Menlo Park: Council seeks to repeal art law Menlo Park: Council seeks to repeal art law (September 08, 2004)

** Three arts commissioners resign in protest.

By Rebecca Wallace
Almanac Staff Writer

It's a stark new canvas for Menlo Park's public art law.

Even though the City Council agenda called for a more narrow discussion of the ordinance, the council voted August 31 to look into rescinding the law altogether in favor of a brand-new one.

Leading the charge, Councilwoman Mickie Winkler said the law places an unfair burden on owners of new and substantially remodeled businesses, causing them to pay another city fee to put art on their site.

"I've never liked this ordinance," she said. "This ordinance is not about art ... it's about taxing businesses."

Ms. Winkler's motion, supported by Mayor Lee Duboc and Councilman Paul Collacchi, included having the Arts Commission look into alternate ways of having art funded by the city.

Supporters of the law were aghast, and Arts Commission Chair Nancy Chillag resigned on the spot. In the ensuing days, two other residents on the seven-member commission, Laura Fechete and Patricia Daniels, also announced their resignations.

Ms. Chillag, who said she felt "blindsided" by the decision, strode to the podium immediately after the vote, holding back tears.

"We did our homework for four years, and you're telling us to go back to the drawing board?" she said, adding that her commission had already researched public art programs in myriad other cities. Nine public hearings had been held on the Menlo Park law, she said.

Ms. Chillag has often said that public art benefits not only local businesses but Menlo Park as a whole, sparking interest and debate, and giving the city a distinctive feel.

Outside the council chambers, Ms. Chillag sighed and said that her term on the commission was due to end this month anyway. As she had served two consecutive terms, she was not eligible for reappointment.

Ms. Fechete's term was up in September 2005, and she could have been reappointed. Ms. Daniels had served a year of her first commission term.

A new model?

Regardless of the Arts Commission's past work, Ms. Winkler said after the meeting that she feels more research is still needed because she is unhappy with the law's current model.

The law requires owners of newly built commercial, municipal and industrial buildings with construction costs of $250,000 or more -- and some remodels -- to pay 1 percent of construction costs to install art on their site.

Ms. Winkler said she'd be more happy with a program like the one in Los Altos, in which artists loan artwork to the city and the city provides the space.

Another possibility, she said, would have all residents pay a fee into a public art fund, perhaps tacked onto garbage collection bills. That would be more equitable because all residents gain from art, she said.

Ms. Winkler said that she had not planned to push for the law's repeal and had not expected Ms. Duboc to do so. But she said she was concerned by a staff document she received shortly before the meeting, which laid out all the city fees that projects falling under the public art law paid.

For example, the new Mike's Cafe on Middlefield Road had $3,375 in planning fees and $9,442 in other city fees (including a public art fee of $2,953), according to the report.

Ms. Duboc and Ms. Winkler agreed that an additional fee could dissuade businesses from locating in Menlo Park.

The August 31 agenda listed a more narrow topic: whether to add an in-lieu fee that people falling under the law could pay instead of installing art. That money would go into a citywide art fund.

Currently, developers can pay 1 percent of construction costs as an in-lieu fee only if their site does not have an appropriate place for public art. This broader in-lieu fee would be open to anyone facing the art requirement, perhaps set at 1 or 1.5 percent.

In her resignation e-mail, Ms. Daniels said she was outraged that the limited topic had broadened so dramatically.

"Asking few questions during the discussion and holding any hint of her intent or motion until she made it, Ms. Winkler subverted the direction of the discussion and effectively highjacked any opportunity to improve the existing ordinance," Ms. Daniels wrote.

Legally, though, the vote was permissible because the council did not take any formal action, City Attorney Bill McClure said. Rather, it was giving direction to city staff to amend the law and take it to the Planning Commission for comment, he said.

After a commission hearing, the amended law would come back to the City Council for approval.

'We have no staff'

If ultimately approved, the plan by the council to create a new public art law would also include a one-time allocation of $40,000 for the commission to spend on a new public art project. Mr. Collacchi, who proposed the allocation, said that was the amount the law had yielded in art fees during its two years in effect.

Ms. Chillag, though, told the council that the money wouldn't mean much in light of budget cuts: "We have no staff to do an art project."

After the meeting, Ms. Fechete pointed out that the city spent about $50,000 to install the Willow Oaks Park sculpture "Couches," which was dedicated in 2001 after three years of planning and construction. Nowadays, costs have gone up, and the $40,000 could be eaten up by staff costs, she said.

Despite his support for art, Mr. Collacchi has consistently opposed the law, saying it's an improper way to mitigate the impacts of construction.

Councilmen Chuck Kinney and Nicholas Jellins cast dissenting votes, with Mr. Jellins saying there might be less drastic ways to alter the law. Mr. Kinney proposed keeping the law and giving the Arts Commission $40,000, but no one seconded his motion.

Response from business

Meanwhile, Milton Borg, who had under duress installed a decorative bench in front of the 7-Eleven at Oak Grove Avenue and Alma Street, said, "Very good!" after the vote.

He had told the council repeatedly that the law was too onerous for small business owners, especially since it made them responsible for maintaining the art.

Architect Michael Lambert, a City Council candidate, also was pleased, having told the council that the law was inequitable. Art benefiting the community should be paid for by all residents, he said.

Menlo Chevron owner John Conway was grinning outside the council chambers. His $1 million station renovation -- already completed -- also requires artwork, but he has posted a bond while waiting to see what will happen with the law.

At the meeting, Ms. Winkler said she thought developers of projects already in the pipeline should be allowed to pay a 1 percent in-lieu fee, and Mr. Conway said he'd rather do that than install art.

E-mail a friend a link to this story.