January 18, 2012

The meeting commenced at 3:01 p.m.

1. Roll Call

Commissioners Present:
Lorraine García-Nakata, Chair
Greg Chew
Dorka Keehn (arrived at 3:06 p.m.)
Barbara Sklar

Commissioners Absent:
None

2. Public Safety Building – Fire Station
Mary Chou
Action

Project Manager Mary Chou reported on the development of the Conceptual Design for an artwork by Merge Conceptual Design for the Fire Station at the new Public Safety Building. Ms. Chou provided some background on the artist selection process that led to the recommendation of Merge Conceptual Design for this project, which the Commission approved in June 2011. Ms. Chou explained that since then, the artist team had worked to develop several proposals for the site and three were presented to the project team for review. Public Art staff recommended one proposal based on the City’s cisterns system. However, various members of the project team did not support the idea. Representatives of the San Francisco Fire Department (“SFFD”) were concerned that the concept was too obscure and not easily associated with the SFFD. Other members of the project team, including the project architects, were concerned about the proposed location of the artwork on the façade of the building. Ms. Chou said that in response to this feedback, Merge Conceptual Design created a new concept for an artwork based on the fire alarm boxes located around San Francisco. And while most members of the project team preferred this proposal, it was not acceptable to the SFFD. She explained that after much discussion, the SFFD expressed their support for Merge Conceptual Design’s first proposal based on the cistern system. Ms. Chou introduced Claudia Reisenberger of Merge Conceptual Designs to explain the proposal.

Ms. Reisenberger expressed that she and her partner Franka Diehnelt had completed extensive research for this proposal, including a tour of the cisterns system, and studied the Public Safety Building design to identify opportunities. She noted that the SFFD had articulated a desire for the artwork to function as an identifying marker for the Fire Station which she and Ms. Diehnelt considered in their design. Ms. Reisenberger described the proposal, stating that the goal was to help identify the building while telling the story of the City’s ancillary water system. She explained that the proposal consisted of two-dimensional, brick, circular forms that extended from the façade of the building onto the ground plane, culminating in a sculptural form in front of the building. Ms. Chou remarked that this proposal was shown to the project team for consideration, many of whom were present to comment on the design. She introduced Chief Hayes-White of the SFFD and opened the discussion to other members of the project team.

Chief Hayes-White stated that she thought the cisterns proposal was a great concept and expressed her endorsement of the project. She noted that the SFFD felt positively about moving forward with this design.

Rhab Boughn, Firefighter Paramedic, SFFFD stated that he has been involved with this project since the selection process and is a strong advocate for the cisterns proposal.

Kelley Kahn, Mission Bay Project Manager, San Francisco Redevelopment Agency stated that she was in support of the cisterns proposal. She noted that she was in favor of the sculptural element as it is a neighborhood goal to encourage inhabiting the public arena. Ms. Kahn said she did not support the design on the façade of the building, stating that the architecture should be kept subtle and unadorned.

Laura Blake, Architect, Mark Cavagnero Associates stated the she was also in favor of the sculptural element of the cisterns proposal and thought it would make a good addition to the building. She said she was not in favor of integrating the work into the façade.

Commissioner Keehn asked the architects to clarify if the concern regarding the design on the façade was primarily aesthetic or an issue of technical feasibility.

Mark Cavagnero, Mark Cavagnero Associates explained that there is only one inch of depth in the concrete in which the brick could be inset. He added that with that depth, the brick would either have to be cut and set with bonding glue, or a synthetic and less attractive brick substitute would have to be used. Mr. Cavagnero noted that in either case, there may be an issue with the material flaking and falling off. He also explained that the proposed façade location would include signage that would conflict with the artwork.

Commissioner García-Nakata asked if they could explore alternative methods of attachment, and asked if Mr. Cavagnero also had concerns about the aesthetics of the proposal. Mr. Cavagnero stated that he did have aesthetic concerns which were discussed at a previous project team meeting. He explained how he considered the building to be his art and felt the proposal to use the façade of the building would compromise the integrity of his work. Mr. Cavagnero expressed his desire to work with the artists in a collaborative fashion, but strongly opposed the design on the building façade.

Commissioner García-Nakata called for public comment.

Ray Hartz, Director, San Francisco Open Government stated that while he appreciated that the artist and project team were present, he wondered how the public is notified of the project and how they may give their input. He stated that he saw this as a closed project in which the public is not encouraged to participate. Mr. Hartz also stated that the Visual Arts Committee (“VAC”) meetings may have issues with Americans with Disabilities Act requirements, as the projected presentation materials were hard to see.

Peter Warfield, Executive Director, Library Users Association, commented that he had viewed Merge Conceptual Designs’ previous proposal based on fire alarm boxes which he found charming and educational. And while he was disappointed that the project team would not be moving forward with that design, he found the new proposal attractive and appealing. He suggested that the Arts Commission ask the artist team to present a third proposal. Mr. Warfield stated that he would like to know what public outreach was done regarding this artwork.

Commissioner Chew commented that he felt the strength of the artists’ design was its simplicity and wondered how they would be able to work around signage.

Commissioner García-Nakata asked Program Director Susan Pontious if she had considered other locations for the artwork. Ms. Pontious stated that while she understands the architect’s point of view, she felt that eliminating the art on the building façade would undercut the artists’ design. She said she would like to explore moving the surface design to the lower, corner wall of the building to give the piece full expression.

Ms. Reisenberger stated that she and Ms. Diehnelt were open to collaborating with the architects to finds a solution that was positive for all.

Commissioner Keehn stated that the Committee was being asked to approve the conceptual design of the artwork, not its location. She commented that she liked the concept but felt the design was too literal. She added that she thought the sculptural element would excite and challenge the public and noted that the artist team had just begun their design process for this proposal.

Commissioner Sklar stated that she was in support of the basic concept, but expressed concern about the project timeline.

Ms. Chou asked Charles Higueras, Project Manager, Department of Public Works (“DPW”) to speak to the project schedule. Mr. Higueras said that there would be a time constraint if the artwork were integrated into the concrete façade. And, if that were the case, they would also have to examine the technical ramifications of thickening the concrete wall. He noted that if the artwork were limited to the street area, there would be no time constraint.

Commissioner Keehn asked if there was a time constraint for something applied to the surfaces of the building, rather than inset. Mr. Higueras stated that there was abundant opportunity to find a solution to the artwork location without prohibitive time constraints.

Commissioner García-Nakata asked if there was additional public comment.

Matt Hollis commented that as an architect and San Francisco native, he felt that none of the other artworks being developed for the Public Safety Building appeared to be integrated into the architecture. He noted that in the case of the Fire Station, he would like to see a true collaboration between the artist team and the architects so the artwork was not merely relegated to the sidewalk.

Commissioner García-Nakata suggested that the Committee vote on the conceptual design and reexamine its location during the Design Development Phase.

Motion: Motion to approve conceptual design by Merge Conceptual Design for an artwork for the Fire Station at the new Public Safety Building.
Moved: Sklar/Keehn
The motion was unanimously approved

THE FOLLOWING ITEM WAS MOVED FROM ITEM 4 TO ITEM 3

3. San Francisco Arts Commission (“SFAC”) Rebranding
Kate Patterson and Studio 1500 (Julio Martinez and Erik Schmitt)
Action

Public Relations Manager Kate Patterson reminded the Commissioners that Studio 1500 had been developing options for a new logo for the SFAC over the past several months. She noted that this was a highly collaborative process involving multiple outlets for staff feedback which was considered by the designers. Ms. Patterson added that she also asked for input from her public relations colleagues. She then introduced Julio Martinez and Erik Schmitt, the designers at Studio 1500, to present four logo designs for the Commissioners to consider.

Commissioner Chew asked if the logo still related to the 80th anniversary of the SFAC. Ms. Patterson replied that it was the intent of the former director to connect the logo to the 80th anniversary, but that was no longer the focus of the project.

Mr. Martinez explained that with the feedback from SFAC staff, he and Mr. Schmitt created several logos that addressed the identity challenges that the agency faced. He then described the intent behind four logos and showed images of how they may appear in different scenarios: on a website, on merchandise, business cards, next to other logos, etc.
Mr. Martinez said that as they learned about the relationship between the different departments within the SFAC, the need create connections between them came through. He presented the first logo option which reflects the idea of connection in its font. Mr. Martinez showed the second logo option which he stated reflects the idea of the SFAC as an innovative agency. He showed the third logo option that represents the idea of forward motion, and the fourth logo based on the hills of San Francisco representing the SFAC’s locality and upward ascent.

Commissioner Chew asked Mr. Martinez which of the logos they preferred. Mr. Martinez stated that they liked option two.

Ms. Patterson noted that the preference of both the SFAC staff and her public relations colleagues was option one.

Commissioner Chew stated that he preferred the first two logo options. He noted that the focus on innovation in option two resonated with him.

Commissioner Sklar commented that she loved the connectedness of logo option one since it says something about the SFAC’s relationship to community. She said she liked the angle of the letter “A” in the second logo option as a way to emphasize SFAC as a forward moving agency.

Commissioner Keehn stated that the first two logo options were the best and suggested that the full Arts Commission make the decision.

Director of Cultural Affairs, Tom DeCaigny concurred that the first two logos were the preferred options. He stated that he favored option two because “SF” was highlighted and grounded the agency’s geographical identity. He questioned if the two logos should be brought to the full Commission meeting.

Ms. Patterson reminded the Commissioners that they had previously voted to defer the selection of the logo to the VAC.

Commissioner García-Nakata said that she also liked the first two logos and recommended that the Commissioners vote to support the staff’s preference, logo option one. She called for public comment.

Mr. Hartz commented that the Chair continually expressed concern about the time needed to hear all the items on the agenda. He stated that it sends a strong message to the public that their participation was not welcome.

THE FOLLOWING MOTION WAS REVISED

Motion: Motion to approve the logo (option one) for the San Francisco Arts Commission for recommendation to the full Arts Commission.
Moved: García-Nakata /Keehn
The motion was unanimously approved

THE FOLLOWING ITEM WAS MOVED FROM ITEM 3 TO ITEM 4

4. Mural Design Review
Carol Marie Daniels
Action

Project Manager Carol Marie Daniels presented the Hidden Garden Steps project by artists Aileen Barr and Colette Crutcher at 16th Avenue and Kirkham Street. Ms. Daniels explained that this tile mural project is a continuation of a piece accessioned into the Civic Art Collection in 2005.

There was no public comment on this item.

Motion: Motion to approve the design of the Hidden Garden Steps project, a tile mural by Aileen Barr and Colette Crutcher on 16th Avenue and Kirkham Street. The mural is sponsored by the San Francisco Parks Alliance and supported by the Department of Public Works “Street Parks” program.
Moved: Chew/Sklar
The motion was unanimously approved

5. Public Safety Building – Community Plaza
Mary Chou
Action

Ms. Chou presented the revised design by Paul Kos for an artwork for the Community Plaza at the new Public Safety Building. Ms. Chou indicated that the artist had moved the location of the bamboo along the west side of the plaza to the northwest corner in order to provide users of the plaza relief from the strong winds. Ms. Chou noted that originally the artist had proposed a water element in the shape of the San Francisco Police Department’s seven-pointed star emblem. She explained that in response to the Commissioners prior feedback, the artist had eliminated the water feature and repurposed the star as a sculptural element. Ms. Chou also noted that the structure supporting the bell had changed to be more consistent with the modern design of the Public Safety Building and of the architecture of the Mission Bay neighborhood. Additional changes included eliminating some of the seating and planters running the length of the plaza; adding a point of entry on China Basin Street; and replacing standard bollards on the plaza with boulders.

Commissioner Keehn expressed concern about the artist’s choice to use bamboo, stating that it potentially could be hard to control. Ms. Pontious replied that the artist is working with a landscape architect to identify a type of bamboo that does not spread.

Commissioner Garcia-Nakata commented that the artist had responded to the Commissioner’s recommendation that he simplify the design.

Ms. Pontious noted that the project team had some concern that the redwood tree incorporated in the artist’s design might not survive. Ms. Chou explained that the site will be using reclaimed water that redwood trees do not respond well to. She said that she recommended that the artist consult with an arborist and work with the landscape architect to come up with an alternative to redwood.

Commissioner García-Nakata stated that the design still felt busy and that the primary elements were competing with each other. She felt that approval of the revised design should be contingent on the artist prioritizing the main elements.

There was no public comment on this item.

THE FOLLOWING MOTION WAS REVISED

Motion: Motion to approve the revised design by Paul Kos for an artwork for the Community Plaza at the new Public Safety Building on the condition that the artist further simplify the design and prioritize the primary elements.
Moved: Keehn/Sklar
The motion was unanimously approved

THE FOLLOWING ITEM WAS TABLED

6. SOMA West McCoppin Garden
Mary Chou
Action

Presentation of the proposed public art approach for the new design of McCoppin Stub (previously referred to as McCoppin Hub).

Motion: Motion to approve the public art approach for SOMA West – McCoppin Stub as detailed in the SOMA West – McCoppin Stub Art Project Outline.

7. North Beach Branch Library
Mary Chou
Action

Ms. Chou presented the revised design by Bill Fontana for the sound installation at the North Beach Branch Library. Ms. Chou reported that the artist was in the Design Development Phase, and through this process discovered the need to pare down his design to stay within the project budget. Ms. Chou explained that originally the artist had 16 speakers included in his design which will now be reduced to eight. She noted that the speakers would still be located in the eaves of the building, with six on the Columbus Street side and two wrapping around both corners of the building along Columbus. Ms. Chou added that the artist has also eliminated the speaker in the building entryway as it was located at a lower height than the other speakers, possibly disrupting the way in which pedestrians would experience the work. Ms. Chou stated that Public Art staff is in support of the design.

Commissioner García-Nakata called for public comment.

Mr. Warfield said that it was unclear from the agenda what the Arts Commission’s approval of the design represents. He inquired about the source of the funding for this project. He commented that he found it distressing that something with so little physical presence would be cut in half because of unspecified funding difficulty. He added that he presumed that the project has a fixed cost and would like to hear the funding source specifically discussed.

Commissioner García-Nakata stated that the funding source varies per project and requested that Public Art staff make that information available to Mr. Warfield.

Motion: Motion to approve revised design by Bill Fontana for an artwork at the North Beach Branch Library.
Moved: Keehn/Chew
The motion was unanimously approved

8. Central Subway, Moscone Station – New Project Opportunity: Entry Plaza Sculpture
Jennifer Lovvorn
Action

Project Manager Jennifer Lovvorn reported on a new public art project opportunity to commission a sculpture for the entry plaza of the Moscone Station. She presented an architectural rendering of the plaza as it is currently designed and stated that the sculpture would take the place of the planter. She stated that the intent of this presentation was to obtain Commission approval on the artwork location and approach in order to claim that space within the architect’s construction documents, which are finalizing within the month. If this new public art opportunity is approved, staff would develop a comprehensive project description, budget, selection approach and timeline for presentation to the Commission for approval.

Ms. Lovvorn reminded the Commissioners that the Central Subway public art program currently has two large public art projects at each of the three underground stations and one at the above ground platform station. She stated that the Central Subway public art budget has enough funding to implement at least one new project at each of the three underground stations, assuming that the project approaches do not alter the station design and that the approaches are generally design enhancements to existing station elements where the art budget would just have to cover the cost difference due to the art treatment. She added that because the Moscone Station recently lost one of its two projects when Tom Otterness project was cancelled, there are more funds available for this particular station.

Commissioner García-Nakata called for public comment.

Mr. Hartz commented that the Chair allowed staff to use the five minutes allotted for this item on the agenda and then became upset when the public used time to comment. He stated that he did not understand the driving factor to limit the time of the meeting and felt that public comment was discouraged.

Mr. Warfield stated that he did not understand what a new project opportunity was or what the outcome of the motion would be in terms of subsequent activity and funding. He agreed with Mr. Hartz that the meeting’s focus on time does not give a fair opportunity for the public and the Arts Commission to make thorough decisions.

Motion: Motion to approve the art opportunity as described in the Project Outline for Central Subway, Moscone Station: Entry Plaza Sculpture.
Moved: Sklar/Chew
The motion was unanimously approved

9. Central Subway, Moscone Station – New Project Opportunity: Ticketing Hall Wall
Jennifer Lovvorn
Action

Ms. Lovvorn presented the Project Outline for Central Subway, Moscone Station: 2-Dimensional Artwork for Ticketing Hall Wall. This is an opportunity for a permanent, durable two-dimensional artwork executed in tile, mosaic or glass to be located on the wall above the fare gates in the ticketing hall. The proposed new project would have a minimal impact on the final station design documents, which are going to be complete at the end of this month.

Commissioner Keehn asked for clarification on the selection process for this artwork. Ms. Lovvorn replied that since the artwork design is not tied into the architectural design timeline, a Request for Qualifications could be issued at a later date.

Commissioner García-Nakata called for public comment.

Mr. Warfield asked again what the meaning of new project opportunity was and if a Request for Qualifications was going to be issued for this project.

Commissioner Sklar commented that it was disrespectful of Mr. Warfield to ask that question since the answer was just explained.

Mr. Warfield asked what the funding amount for the project is. Commissioner Keehn replied that it is $785,000.

Mr. Hartz commented that the meeting was getting hostile and asked whether the Commissioners had ever missed something in a meeting and had to ask for clarification.

Motion: Motion to approve the art opportunity as described in the Project Outline for Central Subway, Moscone Station: 2-Dimensional Artwork for Ticketing Hall Wall.
Moved: Keehn/Sklar
The motion was unanimously approved

10. Central Subway, Moscone Station – New Project Opportunity: Platform Floor Terrazzo Design
Jennifer Lovvorn
Action

Ms. Lovvorn reported on a new project opportunity for the platform level of the Moscone Station. The platform floor, which will be terrazzo, offers an opportunity for an integrated artist’s design. The options for this artwork project range from commissioning a design treatment for the entire terrazzo surface or limiting an artist’s designs to areas of focus to create floor medallions or rectangular compositions. Artwork integrated into the platform floor would be visible to station users descending the escalators and glass enclosed elevators and would enliven the platform level for transit users entering and exiting trains and waiting in this area. Ms. Lovvorn stated that the station architects also support this project as it would help to brighten this part of the station. Ms. Lovvorn stated that since the artwork design would not impact the architecture, an artist selection process could commence at a later date. Ms. Lovvorn pointed out that the budget allocation number indicated in the staff report that the Commissioner’s received prior to the meeting was incorrect. She stated that the correct budget allocation for this project is $340,000.

Commissioner García-Nakata called for public comment.

Mr. Warfield commented that Ms. Pontious had offered to explain what the various approvals on the agenda mean at a later time. He stated that it would be useful to have something about the budget for this project on the agenda. He stated that while it is not required of the Commissioners to respond to public comment, there is nothing prohibiting them from doing so.

Motion: Motion to approve the art opportunity as described in the Project Outline for Central Subway, Moscone Station: Platform Floor Terrazzo Design.
Moved: Chew/Sklar
The motion was unanimously approved

11. Central Subway, Union Square Market Street Station – Wayfinding Project (Jim Campbell and Werner Klotz)
Jennifer Lovvorn
Action

Ms. Lovvorn reported on the Design Development Phase (Artwork location, placement and configuration) of the Wayfinding artwork by artists Jim Campbell and Werner Klotz for Central Subway, Union Square Market Street Station. She presented a fly-through animation showing the path and configuration of the artwork. Ms. Lovvorn stated that this project was presented to the Commissioners in November 2011. At that meeting she reported staff’s concerns about our agency’s ability to maintain the artwork elements planned for above the escalators. At that meeting, Commissioners concurred and asked staff to return with revised designs from the artists for this project which limited it to the platform area.

Commissioner Keehn asked if the artists were amenable to having to truncate the artwork. Ms. Lovvorn replied that having to truncate the artwork was unfortunate and the artists were initially not pleased, but the consequence of commissioning an artwork that cannot be maintained was a bigger concern. She added that the artists have worked with the limitations and decided to put more focus on the surface treatment of the sculpture which will involve discs positioned to create imagery.

There was no public comment on this item.

Motion: Motion to approve Design Development Phase (Artwork location, placement and configuration) of the Wayfinding artwork by artists Jim Campbell and Werner Klotz for Central Subway, Union Square Market Street Station.
Moved: Chew/Sklar
The motion was unanimously approved

12. Central Subway, Union Square Market Street Station – New Opportunity: Elevator Enclosure and Deck Glass
Jennifer Lovvorn
Action

Ms. Lovvorn presented the Project Outline for Central Subway, Union Square Market Street Station: Elevator Enclosure and Deck Glass Public Art Project. Ms. Lovvorn stated that the two front faces of the elevator enclosures and the glass deck provide an opportunity for an art glass treatment. The visual impact of such a treatment to the station’s exterior would shift from being subtle during the day to backlit and more vibrant at night. During the day the art glass imagery would be more legible when viewed from within the station and the deck glass could cast shadow or color within the station entry depending upon the artist’s design. This approach calls for an artist’s design to be printed on film, which is laminated within the glass which will be manufactured for the station’s elevator enclosure and decking. An artist would be placed under contract for artwork design and creation of digital production files. Fabrication and installation of the glass would remain with the station construction project; however the artist and Arts Commission would oversee and consult with the contractor to ensure the quality of the completed artwork.

There was no public comment on this item.

Motion: Motion to approve the art opportunity as described in the Project Outline for Central Subway, Union Square Market Street Station: Elevator Enclosure and Deck Glass Public Art Project.
Moved: Sklar/Keehn
The motion was unanimously approved

13. Civic Art Collection
Allison Cummings
Action

Senior Registrar Allison Cummings presented the requests for loan of two artworks in the Civic Art Collection: Masquerade in Black by Jay DeFeo; and Still Life with Letter by Richard Diebenkorn. Ms. Cummings reported that Masquerade in Black was requested for the exhibition Jay DeFeo Retrospective organized by the Whitney Museum of American Art. She noted that the exhibition will first be on view at the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art and will later travel to Whitney Museum of American Art in New York. Ms. Cummings reported that Still Life with Letter was requested for the exhibition Richard Diebenkorn: The Berkeley Years organized by the de Young Museum in San Francisco. She stated that the exhibition will first be on view at the de Young Museum, will then travel to the Palm Springs Art Museum, and to another venue to be determined. Ms. Cummings commented that she supports the loan of both artworks. She noted that the borrowing institutions will cover all costs related to the loans including crating, transit and insurance.

Commissioner García-Nakata called for public comment.

Mr. Warfield stated he was in favor of both artwork loans. He asked if the loans would incur costs to the City.

Motion: Motion to approve the loan of Jay DeFeo’s artwork Masquerade in Black, 1974-1975, an acrylic and mixed media painting, approximately 96 in. x 96 in. (San Francisco Arts Commission Accession Number 1980.6) to the exhibition Jay DeFeo Retrospective organized by the Whitney Museum of American Art in New York. The traveling exhibition will be on view at the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art from November 3, 2012 to February 3, 2013 and from February 28 to June 2, 2013 at the Whitney Museum of American Art.
Moved: Keehn/Chew
The motion was unanimously approved

Motion: Motion to approve the loan of Richard Diebenkorn’s artwork Still Life with Letter, 1961, an oil on canvas painting, approximately 20 ½ in. x 25 ½ in. (San Francisco Arts Commission Accession Number 1967.31) to the exhibition Richard Diebenkorn: The Berkeley Years organized by the de Young Museum in San Francisco. The traveling exhibition will open at the de Young Museum in June of 2013, and travel to the Palm Springs Art Museum in October and to a third U.S. venue in early 2014, as yet to be determined.
Moved: Sklar/Chew
The motion was unanimously approved

14. Randall Museum
Susan Pontious
Action

Ms. Pontious presented the completed artwork Windswept, by Charles Sowers installed at the Randall Museum. Ms. Pontious explained that Windswept is a kinetic piece installed on the façade of the museum that interacts with wind. She expressed that the project was complicated but ultimately successful. Ms. Pontious reported that the public dedication of the work will take place on February 4, 2012.

There was no public comment on this item.

Motion: Motion to approve and accept into the Civic Art Collection Windswept, 2011 by Charles Sowers – a kinetic sculpture approximately 18 ft. 3 in. high by 33 ft. 6 ½ in. wide, made of aluminum and aluminum composite panels installed on the east facing exterior façade of the Randall Museum in Corona Heights Park.
Moved: Sklar/Keehn
The motion was unanimously approved

15. America’s Cup Public Art Project
Susan Pontious
Action

Ms. Pontious presented the Project Plan and Budget for America’s Cup art enrichment funding. She reported that the artwork would be a temporary piece and could be approached in a variety of ways. She commented that a commission of an individual artist, a performance work, or a project by a non-profit organization may be viable options. Commissioner García-Nakata asked what the budget for the project was. Ms. Pontious replied that the total budget is $130,000 of which $83,760 will be available for the artwork. Ms. Pontious stated that the probable location for the artwork would be between Piers 27-29 and 30-31 which are the most optimal areas for pedestrian activity. Ms. Pontious explained that the America’s Cup village was also a possible art location, but is only accessible with paid admission to the event. She noted that the exact location will be decided by the selected artist when more information about the build-out is available.

There was no public comment on this item.

Motion: Motion to approve the Project Plan and Budget for America’s Cup art enrichment funding.
Moved: Keehn/Chew
The motion was unanimously approved

16. San Francisco International Airport (“SFO”): Airport Control Tower
Susan Pontious
Action

Ms. Pontious presented the Project Plan and Budget for an artwork for the non-secure corridor of the Airport Control Tower at SFO. Ms. Pontious reported this project is an extension of the Terminal 2 public art project. She noted that the Control Tower itself is built with federal funds and is not subject to the art enrichment ordinance, but the supporting building is subject to art enrichment allocation. Ms. Pontious described the non-secure corridor as the main public space with a 30’ high wall as the primary public art opportunity. Ms. Pontious commented that this area has a high light level, meaning the artwork would have to be light resistant. She suggested that mosaic or sculptural relief may be appropriate approaches. Ms. Pontious stated that the budget for this project is $480,000, but may increase or decrease depending on the outcome of the SFO Boarding Areas E and F public art projects.

Commissioner Chew asked who the architect for this project is. Ms. Pontious replied that she will be working with the architecture firm HNTB and noted that they have a good history and track record.

Ms. Pontious asked for a Commissioner representation on the Airport Art Steering Committee. Commissioner Keehn volunteered.

There was no public comment on this item.

Motion: Motion to approve Project Plan and Budget for the non-secure corridor of the Airport Control Tower at San Francisco International Airport.
Moved: Sklar/Chew
The motion was unanimously approved

17. Daggett Park Artist Selection Panel
Marcus Davies
Discussion

Project Manager Marcus Davies requested Commissioner participation on the Daggett Park Artist Selection Panel. Commissioner Sklar volunteered.

There was no public comment on this item.

18. Public Utilities Commission (“PUC”) – 525 Golden Gate Avenue
Susan Pontious
Discussion

Ms. Pontious gave an update on the projects Firefly and Water Wall by artist Ned Kahn for the PUC building at 525 Golden Gate Avenue. Ms. Pontious described Water Wall as a piece where water is pumped up and then trickles down through channeled plastic panels located on the sides of the lobby stairwell. Ms. Pontious reported that representatives from the SFAC, the PUC and DPW had visited the artist’s studio to see a prototype of the artwork. They proceeded with the construction of a mock-up which was subsequently viewed by Ed Harrington and the PUC Project Manager. Ms. Pontious reported that at that time, Mr. Harrington found the mock-up unsatisfactory. She noted that she is arranging a meeting to view the mock-up again at a time when the artist and the project team can be present to discuss the work.

There was no public comment on this item.

19. Public Comment
Discussion

(This item is to allow members of the public to comment generally on matters within the Visual Arts Committee’s purview as well as to suggest new agenda items for the Visual Arts Committee’s consideration at a future meeting.)

Mr. Hartz read the following statement:

“While some may choose to view the participation of the Public in Public Meetings as a negative, I do not! Following laws such as the Sunshine Ordinance and the Brown Act are necessary from both a legal and practical point of view. Governmental entities do not only have an obligation to allow, but to encourage, Public participation in their processes. Lip service is often paid to the Public being involved in the decision making rather than making such inclusion a primary goal. The deliberations of the Visual Arts Committee are a part of the history of each and every work of art approved. The value that future generations attach to any art work will be closely tied to the level of inclusion of the Public in the decision-making process. Real participation in the process leads to ownership and pride, not only in Public Art, but in the City of San Francisco.”

Mr. Warfield commented that this was the first opportunity he had to talk about the Bernal Heights Branch Library Mural Project since attending the VAC meetings. He said that the first meeting he attended did not have general public comment, and subsequent meetings have been canceled. He stated that he hopes that the VAC does not approve further details of the new mural and will work to reverse the previous approval to destroy and replace the existing mural. He mentioned that, according to the minutes, there was a lot of discussion at the August 2011 meeting about the process of approving the mural, but the minutes did not indicate if a discussion about the specific content of the mural took place. He stated that according to the minutes, there was no discussion about the history of the existing mural, who was involved in its creation, or the content of the imagery. He stated that this was an unfortunate neglect of duty on the part of the VAC. Mr. Warfield added that the Sunshine Ordinance Task force found the SFAC in violation of the ordinance for not recording VAC meetings. He noted that since last attending the VAC meetings there were improvements in the agenda format. He stated that the process leading to the Bernal Heights Branch Library Mural Project had been “semi-secret” and felt the VAC had received misleading and incorrect information from the Library Commission regarding the matter. He asked that the VAC take no further action on the new mural for the Bernal Heights Branch Library.

20. New Business and Announcements
Discussion

(This item is to allow the Commissioners and Arts Commission staff to introduce new agenda items for consideration at a future meeting, to report on recent arts activities and to make announcements.)

Commissioner Keehn stated that here was a lack of clarity regarding the legality of the last VAC meeting. She cited Section 6.5A of the SFAC bylaws regarding quorum: “In the absence of a quorum no action can be taken and the meeting will be adjourned. At this time, an informational hearing can be held with no action taken and a report given at the next hearing.”

Commissioner García-Nakata called for public comment.

Mr. Hartz read the following statement:

“The Visual Arts Committee needs to include in its future deliberations a serious discussion of the Bernal Heights Library murals. The murals are not only works of art in their own right they are pieces of the history of the neighborhood and the City. While there has been a vote to approve new art work, it has been done with little consideration of the current murals. This shows a degree of disregard for the art itself, but, also for the history of the neighborhood and past decisions of the Arts Commission. I would hope that each and every piece of art, considered on today’s agenda, will be shown respect by any future iterations of this body, as works of art and pieces of history. I sincerely hope that present members will show the respect toward past members, that they would expect in future toward them and their decisions.”

Mr. Warfield stated that the acoustics in the meeting room were poor and that it was hard to hear the routine discussion. He stated that he hoped the VAC would consider rescinding the approval of the new mural for the Bernal Heights Branch Library or would consider taking up the substantive issue regarding the matter, including its history. He explained that the mural was a community project involving children and that the artist, Arch Williams, was a well-known muralist. He stated that as someone familiar with the Sunshine Ordinance and the Brown Act, he has taken numerous complaints to the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force. He commented that it would do the Arts Commission good to review the Sunshine Ordinance.

21. Adjournment
Action

The meeting adjourned at 5:46.

ZT 2/1/12 - draft minutes posted

ZT 2/7/12 - adopted minutes posted

________________________________________