{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2008-09-10", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nWednesday, September 10, 2008\nThe meeting convened at 7:27 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.\n2-A\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent: Chair Beverly Johnson\nBoardmember Doug deHaan\nBoardmember Frank Matarrese\nBoardmember Marie Gilmore\nVice Chair Lena Tam\n2.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n2-A. Approve the minutes of the Special Joint Meeting of the City Council, ARRA, and CIC of\nAugust 19, 2008.\nApproval of the Consent Calendar was motioned by Member Matarrese, seconded by\nMember deHaan and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 5, Noes: 0, Abstentions: O.\n3.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n3-A. Authorize PM Realty Group to Enter into a Contract with St. Francis Electric for\nPier 2 Electrical Upgrades at Alameda Point for a contract not to exceed $1,344,744.\nLeslie Little, Development Services Director, gave an overview of the item and discussed the\nSpring 2006 sublease of MARAD approved by the ARRA for 20 years for use of the piers at\nAlameda Point. Pier 2 is an older, unreliable facility, and doesn't comply with current standards.\nTo upgrade to code, the underground transformers would need to be relocated above ground to\nmeet Alameda Power & Telecom (AP&T) requirements. In January 2007, the ARRA approved\ndesign work for the electrical upgrade for Pier 2 improvements and the project was bid. A bid\nwas received for $1.7M for the project. The Board then directed staff to revise the project to\nreduce the total cost. Staff and MARAD worked closely with AP&T to revise the technical\nrequirements to just upgrade the existing systems, which reduced the project cost significantly\nfor the next bid. Three bids were received, with St. Francis Electric with the lowest bid at\n$1.29M. Staff is requesting approval to add a 5% contingency with add-on alternative for\nconcrete x-raying and independent testing for the Pier 2 Electrical upgrades, for a total cost not\nto exceed $1,344,744.\nMember Matarrese commented that the impact to the ARRA budget is that we are + $400,000,\nand asked how much the ARRA owes to the City General Fund. Ms. Little replied that the\nARRA has two loan obligations, 1) ARRA debt obligation of $2.4M, and 2) the Alameda Point\nImprovement Project (APIP) of $1.258M. Member Matarrese recommended it be considered\nthat the $400,000 be paid back to General Fund as part of a loan payment. Ms. Little explained\nthat the ARRA currently carries that as an expenditure, and it would go back to the General Fund\nReserve.\nStaff and the Board discussed the ARRA lease revenues, and how they are not sufficient to cover\nexpenditures in totality. Member Gilmore asked whether there were any other large capital", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-09-10.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2008-09-10", "page": 2, "text": "projects that were going out for bid on this year. Ms. Little replied that the last roof repair project\nwas finished, as well as the preliminary assessment of the pier conditions, and that work will be\nscheduled to start the piling and pier replacements. The greatest issue is that there are old\nsystems at Alameda Point - if there were a water or sewer problem or other major activity, we\nneed cash on hand to resolve those issues.\nMember Matarrese expressed his concern that we're funding infrastructure that doesn't belong to\nus, the City doesn't own the property, it still belongs to Navy. We're adding value to what the\nNavy is putting a high price tag on. He stated that he would much rather put that money toward\nunfunded liabilities of General Fund services. Member Gilmore agreed, stating that, in theory,\nshould we have a major system malfunction, there are tenants that pay to cover these issues.\nThere should be a balance while we're in a holding position with the Navy.\nVice Chair Tam motioned for approval of the Contract with St. Francis Electric, the\nmotion was seconded by Member deHaan and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 5,\nNoes: 0, Abstentions: 0\n3-B. Alameda Point Update - Presentation of the Draft Development Concept.\nDebbie Potter, Base Reuse and Community Development Manager, introduced Pat Keliher and\nPeter Calthorpe, Urban Designer, who presented a powerpoint presentation of the draft\ndevelopment concept to the Board and public. The presentation can be viewed at\nwww.alamedapointcommunity.com. After the presentation, Chair Johnson opened the item to\nthe Boardmembers for discussion. Member Matarrese asked if both plans assume a $108M\npayment to the Navy, to which Ms. Potter replied, \"yes.\"\nMember Gilmore asked Mr. Calthorpe for more specific information regarding his comment on\nthe importance of phasing the transportation enhancements so housing could keep pace with the\ncapacity in the tube, asking if it can work, and when we will know. Pat Keliher, SunCal's\nAlameda Point Project Manager, explained that Fehr & Peers, their Transportation Consultant, is\ndoing a detailed study on the traffic improvements and what the triggers are for the\nenhancements. Mr. Keliher further stated that there is $90M worth of traffic improvements up to\nthe 4000 unit threshold, and that Fehr & Peers plan to have a public meeting focused specifically\non the transportation issues.\nChair Johnson asked if the Sports Complex will be part of the SunCal Presentation, to which Mr.\nKeliher replied, \"yes.\" He said that the Business Plan will include the commercial and retail\nassumptions. Mr. Calthorpe added that the core area has to be built last, that a Main Street\nenvironment cannot be built until the retail demand is in place.\nChair Johnson opened discussion to the public speakers. There were several speakers, most of\nwhom were in favor of supporting SunCal's plan. The ones that were not in favor of the SunCal\nplan were concerned about the density of proposed mid-rise (12-20 story residential units), non-\nMeasure A compliance, and transportation issues.\nMember deHaan requested Mr. Keliher verify that the density of Alameda on the west end,\nspecifically the Summer Homes, was 30 units per acre and three-stories high. His concern\nregarding the density was the Tube traffic and the alternative of bringing the bus service through\nthe Tube. Mr Keliher assured member deHaan that all these details are currently being vetted\nout with Fehr & Peers and will be presented at their public meeting. Ms. Potter further explained\nthat there is always only going to be two lanes in the tube, and what one of the alternatives is, is\nfor a queue-jump lane for the bus, which doesn't require additional lanes. The queue-jump lane", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-09-10.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2008-09-10", "page": 3, "text": "gives priority to the buses and encourages increased ridership. Mr Keliher added that all\nquestions will be answered between the concept plan submittal and master plan submittal, and\nthat the transportation solution is a driving factor.\nMember Gilmore requested a meeting before the City Council which is focused on transportation\nissues be part of SunCal's presentation schedule. Mr. Keliher affirmed her request. Member\nGilmore further discussed that the two plans are not Measure A compliant, and asked what\nSunCal's plan was if the citizens were to reject their proposals. Mr Keliher responded by saying\nthat they have no magic Measure A plan that could be financed, and there is no third alternative,\nthey would have to start over. Member Gilmore appreciated his honesty on the matter.\nMember Matarrese addressed the transportation issue regarding commercial traffic - truck\nroutes, etc., and asked whether there was going to be a recommendation from the Transportation\nCommission. Ms. Potter explained that the plan is to route the Development Concept to all the\nboards and commissions for review and comment. Member Gilmore requested that the school\nyear commute traffic also be addressed.\nMember Matarrese requested to see a commercial and industrial component of the plan, to be\nexamined with the same depth, what might be envisioned, and what are some of the plans to\nbring the commercial and businesses in. He further discussed that Alameda does not have a\nlarge commercial tax base. Economically, the tax burden is spread and residential tax payers are\nshouldering the main load and maybe are at capacity. He would like to know the best mix of\ncommercial and how we might attract commercial business.\nVice Chair Tam discussed the importance of their role (as the ARRA Board) for the long-term in\nguiding and approving a Development Plan that future councils and the community can\nadaptively react to, manage, and govern under different challenges; as this plan will manifest\nbeyond the time that they're on this Board. She stated it is important to focus on the vision and\nthe core principles incorporated in the General plan, as they will all be pertinent 15 years later.\nChair Johnson thanked Pat and SunCal for doing a good job of working with the community and\nbeing forthright with them. It's a difficult challenge and she appreciates all their efforts.\nMember deHaan asked about the Fed-to-fed transfer to the VA of some of the property. Mr.\nKeliher replied that SunCal has to assume the potential impacts of the VA hospital whether it\nhappens or not, stating that it devalues the other phases. They would work hand-in-hand with\nthe VA, making certain that the infrastructure and traffic impacts are taken in consideration. For\nexample, a VA Hospital is a 24/7 facilities hospital, it doesn't operate just during peak hours, so\nwhen the traffic element is applied, it's another challenge. Member Matarrese requested dollar\nfigures attached to any reports on the this issues, stating that if the plan is for a Fed-to-Fed\ntransfer, then that cost should be shaved-off the $108M price for the impacts caused by the\nremaining federal land.\n4.\nORAL REPORTS\n4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)\nrepresentative.\n- RAB Comment Letter Regarding Installation Remediation Site 1\nMember Matarrese wasn't able to attend last meeting, but received communication, a letter, from\nCo-chair, George Humphreys, regarding the Site 1 remediation plan and Record of Decision\n(ROD) which raised a lot of questions. The ARRA board took the position that they would not\naccept uncharacterized landfill from Site 1, which was supposed to be scooped and removed", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-09-10.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2008-09-10", "page": 4, "text": "after characterization. Mr. Humphreys provided a summary of his letter and discussed some of\nthe technical details, highlighting the deficiencies in the Navy's proposed plan to remediate Site\n1.\nMr. Humphreys explained that his letter is straightforward, stating that Site 1 has been releasing\ncontaminants to the bay for a number of decades and deficiencies in the site need to be remedied.\nThere is uncharacterized industrial-type waste that could be released in event of earthquakes,\nshoreline erosion, inundation by global warming, and by burrowing animals. The City asked for\ntrenching, with the stated objectives to verify there weren't any intact drums. The trenching\nreport showed that, of the 11 trenches the Navy identified, seven of them showed levels of\nradioactive contamination. It was concluded that the radium contamination is widespread and\nscattered. He said a letter was sent from the Navy to the environmental agencies proposing to\nmove portions of Site I to Site 32, to shrink site 1, because they had found radioactive waste\ndeeper. He also described photos of liquefaction and sand boils during the Loma Prieta\nearthquake, which he explained was a mechanism of how contaminated waste could be released\nin the future, if left in place.\nMember Matarrese reiterated that we have expertise on this board and commended the RAB for\ntaking a vote, making a stand and bringing these issues to light. He had two key concerns; first\nthat the material found was not ordinary household waste, rather, it is industrial waste plus\nradioactive, which appears to be pervasive. It seems the Navy glossed over this in their proposed\nplan. Secondly, Member Matarrese commented that it was disturbing that the plan was to\nexcavate some of the radioactive material and just bury it on another part of Alameda Point. He\nrequested the Board get a technical recommendation corroborating this report so that the ARRA\ncan take a position with the Navy and the regulators that what is proposed is not acceptable.\nDavid Brandt, Deputy Executive Director, said that staff would have something by the next\nARRA meeting.\nDebbie Potter, in response to Member Matarrese's concern about the waste being relocated,\nclarified the process. She explained that, at the request of the City, additional trenching was\ndone which identified more radioactive materials than anticipated. The Navy conducted a time-\ncritical removal of hot spots at Site 1, and proposed to move some of the remaining fill to Site\n32. The plan was to grow Site 32, continue to test and modify boundaries so that Site 1\nboundaries no longer included radioactive material. All this would trigger a brand new public\nprocess for comment, new proposed plans, and provide input on how it should be remediated.\nMember Matarrese viewed the relocation plan as a stall tactic and stated that the Navy should be\nforced to remove the waste to a secure facility. Ms. Potter stated that the Navy will remove all\nradioactive waste. Member Matarrese questioned why, if it were safe, does it have to be moved\nand buried. Ms. Potter explained that it was her understanding that they are moving it in order to\nexcavate along the shoreline to address seismic issues. Dale Smith, RAB member, added that the\nmaterials being moved were hazardous, but not radioactive. Chair Johnson stated that she\ngenerally doesn't like the idea of moving the waste to another site, even if it's not contaminated.\nMr. Humphreys added that a key point is that there was no sampling of the soil inside that cell\narea, which would determine if there were any non-radioactive materials (i.e., PCBs, heavy\nmetals, etc.).\nThe Board requested that Peter Russell, Alameda Point's environmental consultant, provide a\ntechnical analysis of the materials from the RAB regarding Site 1, a written report of highlights\nafter every RAB meeting, and his analysis on Navy documents he's reviewed.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-09-10.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2008-09-10", "page": 5, "text": "5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\n(Any person may address the governing body in regard to any matter over which the\ngoverning body has jurisdiction that is not on the agenda.)\nThere was one speaker, Bill Smith, who spoke about various topics.\n6.\nCOMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nVice Chair Tam informed the other Members that Michael Park from the Alameda Theater\nwould like to schedule a re-shoot of the Council Members for his film that previews movies,\nbecause of construction noise in the background.\n7. ADJOURNMENT\nMeeting was adjourned at 11:22 p.m. by Chair Johnson.\nRespectfully submitted,\nAluma Glidden\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-09-10.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-09-10", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nWEDNESDAY- -SEPTEMBER 10, 2008--6:00 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:00 p.m.\nRoll Call - Present : Councilmembers\ndeHaan,\nGilmore,\nMatarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nThe Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(08 -\n) Public Employee Performance Evaluation (54957) ; Title:\nCity Manager.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened\nand Mayor Johnson announced that Council reviewed the performance\nof the City Manager ; no action was taken.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Meeting at 7:20 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 10, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-09-10.pdf"}
{"body": "LibraryBoard", "date": "2008-09-10", "page": 1, "text": "or\nof\nTERRA\nMinutes of the\nALAMEDA FREE LIBRARY BOARD MEETING\nSeptember 10, 2008\nThe regular meeting of the Alameda Free Library Board was called to order at 6:01 p.m.\nROLL CALL\nPresent:\nRuth Belikove, President\nMike Hartigan, Vice President\nKaren Butter, Board Member\nAlan Mitchell, Board Member\nGail Wetzork, Board Member\nAbsent:\nNone\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 Activities for the Month of September 2008.\nAccepted.\nB.\n*Draft Minutes of the Regular Library Board Meeting of August 13, 2008. Approved.\nC.\n*Library Services Report for the Month of July 2008. Accepted.\nD.\n*Financial Report Reflecting FY 2008-09 Expenditures by Fund through August 2008.\nAccepted.\nE.\n*Bills for Ratification for the Month of August 2008. Approved.\nDirector Chisaki mentioned an error in the Director's Report. A volunteer had been in touch with staff\nto do a Spanish \"sing-along\", not \"story time\", at the West End Library.\nPresident Belikove asked if the Foundation needed any help for the Michael Pollan event, and\nvolunteered to sell 5 tickets.\nPresident Belikove asked for a motion to accept the Consent Calendar as presented. Member Wetzork\nso moved; Member Butter seconded the motion which carried by a 5-0 vote.", "path": "LibraryBoard/2008-09-10.pdf"}
{"body": "LibraryBoard", "date": "2008-09-10", "page": 2, "text": "Page 2 of 4\nMinutes of the Alameda\nFree Library Board Meeting\nSeptember 10, 2008\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (Public Comment)\nMarc Lambert mentioned that he didn't see anything in the August meeting's draft minutes about\nmoving collections from the branches to the Main as part of the neighborhood library improvement\nprocess. Director Chisaki responded that weeding the branch collections has been going on for some\ntime, and didn't feel it was necessary to mention in the minutes. Lambert inquired about the Bechtel\ngrant, but Chisaki had nothing new to report on the subject. Lambert wondered how the Animal\nShelter kiosk in the Main Library's lobby was doing. Chisaki said there have been over 1,000 hits a\nmonth, but didn't know if adoptions had increased as a result. Per a request from Member Butter,\nChisaki will contact the Police Department to see if they have any correlating data.\nUNFINISHED BUSINESS\nA.\nNeighborhood Library Improvement Projects (J. Chisaki)\nDirector Chisaki met with the Public Works Director on project management details; caps will\nbe set on how much is spent on each item. $60,000 is set aside for permits, etc., which leaves\napproximately $2 million intact for the actual work. It was decided there would be no formal\nMOU between Public Works and the Library, as they are both general fund departments. The\nlast few tweaks are being put on the RFP which will be released soon. Project manager Laurie\nKozisek, City Engineer Barbara Hawkins, and possibly Bob Haun of the Housing Authority will\nparticipate in the screening and selection process. A committee will be formed to oversee\nprogress, with Member Wetzork as the Chair/Library Board liaison. Chisaki ran through a list\nof the people and organizations that would be involved, and because it came up as an even\nnumber, suggested a second board member for the committee. Vice President Hartigan said he\nwould be amenable to sitting on the Committee if they found a need for another member.\nNEW BUSINESS\nA.\nArt Exhibit Committee (R. Belikove)\nThe committee had met the previous afternoon and all members showed. They continue to find\nnew exhibits so the calendar going forward is filling up. The next showing will be children's art\nfrom the Monart School, followed by an individual exhibit by the school's Director, Aliea\nWallace. The committee would like to see some diversity in the displays, SO they got a list of\nartists from The Frank Bette Center, and will call around to get an idea of what types of artwork\nare available. The committee has spoken with the Alameda Museum, and may get presenters\nwho can talk about the history of Alameda as well.\nB.\nAlameda Free Library Foundation (A. Mitchell)\nThe Foundation continues to work hard on the upcoming Michael Pollan event that will be held\non October 19 at Auctions by the Bay on Alameda Point. There were no other Foundation\nactivities to report on at this time.", "path": "LibraryBoard/2008-09-10.pdf"}
{"body": "LibraryBoard", "date": "2008-09-10", "page": 3, "text": "Page 3 of 4\nMinutes of the Alameda\nFree Library Board Meeting\nSeptember 10, 2008\nC.\nFriends of the Alameda Free Library (M. Lambert)\nMarc Lambert had the most recent copy of the Friends newsletter and drew attention to a picture\ntaken at the End of Summer Reading Program Ceremony which featured several Library Board\nmembers. The By-Law and Budget Committees have finally been convened, and they met with\nthe Friends' President on August 21st.\nD.\nPatron suggestions/comments (Speak-Outs) and Library Director's response.\nA patron requested that the \"My Space\" website be blocked, because teens use it to chat and it\ndistracts others who are trying to study. The Library is indeed a place to study, learn and read,\nbut it is also a place to attend programs, community events, and maybe have a cup of coffee in\nour Caf\u00e9, making this a popular community meeting place. There are other sites very similar to\n\"My Space\" that would have to be blocked as well, and these are used by teens and adults alike.\nBlocking these sites would make many of the Library's other customers very unhappy.\nLIBRARY BOARD COMMUNICATIONS\nPresident Belikove had listened to Michael Krasny's August 26 report on the future of libraries and\nfound it very interesting and informative. One of the items touched on corporate participation to help\nfund and support Library programs, and Belikove thought this might be something to explore. Vice\nPresident Hartigan thought this was a very good, out-of-the-box idea, although it might be a huge\nadministrative deal to manage. It was suggested that this venture may be better pursued by the\nFoundation, as Library staff is stretched very thin already. Gaming, such as what we now have, was\nanother item mentioned in the report that had positive effects on bringing people to the Library.\nBelikove advised the Board that Yom Kippur starts on October 8 at sundown, and by coincidence is the\nnight of the next Board meeting. Belikove would like to attend, and with the sun going down earlier\nnow, polled the Board about the possibility of an earlier start time for the meeting. The other Board\nmembers indicated this would not be possible, so would instead try to keep the meeting on track and\nhave it end by 7:00. If Belikove has to leave before the meeting adjourns, Vice President Hartigan will\ntake over in her place.\nDIRECTOR'S COMMENTS\nIt's once again time for ethics training. Letters will go out to all board members with details on how to\ncomplete this mandatory instruction on-line. The training will take a minimum of two hours at the end\nof which a completion certificate will be produced. These certificates all need to be turned in to the\nLibrary Administration Office for forwarding en masse to the City Clerk. If anyone needs help\ncompleting the on-line program, someone will be available in the Library Computer Lab to assist them.\nDirector Chisaki went on to talk a little about the State's and City's budget. The proposed State\nRepublican budget plan included suspending funding for literacy programs. Fortunately, that plan was\nvoted down. Walk-A-Mile for Literacy is coming up on Saturday, and it is doubly important now to\nparticipate or give a donation with the potential budget cuts to the program coming down the road.", "path": "LibraryBoard/2008-09-10.pdf"}
{"body": "LibraryBoard", "date": "2008-09-10", "page": 4, "text": "Page 4 of 4\nMinutes of the Alameda\nFree Library Board Meeting\nSeptember 10, 2008\nThe Library has received grant award letters for \"On-Line Homework Help\" through Tutor.com and\nalso for \"Digital Story-Telling\", but no money will be forthcoming until the State's budget passes.\nThe Library/City budget is looking very grim. The Real Property Transfer Tax (Measure P) would\nbenefit the Library if it passes, but it doesn't have a champion at this point and employees of the\nCity/Library can't lobby for it. Member Butter indicated that the League of Women Voters just came\nout in favor of the measure, however, and it will be listed on their website urging people to vote yes.\nThe City is putting together a factual presentation to show people where their City dollars are spent. It\nmust be factual and non-partisan.\nThe acting Finance Director was brought in to be a change agent, and is keeping everyone within their\nbudget lines. The Library has been asked to come up with a plan for an additional 5% cut, so a variety\nof scenarios are being prepared, including completely eliminating one of the Main's regular open days\nor totally closing one of the branches.\nDirector Chisaki went on to speak about Veicon, who is the vendor that manages our thin client (public\ncomputers) and print system. There have been numerous problems for which Veicon has been given\ndeadlines to make fixes on, but they have not successfully responded to all issues. The City Attorney\nhas been involved with all of this, so is well aware of what is going on; it is very likely that we will\ndiscontinue service through Veicon. Talks are already underway with Envisionware who manages the\nComputer Lab equipment; they will do an install for us but don't manage thin client systems, so David\nBoxton will take over the administration of this piece. Chisaki will keep the Board updated as things\nmove forward with the vendor change.\nOn the upside of things, the Library is very popular. Storytimes have reconvened and the children are\nglad to be back after summer break. There have not been any incidents as yet with the students, which\nis always a good thing. Ideas are being formulated for our next Community Reads program. This\nyear's program will have a mystery theme. The Foundation will be asked to help fund this series.\nPer a request from Member Butter, Chisaki talked a little about the gift from the Shrader Family Trust.\nThe Shrader's lived in Alameda a long time ago, moving to Berkeley in the late \"70s. The lawyer\ndidn't have much information about the Shrader's and urged Chisaki to get in touch with the trustees.\nChisaki is waiting for a call back at this point. The money has been deposited into the Memorial Fund;\nChisaki would like to buy a new TeleCirc system that will cost approximately $12,000 with part of it.\nADJOURNMENT\nPresident Belikove asked for a motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:00 p.m. Member Mitchell so moved;\nVice President Hartigan seconded the motion which carried by a 5-0 vote.\nRespectfully submitted,\nJane Chisaki, Library Director and\nSecretary to the Library Board", "path": "LibraryBoard/2008-09-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2008-09-10", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC ART COMMISSION\nREGULAR MEETING OF WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2008\nCONFERENCE ROOM 360, CITY HALL\n2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 7:00 PM\nCONVENE: Acting Chair Leal called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m.\nROLL CALL:\nPRESENT: Vice Chair Lee, Commissioners Candelario, Ibsen and Leal\nABSENT:\nCommissioners Cervantes\nSTAFF PRESENT: Jon Biggs, Planning Services Manager/Secretary to\nPublic Art Commission; Maria Luisa Flores, Intermediate\nClerk, Planning & Building\nMINUTES:\nMinutes from the meeting of August 13, 2008\nMotion (Ibsen)/Second (Leal) to approve as submitted\nAyes: 4; Noes: 0. Motion passed.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:\nNone\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS:\nNone\nREGULAR AGENDA:\n(4A.) Discussion on Development of Identification Signage for Public Arts Projects\nBy consensus, the Commission asked staff to develop formal guidelines for\npublic art identification signage and bring them back to the Commission at it's\nnext meeting for consideration.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS:\nStaff reported.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:\nNone\nCOMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS:", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2008-09-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2008-09-10", "page": 2, "text": "None\nADJOURNMENT:\nThe meeting was adjourned at 7:43 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nJon Biggs, Planning Services Manager/Secretary\nPublic Art Commission\nG:\\PLANNINGIPACIAgendas_Minutes\\Minutes_08\\9-10-08 draft minutes.doc\n2", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2008-09-10.pdf"}