Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0409.091, r -- September 19, 1991 ThE HON'OAABljE CITY CO\.;"NCIL Palo Alto# California Attention: Policy and Services Cumrnittee Art in Public ~lace$ Re~_Jrement from privat~ ___ DeyeloperJL..£1l,d PUbliG Frojects Members of the council: REPORT IN BRIEF. 'l'he Public Art CCIM!\ission bas requested that staff foritTard the attached Art in Public Places draft ordinance to council ... ith tneir recommendation to adopt the ordinance. The draft ordinance establishes a requirement for private developers of projects with a value in excess of $500,000 to provide and maintain a work of art in the project. It also includes a provision which ~lll require additional City funding for all capit.al projects. The chair of the Public Art commission has transmitted a letter to Council that explains the Commission I 5 vie<oTs and efforts. The.}~ desire the Council to adopt the ordinance> jn its present form. (See attachment A) Staff and the Public Art commission have not been able to co~,c to agreement on several fundamental issues, and this report describes those areas. In addition, staff belie'.1es it to be an inaPl-'ropriate tjme to consider imposing additional fees on construction. Staff recommends that COuncil not approve tbe proposed Art in P'w;1:;l ic Pl~ces draft ordinance. BACKGROUr-rJ2 The Public Art Commission (formerly the Visual Arts Ju~y) began cHscussion of a Per-cent for Jo.rt program in November 1984. The discussion grew out of a desire to encourage p~ivate developers to consider setting aside a percentage of construction costs for art in their planning fer the development of do·.mto .... ·n Palo Alto. The idea 1net ""ith such enthusiasm a-rnong the Commission ~~rnbers that ehey decided to include a statenent in their Municipal Arts Plan regarding a percent for art program. The COTI'JOissicm fonorarded the CMR.:1;,09:91 c , - -'-.. ~ ,:;:..-:.;: .-' Page !"wo MUnicdp3.1 Art plan to Council in March 1985 for cor.side-ration. The Municipal Art Plan, ~hich was adopted by Council, directs the Public Art commission tc '"Explore mechanisms for achieving an Art in Public Places levy or guidelines for all public and private development.M (Policy 4 Program 2) The attached draft ordinance is the result of the Public Art COIILtnission's exploration of Ir...:cha:"!isrns to provide for Art in Public Places supIXlrt through contrit:utions from public and private development. Throughout the process, the Comrnissicn met ~ith City staff, including the City Attorney and representatives from the Planning Departmer.t and the Department of Publ ic Works. The Corr.mission has made every effort to incorporate the advice of City staff into the draft ordinance .. ithcut cC''Ii1promising their original vision for a percent for art ordinance derived from pl.lblic and private development~ Even so, the Com::r1ission's draft ordinance does not sufficiently recognize staff's concerns 'With respect to its implementation and, as a result. staff is unable to recommend adoption of the Requirement for Art ordinance in its present form. Early in the process Com..'T!issioners met r",'i th I!1("!:lbers of the Palo Alto bu~iness corn~unity to seek their input. Meetings 'Were held with ROXY Rapp, William Reller~ and a representative from the Stanford Shopping Center. Generally. these individuals said they could support the idea of requiring private developers to provide public art orr as an alternative, to contribute to a public art fund. More recently, ho~everr local developers su~h as Jim Baer and Chcp Keenan have expressed their opposition to the concept. The Commission is contiTElinq their efforts to r.eet .... 'ith the local business community and ke:f developers to explain the po-t:ential impacts of the ordinaJ'lce and to seek their s'.Jpport. Many other cities in Cal ifori'" ia have al ready adopted s imil ar ordinances that require tr.e provision of art resul ting from private development. Attachment B is a sampling of such cities .. hich describes ho .. other communities apply the ordinance, ~hat threshold (trigger) is used l and the basis for establishing an assessment. Generally, cities that adopted an art ordinance after 1989 emplo~l square footage as the rationale for determining the nexus. The City of Santa Monica explained th~ir reasoning for not using the traditional percent of construction: -a per cent is discriminatory and it is not legally defensible.~ None of the cities survEyed reported any unl1appiness by the developers that the art requi rement is unreasonable nor that they find the process onerous. CKR:409:91 f ,. t I I i I \ ,. y <-~(" ;.~ ~·'I < •• ,"',,, -;'.-;'-"-:'<:: , - '"', Page '!'hree PISCUSSION The comments whi~h follo~ summarize staff's concerns ~ith respect to the attached drcft ordinance~ FINDINGS: The proposed findings in the draft ordinance are deficient in terms of justifying ..why private developers are being required to provide art. The findings are broad enough to satisfy only the current Capital Improvement Art in Public Places fund, Findings need to state why it is important that developers provide art. The fact that developers are an available source of money is not a legal reason. 'I'he COlnl!!ission has declined to ir:::c]ude language of this kind. Should the ordinance be approved, staff recommends that thl'.l. following fin~ings be added: 1) An urbanized society is characteri zed by buildings and: structur~s, ~hich creates adverse visual i~pacts such as monotony, bulk, VIew blockage, dullness, and loss of open space and opportunities for peaceful contemplation ~hich are provided by an undisturbed envirornl'lent.. Works of art directly counter these adverse visual impacts by creating diversity~ beauty. and expression. 2) Construction of new buildings and structures is also directly associated with an influx of people. ~hether permanent residents, commuters trom outside the citYI or visitors. Ne'III' construction creates urbanization. and contribut.es to the stress of modern life which can be relieved by the 0Plx>rtunities for reflection. contenplation ar,d appreciation for tl'..Hl'.an creativity which public art can provide. 3) j,jC1rks of art in locatior.s available to the public create a focal point of physical gathcring r discussion and sha:cing of CO!T\ll",on interests. and create an opportunity tor personal reflection, all of -which are b~neficial to the health and .'elfare of this comrnunity~ 4} The incorporation of art in locations ava Hable to the public ~ill mitigate, in whole or in part, the sense of uniformity and loss of human scale and orientation tl'.at can be g'c.nerated by large or highly visibl.e private COffiIllercial and public development projects .. Requiring the incorporatic>n of art ""ork in such projects is in the public interest and welfare. CKR:409;Sll • ~ I I , - • "-V'; '-'Pi. Whlt@ IS,_ 9i¥Je Page Four CONSTRUCTION COST VS. SQUARE FOOTAGE The commission proposes $500,000, based on gros$ construction costs, as a trigger to implement the requir~ments of the ordinance. Tl1e req'lirement 'would apply to nan-residential de .... elopment. Staff believes that a cost trigger is inappropriate for three reasons. First, for the ordinance to vit.hstand legal challenge, a connectio~ or -nexus· hetw~en the amount of the fee charged and the reason for the fee must be established. A dollar trigger fails to uo this, since there is no relationship betveen the cost of a structure and its effect on the cornmunity.. Two structures, costing identical amounts t might have videly differing adverse effects on traffic, utility demands, site coverage, and the character of the enviromnent~ Second, the City's regular process will require the Architectural Review Board to make some judgment as to the appropriateness of the proposed art 'Work 'ir.lhen the proj ect comes to them. It will be difficult, if not impossible, to guaran'tee that developers will knoW' hoW' much t!".eir proj ect is going to cost at that stage. Consequently, it will not always be possible tor the Architectural Review Board to -make a so'.md judgment. Third, construction co:;.ts 'Will be difficult to :monitor, much less agree on, between the developer and the City. Staff I"E!comrnends that, if Council approves the on:!inanc-e, a fee based on sqt.lare footage be e.stablished4 This standard lends itself JIlore easily to monitoring and ls more equitable to developers. Priv3te non-residential developments of ;20,000 sq. ft. or :more ",·ol.lld trigger the ordinance. The follo'Win9 data wi 11 enable a comparision of the number of projects ...... hich ""ould be required to provide art, d8pending ~pOI1 the basis .... hich L~ used~ The Planning Department recorded six new non­ residential projects and 27 remr;dels in FY 1989 -1990 and 14 ne ... non-residential proje~ts and 26 remodels in FY 1990 -1991 where construction exceeded $50D,QOO~ On the other hand, the Planning Department recorded two non-residential projects between September 1988 and september 1989 and two non-residential projects bet ... ·een september 1989 and SepteIDPer 1990 where ne~ development added more than 20,000 sq. ft. CMR:403:91 r f • - o Pag-e Five ACCESSIBILrTY: There may be development, either private or public, where public accessibil i ty is inappropriate or wl'1.ere t.he doavelopment is not a project that can accommodate art. There is no consideration of this possibility in the ordinance as proposed. PROCESSES~ The manner in ..... hich the art requirell'lEmt st-.all be handled as part of the City's development application process is another area where staff and the public Art Cornmissivn are not in agreement. Although there are several procedural mechanisms that could be used for consideration of applications for the art requirement, the procedure suggested by staff (0110,,",5 the one for architectural review. In order to comply ~ith Section 22 of the Charter~ which provides that conunissiQn5~ such as the Public Art Commission, shall bF2: advisory only and shall exercise no governmental or adndnistrative powers, staff proposes that the PA.C .make recomrnendation~ to the Director of Arts and Culture. ~ith ap~eals to the city Council. This is similar to the erchitectural revie~ process~ where the ARB makes recom~endations to the Director of Planning and COmIllunity Environment, with appeals to the city COUncil. Developers are familiar with this proc€ss and, although the art req'uirement adcs another approval process, staff fe.els that this process would be the most efficient~ Although the PAC understands the charter requiren·,ent, its draft reflects its reluctance to turn over responsibil i ty for art approval to a staff person .... ho 1l'ay or :rnai not have a sOlJnd art background. The requirement fer the Director to go back to the Commis.sion if he/she disagrees ""i th its reco~endatiC'n, rather than giving the Director the final authority, results (rom this concern, as does the appeal back to the Commission. Although a further ap~eal to the council is also provided, this process appears to be in conflict with the Charter. staff has concerns regarding the I!1anner in which the proposed process W'ill interrupt and inh:rfere \"ith the development permit process and the abiliti' to comply '.dth the State Permit Strearr,lining Act. CMR~409:9) L • , .. ~ " , \ . \ "t • ~ , i i I ( , - Page She: PUBLIC DEVELOFMENT: The purpose of the draft ordina~ce is to provide art to the public. Unlike the private developer, the community already funds art through the Art in public places capital Improvement Pr~ram. The City serves as the developer for public projects, in behalf of the community. If additional amounts are to be contributed to the .Art in Public Places program. that should be done forthrightly through the budget process. To "tack onllll an additional charge to capital projects hides the true budgeting priority of this item and simply passes the cost back to the taxpay~rs. capital project costs ~il1 rise and other Gen~ral Fund priorities 'Will suffer. The ordinance also applies to City maintenance projects~ ""hich staff feels is inappropriate. city projlF>cts are done for the betterment of the entire con~unity. As such, the timing for their completion can be critical~ The burden of the process ~ill d~lay such projects. Further, staff believes that it ~ould be imprudent that a public project such as ~ utility substation~ which may be considered urgent due to co~~unity u~ility needs, be subjected to the same process required for private develop€~5. Applying this ordinance to utility projects, as is proposed, has the potential i:mpact of requiring an art subsidy from such projects as undergrounding and sewer construction. Staff feels this is an inappropriate levy against needed maintenar.ce efforts. The draft ordinance requires a private developer to hire an artist to submit art alternati .... es to the Public Art Commission, The developer of public projects, the City~ alreadj~ has this expertise with the Public Art Commission. The Public .Art Commission reco~ends, ~s an alternative r a~e~ding the existing Art in Public Places ordinance to allm.' th-a Commission to provide art on selected cajor City building and park projects. In summary~ pu,blic and private developments have significantly different missions and staff believes strongly that they should not be covered by the same process. STAFFING: The successful implementation of thE" draft ordinance 'Will res;ult in new and additional administ~ative ~ork. Staff cannot accurately predict in advance the extent or the impact on staff i il the departments which must implement and administer the provisions of the ordinance. If Council approves the draft ordinn.nce, s-:'aff will CMR:4Q9:91 • -. :. - o!'. ' o Page Seven move fcnrard to i:r.plement it using existing resources~ If the workload proves infeasible, it .. ill be necessary for staff to return to Council .... ·ith a request for additional staff ~ CONCWS!ON: The concept of requiring the provision of public art in private developments is not new. The percent for ayt concept is a process for funding publ ic art that has been used by cities for several years. However, most of the cities ~ith ordinances such as that proposed by the Public Art Commission de not fund the arts in other .... ays nor have the city facilities devoted to the arts which Palo Alto has. In a time of diminishing financial resources, Palo Alto has continued to make certain that the art~ are not put in jeopardy. Ordinances which requir-e private develop:r.Ient contributions to the extent proposed by the Public Art co~ission are most successful when formulated .... ith the full participation and support of the affected priva.te sector. l'his proposal does not have that support, nor is it endorsed by staff~ Adding another fee to development~ is not a prudent step to take at this time. The uncertainties of the current economy suggest that this is not the optimum time to add another fee, ",;hen there are already so many mandatory fee.:; i:y-:luded in the cost of development in Palo Alto. Ne~ development in Palo Alto is bearing the cost of compliance with programs to ass'-'.re seismic safety, hazardous materials control, water conse~~ation. housing mitigation, transportation demand manage~ent programs and recycling programs. Requiring a ne~ fee for art is not appropriate ~hen the majority of projects completed in Palo Alto, absent this requirement I have incorporated some measure of art in the development simply to increas~ their aesthetic appeal. Th~ ~rdi~anc~ is proposed to be applied to remodeling constru~tion as ~ell as no';\Il development. The ordinance could serve as a disincentivE to upgrade, thus directly contrary to the City's goals for certain non-residential buildings and areas. The ordinance is also proposed to apply to the capital projects funded by the City. In the instance ot" projects such as utilities unde.rgrounding and se~er installations; there is no relatior..=..hip bet"';een the project and art ~ The ordinance '''''QuId secure fU!'"Jds for art, ",hi Ie increasing the cost to the public for essential services. To imp!emer.t and administer the art requirer:lent ordinance-\trill place demands on existing staff and may require additional staff. CKR:409:91 c • .. - ~ --~-. Page Eight RECOMMENDATION staff reCommends that the City Council not apprcv~ the attached draft ordinance prep~red by the Public Art Commission. Ret.: ~ll( ;u;rn i tted, Leon A. Kaplan~ Directvr Division of Arts and CUJture ~~-) I ...._____-; z: +~~::_./ Paul Thiltgen l Direc~~- -. Departmen~f ___ cqJTI.munity Services . ,"" /' \..~L~L.Qy-:?-_ Willlam Zaner ci ty ¥anager At.tac~ments: "A -Transmittal l~tter :from John Montgomery, Chairman, Puplic Art Commission B -Survey of selected California Cities that require art from private developers C. Draft ordinance from the Public ~rt Commission revised March 27, 1991 CC: Public Art commission P.oxy Fapp Jim Baer William Reller Chop Keenar. CMR:409:91 • - City Council City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Ladles and Gentlemen: August 14~ 19S1 Enclosed for your consideration is the Public Art Commission's draft ordinance adding Chapter 16.50 to Title 16 [Buildinq Regulations] of the palo Alto Municipal Code Relating to the Provision of Public Art in Private Development an~ Public Works. This ordinance is the result of six years of work by the Public Art Commission and its subcommittee Charged with drafting the ordinance. During the entire drafting process, the Public Art Commission worked closely with City staff in draftinq the ordinance which reflects numerous compromises between the Public Art commission and City staff. The Public Art Commission 2nd City staff were unable to reach a compromise on the version of the ordinance submitted to the City Council. The enclosed draft was unanimously endorsed by the Public Art Corr~ission tor submission to the City Council without the endorsement of City staff in the spring of 1991 prior to the appointment of three new members of the Public Art Commission. An informal poll of the current Public Art Commission reveals unanimous support for the concept of an ordinance requiring an art element in public construction projects in Palo Alto with a strong majority also favoring a similar requirement for certain private projects. The Public Art commission is committed to continuing to enhance the physical environment of our city through the placement of works of art and encourages the ci ty Counc il AUquBt 14, 1991 Page 1 o o city council to qive the proposed ordinance serious consideration. We recognize, however, that you may have questions and concerns of your o'Wn and stand prepared to ""orJc 'With you to address such questions and concel;-ns ~ JBli: belt Enclosure CC! Leon Kaplan Sincerely, ~~.~ M~::!~airperson Public Art Commission Public Art Commission Members D00ll"Z.I.'P • SURVEY OF SELECT CiU,IFOR.N1A CITIES THAT REQUIRE ART .F:ROM PRIVATE DEVELOPERS • Attachment B ______ --'Fstabl __ tshe4,_--'A"s"-s"-"e.>s,'s"rn"c"nl.t"--_______ . __ T.rigqer Exenmtions Fremont In process 1% of design/schematic cost $500,000 low income housing parking lots Concord 1985 \~ of devel. paid upon issuance of occupancy. Applies only to redev area. $ 40,ODO non-re5id~ntial San Jose 1589 negotiated as part of rede~elop Brea 1984 .5 -1% range (bigger projects smaller %) Santa Monica In process .55 cents sq. ft. Pasasdena 1989 OXnard 1989 Sunnyvale 1989 Public Art Co~~ission August 3, 1991 1% construction cost art is part of the desi.:rn n;!v iew and is determined by art cO.iJUf1Ii1ission. art is part uf the design review and is determined by art comnission '------,-,--- $500,000 single family home non-profits 25,OOOsf residential hospitals lOD,OODsf residential ~hen new dey residential is more than 2 acres; ':Ir enlargements exceed 30,OGOsf; or new deY on a busy corner is greater than to,OOOst. ." I • - ORDINANCE NO.",,.~o< ORDINANCE O? THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO ADDING CHAPTER 16.50 TO TITLE 16 (BUILDING REGULA­ TIONS) OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE REL>.TING TO THE PROVISION OF PUBLIC ART IN PRI,ATE DEVELOP- MENTS AND PUBLIC WORKS The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECT10N 1. Chapter 16.50 is hereby added to Title 16 Alto Municipal Code to read as (Building Regulations) of the Palo .follows: PuoLIC ART IN PRIVATE DEVELOPMENTS AND PUBLIC WORKS sections: 16.50.020 16.50.030 16.50.040 16.50.050 16.50.060 16.50.065 16.50.070 16.50.075 16.S0.0eo 16.50.090 16.50.100 16.50.110 16.50.120 Findings. Definitions. Work of Art Required. l~ation of Private Development Projects Subject to Requirements. Application. Public Hearing and Notice. Recommendation of the Public ~It CO~~i5sion. Action of the Director of Arts and Culture. Appeals. Preliminary Review. Standards for Review. Integration with other Code Provisions. Compliance with other Laws. 16.50.020 Findings. (a) The city of Palo Alto is 'Well known as a center for education and culture~ It is in the public interest that public and private projects should he planned and ex~cuted with ~ view toward enhancinq the visual character of the city. (b) There are sound economic and social reasons for investing in the arts. They are a.n important and integral part of every community. Public art enhances the quality of life by helping to define a ccmmunity's identity, values, and heritage, contributes to cross CUltural communication, stimulates economic gro~h, attracts business and corporate investment to commun.ities, promotes do:.mtown and neiqhborhood revitalization, spurs tourism, and provides inspiration to residents. (e) Works of art in locations available to the public create focal points for physical gatherinq, discussion and sharing of common interests. They create an opportunity for personal revised March 27, 1991 • , .~, . .-:'>' ;. .. 1 .. I ~1 -- o reflection and for the education of our children and are, therefore, beneficial to the welfare of this community. Cd) worka of art which are incorporated into architectural designs enhance and enrich the sit~s, add a sense of excitem~nt to the environment I and help define spaces and structures. eel Public art in Palo Alto has made the. city an aesthetic&lly exciting place to live, work and visit. The city of Palo Alto accepts the responsiDility for e~andinq public ~xperience ,..ith visual art. Such ar't :hC!s enable people in all societies to understand their comrounities and individual lives~ 16.50,030 whenever used in this section. Definitions. The fol1o'Wing words and p1'lrases l this chapter, ~hal1 be construed as define~ in (a) -Art-or "Work of Art-means and. includes., but is not limited to., a sculpture, monument, mural, fresco, relief, painting, banner, ~osaic., cer~mic, weaving, carving, stained glass, water land5cape, fabric art, or specifiC architectural element, such as a gate, door or lighting, which is ornamented or enriched beyond utilitarian function. (b) In some cases it may be appropriate to include artists as members of project design tea~s~ With this approach, the artist becomes an integral participant in a project from its incepticn, working i~ collaboration with en9ineers, architects, urban designers, city planners, landscape architects, municiple authorities; and neighborhood citizen qroups~ (e) The folloving shall not be considered art or works of art for tbe purposes of this ordinance: (1) Reproductions by origital works of limited editions original prints, other art forms~ mechanical or other means of art. Art may include, ho~ever. controlled by the artists of cast sculpture, photographs and {l} Directional or other functional elements such as super-q.!"aphics., signing and color co-d.ing, except wbere these elements are integral parts of oriqinal siqned artworks. (3) Objects that are 1ll3SS produced from a standard designs. revised March 27, 1991 , , - o CC) Land6capinq and qardening, exc~pt vhere these elements are designed by the artists and are an integral part of a fine artwork. (d) -Public Spaoe-or -Space Open to the Public" means. an area which is visible to a.nd/or to which the public has fre.e access a minimum of five (5) days a week, eight (8) or ~ore hou~s a day, on either priv~te or publi~ property_ Such space may be either interior or exterior. 16.50.04Q Work of Art Reguired4 shall be provided and maintained in a space a part of all of the followinq projects: Art or a .... ork of art open to the public as (a) All nonresidential development projects {including hotel and motel development) involving neW" construction and/or remodeling constructicn with the final e5ti~ated gross construction cost of $500,000 or more. (:b) All city projects involving rleW' construction and/or remodelinq construction .... ith the final estimated qross construction cost of $500,000 or more. (e) All park improvements pursuant to Secti¢n 22~08~003 of this code. Cd) The cost of the art is recommended to ~e a minimum of 1\ of the final estimated gross construction cost. The owner of such property shall maintain the work of art, or cause it to be maintained in qaod condition continuously after its install~tion. No piece of required art approved pursuant to this chapter .ay be removed, except for required maintenance or repair, unless such removal has been approved by the city's Public Art Commission, which approval may be conditione~ upon replacement of the ~ork of art. No permit require~ under Title 16 shall be issued except after approval of the required ~ork of art by the director of arts and culture, upon reccmmendation of the PUhlic Art Commission, or the city council, as the case may be, in compliance with this chapter, and, with respect to exterior plac~ent of art, after final land­ scape approval of the location of the work of art by the Director of Planninq and community Envir~nment, upon recommendation of the Architectural Review Board, pursuant to Chapter 16~48. 16.50.060 Application. {a) Applications for review of a proposed work of art for a project subj~ct to this ordinance $hall revised March 27, 1991 L • • ~" , ; I '1 I , \ i L -~~ ~~-~~-~-~~~~ be filed with the planning department along with a fee as set 'or~h in the municipal tee schedule. The application shAll contain the following intorm~tion: (1) Landscape and site and/or floor plans indicating the location and orientation of the artwork and the landscaping and architectural treatment integrating the piece into the overall project design; (2) A sample, model, photograph or drawings of the proposed art piecei (3} Material samples and finishes if appropriate: (4) A resume of the proposed artist; (5) Slides andjor photographs of the proposed artist's pas~ 'Work which delllonstrates like work to that proposed; (6) A written statement by the artist describing any theme. or development of the art, as well as a discussion of the manner in which the proposed art meets the crite~ia set forth in section 16.50.~OO. (7) Mailing label& Cor all notices required to be mailed pursuant to Section 16~50.065~ (8) Such other information or material as may be requirec1 by the Director of Arts aru:i Culture. The planning department shall forwaro the application ano fee to the Director of Arts and CUlture for processing~ Unless the applicant is otherwise notified in ~itinq, the application shall be deemed complete on the thirtieth calendar day after its receipt by the Planning Oepart~ent, or on the date the project is first consiOered by the Public Art Commission# wfiichever comes first. The application will be placed on the agenda of the Public Art COln1'llission l'lO late"I' t,han the first regular meeting follolMinq the thirty-tirst calendar day after receipt of a complete application, provided that# for 900d cause, the Director of Arts and Culture shall have the discretion to place the applic~tion on a later­ agenda. • 16,50.065 Public Hearing and Notice. (a) Notice of t!".e hearing on required artwork tor a. project shall be given by publication of the Public Art Commission's agenda once in a local ne'Wspaper of general circulation not less than eight calendar days reviseo March Zi, 1991 L • , . ' . -.~. 'r I I 1 I j - prior to the date of the hearinq. Additionally; notice of suc~ he~rinq shall ~e m~iled at least twelve calendar days prior to the date of th~ Public Art Commission hearing to the applicant, to owners of record of real propsrty within three hundred feet ot the exterior bo~noary of the property involved, as such owners of reccrd are shown in the last equalize~ assessment roll, and to owners or occupants of the property ~ithin tt~ree hunOz'ed feet as shown on the ci'ty ut.ility customer file. Campliance with the proceClures set forth in this section shall canstitute a good faith effort to provide notice, and the failure of any owner or occupant to re~eive notice shall not prevent the city from proceedinq ~ith the hearinq or from takinq any action or affect the validity of ~ny action. (b) The notice of ~-.lblic hearin9 shall contain the following: (1) The e~act address of the prope~ty, it known, or the location of the property, if the exact address is not known, and the nature or purpose of the application; (2} The time, place and purpose of the hearinq; (3) A brief oescription# the content of which shall be in the sole discretion of the city, of the approval souql'lt; {4) Reference to the application particulars; and on file for (SJ A statement that any interested person, or agent thereof, may appear and be heard. (c) TypOgraphical and/or puclishinq errors shall not invalidate the notice nor any City action. At the time and place set for such hearing, the Public Art Commission shall hear evidence for and against the application. Each hearing shall be open to the public. The Public Art Commission may continue any hearing from time to time. 16.50.070 Recommendation of the Public Art Commission. The Public Art commission shall recommend to the Director of Arts and CUlture that the proposed vork of art for a project be approved, disapproved or approved \lith lDooifications, it'lcludinq the i~position of conditions, by makinq findings in accordance with the standards contained in this crdillQnce. and such additional standards as ll",ay be a~opted and published by the city council from revised March 27, 1~91 • '-', , , , .\ . , \ : .. .-' "~:..J~ .... . ' " .... --------~.--. - tilDe to time. 16.50.075 Action Qf the Director of Arts and CUJ:tJll:!i. (a) Atter the Public Art Commission IS recommendation on the proposed work of art for a project is ~Oe, ~e Director of Arts and CUlture shall: (1) determine ~hether or not the recommendation of the Public Arts Commission w~s made in eccordance with the standards contained in this ordinar.ce, and such additior.al standards illS may be adopted and published by the city council from ti~e to time. (2) if determined that the recommend3tion of the Public Arts commission lr{a.s not made en the basis. of findings made in accordance ~ith the standards contained in this ordinancQ I the Oirector of Art and CUlture may request a reconsicieration of the decision at the ne~t scheduled meeting. (3) if final action is not taken within forty (40) days, the application shall be denied. (b) The minutes fro=. the Public Art Commission meetings shall be placed in the city countil packet and forwarded to the Architectural RevieW' Board and the Buidlinq and Planning Departments as soon as they are available. 16.50.0gQ Appeals. Any per-6or. aggrieved by the action of the Public Art Commission ~ay file an appeal with the Public Art Commis5ion. The appeal shall be filed not lat~r than eight working days fol-lowing the effective date of the Director of Art and CUlture's decision and action on 3 project. If the appeal is denied by the Public Art Commission, the applicant ~ay file an appeal to the city Council. Any appeal to the City Council shall be filed with the City Clerk., along ""ith a fee as set forth in tbe municipal fee schedule; however., any ~e~ber ~f the City Council ~ay file such an ~ppeal without a fee. The City Clerk shall place the appeal upon the ilgenda of the City council for a regular -meeting-not later than the thirty-first working day after the receipt of the appeal. If the appellant is other than the applicant for the proje~t, the City Clerk shall notify the applicant of the appeal. The City Council ~ay take o~e of the following actions: (a) Disapprove the proposed work oZ art for the project; or revised March 27~ 1991 L ,.:'.' I .-' ----------- (bJ Appr-ove, or approve with modifications, includinq the imposition of conditions, the p~oposed work of art for the project. ~~~ Freliminary Review. For the purpo~e of securing the advice of the Public Art commission prior to making an application for the Public Art commission's recommendation on a project, an applicant miiiY make a presentation before the Public Art Commission for prelimlnary reviev. If the applicant wishes to pro­ ceed with the p~ojectl ha or she must then file an application and pay a regul.!r application fee. The comments of the public art commission members during a preliminary review shall not be binding on their tormal recomme~dation. 16.50 .100 Standards for ll'~vie... The following standards shall be used by the Public Art commission in revieving proposed works of art (or projects required by this ordinance: Cal. The worle of art shall zneet the definition of art set forth ~n su~~ection 16.50~030(a); proviaed, the Public Art Commission or the city Council, as the case may be, ~ay approve a~other form of art upon a determination that such other art form will satisfy the intent of this ordinance. Cb) Generally, the art requirement shall be satisfied with a site specific, integrated ~ork of art, except that the requirement ~ay be ~et with several works of art when specific~lly found by the ~~blic Art Commission to fulfill the intent of this ordinance. (c} The art shall be accessible to the public and be located in an area specifically designated for the ~ork of art on the site plan for the project. Appropriate locations may include, but are net limited to, entryways to the property, qreenbelts, interior public locations ~uch as lObbies, and building exteriors~ (d) Installation of the art piece shall be planned and implemented to e~~ance the work cf art and allow for unobstructed public vieving from as ma~y anqles as pcssible. (e) The composition of the wor~ of art shall be of permanent materials requirinq a loW' level of maintenance. Materials esed shall be durable and ~eather resistant. Cf) The work of art shall be desiqned and produced by a pro­ fessional artist. The artist's qualifications should be evaluated and examples of past work should be revie"wl.'ed in order to assure that the artist cho~en is competent to create art of appropriate ~cale and quality for the site. The determination of artistic preferences is to be primarily a function of the owner or developer revised Karch 21, 1991 L --, ---_.' , .-"l . "--." "t:. I , - .- "-·1 o Of tbe property, it being the intent of this ordinance to provide fo~ the public displ~y of private art ~n private property ~ithout substituting the artistic preferences of the city for those of t.he owner ~r develvper of the property. (9) The nature and style of the work of art shall be con­ sidered in the context of other similar artwork open to public vie~ in the surrounding area with the intent of encouraqinq diversity in style, materials ~nd approach. (h) If any work of art comes undeT the jurisdiction of the Unified Buildin9 code, it must be signed off by a licensed professional (ex.: engineer) ~ (iJ All ,",or:ks of art should be consistent with and reflective of city poliCies, including, but not li~ited to, resource cor,servation. (j) Each piece shall be identified by an appropriate plaque of a fora and size consistent ~ith other city administered art in public places. '1'he requirement of this section may be ~ai ved if determined in a particular circumstance to be inconsistent with the intent of this chapter. (k) The work of art shall be a permanent, fixe~ asset to the property. The owner or developer shall provide assurance to the city, in a form satisfactory to the city attorney, that the respon­ sibility to maintain tne art and surrounding landscaping and lightinq, and the restrictions on removal of the art shall run with the land, and become the responsibility of all future transferee~ of the land. (1) The 'Work of art shall in al.l other respects be consistent ~ith the purpose and intent of this ordinance. 16.50,110 Intsgri!!tion with other Code. Pr.Q..Y.i..sions. Nothing in this ordinance. shall be constnled as waiving, modifying, eli~inating or mitigating the requirements of any other provision of this code. The requirements herein are intended 'to pe sup­ plementary and additional thereto, and in case of any conflict therewith, the most restrictive shall apply. 16.50.120 ~liance with Other Laws. It shall be the responsibility of the owner of the work of art to be knowledgeable of, and comply with, all federal, state and local laws relatinq to the ownership of ~orks of art, as they apply to any work of art constructe~ in accordance with this ordin~~ce. revised March 27~ 1991 r ! r I ! I I I ~ .. -- '. o SECTION 2~ The city council hereby finds tblt this ordinance does not constitute a project tor purposes or the Cal.ifornia Environmental Quality Act, and tl" .. at no environmental assess~ent is required. SECTION ). This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the Oate of its adoption~ INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: ATTEST: APPROVED: c~ty Clerk City Manager APPROVED AS TO FOIU!: Senior ~sst~ city Attorney oirector of Communlty Services oirector of Arts i cult~ur~e~--- revised March 27, 1991 L