2004-0689 - City of Sunnyvale: Amendments to Sunnyvale Municipal Code Chapter 19.52  "Required Artwork in Private Developments" to Add Requirements for Greater Enforcement of Art in Private Development Requirements - This study considers possible legal and enforceable standards to ensure continued public visibility and access to art installed as a condition of development. DO

Nancy Steward, Superintendent of Arts and Recreation, summarized the history of the study issue.  She noted that the study is to address issues that were raised in the 2004 Study Issue.  The Arts Commission recommended this study predicated on a stolen property in front of a business and a security fence and a guard post installed to protect the site limiting public access to artwork.  She stated the study is to strengthen the Art In Private Development (AIPD) regulations to ensure legal and enforceable standards for continued and unobstructed visibility of art.  She highlighted the proposed amendments to the Code noting that currently the code addresses repair and maintenance but does not have provision for theft or irreparable damage.  Further additional amendment is being recommended to address actions made by the property owner after the artwork has been installed. She highlighted staff’s recommendation in regard to replacement of stolen or irreparable damaged art, calculation of the value of replacements Art-In-Lieu Fee contribution, options to address changing conditions on property, application of civil penalties and administrative citations for violation of Art in Private Development and other changes in the AIPD code.  She noted that the fiscal impact would be minimal and if the amendments are approved, it would be applied  to all artwork that has been imposed as a condition of approval but would not be retroactive for the business where the artwork has been stolen.  However, this Ordinance would address similar situations in the future.  Staff reported that meetings were conducted with the business community and property owners.  She highlighted staff’s recommendation to the code and noted a correction on page 23 of 25 - Alternative #3 and #6 to delete the requirement for the property owner to provide insurance for the maintenance, repair and replacement of art within 30 days of installation of artwork.

She addressed the Planning Commission’s questions at the Study Session.  1) Did staff check with other cities – Staff did a benchmark with other agencies.  She stated that the City of Sunnyvale has the clearest guidelines and regulations for AIPD. 2) What would be the timeframe to replace and repair damaged artwork? Staff preferred not to impose a time requirement as staff would like to work with the property owners on what is reasonable and realistic. 3) Whether the new code would be applied to all existing artwork and new art?  The new code would be applied to all existing and new artwork with the exception for those property owners whose artwork has already been stolen, irreparably damaged or removed from the public view.  Staff availed herself to Commission’s questions.

Comm. Fussell thanked staff for the thorough report and in addressing the Commission’s questions.  He asked staff whether the AIPD Ordinance places the City in a disadvantage for competitiveness in enticing businesses to move to Sunnyvale.  Staff responded that it would be difficult to ascertain the effect of just this ordinance.  She added that the City of Sunnyvale is the only local city that has an in- depth details of the art requirement.

Further, Comm. Fussell asked what is the frequency of stolen or damage artwork since the inception of the ordinance.  Staff responded that in the past three years there were two.  However, in the long term history of the program since 1990, there were the only two incidents of theft and fencing.

Chair Moylan commented that the Draft Report to Council has a date of 10/12/04 with a placeholder for the Planning Commission and Arts Commission public hearing and it appears that all conclusions are set.  He asked whether public testimony could change the conclusion.  Staff responded that the report is staff’s recommendations and staff would consider public testimony if it warrants a change in the recommendation.

Chair Moylan recommended two options 1) for the city to cover the artwork insurance and 2) to allow the option to the property owner to have some indoor art allowing public access which is inexpensive to insure.  Staff responded that the recommendation is not to require insurance and if insured, the valuation of the art would be used to calculate the replacement.  She explained that if an insurance is required then an administrative process is needed to ensure coverage.  She added that the artwork is already covered under the general insurance policy of the businesses; therefore, it is duplicative to require insurance.  In regard to the City paying for the artwork insurance, the City does not legally own the property and the artwork is not on city property, then it would not be appropriate to cover or pay for the insurance.  Regarding the indoor artwork, she noted that staff did a lengthy study on public art policy and the possibility of allowing art inside a building was explored.  She added that inside artwork would not meet the spirit of the ordinance where the Ordinance is to enhance the visual landscape, to mitigate the impact of larger developments making more pedestrian scale and finally, public does not have access to the interior of businesses.  Ms. Steward noted that staff works with the developers early in the development process to encourage them to look beyond sculpture as a way of meeting the art requirment.

Chair Moylan opened the public hearing

There was no one from the public to speak on the item.

Chair Moylan closed the public hearing.

Chair Moylan offered a friendly amendment to recommend to City Council to reconsider the indoor artwork.  Accepted by the maker.  Comm. Babcock clarified Chair Moylan’s amendment and she would prefer to apply it only to buildings that would allow public access.  Accepted.

FINAL MOTION:

Comm. Sulser commented that public art adds to the community and having a plan to replace stolen artwork is a good common sense. The recommended amendments to the code are good policy.

There were no further comments from Comm. Babcock

Ms. Ryan stated that the Commission recommendation along with the Arts Commission recommendation will be forwarded to City Council on 10/19/04.