HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/01/1990, 8 - NEW CITYWIDE PUBLIC ART PROGRAM IIIIII J P MEETING DATE:
��►►H�i�� pi�ui� cityo san tins OBISPO S-1- 10
Hii�II�II�IIII%
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER:
1.0
FROM: Arnold Jonas, 06munity Development Diras;;O�Pr€ d
By: Jeff Hoo ssociate Planner APR 2 5 199J
SUBJECT: New Citywide Public Art Program 5 vo Pm
CITY COUNCIL
L.Uis opia &A
CAO RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the attached resolution creating a Visual
Arts in Public Places program.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
The program establishes: 1) goals and objectives, 2) a streamlined
review process, 3) review guidelines, 4) criteria for matching
grant funding, 5) a funding level of 1 percent of the total
construction cost for new city capital projects, and 6) incentives
for private installation of public art. The city's role in funding
and promoting public art would be expanded, and the Arts Council
would advise City staff and the Architectural Review Committee on
public art, and be a liaison between the city, developers, and
artists.
BACKGROUND
At its February 5th study session, councilmembers expressed general
support for the program, and directed staff to: 1) streamline the
review process; 2) focus the program on permanent, fixed artworks
rather than performing arts; 3) set the percentage rate for public
art funding at one percent; 4) initiate the percent for art
program with public projects only, excluding public utilities; and
5) encourage private sector sponsorship of public art through
incentives. The program has been revised as directed, and is i
returning to Council for final adoption. j
i
The revised program includes several refinements which address
staffing/time management concerns and allow the Council greater
flexibility to exempt certain projects from the program. These are
discussed under project changes, below.
The program was developed by a 10-member ad hoc committee, composed
of two members each from the Planning Commission, Architectural
Review Commission, and Promotional Coordinating Committee; a SIA
Arts Council member; and three citizens-at-large. The committee
developed the program during a series of meetings held between
April 1988 and September 1989. City commissions have held public
hearings to review the program, and their comments are summarized
below. The Arts Council has also reviewed the program, and its
Board of Directors has endorsed the program and agreed to assist
the city in its implementation (letter attached) .
SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
The Community Development Director has determined that the project
would have no significant environmental impacts, and has granted
9_)
e
MY or San WIS OBISp0
WRIMN COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Staff Report
Page 2
a negative declaration.
Fiscal impacts of the program are:
Current public art program funding:
Matching Grant Funds, Fiscal Year 1989-91 $50, 000
Maintenance of public art 5, 000
Public brochure on program .3.500
Total 58,500
Projected Additional Funding:
1% For Art, City Projects, FY 1989-91 58, 000
.1% For Art, City Projects, FY 1991-93 103 .000
Total Public Art Funding $219,500
Funding for the program would come. primarily from the Capital
Control Account of the Capital Outlay Fund. Funding could also
come from park-in-lieu fees, grants, donations, and other sources
in addition to the Capital Outlay Fund. Program costs would be
spread over a 4-year budget period, and actual costs may be less
if projects in the current Capital Improvement Plan covered by the
public art program are not built.
CONSEQUENCE OF NOT TARING THE RECOMMMMED ACTION
The City is not required to adopt this program, nor is there a
deadline for action. If this program isn't adopted, it is likely
that less public art will be developed and the review process may
continue to be inordinately time consuming and difficult. Clear
policies and procedures, and a positive city example will help
promote public art while insuring that citizens have an opportunity
to participate in the review process.
PROGRAM CHANGES
These changes were made since the Council's February 5th review of
the program:
1. The SLO Arts Council would informally advise the ARC, rather
than play a formal role in reviewing public art proposals.
2. The program's focus on permanent, physical art (rather than
performing arts) has been clarified.
S-2
i
mM���►il�llllll�lp°AMY Of San WI S OBI SPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Staff Report
Page 3
3. Percent for art funding has been set initially at it of the
construction cost of eligible capital construction projects.
4. Utilities and underground projects have been exempted from the
program.
5. Small capital projects, or projects which cannot accommodate
public art on-site, could. satisfy the art requirement .by
allocating 1% of their construction cost to a new Public Art
Program in the Capital Investment Plan (CIP) .
PROGRAM SUMMARY
The attached Council resolution would create a comprehensive,
citywide public art program through a statement of goals and
objectives, funding method, review procedures, public art brochure
and guidelines, criteria for matching grant funding, and incentives
for public art. The program's main focus is the installation of
permanent. physical works of art which are visible to the public
in both public and private development projects.
Effective Date
The program would become effective upon adoption. However, because
the City_ is in the middle of a two-year budget cycle, the percent-
for-art component would not become fully operational until the
adoption of the 1991-93 Financial Plan. During the transition
period, all of the projects listed in the current CIP would be
required to include public art except those that are exempt under
the program, or those :for which design is complete and could not
reasonably be modified to include public art.
Exhibit "C" lists the projects in the current. CIP considered
eligible for public art during the transition period. About
$58, 000 would be used for the installation of public art in these
projects. The list is preliminary, since the City Council will
establish the general type and funding level for public art prior
to awarding contracts for these projects.
Exemptions
Three classes of projects would be automatically exempt: 1)
utility projects such as new water or sewer facilities; 2)
underground projects, such as storage tanks or storm sewers, and
3) public art projects. During review of capital projects, the
City Council could also exempt projects on a case-by-case basis.
where it finds that:
1. Installation of public art would be detrimental to public
health and safety; or
_ I
����� ►►�iIIII�IIp ►��III city of San furs o81Spo
MIGn COUNCIL AGENOA REPORT
Staff Report
Page 4
2. The project is not suitable for the inclusion of public
art; or is not visible by, used by, or accessible to the
public.
All other projects will be eligible for public art and will be used
in establishing a total construction cost estimate upon which the
1% total funding amount will be based.
Allocating Funds For Public Art
Starting with the 1991-93 budget, the City's financial commitment
to public art would be determined by calculating it of the total
estimated construction cost of the eligible Financial Plan Capital
Improvement Projects. This would occur at the time of Financial
Plan development and adoption.
For budgeting purposes, this amount would constitute the minimum,
or base amount to be devoted to public art during the time period
covered by the Financial Plan. If the incremental cost of
individual public art projects meets or exceeds this 1%
calculation, nothing else need be done. If the total is less than
the 1$ figure, the shortfall would be added to the Public Art
Program in the CIP.
Individual departments, at the time of proposing new capital
improvement projects, will indicate whether public art should be
incorporated into the projects. The project manager will indicate
this on the capital improvement project request forms, which will
modified to include a public art component.
For small capital projects, it will often be impractical to include
public art due to the relatively small dollar amounts which would
be allocated to public art and the staff time involved. For these
projects, the project manager can instead recommend allocating it
of the estimated .project construction cost to the Public Art
Program in the CIP in lieu of providing public art in the project.
These funds can then be used for installation or maintenance of
public art on any City property. And in cases where public art is
appropriate in small projects, additional monies from the fund can
be used to augment the it public art budget generated by the
project.
Using the existing Capital Improvement Program Committee review
process (an administrative staff review) , staff will identify and
recommend specific projects to the Council to include public art.
The cumulative amount recommended for allocation to public art will
be at least 1% of the total estimated capital improvement program
budget for the construction of all eligible projects. After
Council approval of the capital improvement program, including the
��IIw11�wjIIIiIIiIPnNu11IININ city of san Luis osispo
_,Nii% COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Staff Report
Page 5
allocation of public art funds, project managers will be
responsible for: 1) including in plans and specifications the
general location and type of artwork (ie. interior or exterior,
architectural or landscape element) ; 2) preparing and issuing a
request for proposals for public art (RFP) ; and 3) administering
the public art contract and installation. Community Development
Department staff will assist with RFP preparation, and handle
artist selection and design review.
Administration
In its budget planning role, the CAO will ensure that the public
art program policies are implemented in the CIP, including
allocation of at least 1% of the total estimated construction
budget for eligible CIP projects to public art.
The Community Development Director will administer the program on
a day-to-day basis, with support from the various City departments
responsible for Capital Improvement : Projects. Community
Development staff would develop administrative procedures to assist
in public art planning, artist selection, and project review.
Additionally, Community Development Department staff will be
responsible for initiating and administering the installation of
"freestanding" public art projects where appropriate, using the
unallocated funds from the in-lieu component of the Public Art.
Program.
The SLO Arts Council would continue to promote public art and serve
as the liaison between the local agencies, artists, and developers.
A subcommittee of the Arts Council would, on request by the City,
informally evaluate artworks on their technical merits, and make
recommendations to the ARC and City Council.
PREVIOUS REVIEW
Architectural Review Commission
In June 1989, the Architectural Review Commission strongly
supported the program, and emphasized the importance of early
public review. Commissioners recognized the value of SLO Arts
Council input, but felt that the final decision on public art
projects should be made by the city, with input from staff,
citizens, the artist, and the Arts Council.
Staff agrees. In the recommended program, an ad hoc committee of
the Arts Council would advise the city on the technical and
artistic merit of large or complex public artworks as an informal
review; however, the final decision would be made by the ARC or,
if matching grant funding were involved, the City Council. There
would be ample opportunity for early public review and comment.
8-5
�u � ►�iillllf�lpn�►����I city of san tins osispo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Staff Report
Page 6
Promotional Coordinating Committee
In July 1989, the committee expressed 'general support for the
program, but recommended several changes or clarifications and
continued the item to its August 9th meeting. The program was
subsequently revised to address PCC concerns with possible
conflicts with the existing Grants-in-Aid program, and the
committee supports the program as recommended.
Planning Commission
In July 1989, the Planning Commissioners voiced general support for
the program, asked for clarification of the SLO Arts Council role,
emphasized the need for grant funding of permanent visual art
rather than performing art, encouraged a broad range of art media,
subjects and styles, and asked to see the review process
streamlined. They noted that additional discussion was needed on
public art incentives like density bonuses or height exceptions
before these could be included in the overall program. The
commission's comments are addressed in the revised program.
DISCUSSION
Purpose of Public Arts Program
Across the U.S. , cities of varied sized and character are promoting
Public art as part of an overall strategy to enhance the quality
of urban life. Recent experience with public art programs in
Seattle, San Francisco, Brea, and Santa Barbara suggests that
Public support for the arts can heighten civic pride, promote a
positive city image, and help create an atmosphere that attracts
shoppers, tourists, and residents.
What is Public Art?
At its most basic, public art is any artwork that can be viewed or
experienced by the public. Most cities and art agencies specify
that to qualify as "public art", the artwork must be accessible to
the public at large. Regardless of the type of artwork or who
funds it, public art's common trait is its public accessibility.
Typically, this means that artwork occurs on publicly-owned or -
controlled property; or if on private property, that it can be
easily seen or experienced from a public way -- such as a public
sidewalk, plaza, or street.
As used in this program, "visual arts in public places" refers to
visual events, activities, or physical improvements - both
permanent and temporary -- designed and located for public
enjoyment. The program emphasizes the need for permanent, fixed
MY of San fuss OBIspo
AMING@ COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Staff Report
Page 7
artworks reflecting a wide variety of techniques and materials
including: sculptures, murals, paintings, woodwork and textiles,
and landscape art. The term "public art" implies more than
architectural ornamentation or attractive signs and benches. As
defined in the attached resolution, Public art is "the creative
result of either individual or group effort, and is normally not
mass-produced or intended primarily for a commercial market."
Public Art Review Process
It is the Committee's and staff's intent to streamline the review
process for public art. Previous artworks took as much as three
months for City approval. Under the new procedure, City review of
most artworks should take no more than 6 to 8 weeks. Minor or
incidental review would take even less -- about 10 to 14 days.
Committee members felt that the success of the process depended un-
reasonable interpretation of the public art guidelines, and
avoiding the tendency to focus on minor details and rigid adherence
to particular styles, subject matter or tastes. Exhibits "A" and
"B" show the committee's recommended review process, with Council's
suggested changes incorporated. SLO Arts Council review has been
deleted from the formal review process; however it would continue
to be available as an informal, advisory review to assist
applicants and the City.
Public art should represent a broad spectrum of styles, media, and
subjects -- yet still "fit" San Luis Obispo. Staff's main role
would be to evaluate a project in terms of environmental, site
planning, health, and safety concerns; the ARC's role would be to
determine whether a project met the city's public art guidelines.
The City Council would normally not review public art unless: (1)
matching grant funding is requested, or (2) the ARC action is
appealed. The Committee based the recommended review process on
three principles:
-Public ' art review should involve the city's existing
development review process, without creating a new review
committee or process.
-The ARC would evaluate public art for basic compliance with
the guidelines, with informal technical evaluation and a
recommendation from the SL0 Arts Council.
-The Parks and Recreation Commission would review the artwork
and forward its recommendation to the ARC if city parks were
involved; the Promotional Coordinating Committee would review
the proposal and make a recommendation to the City Council if
matching grant funds were requested.
-Simple, small-scale public art projects would be handled as
"minor or incidental. " With this approach, artwork would be
' c� o san 1Qui s owo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Staff epo
Page 8
submitted for Community Development. Director approval. Such
proposals could also be routed to the Arts Council for comment
before the Director took action. In sensitive sites (such as
Mission Plaza) , or when the artwork did not meet the
guidelines, the Director would refer public art proposals to
the ARC.
SIA Arts council Role
The SLO Arts Council would play an important advisory role,
particularly on large, complex or controversial public art
projects. It would assist the City in disseminating information
about the public art program, and provide technical information and
evaluation for use by applicants, City staff, and the ARC on an as-
needed basis.
What Type of Public Art is Appropriate
Controversy and public art sometimes seem to go together. Citizens
often view public art as a statement by the artist and the space's
owner toward or about the community. In that sense, an artwork's
message should generally benefit the public and foster good will.
Artworks that stimulate joy and wonder, appeal to the senses,
stimulate play and imagination (e.g. , "Bear and Indian" sculpture) ,
involve the viewer in the artwork (e.g. , Seattle's sidewalk dance
lessons by Jack Mackie) , educate, provide a place to sit, some
shade, or other amenities, recognize our history, celebrate human
achievement and fellowship, and promote civic pride will meet the
intent of the city's guidelines -- and attract community support.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Adopt the resolution approving the public art program, with
or without changes.
2. Do not adopt the program at this time.
3. Continue consideration with direction to staff as to changes
or additional information needed.
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the draft resolution to establish a citywide Visual Arts in
Public Places program.
Attachments:
-Draft Resolution
-Exhibit "A": Draft Public Art Program
S-
��u��i�►►�liilllllll�lu�"u�►��d�ll MY Of San 1UIS OBaspo -
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Staff Report
Page 9
-Exhibit "B": Public Art Review Flow Chart
-Exhibit "C" : Capital Projects Eligible For Public Art, 1990-91
-Initial Environmental Study
-Letter from SLO Arts Council
D/JH/pub-artl.wpf
.r,
RESOLUTION NO. (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.
(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.
Resolution No. (1990 Series)
Page 2
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 5. 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".
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
Resolution No. (1990 Series)
Page 3
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.
sss
On motion of , seconded by
and on the following
roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Resolution No. (1990 Series)
Page 4
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of
1990.
Mayor Ron Dunin
ATTEST:
City Clerk
s • • • assss • • s
ity Admmist tive Officer
t7ney .
Community Development Department
Public Wo s epartment
n
8-13
Resolution No. (1990 Series)
Page 5
Fie epartment
/ s a ecreation Department
Mnanc4r Director
C�
n
1
D/jh/pub-art5.wp
.�►���n�IB�illll�liii�i111
PAI� city or SAn WIS oBIsp®
ON
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
City of San Luis Obispo
VISUAL ARTS IN PUBLIC PLACES PROGRAM
I. 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-servcd 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 and
Subdivision Regulations and other pertinent policies and standards to provide
incentives for and remove obstacles to public art.
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.
EXHIBIT A
$'�/S
Public Art Program
Page 2
4. Expand the range and depth of financial support sources for the visual arts,
including the possibility of using a portion of an increase in transient
occupancy tax or sales tax to support "public arts programs".
1.
S. Include funding for public art planning and development in the city's Capital
Improvement and Capital Reinvestment Prggrams where feasible, including an
on-going matching grant fund for public art.
6. Include public art in new capital projects such as parks, city buildings, public
plazas and major street projects; and allocate at least I percent of total capital
construction costs for the installation of public art.
II. GUIDELINES FOR PUBLIC ART
Art eludes precise definition or regulation. Art in public context, unlike art in private
collections or museums, is linked to the community in complex ways. It both shapes and
reflects the community's perception of itself =- its character and its values. And it must
address and respond to a wider audience than art in museums or private collections.
Recognizing this difference, cities and counties have developed various$ 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's 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.
4. Public art shall be integrated with the site, and include landscaping, lighting,
interpretive information, and other amenities where appropriate.
S. 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.
o
Public Art Program
Page 3
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 clear 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.
IV. PUBLIC ART REVIEW PROCESS
Public art projects shall be reviewed according to the chart shown in Exhibit "B". Public
art proposed as part of new public or private development projects shall be reviewed as part
of architectural review. Public art projects which are proposed as separate projects and not
part of new development shall also require architectural review. Public hearing, notice and
appeal procedures shall be the same as that required for architectural review.
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.
9
I I
Public Art Program i
C Page 4
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 may 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., the mural or bas-
relief on existing wall); and by allowing over-the-counter construction permits
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.
1
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
g!0
0
Public Art Program
Page 5
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 Library 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 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.
� •ssss
f
jh/D:pub-art3.wp
8-19
PUBLIC ART REVIEW PROCESS
LEGEND
SUBMIT
APPLICATION ® NORMAL REVIEW
- - - - - SPECIAL REVIEW
PUBLIC HEARING
IF MINOR OR TEMPORARY ARTWORK STAFF
r--------- EVALUATION
I
I NOT MINOR OR
TEMPORARY
MINOR OR IF IN CITY PARK IF MATCHING GRANT FUNDING REQUESTED
INCIDENTALROUTING
�^ REVIEW r - - - ----- --�
I I
PARKS& ARCHITECTU RAL ------ PROMOTIONAL
I RECREATION - REVIEW COORDINATING
COMMITTEE IF APPEALED COMMISSION COMMITTEE
- - -�
� I
* I
I I
L--------- PERMIT - CITY -J
COUNCIL
INSTALL
� ARTWORK EXHIBIT B
. i
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS ELIGIBLE FOR PUBLIC ART, 1987-91'
Project Name Construction Budget
1. Downtown Sidewalks and Bulbouts $400,000
2. Nipomo St. Bridge Replacement 500,000
3. Recreation Building Rehabilitation 826,600
4. Regional Fire Training Facility 1,400,000
5. Storage Structure @ Fire Station No. 4 40,000
6. Patrol Services Training Range 13,000
7. Street Reconstruction/Resurfacing 1,265,000
8. Bikeway Improvements 400,000
9. Intersection Improvements, Higuera St. @ Tank Farm Road 100,000
10. Murray/Broad Street Improvements 90,000
11. Neighborhood Traffic Management Improvements 100,000
12. Parking Lot #2 Reconstruction 55,000
13. Swim Center Multi-purpose Room '49,000
14. Rodriquez Adobe Restoration 300,000
15. Sinsheimer Park Jogging Trail 10,000
16. Laguna Lake Jogging Trail 18,000
17. Park Storage Buildings 26,000
18. French Park, Phases 2 & 3 245,000
TOTALS $5,837,600
1% Contribution for Public Art (.01 X $5,837,600) _ $58;376
*Note: The list includes capital improvement projects from the previous Capital
Improvement Plan for which contracts have not yet been awarded. The general type and
amount of public art for each project is to be determined by the City Council prior to
award of contracts.
EXHIBIT C
S-z1
City Of San WIS OBISPO
1►�►����illflllil�►l�j110'l��i�l INITIAL STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
SITE LOCATION Citywide APPLICATION NO. ER 65-89
PROJECT DESCRIPTION Adoption of new Visual Arts in Public Places mogram requiring 1 1/2
percent of the construction. cost of most new City development projects to be used for
the development of public artworks, and encourages public art in private developments.
APPLICANT City of San Luis Obispo
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
X NEGATIVE DECLARATION MITIGATION INCLUDED
EXPANDED INITIAL STUDY REQUIRED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REQUIRED
PREPARED BY Jeff Hook, Associate Plann DATE November 1, 1989
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S ACTION: �i `Z % .m` AT //- Cf. &g
NEGAT/VE ,atZlft/ZATl6N �,�/�`
. e
SUMMARY OF INITIAL STUDY FINDINGS
--L DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
�A.POTENTIAL IMPACT REVIEW POSSIBLE ADVERSE EFFECTS
A. COMMUNITY PLANS AND GOALS............................ .. None*
B. POPULATION DISTRIBUTION AND GROWTH.......................................... None
C. LAND USE .............................................. :`Ione*
D. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION .............................................. Mone
E. PUBLICSERVICES .................................................. None
F. UTILITIES.............................._.......................................... 'lone
G. NOISE LEVELS ................................................................... None
I H. GEOLOGIC B SEISMIC HAZARDS 6 TOPOGRAPHIC MODIFICATIONS .................... None -
I. AIR QUALITY AND WIND CONDITIONS................................................ None
J. SURFACE WATER FLOW AND QUALITY ............................................. None
KPLANT LIFE....................................................................... None
L ANIMAL LIFE..................................................................... None-
M. ARCHAEOLOGICALIHISTORICAL .......... ?Ione
N. AESTHETIC ...................................................................... None
O. ENERGYIRESOURCE USE ............ *Ione
P. OTHER_................................................_........................ Mone
I.STAFF RECOMMENDATION Negative Declaration
*SEE ATTACHED REPORT saes
r-Z
Initial Study, ER 65-89
Page 2
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
As part of its 1987-89 budget workprogram, the City Council directed staff to work with
citizens and city advisory bodies to develop a public art program. Councilmembcrs wanted
to clarify review procedures and encourage more public art in the city. An ad-.hoc
committer was formed composed of members from various city commissions, the San Luis
Obispo Arts Council, and citizens. The committee's recommendations formed the basis for
the program described below.
The new program establishes: (1) program goals and objectives, (2) procedural framework
for reviewing public art, (3) public art guidelines; (4) criteria for matching grant
funding, and (5) incentives for public art. The program expands the city's role in
reviewing and developing public art, and involves the San Luis Obispo Arts Council, a
non-profit state-funded agency, in reviewing art projects and as a liaison between the
city, developers, and artists.
The program strongly recommends, but does not mandate, that public art be included in new
private development projects in the pedestrian-oriented C-C, C-R, C-T, O and PF zones.
To encourage private efforts, the city would set a positive example by including funds
for public art in new city development projects equal to 1 1/2 percent of their total
capital construction cost.
The program (Exhibits 'A" and "B") does not include the development of any specific
artworks or structures. It sets policies which will result in the development of public
art as part of city capital projects like new buildings, parks and landscaping, and
street projects. It would also direct staff and the city's Architectural Review
Commission to consider provisions for public art when reviewing new private development
projects. As individual public or private artworks are proposed, they would be evaluated
under the city's environmental procedures and CEQA requirements on a case-by-case basis
-- often in connection with a larger development project.
Program Summary
1. What the new program does: It creates a city public art program through a
statement of goals and objectives, procedures for reviewing public art, public art
guidelines, criteria for matching grant funding, and incentives for public art.
2. How it is administered: A part-time staff person would be hired to administer
the program, within the Community Development Department. The SLO Arts Council
would continue to promote public art and serve as the liaison between the local
agencies, artists, and developers. A subcommittee of the Arts Council would
evaluate artworks on their technical merits, and make recommendations to the ARC
and City Council.
3. What projects are affected: All city-sponsored projects would be required to
budget 1 1/2 percent of the total construction cost for public art unless
specifically exempted by the council. The percent-for=art would apply only to
above-ground, physical improvements like structures, landscaping, and street
improvements — not operation, maintenance, acquisition or design costs. With
council approval, the 1 I/2 percent would increase to 2 percent in 1992. Private J
development projects in the pedestrian-oriented C-C, C-R, C-T, O and PF zones
would be encouraged to include public art, but it would not be mandatory.
f',23
CInitial Study, ER 65-89
Page 3
4. How the program will be implemented: Once adopted by resolution, city
departments proposing capital projects will need to include funding for public art
as part of the project, prior to council authorization of bids. Community
Development staff will work with the CAO, Public. Works Department and the SLO Arts
Council to develop administrative procedures for developing and maintaining public
art. The program could be amended by council resolution at any time.
5. Program Costs: The cost of city projects will increase by 1 1/2 percent to
pay for public art. Additional costs would include a $15,000 annually for a part
time staff person to administer the program.
Bnckground and Purpose or PublicArtsProgram
Ask people to name one positive aspect of city life and their response is often "cultural
opportunities." Historically, European and American cities often featured public art
which memorialized great persons or events, or provided a focal point for public
buildings, plazas, or eullural activities. Studies by Kevin Lynch and others underscore
the importance of another role for public art -- that of creating a strong "visual image"
for a community. Across the U.S., cities of varied sized and character are promoting
public art as part of an overall strategy to enhance the quality of urban life. Recent
experience with public art programs in Seattle, San Francisco, Brea, and Santa Barbara
Csuggests that public support for the arts can heighten civic pride, promote a positive
downtown image, and help create an atmosphere that attracts shoppers, tourists, and
t residents.
Public art is any artwork that can be viewed or experienced by the public. Most cities
and art agencies, including the City of San Luis Obispo, specify that to qualify as
"public art% the artwork must be accessible to the public at large. Regardless of the
type of artwork or who funds is, public art's common trait is its public accessibility.
Typically, this means that artwork (or cultural event) occurs on publicly-owned or
-controlled property; or if on private property, that it can be easily seen or
experienced from a public way -- such as a public sidewalk, plaza, or street. Other
possibilities exist to allow public access, however. Live performances, video recording
for public broadcast, and art festivals are other possible venues.
The term 'public art" is broad, and encompasses a wide variety of visual events,
activities, and improvements — both permanent and temporary -- designed and located for
public enjoyment. 'Visual Arts in Public Places" is the more specific term covering what
most people generally refer to as "public art": sculptures, murals, paintings, woodworks
and textiles, and landscape art. It implies more than architectural ornamentation or
attractive signs and benches. Rather, it reflects a deliberate, creative expression of
community values, creativity, and pride.
11. POTENTIAL IMPACT REVIEW
A. Community Plans and Goals
Current General Plan policies do not specifically address public art. Architectural
Review Guidelines and the Downtown Improvement Manual encourage beautification of the
downtown and surrounding areas through architcctural, landscape, infrastructure
Initial Study, ER 65-89
Page 4
(sidewalks, streets, street furniture, and lighting), and signage improvements -- and
these may include public art. In the General Plan update, draft policies will encourage
public art in public and private projects. Staff is not aware of any General Plan
policies which would conflict with the proposed public arts program.
C. Land Use
The proposed program would not affect land use0, or the rate and timing of development.
As part of the program, the Planning Commission and City Council would consider amending
the City's Zoning Regulations to remove obstacles to public art, eg, setback
requirements. Sign Regulations and other policies would also be reviewed, and if
appropriate, amended to remove obstacles to, or provide incentives for the development of
community artworks. Such amendments, if approved, would undergo environmental study
prior to commission review.
III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Grant a negative declaration.
i
jh9/cr65-89
O ��
San Luis Obispo County Post Office Box 1710
San Luis Obispo
ARTS COUNCIL California 93406
(805)544-9251
November 9, 1989
�tl:tlVtL
San Luis Obispo .City Council NOV g 09
990 Palm Street
Orty ci San Lws Oo,snr
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 To the Members of the City Council:
The San Luis Obispo County Arts Council applauds the efforts of
the City of San Luis Obispo in developing a new citywide public
art program, a vital step toward improving the quality of life
in our community. The San Luis Obispo County Arts Council Board
of Directors has reviewed and endorses the City staff report.
.Especially to be commended is the inclusion of increased funding
.for public art, for without this mechanism, communities are generally
.unable to support a public art program.
In its role as a local arts agency advocating for all the arts
in our county, the Arts Council is prepared to play two roles
in the City's public art program.
1 . ) ARTISTIC REVIEW
The Arts Council will appoint ad hoc committees to review the
�J artistic and technical merit of a proposed artwork. The committee
will be comprised of appointed members of the arts community appropriate
to the particular artistic medium being proposed, an Arts Council
board member, an Arts Council staff person (nonvoting) , an ARC
member and a member of the City staff (nonvoting) .
2. ) PUBLIC ART CONSULTATION
The Arts Council will act as a referral source for public art;
maintaining lists of interested artists and .businesses, and consulting
on possible alternative funding sources.
The Arts Council will consult on public art policies, process
and criteria; advise on a Request for Proposal process, the coordination
of competitions and review panels, and the development of criteria
for public art.
We believe that these responsibilities are consistent with the
Arts Council 's role in the community. At this time, it appears
as though the proposed public art program will not significantly
impact the Arts Council's budget and staff time. Should the number
of public art proposals and the Arts Council 's time involvement
increase greater than anticipated over the next year, some compensation
to offset this administrative time might be requested.
OSincerely,
Barbara Burke
President
t2k///�/�