body,date,page,text,path
CityCouncil,2006-07-26,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
WEDNESDAY- - -JULY 26, 2006- - -7:00 P.M.
Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 7:25 p.m.
Boy Scout Troop 2 led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present :  ouncilmembers/Commissioners
Daysog,
deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese and Mayor/
Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
MINUTES
(06-045CIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, I Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement
Commission (CIC) Meetings held on July 5, 2006, and Special CIC
Meetings held on July 5, 2006 and July 14, 2006. Approved.
Commissioner deHaan moved approval of the Minutes.
Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
AGENDA ITEMS
(06-046CIC) Recommendation to award Design-Build Contract in the
amount of $9,104,000 to C. Overaa & Co. for the Civic Center
Parking Garage, CIP No. 90-19;
(06-046ACIC) Recommendation to award Construction Contract in the
amount of $8,800,000 to C. Overaa & Co. for Rehabilitation and
Restoration of the Historic Alameda Theater
(06-384CC) Resolution No. 14003, ""Authorizing the Execution of U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Contract for Loan
Guarantee Assistance Under Section 108 of the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1974, as Amended, 42 U.S.C. Section 5308;
Execution of Brownfields Economic Development Initiative (BEDI)
Grant Agreement; and Issuance of Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program
Variable Rate Note.' Adopted; Recommendation to authorize
execution of Cooperation Agreement between the City and Community
Improvement Commission; and
(06-384ACC)
Resolution No. 14004, ""Authorizing the Summary
Vacation of a Portion of the Central Avenue Public Right-of-Way -
pursuant to Chapter 4 of the Streets and Highways Codes "" Adopted.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
1
Community Improvement Commission
July 26, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-07-26.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-07-26,2,"The Development Services Director and Development Manager gave a
Power Point presentation and provided two documents.
Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese requested clarification on
whether the disability access is for the access only or also an
emergency exit for everyone.
The Development Manager responded the ramp serves as the disabled
access entry and emergency exit for everyone.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether dollar saving
figures were identified for the western enclosure, wheelchair lift,
and roof repair.
The Development Manager responded in the negative; stated savings
came out of various divisions for each item; changes in scope were
tracked but not the total savings for each item.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether said savings
reduced the base bid.
The Development Services Director responded the savings reduced
Overaa's $9.7 million base bid to $8.8 million.
The Development Manager stated savings were also realized by
seeking out different subcontractors.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan stated dollar figures were
provided for each parking garage line item; inquired whether dollar
figures could be placed on the theater items.
The Development Manager responded dollar figures were not placed on
the theater items because the intent was to keep track of the scope
in order to get a price that made sense and was within budget.
The Development Services Director continued with her presentation.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the marquee line item was for
full restoration.
The Development Services Director responded the marquee line item
would be for all restoration except re-stenciling the pattern that
was under the marquee.
louncilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the light
sequencing would be replaced.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
2
Community Improvement Commission
July 26, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-07-26.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-07-26,3,"The Development Services Director responded she was not sure
whether the sign could be animated within budget.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether another scheme
reduced the parking garage size to four levels plus the roof.
The Development Services Director responded said scheme was not
evaluated but could be a cost savings to the project; stated the
project could be constructed within the existing budget if the
parking garage size was reduced to four levels.
louncilmember/Commissioner deHaan stated he was leaning towards a
five-screen theater and a five-level parking garage, which would
provide more seats and might not jeopardize retail as much; numbers
could be extrapolated to reduce the cost by $2 to $2.5 million.
The Development Services Manager continued with her presentation.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the HUD loan had
certain parameters.
The Development Manager responded job generation is one of the
major criteria.
The Development Services Director stated the HUD program no longer
exists.
Councilmember/Commissioner Daysog inquired whether an increase in
retail square footage would increase jobs.
The Development Services Director responded possibly; stated the
HUD application cannot be re-evaluated and re-ranked at this time.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner Gilmore stated the City risks losing $7
million in HUD funding if the City gets too far away from the
approved project parameters.
The Development Services Director stated the developer has agreed
to take on all the operating costs for the Historic Theater because
of the Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) conditions and
projected revenue generation; funds would need to be taken out of
the General Fund if the City took over operation and maintenance.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether deferred
interest was one of the benefits of the HUD loan.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
3
Community Improvement Commission
July 26, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-07-26.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-07-26,4,"an interest in selling the property to the City.
The Development Services Director responded the Elks considered
entering into a transaction if the City rebuilt the gymnasium.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the Elks would transfer
property to the City, to which the Development Services Director
responded she did not know.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan stated he is concerned that said
discussions did not take place.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
4
Community Improvement Commission
July 26, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-07-26.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-07-26,5,"The Development Services Director continued with her presentation.
incilmember/Commissioner deHaan stated that the $15 million
Scheme 5 parking structure cost is overstated because the parking
structure would not be as elaborate.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the $15 million cost included
acquisition, to which the Development Services Director responded
in the affirmative.
Mayor/Chair Johnson opened the public portion of the Hearing.
Proponents (In favor of the staff recommendation) : Harry Dahlberg,
Economic Development Commission; Lars Hanssen, Park Street Business
Association (PSBA) ; Michael J. Krueger, Alameda; Susan Decker,
Alameda: Pauline Kelley, Alameda; Duane Watson, Alameda Barbara
Marchand, Alameda; Harry Hartman, Alameda; Walt Jacobs, Alameda
Chamber of Commerce; Melody Marr, Alameda Chamber of Commerce (read
list of 17 names) ; Norma Henning, Alameda Robb Ratto, PSBA.
Opponents (Not in favor of the staff recommendation) : Woody Minor,
Alameda Ani Dimusheva, Alameda; Joe Meylor, Alameda (submitted
handout ) ; Pat Bail, Alameda; David Kirwin, Alameda; Janet Gibson,
Alameda. Judith Lynch, Historical Advisory Board; Kristianne
Koenen, Alameda; Kevin Fredrick, Alameda.
There being no further speakers, Mayor/Chair Johnson closed the
public portion of the Hearing.
Councilmember/Commissioner Daysog thanked staff for providing
alternatives; stated he prefers Scheme 2 where the attention is
focused on reusing the Historic Theater and having a smaller
garage; he understands that Scheme 2 posses a risk of losing $7
million in HUD loans; theater jobs would be lost, but retail jobs
would increase; the City takes pride in running public enterprises;
he thinks the City could do a good job of operating the Historic
Theater and a smaller parking garage; the operation of the theater
entails public subsidy under the status quo scenario; rent would be
approximately 40 cents per square foot for the Historic Theater ;
the market rate for a new operating theater is approximately $1.50
per square foot; the City should get more than 40 cents per square
foot; the City is losing out on the differential in rent; he sees
Scheme 2 as a smaller scaled, hometown movie theater; the Historic
Theater should be restored to the full potential that the citizens
want; questioned whether cuts might ruin the historic quality.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
5
Community Improvement Commission
July 26, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-07-26.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-07-26,6,"Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired how the square foot price was
determined for the Historic Theater.
The Development Services Director responded cost comparisons were
done against brand new, first-ru construction at $1.30 per square
foot average; the budget starts out with a lease rate of $72,000
per year for years one through six; the rate jumps to $156,000 per
year for years seven through ten; the rate would be based on the
CPI starting in year eleven, with a 3% floor and 5% ceiling; the
developer would be required to make a $1.2 million FF&E commitment;
the operating costs would be very slim in the first six years,
especially when there is a FF&E load to retire; a 17% profit
participation has been included in the event the project stabilizes
at
a higher rate than estimated; the City would share in percentage
rent if the project produces better than expected; the City would
receive payments just about equal to what the developer and
investors are getting.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the profit participation
continues throughout the lease.
The Development Services Director responded the profit
participation is reduced to about 12% at the time the first loan is
repaid.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the square footage rate is a
minimum rental amount, to which the Development Services Director
responded in the affirmative.
louncilmember/Commissioner Daysog stated that translating items
into square foot terms would not overcome the existing difference
of 90 cents per square foot; related discussions were held last
August; he would rather get the money up front.
The Development Services Director stated the City is leveraging a
minimum of $5.3 million in private investment as a result of the
agreement.
Councilmember/Commissioner Daysog stated said investment
contributed to the division within the community.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan stated there was a $4.5 million
delta between the bids; the project includes the Cineplex, Historic
Theater and parking garage inquired whether there was a guarantee
that the Cineplex financing was in place now.
The Development Services Director responded that the developer has
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
6
Community Improvement Commission
July 26, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-07-26.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-07-26,7,"a commitment for construction and permanent financing; the Bank of
Alameda extended the commitment for six months; the developer has
raised $2 million of additional equity and is trying to finalize
the construction bids; the developer is planning to apply for
permits in early September.
Councilmember/Commission deHaan inquired whether staff received
documents verifying that the financing is in place.
The Development Services Director responded the City has a copy of
the loan commitment; the appraisal and placement of the equity into
the loan are the only contingencies left on the loan commitment
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan stated the Cineplex and the
parking garage property line has been pushed four to five feet on
Oak Street and dog legs out.
The Development Services Director stated the sidewalk dog legs out i
the City performed a survey of the property; the property showed
that the public sidewalk encroached six feet onto the private
property; originally a bulb out at the corner and removing the
parking on the City's portion of the parcel was contemplated for a
variety of traffic safety and pedestrian concernsi originally, the
bulb was to be fourteen feet wide and would now be ten feet wide
the average downtown sidewalk is eight feet wide.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the sidewalk
would be four-fee without the bulb out.
The Development Services Director responded the sidewalk would be
six feet because the property line would be set back two feet.
uncilmember/Commissioner deHaan stated that he is concerned about
the massive walls in the area; inquired why substituting surety
bonds was pulled off the agenda and whether the matter was relevant
to tonight's discussion.
The Development Services Director responded that the staff
recommended that the $200,000 offset come from the division's
operating fund for salaries.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether tonight's discussion on the
theater budget included everything, to which the Development
Services Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan commended staff for making $4.5
million in value engineering reductions; stated there is slim to no
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
7
Community Improvement Commission
July 26, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-07-26.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-07-26,8,"wiggle room in case a problem arises; inquired whether a 15%
contingency is adequate.
The Development Services Director responded staff recommends
reducing the contingency to 5% for the garage and 13% for the
theater ; stated $250,000 has been budgeted for soil conditions;
testing has been done; she hopes to add back the contingency after
construction has started; she feels adequately protected.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan stated $5 million was to be set
aside for the catalyst Webster Street project; the money is out of
the budget now; inquired how the project would be funded.
The Development Services Director responded there are a number of
ideas for funding the project; stated $13.5 million was raised to
retire the Marina Village infrastructure obligations; the Marina
Village project had a repayment of $2.5 million to the General Fund
load; $2 million was given to the Library Project another $2
million has been used in the operation of the theater project;
staff has requested that the $1 million coming back from the
Library project be distributed back to the theater project; other
opportunities include replacing cash reserves and renegotiating the
Catellus Project which has uncommitted tax increment and land
proceeds.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the West End
generated all the bond funding.
The Development Services Director responded 48% came from Business
Waterfront Improvement Project (BWIP) and 52% came from the West
End.
Councilmember/Commissioner Daysog moved approval of directing
further analysis of Scheme 2.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan stated various schemes were
revisited because other options needed to be reviewed; the schemes
need to be revisited in case the City is unable to value engineer
the project back in line; possible cost savings are obvious and
provide for more leeway in case there is a problem.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion.
On the call for the question, THE MOTION FAILED by the following
voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers/Commissioners Daysog and deHaan -
2. Noes : Councilmembers/Commissioners Gilmore and Matarrese and
Mayor/Chair Johnson - 3.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
8
Community Improvement Commission
July 26, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-07-26.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-07-26,9,"The Development Services Director stated concerns need to be
reiterated regarding a smaller project; ground rent and revenue
would be reduced.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan stated the project cost could be
reduced by $3 million to $4 million with a five-screen theater and
a
five-level parking garage the equation would be changed
minimally; stated Councilmember/Commissior Daysog requested that
options be reviewed.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner Gilmore stated the City would not need to
contribute approximately $2 million if an operator would not
operate the Historic Theater and provide the maintenance; the
maintenance cost would come out of the General Fund and would have
no cap.
Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese stated that he looks at the
alternatives as fall backs; he is pleased that the theater has been
acquired; concurred with Councilmember/Commissioner Daysog
regarding restoring the Historic Theater as much as possible;
stated the Historic Theater is a civic treasure; he is nervous
about construction in a historic building and the contingency
dropping from 15% to 13%; he has some comfort in that the value
engineering process lessens the risk of the 2% contingency
reduction; he is interested in what other funds might be available
to provide more comfort; the main cost of the project is the
Historic Theater; he is willing to support the staff
recommendation.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner Gilmore stated the City does not own the
Elks' parking garage or the U.S. Bank parking site; the City has
not discussed acquiring either site with the property owners.
parcel costs go up once the City expresses interest in purchasing a
parcel; construction costs are escalating the City would be
running the risk of not having dollars in place to acquire the
property, going through the design review process, and building a
parking structure on either site.
Mayor/Chai: Johnson stated other funding sources should be reviewed
in the event that extra costs are incurred; concurred with
louncilmembers/Commissioners Daysog and Matarrese regarding
restoring the Historic Theater to the greatest extent that the City
can afford; stated the City needs to be prepared for possible extra
costs before starting the parking structure; she was happy to see
that the City of Oakland was going forward with the restoration of
the Fox Theater; the restoration does not appear to be a theater
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
9
Community Improvement Commission
July 26, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-07-26.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-07-26,10,"project; the City of Oakland is contributing $57 million to
renovate the Fox Theater; she is happy that the Historic Theater is
being renovated as a theater and is owned by the City; her personal
preference would be to restore the Historic Theater as a single-
screen theater Council needs to be responsible for how much public
money is spent; she would support a motion to support the staff
recommendation.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner Gilmore stated there is an ""Other Costs""
line item for the parking garage and theater rehabilitation; the
line item for the parking garage is over $1.4 million and over $1.8
million for the theater; a cost breakdown was provided for both
line items; the document is available as a public document.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether phasing is planned for the
theater restoration.
The Development Services Director responded the construction
project would start within the next 30-45 days; stated the Historic
Theater construction will be the most time consuming; the plan
would be to do the garage and then the Historic Theater; the
Cineplex would start two to three months later; the entire project
should be completed within a year and a half; a $3 million grant
application was submitted to the State for historic preservation
money; high marks were received except in one category; she does
not think that one evaluator understood the financial statement
the grant would be resubmitted and she is optimistic about
receiving the grant.
Councilmember/Commissioner Daysog stated that the point of his
failed motion was to further analyze Scheme 2; costs are involved
with a stand alone, three-screer theater. cautioned colleagues from
using scare tactics such as General Fund dollars subsidizing the
project stated the Golf Complex, ferry system, electric and cable
systems are all self-funding enterprises; revenue would be
generated through retail which could help towards running the
theater. options need to be vetted.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner Gilmore stated she brought up the General
Fund because dollars coming from tax increment redevelopment funds
cannot be used to pay maintenance costs; she did not intend her
statement to be a scare tactic, but only to address how things
work.
Councilmember/Commissioner Daysog stated there are other revenue
opportunities such as the retail square footage.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
10
Community Improvement Commission
July 26, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-07-26.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-07-26,11,"Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan stated the City is doing the
project to revitalize Park Street; the theater would bring more
retail activity in the Park Street area and would help generate
revenue. ; revenue does not have to come directly from the theater
project.
The Development Services Director stated she would hope that tax
increment would be received.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan stated the catalyst project would
generate a tax funding stream.
Councilmember/Commissioner
Matarrese
concurred
with
louncilmember/Commissioner deHaan regarding the theater project
revitalizing Park Street; stated the theater project revitalizes
the whole City, puts money into the tax increment pool, and
captures a lot of the money that goes off the island; the theater
project is the best, real bonafide option to reopen the building as
a theater, revitalize the historic business district, and keep a
lot of discretionary dollars in the City.
Councilmember/Commissione: Matarrese approval of the staff
recommendations [including the Development Services Director's
recommendation that $200,000 come from the Development Services
operating fund salaries] and adoption of the resolutions.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner Gilmore seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan stated that he
would not vote in favor of  ouncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese'
motion; the project is now in a situation where the massing and the
scale is disproportionate; Oak Street traffic would be impacted; he
does not mean to infer that he does not support the Historic
Theater, the Cineplex and parking garage in some form; the project
got larger than life on a postage stamp piece of property; the
wheelchair lift elimination should be reconsidered; said
elimination would be the death for twelve public uses of the
theater per year.
Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese requested staff to provide
wheelchair lift rental costs so that the public can be assured that
a wheelchair lift would be provided for public use of the theater.
The Development Manager responded wheelchair lift rental is
standard practice; stated the intent is to have a wheelchair lift
available for the twelve public days.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
11
Community Improvement Commission
July 26, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-07-26.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-07-26,12,"Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired what would be the cost
to put the wheelchair lift back in as a line item, to which the
Development Manager responded approximately $80,000.
Mayor/Chair Johnson recommended that the motion include direction
for staff to provide the cost and budget source for the rental of a
wheelchair lift.
Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese and Vice Mayor/Commissioner
Gilmore agreed to amend the motion to include Mayor/Chair Johnson's
recommendation.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following
voice vote: Ayes : Councilmembers/Commissioners Gilmore, Matarrese
and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 3. Noes : Councilmembers/Commissioners
Daysog and deHaan -2.
(06-047CIC) Recommendation to authorize substitution of Surety Bond
for 2003 Merged Area Bond Issue Cash Reserve Account consistent
with Bond Indenture. Withdrawn.
Chair Johnson announced that the matter was withdrawn from the
agenda.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Joint Meeting at 10:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, Community Improvement
Commission
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
12
Community Improvement Commission
July 26, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-07-26.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-07-26,13,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
WEDNESDAY - -JULY 26, 2006- - -6:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:40 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The Special Meeting was adjourn to Closed Session to consider:
(06-383) Conference with Real Property Negotiators; Property: 2900
Main Street; Negotiating parties City of Alameda and Alameda
Gateway, Ltd. i Under negotiation: Price and terms.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that Council received a briefing from
Real Property Negotiators and gave direction.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 26, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-07-26.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