RES 89527 - Laserfiche WebLink

ISSUES The major issues addressed to date are described below with the PCAC position following. 1. Should private development be mandated or encouraged to provide public art? Privately-owned commercial/industrial sites open to public view are encouraged to incorporate art in new projects, but they are not mandated to provide nor assessed a fee for public art. [Other cities require public art on private premises or payment of a fee; art valuation/fee is based on building size/cost, usually about 1-2% of construction cost. Pleasanton has had private outdoor art erected in Hacienda and Koll Business Parks with little encouragement. Many lobbies, malls, and other semi-public places contain art.] 2. Should public development be mandated to provide public art? The PCAC recommends public art equal to 1% of the estimated cost of any new public building be incorporated into all new buildings. [Most public art programs mandate public art at new public facilities. Public art at such places is historically common and often serves as a source of civic pride/identity.] 3. Should the City fund public art above that at new buildings? The PCAC recommends a policy be established to fund from City revenues one "major artwork" per year, about $25,000 in 1989. [Opportunities exist for enhancing the Pleasanton image and expressing its artistic/cultural values at numerous locations outside City buildings, most notably at vehicular entrances to the City and at City parks. City funding of art at such locales is necessary if this expression is desired. Note: landscaping currently provides much of the Pleasanton identity at such locations--in some locations quite well, in others not so well. Art at existing public facilities, both indoor (lobbies, courtyards) and outdoors, is scarce; a separate allocation is necessary to "retrofit" existing building sites should it be desired.] IR:89:87 -2-