{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2017-12-14", "page": 1, "text": "apd\nALAMEDA RECREATION AND PARK COMMISSION\nREVISED MINUTES FOR REGULAR MEETING\nDATE:\nThursday, December 14, 2017\nTIME:\n7:05 p.m. Called to Order\nPLACE:\nCity Hall Council Chambers\nROLL CALL\nPresent: Chair Limoges, Vice Chair Tilos, Commissioners Chen and Carter.\nNot Present: Commissioner Delaney\nStaff: Amy Wooldridge, Recreation and Park Director\nAPPROVAL OF MINUTES\nMinutes of November 9, 2017 Regular Meeting were approved as presented.\nM/S/C Vice Chair Tilos / Commissioner Chen\nAll present and who attended the November 9, 2017 Regular Meeting in favor with 4 - 0 vote.\nCHANGES TO THE AGENDA (Chair Limoges)\nAdded time limits to each item.\nAdded Unfinished Business to provide opportunity to continue discussions for complex issues or those\nthat haven't reached consensus.\nWill discuss agenda at beginning of each meeting to review order and time allotted for each item.\nAdding Communications which would include Oral and Written Communications.\nCommissioner Carter: Move ARPD Director Report further up in agenda. Chair Limoges: Agreed can\nthen hear what happened over the last month and agendize those items that would like to have further\ndiscussion. Vice Chair Tilos: Would still like Director's report after other public items so residents can\nhear items of their interest first.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nEugene Demmler, President of the Alameda Soccer Club, gave an update on Alameda Soccer Club's\nimprovement of the old tennis courts next to Hornet Field which is almost completed.\nGrand opening on Feb. 11, 2018 together with San Jose Earthquakes and Navy Seals.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\nOpinion from City Attorney on roles of Recreation and Parks Commission as a result from a\nCommissioner request. See Exhibit 1.\nLetter from Buena Vista UMC Basketball Program expressing their appreciation for use of Alameda Point\nGym and background and history of their group. See Exhibit 2.\nUNFINSHED BUSINESS\n4-A\nReport on Alameda Recreation and Parks Department Staff Recognition\nARPD Staff Recognition\nList provided of staff who worked 5 or more years.\nStaff will implement an annual recognition event in July and invite Commissioners to attend and assist\nwith handing out awards.\n1", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2017-12-14.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2017-12-14", "page": 2, "text": "Commissioner Carter - Requested if it is possible for City Council to do a resolution for long-time staff\nas part of July Parks & Rec Month resolution. Director Wooldridge stated that it can be included with\nthe proclamation.\n4-B\nUpdate on Recreation and Parks Department 2018 User Fee Schedule\nDirector Amy Wooldridge gave the report. The 2018 Recreation and Parks Department User Fee\nSchedule was approved by City Council. Council acknowledged that the fees could be revisited by\nthe Commission after the field allocation policy was in place and Council noted that if Commission\nchose not to include the 3% increase then they would need to provide a recommendation on how to\nfund the cost of the registration program.\nCommissioner Carter: Inquired what the cost of Active Net was and provided her own handout\n(see Exhibit 3) based on financial numbers provided by the Director. She stated she would\nlike to see the users being charged the extra fee when using their credit cards vs adding 3\npercent to the programs. Answer: The contract with Activenet was set up for only one fee\ncharged to the customer. It is not an option at this point to separate the transaction fees out\nas a separate charge. The Activenet fee is based on 4.25% per credit card transaction and\n$1.5% for cash/check transactions. Based on transactions conducted from November 2016\n- November 2017, the total transaction charge would be $83,903 which includes all credit\ncard fees. The previous software cost was $10,000 plus credit card charges in the amount of\n$25,460, which totaled $35,460. Therefore the net difference of estimated cost for Activenet\nis $48,443. The 3% increase is approximately $56,000 annually, based on the annual\ntransactions from that same period of November 2016 - November 2017, and therefore\ncovers the additional cost for the new program. The FY 2017-18 budget included a one-time\n$30,000 line item in anticipation of the the cost of the Activenet training and installation costs.\nVice Chair Tilos said it is more efficient to pay with a credit card and helped to clarify the\nfinancial numbers. Chair Limoges suggested they look at it in a year to analyze impacts of the\nnew fees and new registration system.\nNEW BUSINESS\n5-A\nReview and Recommend Three Public Art Proposals by Patricia Vader; One is for Parking Lot Adjacent\nto Washington Dog Park and Two for the Jean Sweeney Open Space Park.\nDorothy Freeman of the Jean Sweeney Open Space Park (JSOSP) committee said the committee saw\nall the proposed art pieces for the park and they approved those pieces.\nPatricia Vader presented 3 art pieces. One for dog park area and two for JSOSP.\nVice Chair Tilos: Interested in seeing more historical art so that it matches the railroad theme of\nthe park. Chair Limoges: It is a big park and feels there is room for all types of art in the park.\nCommissioner Chen: Agrees with Limoges and particularly likes the sunflower.\nMotion by Commissioner Tilos to accept Big Ears for the Washington Dog Park. Second by\nCommissioner Chen. Vote 4 ayes.\nMotion by Commissioner Carter to accept the Red Butterfly. Second by Chair Limoges. Vote 3\nayes; 1 no by Vice Chair Tilos.\nMotion by Commissioner Chen to accept the Sunflower. Second by Chair Limoges. Vote: 3 ayes;\n1 no by Vice Chair Tilos.\n5-B\nReview and Recommend Three Public Art Proposals by Denise Hart for JSOSP\nDenise Hart presented 3 art pieces for JSOSP.\nVice Chair Tilos: The pieces tie into the mosaic that was approved at the last meeting and is\nimportant to have a diversity of artwork in park.\n2", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2017-12-14.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2017-12-14", "page": 3, "text": "Motion by Vice-Chair Tilos to accept all three art pieces presented by Denise Hart. Second by\nChair Limoges. Vote: 4 ayes.\n5-C\nReview and Recommend Public Art Proposal by Counterpoint Studio, LLC for Lincoln and\nLongfellow\nParks.\nCounterpoint Studio proposal given by Director Wooldridge as Counterpoint Studio was unable to\nattend meeting.\nVice Chair Tilos: Confirmed locations. Chair Limoges: Very ethnically diverse community at\nLincoln Park and recommends that be reflected. Seems very detailed for a mosaic. Chair Tilos:\nRegarding Lincoln Park, it would work well there, but would caution with Longfellow as the\nbackside of the wall is heavily used for playing. Suggested going up higher such as 6-8' high\nbecause it is used by kids for wall ball and chalk art. Chair Limoges: At Lincoln Park, it is an\nenormous wall and it may disappear on the wall.\nMotion by Limoges to accept this art proposal. Second by Vice Chair Tilos.\nVote: 3 ayes; 1 noes by Chair Limoges.\n5-D\nReview and Recommend Two Public Art Proposals by Zachary Coffin; One for Jean Sweeney Open\nSpace Park and One for Towata Park/Shoreline Park at the Bay Farm Bridge\nZachary Coffin provided two different locations for rock spinners\nVice Chair Tilos: Is it one rock for each side of the channel? Answer: Yes, it will be individual rocks\n- one in Towata Park and one off the trail at Shoreline Park. Commissioner Chen: Are there\nissues with graffiti? Answer: Occasionally, however; It can be easily be pressure washed if that\noccurs. Commissioner Carter: Where do you source your rocks? Answer: Sierra Nevada. Chair\nLimoges: What is the longevity: Answer: About 50 years.\nMotion by Commissioner Carter to accept rock spinner art proposals. Second by Commissioner\nChen. Vote: 4 ayes.\n5-E\nReview and Recommend Public Art Proposal by Craig Gray at Main Street Linear Park\nCraig Gray art piece. Director Amy Wooldridge gave pre4sentation as Craig Gray was unable to\nattend.\nLocation changed to Main Street Linear at Ralph Appezzato Memorial Parkway\nMotion by Chair Limoges to recommend the art proposal. Second by Commissioner Chen.\nVote: 3 ayes; 1 noes by Commissioner Tilos.\nREPORTS\n6-A\nRecreation Commission Reports\nVice Chair Tilos - Noticed Little Library in front of ARPD office and was impressed. Chair Limoges\nhas used it as well.\nCommissioner Chen - Spoke with several tennis court users at Washington who were happy with\nlighting.\nCommissioner Carter - Attended Woodstock Playground Grand Opening along with Commissioner\nDelaney. The playground looked durable, fun, creative and challenging. Thanks to Friends of the\nParks and Rotary who helped fund it. Met with Assistant City Attorney. He made it clear that\nRecreation and Parks Commission is an advisory group and not a policy group as she previously\nbelieved. He agreed that Commission should be represented equally at the City Council meetings.\nCity Attorney did not agree with by-laws that states Director is the Chief Executive Officer and is\nwilling to work with the Commission on by-laws. Also discussed a 1998 opinion by Attorney General\nregarding use of public facilities by religious organizations. Provided a copy for the record. Also\nmet with Patrick Russi, Recreation Manager and Dennis McDaniels, Recreation Supervisor to do\nwalk through of Alameda Point Gym. They are going to provide dates when volunteers can do work\n3", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2017-12-14.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2017-12-14", "page": 4, "text": "and help out. In agreement that some under utilized rooms can be improved for use. Requested\nanother set of bleachers. Attended Dec. 5 City Council meeting for presentation of user fees. Spoke\ntwice. Once under Public Comment and handed out Alameda Point Gym report. Requested that\nthere be public input for revision of athletic facility allocation policy. Also pointed out significant deficit\nfor field users and their fees. Spoke under fee discussion regarding 3% fee on ActiveNet contract.\nHanded out financial information obtained from Director Wooldridge regarding fees. In response to\nAssistant City Attorney's memo, is asking how Brown Act and Sunshine Ordinance applies to the\nRecreation and Parks Commission.\nChair Limoges, Commissioners Chen and Carter met with Girls in Sports Committee. Interesting\ndiscussion.\n6-C\nRecreation and Parks Director Amy Wooldridge Report\nMastick Senior Center\nHoliday Art Boutique held on Tuesday, December 5, from 11:00 a.m. - 2:00 p.m. with 17+ vendors. It\nwas a great event with good sales and received wonderful feedback from participants. The community\nwas impressed that items were made in classes offered at Mastick. It was also a really great marketing\nopportunity for the Mastick Senior Center by allowing people to see the Center through different eyes.\nPhoto in the Alameda Sun of the Mastick Travelers in Italy under the \"Sun Shines Everywhere.\"\nWe are carpeting the administration office next week and swapping offices to prepare for 2018.\nParks Maintenance\nPurchased trees and are planting on upcoming Saturday. There are 90 trees between Godfrey Park and\nMain Street Linear Park. Also planting 120 at Sweeney Park as part of Cross Alameda Trail (CAT).\nNew benches installed at Littlejohn Park and Woodstock Park.\nLittlejohn Park Playground was approved by City Council on the December 5th meeting and is now\nordered.\nThe lights are now fixed and back on at Washington Park tennis courts.\nAdmin - Follow up\nBanner policy\nUnder the first provision that was approved in July 2017 it states the following:\n1. Only banners advertising the activities or events of Alameda based non-profits (501(c)3) and\nAlameda schools are considered\nThus, any school in Alameda may apply to hang a banner as long as it follows the guidelines of the policy.\nIn the past ARPD has allowed any school to hang banners to promote an upcoming event or fund-aiser or a\nregistration period. Director Wooldridge would consider all of these to fit under the #1 clause. The issue of\nthe size of banners is very clear for outside organizations. Director Wooldridge said the department's\ninterpretation of the rule is that ARPD can to put up any size banner in the parks for their events. ARPD has\nregularly put up some of the street size banners for events like 4th of July, Sand Castle, Haunted House,\nHoliday Boutique, etc. at the park sites usually for a limited time just prior to the event being held and quickly\nremoved in the following week when an event has finished. If the Commission would like to change these\nprocedures or make some additional clarifications, they can do so at a future meeting.\nFollow up on Alameda Soccer Club improvement project of old tennis courts\nRecent progress includes the 2\" asphalt overlay to prep the existing surface for installation of the\ncourt as pictured, completely new fencing around the entire perimeter of the courts (as well as the\ninterior) and installation of the multi colored acrylic surfacing. Goals are expected to be installed and\nother work on the court to be completed within the next two weeks.\n4", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2017-12-14.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2017-12-14", "page": 5, "text": "The President, Eugene Demmler has spent a great deal of time out at the courts the last couple of\nmonths. During that time he has received nothing but positive feedback from Alamedans (not\naffiliated with the club) on our rehab/beautification of this space.\nRestroom at Alameda Point Gym\nPublic Works is soliciting proposals for the design of the modular restroom and connection to utilities.\nThe goal is to have the restroom installed in summer 2018.\nRecreation Services\nThe Mayor's Tree Lighting Event was well attended and successful.\nBreakfast with Santa and Santa Visits are sold out and is also very successful this year.\nActive Net was launched 12/4. Overall well-received.\nWoodstock Playground Dedication ceremony went well.\nElks Hoop Shoot finals are on January 5th.\nHoliday Vacation camp and open Park & Playgrounds schedule is ready to go over break to serve the\nneeds of Alameda.\nChallenges:\nSignificant amount of staff time put into the migration of registration and other material from\nCLASS to Active Net system.\nLooking for more female staff for after school programs.\nTrying to keep facilities in good shape with the amount of use that they receive.\nUpcoming Events\nEstuary Park Grand Opening: Saturday, January 20, 2018. There will be a Little League Challenger\ndemonstration game.\n2/9/18 Revised Addendum per request of the Recreation Commission at the 2/8/2018 Recreation\nCommission Meeting: Commissioner Carter requested that the Commission hold a special meeting for\nthe Athletic Facility Allocation Policy. Chair Limoges asked Commissioner Carter to prepare a motion\nfor the next meeting at which the Commission will consider whether to hold a special meeting for the\nAthletic Facility Allocation Policy.\nITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA: Alameda Food Bank Conceptual Design\nSET NEXT MEETING DATE: Thursday, January 11, 2018\nADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Carter made a motion to adjourn the meeting.\nM/S/C Commissioner Carter / Commissioner Chen. All present in favor with a 4 - 0 vote.\nChair Limoges adjourned the meeting at 9:27 p.m.\n5", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2017-12-14.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2017-12-14", "page": 6, "text": "Exhibit 1\nCity of Alameda\nInterdepartmental Memorandum\nDate: December 11, 2017\nTo:\nAmy Wooldridge, Recreation and Parks Director\nCC:\nJill Keimach, City Manager\nLiz Warmerdam, Assistant City Manager\nJanet Kern, City Attorney\nFrom: Andrico Q. Penick, Assistant City Attorney\nAlbside\nRE:\nRole of Recreation and Parks Commissioner\nQUESTIONS\nI have been asked by the Recreation and Parks Director (\"Director\") and a Recreation\nand Parks Commissioner (\"Commissioner\") to answer the following questions:\n1.\nDoes the Recreation and Parks Commission (\"Commission\") have the\nresponsibility for setting fees and charges for the use of recreation and park facilities in\nAlameda as stated in its Bylaws in Section 2(2)?\n2.\nIf the Commission does not have the authority to set the fees and charges what\nis the proper procedure for communicating its recommendation regarding fees and\ncharges to the City Council?\nCONCLUSIONS\nA.\nThe Commission is an advisory body created by the City Council and does not\nhave the authority to set fees and charges for the use of recreation and park facilities in\nAlameda despite the statement in its Bylaws to the contrary.\nB.\nWhen staff and the Commission disagree on the recommendation to make to the\nCity Council, both recommendations should be presented to the City Council for its\nconsideration. Both recommendations and the reasons in support should be presented\nin a fair and objective manner to the City Council by the Director, verbally (as part of the\nstaff presentation) and in writing (as part of the staff report). In this way, the City\nCouncil has the benefit of hearing from staff, its Commission as well as from members\nof the public and can make an informed decision.\n1", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2017-12-14.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2017-12-14", "page": 7, "text": "DISCUSSION\nI spoke briefly with the Director regarding these questions during the week of November\n13, 2017. I also met with the Commissioner on November 29, 2017 in my office.\nDuring these conversations I learned that City staff presented the Commission with a\nseries of recommendations regarding fees and charges for 2018. It is my\nunderstanding that the Commission was largely in support of staff's recommendation\nbut had 3 - 4 recommendations of their own. Staff was in support of some but not all of\nthe Commission's recommendations, thus raising the above questions.\nAuthority to Set Fees\nThe Recreation and Park Commission is not specially mentioned in the City Charter.\nThus they have no Charter derived authority. The Commission was created by statute\nand their powers and duties are currently codified in Alameda Municipal Code (\"AMC\")\nSection 2-12. A copy of which is attached as Exhibit A for your ease of reference. AMC\nSection 2-12 was last amended on April 5, 2011. The Commission created for itself a\nset of bylaws. A copy of which is attached as Exhibit B for your ease of reference. The\nbylaws were last revised on November 4, 1998.\nWhen analyzing the role and responsibility of a public body like the Commission, there\nis a hierarchy of authority:\nFirst is Charter authority,\nSecond is statutory authority,\nThird are any interpretations of the Charter or statute, and\nLast are the Bylaws or other rules and standards (like Robert's Rules) that the body has\nset for itself.\nIn this case, the Charter does not grant any authority to the Commission. The legal\nauthority of the Commission is found in AMC 2-12 which states that the Commission's\npurpose is advisory. The pertinent AMC Sections are 2-12.1 and 2-12.4 which read as\nfollows:\n2-12.1 Commission Created; Purpose.\nThere is hereby created a commission which shall be known as the\nRecreation and Park Commission, whose purpose shall be to advise,\ncoordinate and give guidance to the acquisition, development, maintenance\nand operation of parks, playgrounds, and other recreational facilities in the\nCity of Alameda for the promotion of a sound program of community\nrecreation and vocational activities, using to the greatest practicable extent\nthe land, equipment and personnel of the City of Alameda and the Alameda\nUnified School District.\n2", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2017-12-14.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2017-12-14", "page": 8, "text": "(Ord. No. 3029 N.S., \u00a7 1, 4-5-2011)\n2-12.4 - Duties of Commission.\nIt shall be the duty of the Recreation and Park Commission to:\na. Advise the Director of Recreation and Parks, the City Council and the\nBoard of Education on all matters pertaining to the establishment and\noperation of community recreation programs, activities and facilities.\nb. Hold hearings and do all things necessary to inform itself with respect to\nthe promotion and successful operation of City recreational activities.\nC. Establish necessary or proper regulations and rules to carry out the\nprovisions of this section including, but not limited to, the recommendation of\nrates, fees, and charges in connection with the use of facilities or participation\nin recreational programs, which shall be included in the City's annual Master\nFee Resolution for adoption by the City Council.\n(Ord. No. 3029 N.S., \u00a7 1, 4-5-2011)\nAMC Section 2-12.4c is directly on point. It clearly states that the Commission's duties,\namong other things are to make \"recommendation of rates, fees and charges in\nconnection with the use of facilities or participation in recreational programs.\n\"\nSome confusion on this point has arisen from the language in the Bylaws in Chapter 1,\nArticle 1, Section 2(2) which states:\n\"The Recreation Commission has the responsibility for setting fees and\ncharges.\"\nIt is well within the authority of the Commission to adopt a set of Bylaws to help govern\nits activities. Such authority is granted in AMC Section 2-12.3(a). However, to the\nextent that the Bylaws have been interpreted to mean that the Commission sets the\nfees as opposed to making a recommendation to the City Council concerning rates and\nfees, then that interpretation is in error. The Commission cannot grant itself more\nauthority that was delegated to it by the City Council. The City Council's delegation in\nAMC Section 2-12 gave the Commission the authority to make \"recommendation of\nrates, fees and charges in connection with the use of facilities or participation in\nrecreational programs. AMC Section 2-12 was last amended on April 5, 2011, had\nthe City Council wanted to expand the authority of the Commission, it could have done\nso in 2011.\nPresenting Commission Recommendations to City Council\nAs discussed above, the Commission has a statutory advisory role. However, for the\nCommission to effectively carry out that role, its recommendations must be fairly and\nobjectively presented to the City Council for the Council's consideration. In my\n3", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2017-12-14.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2017-12-14", "page": 9, "text": "discussion with the Commissioner, the Director was referred to as the Commission's\n\"Chief Executive Officer\". It was stated that the Director owed a duty of loyalty to the\nCommission and that it would be (or should be) a conflict of interest for the Director to\nrecommend to the City Council anything but what the Commission recommended. This\nconfusion seems to stem from the Bylaws in Chapter 2, Section 1 which states:\nThe Director of Recreation and Parks shall be the chief executive officer of\nthe Recreation Department and shall be charged with the general\norganization, administration, and supervision of the program of public\nrecreation in and for the City of Alameda.\nThis is a fine description of a chief executive officer for a nonprofit or for-profit\ncorporation. However, the Director is actually a member of City staff. She takes her\ndirection from the City Manager as set forth in the City Charter. While it is true that the\nDirector and her staff have a role in providing administrative support for the Commission\nand for the smooth running of the Recreation and Parks Department, that authority and\nresponsibility does not arise by virtue of the bylaws. Thus it is not a conflict of interest\nfor the Director to make a recommendation to the City Council which is different from,\nbut in addition to, the recommendation of the Commission. Given the fact that the\nCommission has an advisory role and the Director has the responsibility for the\noperational management of the Recreation and Parks Department, there will likely be\noccasions where the two disagree. Neither the recommendation of the Director or that\nof the Commission is superior to the other. Both must be fairly presented to the City\nCouncil and it is the City Council that makes the decision.\nIn addition to the two issues listed above, I noticed a couple of other small clarifications\nthat should be made to the Bylaws. The Commission as a body may wish to review and\nrevise its Bylaws.\nPlease feel free to distribute this memo to the Commission as a public record as you\ndeem appropriate.\nRespectfully Submitted.\n4", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2017-12-14.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2017-12-14", "page": 10, "text": "REVISED\nNovember 4, 1998\nALAMEDA RECREATION COMMISSION\nBY-LAWS\nARTICLE:\nCOMMITTEES\nSECTION 1. Special committees may be appointed as occasion requires.\nAPPOINTMENT\nSECTION 2. Standing committees shall be appointed at the stated meeting in June.\nRECREATION DEPARTMENT\nCITY OF ALAMEDA\nBY-LAWS, RULES AND REGULATIONS\nof the\nALAMEDA RECREATION COMMISSION\nCHAPTER 1 - BY LAWS\nARTICLE 1\nTHE COMMISSION\nPURPOSE OF THE COMMISSION\nSECTION 1. The purpose for which the Recreation Commission is created is to\nfacilitate the integration and cooperation of the City of Alameda of Alameda County in\npromotion of an adequate program of community recreation for the people of the City of\nAlameda.\nSECTION 2. The duties of the Commission shall be:\n(1) To advise the City Council in all matters pertaining to the creation and\noperation of community recreation programs and activities.\n(2) The Recreation Commission has the responsibility for setting fees and\ncharges.\n(3) To investigate and recommend to the City Council plans and suggestions for\nthe development of recreational activities, for the establishment of parks, playgrounds, recreation\ncenters and any and all other matters and things which shall promote and provide activities of\nsuch character for the people of the City of Alameda.\n(4) To hold hearings and to do any and all other things necessary to fully inform it\nwith respect to the need of the City of Alameda for Recreation areas and activities.\n(5) Make any and all rules and regulations necessary or proper to carry out the\nprovisions of this ordinance.\n(6) To hold meetings for the transaction of its business and regular meetings of\nthe Commission shall be held on a day certain in each month, which day shall be\ndetermined by Commission.\nMEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION\n1", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2017-12-14.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2017-12-14", "page": 11, "text": "SECTION: The Recreation Commission shall consist of five (5) regular voting\nmembers. The five regular members, all of whom shall be required to meet the qualifications\nestablished for membership on other City boards, shall be nominated by the Mayor.\nAPPOINTMENT AND TERMS OF OFFICE\nSECTION 4. All regular members shall be approved by the Council of the City of\nAlameda. Members of the Commission shall be appointed for terms of four (4) years, or until\ntheir successors are appointed and qualified. All terms shall begin on the 1st meeting of October\nVACANCIES\nSECTION 5. Vacancies in the appointive membership of the Commission shall be filled\nfor the unexpired term and appointees to such vacancies shall be selected in the manner\nhereinabove provided by the Mayor whose nominee has failed to serve his full term on the\nCommission.\nARTICLE 2\nOFFICERS OF THE COMMISSION AND ELECTION\nSECTION 1. The officers of the Recreation Commission shall be a chair and vice-chair\nwho shall be elected annually (and take office) by the Commission at the stated meeting of the\nCommission in October.\nOFFICERS TO BE CITIZEN MEMBERS\nSECTION 2. The chair and vice-chair shall be selected from the other members of the\nCommission.\nSECRETARY\nSECTION 3. The secretary of the Commission shall be the Director of Recreation and\nParks.\nFILLING VACANCIES\nSECTION 4. In the event of the resignation or death of any officer, the Commission\nshall elect a successor to that office not later than the next stated meeting after an appointment to\nfill the Commission vacancy.\nARTICLE 3\nMEETINGS\nADMINISTRATIVE YEAR\nSECTION 1. The administrative year shall begin on the first day of July.\nSTATED MEETINGS\nSECTION 2. The stated meetings of the Commission shall be held on the second\nThursday of each month at 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall, unless otherwise ordered by the\nCommission.\nSPECIAL MEETINGS\nSECTION 3. Special meetings may be called by the chair, or in response to a request\nmade by at least three voting members of the Commission, and the object of the special meeting\nshall be stated in the call.\n2", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2017-12-14.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2017-12-14", "page": 12, "text": "QUORUM\nSECTION 4. A quorum shall consist of a majority of the voting members of the\nCommission.\nNote: Wherever there are discrepancies in the By Laws the Brown Act will take precedence.\nORDER OF BUSINESS\nSECTION 6. The following shall be the order of business of the Commission:\n(1)\nRole call.\n(2)\nApproval of minutes.\n(3)\nHearing of groups or individual citizens can be taken out of order.\n(4)\nCommunications.\n(5)\nReports from Recreation and Park Director.\n(6)\nStatus Report on Ongoing Projects Report.\n(7)\nUnfinished Business.\n(8)\nNew Business\n(9)\nOral Communications, General\n(10)\nSet Date for Next Meeting\n(11)\nAdjournment.\nARTICLE 4\nDUTIES OF OFFICERS\nDUTIES OF CHAIRMAN\nSECTION 1. The chair shall preside at the meetings of the Commission and shall\nperform such other functions as are delegated to the Chair by the Recreation Commission. The\nchair shall be ex-officio a member of all committees with the privilege of voting.\nVICE CHAIR\nSECTION 2. The vice chair shall act as and perform the duties of the chair in the\nabsence or at the request of the chair.\nSECRETARY\nSECTION 3. The secretary of the Commission, with the assistance of a staff member\nwho shall be selected by the Director of Recreation and Parks and who shall be an employee of\nthe Recreation Department, shall keep a journal of its proceedings, and shall conduct such\ncorrespondence as the Commission may direct.\nARTICLE 5\nCOMMITTEES\nSECTION 1. Special committees may be appointed as occasion requires.\nAPPOINTMENT\nSECTION 2. Standing committees shall be appointed at the stated meeting in June.\nARTICLE 6\nCOMMUNICATIONS\nCOMMUNICATIONS MUST BE RECEIVED EARLY\n3", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2017-12-14.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2017-12-14", "page": 13, "text": "SECTION 1. Matters coming from the public and from civic organizations to be placed\non the agenda for consideration and action at the stated meeting of the Commission on the\nsecond Thursday each month, must be received in writing no later than two weeks prior to the\nRecreation Commission meeting.\nARTICLE 7\nRULES OF ORDER\nSECTION 1. Robert's Rules of Order Revised shall be the standard of parliamentary\npractice in all meetings of the Commission and of its committees.\nARTICLE 8\nAMENDMENTS\nSECTION 1. These By Laws and rules may be altered, amended or repealed at any\nstated meeting of the Commission by a majority vote of the whole Commission.\nCHAPTER 2\nTHE DIRECTOR OF RECREATION\nSECTION 1.\nCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER\n1.\nThe Director of Recreation and Parks shall be the chief executive officer of the\nRecreation Department and shall be charged with the general organization,\nadministration, and supervision of the program of public recreation in and for the\nCity of Alameda.\nATTEND MEETINGS OF COMMISSION\n2.\nThe Director shall attend all meetings of the Commission as a professional\nconsultant except when the appointment of the Director is under consideration,\nand shall attend meetings of committees of the Commission when requested.\nPREPARATION OF BUDGET ESTIMATES\nSECTION 3. The Director shall annually collect and assemble such information relating\nto the needs of the recreation system for the Recreation Commission as they may request or the\nDirector may deem necessary.\n4", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2017-12-14.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2017-12-14", "page": 14, "text": "2-12 - RECREATION AND PARK COMMISSION.\u00b0\nFootnotes:\n--- (7)\nEditor's note- Ord. No. 3029 N.S., \u00a7 1, adopted April 5, 2011, amended 2-12 in its entirety and enacted\nnew provisions as set out herein. The former 2-12 pertained to Housing Commission and derived from\nOrd. No. 2387 N.S.; and Ord. No. 2533, \u00a7 14.\n2-12.1 - Commission Created; Purpose.\nThere is hereby created a commission which shall be known as the Recreation and Park\nCommission, whose purpose shall be to advise, coordinate and give guidance to the acquisition,\ndevelopment, maintenance and operation of parks, playgrounds, and other recreational facilities in the\nCity of Alameda for the promotion of a sound program of community recreation and vocational activities,\nusing to the greatest practicable extent the land, equipment and personnel of the City of Alameda and the\nAlameda Unified School District.\n(Ord. No. 3029 N.S., \u00a7 1, 4-5-2011)\n2-12.2 - Membership; Appointment; Term of Office; Removal; Vacancies.\na.\nThe Commission shall consist of five (5) members, all of whom shall, at the time of their appointment\nand continuously during their incumbency, be residents of the City.\nb.\nUpon nomination of the Mayor, the City Council shall appoint, between May 1 and July 1. of each\nyear, such members as are necessary to maintain a full Commission, for terms commencing on the\nfirst day of July following such appointment and continuing for four (4) years thereafter until the\nsuccessor of such member is appointed and qualified.\nC.\nNo person shall be eligible for the office held by that person for two (2) consecutive terms\nimmediately prior to the term for which the person seeks appointment.\nd.\nA member of the Commission may be removed by the vote of a majority of the Council. A vacancy in\nthe office of a member shall be filled for the unexpired term by nomination and appointment by the\nMayor and the City Council, respectively, for the duration of the unexpired term of office.\n(Ord. No. 3029 N.S., \u00a7 1, 4-5-2011; Ord. No. 3050N.S., \u00a7 1, 7-5-2012)\n2-12.3 - Meetings; Officers; Voting.\na.\nThe Commission shall meet as necessary to perform the duties outlined in subsection 2-12.4.\nMeetings shall be held on a fiscal year schedule, running July 1 through June 30. The Commission\nshall have the power to establish rules for its proceedings. The Commission shall select from its\nregular membership a Chairperson and a Vice-Chairperson, who shall serve in such office for a term\nof one (1) year commencing July 1 and until their successors are selected and qualified.\nb.\nThe votes of a majority of the entire membership of the Commission shall be necessary to take any\naction thereof.\n(Ord. No. 3029 N.S., \u00a7 1, 4-5-2011)", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2017-12-14.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2017-12-14", "page": 15, "text": "activities and facilities.\nb.\nHold hearings and do all things necessary to inform itself with respect to the promotion and\nsuccessful operation of City recreational activities.\nC.\nEstablish necessary or proper regulations and rules to carry out the provisions of this section\nincluding, but not limited to, the recommendation of rates, fees, and charges in connection with\nthe use of facilities or participation in recreational programs, which shall be included in the City's\nannual Master Fee Resolution for adoption by the City Council.\n(Ord. No. 3029 N.S., \u00a7 1, 4-5-2011)", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2017-12-14.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2017-12-14", "page": 16, "text": "Exhibit 2\nDecember 12, 2017\nDear Members of the Alameda Recreation and Park Commission:\nOn behalf of the Buena Vista UMC Basketball Program, we would like to acknowledge and express our\nappreciation for the many decades that Alameda Point Gymnasium has served as a center of play for the\nBuena Vista program, its teams and players. Thank you for granting our scheduling requests to\naccommodate our fall/winter league schedules. We look forward to continuing this strong, working\npartnership that has benefited a generation of Alameda children and their families.\nBVUMC's basketball program has served the Alameda community for more than 20 years. During that\ntime, Alameda Point Gym has played a pivotal role in our program's mission \"to provide youth and\nfamilies the opportunity to play basketball in a safe, well-organized environment that helps foster values\nof teamwork, cultural awareness and community service.'\nBuena Vista teams are open to youth and families of all ethnicities, religions and basketball skill levels.\nWe do not conduct tryouts. Our program's vision seeks to emphasize basketball \"as a means to greater\nends of building self-esteem, confidence, relationships, and personal growth.\"\nAn important component of the program is to incorporate civic responsibility into the children's lives.\nTeam members of all ages have volunteered throughout Alameda in past years, for beach cleanups, food\nbank drives, city maintenance projects and more. Almost all the families served by the program live in\nAlameda or attend Buena Vista UMC and spend significant time in Alameda.\nAs one of the first tenants of the gym, we can attest to the importance that having access to this space\nhas meant to the vitality of our program. The continuous stretch of practice time from September to\nMarch and league play within that is most appreciated. Our basketball practices at Alameda Point Gym\nare not just about skill building and scrimmages, but serve as a gathering time for young people who\nlearn to respect their coaches, bond as teammates, and build a foundation to lead fruitful lives.\nBest regards,\nBVUMC Basketball Board\nRev. Michael Yoshii, Gavin Tachibana, Kevin Connolly, Darren Fong, Lilybell Nakamura, Jack Woo, Ryan\nFong\nCC:\nAmy Wooldridge, Recreation and Parks Director awooldridge@alamedaca.gov\nLiz Warmerdam, Assistant City Manager Iwarmerdam@alamedaca.gov\nJennifer Ott, Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point jott@alamedaca.gov", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2017-12-14.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2017-12-14", "page": 17, "text": "Exhibit 3\nTO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS\nOFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL\nState of California\nDANIEL E. LUNGREN\nAttorney General\nOPINION\n:\n:\nNo. 97-809\nof\n:\n:\nJune 2, 1998\nDANIEL E. LUNGREN\n:\nAttorney General\n:\n:\nCLAYTON P. ROCHE\n:\nDeputy Attorney\n:\nGeneral\n:\nTHE HONORABLE STEVE BALDWIN, MEMBER OF THE CALIFORNIA\nASSEMBLY, has requested an opinion on the following questions:\n1.\nMay a private nonprofit religious school deny admission to a student solely on the\nbasis that the student's religious beliefs are inconsistent with the religious beliefs of the school?\n2.\nMay a city lease a public building to a private nonprofit religious school without\nrequiring that the school be open to all religious beliefs of prospective students?\n3.\nMay a city refuse to lease a public building to a private nonprofit religious school\nsolely on the basis that the school is not open to all religious beliefs of prospective students?\nCONCLUSIONS\n1.\nA private nonprofit religious school may deny admission to a student solely on the\nbasis that the student's religious beliefs are inconsistent with the religious beliefs of the school.\n2.\nA city may lease a public building to a private nonprofit religious school without\nrequiring that the school be open to all religious beliefs of prospective students.\n3.\nA city may not refuse to lease a public building to a private nonprofit religious\nschool solely on the basis that the school is not open to all religious beliefs of prospective\nstudents.", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2017-12-14.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2017-12-14", "page": 18, "text": "ANALYSIS\n1.\nDenying Student Enrollment\nThe first question presented for analysis is whether a private nonprofit religious school may\ndeny admission to a student solely because the student's religious beliefs are in conflict with the\nreligious beliefs of the school. We conclude that the school may do so.\nWe note initially that a private nonprofit religious school is not part of the public school\nsystem required by the Constitution. (Cal. Const., art. IX, \u00a7 5.) If a private full-time day school\nhas filed the requisite private school affidavit (see Ed. Code, \u00a7 33190), students attending the\nschool are exempt from public school attendance (see Ed. Code, \u00a7\u00a7 48200, 48222).\nWe also note that a private school normally would not be subject to either the equal\nprotection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution Footnote No. 1\nor\nits California equivalents (Cal. Const., art. I, \u00a7 7). Footnote No. 2 As explained by the court in Air\nLine Pilots Ass'n v. Dept. of Aviation (7th Cir. 1995) 45 F.3d 1144, 1149: \"As a general rule, the\nconduct of private parties lies beyond the Constitution's scope.\" The court, however, enumerated\nfour situations where \"governmental authority dominates an activity to such an extent that its\nparticipants must be deemed to act with the authority of the state, [and] constitutional restraints\napply.' (Ibid.) These are (1) where there is a \"symbiotic relationship' between the private actor\nand the state,\" (2) \"where the state commands or encourages the private discriminatory action.\"\n(3) \"when a private party carries on a traditional public function,\" and (4) \"when the involvement\nof governmental authority aggravates or contributes to the unlawful conduct.\" (Ibid.)\nOf these four tests, it might superficially appear that a private religious school \"carries on a\ntraditional public function\" for purposes of constitutional analysis. However, this test is\napplicable only when the state delegates to a private party public functions under circumstances\nthat leave no alternative source of benefits for its citizens. (See Flagg Bros., Inc. v. Brooks\n(1978) 436 U.S. 149, 157-164.) Such is not the case with respect to private schools, religious or\notherwise; California has its own system of public schools for its citizens. Accordingly, we find\nno constitutional impediment under the equal protection clause with respect to a private\nnonprofit religious school denying admission to a prospective student solely because his or her\nreligious beliefs are inconsistent with the religious beliefs of the school.\nIndeed, we find constitutional language that generally protects the school's decision to\nexclude those who do not subscribe to its religious beliefs. The \"religion clauses\" are contained\nin the First Amendment of the United States Constitution: \"Congress shall make no law\nrespecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof\nFootnote No.\n3 California has its own constitutional counterparts: \"Free exercise and enjoyment of religion\nwithout discrimination or preference are guaranteed\nThe Legislature shall make no law\nrespecting an establishment of religion\n\"\n(Cal. Const., art. I, \u00a7 4.)", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2017-12-14.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2017-12-14", "page": 19, "text": "In Molko v. Holy Spirit Assn. (1988) 46 Cal.3d 1092, 1112-1113, the court explained the\nprinciples to be applied in analyzing the religion clauses:\n\"The religion clauses protect only claims rooted in religious belief. [Citation.] ] The free\nexercise clause protects religious beliefs absolutely. [Citation. ] While a court can inquire into the\nsincerity of a person's beliefs, it may not judge the truth or falsity of those beliefs. [Citation. ] The\ngovernment may neither compel affirmation of a religious belief [citation], nor penalize or\ndiscriminate against individuals or groups because of their religious beliefs [citation], nor use the\ntaxing power to inhibit the dissemination of particular religious views. [Citation.]\n\"However, while religious belief is absolutely protected, religiously motivated conduct is\nnot.\n[Citations. ] Such conduct 'remains subject to regulation for the protection of society.'\n[Citation. I Government action burdening religious conduct is subject to a balancing test, in\nwhich the importance of the state's interest is weighed against the severity of the burden imposed\non religion. [Citation. ] The greater the burden imposed on religion, the more compelling must be\nthe government interest at stake. [Citations. ] A government action that passes the balancing test\nmust also meet the further requirements that (1) no action imposing a lesser burden on religion\nwould satisfy the government's interest and (2) the action does not discriminate between\nreligions, or between religion and nonreligion. [Citation.]\"\nThe religion clauses were more recently described in Rowe v. Superior Court (1993) 15\nCal.App.4th 1711, 1725, as follows:\nCommonly referred to as the establishment and free exercise clauses, they together\npermit and require that government maintain a 'benevolent neutrality which will permit religious\nexercise to exist without sponsorship and without interference. [Citation.]\n\"The 'benevolent neutrality' required by the First Amendment involves a delicate balance\nbetween the avoidance of sponsorship on the one hand and interference on the other. The United\nStates Supreme Court has noted that the two religion clauses exist in 'tension' with one another\n[citations] and has 'struggled to find a neutral course between [them], both of which are cast in\nabsolute terms, and either of which, if expanded to a logical extreme, would tend to clash with\nthe other.' [Citation.]\nThe free exercise clause \"does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a\n'valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or\nprescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes). (Employment Div., Ore. Dept. of\nHuman Res. v. Smith (1990) 494 U.S. 872, 879, quoting United States v. Lee (1982) 455 U.S.\n252, 263, fn. 3.) Footnote No. 4\nHere, not only is the free exercise clause implicated, so also is the constitutional right to\nassociate with those of similar beliefs. \"Congress shall make no law prohibiting\nthe right\nof the people peaceably to assemble\n\" (U.S. Const., 1st Amend.) '[I]mplicit in the right to\nengage in activities protected by the First Amendment [is] a corresponding right to associate with\nothers in pursuit of a variety of political, social, economic, educational, religious, and cultural\nends.\" (Roberts v. United States Jaycees (1984) 468 U.S. 609, 622.) In Widmar v. Vincent,", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2017-12-14.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2017-12-14", "page": 20, "text": "supra, 454 U.S. at 269, the court recognized religious worship and discussion as \"forms of\nspeech and association protected by the First Amendment. [Citations.] Clearly, the operation of\na private nonprofit religious school implicates constitutional rights of the free exercise of\nreligion, speech, and association.\nWith these constitutional freedoms and rights in mind, we examine whether there is a \"valid\nand neutral law of general applicability\" that would prevent a private religious school from\ndenying admission to a student with contrary religious beliefs. Only one statute appears to\nrequire analysis, the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civ. Code, \u00a7 51; \"Act\"). Footnote No. 5 Section 51\nstates in part:\n\"All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their\nsex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, or disability are entitled to the full and equal\naccommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of\nevery kind whatsoever.\"\nIn interpreting the language of section 51, we apply well established rules of statutory\nconstruction. \"Statutes must be construed so as to give a reasonable and common-sense\nconstruction consistent with the apparent purpose and intention of the law makers - a\nconstruction that is practical rather than technical, and will lead to wise policy rather than\nmischief or absurdity. [Citation.]' (People v. Turner (1993) 15 l.App. 4th 1690, 1696; see\nalso Harris v. Capitol Growth Investors XIV (1991) 52 Cal.3d 1142, 1165-1166.) \"'Judicial\ndoctrine governing construction of a law to avoid unconstitutionality is well settled. If \"the terms\nof a statute are by fair and reasonable interpretation capable of a meaning consistent with the\nrequirements of the Constitution, the statute will be given that meaning, rather than one in\nconflict with the Constitution.\" (Rowe v. Superior Court, supra, 15 Cal.App.4th at 1722.)\nRecently the California Supreme Court examined the requirements of the Act with respect\nto membership in the Boy Scouts of America. (Curran v. Mount Diablo Council of the Boy\nScouts (1998) 17 Cal.4th 670.) After reviewing the legislative history of the statute and prior\njudicial decisions, the court observed:\n[A]lthough past California decisions demonstrate that the Act clearly applies to any\ntype of for-profit commercial enterprise, and to nonprofit entities whose purpose is to serve\nthe business or economic interests of its owners or members, no prior decision has interpreted the\n'business establishments' language of the Act so expansively as to include the membership\ndecisions of a charitable, expressive, and social organization, like the Boy Scouts, whose\nformation and activities are unrelated to the promotion or advancement of the economic or\nbusiness interests of its members. (See, e.g., Hart v. Cult Awareness Network (1993) 13\nCal.App.4th 777 [organization established to educate the public about the harmful effect of cults\nis not a business establishment for purposes of the Unruh Civil Rights Act].) In our view, given\nthe organization's overall purpose and function, the Boy Scouts cannot reasonably be found to\nconstitute a business establishment whose membership decisions are subject to the Act.\" (Id., at\np. 697; fn. omitted.)", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2017-12-14.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2017-12-14", "page": 21, "text": "The court described the Boy Scouts' educational function as particularly significant in finding\nthat the organization was not a \"business establishment\" for purposes of the Act:\nThe record establishes that the Boy Scouts is an organization whose primary function is\nthe inculcation of a specific set of values in its youth members, and whose recreational facilities\nand activities are complementary to the organization's primary purpose\nScouts meet\nregularly in small groups (often in private homes) that are intended to foster close friendship,\ntrust and loyalty, and scouts are required to participate in a variety of activities, ceremonies, and\nrituals that are designed to teach the moral principles to which the organization subscribes. (Id.,\nat pp. 697-698.)\nSimilarly, here, a private nonprofit religious school has as its \"overall purpose and function\"\nthe education of children in keeping with its religious beliefs. The \"inculcation of a specific set\nof values,\" with programs \"designed to teach the moral principles to which the [school]\nsubscribes,\" prevents such a school from being considered a \"business establishment\" whose\nstudent admission practices would be subject to the Act. Footnote No. 6 Such construction of the\nAct is consistent with the requirements of the Constitution. (See Curran v. Mount Diablo\nCouncil of the Boy Scouts, supra, 17 Cal.4th at 722-729 (conc. opn. of Kennard, J.).)\nNo other constitutional or statutory provision appears to be relevant to our discussion. We\nthus conclude that a private nonprofit religious school may deny admission to a student solely on\nthe basis that the student's religious beliefs are inconsistent with the religious beliefs of the\nschool.\n2.\nLeasing City Property\nThe second question presented is whether a city may lease a public building to a private\nnonprofit religious school without requiring the school to be open to all religious beliefs of\nprospective students. We conclude that a city may do so.\nFor our purposes we may assume that (1) the city has made the public building available to\nall private organizations or persons who might wish to utilize it, (2) the city has not restricted the\nbuilding's use to religious schools, and (3) the lease has been negotiated in an arms-length\ntransaction showing no preference to the religious school and for an adequate consideration.\nA city may generally lease property to private individuals or organizations. (See Cal.\nConst., art. XI, \u00a7\u00a7 3, 5; Gov. Code, \u00a7\u00a7 37350, 37380, 37395.) The issue to be resolved is whether\nthe establishment clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and its\nCalifornia counterpart, as quoted above, require a city to lease its property for a school only upon\nthe condition that the school be open to all religious beliefs. Under the establishment clause,\nrecent case law has focused upon whether the alleged violation may be construed as an\n\"endorsement\" of a particular religion. (See Hawley v. City of Cleveland (6th Cir. 1994) 24 F.3d\n814, 822.)\nIn Christian Science v. City and County of San Francisco, supra, 784 F.2d 1010, the Ninth\nCircuit Court of Appeals considered whether the San Francisco Airport Commission could lease", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2017-12-14.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2017-12-14", "page": 22, "text": "space at the San Francisco Airport for a Christian Science Reading Room. The court found that\nthe commission's prior policy of allowing the religious group to rent space at the airport was\npurely secular, to obtain revenue, since (1) a standard lease was used that applied to all tenants,\n(2) the rent schedule was one that applied to all tenants, (3) the transaction was an arms-length\nreal estate transaction without additional motivation, and (4) there was no purpose to advance\nreligion. (Id., at p. 1014.) The religious benefit received by the group in operating the reading\nroom was determined by the court to be only \"incidental\" and thus permissible under Widmar v.\nVincent, supra, 454 U.S. at 273-274. (Ibid.) Finally, the court pointed out that there were no\n\"entanglements\" with religion since the commission did not tell the religious group how to run\nits reading room, and the religious group did not tell the commission how to run the airport. (Id.,\nat p. 1015; see also generally, Walz V. Tax Commission (1970) 397 U.S. 664, 695.) The court\nupheld the lease under both federal and state Constitutions on the basis that the commission's\nprior policy did not favor or prefer any religion or religion as a whole and did not have the direct,\nimmediate, or substantial effect of promoting religious purposes. (Id., at pp. 1014-1015; see also\nCalifornia Teacher's Association v. Riles (1981) 29 Cal.3d 794, 806; 25 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 309\n(1953).)\nLikewise, in Woodland Hills Homeowners Organization v. Los Angeles Community College\nDistrict (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 79, the court concluded that a lease of surplus property by a\nschool district to a religious group did not violate either the federal or state Constitutions. The\nsurplus property was offered by competitive bid for general uses, including \"institutional,\ncommunity or residential purposes,\" and the religious group was the sole bidder. The court found\nthat (1) the purpose of the lease was to generate revenue for the school district. (2) there was no\ngovernmental sponsorship or promotion of religious objectives by virtue of the lease since all\nreligious and secular groups had an equal opportunity to lease the property. and (3) any\n\"entanglements\" were merely those which usually occur between a landlord and tenant. (Id., at\npp. 94-95.) The court noted that the California Constitution \"has never been interpreted\nto\nrequire governmental hostility to religion, nor to prohibit a religious institution from receiving an\nincidental benefit from a statute which has a secular primary purpose.\" (Id., at p. 93.)\nThese California cases are supported by cases in other jurisdictions. In Brashich v. Port\nAuth. of New York (S.D.N.Y. 1979) 484 F.Supp. 697, affirmed (2d Cir. 1980) 628 F.2d 1344,\n791 F.2d 1224, the court approved the placing of three religious chapels at John F. Kennedy\nAirport. The court concluded that although \"the Port Authority has made accommodations for\nreligion, it has not established religion.\" (Id., at p. 704.) The same conclusion was reached by the\ncourt in Hawley v. City of Cleveland, supra, 24 F.3d 814, where the city leased space for a\nCatholic chapel at the Cleveland Hopkins International Airport. The court concluded:\n[T]he chapel serves the secular purpose of accommodating the religious needs of\ntravellers and providing them with a place for rest and comfort. Moreover, because a reasonable\nobserver would not conclude that the city endorses religion by allowing the diocese to maintain\nthe chapel, the chapel's lease and its authorizing ordinance do not constitute an endorsement of\nreligion, and thus their primary effect is one that neither advances nor inhibits religion. We find,\nfinally, that the chapel's lease and its authorizing ordinance also do not foster an excessive\ngovernment entanglement with religion. Accordingly, the lease and the ordinance do not violate\nthe Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. (Id., at p. 822. fn. omitted.)", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2017-12-14.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2017-12-14", "page": 23, "text": "Here, we believe that a lease of a public building to a private nonprofit religious school in\nan arms-length transaction without preference being given to religion per se would not constitute\na violation of either the federal or state Constitutions. (See 45 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 89 (1965); 43\nOps.Cal.Atty.Gen. 62 (1964); 25 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 309, supra.) As reaffirmed by the United\nStates Supreme Court in Corporation of Presiding Bishop v. Amos (1987) 483 U.S. 327, 334:\n\"'This court has long recognized that the government may (and sometimes must)\naccommodate religious practices and that it may do so without violating the Establishment\nClause.'\nThere is ample room under the Establishment Clause for 'benevolent neutrality\nwhich will permit religious exercise to exist without sponsorship and without interferences.\n\"\nWe conclude that a city may lease a public building to a private nonprofit religious school\nwithout requiring that the school be open to all religious beliefs of prospective students.\n3.\nRefusing to Lease City Property\nThe final question presented is whether a city may refuse to lease a public building to a\nprivate nonprofit religious school solely on the basis that the school is not open to all religious\nbeliefs of prospective students. We conclude that the city may not so refuse.\nWith respect to the equal protection clause of the federal Constitution, it is evident that the\ncity's leasing policy would divide potential private religious school lessees into two groups: those\nwho would not allow admission to students of all religious beliefs, and those who would.\nWhether a city may make such a division is not easily resolved. In what the United States\nSupreme Court has characterized as an \"extraordinarily sensitive area of constitutional law,\" \"we\ncan only dimly perceive the lines of demarcation\" between permissible and impermissible\ngovernment action involving religious institutions. (Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) 403 U.S. 602,\n612.)\nOn the one hand, the city's interests would include preventing religious discrimination on\npublic property, fostering educational opportunities for all students, and avoiding giving the\ncity's \"imprimatur of approval\" to the school's religious creed, whatever it might be. The\nestablishment clause \"prohibits government from appearing to take a position on questions of\nreligious belief\n\" (Id., at pp. 593-594; see Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah\n(1993) 508 U.S. 520, 532-533; Allegheny County v. Greater Pittsburgh ACLU (1989) 492 U.S.\n573, 605; Corporation of Presiding Bishop v. Amos, supra, 483 U.S. at 335; Woodland Hills\nHomeowners Organization V. Los Angeles Community College Dist., supra, 218 Cal.App.3d at\n92-93.)\nOn the other hand, the interests of the school officials include, as discussed in answer to the\nfirst question, the free exercise of religion clause, the freedom of speech clause, and the freedom\nof association clause of the state and federal Constitutions. (See Widmar v. Vincent, supra, 454\nU.S. at 269-270.)\nWeighing these competing interests, we find that although a state or local government may\nnot discriminate against religious groups, a religious group is not subject to the same", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2017-12-14.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2017-12-14", "page": 24, "text": "requirement, even when on public property. While the city may wish to foster educational\nopportunities, the public school system, including charter schools, is available as an alternative,\nas well as other religious schools that accept students of all religious faiths. Footnote No. 7\nMoreover, as discussed above, courts have rejected the claim that an arm's-length lease of public\nproperty to a religious group gives the government's \"imprimatur of approval\" and\n\"endorsement\" to the religious beliefs of the group. (See Hawley v. City of Cleveland, supra. 24\nF.3d at 822; Christian Science v. City and County of San Francisco, supra, 784 F.2d at 1014-\n1017; Brashich v. Port Auth. of New York, supra, 484 F.Supp. at 703; Woodland Hills\nHomeowners Organization v. Los Angeles Community College Dist., supra, 218 Cal.App.3d at\n94-95.)\nWhile the issue is not free from doubt, we believe that a court would side with the private\nreligious school officials' free exercise of religion, speech, and association constitutional rights,\nregardless of which balancing test (the compelling state interest test or rational basis test) is used.\n(See Christian Science v. City and County of San Francisco, supra, 784 F.2d at 1012-1013.)\nIn answer to the third question, therefore, we conclude that a city may not refuse to lease a\npublic building to a private nonprofit religious school solely on the basis that the school is not\nopen to all religious beliefs of prospective students.\n*****\nFootnote No. 1\n\"No state shall make or enforce any laws which shall\ndeny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal\nprotection of the laws.\"\nFootnote No. 2\nCalifornia courts have interpreted these provisions in the same manner as federal courts have interpreted the\nFourteenth Amendment. (See Dept. of Mental Hygiene v. Kirshner (1965) 62 Cal.2d 586, 588; In re Evans (1996)\n49 Cal.App.4th 1263, 1270; Reece v. Alcoholic Bev. Etc. Appeals Bd. (1976) 64 Cal.App.3d 675,679.)\nFootnote No. 3\nThese federal constitutional protections are enforceable against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. (See\nEverson v. Board of Education (1947) 330 U.S. 1, 8; Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940) 310 U.S. 296, 303-304.)\nFootnote No. 4\n\"[A] neural law of general application need not be supported by a compelling state interest\n11 (People v. Peck\n(1996) 52 Cal.App.4t 351, 358.) However, if the government burden is upon not only an individual's free exercise\nof religion right but also upon some other constitutional right such as freedom of speech or freedom of association\n(U.S. Const., 1st Amend.), a compelling state interest might be required for imposition of the state burden (see\nEmployment Div., Ore. Dept. Of Human Res. v. Smith, supra, 494 U.S. at 881; Widmar v. Vincent (1981) 454 U.S.\n263, 269-270; Christian Science v. City and County of San Francisco (9th Cir. 1986) 784 F.2d 1010, 1012-1013;\nSmith v. Fair Employment & Housing Som. (1996) 12 Cal.4th 1143, 1164-1165).\nFootnote No. 5\nAll references hereafter to the Civil Code are by section number only.\nFootnote No. 6\nThe legislative history of the Act fully supports the conclusion that the Legislature intended to exclude religious\nschools from the purview of the Act. (See Curran v. Mount Diablo Council of the Boy Scouts, supra, 17 Cal.4th at\n709-715 (conc. opn. of Mosk, J.).)\nFootnote No. 7\nIndeed, we have not been apprised that a Catholic school would deny admission to a Jewish child or a Muslim\nschool would deny admission to a Buddhist child. We assume that the question presented has a factual basis.", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2017-12-14.pdf"}