body,date,page,text,path
PublicArtCommission,2005-01-18,1,"CITT
OF
MINUTES OF PUBLIC ART ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING OF
JANUARY 18, 2005
(Revised 3/16/05)
DATE:
Tuesday, January 18, 2005
TIME:
7:00 p.m.
PLACE:
City Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, First Floor, Room 160
Alameda, CA 94501
1.
Roll Call:
The meeting was called to order at 7:10 p.m.
Present:
Chair (C) Huston (late), Vice Chair (VC) Lee, Committee Members
(CM) Cecilia Cervantes, K.C. Rosenberg, and Peter Wolfe
Absent:
Suzanne Ota, ARPD Director
Staff:
Dale Lillard, Recreation Services Manager (RSM)
Pat Russi, Recreation Supervisor (RS)
Christina Bailey, Cultural Arts Specialist (CAS)
2.
Approval of Minutes
A.
Minutes of Meeting on December 15, 2004
M/S/C
Rosenberg/Cervantes
(approved)
""That Minutes of Public Art Advisory Committee Meeting on December 15,
2004 be approved.'
Approved (3) - Lee, Cervantes, Rosenberg
Absent (1) - Huston
Abstain (1) - Wolfe
3.
Oral Communications
(Any person may address the Committee in regard to any matter over which the
Commission has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance that is not on the
agenda.)
None.
4.
Written Communications
-
Letter from Pat Colburn regarding the funding of art centers through the
Public Art Allocation
-
Staff report from RSM Lillard regarding the Webster Renaissance Project
Public Art and the Park Streetscape & Town Center Project
5.
Old Business
PAAC Meeting
1
Minutes Revised
January 18, 2005",PublicArtCommission/2005-01-18.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2005-01-18,2,"A.
Consideration of 2005 Meeting Dates - (Discussion/Action Item)
RS Russi inquired about the fourth Thursday of the month as a possible
meeting date. C Huston stated that this would fit her schedule, at least
through June; PAAC members agreed. CAS Bailey will send out the
dates and meeting locations via e-mail.
B.
Continued discussion of Public Art Annual Plan - (Discussion/Action
Item)
CM Rosenberg shared that she would like to see the program goals, from
the Guidelines, worked into a Mission Statement. RSM Lillard stated that
if the PAAC chose a couple of goals, then staff could draft a short Mission
Statement.
C Huston asked that each member choose the goals they'd want to see in
the Mission. CM Cervantes shared that ""supporting the promotion of arts
in Alameda; in order to provide the Community with art opportunities"" is
important. CM Rosenberg shared that ""promoting a diverse and
stimulating cultural environment, and strengthening cultural awareness,
innovative thinking, lifelong learning and the City's sense of community""
should be highlighted. VC Lee chose ""Public art integrates the vision of
artists and design professionals in planning and designing the urban
landscape.""
VC Lee asked whether the PAAC would be dealing with physical objects
or contributing to the operating costs and salaries of local non-profits. RS
Russi stated that it would be up to the PAAC. C Huston stated that she
would be more inclined to have more interesting art pieces throughout the
City, rather than supporting the existing non-profits.
CM Rosenberg stated that it would be difficult to monitor funds provided
to non-profit organizations for the purposes of supporting ongoing
operation and staff costs. RSM Lillard shared that a number of
organizations that provide grants have strict guidelines detailing how the
funding may be used. Most tend to emphasize the program or service to
be provided while attempting to avoid evaluating the particular non-profit
themselves. Physical pieces of art can be enjoyed by everyone when
placed throughout the City.
C Huston asked about the legality of issuing Public Art Fund monies to
local non-profits. RSM Lillard stated that the way he understood the
ordinance, funding could not be provided to non-profits for ongoing
operating expenses such as staff salaries but that funding could be
utilized to provide a performance, exhibition or special event.
CM Cervantes inquired about using monies for appropriate exhibits. RSM
Lillard stated that the in-lieu fund could be amended. CM Rosenberg
asked about the possibility of deciding on a specific defined event and
offering a competition for non-profits. RSM Lillard stated that PAAC could
PAAC Meeting
2
Minutes Revised
January 18, 2005",PublicArtCommission/2005-01-18.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2005-01-18,3,"move to do that, but would need to specify funds go only towards
exhibits/events. CM Rosenberg suggested that the PAAC take a look at
local non-profits on an annual basis for the purpose of assessing
communications.
C Huston inquired as to whether the permits are being written in a way
that is minimizing the one percent. She wanted to add this to the Annual
Plan under Political.
C Huston asked PAAC if they wanted to have data collection maps. VC
Lee stated that it would be a good idea to have specific sites and goals in
mind. C Huston also inquired about having a project calendar. RSM
Lillard stated that the Planning/Building Department lists projects in terms
of seasons.
RS Russi explained that he has been working on a generic RFP and
Public Art application. Each RFP will have different details and a unique
cover letter. RSM Lillard stated that PAAC would receive a draft by the
February meeting.
C.
Discussion of Art Donation - (Discussion Item)
RSM Lillard explained that Emily Lewis, a St. Joseph Notre Dame
student, approached Alameda Recreation & Parks and she would like to
paint a mural on or in one of our buildings. Director Ota and RS Russi
met with Emily, her mother, and high school art teacher. The project will
be no cost to the City. The Department proposed that the mural be
painted on three panels for easy mobility.
C Huston suggested that the student-artist use canvas and Velcro; this
process makes displaying, moving, and storing the piece easier. CM
Rosenberg added that a sona tube could be used to store the piece, if
canvas and Velcro are used.
CM Rosenberg also stated that if one of her students came to her about
painting a mural, she would suggest that they look into past murals from
the City where they are doing the piece. This way, they could better their
own work.
6.
New Business
A.
Webster Renaissance Project Public Art and the Park Streetscape &
Town Center Project - (Discussion Item)
Sue Russell from City Development Services attended the meeting to
share the progress of the Park & Webster Streetscape Projects. She
mentioned that both streets would be under construction simultaneously.
She also expressed a desire to have a representative from the PAAC sit
on each project's subcommittee. CM Wolfe mentioned that he had been
part of the Webster Street Design Committee, as well as the Downtown
PAAC Meeting
3
Minutes Revised
January 18, 2005",PublicArtCommission/2005-01-18.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2005-01-18,4,"Commission Taskforce. VC Lee stated that she would be willing to
volunteer also.
M/S/C
Rosenberg/Huston
(approved)
""That Peter Wolfe be appointed as the liaison between the Public Art
Advisory Committee and the Webster and Park Streetscape
Projects.""
Approved (5) - Huston, Lee, Cervantes, Rosenberg, and Wolfe
M/S/C
Rosenberg/Huston
(approved)
""That Karen Lee be appointed as the substitute liaison between the
Public Art Advisory Committee and the Webster and Park
Streetscape Projects.'
Approved (5) - Huston, Lee, Cervantes, Rosenberg, and Wolfe
B.
Consideration of funding of art centers by the Public Art Allocation -
(Discussion Item)
Pat Colburn, President and founder of the Alameda Art Center,
addressed PAAC members on behalf of the AAC. She stated that the
Center has been open for eight months and has 160 members. She
expressed the Center's struggle to obtain funding as a non-profit 501 (c) 3.
She inquired as to whether or not Public Art Fund monies could be
allocated to local non-profits. She also mentioned that she had contacted
Harsch Development about their one percent.
Meeting attendee, Marilyn Pomeroy, was part of the group that drafted
the original Public Art Ordinance. She thought that the in-lieu fund was
meant to go towards grant proposals, and that the PAAC was developed
to handle these grants. CM Rosenberg stated that the role of the PAAC
is to see that the quality of artwork meets a certain quality level.
Ms. Pomeroy inquired as to what the PAAC thought about local non-
profits writing proposals directly to developers. C Huston stated that their
proposals would inevitably end up in front of the PAAC for approval. VC
Lee expressed concerns over non-profits being pitted against each other
for limited funds. In addition, it could also lead to friends and relatives of
the developers unfairly lobbying for funds.
Ms. Pomeroy asked if Harsch Development had already set aside its one
percent for onsite art. RSM Lillard stated that they have an art consultant
and plan to exceed the one percent. The developer sees public art as
adding to the Center's appeal.
C Huston shared that it might be helpful for local non-profits to submit a
one-page ""wish list"" to the PAAC. Those submissions would help the
PAAC make changes to the Guidelines in the future.
PAAC Meeting
4
Minutes Revised
January 18, 2005",PublicArtCommission/2005-01-18.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2005-01-18,5,"C Huston expressed her hesitation in rushing to use money from the
Fund. CM Rosenberg echoed her sentiment that the Committee would
not want to make hasty decisions about the money. CM Wolfe stated that
there are so many organizations and so few developers; the developers
might become antagonized by all the groups seeking money. VC Lee
also expressed her concern over how the PAAC would establish an
organization's value, if they were to offer grants for non-profits.
C.
Role of Committee Members serving as representatives to public art
projects - (Discussion Item)
RSM Lillard stated that PAAC members, serving on other subcommittees,
would report to PAAC at their next scheduled meeting (e.g., CM Wolfe will
attend the Park and Webster Streetscape Project meeting, and will then
report to the PAAC).
7.
Oral Communications, General
CM Wolfe inquired about the concept of gifts and donations. RSM Lillard
stated that this was the first time in 17 years that a citizen had
approached the Department about donating art and PAAC could look at
this at a later date. CAS Bailey shared that a file on Gifts and Donations
is being compiled.
RS Russi updated the PAAC on Tad Savinar, Art Consultant for Harsch
Development. Due to a setback in the developer's conceptual plan, the
development and placement of art has been delayed. Despite this setback,
Mr. Savinar is familiarizing himself with local artists.
8.
Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
PAAC Meeting
5
Minutes Revised
January 18, 2005",PublicArtCommission/2005-01-18.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2005-02-24,1,"CITT
OF
MINUTES OF PUBLIC ART ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING OF
FEBRUARY 24, 2005
(Revised 2/7/06)
DATE:
Thursday, February 24, 2005
TIME:
7:00 p.m.
PLACE:
City Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Third Floor, Room 360
Alameda, CA 94501
1.
Roll Call:
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m.
Present:
Chair (C) Huston, Vice Chair (VC) Lee, Committee Members (CM)
K.C. Rosenberg, and Peter Wolfe (late)
Absent:
Committee Member (CM) Cecilia Cervantes
Staff:
Suzanne Ota, ARPD Director
Dale Lillard, Recreation Services Manager (RSM)
Pat Russi, Recreation Supervisor (RS)
Christina Bailey, Cultural Arts Specialist (CAS)
2.
Approval of Minutes
A.
Minutes of Meeting on January 18, 2005
On page 3, paragraph 1, CM Rosenberg asked that the following be added to the
last sentence, ""for the purpose of assessing communications.""
VC Lee suggested a stylistic change for future minutes. She would like to see
Chair, Vice Chair, and Committee Member be abbreviated similar to that of staff
members' titles.
M/S/C
Rosenberg/Wolfe
(approved)
""That Minutes of Public Art Advisory Committee Meeting on January 18,
2005 be approved.""
Approved (4) - Huston, Lee, Rosenberg, Wolfe
Absent (1) - Cervantes
3.
Oral Communications
(Any person may address the Committee in regard to any matter over which the
Commission has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance that is not on the
agenda.)
None.
PAAC Meeting
1
Minutes
February 24, 2005",PublicArtCommission/2005-02-24.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2005-02-24,2,"4.
Written Communications
None.
5.
Old Business
A.
Continued Discussion of Public Art Annual Plan - (Discussion/Action
Item)
Director Ota discussed that PAAC should prioritize issues that are most
important in the Annual Plan. C Huston asked when the Plan should be
presented to the City Council. Director Ota stated that it could be
presented during July 2005 (new fiscal year). C Huston wanted to clarify
that the Annual Plan being developed is for 2004-2005, six (6) months
behind schedule. One issue that could be addressed would be to raise
the 1% or $150,000 cap. CM Wolfe stated that the cap is unfair to
smaller developers; since they pay one-percent and larger developers
only pay $150,000.
CM Rosenberg suggested that the Plan include short and long-term
goals, including the PAAC's communication with non-profits. C Huston
stated that she would like to move from draft-form of the Plan to a working
document; this would include having agendas that reflect the Committee's
top priorities. She went on to ask Staff to provide an easel and pad of
large paper for PAAC to write down ideas; Staff stated that could be
done.
Director Ota explained that there is a discrepancy in the definition of the
Public Art Allocation requirement for renovation projects. The building
official is interpreting it technically and the two departments are not in
agreement. RS Russi stated that the phrase in question is ""50% of the
replacement cost of the building"" (30-65.3c). In doing research with the
City Attorney's office and looking at other cities' ordinances, it appears
that either an added definition or simpler, more direct language should be
incorporated. Staff will come back to PAAC with samples once they are
agreed upon by Building and Recreation Departments and the City
Attorney's Office.
- Mission Statement
PAAC members discussed specific wording for Alameda Public Art
Program's mission statement. VC Lee stated that the mission statement
should include a short, punchy sentence with objectives. Staff will work to
compile all suggestions and e-mail them to VC Lee and CM Rosenberg
for further review.
- List of Public Art Projects
Director Ota stated that Staff would be meeting with Library Art
Committee to discuss the Artist Agreement with Masayuki Nagase. In
addition to the library, there are seven (7) upcoming projects that will be
PAAC Meeting
2
Minutes
February 24, 2005",PublicArtCommission/2005-02-24.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2005-02-24,3,"subject to the Public Art Ordinance. Projects that are currently in
process or will be soon include: Bay Ship & Yacht, Bridgeside Center,
Harbor Island Complex, Park & Webster Streetscape Projects, Blanding
Street Work/Live project, South Shore Center, and Washington Park
Recreation Building.
CM Rosenberg asked if Staff could provide a map of Alameda's existing
and proposed public art projects. RSM Lillard stated that Staff would get
a map.
B.
Continued Discussion of Public Art Donation Policy - (Discussion
Item)
In regards to the donation of items, RSM Lillard explained that there are
common criteria for their acceptance between cities.
Criteria include:
- Outlines and responsibilities for installation and maintenance
- Procedures for establishing the title and ownership
- Provisions for dispensation for the work
C.
Consideration of Request to Fund Art Centers with the Public Art
Allocation Funds - (Discussion/Action Item)
Pat Colburn, from Alameda Art Center, and Lynn Faris, from Alameda
Civic Light Opera, attended the meeting. Ms. Faris expressed her
interest in learning how, or if, public art funds will be distributed to local
non-profits.
C Huston explained that developers would ultimately present plans to the
City for the art they would like to place. PAAC will approve or decline the
art based on the established guidelines of quality and accessibility. She
went on to state that there is no direct link between arts organizations and
the Public Art Fund. However, the developer may choose to use the
allotted money to create performance or exhibition spaces.
CM Rosenberg stated that the developer could choose to place the
money in the in-lieu fund. If this is the case, PAAC could then create a
competition for non-profits to compete for said funds. C Huston explained
that RSM Lillard had previously stated the funds could not be used for on
going operating costs.
Director Ota explained that money collected through the Ordinance could
be placed in one of two pots. First, developers can put their public art
allocation towards on site art. Secondly, developers can choose to place
their allocation in the in-lieu fund, where the City decides how to allocate
the money.
Ms. Faris inquired as to whether there is a plan for non-profits and
developers to be in contact. Director Ota stated that a list of non-profits
could be included in the developer's packet. CM Wolfe stated that the list
PAAC Meeting
3
Minutes
February 24, 2005",PublicArtCommission/2005-02-24.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2005-02-24,4,"should have a disclaimer that the ARPD and PAAC do not necessarily
endorse any of the organizations.
C Huston stated that the PAAC had previously asked that the Alameda
Art Center create a ""Wish List."" This would include expenses that they
want the in-lieu funds to cover.
C Huston stated that the guidelines stress that the developer place public
art that is exceptional in nature and not part of an existing structure. CM
Wolfe added that it also needs to be accessible to the public. Director
Ota stated that the requirements are in place to create public art
opportunities.
Ms. Colburn expressed her frustration and asked why the money needs
to be spent on something new, and not on an existing organization. She
stated that local non-profits are viable community assets and are
struggling to make ends meet. She asked if there were any plans to
rewrite the ordinance to benefit local non-profits. C Huston stated that
PAAC would not be the ones to rewrite the Ordinance. CM Rosenberg
stated that PAAC would be evaluating communication with non-profits in
the future.
C Huston stated that there would be a Call for Entries when in-lieu funds
become available. Ms. Faris expressed her desire to compete for any
funds that become available in the future.
6.
New Business
A.
Discussion and Review of Public Art Documents and Forms -
(Discussion Item)
- RFP/RFQ
RS Russi explained that he researched documents from different cities;
some documents were very detailed and others were not. The sample
documents included in the agenda packet are very generic, and can be
modified for each unique project.
CM Wolfe suggested that the RFP include wording from the Guidelines,
as well as, a concept statement. CM Rosenberg stated that there should
be a section for each of the three areas in the Ordinance: on site projects,
on site cultural programs, and on site art spaces or cultural facilities.
Director Ota stated that Alameda modeled its Ordinance after the cities of
Pasadena and Long Beach. Staff should look at their wording for more
examples. VC Lee asked that Staff bring samples to the next meeting.
CM Wolfe suggested that the RFP include lighting under the Lighting
Plan; CM Rosenberg added that plaques could also be addressed under
the same section.
PAAC Meeting
4
Minutes
February 24, 2005",PublicArtCommission/2005-02-24.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2005-02-24,5,"B.
Summer Activity Guide Articles by PAAC Members - (Discussion
Item)
RS Russi stated that the staff is in the process of compiling information
for the Summer Activity Guide. The staff wants PAAC to submit a piece
about their work by March 10th or earlier. Director Ota stated that the
Cultural Arts section would have fewer pages in this edition. C Huston
asked VC Lee to help her formulate the article.
7.
Oral Communications, General
C Huston stated that a list of future tasks and priorities should be developed. RS
Russi stated that Staff would flesh out and reorganize the Annual Plan.
Director Ota thanked PAAC and ARPD staff for their hard work and diligence
over the past year. PAAC thanked Director Ota for her commitment to the Public
Art Program.
8.
Committee Reports
-
Webster & Park Streetscape Projects - CM Wolfe
None.
9.
Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
PAAC Meeting
5
Minutes
February 24, 2005",PublicArtCommission/2005-02-24.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2005-03-24,1,"CITT
OF
MINUTES OF PUBLIC ART ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING OF
MARCH 24, 2005
DATE:
Thursday, March 24, 2005
TIME:
7:00 p.m.
PLACE:
City Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Third Floor, Room 360
Alameda, CA 94501
1.
Roll Call:
The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m.
Present:
Chair (C) Huston, Vice Chair (VC) Lee, Committee Members (CM)
Cecilia Cervantes, and Peter Wolfe (late)
Absent:
Committee Member (CM) K.C. Rosenberg
Staff:
Dale Lillard, Acting Director (AD)
Pat Russi, Recreation Supervisor (RS)
Christina Bailey, Cultural Arts Specialist (CAS)
2.
Approval of Minutes
A.
Minutes of Meeting on February 24, 2005
On page 2, section 5A, C Huston wanted to clarify that the Annual Plan being
developed is for 2004-2005, six (6) months behind schedule.
M/S/C
Lee/Cervantes
""That Minutes of Public Art Advisory Committee Meeting on February 24,
2005 be approved.'
Approved (3) - Huston, Lee, Cervantes
Abstain (1) - Wolfe
Absent (1) - Rosenberg
3.
Oral Communications
(Any person may address the Committee in regard to any matter over which the
Commission has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance that is not on the
agenda.)
None.
4.
Written Communications
None.
PAAC Meeting
1
Minutes
March 24, 2005",PublicArtCommission/2005-03-24.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2005-03-24,2,"5.
Old Business
A.
Continued Discussion of Public Art Annual Plan - (Discussion/Action
Item)
PAAC reviewed and revised draft of Public Art Annual Plan. Staff will
make revisions and CAS Bailey will e-mail PAAC members latest draft.
C Huston stated that PAAC would probably need to create
subcommittees to draft responses to developers, including input from
other members. RS Russi stated that PAAC could tell the applicant that
the item will be voted on during the next month's meeting.
CM Wolfe asked AD Lillard how far ahead other Committees and
Commissions plan. AD Lillard stated that the average is a year ahead.
RS Russi asked PAAC to clarify ""fact-checking"" art consultants. C
Huston stated that some of the consultants on the list are simply not art
consultants. Someone needs to call all of the listed consultants and verify
that they really are art consultants.
- Continued Development of Mission Statement - (Discussion Item)
CM Cervantes suggested that a subcommittee work on finalizing the
Mission Statement. C Huston asked if CM Cervantes would like to work
on it with another member. CM Cervantes stated that she would work on
it with anyone. CM Wolfe stated that he would help in finalizing the final
draft.
B.
Discussion and review of Public Art Documents and Forms -
(Discussion Item)
- RFP/RFQ
PAAC members made revisions to the document. Staff will make
revisions and return draft for further review.
CM Cervantes suggested that the Request For Proposals be divided into
two (2) sections: 1) the City provides the information and 2) the applicant
submits the information. C Huston suggested the following: 1) City and
Project Information, and 2) Applicant's Information.
C Huston stated that it would not be inappropriate to ask an artist for a
price list of past works along with his/her resume.
C.
Library Update - (Discussion Item)
RS Russi shared that Staff met with Susan Hardie, Friends of the Library,
and the Library Foundation. The Friends and the Foundation decided to
retain the services of art consultant Regina Almaguer, throughout the
remainder of the project. Thus far, money has only been raised for the
PAAC Meeting
2
Minutes
March 24, 2005",PublicArtCommission/2005-03-24.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2005-03-24,3,"medallions. RS Russi stated that the City created an Artist Agreement,
between the City and the artist.
6.
New Business
A.
Update on Webster & Park Streetscape Projects - (Discussion Item)
CM Wolfe explained that he met with representatives from ARPD and
Development Services. During the meeting, an issue of whether or not
the Public Art Ordinance affected sewer or other infrastructure projects
was addressed. It is understood by AD Lillard that the intent of the Public
Art Ordinance was to have building projects (structures) trigger the 1%
Ordinance.
CM Wolfe stated that there might be contingency funds for Public Art from
the Webster Street Streetscape, but not from the Park Street project.
CM Wolfe expressed a desire to look into infrastructure costs being
subject to the 1% Ordinance. When Alameda Point redevelopment
begins, streets and sewers will be the first items worked on. This will be
an extensive project, where developers will then buy pieces of property.
CM Wolfe does not want to have an ambiguous term create a lost
opportunity for obtaining Public Art funds. RS Russi stated that this would
involve amending the Ordinance. C Huston added that this issue should
be added to the list of strategic goals.
CM Wolfe also addressed the Alameda Theater and Garage Project.
These projects have been in the planning stages long before the Public
Art Ordinance was in effect. Therefore, Public Art monies were not
factored in. He stated that the theater is historical and the 1% could be
used to renovate it to historical standards. Regarding the Garage, the 1%
could be incorporated into its architecture. CM Wolfe added that the
theater is going to have many large, blank walls where murals or other art
could be featured.
B.
Draft of Alameda Public Art Program Map - (Discussion Item)
RS Russi stated that the map includes color-coded symbols to show
existing and proposed sites for Public Art. He went on to state that it
would be too difficult to shrink the map and feature it in a publication
(Activity Guide). However, a proposed project could be featured in each
publication.
C Huston expressed an interest in placing local non-profits on the map.
RS Russi suggested that PAAC define their relationship with non-profits
before placing them on the map. C Huston also suggested that libraries
be featured. For the in-lieu fund, C Huston would like to see which
geographic areas are being forgotten or have needs.
VC Lee suggested using transparency sheets to provide layering options
for the map.
PAAC Meeting
3
Minutes
March 24, 2005",PublicArtCommission/2005-03-24.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2005-03-24,4,"CM Wolfe asked if Alameda Recreation & Parks has an archive of
materials submitted for Public Art projects. CAS Bailey stated that there
is a file of all artist submittals from the New Main Library Project.
7.
Oral Communications, General
C Huston expressed a desire to see the following items on April's agenda:
- Finalize Annual Plan
- Finalize Mission Statement
- Set Priorities and Develop Strategic Plan
8.
Committee Reports
-
Webster & Park Streetscape Projects - CM Wolfe
- See item 6A.
9.
Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
PAAC Meeting
4
Minutes
March 24, 2005",PublicArtCommission/2005-03-24.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2005-04-28,1,"CITT
OF
MINUTES OF PUBLIC ART ADVISORY COMMITTEE
the
MEETING OF APRIL 28, 2005
GO.
DATE:
Thursday, April 28, 2005
TIME:
7:00 p.m.
PLACE:
City Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Third Floor, Room 360
Alameda, CA 94501
1.
Roll Call:
The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m.
Present:
Chair (C) Huston, Vice Chair (VC) Lee, Committee Members
(CM) Cecilia Cervantes (late), and K.C. Rosenberg
Absent:
Committee Member (CM) Peter Wolfe
Staff:
Dale Lillard, Acting Director (AD)
Pat Russi, Recreation Supervisor (RS)
Christina Bailey, Cultural Arts Specialist (CAS)
2.
Approval of Minutes
A.
Minutes of Meeting on March 24, 2005
M/S/C
Lee/Huston
""That Minutes of Public Art Advisory Committee Meeting on March
24, 2005 be approved.' ""
Approved (2) - Huston, Lee
Abstain (1) - Rosenberg
Absent (2) - Cervantes, Wolfe
(Minimum of three votes needed for approval; minutes will be placed on
the meeting agenda for May 26, 2005.)
3.
Oral Communications
(Any person may address the Committee in regard to any matter over which
the Commission has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance that is
not on the agenda.)
None.
PAAC Meeting
1
Minutes
April 28, 2005",PublicArtCommission/2005-04-28.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2005-04-28,2,"4.
Written Communications
None.
5.
Old Business
A.
Finalize Public Art Annual Plan - (Discussion/Action Item)
C Huston and VC Lee organized the Annual Plan prior to the
meeting. The work done by the PAAC during 2004-2005 would be
submitted as an Annual Report. One major component was the
collection of public art information and program guidelines from
other cities, which culminated in the drafting and completion of
Alameda's Guidelines. The Annual Plan would include work to be
done during the 2005-2006 period. This will include creating a
Public Art Program Mission Statement, and developing documents
used for Call for Entries and Request for Qualifications/Proposals
PAAC reviewed and finalized the Annual Report and Plan.
M/S/C
Rosenberg/Cervantes
(approved)
""That the Annual Report of 2004-2005 and the Annual Plan of
2005-2006 be approved.""
Approved (4) - Huston, Lee, Cervantes, Rosenberg
Absent (1) - Wolfe
AD Lillard stated that the first opportunity to present the Report and
Plan to the City Council would come in late June.
B.
Finalize Mission Statement - (Discussion/Action Item)
Discussion tabled on Mission Statement until PAAC meeting on
May 26, 2005.
C.
Finalize Public Art Documents - (Discussion/Action Item)
RS Russi stated that a finalized RFQ/RFP would be required, since
Sue Russell and the Webster Street Project are moving forward.
VC Lee asked if she could review an e-mail from CM Wolfe,
regarding the Webster Street Project. CM Wolfe brought up issues
regarding the timeline, budget, and RFQ. In addition, CM Wolfe
inquired as to where the art piece would be located. The site, as
described, is unclear and needs some verbal or visual delineation.
PAAC Meeting
2
Minutes
April 28, 2005",PublicArtCommission/2005-04-28.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2005-04-28,3,"C Huston stated that we should send a cover letter and RFQ to art
publications and organizations. The organizations can then
publicize it to their membership base. CM Rosenberg suggested
two organizations, Pro Arts and San Francisco Arts Commission; C
Huston suggested Art in America (AIA), Oakland Art Gallery, and
other professional artist gathering spots.
PAAC discussed the items that should be requested in the RFQ. C
Huston suggested that an artist submit only five (5) slides, ten (10)
to twenty (20) for the RFP. The slides should be 35 mm in plastic
or cardboard covers, no stick on labels; CD's and DVD's will also
be accepted. The RFQ can also request the artist's resume, which
includes education, exhibits, collections, and a list of where they
have shown; a slide scrip will also be requested. CM Rosenberg
suggested that a cover letter, letter of interest, and artist statement
also be included. The artist would also be given the option to
include additional support materials. C Huston expressed her
approval of this procedure, because an artist is being chosen, not a
project.
RS Russi stated that Development Services Department and the
Webster Street Subcommittee would fill-in the blanks on the RFQ.
VC Lee stated that California artists are eligible for this project.
C Huston stated that she would like to be on a subcommittee for
the fact checking of art consultants. She inquired as to how soon
the information is needed. VC Lee stated that it would be needed
immediately, since CM Wolfe would like to see the piece completed
and installed by December 1st.
C Huston inquired as to when the RFQ for the Webster Street
Project would be needed. RS Russi stated that Sue Russell wants
it to go out by the end of May.
C Huston and CM Rosenberg volunteered to look over an existing
list of artists and consultants and to add any appropriate art
organizations and publications.
C Huston clarified that Development Services would provide the
descriptions for the RFQ; the PAAC would provide the format for
the RFQ/RFP, a mailing list of organizations and publications, and if
needed, assistance in reviewing the artist submittals. RS Russi
added that he would be sending the documents to Sue Russell and
would work with her to develop them.
PAAC Meeting
3
Minutes
April 28, 2005",PublicArtCommission/2005-04-28.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2005-04-28,4,"6.
New Business
A.
Appoint Subcommittee for the Theater and Garage
Development Project - (Discussion/Action Item)
RS Russi explained that the goal is to have the Theater and
Garage Project completed during early 2007. The restoration of the
historical theater will take longer than the new complex
components, but all will be opened at the same time. Dorene Soto
is the Development Services Lead Person on this project.
CM Cervantes and CM Rosenberg expressed interest in being on
the Sub-Committee. CM Cervantes stated that College of Alameda
students might be involved with the oral history of the theater
space.
M/S/C
Huston/Lee
(approved)
""That CM Cervantes and CM Rosenberg be appointed to the
Theater and Garage Project Sub-Committee.'
Approve (4) - Huston, Lee, Cervantes, Rosenberg
Absent (1) - Wolfe
B.
Set Priorities and Develop Strategic Plan - (Discussion Item)
C Huston suggested that priorities should include Mission
Statement, RFQ/RFP, and Artist Directory.
RS Russi stated that many projects would be coming up soon. He
suggested that the PAAC set a meeting schedule soon, in order to
expedite meeting with project managers. C Huston stated that the
schedule could be made through September, for regular meetings;
the PAAC could assign dates for special meetings, so project
PAAC Meeting
4
Minutes
April 28, 2005",PublicArtCommission/2005-04-28.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2005-04-28,5,"managers can be given a specific date and time to meet with
PAAC.
7.
Oral Communications, General
RS Russi stated that the Bridgeside Shopping Center Project is
moving along. However, there have been no overtures for the Public
Art projects. He went on to explain that AD Lillard, CAS Bailey, and
himself went to visit Bay Ship & Yacht and spoke with Crispin Kraft.
This company services ships (including government ships),
propellers, and shafts. It is the largest employer in Alameda. For the
past few years, the Corps of Engineers have been dredging the
estuary and reducing Bay Ship & Yacht's dock space.
Consequently, Bay Ship & Yacht has been forced to make changes
and improvements to their property. Their business is required to
have a certain amount of dock and pier space, in order to be a
soluble business. They have been in contact with the Bay
Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), who set the
stipulations and restrictions for the space 100 ft. from the waterfront
(eg., the trail that runs up to Bay Ship & Yacht). Cris Kraft wants to
revamp the trail area and landscape a small plaza with nautical
artwork (near the ferry dock). AD Lillard stated that Bay Ship &
Yacht is creating the plaza to meet the requirements of BCDC, and
want credit toward the Public Art requirement.
RS Russi stated that South Shore Center would go over the
$150,000 cap for Public Art. Tad Savinar wants a copy of RFP,
since he is looking for local artists (California artists are eligible).
Tad is still planning to attend a PAAC meeting.
8.
Committee Reports
-
Webster & Park Streetscape Projects - CM Wolfe
See Section 5C.
9.
Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
PAAC Meeting
5
Minutes
April 28, 2005",PublicArtCommission/2005-04-28.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2005-05-26,1,"CITT
OF
MINUTES OF PUBLIC ART ADVISORY COMMITTEE
the
MEETING OF MAY 26, 2005
GO.
(Revised 2/7/06)
DATE:
Thursday, May 26, 2005
TIME:
7:00 p.m.
PLACE:
City Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Third Floor, Room 360
Alameda, CA 94501
1.
Roll Call:
The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m.
Present:
Chair (C) Huston, Committee Members (CM) Cecilia
Cervantes, K.C. Rosenberg, and Peter Wolfe
Absent:
Committee Member (CM) Karen Lee
Dale Lillard, Acting Director (AD)
Staff:
Pat Russi, Recreation Supervisor (RS)
Christina Bailey, Cultural Arts Specialist (CAS)
2.
Approval of Minutes
A.
Minutes of Meeting on March 24, 2005
CM Wolfe inquired about the Public Art Ordinance in relationship to
infrastructure projects (Item 6A). During a previous meeting, AD Lillard
had stated that he would ask the City Attorney about this. RS Russi
stated that AD Lillard would update the PAAC during June 23rd meeting.
M/S/C
Wolfe/Cervantes
""That Minutes of Public Art Advisory Committee Meeting on March
24, 2005 be approved.""
Approved (3) - Huston, Cervantes, Wolfe
Absent (1) - Lee
Abstain (1) - Rosenberg
B.
Minutes of Meeting on April 28, 2005
On page 3, paragraph 2, C Huston asked that ""slide scrip"" be changed to
""slide script.""
PAAC Meeting
1
Minutes
May 26, 2005",PublicArtCommission/2005-05-26.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2005-05-26,2,"M/S/C
Rosenberg/Cervantes
""That Minutes of Public Art Advisory Committee Meeting on April 28,
2005 be approved with changes.""
Approved (3) - Huston, Cervantes, Rosenberg
Absent (1) - Lee
Abstain (1) - -Wolfe
3.
Oral Communications
(Any person may address the Committee in regard to any matter over which
the Commission has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance that is
not on the agenda.)
None.
4.
Written Communications
None.
5.
Old Business
A. Update on Alameda West Gateway and the Theater and
Parking/Garage Projects from Sue Russell of Development
Services - (Discussion Item)
Sue Russell stated that Development Services submitted a project
application for the Alameda West Gateway Project to Alameda
Recreation and Parks on May 5, 2005. Through discussions with RS
Russi, she understood that an infrastructure project would not require
Public Art. However, the project would like to set aside a contingency
of $25,000 for an entryway project. The location would be as you exit
the Webster Tube at Neptune Park. Currently, this location is home to
concrete signage and three flags, which were installed during the early
1990's.
CM Wolfe expressed two concerns: 1) interaction or conflict between
what is existing and what will be placed on the site; 2) a definition of
where Caltrans begins and if they have any stipulations for placing art
near roadways.
CM Rosenberg expressed a desire to see a playful-themed sign,
reminiscent of Neptune Beach.
PAAC Meeting
2
Minutes
May 26, 2005",PublicArtCommission/2005-05-26.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2005-05-26,3,"RS Russi and CAS Bailey stated they would research who placed the
existing signage and flags near the tube.
Regarding the theater/garage project, Sue Russell stated that a formal
application would be submitted by the June 23rd meeting. C Huston
offered the suggestion to have a Public Art competition, where prize
money would be offered as opposed to a commission. There are artists
seeking large venues, who are willing to work to cover their costs.
B. Finalize Mission Statement - (Discussion/Action Item)
CM Cervantes offered a draft of the Alameda Public Art Program's
Mission Statement. PAAC members discussed specific wording and
stylistic changes. A final draft will be included on the June 23rd agenda.
6.
New Business
A. Approve Call for Entries & RFQ for Alameda West Gateway
Project - (Discussion/Action Item)
PAAC members discussed specific wording and stylistic changes
for both Public Art documents. Final documents will be included in
June 23rd packet for PAAC records.
PAAC also developed a short ad for art publications.
B.
Set PAAC Meeting Schedule - (Discussion/Action Item)
PAAC members discussed and finalized possible meeting dates
(Wednesday, July 27, 2005 and Thursday, August 25, 2005).
C.
Obtain Alternative Meeting Dates for Meeting with Applicants -
(Discussion/Action Item)
CM Cervantes stated that she could not make meetings on 2nd and
4th Tuesdays. CM Rosenberg stated that she could not meet on
Tuesdays or Thursdays.
D.
Set Priorities for Next Meeting - (Discussion Item)
-
Prioritizing Calls and Outlets for Dissemination
-
Artist and Consultant List Update
-
Theater and Garage Project Update
-
Finalize and Approve Mission Statement
7.
Oral Communications, General
PAAC Meeting
3
Minutes
May 26, 2005",PublicArtCommission/2005-05-26.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2005-05-26,4,"CM Rosenberg stated that the Artist and Consultant Lists need to be fact-
checked. She also expressed a concern over mailing RFQ's directly to
individual artists. She went on to state that she and C Huston would create
an Artist Organization List, which would include but not be limited to,
Oakland Arts Commission, San Francisco Arts Commission, Pro Arts,
Berkeley Art Center, Richmond Art Center, and Center for Art in Public Life
(CCA).
CM Rosenberg also stated that if an artist registry were ever developed, it
would need to be put on a database.
8.
Committee Reports
-
Webster & Park Streetscape Projects - CM Wolfe
See Item 5A.
Theater & Garage Project - CM's Cervantes and Rosenberg
See Item 5A.
9.
Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
PAAC Meeting
4
Minutes
May 26, 2005",PublicArtCommission/2005-05-26.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2005-06-23,1,"CITT
OF
MINUTES OF PUBLIC ART ADVISORY COMMITTEE
the
MEETING OF JUNE 23, 2005
GO.
(Revised 2/7/06)
DATE:
Thursday, June 23, 2005
TIME:
7:00 p.m.
PLACE:
City Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Third Floor, Room 360
Alameda, CA 94501
1.
Roll Call:
The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m.
Present:
Chair (C) Huston, Committee Members (CM) K.C. Rosenberg,
and Peter Wolfe
Absent:
Committee Members (CM) Cecilia Cervantes and Karen Lee
Staff:
Christa Johnson-Seely, Assistant to the City Manager
Dale Lillard, Acting Director (AD)
Pat Russi, Recreation Supervisor (RS)
Christina Bailey, Cultural Arts Specialist (CAS)
2.
Approval of Minutes
A.
Minutes of Meeting on May 26, 2005
C Huston asked that the wording on page 3, paragraph 5 be changed to
the following: Where prize money would be offered as opposed to
commission. There are artists seeking large venues, who are willing to
work to cover their costs.
M/S/C
Rosenberg/Wolfe
(approved)
""That Minutes of Public Art Advisory Committee Meeting on May 26,
2005 be approved with changes.""
Approved (3) - Huston, Rosenberg, Wolfe
Absent (2) - Cervantes, Lee
Update Public Work Projects & Public Art Ordinance
AD Lillard stated that the City Attorney concluded that infrastructure
projects, such as sewer or street projects, would not count toward
the Public Art Ordinance. City may choose to participate in the
Ordinance when developing buildings and parks.
PAAC Meeting
1
Minutes
June 23, 2005",PublicArtCommission/2005-06-23.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2005-06-23,2,"3.
Oral Communications
(Any person may address the Committee in regard to any matter over which
the Commission has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance that is
not on the agenda.)
None
4.
Written Communications
Staff will obtain the artist list, sent by Mary Oliver, from the City of
Emeryville. An art consultant compiled the list. The list will be included on
July's agenda.
5.
Old Business
A. Update on Alameda West Gateway and the Theater and
Parking/Garage Projects from Jennifer Ott of Development
Services - (Discussion Item)
-
Jennifer Ott, Development Manager from Development Services
Department, stated that an application for artwork on the parking
structure facing Santa Clara Avenue had been submitted to
Alameda Recreation & Parks. The artwork would consist of a
temporary mural, using billboard technology. The installation of the
art would coincide with the building of the garage. The billboard
would be vinyl and the dimensions would be left to the discretion of
the Public Art Advisory Committee. The art would be digitally
transferred and could be reproduced and placed in a different
location. Ms. Ott explained that the piece could last up to or
exceed two years, since it would be facing north. She went on to
state that there had been previous discussions about using a
historical picture; however, a more contemporary image was
requested.
CM Wolfe asked what the project budget would be. Ms. Ott stated
that the budget would be $10,000. CM Wolfe expressed his
concern that the Public Art be accessible to the public, even those
who do not pay $7.00 to enter the theater. His understanding was
that the Development Services Department was going to allot
Public Art funds for the restoration of the theater, and that it should
be done in a publicly accessible area.
C Huston asked if the work would be displayed on a single panel or
on multi-panels. Ms. Ott stated that the issue was open to
discussion; however, the installation specifications would need to
PAAC Meeting
2
Minutes
June 23, 2005",PublicArtCommission/2005-06-23.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2005-06-23,3,"be written carefully so a change order would not be required. C
Huston asked what the mounting technology would consist of. Ms.
Ott explained that the architect would design it.
CM Wolfe inquired about the lighting of the piece. He asked if the
lighting would be worked into the architecture of the wall. Ms. Ott
stated that lighting could be worked into the specifications. C
Huston added that maintenance and vandalism parameters should
be considered, as well as, the relationship of the piece to the
architecture.
B. Approve Mission Statement - (Action Item)
PAAC members discussed specific wording and stylistic changes. AD
Lillard stated that all references to Committee would be changed to
Commission.
M/S/C
Wolfe/Rosenberg
(approved)
""That Mission Statement of the Alameda Public Art Program be
approved with changes.""
Approved (3) - Huston, Rosenberg, Wolfe
Absent (2) - Cervantes, Lee
C. Call for Entries & RFQ for Alameda West Gateway Project: Put on
Hold - (Discussion Item)
Jennifer Ott stated that the Gateway Project is on hold due to
budgetary constraints. She reiterated that the City is still committed
to the project.
RS Russi presented the final draft of Call for Artists and RFQ for
PAAC review. PAAC proposed specific wording and stylistic
changes to the documents. RS Russi will make changes for final
document.
6.
New Business
A.
Reorganization of PAAC - (Discussion Item)
AD Lillard explained that an Ordinance was introduced, at the City
Council Meeting on Tuesday, June 21, that will change the
Committee to a Commission. The new Commission will report
directly to the City Council. Staffing for the Commission will be
transferred from Recreation & Parks to Planning & Building. CAS
Bailey will continue to be a staff-level person. Christa Johnson-
Seely, Assistant to the City Manager, will become a liaison between
PAAC Meeting
3
Minutes
June 23, 2005",PublicArtCommission/2005-06-23.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2005-06-23,4,"Planning & Building and the Public Art Commission (PAC). AD
Lillard stated that the Ordinance would not be official until it is read
for a second time, 30 days from the time of the first reading.
CM Wolfe asked if the Guidelines would be edited to reflect the
changes. AD Lillard stated that all references to Committee would
be changed, as well as, the steps of the approval process.
AD Lillard stated that he and RS Russi will continue to attend
meetings through the July meeting, at least.
B.
Call for Entries & RFQ for Alameda Theater Project: Parking
Structure Mural - (Discussion/Action Item)
PAAC members discussed specific wording and stylistic changes. RS
Russi stated that suggested changes would be made and the final
document would be mailed out for the Call for Artists.
C.
Set Priorities for Next Meeting - (Discussion Item)
-
Artist List from City of Emeryville
7.
Oral Communications, General
8.
Committee Reports
-
Webster & Park Streetscape Projects - CM Wolfe
None
-
Theater & Garage Project - CM's Cervantes and Rosenberg
None
9.
Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
PAAC Meeting
4
Minutes
June 23, 2005",PublicArtCommission/2005-06-23.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2005-09-28,1,"CITT
MINUTES OF PUBLIC ART ADVISORY COMMITTEE
the
MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 28, 2005
(Revised 2/7/06)
DATE:
Wednesday, September 28, 2005
TIME:
7:00 p.m.
PLACE:
City Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Third Floor, Room 360
Alameda, CA 94501
1.
Roll Call:
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m.
Present:
Chair (C) Huston, VC Lee, Committee Members (CM) Cecilia
Cervantes (late), K.C. Rosenberg, and Peter Wolfe
Staff:
Christina Bailey, Secretary, Public Art Commission
Christa Johnson, Assistant to the City Manager (A2CM)
2.
Approval of Minutes
A.
Minutes of Meeting on June 23, 2005
On page 2, Section 5A, paragraph 2, CM Wolfe wished to make clear that
his understanding was that the Development Services Department was
going to allot Public Art funds for the restoration of the theater and that it
should be done at a publicly accessible area.
M/S/C
Rosenberg/Cervantes
(approved)
""That Minutes of Public Art Advisory Committee Meeting on June 23,
2005 be approved with changes.'
Approved (4) - Huston, Cervantes, Rosenberg, Wolfe
Abstain (1) - Lee
3.
Oral Communications
(Any person may address the Committee in regard to any matter over which
the Commission has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance that is
not on the agenda.)
Secretary Bailey stated that the Public Art website would be moved from
the Recreation & Parks website, to the Planning & Building Department's
website. She asked whether members wanted to be recognized as
PAC Meeting
1
Minutes
September 28, 2005",PublicArtCommission/2005-09-28.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2005-09-28,2,"Commission Members on the site. PAC members agreed that they should
be listed. CM Cervantes asked that her e-mail could be included as well.
4.
Written Communications
None.
5.
Old Business
A. Update on South Shore Shopping Center - (Oral Presentation)
-
Tad Savinar, Art Consultant, Harsch Investment
Properties
Before Commission's conference call with Mr. Savinar, they discussed
the project. CM Rosenberg asked whether they can place additional
pieces after they have met the Ordinance's requirements. C Huston
answered in the affirmative. CM Rosenberg went on to ask if Mr.
Savinar could bring in only those projects that meet the funding
threshold. The process would be streamlined if he could be more
specific. Secretary Bailey suggested that they address the issue when
they spoke with Mr. Savinar. CM Wolfe inquired as to whether or not
the artists have considered where their art will be placed in the mall.
During the call, Mr. Savinar explained two goals for this
presentation/discussion. First, that everyone understands what has
been presented to date with an opportunity for further comments.
Second, the ability to move forward with the actual application process
and obtain the correct forms.
He went on to explain that South Shore Shopping Center will be in a
Craftsman style, indigenous to the area. One cause for the delay in
bringing the project before the PAC was that new alleyways and
circulation paths have been devised.
Mr. Savinar stated that the developer is interested in using local artists
whenever possible. He went on to speak about three artists whose
work will be featured throughout the center; Ake Grunditz and JaYing
Wang of Alameda, and John Laursen from Portland, OR. The works
will carry regional or Alameda-specific imagery. The Public Art will be
featured throughout the center.
C Huston stated that she was hungry to see the artists' own style, while
CM Rosenberg emphasized being able to see the artists' voice in their
pieces.
CM Rosenberg expressed her desire to see how the art will relate to the
setting. Mr. Savinar stated that the landscape artist has been charged
PAC Meeting
2
Minutes
September 28, 2005",PublicArtCommission/2005-09-28.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2005-09-28,3,"with making the interior circulation areas that of a neighborhood scale,
not a large shopping center. He likened it to walking through a gallery
or museum, not a plaza or square.
Mr. Savinar concludes the presentation by explaining that his client is
one of the most aggressive print collectors in the United States. The
client wants the collection at South Shore to be family-oriented and
appealing to the masses, but not watered down; however, he has
rejected some pieces with ""edge.' C Huston reiterated her desire for
originality in the pieces. She went on to state that opportunities for
innovation can be used in subtle ways through material and scale for
instance.
After the presentation, the PAC discusses South Shore further. A2CM
Johnson stated that the $150,000 does not all go towards the public art
piece. After the administrative and consultant fees, approximately
$97,500 will be left for actual pieces. Mr. Savinar should consider that
transportation and recognition plaques are included in the amount.
CM Rosenberg stated that the Laursen work would most likely have a
positive outcome after PAC review. CM Wolfe expressed his desire to
see how the Laursen panels would be placed throughout the center.
B. Update on Library Project - (Oral Report)
Secretary Bailey stated that the PAC received documents in their July
Agenda Packets that gave further background information on the
ongoing library project. This includes a memo sent to the Mayor and
City Council by Susan Hardie, retired Library Director. It explained the
background of the Public Art process, including the approval process
carried out by the PAAC on July 21, 2004.
Secretary Bailey added that funding for Masayuki Nagase's eight
medallions, Cadence of the Water, has been secured. The medallions
have the highest priority, because they are required to be installed
during construction. She also shared that an article had been featured
in the Alameda Journal on Tuesday, July 26. It pictured Masayuki
carving giant stone, similar to that which will be used for the library.
C. Update on Bay Ship and Yacht - (Oral Report)
Secretary Bailey explained that the Planning & Building Department
received a letter from Cris Craft, Chief Engineer representing Bay Ship
& Yacht, on August 5, 2005. He questioned whether the Public Art
Ordinance applied to their project, since they are the tenants and their
PAC Meeting
3
Minutes
September 28, 2005",PublicArtCommission/2005-09-28.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2005-09-28,4,"project was an improvement. He requested a credit for the amount
already paid for the Administrative Fee.
The Building Official and Deputy City Attorney reviewed the Ordinance
and the project, and found that the construction effort does trigger the
art fee imposed. The project was deemed a major improvement, which
included the construction of a new building. The term ""Tenant
Improvements"" is commonly used in leases and entails interior
improvements performed or installed by the tenant. The City's
response was sent to Mr. Craft on September 8, 2005.
D. Update on Bridgeside Shopping Center - (Oral Report)
Secretary Bailey explained that she has spoken with Bruce Qualls from
Regency Centers, contact person from Bridgeside. Doug Wiele is no
longer the contact person, and he did not make Mr. Qualls aware of the
Ordinance. A Public Art packet, including Guidelines and Ordinance,
was sent to Mr. Qualls.
On September 23, Secretary Bailey spoke with Barbara Price, CEO of
PK Consultants, who is representing Bridgeside Shopping Center. She
expressed her desire to submit an application for Public Art soon.
According to initial permit valuations, $40,000 will be required for Public
Art at the Nob Hill store ($10,000 administrative fee); $23,000 will be
required for Public Art at the Fueling Station ($5750.00 administration
fee).
CM Rosenberg asked if there were still plans to create an amphitheater.
Secretary Bailey stated that the issue had been brought up. CM
Rosenberg went on to express that the applicant be made aware that
not all nautical items should be considered public art.
VC Lee asked where all the imagery of the shipping industry came
from. She was under the impression that Alameda had been settled as
a residential community. CM Rosenberg stated that unique moments in
history should be incorporated into the projects.
E. Status of Annual Report, Next Steps - (Oral Report)
A2CM Johnson stated that an Annual Report is given to the City
Council when there is money in the Public Art In-Lieu Fund. If there is
no money, no report is needed. At this time, the fund has collected no
money.
F. City of Emeryville Artist List - (Oral Report)
PAC Meeting
4
Minutes
September 28, 2005",PublicArtCommission/2005-09-28.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2005-09-28,5,"Secretary Bailey explained that C Huston obtained the list from the City
of Emeryville. C Huston stated that it is a viable list, which is strong on
individuals and weak on organizations. CM Rosenberg stated that
organizations can be added as they are found. CM Wolfe stated that
art organizations are important, since they broadcast opportunities to
individuals.
Secretary Bailey explained that the program does not have the required
funds to keep all the artists for every project's mailing list. Call for
Artists can still be sent to large publications and art organizations, or the
list can be drastically reduced from over 1000 artists. C Huston now
states that the list could be edited to art organizations, art publications,
and Alameda/Oakland artists.
6.
New Business
A. Reappointment for Karen Lee and K.C. Rosenberg - (Oral Report)
Secretary Bailey stated that the Mayor reappointed VC Lee and CM
Rosenberg to another term. They were appointed at the City Council
meeting on Tuesday, September 20. They were previously appointed
to a two-year term in November 2003.
7.
Subcommittee Reports
-
Theater & Garage Project - CM's Cervantes and Rosenberg
CM's Cervantes and Rosenberg explained the process that went into
selecting the three finalists for the Civic Center Parking Structure Art
project. CM Rosenberg stated that it was a competitive process, with a
stylistically diverse pool of applicants. She was impressed that the artists
were interested in using the technology requested, and they knew to what
they were responding.
Secretary Bailey stated that six (6) applications were submitted. C Huston
stated that there should have been more applicants. She asked how much
advance notice was given to publications. Secretary Bailey stated that
notices went out a month in advance. C Huston stated that at least four (4)
weeks are needed to be published, and six (6) weeks to run in order to
generate more applications.
CM Cervantes asked when the Request for Proposals would be sent out.
Secretary Bailey stated that Development Services has been busy and the
RFP has yet to be sent out. The artists will have about a month and a half
to submit their conceptual design.
PAC Meeting
5
Minutes
September 28, 2005",PublicArtCommission/2005-09-28.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2005-09-28,6,"8.
Commissioner Communications
None.
9.
Upcoming Meeting Dates
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Wednesday, November 23, 2005
Wednesday, December 28, 2005
CM Cervantes suggested that the November meeting be moved to
November 30. C Huston suggested canceling December date due to the
holidays.
""That November meeting date be changed from November 23 to
November 30, and that the December meeting be cancelled be
approved.'
M/S/C
Huston/Rosenberg
(approved)
Approved (5) - Huston, Lee, Cervantes, Rosenberg, Wolfe
10.
Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m.
PAC Meeting
6
Minutes
September 28, 2005",PublicArtCommission/2005-09-28.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2005-11-30,1,"CITY
OF
&
$
MINUTES OF PUBLIC ART COMMISSION
MEETING OF NOVEMBER 30, 2005
(Revised: 2/7/06)
DATE:
Wednesday, November 30, 2005
TIME:
7:00 p.m.
PLACE:
City Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Third Floor, Room 360
Alameda, CA 94501
1.
Roll Call:
The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m.
Present:
Chair (C) Huston, Vice Chair (VC) Lee, Committee Members (CM)
Cecilia Cervantes (late), and Peter Wolfe
Absent:
Committee Member (CM) K.C. Rosenberg
Staff:
Christina Bailey, Secretary, Public Art Commission
Christa Johnson, Assistant to the City Manager (A2CM)
2.
Approval of Minutes
A.
Minutes of Meeting on September 28, 2005
CM Wolfe asked that the following be added at the end of the change in item 2A
paragraph 1, ""and that it should be done at a publically accessible area.'
C Huston asked that the following change be made to item 5A paragraph 3, ""He
went on to explain that South Shore Shopping Center will be in a Craftsman
style, indigenous to the area."" C Huston asked that the following be added to
paragraph 7, ""She went on to state that opportunities for innovation can be used
in subtle ways through material and scale for instance.""
C Huston asked that the following change be made to item 5F paragraph 2, ""C
Huston now states that the list could be edited to art organizations, art
publications, and Alameda/Oakland artists.""
C Huston asked that the following change be made to item 7 paragraph 2, ""C
Huston stated that at least four (4) weeks are needed to be published, and six (6)
weeks to run in order to generate more applications.""
M/S/C
Lee/Wolfe
(approved)
""That Minutes of Public Art Advisory Committee Meeting on September 28,
2005 be approved with changes.""
PAC Meeting
1
Revised Minutes
November 30, 2005",PublicArtCommission/2005-11-30.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2005-11-30,2,"Approved (3) - Huston, Lee, Wolfe
Absent (2) - Cervantes, Rosenberg
3.
Oral Communications
(Any person may address the Committee in regard to any matter over which the
Commission has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance that is not on the
agenda.)
Linda, the Community Relations representative from Wind River attended as an
observer. She stated that she was collecting information on the responsibilities of
various art organizations throughout Alameda. She expressed Wind River's
interest in creating a relationship with local artists and organizations. The
company would like to have on-site exhibitions, but would be limited to only public
receptions.
4.
Written Communications - NONE
5.
Old Business
A. Update on Alameda Towne Centre - (Discussion Item)
-
Tad Savinar, Art Consultant, Harsch Investment Properties
Tad Savinar updated the PAC on public art at Alameda Towne Centre. He
expressed a desire to clarify some issues that arose during a previous phone
conversation with the PAC. He displayed two life-size drafts of panels for the
John Laursen Project. He explained that the artist has visited Alameda in
order to conduct research. The panels will be full color (tonation of the era),
baked enamel; each will have title block. The artist will likely start the project
with twelve panels, with hopes of adding more.
C Huston asked if the panel project would be a historical, informative, well-
executed storytelling thing, or would it be art. Mr. Savinar stated that the
project would be historically informative. C Huston questioned the project's
conceptual depth. CM Wolfe interjected that a good narrative could make a
difference in the final product. Mr. Savinar added that the proposed subjects
do not include images of parks or families, and most are taken around the turn
of the 20th century. CM Cervantes stated that families are changing, and this
diversity would be good to capture. C Huston stated that the project does not
have to tell all the stories of Alameda; it does not have to be all things to all
people. She went on to ask the PAC if a historically based, design focused
project is acceptable.
CM Wolfe stated that art can take a narrative form. CM Cervantes added that
one of the program's missions was to provide opportunities for lifelong
learning, and this project passes information on to the centre's visitors. VC
PAC Meeting
2
Revised Minutes
November 30, 2005",PublicArtCommission/2005-11-30.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2005-11-30,3,"Lee suggested that the panel project be given a title and subtitle, in order to
pull the series of images together. She went on to state that if this project
were a book, it would have a title. CM Wolfe asked if ADA standards for print
size and height of posted items applied to this project. Mr. Savinar stated that
according to Federal Guidelines, those standards do not apply to public art.
Another artist the client is considering is John Buck. He is a sculptor of human
scaled pieces, who would create one or two figurative pieces cast in bronze.
C Huston remarked on the similar nature of Buck's work to that of Michael
Carey, an artist working with the New Main Library. Despite being similar to
Carey's, C Huston stated that Buck's work does have a sophistication and
complexity to it. She stated that part of the goal set by the Guidelines is to
give Alameda a keen range.
In closing, Mr. Savinar's assumption was that the panel project would continue
with an emphasis on developing a conceptual thread. In reference to the Buck
piece, Mr. Savinar understands that the piece needs to be different from the
Carey piece; the pieces with stronger geometric design are intellectually more
interesting. CM Wolfe thanked Mr. Savinar for coming before the PAC early
on in the process.
B. Presentation on Bridgeside Shopping Center - (Discussion/Action Item)
-
Barbara Price, CEO / PK Consultants, Inc.
Barbara Price explains that PK Consultants, Inc. is involved in government
and community outreach and affairs; their role is to work with the community
on the process and do outreach for their clients. C Huston asked if an art
consultant had been chosen for the project. Ms. Price stated that an art
consultant was not hired, since her client is using existing, nautical pieces.
Bruce Qualls, developer for Regency Centers, shared that the center's
anticipated opening is in Fall 2006. It has been a complicated process that
started in 2000, involving the San Francisco Bay Conservation and
Development Commission (BCDC) as well as the Army Corps of Engineers.
He stated that the Bay Trail will run along the frontage of the property, and will
be landscaped.
Clay, architect for Regency Centers, stated that representatives from both
BCDC and the City of Alameda's Planning and Building Department
suggested that focal points be created throughout the center. Three focal
points are being proposed, which will feature interpretive signage about the
history of the channel. There will be an anchor, a bollard and mast, and a
propeller and cleats. In addition to these pieces, an amphitheater is being
proposed for the corner of the property closest to the Fruitvale Bridge. CM
Cervantes inquired as to the capacity of the amphitheater; Clay stated
approximately 25 people, depending on the event.
PAC Meeting
3
Revised Minutes
November 30, 2005",PublicArtCommission/2005-11-30.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2005-11-30,4,"Ms. Price stated that the performance area was suggested by BCDC, as a
multi-use area; they wanted to encourage the use of the area in relation to its
setting at the foot of the Fruitvale Bridge. C Huston explained that an item that
meets requirements for BCDC does not necessarily meet the requirements set
by the Public Art Ordinance and Guidelines.
C Huston asked the Bridgeside team how placing nautical elements makes
them art. Clay stated that they are items of interest, which enhance the
environment and one's experience of it. CM Wolfe stated that the pieces are
very interesting artifacts to the project, but are not clearly being presented as
art. The intent and theme of the pieces is good, but they really do not fit into
the Guidelines. Mr. Qualls shared that at one time, they thought of welding all
the items together into one massive piece.
Mr. Qualls stated that the Public Art budget for the project is approximately
$35,000. A2CM Johnson inquired as to how that figure was calculated. Mr.
Qualls stated that the project is $17 million, there is a 22,000 increase in
square footage (21% difference), and the Public Art requirement is 1% of the
total cost. C Huston explained that if their allocation is $35,000, then that
amount needs to be clearly used for Public Art.
C Huston offered suggestions for meeting their Public Art requirement. The
center could sponsor concerts for the next two years; a performance schedule
would be acceptable. It could sponsor a residency program to bring in artists
on a regular basis to work on salvage and pay them $5,000/year for the next
seven years; those pieces could then be displayed throughout the center. She
shared that an artist landscaped the Getty Gardens in Malibu, in such a
provocative way, that one does not see a garden.
C Huston expressed her appreciation in seeing a client consider the
community in their concept.
C. Update on Civic Center Parking Structure Art Project - (Oral Report)
The group for a Megaplex-Free Alameda filed a lawsuit on Monday, October 3.
The suit, filed in Alameda Superior Court, is an effort to require the City of
Alameda to perform a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on the proposed
7-screen Cineplex and parking garage as required by law.
As a result, Development Services is delaying the issuance of the Public Art
RFP for the garage until the Call for Bids for the garage and the rehab of the
theater (January 2006) are sent out. Letters were sent out to the finalists
informing them of the delay.
D. Revised Art Organization List - (Oral Report)
PAC Meeting
4
Revised Minutes
November 30, 2005",PublicArtCommission/2005-11-30.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2005-11-30,5,"A revised list of Art Organizations was given to the PAC for review. The
revised list contains art organizations throughout California. In comparison,
the revised list saves $170.00 in postage per mailing.
C Huston expressed a concern that a letter sent to some of the included
organizations would be a letter lost. She stated that one of the PAC members
should take the lead and find the appropriate organizations. She suggested
that either CM Rosenberg or herself assume this task.
6.
New Business
A. Update on Washington Park Recreation Building - (Oral Report)
A conceptual drawing of the new Recreation Building at Washington Park was
presented at the September 15 meeting of the Recreation & Park
Commission. Patrick Russi, Recreation Supervisor, stated that ARPD would
come before the PAC in early 2006 to present their plan for public art on the
site.
B. Update on Harbor Island Community Center - (Oral Report)
Barbara Price represents Kennedy Wilson, the new owners of the Harbor
Island Apartments. The complex will be market-rate, family-oriented
apartments. Buildings will have upgraded textures and materials; buildings
will no longer be flat along the top. Residents should be back in the units by
the end of the first quarter 2006.
Ms. Price asserts that Kennedy Wilson is committed to the arts. They asked
the College of Alameda for a referral, in hopes of commissioning an artist to
create a freestanding sculpture. They have also adopted Chipman Middle
School.
The Clubhouse/Community Center has been submitted for approval. It will be
6000 sq. ft. in total: 4000 for public space and 1500 for leasing office and
restrooms (for pool). The Clubhouse is anticipated to open by October 2006.
C Huston inquired as to whether the community center will be for the public,
or only for residents of the complex. Ms. Price stated that the center could be
available for groups from the community to use. The client is looking to make
available the center for community-based organizations for meetings, as long
as it does not usurp resident-oriented events. C Huston stated that the
Guidelines would not be met by having artwork inside a building, which is not
available to those living outside the complex. Ms. Price explained that the
client has discussed hosting two or three shows for Frank Bette Center for the
Arts, or hosting receptions for new artists. C Huston stated that the public art
PAC Meeting
5
Revised Minutes
November 30, 2005",PublicArtCommission/2005-11-30.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2005-11-30,6,"needs to infiltrate and benefit the public in some way. It needs to provide
something bigger that the Frank Bette Center could or would not have done
themselves, like bringing in an important exhibition or being able to curate it.
Ms. Price asked if the client could sponsor an event off-site; C Huston
answered in the affirmative.
Ms. Price explained that the new name of the complex would be Summer
House Apartments, which comes from the historical context of Alameda being
the summer home for San Francisco residents.
C. Update on Bayport Community Center - (Oral Report)
This is a joint project between the City of Alameda (ARPD) and the Alameda
Unified School District (AUSD). The building will belong to ARPD and the
property belongs to AUSD. As of right now, plans are being developed and a
bid package is being compiled. This project could be exempt from public art if
the City chooses to appeal. Based on the current budget, it is unclear as to
whether or not there will be sufficient funding for public art on the site.
7.
Subcommittee Reports - NONE
-
Theater & Garage Project - CM's Cervantes and Rosenberg
8.
Commissioner Communications
PAC discussed the idea of providing applicants with more detailed information in
the Guidelines regarding expectations of art quality, quantity of seating at venues,
etc.
C Huston suggested that the PAC take the provided 2006 Meeting Schedule home
to compare it to their schedules and bring back for review during the January
meeting.
9.
Upcoming Meeting Dates
December Meeting - CANCELLED
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
10.
Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
PAC Meeting
6
Revised Minutes
November 30, 2005",PublicArtCommission/2005-11-30.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2006-01-25,1,"CITT
$
MINUTES OF PUBLIC ART COMMISSION
MEETING OF JANUARY 25, 2006
CO.
DATE:
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
TIME:
7:00 p.m.
PLACE:
City Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Third Floor, Room 360
Alameda, CA 94501
1.
Roll Call:
The meeting was called to order at 7:06 p.m.
Present:
Chair (C) Huston, Vice Chair (VC) Lee, Committee Members (CM)
Cecilia Cervantes, K.C. Rosenberg (late) and Peter Wolfe (late)
Staff:
Christina Bailey, Secretary, Public Art Commission
Lucretia Akil, Acting Assistant to the City Manager
2.
Approval of Minutes
A.
Minutes of Meeting on November 30, 2005
M/S/C
Cervantes/Wolfe
(approved)
""That Minutes of Public Art Advisory Committee Meeting on November 30,
2005 be approved with changes.""
Approved (4) - Huston, Lee, Cervantes, and Wolfe
Abstain (1) - Rosenberg
3.
Oral Communications
(Any person may address the Committee in regard to any matter over which the
Commission has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance that is not on the
agenda.)
Secretary Bailey reported that Christa Johnson recently took the position of
Assistant Town Manager of Windsor, and introduced Lucretia Akil, Acting
Assistant to the City Manager.
Secretary Bailey reported that Amanda Kruger, a teacher from BASE High School
(Bay Area School of Enterprise), contacted her about a student mural, and
requested an opportunity to present their ideas to the PAC.
PAC Meeting
1
Minutes
January 25, 2006",PublicArtCommission/2006-01-25.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2006-01-25,2,"Secretary Bailey asked if any Commissioner wished to represent the PAC as a
judge at the 40th Annual Sand Castle and Sculpture Contest on June 17.
C
Huston accepted the post.
4.
Written Communications
- NONE
5.
Old Business
A. Update on Alameda Towne Centre - (Oral Report)
Secretary Bailey stated that Tad Savinar, Art Consultant for Alameda Towne
Centre, communicated that the last $7,500 is being identified for onsite public
art.
B. Update on Civic Center Parking Structure Art Project - (Oral Report)
Secretary Bailey stated that Jennifer Ott, Development Manager for
Development Services, reported that the RFP for the Civic Center Parking
Structure Mural would most likely be sent out in February.
6.
New Business
A. Boards & Commissions Handbook - (Discussion Item)
CM Wolfe suggested that changes be made to the PAC description on page
13. Secretary Bailey stated that she would check with the City Clerk's Office.
CM Cervantes suggested waiting to hear back from the City Clerk's Office
before proceeding with revisions. She recommended agendizing the item for
the February meeting.
M/S/C Cervantes/Wolfe
(approved)
""That the item of revising the PAC description, on page 13, of the
Boards and Commissions Handbook be agendized for the next regular
meeting on February 22.""
Approved (5) - Huston, Lee, Cervantes, Rosenberg, Wolfe
Secretary Bailey stated that items to be agendized should be provided to
staff, in order to be placed in agenda packets. Packets are mailed out the
Friday before each meeting.
CM Rosenberg expressed concerns about discussing projects in front of
applicants. C Huston questioned whether their discussion is appropriate for
the applicant to hear, since each member is explaining how the project meets
PAC Meeting
2
Minutes
January 25, 2006",PublicArtCommission/2006-01-25.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2006-01-25,3,"the criteria. Staff member Akil stated that the Commission's deliberations
must be public. C Huston asked staff to inquire as to whether or not a closed
session would be appropriate for project deliberations.
B. One-page summary of Guideline requirements - (Discussion Item)
C Huston and VC Lee presented a draft summary page designed to reduce
confusion about the, public art application process and guidelines.
The PAC discussed document wording and format.
C. Process of writing responses to applicants - (Discussion Item)
Secretary Bailey explained that a response letter is sent to applicants who
submit formal applications. C Huston asked if subcommittees could be
established to craft applicant responses. CM Cervantes inquired as to
whether the PAC could invite the applicant to a pre-review meeting and then
give final feedback during the next regular meeting. C Huston responded
that, according to the Guidelines, the applicant is not required to attend
multiple review meetings. CM Rosenberg added that the PAC needs to
emphasize that applicants come to meetings early in the process, before
formal applications are ever submitted.
M/S/C
Huston/Rosenberg
(approved)
""That the item of creating subcommittees to craft applicant responses
be approved, with possible pre-meeting review sessions.""
Approved (5) - Huston, Lee, Cervantes, Rosenberg, Wolfe
7.
Subcommittee Reports
- NONE
8.
Commissioner Communications
C Huston suggested offering applicants a brief description of existing Public Art
works to assist applicants.
VC Lee reported that she had attended an open house for Alameda Landing.
She spoke with an architect/planner named Karen Alschuler, who was interested
in the Public Art Program. VC Lee asked if Secretary Bailey could send Ms.
Alschuler a Public Art packet.
C Huston asked if one PAC member could call Tad Savinar, Art Consultant for
Alameda Towne Centre, in order to check in on its process. CM Wolfe stated
PAC Meeting
3
Minutes
January 25, 2006",PublicArtCommission/2006-01-25.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2006-01-25,4,"that it is essential for the PAC to reach out to applicants, and agreed to contact
Mr. Savinar.
9.
Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m.
PAC Meeting
4
Minutes
January 25, 2006",PublicArtCommission/2006-01-25.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2006-02-22,1,"CITT
$
MINUTES OF PUBLIC ART COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 22, 2006
CO.
DATE:
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
TIME:
7:00 p.m.
PLACE:
City Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Third Floor, Room 360
Alameda, CA 94501
1.
Roll Call:
The meeting was called to order at 7:03 p.m.
Present:
Chair Huston, Vice Chair Lee, Commissioners Cecilia Cervantes*,
K.C. Rosenberg and Peter Wolfe*
Staff:
Andrew Thomas, Staff Member
Christina Bailey, Staff Member
*arrived after roll call
2.
Approval of Minutes
A.
Minutes of Meeting on January 25, 2006
M/S/C
Lee/Wolfe
(approved)
""That Minutes of Public Art Commission Meeting on January 25, 2006 be
approved.""
Approved (4) - Huston, Lee, Rosenberg, and Wolfe
Absent (1) - Cervantes
3.
Oral Communications
- NONE
4.
Written Communications
- NONE
5.
New Business
A. Presentation by Cathy Woodbury, Planning & Building Director
PAC Meeting
1
February 22, 2006",PublicArtCommission/2006-02-22.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2006-02-22,2,"Cathy Woodbury, Planning & Building Director, introduced herself and
reported on Commission staffing. Andrew Thomas, Supervising Planner,
introduced himself and explained department's role in the Public Art process.
B. Presentation by Terry Highsmith, City Attorney's Office
Assistant City Attorney Terry Highsmith provided an overview of the Ralph M.
Brown Act.
6.
Old Business
A. Draft Public Art Handout (Quick Guide)
The Commission commented on the draft document wording and content, and
directed staff to bring a revised draft to the next regular meeting.
7.
Subcommittee Reports
Commissioner Wolfe reported that he had spoken to Tad Savinar, Art Consultant
for Alameda Towne Centre. He learned that Mr. Savinar is in the process of
looking for approximately $7,500.00 in additional Public Art.
8.
Commissioner Communications
- NONE
9.
Staff Communications
Staff member Thomas distributed a Public Art Status Report. Chair Huston asked
if two items could be added: 1) estimated time frame of project, 2) single- or multi-
phased project. Staff agreed to keep the report updated for each regularly
scheduled meeting.
A. Revisions to PAC description in Boards and Commissions Handbook
Staff member Bailey reported that City Clerk's office would revise the description.
The Commission discussed revised wording for the PAC description. Staff
agreed to bring a revised draft to the next regular meeting.
B. Update on BASE High School Student Mural
Staff member Thomas reported that he had spoken to Amanda Kruger, teacher
at BASE High School about their proposed mural project. He added that the
Development Services Department might be interested in placing the mural on
the construction fencing for the Theater/Parking Structure Project.
10. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m.
PAC Meeting
2
February 22, 2006",PublicArtCommission/2006-02-22.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2006-05-24,1,"CITT
$
MINUTES OF PUBLIC ART COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING OF MAY 24, 2006
CO.
DATE:
Wednesday, May 24, 2006
TIME:
7:00 p.m.
PLACE:
City Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Third Floor, Room 360
Alameda, CA 94501
1.
Roll Call:
The meeting was called to order at 7:08 p.m.
Present:
Chair (C) Huston, Vice Chair (VC) Lee, Commission Members (CM)
Cecilia Cervantes, K.C. Rosenberg, and Peter Wolfe
Staff:
Andrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager
Doug Vu, Planner III
Andria DeBose, Staff Member
2.
Approval of Minutes
A. Minutes of Meeting on February 22, 2006
Commission continued consideration of February 22, 2006 meeting minutes.
3.
Oral Communications
(Any person may address the Committee in regard to any matter over which the
Commission has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance that is not on the
agenda.)
The Commission and staff discussed the approach and format used to prepare
staff reports and resolutions for approval. In particular, C Huston sought
clarification as to how staff determines that a proposed project is in compliance
with the requirements of the Public Art Ordinance and how staff recommendations
should be formatted. Staff described the approach used to prepare staff reports
and resolutions and agreed to work with the Commission to refine the format.
Andrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager introduced Doug Vu, Planner III to
the Commission.
4.
Written Communications
-None.
PAC Meeting Minutes
1
May 24, 2006",PublicArtCommission/2006-05-24.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2006-05-24,2,"5.
New Business
- None
6.
Old Business
A. Presentation on Alameda Towne Centre
Tad Savinar, Art Consultant presented the Alameda Towne Centre Public Art
proposal. He described the proposed sculpture by Brad Rude and introduced
artist John Larsen, who presented the interpretive panels depicting important
historic events or places in Alameda.
The Public Art Commission reviewed the materials and continued further
consideration of the proposal to a special meeting of the Public Art
Commission scheduled for June 7, 2006
B. Public Art Handout (Quick Guide)
The Public Art Commission approved the Public Art Handout with minor
revisions.
C. Revisions to PAC description in Boards and Commissions Handbook
The Public Art Commission approved the board description with minor
revisions.
7.
Subcommittee Reports
- NONE
8.
Commissioner Communications
- NONE
9.
Staff Communications
- NONE
10. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
PAC Meeting Minutes
2
May 24, 2006",PublicArtCommission/2006-05-24.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2006-06-07,1,"CITT
$
MINUTES OF PUBLIC ART COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING OF JUNE 7, 2006
CO.
DATE:
Wednesday, June 7, 2006
TIME:
7:00 p.m.
PLACE:
City Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Third Floor, Room 360
Alameda, CA 94501
1.
Roll Call:
The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m.
Present:
Chair (C) Huston, Vice Chair (VC) Lee, Commission Members (CM)
K.C. Rosenberg (late), and Peter Wolfe
Absent:
Cecilia Cervantes
Staff:
Andrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager
Doug Vu, Secretary, Public Art Commission
2.
Approval of Minutes
A. Minutes of Meeting on May 24, 2006
M/S/C
Wolfe/Lee
(approved)
""That Minutes of Public Art Commission Meeting on May 24, 2006 be
approved.""
Approved (4) - Huston, Lee, Rosenberg, and Wolfe
Absent (1) - Cervantes
3.
Oral Communications
(Any person may address the Committee in regard to any matter over which the
Commission has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance that is not on the
agenda.)
C Lee initiated and the Commission discussed Millennium Park in Chicago and
how art creates an experience. The Commission also discussed the idea of art in
context with regard to the Alameda Towne Centre project. Examples were cited
from the ""Webster"" side of Alameda where the diverse population is reflected.
4.
Written Communications
PAC Meeting Minutes
1
June 7, 2006",PublicArtCommission/2006-06-07.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2006-06-07,2,"-NONE
5.
New Business
-NONE
6.
Old Business
A. Alameda Towne Centre
The Commission discussed conformity issues with regard to the Conditions of
Approval. It was also confirmed that the artwork's identification plaque include
the City's logo, as required by the Public Art Ordinance. Concern regarding
maintenance of the artwork and public access (with regard to ADA) was also
addressed.
The Commission considered the success of the applicant's proposed interpretive
historic panels for the Towne Centre in meeting the Ordinance's criteria. After a
thorough discussion of the proposal, the Commission confirmed the interpretive
panels' success in meeting the criteria. In addition, C Huston stated the desire
for the piece to include a plaque that identified the artist and included a statement
about him, including his photograph.
The Commission then considered the success of the applicant's proposed Brad
Rude sculpture for the Towne Centre in meeting the Ordinance's criteria. The
sculpture's color, size, scale, and artistic merit were subjectively evaluated in
addition to its adherence to the Ordinance's criteria. The Commission agreed the
sculpture was more pleasing as opposed to provocative and would complement
the color scheme and surrounding environment of the Towne Centre.
M/S/C
Huston/Lee
(approved)
""That the public art proposal for the Alameda Towne Centre by the
applicant, Harsch Investment Properties, consisting of the interpretive
panels by John Larsen and the sculpture by Brad Rude meets the approval
criteria of the City's Public Art Ordinance.""
Approved (4) - Huston, Lee, Rosenberg, Wolfe
Absent (1) - Cervantes
7.
Subcommittee Reports
CM Rosenberg reported that the subcommittee would review proposals for the
parking garage wall media project on June 26, 2006 and report back to the
Commission at a later date with a recommendation.
PAC Meeting Minutes
2
June 7, 2006",PublicArtCommission/2006-06-07.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2006-06-07,3,"8.
Commissioner Communications
C Huston reiterated agreed upon staff and Commission roles and responsibilities
for reviewing public art proposals. Staff and the Commission will jointly craft
reports and staff will not make recommendations for approval, only present facts
and findings that proposals are technically complete/compliant.
9.
Staff Communications
Staff proposed that the Commission's regularly scheduled June 28, 2006 meeting
be cancelled. CM Rosenberg stated that the parking garage wall media project
may warrant discussion and that staff should confirm this with Jennifer Ott from
Development Services Department prior to canceling the meeting.
10.
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 8:50 pm.
PAC Meeting Minutes
3
June 7, 2006",PublicArtCommission/2006-06-07.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2006-07-26,1,"CITT
$
MINUTES OF PUBLIC ART COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 26, 2006
CO.
DATE:
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
TIME:
7:00 p.m.
PLACE:
Recreation and Parks Department, 2226 Santa Clara Avenue,
Third Floor, Room 360
Alameda, CA 94501
1.
CONVENE:
The meeting was called to order at 7:10 p.m.
2.
ROLL CALL: Chair (C) Huston, Vice Chair (VC) Lee, Commission Members
(CM) K.C. Rosenberg and Peter Wolfe
Absent:
Cecilia Cervantes
Staff:
Andrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager (Absent)
Doug Vu, Secretary, Public Art Commission
Andria DeBose, Staff Member
3.
Approval of Minutes
A.
Minutes of Meeting on June 28, 2006
C/VC/CM/Staff (distributed and approved)
""Minutes of Public Art Commission Meeting on June 28, 2006 be
approved.""
Approved (4) - Huston, Lee, Rosenberg, and Wolfe
Absent (1) - Cervantes
4.
Oral Communications
(Any person may address the Committee in regard to any matter over which the
Commission has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance that is not on the
agenda.)
June 28, 2006 Minutes were distributed, edited, amended, and approved.
5.
Written Communications
-NONE
PAC Meeting Minutes
1
July 26, 2006",PublicArtCommission/2006-07-26.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2006-07-26,2,"5.
New Business
-NONE
6.
Old Business
A. Alameda Towne Center
Chair inquired as to why two different drafts of the proposal were issued. Tad
was given a draft for his review that encouraged his edits and comments when
the commission did not feel that was his position. Staff explained that Tad
received a different draft per previous discussions and agreement between
Andrew and Tad. Prior discussions regarding the ""Brown Act"" and discussions
with the Commissioner resulted in the special review of only C Huston and Tad
review the draft at this time. C Rosenberg requested they be given a copy of the
draft upon completion for the PAC to review. Staff agreed to distribute to the
entire commission upon completed draft. Commission requested written
communication upon next meeting for review. Commission and staff agreed.
C/VC/CM/Staff
Approved (4) - Huston, Lee, Rosenberg, Wolfe
Absent (1) - Cervantes
7.
Subcommittee Reports
A. Theater and Garage Project
SC met with the City/Client and reviewed the current two submitted artist murals
however, the council was not impressed with the current selections. They didn't
feel the work was the artist strongest or best selections. They requested Jennifer
Ott attend the council meeting in the future and supply the committee with
additional artist for review and consideration. Jennifer and Staff will review the
artist concepts and context of murals prior to the review of the SC. SC
recommended the artist have a stronger and more narrative ""pitch"". Staff will
check with Jennifer Ott and the artist prior to the sub-proposal. SC discussed that
the Garage piece is a temporary canvas. Staff will confirm with Jennifer
Ott
regarding permanent nature of piece.
8.
Commissioner Communications
C Huston asked about the status of ""Bridge Side"". Staff stated project was
recently assigned to him and current status unknown. Commissioner stated they
previously made recommendations upon the ""early"" sketches that the PUC stay in
contact with the commission, but no contact has been kept. There was also earlier
discussion regarding the budget and calculation of the sculpture. They were
waiting to find out what 1% of the proposed budget cost would be of the project.
The previous figure given by the artist was $35,000.00 which didn't add up to the
PAC Meeting Minutes
2
July 26, 2006",PublicArtCommission/2006-07-26.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2006-07-26,3,"commission.
The PAC's ""Bridge Side"" actual budget is estimated over
$205,000,000.00. There was also to be further discussion regarding the ""Summer
House Apartments"". ""Summer House"" has now been found to be renting without
the further discussion of council. Staff to look into results of ""Summer House""
project.
Commission remembers discussing the status of the ""Stone"" piece, the John Buck
piece, and the stone plaque located behind the circulation desk at the ""Free
Library"". The Library Proposal Group presented their art to the council and Parks
and Recreations. There was friction, rudeness, and issues regarding the art
pieces (i.e. fish on woman's head, and piece where shirt was missing off of
woman) however, the commission states the pieces were ""grandfathered"" and
were not used anyway. However, commission wants to know what happened to
the ""calendar"" of projects previous used?
Commission curious regarding the
Janet Quote's Plant Building project? Commission states a calendar or
spreadsheet would be nice for tracking purposes. Commission suggest utilization
of the new Libraries imagery to assist and aid them in relation to proposed,
approved, or amended projects. They would also like a web site to list information
of PAC projects.
9.
Staff Communications
A. Peet's Coffee
Staff discussed why Pete's Coffee is excused from the PAC code requirement.
The Pete Coffee Project entered into a development agreement prior to the
PAC Ordinance of 2003 and are not required to adhere to the current
ordinance. The Commission suggest that a letter be drafted to welcome and
encourage Pete's Coffee. Staff volunteered to draft a letter.
Unknown status of previous projects;
B. Clif Bar- Staff volunteered to research to see if they are a part of a previous
development agreement or if it is a new project and if new to the
community.
C. Ballena Bay- Existing landscaping as public art?
D. Summer House-Inset's?
10.
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 8:04 pm.
PAC Meeting Minutes
3
July 26, 2006",PublicArtCommission/2006-07-26.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2006-08-23,1,"MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC ART COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING OF WEDNESDAY AUGUST 23, 2006
CONFERENCE ROOM 360, THIRD FLOOR CITY HALL
2226 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 7:00 PM
CONVENE:
The meeting was called to order at 7:11 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Vice Chair Lee, Commission Members Cervantes
and Wolfe
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Chair Huston, Commission Member Rosenberg.
STAFF PRESENT:
Doug Vu, Planner III, Debbie Gremminger, Recording Secretary
MINUTES:
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of July 26, 2006.
M/S and unanimous to approve the Minutes of the June 28, 2006 Regular meeting. 3-0-2.
Ayes:
3;
Noes:
0;
Absent: 2;
Motion carries.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
A.
Final Alameda Towne Centre Resolution. This is for information only. No action needed.
NEW BUSINESS
A.
Bridgeside Public Art Proposal - Applicant: Regency Centers.
Doug Vu, Planner III, summarized the staff report. Mr. Vu introduced the applicant, Bruce
Qualls of Regency Centers.
Mr. Qualls briefly updated the Commission on the progress of this project since last January. He
informed the Commission that the amphitheatre will be available free of charge to recognized
arts and performance groups. As previously approved by the Planning Board, the stage area will
be approximately 55 feet wide and vary in depth from 20 to 25 feet. The glade area will be
approximately 50 feet wide in front and angle towards the rear with a width of 100 feet. The
amphitheatre will also be wired for sound and lighting equipment allowing staged performances
Minutes of August 23, 2006
Regular Public Art Commission
Meeting.
Page 1",PublicArtCommission/2006-08-23.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2006-08-23,2,"of, but not limited to, theatre productions, musical presentations, literary readings, art shows and
demonstrations.
Regency Centers has arranged with the Frank Bette Center for the Arts to present artists' work in
two shows within the first twelve months of the Center's opening. In addition, the Alameda
Civic Light Opera will be presenting highlights of their productions with two shows also during
the first twelve months of the Center's opening. When not used for performance or displays, the
amphitheatre can also be used for recreational purposes such as Tai Chi classes.
Information regarding the amphitheatre will also be included in the advertising for the Center's
opening and areas within the vicinity of the amphitheatre will be posted stating its availability
with contact information to reserve the space. Regency Centers has hired a property manager
who is an Alameda resident that will be responsible for community outreach for the Center,
including the amphitheatre.
Barbara Price, PK Consultants, briefly reviewed the memo submitted to the Commission on
construction management & public outreach. Also provided copies of Planning Board approved
Resolution PB-04-64, which lists the conditions of approvals regarding light and sound. Ms.
Price stated that they do not foresee having more than fifty of sixty people in the audience at a
time.
Vice-Chair Lee informed the Commission that she has received an e-mail from Chair Huston
stating her concerns. She would like staff to address them. Her first concern was that the
calculations were accurate. Staff stated they were. In response to her question if Staff has went
to the site to see if the amphitheatre will create an acoustically viable space, Mr. Vu responded
that he cannot say for sure whether the space will be acoustically viable, but feels the trees will
serve as a buffer.
Commissioner Wolfe stated that the drawings provided do not show enough details for him to
make a decision. He is unclear if the stage will be big enough for the various performances and
would like more detail on the sound equipment and whether the lighting equipment will be
sufficient for evening shows.
Commissioner Cervantes complimented the applicant on his proposal. In response to her inquiry
regarding seating, Ms. Price stated that BCDC will not allow them to provide seating. People
may bring blankets or chairs.
Mr. Qualls described the various kinds of trees proposed. He informed the Commission that he
does not have a problem changing any of the types of trees selected.
Commissioner Cervantes stated that she would like the amphitheatre to be available to all
community groups such as the Boys and Girls Club. She does not want it limited to just
performing arts organizations. Mr. Qualls stated that any organization will be free to use this
space.
Minutes of August 23, 2006
Regular Public Art Commission
Meeting.
Page 2",PublicArtCommission/2006-08-23.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2006-08-23,3,"M/S (Wolfe, Lee) to continue this item to allow the applicant to submit a more detailed site plan
of the amphitheatre, including additional information on what the stage will look like, section
details such as the pitch and what the sign will look like. 3-0-2.
Ayes:
3;
Noes: 0;
Absent:
2.
Motion carries.
The Commission is willing to hold a special meeting to accommodate the applicant's time frame.
Staff will poll the Commission of their availability for the first two weeks in September.
OLD BUSINESS
None.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS
Mr. Vu informed the Commission that the mural project for the parking garage is no longer
going to happen because the parking garage plans have been revised and the sheer wall has been
moved.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Staff distributed a memo regarding AB 1234 Ethics training. The City Council is requiring all
Boards and Commissions complete this training by January 2007.
Mr. Vu introduced staff member Debbie Gremminger. She will be the new recording secretary.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 pm.
Respectively submitted by:
Douglass Vu, Planner III
Planning and Building Department
G:\PLANNING\PAC)Agendas_Minutes)Minutes_06/08-23-06 draft minutes.doc
Minutes of August 23, 2006
Regular Public Art Commission
Meeting.
Page 3",PublicArtCommission/2006-08-23.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2006-09-13,1,"MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC ART COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING OF WEDNESDAY SEPTEMBER 13, 2006
CONFERENCE ROOM 391, THIRD FLOOR CITY HALL
2226 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 7:00 PM
CONVENE:
The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Chair Huston, Commission Members Rosenberg and Wolfe
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Vice Chair Lee, Commission Member Cervantes (Vice-Chair Lee
was absent from Roll Call. She arrived at 7:40 p.m.)
STAFF PRESENT:
Doug Vu, Planner III, Erin Garcia, Acting Recording Secretary.
MINUTES:
Minutes for the Regular Meeting of August 23, 2006
M/S and unanimous to continue the Minutes of the August 23, 2006; 4-0-2.
Ayes:
3;
Noes:
0;
Absent: 2 (Lee, Cervantes);
Motion carries.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None
ACTION ITEMS
A.
Bridgeside Public Art Proposal - Applicant: Regency Centers. (Continued from the August
23, 2006 Regular meeting).
At the Commission's last regular meeting on August 23, 2006, Bruce Qualls, the applicant
representing Regency Centers presented the proposed public performance amphitheatre for
Bridgeside Shopping Center. The proposal includes the construction of an outdoor
amphitheatre that will be available free of charge to arts and performance groups. The trapezoid
shaped stage located at the foot of the amphitheatre and will be approximately 55 feet wide and
vary in depth from 20 to 25 feet. The glade area will be approximately 50 feet wide in front and
angle towards the rear with a width of 100 feet. Since the August 23, 2006, the applicant has
Minutes of September 13, 2006
Special Public Art Commission
Meeting.
Page 1",PublicArtCommission/2006-09-13.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2006-09-13,2,"informed Staff that the proposed amphitheatre will also be equipped with a power outlet for
staged performances.
At the last meeting, the Commission suggested the amphitheatre be used as part of their cultural
requirements. The Commission requested the applicant submit a plan showing the details of
amphitheatre more clearly. The Commission also requested additional grading, and additional
trees to help buffer the noise from surrounding areas. The applicant has complied with the
requests.
In response to Chair Huston's question regarding direct public access to the amphitheatre, Mr.
Qualls stated that there are access points between the buildings in two locations and along the
front side and back side of the retail area. Chair Huston expressed concerns with the success of
the amphitheatre without any direct access.
Commissioner Wolfe stated that the developer would likely advertise the performances so the
vendors would benefit from it. He acknowledged concerns whether or not it is ADA accessible.
Chair Huston shared some additional concerns. One was the nature and scale of the space, the
second was the programming, and lastly whether the space would be utilized as a public area.
Mr. Qualls agreed to submit an annual programming schedule to the Planning & Building
Director for approval.
Deborah Owen and Mike Sheppard from the Frank Bette Center of Performing Arts were present
and informed the Commission that from what she can tell by the plans, this will be a wonderful
accommodation for community art, with plenty of options for programming. The onsite manager
is responsible for scheduling all of the events. There will also be signage near the amphitheatre
stating that this space is available with a contact number. Ms. Owen added that for the visual
arts requirement, there could be a sculpture show, or an exhibit of a known artist. It could also
be a story telling space.
There was one speaker slip. Chair Huston opened the public hearing.
Daniel Levy, 1926 Broadway, spoke in favor of this space. He would like to know if the owners
would be providing all of the advertising for the different performances.
Chair Huston closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Wolfe had several points to bring up. The first concern was with the benches that
are currently located on the stage area. He asked if they could they be moved adjacent to the
path? The other concern was whether the seating area has adequate lighting.
Mr. Qualls informed the Commission that the Planning Board had approved the lighting
requirements. There have been several Planning Board public hearings and discussions with
staff regarding the lighting plan. The issue was that this area was not intended for nighttime use.
Minutes of September 13, 2006
Special Public Art Commission
Meeting.
Page 2",PublicArtCommission/2006-09-13.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2006-09-13,3,"The residents and Planning Board were very clear that there was not to be a bleed into the
surrounding areas. So in the applicant's preparation for the programs, organizers expect to shut
things down around dusk and in the summer around 9:00 p.m.
Commissioner Wolfe inquired whether there were any public restrooms that are accessible to this
site. Mr. Qualls responded that all restaurants have restrooms. Commissioner Wolfe asked if
there could be a stipulation in the lease agreements that would state that during these events,
people should be allowed to use the restrooms. Mr. Qualls responded that this is at the discretion
of the retailers. He informed the Commission that the grocery store has public restrooms that are
located in the front of the store.
Commissioner Wolfe was not in favor of the poplar trees near the lawn area.
Mr. Vu clarified the revised additional conditions related to programming, advertisement and
modification to provide power.
Mr. Qualls agreed with the first two revised conditions. He will find out if he can modify the
power due to the panels already in place and advise staff.
M/S and unanimous to accept the proposal as stated in the draft Resolution with the additional
conditions of approval with the exception of the modification to the power. 4-0-1.
Ayes: 4; Noes: 0; Absent: 1 (Cervantes); Motion carries.
OLD BUSINESS
None.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS
None.
COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS
Commissioner Wolfe would like staff to provide a calendar of any upcoming projects that will
come before them. Staff noted the request.
Chair Huston would like an update on the Summerhouse project.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Vu informed the Commission that the Regular meeting of September 27, 2006 has been
canceled.
Minutes of September 13, 2006
Special Public Art Commission
Meeting.
Page 3",PublicArtCommission/2006-09-13.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2006-09-13,4,"Mr. Vu reminded the Commission that the mandatory ethics training requirement must be
completed by January 2007.
ADJORNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 pm.
Respectively submitted by:
Douglass Vu, Planner III
Planning and Building Department
Minutes of September 13, 2006
Special Public Art Commission
Meeting.
Page 4",PublicArtCommission/2006-09-13.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2006-11-29,1,"Minutes of the Regular Public Art Commission Meeting
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
Conference Room 360, City Hall
1.
CONVENE:
7:07 p.m.
2.
ROLL CALL:
Chair Huston, Vice-Chair Lee, Commission Members
Cervantes and Rosenberg
Commission Member Wolfe was absent.
3.
STAFF PRESENT: Douglas Vu, Planner III and Tony Ebster, Recording
Secretary
4.
MINUTES:
Minutes for the Regular Meeting of August 23, 2006
M/S Lee/Rosenberg and unanimous to approve the minutes for the meeting of
August 23, 2006
AYES - 3 (Wolfe absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 1 (Cervantes)
Minutes for the Special Meeting of September 13, 2006
Chair Huston noted that the minutes should include the agreement that the
developer will provide wiring for the performance amphitheatre as well as
detailed programming to be submitted to the Planning & Building Director.
M/S Lee/Rosenberg and unanimous to approve the minutes for the meeting of
September 13, 2006, as amended.
AYES - 3 (Wolfe absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 1 (Cervantes)
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATION:
None
6.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATION:
None
7.
NEW BUSINESS:
None
8.
OLD BUSINESS:
None",PublicArtCommission/2006-11-29.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2006-11-29,2,"9.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT:
None
10.
COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATION:
It was agreed that if there are no agenda items, future meetings would be
cancelled by Staff upon confirmation with the Chair of the Commission.
However, it was agreed that the Commission will meet at least quarterly to
maintain a presence and to take care of housekeeping or non-action agenda
items such as creating ""to do' lists and to discuss future items.
A discussion followed regarding the development of a 'to do' list for the
Commission. The following items were identified:
1. A map of the City of Alameda that identifies where current and future art projects
are located. The map should also provide a brief description of the type of art
project in order to assist the Commission in evaluating the diversity of the
community when proposing new art projects in the future to reflect the City's
diverse demographic.
2. The Commission should pursue an effort to eliminate or increase the cap for the
art allocation of all eligible projects. It was discussed that the art allocation
should be proportional to the valuation of the project instead of the existing
$150,000 limit and projects that are phased over several years should be
assessed accordingly during each phase.
3. The Commission should develop an assessment form or evaluation process in
order to 1) analyze the art project upon completion to determine if it was
consistent with what was originally approved and 2) to evaluate the
Commission's process for future improvement. The assessment/evaluation
should be interactive and include public opinion.
4.
An announcement/identification of public art projects in a dedicated page on the
City's website. Press releases should also be prepared for newly completed
public art projects.
Finally, the Commission agreed that a subcommittee will do the prioritization of
the aforementioned items.
The Commission then confirmed the Artist Directory was not useful due to the
limited number of listed artists and that it was too cumbersome to consistently
ensure it is current. The Commission agreed only to maintain an Artist Resource
List that includes the East Bay Open Studio List, Alameda Art Association, Pro
Arts, and the Frank Bette Center as these organizations can provide a more
comprehensive and current directory of available artists.",PublicArtCommission/2006-11-29.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2006-11-29,3,"11.
STAFF COMMUNICATION:
The following is the current status of the projects identified in the February 2006
Status Report:
1. 2515 Blanding Ave. -- A work/live project.
2. Bridgeside -- Commission approved the proposal with a condition regarding
specific programming agreements. Commission expressed concern that the final
executed resolution failed to accurately identify the condition of approval
regarding the agreed upon programming.
3.
Alameda Towne Centre -- Opening in phases. Art has not been installed yet due
to construction delays. Vice Chair Lee suggested press releases for all new
artwork open to the public.
4. Summer House (Harbor Island Apartments) -- No formal application for public art
filed as of the February 2006 status report. The Commission expressed concern
about the lack of initiative to include public art and also was curious about the
temporary Certificate of Occupancy.
5. Alameda Landing (Catellus Project) -- Still in entitlement phase. The project will
go to City Council on December 5, 2006.
6.
Alameda Theater/Parking Structure -- Mural was removed from project due to
removal of sheer wall. Commission expressed concern about what the
developers are going to do to include public art in the construction of the parking
structure and the Alameda Theater.
They were concerned about
""grandfathering"" to avoid being obligated to include public art in the project.
7.
Washington Park Recreation Building - Doug Vu will follow up to see if The Park
and Recreation Department has submitted an application for public art.
The following projects are still in the entitlement phase:
1.
Boatworks - Submitted application for rezoning to allow 242 dwelling units.
2.
Harbor Bay Village - Submitted application for rezoning to allow 104 single-
family homes. Currently in EIR phase.
3.
Bayport
4.
Bay Ship & Yacht
Finally, D. Vu reminded the Commissioners that the AB 1234 ethics training
needs to be completed by the end of calendar year 2006.
12.
ADJOURNMENT:
8:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Douglas Vu, Planner III
Planning & Building Department",PublicArtCommission/2006-11-29.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2007-02-28,1,"Minutes of the Regular Public Art Commission Meeting
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Conference Room 360, City Hall
1.
CONVENE:
7:05 p.m.
2.
ROLL CALL:
Chair Lee, Vice-Chair Huston, Wolfe
Commissioners Cervantes and Rosenberg were absent.
STAFF PRESENT: Douglas Vu, Planner III, and Tony Ebster, Recording
Secretary
3.
MINUTES:
Minutes for the Regular Meeting of November 29, 2006
Vice-Chair Huston motioned to continue the minutes of November 29, 2006 to
the Public Art Commission meeting of March 28, 2007.
Chair Lee seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 2.
[Abstain: Commissioner Wolfe - 1; Absent: Commissioners Cervantes and
Rosenberg - 2.]
4.
ORAL COMMUNICATION
Carol Burnett with the Alameda Art Association introduced herself and informed
the Commission that they wanted to raise awareness of local artists. She
expressed the desire for developers and project applicants to use local artists.
She requested the Alameda Art Association be placed on the City's Artist
Directory. Commission Member Huston agreed to refer the Alameda Art
Association to the groups identified in the Artist Resource List.
Commissioner Wolfe asked if there were other art associations in Alameda. Ms.
Burnett gave some information on other organizations in Alameda that can be
called upon for projects. The Commission agreed that as part of the to do list,
they would only maintain an Artist Resource List.
5.
REGULAR AGENDA
a.
Approve Meeting Calendar for 2007
M/S Huston/Lee to continue item to meeting of March 28, 2007
AYES - 3; NOES - 0
b.
Review of Alameda Towne Centre History Panels and Update",PublicArtCommission/2007-02-28.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2007-02-28,2,"Mr. Vu mentioned that the developer for Alameda Towne Centre is installing
more art than is required by the Ordinance.
Mr. Vu asked if there were any changes or concerns regarding the panels for
Alameda Towne Centre. Chair Huston mentioned that too many people were
omitted and thus the panels didn't reflect the diversity of Alameda and the panels
form a false history. Otherwise, she believed the panels were really well
designed. Commissioner Wolfe agreed there wasn't enough representation
regarding the diversity of Alameda. Chair Huston expressed concern that non-
white people were only shown as workers and not as heroes or persons of
distinction. The Commission agreed there needed to be more acknowledgment
of the diversity and segregation in Alameda's past. It was suggested that either
additional panels be incorporated or current panels be updated to include the
diversity of the City.
Mr. Vu offered to draft a letter to Tad Savinar to commend the work done on the
panels as well as offer thoughts and suggestions on what could be added. Chair
Huston agreed to proof the letter prior to mailing.
C.
Review of Alameda Free Public Library Art
Commissioner Wolfe stated that he liked the panels at the new Free Library but
expressed some issues with their installation. He liked the stone panel inside.
He felt the rabbit was not as good and was worried that someone could injure
himself or herself on it. Chair Huston stated the rabbit was supposed to be
interactive and felt that it wasn't. She also questioned the poor quality of the
work.
Commissioner Lee expressed concern that a screen behind the children's desk
had been proposed but wasn't there.
The Commission agreed the outside panels were successful but were concerned
the windowsills hang over the panels too far and take attention away from the
panels. They felt that the architecture frames the panels poorly and are oriented
more towards rainfall and not the integration of the art. This resulted in the
panels looking too subtle. The Commission also felt the original plans didn't
clearly illustrate how the panels would be installed, therefore making it difficult to
visualize how the finished product would look. The finished panel was not
exactly what was expected.
The Commission would've liked to see more detailed plans for the art in order to
get a better sense of the context. They would've liked more consideration given
to the integration of the architecture and the artwork.",PublicArtCommission/2007-02-28.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2007-02-28,3,"The Commission then proposed the idea of a catalog, or record of art projects.
The catalog would be for future Commission Members and would consist of
several items:
1.
The original art proposal for a given project
2.
A review of the finished product
3.
Commission Member comments and opinions on the finished
product and how accurate it was to the original proposal.
The Commission felt this would be a valuable asset and a good reference for
creating and updating the art review process.
d.
Performing Arts Program at Bridgeside Shopping Center
Chair Huston felt the conditions of approval did not reflect the programming that
the applicant and Commission agreed to, and therefore, the resolution approving
the Bridgeside amphitheatre project was inaccurate. She expressed that the
applicant should be held to their agreed details, even though specific details
weren't reflected in the resolution.
6.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
Chair Huston expressed concern regarding whether the renovation of the Historic
Alameda Theater will fulfill the public art requirement. She stated that any
restoration work already being done as part of the project's scope couldn't also
be used to fulfill the public art requirement. She stated there were inaccuracies
identified in Development Services' staff report to City Council. Commissioner
Wolfe stated that he disagreed with Chair Huston's assessment of the Ordinance
and its Policy Guidelines regarding what aspects of a project can be used to fulfill
the public art requirement. Chair Huston and Commissioner Wolfe agreed to
review the Ordinance and its Policy Guidelines and discuss their findings at the
next meeting.
7.
ADJOURNMENT:
8:45 pm
Respectfully submitted,
Douglas Vu, Secretary
Public Art Commission",PublicArtCommission/2007-02-28.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2007-03-28,1,"Minutes of the Regular Public Art Commission Meeting
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Conference Room A, Alameda Free Library
1.
CONVENE:
7:04 p.m.
2.
ROLL CALL:
Chair Huston, Vice-Chair Lee, and Cervantes
Commissioner Wolfe arrived at 7:18 p.m.
Commissioner Rosenberg was absent.
STAFF PRESENT:
Cathy Woodbury, Planning and Building Director; Douglas Vu,
Planner III; Tony Ebster, Recording Secretary
3.
MINUTES:
Minutes for the Regular Meeting of November 29, 2006
Commissioner Cervantes motioned to approve the minutes for the meeting of November
29, 2006, as amended.
Vice-Chair Lee seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous vote - 3
[Abstain: Commissioner Wolfe - 1; Absent: Commissioner Rosenberg - 1]
Minutes for the Regular Meeting of February 28, 2007
Chair Huston motioned to continue the minutes of February 28, 2007 to the Public Art
Commission meeting of April 25, 2007.
Vice-Chair Lee seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous vote - 4
[Absent: Commissioner Rosenberg ]
4.
ORAL COMMUNICATION:
5.
REGULAR AGENDA:
a.
Approve Meeting Calendar for 2007
Chair Huston identified scheduling issues and proposed checking with the
Commissioners for availability.
Chair Huston motioned to continue item to meeting of April 25, 2007
Vice-Chair Lee seconded the motion
Motion carries
b.
Program to Promote Public Art in Alameda
Cathy Woodbury explained the goals and mission of the Public Art Program and then
asked everyone in the audience to introduce themselves. Ms. Woodbury then discussed
the Program's requirements and informed the Commission it is their responsibility to",PublicArtCommission/2007-03-28.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2007-03-28,2,"create a Public Art Plan that is to be submitted to the City Council on an annual basis.
She also identified the Public Art Fund and described how those funds could be used to
promote art in Alameda.
Ms. Woodbury stated that she is working with staff to create a more comprehensive work
program, known as the Public Art Plan. She proceeded with a PowerPoint presentation.
Some of the highlights included:
Developing an Artist Resource brochure
Creating a Public Art Map
Assembling a Public Art Catalogue
Establishing a public art review process
Preparing an Alameda Public Art web page
Explore the possibility of increasing the cap on public art fees
Chair Huston thanked Ms. Woodbury for her presentation. Members of the public in
attendance then commented on the Plan and made the following suggestions:
Have the PAC require or encourage developers to have a ""general call"" for art
proposals to fulfill their art requirement on new projects
Encourage City officials to attend art and cultural events
Provide more gallery space in Alameda, especially City-owned buildings
Provide local artists and arts organizations more exposure
Provide grant funding for arts programs or to improve facilities
Reduce or eliminate fees for event space for art shows and cultural events
Create an Arts Council
Chair Huston then clarified the roles and responsibilities of the Public Art Commission.
She stated that although desirable, some of the suggestions made by the audience were
outside the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission.
Commissioner Wolfe proposed amending the statute.
Commissioner Cervantes proposed that the Public Art Commission expand their role in
the community since they are now a Commission and not a committee.
Ms. Woodbury talked about the revenues for the Commission and what they are to be
used for.
Ms. Carol Burnett mentioned that she is working with the City of Walnut Creek about
some of the projects they are working on and she mentioned changing the ordinance.
Chair Huston concurred with the point that Ms. Burnett made regarding the cap and how
it affects the type and quality of public art projects.
Commissioner Wolfe pointed out that the percentage of public art money within a project
is relative to the budget as a whole and smaller projects pay more. The cap is
disproportionate in larger projects. He also mentioned that the developer can choose
whether or not they provide public art or pay the in lieu fee.",PublicArtCommission/2007-03-28.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2007-03-28,3,"Chair Huston clarified that the Commission is the filter by which the city acquires art and
they do not get to select the art. They make sure the art is in public view.
Ms. Woodbury suggested that people who are interested in public art take a look at the
projects that are going to the Planning Board, go to the meetings and get involved in the
developments.
Chair Huston suggested creating a proposal for curatorial management and the in lieu
fund could pay for this.
Ms. Woodbury responded by clarifying that the in lieu fund could not be used for a
curator but rather for hardware to hang pictures, etc.
Ms. Burnett asked if the Commission gives developers a list of artists to choose from.
Chair Huston responded by clarifying that the Commission cannot give specific names to
avoid a conflict of interest.
The amphitheater at the Bridgeside Shopping Center was mentioned. The general
consensus was that the finished project was not what was proposed and that it is not
suitable for most of the events that were proposed such as musical acts and literary
readings.
Ms. Woodbury clarified the role of the planning department and that they make sure the
art for a project is feasible and they make sure the project is built according to the plans
that were approved.
Commissioner Wolfe clarified that the Commission only approves concepts and not
plans.
Mr. Vu stated that the developers at Bridgeside are required to submit an annual
programming plan and when finished, an on-site manager will oversee the programming
plan for three years. This must be submitted to and approved by Ms. Woodbury.
Chair Huston replied by saying that the developer was required to provide a useful
community performance space and an audience. She expressed concern as to who will
oversee the programming for the space to make sure they fulfill their obligations.
It was asked if the in lieu fund could be used for existing projects. A response was given
that the in lieu fund cannot be used for existing projects, only new projects.
Ms. Burnett offered her services and experience as an art consultant and developer for
future projects.
The Carnegie building was mentioned. Ms. Woodbury responded by saying that
consultants are being recruited to submit ideas for its usage.
General consensus was reached that the conversation needs to be expanded to include
more people, ideas and proposals in the community.",PublicArtCommission/2007-03-28.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2007-03-28,4,"Ms. Burnett suggested creating a cultural arts center to attract more artists and attention
to the art and culture of Alameda. The Commission concurred that it would be a good
idea to create such a place. It was suggested by a citizen who attended the meeting
that several art locations in addition to a cultural arts center would make it easier for the
community to access the public art.
Commissioner Lee likes the idea of a cultural arts center in that it brings artists and
people of the community together allowing them to meet, network and get to know each
other.
It was suggested that in addition to being prestigious and supportive, having a cultural
arts center would provide valuable gallery space for visual arts such as paintings and
photography.
It was suggested that gallery and meeting space be provided in several City-owned
buildings such as the Veteran's Hall and City Hall. It was asked if along with its use as a
permit center, the Carnegie building could be used for gallery space. Ms. Woodbury
responded by saying a portion of the building could be used as gallery space. General
consensus was that this would be very beneficial to the artists and community.
6.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
7.
ADJOURNMENT:
Meeting adjourned at 8:52 pm
Respectfully submitted,
Douglas Vu, Secretary
Public Art Commission",PublicArtCommission/2007-03-28.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2007-04-25,1,"Minutes of the Regular Public Art Commission Meeting
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Conference Room 360, City Hall
1.
CONVENE:
7:04 p.m.
2.
ROLL CALL:
Chair Huston, Vice-Chair Lee, Commissioners Rosenberg and
Wolfe
Commissioner Cervantes was absent.
STAFF PRESENT:
Douglas Vu, Planner III; Tony Ebster, Recording Secretary
3.
MINUTES:
Minutes for the Regular Meeting of February 28, 2007
Chair Huston motioned to approve the minutes for the meeting of February 28, 2007, as
amended.
Commissioner Wolfe seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous vote - 4
[Absent: Commissioner Cervantes - 1]
Minutes for the Regular Meeting of March 28, 2007
Vice-Chair Lee motioned to approve the minutes for the meeting of March 28, 2007, as
amended.
Commissioner Wolfe seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous vote - 4
[Absent: Commissioner Cervantes - 1]
4.
ORAL COMMUNICATION:
5.
REGULAR AGENDA:
A. Approval of Meeting Calendar for 2007 - Tabled, continued to Meeting
Of May 23, 2007
B. Rhythmix Cultural Works Public Art Proposal - Applicant: Cal Vita
Janet Koike reminded the Board of the grand opening scheduled for June 2, 2007 and
mentioned some of the acts that will be performing at the Arts Center.
Chair Huston asked how the public art portion is separate from the rest of the regular
activities planned for the organization. Her question specifically was, ""How is the art
public?"" What part is going to be accessible to the public and how will it be accessible?
The Commission discussed many options for fulfilling the public art obligation.",PublicArtCommission/2007-04-25.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2007-04-25,2,"Continued to Meeting of May 23, 2007
C. Alameda Towne Centre History Panels - Tad Savinar
Mr. Savinar gave an update of the progress of the art installation at Alameda Towne
Center.
Mr. John Larson spoke about the panels being installed at Alameda Towne Centre. He
described the panels and talked about the frustrating work behind them.
Chair Huston expressed sympathy for his frustration.
Commissioner Rosenberg spoke to the requirements and felt that the Commission could
not impose ""diversity' requirements for artwork.
Commissioner Wolfe mentioned the economic disparity and that some people had
cameras and could take pictures, some of which would end up in the pictorial record.
Mr. Larson mentioned that the people with farms didn't have cameras and didn't take
pictures therefore there is little or no record of the diversity of Alameda.
Mr. Savinar asked what they were envisioning so he could respond to the request.
Commissioner Wolfe responded by saying that a short description of the project and
artist would be helpful.
Mr. Chuck Millar expressed concern that the Commission was unfairly criticizing the
panels.
The Commission clarified that it is their job to ask questions of the artists to make sure
they consider all possibilities when creating a public art project.
6.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
7.
ADJOURNMENT:
Meeting adjourned at 8:48 pm
Respectfully submitted,
Douglas Vu, Secretary
Public Art Commission",PublicArtCommission/2007-04-25.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2007-05-23,1,"Minutes of the Regular Public Art Commission Meeting
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Conference Room 360, City Hall
1.
CONVENE:
7:05 p.m.
2.
ROLL CALL:
Chair Huston, Vice-Chair Lee, Commissioners Cervantes,
Rosenberg and Wolfe
STAFF PRESENT:
Douglas Vu, Planner III
3.
MINUTES:
4.
ORAL COMMUNICATION:
5.
REGULAR AGENDA:
Approval of 2007 Meeting Calendar
Motion to approve Calendar (Huston) Second (Rosenberg)
Motion passes with unanimous vote 4-0
Commissioner Wolfe Abstained
Rhythmix Cultural Center Public Art Proposal
Commissioner Rosenberg talked about the guidelines regarding the fulfillment of the
public art requirement. It was clarified that programming could fulfill the requirement.
Chair Huston asked how much of the public art proposal was for Rhythmix Cultural
Center and how much was for the general public. She wondered if the 14-month
proposal was 14 shows.
Ms. Koike clarified that the proposal was for 14 months of rent and that Cal Vita is
providing to Rhythmix Cultural Works, the space for public art.
Chair Huston asked if for the 14 months, the shows would be free. She also asked if
they are 14 consecutive months. She was also concerned with staffing the gallery and
thought it may be excessive to have the gallery staffed as proposed and suggested
possibly amending the schedule after a two-month period.
Mr. Doug Vu and Chair Huston want to adjust the language in the resolution to include
the suggested amendment to the public art proposal, which includes the hours of
operation for the gallery space, a minimum amount of hours to be open and a time span
of 24 months within which the gallery will be open for 14 months.
Commissioner Rosenberg motioned to adopt the resolution as amended.",PublicArtCommission/2007-05-23.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2007-05-23,2,"Commissioner Lee seconded the motion.
Motion passes with unanimous vote. 5-0
6.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
7.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 8:20 pm
Respectfully submitted,
Douglas Vu, Secretary
Public Art Commission",PublicArtCommission/2007-05-23.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2007-07-26,1,"1. CONVENE:
7:06 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL:
Chair Huston, Vice-Chair Lee, Commissioners Rosenberg
and Wolfe
STAFF PRESENT:
Douglas Vu, Planner III; Shana Nero, Recording Secretary
3. MINUTES:
Minutes for the Regular Meeting of July 26, 2007
Chair Huston called for a review of the April 25, 2007 and May 23, 2007 meeting
minutes.
After reviewing the minutes Chair Huston offered following the summation of the
Alameda Towne Centre History Panels project.
A letter had been sent to Mr. Savinar stating that the Historic Panel was not seeing
a deficit in the area of diversity. Which is the stories were focused on white
males primarily and there was no mention of anyone non-European decent. The
commission's concerns were brought up at the beginning of the commissions
regarding diversity. The revised edition came through with no revisions that
included anyone of color.
Mr. Larson offered a response, that he had worked overtime on this project and
that it was beautifully crafted and well written. Mr. Larson stated he had
researched extensively and the commission agrees with all the assertions. Mr.
Larson mentioned that people with forms did not have cameras to take pictures;
therefore there is little or no record of diversity in Alameda. In addition, the
documenting of diversity that he offered was ""ugly"". That the public record of
people of color was racist and unacceptable in a public art forum and so part of
the challenge is how to prevent history. His criteria for the search was that he
needed documented and supportive storage outside of the dominant community
and those that did exist were brutal and finding some way to explaining the
discussion.
Doug Vu offered to listen to the April 25, 2007 meeting minutes to accurately
clarify the discussion regarding the Public Art Panel. Chair Huston stated that she
would like the minutes to reflect the fact that Mr. Savinar was responding to a
letter requesting greater representation to proceed in the history panel.
No further amendments were made to the April 25, 2007 minutes.
Chair Huston motioned to approve the April 25, 2007 minutes as amended. Vice
Chair Lee seconded the motion.",PublicArtCommission/2007-07-26.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2007-07-26,2,"Chair Huston called for a review of the May 23, 2007 meeting minutes.
After reviewing the minutes Chair Huston offered following the amendments to
the May 23, 2007 meeting minutes.
Vice Chair Lee motioned to approve the May 23, 2007 minutes, as amended.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Speaker slips were filled out by the following members of the community;
Annette
Mike Sheppard
REGULAR AGENDA
A. Discussion and Recommendation Regarding Public Art Plan
B. Discussion of Amendments to the Public Art Ordinance
Doug Vu presented to the commission with a 2007-2009 Public Art Plan for review and
approval either now or at a later date.
The commission reviewed the plan and suggested changes to the order of the objectives
and projects.
Doug informed the commission that Cathy Woodbury would like to attend the next
meeting to discuss more about the work plan and the grant programs.
Chair Huston stated that the commission is not intending to amend the ordinance to
increase the contribution, but to amend the ordinance to equalize the contribution so that
larger developers have an equal contribution to smaller businesses. The commission is
looking at moving the cap not increasing the contribution at this time.
The Grant Program was also discussed and must go before City Council in December.
Doug suggested that the commission prioritize the work plan, commission agreed.
There was discussion on moving forward before the new members join next month.
Michael suggested redefining the ordinance in regards to the Grant program, Chair
Huston suggested that amending or creating a second shelf so that there is the Public Arts
Ordinance and the cultural grants that would be possible for local community art.
Because of the concerns of the commission with co-mingling of funds there was a
suggestion that there be a separate arts commission apposed to the current commission.",PublicArtCommission/2007-07-26.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2007-07-26,3,"Mr. Wolfe suggested an annual grants program and making the assessment in 1 or 2
meetings who those monies would be presented to.",PublicArtCommission/2007-07-26.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2007-08-23,1,"Minutes of the Regular Public Art Commission Meeting
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Conference Room 360, City Hall
CONVENE:
7:05 p.m.
1.
ROLL CALL:
Chair Huston, Vice-Chair Lee, and Commissioner Rosenberg
Commissioner Wolfe was absent
STAFF PRESENT:
Douglas Vu, Planner III; Simone Wolter, Recording Secretary
2.
MINUTES:
3.
ORAL COMMUNICATION:
4.
REGULAR AGENDA:
A. Recommendation of 2007 - 2009 Public Art Plan
Chair Huston directed the Commission to review the plan and provide comments for
discussion.
The Commission wanted to amend 2.5 to read "" to design a grant program and to
develop a public art process to administer the public art grants.""
Motion to approve Public Art Plan as amended (Rosenberg), Second (Lee)
Motion passes with unanimous vote 3-0
B. Discussion of Amendments to the Public Art Ordinance
Chair Huston directed the Commission to review the document regarding the funding
cap, staging and to discuss changes.
Chair Huston requested clarification of the Arts Grants funding because the ordinance
does not allow for adding outside money to this fund or applying money in this fund to
anything other than public art or the administration of the public art project
Doug Vu explained that when the grant program is developed, the ordinance may also
be amended. He recommended that the Commissioners focus the discussion on the
total cap as stated in the ordinance.
Commissioner Lee requested that the Commission develop a review process to ensure
quality control and follow-up on the status of approved projects.
Mr. Vu pointed out that the non-object based specific art guidelines (e.g. programming)
require additional information, as they are too vague.
Chair Huston requested that the new guidelines include that non-object based specific
art submittals would require a schedule or more detailed information so that it can be
verified.",PublicArtCommission/2007-08-23.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2007-08-23,2,"Commissioner Lee noted that the timelines and schedules as listed in the ordinance are
difficult to adhere to and require revision.
Chair Huston said the ordinance should be amended to include penalties to
developments that do not actually fulfill the public art requirement. Some receive
approval of their applications but do not execute as agreed (Bridgeside). Others never
apply (Summerhouse).
Mr. Vu suggested that more types of art (e.g. performance art) be elaborated upon in the
policy guidelines in order to help the Commission and staff determine if applicants have
met the criteria and requirements of the ordinance.
Chair Huston requested clarification on the overall timeline of adopting and implementing
amendments and how amendments to the ordinance shall be discussed and
incorporated. Doug Vu suggested that this discussion be placed on the agenda for the
October meeting, which will be attended by Cathy Woodbury, Planning & Building
Director. Chair Huston requested that the amendments and guidelines be sent out as
a
packet to inform all new Commissioners.
5.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
Mr. Vu summarized the meeting with Chair Huston, Cathy Woodbury, and Doug Vu to
discuss the proposed cultural arts grant program.
The Alameda arts community is holding a meeting on September 15, 2007 to discuss
the cultural arts grant program. Doug Vu welcomes any input on this matter, which
Chair Huston and Commissioner Rosenberg seconded.
Commissioner Rosenberg requested that the October meeting include an agenda item
to list public or private spaces that could be used to place public art and to initiate a call
for artists.
Mr. Vu handed out a matrix listing nation-wide arts grant programs. He directed the
Commissioners to review the various grant programs to allow for a focused discussion at
the October meeting.
A discussion between the Commission and the public occurred that brought to the
forefront the public's desire to assist the Commission in the cultural arts grant program.
The Commissioners also explained the existing funding mechanisms, art project
requirements and the potential conflict of interest in developing public art.
6.
ADJOURNMENT:
Meeting adjourned at 8:53 pm
Respectfully submitted,
Douglas Vu, Secretary
Public Art Commission",PublicArtCommission/2007-08-23.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2007-09-27,1,"Minutes of the Regular Public Art Commission Meeting
Thursday, September 27, 2007
City Council Chambers, City Hall
CONVENE:
7:10 p.m.
1.
ROLL CALL:
Chair Huston, Vice-Chair Lee, and Commissioners Arrants and
Rosenberg. Commissioner Wolfe arrived at 7:30
STAFF PRESENT:
Cathy Woodbury, Planning & Building Director; Douglas Vu,
Planner III; Tony Ebster, Recording Secretary
2.
MINUTES: Minutes for the Regular Meeting of August 23, 2007
Continued to the meeting of October 25, 2007
3.
ORAL COMMUNICATION:
4.
REGULAR AGENDA:
A. Cultural Arts Grant Program.
Doug Vu gave a powerpoint presentation, which described and outlined the objectives,
guidelines and ideas regarding the Cultural Arts Grant Program.
Cathy Woodbury expressed appreciation for the large number of people in the audience.
She mentioned that despite the formal setting, the love of art should be embraced. She
talked about the next steps in the process for the grant program, which consisted of
listening to input and ideas from the Community and the Commission, then drafting a
program for presentation at the November Public Art Commission meeting and then
taking a proposal to City Council. She suggested working through some components of
the program.
Chair Huston replied by asking about the public presentation. She agreed that starting
with the public presentation was a good place to start. She mentioned the rules of order
and explained to the public that a certain protocol was to be followed.
Joseph Woodard expressed appreciation for the program. He spoke to the objective in
the program that speaks to the funding for art spaces. In his experience he has learned
that art space can be expensive and support is important. He mentioned the Presidio in
San Francisco and how it is being used as open space and it is paying for itself through
various means. He suggested that common space could be useful and could also be a
revenue earner. It could be affordable for artists.
Patricia Edith expressed a misunderstanding that the Commission didn't want to handle
the grant program. She wanted to ask what was going to be done first and how the
grant money was going to be distributed. Those questions were answered by Mr. Vu's
presentation. She suggested that whichever body handles the grant program should
also handle the appointment of poet laureates. She was under the impression that every",PublicArtCommission/2007-09-27.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2007-09-27,2,"two years a poet laureate would be appointed and pointed out that it had not been done.
She wanted to suggest that the final decision regarding the grants be done by an outside
entity or by lottery. She thinks the $50,000 should be used for all disciplines of art and
feels that there should be representatives from all areas of the arts. She also mentioned
a strange feeling at the last meeting and proposed that grants of $2,000 be awarded to
an individual writer, performance artist, visual artist, musician and an interdisciplinary
artist. She also mentioned that $4,000 grants could be awarded to groups in visual arts
such as theater, dance, literary arts, museum, gallery or music groups. Also, a grant
could be awarded to art programs for kids, low income or elderly groups. She expressed
excitement and suggested that it can be done and doesn't need to be complicated.
Clint Imboden wanted to make the point that the most important part of a grant program
is giving resources to the individual artist. He also mentioned that organizations would
not be there without the individual artist.
Chair Huston welcomed Commissioner Wolfe to the Commission.
Michelle Frederick thanked the City for recognizing that art is important and that it is
economically viable for the community and for artists. She wanted to talk about the
grant criteria and wanted to make sure that it inclusive, visual arts, all media, written and
spoken word, performances and events, architecture, historic preservation and culinary
arts. She felt strongly that grants should be available to individuals as well as groups
and feels that there should be a portion set aside for individuals to apply for. In addition,
she feels that the art product that is produced should contribute to the advancement or
enhancement of Alameda and the art community. She also wanted to make sure that
the grants that are awarded are given to the appropriate recipient, such as teaming up
with art departments in schools to further the understanding of what art is, a partnership.
Another element she felt would be important is a comprehensive marketing program that
would catalog and calendarize all art activities, an active promotion that would market
the art activities and cultural assets in Alameda. It could bring in revenues and give
great exposure to local artists.
Elizabeth Calandario concurred with Ms. Frederick. She gave a personal history and
wanted to make sure that philosophies regarding art be evaluated with as much respect
as the art itself. She brought up the proposal of a steering committee for the
applications for grants. Her concerns were with the potential structure of the committee.
She wanted to make sure that all projects of merit get a fair hearing. She wanted to
make sure that the steering committee doesn't overlap or duplicate the mission or
responsibilities of the Commission and it should seek out lesser known artists or artists
that are new to the community. She submitted her suggestions in writing and asked
about the paid positions and how they were funded. Her concern was that the money to
pay for the administrative positions was going to come out of the art fund and that it
would consume a significant amount of that fund. Finally she brought up the recent
graffiti problems seen on some of the public art in Alameda.
Jeff Cambra, a member of an ad hoc steering committee representing a portion of the art
community introduced some of the audience members. He wanted to entertain more
information on the process of the grant program and thanked everyone for all the work
they have done. He expressed eagerness to assist and contribute to the process. He
mentioned that there are a number of options that can be used to achieve the objectives
and goals of the grant program. He wanted to request that a portion of the art
2",PublicArtCommission/2007-09-27.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2007-09-27,3,"community speaking through the ad hoc committee be able to discuss and consider all
components of the program in an open forum. This committee is committed to holding
monthly meetings in tandem with the PAC so the arts community can participate in the
final version of each component of the program without delaying its progress. He asked
that a timeline be given so they can respond to steps taken. He wanted input from the
Commission on what role they would play in evaluating the program components. He
was interested in their preferences. In closing, he asked that the Grant Program reflect
the needs and desires of the art community.
Pat Colburn mentioned the current amount that the Commission has and suggested that
a portion of the fund be used to hire a grant writer. Her idea is that it takes money to
make money and if all the money that is currently in the fund is given out, there will be
no more. Therefore, a portion of the fund should be put towards soliciting more money
to grow the art fund.
Mike Sheppard, President of the Frank Bette Center for the Arts observed that despite
the urgency to get the program up and running, people are still learning how to work
together. He mentioned some conversations he has had with different people nationally
to get more information on how to structure the program. He pointed out some
misunderstandings and miscommunications and mentioned that one of the objectives is
to open up the program as much as possible, to get as many voices in as possible. In
addition, he wanted to clarify that the brainstorms and ideas are not formal proposals.
Mr. Sheppard questioned a couple of items in Mr. Vu's presentation. One was that
grants must be matched dollar for dollar and that there was a cap. He was surprised by
these new elements. He also asked about an overlap when it falls under the public art
fund and if it is public art. He also expressed concern that grants go to individuals as
well as organizations. He addressed the community and invited them to participate in
the steering committee.
Carol Burnett, president of the Alameda Art Association, started with a history of the
organization and their purpose of helping artists present in many venues regardless of
their medium. She mentioned that they want to use the money for an arts center for
classes and workshops. But her main concern was having the developers give a
percentage to local artists. She felt that there should be an amendment to increase the
amount that developers give as public art and to artists.
Chair Huston gave a last call for speaker slips to the public.
Ms. Woodbury responded to a couple points to clarify. The graffiti issue will be
forwarded to the appropriate department. In response to the questions of who receives
a grant, she clarified that the program is not even developed yet. There is nothing in
place and it is not known who will get grants. The amounts that Mr. Vu mentioned were
examples of what other cities are doing. She mentioned that this grant fund is supposed
to be $50,000 over a two-year budget cycle and clarified that there is a dollar for dollar
match, which was discovered upon review of the City Council direction.
There were several responses and questions as to what exactly a dollar for dollar match
is.
Ms. Woodbury responded by clarifying that it can be matched by providing funds,
receiving another grant and getting sponsors.
3",PublicArtCommission/2007-09-27.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2007-09-27,4,"Vice-Chair Lee asked for further explanation.
In response to Vice-Chair Lee, Ms. Woodbury said that it shows an investment on the
part of the person requesting the funding.
Chair Huston wanted to put that issue on an agenda to discuss how to approach it.
Ms. Woodbury clarified that the grant program wasn't to result in an actual ""piece,"" but
rather to facilitate cultural arts in general and to help people to achieve their goals.
Debra Owen expressed appreciation for the work of the Commission and the City for
reaching out to embrace the greater arts community and the creativity. She feels that
$50,000 is not a lot of money, but feels that there is a wealth of creativity in the
community and people who are willing to work to connect with the community to make
things happen. She prefers to see the $50,000 as seed money, this is just the
beginning. One point she made is that the diversity of creativity that is available is broad
and she encourages whichever body determines where the money goes will categorize
the distribution to seed the growth of creativity. Her second point is that she is not
understanding where the Commission stands and how their mandate fits in with the
Grant Program. She thinks it would be wonderful if the support goes towards the
enrichment of as many lives as possible.
Chair Huston asked if there were any more speakers.
Kim Nichols spoke to several items that did not pertain to the Public Art Grant Program.
Chair Huston closed the public comment section of the meeting. She reiterated the
protocol of the meeting.
There was a question from the floor regarding the two-year cycle.
Chair Huston replied that it is on a two-year cycle and thanked all of the people spoke.
She asked if there were questions from the public.
Mr. Sheppard asked about the formal protocol.
Ms. Woodbury clarified that since the Commission is a public body, rules and guidelines
must be adhered to.
Chair Huston started the conversation within the Commission and what they are
discovering is while they are on the same page, there is a lot of misunderstanding. She
mentioned that the Commission is new and they are still learning how to proceed as an
appointed body. She talked about how they are trying to gain instruction from superiors
and that nothing has been decided. She mentioned Mr. Vu's timeline and expressed
appreciation for its direction. She wanted to address the question associated with the
grants and feels that art that is publicly funded must benefit the public. It must offer a
profound contribution. She outlined the qualifications for public art:
1.
Intellectual merit
2.
Brilliance in design, craftsmanship, vision or execution
3.
Access
4",PublicArtCommission/2007-09-27.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2007-09-27,5,"She talked about applications, access and how all products should be treated with equal
consideration. The art must serve the public and she has no opposition to funding artists
or organizations.
Commissioner Arrants responded by saying that he is new to serving on a Commission
,but has been an actor and director for 40 years so he has been on both sides of the
podium. He gave a short history of what he has worked on regarding public art and
programs. He talked about the enrichment of the generations and how important it is.
He asked if stage production companies are obligated to contribute to public art. He
hopes that together they can come up with something that is beneficial for the
community.
Vice-Chair Lee spoke to some things brought up by the public. She said that $12,500
was going to administration, $6,250 per year. She pointed out the contingency that was
interested in brick and mortar projects such as art centers; gallery space and physical
plants of some sort as well as the many organizations that would like to receive grant
money. She asked about organizations and if they have to already exist and be
providing a service to receive money. She spoke to the selection process for individuals
and should not be done in the first week. She replied to Ms. Colburn's suggestion about
taking money to make money and said that a track record is required to be able to get
grant money. She said that some groups exist because some federal money has been
given already. She would like to see modest goals and objectives, which are achievable
within the first two years.
Commissioner Wolfe expressed appreciation that so many people showed up to the
meeting. He supports the idea of a grant program. He thinks the mission of the
Commission is for public art and the review of art for public spaces. He also thinks that
there must be a group to address the grant program.
Commissioner Rosenberg stated that she wants to make sure that an outside influence
exist along side the grant program. She wants to make sure that everything is clear and
understandable.
Chair Huston concurred and talked about the dollar for dollar and how it would be
virtually impossible for individual arts grants and how prohibitive it would be. She thinks
that there should be a way for the Council to support individuals by funding existing
opportunities. There should be a way to foster individual grants.
Ms. Woodbury said that a program should be developed to recommend to City Council.
She said that Council is counting on the PAC to advise them on grants programs. In
addition she mentioned that there are in lieu fees as a way to match the dollar for dollar
grants.
Chair Huston responded by saying that its useful and interesting to see how people
might spend money, but she thinks there will never be a proposal that doesn't have a
component that serves the greater public. She brought up an item that was mentioned
at a prior meeting to find a specific model to accommodate the folksy nature of Alameda.
Mr. Sheppard pointed out that Peducha contributed much more on a per capita basis to
public art.
5",PublicArtCommission/2007-09-27.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2007-09-27,6,"Chair Huston said that success breeds success.
Ms. Woodbury provided some suggestions on how to develop the program. She said
that the ""who"" should be refined and what kind of things the grants should fund.
Chair Huston brought up that the mission is the first thing. She wants it to be community
based and referred back to the criteria she gave earlier.
Commissioner Rosenberg said that because of what was said, it is about the whole of
the community.
Chair Huston said that she hears two sides. She stated three goals:
1.
Support the arts community
2.
Elevating the level of art within that community
3.
Expanding art to the public, making it accessible to the public in general
Commissioner Rosenberg responded to the statement of elevating the level of art is the
intellectualism of it and is afraid of marginalizing some. She feels that it is not
necessary.
Chair Huston asked for a mission statement.
Vice-Chair Lee gave a statement for the grants ""to include the richness of the community
in an arts program, which would develop existing resources and make them available or
accessible to the greater community,"" so that you don't have to be an artist to enjoy it.
Chair Huston responded by saying that she wouldn't mind including examples of how
some things should not be set in stone.
Commissioner Rosenberg talked about economic viability and how it could bring in
revenue. A cultural arts center could be a great thing for the community and wants that
put in the mission statement.
Vice-Chair Lee responded by saying that $50,000 could easily be spent to raise money
for a $500,000 brick and mortar venue.
Commissioner Wolfe brought up what some one had said about the catalyst and the
seed capital.
Chair Huston responded to Mr. Wolfe by saying that there should be no limit to how little
a grant can be.
Commissioner Rosenberg suggested starting small but having larger goals and plans.
Commissioner Wolfe said that it should be about stimulating public art in the community.
He wants to broaden the reach of the program. He thinks that grants should look at
voids in the community to reach out and fill those voids.
Chair Huston responded to the mission statement and said that a good statement would
be ""To stimulate public art in the community"". She likes the idea of a catalyst. Another
6",PublicArtCommission/2007-09-27.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2007-09-27,7,"statement from Chair Huston was ""The goal of the Alameda Cultural Arts Grant Program
is to serve as a catalyst to stimulate public art in the community.'
It was agreed upon that it was vague.
Commissioner Arrants pointed out the statement on the literature he was given by Mr.
Vu. He read the points out loud and related those points to the conversation. He
realized that the struggles are the mechanics of the program. He wants to know things
such as what is going to happen with such a small amount of money.
Chair Huston reiterated the protocol. She clarified that what Commissioner Arrants read
was the mission statement for the Public Art Commission and how their original initiative
was to administer money on the percentage for arts but it is shifting and now they will be
defining and administering the Public Art Cultural Grants Program. She feels that
everyone is on the same page as to how the program will proceed; including grants to
individuals and organizations and would not include bringing in people from outside
Alameda. She added a part that is related to a long-term goal that involves an art
center.
Commissioner Wolfe stated that just the calling for arts would stimulate a lot of interest.
Chair Huston brought up a 'social practice artist' and described what that is. Her
example illustrated how some artists rearrange exhibits to show the contradictions
between what is represented and what is not said. It's about a reframing of an
institution. An idea she had was to seek out practitioners do not participate and include
them in the grant program.
Commissioner Rosenberg suggested creating some sort of call for artists.
Chair Huston said that dealing with the basics such as the individual and organizational
grants is first but then it's about digging out the rest of the community and finding ways
to include them.
Commissioner Rosenberg replied that was a good idea.
Commissioner Wolfe stated he thinks that whatever happens, the ""first launch"" should be
good. He wants to try to capture as many as possible in the first go around.
Chair Huston brought up the criteria and how there could be an easy misapprehension.
She mentioned the tile project and how conflicted it is. It included a lot of people but
didn't show a bigger picture. She is concerned with issues of quality.
Ms. Woodbury said that they have made good progress. She said this is the preliminary
step to creating a program.
Vice-Chair Lee mentioned that there is no website of an inventory of who is doing what
and what they would like to do. She thinks it would be nice to start a website that has a
catalog of who has done what as well as having a blog. She suggested a ""wiki"" style site
so people could add to it.
7",PublicArtCommission/2007-09-27.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2007-09-27,8,"Ms. Woodbury clarified the budget by saying that some of the money is being used for
administrative purposes. She wants to take the PAC program to City Council in
December for recommendation as to how the money is spent.
Chair Huston asked when the annual plan goes to Council.
Ms. Woodbury responded by saying that typically it would go during the first meeting of
December but it may be likely to go the second meeting of December.
Chair Huston noticed the urgency of a website and a blog to accommodate community
discussion.
Ms. Woodbury suggested scheduling a workshop or meeting that would allow interaction
with each other and to brainstorm ideas in order to bring forth a formal discussion to
regarding the grant program at a later time.
Chair Huston proposed scheduling of a special meeting. It was unanimously agreed
upon. She suggested tabling the minutes and the discussion of item 4-B. She asked if
they should name agenda items for the upcoming meeting and asked about the one
thing still on the agenda, which is the review of the guidelines.
Mr. Vu suggested addressing the other agenda items first before the review of the policy
guidelines.
Commissioner Wolfe brought up the percentage for public art and the ordinance.
Chair Huston reminded the Commission that the ordinance is still on the table and wants
it to be agendized. She noted that she wants the discussion of things to be wide open
such as the ordinance. She asked if there are any subcommittees that will be needed
for anything.
5.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
6.
ADJOURNMENT:
Meeting adjourned at 9:00 pm
Respectfully submitted,
Douglas Vu, Secretary
Public Art Commission
8",PublicArtCommission/2007-09-27.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2007-10-25,1,"DRAFT
Minutes of the Regular Public Art Commission Meeting
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Conference Room 360, City Hall
CONVENE:
7:10 p.m.
1.
ROLL CALL:
Chair Huston, Vice-Chair Lee, and Commissioners Rosenberg
Arrants, and Wolfe
Commissioners Rosenberg and Lee were absent
STAFF PRESENT:
Andrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager; Tony Ebster,
Recording Secretary
2.
MINUTES: Minutes for the Regular Meeting of August 23, 2007 and September 27,
2007
Continued to the meeting of November 29, 2007
3.
ORAL COMMUNICATION:
4.
REGULAR AGENDA:
4-A. Chair Huston brought up the on-site public art and the memo and felt that it was a
misnomer. She referred to the memo and what it says about the Commission and that they are
being called upon to apply the funds available to public art and they need not apply it to a
specific piece or location, its wide open. She mentioned the Alameda Municipal Code and the
section that says that money left over after administrative fees be distributed to the City for on-
site public art. She also mentioned that the amount available as of September 2007 is
approximately $45,295. She read the memo and suggested that the annual plan be amended
to include that the money be spent or applied to the purchase or expenses of public art in
Alameda. She proposed a movement to amend the annual plan include a line item to apply the
available funds to public art within the next year. She thinks that they should not name the
number but rather the source.
Mr. Arrants asked about the percentages
Ms. Huston clarified that since the funds for administrative duties be spent on art since it had not
been used.
Mr. Wolfe talked about the specific locations that could have an impact on Park and Webster
Streets. He wanted to designate the money to art at the tube. He feels that it is critical that they
place art at the entries to the tubes and feels that it would benefit the community if they could
make the association with culture upon entering the city.
Ms. Huston didn't disagree.
Mr. Thomas clarified what was happening at the exit of the Webster tube.",PublicArtCommission/2007-10-25.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2007-10-25,2,"Mr. Wolfe asked how it would fit into the program.
Mr. Thomas said that it was to be designated as a high priority project.
Ms. Huston said that one way or another they need to spend the money. She is not sure that
$45,000 is enough to provide art for that location and feels that they could spend the money
faster than when the project is going to be finished. She wants to put it on the agenda for
discussion. She feels that the scale of the art would have to be huge to compete with the
surrounding area.
Mr. Thomas stated that the plans are very detailed and are finalized. He said that the two big
issues are the timing and that the developer has committed $300,000 for the public art
requirement.
Ms. Huston wants to put spending the money on the annual plan.
Mr. Wolfe wants to put spending the money on the plan with a specific site, the exit of the tube.
Mr. Arrants wanted clarify what the tube was and how it was going to change in the future.
Mr. Thomas helped him visualize the future project.
Ms. Huston is ready for some art to be out. They don't know what $45,000 will buy. She also
wanted to know what they others thought. She doesn't need to commit to a site.
Mr. Wolfe feels that they need to move in a direction that will allow them to use the money.
Ms. Huston would support the discussion if the other commissioners were there.
Mr. Arrants asked if there was an objection to talking about it at the next meeting.
Ms. Huston felt that spending the money in the fund was not an urgent issue.
Mr. Thomas responded by saying that if they wanted to split the discussion, approve the
expenditures, send it to City Council and let them know that they are talking about it.
Ms. Huston proposed a motion that they add to the annual plan the expenditure of funds for
public art in the coming year with specific considerations of the Neptune Park and the Webster
tube exit. She also wanted to propose an Ad Hoc Committee for the further consider the
phrasing and crafting of the cultural arts grant.
Mr. Thomas stated that the intent of the committee was to have the workshop and work
independently to create information and put it together for presentation to the full Art
Commission.
Ms. Huston was confused on the subcommittee and how many members of the commission
could be involved.",PublicArtCommission/2007-10-25.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2007-10-25,3,"5.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
None
6.
ADJOURNMENT:
Meeting adjourned at 7:30 pm to the special workshop.
Respectfully submitted,
Jon Biggs, Secretary
Public Art Commission",PublicArtCommission/2007-10-25.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2007-11-29,1,"DRAFT
Minutes of the Regular Public Art Commission Meeting
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Conference Room 360, City Hall
CONVENE:
7:08 p.m.
1.
ROLL CALL:
Chair Huston, Vice-Chair Lee, and Commissioners Rosenberg
Wolfe
STAFF PRESENT:
Douglas Vu, Planner III; Tony Ebster, Recording Secretary
2.
MINUTES: Commissioner Lee was not at the October meeting and didn't know what
happened. Mr. Vu recommended accepting the August 2007 and September 2007
minutes since a lot of time had passed since those meetings.
Motion/Second to accept August 23, 2007 Minutes
Ayes: 3; Noes: 0; Wolfe Abstained
Motion/Second to accept September 27, 2007 Minutes
Continued to Meeting of January 9, 2008
3.
ORAL COMMUNICATION:
4.
REGULAR AGENDA:
4-A. Adoption of 2008 Meeting Calendar
Mr. Vu Clarified that the reason that the 2008 meeting schedule was set for the second
Wednesday of each month was due to availability of Council Chambers and that the
second Wednesday was the only day available to schedule regular monthly meetings.
Commissioner Lee brought up the fact that in the past the meeting schedule was based
on when the commissioners were available.
Commissioner Rosenberg stated that it would have been better for staff to ask first
before making the calendar.
Mr. Vu stated that staff created the schedule with the consideration of all the other
activity happening in the department.
Commissioner Lee mentioned that Commissioner Wolfe is stepping down pending the
appointment of new Commissioners.
Commissioner Huston proposed accepting January 9, 2008 and February 13, 2008 and
revisiting the calendar.",PublicArtCommission/2007-11-29.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2007-11-29,2,"The meetings of January 9, 2008 and February 13, 2008 were accepted and the
calendar will be reevaluated pending the appointment of new commissioners.
4-B. Cultural Arts Grants Program
Chair Lee opened the public comment session.
Mr. Jeff Cambra spoke about the Arts Grants Program and thanked the Commission for
their hard work. He requested another charette. He felt that despite the fact that a consensus
had not been reached, it was productive and it was good to hear opposing views. It gave a
better view of the big picture.
Mr. Clint Imboden asked about the emergency/opportunity grants and if an individual
who received a grant in the first year of the two-year cycle could apply for an emergency or
opportunity grant in the second year of the cycle.
Commissioner Huston replied to Mr. Imboden's question by saying that they don't want
to encourage the accident-prone. She is what remains of the subcommittee for the Cultural Arts
Grants. She referred to the memo for Item 4-B. She talked with a City Council member and
was told that funds had not been allocated. She mentioned contradictions in paperwork on the
City side. She also mentioned that there is no labor. She wondered if the Grants program is
part of their scope. She mentioned that they are an advisory committee and are not equipped to
take on such a large task. She brought up that she was called into the Planning department
and was told that they had to take on the task of the grants program. After doing some
research, they found that it might be incompatible with the size and scope of their work. She
wants to speak with City Council to see if it is their job to take on such a large task. There were
internal difficulties. She brought up the subcommittee and that it was not to work with staff, but
to create the draft grants program. There was no agreement to present the draft to staff prior to
presenting it to their own commission. She doesn't like that it imposed a process on the
commission that they didn't agree to. She expressed frustration that her draft was rejected and
is unwilling to have her work held up prior to presentation to the commission.
Mr. Wolfe wanted to dig into the priorities of the annual plan but felt that they weren't
given the legal authorization to move forward and feels that the City needs to clarify the issue.
He feels like it is colonialism. Need to get priorities in line. He feels that there are a couple of
items in the annual plan that the public needs to come out strong on. They need to focus on
a
few specific items and do it quickly. He doesn't want to lose out on the opportunity.
Ms. Huston feels that the conflict is a combination of loss of authority and an attitude
from the department as a whole.
Ms. Lee pointed out that they are not an all purpose arts council.
Ms. Huston wants to go back to City Council to find what they want the commission to
do. The commission does not know what their authority is. She also pointed out that the draft
grants program is merely a collection of ideas and has never been discussed by the commission
as a whole. She wants to put the Grants program on hold until the commission's role is
clarified.
2",PublicArtCommission/2007-11-29.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2007-11-29,3,"Ms. Rosenberg stated that part of the problem they are having is the interaction with
staff and the commission. She wants the public to be a larger part of the process and doesn't
want staff to make the final decisions. She wonders if the grants program is within the
framework of the commission and feels that it should be under an arts council and not the
advisory commission. Its taxing trying to figure out what they can and cannot do.
Ms. Huston feels that they need to get their feet out of the concrete.
4-C. Ms. Lee brought up the subcommittee and proposed putting it on hold.
Ms. Rosenberg pointed out that they never had an Ad Hoc committee, instead it was a
subcommittee. There was no presence of an administrative body to work with; it was just she
and Ms. Cervantes. She said that there had been a model of a subcommittee that did not
include a staff member taking and forming the notes. The subcommittee had operated on its
own.
Ms. Lee clarified that the subcommittee reported back to the committee as a whole.
Ms. Huston stated that she was faulted for her actions at the October meeting because
she was supposed to assign an subcommittee. She had no intention of assigning a
subcommittee to the issue of on-site public art until it was discussed in depth. She questioned
the buying of public art. She was told that she must deal with two things. One was that there
was $45,000 in the art fund and that it must be spent. She brought up the item on the October
agenda that said that they are compelled to spend it. She felt disrespected that she was faulted
for not assigning a subcommittee despite the fact that there were only four members, two with
one foot in and one foot out.
Mr. Wolfe brought up the budgetary issue and that the money doesn't have to be spent,
it is in a trust fund. It is not lost if it is not spent.
Ms. Huston responded by saying that there is nothing in the ordinance that says that
they must spend the money in a timely manner. They get to ask themselves ""how would we let
someone else spend the money""? How much should be spent, more will come.
Mr. Wolfe asked if there is money, what do they want to accomplish.
Ms. Huston responded by saying that the money is a big discussion and is not a
subcommittee discussion.
Mr. Wolfe suggested a workshop to include the public to figure out objectives in terms of
public art and what they want to do with the money.
Ms. Rosenberg clarified that it is different from the arts grant program.
Mr. Wolfe suggested readdressing the plan and asked if it can be rephrased and if they
can organize a series of workshops to elicit public opinion about the objectives of public art
expenditures.
Ms. Lee brought up the rolodex idea to send RFPs to artists. She feels its not too hard
to set up.
3",PublicArtCommission/2007-11-29.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2007-11-29,4,"Mr. Vu clarified why they fastracked the item. The public art plan called for a percentage
to be spent on public art. It was suggested that the money be spent since the City Council was
going to be supplementing the cultural arts grants program. That's why the item was placed
higher on the priority list. It was the idea of the Commission, not staff.
Mr. Wolfe mentioned that in October they talked about the Stargell Avenue project and
feels that there is a good opportunity there. He feels that it should move forward.
Ms. Huston pointed out what a tangle the two agendas are if they are place in the same
fund. Only a small percentage of the administrative funds are allowed to be used as a base for
the cultural arts fund. The problem she has with the process is that they have very little
authority. They are not allowed to ask where things come from.
Ms. Rosenberg suggested that they go through the minutes appropriately and very
carefully and making decisions in steps.
Mr. Wolfe brought up the early discussions as a committee and their talks about object
art and how they relate to the entrances of the City. He is more interested in more temporary
installation of art.
Ms. Lee expressed confusion regarding placement of art.
Mr. Wolfe talked about the object art at the entrances to the City. He was wondering
how it would work on State Highways in the area being planned near Webster Street and
Stargell Avenue. He said that Cal Trans is concerned about what is the peripheral of the driver
and what they could run into going 45 miles per hour. He also expressed concern over whether
or not the art will be visible or not driving at speed.
Ms. Rosenberg clarified the difference between an Ad Hoc Committee and a
subcommittee. She disagrees that the terms are interchangeable.
Ms. Lee complained that information from committees go through staff and then are
brought to the commission. Only after it has gone through staff can it go to the commission.
Ms. Rosenberg appreciates as a public body being able to have a public forum that isn't
filtered through a non-public entity. They need to put a stop on the interference. She wants
subcommittees that are not filtered by administrative bodies. She proposed a motion to
differentiate the meanings of an Ad Hoc and a subcommittee; subcommittees are members that
are able to go in pairs to investigate parts of the commission's mission and come report directly
to the commission without having to report to the administrative body of planning. An Ad Hoc
committee is developed by the chair of the commission with the understanding that the body
would include administrative staff with support and guidance.
Ms. Lee suggested that the motion include language stating that they prefer to use
subcommittees except when specifically deciding not to.
Ms. Huston commented on how it says a lot about the attitude and experience of the
commission that they have to write it into the minutes that they don't want to have to ask
permission for their subcommittees to bring them their information and she has been affected by
it.
4",PublicArtCommission/2007-11-29.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2007-11-29,5,"Ms. Rosenberg stated that it was important that the minutes be provided in an
appropriate time and felt that it was inappropriate that the October minutes were not available.
Mr. Vu encouraged the approval of the August and September minutes.
4-D. Approval of Special Meeting on December 20, 2007
Ms. Huston has an issue with how it is written and that commission adopted an irregular
schedule. She said that because a meeting is not on an annual schedule it is not ""special"".
Ms Rosenberg wanted the language changed.
Ms. Huston wanted to skip to commissioner communications and wanted to come back to the
special meeting.
Skip to Commissioner Communications
Ms. Lee talked about the history behind the Commission and what their purpose is. She read
from the ordinance to clarify what their job is as a commission. She also read from her letter.
Ms. Huston read from her letter.
Mr. Wolfe responded by saying that the letters are very specific and they point to specific
problems.
Ms. Rosenberg expressed thanks and appreciation for the letters and the work put into them.
Mr. Wolfe asked if they could compose a letter as a group and send it to City Council.
Mr. Vu clarified that if the letter was composed and sent as a group, it would have to be
agendized so the public could be involved. Otherwise, it would have to be done individually.
Ms. Rosenberg asked to agendize the item for the December 20, 2007 meeting. She wanted to
clarify that if Ms. Woodbury came to the meeting, she should come and help them define their
goals, not tell them what their goals are. Ms. Rosenberg wanted Ms. Woodbury be clear that it
is a hotbed she would be walking into.
Mr. Vu responded by clarifying that the sentiment is that if there is confusion regarding protocol,
Ms. Woodbury would clarify those procedures.
Ms. Lee expressed that she would feel more comfortable discussing the matter with City
Council.
Ms. Huston concurred.
Mr. Wolfe asked if they could go to the City lawyer to see if the commission has the authority to
act as the grant constructor.
Ms. Huston feels that they have never been given a clear representation of what they have been
asked to do. She is unsure of whether or not requests are in their domain and is given the
impression that they are not allowed to decline requests given to them. She feels that Ms.
5",PublicArtCommission/2007-11-29.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2007-11-29,6,"Woodbury's understanding of the commission's role is different than what their legal power may
be. She expressed exhaustion for having to argue over issues. She is exasperated by having
no authority when it comes to staff and feels that she shouldn't have to defend it.
Ms. Lee said that they were eager to take on the new charge but feels that they are not the best
group to do an arts council for the City of Alameda.
Ms. Huston wants to go to City Council first to clarify their authority.
Ms. Lee brought up the issue of being short two commissioners and feels that their job is more
difficult without them.
Mr. Wolfe stated that the way the argument is constructed, it may be a legal issue and it would
be good to put it before the lawyer. He reiterated that he is leaving the commission; therefore,
his voice would not be as effective.
Ms. Huston feels that his voice has as much weight as the other commissioners.
Ms. Rosenberg concurred.
Ms. Huston wants to hear what he has to say.
Mr. Wolfe feels that they need to send copies of the letters to the attorney to evaluate some of
the questions that the commission has regarding their roles and the demands put upon them.
Ms. Huston wants to talk to City Council then might want to meet with the commission before
meeting with Ms. Woodbury. Her sense is that there is too much that planning recommends to
the commission. She feels that the recommendations are being confused with the
requirements. She thinks there is a lot of ""hall monitoring"" going on.
Mr. Wolfe asked if they wanted legal counsel at the meeting.
Ms. Lee feels that it might not be good to pay for an attorney if it is not appropriate.
Ms. Rosenberg doesn't want to schedule a meeting until they meet with City Council.
Mr. Wolfe said that unless there is an art proposal, the next meeting would be January.
Mr. Vu clarified that the commission doesn't want to meet on December 20 unless there is an
art application.
Ms. Lee doesn't want to forgo the January meeting.
Ms. Hustion suggested agendizing funds and expenditures.
Mr. Vu asked about preparing a staff report and what should be talked about.
5.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
5-A.
Bridgeside Public Art
6",PublicArtCommission/2007-11-29.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2007-11-29,7,"Mr. Vu started by saying that this item was in response to Ms. Huston's request for more
information on how the amphitheater was constructed.
Ms. Huston asked if there had been any performances there.
Mr. Vu brought out the list of three performances and one painting event from the developer that
have occurred between March 2006 and March 2007.
Ms. Huston brought up that she had called some vendors asking about the performance space
and no one knew about it.
Mr. Wolfe asked about the advertisement of the performances.
Ms. Rosenberg asked if the developer was supposed to bring a list of events to the commission
so that the commission could see that there was a set level of performances.
Mr. Vu referred to the Resolution and condition two that stated that the developer would submit
a schedule of performances for the first year to the satisfaction of the Planning & Building
Director.
The commission questioned the submittal of the schedule to the Director. They thought that the
developer would submit the schedule to the commission, and then they would forward it to the
Director.
Ms. Huston clarified that this was an amended application and that it required 12 performances
on the same day and time. She wanted to listen back to the tapes to see which amendments
they actually agreed upon.
Ms. Rosenberg wanted it brought back to the commission so they could approve the
programming.
Ms. Huston said that the amended programming requirement was designed to build the grass
roots performances.
Ms. Lee stated that it was to be evaluated after the first year by the commission.
Ms. Huston requested staff listen to the tapes and write down the amendments to see if they
have been fulfilled.
Ms. Rosenberg feels that the amphitheater is so poorly planned and the level of the turf is not
good. She said that there is no feel of a performance space and questioned who approved it.
Mr. Wolfe said that one of the mistakes he made was not asking if it could be elevated slightly.
He suggested that if the grades were elevated slightly, it would be a more usable space.
Ms. Huston feels that there are a number of issues. One of the issues is that she feels that it
turned out to be what they feared, which is a landscaping plan that is barely amended. She
wants to try to hold the developer to the agreed amendments in the Bridgeside project proposal.
Ms. Lee felt that they were shaky about approving performances fulfilling the art requirement in
the first place.
7",PublicArtCommission/2007-11-29.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2007-11-29,8,"Mr. Wolfe said that they may want to go back and be very strict about performance spaces
because the 1% doesn't cover performance spaces very well. He wants more foresight instead
of hindsight.
Ms. Rosenberg stated that the better performance area is outside Nob Hill foods; it's not behind
the dog wash. She questions who approved the project.
Mr. Wolfe suggested that the item of looking back at the yearly program be agendized for
January. He referenced the library and suggested more open dialog.
Ms. Huston asked Mr. Vu if there was anything that could be done about Bridgeside. She asked
what they could recommend to press the space so it could actually be used as a performance
space.
The commission asked if there was a person who was supposed in charge of the programming
for the space.
Ms. Rosenberg stated that it is crucial that they come back to the commission and wanted to
ask that they come to the commission to present a program for comments and revisions.
Ms. Huston feels that it is a very complicated issue and that enforcement is huge.
Mr. Wolfe asked about enforcement and if anyone had gone out to check what the grades are.
He feels that if the grades are not accurate, they are not acceptable
Ms. Huston had a couple of assignments for staff, check the grades and check the
amendments, and ask planning what are they allowed to do for enforcement.
Mr. Wolfe mentioned the temporary permits.
Mr. Vu said that they developer has received the temporary certificate of occupancy. He said
that the commission has some leverage to make the developer compliant before they receive
their certificate of occupancy. He also suggested that staff make the developer check the
grades and come back to the commission.
Ms. Huston wants the to go all out and give them a report on letterhead and she wants a fact
sheet before the developer comes back to the commission. What the commission needs to
know is what the amended agreement was. She wants to send out a request for information.
Mr. Vu clarified the agenda items for January 9 meeting.
Ms. Huston wanted to talk about the possible expenditures.
Ms. Rosenberg asked about agendizing the cap.
Ms. Huston replied that her top priority was hearing back from City Council. She suggested a
subcommittee to look at the cap.
6.
ADJOURNMENT:
Meeting adjourned at 8:53 pm
8",PublicArtCommission/2007-11-29.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2007-11-29,9,"Respectfully submitted,
Jon Biggs, Secretary
Public Art Commission
9",PublicArtCommission/2007-11-29.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2008-01-09,1,"DRAFT
Minutes of the Regular Public Art Commission Meeting
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Conference Room 360, City Hall
CONVENE:
7:05 p.m.
1.
ROLL CALL:
Chair Huston, Vice-Chair Lee, and Commissioner Wolfe
Commissioner Rosenberg arrived at 7:12
STAFF PRESENT:
Jon Biggs, Planning Services Manager; Tony Ebster, Recording
Secretary
MINUTES: None
2.
ORAL COMMUNICATION None
3.
REGULAR AGENDA:
3-A.
Discussion of request to City Council
Mr. Jeff Cambra thanked the commission for all the work they have done. He said that Arts
Alameda is prepared to draft the public arts grants program criteria, but wanted to give everyone
a chance to express their opinions.
Ms. Huston thanked Mr. Cambra for his comments. She then read her letter to City Council.
Ms. Lee read her letter to City Council. Her concerns are ""mission creep"", they are being asked
to manage a different program. She feels they are not qualified to give out grants and she is
uncomfortable giving money to friends and neighbors and is concerned with conflict of interest.
They are not in a position to put in extra time; they are an advisory committee, not a research
and grant generating committee. They are not clear on their mission.
Ms. Huston added that since the grants issue came up, she became more alert to conflicts. She
referenced the September minutes and that they are supposed to come up with ideas and give
them to the planning department. She never intended to work under management of the
planning department without pay and grew uncomfortable as materials arrived that increasingly
pressured her to answer to the planning department. She mentioned the draft of a
subcommittee report that was prevented from being presented to the Commission. She feels
that a lot of their work has been subverted. They had reservations regarding the grants
program and managing the creation of a new program in which planning controls.
Mr. Biggs asked about the agenda topic to clarify how the letters related.
Ms. Huston responded by saying that the letters are requests to City Council and refers to the
commission having little understanding of their authority. She asked if it was appropriate to do
the grants program. She counted on the planning department when they asked if it was
appropriate and when Ms. Woodbury said they must, she was acting in her role as advisor to
the commission. Ms. Huston feels that Ms. Woodbury was exerting a personal desire or a",PublicArtCommission/2008-01-09.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2008-01-09,2,"departmental imperative, something that was important to her. It prevented the commission
from engaging in the appropriate discussion, which is this appropriate for this commission, is the
money appropriate based on the ordinance they are serving.
Ms. Rosenberg said that if the answer is no and it doesn't follow the guidelines, then it is up to
City Council to create a proper grants committee or a set of guidelines. She said that they need
guidance from Council to assure that there is enough direction.
Mr. Wolfe stated that the mission of the commission is to advise City Council. He moved that
their understanding of their mission is that the grants authoring is outside the scope of the public
art commission.
Ms. Huston added that the use of the PAC funds for grants is in violation of the ordinance. She
restated the movement that the Cultural Arts Grants are outside the scope of the Commission
and that the use of the funds for these grants is in violation of the uses outlined by the
ordinance.
Ms. Rosenberg seconded the motion. All were in favor.
Ms. Rosenberg said that they would like to continue as an advisory commission and suggested
that the City create a separate grants commission.
Ms. Huston replied by saying that She would have been willing to pursue the concern of the
grants had there not been such a confusion of authority between the commission and staff. If
there was a desire to craft a program, they would have been willing to do it.
Ms. Rosenberg said that they are there to serve the public and feels that it dishonors what a
public commission does and feels that it disrespects their time.
Ms. Huston thinks the big issue was not being able to bring a draft to the commission, to be
prevented from doing that made it clear that it wasn't their project.
Ms. Lee wanted to remind everyone that the commission is there for public art, art in public
places, not art for the public.
Ms. Huston brought up another topic, which was the public art project. She feels that it isn't
thriving. She is confused about their role and feels that it places them between the planning
department and City Council. If they don't get applications, they have no business. In four and
a half years, they have only had five applicants. Two walked away never to be heard from
again. They are finding a way around the commission. The commission has no control over
what comes to their table. She wanted Council to know that something is not working. She is
concerned with the low number of applicants. She also mentioned Bridgeside.
Mr. Wolfe mentioned the developments such as the rental complex on the west end. He was
concerned that they have never heard from the applicant.
Ms. Huston mentioned the list she requested and how the commission never heard from three
of the applicants. They are publicly stating that they have no control.
Mr. Wolfe feels that it is up to the planning department to track the permits and make sure they
are fulfilling their requirements.
2",PublicArtCommission/2008-01-09.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2008-01-09,3,"Mr. Biggs clarified that most projects are operating under a temporary certificate of occupancy
and must fulfill all conditions of approval to obtain their final certificate.
Mr. Wolfe mentioned South Shore and commended them for being forthcoming in terms of
providing art but they still don't see any recognition of it being public art. There are no
medallions or plaques, therefore they are not in compliance.
Mr. Biggs recognized that the commission brought up the topic that some projects have not
fulfilled their art requirements but wasn't exactly sure which ones they were.
Ms. Huston replied by saying that if they have asked the planning department, Mayor and City
Council, then at some point it isn't the commission's responsibility anymore.
Mr. Wolfe said that if developers don't get the final certificate of occupancy in a timely manner,
the banks don't like it very much; they have a financial obligation to comply.
Ms. Huston wants to get everything argumentative off the table and feels that this issue has
been a thorn in the side of the Commission. She feels that they don't have the resources to
respond.
Mr. Wolfe recognized the rotation of staff in the planning department. He feels that there is a
loss of information.
Ms. Huston wanted to publicly declare that the commission is not responsible for who applies
and their job is limited to creating guidelines, receiving, reviewing, accepting, and/or rejecting
the applications. Everything else is someone else's responsibility. She feels that there is an
impression that the commission is falling down on the job and isn't sure what else to do.
Ms. Lee brought up the problem of supervising to make sure projects don't fall through the
cracks and wondered who's job it was to make sure it doesn't happen.
Mr. Biggs replied by saying that it is the job of the planning department. He understands from
background discussions that Bridgeside is operating under a temporary certificate of occupancy.
He mentioned the resolution approved by the commission and thought that was where the
discrepancy in the documentation had occurred. He suggested that the commission provide
some history on the discussions of Bridgeside.
3-B. Review of Public Art at Bridgeside Commercial Development
Ms. Rosenberg recalled that there was supposed to be a stage setting, which was an
auditorium-like setup where the landscape would come in, in a way that was concave not
convex. She feels that the space is not appropriate to be a theater site. The physicality is not
correct and feels that it is completely underused due to the landscaping. Also, the programming
is not sufficient and that there is a lack of notification of the programming.
Ms. Lee mentioned the evaluation that was supposed to be done which had not been submitted.
Ms. Huston had the programming in her hand and said that it is not sufficient. She mentioned
two aspects of the property. One, which was approved by the commission, was to build an
amphitheater in a public setting but the result was not an amphitheater. It was also supposed to
3",PublicArtCommission/2008-01-09.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2008-01-09,4,"be wired for sound and lighting as well as landscaped to provide seating for audiences. She
said that it is not an amphitheater and does not allow for proper seating of audience. The
programming was also not sufficient. The applicant proposed four events per year and the
commission said that was inadequate. She mentioned some of the suggestions from the
commission and the resolution was accepted as amended, but they were never detailed. The
request for the amended resolution was never provided. The second part was a requirement to
put out a sign and there was supposed to be a property manager to allow access to the
performance space. She called the number and was given a runaround. Not having the phone
number is non-compliance. The number of performances, the diversity and the advertising are
all inadequate.
Ms. Rosenberg suggested that they re-look at the ordinance pertaining to performance spaces
and how it's worded.
Mr. Wolfe's recollection of the meeting was a discussion regarding the grading of the
performance space. He asked if there are any as-built records of how it was built.
Ms. Rosenberg said that however you look at it, it wasn't built to the specifications that the
commission approved.
Mr. Wolfe said that it may or may not be how it is supposed to be because there is no way to tell
from the record.
Ms. Huston said that the elevations on the drawings are different from what was actually built.
She mentioned the stage and that its not a stage and is flush with the grass.
Mr. Wolfe said that it is mounded in the center and is not graded according to the plans.
Ms. Huston asked what they want to do about it. They have two choices. One is to make the
applicant renegotiate their requirement, hash out a new project or force them to fulfill the
existing project.
Ms. Rosenberg thinks it is in the best interest to hash out a new project because there are other
areas of the shopping center that would be much better for public events. Or they could provide
some visual art.
Ms. Huston mentioned that the property has a new owner. She welcomed Debra Owen.
Ms. Debra Owen had some notes regarding what was agreed upon or expected and her
recollection was that there was to be lighting, seating, and electricity. There were no public
restrooms but the retailers would make accommodations. Her impression was that it would
amenable to some literary arts programming. She says that it is not amenable to that type of
programming. Her opinion is that what was expected was not fulfilled. Had the facilities been
provided, they would have participated. It was also her understanding that the Bridgeside
organization was going to participate in the marketing and advertising of the performances. She
said in order for the Frank Bette Center to be interested in developing programming, there
needs to be seating, lighting, electricity, and a sense of support and encouragement.
Ms. Huston thanked Ms. Owen's for her comments. She asked her about interaction and when
it failed.
4",PublicArtCommission/2008-01-09.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2008-01-09,5,"Ms. Owen spoke with the property manager and asked if there was lighting and electricity. She
was surprised by what it ended up being and decided to move on since it wasn't
accommodating. She said that what is there doesn't motivate the Frank Bette Center to
participate.
Ms. Rosenberg asked if they did any advertising such as banners or newspaper ads. She said
that despite the fact that Ms. Owen had no expectation, the commission did have expectations
and they were not fulfilled. She said that after reviewing, she isn't sure that it can be what it is
supposed to be and wants Bridgeside to come back and submit another project.
Mr. Biggs responded by saying that it was his understanding that the amphitheater was
constructed as approved. He also said that the tapes requested were not available.
Ms. Huston said that the letter that was requested that the information be documented so they
could have an enforceable contract.
Mr. Biggs said that since it was all new to him, the information that was presented specifically
the minutes doesn't talk about the specifics of the programming.
Ms. Huston asked about the tapes from the meeting where the conditions were discussed.
Mr. Biggs said that he was told that there were no tapes of the meetings. He had minutes from
the two meetings where Bridgeside was discussed.
Ms. Huston said that they are in non-compliance due to the fact that they failed on diversity, the
phone number to call doesn't work, and it doesn't comply with their drawings.
Ms. Lee said that this brings up a serious issue regarding taping the meetings.
Ms. Rosenberg said that it is the responsibility of the commissioners to speak clearly into the
microphones to get good recordings for proper documentation of meetings.
Ms. Huston claimed that from the very moment that the application was approved and amended
without the details, they were destined for this day. The commission knew that the planning
department had approved an application that the commission had rejected. They have been
chasing it down ever since and have been subverted at every turn. They were snowed, duped,
and played.
Ms. Rosenberg said that if there is nothing the commission can do there is no need to continue
talking about it. But if there is some way to make them comply, it should be done.
Mr. Biggs said that they could look for records providing proof that programming was provided.
Staff has been in contact with Bridgeside to make sure that it has advertised that the
amphitheater is available for performances.
Mr. Wolfe said that because of what is out there, it is not useable as a performance space.
Ms. Rosenberg said that it is asking them to do something they can't do. She asked what they
can do.
Mr. Biggs asked if the drawings were the same as the ones provided at the hearings.
5",PublicArtCommission/2008-01-09.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2008-01-09,6,"Ms. Huston read the resolution PAC-06-02 for Bridgeside. If planning has not received the
schedule, they are in non-compliance.
Mr. Biggs said that it was relayed to him that they had not complied with the advertising
condition as required.
Mr. Wolfe pointed out that the sign was hidden out of view.
Ms. Huston was ok with the sign. She moved to find them in non-compliance pending research
to find out if the Planning Director has received the programming schedule and to find out if they
can find them in non-compliance for the shape of the space.
Ms. Rosenberg asked if they could suggest that they move their performance space closer to
Nob Hill. She feels it is a much better site.
Mr. Biggs stated that due to the process, they couldn't because of the channels that the project
had to travel through.
Ms. Rosenberg seconded Ms. Huston's motion to find Bridgeside in non-compliance.
All were in favor. She would like to agendize the looking at the ordinance pertaining to
performance spaces if they cannot properly enforce it. She feels that it is a weak spot in the
ordinance.
Ms. Huston welcomed Mr. Biggs as the new agenda maker and requested that there be an
agenda item reviewing the viability of performance based art and spaces in the public art
ordinance.
Mr. Wolfe suggested amending the motion to change the wording regarding the shape of the
space. He thinks it should address the ground form and grading.
Ms. Huston suggested phrasing it very specifically. She would say that they have found the
Bridgeside project in non-compliance on several points. One of them is a failure to fulfill the
programming requirement both in number of performances, in submission of schedules, and in
diversity of performances and advertising and that the physical space is incompatible both with
the plans submitted and the use of the space. They would need further research to see if in fact
the usability of the space in relation to lights, electricity, and audio equipment further create a
non-compliance. They are ok with changing it if need be.
Ms. Rosenberg said that they should have to go back and look at the space and make it viable
for appropriate programming.
Mr. Biggs said that if it is found to be that size or general grading, it wouldn't allow an
opportunity to go back and have them rework the space.
Ms. Lee remembered that Bridgeside wanted the process to happen quickly and acknowledged
the commission's mistake in expediting their application.
Mr. Biggs recommended that if during the initial hearing there are changes that need to be
made, they don't approve the plans unless the applicant is there and notes the changes.
6",PublicArtCommission/2008-01-09.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2008-01-09,7,"Ms. Huston said that it is the responsibility of staff to enforce the changes on applications.
5.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
Mr. Jon Biggs introduced himself and said he looks forward to working with the commission.
Ms. Huston said that over the last six months, there has been difficulty getting the agenda as
requested and one of the things that are left off is commissioner comments and wants them put
back on for every agenda. She also mentioned the wording of the items and wants them left as
the commissioners named them.
6.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting adjourned at 8:20 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
TM CAN
Jon Biggs, Secretary
Public Art Commission
7",PublicArtCommission/2008-01-09.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2008-02-13,1,"Minutes of the Regular Public Art Commission Meeting
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Conference Room 360, City Hall
CONVENE:
7:05 p.m.
1.
ROLL CALL:
Chair Huston, Vice-Chair Lee, Commissioners Rosenberg
and Wolfe
STAFF PRESENT:
Jon Biggs, Planning Services Manager; Tony Ebster, Recording
Secretary
2.
MINUTES: Minutes for the meeting of October 25, 2007
Approved with changes, all in favor
Minutes of November 29, 2007
Approved with changes, all in favor
3.
ORAL COMMUNICATION:
Mr. John Sanchez was interested in what the Commission does.
It was suggested that the agenda be rearranged and the ordinance discussion be last because
it would be better understood after discussing the other topics first.
4.
REGULAR AGENDA:
4-A.
(Formerly 4-E) Public Art Commission Administration and Enforcement
Ms. Huston and Ms. Lee reported on their meeting with the Mayor. The three main points were:
1. Using the public art funds for the grants was in competition with the public arts use. 2. The
public art commission is independent, not under control of the planning department and 3. That
they are advisory, not an action commission.
Mr. Wolfe stated that as soon as a project becomes official, the Public Art Commission should
be notified.
Ms. Huston asked for a list of all projects operating under a temporary certificate of occupancy.
Ms. Huston mentioned that people are going directly to City Council and asking to bypass the
process. She wants to know where they are letting this happen.
Ms. Rosenberg said that it's the Mayor and planning's right to bypass the process but does an
injustice to the public art enrichment and enjoyment.
Mr. Wolfe mentioned that developers have dealt with enough commissions and do not want to
deal with another one.
Ms. Lee asked if there should be more of a connection between what their obligation is and
what the check was.",PublicArtCommission/2008-02-13.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2008-02-13,2,"Ms. Huston mentioned enforcement and accountability. They feel that they are not succeeding.
They want to find out why this is happening. Once they get it documented, they can amend the
ordinance. She mentioned having fewer meetings and spending more money on public art. Its
about finding the money and projects.
Ms. Rosenberg said that the reason they are not seeing the projects is because they have not
been approved.
Ms. Huston mentioned Bay Ship and Yacht and that they had a lawsuit with the City and their
application was lost. They had been exempted from the art requirement. She wants to talk
about changing the ordinance. She said that Ms. Woodbury had some changes because when
a developer submits proposals to the commission, they are often operating under temporary
certificates of occupancy. It's too late in the process. Ms. Huston expressed concern with the
design.
Mr. Wolfe mentioned talking with the City attorney
Ms. Rosenberg wants a timeline for how planning works.
Ms. Huston asked what in ordinance allows developers to get a temporary certificate of
occupancy before fulfilling the public art requirement. She asked if staff could ask Ms.
Woodbury about having a discussion about this issue. How do they fix that problem?
She brought up enforcement and said that she could only speak to Bridgeside. She explained
what happened. The Mayor said that it is not enforceable. She suggested making them pay in-
lieu fees.
Mr. Wolfe wants a time frame regarding Bridgeside noncompliance and their discussion with the
attorney and Ms. Woodbury's response to their inquiry.
Mr. Biggs reminded the commission that they are a quasi-judicial body and to exercise caution
with enforcement, especially with individuals. Applicants are entitled to due process. He
suggested that the proper way to enforce non-compliance is to inform staff of deficiencies. It is
staff's obligation to make sure the applicant is in compliance.
Ms. Rosenberg mentioned the efficacy of their program.
Ms. Huston said that Bridgeside is an example and should be used as an example of how to
enforce. They have no means by which they can inform them. She feels that they are doing a
good job on many levels. But they need an open policy so they can respond to all the projects
on an ongoing basis.
Mr. Wolfe mentioned that there are no medallions at Alameda Towne Centre.
Ms. Huston said that the request for information is an on-going one and what she would like to
do is incorporate the stream of information so that they have a record of all projects and wants
to track where the money is going.
Ms. Rosenberg suggested creating a checklist for the applicant so they can see what is checked
off to make sure the progress is documented for enforcement.
2",PublicArtCommission/2008-02-13.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2008-02-13,3,"Mr. Biggs responded by saying that the best way to achieve these things is to make sure certain
conditions of approval are complied with at key steps in the process.
Ms. Lee said that she feels that the commission is nipping at the heels of the developers.
Ms. Rosenberg pointed out that temporary certificates of occupancy come really easily and can
go for a long time.
Mr. Biggs mentioned having checkpoints in the process.
Ms. Huston said that what happens in the application process is that planning gets the
application and decides if it is ok. Bridgeside was ok with planning but has never been ok with
the commission.
Ms. Rosenberg felt that there are generalizations that are detrimental to the process. She
thinks that planning does not understand what the commission's requests are.
Ms. Huston mentioned two aspects, infrastructure and art-based. It's about the review process.
They need to trust staff. Is the space going to work for its intended purposes? She said that
staff might not be qualified to judge artwork; the commission may need to take part. There are
going to two parts of the review process, an art commission part and a planning part.
Mr. Biggs said that what they are working towards is reviewing it together.
Ms. Huston wanted an outline that has a timeline of completion.
Ms. Rosenberg said that she doesn't want a timeline because sometimes projects can be
delayed.
Mr. Biggs said that they would not look at a project after it goes in because it has been
approved. It is staff that makes sure the project is done according to the plans.
Ms. Rosenberg asked if there was a way to make sure that staff sees the details.
Mr. Biggs said that they are working on a system that notifies the inspector and he verifies that
certain things are in place or contacts the planner to verify.
Ms. Huston said that enforcement is not the commission's business.
Mr. Biggs reiterated that they are not an enforcement body. He said that if the commission
notices something that wasn't done correctly, they need to notify staff.
Ms. Rosenberg mentioned that creating an assessment process that helps advise planning
would be helpful.
Ms. Lee clarified by saying that the commission should have systematic review everything that
is being done.
Mr. Biggs clarified that his suggestion wasn't for them to go out and look to verify approvals; it
should be used as guidance for reviewing future projects.
3",PublicArtCommission/2008-02-13.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2008-02-13,4,"Ms. Rosenberg said that whatever makes things work more smoothly will help them be a more
successful commission.
Mr. Biggs said that there are too many projects and levels of review.
Mr. Wolfe said they need to be careful when they review projects and asked if they see the
recommendation before City Council sees it.
Ms. Rosenberg said that they review the recommendation.
Ms. Huston said that they get sent out before the commission sees it. She mentioned that it is a
problem with the ordinance. She said that staff sends their recommendation to the applicant
and Council before the commission sees it.
Mr. Wolfe said that an applicant comes in, the commission reviews their application and
comments, then staff makes a written comment or recommendation then it goes to City Council.
Ms. Lee said that they review all the components.
Mr. Biggs expressed some confusion and tried to explain his understanding of the process.
Ms. Huston suggested talking about it under its topic.
4-B. (Formerly 4-D) Public Art Fund
Ms. Huston asked about it because it is the first part of finding out where the money is going.
She questioned the amount in the public art fund.
Mr. Biggs clarified by saying that the commission should find out which projects have paid an in-
lieu fee, the amount of money and the running balance.
Ms. Rosenberg asked if there were plans for the money. Do they have expenses? She
suggested putting it on the agenda to discuss if there is a use for the money.
Mr. Wolfe asked if they should look at a physical plan of where potential sites would be.
Ms. Lee suggested a systematic plan for artist selection and how they would advertise.
Mr. Wolfe asked if it was appropriate to use some of the money to hire a consultant to help with
the plan, to look at sites and the process, and engage artists in the arts program.
Ms. Lee mentioned that the revamping the City's website should include an art section.
Ms. Rosenberg recalled a discussion that talked about creating a project when they had enough
money. They would ask for artists submittals, public opinion and develop a request.
Ms. Lee wants a procedure in place before spending any money.
Ms. Huston said that there is a brief outline regarding how they could spend the money. She
asked about agendizing a discussion the purchase of public art.
Ms. Huston ""The expenditure of funds towards the placement of public art""
4",PublicArtCommission/2008-02-13.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2008-02-13,5,"Mr. Biggs reminded the commission that the City Council has to approve any expenditure of
funds towards public art and that the commission should develop a recommendation.
Ms. Huston mentioned some of the steps they have so far. Calling for public input, finding a
site, and research and place art. She suggested keeping in mind that they will be expending
money and to consider the ordinance.
4-C. (Formerly 4-B) Validity of Performance Arts as Fulfilling Public Art Requirements.
Ms. Huston feels that it is difficult to enforce performance spaces for fulfillment of the art
requirement and questions eliminating it from the ordinance.
Ms. Lee suggested that the next projects be tangible things to see.
Ms. Rosenberg said that they don't have enough experience dealing with that and feels that the
cap hinders the ability to provide a quality performance space.
Ms. Huston said that they are all feeling the same on the performance aspect and should
approach future projects with caution in the future.
Mr. Wolfe has an issue with respect to diversity. He mentioned that there have been two other
performance spaces that have come to the commission and wonders how many more they
need. He thinks that a quota may be helpful in limiting how many developers ask for a
performance space as the public art requirement.
Mr. Biggs responded by saying that it is ultimately up to the commission. They have the
discretion to approve or deny a project.
Ms. Rosenberg suggested a moratorium or a hold on a project until they determine if it is
feasible.
Mr. Biggs does not want to see the door closed on what may be coming down the line. Even if
they propose eliminating performance art from the ordinance, the City Council may still like to
see it retained as an option.
Ms. Huston stated that the commission has approved two events-based projects out of five and
will be reluctant to approve more in the future.
Mr. Wolfe agreed with Ms. Huston and added that the intent is to create a diverse collection of
art and performances and suggested that for the next year, they would prefer to approve non-
performance based public art.
Mr. Biggs suggested following the agenda topic more specifically.
There was a motion to recognize that performance art can satisfy public art requirements;
however, they would be concerned about approving future performance art proposals given the
number that have already been approved and their desire to see a more diverse mix of public
art.
All were in favor.
5",PublicArtCommission/2008-02-13.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2008-02-13,6,"4-D. (Formerly 4-A) Public Art Ordinance
Ms. Huston read from the report and liked the ideas.
Mr. Wolfe said that he and Ms. Lee looked over the ordinance and looked at other surrounding
communities' ordinances and what they say about public art contributions.
Ms. Lee brought up the discussion she had in the subcommittee and that they wanted to
eliminate the cap. They thought that it might be politically unfeasible to eliminate the cap but
raising it might be an option.
Ms. Huston brought up her meeting with the mayor and people from City Council. Three issues
came up in the meeting; first was eliminating the cap, second was creating explicit language
that would require space developments to contribute 1% for each space and the third was
reviewing which residential projects are eligible for contribution and considering expanding the
scope.
Ms. Rosenberg didn't want to put the burden of public art on developers who were building less
than five units but anything more than that they should be subject to the requirements.
Ms. Huston wanted to look at the list of every project over $250,000 to see what kinds of
developments are happening. She asked if it is something that should go to the City Attorney to
see if they can add or change the language of the ordinance to deal with phased development.
Mr. Biggs clarified that phased projects were larger developments.
Mr. Wolfe pointed out that neither San Francisco nor Oakland has a cap or a private contribution
requirement.
Ms. Huston's thought on eliminating the cap is that they are the advocates in the system and
that they should let the people who have a better understanding for the business side deal with
it but the commission recommends eliminating the cap. They would also welcome Ms.
Woodbury's input on the timing and any thoughts she would have that would facilitate the
improvement of the ordinance.
Mr. Biggs recommended asking staff to draft an ordinance that would incorporate the changes
being discussed.
Ms. Lee read from the ordinance and pointed out that no more than 25% of the art fund was to
be used for administrative costs.
Ms. Huston pointed out that the commission doesn't know what is happening. She is arguing
that accountability is an issue.
Mr. Wolfe said that Oakland's percentage is 36%.
Mr. Biggs clarified that the 25% of the fund covers everything from administrative costs to
having the lights on. It is for overall operating costs.
Ms. Huston read from the ordinance regarding the submission of applications.
6",PublicArtCommission/2008-02-13.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2008-02-13,7,"Mr. Biggs clarified that the applicant is always included in the loop of communication regarding
their application and recommendations.
Ms. Rosenberg brought up that they are not entirely clear on the process of inspecting and the
progression of the project and the criteria that ensures diversity.
Mr. Biggs clarified that the planning department is involved in all aspects of the process and that
there is a set of guidelines.
Ms. Huston asked if there was anything else in the ordinance that was working against them.
The commission agreed that the cap was the main issue.
Ms. Huston mentioned the money in the art fund. She also read from the ordinance about the
requirement of art being on the actual site. She said that they have a new set of problems
regarding the in-lieu fee.
Mr. Biggs asked if they wanted to include a motion to include the recommended changes to the
ordinance.
By consensus, the Commission asked staff to draft an ordinance that included the discussed
changes and agendize for the next meeting.
4-E.
(Formerly 4-C) Discussion of the 2007-2009 Public Art Plan
Ms. Huston wanted to eliminate item three and they are working on item two of the attached
chart. She wanted to propose to Council the expenditure of the in-lieu fund to public art. She
asked if the money taken for administrative costs was taken when the money first comes in.
Ms. Rosenberg suggested putting no numbers on it until the accountability issue is resolved.
Mr. Wolfe clarified the proposal by saying that it is about the expenditure of in-lieu funds.
Ms. Lee asked about spending money on consultants and if that is part of the 25% of the
administrative costs.
Ms. Huston said that the annual plan is ok and doesn't need to be detailed.
Ms. Rosenberg stated that the creation and maintenance of a web resource keeps coming up in
their conversations as a high priority.
Ms. Huston looked at the chart and the order of the items.
The commission discussed the items on the chart for the public art plan, reprioritized and talked
about eliminating some of the items that were not priorities.
4-F. Set Date for Next Meeting
The commission set March 12, 2008 as the next meeting of the Public Art Commission.
5.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
7",PublicArtCommission/2008-02-13.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2008-02-13,8,"Mr. Biggs said that planning staff had visited the Bridgeside shopping center and confirmed that
the amphitheater was not in compliance and was not graded to the approved plans. Staff is
working with the developer to bring them into compliance.
6.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
None
7.
COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS:
Ms. Huston resigned as the Chair of the Public Art Commission.
6.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting adjourned at 9:07 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Jon Biggs, Secretary
Public Art Commission
8",PublicArtCommission/2008-02-13.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2008-03-12,1,"MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC ART COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING OF WEDNESDAY, MARCH 12, 2008
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 7:00 PM
CONVENE:
7:10 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
PRESENT:
Vice Chair Lee, Commissioners Rosenberg and Wolfe
ABSENT:
Vice Chair Lee read Chair Huston's resignation letter into the
record
STAFF PRESENT:
Jon Biggs, Planning Services Manager/Secretary to the Public Art
Commission; Tony Ebster, Intermediate Clerk/Recording
Secretary
MINUTES:
Minutes for the meeting of January 9, 2008
Motion (Rosenberg)/Second (Wolfe) to approve minutes as amended
Ayes: 3; Noes: 0. Motion passed unanimously
ORAL COMMUNICATION:
Ms. Debra Owen thanked the Commission for meeting diligently. She asked about the
procedure for being more proactive in supporting developers with their public art requirements.
REGULAR AGENDA:
(4-A) Election of Chair and, if necessary, Vice Chair.
Motion (Rosenberg)/Second (Wolfe) to table the item until vacancies on the Commission have
been filled.
Ayes: 3; Noes:0. Motion passes unanimously
(4-B) Review the draft of changes to Chapter 30-65 of the Public Art Ordinance.
Mr. Biggs noted the agenda report included in the packet and the changes that the report
outlined.
Commissioner Lee asked who the ""public"" would be if a public meeting were to be held to
discuss the issue of the cap.
Commissioner Wolfe suggested prioritizing a charette to discuss the cap issue and feels that it
is high on the priority list.
Draft Minutes of March 12, 2008
1
Regular Public Art Commission Meeting",PublicArtCommission/2008-03-12.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2008-03-12,2,"Mr. Biggs stated that the Commission needed to develop language to address the phasing of
larger projects. He read his suggested language.
The Commission considered the language and indicated that it was along the lines of what they
had in mind.
The Commission also discussed in-lieu fee contributions and the proposed change to the Public
Art Ordinance, which was the elimination of a cap of $150,000, and other methods of calculating
public art contributions.
Motion (Rosenberg)/Second (Wolfe) for staff to research what other cities required developers
to spend on public art and what percentage of in-lieu fees is spent on administration.
Ayes: 3; Noes:0
Motion passed unanimously
(4-C) Discussion on the development of procedures to recommend the acquisition or purchase
of public art to the City Council.
Mr. Biggs began the discussion by reading the staff report.
The Commission noted that many of the points in the report are already in the guidelines for the
acquisition and purchase of public art.
Commissioner Lee pointed out that all of their conversations come back to the need for a web
resource.
The Commission had questions about how to generate and distribute proposals for future art
projects.
The Commission made suggestions including the possible creation of a map of art that is
currently in place and potential locations for future art.
Mr. Biggs asked if the Commission could generate a list of where public art is in Alameda.
A photographic inventory of public art in Alameda was also suggested.
Ms. Owen told the Commission that they have a resource of about 50-100 photographers
available to help with the project. She suggested a challenge or a scavenger hunt to get all the
art documented or having a call to the public for people to help out.
Motion (Rosenberg)/Second (Wolfe) to give the Commission a homework assignment to
document and photograph the art and where it is located in Alameda.
Ayes: 3; Noes: 0. Motion passed unanimously
The Commission then talked about how diversity and variety is necessary with public art.
It was also suggested that the Commission should be open to other funding sources and
opportunities.
Ms. Owen mentioned that there is a photo exhibit coming up and would like the opportunity to
show some of the pieces at City Hall.
Draft Minutes of March 12, 2008
2
Regular Public Art Commission Meeting",PublicArtCommission/2008-03-12.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2008-03-12,3,"Commissioner Rosenberg pointed out that it is not very easy to display works on the walls at
City Hall due to security issues.
It was suggested to look into purchasing cases for art with the in-lieu money for display
purposes.
(4-D) Discussion on enforcement and noncompliance with the approvals granted by the Public
Art Commission.
Mr. Biggs distributed a comprehensive list of projects that had a value of more than $250,000
since 2004.
(4-E) Set date for the next Public Art Commission meeting.
The Commission approved the proposed calendar through July by unanimous vote.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
Staff reported
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
None
COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS:
None
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting adjourned at 8:53 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Jon Biggs, Planning Services Manager/Secretary
Public Art Commission
Draft Minutes of March 12, 2008
3
Regular Public Art Commission Meeting",PublicArtCommission/2008-03-12.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2008-06-11,1,"MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC ART COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING OF WEDNESDAY, JUNE 11, 2008
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 7:00 PM
CONVENE: The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
PRESENT: Vice Chair Lee, Commissioners Leal and Wolfe
ABSENT: Commissioner Cervantes
STAFF PRESENT: Jon Biggs, Planning Manager/Secretary to PAC;
Dora Mairena, Intermediate Clerk/Recording Secretary
MINUTES:
The minutes of April 9, 2008 were approved as submitted.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Mrs. Sharon Wilson spoke to the Public Art Approval process and informed the
Commission she would be submitting an art project for the Commission's consideration
at some point in the future.
REGULAR AGENDA:
(4-A.) 1410 Everett Project Presentation
Jon Biggs, Planning Services Manager, presented the staff report.
Steve Busse, applicant, presented the public art project and answered questions
from the Commission.
Motion (Leal)/Second (Lee) to approve item 4-A. subject to the following
conditions, in addition to conditions contained in the agenda report.
Ayes: 3; Noes: 0; Absent 1. Motion passed unanimously.
Additional Conditions:
1.
The irrigation system in the planter beds around the public art will
continue to be an underground drip system in compliance with the East",PublicArtCommission/2008-06-11.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2008-06-11,2,"Bay Municipal Utilities District landscape irrigation requirements.
2.
The final plan for the platform on which the public art will be mounted
must be approved by a Subcommittee of the Public Art Commission. The
Subcommittee will be reviewing the overall height of the public art and its
orientation.
Subcommittee: Commissioners Leal and Lee
(4-B.) Discussion on Future Meeting Dates
The Commissioners discussed future meeting dates and decided that for the remainder
of the calendar year, meetings will take place every second Wednesday of the month
starting at 7:00 p.m.
Motion (Lee)/Second (Wolfe)
Ayes: 3; Noes: 0; Absent: 1. Motion passed unanimously.
(4-C.) Discussion on Development of an Artist Resource List
The Commission discussed the possibility of developing an Artist Resource List that
would include information to assist the community in locating public art in Alameda.
Motion (Leal)/Second (Lee) to continue the discussion to the July 9 meeting, and
requested that staff obtain information on development of a website and providing a
cost estimate for the project.
Ayes: 3; Noes: 0; Absent: 1. Motion passed unanimously.
(4-D.) Archiving Public Art and Identifying Appropriate Areas for Public Art in Alameda
The additional research for the sliding scale was not conducted.
The Commission discussed having interest articles run in newspapers and requested
information from staff on how best to proceed.
Motion (Wolfe)/Second ( Leal) to continue the item to the July 9 meeting to allow for
further consideration of the item and to give staff an opportunity to gather more
information.
Ayes: 3; Noes: 0; Absent: 1. Motion passed unanimously.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
Staff reported.
G:
PLANNING/PAC/Agenda-Minutes/Minutes08/6-11-08 draft minutes
2",PublicArtCommission/2008-06-11.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2008-06-11,3,"WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
None
COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS:
Commissioners noted that new appointments to the Public Art Commission would be
made at the next City Council meeting, on July 2, 2008.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Joh Biggs, Plänning Services Manager/Secretary
Public Art Commission
These minutes were approved at the August 13, 2008, Public Art Commission meeting.
G:
PLANNING/PAC/Agenda-Minutes/Minutes08/6-11-08 draft minutes
3",PublicArtCommission/2008-06-11.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2008-07-09,1,"MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC ART COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING OF WEDNESDAY, JULY 9, 2008
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 7:00 PM
CONVENE: Acting Chair Leal called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
PRESENT: Commissioners Leal, Candelario and Ibsen
ABSENT: Vice-Chair Lee and Commissioner Cervantes
STAFF PRESENT: Jon Biggs, Planning Services Manager/Secretary to
Public Art Commission
Tony Ebster, Permit Tech 1/Recording Secretary
Maria Luisa Flores, Intermediate Clerk, Planning & Building
MINUTES:
None
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
None
REGULAR AGENDA:
(4A.) New members Elizabeth Candelario and Eric Ibsen were introduced and
welcomed to the Commission.
(4B.) Discussion on Development of Identification Signage for Public Art Projects
Motion (lbsen)/Second (Candelario) to continue the item to the next
regular meeting.
Ayes: 3; Noes: 0; Absent: 2. Motion passed.
(4C). Archiving Public Art and identifying Appropriate Areas for Public Art in Alameda
Motion (lbsen)/Second (Candelario) to continue the item to the next
regular meeting.
Ayes: 3; Noes: 0; Absent: 2. Motion passed.",PublicArtCommission/2008-07-09.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2008-07-09,2,"(4D.) Discussion on Development of Artist Resource List
Jon Biggs reported that Deborah Owen from the Frank Bette Art Center is willing
to work with a subcommittee of the Commission to update the Directory.
The Commission discussed providing resource information on the City's website.
Commissioner Leal requested that staff ask the Information Technology (IT)
department if it is feasible for the Commission to have a website and how and
who would be responsible for maintaining it.
Motion (Ibsen)/Second (Candelario) to continue the item for further
discussion to the next regular meeting.
Ayes: 3; Noes: 0; Absent: 2. Motion passed.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
Staff reported.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
None
COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS:
None
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 7:43 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jón Biggs, Planning Services Manager/Secretary
Public Art Commission
These minutes were approved at the August 13, 2008, Public Art Commission meeting.
S:\PLANNINGIPACIAgendas_Minutes\Minutes_08\PAC Approved Minutes\7-9-08 minutes.doc
2",PublicArtCommission/2008-07-09.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2008-08-13,1,"MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC ART COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING OF WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 13, 2008
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 7:00 PM
CONVENE: Commissioner Lee called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
PRESENT: Commissioners Candelario, Cervantes, Ibsen, Leal and Lee
ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Jon Biggs, Planning Services Manager/Secretary to
Public Art Commission
Maria Luisa Flores, Intermediate Clerk, Planning & Building
MINUTES:
Minutes from the meeting of June 11, 2008
Motion (Cervantes)/Second (Leal) to approve as submitted
Ayes: 5; Noes: 0. Motion passed.
Minutes from the meeting of July 9, 2008
Motion (Lee)/Second (Leal) to approve as submitted
Ayes: 5; Noes: 0. Motion passed.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
None
REGULAR AGENDA:
(4A.) Discussion on Development of Identification Signage for Public Arts Projects
Commissioner Leal stated that it is important to recognize public art projects in
some manner.
Commissioner Cervantes noted that the City and Commission should be given
credit for the positive effect of the program, and including a plaque on public art
projects would accomplish this.
The commission discussed a number of potential plaque concepts.",PublicArtCommission/2008-08-13.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2008-08-13,2,"Commissioner Leal noted that one of the public art pieces at Alameda Towne
Centre has a plaque acknowledging the City's contribution and offered to take
photographs that could be reviewed and used as the basis for discussion at a
future meeting.
Motion (Cervantes)/Second (Leal) to continue the item to the next
regular meeting to allow Commissioner Leal to photograph the plaque on
the public art at Alameda Towne Centre. The photographs would then be
distributed to the Board for review at its next meeting.
Ayes: 5; Noes: 0. Motion passed.
(4B.)
Archiving Public Art and identifying Appropriate Areas for Public Art in Alameda
A Subcommittee of the Public Art Commission was selected to draft a press
release and then route a draft of the press release to Jon Biggs in order to
have it reviewed by the appropriate City departments.
Commissioner Lee noted the importance of including those who had their public
art projects reviewed by the Commission in this process.
Commissioner Ibsen said a data base would be helpful in identifying future public
art locations.
Commissioners indicated they had provided the locations of all public art they
were aware of and it would be helpful to enlist the public in identifying other
locations. A press release to enlist the help of the public was suggested.
Motion (Lee)/Second (Candelario) to continue the item to a future meeting to
allow a subcommittee of the Public Arts Commission to draft a press release
requesting the public's assistance in identifying existing public art locations that
staff could have reviewed by appropriate City departments.
Ayes: 5; Noes: 0. Motion passed.
Subcommittee: Commissioners Leal and Ibsen
(4C). Discussion on Development of Artist Resource List
The Commission discussed what should be included in the resource list but
noted that keeping such a list up-to-date would require significant resources.
Commissioner Ibsen suggested that a web based resource list would be the best
approach because it could be updated without need of printing new copies of the
document each time it was updated.
G:\PLANNINGIPAC\Agendas_Minutes\Minutes_08\8-13-08 draft minutes.doc
2",PublicArtCommission/2008-08-13.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2008-08-13,3,"Following a discussion on the purpose and audience of the resource list, the
Commissioners agreed it should not only be for those who need to develop a
public art project, but also be designed to accommodate the needs of patrons to
the arts.
Motion (Cervantes)/Secono (Lee) to continue the item to a future meeting to
allow staff an opportunity to check on the possibility of having an intern work on
the development of a web-based artist resource list.
Ayes: 5; Noes: 0. Motion passed.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
Staff reported.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
None
COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS:
Commissioner Cervantes accepted a new job and would be leaving the area, but would
attend the September meeting.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 9:03 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jon Biggs, Planning Services Manager/Secretary
Public Art Commission
G:\PLANNINGIPACIAgendas_Minutes\Minutes_08\8-13-08 draft minutes.doc
3",PublicArtCommission/2008-08-13.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2008-09-10,1,"MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC ART COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING OF WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2008
CONFERENCE ROOM 360, CITY HALL
2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 7:00 PM
CONVENE: Acting Chair Leal called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
PRESENT: Vice Chair Lee, Commissioners Candelario, Ibsen and Leal
ABSENT:
Commissioners Cervantes
STAFF PRESENT: Jon Biggs, Planning Services Manager/Secretary to
Public Art Commission; Maria Luisa Flores, Intermediate
Clerk, Planning & Building
MINUTES:
Minutes from the meeting of August 13, 2008
Motion (Ibsen)/Second (Leal) to approve as submitted
Ayes: 4; Noes: 0. Motion passed.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
None
REGULAR AGENDA:
(4A.) Discussion on Development of Identification Signage for Public Arts Projects
By consensus, the Commission asked staff to develop formal guidelines for
public art identification signage and bring them back to the Commission at it's
next meeting for consideration.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
Staff reported.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
None
COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS:",PublicArtCommission/2008-09-10.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2008-09-10,2,"None
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 7:43 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jon Biggs, Planning Services Manager/Secretary
Public Art Commission
G:\PLANNINGIPACIAgendas_Minutes\Minutes_08\9-10-08 draft minutes.doc
2",PublicArtCommission/2008-09-10.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2008-11-12,1,"MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC ART COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING OF WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 2008
CONFERENCE ROOM 391, CITY HALL
2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 7:00 PM
CONVENE: Acting Chair Lee called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
PRESENT: Vice Chair Lee, Commissioners Candelario, Ibsen and
Commissioner Leal
ABSENT:
None
STAFF PRESENT: Jon Biggs, Planning Services Manager/Secretary to
Public Art Commission; Maria Luisa Flores, Intermediate
Clerk, Planning & Building
MINUTES:
Minutes from the meeting of September 10, 2008
Motion (Leal)/Second (lbsen) to approve as submitted
Ayes: 4; Noes: 0. Motion passed.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
None
REGULAR AGENDA:
(4A.) Guidelines for Public Art Projects Identification Signage
Mr. Ibsen asked if the dimensions for the signage will be too small at 5""x5"". He
noted the signs should be legible at three paces.
Other Commission members commented that the dimension should be a
minimum and the guidelines modified to reflect this.
Ms. Candelario noted that the guidelines should make it clear that Commission
approval of the signage is required.
Motion (lbsen)/Second (Lee) to approve the public art identification signage
guidelines subject to the following changes: 1. The 5""x 5"" size noted in the
guidelines are the minimum dimension of public art signage. & 2. Add
language to the guidelines making it clear that Public Art Commission
approval of the proposal is required. Ayes: 4; Noes: 0; Absent: 0. Motion
passed.",PublicArtCommission/2008-11-12.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2008-11-12,2,"(4B.) Adoption of 2009 Public Art Commission Calendar
The commission reviewed the proposed calendar for 2009.
Motion (lbsen)/Second (Lee) to adopt the 2009 Calendar
Ayes: 4; Noes: 0; Absent: 0. Motion passed.
(4C.) Adoption of Resolution of the Public Art Commission acknowledging Cecilia
Cervantes to the citizens of Alameda
Ms. Lee noted that there were other members of the Community that had
recently served on the Public Art Commission and they should also be
acknowledged for their service.
All other Commission members agreed.
Ms. Lee suggested that the item be continued to the next meeting to allow staff to
prepare resolutions for Katina Huston, K.C. Rosenberg, and Peter Wolfe.
Motion (Lee)/Second (lbsen) to continue the item to the next regular
meeting so that resolutions recognizing former members of the
Commission could be crafted.
Ayes: 4; Noes: 0; Absent: 0. Motion passed.
0
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
Staff reported.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
None
COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS:
Eric Ibsen and Andrea Leal have drafted a press release regarding locating public art in
Alameda which they would like to have agendized for discussion at a future meeting.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 8:17 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jon Biggs, Planning Services Manager/Secretary
Public Art Commission
G:\PLANNINGIPAC\Agendas_Minutes\Minutes_08/11-12-08 draft minutes.doc
2",PublicArtCommission/2008-11-12.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2008-12-10,1,"MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC ART COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING OF WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 2008
CONFERENCE ROOM 360, CITY HALL
2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 7:00 PM
CONVENE: Acting Chair Lee called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
PRESENT: Vice Chair Lee, Commissioners Ibsen and Leal
ABSENT:
Commissioner Candelario
STAFF PRESENT: Jon Biggs, Planning Services Manager/Secretary to
Public Art Commission; Maria Luisa Flores, Intermediate
Clerk, Planning & Building
MINUTES:
Minutes from the meeting of November 12, 2008
Motion (lbsen)/Second (Lee) to approve minutes with modifications
Ayes: 3; Noes: 0; Absent 1. Motion passed.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
None
REGULAR AGENDA:
(4A.) Adoption of Resolutions Acknowledging the Service of Former Public Art
Commission Members to the Citizens of Alameda
Ayes: 3; Noes: 0; Absent 1. Motion passed.
(4B.) Public Art Proposal for Perforce Software at 2320 Blanding Avenue
Motion (Ibsen)/Second (Leal) to adopt the resolution approving Application No.
PLN08-0606 for the public art at the Perforce Software building, based on the
findings suggested by staff and subject to the following special condition in
addition to the conditions recommended by staff:",PublicArtCommission/2008-12-10.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2008-12-10,2,"The tiles depicting the wisp of breath from the figure on one panel towards
the bubble wand on the adjacent panel shall be extended so the relationship
between the panels is more direct. A drawing depicting this modification is
subject to approval of a subcommittee of the Public Art Commission, who
shall report their decision at the next regular meeting. Subcommittee
Members - Ibsen and Lee.
Ayes: 3; Noes: 0; Absent 1. Motion passed.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
Staff reported.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
None
COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS:
Eric Ibsen and Andrea Leal have drafted a press release regarding locating public art in
Alameda which they would like to have agendized for discussion at a future meeting.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 8:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jon Biggs, Planning Services Manager/Secretary
Public Art Commission
G:\PLANNING\PAC\Agendas_Minutes\Minutes_08/12-10-08 draft minutes.doc
2",PublicArtCommission/2008-12-10.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2009-01-14,1,"MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC ART COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING OF WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 14, 2009
CONFERENCE ROOM 360, CITY HALL
2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 7:00 PM
CONVENE: Acting Chair Lee called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
PRESENT: Vice Chair Lee, Commissioners Ibsen, and Candelario
ABSENT:
Commissioner Leal
STAFF PRESENT: Jon Biggs, Planning Services Manager/Secretary to
Public Art Commission; Maria Luisa Flores, Intermediate
Clerk, Planning & Building
MINUTES:
Minutes from the meeting of December 10, 2008
Motion (lbsen)/Second (Candelario) to approve minutes as submitted
Ayes: 3; Noes: 0; Absent 1. Motion passed.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
None
REGULAR AGENDA:
(4A.) Discussion on Recommendations to be Forwarded to Council Regarding Use of
the Public Art Funds.
Elizabeth Candelario suggested that the fund be used to establish an endowment
that would support local arts.
Karen Lee noted that suggestions for use of the funds should be coupled with
ways to implement the suggestions so that Council is provided with some
background information on the amount of effort necessary for the successful
implementation of the projects.",PublicArtCommission/2009-01-14.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2009-01-14,2,"Elizabeth Candelario reminded everyone that development of an artist's resource
list had been discussed by the Commission and should be included in any
suggestion to Council.
Eric Ibsen recommended suggesting to Council that the funds be applied to art
programs in Alameda Schools and development of a public art resource website.
Staff suggested that the Board recommend that some of the funds be used for
the design/development of a public art piece in a public space in Alameda.
Karen Lee mentioned that Request for Proposal (RFP) process would be the
best way to go for development of some public art. She also added that a list of
potential artists would need to be developed in order for a properly distributed
RFP.
The Commissioners discussed how best to proceed next.
By consensus they felt the next step in this process would be for staff to come
back to the Commission with a report that included the following:
A listing of projects for inclusion in the Public Art Plan
Cost estimates for the projects
Methods or tools to implement the projects
Who will be involved
Ayes: 3; Noes: 0; Absent 1. Motion passed to have staff come back with a
report including the above.
(4B.) Discussion on a Children's Art Project
Eric Ibsen noted that a children's art project should be included on the list of
projects for the Public Art Plan recommendation to be taken to Council.
Elizabeth Candelario suggested that art projects involving children in other
communities be explored.
Karen Lee added that recently an art project for children took place at Alameda
Point. She explained that chalk was used to draw and color on a portion of the
runway and then an aerial photo was taken to document the children's artistic
endeavors.
Eric Ibsen offered to collect some information on a children's art project at Jack
London Square in Oakland.
Karen Lee said she knew someone who was involved in the Alameda Point art
project and would get in touch with that person to gather some information.
G:\PLANNINGIPAC\Agendas_Minutes\Minutes_09/1-14-09 draft minutes.doc
2",PublicArtCommission/2009-01-14.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2009-01-14,3,"In response to a question, the Commissioners were in agreement that it was not
necessary to have the children's art project conducted in coordination with the
school district.
The commissioners agreed to share what they learned about the children's art
projects in other communities at a future meeting.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Staff reported
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
None
COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS:
Commissioners Ibsen and Lee reported their subcommittee approval of the
modifications to the mosaic tile mural for Perforce Software, located at 2320 Blanding
Avenue.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 7:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jon Biggs, Planning Services Manager/Secretary
Public Art Commission
G:\PLANNINGIPACIAgendas_Minutes\Minutes_09/1-14-09 draft minutes.doc
3",PublicArtCommission/2009-01-14.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2009-05-13,1,"MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC ART COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING OF WEDNESDAY, MAY 13 2009
CONCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 7:00 PM
CONVENE: Acting Chair Lee called the meeting to order at
p.m.
ROLL CALL:
PRESENT: Vice Chair Lee, Commissioners Ibsen, Candelario and Leal
ABSENT:
None
STAFF PRESENT: Jon Biggs, Planning Services Manager/Secretary to
Public Art Commission
MINUTES:
Minutes from the meeting of January 14, 2009
Motion (lbsen)/Second (Leal); to approve minutes as submitted
Ayes: 4; Noes: 0. Motion passed.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
None
REGULAR AGENDA:
(4A.)
Discussion on Future Meeting Schedule and Work of the Public Art
Commission
Jon Biggs explained staff reduction in the Planning department to the
Commission and also the changes that the commission have to undergo were
discussed.
Eric Ibsen suggested having meetings via subcommittees or even doing
business via email art programs in Alameda Schools and development of a
public art resource website. He mentioned that it was not productive to meet as
infrequently as they have been meeting.",PublicArtCommission/2009-05-13.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2009-05-13,2,"Ayes: 3; Noes: 0; Absent 1. Motion passed to have staff come back with a
report including the above.
(4B.) Discussion on Recommendations to be Forwarded to Council Regarding a
Public Art Plan
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
Staff reported
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
None
COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS:
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 7:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jon Biggs, Planning Services Manager/Secretary
Public Art Commission
G:\PLANNINGIPACIAgendas_Minutes\Minutes_09\5-13-09 draft minutes.doc
2",PublicArtCommission/2009-05-13.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2017-02-15,1,"APPROVED MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA PUBLIC ART COMMISSION
Wednesday, February 15, 2017
0. CONVENE
Staff Member Allen Tai called meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Hoy, Gillitt, Lewis, Carter, Graham.
2. MINUTES
None.
3. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
4. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
4-A 2017-3925
City of Alameda Amendment Updating the Public Art Ordinance. The Public Art Commission will
consider modifications to update and improve the regulations governing the Public Art
Ordinance. The proposed amendment is categorically exempt from further environmental
review pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines 15305 Minor Alterations to Land Use Limitations.
and
4-B 2017-3926
Public Art Request for Proposals. The Public Art Commission will hold a public hearing to
consider staff recommendations related to the release of a Request for Proposals (RFP) for
physical public art, and cultural arts and arts programming in the City of Alameda. Release of a
RFP is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act.
Mr. Allen Tai, Planning Services Manager and Secretary to the Public Art Commission, explained that
Items 4-A and 4-B are related, and therefore will be heard together.
Ms. Amanda Gehrke, Economic Development staff, gave a presentation on the proposed changes to the
Public Art Ordinance and the draft Public Art Request for proposals.
Commissioner Gillitt asked if the proposal that maintenance costs be removed as an allowable use of
the Fund would be applied retroactively.
Ms. Gehrke explained that there has not yet been any off-site public art funded by the Fund. For on-site
public art, there is already a requirement that property owners sign an agreement to do the
maintenance.
Page 1 of 6
APPROVED MINUTES
PUBLIC ART COMMISSION
February 15, 2017",PublicArtCommission/2017-02-15.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2017-02-15,2,"Public Speakers:
Rachel Campos, Alameda Coalition for the Arts, stated that they fully support the changes proposed by
City staff. Ms. Campos shared images of public art from other cities and specifically stated support for
removing the requirement for public art to have historic or maritime themes.
Elaine Fong, Rhythmix Cultural Works, stated that she supports staff's recommendations, and wants to
challenge the way public art is thought of in Alameda. She said the Commission should consider
supporting festivals and events, like Rhythmix's Island City Waterways, that can support economic
development in the City.
Julie Baron, Julie's Coffee and Tea Garden, Board of Directors of Downtown Alameda Business
Association & Community Advisory Board of Rhythmix, stated that she supports city staff
recommendations.
Helen Sause, stated that she supports using the money for a large notable piece of art, giving the Public
Art Commission final say on locations for public art, and giving artists that live or work in Alameda a local
preference.
Chair Hoy closed public testimony.
Chair Hoy stated that he supports removing the historic and maritime requirement, but is concerned
that the City might end up with art that has no relationship to Alameda. He wonders if the evaluation of
placemaking could incorporate a relationship to Alameda. Commissioner Gillitt stated that he shared
the concerns.
Ms. Gehrke replied that the Commission could recommend changing the placemaking criteria in the RFP
to include an evaluation of how the piece reflects Alameda.
Lois Butler, Economic Development Manager, suggested that Alameda relevance could become a
separate criteria in the evaluation process.
Commissioner Carter said that she thinks 5% is low for a local preference, and the City need to do better
to inform local artists that these funds are available. The Commission discussed resources to perform
public outreach.
Ms. Gehrke stated that we have a mailing list of artists and arts organizations within the City of
Alameda, and that the RFP will be released through ""Call for Entry,"" a website that will also advertise
our RFP at the national and regional level. Ms. Gehrke stated that the City has a mailing list of 100 email
addresses, some of which are arts organizations and business groups that are sharing the information
with a wider audience.
Page 2 of 6
APPROVED MINUTES
PUBLIC ART COMMISSION
February 15, 2017",PublicArtCommission/2017-02-15.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2017-02-15,3,"Commissioner Gillitt stated that he supports adding a page to the City's website including the RFP, a
map of existing public art in Alameda, and other resources.
Ms. Gehrke responded that, in response to public comment at the previous meeting, staff has updated
the website to include a list of public art in Alameda, as well as the presentation from the January
community meeting. She stated that the RFP will also be posted there when it is released.
Commissioner Graham suggested that social media would also be a good way to advertise the RFP.
Mr. Tai noted that the City has been soliciting updates to the City's artist directory, and that staff has
been receiving a lot of updates via email.
Commissioner Graham asked, in regards to maintenance, how the City will ensure that property owners
understand the maintenance requirements associated with their artwork.
Ms. Gehrke responded that, as part of the artist's final product, they will have to produce a maintenance
plan detailing the specific steps necessary to maintain the artwork. The property owner would then have
to sign an agreement to take care of the artwork according to the maintenance plan.
Commissioner Graham asked if artists would be required to specify costs in the maintenance plan.
Ms. Gehrke said they would. Mr. Tai added that, for on-site public art, durability of materials and ease
of maintenance is one of the evaluation criteria, and maintenance costs are often included in the
budget.
Ms. Gehrke stated that the draft RFP is open to both temporary and permanent artwork.
Commissioner Gillitt asked if there are any additional contributions anticipated for the Public Art Fund.
Ms. Gehrke replied that, historically, most developers have decided to do their artwork on-site. Over the
14 year lifetime of the fund, the average balance of the Fund has been around $62,000.
Chair Hoy asked how the evaluation criteria could be modified to add more weight to local preference.
Ms. Gehrke replied that it could come out of budget or placemaking.
Chair Hoy stated that 5% is very low for a local preference.
Commissioner Gillitt asked for clarification of how the evaluation process would take place.
Ms. Gehrke stated that the Commission would review and discuss proposals at a Public Art Commission
meeting, and assign evaluation scores based on the criteria in the RFP, and then rank the proposals
based on those scores.
Page 3 of 6
APPROVED MINUTES
PUBLIC ART COMMISSION
February 15, 2017",PublicArtCommission/2017-02-15.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2017-02-15,4,"Chair Hoy asked if local preference would therefore be a tiebreaker.
Ms. Gehrke stated that it could.
Commissioner Gillitt asked for clarification on how the locations would be chosen - would locations be
evaluated against each other as a batch, or would it be piecemeal as locations were available.
Ms. Gehrke responded if the PAC chooses to determine the locations for artwork prior to the release of
an RFP, then locations would be evaluated as a group. If the PAC decides to let the artists submit
locations - as recommended by staff - then artists would suggest locations as part of the proposal
process. The PAC would then evaluate their proposals as a batch, based on both the artwork and the
location they've chosen.
Commissioner Hoy asked if recommendations could be given tonight.
Ms. Gehrke responded that they could, or if the PAC needs more time they could meet again next
month to give recommendations.
The Commissioners asked staff what would be the best way to summarize the PAC's recommendations
to the City Council.
Mr. Tai summarized the Commission's comments. He stated that there was consensus on removing the
requirement that art be tied to the City's historic or maritime traditions, but also concern that we don't
want art that's totally unrelated to the City. So, the recommendation would be to add some
requirement in the placemaking category that the art be related to Alameda.
Ms. Butler suggested that relationship to Alameda be broken out as an individual criteria, with its own
points.
Commissioner Gillitt suggested that placemaking be reduced to 10%, local preference increased to 10%,
and a new criteria added relating the artwork to Alameda, including historic or maritime themes, at 5%.
Other Commissioners agreed.
Mr. Tai stated that the next point was a question about maintenance, and how to ensure that
maintenance needs and costs are brought to light. He suggested using the same criteria we currently
have for on-site art to evaluate durability and maintenance needs.
Mr. Tai also noted that the proposed changes to the Ordinance include a recommendation that staff
costs are no longer charged to the Fund, and therefore would require City Council to approve funding
from the General Fund or another Fund to cover staff administrative costs. He also noted that, as the
Commission and members of the public have voiced a desire to find sources of funding for the public art
Page 4 of 6
APPROVED MINUTES
PUBLIC ART COMMISSION
February 15, 2017",PublicArtCommission/2017-02-15.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2017-02-15,5,"program beyond developer contributions, that the Commission can also use this opportunity to ask City
Council to explore additional avenues of funding the public art program.
Chair Hoy asked for clarification on the mix of funding amounts and whether there would be potential to
have a catalyst project.
Ms. Gehrke responded that the draft RFP includes suggested budget categories for proposals to
encourage artists to submit at different levels, but the exact award amounts would be determined by
the PAC, based on the quality of proposals received.
Commissioner Gillitt asked if the location at Jean Sweeney Park was a requirement.
Ms. Gehrke responded that staff are no longer asking to allocate funding for Jean Sweeney Park, but
that artists can still propose art at the site, and it would be evaluated alongside other proposals.
Chair Hoy asked for clarification on how to ensure there will be sufficient art proposals for the funding
available.
Ms. Gehrke responded that the PAC is not obligated to distribute any amount of the available funds at
this time. If needed, they can just approve the best projects, and then issue an RFP for the remaining
funding.
Commissioner Gillitt asked about the difference between temporary physical art and cultural arts and
arts programming.
Ms. Gehrke responded that this will be defined in the RFP, and confirmed that all temporary artwork will
go through the RFP process and be evaluated by the PAC. She also clarified that artists would be
required to plan and budget for the removal of any temporary artwork as part of their proposal.
Commissioner Graham suggested having one location that could hold rotating displays of temporary
artwork.
Chair Hoy made a motion to recommend that City Council approve the ordinance changes as
recommended by staff, with a request that the Council support the public art fund with General Funds
or other available funding. Commissioner Lewis seconded the motion.
The motion carried 5-0.
Commissioner Gillitt made a motion to recommend that the Council approve the proposed RFP as
recommended by staff, with the following modifications:
a.
Increase the 5% local preference weight to 10%
b.
Add a new criterion ""Alameda relevance"" with an evaluation weight of 5%
C.
Reduce the weight of the placemaking criterion to 10%
d. Include an evaluation of durability and maintenance requirements as appropriate to the
lifetime of the proposed artwork
Page 5 of 6
APPROVED MINUTES
PUBLIC ART COMMISSION
February 15, 2017",PublicArtCommission/2017-02-15.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2017-02-15,6,"Commissioner Carter seconded the motion.
The motion carried 5-0.
5. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
None
6. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Tai noted one written communication: an email from the League of Women Voters inviting PAC
members to their annual mixer and fundraiser on Thursday 3/13
7. COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS
Commissioner Gillitt noted his show at the Alameda Museum.
The Commission thanked staff for their hard work on the ordinance update effort.
Commissioner Lewis asked if the PAC would start to have more regular meetings.
Mr. Tai said that there would likely be more meetings when the art proposals are received, and clarified
that the regular meeting time would continue to be on the 4th Wednesday of the month at 6:00 p.m.
8. ADJOURNMENT
Page 6 of 6
APPROVED MINUTES
PUBLIC ART COMMISSION
February 15, 2017",PublicArtCommission/2017-02-15.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2018-01-03,1,"APPROVED MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA PUBLIC ART COMMISSION
Wednesday, January 3, 2018 6:00PM
1. ROLL CALL
Present: Chairman Daniel Hoy, Mark Farrell, Adam Gillitt
2. MINUTES
Approved. Motion made by Adam Gillitt and seconded by Mark Farrell 2nd. The motion carried,
3-0.
3. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
4. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
4-A 2017-5039: Public Art Selection Panels. A request to appoint members to the Ad Hoc Public Art
Commission Committees.
Ms. Amanda Gehrke, Economic Development staff, gave a presentation on the proposal evaluation
process and the role of the selection panel. Ms. Gehrke explained that there will be two selection
panels, one for Cultural Arts and Arts Programming and the other for Physical Art, and both will have
five members: two from the Public Arts Commission and three will be outside members.
Ms. Gehrke then explained the process for recommending the outside members, gave a short
background for each of the recommended panelists, and asked for the PAC to appoint the
recommended panelists to the selections panel.
Ms. Gehrke also asked for approval a change to the Cultural Arts' selection panel: removing
Commissioner Brandy Graham and adding Commissioner Mark Farrell, per Commissioner Graham's
request.
Following Ms. Gehrke's presentation to Commissioners there were follow-up questions and answers
Commissioner asked: Where will the finalists be displayed?
Ms. Gehrke responded that the location is still to be determined.
Commissioner asked: Do all six panel members live in Alameda?
Ms. Gehrke responded that all but one of the recommended panelists live in Alameda.
Commissioner Gillitt asked if there will be 3 finalist per funding level?
Ms. Gehrke responded that yes, there would be 3 finalists per funding level.
Page 1 of 2
DRAFT MINUTES
PUBLIC ART COMMISSION
January 3, 2018",PublicArtCommission/2018-01-03.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2018-01-03,2,"Public Speaker(s):
Brett Pedersen, a local resident and artist expressed support for the program and offered support in
assisting in some fashion.
Public Comments closed
Commissioner Gillitt made a motion to appoint the recommended panelists, including the appointment
of Commissioner Farrell to the Cultural Arts panel to replace Commissioner Graham.
Commissioner Farrell seconded the motion.
The motion carried 3-0.
4-B 2017-5051: Staff Presentation on Repairing Alameda's Aging Infrastructure and Related Survey
Lois Butler, Economic Development Manager, began by asking if the panel if they've taken the
infrastructure survey and asked about familiarity of the survey. All members were aware of the survey.
She explained that the survey tool and the presentation is online to view.
5. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Ms. Butler stated she is the new secretary as of this meeting
6. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Ms. Butler stated there was written communication via email about the Buena Vista Avenue Public Art.
7. COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS
Chairman Daniel Hoy thanked Mark Farrell for being there.
8. ADJOURNMENT
Page 2 of 2
DRAFT MINUTES
PUBLIC ART COMMISSION
January 3, 2018",PublicArtCommission/2018-01-03.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2018-02-28,1,"MEETING MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA PUBLIC ART COMMISSION
Wednesday, February 28, 2018, 6:00PM
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Daniel Hoy called the meeting to order.
1. ROLL CALL
Present: Chairperson Daniel Hoy, Commissioner Mark Farrell, Commissioner Adam Gillitt,
Commissioner Sherman Lewis
Absent: none
2. MINUTES
Approved. Motion made by Commissioner Adam Gillitt and seconded by Commissioner Sherman
Lewis. The motion carried,
4-0.
3. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
4. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
4-A 2017-5279: Evaluation of Cultural Arts and Arts Programming Proposals. The Public Art Commission
held a public hearing to review, evaluate, and rank submittals for City Council allocation in response to
the City's Request for Proposals to provide public art funds for cultural arts and arts programming in
Alameda
Amanda Gehrke, Economic Development Division staff, gave an overview of the item starting with
review of the categories, then the initial screening process, next she talked about the selection panel,
and finally she gave an overview of the evaluation process and the timeline for the process.
For each category, Ms. Gehrke presented a brief overview of the proposer's entry.
Following Ms. Gehrke's presentation to Commissioners there were follow-up questions and answers.
A Commissioner asked a question regarding the $25,000 award category for West End Arts and
Entertainment District, What time of the year is it suggested for?
Ms. Gehrke Answered: October 20th
A Commissioner asked: Does the West End Arts and Entertainment District currently have non-profit
status or are they in the process of it?
Ms. Gehrke answered: I believe they currently have it.
Public Speaker(s):
Wes Warren, Island Alliance of the Arts, addressed the selection panel's concerns with the Island
Alliance of the Art's 2nd Friday's Art Walk proposal.
Draft Meeting Minutes
1 of 3
Public Art Commission
February 28, 2018",PublicArtCommission/2018-02-28.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2018-02-28,2,"Sheryl Harowitz, an Alameda resident, spoke about the benefits of the 2nd Friday Art walks.
Jessica Warren, yielded time to Wes Warren.
Tina Blaine, Rhythmix Cultural Works, explained how excited the city residents are about the Island City
Water Ways project.
Bonnie Baller, an Alameda resident, explained in detail about what the Island Alliance of the Arts is and
what they do.
Vicky Vargies, an Alameda resident and former teacher at Otis School, explained how the Island City
Water Ways will teach the children during their program.
Pat Colburn, an Alameda resident, discussed the Art in the Park program and explain the benefits of
having this program.
Amy Patick, addressed the grant proposals submitted by the Frank Bettes Center for the Arts, including
the concerns of the selection panel.
Janet Magleby, executive director of the Downtown Alameda Business Association, described how
grateful she is for the 2nd Friday Art Walk Event and how it has impacted the community
Janet Koike, Rhythmix Cultural Works, discussed the value of art in Alameda, and described how Island
City Waterways impacts the community.
Carolyn West yielded time to Janet Koike.
Tara Pilbrow, representing the West End Arts and Entrainment District and the Animate Dance Company
Dance Festival, described what the dance festival would present to the community.
Benjamin Winter, owner of Phoenix, addressed comments and concerns regarding the Phoenix and the
Downton Alameda Business Association's grant proposal level.
Sara Edge, Gallery owner in Alameda, and 2nd Friday Art Walk volunteer, she explains the reasoning
behind supporting the 2nd Friday Art Walk and how the grant will help in moving this event forward.
Public Comments closed
Discussion:
A Commissioner: Why was the Art in the Park suspended from Alameda Parks and Recreations?
Ms. Gehrke answered, due to budget cuts.
A Commissioner explained his experience during the process of deciding on awarding grants and also
explained the future opportunities that may occur with increased funding. Then discussed how the
decisions were made for granting the awards.
Chairperson Hoy moved and Commissioner Lewis seconded a $35,000 grant to Rhythmix Cultural Center
for Island City Waterways. The motion carried 4-0.
Draft Meeting Minutes
2 of 3
Public Art Commission
February 28, 2018",PublicArtCommission/2018-02-28.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2018-02-28,3,"Chairperson Hoy moved and Commissioner Farrell seconded a $25,000 grant to West End Arts and
Entertainment District for Animate Dance Festival. The motion carried 4-0.
Chairperson Hoy requested that staff report back as soon as possible with recommendations on
rereleasing categories not forwarded to the City Council for funding. Lois Butler stated that staff will
return with a report at the next meeting.
Chairperson Hoy moved and Commissioner Gillitt seconded to not award a grant in the $15,000
category. The motion carried 4-0.
Chairperson Hoy moved and Commissioner Farrell seconded a $7,500 grant to Sacred Profane, A
Chamber Chorus for The American Landscape, a visual and performing arts presentation. The motion
carried 4-0.
Chairperson Hoy moved and Commissioner Farrell seconded to not award a grant in the $5,000 grant
category. The motion carried 4-0.
5. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Ms. Butler provided an update on the vacant Public Art Commission seat. She indicated that the Mayor
was interviewing candidates and plans to nominate one at the March 6, 2018 meeting.
6. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
There was no written communications.
7. COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS
8. ADJOURNMENT
Chairperson Hoy adjourned the meeting.
Draft Meeting Minutes
3 of 3
Public Art Commission
February 28, 2018",PublicArtCommission/2018-02-28.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2018-04-04,1,"DRAFT MEETING MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA PUBLIC ART COMMISSION
Wednesday, April 4, 2018, 6:00PM
CALL TO ORDER
Acting Chairperson Sherman Lewis called the meeting to order at 6:06PM.
1. ROLL CALL
Present: Acting Chairperson Sherman, Commissioner Mark Farrell, Commissioner Adam Gillitt,
Commissioner Liz Rush
Absent: Chairperson Daniel Hoy (excused)
Lois Butler (PAC secretary) and Amanda Gehrke are present as staff to the Commission.
2. MINUTES
Motion made by Commissioner Adam Gillitt and seconded by Commissioner Mark Farrell to
approve the minutes. The motion carried 4-0.
3. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
4.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
4-A 2018-5422: Reprogramming of Cultural Arts and Arts Programing Funds Not Awarded Through the
Request for Proposal (RFP) Process. The Public Art Commission (PAC) held a public meeting to consider
ideas for reprogramming cultural arts and arts monies not recommended for funding through the recent
RFP process.
Amanda Gehrke, Economic Development Division staff gave an overview of the item.
Ms. Gehrke then gave an overview of why the report was written. She indicated that there was $20,000
not awarded in the Cultural Arts and Arts Programing RFP process in the $5,000 and $15,000 categories.
She presented a few alternatives, suggested by staff, and in part based on feedback from the selection
panels on how the monies not awarded could be re-released, and how the RFP could be updated to
reflect learnings. The two main subject items were:
Funding increments - smaller grant amounts
Interactive feedback with the selection panel and the proposers
Commissioners asked clarifying questions.
Public Speaker(s) (paraphrased comments):
Collin Blake:
A common lament during the interim of time when the monies were not being distributed was that the
monies were just trapped. He wanted to know was the money invested. He said, this was germane to
Draft Meeting Minutes
1 of 4
Public Art Commission
April 4, 2018",PublicArtCommission/2018-04-04.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2018-04-04,2,"tonight's discussion. The monies could be invested. Could there be an endowment so that these funds
are generating funds, so that we are not thinking of these funds as a onetime thing and they can be
generating funds year after year.
Pat Colburn:
Are there any additional funds forecasted for the art fund?
(Ms. Butler clarified that questions are not answered at this time. The Commissioners can choose to
answer questions as part of the discussion.)
She liked the idea of having a personal interview when you make a decision on the finalist and having a
one-to-one with the people applying.
Cheryl Aaron:
Appreciated staff coming back so soon and what is the schedule going forward. She said she love the
suggested review of the process. She is with Island Alliance of the Arts and personally believes if they
had had the opportunity to address some of the questions, it would have been helpful. But it's a new
process.
Public Comments closed
Discussion:
Acting Chairperson Sherman: What is the possibility of an endowment?
Ms. Butler: We need to research this. Monies go into interest bearing accounts.
A Commissioner stated that he has done research on this and a City can form a nonprofit and administer
an endowment.
Additional Public Speaker:
Wes Warren: He like the review process option.
Commissioner Farrell: Lois, when you say the money is in an account is it a money market, how is it
invested?
Ms. Butler: She would need to research this and follow-up. The interest from money invested is credited
to the account.
Acting Chairperson Lewis do we know how much interest was generated? Ms. Butler: She would need to
research.
Commissioner Gillitt: Do we have a forecast of any developers that plan to donate in lieu of onsite art?
Ms. Butler: She does not know of any developers.
Commissioners discussed proposal amounts.
Ms. Butler indicated that this is the meeting to determine what should happen to with the funds that
were not disbursed.
Draft Meeting Minutes
2 of 4
Public Art Commission
April 4, 2018",PublicArtCommission/2018-04-04.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2018-04-04,3,"Commissioner Rush suggested four $5,000 awards, Commissioner Farrell would like to see smaller
awards and suggested ten $2,000 awards. Farrell suggested a survey, Rush agreed.
Acting Chairperson Lewis moved to accept the proposal to survey to inform the levels of award
amounts. Commissioner Rush second the motion. The motion carried 4-0.
Ms. Butler indicated staff will put together a survey and report back to the Commission. Ms. Gehrke
asked for direction on the process for interaction with the proposers. Commissioner Farrell indicated
that interaction should happen in writing or in person after the initial meeting of the panel.
Commissioner Gillitt agreed that there should be an additional step in the process.
Commissioner Gillitt moved that there should be an additional step in the process between the initial
review with the selection panel and the awarding of grants by the Commission. The intermediate step
could be in writing, by email, or an in person interview. The survey should include questions on the type
of interaction preferred. Acting Chairperson Lewis second the motion. The motion carried 4-0.
Commissioner Farrell asked what would be the lowest amount of the grants. Commissioner Gillitt
prefers to see a range of amounts from $200 to $500. Commissioner Farrell suggested that the survey
inform the Commissioner second the motion.
Speaker Wes Warren asked if the survey was going to the general public. Commissioner Farrell said it
was only going to the Arts Community. Speaker Wes Warren suggested that the Commissioners just pick
an amount.
Acting Chairperson Lewis asked if there were any other questions or discussion. Commissioner Farrell
asked if we answered the questions asked by the public speakers. Commissioner Rush indicated that
there was a question on timeframes. Ms. Gehrke indicated that there is no timeframe for the next
release. She indicated that our next steps are designing the survey, then going back to the PAC with a
proposed RFP and releasing the RFP soon after it is approved by the PAC. Ms. Butler describe how she
envisions the survey monkey questions. Commissioner Gillitt asked when the survey would come back
to them. Ms. Gehrke confirmed that it would be sometime in June. Ms. Gehrke also informed the PAC
of a May 14th tour of the physical art sites. Commissioner Farrell indicated his concerned about
Wednesday meetings due to the fact that he is an actor. Ms. Butler indicated that we could talk about
this during Commissioner Communications.
5. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Ms. Gehrke checked in with PAC on whether they prefer an electronic link to the packet or a paper copy.
Commissioner Farrell indicated he was okay with the electronic link if it was short. Acting Chairperson
Lewis agreed Commissioner Farrell. Ms. Butler introduce Commissioner Rush as a new PAC
Commissioner. She did a short introduction of herself
6. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
There was no written communications.
Draft Meeting Minutes
3 of 4
Public Art Commission
April 4, 2018",PublicArtCommission/2018-04-04.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2018-04-04,4,"7. COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS
Commissioner Farrell indicated that he hopes the meetings will not be on Wednesday in June.
Acting Chairperson Lewis hopes that the meetings won't be at the beginning of June as he may be
out of town. Commissioner Rush hopes that the PAC meeting is not on the summer solstice as she
celebrates it.
8. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Farrell moved and Commissioner Lewis second the motion to adjourn the meeting.
Acting Chairperson Lewis adjourned the meeting.
Draft Meeting Minutes
4 of 4
Public Art Commission
April 4, 2018",PublicArtCommission/2018-04-04.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2018-06-18,1,"MEETING MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA PUBLIC ART COMMISSION
Monday, June, 18 2018, 6:00PM
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Daniel Hoy called the meeting to order at 6:07 PM.
1. ROLL CALL
Present: Chairman Daniel Hoy, Commissioner Mark Farrell, Commissioner Adam Gillitt,
Commissioner Sherman Lewis, and Commissioner Liz Rush.
Lois Butler (PAC secretary) and Amanda Gehrke are present as staff to the Commission.
2. MINUTES
Motion made by Commissioner Adam Gillitt and seconded by Commissioner Liz Rush to approve
the minutes. The motion carried 5-0.
3. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
4. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
4-A 2018-5676: Evaluation of Physical Art Proposals. The Public Art Commission will hold a public
hearing to review, evaluate, and recommend awardees to City Council in response to the City's Request
for Proposals to provide public art funds for physical art in Alameda. The proposed physical public art
installations are Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to
the CEQA Guidelines Section 15303, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures
Amanda Gehrke, Economic Development Division staff gave an overview of the item.
Ms. Gehrke then gave an overview of the agenda, starting with a review of the proposal. She indicated
that the RFP from 2017 to release funding in the amount of $260,000, to be split into 5 levels of reward,
to the Cultural Arts and Arts Programing was approved. She acknowledged the top finalist's art
proposals and detailed the 4 step evaluation process. She then defined the artist's intention behind their
proposed installations. The commissioners were then allowed to review each artist's model before the
public was allowed to do so.
Commissioners asked clarifying questions.
The Commissioners and members of the public had 5 minutes for a closer inspection of the artwork
models.
Commissioner Hoy noted that it was a big deal to bring this caliber of artwork to the City of Alameda,
and that this is the first time money for physical art has been distributed by the City. He asked if there
was any way to fund all of the proposed artwork.
Draft Meeting Minutes
1 of 4
Public Art Commission
June 18, 2018",PublicArtCommission/2018-06-18.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2018-06-18,2,"Commissioner Rush clarified the location of an installation and access to the location.
After clarifying questions from the commissioners, the artists in the $150,000 and $50,000 categories
described their art. Each artist had 5 minutes for their presentation. They were asked to describe their
inspiration behind the art and to detail the materials to be used. The commission also asked questions
to confirm safety precautions for certain works and fees needed to secure BCDC permitting fees. Ms.
Gehrke and Ms. Butler explained the fees will have to be revisited, once staff has additional information.
The Commission asked if any speakers from the $25,000 level wanted to present their art, there were
none. Although, Ms. Gehrke clarified that they were not required to do so, per the RFP.
The commissioners stated they are happy with the fact they were able to view the proposed
installation's location and how this helps assists with decision making. The importance of public
exposure was also discussed. Ms. Gehrke explained that the outcome of models that aren't selected will
have to be reviewed at a later time, as some ideas have been formulated.
Chairman Hoy made a motion to accept the selection panel's recommendations rather than score the
pieces as a commission. Commissioner Rush seconded. The motion passed 4-1, Farrell opposed.
A commissioner recommended relocating ""The Rockspinner"" installation from Bay Farm to Jean Sweeny.
A motion was made and seconded for relocating that installation Rockspinner to Jean Sweeny Park. The
motion carried 5-0.
The Commission's recommendations will be forwarded to City Council for appropriation of grant
funding.
4-B 2018-5678: 2018 Cultural Art and Arts Programming Request For Proposals. The Public Art
Commission will hold a public hearing to consider survey results and staff recommendations related to
the release of a Request for Proposals (RFP) for cultural arts and arts programming in the City
of Alameda. Release of the RFPs is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act
Amanda Gehrke, Economic Development Division staff gave an overview of the item.
Ms. Gehrke explained that the RFP from earlier this year for Cultural Art and Arts Programming resulted
in $20,000 in funds being unused. In April a survey was given out to help determine how those funds
should be exhausted. The survey asked if funding should be released in $15k and $5k, also how
communications should work with the proposers and commission. The survey results showed 58%
wanted to see smaller amounts of grants distributed and two thirds of survey responders wanted
written communications between the panel and the with the proposers. Grants should be limited to
eight grants due to administrative limitations. Commissioners were asked to comment on draft RFP and
gain approval on how to move forward.
Commissioners gave their thoughts on what the minimum increment of each grant would be and asked
what would happen if all eight proposers asked for $5,000. Ms. Gehrke explained that grants would be
reviewed once applications are received. A discussion about the commissioner's inclusion on how to
appropriate the excess funds took place as well as confirming how the public will continue to add their
input. The Commission would love to fund all Physical Art Proposals.
Draft Meeting Minutes
2 of 4
Public Art Commission
June 18, 2018",PublicArtCommission/2018-06-18.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2018-06-18,3,"There was no written communications.
7. COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS
The Commission asked if our logos should be on approved grants' marketing materials. They
presented the idea of having their own logo, Ms. Butler informed them that they must have that
approved by City Council.
It was confirmed that the Commission's recommendation for arts funding will be presented to City
Council. The evaluation process for the next round of grants will be revisited in upcoming meetings.
A request to reopen the ordinance and work with developers on locations of installations was asked
to be added to a future agenda.
8. ADJOURNMENT
Draft Meeting Minutes
3 of 4
Public Art Commission
June 18, 2018",PublicArtCommission/2018-06-18.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2018-06-18,4,"Chairman Hoy adjourned the meeting.
Draft Meeting Minutes
4 of 4
Public Art Commission
June 18, 2018",PublicArtCommission/2018-06-18.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2018-08-16,1,"DRAFT MEETING MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA PUBLIC ART COMMISSION
Thursday August 16, 2018, 6:00PM
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Daniel Hoy called the meeting to order at 6:01 PM.
1. ROLL CALL
Present: Chairman Daniel Hoy, Commissioner Mark Farrell, Commissioner Adam Gillitt,
Commissioner Sherman Lewis, and Commissioner Liz Rush.
Lois Butler (PAC secretary) and Amanda Gehrke are present as staff to the Commission.
2. MINUTES
Chairman Hoy confirmed there is no motion to make due to June 18th's minutes not stating that
the commission would like to fund all Physical Art Proposals. That revision will be added to June
18th's minutes.
3. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
4. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
4-A 2018-5876: Consideration of New Physical Public Art. The Public Art Commission will hold a public
meeting to consider the installation of new public art located in the City of Alameda Tidelands. The
proposed physical public art installations are Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15303, New Construction or Conversion of
Small Structures.
Amanda Gehrke, Economic Development Division staff gave an overview of the item.
Amanda Gehrke reminded the commission of the 4 art proposals recommended to go to final approval
with City Council on September 18th. She reiterated the notion of finding funding sources for the 2
remaining proposals at the $150,000 level. Those 2 proposals are to be funded by the Tidelands Fund,
specifically for the improvement of the Tidelands area. Ms. Gehrke asked the Commission to
recommend the funding of this artwork to City Council. If funding is recommended it will go to Council
on September 18th's along with the other proposals.
Commissioners asked clarifying questions.
Commissioner Rush asked if there was enough money in the fund to cover the 2 pieces. Ms. Gehrke
confirmed there are sufficient funds. The allocation of the requested $360,000 includes a 20%
contingency.
Draft Meeting Minutes
1 of 4
Public Art Commission
August 16, 2018",PublicArtCommission/2018-08-16.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2018-08-16,2,"Chairman Hoy asked how the funding was found. Ms. Butler stated that funds are only eligible for
Tidelands activity and recreational use to attract visitors. The Tidelands lead within the Community
Development Department located the qualifying funds.
Commissioner Farrell wanted to confirm whether or not the proposed locations of the art will be the
same. He specifically spoke about the ""Bronze Squid"" and its placement, as its proposed location
seemed industrial to him. Ms. Gehrke confirmed they would be in the same location. The commission
debated whether or not the proposed location is fit, while being a unique opportunity due to the
discovery of funding. The thought of potentially physically moving the art in the future was presented,
but it may have to go back to Council in order to recommend a different site.
Commissioner Rush asked if the Tidelands grounds are maintained. Ms. Butler confirmed that they are
maintained, as the location is on City property. Since the area is desolate, the commission would like to
confirm that it wouldn't be subject to vandalism. Ms. Gehrke stated they could revisit maps to be certain
the art is in a good area once they take it to council without a specified location.
Rossella Scapini - Artist and creator of the ""Bronze Squid""
Ms. Scapini is open to reposition the location of artwork as she proposed 4-5 different locations in her
application. Ms. Scapini stated she did want her piece to be showcased by the water. In regard to the
location, the Commission agreed that if this piece were to be near the Dragon, a full Art Walk could be
possible.
Chairman Hoy wanted to confirm that artists would be able to speak at the Council meeting, should the
Councilmembers have questions. Ms. Butler confirmed they must complete a Speaker Slip to do so. He
asked the artists to be available and they confirmed they would. Ms. Butler explained what the ""consent
calendar"" meant and the process for the Commission's understanding.
Chairman Hoy made the motion to recommend the Tidelands funding, Commissioner Gillitt seconded.
The motion passed 5-0.
4-B 2018-5877: Review of Art in City Hall Pilot Program. The Public Art Commission will hold a public
meeting to review and consider changes to the Art in City Hall Pilot Program. Consideration of this
program is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act.
Amanda Gehrke, Economic Development Division staff gave an overview of the item.
Ms. Gehrke reminded the Commission about the Art in City Hall program that was piloted last year. She
discussed the opportunity to move the program forward due to good reception. There have been some
alterations to the guidelines, specifically to art organizations wanting to be included. This year half of the
space will be reserved for arts organizations to promote groups shows. Ms. Gehrke explained how she
updated the program schedule and display capacity. She then asked for the Commission's input.
Commissioner Rush asked if the program dates coincide with 2nd Fridays. Ms. Gehrke confirmed that the
dates do. Commissioner Rush also wanted verification on what ""art organizations"" were. Ms. Gehrke
gave the examples of Frank Bette, Rhythmix, and the Alameda Historical Museum.
Draft Meeting Minutes
2 of 4
Public Art Commission
August 16, 2018",PublicArtCommission/2018-08-16.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2018-08-16,3,"Commissioner Rush then asked for clarification on why we would need to include them in City Hall's
program. Ms. Gehrke believes this platform could expose a new market to the participating
organizations.
Commissioner Farrell wanted to confirm what type of art is included in the guidelines. Ms. Gehrke
confirmed that the guidelines state that all artwork must be hang-able on a wall.
Commissioner Rush asked how many artist participate at a time. Ms. Gehrke confirmed there are 2
artists at a time between floors for each installation.
The Commission inquired on whether or not a theme could be implemented into the programming
schedule. Ms. Butler stated that maybe too extensive at the moment. Ms. Gehrke shared the same
sentiment but said there could be be a theme. The hesitation surfaces around inclusion and who would
judge the potential appropriation. Ms. Gehrke and Ms. Butler offered to schedule a working session and
create a subcommittee to decrease staff burden in regard to administering themes.
Chairman Hoy offered a motion, but Ms. Gehrke confirmed no recommendation was needed. This
conversation was primarily for the Commission's input.
5. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Ms. Butler will order business cards for the Commission, given they are provided a City of
Alameda email address. The Commission agreed to accept the email addresses.
Ms. Butler announced there is a new Administrative Technician in the Economic Development
department, Kelli Chinn. She alerted them that Kelli will contact the Commission for scheduling
meetings and she will take meeting minutes.
Ms. Gehrke assured the Commission that the report about upcoming developments subject to
the Public Art Requirement will be complete by the meeting in October as the ordinance's
definition requires some further research. Ms. Butler will also have an answer about interest
rates at October's meeting, due to the current books closing.
Commissioner Rush mentioned investigating its appropriateness of a logo for the Commission.
Ms. Butler will have to check with the City Attorney about that request.
The Commission brought up the mural on Lincoln and Bay and asked for verification on whether
or not that request went through the City. Ms. Butler confirmed that there is no approval
process for painting. The Commission would like to encourage property owners to utilize their
buildings for this type of art. Ms. Gehrke reiterated that the Façade Grant Program does
encourage murals. But, murals may not be recognized on the Public Art Commission level until
sites are identified for targeted RFQ's. The Commission offered to build a subcommittee to
lessen staff burden to propose sites. Prior to all this taking place Ms. Butler and Ms. Gehrke
would like community input on private options as well as public buildings as mural sites. Ms.
Butler will refine that agenda item on potential sites for public art at the next meeting.
Draft Meeting Minutes
3 of 4
Public Art Commission
August 16, 2018",PublicArtCommission/2018-08-16.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2018-08-16,4,"6. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
No written communications.
7. COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS
The Commission would like for everyone to view the mural on Lincoln and Bay.
8. ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Hoy adjourned the meeting.
Draft Meeting Minutes
4 of 4
Public Art Commission
August 16, 2018",PublicArtCommission/2018-08-16.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2018-10-15,1,"MEETING MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA PUBLIC ART COMMISSION
Monday October 15, 2018, 6:00PM
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Daniel Hoy called the meeting to order at 6:01 PM.
1. ROLL CALL
Present: Chairman Daniel Hoy, Commissioner Mark Farrell, Commissioner Adam Gillitt,
Commissioner Sherman Lewis, and Commissioner Liz Rush.
Lois Butler (PAC secretary), Amanda Gehrke and Kelli Chinn are present as staff to the
Commission.
2. MINUTES
Chairman Hoy recommended a motion to accept the revision to June 18th minutes.
Commissioner Gillitt made a motion to approve the minutes and Commissioner Lewis seconded
the motion. There was not a vote.
Upon approval of August 16th minutes, Commissioner Gillitt indicated that the ""Alameda Art
Museum"" should be called the ""Alameda Historical Museum."" Chairman Hoy recommended a
motion to approve the minutes. Commissioner Rush made the motion and Commissioner Gillitt
seconded. Motion passed 5-0.
3. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
4. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
4-A 2018-6079: Establish and Appoint Members to an Ad Hoc Public Art Commission Committee
(""Selection Panel""). The Public Art Commission will hold a public meeting to establish and appoint
members to a Selection Panel for cultural arts and arts programming in Alameda. The formation of an
Ad Hoc Committee is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act.
Amanda Gehrke, Economic Development Division staff gave an overview of the item.
Ms. Gehrke reminded the committee of the 2017 RFP for Cultural Art and of the funds that were
awarded in April 2018. Two levels of funding were released, $15,000 and $20,000. After the meeting on
June 18, 2018, PAC directed staff to re-release funds in increments of $5,000. Eight proposals responses
were received from the August 2018 RFP. In order to review the proposals, a new selection panel is
needed. The public call for panelist went out. Fifteen 15 applicants were received. The staff met with
Chairman Hoy to finalize the three recommended panelists: Deborah Crooks, Joanna Ruckman-Gallego,
and Laurel Scheinman. They were recommended due to their cultural arts experience. The Commission
was asked to review the recommendation and select two alternates. Two members from the
Draft Meeting Minutes
1 of 2
Public Art Commission
October 15, 2018",PublicArtCommission/2018-10-15.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2018-10-15,2,"Commission are also needed to join the Cultural Art Selection panel. Ms. Gehrke outlined the process for
selecting the finalists for the grants.
Commissioners asked clarifying questions.
Commissioner Farrell wanted to confirm whether or not the panelists were required to be Alameda
residents and if the proposals were for cultural or physical art. He also wanted to know if the selection
panel was limited to two PAC members or not. Ms. Gehrke confirmed that coincidentally all applicants
are Alameda residents, but this is not a requirement and the proposals are only for cultural art. She
verified that there can only be two PAC members on the panel.
Chairman Hoy explained the reasoning behind his selection of panelists. He suggested that the
alternates be Rose Meyers and Michael Singman-Aste.
The commission reviewed the alternate's experience. They all agreed that their background in cultural
art is strong. Commissioner Lewis asked if dates for meeting were set, Ms. Gehrke confirmed the first
date. Commissioner Farrell and Commissioner Rush volunteered to sit on the Cultural Arts Selection
panel. Chairman Hoy requested a motion, Commissioner Gillitt made a motion to appoint the three
panelists and two alternates. Commissioner Rush seconded. Motion passed 5-0.
5. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Ms. Gehrke provided upcoming development projects subject to the Public Art requirement. She
explained the requirements for the developers. The updates on this topic will become a regular
agenda item. Lewis asked when the developer would be required to fulfill their obligation to
Public Art requirement. Butler explained not until their certificate of occupancy is complete. Ms.
Butler and Ms. Gehrke will follow up with developers on how they will proceed. They reviewed
past projects.
Ms. Butler revisited how much interest is in the Public Art Fund. She stated that from 2007 to
present there is $20,690.56. She will review the balance for the Commission. Commissioner
Lewis asked about an endowment establishment and why we don't have one. Lois will check on
endowment with City Attorney's Office.
6. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
No written communications.
7. COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS
Commissioner Farrell asked everyone to support the Alameda International Film Festival.
8. ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Hoy adjourned the meeting.
Draft Meeting Minutes
2 of 2
Public Art Commission
October 15, 2018",PublicArtCommission/2018-10-15.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2018-12-10,1,"MEETING MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA PUBLIC ART COMMISSION
Monday December 10, 2018, 6:00PM
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Daniel Hoy called the meeting to order at 6:02 PM.
1. ROLL CALL
Present: Chairman Daniel Hoy, Commissioner Mark Farrell, Commissioner Adam Gillitt,
Commissioner Sherman Lewis, and Commissioner Liz Rush.
Lois Butler (PAC secretary), Amanda Gehrke (staff) are present as staff to the Commission.
2. MINUTES
It was moved to accept the October 15, 2018 minutes. Commissioner seconded the motion. The
minutes were approved 5-0.
3. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
4. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
4-A 2018-6295 Award of 2018 Cultural Art and Arts Programming Grants. The Public
Art Commission will hold a public meeting to review Cultural Arts and Arts Programming proposals and
award grant funding. The evaluation of proposals is not a project under the California Environmental
Quality Act.
Amanda Gehrke, Economic Development Division staff gave an overview of the item.
Commissioners asked clarifying questions.
Member of the public gave comment.
Commissioners discussed the item.
Commissioner Gillet moved to forward the Commission's recommendation to City Council.
Commissioner Farrell seconded. The motion was approved 5-0.
2018-6297 Status Update on Location for Bronze Squid. Staff to provide the Public Art Commission with
a status update on the location for the Bronze Squid artwork.
Ms. Gehrke provided a status update on the location of the bronze squid.
Draft Meeting Minutes
1 of 2
Public Art Commission
December 10, 2018",PublicArtCommission/2018-12-10.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2018-12-10,2,"Commissioners asked clarifying questions.
Members of the public gave comment.
Commissioners discussed the item.
2018-6298 Eligibility of Upcoming Projects for the Public Art Requirement. Staff to provide the Public
Art Commission with a status update on the eligibility of upcoming projects for the Public Art
Requirement
Ms. Gehrke provided a status update on the eligibility of upcoming projects for the public art
requirement.
5. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
6. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
No written communications.
7. COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS
No commissioner communications.
8. ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Hoy adjourned the meeting at 7:03 PM.
Draft Meeting Minutes
2 of 2
Public Art Commission
December 10, 2018",PublicArtCommission/2018-12-10.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2019-04-15,1,"MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC ART COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING OF Monday, April 19, 2019
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 6:00 PM
CONVENE:
Chairperson Daniel Hoy called the meeting to order at 6:02pm
ROLL CALL:
PRESENT: Commissioner Mark Farrell, Commissioner Adam Gillitt, Commissioner Liz Rush,
Chairperson Daniel Hoy
ABSENT: Commissioner Sherman Lewis
STAFF PRESENT: Economic Development Manager Lois Butler and Economic Development
Analyst Amanda Gehrke
MINUTES:
A motion to approve the minutes was made by Commissioner Gillitt and seconded by Commissioner
Farrell. The motion carried 4-0.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
None
ORAL COMMUNICATION:
None
REGULAR AGENDA:
Amanda Gehrke gave a presentation summarizing potential public art programs for Commission
prioritization.
Commissioners asked clarifying questions.
Commissioner Farrell: What percentage of developers are contributing to the Public Art Fund vs.
installing their own art?
Gehrke: I need to look back and determine the percentage.
Commissioner Farrell: In regard to the Call for Pre-qualified artists, in what way are developers
overwhelmed, and why don't they just write a check?
Gehrke: Developers are navigating a complicated approvals process, the Call for Pre-Qualified artists
would give them a tool to solve a problem.",PublicArtCommission/2019-04-15.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2019-04-15,2,"Minutes of the Public Art Commission
Regular Meeting
Monday, April 19, 2019
Butler: To date, most developers have chosen to do artwork onsite. We can discuss further during the
discussion section.
Commissioner Farrell: Should we be looking for and contributing locations?
Gehrke: This should be part of the input into the location selection process. We will cast a wide net,
including public input.
Commissioner Gillitt: How far along in the process will we know if their developers will do onsite or in-
lieu?
Butler: It depends on the developer; we will have conversations with each.
Commissioner Gillitt asked: Do they have to commit to paying in or doing something onsite (in-lieu)
when they get their building application?
Butler: Yes, correct.
Commissioner Rush asked: Are they required to use all of that 1% themselves if they decide to do the
art?
Butler: They either have to use the 1% and substantiate it, or if they don't use all of the 1% they have to
put the rest in the Fund.
Commissioner Rush: Are we doing any documentation (archiving) on art for the vacant mural storefront
program?
Gehrke: We have not really documented these programs. These are still broad sketches of programs but
that is an excellent idea and we should do that.
Chairperson Hoy: You mentioned revising the Public Arts Ordinance, and other cities like Berkeley and
Walnut Creek have gone through that. Other cities have done something like the Murals on vacant store
front. We wouldn't need to reinvent the wheel?
Gehrke: To clarify we are not sure where other cities are on the status of revisions, but yes other cities
have a small grants program. Alameda County for example has a small grants program they give out
about $80,000, so it is a pretty large program. City of Emeryville has a similar program but they focus on
community programing instead of just the arts. We also looked at Alameda Municipal Power
sponsorship program. We would be borrowing from other places and making it work for us.
Chairperson Hoy: In the new RFP for Public Art is there a threshold on the fund? Let it keep growing so
we can do something huge?
Gehrke: No there is no threshold.
Chairperson Hoy: Did we want a subcommittee to tackle issues?
2",PublicArtCommission/2019-04-15.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2019-04-15,3,"Minutes of the Public Art Commission
Regular Meeting
Monday, April 19, 2019
Butler: Staff is needed for subcommittees.
Gehrke: We are thinking about ways to get the Commissioners more involved with the Art Ordinance.
Getting the word out about meetings is a great way to help, we would love to discuss that more.
Chairperson Hoy: Do we need a meeting to discuss that meeting?
Butler: We can bring that up during the discussion period.
Chairperson Hoy: Back to the vacant storefront mural program, is there any intention of having the
business association be involved in that piece?
Butler: That's part of our recommendation (WABA and DABA) to put that on the agenda, they have a
representative here.
Chairperson Hoy stated: We've seen a lot of youth culture in the arts. It seems so very important to
where art is. Is there a part that just screams this is youth culture? It seems this is great for youths to get
involved?
Butler: We can put that under Discussion as well.
Public Speaker with Clarifying Questions:
Cheryl Harawitz: I see the estimated time on the charts, do you have actual dates on when these
processes will begin? General timeframe for projects?
Butler: These are all potential projects. We are discussing priorities right now, once the Commission
selects a project we can look at the timeframe.
Public Speaker with General Questions: (paraphrased comments)
Tina Blaine: These questions are great, but how are we going to, besides developer funds, continue to
seed the Public Art Fund and find other sources of funds, like the Hotel Tax Fund.
Rachel Campos: I love all these ideas including finding ways to seed more small programs so we can
pepper the island with art. Have you considered the other side of the island where we did the Anime
dance festival, its prime for more activation? The Enterprise Park is very much off the beaten path for
the general public, it is not the gateway to Spirits Alley or the gateway to Bachelors' Quarters, so I think
that activating the other side could help out some of the developments in Alameda Point.
Public Comments Closed
Discussion Time
3",PublicArtCommission/2019-04-15.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2019-04-15,4,"Minutes of the Public Art Commission
Regular Meeting
Monday, April 19, 2019
Commissioner Rush brought up ongoing funding for the Public Arts Endowment. The city needs a million
to start this, we can set aside funding. Lois Butler mentioned at this time to put a hold and discuss later
because funding was not on the agenda. Commissioner Rush then moved to pause this item and move it
to item 5 of the Staff Recommendations, it was seconded. The motion carried 4-0.
Butler clarified she made an error and the funding was on the agenda for discussion. She noted in the
future this would be a separate item.
There was a discussion of status current art projects and where they are located.
Butler: I can commit to put together an art walk brochure, pending funding, in the next fiscal year.
Commissioner Farrell asked if they should be contacting business owners if there are locations for
potential art?
Gehrke: It depends on the timing of the project but we could use all the help we could get. We should
pick one thing and do it, so if we start with the Ordinance it might take longer.
Butler: That way landlords are not bombarded with calls from multiple Commissioners that cannot
communicate with each other, due of the potential of having an unintentional meeting. You should look
at sites as a group, vote on it, and then contact businesses.
Gehrke: We should broaden the net and outreach to the community.
Commissioner Gillett suggested starting a Social Media page for community input on public art locations
in the City.
Chairperson Hoy asked questions about timing.
Gehrke stated that we would do one thing at a time and gave examples of how long each item can take.
Hoy suggested that we start with the Small Grants program,
Gehrke stated that this program is a high staff time item as we must develop the program.
Butler indicated that we can work with the Commission on get this program underway.
Back to revision of Ordinance: Gehrke: Most of the work will happen up front, it may take 10 months but
most of that work will be in the first five months.
Commissioner Rush: What I'm hearing is that we really need to balance what we want to push forward
and your time frame.
Gehrke: Exactly
Commissioner Farrell: Can we talk more about what revising the Public Art Ordinance means? Is it just
about the percentage? How are we revising the Ordinance to encourage more funding?
4",PublicArtCommission/2019-04-15.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2019-04-15,5,"Minutes of the Public Art Commission
Regular Meeting
Monday, April 19, 2019
Chairperson Hoy: We want more of the pot rather than onsite art.
What are others forms of funding that we can discuss? What are other possible sources? Can we look at
a Hotel tax? Other than donations.
Butler: Your Commission can recommend anything. You can request TOT. It would be hard for me to
recommend other forms of funding, when I don't have funding for staff right now. I'm talking long term.
Commissioner Hoy went on to ask if Lois Butler was in favor of raising the minimum for companies to
pay into the Art Funding to two percent.
A Community member indicated that San Francisco does two percent for their capital projects and 1%
for private construction projects.
Butler said that would need further discussion, research and a meeting on this topic (raising the Public
Art percentage). This item would need to go to City Council.
Butler: The Small Gants program we have done a lot of research on this.
Rush: This is a great program for our local artist.
Farrell: If this is true and we can get this program off of the ground, I would like to start on this.
Farrell: Thank you for putting together this report. Alameda Municipal Power is a great example. $2,000
is too high.
Butler: If you want this to be a priority we should discuss at the next meeting. We will put together
a
short report.
Commissioner: Small Grants program, I want it to be an annual program.
Having a Pre-Qualified Artist Pool was not a priority for the Commission.
Chairperson Hoy: I still want to hear from members of the public.
Tina Blaine: It took closer to a year and a half to two years to clarify and change the City Ordinance, it
was a really long process. As a person that produces a number of grants 500 is not a lot of money. She
would recommend $2,000 to 5,000. Regarding grants maybe next time you can let people apply for an
amount and then you can decide how much you want to give.
Cheryl Harawitz: Love the comments around increasing the amount to two percent and adding a
discount to increase the fund. We also need to think about maintenance using these funds for
maintenance. It decreases the funds.
5",PublicArtCommission/2019-04-15.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2019-04-15,6,"Minutes of the Public Art Commission
Regular Meeting
Monday, April 19, 2019
Wesley Warren: Agreed that the application process for funding by AMP really simple and that $500 is
small amounts help to support things.
Commissioner Farrell, I think this is a testament to Rhythmix that $500 does not help. $500 helps smaller
groups.
Gehrke: The public art program is the Public Art fund and all of the art that the developers install and
this Commission oversees. The call for Pre-qualified artists is providing a list for developers. The
developers do not need to use the list.
A commissioner made a comment about holding our noses to make it easier.
Chairperson Hoy: Since the public does not have more to say, we can come up with our list.
Gehrke summarized:
Commission is interested in the following:
Start next month with Small Grant Pilot Program. Start first with a meeting next month to talk
about ideals about what that program would look like.
Once Small Grant Pilot Program up and up and running, staff will work on revising the Public
Arts Ordinance.
Commission is not interested in the following:
Call for Artist
Commission is interested in the following long term:
The art park
Commission is interested in the following middle term:
Identifying locations and Issuing an RFP
Storefront mural program
Chairperson Hoy: Just to be clear everything other than the small arts program falls after the ordinance
has been revised.
There was further discussion on long term vs. middle term items
Chairperson Hoy: If a motion was need. No motion was need as this was a work session.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
Butler: Community Development has moved to City Hall West, 950 West Mall Square, 2nd Floor.
6",PublicArtCommission/2019-04-15.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2019-04-15,7,"Minutes of the Public Art Commission
Regular Meeting
Monday, April 19, 2019
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS:
Commissioner Farrell: Did not know that staff had moved so, he propose that the next meeting happen
at City Hall West.
ADJOURNMENT:
Meeting adjournment at 7:46pm
Respectfully submitted,
Lois Butler, Economic Development Manager/Secretary
Public Art Commission
7",PublicArtCommission/2019-04-15.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2019-05-29,1,"PUBLIC ART COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING, WEDNESDAY, MAY 29, 2019
ROOM #201, CITY HALL WEST
950 WEST MALL SQUARE - 6:00 PM
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Daniel Hoy called the meeting to order at 6:05 PM.
1. ROLL CALL:
PRESENT: Commissioner Mark Farrell, Commissioner Adam Gillitt, Commissioner Sherman
Lewis, Chairperson Daniel Hoy
ABSENT: Commissioner Liz Rush
STAFF PRESENT: Economic Development Manager Lois Butler and Economic Development
Analyst Amanda Gehrke
2. MINUTES:
A motion to approve the minutes was made by Commissioner Gillitt and seconded by
Commissioner Lewis. The motion carried 4-0.
3. ORAL COMMUNICATION:
None
4. REGULAR AGENDA:
Item 4A - 2019-6954: Recommendation to Establish a Small Grants Program for Cultural Arts
Clarifying questions:
Commissioner Farrell: Did we decided that it would just be cultural arts?
Butler: Does it say just cultural arts?
Commissioner Farrell: Would that include a mural?
Butler: We can save that for discussion.
Commissioner Farrell: Does the money have to go to a program or something that is free for
the public? With AMP that is not the case.",PublicArtCommission/2019-05-29.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2019-05-29,2,"Minutes of the Public Art Commission
Regular Meeting
Wednesday, May 29, 2019
Butler: We should discuss that during discussions.
Chairperson Hoy: Remind us where we are with the budget?
Butler: We have about $41,000 for cultural arts.
Commissioner Hoy: So we are already at the limit?
Butler: We have more for physical arts.
Chairperson Hoy: Would these small grants not allow someone to pursue the larger grants?
Butler: I think they would be able to pursue the larger grants.
Chairperson Hoy: What about operating expenses? I know we have them with the big grants
but would any allowances be allowed for the smaller grants? For expenses in the grants?
Butler: That's a discussion question.
Chairperson Hoy: Would organizations outside of Alameda be allowed to apply as they were
doing a piece in Alameda?
Butler: I don't think we could discriminate. We could say it has to take place in Alameda, but I
don't think we can discriminate as to where the business is located.
Commissioner Farrell: Are the 20 grants per year 20 applications you'll receive per year or 20 to
dole out?
Butler: 20 to dole out.
Commissioner Lewis: What is the enforcement mechanism for that? Or is that a discussion
question?
Butler: That's a discussion question, I don't think Chairperson Hoy was finished.
Chairperson Hoy: Could these grants be part of a larger application? If someone was trying to
check off a bunch of small grants for the county or state. Could this be used for that?
Butler: For leverage? Yes.
Chairperson Hoy: For any purpose. We're not going to say you are applying for too many grants.
2",PublicArtCommission/2019-05-29.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2019-05-29,3,"Minutes of the Public Art Commission
Regular Meeting
Wednesday, May 29, 2019
Butler: It's always better to have more grants, and from different sources.
Chairperson Hoy: And would it have the same guidelines as our larger grant process in regards
to who can apply? If you were a school or a religious organization. Is it the same guidelines for
our existing cultural program applicants? Same regulations for the small grants?
Butler: No, no, that's a discussion question, but to clarify our thoughts would be that the 2 page
application would be an application and in this meeting we would discuss what the criteria
would be for these small grants. They would be completely different than the larger ones.
Chairperson Hoy: Ok, so we can discuss if schools or religious organization would be allowed to
apply.
Butler: Yes we can talk about who would be eligible.
Chairperson Hoy: Such as 501 C3's
Butler: Yes
Chairperson Hoy: Is there anywhere in this verbiage that I didn't see that says alright we have
done the pilot program, what's the process for an ongoing program after next year.
Butler: I would think that after one year if the pilot works we would go forward with an annual
program, funds allowing.
Chairperson Hoy: So we wouldn't need to come back to this body for any revisions or revisiting
what worked or didn't work.
Butler: We can discuss that.
Commissioner Farrell: Technical question: The downloadable application, will it be something
they have to print out and fill in or something they can type into and print out.
Butler: Hopefully we can generate a form that they can fill in.
Commissioner Gillitt: I believe my question will fall under the actual discussion, but I was just
going to ask for a clarifying question about the actual number amounts for funding. Are those
set or is that something we will be discussing?
Butler: That's something we can discuss, that was our recommendation.
Lois Butler asks if there are any more clarifying questions.
3",PublicArtCommission/2019-05-29.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2019-05-29,4,"Minutes of the Public Art Commission
Regular Meeting
Wednesday, May 29, 2019
Public Speaker Addressing Item 4-A:
Dan Fontes: I'm a public artist, been doing murals for 30 something years. Number 1, when
people send in applications sometimes there's a jury and the jury will rank each application for
a certain score and that score will rank them for a certain hierarchy. I thought that might be an
interesting discussion or something to consider so you have some type of criteria and some sort
of justification for granting funds - it's how other cities do it. 2nd just wanted to say I'm really
glad there are grants like these, its makes the public artist job a lot easier. 3rd, have you
considered the demographics of the community, I'm sure that will be addressed. Thank you all
for your service.
Lois Butler says if there are no more speakers we will move onto the discussion.
Public Comments Closed
Discussion on 4-A:
Commissioner Lewis: We have a requirement for each recipient to provide a summary, how do
we enforce that? How do we make sure that get done?
Butler: What we want to discuss with you all today is how we put this program together.
What are the grant amounts? Do we want to deal with odd amounts? (Ex: $545.75)
What are the grant increments that we want to give out? Are we recommending
between $500-$2,000? Or do you want to do something different? Maybe something
more or less?
We also want to include a Hold Harmless Clause in the application process.
We are going to want their W-9 up front to cut down on the process time to streamline
the process.
We have to look into whether they need a business license or not, if so that will need to
be factored into the amount since the grant is so small.
Who to make the check out to.
Gehrke addressed some of the concerns about cultural vs. visual arts. There will be someone
who will be doing administrative work with the grantees, communicating with them and
making sure they turn in their summaries and evaluations. Butler clarified that it would
probably be part-time staff working under her. Due to Amanda's workload she would not be
doing the administrative work.
4",PublicArtCommission/2019-05-29.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2019-05-29,5,"Minutes of the Public Art Commission
Regular Meeting
Wednesday, May 29, 2019
Commissioner Farrell indicated that he would recommend different amounts, $250-$1,000,
anything below $250 might not be helpful. He also questioned why the city wasn't using AMP's
(Alameda Municipal Power) already existing 1 page application as a template.
Gehrke said, additional information was needed making it more than one page.
Butler called for a short break to print out copies of the AMP Sponsorship Application.
Gehrke hands out the AMP Sponsorship Application.
It was stated by Commissioner Gillitt that this was just for events, AMP doesn't sponsor any
kind of physical art. Gehrke agreed that was her understanding.
Commissioner Gillitt then wanted to know how we will distinguish between cultural and
physical arts. Would this program cover physical? How do you compare the two?
Butler then explained how the funds are divided. There is $15,000 in each fund, up to $15,000
with a max of 20 grants (Administrative time is a factor in this) it doesn't matter which one you
pick. No more than 20 small grants will be given out, if you make the amounts too small you run
the risk of hitting the 20 grant mark before the $15,000.
Commissioner Farrell brought up that $2,000 feels like a lot to give out for requiring much less
process than for the larger grant process.
Butler explained that it would be self-evident, some organizations that are more established
that have applied for grants before will have that history and for other organizations more
information might be required. She then brought up that the Commission needed to make a
decision on whether both profit and nonprofit organizations would be eligible.
Commissioner Farrell wanted to know if the public had requested any certain grant amounts.
Butler said there were no strong recommendations for small grants.
Concern was mentioned that everyone would just apply for the highest amount ($2,000).
Chairperson Hoy wanted to make sure it wasn't a first come first served situation.
Butler explained they are recommending an evaluation process and we can encourage people
to apply for different amounts. You can structure it in such a way that people would need to
make a choice. These are recommendations that Kathleen Livermore has made based on
research of cities with similar small grants programs.
Commissioner Ferrell wanted to know if people will get guidance on what amounts to apply for.
5",PublicArtCommission/2019-05-29.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2019-05-29,6,"Minutes of the Public Art Commission
Regular Meeting
Wednesday, May 29, 2019
Butler brought up that this would be a big demand on staff's time. By really structuring the
process, it would help direct people applying. She recommended that there be slots per
amount.
Commissioner Gillitt wanted to know if there would be slots between physical and cultural arts.
Butler said that's a decision that would be made here.
Commissioner Gillitt then opened the question up the public, the muralist in attendance ""What
can you do with $2,000?""
Dan Fontes stated you can do a bit if you are very smart with your money. It could be difficult,
then he talked about all the things that factor into and artist budget.
Commissioner Gillitt said it sounded like it wouldn't do very much and sounded more like a
stepping stone.
It was agreed that this is the point of a small grants program. To help with larger
projects/budgets. Chairperson Hoy said it would be insulting to think the small grants program
would fund a project in its entirety.
Gehrke added that it would also be helpful for those small organizations to build a track record
of approved grants. It could be the seed money to get a project started.
Commissioner Farrell: Would the project be free to the public, either cultural or physical arts?
Gehrke: Yes, based on the ordinance.
Commissioner Farrell: We would just say ""Small Grants Program for Public Art.'
Gehrke: It has be accessible to the public, has to be outside or visible from a public area.
Butler: Limited advertisement is okay with the smaller grants. As long as everyone can come,
there can't be any restrictions. Can be combined with the Façade Grant Program.
Commissioner Lewis (?) 22:12 asked if this could be used for neon signs around town. Butler
said that would be a stretch and brought up that's what the Façade Grant Program if for.
Commissioner Farrell asked if For Profit Entities could apply.
Gehrke recommended that entities do not have to be nonprofit due to all the extra paperwork
required.
6",PublicArtCommission/2019-05-29.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2019-05-29,7,"Minutes of the Public Art Commission
Regular Meeting
Wednesday, May 29, 2019
Everyone was in agreement that both Profit and Non Profit should be allowed to participate in
the small grants program.
Commissioner Farrell wanted detail on the two month application period time.
Gehrke: During those two months is when people would be able to apply, after set end date the
evaluation process would begin.
Butler: Yes and they would have to spend the within a year after it is awarded.
Grant amounts were discussed.
The Commission recommended:
$250-500
$501-750
$751-1,000
$1,001-1500
$1,501-2000
The Commission also recommended that there be wording in the application that encourage
people to apply for smaller grants. Also that this is a Pilot Program and things can change.
Evaluation Criteria/Process was discussed.
The Commission is interested in knowing:
Artist Merit
Accessibility
What Community is represented? What community is served?
Must be in Alameda
Requirements and Questions
Image of event or piece
Our Logo needs to be attached to marketing/social media
Have you received a grant before?
What's your mission statement?
Need location approval (physical)
What materials will be used? (physical)
Subcommittee will be two Commissioners and one staff member (not Lois maybe Amanda)
Butler and Gehrke gave their timeline for the Small Grants program. Applications open my
January 5th 2020, awarded by the end of April 2020, and installations and events by March/April
of 2021.
7",PublicArtCommission/2019-05-29.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2019-05-29,8,"Minutes of the Public Art Commission
Regular Meeting
Wednesday, May 29, 2019
5. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
Butler: City Clerk is accepting applications for open seats on the Commission, Commissioner
Rush and Chairperson Hoy's terms are ending. Commissioner Rush would like to be reinstated.
During the next Election a Vice Chairperson will need to be chosen.
6. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
7. COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
8. ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting adjourned at 8:30pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Lois Butler, Economic Development Manager
Secretary
Public Art Commission
8",PublicArtCommission/2019-05-29.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2019-09-25,1,"Final
MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC ART COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING OF Wednesday, September 25, 2019
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 6:00 PM
1. CALL TO ORDER
Staff Member Lois Butler called the meeting to order at 6:05pm
2. ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Sherman Lewis, Liz Rush, Adam Gillitt, Mark Farrell.
Absent: Commissioner Kirstin Van Cleef (excused).
Lois Butler (PAC Secretary) and Amanda Gehrke (staff) are present as staff to the Commission.
3. MINUTES
2019-7292 A motion to approve the minutes was made by Commissioner Lewis and seconded by
Commissioner Gillitt. The motion carried 4-0.
4. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
5. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
5-A. 2019-7288 Appreciation for Outgoing Public Art Commission Member. The Public Art
Commission will present a Certificate of Appreciation to Outgoing Public Art Commission
Chairperson Daniel Hoy.
Commission members, Lois Butler and Amanda Gehrke expressed appreciation for
Outgoing Public Art Commission Chair Daniel Hoy, and presented him with a Certificate
of Appreciation.
Daniel Hoy expressed his appreciation for the opportunity to serve, received certificate,
and departed meeting.
5-B. 2019-7289 Selection of Chairperson. The Public Art Commission will select a new
Chairperson
Discussion of end of term for each member: Gillitt in 2020, Farrell in 2021, Lewis in
2020, Rush in 2023, Van Cleef in 2023
Discussion of duties of Chairperson: review agenda previous to meeting, chairs meeting,
appoints subcommittees.
Commissioner Farrell made a motion to elect Gillitt as Chairperson. Commissioner Lewis
seconded. Motion carried 4-0.
Chairperson Gillitt assumed role of chairing remainder of meeting.
5-C. 2019-7290 Selection of Vice Chairperson. The Public Art Commission will select a new Vice-
Chairperson
Commissioner Farrell made a motion to elect Commissioner Rush as Vice Chairperson.
Commissioner Lewis seconded. Motion carried 4-0.
5-D. 2019-7287 Public Art Small Grants Pilot Program",PublicArtCommission/2019-09-25.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2019-09-25,2,"Minutes of the Public Art Commission
Regular Meeting
Wednesday, September 25, 2019
Presentation by Staff Member Gehrke of staff report, Public Arts Small Grants Program
Description, and Public Art Small Grants Application. Key points of presentation were to
keep process simple, explanation of grant brackets, timeline of program, criteria for
evaluating applications, makeup of subcommittee, and requirements for recipients.
Commissioners asked clarifying questions:
Chairperson Gillitt: Can awardees utilize grant money for required business license?
Staff Member Butler clarified administrative costs can be included in grant requests.
Commissioner Farrell: How are artists required to acknowledge City of Alameda in
physical art pieces? Staff Member Gehrke clarified plaque is not required, but City
must be acknowledged onsite in some way.
Commissioner Farrell: Is City Council approval required? Staff Member Butler clarified
it is not, unless artwork is a large piece.
Commissioner Farrell: Is there a limit on number of grants per organization? Staff
Member Gehrke clarified there should be one grant per event, but consideration will
be made for awarding multiple grants per year if multiple events.
Vice Chairperson Rush asked about multiple grant amount requests per application.
Staff Member Butler recommends that there should be one application per event or
physical artwork.
Commissioner Farrell raised formatting concern. Staff Member Butler will have
application formatting changed to allow editing of draft applications.
Commissioner Lewis asked if physical submission of application is required. Staff
Member Butler clarified that electronically signed applications are adequate.
Commissioner Lewis expressed concern that grant ranges are unclear on application.
All agreed to discuss and resolve during discussion.
Written Communication was submitted for this item.
Commissioner Farrell requested clarification on price of art events. Staff Member
Butler clarified that events receiving grant must be free to be in compliance with
ordinance.
Commissioner Lewis requested clarification on events taking place in 21+ venues or
art that is for 18+. Staff Member Butler offered to get clarification from City Attorney's
Office if the event that art falls into this category.
Discussion. Encourage applicants to apply for smaller grants. Make applicants aware of
maximum annual grant limits. Ratio of $250-level (Micro) grants to $2000-level (Small)
grants. Suggestion to award Micro grants first, or to reserve some funds exclusively for
Micro grants. Suggestion to assess on a case-by-case basis. Agreement that grants are
not limited to non-profits.
Motion by Commissioner Farrell to make four changes on application and instructions:
1) change from three to two grant brackets (Micro and Small); 2) add line to application
for requested amount and description of fund-use; 3) add explanation of funding-
categories to application instructions; and 4) include how City of Alameda will be
represented on physical art pieces. Seconded by Vice Chairperson Rush. Motion carried
4-0.
2",PublicArtCommission/2019-09-25.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2019-09-25,3,"Minutes of the Public Art Commission
Regular Meeting
Wednesday, September 25, 2019
5-E. 2019-7291 Selection of Regular Meeting Date. The Public Art Commission will select a
regular meeting date
Staff Member Butler updated commission members that the sunshine ordinance
requires meetings be held at regular intervals and location. If schedule changes,
cancellation notice must be posted. Additionally, if meeting held outside regular
meeting time, it shall be called a Special Meeting.
Discussion: best day for and frequency of meeting. All council members approve first or
third Monday of the month. Staff members will check city calendar and select best of
two options.
5-F. 2019-7286 Eligibility of Upcoming Projects for the Public Art Requirement. Staff to provide
the Public Art Commission with a status update on the eligibility of upcoming projects for the
Public Art Requirement
Staff Member Gehrke provided update on upcoming eligible art projects and grant
contributors.
Commissioner Farrell asked clarifying question regarding city's approval process for
applications. Staff member Butler clarified city evaluates/approves site, public access,
and grant amount.
Jim Corter, local artist and resident, asked what qualifies as public art. Commissioner
clarified what qualifies as art (physical or event), and that developers can either
contribute to public art fund or have public art as part of development.
6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Staff Member Butler introduced new Commissioner Kirstin Van Cleef (absent), has
public art experience in Scottsdale, AZ. Introduction and biography to be shared at next
meeting.
Staff Member Gehrke provided Art In City Hall Program update: very successful, lottery
system working well, continue program in 2020.
Staff Member Gehrke provided information on California Art Council Grant Program.
7. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None.
8. COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS
Clarified that next PAC priority is Ordinance.
9. ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Gillitt adjourned the meeting at 7:15pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Lois Butler, Economic Development Manager
Secretary
Public Art Commission
3",PublicArtCommission/2019-09-25.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2020-03-10,1,"Draft
MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC ART COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING
Tuesday, March 10, 2020
CONFERENCE ROOM 360, CITY HALL
2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 6:00 PM
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Gillitt called the meeting to order at 6:00pm
2. ROLL CALL
Present: Chairperson Adam Gillitt, Vice Chairperson Liz Rush, Commissioners
Mark Farrell and Kirstin Van Cleef.
Absent: Commissioner Sherman Lewis (unexcused).
Lois Butler (PAC Secretary), Amanda Gehrke and Yael Schy present as staff to
the Commission.
3. MINUTES
3-A. 2020-7793 Draft Meeting Minutes - December 16, 2019
A motion to approve minutes made by Commissioner Farrell and seconded by Vice
Chairperson Rush. The motion carried 4-0.
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
5. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
5-A. 2020-7787 Recommendation to Consider Alternate Locations for the Dan
Fontes Mural
Staff Member Gehrke presented on alternate locations for the Dan Fontes
Mural. Gehrke provided background on the Dan Fontes Mural project, and
reported that the good-faith efforts to find an alternate location within the
West Alameda Business District were unsuccessful. Gehrke stated that
McKinley Park recreation center continues to be the artist's and city staff's
recommended location, and informed the Commission that the process will
require approval from PAC, Recreation and Park Department, and City
Council.
Gehrke welcomed comments from Commissioners and answered their
questions.
Speaker Dan Fontes presented the benefits of McKinley Park as having a
north-facing wall and little to no graffiti.
Commissioners discussed concerns about the low visibility of McKinley
Park, a desire to keep the original mural theme while acknowledging that
the artist's creative process may be site-specific, and a desire to have",PublicArtCommission/2020-03-10.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2020-03-10,2,"Minutes of the Public Art Commission
Special Meeting
Tuesday, March 10, 2020
community input through a variety of channels. Commissioner Farrell
volunteered to research additional locations for the mural.
Chairperson Gillitt made a motion to approve the relocation of the Dan
Fontes Mural to McKinley Park, to have the artist bring three new proposed
mural options to PAC for review and approval, to ensure the public is
notified of the meeting, and to increase the grant award by $1,500 for the
mural redesign. Commissioner Van Cleef seconded. The vote was 2-2 and
the motion did not pass. Commissioner Farrell made a motion to approve
the relocation of the Dan Fontes Mural to McKinley Park, and increase the
grant award by $1,500 for the mural redesign. Seconded by none. The
motion did not pass. Vice Chairperson Rush made a motion to table the
vote providing additional time for Commissioner Farrell to research
additional locations for the mural. Commissioner Farrell seconded the
motion. Discussion was opened regarding length of the overall process, the
value of high traffic versus less traffic locations, the challenges of privately
owned locations versus City-owned locations, and the need to look for
additional business and property owners with high-visibility properties open
to having a mural on their property. Motion passed 4-0.
5-B. 2020-7788 Recommendation to Approve the Resolution and Conditions
Approving the ""Alameda Afore"" Public Art Proposal
Staff Member Gehrke introduced the ""Alameda Afore"" Public Art Proposal,
the first of two public art pieces at the Alameda Point Site A development.
Kristel Railsback, with srmErnst Development Partners, presented the
""Alameda Afore"" Public Art RFQ winner Rodrigo Nava's proposed art,
including materials, location and size. Gehrke reviewed the public art
qualifying criteria for the Commission.
Chairperson Gillitt welcomed questions and Gehrke and Railsback
answered questions.
Commissioners discussed the design, structure, materials, and location,
highlighting the importance of finding a suitable place to view the art and
the descriptive plaque.
Commissioner Van Cleef made a motion to approve the resolution and
conditions approving the ""Alameda Afore"" public art proposal. Seconded by
Commissioner Farrell. Motion passed 4-0.
5-C. 2020-7789 Recommendation to Consider and Provide Feedback on
Proposed Amendments to the Public Art Ordinance
Staff Member Gehrke presented recommendations to consider and provide
feedback on proposed amendments to the Public Art Ordinance. Gehrke
provided a brief background of the ordinance, including revisions made in
2017, and the desire to increase the amount of money in the Public Art fund
2",PublicArtCommission/2020-03-10.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2020-03-10,3,"Minutes of the Public Art Commission
Special Meeting
Tuesday, March 10, 2020
expressed by the PAC in 2019. Gehrke presented the proposed changes,
including: creating a tiered contribution system to incentivize developers to
contribute to the art fund, allowing funds to be used for art maintenance
costs, removing requirement that cultural art grants can only go to non-profit
organizations, requiring developers to identify onsite versus in-lieu artwork
prior to getting permits, clarifying that the maintenance agreement should
be reflected in the conditions of approval, and specifying that City Council
approval is only required on commissions over $75,000.
Staff Member Gehrke welcomed and answered questions.
Commissioners discussed the proposed amendments, including:
Modifying the new construction art fund contribution rates to either:
a) decrease the in-lieu contribution percentage, b) increase the
onsite contribution percentage, c) both decrease the in-lieu and
increase the onsite contribution percentages to maximize the
incentive to contribute to in-lieu, d) specify different rates for
residential and commercial construction so the residential
contribution is at a lower rate, and the commercial contribution can
be set lower for in-lieu and higher for onsite contributions;
Removing requirement that cultural art grants can only go to non-
profit organizations, while possibly designating a portion or amount
for non-profit organizations;
Designating a portion of the fund to be used exclusively for art
maintenance; and
Specifying that City Council approval is only required on
commissions over $75,000
Speaker Tina Blaine shared the opinion that the City of Berkeley's tiered
system's success is due to the greater differential between two contribution
levels (0.8% versus 1.75%), and expressed a desire to protect non-profit
organizations' access to cultural art funds when amending the ordinance.
Speaker Jennifer Radakovich posed clarifying questions regarding the
cultural arts portion of the fund.
Staff Member Gehrke volunteered to research other city ordinances for both
variations in new construction art fund contribution percentages and
designating a portion of the fund exclusively for art maintenance, research
PAC and staff involvement in onsite art approval at other cities, and bring
her findings back to the Commission.
Vice Chairperson Rush made a motion to remove the requirement that
cultural arts grants can only go to non-profits for grants under $2,000, to
require developers to declare onsite artwork or in-lieu art fund contribution
before receiving planning approval, to require that the maintenance
agreement be reflected in the conditions of approval, to allow a portion of
the fund to be used for maintenance of art, and to specify that only art
3",PublicArtCommission/2020-03-10.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2020-03-10,4,"Minutes of the Public Art Commission
Special Meeting
Tuesday, March 10, 2020
projects over $75,000 need to be brought to City Council for approval.
Seconded by Commissioner Van Cleef. Motion carried 4-0.
Commissioners reviewed modification options previously discussed for art
fund contribution rates. Chairperson Gillitt made a motion to table
discussions of amending art fund contributions from developers. Seconded
by Vice Chairperson Rush. Motion carried 4-0.
Commission recessed for break from 8:05-8:09pm.
5-D. 2020-7790 Request to Establish and Appoint Members to a Public Art
Commission Subcommittee to Evaluate and Rank Submittals in Response to
the Public Art Small Grants Pilot Program
Staff Member Butler presented the request to establish and appoint
members of a Public Art Commission Subcommittee to Evaluate and Rank
Submittals in Response to the Public Art Small Grants Pilot Program,
including an overview of the Public Art Small Grant Pilot Program.
Commissioners discussed schedules and availability.
Chairperson Gillitt made a motion to appoint Vice Chairperson Rush,
Commissioner Van Cleef and Staff Member Gehrke as members of the
Public Art Commission Subcommittee. Seconded by Commissioner Farrell.
Motion carried 4-0.
5-E. 2020-7791 Eligibility Status of Upcoming Projects for the Public Art
Requirement
Staff Member Gehrke provided an update of upcoming projects for the
Public Art Requirement.
Staff Member Gehrke answered Commissioner questions.
6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Staff Member Butler introduced Staff Member Yael Schy who will be
assisting with the Public Art Small Grants program.
7. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None.
8. COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS
Chairperson Gillitt requested an update on Fire Station Three Art project,
requested general arts calendar update, and requested PAC to issue a
position on Assembly Bill 5.
Staff Member Butler advised adding the request that PAC issue a position
on Assembly Bill 5 to the next meeting's agenda because the item had not
4",PublicArtCommission/2020-03-10.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2020-03-10,5,"Minutes of the Public Art Commission
Special Meeting
Tuesday, March 10, 2020
be agendized. Butler clarified that there is no update on the general arts
calendar.
Commissioner Van Cleef will share meeting information on Public Art
Networking Meetings with the PAC and staff members, to be included in
Communications on next meeting's agenda.
9. ADJOURNMENT
Chairperson Gillitt adjourned the meeting at approximately 8:34pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Lois Butler
Economic Development Manager
Secretary
Public Art Commission
5",PublicArtCommission/2020-03-10.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2020-06-15,1,"Draft
MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC ART COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING
Tuesday, June 15, 2020
1. CALL TO ORDER
Vice Chairperson Liz Rush called the meeting to order at 6:02pm.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: Vice Chairperson Liz Rush, Commissioners Mark Farrell and Kirstin Van
Cleef.
Absent: Chairperson Adam Gillitt (excused), Commissioner Sherman Lewis
(unexcused).
Lois Butler (PAC Secretary), Amanda Gehrke and Yael Schy present as staff to
the Commission.
3. MINUTES
3-A. 2020-8060 Review and Approve Draft Minutes of March 10, 2020
Commissioner Farrell requested correction to minutes to include clarification that
Commissioner Farrell offered to research alternative mural locations. A motion to
approve corrected minutes made by Commissioner Van Cleef and seconded by
Commissioner Farrell. Ayes: Vice Chairperson Rush, Commissioners Van Cleef
and Farrell. Nays: none. The motion carried 3-0.
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
5. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
5-A. 2020-8061 Recommendation to Review and Approve the List of Public
Art Small Grants Pilot Program Award Recipients
Staff Member Schy provided an overview of the Public Art Small Grant Pilot
Program, application review criteria, and the selected recommendations
that came from the April 29, 2020 subcommittee meeting. She explained
that the subcommittee was composed of two members of the PAC (Vice
Chairperson Rush and Commissioner Van Cleef) and Staff Member
Gehrke.
Schy welcomed comments and answered any questions.
Public Speaker Patti Cary described the value of the Haunt Your House
contest, its historical influence on Alameda being renowned for its
Halloween Events, and requested that PAC and the City support this artistic
event, particularly as it encourages those who may be budding artists.
Commissioners discussed recommendations. Council Member Farrell
raised concerns about the Alameda Haunt Your House program and",PublicArtCommission/2020-06-15.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2020-06-15,2,"Minutes of the Public Art Commission Meeting
Monday, June 15, 2020
whether it constitutes a public art event that should be funded by the City.
Commissioner Farrell requested clarification on the types of prizes given for
the event and if any of the prizes were cash. Staff Member Shye read an
excerpt from the application explaining that the funds will be used
""exclusively for promotional, website and social media design, supplies and
award purposes."" Commissioner Farrell maintained his concern that cash
might be given to the awardees, which he considered to be a misuse of
public art funds. Commissioner Farrell also raised logistical concern about
the Words that Made the Difference: Brown vs. Board of Education
proposed event.
A motion to approve all recommendations for the public arts small grants
pilot program award recipients was made by Commissioner Van Cleef and
seconded by Vice Chairperson Rush. Commissioner Farrell made an
amended motion to approve all recommendations excluding the Alameda
Haunt Your House application. Commissioner Van Cleef moved to accept
the amended motion. Vice Chairperson Rush seconded the amended
motion. Ayes: Commissioners Farrell and Van Cleef, Vice Chairperson
Rush. Nays: none. The amended motion passed 3-0. Commissioner Van
Cleef made a motion to pass the small grant recommendation for the
Alameda Haunt Your House application. Seconded by Vice Chairperson
Rush. Ayes: Commissioner Van Cleef and Vice Chairperson Rush. Nays:
Commissioner Farrell. The motion passed 2-1. Staff Member Butler offered
to clarify at the next regular meeting if a PAC motion needs 3 ayes to pass.
5-B. 2020-8062 Recommendation to: 1) Relocate the Dan Fontes Mural to the
McKinley Park Recreation Center and 2) Approve Adding $1,500 to the Grant
Amount (for a total of $14,000), to Cover the Costs of a New Design
Staff Member Gehrke presented a short report reviewing the Dan Fontes
Mural award, the ongoing efforts to find an alternate location and need for
mural redesign due to relocation. At the time of the staff report, Gehrke
stated that McKinley Park recreation center continued to be a
recommended location for the artist and city staff.
Gehrke welcomed comments from Commissioners and answered their
questions.
Speaker Tina Blaine (email read into record) provided two potential
alternate locations: one on Blanding and one on Park St, both buildings
owned by Arthur Mercado.
Speaker Tina Blaine shared that artist Dan Fontes and property owner
Arthur Mercado have now spoken.
Speaker Fontes shared that he and Mercado did walk-throughs of both
sites. Fontes clarified that both locations may require restoration work, but
are good mural locations. He also expressed his continued support of the
McKinley Park location.
2",PublicArtCommission/2020-06-15.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2020-06-15,3,"Minutes of the Public Art Commission Meeting
Monday, June 15, 2020
Commissioners, Fontes, and Gehrke discussed visibility, accessibility, and
funding needed for Blanding and Park St locations. Staff Member Butler
offered to research traffic flow for both locations.
Vice Chairperson Rush made a motion to explore Blanding and Park St
locations as a mural site while maintaining McKinley Park as an alternate
mural site, and to discuss increasing the grant amount due to project delays.
Seconded by Commissioner Farrell. Ayes: Vice Chairperson Rush,
Commissioners Van Cleef and Farrell. Nays: none. The motion carried 3-0.
5-C. 2020-8063 Eligibility Status of Upcoming Projects for the Public Art
Requirement
Staff Member Gehrke provided an update of upcoming projects for the
Public Art Requirement.
There were no clarifying questions, speakers, or discussion.
6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Staff Member Butler clarified that PAC can research and provide
recommendations regarding AB5 to the City Council. Commissioners
discussed tabling this until a later date.
Staff Members Butler and Gehrke confirmed that staff will provide updates
on the Public Art Ordinance at the next regular PAC meeting, and confirmed
the three areas of additional research that are needed: allowing Public Art
Consultant fees to be paid out of the fund, dedicating a portion of the fund
to public art maintenance, and adjusting the contribution percentages for
residential and commercial contributors.
7. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None.
8. COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
Commissioners expressed a desire to discuss the creation of a statement
and possible actionable items regarding support of artists of color and/or
the Black Lives Matter movement. Discussion will be added to the agenda
for the next meeting. Staff Member Butler clarified that the next meeting will
be a special meeting in early July.
Commissioner Farrell raised concerns regarding using the Zoom platform.
9. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Staff Member Schy raised the possibility of preserving the artwork on
plywood covering storefronts put in place during protests. Staff Member
Gehrke clarified that artwork is being gathered by local business owners for
display near Calafia.
3",PublicArtCommission/2020-06-15.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2020-06-15,4,"Minutes of the Public Art Commission Meeting
Monday, June 15, 2020
10.ADJOURNMENT
Vice Chairperson Rush adjourned the meeting at 7:46pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Lois Butler
Economic Development Manager
Secretary
Public Art Commission
4",PublicArtCommission/2020-06-15.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2020-07-09,1,"Final
MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC ART COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, July 9, 2020
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Adam Gillitt called the meeting to order at 6:02pm.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: Chairperson Adam Gillitt, Vice Chairperson Liz Rush, Commissioners
Mark Farrell and Sherman Lewis.
Absent: Commissioner Van Cleef (unexcused).
Lois Butler (PAC Secretary) and Amanda Gehrke present as staff to the
Commission.
3. MINUTES
3-A. 2020-8154 Review and Approve Draft Minutes PAC June 15, 2020
Commissioner Farrell requested correction to minutes regarding item 5-A to
include his request for clarification if the Alameda Haunt Your House applicant
intended to use grant funds for cash prizes. Commissioner Farrell asserted this
question remains unanswered. A motion to approve corrected minutes made by
Commissioner Farrell and seconded by Vice Chairperson Rush. Ayes:
Chairperson Gillitt, Vice Chairperson Rush, Commissioners Lewis and Farrell.
Nays: none. The motion carried 4-0.
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
5. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
5-A. 2020-8061 Recommendation to Review and Approve the ""Haunt Your
House"" Application to the Public Art Small Grants Pilot Program
Staff Member Butler clarified that since a quorum had not be reached with
the last vote on this item, a vote is needed at this meeting. Butler provided
a brief review of the report and explained that the 15 public comments
submitted pertaining to this agenda item were accessible for review via the
links provided in the published meeting agenda.
Butler welcomed comments and questions. Commissioner Farrell asked for
clarification if any cash prizes were to be given. Staff Member Gehrke
clarified that no cash prizes will be given according to an email statement
submitted by the applicant.
Gehrke read into record the first three minutes of Public Comment 11 that
expressed the view that AHYH is community oriented and artistic in nature.
Commissioners briefly discussed the recommendation.",PublicArtCommission/2020-07-09.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2020-07-09,2,"Minutes of the Public Art Commission
Thursday, July 9, 2020
A motion to approve the ""Haunt Your House"" application to the Public Art
Small Grants Pilot Program was made by Commissioner Farrell and
seconded by Commissioner Lewis. Ayes: Chairperson Gillitt, Vice
Chairperson Rush, Commissioners Lewis and Farrell. Nays: none. The
motion carried 4-0.
5-B. 2020-8155 Recommendation to Approve the Attached Resolution and
Conditions Approving the ""Beken"" Public Art Proposal
Staff Member Gehrke presented the Beken Public Art Proposal for the
Waterfront Park, including redesign of the base cell sizes in response to
perceived safety concerns raised by both the Recreation and Park
Commission and an inter-departmental design review team. Gehrke
reviewed evaluation criteria, and stated that staff believe the piece to satisfy
all criteria.
Artist Dewitt Godfrey provided an introduction to the proposed ""Beken""
sculpture and explained his inspiration for the piece, including design
modifications that have been made, and expressed his excitement to build
at this site.
Gehrke welcomed comments and Gehrke and Godfrey answered
questions.
Public Speaker Rachel Campos expressed her support for the design
process and resulting piece, as it is eye-catching, has good scale for the
location, and reflects historical aspects of the site.
Commissioners, Godfrey, and Gehrke discussed visibility, proposed
sculpture material, lighting, design elements and modifications, and location
in relation to other public art pieces at Alameda Point.
A motion to approve the ""Beken"" Public Art Proposal was made by Vice
Chairperson Rush and seconded by Commissioner Lewis. Ayes:
Chairperson Gillitt, Vice Chairperson Rush, Commissioners Lewis and
Farrell. Nays: none. The motion carried 4-0.
6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
None.
7. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None.
8. COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
Chairperson Gillitt clarified that the City Council is discussing and taking
action on police reform and the Black Lives Matter movement.
Commissioners could join in support by participating in the police reform
subcommittee meetings and efforts being put forth by City Council, Mayor
2",PublicArtCommission/2020-07-09.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2020-07-09,3,"Minutes of the Public Art Commission
Thursday, July 9, 2020
Ashcraft and Vice Mayor Knox-White. Commission agreed to table further
discussion until City Council has taken action on this item.
Commissioner Farrell requested that the public be made aware of the
subcommittee application review process. Staff Member Butler offered to
provide Public Art grants applications for future agenda items brought
forward by subcommittee to the PAC.
9. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
10. .ADJOURNMENT
Chairperson Gillitt adjourned the meeting at 6:56pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Lois Butler
Economic Development Manager
Secretary
Public Art Commission
3",PublicArtCommission/2020-07-09.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2020-08-17,1,"Final
MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC ART COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, August 17, 2020
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Adam Gillitt called the meeting to order at 6:02pm.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: Chairperson Adam Gillitt, Vice Chairperson Liz Rush, Commissioners
Mark Farrell and Kirstin Van Cleef.
Absent: Commissioner Sherman Lewis (unexcused).
Lois Butler (PAC Secretary) and Amanda Gehrke present as staff to the
Commission.
3. MINUTES
3-A. 2020-8228 Review and Approve Draft Minutes PAC June 15, 2020
A motion to approve the minutes was made by Vice Chairperson Rush and
seconded by Commissioner Farrell. Ayes: Chairperson Gillitt, Vice Chairperson
Rush, Commissioners Van Cleef and Farrell. Nays: none. The motion carried 4-0.
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
5. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
5-A. 2020-8231 Recommendation to: 1) Relocate the Dan Fontes Mural to the
McKinley Park Recreation Center and 2) Approve Adding $1,500 to the Grant
Amount (for a total of $14,000), to Cover the Costs of a New Design
Staff member Gehrke presented the report, including three
recommendations: relocate the mural to McKinley Park Recreation Center,
approve adding $1,500 to the grant amount, and include public outreach in
the re-design of the mural, if the selected site warrants a redesign.
Artist Dan Fontes shared his feedback on the 1925 Everett location,
including neighborhood and location benefits, and expressed concerns
about low pedestrian traffic, visual clutter, and the challenge of painting on
brick. He expressed his preference for the relocation to be at McKinley Park,
but advised that both locations will work for a mural.
Gehrke welcomed comments and answered any clarifying questions.
Commissioners discussed the recommendations, including benefits and
concerns for each location, the importance of community engagement, and
setting a deadline for the Everett location insurance paperwork.
A motion to set a deadline of September 21st to have the owner's signature
and insurance for the 1925 Everett location, to default to the McKinley Park
location if no signature is received before the deadline passes, and to",PublicArtCommission/2020-08-17.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2020-08-17,2,"Minutes of the Public Art Commission
Monday, August 17, 2020
increase the grant amount by $1,500 was made by Vice Chairperson Rush
and seconded by Commissioner Farrell. Ayes: Chairperson Gillitt, Vice
Chairperson Rush, Commissioners Van Cleef and Farrell. Nays: none. The
motion carried 4-0.
5-B. 2020-8232 Consider and Provide Feedback on Proposed Amendments
to the Public Art Ordinance
Staff member Gehrke reviewed proposed amendments to the Public Art
Ordinance, including:
Allowing the Fund to be used for conservation and maintenance of
public art.
Requiring developers to declare their intention to install on-site
artwork or contribute to the Fund prior to receiving planning
approvals.
Revising the language to clarify that the maintenance agreement
shall be reflected in the conditions of approval and recorded against
the property prior to the issuance of the first certificate of
occupancy.
Revising the language to allow grants for $2,000 and lower to go to
profit as well as nonprofit businesses.
Specifying that City Council approval is needed only for Fund
expenditures that exceed the purchase authority of the City
Manager.
Staff member Gehrke also provided research and recommendations on
discussion topics requested by the PAC at a previous meeting:
Dedicating a portion of the Fund exclusively to maintenance and
conservation.
Requiring different program contributions for residential and
commercial construction.
Exploring the potential to use public art consultants to enhance the
quality of on-site public art.
Staff members Gehrke and Butler answered clarifying questions.
Commissioners discussed proposed amendments and the requested
research topics. Commissioner Farrell suggested including ARPD in the
development of a Public Art map for Alameda, which could be created by a
local graphic artist. Gehrke offered to provide follow up on the use of funds
for art promotion as part of the PAC's work plan prioritization.
Commissioners requested agendizing discussion of Fund contribution rates
for in-lieu/on-site and commercial/residential.
In summary, Commissioners supported staff recommendations, but
requested clarification on Ordinance language regarding location changes
during mid-approval process. No vote was taken.
2",PublicArtCommission/2020-08-17.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2020-08-17,3,"Minutes of the Public Art Commission
Monday, August 17, 2020
5-C. 2020-8227 Public Art Update
Staff member Gehrke presented a review of awarded and pending physical
Public Art Grants to date, as well as explained the physical art review
process.
Gehrke welcomed comments and answered questions.
Commissioners discussed and suggested adding QR code at each physical
art site that directs people to Alameda's Public Art page, adding this
presentation to the public art page to inform public, and increasing publicity
for public art in Alameda, either by leveraging existing publicity channels,
adding links or project descriptions to existing city pages, or other means.
Commissioners requested discussing this at the next meeting. Staff
member Butler offered to follow up on this item regarding City resources or
limitations. Commissioner Gillitt requested an update from the Fire
Department regarding the Fire Station 3 planned public art.
5-D. 2020-8233 Status Update on the Eligibility of Upcoming Projects for the
Public Art Requirement
Staff member Gehrke briefly presented status updates on the eligibility of
upcoming projects for the public art requirement.
Gehrke welcomed comments and answered questions.
6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Staff member Gehrke advised commissioners that next meeting will have a
brainstorming session for the 2021 PAC plan.
Staff member Butler clarified that new commissioner is expected to be
selected before the next meeting, and should be in attendance at the next
meeting.
7. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None.
8. COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
Commissioner Farrell requested staff to research public art opportunities on
the new Webster - Alameda Point walking trail.
Commissioner Rush identified several opportunities at College of Alameda
for public art.
Commissioner Farrell suggested Alameda Library as an opportunity for
public art.
9. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Staff member Butler notified the commission of a temporary art installation
at Jackson Park in place of the park sign until the park is renamed.
3",PublicArtCommission/2020-08-17.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2020-08-17,4,"Minutes of the Public Art Commission
Monday, August 17, 2020
10. ADJOURNMENT
Chairperson Gillitt adjourned the meeting at 8:07pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Lois Butler
Economic Development Manager
Secretary
Public Art Commission
4",PublicArtCommission/2020-08-17.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2020-10-19,1,"FINAL
MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC ART COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 19, 2020
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Adam Gillitt called the meeting to order at 6:01pm.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: Chairperson Adam Gillitt, Vice Chairperson Liz Rush, Commissioners
Mark Farrell, Kirstin Van Cleef, and Tierney Sneeringer.
Absent: None.
Lois Butler (PAC Secretary) and Amanda Gehrke present as staff to the
Commission.
3. MINUTES
3-A. 2020-8413 Review and Approve Draft Minutes August 17, 2020
Chairperson Gillitt corrected the draft minutes that he had requested an update by
the Alameda Fire Department on Public Art for the Emergency Operations Center,
not Commissioner Farrell. A motion to approve the amended minutes was made
by Vice Chairperson Rush and seconded by Commissioner Farrell. Ayes:
Chairperson Gillitt, Vice Chairperson Rush, Commissioners Van Cleef,
Sneeringer, and Farrell. Nays: none. The motion carried 5-0.
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
5. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
5-A. 2020-8408 Presentation by Alameda Fire Department on Public Art for
the Emergency Operations Center
Acting Fire Chief Rick Zombeck presented an update on the Public Art for
the Emergency Operations Center/Fire Station 3, explaining that $54,000
of the $200,000 project has been fund-raised, design work and plaster cast
are complete and ready for bronzing, and the project is on hold pending
further funding. Zombeck committed to bring funding requests to the city for
the next budget to move this project to fruition, and offered to provide an
update to the Commission in December. Staff member Butler offered to
research the initial agreement on funding the public art portion (24min in)
and provide an update in December.
Zombeck answered clarifying questions.
5-B. 2020-8409 Provide Input on Upcoming Public Art Program Prioritization
Working Session",PublicArtCommission/2020-10-19.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2020-10-19,2,"Minutes of the Public Art Commission
Monday, August 17, 2020
Staff member Gehrke introduced the prioritization working session, and
provided an update on the short- medium- and long-term priorities set by
the Commission in April 2019.
Staff member Gehrke answered clarifying questions.
Public Comment Adriene Segal provided feedback regarding outdoor
temporary art that a stipend be included for artists who loan art to the City
for display, and suggested an event similar to Australian public art event,
Sculpture by the Sea.
Public comment. Jess and Wes Warren offered to submit their proposal for
a mural on the wall of Pedal. Commissioners invited submission for review.
Commissioners discussed and identified the following ideas:
Developing marketing/communications program for public art in
Alameda
Creation of Public Art Guidelines/Master Plan
Continuation of the Small Grants Pilot Program
Community process to identify locations for physical public art
New request for proposals for physical and/or cultural art
Creating temporary facade art on closed store fronts
Developing an art park and/or art walk
Identifying and developing an art display area to be used for rotating
physical art pieces that may be part of the art park
Starting a new request for proposals for a community interactive art
event.
Facilitating a community process to identify locations for physical
public art
Collaborating with property owners for murals on identified areas
Developing a night-time, light-based space for artists to display
projected art at Alameda Point
5-C. 2020-8410 Recommend to City Council that Public Art Funds be used
to
repair and restore the Birth sculpture in an amount not to exceed $55,000
Staff member Gehrke presented a summary of the recommendation to the
City Council that public art funds be used to repair and restore the Birth
sculpture in an amount not to exceed $55,000.
Gehrke welcomed comments and Gehrke and Butler answered clarifying
questions. Staff members offered to research when the City became owners
of the Birth Sculpture, and if there are other as-of-yet unidentified public art
pieces in Alameda.
Public comment Jess and Wes Warren recommended removing it.
Cheryl Harawitz shared that in the development of the Public Art Ordinance,
they had specifically not included using public art funds for maintenance
fees.
2",PublicArtCommission/2020-10-19.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2020-10-19,3,"Minutes of the Public Art Commission
Monday, August 17, 2020
Commissioners discussed deaccession, restoration, restoration and
relocation, selling the artwork, and offering to return the piece to the artist.
Commissioners requested a deaccession estimate, a relocation estimate,
research into maintenance fees if relocated outside the current area, asking
the artist if he would be interested in taking the piece back, and researching
other possible sources of funding for the work before making
recommendations. Commissioners agreed that there should be a plan for
deaccession of art or removal of art if it becomes controversial. (ends at
1:25)
5-D. 2020-8411 Discussion Concerning Contribution Levels to the Public Art
Fund Depending and Recommendation to Amend the Public Art Ordinance
to Allow the Public Art Fund to be used for Deaccession of Artwork
Staff member Gehrke introduced the discussion of the contribution levels to
the Public Art Fund and reviewed recommendations to amend the Public
Art Ordinance to allow the fund to be used for deaccession of artwork, and
provided an overview of previously-discussec recommended changes.
Gehrke notified the Commission that changes to the ordinance will need to
be reviewed by the Planning Board before going to City Council for
approval. Butler advised the Commission that a special meeting will be
called to discuss changes to the ordinance, and will include a presentation
by the Planning Board, and that they will likely make a recommendation to
reinstate the cap.
Gehrke welcomed comments and answered questions.
Public Comment: Cheryl Harawitz expressed concern about changing the
ordinance.
Public Comment: Jess and Wes Warren expressed concern about
reinstating a cap, and encouraged the Commission to incentivize in-lieu
contributions.
Commissioners discussed proposed changes, including concerns about
changing the in-lieu vs. on-site contribution amounts given the current
economic climate, consulting with each artist to determine life of art and
recommended maintenance lengths for each piece, consulting with a
conservator to determine required maintenance on existing and/or future
public art pieces. Commissioner Farrell reiterated that PAC has oversight
on on-site public art, and recommends not decreasing any fees.
5-E. 2020-8412 Status Update on the Eligibility of Upcoming Projects for the
Public Art Requirement
Staff member Gehrke briefly presented status updates on the eligibility of
upcoming projects for the public art requirement.
Gehrke welcomed comments and answered questions.
3",PublicArtCommission/2020-10-19.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2020-10-19,4,"Minutes of the Public Art Commission
Monday, August 17, 2020
6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
None.
7. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None.
8. COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
Commissioner communications asked for an update on Dan Fontes mural.
Gehrke updated that the agreement has been signed by the property owner,
and an update will be provided to the PAC in December.
Commissioner Farrell asked if Tideland's funding slated for the cancelled
Dragon Sculpture might be available for another art project. Butler offered
to inquire and report back to the Commission.
9. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Public member Wes Warren expressed his gratitude for the PAC.
10. ADJOURNMENT
Chairperson Gillitt adjourned the meeting at 8:12pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Lois Butler
Economic Development Manager
Secretary
Public Art Commission
4",PublicArtCommission/2020-10-19.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2020-12-02,1,"FINAL
MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC ART COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
Wednesday, December 2, 2020
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Adam Gillitt called the meeting to order at 6:03pm.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: Chairperson Adam Gillitt, Vice Chairperson Liz Rush, Commissioners
Mark Farrell, Kirstin Van Cleef, and Tierney Sneeringer.
Absent: None.
Lois Butler (PAC Secretary) and Amanda Gehrke present as staff to the
Commission.
Chairperson Gillitt made a motion to discuss item 8 Commission Communications,
Non-Agenda, before item 5 - Regular Agenda Items. Ayes: Chairperson Gillitt,
Vice Chairperson Rush, Commissioners Van Cleef, Sneeringer, and Farrell. Nays:
none. The motion carried 5-0.
3. MINUTES
3-A. 2020-8520 Review and Approve Draft Minutes October 19, 2020
A motion to approve the minutes was made by Vice Chairperson Rush and
seconded by Commissioner Farrell. Ayes: Chairperson Gillitt, Vice Chairperson
Rush, Commissioners Van Cleef, Sneeringer, and Farrell. Nays: none. The motion
carried 5-0.
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
8. COMMSSIONER COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
Chairperson Gillitt provided an overview of the new meeting Code of Ethics and
Conduct released by Alameda City Clerk's Office, particularly given current virtual
meeting format, and reminded Commissioners of their commitment to abide by all
rules and procedures. Commissioner Sneeringer indicated that she had not
received the Code of Ethics and Conduct. She was referred to the City Clerk by
Staff member Butler.
5. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
5-A. 2020-8521 Discussion Concerning Contribution Levels to the Public Art
Fund and Recommendation to Amend the Public Art Ordinance to Allow the
Public Art Fund to be used for Deaccession of Artwork
Staff member Gehrke presented an overview of the recommended changes to the
Public Art Ordinance from March and August 2020 PAC meetings:",PublicArtCommission/2020-12-02.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2020-12-02,2,"Minutes of the Public Art Commission
Wednesday, December 2, 2020
a) Allow the fund to be used for conservation and maintenance of public art.
b) Require developers to declare their intentions prior to receiving planning
approvals and require that any changes to art location be approved by PAC.
c) Clarify that the maintenance agreement shall be reflected in the condition of
approval and recorded against the property prior to the issuance of the first
certificate of occupancy.
d) Remove the requirement that cultural arts grants can only go to non-profit
organizations, for grants under $2,000.
e) Specify that City Council approval is needed only for fund expenditures that
exceed the purchase authority of the City Manager.
Gehrke presented the remaining two recommended changes that the Commission
had requested additional discussion: potential changes to required contributions
and deaccession as an allowed use of the fund. Gehrke welcomed comments and
answered clarifying questions.
Commissioners discussed potential changes to required contributions.
Commissioner Farrell requested information on the percentage of Alameda
developers chose to install art onsite instead of making in-lieu fund contributions
and what percentage of money has gone to onsite art compared to contributions
to the in-lieu fund for Alameda. Commissioner Sneeringer requested this
information from neighboring cities. A motion to leave the required contribution rate
for onsite art at 1% and change the in-lieu contribution rate to 0.8%. Ayes:
Commissioner Van Cleef. Nays: Chairperson Gillitt, Vice Chairperson Rush,
Commissioners Sneeringer and Farrell. The motion failed 1-4. Commissioners
discussed further and concluded to delay voting on potential changes to required
contributions until further information is available. Staff members Butler and
Gehrke offered to research these items.
Commissioners discussed placing a $500,000 cap on developer contributions. A
motion to not recommend the institution of a $500,000 cap on developer
contributions was made by Commissioner Van Cleef and seconded by
Chairperson Gillitt. Ayes: Chairperson Gillitt, Vice Chairperson Rush,
Commissioners Van Cleef, Sneeringer, and Farrell. Nays: none. The motion
carried 5-0.
Commissioners discussed the recommendation to allow the Public Art Fund to be
used for maintenance, conservation and deaccession costs. Staff members
Butler and Gehrke answered clarifying questions. A motion to approve the use of
public art funds for conservation and maintenance of public art was made by
Commissioner Farrell and seconded by Vice Chairperson Rush. Ayes:
Chairperson Gillitt, Vice Chairperson Rush, Commissioners Van Cleef,
Sneeringer, and Farrell. Nays: none. The motion carried 5-0. Commissioners
agreed that the whole life-span of Public Art should be part of the planning of the
art, and that a deaccession policy needs to be developed. A motion to approve
the use of public art funds for deaccession of public art was made by
2",PublicArtCommission/2020-12-02.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2020-12-02,3,"Minutes of the Public Art Commission
Wednesday, December 2, 2020
Commissioner Van Cleef and seconded by Chairperson Gillitt. Ayes: Chairperson
Gillitt, Vice Chairperson Rush, Commissioners Van Cleef, Sneeringer, and
Farrell. Nays: none. The motion carried 5-0.
6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
None.
7. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None.
9. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
10. ADJOURNMENT
Chairperson Gillitt adjourned the meeting at 7:15pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Lois Butler
Economic Development Manager
Secretary
Public Art Commission
3",PublicArtCommission/2020-12-02.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2020-12-21,1,"MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC ART COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
Monday, December 21, 2020
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Adam Gillitt called the meeting to order at 6:02pm.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: Chairperson Adam Gillitt, Vice Chairperson Liz Rush, Commissioners
Mark Farrell, Kirstin Van Cleef, and Tierney Sneeringer.
Absent: None.
Lois Butler (PAC Secretary) and Amanda Gehrke present as staff to the
Commission.
3. MINUTES
3-A 2020-8568 Review and Approve Draft Minutes December 2, 2020
A motion to approve the minutes was made by Vice Chairperson Rush and
seconded by Chairperson Gillitt. Ayes: Chairperson Gillitt, Vice Chairperson Rush,
Commissioners Van Cleef, Sneeringer, and Farrell. Nays: none. The motion
carried 5-0.
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
5. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
5-A 2020-8566 Recommendation to Approve the Attached Resolution and
Conditions Approving the ""Diatom Sculpture Series"" Public Art Proposal
Staff member Gehrke presented the recommendation to approve resolution and
conditions approving the ""Diatom Sculpture Series"" public art proposal. Artist
Adrien Siegel explained her inspiration for the sculpture series. Staff member
Gehrke and Artist Siegal answered clarifying questions.
Kristel Railsback, developer for SRMErnst, expressed appreciation for the PAC,
Artist Siegal, and support for the proposed ""Diatom Sculpture Series"".
A motion to approve the attached resolution and conditions approving the ""Diatom
Sculpture series"" public art proposal was made by Chairperson Gillitt and
seconded by Commissioner Farrell. Ayes: Chairperson Gillitt, Vice Chairperson
Rush, Commissioners Van Cleef, Sneeringer, and Farrell. Nays: none. The motion
carried 5-0.
5-B 2020-8567 Public Art Program Prioritization Working Session
Staff member Gehrke presented the Public Art Program prioritization working
session report and answered clarifying questions.",PublicArtCommission/2020-12-21.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2020-12-21,2,"Minutes of the Public Art Commission
Monday, December 21, 2020
Public member Tara Pillbrow recommended coordinating with local non-profits to
create an Alameda art map and guide, and stated that small grants can be made
virtually during COVID, and may be a good way to encourage art during this time.
Following, is a summary of the discussion of the potential projects that had been
identified in previous PAC meetings:
Community process to prioritize and identify locations for public art, including
potentially developing an Art Park. Chairperson Gillitt recommends prioritizing
identifying locations to facilitate the development of public art.
Release new Request for Qualifications (RFQs) or Request for Proposals
(RFPs) for physical and cultural art, including potential permanent location for
temporary art, light-based art at Alameda Point, and/or interactive community
event.
Creation of professionally designed marketing materials for public art.
Commissioner Farrell recommends a virtual map and/or placards with QR
codes, possibly including both private and public as well as existing and
upcoming art. Chairperson Gillitt suggested an app with similar features.
Commissioner Sneeringer recommends digital material (map, etc) that is easier
to maintain/update. Commissioner Farrell, Vice Chairperson Rush, and
Chairperson Gillitt recommended an interim list and brief description of existing
and coming-soon public art until the marketing and map can be developed, as
well as temporary QR code stickers that direct people to the existing site, and
Staff member Gehrke invited feedback on existing Alameda public art page.
Commissioner Van Cleef recommended a satellite site - not part of the City's
webpage.
Provide whole or matching grants to install murals on public or private property.
Pilot a small grants program to provide grants from $500-2,000 for visual or
cultural arts.
Provide whole or matching grants to install murals on public or private property.
Provide grants of $1,500-$3,000 for temporary vinyl ""murals"" on vacant
storefronts, designed by artists. Commissioner Farrell expressed concern
about funding temporary art. Commissioner Sneeringer expressed support for
this program as it addresses vacancies due to COVID and current economic
situation, and suggested incorporating a QR code directing people to
information on the Public Art Program.
Develop Public Art Guidelines that provide a roadmap with clear/specific
guidance on the creation of on-site and grant-funded public art, and/or develop
a Public Art Master Plan that provides a comprehensive plan for art in Alameda,
including a range of elements (vision, guidelines, deaccession, location, etc.).
Commissioners Van Cleef and Sneeringer, and Chairperson Gillitt
recommended prioritizing the master plan to provide a holistic approach from
which all other projects can be approached.
Restoration, deaccession or move of Birth sculpture by Arthur Williams.
Chairperson Gillitt suggested selling the sculpture.
Vice Chairperson Rush acknowledged the varying staff time commitments for each
of the projects, and suggested prioritizing with this in mind.
2",PublicArtCommission/2020-12-21.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2020-12-21,3,"Minutes of the Public Art Commission
Monday, December 21, 2020
Commissioner Farrell, Chairperson Gillitt, and Staff member Gehrke suggested
PAC prioritize developing a public art master plan and concurrent marketing plan
and map as the second priority and supporting public small art grants as a third
priority. Staff member Gehrke offered to put an agenda item on an upcoming
meeting to evaluate and provide feedback on existing website, and stated that staff
would likely have the time to begin the Public Art Master Plan in late spring to
summer. Staff member Butler offered to launch a new round of small grants in
spring with awards happening after the new fiscal year, July 2021.
A motion to prioritize 1) a Public Art Master Plan, 2) promotion and marketing, 3)
a second round of public art small grants was made by Commissioner Van Cleef,
and was seconded by Vice Chairperson Rush. Ayes: Chairperson Gillitt, Vice
Chairperson Rush, Commissioners Van Cleef, Sneeringer, and Farrell. Nays:
none. The motion carried 5-0.
6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Staff member Butler stated a request to include the Vice Chairperson in early, pre-
PAC briefing meetings with the Chairperson. There were no concerns expressed
by the PAC for this change. Staff member Gehrke invited Commissioners to reach
out with any questions or requests for further information.
7. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None.
8. COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
Commissioner Farrell asked how the development cost estimate is determined.
Staff member Butler replied that cost estimates are determined by the Building
Official, but the developers' estimates also used if they are more accurate.
5-B. Chairperson Gillitt reopened item for discussion. Commissioner Farrell
asked if significant tenant improvement projects are included in contributing
projects to the Public Art Fund or if contributions only come from new development.
Staff member Butler clarified that structural work above $250,000 is considered to
be a qualifying project for the Public Art Fund.
Commissioner Farrell suggested offering to developers the option of contributing
to the in-lieu fund and ear-marking those funds for artwork on the developer's site.
Chairperson Gillitt suggested adding this discussion to the upcoming Public Art
Master Plan discussion, and Staff member Butler supported this recommendation.
Chairperson Gillitt returned the meeting to agenda item 9.
9. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
3",PublicArtCommission/2020-12-21.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2020-12-21,4,"Minutes of the Public Art Commission
Monday, December 21, 2020
Vice Chairperson Rush wished all a healthy Holiday season and new year.
Chairperson Gillitt concurred.
10. ADJOURNMENT
Chairperson Gillitt adjourned the meeting at 7:48pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Lois Butler
Economic Development Manager
Secretary
Public Art Commission
4",PublicArtCommission/2020-12-21.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2021-02-23,1,"MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC ART COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
Tuesday, February 23, 2021
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Adam Gillitt called the meeting to order at 6:03pm.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: Chairperson Adam Gillitt, Commissioners Mark Farrell, Kirstin Van Cleef,
and Tierney Sneeringer. Vice Chairperson Liz Rush arrived late at 6:38pm.
Lois Butler (PAC Secretary) and Amanda Gehrke present as staff to the
Commission.
3. MINUTES
3-A 2021-674 Review and Approve Draft Minutes December 21, 2020
A motion to approve the minutes was made by Commissioner Farrell and
seconded by Chairperson Gillitt. Ayes: Chairperson Gillitt, Commissioners Van
Cleef, Sneeringer, and Farrell. Nays: none. The motion carried 4-0.
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
5. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
5-A 2021-675 Presentation by Alameda Fire Department on Public Art for Fire
Station 3/Emergency Operations Center
Fire Chief Rick Zombeck of the Alameda Fire Department provided an update on
the public art for Fire Station 3/Emergency Operations Center. The Fire Chief has
sought the remaining $150,000.00 funding needed to complete the public art
project in the 2021-2022 Fiscal Year budget request, and will update the PAC once
the budget has been approved and finalized. Commissioners asked clarifying
questions.
5-B 2021-671 Recommendation to Approve the Attached Resolution and
Conditions Approving the ""Tidal Arch Public Art Proposal""
Staff member Gehrke presented the staff report on the recommendation to
approve the attached resolution and conditions approving the ""Tidal Ach"" public
art proposal. Artist Adrian Segal made a statement about her inspiration and
intention for the art piece. Staff member Gehrke and Artist Siegel answered
clarifying questions from commissioners.
Public member Morgan Bellinger requested that any anti-skateboarding measures
be rounded edges as opposed to raised metal brackets.
Commissioners discussed the proposed art.",PublicArtCommission/2021-02-23.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2021-02-23,2,"Minutes of the Public Art Commission
Tuesday, February 23, 2021
A motion to approve the attached resolution and conditions approving the ""Tidal
Arch Public Art Proposal"" by Commissioner Van Cleef, and was seconded by
Chairperson Gillitt. Ayes: Chairperson Gillitt, Commissioners Van Cleef,
Sneeringer, and Farrell. Nays: none. The motion carried 4-0.
Lois Butler noted for the record that Vice Chairperson Rush joined the meeting.
5-C 2021-672 Review and Approve Recommended Changes to the Public Art
Ordinance and Recommend Adoption by City Council
Staff member Gehrke presented the staff report on the recommended changes to
the Public Art Ordinance to be recommended for adoption by the City Council. A
summary of the recommended changes are as follows:
Require developers to declare their intention to install on-site artwork or
contribute to the Fund prior to receiving planning approvals, and clarify that,
after on-site artwork is reviewed and approved by the PAC, any change in
location will require PAC approval.
Clarify that the maintenance agreement shall be reflected in the conditions of
approval and recorded against the property prior to the issuance of the first
certificate of occupancy.
Remove the requirement that cultural arts grants can only go to non-profit
organizations.
Specify that City Council approval is needed only for Fund expenditures that
exceed the purchase authority of the City Manager.
Allow the use of public art funds for conservation and maintenance of public
art.
Allow the use of public art funds for deaccession of public art.
Gehrke answered clarifying questions and invited commissioner discussion.
Commissioner Farrell requested clarification that the intention is to remove the
$2000.00 cap from the ordinance and include the cap in future public art
guidelines. Staff clarified that this is the intention.
Tara Pilbrow suggested that people seeking small public art grants be allowed to
seek grants via fiscal sponsorship by non-profits.
Commissioners reviewed and discussed recommended changes.
A motion to approve the recommended changes to the Public Art Ordinance was
made by Chairperson Gillitt and seconded by Commissioner Van Cleef. Ayes:
Chairperson Gillitt, Vice Chairperson Rush, Commissioners Van Cleef,
Sneeringer, and Farrell. Nays: none. The motion carried 5-0.
5-D 2021-673 Review Master Plan Documents and Synergy Report in
Preparation for April 19 Public Art Commission Meeting
Staff member Gehrke provided an opportunity for initial public and commissioner
comments to the proposed Master Plan Documents and Synergy Report in
2",PublicArtCommission/2021-02-23.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2021-02-23,3,"Minutes of the Public Art Commission
Tuesday, February 23, 2021
preparation for April 19 PAC meeting. Gehrke answered clarifying questions. Staff
member Gehrke offered to research what year the Santa Rosa and Emeryville
Master Plans were written.
Public member Tina Blaine expressed frustration that there have only been 2 RFPs
for the Public Art Fund since 2016, commented that there has been a degree of
turn-over in the PAC, and expressed support for adjusting the public art
contribution rates to encourage contributions to the in-lieu Fund.
6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Secretary Butler updated the commission on small grants, and advised that all
previously-approved public art small grant pieces that were delayed due to COVID-
19 will receive an extension to the next fiscal year.
Staff member Gehrke provided the following updates:
The public art upcoming project report will be brought to the PAC 3 times per
year moving forward.
Construction of the foundations for the Rock Spinner and Mosaic Columns
located at Jean Sweeney Park is due to start next week.
Over 700 responses to the Dan Fontes Mural survey have been received which
will be shared with the PAC at the next meeting.
The working session to provide feedback for the existing PAC website will take
place at the April meeting.
7. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None.
8. COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
Vice Chairperson expressed her regrets for the delayed arrival to the meeting.
Commissioner Farrell expressed appreciation for the Staff to provide reports to the
commission, and thanked the members of the public for their participation.
9. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Public member Tina Blaine requested that the cap on small art grants be raised to
$5,000.00 to allow for larger projects.
Public member Tara Pilbrow asked when the next RFP for small art grants will be.
Secretary Butler confirmed that funding for small grants has been included the
2021-2022 FY budget request, dependent on PAC decision to solicit projects next
fiscal year.
10. ADJOURNMENT
3",PublicArtCommission/2021-02-23.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2021-02-23,4,"Minutes of the Public Art Commission
Tuesday, February 23, 2021
Chairperson Gillitt adjourned the meeting at 7:37pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Lois Butler
Economic Development Manager
Secretary
Public Art Commission
4",PublicArtCommission/2021-02-23.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2021-03-24,1,"MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC ART COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
Wednesday, March 24, 2021
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Adam Gillitt called the meeting to order at 6:01pm.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: Chairperson Adam Gillitt, Vice Chairperson Liz Rush, Commissioners
Mark Farrell and Kirstin Van Cleef.
Absent: Tierney Sneeringer (excused).
Lois Butler (Secretary) and Amanda Gehrke present as staff to the Commission.
3. MINUTES
3-A 2021-753 Review and Approve February 23, 2021 Draft Minutes
A motion to approve the February 23, 2021 draft minutes was made by Vice
Chairperson Rush and seconded by Chairperson Gillitt. Ayes: Chairperson Gillitt,
Vice Chairperson Rush, Commissioners Van Cleef and Farrell. Nays: none. The
motion carried 4-0.
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
5. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
5-A 2021-752 Recommend that City Council Approve 1925 Everett Street as
the New Location for the Dan Fontes Mural and a Grant Increase of $1,500 to
Cover Redesign Costs; Select and Recommend a New Mural Design to City
Council for Approval
Staff member Gehrke updated the Commission on the Dan Fontes Mural project,
and presented two new mural design options, ""Park Street 1909"" and ""Egret"". Staff
sought and received over 800 responses from the public on both designs. Staff
also sought feedback from the property owner, who prefers the ""Egret"" design.
Gehrke requested PAC select and recommend a new mural design to the City
Council for approval.
Staff member invited and answered clarifying questions.
Janet Koike expressed support for the egret design, as it represents estuary
wildlife. Via email, public member Mi'chelle Fredrick expressed support for the
egret design, as it aligns with the artist's existing body of work.",PublicArtCommission/2021-03-24.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2021-03-24,2,"Minutes of the Public Art Commission
Wednesday, March 24, 2021
Commissioners discussed the proposed art. Discussion points included the
following:
the egret design connects Alameda's public art to existing local artwork by the
artist, and is appropriate for the location
the proposed location is in a high-traffic area that would showcase Alameda's
public art well
Commissioner Farrell made a motion to recommend to City Council to approve a)
1925 Everett Street as the new location for the Dan Fontes mural, b) a grant
increase of $1,500 to cover redesign costs and c) the selection of the egret design.
Motion was seconded by Chairperson Gillitt. Ayes: Chairperson Gillitt, Vice
Chairperson Rush, Commissioners Van Cleef and Farrell. Nays: none. The motion
carried 4-0.
6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Staff member Gehrke informed the commission that the art installation at Jean
Sweeney Park is expected to begin at the end of March.
Gehrke updated the commission that the Public Art Ordinance amendments are
scheduled to be brought to the Planning Board on April 26th Commissioners were
invited to attend the meeting.
Secretary Butler announced that a public art small grant mural has been completed
at the intersection of Webster St. and Atlantic Ave.
7. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None.
8. COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
Chairperson Gillitt shared that a second mural has been completed at the
intersection of Webster St. and Santa Clara St.
Commissioner Farrell shared that the public artwork in the windows of the vacant
building at the intersection of Park St. and Lincoln St. should be tracked to ensure
that it is properly maintained or replaced while the building gets new tenants.
9. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
10. ADJOURNMENT
Chairperson Gillitt adjourned the meeting at 6:32pm.
Respectfully submitted,
2",PublicArtCommission/2021-03-24.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2021-03-24,3,"Minutes of the Public Art Commission
Wednesday, March 24, 2021
Lois Butler
Economic Development Manager
Secretary
Public Art Commission
3",PublicArtCommission/2021-03-24.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2021-04-19,1,"MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC ART COMMISSION (PAC) REGULAR MEETING
Monday, April 19, 2021
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Adam Gillitt called the meeting to order at 6:01 pm.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: Chairperson Adam Gillitt, Vice Chairperson Liz Rush, Commissioners
Mark Farrell and Kirstin Van Cleef. Note: Tierney Sneeringer has resigned from
the Commission.
Lois Butler (PAC Secretary) and Amanda Gehrke present as staff to the
Commission.
3. MINUTES
2021-849 Review and Approve March 24, 2021 Draft Minutes
A motion to approve the minutes was made by Commissioner Van Cleef and
seconded by Chairperson Gillitt. Ayes: Chairperson Gillitt, Vice Chairperson Rush,
Commissioners Van Cleef and Farrell. Nays: none. The motion carried 4-0.
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
5. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
2021-848 Presentation on Alameda Public Piano Project
Public Member Nathanial Basco presented a proposal to the commission to install
a public piano for a 1-3 week period this summer as part of his Eagle Scout project.
Basco's presentation included a discussion of potential sites, measures to ensure
noise-compliance and COVID safety, as well as confirmation that a donated piano
had been secured. Basco answered clarifying questions, and invited comments
from the Commission. Chairperson Gillitt and Commissioner Farrell offered their
appreciation for this project, and provided suggestions on additional locations and
funding opportunities.
Public Member Jim Franz offered his support for the project, and requested the
City consider partially waiving permit fees or insurance requirements for this
project.
Public Member Vincent Wu, on behalf of the Rotary Club of Alameda, offered
support for the project, and offered to assist with fund raising for this summer as
well as future years, due to the value of the project for youth and the community of
Alameda.",PublicArtCommission/2021-04-19.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2021-04-19,2,"Minutes of the Public Art Commission
Monday, April 19, 2021
2021-850 Recommendation to Provide Guidance on the Development of a
Request for Proposals for a Public Art Master Plan
Staff member Gehrke presented and requested guidance on the development of
a Request for Proposals (RFP) for a Public Art Master Plan, identified as a priority
by the PAC in December 2020. Gehrke identified key elements (vision and goals,
reviewing existing documents, and engaging in community outreach), and
presented recommended elements identified by staff in collaboration with PAC and
community to:
Create public art policy guidelines for the administration of on-site public art
and public art grants;
Review/update the deaccession policy;
Review/update the maintenance and conservation policy;
Facilitate a community-led process for identifying new locations for public art;
and
Prioritize public art programming.
Additional elements presented for consideration included developing a cultural
equity statement, identifying locations for future public art projects, training for
staff/PAC members, and developing guidelines for a mural program.
Chairperson Gillitt welcomed City Council Member Trish Spencer-Herrera to the
meeting.
Staff member Gehrke answered clarifying questions. Commissioners discussed
and identified the following potential elements for the Master Plan RFP: robust
community engagement in the development process, identification of additional
sources of funding for Public Art, a focus on smaller art projects with a wider
distribution (i.e. manhole or sidewalk art pieces), the role of a dedicated public art
coordinator, defining the purpose of public art in Alameda and the role of PAC in
supporting this. Additional discussion points included: potentially incorporating or
integrating the 2040 plan into the RFP, developing working groups to address
individual topics or submitting more targeted RFPs for specific projects in lieu of a
Master Plan, hiring an art coordinator in lieu of developing a Master Plan.
In summary, Commissioners identified $40,000 as the RFP maximum, and
acknowledged that not all of the desired would could be completed for this budget.
As a result, they recommended prioritizing the following scope of work elements,
within budget constraints:
Vision and goals, incorporating cultural equity as a priority
A review of existing documents
Building on existing documents to establish policies and procedures (creating
guidelines for on-site public art and public art grants, updating deaccession
policy, updating maintenance and conservation policy)
A community engagement/process, and/or consultation on a community
engagement process for the development of vision and goals
Identification of new locations for public art, and/or consultation on process for
community engagement in identifying new locations for public art, and
2",PublicArtCommission/2021-04-19.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2021-04-19,3,"Minutes of the Public Art Commission
Monday, April 19, 2021
development of a criteria and process for identifying new public art locations
that staff would then implement
Due to budget constraints, commissioners recommended waiting on the following
elements for a future phase of the Master Plan:
Recommendation and prioritization of new public art programming
PAC and staff training and capacity building covering public art best practices
Development of guidelines for an Alameda mural program
2021-851 Recommendation to Provide Feedback on the Public Art Program
Webpage
Staff member Gehrke displayed the existing Public Art webpage, and invited
feedback from commissioners, who made the following suggestions:
General/Search Engine Optimization (SEO):
centralize presence on City homepage as a tile/ banner/image
improve SEO for City site as well as general search engines
adding additional customized uniform resource locators (URL) or aliases
ensuring SEO searches direct to Public Art page instead of PAC page
encouraging local art organizations to link to city Public Art page
developing a dedicated social media channel/page, or PAC
commissioners sharing public art posts
Public Art Webpage:
increasing graphics on webpage (slideshow or carousel)
decreasing or categorizing links so more information is immediately
available on main page
organizing pages so that existing Public Art brochure and/or map is
highlighted, and adding a calendar of upcoming art events, artist
statements, or a catalog of existing public art
moving administrative links (available grants, commission page, etc.) to
bottom of the page
adding description to each link on page
PAC Page
moving link to public art page to top of PAC page
Secretary Butler offered to research the possibility of developing a customized
format specifically for the Public Art page.
2021-852 Status Update on the Eligibility of Upcoming Projects for the Public
Art Requirement
Staff member Gehrke updated the commission on the eligibility of upcoming
projects for the public art requirement, including several new potential onsite
projects.
6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
2021-853 Diatom Location Update
3",PublicArtCommission/2021-04-19.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2021-04-19,4,"Minutes of the Public Art Commission
Monday, April 19, 2021
Staff member Gehrke updated the commission on changes to the site locations for
the eight elements of the Diatom sculptures.
7. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None.
8. COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
Commissioner Farrell shared a potential public art mural site, owned by the City,
located on the side of the Oak Street parking structure.
Commissioner Van Cleef notified the commission of her resignation due to
relocation outside of Alameda. Chairperson Gillitt offered his appreciation for
Commissioner Van Cleef's contributions to the PAC.
9. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
10. ADJOURNMENT
Chairperson Gillitt adjourned the meeting at 8:11pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Lois Butler
Economic Development Manager
Secretary
Public Art Commission
4",PublicArtCommission/2021-04-19.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2021-06-21,1,"Final
MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC ART COMMISSION (PAC) REGULAR MEETING
Monday, June 21, 2021
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Adam Gillitt called the meeting to order at 6:02pm.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: Chairperson Adam Gillitt, Vice Chairperson Liz Rush, Commissioner
Mark Farrell.
Absent: none.
Lois Butler (PAC Secretary) and Amanda Gehrke present as staff to the
Commission.
3. MINUTES
2021-1039 Review and Approve April 19, 2021 Draft Minutes
A motion to approve the minutes was made by Commissioner Farrell and
seconded by Chairperson Gillitt. Ayes: Chairperson Gillitt, Vice Chairperson Rush,
Commissioner Farrell. Nays: none. The motion carried 3-0.
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Nathanial Basco provided an update regarding his Eagle-Scout ""Alameda Public
Piano Project"": the donated piano is being painted by a local artist and will be at
Nob Hill Foods from July 17 to Aug 7 for public enjoyment, thanked Commissioner
Farrell for his help with this project, and the PAC for their support of the project,
and requested promotional assistance with the project.
5. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
5-A 2021-1040 Recommendation to Approve the Release of Additional
Funding for the Rockspinners Public Art Project
Staff member Gehrke updated the PAC on the Rockspinners public art project. In
the process of installing the support columns for the project, it was determined that
additional work was needed for ADA accessibility as well as a small curb to level
the site for the structures. The Alameda Recreation and Parks District (ARPD) paid
$23,119 for additional work. Staff sought approval from the commission to use
$11,559.50 of the Public Art Fund to reimburse ARPD for 50 percent of the site
improvements. Gehrke explained that additional funding was needed as a site
engineering evaluation was not completed prior to artist's proposal submission,
and that staff hope to identify and pre-evaluate potential public art sites or include
engineering evaluations in future physical art proposals.",PublicArtCommission/2021-06-21.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2021-06-21,2,"Minutes of the Public Art Commission
Monday, June 21, 2021
Gehrke answered clarifying questions, and commissioners discussed the
recommendation. Commissioners expressed appreciation for ARPD's generous
offer to pay for half of the additional expenses, and encouraged pre-evaluating
potential physical art sites or ensuring engineering evaluations of future proposals.
Staff member Butler clarified that ARPD installed a curb surrounding another public
art piece at Jean Sweeny Park at no cost.
Vice Chairperson Rush put forth the motion to recommend to City Council that they
approve the allocation of additional funding from the Public Art Fund in the amount
of $11,559.50 for the Rockspinners public art project and, in the event that the
updated Public Art Ordinance is passed allowing the Commission to approve the
release of funds, that the Commission approves the release of said additional
funds. Seconded by Commissioner Farrell. Ayes: Chairperson Gillitt, Vice
Chairperson Rush, Commissioner Farrell. Nays: none. The motion carried 3-0.
5-B 2021-1041 Recommendation to Review and Provide Feedback on a Draft
Request for Proposals for a Public Art Plan
Staff member Gehrke presented the Draft Request for Proposal (RFP) for a Public
Art Plan, which includes the following five priority elements:
Development of a mission, vision, and goals for the public art program,
incorporation a priority of cultural equity;
A review of existing background documents;
Creation and/or update of policies and procedures for site on-site public artwork
and public art grants, building on existing materials and policies;
A community engagement process
Recommendation of programs and strategies to increase public art funding in
Alameda.
Additionally, the Draft RFP identified three elements to include in the Public Art
Plan if possible: identifying new locations for public art, recommending and
prioritizing new public art programming, and keeping the plan within a budget of
$40,000.
Gehrke answered clarifying questions. Ms. Gehrke shared that the public art fund
had received additional contributions, allowing for more funding for the Public Art
Master Plan. The commissioners discussed the proposal, including extending
application window from 3 to 6 weeks, and accepting staff's recommendation to
increase RFP budget from $40,000 to $60,000.
Vice Chairperson Rush put forth the motion to approve the Draft Request for
Proposals with an increased budget of $60,000. Seconded by Chairperson Gillitt.
Ayes: Chairperson Gillitt, Vice Chairperson Rush, Commissioner Farrell. Nays:
none. The motion carried 3-0.
6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
2",PublicArtCommission/2021-06-21.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2021-06-21,3,"Minutes of the Public Art Commission
Monday, June 21, 2021
Staff member Gehrke provided the following updates:
Dan Fontes Mural - Final paperwork is being submitted and final maintenance
plan is being reviewed by City's conservationist. Installation is expected by end
of Summer 2021.
Alameda Afore - Due to the proximity of a sewer main lateral, the sculpture
will be moved approximately two feet from its original location.
Commissioner Updates - The Mayor's nominees for new PAC
commissioners will likely be submitted to City Council in July.
7. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None.
8. COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
Chairperson Gillitt shared that Madlen Saddik, President of Alameda Chamber of
Commerce, has offered to help promote Public Art Events, Shows, and
Installations within Alameda.
Commissioner Farrell notified the Commission that he has not been reappointed
for another term, and that he has been notified that his term will end when City
Council appoints new commissioners, although it is unclear if this will happen
before the August PAC meeting. He expressed his appreciation for his time on the
commission, and for the opportunity to work with the other commissioners on
Alameda's public artwork. Chairperson Gillitt and Vice Chairperson Rush thanked
Commissioner Farrell deeply for his service, sharing that they will miss his
presence and the insight he brought to the commission.
9. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
10. ADJOURNMENT
Chairperson Gillitt adjourned the meeting at 6:47pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Lois Butler
Economic Development Manager
Secretary, Public Art Commission
3",PublicArtCommission/2021-06-21.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2021-11-10,1,"Final
MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC ART COMMISSION (PAC) SPECIAL MEETING
Wednesday, November 10, 2021
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Adam Gillitt called the meeting to order at 6:01p.m.
2. ROLL CALL and INTRODUCTIONS
2-A ROLL CALL
Present: Chairperson Adam Gillitt, Vice Chairperson Liz Rush, Commissioners
Jennifer Hoffecker, Peter Platzgummer, and Robert Ferguson.
Absent: none.
Lois Butler (PAC Secretary), Amanda Gehrke, and Walker Toma present as staff
to the Commission.
2-B INTRODUCTIONS
Jennifer Hoffecker: Before retiring, Commissioner Hoffecker taught art, ran art
galleries, and worked in art and creative marketing for ""dot-com', retail, medical,
and non-profit industries. She has a Master's Degree in Fine Arts, and has been a
resident of Alameda for 17 years.
Peter Platzgummer: Born in Austria, Commissioner Platzgummer received his PhD
in Public Administration in Switzerland. He manages the design, fabrication, and
installation for large-scale sculptures at Engineered Artworks, and is the Complex
Art Manager for Burning Man.
Robert Ferguson: With a degree in Journalism and a 40 year career in welding,
Commissioner Ferguson began creating large art with his wife in 2012, focusing
on the construction and engineering aspects of large artwork. He owns a welding
company in Hayward and lives in Alameda.
Walker Toma: Before staff member Toma joined the City of Alameda Community
Development Department in October, he spent 5 years in Spain working for UN-
Habitat doing policy work with local governments. He has a Master's Degree in
International Development and Sustainable Emergency Architecture and
a
background as a land use economics consultant in the Bay Area.
3. MINUTES
2021-1460 Review and Approve June 21, 2021 Draft Minutes
A motion to approve the minutes was made by Vice Chairperson Rush and
seconded by Chairperson Gillitt. Ayes: Chairperson Gillitt, Vice Chairperson Rush,
Commissioners Hoffecker, Platzgummer, and Ferguson. Nays: none. The motion
carried 5-0.",PublicArtCommission/2021-11-10.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2021-11-10,2,"Minutes of the Public Art Commission
Wednesday, November 10, 2021
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
5. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
5-A 2021-1461 Performing Arts Center Update
Secretary Butler introduced founder Christopher Seiwald and performing artist
Tara Pilbrow, who provided an overview of the Performing Arts Center project. The
project's vision is to build a 500-seat performing arts theater that would serve as a
creative hub at the center of the Alameda Point Waterfront District, and attract local
and international artists and create a stronger community within Alameda and the
greater Bay Area. A feasibility study has been completed, and the project has
engaged local art organizations and garnered support from City Council, City staff,
and local developers. The provisional site is adjacent to the Waterfront Park and
Alameda Naval Museum, and located 3-5 minutes from the new ferry terminal. The
Performing Arts Center board seeks support from the PAC, as they engage and
gather funding for the project. Mr. Seiwald thanked the Commission for their time
and answered clarifying questions.
Commissioners expressed their appreciation for the project and look forward to
hearing future updates.
5-B 2021-1462 Receive an Update on Recent and Upcoming Physical Public
Art Projects in Alameda
Staff member Gehrke provided an update on recent and upcoming physical public
art projects. To date, 7 cultural arts grants, 5 physical arts grants, and 16 public art
small grants have been awarded. Ms. Gehrke shared images of completed and
soon-to-be completed projects.
Ms. Gehrke informed the commission that, due to pandemic-related cost increases
in materials, shipping, and construction, the Beken sculpture by artist Dewitt
Godfrey needed either a significant reduction in sculpture size or a funding
increase. Staff has identified $52,000 in funding from the Tideland's Fund to
maintain original design size, which is pending City Council approval.
Staff member Gehrke thanked the Commission for their time, and answered
clarifying questions.
Public member Tina Blaine notified the commission of the third installation of the
biennial cultural arts project Island City Waterways, celebrating the history of
Alameda Point and the history of flight that will take place May 20-22, 2022. Ms.
Blaine thanked staff member Gehrke for her years of service to the City of Alameda
Public Art Program.
2",PublicArtCommission/2021-11-10.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2021-11-10,3,"Minutes of the Public Art Commission
Wednesday, November 10, 2021
Secretary Butler informed the commission that the PAC biennial report will be
presented at the December 7 City Council meeting, and invited commissioners to
attend.
5-C 2021-146 Resolution Approving the Tidal Arch Public Art Sculpture with
a Ten Percent Reduction in Overall Scale
Staff member Toma updated the commission on a change to the scale of the Tidal
Arch public art sculpture due to logistical issues and to be in compliance with ADA
requirements for a 5 foot perimeter to allow better access. It has been determined
that the proposed 10% reduction in size was significant enough to warrant review
and approval by the PAC. The original sculpture was to be 80ft long and 17ft high.
Mr. Toma and artist Adrien Segal answered clarifying questions.
Commissioners discussed the change. A motion to adopt the resolution approving
a ten percent reduction in overall scale of the Tidal Arch sculpture to be in
compliance with ADA requirements was made by Vice Chairperson Rush and
seconded by Commissioner Ferguson. Ayes: Chairperson Gillitt, Vice Chairperson
Rush, Commissioners Hoffecker, Platzgummer, and Ferguson. Nays: none. The
motion carried 5-0.
5-D Recommendation to Review the Public Art Commission Meeting
Calendar for Possible Conflicts that Inhibit Maximum Public Participation
Staff member Toma presented a review of the 2022 dates for regular PAC
meetings, identified a possible conflict in February that could inhibit maximum
public participation, and recommended two potential alternate meeting dates of
February 23 and March 7.
A motion to continue this item to the December PAC special meeting where staff
can provide specific proposed regular meeting dates for 2022 was made by
Chairperson Gillitt and seconded by Vice Chairperson Rush. Ayes: Chairperson
Gillitt, Vice Chairperson Rush, Commissioners Hoffecker, Platzgummer, and
Ferguson. Nays: none. The motion carried 5-0.
6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
6-A Update on Public Art Master Plan
Staff member Gehrke provided an update on the Public Art Master Plan RFP
process. The top candidate, Forecast Public Art, has been selected based on their
emphasis in equity and the clarity of their proposed master art development
process, however many strong proposals were received. Staff anticipate entering
into the contract by the end of the year. Ms. Gehrke answered clarifying questions.
7. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None.
3",PublicArtCommission/2021-11-10.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2021-11-10,4,"Minutes of the Public Art Commission
Wednesday, November 10, 2021
8. COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
Commissioners expressed their appreciation for outgoing staff member Gehrke's
hard work and support of the PAC and public art in Alameda during her time
working with the City of Alameda. She will be missed.
Commissioner Platzgummer recommends updating the public art map that is on
the City's public art page. Staff member Gehrke shared that updating the public art
map and improving public art marketing was identified as a priority at the PAC's
last working session, with the aim to update the map once the pending physical art
pieces are installed.
9. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
10. ADJOURNMENT
Chairperson Gillitt adjourned the meeting at 7:37pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Lois Butler
Economic Development Manager
Secretary, Public Art Commission
4",PublicArtCommission/2021-11-10.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2021-12-20,1,"Approved
MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC ART COMMISSION (PAC) MEETING
Monday, December 20, 2021
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Adam Gillitt called the meeting to order at 6:03p.m.
2. ROLL CALL and INTRODUCTIONS
2-A ROLL CALL
Present: Chairperson Adam Gillitt, Commissioners Jennifer Hoffecker, Peter
Platzgummer, and Robert Ferguson.
Absent: Vice Chairperson Liz Rush (excused).
Eric Fonstein and Walker Toma present as staff to the Commission.
3. MINUTES
2021-1581 Review and Approve November 10, 2021 Draft PAC Minutes
A motion to approve the minutes was made by Commissioner Ferguson and
seconded by Commissioner Platzgummer. Ayes: Chairperson Gillitt,
Commissioners Hoffecker, Platzgummer and Ferguson. Nays: none.
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
5. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
5-A 2021-1582 Recommendation to Review the Public Art Commission
Meeting Calendar for Possible Conflicts that Inhibit Maximum Public
Participation
Staff member Toma presented a review of the 2022 dates for regular PAC
meetings, identified a possible conflict of February 21 (Federal holiday Presidents
Day) that could inhibit maximum public participation, and recommended two
possible alternate meeting dates of February 22 or March 7.
Commissioners briefly discussed the options. A motion to approve the proposed
regular meeting dates for 2022, which included a meeting date of February 22,
2022, was made by Commissioner Platzgummer and seconded by Chairperson
Gillitt. Ayes: Chairperson Gillitt, Commissioners Hoffecker, Platzgummer, and
Ferguson. Nays: none. The motion carried 4-0.
5-B 2021-1584 Status Update on the Eligibility of Upcoming Projects for the
Public Art Requirement
Staff member Toma provided an update on recent and upcoming physical public
art projects, as well as an overview of the 2020-2021 biennial report for the Public",PublicArtCommission/2021-12-20.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2021-12-20,2,"Minutes of the Public Art Commission
Monday, December 20, 2021
Art Fund. In total sixteen public art small grants were awaded, the PAC approved
four on-site physical art pieces, and four existing on-site physical art pieces have
been installed or are close to installation. Based on direction from the Commission,
a consultant has been selected by RFP to begin work on the Public Art Master
Plan in early 2022, and applications for a second round of public art small grants
will be opened in the second half of 2022. Mr. Toma answered clarifying questions
and invited commissioner discussion.
Commissioners discussed. On the upcoming physical public art project list,
Commissioner Platzgummer requested a column that specifies if a project will be
on site or contribute to the in-lieu fund, and suggested large-scale developers be
offered the option to split contribution between onsite and in-lieu. Chairperson
Gillitt requested clarification on the status of upcoming projects, and at what point
items will be removed from the pending public art list. Mr. Toma offered to follow
up at the next meeting with more information.
5-C 2021-1584 Accept an Update on Adopted Citywide Text Amendments to
the City of Alameda Zoning Ordinance (AMC Chapter 30) to Modify Public Art
Requirements
Staff member Toma provided a brief overview of the history of the City of Alameda
Zoning Ordinance, and the proposed language amendments that had been
submitted to the Planning Board for feedback, and then presented to City Council.
Mr. Toma shared the proposed edits provided by the Planning Board, as well as
changes that were made by City Council on the dais. Mr. Toma answered clarifying
questions.
Commissioners discussed amended language. Chairperson Gillitt asked for
clarification on the impact of the phrase ""shall be prioritized for public art on public
property"" added by the Planning Board to section 30-98.10a4 of the ordinance. Mr.
Toma offered to get clarification to be shared at the next PAC meeting. In
discussion, Commissioner Ferguson offered to evaluate the existing condition of
the metal of the Birth Sculpture, located at 908 Atlantic Avenue in Alameda.
A motion to accept the update on adopted citywide text amendments to the City of
Alameda Zoning Ordinance (AMC chapter 30) was made by Chairperson Gillitt and
seconded by Commissioner Hoffecker. Ayes: Chairperson Gillitt, Commissioners
Hoffecker, Platzgummer, and Ferguson. Nays: none. The motion carried 4-0.
6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Staff member Toma shared that negotiations are underway with the preferred
consultant for the Public Art Master Plan, and that staff anticipated work beginning
in the first quarter of 2022.
7. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
2",PublicArtCommission/2021-12-20.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2021-12-20,3,"Minutes of the Public Art Commission
Monday, December 20, 2021
None.
8. COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
9. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Commissioner Platzgummer reminded the Commission of an email request by a
member of the public for additional funds to expand the Cruisin' Alameda mural,
located a the corner of Webster Street and Atlantic Avenue. Mr. Toma offered to
provide public art small grant information to the individual.
10. ADJOURNMENT
Chairperson Gillitt adjourned the meeting at 7:07pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Lois Butler
Economic Development Manager
Secretary, Public Art Commission
3",PublicArtCommission/2021-12-20.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2022-02-22,1,"Approved
MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC ART COMMISSION (PAC) MEETING
Tuesday, February 22, 2022
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Adam Gillitt called the meeting to order at 6:01p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: Chairperson Adam Gillitt, Vice Chairperson Liz Rush, Commissioners
Jennifer Hoffecker, Peter Platzgummer, and Robert Ferguson.
Absent: none.
Walker Toma and Annie Cox present as staff to the Commission.
3. MINUTES
2022-1764 Review and Approve December 20, 2021 Draft PAC Minutes
A motion to approve the minutes was made by Vice Chairpeson Rush and
seconded by Chairperson Gillitt. Ayes: Chairperson Gillitt, Vice Chairperson Rush,
Commissioners Hoffecker, Platzgummer and Ferguson. Nays: none. Motion
carried 5-0.
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
5. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
5-A 2021-1768 Recommendation to Review and Provide Feedback on Staff
Proposal to Develop a Request for Proposals (RFP) for Cultural Arts and Arts
Programming
Staff member Toma presented the staff proposal to develop a Request for
Proposal (RFP) for cultural arts and arts programming. Mr. Toma provided
background, overview of funds available, explained RFP considerations and
presented staff recommendations. Mr. Toma answered clarifying questions and
invited Commissioners to discuss.
Tina Blaine, Executive Director of Rhythmix Cultural Works, member of the public
and former public art grant recipient, expressed a preference for a larger number
of grants for smaller amounts ($5-10K) to allow a greater number of artists to be
supported by the RFP.
Jennifer Radakovich, Associate Director at Rhythmix Cultural Works, seconded
the recommendation to have more grants in smaller denominations to support",PublicArtCommission/2022-02-22.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2022-02-22,2,"Minutes of the Public Art Commission
Tuesday, February 22, 2022
more of Alameda's artists and arts organizations. Ms. Radakovich expressed
concern about one awardee receiving multiple grants.
Carmen Reid, expressed appreciation for the Public Art Commission for the
continued support of the arts, particularly during COVID-19, and asked for
clarification on the makeup of a proposed subcommittee for evaluating grant
applications, and if the Brown Act would be triggered depending on the
composition. Finally, Ms. Reid supported a larger number of grants for smaller
amounts, and suggested a Go-Fund-Me to solicit funds from the public to allow for
more funding towards art grant programs.
Tara Pilbrow, Executive Director of West End Arts District and a recipient of a
previous City of Alameda Cultural Arts and Arts Progamming grant, suggested that
a larger number of grants for a smaller amount allows grants to be spread further
among various organizations. This provides funding to a larger number of voices
and allows organizations to receive supplemental funding for their events.
Additionally, Ms. Pilbrow, recommended regularly scheduled RFPs so that cultural
arts organizations can plan out their performances in accordance with funding
scheudles.
Commissioners discussed the proposed RFP, and provided the following
feedback:
Suppoort for expediting the process to ensure funds are distributed in the most
expedient way possible;
Increase the number of grants awarded to (4) $5,000 awards and (4) $10,000
awards, while streamlining the number of award categories;
Allow for-profit organizations to apply for grants; and
Potentially allow organizations to apply for multiple grants in the event they are
providing larger events.
A motion to approve that staff develop a Cultural Arts RFP, taking into account the
feedback received from both the Commission and the public, was made by
Commissioner Platzgummer and seconded by Chairperson Ferguson. Ayes:
Chairperson Gillitt, Vice Chairperson Rush, Commissioners Hoffecker,
Platzgummer, and Ferguson. Nays: none. The motion carried 5-0.
6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Staff member Toma provided the following updates:
Installation updates for Rockspinners, Alameda Afore, Beken, and Tidal Arch.
Mr. Toma announced the completion of the ""Egret with No Regrets"" mural, as
well as a new public art proposal for Subpar Mini Golf that will likely come to
the PAC in April.
Mr. Toma provided the PAC with an updated spreadsheet of proposed and
upcoming Public Art projects, based on feedback from Commissioners at the
2",PublicArtCommission/2022-02-22.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2022-02-22,3,"Minutes of the Public Art Commission
Tuesday, February 22, 2022
December 20, 2021 PAC meeting. Chairperson Gillitt asked if the upcoming
VA development will trigger a Public Art requirement. Mr. Toma offered to
update the PAC when information becomes available.
Staff hope to issue a second round of small art grants in the second half of
2022.
The preferred consultant for the Public Art Master Plan, Forecast Public Art,
has identified top local candidates to be hired as the primary point person for
the Public Art Master Plan.
WePlayers will put on a one-woman-show, titled ""The Keeper"" at Alameda
Point, that will run Friday, Saturday, and Sunday from May 27 through June 26,
2022.
The West End Arts District has expressed interest in persuing painting the
asphalt on the old tarmac near the new Alameda Waterfront Park at Alameda
Point.
There is a new shortened URL for the Public Art Commission website:
https://www.alamedaca.gov/publicart
In response to a question posed to the staff at the December 20, 2022 PAC
meeting, Mr. Toma clarified that the Public Art section of the Ordinance states
""other expenses associated with installation, conservation, maintenance, and
deaccession of public art shall be prioritized for public art on public property"".
7. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None.
8. COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
Chairperson Gillitt invited commissioners, staff, and City residents to join the
walking tours of the original three villages of Alameda on February 27, March 6,
and March 13 in celebration of Alameda's 150th anniversary. For more information,
visit: AlamedaPost.com.
Commisioner Ferguson stated that he appreciated previous concerts at
Chochenyo Park, and Chairperson Gillitt suggested Commissioner Ferguson
contact the Alameda Recreation and Parks Department.
9. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Carmen Reid informed the PAC and public that art by students of Saint Joseph's
School is currently on display at the Blue Dot Café in Alameda.
Tara Pilbrow added the suggestion to allow for grants to provide partial funding
and/or seed money towards a larger-budgeted event for the Cultural Art RFP
submissions.
3",PublicArtCommission/2022-02-22.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2022-02-22,4,"Minutes of the Public Art Commission
Tuesday, February 22, 2022
Jennifer Radakovich informed the PAC and public of an upcoming cultural art
event, ""Island City Waterways"", taking place on May 21-23 at Alameda Point's
West Mall.
Chairperson Gillitt informed the PAC and public of an upcoming cultural art event,
""Words that Made the Difference: BROWN VS the BOARD OF EDUCATION"",
taking place on February 26 at Rhythmix Cultural Works.
10. ADJOURNMENT
Chairperson Gillitt adjourned the meeting at 7:28pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Lois Butler
Economic Development Manager
Secretary, Public Art Commission
4",PublicArtCommission/2022-02-22.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2022-04-18,1,"Approved
MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC ART COMMISSION (PAC) MEETING
Monday, April 18, 2022
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Adam Gillitt called the meeting to order at 6:03p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: Chairperson Adam Gillitt, Vice Chairperson Liz Rush, Commissioners
Jennifer Hoffecker, Peter Platzgummer, and Robert Ferguson.
Absent: none.
Lois Butler and Walker Toma present as staff to the Commission.
3. MINUTES
2022-1943 Review and Approve Draft February 22, 2022 PAC Minutes
A motion to approve the minutes was made by Commissioner Fergueson and
seconded by Chairperson Gillitt. Ayes: Chairperson Gillitt, Vice Chairperson Rush,
Commissioners Hoffecker, Platzgummer and Ferguson. Nays: none. Motion
carried 5-0.
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Jennifer Radakovich, Associate Director at Rhythmix Cultural Works, presented
information for an upcoming cultural art event, ""Island City Waterways"", taking
place on May 21-23 at Alameda Point's West Mall. Please register to attend this
free event by going to www.rhythmix.org.
5. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
5-A. 2022-1944 WePlayers Presentation for The Keeper at Alameda Point
Ava Roy, Artistic Director for WePlayers Theater Production Company, presented
a promotional video for a one-woman-show, titled ""The Keeper"", that will run
Friday, Saturday, and Sunday from May 27 through June 26, 2022, at Alameda
Point.
For public comment, Tara Pilbrow, Executive Director of West End Arts District,
expressed appreciation for this project and offered to support or collaborate on
future projects. Staff member Toma will connect Ms. Roy with Ms. Pilbrow.
Chairperson Gillitt expressed his appreciation for the presentation.
5-B. Recommendation to Approve the Attached Resolution and Conditions
Approving the ""Neptune Beach Roller Coaster"" Public Art Proposal for
Subpar Miniature Golf at 1600 Park Street",PublicArtCommission/2022-04-18.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2022-04-18,2,"Minutes of the Public Art Commission
Monday, April 18, 2022
Staff member Toma presented the public art proposal for the new Subpar Miniature
Golf project, located at 1600 Park Street, titled ""Neptune Beach Roller Coaster"".
Mr. Toma reviewed the evaluation criteria for evaluating public art proposals and
presented staff's recommendation to approve the proposal. Mr. Toma introduced
artist Jon Altemus and project applicant Michael Taft. Artist Jon Altemus provided
background and described the artistic process of developing the artpiece. Mr.
Toma and Mr. Altemus answered clarifying questions. After receiving no public
comments, Mr. Toma invited Commissioners to discuss.
Commissioners discussed the proposal. In addition to general support, they
provided the following feedback:
Suggest a mobile or moving element to the rollercoaster;
Concern that the proposed project has lower visibility than existing installation.
Adding a light feature to showcase the artwork and/or adding additional art in
the other windows would increase visibility;
Suggestion to add an informational plaquard about the artwork; and
Suggestion to add signage or graphics that incorporate reproductions of
posters or ephemera from Neptune Beach in the open space of the window
above the artwork.
A motion to propose that Subpar Miniature Golf return to the PAC with an amended
proposal, taking in consideration the feedback provided by the commissioners,
while staying within the existing budget, was made by Chairperson Gillitt and
seconded by Vice Chairperson Rush. Ayes: Chairperson Gillitt, Vice Chairperson
Rush, Commissioners Hoffecker, Platzgummer, and Ferguson. Nays: none. The
motion carried 5-0.
5-C 2022-1942 Recommendation to Review Cultural Arts and Arts
Programming Request for Proposals (RFP) for Issuance
Staff Member Toma presented an overview of the updated RFP, highlighting
changes made in response to feedback from the PAC and members of the public
at the February PAC meeting. Mr. Toma answered clarifying questions, invited
comment from the public, and then invited discussion from commissioners.
Jennifer Radakovich expressed appreciation for the increase in the number of
grants in the revised RFP. Additionally, Ms. Radakovich was curious to know if
individual artists or for-profit organizations without a fiscal sponsor could apply for
a grant, if the RFP specified the duration of the awards, if grants could be awarded
to organizations outside of Alameda, and if there was a matching fund requirement.
Tara Pilbrow, on behalf of West End Arts District, offered to provide assistance to
individual artists looking for fiscal sponsorship so that they can qualify for cultural
art grants.
2",PublicArtCommission/2022-04-18.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2022-04-18,3,"Minutes of the Public Art Commission
Monday, April 18, 2022
Commissioners expressed appreciation for the changes made by staff in response
to feedback given at the February PAC meeting. Commissioners addressed
comments made by the public, clarifying that a preference is given to Alameda
artists/organizations. Further, Secretary Butler clarified that when the Public Art
Ordinance was put in place, the City Attorney's Office advised staff that if there
were to be language allowing for for-profit entities to receive grants up to a certain
dollar amount, that the dollar amount be included in the Public Art Guidelines
(Guidelines) as opposed to in the Ordinance itself. While there are currently no
Guidelines, the intent is that for-profit entities have the ability to apply for grants of
$2,000 or less. Therefore, due to the size of the grants proposed in the RFP,
awardees need to either be a non-profit, or have fiscal sponsorship, even if they
are an individual artist. Commissioners discussed the proposal, weighing the
concern that requiring 501(c)(3) status or fiscal sponsorship limits the pool of
qualifying applicants against the concern that delays caused by changing
requirements would further delay the distribution of awards in this fiscal year.
A motion to approve the cultural arts and arts programming RFP as presented was
made by Commissioner Fergueson and seconded by Chairperson Gillitt. Ayes:
Chairperson Gillitt, Vice Chairperson Rush, Commissioners Hoffecker,
Platzgummer, and Ferguson. Nays: none. The motion carried 5-0.
6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Staff member Toma provided the following updates:
The development of a Public Art Master Plan has begun by preferred consultant
Forecast Public Art. A special meeting will be held in May to allow for a
facilitated discussion led by Forecast and to gather input from the PAC on the
development of the Public Art Master Plan. In addition to the May special
meeting and several other public engagement elements, there will likely be a
second PAC meeting largely devoted to the Public Art Master Plan over the
next few months. The development of the Public Art Master Plan has an
estimated completion time of 6-8 months.
The permit has been issued for the installation of the Alameda Afore public art.
7. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None.
8. COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
Chairperson Platzgummer expressed appreciation to Chairperson Gillitt and
Dennis Evanowsky for the three guided walking tours of Alameda neighborhoods
in celebration of Alameda's 150th anniversary.
Chairperson Gillitt announced that several additional tours will be offered of
Alameda throughout the year, organized by the Alameda Post.
3",PublicArtCommission/2022-04-18.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2022-04-18,4,"Minutes of the Public Art Commission
Monday, April 18, 2022
9. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
10. ADJOURNMENT
Chairperson Gillitt adjourned the meeting at 7:39pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Lois Butler
Economic Development Manager
Secretary, Public Art Commission
4",PublicArtCommission/2022-04-18.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2022-05-16,1,"FINAL
MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC ART COMMISSION (PAC) MEETING
Monday, May 16, 2022
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Adam Gillitt called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: Chairperson Adam Gillitt, Vice Chairperson Liz Rush, Commissioners
Jennifer Hoffecker, Peter Platzgummer, and Robert Ferguson.
Absent: none.
Lois Butler and Walker Toma present as staff to the Commission.
3. MINUTES
2022-2012 Review and Approve Draft April 18, 2022 PAC Minutes
A motion to approve the minutes was made by Vice Chairperson Rush and
seconded by Commissioner Ferguson. Ayes: Chairperson Gillitt, Vice Chairperson
Rush, Commissioners Hoffecker, Platzgummer and Ferguson. Nays: none. Motion
carried 5-0.
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
5. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
5-A. 2022-2014 Rhythmix Cultural Works Presentation of Island City
Waterways
Jennifer Radakovich, Associate Director, and Janet Koike, Artistic Director and
Founder at Rhythmix Cultural Works, presented information for an upcoming
cultural art event that is funded, in part, through the Public Art Fund. The event,
""Island City Waterways,"" is taking place on May 21-23 at Alameda Point's West
Mall. Ms. Radakovich and Ms. Koike shared two video clips of previous
performances of this site-specific, immersive art event, described recent
production challenges resulting from COVID and road closure permit issues, and
invited PAC members and members of the public to register to attend this free
event by going to www.rhythmix.org.
There were no public comments.
Chairperson Gillitt expressed his appreciation for the presentation.",PublicArtCommission/2022-05-16.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2022-05-16,2,"Minutes of the Public Art Commission
Monday, May 16, 2022
5-B. 2022-2013 Recommendation to Approve the Attached Resolution and
Conditions Approving the Revised ""Neptune Beach Roller Coaster"" Public
Art Proposal for Subpar Miniature Golf at 1600 Park Street
Staff member Toma presented the revised public art proposal for the new Subpar
Miniature Golf project, located at 1600 Park Street, titled ""Neptune Beach Roller
Coaster."" In response to feedback from the PAC, illumination lighting, signage, and
information tags, and a descriptive plackard have been added to the proposal to
better showcase and describe the artwork to the public. Staff find the proposed
artwork meets the Public Art requirement evaluation criteria, and recommends the
proposal for approval. From last minutes: Mr. Toma introduced artist Jon Altemus
and project applicant Michael Taft. Artist Jon Altemus who answered clarifying
questions.
There were no public comments.
Commissioners discussed the proposal, and determined that the revised public art
proposal meets all criteria, and expressed appreciation for the additional lighting
and signage in response to the PAC's recommendations. A motion to approve the
attached resolution and conditions approving the revised ""Neptune Beach Roller
Coaster"" public art proposal was made by Chairperson Gillitt and seconded by
Vice Chairperson Rush. Ayes: Chairperson Gillitt, Vice Chairperson Rush,
Commissioners Hoffecker, Platzgummer, and Ferguson. Nays: none. The motion
carried 5-0.
6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Staff member Toma provided the following updates:
a Cultural Art and Arts Programming RFP was issued on March 10, 2022. An
orientation session will be held on March 24 at 5pm; and
the June 20 PAC meeting will be a working session for the Public Art Master
Plan facilitated by the consultant Forecast Public Art.
7. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None.
8. COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
Commissioner Hoffecker asked if arts organizations can apply for Cultural Arts and
Arts Programming grants if a member of the PAC serves on their board. Secretary
Butler offered to get clarification from City counsel and provide clarification at the
next PAC meeting.
Commissioner Ferguson expressed the desire to meet in person. Ms. Butler
responded that returning to in-person meetings may possible in the near future;
however, the decision depends on emergency orders being lifted and additional
technical infrastructure allowing for hybrid meetings.
2",PublicArtCommission/2022-05-16.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2022-05-16,3,"Minutes of the Public Art Commission
Monday, May 16, 2022
9. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
10. ADJOURNMENT
Chairperson Gillitt adjourned the meeting at 6:51 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lois Butler
Economic Development Manager
Secretary, Public Art Commission
3",PublicArtCommission/2022-05-16.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2022-06-27,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC ART COMMISSION (PAC) SPECIAL
MEETING Monday, June 27, 2022
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Adam Gillitt called the meeting to order at 6:03pm and because the
recording was not started, staff started the recording, and Chairperson Gillitt
started the meeting over and called the meeting to order at 6:06 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: Chairperson Adam Gillitt, Vice Chairperson Liz Rush, Commissioners
Jennifer Hoffecker, Peter Platzgummer, and Robert Ferguson.
Absent: none.
Lois Butler and Walker Toma present as staff to the Commission.
3. MINUTES
2022-2158 Review and Approve Draft May 16, 2022 PAC Minutes
Chairperson Gillitt requested a motion to approve the minutes. After discussion the
motion was postponed to the next meeting to allow additional time for
commissioners to review the draft minutes.
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
5. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
5-A. 2022-2159 Presentation by Forecast Public Art on Public Art Master Plan
Process
Staff member Walker Toma welcomed Forecast Public Art (Forecast), a consultant
firm hired through an RFP process to produce Alameda's Public Art Master Plan
and explained to the Commission and the public that there would be multiple
opportunities for public comment during the presentation.
Jen Krava, Director of Programming and New Initiatives at Forecast, shared
Forecast's mission to activate, inspire, and advocate for public art that advance
justice, health and human dignity by 1) supporting, funding, and training artists who
work in the public realm, 2) partnering and consulting on public art and creative
placemaking projects, and 3) building local capacity, gathering stories, and sharing
research.
The Forecast team members facilitating the Public Art Master Plan process for the
City of Alameda introduced themselves as:",PublicArtCommission/2022-06-27.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2022-06-27,2,"Minutes of the Public Art Commission
Monday, June 27, 2022
Jen Krava, Director of Programming
Mark Salinas, Senior Project Manager
Yarlyn Rosario, Project Manager
Mallory Rukhsana Nezam, Consultant
Yolanda Cotton Turner, Local Artist
Consultant Rukhsana Nezam explained the Group Agreements for the evening's
facilitation process, and shared Forecast's Master Plan timeline and engagement
plan.
After defining Public Art in general, including common locations, sample funding
models, and a presentation of the wide variety of existing public art, Forecast
facilitated an exercise to gather input for the definition of Public Art specific to the
process of developing the Public Art Master plan for the City of Alameda.
Questions and a summary of responses are as follows:
Where should Public Art be located (concentrated or spread out)? Throughout
Alameda; very publicly accessible; the diversity of opportunities within a variety
of neighborhoods; art is missing from shoreline and other high-traffic key
destination areas: difficult to locate existing public art; continue to expand
artwork beyond nautical-theme; historical challenges has been finding sites
and working with City to get approval for public art sites; and the importance of
equitable distribution.
How long should Public Art be installed? Program should support both
performance and temporary physical art (temporary) as well as permanent
pieces like sculpture (permanent); allow artwork to be deaccessioned so that
artwork can represent a diversity of artists instead of the historical precedent of
white male artists; increased cost of maintaining long term art pieces takes
funding away from new artwork; temporary art can be placed in more locations;
set term limits for art which allows a living-gallery feel and fresh art; civic
buildings and garages might be a good fit for murals or light installations;
Alameda has had no audio installations; and keep art permanently, but move
art from key places to allow new art.
Should the aesthetics and content of public art be more symbolic or literal?
Political or heavily messaged art can be challenging in a public setting; support
for a variety of art; the community is the final arbiter of what fits; value of having
artwork that challenges people; performance art has been better able to
capture more political/challenging topics.
Should the aesthetics and content focus on the historic or contemporary?
Existing artwork is mostly contemporary; Alameda is quite nostalgic yet
constantly changing; encourage a focus on new art; and too much nostalgic
artwork doesn't capture the full history (e.g. Alameda is missing artwork about
shellmounds and Japanese internment camps).
2",PublicArtCommission/2022-06-27.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2022-06-27,3,"Minutes of the Public Art Commission
Monday, June 27, 2022
To what extent should the public art be static or interactive? Important to have
some art that can be experienced by all senses and allows people to be
involved in the art; Alameda has too much static art; interactive art is more
memorable, permanent interactive installations can have higher maintenance
expenses depending on the material.
Should the artwork be created by local or global artists? Currently preference
is given to local artists, however certain sites would be best served by artists
outside of the area; miss talent of regional/national/global artists if only
supporting local artists; local cost of living prohibits many artists from living
locally; the rich diversity of artists attempting to stay local should be supported;
has been difficult to reach all local artists with RFP information as well as inform
public about public art; private art galleries support regional/national/globa
artist of notoriety - save Public Art funds for local artists, however preference
to ex-local artists too; multiple factors (like artists availability, marketing of
RFP/RFQ, cost of materials, site specific needs) contribute to which artist might
best fit - so it's a balance of attracting artists from outside the area and
supporting local artists.
Staff member Toma opened the floor for public comment:
Resident Pat Atkinson offered that location does not need to be either completely
spread out or totally concentrated, temporary art allows more community
involvement, a sculpture garden by the Seaplane Lagoon ferry terminal would
welcome visitors, popup art installations could be placed throughout the city and
in public parks, Rhythmix Cultural Works has been very successful at producing
art experiences that are a combination of visual and performing arts, mapping
existing public art would be helpful in driving the Public Art Master Plan.
Tina Blaine, Executive Director of Rhythimix Cultural Works, made the suggestion
to perform a survey of existing public art curated on a website, including a list of
previous performance and cultural arts.
Jennifer Radakovich, Associate Director at Rhythimix Cultural Works, shared that
there is a mural and a Healing Garden on Webster Street, and also that Rhythmix
has offered several public art installations.
Staff member Toma closed public comment.
Forecast facilitated an activity to define success for the Public Art Master Plan.
Commissioners provided the following responses: a framework that ensures Public
Art will be available in Alameda for generations to come; art that attracts visitors
specifically for public art; maps the future of Public Art in Alameda; has simple,
understandable guidelines for art and measurable goals with a focus on cultural
3",PublicArtCommission/2022-06-27.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2022-06-27,4,"Minutes of the Public Art Commission
Monday, June 27, 2022
equity that fits the community of Alameda; and that demonstrates that art is
Alameda's long-term priority.
Forecast shared next steps, including planned surveys, community engagement
pop-ups, presentations, one-on-one interviews, focus groups, and facilitated
workshops, with the goal of creating an visionary plan that contains actionable,
immediately implementable, and modifiable processes, and includes creative input
from the a diversity of voices within the larger community.
Local artist and consultant with Forecast, Yolanda Cotton Turner, informed the
PAC and public that she will be facilitating the first pop-up event at the Alameda
Summer Art Fair, on July 3, 2022 from 11am-3pm. More information is available
at www.alamedaartfair.com.
Ms. Krava shared that the one-on-one interviews are designed to focus on
understanding and improving City processes for public art approval, and Mr.
Salinas shared that the focus groups aim to gather insight from those within the
arts and culture community as well as the larger community.
Chairperson Gillitt expressed his appreciation for Forecast's presentation.
6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Staff member Toma provided the following updates:
the Alameda Marina LandSea Homes recently fulfilled their contribution to
Public Art via an approximately $250,000 in lieu contribution to the Public Art
Fund;
fabrication has been completed for the ""Beken"" sculpture, with an estimated
installation of August 2022 at the Waterfront Park sculpture; and
the July PAC Special Meeting will be postponed to allow time to prepare and
present RFP Cultural Art applications to the PAC. Chairperson Gillett asked
how many submissions have been received to date. Secretary Butler advised
that sharing submission information before the close of the RFP may not be
allowed, and offered to research and provide clarification on this at the next
PAC meeting.
7. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None.
8. COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
Chairperson Gillett shared that Tina Blaine is retiring from her role as Executive
Director of Rhythmix Cultural Works, and expressed appreciation for her many
years of service and contributions the art community.
4",PublicArtCommission/2022-06-27.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2022-06-27,5,"Minutes of the Public Art Commission
Monday, June 27, 2022
Commissioner Ferguson asked for clarification about receiving requests from the
public to notify the PAC and public about upcoming public art, which Ms. Butler
offered to provide.
9. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
10. ADJOURNMENT:
Chairperson Gillitt adjourned the meeting at 8:12p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lois Butler
Economic Development Manager
Secretary, Public Art Commission
5",PublicArtCommission/2022-06-27.pdf