOU not clear). -Should this MOU, or a modified version be approved, PLEASE require ALL and ARPD to meet again in December/January timeframe with neighbors so year one can be evaluated. Again, ALL told neighbors this year is a trial period - so treat it that way please.

Thank you,
Jay and Jill Ingram
From: Laura Gamble
To: Amy Wooldridge
Cc: CITYCOUNCIL-List; Justin Long
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Item 5-D on the April 7th agenda Date: Friday, March 27, 2026 5:50:03 PM
I would prefer to discuss over email. Looking forward to learning more.

Laura Gamble
On Fri, Mar 27, 2026 at 5:41 PM Amy Wooldridge <[email protected] > wrote:

Hi Laura,
Justin and I would be happy to meet with you directly to address your concerns. It may be easier than via email. Please let me know if you are interested.

Thank you.

Amy
On Mar 27, 2026, at 1:52 PM, Laura Gamble <[email protected] > wrote:
Those families didn’t do that - wouldn’t that be grounds for terminating the MOU?
Typed with two thumbs.

On Mar 27, 2026, at 1:35 PM, Amy Wooldridge
<[email protected]> wrote:

Hello Ms. Gamble,
We understand your concerns and will share a comprehensive response next week. Regarding the parking signs, the way that the signs are worded is confusing and we have already asked them to change the signs. The intent is to make it clear that those parking areas are only
for residents and not for Little League. Those families are clearly instructed, and over the last two weeks were directed, to Sweeney Park and Wind River parking lots.

Thank you,
Amy
Amy Wooldridge
Assistant City Manager
City of Alameda
(510) 747-4709
[email protected]
www.alamedaca.gov

From: Laura Gamble <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2026 10:50 AM
To: CITYCOUNCIL-List <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Item 5-D on the April 7th agenda

As a quick follow-up, I drove over to the spot designated in the agreement for Little League parking and observed many signs saying public parking is not allowed and that those who park there will be towed.

This agreement is throwing the Littlejohn Park neighbors under the bus.

On Thu, Mar 26, 2026 at 6:46 PM Laura Gamble
<[email protected]
> wrote:

Dear Alameda City Council Members,
I am writing as a concerned resident regarding Item 5-D on the April 7th agenda, the proposed MOU between the City of
Alameda and Alameda Little League Baseball for the use of Littlejohn Baseball Field. While I support Little League baseball in our community and recognize the inherent value that they bring to our community, I have serious concerns about this agreement and the process with which we arrived at it (which I have already expressed to you), and I urge the Council to address before approving it.

Many of us have already engaged with staff about these concerns.

I personally offered to walk through the specific challenges that I thought needed to be addressed for the neighborhood to feel good about these changes, and that offer was ignored. No surprise but I do not feel that this MOU addresses those concerns!
The League Has Been Operating Without an Executed
Agreement
Perhaps most troubling is the fact that the League has already been using Littlejohn Field for several weeks without a fully executed agreement in place. This raises fundamental questions:

How was the League permitted to occupy and operate on public property without Council approval or a signed agreement? Who authorized this use, and under what authority? The Council should demand a clear accounting of how this situation arose before approving any agreement that would retroactively legitimize it. This does not smell like a fair process.

This is not a minor procedural concern. Public assets belong to all Alameda residents, and the process by which they are allocated matters. Allowing a private organization to take exclusive control of a public park without an executed agreement sets a troubling precedent.

Violations Have Already Occurred
During the weeks the League has been operating without
authorization, violations have already taken place, including what appear to be violations of the City's mobile vending ordinance related to concessions. If the League cannot comply with basic requirements during an unauthorized use period, the Council should seriously question whether this MOU includes sufficient safeguards to ensure compliance going forward.

Accountability Mechanisms Are Inadequate
The MOU requires the League to respond to neighborhood
concerns within 24 hours, but it says nothing about what happens if those concerns are never actually resolved. A response is not a resolution. Under the current language, the League could acknowledge a complaint within 24 hours, take no further action, and still be in technical compliance with the agreement. There are no intermediate steps, no escalation process, no required remediation timeline, and no consequences short of full termination.

Full termination is a drastic and politically unlikely outcome, particularly mid-season. In practice, this leaves neighbors with no meaningful recourse. The Council should require the MOU to include a graduated enforcement framework with specific, enforceable consequences for repeated or unresolved violations.

Nobody in the neighborhood wants Little League to not operate in LJP - we want a pathway for concerns and issues to be remedied that don’t involve canceling the contract.

The Public Has No Clear Way to Engage
The MOU does not specify how members of the public are
supposed to raise concerns in the first place. There is no designated contact, no complaint process, and no requirement that concerns be tracked or reported back to the City. Residents are left without a clear pathway to participate in the
accountability process that the agreement claims to offer.

Parking Enforcement Is a Termination Trigger in Name Only The MOU states that failure to comply with the parking plan is grounds for immediate termination. While this sounds strong on paper, it is not a realistic enforcement tool. The City is unlikely to terminate a youth sports agreement mid-season over parking violations, no matter how disruptive those violations are to the surrounding neighborhood. Without intermediate enforcement options such as required corrective action plans or suspension of use privileges, the parking provision offers residents no practical protection.

What I Am Asking the Council to Do
I respectfully urge the Council to take the following actions before approving this MOU.
- Require a full explanation of how and why the League was permitted to use public property without an executed agreement, and what violations occurred during that unauthorized period. - Amend the agreement to include a clear, graduated enforcement framework with specific consequences for unresolved neighbor concerns and repeated violations.
- Establish a clear public complaint process that specifies how residents can submit concerns, who is responsible for tracking them, and how and when the City will respond.
- Strengthen the parking compliance provisions to include intermediate enforcement steps rather than relying solely on the threat of full termination.

Our neighborhood deserves an agreement that meaningfully protects public access and residents' quality of life, not one that places the burden on neighbors while offering no practical recourse when problems arise. These things can all coexist with a thriving Little League.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Laura Gamble
Typed with two thumbs.

Alameda City CouncilApril 21, 2026

Alameda City Council
April 21, 2026