body,date,page,text,path
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-06-07,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday. June 7, 2006
The meeting convened at 7:08 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-A
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Beverly Johnson, Chair of Alameda
Doug deHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approval of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of April 5, 2006.
2-B. Recommendation to Approve Subleases at Alameda Point.
Approval of the consent calendar was motioned by Member Matarrese, seconded by
Member Gilmore and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5; Noes - 0; Abstentions -
0.
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Certification of Golf Course EIR and Authorization to Proceed with Negotiations
with Port of Oakland and Army Corps of Engineers.
Elizabeth Johnson, Base Reuse Planner, presented an overview and requested certification of the
final EIR for the Alameda Point Golf Course and Hotel Project. The draft EIR was circulated in
2004, with revisions prepared in 2005 to accommodate additional information regarding
wetlands on the site. The response to comments is also complete. Janie Alsep and Mark
Windsor of EDAW, and Jack Fink from Moffat Nichol Engineers, the consultants who assisted
in the preparation of the final EIR, were present to answer questions from the Board.
Chair Johnson asked if there was a time limit to start the project once it is certified. Elizabeth
Johnson explained that the EIR is programmatic which allows us to go forward with negotiating
with the Port or the Army Corp to get materials for the site. Chair Johnson wanted to clarify to
the public that, at this point we haven't seen that the project is economically feasible; that we're
not moving forward with this project, and this is just a very preliminary action. Elizabeth
Johnson concurred and further explained that the point of negotiating to get the dredge material
would be to determine the economic feasibility.
Member Gilmore clarified that if/when the project is determined to be economically feasible, we
would still need a separate EIR for the Hotel/Conference Center. Member deHaan and Elizabeth
Johnson discussed the current dredging at the Port of Oakland and that Alameda Point is the
secondary site to receive this dredge material, the primary site being Hamilton Field Wetland",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-06-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-06-07,2,"Page 2
Recreation. In response to member deHaan's question regarding the value of the dredge
materials, should the golf course project NOT go forward, Elizabeth Johnson explained that we
would be paid a Tipping Fee for the dredge materials.
Member Daysog questioned the delay in having an economic analysis. In response, Chair
Johnson reminded the Board that there was a several-year process where this consideration was
going on - we had a Hotel expert and even had an RFP on hotel complexes. At that time,
however, the downturn in the economy left the only people willing to propose a project was that
we owned a five-star hotel and paid them to manage it, and that was something the ARRA
wasn't willing to do. Elizabeth Johnson further discussed that the ARRA, in 2004, directed staff
to go ahead with preparation of the EIR in anticipation of the Hotel market coming back. Debbie
Potter, Base Reuse and Community Development Manager, concurred with this discussion,
adding that the hospitality industry has taken a while to bounce back since 9/11. She further
explained that once the EIR is certified, and we negotiate a Tipping Fee with the Army Corp and
the Port of Oakland that makes sense, then we can restudy the issue of the economic viability of
the project.
There was one speaker on this item, David Kerwin, who asked when and how often soil testing
will be done, expressing concern about loosened toxic materials if the property is not used for
a
golf course. Elizabeth Johnson responded that there will be a site-testing protocol in place.
Approval to certify the final EIR was motioned by Chair Johnson and seconded by
Member deHaan and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 4; Noes - 1 (Member
Daysog); Abstentions - 0.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.
Member Matarrese stated that he was unable to attend the last meeting and has no report.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There were no speaker slips.
6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
7.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 7:34 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-06-07,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
WEDNESDAY- - -JUNE 7, 2006- - -7:01 P.M.
Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 7:35 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present : Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese and Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Chair Johnson announced that both Consent Calendar items were
withdrawn for discussion.
(06-026) Recommendation to authorize the Executive Director to
execute a First Amendment, adding $96,225 and extending the term
six months, to Agreement with ERM-West, Inc. to evaluate PAH
Contamination on a portion of the Fleet Industrial Supply Center
property.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Division Manager gave a
brief presentation.
Commissioner deHaan stated the game plan was to provide a report
inquired when the report was to be provided and whether the funding
is being requested for said report, including the Human Health Risk
Assessment (HHRA) and Feasibility Study (FS)
The Base Reuse and Community Development Division Manager responded
the HHRA is a new request from the Department of Toxic Substances
Control (DTSC) toxicology department; stated money from the initial
contract will be spent to write the report for the FS; the report
cannot be written until additional sampling is completed.
Commissioner deHaan stated remaining funds would be used to prepare
the HHRA and FS, which he thought were in the initial allocation.
inquired whether all the [original] funding has been spent.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Division Manager responded
all funding has not been used; stated there is money for the FS;
over 65% of the additional work in the amended contract amount is
for fieldwork; the remaining funds are for the HHRA and the
meetings with the Navy and DTSC.
Commissioner deHaan inquired how many additional samplings would be
done, to which the Base Reuse and Community Development Division
Manager responded 45.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
1
June 7, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-06-07,2,"Commissioner deHaan inquired whether 300 samplings were already
done, to which the Base Reuse and Community Development Division
Manager responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the sampling would be a
different type.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Division Manager responded
the samplings are the step-outs from the twenty hot spots ;
clarified three samples are taken at each location; stated there
will be three depths at some locations sampling will be done at
twenty locations, for a total of 45 samples.
Commissioner Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation
Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Commissioner deHaan stated he would not support
the motion and did not support the motion in the past; his concern
is the property use is not finalized.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following
voice vote: Ayes Commissioners Daysog, Gilmore, Matarrese and
Chair Johnson - 4. Noes: Commissioner deHaan - 1.
(06-027) Recommendation to approve a Contract with Strategy
Research Institute, Inc. for $14,500 to conduct a survey of local
residents for the update of the City of Alameda Economic
Development Strategic Plan.
The Development Manager gave a brief presentation.
Commissioner Daysog stated the sample size is 300 150 community at
large participants and 150 registered voters; the staff report
indicates the survey would be statistically valid with a confidence
level of 95%; inquired whether 300 participants are needed to have
a statistically valid survey of either registered voters or
community at large participants.
George Manross, Ph.D., Strategic Research Institute, Inc.
responded in the affirmative; using two separate groups increases
the sampling error.
Chair Johnson and Commissioner Daysog noted just having community
at large participants would make the survey more statistically
valid.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
2
June 7, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-06-07,3,"Dr. Manross outlined sampling and accuracy levels.
Chair Johnson inquired the reason for having both community at
large and registered voters.
Dr. Manross responded the groups represent two distinct
populations; the community at large has one set of core values and
collective wishes; the electorate has a different set of core
values; if a funding mechanism were entertained, the City would
want to know where the electorate stands and where the electorate
agrees with and differs from the community at large.
In response to Chair Johnson's inquiry regarding whether a survey
done today would be relevant in a couple of years, Dr. Manross
stated core values do not change there can be shifts; however,
benchmarks would be established.
Commissioner Daysog stated if the sample is increased from 300 to
400, the cost increases from $14,500 to $15,500 suggested a sample
size of 600, 300 community at large and 300 registered voters.
Dr. Manross stated the recommendation was proposed in order not to
exceed a $15,000 budget the proposed study typically takes 15 to
17 minutes; a 12 minute study would be restrictive as to the amount
of information that can be secured; keeping the sample at 300 and
increasing the time from 12 to 15 minutes, would cost $16,000, but
additional information would be gathered; increasing the sample to
400 and the time to 15 minutes would cost $17,000; suggested the
Commission consider a higher sample amount or longer survey.
Commissioner Daysog stated the survey should be as accurate as
possible.
Dr. Manross stated an economic development and redevelopment study
is typically 400 participants and 15 to 17 minutes, which would be
his recommendation.
Commissioner deHaan stated the City is trying to update the
visioning process and the Economic Development Strategic Plan
(EDSP) i the City did not use a questionnaire last time; inquired
why a survey should be used now and whether future funding
mechanisms would be included.
The Development Manager responded the budget was over $100,000 for
the EDSP and downtown visioning plan in 2000; there was a 25 member
task force and an extensive community process; there is not funding
or need for something as extensive; the survey is intended to be a
periodic review, is a more formal way to supplement the community
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
3
June 7, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-06-07,4,"workshops and stakeholder interviews, and to get a read of the
community to help Development Services direct resources.
Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the information from the last
two meeting has been summarized and is available, to which the
Development Manager responded in the affirmative.
Commissioner deHaan requested said information.
The Development Manager noted the information has been provided to
Dr. Manross to assist him with developing questions.
Commissioner deHaan stated that he would like to see the questions
once developed.
The Development Manager stated an Economic Development Commission
(EDC) subcommittee would assist with drafting the questionnaire.
Commissioner deHaan inquired what would be done with the data.
The Development Manager responded the data with be reviewed,
analyzed and presented to the EDC.
Dr. Manross stated the information gathered would be tested in the
community; there would be a return on the investment.
The Development Services Director stated the survey would be an
update to the EDSP, which provides the foundation; the survey would
ensure the EDSP stays valid.
Commissioner deHaan stated results should be presented to the
community; his concerns are ensuring results of meetings held are
included and the crafting of the questions; there is no hidden
agenda for funding streams.
Ani Dimusheva, Alameda, stated the best way to get the opinion of
the community at large is to talk to the community; suggested
holding a town hall meeting once a month at cafes throughout town;
stated a study is not needed.
Commissioner Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation,
with the change to cap the budget at $17,000 to allow staff and the
consultant to determine how to proceed stated that he would hope
for a higher sample size; however, increasing the time is
acceptable.
Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
4
June 7, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-06-07,5,"Under discussion, Commissioner Gilmore inquired how authorizing
additional funds would affect the Development Services or general
fund budgets.
The Development Services Director responded additional funding
would not affect the General Fund budget stated the Development
Services budget can accommodate the funding out of the regular
operating budget for supplies and general services.
Chair Johnson stated the motion allows Development Services to
decide to spend less.
Commissioner deHaan stated some preliminary work has been
completed; requested to see the findings and the questions after
EDC review.
Commissioner Matarrese stated an expert is being hired to work with
a subcommittee of the EDC to craft the questions.
Commissioner Daysog stated the consultant indicated the questions
would be provided to the Commission.
Chair Johnson clarified the process would be to have the contract
go forward in order have questions prepared.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
AGENDA ITEM
(06-028) - Recommendation to reject the Sole Bid and authorize a 60- -
day negotiation with Qualified Contractors for the Restoration and
Rehabilitation of the Historic Alameda Theater.
The Development Services Director provided a brief presentation.
Commissioner Daysog inquired what Option 2, revise the bid
document, means.
The Development Services Director responded staff would have to
look for a way to make the bid document more enticing to
contractors; stated revising the bid document could involve
additional engineering or architectural work to have a finite
process for the least costly approach and could take a significant
amount of time.
Speakers in support of Option 5 (Reject the bid, terminate the
project Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) and re-scope
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
5
June 7, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-06-07,6,"the project) : Rosemary McNally, Alameda; David Kirwin, Alameda; Pat
Bail, Alameda; Ani Dimusheva, Alameda (submitted comments) ; Richard
Rutter, Alameda; Robert Gavrich, Alameda; Kristianne Koenen,
Alameda; Kevin Frederick; and Nancy Kerns, Alameda.
Speaker in support of staff recommendation (Option 1, Reject the
bid and negotiate with Overaa Construction) : Lars Hansson, Park
Street Business Association.
Chair Johnson closed the public comment.
The Development Services Director responded to comments.
Commissioner deHaan provided a handout inquired whether using the
parking contractor as an alternate is legally acceptable.
Legal Counsel responded Option 1, contracting with the parking
garage contractor low bidder who has not been selected, would be
legal under the facts of the situation; stated economy of scale is
possible, making the option legally permissible.
Commissioner deHaan stated the displaced contractor has done an
admirable job on the library; inquired whether the parking
structure budget would be close to $900,000 with contingency.
The Development Services Director responded in the affirmative.
Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the developer has provided
information on the cineplex portion, to which the Development
Services Director responded the developer has a project estimate in
excess of $5 million; he has been getting estimates; his formal
cost estimates will be in next week.
Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the developer has seen a major
increase.
The Development Services Director responded the developer is fairly
confident; four contractors are sharing preliminary estimates.
In response to Commissioner deHaan's inquiry regarding project
costs to date, the Development Services Director stated $3,378,500
has been spent, including acquisition of two properties.
Commissioner deHaan outlined cost increases since 2002; stated cost
estimates were $17. 6 million in 2004; today's costs are around
$33.6 million; there has been growth.
The Development Services Director stated construction costs could
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
6
June 7, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-06-07,7,"not be estimated until the design plans were developed; previous
estimates did not include land acquisition or architectural
engineering; outlined the project phases; stated project costs are
unknown until bid documents are prepared.
Commissioner Gilmore stated the handout from Commissioner deHaan
outlining budgets shows the large increase has been for the
historic theater, which is the most complex part of the project
filled with the most unknowns the other two pieces are new
construction.
Commissioner deHaan stated another option would be to decrease the
theater project to a single floor and take two floors off the
parking structure; the cost would decrease from $33.7 million down
to $28.8 million.
The Development Services Director noted disabled access would have
to be added to the historic theater.
Commissioner deHaan stated Option 5 could be considered, with
caveats, such as satellite parking areas and using the entire Video
Maniacs site for the cineplex and retail.
The Development Services Director stated most cost overruns are
with the historic theater; noted satellite parking would involve
dealing with land acquisition again.
Commissioner Matarrese stated that he appreciates the information
from Commissioner deHaan and speakers; there seems to be support to
tone down the parking garage and cineplex in favor of funding the
renovation of the historic theater; $11 million is not the best
bid; the bid should be rejected and the City should negotiate a
lower price; he would entertain the idea of a better price being
obtained through modification of the other two components [garage
and cineplex] 60 days would give staff an opportunity to review; a
different project would probably result with Option 1.
Commissioner Daysog stated there seems to be a cafeteria approach
to the project bonds have been issued on the entire project; $17
million was identified for the project with $9 million slated for
rehabilitation of the historic theater; $17 million was part of the
$42 million bond total; the total bond will cost $100 million with
interest ; his question is how the project ties into the total bond
issuance; he is not convinced that a cafeteria approach will work;
most of the cost overruns are with the historic theater if the
historic theater is not going to be rehabilitated, there is no
reason to do the garage and Cineplex if the historic theater is not
going to be rehabilitated however, bonds have already been issued;
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
7
June 7, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-06-07,8,"the focus should be on rehabilitation of the historic theater
suggested the City consider operating the renovated historic
theater.
Commissioner Matarrese stated the City bonded for a project that
included the theater, off street parking and some retail; everyone
is looking to accomplish the project; the look will have to be
adjusted the cost of the historic theater has led to tonight ;
Development Services has come up with a way to handle costs; money
will have to be taken from elsewhere to fund the renovation project
if the 60 days do not prove successful; that he would not support
general fund money for the project or lowering the contingency
budget he does not support Option 5 because he does not want to
can the project.
Commissioner Daysog stated that he voted against the bonds because
it was putting the cart before the horse and the true cost of the
project were not understood; now the City is trying to pick up the
pieces and realizes there are no funds; perhaps everyone could be
happy with just having the historic theater.
Commissioner Gilmore stated the project has to have a contingency
fund to go forward; staff has included a contingency fund she
would not support a project without a healthy contingency fund of
15 to 20%; that she is in favor of the 60 day negotiation period
because the City will have learned valuable information about the
historic theater even if there is no contract at the end of the
period; gathering additional information is a good thing;
negotiating does not commit the City to go forward; she has a
problem with Option 5 because she would not support acquiring the
historic theater without having a plan; the City should not be
stuck with a piece of property without the knowledge of whether the
property can be developed economically; the timeframe for acquiring
the theater is sooner than alternatives could be created if the
project is rejected.
Chair Johnson stated the 60-day time period is reasonable after the
time and effort that has been spent; that she supports the staff
recommendation.
Commissioner deHaan stated his concern is that an opportunity to
review other options would be missed by allowing 60-days to
negotiate; a 15% contingency might not be enough for the historic
theater project value engineering might not work and other options
should be reviewed to determine how existing funding can complete
the entire project; all of the funding might have to go to
renovating the a $7 million loan is included because
enough money was not bonded. other options should be reviewed
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
8
June 7, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-06-07,9,"quickly.
Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation
to reject the bid and negotiate for 60 days with the caveat that
options for the current configuration of the project be outlined in
parallel to allow the City to reach the end of the 60 days with a
full pallet of information; the two months would not be lost if the
results are not favorable.
Commissioner Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by the
following voice vote: Ayes : Commissioners Gilmore, Matarrese and
Chair Johnson - 3. Noes: Commissioners Daysog and deHaan - 2.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 9:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
Secretary
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
9
June 7, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-06-07,10,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
WEDNESDAY- - -JUNE 7, 2006- -5:31 P.M.
Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 5:35 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese and Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider :
(06-025) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; Name
of case : Community Improvement Commission V. Cocores Development
Company.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Chair Johnson announced that the Commission received a briefing
from its legal counsel and gave direction and settlement
parameters.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
Secretary
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
June 7, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-06-07.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