{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2008-01-09", "page": 1, "text": "OF\nof\nTERKA\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING\nOF THE\nCIVIL SERVICE BOARD OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA\nWEDNESDAY, JANUARY 9, 2008\n1.\nThe meeting was called to order at 5:04 p.m.\n2.\nROLL CALL: Board Members Michael Rich, Roberto Rocha, Avonnet Peeler, Linda McHugh, Peter\nHorikoshi and Executive Secretary Karen Willis.\nABSENT:\nNone\nSTAFF PRESENT: Jill Kovacs, Senior Management Analyst, Chris Low, Senior Management Analyst,\nand Stacey Meier, Administrative Technician I, Human Resources.\nOTHERS IN ATTENDANCE:\n3.\nMINUTES:\nThe minutes of the regular meeting of November 8, 2007 were presented for Board\napproval. Member Peeler moved to accept, Member Horikoshi seconded, and\ncarried by a\n5-0 vote.\n4.\nCONSENT CALENDAR:\nMember Rocha moved to accept the consent calendar, Member McHugh seconded and carried by a 5 -0\nvote.\nSUMMARY REPORT FOR EXAMINATION ELIGIBLE LISTS AND CLASSIFICATIONS FOR THE\nMONTHS OF OCTOBER, NOVEMBER, DECEMBER 2007.\n4A.\nELIGIBLE LIST ESTABLISHED\nDATE ESTABLISHED\nEXAM NO.\nAdministrative Management Analyst\n10/9/2007\n207-47\nAdministrative Technician Il\n12/19/2007\n207-71\nAssistant City Attorney Il\n12/19/2007\n207-74PR\nCrime Analyst (Admin Tech III)\n12/13/2007\n207-64\nDevelopment Manager\n12/4/2007\n207-57\nDistribution Engineer\n12/5/2007\n207-65\nDivision Chief\n10/3/2007\n207-16PR\nElectrical Engineer\n11/27/2007\n207-41R\nElectrical Mtce Technician\n12/13/2007\n207-62\nExecutive Assistant\n10/30/2007\n207-49\nHousing Authority Mtce Team Leader\n12/18/2007\n207-73PR\nIntermediate Clerk\n10/23/2007\n207-50\nJailer\n12/3/2007\n207-56\nPolice Officer (Lateral)\n11/10/2007\n207-53\nSenior Electrical Engineer\n11/13/2007\n207-10PR\nUtility Analyst/Asst Utility Analyst\n12/11/2007\n207-63\n4B.\nELIGIBLE LIST EXTENDED\nDATE ESTABLISHED\nEXAM NO.\nCATV Network Engineer\n5/24/2007\n207-22", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2008-01-09.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2008-01-09", "page": 2, "text": "City of Alameda\nPage 2\nCivil Service Board Agenda\nRegular Meeting of January 9, 2008\nConstruction Inspector & Survey Supervisor\n6/9/2006\n206-22PR\nCustomer Service Representative\n7/20/2006\n206-09\nFirefighter\n7/2/2007\n207-37\nMaintenance Worker I\n7/25/2007\n207-26\nPlanner I\n7/18/2006\n206-38\nProgram Spec I/II (Integrated Waste Mgmt Prog)\n1/25/2007\n206-63\nTransportation Coordinator\n1/5/2007\n206-71\n4C. ELIGIBLE LIST EXPIREDICANCELLEDI\nDATE ESTABLISHED\nEXAM NO.\nEXHAUSTED\nAssistant City Attorney I/II\n5/17/2006\n206-16\nAdmin Mgmt Analyst (Human Resources Analyst)\n7/31/2007\n207-43\nInformation Technology Manager\n8/5/2007\n207-40PR\nSystem Dispatcher\n6/20/2007\n207-25\n5.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n5-A Activity Report - Period of December 1, 2007 - February 31, 2008\nBoard President Michael Rich asked whether or not there had been any non-voluntary separations.\nExecutive Secretary Willis stated that there had not been any.\n5-B\nArticle VII. Eligible Lists\nChris Low shared that Human Resources staff met regarding continuous eligible lists. A decision was\nmade based on a suggestion from the Civil Service Board. He explained that one eligible list will be\nused, and based on test scores candidate names will be merged onto this list. Subsequent names will\nbe added as continuous testing occurs. Board Member Peeler asked when the list would expire. Chris\nLow explained that names would be placed on the eligible list for six months and would then be extended\nindividually if the candidate was still being considered after the initial six month period. Board President\nRich asked how many times someone could be extended. Jill Kovacs explained that a name can be\ncertified for up to two years in six month increments. Chris Low also shared that the Police Department\nis currently two candidates away from being fully staffed, but that there are seven or eight more\nretirements expected within the coming year.\nBoard President Rich asked whether Section 4 of the Civil Service Rules would need to be amended.\nHe stated that Section 1 would need to be changed as well. Chris Low handed out Sections 7 and 8 of\nthe Rules which contained new wording.\nExecutive Secretary Willis stated that currently the Police Officer- Recruit list is certified to Part-Time\nwhile they are attending the Police Academy but that the City would like to be able to certify the names\ndirectly to Full-Time. She explained that in order for the Board to consider this change it would need to\nbe noticed on the Agenda and copied to the Bargaining Units.\nBoard President Rich stated that a list of positions that are hard to fill had previously been given to the\nBoard and he questioned whether or not Fire Fighter was on that list. Executive Secretary Willis stated\nthat Firefighter-Paramedio is considered hard to fill but that Firefighter-EMT is not. She also stated that\nFirefighter-Paramedic is currently listed under Positions which Require Certifications in the Rules.\nBoard Member Rocha moved to accept Article VII, Eligible Lists with the revised wording, Member\nHorikoshi seconded and carried by a 5-0 vote.\n5-C Rules Review- Language", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2008-01-09.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2008-01-09", "page": 3, "text": "City of Alameda\nPage 3\nCivil Service Board Agenda\nRegular Meeting of January 9, 2008\nExecutive Secretary Willis stated that, at the last Civil Service Board meeting, Mr. Alan Elnick presented\nthe Board with a letter regarding non Civil Service Employees in ACEA who have the right to a hearing\nwith the Civil Service Board for disciplinary issues with more than 30 days suspension.\nBoard President Rich asked why Affirmative Action was scratched out in Article 1, Section 2. Executive\nSecretary Willis stated that she had not had a chance to ask the City Attorney about this. Board Member\nHorikoshi stated that \"sex\" should be changed to \"gender\".\nExecutive Secretary Willis distributed a \"track-changes\" version of the Rules to the Board. Board\nMember Horikoshi requested that page numbers be added, and Executive Secretary Willis stated that\nstaff was working on it.\n6.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\n(None)\n7.\nCIVIL SERVICE BOARD COMMUNICATIONS (COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARD)\n(None)\n8.\nCIVIL SERVICE BOARD COMMUNICATIONS (COMMUNICATIONS FROM STAFF)\n(None)\n9.\nThere being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 5:38 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nKaren Willis\nHuman Resources Director &\nExecutive Secretary to the Civil Service Board", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2008-01-09.pdf"}
{"body": "LibraryBoard", "date": "2008-01-09", "page": 1, "text": "CITY\nof\nof\nTERKA\nRATED\nMinutes of the\nALAMEDA FREE LIBRARY BOARD MEETING\nJanuary 9, 2008\nThe regular meeting of the Alameda Free Library Board was called to order at 7:03 p.m.\nROLL CALL\nPresent:\nLeslie Krongold, President\nKaren Butter, Vice President\nRuth Belikove, Board Member\nAlan Mitchell, Board Member\nMike Hartigan, Board Member\nStaff:\nJane Chisaki, Library Director\nMarsha Merrick, Recording Secretary\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nAn asterisk indicates items so enacted and adopted on the Consent Calendar.\nA.\n*Report from Library Director highlighting Library Department activities for the\nmonths of December 2007 and January 2008. Accepted.\nB.\n*Draft Minutes of the Regular Library Board meeting of November 14, 2007, and\nrevised minutes from the Library Board meeting of September 12, 2007. Approved.\nC.\n*Library Services Report for the months of October and November 2007. Accepted.\nD.\n*Report from Finance Department reflecting FY 2007-08 Library expenditures (by\nfund) through December 2007. Accepted.\nE.\nBills for ratification for the months of November and December 2007. Approved.\nMember Mitchell inquired about the new bi-lingual storytimes. Director Chisaki said that\nthere will be Russian and Japanese storytimes starting soon that will be led by volunteers.\nPresident Krongold asked what the meaning is of \"one-on-one\" meetings with SunCal, the\nAlameda Point developer. Director Chisaki explained these meetings would be held\nbetween the developer and each group with an interest. The next large public meeting is\nscheduled for January 30th Member Butter described for the board how the previous public\nmeeting on December 13th had gone.", "path": "LibraryBoard/2008-01-09.pdf"}
{"body": "LibraryBoard", "date": "2008-01-09", "page": 2, "text": "Page 2 of 5\nMinutes of the Alameda\nFree Library Board Meeting\nJanuary 9, 2008\nDirector Chisaki described how the \"Paws to Read\" program works, which will be coming\nto the Library once a week for a three-month period, starting at the end of January.\nVice President Butter pointed out that the November Library Services Report reflected the\nnew Main being open a full year now, and mentioned the declining door count at the West\nEnd branch. Director Chisaki said they were still holding their own at this point.\nPresident Krongold asked for a motion to accept the Consent Calendar as presented.\nMember Mitchell so moved; Vice President Butter seconded the motion which carried by a\n5-0 vote.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS. NON-AGENDA (Public Comment)\nAudience member Marc Lambert wondered what the status of the Schrader estate was.\nDirector Chisaki speculated the total payout would be around $200,000, but was far from\nbeing settled, so there was no news to share.\nAudience member Li Volin was concerned that the public comment section of the meeting\nhad been moved up on the agenda. She indicated it might not give the public a chance to\ncomment on something that could transpire later on in the meeting. Vice President Butter\nindicated that she had asked for the agenda change, but would be in favor of hearing what\nthe public had to say even after their designated opportunity had passed.\nAt this point, Director Chisaki asked President Krongold if the Board would consider going\nout of order on the agenda, skipping down to NEW BUSINESS, Item B. Community Reads\nPresentation by Supervising Librarian, Annemarie Meyer. President Krongold agreed to the\nchange, and Ms. Meyer proceeded to speak about the program and events surrounding it.\nThere will be book discussions and movie programs for families. 150 copies of each book,\nBee Season for adults, and The View from Saturday for children, have arrived and are being\nprocessed right now. Informational bookmarks are being produced that will list all the\nevents planned surrounding the program that runs from March 7 through April 18.\nMarc Lambert indicated his confusion on what the actual name of the program was as he\nhad heard it referred to in several different forms. The name is \"Across the Pages, an\nAlameda Community Reads\", and the Library will endeavor to be more consistent when\nmaking program references.\nPer a previous request by President Krongold, Ms. Meyer shared stats on the library's e-mail\nnewsletter. Between bounce-backs and new sign-ups, they seem to about even themselves\nout with an audience of around 200 each month. Member Belikove requested that two\nmembers of the Art Exhibit Committee, Peggie Williams and Gwen Pirack, be added to the\nlist to receive the newsletter. Recording Secretary Merrick will pass their e-mail addresses\nto Ms. Meyer for inclusion in upcoming issues.", "path": "LibraryBoard/2008-01-09.pdf"}
{"body": "LibraryBoard", "date": "2008-01-09", "page": 3, "text": "Page 3 of 5\nMinutes of the Alameda\nFree Library Board Meeting\nJanuary 9, 2008\nUNFINISHED BUSINESS\nA.\nStatus of Consultant Contract for Strategic Planning & Branch Improvements (J.\nChisaki)\nDirector Chisaki advised the Board that the consultant contract had been approved\nby the City Council at their December 18, 2007 regular meeting. There were three\nproposed dates for an initial meeting with the consultants, Ruth Metz and Kathy\nPage: Friday, January 25, Wednesday, January 30 or Tuesday, January 29 - these in\norder of the consultant's preference. This initial meeting would be a combination of\nstaff and support group members, and a member of the Library Board. Member\nHartigan volunteered to be the Board liaison, and Director Chisaki will inform\nMember Hartigan once a date for the initial meeting has been finalized.\nNEW BUSINESS\nA.\nDiscussion of Future Library Service at Alameda Point (J. Chisaki)\nThis item had been carried forward from the December agenda when a quorum had\nfailed to be reached for that meeting. Honora Murphy will coordinate with Doug\nLinney and Development Services on getting the \"one-on-one\" meeting with\nSunCal. Director Chisaki will touch base with Ms. Murphy later on to see how this\nis progressing.\nB.\nCommunity Reads Presentation (A. Meyer)\nThis item was moved up and is described above under Oral Communications.\nC.\nRegina K. Stafford Room Dedication (J. Chisaki)\nDirector Chisaki inquired if the Board knew of any family members of Regina K.\nStafford that could be present at the room dedication. Member Mitchell did not\nthink there was any remaining. Alternatives for the room dedication were discussed,\nincluding having it in conjunction with one of the \"Across the Pages, an Alameda\nCommunity Reads\" event that would be taking place in the Regina K. Stafford\nCommunity Meeting Rooms. The Board was thoroughly in favor of this option.\nD.\nArt Exhibit Committee (R. Belikove)\nMember Belikove shared a proposal that had been prepared for presentation to the\nFoundation in order to secure funding for art mounting hardware and installation.\nBesides the wall hangings, there were proposed rolling panels that could be brought\nout for displays as well. The Board discussed the proposal at length, and advised the\npurchase of the wall hanging materials first, with the rolling panels coming in later.", "path": "LibraryBoard/2008-01-09.pdf"}
{"body": "LibraryBoard", "date": "2008-01-09", "page": 4, "text": "Page 4 of 5\nMinutes of the Alameda\nFree Library Board Meeting\nJanuary 9, 2008\nMember Belikove indicated that one committee member had withdrawn because\nthey were unable to make the regular meeting day, so they were looking for someone\nto replace them. Director Chisaki pointed out that the committee was already bigger\nthan the Board had originally planned, so did not think a replacement was necessary.\nThe first display is planned for the middle of March, and will be put together by\nAlameda Art Association President, Carol Burnett.\nE.\nAlameda Free Library Foundation (A. Mitchell)\nThere was no December meeting; the next meeting is scheduled for January 14.\nF.\nFriends of the Alameda Free Library (M. Lambert)\nThere was no December meeting; the next meeting is scheduled for January 14.\nMarc Lambert reported that Dewey's Friends Caf\u00e9 netted $9,300 in 2007, and they\nwere very pleased with this result. The Friends' Book Sale Task Force had been\nvisiting other libraries to get ideas, and had put together a preliminary report on their\nfindings. At the next meeting they will put together an action plan on how to\nproceed and implement the new ideas.\nG.\nPatron suggestions/comments (Speak-Outs) and Library Director's response.\nThere were no new speak-outs this month.\nLIBRARY BOARD COMMUNICATIONS\nVice President Butter spoke on the sorry state of the collections in the branch libraries, with\nnothing new hitting the shelves. Director Chisaki responded that quite a lot of weeding had\nbeen going on, and new selections are being added on a continuous basis; they are just\nharder to find in the branches cluttered environment. Butter went on to ask about the\nreserve policy, which Director Chisaki advised had always been in effect (52 free holds per\nyear), and that only a couple of people ever exceeded this limit. It's possible that a charge\nwill be incurred for people who do not pick up their holds; this is still under discussion. The\nBoard came up with an idea to expand the hold notification e-mail sent to a patron to say\nthat if the book is no longer needed, to please call the Library and advise them, therefore\nfreeing up the book for someone else.\nMember Hartigan asked for the status of the LEED accreditation. Certification paperwork\nhad finally been submitted at the beginning of the week. It took a year because the building\ncommissioning had just been completed in November. There were several items that had to\nbe fixed by the contractors, such as the chiller malfunctioning, and the front doors swinging\nopen; all this causing delays. The application had been submitted for silver status.", "path": "LibraryBoard/2008-01-09.pdf"}
{"body": "LibraryBoard", "date": "2008-01-09", "page": 5, "text": "Page 5 of 5\nMinutes of the Alameda\nFree Library Board Meeting\nJanuary 9, 2008\nDIRECTOR'S COMMENTS\nBecause of the revised hours and the Library closing at 8:00, Director Chisaki queried the\nBoard for thoughts on either changing the start time of the meeting, or moving it downstairs\nin order to accommodate public access to the meeting, which is a requirement under the\nBrown Act. Because some members would be unable to make an earlier starting time, a\ndecision was made to try the meeting downstairs in February and see how it goes.\nPacific Fine Foods, located on Alameda Point, is the caterer for Dewey's Friends Caf\u00e9\nexpanded menu of salads and sandwiches, and they are already very popular selections.\nDay in the District is coming up on Friday, January 25. Don Perata's office will be open for\ndrop-in appointments between 1:00-4:00 p.m.; no word has been received yet on when\nSandre Swanson's office will be open for visitors.\nADJOURNMENT\nPresident Krongold called for a motion to adjourn at 9:02 p.m. Vice President Butter so\nmoved; Member Mitchell seconded the motion which carried by a 5-0 vote.\nRespectfully submitted,\nJane Chisaki\nLibrary Director and\nSecretary to the Library Board\nThis meeting's agenda was posted 72 hours in advance in accordance with the Brown Act.", "path": "LibraryBoard/2008-01-09.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"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2008-01-09", "page": 2, "text": "departmental imperative, something that was important to her. It prevented the commission\nfrom engaging in the appropriate discussion, which is this appropriate for this commission, is the\nmoney appropriate based on the ordinance they are serving.\nMs. Rosenberg said that if the answer is no and it doesn't follow the guidelines, then it is up to\nCity Council to create a proper grants committee or a set of guidelines. She said that they need\nguidance from Council to assure that there is enough direction.\nMr. Wolfe stated that the mission of the commission is to advise City Council. He moved that\ntheir understanding of their mission is that the grants authoring is outside the scope of the public\nart commission.\nMs. Huston added that the use of the PAC funds for grants is in violation of the ordinance. She\nrestated the movement that the Cultural Arts Grants are outside the scope of the Commission\nand that the use of the funds for these grants is in violation of the uses outlined by the\nordinance.\nMs. Rosenberg seconded the motion. All were in favor.\nMs. Rosenberg said that they would like to continue as an advisory commission and suggested\nthat the City create a separate grants commission.\nMs. Huston replied by saying that She would have been willing to pursue the concern of the\ngrants had there not been such a confusion of authority between the commission and staff. If\nthere was a desire to craft a program, they would have been willing to do it.\nMs. Rosenberg said that they are there to serve the public and feels that it dishonors what a\npublic commission does and feels that it disrespects their time.\nMs. Huston thinks the big issue was not being able to bring a draft to the commission, to be\nprevented from doing that made it clear that it wasn't their project.\nMs. Lee wanted to remind everyone that the commission is there for public art, art in public\nplaces, not art for the public.\nMs. Huston brought up another topic, which was the public art project. She feels that it isn't\nthriving. She is confused about their role and feels that it places them between the planning\ndepartment and City Council. If they don't get applications, they have no business. In four and\na half years, they have only had five applicants. Two walked away never to be heard from\nagain. They are finding a way around the commission. The commission has no control over\nwhat comes to their table. She wanted Council to know that something is not working. She is\nconcerned with the low number of applicants. She also mentioned Bridgeside.\nMr. Wolfe mentioned the developments such as the rental complex on the west end. He was\nconcerned that they have never heard from the applicant.\nMs. Huston mentioned the list she requested and how the commission never heard from three\nof the applicants. They are publicly stating that they have no control.\nMr. Wolfe feels that it is up to the planning department to track the permits and make sure they\nare fulfilling their requirements.\n2", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2008-01-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2008-01-09", "page": 3, "text": "Mr. Biggs clarified that most projects are operating under a temporary certificate of occupancy\nand must fulfill all conditions of approval to obtain their final certificate.\nMr. Wolfe mentioned South Shore and commended them for being forthcoming in terms of\nproviding art but they still don't see any recognition of it being public art. There are no\nmedallions or plaques, therefore they are not in compliance.\nMr. Biggs recognized that the commission brought up the topic that some projects have not\nfulfilled their art requirements but wasn't exactly sure which ones they were.\nMs. Huston replied by saying that if they have asked the planning department, Mayor and City\nCouncil, then at some point it isn't the commission's responsibility anymore.\nMr. Wolfe said that if developers don't get the final certificate of occupancy in a timely manner,\nthe banks don't like it very much; they have a financial obligation to comply.\nMs. Huston wants to get everything argumentative off the table and feels that this issue has\nbeen a thorn in the side of the Commission. She feels that they don't have the resources to\nrespond.\nMr. Wolfe recognized the rotation of staff in the planning department. He feels that there is a\nloss of information.\nMs. Huston wanted to publicly declare that the commission is not responsible for who applies\nand their job is limited to creating guidelines, receiving, reviewing, accepting, and/or rejecting\nthe applications. Everything else is someone else's responsibility. She feels that there is an\nimpression that the commission is falling down on the job and isn't sure what else to do.\nMs. Lee brought up the problem of supervising to make sure projects don't fall through the\ncracks and wondered who's job it was to make sure it doesn't happen.\nMr. Biggs replied by saying that it is the job of the planning department. He understands from\nbackground discussions that Bridgeside is operating under a temporary certificate of occupancy.\nHe mentioned the resolution approved by the commission and thought that was where the\ndiscrepancy in the documentation had occurred. He suggested that the commission provide\nsome history on the discussions of Bridgeside.\n3-B. Review of Public Art at Bridgeside Commercial Development\nMs. Rosenberg recalled that there was supposed to be a stage setting, which was an\nauditorium-like setup where the landscape would come in, in a way that was concave not\nconvex. She feels that the space is not appropriate to be a theater site. The physicality is not\ncorrect and feels that it is completely underused due to the landscaping. Also, the programming\nis not sufficient and that there is a lack of notification of the programming.\nMs. Lee mentioned the evaluation that was supposed to be done which had not been submitted.\nMs. Huston had the programming in her hand and said that it is not sufficient. She mentioned\ntwo aspects of the property. One, which was approved by the commission, was to build an\namphitheater in a public setting but the result was not an amphitheater. It was also supposed to\n3", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2008-01-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2008-01-09", "page": 4, "text": "be wired for sound and lighting as well as landscaped to provide seating for audiences. She\nsaid that it is not an amphitheater and does not allow for proper seating of audience. The\nprogramming was also not sufficient. The applicant proposed four events per year and the\ncommission said that was inadequate. She mentioned some of the suggestions from the\ncommission and the resolution was accepted as amended, but they were never detailed. The\nrequest for the amended resolution was never provided. The second part was a requirement to\nput out a sign and there was supposed to be a property manager to allow access to the\nperformance space. She called the number and was given a runaround. Not having the phone\nnumber is non-compliance. The number of performances, the diversity and the advertising are\nall inadequate.\nMs. Rosenberg suggested that they re-look at the ordinance pertaining to performance spaces\nand how it's worded.\nMr. Wolfe's recollection of the meeting was a discussion regarding the grading of the\nperformance space. He asked if there are any as-built records of how it was built.\nMs. Rosenberg said that however you look at it, it wasn't built to the specifications that the\ncommission approved.\nMr. Wolfe said that it may or may not be how it is supposed to be because there is no way to tell\nfrom the record.\nMs. Huston said that the elevations on the drawings are different from what was actually built.\nShe mentioned the stage and that its not a stage and is flush with the grass.\nMr. Wolfe said that it is mounded in the center and is not graded according to the plans.\nMs. Huston asked what they want to do about it. They have two choices. One is to make the\napplicant renegotiate their requirement, hash out a new project or force them to fulfill the\nexisting project.\nMs. Rosenberg thinks it is in the best interest to hash out a new project because there are other\nareas of the shopping center that would be much better for public events. Or they could provide\nsome visual art.\nMs. Huston mentioned that the property has a new owner. She welcomed Debra Owen.\nMs. Debra Owen had some notes regarding what was agreed upon or expected and her\nrecollection was that there was to be lighting, seating, and electricity. There were no public\nrestrooms but the retailers would make accommodations. Her impression was that it would\namenable to some literary arts programming. She says that it is not amenable to that type of\nprogramming. Her opinion is that what was expected was not fulfilled. Had the facilities been\nprovided, they would have participated. It was also her understanding that the Bridgeside\norganization was going to participate in the marketing and advertising of the performances. She\nsaid in order for the Frank Bette Center to be interested in developing programming, there\nneeds to be seating, lighting, electricity, and a sense of support and encouragement.\nMs. Huston thanked Ms. Owen's for her comments. She asked her about interaction and when\nit failed.\n4", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2008-01-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2008-01-09", "page": 5, "text": "Ms. Owen spoke with the property manager and asked if there was lighting and electricity. She\nwas surprised by what it ended up being and decided to move on since it wasn't\naccommodating. She said that what is there doesn't motivate the Frank Bette Center to\nparticipate.\nMs. Rosenberg asked if they did any advertising such as banners or newspaper ads. She said\nthat despite the fact that Ms. Owen had no expectation, the commission did have expectations\nand they were not fulfilled. She said that after reviewing, she isn't sure that it can be what it is\nsupposed to be and wants Bridgeside to come back and submit another project.\nMr. Biggs responded by saying that it was his understanding that the amphitheater was\nconstructed as approved. He also said that the tapes requested were not available.\nMs. Huston said that the letter that was requested that the information be documented so they\ncould have an enforceable contract.\nMr. Biggs said that since it was all new to him, the information that was presented specifically\nthe minutes doesn't talk about the specifics of the programming.\nMs. Huston asked about the tapes from the meeting where the conditions were discussed.\nMr. Biggs said that he was told that there were no tapes of the meetings. He had minutes from\nthe two meetings where Bridgeside was discussed.\nMs. Huston said that they are in non-compliance due to the fact that they failed on diversity, the\nphone number to call doesn't work, and it doesn't comply with their drawings.\nMs. Lee said that this brings up a serious issue regarding taping the meetings.\nMs. Rosenberg said that it is the responsibility of the commissioners to speak clearly into the\nmicrophones to get good recordings for proper documentation of meetings.\nMs. Huston claimed that from the very moment that the application was approved and amended\nwithout the details, they were destined for this day. The commission knew that the planning\ndepartment had approved an application that the commission had rejected. They have been\nchasing it down ever since and have been subverted at every turn. They were snowed, duped,\nand played.\nMs. Rosenberg said that if there is nothing the commission can do there is no need to continue\ntalking about it. But if there is some way to make them comply, it should be done.\nMr. Biggs said that they could look for records providing proof that programming was provided.\nStaff has been in contact with Bridgeside to make sure that it has advertised that the\namphitheater is available for performances.\nMr. Wolfe said that because of what is out there, it is not useable as a performance space.\nMs. Rosenberg said that it is asking them to do something they can't do. She asked what they\ncan do.\nMr. Biggs asked if the drawings were the same as the ones provided at the hearings.\n5", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2008-01-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2008-01-09", "page": 6, "text": "Ms. Huston read the resolution PAC-06-02 for Bridgeside. If planning has not received the\nschedule, they are in non-compliance.\nMr. Biggs said that it was relayed to him that they had not complied with the advertising\ncondition as required.\nMr. Wolfe pointed out that the sign was hidden out of view.\nMs. Huston was ok with the sign. She moved to find them in non-compliance pending research\nto find out if the Planning Director has received the programming schedule and to find out if they\ncan find them in non-compliance for the shape of the space.\nMs. Rosenberg asked if they could suggest that they move their performance space closer to\nNob Hill. She feels it is a much better site.\nMr. Biggs stated that due to the process, they couldn't because of the channels that the project\nhad to travel through.\nMs. Rosenberg seconded Ms. Huston's motion to find Bridgeside in non-compliance.\nAll were in favor. She would like to agendize the looking at the ordinance pertaining to\nperformance spaces if they cannot properly enforce it. She feels that it is a weak spot in the\nordinance.\nMs. Huston welcomed Mr. Biggs as the new agenda maker and requested that there be an\nagenda item reviewing the viability of performance based art and spaces in the public art\nordinance.\nMr. Wolfe suggested amending the motion to change the wording regarding the shape of the\nspace. He thinks it should address the ground form and grading.\nMs. Huston suggested phrasing it very specifically. She would say that they have found the\nBridgeside project in non-compliance on several points. One of them is a failure to fulfill the\nprogramming requirement both in number of performances, in submission of schedules, and in\ndiversity of performances and advertising and that the physical space is incompatible both with\nthe plans submitted and the use of the space. They would need further research to see if in fact\nthe usability of the space in relation to lights, electricity, and audio equipment further create a\nnon-compliance. They are ok with changing it if need be.\nMs. Rosenberg said that they should have to go back and look at the space and make it viable\nfor appropriate programming.\nMr. Biggs said that if it is found to be that size or general grading, it wouldn't allow an\nopportunity to go back and have them rework the space.\nMs. Lee remembered that Bridgeside wanted the process to happen quickly and acknowledged\nthe commission's mistake in expediting their application.\nMr. Biggs recommended that if during the initial hearing there are changes that need to be\nmade, they don't approve the plans unless the applicant is there and notes the changes.\n6", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2008-01-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2008-01-09", "page": 7, "text": "Ms. Huston said that it is the responsibility of staff to enforce the changes on applications.\n5.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS:\nMr. Jon Biggs introduced himself and said he looks forward to working with the commission.\nMs. Huston said that over the last six months, there has been difficulty getting the agenda as\nrequested and one of the things that are left off is commissioner comments and wants them put\nback on for every agenda. She also mentioned the wording of the items and wants them left as\nthe commissioners named them.\n6.\nADJOURNMENT:\nThe meeting adjourned at 8:20 pm.\nRespectfully submitted,\nTM CAN\nJon Biggs, Secretary\nPublic Art Commission\n7", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2008-01-09.pdf"}