pages
245 rows where body = "PublicArtCommission" sorted by date
This data as json, CSV (advanced)
Suggested facets: page
date (date) >30 ✖
- 2007-11-29 9
- 2007-09-27 8
- 2008-02-13 8
- 2019-05-29 8
- 2008-01-09 7
- 2019-04-15 7
- 2005-09-28 6
- 2005-11-30 6
- 2017-02-15 6
- 2005-01-18 5
- 2005-02-24 5
- 2005-04-28 5
- 2020-03-10 5
- 2022-06-27 5
- 2005-03-24 4
- 2005-05-26 4
- 2005-06-23 4
- 2006-01-25 4
- 2006-09-13 4
- 2007-03-28 4
- 2018-04-04 4
- 2018-06-18 4
- 2018-08-16 4
- 2020-06-15 4
- 2020-08-17 4
- 2020-10-19 4
- 2020-12-21 4
- 2021-02-23 4
- 2021-04-19 4
- 2021-11-10 4
- …
Link | body | date ▼ | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
PublicArtCommission/2005-01-18.pdf,1 | PublicArtCommission | 2005-01-18 | 1 | CITT OF MINUTES OF PUBLIC ART ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING OF JANUARY 18, 2005 (Revised 3/16/05) DATE: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 TIME: 7:00 p.m. PLACE: City Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, First Floor, Room 160 Alameda, CA 94501 1. Roll Call: The meeting was called to order at 7:10 p.m. Present: Chair (C) Huston (late), Vice Chair (VC) Lee, Committee Members (CM) Cecilia Cervantes, K.C. Rosenberg, and Peter Wolfe Absent: Suzanne Ota, ARPD Director Staff: Dale Lillard, Recreation Services Manager (RSM) Pat Russi, Recreation Supervisor (RS) Christina Bailey, Cultural Arts Specialist (CAS) 2. Approval of Minutes A. Minutes of Meeting on December 15, 2004 M/S/C Rosenberg/Cervantes (approved) "That Minutes of Public Art Advisory Committee Meeting on December 15, 2004 be approved.' Approved (3) - Lee, Cervantes, Rosenberg Absent (1) - Huston Abstain (1) - Wolfe 3. Oral Communications (Any person may address the Committee in regard to any matter over which the Commission has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance that is not on the agenda.) None. 4. Written Communications - Letter from Pat Colburn regarding the funding of art centers through the Public Art Allocation - Staff report from RSM Lillard regarding the Webster Renaissance Project Public Art and the Park Streetscape & Town Center Project 5. Old Business PAAC Meeting 1 Minutes Revised January 18, 2005 | PublicArtCommission/2005-01-18.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2005-01-18.pdf,2 | PublicArtCommission | 2005-01-18 | 2 | A. Consideration of 2005 Meeting Dates - (Discussion/Action Item) RS Russi inquired about the fourth Thursday of the month as a possible meeting date. C Huston stated that this would fit her schedule, at least through June; PAAC members agreed. CAS Bailey will send out the dates and meeting locations via e-mail. B. Continued discussion of Public Art Annual Plan - (Discussion/Action Item) CM Rosenberg shared that she would like to see the program goals, from the Guidelines, worked into a Mission Statement. RSM Lillard stated that if the PAAC chose a couple of goals, then staff could draft a short Mission Statement. C Huston asked that each member choose the goals they'd want to see in the Mission. CM Cervantes shared that "supporting the promotion of arts in Alameda; in order to provide the Community with art opportunities" is important. CM Rosenberg shared that "promoting a diverse and stimulating cultural environment, and strengthening cultural awareness, innovative thinking, lifelong learning and the City's sense of community" should be highlighted. VC Lee chose "Public art integrates the vision of artists and design professionals in planning and designing the urban landscape." VC Lee asked whether the PAAC would be dealing with physical objects or contributing to the operating costs and salaries of local non-profits. RS Russi stated that it would be up to the PAAC. C Huston stated that she would be more inclined to have more interesting art pieces throughout the City, rather than supporting the existing non-profits. CM Rosenberg stated that it would be difficult to monitor funds provided to non-profit organizations for the purposes of supporting ongoing operation and staff costs. RSM Lillard shared that a number of organizations that provide grants have strict guidelines detailing how the funding may be used. Most tend to emphasize the program or service to be provided while attempting to avoid evaluating the particular non-profit themselves. Physical pieces of art can be enjoyed by everyone when placed throug… | PublicArtCommission/2005-01-18.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2005-01-18.pdf,3 | PublicArtCommission | 2005-01-18 | 3 | move to do that, but would need to specify funds go only towards exhibits/events. CM Rosenberg suggested that the PAAC take a look at local non-profits on an annual basis for the purpose of assessing communications. C Huston inquired as to whether the permits are being written in a way that is minimizing the one percent. She wanted to add this to the Annual Plan under Political. C Huston asked PAAC if they wanted to have data collection maps. VC Lee stated that it would be a good idea to have specific sites and goals in mind. C Huston also inquired about having a project calendar. RSM Lillard stated that the Planning/Building Department lists projects in terms of seasons. RS Russi explained that he has been working on a generic RFP and Public Art application. Each RFP will have different details and a unique cover letter. RSM Lillard stated that PAAC would receive a draft by the February meeting. C. Discussion of Art Donation - (Discussion Item) RSM Lillard explained that Emily Lewis, a St. Joseph Notre Dame student, approached Alameda Recreation & Parks and she would like to paint a mural on or in one of our buildings. Director Ota and RS Russi met with Emily, her mother, and high school art teacher. The project will be no cost to the City. The Department proposed that the mural be painted on three panels for easy mobility. C Huston suggested that the student-artist use canvas and Velcro; this process makes displaying, moving, and storing the piece easier. CM Rosenberg added that a sona tube could be used to store the piece, if canvas and Velcro are used. CM Rosenberg also stated that if one of her students came to her about painting a mural, she would suggest that they look into past murals from the City where they are doing the piece. This way, they could better their own work. 6. New Business A. Webster Renaissance Project Public Art and the Park Streetscape & Town Center Project - (Discussion Item) Sue Russell from City Development Services attended the meeting to share the progress of the Park & Webster Str… | PublicArtCommission/2005-01-18.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2005-01-18.pdf,4 | PublicArtCommission | 2005-01-18 | 4 | Commission Taskforce. VC Lee stated that she would be willing to volunteer also. M/S/C Rosenberg/Huston (approved) "That Peter Wolfe be appointed as the liaison between the Public Art Advisory Committee and the Webster and Park Streetscape Projects." Approved (5) - Huston, Lee, Cervantes, Rosenberg, and Wolfe M/S/C Rosenberg/Huston (approved) "That Karen Lee be appointed as the substitute liaison between the Public Art Advisory Committee and the Webster and Park Streetscape Projects.' Approved (5) - Huston, Lee, Cervantes, Rosenberg, and Wolfe B. Consideration of funding of art centers by the Public Art Allocation - (Discussion Item) Pat Colburn, President and founder of the Alameda Art Center, addressed PAAC members on behalf of the AAC. She stated that the Center has been open for eight months and has 160 members. She expressed the Center's struggle to obtain funding as a non-profit 501 (c) 3. She inquired as to whether or not Public Art Fund monies could be allocated to local non-profits. She also mentioned that she had contacted Harsch Development about their one percent. Meeting attendee, Marilyn Pomeroy, was part of the group that drafted the original Public Art Ordinance. She thought that the in-lieu fund was meant to go towards grant proposals, and that the PAAC was developed to handle these grants. CM Rosenberg stated that the role of the PAAC is to see that the quality of artwork meets a certain quality level. Ms. Pomeroy inquired as to what the PAAC thought about local non- profits writing proposals directly to developers. C Huston stated that their proposals would inevitably end up in front of the PAAC for approval. VC Lee expressed concerns over non-profits being pitted against each other for limited funds. In addition, it could also lead to friends and relatives of the developers unfairly lobbying for funds. Ms. Pomeroy asked if Harsch Development had already set aside its one percent for onsite art. RSM Lillard stated that they have an art consultant and plan to exceed the one percent. The develope… | PublicArtCommission/2005-01-18.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2005-01-18.pdf,5 | PublicArtCommission | 2005-01-18 | 5 | C Huston expressed her hesitation in rushing to use money from the Fund. CM Rosenberg echoed her sentiment that the Committee would not want to make hasty decisions about the money. CM Wolfe stated that there are so many organizations and so few developers; the developers might become antagonized by all the groups seeking money. VC Lee also expressed her concern over how the PAAC would establish an organization's value, if they were to offer grants for non-profits. C. Role of Committee Members serving as representatives to public art projects - (Discussion Item) RSM Lillard stated that PAAC members, serving on other subcommittees, would report to PAAC at their next scheduled meeting (e.g., CM Wolfe will attend the Park and Webster Streetscape Project meeting, and will then report to the PAAC). 7. Oral Communications, General CM Wolfe inquired about the concept of gifts and donations. RSM Lillard stated that this was the first time in 17 years that a citizen had approached the Department about donating art and PAAC could look at this at a later date. CAS Bailey shared that a file on Gifts and Donations is being compiled. RS Russi updated the PAAC on Tad Savinar, Art Consultant for Harsch Development. Due to a setback in the developer's conceptual plan, the development and placement of art has been delayed. Despite this setback, Mr. Savinar is familiarizing himself with local artists. 8. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. PAAC Meeting 5 Minutes Revised January 18, 2005 | PublicArtCommission/2005-01-18.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2005-02-24.pdf,1 | PublicArtCommission | 2005-02-24 | 1 | CITT OF MINUTES OF PUBLIC ART ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING OF FEBRUARY 24, 2005 (Revised 2/7/06) DATE: Thursday, February 24, 2005 TIME: 7:00 p.m. PLACE: City Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Third Floor, Room 360 Alameda, CA 94501 1. Roll Call: The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Chair (C) Huston, Vice Chair (VC) Lee, Committee Members (CM) K.C. Rosenberg, and Peter Wolfe (late) Absent: Committee Member (CM) Cecilia Cervantes Staff: Suzanne Ota, ARPD Director Dale Lillard, Recreation Services Manager (RSM) Pat Russi, Recreation Supervisor (RS) Christina Bailey, Cultural Arts Specialist (CAS) 2. Approval of Minutes A. Minutes of Meeting on January 18, 2005 On page 3, paragraph 1, CM Rosenberg asked that the following be added to the last sentence, "for the purpose of assessing communications." VC Lee suggested a stylistic change for future minutes. She would like to see Chair, Vice Chair, and Committee Member be abbreviated similar to that of staff members' titles. M/S/C Rosenberg/Wolfe (approved) "That Minutes of Public Art Advisory Committee Meeting on January 18, 2005 be approved." Approved (4) - Huston, Lee, Rosenberg, Wolfe Absent (1) - Cervantes 3. Oral Communications (Any person may address the Committee in regard to any matter over which the Commission has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance that is not on the agenda.) None. PAAC Meeting 1 Minutes February 24, 2005 | PublicArtCommission/2005-02-24.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2005-02-24.pdf,2 | PublicArtCommission | 2005-02-24 | 2 | 4. Written Communications None. 5. Old Business A. Continued Discussion of Public Art Annual Plan - (Discussion/Action Item) Director Ota discussed that PAAC should prioritize issues that are most important in the Annual Plan. C Huston asked when the Plan should be presented to the City Council. Director Ota stated that it could be presented during July 2005 (new fiscal year). C Huston wanted to clarify that the Annual Plan being developed is for 2004-2005, six (6) months behind schedule. One issue that could be addressed would be to raise the 1% or $150,000 cap. CM Wolfe stated that the cap is unfair to smaller developers; since they pay one-percent and larger developers only pay $150,000. CM Rosenberg suggested that the Plan include short and long-term goals, including the PAAC's communication with non-profits. C Huston stated that she would like to move from draft-form of the Plan to a working document; this would include having agendas that reflect the Committee's top priorities. She went on to ask Staff to provide an easel and pad of large paper for PAAC to write down ideas; Staff stated that could be done. Director Ota explained that there is a discrepancy in the definition of the Public Art Allocation requirement for renovation projects. The building official is interpreting it technically and the two departments are not in agreement. RS Russi stated that the phrase in question is "50% of the replacement cost of the building" (30-65.3c). In doing research with the City Attorney's office and looking at other cities' ordinances, it appears that either an added definition or simpler, more direct language should be incorporated. Staff will come back to PAAC with samples once they are agreed upon by Building and Recreation Departments and the City Attorney's Office. - Mission Statement PAAC members discussed specific wording for Alameda Public Art Program's mission statement. VC Lee stated that the mission statement should include a short, punchy sentence with objectives. Staff will work to compile all suggesti… | PublicArtCommission/2005-02-24.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2005-02-24.pdf,3 | PublicArtCommission | 2005-02-24 | 3 | subject to the Public Art Ordinance. Projects that are currently in process or will be soon include: Bay Ship & Yacht, Bridgeside Center, Harbor Island Complex, Park & Webster Streetscape Projects, Blanding Street Work/Live project, South Shore Center, and Washington Park Recreation Building. CM Rosenberg asked if Staff could provide a map of Alameda's existing and proposed public art projects. RSM Lillard stated that Staff would get a map. B. Continued Discussion of Public Art Donation Policy - (Discussion Item) In regards to the donation of items, RSM Lillard explained that there are common criteria for their acceptance between cities. Criteria include: - Outlines and responsibilities for installation and maintenance - Procedures for establishing the title and ownership - Provisions for dispensation for the work C. Consideration of Request to Fund Art Centers with the Public Art Allocation Funds - (Discussion/Action Item) Pat Colburn, from Alameda Art Center, and Lynn Faris, from Alameda Civic Light Opera, attended the meeting. Ms. Faris expressed her interest in learning how, or if, public art funds will be distributed to local non-profits. C Huston explained that developers would ultimately present plans to the City for the art they would like to place. PAAC will approve or decline the art based on the established guidelines of quality and accessibility. She went on to state that there is no direct link between arts organizations and the Public Art Fund. However, the developer may choose to use the allotted money to create performance or exhibition spaces. CM Rosenberg stated that the developer could choose to place the money in the in-lieu fund. If this is the case, PAAC could then create a competition for non-profits to compete for said funds. C Huston explained that RSM Lillard had previously stated the funds could not be used for on going operating costs. Director Ota explained that money collected through the Ordinance could be placed in one of two pots. First, developers can put their public art allocat… | PublicArtCommission/2005-02-24.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2005-02-24.pdf,4 | PublicArtCommission | 2005-02-24 | 4 | should have a disclaimer that the ARPD and PAAC do not necessarily endorse any of the organizations. C Huston stated that the PAAC had previously asked that the Alameda Art Center create a "Wish List." This would include expenses that they want the in-lieu funds to cover. C Huston stated that the guidelines stress that the developer place public art that is exceptional in nature and not part of an existing structure. CM Wolfe added that it also needs to be accessible to the public. Director Ota stated that the requirements are in place to create public art opportunities. Ms. Colburn expressed her frustration and asked why the money needs to be spent on something new, and not on an existing organization. She stated that local non-profits are viable community assets and are struggling to make ends meet. She asked if there were any plans to rewrite the ordinance to benefit local non-profits. C Huston stated that PAAC would not be the ones to rewrite the Ordinance. CM Rosenberg stated that PAAC would be evaluating communication with non-profits in the future. C Huston stated that there would be a Call for Entries when in-lieu funds become available. Ms. Faris expressed her desire to compete for any funds that become available in the future. 6. New Business A. Discussion and Review of Public Art Documents and Forms - (Discussion Item) - RFP/RFQ RS Russi explained that he researched documents from different cities; some documents were very detailed and others were not. The sample documents included in the agenda packet are very generic, and can be modified for each unique project. CM Wolfe suggested that the RFP include wording from the Guidelines, as well as, a concept statement. CM Rosenberg stated that there should be a section for each of the three areas in the Ordinance: on site projects, on site cultural programs, and on site art spaces or cultural facilities. Director Ota stated that Alameda modeled its Ordinance after the cities of Pasadena and Long Beach. Staff should look at their wording for more examples. V… | PublicArtCommission/2005-02-24.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2005-02-24.pdf,5 | PublicArtCommission | 2005-02-24 | 5 | B. Summer Activity Guide Articles by PAAC Members - (Discussion Item) RS Russi stated that the staff is in the process of compiling information for the Summer Activity Guide. The staff wants PAAC to submit a piece about their work by March 10th or earlier. Director Ota stated that the Cultural Arts section would have fewer pages in this edition. C Huston asked VC Lee to help her formulate the article. 7. Oral Communications, General C Huston stated that a list of future tasks and priorities should be developed. RS Russi stated that Staff would flesh out and reorganize the Annual Plan. Director Ota thanked PAAC and ARPD staff for their hard work and diligence over the past year. PAAC thanked Director Ota for her commitment to the Public Art Program. 8. Committee Reports - Webster & Park Streetscape Projects - CM Wolfe None. 9. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. PAAC Meeting 5 Minutes February 24, 2005 | PublicArtCommission/2005-02-24.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2005-03-24.pdf,1 | PublicArtCommission | 2005-03-24 | 1 | CITT OF MINUTES OF PUBLIC ART ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING OF MARCH 24, 2005 DATE: Thursday, March 24, 2005 TIME: 7:00 p.m. PLACE: City Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Third Floor, Room 360 Alameda, CA 94501 1. Roll Call: The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. Present: Chair (C) Huston, Vice Chair (VC) Lee, Committee Members (CM) Cecilia Cervantes, and Peter Wolfe (late) Absent: Committee Member (CM) K.C. Rosenberg Staff: Dale Lillard, Acting Director (AD) Pat Russi, Recreation Supervisor (RS) Christina Bailey, Cultural Arts Specialist (CAS) 2. Approval of Minutes A. Minutes of Meeting on February 24, 2005 On page 2, section 5A, C Huston wanted to clarify that the Annual Plan being developed is for 2004-2005, six (6) months behind schedule. M/S/C Lee/Cervantes "That Minutes of Public Art Advisory Committee Meeting on February 24, 2005 be approved.' Approved (3) - Huston, Lee, Cervantes Abstain (1) - Wolfe Absent (1) - Rosenberg 3. Oral Communications (Any person may address the Committee in regard to any matter over which the Commission has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance that is not on the agenda.) None. 4. Written Communications None. PAAC Meeting 1 Minutes March 24, 2005 | PublicArtCommission/2005-03-24.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2005-03-24.pdf,2 | PublicArtCommission | 2005-03-24 | 2 | 5. Old Business A. Continued Discussion of Public Art Annual Plan - (Discussion/Action Item) PAAC reviewed and revised draft of Public Art Annual Plan. Staff will make revisions and CAS Bailey will e-mail PAAC members latest draft. C Huston stated that PAAC would probably need to create subcommittees to draft responses to developers, including input from other members. RS Russi stated that PAAC could tell the applicant that the item will be voted on during the next month's meeting. CM Wolfe asked AD Lillard how far ahead other Committees and Commissions plan. AD Lillard stated that the average is a year ahead. RS Russi asked PAAC to clarify "fact-checking" art consultants. C Huston stated that some of the consultants on the list are simply not art consultants. Someone needs to call all of the listed consultants and verify that they really are art consultants. - Continued Development of Mission Statement - (Discussion Item) CM Cervantes suggested that a subcommittee work on finalizing the Mission Statement. C Huston asked if CM Cervantes would like to work on it with another member. CM Cervantes stated that she would work on it with anyone. CM Wolfe stated that he would help in finalizing the final draft. B. Discussion and review of Public Art Documents and Forms - (Discussion Item) - RFP/RFQ PAAC members made revisions to the document. Staff will make revisions and return draft for further review. CM Cervantes suggested that the Request For Proposals be divided into two (2) sections: 1) the City provides the information and 2) the applicant submits the information. C Huston suggested the following: 1) City and Project Information, and 2) Applicant's Information. C Huston stated that it would not be inappropriate to ask an artist for a price list of past works along with his/her resume. C. Library Update - (Discussion Item) RS Russi shared that Staff met with Susan Hardie, Friends of the Library, and the Library Foundation. The Friends and the Foundation decided to retain the services of art consultant Regina Alma… | PublicArtCommission/2005-03-24.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2005-03-24.pdf,3 | PublicArtCommission | 2005-03-24 | 3 | medallions. RS Russi stated that the City created an Artist Agreement, between the City and the artist. 6. New Business A. Update on Webster & Park Streetscape Projects - (Discussion Item) CM Wolfe explained that he met with representatives from ARPD and Development Services. During the meeting, an issue of whether or not the Public Art Ordinance affected sewer or other infrastructure projects was addressed. It is understood by AD Lillard that the intent of the Public Art Ordinance was to have building projects (structures) trigger the 1% Ordinance. CM Wolfe stated that there might be contingency funds for Public Art from the Webster Street Streetscape, but not from the Park Street project. CM Wolfe expressed a desire to look into infrastructure costs being subject to the 1% Ordinance. When Alameda Point redevelopment begins, streets and sewers will be the first items worked on. This will be an extensive project, where developers will then buy pieces of property. CM Wolfe does not want to have an ambiguous term create a lost opportunity for obtaining Public Art funds. RS Russi stated that this would involve amending the Ordinance. C Huston added that this issue should be added to the list of strategic goals. CM Wolfe also addressed the Alameda Theater and Garage Project. These projects have been in the planning stages long before the Public Art Ordinance was in effect. Therefore, Public Art monies were not factored in. He stated that the theater is historical and the 1% could be used to renovate it to historical standards. Regarding the Garage, the 1% could be incorporated into its architecture. CM Wolfe added that the theater is going to have many large, blank walls where murals or other art could be featured. B. Draft of Alameda Public Art Program Map - (Discussion Item) RS Russi stated that the map includes color-coded symbols to show existing and proposed sites for Public Art. He went on to state that it would be too difficult to shrink the map and feature it in a publication (Activity Guide). However, a prop… | PublicArtCommission/2005-03-24.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2005-03-24.pdf,4 | PublicArtCommission | 2005-03-24 | 4 | CM Wolfe asked if Alameda Recreation & Parks has an archive of materials submitted for Public Art projects. CAS Bailey stated that there is a file of all artist submittals from the New Main Library Project. 7. Oral Communications, General C Huston expressed a desire to see the following items on April's agenda: - Finalize Annual Plan - Finalize Mission Statement - Set Priorities and Develop Strategic Plan 8. Committee Reports - Webster & Park Streetscape Projects - CM Wolfe - See item 6A. 9. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. PAAC Meeting 4 Minutes March 24, 2005 | PublicArtCommission/2005-03-24.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2005-04-28.pdf,1 | PublicArtCommission | 2005-04-28 | 1 | CITT OF MINUTES OF PUBLIC ART ADVISORY COMMITTEE the MEETING OF APRIL 28, 2005 GO. DATE: Thursday, April 28, 2005 TIME: 7:00 p.m. PLACE: City Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Third Floor, Room 360 Alameda, CA 94501 1. Roll Call: The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. Present: Chair (C) Huston, Vice Chair (VC) Lee, Committee Members (CM) Cecilia Cervantes (late), and K.C. Rosenberg Absent: Committee Member (CM) Peter Wolfe Staff: Dale Lillard, Acting Director (AD) Pat Russi, Recreation Supervisor (RS) Christina Bailey, Cultural Arts Specialist (CAS) 2. Approval of Minutes A. Minutes of Meeting on March 24, 2005 M/S/C Lee/Huston "That Minutes of Public Art Advisory Committee Meeting on March 24, 2005 be approved.' " Approved (2) - Huston, Lee Abstain (1) - Rosenberg Absent (2) - Cervantes, Wolfe (Minimum of three votes needed for approval; minutes will be placed on the meeting agenda for May 26, 2005.) 3. Oral Communications (Any person may address the Committee in regard to any matter over which the Commission has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance that is not on the agenda.) None. PAAC Meeting 1 Minutes April 28, 2005 | PublicArtCommission/2005-04-28.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2005-04-28.pdf,2 | PublicArtCommission | 2005-04-28 | 2 | 4. Written Communications None. 5. Old Business A. Finalize Public Art Annual Plan - (Discussion/Action Item) C Huston and VC Lee organized the Annual Plan prior to the meeting. The work done by the PAAC during 2004-2005 would be submitted as an Annual Report. One major component was the collection of public art information and program guidelines from other cities, which culminated in the drafting and completion of Alameda's Guidelines. The Annual Plan would include work to be done during the 2005-2006 period. This will include creating a Public Art Program Mission Statement, and developing documents used for Call for Entries and Request for Qualifications/Proposals PAAC reviewed and finalized the Annual Report and Plan. M/S/C Rosenberg/Cervantes (approved) "That the Annual Report of 2004-2005 and the Annual Plan of 2005-2006 be approved." Approved (4) - Huston, Lee, Cervantes, Rosenberg Absent (1) - Wolfe AD Lillard stated that the first opportunity to present the Report and Plan to the City Council would come in late June. B. Finalize Mission Statement - (Discussion/Action Item) Discussion tabled on Mission Statement until PAAC meeting on May 26, 2005. C. Finalize Public Art Documents - (Discussion/Action Item) RS Russi stated that a finalized RFQ/RFP would be required, since Sue Russell and the Webster Street Project are moving forward. VC Lee asked if she could review an e-mail from CM Wolfe, regarding the Webster Street Project. CM Wolfe brought up issues regarding the timeline, budget, and RFQ. In addition, CM Wolfe inquired as to where the art piece would be located. The site, as described, is unclear and needs some verbal or visual delineation. PAAC Meeting 2 Minutes April 28, 2005 | PublicArtCommission/2005-04-28.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2005-04-28.pdf,3 | PublicArtCommission | 2005-04-28 | 3 | C Huston stated that we should send a cover letter and RFQ to art publications and organizations. The organizations can then publicize it to their membership base. CM Rosenberg suggested two organizations, Pro Arts and San Francisco Arts Commission; C Huston suggested Art in America (AIA), Oakland Art Gallery, and other professional artist gathering spots. PAAC discussed the items that should be requested in the RFQ. C Huston suggested that an artist submit only five (5) slides, ten (10) to twenty (20) for the RFP. The slides should be 35 mm in plastic or cardboard covers, no stick on labels; CD's and DVD's will also be accepted. The RFQ can also request the artist's resume, which includes education, exhibits, collections, and a list of where they have shown; a slide scrip will also be requested. CM Rosenberg suggested that a cover letter, letter of interest, and artist statement also be included. The artist would also be given the option to include additional support materials. C Huston expressed her approval of this procedure, because an artist is being chosen, not a project. RS Russi stated that Development Services Department and the Webster Street Subcommittee would fill-in the blanks on the RFQ. VC Lee stated that California artists are eligible for this project. C Huston stated that she would like to be on a subcommittee for the fact checking of art consultants. She inquired as to how soon the information is needed. VC Lee stated that it would be needed immediately, since CM Wolfe would like to see the piece completed and installed by December 1st. C Huston inquired as to when the RFQ for the Webster Street Project would be needed. RS Russi stated that Sue Russell wants it to go out by the end of May. C Huston and CM Rosenberg volunteered to look over an existing list of artists and consultants and to add any appropriate art organizations and publications. C Huston clarified that Development Services would provide the descriptions for the RFQ; the PAAC would provide the format for the RFQ/RFP, a mailing li… | PublicArtCommission/2005-04-28.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2005-04-28.pdf,4 | PublicArtCommission | 2005-04-28 | 4 | 6. New Business A. Appoint Subcommittee for the Theater and Garage Development Project - (Discussion/Action Item) RS Russi explained that the goal is to have the Theater and Garage Project completed during early 2007. The restoration of the historical theater will take longer than the new complex components, but all will be opened at the same time. Dorene Soto is the Development Services Lead Person on this project. CM Cervantes and CM Rosenberg expressed interest in being on the Sub-Committee. CM Cervantes stated that College of Alameda students might be involved with the oral history of the theater space. M/S/C Huston/Lee (approved) "That CM Cervantes and CM Rosenberg be appointed to the Theater and Garage Project Sub-Committee.' Approve (4) - Huston, Lee, Cervantes, Rosenberg Absent (1) - Wolfe B. Set Priorities and Develop Strategic Plan - (Discussion Item) C Huston suggested that priorities should include Mission Statement, RFQ/RFP, and Artist Directory. RS Russi stated that many projects would be coming up soon. He suggested that the PAAC set a meeting schedule soon, in order to expedite meeting with project managers. C Huston stated that the schedule could be made through September, for regular meetings; the PAAC could assign dates for special meetings, so project PAAC Meeting 4 Minutes April 28, 2005 | PublicArtCommission/2005-04-28.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2005-04-28.pdf,5 | PublicArtCommission | 2005-04-28 | 5 | managers can be given a specific date and time to meet with PAAC. 7. Oral Communications, General RS Russi stated that the Bridgeside Shopping Center Project is moving along. However, there have been no overtures for the Public Art projects. He went on to explain that AD Lillard, CAS Bailey, and himself went to visit Bay Ship & Yacht and spoke with Crispin Kraft. This company services ships (including government ships), propellers, and shafts. It is the largest employer in Alameda. For the past few years, the Corps of Engineers have been dredging the estuary and reducing Bay Ship & Yacht's dock space. Consequently, Bay Ship & Yacht has been forced to make changes and improvements to their property. Their business is required to have a certain amount of dock and pier space, in order to be a soluble business. They have been in contact with the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), who set the stipulations and restrictions for the space 100 ft. from the waterfront (eg., the trail that runs up to Bay Ship & Yacht). Cris Kraft wants to revamp the trail area and landscape a small plaza with nautical artwork (near the ferry dock). AD Lillard stated that Bay Ship & Yacht is creating the plaza to meet the requirements of BCDC, and want credit toward the Public Art requirement. RS Russi stated that South Shore Center would go over the $150,000 cap for Public Art. Tad Savinar wants a copy of RFP, since he is looking for local artists (California artists are eligible). Tad is still planning to attend a PAAC meeting. 8. Committee Reports - Webster & Park Streetscape Projects - CM Wolfe See Section 5C. 9. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. PAAC Meeting 5 Minutes April 28, 2005 | PublicArtCommission/2005-04-28.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2005-05-26.pdf,1 | PublicArtCommission | 2005-05-26 | 1 | CITT OF MINUTES OF PUBLIC ART ADVISORY COMMITTEE the MEETING OF MAY 26, 2005 GO. (Revised 2/7/06) DATE: Thursday, May 26, 2005 TIME: 7:00 p.m. PLACE: City Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Third Floor, Room 360 Alameda, CA 94501 1. Roll Call: The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. Present: Chair (C) Huston, Committee Members (CM) Cecilia Cervantes, K.C. Rosenberg, and Peter Wolfe Absent: Committee Member (CM) Karen Lee Dale Lillard, Acting Director (AD) Staff: Pat Russi, Recreation Supervisor (RS) Christina Bailey, Cultural Arts Specialist (CAS) 2. Approval of Minutes A. Minutes of Meeting on March 24, 2005 CM Wolfe inquired about the Public Art Ordinance in relationship to infrastructure projects (Item 6A). During a previous meeting, AD Lillard had stated that he would ask the City Attorney about this. RS Russi stated that AD Lillard would update the PAAC during June 23rd meeting. M/S/C Wolfe/Cervantes "That Minutes of Public Art Advisory Committee Meeting on March 24, 2005 be approved." Approved (3) - Huston, Cervantes, Wolfe Absent (1) - Lee Abstain (1) - Rosenberg B. Minutes of Meeting on April 28, 2005 On page 3, paragraph 2, C Huston asked that "slide scrip" be changed to "slide script." PAAC Meeting 1 Minutes May 26, 2005 | PublicArtCommission/2005-05-26.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2005-05-26.pdf,2 | PublicArtCommission | 2005-05-26 | 2 | M/S/C Rosenberg/Cervantes "That Minutes of Public Art Advisory Committee Meeting on April 28, 2005 be approved with changes." Approved (3) - Huston, Cervantes, Rosenberg Absent (1) - Lee Abstain (1) - -Wolfe 3. Oral Communications (Any person may address the Committee in regard to any matter over which the Commission has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance that is not on the agenda.) None. 4. Written Communications None. 5. Old Business A. Update on Alameda West Gateway and the Theater and Parking/Garage Projects from Sue Russell of Development Services - (Discussion Item) Sue Russell stated that Development Services submitted a project application for the Alameda West Gateway Project to Alameda Recreation and Parks on May 5, 2005. Through discussions with RS Russi, she understood that an infrastructure project would not require Public Art. However, the project would like to set aside a contingency of $25,000 for an entryway project. The location would be as you exit the Webster Tube at Neptune Park. Currently, this location is home to concrete signage and three flags, which were installed during the early 1990's. CM Wolfe expressed two concerns: 1) interaction or conflict between what is existing and what will be placed on the site; 2) a definition of where Caltrans begins and if they have any stipulations for placing art near roadways. CM Rosenberg expressed a desire to see a playful-themed sign, reminiscent of Neptune Beach. PAAC Meeting 2 Minutes May 26, 2005 | PublicArtCommission/2005-05-26.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2005-05-26.pdf,3 | PublicArtCommission | 2005-05-26 | 3 | RS Russi and CAS Bailey stated they would research who placed the existing signage and flags near the tube. Regarding the theater/garage project, Sue Russell stated that a formal application would be submitted by the June 23rd meeting. C Huston offered the suggestion to have a Public Art competition, where prize money would be offered as opposed to a commission. There are artists seeking large venues, who are willing to work to cover their costs. B. Finalize Mission Statement - (Discussion/Action Item) CM Cervantes offered a draft of the Alameda Public Art Program's Mission Statement. PAAC members discussed specific wording and stylistic changes. A final draft will be included on the June 23rd agenda. 6. New Business A. Approve Call for Entries & RFQ for Alameda West Gateway Project - (Discussion/Action Item) PAAC members discussed specific wording and stylistic changes for both Public Art documents. Final documents will be included in June 23rd packet for PAAC records. PAAC also developed a short ad for art publications. B. Set PAAC Meeting Schedule - (Discussion/Action Item) PAAC members discussed and finalized possible meeting dates (Wednesday, July 27, 2005 and Thursday, August 25, 2005). C. Obtain Alternative Meeting Dates for Meeting with Applicants - (Discussion/Action Item) CM Cervantes stated that she could not make meetings on 2nd and 4th Tuesdays. CM Rosenberg stated that she could not meet on Tuesdays or Thursdays. D. Set Priorities for Next Meeting - (Discussion Item) - Prioritizing Calls and Outlets for Dissemination - Artist and Consultant List Update - Theater and Garage Project Update - Finalize and Approve Mission Statement 7. Oral Communications, General PAAC Meeting 3 Minutes May 26, 2005 | PublicArtCommission/2005-05-26.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2005-05-26.pdf,4 | PublicArtCommission | 2005-05-26 | 4 | CM Rosenberg stated that the Artist and Consultant Lists need to be fact- checked. She also expressed a concern over mailing RFQ's directly to individual artists. She went on to state that she and C Huston would create an Artist Organization List, which would include but not be limited to, Oakland Arts Commission, San Francisco Arts Commission, Pro Arts, Berkeley Art Center, Richmond Art Center, and Center for Art in Public Life (CCA). CM Rosenberg also stated that if an artist registry were ever developed, it would need to be put on a database. 8. Committee Reports - Webster & Park Streetscape Projects - CM Wolfe See Item 5A. Theater & Garage Project - CM's Cervantes and Rosenberg See Item 5A. 9. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. PAAC Meeting 4 Minutes May 26, 2005 | PublicArtCommission/2005-05-26.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2005-06-23.pdf,1 | PublicArtCommission | 2005-06-23 | 1 | CITT OF MINUTES OF PUBLIC ART ADVISORY COMMITTEE the MEETING OF JUNE 23, 2005 GO. (Revised 2/7/06) DATE: Thursday, June 23, 2005 TIME: 7:00 p.m. PLACE: City Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Third Floor, Room 360 Alameda, CA 94501 1. Roll Call: The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. Present: Chair (C) Huston, Committee Members (CM) K.C. Rosenberg, and Peter Wolfe Absent: Committee Members (CM) Cecilia Cervantes and Karen Lee Staff: Christa Johnson-Seely, Assistant to the City Manager Dale Lillard, Acting Director (AD) Pat Russi, Recreation Supervisor (RS) Christina Bailey, Cultural Arts Specialist (CAS) 2. Approval of Minutes A. Minutes of Meeting on May 26, 2005 C Huston asked that the wording on page 3, paragraph 5 be changed to the following: Where prize money would be offered as opposed to commission. There are artists seeking large venues, who are willing to work to cover their costs. M/S/C Rosenberg/Wolfe (approved) "That Minutes of Public Art Advisory Committee Meeting on May 26, 2005 be approved with changes." Approved (3) - Huston, Rosenberg, Wolfe Absent (2) - Cervantes, Lee Update Public Work Projects & Public Art Ordinance AD Lillard stated that the City Attorney concluded that infrastructure projects, such as sewer or street projects, would not count toward the Public Art Ordinance. City may choose to participate in the Ordinance when developing buildings and parks. PAAC Meeting 1 Minutes June 23, 2005 | PublicArtCommission/2005-06-23.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2005-06-23.pdf,2 | PublicArtCommission | 2005-06-23 | 2 | 3. Oral Communications (Any person may address the Committee in regard to any matter over which the Commission has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance that is not on the agenda.) None 4. Written Communications Staff will obtain the artist list, sent by Mary Oliver, from the City of Emeryville. An art consultant compiled the list. The list will be included on July's agenda. 5. Old Business A. Update on Alameda West Gateway and the Theater and Parking/Garage Projects from Jennifer Ott of Development Services - (Discussion Item) - Jennifer Ott, Development Manager from Development Services Department, stated that an application for artwork on the parking structure facing Santa Clara Avenue had been submitted to Alameda Recreation & Parks. The artwork would consist of a temporary mural, using billboard technology. The installation of the art would coincide with the building of the garage. The billboard would be vinyl and the dimensions would be left to the discretion of the Public Art Advisory Committee. The art would be digitally transferred and could be reproduced and placed in a different location. Ms. Ott explained that the piece could last up to or exceed two years, since it would be facing north. She went on to state that there had been previous discussions about using a historical picture; however, a more contemporary image was requested. CM Wolfe asked what the project budget would be. Ms. Ott stated that the budget would be $10,000. CM Wolfe expressed his concern that the Public Art be accessible to the public, even those who do not pay $7.00 to enter the theater. His understanding was that the Development Services Department was going to allot Public Art funds for the restoration of the theater, and that it should be done in a publicly accessible area. C Huston asked if the work would be displayed on a single panel or on multi-panels. Ms. Ott stated that the issue was open to discussion; however, the installation specifications would need to PAAC Meeting 2 Minutes June 23, 2005 | PublicArtCommission/2005-06-23.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2005-06-23.pdf,3 | PublicArtCommission | 2005-06-23 | 3 | be written carefully so a change order would not be required. C Huston asked what the mounting technology would consist of. Ms. Ott explained that the architect would design it. CM Wolfe inquired about the lighting of the piece. He asked if the lighting would be worked into the architecture of the wall. Ms. Ott stated that lighting could be worked into the specifications. C Huston added that maintenance and vandalism parameters should be considered, as well as, the relationship of the piece to the architecture. B. Approve Mission Statement - (Action Item) PAAC members discussed specific wording and stylistic changes. AD Lillard stated that all references to Committee would be changed to Commission. M/S/C Wolfe/Rosenberg (approved) "That Mission Statement of the Alameda Public Art Program be approved with changes." Approved (3) - Huston, Rosenberg, Wolfe Absent (2) - Cervantes, Lee C. Call for Entries & RFQ for Alameda West Gateway Project: Put on Hold - (Discussion Item) Jennifer Ott stated that the Gateway Project is on hold due to budgetary constraints. She reiterated that the City is still committed to the project. RS Russi presented the final draft of Call for Artists and RFQ for PAAC review. PAAC proposed specific wording and stylistic changes to the documents. RS Russi will make changes for final document. 6. New Business A. Reorganization of PAAC - (Discussion Item) AD Lillard explained that an Ordinance was introduced, at the City Council Meeting on Tuesday, June 21, that will change the Committee to a Commission. The new Commission will report directly to the City Council. Staffing for the Commission will be transferred from Recreation & Parks to Planning & Building. CAS Bailey will continue to be a staff-level person. Christa Johnson- Seely, Assistant to the City Manager, will become a liaison between PAAC Meeting 3 Minutes June 23, 2005 | PublicArtCommission/2005-06-23.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2005-06-23.pdf,4 | PublicArtCommission | 2005-06-23 | 4 | Planning & Building and the Public Art Commission (PAC). AD Lillard stated that the Ordinance would not be official until it is read for a second time, 30 days from the time of the first reading. CM Wolfe asked if the Guidelines would be edited to reflect the changes. AD Lillard stated that all references to Committee would be changed, as well as, the steps of the approval process. AD Lillard stated that he and RS Russi will continue to attend meetings through the July meeting, at least. B. Call for Entries & RFQ for Alameda Theater Project: Parking Structure Mural - (Discussion/Action Item) PAAC members discussed specific wording and stylistic changes. RS Russi stated that suggested changes would be made and the final document would be mailed out for the Call for Artists. C. Set Priorities for Next Meeting - (Discussion Item) - Artist List from City of Emeryville 7. Oral Communications, General 8. Committee Reports - Webster & Park Streetscape Projects - CM Wolfe None - Theater & Garage Project - CM's Cervantes and Rosenberg None 9. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. PAAC Meeting 4 Minutes June 23, 2005 | PublicArtCommission/2005-06-23.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2005-09-28.pdf,1 | PublicArtCommission | 2005-09-28 | 1 | CITT MINUTES OF PUBLIC ART ADVISORY COMMITTEE the MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 28, 2005 (Revised 2/7/06) DATE: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 TIME: 7:00 p.m. PLACE: City Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Third Floor, Room 360 Alameda, CA 94501 1. Roll Call: The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Chair (C) Huston, VC Lee, Committee Members (CM) Cecilia Cervantes (late), K.C. Rosenberg, and Peter Wolfe Staff: Christina Bailey, Secretary, Public Art Commission Christa Johnson, Assistant to the City Manager (A2CM) 2. Approval of Minutes A. Minutes of Meeting on June 23, 2005 On page 2, Section 5A, paragraph 2, CM Wolfe wished to make clear that his understanding was that the Development Services Department was going to allot Public Art funds for the restoration of the theater and that it should be done at a publicly accessible area. M/S/C Rosenberg/Cervantes (approved) "That Minutes of Public Art Advisory Committee Meeting on June 23, 2005 be approved with changes.' Approved (4) - Huston, Cervantes, Rosenberg, Wolfe Abstain (1) - Lee 3. Oral Communications (Any person may address the Committee in regard to any matter over which the Commission has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance that is not on the agenda.) Secretary Bailey stated that the Public Art website would be moved from the Recreation & Parks website, to the Planning & Building Department's website. She asked whether members wanted to be recognized as PAC Meeting 1 Minutes September 28, 2005 | PublicArtCommission/2005-09-28.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2005-09-28.pdf,2 | PublicArtCommission | 2005-09-28 | 2 | Commission Members on the site. PAC members agreed that they should be listed. CM Cervantes asked that her e-mail could be included as well. 4. Written Communications None. 5. Old Business A. Update on South Shore Shopping Center - (Oral Presentation) - Tad Savinar, Art Consultant, Harsch Investment Properties Before Commission's conference call with Mr. Savinar, they discussed the project. CM Rosenberg asked whether they can place additional pieces after they have met the Ordinance's requirements. C Huston answered in the affirmative. CM Rosenberg went on to ask if Mr. Savinar could bring in only those projects that meet the funding threshold. The process would be streamlined if he could be more specific. Secretary Bailey suggested that they address the issue when they spoke with Mr. Savinar. CM Wolfe inquired as to whether or not the artists have considered where their art will be placed in the mall. During the call, Mr. Savinar explained two goals for this presentation/discussion. First, that everyone understands what has been presented to date with an opportunity for further comments. Second, the ability to move forward with the actual application process and obtain the correct forms. He went on to explain that South Shore Shopping Center will be in a Craftsman style, indigenous to the area. One cause for the delay in bringing the project before the PAC was that new alleyways and circulation paths have been devised. Mr. Savinar stated that the developer is interested in using local artists whenever possible. He went on to speak about three artists whose work will be featured throughout the center; Ake Grunditz and JaYing Wang of Alameda, and John Laursen from Portland, OR. The works will carry regional or Alameda-specific imagery. The Public Art will be featured throughout the center. C Huston stated that she was hungry to see the artists' own style, while CM Rosenberg emphasized being able to see the artists' voice in their pieces. CM Rosenberg expressed her desire to see how the art will relate to the setti… | PublicArtCommission/2005-09-28.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2005-09-28.pdf,3 | PublicArtCommission | 2005-09-28 | 3 | with making the interior circulation areas that of a neighborhood scale, not a large shopping center. He likened it to walking through a gallery or museum, not a plaza or square. Mr. Savinar concludes the presentation by explaining that his client is one of the most aggressive print collectors in the United States. The client wants the collection at South Shore to be family-oriented and appealing to the masses, but not watered down; however, he has rejected some pieces with "edge.' C Huston reiterated her desire for originality in the pieces. She went on to state that opportunities for innovation can be used in subtle ways through material and scale for instance. After the presentation, the PAC discusses South Shore further. A2CM Johnson stated that the $150,000 does not all go towards the public art piece. After the administrative and consultant fees, approximately $97,500 will be left for actual pieces. Mr. Savinar should consider that transportation and recognition plaques are included in the amount. CM Rosenberg stated that the Laursen work would most likely have a positive outcome after PAC review. CM Wolfe expressed his desire to see how the Laursen panels would be placed throughout the center. B. Update on Library Project - (Oral Report) Secretary Bailey stated that the PAC received documents in their July Agenda Packets that gave further background information on the ongoing library project. This includes a memo sent to the Mayor and City Council by Susan Hardie, retired Library Director. It explained the background of the Public Art process, including the approval process carried out by the PAAC on July 21, 2004. Secretary Bailey added that funding for Masayuki Nagase's eight medallions, Cadence of the Water, has been secured. The medallions have the highest priority, because they are required to be installed during construction. She also shared that an article had been featured in the Alameda Journal on Tuesday, July 26. It pictured Masayuki carving giant stone, similar to that which will be used for th… | PublicArtCommission/2005-09-28.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2005-09-28.pdf,4 | PublicArtCommission | 2005-09-28 | 4 | project was an improvement. He requested a credit for the amount already paid for the Administrative Fee. The Building Official and Deputy City Attorney reviewed the Ordinance and the project, and found that the construction effort does trigger the art fee imposed. The project was deemed a major improvement, which included the construction of a new building. The term "Tenant Improvements" is commonly used in leases and entails interior improvements performed or installed by the tenant. The City's response was sent to Mr. Craft on September 8, 2005. D. Update on Bridgeside Shopping Center - (Oral Report) Secretary Bailey explained that she has spoken with Bruce Qualls from Regency Centers, contact person from Bridgeside. Doug Wiele is no longer the contact person, and he did not make Mr. Qualls aware of the Ordinance. A Public Art packet, including Guidelines and Ordinance, was sent to Mr. Qualls. On September 23, Secretary Bailey spoke with Barbara Price, CEO of PK Consultants, who is representing Bridgeside Shopping Center. She expressed her desire to submit an application for Public Art soon. According to initial permit valuations, $40,000 will be required for Public Art at the Nob Hill store ($10,000 administrative fee); $23,000 will be required for Public Art at the Fueling Station ($5750.00 administration fee). CM Rosenberg asked if there were still plans to create an amphitheater. Secretary Bailey stated that the issue had been brought up. CM Rosenberg went on to express that the applicant be made aware that not all nautical items should be considered public art. VC Lee asked where all the imagery of the shipping industry came from. She was under the impression that Alameda had been settled as a residential community. CM Rosenberg stated that unique moments in history should be incorporated into the projects. E. Status of Annual Report, Next Steps - (Oral Report) A2CM Johnson stated that an Annual Report is given to the City Council when there is money in the Public Art In-Lieu Fund. If there is no money, n… | PublicArtCommission/2005-09-28.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2005-09-28.pdf,5 | PublicArtCommission | 2005-09-28 | 5 | Secretary Bailey explained that C Huston obtained the list from the City of Emeryville. C Huston stated that it is a viable list, which is strong on individuals and weak on organizations. CM Rosenberg stated that organizations can be added as they are found. CM Wolfe stated that art organizations are important, since they broadcast opportunities to individuals. Secretary Bailey explained that the program does not have the required funds to keep all the artists for every project's mailing list. Call for Artists can still be sent to large publications and art organizations, or the list can be drastically reduced from over 1000 artists. C Huston now states that the list could be edited to art organizations, art publications, and Alameda/Oakland artists. 6. New Business A. Reappointment for Karen Lee and K.C. Rosenberg - (Oral Report) Secretary Bailey stated that the Mayor reappointed VC Lee and CM Rosenberg to another term. They were appointed at the City Council meeting on Tuesday, September 20. They were previously appointed to a two-year term in November 2003. 7. Subcommittee Reports - Theater & Garage Project - CM's Cervantes and Rosenberg CM's Cervantes and Rosenberg explained the process that went into selecting the three finalists for the Civic Center Parking Structure Art project. CM Rosenberg stated that it was a competitive process, with a stylistically diverse pool of applicants. She was impressed that the artists were interested in using the technology requested, and they knew to what they were responding. Secretary Bailey stated that six (6) applications were submitted. C Huston stated that there should have been more applicants. She asked how much advance notice was given to publications. Secretary Bailey stated that notices went out a month in advance. C Huston stated that at least four (4) weeks are needed to be published, and six (6) weeks to run in order to generate more applications. CM Cervantes asked when the Request for Proposals would be sent out. Secretary Bailey stated that Development Servi… | PublicArtCommission/2005-09-28.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2005-09-28.pdf,6 | PublicArtCommission | 2005-09-28 | 6 | 8. Commissioner Communications None. 9. Upcoming Meeting Dates Wednesday, October 26, 2005 Wednesday, November 23, 2005 Wednesday, December 28, 2005 CM Cervantes suggested that the November meeting be moved to November 30. C Huston suggested canceling December date due to the holidays. "That November meeting date be changed from November 23 to November 30, and that the December meeting be cancelled be approved.' M/S/C Huston/Rosenberg (approved) Approved (5) - Huston, Lee, Cervantes, Rosenberg, Wolfe 10. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m. PAC Meeting 6 Minutes September 28, 2005 | PublicArtCommission/2005-09-28.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2005-11-30.pdf,1 | PublicArtCommission | 2005-11-30 | 1 | CITY OF & $ MINUTES OF PUBLIC ART COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 30, 2005 (Revised: 2/7/06) DATE: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 TIME: 7:00 p.m. PLACE: City Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Third Floor, Room 360 Alameda, CA 94501 1. Roll Call: The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. Present: Chair (C) Huston, Vice Chair (VC) Lee, Committee Members (CM) Cecilia Cervantes (late), and Peter Wolfe Absent: Committee Member (CM) K.C. Rosenberg Staff: Christina Bailey, Secretary, Public Art Commission Christa Johnson, Assistant to the City Manager (A2CM) 2. Approval of Minutes A. Minutes of Meeting on September 28, 2005 CM Wolfe asked that the following be added at the end of the change in item 2A paragraph 1, "and that it should be done at a publically accessible area.' C Huston asked that the following change be made to item 5A paragraph 3, "He went on to explain that South Shore Shopping Center will be in a Craftsman style, indigenous to the area." C Huston asked that the following be added to paragraph 7, "She went on to state that opportunities for innovation can be used in subtle ways through material and scale for instance." C Huston asked that the following change be made to item 5F paragraph 2, "C Huston now states that the list could be edited to art organizations, art publications, and Alameda/Oakland artists." C Huston asked that the following change be made to item 7 paragraph 2, "C Huston stated that at least four (4) weeks are needed to be published, and six (6) weeks to run in order to generate more applications." M/S/C Lee/Wolfe (approved) "That Minutes of Public Art Advisory Committee Meeting on September 28, 2005 be approved with changes." PAC Meeting 1 Revised Minutes November 30, 2005 | PublicArtCommission/2005-11-30.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2005-11-30.pdf,2 | PublicArtCommission | 2005-11-30 | 2 | Approved (3) - Huston, Lee, Wolfe Absent (2) - Cervantes, Rosenberg 3. Oral Communications (Any person may address the Committee in regard to any matter over which the Commission has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance that is not on the agenda.) Linda, the Community Relations representative from Wind River attended as an observer. She stated that she was collecting information on the responsibilities of various art organizations throughout Alameda. She expressed Wind River's interest in creating a relationship with local artists and organizations. The company would like to have on-site exhibitions, but would be limited to only public receptions. 4. Written Communications - NONE 5. Old Business A. Update on Alameda Towne Centre - (Discussion Item) - Tad Savinar, Art Consultant, Harsch Investment Properties Tad Savinar updated the PAC on public art at Alameda Towne Centre. He expressed a desire to clarify some issues that arose during a previous phone conversation with the PAC. He displayed two life-size drafts of panels for the John Laursen Project. He explained that the artist has visited Alameda in order to conduct research. The panels will be full color (tonation of the era), baked enamel; each will have title block. The artist will likely start the project with twelve panels, with hopes of adding more. C Huston asked if the panel project would be a historical, informative, well- executed storytelling thing, or would it be art. Mr. Savinar stated that the project would be historically informative. C Huston questioned the project's conceptual depth. CM Wolfe interjected that a good narrative could make a difference in the final product. Mr. Savinar added that the proposed subjects do not include images of parks or families, and most are taken around the turn of the 20th century. CM Cervantes stated that families are changing, and this diversity would be good to capture. C Huston stated that the project does not have to tell all the stories of Alameda; it does not have to be all things to all people.… | PublicArtCommission/2005-11-30.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2005-11-30.pdf,3 | PublicArtCommission | 2005-11-30 | 3 | Lee suggested that the panel project be given a title and subtitle, in order to pull the series of images together. She went on to state that if this project were a book, it would have a title. CM Wolfe asked if ADA standards for print size and height of posted items applied to this project. Mr. Savinar stated that according to Federal Guidelines, those standards do not apply to public art. Another artist the client is considering is John Buck. He is a sculptor of human scaled pieces, who would create one or two figurative pieces cast in bronze. C Huston remarked on the similar nature of Buck's work to that of Michael Carey, an artist working with the New Main Library. Despite being similar to Carey's, C Huston stated that Buck's work does have a sophistication and complexity to it. She stated that part of the goal set by the Guidelines is to give Alameda a keen range. In closing, Mr. Savinar's assumption was that the panel project would continue with an emphasis on developing a conceptual thread. In reference to the Buck piece, Mr. Savinar understands that the piece needs to be different from the Carey piece; the pieces with stronger geometric design are intellectually more interesting. CM Wolfe thanked Mr. Savinar for coming before the PAC early on in the process. B. Presentation on Bridgeside Shopping Center - (Discussion/Action Item) - Barbara Price, CEO / PK Consultants, Inc. Barbara Price explains that PK Consultants, Inc. is involved in government and community outreach and affairs; their role is to work with the community on the process and do outreach for their clients. C Huston asked if an art consultant had been chosen for the project. Ms. Price stated that an art consultant was not hired, since her client is using existing, nautical pieces. Bruce Qualls, developer for Regency Centers, shared that the center's anticipated opening is in Fall 2006. It has been a complicated process that started in 2000, involving the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) as well as the Army Cor… | PublicArtCommission/2005-11-30.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2005-11-30.pdf,4 | PublicArtCommission | 2005-11-30 | 4 | Ms. Price stated that the performance area was suggested by BCDC, as a multi-use area; they wanted to encourage the use of the area in relation to its setting at the foot of the Fruitvale Bridge. C Huston explained that an item that meets requirements for BCDC does not necessarily meet the requirements set by the Public Art Ordinance and Guidelines. C Huston asked the Bridgeside team how placing nautical elements makes them art. Clay stated that they are items of interest, which enhance the environment and one's experience of it. CM Wolfe stated that the pieces are very interesting artifacts to the project, but are not clearly being presented as art. The intent and theme of the pieces is good, but they really do not fit into the Guidelines. Mr. Qualls shared that at one time, they thought of welding all the items together into one massive piece. Mr. Qualls stated that the Public Art budget for the project is approximately $35,000. A2CM Johnson inquired as to how that figure was calculated. Mr. Qualls stated that the project is $17 million, there is a 22,000 increase in square footage (21% difference), and the Public Art requirement is 1% of the total cost. C Huston explained that if their allocation is $35,000, then that amount needs to be clearly used for Public Art. C Huston offered suggestions for meeting their Public Art requirement. The center could sponsor concerts for the next two years; a performance schedule would be acceptable. It could sponsor a residency program to bring in artists on a regular basis to work on salvage and pay them $5,000/year for the next seven years; those pieces could then be displayed throughout the center. She shared that an artist landscaped the Getty Gardens in Malibu, in such a provocative way, that one does not see a garden. C Huston expressed her appreciation in seeing a client consider the community in their concept. C. Update on Civic Center Parking Structure Art Project - (Oral Report) The group for a Megaplex-Free Alameda filed a lawsuit on Monday, October 3. The suit, f… | PublicArtCommission/2005-11-30.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2005-11-30.pdf,5 | PublicArtCommission | 2005-11-30 | 5 | A revised list of Art Organizations was given to the PAC for review. The revised list contains art organizations throughout California. In comparison, the revised list saves $170.00 in postage per mailing. C Huston expressed a concern that a letter sent to some of the included organizations would be a letter lost. She stated that one of the PAC members should take the lead and find the appropriate organizations. She suggested that either CM Rosenberg or herself assume this task. 6. New Business A. Update on Washington Park Recreation Building - (Oral Report) A conceptual drawing of the new Recreation Building at Washington Park was presented at the September 15 meeting of the Recreation & Park Commission. Patrick Russi, Recreation Supervisor, stated that ARPD would come before the PAC in early 2006 to present their plan for public art on the site. B. Update on Harbor Island Community Center - (Oral Report) Barbara Price represents Kennedy Wilson, the new owners of the Harbor Island Apartments. The complex will be market-rate, family-oriented apartments. Buildings will have upgraded textures and materials; buildings will no longer be flat along the top. Residents should be back in the units by the end of the first quarter 2006. Ms. Price asserts that Kennedy Wilson is committed to the arts. They asked the College of Alameda for a referral, in hopes of commissioning an artist to create a freestanding sculpture. They have also adopted Chipman Middle School. The Clubhouse/Community Center has been submitted for approval. It will be 6000 sq. ft. in total: 4000 for public space and 1500 for leasing office and restrooms (for pool). The Clubhouse is anticipated to open by October 2006. C Huston inquired as to whether the community center will be for the public, or only for residents of the complex. Ms. Price stated that the center could be available for groups from the community to use. The client is looking to make available the center for community-based organizations for meetings, as long as it does not usurp resident… | PublicArtCommission/2005-11-30.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2005-11-30.pdf,6 | PublicArtCommission | 2005-11-30 | 6 | needs to infiltrate and benefit the public in some way. It needs to provide something bigger that the Frank Bette Center could or would not have done themselves, like bringing in an important exhibition or being able to curate it. Ms. Price asked if the client could sponsor an event off-site; C Huston answered in the affirmative. Ms. Price explained that the new name of the complex would be Summer House Apartments, which comes from the historical context of Alameda being the summer home for San Francisco residents. C. Update on Bayport Community Center - (Oral Report) This is a joint project between the City of Alameda (ARPD) and the Alameda Unified School District (AUSD). The building will belong to ARPD and the property belongs to AUSD. As of right now, plans are being developed and a bid package is being compiled. This project could be exempt from public art if the City chooses to appeal. Based on the current budget, it is unclear as to whether or not there will be sufficient funding for public art on the site. 7. Subcommittee Reports - NONE - Theater & Garage Project - CM's Cervantes and Rosenberg 8. Commissioner Communications PAC discussed the idea of providing applicants with more detailed information in the Guidelines regarding expectations of art quality, quantity of seating at venues, etc. C Huston suggested that the PAC take the provided 2006 Meeting Schedule home to compare it to their schedules and bring back for review during the January meeting. 9. Upcoming Meeting Dates December Meeting - CANCELLED Wednesday, January 25, 2006 10. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. PAC Meeting 6 Revised Minutes November 30, 2005 | PublicArtCommission/2005-11-30.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2006-01-25.pdf,1 | PublicArtCommission | 2006-01-25 | 1 | CITT $ MINUTES OF PUBLIC ART COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 25, 2006 CO. DATE: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 TIME: 7:00 p.m. PLACE: City Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Third Floor, Room 360 Alameda, CA 94501 1. Roll Call: The meeting was called to order at 7:06 p.m. Present: Chair (C) Huston, Vice Chair (VC) Lee, Committee Members (CM) Cecilia Cervantes, K.C. Rosenberg (late) and Peter Wolfe (late) Staff: Christina Bailey, Secretary, Public Art Commission Lucretia Akil, Acting Assistant to the City Manager 2. Approval of Minutes A. Minutes of Meeting on November 30, 2005 M/S/C Cervantes/Wolfe (approved) "That Minutes of Public Art Advisory Committee Meeting on November 30, 2005 be approved with changes." Approved (4) - Huston, Lee, Cervantes, and Wolfe Abstain (1) - Rosenberg 3. Oral Communications (Any person may address the Committee in regard to any matter over which the Commission has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance that is not on the agenda.) Secretary Bailey reported that Christa Johnson recently took the position of Assistant Town Manager of Windsor, and introduced Lucretia Akil, Acting Assistant to the City Manager. Secretary Bailey reported that Amanda Kruger, a teacher from BASE High School (Bay Area School of Enterprise), contacted her about a student mural, and requested an opportunity to present their ideas to the PAC. PAC Meeting 1 Minutes January 25, 2006 | PublicArtCommission/2006-01-25.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2006-01-25.pdf,2 | PublicArtCommission | 2006-01-25 | 2 | Secretary Bailey asked if any Commissioner wished to represent the PAC as a judge at the 40th Annual Sand Castle and Sculpture Contest on June 17. C Huston accepted the post. 4. Written Communications - NONE 5. Old Business A. Update on Alameda Towne Centre - (Oral Report) Secretary Bailey stated that Tad Savinar, Art Consultant for Alameda Towne Centre, communicated that the last $7,500 is being identified for onsite public art. B. Update on Civic Center Parking Structure Art Project - (Oral Report) Secretary Bailey stated that Jennifer Ott, Development Manager for Development Services, reported that the RFP for the Civic Center Parking Structure Mural would most likely be sent out in February. 6. New Business A. Boards & Commissions Handbook - (Discussion Item) CM Wolfe suggested that changes be made to the PAC description on page 13. Secretary Bailey stated that she would check with the City Clerk's Office. CM Cervantes suggested waiting to hear back from the City Clerk's Office before proceeding with revisions. She recommended agendizing the item for the February meeting. M/S/C Cervantes/Wolfe (approved) "That the item of revising the PAC description, on page 13, of the Boards and Commissions Handbook be agendized for the next regular meeting on February 22." Approved (5) - Huston, Lee, Cervantes, Rosenberg, Wolfe Secretary Bailey stated that items to be agendized should be provided to staff, in order to be placed in agenda packets. Packets are mailed out the Friday before each meeting. CM Rosenberg expressed concerns about discussing projects in front of applicants. C Huston questioned whether their discussion is appropriate for the applicant to hear, since each member is explaining how the project meets PAC Meeting 2 Minutes January 25, 2006 | PublicArtCommission/2006-01-25.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2006-01-25.pdf,3 | PublicArtCommission | 2006-01-25 | 3 | the criteria. Staff member Akil stated that the Commission's deliberations must be public. C Huston asked staff to inquire as to whether or not a closed session would be appropriate for project deliberations. B. One-page summary of Guideline requirements - (Discussion Item) C Huston and VC Lee presented a draft summary page designed to reduce confusion about the, public art application process and guidelines. The PAC discussed document wording and format. C. Process of writing responses to applicants - (Discussion Item) Secretary Bailey explained that a response letter is sent to applicants who submit formal applications. C Huston asked if subcommittees could be established to craft applicant responses. CM Cervantes inquired as to whether the PAC could invite the applicant to a pre-review meeting and then give final feedback during the next regular meeting. C Huston responded that, according to the Guidelines, the applicant is not required to attend multiple review meetings. CM Rosenberg added that the PAC needs to emphasize that applicants come to meetings early in the process, before formal applications are ever submitted. M/S/C Huston/Rosenberg (approved) "That the item of creating subcommittees to craft applicant responses be approved, with possible pre-meeting review sessions." Approved (5) - Huston, Lee, Cervantes, Rosenberg, Wolfe 7. Subcommittee Reports - NONE 8. Commissioner Communications C Huston suggested offering applicants a brief description of existing Public Art works to assist applicants. VC Lee reported that she had attended an open house for Alameda Landing. She spoke with an architect/planner named Karen Alschuler, who was interested in the Public Art Program. VC Lee asked if Secretary Bailey could send Ms. Alschuler a Public Art packet. C Huston asked if one PAC member could call Tad Savinar, Art Consultant for Alameda Towne Centre, in order to check in on its process. CM Wolfe stated PAC Meeting 3 Minutes January 25, 2006 | PublicArtCommission/2006-01-25.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2006-01-25.pdf,4 | PublicArtCommission | 2006-01-25 | 4 | that it is essential for the PAC to reach out to applicants, and agreed to contact Mr. Savinar. 9. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m. PAC Meeting 4 Minutes January 25, 2006 | PublicArtCommission/2006-01-25.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2006-02-22.pdf,1 | PublicArtCommission | 2006-02-22 | 1 | CITT $ MINUTES OF PUBLIC ART COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 22, 2006 CO. DATE: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 TIME: 7:00 p.m. PLACE: City Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Third Floor, Room 360 Alameda, CA 94501 1. Roll Call: The meeting was called to order at 7:03 p.m. Present: Chair Huston, Vice Chair Lee, Commissioners Cecilia Cervantes*, K.C. Rosenberg and Peter Wolfe* Staff: Andrew Thomas, Staff Member Christina Bailey, Staff Member *arrived after roll call 2. Approval of Minutes A. Minutes of Meeting on January 25, 2006 M/S/C Lee/Wolfe (approved) "That Minutes of Public Art Commission Meeting on January 25, 2006 be approved." Approved (4) - Huston, Lee, Rosenberg, and Wolfe Absent (1) - Cervantes 3. Oral Communications - NONE 4. Written Communications - NONE 5. New Business A. Presentation by Cathy Woodbury, Planning & Building Director PAC Meeting 1 February 22, 2006 | PublicArtCommission/2006-02-22.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2006-02-22.pdf,2 | PublicArtCommission | 2006-02-22 | 2 | Cathy Woodbury, Planning & Building Director, introduced herself and reported on Commission staffing. Andrew Thomas, Supervising Planner, introduced himself and explained department's role in the Public Art process. B. Presentation by Terry Highsmith, City Attorney's Office Assistant City Attorney Terry Highsmith provided an overview of the Ralph M. Brown Act. 6. Old Business A. Draft Public Art Handout (Quick Guide) The Commission commented on the draft document wording and content, and directed staff to bring a revised draft to the next regular meeting. 7. Subcommittee Reports Commissioner Wolfe reported that he had spoken to Tad Savinar, Art Consultant for Alameda Towne Centre. He learned that Mr. Savinar is in the process of looking for approximately $7,500.00 in additional Public Art. 8. Commissioner Communications - NONE 9. Staff Communications Staff member Thomas distributed a Public Art Status Report. Chair Huston asked if two items could be added: 1) estimated time frame of project, 2) single- or multi- phased project. Staff agreed to keep the report updated for each regularly scheduled meeting. A. Revisions to PAC description in Boards and Commissions Handbook Staff member Bailey reported that City Clerk's office would revise the description. The Commission discussed revised wording for the PAC description. Staff agreed to bring a revised draft to the next regular meeting. B. Update on BASE High School Student Mural Staff member Thomas reported that he had spoken to Amanda Kruger, teacher at BASE High School about their proposed mural project. He added that the Development Services Department might be interested in placing the mural on the construction fencing for the Theater/Parking Structure Project. 10. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m. PAC Meeting 2 February 22, 2006 | PublicArtCommission/2006-02-22.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2006-05-24.pdf,1 | PublicArtCommission | 2006-05-24 | 1 | CITT $ MINUTES OF PUBLIC ART COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OF MAY 24, 2006 CO. DATE: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 TIME: 7:00 p.m. PLACE: City Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Third Floor, Room 360 Alameda, CA 94501 1. Roll Call: The meeting was called to order at 7:08 p.m. Present: Chair (C) Huston, Vice Chair (VC) Lee, Commission Members (CM) Cecilia Cervantes, K.C. Rosenberg, and Peter Wolfe Staff: Andrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager Doug Vu, Planner III Andria DeBose, Staff Member 2. Approval of Minutes A. Minutes of Meeting on February 22, 2006 Commission continued consideration of February 22, 2006 meeting minutes. 3. Oral Communications (Any person may address the Committee in regard to any matter over which the Commission has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance that is not on the agenda.) The Commission and staff discussed the approach and format used to prepare staff reports and resolutions for approval. In particular, C Huston sought clarification as to how staff determines that a proposed project is in compliance with the requirements of the Public Art Ordinance and how staff recommendations should be formatted. Staff described the approach used to prepare staff reports and resolutions and agreed to work with the Commission to refine the format. Andrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager introduced Doug Vu, Planner III to the Commission. 4. Written Communications -None. PAC Meeting Minutes 1 May 24, 2006 | PublicArtCommission/2006-05-24.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2006-05-24.pdf,2 | PublicArtCommission | 2006-05-24 | 2 | 5. New Business - None 6. Old Business A. Presentation on Alameda Towne Centre Tad Savinar, Art Consultant presented the Alameda Towne Centre Public Art proposal. He described the proposed sculpture by Brad Rude and introduced artist John Larsen, who presented the interpretive panels depicting important historic events or places in Alameda. The Public Art Commission reviewed the materials and continued further consideration of the proposal to a special meeting of the Public Art Commission scheduled for June 7, 2006 B. Public Art Handout (Quick Guide) The Public Art Commission approved the Public Art Handout with minor revisions. C. Revisions to PAC description in Boards and Commissions Handbook The Public Art Commission approved the board description with minor revisions. 7. Subcommittee Reports - NONE 8. Commissioner Communications - NONE 9. Staff Communications - NONE 10. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. PAC Meeting Minutes 2 May 24, 2006 | PublicArtCommission/2006-05-24.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2006-06-07.pdf,1 | PublicArtCommission | 2006-06-07 | 1 | CITT $ MINUTES OF PUBLIC ART COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING OF JUNE 7, 2006 CO. DATE: Wednesday, June 7, 2006 TIME: 7:00 p.m. PLACE: City Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Third Floor, Room 360 Alameda, CA 94501 1. Roll Call: The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. Present: Chair (C) Huston, Vice Chair (VC) Lee, Commission Members (CM) K.C. Rosenberg (late), and Peter Wolfe Absent: Cecilia Cervantes Staff: Andrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager Doug Vu, Secretary, Public Art Commission 2. Approval of Minutes A. Minutes of Meeting on May 24, 2006 M/S/C Wolfe/Lee (approved) "That Minutes of Public Art Commission Meeting on May 24, 2006 be approved." Approved (4) - Huston, Lee, Rosenberg, and Wolfe Absent (1) - Cervantes 3. Oral Communications (Any person may address the Committee in regard to any matter over which the Commission has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance that is not on the agenda.) C Lee initiated and the Commission discussed Millennium Park in Chicago and how art creates an experience. The Commission also discussed the idea of art in context with regard to the Alameda Towne Centre project. Examples were cited from the "Webster" side of Alameda where the diverse population is reflected. 4. Written Communications PAC Meeting Minutes 1 June 7, 2006 | PublicArtCommission/2006-06-07.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2006-06-07.pdf,2 | PublicArtCommission | 2006-06-07 | 2 | -NONE 5. New Business -NONE 6. Old Business A. Alameda Towne Centre The Commission discussed conformity issues with regard to the Conditions of Approval. It was also confirmed that the artwork's identification plaque include the City's logo, as required by the Public Art Ordinance. Concern regarding maintenance of the artwork and public access (with regard to ADA) was also addressed. The Commission considered the success of the applicant's proposed interpretive historic panels for the Towne Centre in meeting the Ordinance's criteria. After a thorough discussion of the proposal, the Commission confirmed the interpretive panels' success in meeting the criteria. In addition, C Huston stated the desire for the piece to include a plaque that identified the artist and included a statement about him, including his photograph. The Commission then considered the success of the applicant's proposed Brad Rude sculpture for the Towne Centre in meeting the Ordinance's criteria. The sculpture's color, size, scale, and artistic merit were subjectively evaluated in addition to its adherence to the Ordinance's criteria. The Commission agreed the sculpture was more pleasing as opposed to provocative and would complement the color scheme and surrounding environment of the Towne Centre. M/S/C Huston/Lee (approved) "That the public art proposal for the Alameda Towne Centre by the applicant, Harsch Investment Properties, consisting of the interpretive panels by John Larsen and the sculpture by Brad Rude meets the approval criteria of the City's Public Art Ordinance." Approved (4) - Huston, Lee, Rosenberg, Wolfe Absent (1) - Cervantes 7. Subcommittee Reports CM Rosenberg reported that the subcommittee would review proposals for the parking garage wall media project on June 26, 2006 and report back to the Commission at a later date with a recommendation. PAC Meeting Minutes 2 June 7, 2006 | PublicArtCommission/2006-06-07.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2006-06-07.pdf,3 | PublicArtCommission | 2006-06-07 | 3 | 8. Commissioner Communications C Huston reiterated agreed upon staff and Commission roles and responsibilities for reviewing public art proposals. Staff and the Commission will jointly craft reports and staff will not make recommendations for approval, only present facts and findings that proposals are technically complete/compliant. 9. Staff Communications Staff proposed that the Commission's regularly scheduled June 28, 2006 meeting be cancelled. CM Rosenberg stated that the parking garage wall media project may warrant discussion and that staff should confirm this with Jennifer Ott from Development Services Department prior to canceling the meeting. 10. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 8:50 pm. PAC Meeting Minutes 3 June 7, 2006 | PublicArtCommission/2006-06-07.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2006-07-26.pdf,1 | PublicArtCommission | 2006-07-26 | 1 | CITT $ MINUTES OF PUBLIC ART COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 26, 2006 CO. DATE: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 TIME: 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Recreation and Parks Department, 2226 Santa Clara Avenue, Third Floor, Room 360 Alameda, CA 94501 1. CONVENE: The meeting was called to order at 7:10 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL: Chair (C) Huston, Vice Chair (VC) Lee, Commission Members (CM) K.C. Rosenberg and Peter Wolfe Absent: Cecilia Cervantes Staff: Andrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager (Absent) Doug Vu, Secretary, Public Art Commission Andria DeBose, Staff Member 3. Approval of Minutes A. Minutes of Meeting on June 28, 2006 C/VC/CM/Staff (distributed and approved) "Minutes of Public Art Commission Meeting on June 28, 2006 be approved." Approved (4) - Huston, Lee, Rosenberg, and Wolfe Absent (1) - Cervantes 4. Oral Communications (Any person may address the Committee in regard to any matter over which the Commission has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance that is not on the agenda.) June 28, 2006 Minutes were distributed, edited, amended, and approved. 5. Written Communications -NONE PAC Meeting Minutes 1 July 26, 2006 | PublicArtCommission/2006-07-26.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2006-07-26.pdf,2 | PublicArtCommission | 2006-07-26 | 2 | 5. New Business -NONE 6. Old Business A. Alameda Towne Center Chair inquired as to why two different drafts of the proposal were issued. Tad was given a draft for his review that encouraged his edits and comments when the commission did not feel that was his position. Staff explained that Tad received a different draft per previous discussions and agreement between Andrew and Tad. Prior discussions regarding the "Brown Act" and discussions with the Commissioner resulted in the special review of only C Huston and Tad review the draft at this time. C Rosenberg requested they be given a copy of the draft upon completion for the PAC to review. Staff agreed to distribute to the entire commission upon completed draft. Commission requested written communication upon next meeting for review. Commission and staff agreed. C/VC/CM/Staff Approved (4) - Huston, Lee, Rosenberg, Wolfe Absent (1) - Cervantes 7. Subcommittee Reports A. Theater and Garage Project SC met with the City/Client and reviewed the current two submitted artist murals however, the council was not impressed with the current selections. They didn't feel the work was the artist strongest or best selections. They requested Jennifer Ott attend the council meeting in the future and supply the committee with additional artist for review and consideration. Jennifer and Staff will review the artist concepts and context of murals prior to the review of the SC. SC recommended the artist have a stronger and more narrative "pitch". Staff will check with Jennifer Ott and the artist prior to the sub-proposal. SC discussed that the Garage piece is a temporary canvas. Staff will confirm with Jennifer Ott regarding permanent nature of piece. 8. Commissioner Communications C Huston asked about the status of "Bridge Side". Staff stated project was recently assigned to him and current status unknown. Commissioner stated they previously made recommendations upon the "early" sketches that the PUC stay in contact with the commission, but no contact has been kept. There was also e… | PublicArtCommission/2006-07-26.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2006-07-26.pdf,3 | PublicArtCommission | 2006-07-26 | 3 | commission. The PAC's "Bridge Side" actual budget is estimated over $205,000,000.00. There was also to be further discussion regarding the "Summer House Apartments". "Summer House" has now been found to be renting without the further discussion of council. Staff to look into results of "Summer House" project. Commission remembers discussing the status of the "Stone" piece, the John Buck piece, and the stone plaque located behind the circulation desk at the "Free Library". The Library Proposal Group presented their art to the council and Parks and Recreations. There was friction, rudeness, and issues regarding the art pieces (i.e. fish on woman's head, and piece where shirt was missing off of woman) however, the commission states the pieces were "grandfathered" and were not used anyway. However, commission wants to know what happened to the "calendar" of projects previous used? Commission curious regarding the Janet Quote's Plant Building project? Commission states a calendar or spreadsheet would be nice for tracking purposes. Commission suggest utilization of the new Libraries imagery to assist and aid them in relation to proposed, approved, or amended projects. They would also like a web site to list information of PAC projects. 9. Staff Communications A. Peet's Coffee Staff discussed why Pete's Coffee is excused from the PAC code requirement. The Pete Coffee Project entered into a development agreement prior to the PAC Ordinance of 2003 and are not required to adhere to the current ordinance. The Commission suggest that a letter be drafted to welcome and encourage Pete's Coffee. Staff volunteered to draft a letter. Unknown status of previous projects; B. Clif Bar- Staff volunteered to research to see if they are a part of a previous development agreement or if it is a new project and if new to the community. C. Ballena Bay- Existing landscaping as public art? D. Summer House-Inset's? 10. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 8:04 pm. PAC Meeting Minutes 3 July 26, 2006 | PublicArtCommission/2006-07-26.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2006-08-23.pdf,1 | PublicArtCommission | 2006-08-23 | 1 | MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC ART COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OF WEDNESDAY AUGUST 23, 2006 CONFERENCE ROOM 360, THIRD FLOOR CITY HALL 2226 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 7:00 PM CONVENE: The meeting was called to order at 7:11 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Vice Chair Lee, Commission Members Cervantes and Wolfe MEMBERS ABSENT: Chair Huston, Commission Member Rosenberg. STAFF PRESENT: Doug Vu, Planner III, Debbie Gremminger, Recording Secretary MINUTES: Minutes of the Regular Meeting of July 26, 2006. M/S and unanimous to approve the Minutes of the June 28, 2006 Regular meeting. 3-0-2. Ayes: 3; Noes: 0; Absent: 2; Motion carries. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS A. Final Alameda Towne Centre Resolution. This is for information only. No action needed. NEW BUSINESS A. Bridgeside Public Art Proposal - Applicant: Regency Centers. Doug Vu, Planner III, summarized the staff report. Mr. Vu introduced the applicant, Bruce Qualls of Regency Centers. Mr. Qualls briefly updated the Commission on the progress of this project since last January. He informed the Commission that the amphitheatre will be available free of charge to recognized arts and performance groups. As previously approved by the Planning Board, the stage area will be approximately 55 feet wide and vary in depth from 20 to 25 feet. The glade area will be approximately 50 feet wide in front and angle towards the rear with a width of 100 feet. The amphitheatre will also be wired for sound and lighting equipment allowing staged performances Minutes of August 23, 2006 Regular Public Art Commission Meeting. Page 1 | PublicArtCommission/2006-08-23.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2006-08-23.pdf,2 | PublicArtCommission | 2006-08-23 | 2 | of, but not limited to, theatre productions, musical presentations, literary readings, art shows and demonstrations. Regency Centers has arranged with the Frank Bette Center for the Arts to present artists' work in two shows within the first twelve months of the Center's opening. In addition, the Alameda Civic Light Opera will be presenting highlights of their productions with two shows also during the first twelve months of the Center's opening. When not used for performance or displays, the amphitheatre can also be used for recreational purposes such as Tai Chi classes. Information regarding the amphitheatre will also be included in the advertising for the Center's opening and areas within the vicinity of the amphitheatre will be posted stating its availability with contact information to reserve the space. Regency Centers has hired a property manager who is an Alameda resident that will be responsible for community outreach for the Center, including the amphitheatre. Barbara Price, PK Consultants, briefly reviewed the memo submitted to the Commission on construction management & public outreach. Also provided copies of Planning Board approved Resolution PB-04-64, which lists the conditions of approvals regarding light and sound. Ms. Price stated that they do not foresee having more than fifty of sixty people in the audience at a time. Vice-Chair Lee informed the Commission that she has received an e-mail from Chair Huston stating her concerns. She would like staff to address them. Her first concern was that the calculations were accurate. Staff stated they were. In response to her question if Staff has went to the site to see if the amphitheatre will create an acoustically viable space, Mr. Vu responded that he cannot say for sure whether the space will be acoustically viable, but feels the trees will serve as a buffer. Commissioner Wolfe stated that the drawings provided do not show enough details for him to make a decision. He is unclear if the stage will be big enough for the various performances and would … | PublicArtCommission/2006-08-23.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2006-08-23.pdf,3 | PublicArtCommission | 2006-08-23 | 3 | M/S (Wolfe, Lee) to continue this item to allow the applicant to submit a more detailed site plan of the amphitheatre, including additional information on what the stage will look like, section details such as the pitch and what the sign will look like. 3-0-2. Ayes: 3; Noes: 0; Absent: 2. Motion carries. The Commission is willing to hold a special meeting to accommodate the applicant's time frame. Staff will poll the Commission of their availability for the first two weeks in September. OLD BUSINESS None. SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS Mr. Vu informed the Commission that the mural project for the parking garage is no longer going to happen because the parking garage plans have been revised and the sheer wall has been moved. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS Staff distributed a memo regarding AB 1234 Ethics training. The City Council is requiring all Boards and Commissions complete this training by January 2007. Mr. Vu introduced staff member Debbie Gremminger. She will be the new recording secretary. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 pm. Respectively submitted by: Douglass Vu, Planner III Planning and Building Department G:\PLANNING\PAC)Agendas_Minutes)Minutes_06/08-23-06 draft minutes.doc Minutes of August 23, 2006 Regular Public Art Commission Meeting. Page 3 | PublicArtCommission/2006-08-23.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2006-09-13.pdf,1 | PublicArtCommission | 2006-09-13 | 1 | MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC ART COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING OF WEDNESDAY SEPTEMBER 13, 2006 CONFERENCE ROOM 391, THIRD FLOOR CITY HALL 2226 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 7:00 PM CONVENE: The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Huston, Commission Members Rosenberg and Wolfe MEMBERS ABSENT: Vice Chair Lee, Commission Member Cervantes (Vice-Chair Lee was absent from Roll Call. She arrived at 7:40 p.m.) STAFF PRESENT: Doug Vu, Planner III, Erin Garcia, Acting Recording Secretary. MINUTES: Minutes for the Regular Meeting of August 23, 2006 M/S and unanimous to continue the Minutes of the August 23, 2006; 4-0-2. Ayes: 3; Noes: 0; Absent: 2 (Lee, Cervantes); Motion carries. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None ACTION ITEMS A. Bridgeside Public Art Proposal - Applicant: Regency Centers. (Continued from the August 23, 2006 Regular meeting). At the Commission's last regular meeting on August 23, 2006, Bruce Qualls, the applicant representing Regency Centers presented the proposed public performance amphitheatre for Bridgeside Shopping Center. The proposal includes the construction of an outdoor amphitheatre that will be available free of charge to arts and performance groups. The trapezoid shaped stage located at the foot of the amphitheatre and will be approximately 55 feet wide and vary in depth from 20 to 25 feet. The glade area will be approximately 50 feet wide in front and angle towards the rear with a width of 100 feet. Since the August 23, 2006, the applicant has Minutes of September 13, 2006 Special Public Art Commission Meeting. Page 1 | PublicArtCommission/2006-09-13.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2006-09-13.pdf,2 | PublicArtCommission | 2006-09-13 | 2 | informed Staff that the proposed amphitheatre will also be equipped with a power outlet for staged performances. At the last meeting, the Commission suggested the amphitheatre be used as part of their cultural requirements. The Commission requested the applicant submit a plan showing the details of amphitheatre more clearly. The Commission also requested additional grading, and additional trees to help buffer the noise from surrounding areas. The applicant has complied with the requests. In response to Chair Huston's question regarding direct public access to the amphitheatre, Mr. Qualls stated that there are access points between the buildings in two locations and along the front side and back side of the retail area. Chair Huston expressed concerns with the success of the amphitheatre without any direct access. Commissioner Wolfe stated that the developer would likely advertise the performances so the vendors would benefit from it. He acknowledged concerns whether or not it is ADA accessible. Chair Huston shared some additional concerns. One was the nature and scale of the space, the second was the programming, and lastly whether the space would be utilized as a public area. Mr. Qualls agreed to submit an annual programming schedule to the Planning & Building Director for approval. Deborah Owen and Mike Sheppard from the Frank Bette Center of Performing Arts were present and informed the Commission that from what she can tell by the plans, this will be a wonderful accommodation for community art, with plenty of options for programming. The onsite manager is responsible for scheduling all of the events. There will also be signage near the amphitheatre stating that this space is available with a contact number. Ms. Owen added that for the visual arts requirement, there could be a sculpture show, or an exhibit of a known artist. It could also be a story telling space. There was one speaker slip. Chair Huston opened the public hearing. Daniel Levy, 1926 Broadway, spoke in favor of this space. He would like to know … | PublicArtCommission/2006-09-13.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2006-09-13.pdf,3 | PublicArtCommission | 2006-09-13 | 3 | The residents and Planning Board were very clear that there was not to be a bleed into the surrounding areas. So in the applicant's preparation for the programs, organizers expect to shut things down around dusk and in the summer around 9:00 p.m. Commissioner Wolfe inquired whether there were any public restrooms that are accessible to this site. Mr. Qualls responded that all restaurants have restrooms. Commissioner Wolfe asked if there could be a stipulation in the lease agreements that would state that during these events, people should be allowed to use the restrooms. Mr. Qualls responded that this is at the discretion of the retailers. He informed the Commission that the grocery store has public restrooms that are located in the front of the store. Commissioner Wolfe was not in favor of the poplar trees near the lawn area. Mr. Vu clarified the revised additional conditions related to programming, advertisement and modification to provide power. Mr. Qualls agreed with the first two revised conditions. He will find out if he can modify the power due to the panels already in place and advise staff. M/S and unanimous to accept the proposal as stated in the draft Resolution with the additional conditions of approval with the exception of the modification to the power. 4-0-1. Ayes: 4; Noes: 0; Absent: 1 (Cervantes); Motion carries. OLD BUSINESS None. SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS None. COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS Commissioner Wolfe would like staff to provide a calendar of any upcoming projects that will come before them. Staff noted the request. Chair Huston would like an update on the Summerhouse project. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Vu informed the Commission that the Regular meeting of September 27, 2006 has been canceled. Minutes of September 13, 2006 Special Public Art Commission Meeting. Page 3 | PublicArtCommission/2006-09-13.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2006-09-13.pdf,4 | PublicArtCommission | 2006-09-13 | 4 | Mr. Vu reminded the Commission that the mandatory ethics training requirement must be completed by January 2007. ADJORNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 pm. Respectively submitted by: Douglass Vu, Planner III Planning and Building Department Minutes of September 13, 2006 Special Public Art Commission Meeting. Page 4 | PublicArtCommission/2006-09-13.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2006-11-29.pdf,1 | PublicArtCommission | 2006-11-29 | 1 | Minutes of the Regular Public Art Commission Meeting Wednesday, November 29, 2006 Conference Room 360, City Hall 1. CONVENE: 7:07 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL: Chair Huston, Vice-Chair Lee, Commission Members Cervantes and Rosenberg Commission Member Wolfe was absent. 3. STAFF PRESENT: Douglas Vu, Planner III and Tony Ebster, Recording Secretary 4. MINUTES: Minutes for the Regular Meeting of August 23, 2006 M/S Lee/Rosenberg and unanimous to approve the minutes for the meeting of August 23, 2006 AYES - 3 (Wolfe absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 1 (Cervantes) Minutes for the Special Meeting of September 13, 2006 Chair Huston noted that the minutes should include the agreement that the developer will provide wiring for the performance amphitheatre as well as detailed programming to be submitted to the Planning & Building Director. M/S Lee/Rosenberg and unanimous to approve the minutes for the meeting of September 13, 2006, as amended. AYES - 3 (Wolfe absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 1 (Cervantes) 5. ORAL COMMUNICATION: None 6. WRITTEN COMMUNICATION: None 7. NEW BUSINESS: None 8. OLD BUSINESS: None | PublicArtCommission/2006-11-29.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2006-11-29.pdf,2 | PublicArtCommission | 2006-11-29 | 2 | 9. SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT: None 10. COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATION: It was agreed that if there are no agenda items, future meetings would be cancelled by Staff upon confirmation with the Chair of the Commission. However, it was agreed that the Commission will meet at least quarterly to maintain a presence and to take care of housekeeping or non-action agenda items such as creating "to do' lists and to discuss future items. A discussion followed regarding the development of a 'to do' list for the Commission. The following items were identified: 1. A map of the City of Alameda that identifies where current and future art projects are located. The map should also provide a brief description of the type of art project in order to assist the Commission in evaluating the diversity of the community when proposing new art projects in the future to reflect the City's diverse demographic. 2. The Commission should pursue an effort to eliminate or increase the cap for the art allocation of all eligible projects. It was discussed that the art allocation should be proportional to the valuation of the project instead of the existing $150,000 limit and projects that are phased over several years should be assessed accordingly during each phase. 3. The Commission should develop an assessment form or evaluation process in order to 1) analyze the art project upon completion to determine if it was consistent with what was originally approved and 2) to evaluate the Commission's process for future improvement. The assessment/evaluation should be interactive and include public opinion. 4. An announcement/identification of public art projects in a dedicated page on the City's website. Press releases should also be prepared for newly completed public art projects. Finally, the Commission agreed that a subcommittee will do the prioritization of the aforementioned items. The Commission then confirmed the Artist Directory was not useful due to the limited number of listed artists and that it was too cumbersome to consistently ensure it is current… | PublicArtCommission/2006-11-29.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2006-11-29.pdf,3 | PublicArtCommission | 2006-11-29 | 3 | 11. STAFF COMMUNICATION: The following is the current status of the projects identified in the February 2006 Status Report: 1. 2515 Blanding Ave. -- A work/live project. 2. Bridgeside -- Commission approved the proposal with a condition regarding specific programming agreements. Commission expressed concern that the final executed resolution failed to accurately identify the condition of approval regarding the agreed upon programming. 3. Alameda Towne Centre -- Opening in phases. Art has not been installed yet due to construction delays. Vice Chair Lee suggested press releases for all new artwork open to the public. 4. Summer House (Harbor Island Apartments) -- No formal application for public art filed as of the February 2006 status report. The Commission expressed concern about the lack of initiative to include public art and also was curious about the temporary Certificate of Occupancy. 5. Alameda Landing (Catellus Project) -- Still in entitlement phase. The project will go to City Council on December 5, 2006. 6. Alameda Theater/Parking Structure -- Mural was removed from project due to removal of sheer wall. Commission expressed concern about what the developers are going to do to include public art in the construction of the parking structure and the Alameda Theater. They were concerned about "grandfathering" to avoid being obligated to include public art in the project. 7. Washington Park Recreation Building - Doug Vu will follow up to see if The Park and Recreation Department has submitted an application for public art. The following projects are still in the entitlement phase: 1. Boatworks - Submitted application for rezoning to allow 242 dwelling units. 2. Harbor Bay Village - Submitted application for rezoning to allow 104 single- family homes. Currently in EIR phase. 3. Bayport 4. Bay Ship & Yacht Finally, D. Vu reminded the Commissioners that the AB 1234 ethics training needs to be completed by the end of calendar year 2006. 12. ADJOURNMENT: 8:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Douglas Vu, Planner III Pl… | PublicArtCommission/2006-11-29.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2007-02-28.pdf,1 | PublicArtCommission | 2007-02-28 | 1 | Minutes of the Regular Public Art Commission Meeting Wednesday, February 28, 2007 Conference Room 360, City Hall 1. CONVENE: 7:05 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL: Chair Lee, Vice-Chair Huston, Wolfe Commissioners Cervantes and Rosenberg were absent. STAFF PRESENT: Douglas Vu, Planner III, and Tony Ebster, Recording Secretary 3. MINUTES: Minutes for the Regular Meeting of November 29, 2006 Vice-Chair Huston motioned to continue the minutes of November 29, 2006 to the Public Art Commission meeting of March 28, 2007. Chair Lee seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 2. [Abstain: Commissioner Wolfe - 1; Absent: Commissioners Cervantes and Rosenberg - 2.] 4. ORAL COMMUNICATION Carol Burnett with the Alameda Art Association introduced herself and informed the Commission that they wanted to raise awareness of local artists. She expressed the desire for developers and project applicants to use local artists. She requested the Alameda Art Association be placed on the City's Artist Directory. Commission Member Huston agreed to refer the Alameda Art Association to the groups identified in the Artist Resource List. Commissioner Wolfe asked if there were other art associations in Alameda. Ms. Burnett gave some information on other organizations in Alameda that can be called upon for projects. The Commission agreed that as part of the to do list, they would only maintain an Artist Resource List. 5. REGULAR AGENDA a. Approve Meeting Calendar for 2007 M/S Huston/Lee to continue item to meeting of March 28, 2007 AYES - 3; NOES - 0 b. Review of Alameda Towne Centre History Panels and Update | PublicArtCommission/2007-02-28.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2007-02-28.pdf,2 | PublicArtCommission | 2007-02-28 | 2 | Mr. Vu mentioned that the developer for Alameda Towne Centre is installing more art than is required by the Ordinance. Mr. Vu asked if there were any changes or concerns regarding the panels for Alameda Towne Centre. Chair Huston mentioned that too many people were omitted and thus the panels didn't reflect the diversity of Alameda and the panels form a false history. Otherwise, she believed the panels were really well designed. Commissioner Wolfe agreed there wasn't enough representation regarding the diversity of Alameda. Chair Huston expressed concern that non- white people were only shown as workers and not as heroes or persons of distinction. The Commission agreed there needed to be more acknowledgment of the diversity and segregation in Alameda's past. It was suggested that either additional panels be incorporated or current panels be updated to include the diversity of the City. Mr. Vu offered to draft a letter to Tad Savinar to commend the work done on the panels as well as offer thoughts and suggestions on what could be added. Chair Huston agreed to proof the letter prior to mailing. C. Review of Alameda Free Public Library Art Commissioner Wolfe stated that he liked the panels at the new Free Library but expressed some issues with their installation. He liked the stone panel inside. He felt the rabbit was not as good and was worried that someone could injure himself or herself on it. Chair Huston stated the rabbit was supposed to be interactive and felt that it wasn't. She also questioned the poor quality of the work. Commissioner Lee expressed concern that a screen behind the children's desk had been proposed but wasn't there. The Commission agreed the outside panels were successful but were concerned the windowsills hang over the panels too far and take attention away from the panels. They felt that the architecture frames the panels poorly and are oriented more towards rainfall and not the integration of the art. This resulted in the panels looking too subtle. The Commission also felt the original pl… | PublicArtCommission/2007-02-28.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2007-02-28.pdf,3 | PublicArtCommission | 2007-02-28 | 3 | The Commission then proposed the idea of a catalog, or record of art projects. The catalog would be for future Commission Members and would consist of several items: 1. The original art proposal for a given project 2. A review of the finished product 3. Commission Member comments and opinions on the finished product and how accurate it was to the original proposal. The Commission felt this would be a valuable asset and a good reference for creating and updating the art review process. d. Performing Arts Program at Bridgeside Shopping Center Chair Huston felt the conditions of approval did not reflect the programming that the applicant and Commission agreed to, and therefore, the resolution approving the Bridgeside amphitheatre project was inaccurate. She expressed that the applicant should be held to their agreed details, even though specific details weren't reflected in the resolution. 6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS: Chair Huston expressed concern regarding whether the renovation of the Historic Alameda Theater will fulfill the public art requirement. She stated that any restoration work already being done as part of the project's scope couldn't also be used to fulfill the public art requirement. She stated there were inaccuracies identified in Development Services' staff report to City Council. Commissioner Wolfe stated that he disagreed with Chair Huston's assessment of the Ordinance and its Policy Guidelines regarding what aspects of a project can be used to fulfill the public art requirement. Chair Huston and Commissioner Wolfe agreed to review the Ordinance and its Policy Guidelines and discuss their findings at the next meeting. 7. ADJOURNMENT: 8:45 pm Respectfully submitted, Douglas Vu, Secretary Public Art Commission | PublicArtCommission/2007-02-28.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2007-03-28.pdf,1 | PublicArtCommission | 2007-03-28 | 1 | Minutes of the Regular Public Art Commission Meeting Wednesday, March 28, 2007 Conference Room A, Alameda Free Library 1. CONVENE: 7:04 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL: Chair Huston, Vice-Chair Lee, and Cervantes Commissioner Wolfe arrived at 7:18 p.m. Commissioner Rosenberg was absent. STAFF PRESENT: Cathy Woodbury, Planning and Building Director; Douglas Vu, Planner III; Tony Ebster, Recording Secretary 3. MINUTES: Minutes for the Regular Meeting of November 29, 2006 Commissioner Cervantes motioned to approve the minutes for the meeting of November 29, 2006, as amended. Vice-Chair Lee seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous vote - 3 [Abstain: Commissioner Wolfe - 1; Absent: Commissioner Rosenberg - 1] Minutes for the Regular Meeting of February 28, 2007 Chair Huston motioned to continue the minutes of February 28, 2007 to the Public Art Commission meeting of April 25, 2007. Vice-Chair Lee seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous vote - 4 [Absent: Commissioner Rosenberg ] 4. ORAL COMMUNICATION: 5. REGULAR AGENDA: a. Approve Meeting Calendar for 2007 Chair Huston identified scheduling issues and proposed checking with the Commissioners for availability. Chair Huston motioned to continue item to meeting of April 25, 2007 Vice-Chair Lee seconded the motion Motion carries b. Program to Promote Public Art in Alameda Cathy Woodbury explained the goals and mission of the Public Art Program and then asked everyone in the audience to introduce themselves. Ms. Woodbury then discussed the Program's requirements and informed the Commission it is their responsibility to | PublicArtCommission/2007-03-28.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2007-03-28.pdf,2 | PublicArtCommission | 2007-03-28 | 2 | create a Public Art Plan that is to be submitted to the City Council on an annual basis. She also identified the Public Art Fund and described how those funds could be used to promote art in Alameda. Ms. Woodbury stated that she is working with staff to create a more comprehensive work program, known as the Public Art Plan. She proceeded with a PowerPoint presentation. Some of the highlights included: Developing an Artist Resource brochure Creating a Public Art Map Assembling a Public Art Catalogue Establishing a public art review process Preparing an Alameda Public Art web page Explore the possibility of increasing the cap on public art fees Chair Huston thanked Ms. Woodbury for her presentation. Members of the public in attendance then commented on the Plan and made the following suggestions: Have the PAC require or encourage developers to have a "general call" for art proposals to fulfill their art requirement on new projects Encourage City officials to attend art and cultural events Provide more gallery space in Alameda, especially City-owned buildings Provide local artists and arts organizations more exposure Provide grant funding for arts programs or to improve facilities Reduce or eliminate fees for event space for art shows and cultural events Create an Arts Council Chair Huston then clarified the roles and responsibilities of the Public Art Commission. She stated that although desirable, some of the suggestions made by the audience were outside the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission. Commissioner Wolfe proposed amending the statute. Commissioner Cervantes proposed that the Public Art Commission expand their role in the community since they are now a Commission and not a committee. Ms. Woodbury talked about the revenues for the Commission and what they are to be used for. Ms. Carol Burnett mentioned that she is working with the City of Walnut Creek about some of the projects they are working on and she mentioned changing the ordinance. Chair Huston concurred with the point that Ms. Burnett made… | PublicArtCommission/2007-03-28.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2007-03-28.pdf,3 | PublicArtCommission | 2007-03-28 | 3 | Chair Huston clarified that the Commission is the filter by which the city acquires art and they do not get to select the art. They make sure the art is in public view. Ms. Woodbury suggested that people who are interested in public art take a look at the projects that are going to the Planning Board, go to the meetings and get involved in the developments. Chair Huston suggested creating a proposal for curatorial management and the in lieu fund could pay for this. Ms. Woodbury responded by clarifying that the in lieu fund could not be used for a curator but rather for hardware to hang pictures, etc. Ms. Burnett asked if the Commission gives developers a list of artists to choose from. Chair Huston responded by clarifying that the Commission cannot give specific names to avoid a conflict of interest. The amphitheater at the Bridgeside Shopping Center was mentioned. The general consensus was that the finished project was not what was proposed and that it is not suitable for most of the events that were proposed such as musical acts and literary readings. Ms. Woodbury clarified the role of the planning department and that they make sure the art for a project is feasible and they make sure the project is built according to the plans that were approved. Commissioner Wolfe clarified that the Commission only approves concepts and not plans. Mr. Vu stated that the developers at Bridgeside are required to submit an annual programming plan and when finished, an on-site manager will oversee the programming plan for three years. This must be submitted to and approved by Ms. Woodbury. Chair Huston replied by saying that the developer was required to provide a useful community performance space and an audience. She expressed concern as to who will oversee the programming for the space to make sure they fulfill their obligations. It was asked if the in lieu fund could be used for existing projects. A response was given that the in lieu fund cannot be used for existing projects, only new projects. Ms. Burnett offered her servic… | PublicArtCommission/2007-03-28.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2007-03-28.pdf,4 | PublicArtCommission | 2007-03-28 | 4 | Ms. Burnett suggested creating a cultural arts center to attract more artists and attention to the art and culture of Alameda. The Commission concurred that it would be a good idea to create such a place. It was suggested by a citizen who attended the meeting that several art locations in addition to a cultural arts center would make it easier for the community to access the public art. Commissioner Lee likes the idea of a cultural arts center in that it brings artists and people of the community together allowing them to meet, network and get to know each other. It was suggested that in addition to being prestigious and supportive, having a cultural arts center would provide valuable gallery space for visual arts such as paintings and photography. It was suggested that gallery and meeting space be provided in several City-owned buildings such as the Veteran's Hall and City Hall. It was asked if along with its use as a permit center, the Carnegie building could be used for gallery space. Ms. Woodbury responded by saying a portion of the building could be used as gallery space. General consensus was that this would be very beneficial to the artists and community. 6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS: 7. ADJOURNMENT: Meeting adjourned at 8:52 pm Respectfully submitted, Douglas Vu, Secretary Public Art Commission | PublicArtCommission/2007-03-28.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2007-04-25.pdf,1 | PublicArtCommission | 2007-04-25 | 1 | Minutes of the Regular Public Art Commission Meeting Wednesday, April 25, 2007 Conference Room 360, City Hall 1. CONVENE: 7:04 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL: Chair Huston, Vice-Chair Lee, Commissioners Rosenberg and Wolfe Commissioner Cervantes was absent. STAFF PRESENT: Douglas Vu, Planner III; Tony Ebster, Recording Secretary 3. MINUTES: Minutes for the Regular Meeting of February 28, 2007 Chair Huston motioned to approve the minutes for the meeting of February 28, 2007, as amended. Commissioner Wolfe seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous vote - 4 [Absent: Commissioner Cervantes - 1] Minutes for the Regular Meeting of March 28, 2007 Vice-Chair Lee motioned to approve the minutes for the meeting of March 28, 2007, as amended. Commissioner Wolfe seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous vote - 4 [Absent: Commissioner Cervantes - 1] 4. ORAL COMMUNICATION: 5. REGULAR AGENDA: A. Approval of Meeting Calendar for 2007 - Tabled, continued to Meeting Of May 23, 2007 B. Rhythmix Cultural Works Public Art Proposal - Applicant: Cal Vita Janet Koike reminded the Board of the grand opening scheduled for June 2, 2007 and mentioned some of the acts that will be performing at the Arts Center. Chair Huston asked how the public art portion is separate from the rest of the regular activities planned for the organization. Her question specifically was, "How is the art public?" What part is going to be accessible to the public and how will it be accessible? The Commission discussed many options for fulfilling the public art obligation. | PublicArtCommission/2007-04-25.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2007-04-25.pdf,2 | PublicArtCommission | 2007-04-25 | 2 | Continued to Meeting of May 23, 2007 C. Alameda Towne Centre History Panels - Tad Savinar Mr. Savinar gave an update of the progress of the art installation at Alameda Towne Center. Mr. John Larson spoke about the panels being installed at Alameda Towne Centre. He described the panels and talked about the frustrating work behind them. Chair Huston expressed sympathy for his frustration. Commissioner Rosenberg spoke to the requirements and felt that the Commission could not impose "diversity' requirements for artwork. Commissioner Wolfe mentioned the economic disparity and that some people had cameras and could take pictures, some of which would end up in the pictorial record. Mr. Larson mentioned that the people with farms didn't have cameras and didn't take pictures therefore there is little or no record of the diversity of Alameda. Mr. Savinar asked what they were envisioning so he could respond to the request. Commissioner Wolfe responded by saying that a short description of the project and artist would be helpful. Mr. Chuck Millar expressed concern that the Commission was unfairly criticizing the panels. The Commission clarified that it is their job to ask questions of the artists to make sure they consider all possibilities when creating a public art project. 6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS: 7. ADJOURNMENT: Meeting adjourned at 8:48 pm Respectfully submitted, Douglas Vu, Secretary Public Art Commission | PublicArtCommission/2007-04-25.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2007-05-23.pdf,1 | PublicArtCommission | 2007-05-23 | 1 | Minutes of the Regular Public Art Commission Meeting Wednesday, May 23, 2007 Conference Room 360, City Hall 1. CONVENE: 7:05 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL: Chair Huston, Vice-Chair Lee, Commissioners Cervantes, Rosenberg and Wolfe STAFF PRESENT: Douglas Vu, Planner III 3. MINUTES: 4. ORAL COMMUNICATION: 5. REGULAR AGENDA: Approval of 2007 Meeting Calendar Motion to approve Calendar (Huston) Second (Rosenberg) Motion passes with unanimous vote 4-0 Commissioner Wolfe Abstained Rhythmix Cultural Center Public Art Proposal Commissioner Rosenberg talked about the guidelines regarding the fulfillment of the public art requirement. It was clarified that programming could fulfill the requirement. Chair Huston asked how much of the public art proposal was for Rhythmix Cultural Center and how much was for the general public. She wondered if the 14-month proposal was 14 shows. Ms. Koike clarified that the proposal was for 14 months of rent and that Cal Vita is providing to Rhythmix Cultural Works, the space for public art. Chair Huston asked if for the 14 months, the shows would be free. She also asked if they are 14 consecutive months. She was also concerned with staffing the gallery and thought it may be excessive to have the gallery staffed as proposed and suggested possibly amending the schedule after a two-month period. Mr. Doug Vu and Chair Huston want to adjust the language in the resolution to include the suggested amendment to the public art proposal, which includes the hours of operation for the gallery space, a minimum amount of hours to be open and a time span of 24 months within which the gallery will be open for 14 months. Commissioner Rosenberg motioned to adopt the resolution as amended. | PublicArtCommission/2007-05-23.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2007-05-23.pdf,2 | PublicArtCommission | 2007-05-23 | 2 | Commissioner Lee seconded the motion. Motion passes with unanimous vote. 5-0 6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS: 7. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:20 pm Respectfully submitted, Douglas Vu, Secretary Public Art Commission | PublicArtCommission/2007-05-23.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2007-07-26.pdf,1 | PublicArtCommission | 2007-07-26 | 1 | 1. CONVENE: 7:06 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL: Chair Huston, Vice-Chair Lee, Commissioners Rosenberg and Wolfe STAFF PRESENT: Douglas Vu, Planner III; Shana Nero, Recording Secretary 3. MINUTES: Minutes for the Regular Meeting of July 26, 2007 Chair Huston called for a review of the April 25, 2007 and May 23, 2007 meeting minutes. After reviewing the minutes Chair Huston offered following the summation of the Alameda Towne Centre History Panels project. A letter had been sent to Mr. Savinar stating that the Historic Panel was not seeing a deficit in the area of diversity. Which is the stories were focused on white males primarily and there was no mention of anyone non-European decent. The commission's concerns were brought up at the beginning of the commissions regarding diversity. The revised edition came through with no revisions that included anyone of color. Mr. Larson offered a response, that he had worked overtime on this project and that it was beautifully crafted and well written. Mr. Larson stated he had researched extensively and the commission agrees with all the assertions. Mr. Larson mentioned that people with forms did not have cameras to take pictures; therefore there is little or no record of diversity in Alameda. In addition, the documenting of diversity that he offered was "ugly". That the public record of people of color was racist and unacceptable in a public art forum and so part of the challenge is how to prevent history. His criteria for the search was that he needed documented and supportive storage outside of the dominant community and those that did exist were brutal and finding some way to explaining the discussion. Doug Vu offered to listen to the April 25, 2007 meeting minutes to accurately clarify the discussion regarding the Public Art Panel. Chair Huston stated that she would like the minutes to reflect the fact that Mr. Savinar was responding to a letter requesting greater representation to proceed in the history panel. No further amendments were made to the April 25, 2007 minutes. Chair Hus… | PublicArtCommission/2007-07-26.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2007-07-26.pdf,2 | PublicArtCommission | 2007-07-26 | 2 | Chair Huston called for a review of the May 23, 2007 meeting minutes. After reviewing the minutes Chair Huston offered following the amendments to the May 23, 2007 meeting minutes. Vice Chair Lee motioned to approve the May 23, 2007 minutes, as amended. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Speaker slips were filled out by the following members of the community; Annette Mike Sheppard REGULAR AGENDA A. Discussion and Recommendation Regarding Public Art Plan B. Discussion of Amendments to the Public Art Ordinance Doug Vu presented to the commission with a 2007-2009 Public Art Plan for review and approval either now or at a later date. The commission reviewed the plan and suggested changes to the order of the objectives and projects. Doug informed the commission that Cathy Woodbury would like to attend the next meeting to discuss more about the work plan and the grant programs. Chair Huston stated that the commission is not intending to amend the ordinance to increase the contribution, but to amend the ordinance to equalize the contribution so that larger developers have an equal contribution to smaller businesses. The commission is looking at moving the cap not increasing the contribution at this time. The Grant Program was also discussed and must go before City Council in December. Doug suggested that the commission prioritize the work plan, commission agreed. There was discussion on moving forward before the new members join next month. Michael suggested redefining the ordinance in regards to the Grant program, Chair Huston suggested that amending or creating a second shelf so that there is the Public Arts Ordinance and the cultural grants that would be possible for local community art. Because of the concerns of the commission with co-mingling of funds there was a suggestion that there be a separate arts commission apposed to the current commission. | PublicArtCommission/2007-07-26.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2007-07-26.pdf,3 | PublicArtCommission | 2007-07-26 | 3 | Mr. Wolfe suggested an annual grants program and making the assessment in 1 or 2 meetings who those monies would be presented to. | PublicArtCommission/2007-07-26.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2007-08-23.pdf,1 | PublicArtCommission | 2007-08-23 | 1 | Minutes of the Regular Public Art Commission Meeting Thursday, August 23, 2007 Conference Room 360, City Hall CONVENE: 7:05 p.m. 1. ROLL CALL: Chair Huston, Vice-Chair Lee, and Commissioner Rosenberg Commissioner Wolfe was absent STAFF PRESENT: Douglas Vu, Planner III; Simone Wolter, Recording Secretary 2. MINUTES: 3. ORAL COMMUNICATION: 4. REGULAR AGENDA: A. Recommendation of 2007 - 2009 Public Art Plan Chair Huston directed the Commission to review the plan and provide comments for discussion. The Commission wanted to amend 2.5 to read " to design a grant program and to develop a public art process to administer the public art grants." Motion to approve Public Art Plan as amended (Rosenberg), Second (Lee) Motion passes with unanimous vote 3-0 B. Discussion of Amendments to the Public Art Ordinance Chair Huston directed the Commission to review the document regarding the funding cap, staging and to discuss changes. Chair Huston requested clarification of the Arts Grants funding because the ordinance does not allow for adding outside money to this fund or applying money in this fund to anything other than public art or the administration of the public art project Doug Vu explained that when the grant program is developed, the ordinance may also be amended. He recommended that the Commissioners focus the discussion on the total cap as stated in the ordinance. Commissioner Lee requested that the Commission develop a review process to ensure quality control and follow-up on the status of approved projects. Mr. Vu pointed out that the non-object based specific art guidelines (e.g. programming) require additional information, as they are too vague. Chair Huston requested that the new guidelines include that non-object based specific art submittals would require a schedule or more detailed information so that it can be verified. | PublicArtCommission/2007-08-23.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2007-08-23.pdf,2 | PublicArtCommission | 2007-08-23 | 2 | Commissioner Lee noted that the timelines and schedules as listed in the ordinance are difficult to adhere to and require revision. Chair Huston said the ordinance should be amended to include penalties to developments that do not actually fulfill the public art requirement. Some receive approval of their applications but do not execute as agreed (Bridgeside). Others never apply (Summerhouse). Mr. Vu suggested that more types of art (e.g. performance art) be elaborated upon in the policy guidelines in order to help the Commission and staff determine if applicants have met the criteria and requirements of the ordinance. Chair Huston requested clarification on the overall timeline of adopting and implementing amendments and how amendments to the ordinance shall be discussed and incorporated. Doug Vu suggested that this discussion be placed on the agenda for the October meeting, which will be attended by Cathy Woodbury, Planning & Building Director. Chair Huston requested that the amendments and guidelines be sent out as a packet to inform all new Commissioners. 5. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS: Mr. Vu summarized the meeting with Chair Huston, Cathy Woodbury, and Doug Vu to discuss the proposed cultural arts grant program. The Alameda arts community is holding a meeting on September 15, 2007 to discuss the cultural arts grant program. Doug Vu welcomes any input on this matter, which Chair Huston and Commissioner Rosenberg seconded. Commissioner Rosenberg requested that the October meeting include an agenda item to list public or private spaces that could be used to place public art and to initiate a call for artists. Mr. Vu handed out a matrix listing nation-wide arts grant programs. He directed the Commissioners to review the various grant programs to allow for a focused discussion at the October meeting. A discussion between the Commission and the public occurred that brought to the forefront the public's desire to assist the Commission in the cultural arts grant program. The Commissioners also explained the existing fundi… | PublicArtCommission/2007-08-23.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2007-09-27.pdf,1 | PublicArtCommission | 2007-09-27 | 1 | Minutes of the Regular Public Art Commission Meeting Thursday, September 27, 2007 City Council Chambers, City Hall CONVENE: 7:10 p.m. 1. ROLL CALL: Chair Huston, Vice-Chair Lee, and Commissioners Arrants and Rosenberg. Commissioner Wolfe arrived at 7:30 STAFF PRESENT: Cathy Woodbury, Planning & Building Director; Douglas Vu, Planner III; Tony Ebster, Recording Secretary 2. MINUTES: Minutes for the Regular Meeting of August 23, 2007 Continued to the meeting of October 25, 2007 3. ORAL COMMUNICATION: 4. REGULAR AGENDA: A. Cultural Arts Grant Program. Doug Vu gave a powerpoint presentation, which described and outlined the objectives, guidelines and ideas regarding the Cultural Arts Grant Program. Cathy Woodbury expressed appreciation for the large number of people in the audience. She mentioned that despite the formal setting, the love of art should be embraced. She talked about the next steps in the process for the grant program, which consisted of listening to input and ideas from the Community and the Commission, then drafting a program for presentation at the November Public Art Commission meeting and then taking a proposal to City Council. She suggested working through some components of the program. Chair Huston replied by asking about the public presentation. She agreed that starting with the public presentation was a good place to start. She mentioned the rules of order and explained to the public that a certain protocol was to be followed. Joseph Woodard expressed appreciation for the program. He spoke to the objective in the program that speaks to the funding for art spaces. In his experience he has learned that art space can be expensive and support is important. He mentioned the Presidio in San Francisco and how it is being used as open space and it is paying for itself through various means. He suggested that common space could be useful and could also be a revenue earner. It could be affordable for artists. Patricia Edith expressed a misunderstanding that the Commission didn't want to handle the grant… | PublicArtCommission/2007-09-27.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2007-09-27.pdf,2 | PublicArtCommission | 2007-09-27 | 2 | two years a poet laureate would be appointed and pointed out that it had not been done. She wanted to suggest that the final decision regarding the grants be done by an outside entity or by lottery. She thinks the $50,000 should be used for all disciplines of art and feels that there should be representatives from all areas of the arts. She also mentioned a strange feeling at the last meeting and proposed that grants of $2,000 be awarded to an individual writer, performance artist, visual artist, musician and an interdisciplinary artist. She also mentioned that $4,000 grants could be awarded to groups in visual arts such as theater, dance, literary arts, museum, gallery or music groups. Also, a grant could be awarded to art programs for kids, low income or elderly groups. She expressed excitement and suggested that it can be done and doesn't need to be complicated. Clint Imboden wanted to make the point that the most important part of a grant program is giving resources to the individual artist. He also mentioned that organizations would not be there without the individual artist. Chair Huston welcomed Commissioner Wolfe to the Commission. Michelle Frederick thanked the City for recognizing that art is important and that it is economically viable for the community and for artists. She wanted to talk about the grant criteria and wanted to make sure that it inclusive, visual arts, all media, written and spoken word, performances and events, architecture, historic preservation and culinary arts. She felt strongly that grants should be available to individuals as well as groups and feels that there should be a portion set aside for individuals to apply for. In addition, she feels that the art product that is produced should contribute to the advancement or enhancement of Alameda and the art community. She also wanted to make sure that the grants that are awarded are given to the appropriate recipient, such as teaming up with art departments in schools to further the understanding of what art is, a partnership. Anothe… | PublicArtCommission/2007-09-27.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2007-09-27.pdf,3 | PublicArtCommission | 2007-09-27 | 3 | community speaking through the ad hoc committee be able to discuss and consider all components of the program in an open forum. This committee is committed to holding monthly meetings in tandem with the PAC so the arts community can participate in the final version of each component of the program without delaying its progress. He asked that a timeline be given so they can respond to steps taken. He wanted input from the Commission on what role they would play in evaluating the program components. He was interested in their preferences. In closing, he asked that the Grant Program reflect the needs and desires of the art community. Pat Colburn mentioned the current amount that the Commission has and suggested that a portion of the fund be used to hire a grant writer. Her idea is that it takes money to make money and if all the money that is currently in the fund is given out, there will be no more. Therefore, a portion of the fund should be put towards soliciting more money to grow the art fund. Mike Sheppard, President of the Frank Bette Center for the Arts observed that despite the urgency to get the program up and running, people are still learning how to work together. He mentioned some conversations he has had with different people nationally to get more information on how to structure the program. He pointed out some misunderstandings and miscommunications and mentioned that one of the objectives is to open up the program as much as possible, to get as many voices in as possible. In addition, he wanted to clarify that the brainstorms and ideas are not formal proposals. Mr. Sheppard questioned a couple of items in Mr. Vu's presentation. One was that grants must be matched dollar for dollar and that there was a cap. He was surprised by these new elements. He also asked about an overlap when it falls under the public art fund and if it is public art. He also expressed concern that grants go to individuals as well as organizations. He addressed the community and invited them to participate in the steering commit… | PublicArtCommission/2007-09-27.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2007-09-27.pdf,4 | PublicArtCommission | 2007-09-27 | 4 | Vice-Chair Lee asked for further explanation. In response to Vice-Chair Lee, Ms. Woodbury said that it shows an investment on the part of the person requesting the funding. Chair Huston wanted to put that issue on an agenda to discuss how to approach it. Ms. Woodbury clarified that the grant program wasn't to result in an actual "piece," but rather to facilitate cultural arts in general and to help people to achieve their goals. Debra Owen expressed appreciation for the work of the Commission and the City for reaching out to embrace the greater arts community and the creativity. She feels that $50,000 is not a lot of money, but feels that there is a wealth of creativity in the community and people who are willing to work to connect with the community to make things happen. She prefers to see the $50,000 as seed money, this is just the beginning. One point she made is that the diversity of creativity that is available is broad and she encourages whichever body determines where the money goes will categorize the distribution to seed the growth of creativity. Her second point is that she is not understanding where the Commission stands and how their mandate fits in with the Grant Program. She thinks it would be wonderful if the support goes towards the enrichment of as many lives as possible. Chair Huston asked if there were any more speakers. Kim Nichols spoke to several items that did not pertain to the Public Art Grant Program. Chair Huston closed the public comment section of the meeting. She reiterated the protocol of the meeting. There was a question from the floor regarding the two-year cycle. Chair Huston replied that it is on a two-year cycle and thanked all of the people spoke. She asked if there were questions from the public. Mr. Sheppard asked about the formal protocol. Ms. Woodbury clarified that since the Commission is a public body, rules and guidelines must be adhered to. Chair Huston started the conversation within the Commission and what they are discovering is while they are on the same page, the… | PublicArtCommission/2007-09-27.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2007-09-27.pdf,5 | PublicArtCommission | 2007-09-27 | 5 | She talked about applications, access and how all products should be treated with equal consideration. The art must serve the public and she has no opposition to funding artists or organizations. Commissioner Arrants responded by saying that he is new to serving on a Commission ,but has been an actor and director for 40 years so he has been on both sides of the podium. He gave a short history of what he has worked on regarding public art and programs. He talked about the enrichment of the generations and how important it is. He asked if stage production companies are obligated to contribute to public art. He hopes that together they can come up with something that is beneficial for the community. Vice-Chair Lee spoke to some things brought up by the public. She said that $12,500 was going to administration, $6,250 per year. She pointed out the contingency that was interested in brick and mortar projects such as art centers; gallery space and physical plants of some sort as well as the many organizations that would like to receive grant money. She asked about organizations and if they have to already exist and be providing a service to receive money. She spoke to the selection process for individuals and should not be done in the first week. She replied to Ms. Colburn's suggestion about taking money to make money and said that a track record is required to be able to get grant money. She said that some groups exist because some federal money has been given already. She would like to see modest goals and objectives, which are achievable within the first two years. Commissioner Wolfe expressed appreciation that so many people showed up to the meeting. He supports the idea of a grant program. He thinks the mission of the Commission is for public art and the review of art for public spaces. He also thinks that there must be a group to address the grant program. Commissioner Rosenberg stated that she wants to make sure that an outside influence exist along side the grant program. She wants to make sure that everything … | PublicArtCommission/2007-09-27.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2007-09-27.pdf,6 | PublicArtCommission | 2007-09-27 | 6 | Chair Huston said that success breeds success. Ms. Woodbury provided some suggestions on how to develop the program. She said that the "who" should be refined and what kind of things the grants should fund. Chair Huston brought up that the mission is the first thing. She wants it to be community based and referred back to the criteria she gave earlier. Commissioner Rosenberg said that because of what was said, it is about the whole of the community. Chair Huston said that she hears two sides. She stated three goals: 1. Support the arts community 2. Elevating the level of art within that community 3. Expanding art to the public, making it accessible to the public in general Commissioner Rosenberg responded to the statement of elevating the level of art is the intellectualism of it and is afraid of marginalizing some. She feels that it is not necessary. Chair Huston asked for a mission statement. Vice-Chair Lee gave a statement for the grants "to include the richness of the community in an arts program, which would develop existing resources and make them available or accessible to the greater community," so that you don't have to be an artist to enjoy it. Chair Huston responded by saying that she wouldn't mind including examples of how some things should not be set in stone. Commissioner Rosenberg talked about economic viability and how it could bring in revenue. A cultural arts center could be a great thing for the community and wants that put in the mission statement. Vice-Chair Lee responded by saying that $50,000 could easily be spent to raise money for a $500,000 brick and mortar venue. Commissioner Wolfe brought up what some one had said about the catalyst and the seed capital. Chair Huston responded to Mr. Wolfe by saying that there should be no limit to how little a grant can be. Commissioner Rosenberg suggested starting small but having larger goals and plans. Commissioner Wolfe said that it should be about stimulating public art in the community. He wants to broaden the reach of the program. He thinks th… | PublicArtCommission/2007-09-27.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2007-09-27.pdf,7 | PublicArtCommission | 2007-09-27 | 7 | statement from Chair Huston was "The goal of the Alameda Cultural Arts Grant Program is to serve as a catalyst to stimulate public art in the community.' It was agreed upon that it was vague. Commissioner Arrants pointed out the statement on the literature he was given by Mr. Vu. He read the points out loud and related those points to the conversation. He realized that the struggles are the mechanics of the program. He wants to know things such as what is going to happen with such a small amount of money. Chair Huston reiterated the protocol. She clarified that what Commissioner Arrants read was the mission statement for the Public Art Commission and how their original initiative was to administer money on the percentage for arts but it is shifting and now they will be defining and administering the Public Art Cultural Grants Program. She feels that everyone is on the same page as to how the program will proceed; including grants to individuals and organizations and would not include bringing in people from outside Alameda. She added a part that is related to a long-term goal that involves an art center. Commissioner Wolfe stated that just the calling for arts would stimulate a lot of interest. Chair Huston brought up a 'social practice artist' and described what that is. Her example illustrated how some artists rearrange exhibits to show the contradictions between what is represented and what is not said. It's about a reframing of an institution. An idea she had was to seek out practitioners do not participate and include them in the grant program. Commissioner Rosenberg suggested creating some sort of call for artists. Chair Huston said that dealing with the basics such as the individual and organizational grants is first but then it's about digging out the rest of the community and finding ways to include them. Commissioner Rosenberg replied that was a good idea. Commissioner Wolfe stated he thinks that whatever happens, the "first launch" should be good. He wants to try to capture as many as possible in the f… | PublicArtCommission/2007-09-27.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2007-09-27.pdf,8 | PublicArtCommission | 2007-09-27 | 8 | Ms. Woodbury clarified the budget by saying that some of the money is being used for administrative purposes. She wants to take the PAC program to City Council in December for recommendation as to how the money is spent. Chair Huston asked when the annual plan goes to Council. Ms. Woodbury responded by saying that typically it would go during the first meeting of December but it may be likely to go the second meeting of December. Chair Huston noticed the urgency of a website and a blog to accommodate community discussion. Ms. Woodbury suggested scheduling a workshop or meeting that would allow interaction with each other and to brainstorm ideas in order to bring forth a formal discussion to regarding the grant program at a later time. Chair Huston proposed scheduling of a special meeting. It was unanimously agreed upon. She suggested tabling the minutes and the discussion of item 4-B. She asked if they should name agenda items for the upcoming meeting and asked about the one thing still on the agenda, which is the review of the guidelines. Mr. Vu suggested addressing the other agenda items first before the review of the policy guidelines. Commissioner Wolfe brought up the percentage for public art and the ordinance. Chair Huston reminded the Commission that the ordinance is still on the table and wants it to be agendized. She noted that she wants the discussion of things to be wide open such as the ordinance. She asked if there are any subcommittees that will be needed for anything. 5. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS: 6. ADJOURNMENT: Meeting adjourned at 9:00 pm Respectfully submitted, Douglas Vu, Secretary Public Art Commission 8 | PublicArtCommission/2007-09-27.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2007-10-25.pdf,1 | PublicArtCommission | 2007-10-25 | 1 | DRAFT Minutes of the Regular Public Art Commission Meeting Thursday, October 25, 2007 Conference Room 360, City Hall CONVENE: 7:10 p.m. 1. ROLL CALL: Chair Huston, Vice-Chair Lee, and Commissioners Rosenberg Arrants, and Wolfe Commissioners Rosenberg and Lee were absent STAFF PRESENT: Andrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager; Tony Ebster, Recording Secretary 2. MINUTES: Minutes for the Regular Meeting of August 23, 2007 and September 27, 2007 Continued to the meeting of November 29, 2007 3. ORAL COMMUNICATION: 4. REGULAR AGENDA: 4-A. Chair Huston brought up the on-site public art and the memo and felt that it was a misnomer. She referred to the memo and what it says about the Commission and that they are being called upon to apply the funds available to public art and they need not apply it to a specific piece or location, its wide open. She mentioned the Alameda Municipal Code and the section that says that money left over after administrative fees be distributed to the City for on- site public art. She also mentioned that the amount available as of September 2007 is approximately $45,295. She read the memo and suggested that the annual plan be amended to include that the money be spent or applied to the purchase or expenses of public art in Alameda. She proposed a movement to amend the annual plan include a line item to apply the available funds to public art within the next year. She thinks that they should not name the number but rather the source. Mr. Arrants asked about the percentages Ms. Huston clarified that since the funds for administrative duties be spent on art since it had not been used. Mr. Wolfe talked about the specific locations that could have an impact on Park and Webster Streets. He wanted to designate the money to art at the tube. He feels that it is critical that they place art at the entries to the tubes and feels that it would benefit the community if they could make the association with culture upon entering the city. Ms. Huston didn't disagree. Mr. Thomas clarified what was happening at… | PublicArtCommission/2007-10-25.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2007-10-25.pdf,2 | PublicArtCommission | 2007-10-25 | 2 | Mr. Wolfe asked how it would fit into the program. Mr. Thomas said that it was to be designated as a high priority project. Ms. Huston said that one way or another they need to spend the money. She is not sure that $45,000 is enough to provide art for that location and feels that they could spend the money faster than when the project is going to be finished. She wants to put it on the agenda for discussion. She feels that the scale of the art would have to be huge to compete with the surrounding area. Mr. Thomas stated that the plans are very detailed and are finalized. He said that the two big issues are the timing and that the developer has committed $300,000 for the public art requirement. Ms. Huston wants to put spending the money on the annual plan. Mr. Wolfe wants to put spending the money on the plan with a specific site, the exit of the tube. Mr. Arrants wanted clarify what the tube was and how it was going to change in the future. Mr. Thomas helped him visualize the future project. Ms. Huston is ready for some art to be out. They don't know what $45,000 will buy. She also wanted to know what they others thought. She doesn't need to commit to a site. Mr. Wolfe feels that they need to move in a direction that will allow them to use the money. Ms. Huston would support the discussion if the other commissioners were there. Mr. Arrants asked if there was an objection to talking about it at the next meeting. Ms. Huston felt that spending the money in the fund was not an urgent issue. Mr. Thomas responded by saying that if they wanted to split the discussion, approve the expenditures, send it to City Council and let them know that they are talking about it. Ms. Huston proposed a motion that they add to the annual plan the expenditure of funds for public art in the coming year with specific considerations of the Neptune Park and the Webster tube exit. She also wanted to propose an Ad Hoc Committee for the further consider the phrasing and crafting of the cultural arts grant. Mr. Thomas stated that the intent of … | PublicArtCommission/2007-10-25.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2007-10-25.pdf,3 | PublicArtCommission | 2007-10-25 | 3 | 5. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS: None 6. ADJOURNMENT: Meeting adjourned at 7:30 pm to the special workshop. Respectfully submitted, Jon Biggs, Secretary Public Art Commission | PublicArtCommission/2007-10-25.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2007-11-29.pdf,1 | PublicArtCommission | 2007-11-29 | 1 | DRAFT Minutes of the Regular Public Art Commission Meeting Thursday, November 29, 2007 Conference Room 360, City Hall CONVENE: 7:08 p.m. 1. ROLL CALL: Chair Huston, Vice-Chair Lee, and Commissioners Rosenberg Wolfe STAFF PRESENT: Douglas Vu, Planner III; Tony Ebster, Recording Secretary 2. MINUTES: Commissioner Lee was not at the October meeting and didn't know what happened. Mr. Vu recommended accepting the August 2007 and September 2007 minutes since a lot of time had passed since those meetings. Motion/Second to accept August 23, 2007 Minutes Ayes: 3; Noes: 0; Wolfe Abstained Motion/Second to accept September 27, 2007 Minutes Continued to Meeting of January 9, 2008 3. ORAL COMMUNICATION: 4. REGULAR AGENDA: 4-A. Adoption of 2008 Meeting Calendar Mr. Vu Clarified that the reason that the 2008 meeting schedule was set for the second Wednesday of each month was due to availability of Council Chambers and that the second Wednesday was the only day available to schedule regular monthly meetings. Commissioner Lee brought up the fact that in the past the meeting schedule was based on when the commissioners were available. Commissioner Rosenberg stated that it would have been better for staff to ask first before making the calendar. Mr. Vu stated that staff created the schedule with the consideration of all the other activity happening in the department. Commissioner Lee mentioned that Commissioner Wolfe is stepping down pending the appointment of new Commissioners. Commissioner Huston proposed accepting January 9, 2008 and February 13, 2008 and revisiting the calendar. | PublicArtCommission/2007-11-29.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2007-11-29.pdf,2 | PublicArtCommission | 2007-11-29 | 2 | The meetings of January 9, 2008 and February 13, 2008 were accepted and the calendar will be reevaluated pending the appointment of new commissioners. 4-B. Cultural Arts Grants Program Chair Lee opened the public comment session. Mr. Jeff Cambra spoke about the Arts Grants Program and thanked the Commission for their hard work. He requested another charette. He felt that despite the fact that a consensus had not been reached, it was productive and it was good to hear opposing views. It gave a better view of the big picture. Mr. Clint Imboden asked about the emergency/opportunity grants and if an individual who received a grant in the first year of the two-year cycle could apply for an emergency or opportunity grant in the second year of the cycle. Commissioner Huston replied to Mr. Imboden's question by saying that they don't want to encourage the accident-prone. She is what remains of the subcommittee for the Cultural Arts Grants. She referred to the memo for Item 4-B. She talked with a City Council member and was told that funds had not been allocated. She mentioned contradictions in paperwork on the City side. She also mentioned that there is no labor. She wondered if the Grants program is part of their scope. She mentioned that they are an advisory committee and are not equipped to take on such a large task. She brought up that she was called into the Planning department and was told that they had to take on the task of the grants program. After doing some research, they found that it might be incompatible with the size and scope of their work. She wants to speak with City Council to see if it is their job to take on such a large task. There were internal difficulties. She brought up the subcommittee and that it was not to work with staff, but to create the draft grants program. There was no agreement to present the draft to staff prior to presenting it to their own commission. She doesn't like that it imposed a process on the commission that they didn't agree to. She expressed frustration that her draft was … | PublicArtCommission/2007-11-29.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2007-11-29.pdf,3 | PublicArtCommission | 2007-11-29 | 3 | Ms. Rosenberg stated that part of the problem they are having is the interaction with staff and the commission. She wants the public to be a larger part of the process and doesn't want staff to make the final decisions. She wonders if the grants program is within the framework of the commission and feels that it should be under an arts council and not the advisory commission. Its taxing trying to figure out what they can and cannot do. Ms. Huston feels that they need to get their feet out of the concrete. 4-C. Ms. Lee brought up the subcommittee and proposed putting it on hold. Ms. Rosenberg pointed out that they never had an Ad Hoc committee, instead it was a subcommittee. There was no presence of an administrative body to work with; it was just she and Ms. Cervantes. She said that there had been a model of a subcommittee that did not include a staff member taking and forming the notes. The subcommittee had operated on its own. Ms. Lee clarified that the subcommittee reported back to the committee as a whole. Ms. Huston stated that she was faulted for her actions at the October meeting because she was supposed to assign an subcommittee. She had no intention of assigning a subcommittee to the issue of on-site public art until it was discussed in depth. She questioned the buying of public art. She was told that she must deal with two things. One was that there was $45,000 in the art fund and that it must be spent. She brought up the item on the October agenda that said that they are compelled to spend it. She felt disrespected that she was faulted for not assigning a subcommittee despite the fact that there were only four members, two with one foot in and one foot out. Mr. Wolfe brought up the budgetary issue and that the money doesn't have to be spent, it is in a trust fund. It is not lost if it is not spent. Ms. Huston responded by saying that there is nothing in the ordinance that says that they must spend the money in a timely manner. They get to ask themselves "how would we let someone else spend the money"? … | PublicArtCommission/2007-11-29.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2007-11-29.pdf,4 | 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 i… | PublicArtCommission/2007-11-29.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2007-11-29.pdf,5 | PublicArtCommission | 2007-11-29 | 5 | Ms. Rosenberg stated that it was important that the minutes be provided in an appropriate time and felt that it was inappropriate that the October minutes were not available. Mr. Vu encouraged the approval of the August and September minutes. 4-D. Approval of Special Meeting on December 20, 2007 Ms. Huston has an issue with how it is written and that commission adopted an irregular schedule. She said that because a meeting is not on an annual schedule it is not "special". Ms Rosenberg wanted the language changed. Ms. Huston wanted to skip to commissioner communications and wanted to come back to the special meeting. Skip to Commissioner Communications Ms. Lee talked about the history behind the Commission and what their purpose is. She read from the ordinance to clarify what their job is as a commission. She also read from her letter. Ms. Huston read from her letter. Mr. Wolfe responded by saying that the letters are very specific and they point to specific problems. Ms. Rosenberg expressed thanks and appreciation for the letters and the work put into them. Mr. Wolfe asked if they could compose a letter as a group and send it to City Council. Mr. Vu clarified that if the letter was composed and sent as a group, it would have to be agendized so the public could be involved. Otherwise, it would have to be done individually. Ms. Rosenberg asked to agendize the item for the December 20, 2007 meeting. She wanted to clarify that if Ms. Woodbury came to the meeting, she should come and help them define their goals, not tell them what their goals are. Ms. Rosenberg wanted Ms. Woodbury be clear that it is a hotbed she would be walking into. Mr. Vu responded by clarifying that the sentiment is that if there is confusion regarding protocol, Ms. Woodbury would clarify those procedures. Ms. Lee expressed that she would feel more comfortable discussing the matter with City Council. Ms. Huston concurred. Mr. Wolfe asked if they could go to the City lawyer to see if the commission has the authority to act as the grant constructo… | PublicArtCommission/2007-11-29.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2007-11-29.pdf,6 | PublicArtCommission | 2007-11-29 | 6 | Woodbury's understanding of the commission's role is different than what their legal power may be. She expressed exhaustion for having to argue over issues. She is exasperated by having no authority when it comes to staff and feels that she shouldn't have to defend it. Ms. Lee said that they were eager to take on the new charge but feels that they are not the best group to do an arts council for the City of Alameda. Ms. Huston wants to go to City Council first to clarify their authority. Ms. Lee brought up the issue of being short two commissioners and feels that their job is more difficult without them. Mr. Wolfe stated that the way the argument is constructed, it may be a legal issue and it would be good to put it before the lawyer. He reiterated that he is leaving the commission; therefore, his voice would not be as effective. Ms. Huston feels that his voice has as much weight as the other commissioners. Ms. Rosenberg concurred. Ms. Huston wants to hear what he has to say. Mr. Wolfe feels that they need to send copies of the letters to the attorney to evaluate some of the questions that the commission has regarding their roles and the demands put upon them. Ms. Huston wants to talk to City Council then might want to meet with the commission before meeting with Ms. Woodbury. Her sense is that there is too much that planning recommends to the commission. She feels that the recommendations are being confused with the requirements. She thinks there is a lot of "hall monitoring" going on. Mr. Wolfe asked if they wanted legal counsel at the meeting. Ms. Lee feels that it might not be good to pay for an attorney if it is not appropriate. Ms. Rosenberg doesn't want to schedule a meeting until they meet with City Council. Mr. Wolfe said that unless there is an art proposal, the next meeting would be January. Mr. Vu clarified that the commission doesn't want to meet on December 20 unless there is an art application. Ms. Lee doesn't want to forgo the January meeting. Ms. Hustion suggested agendizing funds and expenditure… | PublicArtCommission/2007-11-29.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2007-11-29.pdf,7 | PublicArtCommission | 2007-11-29 | 7 | Mr. Vu started by saying that this item was in response to Ms. Huston's request for more information on how the amphitheater was constructed. Ms. Huston asked if there had been any performances there. Mr. Vu brought out the list of three performances and one painting event from the developer that have occurred between March 2006 and March 2007. Ms. Huston brought up that she had called some vendors asking about the performance space and no one knew about it. Mr. Wolfe asked about the advertisement of the performances. Ms. Rosenberg asked if the developer was supposed to bring a list of events to the commission so that the commission could see that there was a set level of performances. Mr. Vu referred to the Resolution and condition two that stated that the developer would submit a schedule of performances for the first year to the satisfaction of the Planning & Building Director. The commission questioned the submittal of the schedule to the Director. They thought that the developer would submit the schedule to the commission, and then they would forward it to the Director. Ms. Huston clarified that this was an amended application and that it required 12 performances on the same day and time. She wanted to listen back to the tapes to see which amendments they actually agreed upon. Ms. Rosenberg wanted it brought back to the commission so they could approve the programming. Ms. Huston said that the amended programming requirement was designed to build the grass roots performances. Ms. Lee stated that it was to be evaluated after the first year by the commission. Ms. Huston requested staff listen to the tapes and write down the amendments to see if they have been fulfilled. Ms. Rosenberg feels that the amphitheater is so poorly planned and the level of the turf is not good. She said that there is no feel of a performance space and questioned who approved it. Mr. Wolfe said that one of the mistakes he made was not asking if it could be elevated slightly. He suggested that if the grades were elevated slightly, it wo… | PublicArtCommission/2007-11-29.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2007-11-29.pdf,8 | PublicArtCommission | 2007-11-29 | 8 | Mr. Wolfe said that they may want to go back and be very strict about performance spaces because the 1% doesn't cover performance spaces very well. He wants more foresight instead of hindsight. Ms. Rosenberg stated that the better performance area is outside Nob Hill foods; it's not behind the dog wash. She questions who approved the project. Mr. Wolfe suggested that the item of looking back at the yearly program be agendized for January. He referenced the library and suggested more open dialog. Ms. Huston asked Mr. Vu if there was anything that could be done about Bridgeside. She asked what they could recommend to press the space so it could actually be used as a performance space. The commission asked if there was a person who was supposed in charge of the programming for the space. Ms. Rosenberg stated that it is crucial that they come back to the commission and wanted to ask that they come to the commission to present a program for comments and revisions. Ms. Huston feels that it is a very complicated issue and that enforcement is huge. Mr. Wolfe asked about enforcement and if anyone had gone out to check what the grades are. He feels that if the grades are not accurate, they are not acceptable Ms. Huston had a couple of assignments for staff, check the grades and check the amendments, and ask planning what are they allowed to do for enforcement. Mr. Wolfe mentioned the temporary permits. Mr. Vu said that they developer has received the temporary certificate of occupancy. He said that the commission has some leverage to make the developer compliant before they receive their certificate of occupancy. He also suggested that staff make the developer check the grades and come back to the commission. Ms. Huston wants the to go all out and give them a report on letterhead and she wants a fact sheet before the developer comes back to the commission. What the commission needs to know is what the amended agreement was. She wants to send out a request for information. Mr. Vu clarified the agenda items for January 9 mee… | PublicArtCommission/2007-11-29.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2007-11-29.pdf,9 | PublicArtCommission | 2007-11-29 | 9 | Respectfully submitted, Jon Biggs, Secretary Public Art Commission 9 | PublicArtCommission/2007-11-29.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2008-01-09.pdf,1 | PublicArtCommission | 2008-01-09 | 1 | DRAFT Minutes of the Regular Public Art Commission Meeting Wednesday, January 9, 2008 Conference Room 360, City Hall CONVENE: 7:05 p.m. 1. ROLL CALL: Chair Huston, Vice-Chair Lee, and Commissioner Wolfe Commissioner Rosenberg arrived at 7:12 STAFF PRESENT: Jon Biggs, Planning Services Manager; Tony Ebster, Recording Secretary MINUTES: None 2. ORAL COMMUNICATION None 3. REGULAR AGENDA: 3-A. Discussion of request to City Council Mr. Jeff Cambra thanked the commission for all the work they have done. He said that Arts Alameda is prepared to draft the public arts grants program criteria, but wanted to give everyone a chance to express their opinions. Ms. Huston thanked Mr. Cambra for his comments. She then read her letter to City Council. Ms. Lee read her letter to City Council. Her concerns are "mission creep", they are being asked to manage a different program. She feels they are not qualified to give out grants and she is uncomfortable giving money to friends and neighbors and is concerned with conflict of interest. They are not in a position to put in extra time; they are an advisory committee, not a research and grant generating committee. They are not clear on their mission. Ms. Huston added that since the grants issue came up, she became more alert to conflicts. She referenced the September minutes and that they are supposed to come up with ideas and give them to the planning department. She never intended to work under management of the planning department without pay and grew uncomfortable as materials arrived that increasingly pressured her to answer to the planning department. She mentioned the draft of a subcommittee report that was prevented from being presented to the Commission. She feels that a lot of their work has been subverted. They had reservations regarding the grants program and managing the creation of a new program in which planning controls. Mr. Biggs asked about the agenda topic to clarify how the letters related. Ms. Huston responded by saying that the letters are requests to City Council … | PublicArtCommission/2008-01-09.pdf |
Advanced export
JSON shape: default, array, newline-delimited, object
CREATE TABLE "pages" ( [body] TEXT, [date] TEXT, [page] INTEGER, [text] TEXT, [path] TEXT, PRIMARY KEY ([path], [page]) );