{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2006-06-07", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nWednesday. June 7, 2006\nThe meeting convened at 7:08 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.\n2-A\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent: Beverly Johnson, Chair of Alameda\nDoug deHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nFrank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nMarie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nTony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda\n2.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n2-A. Approval of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of April 5, 2006.\n2-B. Recommendation to Approve Subleases at Alameda Point.\nApproval of the consent calendar was motioned by Member Matarrese, seconded by\nMember Gilmore and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5; Noes - 0; Abstentions -\n0.\n3.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n3-A. Certification of Golf Course EIR and Authorization to Proceed with Negotiations\nwith Port of Oakland and Army Corps of Engineers.\nElizabeth Johnson, Base Reuse Planner, presented an overview and requested certification of the\nfinal EIR for the Alameda Point Golf Course and Hotel Project. The draft EIR was circulated in\n2004, with revisions prepared in 2005 to accommodate additional information regarding\nwetlands on the site. The response to comments is also complete. Janie Alsep and Mark\nWindsor of EDAW, and Jack Fink from Moffat Nichol Engineers, the consultants who assisted\nin the preparation of the final EIR, were present to answer questions from the Board.\nChair Johnson asked if there was a time limit to start the project once it is certified. Elizabeth\nJohnson explained that the EIR is programmatic which allows us to go forward with negotiating\nwith the Port or the Army Corp to get materials for the site. Chair Johnson wanted to clarify to\nthe public that, at this point we haven't seen that the project is economically feasible; that we're\nnot moving forward with this project, and this is just a very preliminary action. Elizabeth\nJohnson concurred and further explained that the point of negotiating to get the dredge material\nwould be to determine the economic feasibility.\nMember Gilmore clarified that if/when the project is determined to be economically feasible, we\nwould still need a separate EIR for the Hotel/Conference Center. Member deHaan and Elizabeth\nJohnson discussed the current dredging at the Port of Oakland and that Alameda Point is the\nsecondary site to receive this dredge material, the primary site being Hamilton Field Wetland", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-06-07.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2006-06-07", "page": 2, "text": "Page 2\nRecreation. In response to member deHaan's question regarding the value of the dredge\nmaterials, should the golf course project NOT go forward, Elizabeth Johnson explained that we\nwould be paid a Tipping Fee for the dredge materials.\nMember Daysog questioned the delay in having an economic analysis. In response, Chair\nJohnson reminded the Board that there was a several-year process where this consideration was\ngoing on - we had a Hotel expert and even had an RFP on hotel complexes. At that time,\nhowever, the downturn in the economy left the only people willing to propose a project was that\nwe owned a five-star hotel and paid them to manage it, and that was something the ARRA\nwasn't willing to do. Elizabeth Johnson further discussed that the ARRA, in 2004, directed staff\nto go ahead with preparation of the EIR in anticipation of the Hotel market coming back. Debbie\nPotter, Base Reuse and Community Development Manager, concurred with this discussion,\nadding that the hospitality industry has taken a while to bounce back since 9/11. She further\nexplained that once the EIR is certified, and we negotiate a Tipping Fee with the Army Corp and\nthe Port of Oakland that makes sense, then we can restudy the issue of the economic viability of\nthe project.\nThere was one speaker on this item, David Kerwin, who asked when and how often soil testing\nwill be done, expressing concern about loosened toxic materials if the property is not used for\na\ngolf course. Elizabeth Johnson responded that there will be a site-testing protocol in place.\nApproval to certify the final EIR was motioned by Chair Johnson and seconded by\nMember deHaan and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 4; Noes - 1 (Member\nDaysog); Abstentions - 0.\n4.\nORAL REPORTS\n4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.\nMember Matarrese stated that he was unable to attend the last meeting and has no report.\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nThere were no speaker slips.\n6.\nCOMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nNone.\n7.\nADJOURNMENT\nMeeting was adjourned at 7:34 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-06-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-06-07", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING\nWEDNESDAY- - -JUNE 7, 2006- - -7:01 P.M.\nChair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 7:35 p.m.\nROLL CALL - Present : Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,\nMatarrese and Chair Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nChair Johnson announced that both Consent Calendar items were\nwithdrawn for discussion.\n(06-026) Recommendation to authorize the Executive Director to\nexecute a First Amendment, adding $96,225 and extending the term\nsix months, to Agreement with ERM-West, Inc. to evaluate PAH\nContamination on a portion of the Fleet Industrial Supply Center\nproperty.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Division Manager gave a\nbrief presentation.\nCommissioner deHaan stated the game plan was to provide a report\ninquired when the report was to be provided and whether the funding\nis being requested for said report, including the Human Health Risk\nAssessment (HHRA) and Feasibility Study (FS)\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Division Manager responded\nthe HHRA is a new request from the Department of Toxic Substances\nControl (DTSC) toxicology department; stated money from the initial\ncontract will be spent to write the report for the FS; the report\ncannot be written until additional sampling is completed.\nCommissioner deHaan stated remaining funds would be used to prepare\nthe HHRA and FS, which he thought were in the initial allocation.\ninquired whether all the [original] funding has been spent.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Division Manager responded\nall funding has not been used; stated there is money for the FS;\nover 65% of the additional work in the amended contract amount is\nfor fieldwork; the remaining funds are for the HHRA and the\nmeetings with the Navy and DTSC.\nCommissioner deHaan inquired how many additional samplings would be\ndone, to which the Base Reuse and Community Development Division\nManager responded 45.\nSpecial Meeting\nCommunity Improvement Commission\n1\nJune 7, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-06-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-06-07", "page": 2, "text": "Commissioner deHaan inquired whether 300 samplings were already\ndone, to which the Base Reuse and Community Development Division\nManager responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the sampling would be a\ndifferent type.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Division Manager responded\nthe samplings are the step-outs from the twenty hot spots ;\nclarified three samples are taken at each location; stated there\nwill be three depths at some locations sampling will be done at\ntwenty locations, for a total of 45 samples.\nCommissioner Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation\nCommissioner Matarrese seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Commissioner deHaan stated he would not support\nthe motion and did not support the motion in the past; his concern\nis the property use is not finalized.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following\nvoice vote: Ayes Commissioners Daysog, Gilmore, Matarrese and\nChair Johnson - 4. Noes: Commissioner deHaan - 1.\n(06-027) Recommendation to approve a Contract with Strategy\nResearch Institute, Inc. for $14,500 to conduct a survey of local\nresidents for the update of the City of Alameda Economic\nDevelopment Strategic Plan.\nThe Development Manager gave a brief presentation.\nCommissioner Daysog stated the sample size is 300 150 community at\nlarge participants and 150 registered voters; the staff report\nindicates the survey would be statistically valid with a confidence\nlevel of 95%; inquired whether 300 participants are needed to have\na statistically valid survey of either registered voters or\ncommunity at large participants.\nGeorge Manross, Ph.D., Strategic Research Institute, Inc.\nresponded in the affirmative; using two separate groups increases\nthe sampling error.\nChair Johnson and Commissioner Daysog noted just having community\nat large participants would make the survey more statistically\nvalid.\nSpecial Meeting\nCommunity Improvement Commission\n2\nJune 7, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-06-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-06-07", "page": 3, "text": "Dr. Manross outlined sampling and accuracy levels.\nChair Johnson inquired the reason for having both community at\nlarge and registered voters.\nDr. Manross responded the groups represent two distinct\npopulations; the community at large has one set of core values and\ncollective wishes; the electorate has a different set of core\nvalues; if a funding mechanism were entertained, the City would\nwant to know where the electorate stands and where the electorate\nagrees with and differs from the community at large.\nIn response to Chair Johnson's inquiry regarding whether a survey\ndone today would be relevant in a couple of years, Dr. Manross\nstated core values do not change there can be shifts; however,\nbenchmarks would be established.\nCommissioner Daysog stated if the sample is increased from 300 to\n400, the cost increases from $14,500 to $15,500 suggested a sample\nsize of 600, 300 community at large and 300 registered voters.\nDr. Manross stated the recommendation was proposed in order not to\nexceed a $15,000 budget the proposed study typically takes 15 to\n17 minutes; a 12 minute study would be restrictive as to the amount\nof information that can be secured; keeping the sample at 300 and\nincreasing the time from 12 to 15 minutes, would cost $16,000, but\nadditional information would be gathered; increasing the sample to\n400 and the time to 15 minutes would cost $17,000; suggested the\nCommission consider a higher sample amount or longer survey.\nCommissioner Daysog stated the survey should be as accurate as\npossible.\nDr. Manross stated an economic development and redevelopment study\nis typically 400 participants and 15 to 17 minutes, which would be\nhis recommendation.\nCommissioner deHaan stated the City is trying to update the\nvisioning process and the Economic Development Strategic Plan\n(EDSP) i the City did not use a questionnaire last time; inquired\nwhy a survey should be used now and whether future funding\nmechanisms would be included.\nThe Development Manager responded the budget was over $100,000 for\nthe EDSP and downtown visioning plan in 2000; there was a 25 member\ntask force and an extensive community process; there is not funding\nor need for something as extensive; the survey is intended to be a\nperiodic review, is a more formal way to supplement the community\nSpecial Meeting\nCommunity Improvement Commission\n3\nJune 7, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-06-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-06-07", "page": 4, "text": "workshops and stakeholder interviews, and to get a read of the\ncommunity to help Development Services direct resources.\nCommissioner deHaan inquired whether the information from the last\ntwo meeting has been summarized and is available, to which the\nDevelopment Manager responded in the affirmative.\nCommissioner deHaan requested said information.\nThe Development Manager noted the information has been provided to\nDr. Manross to assist him with developing questions.\nCommissioner deHaan stated that he would like to see the questions\nonce developed.\nThe Development Manager stated an Economic Development Commission\n(EDC) subcommittee would assist with drafting the questionnaire.\nCommissioner deHaan inquired what would be done with the data.\nThe Development Manager responded the data with be reviewed,\nanalyzed and presented to the EDC.\nDr. Manross stated the information gathered would be tested in the\ncommunity; there would be a return on the investment.\nThe Development Services Director stated the survey would be an\nupdate to the EDSP, which provides the foundation; the survey would\nensure the EDSP stays valid.\nCommissioner deHaan stated results should be presented to the\ncommunity; his concerns are ensuring results of meetings held are\nincluded and the crafting of the questions; there is no hidden\nagenda for funding streams.\nAni Dimusheva, Alameda, stated the best way to get the opinion of\nthe community at large is to talk to the community; suggested\nholding a town hall meeting once a month at cafes throughout town;\nstated a study is not needed.\nCommissioner Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation,\nwith the change to cap the budget at $17,000 to allow staff and the\nconsultant to determine how to proceed stated that he would hope\nfor a higher sample size; however, increasing the time is\nacceptable.\nCommissioner Matarrese seconded the motion.\nSpecial Meeting\nCommunity Improvement Commission\n4\nJune 7, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-06-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-06-07", "page": 5, "text": "Under discussion, Commissioner Gilmore inquired how authorizing\nadditional funds would affect the Development Services or general\nfund budgets.\nThe Development Services Director responded additional funding\nwould not affect the General Fund budget stated the Development\nServices budget can accommodate the funding out of the regular\noperating budget for supplies and general services.\nChair Johnson stated the motion allows Development Services to\ndecide to spend less.\nCommissioner deHaan stated some preliminary work has been\ncompleted; requested to see the findings and the questions after\nEDC review.\nCommissioner Matarrese stated an expert is being hired to work with\na subcommittee of the EDC to craft the questions.\nCommissioner Daysog stated the consultant indicated the questions\nwould be provided to the Commission.\nChair Johnson clarified the process would be to have the contract\ngo forward in order have questions prepared.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\nAGENDA ITEM\n(06-028) - Recommendation to reject the Sole Bid and authorize a 60- -\nday negotiation with Qualified Contractors for the Restoration and\nRehabilitation of the Historic Alameda Theater.\nThe Development Services Director provided a brief presentation.\nCommissioner Daysog inquired what Option 2, revise the bid\ndocument, means.\nThe Development Services Director responded staff would have to\nlook for a way to make the bid document more enticing to\ncontractors; stated revising the bid document could involve\nadditional engineering or architectural work to have a finite\nprocess for the least costly approach and could take a significant\namount of time.\nSpeakers in support of Option 5 (Reject the bid, terminate the\nproject Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) and re-scope\nSpecial Meeting\nCommunity Improvement Commission\n5\nJune 7, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-06-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-06-07", "page": 6, "text": "the project) : Rosemary McNally, Alameda; David Kirwin, Alameda; Pat\nBail, Alameda; Ani Dimusheva, Alameda (submitted comments) ; Richard\nRutter, Alameda; Robert Gavrich, Alameda; Kristianne Koenen,\nAlameda; Kevin Frederick; and Nancy Kerns, Alameda.\nSpeaker in support of staff recommendation (Option 1, Reject the\nbid and negotiate with Overaa Construction) : Lars Hansson, Park\nStreet Business Association.\nChair Johnson closed the public comment.\nThe Development Services Director responded to comments.\nCommissioner deHaan provided a handout inquired whether using the\nparking contractor as an alternate is legally acceptable.\nLegal Counsel responded Option 1, contracting with the parking\ngarage contractor low bidder who has not been selected, would be\nlegal under the facts of the situation; stated economy of scale is\npossible, making the option legally permissible.\nCommissioner deHaan stated the displaced contractor has done an\nadmirable job on the library; inquired whether the parking\nstructure budget would be close to $900,000 with contingency.\nThe Development Services Director responded in the affirmative.\nCommissioner deHaan inquired whether the developer has provided\ninformation on the cineplex portion, to which the Development\nServices Director responded the developer has a project estimate in\nexcess of $5 million; he has been getting estimates; his formal\ncost estimates will be in next week.\nCommissioner deHaan inquired whether the developer has seen a major\nincrease.\nThe Development Services Director responded the developer is fairly\nconfident; four contractors are sharing preliminary estimates.\nIn response to Commissioner deHaan's inquiry regarding project\ncosts to date, the Development Services Director stated $3,378,500\nhas been spent, including acquisition of two properties.\nCommissioner deHaan outlined cost increases since 2002; stated cost\nestimates were $17. 6 million in 2004; today's costs are around\n$33.6 million; there has been growth.\nThe Development Services Director stated construction costs could\nSpecial Meeting\nCommunity Improvement Commission\n6\nJune 7, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-06-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-06-07", "page": 7, "text": "not be estimated until the design plans were developed; previous\nestimates did not include land acquisition or architectural\nengineering; outlined the project phases; stated project costs are\nunknown until bid documents are prepared.\nCommissioner Gilmore stated the handout from Commissioner deHaan\noutlining budgets shows the large increase has been for the\nhistoric theater, which is the most complex part of the project\nfilled with the most unknowns the other two pieces are new\nconstruction.\nCommissioner deHaan stated another option would be to decrease the\ntheater project to a single floor and take two floors off the\nparking structure; the cost would decrease from $33.7 million down\nto $28.8 million.\nThe Development Services Director noted disabled access would have\nto be added to the historic theater.\nCommissioner deHaan stated Option 5 could be considered, with\ncaveats, such as satellite parking areas and using the entire Video\nManiacs site for the cineplex and retail.\nThe Development Services Director stated most cost overruns are\nwith the historic theater; noted satellite parking would involve\ndealing with land acquisition again.\nCommissioner Matarrese stated that he appreciates the information\nfrom Commissioner deHaan and speakers; there seems to be support to\ntone down the parking garage and cineplex in favor of funding the\nrenovation of the historic theater; $11 million is not the best\nbid; the bid should be rejected and the City should negotiate a\nlower price; he would entertain the idea of a better price being\nobtained through modification of the other two components [garage\nand cineplex] 60 days would give staff an opportunity to review; a\ndifferent project would probably result with Option 1.\nCommissioner Daysog stated there seems to be a cafeteria approach\nto the project bonds have been issued on the entire project; $17\nmillion was identified for the project with $9 million slated for\nrehabilitation of the historic theater; $17 million was part of the\n$42 million bond total; the total bond will cost $100 million with\ninterest ; his question is how the project ties into the total bond\nissuance; he is not convinced that a cafeteria approach will work;\nmost of the cost overruns are with the historic theater if the\nhistoric theater is not going to be rehabilitated, there is no\nreason to do the garage and Cineplex if the historic theater is not\ngoing to be rehabilitated however, bonds have already been issued;\nSpecial Meeting\nCommunity Improvement Commission\n7\nJune 7, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-06-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-06-07", "page": 8, "text": "the focus should be on rehabilitation of the historic theater\nsuggested the City consider operating the renovated historic\ntheater.\nCommissioner Matarrese stated the City bonded for a project that\nincluded the theater, off street parking and some retail; everyone\nis looking to accomplish the project; the look will have to be\nadjusted the cost of the historic theater has led to tonight ;\nDevelopment Services has come up with a way to handle costs; money\nwill have to be taken from elsewhere to fund the renovation project\nif the 60 days do not prove successful; that he would not support\ngeneral fund money for the project or lowering the contingency\nbudget he does not support Option 5 because he does not want to\ncan the project.\nCommissioner Daysog stated that he voted against the bonds because\nit was putting the cart before the horse and the true cost of the\nproject were not understood; now the City is trying to pick up the\npieces and realizes there are no funds; perhaps everyone could be\nhappy with just having the historic theater.\nCommissioner Gilmore stated the project has to have a contingency\nfund to go forward; staff has included a contingency fund she\nwould not support a project without a healthy contingency fund of\n15 to 20%; that she is in favor of the 60 day negotiation period\nbecause the City will have learned valuable information about the\nhistoric theater even if there is no contract at the end of the\nperiod; gathering additional information is a good thing;\nnegotiating does not commit the City to go forward; she has a\nproblem with Option 5 because she would not support acquiring the\nhistoric theater without having a plan; the City should not be\nstuck with a piece of property without the knowledge of whether the\nproperty can be developed economically; the timeframe for acquiring\nthe theater is sooner than alternatives could be created if the\nproject is rejected.\nChair Johnson stated the 60-day time period is reasonable after the\ntime and effort that has been spent; that she supports the staff\nrecommendation.\nCommissioner deHaan stated his concern is that an opportunity to\nreview other options would be missed by allowing 60-days to\nnegotiate; a 15% contingency might not be enough for the historic\ntheater project value engineering might not work and other options\nshould be reviewed to determine how existing funding can complete\nthe entire project; all of the funding might have to go to\nrenovating the a $7 million loan is included because\nenough money was not bonded. other options should be reviewed\nSpecial Meeting\nCommunity Improvement Commission\n8\nJune 7, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-06-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-06-07", "page": 9, "text": "quickly.\nCommissioner Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation\nto reject the bid and negotiate for 60 days with the caveat that\noptions for the current configuration of the project be outlined in\nparallel to allow the City to reach the end of the 60 days with a\nfull pallet of information; the two months would not be lost if the\nresults are not favorable.\nCommissioner Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by the\nfollowing voice vote: Ayes : Commissioners Gilmore, Matarrese and\nChair Johnson - 3. Noes: Commissioners Daysog and deHaan - 2.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Meeting at 9:35 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nSecretary\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nSpecial Meeting\nCommunity Improvement Commission\n9\nJune 7, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-06-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-06-07", "page": 10, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING\nWEDNESDAY- - -JUNE 7, 2006- -5:31 P.M.\nChair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 5:35 p.m.\nRoll Call - Present : Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,\nMatarrese and Chair Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nThe Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider :\n(06-025) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; Name\nof case : Community Improvement Commission V. Cocores Development\nCompany.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened\nand Chair Johnson announced that the Commission received a briefing\nfrom its legal counsel and gave direction and settlement\nparameters.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Meeting at 7:00 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nSecretary\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nSpecial Meeting\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJune 7, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-06-07.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"}