body,date,page,text,path
CivilServiceBoard,2008-01-09,1,"OF
of
TERKA
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE
CIVIL SERVICE BOARD OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 9, 2008
1.
The meeting was called to order at 5:04 p.m.
2.
ROLL CALL: Board Members Michael Rich, Roberto Rocha, Avonnet Peeler, Linda McHugh, Peter
Horikoshi and Executive Secretary Karen Willis.
ABSENT:
None
STAFF PRESENT: Jill Kovacs, Senior Management Analyst, Chris Low, Senior Management Analyst,
and Stacey Meier, Administrative Technician I, Human Resources.
OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE:
3.
MINUTES:
The minutes of the regular meeting of November 8, 2007 were presented for Board
approval. Member Peeler moved to accept, Member Horikoshi seconded, and
carried by a
5-0 vote.
4.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
Member Rocha moved to accept the consent calendar, Member McHugh seconded and carried by a 5 -0
vote.
SUMMARY REPORT FOR EXAMINATION ELIGIBLE LISTS AND CLASSIFICATIONS FOR THE
MONTHS OF OCTOBER, NOVEMBER, DECEMBER 2007.
4A.
ELIGIBLE LIST ESTABLISHED
DATE ESTABLISHED
EXAM NO.
Administrative Management Analyst
10/9/2007
207-47
Administrative Technician Il
12/19/2007
207-71
Assistant City Attorney Il
12/19/2007
207-74PR
Crime Analyst (Admin Tech III)
12/13/2007
207-64
Development Manager
12/4/2007
207-57
Distribution Engineer
12/5/2007
207-65
Division Chief
10/3/2007
207-16PR
Electrical Engineer
11/27/2007
207-41R
Electrical Mtce Technician
12/13/2007
207-62
Executive Assistant
10/30/2007
207-49
Housing Authority Mtce Team Leader
12/18/2007
207-73PR
Intermediate Clerk
10/23/2007
207-50
Jailer
12/3/2007
207-56
Police Officer (Lateral)
11/10/2007
207-53
Senior Electrical Engineer
11/13/2007
207-10PR
Utility Analyst/Asst Utility Analyst
12/11/2007
207-63
4B.
ELIGIBLE LIST EXTENDED
DATE ESTABLISHED
EXAM NO.
CATV Network Engineer
5/24/2007
207-22",CivilServiceBoard/2008-01-09.pdf
CivilServiceBoard,2008-01-09,2,"City of Alameda
Page 2
Civil Service Board Agenda
Regular Meeting of January 9, 2008
Construction Inspector & Survey Supervisor
6/9/2006
206-22PR
Customer Service Representative
7/20/2006
206-09
Firefighter
7/2/2007
207-37
Maintenance Worker I
7/25/2007
207-26
Planner I
7/18/2006
206-38
Program Spec I/II (Integrated Waste Mgmt Prog)
1/25/2007
206-63
Transportation Coordinator
1/5/2007
206-71
4C. ELIGIBLE LIST EXPIREDICANCELLEDI
DATE ESTABLISHED
EXAM NO.
EXHAUSTED
Assistant City Attorney I/II
5/17/2006
206-16
Admin Mgmt Analyst (Human Resources Analyst)
7/31/2007
207-43
Information Technology Manager
8/5/2007
207-40PR
System Dispatcher
6/20/2007
207-25
5.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
5-A Activity Report - Period of December 1, 2007 - February 31, 2008
Board President Michael Rich asked whether or not there had been any non-voluntary separations.
Executive Secretary Willis stated that there had not been any.
5-B
Article VII. Eligible Lists
Chris Low shared that Human Resources staff met regarding continuous eligible lists. A decision was
made based on a suggestion from the Civil Service Board. He explained that one eligible list will be
used, and based on test scores candidate names will be merged onto this list. Subsequent names will
be added as continuous testing occurs. Board Member Peeler asked when the list would expire. Chris
Low explained that names would be placed on the eligible list for six months and would then be extended
individually if the candidate was still being considered after the initial six month period. Board President
Rich asked how many times someone could be extended. Jill Kovacs explained that a name can be
certified for up to two years in six month increments. Chris Low also shared that the Police Department
is currently two candidates away from being fully staffed, but that there are seven or eight more
retirements expected within the coming year.
Board President Rich asked whether Section 4 of the Civil Service Rules would need to be amended.
He stated that Section 1 would need to be changed as well. Chris Low handed out Sections 7 and 8 of
the Rules which contained new wording.
Executive Secretary Willis stated that currently the Police Officer- Recruit list is certified to Part-Time
while they are attending the Police Academy but that the City would like to be able to certify the names
directly to Full-Time. She explained that in order for the Board to consider this change it would need to
be noticed on the Agenda and copied to the Bargaining Units.
Board President Rich stated that a list of positions that are hard to fill had previously been given to the
Board and he questioned whether or not Fire Fighter was on that list. Executive Secretary Willis stated
that Firefighter-Paramedio is considered hard to fill but that Firefighter-EMT is not. She also stated that
Firefighter-Paramedic is currently listed under Positions which Require Certifications in the Rules.
Board Member Rocha moved to accept Article VII, Eligible Lists with the revised wording, Member
Horikoshi seconded and carried by a 5-0 vote.
5-C Rules Review- Language",CivilServiceBoard/2008-01-09.pdf
CivilServiceBoard,2008-01-09,3,"City of Alameda
Page 3
Civil Service Board Agenda
Regular Meeting of January 9, 2008
Executive Secretary Willis stated that, at the last Civil Service Board meeting, Mr. Alan Elnick presented
the Board with a letter regarding non Civil Service Employees in ACEA who have the right to a hearing
with the Civil Service Board for disciplinary issues with more than 30 days suspension.
Board President Rich asked why Affirmative Action was scratched out in Article 1, Section 2. Executive
Secretary Willis stated that she had not had a chance to ask the City Attorney about this. Board Member
Horikoshi stated that ""sex"" should be changed to ""gender"".
Executive Secretary Willis distributed a ""track-changes"" version of the Rules to the Board. Board
Member Horikoshi requested that page numbers be added, and Executive Secretary Willis stated that
staff was working on it.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
(None)
7.
CIVIL SERVICE BOARD COMMUNICATIONS (COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARD)
(None)
8.
CIVIL SERVICE BOARD COMMUNICATIONS (COMMUNICATIONS FROM STAFF)
(None)
9.
There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 5:38 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Karen Willis
Human Resources Director &
Executive Secretary to the Civil Service Board",CivilServiceBoard/2008-01-09.pdf
LibraryBoard,2008-01-09,1,"CITY
of
of
TERKA
RATED
Minutes of the
ALAMEDA FREE LIBRARY BOARD MEETING
January 9, 2008
The regular meeting of the Alameda Free Library Board was called to order at 7:03 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Leslie Krongold, President
Karen Butter, Vice President
Ruth Belikove, Board Member
Alan Mitchell, Board Member
Mike Hartigan, Board Member
Staff:
Jane Chisaki, Library Director
Marsha Merrick, Recording Secretary
CONSENT CALENDAR
An asterisk indicates items so enacted and adopted on the Consent Calendar.
A.
*Report from Library Director highlighting Library Department activities for the
months of December 2007 and January 2008. Accepted.
B.
*Draft Minutes of the Regular Library Board meeting of November 14, 2007, and
revised minutes from the Library Board meeting of September 12, 2007. Approved.
C.
*Library Services Report for the months of October and November 2007. Accepted.
D.
*Report from Finance Department reflecting FY 2007-08 Library expenditures (by
fund) through December 2007. Accepted.
E.
Bills for ratification for the months of November and December 2007. Approved.
Member Mitchell inquired about the new bi-lingual storytimes. Director Chisaki said that
there will be Russian and Japanese storytimes starting soon that will be led by volunteers.
President Krongold asked what the meaning is of ""one-on-one"" meetings with SunCal, the
Alameda Point developer. Director Chisaki explained these meetings would be held
between the developer and each group with an interest. The next large public meeting is
scheduled for January 30th Member Butter described for the board how the previous public
meeting on December 13th had gone.",LibraryBoard/2008-01-09.pdf
LibraryBoard,2008-01-09,2,"Page 2 of 5
Minutes of the Alameda
Free Library Board Meeting
January 9, 2008
Director Chisaki described how the ""Paws to Read"" program works, which will be coming
to the Library once a week for a three-month period, starting at the end of January.
Vice President Butter pointed out that the November Library Services Report reflected the
new Main being open a full year now, and mentioned the declining door count at the West
End branch. Director Chisaki said they were still holding their own at this point.
President Krongold asked for a motion to accept the Consent Calendar as presented.
Member Mitchell so moved; Vice President Butter seconded the motion which carried by a
5-0 vote.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. NON-AGENDA (Public Comment)
Audience member Marc Lambert wondered what the status of the Schrader estate was.
Director Chisaki speculated the total payout would be around $200,000, but was far from
being settled, so there was no news to share.
Audience member Li Volin was concerned that the public comment section of the meeting
had been moved up on the agenda. She indicated it might not give the public a chance to
comment on something that could transpire later on in the meeting. Vice President Butter
indicated that she had asked for the agenda change, but would be in favor of hearing what
the public had to say even after their designated opportunity had passed.
At this point, Director Chisaki asked President Krongold if the Board would consider going
out of order on the agenda, skipping down to NEW BUSINESS, Item B. Community Reads
Presentation by Supervising Librarian, Annemarie Meyer. President Krongold agreed to the
change, and Ms. Meyer proceeded to speak about the program and events surrounding it.
There will be book discussions and movie programs for families. 150 copies of each book,
Bee Season for adults, and The View from Saturday for children, have arrived and are being
processed right now. Informational bookmarks are being produced that will list all the
events planned surrounding the program that runs from March 7 through April 18.
Marc Lambert indicated his confusion on what the actual name of the program was as he
had heard it referred to in several different forms. The name is ""Across the Pages, an
Alameda Community Reads"", and the Library will endeavor to be more consistent when
making program references.
Per a previous request by President Krongold, Ms. Meyer shared stats on the library's e-mail
newsletter. Between bounce-backs and new sign-ups, they seem to about even themselves
out with an audience of around 200 each month. Member Belikove requested that two
members of the Art Exhibit Committee, Peggie Williams and Gwen Pirack, be added to the
list to receive the newsletter. Recording Secretary Merrick will pass their e-mail addresses
to Ms. Meyer for inclusion in upcoming issues.",LibraryBoard/2008-01-09.pdf
LibraryBoard,2008-01-09,3,"Page 3 of 5
Minutes of the Alameda
Free Library Board Meeting
January 9, 2008
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A.
Status of Consultant Contract for Strategic Planning & Branch Improvements (J.
Chisaki)
Director Chisaki advised the Board that the consultant contract had been approved
by the City Council at their December 18, 2007 regular meeting. There were three
proposed dates for an initial meeting with the consultants, Ruth Metz and Kathy
Page: Friday, January 25, Wednesday, January 30 or Tuesday, January 29 - these in
order of the consultant's preference. This initial meeting would be a combination of
staff and support group members, and a member of the Library Board. Member
Hartigan volunteered to be the Board liaison, and Director Chisaki will inform
Member Hartigan once a date for the initial meeting has been finalized.
NEW BUSINESS
A.
Discussion of Future Library Service at Alameda Point (J. Chisaki)
This item had been carried forward from the December agenda when a quorum had
failed to be reached for that meeting. Honora Murphy will coordinate with Doug
Linney and Development Services on getting the ""one-on-one"" meeting with
SunCal. Director Chisaki will touch base with Ms. Murphy later on to see how this
is progressing.
B.
Community Reads Presentation (A. Meyer)
This item was moved up and is described above under Oral Communications.
C.
Regina K. Stafford Room Dedication (J. Chisaki)
Director Chisaki inquired if the Board knew of any family members of Regina K.
Stafford that could be present at the room dedication. Member Mitchell did not
think there was any remaining. Alternatives for the room dedication were discussed,
including having it in conjunction with one of the ""Across the Pages, an Alameda
Community Reads"" event that would be taking place in the Regina K. Stafford
Community Meeting Rooms. The Board was thoroughly in favor of this option.
D.
Art Exhibit Committee (R. Belikove)
Member Belikove shared a proposal that had been prepared for presentation to the
Foundation in order to secure funding for art mounting hardware and installation.
Besides the wall hangings, there were proposed rolling panels that could be brought
out for displays as well. The Board discussed the proposal at length, and advised the
purchase of the wall hanging materials first, with the rolling panels coming in later.",LibraryBoard/2008-01-09.pdf
LibraryBoard,2008-01-09,4,"Page 4 of 5
Minutes of the Alameda
Free Library Board Meeting
January 9, 2008
Member Belikove indicated that one committee member had withdrawn because
they were unable to make the regular meeting day, so they were looking for someone
to replace them. Director Chisaki pointed out that the committee was already bigger
than the Board had originally planned, so did not think a replacement was necessary.
The first display is planned for the middle of March, and will be put together by
Alameda Art Association President, Carol Burnett.
E.
Alameda Free Library Foundation (A. Mitchell)
There was no December meeting; the next meeting is scheduled for January 14.
F.
Friends of the Alameda Free Library (M. Lambert)
There was no December meeting; the next meeting is scheduled for January 14.
Marc Lambert reported that Dewey's Friends Café netted $9,300 in 2007, and they
were very pleased with this result. The Friends' Book Sale Task Force had been
visiting other libraries to get ideas, and had put together a preliminary report on their
findings. At the next meeting they will put together an action plan on how to
proceed and implement the new ideas.
G.
Patron suggestions/comments (Speak-Outs) and Library Director's response.
There were no new speak-outs this month.
LIBRARY BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
Vice President Butter spoke on the sorry state of the collections in the branch libraries, with
nothing new hitting the shelves. Director Chisaki responded that quite a lot of weeding had
been going on, and new selections are being added on a continuous basis; they are just
harder to find in the branches cluttered environment. Butter went on to ask about the
reserve policy, which Director Chisaki advised had always been in effect (52 free holds per
year), and that only a couple of people ever exceeded this limit. It's possible that a charge
will be incurred for people who do not pick up their holds; this is still under discussion. The
Board came up with an idea to expand the hold notification e-mail sent to a patron to say
that if the book is no longer needed, to please call the Library and advise them, therefore
freeing up the book for someone else.
Member Hartigan asked for the status of the LEED accreditation. Certification paperwork
had finally been submitted at the beginning of the week. It took a year because the building
commissioning had just been completed in November. There were several items that had to
be fixed by the contractors, such as the chiller malfunctioning, and the front doors swinging
open; all this causing delays. The application had been submitted for silver status.",LibraryBoard/2008-01-09.pdf
LibraryBoard,2008-01-09,5,"Page 5 of 5
Minutes of the Alameda
Free Library Board Meeting
January 9, 2008
DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS
Because of the revised hours and the Library closing at 8:00, Director Chisaki queried the
Board for thoughts on either changing the start time of the meeting, or moving it downstairs
in order to accommodate public access to the meeting, which is a requirement under the
Brown Act. Because some members would be unable to make an earlier starting time, a
decision was made to try the meeting downstairs in February and see how it goes.
Pacific Fine Foods, located on Alameda Point, is the caterer for Dewey's Friends Café
expanded menu of salads and sandwiches, and they are already very popular selections.
Day in the District is coming up on Friday, January 25. Don Perata's office will be open for
drop-in appointments between 1:00-4:00 p.m.; no word has been received yet on when
Sandre Swanson's office will be open for visitors.
ADJOURNMENT
President Krongold called for a motion to adjourn at 9:02 p.m. Vice President Butter so
moved; Member Mitchell seconded the motion which carried by a 5-0 vote.
Respectfully submitted,
Jane Chisaki
Library Director and
Secretary to the Library Board
This meeting's agenda was posted 72 hours in advance in accordance with the Brown Act.",LibraryBoard/2008-01-09.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