The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About0523.091II , j h ~ j "j '1 i - November 27, 1991 TSE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL Palo Alto, California Attention: Policy a~d services Committee PUblic ~t Commission Propoged~tp ~~lic Places ordinance Members of the Council: ~~port in Brief 'I'he policy and Services cornmi ttee rev ieW'"ed the Public Art Commission's revised Art in Public Places draft ordinance at their meeting of October 1~ 1991. The Comn".ittee asked staff to research and respond to questions they had regarding the impact of adopting such an ordinance. The questions raised caused staff and the Public Art cv~ission to review a changed approach to an Art in Public Places ordinance that l!'Lakes a requirement to private d eve 1 opers . DiseYssion On October 1, 199.1 the Pub,1ic Art Commission presented an Art in PUblic Places revised draft ordinance to the Policy and services Comnittee with its recommendation to adopt the ordinance. The revised draft ordinance, which responded to staff concerns as described in CMR:409:91. established a requirement for private developers to provide and maintain· a ... ork of art in projects exceeding 15,000 square feet. It also included a provision w'hich would re~~ire funding for Municipal capital projects. The direction that the Publ ic Art Commission tock in developing their proposed ordinance W"lS based cn advice they have consistently received ~rorn staff with respect to the limits of exacting fees from developers in accordance with Assembly Bill 1600. AB 11')00 requires that. in order to establish a fee for development, a city must conduct a conceptual and numerical nexus analysis that includes the follo ... ing elements: 1. A master plan of public facilities needed~ 2. A needs analysis comparing the antiCipated needed facilities with the current facilities; 3.. A deficiencies analysis comparing the existing facilities with the currently needed facilities; CMR: 523: 91 'L . i. " Page Twc 4. A determination of the types of development to whi~h the fee will be applied: 5. A determination of the CCl'st of the needed facilities including administration and financing costlS:- 64 The am~unt of the fee based on the need for the public facility created by each type of development. The purpose of such an analysis 10 to establish a linxage between the n~eded facilities (in this case public art) and the development fee. If conducted now, a study would also address the questions the Policy and services Committee has raised with regard to Art in Public Plac2s. At the time the Commission began its exploration cf mechanisms to support the concept of exacting art from private developers, there were no examples of any linkage studies regarding clJl"tural activities. Because staff was concerned about Palo Alto being the first city to conduct such a study, the City Attorney advised the commission# as an alte~ative# to ~ecommend requiring art as part of a private development (as; opposed to a fee) and to tie the requirement ~ith the city's building permit and revie~ processes~ The Commission abandoned their original concept of establishing a percent for art and, instead, developed an ordinance that required developers to provide art ~ith their development~ Subsequently, the Commission prepared a proposed ordinance ~hich added an additional discretionary review to the development process4 Some local developers have stated that the proposed ordinance, by creating another step for them, has the potential for impeding the progress of a develcpment and places an unnecessary burden on them~ They have expressed opposition to the concept. It is stafffs belief that there may be more support for a public art ordinance if the City exacted a fee from private developers, to be crediteQ to the Art in Public Places program. rather than m3king a requirement that developers provide and maintain a .... ork of art in the project4 The developers would still have the opportunity to provide art as a part of the project as an alternative. In order to establish an ordinance .... hich allows the City to exact a fee, the City would have to prepare a conceptual and quantitative analysis. Staff has reconsidered its original advice not to do such an analysis since there are now two examples of cities which have produced such a study, ~hich can be used by Palo Al to as models. Both studies are intended to meet the requirements of AB 1600 and establish a linkage between development fees and the use of such a fee to support arts and cultural services such as art in public places. CHR:52J:91 ---'-.. '--. . , \ ,j • ~ ~ l 1 i , page. Three staff has recommended to 'the public .Art Commiss ion t .... "at they reassess the approach of establishing a requirement for art ~nd that they review the possibility of establishing a fee for public art, w~ich ~as the original concept. At their meeting of November 20, 1991, the Public Art Commissicn unanimously approved going for-.·ard with a conceptual and numerical nexus study which 'oll'Quld allow the.m to develop an ordinance establishing a fee (ram private developers. The study would be condu~ted by the Commission and Division of Arts and CUltUre staff using eXisting resourceS. RecOmmendation staff recommends that the Policy and Services Committee direct staff to p~oceed with a conceptual and numerical nexus analysis and to return to the Policy and Services Committee with an approp~iate recommendation from the Public Arts Commission regarding an Art in Public Places ordinance when the study is complete. Respectfully submitted, iI / ~4~ ____ Leon A~ Kaplan, Director Division o~ Art.s and CUlture C-/~ !Ci? Paul Thiltgen, Director Department of community Services Attachment: Letter from Public Art Commission Related CMR: 409:91 CC: Public Art Co~~ission CMR'523,91 " .' I ~ o Cit~, of Tal 0 :Rlto r 0 tlOl '(J2~'O ~"'~o .. ~'c C ... ..l;.;,a.I,', .. 9',)\:; November ~5, 1991 Policy and Services committee city of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Ladies and Gentlemen: As you know, the Public Art Commission has been ~orking to develop an Art from Private Developf!rs ordinance~ OUr or-iqinal intent was to propose an ordinance which raised funds for public art by i~posin9 a per cent fee on construction projects in Palo Alto. When City staff advised us that such an ordinar.ce would not be leg-ally lSupportable, we abandoned our original approach a!ld proposed an ordinance that wculd require the developer to provide an art element as part of the development. At our m.eetinq of November 20, 1991, Staff asked the Commission to reassess its approach a~d to reconsider our oriqinal concept of a per cent for art. Staff in4icated that several other Cities in California have successfully completed iltudies that establish a legal basis for charging developers a fee for public art. The commission thoroughly discussed the impacts of reversing its dire.ction ~nc. has agreed to do so. We believe that a per cent for art ordinance has the following significant advantages over our present approach: 1. There will be no new steps in the approval process. 2. There viII be fewer unknowns rel&ted to artistic juQgements .. 3. There. will be more appropriate selection and placement of art than ~ight result in r2quirinq art to be a part of a particular de.velopment. 4. The funds that result from the collection of fees could accrue, thereby alloW'inq the Commission to purchase significant works for the City. The Commission moved and unanimously approved the concept of conductinq a study that may lead to the development of a per cent for art ordinance. With Staff support, ~e aTe confident that such a study can be completed within a reasonable time. cc: Leon Kaplan Sincerely, Jc1v~ b 1l{~1o;~ John B. Montgomery/Chairperson Pcblic Art Commission Public Art Commission ~embers I