The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About09-18-2012 ac stanwy ck1c3RECEIVE D SEP 18 201 2 • acenba connespon ben c e September 18, 2012 SLO CITY CLERK AGENDA CORRESPONDENC E Date_Wi Zattem#C 3 In preparation for consideration of item C3 : Approval of Public Art Projects for 2011-13, Counci l Member Ashbaugh provided to staff notification of his intent to pull the item for discussion . Below is a series of questions he posed and staffs responses to those questions . 1 . Please list the current membership of the Art in Public Places committee, and the CI P Review committee, and provide documentation that clarifies their respective role (and that o f the ARC, where required) in the review and approval of proposed City-funded public ar t projects . The Art in Public Places Committee is a countywide committee that is a standing committee of Art s Obispo the San Luis Obispo County Arts Council . The current committee consists of : Jim Jacobso n (artist), Meryl Perloff (artist), Gini Griffin (artist), Jim Trask (artist), Landy Fike (Tribune) and Shanno n Bates (City of San Luis Obispo). According to the City's Public Art Policy, the Arts Council's role is t o assist the City by providing expert technical advice and commentary on public art, and serve as a liaiso n between the City and the art community . The CIP Review Committee is an internal city staff committee focused on City capital improvemen t projects and consists of the following department heads : Assistant City Manager, Finance and IT, Fir e or Police (they alternate), Parks and Recreation, Public Works, and Utilities . Attachment 1 is the flow chart summarizing the City's public art review process for City funded publi c art found in the City's Public Art Manual (linked here).As Council Members will note the Art in Publi c Places Committee provides recommendations on public art projects that are publically funded as doe s the CIP Committee . All City funded public art projects come to Council for consideration an d approval . Once a project is approved, the next phase of the process is the release of a Call For Artists followe d by Jury Review (jury composition will vary depending on the type of art project but should include a selection from the following : an Arts Council Member, professional artists, a neighbor o r representative of a neighborhood association when a neighborhood will be impacted by the project,a for-profit or non-profit business representative, preferably one whose business will be impacted by th e project, an educator/historian, or someone aware of the historical implications of the artwork in th e community and as appropriate, a member of the Parks and Recreation Commission, Downtow n Association, the Cultural Heritage Committee or the Mass Transportation Committee). The Planning Review is the final stage of public hearings before an artist contract can be execute dand plans and fabrication begin . Typically, public art follows these public review steps : TO :Mayor Marx & Members of the City Counci l FROM :Shelly Stanwyck, Director of Parks and Recreatio n VIA :Katie Lichtig, City Manag e SUBJECT:C3 :Approval of Public Art Projects for 2011-13 •Environmental review (typically categorically exempt and not required if public ar t proposal is in the interior of a structure) •Review by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC ) ▪Final approval by the City Counci l In special cases, the artwork will also require review by : • Planning Commission (if the overall project requires a use permit ) •Parks and Recreation Commission (if in a City park ) •Cultural Heritage Committee (if in Mission Plaza or other designated historical area ) The ARC and other review bodies are charged with insuring that the proposed artwork meets th e City's Guidelines for Public Art and that it is appropriate for the proposed location . 2.Please indicate whether the Kyle Roofing building would be considered as a "non - conforming" building for that neighborhood . If non-conforming, does the building qualify as a historic building? Will the design for the mural require approval by the ARC, the Art in Publi c Places Committee, or both? What kind of notice will be given to the neighborhood prior to th e mural's approval? Note:I know the building and its owner quite well, and almost any mura l would be an improvement to this structure; however I have some reservations about investing in a building that is seriously out of conformance with the neighborhood. The Kyle Roofing Building is located in the Old Town Historic District . It is a retrofitted unreinforce d masonry building that is on the Contributing List . The original purpose of the structure was for that o f a warehouse . It is located in a R3 Zone and there are two non-conforming issues with the property ; the first being the building street-yard setback and the second being the commercial land use withi n an R-3 zone . CHC would need to review the proposed mural as a change to a Contributing building i n the Old Town Historic District . Attachment 2 is the flow chart summarizing the City's public art review process for public art in privat e development . In summary, a public art jury would be convened to review the proposal by Kyl e Roofing, upon recommendation of the jury ; the project will be forwarded to the Architectural Revie w Commission for review . Upon the recommendation of the Architectural Review Commission, th e project will be forwarded to the City Council, which has the sole authority to accept, reject o r conditionally accept the project . As indicated above, 2-3 neighbors would be invited to be members o f the jury, in addition as part of the ARC agenda notification process, neighbors would receive notic e that the project will be reviewed . While not formally involved in the approval for this type of project, the Art in Public Places Committe e has received the information regarding this project proposal and has expressed their support . 3.Please outline — briefly — the decision placing the Public Art Coordinator with the Parks an d Recreation Department . It is my understanding that the position began as part of th e Administration team . As part of the Master Plan that is recommended to be initiated, will thi s organizational role also be re-considered? If so, might the Public Art Coordinator position b e better placed within another unit of the City?Should we consider this possibility as part of th e organizational review of the Community Development Department ? In 1990 the City Council adopted a policy which required that 1% of the total approved constructio n costs of eligible City capital projects be expended for the design and installation of public art . At the time the program was managed by a Planner in the Community Development Department . In 1993 due to serious budget constraints the 1% City contribution was suspended . Partial funding wa s restored in 1995 and in 1997 the City's 1% was reestablished . During the reduced funding tim e period the amount of public art included in City projects was limited . In 1997 Council appointed a public art staff coordinator, Wendy George, then Assistant to the Cit y Manager in the Administration Department . In 1998 staff worked with a community focus group t o discuss the possibility of a mandatory art contribution from private development (Parks an d Recreation Director Shelly Stanwyck represented the community on that focus group). Eventually , following input from the focus group and public, the Council in 2000 adopted a Visual Arts in Publi c Places program . In 2004 Council revised the Guidelines for Public Art by adding a matching gran t component to the program and the Public Art Staff Manual was update d In 2006 when Betsy Kiser was promoted to Parks and Recreation Director, the coordination of th e City's public part program transferred with her to Parks and Recreation . In 2007 the role of Public Ar t Coordinator was assigned to Recreation Manager, Shannon Bates On addition to her other duties as a departmental manager.) Under this program management structure the public art manual wa s visually modernized and published electronically in 2011 . Ms . Bates maintains a membership in th e Arts in Public Art Administrators and attends their conferences (when in California) and webinars an d stays connected with other professionals . In addition, under her supervision the program has see n nine art pieces completed/produced, four art pieces/projects underway, completed five public ar t restoration projects, completed work with Cal Poly on the development of a public ar t curriculum/workshop for City and Regional Planning students, acted as an public art internshi p supervisor and senior project advisor for several public art related project, as well as created an d distributed marketing materials for the public art program that has included a postcard depicting th e City's entire collection, a Facebook page, and a public art virtual tour . Staff had not intended on focusing on the departmental reporting structure of the public art coordinato r as part of the Public Art Master Plan — it was envisioned to center on where art pieces should b e placed in the community in the future and how to best execute the program as it has matured . However, if Council desires that the organizational structure be examined as part of this or anothe r Department's organizational assessment direction should be provided to staff to accomplish thi s objective . Attachment s 1.Flow Chart — Process for Review of Public Art on Public Propert y 2.Flow Chart — Process for Review of Public Art on Private Property PUBLIC ART REVIEW PROCES S City Funded Public Ar t CIP Review Committee Recommendation s (the recommendations include s projectsite and funding for the tw o year financial plan) ArtsObispo Arts In Public Places Committe e Recommendation s Public Art Manager decide s order of projects to b e completed (tvoicallv 2 oer fiscal vearl PROJECT #1 RFQ /Call For Artist s RELEASE D (RFQ reviewed by PW & CDD public art team members) *All projects typically have the sam e process for comoletio n Jury Revie w (PW or CDD public ar t team member on jury) Finalist Selecte d Public Art Manager submit s Planning Application wit h supporting documents (se e Planning App . Section C ) ARC Review (Public Art Manager submits ARC Staff Reoort to CDD ) PRC Review Of appropriate ; depending on Iocatio f CHC Revie w (if appropriate ; depending on location) Public Art Manager secure s contract with artist Public Art Manager works with artist o n plan check and permitting PUBLIC ART REVIEW PROCES S Privately Funded Public Art Submittal of Applicatio n (donor submits application as well a s rendering/photography of art to th e Public Art Manager) Jury Review (PW or CDD public art tea m member on jury) Jury Recommends Artwor k Public Art Manager submits Plannin g Application with supporting documents (se e Planning App. Section B ) CDD staff routes to othe r Department s as needed ARC Review (Public Art Manager submits AR C Staff Reoort to CDD ) PRC Review Of appropriate ; depending on location) CHC Revie w Of appropriate ; depending on location) Council Approves Artwor k &funding for Installatio n Public Art Manager contract s with an engineer for plans Public Art Manager works wit h CDD/PW on plan check and permitting Artwork Installed