Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/17/2004, C5 - REVISIONS TO THE GUIDELINES FOR PUBLIC ART I counat a i-�- j ac,Enba aEpoRt CITY OF SAN LUIS O B I S P O FROM: Wendy George,ACAO W� Prepared By: Betsy Kiser, Principal Administrative Analyst SUBJECT: REVISIONS TO THE GUIDELINES FOR PUBLIC ART CAO RECOMMENDATION: As recommended by the Architectural Review Commission, adopt a resolution approving revisions to the City's Guidelines for Public Art. DISCUSSION Background On May 15, 1990, the City Council adopted Resolution #6811 creating a Visual Arts in Public Places program. (See Public Art Program Manual in Council Reading File). The resolution established, among other elements of the program, "Guidelines for Public Art" to help artists, citizens, commissions, council members and staff understand the City's expectations for public art. Over the years, the Guidelines underwent minor modifications to better meet the needs of the evolving program, but on the whole, have been used successfully to achieve the best possible matching of site and artwork and guide what is essentially a form of communication between the artist and the community. Today, the Guidelines are used primarily by the Public Art Jury and Architectural Review Commission (ARC) during the review process to evaluate the appropriateness of a piece of art. Need for Revision or Clarification of Guidelines Last February 2003, the City Council was asked to consider an appeal of the ARC's determination that a sculpture proposed for the new Kennedy Fitness Center on Tank Farm Road was incompatible with the City's public art Guidelines. The appeal was brought forward to the Council, with conflicting recommendations: the first by the ARC to deny the appeal and deny the proposed artwork on the grounds that the piece was incompatible with one of the Guidelines, and the second by the CAO (and supported by the Art Jury providing the initial review and recommendation of the art proposal) to uphold the appeal and determine that the proposed artwork was consistent with the Guidelines. While the Council ultimately upheld the appeal and approved the artwork, they directed staff to review the Guidelines and consider making a distinction between the criteria so as to minimize conflicts between the ARC and ad hoc art juries in the future especially in reviewing public art on private property. (Attachment 1) GS� � Council Agenda Report—Revision to the Guidelines for Public Art Page 2 Proposed Revisions To ensure that any revisions to the Guidelines for Public Art would meet with the approval of all parties involved in the public art review process, staff worked closely with the Community Development Department, the San Luis Obispo County Arts Council's Art in Public Places Committee (representing the art juror's perspective) and the ARC. The proposed Guidelines are a result of lengthy discussions, primarily involving purview of the reviewing bodies, i.e. what should be the range of function, competence, vision or comprehension of each reviewing body based on their intended purpose within the process. In the end, the revised Guidelines (Attachment 4, Exhibit A) recommend the separation of criteria, with the ARC primarily responsible for evaluating the more objective criteria and the arts jury evaluating criteria that is more subjective in nature. The ARC did request the following exceptions: 1. Both bodies will evaluate artwork with regard to size and scale. 2. Both bodies will review the artwork in terms of integration with the site, including landscaping, lighting, interpretive information and other amenities as appropriate. (Note: only the Art Jury will review the art in terms of historic, social and cultural characteristics, materials and geographical and environmental context.) While minutes do not exist from the Art in Public Places Committee meeting, results of the ARC meeting can be found in Attachment 2. Public.Art Program Manual When the Public Art Program was first created, we developed a Public Art Program Manual to serve as an educational tool for acquainting staff with the program and provide a step-by-step guide for managing a public art project. Recently this Manual was updated to include all ordinances, resolutions and changes to the program to date and clarify processes in response to staff queries. The revised Guidelines are a part of the update. A copy of the Manual is available in the Council Reading File. No action is required on this document, but is provided to Council for their information. CONCURRENCES As stated above, the Guidelines were discussed with the Community Development Director and at great length by the Art Council's Art in Public Places Committee prior to being forwarded to the ARC. FISCAL IMPACT No fiscal impact. GAProjects&Progams\Public Art\Administratlon\CAR-Revisions to Guidelines for Public Art 21704.docc C r• Council Agenda Report—Revision to the Guidelines for Public Art Page 3 ALTERNATIVES The Council could recommend changes to the proposed Guidelines in terms of a strict separation of evaluative criteria for reviewing bodies. This is not recommended because the proposed Guidelines represent hours of discussion and consensus by the reviewing bodies. ATTACHMENTS 1. Council Agenda Action Update, February 18, 2003 2. ARC Meeting Update,January 21, 2004 3. Resolution and Guidelines for Public Art Council Reading File Copy of the Public Art Program Manual GAProjects&ProgramsTublic A&Administration\CAR-Revisions to Guidelines for Public Art 21704.docc C � Council Agenda Tuesda,, 4bruary 18, 2003 GANN Action Update PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. 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: KEVIN KENNEDY. APPELLANT: (MANDEVILLE/CODRON —30 MINUTES) 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. ACTION: 1) Resolution No. 9422(2003 Series) adopted upholding the appeal and 2) directed staff to review the criteria in the Guidelines and consider making a , -Q0- distinction about public art on private property. (4;1 Mulholland) BUSINESS ITEMS 2. APPROVAL OF LEGAL DOCUMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE COPELANDS PROJECT. (GEORGE/STANWYCK— 90 MIN S) RECOMMENDATION: 1) Approve the Real P perry Agreement with San Luis Obispo Court Street LLC (the "Copelands"). 2) Ap ove the Payment Agreement with Palm Street Parking Structure LLC (the "Cop ands"). 3) Approve the Option Agreement with San Luis Obispo Court.Street LLC e "Copelands"). 4) Authorize the Mayor to execute all three agreements up receipt of payment by Copeland of outstanding obligations to reimburse the ' for third party consultant fees. 5) Adopt a resolution finding that competitively i ing the Parking Structure is impractical, unavailing and would not produce any vantage. ACTION: 1-4)A roved. 5) Resolution No. 9423(2003 Series)adopted. (4r1 Mulholland) 4 CS- f91IACHMEN Z Meeting Update ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION January 21, 2004 Wednesday 5:00 p.m. ROLL CALL: Commrs. Allen Root, Zeljka Howard, Jim Lopes, David Smith, Greg Wilhelm, Vice-Chair Michael Boudreau, and Chairperson Charles Stevenson All of the Commissioners were present. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: The order of the agenda was not modified. MINUTES: The minutes of April 7, 2003 were approved as submitted. PUBLIC COMMENT: Mary Beth Schroeder, 2085 KriIding Lane, indicated that greedy developers were leading to housing being too costly in the City. PUBLIC HEARINGS: NOTE: There will be no public hearing items presented at this meeting. COMMENT & DISCUSSION: 1. Staff A. Public Art Projects and Review Procedures (Ann Ream, SLO Arts Council; Betsy Kiser, Principal Administrative Analyst). The ARC discussed some specific cases that have come before them where questions have arisen about the appropriateness of the proposals as public art. The Commission provided specific recommendations on the proposed changes to the criteria for public art that the Council will soon be considering. They generally supported the new criteria with some editorial suggestions and the shifting of the purview for some criteria between the ARC and Public Artjury. B. Ideas and approaches to garner more public participation at ARC meetings. CS�� ATTACHM9 3 RESOLUTION NO. (2004 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO REVISING THE GUIDELINES FOR PUBLIC ART WHEREAS, on May 15, 1990, the Council adopted Resolution#6811 creating a Visual Arts in Public Places program and establishing Guidelines for Public Art; and WHEREAS, over the years the Visual Arts in Public Places program has evolved and the need now exists to clarify roles and responsibilities of the public art reviewing bodies with regard to the criteria set forth in the Guidelines for Public Art. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo that the Guidelines for Public Art are amended as shown on Exhibit A and attached herein Upon motion of , seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was adopted this day of 2004. David F. Romero, Mayor ATTEST: Lee Price,C.M.C. City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: JonkthAu,K Lowell City Attorney R �r A GUIDELINES FOR PUBLIC ART Architectural Review Commission Criteria 1. 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. 2. Interior locations for public art shall be freely open and accessible to the public. 3. Consideration shall be given to the size, massing, location and scale of the proposed piece and to potential conflicts with present or future vegetation or construction. 4. The design and placement of public art shall not impede pedestrian or vehicle traffic, or conflict with public or private easements. 5. Consideration shall be given to any public safety or public health concerns created by the artwork. 6. Public art shall be integrated with the site, and include landscaping, lighting, interpretive information and other amenities where appropriate. 7. Public art shall be securely installed. Public Art Jury Criteria 1. Public artwork shall be original and of high artistic quality and shall not include any signage or other advertisement or logo, literal or abstract. 2. Public art shall be inspired by the immediate site and neighborhood in terms of historic, social and cultural characteristics, architectural scale, materials, land use, and geographical and environmental context. 3. Public art shall be integrated with the site, and include landscaping, lighting, interpretive information and other amenities where appropriate. 4. 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. 5. A wide variety of artistic expression is encouraged. However, expressions of profanity, vulgarity or obvious poor taste are inappropriate. Other Review Criteria 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 Cultural Heritage Committee, before approval by the jury. GAProjects&Programs\Public Art\Policies&Procedures\FINAL Revised Policy and Procedures\Guidelines for Public Art.doc cS- � ;Ncouncit m c m o na n b u m crty of san Luis owspo. aOministnation RECEIVED DATE: February 17, 2004 FEB 17 2004 TO: City Council SLO CITY CLERK VIA: Ken Hampian, CAO FROM: Betsy Kiser,Principal Administrative Analyst QD SUBJECT: CLARIFICATION OF GUIDELINES FOR PUBLIC ART — PUBLIC ART JURY CRITERIA#2 The Public Art Jury Criteria#2 states the following: "Public Art shall be inspired by the immediate site and neighborhood in terns of historic, social and cultural characteristics, architectural scale, materials, land use, and geographical and environmental context." The previous edition of the criteria stated"Public Art shall be compatible with...." During the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) review of the criteria, one of their recommendations was to strengthen the language to what is being presented to Council for approval. Their intent in strengthening the language was to provide the art jury (which will have purview over the subjective review of an art project if the Council approves the resolution this afternoon) with much clearer direction when evaluating a piece of proposed art for its compatibility with a neighborhood. The ARC felt that if this language had existed prior to the submission of the Kennedy Fitness Center art proposal, the decision regarding the appropriateness of dolphins for the Tank Farm area may have been impacted, and most likely would have avoided the presentation of conflicting recommendations brought to the Council with the review of the Kennedy project. Should the Council approve the proposed Guidelines as presented, there will be less room for misinterpretation of the criteria. 1 RED FILE GCOUNCIL CDD DIR ICAO „-FIN DIR ME ING AGENDA �G'ACAO .icFIRECHIEF DATE ITEM # ATTORNEY aPW DIR ,� 'CLERKiORIG - POLICE CHF ❑ D�T"EADS -E'REC DIR -'UTILDIR rP11 _. ✓HR Dlil Red File-Guidelines for Public Art 21704