pages: PlanningBoard/2021-04-26.pdf, 7
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2021-04-26 | 7 | in extreme cases, with art that hadn't been maintained, they were asking that maintenance funds be available. Board Member Rothenberg said that answered her question in some way but not completely. Staff Member Butler added that regarding capital and operational, the public art fund currently was just operational, it is not considered capital monies with the City of Alameda. Board Member Rothenberg asked if it was consistent with the General Plan to make sure art was commissioned to be available to diverse populations regardless of income. Staff Member Butler said she understood the question. Currently, the staff and Community Development recommended they continue with the 1% in public art, down the line they may have a different recommendation for those fees. Board Member Rothenberg pointed at page 2 of the staff report under Further Evaluation - she wanted to state for the record that they should not establish a lower public art requirement for affordable housing. Art should be equitably and commensurately available for all types of applications and should not intentionally penalize lower-cost housing or lower-income populations. Board Member Hom asked about the maintenance and that if it was mainly for art on public property and that the ordinance was not clear about. He wanted to know more about the intent. Staff Member Gehrke answered that the intent was that it would be used for public art on public property. Board Member Hom said to him the language was unclear on the use of the maintenance funds. He also asked for further explanation on how different departments would be responsible for maintaining the public art. Staff Member Butler explained that before art would be placed on public property within the city it must have a sponsor. She explained past pieces of art and how certain departments had agreed to maintain the art before it was installed. Board Member Hom asked about a process question in the ordinance. It said that the developer needed to identify if they planned to do art or pay the in-lieu fee and show the location of the public art. It then goes on to say that the Community Development Director could change the location of the art piece but he wanted to know what would happen if the Arts Commission wants the art to stay in the original location of the Planning Approval. Approved Planning Board Minutes Page 7 of 18 April 26, 2021 | PlanningBoard/2021-04-26.pdf |