Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/08/2008, BUS 1 - PUBLIC ART POLICY REVIEW AND PROPOSED 2007-09 PROJECTS f\� council Mttung°� t-g-os aGEnba RCPORt 1�Ni. I C I TY OF SAN L U IS O B I S P O FROM: Betsy Kiser, Parks and Recreation Director Prepared By: Shannon Bates, Recreation Manager SUBJECT: PUBLIC ART POLICY REVIEW AND PROPOSED 2007-09 PROJECTS CAO RECOMMENDATION 1. Receive information regarding the City's present method of allocating the one percent (1%) for public art and retain the current Public Art Policy definitions of eligible projects and costs. 2. Adopt a resolution amending the Guidelines for Public Art to exclude interior installations of public art in private development. 3. As part of the 2007-09 Financial Plan, approve specific projects for public art funding. REPORT-IN-BRIEF With the adoption of the City's Visual Arts in Public Places program in 1990, the program has continued to grow and evolve. This evolution has resulted in numerous modifications to the public art program including the addition of the public art in private development program, the matching grant program and revisions to the Guidelines for Public Art. After the completion of 2007-09 two year Financial Plan, staff was directed to return to City Council with the 07-09 recommended projects and with additional information on the public art process for clarification, discussion and possible changes. Seven projects are being recommended for the next two years and discussed in greater detail below. While possible changes to the public art program could include a modification to the definition of Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) projects eligible for the one percent (1%) public art allocation, this is not recommended. However, staff does recommend excluding interior installations of public art in private buildings as satisfying the criteria for public art in private development. DISCUSSION Definition of CIP Projects and Costs Eligible for Percent for Public Art During development of the 2007-09 Financial Plan, the Council raised concerns about the definition of eligible projects and costs for the purpose of allocating the one percent (1%) for public art under the City's Visual Arts in Public Places program. Staff was directed to return after the budget process with additional information on the public art process for clarification, discussion and possible changes to the program. Public Art Policy Review and Proposed 2007-09 Projects Page 2 Background. Resolution No. 6811 (1990 Series) adopts the City's Visual Arts in Public Places Program, which among other things: 1. Requires that t% of eligible project construction costs be set aside for public art. 2. Clearly defines the terms of the program, including "capital construction project," "construction cost" and "eligible projects." According to the resolution, the term capital construction project means any project listed in the CIP, which is paid wholly or in part by the City for public benefit. Projects include but are not limited to building construction, additions, and remodels; parks, plazas; creek improvements and flood protection projects; bridges; streets, sidewalks, bikeways, trails, other public transportation improvements; parking facilities;and similar public facilities. It specifically excludes utility projects, underground projects (like storm drains), funding from outside agencies, and costs other than construction, such as study, environmental design, site preparation, land acquisition and equipment purchases. The complete resolution is provided in Attachment 1. Process. As set forth in the City's Budget and Fiscal Policies, CIP projects are evaluated during the budget process for conformance with the City's public art policy. While it is generally preferable that public art be incorporated directly into a project, this is not practical or desirable for all projects, especially small projects or those with limited visibility. To ensure that CIP - . - funds are adequately budgeted for,this purpose, regardless of whether public art is directly As set forth in the City's Budget and Fiscal incorporated into the project, funds for public Policies, CIP projects progress through at least two and up to ten of the following art are identified separately in the CIP. phases: Based on the funding amount established under • Designate this approach, the CIP Review Committee • Study makes recommendations in the Fall, following • Environmental Review Financial Plan adoption, for the allocation of • Real Property Acquisition this amount by the Council for specific public • Site Preparation art projects. • Design • Construction • Construction Management During development of the 2007-09 Financial . Equipment Acquisition Plan, the Finance Director reviewed the CIP . Debt Service and applied the 1% for public art to eligible General Fund based, "construction phase" Funds are budgeted for each specific phase costs only (see sidebar chart for "phase" and clearly identified in the CIP as such. definitions), to arrive at the recommended Given the type of CIP expenditures possible public art allocation reflected in the CIP. See based on these phases, it has been the P ( City's policy to apply the 1% allocation to all Attachment 2 for an excerpt from the CIP that eligible projects in the"construction" phase. provides a complete list of contributing projects.) Public Art Policy Review and Proposed 2007-09 Projects Page 3 This process has been used since the inception of the Visual Arts in Public Places program and has worked well for defining how much the City will set aside each year for public an. During lean years (2003-05 and 2005-07), Council temporarily reduced the percent for public art from 1% to 3/4% to 1/2% respectively to assist with balancing the budget, but has never considered redefining the terms of the program. In short, the process for defining "what's in the % for public art base and what isn't" is solely for the purpose of identifying how much should be funded for public art for the two-year Financial Plan period. It is not to determine which projects should include public art. Redefining the Eligible Projects. During review of the 2007-09 CIP, the Council directed staff to return with a discussion of redefining "eligible projects" to include only "new" construction projects rather than using the current policy, which includes the construction phase of "all" projects (except those that are exempt by definition). While other definitions are certainly possible, there are two drawbacks with changing the Iona-standing standing policy currently in place: 1. "Construction" is a clearly defined cost category in our CIP. There are already a number of exclusions in the cost base (such as utility and underground projects). Creating and reaching agreement on a new definition of "construction" solely for public art purposes may require substantial effort without a significant impact on the outcome. For example, if there are only a few, low-cost projects in the contributing base that would be eliminated with a more surgical definition, it won't result in a significant change in determining the public art budget. However, it may result in a significant increase in staff effort to make the distinction. 2. On the other hand, any revision in the definition that significantly reduces the "contributing" base will result in a significant reduction in the public art budget. For example, paving CIP projects are included in the "contributing" base and account for $52,800 (55%) of the public art CIP budget for 2007-09. These costs are to maintain the streets we already have, not to build new ones. Based on this project alone, depending on what the new definition might be, changing the definition of "construction" could result in a significant reduction in public art funding. Given these two factors, we recommend retaining the current policy for developing the public art budget and allocating this amount to specific projects. Change to the Public Art Guidelines Accordin' to the Council approved Guidelines for Public Art (adopted in 2000), privately funded interior art satisfies the public art requirement as long as the location is freely open and accessible to the public. Over time, staff concerns have surfaced over the legitimacy of recognizing interior art installations in private buildings as meeting the intent of the public art requirement. Subsequent discussions with the Community Development Department staff and ArtsObispo's Art in Public Places Committee concurred that interior art pieces in private buildings are not consistent with the intent and the spirit of the public art program, primarily because there is no way to ensure that they are freely open and accessible to the public. Therefore, staff recommends revising the Guidelines for Public Art as follows:. Public Art Policy Review and Proposed 2007-09 Projects Page 4 1. Publicly funded public art shall be located within the public right-of-way, a public building or shall be easily visible or accessible from a public right-of-way. Interior locations for public art are permitted, and shall be freely open and accessible to the public. 2. Privately funded public art shall be located on privately owned land or buildings which are places of high visibility to the public. Such places shall be in exterior locations, and not within buildings. If privately funded public art is donated to the City, Guideline No.1 above applies to location of art. See Attachment 3 for legislative draft of Guidelines for Public Art. 2007-09 Recommended Public Art Projects As stated above, once the Financial Plan is approved by Council, the funding allocated for public art is placed in a separate public art account, supplemented with funding from the Art in Private Development program (art-in-lieu), if available, and later allocated among projects identified and recommended by the CEP Review Committee. The Council provides final approval to the recommendations. This year, the process was further enhanced with input from an added group of City staff, knowledgeable and interested in public art, which generated a broad list of possible public art locations, concepts and themes. Using a simple rank order process, the individuals in the group were asked to rank their five top preferences. This list was subsequently shared with the ArtsObispo's Art in Public Places Committee members for their input and used by the CIP Review Committee to develop the proposed 2007-09 public art projects. Projects on the list not recommended at this time will continue to serve as a foundation for future project discussions and recommendations (see Attachment 4). In December 2007, the CIP Review Committee met to discuss the final project list and identified seven uses of public art funds for Council approval based on the following criteria: 1. The project has high public visibility and use. This is especially the case for City gateways and high pedestrian use areas. 2. The project should lend itself to the inclusion of public art. 3. Except in limited circumstances, public art is generally not appropriate in landscaped medians due to traffic safety concerns. On one hand, if the work is significant enough to attract driver attention, it may also result in driver inattention. On the other hand, if it is subtle enough not to have this problem, it probably won't meet the criteria for high visibility. 4. The project should be public art ready, meaning the project should be nearing the design phase or near or under construction and will be completed within the two-year CIP. 5. The number of projects should be limited in order to focus staff efforts and result in meaningful pieces of public art. r Public Art Policy Review and Proposed 2007-09 Projects Page 5 In total, $306,000 is available for public art projects in 2007-09, which includes $95,200 for General Fund construction projects and $210,800 from the art in-lieu program. The following summarizes the CEP Review Committee recommendations: 1. Fountain at Higuera and Marsh Streets - $90,000 to augment a previous allocation of$40,000 to enhance the fountain at the west entrance to downtown (total funding of $130,000). The site of the fountain is considered a major gateway to the City and lends itself well to public art due to its high visibility. The CEP Review Committee recommends increasing the funding for the fountain art to allow for the creation of a piece proportionate to the size and visibility of the site. Members of the Monday Club (the original builders of the fountain) have endorsed the recommendation to enhance the fountain to include public art. Of the $90,000 additional funding being recommended for this project, staff is requesting that $42,000 be reallocated from the Highway 1 entryway public art project that was approved for the 2005-07 Financial Plan. The City has since received funding from an outside source sufficient to create a significant entryway without the addition of public art. 2. Buena Vista at Monterey Street - $90,000 to provide a piece of artwork in conjunction with the Buena Vista street improvements. With the proposed improvements to Buena Vista at Monterey Street, the Architectural Review Committee recommended staff incorporate public art into the existing plans. Again, the area is a major gateway to the City, has high public visibility and lends itself to public art. 3. Sidewalk to the Little Theater- $10,000 to install art into the sidewalk at the front entrance of the Little Theater. Currently slated sidewalk renovations at this location will provide the opportunity to incorporate art into the fabric of a project. 4. Matching Funds for the Ouaglino Bridge Project - On March 1, 2005, the Council adopted Resolution No.9656 which established a matching grant program to encourage the development of public art. According to the Resolution, projects seeking matching grant funds require City Council approval, consistent with the City's Donation Acceptance Policy. Furthermore, projects eligible for matching grant funds should provide a clear public benefit and advance the City's public art goals. The resolution requires that Council determine the appropriate level of matching funds up to a dollar-for-dollar level for each request. In accordance with the City's Public Art matching funds program, Quaglino Properties is requesting $12,500 to fabricate and install artful railings on the east side of Sacramento Drive. Due to the location of the piece in a public right of way, staff sees significant value in leveraging public and private funds to complete this project. If the Council approves the match, the project will be managed by City staff according to the City's approved public art policies and procedures and will return to Council in early spring for final approval of the artwork itself and acceptance of the donation to the City' Public Art Program. 5. Bridges at Foothill. Toro and Nipomo Streets - $60,000 to augment a previous allocation of $15,000 for public art at Foothill Bridge and allow for additional enhancements to bridges on Toro and Nipomo Streets. At $25,000 per bridge, enhancements will be installed at all three Public Art Policy Review and Proposed 2007-09 Projects Page 6 locations, and would fund public art at these three locations similar in scale for that proposed for the Quaglino bridge project. 6. Maintenance - $15,000 for maintenance associated with the City's public art collection. During the 2005-07 Financial Plan process, Council approved an annual allocation of $15,000 to be used for public art maintenance.. 7. .Reserve - $28,500 un-allocated for reserve. Staff recommends $28,500 of the existing funding be held in reserve (not allocated to specific projects) for possible future needs that may result from: a reduction in funding from private development, a matching grant proposal, or unforeseen major maintenance project(s). Special CAO Note Regarding Entrvwav Proiects (#I and #2): Over the past several years enhancements to the City's entryways have been identified as an unmet need by both the City Council and the private sector. Leveraging public art fiends to create and install significant pieces of art for two of the City's most prominent entryways (Marsh and Higuera and Buena Vista at Monterey) will have a significant impact on tneeting this treed. And while $130,000 and $90,000 budgets respectively might seem "pricey," we mustn't forget that past efforts to be frugal in finding entryway monuments have had disappointing results (e.g. the north and south Highway 101 monuments). We don't want to repeat that mistake at these key locations. CONCURRENCES The list of proposed public art projects was developed and recommended by the CIP Review Committee. Additionally, the ArtsObispo's Art in Public Places Committee reviewed City staff's public art list and suggested possible locations for public art at their November 13, 2007 meeting and unanimously approved staff's recommendations at their December 11, 2007 meeting (see Attachment 5). FISCAL IMPACT The following funding is available for public art projects as part of the City's CEP budget and Public Art In-Lieu fees (private development): Resources Public Art In-Lieu 168,800 2007-09 CIP 95,200 Reallocation of Hwy 1 funds 42,000 TOTAL 306,000 Expenses Fountain Hi uera/Marsh 90,000 Buena Vista/Monterey 90,000 Qua lino Bridge Match 12,500 Bridges Foothill,Toro, Ni omo 60,000 Sidewalk to Little Theater 10,000 Maintenance 15,000 Reserve 28,500 TOTAL 306,000 Y Public.Art Policy Review and Proposed 2007-09 Projects Page 7 ALTERNATIVES 1. Redefine "eligible projects" to something other than the current policy, which includes the construction phase of "all" projects (except those that are exempt by definition). This is not recommended for reasons identified previously in this report. 2. Redistribute funds among other projects, allocating more funding than recommended for one project and less for another or could recommend other locations for public art. 3. Delete one or more of the projects from the recommended list and redistribute funds among remaining projects. The current recommendations reflect staff's intent to meet the public art criteria and acquire quality pieces of art for the scale needed for the location. 4. Deny the request for matching grant funds or reduce the amount of match. This is not recommended because the developer has agreed to contribute an amount that is $3,000 more than its required public art commitment in order to see this project come to fruition. Additionally, staff sees significant value in leveraging public and private funds to complete this project. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution No. 6811 (1990 Series) City's Visual Arts in Public Places Program 2, 2007-09 Public Art CIP 3. Legislative Draft—Guidelines for Public Art 4. Future public art projects list 5. Letter from the ArtsObispo's Art in Public Places Committee 6. Resolution amending the Guidelines for Public Art T:\Council Agenda Reports\Parks&Recreation CAR\CAR-07-09 Public Art Projects O1.05.08.doc I _ ATTACHMENT RESOLUTION NO. 6811 (1990 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ADOPTING A VISUAL ARTS IN PUBLIC PLACES PROGRAM BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Title and Content. The City Council hereby adopts the "Visual Arts in Public Places" program as described in Exhibits "A" and "B" of the Community Development Department staff report dated May 1, 1990. SECTION 2. Definitions. For the purposes of this resolution, the following terms are defined as follows: (1) "Visual.Art in Public Places" or "Public Art" means any visual work of art displayed in a publically visible location: (a) in a City-owned area, (b) on the exterior of any city-owned facility, (c) within any city-owned facility in areas designated as public area, lobbies, or public assembly areas, or (d) on non-city- owned property if the work of art is installed or financed, either wholly or in part, with city funds or grants procured by the City; and if on private property, secured by a public art agreement between the City and the landowner. (2) "Work of Art" includes,.but is not limited to,sculpture, monument, mural,fresco, bas-relief, mobiles, photography, drawing, handcrafts, painting, fountain, landscape composition, banners, mosaic, ceramic, weaving, carving, and stained glass. "Work of art" is the creative result of individual or group effort, and is either unique or of limited-issue nature, and is normally not mass-produced or intended primarily for a commercial market. "Work of art" does not normally include landscaping, paving, architectural ornamentation, or signs as defined by Chapter 15.40 of the Municipal Code. (3) "Capital Construction Project" means any project listed in the City's Financial Plan Capital Improvement Program, and paid for wholly or in part by the City of San Luis Obispo for public benefit. "Capital construction project" includes, but is not limited to building construction, addition, and remodel; parks; plazas; creek improvements and flood protection projects; bridges; streets, sidewalks, bikeways, trails other public transportation improvements; parking facilities, and similar public facilities as determined by the Community Development Director. (4) "Construction Cost" means the cost in dollars, as approved by the City Council or the City Administrative Officer, to construct a project. "Construction Cost" shall not include land acquisition, design, operation, or maintenance costs. 1 -� R 6811 ATTACHMENT Resolution No. 6811 (1990 Series) Page 2 (5) "Eligible Project" means a capital construction project which is not exempt under the provisions of this resolution, or by City Council or City Administrative Officer action. SECTION 3. Environmental Determination. After City.Council review and consideration, the Community Development Director's decision to grant a negative declaration pursuant to the City Environmental Procedures and the California Environmental Quality Act is hereby affirmed. SECTION 4. Percent For Art. One percent (1%) of the total approved construction cost of eligible capital construction projects shall be expended for the design and installation of public art. SECTION S. Responsibility For Implementation. The Community Development Director is responsible for administering the program. City departments responsible for the planning, design, and construction of eligible capital construction projects shall include public art in their projects, or shall otherwise meet the requirement through allocation of funds to the Public Art Program as described in Section 6. SECTION 6. Public Art Program. (1) Small capital construction projects, or projects in which the City Council or City Administrative Officer determines that it is not feasible or desirable to include public art due to site limitations or the project's location or design, may meet this requirement through allocation of one percent (1%) of their construction cost as an in-lieu contribution for citywide public art; (2) The Finance Director shall establish and maintain a Public Art Program in the Capital Improvement Plan for such a purpose; and (3). Program funds shall be used for the design, fabrication, and installation of public art, pursuant to the Visual Arts in Public Places Program, Exhibits "A" and "B" i -� ATTACHMENT---- Resolution TTACHMENTSResolution No. 6811 (1990 Series) Page 3 SECTION 7. Exempt Projects. The following types of projects are exempt from this percent for art requirement: (1) Utility projects, such as public water or sewer system improvements, pumps, and wells; (2) Underground projects, such as storage tanks and. storm drains and similar items; (3) The City Council or the City Administrative Officer may exempt other projects from this requirement upon.finding that: (a) installation of public art would be detrimental to public health, safety, or welfare; (b) the project is not. suitable for the inclusion of public art; or is not visible by, used by, or accessible to the public; or (c) The project is itself a public art project. SECTION 8. San Luis Obispo County Arts Council. The San Luis Obispo County Arts Council shall assist the City by evaluating the technical and artistic merit of proposed public art projects by forwarding its comments to the Community Development Director or Architectural Review Commission. This is recognized as an appropriate function for the Arts Council,.a non-profit agency, and no City funding is allocated for this advisory service. SECTION 9. Program Evaluation. The City Clerk shall schedule the public art program for Council review within one year of the date of this resolution. At such review, the Council may modify or suspend the program. On motion of Councilman Roalman , seconded by _ Councilwoman Pinard , and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Roalman, Pinard, Rappa, Reiss, and Mayor Dunin NOES: None ABSENT: None Resolution No. 6811(1990 Series) ' Page 4 the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 15th day of May , 1990. 40000 =��= — Mayor Ron Dunin ATTEST: City Clerk voges s s s s s s s s s s s s =tive Officer y orney, Community Developmen apartment Public.Wo s epartment ATTACHMENT— Resolution No.-6811 (1990 Series) Page 5 Fie epartment s:-a ecreation Department . Financ Director D/jh/pub-art5.wp ATTACHMENT City of III San WIS OBISPO VISUAL ARTS IN PUBLIC PLACES PROGRAM L PROGRAM GOALS AND OBJECTIVES A. Goals The.City of San Luis Obispo Shall: 1. Preserve and enrich the community's environmental quality by encouraging visual arts in public places for both public and private development. 2. Foster public art to enhance San Luis Obispo's character. 3. Promote opportunities for public participation in and interaction with public artworks and artists. 4. Expand access to the arts for residents and visitors, with special attention to the needs of under-served audiences, such as children, low-income families, senior citizens, and disabled persons. 5. Support a diversity of public art styles, media, programs, and artists through its matching grants program for public art. 6. Encourage public artworks which celebrate and reaffirm the community's historical, socio-cultural, and aesthetic values, and which provide a sense of continuity for future generations. 7. Expand citizen awareness and appreciation of the visual arts as a key part of the community's identity and quality of life. B. Objectives To achieve these goals, the city will: 1. Strongly encourage the inclusion of visual arts in new public and private development projects in the PF, O, C-C, C-R and C-T zones through its development review process. 2. Evaluate, and where appropriate, revise its General Plan, Zoning ani Subdivision Regulations and other_pertinentpolicies.and standards to provide incentives for and removeobstacles to public art..'. - 13 EI$IT:A` ATTACHMENT_ Visual Arts in Public Places Program Page 2 3. Develop and implement, in conjunction with San Luis Obispo County Arts _ Council, administrative policies for public art acquisition, administration, funding and long-range planning. 4. Expand the range and depth of financial support sources.for the visual arts, including the possibility of using a portion of an increase in transient occupancy tax or sales tax to support'"public arts programs". 5. Include funding for public art planning and development in the city's Capital Improvement and Capital Reinvestment Programs where feasible, including an on-going matching grant fund for public art. 6. Include public art in new capital projects such as parks, city buildings, public plazas and major street projects;and allocate at least 1percent of total capital construction costs for the installation of public art II. GUIDELINES FOR PUBLIC ART Art eludes precise definition or regulation. Art in public context, unlike art in private collections or museums, is linked to the community in complex ways. It both shapes and reflects .the community's perception.of itself — its character and its values. And.it must address and respond to a wider audience than art in museums or private collections. Recognizing this difference, cities and counties have developed various guidelines to encourage the widest:possible range of artistic expression, while ensuring that artworks express the community character and values, and meet reasonable criteria applicable to other types of"development projects". The following guidelines will help artists, citizens, commission and council members and staff understand the city's expectations for public art. They are .not intended to unduly restrict creative expression, or limit the types of public art possible. Rather, they are intended to achieve the best possible mating of site and artwork, and guide what is essentially a form of.communication between the artist and the community. They are interpreted by the City Council and the Architectural Review Commission, with technical and procedural assistance from the San Luis Obispo County Arts Council. 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. The design and placement of public art shall not impede pedestrian or vehicle traffic, or conflict with public or private easements. 3. Public art shall be compatible with:the immediate site and neighborhood in terms.of architectural scale, materials, land use and the site's historical and environmental context. ATTACHMENT- Visual Arts in Public Places Program Page 3 4. Public art shall be integrated with the site, and include landscaping, lighting, interpretive information, and other amenities where appropriate. 5. 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. 6. A wide variety of artistic expression is encouraged Expressions of profanity, vulgarity, or obvious poor taste are inappropriate. ' 7. Artwork shall reflect a high level of artistic excellence. 8. Public art shall not directly or indirectly cause adverse environmental effects, or otherwise jeopardize public health, safety or welfare. III. CRITERIA FOR MATCHING GRANT FUNDING The city has established a matching grant fund to encourage public art. For every dollar of private investment, the City Council may match the expenditure on a dollar-for-dollar basis. Public art projects receiving matching funds should provide a dear public benefit and advance the city's public art goals.' To achieve this, the city has developed special review criteria. Projects seeking matching grant funds will require City Council approval, as described in Section IV below. The council will use the following criteria in evaluating funding requests: 1. Artwork shall be located 1) on publicly owned property or right-of-way, or 2) on private property if the artwork is secured through a public art easement. 2. Artwork should promote the city's Goals and Objectives for Public Art. 3. The applicant has demonstrated sufficient experience and ability to successfully complete the public art project. 4. Projects which make creative and efficient use of resources will be given preference. 5. Artwork shall be consistent with the city's Public Art Guidelines. 6. Artwork designed and/or sponsored by a San Luis Obispo county resident, business or organization will be given preference. 7. The City shall be named as an additional insured and indemnified during construction and installation of the public artwork 8. Permanent artwork receiving city funds shall become City property. } - K - ATTACHMENT — Visual Arts in Public Places Program Page 4 IV. PUBLIC ART REVIEW PROCESS Public art projects shall be reviewed according to the chart shown in Exhibit"B". All public art shall require review and approval by the City's ArchitecturalReview Commission,except for those public art projects determined by the Community Development Director to be minor or incidental. Hearing, notice and appeal.proceiiures shall be as provided for architectural review, Chapter 2.48 of the Municipal Code. Public art in major City capital projects, or public art projects for which matching city funds are requested, shall require City Council approval. The San Luis Obispo County Arts Council will assist the City in the review of public art. A subcommittee of the Arts Council will,-on request by the City, evaluate artworks on their technical and artistic merits, and make recommendations to the Architectural Review Commission and City Council. V. INCENTIVES FOR PUBLIC ART To promote the inclusion of public art in both public and private projects, the City shall undertake, as appropriate, the following actions to implement the Visual Arts in Public Places program: 1. Waive processing and permit fees for public art projects. 2. Increase matching grant funding or allow unused grant funds to accrue from one budget cycle to the next. 3. Consider allowing density bonuses or height exceptions to projects which include public art tied to open space at ground.level. For example, a project which included sculpture and:mini-plaza might receive height or coverage exception to allow additional floor area comparable to the area devoted to public art. 4. Work with the county and state to explore possible tax incentives for public art. 5. Revise setback regulations (Section 17.16.020).-to-allow public art within setback areas, with provision allowing direction discretion to require use permits for large artworks, or for those whose placement imay have solar, traffic or environmental impacts. 6. Clarify Sign Regulations relative to public art. 7. Minimize 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, file muralor bas- relief on existing wall); and by allowing over-the-counter construction permits ATTACHMENT Visual Arts in Public Places Program Page 5 for all but structurally complex artworks. 8. Consider allowing public art to meet a portion of the total required common -open space in condominium projects. 9. Redefine "structure" in the Zoning Regulations (Section 17.04.410) so that public artworks are excluded. for determining setbacks or building/lot coverage. VI. ADDITIONAL TASKS These are additional tasks to be completed.as part.of-a comprehensive_public art program, listed in the recommended order of implementation: 1. Establish Administrative Procedures - In addition to public art policies established by the City Council, administrative .procedures are needed to support the overall goals of the program. These would include: artist selection procedures, community involvement, interagency cooperation, contract preparation, art collection management guidelines, insurance and liability, and conflict resolution. 2 Artist Involvement -The ARC is the primary City advisory body charged with reviewing public art. To assist the ARC in its role, at least one member of the commission should be an artist, or have a strong background in the visual arts. This would help commissioners understand art issues, and provide the technical expertise to understand public art media, techniques, and design implementation. 3. Public Art Brochure.- To assist community groups, developers, and citizens, the City will prepare a brochure which explains the public art program: goals and objectives, matching grant funding, and the design review process. The brochure would be made available through;the Arts Council, and at the City Community Development and Engineering Departments. 4. Education Program - The success of public art is measured largely by the community's understanding of an and appreciation -for--this-art form as a cultural resource. To promote such understanding, the City will help sponsor an educational program which may include: public art activities in elementary school classes, occasional articles on public art in the SLO Newsletter, San Luis Obispo City/County Lbrary displays,and:promotion of public art among civic organizations. 5. Program Evaluation - The public art program should be evaluated on a regular basis, initially one year after adoption (on or before May 15, 1991), and then every 2 years, in conjunction with the city's budget cycle. The written evaluation would describe the status of public art projects, evaluate policies and,procedures;and suggest changes.to.the program;-as appropriate- ------ Adik ,ATTACHMENT PUBLIC ART Environmental Review The need for significant environmental review of public art projects is unlikely. Stakeholders Arts Council Project Managers assigned public art responsibilities Community at-large that will enjoy public art Key Project Assumptions Public art will be funded at I%of eligible construction costs. Project Phasing,Costs and Fending Sources The following reflects construction costs for those projects over the next four years that meet the City's requirement for a public art allocation and the resulting public art budget request at 1%of eligible costs: Police Station Roof Replacement 60,000 Police Station Annex Rehabilitation 55,000 Police Station Remodel 510,000 Police Station Parking Lot Maintenance 80,000 Police.Station Interior and Exterior Painting 80,000 Engine Bay Door Safety System 66,000 Station 1:Exterior Masonry Sealing 27,000 Stations 1 and 2:Pavement Replacement and Repair 40,000 Station 2:Interior and Exterior Painting 5'000 Station 3:Shower Stalls and Flooring Replacement '000 Station 3:Engine Bay Floors and Walls Painting 15.000 Street Reconstruction,Resurfacing and Sealing 1,814,000 2,428,400 2,525, 2,626,500 Los Osos Valley Road Paving 521,000 Downtown Paving 125,000 80,000 80, 80,000 Buchon&Johnson Intersection Improvements 100,000 Street Widening:S.Higuera-Margarita to Elks 122,500 Traffic Safety Report Implementation 25.000 25.000 25, 25,E Neighborhood Traffic Management 60,000 60,000 60, 60,E Guardrail Improvements 20,000 60,000 Prado Road Bridge Deck Maintenance 150 Garden Street Makeover 60 Vertical Survey Network 11 000 Traffic Signal LID Fixture Replacement ,000 20 Traffic Signal Reconstruction 0,000 Street Light Painting 50,000 50,000 0,000 50, Street Light Monitors 90,000 00,000 95, Street Light Replacement:Broad Street 50,000 Downtown Pedestrian Lighting 56,000 Downtown Pedestrian Signals 80000 Sidewalk Repair 45,000 1 45,000 45,000 f ( 45,000 ` 3-462 `g I PUBLIC ART ATTACHMENT General Fund Construction Costs 0000 • 009 Sidewalk Accessibility Improvements 270,000 400,000 500,000 5001 New Sidewalk Installation 25,000 25,000 25,000 25, Mission Style Sidewalks 25,000 25,000 25,000 25 Comprehensive Directional Sign Program 50,000 Poinsettia Creek Walk 95,000 Bob Jones Bike Trail:Bridge Connections 220,000 Andrews Creek Bypass Channel 100,000 Silt Removal 160,000 165,000 00,000 116,000 Marsh Street Bridge Repair 85,600 Chorro Bridge Rehabilitation Johnson Avenue Pump Replacement ,000 Toro Street Creek Bank Stabilization 40,000 Senior Center Remodel 210,000 Santa Rosa Park Roller Rink Expansion 205,000 Santa Rosa Skate Park Improvements 120,000 Playground Equipment Replacement 90,000 60 001 39,000 Sinsheimer Park Master Plan Improvements 387,200 Laguna Lake Park Master Plan Improvements 113,300 Park Restroom Replacements 173,200 Damon-Garcia.Fields Maintenance Building 64,000 Meadow Park Roof Replacement 40, Mission Plaza Stair Replacement 75,000 South Street Median Landscaping 150,000 3 Santa Rosa Median Landscaping Downtown Urban Forest Management Plan 25,000 25,000 ,000 25,000 Swim Center Main Pool Replastering 160,000 City Gateways 28,000 2,000 Little Theater Walkway Repair 20,000 Jack House Foundation Repairs 190,000 Jack House Fencing and Gazebo 40,000 Carnegie Library Masonry Sealing 15,000 City Hall Structural Repair 3801000 Corporation Yard Roof Repairs 265,000 Corporation Yard Operations Center Remodel 47,Q00 Exterior Painting:Parks&Recreation Offices 20,000 City Hall Exterior Painting 30,000 Corporation Yard Fuel Station Siding Repair 35,000 Johnson Ranch Recreational Development 27,000 48,000 Open Space Enhancements 20,000 20,000 Geek Mitigation 59,000 16,000 Tota!General FundConstruction Costs 4,425 5,173 74, Public Art @ 1% W400 loe-$501900 Project Funding Source. General Fund 3-463 q GUIDELINES FOR PUBLIC ART ATTACHMENT _ Architectural Review Commission Criteria 1. Publicly funded public art shall be located within the public right-of-way, a public building or shall otherwise be easily visible or accessible from a public right-of-way. Interior locations for public art are permitted, and shall be freely open and accessible to the public. , af4 shall be clearly visible in an aFea open and Geely a, lable tothe general publis eR a iste.,t basis, OFpublie aeeessibilk), shall be previded in an equivalent Faanfief based en dhe ef the- w4vOedc Ar its plasemefit on the site. 1 r#eFi,._.le,...t:ens f,.publie aft shall he Reely e a and- ., a -s;hle to the publie. Privately funded public art shall be located on privately owned land or buildings which are places of high visibility to the public. Such places shall be in exterior locations, and not within buildings. If privately funded public art is donated to the City, Guideline No.l above applies to location of art. 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. 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. The design and placement of public art shall not impede pedestrian or vehicle traffic, or conflict with public or private easements. 6. Consideration shall be given to any public safety or public health concerns created by the artwork. 7. Public art shall be integrated with the site and/or building, and include landscaping, lighting, interpretive information and other amenities where appropriate. 8. 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 should be considerate of 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. GAADMIN\Public Art 2\Policies&Procedures\FINAL Revised Policy and Procedures\Guidelines for Public Art Revised Leg draft 't 10808.doc 1 .. O%-,/ Al,TM0Hi EP!T / fUtURC puBLUc ant pnojEcts 1. Aero Dr. (airport.entrance) 2. Bob Jones Trail - SW corner of South Higuera and Prado 3. City Hall remodel 4. Dispatch Center 5. Golf Course 6. Laguna Lake 7. Ludwick Community Center exterior 8. Meadow Park 9. Mid-Higuera open space (Mathews Property) 10.Neighborhood Gateways: Chorro Street: Within the public right of way on each side of Chorro Street, in the vicinity of Lincoln Street Ella Street: Near Binns Court/Ruth Street Morro Street: South of Pismo High Street: Near Broad and/orHiguera 11.Orcutt Street/Tumbling Waters 12.Railroad Safety Trail - In the vicinity of the trail access point at either the end of Bushnell Street or Boulevard Del Campo 13.Santa Rosa Park (Skate Park/Roller Hockey Rink) 14.Senior Center 15.Sinsheimer Park 16.Sinsheimer School median 17.Trail heads on City open space 18.Trolley/Bus stop - On Monterey Street near Moondoggies Concepts/Themes: Manhole covers Skateboarding deterrents Sidewalk art Rotating art Mosaics Murals Urban Trees Painted signal boxes ArrACHMENr 5... . .; I ar"446, &M December 19,2007 ARTS OBISPO Son Luis Obispo County Arta Council 570 Fliiguera st.,Ste.175 Dear Members of the San Luis Obispo City CDuncil, P.O.Box 1710 San Luis Obispo,CA 93406 ARTS Obispo's Art in.Public Places Committee has reviewed the City of San Phone:(805)5449251 Luis Obispo's proposed public art budget and enthusiastically endorses its Fax(805)5441522 office®Sloaranoun&org approval.As you are well aware there must be adequate funding in order for a'a' .sloartsooutrxlorg a program to be successful. SLO City's public art program makes this City a more desirable place to live Board Members and visit, and consequently has a positive impact not only on quality of life, Toni Bouman,President but also on the City's economy.Therefore,ARTS Obispo encourages the Steve Bland,Vice-President SLO City Council to approve the public art package presented to you;to not Glynis mafrm-ringlof secretary only continue,but to enhance this shining star of a program smven deLuque Melinda Forbes Julie Franw Most sincerely, Mary KayHamngcon Caissa Hewitt Waher WALu smronresratore Marta Peluso,Executive Director,ARTS Obispo Aon Ream,a cffiw Fred Ventura. Jane Voiga Ann Ream,Art in Public Places Chair,ARTS Obispo staff Marra Peluso Executive Director Alissa Maddren Program Director Emily Jagger Operations Manger Erin Hanley Arts in Educaion Coordinator San Heiniichs Administrative Assistant Advancing the Arts in San Luis Obispo County ATTACHMENT RESOLUTION NO. (2008 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 (1990 series) creating a Visual Arts in Public Places program and establishing Guidelines for Public Art; and WHEREAS, on February 17, 2004, the Council adopted Resolution 9523 (2004 series) clarifying the roles and responsibilities of the public art reviewing bodies with regard to the criteria set forth in the Guidelines for Public Art; and WHEREAS, there is a need to exclude interior art in private development from the public art program in order to ensure that art is freely open and accessible to the public. 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 hereto: Upon motion of seconded by , and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was adopted this day of 72008. David F. Romero, Mayor ATTEST: Audrey Hooper, C.M.C. City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jo thanP. well Ci ey R ' � �� EXHIBIT GUIDELINES FOR PUBLIC ARI Architectural Review Commission Criteria ATTACHMENT___ 1. Publicly funded public art shall be located within the public right-of-way, a public building or otherwise shall be easily visible or accessible from a public right-of-way. Interior locations for public art are permitted, and shall be freely open and accessible to the public. 2. Privately funded public art shall be located on privately owned land or buildings which are places of high visibility to the public. Such places shall be in exterior locations, and not within buildings. If privately funded public art is donated to the City,Guideline No.1 above applies to location of art. 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. 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. The design and placement of public art shall not impede pedestrian or vehicle traffic, or conflict with public or private easements. 6. Consideration shall be given to any public safety or public health concerns created by the artwork. 7. Public art shall be integrated with the site and/or building, and include landscaping, lighting, interpretive information and other amenities where appropriate. 8. 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 should be considerate of 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. f 2-' GAADMIN\Public Art 2\Policies&Procedures\FINAL Revised Policy and Procedures\Guidelines for Public An Revised final draft 10808.doc