pages
245 rows where body = "PublicArtCommission" sorted by body
This data as json, CSV (advanced)
Suggested facets: page, date (date)
Link | body ▼ | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
PublicArtCommission/2008-11-12.pdf,1 | PublicArtCommission | 2008-11-12 | 1 | MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC ART COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OF WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 2008 CONFERENCE ROOM 391, CITY HALL 2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 7:00 PM CONVENE: Acting Chair Lee called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Vice Chair Lee, Commissioners Candelario, Ibsen and Commissioner Leal ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Jon Biggs, Planning Services Manager/Secretary to Public Art Commission; Maria Luisa Flores, Intermediate Clerk, Planning & Building MINUTES: Minutes from the meeting of September 10, 2008 Motion (Leal)/Second (lbsen) to approve as submitted Ayes: 4; Noes: 0. Motion passed. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None REGULAR AGENDA: (4A.) Guidelines for Public Art Projects Identification Signage Mr. Ibsen asked if the dimensions for the signage will be too small at 5"x5". He noted the signs should be legible at three paces. Other Commission members commented that the dimension should be a minimum and the guidelines modified to reflect this. Ms. Candelario noted that the guidelines should make it clear that Commission approval of the signage is required. Motion (lbsen)/Second (Lee) to approve the public art identification signage guidelines subject to the following changes: 1. The 5"x 5" size noted in the guidelines are the minimum dimension of public art signage. & 2. Add language to the guidelines making it clear that Public Art Commission approval of the proposal is required. Ayes: 4; Noes: 0; Absent: 0. Motion passed. | PublicArtCommission/2008-11-12.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2008-11-12.pdf,2 | PublicArtCommission | 2008-11-12 | 2 | (4B.) Adoption of 2009 Public Art Commission Calendar The commission reviewed the proposed calendar for 2009. Motion (lbsen)/Second (Lee) to adopt the 2009 Calendar Ayes: 4; Noes: 0; Absent: 0. Motion passed. (4C.) Adoption of Resolution of the Public Art Commission acknowledging Cecilia Cervantes to the citizens of Alameda Ms. Lee noted that there were other members of the Community that had recently served on the Public Art Commission and they should also be acknowledged for their service. All other Commission members agreed. Ms. Lee suggested that the item be continued to the next meeting to allow staff to prepare resolutions for Katina Huston, K.C. Rosenberg, and Peter Wolfe. Motion (Lee)/Second (lbsen) to continue the item to the next regular meeting so that resolutions recognizing former members of the Commission could be crafted. Ayes: 4; Noes: 0; Absent: 0. Motion passed. 0 STAFF COMMUNICATIONS: Staff reported. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS: Eric Ibsen and Andrea Leal have drafted a press release regarding locating public art in Alameda which they would like to have agendized for discussion at a future meeting. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:17 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Biggs, Planning Services Manager/Secretary Public Art Commission G:\PLANNINGIPAC\Agendas_Minutes\Minutes_08/11-12-08 draft minutes.doc 2 | PublicArtCommission/2008-11-12.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2020-12-02.pdf,1 | PublicArtCommission | 2020-12-02 | 1 | FINAL MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC ART COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING Wednesday, December 2, 2020 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Adam Gillitt called the meeting to order at 6:03pm. 2. ROLL CALL Present: Chairperson Adam Gillitt, Vice Chairperson Liz Rush, Commissioners Mark Farrell, Kirstin Van Cleef, and Tierney Sneeringer. Absent: None. Lois Butler (PAC Secretary) and Amanda Gehrke present as staff to the Commission. Chairperson Gillitt made a motion to discuss item 8 Commission Communications, Non-Agenda, before item 5 - Regular Agenda Items. Ayes: Chairperson Gillitt, Vice Chairperson Rush, Commissioners Van Cleef, Sneeringer, and Farrell. Nays: none. The motion carried 5-0. 3. MINUTES 3-A. 2020-8520 Review and Approve Draft Minutes October 19, 2020 A motion to approve the minutes was made by Vice Chairperson Rush and seconded by Commissioner Farrell. Ayes: Chairperson Gillitt, Vice Chairperson Rush, Commissioners Van Cleef, Sneeringer, and Farrell. Nays: none. The motion carried 5-0. 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. 8. COMMSSIONER COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA Chairperson Gillitt provided an overview of the new meeting Code of Ethics and Conduct released by Alameda City Clerk's Office, particularly given current virtual meeting format, and reminded Commissioners of their commitment to abide by all rules and procedures. Commissioner Sneeringer indicated that she had not received the Code of Ethics and Conduct. She was referred to the City Clerk by Staff member Butler. 5. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 5-A. 2020-8521 Discussion Concerning Contribution Levels to the Public Art Fund and Recommendation to Amend the Public Art Ordinance to Allow the Public Art Fund to be used for Deaccession of Artwork Staff member Gehrke presented an overview of the recommended changes to the Public Art Ordinance from March and August 2020 PAC meetings: | PublicArtCommission/2020-12-02.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2020-12-02.pdf,2 | PublicArtCommission | 2020-12-02 | 2 | Minutes of the Public Art Commission Wednesday, December 2, 2020 a) Allow the fund to be used for conservation and maintenance of public art. b) Require developers to declare their intentions prior to receiving planning approvals and require that any changes to art location be approved by PAC. c) Clarify that the maintenance agreement shall be reflected in the condition of approval and recorded against the property prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy. d) Remove the requirement that cultural arts grants can only go to non-profit organizations, for grants under $2,000. e) Specify that City Council approval is needed only for fund expenditures that exceed the purchase authority of the City Manager. Gehrke presented the remaining two recommended changes that the Commission had requested additional discussion: potential changes to required contributions and deaccession as an allowed use of the fund. Gehrke welcomed comments and answered clarifying questions. Commissioners discussed potential changes to required contributions. Commissioner Farrell requested information on the percentage of Alameda developers chose to install art onsite instead of making in-lieu fund contributions and what percentage of money has gone to onsite art compared to contributions to the in-lieu fund for Alameda. Commissioner Sneeringer requested this information from neighboring cities. A motion to leave the required contribution rate for onsite art at 1% and change the in-lieu contribution rate to 0.8%. Ayes: Commissioner Van Cleef. Nays: Chairperson Gillitt, Vice Chairperson Rush, Commissioners Sneeringer and Farrell. The motion failed 1-4. Commissioners discussed further and concluded to delay voting on potential changes to required contributions until further information is available. Staff members Butler and Gehrke offered to research these items. Commissioners discussed placing a $500,000 cap on developer contributions. A motion to not recommend the institution of a $500,000 cap on developer contributions was mad… | PublicArtCommission/2020-12-02.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2020-12-02.pdf,3 | PublicArtCommission | 2020-12-02 | 3 | Minutes of the Public Art Commission Wednesday, December 2, 2020 Commissioner Van Cleef and seconded by Chairperson Gillitt. Ayes: Chairperson Gillitt, Vice Chairperson Rush, Commissioners Van Cleef, Sneeringer, and Farrell. Nays: none. The motion carried 5-0. 6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS None. 7. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None. 9. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. 10. ADJOURNMENT Chairperson Gillitt adjourned the meeting at 7:15pm. Respectfully submitted, Lois Butler Economic Development Manager Secretary Public Art Commission 3 | PublicArtCommission/2020-12-02.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2020-12-21.pdf,1 | PublicArtCommission | 2020-12-21 | 1 | MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC ART COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING Monday, December 21, 2020 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Adam Gillitt called the meeting to order at 6:02pm. 2. ROLL CALL Present: Chairperson Adam Gillitt, Vice Chairperson Liz Rush, Commissioners Mark Farrell, Kirstin Van Cleef, and Tierney Sneeringer. Absent: None. Lois Butler (PAC Secretary) and Amanda Gehrke present as staff to the Commission. 3. MINUTES 3-A 2020-8568 Review and Approve Draft Minutes December 2, 2020 A motion to approve the minutes was made by Vice Chairperson Rush and seconded by Chairperson Gillitt. Ayes: Chairperson Gillitt, Vice Chairperson Rush, Commissioners Van Cleef, Sneeringer, and Farrell. Nays: none. The motion carried 5-0. 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. 5. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 5-A 2020-8566 Recommendation to Approve the Attached Resolution and Conditions Approving the "Diatom Sculpture Series" Public Art Proposal Staff member Gehrke presented the recommendation to approve resolution and conditions approving the "Diatom Sculpture Series" public art proposal. Artist Adrien Siegel explained her inspiration for the sculpture series. Staff member Gehrke and Artist Siegal answered clarifying questions. Kristel Railsback, developer for SRMErnst, expressed appreciation for the PAC, Artist Siegal, and support for the proposed "Diatom Sculpture Series". A motion to approve the attached resolution and conditions approving the "Diatom Sculpture series" public art proposal was made by Chairperson Gillitt and seconded by Commissioner Farrell. Ayes: Chairperson Gillitt, Vice Chairperson Rush, Commissioners Van Cleef, Sneeringer, and Farrell. Nays: none. The motion carried 5-0. 5-B 2020-8567 Public Art Program Prioritization Working Session Staff member Gehrke presented the Public Art Program prioritization working session report and answered clarifying questions. | PublicArtCommission/2020-12-21.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2020-12-21.pdf,2 | PublicArtCommission | 2020-12-21 | 2 | Minutes of the Public Art Commission Monday, December 21, 2020 Public member Tara Pillbrow recommended coordinating with local non-profits to create an Alameda art map and guide, and stated that small grants can be made virtually during COVID, and may be a good way to encourage art during this time. Following, is a summary of the discussion of the potential projects that had been identified in previous PAC meetings: Community process to prioritize and identify locations for public art, including potentially developing an Art Park. Chairperson Gillitt recommends prioritizing identifying locations to facilitate the development of public art. Release new Request for Qualifications (RFQs) or Request for Proposals (RFPs) for physical and cultural art, including potential permanent location for temporary art, light-based art at Alameda Point, and/or interactive community event. Creation of professionally designed marketing materials for public art. Commissioner Farrell recommends a virtual map and/or placards with QR codes, possibly including both private and public as well as existing and upcoming art. Chairperson Gillitt suggested an app with similar features. Commissioner Sneeringer recommends digital material (map, etc) that is easier to maintain/update. Commissioner Farrell, Vice Chairperson Rush, and Chairperson Gillitt recommended an interim list and brief description of existing and coming-soon public art until the marketing and map can be developed, as well as temporary QR code stickers that direct people to the existing site, and Staff member Gehrke invited feedback on existing Alameda public art page. Commissioner Van Cleef recommended a satellite site - not part of the City's webpage. Provide whole or matching grants to install murals on public or private property. Pilot a small grants program to provide grants from $500-2,000 for visual or cultural arts. Provide whole or matching grants to install murals on public or private property. Provide grants of $1,500-$3,000 for temporary vinyl "murals" on vacant s… | PublicArtCommission/2020-12-21.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2020-12-21.pdf,3 | PublicArtCommission | 2020-12-21 | 3 | Minutes of the Public Art Commission Monday, December 21, 2020 Commissioner Farrell, Chairperson Gillitt, and Staff member Gehrke suggested PAC prioritize developing a public art master plan and concurrent marketing plan and map as the second priority and supporting public small art grants as a third priority. Staff member Gehrke offered to put an agenda item on an upcoming meeting to evaluate and provide feedback on existing website, and stated that staff would likely have the time to begin the Public Art Master Plan in late spring to summer. Staff member Butler offered to launch a new round of small grants in spring with awards happening after the new fiscal year, July 2021. A motion to prioritize 1) a Public Art Master Plan, 2) promotion and marketing, 3) a second round of public art small grants was made by Commissioner Van Cleef, and was seconded by Vice Chairperson Rush. Ayes: Chairperson Gillitt, Vice Chairperson Rush, Commissioners Van Cleef, Sneeringer, and Farrell. Nays: none. The motion carried 5-0. 6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS Staff member Butler stated a request to include the Vice Chairperson in early, pre- PAC briefing meetings with the Chairperson. There were no concerns expressed by the PAC for this change. Staff member Gehrke invited Commissioners to reach out with any questions or requests for further information. 7. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None. 8. COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA Commissioner Farrell asked how the development cost estimate is determined. Staff member Butler replied that cost estimates are determined by the Building Official, but the developers' estimates also used if they are more accurate. 5-B. Chairperson Gillitt reopened item for discussion. Commissioner Farrell asked if significant tenant improvement projects are included in contributing projects to the Public Art Fund or if contributions only come from new development. Staff member Butler clarified that structural work above $250,000 is considered to be a qualifying project for the Public Art Fund. Commissioner Farrell … | PublicArtCommission/2020-12-21.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2020-12-21.pdf,4 | PublicArtCommission | 2020-12-21 | 4 | Minutes of the Public Art Commission Monday, December 21, 2020 Vice Chairperson Rush wished all a healthy Holiday season and new year. Chairperson Gillitt concurred. 10. ADJOURNMENT Chairperson Gillitt adjourned the meeting at 7:48pm. Respectfully submitted, Lois Butler Economic Development Manager Secretary Public Art Commission 4 | PublicArtCommission/2020-12-21.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/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 |
PublicArtCommission/2008-01-09.pdf,2 | PublicArtCommission | 2008-01-09 | 2 | departmental imperative, something that was important to her. It prevented the commission from engaging in the appropriate discussion, which is this appropriate for this commission, is the money appropriate based on the ordinance they are serving. Ms. Rosenberg said that if the answer is no and it doesn't follow the guidelines, then it is up to City Council to create a proper grants committee or a set of guidelines. She said that they need guidance from Council to assure that there is enough direction. Mr. Wolfe stated that the mission of the commission is to advise City Council. He moved that their understanding of their mission is that the grants authoring is outside the scope of the public art commission. Ms. Huston added that the use of the PAC funds for grants is in violation of the ordinance. She restated the movement that the Cultural Arts Grants are outside the scope of the Commission and that the use of the funds for these grants is in violation of the uses outlined by the ordinance. Ms. Rosenberg seconded the motion. All were in favor. Ms. Rosenberg said that they would like to continue as an advisory commission and suggested that the City create a separate grants commission. Ms. Huston replied by saying that She would have been willing to pursue the concern of the grants had there not been such a confusion of authority between the commission and staff. If there was a desire to craft a program, they would have been willing to do it. Ms. Rosenberg said that they are there to serve the public and feels that it dishonors what a public commission does and feels that it disrespects their time. Ms. Huston thinks the big issue was not being able to bring a draft to the commission, to be prevented from doing that made it clear that it wasn't their project. Ms. Lee wanted to remind everyone that the commission is there for public art, art in public places, not art for the public. Ms. Huston brought up another topic, which was the public art project. She feels that it isn't thriving. She is confused about their r… | PublicArtCommission/2008-01-09.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2008-01-09.pdf,3 | PublicArtCommission | 2008-01-09 | 3 | Mr. Biggs clarified that most projects are operating under a temporary certificate of occupancy and must fulfill all conditions of approval to obtain their final certificate. Mr. Wolfe mentioned South Shore and commended them for being forthcoming in terms of providing art but they still don't see any recognition of it being public art. There are no medallions or plaques, therefore they are not in compliance. Mr. Biggs recognized that the commission brought up the topic that some projects have not fulfilled their art requirements but wasn't exactly sure which ones they were. Ms. Huston replied by saying that if they have asked the planning department, Mayor and City Council, then at some point it isn't the commission's responsibility anymore. Mr. Wolfe said that if developers don't get the final certificate of occupancy in a timely manner, the banks don't like it very much; they have a financial obligation to comply. Ms. Huston wants to get everything argumentative off the table and feels that this issue has been a thorn in the side of the Commission. She feels that they don't have the resources to respond. Mr. Wolfe recognized the rotation of staff in the planning department. He feels that there is a loss of information. Ms. Huston wanted to publicly declare that the commission is not responsible for who applies and their job is limited to creating guidelines, receiving, reviewing, accepting, and/or rejecting the applications. Everything else is someone else's responsibility. She feels that there is an impression that the commission is falling down on the job and isn't sure what else to do. Ms. Lee brought up the problem of supervising to make sure projects don't fall through the cracks and wondered who's job it was to make sure it doesn't happen. Mr. Biggs replied by saying that it is the job of the planning department. He understands from background discussions that Bridgeside is operating under a temporary certificate of occupancy. He mentioned the resolution approved by the commission and thought that was wh… | PublicArtCommission/2008-01-09.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2008-01-09.pdf,4 | PublicArtCommission | 2008-01-09 | 4 | be wired for sound and lighting as well as landscaped to provide seating for audiences. She said that it is not an amphitheater and does not allow for proper seating of audience. The programming was also not sufficient. The applicant proposed four events per year and the commission said that was inadequate. She mentioned some of the suggestions from the commission and the resolution was accepted as amended, but they were never detailed. The request for the amended resolution was never provided. The second part was a requirement to put out a sign and there was supposed to be a property manager to allow access to the performance space. She called the number and was given a runaround. Not having the phone number is non-compliance. The number of performances, the diversity and the advertising are all inadequate. Ms. Rosenberg suggested that they re-look at the ordinance pertaining to performance spaces and how it's worded. Mr. Wolfe's recollection of the meeting was a discussion regarding the grading of the performance space. He asked if there are any as-built records of how it was built. Ms. Rosenberg said that however you look at it, it wasn't built to the specifications that the commission approved. Mr. Wolfe said that it may or may not be how it is supposed to be because there is no way to tell from the record. Ms. Huston said that the elevations on the drawings are different from what was actually built. She mentioned the stage and that its not a stage and is flush with the grass. Mr. Wolfe said that it is mounded in the center and is not graded according to the plans. Ms. Huston asked what they want to do about it. They have two choices. One is to make the applicant renegotiate their requirement, hash out a new project or force them to fulfill the existing project. Ms. Rosenberg thinks it is in the best interest to hash out a new project because there are other areas of the shopping center that would be much better for public events. Or they could provide some visual art. Ms. Huston mentioned that the property … | PublicArtCommission/2008-01-09.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2008-01-09.pdf,5 | PublicArtCommission | 2008-01-09 | 5 | Ms. Owen spoke with the property manager and asked if there was lighting and electricity. She was surprised by what it ended up being and decided to move on since it wasn't accommodating. She said that what is there doesn't motivate the Frank Bette Center to participate. Ms. Rosenberg asked if they did any advertising such as banners or newspaper ads. She said that despite the fact that Ms. Owen had no expectation, the commission did have expectations and they were not fulfilled. She said that after reviewing, she isn't sure that it can be what it is supposed to be and wants Bridgeside to come back and submit another project. Mr. Biggs responded by saying that it was his understanding that the amphitheater was constructed as approved. He also said that the tapes requested were not available. Ms. Huston said that the letter that was requested that the information be documented so they could have an enforceable contract. Mr. Biggs said that since it was all new to him, the information that was presented specifically the minutes doesn't talk about the specifics of the programming. Ms. Huston asked about the tapes from the meeting where the conditions were discussed. Mr. Biggs said that he was told that there were no tapes of the meetings. He had minutes from the two meetings where Bridgeside was discussed. Ms. Huston said that they are in non-compliance due to the fact that they failed on diversity, the phone number to call doesn't work, and it doesn't comply with their drawings. Ms. Lee said that this brings up a serious issue regarding taping the meetings. Ms. Rosenberg said that it is the responsibility of the commissioners to speak clearly into the microphones to get good recordings for proper documentation of meetings. Ms. Huston claimed that from the very moment that the application was approved and amended without the details, they were destined for this day. The commission knew that the planning department had approved an application that the commission had rejected. They have been chasing it down ever since… | PublicArtCommission/2008-01-09.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2008-01-09.pdf,6 | PublicArtCommission | 2008-01-09 | 6 | Ms. Huston read the resolution PAC-06-02 for Bridgeside. If planning has not received the schedule, they are in non-compliance. Mr. Biggs said that it was relayed to him that they had not complied with the advertising condition as required. Mr. Wolfe pointed out that the sign was hidden out of view. Ms. Huston was ok with the sign. She moved to find them in non-compliance pending research to find out if the Planning Director has received the programming schedule and to find out if they can find them in non-compliance for the shape of the space. Ms. Rosenberg asked if they could suggest that they move their performance space closer to Nob Hill. She feels it is a much better site. Mr. Biggs stated that due to the process, they couldn't because of the channels that the project had to travel through. Ms. Rosenberg seconded Ms. Huston's motion to find Bridgeside in non-compliance. All were in favor. She would like to agendize the looking at the ordinance pertaining to performance spaces if they cannot properly enforce it. She feels that it is a weak spot in the ordinance. Ms. Huston welcomed Mr. Biggs as the new agenda maker and requested that there be an agenda item reviewing the viability of performance based art and spaces in the public art ordinance. Mr. Wolfe suggested amending the motion to change the wording regarding the shape of the space. He thinks it should address the ground form and grading. Ms. Huston suggested phrasing it very specifically. She would say that they have found the Bridgeside project in non-compliance on several points. One of them is a failure to fulfill the programming requirement both in number of performances, in submission of schedules, and in diversity of performances and advertising and that the physical space is incompatible both with the plans submitted and the use of the space. They would need further research to see if in fact the usability of the space in relation to lights, electricity, and audio equipment further create a non-compliance. They are ok with changing it if need b… | PublicArtCommission/2008-01-09.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2008-01-09.pdf,7 | PublicArtCommission | 2008-01-09 | 7 | Ms. Huston said that it is the responsibility of staff to enforce the changes on applications. 5. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS: Mr. Jon Biggs introduced himself and said he looks forward to working with the commission. Ms. Huston said that over the last six months, there has been difficulty getting the agenda as requested and one of the things that are left off is commissioner comments and wants them put back on for every agenda. She also mentioned the wording of the items and wants them left as the commissioners named them. 6. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 8:20 pm. Respectfully submitted, TM CAN Jon Biggs, Secretary Public Art Commission 7 | PublicArtCommission/2008-01-09.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/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/2019-09-25.pdf,1 | PublicArtCommission | 2019-09-25 | 1 | Final MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC ART COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OF Wednesday, September 25, 2019 COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL 2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 6:00 PM 1. CALL TO ORDER Staff Member Lois Butler called the meeting to order at 6:05pm 2. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Sherman Lewis, Liz Rush, Adam Gillitt, Mark Farrell. Absent: Commissioner Kirstin Van Cleef (excused). Lois Butler (PAC Secretary) and Amanda Gehrke (staff) are present as staff to the Commission. 3. MINUTES 2019-7292 A motion to approve the minutes was made by Commissioner Lewis and seconded by Commissioner Gillitt. The motion carried 4-0. 4. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. 5. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 5-A. 2019-7288 Appreciation for Outgoing Public Art Commission Member. The Public Art Commission will present a Certificate of Appreciation to Outgoing Public Art Commission Chairperson Daniel Hoy. Commission members, Lois Butler and Amanda Gehrke expressed appreciation for Outgoing Public Art Commission Chair Daniel Hoy, and presented him with a Certificate of Appreciation. Daniel Hoy expressed his appreciation for the opportunity to serve, received certificate, and departed meeting. 5-B. 2019-7289 Selection of Chairperson. The Public Art Commission will select a new Chairperson Discussion of end of term for each member: Gillitt in 2020, Farrell in 2021, Lewis in 2020, Rush in 2023, Van Cleef in 2023 Discussion of duties of Chairperson: review agenda previous to meeting, chairs meeting, appoints subcommittees. Commissioner Farrell made a motion to elect Gillitt as Chairperson. Commissioner Lewis seconded. Motion carried 4-0. Chairperson Gillitt assumed role of chairing remainder of meeting. 5-C. 2019-7290 Selection of Vice Chairperson. The Public Art Commission will select a new Vice- Chairperson Commissioner Farrell made a motion to elect Commissioner Rush as Vice Chairperson. Commissioner Lewis seconded. Motion carried 4-0. 5-D. 2019-7287 Public Art Small Grants Pilot Program | PublicArtCommission/2019-09-25.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2019-09-25.pdf,2 | PublicArtCommission | 2019-09-25 | 2 | Minutes of the Public Art Commission Regular Meeting Wednesday, September 25, 2019 Presentation by Staff Member Gehrke of staff report, Public Arts Small Grants Program Description, and Public Art Small Grants Application. Key points of presentation were to keep process simple, explanation of grant brackets, timeline of program, criteria for evaluating applications, makeup of subcommittee, and requirements for recipients. Commissioners asked clarifying questions: Chairperson Gillitt: Can awardees utilize grant money for required business license? Staff Member Butler clarified administrative costs can be included in grant requests. Commissioner Farrell: How are artists required to acknowledge City of Alameda in physical art pieces? Staff Member Gehrke clarified plaque is not required, but City must be acknowledged onsite in some way. Commissioner Farrell: Is City Council approval required? Staff Member Butler clarified it is not, unless artwork is a large piece. Commissioner Farrell: Is there a limit on number of grants per organization? Staff Member Gehrke clarified there should be one grant per event, but consideration will be made for awarding multiple grants per year if multiple events. Vice Chairperson Rush asked about multiple grant amount requests per application. Staff Member Butler recommends that there should be one application per event or physical artwork. Commissioner Farrell raised formatting concern. Staff Member Butler will have application formatting changed to allow editing of draft applications. Commissioner Lewis asked if physical submission of application is required. Staff Member Butler clarified that electronically signed applications are adequate. Commissioner Lewis expressed concern that grant ranges are unclear on application. All agreed to discuss and resolve during discussion. Written Communication was submitted for this item. Commissioner Farrell requested clarification on price of art events. Staff Member Butler clarified that events receiving grant must be free to be in compliance wi… | PublicArtCommission/2019-09-25.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2019-09-25.pdf,3 | PublicArtCommission | 2019-09-25 | 3 | Minutes of the Public Art Commission Regular Meeting Wednesday, September 25, 2019 5-E. 2019-7291 Selection of Regular Meeting Date. The Public Art Commission will select a regular meeting date Staff Member Butler updated commission members that the sunshine ordinance requires meetings be held at regular intervals and location. If schedule changes, cancellation notice must be posted. Additionally, if meeting held outside regular meeting time, it shall be called a Special Meeting. Discussion: best day for and frequency of meeting. All council members approve first or third Monday of the month. Staff members will check city calendar and select best of two options. 5-F. 2019-7286 Eligibility of Upcoming Projects for the Public Art Requirement. Staff to provide the Public Art Commission with a status update on the eligibility of upcoming projects for the Public Art Requirement Staff Member Gehrke provided update on upcoming eligible art projects and grant contributors. Commissioner Farrell asked clarifying question regarding city's approval process for applications. Staff member Butler clarified city evaluates/approves site, public access, and grant amount. Jim Corter, local artist and resident, asked what qualifies as public art. Commissioner clarified what qualifies as art (physical or event), and that developers can either contribute to public art fund or have public art as part of development. 6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS Staff Member Butler introduced new Commissioner Kirstin Van Cleef (absent), has public art experience in Scottsdale, AZ. Introduction and biography to be shared at next meeting. Staff Member Gehrke provided Art In City Hall Program update: very successful, lottery system working well, continue program in 2020. Staff Member Gehrke provided information on California Art Council Grant Program. 7. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None. 8. COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS Clarified that next PAC priority is Ordinance. 9. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Gillitt adjourned the meeting at 7:15pm. Respectfully submitted, Lois Butler, E… | PublicArtCommission/2019-09-25.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2021-12-20.pdf,1 | PublicArtCommission | 2021-12-20 | 1 | Approved MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC ART COMMISSION (PAC) MEETING Monday, December 20, 2021 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Adam Gillitt called the meeting to order at 6:03p.m. 2. ROLL CALL and INTRODUCTIONS 2-A ROLL CALL Present: Chairperson Adam Gillitt, Commissioners Jennifer Hoffecker, Peter Platzgummer, and Robert Ferguson. Absent: Vice Chairperson Liz Rush (excused). Eric Fonstein and Walker Toma present as staff to the Commission. 3. MINUTES 2021-1581 Review and Approve November 10, 2021 Draft PAC Minutes A motion to approve the minutes was made by Commissioner Ferguson and seconded by Commissioner Platzgummer. Ayes: Chairperson Gillitt, Commissioners Hoffecker, Platzgummer and Ferguson. Nays: none. 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. 5. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 5-A 2021-1582 Recommendation to Review the Public Art Commission Meeting Calendar for Possible Conflicts that Inhibit Maximum Public Participation Staff member Toma presented a review of the 2022 dates for regular PAC meetings, identified a possible conflict of February 21 (Federal holiday Presidents Day) that could inhibit maximum public participation, and recommended two possible alternate meeting dates of February 22 or March 7. Commissioners briefly discussed the options. A motion to approve the proposed regular meeting dates for 2022, which included a meeting date of February 22, 2022, was made by Commissioner Platzgummer and seconded by Chairperson Gillitt. Ayes: Chairperson Gillitt, Commissioners Hoffecker, Platzgummer, and Ferguson. Nays: none. The motion carried 4-0. 5-B 2021-1584 Status Update on the Eligibility of Upcoming Projects for the Public Art Requirement Staff member Toma provided an update on recent and upcoming physical public art projects, as well as an overview of the 2020-2021 biennial report for the Public | PublicArtCommission/2021-12-20.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2021-12-20.pdf,2 | PublicArtCommission | 2021-12-20 | 2 | Minutes of the Public Art Commission Monday, December 20, 2021 Art Fund. In total sixteen public art small grants were awaded, the PAC approved four on-site physical art pieces, and four existing on-site physical art pieces have been installed or are close to installation. Based on direction from the Commission, a consultant has been selected by RFP to begin work on the Public Art Master Plan in early 2022, and applications for a second round of public art small grants will be opened in the second half of 2022. Mr. Toma answered clarifying questions and invited commissioner discussion. Commissioners discussed. On the upcoming physical public art project list, Commissioner Platzgummer requested a column that specifies if a project will be on site or contribute to the in-lieu fund, and suggested large-scale developers be offered the option to split contribution between onsite and in-lieu. Chairperson Gillitt requested clarification on the status of upcoming projects, and at what point items will be removed from the pending public art list. Mr. Toma offered to follow up at the next meeting with more information. 5-C 2021-1584 Accept an Update on Adopted Citywide Text Amendments to the City of Alameda Zoning Ordinance (AMC Chapter 30) to Modify Public Art Requirements Staff member Toma provided a brief overview of the history of the City of Alameda Zoning Ordinance, and the proposed language amendments that had been submitted to the Planning Board for feedback, and then presented to City Council. Mr. Toma shared the proposed edits provided by the Planning Board, as well as changes that were made by City Council on the dais. Mr. Toma answered clarifying questions. Commissioners discussed amended language. Chairperson Gillitt asked for clarification on the impact of the phrase "shall be prioritized for public art on public property" added by the Planning Board to section 30-98.10a4 of the ordinance. Mr. Toma offered to get clarification to be shared at the next PAC meeting. In discussion, Commissioner Ferguson offered … | PublicArtCommission/2021-12-20.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2021-12-20.pdf,3 | PublicArtCommission | 2021-12-20 | 3 | Minutes of the Public Art Commission Monday, December 20, 2021 None. 8. COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA None. 9. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Commissioner Platzgummer reminded the Commission of an email request by a member of the public for additional funds to expand the Cruisin' Alameda mural, located a the corner of Webster Street and Atlantic Avenue. Mr. Toma offered to provide public art small grant information to the individual. 10. ADJOURNMENT Chairperson Gillitt adjourned the meeting at 7:07pm. Respectfully submitted, Lois Butler Economic Development Manager Secretary, Public Art Commission 3 | PublicArtCommission/2021-12-20.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/2020-06-15.pdf,1 | PublicArtCommission | 2020-06-15 | 1 | Draft MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC ART COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING Tuesday, June 15, 2020 1. CALL TO ORDER Vice Chairperson Liz Rush called the meeting to order at 6:02pm. 2. ROLL CALL Present: Vice Chairperson Liz Rush, Commissioners Mark Farrell and Kirstin Van Cleef. Absent: Chairperson Adam Gillitt (excused), Commissioner Sherman Lewis (unexcused). Lois Butler (PAC Secretary), Amanda Gehrke and Yael Schy present as staff to the Commission. 3. MINUTES 3-A. 2020-8060 Review and Approve Draft Minutes of March 10, 2020 Commissioner Farrell requested correction to minutes to include clarification that Commissioner Farrell offered to research alternative mural locations. A motion to approve corrected minutes made by Commissioner Van Cleef and seconded by Commissioner Farrell. Ayes: Vice Chairperson Rush, Commissioners Van Cleef and Farrell. Nays: none. The motion carried 3-0. 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. 5. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 5-A. 2020-8061 Recommendation to Review and Approve the List of Public Art Small Grants Pilot Program Award Recipients Staff Member Schy provided an overview of the Public Art Small Grant Pilot Program, application review criteria, and the selected recommendations that came from the April 29, 2020 subcommittee meeting. She explained that the subcommittee was composed of two members of the PAC (Vice Chairperson Rush and Commissioner Van Cleef) and Staff Member Gehrke. Schy welcomed comments and answered any questions. Public Speaker Patti Cary described the value of the Haunt Your House contest, its historical influence on Alameda being renowned for its Halloween Events, and requested that PAC and the City support this artistic event, particularly as it encourages those who may be budding artists. Commissioners discussed recommendations. Council Member Farrell raised concerns about the Alameda Haunt Your House program and | PublicArtCommission/2020-06-15.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2020-06-15.pdf,2 | PublicArtCommission | 2020-06-15 | 2 | Minutes of the Public Art Commission Meeting Monday, June 15, 2020 whether it constitutes a public art event that should be funded by the City. Commissioner Farrell requested clarification on the types of prizes given for the event and if any of the prizes were cash. Staff Member Shye read an excerpt from the application explaining that the funds will be used "exclusively for promotional, website and social media design, supplies and award purposes." Commissioner Farrell maintained his concern that cash might be given to the awardees, which he considered to be a misuse of public art funds. Commissioner Farrell also raised logistical concern about the Words that Made the Difference: Brown vs. Board of Education proposed event. A motion to approve all recommendations for the public arts small grants pilot program award recipients was made by Commissioner Van Cleef and seconded by Vice Chairperson Rush. Commissioner Farrell made an amended motion to approve all recommendations excluding the Alameda Haunt Your House application. Commissioner Van Cleef moved to accept the amended motion. Vice Chairperson Rush seconded the amended motion. Ayes: Commissioners Farrell and Van Cleef, Vice Chairperson Rush. Nays: none. The amended motion passed 3-0. Commissioner Van Cleef made a motion to pass the small grant recommendation for the Alameda Haunt Your House application. Seconded by Vice Chairperson Rush. Ayes: Commissioner Van Cleef and Vice Chairperson Rush. Nays: Commissioner Farrell. The motion passed 2-1. Staff Member Butler offered to clarify at the next regular meeting if a PAC motion needs 3 ayes to pass. 5-B. 2020-8062 Recommendation to: 1) Relocate the Dan Fontes Mural to the McKinley Park Recreation Center and 2) Approve Adding $1,500 to the Grant Amount (for a total of $14,000), to Cover the Costs of a New Design Staff Member Gehrke presented a short report reviewing the Dan Fontes Mural award, the ongoing efforts to find an alternate location and need for mural redesign due to relocation. At the time of the staf… | PublicArtCommission/2020-06-15.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2020-06-15.pdf,3 | PublicArtCommission | 2020-06-15 | 3 | Minutes of the Public Art Commission Meeting Monday, June 15, 2020 Commissioners, Fontes, and Gehrke discussed visibility, accessibility, and funding needed for Blanding and Park St locations. Staff Member Butler offered to research traffic flow for both locations. Vice Chairperson Rush made a motion to explore Blanding and Park St locations as a mural site while maintaining McKinley Park as an alternate mural site, and to discuss increasing the grant amount due to project delays. Seconded by Commissioner Farrell. Ayes: Vice Chairperson Rush, Commissioners Van Cleef and Farrell. Nays: none. The motion carried 3-0. 5-C. 2020-8063 Eligibility Status of Upcoming Projects for the Public Art Requirement Staff Member Gehrke provided an update of upcoming projects for the Public Art Requirement. There were no clarifying questions, speakers, or discussion. 6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS Staff Member Butler clarified that PAC can research and provide recommendations regarding AB5 to the City Council. Commissioners discussed tabling this until a later date. Staff Members Butler and Gehrke confirmed that staff will provide updates on the Public Art Ordinance at the next regular PAC meeting, and confirmed the three areas of additional research that are needed: allowing Public Art Consultant fees to be paid out of the fund, dedicating a portion of the fund to public art maintenance, and adjusting the contribution percentages for residential and commercial contributors. 7. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None. 8. COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA Commissioners expressed a desire to discuss the creation of a statement and possible actionable items regarding support of artists of color and/or the Black Lives Matter movement. Discussion will be added to the agenda for the next meeting. Staff Member Butler clarified that the next meeting will be a special meeting in early July. Commissioner Farrell raised concerns regarding using the Zoom platform. 9. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Staff Member Schy raised the possibility of preserving the artwork on pl… | PublicArtCommission/2020-06-15.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2020-06-15.pdf,4 | PublicArtCommission | 2020-06-15 | 4 | Minutes of the Public Art Commission Meeting Monday, June 15, 2020 10.ADJOURNMENT Vice Chairperson Rush adjourned the meeting at 7:46pm. Respectfully submitted, Lois Butler Economic Development Manager Secretary Public Art Commission 4 | PublicArtCommission/2020-06-15.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2018-12-10.pdf,1 | PublicArtCommission | 2018-12-10 | 1 | MEETING MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA PUBLIC ART COMMISSION Monday December 10, 2018, 6:00PM CALL TO ORDER Chairman Daniel Hoy called the meeting to order at 6:02 PM. 1. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Daniel Hoy, Commissioner Mark Farrell, Commissioner Adam Gillitt, Commissioner Sherman Lewis, and Commissioner Liz Rush. Lois Butler (PAC secretary), Amanda Gehrke (staff) are present as staff to the Commission. 2. MINUTES It was moved to accept the October 15, 2018 minutes. Commissioner seconded the motion. The minutes were approved 5-0. 3. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. 4. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 4-A 2018-6295 Award of 2018 Cultural Art and Arts Programming Grants. The Public Art Commission will hold a public meeting to review Cultural Arts and Arts Programming proposals and award grant funding. The evaluation of proposals is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act. Amanda Gehrke, Economic Development Division staff gave an overview of the item. Commissioners asked clarifying questions. Member of the public gave comment. Commissioners discussed the item. Commissioner Gillet moved to forward the Commission's recommendation to City Council. Commissioner Farrell seconded. The motion was approved 5-0. 2018-6297 Status Update on Location for Bronze Squid. Staff to provide the Public Art Commission with a status update on the location for the Bronze Squid artwork. Ms. Gehrke provided a status update on the location of the bronze squid. Draft Meeting Minutes 1 of 2 Public Art Commission December 10, 2018 | PublicArtCommission/2018-12-10.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2018-12-10.pdf,2 | PublicArtCommission | 2018-12-10 | 2 | Commissioners asked clarifying questions. Members of the public gave comment. Commissioners discussed the item. 2018-6298 Eligibility of Upcoming Projects for the Public Art Requirement. Staff to provide the Public Art Commission with a status update on the eligibility of upcoming projects for the Public Art Requirement Ms. Gehrke provided a status update on the eligibility of upcoming projects for the public art requirement. 5. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS 6. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS No written communications. 7. COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS No commissioner communications. 8. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Hoy adjourned the meeting at 7:03 PM. Draft Meeting Minutes 2 of 2 Public Art Commission December 10, 2018 | PublicArtCommission/2018-12-10.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2018-01-03.pdf,1 | PublicArtCommission | 2018-01-03 | 1 | APPROVED MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA PUBLIC ART COMMISSION Wednesday, January 3, 2018 6:00PM 1. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Daniel Hoy, Mark Farrell, Adam Gillitt 2. MINUTES Approved. Motion made by Adam Gillitt and seconded by Mark Farrell 2nd. The motion carried, 3-0. 3. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. 4. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 4-A 2017-5039: Public Art Selection Panels. A request to appoint members to the Ad Hoc Public Art Commission Committees. Ms. Amanda Gehrke, Economic Development staff, gave a presentation on the proposal evaluation process and the role of the selection panel. Ms. Gehrke explained that there will be two selection panels, one for Cultural Arts and Arts Programming and the other for Physical Art, and both will have five members: two from the Public Arts Commission and three will be outside members. Ms. Gehrke then explained the process for recommending the outside members, gave a short background for each of the recommended panelists, and asked for the PAC to appoint the recommended panelists to the selections panel. Ms. Gehrke also asked for approval a change to the Cultural Arts' selection panel: removing Commissioner Brandy Graham and adding Commissioner Mark Farrell, per Commissioner Graham's request. Following Ms. Gehrke's presentation to Commissioners there were follow-up questions and answers Commissioner asked: Where will the finalists be displayed? Ms. Gehrke responded that the location is still to be determined. Commissioner asked: Do all six panel members live in Alameda? Ms. Gehrke responded that all but one of the recommended panelists live in Alameda. Commissioner Gillitt asked if there will be 3 finalist per funding level? Ms. Gehrke responded that yes, there would be 3 finalists per funding level. Page 1 of 2 DRAFT MINUTES PUBLIC ART COMMISSION January 3, 2018 | PublicArtCommission/2018-01-03.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2018-01-03.pdf,2 | PublicArtCommission | 2018-01-03 | 2 | Public Speaker(s): Brett Pedersen, a local resident and artist expressed support for the program and offered support in assisting in some fashion. Public Comments closed Commissioner Gillitt made a motion to appoint the recommended panelists, including the appointment of Commissioner Farrell to the Cultural Arts panel to replace Commissioner Graham. Commissioner Farrell seconded the motion. The motion carried 3-0. 4-B 2017-5051: Staff Presentation on Repairing Alameda's Aging Infrastructure and Related Survey Lois Butler, Economic Development Manager, began by asking if the panel if they've taken the infrastructure survey and asked about familiarity of the survey. All members were aware of the survey. She explained that the survey tool and the presentation is online to view. 5. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS Ms. Butler stated she is the new secretary as of this meeting 6. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Ms. Butler stated there was written communication via email about the Buena Vista Avenue Public Art. 7. COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS Chairman Daniel Hoy thanked Mark Farrell for being there. 8. ADJOURNMENT Page 2 of 2 DRAFT MINUTES PUBLIC ART COMMISSION January 3, 2018 | PublicArtCommission/2018-01-03.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/2022-06-27.pdf,1 | PublicArtCommission | 2022-06-27 | 1 | APPROVED MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC ART COMMISSION (PAC) SPECIAL MEETING Monday, June 27, 2022 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Adam Gillitt called the meeting to order at 6:03pm and because the recording was not started, staff started the recording, and Chairperson Gillitt started the meeting over and called the meeting to order at 6:06 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Present: Chairperson Adam Gillitt, Vice Chairperson Liz Rush, Commissioners Jennifer Hoffecker, Peter Platzgummer, and Robert Ferguson. Absent: none. Lois Butler and Walker Toma present as staff to the Commission. 3. MINUTES 2022-2158 Review and Approve Draft May 16, 2022 PAC Minutes Chairperson Gillitt requested a motion to approve the minutes. After discussion the motion was postponed to the next meeting to allow additional time for commissioners to review the draft minutes. 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. 5. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 5-A. 2022-2159 Presentation by Forecast Public Art on Public Art Master Plan Process Staff member Walker Toma welcomed Forecast Public Art (Forecast), a consultant firm hired through an RFP process to produce Alameda's Public Art Master Plan and explained to the Commission and the public that there would be multiple opportunities for public comment during the presentation. Jen Krava, Director of Programming and New Initiatives at Forecast, shared Forecast's mission to activate, inspire, and advocate for public art that advance justice, health and human dignity by 1) supporting, funding, and training artists who work in the public realm, 2) partnering and consulting on public art and creative placemaking projects, and 3) building local capacity, gathering stories, and sharing research. The Forecast team members facilitating the Public Art Master Plan process for the City of Alameda introduced themselves as: | PublicArtCommission/2022-06-27.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2022-06-27.pdf,2 | PublicArtCommission | 2022-06-27 | 2 | Minutes of the Public Art Commission Monday, June 27, 2022 Jen Krava, Director of Programming Mark Salinas, Senior Project Manager Yarlyn Rosario, Project Manager Mallory Rukhsana Nezam, Consultant Yolanda Cotton Turner, Local Artist Consultant Rukhsana Nezam explained the Group Agreements for the evening's facilitation process, and shared Forecast's Master Plan timeline and engagement plan. After defining Public Art in general, including common locations, sample funding models, and a presentation of the wide variety of existing public art, Forecast facilitated an exercise to gather input for the definition of Public Art specific to the process of developing the Public Art Master plan for the City of Alameda. Questions and a summary of responses are as follows: Where should Public Art be located (concentrated or spread out)? Throughout Alameda; very publicly accessible; the diversity of opportunities within a variety of neighborhoods; art is missing from shoreline and other high-traffic key destination areas: difficult to locate existing public art; continue to expand artwork beyond nautical-theme; historical challenges has been finding sites and working with City to get approval for public art sites; and the importance of equitable distribution. How long should Public Art be installed? Program should support both performance and temporary physical art (temporary) as well as permanent pieces like sculpture (permanent); allow artwork to be deaccessioned so that artwork can represent a diversity of artists instead of the historical precedent of white male artists; increased cost of maintaining long term art pieces takes funding away from new artwork; temporary art can be placed in more locations; set term limits for art which allows a living-gallery feel and fresh art; civic buildings and garages might be a good fit for murals or light installations; Alameda has had no audio installations; and keep art permanently, but move art from key places to allow new art. Should the aesthetics and content of public art be mor… | PublicArtCommission/2022-06-27.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2022-06-27.pdf,3 | PublicArtCommission | 2022-06-27 | 3 | Minutes of the Public Art Commission Monday, June 27, 2022 To what extent should the public art be static or interactive? Important to have some art that can be experienced by all senses and allows people to be involved in the art; Alameda has too much static art; interactive art is more memorable, permanent interactive installations can have higher maintenance expenses depending on the material. Should the artwork be created by local or global artists? Currently preference is given to local artists, however certain sites would be best served by artists outside of the area; miss talent of regional/national/global artists if only supporting local artists; local cost of living prohibits many artists from living locally; the rich diversity of artists attempting to stay local should be supported; has been difficult to reach all local artists with RFP information as well as inform public about public art; private art galleries support regional/national/globa artist of notoriety - save Public Art funds for local artists, however preference to ex-local artists too; multiple factors (like artists availability, marketing of RFP/RFQ, cost of materials, site specific needs) contribute to which artist might best fit - so it's a balance of attracting artists from outside the area and supporting local artists. Staff member Toma opened the floor for public comment: Resident Pat Atkinson offered that location does not need to be either completely spread out or totally concentrated, temporary art allows more community involvement, a sculpture garden by the Seaplane Lagoon ferry terminal would welcome visitors, popup art installations could be placed throughout the city and in public parks, Rhythmix Cultural Works has been very successful at producing art experiences that are a combination of visual and performing arts, mapping existing public art would be helpful in driving the Public Art Master Plan. Tina Blaine, Executive Director of Rhythimix Cultural Works, made the suggestion to perform a survey of existing public art curate… | PublicArtCommission/2022-06-27.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2022-06-27.pdf,4 | PublicArtCommission | 2022-06-27 | 4 | Minutes of the Public Art Commission Monday, June 27, 2022 equity that fits the community of Alameda; and that demonstrates that art is Alameda's long-term priority. Forecast shared next steps, including planned surveys, community engagement pop-ups, presentations, one-on-one interviews, focus groups, and facilitated workshops, with the goal of creating an visionary plan that contains actionable, immediately implementable, and modifiable processes, and includes creative input from the a diversity of voices within the larger community. Local artist and consultant with Forecast, Yolanda Cotton Turner, informed the PAC and public that she will be facilitating the first pop-up event at the Alameda Summer Art Fair, on July 3, 2022 from 11am-3pm. More information is available at www.alamedaartfair.com. Ms. Krava shared that the one-on-one interviews are designed to focus on understanding and improving City processes for public art approval, and Mr. Salinas shared that the focus groups aim to gather insight from those within the arts and culture community as well as the larger community. Chairperson Gillitt expressed his appreciation for Forecast's presentation. 6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS Staff member Toma provided the following updates: the Alameda Marina LandSea Homes recently fulfilled their contribution to Public Art via an approximately $250,000 in lieu contribution to the Public Art Fund; fabrication has been completed for the "Beken" sculpture, with an estimated installation of August 2022 at the Waterfront Park sculpture; and the July PAC Special Meeting will be postponed to allow time to prepare and present RFP Cultural Art applications to the PAC. Chairperson Gillett asked how many submissions have been received to date. Secretary Butler advised that sharing submission information before the close of the RFP may not be allowed, and offered to research and provide clarification on this at the next PAC meeting. 7. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None. 8. COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA Chairperson Gillett shared tha… | PublicArtCommission/2022-06-27.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2022-06-27.pdf,5 | PublicArtCommission | 2022-06-27 | 5 | Minutes of the Public Art Commission Monday, June 27, 2022 Commissioner Ferguson asked for clarification about receiving requests from the public to notify the PAC and public about upcoming public art, which Ms. Butler offered to provide. 9. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. 10. ADJOURNMENT: Chairperson Gillitt adjourned the meeting at 8:12p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lois Butler Economic Development Manager Secretary, Public Art Commission 5 | PublicArtCommission/2022-06-27.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/2019-05-29.pdf,1 | PublicArtCommission | 2019-05-29 | 1 | PUBLIC ART COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING, WEDNESDAY, MAY 29, 2019 ROOM #201, CITY HALL WEST 950 WEST MALL SQUARE - 6:00 PM MINUTES CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Daniel Hoy called the meeting to order at 6:05 PM. 1. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Commissioner Mark Farrell, Commissioner Adam Gillitt, Commissioner Sherman Lewis, Chairperson Daniel Hoy ABSENT: Commissioner Liz Rush STAFF PRESENT: Economic Development Manager Lois Butler and Economic Development Analyst Amanda Gehrke 2. MINUTES: A motion to approve the minutes was made by Commissioner Gillitt and seconded by Commissioner Lewis. The motion carried 4-0. 3. ORAL COMMUNICATION: None 4. REGULAR AGENDA: Item 4A - 2019-6954: Recommendation to Establish a Small Grants Program for Cultural Arts Clarifying questions: Commissioner Farrell: Did we decided that it would just be cultural arts? Butler: Does it say just cultural arts? Commissioner Farrell: Would that include a mural? Butler: We can save that for discussion. Commissioner Farrell: Does the money have to go to a program or something that is free for the public? With AMP that is not the case. | PublicArtCommission/2019-05-29.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2019-05-29.pdf,2 | PublicArtCommission | 2019-05-29 | 2 | Minutes of the Public Art Commission Regular Meeting Wednesday, May 29, 2019 Butler: We should discuss that during discussions. Chairperson Hoy: Remind us where we are with the budget? Butler: We have about $41,000 for cultural arts. Commissioner Hoy: So we are already at the limit? Butler: We have more for physical arts. Chairperson Hoy: Would these small grants not allow someone to pursue the larger grants? Butler: I think they would be able to pursue the larger grants. Chairperson Hoy: What about operating expenses? I know we have them with the big grants but would any allowances be allowed for the smaller grants? For expenses in the grants? Butler: That's a discussion question. Chairperson Hoy: Would organizations outside of Alameda be allowed to apply as they were doing a piece in Alameda? Butler: I don't think we could discriminate. We could say it has to take place in Alameda, but I don't think we can discriminate as to where the business is located. Commissioner Farrell: Are the 20 grants per year 20 applications you'll receive per year or 20 to dole out? Butler: 20 to dole out. Commissioner Lewis: What is the enforcement mechanism for that? Or is that a discussion question? Butler: That's a discussion question, I don't think Chairperson Hoy was finished. Chairperson Hoy: Could these grants be part of a larger application? If someone was trying to check off a bunch of small grants for the county or state. Could this be used for that? Butler: For leverage? Yes. Chairperson Hoy: For any purpose. We're not going to say you are applying for too many grants. 2 | PublicArtCommission/2019-05-29.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2019-05-29.pdf,3 | PublicArtCommission | 2019-05-29 | 3 | Minutes of the Public Art Commission Regular Meeting Wednesday, May 29, 2019 Butler: It's always better to have more grants, and from different sources. Chairperson Hoy: And would it have the same guidelines as our larger grant process in regards to who can apply? If you were a school or a religious organization. Is it the same guidelines for our existing cultural program applicants? Same regulations for the small grants? Butler: No, no, that's a discussion question, but to clarify our thoughts would be that the 2 page application would be an application and in this meeting we would discuss what the criteria would be for these small grants. They would be completely different than the larger ones. Chairperson Hoy: Ok, so we can discuss if schools or religious organization would be allowed to apply. Butler: Yes we can talk about who would be eligible. Chairperson Hoy: Such as 501 C3's Butler: Yes Chairperson Hoy: Is there anywhere in this verbiage that I didn't see that says alright we have done the pilot program, what's the process for an ongoing program after next year. Butler: I would think that after one year if the pilot works we would go forward with an annual program, funds allowing. Chairperson Hoy: So we wouldn't need to come back to this body for any revisions or revisiting what worked or didn't work. Butler: We can discuss that. Commissioner Farrell: Technical question: The downloadable application, will it be something they have to print out and fill in or something they can type into and print out. Butler: Hopefully we can generate a form that they can fill in. Commissioner Gillitt: I believe my question will fall under the actual discussion, but I was just going to ask for a clarifying question about the actual number amounts for funding. Are those set or is that something we will be discussing? Butler: That's something we can discuss, that was our recommendation. Lois Butler asks if there are any more clarifying questions. 3 | PublicArtCommission/2019-05-29.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2019-05-29.pdf,4 | PublicArtCommission | 2019-05-29 | 4 | Minutes of the Public Art Commission Regular Meeting Wednesday, May 29, 2019 Public Speaker Addressing Item 4-A: Dan Fontes: I'm a public artist, been doing murals for 30 something years. Number 1, when people send in applications sometimes there's a jury and the jury will rank each application for a certain score and that score will rank them for a certain hierarchy. I thought that might be an interesting discussion or something to consider so you have some type of criteria and some sort of justification for granting funds - it's how other cities do it. 2nd just wanted to say I'm really glad there are grants like these, its makes the public artist job a lot easier. 3rd, have you considered the demographics of the community, I'm sure that will be addressed. Thank you all for your service. Lois Butler says if there are no more speakers we will move onto the discussion. Public Comments Closed Discussion on 4-A: Commissioner Lewis: We have a requirement for each recipient to provide a summary, how do we enforce that? How do we make sure that get done? Butler: What we want to discuss with you all today is how we put this program together. What are the grant amounts? Do we want to deal with odd amounts? (Ex: $545.75) What are the grant increments that we want to give out? Are we recommending between $500-$2,000? Or do you want to do something different? Maybe something more or less? We also want to include a Hold Harmless Clause in the application process. We are going to want their W-9 up front to cut down on the process time to streamline the process. We have to look into whether they need a business license or not, if so that will need to be factored into the amount since the grant is so small. Who to make the check out to. Gehrke addressed some of the concerns about cultural vs. visual arts. There will be someone who will be doing administrative work with the grantees, communicating with them and making sure they turn in their summaries and evaluations. Butler clarified that it would probably be part-time staff wo… | PublicArtCommission/2019-05-29.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2019-05-29.pdf,5 | PublicArtCommission | 2019-05-29 | 5 | Minutes of the Public Art Commission Regular Meeting Wednesday, May 29, 2019 Commissioner Farrell indicated that he would recommend different amounts, $250-$1,000, anything below $250 might not be helpful. He also questioned why the city wasn't using AMP's (Alameda Municipal Power) already existing 1 page application as a template. Gehrke said, additional information was needed making it more than one page. Butler called for a short break to print out copies of the AMP Sponsorship Application. Gehrke hands out the AMP Sponsorship Application. It was stated by Commissioner Gillitt that this was just for events, AMP doesn't sponsor any kind of physical art. Gehrke agreed that was her understanding. Commissioner Gillitt then wanted to know how we will distinguish between cultural and physical arts. Would this program cover physical? How do you compare the two? Butler then explained how the funds are divided. There is $15,000 in each fund, up to $15,000 with a max of 20 grants (Administrative time is a factor in this) it doesn't matter which one you pick. No more than 20 small grants will be given out, if you make the amounts too small you run the risk of hitting the 20 grant mark before the $15,000. Commissioner Farrell brought up that $2,000 feels like a lot to give out for requiring much less process than for the larger grant process. Butler explained that it would be self-evident, some organizations that are more established that have applied for grants before will have that history and for other organizations more information might be required. She then brought up that the Commission needed to make a decision on whether both profit and nonprofit organizations would be eligible. Commissioner Farrell wanted to know if the public had requested any certain grant amounts. Butler said there were no strong recommendations for small grants. Concern was mentioned that everyone would just apply for the highest amount ($2,000). Chairperson Hoy wanted to make sure it wasn't a first come first served situation. Butler explai… | PublicArtCommission/2019-05-29.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2019-05-29.pdf,6 | PublicArtCommission | 2019-05-29 | 6 | Minutes of the Public Art Commission Regular Meeting Wednesday, May 29, 2019 Butler brought up that this would be a big demand on staff's time. By really structuring the process, it would help direct people applying. She recommended that there be slots per amount. Commissioner Gillitt wanted to know if there would be slots between physical and cultural arts. Butler said that's a decision that would be made here. Commissioner Gillitt then opened the question up the public, the muralist in attendance "What can you do with $2,000?" Dan Fontes stated you can do a bit if you are very smart with your money. It could be difficult, then he talked about all the things that factor into and artist budget. Commissioner Gillitt said it sounded like it wouldn't do very much and sounded more like a stepping stone. It was agreed that this is the point of a small grants program. To help with larger projects/budgets. Chairperson Hoy said it would be insulting to think the small grants program would fund a project in its entirety. Gehrke added that it would also be helpful for those small organizations to build a track record of approved grants. It could be the seed money to get a project started. Commissioner Farrell: Would the project be free to the public, either cultural or physical arts? Gehrke: Yes, based on the ordinance. Commissioner Farrell: We would just say "Small Grants Program for Public Art.' Gehrke: It has be accessible to the public, has to be outside or visible from a public area. Butler: Limited advertisement is okay with the smaller grants. As long as everyone can come, there can't be any restrictions. Can be combined with the Façade Grant Program. Commissioner Lewis (?) 22:12 asked if this could be used for neon signs around town. Butler said that would be a stretch and brought up that's what the Façade Grant Program if for. Commissioner Farrell asked if For Profit Entities could apply. Gehrke recommended that entities do not have to be nonprofit due to all the extra paperwork required. 6 | PublicArtCommission/2019-05-29.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2019-05-29.pdf,7 | PublicArtCommission | 2019-05-29 | 7 | Minutes of the Public Art Commission Regular Meeting Wednesday, May 29, 2019 Everyone was in agreement that both Profit and Non Profit should be allowed to participate in the small grants program. Commissioner Farrell wanted detail on the two month application period time. Gehrke: During those two months is when people would be able to apply, after set end date the evaluation process would begin. Butler: Yes and they would have to spend the within a year after it is awarded. Grant amounts were discussed. The Commission recommended: $250-500 $501-750 $751-1,000 $1,001-1500 $1,501-2000 The Commission also recommended that there be wording in the application that encourage people to apply for smaller grants. Also that this is a Pilot Program and things can change. Evaluation Criteria/Process was discussed. The Commission is interested in knowing: Artist Merit Accessibility What Community is represented? What community is served? Must be in Alameda Requirements and Questions Image of event or piece Our Logo needs to be attached to marketing/social media Have you received a grant before? What's your mission statement? Need location approval (physical) What materials will be used? (physical) Subcommittee will be two Commissioners and one staff member (not Lois maybe Amanda) Butler and Gehrke gave their timeline for the Small Grants program. Applications open my January 5th 2020, awarded by the end of April 2020, and installations and events by March/April of 2021. 7 | PublicArtCommission/2019-05-29.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2019-05-29.pdf,8 | PublicArtCommission | 2019-05-29 | 8 | Minutes of the Public Art Commission Regular Meeting Wednesday, May 29, 2019 5. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS: Butler: City Clerk is accepting applications for open seats on the Commission, Commissioner Rush and Chairperson Hoy's terms are ending. Commissioner Rush would like to be reinstated. During the next Election a Vice Chairperson will need to be chosen. 6. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None. 7. COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS: None. 8. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 8:30pm. Respectfully submitted, Lois Butler, Economic Development Manager Secretary Public Art Commission 8 | PublicArtCommission/2019-05-29.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/2006-01-25.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/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/2020-07-09.pdf,1 | PublicArtCommission | 2020-07-09 | 1 | Final MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC ART COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, July 9, 2020 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Adam Gillitt called the meeting to order at 6:02pm. 2. ROLL CALL Present: Chairperson Adam Gillitt, Vice Chairperson Liz Rush, Commissioners Mark Farrell and Sherman Lewis. Absent: Commissioner Van Cleef (unexcused). Lois Butler (PAC Secretary) and Amanda Gehrke present as staff to the Commission. 3. MINUTES 3-A. 2020-8154 Review and Approve Draft Minutes PAC June 15, 2020 Commissioner Farrell requested correction to minutes regarding item 5-A to include his request for clarification if the Alameda Haunt Your House applicant intended to use grant funds for cash prizes. Commissioner Farrell asserted this question remains unanswered. A motion to approve corrected minutes made by Commissioner Farrell and seconded by Vice Chairperson Rush. Ayes: Chairperson Gillitt, Vice Chairperson Rush, Commissioners Lewis and Farrell. Nays: none. The motion carried 4-0. 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. 5. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 5-A. 2020-8061 Recommendation to Review and Approve the "Haunt Your House" Application to the Public Art Small Grants Pilot Program Staff Member Butler clarified that since a quorum had not be reached with the last vote on this item, a vote is needed at this meeting. Butler provided a brief review of the report and explained that the 15 public comments submitted pertaining to this agenda item were accessible for review via the links provided in the published meeting agenda. Butler welcomed comments and questions. Commissioner Farrell asked for clarification if any cash prizes were to be given. Staff Member Gehrke clarified that no cash prizes will be given according to an email statement submitted by the applicant. Gehrke read into record the first three minutes of Public Comment 11 that expressed the view that AHYH is community oriented and artistic in nature. Commissioners briefly discussed the recommendation. | PublicArtCommission/2020-07-09.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2020-07-09.pdf,2 | PublicArtCommission | 2020-07-09 | 2 | Minutes of the Public Art Commission Thursday, July 9, 2020 A motion to approve the "Haunt Your House" application to the Public Art Small Grants Pilot Program was made by Commissioner Farrell and seconded by Commissioner Lewis. Ayes: Chairperson Gillitt, Vice Chairperson Rush, Commissioners Lewis and Farrell. Nays: none. The motion carried 4-0. 5-B. 2020-8155 Recommendation to Approve the Attached Resolution and Conditions Approving the "Beken" Public Art Proposal Staff Member Gehrke presented the Beken Public Art Proposal for the Waterfront Park, including redesign of the base cell sizes in response to perceived safety concerns raised by both the Recreation and Park Commission and an inter-departmental design review team. Gehrke reviewed evaluation criteria, and stated that staff believe the piece to satisfy all criteria. Artist Dewitt Godfrey provided an introduction to the proposed "Beken" sculpture and explained his inspiration for the piece, including design modifications that have been made, and expressed his excitement to build at this site. Gehrke welcomed comments and Gehrke and Godfrey answered questions. Public Speaker Rachel Campos expressed her support for the design process and resulting piece, as it is eye-catching, has good scale for the location, and reflects historical aspects of the site. Commissioners, Godfrey, and Gehrke discussed visibility, proposed sculpture material, lighting, design elements and modifications, and location in relation to other public art pieces at Alameda Point. A motion to approve the "Beken" Public Art Proposal was made by Vice Chairperson Rush and seconded by Commissioner Lewis. Ayes: Chairperson Gillitt, Vice Chairperson Rush, Commissioners Lewis and Farrell. Nays: none. The motion carried 4-0. 6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS None. 7. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None. 8. COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA Chairperson Gillitt clarified that the City Council is discussing and taking action on police reform and the Black Lives Matter movement. Commissioners could join in suppo… | PublicArtCommission/2020-07-09.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2020-07-09.pdf,3 | PublicArtCommission | 2020-07-09 | 3 | Minutes of the Public Art Commission Thursday, July 9, 2020 Ashcraft and Vice Mayor Knox-White. Commission agreed to table further discussion until City Council has taken action on this item. Commissioner Farrell requested that the public be made aware of the subcommittee application review process. Staff Member Butler offered to provide Public Art grants applications for future agenda items brought forward by subcommittee to the PAC. 9. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. 10. .ADJOURNMENT Chairperson Gillitt adjourned the meeting at 6:56pm. Respectfully submitted, Lois Butler Economic Development Manager Secretary Public Art Commission 3 | PublicArtCommission/2020-07-09.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2018-02-28.pdf,1 | PublicArtCommission | 2018-02-28 | 1 | MEETING MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA PUBLIC ART COMMISSION Wednesday, February 28, 2018, 6:00PM CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Daniel Hoy called the meeting to order. 1. ROLL CALL Present: Chairperson Daniel Hoy, Commissioner Mark Farrell, Commissioner Adam Gillitt, Commissioner Sherman Lewis Absent: none 2. MINUTES Approved. Motion made by Commissioner Adam Gillitt and seconded by Commissioner Sherman Lewis. The motion carried, 4-0. 3. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. 4. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 4-A 2017-5279: Evaluation of Cultural Arts and Arts Programming Proposals. The Public Art Commission held a public hearing to review, evaluate, and rank submittals for City Council allocation in response to the City's Request for Proposals to provide public art funds for cultural arts and arts programming in Alameda Amanda Gehrke, Economic Development Division staff, gave an overview of the item starting with review of the categories, then the initial screening process, next she talked about the selection panel, and finally she gave an overview of the evaluation process and the timeline for the process. For each category, Ms. Gehrke presented a brief overview of the proposer's entry. Following Ms. Gehrke's presentation to Commissioners there were follow-up questions and answers. A Commissioner asked a question regarding the $25,000 award category for West End Arts and Entertainment District, What time of the year is it suggested for? Ms. Gehrke Answered: October 20th A Commissioner asked: Does the West End Arts and Entertainment District currently have non-profit status or are they in the process of it? Ms. Gehrke answered: I believe they currently have it. Public Speaker(s): Wes Warren, Island Alliance of the Arts, addressed the selection panel's concerns with the Island Alliance of the Art's 2nd Friday's Art Walk proposal. Draft Meeting Minutes 1 of 3 Public Art Commission February 28, 2018 | PublicArtCommission/2018-02-28.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2018-02-28.pdf,2 | PublicArtCommission | 2018-02-28 | 2 | Sheryl Harowitz, an Alameda resident, spoke about the benefits of the 2nd Friday Art walks. Jessica Warren, yielded time to Wes Warren. Tina Blaine, Rhythmix Cultural Works, explained how excited the city residents are about the Island City Water Ways project. Bonnie Baller, an Alameda resident, explained in detail about what the Island Alliance of the Arts is and what they do. Vicky Vargies, an Alameda resident and former teacher at Otis School, explained how the Island City Water Ways will teach the children during their program. Pat Colburn, an Alameda resident, discussed the Art in the Park program and explain the benefits of having this program. Amy Patick, addressed the grant proposals submitted by the Frank Bettes Center for the Arts, including the concerns of the selection panel. Janet Magleby, executive director of the Downtown Alameda Business Association, described how grateful she is for the 2nd Friday Art Walk Event and how it has impacted the community Janet Koike, Rhythmix Cultural Works, discussed the value of art in Alameda, and described how Island City Waterways impacts the community. Carolyn West yielded time to Janet Koike. Tara Pilbrow, representing the West End Arts and Entrainment District and the Animate Dance Company Dance Festival, described what the dance festival would present to the community. Benjamin Winter, owner of Phoenix, addressed comments and concerns regarding the Phoenix and the Downton Alameda Business Association's grant proposal level. Sara Edge, Gallery owner in Alameda, and 2nd Friday Art Walk volunteer, she explains the reasoning behind supporting the 2nd Friday Art Walk and how the grant will help in moving this event forward. Public Comments closed Discussion: A Commissioner: Why was the Art in the Park suspended from Alameda Parks and Recreations? Ms. Gehrke answered, due to budget cuts. A Commissioner explained his experience during the process of deciding on awarding grants and also explained the future opportunities that may occur with increased funding. Then di… | PublicArtCommission/2018-02-28.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2018-02-28.pdf,3 | PublicArtCommission | 2018-02-28 | 3 | Chairperson Hoy moved and Commissioner Farrell seconded a $25,000 grant to West End Arts and Entertainment District for Animate Dance Festival. The motion carried 4-0. Chairperson Hoy requested that staff report back as soon as possible with recommendations on rereleasing categories not forwarded to the City Council for funding. Lois Butler stated that staff will return with a report at the next meeting. Chairperson Hoy moved and Commissioner Gillitt seconded to not award a grant in the $15,000 category. The motion carried 4-0. Chairperson Hoy moved and Commissioner Farrell seconded a $7,500 grant to Sacred Profane, A Chamber Chorus for The American Landscape, a visual and performing arts presentation. The motion carried 4-0. Chairperson Hoy moved and Commissioner Farrell seconded to not award a grant in the $5,000 grant category. The motion carried 4-0. 5. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS Ms. Butler provided an update on the vacant Public Art Commission seat. She indicated that the Mayor was interviewing candidates and plans to nominate one at the March 6, 2018 meeting. 6. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS There was no written communications. 7. COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS 8. ADJOURNMENT Chairperson Hoy adjourned the meeting. Draft Meeting Minutes 3 of 3 Public Art Commission February 28, 2018 | PublicArtCommission/2018-02-28.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/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/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 |
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]) );