 |
|
|
|
|
City council approves public art ordinances
Recommendations from staff barely get by due to serious concerns on how to implement the program
By Gretchen Knaup
The Sunnyvale City Council is firmly behind public art in the city. They're just divided on how to implement it.
After a lengthy discussion that ended at 11:30 p.m., the city council passed a motion set forth by staff for public art requirements, but only by one vote.
Of the seven items on the board, only two were controversial--for the council members--the in-lieu fee option and a 1 percent expenditure guideline, with one item dependent on the other. The council approved these two items with the stipulation that staff would bring the council more information at a later date.
Currently, there is no set value in, or an allowance for, an in-lieu fee where art is not required. According to the staff report, an in-lieu fee alternative would allow a property developer to contribute money to a public art fund, rather than install required on-site artwork. The support the installation of varied and diverse artwork placed throughout the city.
It was never in question whether the city would endorse public art, Specifically,councilmembers disagreed on how much money private businesses should spend on it.
According to the staff report, the 1 percent expenditure will upgrade art development. The report states that the 1 percent requirement would be based on the construction valuation of a project, including the building and tenant improvements. Council members were uncertain with the percentage designation.
Most council members weren't comfortable with the set rate and wanted to leave the percentage open. Staff repeatedly reminded the council that the numbers wouldn't be set in stone. "The strategies in the report are in concept only," said Nancy Steward of the arts commission staff. "Only if passed, will they be reviewed as such in the annual budget,"
The concerns behind these joint issues have to do with the variety of art the city would receive in the future, which depends on the amount of money spent, and on the regulations.
"When I see the art brought about by the city, I see a lot of outdoor sculptures. What I would like to see is stained glass, or tapestries- something of that kind. How can we get a better variety?" Councilman Tim Rische asked.
"One of the alternatives is the development of materials," Steward answered. "We will help [businesses] think outside the box. Providing resources and educational tools would be very helpful."
Chamber of Commerce President and CEO Suzi Blackman supported art in public places, but requested a study for the in-lieu fee. She also had concerns with placing a 1 percent value on the art.
"Where we're concerned, and what I'm afraid of is that it (the 1 percent expenditure) limits contributors to give only art," she said. "If someone told me I had to spend a certain large amount of money on art, I would be less likely to give to other things. I don't want to limit companies to only give art. If there were no in lieu, then we wouldn't need a set expenditure. Let's forget about the in lieu. The system is working."
According to Blackman, the 1 percent in many projects is making the city spend a greater amount on art.
Chamber of Commerce Chair Ray Montalvo backed Blackman's statements, adding, "There could be a reverse effect with the 1 percent expenditure, with the company only spending that 1 percent amount. Then we wouldn't get the variety we are looking for." However, he conceded that "1 percent is too high, in most cases."
Councilwoman Pat Vorreiter voted "no" on the 1 percent expenditure. "Art on the community is critical," she said. "The only advantage with this I see, is the predictability from developers, but there might be some other places for them to contribute to the community and I want to let them do that.
'I am in favor of continuing the program as it now exists. They want to have a piece that they will be proud of, let them make that decision. We want things that are going to be of interest, but we want something that the employees like. I don't agree that having art inside meets that requirement," she said.
"This 1 percent is unnecessary. I don't want to give them the opportunity to just write a check. The policy we have now can accommodate these circumstances. We can ask the company to put the art elsewhere. Two things I am happy about are the fact that we will be addressing the art and location of the art early in the process, and that the city will be required to give art, just as the private sector." she added.
"I think the percentage could be a hamstring and I do not devalue art in the community by voting against this," Vorreiter said.
"I don't like to increase mandates on the private sector, it just increases costs," Councilman Jim Roberts later said. "I want to see the art in public places policy the way it is. What we did was, we said staff, look into this further, the council only endorsed the 1 percent in concept ... I don't like unnecessary mandates. We are attacking new developments, which increase the costs of doing business. If you don't want the cost of living to rise so much, then don't enforce these extra costs."
Councilman Fred Fowler disagreed. "Where art doesn't make sense on the in-lieu fee, there needs to be a fee on the art," he said. "We need this 1 percent fee."
"The policy now, triggers the threshhold for contributing public art, but it's a good idea to set some kind of reasonable fee that companies need to abide by," Councilman Manuel Valerio said. "I could accept the 1 percent, but maybe a half-percent, or a sliding scale, or a cap would work better. The 1 percent could be too much. I haven't made up my mind as to what the appropriate number is, but, hopefully, in the long run we can come up with something that would give a balanced compromise."
|
|
|
|
Sunnyvale, California Since 1994
