Supplemental Report Regarding the Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Chapter 30 (Zoning Ordinance) to Facilitate the City's Ability to Disperse Public Art Funds, and Amend the Fiscal Year 2016-17 Public Art Fund Budget by $350,000 and Capital Improvement Projects Fund Budget by $100,000. [The Proposed Amendments are Categorically Exempt from the Requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15305, Minor Alterations to Land Use Limitations.] (Community Development 285)   [Continued from October 4, 2016]
And the supplemental staff report addresses the fact that the city on Tuesday received a $150,000 payment from the developer at 2100 Clement, who paid a fee in lieu of providing art on site. So we did want to capture that additional payment and therefore are revising our recommendation regarding the appropriation of funds so that the current and the updated recommendation is that an appropriation of $100,000 for the design and installation of public art at Jean Sweeney Park, an appropriation of $162,500 for public art citywide, and an appropriation of $87,500 for the cultural arts and arts programing. That $87,500 reflects the 25% cap on art funding going for cultural arts and arts programing. Staff did not revise any other aspect of the original staff report because this item was continued from October 4th. All we did was supplement with revised recommendations regarding the appropriation pursuant to the payment of $150,000. So that concludes the staff report. Can you clarify? It's my understanding that there's really or there could be two separate votes on what is being asked of council with the break. The first one introduction of the ordinance amending the aluminum is a code by amending that. And then the second part in regards to the amend the fiscal year budget by. That 350,000? That is correct. Those are two separate and distinct recommendations and items. Okay. So I would suggest that we address those to. Two different votes, right? Right. That's what I would suggest, based on even though they're written here together. Mm hmm. Council's agreeable to that. Makes it cleaner for us, then. All right. Thank you. And we had had public comment. You're welcome. Thank you. We'd had public comment at the prior meeting, but people can still speak. New people could speak today. And we do some. We didn't do any. No, we didn't. All right. We continued this item. Yeah. So I guess that's where we're picking up now is the public comment. So thank you. And do you know how many speakers actually have? We have about 15 speakers lips and you will each get 3 minutes and I'll call out about five names. And if you could line up on this side and then I'll call you one at a time. And the first one is Greg Mezvinsky. Then Marcel Stengel and Lolly Hata. Then a no name. In favor. And then Janet. So those people know who they are. They could line up. And we'll start with Greg. My complaint. OC And I don't even know where Tina sleep. Is. Then the next person is Elaine Fong. So who's the first? So I'm sorry. Were you Greg? Are you Greg? Okay, so Greg is eating his time. Marcel, did you want to speak first then? Come on up. Thank you. Members of the council. But Madame Mayor Marcel single and a striving small local developer. As a person who may someday option to deposit into the actual public art fund. I would like to make a just a short statement about where my possible art budget actually ends up. My expectation would be that my contributed funds in lieu of our provided would go into a common account and then allocated to projects via direction from the Public Art Commission. One of the one of the major directives of this fund is to allow members of the community a chance to have a say in how this money is spent. If I personally have a say in how my possible donation in the future would be shared. I would prefer to see a fair process where all interested parties in obtaining funds are required to go through the same exact procedure. Although I am in support of art projects in public spaces, I would not appreciate the park simply reaching into the fun without standing in line. I wouldn't be posed if money from the art fund was used to create art parks in the future. As long as the Public Art Commission has a chance to review and approve the amount like any other applicant. Let's just keep things fair. So I urge City Council to vote against the current proposal. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, Lolly. Good evening, Mayor Trish Spencer. City Council Members and city staff. My name is Layla. Go here toge and I'm an artist, the managing director of Mixed Cultural Works and the coordinator of the Powell program, which is what I'd like to tell you about. Powell stands for Performance, Arts and Learning, and it's a collaboration with the Alameda Unified School District to provide free world music and dance assemblies to schoolchildren in Alameda, Oakland. And now. We've expanded to San. Lorenzo. To date, all Alameda Elementary schools have come to at least one palace employee. Two weeks ago, we expanded to serve the entire seventh grade at one middle school. And by the end of this semester, which actually ends this week, we have one more performance. On Thursday, we will have served 7182 school students absolutely free of charge to the schools with no financial support from the city. Through our relationships with the teachers, we receive really touching feedback who say from teachers who talk about the impact of our program on their students and their whole education. One fifth grade teacher wrote to me saying, What resonated most with the kids was that the performers had moved from other countries, not unlike their own stories. We had a wonderful conversation about geography, culture, heritage, race, democracy, and how the United States is a melting pot for people wanting a better life. Thank you for the mix, for entertaining and educating our children. You left us wanting more. I wanted to broaden the reach of the Powell program to include families of all ages and kids whose classes aren't able to attend field trips. So with a small grant and volunteers like the Alameda Education Foundation and lots of donations, we created the first rhythmic round the World Festival earlier this month, which featured artists from the power program performing and demonstrating Aztec, Balinese and Zimbabwean music and dance, as well as capoeira workshops and mass making all free of charge to our community . Throughout the day, families of all ages came together to learn, dance and celebrate world cultures. The new proposed amendment to the Public Arts Ordinance would restrict only 25% of the fund to be spent on arts programing. That means that worthy projects like Powell are all competing for a small portion of the fund. I want to strongly encourage you to remove that restriction and develop a fair and transparent process for all organizations to apply for funding. Thank you. And I just want to leave these town cards and talk about our program and invite any of you to come on Thursday. We have 300 kids coming to learn about Aztec drum and dance. Now I have a slip. A slip that has no name on it. It's someone submitted that you don't have to give your name to speak, but someone did submit the slip. Do you want to come up and speak now of your time? All right, Janet. Mayor Spencer, members of the council and very hard working city staff. I'm here speaking as an artist, the founder of Remix Community Arts Center on behalf of Public Art. It's well-documented that art is important to the health of a community, and I'm really very, very glad to see the public art funds coming to the forefront and that we're having a community conversation about them. I do advocate for a fair and transparent system to distribute the funds so the community can experience the benefits of public art. But mostly tonight. I just wanted a minute to share with you my experiences with public art. One is the program that Lily just told you about. Another would be the power box art visual public art installation that Donna Leyburn will be speaking about later. And that island city waterways, which happened earlier in May this month. And the reason I want to say this is I know that there are things to vote on, issues to decide. But I feel like. Alameda. This is a point for Alameda to actually see themselves as a city that embraces the arts and utilizes them to share their pride in who they are, to share their experience of their with other people in the Bay Area. And it's it's it's a very powerful tool. And Island City Waterways did that. We we had multiple programs other than just the performances that engaged 1500 people. Our goal, our main goal was to establish an arts event in Alameda as a vehicle to celebrate and share the city's history and cultural heritage as a unique art event in the Bay Area. We had a gallery exhibition that included a kiosk that recorded the story origin stories of people coming to Alameda. There was intergenerational parents. Kids. Couples came and spoke about their experiences. These were edited into How Did You Get Here? Video. So they participated in the arts without even realizing that we had a wonderful history talk. Created by Costin Dennis and ask me to develop expand the history of people coming to settle in Alameda how how they got here why they came what they did when they got here . It definitely opened up our eyes to the great diversity that created Alameda. We had a wonderful lecture demonstration that was done at point of Vista Unit Unified Methodist Church and involved the Asian Islander Asian Pacific Islander with disabilities. It was at my time. I'm done. Okay. All right. So let me just say really quickly, then, all these things. We, you know, 42 volunteers, 30 artists, 30 paddleboat, drag and paddleboat paddle boaters came. It was a way that we developed community beyond just having, you know, having a get together. People were engaged. They were so proud. We had comments like, I feel pretty darned. It'd be a pretty out. You could wind up your comments. Okay. All right. People were proud to be an element. And if programing like this can do that, then let's just have a lot more of it. Thank you. Elaine Fong and then Jim Sweeney. Mayor, city council members and staff. My name is Elaine Fong. I'm an artist and I am a resident of Alameda. I really commend the City Council and Alameda for developing a public arts ordinance. And so I'll have some brief remarks because I wanted to point to three of your fair neighbors who have had public arts ordinances with a fair and transparent process. You have only to look to the city of Berkeley. And by the way, theirs is a 1.5% allocation. I think Berkeley is doing pretty good. Also Oakland one point. So in Berkeley, they started that in 1985. So they've got 30 plus years of experience with how vibrant public arts can be for its city. Oakland's. In 1989 established a public arts ordinance, and their allocation was 1.5%. And finally, the grand dame of all San Francisco by charter in 1932. Can you imagine? 1932 established a public arts ordinance. I just want to. Read a little bit. This is all on their website. RFP is how you can apply, how artists can apply, how organizations can apply. So in San Francisco, this is what they say from children exploring visual, literal and performing arts through its arts or education programs to neighborhoods being transformed through our street activation. Initiatives to pedestrians. Discovering artwork in public. Spaces. To art grant sponsored programs, funding performances for hundreds of thousands to enjoy. The San Francisco Art Commission programs are a catalyst for life changing experiences. So I truly hope that the Public Arts Ordinance, if it's made to be fair and transparent, can also be transforming and a catalyst for the lovely city of Alameda that I'm so happy to be a resident of. Thank you. Thank you. Jim Sweeney and then Katrina. True. Houston. All right. Thank you. Good evening, Madam Mayor. Members of the council and staff. My name is Jim Sweeney. I'm delighted to be here tonight because of the proposal of staff for $100,000 from the public art funds to go over to the Jean Sweeney Park. I know Jean would be delighted to this. These much needed funds will help the park. Will emphasize enhance the feeling for. The history and the rich legacy of acquiring the park. And I think that this will be a very important thing in the long run for all public art in Alameda. We we want to have reliable and sustainable funding for the parks and for all public art. So thank thank you for your consideration on this. I recommend you approve the 100,000. We'd be delighted to have it. Thank you. Thank you, Katrina. And then Dorothy Freeman. Hi. And I'm Katrina Houston. I am the I was the founding chair of the Alameda Public Art Advisory Commission, and I served for five years. And I wanted to just note that how terrifying it is that you guys like these things where the public comes out, there's this great burbling up and we arrive and it's all like . And I wanted to say that I wanted to acknowledge advancement from the last meeting to this one, which was that at the last meeting there was discussion of two concerns. And one of them is, how can we move this money forward so that it actually comes to art? And I, I actually don't object to the money going to the Jean Sweeney Park. And the reason for that is I was here when the funds were out. There were no funds for art in the library. And so funds had to be generated. But because the park is a commons than it is, we have the same challenge of finding out what like how do we fund art for the commons? I'm going to presume that the park will have to fulfill the requirements of the statute and that they will put in a proposal and the Commission will service to the best of their ability and select art that is appropriate and fulfills the obligations. Am I correct in that. We can't answer questions? You can't answer a question. I'm at this. Point. At this point. I'm going to presume that that's so and I'm going to trust them to do so. I also wanted to note and here was another issue, which was that from the very beginning, the people who conceived of this ordinance had intended that funds go to cultural arts, that they wanted local arts organizations and local artists to benefit from these funds. And so I think the 25% is is a wise allocation. And I wish you all well. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Dorothy Freeman and then Julie Barron. And Donna Lemire. Good evening, Mayor Spencer. Council Member. Staff. Audience I'm Dorothy Freeman. History has proven that endure the endurance of art and the enjoyment it brings to people people's everyday life. Art is responsible for teaching us about. The past, the present. And allowing us to dream new ideas about the future. Having art displayed in our parks makes it available for everyone to enjoy. At almost. Any time. You don't have to wait for a building to be opened up. You don't need a ticket. You can be any age and you don't even have to be. From Alameda. The Jean Sweeney Open Space Park Fund would like to thank the staff and the City Council for considering the $100,000 appropriation for public art within the Jane Sweeney Park. This park will be a place for people of all ages. And backgrounds to. Come together to enjoy being. Outdoors. Excuse me. As Alameda moves to become a city of more with more apartment buildings, condos and townhomes. Enjoyable, open spaces become. Much more important. To have a place where people can enjoy public art, along with the relaxation of this open space, will be an added treasure. I sincerely request that you approve the appropriation for Sweeney Park. Along with the 50,000. For art installation and 50,000 for. Cultural arts and art programing. In all of Alameda. Thank you. Thank you. Julie. And then Donna Laban. And Audrey Lord Housman. Hi. My name is Julie Baron, Julie's Coffee and Tea Garden Mayor Trish Spencer, City Council and City Staff as a member of the Alameda Business Community and an avid supporter of the arts in Alameda. I've been I've seen firsthand the major role art plays in the vitality, strength and cohesion of a community. The arts enrich our business community in many ways. I've seen this time and time again as my business is asked to participate in art events through sponsorship, sharing of products, or simply helping to spread the word or participate as a volunteer. I've seen the business community circle around the arts with the joy and camaraderie. A thriving, art focused community has numerous positive outcomes. I could go on and on. I don't think we disagree about that point. I'm thrilled that the distribution of the public art fund money is on the city council agenda. I look forward to the potential of potential growth. Alameda As art scene can achieve when supported by the numerous development projects and by the city itself. For the past 11 years or more, the city has been asking the public and the arts organizations for their opinion and advice on administering the public art fund. The main points of public concern and what I asked you to consider today have been. To remove the cap on developers input into the fund and to create a fair, transparent and sustainable RFP process to create a conduit for funds to move out to proposed art projects. I ask that the city does not bypass the public process for the public art fund requests. It has been a long time coming and a formal RFP process can be created. Oh, I have a typo process for dispersing of these funds and I believe it will be detrimental to this process if the city appropriates funds to their hand-picked projects without outside of this process. For me, it's not about whether Jeanne Sweeney Park deserves the funds for their public art project. They most certainly deserve the chance to apply for funds just like every other artist, art organization or community member does. Rhythmic. Alameda Ballet Academy. Island City Opera. Altadena Theater. Second Friday. Artwalk Studio 23. Summer Art Fair. Frankfurt Plain Art. Pan out. The list goes on. Of the arts organizations in Alameda. One thing I know is that we all love this city and we have different opinions as to what will make it even better. I believe that the only way to make sure that we consider all the opinions is to have a functional and fair public RFP process for everyone in our diverse art community to be considered. Thank you. Thank you. On a labor. Good evening, everyone. This is a perfect night for discussing Alamitos Art Fund, because tonight the city of San Leandro. Just south of us in. The next few hours. Will be unveiling the. Spectacular six story high statue called Truth is Beauty, with 2500 LED lights. This is spectacular. Sculpture is in scripted with what would the. World be like if. Women were safe? So this is not just art, but it's art as an important cultural message. San Leandro is a city much like the. Same as Alameda with a population of 88,000. Their art fund was $500,000, with 1.5. Million in private funds. They spent the money on public art for utility boxes and murals. One of the murals is 24 by 180 feet, and it's called the Great Migration of Monarch Butterflies. Another hand-painted 60 by 350. Foot entitled. The Pulse of Nature. So why is this important to us in Alameda and why is this conversation for this evening? Because I want us to be even better than San Leandro. But this is important conversation tonight because our art fund is currently at, what, 350,000 is still a small arts budget. It's a small budget. I had the pleasure, as Janet mentioned, with working with her and others on being a part of the Power Box art project in our downtown. That project. 410 transformers cost $35,000. But it's a great introductory statement of. Public art through a thoughtful and planned joint effort. Let's be innovators. Let's remove the cap altogether. As many other cities around the bay have done. Grow this fund to. Solidify our. Place in the Bay Area with public art. This can do nothing but help all of those developers be even more successful in their projects. By projecting such dynamic visual excitement throughout our city. So that little city to the south states that their. Fund is for development, promotion and. Placement of visual. And performing arts. That is of the highest quality, visually stimulating and of enduring value. That will. Culturally enrich their communities. Isn't that what we want all of you to have and deserve? Alameda needs one vision, one. Process for everyone. To use to accomplish all of this. If this fund. Is diluted and earmarked for special projects in this very. First stage of developing our. Public art statements, instead of keeping whole the whole one vision, one set of guidelines, one process, one body, then what kind of art will we be getting? Who will make. Those decisions and who will carry out the same visions to just different groups and two different visions? This won't get us what we need and want and deserve in a citywide art and cultural message. Don't divide us. Tonight. Unite us by keeping the fund intact and having all of the groups all over town. The two downtowns, the bass and all the parks united in this common goal of quality public art. Alameda is a gem of a city that deserves us to elevate our thinking regarding public art and how it can contribute to our culture , our story, and our place in the world. So please make. The decision tonight to build the fund, build the. Cooperation. Between the groups, and give us the framework for a strong, productive, united, innovative and committed arts community. Thank you. Thank you. Audrey. Lord has. And then take the blame. Anything. Excuse me, Madam Mayor. Council members and staff. I am a strong proponent of public art and want to see it throughout all of almeida's parks and certainly Jane Sweeney Park, as well as the business districts and the development, various developments. Public art inspires. It, educates, it entertains us. It tells a story. And particularly it can tell the history of our community. But to have a robust public arts program, we have to have a very transparent funding process. Think about it. It's no different than a student applying for a college scholarship. There are clear steps to go through to apply. Everybody's on a level playing field. The public arts applications. All of them must go through the Public Arts Commission, whether on public or private property. Therefore, the city must have a well-articulated process that it can stand behind with pride. Let's really show that Alameda is special in this regard. And that's what this is all about. There should be links that lead to user. Friendly documents, process explanations of policies and application. Of course, a process for the selection of artists, their artwork and the installation. Everybody, again, competing on an equal basis. Arbitrarily setting aside a certain amount of funds without going through the public arts. The mission is just not right. And looking at a number of websites and other cities and San Leandro being one that Donna just mentioned, they're very inviting, encouraging people to take an active part in the process of creating, selecting, purchasing and installing public art. They seem to want to share the process and make it easy for individuals and civic groups to take part in a fair and transparent way. Alamy. His website is not adequate. Needs a. Lot of work to meet, in. My opinion. What these other cities inviting saying public art means something to us. So. The city needs to take a hard look at where we are and make the commitment to support the arts as an integral part of who we are and do it in a fair and equitable way for all organizations. Thank you. Thank you. Tina Blain. And you had one speaker cede time to you. So you get 6 minutes up to 6 minutes. Luckily for you, I won't need it all. Honorable Mayor. City Council and City Staff. I am here today as a local artist, taking off my executive director hat who's been trying to help move this process along for a long time. More than a decade. And with me today, I bring more than 150 petitions which have been signed by people who would also like to see a fair and equitable process for the distribution of funds in the Public Art Fund. We printed these out this afternoon and there are now over 183 signatures we just checked. You know. I wanted to say that by show of hands, how many are here for the Fair and Open Arts Fund process? So I just want you to know there's a lot of support for having an equitable approach to to the way that we distribute this. As has been mentioned before. 13 years is a long time to wait. And. While other cities in the Bay Area championed the arts as a way to bring new vibrancy to their communities, the city of Alameda has taken a rather circuitous approach to dispersing its public art fund. To date, $64,000 of the fund has been used for consultants and city administration costs to oversee public art only as it relates to private development. Not one penny has been expended for public art projects initiated or proposed by local artists or local arts organizations over the past decade. Numerous community meetings were held. Staff reports prepared. Previous art commissioners were seated with the best of intentions, and many of them left in frustration. And we don't want that to happen again. Even the recommendations made in the synergy report by the consultant that was commissioned five years ago in 2011 to make recommendations about the public art program are now outdated. This includes a suggestion to increase the developer cap to $500,000 when exhibit four summary shows, there really shouldn't be any cap at all to be in alignment with other Bay Area neighboring cities. City Council is now considering sweeping changes and amendments to the Public Arts Ordinance, and I am here today to ask that City Council consider that you represent all of Alameda and to reject any appropriation of public art funding. Some of you may or may not be aware that in 2014 that the previous Economic Director of Economic Development approached rhythmic cultural works to suggest making a recommendation to City Council to appropriate almost all of the money that was in that fund at the time two years ago, in 2014. As tempting as that offer was, we declined because we firmly believe that a fully transparent, equitable public process must be put in place so the funds can be dispersed in a way that is fair for everyone. Eliminating also the arbitrary allocation of the 75% towards physical hour and 25% towards arts programing is something that I would personally like to see. So to earmark public art funds for any project or organization bypasses this open process for distributing funds that city staff is supposed to be administrating and should be open to proposals from everyone that is eligible to apply with the same RFP process. The question before us today is whether the Public Art Fund will be administered in a way that is fair and consistent for all applicants. This is my hope that you will vote to further amend the current staff record. The current staff recommendations and agenda item six be by calling for an unbiased process to distribute our city's art fund that supports public art and public arts programing in Alameda. And since I have a little bit of extra time, I just wanted to mention a bit more of what Janet was unable to say about Island City Waterways , because that project was really, I think, an epitome of what public art could be. It stemmed from a very outrageously creative, bold, ambitious mind in Janet's head, and it blossomed into just one of the most amazing public art projects that I've ever been able to say that I was a part of. But one of the things that it did was that it allowed us to engage a lot of of not only local artists, but also local businesses. And there were partners partnerships with more than 15 local businesses as sponsors of these projects, who also saw huge benefit by being associated with this project. We engaged public art by local artist Mark Wagner to create a huge giant sale with pineapple sales. All of the businesses at the Bridge Side Shopping Center were involved and gave permission for this project. We work with the Dragon Boat Rowers and some of the other comments that we just thought we would share with you were something here. A woman said, I attended with my nine year old daughter. We absolutely loved it. My daughter said, I will remember this for the rest of my life. Thank you for bringing history to life and art to Alameda in such an exciting and unexpected way. I have a whole new relationship to the channel now. It was great to learn about the waterfront path. We thought it was great. I love being able to view the beauty of the water while enjoying dance and music. We also like seeing the Falcons, learning about them from the naturalist. This was a partnership also with East Bay Parks and Rec. On the Friday I attended, most of the participants were middle school students. Their enthusiasm and participation added another layer of excitement for non Alameda and it was very enlightening. So thank you. Thank you for your support. I have four speaker tips at this point. If you want to speak on this item, please submit your slip at this time. Our next speaker is Carolyn West and then Cory Hill. Thank you, Madam Mayor. And council members all yield my time to others who are in opposition in favor of a fair and open process. Thank you. Thank you. Cory Hill. Ingrid Dayton. Yep. Okay. Thank you. Mayor, city council members, city staff. I am an Alameda resident, parent, art lover, part time bon vivant. And I am here because we have heard a lot about a shared vision for our immediate future, which I don't think there is much disagreement in the room about the potential for public art and what it will allow to this to become in this city. What I do feel there needs to be some clarification on is how we get from where we are now to what we see as a shared vision. If we don't have a process that allows for. Open applications that has an RFP process. That's clear that some of the other speakers have alluded to mentions of other cities and how that process looks. Having looked on the website myself for what that looks like here, I can second to the need for improvement in that arena and seeing the head nods. I know that's not a controversial issue. So I think that here and in other forums where I have seen this issue discussed, the real matter at hand has gotten a little bit muddied as to whether the, you know, the park deserves the funds or not deserves the funds. I, I think that, you know, as has been mentioned previously, the main the main issue is process. We keep hearing the same words over and over again. Fair, transparent, equitable. And what it really boils down to for me is having a real democratic opportunity here to move this forward in a way that we as comedians can all feel good about. And unless we start off on that footing, unless we start off on a process that allows equal input from interested parties, I think that we're really setting a bad precedent for how we disburse these funds moving forward and for how we actually feel about a process that is supposed to be public. So with that in mind, I would urge that we reject this proposal and we move forward with steps to create a process that allows open input and is equitable. Thank you. Thank you. Amos White and then Janet Gibson. Those are our last two speakers on this item. If you want to speak, please submit your slip. Mayor Spencer. Council members. Good evening. City staff and. Everyone who came tonight. My name is Amos White. I'm a Alameda resident. I'm an artist. I'm an author. I'm a published poet. I sit as president of a literary organization here out of Berkeley City Club called the Bay Area Generation's. I support public art. I'm just reflecting back on what Coria just said in regards to the process and coming together. You have a lot on your plate. We respect the responsibility you have and listening what everybody has to say. But what I'm here tonight is to to bring to use, to speak specifically in regards to the recommendations that I emailed, those five points that support a fair and open process. I do believe to, as Corey mentioned, that it is a way to achieve, if you will, a unity and a level playing field for us to have an open conversation that is better directed and includes the community's concerns for. What can constitute public art and how we can best support it here in Alameda. Those are the Public Art Commission should create an open RFP process for the Public Arts Fund. Second is that it should direct. We ask council to direct all requests of the public arts funding to the Public Art Commission that we ask for you to respect and call for the Public Arts Commission to commence its review process. Also to protect the ordinance language of public art requirement for the on site cultural programs, which I notice have been removed but not been cited in its summary. And that's that's problematic in regard to which funds can be qualified as public art. Last two would be to eliminate the developer cap. And I want to speak a little bit more on that. And then finally, not to withdraw any city administration fees from the fund in order to administer the fund, eliminating the developer cap is really critical, I think, to the success of the fund in having a source of of of revenues to fund public art. The city of Berkeley, Albany, Emeryville, Oakland, Walnut Creek, Dublin, none of which have a developer cap. All of whom have a higher contribution in percentage to their public arts fund. Not that we need to meet that, but it would behoove us perhaps to not emulate, but to better align ourselves with them in a policy, if you will, in a policy format. To eliminate that fine. It would really help with the development of art in Alameda. I want to thank you for your time and and hope that you do consider pursuing a path and directing staff to have a fair and open process. Thank you. Thank you. Anna Gibson. And then she's our last speaker. Last call for more slips. Good evening, Mayor Spencer and council members. I am speaking as as a individual. As an individual. But I am on the board of the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society, and I want to address particularly one item that is in the B part that I read that I think is B and then five. That deals with the suggestion from the planning board that you remove the requirement for public art to focus on Alameda as historic and maritime traditions. And I would urge you not to do that. The recommendation here is that you take out historic and just keep maritime. And, you know, when I think of what we went through Park Street with the Container Project, for example, many views on what would look good and so on. But we discovered that there was a lot of work that had been done in the city, much money spent and time on thinking about a gateway to Alameda, a historic to the historic district that many people consider our historic aspects as being one of the great reasons why they enjoy being in Alameda, buying homes here, coming and visiting. So I think that when we're asking for transparency and and a broad view of art and a comprehensive the history excuse me of Alameda, the historic part is very essential for someone to have some knowledge of that, what has been done, what has been looked at and what fits and is appropriate in certain places. So I would urge you to keep both those words in as part and not. I'll take that recommendation. So thank you. Thank you. So she's our last speaker council. Do you have clarifying questions at this point or vice mayor? Not a question. Okay. You just want to jump right in. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. Because I think myself and Councilmember De Saag were there in 2003 when this was voted in. And the intention was that this would be a community driven process and represent the forum for the community to to move the process was the Public Arts Commission. And maybe naively, at least in my memory, I thought it was a pretty simple process, is that money would be contributed from development into this fund and then the funds would be totaled up and presented to the Public Arts Commission, and they'd hear proposals to spend those funds on public art as defined in the current ordinance. I think one of the speakers mentioned that not a penny has been spent on public art from that original fund, and I can't remember as a council member, my memory is a little fuzzy, but the two years that I've been on council now, no recommendation has come from the Public Art Commission on spending, the funds that have been in the end and the Public Art Fund to date. So I think that's a problem. And that problem, I think the original intent of the ordinance kind of got derailed and. Kind of got subsumed by the downturn or whatever for whatever reason, because I notice in our attachments here we have a planning board staff report, but we don't have a Public Arts Commission staff report on the changes to the ordinance there alluded to in the staff report. But I would have thought the Public Arts Commission would have driven the changes to the ordinance to match what people have talked about, the compatibility with the with the standards that have been set by our, our neighboring cities, the question about performing arts versus visual arts, etc.. And then lastly, the expectation I would have had as a as a voted on the ordinance would was that the recommendation to apportion. The existing funds. Would have come from the Public Arts Commission, not from the staff. And that is the split between the very worthy installation of public artists in Sweeney Park and as recently as the money that just came in. There was another staff recommendation, not a Public Arts Commission recommendation, on what to do with that additional money that pushed the balance up to $375,000, more or less. So I think that needs work. I think. I want to hear from the Public Arts Commission on what to do with the money. And I'd also like the Public Arts Commission. That's first, because the money is there. Each day that goes by, it buys goes by, the money buys less art. And as far as the the recommendations for the changes in in the ordinance, I think they need to be talked about. But I'd like to hear from the Public Arts Commission as well on that. So that's that's my thought. Member, Ashcraft. Thank you, Mary Spencer. And thank you to all the folks who came out who spoke and didn't speak on this. You know, I agree with the vice mayor's remarks, but I also want to say that is often the case. The public really said it more eloquently than I could. So I just want to share some of my concerns. And first of all, my over arching concern was with the staff bypassing the Public Art Commission. I happen to know that the Public Art Commission is meeting a week from tomorrow night. I see no reason that this has to be rushed through without hearing from the Public Arts Commission. And I actually ran into one of their members recently and talked to that person who said they're ready, willing and able. They just were not asked to weigh in. And there's there's something wrong with that. So speaking first to the staff's recommendation, when it came before us last week, the $100,000 allocation to the Jean Sweeney Park was just about 50% of the entire public art fund. And it doesn't really matter to me that it's a little less than 50% because we got another developer contribution in. It is just wrong. It is not transparent. It's not good government policy for us to have staff and we have a wonderful staff, but that is not their role. To reach in and decide $100,000 is going to go to this park. And one of the other speakers said that's not to say that the Gene's really open space park isn't a worthy recipient of some public art fund money. But for goodness sakes, they didn't even apply. And I asked the question of Miss Potter last week. How did you decide on $100,000? Well, there's four sites earmarked in the park for for public art. So I'm a bit surprised. But the inference seemed to be that we would take that $100,000 and divide it by four. But it isn't staff's decision to make, and it's not the council's decision to make. Without input from our very capable Public Arts Commission. So let's let's let them hear from that. And as was said in one of the letters, the genes freely park. Again, we're not trying to pit one project, one location against the other, but we have an entire city that is worthy of the placement of public art. Let the commission that has been seated, that has been appointed by mayors, this mayor and previous mayors, to do just this work, let them have the first shot at it. They're the ones who are tasked with with doing the study. And I know they'll do a capable job. And then I also believe that the Public Arts Commission should be the ones to craft an RFP process, should look at what a fair process is, the criteria. And again, we don't need to reinvent the wheel. We can look to some of our neighboring communities to see what they have so capably done. So it shouldn't take a whole lot of time, but I think the public expects no less of us than transparency when it comes to spending this kind of money on the the ordinance itself. I am perfectly fine with staff's recommendation that we remove the quiet requirement that public art must be maritime or historically themed. Maybe it will be, and maybe it won't be. But again, that's for the artists to decide, and that's for whoever is doing the selection criteria to decide whether it fits in. Let's not foreclose options. And I'm I don't have a lot of artistic talent, maybe none, but I appreciate art. And I wouldn't want to be limiting limiting our artists before they even have a chance to create. And then I think we also need to have a clear idea about the allowable amount of administrative fees that can be paid for by the public arts funds. I think it was Janet Cauchi who made the reference in her letter to having applied for grants for the National Endowment from for the Arts, from the James Irvine Foundation and others. And in those entities who do this all the time, they don't allow a higher cap of I think it's 12 to 15%. So I would expect whatever our percentage is to be in line with those institutions who do excuse me, who do this professionally, think my voice is going to maybe it's time to pass the microphone on to others. Early or we'd like to go next. Well, I'll just quickly comment that, you know, when you look at neighborhoods across the East Bay that have revitalized artists, clearly played a role, whether it's in Berkeley, around Fourth Street or whether, as we all know, parts of downtown Oakland or West Oakland. So when you have a gathering of talent, as we do this evening, coming out tonight, or when you have the number of people signing on, many of them artists, I think it behooves us to listen. I think the challenge, though, is that in the Jean Sweeney Park, we certainly do have an incredible, monumental project in front of us. So I do think that we need to weigh some amount. Now, let me be clear, but we need to weigh some amount. And I'm speaking about as criteria doesn't necessarily mean $100,000 or or. $75,000 is just when we go through the selection process. We need to give some consideration to major projects like like the Jean Sweeney project. So I think the most important thing, though, is that. We need the public to be involved. It doesn't sound like many of the artists here were had the opportunity to give their input to the Public Arts Commission. Nor does it also sound like the Public Arts Commission was is as involved as as they might have been, as we might want them to be. So we need to, I think, be the right thing to do is to make sure they involve them in crafting this process to get their input on how we might weigh items . I don't think we want to preclude items altogether. For example, I don't think we want to say no, we we don't need to have maritime or no, we don't need to have our historic we don't need to recognize our history. On the other hand, I think we what we need to do is we need to identify all those elements that we want to celebrate, whether it's Maritime or Alameda as history. And then going back to my point, make sure that the Public Arts Commission working with the public weighs them accordingly. So that's my my I think it sounds like we need to go back and refine this more member body. Thank you, Madam Mayor. So just a quick question of the chair. So we're. I'm going to have to vote one on the budget allocation and the other on possibly on the ordinance that. Well, that's what we were speaking about. But at this point, that might not be appropriate. Well, what I'm hearing from counsel. Okay. Well, I haven't heard from all council members. They all kind of tailor my comments kind of that way. So. Lemon Real quick. Is there a way for staff to encourage the people in the hallway to be quieter because we can't hear you when you open the door. Disruptive. Thank you. So I. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate. Where's Miss Potter? Is there somewhere? Right. I appreciate there. You are not just trying to find you so I can make eye contact. I appreciate all the hard work you've done on this. I think there's been a lot of loaded words tossed around today. Arbitrary, fixed, transparent, open. And I mean, to be honest with you, I can't think of a more open process than a city council meeting with hundreds of people here in the audience, reviewing a staff report that first came out a couple of months ago. It's been modified and then it was continued and then we had a second meeting on it. So it's a little disconcerting that that people are throwing on those. Throwing out those loaded words because, you know, ultimately the council is the final arbiter of of policy. Now, what I have liked the Public Arts Commission to have reviewed the ordinance. Yes, probably. And if that's the consensus of this body, you know, I'm not going to stand in the way of that, but I will kind of make my opinion known on it because it will come back. So just a couple of quick points on the, you know, the nonprofit arts and cultural organizations. You know, I think that's a good idea to expand that. You know, originally I think I was a little skeptical of that. And a few weeks back and the vice mayor was there with me, we went to the International Film Festival in Alameda. And I think things like that, we need to find a way that the city can fund those and promote those and encourage those. I mean, we heard about, you know, the Island City Waterways Project. You know, my only concern about spending money on culture is that hopefully we find a way to preserve that. So if we're spending money for something that's a one day event, that we have a way to preserve it so others can enjoy it in the future . As far as a lower cap on administrative cost, I mean, that's kind of a no brainer to me. I agree with that one. I mean, the maintenance and repair, I'm not so sure about that. And I'm not so sure that we should be spending money that could go to artists to develop beautiful projects and beautiful artwork on maintenance and repair. And there was something brought up to me that supposedly is is fixed in this ordinance, but that there was a berm over at the bridge side shopping center that was paid for by by public art because it was supposed to be an amphitheater. So I'm not quite convinced that spending public art money on landscaping esthetics is the way to go. So I'm a little bit concerned about spending it on maintenance and repair. I think we should be diverting as much as we can to. To artists. The reporter requirements. I'm fine with that. I'm in the cap. I'm perfectly happy to increase it. And if my colleagues want to give direction on removing it, I think that's a great idea too. I hope that that doesn't disincentivize developers to just go ahead and do their own art and instead not give to the fund . Because I think we need to encourage the fund, but I am perfectly amenable to removing the cap. Now, Janet Gibson brought up, I think, an important item on the historic maritime. The planning board basically wanted to keep it the same, and I very sympathetic to that idea. The San Leandro statue, I think it's a 60 foot tall statue, you know, from Burning Man. Okay. I mean, everyone has their opinion on, you know, what art is good or bad. But I think that we do have an obligation to preserve our history, our maritime history, through our art. And this is this is the public. I mean, if if some developer or private person wants to come in and and build a Picasso or build a Burning Man statue, I mean, I guess, you know, we'll have that debate. But those those are controversial. And I think I'd be I'd feel better if we just stuck to the historic and maritime. You know, as Janet mentioned. And lastly, so I guess I'll talk about Jean Sweeney separately. But so lastly, you know, if if this is the will of the council to send this back to the Public Arts Commission, I'm okay with that. But those are my thoughts and things that I would be looking for in a revised ordinance if we're not prepared to go forward today. Now, on the Jean Sweeney part, I think it's it's a little unfortunate that, you know, we kind of pit groups together. And, you know, those who don't know, I work in the legislature during the day. And, you know, we started my started my job in 2012 and we were on the uptick. And I sometimes wonder if the job is easier when you have to cut funds, because then you go down to the bare bones and the necessities that when you have money to give away, because at times people kind of go at each other. And I think it's kind of sad. But I do think that the Gene Sweeney Park is an iconic park. It's going to be an iconic landmark in the center of Alameda. And we made a commitment to that park. And I think one of the ways we honor that commitment is to fund the public art. We passed a general plan for the park for for spaces of public art. And I think we should put our money where our mouth is and fund the 100,000 for the Jean Sweeney Park . Now, I that's a policy decision I think the council can make. And we've had, like I said, a public hearing about it, but the whole process of identifying the art that will go there now, I'm not picking it. The vice mayor is not picking it. The mayor's picking it. There is an RFP process in the public art ordinance and any artist that wants to put money or put something in Jean Sweeney Park will have to go through that process. So I think it will be open and it will be transparent, but I really think it's an important thing that we have to fund. So that's kind of where where I stand on these items. So, um, and I appreciate actually, you know, the comments from all council members. And my preference would be to make a decision tonight because that money has been sitting there for years and we sooner the better. And so I'm happy to give direction tonight. I wish I had gone through the Public Arts Commission. To me, that's where it should have gone. I don't. This is we're talking about. Ah, I don't understand why it didn't even go through them, but did you want to speak to that? Yes, I actually did go through the Public Art Commission on February. Yes, February 18th of 2015. That's how long I've been working. That's how long we've been working on the ordinance. I do apologize that we did not include the minutes of the Public Art Commission meeting in the packet, but the ordinance was reviewed by the pack on February 18th of 2015. Then it went to the planning board and then it's made its way to the council. So it has reviewed the ordinance, it has not reviewed the RFP process. So I just wanted to clarify that lunchtime. So what about the Jane Sweeny Park allocation? Is that something that went through the Public Arts Commission? None of the appropriation of funds did not go through any other advisory body. It came directly to the Council on October five. Okay. Okay. So to me that my preference would have been to have that go through them. Let me just finish up my comments real quick things. But I but I am I would like council to consider making. Deciding what the audience conditions would be at this point so that the money can actually be expended. My concern would be it go through the Public Arts Commission, then it come back to us at some point because we could see it could come back to us and then we're just delaying the expenditure. And in regards to what I would like to see and I want to ask about this, why aren't we looking at raising the percentage to 1.5%? I personally think we need to increase that. I don't think 1% is sufficient. I mean, to me, part of the reason why we're. All. Looking at a little bit of money is because our percentage is too low. If we had more in the fund, we wouldn't be so having to pit people against people separate from the process. So I personally would like to look at increasing the percentage to 1.5%. And in regards to the administration costs, I would like to lower the administration costs maybe 10% or something or. But but I think that the current proposal is at 20% that's being proposed is too high. But is the current proposal. 2020, right, for for third party administrators. So if the funds are awarded to an arts programing or cultural arts program entity, then it would be capped at 20%. So I think 20% is too high. I'd prefer seeing 10% would be the number. I'd at least asked council to consider the use for maintenance and repair and the reports could be decided in the future to come out of the Public Art Fund or general fund. I'd prefer. Well, actually I don't have a problem with it being asked because it'd be a question from staff. My understanding we have this issue of maintenance. How are we going to spend it in the future? The division between the 75%, 25% for performing arts, physical art. I'm okay with that. That's a that is something that I'm agreeable to keeping that part of the recommendation. Removing the cap, I think it's critical that the cap be removed. I actually don't understand why you have a bigger project, bigger development, obviously more money being made. Then why do they give less? So that's corporate, what I call, you know, some kind of corporate subsidy that is counter to what the the whole idea of public you know, we're trying to support public art here. So I would not support the cap. And then in regards to keeping the focus on historic and maritime traditions, my understanding is that that has been loosely interpreted, that it goes in front of the commission, that they can look at that as a value, but that they also approve projects that are not that. And so I'm agreeable to keeping that as something that we value, but still being open minded in regards to what the artists propose. And I personally would like counsel to consider this. You know what I just said and seen if we could do that. Remember. I was pretty. Close to it. Yes, I know. We're very close. You and I are very close. You're a little. I'll let my colleagues. But what I could propose is if there are changes that we can agree on. This was scheduled for and an introduction of a a first reading for this ordinance. But there are enough changes that we'd bring it back again. And so if we get more direction from the council, we can both make those changes in draft form, take it to the Public Arts Commission that is meeting and bring it back probably the second meeting in November or December. All right. Member de SAC. My feeling, actually, it's been a long time since the Public Arts Commission had a chance to look at this. Did I hear it right? February 2015. It's 16 months, perhaps 18 months. And I suspect many of the residents who came out tonight maybe weren't at the Public Arts Commission process at that process. And I suspect many of the issues that they've raised tonight maybe weren't discussed back then. So to me, it seems as though we're better served by involving the artists, making sure that we have all the issues laid out there on how do we treat the Jeanne Sweeney set aside if there is to be one or not? And if there is to be one, is it a prescribed set aside or is it some kind of criteria based? That's loosely and to me, I think these are all questions that are better served by sending it back to the Public Arts Commission and making sure that that they get their input in light of a lot of the concerns that were raised tonight. And I I'm sorry I failed to mention in regards to the Jeanne Sweeney Park issue, I as much as I love the Sweeney Park, I cannot support. Pulling that out of the process. And I actually think it's unfortunate that staff made that recommendation. I think that it's critical that we be impartial and. I'm confident that a worthy art proposal for Jane Sweeney Park would, in fact, be embraced. But I think it is critical that it goes through the process. And let me be clear as to what I'm saying about Jean Sweeney. What I'm saying is I want to hear what the Public Arts Commission has to say relative to also what the artists have to say relative to what proponents of the open space park have to say, too. So I want to make this the member Ashcraft. Well, are you ready to see if I can? I'm hoping that we can make a decision to move forward. So what I would suggest is that we direct staff to. Take our input for amendments we want to see to the proposed public art ordinance. So let's be prepared for some of the specifics. Can we start with the one and a half percent suggestion and then we see where everyone is? We can. And let me get back to that, because I was going to do well, I can or we can. I'd like to. See if I. Can hammer out each. Point. So. Um. So the, um, the developer cap of, um, is that what you're talking about? But first I wanted, I would like counsel to give direction to increase the percentage from 1% to one and a half percent. There's like two components. I mean, the the cap and the. Yes, that's two separate components, isn't there? Other cities have a one and a half percent. We'll bring that up. And I just think the 1% is too low. I'm wondering if other council members would agree to the one and a half percent. So I was actually going to see if we could go through the ordinance in in order so we could. I mean. I don't think I don't think consideration of the change of percentages even suggested by staff. I think there was the the campus at the Capitol. Right. But this is a separate issue. I wanted to look at and we've heard other cities have sounded like the majority, one and a half. I still on the. Table that is included in the staff report doesn't have it's mostly. 1%, etc.. I still want to look at one and a half percent. So I'm wondering if any other council members would consider increasing it from 1% to one and a half percent. So. You know, men may or may speak it to that point. And I actually think that if we take away the caps and keep the percentage at 1%, that might be a good thing to do. And the reason I say that is we've had a recent discussion of other things. We might want our developers to help pay for animal shelter funding perhaps. So let's. I and also we we do have developments coming online. So we've got some some fence coming in here. And I. So I appreciate that. The 1% and no cap. I'd like to do one and a half percent and no cap. Other council members. See, in my opinion, I think the public is better served rather than us kind of doing this auction style. It's better served by kicking it. There's a lot of valid questions that have been raised, and the public, I think, is better served by having the commission now really cross those T's and dot those eyes. And the points that the Public Art Commission and. Mayor. Vice mayor. I agree with that. I'd like this ordinance with the input that we've given tonight to go back to the Public Art Commission for a full discussion of each of the points, the cap, the percentage of developer contribution, the administrative fee, the maintenance fees, the RFP process, which would be separate. And then things like making sure that the percentage of what's performing arts and what is visual arts is is discussed and things like making sure that it's clear in here that these are arts that are offered to the general public free of charge, because that was the whole that's actually not in the definition. That's not that clear. So I'd like that to go back to I I'll move that this goes is that goes with these comments goes back to the Public Arts Commission and also that the question of the allocations that are proposed also go back to the public art and presented to the Public Arts Commission for recommendation to their recommendation to the Council. And one item that I want to make sure to include is the RFP process so that. It's. A third. Yes. When I just a clarification question. When you said that the allocations go back to the Public Art Commission, so I'm saying let's just hit the reset button. We have a growing public art fund. Let's not make any allocations yet. And again, I am not pitting I don't think any of us are trying to pit one project against the other, but simply saying any project should go through the same fair, open, transparent process. So why don't we just. I my preference would be to ask the the Public Arts Commission to come up with the appropriation process, the RFP process, the process, and then that's step one. And then step two will be RFP are put out and and again, decisions will be made, staff can have their input. Council makes the final decision I guess, but, but let's do the process right from the beginning. And I think I think that's fine. You accept that friendly and members say. Well. I like it but let's also recognize that, you know, staff has their expertize as their involvement in the process. So if they have a viewpoint as to why they think there ought to be some treatment for the Jean Sweeney Park, then I think they should, because as Councilmember Otis said, it is it will be an iconic part for the city of Alameda. So I'm not saying that we're going to prescribe things for Jean Sweeney, but I'm saying that have that discussion. And if staff wants to pursue it and come back with a recommendation. We have a motion and a friendly amendment that was accepted from member Ashcroft. Did you want to make a friendly amendment? Did you want to propose it? But I actually don't think that that sides with what the motion was that I mean, I think it I don't think it is in alignment with what your motion was. So I think that that would be a friendly amendment. I got the amendment from. But he's offering he's suggesting that staff. If. Staff has viewpoints, let them. Share their viewpoints. But I think that. They could present that to the public. Yes. And that's the usual way things work. Yes, I agree. They'll write the report second. That motion then. Okay. Thank you. Then we have a motion for a second. Any comments before I call the question? So I would just so I made I stated my position as well. But personally I'm looking for. I think I stated mine, but just want to make sure that the position on the historic and maritime that the planning board also agreed with now is something that staff considers. I think they wanted to overrule that. I think we can point that one to the Public Art Commission for their input too. And remember. I just want to make sure that. It comes back to us. My thoughts on that were conveyed to the public. Very good. Any other comments on council? All those in favor. I. Motion carries unanimously. Thank you. And now. I will adjourn the continuation of the October 4th, 2016 meeting, and we will take a five minute recess. Thank you. Right? Yes. Yeah. Right. Okay. So that. Everyone. We will now be starting our regular city council meeting at 7:30 p.m.. Roll Call council members decide yes, as the Ashcroft matter here. Here they are, Spencer. Here. Five present. Thank you. Agenda changes. Madam Mayor, I have one to request. Yes. We have a lot of working folks in the audience today who are here for item number six. D I believe the project stabilization agreement is 66 and I because a lot of them have very early work start times. I'm wondering if we can. Move that up. Moves that to the top of the regular agenda. What's the time estimate on that? Well, first of all, how many speakers do we have on that item? Quite a few. Only. Okay. So I'm agreeable to that then. Okay. What about counsel? I mean, I am with you. I noticed we didn't have the Pledge of Allegiance today. Well, here is. The pledge. Thank you. Sorry about that thing. We're going to go ahead and do the pledge at this point. Thank you. Remember? Okay, all rise. That's not on our agenda. Sorry. I apologize. I pledge allegiance. To the United States of. America. One nation. Under God. Indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Thank you. I apologize for that. And on the agenda changes also. Did we have. So I want to ask those items to pull from consent. Did anyone have items to pull? There are speakers on five F. Okay. And I had also on the pull five c. The five C, five F any other items to be pulled? Here in none. Okay. So those two and then in regards to what was it.