Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Art Restoration topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Panel OKs $15,000 to restore Rockridge/Temescal Greenbelt public art, community urges vandalism protections
Summary
The Public Art Advisory Committee approved up to $15,000 to restore elements of the Rockridge/Temescal Greenbelt public art. Community members and staff emphasized replacing stolen bronze elements with more resilient materials, adding replacement parts to inventory, applying anti‑graffiti coatings and improving anchoring to deter theft.
The Public Art Advisory Committee on April 6 approved a staff recommendation to allocate up to $15,000 to restore the Rockridge/Temescal Greenbelt public art project.
Staff said the work—originally installed after a multi‑year process—has suffered chronic graffiti, vandalism and the theft of several sculptural elements. Staff presented options to replace stolen bronze pieces with GFRC or other nonmetal materials, repaint consistent surfaces, reapply graffiti‑resistant coatings and keep replacement parts on hand so small repairs can be completed quickly.
Tressa Nelson, cofounder of Friends of Frog Park, described the long volunteer effort that maintains the greenbelt and the repeated damage: “The public art…has been challenging. There’s been really a double problem: the scopes were constantly getting [broken] and the things that you looked through got stolen,” she said, urging restoration that anticipates vandalism and includes replacement parts.
Steve Costa, a longtime community arts organizer, urged follow‑up and evaluation after restoration to determine whether further hardening or material changes are needed. Staff said the artist (referred to in materials as Mark) is available to perform the work this summer and that the $15,000 request would expand an $8,400 working budget and include contingencies.
The committee voted to approve the allocation, with members asking for follow‑up renderings, details about anchoring and specifications for graffiti‑resistant coatings. Staff and community members emphasized a step of reassessment after installation to track durability and vandalism trends.
Staff noted funding rules that sometimes restrict the use of original grant sources for restoration and said the newly available public‑art maintenance funds made this restoration possible without tapping major capital budgets.
