Neighbors and artists defend Chocolate Mama Cookie Co. after complaints; council hears repeated public comment

Emeryville — Multiple speakers at Tuesday’s council meeting urged officials to protect Chocolate Mama Cookie Co., a small business and community space operating in a live‑work building at the Emory, and to ensure enforcement and decision‑making rely on fact, not what several commenters described as retaliatory or biased complaints.

The most newsworthy details: Empress, who identified herself as the owner of Chocolate Mama Cookie Co., told the council the business sells prepackaged vegan baked goods produced in a licensed commercial kitchen in San Francisco and is not a restaurant. “I am asking for partnership, for the opportunity to share my story, clear the record, and work with the city to ensure that creative, ethical small businesses can thrive without fear or misrepresentation,” Empress said.

Why it matters: Commenters said that neighbor complaints alleging parties and restaurant operation were incorrect, that photographs and video had been taken of patrons without consent, and that police were called to the location during incidents the speakers described as nonviolent. Supporters emphasized the cafe’s role as a gathering space for artists, youth programs, retail makers and other entrepreneurs in the Emory live‑work community.

What supporters told the council: Charles Orlando, who lives next to the Emory, called the cafe “economically critical” and said it aligned with Emeryville’s general plan for vibrant, walkable neighborhoods. Latrice McNeely, who said she operates at the space, described the business as "black women‑led, artist‑led and community care‑led" and asked that city decisions be based on documented facts rather than complaints she characterized as biased.

Several other residents and business partners — including Tracy Veil Bridal, Mel and Moe McNeely, Ashley Williams of Aftermath/Red Bay Coffee, and Ramsey Parker — described the space as community‑building and said complaints had escalated to police visits. One commenter said he recorded neighbors responding loudly to the cafe’s music while later filing a noise complaint, which the speaker said suggested a double standard.

What the council did: The comments were received during the public‑comment portion of the meeting. Council did not take immediate enforcement action at the meeting; staff and the council will continue to process any formal complaints through the city’s routine code‑enforcement and licensing channels.

Context and limits: Several commenters said the complaints were motivated by bias; those allegations were statements of perception and not confirmed by the meeting record. The record shows extensive public comment in favor of the cafe and requests that decisions be grounded in facts and consistent enforcement. The speakers asked the city to ensure that small, artist‑led businesses in live‑work buildings are permitted to operate within the city’s rules and not displaced by targeted complaints.

Next steps: Any code‑enforcement or licensing follow‑up will proceed through staff review and normal administrative processes. The council did not vote on a specific enforcement action during the meeting.