{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2005-01-18", "page": 1, "text": "CITT\nOF\nMINUTES OF PUBLIC ART ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING OF\nJANUARY 18, 2005\n(Revised 3/16/05)\nDATE:\nTuesday, January 18, 2005\nTIME:\n7:00 p.m.\nPLACE:\nCity Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, First Floor, Room 160\nAlameda, CA 94501\n1.\nRoll Call:\nThe meeting was called to order at 7:10 p.m.\nPresent:\nChair (C) Huston (late), Vice Chair (VC) Lee, Committee Members\n(CM) Cecilia Cervantes, K.C. Rosenberg, and Peter Wolfe\nAbsent:\nSuzanne Ota, ARPD Director\nStaff:\nDale Lillard, Recreation Services Manager (RSM)\nPat Russi, Recreation Supervisor (RS)\nChristina Bailey, Cultural Arts Specialist (CAS)\n2.\nApproval of Minutes\nA.\nMinutes of Meeting on December 15, 2004\nM/S/C\nRosenberg/Cervantes\n(approved)\n\"That Minutes of Public Art Advisory Committee Meeting on December 15,\n2004 be approved.'\nApproved (3) - Lee, Cervantes, Rosenberg\nAbsent (1) - Huston\nAbstain (1) - Wolfe\n3.\nOral Communications\n(Any person may address the Committee in regard to any matter over which the\nCommission has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance that is not on the\nagenda.)\nNone.\n4.\nWritten Communications\n-\nLetter from Pat Colburn regarding the funding of art centers through the\nPublic Art Allocation\n-\nStaff report from RSM Lillard regarding the Webster Renaissance Project\nPublic Art and the Park Streetscape & Town Center Project\n5.\nOld Business\nPAAC Meeting\n1\nMinutes Revised\nJanuary 18, 2005", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2005-01-18.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2005-01-18", "page": 2, "text": "A.\nConsideration of 2005 Meeting Dates - (Discussion/Action Item)\nRS Russi inquired about the fourth Thursday of the month as a possible\nmeeting date. C Huston stated that this would fit her schedule, at least\nthrough June; PAAC members agreed. CAS Bailey will send out the\ndates and meeting locations via e-mail.\nB.\nContinued discussion of Public Art Annual Plan - (Discussion/Action\nItem)\nCM Rosenberg shared that she would like to see the program goals, from\nthe Guidelines, worked into a Mission Statement. RSM Lillard stated that\nif the PAAC chose a couple of goals, then staff could draft a short Mission\nStatement.\nC Huston asked that each member choose the goals they'd want to see in\nthe Mission. CM Cervantes shared that \"supporting the promotion of arts\nin Alameda; in order to provide the Community with art opportunities\" is\nimportant. CM Rosenberg shared that \"promoting a diverse and\nstimulating cultural environment, and strengthening cultural awareness,\ninnovative thinking, lifelong learning and the City's sense of community\"\nshould be highlighted. VC Lee chose \"Public art integrates the vision of\nartists and design professionals in planning and designing the urban\nlandscape.\"\nVC Lee asked whether the PAAC would be dealing with physical objects\nor contributing to the operating costs and salaries of local non-profits. RS\nRussi stated that it would be up to the PAAC. C Huston stated that she\nwould be more inclined to have more interesting art pieces throughout the\nCity, rather than supporting the existing non-profits.\nCM Rosenberg stated that it would be difficult to monitor funds provided\nto non-profit organizations for the purposes of supporting ongoing\noperation and staff costs. RSM Lillard shared that a number of\norganizations that provide grants have strict guidelines detailing how the\nfunding may be used. Most tend to emphasize the program or service to\nbe provided while attempting to avoid evaluating the particular non-profit\nthemselves. Physical pieces of art can be enjoyed by everyone when\nplaced throughout the City.\nC Huston asked about the legality of issuing Public Art Fund monies to\nlocal non-profits. RSM Lillard stated that the way he understood the\nordinance, funding could not be provided to non-profits for ongoing\noperating expenses such as staff salaries but that funding could be\nutilized to provide a performance, exhibition or special event.\nCM Cervantes inquired about using monies for appropriate exhibits. RSM\nLillard stated that the in-lieu fund could be amended. CM Rosenberg\nasked about the possibility of deciding on a specific defined event and\noffering a competition for non-profits. RSM Lillard stated that PAAC could\nPAAC Meeting\n2\nMinutes Revised\nJanuary 18, 2005", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2005-01-18.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2005-01-18", "page": 3, "text": "move to do that, but would need to specify funds go only towards\nexhibits/events. CM Rosenberg suggested that the PAAC take a look at\nlocal non-profits on an annual basis for the purpose of assessing\ncommunications.\nC Huston inquired as to whether the permits are being written in a way\nthat is minimizing the one percent. She wanted to add this to the Annual\nPlan under Political.\nC Huston asked PAAC if they wanted to have data collection maps. VC\nLee stated that it would be a good idea to have specific sites and goals in\nmind. C Huston also inquired about having a project calendar. RSM\nLillard stated that the Planning/Building Department lists projects in terms\nof seasons.\nRS Russi explained that he has been working on a generic RFP and\nPublic Art application. Each RFP will have different details and a unique\ncover letter. RSM Lillard stated that PAAC would receive a draft by the\nFebruary meeting.\nC.\nDiscussion of Art Donation - (Discussion Item)\nRSM Lillard explained that Emily Lewis, a St. Joseph Notre Dame\nstudent, approached Alameda Recreation & Parks and she would like to\npaint a mural on or in one of our buildings. Director Ota and RS Russi\nmet with Emily, her mother, and high school art teacher. The project will\nbe no cost to the City. The Department proposed that the mural be\npainted on three panels for easy mobility.\nC Huston suggested that the student-artist use canvas and Velcro; this\nprocess makes displaying, moving, and storing the piece easier. CM\nRosenberg added that a sona tube could be used to store the piece, if\ncanvas and Velcro are used.\nCM Rosenberg also stated that if one of her students came to her about\npainting a mural, she would suggest that they look into past murals from\nthe City where they are doing the piece. This way, they could better their\nown work.\n6.\nNew Business\nA.\nWebster Renaissance Project Public Art and the Park Streetscape &\nTown Center Project - (Discussion Item)\nSue Russell from City Development Services attended the meeting to\nshare the progress of the Park & Webster Streetscape Projects. She\nmentioned that both streets would be under construction simultaneously.\nShe also expressed a desire to have a representative from the PAAC sit\non each project's subcommittee. CM Wolfe mentioned that he had been\npart of the Webster Street Design Committee, as well as the Downtown\nPAAC Meeting\n3\nMinutes Revised\nJanuary 18, 2005", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2005-01-18.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2005-01-18", "page": 4, "text": "Commission Taskforce. VC Lee stated that she would be willing to\nvolunteer also.\nM/S/C\nRosenberg/Huston\n(approved)\n\"That Peter Wolfe be appointed as the liaison between the Public Art\nAdvisory Committee and the Webster and Park Streetscape\nProjects.\"\nApproved (5) - Huston, Lee, Cervantes, Rosenberg, and Wolfe\nM/S/C\nRosenberg/Huston\n(approved)\n\"That Karen Lee be appointed as the substitute liaison between the\nPublic Art Advisory Committee and the Webster and Park\nStreetscape Projects.'\nApproved (5) - Huston, Lee, Cervantes, Rosenberg, and Wolfe\nB.\nConsideration of funding of art centers by the Public Art Allocation -\n(Discussion Item)\nPat Colburn, President and founder of the Alameda Art Center,\naddressed PAAC members on behalf of the AAC. She stated that the\nCenter has been open for eight months and has 160 members. She\nexpressed the Center's struggle to obtain funding as a non-profit 501 (c) 3.\nShe inquired as to whether or not Public Art Fund monies could be\nallocated to local non-profits. She also mentioned that she had contacted\nHarsch Development about their one percent.\nMeeting attendee, Marilyn Pomeroy, was part of the group that drafted\nthe original Public Art Ordinance. She thought that the in-lieu fund was\nmeant to go towards grant proposals, and that the PAAC was developed\nto handle these grants. CM Rosenberg stated that the role of the PAAC\nis to see that the quality of artwork meets a certain quality level.\nMs. Pomeroy inquired as to what the PAAC thought about local non-\nprofits writing proposals directly to developers. C Huston stated that their\nproposals would inevitably end up in front of the PAAC for approval. VC\nLee expressed concerns over non-profits being pitted against each other\nfor limited funds. In addition, it could also lead to friends and relatives of\nthe developers unfairly lobbying for funds.\nMs. Pomeroy asked if Harsch Development had already set aside its one\npercent for onsite art. RSM Lillard stated that they have an art consultant\nand plan to exceed the one percent. The developer sees public art as\nadding to the Center's appeal.\nC Huston shared that it might be helpful for local non-profits to submit a\none-page \"wish list\" to the PAAC. Those submissions would help the\nPAAC make changes to the Guidelines in the future.\nPAAC Meeting\n4\nMinutes Revised\nJanuary 18, 2005", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2005-01-18.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2005-01-18", "page": 5, "text": "C Huston expressed her hesitation in rushing to use money from the\nFund. CM Rosenberg echoed her sentiment that the Committee would\nnot want to make hasty decisions about the money. CM Wolfe stated that\nthere are so many organizations and so few developers; the developers\nmight become antagonized by all the groups seeking money. VC Lee\nalso expressed her concern over how the PAAC would establish an\norganization's value, if they were to offer grants for non-profits.\nC.\nRole of Committee Members serving as representatives to public art\nprojects - (Discussion Item)\nRSM Lillard stated that PAAC members, serving on other subcommittees,\nwould report to PAAC at their next scheduled meeting (e.g., CM Wolfe will\nattend the Park and Webster Streetscape Project meeting, and will then\nreport to the PAAC).\n7.\nOral Communications, General\nCM Wolfe inquired about the concept of gifts and donations. RSM Lillard\nstated that this was the first time in 17 years that a citizen had\napproached the Department about donating art and PAAC could look at\nthis at a later date. CAS Bailey shared that a file on Gifts and Donations\nis being compiled.\nRS Russi updated the PAAC on Tad Savinar, Art Consultant for Harsch\nDevelopment. Due to a setback in the developer's conceptual plan, the\ndevelopment and placement of art has been delayed. Despite this setback,\nMr. Savinar is familiarizing himself with local artists.\n8.\nAdjournment:\nThe meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m.\nPAAC Meeting\n5\nMinutes Revised\nJanuary 18, 2005", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2005-01-18.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2005-02-24", "page": 1, "text": "CITT\nOF\nMINUTES OF PUBLIC ART ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING OF\nFEBRUARY 24, 2005\n(Revised 2/7/06)\nDATE:\nThursday, February 24, 2005\nTIME:\n7:00 p.m.\nPLACE:\nCity Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Third Floor, Room 360\nAlameda, CA 94501\n1.\nRoll Call:\nThe meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m.\nPresent:\nChair (C) Huston, Vice Chair (VC) Lee, Committee Members (CM)\nK.C. Rosenberg, and Peter Wolfe (late)\nAbsent:\nCommittee Member (CM) Cecilia Cervantes\nStaff:\nSuzanne Ota, ARPD Director\nDale Lillard, Recreation Services Manager (RSM)\nPat Russi, Recreation Supervisor (RS)\nChristina Bailey, Cultural Arts Specialist (CAS)\n2.\nApproval of Minutes\nA.\nMinutes of Meeting on January 18, 2005\nOn page 3, paragraph 1, CM Rosenberg asked that the following be added to the\nlast sentence, \"for the purpose of assessing communications.\"\nVC Lee suggested a stylistic change for future minutes. She would like to see\nChair, Vice Chair, and Committee Member be abbreviated similar to that of staff\nmembers' titles.\nM/S/C\nRosenberg/Wolfe\n(approved)\n\"That Minutes of Public Art Advisory Committee Meeting on January 18,\n2005 be approved.\"\nApproved (4) - Huston, Lee, Rosenberg, Wolfe\nAbsent (1) - Cervantes\n3.\nOral Communications\n(Any person may address the Committee in regard to any matter over which the\nCommission has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance that is not on the\nagenda.)\nNone.\nPAAC Meeting\n1\nMinutes\nFebruary 24, 2005", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2005-02-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2005-02-24", "page": 2, "text": "4.\nWritten Communications\nNone.\n5.\nOld Business\nA.\nContinued Discussion of Public Art Annual Plan - (Discussion/Action\nItem)\nDirector Ota discussed that PAAC should prioritize issues that are most\nimportant in the Annual Plan. C Huston asked when the Plan should be\npresented to the City Council. Director Ota stated that it could be\npresented during July 2005 (new fiscal year). C Huston wanted to clarify\nthat the Annual Plan being developed is for 2004-2005, six (6) months\nbehind schedule. One issue that could be addressed would be to raise\nthe 1% or $150,000 cap. CM Wolfe stated that the cap is unfair to\nsmaller developers; since they pay one-percent and larger developers\nonly pay $150,000.\nCM Rosenberg suggested that the Plan include short and long-term\ngoals, including the PAAC's communication with non-profits. C Huston\nstated that she would like to move from draft-form of the Plan to a working\ndocument; this would include having agendas that reflect the Committee's\ntop priorities. She went on to ask Staff to provide an easel and pad of\nlarge paper for PAAC to write down ideas; Staff stated that could be\ndone.\nDirector Ota explained that there is a discrepancy in the definition of the\nPublic Art Allocation requirement for renovation projects. The building\nofficial is interpreting it technically and the two departments are not in\nagreement. RS Russi stated that the phrase in question is \"50% of the\nreplacement cost of the building\" (30-65.3c). In doing research with the\nCity Attorney's office and looking at other cities' ordinances, it appears\nthat either an added definition or simpler, more direct language should be\nincorporated. Staff will come back to PAAC with samples once they are\nagreed upon by Building and Recreation Departments and the City\nAttorney's Office.\n- Mission Statement\nPAAC members discussed specific wording for Alameda Public Art\nProgram's mission statement. VC Lee stated that the mission statement\nshould include a short, punchy sentence with objectives. Staff will work to\ncompile all suggestions and e-mail them to VC Lee and CM Rosenberg\nfor further review.\n- List of Public Art Projects\nDirector Ota stated that Staff would be meeting with Library Art\nCommittee to discuss the Artist Agreement with Masayuki Nagase. In\naddition to the library, there are seven (7) upcoming projects that will be\nPAAC Meeting\n2\nMinutes\nFebruary 24, 2005", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2005-02-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2005-02-24", "page": 3, "text": "subject to the Public Art Ordinance. Projects that are currently in\nprocess or will be soon include: Bay Ship & Yacht, Bridgeside Center,\nHarbor Island Complex, Park & Webster Streetscape Projects, Blanding\nStreet Work/Live project, South Shore Center, and Washington Park\nRecreation Building.\nCM Rosenberg asked if Staff could provide a map of Alameda's existing\nand proposed public art projects. RSM Lillard stated that Staff would get\na map.\nB.\nContinued Discussion of Public Art Donation Policy - (Discussion\nItem)\nIn regards to the donation of items, RSM Lillard explained that there are\ncommon criteria for their acceptance between cities.\nCriteria include:\n- Outlines and responsibilities for installation and maintenance\n- Procedures for establishing the title and ownership\n- Provisions for dispensation for the work\nC.\nConsideration of Request to Fund Art Centers with the Public Art\nAllocation Funds - (Discussion/Action Item)\nPat Colburn, from Alameda Art Center, and Lynn Faris, from Alameda\nCivic Light Opera, attended the meeting. Ms. Faris expressed her\ninterest in learning how, or if, public art funds will be distributed to local\nnon-profits.\nC Huston explained that developers would ultimately present plans to the\nCity for the art they would like to place. PAAC will approve or decline the\nart based on the established guidelines of quality and accessibility. She\nwent on to state that there is no direct link between arts organizations and\nthe Public Art Fund. However, the developer may choose to use the\nallotted money to create performance or exhibition spaces.\nCM Rosenberg stated that the developer could choose to place the\nmoney in the in-lieu fund. If this is the case, PAAC could then create a\ncompetition for non-profits to compete for said funds. C Huston explained\nthat RSM Lillard had previously stated the funds could not be used for on\ngoing operating costs.\nDirector Ota explained that money collected through the Ordinance could\nbe placed in one of two pots. First, developers can put their public art\nallocation towards on site art. Secondly, developers can choose to place\ntheir allocation in the in-lieu fund, where the City decides how to allocate\nthe money.\nMs. Faris inquired as to whether there is a plan for non-profits and\ndevelopers to be in contact. Director Ota stated that a list of non-profits\ncould be included in the developer's packet. CM Wolfe stated that the list\nPAAC Meeting\n3\nMinutes\nFebruary 24, 2005", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2005-02-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2005-02-24", "page": 4, "text": "should have a disclaimer that the ARPD and PAAC do not necessarily\nendorse any of the organizations.\nC Huston stated that the PAAC had previously asked that the Alameda\nArt Center create a \"Wish List.\" This would include expenses that they\nwant the in-lieu funds to cover.\nC Huston stated that the guidelines stress that the developer place public\nart that is exceptional in nature and not part of an existing structure. CM\nWolfe added that it also needs to be accessible to the public. Director\nOta stated that the requirements are in place to create public art\nopportunities.\nMs. Colburn expressed her frustration and asked why the money needs\nto be spent on something new, and not on an existing organization. She\nstated that local non-profits are viable community assets and are\nstruggling to make ends meet. She asked if there were any plans to\nrewrite the ordinance to benefit local non-profits. C Huston stated that\nPAAC would not be the ones to rewrite the Ordinance. CM Rosenberg\nstated that PAAC would be evaluating communication with non-profits in\nthe future.\nC Huston stated that there would be a Call for Entries when in-lieu funds\nbecome available. Ms. Faris expressed her desire to compete for any\nfunds that become available in the future.\n6.\nNew Business\nA.\nDiscussion and Review of Public Art Documents and Forms -\n(Discussion Item)\n- RFP/RFQ\nRS Russi explained that he researched documents from different cities;\nsome documents were very detailed and others were not. The sample\ndocuments included in the agenda packet are very generic, and can be\nmodified for each unique project.\nCM Wolfe suggested that the RFP include wording from the Guidelines,\nas well as, a concept statement. CM Rosenberg stated that there should\nbe a section for each of the three areas in the Ordinance: on site projects,\non site cultural programs, and on site art spaces or cultural facilities.\nDirector Ota stated that Alameda modeled its Ordinance after the cities of\nPasadena and Long Beach. Staff should look at their wording for more\nexamples. VC Lee asked that Staff bring samples to the next meeting.\nCM Wolfe suggested that the RFP include lighting under the Lighting\nPlan; CM Rosenberg added that plaques could also be addressed under\nthe same section.\nPAAC Meeting\n4\nMinutes\nFebruary 24, 2005", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2005-02-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2005-02-24", "page": 5, "text": "B.\nSummer Activity Guide Articles by PAAC Members - (Discussion\nItem)\nRS Russi stated that the staff is in the process of compiling information\nfor the Summer Activity Guide. The staff wants PAAC to submit a piece\nabout their work by March 10th or earlier. Director Ota stated that the\nCultural Arts section would have fewer pages in this edition. C Huston\nasked VC Lee to help her formulate the article.\n7.\nOral Communications, General\nC Huston stated that a list of future tasks and priorities should be developed. RS\nRussi stated that Staff would flesh out and reorganize the Annual Plan.\nDirector Ota thanked PAAC and ARPD staff for their hard work and diligence\nover the past year. PAAC thanked Director Ota for her commitment to the Public\nArt Program.\n8.\nCommittee Reports\n-\nWebster & Park Streetscape Projects - CM Wolfe\nNone.\n9.\nAdjournment:\nThe meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.\nPAAC Meeting\n5\nMinutes\nFebruary 24, 2005", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2005-02-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2005-03-24", "page": 1, "text": "CITT\nOF\nMINUTES OF PUBLIC ART ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING OF\nMARCH 24, 2005\nDATE:\nThursday, March 24, 2005\nTIME:\n7:00 p.m.\nPLACE:\nCity Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Third Floor, Room 360\nAlameda, CA 94501\n1.\nRoll Call:\nThe meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m.\nPresent:\nChair (C) Huston, Vice Chair (VC) Lee, Committee Members (CM)\nCecilia Cervantes, and Peter Wolfe (late)\nAbsent:\nCommittee Member (CM) K.C. Rosenberg\nStaff:\nDale Lillard, Acting Director (AD)\nPat Russi, Recreation Supervisor (RS)\nChristina Bailey, Cultural Arts Specialist (CAS)\n2.\nApproval of Minutes\nA.\nMinutes of Meeting on February 24, 2005\nOn page 2, section 5A, C Huston wanted to clarify that the Annual Plan being\ndeveloped is for 2004-2005, six (6) months behind schedule.\nM/S/C\nLee/Cervantes\n\"That Minutes of Public Art Advisory Committee Meeting on February 24,\n2005 be approved.'\nApproved (3) - Huston, Lee, Cervantes\nAbstain (1) - Wolfe\nAbsent (1) - Rosenberg\n3.\nOral Communications\n(Any person may address the Committee in regard to any matter over which the\nCommission has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance that is not on the\nagenda.)\nNone.\n4.\nWritten Communications\nNone.\nPAAC Meeting\n1\nMinutes\nMarch 24, 2005", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2005-03-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2005-03-24", "page": 2, "text": "5.\nOld Business\nA.\nContinued Discussion of Public Art Annual Plan - (Discussion/Action\nItem)\nPAAC reviewed and revised draft of Public Art Annual Plan. Staff will\nmake revisions and CAS Bailey will e-mail PAAC members latest draft.\nC Huston stated that PAAC would probably need to create\nsubcommittees to draft responses to developers, including input from\nother members. RS Russi stated that PAAC could tell the applicant that\nthe item will be voted on during the next month's meeting.\nCM Wolfe asked AD Lillard how far ahead other Committees and\nCommissions plan. AD Lillard stated that the average is a year ahead.\nRS Russi asked PAAC to clarify \"fact-checking\" art consultants. C\nHuston stated that some of the consultants on the list are simply not art\nconsultants. Someone needs to call all of the listed consultants and verify\nthat they really are art consultants.\n- Continued Development of Mission Statement - (Discussion Item)\nCM Cervantes suggested that a subcommittee work on finalizing the\nMission Statement. C Huston asked if CM Cervantes would like to work\non it with another member. CM Cervantes stated that she would work on\nit with anyone. CM Wolfe stated that he would help in finalizing the final\ndraft.\nB.\nDiscussion and review of Public Art Documents and Forms -\n(Discussion Item)\n- RFP/RFQ\nPAAC members made revisions to the document. Staff will make\nrevisions and return draft for further review.\nCM Cervantes suggested that the Request For Proposals be divided into\ntwo (2) sections: 1) the City provides the information and 2) the applicant\nsubmits the information. C Huston suggested the following: 1) City and\nProject Information, and 2) Applicant's Information.\nC Huston stated that it would not be inappropriate to ask an artist for a\nprice list of past works along with his/her resume.\nC.\nLibrary Update - (Discussion Item)\nRS Russi shared that Staff met with Susan Hardie, Friends of the Library,\nand the Library Foundation. The Friends and the Foundation decided to\nretain the services of art consultant Regina Almaguer, throughout the\nremainder of the project. Thus far, money has only been raised for the\nPAAC Meeting\n2\nMinutes\nMarch 24, 2005", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2005-03-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2005-03-24", "page": 3, "text": "medallions. RS Russi stated that the City created an Artist Agreement,\nbetween the City and the artist.\n6.\nNew Business\nA.\nUpdate on Webster & Park Streetscape Projects - (Discussion Item)\nCM Wolfe explained that he met with representatives from ARPD and\nDevelopment Services. During the meeting, an issue of whether or not\nthe Public Art Ordinance affected sewer or other infrastructure projects\nwas addressed. It is understood by AD Lillard that the intent of the Public\nArt Ordinance was to have building projects (structures) trigger the 1%\nOrdinance.\nCM Wolfe stated that there might be contingency funds for Public Art from\nthe Webster Street Streetscape, but not from the Park Street project.\nCM Wolfe expressed a desire to look into infrastructure costs being\nsubject to the 1% Ordinance. When Alameda Point redevelopment\nbegins, streets and sewers will be the first items worked on. This will be\nan extensive project, where developers will then buy pieces of property.\nCM Wolfe does not want to have an ambiguous term create a lost\nopportunity for obtaining Public Art funds. RS Russi stated that this would\ninvolve amending the Ordinance. C Huston added that this issue should\nbe added to the list of strategic goals.\nCM Wolfe also addressed the Alameda Theater and Garage Project.\nThese projects have been in the planning stages long before the Public\nArt Ordinance was in effect. Therefore, Public Art monies were not\nfactored in. He stated that the theater is historical and the 1% could be\nused to renovate it to historical standards. Regarding the Garage, the 1%\ncould be incorporated into its architecture. CM Wolfe added that the\ntheater is going to have many large, blank walls where murals or other art\ncould be featured.\nB.\nDraft of Alameda Public Art Program Map - (Discussion Item)\nRS Russi stated that the map includes color-coded symbols to show\nexisting and proposed sites for Public Art. He went on to state that it\nwould be too difficult to shrink the map and feature it in a publication\n(Activity Guide). However, a proposed project could be featured in each\npublication.\nC Huston expressed an interest in placing local non-profits on the map.\nRS Russi suggested that PAAC define their relationship with non-profits\nbefore placing them on the map. C Huston also suggested that libraries\nbe featured. For the in-lieu fund, C Huston would like to see which\ngeographic areas are being forgotten or have needs.\nVC Lee suggested using transparency sheets to provide layering options\nfor the map.\nPAAC Meeting\n3\nMinutes\nMarch 24, 2005", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2005-03-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2005-03-24", "page": 4, "text": "CM Wolfe asked if Alameda Recreation & Parks has an archive of\nmaterials submitted for Public Art projects. CAS Bailey stated that there\nis a file of all artist submittals from the New Main Library Project.\n7.\nOral Communications, General\nC Huston expressed a desire to see the following items on April's agenda:\n- Finalize Annual Plan\n- Finalize Mission Statement\n- Set Priorities and Develop Strategic Plan\n8.\nCommittee Reports\n-\nWebster & Park Streetscape Projects - CM Wolfe\n- See item 6A.\n9.\nAdjournment:\nThe meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.\nPAAC Meeting\n4\nMinutes\nMarch 24, 2005", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2005-03-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2005-04-28", "page": 1, "text": "CITT\nOF\nMINUTES OF PUBLIC ART ADVISORY COMMITTEE\nthe\nMEETING OF APRIL 28, 2005\nGO.\nDATE:\nThursday, April 28, 2005\nTIME:\n7:00 p.m.\nPLACE:\nCity Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Third Floor, Room 360\nAlameda, CA 94501\n1.\nRoll Call:\nThe meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m.\nPresent:\nChair (C) Huston, Vice Chair (VC) Lee, Committee Members\n(CM) Cecilia Cervantes (late), and K.C. Rosenberg\nAbsent:\nCommittee Member (CM) Peter Wolfe\nStaff:\nDale Lillard, Acting Director (AD)\nPat Russi, Recreation Supervisor (RS)\nChristina Bailey, Cultural Arts Specialist (CAS)\n2.\nApproval of Minutes\nA.\nMinutes of Meeting on March 24, 2005\nM/S/C\nLee/Huston\n\"That Minutes of Public Art Advisory Committee Meeting on March\n24, 2005 be approved.' \"\nApproved (2) - Huston, Lee\nAbstain (1) - Rosenberg\nAbsent (2) - Cervantes, Wolfe\n(Minimum of three votes needed for approval; minutes will be placed on\nthe meeting agenda for May 26, 2005.)\n3.\nOral Communications\n(Any person may address the Committee in regard to any matter over which\nthe Commission has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance that is\nnot on the agenda.)\nNone.\nPAAC Meeting\n1\nMinutes\nApril 28, 2005", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2005-04-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2005-04-28", "page": 2, "text": "4.\nWritten Communications\nNone.\n5.\nOld Business\nA.\nFinalize Public Art Annual Plan - (Discussion/Action Item)\nC Huston and VC Lee organized the Annual Plan prior to the\nmeeting. The work done by the PAAC during 2004-2005 would be\nsubmitted as an Annual Report. One major component was the\ncollection of public art information and program guidelines from\nother cities, which culminated in the drafting and completion of\nAlameda's Guidelines. The Annual Plan would include work to be\ndone during the 2005-2006 period. This will include creating a\nPublic Art Program Mission Statement, and developing documents\nused for Call for Entries and Request for Qualifications/Proposals\nPAAC reviewed and finalized the Annual Report and Plan.\nM/S/C\nRosenberg/Cervantes\n(approved)\n\"That the Annual Report of 2004-2005 and the Annual Plan of\n2005-2006 be approved.\"\nApproved (4) - Huston, Lee, Cervantes, Rosenberg\nAbsent (1) - Wolfe\nAD Lillard stated that the first opportunity to present the Report and\nPlan to the City Council would come in late June.\nB.\nFinalize Mission Statement - (Discussion/Action Item)\nDiscussion tabled on Mission Statement until PAAC meeting on\nMay 26, 2005.\nC.\nFinalize Public Art Documents - (Discussion/Action Item)\nRS Russi stated that a finalized RFQ/RFP would be required, since\nSue Russell and the Webster Street Project are moving forward.\nVC Lee asked if she could review an e-mail from CM Wolfe,\nregarding the Webster Street Project. CM Wolfe brought up issues\nregarding the timeline, budget, and RFQ. In addition, CM Wolfe\ninquired as to where the art piece would be located. The site, as\ndescribed, is unclear and needs some verbal or visual delineation.\nPAAC Meeting\n2\nMinutes\nApril 28, 2005", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2005-04-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2005-04-28", "page": 3, "text": "C Huston stated that we should send a cover letter and RFQ to art\npublications and organizations. The organizations can then\npublicize it to their membership base. CM Rosenberg suggested\ntwo organizations, Pro Arts and San Francisco Arts Commission; C\nHuston suggested Art in America (AIA), Oakland Art Gallery, and\nother professional artist gathering spots.\nPAAC discussed the items that should be requested in the RFQ. C\nHuston suggested that an artist submit only five (5) slides, ten (10)\nto twenty (20) for the RFP. The slides should be 35 mm in plastic\nor cardboard covers, no stick on labels; CD's and DVD's will also\nbe accepted. The RFQ can also request the artist's resume, which\nincludes education, exhibits, collections, and a list of where they\nhave shown; a slide scrip will also be requested. CM Rosenberg\nsuggested that a cover letter, letter of interest, and artist statement\nalso be included. The artist would also be given the option to\ninclude additional support materials. C Huston expressed her\napproval of this procedure, because an artist is being chosen, not a\nproject.\nRS Russi stated that Development Services Department and the\nWebster Street Subcommittee would fill-in the blanks on the RFQ.\nVC Lee stated that California artists are eligible for this project.\nC Huston stated that she would like to be on a subcommittee for\nthe fact checking of art consultants. She inquired as to how soon\nthe information is needed. VC Lee stated that it would be needed\nimmediately, since CM Wolfe would like to see the piece completed\nand installed by December 1st.\nC Huston inquired as to when the RFQ for the Webster Street\nProject would be needed. RS Russi stated that Sue Russell wants\nit to go out by the end of May.\nC Huston and CM Rosenberg volunteered to look over an existing\nlist of artists and consultants and to add any appropriate art\norganizations and publications.\nC Huston clarified that Development Services would provide the\ndescriptions for the RFQ; the PAAC would provide the format for\nthe RFQ/RFP, a mailing list of organizations and publications, and if\nneeded, assistance in reviewing the artist submittals. RS Russi\nadded that he would be sending the documents to Sue Russell and\nwould work with her to develop them.\nPAAC Meeting\n3\nMinutes\nApril 28, 2005", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2005-04-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2005-04-28", "page": 4, "text": "6.\nNew Business\nA.\nAppoint Subcommittee for the Theater and Garage\nDevelopment Project - (Discussion/Action Item)\nRS Russi explained that the goal is to have the Theater and\nGarage Project completed during early 2007. The restoration of the\nhistorical theater will take longer than the new complex\ncomponents, but all will be opened at the same time. Dorene Soto\nis the Development Services Lead Person on this project.\nCM Cervantes and CM Rosenberg expressed interest in being on\nthe Sub-Committee. CM Cervantes stated that College of Alameda\nstudents might be involved with the oral history of the theater\nspace.\nM/S/C\nHuston/Lee\n(approved)\n\"That CM Cervantes and CM Rosenberg be appointed to the\nTheater and Garage Project Sub-Committee.'\nApprove (4) - Huston, Lee, Cervantes, Rosenberg\nAbsent (1) - Wolfe\nB.\nSet Priorities and Develop Strategic Plan - (Discussion Item)\nC Huston suggested that priorities should include Mission\nStatement, RFQ/RFP, and Artist Directory.\nRS Russi stated that many projects would be coming up soon. He\nsuggested that the PAAC set a meeting schedule soon, in order to\nexpedite meeting with project managers. C Huston stated that the\nschedule could be made through September, for regular meetings;\nthe PAAC could assign dates for special meetings, so project\nPAAC Meeting\n4\nMinutes\nApril 28, 2005", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2005-04-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2005-04-28", "page": 5, "text": "managers can be given a specific date and time to meet with\nPAAC.\n7.\nOral Communications, General\nRS Russi stated that the Bridgeside Shopping Center Project is\nmoving along. However, there have been no overtures for the Public\nArt projects. He went on to explain that AD Lillard, CAS Bailey, and\nhimself went to visit Bay Ship & Yacht and spoke with Crispin Kraft.\nThis company services ships (including government ships),\npropellers, and shafts. It is the largest employer in Alameda. For the\npast few years, the Corps of Engineers have been dredging the\nestuary and reducing Bay Ship & Yacht's dock space.\nConsequently, Bay Ship & Yacht has been forced to make changes\nand improvements to their property. Their business is required to\nhave a certain amount of dock and pier space, in order to be a\nsoluble business. They have been in contact with the Bay\nConservation and Development Commission (BCDC), who set the\nstipulations and restrictions for the space 100 ft. from the waterfront\n(eg., the trail that runs up to Bay Ship & Yacht). Cris Kraft wants to\nrevamp the trail area and landscape a small plaza with nautical\nartwork (near the ferry dock). AD Lillard stated that Bay Ship &\nYacht is creating the plaza to meet the requirements of BCDC, and\nwant credit toward the Public Art requirement.\nRS Russi stated that South Shore Center would go over the\n$150,000 cap for Public Art. Tad Savinar wants a copy of RFP,\nsince he is looking for local artists (California artists are eligible).\nTad is still planning to attend a PAAC meeting.\n8.\nCommittee Reports\n-\nWebster & Park Streetscape Projects - CM Wolfe\nSee Section 5C.\n9.\nAdjournment:\nThe meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.\nPAAC Meeting\n5\nMinutes\nApril 28, 2005", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2005-04-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2005-05-26", "page": 1, "text": "CITT\nOF\nMINUTES OF PUBLIC ART ADVISORY COMMITTEE\nthe\nMEETING OF MAY 26, 2005\nGO.\n(Revised 2/7/06)\nDATE:\nThursday, May 26, 2005\nTIME:\n7:00 p.m.\nPLACE:\nCity Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Third Floor, Room 360\nAlameda, CA 94501\n1.\nRoll Call:\nThe meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m.\nPresent:\nChair (C) Huston, Committee Members (CM) Cecilia\nCervantes, K.C. Rosenberg, and Peter Wolfe\nAbsent:\nCommittee Member (CM) Karen Lee\nDale Lillard, Acting Director (AD)\nStaff:\nPat Russi, Recreation Supervisor (RS)\nChristina Bailey, Cultural Arts Specialist (CAS)\n2.\nApproval of Minutes\nA.\nMinutes of Meeting on March 24, 2005\nCM Wolfe inquired about the Public Art Ordinance in relationship to\ninfrastructure projects (Item 6A). During a previous meeting, AD Lillard\nhad stated that he would ask the City Attorney about this. RS Russi\nstated that AD Lillard would update the PAAC during June 23rd meeting.\nM/S/C\nWolfe/Cervantes\n\"That Minutes of Public Art Advisory Committee Meeting on March\n24, 2005 be approved.\"\nApproved (3) - Huston, Cervantes, Wolfe\nAbsent (1) - Lee\nAbstain (1) - Rosenberg\nB.\nMinutes of Meeting on April 28, 2005\nOn page 3, paragraph 2, C Huston asked that \"slide scrip\" be changed to\n\"slide script.\"\nPAAC Meeting\n1\nMinutes\nMay 26, 2005", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2005-05-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2005-05-26", "page": 2, "text": "M/S/C\nRosenberg/Cervantes\n\"That Minutes of Public Art Advisory Committee Meeting on April 28,\n2005 be approved with changes.\"\nApproved (3) - Huston, Cervantes, Rosenberg\nAbsent (1) - Lee\nAbstain (1) - -Wolfe\n3.\nOral Communications\n(Any person may address the Committee in regard to any matter over which\nthe Commission has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance that is\nnot on the agenda.)\nNone.\n4.\nWritten Communications\nNone.\n5.\nOld Business\nA. Update on Alameda West Gateway and the Theater and\nParking/Garage Projects from Sue Russell of Development\nServices - (Discussion Item)\nSue Russell stated that Development Services submitted a project\napplication for the Alameda West Gateway Project to Alameda\nRecreation and Parks on May 5, 2005. Through discussions with RS\nRussi, she understood that an infrastructure project would not require\nPublic Art. However, the project would like to set aside a contingency\nof $25,000 for an entryway project. The location would be as you exit\nthe Webster Tube at Neptune Park. Currently, this location is home to\nconcrete signage and three flags, which were installed during the early\n1990's.\nCM Wolfe expressed two concerns: 1) interaction or conflict between\nwhat is existing and what will be placed on the site; 2) a definition of\nwhere Caltrans begins and if they have any stipulations for placing art\nnear roadways.\nCM Rosenberg expressed a desire to see a playful-themed sign,\nreminiscent of Neptune Beach.\nPAAC Meeting\n2\nMinutes\nMay 26, 2005", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2005-05-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2005-05-26", "page": 3, "text": "RS Russi and CAS Bailey stated they would research who placed the\nexisting signage and flags near the tube.\nRegarding the theater/garage project, Sue Russell stated that a formal\napplication would be submitted by the June 23rd meeting. C Huston\noffered the suggestion to have a Public Art competition, where prize\nmoney would be offered as opposed to a commission. There are artists\nseeking large venues, who are willing to work to cover their costs.\nB. Finalize Mission Statement - (Discussion/Action Item)\nCM Cervantes offered a draft of the Alameda Public Art Program's\nMission Statement. PAAC members discussed specific wording and\nstylistic changes. A final draft will be included on the June 23rd agenda.\n6.\nNew Business\nA. Approve Call for Entries & RFQ for Alameda West Gateway\nProject - (Discussion/Action Item)\nPAAC members discussed specific wording and stylistic changes\nfor both Public Art documents. Final documents will be included in\nJune 23rd packet for PAAC records.\nPAAC also developed a short ad for art publications.\nB.\nSet PAAC Meeting Schedule - (Discussion/Action Item)\nPAAC members discussed and finalized possible meeting dates\n(Wednesday, July 27, 2005 and Thursday, August 25, 2005).\nC.\nObtain Alternative Meeting Dates for Meeting with Applicants -\n(Discussion/Action Item)\nCM Cervantes stated that she could not make meetings on 2nd and\n4th Tuesdays. CM Rosenberg stated that she could not meet on\nTuesdays or Thursdays.\nD.\nSet Priorities for Next Meeting - (Discussion Item)\n-\nPrioritizing Calls and Outlets for Dissemination\n-\nArtist and Consultant List Update\n-\nTheater and Garage Project Update\n-\nFinalize and Approve Mission Statement\n7.\nOral Communications, General\nPAAC Meeting\n3\nMinutes\nMay 26, 2005", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2005-05-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2005-05-26", "page": 4, "text": "CM Rosenberg stated that the Artist and Consultant Lists need to be fact-\nchecked. She also expressed a concern over mailing RFQ's directly to\nindividual artists. She went on to state that she and C Huston would create\nan Artist Organization List, which would include but not be limited to,\nOakland Arts Commission, San Francisco Arts Commission, Pro Arts,\nBerkeley Art Center, Richmond Art Center, and Center for Art in Public Life\n(CCA).\nCM Rosenberg also stated that if an artist registry were ever developed, it\nwould need to be put on a database.\n8.\nCommittee Reports\n-\nWebster & Park Streetscape Projects - CM Wolfe\nSee Item 5A.\nTheater & Garage Project - CM's Cervantes and Rosenberg\nSee Item 5A.\n9.\nAdjournment:\nThe meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.\nPAAC Meeting\n4\nMinutes\nMay 26, 2005", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2005-05-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2005-06-23", "page": 1, "text": "CITT\nOF\nMINUTES OF PUBLIC ART ADVISORY COMMITTEE\nthe\nMEETING OF JUNE 23, 2005\nGO.\n(Revised 2/7/06)\nDATE:\nThursday, June 23, 2005\nTIME:\n7:00 p.m.\nPLACE:\nCity Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Third Floor, Room 360\nAlameda, CA 94501\n1.\nRoll Call:\nThe meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m.\nPresent:\nChair (C) Huston, Committee Members (CM) K.C. Rosenberg,\nand Peter Wolfe\nAbsent:\nCommittee Members (CM) Cecilia Cervantes and Karen Lee\nStaff:\nChrista Johnson-Seely, Assistant to the City Manager\nDale Lillard, Acting Director (AD)\nPat Russi, Recreation Supervisor (RS)\nChristina Bailey, Cultural Arts Specialist (CAS)\n2.\nApproval of Minutes\nA.\nMinutes of Meeting on May 26, 2005\nC Huston asked that the wording on page 3, paragraph 5 be changed to\nthe following: Where prize money would be offered as opposed to\ncommission. There are artists seeking large venues, who are willing to\nwork to cover their costs.\nM/S/C\nRosenberg/Wolfe\n(approved)\n\"That Minutes of Public Art Advisory Committee Meeting on May 26,\n2005 be approved with changes.\"\nApproved (3) - Huston, Rosenberg, Wolfe\nAbsent (2) - Cervantes, Lee\nUpdate Public Work Projects & Public Art Ordinance\nAD Lillard stated that the City Attorney concluded that infrastructure\nprojects, such as sewer or street projects, would not count toward\nthe Public Art Ordinance. City may choose to participate in the\nOrdinance when developing buildings and parks.\nPAAC Meeting\n1\nMinutes\nJune 23, 2005", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2005-06-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2005-06-23", "page": 2, "text": "3.\nOral Communications\n(Any person may address the Committee in regard to any matter over which\nthe Commission has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance that is\nnot on the agenda.)\nNone\n4.\nWritten Communications\nStaff will obtain the artist list, sent by Mary Oliver, from the City of\nEmeryville. An art consultant compiled the list. The list will be included on\nJuly's agenda.\n5.\nOld Business\nA. Update on Alameda West Gateway and the Theater and\nParking/Garage Projects from Jennifer Ott of Development\nServices - (Discussion Item)\n-\nJennifer Ott, Development Manager from Development Services\nDepartment, stated that an application for artwork on the parking\nstructure facing Santa Clara Avenue had been submitted to\nAlameda Recreation & Parks. The artwork would consist of a\ntemporary mural, using billboard technology. The installation of the\nart would coincide with the building of the garage. The billboard\nwould be vinyl and the dimensions would be left to the discretion of\nthe Public Art Advisory Committee. The art would be digitally\ntransferred and could be reproduced and placed in a different\nlocation. Ms. Ott explained that the piece could last up to or\nexceed two years, since it would be facing north. She went on to\nstate that there had been previous discussions about using a\nhistorical picture; however, a more contemporary image was\nrequested.\nCM Wolfe asked what the project budget would be. Ms. Ott stated\nthat the budget would be $10,000. CM Wolfe expressed his\nconcern that the Public Art be accessible to the public, even those\nwho do not pay $7.00 to enter the theater. His understanding was\nthat the Development Services Department was going to allot\nPublic Art funds for the restoration of the theater, and that it should\nbe done in a publicly accessible area.\nC Huston asked if the work would be displayed on a single panel or\non multi-panels. Ms. Ott stated that the issue was open to\ndiscussion; however, the installation specifications would need to\nPAAC Meeting\n2\nMinutes\nJune 23, 2005", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2005-06-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2005-06-23", "page": 3, "text": "be written carefully so a change order would not be required. C\nHuston asked what the mounting technology would consist of. Ms.\nOtt explained that the architect would design it.\nCM Wolfe inquired about the lighting of the piece. He asked if the\nlighting would be worked into the architecture of the wall. Ms. Ott\nstated that lighting could be worked into the specifications. C\nHuston added that maintenance and vandalism parameters should\nbe considered, as well as, the relationship of the piece to the\narchitecture.\nB. Approve Mission Statement - (Action Item)\nPAAC members discussed specific wording and stylistic changes. AD\nLillard stated that all references to Committee would be changed to\nCommission.\nM/S/C\nWolfe/Rosenberg\n(approved)\n\"That Mission Statement of the Alameda Public Art Program be\napproved with changes.\"\nApproved (3) - Huston, Rosenberg, Wolfe\nAbsent (2) - Cervantes, Lee\nC. Call for Entries & RFQ for Alameda West Gateway Project: Put on\nHold - (Discussion Item)\nJennifer Ott stated that the Gateway Project is on hold due to\nbudgetary constraints. She reiterated that the City is still committed\nto the project.\nRS Russi presented the final draft of Call for Artists and RFQ for\nPAAC review. PAAC proposed specific wording and stylistic\nchanges to the documents. RS Russi will make changes for final\ndocument.\n6.\nNew Business\nA.\nReorganization of PAAC - (Discussion Item)\nAD Lillard explained that an Ordinance was introduced, at the City\nCouncil Meeting on Tuesday, June 21, that will change the\nCommittee to a Commission. The new Commission will report\ndirectly to the City Council. Staffing for the Commission will be\ntransferred from Recreation & Parks to Planning & Building. CAS\nBailey will continue to be a staff-level person. Christa Johnson-\nSeely, Assistant to the City Manager, will become a liaison between\nPAAC Meeting\n3\nMinutes\nJune 23, 2005", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2005-06-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2005-06-23", "page": 4, "text": "Planning & Building and the Public Art Commission (PAC). AD\nLillard stated that the Ordinance would not be official until it is read\nfor a second time, 30 days from the time of the first reading.\nCM Wolfe asked if the Guidelines would be edited to reflect the\nchanges. AD Lillard stated that all references to Committee would\nbe changed, as well as, the steps of the approval process.\nAD Lillard stated that he and RS Russi will continue to attend\nmeetings through the July meeting, at least.\nB.\nCall for Entries & RFQ for Alameda Theater Project: Parking\nStructure Mural - (Discussion/Action Item)\nPAAC members discussed specific wording and stylistic changes. RS\nRussi stated that suggested changes would be made and the final\ndocument would be mailed out for the Call for Artists.\nC.\nSet Priorities for Next Meeting - (Discussion Item)\n-\nArtist List from City of Emeryville\n7.\nOral Communications, General\n8.\nCommittee Reports\n-\nWebster & Park Streetscape Projects - CM Wolfe\nNone\n-\nTheater & Garage Project - CM's Cervantes and Rosenberg\nNone\n9.\nAdjournment:\nThe meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.\nPAAC Meeting\n4\nMinutes\nJune 23, 2005", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2005-06-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2005-09-28", "page": 1, "text": "CITT\nMINUTES OF PUBLIC ART ADVISORY COMMITTEE\nthe\nMEETING OF SEPTEMBER 28, 2005\n(Revised 2/7/06)\nDATE:\nWednesday, September 28, 2005\nTIME:\n7:00 p.m.\nPLACE:\nCity Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Third Floor, Room 360\nAlameda, CA 94501\n1.\nRoll Call:\nThe meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m.\nPresent:\nChair (C) Huston, VC Lee, Committee Members (CM) Cecilia\nCervantes (late), K.C. Rosenberg, and Peter Wolfe\nStaff:\nChristina Bailey, Secretary, Public Art Commission\nChrista Johnson, Assistant to the City Manager (A2CM)\n2.\nApproval of Minutes\nA.\nMinutes of Meeting on June 23, 2005\nOn page 2, Section 5A, paragraph 2, CM Wolfe wished to make clear that\nhis understanding was that the Development Services Department was\ngoing to allot Public Art funds for the restoration of the theater and that it\nshould be done at a publicly accessible area.\nM/S/C\nRosenberg/Cervantes\n(approved)\n\"That Minutes of Public Art Advisory Committee Meeting on June 23,\n2005 be approved with changes.'\nApproved (4) - Huston, Cervantes, Rosenberg, Wolfe\nAbstain (1) - Lee\n3.\nOral Communications\n(Any person may address the Committee in regard to any matter over which\nthe Commission has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance that is\nnot on the agenda.)\nSecretary Bailey stated that the Public Art website would be moved from\nthe Recreation & Parks website, to the Planning & Building Department's\nwebsite. She asked whether members wanted to be recognized as\nPAC Meeting\n1\nMinutes\nSeptember 28, 2005", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2005-09-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2005-09-28", "page": 2, "text": "Commission Members on the site. PAC members agreed that they should\nbe listed. CM Cervantes asked that her e-mail could be included as well.\n4.\nWritten Communications\nNone.\n5.\nOld Business\nA. Update on South Shore Shopping Center - (Oral Presentation)\n-\nTad Savinar, Art Consultant, Harsch Investment\nProperties\nBefore Commission's conference call with Mr. Savinar, they discussed\nthe project. CM Rosenberg asked whether they can place additional\npieces after they have met the Ordinance's requirements. C Huston\nanswered in the affirmative. CM Rosenberg went on to ask if Mr.\nSavinar could bring in only those projects that meet the funding\nthreshold. The process would be streamlined if he could be more\nspecific. Secretary Bailey suggested that they address the issue when\nthey spoke with Mr. Savinar. CM Wolfe inquired as to whether or not\nthe artists have considered where their art will be placed in the mall.\nDuring the call, Mr. Savinar explained two goals for this\npresentation/discussion. First, that everyone understands what has\nbeen presented to date with an opportunity for further comments.\nSecond, the ability to move forward with the actual application process\nand obtain the correct forms.\nHe went on to explain that South Shore Shopping Center will be in a\nCraftsman style, indigenous to the area. One cause for the delay in\nbringing the project before the PAC was that new alleyways and\ncirculation paths have been devised.\nMr. Savinar stated that the developer is interested in using local artists\nwhenever possible. He went on to speak about three artists whose\nwork will be featured throughout the center; Ake Grunditz and JaYing\nWang of Alameda, and John Laursen from Portland, OR. The works\nwill carry regional or Alameda-specific imagery. The Public Art will be\nfeatured throughout the center.\nC Huston stated that she was hungry to see the artists' own style, while\nCM Rosenberg emphasized being able to see the artists' voice in their\npieces.\nCM Rosenberg expressed her desire to see how the art will relate to the\nsetting. Mr. Savinar stated that the landscape artist has been charged\nPAC Meeting\n2\nMinutes\nSeptember 28, 2005", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2005-09-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2005-09-28", "page": 3, "text": "with making the interior circulation areas that of a neighborhood scale,\nnot a large shopping center. He likened it to walking through a gallery\nor museum, not a plaza or square.\nMr. Savinar concludes the presentation by explaining that his client is\none of the most aggressive print collectors in the United States. The\nclient wants the collection at South Shore to be family-oriented and\nappealing to the masses, but not watered down; however, he has\nrejected some pieces with \"edge.' C Huston reiterated her desire for\noriginality in the pieces. She went on to state that opportunities for\ninnovation can be used in subtle ways through material and scale for\ninstance.\nAfter the presentation, the PAC discusses South Shore further. A2CM\nJohnson stated that the $150,000 does not all go towards the public art\npiece. After the administrative and consultant fees, approximately\n$97,500 will be left for actual pieces. Mr. Savinar should consider that\ntransportation and recognition plaques are included in the amount.\nCM Rosenberg stated that the Laursen work would most likely have a\npositive outcome after PAC review. CM Wolfe expressed his desire to\nsee how the Laursen panels would be placed throughout the center.\nB. Update on Library Project - (Oral Report)\nSecretary Bailey stated that the PAC received documents in their July\nAgenda Packets that gave further background information on the\nongoing library project. This includes a memo sent to the Mayor and\nCity Council by Susan Hardie, retired Library Director. It explained the\nbackground of the Public Art process, including the approval process\ncarried out by the PAAC on July 21, 2004.\nSecretary Bailey added that funding for Masayuki Nagase's eight\nmedallions, Cadence of the Water, has been secured. The medallions\nhave the highest priority, because they are required to be installed\nduring construction. She also shared that an article had been featured\nin the Alameda Journal on Tuesday, July 26. It pictured Masayuki\ncarving giant stone, similar to that which will be used for the library.\nC. Update on Bay Ship and Yacht - (Oral Report)\nSecretary Bailey explained that the Planning & Building Department\nreceived a letter from Cris Craft, Chief Engineer representing Bay Ship\n& Yacht, on August 5, 2005. He questioned whether the Public Art\nOrdinance applied to their project, since they are the tenants and their\nPAC Meeting\n3\nMinutes\nSeptember 28, 2005", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2005-09-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2005-09-28", "page": 4, "text": "project was an improvement. He requested a credit for the amount\nalready paid for the Administrative Fee.\nThe Building Official and Deputy City Attorney reviewed the Ordinance\nand the project, and found that the construction effort does trigger the\nart fee imposed. The project was deemed a major improvement, which\nincluded the construction of a new building. The term \"Tenant\nImprovements\" is commonly used in leases and entails interior\nimprovements performed or installed by the tenant. The City's\nresponse was sent to Mr. Craft on September 8, 2005.\nD. Update on Bridgeside Shopping Center - (Oral Report)\nSecretary Bailey explained that she has spoken with Bruce Qualls from\nRegency Centers, contact person from Bridgeside. Doug Wiele is no\nlonger the contact person, and he did not make Mr. Qualls aware of the\nOrdinance. A Public Art packet, including Guidelines and Ordinance,\nwas sent to Mr. Qualls.\nOn September 23, Secretary Bailey spoke with Barbara Price, CEO of\nPK Consultants, who is representing Bridgeside Shopping Center. She\nexpressed her desire to submit an application for Public Art soon.\nAccording to initial permit valuations, $40,000 will be required for Public\nArt at the Nob Hill store ($10,000 administrative fee); $23,000 will be\nrequired for Public Art at the Fueling Station ($5750.00 administration\nfee).\nCM Rosenberg asked if there were still plans to create an amphitheater.\nSecretary Bailey stated that the issue had been brought up. CM\nRosenberg went on to express that the applicant be made aware that\nnot all nautical items should be considered public art.\nVC Lee asked where all the imagery of the shipping industry came\nfrom. She was under the impression that Alameda had been settled as\na residential community. CM Rosenberg stated that unique moments in\nhistory should be incorporated into the projects.\nE. Status of Annual Report, Next Steps - (Oral Report)\nA2CM Johnson stated that an Annual Report is given to the City\nCouncil when there is money in the Public Art In-Lieu Fund. If there is\nno money, no report is needed. At this time, the fund has collected no\nmoney.\nF. City of Emeryville Artist List - (Oral Report)\nPAC Meeting\n4\nMinutes\nSeptember 28, 2005", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2005-09-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2005-09-28", "page": 5, "text": "Secretary Bailey explained that C Huston obtained the list from the City\nof Emeryville. C Huston stated that it is a viable list, which is strong on\nindividuals and weak on organizations. CM Rosenberg stated that\norganizations can be added as they are found. CM Wolfe stated that\nart organizations are important, since they broadcast opportunities to\nindividuals.\nSecretary Bailey explained that the program does not have the required\nfunds to keep all the artists for every project's mailing list. Call for\nArtists can still be sent to large publications and art organizations, or the\nlist can be drastically reduced from over 1000 artists. C Huston now\nstates that the list could be edited to art organizations, art publications,\nand Alameda/Oakland artists.\n6.\nNew Business\nA. Reappointment for Karen Lee and K.C. Rosenberg - (Oral Report)\nSecretary Bailey stated that the Mayor reappointed VC Lee and CM\nRosenberg to another term. They were appointed at the City Council\nmeeting on Tuesday, September 20. They were previously appointed\nto a two-year term in November 2003.\n7.\nSubcommittee Reports\n-\nTheater & Garage Project - CM's Cervantes and Rosenberg\nCM's Cervantes and Rosenberg explained the process that went into\nselecting the three finalists for the Civic Center Parking Structure Art\nproject. CM Rosenberg stated that it was a competitive process, with a\nstylistically diverse pool of applicants. She was impressed that the artists\nwere interested in using the technology requested, and they knew to what\nthey were responding.\nSecretary Bailey stated that six (6) applications were submitted. C Huston\nstated that there should have been more applicants. She asked how much\nadvance notice was given to publications. Secretary Bailey stated that\nnotices went out a month in advance. C Huston stated that at least four (4)\nweeks are needed to be published, and six (6) weeks to run in order to\ngenerate more applications.\nCM Cervantes asked when the Request for Proposals would be sent out.\nSecretary Bailey stated that Development Services has been busy and the\nRFP has yet to be sent out. The artists will have about a month and a half\nto submit their conceptual design.\nPAC Meeting\n5\nMinutes\nSeptember 28, 2005", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2005-09-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2005-09-28", "page": 6, "text": "8.\nCommissioner Communications\nNone.\n9.\nUpcoming Meeting Dates\nWednesday, October 26, 2005\nWednesday, November 23, 2005\nWednesday, December 28, 2005\nCM Cervantes suggested that the November meeting be moved to\nNovember 30. C Huston suggested canceling December date due to the\nholidays.\n\"That November meeting date be changed from November 23 to\nNovember 30, and that the December meeting be cancelled be\napproved.'\nM/S/C\nHuston/Rosenberg\n(approved)\nApproved (5) - Huston, Lee, Cervantes, Rosenberg, Wolfe\n10.\nAdjournment:\nThe meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m.\nPAC Meeting\n6\nMinutes\nSeptember 28, 2005", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2005-09-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2005-11-30", "page": 1, "text": "CITY\nOF\n&\n$\nMINUTES OF PUBLIC ART COMMISSION\nMEETING OF NOVEMBER 30, 2005\n(Revised: 2/7/06)\nDATE:\nWednesday, November 30, 2005\nTIME:\n7:00 p.m.\nPLACE:\nCity Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Third Floor, Room 360\nAlameda, CA 94501\n1.\nRoll Call:\nThe meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m.\nPresent:\nChair (C) Huston, Vice Chair (VC) Lee, Committee Members (CM)\nCecilia Cervantes (late), and Peter Wolfe\nAbsent:\nCommittee Member (CM) K.C. Rosenberg\nStaff:\nChristina Bailey, Secretary, Public Art Commission\nChrista Johnson, Assistant to the City Manager (A2CM)\n2.\nApproval of Minutes\nA.\nMinutes of Meeting on September 28, 2005\nCM Wolfe asked that the following be added at the end of the change in item 2A\nparagraph 1, \"and that it should be done at a publically accessible area.'\nC Huston asked that the following change be made to item 5A paragraph 3, \"He\nwent on to explain that South Shore Shopping Center will be in a Craftsman\nstyle, indigenous to the area.\" C Huston asked that the following be added to\nparagraph 7, \"She went on to state that opportunities for innovation can be used\nin subtle ways through material and scale for instance.\"\nC Huston asked that the following change be made to item 5F paragraph 2, \"C\nHuston now states that the list could be edited to art organizations, art\npublications, and Alameda/Oakland artists.\"\nC Huston asked that the following change be made to item 7 paragraph 2, \"C\nHuston stated that at least four (4) weeks are needed to be published, and six (6)\nweeks to run in order to generate more applications.\"\nM/S/C\nLee/Wolfe\n(approved)\n\"That Minutes of Public Art Advisory Committee Meeting on September 28,\n2005 be approved with changes.\"\nPAC Meeting\n1\nRevised Minutes\nNovember 30, 2005", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2005-11-30.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2005-11-30", "page": 2, "text": "Approved (3) - Huston, Lee, Wolfe\nAbsent (2) - Cervantes, Rosenberg\n3.\nOral Communications\n(Any person may address the Committee in regard to any matter over which the\nCommission has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance that is not on the\nagenda.)\nLinda, the Community Relations representative from Wind River attended as an\nobserver. She stated that she was collecting information on the responsibilities of\nvarious art organizations throughout Alameda. She expressed Wind River's\ninterest in creating a relationship with local artists and organizations. The\ncompany would like to have on-site exhibitions, but would be limited to only public\nreceptions.\n4.\nWritten Communications - NONE\n5.\nOld Business\nA. Update on Alameda Towne Centre - (Discussion Item)\n-\nTad Savinar, Art Consultant, Harsch Investment Properties\nTad Savinar updated the PAC on public art at Alameda Towne Centre. He\nexpressed a desire to clarify some issues that arose during a previous phone\nconversation with the PAC. He displayed two life-size drafts of panels for the\nJohn Laursen Project. He explained that the artist has visited Alameda in\norder to conduct research. The panels will be full color (tonation of the era),\nbaked enamel; each will have title block. The artist will likely start the project\nwith twelve panels, with hopes of adding more.\nC Huston asked if the panel project would be a historical, informative, well-\nexecuted storytelling thing, or would it be art. Mr. Savinar stated that the\nproject would be historically informative. C Huston questioned the project's\nconceptual depth. CM Wolfe interjected that a good narrative could make a\ndifference in the final product. Mr. Savinar added that the proposed subjects\ndo not include images of parks or families, and most are taken around the turn\nof the 20th century. CM Cervantes stated that families are changing, and this\ndiversity would be good to capture. C Huston stated that the project does not\nhave to tell all the stories of Alameda; it does not have to be all things to all\npeople. She went on to ask the PAC if a historically based, design focused\nproject is acceptable.\nCM Wolfe stated that art can take a narrative form. CM Cervantes added that\none of the program's missions was to provide opportunities for lifelong\nlearning, and this project passes information on to the centre's visitors. VC\nPAC Meeting\n2\nRevised Minutes\nNovember 30, 2005", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2005-11-30.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2005-11-30", "page": 3, "text": "Lee suggested that the panel project be given a title and subtitle, in order to\npull the series of images together. She went on to state that if this project\nwere a book, it would have a title. CM Wolfe asked if ADA standards for print\nsize and height of posted items applied to this project. Mr. Savinar stated that\naccording to Federal Guidelines, those standards do not apply to public art.\nAnother artist the client is considering is John Buck. He is a sculptor of human\nscaled pieces, who would create one or two figurative pieces cast in bronze.\nC Huston remarked on the similar nature of Buck's work to that of Michael\nCarey, an artist working with the New Main Library. Despite being similar to\nCarey's, C Huston stated that Buck's work does have a sophistication and\ncomplexity to it. She stated that part of the goal set by the Guidelines is to\ngive Alameda a keen range.\nIn closing, Mr. Savinar's assumption was that the panel project would continue\nwith an emphasis on developing a conceptual thread. In reference to the Buck\npiece, Mr. Savinar understands that the piece needs to be different from the\nCarey piece; the pieces with stronger geometric design are intellectually more\ninteresting. CM Wolfe thanked Mr. Savinar for coming before the PAC early\non in the process.\nB. Presentation on Bridgeside Shopping Center - (Discussion/Action Item)\n-\nBarbara Price, CEO / PK Consultants, Inc.\nBarbara Price explains that PK Consultants, Inc. is involved in government\nand community outreach and affairs; their role is to work with the community\non the process and do outreach for their clients. C Huston asked if an art\nconsultant had been chosen for the project. Ms. Price stated that an art\nconsultant was not hired, since her client is using existing, nautical pieces.\nBruce Qualls, developer for Regency Centers, shared that the center's\nanticipated opening is in Fall 2006. It has been a complicated process that\nstarted in 2000, involving the San Francisco Bay Conservation and\nDevelopment Commission (BCDC) as well as the Army Corps of Engineers.\nHe stated that the Bay Trail will run along the frontage of the property, and will\nbe landscaped.\nClay, architect for Regency Centers, stated that representatives from both\nBCDC and the City of Alameda's Planning and Building Department\nsuggested that focal points be created throughout the center. Three focal\npoints are being proposed, which will feature interpretive signage about the\nhistory of the channel. There will be an anchor, a bollard and mast, and a\npropeller and cleats. In addition to these pieces, an amphitheater is being\nproposed for the corner of the property closest to the Fruitvale Bridge. CM\nCervantes inquired as to the capacity of the amphitheater; Clay stated\napproximately 25 people, depending on the event.\nPAC Meeting\n3\nRevised Minutes\nNovember 30, 2005", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2005-11-30.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2005-11-30", "page": 4, "text": "Ms. Price stated that the performance area was suggested by BCDC, as a\nmulti-use area; they wanted to encourage the use of the area in relation to its\nsetting at the foot of the Fruitvale Bridge. C Huston explained that an item that\nmeets requirements for BCDC does not necessarily meet the requirements set\nby the Public Art Ordinance and Guidelines.\nC Huston asked the Bridgeside team how placing nautical elements makes\nthem art. Clay stated that they are items of interest, which enhance the\nenvironment and one's experience of it. CM Wolfe stated that the pieces are\nvery interesting artifacts to the project, but are not clearly being presented as\nart. The intent and theme of the pieces is good, but they really do not fit into\nthe Guidelines. Mr. Qualls shared that at one time, they thought of welding all\nthe items together into one massive piece.\nMr. Qualls stated that the Public Art budget for the project is approximately\n$35,000. A2CM Johnson inquired as to how that figure was calculated. Mr.\nQualls stated that the project is $17 million, there is a 22,000 increase in\nsquare footage (21% difference), and the Public Art requirement is 1% of the\ntotal cost. C Huston explained that if their allocation is $35,000, then that\namount needs to be clearly used for Public Art.\nC Huston offered suggestions for meeting their Public Art requirement. The\ncenter could sponsor concerts for the next two years; a performance schedule\nwould be acceptable. It could sponsor a residency program to bring in artists\non a regular basis to work on salvage and pay them $5,000/year for the next\nseven years; those pieces could then be displayed throughout the center. She\nshared that an artist landscaped the Getty Gardens in Malibu, in such a\nprovocative way, that one does not see a garden.\nC Huston expressed her appreciation in seeing a client consider the\ncommunity in their concept.\nC. Update on Civic Center Parking Structure Art Project - (Oral Report)\nThe group for a Megaplex-Free Alameda filed a lawsuit on Monday, October 3.\nThe suit, filed in Alameda Superior Court, is an effort to require the City of\nAlameda to perform a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on the proposed\n7-screen Cineplex and parking garage as required by law.\nAs a result, Development Services is delaying the issuance of the Public Art\nRFP for the garage until the Call for Bids for the garage and the rehab of the\ntheater (January 2006) are sent out. Letters were sent out to the finalists\ninforming them of the delay.\nD. Revised Art Organization List - (Oral Report)\nPAC Meeting\n4\nRevised Minutes\nNovember 30, 2005", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2005-11-30.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2005-11-30", "page": 5, "text": "A revised list of Art Organizations was given to the PAC for review. The\nrevised list contains art organizations throughout California. In comparison,\nthe revised list saves $170.00 in postage per mailing.\nC Huston expressed a concern that a letter sent to some of the included\norganizations would be a letter lost. She stated that one of the PAC members\nshould take the lead and find the appropriate organizations. She suggested\nthat either CM Rosenberg or herself assume this task.\n6.\nNew Business\nA. Update on Washington Park Recreation Building - (Oral Report)\nA conceptual drawing of the new Recreation Building at Washington Park was\npresented at the September 15 meeting of the Recreation & Park\nCommission. Patrick Russi, Recreation Supervisor, stated that ARPD would\ncome before the PAC in early 2006 to present their plan for public art on the\nsite.\nB. Update on Harbor Island Community Center - (Oral Report)\nBarbara Price represents Kennedy Wilson, the new owners of the Harbor\nIsland Apartments. The complex will be market-rate, family-oriented\napartments. Buildings will have upgraded textures and materials; buildings\nwill no longer be flat along the top. Residents should be back in the units by\nthe end of the first quarter 2006.\nMs. Price asserts that Kennedy Wilson is committed to the arts. They asked\nthe College of Alameda for a referral, in hopes of commissioning an artist to\ncreate a freestanding sculpture. They have also adopted Chipman Middle\nSchool.\nThe Clubhouse/Community Center has been submitted for approval. It will be\n6000 sq. ft. in total: 4000 for public space and 1500 for leasing office and\nrestrooms (for pool). The Clubhouse is anticipated to open by October 2006.\nC Huston inquired as to whether the community center will be for the public,\nor only for residents of the complex. Ms. Price stated that the center could be\navailable for groups from the community to use. The client is looking to make\navailable the center for community-based organizations for meetings, as long\nas it does not usurp resident-oriented events. C Huston stated that the\nGuidelines would not be met by having artwork inside a building, which is not\navailable to those living outside the complex. Ms. Price explained that the\nclient has discussed hosting two or three shows for Frank Bette Center for the\nArts, or hosting receptions for new artists. C Huston stated that the public art\nPAC Meeting\n5\nRevised Minutes\nNovember 30, 2005", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2005-11-30.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2005-11-30", "page": 6, "text": "needs to infiltrate and benefit the public in some way. It needs to provide\nsomething bigger that the Frank Bette Center could or would not have done\nthemselves, like bringing in an important exhibition or being able to curate it.\nMs. Price asked if the client could sponsor an event off-site; C Huston\nanswered in the affirmative.\nMs. Price explained that the new name of the complex would be Summer\nHouse Apartments, which comes from the historical context of Alameda being\nthe summer home for San Francisco residents.\nC. Update on Bayport Community Center - (Oral Report)\nThis is a joint project between the City of Alameda (ARPD) and the Alameda\nUnified School District (AUSD). The building will belong to ARPD and the\nproperty belongs to AUSD. As of right now, plans are being developed and a\nbid package is being compiled. This project could be exempt from public art if\nthe City chooses to appeal. Based on the current budget, it is unclear as to\nwhether or not there will be sufficient funding for public art on the site.\n7.\nSubcommittee Reports - NONE\n-\nTheater & Garage Project - CM's Cervantes and Rosenberg\n8.\nCommissioner Communications\nPAC discussed the idea of providing applicants with more detailed information in\nthe Guidelines regarding expectations of art quality, quantity of seating at venues,\netc.\nC Huston suggested that the PAC take the provided 2006 Meeting Schedule home\nto compare it to their schedules and bring back for review during the January\nmeeting.\n9.\nUpcoming Meeting Dates\nDecember Meeting - CANCELLED\nWednesday, January 25, 2006\n10.\nAdjournment:\nThe meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m.\nPAC Meeting\n6\nRevised Minutes\nNovember 30, 2005", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2005-11-30.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2006-01-25", "page": 1, "text": "CITT\n$\nMINUTES OF PUBLIC ART COMMISSION\nMEETING OF JANUARY 25, 2006\nCO.\nDATE:\nWednesday, January 25, 2006\nTIME:\n7:00 p.m.\nPLACE:\nCity Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Third Floor, Room 360\nAlameda, CA 94501\n1.\nRoll Call:\nThe meeting was called to order at 7:06 p.m.\nPresent:\nChair (C) Huston, Vice Chair (VC) Lee, Committee Members (CM)\nCecilia Cervantes, K.C. Rosenberg (late) and Peter Wolfe (late)\nStaff:\nChristina Bailey, Secretary, Public Art Commission\nLucretia Akil, Acting Assistant to the City Manager\n2.\nApproval of Minutes\nA.\nMinutes of Meeting on November 30, 2005\nM/S/C\nCervantes/Wolfe\n(approved)\n\"That Minutes of Public Art Advisory Committee Meeting on November 30,\n2005 be approved with changes.\"\nApproved (4) - Huston, Lee, Cervantes, and Wolfe\nAbstain (1) - Rosenberg\n3.\nOral Communications\n(Any person may address the Committee in regard to any matter over which the\nCommission has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance that is not on the\nagenda.)\nSecretary Bailey reported that Christa Johnson recently took the position of\nAssistant Town Manager of Windsor, and introduced Lucretia Akil, Acting\nAssistant to the City Manager.\nSecretary Bailey reported that Amanda Kruger, a teacher from BASE High School\n(Bay Area School of Enterprise), contacted her about a student mural, and\nrequested an opportunity to present their ideas to the PAC.\nPAC Meeting\n1\nMinutes\nJanuary 25, 2006", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2006-01-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2006-01-25", "page": 2, "text": "Secretary Bailey asked if any Commissioner wished to represent the PAC as a\njudge at the 40th Annual Sand Castle and Sculpture Contest on June 17.\nC\nHuston accepted the post.\n4.\nWritten Communications\n- NONE\n5.\nOld Business\nA. Update on Alameda Towne Centre - (Oral Report)\nSecretary Bailey stated that Tad Savinar, Art Consultant for Alameda Towne\nCentre, communicated that the last $7,500 is being identified for onsite public\nart.\nB. Update on Civic Center Parking Structure Art Project - (Oral Report)\nSecretary Bailey stated that Jennifer Ott, Development Manager for\nDevelopment Services, reported that the RFP for the Civic Center Parking\nStructure Mural would most likely be sent out in February.\n6.\nNew Business\nA. Boards & Commissions Handbook - (Discussion Item)\nCM Wolfe suggested that changes be made to the PAC description on page\n13. Secretary Bailey stated that she would check with the City Clerk's Office.\nCM Cervantes suggested waiting to hear back from the City Clerk's Office\nbefore proceeding with revisions. She recommended agendizing the item for\nthe February meeting.\nM/S/C Cervantes/Wolfe\n(approved)\n\"That the item of revising the PAC description, on page 13, of the\nBoards and Commissions Handbook be agendized for the next regular\nmeeting on February 22.\"\nApproved (5) - Huston, Lee, Cervantes, Rosenberg, Wolfe\nSecretary Bailey stated that items to be agendized should be provided to\nstaff, in order to be placed in agenda packets. Packets are mailed out the\nFriday before each meeting.\nCM Rosenberg expressed concerns about discussing projects in front of\napplicants. C Huston questioned whether their discussion is appropriate for\nthe applicant to hear, since each member is explaining how the project meets\nPAC Meeting\n2\nMinutes\nJanuary 25, 2006", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2006-01-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2006-01-25", "page": 3, "text": "the criteria. Staff member Akil stated that the Commission's deliberations\nmust be public. C Huston asked staff to inquire as to whether or not a closed\nsession would be appropriate for project deliberations.\nB. One-page summary of Guideline requirements - (Discussion Item)\nC Huston and VC Lee presented a draft summary page designed to reduce\nconfusion about the, public art application process and guidelines.\nThe PAC discussed document wording and format.\nC. Process of writing responses to applicants - (Discussion Item)\nSecretary Bailey explained that a response letter is sent to applicants who\nsubmit formal applications. C Huston asked if subcommittees could be\nestablished to craft applicant responses. CM Cervantes inquired as to\nwhether the PAC could invite the applicant to a pre-review meeting and then\ngive final feedback during the next regular meeting. C Huston responded\nthat, according to the Guidelines, the applicant is not required to attend\nmultiple review meetings. CM Rosenberg added that the PAC needs to\nemphasize that applicants come to meetings early in the process, before\nformal applications are ever submitted.\nM/S/C\nHuston/Rosenberg\n(approved)\n\"That the item of creating subcommittees to craft applicant responses\nbe approved, with possible pre-meeting review sessions.\"\nApproved (5) - Huston, Lee, Cervantes, Rosenberg, Wolfe\n7.\nSubcommittee Reports\n- NONE\n8.\nCommissioner Communications\nC Huston suggested offering applicants a brief description of existing Public Art\nworks to assist applicants.\nVC Lee reported that she had attended an open house for Alameda Landing.\nShe spoke with an architect/planner named Karen Alschuler, who was interested\nin the Public Art Program. VC Lee asked if Secretary Bailey could send Ms.\nAlschuler a Public Art packet.\nC Huston asked if one PAC member could call Tad Savinar, Art Consultant for\nAlameda Towne Centre, in order to check in on its process. CM Wolfe stated\nPAC Meeting\n3\nMinutes\nJanuary 25, 2006", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2006-01-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2006-01-25", "page": 4, "text": "that it is essential for the PAC to reach out to applicants, and agreed to contact\nMr. Savinar.\n9.\nAdjournment:\nThe meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m.\nPAC Meeting\n4\nMinutes\nJanuary 25, 2006", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2006-01-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2006-02-22", "page": 1, "text": "CITT\n$\nMINUTES OF PUBLIC ART COMMISSION\nREGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 22, 2006\nCO.\nDATE:\nWednesday, February 22, 2006\nTIME:\n7:00 p.m.\nPLACE:\nCity Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Third Floor, Room 360\nAlameda, CA 94501\n1.\nRoll Call:\nThe meeting was called to order at 7:03 p.m.\nPresent:\nChair Huston, Vice Chair Lee, Commissioners Cecilia Cervantes*,\nK.C. Rosenberg and Peter Wolfe*\nStaff:\nAndrew Thomas, Staff Member\nChristina Bailey, Staff Member\n*arrived after roll call\n2.\nApproval of Minutes\nA.\nMinutes of Meeting on January 25, 2006\nM/S/C\nLee/Wolfe\n(approved)\n\"That Minutes of Public Art Commission Meeting on January 25, 2006 be\napproved.\"\nApproved (4) - Huston, Lee, Rosenberg, and Wolfe\nAbsent (1) - Cervantes\n3.\nOral Communications\n- NONE\n4.\nWritten Communications\n- NONE\n5.\nNew Business\nA. Presentation by Cathy Woodbury, Planning & Building Director\nPAC Meeting\n1\nFebruary 22, 2006", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2006-02-22.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2006-02-22", "page": 2, "text": "Cathy Woodbury, Planning & Building Director, introduced herself and\nreported on Commission staffing. Andrew Thomas, Supervising Planner,\nintroduced himself and explained department's role in the Public Art process.\nB. Presentation by Terry Highsmith, City Attorney's Office\nAssistant City Attorney Terry Highsmith provided an overview of the Ralph M.\nBrown Act.\n6.\nOld Business\nA. Draft Public Art Handout (Quick Guide)\nThe Commission commented on the draft document wording and content, and\ndirected staff to bring a revised draft to the next regular meeting.\n7.\nSubcommittee Reports\nCommissioner Wolfe reported that he had spoken to Tad Savinar, Art Consultant\nfor Alameda Towne Centre. He learned that Mr. Savinar is in the process of\nlooking for approximately $7,500.00 in additional Public Art.\n8.\nCommissioner Communications\n- NONE\n9.\nStaff Communications\nStaff member Thomas distributed a Public Art Status Report. Chair Huston asked\nif two items could be added: 1) estimated time frame of project, 2) single- or multi-\nphased project. Staff agreed to keep the report updated for each regularly\nscheduled meeting.\nA. Revisions to PAC description in Boards and Commissions Handbook\nStaff member Bailey reported that City Clerk's office would revise the description.\nThe Commission discussed revised wording for the PAC description. Staff\nagreed to bring a revised draft to the next regular meeting.\nB. Update on BASE High School Student Mural\nStaff member Thomas reported that he had spoken to Amanda Kruger, teacher\nat BASE High School about their proposed mural project. He added that the\nDevelopment Services Department might be interested in placing the mural on\nthe construction fencing for the Theater/Parking Structure Project.\n10. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m.\nPAC Meeting\n2\nFebruary 22, 2006", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2006-02-22.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2006-05-24", "page": 1, "text": "CITT\n$\nMINUTES OF PUBLIC ART COMMISSION\nREGULAR MEETING OF MAY 24, 2006\nCO.\nDATE:\nWednesday, May 24, 2006\nTIME:\n7:00 p.m.\nPLACE:\nCity Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Third Floor, Room 360\nAlameda, CA 94501\n1.\nRoll Call:\nThe meeting was called to order at 7:08 p.m.\nPresent:\nChair (C) Huston, Vice Chair (VC) Lee, Commission Members (CM)\nCecilia Cervantes, K.C. Rosenberg, and Peter Wolfe\nStaff:\nAndrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager\nDoug Vu, Planner III\nAndria DeBose, Staff Member\n2.\nApproval of Minutes\nA. Minutes of Meeting on February 22, 2006\nCommission continued consideration of February 22, 2006 meeting minutes.\n3.\nOral Communications\n(Any person may address the Committee in regard to any matter over which the\nCommission has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance that is not on the\nagenda.)\nThe Commission and staff discussed the approach and format used to prepare\nstaff reports and resolutions for approval. In particular, C Huston sought\nclarification as to how staff determines that a proposed project is in compliance\nwith the requirements of the Public Art Ordinance and how staff recommendations\nshould be formatted. Staff described the approach used to prepare staff reports\nand resolutions and agreed to work with the Commission to refine the format.\nAndrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager introduced Doug Vu, Planner III to\nthe Commission.\n4.\nWritten Communications\n-None.\nPAC Meeting Minutes\n1\nMay 24, 2006", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2006-05-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2006-05-24", "page": 2, "text": "5.\nNew Business\n- None\n6.\nOld Business\nA. Presentation on Alameda Towne Centre\nTad Savinar, Art Consultant presented the Alameda Towne Centre Public Art\nproposal. He described the proposed sculpture by Brad Rude and introduced\nartist John Larsen, who presented the interpretive panels depicting important\nhistoric events or places in Alameda.\nThe Public Art Commission reviewed the materials and continued further\nconsideration of the proposal to a special meeting of the Public Art\nCommission scheduled for June 7, 2006\nB. Public Art Handout (Quick Guide)\nThe Public Art Commission approved the Public Art Handout with minor\nrevisions.\nC. Revisions to PAC description in Boards and Commissions Handbook\nThe Public Art Commission approved the board description with minor\nrevisions.\n7.\nSubcommittee Reports\n- NONE\n8.\nCommissioner Communications\n- NONE\n9.\nStaff Communications\n- NONE\n10. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m.\nPAC Meeting Minutes\n2\nMay 24, 2006", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2006-05-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2006-06-07", "page": 1, "text": "CITT\n$\nMINUTES OF PUBLIC ART COMMISSION\nSPECIAL MEETING OF JUNE 7, 2006\nCO.\nDATE:\nWednesday, June 7, 2006\nTIME:\n7:00 p.m.\nPLACE:\nCity Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Third Floor, Room 360\nAlameda, CA 94501\n1.\nRoll Call:\nThe meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m.\nPresent:\nChair (C) Huston, Vice Chair (VC) Lee, Commission Members (CM)\nK.C. Rosenberg (late), and Peter Wolfe\nAbsent:\nCecilia Cervantes\nStaff:\nAndrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager\nDoug Vu, Secretary, Public Art Commission\n2.\nApproval of Minutes\nA. Minutes of Meeting on May 24, 2006\nM/S/C\nWolfe/Lee\n(approved)\n\"That Minutes of Public Art Commission Meeting on May 24, 2006 be\napproved.\"\nApproved (4) - Huston, Lee, Rosenberg, and Wolfe\nAbsent (1) - Cervantes\n3.\nOral Communications\n(Any person may address the Committee in regard to any matter over which the\nCommission has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance that is not on the\nagenda.)\nC Lee initiated and the Commission discussed Millennium Park in Chicago and\nhow art creates an experience. The Commission also discussed the idea of art in\ncontext with regard to the Alameda Towne Centre project. Examples were cited\nfrom the \"Webster\" side of Alameda where the diverse population is reflected.\n4.\nWritten Communications\nPAC Meeting Minutes\n1\nJune 7, 2006", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2006-06-07.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2006-06-07", "page": 2, "text": "-NONE\n5.\nNew Business\n-NONE\n6.\nOld Business\nA. Alameda Towne Centre\nThe Commission discussed conformity issues with regard to the Conditions of\nApproval. It was also confirmed that the artwork's identification plaque include\nthe City's logo, as required by the Public Art Ordinance. Concern regarding\nmaintenance of the artwork and public access (with regard to ADA) was also\naddressed.\nThe Commission considered the success of the applicant's proposed interpretive\nhistoric panels for the Towne Centre in meeting the Ordinance's criteria. After a\nthorough discussion of the proposal, the Commission confirmed the interpretive\npanels' success in meeting the criteria. In addition, C Huston stated the desire\nfor the piece to include a plaque that identified the artist and included a statement\nabout him, including his photograph.\nThe Commission then considered the success of the applicant's proposed Brad\nRude sculpture for the Towne Centre in meeting the Ordinance's criteria. The\nsculpture's color, size, scale, and artistic merit were subjectively evaluated in\naddition to its adherence to the Ordinance's criteria. The Commission agreed the\nsculpture was more pleasing as opposed to provocative and would complement\nthe color scheme and surrounding environment of the Towne Centre.\nM/S/C\nHuston/Lee\n(approved)\n\"That the public art proposal for the Alameda Towne Centre by the\napplicant, Harsch Investment Properties, consisting of the interpretive\npanels by John Larsen and the sculpture by Brad Rude meets the approval\ncriteria of the City's Public Art Ordinance.\"\nApproved (4) - Huston, Lee, Rosenberg, Wolfe\nAbsent (1) - Cervantes\n7.\nSubcommittee Reports\nCM Rosenberg reported that the subcommittee would review proposals for the\nparking garage wall media project on June 26, 2006 and report back to the\nCommission at a later date with a recommendation.\nPAC Meeting Minutes\n2\nJune 7, 2006", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2006-06-07.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2006-06-07", "page": 3, "text": "8.\nCommissioner Communications\nC Huston reiterated agreed upon staff and Commission roles and responsibilities\nfor reviewing public art proposals. Staff and the Commission will jointly craft\nreports and staff will not make recommendations for approval, only present facts\nand findings that proposals are technically complete/compliant.\n9.\nStaff Communications\nStaff proposed that the Commission's regularly scheduled June 28, 2006 meeting\nbe cancelled. CM Rosenberg stated that the parking garage wall media project\nmay warrant discussion and that staff should confirm this with Jennifer Ott from\nDevelopment Services Department prior to canceling the meeting.\n10.\nAdjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 8:50 pm.\nPAC Meeting Minutes\n3\nJune 7, 2006", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2006-06-07.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2006-07-26", "page": 1, "text": "CITT\n$\nMINUTES OF PUBLIC ART COMMISSION\nREGULAR MEETING OF JULY 26, 2006\nCO.\nDATE:\nWednesday, July 26, 2006\nTIME:\n7:00 p.m.\nPLACE:\nRecreation and Parks Department, 2226 Santa Clara Avenue,\nThird Floor, Room 360\nAlameda, CA 94501\n1.\nCONVENE:\nThe meeting was called to order at 7:10 p.m.\n2.\nROLL CALL: Chair (C) Huston, Vice Chair (VC) Lee, Commission Members\n(CM) K.C. Rosenberg and Peter Wolfe\nAbsent:\nCecilia Cervantes\nStaff:\nAndrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager (Absent)\nDoug Vu, Secretary, Public Art Commission\nAndria DeBose, Staff Member\n3.\nApproval of Minutes\nA.\nMinutes of Meeting on June 28, 2006\nC/VC/CM/Staff (distributed and approved)\n\"Minutes of Public Art Commission Meeting on June 28, 2006 be\napproved.\"\nApproved (4) - Huston, Lee, Rosenberg, and Wolfe\nAbsent (1) - Cervantes\n4.\nOral Communications\n(Any person may address the Committee in regard to any matter over which the\nCommission has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance that is not on the\nagenda.)\nJune 28, 2006 Minutes were distributed, edited, amended, and approved.\n5.\nWritten Communications\n-NONE\nPAC Meeting Minutes\n1\nJuly 26, 2006", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2006-07-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2006-07-26", "page": 2, "text": "5.\nNew Business\n-NONE\n6.\nOld Business\nA. Alameda Towne Center\nChair inquired as to why two different drafts of the proposal were issued. Tad\nwas given a draft for his review that encouraged his edits and comments when\nthe commission did not feel that was his position. Staff explained that Tad\nreceived a different draft per previous discussions and agreement between\nAndrew and Tad. Prior discussions regarding the \"Brown Act\" and discussions\nwith the Commissioner resulted in the special review of only C Huston and Tad\nreview the draft at this time. C Rosenberg requested they be given a copy of the\ndraft upon completion for the PAC to review. Staff agreed to distribute to the\nentire commission upon completed draft. Commission requested written\ncommunication upon next meeting for review. Commission and staff agreed.\nC/VC/CM/Staff\nApproved (4) - Huston, Lee, Rosenberg, Wolfe\nAbsent (1) - Cervantes\n7.\nSubcommittee Reports\nA. Theater and Garage Project\nSC met with the City/Client and reviewed the current two submitted artist murals\nhowever, the council was not impressed with the current selections. They didn't\nfeel the work was the artist strongest or best selections. They requested Jennifer\nOtt attend the council meeting in the future and supply the committee with\nadditional artist for review and consideration. Jennifer and Staff will review the\nartist concepts and context of murals prior to the review of the SC. SC\nrecommended the artist have a stronger and more narrative \"pitch\". Staff will\ncheck with Jennifer Ott and the artist prior to the sub-proposal. SC discussed that\nthe Garage piece is a temporary canvas. Staff will confirm with Jennifer\nOtt\nregarding permanent nature of piece.\n8.\nCommissioner Communications\nC Huston asked about the status of \"Bridge Side\". Staff stated project was\nrecently assigned to him and current status unknown. Commissioner stated they\npreviously made recommendations upon the \"early\" sketches that the PUC stay in\ncontact with the commission, but no contact has been kept. There was also earlier\ndiscussion regarding the budget and calculation of the sculpture. They were\nwaiting to find out what 1% of the proposed budget cost would be of the project.\nThe previous figure given by the artist was $35,000.00 which didn't add up to the\nPAC Meeting Minutes\n2\nJuly 26, 2006", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2006-07-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2006-07-26", "page": 3, "text": "commission.\nThe PAC's \"Bridge Side\" actual budget is estimated over\n$205,000,000.00. There was also to be further discussion regarding the \"Summer\nHouse Apartments\". \"Summer House\" has now been found to be renting without\nthe further discussion of council. Staff to look into results of \"Summer House\"\nproject.\nCommission remembers discussing the status of the \"Stone\" piece, the John Buck\npiece, and the stone plaque located behind the circulation desk at the \"Free\nLibrary\". The Library Proposal Group presented their art to the council and Parks\nand Recreations. There was friction, rudeness, and issues regarding the art\npieces (i.e. fish on woman's head, and piece where shirt was missing off of\nwoman) however, the commission states the pieces were \"grandfathered\" and\nwere not used anyway. However, commission wants to know what happened to\nthe \"calendar\" of projects previous used?\nCommission curious regarding the\nJanet Quote's Plant Building project? Commission states a calendar or\nspreadsheet would be nice for tracking purposes. Commission suggest utilization\nof the new Libraries imagery to assist and aid them in relation to proposed,\napproved, or amended projects. They would also like a web site to list information\nof PAC projects.\n9.\nStaff Communications\nA. Peet's Coffee\nStaff discussed why Pete's Coffee is excused from the PAC code requirement.\nThe Pete Coffee Project entered into a development agreement prior to the\nPAC Ordinance of 2003 and are not required to adhere to the current\nordinance. The Commission suggest that a letter be drafted to welcome and\nencourage Pete's Coffee. Staff volunteered to draft a letter.\nUnknown status of previous projects;\nB. Clif Bar- Staff volunteered to research to see if they are a part of a previous\ndevelopment agreement or if it is a new project and if new to the\ncommunity.\nC. Ballena Bay- Existing landscaping as public art?\nD. Summer House-Inset's?\n10.\nAdjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 8:04 pm.\nPAC Meeting Minutes\n3\nJuly 26, 2006", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2006-07-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2006-08-23", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC ART COMMISSION\nREGULAR MEETING OF WEDNESDAY AUGUST 23, 2006\nCONFERENCE ROOM 360, THIRD FLOOR CITY HALL\n2226 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 7:00 PM\nCONVENE:\nThe meeting was called to order at 7:11 p.m.\nMEMBERS PRESENT:\nVice Chair Lee, Commission Members Cervantes\nand Wolfe\nMEMBERS ABSENT:\nChair Huston, Commission Member Rosenberg.\nSTAFF PRESENT:\nDoug Vu, Planner III, Debbie Gremminger, Recording Secretary\nMINUTES:\nMinutes of the Regular Meeting of July 26, 2006.\nM/S and unanimous to approve the Minutes of the June 28, 2006 Regular meeting. 3-0-2.\nAyes:\n3;\nNoes:\n0;\nAbsent: 2;\nMotion carries.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\nA.\nFinal Alameda Towne Centre Resolution. This is for information only. No action needed.\nNEW BUSINESS\nA.\nBridgeside Public Art Proposal - Applicant: Regency Centers.\nDoug Vu, Planner III, summarized the staff report. Mr. Vu introduced the applicant, Bruce\nQualls of Regency Centers.\nMr. Qualls briefly updated the Commission on the progress of this project since last January. He\ninformed the Commission that the amphitheatre will be available free of charge to recognized\narts and performance groups. As previously approved by the Planning Board, the stage area will\nbe approximately 55 feet wide and vary in depth from 20 to 25 feet. The glade area will be\napproximately 50 feet wide in front and angle towards the rear with a width of 100 feet. The\namphitheatre will also be wired for sound and lighting equipment allowing staged performances\nMinutes of August 23, 2006\nRegular Public Art Commission\nMeeting.\nPage 1", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2006-08-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2006-08-23", "page": 2, "text": "of, but not limited to, theatre productions, musical presentations, literary readings, art shows and\ndemonstrations.\nRegency Centers has arranged with the Frank Bette Center for the Arts to present artists' work in\ntwo shows within the first twelve months of the Center's opening. In addition, the Alameda\nCivic Light Opera will be presenting highlights of their productions with two shows also during\nthe first twelve months of the Center's opening. When not used for performance or displays, the\namphitheatre can also be used for recreational purposes such as Tai Chi classes.\nInformation regarding the amphitheatre will also be included in the advertising for the Center's\nopening and areas within the vicinity of the amphitheatre will be posted stating its availability\nwith contact information to reserve the space. Regency Centers has hired a property manager\nwho is an Alameda resident that will be responsible for community outreach for the Center,\nincluding the amphitheatre.\nBarbara Price, PK Consultants, briefly reviewed the memo submitted to the Commission on\nconstruction management & public outreach. Also provided copies of Planning Board approved\nResolution PB-04-64, which lists the conditions of approvals regarding light and sound. Ms.\nPrice stated that they do not foresee having more than fifty of sixty people in the audience at a\ntime.\nVice-Chair Lee informed the Commission that she has received an e-mail from Chair Huston\nstating her concerns. She would like staff to address them. Her first concern was that the\ncalculations were accurate. Staff stated they were. In response to her question if Staff has went\nto the site to see if the amphitheatre will create an acoustically viable space, Mr. Vu responded\nthat he cannot say for sure whether the space will be acoustically viable, but feels the trees will\nserve as a buffer.\nCommissioner Wolfe stated that the drawings provided do not show enough details for him to\nmake a decision. He is unclear if the stage will be big enough for the various performances and\nwould like more detail on the sound equipment and whether the lighting equipment will be\nsufficient for evening shows.\nCommissioner Cervantes complimented the applicant on his proposal. In response to her inquiry\nregarding seating, Ms. Price stated that BCDC will not allow them to provide seating. People\nmay bring blankets or chairs.\nMr. Qualls described the various kinds of trees proposed. He informed the Commission that he\ndoes not have a problem changing any of the types of trees selected.\nCommissioner Cervantes stated that she would like the amphitheatre to be available to all\ncommunity groups such as the Boys and Girls Club. She does not want it limited to just\nperforming arts organizations. Mr. Qualls stated that any organization will be free to use this\nspace.\nMinutes of August 23, 2006\nRegular Public Art Commission\nMeeting.\nPage 2", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2006-08-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2006-08-23", "page": 3, "text": "M/S (Wolfe, Lee) to continue this item to allow the applicant to submit a more detailed site plan\nof the amphitheatre, including additional information on what the stage will look like, section\ndetails such as the pitch and what the sign will look like. 3-0-2.\nAyes:\n3;\nNoes: 0;\nAbsent:\n2.\nMotion carries.\nThe Commission is willing to hold a special meeting to accommodate the applicant's time frame.\nStaff will poll the Commission of their availability for the first two weeks in September.\nOLD BUSINESS\nNone.\nSUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS\nMr. Vu informed the Commission that the mural project for the parking garage is no longer\ngoing to happen because the parking garage plans have been revised and the sheer wall has been\nmoved.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS\nStaff distributed a memo regarding AB 1234 Ethics training. The City Council is requiring all\nBoards and Commissions complete this training by January 2007.\nMr. Vu introduced staff member Debbie Gremminger. She will be the new recording secretary.\nADJOURNMENT\nThe meeting was adjourned at 8:30 pm.\nRespectively submitted by:\nDouglass Vu, Planner III\nPlanning and Building Department\nG:\\PLANNING\\PAC)Agendas_Minutes)Minutes_06/08-23-06 draft minutes.doc\nMinutes of August 23, 2006\nRegular Public Art Commission\nMeeting.\nPage 3", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2006-08-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2006-09-13", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC ART COMMISSION\nSPECIAL MEETING OF WEDNESDAY SEPTEMBER 13, 2006\nCONFERENCE ROOM 391, THIRD FLOOR CITY HALL\n2226 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 7:00 PM\nCONVENE:\nThe meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m.\nMEMBERS PRESENT:\nChair Huston, Commission Members Rosenberg and Wolfe\nMEMBERS ABSENT:\nVice Chair Lee, Commission Member Cervantes (Vice-Chair Lee\nwas absent from Roll Call. She arrived at 7:40 p.m.)\nSTAFF PRESENT:\nDoug Vu, Planner III, Erin Garcia, Acting Recording Secretary.\nMINUTES:\nMinutes for the Regular Meeting of August 23, 2006\nM/S and unanimous to continue the Minutes of the August 23, 2006; 4-0-2.\nAyes:\n3;\nNoes:\n0;\nAbsent: 2 (Lee, Cervantes);\nMotion carries.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\nNone\nACTION ITEMS\nA.\nBridgeside Public Art Proposal - Applicant: Regency Centers. (Continued from the August\n23, 2006 Regular meeting).\nAt the Commission's last regular meeting on August 23, 2006, Bruce Qualls, the applicant\nrepresenting Regency Centers presented the proposed public performance amphitheatre for\nBridgeside Shopping Center. The proposal includes the construction of an outdoor\namphitheatre that will be available free of charge to arts and performance groups. The trapezoid\nshaped stage located at the foot of the amphitheatre and will be approximately 55 feet wide and\nvary in depth from 20 to 25 feet. The glade area will be approximately 50 feet wide in front and\nangle towards the rear with a width of 100 feet. Since the August 23, 2006, the applicant has\nMinutes of September 13, 2006\nSpecial Public Art Commission\nMeeting.\nPage 1", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2006-09-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2006-09-13", "page": 2, "text": "informed Staff that the proposed amphitheatre will also be equipped with a power outlet for\nstaged performances.\nAt the last meeting, the Commission suggested the amphitheatre be used as part of their cultural\nrequirements. The Commission requested the applicant submit a plan showing the details of\namphitheatre more clearly. The Commission also requested additional grading, and additional\ntrees to help buffer the noise from surrounding areas. The applicant has complied with the\nrequests.\nIn response to Chair Huston's question regarding direct public access to the amphitheatre, Mr.\nQualls stated that there are access points between the buildings in two locations and along the\nfront side and back side of the retail area. Chair Huston expressed concerns with the success of\nthe amphitheatre without any direct access.\nCommissioner Wolfe stated that the developer would likely advertise the performances so the\nvendors would benefit from it. He acknowledged concerns whether or not it is ADA accessible.\nChair Huston shared some additional concerns. One was the nature and scale of the space, the\nsecond was the programming, and lastly whether the space would be utilized as a public area.\nMr. Qualls agreed to submit an annual programming schedule to the Planning & Building\nDirector for approval.\nDeborah Owen and Mike Sheppard from the Frank Bette Center of Performing Arts were present\nand informed the Commission that from what she can tell by the plans, this will be a wonderful\naccommodation for community art, with plenty of options for programming. The onsite manager\nis responsible for scheduling all of the events. There will also be signage near the amphitheatre\nstating that this space is available with a contact number. Ms. Owen added that for the visual\narts requirement, there could be a sculpture show, or an exhibit of a known artist. It could also\nbe a story telling space.\nThere was one speaker slip. Chair Huston opened the public hearing.\nDaniel Levy, 1926 Broadway, spoke in favor of this space. He would like to know if the owners\nwould be providing all of the advertising for the different performances.\nChair Huston closed the public hearing.\nCommissioner Wolfe had several points to bring up. The first concern was with the benches that\nare currently located on the stage area. He asked if they could they be moved adjacent to the\npath? The other concern was whether the seating area has adequate lighting.\nMr. Qualls informed the Commission that the Planning Board had approved the lighting\nrequirements. There have been several Planning Board public hearings and discussions with\nstaff regarding the lighting plan. The issue was that this area was not intended for nighttime use.\nMinutes of September 13, 2006\nSpecial Public Art Commission\nMeeting.\nPage 2", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2006-09-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2006-09-13", "page": 3, "text": "The residents and Planning Board were very clear that there was not to be a bleed into the\nsurrounding areas. So in the applicant's preparation for the programs, organizers expect to shut\nthings down around dusk and in the summer around 9:00 p.m.\nCommissioner Wolfe inquired whether there were any public restrooms that are accessible to this\nsite. Mr. Qualls responded that all restaurants have restrooms. Commissioner Wolfe asked if\nthere could be a stipulation in the lease agreements that would state that during these events,\npeople should be allowed to use the restrooms. Mr. Qualls responded that this is at the discretion\nof the retailers. He informed the Commission that the grocery store has public restrooms that are\nlocated in the front of the store.\nCommissioner Wolfe was not in favor of the poplar trees near the lawn area.\nMr. Vu clarified the revised additional conditions related to programming, advertisement and\nmodification to provide power.\nMr. Qualls agreed with the first two revised conditions. He will find out if he can modify the\npower due to the panels already in place and advise staff.\nM/S and unanimous to accept the proposal as stated in the draft Resolution with the additional\nconditions of approval with the exception of the modification to the power. 4-0-1.\nAyes: 4; Noes: 0; Absent: 1 (Cervantes); Motion carries.\nOLD BUSINESS\nNone.\nSUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS\nNone.\nCOMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS\nCommissioner Wolfe would like staff to provide a calendar of any upcoming projects that will\ncome before them. Staff noted the request.\nChair Huston would like an update on the Summerhouse project.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS\nMr. Vu informed the Commission that the Regular meeting of September 27, 2006 has been\ncanceled.\nMinutes of September 13, 2006\nSpecial Public Art Commission\nMeeting.\nPage 3", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2006-09-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2006-09-13", "page": 4, "text": "Mr. Vu reminded the Commission that the mandatory ethics training requirement must be\ncompleted by January 2007.\nADJORNMENT\nThe meeting was adjourned at 8:40 pm.\nRespectively submitted by:\nDouglass Vu, Planner III\nPlanning and Building Department\nMinutes of September 13, 2006\nSpecial Public Art Commission\nMeeting.\nPage 4", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2006-09-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2006-11-29", "page": 1, "text": "Minutes of the Regular Public Art Commission Meeting\nWednesday, November 29, 2006\nConference Room 360, City Hall\n1.\nCONVENE:\n7:07 p.m.\n2.\nROLL CALL:\nChair Huston, Vice-Chair Lee, Commission Members\nCervantes and Rosenberg\nCommission Member Wolfe was absent.\n3.\nSTAFF PRESENT: Douglas Vu, Planner III and Tony Ebster, Recording\nSecretary\n4.\nMINUTES:\nMinutes for the Regular Meeting of August 23, 2006\nM/S Lee/Rosenberg and unanimous to approve the minutes for the meeting of\nAugust 23, 2006\nAYES - 3 (Wolfe absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 1 (Cervantes)\nMinutes for the Special Meeting of September 13, 2006\nChair Huston noted that the minutes should include the agreement that the\ndeveloper will provide wiring for the performance amphitheatre as well as\ndetailed programming to be submitted to the Planning & Building Director.\nM/S Lee/Rosenberg and unanimous to approve the minutes for the meeting of\nSeptember 13, 2006, as amended.\nAYES - 3 (Wolfe absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 1 (Cervantes)\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATION:\nNone\n6.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATION:\nNone\n7.\nNEW BUSINESS:\nNone\n8.\nOLD BUSINESS:\nNone", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2006-11-29.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2006-11-29", "page": 2, "text": "9.\nSUBCOMMITTEE REPORT:\nNone\n10.\nCOMMISSIONER COMMUNICATION:\nIt was agreed that if there are no agenda items, future meetings would be\ncancelled by Staff upon confirmation with the Chair of the Commission.\nHowever, it was agreed that the Commission will meet at least quarterly to\nmaintain a presence and to take care of housekeeping or non-action agenda\nitems such as creating \"to do' lists and to discuss future items.\nA discussion followed regarding the development of a 'to do' list for the\nCommission. The following items were identified:\n1. A map of the City of Alameda that identifies where current and future art projects\nare located. The map should also provide a brief description of the type of art\nproject in order to assist the Commission in evaluating the diversity of the\ncommunity when proposing new art projects in the future to reflect the City's\ndiverse demographic.\n2. The Commission should pursue an effort to eliminate or increase the cap for the\nart allocation of all eligible projects. It was discussed that the art allocation\nshould be proportional to the valuation of the project instead of the existing\n$150,000 limit and projects that are phased over several years should be\nassessed accordingly during each phase.\n3. The Commission should develop an assessment form or evaluation process in\norder to 1) analyze the art project upon completion to determine if it was\nconsistent with what was originally approved and 2) to evaluate the\nCommission's process for future improvement. The assessment/evaluation\nshould be interactive and include public opinion.\n4.\nAn announcement/identification of public art projects in a dedicated page on the\nCity's website. Press releases should also be prepared for newly completed\npublic art projects.\nFinally, the Commission agreed that a subcommittee will do the prioritization of\nthe aforementioned items.\nThe Commission then confirmed the Artist Directory was not useful due to the\nlimited number of listed artists and that it was too cumbersome to consistently\nensure it is current. The Commission agreed only to maintain an Artist Resource\nList that includes the East Bay Open Studio List, Alameda Art Association, Pro\nArts, and the Frank Bette Center as these organizations can provide a more\ncomprehensive and current directory of available artists.", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2006-11-29.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2006-11-29", "page": 3, "text": "11.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATION:\nThe following is the current status of the projects identified in the February 2006\nStatus Report:\n1. 2515 Blanding Ave. -- A work/live project.\n2. Bridgeside -- Commission approved the proposal with a condition regarding\nspecific programming agreements. Commission expressed concern that the final\nexecuted resolution failed to accurately identify the condition of approval\nregarding the agreed upon programming.\n3.\nAlameda Towne Centre -- Opening in phases. Art has not been installed yet due\nto construction delays. Vice Chair Lee suggested press releases for all new\nartwork open to the public.\n4. Summer House (Harbor Island Apartments) -- No formal application for public art\nfiled as of the February 2006 status report. The Commission expressed concern\nabout the lack of initiative to include public art and also was curious about the\ntemporary Certificate of Occupancy.\n5. Alameda Landing (Catellus Project) -- Still in entitlement phase. The project will\ngo to City Council on December 5, 2006.\n6.\nAlameda Theater/Parking Structure -- Mural was removed from project due to\nremoval of sheer wall. Commission expressed concern about what the\ndevelopers are going to do to include public art in the construction of the parking\nstructure and the Alameda Theater.\nThey were concerned about\n\"grandfathering\" to avoid being obligated to include public art in the project.\n7.\nWashington Park Recreation Building - Doug Vu will follow up to see if The Park\nand Recreation Department has submitted an application for public art.\nThe following projects are still in the entitlement phase:\n1.\nBoatworks - Submitted application for rezoning to allow 242 dwelling units.\n2.\nHarbor Bay Village - Submitted application for rezoning to allow 104 single-\nfamily homes. Currently in EIR phase.\n3.\nBayport\n4.\nBay Ship & Yacht\nFinally, D. Vu reminded the Commissioners that the AB 1234 ethics training\nneeds to be completed by the end of calendar year 2006.\n12.\nADJOURNMENT:\n8:25 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nDouglas Vu, Planner III\nPlanning & Building Department", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2006-11-29.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2007-02-28", "page": 1, "text": "Minutes of the Regular Public Art Commission Meeting\nWednesday, February 28, 2007\nConference Room 360, City Hall\n1.\nCONVENE:\n7:05 p.m.\n2.\nROLL CALL:\nChair Lee, Vice-Chair Huston, Wolfe\nCommissioners Cervantes and Rosenberg were absent.\nSTAFF PRESENT: Douglas Vu, Planner III, and Tony Ebster, Recording\nSecretary\n3.\nMINUTES:\nMinutes for the Regular Meeting of November 29, 2006\nVice-Chair Huston motioned to continue the minutes of November 29, 2006 to\nthe Public Art Commission meeting of March 28, 2007.\nChair Lee seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 2.\n[Abstain: Commissioner Wolfe - 1; Absent: Commissioners Cervantes and\nRosenberg - 2.]\n4.\nORAL COMMUNICATION\nCarol Burnett with the Alameda Art Association introduced herself and informed\nthe Commission that they wanted to raise awareness of local artists. She\nexpressed the desire for developers and project applicants to use local artists.\nShe requested the Alameda Art Association be placed on the City's Artist\nDirectory. Commission Member Huston agreed to refer the Alameda Art\nAssociation to the groups identified in the Artist Resource List.\nCommissioner Wolfe asked if there were other art associations in Alameda. Ms.\nBurnett gave some information on other organizations in Alameda that can be\ncalled upon for projects. The Commission agreed that as part of the to do list,\nthey would only maintain an Artist Resource List.\n5.\nREGULAR AGENDA\na.\nApprove Meeting Calendar for 2007\nM/S Huston/Lee to continue item to meeting of March 28, 2007\nAYES - 3; NOES - 0\nb.\nReview of Alameda Towne Centre History Panels and Update", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2007-02-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2007-02-28", "page": 2, "text": "Mr. Vu mentioned that the developer for Alameda Towne Centre is installing\nmore art than is required by the Ordinance.\nMr. Vu asked if there were any changes or concerns regarding the panels for\nAlameda Towne Centre. Chair Huston mentioned that too many people were\nomitted and thus the panels didn't reflect the diversity of Alameda and the panels\nform a false history. Otherwise, she believed the panels were really well\ndesigned. Commissioner Wolfe agreed there wasn't enough representation\nregarding the diversity of Alameda. Chair Huston expressed concern that non-\nwhite people were only shown as workers and not as heroes or persons of\ndistinction. The Commission agreed there needed to be more acknowledgment\nof the diversity and segregation in Alameda's past. It was suggested that either\nadditional panels be incorporated or current panels be updated to include the\ndiversity of the City.\nMr. Vu offered to draft a letter to Tad Savinar to commend the work done on the\npanels as well as offer thoughts and suggestions on what could be added. Chair\nHuston agreed to proof the letter prior to mailing.\nC.\nReview of Alameda Free Public Library Art\nCommissioner Wolfe stated that he liked the panels at the new Free Library but\nexpressed some issues with their installation. He liked the stone panel inside.\nHe felt the rabbit was not as good and was worried that someone could injure\nhimself or herself on it. Chair Huston stated the rabbit was supposed to be\ninteractive and felt that it wasn't. She also questioned the poor quality of the\nwork.\nCommissioner Lee expressed concern that a screen behind the children's desk\nhad been proposed but wasn't there.\nThe Commission agreed the outside panels were successful but were concerned\nthe windowsills hang over the panels too far and take attention away from the\npanels. They felt that the architecture frames the panels poorly and are oriented\nmore towards rainfall and not the integration of the art. This resulted in the\npanels looking too subtle. The Commission also felt the original plans didn't\nclearly illustrate how the panels would be installed, therefore making it difficult to\nvisualize how the finished product would look. The finished panel was not\nexactly what was expected.\nThe Commission would've liked to see more detailed plans for the art in order to\nget a better sense of the context. They would've liked more consideration given\nto the integration of the architecture and the artwork.", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2007-02-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2007-02-28", "page": 3, "text": "The Commission then proposed the idea of a catalog, or record of art projects.\nThe catalog would be for future Commission Members and would consist of\nseveral items:\n1.\nThe original art proposal for a given project\n2.\nA review of the finished product\n3.\nCommission Member comments and opinions on the finished\nproduct and how accurate it was to the original proposal.\nThe Commission felt this would be a valuable asset and a good reference for\ncreating and updating the art review process.\nd.\nPerforming Arts Program at Bridgeside Shopping Center\nChair Huston felt the conditions of approval did not reflect the programming that\nthe applicant and Commission agreed to, and therefore, the resolution approving\nthe Bridgeside amphitheatre project was inaccurate. She expressed that the\napplicant should be held to their agreed details, even though specific details\nweren't reflected in the resolution.\n6.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS:\nChair Huston expressed concern regarding whether the renovation of the Historic\nAlameda Theater will fulfill the public art requirement. She stated that any\nrestoration work already being done as part of the project's scope couldn't also\nbe used to fulfill the public art requirement. She stated there were inaccuracies\nidentified in Development Services' staff report to City Council. Commissioner\nWolfe stated that he disagreed with Chair Huston's assessment of the Ordinance\nand its Policy Guidelines regarding what aspects of a project can be used to fulfill\nthe public art requirement. Chair Huston and Commissioner Wolfe agreed to\nreview the Ordinance and its Policy Guidelines and discuss their findings at the\nnext meeting.\n7.\nADJOURNMENT:\n8:45 pm\nRespectfully submitted,\nDouglas Vu, Secretary\nPublic Art Commission", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2007-02-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2007-03-28", "page": 1, "text": "Minutes of the Regular Public Art Commission Meeting\nWednesday, March 28, 2007\nConference Room A, Alameda Free Library\n1.\nCONVENE:\n7:04 p.m.\n2.\nROLL CALL:\nChair Huston, Vice-Chair Lee, and Cervantes\nCommissioner Wolfe arrived at 7:18 p.m.\nCommissioner Rosenberg was absent.\nSTAFF PRESENT:\nCathy Woodbury, Planning and Building Director; Douglas Vu,\nPlanner III; Tony Ebster, Recording Secretary\n3.\nMINUTES:\nMinutes for the Regular Meeting of November 29, 2006\nCommissioner Cervantes motioned to approve the minutes for the meeting of November\n29, 2006, as amended.\nVice-Chair Lee seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous vote - 3\n[Abstain: Commissioner Wolfe - 1; Absent: Commissioner Rosenberg - 1]\nMinutes for the Regular Meeting of February 28, 2007\nChair Huston motioned to continue the minutes of February 28, 2007 to the Public Art\nCommission meeting of April 25, 2007.\nVice-Chair Lee seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous vote - 4\n[Absent: Commissioner Rosenberg ]\n4.\nORAL COMMUNICATION:\n5.\nREGULAR AGENDA:\na.\nApprove Meeting Calendar for 2007\nChair Huston identified scheduling issues and proposed checking with the\nCommissioners for availability.\nChair Huston motioned to continue item to meeting of April 25, 2007\nVice-Chair Lee seconded the motion\nMotion carries\nb.\nProgram to Promote Public Art in Alameda\nCathy Woodbury explained the goals and mission of the Public Art Program and then\nasked everyone in the audience to introduce themselves. Ms. Woodbury then discussed\nthe Program's requirements and informed the Commission it is their responsibility to", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2007-03-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2007-03-28", "page": 2, "text": "create a Public Art Plan that is to be submitted to the City Council on an annual basis.\nShe also identified the Public Art Fund and described how those funds could be used to\npromote art in Alameda.\nMs. Woodbury stated that she is working with staff to create a more comprehensive work\nprogram, known as the Public Art Plan. She proceeded with a PowerPoint presentation.\nSome of the highlights included:\nDeveloping an Artist Resource brochure\nCreating a Public Art Map\nAssembling a Public Art Catalogue\nEstablishing a public art review process\nPreparing an Alameda Public Art web page\nExplore the possibility of increasing the cap on public art fees\nChair Huston thanked Ms. Woodbury for her presentation. Members of the public in\nattendance then commented on the Plan and made the following suggestions:\nHave the PAC require or encourage developers to have a \"general call\" for art\nproposals to fulfill their art requirement on new projects\nEncourage City officials to attend art and cultural events\nProvide more gallery space in Alameda, especially City-owned buildings\nProvide local artists and arts organizations more exposure\nProvide grant funding for arts programs or to improve facilities\nReduce or eliminate fees for event space for art shows and cultural events\nCreate an Arts Council\nChair Huston then clarified the roles and responsibilities of the Public Art Commission.\nShe stated that although desirable, some of the suggestions made by the audience were\noutside the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission.\nCommissioner Wolfe proposed amending the statute.\nCommissioner Cervantes proposed that the Public Art Commission expand their role in\nthe community since they are now a Commission and not a committee.\nMs. Woodbury talked about the revenues for the Commission and what they are to be\nused for.\nMs. Carol Burnett mentioned that she is working with the City of Walnut Creek about\nsome of the projects they are working on and she mentioned changing the ordinance.\nChair Huston concurred with the point that Ms. Burnett made regarding the cap and how\nit affects the type and quality of public art projects.\nCommissioner Wolfe pointed out that the percentage of public art money within a project\nis relative to the budget as a whole and smaller projects pay more. The cap is\ndisproportionate in larger projects. He also mentioned that the developer can choose\nwhether or not they provide public art or pay the in lieu fee.", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2007-03-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2007-03-28", "page": 3, "text": "Chair Huston clarified that the Commission is the filter by which the city acquires art and\nthey do not get to select the art. They make sure the art is in public view.\nMs. Woodbury suggested that people who are interested in public art take a look at the\nprojects that are going to the Planning Board, go to the meetings and get involved in the\ndevelopments.\nChair Huston suggested creating a proposal for curatorial management and the in lieu\nfund could pay for this.\nMs. Woodbury responded by clarifying that the in lieu fund could not be used for a\ncurator but rather for hardware to hang pictures, etc.\nMs. Burnett asked if the Commission gives developers a list of artists to choose from.\nChair Huston responded by clarifying that the Commission cannot give specific names to\navoid a conflict of interest.\nThe amphitheater at the Bridgeside Shopping Center was mentioned. The general\nconsensus was that the finished project was not what was proposed and that it is not\nsuitable for most of the events that were proposed such as musical acts and literary\nreadings.\nMs. Woodbury clarified the role of the planning department and that they make sure the\nart for a project is feasible and they make sure the project is built according to the plans\nthat were approved.\nCommissioner Wolfe clarified that the Commission only approves concepts and not\nplans.\nMr. Vu stated that the developers at Bridgeside are required to submit an annual\nprogramming plan and when finished, an on-site manager will oversee the programming\nplan for three years. This must be submitted to and approved by Ms. Woodbury.\nChair Huston replied by saying that the developer was required to provide a useful\ncommunity performance space and an audience. She expressed concern as to who will\noversee the programming for the space to make sure they fulfill their obligations.\nIt was asked if the in lieu fund could be used for existing projects. A response was given\nthat the in lieu fund cannot be used for existing projects, only new projects.\nMs. Burnett offered her services and experience as an art consultant and developer for\nfuture projects.\nThe Carnegie building was mentioned. Ms. Woodbury responded by saying that\nconsultants are being recruited to submit ideas for its usage.\nGeneral consensus was reached that the conversation needs to be expanded to include\nmore people, ideas and proposals in the community.", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2007-03-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2007-03-28", "page": 4, "text": "Ms. Burnett suggested creating a cultural arts center to attract more artists and attention\nto the art and culture of Alameda. The Commission concurred that it would be a good\nidea to create such a place. It was suggested by a citizen who attended the meeting\nthat several art locations in addition to a cultural arts center would make it easier for the\ncommunity to access the public art.\nCommissioner Lee likes the idea of a cultural arts center in that it brings artists and\npeople of the community together allowing them to meet, network and get to know each\nother.\nIt was suggested that in addition to being prestigious and supportive, having a cultural\narts center would provide valuable gallery space for visual arts such as paintings and\nphotography.\nIt was suggested that gallery and meeting space be provided in several City-owned\nbuildings such as the Veteran's Hall and City Hall. It was asked if along with its use as a\npermit center, the Carnegie building could be used for gallery space. Ms. Woodbury\nresponded by saying a portion of the building could be used as gallery space. General\nconsensus was that this would be very beneficial to the artists and community.\n6.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS:\n7.\nADJOURNMENT:\nMeeting adjourned at 8:52 pm\nRespectfully submitted,\nDouglas Vu, Secretary\nPublic Art Commission", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2007-03-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2007-04-25", "page": 1, "text": "Minutes of the Regular Public Art Commission Meeting\nWednesday, April 25, 2007\nConference Room 360, City Hall\n1.\nCONVENE:\n7:04 p.m.\n2.\nROLL CALL:\nChair Huston, Vice-Chair Lee, Commissioners Rosenberg and\nWolfe\nCommissioner Cervantes was absent.\nSTAFF PRESENT:\nDouglas Vu, Planner III; Tony Ebster, Recording Secretary\n3.\nMINUTES:\nMinutes for the Regular Meeting of February 28, 2007\nChair Huston motioned to approve the minutes for the meeting of February 28, 2007, as\namended.\nCommissioner Wolfe seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous vote - 4\n[Absent: Commissioner Cervantes - 1]\nMinutes for the Regular Meeting of March 28, 2007\nVice-Chair Lee motioned to approve the minutes for the meeting of March 28, 2007, as\namended.\nCommissioner Wolfe seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous vote - 4\n[Absent: Commissioner Cervantes - 1]\n4.\nORAL COMMUNICATION:\n5.\nREGULAR AGENDA:\nA. Approval of Meeting Calendar for 2007 - Tabled, continued to Meeting\nOf May 23, 2007\nB. Rhythmix Cultural Works Public Art Proposal - Applicant: Cal Vita\nJanet Koike reminded the Board of the grand opening scheduled for June 2, 2007 and\nmentioned some of the acts that will be performing at the Arts Center.\nChair Huston asked how the public art portion is separate from the rest of the regular\nactivities planned for the organization. Her question specifically was, \"How is the art\npublic?\" What part is going to be accessible to the public and how will it be accessible?\nThe Commission discussed many options for fulfilling the public art obligation.", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2007-04-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2007-04-25", "page": 2, "text": "Continued to Meeting of May 23, 2007\nC. Alameda Towne Centre History Panels - Tad Savinar\nMr. Savinar gave an update of the progress of the art installation at Alameda Towne\nCenter.\nMr. John Larson spoke about the panels being installed at Alameda Towne Centre. He\ndescribed the panels and talked about the frustrating work behind them.\nChair Huston expressed sympathy for his frustration.\nCommissioner Rosenberg spoke to the requirements and felt that the Commission could\nnot impose \"diversity' requirements for artwork.\nCommissioner Wolfe mentioned the economic disparity and that some people had\ncameras and could take pictures, some of which would end up in the pictorial record.\nMr. Larson mentioned that the people with farms didn't have cameras and didn't take\npictures therefore there is little or no record of the diversity of Alameda.\nMr. Savinar asked what they were envisioning so he could respond to the request.\nCommissioner Wolfe responded by saying that a short description of the project and\nartist would be helpful.\nMr. Chuck Millar expressed concern that the Commission was unfairly criticizing the\npanels.\nThe Commission clarified that it is their job to ask questions of the artists to make sure\nthey consider all possibilities when creating a public art project.\n6.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS:\n7.\nADJOURNMENT:\nMeeting adjourned at 8:48 pm\nRespectfully submitted,\nDouglas Vu, Secretary\nPublic Art Commission", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2007-04-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2007-05-23", "page": 1, "text": "Minutes of the Regular Public Art Commission Meeting\nWednesday, May 23, 2007\nConference Room 360, City Hall\n1.\nCONVENE:\n7:05 p.m.\n2.\nROLL CALL:\nChair Huston, Vice-Chair Lee, Commissioners Cervantes,\nRosenberg and Wolfe\nSTAFF PRESENT:\nDouglas Vu, Planner III\n3.\nMINUTES:\n4.\nORAL COMMUNICATION:\n5.\nREGULAR AGENDA:\nApproval of 2007 Meeting Calendar\nMotion to approve Calendar (Huston) Second (Rosenberg)\nMotion passes with unanimous vote 4-0\nCommissioner Wolfe Abstained\nRhythmix Cultural Center Public Art Proposal\nCommissioner Rosenberg talked about the guidelines regarding the fulfillment of the\npublic art requirement. It was clarified that programming could fulfill the requirement.\nChair Huston asked how much of the public art proposal was for Rhythmix Cultural\nCenter and how much was for the general public. She wondered if the 14-month\nproposal was 14 shows.\nMs. Koike clarified that the proposal was for 14 months of rent and that Cal Vita is\nproviding to Rhythmix Cultural Works, the space for public art.\nChair Huston asked if for the 14 months, the shows would be free. She also asked if\nthey are 14 consecutive months. She was also concerned with staffing the gallery and\nthought it may be excessive to have the gallery staffed as proposed and suggested\npossibly amending the schedule after a two-month period.\nMr. Doug Vu and Chair Huston want to adjust the language in the resolution to include\nthe suggested amendment to the public art proposal, which includes the hours of\noperation for the gallery space, a minimum amount of hours to be open and a time span\nof 24 months within which the gallery will be open for 14 months.\nCommissioner Rosenberg motioned to adopt the resolution as amended.", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2007-05-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2007-05-23", "page": 2, "text": "Commissioner Lee seconded the motion.\nMotion passes with unanimous vote. 5-0\n6.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS:\n7.\nADJOURNMENT\nMeeting adjourned at 8:20 pm\nRespectfully submitted,\nDouglas Vu, Secretary\nPublic Art Commission", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2007-05-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2007-07-26", "page": 1, "text": "1. CONVENE:\n7:06 p.m.\n2. ROLL CALL:\nChair Huston, Vice-Chair Lee, Commissioners Rosenberg\nand Wolfe\nSTAFF PRESENT:\nDouglas Vu, Planner III; Shana Nero, Recording Secretary\n3. MINUTES:\nMinutes for the Regular Meeting of July 26, 2007\nChair Huston called for a review of the April 25, 2007 and May 23, 2007 meeting\nminutes.\nAfter reviewing the minutes Chair Huston offered following the summation of the\nAlameda Towne Centre History Panels project.\nA letter had been sent to Mr. Savinar stating that the Historic Panel was not seeing\na deficit in the area of diversity. Which is the stories were focused on white\nmales primarily and there was no mention of anyone non-European decent. The\ncommission's concerns were brought up at the beginning of the commissions\nregarding diversity. The revised edition came through with no revisions that\nincluded anyone of color.\nMr. Larson offered a response, that he had worked overtime on this project and\nthat it was beautifully crafted and well written. Mr. Larson stated he had\nresearched extensively and the commission agrees with all the assertions. Mr.\nLarson mentioned that people with forms did not have cameras to take pictures;\ntherefore there is little or no record of diversity in Alameda. In addition, the\ndocumenting of diversity that he offered was \"ugly\". That the public record of\npeople of color was racist and unacceptable in a public art forum and so part of\nthe challenge is how to prevent history. His criteria for the search was that he\nneeded documented and supportive storage outside of the dominant community\nand those that did exist were brutal and finding some way to explaining the\ndiscussion.\nDoug Vu offered to listen to the April 25, 2007 meeting minutes to accurately\nclarify the discussion regarding the Public Art Panel. Chair Huston stated that she\nwould like the minutes to reflect the fact that Mr. Savinar was responding to a\nletter requesting greater representation to proceed in the history panel.\nNo further amendments were made to the April 25, 2007 minutes.\nChair Huston motioned to approve the April 25, 2007 minutes as amended. Vice\nChair Lee seconded the motion.", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2007-07-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2007-07-26", "page": 2, "text": "Chair Huston called for a review of the May 23, 2007 meeting minutes.\nAfter reviewing the minutes Chair Huston offered following the amendments to\nthe May 23, 2007 meeting minutes.\nVice Chair Lee motioned to approve the May 23, 2007 minutes, as amended.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nSpeaker slips were filled out by the following members of the community;\nAnnette\nMike Sheppard\nREGULAR AGENDA\nA. Discussion and Recommendation Regarding Public Art Plan\nB. Discussion of Amendments to the Public Art Ordinance\nDoug Vu presented to the commission with a 2007-2009 Public Art Plan for review and\napproval either now or at a later date.\nThe commission reviewed the plan and suggested changes to the order of the objectives\nand projects.\nDoug informed the commission that Cathy Woodbury would like to attend the next\nmeeting to discuss more about the work plan and the grant programs.\nChair Huston stated that the commission is not intending to amend the ordinance to\nincrease the contribution, but to amend the ordinance to equalize the contribution so that\nlarger developers have an equal contribution to smaller businesses. The commission is\nlooking at moving the cap not increasing the contribution at this time.\nThe Grant Program was also discussed and must go before City Council in December.\nDoug suggested that the commission prioritize the work plan, commission agreed.\nThere was discussion on moving forward before the new members join next month.\nMichael suggested redefining the ordinance in regards to the Grant program, Chair\nHuston suggested that amending or creating a second shelf so that there is the Public Arts\nOrdinance and the cultural grants that would be possible for local community art.\nBecause of the concerns of the commission with co-mingling of funds there was a\nsuggestion that there be a separate arts commission apposed to the current commission.", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2007-07-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2007-07-26", "page": 3, "text": "Mr. Wolfe suggested an annual grants program and making the assessment in 1 or 2\nmeetings who those monies would be presented to.", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2007-07-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2007-08-23", "page": 1, "text": "Minutes of the Regular Public Art Commission Meeting\nThursday, August 23, 2007\nConference Room 360, City Hall\nCONVENE:\n7:05 p.m.\n1.\nROLL CALL:\nChair Huston, Vice-Chair Lee, and Commissioner Rosenberg\nCommissioner Wolfe was absent\nSTAFF PRESENT:\nDouglas Vu, Planner III; Simone Wolter, Recording Secretary\n2.\nMINUTES:\n3.\nORAL COMMUNICATION:\n4.\nREGULAR AGENDA:\nA. Recommendation of 2007 - 2009 Public Art Plan\nChair Huston directed the Commission to review the plan and provide comments for\ndiscussion.\nThe Commission wanted to amend 2.5 to read \" to design a grant program and to\ndevelop a public art process to administer the public art grants.\"\nMotion to approve Public Art Plan as amended (Rosenberg), Second (Lee)\nMotion passes with unanimous vote 3-0\nB. Discussion of Amendments to the Public Art Ordinance\nChair Huston directed the Commission to review the document regarding the funding\ncap, staging and to discuss changes.\nChair Huston requested clarification of the Arts Grants funding because the ordinance\ndoes not allow for adding outside money to this fund or applying money in this fund to\nanything other than public art or the administration of the public art project\nDoug Vu explained that when the grant program is developed, the ordinance may also\nbe amended. He recommended that the Commissioners focus the discussion on the\ntotal cap as stated in the ordinance.\nCommissioner Lee requested that the Commission develop a review process to ensure\nquality control and follow-up on the status of approved projects.\nMr. Vu pointed out that the non-object based specific art guidelines (e.g. programming)\nrequire additional information, as they are too vague.\nChair Huston requested that the new guidelines include that non-object based specific\nart submittals would require a schedule or more detailed information so that it can be\nverified.", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2007-08-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2007-08-23", "page": 2, "text": "Commissioner Lee noted that the timelines and schedules as listed in the ordinance are\ndifficult to adhere to and require revision.\nChair Huston said the ordinance should be amended to include penalties to\ndevelopments that do not actually fulfill the public art requirement. Some receive\napproval of their applications but do not execute as agreed (Bridgeside). Others never\napply (Summerhouse).\nMr. Vu suggested that more types of art (e.g. performance art) be elaborated upon in the\npolicy guidelines in order to help the Commission and staff determine if applicants have\nmet the criteria and requirements of the ordinance.\nChair Huston requested clarification on the overall timeline of adopting and implementing\namendments and how amendments to the ordinance shall be discussed and\nincorporated. Doug Vu suggested that this discussion be placed on the agenda for the\nOctober meeting, which will be attended by Cathy Woodbury, Planning & Building\nDirector. Chair Huston requested that the amendments and guidelines be sent out as\na\npacket to inform all new Commissioners.\n5.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS:\nMr. Vu summarized the meeting with Chair Huston, Cathy Woodbury, and Doug Vu to\ndiscuss the proposed cultural arts grant program.\nThe Alameda arts community is holding a meeting on September 15, 2007 to discuss\nthe cultural arts grant program. Doug Vu welcomes any input on this matter, which\nChair Huston and Commissioner Rosenberg seconded.\nCommissioner Rosenberg requested that the October meeting include an agenda item\nto list public or private spaces that could be used to place public art and to initiate a call\nfor artists.\nMr. Vu handed out a matrix listing nation-wide arts grant programs. He directed the\nCommissioners to review the various grant programs to allow for a focused discussion at\nthe October meeting.\nA discussion between the Commission and the public occurred that brought to the\nforefront the public's desire to assist the Commission in the cultural arts grant program.\nThe Commissioners also explained the existing funding mechanisms, art project\nrequirements and the potential conflict of interest in developing public art.\n6.\nADJOURNMENT:\nMeeting adjourned at 8:53 pm\nRespectfully submitted,\nDouglas Vu, Secretary\nPublic Art Commission", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2007-08-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2007-09-27", "page": 1, "text": "Minutes of the Regular Public Art Commission Meeting\nThursday, September 27, 2007\nCity Council Chambers, City Hall\nCONVENE:\n7:10 p.m.\n1.\nROLL CALL:\nChair Huston, Vice-Chair Lee, and Commissioners Arrants and\nRosenberg. Commissioner Wolfe arrived at 7:30\nSTAFF PRESENT:\nCathy Woodbury, Planning & Building Director; Douglas Vu,\nPlanner III; Tony Ebster, Recording Secretary\n2.\nMINUTES: Minutes for the Regular Meeting of August 23, 2007\nContinued to the meeting of October 25, 2007\n3.\nORAL COMMUNICATION:\n4.\nREGULAR AGENDA:\nA. Cultural Arts Grant Program.\nDoug Vu gave a powerpoint presentation, which described and outlined the objectives,\nguidelines and ideas regarding the Cultural Arts Grant Program.\nCathy Woodbury expressed appreciation for the large number of people in the audience.\nShe mentioned that despite the formal setting, the love of art should be embraced. She\ntalked about the next steps in the process for the grant program, which consisted of\nlistening to input and ideas from the Community and the Commission, then drafting a\nprogram for presentation at the November Public Art Commission meeting and then\ntaking a proposal to City Council. She suggested working through some components of\nthe program.\nChair Huston replied by asking about the public presentation. She agreed that starting\nwith the public presentation was a good place to start. She mentioned the rules of order\nand explained to the public that a certain protocol was to be followed.\nJoseph Woodard expressed appreciation for the program. He spoke to the objective in\nthe program that speaks to the funding for art spaces. In his experience he has learned\nthat art space can be expensive and support is important. He mentioned the Presidio in\nSan Francisco and how it is being used as open space and it is paying for itself through\nvarious means. He suggested that common space could be useful and could also be a\nrevenue earner. It could be affordable for artists.\nPatricia Edith expressed a misunderstanding that the Commission didn't want to handle\nthe grant program. She wanted to ask what was going to be done first and how the\ngrant money was going to be distributed. Those questions were answered by Mr. Vu's\npresentation. She suggested that whichever body handles the grant program should\nalso handle the appointment of poet laureates. She was under the impression that every", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2007-09-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2007-09-27", "page": 2, "text": "two years a poet laureate would be appointed and pointed out that it had not been done.\nShe wanted to suggest that the final decision regarding the grants be done by an outside\nentity or by lottery. She thinks the $50,000 should be used for all disciplines of art and\nfeels that there should be representatives from all areas of the arts. She also mentioned\na strange feeling at the last meeting and proposed that grants of $2,000 be awarded to\nan individual writer, performance artist, visual artist, musician and an interdisciplinary\nartist. She also mentioned that $4,000 grants could be awarded to groups in visual arts\nsuch as theater, dance, literary arts, museum, gallery or music groups. Also, a grant\ncould be awarded to art programs for kids, low income or elderly groups. She expressed\nexcitement and suggested that it can be done and doesn't need to be complicated.\nClint Imboden wanted to make the point that the most important part of a grant program\nis giving resources to the individual artist. He also mentioned that organizations would\nnot be there without the individual artist.\nChair Huston welcomed Commissioner Wolfe to the Commission.\nMichelle Frederick thanked the City for recognizing that art is important and that it is\neconomically viable for the community and for artists. She wanted to talk about the\ngrant criteria and wanted to make sure that it inclusive, visual arts, all media, written and\nspoken word, performances and events, architecture, historic preservation and culinary\narts. She felt strongly that grants should be available to individuals as well as groups\nand feels that there should be a portion set aside for individuals to apply for. In addition,\nshe feels that the art product that is produced should contribute to the advancement or\nenhancement of Alameda and the art community. She also wanted to make sure that\nthe grants that are awarded are given to the appropriate recipient, such as teaming up\nwith art departments in schools to further the understanding of what art is, a partnership.\nAnother element she felt would be important is a comprehensive marketing program that\nwould catalog and calendarize all art activities, an active promotion that would market\nthe art activities and cultural assets in Alameda. It could bring in revenues and give\ngreat exposure to local artists.\nElizabeth Calandario concurred with Ms. Frederick. She gave a personal history and\nwanted to make sure that philosophies regarding art be evaluated with as much respect\nas the art itself. She brought up the proposal of a steering committee for the\napplications for grants. Her concerns were with the potential structure of the committee.\nShe wanted to make sure that all projects of merit get a fair hearing. She wanted to\nmake sure that the steering committee doesn't overlap or duplicate the mission or\nresponsibilities of the Commission and it should seek out lesser known artists or artists\nthat are new to the community. She submitted her suggestions in writing and asked\nabout the paid positions and how they were funded. Her concern was that the money to\npay for the administrative positions was going to come out of the art fund and that it\nwould consume a significant amount of that fund. Finally she brought up the recent\ngraffiti problems seen on some of the public art in Alameda.\nJeff Cambra, a member of an ad hoc steering committee representing a portion of the art\ncommunity introduced some of the audience members. He wanted to entertain more\ninformation on the process of the grant program and thanked everyone for all the work\nthey have done. He expressed eagerness to assist and contribute to the process. He\nmentioned that there are a number of options that can be used to achieve the objectives\nand goals of the grant program. He wanted to request that a portion of the art\n2", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2007-09-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2007-09-27", "page": 3, "text": "community speaking through the ad hoc committee be able to discuss and consider all\ncomponents of the program in an open forum. This committee is committed to holding\nmonthly meetings in tandem with the PAC so the arts community can participate in the\nfinal version of each component of the program without delaying its progress. He asked\nthat a timeline be given so they can respond to steps taken. He wanted input from the\nCommission on what role they would play in evaluating the program components. He\nwas interested in their preferences. In closing, he asked that the Grant Program reflect\nthe needs and desires of the art community.\nPat Colburn mentioned the current amount that the Commission has and suggested that\na portion of the fund be used to hire a grant writer. Her idea is that it takes money to\nmake money and if all the money that is currently in the fund is given out, there will be\nno more. Therefore, a portion of the fund should be put towards soliciting more money\nto grow the art fund.\nMike Sheppard, President of the Frank Bette Center for the Arts observed that despite\nthe urgency to get the program up and running, people are still learning how to work\ntogether. He mentioned some conversations he has had with different people nationally\nto get more information on how to structure the program. He pointed out some\nmisunderstandings and miscommunications and mentioned that one of the objectives is\nto open up the program as much as possible, to get as many voices in as possible. In\naddition, he wanted to clarify that the brainstorms and ideas are not formal proposals.\nMr. Sheppard questioned a couple of items in Mr. Vu's presentation. One was that\ngrants must be matched dollar for dollar and that there was a cap. He was surprised by\nthese new elements. He also asked about an overlap when it falls under the public art\nfund and if it is public art. He also expressed concern that grants go to individuals as\nwell as organizations. He addressed the community and invited them to participate in\nthe steering committee.\nCarol Burnett, president of the Alameda Art Association, started with a history of the\norganization and their purpose of helping artists present in many venues regardless of\ntheir medium. She mentioned that they want to use the money for an arts center for\nclasses and workshops. But her main concern was having the developers give a\npercentage to local artists. She felt that there should be an amendment to increase the\namount that developers give as public art and to artists.\nChair Huston gave a last call for speaker slips to the public.\nMs. Woodbury responded to a couple points to clarify. The graffiti issue will be\nforwarded to the appropriate department. In response to the questions of who receives\na grant, she clarified that the program is not even developed yet. There is nothing in\nplace and it is not known who will get grants. The amounts that Mr. Vu mentioned were\nexamples of what other cities are doing. She mentioned that this grant fund is supposed\nto be $50,000 over a two-year budget cycle and clarified that there is a dollar for dollar\nmatch, which was discovered upon review of the City Council direction.\nThere were several responses and questions as to what exactly a dollar for dollar match\nis.\nMs. Woodbury responded by clarifying that it can be matched by providing funds,\nreceiving another grant and getting sponsors.\n3", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2007-09-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2007-09-27", "page": 4, "text": "Vice-Chair Lee asked for further explanation.\nIn response to Vice-Chair Lee, Ms. Woodbury said that it shows an investment on the\npart of the person requesting the funding.\nChair Huston wanted to put that issue on an agenda to discuss how to approach it.\nMs. Woodbury clarified that the grant program wasn't to result in an actual \"piece,\" but\nrather to facilitate cultural arts in general and to help people to achieve their goals.\nDebra Owen expressed appreciation for the work of the Commission and the City for\nreaching out to embrace the greater arts community and the creativity. She feels that\n$50,000 is not a lot of money, but feels that there is a wealth of creativity in the\ncommunity and people who are willing to work to connect with the community to make\nthings happen. She prefers to see the $50,000 as seed money, this is just the\nbeginning. One point she made is that the diversity of creativity that is available is broad\nand she encourages whichever body determines where the money goes will categorize\nthe distribution to seed the growth of creativity. Her second point is that she is not\nunderstanding where the Commission stands and how their mandate fits in with the\nGrant Program. She thinks it would be wonderful if the support goes towards the\nenrichment of as many lives as possible.\nChair Huston asked if there were any more speakers.\nKim Nichols spoke to several items that did not pertain to the Public Art Grant Program.\nChair Huston closed the public comment section of the meeting. She reiterated the\nprotocol of the meeting.\nThere was a question from the floor regarding the two-year cycle.\nChair Huston replied that it is on a two-year cycle and thanked all of the people spoke.\nShe asked if there were questions from the public.\nMr. Sheppard asked about the formal protocol.\nMs. Woodbury clarified that since the Commission is a public body, rules and guidelines\nmust be adhered to.\nChair Huston started the conversation within the Commission and what they are\ndiscovering is while they are on the same page, there is a lot of misunderstanding. She\nmentioned that the Commission is new and they are still learning how to proceed as an\nappointed body. She talked about how they are trying to gain instruction from superiors\nand that nothing has been decided. She mentioned Mr. Vu's timeline and expressed\nappreciation for its direction. She wanted to address the question associated with the\ngrants and feels that art that is publicly funded must benefit the public. It must offer a\nprofound contribution. She outlined the qualifications for public art:\n1.\nIntellectual merit\n2.\nBrilliance in design, craftsmanship, vision or execution\n3.\nAccess\n4", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2007-09-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2007-09-27", "page": 5, "text": "She talked about applications, access and how all products should be treated with equal\nconsideration. The art must serve the public and she has no opposition to funding artists\nor organizations.\nCommissioner Arrants responded by saying that he is new to serving on a Commission\n,but has been an actor and director for 40 years so he has been on both sides of the\npodium. He gave a short history of what he has worked on regarding public art and\nprograms. He talked about the enrichment of the generations and how important it is.\nHe asked if stage production companies are obligated to contribute to public art. He\nhopes that together they can come up with something that is beneficial for the\ncommunity.\nVice-Chair Lee spoke to some things brought up by the public. She said that $12,500\nwas going to administration, $6,250 per year. She pointed out the contingency that was\ninterested in brick and mortar projects such as art centers; gallery space and physical\nplants of some sort as well as the many organizations that would like to receive grant\nmoney. She asked about organizations and if they have to already exist and be\nproviding a service to receive money. She spoke to the selection process for individuals\nand should not be done in the first week. She replied to Ms. Colburn's suggestion about\ntaking money to make money and said that a track record is required to be able to get\ngrant money. She said that some groups exist because some federal money has been\ngiven already. She would like to see modest goals and objectives, which are achievable\nwithin the first two years.\nCommissioner Wolfe expressed appreciation that so many people showed up to the\nmeeting. He supports the idea of a grant program. He thinks the mission of the\nCommission is for public art and the review of art for public spaces. He also thinks that\nthere must be a group to address the grant program.\nCommissioner Rosenberg stated that she wants to make sure that an outside influence\nexist along side the grant program. She wants to make sure that everything is clear and\nunderstandable.\nChair Huston concurred and talked about the dollar for dollar and how it would be\nvirtually impossible for individual arts grants and how prohibitive it would be. She thinks\nthat there should be a way for the Council to support individuals by funding existing\nopportunities. There should be a way to foster individual grants.\nMs. Woodbury said that a program should be developed to recommend to City Council.\nShe said that Council is counting on the PAC to advise them on grants programs. In\naddition she mentioned that there are in lieu fees as a way to match the dollar for dollar\ngrants.\nChair Huston responded by saying that its useful and interesting to see how people\nmight spend money, but she thinks there will never be a proposal that doesn't have a\ncomponent that serves the greater public. She brought up an item that was mentioned\nat a prior meeting to find a specific model to accommodate the folksy nature of Alameda.\nMr. Sheppard pointed out that Peducha contributed much more on a per capita basis to\npublic art.\n5", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2007-09-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2007-09-27", "page": 6, "text": "Chair Huston said that success breeds success.\nMs. Woodbury provided some suggestions on how to develop the program. She said\nthat the \"who\" should be refined and what kind of things the grants should fund.\nChair Huston brought up that the mission is the first thing. She wants it to be community\nbased and referred back to the criteria she gave earlier.\nCommissioner Rosenberg said that because of what was said, it is about the whole of\nthe community.\nChair Huston said that she hears two sides. She stated three goals:\n1.\nSupport the arts community\n2.\nElevating the level of art within that community\n3.\nExpanding art to the public, making it accessible to the public in general\nCommissioner Rosenberg responded to the statement of elevating the level of art is the\nintellectualism of it and is afraid of marginalizing some. She feels that it is not\nnecessary.\nChair Huston asked for a mission statement.\nVice-Chair Lee gave a statement for the grants \"to include the richness of the community\nin an arts program, which would develop existing resources and make them available or\naccessible to the greater community,\" so that you don't have to be an artist to enjoy it.\nChair Huston responded by saying that she wouldn't mind including examples of how\nsome things should not be set in stone.\nCommissioner Rosenberg talked about economic viability and how it could bring in\nrevenue. A cultural arts center could be a great thing for the community and wants that\nput in the mission statement.\nVice-Chair Lee responded by saying that $50,000 could easily be spent to raise money\nfor a $500,000 brick and mortar venue.\nCommissioner Wolfe brought up what some one had said about the catalyst and the\nseed capital.\nChair Huston responded to Mr. Wolfe by saying that there should be no limit to how little\na grant can be.\nCommissioner Rosenberg suggested starting small but having larger goals and plans.\nCommissioner Wolfe said that it should be about stimulating public art in the community.\nHe wants to broaden the reach of the program. He thinks that grants should look at\nvoids in the community to reach out and fill those voids.\nChair Huston responded to the mission statement and said that a good statement would\nbe \"To stimulate public art in the community\". She likes the idea of a catalyst. Another\n6", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2007-09-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2007-09-27", "page": 7, "text": "statement from Chair Huston was \"The goal of the Alameda Cultural Arts Grant Program\nis to serve as a catalyst to stimulate public art in the community.'\nIt was agreed upon that it was vague.\nCommissioner Arrants pointed out the statement on the literature he was given by Mr.\nVu. He read the points out loud and related those points to the conversation. He\nrealized that the struggles are the mechanics of the program. He wants to know things\nsuch as what is going to happen with such a small amount of money.\nChair Huston reiterated the protocol. She clarified that what Commissioner Arrants read\nwas the mission statement for the Public Art Commission and how their original initiative\nwas to administer money on the percentage for arts but it is shifting and now they will be\ndefining and administering the Public Art Cultural Grants Program. She feels that\neveryone is on the same page as to how the program will proceed; including grants to\nindividuals and organizations and would not include bringing in people from outside\nAlameda. She added a part that is related to a long-term goal that involves an art\ncenter.\nCommissioner Wolfe stated that just the calling for arts would stimulate a lot of interest.\nChair Huston brought up a 'social practice artist' and described what that is. Her\nexample illustrated how some artists rearrange exhibits to show the contradictions\nbetween what is represented and what is not said. It's about a reframing of an\ninstitution. An idea she had was to seek out practitioners do not participate and include\nthem in the grant program.\nCommissioner Rosenberg suggested creating some sort of call for artists.\nChair Huston said that dealing with the basics such as the individual and organizational\ngrants is first but then it's about digging out the rest of the community and finding ways\nto include them.\nCommissioner Rosenberg replied that was a good idea.\nCommissioner Wolfe stated he thinks that whatever happens, the \"first launch\" should be\ngood. He wants to try to capture as many as possible in the first go around.\nChair Huston brought up the criteria and how there could be an easy misapprehension.\nShe mentioned the tile project and how conflicted it is. It included a lot of people but\ndidn't show a bigger picture. She is concerned with issues of quality.\nMs. Woodbury said that they have made good progress. She said this is the preliminary\nstep to creating a program.\nVice-Chair Lee mentioned that there is no website of an inventory of who is doing what\nand what they would like to do. She thinks it would be nice to start a website that has a\ncatalog of who has done what as well as having a blog. She suggested a \"wiki\" style site\nso people could add to it.\n7", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2007-09-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2007-09-27", "page": 8, "text": "Ms. Woodbury clarified the budget by saying that some of the money is being used for\nadministrative purposes. She wants to take the PAC program to City Council in\nDecember for recommendation as to how the money is spent.\nChair Huston asked when the annual plan goes to Council.\nMs. Woodbury responded by saying that typically it would go during the first meeting of\nDecember but it may be likely to go the second meeting of December.\nChair Huston noticed the urgency of a website and a blog to accommodate community\ndiscussion.\nMs. Woodbury suggested scheduling a workshop or meeting that would allow interaction\nwith each other and to brainstorm ideas in order to bring forth a formal discussion to\nregarding the grant program at a later time.\nChair Huston proposed scheduling of a special meeting. It was unanimously agreed\nupon. She suggested tabling the minutes and the discussion of item 4-B. She asked if\nthey should name agenda items for the upcoming meeting and asked about the one\nthing still on the agenda, which is the review of the guidelines.\nMr. Vu suggested addressing the other agenda items first before the review of the policy\nguidelines.\nCommissioner Wolfe brought up the percentage for public art and the ordinance.\nChair Huston reminded the Commission that the ordinance is still on the table and wants\nit to be agendized. She noted that she wants the discussion of things to be wide open\nsuch as the ordinance. She asked if there are any subcommittees that will be needed\nfor anything.\n5.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS:\n6.\nADJOURNMENT:\nMeeting adjourned at 9:00 pm\nRespectfully submitted,\nDouglas Vu, Secretary\nPublic Art Commission\n8", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2007-09-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2007-10-25", "page": 1, "text": "DRAFT\nMinutes of the Regular Public Art Commission Meeting\nThursday, October 25, 2007\nConference Room 360, City Hall\nCONVENE:\n7:10 p.m.\n1.\nROLL CALL:\nChair Huston, Vice-Chair Lee, and Commissioners Rosenberg\nArrants, and Wolfe\nCommissioners Rosenberg and Lee were absent\nSTAFF PRESENT:\nAndrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager; Tony Ebster,\nRecording Secretary\n2.\nMINUTES: Minutes for the Regular Meeting of August 23, 2007 and September 27,\n2007\nContinued to the meeting of November 29, 2007\n3.\nORAL COMMUNICATION:\n4.\nREGULAR AGENDA:\n4-A. Chair Huston brought up the on-site public art and the memo and felt that it was a\nmisnomer. She referred to the memo and what it says about the Commission and that they are\nbeing called upon to apply the funds available to public art and they need not apply it to a\nspecific piece or location, its wide open. She mentioned the Alameda Municipal Code and the\nsection that says that money left over after administrative fees be distributed to the City for on-\nsite public art. She also mentioned that the amount available as of September 2007 is\napproximately $45,295. She read the memo and suggested that the annual plan be amended\nto include that the money be spent or applied to the purchase or expenses of public art in\nAlameda. She proposed a movement to amend the annual plan include a line item to apply the\navailable funds to public art within the next year. She thinks that they should not name the\nnumber but rather the source.\nMr. Arrants asked about the percentages\nMs. Huston clarified that since the funds for administrative duties be spent on art since it had not\nbeen used.\nMr. Wolfe talked about the specific locations that could have an impact on Park and Webster\nStreets. He wanted to designate the money to art at the tube. He feels that it is critical that they\nplace art at the entries to the tubes and feels that it would benefit the community if they could\nmake the association with culture upon entering the city.\nMs. Huston didn't disagree.\nMr. Thomas clarified what was happening at the exit of the Webster tube.", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2007-10-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2007-10-25", "page": 2, "text": "Mr. Wolfe asked how it would fit into the program.\nMr. Thomas said that it was to be designated as a high priority project.\nMs. Huston said that one way or another they need to spend the money. She is not sure that\n$45,000 is enough to provide art for that location and feels that they could spend the money\nfaster than when the project is going to be finished. She wants to put it on the agenda for\ndiscussion. She feels that the scale of the art would have to be huge to compete with the\nsurrounding area.\nMr. Thomas stated that the plans are very detailed and are finalized. He said that the two big\nissues are the timing and that the developer has committed $300,000 for the public art\nrequirement.\nMs. Huston wants to put spending the money on the annual plan.\nMr. Wolfe wants to put spending the money on the plan with a specific site, the exit of the tube.\nMr. Arrants wanted clarify what the tube was and how it was going to change in the future.\nMr. Thomas helped him visualize the future project.\nMs. Huston is ready for some art to be out. They don't know what $45,000 will buy. She also\nwanted to know what they others thought. She doesn't need to commit to a site.\nMr. Wolfe feels that they need to move in a direction that will allow them to use the money.\nMs. Huston would support the discussion if the other commissioners were there.\nMr. Arrants asked if there was an objection to talking about it at the next meeting.\nMs. Huston felt that spending the money in the fund was not an urgent issue.\nMr. Thomas responded by saying that if they wanted to split the discussion, approve the\nexpenditures, send it to City Council and let them know that they are talking about it.\nMs. Huston proposed a motion that they add to the annual plan the expenditure of funds for\npublic art in the coming year with specific considerations of the Neptune Park and the Webster\ntube exit. She also wanted to propose an Ad Hoc Committee for the further consider the\nphrasing and crafting of the cultural arts grant.\nMr. Thomas stated that the intent of the committee was to have the workshop and work\nindependently to create information and put it together for presentation to the full Art\nCommission.\nMs. Huston was confused on the subcommittee and how many members of the commission\ncould be involved.", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2007-10-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2007-10-25", "page": 3, "text": "5.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS:\nNone\n6.\nADJOURNMENT:\nMeeting adjourned at 7:30 pm to the special workshop.\nRespectfully submitted,\nJon Biggs, Secretary\nPublic Art Commission", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2007-10-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2007-11-29", "page": 1, "text": "DRAFT\nMinutes of the Regular Public Art Commission Meeting\nThursday, November 29, 2007\nConference Room 360, City Hall\nCONVENE:\n7:08 p.m.\n1.\nROLL CALL:\nChair Huston, Vice-Chair Lee, and Commissioners Rosenberg\nWolfe\nSTAFF PRESENT:\nDouglas Vu, Planner III; Tony Ebster, Recording Secretary\n2.\nMINUTES: Commissioner Lee was not at the October meeting and didn't know what\nhappened. Mr. Vu recommended accepting the August 2007 and September 2007\nminutes since a lot of time had passed since those meetings.\nMotion/Second to accept August 23, 2007 Minutes\nAyes: 3; Noes: 0; Wolfe Abstained\nMotion/Second to accept September 27, 2007 Minutes\nContinued to Meeting of January 9, 2008\n3.\nORAL COMMUNICATION:\n4.\nREGULAR AGENDA:\n4-A. Adoption of 2008 Meeting Calendar\nMr. Vu Clarified that the reason that the 2008 meeting schedule was set for the second\nWednesday of each month was due to availability of Council Chambers and that the\nsecond Wednesday was the only day available to schedule regular monthly meetings.\nCommissioner Lee brought up the fact that in the past the meeting schedule was based\non when the commissioners were available.\nCommissioner Rosenberg stated that it would have been better for staff to ask first\nbefore making the calendar.\nMr. Vu stated that staff created the schedule with the consideration of all the other\nactivity happening in the department.\nCommissioner Lee mentioned that Commissioner Wolfe is stepping down pending the\nappointment of new Commissioners.\nCommissioner Huston proposed accepting January 9, 2008 and February 13, 2008 and\nrevisiting the calendar.", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2007-11-29.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2007-11-29", "page": 2, "text": "The meetings of January 9, 2008 and February 13, 2008 were accepted and the\ncalendar will be reevaluated pending the appointment of new commissioners.\n4-B. Cultural Arts Grants Program\nChair Lee opened the public comment session.\nMr. Jeff Cambra spoke about the Arts Grants Program and thanked the Commission for\ntheir hard work. He requested another charette. He felt that despite the fact that a consensus\nhad not been reached, it was productive and it was good to hear opposing views. It gave a\nbetter view of the big picture.\nMr. Clint Imboden asked about the emergency/opportunity grants and if an individual\nwho received a grant in the first year of the two-year cycle could apply for an emergency or\nopportunity grant in the second year of the cycle.\nCommissioner Huston replied to Mr. Imboden's question by saying that they don't want\nto encourage the accident-prone. She is what remains of the subcommittee for the Cultural Arts\nGrants. She referred to the memo for Item 4-B. She talked with a City Council member and\nwas told that funds had not been allocated. She mentioned contradictions in paperwork on the\nCity side. She also mentioned that there is no labor. She wondered if the Grants program is\npart of their scope. She mentioned that they are an advisory committee and are not equipped to\ntake on such a large task. She brought up that she was called into the Planning department\nand was told that they had to take on the task of the grants program. After doing some\nresearch, they found that it might be incompatible with the size and scope of their work. She\nwants to speak with City Council to see if it is their job to take on such a large task. There were\ninternal difficulties. She brought up the subcommittee and that it was not to work with staff, but\nto create the draft grants program. There was no agreement to present the draft to staff prior to\npresenting it to their own commission. She doesn't like that it imposed a process on the\ncommission that they didn't agree to. She expressed frustration that her draft was rejected and\nis unwilling to have her work held up prior to presentation to the commission.\nMr. Wolfe wanted to dig into the priorities of the annual plan but felt that they weren't\ngiven the legal authorization to move forward and feels that the City needs to clarify the issue.\nHe feels like it is colonialism. Need to get priorities in line. He feels that there are a couple of\nitems in the annual plan that the public needs to come out strong on. They need to focus on\na\nfew specific items and do it quickly. He doesn't want to lose out on the opportunity.\nMs. Huston feels that the conflict is a combination of loss of authority and an attitude\nfrom the department as a whole.\nMs. Lee pointed out that they are not an all purpose arts council.\nMs. Huston wants to go back to City Council to find what they want the commission to\ndo. The commission does not know what their authority is. She also pointed out that the draft\ngrants program is merely a collection of ideas and has never been discussed by the commission\nas a whole. She wants to put the Grants program on hold until the commission's role is\nclarified.\n2", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2007-11-29.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2007-11-29", "page": 3, "text": "Ms. Rosenberg stated that part of the problem they are having is the interaction with\nstaff and the commission. She wants the public to be a larger part of the process and doesn't\nwant staff to make the final decisions. She wonders if the grants program is within the\nframework of the commission and feels that it should be under an arts council and not the\nadvisory commission. Its taxing trying to figure out what they can and cannot do.\nMs. Huston feels that they need to get their feet out of the concrete.\n4-C. Ms. Lee brought up the subcommittee and proposed putting it on hold.\nMs. Rosenberg pointed out that they never had an Ad Hoc committee, instead it was a\nsubcommittee. There was no presence of an administrative body to work with; it was just she\nand Ms. Cervantes. She said that there had been a model of a subcommittee that did not\ninclude a staff member taking and forming the notes. The subcommittee had operated on its\nown.\nMs. Lee clarified that the subcommittee reported back to the committee as a whole.\nMs. Huston stated that she was faulted for her actions at the October meeting because\nshe was supposed to assign an subcommittee. She had no intention of assigning a\nsubcommittee to the issue of on-site public art until it was discussed in depth. She questioned\nthe buying of public art. She was told that she must deal with two things. One was that there\nwas $45,000 in the art fund and that it must be spent. She brought up the item on the October\nagenda that said that they are compelled to spend it. She felt disrespected that she was faulted\nfor not assigning a subcommittee despite the fact that there were only four members, two with\none foot in and one foot out.\nMr. Wolfe brought up the budgetary issue and that the money doesn't have to be spent,\nit is in a trust fund. It is not lost if it is not spent.\nMs. Huston responded by saying that there is nothing in the ordinance that says that\nthey must spend the money in a timely manner. They get to ask themselves \"how would we let\nsomeone else spend the money\"? How much should be spent, more will come.\nMr. Wolfe asked if there is money, what do they want to accomplish.\nMs. Huston responded by saying that the money is a big discussion and is not a\nsubcommittee discussion.\nMr. Wolfe suggested a workshop to include the public to figure out objectives in terms of\npublic art and what they want to do with the money.\nMs. Rosenberg clarified that it is different from the arts grant program.\nMr. Wolfe suggested readdressing the plan and asked if it can be rephrased and if they\ncan organize a series of workshops to elicit public opinion about the objectives of public art\nexpenditures.\nMs. Lee brought up the rolodex idea to send RFPs to artists. She feels its not too hard\nto set up.\n3", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2007-11-29.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2007-11-29", "page": 4, "text": "Mr. Vu clarified why they fastracked the item. The public art plan called for a percentage\nto be spent on public art. It was suggested that the money be spent since the City Council was\ngoing to be supplementing the cultural arts grants program. That's why the item was placed\nhigher on the priority list. It was the idea of the Commission, not staff.\nMr. Wolfe mentioned that in October they talked about the Stargell Avenue project and\nfeels that there is a good opportunity there. He feels that it should move forward.\nMs. Huston pointed out what a tangle the two agendas are if they are place in the same\nfund. Only a small percentage of the administrative funds are allowed to be used as a base for\nthe cultural arts fund. The problem she has with the process is that they have very little\nauthority. They are not allowed to ask where things come from.\nMs. Rosenberg suggested that they go through the minutes appropriately and very\ncarefully and making decisions in steps.\nMr. Wolfe brought up the early discussions as a committee and their talks about object\nart and how they relate to the entrances of the City. He is more interested in more temporary\ninstallation of art.\nMs. Lee expressed confusion regarding placement of art.\nMr. Wolfe talked about the object art at the entrances to the City. He was wondering\nhow it would work on State Highways in the area being planned near Webster Street and\nStargell Avenue. He said that Cal Trans is concerned about what is the peripheral of the driver\nand what they could run into going 45 miles per hour. He also expressed concern over whether\nor not the art will be visible or not driving at speed.\nMs. Rosenberg clarified the difference between an Ad Hoc Committee and a\nsubcommittee. She disagrees that the terms are interchangeable.\nMs. Lee complained that information from committees go through staff and then are\nbrought to the commission. Only after it has gone through staff can it go to the commission.\nMs. Rosenberg appreciates as a public body being able to have a public forum that isn't\nfiltered through a non-public entity. They need to put a stop on the interference. She wants\nsubcommittees that are not filtered by administrative bodies. She proposed a motion to\ndifferentiate the meanings of an Ad Hoc and a subcommittee; subcommittees are members that\nare able to go in pairs to investigate parts of the commission's mission and come report directly\nto the commission without having to report to the administrative body of planning. An Ad Hoc\ncommittee is developed by the chair of the commission with the understanding that the body\nwould include administrative staff with support and guidance.\nMs. Lee suggested that the motion include language stating that they prefer to use\nsubcommittees except when specifically deciding not to.\nMs. Huston commented on how it says a lot about the attitude and experience of the\ncommission that they have to write it into the minutes that they don't want to have to ask\npermission for their subcommittees to bring them their information and she has been affected by\nit.\n4", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2007-11-29.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2007-11-29", "page": 5, "text": "Ms. Rosenberg stated that it was important that the minutes be provided in an\nappropriate time and felt that it was inappropriate that the October minutes were not available.\nMr. Vu encouraged the approval of the August and September minutes.\n4-D. Approval of Special Meeting on December 20, 2007\nMs. Huston has an issue with how it is written and that commission adopted an irregular\nschedule. She said that because a meeting is not on an annual schedule it is not \"special\".\nMs Rosenberg wanted the language changed.\nMs. Huston wanted to skip to commissioner communications and wanted to come back to the\nspecial meeting.\nSkip to Commissioner Communications\nMs. Lee talked about the history behind the Commission and what their purpose is. She read\nfrom the ordinance to clarify what their job is as a commission. She also read from her letter.\nMs. Huston read from her letter.\nMr. Wolfe responded by saying that the letters are very specific and they point to specific\nproblems.\nMs. Rosenberg expressed thanks and appreciation for the letters and the work put into them.\nMr. Wolfe asked if they could compose a letter as a group and send it to City Council.\nMr. Vu clarified that if the letter was composed and sent as a group, it would have to be\nagendized so the public could be involved. Otherwise, it would have to be done individually.\nMs. Rosenberg asked to agendize the item for the December 20, 2007 meeting. She wanted to\nclarify that if Ms. Woodbury came to the meeting, she should come and help them define their\ngoals, not tell them what their goals are. Ms. Rosenberg wanted Ms. Woodbury be clear that it\nis a hotbed she would be walking into.\nMr. Vu responded by clarifying that the sentiment is that if there is confusion regarding protocol,\nMs. Woodbury would clarify those procedures.\nMs. Lee expressed that she would feel more comfortable discussing the matter with City\nCouncil.\nMs. Huston concurred.\nMr. Wolfe asked if they could go to the City lawyer to see if the commission has the authority to\nact as the grant constructor.\nMs. Huston feels that they have never been given a clear representation of what they have been\nasked to do. She is unsure of whether or not requests are in their domain and is given the\nimpression that they are not allowed to decline requests given to them. She feels that Ms.\n5", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2007-11-29.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2007-11-29", "page": 6, "text": "Woodbury's understanding of the commission's role is different than what their legal power may\nbe. She expressed exhaustion for having to argue over issues. She is exasperated by having\nno authority when it comes to staff and feels that she shouldn't have to defend it.\nMs. Lee said that they were eager to take on the new charge but feels that they are not the best\ngroup to do an arts council for the City of Alameda.\nMs. Huston wants to go to City Council first to clarify their authority.\nMs. Lee brought up the issue of being short two commissioners and feels that their job is more\ndifficult without them.\nMr. Wolfe stated that the way the argument is constructed, it may be a legal issue and it would\nbe good to put it before the lawyer. He reiterated that he is leaving the commission; therefore,\nhis voice would not be as effective.\nMs. Huston feels that his voice has as much weight as the other commissioners.\nMs. Rosenberg concurred.\nMs. Huston wants to hear what he has to say.\nMr. Wolfe feels that they need to send copies of the letters to the attorney to evaluate some of\nthe questions that the commission has regarding their roles and the demands put upon them.\nMs. Huston wants to talk to City Council then might want to meet with the commission before\nmeeting with Ms. Woodbury. Her sense is that there is too much that planning recommends to\nthe commission. She feels that the recommendations are being confused with the\nrequirements. She thinks there is a lot of \"hall monitoring\" going on.\nMr. Wolfe asked if they wanted legal counsel at the meeting.\nMs. Lee feels that it might not be good to pay for an attorney if it is not appropriate.\nMs. Rosenberg doesn't want to schedule a meeting until they meet with City Council.\nMr. Wolfe said that unless there is an art proposal, the next meeting would be January.\nMr. Vu clarified that the commission doesn't want to meet on December 20 unless there is an\nart application.\nMs. Lee doesn't want to forgo the January meeting.\nMs. Hustion suggested agendizing funds and expenditures.\nMr. Vu asked about preparing a staff report and what should be talked about.\n5.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS:\n5-A.\nBridgeside Public Art\n6", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2007-11-29.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2007-11-29", "page": 7, "text": "Mr. Vu started by saying that this item was in response to Ms. Huston's request for more\ninformation on how the amphitheater was constructed.\nMs. Huston asked if there had been any performances there.\nMr. Vu brought out the list of three performances and one painting event from the developer that\nhave occurred between March 2006 and March 2007.\nMs. Huston brought up that she had called some vendors asking about the performance space\nand no one knew about it.\nMr. Wolfe asked about the advertisement of the performances.\nMs. Rosenberg asked if the developer was supposed to bring a list of events to the commission\nso that the commission could see that there was a set level of performances.\nMr. Vu referred to the Resolution and condition two that stated that the developer would submit\na schedule of performances for the first year to the satisfaction of the Planning & Building\nDirector.\nThe commission questioned the submittal of the schedule to the Director. They thought that the\ndeveloper would submit the schedule to the commission, and then they would forward it to the\nDirector.\nMs. Huston clarified that this was an amended application and that it required 12 performances\non the same day and time. She wanted to listen back to the tapes to see which amendments\nthey actually agreed upon.\nMs. Rosenberg wanted it brought back to the commission so they could approve the\nprogramming.\nMs. Huston said that the amended programming requirement was designed to build the grass\nroots performances.\nMs. Lee stated that it was to be evaluated after the first year by the commission.\nMs. Huston requested staff listen to the tapes and write down the amendments to see if they\nhave been fulfilled.\nMs. Rosenberg feels that the amphitheater is so poorly planned and the level of the turf is not\ngood. She said that there is no feel of a performance space and questioned who approved it.\nMr. Wolfe said that one of the mistakes he made was not asking if it could be elevated slightly.\nHe suggested that if the grades were elevated slightly, it would be a more usable space.\nMs. Huston feels that there are a number of issues. One of the issues is that she feels that it\nturned out to be what they feared, which is a landscaping plan that is barely amended. She\nwants to try to hold the developer to the agreed amendments in the Bridgeside project proposal.\nMs. Lee felt that they were shaky about approving performances fulfilling the art requirement in\nthe first place.\n7", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2007-11-29.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2007-11-29", "page": 8, "text": "Mr. Wolfe said that they may want to go back and be very strict about performance spaces\nbecause the 1% doesn't cover performance spaces very well. He wants more foresight instead\nof hindsight.\nMs. Rosenberg stated that the better performance area is outside Nob Hill foods; it's not behind\nthe dog wash. She questions who approved the project.\nMr. Wolfe suggested that the item of looking back at the yearly program be agendized for\nJanuary. He referenced the library and suggested more open dialog.\nMs. Huston asked Mr. Vu if there was anything that could be done about Bridgeside. She asked\nwhat they could recommend to press the space so it could actually be used as a performance\nspace.\nThe commission asked if there was a person who was supposed in charge of the programming\nfor the space.\nMs. Rosenberg stated that it is crucial that they come back to the commission and wanted to\nask that they come to the commission to present a program for comments and revisions.\nMs. Huston feels that it is a very complicated issue and that enforcement is huge.\nMr. Wolfe asked about enforcement and if anyone had gone out to check what the grades are.\nHe feels that if the grades are not accurate, they are not acceptable\nMs. Huston had a couple of assignments for staff, check the grades and check the\namendments, and ask planning what are they allowed to do for enforcement.\nMr. Wolfe mentioned the temporary permits.\nMr. Vu said that they developer has received the temporary certificate of occupancy. He said\nthat the commission has some leverage to make the developer compliant before they receive\ntheir certificate of occupancy. He also suggested that staff make the developer check the\ngrades and come back to the commission.\nMs. Huston wants the to go all out and give them a report on letterhead and she wants a fact\nsheet before the developer comes back to the commission. What the commission needs to\nknow is what the amended agreement was. She wants to send out a request for information.\nMr. Vu clarified the agenda items for January 9 meeting.\nMs. Huston wanted to talk about the possible expenditures.\nMs. Rosenberg asked about agendizing the cap.\nMs. Huston replied that her top priority was hearing back from City Council. She suggested a\nsubcommittee to look at the cap.\n6.\nADJOURNMENT:\nMeeting adjourned at 8:53 pm\n8", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2007-11-29.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2007-11-29", "page": 9, "text": "Respectfully submitted,\nJon Biggs, Secretary\nPublic Art Commission\n9", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2007-11-29.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2008-01-09", "page": 1, "text": "DRAFT\nMinutes of the Regular Public Art Commission Meeting\nWednesday, January 9, 2008\nConference Room 360, City Hall\nCONVENE:\n7:05 p.m.\n1.\nROLL CALL:\nChair Huston, Vice-Chair Lee, and Commissioner Wolfe\nCommissioner Rosenberg arrived at 7:12\nSTAFF PRESENT:\nJon Biggs, Planning Services Manager; Tony Ebster, Recording\nSecretary\nMINUTES: None\n2.\nORAL COMMUNICATION None\n3.\nREGULAR AGENDA:\n3-A.\nDiscussion of request to City Council\nMr. Jeff Cambra thanked the commission for all the work they have done. He said that Arts\nAlameda is prepared to draft the public arts grants program criteria, but wanted to give everyone\na chance to express their opinions.\nMs. Huston thanked Mr. Cambra for his comments. She then read her letter to City Council.\nMs. Lee read her letter to City Council. Her concerns are \"mission creep\", they are being asked\nto manage a different program. She feels they are not qualified to give out grants and she is\nuncomfortable giving money to friends and neighbors and is concerned with conflict of interest.\nThey are not in a position to put in extra time; they are an advisory committee, not a research\nand grant generating committee. They are not clear on their mission.\nMs. Huston added that since the grants issue came up, she became more alert to conflicts. She\nreferenced the September minutes and that they are supposed to come up with ideas and give\nthem to the planning department. She never intended to work under management of the\nplanning department without pay and grew uncomfortable as materials arrived that increasingly\npressured her to answer to the planning department. She mentioned the draft of a\nsubcommittee report that was prevented from being presented to the Commission. She feels\nthat a lot of their work has been subverted. They had reservations regarding the grants\nprogram and managing the creation of a new program in which planning controls.\nMr. Biggs asked about the agenda topic to clarify how the letters related.\nMs. Huston responded by saying that the letters are requests to City Council and refers to the\ncommission having little understanding of their authority. She asked if it was appropriate to do\nthe grants program. She counted on the planning department when they asked if it was\nappropriate and when Ms. Woodbury said they must, she was acting in her role as advisor to\nthe commission. Ms. Huston feels that Ms. Woodbury was exerting a personal desire or a", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2008-01-09.pdf"}