pages: PublicArtCommission/2008-02-13.pdf, 6
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PublicArtCommission | 2008-02-13 | 6 | 4-D. (Formerly 4-A) Public Art Ordinance Ms. Huston read from the report and liked the ideas. Mr. Wolfe said that he and Ms. Lee looked over the ordinance and looked at other surrounding communities' ordinances and what they say about public art contributions. Ms. Lee brought up the discussion she had in the subcommittee and that they wanted to eliminate the cap. They thought that it might be politically unfeasible to eliminate the cap but raising it might be an option. Ms. Huston brought up her meeting with the mayor and people from City Council. Three issues came up in the meeting; first was eliminating the cap, second was creating explicit language that would require space developments to contribute 1% for each space and the third was reviewing which residential projects are eligible for contribution and considering expanding the scope. Ms. Rosenberg didn't want to put the burden of public art on developers who were building less than five units but anything more than that they should be subject to the requirements. Ms. Huston wanted to look at the list of every project over $250,000 to see what kinds of developments are happening. She asked if it is something that should go to the City Attorney to see if they can add or change the language of the ordinance to deal with phased development. Mr. Biggs clarified that phased projects were larger developments. Mr. Wolfe pointed out that neither San Francisco nor Oakland has a cap or a private contribution requirement. Ms. Huston's thought on eliminating the cap is that they are the advocates in the system and that they should let the people who have a better understanding for the business side deal with it but the commission recommends eliminating the cap. They would also welcome Ms. Woodbury's input on the timing and any thoughts she would have that would facilitate the improvement of the ordinance. Mr. Biggs recommended asking staff to draft an ordinance that would incorporate the changes being discussed. Ms. Lee read from the ordinance and pointed out that no more than 25% of the art fund was to be used for administrative costs. Ms. Huston pointed out that the commission doesn't know what is happening. She is arguing that accountability is an issue. Mr. Wolfe said that Oakland's percentage is 36%. Mr. Biggs clarified that the 25% of the fund covers everything from administrative costs to having the lights on. It is for overall operating costs. Ms. Huston read from the ordinance regarding the submission of applications. 6 | PublicArtCommission/2008-02-13.pdf |