{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2005-05-12", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nThursday, May 12, 2005\nThe meeting convened at 7:35 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.\n2-B\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent:\nBeverly Johnson, Chair, City of Alameda\nDoug DeHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nTony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nMarie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nFrank Mataresse, Boardmember, City of Alameda\n2.\nPublic Comment on Agenda Items Only.\nOne speaker slip from Helen Sause, however she was not present.\n3.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nNone.\n4.\nPRESENTATION\n4-A. Presentation/Update on Alameda Point Navy Negotiations and Land Use Planning.\nStephen Proud briefed the Board on two different fronts: 1) the Navy conveyance process, and 2)\nthe land planning effort. A proposal has been submitted to the Navy - they wrote a counter\nproposal that we responded to which is under consideration right now with them. We're hoping\nto have an official response from the Navy by the end of June and that coincides with Alameda\nCommunity Partners election to proceed timeline.\nMr. Proud gave a brief overview of the May 7, 2005 Community Meeting, commenting that staff\nis pleased with the community's continued participation in the planning process and there was a\nlot of good feedback. The next community workshop is June 8th at Mastick. The next step would\nbe to come back to the ARRA board with a copy of the preliminary development concept for the\nregular July ARRA meeting.\nMember Mataresse requested that a section be included that has a summary of compliance with\nthe General Plan amendment, compliance with the Economic Development Strategic plan and\ncompliance with other relevant plans, for that preliminary development concept that will be\ncoming back in July.\n1", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-05-12.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2005-05-12", "page": 2, "text": "5.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n5-A. Provide Direction to the Acting Executive Director regarding the term of the lease\nextension for Building 613 Sublease Agreement between the ARRA and Alameda\nPoint Collaborative.\nDebbie Potter requested direction on a sublease between the ARRA and APC for building 13\nwhich is currently being used as an office to house the Red Cross. She gave a brief history of the\nlease and requested extension thru Dec 31, 2006 SO that it coincides with the overall development\nplan for Alameda Point. Several representatives from APC spoke in support of a lease extension\nuntil 2012, including Doug Biggs and Jim Franz.\nIn response to Member Matarrese regarding the time frame for development of that parcel, Bill\nNorton replied that plans are for the Navy to turn that property over to the City at the end of\n2006. Stephen Proud, Alameda Point Project Manager, also noted that if we reach an agreement\nwith the Navy and the developer at the end of 2006, infrastructure and geotechnical work would\nstart in 2007\nAfter discussion from Boardmembers regarding the timing of development, Chair Johnson\nadvised that it would make more sense to have the shorter term now and consider a longer term\nwhen we know more at the end of Dec 2006, supporting staff recommendation.\nStaff recommendation accepted and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes-5; Noes-0\nAbstentions-0\n5-B.\nStudy Session of the FY 2005-06 ARRA Budget\nBill Norton, acting Executive Director, introduced this item with an overview of Part 1 of the\nBudget Study Session. Leslie Little, Development Services Director, presented Part 2 - a\nsummary of the FY 2005-06 ARRA Budget - by walking the Board through the staff report. She\ndiscussed overriding issues: the pro forma and the development assumptions at Alameda Point.\nMember DeHaan raised the question regarding $1.8M that should be absorbed back into the\ngeneral fund. Bill Norton confirmed Member DeHaan's comments and advised the Board of a\nnew proposed budget for 05-06 for all city funds, including the general fund, noting that\nrevenues for different departments are down and we have accounted for this in our budget for the\nnext fiscal year.\nThere was brief discussion about the storage of surplus equipment the Navy left for the City.\nLeslie noted some plans for the surplus equipment, including an auction to raise funds. She then\ndiscussed the organizational structure for the Development Services Department, namely the\nBase Reuse and Redevelopment Division - where 4 staff members are paid from the ARRA\nBudget. Leslie discussed Building One tenants: Development occupies the entire 2nd floor; the\nAlameda Development Corporation which maintains a 2nd floor office; and a storage room for\nthe Navy's records. Public Works, Fire Prevention and Information Technology occupy the first\nfloor and balance of the building.\n2\nL:\\Comdev\\Base Reuse& Redevp\\ARRA)MINUTES\\2005\\May 12. Special ARRA.minutes.doc", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-05-12.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2005-05-12", "page": 3, "text": "Leslie discussed the employee positions and vacancies in the department and how they fit\ntogether with the three budget categories: Community Development, ARRA, and the CIC.\nMunicipal Services funding was noted in length, with Member Daysog requesting a separate\nreport/background information on the mitigation fund.\nBill Norton advised that there are still negotiations with the developer upcoming and if the\ndeveloper exercises their notice to proceed, they will make direct cost recovery payments, until\nwe have a disposition and development agreement, to DSD and the general fund.\nMember Matarrese advised that we have to be prepared for the developer not exercising their\nright to proceed, and that if we are able to segregate general fund obligations from ARRA fund\nobligations, that would be the foundation for making a decision on anything less than the best\ncase scenario. Leslie Little concluded her presentation.\n6.\nORAL REPORTS\n6-A. Oral report from APAC.\nThere were no representatives from the APAC to give a report.\n6-B. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.\nMember Matarrese gave a brief overview of the last RAB meeting he attended.\n7.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\n(Any person may address the governing body in regard to any matter over which the\ngoverning body has jurisdiction that is not on the agenda.)\n8.\nCOMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\n9.\nADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION OF THE ARRA TO CONSIDER:\n9-A. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR:\nProperty:\nAlameda Naval Air Station\nNegotiating parties:\nARRA, U.S. Navy, and Alameda Point Community Partners\nUnder negotiation:\nPrice and Terms\n9-B. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR:\nProperty:\nAlameda Naval Air Station\nNegotiating parties:\nARRA and U.S. Navy\nUnder negotiation:\nPrice and Terms\nAnnouncement of Action Taken in Closed Session, if any.\n10. ADJOURNMENT\n3\nL:\\Comdev\\Base Reuse& Redevp\\ARRA)MINUTES(2005\\May 12. Special ARRA.minutes.doc", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-05-12.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2005-05-12", "page": 4, "text": "Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 9:54 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary\n4\nL:\\Comdev\\Base Reuse& Redevp\\ARRA)MINUTES\\2005\\May 12. Special ARRA.minutes.doc", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-05-12.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-05-12", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTHURSDAY - -MAY 12, 2005- -5:00 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 5:10 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,\nMatarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5.\n[Note: Councilmember Matarrese arrived at 6:30 p.m. ]\nAbsent :\nNone.\nAgenda Items\n(05-223)\nRecommendation to approve an Agreement with Meyers, Nave,\nRiback, Silver and Wilson for consultation services on City\nAttorney contract negotiations.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired what the cost and projected hours\nwould be for the consultation services.\nMayor Johnson responded the cost and projected hours would depend\nupon what the Council requests.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired what was the hourly rate, to which\nthe Assistant City Attorney responded $250.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether $250 per hour was the norm,\nto which the Assistant City Attorney responded the rate was not\noutside the norm and was within the realm of legal services costs\ntoday.\nMayor Johnson stated that she expected the rate to be higher.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated that she thought the rate would be in the\n$300 to $350 per hour range.\nMayor Johnson stated that the rate is reasonable; that there are no\nfixed duties.\nThe Acting City Manager stated that the Council could provide the\noutside attorney with a scope of work and inquire how many hours\nwould be anticipated.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether there was a charge for\ntoday's meeting with the outside attorney, to which the Mayor\nresponded in the affirmative.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nMay 12, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-05-12.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-05-12", "page": 2, "text": "Councilmember Daysog inquired what the outside attorney could do\nthat the Council could not do.\nMayor Johnson stated that the Council does not provide attorney\nservices the City Attorney would have a conflict of interest in\nadvising the Council on her contract.\nCouncilmember deHaan moved approval the recommendation predicated\non further discussion of the scope of work in closed session.\nVice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated that a discreet\nnumber of issues are of concern; that he was not clear on the\nconflict.\nMayor Johnson stated there would be a conflict if there are legal\nissues; requested further explanation from the Assistant City\nAttorney.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated if Council asks a legal question\nregarding interpretation of any provision of the City Attorney' S\ncontract or requests the contract be approved as to form, there\nwould be a conflict; the City Attorney would not be able to provide\ninformation [legal advice] another attorney's services would be\nnecessary.\nMayor Johnson noted that Council has to hire an attorney to sign\n[approve the form of ] the City Attorney's contract.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that the City of Oakland requested the\nCity of San Francisco to comment on whether the Oakland City\nAttorney position should be an elected position.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the Council needs to understand and\nclean up the mechanisms of the contract, and ensure the contract\nlanguage is legal.\nMayor Johnson stated when the contract has been changed on a\nroutine basis, outside attorneys have signed [approved the form of ]\nthe contract without communicating with the Council, which is not a\nvery good procedure.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that the Council is requesting more\ndetailed information.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated that the Council is trying to determine\nthe history of the current situation and review salary scales; an\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nMay 12, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-05-12.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-05-12", "page": 3, "text": "outside attorney would need to sign off on [approve as to form] the\ncontract if Council wanted to give the City Attorney a raise.\nMayor Johnson stated the entire contract should be reviewed; the\nCouncil needs to know whether a new contract or an addendum to the\nexisting contract would be needed if the Council wanted to give the\nCity Attorney a raise.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he did not have a problem with\nproceeding.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he would like to protect the\nCouncil's bargaining prerogative; there could be some matters of\ninterpretation in the course of bargaining; inquired whether the\noutside attorney would be a go-between for the Council.\nMayor Johnson responded the Council would define the outside\nattorney's role.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated that the City Attorney directly\nrepresents the Council; the proposed Agreement [with Meyers, Nave,\nRiback, Silver and Wilson for consultation services] would be\nexecuted by the City Attorney's office.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the Assistant City Attorney had a\ncopy of the Agreement.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated\nonly the City Attorney can hire outside attorneys under the City\nCharter.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that the meeting tonight is the result\nof a review of the City Attorney's budget; that he wants to process\nto maintain the Council's prerogative.\nMayor Johnson stated that the Council maintains all prerogatives\nand would not give up anything.\nCouncilmember Daysog noted an outside attorney involved could have\na possible conflict; stated that he does not want an outside\nattorney to encroach on budget issues.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated that she did not realize that an\nAgreement was already drafted; that she does not want to agree to\nsomething that she has not reviewed.\nMayor Johnson stated that she would like to review the scope of\nwork in the Agreement inquired who drafted the Agreement.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nMay 12, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-05-12.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-05-12", "page": 4, "text": "The Assistant City Attorney responded Mr. Hartinger drafted the\nAgreement.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated that she thought that the Council was\nmeeting to agree to hire an outside attorney and that the scope of\nwork would be determined later; that she does not want her second\nto the motion to be considered as an approval of the Agreement.\nMayor Johnson stated that the Council should not sign an Agreement\nwithout reviewing the scope of work; inquired whether the Council\ncould make a motion to authorize the City Attorney to sign the\nAgreement hiring the outside attorney to work with the Council and\nfinalize the Agreement when the scope of work is determined.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the motion could be made in\nopen or closed session, to which the Assistant City Attorney\nresponded the motion must be made in open session.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that the scope of work would still need\nto come back to the Council.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated that the Council's agenda is to\nconsider hiring an outside attorney to help with labor negotiations\nregarding the City Attorney's contract; the outside attorney would\nbe the labor negotiator in closed session; the City Attorney would\nhave a direct conflict in advising the Council on interpretations\nregarding her contract.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated that the scope is in paragraph 1 of Mr.\nHartinger's letter [proposed Agreement].\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated that the scope of service is\nvery narrow.\nMayor Johnson stated that the scope can always be changed and looks\nfine; the Council could have the outside attorney do as little or\nas much as requested.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated retainers are not normally paid\nto outside counsel.\nMayor Johnson suggested the retainer and the late payment\nprovisions be removed; stated the Agreement should be left as is to\nallow the Council flexibility; outside counsel would not perform\nany services the Council does not want.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated that she would like Mr. Hartinger to\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nMay 12, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-05-12.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-05-12", "page": 5, "text": "review all documents [City Attorney contract and amendments)\nprovide a history of the current situation, and advise the Council\nregarding moving forward with yearly amendments or bundling all the\nprevious amendments into one contract.\nMayor Johnson stated that her first intention is to get legal\nadvice.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he would like to begin\nnegotiations with the City Attorney first.\nMayor Johnson stated that negotiations cannot be initiated because\nthe Council needs legal advice.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated outside counsel might not be necessary ;\nif\nissues were not resolved during negotiations, then\ninterpretation would be needed.\nMayor Johnson stated that she is not comfortable with initiating\nnegotiations until there is a better understanding of the contract. ;\ninquired whether the retainer and late payment provisions could be\nremoved from the Agreement.\nMr. Hartinger responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated negotiating directly with the City\nAttorney should be the Council's prerogative; inquired whether Mr.\nHartinger had any comment on the Council requesting his assistance\non interpreting aspects of the negotiations.\nMr. Hartinger stated the matter should be discussed at the right\ntime; direction should be given in closed session.\nCouncilmember deHaan moved to approval of the Agreement, with the\nmodifications to remove the retainer and late payment provisions.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the Council is giving up any\nprerogative by entering into the Agreement, to which Mr. Hartinger\nresponded in the negative.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired what happens when there is a conflict\nof interpretations.\nMr. Hartinger responded Council should trust the [outside]\nattorneys it hires or seek another opinion and discharge the\nattorney.\nMayor Johnson stated the ultimate way to settle legal disputes is\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nMay 12, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-05-12.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-05-12", "page": 6, "text": "to go through the courts; that she hopes that the Council would not\nget into said situation.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that the vote might take the Council to\nunintended destinations.\nVice Mayor Gilmore concurred with Councilmember Daysog but stated\nthe matter could be discussed in closed session.\nMayor Johnson stated that the Council has complete control.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the language should be\nclarified to: \"advising and/or representing the City Council.\n\"\nMayor Johnson suggested the language in the scope remain as is,\nexcept for the addition of \"as directed by the Council\" at the\nend.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired what would fall within \"additional\nmatters\" in the scope of engagement.\nMr. Hartinger responded \"additional matters\" is a catchall phrase\nif the Council requested him to do something else.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the Agreement would not have to be\nreopened to have Mr. Hartinger do something else.\nVice Mayor Gilmore seconded the modified motion [to approve the\nAgreement, with modifications to remove the retainer and late\npayment provisions], which carried by the following voice vote:\nAyes : Councilmembers deHaan and Gilmore, and Mayor Johnson - 3.\nNoes : Councilmember Daysog - 1. [Absent Councilmember Matarrese -\n1. ]\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated that the City Attorney hires all\nattorneys under the City Charter the City Attorney is hiring the\noutside attorney to advise the Council regarding interpretation of\nher contract.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the Council is authorizing the City\nAttorney to sign the Agreement as discussed and whether the outside\nattorney would work for the Council.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded that the outside attorney\nwould not work for the Council; the City Attorney controls all\nlegal counsel under the City Charter; the City Attorney is on the\nhook for the legal advice given.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nMay 12, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-05-12.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-05-12", "page": 7, "text": "Mayor Johnson stated that she is not sure the Council needs legal\nadvice on hiring an attorney; that she does not agree that the City\nAttorney has control over what the outside attorney would do.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated that the City Attorney would\nhire the outside attorney to interpret the City Attorney' S\ncontract.\nMayor Johnson stated that the Council has directed the City\nAttorney to sign the Agreement with changes; inquired whether there\nwould be a problem.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated any additional matters for which\nthe Council requests [outside counsel's services would have to go\nthrough the City Attorney.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the Assistant City Attorney had any\nproblem with the modified Agreement that the Council directed the\nCity Attorney to sign.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated Mr. Hartinger's letter [Agreement ] is\naddressed to the City Attorney; the word \"you\" refers to the City\nAttorney.\nMayor Johnson stated that the second \"you\" in paragraph 1 refers to\nthe City Council; the Council needs to determine Mr. Hartinger's\nintention; the City Attorney would have a conflict of interest if\nthe outside attorney working for the Council had to go to the City\nAttorney for advice.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated that the scope is very narrow;\nthe Council would need to stay within the scope.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether \"you\" in the sentence \"provide legal\nservices for additional matters that you request... refers to the\nCouncil or City Attorney.\nMr. Hartinger stated the Agreement is addressed to the City\nAttorney; the City Attorney is the conduit through which retention\nwould occur.\n*\nMayor Johnson called a recess at 5:47 p.m. and reconvened the\nSpecial Meeting at 6:30 p.m.\n(05-224) - Adjournment to Closed Session to consider : Conference\nwith Labor Negotiators Agency Negotiators Arthur Hartinger of\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nMay 12, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-05-12.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-05-12", "page": 8, "text": "Meyers, Nave, Riback Silver and Wilson; Employee : City Attorney.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened\nand Mayor Johnson announced that the Council discussed the City\nAttorney contract and gave direction to the Negotiator.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Meeting at 7:30 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nMay 12, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-05-12.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2005-05-12", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF\nRECREATION AND PARK COMMISSION\nALAMEDA\nRECREATION & PARKS\nMEETING OF May 12, 2005\n1327 Oak St., Alameda, CA 94501\n(510)747-7529\nDATE:\nThursday, May 12, 2005\nTIME:\n7:00 p.m.\nPLACE:\nCity Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Ave., Third Floor, Room 360\nAlameda, CA 94501\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent:\nChair Jay Ingram, Vice Chair Jo Kahuanui, Commissioners Christine\nJohnson, Georg Oliver, Bruce Reeves\nStaff:\nDale Lillard, Acting Director (AD)\nChrista Johnson, Assistant to the City Manager\nAbsent:\nNone\n2.\nAPPROVAL OF MINUTES\nApprove Minutes of April 14, 2005 Recreation and Park Commission Meeting.\nM/S/C\nREEVES/KAHUANUI\n(approved)\nIn Favor (3) -\nIngram, Kahuanui, Reeves\nAbsent (2) -\nJohnson, Oliver (came in late)\n3.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, AGENDA\n(Any person may address the Commission in regard to any matter over which the\nCommission has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance that is not on the agenda.)\n4.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\nLetter from Justine Highsmith offering to donate new stock photography for use in\nthe City's photo bank.\n1\nRecreation & Park Commission Mtg.\nMinutes\nThursday, May 12, 2005\nDedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2005-05-12.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2005-05-12", "page": 2, "text": "5.\nNEW BUSINESS\nA.\nPresentation of Facility Photos/Inventory - (Information Only Item)\nJustine Highsmith, Senior at Clayton Valley High School, as a senior she needed to do a\ncommunity project for school and she chose Alameda because she thinks it's a charming\nCity. She worked with the Recreation and Park Department and took pictures of its various\nfacilities. Ms. Highsmith took approximately 1,000 photos and narrowed it down to 300\npictures that were put on a CD and presented to the Commission.\nMs. Highsmith provided a Power Point presentation of the photos to the Recreation and\nPark Commission.\nB.\nProposed Recommendation to Provide Additional Parking (Neptune Park) for\nIndependence Plaza Residents - (Discussion/Action Item)\nMike Pucci, Housing Authority Executive Director, requested additional parking for\nIndependence Plaza residents by using part of Neptune Park. The area that will be used\nwill have little impact on Neptune Park. Neptune is not a well used park. It is a gateway to\nthe City and any parking built there will have minimal impact on the visibility of the parking\nlot. There will be berms around the parking lot with extra landscaping to hide the cars.\nThe Federal Government placed a deed restriction on Neptune Park when it was\ntransferred to the City. The deed restriction limits the use of the land to parkland, but the\ngovernemnt will lift the restriction if additional parkland of equal value is put in its place.\nThe Board of Commissioners (who are City Council) recommend that the deed restriction\ntransfer to the EBMUD property adjacent to Towata Park. The funds would come from the\nOpen Space fund.\nAD Lillard stated that the EBMUD property, in its current condition, is not actual usable park\nspace.\nMr. Pucci stated that it is being proposed that the deed restriction be place on the Parrot\nMini-Park. The Housing Authority would continue to maintain the park.\nCommissioner Reeves asked if the parking would be strictly for Housing Authority and\nHousing Authority employees. Mr. Pucci stated that it would be only for residents in\nbuildings 707 and 711.\nChair Ingram asked if the original funding for the project was going to be paid for by\nrefinancing Parrot and Eagle Village but that plan did not go through because of what\nCouncil did. Mr. Pucci stated we were going to pay for EBMUD property through\nrefinancing of Parrot and Eagle Village, but the parking lot itself will be paid through\nreserves from Independence Plaza.\n2\nRecreation & Park Commission Mtg.\nMinutes\nThursday, May 12, 2005\nDedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2005-05-12.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2005-05-12", "page": 3, "text": "Chair Ingram asked if the refinance funds will be used for the parking lot. Mr. Pucci stated\nno. Plans for the proceeds will be spent on Parrot and Eagle Village and other complexes.\nHousing Authority reserve funds will be used for the parking lot.\nCommissioner Reeves stated that what the deed restriction means is that they will never be\nable to tear down the play area and put in more housing which is a benefit to the City.\nM/S/C\nJOHNSON/OLIVER\n(approved)\n\"That the Recreation and Park Commission recommend to City Council the\nfollowing:\n1.\nRequest the National Parks Service to release the deed restriction on\napproximately 10,500 square feet of Neptune Park in exchange for an\nequivalent sized parcel at the Bay-Eagle Community Garden to meet the\nneeds of Independence Plaza residents; and\n2.\nAuthorize the Recreation and Parks Acting Director to enter into lease\nagreements with the Housing Authority for exchange of these two parcels\nfor an annual rent of $1 to be paid and received.\"\nApproved (5):\nIngram, Johnson, Kahuanui, Oliver, Reeves,\nC.\nIncreasing the Composition of the Recreation and Park Commission from Five\nto Seven Members - (Discussion/Action Item)\nAD Lillard stated that recently the Golf Commission was expanded from five to seven\nmembers by the City Council. In the next few years there will be a lot of new development\nwith Bayport Park, etc. and the thought is that it would be good to have a larger cross\nsection, additional input, and help with the future development.\nThe request is to increase the Recreation and Park Commission from five to seven\nmembers. Most neighboring commissions (San Leandro, etc.) and most City Commission's\nalready have seven members with the recent exception of the Golf and Recreation and\nPark Commission's.\nFurther discussion was held by Commissioner's.\nM/S/C\nKAHUANUI/REEVES\n(approved)\n\"That the Recreation and Park Commission be increased from five to seven\nmembers.\"\nApproved (4):\nIngram, Kahuanui, Oliver, Reeves\nOpposed (1):\nJohnson\n3\nRecreation & Park Commission Mtg.\nMinutes\nThursday, May 12, 2005\nDedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2005-05-12.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2005-05-12", "page": 4, "text": "D.\nProposed Reorganization of the Public Art Advisory Committee -\n(Discussion/Action Item)\nAD Lillard stated that due to the current budget situation and shortages of staff that may\noccur in the next couple of months, staff/City will be reviewing who the PAAC reports to.\nPAAC may become a stand alone Commission that reports directly to Council to streamline\nthe process and help the Department's involved. This will be a very difficult year with\nregard to budget. It may be more efficient to have PAAC report directly to Council and it\nwill also eliminate bureacratic slow downs.\nM/S/C\nOLIVER/KAHUANUI\n(approved)\n\"That Recreation and Park Commission accept the proposed reorganization of the Public\nArt Advisory Committee.\"\nApproved (4):\nIngram, Johnson, Kahuanui, Oliver\nOpposed (1):\nReeves\n6.\nUNFINISHED BUSINESS\nA.\nStatus Report on the Sports Advisory Committee's Recommendation\nregarding Field Use Fees - (Discussion Item)\nAD Lillard stated that staff has met with the Sports Advisory Committee and have come to\nan agreement for a Field Use Fee. The plan will be formally presented at the June\nRecreation and Park Commission Meeting.\nThe suggested agreement is that there will be a minimum field charge of $500 per season,\nwith a cost of $3 per child after the minimum. There is still the option, at ARPD's discretion,\nfor the groups to work off the fee. Groups will have to verify the cost and value to the City\nfor any work performed. If the groups do not complete their assessment before the end of\nthe season they will not get permits for the next year until the debt is cleared. ARPD will\nplace the dollar value on any of the work that is done by the groups.\nCommissioner Reeves stated that he will not be at the next Commission Meeting (June),\nbut wanted to make it clear that he does not want the private/special interest groups\ndictating to the Commission that they want to do projects and the Commission has to\naccept them and they are worth a specific amount of money set by the groups.\n7.\nREPORTS FROM RECREATION COMMISSION AND RECREATION AND PARK\nDIRECTOR\nA.\nPark Division\nSee attached Activity Report.\n4\nRecreation & Park Commission Mtg.\nMinutes\nThursday, May 12, 2005\nDedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2005-05-12.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2005-05-12", "page": 5, "text": "B.\nRecreation Division\nSee attached Activity Report.\nC.\nMastick Senior Center\nSee attached Activity Report.\nD.\nOther Reports and Announcments\n1.\nStatus Report on Alameda Point Golf Course Design Committee (Vice Chair\nReeves)\nNo new information to report at this time.\n2.\nStatus Report on Alameda Point Advisory Committee (APAC) (Chair Ingram)\nChair Ingram stated that APAC had their 5th out of 6 meetings scheduled for public input\nregarding Alameda Point. The meeting was well attended (approximately 70 people in\nattendance). There is one more evening public meeting on Wednesday, June 8, at Mastick\nSenior Center.\n3.\nStatus Report on Transportation Master Plan Committee (Commissioner\nJohnson)\nNo new information to report at this time.\n8.\nSTATUS REPORT ON ONGOING PROJECTS\nAD Lillard stated that a community meeting was held regarding the Leydecker Park\nPlayground renovation.\n9.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, GENERAL\nChair Ingram stated that American Tower went before the Planning Board regarding their\nrequest for a tower at Upper Washington Park. American Tower will install a couple of\npicnic tables and benches down the third baseline toward home plate since that area is\nhard to irrigate.\nChair Ingram asked if the Joint Meeting between the Council and Recreation and Park\nCommission is still being planned. AD Lillard stated yes, the City Clerk is still trying to\nschedule a meeting this month (May).\nChair Ingram asked if the City was in on the Boys and Girls Club building their new facility\nat Woodstock School. AD Lillard stated that he had not heard anything.\n5\nRecreation & Park Commission Mtg.\nMinutes\nThursday, May 12, 2005\nDedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2005-05-12.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2005-05-12", "page": 6, "text": "10.\nITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA\nAD Lillard stated that the following would be on the next agenda:\n-\nBayport Park and Community Building Plans.\n-\nA request to place a mobile coffee dispensing business at Lower Washington\nPark.\n11.\nSET DAY FOR NEXT MEETING\nThursday, June 9, 2005\n12.\nADJOURNMENT 9:40 p.m.\n6\nRecreation & Park Commission Mtg.\nMinutes\nThursday, May 12, 2005\nDedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2005-05-12.pdf"}