Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/17/1999, 1 - RECOMMENDED ENHANCEMENTS FOR THE ART IN PUBLIC PLACES PROGRAM council M" "S` j, aGEnda nepont "`m" • C I TY OF S AN L U IS O B I S P O FROM: Ken Hampian,Assistant City Administrative Officer lC. Prepared By: Wendy George,Assistant to the City Administrative Officer Illy SUBJECT: RECOMMENDED ENHANCEMENTS FOR THE ART IN PUBLIC PLACES PROGRAM CAO RECOMMENDATION 1. Receive proposals from the Art in Public Places Focus Group and approve the staff recommendations for follow up actions. 2. Approve the staff recommendation that public art funding in the amounts indicated be included in the following Capital Improvement Plan projects scheduled for the 1999-01 fiscal years: Laguna Lake Park Improvements ($10,000), Downtown Restrooms ($10,000), Sinsheimer Park Improvements ($10,000)and Higuera Street Bridge($33,730). REPORT-IN-BRIEF • A public art focus group has met with City staff and developed recommendations for enhancing the City's Visual Art in Public Places program. Recommendations include methods of providing better education on the value of public art; developer incentives; funding the existing matching grant program; a revolving art program similar to the one in Grand Junction, CO; a public art memorial program; a"round up for art" program on payments of City utility bills; and the formation of an arts advocacy group. Staff generally supports all these recommendations except the "round up for art" program which is not only administratively prohibitive, but potentially unfair to other non-profit organizations that would like to use the City's utility billing system to request contributions (a practice we have traditionally avoided). In addition to supporting the above task force recommendations, staff also proposes requiring a mandatory contribution of 1% for public art on all private development in excess of 100,000 square feet. The 1% would preferably be used to fund public art for the development itself. Finally, the staff recommends that public art be included in the Laguna Lake Park Improvements, Downtown Restrooms, Sinsheimer Park Improvements and Higuera Street Bridge projects during the 1999-01 fiscal years. DISCUSSION Background In 1990, the City Council adopted a Visual Arts in Public Places program which required that 1% of the total approved construction cost of eligible City capital projects be expended for the design and installation of public art. The program also established guidelines for public an; a matching 1-1 Council Agenda Report-Public Art Enhancements Page 2 grant fund to encourage the private sector to provide public art; a review process for approval; and a • number of incentives to further interest developers in including public art in their projects. In 1993, the City experienced serious budget constraints and, as a budget balancing option, the 1% City contribution was temporarily suspended. Partial funding was restored to the program in 1995 and in 1997 the City's full 1% contribution was reestablished. During the time of reduced funding, the amount of public art being included in both public and private projects was very limited. In the summer of 1997, the Council took various actions to revitalize the City's "Visual Arts in Public Places" program. Among those actions were designation of the Assistant to the City Administrative Officer as the City's public art coordinator and direction to staff to seek community input on a potential mandated percent-for-art program for privately funded development projects. Art in Public Places Focus Group In May, 1998, staff formed a focus group of eight community members to consider the possibility of a mandatory percent-for-art requirement for private sector development, as well as to explore other means of enhancing the Visual Arts in Public Places program. The focus group consisted of: Pierre Rademaker (Downtown Association), Rod Levin, Sandra Nielsen, Howard Carroll, Bob Griffen, Shelly Stanwyck(Chamber of Commerce),Ray Hatler and Jim Sargen. At approximately the same time, at the request of the San Luis Obispo County Arts Council, the • City was working on a joint venture to hold a one-day conference on art in public places. The purpose of the conference was to educate the community on the importance and value of public art, and to solicit input on both how to improve our current program, and how to elicit additional funding for public art from the private sector. Staff felt that there was a natural linkage between the conference and the work scope of the focus group. As a result, focus group members were asked to assist in developing the content of the conference, to attend the conference to educate themselves and to hear the community input and to use the information gained from the conference when making their final recommendations to the Council. Following the conference, the focus group met several times. Members of the San Luis Obispo County Arts Council were present at the meetings to provide additional information and resources. The following recommendations are a result of those meetings. Recommendations of the Focus Group There was a strong consensus on the part of the focus group that all parties that benefit from the enjoyment of public art should also be involved in paying for public art--that the burden should not fall only on one selected segment of the community such as developers. As a result, the group recommended a variety of different approaches to increase both the amount of public art and the funding of public art in the City. ]. Education • The group felt that educating all facets of the community on the importance of public art in San 1-2 Council Agenda Report-Public Art Enhancements Page 3 • Luis Obispo was a critical piece to any enhancement of the City's current program. It believed that without the community understanding the value of public art, any program requiring private financial contributions was doomed to fail. In particular, the task force wanted participants in the City's planning process, both City staff and developers, to be educated about public art. To accomplish this education, the group proposed: • A photographic display of buildings with public art enhancements to be located near the Community Development Department counter at City Hall. • Including public art incentives as part of the developer check list used by Community Development Department. • Including public art in the Architectural Review Commission's (ARC) guidelines and encouraging ARC members to seek out opportunities to recommend public art when considering building proposals and mitigations. • Encouraging City staff to "celebrate" the voluntary inclusion of public art when reviewing building or development proposals,both verbally and in written staff reports. • Creating a handbook for developers which explains the City's Art in Public Places Program, provides information on how public art adds value to buildings and shows examples of how • public art can be integrated into such components as benches, railings, fountains, fences, walls and paving, etc. • Creating an open registry of artists for use by developers. The SLO County Arts Council currently maintains such a registry on their web site. Linkage to, or use of this registry should be pursued. Staff Recommendation: Staff concurs with all the task force suggestions relating to improved education on the value of public art, and recommends that they be approved by the Council. 2. Developer Incentives The committee was unwilling to recommend that a mandatory percent-for-art be placed on developers. However, it felt that by providing certain incentives, developers could be encouraged to include art in their projects voluntarily. Accordingly, the focus group proposed that the City educate developers on existing public art incentives, add a few additional incentives and encourage their use during the planning process. Incentives already approved as part of the City's Visual Arts in Public Places Program are: • Revised setback regulations to allow public art within setback areas, with a provision • allowing discretion to require use permits for large artworks, or for those whose placement may have solar, traffic or environmental impacts. 1-3 Council Agenda Report- Public Art Enhancements Page 4 • Minimized public review time by waiving construction permit requirements, where allowed • by law, for most types of public art, including: temporary artworks, projects which do not involve significant structural work and projects which do not affect public health or safety (e.g., the mural or bas relief on existing wall); and by allowing over-the-counter construction permits for all but structurally complex artworks. • Waiver of processing and permit fees for public art projects. • Possible density bonuses or height exceptions for projects which include public art placed in open space at the ground level. For example, a project which includes a sculpture and a mini-plaza might receive height or coverage exceptions to allow additional floor area comparable to the area devoted to public art. • Consideration of allowing public art to meet a portion of the total required common open space in condominium projects. • A redefinition of"structure" in the Zoning Regulations so that public artworks are excluded for determining setbacks or building/lot coverage. In addition to the already approved incentives, the committee recommended that the City consider the following: • Possible waiver of a percent or all of some impact fees in exchange for including artwork in a • proj ect • Waiver of some landscaping requirements in exchange for public art The focus group recognized that many of these incentives would need to be very carefully developed and applied, so that they would not undermine good planning practices. However, the committee strongly felt that with care and thought, a workable incentive program could be created. Staff Recommendation Staff agrees that the existing incentives have not been widely publicized and believes that the creation of a handbook for developers which explains the City's Art in Public Places Program and its available developer incentives is a critical step in improving the program. However, staff does not recommend adding the two additional incentives proposed by the task force. Impact fees are created to provide mitigation for development's impacts over the longterm. Eliminating impact fees is, de facto, not mitigating these impacts. In effect, the City is still funding public art, since that income would otherwise be coming to the City to pay for other municipal services. Waiving landscaping requirements in exchange for public art simply trades one visual enhancement for another. • 1-4 Council Agenda Report-Public Art Enhancements Page 5_ 3. Include a Mandatory Requirement for Public Art in New Commercial Development.Over a Certain Size The task force was completely divided on the issue of a mandatory public art requirement for commercial development. Some members thought that there was real merit to such a requirement for large new developments. Art could be included as part of the design for functional aspects of the projects, such as walls or walkways, and thereby reduce the cost of the art. Others felt strongly that placing such an involuntary burden directly on developers was unfair and was just another form of an additional development fee. These members stated that not only would any mandatory requirement be .strongly opposed by developers, but it might induce them to take funding away from other parts of the project, reducing the overall project quality. The committee was unable to reach consensus on this issue Staff Recommendation Staff spent considerable time surveying other cities to determine whether or not they require a mandatory contribution toward public art front private developers (see attachment). A significant number of those cities do have such a program. While staff appreciates the concerns expressed by members of the task force, staff also believes that public art is a true enhancement to the community and to private development projects and needs to be encouraged whenever possible. Experience has shown us that a voluntary program does not lead to significant public art in the private sector. Therefore, staff recommends that a I% contribution be required for all developments of 100,000 square feet of building space or greater. The intention would be to have the art included as part of the project. However, if this inclusion were not reasonable, the funds would be placed in the City's art-in-lieu fund for use elsewhere.. Such a requirement would not place an undue burden on the small developer who would be exempted, but would insure that larger developments, such as those that may someday occur in the Airport Area, will provide additional opportunities for artistic enjoyment by our citizens. Should this recommendation be approved, staff would return to the Council at a future date with an enabling ordinance. 4. Matching Grants for Developers The committee felt that matching grants could be an inducement for developers to include public art in their projects. When the City's Visual Arts in Public Places program was originally approved by the Council, it included such grants. However, the grant program never had high visibility and has not been funded recently. In accordance with the concept that all the beneficiaries of public art should help pay for it, the task force suggested that the funding for these grants come from the Transient Occupancy Tax. In this way, part of the funding burden would be borne by the tourism industry, which clearly benefits by an increase in public art. Staff Recommendation Staff agrees with the committee's belief that the matching grant program should be funded again, as an incentive for public art to be voluntarily included in developments smaller than 100,000 1-5 Council Agenda Report- Public Art Enhancements Page 6 square feet. However, in the past developers did not avail themselves of the grant opportunity and staff believes that to implement a grant program before instituting a public art education program with a developers'guide is likely to be ineffective. Therefore, staff recommends that a one-for-one grant program for developments of less than 100,000 square feet be.reestablished with $10,000 in funding during the nextfiscal year. Assuming that the education program moves forward in a timely manner, staff would bring to the Council a funding request as part of the second year of our two-year 1999-01 Financial Plan. S. A Revolving Art Prozram Similar to that Found in Grand Junction, Colorado One of the most well received speakers at the public art conference was a businessman from Grand Junction, Colorado, who discussed a revolving art program currently in effect in that city. An independent, non-profit organization, linked to the downtown association, sponsors this program. The non-profit organization purchased and placed pedestals along the main street of the community. Each year, sculptures are selected from various artists and placed on the pedestals, where they may be viewed and appreciated by the citizens, and also by potential buyers. (The artists retain ownership of the artwork.) A percentage of the price of any works sold during the year goes to the non-profit organization to be used toward the purchase of permanent artwork in the downtown. The annual change out of artwork has become.a major city festival and draws tourists from throughout the area. The focus group thought that starting a similar program in San Luis Obispo, in conjunction with the City's Downtown Association, was an extremely viable option. Staff Recommendation The Downtown Association is still actively pursuing a program similar to that of Grand Junction, Colorado. Staff recommends that the City provide encouragement to them in their efforts. If an independent non-profit group is eventually organized to coordinate such a program, staff recommends that group become one of the City's formal partners under the adopted Partnership Policy. 6. Public Art as a Memorial Following up on the success of the bench program, the focus group recommended that public art opportunities be offered by Downtown Association for purchase as memorials. For example, memorial public art could be in the form of • sidewalk art • purchase of pedestals for the revolving art program • functional,works of art such as newly designed trash containers The Downtown Association has indicated a high level of interest in a memorial program, and attempted to develop one using the proposed San Luis Creek tile mosaics. Because the Council felt that this project needed additional study before implementation, it is unlikely that it will be financially supported by the Downtown Association as a memorial project at this time. 1-6 Council Agenda Report=Public Art Enhancements Page 7 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the City continue to encourage the Downtown Association to create a memorial public art program. It is possible that once the creek mosaic project is further evaluated, the Downtown Association may once again be interested in its implementation. If not, other projects may be viable instead.. It should be noted, however, that the sidewalks downtown have recently become crowded by newsracks, bike racks, benches, etc. Before additional obstacles, in the form of public art, are placed on the sidewalks, careful evaluation and approval of placement will need to be made by the Architectural Review Committee. 7. "Round Ugfor Art"Pro2-ram The task force suggested that citizens could be given an opportunity to contribute to the City's public art program by "rounding up" their water and sewer bills to the nearest whole dollar. The additional funds collected would be placed in the City's art-in-lieu fund and used to purchase art throughout the City. The focus group was particularly excited about the possibilities available with such a program. It also recommended that City staff contact non-City utility companies, such as cable television, gas and electric and telephone, to see if they would be willing to participate in such a program. Staff Recommendation Staff does not recommend implementing a "Round Up for Art"program for several reasons. First, it would be extremely difficult to handle administratively in the Finance Department. Each "rounded up" utility bill would need to be evaluated separately to determine whether the "rounding up" was inadvertent or intentional, and then the additional cents would need to be transferred to another account. Second, while a one-time contribution through the utility billing system might be possible to administer, it would be extremely difficult to juste to other deserving non-profit organizations why they should not have a similar opportunity to use the City's utility billing system to solicit for their groups. Finally, if the City is unable to institute a "Round Up for Art"program, it would not be appropriate for staff to request such a program from other non-municipal utilities. However, an independent public arts advocacy group, as discussed below, might be in a position to so. 8. Assist in the Creation of Public Art Advocacy Group and Forma Partnership with It As indicated earlier, the focus group very strongly believed that for any public art program to have success, the community must want and value it. A non-profit public art advocacy group would be instrumental in raising awareness, providing education, and soliciting funds. While there was some sentiment that the advocacy group should be. a Council-appointed Arts Commission, the majority of the group felt. that anindependent non-profit would be more effective. Not only would its non-profit status allow it to raise funds, but it could also address its attention to other public art opportunities such as those provided by schools and County buildings within the City. There currently exist several groups with a high interest in public art, including the Public Art subcommittee of the San Luis Obispo County Arts Council, the Art Center and the Downtown Association's Beautification Committee.. By drawing from these 1-7 Council Agenda Report-Public Art Enhancements Page 8 organizations, and with the assistance and encouragement of the City, the task force felt that it should not be difficult to form an advocacy group. The focus group also recommended that the City provide the advocacy group with some seed money to get started. The group suggested that funding could perhaps come in the form of a Promotional Coordinating Committee grant. Staff Recommendation Staff agrees with the committee's majority opinion that an independent non-profit advocacy group would be more valuable in promoting public art than a Council-appointed Arts Commission. We suggest that the Council direct staff to work with the groups identified above to encourage the formation of such an organization. Once it is up and functioning, the advocacy group would be a logical candidate to fall under the City's Partnership Policy, whereby the City would provide formal recognition of the partnership and some appropriate level of seed money. As a formal partner of the City, funding for seed money would not normally be part of the Promotional Coordinating Committee grant program, but would be handled as a separate budget request instead. Summary of Visual Arts In Public Places Program Staff Recommendations 1. Undertake all steps recommended by the task force relating to improved community education on the value of public art. 2. Create a handbook for developers which explains the City's Visual Arts in Public Places program, including currently available incentives. Do not add any new incentives, such as the waiver of impact fees or landscaping requirements. 3. Require a 1% contribution for public art from all private developments of 100,000 square feet of building space or greater. 4. Establish a$10,000 one-for-one matching grant program for private developments of less than 100,000 square feet of building space in the 2000-01 fiscal year. 5. Encourage the Downtown Association to continuing exploring a revolving art program similar to that established in Grand Junction, Colorado. 6. Encourage the Downtown Association to create a memorial public art program. 7. Do not implement a "Round Up for Art" program using the City's utility billing process. 8. Encourage existing art-related groups to establish an independent, non-profit advocacy group which can become a formal partner of the City in the support of public art.. Public Art Recommendations for the 1999-01 CIP The City's adopted Art in Public Places Program requires that 1% of the cost of all eligible City CIP projects be committed to public art. Once the Financial Plan is approved by the Council, 1-8 Council Agenda Report- Public Art Enhancements Page_9_ those funds are placed in a separate account. Because many construction projects,.such as street paving, are not appropriate for public art, the CIP committee then meets to develop a recommendation for the Council as to how those funds should be allocated. The CIP committee met on August 9, 1999, and makes the following recommendations: • Laguna Lake Park Improvements- $10,000 to be use for artwork located in the vicinity of the Nature Center. • Downtown Restrooms - $10,000 to be use for artwork located adjacent to the restrooms tentatively proposed to be place on.Broad Street near the entrance to the City parking lot (Lot #2). • Sinsheimer Park Improvements -$10,000 to be used for artwork to replace funding that was transferred from Sinsheimer Park to the Creek Walk project in 1998-99. • Higuera Street Bridge - $33,730 to be used for artwork in the area of the Higuera Street Bridge project. With the sidewalk widening and bulbouts being proposed in conjunction with this project, there should be ample opportunities to include public art, possibly at several locations. FISCAL IMPACT 1. All costs for implementing the staff recommendations for enhancing the Visual Arts in Public Places program can be handled within existing budget amounts except for the matching grants. Staff will return to the Council with a budget request to fund that program for the second year of the 1999-01 Financial Plan when we are ready to pursue this recommendation. 2. The following funding is currently available for public art projects as part of the City's CIP: • ° BA sum 99d General Fund_ -1836 $29,300 1 $33,6001 $63,730 Parking Fund 1,500 . 0 0 1,500 The proposed funding allocation is as follows: • Laguna Lake Park Improvements- $10,000 • Downtown Restrooms- $10,000 • Sinsheimer Park Improvements- $10,000 • Higuera Street Bridge- $33; 730 ALTERNATIVES 1. The Council may wish to set a different standard for requiring a public art contribution for private development. Staff recommends using a standard of developments of 100,000 square feet or greater. If this standard were lowered to 50,000 square feet, it would be likely 1-9 Council Agenda Report-Public Art Enhancements Page 10 to affect smaller projects where the fiscal impact could be harder for the developer to bear. If the Council were to increase the standard to a larger square footage, such as 200,000 square feet, very little public art would be generated, given current development practices in the City. 2. The Council could increase or decrease the percentage contribution required of the public sector for public art. Many cities require a 16/o contribution for public art, equal to what we currently require of our own City projects. However, given the concerns raised by the task force, and the mixed support coming from that group, Council could select a lower level such as .5%. 3. Council may wish to consider a construction cost figure as the standard for required public art instead of square footage. Several cities use standards of$250;000 or $500,000. Staff believes that the square footage standard is easy to establish early in the development process. By using this standard, the developer will.know if public art needs to be included while still in the design phase,when the art can easily be planned into the project. Attachments 1. Survey of public art programs 2. List of 1999-01 CIP projects generating public art fund's 1-10 o m c c N co 7 a c a `o :E W V c W N C V O N (D cl E m m N Ey N Zc m W o O c N o c H o o 2 y U U ccrN O O W .2 oLO .1 N O fA MA CLd O 2m m o 0 c c a a_ o d E m s U 'c E E o a o C 2 m m E E c c v a c = U 0 0 Z C7 Z m a C € L E O X N W N N e c � ; E Qm� off' l0 A a` �0 e o y E U) RIX:. 7 ' p E N U c C a.Z yr E m $ c C 0% d ain L a fa W _ o F- CL>F ' G-2m �° o x a° de a LU Ul r m N N Q V Q a O c J W.: U O m a o M c O C O Z m N C C O {Zy O' s N •CL - Z m:: o F� Be T W o o� C G o m ItLU N E m r l0 O C P. C ' N LL Q 0 O O M W ae' ae' c C7 E L C O O c C d N N m U 4 E ¢_ E E c 0 12 U E to a o N m p O V O C p O `p U m o _ _ O o Utt- o O U `p O N O N U U U U O O(L p c o o m d U o U G co O L�1 N m V Z N U = O U ¢ U V U U (7 O m w N m V N C O Y U U U LL a a C c �p d d N 6l L V c c c m p m c c m W a Wd � � � o � = 3We0 == mo � co F 1-11 a m m m 0 U U U 0 0 W LL LL U' 2 J J J 2 2 0 a O. O. E CDEcc ; ° ) > \ ) § \ \ k _2 LO ƒ - 2 ( k \ \ \ \ \ o ] §B 2 3 k - - LU§ ]_ \ E:5 ) . fJ cm §k- - . E� 27 °\E § 7 © § S : 0 \ [ -/ ( � | \ ! k/k 0 � 0 _ § u §J k •§ E \ r@ a@ a@ 2 r 7 @ m @ £ LU !z ) °S 2 / � ( « E \ 0 r 0 0 0 o ; - \ j ! § / § 0 o Q _ o % 2 f % { ) ) / \ } / % ° \ ° k ` u \ ° � 8 e 0. w e Q E 3 / « 2 2 a y _ # A S ! 2 = O C # e } ƒ § | k § | ) k \ S f u £ f 2 [ 7 + - ! ! 1-12 ! ) ! / / / j ) k k k k k ) / \ ) k k Public Art Page 2 of 3 olice Station Women's Locker Room 130,000 Fire Station No.3 Remodel 50,000 Fire Station No.4 Storage Facility 340,000 484,900 Higuera Street Widening:Marsh to High Intersection Improvement:Higuera at Marsh 91,000 Orcutt Road Realignment 785,000 Neighborhood Traffic Management 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 Pavement Resurfacing and Reconstruction 1,500,000 1,546,000 1,593,000 1,641,000 Pavement Resealing 458,000 477,000 486,000 501,000 135,000 Downtown Street Light Pole Painting Silt Removal:Prefumo Arm of Laguna Lake 90,000 Silt Removal:Marsh Street Bridge 20,000 Higuera Street Bridge 1,000,000 Landslide Repair:Rockview Place 35,000 Silt Removal:Sydney Creek Culvert 20,000 Silt Removal:Tank Farm Bridge 20,000 255,000 Storm Sewer-Bridge Street:Beebee to Higuera Storm Sewer-Higuera Street at Elks Lane 272,000 Storm Sewer-Monterey Street at Morro 105,000 Storm Sewer-Johnson at Bishop 44,000 17 Storm Sewer-Murray.Santa Rosa to Chorro 000 Bob Jones City-to-Sea Bike Trail 4700,,000 Orcutt Road:Duncan to Bullock 26,000 Garden Street Makeover 250,000 000 75 ew Sidewalk Construction 75, ,000 100,000 ]00,000 484,000 dewalk-Madonna Road at Highway 101 Sidewalk-Madonna Road at SLO Creek Bridge 21 ,000 Athletic Field Renovations 20,000 15,000 15,000 155,000 I Laguna Lake Park Improvements 100,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 Vista Lago Park Playground Equipment 56,500 Laguna Hills Playground Replacement 155,800 I 45,200 Las Praderas Park Improvements 125,600 44,800 Playground Equipment Upgrades Sinsheimer Park Improvements 183,200 453,100 200,000 200,000 Laguna Lake Dredging I Meadow Park Light Poles 16,000 New Turf Installation 40,000 Santa Rosa Park Ballfield Drainage 35,000 I 25,000 Sinsheimer Tennis Court Resurfacing Johnson Park Picnic Area Renovation 40,000 Parks Asphalt Scaling 26,000 I Parks Asphalt Resurfacing 90,000 Swim Center Bathhouse Water Heater 35,000 100,000 High Rate Sand Filtration Downtown Restroom60,000 rn I Small Scale Beautification Projects 75,000 75,000 82,000 63,000 Painting HVAC Improvements 58,000 ICorporation Yard Warehouse 260,000 Total Construction Costs 2,931,500 3,358,000 4,$42,800 6,614,800 Public Art Funding at 1%Contribution $29,300 $33,600 $42,300 $66,100 ' Project Funding Source: General Fund 1-13 371 MEETING AGENDA MEMO DATE ��_ITEM # Date: August 14, 1999 - MCOUNCIL 0 COD DIR ❑FIN DIR ❑FIRE CHIEF To: Council Collea endy George, Ken Hampian ❑PW DIR ❑POLICE CHF From Ken Schwartz ❑REC DIA ' ❑UTIL DIR Re: Item#1, Augu 17 Agenda, Art in Public Places Program ❑PEN DIR Copies: John Dunn, Je Jorgensen I believe our direction to staff Tuesday should be stronger than that recommended by the Art in Public Places Focus Group. San Luis Obispo is sufficiently sophisticated to appreciate the value of public art, and while an educational program might have value, it is time that the Council takes a positive action that will generate public art throughout the community. When that art appears in our community, then we will have the examples for any further education that may be needed. I do agree with the Focus Group that everyone should be participants and to that end, we should direct staff to develop a program that will involve everyone. We need to establish contribution rates that will touch all levels of development with the possible exception of replacement of buildings damaged by natural disasters, existing buildings which are being retrofitted to extend their useful life(e.g. seismic), and additions to existing buildings that can be considered as`minor." There may need to make some sort of accommodation for low income housing, albeit, in my opinion, it is in these environments that public art may have the most uplifting value. I visualize a program which establishes a minimum"contribution"by all development regardless of land use designation, residential, commercial, service, industrial, etc. (with exceptions noted above ). A"contribution schedule"needs to be worked out for each land use category. At this moment I would favor a percentage of the value of the individual development which would thereafter not need to be adjusted. I visualize a program which would have built in flexibility as to where the art would be placed, Le. on site or elsewhere in the community. In those instances where a small development would not generate enough fiords for a work of art that could be integrated into the development itself,then that "contribution"would be placed in an "Art in Public Places Fund"much lice our parking in-lieu program The contributions of a number of small developments would accumulate to the point where a sizable work of art could be commissioned. Allow me to make an example utilizing two other items we have on Tuesday's agenda: (1) Item#3, Park In-lieu Fee Update; and (2) Item#4, the R W. Hertel& Sons, Inc. Subdivision. RECEIVED AUG 1 6 1999 SLO Cl)'1•' CLERK Page 2 If we were to establish a minimum contribution for each residential unit atjust.5%of the park in-lieu fee,then each single family unit($4,046)would have a one-time contribution of$200, and each multi-family unit($3,208)would.have a one-time contribution of$160. Applying this example to the Hertel Subdivision of 46 single family units, a total of$9,200 would be yielded fora public art work. This might or might not be.a sufficient sum.for an art piece that could be placed in the subdivision itself Presume that the art theme selected would be to commemorate the Wes.tem.Pond Turtle supposedly native to the creek system running through the subdivision, $9,200 aright be enough to do an interesting sculpture and locate it in the public space of the Middle Fork Creek area. Could produce a fun piece. If however, $9,200 wouldn't be sufficient;then I would say that the contribution should be placed in.the in-lieu fund with other in-lieu.fimds from that geographical area of the City and utilized for a more sizable work to be located in the public park closest to the subdivision. I would leave it with staff to develop other examples and.justify"contributions"from other land use designations. While I have used the word"contribution,"I recognize that, legally,this is a fee assessment. . PROPOSED SUBSTITUTE MOTION 1. (a) Receive.proposals from the Art in Public Places Focus Group, and(b) direct staff to develop an Art in Public Places program which will call for contributions from all private development projects in all land use districts. Staff to study possible exceptions such as; a single family house in an existing neighborhood;a four unit apartment is an existing multifamily neighborhood;replacement of structures damaged by natural disasters;retrofitting of structures(e.g. seismic)to extend their useful lives; and `Sninor"additions to existing structures; and a.contrburion schedule for public low income projects. The contribution may be used in the development itself as long as the art can be seen by the public, or it may be made a"s an.in-lieu contribution to an Art in Public Places Fund administered by the City. 2. (No changeproposed.) Sherry Stendahl-Art in public Places Jjage 1 MEETAGENDA From: <JPSgn@aol.com> DATE ITEM To: <sstendahl@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us> Date: 8/17/99 11:25AM Subject: Art in Public Places Members of the City Council- I participated in the Art in Public Places Focus Group. The recommendations from the group reflected a consensus that involved compromise on the part of members of the group. These recommendations were further modified by staff. Councilman Ken Schwartz has sent a memo to members of the Council that �QUNCIL ❑CDD DIR recommends higher fees than those in the staff recommendations. I33 c}1' 0 ❑FIN DIR ACAO ❑FIRE CHIEF One of the key issues discussed at our Focus meetings revolved around the M#TORNEY ❑PW DIR role of government in establishing mandatory requirements as opposed to LERKIORIG ❑POLICE CHF ❑M MT ❑REC DIR government acting in a leadership role and using its regulatory and financial ❑UTIL DIR powers to encourage the private sector to become active in establishing ❑- ❑PERS DIR public art in their projects. It was my personal view that a supportive as opposed to a mandatory policy would result in the private sector making a greater contribution over time. I liken this to my efforts in public fundraising with the Performing Arts Center and Cuesta Colleges two campaigns, in which the College educated the public about the need and was able to draw private individuals into the fund raising effort. I see the success of these campaigns as being positive in creating "good citizenship" and preferable to government mandates. Other examples abound,where government has chosen to lead by example and created a public response that results in the objective being achieved and in a manner which has built a positive connection between the private sector and government. As you discuss these recommendations, please remember that those of us who participated, particularly those of us from the business community, did so, because we hoped that our participation and recommendations would be taken serious. Having been involved in government task forces on many prior occasions and seen those recommendations set aside, I become increasingly skeptical, that we are in effect pawns, used to show that public input was solicited. This can be an opportunity for the Council to become creative and take an alternate approach as opposed to the knee-jerk reaction to use the governments power to mandate. Yours truly, Jim Sargen RECEIVED AUU 1. 7 1999 SLO Ci`j Y CLERK