HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/18/2003, PH1 - APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S DETERMINATION THAT A SCULPTURE PROPOSED FOR THE COR r
i
COUnat Meeting Dat l
j acEnaa Repoat "wb.
C I TY OF SAN LU IS O B I S P O
FROM: John Mandeville,Community Development Director
Prepared By: Michael Codron,Associate Planner
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S
DETERMINATION THAT A SCULPTURE PROPOSED FOR THE
CORNER OF TANK FARM ROAD AND LONG STREET IS
INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE CITY'S PUBLIC ART GUIDELINES;
3889 LONG STREET; ARC 113-01
ARC RECOMMENDATION
Deny the appeal, and deny the proposed artwork because the proposed art is not consistent with
Guideline#4 of the Guidelines for Public Art.
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Uphold the appeal and determine that the proposed artwork is consistent with the Guidelines for
Public Art, as recommended by the Art Jury.
DISCUSSION
Situation
On January 6, 2003 the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) reviewed a public art proposal
for the Kennedy Fitness Center (Attachment 1, Vicinity Map). The proposed artwork is a
sculpture of two dolphins vertically positioned head to tail (Attachment 2). On a 4-2 vote (Smith
and Schultz voting no, Root absent), the ARC determined that the artwork was not compatible
with Guideline #4 of the City's Public Art Guidelines, which requires artwork to be compatible
with the immediate site and neighborhood in terms of historic, social and cultural characteristics
(Attachment 3). The Commission determined that the subjects of the artwork,two dolphins,were
not compatible with the guideline because of the agricultural setting and historic characteristics
of the Tank Farm Road location. Members of the Commission also expressed their opinions that
public art should be "business neutral," and the Commission ultimately recommended that the
applicant issue an RFP (Request for Proposal) through the County Arts Council to insure a
business neutral piece of art that was compatible with Guideline#4.
Data Summary
Address: 3889 Long Street
Applicant/Property Owner: Kevin Kennedy
Representative: Larry Brebes,Artist
Zoning: M-SP (Manufacturing-Specific Plan)
General Plan: Services and Manufacturing
Council Agenda Report -
Kennedy Public Art Appeal
Page 2
Site Description
The project site is located at the northeast corner of Tank Farm Road and Long Street
(Attachment 1). The artwork is proposed adjacent to the intersection, in an area designated on
the approved landscape plan for a monument sign (Attachment 2). Earth berms and landscaping
are also shown on the approved plans in this area. The sculpture would be bordered by public
sidewalks and the parking lot for the Kennedy Fitness Center.
Proiect Description
The project is the installation of a sculpture, in compliance with the City's Art in Public Places
program. Signage for the Kennedy Fitness Center is proposed at the base of the sculpture.
Evaluation
Background Info on Public Art
Ordinance No. 1372 was adopted in 2000 establishing public art requirements for private
development (Attachment 4). Commercial projects that have a valuation of over $100,000 are
subject to the requirement, which can be met in three different ways. The most common method
of compliance to date has been the in-lieu fee, which is set at one-half of one percent of that
portion of the total construction costs in excess of $100,000. Applicants may also meet the
requirement by installing approved"public art on private property, or they may donate approved
artwork to the City.
Proposed Artwork and the Approval Process
The proposed artwork is a depiction of two breaching dolphins. The dolphins are situated one
above the other, head to tail. As designed by the artist, this sleek, vertical orientation is fitting to
the dolphins. And, although the footprint of the sculpture is small, the vertical design provides
for an appropriate height and scale. The sculpture would be 10' to 12' tall and would sit on a 6'
tall base, for a total height of 16' to 18'_
The sculpture is constructed from bronze that is used to define the perimeter of each dolphin.
The dolphins are not solid, providing a lightness that is well suited to the dolphin form. The
"see-through" nature of the piece adds interest because it allows for views through to the sky,
mountains and trees in the background.
Approval of artwork to be placed on private property is a two-step process. The first step is a
review by the City's Public Art Jury and the second step is ARC review. The Jury review is
arranged by the City's Public Art Coordinator and the typical make-up of a Jury would include an
area resident, an area business owner or employee, and members of the City's art community. A
new Jury is convened for each public art proposal. The purpose of the Art Jury review is to
provide a critique of the artwork from the point of view of professionals from the art community
and people who live and work in the vicinity of the proposed art. The jurors for this project were
Pierre Rademaker (Design Professional), Joy Hanson (Arts. Council Representative), Tim
Beckwith(Artist),Karen.Ellsworth(Farm Supply, neighbor), and Precilla Beadle (Artist). r
( - oS
Council Agenda Report
Kennedy Public Art Appeal
Page 3
Jury Review
The dolphins are the second proposal submitted by the applicant for the project. The original
proposal was a smaller sculpture that included human figures with much more detail. After
review of this initial proposal, the art jury determined that it included too much detail, which
would be lost in.the large-scale setting of the Tank Farm Road/Long Street intersection. At that
time the art jury directed the applicant to focus on a single feature from the original sculpture and
make it large-scale to match the setting. The applicant and artist chose to focus on the dolphins
from the original piece, and the art jury determined that the revised proposal appropriately
addressed the jury's original concern with scale. The jury recommended that the ARC approve
the artwork and.provided some recommendations, as listed in the ARC agenda report for the
project(Attachment 7).
ARC Review
Broad design review authority of public art is typically reserved for the Art Jury. The City's
public art review process limits the ARC's review to .a determination of consistency with the
Guidelines for Public Art(Attachment 5). In this case, the artwork was approved by the Art Jury,
after revisions were made, but the ARC determined that the proposed dolphins were not
consistent with Guideline#4, which states that public art shall be compatible with the immediate
site and neighborhood in terms of historic, social and cultural characteristics, architectural scale,
materials, land use, and geographical and environmental context. The ARC did not support the
use of the dolphin in the inland setting and particularly along Tank Fane Road with its
agricultural context.
The ARC also expressed the concern that the proposed artwork was not business neutral, and that
the dolphin could function as a logo or other identifier for the business. The ARC continued the
item and recommended that the applicant go through the County Arts Council to issue an RFP,
which would provide the applicant with a range of independent art choices for the location. After
the ARC meeting, the Community Development Director determined that the action to continue
the project and come back with a different work of art was equivalent to a denial of the proposed
sculpture and the applicant was given the opportunity to appeal the ARC action.
Appeal Filed
On January 15, 2003, the applicant, Kevin Kennedy, filed an appeal of the ARC's action citing a
disagreement with the ARC's determination with respect to Guideline #4 (Attachment 6).
Appeals of ARC actions are referred directly to the City Council. After the appeal was received,
the item was scheduled for the next available City Council agenda.
Recommendations
The CAO recommendation differs from the ARC recommendation because the proposed
sculpture can be interpreted to be compatible with the immediate site and neighborhood in terms
of social and cultural characteristics, land use and environmental context in satisfaction of Public
Art Guideline 44. The evaluation of the art is essentially subjective won the support of the Art
Jury after changes were made. If the approval process becomes too complex, with multiple
Council Agenda Report -
Kennedy Public Art Appeal
Page 4
parties changing direction based on subjective considerations, the extension of the public art
program to the private sector may lose its appeal and support.
A second reason for the CAO's recommendation has to do with the direction given to the
appellant to use an RFP process. The Public Art Ordinance (Attachment 4) allows the
commissioning process to be at the discretion of the applicant. The ARC's direction that the
applicant use the RFP process takes away the developer's discretion.
The Art Jury has supported the proposed artwork because it is a unique sculpture that represents
high artistic quality, both in design and materials, and staff is recommending that the Council
uphold the appeal because it can be found consistent with the Guidelines for Public Art,
including Guideline #4. The ARC has concluded that the artwork is not consistent with
Guideline #4 because dolphins are not compatible with the project site in terms of its historical
and environmental context. Findings for denying the appeal, as recommended by the ARC, are
included in draft resolution "A" (Attachment 8). Findings and conditions for upholding the
appeal and approving the proposed artwork are included in draft resolution`B" (Attachment 9).
FISCAL IMPACT
When the General Plan was prepared, it was accompanied by a fiscal impact analysis, which
found that overall the General Plan was fiscally balanced. Accordingly, since the proposed
project is consistent with the General Plan, it has a neutral fiscal impact.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Continue consideration of the appeal, if more information is needed, and provide direction
to staff and to the applicant on issues that need to be resolved before the Council can make a
final decision on the artwork.
2. Deny the appeal but modify the direction of the ARC. Direct the appellant to use a subject
other than a dolphin to better reflect the setting of the piece, but do not require the use of an
RFP process.
Attachments:
Attachment 1: Vicinity map
Attachment 2: Rendering of proposed sculpture
Attachment 3: ARC Action Letter and Minutes from the 1-6-03 meeting
Attachment 4: Public Art Requirements for Private Projects (SLOMC 17.98)
Attachment 5: Guidelines for Public Art
Attachment 6: Appeal filed by Kevin Kennedy, dated ]-15-03
Attachment 7`. ARC Agenda Report for 1-6-03 meeting
Attachment 8: Draft Resolution "A" with the ARC recommendation
Attachment 9: Draft Resolution`B"with the CAO recommendation
L:/mcodron/camciVkennedy art appealdoc
Attachment 1
Y1
R-2-S M-SP
M-SP
s �
Yfs r{
TANK FARM
CS
—PD C—S—S
CROSS
vicinity Map ARC 113-01
® 30 0 30 60 Feet 3889 Long
Kennedy Public Art
i
\l
i
fig di
fl /
Attachment 2
do
[.&
l!
LP
-� Attachment 3
city of san WIS OBISPO
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
January 8, 2003
Kevin Kennedy
Kennedy Club Fitness of SLO
c/o 3534 EI Camino Real
Atascadero, CA 93442
SUBJECT: ARC MOD 113-01: 3889 Long Street
Review of Public Art for the Northeast, corner of Long Street and
Tank Farm Road
Dear Mr. Kennedy:
The Architectural Review Commission, at its meeting of January 6, 2003, continued
consideration of the public art proposal and recommended that the applicant work with
the County Arts Council on a RFP with direction to provide public art that is consistent
with the Guidelines for Public Art. The ARC determined that the current proposal was
not consistent with Guideline #4, which states, "Public art shall be compatible with the
immediate site and neighborhood.in terms of historic, social and cultural characteristics,
architectural scale, materials, land use, and geographical and environmental context.
If you have questions, please contact Michael Codron at 781-7175.
Sincerely,
Ro ald Whise and
Deputy Com unity Development Director
Development Review
cc: County of SLO Assessor's Office
The city of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services,programs and activities.
v Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805) 781-7410.
1 - �
DRAFT Attachment 3
SAN LUIS OBISPO
ARCHITECTUAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES
JANUARY 6, 2003
ROLL CALL:
Present: Commissioners Michael Boudreau, Jim Lopes, David Smith, Zeljka
Howard, Vice Chair Rob Schultz, and Chairperson Stevenson.
Absent: Commissioner Allen Root.
Staff: Associate Planner Michael Codron, Utilities Director John Moss,
and Recording Secretary Irene Pierce.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
2. 3889 Lona Street. ARC MOD 113-01; Review of Public Art proposed for
the northeast corner of Long Street and Tank Farm Road; M-SP zone;
Kevin Kennedy, applicant.
Associate Planner Michael Codron presented the staff report-recommending
approval of the proposed public art sculpture as recommended by the art jury.
Chairperson Stevenson questioned how this sculpture meets Finding #4 of the
Public Art Guidelines.
Planner Codron responded that is an appropriate discussion and the finding
should be made by the Commission.
Commr. Howard questioned why this particular art piece was chosen?
Planner Codron replied the original proposal was different, involving a dolphin
and human figures. The art jury recommended that the artwork be simplified so
the artist chose to focus on the dolphin forms.
Chairperson Stevenson questioned if there were other proposals?
Planner Codron replied no. The artwork was commissioned by the applicant and
he worked directly with the artist of his choosing.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
MaryBeth Schroeder, 2085 Wilding Lane, SLO, commented that the dolphins are
suitable, but questioned if it is safe for the public to go to Kennedy Center
because of soil contamination.
Attachment 3
Chairperson Stevenson replied it was not their focus to review the safety, only
the art that is proposed.
Kevin Kennedy, applicant, explained they wanted to do something that was a
standout on the corner and feels the landscaping design will compliment the
sculpture. He explained why they came up with dolphins and what kind of
lighting would be on the sculpture and how the name of the sign would try be
incorporated into the rock feature in front of it. He said that the sculpture is about
17-feet tall.
Commr. Lopes asked if the lighting would be inside the dolphin shapes.
Mr. Kennedy explained they considered doing it in a plexiglas form with high
bracket lighting, but mentioned the lighting still needs to be designed. He noted
the Airport Land Use Commission did not want any upright lighting.
There were no further comments made from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Chairperson Stevenson commented he could not support this art sculpture
because it is not appropriate for the location and does not meet Guideline #4. He
feels true public art should be business neutral. He suggested something that
ties more to the agricultural history of the area.
Commr. Lopes questioned if the City would benefit more from an in-lieu fee.
Planner Codron replied that the requirement could be met by paying an in-lieu .
fee, but the applicant would prefer to put the money towards improving his own
property, and the ordinance allows him to make that decision.
Commr. Lopes concurs that public art should be business neutral and should
reflect the context of the site and be compatible with the history and the character
of the town.
Commr. Howard questioned what would be the other option?
Planner Codron explained if this proposal were denied because of finding 4, then
the applicant would have the opportunity to redesign the artwork and come back
before the Commission.
Commr. Smith felt they should call this proposal signage.
Planner Codron responded that the sign is before the Commission because it is
integrated with this artwork.
Vice-Chair Schultz questioned what would be appropriate for this location?
Chairperson Stevenson replied there are a lot of choices.
Attachment 3
Commr. Lopes suggested some wildlife.
Planner Codron stated that the proposed artwork was approved by the art jury
and noted it is a nice piece. He stated that based on the guidelines, staff did not
see any conflicts or incompatibilities with the dolphin.
Chairperson Stevenson commented there is no connection to dolphins with the
Tank Farm Road setting and stated it would be more appropriate for an ocean
setting. He suggested something that represents the setting in this area.
Vice-Chair Schultz moves the staff recommendation, to approve the proposed
art as recommended by the art iury. Seconded by Commr. Smith.
Commr. Lopes commented that part of this has to do with the signage and
suggested the two-foot wall be the base for the sign.
Commr. Howard expressed that she is torn and feels if they look at the guidelines
it would be hard for them to find that the dolphins are compatible with the site and
the neighborhood.
Vice-Chair Schultz expressed support for the signage and suggested adding a
water feature to the sculpture.
Planner Codron stated that the art jury considered a water element as part of the
original proposal, but the fountain was eliminated in an effort to simplify the
piece.
Chairperson Stevenson expressed concern that this would set a precedent for
public art and feels they could not make Finding #4. He commented it is part of a
business promotion and feels this could be associated with the business as a
logo.
AYES: Commrs. Schultz and Smith.
NOES: Commrs. Boudreau, Howard, Lopes, and Chairperson Stevenson.
ABSENT: Commr. Root.
ABSTAIN: None.
The motion failed 4-2.
There was much discussion on giving the applicant direction.
Chairperson Stevenson commented they like this corner for public art and
suggested something with a more historical context.
�^ K )
Attachment 3
Commr. Lopes moved they continue consideration of the project and ask the
applicant to provide a different proposal. He suggested encouraging the
applicant to work with the public art coordinator to issue an RFP through the
County Arts Council, and asked if the applicant could provide a financial
guarantee to enable issuance of the building permits before the artwork is
approved. He encouraged the applicant to work with the public art coordinator to
seek public art that meets guideline #4, so that the art is specific to the San Luis
Obispo context. Seconded by Commr. Howard.
AYES: Commrs. Lopes, Howard, Boudreau, and Chairperson Stevenson.
NOES: Vice-Chair Schultz and Commr. Smith.
ABSENT: Commr. Root.
ABSTAIN: None.
The motion carried 4-2.
Attachment 4
San Luis Obispo Municipal Code
Chapter 17.98
PUBLIC ART REQUIREMENTS FOR PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT
Sections:
17.98.010 Purpose.
17.98.020 Definitions.
17.98.030 Public art account.
17.98.040 Applicability.
17.98.050 Exceptions.
17.98.060 Public art contribution..
17.98.070 Application procedures for placement of required public art on private property.
17.98.080 Approval for placement of public art on private property.
17.98.090 Application procedure for acceptance of public art donated to the city.
17.98.100 Review of application for acceptance of public art donated to the city.
17.98.110 Payment of art in-lieu fee.
17.98.120 Certificate of occupancy.
17.98.130 Ownership of public art.
17.98.140 Removal or alteration of public art.
17.98.010 Purpose.
The city of San Luis Obispo wishes to enhance the cultural and aesthetic environment of the city, and
to encourage creativity and an appreciation of the arts and our cultural heritage. Through the
establishment of a program of public art funded by private development, the city will promote the general
welfare through balancing the community's physical growth and revitalization with its cultural and
artistic resources.(Ord. 1372 § 1 (part),2000)
17.98.020 Definitions.
As used in this chapter:
A. "Art in public places" shall mean public art installed either on or off site, as part of new
development, in conformance with the standards set forth in this chapter.
B. "Nonresidential development" shall mean the construction of commercial, mixed use, office and
industrial projects,which are not intended for residential purposes.
C. "Public art" shall include, but not be limited to, sculpture, monuments, murals, frescoes,
bas-relief, mobiles, drawings, paintings, graphic arts, mosaics, photographs, fountains, decorative arts,
ceramics, carving and stained glass located in or on a public place. It does not include landscaping,
paving,architectural ornamentation or signs as defined by Chapter 15.40 of this code.
D. "Public art coordinator" shall mean that city employee designated by the city administrative
officer to be responsible for the city's visual arts in public places program.
E. "Public art jury" shall mean an appointed jury of no less that five city residents including, but not
limited to, as appropriate, a board member from the San Luis Obispo County arts council, an artist, a
business representative,an educator/historian and a city or advisory body representative.
F. "Public place" shall mean city or privately owned land or buildings which are open to the general
Printed from Folio Views Page I
Attachment 4
San Luis Obispo Municipal Code
public on a consistent basis and which are also places of high visibility to the general public.
G. "Total construction costs"shall mean the valuation of the proposed structures or improvements, as
calculated based on the most recent Building Valuation Data from the Uniform Building Code (UBC).
(Ord. 1372 § 1 (part), 2000)
17.98.030 Public art account.
There shall be an account designated for public art, into which shall be deposited all fees paid
pursuant to this chapter. This account shall be maintained by the city finance director and shall be used
for the acquisition, installation,and improvement of public art in the city.(Ord. 1372 § I (part),2000)
17.98.040 Applicability.
The program described in this chapter is a mandatory program and the standards specified are
minimum standards for compliance. Participation in the program by itself does not qualify project
applicants for consideration of increased project density/intensity as discussed in the land use element of
the city of San Luis Obispo general plan.
A. This chapter shall apply to all new nonresidential development, as defined in this chapter, having
a total construction cost of one hundred thousand dollars or more, as calculated based on the most recent
Building Valuation Data from the Uniform Building Code(UBC).
B. This chapter shall apply to all expansion of, remodeling of or tenant improvements to existing
eligible buildings when any such work has a total construction cost of one hundred thousand dollars or
more, as calculated based on the most recent Building Valuation Data from the Uniform Building Code
(UBC). (Ord. 1372 § 1 (part),2000)
17.98.050 Exceptions.
The following development activities shall be exempt from the requirements of Section 17.98.040:
A. Construction, repair or alteration of buildings to carry out rehabilitation of private property if that
rehabilitation is primarily financed with public funds.
B. Construction, repair or alteration of buildings to meet city-mandated seismic rehabilitation or fire
lateral replacement. (Ord. 1372 § I (part), 2000)
17.98.060 Public art contribution.
A. The project applicant shall acquire and install public art approved by a public art jury and the
architectural review commission in a public place on or in the vicinity of the development project site.
The minimum cost of the public art, including installation, shall be determined by the following
allocation:
1. An amount equal to one-half of one percent of that portion of the total construction costs in
excess of one hundred thousand dollars, for each building permit, computed using the latest Building
Valuation Data as set forth in the Uniform Building Code (UBC)unless, in the opinion of the city's chief
building official, a different valuation measure should be used.
2. Should a project consist of multiple buildings with separate building permits, at the city's
option,arrangements may be made to combine the public art requirements in an appropriate manner.
Printed from Folio Views Page 2
Attachment 4
San Luis Obispo Municipal Code
3. in no event shall the required cost for public art under this program exceed fifty thousand
dollars per building permit.
B. As an option,the project applicant may acquire and install public art,approved by a public art jury
and the architectural review commission and accepted by the city council, in a city-owned public place
not located at the development site. Cost of the public art shall be determined by the allocations set forth
in subsection A of this section. Such public art shall be considered a donation to the city of San Luis
Obispo.
C. In lieu of placement of approved public art, the applicant may pay as a voluntary alternative, to a
public art in-lieu account an amount equal to the program allocation set forth in subsection A of this
section. (Ord. 1372 § 1 (part), 2000)
17.98.070 Application procedures for placement of required public art on private property.
An application for placement of public art on private property shall be submitted to the community
development director and shall include:
A. Preliminary sketches, photographs or other documentation of sufficient descriptive clarity to
indicate the nature of the proposed public art;
B. An appraisal or other evidence of the value of the proposed public artwork, including acquisition
and installation costs;
C. Preliminary plans containing such detailed information as may be required by a public art jury and
the architectural review commission to adequately evaluate the location of the artwork in relation to the
proposed development and its compatibility to the proposed development, including compatibility with
the character of adjacent conforming developed parcels and existing neighborhoods;
D. A narrative statement to be submitted to the community development director to demonstrate that
the public art will be displayed in an area open and freely available to the general public, or that public
accessibility will be provided in an equivalent manner based on the characteristics of the artwork or its
placement on the site. (Ord. 1372 § 1 (part), 2000)
17.98.080 Approval for placement of public art on private property.
A. Applications completed in accordance with Section 17.98.070 shall be submitted to the
.community development director for review and approval of the public art in accordance with this
chapter.
B. The community development director shall forward the completed application to the public art
coordinator who shall convene a public art jury to review the proposed public art using adopted public art
evaluation criteria.
C. Upon recommendation of the public art jury, the public art application shall be reviewed by the
architectural review commission.
D. All approvals for placement of public art on private property shall be obtained prior to issuance of
a building permit. (Ord. 1372 § 1 (part), 2000)
17.98.090 Application procedure for acceptance of public art donated to the city.
An application for acceptance of public art to be donated to the city shall include:
A. Preliminary sketches, photographs, models or other documentation of sufficient descriptive clarity
Printed from Folio Views Page 3
Attachment 4
San Luis Obispo Municipal Code
to indicate the nature of the proposed public art;
B. An appraisal or other evidence of the value of the proposed public art, including acquisition and
installation costs;
C. A written agreement executed by or on behalf of the artist who created the public art which
expressly waives his or her rights under the California Art Preservation Act or other applicable law;
D. Other information as may be required by the public art coordinator to adequately evaluate the
proposed donation of public art. (Ord. 1372 § 1 (part), 2000)
17.98.100 Review of application for acceptance of public art donated to the city.
A. Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits, the applicant shall present to the community
development director for review, an application for acceptance of public art donated to the city, pursuant
to Section 17.98.060(B).
B. The community development director shall forward the application to the public art coordinator
who shall convene a public art jury to review the proposed public art, using adopted public art evaluation
criteria.
C. Upon the recommendation of the public art jury, the application shall be forwarded to the
architectural review commission for review.
D. Upon the recommendation of the architectural review commission, the application shall be
forwarded to the city council,which shall have the sole authority to accept, reject or conditionally accept
the donation. (Ord. 1372 § 1 (part),2000)
17.98.110 Payment of art in-lieu fee.
If the payment of an art in-lieu fee is voluntarily elected, the payment, in an amount equal to the
program allocation set forth in Section 17.98.060(C), shall be paid prior to the issuance of a building
permit. (Ord. 1372 § I (part), 2000)
17.98.120 Certificate of occupancy.
The following requirements must be met prior to the city's issuance of occupancy permits.
A. Full compliance with one of the following;
1. The approved public art has been placed on the site of the approved project, in a manner
satisfactory to the chief building official and the public art coordinator; or
2. Donation of approved public art has been accepted by the city council; or
3. In-lieu art fees have been paid.
B. If public art has been placed on the site of the approved project, the applicant must execute and
record with the county recorder covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs), which require the
property owner, successor in interest and assigns to:
1. Maintain the public art in good condition as required by the city's public art guidelines;
2. Indemnify, defend and hold the city and related parties harmless from any and all claims or
liabilities from the public art, in a form acceptable to the city attorney;
3. Maintain liability insurance, including coverage and limits as may be specified by the city's
risk manager. (Ord. 1372 § 1 (part),2000)
Printed from Folio Views Page 4
115
Attachment 4
San Luis Obispo Municipal Code
17.98.130 Ownership of public art.
A. All public art placed on the site of an applicant's project shall remain the property of the
applicant;the obligation to provide all maintenance necessary to preserve the public art in good condition
shall remain with the owner of the site.
B. Maintenance of public art, as used in this chapter, shall include without limitation, preservation of
the artwork in good condition to the satisfaction of the city, protection of the public art against physical
defacement, mutilation or alteration and securing and maintaining fire and extended coverage insurance
and vandalism coverage in an amount to be determined by the city's risk manager. Prior to placement of
approved public art, applicant and owner of the site shall execute and record a covenant, in a form
approved by the city, requiring maintenance of the public art. Failure to maintain the public art as
provided in this chapter is declared to be a public nuisance.
C. In addition to all other remedies provided by law, in the event the owner fails to maintain the
public art, upon reasonable notice, the city may perform all necessary repairs and maintenance or secure
insurance,and the costs therefore shall become a lien against the real property.
D. All artwork donated to the city shall become the property and responsibility of the city upon
acceptance by the city council. (Ord. 1372 § 1 (part), 2000)
17.98.140 Removal or alteration of public art.
A. Public art installed on or integrated into a construction project pursuant to the provisions of this
chapter shall not be removed or altered without the approval of the city council.
B. If any public art provided on a development project pursuant to the provisions of this chapter is
knowingly removed by the property owner without prior approval, the property owner shall contribute
funds equal to the development project's original public art requirement to the city's public art in-lieu
account, or replace the removed artwork with one which is of comparable value and approved by the city
council. If this requirement is not met, the occupancy permit for the project may be revoked by the city
council upon due notice and an opportunity to be heard. The city may, in addition, pursue any other
available civil or criminal remedies or penalties. (Ord..1372 § 1 (part),2000)
Printed from Folio Views Page 5
� l �
Attachment 5
GUIDELINES FOR PUBLIC ART
1. Public artwork shall be original and of high artistic quality.
2. Public art shall be located within the public right-of-way, or shall otherwise be
easily visible or accessible from a public right-of-way
3. Interior locations for public art shall be freely open and accessible to the public.
4. Public art shall be compatible with the immediate site and neighborhood in terms of
historic, social and cultural characteristics, architectural scale, materials, land use,
and geographical and environmental context.
5. Public art proposed for areas of high historical sensitivity, such as Mission Plaza
and its creek, should be given the closest scrutiny, including input from the
Historical Society, before approval by the jury.
6. Public art shall be integrated with the site, and include landscaping, lighting,
interpretive information and other amenities where appropriate.
7. Consideration shall be given to potential conflicts with present or future vegetation
or construction.
8. The design and placement of public art shall not impedepedestrian or vehicle
traffic, or conflict with public or private easements.
9. Consideration shall be given to any public safety or public health concerns created
by the artwork.
10. Permanent public art shall be constructed of durable, high-quality materials and
require minimal or no maintenance. Temporary public art shall be constructed of
materials appropriate to its duration of public display.
11. Public art shall be securely installed.
12. A wide variety of artistic expression is encouraged. However, expressions of
profanity, vulgarity or obvious poor taste are inappropriate.
5
' ttaAmenf 6
_ - Date Received
j RECEIVED
City Of
Sall LUIS OBISPO JAN 15 2003
FF
APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL
SECTION i. APPF LANT INFORMATION
C_\11AJ C"u a
q.CA,10V6
I&AL
Name Mailing Address-and Zip Code
qqF ALVkl
Phone Fax
&/A
Representa e's Name Mailing Address and Trp Code
Title Phone Fax
SECTION 2. SUBJECT OFAPPEAL
1. In accordance with the procedures set forth in Title 1, Chapter 1.20 of the San Luis Obispo
Municipal Cod_a (copy attached) I hereby a peal the decision of th :
_A&
.�_c 6', ' roh'a
s 3-0
(Name of ion de
icer, Committee or Commission being appealed)
2. The date the decision being appealed was rendered:
3. The application or project was entitled:Cacmqq, Qf FARI—L
4. 1 discussed the matter with the followin�City staff member:
_V1,2z 'I A61, C-00PUN on
(Staff Member's Name and Department) (Da
SECTION 3. REASON FOR APPEAL
Explain specifically what actiords you are appealing and why you believe the Council should consider your
appeal. Include what evidence you have that supports your appeal. You may attach additional pages, if
necessary. This form continues on the other side.
Page 1 of 3
I - [q
Attachment 7
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT ITEM#2
FROM: Ron Whisenand, Deputy Direc&4 MEETING DATE: January 6, 2003
BY: Michael Codron, Associate Planner(781-7175)
FILE NUMBER: ARC 113-01
PROJECT ADDRESS: 3899 Long Street
SUBJECT: Architectural review of public art proposed for the Kennedy Fitness Center.
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION:
As recommended by the art jury, approve the proposed public art sculpture.
BACKGROUND:
Situation
Public art is proposed to satisfy the Art in Public Places requirement for the Kennedy Fitness
Center (Attachment #3). The proposed artwork was evaluated by an art jury on December 11,
2002, based on the City's Guidelines for Public Art (Attachment #4). The jury recommended
that the ARC approve the proposed artwork with specific recommendations on the materials and
the design of the sign face (Attachment #5). The applicant has submitted a building permit
application for the fitness center, but must receive ARC approval of public art before
construction related permits will be issued.
Data Summary
Address: 3899 Long Street
Applicant/Property Owner: Kevin Kennedy
Artist: Larry Brebes
Zoning: C-S-SP (Commercial Service, Specific Plan)
General Plan: Services and Manufacturing
Environmental Review: Categorically exempt(CEQA Guidelines 15303)
Site Description
The project site is located at the northeast corner of Tank Farm Road and Long Street
(Attachment #1). The artwork is proposed for the comer of the property, in an area designated
on the approved landscape plan for a monument sign, berming and landscaping (Attachment#2).
The sculpture would be bordered by public sidewalks and the parking lot for the Kennedy
Fitness Center.
Project Description
The project is the installation of a sculpture, in compliance with the City's Art in Public Places
program. Signage for the Kennedy Fitness Center is proposed at the base of the sculpture.
`_ 0
Attachment 7
ARC 113-01 (Kennedy A
Page 2
EVALUATION
The design submitted to the ARC is the second art proposal for the project. The original
proposal was a smaller sculpture that included human figures with much more detail. The art
jury determined that the original proposal was not appropriate for the location because the detail
would be lost in the large-scale setting of the parking lot and public streets. After review of the
revised design, the art jury determined that the artist appropriately addressed the jury's original
concern with scale, and recommended that the ARC approve the artwork.
The revised design is a depiction of two breaching dolphins. The dolphins are situated one
above the other, head to tail. As designed by the artist, this sleek, vertical orientation is fitting to
the dolphins. And, although the footprint of the sculpture is small, the vertical design provides
for an appropriate height and scale. The sculpture would be 10' to 12' tall and would sit on a 6'
tall base, for a total height of 16' to 18'.
The sculpture is constructed from bronze that is used to define the perimeter of each dolphin.
The dolphins are not solid, providing a lightness that is well suited to the dolphin form. The
"see-through" nature of the piece adds interest because it allows for views through to the sky,
mountains and trees in the background
As part of its recommendation, the jury has forwarded 6 comments to the ARC for consideration.
1. The sculpture should be bronze with a polished finish(not patina).
2. Lettering for the signage should also be bronze with a polished finish. Staff is
recommending backlighting of individual bronze letters.
3. The sculpture should be designed with some depth, or other 3-dimensional characteristic,
and should not appear too flat.
4. The sculpture should be lit.
5. The art work should be incorporated into the landscaping plan and site plan to insure
proper execution.
6. The jury recommended two alternatives for the sign display, since the proposed lettering
is too large to be displayed on the sculpture base as proposed. Staff is recommending
that the ARC direct the applicant to comply with the Sign Regulations standards for the
size of monument signs, which will reduce the size of the proposed sign by half.
The above items are incorporated into the staff recommendation as conditions of approval. If the
ARC approves the proposed sculpture, the applicant would revise the landscaping plan and the
site plan in the current building permit application. The changes would be reviewed by the
Community Development Director for consistency with past and present ARC approvals for the
project.
l - �
ARC 113-01 (Kennedy A Attachment 7
Page 3
Signage
The Sign Regulations limits monument signs to 24.square feet in area and six feet in height. As
a result, the proposed 24" sign letters will most likely have to be reduced in size. The applicant
has incorporated signage into the public art proposal to avoid conflicts between the art and
signage, but the details of the letter size and location have not been solidified. The art jury
recommended that the applicant consider two alternatives for the sign display so that the stone
base of the sculpture did not have to be overly large.
The first alternative shows the sign detached from the base of the artwork, which significantly
reduces the circumference of the base. The second alternative would be to set the sculpture on a
pie-shaped base, also reducing the area of the structure. The ARC should express a preference
for one of the two alternatives, or if both are acceptable, the artist and sign manufacturer can
work together to determine the most efficient base design to use, subject to review and approval
by the Community Development Director.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Grant schematic approval to the project and provide specific direction to the applicant and
staff regarding additional information necessary to make a final decision on the project.
2. Continue consideration of the project if additional information is necessary to make a
decision.
3. Deny the request if the proposed pubic art is determined to be inconsistent with the
Guidelines for Public Art.
CM
ARC 113-01 (Kennedy A. � � Attach
Page 4 meet 7
RECOMMENDATION:
Grant final approval to the proposed public art, based on findings and subject to conditions of
approval.
Findings:
1. The proposed artwork is consistent with the Guidelines for Public Art because the City's art
jury determined that the piece is original artwork of high artistic quality and the proposed
sculpture installation is consistent with the 12 Guidelines for Public Art established by the
City of San Luis Obispo.
2. As conditioned, the integrated sign design is appropriate because the sign will be consistent
with the Sign Regulations criteria for size and height and a separate structure for the sign
would potentially conflict with and detract from the public art display.
Conditions:
1. The sculpture shall be bronze with a polished finish (not patina).
2. Lettering for the signage shall be individual bronze letters with a polished finish. The sign
shall be halo-lit(back-lit).
3. The sculpture shall be designed with some depth, or other 3-dimensional characteristic, and
should not appear too flat.
4. The sculpture shall be lit with low level, architectural up-lighting, to the approval of the
Community Development Director.
5. The landscaping plan and the site plan for the project shall be revised to incorporate the art
work, to the approval of the Community Development Director.
6. The final sign design shall be revised consistent with the alternatives provided by the art jury
and shall fully comply with the requirements of the Sign Regulations, to the approval of the
Community Development Director.
Attached:
Attachment 1: Vicinity map
Attachment 2: Approved project plans for Kennedy Fitness Center
Attachment 3: Proposed Artwork
Attachment 4: Public Art Guidelines
Attachment 5: Art Jury Comments
-
aa
AffachmeM 7
M-SP
R-2-S
HIND
�J CD
M-SP
M-SP C=1
TANK FARM
CS
-PD C-S-S
CROSS
Vicinity Map ARC 113-01
30 0 30 60 Feet 3889 Long
® Kennedy Public Art
� _ a3
lhment 7
I
II IIS g
N ! l11 A
3
0
N I ed I C I
°.
��! II II I �
W
s
L5
-{vV}y A NJJ
OJ V a d`acl y Q V I fl' I 0 W(mj j
_ Q
EZ5 I a 3
N x
N X c I
O� .
O (
M ` Q� I i N gui
u 3
li ^/ N d
M —M —
S w e6 I w U.
_ S �1
II I 3
W J I
J
OJ
i
fr a
W
oW oI f
r
C°
Y
IIS ,
nm�=�
W�l VON
ANSI
it
a1
•� � � 1� L „ ���,� ■lilt f�lZ 'fir.
1�= .lap,.+ � � .� ����& '61 •c,
c p
MR.- C I S
AVON
'
■ P i � ■1•��CSIr'1•E'i
AC
nU', -lS��l
PRIN
f`ppS
Attachment 7
II-
y
�c
a
- x
i ® i
i ® i
i® O
W
s
LLI
- ° z
o
o
z
Attachment 7
a
fit
�<s
Ij
r'
W
4
!n it
::
81
W
a
� c
m � r
Co9
� d
W E
d ro a
. W
a c
Ore
/r Q
�e
N — 7
AS0
a N 9
CL 3
�
As o
m
_ 4
l r�
Attachment 7
I � /
.- ' � ' � � �` \
| | ' | ■| §�
04
- - ` | § I| ƒ| |
I
LUj
�C
\ t t � �� � k k
� y \ g\. ' \ � | �| 2
IM
C
0
�--� 7 .- 2
3
- Attachment 7
-----------------------
I
E
I
......... _, .. ......_......
_.....
........
... . S I 1
1 O
I 1
B A 1 I t i I
II
II I
11
II I I I
1
II 1
II I
U�e� �•� 11 I-.viz--i I
CD 5 r l
1
W I �
I
s \
gdj - .m.-... .. .RY�
a.
cc
I�
1 I `a o
.......................... .............................. 1 -
r CL
Co
.'C M
I I
+ ........... ..... c
I I l i f i
o .....
CO
1 1 1
CL.® 11
7a -
;i
5�•
.a
i 1
•
Attachment 7
GUIDELINES FOR PUBLIC ART
1. Public artwork shall be original and of high artistic quality.
2. Public art shall be located within the public right-of-way, or shall otherwise be
easily visible or accessible from a public right-of-way
3. Interior locations for public art shall be freely open and accessible to the public.
4. Public art shall be compatible with the immediate site and neighborhood in terms of
historic, social and cultural characteristics, architectural scale, materials, land use,
and geographical and environmental context.
5. Public art proposed for areas of high historical sensitivity, such as Mission Plaza
and its creek, should be given the closest scrutiny, including input from the
Historical Society, before approval by the jury.
6. Public art shall be integrated with the site, and include landscaping, lighting,
interpretive information and other amenities where appropriate.
7. Consideration shall be given to potential conflicts with present or future vegetation
or construction.
8. The design and placement of public art shall not impede pedestrian or vehicle
traffic, or conflict with public or private easements.
9. Consideration shall be given to any public safety or public health concerns created
by the artwork.
10. Permanent public art shall be constructed of durable, high-quality materials and
require minimal or no maintenance. Temporary public art shall be constructed of
materials appropriate to its duration of public display.
11. Public art shall be securely installed.
12. A wide variety of artistic expression is encouraged. However, expressions of
profanity,vulgarity or obvious poor taste are inappropriate.
5
Attachment 7
PUBLIC ART SELECTION CRITERIA
1. Evaluation of artistic excellence.
2. Appropriateness of scale, form, material, content and design relative to the
immediate and general neighborhoods.
�ro o 5 d
/ 1]
p Aj
3. Relationship to the social, cultural and historical identity of the neighborhood.
Ok
4. Appropriateness of proposed materials as regards structural and surface integrity,
protection against theft, vandalism, public safety and weathering.
Ij /
5. Ease of maintenance.
6. Appropriateness of proposed method of installation of artwork, and safety and
structural factors involved in installation.
Signature:
Attachment 7
PUBLIC ART SELECTION CRITERIA
1. Evaluation of artistic excellence.
2. Appropriateness of scale, form, material, content and design relative to the
immediate and general neighborhoods.
3. Relationship to the social, cultural and historical identity of the neighborhood.
4. Appropriateness of proposed materials as regards structural and surface integrity,
protection against theft, vandalism, public safety and weathering.
(tel Ci ;✓�.t. I / _I I f ,(,
� U
5. Ease of maintenance. J
6. Appropriateness of proposed method of installation of artwork, and safety and
structural factors involved in installation.
_
Signature: /-7!'r
Q'
i
� -33
Attachment 7
PUBLIC ART SELECTION CRITERIA
1. Evaluation of artistic excellence.
2. Appropriateness of scale, form, material, content and design relative to the
immediate and general neighborhoods.
O� Ger e;e__
3. Relationship to the social, cultural and historical identity of the neighborhood.
/v
4. Appropriateness of proposed materials as regards structural and surface integrity,
protection against theft, vandalism, public safety and weathering.
5. Ease of maintenance.
6. Appropriateness of proposed method of installation of artwork, and safety and
structural factors involved in installation.
Sign e:
Attachment 7
PUBLIC ART SELECTION CRITERIA
1. Evaluation of artistic excellence.
kum Md Wu J�
2. Appropriateness of scale, form, material, content and design relative to the
immediate and general neighborhoods. 1p
C lCot
�G`110 U- L �'V4'l l I E C1(
rol)(,l L
3. Relationship to the social, cultural and historical identity of the neighborhood.
4. Appropriateness of proposed materials as regards structural and surface integrity,
protection against theft, vandalism, public safety and weathering.
5. Ease of maintenance.
6. Appropriateness of proposed method of installation of artwork, an safety d
structural factors involved in installation. G i Oil
C Q( VIM
1
Signature:V� ,�J
Resolution"A" Attachment 8
RESOLUTION NO. (2003 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN
LUIS OBISPO DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S DECISION TO
DENY PUBLIC ART PROPOSED FOR 3889 LONG STREET;
APPLICATION NO. ARC 113-01
WHEREAS, the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing on
February 18, 2003, in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California, for the purpose of considering an appeal of the Architectural Review Commission's
decision to deny public art proposed for 3899 Long Street, Application No. ARC 113-01; and
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission reviewed the proposed public art on
January 6, 2003, and denied the proposal because they determined that it was not consistent with
Guideline#4 of the City's Guidelines for Public Art; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony
of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at
said hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
as follows:
Section 1. Denial. Based upon all the evidence, the appeal is denied based on the
following finding:
1. The proposed artwork is inconsistent with the Guidelines for Public Art because the proposed
dolphins are not consistent with the neighborhood in terms of historic and cultural
characteristics as required by Guideline #4. The proposed dolphins are not appropriate in the
proposed inland setting, which is defined predominantly by its agricultural context.
On motion of ,seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Resolution No. (2003 Series) Attachment 8
Page 2
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 18th day of February, 2003.
Mayor David F. Romero
ATTEST:
Lee Price, City Clerk
AP VED AS TO F
Gil Trujillo, Acting City Attorney
f ' 89
i
Resolution«B" Attachment 9
RESOLUTION NO. (2003 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN
LUIS OBISPO UPHOLDING AN APPEAL OF THE
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S DECISION TO
DENY PUBLIC ART PROPOSED FOR 3889 LONG STREET;
APPLICATION NO. ARC 113-01
WHEREAS, the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing on
February 18, 2003, in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California, for the purpose of considering an appeal of the.Architectural Review Commission's
decision to deny public art proposed for 3899 Long Street, Application No. ARC 113-01; and
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission reviewed the proposed public art on
January 6, 2003, and denied the proposal because they determined that it was not consistent with
Guideline#4 of the City's Guidelines for Public Art; and
WHEREAS, the proposed public art meets all of the requirements of the City's ordinance
pertaining to Public Art in Private Development (SLOMC 17.98) and was reviewed and
approved by an art jury; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony
of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at
said hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
as follows:
Section 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Council makes the following
findings:
1. The proposed artwork is consistent with the Guidelines for Public Art because the City's art
jury determined that the piece is original artwork of high artistic quality and the proposed
sculpture installation is consistent with the 12 Guidelines for Public Art established by the
City of San Luis Obispo.
2. The proposed sculpture can be interpreted to be compatible with the immediate site and
neighborhood in terms of social and cultural characteristics, land use and environmental
context in satisfaction of Public Art Guideline #4 because dolphins can be symbolic and
evocative of an artistic message. In this case, the dolphin sculpture is not a literal
representation of two dolphins because only the outline of each animal is set in bronze, which
provides views through the sculpture connecting the artwork to the fields, hills and sky
beyond.
3. As conditioned, the integrated sign design is appropriate because the sign will be consistent
with the Sign Regulations criteria for size and height and a separate structure for the sign
would potentially conflict with and detract from the public art display.
I � 3�
Attachment 9
Resolution No. (2003 Series)
Page 2
Section 2. Approval. The Council does hereby uphold the appeal and approves the
proposed artwork, subject to the following conditions of approval.
1. The sculpture shall be bronze with a polished finish (not patina).
2. Lettering for the signage shall be individual bronze letters with a polished finish. The sign
shall be halo-lit(back-lit).
3. The sculpture shall be designed with some depth, or other 3-dimensional characteristic, and
should not appear too flat.
4. The sculpture shall be lit with low level, architectural up-lighting, to the approval of the
Community Development Director.
5. The landscaping plan and the site plan for the project shall be revised to incorporate the art
work,to the approval of the Community Development Director.
6. The final sign design shall be revised consistent with the alternatives provided by the art jury
and shall fully comply with the requirements of the Sign Regulations, to the approval of the
Community Development Director.
On motion of , seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 18th day of February, 2003.
Mayor David F. Romero
ATTEST:
Lee Price, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Gil Trujillo, Acting Attorney
�'SOI
San Luis Obispo County RECEIVED
ARTS COUNCIL FEB 18 2003
SLO CITY CLERK
February 13, 2003 ^'COUNCIL ZCbD DIR
JZ CAOy/ IN DIR
OACAO FIRE CHIEF
Councilman Schwartz Z_ATTORNEY' ;2 PW,DIR
SLO City Hall l CLERWORIG"` Q'POLJCE CHF'` RED FILE
990 Palm St. ° kADs 2 RE°DIR MEETING AGENDA
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 ZHR DIR IF,. T"—�
HR DIR, DA ITEM
Dear Councilman Schwartz,
The San Luis Obispo County Arts Council Art in Public Places Committee supports the
staff recommendation to grant the appeal for the Kennedy Nautilus Center public art
element.
It is our opinion that the Architectural Review Committee should not be making
decisions about public art projects based on content. The City of San Luis Obispo has
established clear and defined criteria for the Architectural Review Committee to follow.
These criteria are part of the very successful review process as established by the SLO
City public art guidelines. The selection process, before Architectural Review
Committee review, consists of juries with qualified people assessing all aspects
(including artistic and content issues) of a public art project. The role of the Architectural
Review Committee is not to judge artistic merit or content, as in the Kennedy case, but to
make decisions based solely on the established criteria.
Again,we ask that you override the Architectural Review Committee recommendation
and grant the appeal.
Sincerely,
Kate Stulbe Ann Ream
Executive Director APP Committee Chair
SLO County Arts Council SLO County Arts Council
Cc: Mayor Dave Romero
Councilwoman Christine Mulholland
Councilman Ken Schwartz
Councilman John Ewan
Councilman Allen Settle FRECEIVED
EB 18 2003
Post Office Box 1710 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 CITY COUNCIL
(805)544-9251 • E-Mail: ipslocac@slonet.org • Fax: (805)544' -
www.sloartscouncil.org