pages: PublicArtCommission/2007-11-29.pdf, 4
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PublicArtCommission | 2007-11-29 | 4 | Mr. Vu clarified why they fastracked the item. The public art plan called for a percentage to be spent on public art. It was suggested that the money be spent since the City Council was going to be supplementing the cultural arts grants program. That's why the item was placed higher on the priority list. It was the idea of the Commission, not staff. Mr. Wolfe mentioned that in October they talked about the Stargell Avenue project and feels that there is a good opportunity there. He feels that it should move forward. Ms. Huston pointed out what a tangle the two agendas are if they are place in the same fund. Only a small percentage of the administrative funds are allowed to be used as a base for the cultural arts fund. The problem she has with the process is that they have very little authority. They are not allowed to ask where things come from. Ms. Rosenberg suggested that they go through the minutes appropriately and very carefully and making decisions in steps. Mr. Wolfe brought up the early discussions as a committee and their talks about object art and how they relate to the entrances of the City. He is more interested in more temporary installation of art. Ms. Lee expressed confusion regarding placement of art. Mr. Wolfe talked about the object art at the entrances to the City. He was wondering how it would work on State Highways in the area being planned near Webster Street and Stargell Avenue. He said that Cal Trans is concerned about what is the peripheral of the driver and what they could run into going 45 miles per hour. He also expressed concern over whether or not the art will be visible or not driving at speed. Ms. Rosenberg clarified the difference between an Ad Hoc Committee and a subcommittee. She disagrees that the terms are interchangeable. Ms. Lee complained that information from committees go through staff and then are brought to the commission. Only after it has gone through staff can it go to the commission. Ms. Rosenberg appreciates as a public body being able to have a public forum that isn't filtered through a non-public entity. They need to put a stop on the interference. She wants subcommittees that are not filtered by administrative bodies. She proposed a motion to differentiate the meanings of an Ad Hoc and a subcommittee; subcommittees are members that are able to go in pairs to investigate parts of the commission's mission and come report directly to the commission without having to report to the administrative body of planning. An Ad Hoc committee is developed by the chair of the commission with the understanding that the body would include administrative staff with support and guidance. Ms. Lee suggested that the motion include language stating that they prefer to use subcommittees except when specifically deciding not to. Ms. Huston commented on how it says a lot about the attitude and experience of the commission that they have to write it into the minutes that they don't want to have to ask permission for their subcommittees to bring them their information and she has been affected by it. 4 | PublicArtCommission/2007-11-29.pdf |